OrilliaMatters welcomes letters to the editor at [email protected]. Please include your daytime phone number and address (for verification of authorship, not publication). The following letter is in response to article titled, 'City to allow taller buildings to help combat housing shortage,' published July 20.
Orillia City Council’s decision to pre-zone lands in the city’s “living area-intensification” areas to permit heights of eight-storey buildings does not make sense. It is simply another way for the city to support developers, without considering the actual impact on communities.
The report’s pre-zoning recommendation was for all lands “within the Downtown Area – Central Core Intensification Area designation and within the Living Area – Intensification Area designation, excluding that portion of Orchard Point with no frontage on Atherley Road.”
Already, councillors have found flaws with the report’s recommendation.
For example, as some councillors suggested, including the downtown area does not make sense. Councillors didn’t like the idea of “a wall of eight-storey buildings across the waterfront.” Council decided against including that portion of the city.
There are certainly other areas of the city where the development of an eight-storey building should not be approved without input from the community. Without the requirement to apply for a zoning amendment, public meetings would not be required.
The report specifically excludes the over-developed Orchard Point area with an exception. The new pre-zoning process would apply to Orchard Point property with frontage on Atherley Road.
Currently, there is an application to develop a luxury, eight-storey condominium on just such a property at Orchard Point. The property has waterfront on Lake Simcoe, so maybe a “wall of eight-storey buildings” on the waterfront should be something to consider. The development proposal includes access from Orchard Point and Driftwood Roads, which would impact the entire community. The “frontage on Atherley Road” exception does not make sense. This is just one example of how important public input can be to a development proposal.
The purpose of this change to the zoning amendment process is to “further streamline the development process” to support “higher density developments that would offer a greater range of affordability options,” – all in response to the Province of Ontario’s push for more housing. Without proper scrutiny and public input, how can we ensure we are providing affordable housing options versus high-priced, luxury accommodations?
It is time for the City of Orillia to be bold, listen to its constituents and make smarter decisions that support the quality of life for its citizens, not the province’s wish lists or developers’ bank accounts.
Kathy Hunt
Orillia
