Proposed development of 146 Downey Road

Please find enclosed our objections to the proposed development at 146 Downey Road, Guelph.

Three versions of the proposed development are being submitted and they are all inconsistent with our existing Kortright Hills neighbourhood in density, height and visual design. From the developers own comments on page 3 of their submitted Zoning By-Law Amendment Application they clearly state this neighbourhood “is an existing primarily single detached neighbourhood” and yet they have come forward with such an inconsistent design for the area. From your papers Schedule 1 Proposed Zoning it is evident Downey Road is R.1A, to suddenly have 3 R.1C is inconsistent. Also to note in Mr. Hearne’s notes the frontage is 56m yet the developers say the site is 64m wide, 3 houses, a road, necessitating in the removal of a tree whose roots will be under our property, to make room for excessive housing is not compatible with the existing neighbourhood.

The existing property is considerably higher than most of the adjacent neighbourhood, so that the excessively high townhouses, for which the developer is asking special zoning, will be elevated above the neighbourhood and will appear to dominate the neighbourhood even more than expected. The height of the townhouses proposed will likely create significant shadowing across existing properties on Downey Road, Teal Drive and Hazelwood Drive, greatly reducing the current residents’
enjoyment of their properties, and will be detrimental to the growth of trees and plants already planted. Our rear garden backs onto the townhouses and our side and front gardens will be overshadowed by the single dwelling houses, what was once a quiet peaceful area will be overlooked, cast into shadow along with associated noise and light pollution. The single dwellings are also not in keeping with the area, they are not set back far enough from the sidewalk and as such extend beyond the building lines for houses either side of them and along the entire length of Downey Road. This will create a public hazard, whilst trying to get out of driveways vision will be blocked and as this is a major walkway for the children from Teal area to walk to school the proximity to the sidewalk will result in accidents to pedestrians and motorists.

The developer is requesting permission to allow “an attached or detached garage to be located within the rear yard” of the houses on Downey Road, but the plans do not reflect this. This form is completely inconsistent with the neighbourhood as there are no homes in this area with rear garages. It would appear this proposal is because the single dwelling lots are so narrow it would be impossible to build a house size in keeping with the area and add a garage onto the house. The plan says the single dwelling houses will not form part of the condo area, if a road has to be put in for access to the garages who will maintain this?
Where during winter months will the snow be put? The fact it is not shown on the plan does not reflect how little frontage and how little rear garden, will be left. This is a neighbourhood built around family values and green space from trails and homeowner’s gardens, this proposal is against all that has been achieved so far. If garages are placed in the rear gardens of these single houses the fumes will pass into our rear garden, my wife has poor lung function and an undiagnosed neuromuscular disease this pollution will affect her considerably during summer when she is outside in the garden and in winter when our windows are open to enable her to breathe. Our quality of life will also be affected with the noise of vehicle engines in our rear garden and the physical sight of brick garages in what once was a treed area. The other drawback is if 3 single dwelling houses are put on Downey Road that would create only enough room for a single garage either front or rear. Downey Road is a 2-vehicle garage neighbourhood because it is family orientated, if these houses have single garages where would
additional vehicles park? During the summer months they could cause
obstructions by parking on Downey Road overnight but where will they be put during the winter months, there is insufficient parking in the condo development and as they are not part of the condo development theoretically they cannot park in the area and as such each house must be confined to one vehicle which in this day and age is unreasonable to expect from families. Another factor is where would their visitor’s park? Right now with double driveways and garages most houses on Downey Road can easily house 6 vehicles. The developer is requesting smaller lot sizes and less landscaped area than current zoning requires which does not reflect family based accommodation. The density of this development is completely inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood.

The developer has also put in his notes that the lots will be shallower than normal lots, by their own admission they are small and not in keeping with the area. If this development is being aimed at student use it will create more noise pollution to residents and garbage problems. Other areas of the City regularly have problems with abandoned furniture, garbage not sorted correctly and we are not as stated on a bus route to enable students to travel easily to the University. The bus route is on Ptarmigan Drive towards Woodland Glen, the bus service does not come down through this part of Downey Road.
This poses the question that if students share the townhouses where will all the extra vehicles be put? During party season (September to May) will there be sufficient by-law police to patrol this area for excessive noise and overnight vehicles? While the developer is claiming that the existing house will be retained, the proposal is requesting zoning changes to allow splitting the house into four separate apartments.
Turning the existing house into effectively 4 bedsits must also be aimed towards students and yet no parking was shown for the house. This is inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood

The developer’s request for flexible zoning creates uncertainty for me as a resident and our neighbourhood in general. It appears that once approved, the residents of Kortright Hills neighbourhood will have no say in the final design of the development. We have made several requests to the developer regarding how he proposes to deal with the grading of our land towards the development and what will happen to two specific trees.. Currently on the plan the majority of trees shown actually belong to the local residents, there does not appear to be the number of trees suggested to be saved by the tree report shown on the plan, instead 246 out of 251 are to be felled. There is an extremely large and characteristic tree within 6 feet of our property which provides good shade for the house in summer meaning we use less air conditioning, from digging on our own land we have encountered massive roots next to our foundations. This tree would be moved to accommodate one of the single dwelling houses, the root decay if this tree were to be removed would be extensive and we worry if our house will subside or at least have its foundations cracked. Therefore we are concerned both for the character of the tree and what damage we will incur if it is removed. There is another tree also within a couple of feet of an existing tree which were both planted together and have become entwined, again removal will cause untold damage to our tree. We are concerned that our trees form canopies over the development area and as such may be cut or damaged with the proposed development, we have tried to communicate with the developer but to no avail on these matters.

The scale and scope of the specific changes to the zoning standards requested by the developer suggest that the proposed plans are inconsistent with the site and with the framework of the City of Guelph’s existing zoning bylaws, an example is in appendix 5 Angular Plane Analysis, point 2 “If the City Planning Department wants to use the more schematic/theoretical approach – the angular plane could be decreased somewhat (i.e. less than 58 degrees and closer to the zoning standard of 45 degrees”, if we have zoning standards surely these should be adhered to.

The excessive height of the proposed apartment building, combined with the geographic prominence of the site will result in a visual desecration of the beautiful neighbourhood that we residents and the City of Guelph have created and enjoyed over the last twenty five years.

The property includes a wedge of land identified by the City of Guelph as “lands with one of the following: locally significant wetlands, significant woodlots, natural corridor or linkage”, and is adjacent to a Provincially Significant Wetland, a wildlife corridor, and a major green space that connects to other green spaces in the City of Guelph. We are concerned that the documentation submitted by the developer does not address the critical issues involved in construction in such a sensitive and important environment. The report makes mention of MNR reporting that two species at risk, eastern or northern ribbonsnake and eastern milksnake have been observed in the vicinity of the study area. Both of these species are considered species of special concern nationally and provincially, just because the inspectors did not observe them does not mean they are not there. Following problems with the Hanlon Creek Business Park, it would not appear to be in the City’s interest to create further problems from an area, which has wetland connections with the park.

City Planning staff are apparently proceeding with a process that differs significantly from the existing City of Guelph planning process.
At the request of city Planning staff, the developer has not provided a specific development plan, but has provided a range of plans and is requesting zoning approval for the most-dense option. Council should reject this proposal as submitted and direct city Planning staff to follow existing planning procedures. OPA 39 stated we were not in a corridor of high-density infill and as such Council should adhere to that.

We are very concerned that City Planning staff, despite the vehement opposition of residents present at the meeting held on January 20, 2009 subsequently directed the developer to include an apartment building in their proposal. This together with uncharacteristic smaller than normal townhouses and single dwelling houses is a flagrant disregard for the clearly expressed views of residents.

The traffic study submitted by the developer does not take into account the speed of vehicles travelling in that area. Vehicles entering Downey Road from the driveway of the property will have to merge with traffic that has been proven to travel well in excess of posted speed limits.
This is a very dangerous situation and poses a serious safety risk for neighbourhood residents and in fact all vehicles travelling on Downey Road. There is obviously peak times during the day but even during non-peak times it can takes several minutes to get onto Downey Road, factoring in children riding bikes on the pavements which are always obscured by parked vehicles on driveways, mothers walking by, school children and general pedestrians. With the single dwelling houses being so close to the sidewalk this will impact the problem more creating danger to everyone. Only last week a police speed check machine was placed at the corner of Downey Road and Quail Creek Drive, it was catching people leaving Downey Road and entering Downey Road speeding, this has been an ongoing problem. The traffic report suggested most traffic will filter North to access The Hanlon, however once development starts on the expressway most traffic will turn South i.e. Having to cross the lanes when vehicles are already in the middle lane waiting to turn into Teal Drive. From our own personal experience at least once a week whilst travelling South and moving to the middle lane and indicating and slowing down to enter our driveway we have been nearly hit from behind, vehicles who are travelling to Teal Drive think we are also going to Teal and as such fail to notice we are breaking to enter our driveway. If these same drivers are behind us and vehicles trying to turn into this new development it is only a matter of time before a serious collision will occur. This proposed single entrance is too close to Teal and Quail Creek Drive to allow safe driving at the speeds for which people travel on Downey Road both legally and illegally.

The traffic study submitted by the developer is based on out-of-date information, as the traffic levels used in the study do not take into account the increase in traffic that will result from the development of the Hanlon Business Park directly to the south. The neighbourhood will become one traffic jam with countless school children walking to and from school and exiting school buses and crossing the roads creating a hazard zone.

The proposed setback reductions along with extra fill to elevate the properties even more will create a fishbowl effect where the new homes will overlook adjacent properties, even further reducing the current residents’ enjoyment of their properties. The privacy all residents currently enjoy will be taken away.

The developer is proposing eliminating 241 of the 256 trees on the development site, and requesting special exemption so that the development can be even denser than standard zoning allows with less landscaping that required. What is now a beautiful property full of mature trees will become a barren wasteland of paved road, parking lots and concrete sidewalks. Another point to note is the developer is asking for the plans to be approved in stages, Gordon Street at the junction of Clair Road was developed in this vein and the land was cleared and nothing done on it for the past 7 years, if the developer is allowed to clear the land and build as the economy predicts we will be enduring soil storms, dust and lack of quality of life from once looking at a beautiful backdrop to a scraped off building site in the middle of an established residential area.

There will certainly be no enjoyment in looking out onto this. It begs the question is it normal for developers to pick and choose when to build? If he is having a financially bad time the land may lay derelict for years to come, which is certainly not infilling the City.

Groundwater from portions of the property will drain directly onto the meadow and wetlands that are adjacent to the property. Since most of the property will be covered with impenetrable buildings, roads, parking spots, driveways and sidewalks, a great deal of runoff will be generated and this may have a deleterious effect on the adjacent meadow and wetlands. Local condo developments have their snow moved to the ‘green space’ area within the development which come the spring causes a great thaw. This extra snow melt would increase the water level over the meadow and wetlands and flooding onto other land carrying away what was trying to be preserved just because it would seem the natural area to ‘dump’ this problem during the winter months. The snow cannot be put onto the main road and the single dwelling houses do not have sufficient space between each other and established residents to keep snow banks low so again this will create a driving hazard for everyone concerned to reverse out of our and their properties especially when children (who may be smaller than these snowbanks) are walking to school possibly alone without the guidance of a taller adult.

The developer is asking for special zoning for the eastern portion of the property because of the right-of-way required by the high-pressure natural gas pipeline that runs across the property. The basement walls of the proposed apartment building will directly abut the easement, and construction so close to the gas pipeline poses a significant risk to the entire neighbourhood as a single accident could result in a cataclysmic explosion. The developer also only showed concept A, has Union Gas also approved concept B and C?

The developer’s plans appear incomplete as they show a setback of 6m for the townhouses, but he then requests permission to build the front of the townhouse within 3m of the sidewalk. The single dwellings have a minimum lot frontage of 12m and yet the stacked townhouses are 18m, if townhouses are bigger than the single dwellings, then the single dwellings are certainly not in keeping with the character of the
neighbourhood. This means with his provision for the driveway not
being more than 50% of the width of the front yard the possible parking for a vehicle will only be 6m wide and with the house being set back 6m from the sidewalk this is not leaving sufficient room for parking. The developer is also requesting minimum setback far less that permitted in current zoning standards. This will contribute to shadowing and magnify the dominance of these buildings over the existing neighbourhood, destroying our quality of life, enjoyment of our current home and is not compatible with what is currently built and established around it.

.

The proposed development will bring higher than average additional residents to this area. Right now the school is filled to capacity, if any of these families have children it would appear they could not attend the local schools and at a cost have to use buses to nearby schools. Currently in Guelph there are corridors as suggested in OPA 39 where developers are custom building communities which are covering the requirement for density and the whole of the neighbourhoods are geared up for new schools, correct zoning and grading for the development, to try and fit a whole isolated incompatible community into an infill site to the detriment of the existing neighbours is abhorrent and City Council should look after its existing residents quality of life and the compatibility with the rest of the existing neighbourhood.

During the initial surveys being undertaken we had reason to ring Van Harten and inform them not to park their vehicles on our driveway, walk through our garden digging up grass without our permission taking measurements and erecting tripods as though they had every right. We informed the developer and Van Harten. Van Harten thought it was hilarious that we were complaining, is this how major players in Guelph treat the rest of the community? What safeguards would be in place if building started, first impressions are not very impressive if the neighbors were not considered in the early stages we will stand no chance in the latter stages. The property has a difference in elevation of 5.5m and the developer mentions adding fill to the east side of the property. Where will this fill come from and what efforts will the developer make to contain dust and runoff during construction. No mention has made put forward about how the developer will safeguard our properties, subsidence, or cracked foundations from earth movement. In new developments houses are built next to each other within months generally, the earth next to our house has not been moved in 21 years, what reports are available to suggest no damage will occur, or if it does how it will be rectified.

We trust this development will not be allowed to continue in its current state, to effectively write a blank cheque to a developer who has ‘ideas’ about what he ‘thinks we need’ is wrong. We appreciate this developer has offices in Guelph but he also has offices in Toronto.
Toronto residents are used to high density areas high rise apartments and condo units, residents in Guelph are not which is why we chose to live here and not in Toronto. There has been no follow up consultation with neighbours as individuals and how it will affect them or as a group, we have been railroaded and our enjoyment and peace of mind over the past two years has been eroded. We hope we will not have to endure much more which is removing our daily quality of life.CD