Committee of Adjustment Sept 13
We wonder about the effects of what we call ‘mission creep’. Small incremental variances that eventually add up to a gradual shift in objectives, often resulting in an unplanned long-term commitment and making a mockery of Stratford’s Official Plan.
The effect we worry about is that when one property achieves a variance as requested in this particular case, amounts to another property owner/developer asking for a similar variance citing the one from before that was granted. Eventually there’s no cohesive planning and policy. It’s plainly obvious in this case that the zoning by law could be met if the developer or builder amended the amount of dwelling units on the site downward.
We see this type of ‘siege mentality’ happening around town where property owners or developers continually lobbying local government at committee of adjustment level. This is forcing local residents to be constantly on the lookout for threats to their homes & living standards such as extra tall buildings, buildings imposing large shadow or privacy issues upon their homes along with parking & driving chaos to local street ‘scapes something that brutalist architecture is characterized by.
Would it be unreasonable thinking from us should this variance be granted to see another application for an increase in dwelling units on the property as the next ‘mission creep’ agenda such was proposed in the original application for this site (25 dwelling units)? This occurred at The property now known as the Bradshaw Lofts we believe.
Could this variance be used by the Chancery development on Ontario street which also seems to be playing loose with the Official Plan for Stratford in our heritage corridor?
Our heritage area (as included in schedule E of the official plan) should be cared for, preserved and not watered down with infill intensification development at ‘any’ cost!
Thank you,
Kevin Gormley & Kim Foster
The Old Rectory B&B
021-09-13