The 'BUngaLow 'on Rose



SE Quad-LeBovic


PRoPoSaLs SubDiViSion

Contact Page


Our ToXiC PasT

Guest Book Page

Theatre -Town Square



Favorite Links Page

Campaign Contributions (2000 and 2003 Councils)


Hoover-Harper Farm House-The Problem with Heritage

The Devastation of our Tree Cover

Randy's Running !


The 'BUngaLow 'on Rose

The Debates

Our Lakes Communities in Bloom!

Election Speeches

Campaign Contibutions and Concessions

 Campaign Contributions 2006

The fight for Compatible Infill Housing in our Older Neighbourhoods

The New Bungalow Higher than the 2 story built to the west!

 in process


OMB Hearing For Compatibility

 The developers got to develop around the town .We got to Preserve Maintain and Enhance the Old Town That the deal of the Sec Plan. That's the deal I will honour.

Our fight for compatibility was in essence, to preserve the small-town character of Stouffville, which is the mandate and vision of our Secondary Plan.  We were in essence, trying to make the council realize and hold   them responsible to their mandate. The Planning Department entered in to an arrangement with the developer for a land transfer and failed to honor the commitment made previously to   the residents of the Southside of Rose Ave. to maintain compatible lot sizes, which was defined by the planning manager as equal footage to the pre-existing subdivision layout. (Remember the fight for compatible lot size all around town)

The Council was informed by the planning manager that the likelihood of us succeeding at the OMB was minimal.  What they where not informed of was that if the Council supported the Committee of Adjustment, and the Residents and Planning Department agreed with that in accordance with the provisions of our Secondary Plan.  Then we would have every advantage in succeeding.

By Preferring to take the rights of 1 builder over the needs of the neighbourhood and community (as mandated in our Secondary Plan), instead of preserving our older neighbourhoods, they have offered them to the development industry to carve up and destroy their ambience at the expense of young families and seniors and Our Town Character and anybody else who values what Old Stouffville has to offer.  We have all seen, what resulted there.  That was supposed to be a bungalow compatible to the other bungalows in the area.  There is no bungalow like that in the area, in the town, in the country!  By its definition that is not a bungalow.  That's a blunder by our Planning Department.  A failure to understand the English-language. When we asked the Council to take responsibility, they chose to cover-up the mistake at the expense of the Neighborhood and Town.  What does that say about integrity?

             And yes it was my house, my neighbourhood, my farmhouse, my woods, my creeks, my school, MY Town!  One of my first jobs was Memorial Park maintenance; I have a propriety sense about it. It was just the Park back then Just like the Old Town Hall Theatre was just that. No more (Developer) naming games please! 


That is the state of affairs. That is your choice Make you needs known and hold them accountable!

  Realize your responsibility and vote for change.    Don’t let this waste continue. This devastation, this seeming lack of understanding the fundamentals of our existence on this earth.  We used to call it just plain commonsense.  But even that phrase has been redefined lately.

            VOTE  MOLE FOR MAYOR      www.stouffville .org


Add your link here

Add your link here

 The Archectectual Manual (requirement for approval) called for a 'Bungalow  compatible with the existing bungalows of the neighbourhood. It called Respect " for the Existing Residents" not compromises for' Hypothetical New Residents'