The proposed MZO…

The proposed MZO contemplates approval of a development that is inconsistent with previous plans for developing this site and ignores past community consultations. These amendments were not shared with the community prior to submission of the MZO so local stakeholder buy-in is currently limited.

The amended plan is proposing a significant increase in density (642 vs 447 units), that is likely to prove problematic to the surrounding area. Traffic in the neighborhood is already a challenge as the adjacent streets (James and Bay) are residential through these neighbourhoods yet act as two main arteries into the area. James and Bay are connected by a series of small, purely residential streets that do not support significant volumes of traffic. There is a substantial shortage of street parking in this community due to the nature of the housing stock. The result is flow of significant traffic through a limited number of residential streets, which has creat safety and efficiency issues. Adding 400+ units was already likely to exacerbate the existing issues, and a further 40 percent increase in density will compound the problems further.

The reality is the city has not made needed investments into the infrastructure in this area that will support densification at this level (parking options, flow-through traffic plans, safety measures, commercial space etc). I am in favour of the initial project designs
as it demonstrated best efforts to deliver new housing within the limitations of the current area. The area would benefit from new density. I am also not opposed to looking at different height options to maximize use of the existing lands while maintaining green space. But, the proposed expansion attempts to shoe-horn additional density through an MZO without the appropriate planning. The city and development consortium have not done sufficient diligence and engagement to make this expansion a success.

Lastly, the area is also anticipating a major development at nearby Pier 8. This will bring significant density to the area of the city that will also require updates to infrastructure, design, zoning, bylaws etc. Many of those improvements have yet to materialize, and those that have, show signs of mismanagement by the city. Given this recent history, it would best for the city and developers to get this right and action a plan that already has community and stakeholder buy-in and can work within the current limitations of the area and municipal budgets.

Approval of an MZO for the expanded development will not be viewed positively in the neighborhood and has a very high chance of leading to downstream problems that prevent or slow future development.

Best of luck with the decision!