Connect with us

Health

Brantford Council Rejects Medical Clinic Proposal on Dufferin Avenue

Editorial

Published

on

The City of Brantford Council voted unanimously on October 28, 2025, to reject a proposal for a medical clinic at 133 Dufferin Avenue. The application, submitted by The Angrish Group on behalf of Jodi Brown, sought a zoning bylaw amendment to transform the main and basement levels of the property into a psychotherapy clinic, while maintaining a residential unit on the second floor.

Located at the intersection of Dufferin Avenue and St. Paul Avenue, the site currently features a two-storey triplex adjacent to Dufferin Park. The proposal included plans for eight parking spaces, with one designated as barrier-free. Despite an initial recommendation for approval from the City’s planning department, the planning committee later advised against the application, citing concerns raised by local residents.

The planning committee’s recommendation stemmed from several factors, including the ongoing housing crisis in Brantford. The committee highlighted the potential loss of two dwelling units, increased traffic and parking demands, and worries that the clinic would disrupt the neighborhood’s character. The October 16 meeting revealed that St. Paul Avenue serves as a truck route, further complicating safety issues, particularly for children attending nearby schools.

Ward 2 Councillor John Sless expressed concerns about the safety risks posed by heavy truck traffic in the area. He noted, “There’s trucks going back and forth all the time and they’re always in conflict with the children.” Sless emphasized that the proximity to schools created additional hazards, complicating access for children seeking to enjoy Dufferin Park.

During the October 28 meeting, community members voiced their opposition to the clinic. Kaitlin Rafferty, who organized a petition against the rezoning that garnered over 300 signatures, argued that the clinic would not complement the neighborhood as envisioned in Brantford’s Official Plan. “A commercial clinic operating from a house on a park’s edge does neither,” she stated. Rafferty underscored that introducing commercial traffic would undermine the residential character that the plan aims to protect.

Residents raised similar concerns about safety and the potential transformation of the area. Peter Moffat, a long-time resident, shared his worries regarding children’s safety as they navigate streets in pursuit of access to Dufferin Park. “Kids come around the corner on bikes, and they’re anxious to get to the wonderful park that you’ve created,” he said, expressing fears that the clinic would lead to tragic accidents involving drivers unfamiliar with the area.

Retired school administrator Philip Midgley acknowledged the importance of mental health services but cautioned against the implications of rezoning residential properties for commercial use. He warned that approving the clinic could set a precedent that might compromise the integrity of the neighborhood, which features many heritage homes. “Do not set a precedent that could allow further incursion into the residential culture of the neighborhood,” he urged.

Following the public delegations, councillors indicated their support for the planning committee’s recommendation to refuse the application. The vote to decline the proposal was carried unanimously, reflecting the community’s concerns about maintaining the area’s residential character and addressing safety issues.

This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing discussions about land use and development in Brantford, highlighting the balance that must be struck between community needs and urban development. The outcome demonstrates the council’s commitment to prioritizing the voices of local residents in the decision-making process.

Trending

Copyright © All rights reserved. This website offers general news and educational content for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the completeness or reliability of the information provided. The content should not be considered professional advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to verify facts and consult relevant experts when necessary. We are not responsible for any loss or inconvenience resulting from the use of the information on this site.