Presentation to the Planning and Economic Development Committee
By J. Douglas Shenton
September 7, 2004

Ref: File #ZAR-04-51
Rezoning Application (26 Dennis Avenue, Flamborough)

Subject: Response to the Planning and Development Staff Report on an application for a change in Zoning for the Property at 26 Dennis Avenue (Flamborough) (PD04228) (Ward 15)

ORAL PRESENTATION

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee;

When a family makes a commitment to purchase a home, it is, quite simply, the most important decision of their lives. Not just on a financial plane, (though that is undeniably important), but on an emotional basis. That home represents the place where children will learn to look after a pet dog; where mothers will see their sons find their first love; and where fathers will see their daughters get married.

We purchased our dream home in Waterdown some six years ago. It was, for us, perfect. We designed it; watched it being built; changed our minds about a dozen times and, then, added on to our dreams annually. The whole experience was a labour of love. And it goes on.

When we moved to Waterdown; we thought the neighbourhood into which we had moved was stable; that the development had been completed. Little did we expect a concept known as 'infilling' would turn our world upside down.

Now, we don't know the following things as fact; but we would encourage Mr. Schmidt to contradict these assumptions. Our neighbours, the Ollman's, were going to be selling their home and moving into a retirement residence. The new owners, apparently, wished to purchase and renovate; and split the large Ollman parcel to help finance their acquisition.

The hounds were let loose. With the Consent Application to Sever; came many bureaucratic hoops through which we had never expected to have to jump. We have learned much, in the process.

The application to sever should have been thrown out at the Committee of Adjustment. To the best of our knowledge, at no time did anyone ask "Why is it necessary". It is our impression that a candid answer would have elicited a response that the severance was needed to finance the purchase of a home; and that the city wanted more tax revenue.

But, instead of candour, we were told that infilling was necessary to meet provincial policy which dictates development intensification. We were told that this policy would improve non-existent transit and that a greater density would encourage people to walk and cycle; apparently the city planners are unaware of the incompatibility of pedestrians and cyclists with automobiles.

It is our contention that the Staff Report has set out to mislead you. For example; you are told that only three letters of concern were presented to the Committee of Adjustment, despite the fact that the meeting was advertised and letters sent out to neighbours. The implication being given is that not very many people were concerned. In fact, there were more than a dozen people who showed up at that meeting; all of whom (with the exception of Mr. Schmidt), objected to the severance. Indeed; there was no one other than the applicant, who supported the Consent Application.

The reasons these people objected to the severance were valid. Previous development had resulted in increased runoff and flooding in lots along Rockcliffe Avenue. The proposed lot size was an anathema to the long-standing homes in the community. The new lot would be half the size of those on the north east and west side of it. It would remove a large, park-like tract the Ollman's had created. A new home being built would disrupt the serenity of the neighbourhood for the best part of a year. And yet, all of these valid concerns were rejected out of hand.

Most maddening was the attempt of the Staff Report authors to minimize the effect of the severance and to trivialize the position taken by those who objected to it. The report uses phrases such as "minor extension" and "only one dwelling". Well; to those affected, this proposal is a major change in the neighbourhood. And it is an outright lie that it only involves one dwelling. It is the fourth severance in recent memory and it immediately impacts at least four of the dwellings which this property abuts.

With respect to intensification; yes this was the policy of the Harris/Eves government. I would ask that you consider that, on many planes, the citizens of this province rebuked many of the former government's policies. It is good to make things self-sustaining; but when the pursuit of financial gods treads over the expected rights of citizens > and make no mistake about it; this is a fight for the right of the residents of our neighbourhood to the peaceful enjoyment of their property AS IT NOW EXISTS < then the policies are flawed and need to be examined.

The recommendations of the Committee of Adjustment are thoroughly inadequate to address the concerns of the neighbourhood. The drainage problem has been left to some vague agreement between the owner and the engineering department. If the project is to proceed; let the directions pertaining to drainage be precise. Questions were raised about the trees on the property. If the project is to proceed; then guarantee the preservation of those trees. At this juncture, we do not know where any driveway is to be placed or how many vehicles will be accommodated; we are only left with a vague direction about providing 'adequate off-street' parking.

Members of the Property and Development Committee; we ask that you reject the recommendations of the Property and Development Department.

Ours is not a neighbourhood undergoing development; it is an established, mature community. Ask the question that the Committee of Adjustment failed to ask; why is this development necessary? If, on balance, change provides more of a disservice than a benefit; shouldn't that transformation be rejected?

I hope that you will, at the very least, defer any decision until such time as you can absorb the reply we have prepared to the Staff Report. If it is still your decision to approve the rezoning; then we implore you to apply more stringent restrictions on the new home design; site drainage; and preservation of the trees.

Our home is in a stable neighbourhood. At least, we thought it was. Please, do what you can to preserve our quiet enjoyment of the community.

J. Douglas Shenton