Home   Terms of Use  Site Map 

   Posted Feb. 2013

Hi, I have heard that a decision has been made to widen Port Union Rd. Apparently this was casually mentioned at a meeting regarding the townhouses to be built at No Frills, in which only a few of the closest homes were invited to attend. It was not relayed to the rest of the community. I guess we are supposed to learn about this through the rumour mill. I knew that widening was under review but there had not been any community update regarding this for the past few years. Why was there no mention of this important change in the Jan or Feb CCRA newsletters? I would have thought this would be in Councillor Moeser's section for sure. I believe there is to be 4 lanes, a median, and bike lanes on each side. This will undoubtedly mean that existing trees will be removed along Pt Union and traffic flow will be close to the fences of the private homes. I believe the community should know the facts about this - and not have to rely on hearsay passed from a few people who were at that townhouse meeting. Can you please follow up with this important change to our community and ensure the residents in the Centennial Community are informed? Thanks.

Bonnie Ballam

Posted Feb 2013

To Councillor Moeser

Councillor, It would be appreciated if you would take a moment to review your file on this property to confirm its existing and potential land use (e.g. as is) and then ensure that the selling agent, Prudential Realty, is aware of it.

Thus informed, Prudential can then meet their full disclosure commitments and inform potential buyers accordingly.

A review of your file will show that the owner prior to current one(s) was a speculator/developer who, while undertaking a failed attempt to subdivide the property, utilised it as a rental property. As a developer/speculator no attempt was made to improve the appearance of the property to have it fit within the standard of surrounding properties.

I also understand the survey plan being handed out by Prudential has been annotated to show a proposed subdivision of the property with two lots fronting onto Satchell. This is not in accordance with current zoning and was previously rejected by the City. Use of such a marked-up plan could be deemed as misleading to potential buyers with intent to increase the property’s marketability.

A review of your file will also show this as the property that was clear cut of over 30 mature private and city owned trees while the city stood impotently on the side. I am still, to this day, baffled that the City did not plant new trees, either along the boulevard or back along the property line.

I am Winston Beard, owner of 79 Satchell Blvd. We look onto the open backyard of 198 Lawson. The entire 180 feet of property abutting Satchell is exposed. We and other neighbours look forward to the day when an owner of 198 will recognise their neighbourhood responsibilities and create visual screening to their backyard, which is all too often used as a vehicle, boat and equipment storage area, and maintain this property at the same standard as the rest of this excellent neighbourhood. We are sorry to see the current owners leave as they indeed had such plans for the property.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that lessons learned from the situation at 367 Lawson will encourage you and the City to act proactively and ensure potential buyers are not misled a property’s potential.

Cheers

Winston Beard

          Posted Jan 2013

To Whom it May Concern,
 

 

This letter is to demonstrate a position of strong opposition to the application for the 50 stacked town homes that are proposed to be built on 17 Island Rd.

There are many concerns for this proposed building project--the main one being that a small commercially zoned lot is being considered for residential zoning. It makes absolutely no logical sense to build a dense, residential complex that does not match the aesthetics of the surrounding community. In addition, I cannot imagine any family wanting to reside in a home where they are surrounded by the noise of the 401, No frills or a child and youth services group home.

According to the proposal, these town homes will have limited parking. This will result in residents occupying parking reserved for NO FRILLS customers, as well as congest Island road when additional parking is required. This is problematic for many reason. The first is the direct affect on local business owners who will lose customers due to limited/no parking. it is also assumed that each unit will have only one vehicle and limited visitors, and that there will be only one family per unit. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to own a home that is in the middle of a commercial zone with no direct access to parks and schools. As a result, I believe the outcome will be an unkept, low income community that will become a focal point upon entrance to the otherwise beautiful West Rouge area.

 

In addition, There are very few main roads in the West Rouge community; Port Union and Island road are two of them. By building densely populated town homes in this location, it will add to the already congested traffic flow. In addtion, Port Union is a one lane road (for the most part) and is used to access both the GO train and the 401 by local residents. This will not only add to the current congestion, but might force people to rush through residential streets to avoid such traffic, resulting in increased residential traffic that can compromise the safety of children who are walking to and from school, etc. In addition, if there are 50 families with children in this complex, this could result in over 50 school aged children. There is no school in the immediate area, and if neighbouring schools are already at capacity, the result will be crowded schools and undesirable portables for students and the community.

 

Why is there a need to build on every green space left in our community? Why do we insist upon increasing our carbon footprint? This is not in the best interest of our community and environment.

 

The builder proposing this project does not care about the West Rouge community or the negative impact that will result if these homes are built. This builder is only concerned with making as much money as possible and he can only do this by creating a densely built community. I urge you to keep this space zoned for commercial use so that our community can continue to support local businesses.

 

In closing, please honour and respect the residence of this community by listening to their voices on this matter and recognizing that we have chosen this community because it is scarborough's gem and a desirable place to live and raise our families. We should be able to do so without our community being compromised in the long term for someone else's short term profit.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Violet Mari

27 Cockburn Drive

Posted Jan 2013