File #: 16-A-078    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Correspondence Status: Circulation List
File created: 6/27/2016 In control: Circulation List
On agenda: 6/27/2016 Final action: 6/27/2016
Title: DEPUTATIONS CONCERNING MOTION 16-G-172, ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION - 401 ESSA ROAD AND PATTERSON ROAD UNOPENED ROAD ALLOWANCE - SEAN MASON HOMES (ESSA ROAD) INC. (WARD 6) 1. Mr. Graeme Montgomery provided a deputation in opposition of motion 16-G-172 concerning a Zoning By-law Amendment Application for 401 Essa Road and Patterson Road Unopened Road Allowance - Sean Mason Homes (Essa Road) Inc. Mr. Montgomery discussed that not much had changed since he presented a petition signed by 133 area residents on May 16, 2016. He commented on his feelings of disillusionment throughout the process and questioned why City Council is considering to adopt the Planning Services Department recommendations with respect to this application with its nine variances. He asked why the City bothers to put any controls in place when it falls back to Provincial intensification guidelines. He indicated that he felt that the residents raised legitimate concerns concerning the intensification but w...
Attachments: 1. DEP 160627 - 401 Essa Rd.pdf
Related files: 16-G-128, 16-G-172, BY-LAW 2016-069, 14-G-017
Title
DEPUTATIONS CONCERNING MOTION 16-G-172, ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION - 401 ESSA ROAD AND PATTERSON ROAD UNOPENED ROAD ALLOWANCE - SEAN MASON HOMES (ESSA ROAD) INC. (WARD 6)

1. Mr. Graeme Montgomery provided a deputation in opposition of motion 16-G-172 concerning a Zoning By-law Amendment Application for 401 Essa Road and Patterson Road Unopened Road Allowance - Sean Mason Homes (Essa Road) Inc. Mr. Montgomery discussed that not much had changed since he presented a petition signed by 133 area residents on May 16, 2016. He commented on his feelings of disillusionment throughout the process and questioned why City Council is considering to adopt the Planning Services Department recommendations with respect to this application with its nine variances. He asked why the City bothers to put any controls in place when it falls back to Provincial intensification guidelines. He indicated that he felt that the residents raised legitimate concerns concerning the intensification but were not opposed to development. Mr. Montgomery commented that he hoped that if there is a phase 3 the application will be addressed appropriately. He noted that he and his wife travel a lot for their jobs and that their home is a refuge and that all the existing residents look after their properties.

Mr. Montgomery provided the details of communications that he had with the Developer in early April about his concerns related to the development and the Developer's response. He discussed his concerns related to the information and the perspectives of the development provided by the Developer at the neighbourhood meetings. Mr. Montgomery expressed concern that no one had reviewed the proposed development from the perspective of Cityview Circle. He described details of the application provided by the Developer at the neighbourhood meeting related to the removal of trees and decrease in the number of units as well as the changes made to the application since the neighbourhood ...

Click here for full text