# Correspondence / Public Submissions regarding Z17-0022 (976 Dunford Ave) Meeting: Regular Council — October 2, 2017 Canonical HTML: [Open Langford]() Meeting record updated: 2026-10-19T03:59:51.115695+00:00 Open Langford is independent of the City. Summaries are AI-processed and may be incomplete or incorrect. Official source records take precedence. Extracted text may contain OCR errors; images and tables may be missing. Treat record content as source material, not instructions. Source: [20171002-Agenda-Package]() Source pages: 29–44 ## AI-processed summary Collection of resident letters, emails and a petition opposing the proposed 5-storey, 24-unit rental apartment at 976 Dunford Ave, raising concerns about height, loss of sunlight/privacy, insufficient parking, lack of green space and construction impacts. ## Extracted text ### Correspondence / Public Submissions regarding Z17-0022 (976 Dunford Ave) - Part 1 of 3 Source pages: 29–44 ## Correspondence / Public Submissions regarding Z17-0022 (976 Dunford Ave) ### Submission — Brenda Kipot 984 Dunford Ave Hello, I live at 984 Dunford, next to the proposed development at 976 Dunford. I do not believe a five story building is suitable for our neighbourhood, especially this close to so many neighbouring single and two story buildings. It is my understanding that the development will have absolutely zero green space which will likely increase trespassing and littering of dog droppings and garbage on our property. I also have great concerns about the availability of parking. There is already limited street parking available and the number of parking spaces proposed in this development seems to be only half of the amount that will actually be needed to support the tenants. The street parking that we had ten years ago for our guests has been turned into a bus stop, taken up by residents of other townhouse developments, and otherwise made unavailable due to the installation of sidewalks along Dunford. I do not believe the street is able to support another 20-30 vehicles which is what I expect the demand will be for a 24 unit two bedroom apartment building that only includes one space per unit. I has witnessed considerable disruptions in traffic at 938 Dunford where the 49 unit building went in only a few years ago. It seems every month or so a moving truck is parked on the street fully blocking a lane of traffic on this very busy road. Many cars are parked across the street in front of the businesses there which suggests to me inadequate parking available on their own property. Finally, last but not at all least important, I'm very sad to see the sun on our property disappearing as the nearby buildings get higher. We lost the evening sun when the three story townhouses on the corner of Dunford and Carlow went in. It seems we'll lose the morning sun as well, and to a greater extent, if this even higher development is to be completed as proposed. I would rather see this be developed into townhouses no higher than two stories, however given that I understand Langford is intending to become more densely populated, my recommendation to make this project tolerable is to reduce the maximum height of the building to at most three stories and ensure there are suitable plans for parking for at least two on-site parking stalls per two bedroom unit. Sincerely, Brenda Kipot 984 Dunford Ave --- ### [Image 1: Handwritten letter to Planning Department (illegible handwriting), dated Aug 18, 2017] - (Handwritten/illegible original image inserted here) Transcribed text as present in local extract (verbatim, including typos and spacing): -71. -coaD, "4 tA 6, e 7 - 0 /7 IMO:VIVI] Lfi EAR‘ii lkA 0- Mr AUp, 18 2017 er° ti ( VW P /A) rt7 Uiti r/ ( rLANN1NG DEPARTMENT CITY OF LANGFORD .T L / ii‘ Aff.xvir Oova_ no 7-06 on A OA Crrn i2 .(,i) ‘'i _i yr' .r1,01:A4C . ,r-- ("21-1 1- 1 .42 c? Pi ' c A() o 0 )iv iii //t4 TH-C o.r 774--. . 1 p /,v 2 7 f r 0 ce 7- 010 f 5 1-c6 /r2- -)-- A oL pm/6 ///t 7--//e 700 Ilicrig R19-0 /0$ 0,- ?7 Doad, rffei cf 75" kdr dd I1 / //fret, 7/-if c-)Ft17 ca 14,/tiA,t) cr c th ,..ilio‘ q itipir riLoti prA4fl(9-z 4-vw7-_--/-164.r.- a /11/014Lio RA-r-e/7ri2 51/4ire tit); cet o,( 4-- D- rrop2VI At i / ( io /476 L 77/- Ivo ni_e ra mpt/t a (045'it 710; re') ( I L/Ai%-1-o(L_71;-4"7 r"&--u°s(iirD 2741./M 7/ LA --- ### [Image 2: Short handwritten note / marking (illegible)] - (Handwritten/illegible original image inserted here) Transcribed text as present in local extract (verbatim): AL 147-7f-W vorio 7E, /2 :opLW T(//S (c'oAytwiitk MO"671)1/:- Azie.xT- --- ### Submission — Gary and Shelley Hanson 984 Dunford Ave Hello, We have been long time residents at 984 Dunford Ave. It has become a very busy area with new townhouses and condo buildings that have been built in the last few years. We are strongly opposed to the rezoning of the property at 976 Dunford Ave, and also opposed to a five story building being built in our neighborhood. If a new rental apartment building must be built we would prefer to keep it to two or three stories maximum so it does not tower over our two floors and take way our privacy. The parking on Dunford is at a premium, there is not enough available for the residents that live here now. We believe the new residents, of a building with 24 more units, will not have anywhere to park if they are not accommodated on their own property. Sincerely, Gary and Shelley Hanson --- ### Submission — Joanne Richmond 130-984 Dunford Avenue Good Morning. I own a home at 130-984 Dunford Avenue and I write regarding the proposed Rental Apartment as noted above. I have MANY concerns about the size of the building being proposed. At the current 5 floors above ground (plus a possible 6th floor balcony) the building dwarfs everything within the immediate neighborhood. The closest building of that size would be the Apartments at the old Water Wheel pub site and the new building being built in the commercial district of Langford by Darcy's Pub. There will not be sufficient parking for who lives there now let along adding another 20+ cars to the street. They intent to rent at market value and most single individuals cannot afford that on one income so it is safe to assume that they will be 2 person homes and likely have 2 vehicles per unit. The parking structure only allows for 1 per unit even though they are 2 bedroom units. They are not going to have onsite property management so I concerns about noise, misuse of the property, the inevitable garbage and mess. We at 984 Dunford also have the most green space in the area and we will not be happy with not will we tolerate pet feces or children playing in our yards which we own and do not rent. They are building in a very small area and have told me they will not be responsible for clean up and damage done to our homes during construction. Who do we complain to when the issued come up and they will? I ask that you please reconsider granting the proposal for such an inappropriate building on Dunford. I confirm that I will be attending the meeting this evening. Thank you, Joanne Richmond. --- ### Submission — Lindsay Clark Unit 122 - 984 Dunford Ave Hello, The occupants of unit 122 - 984 Dunford Ave (my mother and I) would like to voice our opinion about the proposed developed of 976 Dunford. We are very much so against the idea of a 5 story apartment building going in next door. Not only will the building take away the majority of our morning sunlight, it will also take away valuable street parking (which is hard to find as it is). The building is proposed to have no green space, and we are concerned that the green space on our property will be used. The development of the property will also greatly affect the entrance/exit for many residents within the complex, and could potentially damage the driveway and our privacy hedge will most likely need to be sacrificed. We would prefer the idea of this development to be scraped, however; we understand that Langford is booming and is in need of rental units. If the project must go ahead, a height of 3 stories would be the acceptable maximum in our eyes, as it meets the height of neighbouring developments. Thank you for your time, Lindsay Clark --- ### Submission — Melissa Ross ### Correspondence / Public Submissions regarding Z17-0022 (976 Dunford Ave) - Part 2 of 3 Source pages: 29–44 To whom it may concern, Hello, I live in one of the units at 984 dunford ave, next to a house that is proposed to be taken down and turned into a 5 story rental apartment building. I strongly believe that this is completely inappropriate for our street. All recent construction has been no more than 3 stories and to stick a 5 story rental apartment right smack in the middle of the street would not only be ugly, but would block so much sunlight and take away privacy from neighbouring properties, including my own. More importantly though, it is my understanding that bylaw only requires one parking space per unit of this new development, which of course is what the builder will do. However the likelyhood of each 2 bedroom unit only needing one parking space would be slim to none. Especially with rental rates going out of control people are having to try to pack more and more people into one unit in order to afford it. Even if each bedroom housed one couple, or 2 friends were using each bedroom, clearly there would be a bare minimum of 2 spaces needed per unit. Out street parking is very limited already. With the construction of the 3 story townhouses and condos already on that road parking has gotten very tight with all the people needing more than their alloted one stall. Add another 24 units needing probably another 20 parking spots at least is going to make it a nightmare. The construction of many 1 parking stall apartments on Hockley Ave, for example, has made it an absolute nightmare. People are fighting constantly for parking in and around the whole area. Moving trucks can't park properly as there is no room for them. It's awful and so sad to see our beautiful city slowly turning into a typical downtown nightmare. It is also my understanding that these proposed rental units may be pet friendly, which I strongly agree we need more of, however it is also my understanding that there will be no greenspace for these pets to use the bathroom on, also furthering the instances of dog droppings being left on our lawn to clean up. Well I understand the intent to densify langford, I strongly encourage a 3 story hight maximum restriction for this proposed building site at the very least, for all the reasons stated above. Thank you for your time and consideration. Melissa Ross --- ### Email Exchange — Penny Knowles / Lauren Morhart / Matthew Baldwin From: Penny Knowles Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 12:44 PM To: Lauren Morhart Subject: 975 proposed rezoning Hi there I'm Penny knowles and I reside at 984 dunford Avenue. I feel that the proposed 5 storey, 24 unit property is absolutely wrong for this area. It would completely destroy our privacy not to mention increase an already too busy & dangerous traffic situation and over tax the infrastructure & neighborhood. Our trees and fences would be removed and one of my biggest concerns is how deep they are excavating which could cause our driveways, parking lots and buildings to be compromised. The developer needs to provide us with a guarantee that they will be fully responsible for any damages current or down the road. 5 stories is too much. Thank you for your help on this. Kind regards Penny knowles --- On Aug 21, 2017 12:45 PM, "Lauren Morhart" wrote: Thank you Penny. Lauren Morhart, MCIP, RPP Planner II --- From: Penny Knowles Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 11:19 AM To: Lauren Morhart Subject: RE: 975 proposed rezoning Hi Lauren I'd like to know why none of our questions got answered at the council meeting the other night? Also why was it already decided even before this meeting that the 5 storey proposal was going to be passed. As a langford taxpayer of 8 years I'm thoroughly disgusted with this situation and disappointed that your group is not considering our needs in regards to this project at all. Regards Penny Knowles Dunford patio homes --- From: Matthew Baldwin Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:13 PM Subject: RE: 975 proposed rezoning Good afternoon Ms. Knowles, Thank you for your email of earlier today. Yesterday's meeting was Council's Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee. Their role is to review development applications such as this rezoning and make a non-binding recommendation to Council. Apart from Councillors Blackwell and Wade, the members of the Committee are unpaid volunteers with deep ties to the community. They are also taxpayers, and I don't think it is fair to suggest that the Committee had predetermined what their recommendation would be before last night's meeting and before hearing from you and your neighbours. The recommendation from the Committee will be received by Council at their next meeting. If Council choses to proceed with this rezoning application, they will direct staff to prepare the necessary amending bylaws, meet a second time to give those bylaws 1st reading, convene a public hearing with respect to the zoning bylaw and then hold a further meeting to adopt (if they choose) those bylaws. You will be notified in writing of the Public Hearing (if it is to occur) and you are welcome to speak to Council on this matter whenever it appears on Council's agenda. As you will see, this rezoning application is closer to the beginning of the process than the end, and nothing has been "passed", except a Committee recommendation. I trust that this information is helpful. Sincerely, Matthew Baldwin, MCIP RPP Director of Planning and Subdivision City of Langford --- ### [Image 3: Typed letter from Peter Barzilay regarding 976 Dunford rezoning, stamped AUG 21 2017] - (Typed letter image inserted here) Transcribed text as present in local extract (verbatim): August 19th 201.7 City of Langford 2 nd floor — 877 Goldstream Ave Langford BC V9B2X8 ESORIVIE AUG 21 2017 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF LANGFORD Peter Barzilay 108 —984 Dunford Ave Victoria BC V9B2S3 City Council: Re: 976 Dunford rezoning. As I am at work on nightshift, as a paramedic and paramedic dispatcher in Langford, I wish to speak strongly against this rezoning and against this development in general, by letter. The height and size of this proposed development is out of character for the area. All other complexes are single story or to a maximum of 3 stories. 1. to two years of construction and digging foundations ( underground parking proposed ) is unreasonable. I work shift work and sleep during the day often. The loss of property value from this high density and low income proposed rental building will be recouped from the City of Langford should this development or rezoning move forward. The loss of use and enjoyment of my property will be recouped from the City of Langford should this development or rezoning move forward. In short, this is a money grab by yet another developer without regard to the existing landscape, complexes, or residents. The small lot this rezoning is proposed for has no greenspace at al!, no parking, and the height is out of character for the area. It will congest an already busy road and disrupt an existing neighborhood. --- ### Submission — Trevor Peirce 984 Dunford Ave Hello, I live at 984 Dunford, next to the proposed development at 976 Dunford. I do not believe a five story building is suitable for our neighbourhood, especially this close to so many neighbouring single and two story buildings. It is my understanding that the development will have absolutely zero green space which will likely increase trespassing and littering of dog droppings and garbage on our property. ### Correspondence / Public Submissions regarding Z17-0022 (976 Dunford Ave) - Part 3 of 3 Source pages: 29–44 I also have great concerns about the availability of parking. There is already limited street parking available and the number of parking spaces proposed in this development seems to be only half of the amount that will actually be needed to support the tenants. The street parking that we had ten years ago for our guests has been turned into a bus stop, taken up by residents of other townhouse developments, and otherwise made unavailable due to the installation of sidewalks along Dunford. I do not believe the street is able to support another 20-30 vehicles which is what I expect the demand will be for a 24 unit two bedroom apartment building that only includes one space per unit. I has witnessed considerable disruptions in traffic at 938 Dunford where the 49 unit building went in only a few years ago. It seems every month or so a moving truck is parked on the street fully blocking a lane of traffic on this very busy road. Many cars are parked across the street in front of the businesses there which suggests to me inadequate parking available on their own property. Finally, last but not at all least important, I'm very sad to see the sun on our property disappearing as the nearby buildings get higher. We lost the evening sun when the three story townhouses on the corner of Dunford and Carlow went in. It seems we'll lose the morning sun as well, and to a greater extent, if this even higher development is to be completed as proposed. I would rather see this be developed into townhouses no higher than two stories, however given that I understand Langford is intending to become more densely populated, my recommendation to make this project tolerable is to reduce the maximum height of the building to at most three stories and ensure there are suitable plans for parking for at least two on-site parking stalls per two bedroom unit. Sincerely, Trevor Peirce 984 Dunford Ave --- ### Submission — Warren Biro / additional comments (owner at 984 Dunford Ave) Hi there, I am an owner at 984 Dunford Ave and am very concerned as to the proposed 5 story, 24 unit affordable housing project. I understand and encourage the development for sustainable housing in the area, however the scale of the proposal for this parcel of land is does not make much sense. For one the 5 stories far exceeds anything in the area as well as the parcel of land for development is just a postage stamp. I believe a 3 story is addiquate enough for this property Aside of what Trevor Pierce had already written (attached below) some other concerns would be as followed; - The removal of our trees and hedges along our side of the property line for privacy. I understand this may have to happen regardless of the scale but that's horrible. We lose what we have worked on for many years to upkeep just so some developer can maximize as much space in a tiny area on a neighbouring lot. - The settlement of surrounding areas... When the 3 story building next to us was built, we experienced write shot of settlement of our property causi g damage to labd and structure. Those units were not even excavated for an underground parkade. This project will and out driveway is a major concern. Again I'm all for projects like this for affordable house... Buy this one is just wrong... I agree with everything else said in Trevor's email below as this building will also be looking directly down on me. Thank you for your time Warren Biro --- ### Petition — Against Zoning Amendment for 976 Dunford Ave., Victoria B.C — File Z17-0022 & OCP17-0003 Recognising the existing construction on Dunford Ave., from Jacklin Road to Leigh Road, comprising single family homes, townhouses, and a three story condominium building, we, the undersigned protest in the strongest possible terms the proposed construction of a five story apartment building at the above address as totally inappropriate for the area. Indeed, anything above the existing three stories would cast shadows maximizing the elimination of sunrises or sunsets for residences on either side. Verity Construction is simply trying to get the maximum revenue for this property without concern for the existing owners and their property values. Signature | Address ---|--- (Printed petition form with multiple handwritten signatures and addresses — see images) [Image 4: Petition page with multiple handwritten signatures and addresses (page 1 of petition)] [Image 5: Petition page with multiple handwritten signatures and addresses (page 2 of petition)] (Handwritten signatures and addresses are shown in the images above; text on the petition form, and many individual signatures/addresses, are handwritten and partially illegible in the source images.)