BARCLAY SQUARE & MARGARET DRIVE

Transcription

1 BARCLAY SQUARE & MARGARET DRIVE RESIDENTS SUBMISSION TO THE TOWN OF OAKVILLE SUBJECT: APPLICATION BY ONTARIO INC. FOR A PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING BY- LAW AMENDMENT This submission has been prepared on behalf of those residents of 223 Rebecca Street, known as Barclay Square, and of Margaret Drive who are strongly opposed to the application to re- zone and build six three/four storey town houses on 231 and 237 Rebecca Street. We would urge Council to reject the application outright as it does not meet the criteria contained in the Town s Official Plan, Livable Oakville, for such developments. The bases for our objection are encapsulated under the following general items: 1. Change of zoning. 2. Intensification issues. 3. Height of the proposed construction. 4. Privacy issues. 5. Destruction of trees. 6. Shading concerns. 7. Traffic and related issues. 8. Maintaining the character of the neighbourhood. 9. Storm water disposal. Each of these items is discussed in the submission and some photographic evidence of the inappropriateness of the proposed development is also attached. It should be noted that additional justification, including other visual evidence, will be presented at the public meeting of Council when that is scheduled. Also appended are the names and signatures of those residents who wish to place on record their opposition to the proposal. 1. Change of Zoning The proposal is to change the Official Plan and Zoning By- law to permit the two properties to be re- zoned Medium Density Residential from their current designation of Low Density Residential. This proposal is flawed for many reasons including the following: Council has recently been through an exhaustive zoning review (In- Zone) which included wide consultation with residents. At the end of that review, Council confirmed the current zoning of Low Density Residential for the subject properties. It is understood that no representation was made to Council by the owners of the properties during the consultation process. It would

2 therefore be quite inappropriate for Council to now change that zoning contrary to its own recent decision and the confirmed wishes of the Town s residents. Furthermore, the current designation of Low Density Residential stipulates a maximum of 29 properties per hectare. The developers intend to build at a density of 45 properties per hectare. This is close to the upper limit for Medium Density Residential which provides for a maximum of 49 properties per hectare. It would seem, therefore, that the developers not only want Council to change the zoning to Medium Density Residential but also want approval to build at a density that is near the maximum permissible for that designation. It is also noted that the developers are proposing to seek dispensation to build higher than permitted in the event that the zoning was changed. The maximum height allowed for Medium Density Residential is 12m to the highest point of the structure. The developers plans show that they intend to build to a height of 14.8m which is nearly 3m higher than permissible. This would only compound the already unacceptable scale of the proposed development and raises further doubts about the developers appreciation of the criteria contained in the Town s Livable Oakville plan. 2. Intensification Issues The developers have stated that further intensification in Oakville should not only be allowed but is actually required to meet Government of Ontario policy. However, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014 is clear about providing policy direction on matters related to protection of the environment, the use of appropriate development standards and the adequacy of existing infrastructure of public services. The Region of Halton Official Plan and the Town of Oakville (Livable Oakville) Official Plan are sympathetic to similar guidelines to urban intensification standards. Furthermore, it is understood that the Town has fully met its intensification targets in the Rebecca/Dorval area. Any suggestion that further intensification is needed or desirable is clearly fallacious, as it does not take into account the decisions recently approved by Council. 3. Height of the Proposed Construction Despite the zoning application referring to six three- storey street townhouses, these townhouses will, in fact, be four stories at the rear since the garages and entrance laneway at the rear are at grade level. As such, the four stories will be fully visible from the Barclay Square units. Thus the overall height of the proposed townhouses at 14.8m will tower over the Barclay Square properties, which have an overall height of 9m to 10.5m, from a distance of only 40m away. The outlook from the Barclay Square units will be that of an oppressive wall, 14.8m in height and some 35m in length. Livable Oakville states New development shall ensure that proposed building heights demonstrate compatibility with adjacent existing development.. The height of this proposed development is totally incompatible with the existing development at Barclay Square and is unacceptable.

3 4. Privacy Issues The master bedrooms and living rooms of the Barclay Square units adjacent to the site of the proposed development are on the south side of the units, facing the site. The height of the Barclay Square master bedroom windows is only 5m above grade. With the height of the proposed townhouses at 14.8m, the upper storey windows of the latter will be 12.75m above grade. Therefore, occupants will be looking down into the master bedrooms and living rooms and onto the patios, of the Barclay Square units, from only 40m away. This is an invasion of our privacy and is not acceptable. 5. Destruction of Trees The Town of Oakville actively supports policies which include the preservation of green spaces and trees. It has developed an Urban Forest Strategic Management Plan and the Official Plan, Livable Oakville, contains commitments to not only maintain the existing urban forest but also to progressively increase it to achieve a canopy cover of 40% town- wide. Despite that, studies suggest that about 1% of Oakville s canopy has been lost in the past 5 years. Most trees continue to be removed without planting or compensation and currently the Region is falling short of its objectives. The Arborist s Report, sponsored by the developer, identified 13 trees that should be preserved. However, based upon construction requirements, none of these trees would be retained. Furthermore, there are no specific plans to replace their loss, and given the nature of the proposed construction and site coverage there would appear to be very little opportunity to do so. We would like to highlight some specific trees identified in the Arborist s Report. Tree #4 is a large, mature tree located on the public sidewalk. It is an important part of the Rebecca Road streetscape, a Town asset and an integral part of the urban forest inventory. On that basis, removal is not acceptable. Tree #12 is outside the subject property, located on the Margaret Drive cul- de- sac and is in good condition. Due to the fact that the proposed development barely leaves any green space around the side yards, this tree will need to be removed as it will be in the way of the construction process. This demonstrates that not only is the development oversized for this site, but it would also affecting surrounding green spaces. Tree # 3 is inside the property line but it matches in size and complements the existing streetscape along Rebecca Road. Every effort should be made to retain this tree. It is further noted that the trees numbered 1,3,5,7,8,10,11 and 13 are located around the perimeter of the property and could be preserved had the development plans been in line with Livable Oakville standards. In summary, almost 10 existing trees could be spared from destruction if the proposed development was more suited to the site.

4 In addition to the concern about the Town losing many mature trees, there is a particular issue that affects those Barclay Square and Margaret Drive residents adjacent to the proposed development. The current large trees provide a screen between these residents units and the subject properties. This will be lost under the proposal and can never be replaced given the site coverage proposed which would leave no space for any useful planting. 6. Shading Concerns No shading study has been submitted by the applicant, despite the fact that the proposed development will be immediately to the south of the adjacent Barclay Square units, which are only 40m away. The concerns over shading apply not only to the Barclay Square units and patios but to the landscaped storm water collection area immediately outside of the rear fence of the site to be developed. What will be the effect on this vegetation, which is maintained as part of the Barclay Square common areas? 7. Traffic and Related Issues We have not seen a traffic report which should have been completed given the complexity of the access to the proposed development. In our opinion it is inevitable that current traffic and related problems will be exacerbated should this development proceed. It would appear that there would be up to twelve residents vehicles plus an additional ten to twelve spaces for visitors in the development. This assumes that visitors can actually park in the limited space available on the individual properties. The plans raise doubts that this is feasible without larger vehicles such as delivery and trades vans blocking access to the common driveway. No other visitor parking will be provided which suggests that people will try to park in no parking areas at the end of Margaret Drive. Other concerns relate to snow removal and garbage collection. It is unclear how snow can be removed from the development when there is patently no place to dump it, except on public property which would be contrary to the Town s rules. Although the developers make assurances that all garbage collection will take place on Rebecca Street, there will be an obvious temptation to have garbage trucks pick up at the end of Margaret Drive as an alternative to the residents taking bins from the back of the town houses and through the front doors. A fundamental issue is the appropriateness of using Margaret Drive as an access to properties that are actually on Rebecca Street. It is our understanding that the cul- de- sac at the end of Margaret Drive was vested in the Town when Barclay Square was developed. The primary purpose of the turning circle was to provide room for fire and other emergency vehicles to turn and carry out other maneuvers. As it transpired, it is also used as a safe place for small children to learn to ride bikes among other things, which would be lost to the community if access is provided to the proposed development. In the first place, the question should be asked whether the developers have the right to use the end of Margaret Drive for access. Secondly, a traffic report should review whether that

5 access (if it can be legitimately granted) is appropriate, taking into account parking, emergency vehicle requirements, snow removal and garbage collection. It is further noted that the developers (on page 21 of their Urban Design Brief) state that the Margaret Drive cul- de- sac is oversized with a radius of 22 m which is 7m greater than the Oakville standard of 15 m. By our measurements from the plans submitted, the cul- de- sac has a radius of only about 9 m which is consistent with the standard. This would appear to be a misleading statement made by the developers in the proposal. Finally, despite assurances to the contrary from the developers representative, it is inevitable that even more vehicles will use the Barclay Square private roads as short cuts. Already this intrusion is causing annoyance, safety concerns and higher costs for Barclay Square residents who are required to pay for road maintenance. The temptation will be for even more drivers to turn from Rebecca Street into Barclay Square en route to the end of Margaret Drive rather than go the long way round up Dorval Drive. 8. Maintaining the Character of the Neighbourhood The recently approved Town of Oakville plan part 11 clearly sets the standards for urban intensification, including: Development within all stable residential communities shall be evaluated using the following criteria to maintain and protect the existing neighbourhood character: a. The build form of development, including scale, height, massing, architectural character and materials, is to be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. We strongly feel that the proposed townhouse concept plans are incompatible, not only in scale, height and massing, but also disconnected in its architectural character to the immediate surroundings, which are the Barclay Square and Margaret Drive residences. Further, the proposed architectural style for such development neither reflects the existing character of the immediate surrounding nor complements it. The Urban Design Brief as submitted, makes reference to recently completed and much larger developments that are not within close proximity, such as the one located west of Rebecca and Dorval. Therefore, these developments should not be included in the neighbourhood context analysis. We strongly believe this proposal will negatively impact the existing character of the neighbourhood and it will bring an array of competing and conflicting built elements to the corner of Rebecca and Dorval streets, thus breaking the existing block pattern. 9. Storm Water Disposal This issue relates to the Review of Functional Servicing Report prepared by Cole Engineering Group LTD (file no. LD dated July 2014). Section 5.0 of that report indicates that the proposed townhouse development s storm drainage system will consist of private on- site storm sewers to drain the roofs and laneway. Based on the findings of the report, the existing Town storm sewer, located along Margaret

6 Drive and ultimately flowing to the Rebecca Street line, is not capable of absorbing the discharge coming from this site once developed, based on a 5 year storm event (let alone the 100 year event which would discharge four times the volume of the 5 year one). The solution proposed, is on- site storm water storage by means of tanks either located on the roof and/or underground. In order to meet the Town and Halton Region SWM design criteria, 20.2m3 storage capacity would have to be provided (for a 100 year event). While the provision of storage tanks is a common practice to address the excess volume of storm sewer generated by a developed site, it is usually implemented on industrial and commercial sites where large expanses of impervious grounds are often necessary. This approach is not expected on a 0.13 ha urban, low density zone environment. Such a solution demonstrates a clear indication that this proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site. In addition to the on- site storage tanks and as part of the Town and HRCA standards, this system must be capable of treating the storm water to Enhanced Level protection of 80% removal of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), as defined by Ministry of Environment Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (SWMPD). In summary, it is required that an Oil- Grit Separator (OGS) device be installed in order to guarantee the water quality being conveyed by the storm sewer system downstream. These devices must be regularly inspected and cleaned for removal of deposits in order to function properly. Failing to provide such required maintenance, the existing sewer line will be overcharged and pollutants will eventually make its way to our water courses, negatively impacting on our natural environment. This approach is contrary to the Livable Oakville standards (10.10 Stormwater Management, pg C- 42).

7 These two photographs show the current streetscape of Barclay Square and Margaret Drive immediately adjacent to the proposed development. They show the architectural style and the modest height of the two storey townhouses. On the second of the photographs, it is easy to visualize how the height, scale and mass of the three/four storey townhouses, if built in place of the existing single family homes, would be completely incompatible with the existing two storey townhouses in the immediate neighbourhood.

8 This photograph was taken remotely from the same height and location of the first floor deck of the easternmost proposed townhouse. It graphically shows how the deck will overlook the patios and living areas of the adjacent Barclay Square units and severely compromise the privacy of those residents. The outlook from the second and third stories of the proposed townhouses will be even more intrusive.

9 !!! The photograph of the existing two storey townhouses in Barclay Square and Margaret Drive is compared with a scaled side elevation of the proposed three/four storey townhouses. The difference in height, mass and style is immediately obvious.