Proposal submitted to build in historic core
Application includes 20 semi-detached homes, destruction of 100 mature trees
“It’s the developer that profits in the end, and it’s the neighbours who pay for it.”
Plans that which controversial neighbourhood over development; 27, which is currently The 35 will 100 are includes has and proposal, consist underway mature the zoned 39 items, and town’s Church the of of for black submitted impacts Amos mostly including to 20 urban low-rise construct St. semi-detached walnut Wright two-storey, to N. design the groundwater in detached also and a House August introduction new staff encompass maple century subdivision and houses residential and 2017, drainage. residents trees Amos of in homes; a designated includes three-storey the to dwellings. within Wright The voicing make historic the subject Richmond Park. destruction a room heritage concerns. number homes town The lands for core, Hill area site, in the of of at a was rainfall density Chris concerned of and Musselman, the provides project about whose natural would losing backyard be drainage.” the unsuitable treed borders been He area, “At for was identified this Amos which the also point, 1.5 Wright “absorbs concerned acres for it seems development. of Park, land significant like that said that’s what the he they’re cost,” that houses the said going deviate proposed Musselman, for dramatically is density three-storey explaining at from any the style Ward Queen of the 2 neighbourhood. Anne councillor architectural Tom sewage system of the surrounding neighbourhood Muench would be agreed and required replace that to the the update applicant old trees the in also order added to get that approval construction from of Richmond new properties Hill Town in Richmond Council. However, Hill would he need market. to He be describes updated the in order future to of remain growth in relevant Richmond in the Hill current as taking housing place
in “I infills care and about highrises. the issues. I want to make sure we have tree canopy. I want to sure make that sure we have we have balance drainage,” for the said type Muench. of growth He that added, we need.” “I want to make Musselman remains wary of this new proposal. “It’s the developer that profits in the end, and it’s the neighbours who pay for it,” said Musselman. “If the developer can show that there’s benefit to the neighbourhood, then that’s the better goal.”
According to Muench, further future opportunities for public input will be provided. The lead development consultants, Evan’s Planning, declined multiple requests for comment.
Resident Chris Musselman at the site of the proposed infill homes