HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-11-064 - Cedar Hill Land Use & Social Environment Study - 2011 Project UpdateTt,~EN~;~ CommunitySer~i~esDepartment www.~itchenerca
REP®RT T®: Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
ATE F MEETING: May 30, 2011
SUBMIT°TE EY: Jeff Willmer, Deputy CAO, Community Services
PREPARE B`f: Jeff Willmer, 519-741-2325
VVAR®(S) INV®LVE: Ward 9
DATE ®F REP®RT: May 13, 2011
REP®RT N®.: CSD-11-064
SUBJECT: CEDAR HILL LAND USE & SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
STUDY - 2011 PROJECT UPDATE
REC®MMENDATION:
That the ®ntario Municipal Board be advised that the City of Kitchener is no longer
pursuing the approval of 13y-law 2005-091, being the "placeholder zoning" for the Cedar
Hill neighbourhood, or the approval of those policies within Official Plan Amendment 58
relating directly to the implementation of the placeholder zoning; and
That the City of Kitchener's commitment to supporting community development in Cedar
Hill and surrounding areas, through Community Investment funding of the Downtown
East program, be reaffirmed; and
That the Cedar Hill neighbourhood continue to be a high priority area for Kitchener by-
lawenforcement efforts; and further,
That staff be directed to report back on the merits of potential by-law regulations and
enforcement procedures relating to the maintenance and demolition of vacant buildings
not designated under the Heritage Act or listed on the Heritage Register.
BACKGROUND:
On January 14, 2010, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB} issued an interim decision regarding
the appeal of City of Kitchener Official Plan Amendment No. 58, and By-law 2005-91 amending
Zoning By-law 85-1, relating to the Cedar Hill neighbourhood. In that interim decision, direction
was given to the City of Kitchener and all other parties to prepare fora "Phase 2" of the hearing.
This staff report provides a summary of the January 14, 2010 interim decision for OMB Case
File PL050611, the study done to update the data contained in the 2005 Cedar Hill Land Use
and Social Environment Study, and a Community Forum held on March 30, 2011 to discuss the
evaluation report on the Downtown East program.
REPORT:
After approximately thirty-five years of decline and attempts by the community to improve the
neighbourhood's social environment, an Interim Control By-law (ICB} under Section 38 of the
Planning Act was passed on May 12, 2003, affecting the area bounded by Charles Street East,
Benton Street, Courtland Avenue East and the rear lot line of properties on the south side of
Madison Avenue South. This ICB limited the development or conversion of four particular
housing types within the affected area for a period of one .year, and was extended for a second
5-1
I
.ITt~~EN~,~ Commun~~ySer~ICeSDepurtmPn~ wwwkitchenerca
year. The ICB allowed for further study to identify factors that made the social environment of
the Cedar Hill neighbourhood different from the City's six other downtown area planning
communities. The Cedar Hill Land Use and Social Environment Study (study) was
commissioned by the Council of the day, and was completed in early 2005.
The study concluded that the Cedar Hill neighbourhood had an over-concentration of single-
person, low®income households that, was a result of the concentration of absentee landlord
rental homes, duplexes and triplexes, residential care facilities and social/supportive housing.
Twenty~two recommendations for further action were made, and presented to Council by staff in
April 2005. Official Plan Amendment No. 58 and By-law 2005-91 to amend Zoning By-law 85-1
were prepared and adopted by Council on May 9, 2005. The Zoning By-law Amendment was
appealed in 2005, and following modification and approval by the Region of Waterloo in 2007,
Official Plan Amendment Number 58, was also appealed.
OMB Interim ®ecision
In May 2009, the OMB hearing for these appeals commenced and continued for approximately
four weeks. An interim decision was issued on January 14, 2010, and provided as follows:
1. The hearing is to reconvene approximately fifteen (15) months from the date of issue of the
Interim Decision.
2. "Phase 2" of this hearing will address the following topics:
a. Decentralization of facilities: consolidated strategy/measures to attract facilities into
other neighbourhoods, including positive measures (enticement) and uncontested
negative restrictions (e.g. enforcement of existing By-laws)
Other restrictive measures: proposed measures (if any, and updated) to restrict
facilities based on analysis showing required attention to the Act, PPS [Provincial
Policy Statement] and MOP [Municipal Official Plan], notably:
Regard for the statutory Provincial interest in accessibility for persons with
disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to which the Planning Act
applies;
ii. Consistency with PPS policies (a) to improve accessibility for persons with
disabilities, by removing and/or preventing land-use barriers which restrict
their full participation in society, and (b) permitting and facilitating all forms of
housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements of
current and future residents, including special needs requirements.
iii. Conformity with the MOP purposes of (a) taking into account household
income and physical and mental health and ability, (b) the need for lodging
houses and residential care facilities at appropriate locations in all residential
areas, and (c) housing accessible to all residents regardless of their physical,
developmental and sensory abilities.
c. Other restrictive measures, if based on "personal qualification or other personal
characteristics", would also require analysis showing how they avoid the Supreme
Court of Canada's restriction on "people zoning".
5-2
~~H~~~ Cor~munity5ervicesdepartment www.k~tchenerca
d. Aplace-holder by-law would require a statement of the enabling authority there for,
and how it avoids the Supreme Court of Canada's admonition against "mere
discretionary power".
e. Restrictive measures targeting the accommodation of persons with a disability, or in
receipt of public assistance, would require analysis of how they comply with the
Code and Charter.
3. The OMB also noted that the interim decision "allows Council to update its file. The
restrictive measures in question date form an earlier Council; the Interim Control By-law
was adopted in 2003, and the measures under appeal date from early 2005. The current
Council may have its own views."
Information on where this Interim Decision can be obtained online is provided in Appendix "A"
Land Use Study Update
In April 2011, an update report to the statistical data found in the 2005 Cedar Hill Land Use and
Social Environment Study was completed. This update used data from the 2006 census, and
2009 and 2010 data from GIS and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation data. A link
to where this study can be downloaded and read in full can be found in Appendix "B".
Both the 2005 and 2010 studies make use of Census of Canada data. While these data are
very useful for informing analysis they are somewhat dated by the time they are available. For
the time being we are relying on 2006 census data; 2011 census data will not be available for
quite some time and their reliability will be in question as the long form census is no longer
mandatory.
While not all the updated variables showed positive trends for the social environment of Cedar
Hill, the majority showed either a positive trend or a stabilizing environment. Certainly the most
recent data (e.g., by-law enforcement and absentee ownership data from 2009 as shown in
Table 2 of the study, excerpted as Appendix "C" to this report) showed very positive trending in
Cedar Hill, both in absolute terms and relative to the other downtown planning communities.
In summary, the data update study concluded that the social environment in the Cedar Hill
neighbourhood has stabilized or improved since the previous study was undertaken, and is no
longer distinguishable from other downtown planning communities. The report does
acknowledge that Cedar Hill is still a neighbourhood at risk and recommends strict monitoring
and by-law enforcement.
Changing Context of Downtown Area Development
Many changes have occurred since 2005, both with provincial planning legislation and within the
City of Kitchener. Provincially, the Places to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe (2006) legislation has given municipalities direction to focus a percentage of growth
in built-up areas in order to achieve a better balance between intensification and greenfield
development and make better use of existing infrastructure.
The City of Kitchener has made significant investments in the downtown core, resulting in the
Wilfrid Laurier University School of Social Work and the University of Waterloo School Health
Sciences Campus establishing downtown, and becoming catalysts for additional development.
Kitchener has seen a number of significant residential reurbanization projects in the past few
years, particularly in the downtown and surrounding planning communities, including the
5-3
T~JH~,N,R Community Services Department www.kitchenPr to
Kaufman Lofts, Le Marche Lofts, the InTowns townhouses and the Iron Horse Tower
apartments. A large increase in downtown employment has also taken place, led by the
conversion of retail space in Market Square and the King Centre to office space, and followed
by loft-style office conversions in The Tannery and the Breithaupt Block. In addition the new
Consolidated Courthouse development occupies a full city block and is expected to be a
catalyst for additional office, restaurant and other related uses in the immediate area and
throughout the downtown.
While development has been restricted in the Cedar Hill neighbourhood, a great deal of interest
in redevelopment opportunities in that area has been expressed to Planning staff. The close
proximity of the Cedar Hill planning community to the downtown core area make it likely that the
neighbourhood will experience revitalization as private citizens and the development industry
invest in the neighbourhood.
Preliminary plans for a Rapid Transit system include a proposed stop on Charles Street East
along the Cedar Hill community boundary. Station areas and the communities that fall within
the 600-800m walking radius of those stations have strong potential to become intensification
areas for both residential development and mixed use developments. As the authors of the
update to the Cedar Hill Land Use and Social Environment Study note, "the relaxing of existing
controls on residential development would no longer be a threat to the social diversity of the
neighbourhood. The residential intensification of the neighbourhood, which will involve the
construction of new housing targeting different markets, will assure this diversity".
Downtown East Ya Gotta Luv /t Community Development Program
The Downtown East program completed its initial five-year term, and the evaluation report
presented to Council in April 2010 provided positive updates along with further
recommendations. The program, and particularly landlords of low-rise multiple dwellings, is
credited with helping the Cedar Hill neighbourhood achieve a higher degree of social stability.
In early 2011 the program was approved by city Council as a Tier One organization with a multi-
year agreement for Community Investment grant funding.
A community forum was held on March 30th, 2011 to review the successes of the program and
to discuss how the Downtown East program will continue. The forum included presentations by
Grand River Care Share, Open File, the Kitchener Market, City of Kitchener By-law
Enforcement staff and Waterloo Region Police Services. A background review of the Cedar Hill
Land Use and Social Environment Study and how the Downtown East program fits in was given
by Jeff Willmer of the City's Community Services Department. A review of the Downtown East
program was undertaken, including a review of program impacts and success stories, and how
25 of the 26 strategic objectives had been achieved.
These presentations were followed by a general discussion by those in attendance. Topics of
discussion included how the community group should look to develop a succession plan for
group leaders, working with other neighbourhood groups and the City, working with changing
volunteer trends and building on the community's strengths. During the discussion it was noted
that although new development would be a positive thing in the long term, the community was
still concerned about land assembly and absentee ownership in the time leading up to
redevelopment. Those in attendance felt that enhanced by-law enforcement may be required to
ensure that buildings are maintained. Some expressed the opinion that demolition may be
preferable to derelict or abandoned buildings; others felt that retaining the building stock is
preferable to demolition.
5-4
1
°rc;~~~r~,~ ommunityServices Depurt~nent www.kltchenerra
The discussion group also noted that the community has benefited from the stability that the
place-holder zoning by-law has given. Community members want to have input before City
Council or the Ontario Municipal Board makes decisions on the future of the place-holder by-
law.
By-law Enforcement Tools
As recommended in the 2010 Study, Cedar Hill should continue to be a priority area for by-law
enforcement so that it does not slip from stability to decline.
Community members are interested in any new tools that may be available to assist. One
possibility is new regulation to require demolition of buildings that have remained vacant for an
extended period of time. This would not apply to designated or listed heritage properties.
Another possibility is to require that vacant buildings -rather than simply being secured against
vandalism or entry - be maintained to the same standard as occupied buildings in the
neighbourhood. This should be an incentive for property owners to keep their buildings
occupied.
Licensing of rental housing is a relatively unproven approach which is being considered in some
Ontario communities, notably those experiencing health and safety issues with student housing.
If licensing of rental housing is to be implemented in Kitchener it would not be exclusive to
Cedar Hill.
Planning Analysis
The changes that have taken place since the 2005 adoption of the placeholder by-law are
significant. Downtown employment growth has been dramatic, and the shift toward knowledge-
economy employment, such as Desrie2Learn and Google, has emphasized a growing
preference for urban environments both for employment and for housing.
The market for downtown area living is considerably stronger now than in 2005. The success of
loft-style conversions and new condominium development has proven the market for urban
living, New projects such as the Arrow Lofts and City Centre condominiums are well under way.
Fusion Homes has purchase an entire block for mixed use development just one city block
away from the Cedar Hill neighbourhood.
Recent transit developments, including progress to bring Rapid Transit and Go Transit to
Waterloo Region, further make the Kitchener City Core and downtown planning communities
attractive to development
Cedar Hill has been on the brink of such growth before. In the 1960s and 1970s, the community
was rezoned for high densities in anticipation of core area development and higher-order transit.
Speculation led to property consolidation and neglect, leading to a declining physical and social
environment. This prompted significant and ongoing community action to take back the streets,
as well as increased attention from police and by-law enforcement officials. These efforts
prevented a downward spiral of the social environment; however, the neighbourhood continued
in a fragile balance that finally led to the implementation of the Interim Control By-law in 2003.
Based on the discussions that took place at the March 30 and May 5 community meetings, it is
evident that residents agree that redevelopment and intensification will ultimately have a
positive effect on the community's physical and social environment. However, there is concern
that during the transition period prior to redevelopment speculation and absentee ownership
may lead to short term decline. This possibility is not unique to Cedar Hill; the same possibility
5-5
TC;~~,lv~: CommunityServifesDepartment www.kitchener.ru
exists elsewhere in Kitchener as there are seven Mixed Use Corridors identified for urban
intensification, and the potential for as many as eight rapid transit station areas expected to see
significant intensification. Furthermore, while some measure of short term decline is possible
during the interim period there is no guarantee of it. The rapid rise of investor interest in
downtown Kitchener is already evident. In this environment the implementation of rapid transit
is expected to be a catalyst for redevelopment which was not the case in the 1970s and 1980s
when Cedar Hill began to experience decline.
The placeholder by-law was effective at helping stabilize land use in Cedar Hill while the
community development efforts helped improve the social environment. It has served its
purpose and can no longer be justified as the 2010 Study shows Cedar Hill to be fairly typical of
downtown planning communities.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
On May 5, 2011, a community meeting was held at City Hall to discuss the updated Cedar Hill
Land Use and Social Environment Study. The meeting was advertised by means of a letter
mailed to all addresses in the area subject to the Interim Control By-law. The register available
at the meeting was signed by 27 persons; however, staff notes that there appeared to be more
than 27 people in attendance. Planning and Enforcement staff was on hand to answer
questions raised during the meeting.
Planning staff provided a brief presentation highlighting several of the figures from the revised
study. This was followed by an hour-long question and answer period, where the community
members noted their concerns with the expiration of the Interim Control By-law and possible
loss of the Cedar Hill placeholder zoning currently under appeal. Other parties in attendance
voiced a concern with the "development freeze" that has resulted in the area due to the zoning
being under appeal. Enforcement staff provided a great deal of input regarding. possible
measures, such as revised maintenance/demolition controls and rental housing licensing that
could be explored in order to address concerns about poorly maintained buildings and absentee
landlords. Comment forms were provided at the meeting, and responses received by May 11,
2011 can be found in Appendix "D".
CONCLUSION:
The 2010 Cedar Hill study update identified that many of the indicators noted in the previous
study that signalled distress have stabilized or improved, both in absolute terms and relative to
other downtown planning communities. Particularly noteworthy is that the most recent
indicators are consistently positive for the neighbourhood. Cedar Hill is no longer
distinguishably worse off than the comparator neighbourhoods.
The Downtown East program has contributed to an improved social environment in Cedar Hill
and has now been given a commitment of additional funding through amulti-year agreement.
Finally, in the years since Interim Control By-law 2003-89 first came into effect, changes to
provincial legislation, downtown community investment and development, and regional transit
options have resulted in a significantly more positive environment for investment and
redevelopment in the downtown and surrounding neighbourhood including Cedar Hill.
On this basis staff recommends that the Official Plan and Zoning applicable to the lands within
the Cedar Hill Planning Community be restored to what they were prior to the 2005
amendments.
5-6
ITC,I-~~,n~~. omr~unity5ervics Depart>nent www.kitrhenerca
REVIEWE® ~Y:
®ella Ross, Manager of ®evelopment Review
Alain Pinar, ®irector of Planning
Shayne Turner, Director of ~y-law Enforcement
ACKIV®~VL.~®GEIJ Ya Jeff Willmer, Deputy CAO
Community Services Department
A°fTACFiMENl°S:
Appendix "A" - Directions to download the full Ontario Municipal Board interim decision
Appendix "B" - Newspaper ad May 13, 2011-05-12
Appendix "C" - Directions to download the full publication titled An Update of the Data
Contained in the 2005 Cedar Hill Land Use and Socia/ Environment
Study, April 2011
Appendix "D" - Table 2, excerpted from the publication titled An Update of the Data
Contained in the 2005 Cedar Hill Land Use and Socia/ Environment
Study, April 2011
Appendix "E" ® Written responses from the public following the community meeting held
on May 5, 2011
5-7
The Interim Decision of the. Ontario Municipal Board can be downloaded from the Ontario
Municipal Board ~-Decisions website. This page can be found at:
http:l/wwvv.omb.gov.on.calenctlishleDecisionsleDecisions.htrr~l
Searching for the file number ®PL080333 -will provide two search results; one dated January
14, 2009, regarding the pre-hearing conference, and another dated January 14, 2010. The
January 14, 2010 document is the "Interim Decision" referenced within staff report CSD11-031.
The document can be printed, reviewed on screen or saved for review at a later time.
5-8
Advertised in The Record -May 13, 2011
a
PROPERTY OWNERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED
TO ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING 1"O DISCUSS
AN ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD APPEAL
UNDER SECTIONS 22 AND 34 OF THE PLANNING ACT
Cedar Hill Neighbourhood
The purpose of this meeting is to allow public input for Council's consideration prior to the City's
participation in Phase 2 of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing with respect to Official Plan Amendment
No. 58 and By-law 2005-91. These amendments were adopted by the City in 2005 and were
appealed to the OMB, which issued an interim decision in January 2010 after the Phase 1 hearing. The
amendments included adown-zoning of the entire neighbourhood to implement "placeholder zoning"
having the effect that most new residential development proposals would be considered through site-
specific zone change applications.
The public meeting will be held by the City's Planning ~ Strategic Initiatives Committee, a
Committee of Council that deals with planning matters on:
MONDAY, Monday May 30th at 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL. CHAMBERS, 2nd FLOOR, CITY HALL
200 KING STREET WEST, KITCHENER.
Any person may attend the Public Meeting and make written and/or verbal representation either in
support of, or in opposition to, the above noted proposal. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION is available by
contacting the Community Services Depar#ment -Planning Division, 6~n Floor, City Hall, 200 King Street
West, Kitchener between 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday to Friday).
5-9
Appendix "C'y
ITC;HEi~'EI~. Community Services De~artmen~ www.kitchenerta
A copy of the full publication titled An Update of the Data Contained in the 2005 Cedar Nill Land
Use and Socia/ Environment Study, Apri/ 2011 can be downloaded as an appendix to staff
report CSD-11-053. This report can be found online by cutting and pasting the following web
address into a browser:
http://icalendar.es®lutionsgroup.ca/Module.aspx?PMID=2edfdd52-2473-4f2c-a47d®
d94998f28f4b&Type=Select&Start=05/02/2011 &End=05/02/2011 &Page=O&PageSize=25&CI®=
3e0642e8-x655-4ecf-a9f2-cb48b1 e57256&5=2011-05-02 14:30:OOZ&E=2011-05-02 16:0O:OOZ
Alternatively, a copy of the report containing the full study can be obtained by contacting Colin
Goodeve at colin.goodeve(c~kitchener.ca
5-10
Table 2: Indicators and T~ndeneies in Ceder Dill
Indicator Nature of Recent Change in Cedar Hill (from 2000, 2001, 2003 Trend Effects of Trends on Cedar Hill
and 2005 to 2005, 2006, 2409, 2010, depending on sow~ees of data) Indicators
Legend: ~+ =Decline ®=Stable/Non-measurable ~=Increase
(Note: Indicators indicate trends, not analysis)
Population 10% decline over 2001-2006, after period of growth Population loss is difficult to explain; if the
trend persists it could be dama in
Number of 5.5% decline over 2001-200b, after period of growth Household loss is difficult to explain; if the
Households trend persists it could be damaging
Average Household Fall relative to the City of Kitchener and stable relative to downtown ~,/ o Stabilization of incomes relative to those of
h~come planning communities between 2000-2005; but Cedar Hill is at the downto«~n planning communities is a
bottom of the income scale among the three levels of observatio^ positive trend; but still losing ground
(Cedar Hill, downtown planning communities, City of Kitchcnerj, relative to City of Kitchener
es eciall in hi h-densi dissemination areas
Household Size Ongoing decline in household size between 2001 and 2006; Cedar Small and shrinking households reflect the
Hill is at the bottom among levels of observation makeup of Cedar Hill, low presence of
families
Proportion of Non- Slight increase in the proportion ofnon-family households in Cedar ~ High proportion ofnon-family households
family Households Hill between 2001 and 2006; the neighbourhood is at the top of the compromises the social mix of Cedar Hill
three levels of observation
Proportions of Age Increase in 65+ residents at the expense of other age groups between O The population of Cedar Hill is becoming
Categories 2001 and 2006; less children and teenagers in Cedar Hill than at other older, and the presence of children is
levels of observation declining
Proportion of Non- The proportion has increased slightly over 2001-2006, but is still ~ ~ Cedar Hill is a reception point for
Canadian Citizens below a 1991 peak immigrants, but the proportion of non-
Canadians is not very high
Proportion of Slight increase in 2006 relative to 2001, but lower level than in 1991 ~ ~ The population is unstable in Cedar Hill,
Households that and 1996; in 2006 Cedar Hill has nearly twice the proportion of the which is consistent-with its non-family
Have Moved in other ]evels of observation profile; neighbourhood at risk because of
Previous 5 Years rapid shifts in population
Presence of No change in the number of assisted housing between 200 and ~ Stabilization of the number of assisted
Assisted Housing 2010; no data for a comparison of the number of occupants of housing has allowed Cedar Hill to maintain
and Residential ~ residential care facilities, but increase unlikely given zoning and some of its socially mixed nature
Care Facilities Official Plan by-law amendments
Property Values Cedar Hill has been and remains at the bottom of the downtown o Points to the fact that the neighbourhood is
fanning communities for roperty values. a poor area, a factor of risk
Proportion of Decline in the proportion of absentee landowners between 2003 and ~ Decline in the proportion of absentee
Absentee 2009; Cedar Hill still posts the highest proportion of absentee landowners is a sign of stabilization
Landowners landowners among downtown planning communities, but is~moving
closer to the downtown communities norm
Number of Property Cansiderable decline in the number of property by-law violations in Decline in the number of by-law violations
By-law Violations Cedar Hill and in downtown planning communities between 2003 and in the ranking of Cedar Hill in this
and 2009; Cedar Hill, which used to occupy the top rank for different matter is a sign a stabilization
categories of by-law violations, is now in a middle position among
downtown planning communities
Table excerpted from An Update of the Qata Contained in the 2005 Cedar Hill Land Use and
Social Environment Study, April 2011 written by Pierre Filion and Kent Hakull.
5-11
O ~ m d
`° ° s
~
N o ~ v
N ~ Q 9
C
° c m 3
A ~ •p C
~ N N O
O -p ~
j C ~
U J. Q
i ~ ~ C
N ~
3~ Euca
~ W
•
~
e N p
N ~ ~ `~ C
C
O ~ O (6
N O a C (6
U N
N
N ~
o ~ ~ ~ m
~
~
a
c °' a`> o
O N u
O U N O U
N C a C O
O (6 c0
C
u
~ m ro m o
O U
~ Y d
t6
N
E C N
O
N Q ~ LL
N
E ~ p ~-
a
_
~`6 °~3
U
~ f
~
6 N
+
+
3 c
m
~ U
C 'O [
~ .
m
m °~ oc C o
++ ~ ~ a ~
^~ O 0 ~ ~ G
N ~ N
~~:
N
~ (6
T G a ~ C N
~ N
bCA1 a
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z (n
~r m Ea.Q c
t o a ~ o
i-omno
j
d
3
0
R~
C
J
T
a
V
o ~
N
LL N
Y
•°
m t
3
-
N
U f6
d •
q~ ~~ a
c
V O Y
~ C f~- N
C
N ~ O ~
`t co ~
~ ~ ~+,NN ~
m
~ U .
~
a N U.a-i ~ZN N ~
N
~ O Q~
E
a ~ (per
~ e
x0
~•°m v~°r~co
C Oj ei ~
~ ~
N JQa~Oe°ih~
n oY
Q
N __ ~
b0 -mN ~ ~
_~=eeui~
C
~ ~ Z ~
` >, @f
b0 .
'me
~ ~
f6
~, =
O
/
~ C ~, OO .0. O X p
~... Qo C
N~
o_ .
N
c~
C
~ T ?~ T
a UD b11 Y?p
N O ~ O O
~ N YO N N
~O N
C N ~ O N
O ~
• U ~ ~
o N ~ (6 f6
m ip ~ ~
m ~
~ c
m
~
U
C
C •• m
T
~
a N
3 0 ~
N N N
C (n ~ .c`7 1 ~ m
N ~ a U
Q
N N
~ N C
~ N N
._..
.O
~ C
N ~ nCD
C ~
N ~
U
~ y
O ci CO ci O ci mM
~
T
u
~ A
n ~
C T
c
• o
o
o c
C O ~
o
a c
~, O ~
o
o c
~ O
c
N
o N ~ N
~ ~ ~
+~•+ N N N
N +'C+ ~
N O
a ~
C b0 ~~,
U- a
a t10 U
Q N w N ~ N ~
~ ~ a "_" a O
ci N M <t
N
N
a
~ ~
`
~
~, `
1~
J ~ V
^ N
O
' ~ ~
X C• ~ ~
m ~
~ ~
i ~-
O CO ,
~
5
m a
°'_,
e ~-
-f- n Z
~ /,
- v
~ n ~
~ j :~ ~
.Q
c N
3 ~
~ ri ~; ~-
~
~ m y
m
v
N ~
e
~
~ n /
_ ~i
a~ c
' :1 ` n ` - i/ ~. - k
~
L
N ~,
~ J
~ G`~
(•
'~
r -`~
++
C
N
~
V
~ .
~
f
\
.
O ~
N
~
~
"k v '
N~ ~(
u ~ f f ~ r ~V
~~
'
' v, ~ .,
_ _
~ ~ _ .ti ~ r, v
s
T
m ~ =
,
1
_,
u C
~
~
n
J
V
~
_
~ ~ o
a ~,
p ~ ~
~ V
~
- ~
y ~ 1 1
O as o ~
~ ~ ~
' n
L. ~
~
w N
s
e~ _~
_
'-~~ VUj
~---~
~~
5-12
o~roa
m o s a
N
O
O-'Q
N ~ O #
C
-_
_
O e - K
~
(6
>+ N a c 7
O ie
k
N ~ 3 ~ ~ * C
O A i0
~
~
C !(j #
~ C E
N ~ N # N 6l
c~
2i w G ~ ~ # L ~ T.. ?. T
' m m n
n
~
~N,G
c
- - ~ * c
~ w
o ~ a c
a
m
~
~ a ~ to ~
V~ ~
S ~ ~_ w
~ N l8 N N
N E O c o ~ ,#
.p U C N ~ N 9I
~ a (6
N O N E
~o
~
U 'k
~
s bfl
~ ~`~ ~ ,~hm0
U~`.. 00
,
~
\
~~
p
F- a m
c'''i .~
~ +,
c m
<,tf7
m r a ~
In
~ ~~ ,
~ lt)
€ ~. i e
~
E O .C
O
~
.k
U ~
L
_ ~
E
-~. ~ ~O ~ T ~ ~ N i` ~ C C
~ C 'O C p ,p~C, - 'k O N O C
c,oa-
3 m c c C ~ ~
c s
'3 ~
.~
~ °'
c ri w
~ ni m '
~ c*i E
~
°
E ~O " ~ w N ~ ~
.~~m
w= ~ c ~ -O
, .~ ~ m
~ ~ N a
i
n U a
~ N
L
ip N ~ N
o Eck ~ ^
`~ e
m c~ O
e #
~ c4
v N N
a N
a N
c
_~ ~
_
~ ~ o ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
a
*
~
o c
m U
~
c
E -o m ° ~ v° i ~, ~ ~
+ a
m o ri c c-i
o o ri n`mo
s ~ m a>i v I c
p n
>. ~ ~ d. N ~ p ~ T ~~ ~, ac0 ~, N
b.0 .c *'' O ~
a y
y ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~
6
'
~ N ~p
U * > O C~ p' ~ N C) C
C ~ ~L
~ O O
O O e 6]
O
a 1
~
OrJ Nz ~$
N Uci N N
U
\' p;
E ~ p
~ C O
'
N >, O
~ N ~ O
N N
0 U
~~ N Q S6
0 ~ ` C
~
~ ~
¢ ~ c-1 CD
~ C x S
0 0 d' N~
~ ~Nm ~ C C
O~
4-Y '%
*
* G ~
N
a N N
«"C+ ~ ~
""' N
a O
U
y 61 d'U
j
0
00 ~ ~
N ~ ~
N F
p.~. ~"N'~ E C ~
a v Qa~
~N
-
uo '' of Ty
~ ~
a' d
~ ~
~ ~
v- 'a ~
~v
s N N O °e' Z UJ ¢ ~ _ _
_ ~ m ~ c ti t` j ~ -
~ca e ~ ~ _ _ ~
` ~
E = ~ _
U l N c+'i V'
• m
'a Q ro ~, o v o p
a i c
a ~ r
5`'
a q
N g p
N ®t 8i
M
d
~~
~
'
o
~
~
~
3
~
t
~
j
~
~ 1)
VT
, T
/
Z
~
~ ~
n.
~.
~ ti°
o
c 3
\ ~
v C ~ S \ 1Va
S ` ~1`
~ Q ~ ~ ~.~ ~ 3 ~ ~
-.
~ `~
i 3
~ ~
c
O
~'
~
~
~
~ ~
`
o
e
r r
m
~
~
~-
~'
~
~
~
~
s
~
~
a
~
`.
'
~
S
u . l
.
C ~ J
~ ` ~
U W ~
\~7 {
'tq t r
Y O
U A
O ~ .c
O
T u
y
`
C ~ V
a ~
N a
4N-. .O
3 O
'O
aN+
c
~
J
~
v~
' ~
~
~
'~ ;
~ "~
`~
~' S\
C~~i
'S
~ ~,S
~
i
~
~
~
~
O
~ o
a
a>
.b ~
"""SSS t
~
`'`
a
~ a
e
o N
N ov
~
~ ~ _
1
~-
_
~ ~
`
~
V
--~
V
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~.
'~
'---a
.j
_ Q~
~ ~ N -fit
~ 1 ti
r
~ a ~ .-i ~
-,
~ U U
5-13
a
o~~Qv
m`os
.
r'
Eo
'O ~ ~ a
m
.
c _
c x
m~3
o a ,*k
o ENO ~ C7
-C
~ L ~ ~ ~ % N
{1 ~
b
3 =
ow ~
~
~ a
- ~• ~
a cn
an
T
cn
p
m m ,.. ~. ~ ~ t 'c ~ ~ 0 0
~ r ~ ui ~
a
J ~
- ~ *
m ~ E
o o N
c
~ ~° N
m N
m
~Eom°v
-
C U y o N '~ j' c~$
~ d #
~ N a
i
S N a;
U m
N d ~°~~-
F ~ C O. i~ `
° K
~~ . ~K
;
~ V # a
C C --
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ to
~
~ l7
c c0
C
~
• ~~ ~ ~ 'C m +
A -N o
N d N ~ N
3 ~
~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~
"o >, E
~ E ' c
3 c
u
;5 caa c. I
o
mo ~ ~
c .c ~
~
3 ~ a
o d~
a~ ~
i m
'
c`- E
a
am .
c Ego
y d N~
~
c J
~ ~ m
U_ E ,*x
N k m
(0 n
N N o
EV ~ ~
.C N -
-
~
LL
m ~ o ~
E -p U T 3 ~
v
..~
~~ E
E
U 2
o~ °'
p u ~ *
•o ~
N * L
o.
~ o
f
a~ ~
i
o~ o
p c,~ eco
~ C~
LO.~ma~iv ~ o ~
~E v ~
~
O ~ x
~ w ~ a
°
D .~ ~=
M
m .c '~ o m
C U m L 'A
~
t
y ~ E ~ C7 c
V m
N O c-1 y N V d. Q7
~
N o
i m ~
a V i` ">
~ o
c
C O Q ~
>. O
E ~ ~
E O c
m
~°
jOCO~
/ d 0
~1~t
~cx3oc
m
n Ec ~ c r "
"~ ~
m _
~ E~i
o vi ~ ~
~ ~'
N 4
N n°
m i
.-i c0
J ~ a N O N N W ~~ r
: `1 y
= c
2 ~
N ~
y o
N o f
L S
N a m N
A G ~ ('~ C m
Y N~ N~ Z 10
np .p
N Q
~ O
9> ~ by ~ N ~
= C N~~ W lt1 ~ O
~+ ~ M
~ C # ~ ~
_ 'O ~
- =p ~
~ ~ S
C
..
- C C~ .V O
m E ~0 9 `c N
f9
°~ m C 2 S L z /
o C a 0 O i< O
~0-'O~S ~ C ~
c n
`a U
~ e-i N M d'
;~
~. too ~o
'- m O. U
d LLO
m.
U d V N 5 0. 1- o
*
F- O.- t
F-
(`
l' '
c
Z
_
o
c c v
E _
_-
a
- c 'E
_
> - _ E
a E~ E .
n
;
E u -moo o M o
- - - --
- ~£
- - __ 3
z o a 3 E 5
y c
_ °° .o E°<
a~ ~ - 3 ~ ~° E E E w E ~- ~ E
i j E c _ E - w '~ o i a
N ~ o a A E a s s a E c 3 E c ~
~
a
E- ~ o
~ h E _ ~ a
m ~ v 3 _ ~ _ ~ ~
Q ~
_ -
3
uTi E - -
~ °
Y E
_ E
o n 3
-
0& - o f - 3 m Z _ t c s o
.,
O_ 3 E
a ~ -
° _ @ - _a ~ 3 _ _ n
c a n
~'~~-E ~ a ~ A- _ a~
E t m m E a
° c _ _ E
E o
_ -
- ' -
a 3 E m_ m
y > ~
a,v H - - - n s
m
~ ~E a o ~ r E
E
~ i E? n c ~ -0 5
~ _ _
c y E o o
E
- E a
n E a E t ?
L~
- ° E ~ '- - v a
-
- ; 3 _-
A
.i - - e" o c F a - = 3
O L m
C C _a
t '~
m _
t .
w .
. w - V .
.
3
~ m - A
_ - 3
~ o <
~
- - c _ m E
E
9 a
s o ~- ° _ A ~ 3 3 '- u° c o m o° 4 c m ~
_ E t _ a a m 3 a
E
O
a'
~} et
5-14
~, s:
Comments re Information Presented May 10, 2011
First, I appreciate the chance to attend this presentation and far the taken by staff to go through this
exercise.
By way of background information, I had read the report already and 1 am reasonably familiar with the
issues.
While I am a champion of Cedar Hills and I do believe that things are improving, largely because of the
interim by-law, I was concerned as the conclusions presented by staff were not consistent with my
reading of the report. I have since taken the time to verify with others more knowledgeable than I am
about the report that my interpretation is indeed correct. It is.
At a public meeting it is important to be relatively upbeat. Nonetheless, the overall conclusions to the
report were far more tentative than as presented. It remains the case that the community is very fragile
and particularly so if the interim controls are removed. These risks will be compounded should the
proposed transit system be accepted and announced.
I remain very concerned about the fact that there seemed little in the way of assurance that can be
given by way of protection for the neighbourhood should the interim by-law come off. The new by-law
proposed by Shayne may be one step. But at the very least 1 would hope that planning staff would be
seeking a settlement on this issue that includes some protections that flow from the conclusion to the
report that what is required in Cedar Hills is more than in any other downtown community. 1 was
particularly concerned by the inference (and statements) that the risks Cedar Hills face are the same as
the other places where there will be a station. This is not what the report suggests and I would have
thought we should all be working to put in place measures that will assist with the greater attention
required that the report recommends.
In sum: thanks for the work. But it was disappointing to be in something of a time warp. 20 and 30 years
ago we would get this kind of presentation: this is the only outcome available to you, community.
Essentially, sorry but good luck. In fact, what we have learned along the way is that there are creative
and practical measures that can be taken if there is the will to do the work to make them happen. That
was the message 1 wanted to hear: we can`t have X but we will continue to work with you to see what
we can get. Rather than, sorry, this is all we can do. Again, if the last 30 years have taught us anything in
Cedar Hills it is that we must continue to work creatively and hard and together to protect this still
fragile community. Moreover, these discussions must take place between us in'private' and not in
public meetings or before Council.
Thanks
47 Peter St, Kitchener
5-15