A Minor Change?: A Case Study of Carleton Place's Integration of Minor Variance Procedures into Ontario's Development Permit System

The Development Permit System has been introduce with minimal directives for establishing a decision making process. This is in opposition to the long established process for minor variances and suggests that the Development Permit System does not necessarily incorporate all of Ontario’s fundamental planning principles. From this concept, the study aimed to identify how minor variances are incorporated into the Development Permit System. In order to examine this topic, the research was based around the following research questions: • How are ‘minor variance’ applications processed within the DPS? • To what extent do the four tests of a minor variance influence the outcomes of lower level applications in the DPS approval process? A case study approach was used for this research. The single-case design employed both qualitative and quantitative research methods including a review of academic literature, court cases, and official documents, as well as a content analysis of Class 1, 1A, and 2 Development Permit application files from the Town of Carleton Place that were decided between 2011 and 2015. Upon the completion of the content analysis, it was found that minor variance issues were most commonly assigned to Class 1 applications. Planning staff generally met approval timelines and embraced their delegated approval authority, readily attaching conditions to applications in order to mitigate off-site impacts. While staff met the regulatory requirements of the DPS, ‘minor variance’ applications were largely decided on impact alone, demonstrating that the principles established by the four tests, the defining quality of the minor variance approval process, had not transferred to the Development Permit System. Alternatively, there was some evidence that the development community has not fully adjusted to the requirements of the new approvals process, as some applications were supported using a rationale containing the four tests. Subsequently, a set of four recommendations were offered which reflect the main themes established by the findings. The first two recommendations are directed towards the Province, the third to municipalities and the fourth to developers and planning consultants: 1) Amend Ontario Regulation 608/06 so that provisions under Section 4(3)(e) fall under Section 4(2). 2) Change the rhetoric from “combining elements of minor variances” to “replacing minor variances”. 3) Establish clear evaluation criteria. 4) Understand the evaluative criteria of the municipality in which you are working.

Disruptive Threads and Renegade Yarns: Domestic Textile Making in Selected Women's Writing 1811-1925

Images of domestic textiles (items made at home for consumption within the household) and textile making form an important subtext to women’s writing, both during and after industrialization. Through a close reading of five novels from the period 1811-1925, this thesis will assert that a detailed understanding of textile work and its place in women’s daily lives is critical to a deeper understanding of social, sexual and political issues from a woman’s perspective. The first chapter will explore the history of the relationship between women and domestic textile making, and the changes wrought to the latter by the Industrial Revolution. The second chapter will examine the role of embroidery in the construction of “appropriate” feminine gentility in Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park (1814). The third chapter, on Elizabeth Gaskell’s Cranford (1853), will explore how the older female body became a repository for anxieties about class mobility and female power at the beginning of the Victorian era. The fourth chapter will compare Sara Jeannette Duncan’s A Social Departure (1890) and Kate Chopin’s The Awakening (1899) to consider how later Victorian women both internalized and refuted public narratives of domestic textile making in a quest for “self-ownership.” The last chapter, on Martha Ostenso’s Wild Geese (1925), examines the corrosive, yet ultimately redemptive, relationships of a family of women trapped by abuse and degradation. For all five authors, images of textiles and textile making allow them to speak to issues that were usually only discussed within a community of women: sexuality, desire, aging, marriage, and motherhood. In all five works, textile making “talks back” to the power structures that marginalize women, and lends insight into the material and emotional circumstances of women’s lives.