- by Alex Speigel and Chari Cohen
We are writing in response to the virtual presentation The Planning Partnership made on December 8 concerning the Beaver Valley development. We offer the following personal comments on the initial proposal presented:
Positive Aspects:
1. Concentrating new buildings on the “allowable” portions of the properties and leaving the open spaces – the brow of the escarpment and hazard lands – as publicly accessible open areas.
2. Proposing to enhance these areas with walking trails and natural landscaping using native materials
3. Maintaining most of the access to lower areas from Talisman Road and not burdening Sideroad 7A with additional traffic loads.
4. Setting out design principles that include contextual development, having regard for the environmental carrying capacity of the site, maintaining public access. (There may be more, but I’m doing this from memory and don’t have a copy of your presentation.)
Negative Aspects:
1. Lack of an overall vision for the entire site.
2. Profound disconnect between the design principles as stated (context, unique character of the Beaver Valley, environmental considerations) and the built form that is proposed.
3. Exponential over-development of the built form, with densities far beyond what is permitted in the Official Plan and completely out of scale with adjacent communities. It will generate a huge carbon footprint since it is so isolated and vehicle dependant.
4. No consideration of the local context: the size, scale and planning of the proposed built form would be contextual in the suburban areas of Oakville, not in Kimberley. For example, sideyards and backyards on the upper lands facing highway 7A will eventually need privacy walls will be erected to screen backyards from the road. This will create a “walled city” approach that is typically seen in sprawl developments in suburban communities along arterial roads.
Recommendations:
1. Read the Strategic Plan for Grey Highlands. It sets out goals based on: Considerate Communities, Healthy Lifestyle, Respected Environment and Strong Governance.
2. Refer to Section 4.8.3 (d) in the Official Plan which stipulates residential density in Recreation Areas at 3 units /ha. I don’t know the exact net area that is designated Recreational within the 55 acres of the two parcels but, assuming it is about 30 or 40 ha, this would generate around 100 residential units, not 500! The unit count should certainly not exceed this and should, in fact, be less based on the context of Kimberley and Amik which I believe totals about 160 units. The new development should be 30 – 50% of that number (ie: 50 – 80 units) with the final number based on proper studies to determine the sustainable capacity of the land, water, infrastructure and social fabric so as not to overwhelm them.
3. Follow your own design principles – the ones you have already specifically set out. A contextual solution would draw inspiration from the unique natural environment of the Beaver Valley and the village of Kimberley, not suburban Oakville.
4. Do a proper planning exercise for the whole site. The Municipality should require that a Secondary Plan or a Block Plan be done for all three parcels so they are planned in a comprehensive and integrated fashion. Piecemeal planning is not good planning.
5. Drastically reduce the proposed density. We know we’re repeating this, but it is a critical issue that cannot be understated. There is no justification for so many units, even from a financial perspective. The land was acquired at a very low cost and, although there will be infrastructure costs, the overall cost base to the developers will still be very low. A reasonable financial return is quite achievable with this low cost base so there should be no financial need for a massive density increase.
6. Consider other uses to supplement the proposed “bedroom community” monoculture.
7. Don’t propose a golf course adjacent to the river. If you do, ensure that it doesn’t use the extensive pesticides and fertilizers that are standard practice.
8. Follow the One Planet Living Framework for the project. I know your firm is already familiar with these principles and I encourage you to educate your clients about the benefits of using them to create “happy and healthy lives within the resources of our one planet”. These principles, developed by Bio-Regional, are based on the UN Sustainability Goals and provide a comprehensive and complete basis for planning and design, especially in the context of a unique site such as this one.
For reference:
One Planet Living Principles
Health and happiness. Encouraging active, sociable, meaningful lives to promote good health and well-being.
Equity and local economy. Creating bioregional economies that support equity and diverse local employment and international fair trade.
Culture and community. Respecting and reviving local identity, wisdom and culture; encouraging the involvement of people in shaping their community, creating a new culture of sustainability.
Land use and wildlife. Protecting and restoring biodiversity and creating new natural habitats through good land use and integration into the build environment.
Sustainable water. Using water efficiently in buildings, farming and manufacturing. Designing to avoid local issues such as flooding, drought and water course pollution.
Local and sustainable food. Supporting sustainable and humane farming, promoting access to healthy, low impact, local, seasonal and organic diets and reducing food waste.
Sustainable materials. Using sustainable and healthy products, such as those with low embodied energy, sourced locally, made from renewable or waste resources.
Sustainable transport. Reducing the need to travel and encouraging low and zero carbon modes of transport to reduce emissions.
Zero waste. Reducing waste, reusing where possible, and ultimately sending zero waste to landfill.
Zero carbon. Making buildings energy efficient and delivering all energy with renewable technologies.
Using the OPL principles to guide the planning and design on this very sensitive site could lead to a development that would be regenerative – not destructive – to the environmental capacity of the land and the social fabric of the surrounding community.
Your client’s publicly expressed strong bond with his grandchildren should lead him to consider their future on a warming planet with diminishing bio-diversity and so motivate him to leave them a legacy of which to be proud, not ashamed.
If you reconsider the design along the lines suggested here, we think you will get better support from the community, rather than the unanimously strong opposition that was clearly expressed at the meeting. These are our personal comments – we are not representing anyone here – but we think our concerns are very widely shared and strongly felt by very many people.
We hope this is helpful.
(By copy of this letter to the Municipal Clerk, we have requested that this be distributed to the Grey Highlands Council and to Planning Staff.)
