{"id":22911,"date":"2019-02-07T11:59:41","date_gmt":"2019-02-07T16:59:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/?p=22911"},"modified":"2019-02-15T15:21:01","modified_gmt":"2019-02-15T20:21:01","slug":"striking-balance-key-in-protecting-stable-neighbourhoods-consultant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/striking-balance-key-in-protecting-stable-neighbourhoods-consultant\/","title":{"rendered":"Striking “balance” key in protecting stable neighbourhoods: Consultant"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Brock Weir<\/strong><\/p>\n

Significant changes to building height and lot coverage in Aurora\u2019s Stable Neighbourhoods could be approved by the end of March following a Public Planning meeting last week.
\nCouncil voted on Wednesday to accept a number of recommendations from an independent planning consultant retained by the Town to provide what was intended to be an unbiased review of what needs to be done to protect such neighbourhoods from out-of-scale infill development in three distinct Aurora neighbourhoods, developments which area residents often refer to as \u201cmonster homes.\u201d
\nThe recommendations brought forward by Ron Palmer of The Planning Partnership call on the Town to align its zoning bylaws with policies within Aurora\u2019s Official Plan that were intended to provide such protections to long-established communities. He further recommended that changes to zoning bylaws should set a maximum floor area for new builds as opposed to size being determined by lot size, setting a height restriction of nine metres, and establishing Council-approved design guidelines.
\nAfter considerable debate, Council accepted these recommendations on a unanimous vote.
\nProposed changes will be the subject of a \u201csubstantive public outreach\u201d program to ensure all impacted landowners have a chance to understand and respond to the suggestions ahead of the Public Planning meeting at the end of March.
\nIn making his recommendations, Mr. Palmer stressed the importance of striking a balance for residents living in the Regency Acres, Aurora Heights and Town Park communities.
\n\u201cThere is a huge diversity of opinion [in] what should happen in these neighbourhoods,\u201d Mr. Palmer told Council last week. \u201cThere are some ratepayers who feel that the character-giving elements [of their neighbourhoods] should be well-understood and highly restricted, thereby protecting the existing feel of those neighbourhoods, and there are others who say there should be some flexibility to permit new forms of development and different scales of development and, in fact, the existing zoning as it stands today does permit that. There are still others who are not quite at each end of that spectrum, talking about ways to think about the community and how we provide a balance between protecting the character-giving elements while still allowing innovation and investment.\u201d
\nBalance, he said, is important in reviewing all neighbourhoods, not just the three neighbourhoods designated by Council for the purposes of its Stable Neighbourhood study.
\n\u201cThese are unique neighbourhoods,\u201d he said. \u201c[The residents] want to live here. That\u2019s a really important thing to remember: it is our job and your job to find the right balance between protection, innovation and investment.\u201d
\nLooking at what each of the three neighbourhoods had to offer, Mr. Palmer said reducing maximum building height from ten metres to nine metres is an \u201cabsolutely appropriate thing to do\u201d as nine metres is the height set out in the Town\u2019s Official Plan.
\n\u201cThe zoning bylaw must conform,\u201d he said. \u201cThere was a discussion on how to measure height. There was talk about a different way of measuring not using the midpoint of a sloped roof. My concern if you do that you will be promoting a flat roof because people will try to maximize GFA (Gross Floor Area) in roof form. I would suggest you continue to measure if there is a sloped roof to the midpoint and potentially a lower height limit to a flat roof, recognizing that sloped roofs are part of the [character] of that neighbourhood.\u201d
\nLot coverage was another area of concern, he said, because there is a \u201chuge variance\u201d in lot sizes in each of the three neighbourhoods in question. If Council adopted a straight number when it came to lot coverage, some lots would be able to accommodate an \u201cextremely large footprint and still be within the 30 per cent.\u201d Using percentage as a tool is not effective in this case, he added, instead proposing a tool to determine that all-important GFA.
\n\u201cI like to think of looking at stable neighbourhoods as having the right connectivity between what the Official Plan says and what the zoning bylaw says and how you\u2019re going to use site plan approval as a new tool here to improve the product that is built,\u201d he said. \u201cOne thing that is very important based on my experience and the experience of others\u2026the more restrictive you are, there are impacts. There are impacts on the marketability of the property and there are impacts on price. Mostly, that comes from the fact that if you\u2019re shrink-wrapping an existing built form on the existing lot, you remove the market that is looking to rebuild and when you have a smaller market it tends to have an impact on price.\u201d
\nPart of that balance, at least from the perspective of real estate professionals, is making sure you\u2019re not \u201cstifling innovation, investment and change\u201d while recognizing there is value in \u201cmaintaining, conserving and promoting those really important character-giving elements that keep the neighbourhood a nice place to live.\u201d
\n\u201cI think you should proceed with new zoning for all three neighbourhoods, with some minor adjustments,\u201d Mr. Palmer told Councillors. \u201cTry not to use lot coverage as a tool, but perhaps go with a limit on gross floor area as a tool. Height limit of nine metres I think is appropriate. It is a moderating bylaw. It does have some effect, but it is not so restrictive that it will have a huge impact on property value and marketability.
\n\u201cIn addition, I think you should proceed with the development of a Council approved design guideline document that would be relatively generic, but it would help articulate more specifically what it is that you\u2019re trying to control through site plan approval. In fact, the preparation of these guidelines is a requirement to use site plan approvals to the full extent of the planning act and gets into architectural detail, colour and materials, which I think are actually important. The more restrictive you are, the deeper dive you take, the more important public consultation becomes. It\u2019s really, really important to get it right. It\u2019s a fundamental element of planning and people need to have a say and you need to hear from everybody.\u201d
\nCouncil accepted the consultant\u2019s recommendation on a unanimous vote, but various amendments were suggested by Councillors along the way that were ultimately rejected, including a suggested amendment from Councillor Rachel Gilliland which would have pinned down specifics on setbacks and driveway widths, steps the consultant suggested should come further down the road.
\n\u201cI think they are important issues to deal with, but I see them as being dealt with through the design guidelines or looking at individual areas,\u201d said Councillor Michael Thompson. \u201cI don\u2019t necessarily think driveway width is the same between all three neighbourhoods. This may not be a case where one size fits all. We\u2019ll get there and we\u2019ll deal with it, but it won\u2019t be at this stage.\u201d
\nIf Council accepts the report and recommendations that will be presented at the March Public Planning meeting without any further amendments, these changes will come onto the books. If any further amendments are made at that meeting, however, it would trigger another round of public consultation before a further Public Planning meeting.
\nCouncillor John Gallo left the door open to that possibility, stressing the importance of getting that balance just right.
\n\u201cI really don\u2019t want to rush this,\u201d he said. \u201cI realise we want to get it done fast, it has been a long time, and all of that, but we\u2019d be doing a disservice if we really rush this just to get it done. I don\u2019t think that\u2019s fair to anyone. I am not sure we have enough information, sitting here today, to answer all of those questions for March without further investigation and further consultation with residents. I know that might not be a popular opinion [but] I just want it done properly.\u201d
\nCouncillor Sandra Humfryes agreed: \u201cThe residents have waited for so long, so let\u2019s make sure we do it right and it is going to be an appropriate impact for everyone.\u201d<\/p>\n\"Facebook\"<\/a>\"twitter\"<\/a>\"mail\"<\/a>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Significant changes to building height and lot coverage in Aurora\u2019s Stable Neighbourhoods could be approved by the end of March following a Public Planning meeting last week.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22911","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general_news","category-news"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p3D2k4-5Xx","publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-04-22 23:05:48","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22911","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22911"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22911\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22911"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22911"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newspapers-online.com\/auroran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22911"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}