A resident’s concerns.
Please see my response to an email that was sent out to you yesterday by KD on July 11th, 2014 at 9:03 AM that was forwarded to me by our councillor
Jim Furfaro. It is in regards to the large Bell Fibre Optics box that has been placed in St. Georges Park that was installed there after the new owner of the
property at 148 Palmer (the old Guelph Hydro plot) asked to have it removed from the city right of way there.
Dear city staff:
Please do nothing to landscape the Bell Fibre Optics box in St. Georges Park until the matter of building on 148 Palmer Street (the former Guelph Hydro
property) comes before the building and planning department. As residents we think you should delay action on this planting as it hopefully will not be
needed in the end. At this point it would only serve as nothing more than a cover up for placing a box there in the first place. Bottom line we want the box removed from the park so let’s wait and see what happens when an application for 148 Palmer comes forward. As you can see from Staff’s email
(attached) planning staff were concerned and could not support a previous minor variance on this lot in 1998 for a new single detached dwelling. Moreover,
Staff says that planning staff would have the same concerns today and would still not be in a position to recommend support to the Committee of Adjustment.
The 1998 denial to build at 148 Palmer was based on sound planning principles that still stand. The likelihood is that the decision made in 1998 will happen again. The decision by Staff to find a new location for the Bell Fibre Optics box was premature and really jumped the gun since the Planning Department had not been consulted. The St. Georges Park community doesn’t want the box in
the park. It is unsightly and does not belong in a park setting. The box at 148
Palmer should stay, be reactivated and serve the purpose it was designed to serve. There it is closer to the existing OPI (Outside Plant Interface) pedestal
and thus should function best at that intended original location. Keeping the box at this original spot will cleanse the park of an unnecessary blight leaving
it as the open green space for which it is intended. This will also save city funds. There will no longer be a need to spend taxpayer funds on landscaping the
second contentious Bell box installation in the park.LM
Apologies in the delay in responding to you.
I can confirm that staff have not received any applications on the subject lands for a consent to sever or to build a new house. I note with the Zoning restrictions on this under-sized parcel, it would be very difficult to construct a single detached dwelling that respects the existing built character of the surrounding neighbourhood.
I had an inquiry on this site in March of last year, and provided a detailed response at that time. Please see attached. Planning staff were concerned and could not support a previous minor variance on these lands in 1998 for a new single detached dwelling. If a similar proposal were to be made today, Planning staff would have the same concerns and would still not be in a position to recommend support to the Committee of Adjustment.