5 Homes on 3 Lots??

Tom Mrakas

At our Public Planning Meeting, Council had an application that was in front of us for the second time. The application seeks to sever 3 lots on Cousins Drive and build 5 homes. The first time we had this application before Council, every member present made the same point – that 5 homes was not acceptable. Council asked that the applicant come back to Council at a future Public Planning meeting with a revised application that addressed the concerns that had been raised. The “new” application was before Council last evening and, frankly, I was astounded by what was before us. It was largely the same proposal we had seen previously – for 5 homes on 3 lots. I put forward a motion to deny the application as it is non-compatible in keeping with the existing neighbourhood. Council in the majority on a recorded vote (6-2) approved the motion to deny the application ( Councillor Abel and Pirri opposed). Here is what I said….

Share this post

15 Responses

  1. I appreciate your stand on this issue. But you may find that most people will disagree with you on this. The cost of home ownership has been a significant issue that you must address as a Councillor. Knowing this you must also understand the fact that not everyone has the ability or choice to buy a large lot like you can. It will be mandatory to allow smaller lots and in some cases smaller homes in order to make a location affordable. This formula has been used by countries around the world for hundreds of years. Quite frankly you don’t have very much to be proud of with this video. You are pushing an elitists agenda, with a strong notation of imperialistic views. i recommend you rethink your stand.

  2. You never mention the size of the original lots. The reality is with the high cost of ownership infill through division of larger lots is going to happen.

      1. Dohhhh, sorry, obviously. Keep up the stand on this issue, I am sure everyone who commented to the negative would not let the lots next to them be rezoned.

  3. Thank you Tom for having the integrity to respect the existing quality of the neighborhood. The stands that you take on Council are not the easiest, but they are certainly principled, and you have the respect of a lot of people. It is much easier to constantly cave in to developers, especially when one’s own house is not affected.

    1. Agreed!

      And, unlike Dom says above “most people” do not disagree if it is their neighbourhood being affected and they are the ones who matter the most in such an equation. There are other options for affordable housing. Unfortunatley the housing market is ridiculous but that does not mean that developers and speculators have the rights to profit, while deterring from the personality of a neighbour AND decreasing the value of homes in an established neighbourhood by creating eyesores and sardine lots.

  4. I would be very interested to know what the proposed price of each house would be for these 5 homes this developer wants to build. I could guarantee they wouldn’t be at ‘affordable housing’ cost!

    We live in a developers’ world, who have only dollar signs in their agenda. They don’t care about the community….we all have to get used to it!

  5. Tom,

    Good for you standing for development in accordance with the bylaws. This is not an issue of affordability as these houses will likely exceed 1M.

    Aurora has different housing styles which should be maintained. Let’s not attempt to have a homogeneous town. That is part of Auroras’s charm.

    The province wanted intensification and this you offered them in the 2C lands of N/E Aurora.

    Wouldn’t it be great if applications came in respecting the bylaws. Not using them as a baseline with the only unknown was how much more they could extract.

  6. How will this affect the street numbers? If you put 5 houses on a three lots will the numbers be changed on the whole street?

  7. True, neighbours are most affected by the change. Also true the community at large has an interest.
    True , builders are interested in making a livelihood and they provide employment. Also true ,there’s nothing reprehensible about that. Most people need to work for a living. All municipal services are provided. Police,fire protection,lighting ,storm and sanitary infrastructure and water services, snow ploughing ,recreation facilities, cultural services for Goodness Sake and museum services. Town operating budget is close to forty million and reserve funds are maintained at the same level. Taxes from five properties rather than three are a better return on investment. The community’s interest is better served with five homes than three. Council is responsible for efficient financial management.
    That is also true but I admit ,is the hardest thing to believe.

    1. HI Evelyn, I will disagree with you that 5 properties are a better return on investment over 3 and that the communities interest is better served with 5 over 3…. As you should be aware growth does not pay for growth… For every dollar collected in new taxes it will cost the municipality 1.30 …So this means that existing residents will make up the shortfall.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


If you’d like to keep in touch with the Mayor and receive updates, please add your e-mail.

Recent Posts

OLT Decision – 1289 Wellington St E

In a significant ruling, released this past Friday, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) has upheld the Town of Aurora’s position opposing the proposed 13 storey condo development application at 1289 Wellington Street East. Specifically, “The Tribunal finds that a 7-storey

Read More »

Aurora Cares

I can hardly believe it’s been four years since we launched the “Aurora Cares Community Action Team”. This remarkable group of volunteer community leaders, supported by dedicated Town staff, provided invaluable help and support during challenging times. The outstanding work

Read More »