REPORT - The Township of Uxbridge

Appendix DPublic Submission ReviewSubmission Discussion Conclusionis not anticipated to differ fromthe adjacent residentialdevelopment.7. View/Property Value7.1 David Pilote and Charlene Summerfield, 14 Cyril Richardson Court“The residents who back on tothe area paid a premium in thepurchase price of their homesand this was reflected in theirTAX rate.”The development is on lands inthe Urban Area which aredesignated “Residential Area”.There is not now, nor has thereever been, any legal guarantee ofa view.7.2 Patrick Oliver, 10 Cyril Richardson Court“Should townhouses be buildthis will decrease the value ofexisting homes.”8. Developable Area8.1 Eileen and Chris Ethier, 12 Cyril Richardson Court“The following issues concernus and should be fully addressbefore or if this developmentis permitted...why build at all? if only 30%of the parcel of land is viable”8.2 Patrick Oliver, 10 Cyril Richardson Court“If 70% is protected and 30%is only usable what’s the pointin building?”9. Landscape Buffer9.1 Eileen and Chris Ethier, 12 Cyril Richardson Court“The following issues concernus and should be fully addressbefore or if this developmentis permitted...“natural landscape buffer” –what exactly will that be?The applicant proposes anemerald cedar hedge and fencealong the rear lot line. Theexact nature of the buffer can bereviewed and refined through thereview of the plan ofcondominium.There is not now, nor hasthere ever been, any legalguarantee of a view.The proposed development isfor single detached dwellings.The subject lands aredesignated “Residential Area”in the Official Plan and havethe potential for development.See 8.19.2 Patrick Oliver, 10 Cyril Richardson Court“Privacy landscapeSee 9.1 See 9.1buffer?What does this mean?”10. Winter Maintenance10.1 Eileen and Chris Ethier, 12 Cyril Richardson Court“The following issues concernThe applicant has proposed aspecific buffer but that can berefined through the review ofthe plan of condominium.The details of winterD-6