Residents expressing their frustration towards Council.
The feelings came out towards two particular zoning by-law amendments at 184 Brent Street and at 543 Andrew Streets.
The Andrew venture went ahead 9-2 while the Brent project had only one member of council oppose it.
Both developments were put forward by John McRae
543 Andrew Street
- Apartment dwelling (maximum of four units)
- Minimum required lot frontage reduced to 20 metres
- Minimum driveway width leading to parking area reduced to 4.5 metres
- Minimum required front yard setback reduced to 4.7 metres
- Minimum required interior side yard setback (east) without attached garage or carport increased to 2.5 metres from 1.5 metres
Public Reaction
“Mr. [John] McRae was saying that neighbours on the east and west side had a better feeling [about the project after open houses]? No! One of those neighbours has actually pulled in a real estate agent [and is] planning on selling the house because she can’t handle the fact of [the development] being next door to her,” says resident Barb Thompson.
184 Brent Street
- Apartment dwelling (max four units)
- Minimum required lot frontage reduced to 20 metres
- Minimum required lot area reduced to 643 square metres
- Minimum driveway width leading to parking area reduced to 4.5 metres
- Minimum required front yard setback reduced to 4.2 metres
Minimum required interior side yard setback (east) without attached garage or carport increased to 2.6 metres from 1.5 metres
Public Reaction
Ian Dasti, who resides on Brent Street with his partner Sarah Mackie, worries about potential flooding.
In the case of Brent Street you don’t have any storm sewers, there is no infrastructure that is going to drain away the increased flood risk,” notes Dasti.
“I have to say I likewise share my partner’s frustration at hearing us chastized by our councillors, who are supposed to be representing us. They say things like ‘We aren’t following the best practices of somewhere like Toronto’. Well both of us have a lot of relatives in southern Ontario, a number of whom are involved with civil engineering, city planning and by-law enforcement and they all say this is ridiculous, this is Mickey Mouse garbage,” says Sarah Mackie.
Council also moving ahead with a development at 1510 Victoria Avenue by a vote of 10-1.
