Developer Vogue Wycliffe have applied to develop the Cudmore's Garden Centre property at 3171 Lakeshore Road West in Bronte. They want to build 27 condominium townhomes and 8 semi-detached freehold homes.
In the Livable Oakville Plan (OP), the area is designated low density, which allows for a maximum of 29 units. To build 35 the developer needs the area to be designated as medium density. The province continues to ask municipalities to encourage intensification to increase housing stock with less need for sprawl. The drive for intensification aims to reduce incursion into greenspace as population grows, to improve the economics for public transit, and a host of other benefits, and is widely supported by the public (except of course next door). On this basis, this seems a relatively minor intensification.
The best protection against intensification that could really destabilize a neighbourhood is not zoning, which can always be challenged and changed, but modern, marketable built form. 35 new units (6 more than allowed under the OP) protects the property from applications looking to achieve even greater density for a long time into the future, whatever provincial policies may apply. So, on the surface, with that amount of information, one would expect the Town to offer the developer cooperation on such an application provided the developer will make concessions on other matters such as height, traffic and trees, rather than fight the developer in an expensive hearing at the provincial appeal body, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), where Provincial interests in intensification and property owners’ rights will carry significant weight.
Sean O'Meara
Ward 1 Town and Regional Councillor Sean O'Meara
Indeed, the Town of Oakville has agreement in principle with the developer along those lines, though it is yet to be signed by both parties. This would avoid the impending hearing at LPAT which was triggered by delays in dealing with the application reputedly caused by the pandemic. Significant concessions on height, trees and traffic were obtained from the developer in achieving the agreement. “The approach of give me everything or I want nothing is an approach we are not willing to make particularly in the current intensification culture of the LPAT,” say area councillors Sean O’Meara and Beth Robertson. The two Councillors point to significant public consultation over several years, preparing the public for the need for intensification particularly in lands moving from commercial to residential.
Bronte Village Residents’ Association (BVRA) takes exception to this approach. While the designation is low density permitting 29 units at maximum, the BVRA points to the zoning by-laws which apply to the property. These by-laws contain minimum lot size provisions. Arguing that minimum lot size is another way to say maximum density, BVRA calculates the current allowed maximum number of units at 17. That of course means they see the proposed development as doubling density. In addition, it means smaller lots and setbacks. In other words, dramatically denser and with greater massing than existing zoning would suggest, or neighbours would reasonably have expected.
Beth Robertson - Town of Oakville
Ward 1 Town Councillor Beth Robertson
As a practical matter, zoning by-laws give expression to the Official Plan on the ground. A reading of the town staff report on the application would suggest that town planners view the area density designation as trumping the zoning.
So, the BVRA is at odds with the town planners who have the support of the local councillors, Sean O’Meara and Beth Robertson. The BVRA sees the Town’s cooperation with this application as a breach of trust. Residents, they say, rely on the OP and zoning by-laws when conducting due diligence prior to buying their properties. Accepting that they themselves will have to abide by them, with only minor variances, they believe the same rules should apply to developers.
BVRA sees this development as egregiously at odds with the OP and zoning and as a potential major planning gain for the developer.
“Whilst this development does not compare in magnitude to that of Glen Abbey, its consequences for setting a precedent that assaults stable residential neighbourhoods are just as dire,” notes a BVRA press release.
Against the town position, they are supporting a group of four local residents who wish to challenge the development at LPAT. The risk they are running is that LPAT will approve the original application. The concessions gained by the town in negotiating with the developer to avoid an LPAT hearing would be lost. A Case Management Conference open to the public will take place on Wednesday February 24th at 10am.
Implications
This case is illustrative of the workings of the Ontario planning regime. The province enacts legislation, and the town implements and polices it through official plans and zoning. Proponents bring applications if they want to deviate from the zoning or OP, and the town considers whether they think it can work without undermining the overall vision for population, residential, business, retail and transportation at the neighbourhood and town wide level. If the town, neighbouring residents or both can’t come to terms with the application, the province takes over again at LPAT. The province, like the profit-seeking developer, is concerned with accommodating population growth, or with future residents, rather than existing residents, who are a higher priority for the town. Neighbourhood concerns take a backseat to property rights and intensification goals. LPAT serves as the antidote to NIMBYism and to councils pandering to the angst of local voters.
It is constantly frustrating for residents to feel that they are bound by Town rules, but developers are not, but as a practical matter given the resources each has and the field where these issues are played out, that is the case. You can put some reliance on zoning rules on your property, but somewhat less on properties that are being developed. The previous provincial government gave the town more control at LPAT, but that was rolled back by the Ford government: provincial policies are subject to change.
In the long term, we can work to change the rules and pressure our provincial representatives for more consideration for the desires of the 200,000 Oakvilleans who are here over those of future residents and those catering to them. But in the short term, we need to work with the rules to get the best outcome possible and keep as much control in the hands of those who will live with the consequences as we can. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, it is said.
