New BVRA presentations

The following presentation was made by Laurie McGinn on July 3, 2007

Mayor Burton, Members of Council

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the Quadrangle deal and related Heritage recommendations being voted on this evening.

My name is Laurie McGinn and I am representing the Bronte Village Residents Association. We have been involved in the development of the Quadrangle since the first public presentation by Town staff in September 2004. We have registered our opinions, provided comment by way of presentation to Council in February 2005 and have Participant Status at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on this development application. We provided evidence at the heritage portion of the hearing.

I come before you this evening, providing our comments with the clear understanding that tonight's vote is a go no-go situation and there is no room for amendments, modifications or extensions of the negotiated deal that has already been tentatively agreed to in principle by Council. We understand that the development is under the direction of the OMB and that the OMB has the ultimate deciding power in this case.

My comments are for the record and for your information from the perspective of many that find Bronte our home.

I have 3 comments.

First, after 3 years we find this negotiated deal to be yet another surprise for the community and again with insufficient public input in the final decision making. It is unfortunate it is made immediately before a summer long-weekend. I understand should I wish to pursue this issue, I am to direct my comments to the OMB.

Second – I take you back to the initial questions that staff posed to the community about a high density commercial/residential development on the quadrangle, presented in September 2004. I wish to respond to these same questions as they relate to the new proposal deal so as we can somehow assess if this was in fact a good deal from our perspective.

1. Do you feel the proposal's character reflects the Bronte Community?
   
   Our answer in 2004 was that it did not. Our answer today is its difficult to know - given no conceptual drawings, 3-D models or details of the deal that would allow one to form an opinion about its effect on community character. We understand the Heritage Oakville Committee has identified the Glendella House as the signature building for protection and restoration in situ. Saving the Glendella however, has become the sound bite for this being a good deal. The Town gave up our own property, residential density higher than twice the highest density allowable with the current Official Plan Housing designation and massing that may overwhelm the entire neighbourhood.
   
2. Do you support the introduction of ground floor commercial on Bronte and Ontario , and residential uses stepped back on the upper floors?

   Our answer in 2004 was yes and our answer today is yes – however we have always emphasized the issue of massing and density. The development proposal presented in 2004 had a residential density of 370 to 417 upsh – thus greatly exceeding the maximum density of 150 upsh permitted in the Town's High Density II Housing designation (Part D, Policy 1.2). The original proposal in 2004 was 300 units of 6 and 12 storey buildings. This proposal is 275 units in 6 and 10 units. There has been a reduction of 25 units over 2 storeys.

   The scale, massing, density and height has always been the major objection to the proposal in terms of planning justification.

3. Is there anything missing from the proposal that you were hoping to see?

   The development ‘deal' application as currently submitted does not constitute a complete application from which the public can comment. In addition to triggering the need for an Official Plan Amendment, the necessary technical reports and drawings have not been filed to date to enable the Town to circulate the development proposal so as to obtain meaningful feedback from review department, agencies and the general public. For example, proposed vehicular access arrangements and reduced on-site parking provisions cannot be properly assessed in the absence of a traffic impact/parking utilization study. Similarly, concerns with shadow impacts and loss of privacy cannot be properly gauged in the absence of proper sun-shadow drawings and full building elevations. A tree preservation plan is also a critical planning element to assist in shielding existing neighbours from the noise and visual impact of the proposed development. We also are unclear as to the mandatory 5% parkland dedication that would normally be required. Is this considered the easement ?

In conclusion from these 2004 questions from staff – not many of our concerns have changed. Only you know what criteria was used to decide this was a good deal for our community. We speculate that Council members had to choose between saving the Glendella and everything else. If this is the case, it is a very sad reflection on our planning and development process. Saving a historical building in situ at all costs.

Leading into our third and final point.

Our third point is Councils consideration of the previous studies that were undertaken on the Bronte Quadrangle or Bronte community. It is clear from all the studies, 1972, 1975 Bronte Planning Studies, Waterfront Park Study, 1987 Streetscape Study, 1993 Bronte Quadrangle Study, 2004/2005 Bronte Visioning Exercise – all conclude the same thing…. That the Quadrangle property should include low rise buildings, human scale build form and “village” ambience.

We remain of the opinion that the development proposal that is now subject to a deal by council, like all the other development proposals before this one – are grossly out of scale for the area and do not support the village ambience of Bronte and will not contribute to the historic context of the buildings. We question how successful the historic character and ambience of the Glendella will be when it is within 6 metres of a 6-10 storey glass and concrete building.

We hope that this process is the last of its kind in Oakville . We hope that it serves well to sound the alarm for a new Official Plan and even stronger OMB reform that prevents planning by compromise.

I thank you for your serious consideration in this matter. We understand that this has been difficult with no one right answer. We hope your vote today will provide more benefit than detriment to the overall ambience and unique character of Bronte village.

8 May 2007

Mayor Rob Burton
Town of Oakville
P.O. Box 310
1225 Trafalgar Road
Oakville , Ontario
L6J 5A6

Mayor Burton:

We were very pleased to provide detailed comments, recommendations and opinions regarding the interim growth management policies intended for an Official Plan Amendment, as initiated through the Planning Department. We are very encouraged that the Town and Planning Staff recognize that development is out-of- control in Oakville and requires immediate and significant leadership.

As you are aware, the Bronte Village Residents Association (BVRA) has been an active and concerned organization of Bronte community residents for the past 4 years. Our community has been extremely concerned about the rapid decline and erosion of the treasured attributes of our community. We believe the community values are well documented by at least 3 planning and visioning studies done in the Bronte area in the past 20 years however these do not seem to be of paramount consideration in growth decisions. We need to solidify these study results into an action plan quickly before any further development applications are submitted.

At the public information meeting held on May 2, 2007, the draft planning report regarding the Interim Growth Management Plan was available for public review. We note the extensive consultative process and plans for further review projects including the Bronte area. Many members of the public commented they were disappointed that it appeared that visioning for Bronte was starting all over again and this would, in effect, unnecessarily delay controlling growth.

We are very excited to provide you with an innovative and creative suggestion to expedite and complement the growth planning process for Bronte. This proposal supports our belief that unlike other communities in Oakville , Bronte is a tourist destination and we should continue to preserve and enhance the public attributes that Bronte has to offer.

Our summary of Bronte valued community attributes are:

• Historic harbour character and ambiance
• Green space, parkland
• Focus on walking trails, bicycle trails
• Low rise development particularly near waterfront
• Controlled traffic
• Vibrant business community that suits the area in terms of need and variety
• Trees and Waterfront preservation
• Planned and controlled community growth
• Appealing as a tourist destination and retain atmosphere suitable for planned community events such as festivals, street parties and outdoor vendor fairs

The recommendation we are presenting to you is a two-day “Placemaking” workshop to be conducted in Bronte. This workshop would be conducted by the non-profit, internationally recognized company of Project for Public Spaces who assist communities in their growth planning highlighting local assets, spuring rejuvenation and servicing common needs.

As previously noted, Bronte has been through at least 3 visioning sessions in the last 20 years with the same results as noted above. We need to move past the visioning sessions and move on to action.

The proposal is a $25,000 investment into Bronte's future and would complement the current work being done on growth management.

The company of Project for Public Spaces has a significant amount of experience in helping communities shape their future and facilitate the “ PRIDE OF PLACE ” that Bronte already demonstrates. Their significant world-wide experience is too lengthy to highlight herein, but can be review on their website www.pps.org. We invite you to check it out!

We know Bronte is a community that is worthy of world-class planning and we challenge the Planning Department to consult and partner with professionals who indeed have the type of experience we should consider.

We welcome your support for this project and look to you in assisting us in getting this approved through Council.

Yours truly,

Laurie McGinn
Vice-President
Bronte Village Residents Association

c.c. Executive members of the BVRA

25 April 2007

Diane Childs
Planning Services Department
Town of Oakville
P.O. Box 310
1225 Trafalgar Road
Oakville, Ontario
L6J 5A6

Dear Ms. Childs

We read with interest the notice of a public information meeting regarding the proposed interim growth management policies intended for an Official Plan Amendment as well as the invitation for written submissions in this regard.

The Bronte Village Residents Association (BVRA) has been an active and concerned organization of Bronte community residents for the past 4 years. Our community has been extremely concerned about the rapid decline and erosion of the treasured attributes of our community. We believe the community values are well documented by at least 3 planning and visioning studies done in the Bronte area in the past 20 years however these do not seem to be of paramount consideration in growth decisions.

We welcome and support efforts to control growth in a planned way and ‘plug the holes' that have allowed development to be approved in contravention to zoning and Official Plan objectives.

Our summary of Bronte valued community attributes are:

• Historic harbour character and ambiance
• Green space, parkland
• Focus on walking trails, bicycle trails
• Low rise development particularly near waterfront
• Controlled traffic
• Vibrant business community that suits the area in terms of need and variety
• Trees and Waterfront preservation
• Planned and controlled community growth
• Appealing as a tourist destination and retain atmosphere suitable for planned community events such as festivals, street parties and outdoor vendor fairs

The BVRA believes these attributes are being eroded because of 5 reasons:

1. OMB decisions that override Council resolutions
2. Poor writing of Official Plan that allows for loop holes
3. Lack of community values supported in Planning staff reports – allowing for ‘compromise planning'
4. Behind the scenes ‘deals' on property development
5. Poor transition of visioning and planning exercises into Official Plan

The idea of an interim growth management policy development is supported by the BVRA in an effort to block erosion because it will ‘shore-up' problems related to #1, 2 and 3 above.

We wish to provide you with details of our opinions that we request should be incorporated into the interim growth management policy in consideration of the above comments.

Recommendations

1. We strongly disagree that Bronte Village should be an area of intensification at all and should be considered an area with no potential for residential intensification. The current number and size of development proposals in the planning process is staggering. Any effort to affect intensification growth patterns being initiated at this point, will have NO effect on the development proposals underway now. Before this recommendation is put forward to Council, staff are requested to review current development applications and incorporate these applications in density calculations – including Palm Place , Quadrangle, Seniors resident on Bronte Road , Live-work applications along Lakeshore Rd. , etc etc. We believe the overall impact of these current applications has yet to be measured and should halt further growth consideration for the next 5-8 years.
   
2. Require development proposals to advance the objectives of the Official Plan, not just conform to it. The Official Plan supports meeting the demographic needs of the community and contributes to the overall residential type mix of each community within Oakville , in terms of densities, low income, types of housing etc. For example, if Bronte already has disproportionate amount of apartment dwellings, then any development intensification proposals that are for apartment dwelling, will not be approved. Any new development proposals should improve, benefit and enhance the community and applications should be required to describe how this is true and consequently be subject to community scrutiny.
   
3. The report identifies the Bronte Village as an area of secondary consideration for intensification with intensification discouraged unless compatible with surrounding development. If a developer applies for intensification, and the Town disagrees, it is the OMB that will decide on the application. Exact wording and clarification of intent is extremely important. At the OMB, any developer's planner can argue that any development is compatible. This is a ‘loop-hole'. Define and tighten up what is meant by “ compatible ” to avoid interpretation arguments at the OMB. This is true for other terminology such as “ transition between existing and planning development” “ adequacy of transportation system, extent that pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access… can be maintained; “ proximity of transit, shopping etc. These words should be specifically defined so there is no ‘wiggle-room' and allow for less interpretation by lawyers and planners at the OMB. Write the Official Plan with the idea it has to be defended at the OMB and obtain expertise advice on how to do so – proactively.
   
4. The secondary areas of development intensification are depicted quite generally – no street identification. This was explained as an opportunity to provide flexibility. We disagree that flexibility is a desirable quality in terms of defined areas subject to intensification. The exact areas need to be defined for clarify and to not allow interpretation by developers; again with an idea that this would be subject of debate at the Ontario Municipal Board.
   
5. Encourage traffic issues to be an overriding factor in determining compatibility for any development proposal in primary or secondary intensification focus locations. When Halton Regional Police Service surveys the public, the number one identified issue is ‘traffic'. Although traffic projections are made when development applications are made, often they are wrong and impacts are much greater than projected. Ongoing and more realistic traffic indicators must be completed and incorporated into application decisions.
   
6. The proposal identifies the Bronte Village as an area for secondary consideration of intensification. What exactly does “secondary' mean? What would qualify something as ‘secondary' vs. ‘primary'? You will never get development proposals which indicate – here is my first choice and second choice. You can't wait for intensification of the secondary areas until the primary areas are ‘full'…. We believe the term primary and secondary are meaningless.
   
7. You identify the Bronte Village as a secondary consideration of intensification and changes in the zoning by-law may be permitted if in conformity with the Official Plan. This is also meaningless as it is a matter of opinion and can be a ‘loop-hole' at the OMB. What does conformity mean? Conformity to what? Be specific to avoid opinion at OMB hearings.
   
8. Prohibit any cash in lieu provisions for parking spaces in any intensification focus locations. This is a ridiculous contributor to traffic and parking congestion. There are several new “live-work” units in Bronte without business visitor parking at all.
   
9. Strongly recommend that this growth management process include a strategic planning study for each of the identified areas that will be targeted for intensification (primary and secondary) to ensure community involvement in growth decision and growth patterns. Do not allow lack of planning staff time to be a barrier – hire planning consultative assistance to complete this in a specific time period.
   
10. Recommend provisions for all development applications to be required to use and produce either 3-D computer modeling, and/or physical 3-D models in the initial application. This would allow for the public to have the most understandable representation of all future development applications.  With today's advances in computerized imaging technology, we see no reason why this cannot become an automatic condition of any future development applications.
    
11. There is a disconnect in language used - between the Town's Planning Staff and developers, particularly within the financial considerations of a development application.  An excellent example is the Moldenhauer proposal for Lakeshore Road in the Bronte Business District.  Moldenhauer says they must have 6 stories in order to justify the costs attached to providing 15,000 square feet of retail space.  If it's the opinion of the community that 15,000 sq. ft. of retail space would be an asset to the community, who will tell us whether or not that can be accomplished at an acceptable ROI based on 2 stories rather than 6?
    
12. A parking strategy for the Bronte Business District has to be in place prior to contemplating any further development applications.  This needs to include decisions on metered parking, on-street parking (where, how and when), municipal off-street parking (including considerations of acquiring and building underground/above ground facilities.)
    
13. A plan for the appropriate location of new, additional street trees, and the restoration and/or replacement of the current weedy, stunted specimens, using the best practices developed by the town through their recent UFORE study, prior to the consideration of any further development applications.
    
14. Complete the Transportation Master Plan to the "enhanced" level for Ward One.
    
15. The BDAC minutes from 15 Sept. 2005 note: "T. Collingwood further noted that a Retail and Service Commercial Policy Study is underway and is a Town wide study of the current status of commercial buildings in the Town and what will be needed in the next twenty years and how much more commercial space can be accommodated in certain areas. The study incorporates two components - a market analysis versus policies. The study also identifies trends in retailing and what sectors of the retail and service commercial market are increasing and which are relocating outside the Town."   We need the results and recommendations of those studies, prior to considering further development.
    
16. As intensification is considered in any area, there is a greater need to consider appropriate storm water management practices. The accepted “best practice” for removal of nutrients and other pollutants from storm water prior to returning it to the lake, is the use of storm water management ponds. As you intensify, the few pervious surfaces that currently exist to absorb rainwater in the built-up area, get built over or paved, resulting in less natural filtering for storm water and a higher proportion of nutrients and pollutants going directly into the lake. Prior to approving any further infill intensification in Bronte's built-up areas, define the systems of storm water storage and filtration that must be built in order to ensure that nutrient and pollutant levels in future storm water flows are no worse – and ideally better – than existing levels.
    
17. We assume that infrastructure partners are been solicited for input on this process. Impact of intensification affects health services/hospitals, ambulance services, fire services, police, education and conservation authorities – to name a few. We would like to be assured that their voices are incorporated into the recommendations brought forward by staff. We believe their responses should also be public. It is important that public services are also held into account for planning for growth and be ‘on the same page' in intensification decisions.
    
18. Prior to any infill intensification in Bronte is recommended, we also are concerned that the Bronte area has fallen behind in recreational facilities in comparison to other Oakville communities. Bronte is the largest populated community in Oakville and does not have a recreational centre.
    
19. In bringing forward the report to Council on the Proposed Interim Growth Management Policy, we would respectfully request that this letter be included in the staff report to Council as an Appendix.

It is relatively easy to request public consultation and to solicit input for a project such as this. A significant amount of public input and concern has been shown by our community on many issues that we believe will affect our quality of life. Unfortunately, we have been disappointed in the past with the value placed on this community participation on important issues such as this. The BVRA is determined to ensure that public consultation is received and considered in a meaningful way.

We are requesting Council to require staff to report on all recommendations and comments brought forward by the public. Further, we are requesting Council to require staff to summarize all recommendations and discuss each idea or recommendation individually with staff comment on why each was rejected or accepted into the final staff recommendations.

Due to our community's overwhelming interest in preserving our attributes and the thought and time spend in developing the 19 recommendations herein, we would like to meet with staff to discuss and ensure they are considered within the final report to Council. Please contact me directly (905 825-4888) with a date and time convenient for you to discuss.

Yours truly,

Laurie McGinn
Vice-President
Bronte Village Residents Association