Your WHRA Executive have attended previous meetings, and some of our observations are noted in the letter below. (see the Town's web site to view the articles cited).


Dear Mayor and Councillors,

As a follow-up to the verbal submission provided by the WHRA to Planning and Development Council on May 5th, we would like to reiterate the following points:

MODEST CHANGE:

On page 13 of the Executive Summary provided to P&D Council by Planning Services (dated Apr 23, 2009) there is a clause titled ‘Approach taken to Evaluate Residential Intensification Policies’, wherein the following appears:

“The approach taken for the background analysis to create a new policy framework for the Official Plan based on:

Identifying stable residential and transitional areas as areas where only modest changes, that are in keeping with the existing character of each area, will be permitted; “

(emphasis mine).

Given this approach, which the WHRA supports, we believe there are a number of areas where the detailed policies submitted do not, in fact, achieve the above emphasized goal, as outlined below.

The proposed density of 29 uph for all ‘low-density residential’ areas will result in change that is far from modest in many stable residential areas. Given that this density will apply to the areas currently zoned between R02 and R05, and the baseline density for R02 is about 12 uph and for R05 is about 17 uph, this means an increase in allowed density of between 70 and 150%. Surely this cannot be viewed as a modest change?? We are not aware of any rationale for this level of density. The fact that 29 uph happens to be just below the proposed 30 uph for medium-density residential is, in our opinion, no justification for that number. There is no requirement for the low-density maximum to be congruent with the medium-density minimum. Where is the ‘science’ that shows that 29 uph is the right number? We suggest that 20 uph would much more likely achieve the ‘modest change’ objective, while still providing an intensity/density increase of between 20% and 67%.

EXISTING BYLAWS

The WHRA also feels strongly that the existing Zoning Bylaws are ultimately important in limiting the development allowed in stable residential areas. Given that the Residential Intensification Policies submitted do not seem to have any quantification/metrics (except for proposed density), it must be assumed that limits / criteria such as height, setbacks etc will be dealt with by the bylaws. We understand that the Bylaws will be examined and modified as the next stage of the revamping of the Town’s development policies, but we feel it is imperative that the existing/future bylaws be explicitly referenced in the revised OP. Otherwise, not only is any implied reference or intent less clear, it is harder for the public to understand and could also lead to confusion, conflict and unintended consequences at Council, among developers and residents and at the OMB. We offer the Toronto OP Residential Policies text, under the Prevailing Building Types clause, where the Bylaws and their ‘force’ is explicitly mentioned:

“If for example, an existing zoning bylaw permits only single detached houses in a particular neighbourhood, and the prevailing building type in that neighbourhood is single detached dwellings, then the Plan’s policies are to be interpreted to allow only single detached dwellings in order to respect and reinforce the established physical character of the neighbourhood…”

We suggest that the Oakville OP clearly reference the Zoning Bylaws and how their content is to be enforced with respect to the OP. Such references will of course allow for the modification of the Bylaws over time.

LEVEL OF INTENSIFICATION

With respect to Stable Residential Areas, the draft Policies submitted suggest that Level 3 under the ‘Hierarchy of Intensification’ would be appropriate. We believe that Level 3 as a blanket ‘as of right’ allowance will again result in more than modest change. Without referring to existing Bylaws (as well of course to applying the current or revised density limits) to provide reasonable restrictions on when or whether lot severances or multi-unit buildings are appropriate, we feel that this intensification level is too high, and understand why other Resident’s Associations have called for a limit to Level 2.

COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT

In the ‘Revised Draft Policies – RESIDENTIAL’ document submitted to P&D Council by Planning Services, there is a list criteria for to be used when evaluating proposed intensification (Section 1.2 General, clause L, on p. 5). A number of the sub-points focus on how such development should be similar to existing development and provide numerous related criteria. We feel that the wording in a number of these sub-points should be improved / clarified to achieve the objective of ‘modest change’ and to avoid adverse impact on existing residents, for example:

- sub-point i) requires “compatible” to be defined in a quantitative manner at least in terms of massing, setbacks and separation distances or its usefulness in actually achieving compatibility that the existing residents would support, is limited to none.

- sub-point ii) regarding building height, massing and gradation has no quantities or metrics. Either specific metrics for height, massing and gradation are included OR existing Bylaws are referenced, or this clause becomes virtually useless in preventing dramatic and adverse change rather than modest change, or in protecting the quality of life of existing residents.

Again, without metrics and preferably explicit clear reference to specific existing bylaws, we feel that this clause L is of limited usefulness.

Also, very importantly, regardless of how clause L might be improved, its usefulness will be obliterated if clause H – on page 4 - is allowed to stand. Part of this clause reads ”Compatible development is considered development that may not necessarily be the same as , or similar to, existing adjacent development, but which could co-exist with, and even enhance, existing development while not creating an unacceptable adverse impact.” The intent / motivation for this clause is unclear. It directly contradicts much of what is stated in Clause L. Clause L indicates how development should be compatible with existing dwellings, whereas Clause H clearly gives blanket license to virtually any kind of development “ that may not be the same as, or similar to, existing adjacent development”. We suggest that these clauses and their intent and coherence be given a serious and thorough review.

Respectfully,

Hart Jansson,
On behalf of the West Harbour Resident’s Association
905-338-0416

PS we look forward to comments and feedback on these observations at the Open House meeting at the Oakville Arena on the evening of May 14th.