I’m sure most of us are aware of the town’s overture for Niagara-on-the-Lake residents to read and comment on the first draft of the proposed official plan (a broad-scope revision of the 2019 version that was kicked back by Niagara Region).

But, just in case it missed your notice, the draft can be found at jointheconversationnotl.org/officialplan, under “Comment on the redlined draft official plan.”

And note, there is a Sept. 19 deadline which — if you’re so inclined to wade through the document — should provide adequate time to read, consider and provide your valuable input to town staff.

So, despite the loss of the town’s manager of policy and heritage planning after nine short months in the job (incidentally, has anyone considered hiring an expert human resources consultant to determine why there is a revolving door with the ridiculous level of staff turnover in town hall?), it is the stated intention to submit the “finished” (the process does allow for additions after submission) official plan to the region by this February.

This undertaking will involve producing at least one more draft document for review before authoring the finished version.

As a result, the more public input that is provided at this juncture, the more likely it is that staff — principally Fiona Main, senior policy planner — will be able to meet their published timeline.

To that end, I would encourage everyone to consider contributing at this juncture.

Now, while we will visit, in far greater detail, the scope, inherent authority and limitations of an official plan in an upcoming column, for now let’s get on common ground by using the definition published by open council (see opencouncil.ca/municipal-official-plans-ontario), which reads:

“An official plan is a long-term planning blueprint that guides how all land within a municipality can be used and developed over the next 20 to 30 years.”

“It sets out the vision, principles, goals, objectives and policies to direct the growth, physical change and design of the municipality as a whole.”

“It also sets standards for the review and approval of future development applications to balance the interests of: Developers and neighbourhood residents; province, municipality and the community; social, economic and built and natural environments impacts.”

“Everything a municipality does related to land use must follow the official plan, including: Local council and municipal officials; New services such as sewer or watermains; prerequisite for community improvement plans; provides a basis for the zoning bylaw and related bylaws; provisions relating to the use of the holding symbol.”

In defining the required content of an official plan, Section 16 of Ontario’s Planning Act says an official plan “shall contain” the following: “goals, objectives and policies established primarily to manage and direct physical change and the effects on the social, economic, built and natural environment of the municipality or part of it, or an area that is without municipal organization.”

Those goals, objectives and policies are to be “practicable to ensure the adequate provision of affordable housing.”

Also, it will have “a description of the measures and procedures for informing and obtaining the views of the public in respect of” the following: “proposed amendments to the official plan or proposed revisions of the plan,” “proposed zoning bylaws,” “proposed plans of subdivision,” “proposed consents under section 53;” and “such other matters as may be prescribed.”

The Planning Act goes on to define the optional content, saying an official plan “may contain” the following: “a description of the measures and procedures proposed to attain the objectives of the plan”; “a description of the measures and procedures for informing and obtaining the views of the public in respect of planning matters not mentioned in clause (1) (b)”; and “such other matters as may be prescribed.”

From this, you will note that, odd as it might seem, unlike the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, timebound) plan format used in business, the “required inclusions” of an official plan tend to allow for broad motherhood statements related to goals, objectives and policies.

Only in the Planning Act’s official plan “optional inclusions” can one find any suggestion of measurable specifics and, since there is no requirement, they are rarely seen in a municipality’s official plan.

Further, inclusion of time or deadline considerations is almost completely absent.

Certainly, this explains why terms like “may,” “endeavour to” and “encourage to” are liberally sprinkled throughout the draft plan, while words like “will,” “must” and “required” are much less frequent.

Within its terms of reference and legislated requirements, it’s a pretty good first draft.

That said, stay with me over the next few weeks while we drill down further into the document.

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.