The Goldberg Version of OPA 10 differed significantly in several key areas from the Sorensen version. For example, the Goldberg Version of OPA 10 promotes two rather than three nodes of commercial retail development along Highways 7 & 8 – the Downtown Core and the Ontario Street East Commercial Area. It also does not prohibit commercial development of the Avonwood lands but rather recommends a “cautious” approach to the re-designation of all non-commercial lands in all of Stratford.
In addition to its submission that the data on which the Sorensen-version of OPA 10 is based were flawed (see Objection 1 above), Avonwood took issue with the inclusion of what it described as ‘emotive” words in the Sorensen version. In particular, the use of the term “eroded” in section 6.2 was cited, viz, “the relative prominence of the Downtown Core has been eroded over recent years.” Avonwood further alleges that the words “relative decline” in section 6.2, Goals and Objectives (ii): “…to reverse the relative decline in the retail sector (of the Downtown Core)…” were used to stir up strong reactions in the reader. Avonwood suggested that Mr. Goldberg’s use of “less emotional” words in his version of OPA 10 is “more helpful” to an applicant attempting to determine Council’s thinking regarding land use in certain areas of Stratford. Mr. Sorensen disagreed with this assessment, confirming to the Board in cross-examination that the words he used exactly describe the conditions he saw. After consideration of all the evidence on this question, I find that the words chosen by Mr. Sorensen in his recommended version of OPA 10 are appropriate. I therefore reject the submission of counsel for Avonwood in this regard.
Colin Hefferon
No comments:
Post a Comment