PS: THE ANSWERS!
The top photo is Mimosa Road, Carnegie. The second shot is Bent St, Bentleigh. What both have in common is that the houses on the left are zoned Residential Growth Zone (ie 4 storeys); both middle ones are zoned General Residential Zone (ie 3 storeys) and the ones on the right are zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone (ie 2 storeys). This is council’s version of a ‘transition zone’ and given that neither the RGZ or the GRZ1 have any decent setback requirements apart from the ‘optional’ ResCode, buildings at the back and the sides will be towered over – as many already are. This represents planning insanity and/or incompetence. Even developers for the current State Government Review of the zones recommended that streets do not have multiple zonings. In Glen Eira, countless streets have 2 or 3 zones within a 200 metre stretch. As one commentator pointed out, this is what happen when you sit at your desk and simply draw a circle on a map instead of undertaking a comprehensive analysis of your streets, your suburbs, your ‘neighbourhood character’, and the available infrastructure.
Prior to the introduction of the abysmal zones, all residentially zoned land was declared as R1Z with a preferred height limit of 9 metres. The zones changed all that with Council’s lazy and incompetent, ‘one size fits all’ approach. Areas zoned GRZ could now go to 10.5 metres and land zoned RGZ suddenly became 13.5 metres in height. Hyams in particular continues the myth that this represents a ‘neutral’ translation of previous conditions, whilst others such as Magee, Pilling, and Lipshutz have all stated how the zones are basically ‘superb’, or ‘positive’ or ‘very, very good’ and what a wonderful planning department we have.
We invite readers to comment on just how ‘good’ these new zones really are. The screen dumps below are parts of two separate streets in Glen Eira. The houses depicted are not mansions, but well kept period homes. Guess what they are zoned? We will reveal all shortly.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 17, 2016 at 7:20 AM
From my knowledge of the inadequacies of Council’s planning department, I’d put money on the houses in the middle of both pictures are designated “transition zone”, ie.
. the one house lot in the middle of each pic is zoned for 3 stories (GRZ1) because it is supposed to scale down from 4 stories (RGZ1) on one side to to 2 stories (NRZ1) on the other side. Therefore, one side (doesn’t matter which side) of each of the middle properties either has or will shortly have a planning permit for a four storey multi unit dwelling above a boundary to boundary basement car park.
. because of the nonsensical zig zag way Council has fitted straight line property boundaries into their “circular” designation of zones, the property behind middle property is also zoned RGZ1 (four stories). Again the property to the rear either has or will soon have a planning permit for a 4 story multi unit dwelling above a boundary to boundary carpark.
. like wise the adjoining property that is zoned NRZ1, will back onto a rear property that is zoned GRZ1 (3 stories). Again likewise, this rear property either has or will soon have a planning permit for a 3 story multi unit dwelling above a boundary to boundary basement car park.
The neighbourhood character will be defined as “emerging” (ie. let the developer decide) and there will be no requirement to retain any vegetation but on the bright side traffic and parking impacts will be negligible as will be overshadowing and overlooking.
It’s pretty much a crap shoot as to which property owner will say stuff it and sell up first.
August 17, 2016 at 8:42 AM
RGZ 13.5 metres in height, with a bugger all transition zone
You have to do this type of thing if you want to please your developer masters
Fooling an apathetic public is a cinch, just print a load of crap on a leaflet and deliver to everyone. Get the councillors to keep repeating the myth and your home and hosed. Stand from council year after year so you can bury your manure nice and deep, so the smell doen’t rise to the surface. Simple as!
August 17, 2016 at 9:11 AM
Almost certainly their zoning will be inconsistent—Council has never been transparent about zoning. The officer report for C25 states criteria that Council wishes us to believe were used, but it has to be arrant nonsense. Perhaps Council will claim “Line of best fit” as to why some but not all are RGZ or GRZ. It can’t be the “200 metre distance” rule. It’s not road width change; subdivision pattern; lot size; frontage width; easily identifable edges; streetscape consistency; condition of housing stock; residential character; constraints. Maybe Background Paper 7 of “Housing and Residential Development Strategy” would give a clue—not that Council has ever read it, and doesn’t publish it either.
Since Council have “completed” their Review and have said they don’t want to change the zoning, its time for them to step up and be accountable. They knew when they introduced C25 that it was unfair; and they have since been complicit in removing already weak “protections” for these established residential areas. Council’s claims in support of their lousy policies doesn’t stand up well to scrutiny but does help to explain why they don’t like Public Questions.
August 17, 2016 at 9:44 AM
Hard to tell the zoning. They look like pretty decent homes that are looked after. Council has probably zoned them all for rgz. They look at a map instead of going into the streets and seeing what’s there. Real estate agents and developers will buy them up as consolidated lots and get over fifty one bedroom and two bedroom apartments on them.
August 17, 2016 at 11:17 PM
(MODERATORS: sentence deleted). How else does one explain all the duplicity, lies and propaganda. With this amount of cash floating around, moral standards have gone through the floor. The CEO is clearing out the trash, it’s now time for the residents to clear out their trash as well.