The letter to the editor in the July 6 edition of the Morning Star includes an aerial view of the site that a four-storey, 39-unit non-profit rental apartment development will be built.
The site is small and narrow and below the road grade. When it is built it will completely shade the surrounding buildings three-quarters of the year. It is monstrous to its neighbours.
How could this be a) contemplated by the architect and b) approved by city council?
I will say again — I am not against low-cost housing in my backyard — they need a place to live, too. But, this proposal is way too much building for the lot and the units are too small for the space.
The plans call for an interruption of their roadway, to their parking spaces, to place two large huts to house garbage and recycling, and will go next to the fence and the small green space of their neighbours’ in Grqcelands. How would you like that in your backyard?
A small area is for snow deposits… where will the rest go? Every inch of space is accounted for on the property.
Now, after approving this building we find that they want variances. Does this make sense? What did they approve? They want less space for their road, less and smaller spaces for parking, less space on the side so that their decks will overlook all of their neighbours. Was this not thought out on approval? Where was the architect then?
There is so much wrong with this plan.
Coun. Juliette Cunningham may cry for housing, let’s hear her cry for those of us who, after working hard all of our lives to have a small space to live out our lives in peace, find that this will be taken away by cramming too many people in too small a space as our neighbours.
I will vote for Coun. Scott Anderson, the only one with commons sense.
Edith Schleiss