03-15-2021, 10:41 AM
(03-14-2021, 09:52 PM)nms Wrote: Density bonusing in itself is a poor way to plan a community. The community, through its planners, its politicians and its community engagement should be able to set the limits and guidelines for the community that the developers are willing to to play within. The community should not be forced to bribe developers (or have developers bribe the community) in order to achieve what we want in this community. Community benefits should not be transactional. Cities managed to demand that developers include running water, electricity and properly built buildings without giving away extra density to make it worth the builders while. Yes, I know that the building code is not managed at the municipal level, but I can't at the moment come up with a good example of where the Cities have set rules for development and the developers can't choose not to follow them unless there is a little something extra in it for them.
And that's what the zoning bylaws do. If the proposed development meets the zoning bylaw requirements, there is no need for variances or bonusing -- or neighbourhood negotiations. Because the community, through its planners and its politicians, has already defined those zoning parameters.
But then the city (and the community) have no direct input or influence on what is built (as long as it meets zoning), and there will rarely be "extras" like affordable housing units, green space, or better architecture or materials. If you think this is the better way, then you need to push city council to strictly enforce zoning bylaws and refuse any variances, regardless of what improvements are offered in exchange.