Planning Advisory Terms of Reference

Fredericton's Planning Advisory Committee is reviewing its Terms of Reference this evening. I know — contain your excitement. But the Terms of Reference govern how the public participates in planning decisions, and based on a 2024 staff report, I thought the city might move to limit that participation.

There are reasonable arguments for fine-tuning public participation at PAC — letting PAC focus on its technical role and directing public presentations to Council, and depoliticizing a body that isn't primarily composed of elected officials. But there's no simple way to do it without curtailing people's ability to be heard on decisions that affect them.

PAC's recommendations carry more weight than the word "advisory" suggests. Under the Community Planning Act, overturning a PAC recommendation requires a majority of full council — not just the councillors in the room. So if two or more councillors are absent, PAC's recommendation can stand even when a majority of those present vote against it. That's provincial legislation, not a city choice. And for some decisions — temporary use variances, for instance — PAC is the final decision-maker and the public's only forum.

The new Terms of Reference — which PAC adopts itself, not Council — don't limit public participation. They're mostly a modernization: better organized, updated legislation references, clearer language.

Two additions are worth noting. First, if PAC adopts a motion inconsistent with the planning staff's recommendation, it now has to provide reasons on the record. That's been the practice recently, and now it will be required. It makes the process more transparent and gives Council better information when evaluating PAC's advice.

Second, the new Terms of Reference introduce formal conduct expectations for members of the public at meetings. It's hard to attract qualified volunteers to a committee when meetings get heated and members become targets for hostility. Conduct expectations address that without excluding the public from the process.

I'd also like to see a conversation about notification distances. Property owners within 30 or 100 metres get notified depending on the application type, and for most applications that's reasonable. But for use-related decisions, entire neighbourhoods show up — so the current notice isn't reaching everyone who wants to be heard.

There is one change I'm surprised not to see. For land subdivisions, the only question before PAC is whether the city takes cash or a land dedication. Notice isn't required for subdivisions, but it's given — and residents who receive it tend to get the impression they can weigh in on the development itself. I was at a meeting once where a packed gallery spent hours presenting passionately on something neither PAC nor Council had any authority over. That's frustrating for everyone — and it's fixable.

The role of the Planning Advisory Committee may seem boring and technical, but it plays a key role in housing and development. How the public participates in planning decisions is a question that will likely land on the next council's desk.