The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

t5 - “Al l KIIMH'HRONIL‘u-J Wednesday lune J. 2009 o o i f: â€"â€".â€"â€" ReSIdents unhappy w1th condo plan i :7 Dr. B. G. Pierce . - - - Continued from 1 some of the density increase. increased densities. 5 X x Dr' Patrima ElllSOl‘l page in return for increased densi [Even if it councillors had voted ‘ . . _ _ Dr. Jennifer (Hayfield Councillors approved an ties, the city will receive compenr the proposal down, there was no JP'efte Famlly VISIOn â€"â€"-â€"â€"â€" amendment to the official plan sation from the developer. [is the guarantee that decision would fl. that would allow a density of 46:3 second time the city has used new stick. she said. ' . . units per hectare, close to double density bonustng rules, which are “If we decided on something i he {1;m‘xuawiw, 51 9‘886-41 70 the existing zoning. governed by the provincial plan that would be a different fit for the 107 Em w. (Watering) At the same time, the city limit» ning act. neighbourhood, we (would! be tAcyoss Em 5mm a“ Conypleli ed the number of bedrooms in the ln this case. the developers will taken to the OMB and our own Evening "our; Available . . . . l43â€"unit development to mitigate contribute a piece of public art and planner would be against us." she WWW-PlercelamllyVlSlon-Com pay for some improvements on said. the Iron Horse Trail, which is adja- Councillors wound up voting or cent to the towers future site, 2 in favour of increased densities. ' . 5: www.golftown.com While the decision to allow Freeman and (Zoun. Ian McLean . k if Ix}. increased densities was tough. were opposed. “ 4 ._ . 2' H 3‘ developments like 144 Park are The vote came late in the OWN [999-2009 _v' "41:3? ‘ going to become the new norm in evening after two dozen delegar ' ' "’ h ' Waterloo as infill and intensifica- (ions voiced their opinions on the “f om e e tion programs begin, said (Ioun. development ‘_ f. o ” Ian d'Ailly. The biggest concern was an I “Intensification can be scary, it increase in traffic on nearby side , . really can. What I heard tonight is streets. that we all agree intensification ()thers ranged from the heritage e ce e was good. At the same time, we've value of the building to the shadow ., V I got to recognize this (develop- impact it would have on nearby .1 - -.:‘~1 3 . ' ,1 . . gt . ment) is what intensification is all buildings v" Get it n" for ; ‘3 . ‘. about." he said. A contingent from Norman ”.12.? d : ..-' While the decision was unp0p~ Street. two blocks north of 144 . {w- _ " ‘ , . . ular, it was necessary for the city to Park. came out to convince coun- . i“ 7 4 , " "I. start its long journey upwards. cillors to maintain the quiet com» I a... . , ' ‘ ‘ ' I?” added Coun. MarkWhaley. munity they've built on the street. ..1 ‘ m “' Acr'o'” ‘5' Not all councillors were ha R ‘d t Ch ' I ’ h _. , ppy eSi en , ris .eis man ‘ WW ' . ." with the development proposal. showed a chart of the 60 children '_ Hybnd ; A Coun. Diane Freeman told who live on the street and how Doris. 5 to PW council that the tower wouldn't fit they would be affected by . Wedge ' in with the streetscape or the increased traffic. ' “ed Shafted Me, ”x :5, . f . w, 71“» ' neighbourhood. His neighbour, Graham Hill. ,- . Stand Bag ' k . . " t» a”; . “We're basically going to have a laid out the community's position. .-. A ~ .: - ~ . - . 4. 4: ’ parceled piece of land in the mid; _ We want. to ensure or commu- .t 'IPC + "a die of the street that doesnt fit in. nity and neighbourhood remain $5.? . she said. “It fits w1th King Street. safe." he said. “We need to ensure -. 4‘1}. 1;? but it doesn't fit with this neigh- that cars are not speeding down I . i Woods, Steel Irons . 3;: bourhood." our street." . “ a. > . Only , Freeman also blasted the devel- As part of the ultimate approval. ' ' I ' 7 , 1",}! opment process. council directed staff to monitor l 43; 2 . " a . ,v"-’ “Our development process has traffic on that street once construe EV. 1" , been set aside,“ she said. “I feel tion began. . v1.2“ ‘ " , . .. ‘6 7220,. . 9 I...“ duped." Neighbours were disappointed M, ’ ' 'j. Freeman was angry about bythe final decision. -" . . i? 45.. reports and advertisements on the Becky Shaw. who lives on Park . «(w-53.5; Internet and in the media last Street near the proposed develop- ~‘ -- ' ' , ~ , - 7%“ week that she said made it look ment. said the development would 1‘: "j _ PEC'AL BUY - like the development's approval have been better if it was built at ‘. t. a . S wasa sure thing. the existing density. ’3‘.” »_ She also questioned a staff “I think this isagreedy develop» g f 54888 report that recommended merit." she said. “It‘s too much." i, ‘. :3"; 5 e; â€" value 3899 if . ' . ., . _ W R ._ V... . ”tog...“ “‘- Z%¢V_ 71.3.3 ,1». 4 . dices-from an“ .1- 14.3.. , . .1 ,, . ....§...,.., .4... first... > 2 T l . .. 4. {m5 3&3?" . . ,.§,.;f;. 343.1%. _ > . :55? ' " lIi~tnuilttilmtiw~J ”who: \l|<-t~ ~ BM 21651] FREE . MW \lnl‘ lltti \HHt l’.tiu A l'l.tttl.ti frl\\llli\ 'W we” ll.tllut lllLll \ltlllillt|l.|lllllltills gm "L,“ ' '1’ In IsnutgfltiI-lmm:‘tliiltlitut I“ m \.|]|l’11tl\lllll\. \.Hl\Iii'_'tti . l)l\.ll‘\llltil\l\ili.\||'iil\\liilhllli w , 4992 ltthtlv-tst llt..lnltt lonlf .itt \\|illli.lllnli ' "Wuâ€"'4‘, , ‘ . our » ll‘iill.llt‘l1i‘._‘l1 f Hiltllltulls 1 ‘ flmhmuflmmhmimnhnflmmh ‘ N Hurts lmtl i All A \ll‘lt .39. I. . . .. ._.0.0 about?!” . , . . . 2:. ~ - 5- . t ’dtr . ; r 7'. a: '.',:t eggs...” - twat' : an: '15 “déah as, gfifif