Ms. A. Cooper

Planning, Building and Development Dept.

City Of Niagara Falls, Ontario Saturday 23 April 2022

Dear Ms. Cooper

I am sending this email to be incorporated into the meeting planned to debate the application for zoning bylaw amendment as mentioned above Re: 6259-6293 Dorchester Rd. My wife and I own the home located at 6245 Clare Crescent. and enjoy the atmosphere of a quiet single family residential neighbourhood. That is the prime reason we purchased our home in this area.

I cannot understand or accept the concept of a developer buying a parcel of land to develop into something that has already been debated, discussed and agreed too. The parcel we are speaking of has already been cleared for the purposes of single family one store town homes. These home it seems were acceptable to current adjacent property owners. Current property owners in the area and homes bordering the property would not be significantly impacted and the developer would be able to complete his project. So a new developer then purchases the land and wants to once again have the by-law changed to allow a much bigger intrusive project at the expense of current adjacent property owners on Brookfield Ave. and Dorchester Rd. Why? one would wonder would a seasoned developer purchase a parcel of land to develop knowing the property is already zoned for development as town homes….unless they were confident that a by-law amendment would go in their favour, thus allowing a major deviation from the original intent and spirit of the proposed and accepted development. Simple answer PROFITS made at the expense of the adjacent landowners, whose tranquil backyards, privacy, and independence would be taken by a five storey building full of prying eyes, not to disregard the intrusion of parking lot illuminating lights, cars coming and going at all hours, large trucks usually in the early hours coming to empty dumpsters and thus a major decrease in the valuation of the homes that they have purchased specifically for that quiet single family home way of life is morally wrong.

Perhaps a solution could be reached by the developer offering to compensate adjacent home owners for the loss of valuation on their homes, but I doubt any developer would dare go down that slippery slope as it would cut into PROFITS and set an unacceptable precedence.

As a person that is not directly impacted by this project, I would tell you that since other projects have been developed (Diamond Jubilee school) now apartment complex and the apartment at the top of Brookfield Ave. at Lundys lane. I have noted a major increase in traffic on our street (Clare Cres.) mostly going south way over acceptable residential speeds in a rush to miss the intersection of Lundys Lane and Dorchester. The short cut coming south on Brookfield to Clare, to McMillan and to southbound Dorchester Rd. If this proposed development is allowed to proceed I would expect even more traffic coming down our quiet street to gain access to Coach Dr. and onto Dorchester to go to the apartments. The intersection of Lundys Lane and Dorchester is already a major disaster at the best of times with numerous accidents reported, poor sight lines, and too much congestion, to add another apartment complex on Dorchester Rd. near this intersection would be compounding the problem that has not fully been realized as all the apartments at Diamond Jubilee have yet to be rented.

As a concerned taxpayer, that will be impacted by this zoning by law amendment, I would like it known that I STRONGLY DISAGREE with any change to the existing bylaw to allow an apartment complex of any kind to be built on the mentioned lots. These lots were historically single family lots and had single family homes on them. A compromise by adjacent landowners has already been made to allow for the development of one story town homes and I’m sure the current developer was well aware of the zoning when he purchased the land. Rules should not be changed after an agreement has been made, to accommodate larger profits especially at the expense of other residents living in the area.

Respectfully submitted,
John J. Clark

(The above letter which was already summitted to City Hall was given to us with permission by John J. Clark)