​

• we requested an updated open house (2024) for area residents at the library so the developer can answer our questions and hear the concerns we have. He has refused to do so;

• we oppose the proposed number of units. Building 18 units on two single family residential lots is much too high density  (it translates to 53 units per hectare when the allowable density is 40 units per hectare);

• in 2018 an application at 12 McDonald Cres (only 300m away from the proposed development site at 173-177 Dundas St) was denied by the City because it "represents an over-intensification of development within an established residential neighbourhood that would detract from the residential character of the neighbourhood". That application was for two homes on one single residential lot. A proposal to build 18 townhouses on two residential lots detracts from the residential character of our neighbourhood. Other than the library, all buildings within a 350+m radius of the proposed site are 1-2 story homes on large single detached lots;

• this sets a precedent for overintensification developments like this on all of the single lots along Dundas St

• the developer says that each application must "stand on its own merits" but references other townhouse developments to attempt to justify his application. However, none of the other developments he cites are at the top of a hill, they are all on flat ground where a 2-story townhouse is comparable in height to existing 2-story homes. The other developments are also in closer proximity to plazas, offices, gas stations etc and fit in better with their surrounding neighbourhood, whereas these will stick out amongst the surrounding 1- and 2-story homes on large, mature, single-detached lots;

• the elevation difference between the back of the proposed site and the homes on Scott St is more than 2 meters. The developer's proposal to build up the north side of the property by more than 2 meters leads to a 4+ meter difference in elevation between the ground level of the homes on Scott St and the ground level of the proposed townhouses. These units will tower over the entire neighbourhood. We oppose this for several reasons including:

  • loss of privacy

  • loss of sunlight   

  • light pollution from 18 units vs the current two homes.

  • water runoff concerns (particularly in the area designated by the developer as Catchment E which he says "will drain uncontrolled off the site to the north" due to the trees in this section being at a lower elevation from Dundas St). Flooding is already an issue in many of our yards. We are concerned that if the drainage plan does not work as intended we will have no recourse for any future runoff issues.

  • There is a live spring on the slope in the backyard of #22 Scott as that runs when the ground water is high so we are concerned about natural springs/artesian wells in and adjacent to the site that will contribute to the flooding issues when water flow is displaced due to development. 

  • concerns with the proposed retaining wall and how it alters the look of our yards, impacts our existing landscaping, and future maintenance issues with it (who will maintain it once the development is complete?)

  • loss of enjoyment of our yards due to the above noted concerns. 

• the ability of the lots to support the weight of that many units due to the amount of groundwater flowing below it;

• increased noise from 18 households (air conditioners, lawn mowers, snow blowers, pets, music, vehicles etc) versus only currently backing onto one single-detached home will also lead to the loss of enjoyment of our homes and yards;

• waste removal - since the driveway will be too small for the city trucks to maneuver, they will be doing private garbage pickup. If they have an area to consolidate all of their garbage and recycling, neighbours are concerned with potential odour and attraction of pests from having it there. If it ends up being eligible for City waste management will all of the bins for 18 households be placed at the curb on a very busy section of Dundas St?

• snow removal - the City plows will be too large to maneuver and turn around within the complex. If they hire a private contractor for snow removal, where will the snow be piled? 

• the proposal to reduce the interior side yards to 2m from 3m puts the buildings closer to the adjacent homes;

• parking - while there are technically two parking spots per unit (one in each single car driveway and one in each single car garage which leads to the need for tandem parking), due to the lack of outdoor space from such a high density of units, households will need to use their garages to store snow blowers, lawnmowers, yard tools etc. most likely resulting in only one usable space per unit. This will lead to excess cars parking on area side streets and at the library. 

• for the block of 8 units fronting onto Dundas Street - the developer is proposing a block of units that is 3-stories and 10.77m high (plus 1.32m towers on the rooftop terraces). This will tower over all of the homes adjacent to and across from the development. In particular, it will tower over the bungalow immediately adjacent to the site at 181 Dundas St. The bungalow and corresponding height difference with the 10.77m building proposed right next to it is not mentioned in their proposal despite it being pointed out numerous times in previous letters submitted.

• the proposal to reduce the front yards to 2.5m from 7.5m will alter the streetscape dramatically. All other homes in the area are significantly set back from the road.

• we have several traffic concerns, including:

  • the location of the traffic study provided to the City by the developer. A resident at 182 Dundas St (located 40m to the east of the proposed driveway site and on the south side of the road) said at least a portion of the traffic study was taken from her driveway. 

  • there is a large dip in the road on Dundas St. to the east of Riley St which negatively impacts sightlines from the proposed driveway

  • this is a busy pedestrian and cycling corridor (in addition to vehicular traffic). Adding 18-36 cars coming and going from the driveway will impact safety for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles

  • many families live in the subdivision to the south of Dundas St and use the crosswalk at Riley/Dundas to walk to and from elementary school, high school, parks and the library. It is already a dangerous intersection and having that many added vehicles entering and exiting Dundas St in such close proximity to the crosswalk is a safety issue.

  • traffic already regularly backs up to the west of the Riley/Dundas St intersection (at all hours of the day, not just rush hour), which creates issues for 18-36 vehicles from the proposed development to safely merge with traffic

  • when vehicles attempting to exit the proposed driveway are unable to make a left turn due to traffic, they will likely turn right and cut through the subdivision using McDonald Crt and Scott St to get to Riley St to turn at the lights. This will increase traffic and safety concerns on these side streets that aren't meant to be used as shortcuts.

• we consulted with a local realtor who told us that our property values will decrease by at least 10% if this proposal is approved. We are aware that property values go up and down over time due to a variety of factors, but when a single action by a single person (i.e. building 18 townhouses on two single-detached lots) reduces our property values by that amount, it is unfair and unnecessary;

• loss of several mature trees including a large maple that is over 100 years old. The City recommended keeping some of the trees, including this one, but the developer refused because it interferes with the placement of his development buildings.

• it seems like all of the modifications the developer is requesting to the R6 zone could be avoided by having fewer units on such a small parcel of land. His lack of concern for existing residents - some who have been here since their homes were built - all appear to stem from corporate greed and his goal to fit an unreasonable number of units onto a tiny parcel of land. 

•  We would also like a representative from the traffic department to meet with us to explain the justification for approving the traffic study paid for and provided by the developer. We disagree with the study for the reasons noted above and know the area and its corresponding safety issues better than anyone since we walk, bike and drive here daily. An updated traffic study should be performed since traffic has significantly increased in the six years since the development was announced.