File #: 14-A-077    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Deputation Status: Received
File created: 4/23/2014 In control: City Council
On agenda: 4/28/2014 Final action: 4/28/2014
Title: DEPUTATION BY COLIN WILSON ON BEHALF OF CATHY COLEBATCH REGARDING MOTION 14-G-096, REZONING FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C4) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE SECOND DENSITY (RM2) AND DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR 196 BURTON AVENUE (WARD 8). Mr. Colin Wilson provided a deputation on behalf of Cathy Colebatch in opposition to motion 14-G-096 regarding the Rezoning from General Commercial (C4) to Residential Multiple Second Density (RM2) and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application for 196 Burton Avenue (Ward 8). Mr. Wilson read from correspondence provided by Ms. Colebatch noting that she was requesting Council to reconsider the recommendation related to the application. Mr. Wilson noted that Ms. Colebatch had identified outstanding issues to be addressed including the planning justification as the application had not met the policies associated with intensification. She commented that the plan calls for approximately the same number of units as currently exists, while removing af...
Attachments: 1. 140428 DEP Cathy Colebatch 196 Burton Ave.pdf
Related files: 14-G-096
Title
DEPUTATION BY COLIN WILSON ON BEHALF OF CATHY COLEBATCH REGARDING MOTION 14-G-096, REZONING FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C4) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE SECOND DENSITY (RM2) AND DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR 196 BURTON AVENUE (WARD 8).
 
Mr. Colin Wilson provided a deputation on behalf of Cathy Colebatch in opposition to motion 14-G-096 regarding the Rezoning from General Commercial (C4) to Residential Multiple Second Density (RM2) and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application for 196       Burton Avenue (Ward 8).  Mr. Wilson read from correspondence provided by Ms. Colebatch noting that she was requesting Council to reconsider the recommendation related to the application.  
 
Mr. Wilson noted that Ms. Colebatch had identified outstanding issues to be addressed including the planning justification as the application had not met the policies associated with intensification.  She commented that the plan calls for approximately the same number of units as currently exists, while removing affordable housing stock.  Ms. Colebatch requested that Council vote against the application and subdivision draft plan or place a hold or deferral on the matter, while the applicant revises the plans as per staff recommendations.  She also requested that additional public consultation be undertaken to try to find a viable solution for all.  Ms. Colebatch suggested that the City needs to seek outside legal counsel on some of the issues.
 
Mr. Wilson noted that Ms. Colebatch had expressed concerns about the impact of the application on the existing neighbourhood and suggested that parkland and not cash in lieu be required to benefit the new and existing neighbourhood.  He also discussed Ms. Colebatch's concerns with respect to the additional traffic if a single access point is permitted to an area that currently has three and the protection of the healthy trees and the natural slope.
 
Mr. Wilson advised that Ms. Colebatch's correspondence noted that Provincial Planning Policy supports and encourages efficient use of land but does not address existing tenants on that land.  He noted that Ms. Colebatch commented on the principles of the Urban Growth Plan not addressing existing housing stock with tenants and that she also touched upon Section 99.1 of the Municipal Act.  She also suggested that the City could place a hold on the zoning provisions pending the submission of a Record of Site Condition to the Ministry.
 
Mr. Wilson noted that Ms. Colebatch commented regarding existing policies and guidelines not identifying with this situation and that she is requesting the applicant to extend the eviction notice and prepare a more suitable subdivision plan.