I am a resident of the community for the past 16 years and strongly oppose to the rezoning to RA7 development. This is a quiet and low traffic neighbourhood which was the main reason we bought into this area. To have a commercial/housing development would be incompatible with the character of the neighbourhood. All the commercial requirements of the neighbourhood is just a 10-15 min walk from here and there is no need to have it encroach into this housing area. I am supportive to keep this area as a RF5 zone.

My family and I have lived in this neighborhood for years now. This proposal makes no sense to me considering an absolute need for additional schools in this area. First and foremost George H Luck is already filled to capacity. The demographic of this neighborhood is changing quickly and is going to need to incorporate more room for the increased amount of children. Taking this land away from school use is very reckless and does not show any forethought.

This project also expresses disregard for the standards of this community. The projects design concept clashes severely with the existing properties. It is a very poor way to integrate this type of housing into a neighborhood. And would sorely stand out in very negative ways.

The increase in traffic needs to be considered as well. The locations where the additional persons would be entering and exiting doesn't have sufficient light control devices. The roads and infrastructure was not design for higher capacity traffic.

The best way for this land to serve this community is to stay used for school purposes. If that can't be then the most practical way would be using it for a RF5 project.

Homeed's proposal is to build up to 100 units on this site. That is 3X the density of the townhouse development that was recently built next to Luck school in the adjacent neighborhood. While Homeed states that they are happy to work with residents and build townhomes like in their development in Greisbaugh there is no way that 100 units would ever fit on this site unless a 4 story appartment was built. This is the "flexibility" that they are seeking with the RA7 zoning. . There are a few ways that more lower density units could be built on the site, like allowing the Epcor access road to be used to access the site (freeing up land and improving ergonomics with respect to Ogilvie Drive) and using more of the land between the site and the Epcor substation. We were told at the virtual meeting that using the Epcor access was not on the table as it was owned by Epcor. Epcor is a wholly owned subsidiary of the City so they have total control over it and could make this happen with the stroke of a pen. It is clear to see that the City put requirements on the land and priced it such that private buyers did not feel they could make a go of a project on the site. That left the city with having "Homeed's offer" being the best one. As Homeed is a wholly owned subsidiary of the City this is a case of taking the purchase money out of one's left pocket and putting it in the right pocket. Unfortunately I feel that the City has already made up it's mind that our neighborhood needs to be forced into being more inclusive in a woke way and all this "consultation" is just window dressing.

We have been residents in this community for 33 years. We realize the school zone area needs to be redeveloped. Many ideas have been put forth to the city regarding use of this land. The City has said thru numerous previous engagement sessions that they are listening and the new development will blend in with the current neighborhood. Having it rezoned to allow commercial space or below marker priced housing was never one of the options discussed and this does not blend in with the community. We strongly oppose the redevelopment. The RF5 zoning is much more appropriate for this community. HomeEd is not listening to the community involved with their decisions. Having to say "just in case" is very underhanded. There should be no "just in case" because they should know and respect the wishes of the tax paying citizens in this community.

We as the member of the community strongly AGAINST the current development plan, which set as RA7 BY HomeEd. We would like to see low density with ownership development which is RF5.

I have been a resident of Olgivie Ridge for 30 years. I understand the surplus site will be developed. I am opposed to the rezoning to Ra7 allowing apartment buildings and commercial space. This development does not fit in with the existing community. Currently we already have excess traffic on Omand Drive from people in other communities short cutting through our community to avoid traffic on Rabbit Hill Road and Terwillegar Drive. An apartment building and commercial space would further add to this problem, making Omand Drive a major commuter route. The community itself has clearly expressed its desire for a townhouse development. At no time was the community interested in an apartment building. As there are already two townhouse developments within our boundaries a third townhouse development is acceptable.

I have been a resident of Osland Close for thirty years. Although I understand that the land in question needs to be developed, I am disappointed and strongly oppose the decisions made by the planner. Over the years, many suggestions have been offered for a fair and equitable use for development which would best suit the home owners and The City. In my opinion, the deal with HomeEd was done quickly and somewhat sneakily. The suggestions and concerns expressed by my neighbors have not been considered at all given the outcome of the building being proposed for development. I respectfully ask that reconsider be made taking into account the ideas presented by the residents of Ogilvie Ridge.
Arlene and Greg Hines

We strongly oppose rezoning to RA7. We have lived in this community over 30 years and never had the need for commercial/retail development in our area. The City said thru numerous previous engagement sessions that they are listening and will try to have the new development blend in with the current neighborhood. We support RF5, as it will be a better fit in our community, as well, create more affordable housing.
Thank you.

I have lived in this community for 33 years and strongly oppose the RA7 zoning proposal by HomeEd. The input from our community is clear, we do not want commercial nor below market rental properties. I strongly support a zoning of RA5. This housing style, lower density, less traffic and zero commercial development will be a better match our community. I encourage HomeEd to act in the best interests of the residents of our community. RA5 zoning, no commercial businesses nor below market rentals.

I am a community resident and I strongly oppose the RA7 zoning proposal by HomeEd. The current version clearly shows no respect or consultation with the community.

The input from our community has been clear, we want a townhome-style development and certainly nothing commercial or apartment-style. Zoning for RA7 "just in case" is clearly against our wishes as a community. It does not match the existing style of the community and would clearly result in increased traffic. Thus there should be no scenario where an RA7 structure is required as that does not meet our needs.

I strongly support a zoning of RF5. This is what we feel will best suit our neighborhood and the new members of our community. The housing style and density is far more appropriate and it does not include any possibility for commercial development.

I hope that HomeEd will listen to the actual people impacted by this and submit an appropriate zoning proposal.

I am a resident in the community. I oppose the zoning proposal by HomeEd.
1. it is not what the community wanted, we did ask a senior housing property during the engagement process with city planning during the past 5 years.
2. the sale of the land was not marketed enough, as most of home builders have never known the sale. the land was sold for $10, and city will pay couple of million to develop the land as well
3. the process to transfer the land was not transparent, there were only 2 bidders, but we never knew who .the other bidder was, and what the other bid was
4. the RA7 zoning does not fit the community, which contains detached houses, and senior condo semi detached houses only
5. HomeEd did not commutate with the community, they intestinally scheduled the meeting with the board when they were not available, and had the meeting far away from the community.

I oppose the zoning proposal by HomeEd
…. the city has failed for 7 years to heed the recommendations of both the Homeowners Association and the the community league.

We definitely do not want below market rental properties or commercial businesses.

HomeEd has not paid any attention to the community views and is arrogantly moving forward with a development which will seriously harm this community.

The area was originally zoned for a school. A number of years later, having been deemed a "school surplus site", the area is now being rezoned for housing. The irony is that there is an alarming lack of schools in the area. "George H Luck", for instance, has been steadily increasing its student enrolment. "Lilian Osborne High School", has already implemented a lottery system for area residents. EPSB has further stated that a total of 7 schools will be forced into lottery, for 2023. And yet, the City is proposing to settle more residents, when we don't even have enough schools - let alone, any plans to create new ones? Following that thought, as the site is destined for low-income earners, will there be enough support for those students who are forced to attend school outside of their designated boundary? Given the obvious, growing shortage of schools, I'm wondering if the City can reconsider its plans/priorities?