Agenda Itent Dear Mayor and Members of Council:

Transcription

1 Agenda Itent From: Agnes Parr Date: Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:59 PM Subject: The Development of the Historic Langstaff Property and Home To: David West Dear Mayor and Members of Council: I am writing to you to express and address my concerns regarding the Hall Street Development of the Historic Langstaff Property and Home. I have compiled a list of comments/concern, which I submit to you for your attention to this matter. This issue is not just about building homes, it is also about the preservation of the historic part of the town. As our elected officials I expect to see that the Town does the utmost within its powers to prevent such development from going forth, to ensure that the developers address all the residents concern in which they have not to this point, and the preserve the historic part of the Town, before all is lost. Once it is gone it will be too late. As we all know the Langstaff property and home is very historic. Please note my use of the word property. I say property too, because a large part and significant part of the Town's History played out on this property. It is both the Home and the Property. The Drs. Langstaff where very prominent people in the Town of Richmond Hill, and they built there home in before Confederation, while this Country of Canada was still know as Upper and Lower Canada respectively. A property and a home like this deserve to be preserved in it's entirety, being preserved for all to enjoy. What should be done here is something like they have in England, is have a National Trust. In this case it could be a Municipal Trust. There should be not be any of this so-called infill development being allowed to happen in places where it does not belong, and being allowed to take hold in the historic part of the Town. Below is now a compilation of all of my comments and concerns: Summary: In short, the developer is planning 22 ugly houses in 2 straight lines. This is not in keeping with either the esthetics or the design of the neighbourhood, nor is it in keeping with how the rest of the neighbourhood is laid out - all of the houses in most of the developments are facing the street. All of the houses in those developments also look like houses, where as such is not the case in this proposed development. Background: This is a historic property with a historic home on site. The purpose of the development is not in keeping with the design; the history of the property and the home; and the characteristics of the neighbourhood and its community.

2 MAJOR ISSUES Density Over the last years there has been a huge increase in the numbers of developments, consisting of both condominiums and houses within the immediate neighbourhood. These include but are not limited too the following developments and homes that have been built in this area and up to this point in time: - Group of townhomes on Benson Avenue (white ones) close to Yonge Street. - Condominium on the corner of Benson and Yonge - built since 2007, as shown on the history from Google Maps. - Low income housing units (approx. 300 or so), built at the corner of Crosby and Yonge. This was strongly opposed by residents, and was publicized in the media. Nevertheless this project was allowed to proceed despite opposition to it. - Townhomes on the south east corner of Benson and Hall. - Townhomes at 125 Hall Street - built Townhomes on the south west corner of Benson and Hall. - Townhomes on the corner of Hunt and Lucas. In addition to the proposed development at 107 Hall Street there are 2 other developments that are within the same street - 10 more houses on Benson Avenue and another 8 at the corner of Hall and Wright. We are talking here the addition of another 40 homes - all on the same street - in addition to what all ready exists above. This number far exceeds what is a realistic capacity for 2 streets. Furthermore, it has additional negative implications on the immediate neighbourhood, and more strictly speaking on my home at 125 Hall Street. This includes but is not limited to the following: - The increase in demand on the infrastructure, primarily water and sewer. It is not known as to what the capacity or age of these pipes that are under the road are for adequately carrying out additional demand that would be put on them. - The possibility of 80 or more cars. This is based on an average of 2 or 3 cars per household. - There could be an additional 160 people move in on one street. - The loss of trees, green space and privacy. There is a good size tree canopy at 107 Hall Street. Destruction of this would have severe adverse effects on the immediate neighbours, wild life, and surrounding community. These trees are full of wildlife, and home to many species of birds. I obtained a copy of the Tree Inventory, and it is in the Master Plan of the Developer to cut down 93 trees, which in short means all of them. As Mayor and Members you can't allow this to happen.

3 The Proposed Relocation of The Historic Home: I have seen and read the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for the Historic Home. It is a fascinating document to say the least. I do however notice the proposed relocation of the home to the south-west corner is a predetermined location, given to the Heritage Architect. This location has been determined by the developer beforehand, and this location is the only placed that is discussed in the document. No other possibilities are discussed, nor are any other options. No pros or cons are weighed against once possibility or another. it is simply a discussion about the pre-determined location. I would like to proposed that should the Historic Home have to be moved that it be relocated to the North West corner of the property, beside the existing Town Homes. It has co-existed with these town homes for the last 13 years, and these town homes, while being town homes, they at least look like houses. The proposed ones, are very ugly, and don't fit in with the new, never mind the old. This location would also mitigate a lot of the issues that I and my neighbours have with the proposed development. Traffic: The increase with the numbers of cars will bring its own host of problems negatively impacting the neighbourhood. In todays day and age, it has now become common place for households to own 2 or 3 cars. The duplication and triplication of these numbers has vastly changed the dynamics of what used to be a ratio of I and 1 in the past - 1 household, I car. It is a myth to believe that vast numbers of these people are going to move in and start using public transit. There will also be an increase in general pollution and noise from all these cars. It is not in the developers best interest to protect the environment. I have also found out that in this case the developer doesn't have to do a traffic study. I would like one done, I insist that one be done. Why do they not have to do one? ADVERSE EFFECTS ON MY HOME AT 125 HALL STREET As stated previously the development of 107 Hall Street is directly in the backyard of 125 Hall Street. As such, my home and the homes of my neighbours at this location stand to be the most adversely affected by this development. The effects are as follows, but are not limited too: - A wall of houses from a minimum of 1900 square feet is being proposed to be built directly on the south side of the homes at 125 Hall Street, immediately abutting the north side of 107 Hall Street. These houses are only going to have a set-back of about 5 metres. Approximately 15 feet. - Loss of sunshine and natural light. Houses being built that close and that big, are going to result in the loss of a lot of sunshine and natural light. This will severely impact these homes in the winter months from November - March. Due to the north - south exposure it is already very dark during those months - additional houses would simply compound the problem. I also know

4 that apparently the developer doesn't have to do a sun shadow study unless the structure is over 6 storeys high. I would like one done because I will have loss of sunlight and natural light particularly during the winters months of November through March, when the sun is very low on the horizon. These particular houses have a north south exposure. - Loss of privacy and space. This development will only have a set-back of 5 metres, all privacy and space on the south side of our homes and in our south garden would be lost. Also any windows on the north side of the homes of this development, would be able to see directly into other people's bedrooms, or look down onto other people's decks. Any potentially proposed roof-top decks would be an invasion of our privacy. - Noise concerns - Air conditioners, vents from dryers and furnaces, would all be installed and/or vented to the south side of the homes at 125 Hall Street. This would mean continuous disturbances, year round day and night from one source or another. Since these homes aren't built yet we ask that these things be relocated or cancelled. - Light noise - This will be generated from all the new lighting that would go into those homes, and the potential for additional street lights which might be placed on the road that they are planning to put down the middle. These lights may be shining into our windows at night, and potentially all night long, disturbing our sleep, and decreasing the amount of actual darkness essential to a good nights sleep. - Additional noise from the numbers of people visiting, which is not limited to the relatives of the occupants, as wells as from the large numbers of additional neighbours that would move in. The potential for barking dogs. Noise will be 24/7. - An enormous increase in the amounts of garbage and recycling that will be generated. - Residents of 125 Hall Street will no longer be able to sit outside and enjoy the privacy of their back decks in peace and quiet. This will all be lost due to the unacceptable close proximity of new houses. - Loss of safety for children. This will be an ongoing issue both during construction and long term once anything is built. - The visitors of the new occupants are likely to use the visitors parking at 125 Hall Street rather than what the developer is proposing. Currently the developer is proposing visitors' parking spaces at the back of the development. So while this is included in the development, it is not likely that people visiting the houses at the front of the development, should there be no parking available at any point in time, that they are going to drive to the back of it to walk back to the front. Instead they would use the visitors' parking at 125 Hall Street, which will be more convenient and closer. This will have the likelihood of being an ongoing issue. - In addition to visitors parking problems. There is a general problem of lack of parking in the area. There is insufficient parking for the Performing Arts Centre - frequently these people park 8

5 on Hall Street and Wright, with the parking on that street flowing all the way down in front of the private residences. Loss of the use of our south garden and back decks for the duration of the construction period. During the construction period and possibly longer term the residents of 125 Hall Street will face the loss of their south garden and back decks for many different reasons, which are outlined as follows but not limited too: Safety Due to the exceptionally close proximity of the construction it will be unsafe for residents to be so close. As such, they will not be able to use the south garden, for any reasons. What compensation does the developer plan to give us in regards to this? Noise Heavy equipment and excessive noise will also render the south garden and decks unuseable. Heavy equipment and noise can also cause damage to persons and other property. What assurances and compensation does the developer plan to give us in writing with regards to this? Dirt, Dust, and Construction Debris This will be everywhere. Occupants will not be able to open their windows and doors for this reason. Nor will they be able to use the air conditioner, as this machine will be choked from the dirt, dust and construction debris. The builder/developer will have to enter into a written agreement with us beforehand, which will include agreeing to pay to replace air conditioners that are choked due to this situation. We will also expect compensation for the increased electricity bills, due to the use of the air conditioner, as we will not be able to open our windows and doors, due to the dirt, dust and construction debris. Please note that diesel fuel and smell from construction equipment will be another contributing factor. Thanks, Agnes Parr 125 Hall Street #19

6