Newmarket council members and the public questioned the fit and parking availability for a development proposed at Jacarandah Drive.
Council held a public hearing March 28 regarding a zoning application for a proposed 24-unit development at 1038 and 1040 Jacarandah. The proponent aims to add the homes on an expanded 0.45 hectare lot.
Ward 3 Councillor Jane Twinney said she has heard from area residents concerned about the proposal not being compatible with the neighbourhood.
“What it looks like doesn't really fit in with the surrounding neighbourhood,” Twinney said, noting some homes nearby were built in the 1960s. “It’s not coming off Leslie Street, it's coming off a residential street.”
The proposal aims to bring more density to the area, with 24 three-storey homes, with the only entry via a private road leading to Jacarandah.
The hearing included three letters and one deputation from area residents, all similarly speaking about concerns regarding the look of the buildings, along with other issues like traffic.
Resident Angela Smith wrote that a redesign should be considered.
“I am not against the development of more homes in any way,” she said, but added, “Those townhouses look nothing like any of the homes in the area or even this side of town.”
MHBC's David McKay on behalf of the developer said the units would feature a more modern design but would be low-rise enough to fit with the area, at 10 metres in height. He said factors like shadowing the neighbouring buildings were also considered. But he said they would take the feedback of Twinney and other residents going forward.
Another point of issue was around parking. The proponent plans each unit to have two parking spots, one in the driveway and one in the garage, plus six visitor spots. Mayor John Taylor said that is something they have seen with other developments, but council is concerned with single-car driveways.
“As much as we want to encourage active transportation, and we look forward deeply to a time when there’s less car usage, on the occasions that (single car driveways) have occurred, it leaves the development in a constrained position.”
Council made no decisions on the development, with the hearing intended for public and council input into the application. However, Twinney put forward an approved motion to hold an additional public meeting due to some technical issues with accessing the application documents.
“We want to make sure everybody has a proper, fair opportunity,” Taylor said.
