04-09-2018, 09:26 AM
I don't know why I am defending these neighbours of mine, as again I am supportive of the development. But I don't like the frequent calling of them as just NIMBY's. Here is the letter from Dawn Parker a University of Waterloo Urban Planning Professor. I hope it better outlines the critique neighbours have. To be clear, everyone I have spoken too would be very happy with a 14m tall development, even if it meant taking more land. They are concerned about turning Residential into High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor zoning, with zero plans to do residential. To be clear, the PARTS plan was a lengthy process that clearly identified this side of the tracks should remain a maximum of 14m in height. I firmly believe that LPAT will follow whatever the city says here. Also there is a good chance neighbours could appeal to LPAT as the city is ignoring their years long consultation process because they like the look of this building.
Again, to me this is going to provide the neighbourhood with an impetus to provide more urban housing for the 600-1000 workers who will be part of this office space. The design was also completed by a neighbour and frankly, it's brilliant.
Here is Dawn's letter to council:
Again, to me this is going to provide the neighbourhood with an impetus to provide more urban housing for the 600-1000 workers who will be part of this office space. The design was also completed by a neighbour and frankly, it's brilliant.
Here is Dawn's letter to council:
Quote:Dear city councillors and mayor,
I am writing to express my opposition to the planning staff’s recommendation for approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zone Change for Breithaupt Block Phase 3. Specifically, I strongly oppose the rezoning of 26, 43, & 47 Wellington Street North out of low-‐rise residential and into High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor. I believe that the zoning for these properties should follow the recommendations of the Parts Central plan, recently approved by council.
I am writing as a neighbour and property owner, but many of my arguments are drawn from my expertise as Professor in the School of Planning, University of Waterloo, and my expertise on the economics of residential land markets. I am opposed to the zone change out of residential for the following reasons:
• I believe the change to a use that is incompatible with low-‐density residential will erode the integrity of that part of Wellington as a residential street. The project introduces a highly incompatible use that affects properties from three sides, on a corner with three existing heritage homes. These magnified negative effects will decrease the value of adjacent properties in residential use.
• At the same time, the rezoning creates a very dangerous precedent, which will lead to an expectation by owners of other properties on Wellington between Moore and Waterloo that their future rezoning applications will be accepted. This creates incentives for purchase of these properties for land banking, where properties are allowed to deteriorate (as low-‐quality rentals, or even empty buildings), until the perceived value of conversion is high enough to apply for a zone change. We have seen how “banked” properties negatively affect the neighbourhood already (Electrohome, Sacred Heart school, and 18 Guelph street).
• These combined dynamics leave additional residential properties vulnerable to decay and conversion. In Pac Man fashion, as neighbouring properties convert, the contagion of property value decrease and conversion risk spreads further into the neighbourhood. This effect has been seen in the Northdale neighbourhood in Waterloo over the last decade, where conversion of single-‐family homes to student rentals combined with construction of very high density residential has lead to the complete deterioration of a single-‐family residential neighbourhood.
• These concerns are discussed in detail in the Parts central plan, page 21, section on “Conservation of Stable Established Neighbourhoods.” This part of Wellington is identified as part of a stable residential neighbourhood. The PARTS plan notes that the inclusion of the stable residential neighbourhoods in the plan “recognizes their contribution and importance to the station area plan and provides a clear message that these lands are not the focus for redevelopment and intensification.”
• The plan also highlights the importance of transitioning to protect low-‐ density residential (p. 34) “Stepping back building mass should be used to ensure an appropriate built form transition between the higher density mixed use and the lower density residential.”
• A block with a complete line of intact zoning, as recommended by PARTs is much more likely to be stable, as single-‐family residential homes would only be negatively impacted on one of their borders (and buffered by the laneway).
• Page 21 of the PARTS central plan also illustrates the maximum allowable height for its recommended zoning (14 meters for innovation employment and low density residential). The maximum heights recommended for approval exceed these by orders of magnitude.
• A different approach is possible for development in this neighbourhood, creating different incentives. For example the Zehr’s groups Sixo proposal situates low-‐density residential along the stretch of Wellington that abuts the area recommended to remain in residential in the PARTs plan. This planned low-‐density residential has provided a signal to the neighbourhood that that section of Wellington will remain residential. Since that rezoning, several large heritage homes along Wellington and Walter have been undergoing renovation into high-‐end multiple apartment rentals, a housing product that research from my group indicates is scarce in the current market.
• The low-‐density residential zoning provides space for a housing product that is highly scarce in the current market. Research from my group shows that while many residential developers are planning residential development in the core, they are targeting young singles and empty nesters, and not families. Our renter’s survey indicated high demand for medium-‐sized 3-‐4 high-‐quality bedroom rentals, especially for households with children. Finally, our interviews with Realtors indicate that the short supply of housing coupled with increasing housing costs has increased demand for mid-‐sized purchase options such as townhomes, row houses, and stacked townhomes. This location is perfect for such kinds of residential development, which are attractive to range of demographics.
This decision is critical for council, as it occurs at the transition between the Ontario Municipal Board and the new Local Planning Appeal Tribunals. Under LPAT it will be much more difficult for a developer to contest a decision that follows a municipality’s codified planning and zoning. It will also be easier for neighbours to contest decisions under LPAT. However, if Council allows this rezoning, it will set a precedent that might diminish the ability of the City to make future decisions consistent with PARTs and other collaborative planning exercises, and for neighbours to contest decisions that harm the integrity of their historic neighbourhood. So far we have seen little explanation of why the planning department has approved a proposal that has substantial neighbourhood opposition and also contradicts its own collaborative planning process. Why would the city council approve a recommended plan, then turn around and almost immediately approve a proposal that contradicts this plan? And how can the city expect citizens to continue to participate in collaborative planning efforts, if the results of those efforts are ignored by Council? Please vote to oppose the current proposal and to support the planning for these parcels that is recommended in PARTs.
Thanks very much, Dawn Parker