Page 1 of Report

PB-88/11

Planning and Building Department TO: Community Development Committee

SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applications Report prepared for Statutory Public Meeting New Horizon Homes – Westwood Phases 1 and 2 980 & 986 Falcon Blvd. and 396 & 410 Plains Rd. E.

Report Number: PB-88/11 File Number(s): 505-01/10 & 520-02/10

Report Date: October 28, 2011 Ward(s) Affected: 1 2 3 4 5 6 All Date to Committee: November 14, 2011 Date to Council: November 28, 2011

Recommendation: RECEIVE the public comments concerning the Official Plan amendment and rezoning applications submitted by New Horizon Homes, proposing the development of a 4-storey apartment building as Phase 2 of the Westwood development located south of Plains Rd. E. and west of Falcon Blvd., attached as Appendices II, III and IV to Report PB-88/11. Files: 505-01/10 and 520-02/10

Purpose: Address goal, action or initiative in strategic plan Establish new or revised policy or service standard Respond to legislation Respond to staff direction Address other area of responsibility

The purpose of this report is to summarize the development applications submitted by New Horizon Homes and the current policy framework. The report also identifies key issues raised from the technical review and public consultation concerning these applications. In accordance with the Planning Division’s revised approach for processing development applications, as outlined in Report PB-57/11 (approved by Council September 26, 2011), this report is intended as background information to the statutory public

Page 2 of Report

PB-88/11

meeting required under The Planning Act. A detailed discussion of the issues and a recommendation on the applications will be addressed in a future report.

Reference to Strategic Plan:

Managed Growth

3.1. D Establish more environmentally responsible and mixed use development, working with local landowners and/or developers in greenfield and infill areas to create a leading residential development based on sustainable design principles.

3.2 .B Facilitate development that supports the use of public transit.

3.2 .C Identify opportunities to achieve provincial intensification targets for residential developments within the built up area of the city while respecting the character of neighbourhoods and the quality of life in Burlington’s established residential areas.

Page 3 of Report

PB-88/11

REPORT FACT SHEET

RECOMMENDATION: Receive public comments Ward No.: 1

App

licat

ion

Det

ails

APPLICANT/OWNER: New Horizon Homes

FILE NUMBERS: 505-01/10 and 520-02/10

TYPE OF APPLICATIONS: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments

PROPOSED USE:

Comprehensive development comprised of the existing 5-storey, 49-unit apartment building (constructed in 2008) and the proposed Phase 2, a 4-storey, 37-unit apartment building.

Prop

erty

Det

ails

PROPERTY LOCATION: South side of Plains Road E., west side of Falcon Blvd.

MUNICIPAL ADDRESSES: 980 & 986 Falcon Blvd.; 396 & 410 Plains Rd. E.

PROPERTY DIMENSIONS: Area: 0.636 ha

EXISTING USE: A 5-storey, 49-unit apartment building; a vacant property and 2 detached dwellings (to be demolished)

Doc

umen

ts

OFFICIAL PLAN Existing: Mixed Use Corridor-General and Residential-Low Density

OFFICIAL PLAN Proposed: Mixed Use Corridor-General

ZONING Existing: MXG and R2.1

ZONING Proposed: MXG-exception

Proc

essi

ng D

etai

ls

NEIGHBOURHOOD MEETINGS:

1) March 30, 2010 at Holy Rosary School

attended by approx. 150 people. 2) September 19, 2011 at East Plains United

Church attended by approx. 60 people

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Appendix II – 26 comments responding to initial applications (March- April 2010) Appendix III – 6 comments responding to initial applications (scanned documents) Appendix IV – 16 comments responding to revised applications (September- October 2011)

Page 4 of Report

PB-88/11

Background:

Site Description

In February 2010, New Horizon Homes submitted applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the development of a 4-storey residential apartment building as Phase 2 of the Westwood development located on the south side of Plains Rd. E. and west of Falcon Blvd. Westwood Phase 1 is a 5-storey apartment building located on the western portion of the site that was constructed in 2008. The subject applications affect 4 properties at 980 & 986 Falcon Blvd. and 396 & 410 Plains Rd. E. as shown on Location/Zoning Sketch No 1 and the aerial photo below. The properties have a combined area of approximately 0.636 ha. Existing uses of the property include the 49-unit Phase 1 apartment building, cleared lands to the east of this building and two detached dwelling units on the Falcon Blvd. properties.

Surrounding Land Uses

Surrounding land uses are as follows:

East of 986 & 980 Falcon Blvd: Falcon Blvd. and a detached dwelling. A Tim Horton’s restaurant is located at the southeast corner of Plains Rd E. and Falcon Blvd.

South of 980 Falcon Blvd., 396 & 410 Plains Rd. E.

Detached dwellings

West of 396 Plains Rd E.: 3-storey live-work units and townhouses (Branthaven’s Mosaic development)

Page 5 of Report

PB-88/11

North of 396 Plains Rd. E.: Plains Rd. E., 4-storey residential building (Dovercourt) and a florist shop

North of 986 Falcon Blvd. & 410 Plains Rd. E.:

A 2-storey mixed use building (service commercial & office uses on the ground floor and apartments on the 2nd floor)

Previous Development Files

The westerly properties have been the subject of several development applications since 2005 resulting in the development of the Phase 1 Westwood building. A summary of these applications is provided below.

1. Site Plan (File: 535-15/05) – Chateau Grande proposal

A site plan application was submitted by Active Developments in April 2005 proposing a 39-unit 4-storey apartment building with one level of underground parking on the two MXG-zoned properties known as 396 and 402 Plains Rd. E. Several variances were required to support this development addressing such matters as side yard setbacks for the underground parking structure, setbacks to the street for the parking lot and an increase in floor area ratio from 1.0:1 to 1.21:1. The variances were approved by the Committee of Adjustment in June 2005 and an appeal was submitted by the owner of the adjacent property at 410 Plains Rd. E. This property was subsequently sold and the appeal withdrawn. Final site plan approval for this development, known as Chateau Grande, was issued on March 30, 2006 and a zoning clearance was issued on April 3, 2006. Implementation of this site plan did not proceed as the properties were sold to New Horizon Homes.

2. Site Plan (File: 535-19/07) – Westwood proposal

A site plan application was submitted by New Horizon Homes in June 2007 proposing a 49-unit 5-storey apartment building with one level of underground parking on the same footprint as the approved Chateau Grande plan. New Horizon Homes had purchased the adjacent property at 410 Plains Rd. E. so was able to relocate the proposed apartment driveway to the eastern part of the site and provide an at-grade link between the visitor parking at the front and rear of the building.

Similar to the 2005 site plan application, several variances were required to support the development addressing such matters as setbacks, landscape strips and an increase in floor area ratio from 1.0:1 to 1.17:1. The variances were approved by the Committee of Adjustment in September 2007.

Page 6 of Report

PB-88/11

In Fall 2007 New Horizon Homes advised staff they were acquiring the properties east of the development area and were intending to design a Phase 2 building that could be linked to Phase 1 by the easterly extension of the underground parking garage. Preliminary comments indicated the future Phase 2 would be proposed as a 3-storey building. No plans were submitted for Phase 2 and this proposal was not evaluated as part of the site plan approval for the Phase 1 building. The proposed Phase 2 development would be the subject of future planning applications. Draft site plan approval was granted on December 4, 2007, and final site plan approval on March 11, 2008 for the Phase 1 apartment building (11 1-bedroom units, 28 2-bedroom units, and 92 parking spaces).

3. Condominium Exemption (File: 525-05/08) – Westwood

In August 2008, New Horizon Homes submitted a condominium application for the properties at 396, 402 & 410 Plains Rd. E. and 980 & 986 Falcon Blvd. The application indicates that the first phase of the development is 49 units and the proposed second phase, that requires Official Plan and zoning amendment approvals, is 29 units. The submission indicates that if the planning applications were to be approved, the two buildings would be merged into one condominium.

Phased condominiums are permitted under The Condominium Act. All development approvals are not required to be in place for an overall concept plan to be approved. Only approvals for the phase to be registered need to be in place and the builder must disclose to the condominium board of the first phase that the next phase is not approved and is subject to change. On June 17, 2009, Halton Condominium Corporation 551 was registered.

Current Development Applications (Feb 2010)

The official plan amendment and rezoning applications that are the subject of this report were submitted in February 2010. The purpose of the applications was to permit the development of a 4 storey 35-unit apartment building as Phase 2 of the Westwood development as shown on Detail Sketch No. 2. Since at the time of Phase 1 the applicant was considering a future second phase, the underground parking for Phase 1 was designed so it could be extended to service a proposed second building if a second building was approved. All access to resident parking for Phase 2 is proposed through Phase 1 (i.e. the Plains Rd. E. driveway). Emergency access, loading/unloading, visitor parking and a pedestrian entrance for Phase 2 are proposed from Falcon Blvd.

Page 7 of Report

PB-88/11

The official plan amendment application requests redesignation of 980 & 986 Falcon Blvd. from “Residential- Low Density” to ”Mixed Use Corridor-General” to permit the proposed Phase 2 development. The rezoning application affects all four properties and requests rezoning from “MXG” and “R2.1” to a “modified MXG” zone to permit a comprehensive development of the existing and proposed residential buildings. The applications propose only residential uses with a floor area ratio of 1.32:1. The following reports were submitted in support of the applications and were circulated for review to appropriate technical staff:

1. Planning Justification Report, IBI, Jan 20/10 2. Preliminary site plan, underground parking layout, survey 3. Elevations 4. Vegetation Management Plan 5. Stormwater Management Report (S. Llewellyn) Aug/09 6. Water & wastewater letter (S. Llewellyn), Mar 2/10 7. Environmental Site Screening Checklist, Mar 3/10 8. Results of Soil Analyses, Inspec Sol, Dec 9/05 9. Noise Control Study (SS Wilson Assoc), Nov 16/09 10. Building heights letter (Mar 22/10) Review of February 2010 Applications

The official plan amendment and rezoning applications were circulated for public and technical comment in March 2010. A neighbourhood meeting was held on March 30, 2010 that was attended by approximately 150 residents. Many comments were submitted following this meeting outlining concerns with the proposed development. These issues are summarized in the Public Consultation section of this report and the comments are attached in Appendices II and III. The technical review of the applications also resulted in a number of concerns with the development proposal generally related to design/ compatibility issues along the Falcon Blvd. frontage and the interface with the abutting Finch Ave. properties, visitor parking, pedestrian connections to Plains Rd. E, grading and stormwater management. Staff met with the applicant to discuss the public and technical concerns in June 2010. The applicant then participated in several smaller group meetings with staff and interested Aldershot residents that were co-ordinated by Councillor Craven. Following these meetings, New Horizon Homes advised they would revise the applications to address some of the concerns raised.

Revised Development Applications (August 2011)

Revised official plan amendment and rezoning applications were submitted in August 2011 as shown in Detail Sketch No. 3. The revised development applications still request redesignation of 980 and 986 Falcon Blvd. from “Residential–Low Density” to “Mixed Use Corridor-General” to permit the proposed Phase 2 development. The revised rezoning application affects all four properties seeking a rezoning from

Page 8 of Report

PB-88/11

“MXG” and “R2.1” to a “modified MXG” zone to permit a comprehensive development of the existing and proposed residential buildings in accordance with the revised plans and elevations. The changes to the development proposal address technical and design issues raised from the review of the initial applications and are summarized as follows: Reduction in the visitor parking spaces along the Falcon Blvd.

frontage from 12 to 9 spaces (including a loading space) Redesign of the looped driveway for visitor parking along Falcon Blvd.

to have a single entrance/exit Increase in the landscape area between the visitor parking area and

974 Falcon Blvd. (from 3.05 to 8.90 meters) so the required 6 metre buffer can be provided south of the proposed Phase 2 building

Revised elevations that lower the Falcon Blvd. facade to 3 storeys and step the building back to 4 storeys; addition of gable ends to break up the massing; and a change in the roof design from a flat roof to a peaked roof, as shown in Sketches No. 4 and 5.

Reduction in the width of the building from 22.25 to 20.3 metres Increase in the number of units from 34 to 37 as smaller units, all 1-

bedroom, are now proposed Updated technical reports were also submitted with the revised applications and have been circulated for review. These include: 1. Revised Planning Justification Report, IBI Group, Aug 16/11 2. Preliminary site plan, underground parking layout and Landscape Plan,

IBI Group 3. Elevations prepared by KNY architects inc. 4. Revised Stormwater Management Report (S. Llewellyn & assoc); July

2011; further revision to this report in October 2011 A neighbourhood meeting to present the revised development proposal was held at East Plains United Church on September 19, 2011. This meeting was attended by approximately 60 individuals. Comments submitted in response to the revised applications are attached in Appendix IV.

Discussion: POLICY FRAMEWORK

The applications are subject to the following policy framework: the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Halton Region Official Plan, the Burlington Official Plan and Zoning By-law 2020.

Provincial Policy Statement

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) came into effect March 1, 2005 and provides broad policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS identifies settlement areas as the focus of growth, supports development within

Page 9 of Report

PB-88/11

settlement areas based on densities and a land use mix that efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and directs that opportunities for intensification and redevelopment be identified and promoted where this can be accommodated. It further supports promotion of development standards “which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety” and directs planning authorities to “establish and implement minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within built-up areas.”

Places to Grow Growth Plan

Places to Grow, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, came into effect in June 2006 and provides a growth management policy direction for the defined growth plan area. The guiding principles of the Growth Plan include building compact, vibrant and complete communities; and optimizing the use of existing and new infrastructure to support growth in a compact, efficient form. Section 2.2.2 of the Growth Plan, Managing Growth, states that Population and Employment Growth will be accommodated by- a) directing a significant portion of the new growth to the built-up areas

of the community through intensification b) focusing intensification in intensification areas d) reducing dependence on the automobile through the development of

mixed-use, transit-supportive, pedestrian-friendly urban environments The Plan further requires that by 2015, at least 40% of all residential development occurring annually shall be within the built-up area.

Regional Official Plan

The subject properties are designated “Urban Area” in the Regional Official Plan (ROP). The ROP states that the range of permitted uses in the Urban Area will be in accordance with Local Official Plans and Zoning By-laws however all development is subject to the policies of the ROP. The ROP includes policies that support development in the urban system that is compact, transit-supportive and makes efficient use of resources and supplies. It also supports provision of an adequate mix and variety of housing to meet different needs. Halton Region planning staff has reviewed the proposed applications and has indicated they are consistent with the ROP.

Burlington Official Plan 1) Land Use

Designations:

396 & 410 Plains Rd. E. are designated “Mixed Use Corridor-General” in Burlington’s Official Plan and are zoned “MXG” in Zoning By-law 2020. This designation permits a wide range of retail and service commercial uses, to be provided at street level in office or residential

Page 10 of Report

PB-88/11

buildings, that are intended to provide for the day-to-day and weekly shopping needs of residents within and close to the corridor. High density residential uses and a full range of office uses are also permitted. The zoning provides a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5:1, a minimum building height of 2 stories and a maximum building height of 6 stories. 980 and 986 Falcon Blvd. are designated “Residential–Low Density” in Burlington’s Official Plan and are zoned “R2.1” under Zoning By-law 2020. The Official Plan designation permits detached and semi-detached housing units up to 25 units per hectare. Other forms of ground-oriented, attached housing may also be permitted if compatible with the scale, design and community features of the neighbourhood. The R2.1 zoning permits detached units with a minimum lot area of 700 m2.

The applications propose the redesignation of 980 and 986 Falcon Blvd. from “Residential-Low Density” to “Mixed Use Corridor-General.” The development proposal is for residential uses only (no commercial or office) and proposes a 4-storey building height so is not seeking the maximum range of uses or development intensity permitted in the mixed use corridor designation. If approved, the density for the entire site would be 136 units per hectare and the floor area ratio would be 1.32:1. The City established the mixed use corridor designation along Plains Road, identifying it as a future intensification corridor, with the approval of the 1997 Official Plan. The depth of the mixed use corridor along Plains Road is not consistent as it tended to follow the property lines of properties having frontage on Plains Rd. in accordance with the objective of providing “locations along multi-purpose arterial or major arterial roads that will serve as areas of concentration for mixed use developments with high density residential, retail, service commercial, office, entertainment, community facilities and institutions, and open space uses.” The applicant’s proposal to add 980 & 986 Falcon Blvd. to the mixed use corridor designation would have the effect of creating a consistent “MXG” depth along the south side of Plains Rd. for properties located between Filmandale Rd. and Falcon Blvd.

2) Mixed Use

Corridor Evaluation Criteria

Part III, Section 5.3.2 j) of the Official Plan provides evaluation criteria to be considered in reviewing proposals for redesignation of lands to mixed use corridor. These criteria, to be assessed by staff in the subsequent recommendation report, are described below: (i) the impact of the proposal on adjacent land uses, particularly

residential; (ii) adequate municipal services are available; (iii) sufficient on-site parking is provided; (iv) the site is served by efficient peak period public transit;

Page 11 of Report

PB-88/11

(v) vehicular access to and from the site does not adversely affect local streets; and

(vi) the site is located on a multi-purpose arterial or major arterial road that can accommodate the anticipated traffic.

3) Housing

Intensification The Burlington Official Plan also encourages residential intensification in the Urban Planning Area provided that the amount and form of intensification is balanced with other planning considerations including infrastructure capacity, compatibility and integration with existing residential neighbourhoods. Part III, Section 2.5.2 a) of the Official Plan provides criteria, listed below, that are to be considered when evaluating housing intensification proposals within established neighbourhoods. An assessment of the development proposal in terms of these criteria will be provided in the future recommendation report. (i) Adequate municipal services to accommodate the increased

demands are provided, including such services as water, wastewater and storm sewers, school accommodation and parkland;

(ii) off-street parking is adequate; (iii) the capacity of the municipal transportation system can

accommodate any increased traffic flows, and the orientation of ingress and egress and potential increased traffic volumes to multi-purpose, minor and major arterial roads and collector streets rather than local residential streets;

(iv) the proposal is in proximity to existing or future transit facilities; (v) compatibility is achieved with the existing neighbourhood

character in terms of scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks, coverage, parking and amenity area so that a transition between existing and proposed buildings is provided;

(vi) effects on existing vegetation are minimized, and appropriate

compensation is provided for significant loss of vegetation, if necessary to assist in maintaining neighbourhood character;

(vii) significant sun-shadowing for extended periods on adjacent

properties, particularly outdoor amenity areas, is at an acceptable level;

(viii) accessibility exists to community services and other

neighbourhood conveniences such as community centres, neighbourhood shopping centres and health care;

Page 12 of Report

PB-88/11

(ix) capability exists to provide adequate buffering and other measures to minimize any identified impacts.

(x) where intensification potential exists on more than one adjacent

property, any re-development proposals on an individual property shall demonstrate that future re-development on adjacent properties will not be compromised, and this may require the submission of a tertiary plan, where appropriate;

(xi) natural and cultural heritage features and areas of natural hazard

are protected; (xii) where applicable, there is consideration of the policies of Part II,

Subsection 2.11.3, g) and m); and (xiii) proposals for non-ground oriented housing intensification shall be

permitted only at the periphery of existing residential neighbourhoods on properties abutting, and having direct vehicular access to, major arterial, minor arterial or multi-purpose arterial roads and only provided that the built form, scale and profile of development is well integrated with the existing neighbourhood so that a transition between existing and proposed residential buildings is provided.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Initial public circulation and neighbourhood meeting

The initial applications were received in February 2010 and the standard notice of applications and invitation to a neighbourhood meeting was distributed to property owners within 120 m of the subject properties on March 9, 2010. Staff became aware of a letter distributed to Aldershot residents about the proposal by a local resident when dozens of counter and phone inquiries were received requesting copies of the city’s notice and seeking further information on the development proposal. Staff was later advised by the local resident that the letter, attached to this report as Appendix I, was delivered to approximately 1,000 households in Aldershot. Staff therefore relocated the neighbourhood meeting to a larger venue, sent out updated meeting notice letters and prepared a newspaper ad to advise of the change in meeting location. The first neighbourhood meeting was held March 30, 2010 at Holy Rosary School and attended by approximately 150 people generally opposed to the development proposal. Resident concerns are listed in the 32 public comment letters received attached as Appendices II and III to this report.

Neighbourhood working group

Given the concerns raised at the meeting, Councillor Craven invited interested individuals to meet with him separately to discuss the development proposal further and determine if they wished to become

Page 13 of Report

PB-88/11

more involved in the process and/or prepare recommendations for improving the development concept. Several attendees responded and five meetings were hosted by Councillor Craven between May 2010 and August 2010 to discuss this proposed development. Staff attended four of these meetings and the developer was invited and attended the final three meetings. Agenda items at these meetings included the planning process and criteria that planning staff use to review development proposals, more in-depth discussion of the residents’ concerns with the proposal, and a review of alternative design concepts prepared by the developer. At the end of the fifth meeting New Horizon Homes indicated they would revise the applications to address some of the identified concerns. Staff advised this would require a recirculation to the public and a second neighbourhood meeting. It is noted that some working group members remained totally opposed to the applications. Others indicated the revised development concept, with a redesigned and reduced visitor parking area, additional landscaping and revised elevations, was a significant improvement but further work was recommended to create a more “residential” facade along the Falcon frontage.

Second public circulation and neighbourhood meeting

The revised applications were received August 19, 2011 and an invitation to a neighbourhood meeting to present the revised concepts was distributed on August 29th to property owners within 120 m of the site as well as all individuals who had attended the first meeting or submitted comments (440 letters). This meeting was held on September 19, 2011 at East Plains United Church and attended by approximately 60 people. 16 public comment letters were received and are attached in Appendix IV.

Public Comments

The key themes of the public comments provided at the neighbourhood meetings, working group meetings, submitted comment sheets and letters, and preliminary staff responses, are listed below:

1) The character of Aldershot is primarily single family and should be maintained. Aldershot was designated for single family residences more than 50 years ago and should not be changed. There has been too much development in Aldershot recently and efforts should be made to preserve the quality of life in Aldershot. High-rise buildings and commercial development are not appropriate in Aldershot. The proposal will change the character of the north part of Falcon Blvd. and this is a “residential” street. Only single family dwellings should be permitted along all streets below Plains Rd. in Birdland.

Page 14 of Report

PB-88/11

Staff comment South Aldershot is recognized as a unique community in Burlington and the majority of the lands are designated Residential-Low Density. The Plains Road Corridor has been identified since 1997 as an area where higher intensity, transit-supportive and pedestrian-oriented mixed use development is encouraged. This designation of mixed use corridors and centres in the Burlington Official Plan focuses intensification to certain areas that can accommodate these intensities, but also requires that issues such as massing, siting, building height, setbacks, parking and coverage be evaluated to provide a transition between existing and proposed buildings. The development proposal requires an amendment to the Official Plan to redesignate the two Falcon Blvd. properties. If the application is approved, it would create a consistent depth of mixed use corridor properties along the south side of Plains Rd. E. between Filmandale Rd. and Falcon Blvd. The proposed development intensity falls into the high density range permitted in mixed use corridors but at four storeys is less than the six storeys permitted in the designation and would be considered a mid-rise development. The Official Plan’s mixed use corridor-general designations along Plains Rd., Brant St. and Fairview St. generally abut lands designated low density residential. To address compatibility with adjacent detached residential dwellings, the zoning by-law includes regulations for MXG zones requiring landscape buffers and increased yards for higher buildings. The subject proposal complies with the required 6m landscape buffer from a residential property for the Phase 2 building. The required yard abutting a residential zone is 12m for Floors 1 to 3 of a building and 15m for the 4th floor. The application is seeking a reduction to 11.13m for all floors. While the mixed use corridor designation runs parallel to Plains Rd., it also includes properties fronting on the intersecting side streets. Official Plan policies direct that “the number and location of vehicular access points shall be limited to minimize disruption to traffic flows and to minimize impact on local streets.” The subject proposal provides access to all resident parking from the existing driveway on Plains Rd. E. leading to the underground parking garage. The revised plan provides a single access along Falcon Blvd. to the visitor parking area accommodating 8 spaces and a loading space, located 8.9m from the residential property to the south.

2) Preconsultation Process, timing of public engagement and phasing of development

Concerned that staff may be providing an informal opinion in the

Page 15 of Report

PB-88/11

preconsultation process that encourages developers to proceed with applications. The public does not become aware of applications until proposal is submitted and this is too late. There was no reference to Phase 2 when the first phase was constructed and there is no association between the two phases. 

Staff Comment: The preconsultation stage provides the opportunity for an applicant to discuss a “preliminary” development concept with staff from the city, region and other agencies. The purpose of this stage is for technical staff to advise of applicable fees, plans and background reports that would be required for an application to be accepted as complete so it can be processed. Applicants are also advised of issues that need further investigation and preliminary concerns with the proposal. In many cases applicants will revise the proposal to address concerns discussed or decide not to proceed with an application if major policy or technical matters are identified. The process is not designed to provide a preliminary staff position as there is insufficient information to do this and no detailed review has been undertaken. There is no public involvement at this stage because there is no submitted plan to review and the proposal may not proceed. If an application is submitted and deemed complete (i.e. includes all required fees, forms, reports) the city is required under The Planning Act to accept and process the application. A key step in the initial processing of applications for Official Plan or Zoning By-law amendments, is informing the public that the application has been submitted and providing sufficient information for them to assess the potential impact of the proposal. This typically involves the posting of a notice sign on the property by the applicant, distribution of a notice letter to residents within 120m of the property by the city, and for infill applications, the scheduling of a neighbourhood meeting. The Phase 1 Westwood development did not require an Official Plan or Zoning By-law amendment. The apartment building use was permitted and the development proceeded with a site plan approval process that does not require a public process under The Planning Act and a variance application before the Committee of Adjustment. This latter process would have involved a notice sign on the property and a notice to residents within 60m of the property.

Page 16 of Report

PB-88/11

A review of the site plan file for the Phase 1 development indicates the applicant did revise the site plan in September 2007 because of the intent to have a future Phase 2 underground parking connection but no Phase 2 plans were submitted for consideration. The Phase 1 development received draft site plan approval in December 2007.

The applicant scheduled a preconsultation meeting with staff in January 2008 that proposed a 3-storey 29-unit building as Phase 2. As discussed above, the objective of the preconsultation stage is to discuss application requirements and preliminary issues with the applicant. File notes indicate a meeting with Councillor Craven, the developer, planning staff and 3 area residents was held on February 13, 2008 so there was some public knowledge of a proposed future Phase 2. However until an application is submitted, in this case February 2010, no notice is provided to the broader community. The relationship between the existing and proposed Phase 2 building includes the access from Plains Road to the connected underground parking garage for residents, visitor parking, a sidewalk linking the two buildings, and if approved, both buildings would be part of the same phased condominium development.

3) Precedent for similar development in South Aldershot

Approval of this proposal would set a dangerous precedent that a developer could assemble two R2.1-zoned lots anywhere in Aldershot and request a similar type of development resulting in piece-meal conversion of the area from single family to multi-unit dwellings. Staff comment Each development application is considered on its merits based on the policy context, unique site characteristics and details of the development proposal. It is staff’s opinion that 980 & 986 Falcon Blvd. can be distinguished from most other R2.1 zoned properties in South Aldershot. This is because assembled with the adjacent Plains. Rd. properties they have direct access to an arterial road on a site served by efficient peak period transit, and if approved, would result in a consistent depth of the mixed use corridor along this segment of Plains Road. The majority of the Residential Low-Density lands in South Aldershot would not satisfy the criteria of the mixed use corridor designation. Any application for infill development also needs to be evaluated against the intensification criteria listed in the Official Plan. This will be undertaken for the subject applications in the future recommendation report.

Page 17 of Report

PB-88/11

4) Increased traffic and the impact on Falcon Blvd.

Concerns about increased traffic on Plains Rd., the difficulty making left turns at the unsignalized Plains Rd. E. and Falcon Blvd. intersection, and traffic infiltration on Falcon Blvd. and other local roads in South Aldershot resulting from the siting of the proposed visitor parking area on Falcon Blvd. Staff Comment: Transportation staff reviewed this proposal and its projected impacts on the road network. They advise that the eastbound and westbound volumes on Plains Rd. E. are operating under capacity during AM and PM peak hours. The proposed Phase 2 development has been designed to use the existing access on Plains Rd. E. with emergency, visitor and loading access from Falcon Blvd. The 37 units proposed in Phase 2 are expected to generate approximately 13 trips in the AM peak hour and 15 trips in the PM peak hour. The existing Phase 1 generates approximately 17 trips in the AM peak hour and 19 trips in the PM peak hour. The total approximate trips to be generated by the two phases would therefore be 30 in the AM peak hour and 34 in the PM peak hour. The generated site traffic is not anticipated to have an impact on the operations on Plains Rd E. Transportation staff also advised that the existing weekday peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Falcon Blvd. and Plains Rd. E. were found to be operating at an acceptable level of service and are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under the projected background and site traffic volumes. A safety review was completed at Falcon Blvd. and Plains Rd E. after the initial applications were submitted and it was determined the signal warrant justification was not met. Transportation staff is committed however to continue monitoring this intersection in the future.

5) Consideration of public comments by staff in the review of applications. Think an application should be refused if community members indicate they are opposed. Find objections of long term residents are routinely ignored. Staff comment As discussed earlier, public engagement is an important component of the planning process that is required under The Planning Act for certain types of development applications. This process typically includes advising the public of submitted development applications,

Page 18 of Report

PB-88/11

providing information about the development proposal and opportunities to discuss the proposal in a public forum, recording the public comments, including them in a report that is provided to the decision makers, and considering the public comments in the review of the applications along with all other matters to be considered in preparing a recommendation for consideration by the decision makers. Planning staff’s review of an application and the preparation of a recommendation requires staff to determine whether a proposal is “in the public interest”. Public interest is a broad term that encompasses more than the input of the individuals who attend a meeting. Planners are required to consider the development proposal in terms of approved provincial, regional and municipal policy documents and development objectives, and the needs of the broader community. Detailed review and consideration of submitted public comments is undertaken by staff in looking at the impacts of and issues associated with a development proposal but the comments do not dictate the recommendation. Rather the comments are considered along with all other relevant matters and are then attached to the staff report so they can also be considered by Council members in making their decision on the proposal.

6) Diminished Privacy

Proposal will impact privacy of residents adjacent to development, particularly residents along Finch Avenue.

Staff comments: The mixed use corridor designation along major arterial roads in Burlington in many cases abuts low density residential areas. To address compatibility of these two land use designations, the zoning by-law provides regulations addressing such things as setbacks and landscape buffers. With the proposed 4-storey Phase 2 building, the revised proposal meets the 6 m landscape buffer requirement but is seeking a reduction in the setback from the R2.1 properties. This request is among the items under consideration in the development of a recommendation on the applications. Staff is also aware of an outstanding issue associated with the Phase 1 building because of the grade change resulting from the impact of a high water table on the development of the underground parking garage. This has created impacts on some lots to the south caused by headlight glare from cars heading to the parking garage entrance. These impacts require further mitigation whether or not Phase 2 goes ahead.

Page 19 of Report

PB-88/11

7) Construction Impacts

Suggest that construction access would likely be from Falcon Blvd. and this would disrupt the neighbourhood. The land area for storage of excavation material would be inadequate and there is no room for construction workers to park their vehicles. Residents should not have to deal with detours, noise and dust. Staff comment: Staff recognizes that construction causes disruption to surrounding areas while it is underway. If the official plan amendment and rezoning applications were approved, the applicant’s next step would be to submit a site plan application and it is at this stage that staff requires a developer to submit a construction management plan. Staff can then prepare site plan conditions and require securities to minimize disruption. New Horizon Homes advised at the neighbourhood meeting that they had made an arrangement with a nearby church to use part of their property for construction staging and parking during the Westwood Phase 1 construction. If the applications were to be approved, it is possible a similar arrangement could be made for Phase 2.  

Financial Matters: Financial matters will be addressed in the future recommendation report

on these applications.

Environmental Matters: Environmental matters will be addressed in the future recommendation

report to these applications.

Communication Matters: Technical Comments

All internal departments and external agencies responding to the circulation indicated no objections to the applications. These include comments from Halton Region, the Halton District School Board, the Halton Catholic District School Board, Canada Post, and Bell Network Services. Conditions were requested by several departments and agencies and will be addressed further in the future recommendations report.

Public Notice The expanded public consultation process for these applications and a

summary of the public comments are described earlier in this report.

Page 20 of Report

PB-88/11

Report PB-88/11 has been prepared for the statutory public meeting for these applications so notice of the November 14th meeting has been sent to the following: 1) property owners within 120 m of the properties under application; 2) persons that attended and signed the sign-in sheets at either the

March 30, 2010 or September 19, 2011 neighbourhood meetings; 3) persons that submitted written comments on the applications; and 4) those that submitted a request to be added to the mailing list for

these applications. A further public notice will be sent when a recommendation report is prepared for the Community Development Committee of Council to the following: 1) persons that attended and signed the sign-in sheets at either the

March 30, 2010 or September 19, 2011 neighbourhood meetings; 2) persons that submitted written comments on the applications; 3) persons that appeared as a delegation at the statutory public

meeting; and 4) those that submitted a request to be notified of this future meeting

date.

Conclusion: This report provides a description of the development applications and submits the public comments received on this proposal for receipt by the Community Development Committee. A subsequent report will provide an analysis of the proposal in terms of applicable planning policies and will provide a recommendation on the applications. Respectfully submitted, Silvina Kade Senior Planner-Development ext. 7871 Appendices: I Letter delivered by local resident to Aldershot households.

II....Public Comments received concerning initial applications (March–April 2010)

III...Public Comments received concerning initial applications (separate appendix for letters that are scanned)

IVI Public Comments received concerning revised applications (September–October 2011)

Page 21 of Report

PB-88/11

Approvals: *required

*Department City Treasurer General Manager City Manager

To be completed by the Clerks Department Committee Disposition & Comments

01-Approved 02-Not Approved 03-Amended 04-Referred 06-Received & Filed 07-Withdrawn

Council Disposition & Comments

01-Approved 02-Not Approved 03-Amended 04-Referred 06-Received & Filed 07-Withdrawn

Special Instructions: Statutory Public Meeting

Notifications: (after Council decision)

Name Mailing or E-mail Address

See file

Page 22 of Report

PB-88/11

Page 23 of Report

PB-88/11

Page 24 of Report

PB-88/11

Page 25 of Report

PB-88/11

Sketch No. 4 BUILDING ELEVATION FACING FALCON BOULEVARD

(prepared by applicant)

Initial Applications (February 2010) 15.9 m to peak; 13.2 m to flat roof

Revised Applications (August 2011) 14.4 m to peak; 12.7 m to the front

Page 26 of Report

PB-88/11

Sketch No. 5

BUILDING ELEVATION FACING SOUTH (prepared by applicant)

Initial Applications (February 2010)

Revised Applications (August 2011)

Page 27 of Report

PB-88/11

APPENDIX I Letter distributed by local resident to Aldershot households, March 2010

Page 28 of Report

PB-88/11

APPENDIX II Public Comments received concerning initial applications

(March – April 2010) 1. Email received March 18, 2010 from Terry Stewart and on behalf of Mrs. Frances Stewart,

319 Townsend Ave.

Hi Rick, As you are well aware there is developer seeking a Zoning Changes to the above properties from R-1 to MXG. My mother, who is the property owner here (our address below), and myself are strongly OPPOSED to any zoning change at all. Surely, there has now been enough development in the works or already implemented in the Aldershot area. We need to preserve this wonderful community and quality of life in the Aldershot area. Mom and myself, do not want to have diminished privacy, anymore increased traffic and any virtually assured reduction in the value of our property. This area, affectionately known as "Birdland" has been our home in Aldershot for approaching 45 years. I am sure you are hearing similar opinions from other residents. As you are aware, Rick, and I say this with respect; it only takes one application to be approved like this to start a spiral of mixed residential units in a medium to upscale area that Aldershot is. I sincerely hope you will provide input to the Senior Planner that, in my view, an overwhelming majority of residents do NOT WANT ANY ZONING CHANGE from R-1 (low-density single family dwelling status) in the Aldershot residential area.

2. Email received March 23, 2010 from Susan Hunter Preston, 1133 Unsworth Ave.

AN OPEN LETTER TO NEW HORIZON HOMES To the attention of: Jeff Paikin and Joe Giacomodonato Re: Planned development – Plains Road East at Falcon Boulevard The proposed development at Plains Road East and Falcon Boulevard in Aldershot should go back to the drawing board. It is inconceivable in my mind that you wish to demolish two houses on Falcon in order to erect a four storey high-rise building. These houses are well-built, respectable and desirable homes. I’m sure you would receive a fair price should you put them on the market.

Page 29 of Report

PB-88/11

In order for you to be able to do this you must ask the City Council for a change in the zoning for that area. It is presently single family residences. There must be some assurance when a family purchases a home in a well-established survey and is surrounded by single family homes that a developer cannot come along and change that zoning to suit his purposes. One of the most serious repercussions, should the zoning be changed, would be the setting of a precedent for all of Aldershot. No one could be confident that the house next to them would not be sold, torn down and replaced by some towering high-rise building. I do not believe that anyone wants fingers of commercial development infiltrating streets off Plains Road. For starters, it would be a given that the first, second or even third houses of streets running north and south from Plains Road could be bought up, demolished and replaced with whatever the MXG zoning allowed. My personal opinion is that there are currently enough multiple dwellings on Plains Road already completed plus the ones presently under construction. We are feeling overwhelmed.

3. Email received March 23, 2010 from Tom Airth, 354 Raven Ave

Please accept this as my written submission in reference to the above noted subject. I am currently unable to confirm my schedule, reference the public meeting. In 1977 I took the advice of realtors "location,location,location" and paid a dividend to live in the quiet community of "Aldershot". To narrow it down even more I started out in "Birdland" and have been there since. The growing trend of council satisfying the Provincial Governments requirements for expansion at the expense of the locals has destroyed the quiet atmosphere of the area. In the past recent years the growth of high density housing and the reduction of retail outlets requires that we travel farther to access our every day needs and this must be stopped. Our local councilor does not see this as a problem, evidenced by his statement in print, of his satisfaction at removing two car dealerships recently. I am cognizant of the fact that a previous council in 1997 was responsible for passing the legislation that allowed for all the expansion to occur along major arteries and that this makes an ideal place for current council to hide, however enough is enough. I am curious as to how traffic studies will be completed for this application when there is already a six (6) story development and a drug clinic OK'd by council yet to come. A recent change of venue for our local Shoppers Drug Store just east of this location and the increase that will be created by the lane expansion being allowed on Aldershot Rd. to accommodate Waterdown's growth must be considered. The current transient traffic flowing from Tim Horton's directly east of this location already tests the patience and concentration of all who try to gain access to our main east west corridor. Currently it is difficult at best to turn right onto Plains Rd from any of the streets in this area and close to impossible to turn left safely.

Page 30 of Report

PB-88/11

I openly admit that I don't have any degrees that qualify me as a "planner" but can assure you that practical experience as a retired police officer has educated me in traffic flow, road rage from congestion, and general discontent realized by an influx of people into a small area. If current council does not feel they have the ability or the desire to reject this application by a developer and protect the taxpayers that have been a part of the area for countless years, then perhaps the next one will have a stronger community commitment. I for one look forward to the opportunity to reflect my feelings toward this council and in particular our Ward One representative in the upcoming elections. Please forward this, if permissible, to Jennifer Shaw, Committee Clerk, City of Burlington notifying her of my wish to be notified of the adoption of the proposed Official Plan Amendment (I am not privy to her e-mail address,thanks). If this fails to satisfy the requirements allowing me to participated in any Appeal Process please advise.

4. Letter received March 24, 2010 from Cathy and Philip Baxter, 377 Lark Ave.

Dear Ms. Kade, We are writing with reference to the application by New Horizon Homes to change the zoning on Falcon Blvd. in order to erect a 4 storey building, driveway and parking lot. We are firmly opposed to this plan, as it would change the character of Falcon Boulevard, a residential street. We are generally pleased with the recent developments on Plains Road, including the developments by New Horizon Homes, but these are the sort of changes one would expect on a business corridor such as Plains Road. If the city were to allow the developers to start developing the residential streets which feed onto Plains Road, it would be the thin edge of the wedge. It should be the job of the city to protect the property and interests of longtime residents in established neighbourhoods. The city should not be catering to developers who are new on the scene. We note that you allowed a similar change on Shadeland Avenue, and we feel badly for the residents of that street, whose outlook has been compromised. We hope that you will not allow this application. The interests of the residents of Falcon Boulevard, particularly the first block of Falcon, should be your first consideration.

5. Email received March 30, 2010 from Caroline Archer, 773 Forest Glen Ave.

I bought in a residential housing area in 2000. Let's keep it that way. I object to City Hall allowing the NHH to cut trees before the application has been decided on by City Hall. There appears to be a pro-development bias at City Hall.

Page 31 of Report

PB-88/11

6. Email received April 3, 2010 from Jean Crowe, 821 Glenwood Ave.

Dear Silvina, I attended the neighbourhood meeting last week re this application and have several observations. 1) the meeting was extremely well conducted with the appropriate resource persons

available. 2) there was a certain amount of "NIMBYism" displayed.

3) most of that surrounds the fact that the area of increased density along Plains Rd may

creep outside the current boundary.

4) the closest neighbours to the Phase 1 development are really impacted and their property values and privacy reduced.

I believe that the citizens of Burlington would be reassured: * if we could be assured that there will be NO creep more than (perhaps) 100 meters from the current increased density corridor - for any reason for (perhaps) 10 years. * and if close neighbours to any of these high rise developments could be compensated - by the developer. * and by the city ensuring that plans are strictly adhered to in order that close neighbours do not find that barriers are not placed, ground levels changed etc.

7. Email received April 6, 2010 from Bill Stoddart, 860 Forest Glen Ave.

Re: New Horizon’s OP and Zoning amendment application Once again, I find myself very disturbed by the way my rights and expectations, as a citizen, homeowner, and property owner, are being flaunted. The bastions of land use planning and zoning find themselves being twisted by a developer to make it possible, even as the project is well advanced, to “request” changes to the Official Plan and the zoning designation on 2 adjacent single family properties (need I explain the word bastion?). All aspects of the meeting last week at Holy Rosary were unsatisfactory. Staff can’t speak up (why don’t they get training), their mapping visuals are indecipherable; they cannot orient the audience to the property at issue nor are they able to point to the specific locations, under discussion, on the screen (need for light pointer). Now to the substantive issues and there are two. One, the request to amend the OP. Why would there be a change when, as we heard at the meeting, that there were always 2 phases to the project and the plans for phase 1 called for the eastern basement (parking garage) wall to be constructed so it could be opened for access to the garage under phase 2. At the time of phase 1 approval, wouldn’t this eastern wall be discussed, and the placing of phase 2 on the property and the required visitor parking? Was there any discussion of how the developer planned to accommodate visitor parking? We have to assume that this

Page 32 of Report

PB-88/11

issue was not discussed or that it was ignored. In either case this is not acceptable behaviour on the part of the staff and Council. Issue two relates to the flagrant disregard on the part of staff and Council toward basic zoning as to be so obliging to even entertain changing the primary zoning designation in Aldershot so that the developer could add some visitor parking he now thinks he needs. Were not the original plans approved, stipulating and providing for phase 2, without the need to purchase 2 single family properties? Now it goes to Council – 7 councillors; at this point one is opposed to the changes. Where do we stand as property owners? If allowed it will project to every developer that the OP is the handmaiden of “intensification”. This proposal’s implications should reverberate throughout Burlington. Anyone that seeks a seat on Council needs to speak to this issue. I live across the street from a vacant lot (result of a tear down). It is for sale and New Horizon Home’s sign advertises it will build a house on the property. It is a relatively wide property. It has been up for sale for some time now. Would the City receive favourably a proposal to rezone the property to allow for “intensification”?

8. Email received April 12, 2010 from Andrew Thomson, 963 Falcon Blvd.

Hello Silvina I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak at the meeting at Holy Rosary. I am strongly opposed to the construction of this building on the properties located at 980 and 986 Falcon blvd. They are residential single dwelling zoned properties with the same single dwelling zoned properties located directly across the street. The fact that the structures main entrance is facing Falcon Blvd. is of major concern, further the visitors parking which was presented as a minor variance is major. This parking will certainly be utilized by tenants just stopping in for a few minutes to a few hours (far more convenient than circling through to the underground), this will also be the delivery and repair access and potentially overflow parking for Tim Horton’s. We have already an extremely busy street and a dangerous intersection without the addition of this structure and further vehicle volume. Our Aldershot community is under attack and we must stop this type of deviation from the community feel and plan. The builder is in his full right to build on the land he owns with the zoning in place, his goal is to add to the land base by changing the 2 properties to MXG and maximizing the profit from the land remaining from the original Westwood building. The zoning should not be changed just to allow for his profitable benefit.

9. Email received April 16, 2010 from Sheila Segato,786 Eagle Drive

Dear Ms. Kade, I am very concerned about the proposed Westwood Development and its ramifications for the community of Aldershot. While I live at some distance from this site, I feel it will have a very real negative impact on the community as a whole.

Page 33 of Report

PB-88/11

The greatest threat I foresee is the precedent which will be set if this project goes ahead of steady erosion of single family low density housing in favour of mixed use. This project will eradicate two single family dwellings, impacting heavily on the privacy, view, noise level and therefore property values of several neighbouring homes. If approval is granted to this development, we can be certain that "floodgates" will open for similar projects to infiltrate southward from Plains Rd. down other streets by consuming two or three or perhaps many more single homes. Where does such consumption stop? There is much new development along Plains of course, but to my knowledge most have made use of commercially designated land, not residential low density as this uniquely inappropriate plan strives to do. I sincerely hope that the city will recognize the real threat of this project and protect the integrity of one of the finest residential areas in our municipality. Thank you

10. Email received April 18, 2010 from Gayle and David Hall, 945 Glen Acres Court

Dear Ms. Kade: Re: New Horizon Homes Official Pan and Zoning-Bylaw Amendment Applications –Files 505-01/10 and 520-02/10 We have the following concerns about the above:

1. Official Plan: It is an agreed document on land use. We should use the land that meets current plan first. There must be a dozen sites fronting directly on Plains Road that would be suitable for medium density residential development. These should be developed prior to any sites that are not currently zoned for more intense residential development.

2. As residents of Aldershot, we are not opposed to change but it must be in keeping with the character of Aldershot and the ‘village feeling’ as was set out in the official plan. One of the prime reasons for living in Aldershot is the large lot size, mature trees, and the village feeling that it has. (e.g. Even the Canada Trust development is in keeping with the vision for Aldershot.)

3. Development is too dense on the Falcon Part of the site and will look out of place. If the grade matches that of the existing apartment it will essentially be five stories above the grade of the houses surrounding. Two storey townhouses similar to the ones the developer has already built on Plains Road would be less intrusive and would not infringe upon privacy and would not block out the sunlight.

4. Alderman Craven stated that there is no other example of a house/or houses in Aldershot being taken over for an apartment building. This pattern of not allowing land assemblies of single family homes for apartment development must be continued. At the meeting the Chief planner stated that Burlington needed to build

Page 34 of Report

PB-88/11

accommodation for future growth of up to 30,000 more people. The citizens of Burlington may not want to accommodate that number. If so, that is their choice.

5. Allowing an apartment to front on to Falcon, will increase traffic, increase noise level, will impact on sunlight to surrounding homes, will increase light from headlights and the building lights shining into neighbouring residences.

6. We recommend that medium density development be slated for properties that back on to industrial lands or open space (e.g. Cook Business Park, RBG lands ).

7. Property values have already declined in behind the current apartment building. One of the owners of a house shared that his assessment had gone down since the apartment was completed.

8. We have noticed that visitor parking at several sites along Plans Road is being used by residents. Reason they gave was it is more convenient when coming and going.

9. Alderman Craven said when the developer came to him it was going to be a three storey development and now it is four storeys. Further, one of the owners of a residence backing on to the current apartment stated that the developer told them it would be four storeys and it ended up being five storeys. This developer says one thing and manages to do another.

10. The developer made a deliberate decision to purchase the properties on Falcon knowing that they did not allow medium density residential. The city of Burlington should not support this development application as it will convey a message to developers that they can get what they want at the expense of the individual home owners.

Please keep us informed of future meetings.

11. Email received April 18, 2010 from Paula Blain, 890 Nora Drive

Dear Ms. Kade: I have many, many concerns regarding New Horizon Homes Official Plan and Zoning-Bylaw Amendment Application, files 505-01/10 and 520-02/10. If this application is granted by the City of Burlington this will be the death knell for the beautiful neighbourhood of Aldershot as it is where my family and I have resided for 27 years. There is no doubt in my mind that if this amendment application is granted this will be the beginning of "creep" for many more condo buildings in our neighbourhood as well as developers moving in and putting two or three houses on lots that are now presently occupied by one house. I noted with interest that the developer had already approached another home owner, besides the two houses he already owns, to see if this home owner was interested in selling to him. Fortunately the answer was no. As you can see the wheels are already in motion for further development as far as New Horizon Homes is concerned. This developer does not live in Aldershot and has no idea that Aldershot is so much more than a neighbourhood, not that he cares. It's a community that the people who live here love and want to preserve as is. I think the evidence to support this was the large turnout for the meeting on March 31st and the passion people showed that this developer or any developer with plans such as these is not welcome by any means. We want Aldershot to

Page 35 of Report

PB-88/11

stay as it is. I have met many people who grew up in this neighbourhood and moved away for a time only to move back because they love Aldershot so much and missed living here. I also know people who have moved back into the house in Aldershot they grew up in once mom and dad have gone because once again Aldershot is their true home. If you have a chance, take a walk through Aldershot one afternoon and you will quickly come to see why the residents feel so attached to this neighbourhood, as it is. My first Burlington home was in North Burlington - a cookie cutter neighbourhood where people are practically on top of each other. I couldn't wait to leave and find a neighbourhood where you could breathe, have privacy and walk on streets that weren't lined with cars because there were so many people packed into a small space. By chance, we were driving through the city and came upon Aldershot. I was immediately transformed by the beauty and quiet of this neighbourhood and knew that I had to live here. It took us a while to get into the neighbourhood, but we have never regretted moving here. Please do everything you can to stop New Horizon Homes or any developer's application for Zoning-By-Law amendment. Our beautiful, heritage neighbourhood must be preserved as it is. It is far too special and unique to be destroyed. Just ask anyone who lives here.

12. Email received April 19, 2010 from David Bowskill, 962 Glen Acres Court.

Address: 980 & 986 Falcon Blvd. and 396 & 410 Plains Rd E. Files: 505-01/10 and 520-02/10. Comments and concerns about the subject project. I was present at the community meeting along with about 200 other very angry Aldershot residents. I won't re-hash what was said at the meeting, because you are well aware of the local residents feelings towards this project. A concern I would like to add is that of a pedestrian trying to walk safely up and down Falcon Blvd. where there are no sidewalks. Presently we have to be very careful of the vehicles speeding in/out of the Tim Hortons car park as well as vehicles turning off Plains Rd. If this project went ahead we would have cars entering/leaving the twelve car parking spots on the opposite side of the road. What a pedestrian nightmare, please put SAFETY before developers profits. This developer originally started with a three storey development and now it is four. It will be like a cancer that will keep spreading. A question I would like answered is, did this developer approach residents on Finch to sell their properties. Council, listen to the residents of ALDERSHOT and vote down this development.

Page 36 of Report

PB-88/11

13. Email received April 20, 2010 from Sheri Pickfield, 794 Falcon Blvd.

I believe the rezoning of the 2 homes on Falcon Blvd to make a pedestrian entrance and have 12 visiting parking spots for New Horizon Homes is wrong for the neighbourhood. The 4 story building being proposed will encroach into the neighbourhood with an entrance off of Falcon. There are homes across the street and beside 980 and 986 Falcon and those homes will be impacted (traffic, their value going down). If the rezoning goes through this may be a precedent and other builders may buy homes in neighbourhoods in the hopes that they may try to re-zone. The top of Falcon Blvd is already a very busy corner with Tim Horton's and the traffic of Plains Rd so to make it busier with this entrance is not right for the neighbourhood. I believe that 980 and 986 Falcon Blvd should remain zoned for single dwelling homes.

14. Email received April 20, 2010 from Dick & Jane Hamer, 832 Eagle Drive

Dear City Politicians, Please register this as my objection to parking entrance on Falcon for another high density building in our single family neighbourhood. I can't believe you city planners as even considering this as being good for a residential single family survey. Why change the building code for the greed of builders. Please do the responsible thing and represent the people of Aldershot!!!

15. Email received April 20, 2010 from Lin & Brian Chisholm

I believe rezoning of 980 and 986 Falcon Blvd. is wrong for the neighbourhood. It is unfair to the houses across the street beside the proposed development and down the street. If zoning is changed all our neighbourhoods are in jeopardy of developers changing the integrity of our city. There is nothing good about the rezoning, there will be increased traffic at an already busy corner, and house values will decrease. Homeowners on Falcon purchased theirs homes with the understanding that the neighbourhood was that of family homes not 3-4 story buildings. 980 & 986 MUST REMAIN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES

Page 37 of Report

PB-88/11

16. Email received April 23, 2010 from Barbara Hurst, 904 Long Drive

Attention: Silvina Kade Senior Planner Subject: Application for Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments New Horizon Homes Falcon Blvd and Plains Rd File 505-01/10 & 520-02/10 I vehemently object to the request for redesignation of 980 & 986 Falcon Blvd from Residential - Low density to Mixed Use Corridor to permit the proposed Phase 2 development. It is false to say the rezoning application affects ONLY 4 properties. It negatively affects the immediate residential citizens who live next door and around the corner. It negatively affects the whole of Aldershot. There are many, many other properties on Plains Road with zoning already compatible for this kind of development. For this developer to purchase RESIDENTIAL properties with the sole aim of changing the zoning and thereby increasing value, smells like an opportunist corrupting the COMMUNITY. The loss of privacy for the immediate RESIDENTIAL neighbours, increase in noise, increase in traffic and increased pollution makes the costs of this change shameful. It is an attack on the physical and mental health of the RESIDENTS of Aldershot. This rezoning will have a tidal affect corrupting our community. DEFINITION of CORRUPT (transitive verb ) 1a) to change from good to bad in morals, manners or actions also bribe b) to degrade with unsound principals or moral values. 2 to alter from the original or correct form or version 3) to cause disintegration or ruin

17. Comment sheet received from Hilda Cirotto, 789 Kingsway Drive

I am opposed to more high density housing filling up Aldershot. I can understand somewhat – along Plains Road but this involves a side street and will set precedent. There are many buildings already too close to Plains Road – practically sitting on the road. The essence of Aldershot is being destroyed and with it the appeal of Burlington. City Planners need to relook at their plans for this neighbourhood.

18. Comment sheet received from Ilona Reinhold, 825 Falcon Blvd.

I live on Falcon Blvd. and I am completely opposed to the development and rezoning. The proposed changes will impact the community in a negative way. I want council to listen to the residents of Aldershot and deny rezoning.

Page 38 of Report

PB-88/11

19. Comment sheet from Shawn Clement, 59 Fairwood Pl. E.

I wish to be added to the mailing list for all future meetings in regards to development projects in the Aldershot area. Formally, I do not agree with the proposal for altering to allow the Falcon property development. This will allow developers the ability to perform acts of infill in the Aldershot area.

20. Comment sheet from Susan Preston, 1133 Unsworth Ave.

Leave zoning single family homes. There must be some assurance that the house next door does not have its zoning changed to suit a developer. R2 zoning was set years ago. You can’t change it on a whim. Falcon Blvd. houses are not on Plains Road and should not be included in high density.

21. Comment sheet from Mark Preston, 974 Falcon Blvd.

The Community has spoken. Please respect the will of the taxpayer and make it clear to the developer this is not the place for this project. There are plenty of open MXG lots along Plains. Why should my privacy, my quality of life, my property value be negatively affected so a developer can make money.

22. Comment sheet form Terry Stewart, on behalf of Frances Stewart, 319 Townsend Ave.

1. If this proposal is turned down by the City and this neighbourhood REMAINS R.1 (single family dwelling) → will this process be repeated if a future developer has interest in another property proposal? In other words: Is “NO” – refusal to change zoning once – enough for the future? (Item 1 was answered publicly at meeting 7:45 p.m.).

2. Falcon Blvd. is NOT a multi purpose road; this proposal should be REFUSED and the

Aldershot area remain R-1. (Item 2 I would submit as my input though).

As I stated PREVIOUSLY in email to Councillor Craven and forwarded to Planning, my mother (Frances Stewart) and myself as power of attorney continue to be STRONGLY OPPOSED to this zoning change proposal. Please keep these above stated properties as R-1 – single family dwelling. NO creeping zoning change please in Aldershot.

Page 39 of Report

PB-88/11

23. Comment sheet from Kiara Galbreath, 452 Plains Rd. E.

Mr. Paikin indicated that an appropriate setback from mixed use land to single family low density land is ½ the height of the building. I know that the setback from MXG use land to single family homes is at least 40 feet. The setback which is designated by the City of Burlington does not allow a 4 storey condo development adjacent to single family homes. I do not approve of change in use of these two single family lots.

24. Comment sheet from J. Waterman, 928 Condor Drive

I would like to suggest a traffic light on Falcon & Plains Rd. Not in favour of another 4-storey condo building which will access on Falcon which is a residential area.

25. Comment sheet from Ross Godsoe, 918 Falcon Blvd.

To: Silvina Kade, AICP, Senior Planner-Planning, City of Burlington Re: Files 505-01/10 & 520-02/10 In your letter dated March 9, 2010, the 4th paragraph is mis-leading. The current Westwood 1 project is built and therefore rezoning is complete. If not rezone, then someone is in error. The application in fact applies only to (or should) 980 & 986 Falcon Blvd. The land lock piece of land applies to Westwood I and should be dealt with accordingly. For the planner to suggest part of property is already zoned is also incorrect as he is relating to the land lock piece only. I will submit, to you that the developer was well aware of the potential of a piece of land locked and it should have been dealt with at that time; not purchase the R2 single family homes hoping to rezone and build a 4 storey bldg in the residential community. This application is totally unacceptable and I will do whatever powers prevail including an application to the OMB, if necessary, to have the application defeated. I should note, that if the City supports this application, the city is making a huge decision + statement to the entire community. I should mention, I have no issues with the Plains Rd. redevelopment, but when we start removing single detached homes in the community for 4 storey bldg, that’s unacceptable!!!

26. Comment Sheet from Margaret Troy, 842 Long Drive

“Comprehensive development” of the existing and proposed residential (condo) buildings should NOT be allowed, as outlined in this spot. The phase 2 condo has access from the main St. Plains Rd. To allow further access and additional parking, guest or otherwise; would add a huge stress to the already very busy area. The school nearby also adds young

Page 40 of Report

PB-88/11

people using Falcon Blvd. and this adds to a major concern of safety with cars coming out onto Falcon. The residential part of Falcon should be kept that way. Perhaps the builder could build 3 stories instead of 4 which could assist in reducing the number of parking spots needed. This phase 2 of the building was already in the process of planning in 2008. The builder had a long time to sort out the problem without coming around “the corner” onto a residential street. This could set a dire precedent for the future of this residential area. Originally the builder said he would build a 3 storey complex but it turned out to be a 4 storey. The original buffers from Phase 1 should be completed before Phase 2 starts. This is only fair to the adjacent properties. Many seniors travel Falcon Blvd. to access stores on Plains Rd. We are trying to encourage this use not discourage it and I feel that the request to change the Falcon Blvd. to allow for more density should be denied.

Page 41 of Report

PB-88/11

APPENDIX III Public Comments received concerning initial applications

(separate appendix for scanned letters)

27. Letter dated March 17, 2010 from W. H. Ettridge, 889 Eagle Drive 28. Letter dated March 19, 2010 from Sylvia Ettridge, 889 Eagle Drive 29. Letter dated March 19, 2010 from Murray Thompson, 885 Falcon Blvd. 30. Letter dated March 24, 2010 from Murray Thompson, 885 Falcon Blvd. 31. Letter dated April 12, 2010 from Paul Preston, 1133 Unsworth Ave.

32. Comment sheet submitted by Tom Troy, 842 Long Drive

Page 58 of Report

PB-88/11

APPENDIX IV

Public Comments received concerning revised applications* (September – October, 2011)

1. Email received September 2, 2011 from Rosemary Williams

Dear Ms. Kade: My mother, Carmen Litt, formerly of 391 Plains Rd. E., Burlington received a mailing from you re: the above application. Just to let you know that she has seen the light and moved to British Columbia Thank you,

2. Email received September 7, 2011 from Eileen & William Montgomery,482 Townsend Ave

Hi Silvina, We'd like to give our opinions on the revised applications for the Westwood Development on Plains Road at Falcon Blvd as we'll be away when the next meeting is to be held. We are against the development of the building facing Falcon Blvd as it will be encroaching on a residential street unnecessarily. This could set a precedent for other residential streets. If New Horizon Homes want to build another condo building, they should buy the plaza next door on Plains Road and build there. The revised plan is even worse than the original because they reduced the width of the building to make the 'landscape area' larger. If this building is built, that landscape area will become a driveway as soon as they can get away with it. Falcon Blvd is already a bad street. We've lived on Townsend Ave for thirty years and avoid Falcon. It isn't safe for driving or walking due to the curves and ditches. Most cars just drive up the middle of the street to avoid walkers and bikers. Putting more cars on that street will lead to more dangerous conditions. It isn't just the parked cars in front of the building, it's the future driveway that will cause problems.

3. Comment Sheet submitted at September 19, 2011 neighbourhood meeting by J. Reynolds,873 Falcon Blvd

This is a huge concern for many reasons. One is that this would de-value our properties.

4. Unsigned Comment Sheet submitted at September 19, 2011 neighbourhood meeting

Mark Preston bought a house at 974 Falcon in good faith being the 3rd house into a well-established survey based on the Official Plan.

Page 59 of Report

PB-88/11

You cannot allow these 2 properties to be demolished for a multi-family bldg.

5. Comment Sheet submitted at September 19, 2011 neighbourhood meeting by Mark Preston, 974 Falcon Blvd.

As the closest neighbour I have the most to lose. I will pursue this matter until I am confident the single family dwellings will remain intact.

6. Unsigned Comment Sheet submitted at September 19. 2011 neighbourhood meeting

This project sets a bad precedent for other developments to go into residential areas. The builder knew about the possible problem when he started the 1st project. The amendment to the by-law should not proceed. This was a known fact from the beginning.

7. Comment Sheet submitted at September 19, 2011 neighbourhood meeting by Cathy Miller, 801 Falcon Blvd.

1. I am totally opposed to any apartment going in on Falcon or on any residential street.

Look what has happened to Daryl!!

2. I am concerned also that since the cars from the apartment cannot turn left on Plains Rd. that they will turn right and go through residential streets to either Shadeland Ave. or King Rd. or to Northshore Blvd.

3. Plains Rd. E. was once one storey buildings. Now it is all high rises or town houses, and

Plains Rd. is already so busy.

4. If this apartment is allowed – what will stop this developer or another developer to go in and buy the last 2 houses on Falcon and build another apartment?

8. Unsigned Comment Sheet submitted at September 19, 2011 neighbourhood meeting

No destruction of perfectly good houses to line the pocket of developer.

9. Comment Sheet submitted at September 19, 2011 neighbourhood meeting by Henry Mayeski, 965 Glen Acres Court

You knew when you bought houses on Falcon Blvd. – zoning was for single family homes. Traffic even now making turn west is almost impossible.

10. Letter dated September 22, 2011 from Mrs. Susan Dickie, 898 Nora Drive

Ms. Kade:

Page 60 of Report

PB-88/11

The following is a summary of questions/comments I have as a result of me attending the Information Meeting regarding New Horizon Homes- Westwood Phase 2 amendment application which took place on Mon. Sept. 19, 2011.

1. First and foremost, I have questions about the zoning process. Why did the City not insist that New Horizon Homes make application for a zoning change with regard to the two properties on Falcon Blvd. first? This application should have stood alone. The public, especially the neighbours in the immediate area of these two properties should have been informed of this application. A public meeting should have been held for this specific request for redesignation. Most of the residents, in my view, are against the City redesignating the existing zoning in a residential setting. Home owners purchased surrounding properties knowing that the zoning would ensure the same kind of building. In essence, the request to change the zoning of those two homes is really the crux of the matter. Surely, the outcome of that decision would have determined the secondary application for the Westwood development. An explanation in “planning terms” was provided but still I feel that there are two very different situations to be seriously considered on their own merit – not combined as one application.

Obviously, New Horizon Homes cannot build Westwood Phase 2 without the two Falcon Blvd. properties being rezoned. If the City accepts the zoning change for the two properties on Falcon, there will be a precedent set that could apply to similar situations that arise in other parts of Burlington. The outcome would begin the erosion process of residential zoning. It was my understanding that in the zoning process there must be a logical gradient to height and use of buildings: that a 4 storey apartment building cannot be built beside a property zoned for a single family residence. Yet on Plains Road, the MXG abuts so many residential properties (building between Kingsway and Sanford). Will this be the fate of many more homes that abut Plains Road? If the zoning is redesignated for the two Falcon Blvd. properties, the value of the neighbouring homes would be seriously affected as they have been on Sandford and Kingsway. No one would wish to purchase a home that could abut/or be close to a mixed use building that is too high and too intrusive in a residential setting. 2. With the increased floor space for underground parking proposed for Westwood Phase 2- where do fumes from cars underground get exhausted? 3. No amount of greenery, landscaping on the south side of the proposed building will detract from the immensity of the south wall. Any shrubbery planted would barely hide the first floor. The residents on Finch Avenue will continue to look up to people on balconies in both buildings and the occupants will view every activity of people on both sides of Finch Avenue and beyond. 4. If the consensus is that no one can turn left onto Plains Road from Falcon Blvd., now, then what will the additional occupants of Westwood Phase 2 do? If they can’t turn left onto Plains Road either, due to volume of traffic, their alternative is to drive through the survey to find a traffic light that will allow left hand turns. More traffic on Falcon Blvd.

Page 61 of Report

PB-88/11

5. I am amazed that the shared vision for Plains Road is touted as being so innovative. Nothing along Plains Road reflects the interesting historical aspects of Aldershot. There is no continuity visually. Villages and towns such as Uxbridge, Woodbridge, Oakville have added street lamps, signage that reflect the heritage of the location. Some of the tackiest signs have been removed, but overall, there is no visual theme to Plains Road. And yet, when one enters the residential areas in Aldershot, the homes are all different. One thing in common: they are well kept, well landscaped and people take pride in where they live. Plains Road, in my view, does not meet those standards. Hopefully, the planning committee looking at the corners of Plains Road and Waterdown/LaSalle Park Road will be cognizant of its history and plan for that to be represented in the aesthetics of all four corners. In closing, I am not, in any way, in favour of this revised application. There is something not right in the combined zoning redesignation and I would hope that the Committee of Adjustments sees fit to treat this combined application as two separate redesignation applications. If this were the case, I feel that the Westwood Phase 2 development would not be accepted.

11. Letter received September 26, 2011 from Tom Snelling, 312 Shoreview Rd

I moved into the Aldershot area just south of the proposed New Horizon Westwood development in 1993. The attraction to my wife and I was the residential feel of the neighbourhood. The older sub division had quiet streets, relatively large lots, and was close to the various amenities that make Burlington a wonderful place to live and raise a family. Over the years there have been a number of changes to Plains Road and the streetscape as a result of redevelopment of the old Highway 2 corridor. I can understand the City of Burlington and many of the property owners’ desire to redevelop the commercial lots along this stretch. In some instances, the changes have been positive, but lately there has been a number of developments that have, and continue to cause a great deal of discomfort amongst the area residents. In particular, a number of single story commercial plazas and properties have been demolished and multi (5 and 6 story) story buildings developed. There has been some opposition to these buildings, mostly from residents that now abut the properties. These families now have 6 story buildings overshadowing their homes and yards. Their property values have plummeted, and their privacy has been intruded upon. In particular, phase 1 of the New Horizon Homes Westwood development was very poorly monitored by the City. What was proposed to have been a building at grade turned out to be elevated so that the driveway and “ground floor” is actually 6 or 7 feet above grade and overlooks the rear yards of the homes just south of it. During initial public meetings for the Phase 2 Development residents spoke about these and other issues. This developer cannot be trusted with phase 2. During the last public meeting the planner for New Horizon homes spoke extensively about how they have tried to lower the buildings profile and provided various ratios to advise it was “good planning”. Ultimately however, you can’t disguise the fact that it is a 5 story building being forced into a single family residential zone. It is out of place, and totally disregards the

Page 62 of Report

PB-88/11

rights of existing residents who will have to look at the building and live with its consequences. This “change of rules of the game” being forced upon them by the New Horizon proposal is unjust and unwarranted. New Horizon purchased two residential properties in the hopes of being able to re-zone the lots. That is their prerogative, however, it is up to the City to provide good planning and look after the rights of those residents who have purchased houses in the area based on existing zoning limits. Much can be said about the current encroachment of buildings on Plains Road. There appears of late to have been a number of one off planning decisions that have gone in favour of developers that require amendments to official plans and zoning restrictions. It is my understanding that a review of the planning and zoning of properties along Plains Road is to be undertaken in the near future. This proposal of New Horizon should be denied pending that review at the least. Otherwise we will continue to have one off changes that will make any real future planning immaterial. I have specific concerns with:

• The buildings height • The buildings impact on properties that it abuts – visually, market value,

sunlight, general loss of enjoyment etc. • Traffic generated by residents from the building • Traffic generated by visitors to the building • Traffic generated by the visitors parking being off Falcon Drive • The potential noise impact of the additional residents on surrounding property

owners • The precedent that will be set in the Aldeshot area if the developer is allowed

to re-zone single family properties – how many other proposals will be made, how far into the neighbourhood will multi story buildings be proposed and migrate…

• The visual appearance of the building, Although changes were made to the façade facing Falcon Drive – the north facing side is a straight brick wall (OK it has some architectural detailing but is basically blank with no way to landscape it to bring it down visually)

City councilors are elected in good faith to serve their constituents, not sell out everything that defines a long standing neighbourhood. If this development isn’t curtailed, the floodgates to mass development and neighbourhood degradation will open. I hope the City will look upon this development and what its impact is to the existing area residents who have lived in Aldershot for so long.

12. Comment Sheet received September 28, 2011 from Mrs. Nelda Sutherland, 950 Glen Acres

Court

As a resident of Burlington for roughly 52 years – I feel the city of Burlington is responsible for standing behind the zoning which we were presented with. Our homes are sacred to our well being, our traffic, our roadways. Plains Road is already overcrowded and should not be a cause of future traffic hazards.

Page 63 of Report

PB-88/11

Walking on Plains Rd. I was almost hit by bicycles driving on the sidewalk because the road traffic is so heavy. Aldershot should be protected from greedy construction. I already drive to a stop sign before turning left and accept that. Don’t destroy the beauty of Aldershot south of Plains Road. I intend to notify the Mayor and Councillors of my opinion on this subject. I hope they consider these feelings at the next election forthcoming. I am totally against 980 & 986 Falcon Blvd + 396 + 410 Plains Rd. E. development. Please let the voting public express their feelings against this development – which is not needed or wanted.

13. Email received September 28, 2011 from Murray and Christel Charlton, 974 Glen Acres Crt.

Concerns regarding New Horizon Homes – Westwood Phase 2 Revised Official Plan and Zoning bylaw amendment Applications, 980 and 986 Falcon Blvd and 396 & 410 Plains Rd E. We feel the plan should not be amended. We do not want the building to have frontage on Falcon Blvd. To do so would be a dangerous precedent and unfair to area residents who are increasingly going to bear the brunt of Plains Road intensification.

14. Email received Oct. 2, 2011 from Paula Blain, 890 Nora Drive

Ms. Kade: Further to the meeting held September 19, 2011, the only response to the builder’s application to revise the Official Plan and Zoning-Bylaw in order to build another condo along Plain’s Road is NO. If the city approves this application, it is embarking on a very slippery slope. If this builder’s application is approved, then there is nothing to stop this builder or subsequent builder’s from applying and getting approval to do the same thing and before you know it Aldershot could turn into the land of apartment buildings and condos. This is a case of “let’s nip this in the bud”. The builder was well aware of how this property was zoned when he bought it, and just like anyone else, he will have to work within the current zoning.

15. Email received Oct 2, 2011 from Bill Stoddart, 860 Forest Glen Ave.

Comment Sheet Neighbourhood Meeting September 19, 2011 Re: New Horizon OP and Zoning amendment application My position on this subject has not changed from the comments that I submitted after the last public meeting on this subject.

Page 64 of Report

PB-88/11

The design of the phase 2 building has been modified to ameliorate the intrusiveness of the building on the adjacent single family zoned properties. I still believe that the phase 2 building must not be constructed beyond the boundaries of the site plan approved for stage 1. The City must have (or should have) discussed stage 2 at the time of the site plan approval for stage 1. (There is provision for east wall of underground garage to accommodate passageway to phase 2 building). Did not the city discuss the sufficiency of the existing property to accommodate Phase 2? It should have. I am concerned that the City does not automatically take a stand that single home zoning areas will not be violated to accommodate the developer’s desire to build more units. The intrusion of the existing development on adjacent properties is presently substantial – such comments from these people arose at both meetings. It is irrelevant to say that the developer has the right to build on his property regardless. What’s relevant is that in order to build he must conform to the existing zoning bylaws. It is the City’s sovereign duty to the property owners to maintain this zoning long-term. The values of our properties depend on the stability of the zoning bylaws. Developers must not be allowed to think that it is easy to change the OP and zoning regulations. The integrity of the OP, which we laboriously reconsider at regular intervals and the zoning controls in force for a long period of time, must be upheld. It is the City’s duty to perform this function for its citizens. This Official Plan and Zoning-Bylaw amendment applications should not be accepted.

16. Email received October 4, 2011 from Phyllis Mair, 1047 Bedford Ave .

Good day, I was not able to attend the September meeting regarding Horizon Homes condo proposal for Falcon Ave. However, it was mentioned at the recent Aldershot Meeting at St Matthews that they wish to build a 6-storey condo I believe on the land from the purchase of two residential homes. I have a strongly opposed to condos being introduced to old Aldershot residential streets. Aldershot will lose its quaintness and country feeling – the reason so many of us chose to remain in the place we grew up in. However, I’m wondering if there are alternatives to that space. Perhaps,a semi-detached home. My other thoughts are a 4-plex development similar to the two old brick 4 plexes on Plains Rd E opposite Wendy’s and White Oak Plaza. Parking was at the back and there was a large grassy yard for barbecues and outdoor get togethers. Maybe even a 6-plex could be modeled. The main thing is that the building remains only 2 storeys tall to blend in with the single detached homes on Falcon Ave. Has anyone thought or proposed this. I’m curious to know and hope it can be brought forth to New Horizon homes/or the public to go back to their drawing board.

Page 65 of Report

PB-88/11

My husband and I rented at 164 Plains Rd E (I think that was the address) around 1975/76 prior to buying our current house on Bedford. It was great – our spacious 2 bedroom apartment was on the right upper floor – we had an enclosed front entrance as well as a back entrance with porch. Perhaps, a design could come up for something similar – 4 one-floor units with basement for laundry and storage facilities, in addition to a party room as an added perk. Could be purchased or rented. Looking forward to your feedback on my ideas. Thank you Rick, for being opposed to the 6 storey condo development.

* Planning staff typically do not include unsigned comment sheets in the public comments appendix of staff reports. In this instance, many attendees at the September 19th, 2011 neighbourhood meeting prepared their comments at the meeting and inserted them in the comment box without turning over the comment sheet where a name and address is requested. Given this circumstance, staff decided to include these comments in the subject report.