Prob­lems with pro­posed apart­ment tow­ers

Waterloo Region Record - - EDITORIALS & COMMENT -

Re: Con­cerns raised over pro­posed tow­ers on Court­land — Aug. 31

The story about the pro­posal to build four apart­ment tow­ers on Court­land Av­enue said that about two dozen res­i­dents at­tended a pub­lic meet­ing about the project. Based on this small num­ber, it would seem that the com­mu­nity at large is not con­cerned about the pro­posed de­vel­op­ment. I be­lieve this is mis­lead­ing. What the re­porter failed to note is that only prop­erty own­ers who re­side within 120 me­tres of the de­vel­op­ment site re­ceived a let­ter of no­tice invit­ing them to par­tic­i­pate in the meet­ing. This means that the con­cerns of hun­dreds of ad­di­tional res­i­dents who stand to be di­rectly im­pacted were not heard.

As an at­tendee of the meet­ing, I can say with some author­ity that the quotes the re­porter chose to in­clude did not re­flect the na­ture of the con­cerns raised, which fell into five broad cat­e­gories: en­vi­ron­men­tal im­pact, the ef­fects on traf­fic, ad­di­tional noise as a re­sult of the dense pop­u­la­tion, dis­rup­tion due to con­struc­tion and, most im­por­tant, the height of the tow­ers (which, for this re­gion, is un­prece­dented).

The ar­ti­cle states that “the par­cel of land is sur­rounded by high­rises, sin­gle fam­ily homes, patches of nat­u­ral her­itage con­ser­va­tion ar­eas and gen­eral in­dus­trial zones.” What it fails to men­tion is that the land is, in fact, sit­u­ated be­tween two train tracks (the LRT and CN Rail), which raises con­cerns re­gard­ing safety. The story also fails to re­port that the pro­posed de­vel­op­ment site is lo­cated on a flood plain along Sch­nei­der Creek, which is a trib­u­tary to the Grand River. At­ten­dees of the meet­ing were told that the GRCA will need to con­duct a re­view of the amend­ment, but we were not in­formed of the progress (whether a re­view has been sched­uled, if one is un­der­way, or if one has been com­pleted).

The whole process has been ex­tremely dis­con­nected. It would stand to rea­son that a re­view of the de­vel­op­ment site should be con­ducted and com­pleted to de­ter­mine if the pro­posed land is vi­able for res­i­den­tial de­vel­op­ment. Any amend­ment to an of­fi­cial city plan should be com­mu­ni­cated more clearly with the pub­lic, and meet­ings in­tended to col­lect the opin­ions of com­mu­nity mem­bers should be open to all mem­bers of the com­mu­nity — not just the prop­erty own­ers who live within 120 me­tres of the pro­posed de­vel­op­ment site. Michelle Tremblay-Cus­son Kitch­ener

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.