Council has directed staff to begin work on a policy that will help council make decisions around future Minister's Zoning Order (MZO) applications.
The motion passed at a recent meeting seeks to add provisions for public consultation, heritage impacts assessments, consultations with agencies and regional government and more before the city approves or rejects a future MZO application.
The policy would not apply retroactively to applications already passed by the city.
"This is a message to developers, 'Don't bring them forward to us,'" said Coun. Jan Liggett, who initiated the move, which received support after council went into closed session for discussions following a number of delegates at last week's meeting.
Alan Van Norman, one of the delegates, told CambridgeToday that he was surprised when council moved into closed session to talk about the motion.
"I think, generally speaking, it's happy for Cambridge, still concerned about Blair," he added. "I think it helps by having the city acknowledge that they need to include public participation and do their own due diligence in any application for an MZO."
Happy that the motion passed, Liggett said, she understands it doesn't help put a stop to the warehouse slated for Blair Village.
"The only thing that would help the Blair warehouse situation is if the minister turns down the application," she said. "Or if council comes back again and says we're going to put a hold on it until we do our due diligence. (But) there has to be a political will.
"I've done as much as I can do to bring it to their attention," she added, pointing to her attempt in late April to have council revise its decision. "I already spoke to a vote of reconsideration and council didn't want to back up."
As expressed at the meeting, council's approach to MZOs doesn't sit well with residents.
During his presentation, Van Norman said to council that after his research on MZOs, he had concluded that they are undemocratic and make a mockery of the public participation rights established under Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR).
"The MZO process is a secretive and arbitrary process that has been used by some developers and municipalities to intentionally circumvent Ontarians' rights to participate in a planning process under the Planning Act and the EBR," he added. "MZOs are not transparent and in the long run will harm Ontarians' quality of life by conducting business in closed door, back rooms, out of the public eyes."
It wasn't just Van Norman that felt that way.
Ed Voss, a resident of John Bricker Road, felt similarly.
"I'm not going to discuss what an MZO is or isn't, but how it impacts the four Cs: citizens, council, city, community," he said.
"I ask a question to all of us: are we no longer going to support a democratic planning process? Is that not our foundation, our core beliefs? Or am I just naive?" Voss said to council, adding, "Does Steve Clarke or Doug Ford live in Cambridge? No. Does Clarke or Ford or one of the developers know what's better for Cambridge and all of us? No.
"Because any new developments in our backyard are probably going to outlive all of us," he said, "let's work together and make sure it's good for all of us and our community."
Another Cambridge resident, Tim Armstrong, had tough words for the provincial government.
"The current Progressive Conservative government lead by Doug Ford is handing out MZOs like candy to its municipal children," he said. "Economic reasons seem to be driving this flood of MZOs at unprecedented rates in the province. The public has witnessed what happens when you put economic considerations at the top of your critical decision tree as seen in the handling of the pandemic. We're living that disaster today with the third wave, lockdowns, overwhelming of our hospitals and chaos in the streets with protests."
The MZO process, Armstrong said, driven by economic priority will lead to similar outcomes as this process is designed to fast track development, which does not allow for time to do the research and validate much of the work that would be normally performed in a typical planning process.
"It shuts out citizens from having any say," he said. "Additionally, the MZO bias can creep in to how and what is communicated to the public. That could potentially be seen in things like councillors making misleading statements around equivalence. The posting of statements that are half truths is a bias toward the development. Information sessions that are moderated in a way that favours the developer so that the public opinion swings in the development's favour."
While all delegates presented their opinions openly, council did not hold its discussions in an open session. Coun. Pam Wolf asked to move into closed session citing legal matters.
Without going into confidential details, she told CambridgeToday, she wanted legal advice on the motion. Wolf did not elaborate why.
"I had no idea why we were going into closed session," said Liggett, adding she also didn't know what she would be asked to change during the closed session --- but it turned out to be a compromise. "I took all my preamble out after we came out of (closed session)."
She said she did so to prevent the motion from being defeated in an even-numbered council.
"It wasn't any skin off my nose to take those off," added Liggett.
The policy is expected to come before council by the end of this year.
