Dear editor:

I have spent hours studying the various reports and submissions for the proposal for the Parliament Oak site. 

Thousands of words, trying to convince me and the town that this proposal is somehow in harmony and compatible with the existing established residential area that surrounds the site. 

The streetscape study purports that “the proposed semi-detached residences are roughly comparable in size to the larger houses in the surrounding contexts.”

If you look at the diagram included with this study showing “proposed structure’s scale and massing,” the semi-detached dwellings have a larger footprint than one of the biggest houses in the neighbourhood – 83 Gage St.,  which sits alone, on a one-acre lot. 

The elevations of the apartment building beside and behind these “modest” semi-detached dwellings indicate the development is not even compatible with itself.

The semis look like doll houses placed behind and in front of the massive wall of the apartment building. It would be interesting if these elevations continued across the bounding streets to show the existing homes across Regent, Centre and King streets.

Surely an illustration of this sort should be included in the streetscape study. 

The application for the apartment building requests a “medium density residential” designation. According to the official plan, intensification sites would have a minimum density of six units per acre and a maximum density of 12 units per acre.

This proposal is for 92 units on a four-acre site or 23 units per acre – almost twice the density noted as maximum. 

The parking, servicing and delivery access to all 92 units, including the apartment building, is from the local roads. 

There are 181 parking spaces provided on the site. That is a large number of cars coming and going and does not include service or delivery vehicles. Local roads are designated in the official plan as servicing individual dwellings or semi-detached units.

This is totally unacceptable and will forever change the nature of our neighbourhood. It also impacts directly two single-family dwellings – one on Centre Street and one on Gage Street immeasurably. 

Our town is being eroded, bit by bit, one developer at a time. Funny, they all claim to “love this place.” But what they love is the profit-making potential, not the charming and delightful place to live that will soon be a distant memory. 

Connie Tintinalli
NOTL