SOS Stratford



Instead of working towards a mediated solution that would have prevented our neighbourhood from becoming a mini-Mississauga, Councillors Vassilakos, Ingram, Burbach, Henderson, Beatty, Bunting, and mayor Mathieson voted to approve this project.


Rudy Mendez is the owner of Chancery Mendez Holdings, parent company of Chancery Development, applicant for the Ontario Street project. He wrote this letter in 2017 regarding a development in Erindale Village, where he lives:

“Prioritising revenue over the preservation of a historical village is tantamount to pimping. Blunt talk but it conveys the depth of our sentiments in this connection.” (read more)

Letters from local residents

Rtobert Ritz, Straford: Our thanks to Robert Ritz, who donated hours and hours of his time to help us make the first objections to this project. Many of his objections to the first version of the proposal are still valid, and can be read here. (See end of page)

Robert Roth, Stratford: “Too many of our councillors are clearly oblivious to the fact that this community thrives — while other small Ontario communities languish — largely because of the aesthetic and cultural uniqueness Stratford has carved out for itself. When our councillors are not trying to turn the city into a replica of 19th Century Liverpool with looming, omnipresent industrial smokestacks, they are trying to turn us into Mississauga West with unwelcoming, out-of-character, high-density development on the main tourist thoroughfare through town. In short, for the second time in less than a year, our councillors have proven that they just don’t get it. Public accountability has been abandoned in favour of an ever-spinning, revolving door for developers. We have been re-electing too many of the same local politicians for too long. They have become arrogant, insensitive and unrepentant. The future of this city depends on their removal in the next municipal election. (read more)

Dan Schneider, St. Marys: “You have heard cogent arguments against this proposed development based on planning, heritage, and stable neighbourhoods. This moment though requires you to confront the GHG/environmental reasons for turning this particular proposal back:

  • Demolishing sound buildings to make way for new builds entirely wastes resources (the materials and embodied energy in a structure);
  • Demolition activity, including transporting the waste, releases carbon emissions (this is part of the embodied carbon or carbon footprint of a building which stays locked up if demolition is avoided);
  • New construction is heavily concrete-reliant; cement, the key ingredient, is one of the largest contributors of GHG emissions in the built environment;
  • Crucially, the emissions created by demolition and new construction cannot be off- set, no matter how energy-efficient the new structure might be.”
    (read more)

Thor Dingman, Architect: “I am writing to register my opposition to the redesignation of the subject lands to “High Density Residential”. I oppose the redesignation on the grounds the proponent’s Planning Report by MHBC, dated October 2020 and the proponent’s Revised Planning Report by MHBC, dated June 2021 and the City Staff report are incomplete.” (read more)

Nancy Smith, Mazza and Associates: My client and the community want development at this site. They will embrace and support a proposal that has:

  • No Official Plan Amendment
  • No Apartments
  • Medium residential density (65 units/ha)
  • Dwelling as per R3 Zone
  • Maximum 10 m height
    (read more)

Gary Anandale, Stratford: We require additional time for the Resubmission and Planning Report to be reviewed by our planning professionals, and for their response. This would be consistent with the recent decision of councillors to ensure the heritage character of Daly Avenue be maintained. With insufficient details and only a concept drawing from MHBC Planners, neither Council nor the public knows what the development proposal’s impact on the area will be. (read more)

Ted and Stephanie Niescier, Stratford: We’ve barely gotten over the time and expense of fighting the imposed Xinyi Glass plant and now we have to rise up again. And this zoning change will affect a huge swath of the historic neighbourhood that tourists, up until now, marvelled at the preservation of. (read more)

Donna Debling, Stratford: “Danielle Ingram stated that it is difficult for young people to get a foothold in the housing market, and she thought these townhouses would help with that.  Those townhouses will be priced far above what young people can afford, make no mistake, that builder is doing this to make money, a lot of money.” (read more) 

Mike Sullivan, Stratford: “This would be the first ever high density zoning in Stratford. At present there are no high density areas so zoned. The words of the policy suggest that high density zoning should be used in a transitional way, with a gradually increasing density around it to lessen the severity of the change. There is no such transition here. On all sides of this development are low density developments. There is no stepping into this with medium density around it. I understand the necessity, given the climate change emergency, to intensify the zoning and stop building sprawl. But it should be done in a thoughtful, planned way, not merely willy-nilly agreeing to any high density proposal that comes along simply because we need to intensify.” (read more)

William Calder, Stratford: “I am guessing that the majority of you live in a single detached residential home, not unlike the homes surrounding the Chancery property. Before you conduct the next Council meeting or Heritage Committee meeting that includes the Chancery Development, take a moment, look each other in the eye and ask ” how would I feel” if a developer knocked on my door to say the following:” (read more)