Start with the development decision
Write the proposed use, approximate scale, intended residents or purchasers, and preferred sale or rental strategy on one page. Add the next decision date and the amount the team is prepared to spend on investigation before returning for approval. Without that boundary, an attractive site can accumulate studies without becoming easier to assess.
Keep the current concept separate from alternatives. A six-unit rental building, a smaller sale project and a commercial conversion may have different design and operating requirements. Give each a version number. Ask the project lead to identify the two assumptions most likely to change the recommendation; those deserve early attention rather than another polished rendering.
- Name the decision and the person making it.
- Record the current concept and dated alternatives.
- Set an investigation budget and review date.
Check planning information against the exact property
Record the legal parcel reference, municipality and source of every planning statement. Ontario’s zoning guide describes how zoning controls permitted uses and development standards. Montréal directs applicants to the information for their arrondissement when preparing a construction-permit request. These are jurisdiction-specific starting points, not confirmation that a particular concept is permitted.
Send a concise concept and a numbered question list to the appropriate municipal contact or planning professional. Ask which approvals and supporting studies the team should investigate. Preserve the written response with its date and the version of the concept reviewed. A conversation about a nearby project should remain background information until its relevance to this site is established.
- Match maps and records to the correct parcel.
- Separate existing permissions from proposed changes.
- Save the source, response date and unresolved questions.
Trace servicing and access to a usable answer
A utility line on a map is a starting point for questions. Ask the relevant provider or engineer to identify what is known about connection location, capacity, required work and responsibility for estimates. Use the same approach for vehicle access, deliveries and construction staging. Request enough detail to understand the proposed building, not simply whether a street has services.
Create an interface list: public network to property, property to building, and temporary construction arrangements. Each interface needs an owner and an outstanding question. If a cost remains unknown, show it as an unresolved allowance with an explanation. A blank cell is too easily mistaken for work that costs nothing.
- Identify the contact responsible for each service.
- Record access and staging assumptions separately.
- Link uncertain allowances to the questions that resolve them.
Give environmental and ground questions their own review
Keep environmental review distinct from the team’s assumptions about foundations or excavation. Ask the relevant specialists which records, site visits and investigations are appropriate for the former uses, proposed use and location. Obtain permission for investigations before arranging intrusive work, and record the scope and limitations of each report.
Ontario’s brownfields guidance explains the role of environmental site assessments and records of site condition; applicability depends on the property and proposed change. Do not extend that Ontario process to another province. For the project decision, summarize each specialist’s conclusion, the remaining uncertainty and the next action. Avoid translating an inconclusive report into a green status simply because no immediate cost was quoted.
- List previous uses and available reports without guessing.
- Ask specialists to define the necessary investigation.
- Keep limitations and follow-up costs visible.
Use a fictional site comparison to expose the trade-off
Imagine two sites for a small residential project. Site A costs $600,000 and supports the team’s preliminary twelve-unit concept, but servicing cost is unresolved. Site B costs $690,000 and the team is examining a ten-unit concept with a clearer servicing scope. Neither unit count is presented as an approval.
Instead of declaring A cheaper, prepare separate scenarios. For A, show what happens if the concept reduces to eight units and servicing requires a $180,000 allowance. For B, test a longer acquisition period and its carrying cost. The numbers are invented; their purpose is to show which uncertainty dominates the comparison. The next investigation should help decide between these versions.
- Compare scenarios using the same cost categories.
- Label unconfirmed unit counts and allowances.
- Choose the next study for its decision value.
Close the review with conditions, owners and a next step
Use four statuses consistently: unreviewed, reviewing, confirmed and concern. Confirmed should identify the evidence and the particular assumption it supports. It should not mean that every future approval or construction outcome is assured. For each concern, record the action, responsible person, budget implication and date for a response.
Finish with one of three recommendations: continue investigation, revise the concept or stop pursuing the current version. Explain what evidence would change that recommendation. Keep the earlier version rather than overwriting its assumptions. This makes the acquisition discussion easier to follow and gives the design team a useful record when a question returns months later.
- Document the evidence behind every confirmed item.
- Assign the next action for each concern.
- Record the recommendation and the conditions behind it.
