Port Moody’s advisory design panel scrapped after developer complains of costly delays

When Port Moody’s advisory design panel (ADP) decided to defer review of a major development project in January, little did they know it may have been their last meeting.

On Tuesday, Port Moody council voted 5-2 to disband the ADP for a year, shortly after Wesgroup Properties complained about the delay.

“Given some of the challenges we have had, we should be looking at a way that will better streamline this process,” said Mayor Meghan Lahti. “We (need) consistent professional feedback and reviews in a timely manner.”

Council opted to try contracting out design reviews for a 12-month period rather than relying on their volunteer committee.  These services would be paid for by developers and selected by the city.

Port Moody’s ADP provides recommendations on various design elements related to development applications, and is composed of qualified design professionals who are recruited from the community.

Traditionally, municipalities have lacked certain technical expertise related to design elements, and the ADP is meant to help fill the gaps.

However, the city’s ADP has struggled with a range of issues in recent years, leading to slow review processes, according to a staff report. Staff said similar challenges have other municipalities relying more and more on contracted professionals.

Port Moody’s ADP had seven of nine seats filled, and has had trouble achieving quorum and recruiting new members amid high turnover rates.

Another issue is the broad focus of the meetings, which can lead to a lack of clarity regarding the order of importance of design elements

Some applications require an entire three-hour meeting to discuss one project, according to staff.

The lengthy review time is what led to protest from Wesgroup, who are building the largest development in Port Moody’s history.

The ADP was supposed to review Beedie Living’s three-tower Moody Centre project and Wesgroup’s Coronation Park project on Jan. 25, but after spending over two hours on the former, they decided to defer the latter.

Wesgroup then pulled their application from the next meeting on Feb. 22, and submitted a letter to council requesting their project be exempt from the ADP process entirely.

They complained that considerations were not made regarding the deferral’s impact, nor was an attempt made to schedule a special meeting to mitigate those impacts.

“Every month delay costs upwards of $1 million and significantly impairs our ability to deliver the robust amenity package the project currently has,” the letter stated. “We cannot afford another month’s delay without revising what amenities are currently being proposed.”

Waiving the ADP review, however, proved to be a moot point.

Kate Zanon, Port Moody’s general manager of community development, said staff’s recommendations were brought forward independently of Wesgroup’s complaint.

Staff had initially recommended reforming the ADP through adjusting its member composition, focus, referral criteria, and increasing the number of required professional reviews.

These options were not discussed, as Coun. Diana Dilworth immediately proposed completely scrapping the ADP.

She noted Langley, Delta, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Burnaby, and West Vancouver do not use ADPs, and argued contracting out the services would lead to a more focused and thorough review process, while also reducing staff time.

Dilworth added the province has granted Port Moody funds for exactly this type of streamlining.

“This is an evolution of our process,” Dilworth said. “In the last five or six years, we’ve continued to look and examine the development application review process and where we can make it more efficient.”

Coun. Callan Morrison, who served on the ADP for two years, agreed meetings would often drag on as members made comments outside of their professional expertise.

He said ADP feedback is not necessarily community-based input, as it is supposed to provide technical recommendations without personal bias or opinion.

Morrison added the city’s review process has changed for the better before, referencing the now-defunct Community Planning Advisory Committee.

Zanon noted the city already has a fairly rigorous review system in place outside the ADP, complete with an in-house architect and landscape architect. She suggested expanding the scope of professional reviews required and adding contracted consultants who could provide specific inputs.

Mayor Lahti said she liked the idea, stating staff could curate the type of feedback required based on the individual applications.

While she was appreciative of the ADP’s contributions, Lahti said they are qualified professionals, and deserve to be paid for their work.

“We should be giving staff the flexibility to go out and get the consultants that they need and have the developer pay,” Lahti said. “We are not removing a step in the review process, we are simply changing how we get that information.”

Although Couns. Amy Lubik and Haven Lurbiecki agreed the ADP could be reworked, both were firmly against dissolving the panel.

Lubik said she thought it was an important part of the community review process, and while some cities lack an ADP, Port Moody should not be emulating their practices.

Coun. Haven Lurbiecki said scrapping the ADP will only benefit developers, and questioned the timing of council’s decision, considering Wesgroup’s complaint.

“I feel this is sending a signal to our residents that developers can request a sidestep for our processes just because they want to,” Lurbiecki said. 

She said the ADPs community-based composition helps ensure building designs align with the communities needs, and it should be strengthened, not replaced with “private interests or private contractors.”

Council added several amendments requiring local professionals to be considered when contracting services, and requiring reviews to be published on the council reports, and the city’s website.

Following the 12-month trial, staff will report back on the new review process, and council will decide whether to make the changes permanent.