Town council has refused the latest Dunpar Developments plan to build townhouses on a collection of rundown properties at the south end of Sixth Line.
The company, along with its project director Taylor Rogers, owns five lots between 1020 and 1042 Sixth Line, just north of the QEW and North Service Road East.
Back in 2016, it sought to build 81 townhouses on the 1.25-hectare property bordering the Sixteen Mile Creek.
That plan was rejected by the town and eventually quashed after a Dunpar appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).
A very similar proposal – this time for 55 townhouses and one semi-detached house – was unanimously rejected by town council at its Sept. 11 planning and development meeting.
Dunpar’s latest application “attempts to maximize development on the site at the expense of good planning,” said town planner Rob Thun, who recommended councillors give it the thumbs down.
“The proposal introduces a built form – narrow townhouses on a private condominium road – and a density that does not adequately respond to the site character or the surrounding neighbourhood character and the low-density residential designation,” he concluded.
Area residents were even blunter in their assessment of the plan.
“This is a slap in the face to all of us in the neighbourhood,” said Jess Gill.
She noted that the community is characterized by large single-family home lots filled with mature trees, adding that residents want to see a redevelopment plan that reflects the community.
“We canvassed our neighbourhood, and the consensus was overwhelming against the proposal,” she said. “Neighbours were appalled at the potential of the character of the neighbourhood being destroyed and wanted their voices to be heard.”
Gill added that residents have been waiting years to see a sensible redevelopment plan from Dunpar but instead got a recycled plan featuring “a measly decrease of 10 units.”
In the meantime, the company has not maintained its property, allowing weeds to take over and requiring two houses to be demolished after they began to fall apart.
She said she is also worried about the state of the house at 1042 Sixth Line, a designated heritage property.
Neighbourhood spokesperson David Long told councillors that a petition opposing the Dunpar plan has attracted more than 230 signatures from residents who are “overwhelmingly opposed” to the proposal.
“While this dense townhouse form may work well north of Dundas or on land that was previously agricultural, it does not work here,” he said. “It’s out of character and incongruent with the immediate area, and for that reason, the neighbourhood opposes this development.”
He also questioned Dunpar’s plan to access its development from the private roadway of Sunnycrest Lane despite clear opposition from the property owners.
Flooding risks in the area were identified by Gordon Brennan, who spoke on behalf of the Oakville Community Association.
“Don’t allow the pressure from the upper tier provincial government to cloud your judgement toward doing what is right for our residents,” he urged councillors.
“Do we have to destroy the Oakville that 211,000 people currently love and enjoy to accommodate the new citizens of Oakville? A resounding no.”
While there were no fans of Dunpar’s proposal at the Sept. 11 meeting, Ward 5 councillor Jeff Knoll warned that it might hang over the heads of the neighbourhood for some time to come.
“I think this is clearly on its way to the LPAT, so it’s going to be on the books for a while,” he said.
Dunpar did not send a representative to the meeting. The company organized an eight-minute-long Zoom presentation in January to meet its legal obligation to host a public meeting explaining its plan.
In last October’s municipal election, Dunpar Homes president John Zanini spent more than $8,000 to pay for the anti-Burton “Wanted” signs that popped up around town urging people to vote against the mayor.