Waterloo — Ward 5
4 candidates responded
Eda Dede See responses
- Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
- Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
- Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
- Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
- Proceed with outward growth to address housing supply
- Expand as-of-right zoning to reduce case-by-case political decisions on housing forms
- Focus incremental density near transit, schools, and commercial areas
- Allow small-scale housing forms city-wide as-of-right (e.g. up to four units per lot)
- Eliminate parking minimum requirements
- Use public engagement to inform design, not to veto density
- Phase or adjust density in response to neighbourhood concerns about design or servicing capacity
- Require demonstrated city-wide benefits to justify local impacts
- Approve density where infrastructure capacity already exists
- Pair density approvals with targeted infrastructure upgrades
- Use development charges or conditions to fund needed upgrades
Marty Rempel See responses
- Require area-specific planning studies before permitting additional density
- Before approving major increases in population
- Council should ask: * Is there sufficient water and wastewater capacity? * Can stormwater be managed without increasing flood risk? * Can roads and intersections accommodate the additional demand? * Is transit frequent and reliable enough? * Are schools
- parks and recreation facilities adequate? * Can emergency services respond effectively?
- Use public engagement to inform design, not to veto density
- Phase or adjust density in response to neighbourhood concerns about design or servicing capacity
- Approve density where infrastructure capacity already exists
- Delay density until infrastructure is expanded
Describe one concrete zoning, planning, or development decision you would support (or oppose) that reflects how you would balance these priorities.candidate's own words
believe Waterloo needs more housing, and I do not think established neighbourhoods should be frozen in time. However, I also don’t believe that every neighbourhood should be expected to absorb high-rise development simply because it is within the existing urban boundary. I would support allowing appropriately designed duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses and similar forms of “missing middle” housing without requiring a rezoning application, provided they meet predetermined standards for height, setbacks, parking, tree retention, stormwater management, privacy and building massing. The greatest density should continue to be directed toward major transit corridors, ION stations and other areas where infrastructure can support it.
Please describe one concrete example of a growth or infrastructure decision you would support or oppose using this approach.candidate's own words
Building anything while water supply is in question
Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on growth?candidate's own words
Keep the decision making process as local as possible
Other priority not listed abovecandidate's own words
Calculate the full lifecycle cost before approving expansion.I’m
What can the municipality/region do, if anything, about land which sits vacant for years because it is being used as an investment (land banking)?candidate's own words
Council could examine whether the existing taxation treatment creates enough incentive to develop appropriately zoned vacant land, and advocate to the Province for stronger municipal tools if it does not.
Scott Piatkowski See responses
- Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
- Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
- Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
- Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
- Expand as-of-right zoning to reduce case-by-case political decisions on housing forms
- Focus incremental density near transit, schools, and commercial areas
- Require area-specific planning studies before permitting additional density
- Use public engagement to inform design, not to veto density
- Phase or adjust density in response to neighbourhood concerns about design or servicing capacity
- Require demonstrated city-wide benefits to justify local impacts
- Approve density where infrastructure capacity already exists
- Pair density approvals with targeted infrastructure upgrades
- Use development charges or conditions to fund needed upgrades
Describe one concrete zoning, planning, or development decision you would support (or oppose) that reflects how you would balance these priorities.candidate's own words
I think we need more housing over commercial spaces, including strip malls. An excellent example is 255 Woolwich Street, which has street level commercial (with parking behind) and residential units above (with entrances at the back). This is in a neighbourhood that is otherwise single family residential or green space.
Please describe one concrete example of a growth or infrastructure decision you would support or oppose using this approach.candidate's own words
A vacant unit tax would provide building owners with an incentive to keep units occupied. There are areas of the city where a significant number of housing units are boarded up, waiting until the owner decides to proceed with redevelopment. There are others where dilapidated buildings slated for demolition are occupied but are a blight on the neighbourhood because of the poor enforcement of property standards.
What can the municipality/region do, if anything, about land which sits vacant for years because it is being used as an investment (land banking)?candidate's own words
I'm very concerned about former gas station sites around the city being left vacant, not only because the land isn't being used, but because that vacancy is driven by wanting to avoid site cleanup. I want Council to request an inventory those sites and a strategy to encourage or possibly compel owners to clean them up and get them shovel ready for new development.
Victoria Richardson See responses
- Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
- Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
- Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
- Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
- Proceed with outward growth to address housing supply
- Expand as-of-right zoning to reduce case-by-case political decisions on housing forms
- Focus incremental density near transit, schools, and commercial areas
- Allow small-scale housing forms city-wide as-of-right (e.g. up to four units per lot)
- Use public engagement to inform design, not to veto density
- Phase or adjust density in response to neighbourhood concerns about design or servicing capacity
- Require demonstrated city-wide benefits to justify local impacts
- Approve density where infrastructure capacity already exists
- Pair density approvals with targeted infrastructure upgrades
- Use development charges or conditions to fund needed upgrades
Describe one concrete zoning, planning, or development decision you would support (or oppose) that reflects how you would balance these priorities.candidate's own words
Waterloo Initiative 9 - Change of zoning to allow for future development of church site, as per church's discretion
Please describe one concrete example of a growth or infrastructure decision you would support or oppose using this approach.candidate's own words
Focusing on infill development rather than expand outside current limits. Reclaim areas that need environmental transformation (old manulife lot on Columbia/Lexington/ Weber)
What can the municipality/region do, if anything, about land which sits vacant for years because it is being used as an investment (land banking)?candidate's own words
Holding charges. I'd be interested to see what else has proven to work in other municipalities
On the ballot but have not responded to survey (1)
- Andrew Portwine
Full candidate list: CBC Waterloo Region election coverage ↗