Aurora ratepayers feel unheard during stable neighbourhood policy process

Yorkregion.com
June 19, 2019
Teresa Latchford

As a taxpayer, Allison Halls, doesn’t feel like she has gotten her money’s worth from the process that is meant to protect existing neighbourhoods from large infill development.

Last year, a letter from the town arrived in her mailbox explaining the town intended to explore the creation of a bylaw that would protect stable neighbourhoods from infill development -- what are commonly called “monster” homes -- that just doesn’t fit with the existing character of surrounding homes. The process would focus on the Town Park, Regency Acres, Aurora Heights and Temperance Street areas.

Halls began to attend town meetings and soon formed the Ratepayers of Aurora Heights Stable Neighbourhoods group. The group studied provincial policies and bylaws in surrounding municipalities, had delegates at public meetings and provided input when asked by the town.

“It’s been a year-long process and what has been proposed makes it feel like it was a waste of time and money,” she said. “I’m not just one person, I represent a number of people in our neighbourhood and we don’t feel heard or represented.”

It was only a month ago that representatives from all three ratepayers groups involved in the stable neighbourhoods process asked the town to double check the numbers provided by the consultant hired to present recommendations to protect the neighbourhoods. The groups insisted that the numbers didn’t add up and the methodology used by the consultant was flawed.

“We feel they made calculations with measurements from stable homes and the existing monster homes to get an average, which isn’t a true representation,” Halls said. “We asked for the data to run the numbers for ourselves but were told to file a freedom of information request.”

In a perfect world, each area would have its own zoning rather than a blanket system due to their unique natures, Halls said. The zoning wouldn’t allow anything over 3,000 square feet in size or more than 8.5 metres in height at the peak of the roof, and setbacks would be preserved.

“If this is passed as is, it will continue to destroy these neighbourhoods,” she said.

Town planning staff has recommended that the original size for new builds be 3,993 square feet based on the consultant’s calculations. However, using a weighted median calculation, the size would come down to 3,216 square feet.

The groups also take issue with the recommended nine metres to the midpoint of the roof height, since other municipalities calculate the height restriction to the top of the roof.

The resident had hoped their concerns would be addressed before a planning bylaw reached the council table, but town planner David Waters told council that the recommendations made in March remain almost unchanged.

The ratepayers asked for a compromise, requesting that a weighted average of 3,849 square feet and a 10 per cent reduction in gross floor area be applied, which would still allow for larger homes than those that already exist in the three area neighbourhoods.

Coun. Wendy Gaertner attempted to gain support to accept and adopt these compromises at a recent meeting at town hall.

“The residents have had an onerous task through all these months to try and get something done,” she said. “There have been some issues with the process, there have been some issues with the kind of statistical analysis that was used. We don’t want to go back to the beginning, but I think there is a reason and cause to use a reduction in the square footage based on the weighted average.”

John Gallo pressed consultant Ron Palmer of the Planning Partnership on the methodology that was used.

“The data provided is not perfect and there are other concerns with it, although I think it provides a reasonable baseline from which to draw some conclusions,” Palmer said. “My expectation of the inclusion of that particular building, notwithstanding it is part of the character of the neighbourhood, is it would have a minimal effect on the data analysis. Nonetheless, I think it is fair to say it probably should not have been included.”

This came after defending the methodology in previous comments.

Council later voted down the suggestion to adopt the proposed compromise. A final decision is expected by the end of the month.