New BVRA presentations

Bronte Village Residents' Association Delegation re:
Issues Report – Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval (Item #2)
&
Recommendation Report – Proposed Official Plan Amendments and
Zoning By-law Amendment (Item # 3)
Planning and Development Council Meeting, February 22, 2010

Thank you, and good evening Your Worship, Councillors, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is John McMullen. On behalf of the Bronte Village Residents' Association, I am pleased to submit our comments regarding items #2 & #3 on your agenda; namely, the Issues Report – Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval, and the Recommendation Report – Proposed Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendment, both of which relate to the Employment lands at Rebecca, Great Lakes and Burloak and the so-called “teardrop.”

As you fully appreciate, the two items are inextricably linked. The Draft Plan of Subdivision is contingent upon OMB approval of the Proposed Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendment. Therefore, with your indulgence, I would first like to address item #3, the Amendments.

I will start by commending Planning and Development staff, and in particular Mr. David Capper, for the well-reasoned and supported arguments contained in the Recommendation report. BVRA fully and emphatically endorses staff's recommendation that the applicant's proposed retail and commercial complex be refused. In the interest of time, I will not belabour the many concerns raised by staff and in previous community delegations by both the BVRA and others, including traffic and pedestrian safety, increased vehicular traffic on Rebecca Street, and site design and buffering of the adjacent residential area, as well as considerations with respect to existing commercial establishments and corresponding market demand and unwarranted competition.

Every bit an issue, we submit, is the proposed conversion of valuable employment lands to low-grade uses, a move - were it to happen - that is not in keeping with the Town's intended zoning of this land and Livable Oakville. The BVRA recommended against this proposal in its letter of October 23, 2009. We pointed out at that time that the proposed shopping centre would be an egregious waste of employment lands – lands that could be put to far better use by pursuing remunerative live/work opportunities that would benefit the local community.

Again, we support staff's conclusions and their recommendation that the proposed amendments be refused.

Turning to Item #2, we have a number of comments and suggestions regarding the Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision.

We reiterate the recommendation, made earlier by the BVRA and by others, that the stormwater management pond identified as Block 4 on the Site Plan be relocated to the southern portion of Block 1, adjacent to Rebecca Street , and in the area of the proposed retail complex. Residents on the south side of Rebecca and in the new Lakeshore Woods development are concerned with any commercial development immediately across the road and the ramifications this would have. And rightfully so.

We suggest that maintaining the existing stand of mature cedars and locating the SWMP in this area, and as an extension of the protected woodlot in Block 3 that is proposed to be deeded to the Town, would be a logical alternative. It would represent good planning practices, providing an effective, natural buffer between residential properties to the south of Rebecca and employment lands to the north.

Furthermore, I would be remiss if I did not draw your attention to the mature bur oaks that are to be found on this property, on the east side of Burloak north of Rebecca, and the row of trees running east-west through the middle of the property. We urge that the Town ensures that the Applicant is fully aware of what constitutes “Town trees” and requests the Applicant to preserve other trees as and where possible in the site plan.

However, I again come back to the current Employment designation of the lands in question. I do not need to remind you of the relevant definitions and policy objectives contained in the Growth Plan and Livable Oakville. That said, the BVRA respectfully urges that the Town of Oakville adhere to its stated intent and use of these lands. We endorse the objective to find suitable clients in the “Life Sciences, Advanced Manufacturing, Professional and Financial Services” and like businesses – and their corresponding high-knowledge employment opportunities – as identified in Ms. Clohecy's memo of February 3 rd .

This brings to mind the recent announcement concerning Solar Semiconductor's decision to locate in Oakville . Working as I do in the green technology sector, I congratulate you on this coup. And of course, we look forward to this business being located in the Great Lakes Business Park .

However, Solar Semiconductor is but one example of leading-edge organizations, whether they be in renewable energy, biotechnology, life sciences or other growth sectors, that we should strive to attract to Oakville, businesses that will offer high-value employment opportunities to residents and likewise make optimum use of what employment lands remain.

On behalf of the BVRA, thank you for the opportunity to offer our comments and recommendations this evening.

John McMullen
BVRA Board
February 22, 2010

January 11, 2009

Mayor Rob Burton
Town of Oakville
1225 Trafalgar Road
Oakville, Ontario
L6J 5A1

Your Worship Mayor Burton,

RE:  Palm Place /Ashford Terrace

As you are aware, the development application for 3 eight storey condo complexes on the former “Shell House” lands on the shores of Lake Ontario in Bronte, was a highly controversial and publicly opposed application which the community fought hard against.  This included an Ontario Municipal Board appeal – partnering with the Town, Council and Halton Conservation Authority.  

Our understanding is that the Ashford Terrace development has had condos for sale within the provisions of the OMB approved site plan for approximately 2 years.  It is further our understanding that the owner has stopped selling the condos ( Oakville Beaver, Dec.8, 2009 ) but it is unknown what the owner's future intentions are for the property.

The purpose of this letter is three-fold.

1. To respectfully advise you that our Association remains highly interested in the final outcome of this project and we hold the same position we have for the past 7 years – the same position as:
   1. the former Town Planning Director, Mr. Peter Cheatley,
   2. our community members,
   3. the Halton Conservation Authority,
   4. the Royal Commission on Waterfront Regeneration,
   5. Mr. Martin Rendl, Planner;
   6. Mr. Frank Lewinberg, Town of Oakville Planning Expert; and
   7. Oakville Town Council. 
   
   Namely, that the entire “Shell House Lands” property should remain undeveloped, as parkland and designated as significant wildlife habitat for migratory birds. 
   
   In light of the owner's inability or unwillingness to move this project forward (for whatever reason), we seek your leadership in determining if there is any opportunity for the three levels of government to purchase the property to fulfill its rightful best land use for future generations.
2. Should the land owner be seeking alternative site plan development in a configuration that is other than what has been approved through the OMB, we strongly suggest that no ‘deals' be made what-so-ever.  Any and all requests for variation to the current site plan must be made available for public input and comment.
3. We formally request that any and all correspondence and discussion regarding any change in site plan proposal, minor variance and/or possible zoning amendment be brought to the attention of the Bronte Village Residents Association in a timely manner.

As you know, Your Worship, information about the parkland dedication related to this property greatly affected the outcome of the development approval through the Ontario Municipal Board.  Information, the community was not aware of.  We do not wish this to happen again.  The community fought to the bitter end on this development proposal, but what was approved was a less-than-desirable block of 8 storey condos on the waterfront.  We know you are very committed to community consultation and we hope there will no be further alterations to the project that we are not made aware of and do not have the opportunity to be consulted upon.

We would be pleased to meet with you or your planning staff to discuss this matter further.

Yours very truly,

A Brian Miller

Brian Miller
President
Bronte Village Residents' Association

c.c.       Halton Conservation Authority

Presentation to Planning and Development Council Meeting
Monday November 9, 2009

Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment
2441 Lakeshore Road West - Bronte Village Mall

Presentation on behalf of Bronte Village Residents' Association
John McMullen

Your Worship, Members of Planning and Development Council, Ladies and Gentlemen.

I am here tonight representing the Bronte Village Residents' Association. My name is John McMullen.

The BVRA is a grass-roots association of concerned Bronte residents. The BVRA's mandate is to protect the village character of Bronte, to promote community spirit, and to advocate for appropriate and sustainable planning and development in Bronte.

We have been involved in many aspects of Bronte planning, frequently providing comments, participating in consultations on development applications, and conveying residents' opinion s on the planning process. We have been involved in the development of the new Official Plan and have promoted awareness of municipal level planning issues among our members.

One such matter is the proposed redevelopment of the Bronte Village Mall. We have followed the evolution of this proposal with great interest for it serves to have a significant bearing upon the Village and its residents.

At the outset, allow me to emphasize that we are not opposed to development – or in this instance, redevelopment. A community cannot and should not stand still. Redevelopment is inevitable, necessary, and good - - provided it is carried out in a thoughtful manner that takes into account the interests and opinions of all stakeholders, residents included.

With that in mind, we wanted to apprise you of three initiatives that the BVRA has undertaken with respect to the proposed redevelopment of the Bronte Village Mall.

First, and based on earlier information sessions and considerable deliberation by the Board, a set of well thought out questions that address various aspects of the project have been drafted. I have copies of these for your reference, and should time allow, I would be glad to quickly read these.

Second, we have just now carried out a short survey of members, asking them for their opinions about the project and certain issues that had earlier been identified. I wish to emphasize that this survey was carried out in recent days and, in part, in preparation for this meeting and a later meeting I will describe shortly. Responses are still coming in, and therefore we prefer to regard it as a work in progress at this stage.

In brief, we asked whether individuals agreed or disagreed with certain aspects of the proposal, such as the commercial viability of proposed retail space, the overall mixed use development, the height of the tower, configuration of condos on Sovereign Street , acceptability of projected traffic, and other matters. We then asked if, overall, they supported the proposed redevelopment, and to then explain their yes or no answer. And finally we asked for any other comments the respondent cared to offer.

At this stage, I propose to only touch on top line survey results. More detail can be provided at a later date, once we have received all responses and had time to properly analyze the findings.

The slight majority favour the overall concept of the proposed redevelopment. Furthermore, roughly two-thirds agree with the commercial viability of the proposed retail space, and with the mixed-use concept. That said, 75% do not agree with the height of the proposed signature tower, and nearly the same percentage are concerned with projected traffic. With regard to the condos on Sovereign Street , opinions are split 50/50.

The third initiative that I wished to advise you of is a planned meeting, hosted by the BVRA, for our members and others, and with the developer. We will submit the previously mentioned set of questions to the developer and ask that they respond to these. We wish to point out that the developer has agreed to this meeting. The date and location, however, has as yet to be decided.

In closing, we wish to reiterate that the BVRA and its members are not opposed to development, or in this case specifically, to redevelopment of the Mall per se. Once again, our mandate – and the interests of residents – is to protect the village character of Bronte, to promote community spirit, to advocate for appropriate and sustainable planning and development, and to advocate for municipal planning and development policies that support the interests of our membership.

And again, it is our objective and desire – as we are sure it is yours - to ensure that redevelopment such as proposed is carried out in a careful and thoughtful manner, one that allows for consultation with concerned stakeholders and that affords the opportunity for input and addressing concerns constructively. The end product will be all the better for this collaborative approach.

Thank you.

The following letter was sent to the town with the BVRAs concerns regarding the proposed development at the corner of Burloak and Rebecca Streets .

Mr. David Capper
Senior Planner
Town of Oakville
Oakville , ON

23 October 2009

Dear Mr. Capper:

File # 24T-09002/1635

On behalf of the Board of the Bronte Village Residents' Association, I am pleased to submit our comments regarding the above application for your consideration. These comments were approved at our Board meeting of October 23. As is our custom, the comments will be posted to our website with a request to our membership to provide any dissenting or additional comments back to the Board with a copy to you – or vice versa, at their discretion.

Our comments are as follows:

• The original intent of the Secondary Plan was to secure this land for high-grade employment enterprises, capable of generating salaries that would allow the employees to live in Oakville as well as to work here. We are therefore strongly opposed to yet another shopping centre on Block 1, on the grounds that it represents a conversion from the intended employment zoning, and thus a low-grade use of this valuable employment land which thereby does not support a “ Livable Oakville ”.
• We would further point out that the local residential neighbourhood is already ringed with several large and comprehensive shopping centres, both in Bronte and in Burlington , as well as smaller, neighbourhood commercial centres. It is our opinion that neighbouring Bronte and Burlington residents have no substantive shopping needs which are unmet by currently available, convenient facilities.
• We note that the shopping centre plan includes a waste storage facility backing on to Rebecca. With existing residential properties located directly across the road from this location, and bearing in mind that ICI garbage collections are typically made late-night or early-morning, and the associated racket of clanging steel and back-up beepers, we find this positioning particularly thoughtless. Whatever uses are finally approved for this property, Site Planning must ensure that garbage handling and truck deliveries are kept as distant from existing residential areas as physically possible.
• Whatever development is finally approved, we would recommend that the Applicant be requested to relocate the SWMP facility (Block 3) to the southerly perimeter of the property. We submit this shift will represent good planning practices, in that it will provide a worthwhile, natural separation between the residential properties on the south side of Rebecca, and the employment lands to the north. In support of this recommendation, we would point out that the Regional Water Treatment Plant on the east side of Great Lakes Blvd. currently provides an excellent, naturalized (substantial berms and well treed) separation between the residential areas to the south and the employment lands to the north.
• A healthy planting of mature cedars currently exists along the north side of Rebecca. We ask that the Applicant be encouraged to preserve and incorporate this hedgerow as part of the SWMP block relocated as described above.
• Whatever the final development, we question the advisability of providing direct access from this block to Rebecca. The latter is already an extremely busy thoroughfare, particularly during morning and evening rush hours, and there is still considerable new residential density yet to be completed both in Lakeshore Woods and the three towers of Palm Place . The contemplated re-vitalization of the Bronte Mall is also anticipated to greatly exacerbate the current rush-hour congestion at the intersection of Rebecca and Bronte Road . We recommend that access points to the subject property be limited to Burloak Drive and to Great Lakes.
• A row of mature bur oaks have graced the east side of Burloak Drive, north of Rebecca for many years. It would appear that the majority of these trees are sufficiently close to the right-of-way to be classified as “Town trees”. In deference to the name of the adjacent road ( Burloak Drive ), we submit that all these plantings be preserved as “Town trees”, with additional plantings undertaken where necessary to close gaps.
• Likewise, a row of some six, mature bur oaks extends in an east-west direction across the property. We request that the Applicant be encouraged to preserve these trees as and where possible as part of the site plan development.

We thank you for this opportunity to comment on this application, and would be most obliged if you would ensure that the Bronte Village Residents Association is included on the official notification list for any future public meetings regarding the development of this property.

Further, by copy of this letter to His Worship Mayor Burton and Councillors Johnston and Robinson, we wish to register our sincere disappointment regarding the apparent lack of any over-all economic strategy for the development of these valuable employment lands. Firstly, as noted above, we are strongly opposed to the conversion of the subject property from employment to retail. Secondly – and of even greater concern - we are now starting to see piece-meal development of the valuable employment lands to the east of Great Lakes, with apparently no strategy or forethought for encouraging or attracting anything more economically valuable to the Town's economy than yet another Tim Horton's and yet another truck rental operation. We would like to meet with our local Councillors at their earliest convenience to understand what can be done to lift Bronte into a higher economic stratum than simply fast food outlets and warehouses.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Lansdown,
Secretary, Bronte Village Residents' Association

CC:
Mayor Rob Burton
Councillor Johnston
Councillor Robinson

Brian Miller the BVRA present recently sent this email:

From: Brian Miller [mailto:bmiller@millergardiner.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:47 PM
To: mayorjackson@burlington.ca; cravenr@burlington.ca; thoemp@burlington.ca; taylorj@burlington.ca; dennisonj@burlington.ca; goldringr@burlington.ca; damelioc@burlington.ca; Mayor@haltonhills.ca; Gary.Carr@halton.ca; csomerville2@cogeco.ca; janefogal@haltonhills.ca; gord.krantz@milton.ca; barrylee@barrylee.ca; colin.best@milton.ca; mayor@oakville.ca; foliver@oakville.ca; kbird@oakville.ca; jknoll@oakville.ca; aelgar@oakville.ca; tadams@oakville.ca; ajohnston@oakville.ca
Cc: Liz B.; Lorraine and Michael Quast; Laurie McGinn (at work); Mike Lansdown; Michael Glynne; Sara Alexander
Subject: Recession Recovery By-Law
Importance: High

Members of Halton Regional Council:

It has come to our attention thanks to the effort of Regional Councillor Elgar, that the Regional Administration & Finance committee is recommending a recession recovery by-law to suspend the collection of the April 1, 2009 indexing portion of Regional development charges until September 30, 2009.  According to Regional staff this will result in a cost of approximately $3,300,000.  This, in turn, would lead to a 1.6% increase in the Regional tax bill for the taxpayers of Halton.

The Bronte Village Residents Association is adamantly opposed to this proposal!

The development industry in Halton has been tremendously successful over the last several years and is NOT in need of any financial assistance from the taxpayers of our Region.  Further, with real estate values moderating significantly in the past year and mortgage rates at all-time lows, purchasing a home (especially for first time buyers) has become much more affordable.

Accordingly, why would Regional Council ever consider asking the taxpayers of Halton to subsidize one of the most successful industries in our Region?

On behalf of our members and the taxpayers of Halton I urge you all to reject the committee's recommendation.

Regards,

  Brian

A Brian Miller, C.A. , President
Bronte Village Residents Association

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