As the mounds of snow and ice begin to melt you will notice the ice on the south side of the street, with less exposure to direct sunlight, lasts longer than that on the north side of the street. I used to believe shadowing was a minor concern, until the day I found Keewatin Avenue ice covered while Fairfield Avenue was clear and dry. The difference was the shadow cast over Keewatin by the apartment towers on Erskine.
Brian Healey lives in a “proposed” shadow to be cast over his home on Randolph Road. The response of the representative of the developer was, he says, to shrug.
Mr. Healey has more than just a shadow to consider. If shadowing keeps ice and snow considerably longer, a shadowed area is clearly colder. How might a direct shadow affect his heating costs? If Mr. Healey’s home is within a direct shadow that deprives him of natural light, will that cause him to use more electric light ? And what will that electricity cost him?
Heating oil and electricity used to be cheap. They’re not cheap anymore. Mr. Healey and anyone else within the kind of shadow which may be cast by an intrusive tall building should, at the very least, be entitled to a financial indemnity against rising utility costs.
Having regard to all the circumstances, intrusive direct shadowing and the deprivation of natural light should be deemed to be what it is — a tort. Just one more thing the planners and the provincial government gave no thought to when they foisted their Official Plan and Provincial Policy Statement upon us.
About this article: