West Harbour Residents' Association - Recently Updated Pages

Latest news/upcoming events

whra — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:29:14 CST

West Harbour Residents' Association
Annual General Meeting (AGM)

Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Doors open at 7, meeting begins 7:30 p.m.

O'Finn's Irish Temper Pub
136 Church Street

As usual, we will discuss latest area developments, the Power Plant, meet with the Mayor and candidates, and elect new WHRA Executives.

Please arrive early to renew your membership ($20/household).

Area Projects to be Discussed

Moldenhaur (Lakeshore)

	Original Proposal	Revised Proposal
Residential Units	165 condo/ 14 townhouses	172 condos/ 7 townhouses
Gross floor area	25,330 m2	25,324 m2
Building height	16 storeys	9 storeys
Minimum Parking	356 spaces	325 spaces
Commercial Area	1,900 m2	2,000 m2

Bowman (Chisholm and Lakeshore)

See you there!

Your WHRA Executive.

CITIZENS FOR CLEAN AIR (C4CA)
Is Hosting An
Oakville Power Plant Information Night
Wednesday December 9th 7:30 pm
(Street Captains are invited for 6:45)
John Knox Christian School - 2232 Sheridan Garden Drive
(West side of Ford Drive - Just North of Royal Windsor and Railroad Tracks)
STOP POWER PLANTS
NEAR HOMES AND SCHOOLS!

The Ontario Government has awarded a contract to TransCanada Energy to build a 900MW natural gas-fired power plant within a heavily populated area of Oakville. The plant would be extraordinarily close to homes and schools.
Approximately eleven thousand homes and sixteen schools on the North and South side of the QEW would be less than 3kms from the plant.
Many people have voiced their concerns, including local MPP Kevin Flynn, who says that the plant’s location “defies logic”.
Pollution from the proposed plant would compound the problems of our already over polluted air-shed. The plant would also create noise, vibration, fog, icing and other issues.
According to TransCanada’s press releases it is moving rapidly to start construction … BUT

IT’S NOT TOO LATE FOR YOU TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
MAKE YOUR CONTINUED OPPOSITION TO THIS PLANT KNOWN!

We invite you to attend this Information Night to meet the C4CA Steering Committee and its Sub-Committees and learn more about the power plant, plans to show opposition to this plant, and most importantly how you can help as a concerned citizen.
CITIZENS FOR CLEAN AIR (C4CA) is a coalition of concerned citizens and interested parties that is committed to raising public awareness of the many issues arising from the proposed Oakville power plant. Please join us on December 9.

Methadone Clinic

whra — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:58:08 CDT

The Town is proposing to establish a methadone clinic on the corner of Kerr and Rebecca.

Below are two articles taken from the Oakville Beaver.

If you have a position on this subject, please use the comment section below or send us an email.
____________________________________________

Methadone treatment clinic coming to Kerr Street

By David Lea, Oakville Beaver Staff
Sep 04, 2009

Drug addicts vomiting in the gutter, escalating crime, increased vagrancy.

These are some of the things that jump into people’s minds when they hear the words, ‘methadone clinic.’

It is a perception George Benakopoulos, the proprietor of a Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) Centre soon to be established at the corner of Kerr and Rebecca streets, is trying to change.

“The MMT centre is a medical clinic that is treating people of a socio-economic class that spans right from the very wealthy and across the spectrum to the other end,” said Benakopoulos. “These are people with legitimate problems, who are addicted to opioid dependents and they need help.”

Though privately owned, a physician who is regulated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario will run the clinic, administering methadone to patients on site.

Methadone is a drug used to treat addiction to illegal drugs such as heroin and brand name drugs such as Dilaudid, Percodan, Demerol, OxyContin and Percocet.

Benakopoulos said the clinic will operate on a referral basis and will serve only Halton residents.

He is hoping to open the clinic in mid- September and points out that the opening is something that should be celebrated rather than feared.

“This is an invaluable service that we will provide. It is something that is going to result in positive outcomes for the region and positive outcomes for the people of Halton, as well,” said Benakopoulos.

“We can save people from their addictions, save people from dying, save people from committing crimes due to their drug-seeking behaviours.”

The Halton Region’s Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health Dr. Robert Nosal noted there is a need for this type of clinic in Halton.

In a 2008 report, Nosal estimated there are between 450-900 potential methadone patients within the Region of Halton.

At that time the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario stated there were 281 Halton residents registered with MMT programs outside the Halton Region.

In his report, Nosal noted that having to travel outside the community can make addiction recovery that much more difficult.

“Having to travel outside of Halton for MMT creates a significant burden for some of these Halton residents due to insufficient public transportation, work interruption, travel costs and the inability to link to ancillary services for counselling, medical care and social support,” stated Nosal in the report.

“While some residents may be able to receive their methadone prescription drugs at a limited number of pharmacies in Halton, all of these residents must travel outside Halton to participate in both mandatory activities for MMT (urine screening, visits with doctors) as well as voluntary treatment activities (specialized counselling, peer support, case management).”

Nosal said the vast majority of the people who would use the MMT Centre in this area would probably use it to combat addictions to prescription drugs, obtained legally or illegally, as opposed to illegal drugs like heroin.

Executive Director of the Kerr Street BIA Richard Messer acknowledges that an MMT facility may be needed in Halton, however, he questions the centre’s decision to establish itself at 143 Kerr St., where it will replace the photography shop Photosynthesis.

“We believe the location itself is not a correct location for such an organization. We believe it is in close proximity to a high school, it is in close proximity to a licenced establishment (Moonshine Café). It is in a commercial shopping district, which is a vibrant, revitalized area of the Kerr Village,” said Messer.

“I also have some concerns for the clientele of this organization. It is a storefront location and if the clients are coming to this specific location, which is specifically oriented towards an MMT clinic, than their confidentiality is going to be exposed.”

Messer also expressed concerns for the clinic’s future as a similar clinic — Wellbeings, a pain management and dependency clinic — is about to be established on Burlington’s Plains Road East.

Benakopoulos noted the clinic will have rear entrances so clients can enter the building more discreetly if they choose.

He said the clinic will not be as big a spectacle as some fear.

Methadone, he noted, will only be provided to the patients after they pass a variety of tests to make sure they are not actively using other drugs.

For this reason, he said, it is unlikely those who attend will be high on whatever drug they have been taking.

Benakopoulos also noted that residents have nothing to fear from the clinic’s patients after they have taken methadone.

“Methadone does not intoxicate. It does not make the person stoned in any sense. It does not give you any kind of high. It is meant for treatment,” said Benakopoulos.

“It is no different than going and getting your chemo injection.”

Nosal concurred with this statement noting that methadone is taken because it helps manage a person’s cravings for whatever drug they are addicted to and alleviates their withdrawal symptoms.

“It helps them basically achieve stability,” said Nosal.

Other stores near where the clinic will be established responded to news of its impending arrival with mixed reviews.

Moonshine Café owner John Marlatt, whose business is right beside the future MMT Centre, voiced concerns that all the work done by the BIA, council and the police to turn Kerr Street around will be undone just by the perception the MMT Centre will bring to the area.

“The perception around is going to be, ‘Of course they opened it on Kerr Street, where else could they open it? That’s what Kerr Street deserves and that’s what Kerr Street still is,’” said Marlatt.

“They’ve spent five years getting rid of crack houses and squatters, they’ve chased most of that type of person out of the area and what this is going to do is bring that element back to the community.”

Dr. Jawad Tawil, whose dentist office is attached to the building where the clinic will be located, also has concerns about his future neighbour.

“No matter how you look at it, it is still called a meth clinic and I think I am going to lose some of my patients because they don’t want to be jeopardizing their cars or their safety,” said Tawil.

“From what I understand this attracts some of the people who are seeking drugs, as well, and this could mean people hanging around waiting for it to open in the morning or hanging out after hours. They might also break into my office thinking there are narcotics in here.”

Rich Stokes, whose business is nearby, is not concerned about the clinic driving away his customers, but he does hope the clinic will be discreet.

Like Messer, Stokes questions the wisdom of setting the clinic up in a storefront building.

“I don’t think it needs to be on the street,” he said. “It should be away from the hustle and bustle.”

Over at the Themptations-Hemp Goods and Culture store, located across the street from where the clinic will be, Manager Mike Sitaram welcomed news the clinic would be opening.

“I think it’s a good program. It helps people with heroin addictions. It’s good because it should be as easy as possible for people to get help. Making it hard just makes it harder for people to kick the habit,” said Sitaram. “The people that do have a problem with this probably don’t understand.”
-----------------------------------------------------

Community needs methadone clinic

Oakville Beaver Editorial
Sep 11, 2009

So far the public reaction to news that a Methadone Maintenance Treatment Centre is locating on Kerr Street has been calm in comparison to the huge outcry generated by a similar clinic in Burlington.

In our story last Friday — Methadone treatment clinic coming to Kerr Street — we detailed some of the concerns neighbouring merchants have with the clinic.

While we understand their apprehension about the clinic, we believe many of their fears are based on misconceptions.

What can’t be disputed is the need for methadone treatment programs in Halton.

Last fall, Betty-Lou Kristy made an emotional plea to the Region’s health and social services committee for a Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) program.

She insisted that her 25-year-old son, Pete, might not have died from a multiple drug overdose had methadone treatment existed in Halton.

“Had this been available for Pete, I know unequivocally that he would be standing before you today,” Kristy had told committee members.

A report received by the same committee last October noted that there are between 450-900 potential methadone treatment patients living in Halton, with 281 regional residents currently registered with MMT programs outside Halton.

There is a real danger of playing Not-In-My- Backyard (NIMBY) politics with this Health Canada recognized form of treatment.

The assumption that a clinic that makes methadone treatment available will increase drug trafficking in a neighbourhood is akin to concluding that a clinic treating sexually-transmitted disease will cause an increase in neighbourhood prostitution.

There is endless medical evidence that methadone treatment helps addicts manage their dependency to the point of saving lives.

Centuries ago, our ignorance about leprosy forced those with the disfiguring disease to be banished and isolated to secluded colonies. Do we now propose the same for Halton residents who find themselves dependent on drugs?

Our health care system is based on the principle of providing accessible treatment to all.

We believe it’s time for a Halton solution to this societal problem. Ignoring it and hoping it moves to another neighbourhood, or region, is not the answer.

Bowman's Building Proposal

whra — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:56:33 CDT

JRB Design Group has submitted their proposed development to the Town.

The building is planned for the south-west corner of Lakeshore and Chisholm. (see area shown)

The site currently has some commercial buildings, homes, and a magnolia tree. (see below)

Below are some new drawings of the proposed building from a street perspective.

For more detailed information, see this link to the Town's website (http://www.oakville.ca/21035.htm) where the development application is stored. Here you'll find a dozen files with the Arborist Report, Concept Plan, Heritage Impact Statement, etc..

Please note that they are having some issue with the uploading of a couple of the reports which should be fixed this week:

If you should have any comments of questions, please use the Forum feature or write to us at wharbourresassoc@gmail.com.

Chisholm Street view....

Corner of Lakeshore and Chisholm....

Across Lakeshore....

and the view from Pizza Pizza.

Livable Oakville - Ward 2

whra — Wed, 13 May 2009 10:35:58 CDT

WHRA Response to "Livable Oakville"

On May 14 the Town is conducting a public meeting to present and review their vision of a more Livable Oakville in Ward 2, which includes revitalizing Kerr Street and intensification to accommodate our growing population (Preliminary reports can be seen at the Town web site).

Your WHRA Executive have attended previous meetings, and some of our observations are noted in the letter below. (see the Town's web site to view the articles cited).

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

As a follow-up to the verbal submission provided by the WHRA to Planning and Development Council on May 5th, we would like to reiterate the following points:

MODEST CHANGE:

On page 13 of the Executive Summary provided to P&D Council by Planning Services (dated Apr 23, 2009) there is a clause titled ‘Approach taken to Evaluate Residential Intensification Policies’, wherein the following appears:

“The approach taken for the background analysis to create a new policy framework for the Official Plan based on:

Identifying stable residential and transitional areas as areas where only modest changes, that are in keeping with the existing character of each area, will be permitted; “

(emphasis mine).

Given this approach, which the WHRA supports, we believe there are a number of areas where the detailed policies submitted do not, in fact, achieve the above emphasized goal, as outlined below.

The proposed density of 29 uph for all ‘low-density residential’ areas will result in change that is far from modest in many stable residential areas. Given that this density will apply to the areas currently zoned between R02 and R05, and the baseline density for R02 is about 12 uph and for R05 is about 17 uph, this means an increase in allowed density of between 70 and 150%. Surely this cannot be viewed as a modest change?? We are not aware of any rationale for this level of density. The fact that 29 uph happens to be just below the proposed 30 uph for medium-density residential is, in our opinion, no justification for that number. There is no requirement for the low-density maximum to be congruent with the medium-density minimum. Where is the ‘science’ that shows that 29 uph is the right number? We suggest that 20 uph would much more likely achieve the ‘modest change’ objective, while still providing an intensity/density increase of between 20% and 67%.

EXISTING BYLAWS

The WHRA also feels strongly that the existing Zoning Bylaws are ultimately important in limiting the development allowed in stable residential areas. Given that the Residential Intensification Policies submitted do not seem to have any quantification/metrics (except for proposed density), it must be assumed that limits / criteria such as height, setbacks etc will be dealt with by the bylaws. We understand that the Bylaws will be examined and modified as the next stage of the revamping of the Town’s development policies, but we feel it is imperative that the existing/future bylaws be explicitly referenced in the revised OP. Otherwise, not only is any implied reference or intent less clear, it is harder for the public to understand and could also lead to confusion, conflict and unintended consequences at Council, among developers and residents and at the OMB. We offer the Toronto OP Residential Policies text, under the Prevailing Building Types clause, where the Bylaws and their ‘force’ is explicitly mentioned:

“If for example, an existing zoning bylaw permits only single detached houses in a particular neighbourhood, and the prevailing building type in that neighbourhood is single detached dwellings, then the Plan’s policies are to be interpreted to allow only single detached dwellings in order to respect and reinforce the established physical character of the neighbourhood…”

We suggest that the Oakville OP clearly reference the Zoning Bylaws and how their content is to be enforced with respect to the OP. Such references will of course allow for the modification of the Bylaws over time.

LEVEL OF INTENSIFICATION

With respect to Stable Residential Areas, the draft Policies submitted suggest that Level 3 under the ‘Hierarchy of Intensification’ would be appropriate. We believe that Level 3 as a blanket ‘as of right’ allowance will again result in more than modest change. Without referring to existing Bylaws (as well of course to applying the current or revised density limits) to provide reasonable restrictions on when or whether lot severances or multi-unit buildings are appropriate, we feel that this intensification level is too high, and understand why other Resident’s Associations have called for a limit to Level 2.

COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT

In the ‘Revised Draft Policies – RESIDENTIAL’ document submitted to P&D Council by Planning Services, there is a list criteria for to be used when evaluating proposed intensification (Section 1.2 General, clause L, on p. 5). A number of the sub-points focus on how such development should be similar to existing development and provide numerous related criteria. We feel that the wording in a number of these sub-points should be improved / clarified to achieve the objective of ‘modest change’ and to avoid adverse impact on existing residents, for example:

- sub-point i) requires “compatible” to be defined in a quantitative manner at least in terms of massing, setbacks and separation distances or its usefulness in actually achieving compatibility that the existing residents would support, is limited to none.

- sub-point ii) regarding building height, massing and gradation has no quantities or metrics. Either specific metrics for height, massing and gradation are included OR existing Bylaws are referenced, or this clause becomes virtually useless in preventing dramatic and adverse change rather than modest change, or in protecting the quality of life of existing residents.

Again, without metrics and preferably explicit clear reference to specific existing bylaws, we feel that this clause L is of limited usefulness.

Also, very importantly, regardless of how clause L might be improved, its usefulness will be obliterated if clause H – on page 4 - is allowed to stand. Part of this clause reads ”Compatible development is considered development that may not necessarily be the same as , or similar to, existing adjacent development, but which could co-exist with, and even enhance, existing development while not creating an unacceptable adverse impact.” The intent / motivation for this clause is unclear. It directly contradicts much of what is stated in Clause L. Clause L indicates how development should be compatible with existing dwellings, whereas Clause H clearly gives blanket license to virtually any kind of development “ that may not be the same as, or similar to, existing adjacent development”. We suggest that these clauses and their intent and coherence be given a serious and thorough review.

Respectfully,

Hart Jansson,
On behalf of the West Harbour Resident’s Association
905-338-0416

PS we look forward to comments and feedback on these observations at the Open House meeting at the Oakville Arena on the evening of May 14th.

Previous Postings

whra — Tue, 12 May 2009 10:23:08 CDT

Our Mail-carrier has left us!

Ellen, who had delivered mail in the West Harbour neighbourhood for the past several years, was assigned to a new route in mid-April. (Friday, April 17th was her last day)

Over the years, Ellen had graced us with her sunny outlook and been a friend to our canines with her daily treats.

About 20 people showed up to bid her farewell.

Please welcome our new carrier, Kevin, who will try to fill Ellen's shoes. He's an Oakville native (ask him about his days back at St. Mary's) who had delivered mail along Lakeshore and John Street.

Livable Oakville Open House
The Plan for Kerr Village

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

This was an opportunity to hear about The Plan for Kerr Village's recommendations and draft land use policies.

Participants could review displays, ask questions and share comments with Town staff before and after a formal presentation. Visit The Plan for Kerr Village web page for more information.

Oakville Generating Station
Public Input

(South of Ford Plant)

TransCanada plans to submit a proposal to the Ontario Power Authority to develop, construct, operate and maintain the 900 megawatt (MW) Oakville Generating Station (OGS).

The proposal for OGS is:

A natural gas fired combined cycle power generation facility planned to be in-service by the end of 2013.
To be located on private, industrial land in the town of Oakville on Royal Windsor Drive, situated just east of the Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW).
Required to meet all municipal, environmental, health and safety approvals, in addition to winning the competitive OPA proposal process, before it can proceed.

The OGS would:

Help address long term electricity supply issues in the local and regional area
Provide the reliability required to support Ontario’s growing renewable energy electricity production such as wind and solar
Provide dispatchable, rapid start-up response and fast response to changing electricity demands
Contribute toward replacing coal-fired generation
Provide stability to the regional transmission system

The input of the local community is very important in the development of this facility and extensive consultation will be undertaken with area stakeholders.
Although not in the immediate WHRA region, you may wish to participate in the process. If so, go to the TransCanada web site.

Cats in need of a Home

The Humane Society has a large number of cats in need of a good home.

Find more details at their web site.

Remember that these cats are not toys! Please adopt responsibly.

West Harbour Residents' Association

whra — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:06:45 CDT

Welcome to our new
Wiki web site!

We've changed from the old HTML style of creating a web site to the new Wiki format. Instead of a single webmaster maintaining the web site, now anyone who wants to post WHRA information can do so themselves (provided they are signed in).

What does this mean for you?!?

If you just want to view the pages such as the Latest news/upcoming events, you'll notice some minor cosmetic changes compared to our old web site. On the other hand, if you want to add to something, you'll be able to do so once you've signed in.

Got an event you want to announce? Set up a link to our events page or create your own page for others to see! Want to see what others think of an issue? Start a thread in the Forum section! Want to share a photo (preferably of the WHRA)? Put it in the Photo section!

Is it easy to make changes?

Well, yes and no. Think of it like using Word to create something - if all you want to do is write out an announcement using text, then it is very simple (there's even a U.S. spellchecker). On the other hand, if you want to embellish your work with pictures, special fonts, coloured text, etc... it becomes a bit more involved, but WetPaint is one of the easiest editors to use.

This Wiki site is monitored by your WHRA Executive and volunteers, so if you should find anything objectionable, let us know. Some pages, such as this one, remain static and can only be changed by administrators.

Oakville's Weather

Letters re: Tannery Building

whra — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:44:57 CDT

March 16, 2009

From: RAINER BELTZNER

To: Rakesh Mistry, OALA, CSLA
Landscape Architect,
Parks and Open Space Department
Town of Oakville
P.O. Box 310, 1225 Trafalgar Road
Oakville, Ontario L6J 5A6
Dear Mr. Mistry:
Re: Tannery Park - Demolition of existing building and proposed new structure

Thank you for the information presented at the March 11th public open house. This letter is in response to your request for comment.

Timing of the Open House

An open house was held June 2008 to present a concept plan regarding the entire west harbor area. A large number of local residents took the opportunity to attend that meeting – demonstrating the significant interest that the local community has with the redevelopment of this area. A very significant part of the community interest concerned the future removal and redesign of the existing building at Tannery Park. We have all been waiting for the new building plans to be presented.

To my surprise, the plans call for an exterior storage yard – something that was specifically not included in the earlier master concept plan presented in June. This is a significant departure and one that should have been flagged as such in the invitation to the open house in March.

The timing of the March open house coincided with the period of time that many of the local residents spend out of town and with the start of March break. More of the residents could have attended the open house if (i) the departure from the June concepts were highlighted in the invitation, or (ii) held outside of the traditional March break period.

The Exterior Storage Area

I object to the placement of an exterior storage area as set out in the plans. The reasons for the objection are as follows:

The master concept plan presented in June 2008 called for park space, not an exterior storage area. This area can be terraced, with appropriate trees, shrubs and flowers to provide much needed access to and views of the west and east harbor areas. There are only minimal “pleasant” spots on the north side of the entrance road, east of the boat storage and Tannery building. Many of us had hoped and expected to see this space used to the maximum benefit to enhance this side of the river.
The exterior storage is nothing more than a least cost replacement of the enclosed storage part of the present structure. Without a roof and walls, surrounded by a chain link fence, this storage area is now open instead of closed.
An open storage area will be an eyesore. The location will be open to view from my bedroom windows. At the present time, I have at least a flat roof that is far from pleasant but at least I am not looking at trailers and accumulated rubbish. I refer to rubbish because for the past five years that I have lived here, there has been a constant accumulation of damaged boats, rusty trailer, and general garbage on the east side of the present building. The present users of this facility have not demonstrated any ability to maintain this area in a fit manner. Just refer to today’s accumulation of two broken boats, a rusty eyesore of a trailer, three 45 gallon drums, accumulated garbage around the building, etc. (See the photographs taken last weekend) This lack of attention is also evident in the accumulation of garbage on the slope at the south west side of the Trafalgar Road bridge What if any assurances will there be that the Town will not cause the exterior storage area to accumulate garbage and to maintain it in a proper state? A five year plus history of failure to attend to the garbage is the present track record.
The parking of trailers and/or vehicles can result in toxic liquids entering the river. Trailers and vehicles will leak fluids which have the potential of being washed down the slope to the river. As well, we have no assurances that other substances harmful to the environment will not be stored in this sensitive area. I note that even at present, there is a drum outside of the building containing a hand cleaner container that is potentially harmful to the environment. Has an environmental assessment been done to satisfy all environmental risks?
It is unclear what this area will be used for in the winter when the “planned trees and shrubs” will be bare and the space more open than ever to view. If it is planned to clear snow in the winter, can we expect noisy front loaders in the middle of the night? If there are plans to store equipment and other items, how bad will it look?
It is also important to consider the views from the east side of the harbor. At the present time, the Tannery building is clearly visible and is not the best of sights. An exterior storage area will be quite visible and will be unattractive.
Finally, why is there a need for this extensive storage anyway? Are there not enough storage areas in more appropriate areas of town? Why not use the Cornwall site? The absolute need for this storage space is not clear.

My suggestion is that the open storage area be removed from the plans and replaced with green space, properly terraced so as to provide for maximum use. A steep slope is nice, but does not allow for comfortable access to seniors and many others. If it can be demonstrated that storage is an absolute necessity for this area, then I would prefer the building to be expanded slightly to allow for some additional interior storage.

Building Design

The maximum height point of the roof appears to be higher than the roof at present. If my interpretation of the drawings is correct, then our views that we have at present will be further restricted.

Lighting

The plans do not identify the lighting planned for this building and exterior lot. I would have objections to lighting other than at the exterior of the bathroom entrances and on the east side entrance to the enclosed storage area.

Sincerely,

Rainer Beltzner

---------------------------------------------------------------

On 26/03/09 9:43 AM, "RMistry@Oakville.ca" <RMistry@Oakville.ca wrote:

Mr. Beltzner,

Firstly, I apologize for not responding to you sooner.

Regarding your letter dated March 6, 2009, we offer the following:

The Town is in the process of commissioning a demolition contractor to remove
the existing building at Tannery Park and replacing it with a structure that
is approximately a quarter the size of the existing structure. We anticipate
the existing building to be removed by April 15, 2009 (pending weather). The
purpose of the public open house on March 11, 2009 was to inform the area
residents on the removal process of the existing building and an opportunity
to look and comment on the proposed structure.
The Town mailed out 213 notices to local area residents on February 27, 2009
which encompassed an area as far east as Navy Street, west to Wilson Street,
north to Lakeshore Road and south to Walker St. The Town was aware of March
break and therefore hosted the public open house on the Wednesday before the
break.

When you attended the Oakville Harbour masterplan meeting last year, it looked
at the entire site globally, looking at connections to the streets and
neighbourhoods, parking configuration, development along the lakefront, and
enhancements to the interior park site. Once funding for the new building was
approved by Council, we were able to look at the building site in further
detail. The main scope of the building did not change from the masterplan
(washroom, showers, service bay, pathway connection into the park), with the
exception of the requirement of the outdoor storage yard. The Town operates
a working harbour and a storage yard plays a vital role in operating the
harbour successfully. The outdoor storage yard would house boat cradles,
wooden docks, emergency storm response trailer, a tractor and a few other
items typically found around the harbour area. The Town will ensure that the
yard will be kept in a neat and orderly manner. The storage yard would have
a 6' or 8' high black vinyl chainlink fence for security purposes, and will be
buffered with landscaping (trees and shrubs) and with a mixture of deciduous
and coniferous plant material to provide year-round screening. During the
winter season all snow removal will be conducted during the daytime as this is
the current operation practice. During the public open house, few residents
commented on the storage yard and size. Listening to these concerns, the Town
has reduced the width of the storage yard from 12.0 m (39 ft) to 9.4 m (31 ft)
and moved the entire building 2.0 m (6.5 ft) further south, thereby increasing
the landscape slope on the north from 11.5 m(37.7 ft) to 17.5 m (57 ft).
This increased slope area will allow us to install the pathway connection from
Forsythe St, through the slope and into the balance of Tannery Park. We are
also looking at the possibility of installing benches along this slope and
directed towards the harbour. The side slopes abutting the residential houses
on Anderson St and Forsythe St would be graded, topsoiled and seeded with some
trees added, but not undertaken in a manner that will block views to the lake
and harbour.

The height of the existing building is currently 4.1m (13'-6") tall, plus the
height of the existing railing. The new building will have a butterfly roof
shape (as shown on the presentation panels at the open house) with the
highest peak at 4.5m (14'-8"). The difference in height between the existing
building and new building at it's highest point is approximately 14".

For safety purposes, we will have lighting around the main doors of the
building and we are not proposing any lighting of the storage yard.

I trust I have answered all your enquiries, should you require further
information, please contact me.

Thank you.

Rakesh Mistry, O.A.L.A., C.S.L.A.
Landscape Architect
Parks and Open Space Department
rmistry@oakville.ca <mailto:rmistry@oakville.ca>
Town of Oakville
1225 Trafalgar Road
Oakville, Ontario, L6J 5A6
Tel. (905) 845-6601, Ext: 3664
Fax: 905-338-4188 Mailing Address:
Town of Oakville
P.O. Box 310, 1225 Trafalgar Road
Oakville, Ontario, L6J 5A6
http://www.oakville.ca/ <http://www.oakville.ca/>

-----------------------------------------------

From: Beltzner <rbeltzner@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:16:15 -0400
To: <RMistry@Oakville.ca>
Cc: <FOliver@oakville.ca>, <cduddeck@oakville.ca>, <DLunardo@oakville.ca>,
<CMARK@oakville.ca>, <JOLBINA@oakville.ca>, <rmackay@oakville.ca>
Conversation: Tannery Park Building
Subject: Re: Tannery Park Building

Thank you for the response to my letter. I appreciate the modifications that
have been identified in your response as they are all consistent with moving
in the right direction and this is positive.

A remaining concern is the maintenance of the property, which as I have
pointed out in my letter, has been neglected for many years. As you may
appreciate, the Town has a track record of failure to maintain the exterior
of this area. I would appreciate some assurances that the exterior storage
yard will be kept in a respectable manner consistent with the image of the
neighborhood. In addition and perhaps more important, the adjoining driveway
should not retain its past use as an extension of the storage area nor
should it be allowed to retain the present position as a dumping ground for
garbage (which as of this morning has yet to be cleaned up).

It is vital that this entire area be maintained in the highest standards of
cleanliness and I look forward to your plans and commitment to achieve that
on an ongoing basis.

Many thanks again for your positive attention to these matters.

Rainer Beltzner
38 Forsythe Street

Tannery Park Building

whra — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:38:32 CDT

Demolition of Current Building and Proposed Layout

Currently, a one storey building with a flat roof exists at the bottom of Forsythe and Anderson Street (the roof is almost level with the street at their intersection). It houses service bays for some of the Town's equipment and has public washrooms. (see photo)

This building will soon be demolished in mid-March 2009.

A new, smaller 1 1/2 storey building is proposed (see below) which will have a smaller service bay, public washrooms, and showers for boaters (keyed access).

The building will sit on the southern footprint of the current building (see further below - current building's outline is shown in red) with an outdoor yard to the north which will be fenced in. Some new landscaping will border the development.

If you have any comments, use our Forum below or contact:
Rakesh Mistry, OALA, CSLA
Landscape Architect,
Parks and Open Space Department
905-845-6601, ext. 3664
rmistry@oakville.ca

Moldenhaur

whra — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:42:20 CST

In January of 2009, an Oakville Planning and Development meeting considered the Moldenhaur proposal for a 16 storey condo/commercial development in the West Harbour region. A copy of an article from the Oakville Beaver summarizing this meeting is given below. As the article points out, your WHRA executive made a presentation to oppose this - you can see a copy of this here (click here to see first Slide).

The council rejected Moldenhaur's proposal. Anyone wanting to appeal this decision had until the end of February to file, at which point the review might go before the Ontario Municipal Board.

We'll keep you posted on further developments as they come available.

**************

Sixteen-storey condo too much for council and neighbours

By David Lea, Oakville Beaver Staff

Jan 31, 2009

The Town of Oakville has turned down a proposal to build a 16-storey apartment complex on the southwest corner of Lakeshore Road West and Brant Street.

The ruling was handed down during Monday’s meeting of the Oakville Planning and Development Council, which saw numerous area residents speak out against the immense structure.

The applicant, Moldenhauer (Lakeshore) Developments Inc. had called on the Town to change the zoning at 134-150 Lakeshore Rd. W., 80 and 82 Brant St., and 79 Brock St., to permit the construction of a mixed-use, 16-storey building that would house 165 residential units with a ground floor comprising of 1,904 square metres of retail and commercial uses fronting on Lakeshore Road.

The development also proposed the construction of 14 townhouse units to the south of the main building, accessible from both Brant Street and Brock Street.

These townhouses were proposed to be three storeys in height with the entire project sitting on two levels of underground parking comprising of 328 parking spaces.

Following an examination of the proposed structure, Town staff found they could not support its construction noting its scale was not consistent with the low-density residential land located directly adjacent to the site.

Local residents supported the staff recommendation to reject the development proposal.

“We are in favour of the development of this site, we just don’t think the nature of this proposal is conducive with our neighbourhood,” said Joe Brandolino, president of the West Harbour Residents’ Association.

“We did have a survey executed (168 signatures) to get an idea of what people opposed or did like about the proposal and overwhelmingly the residents were opposed to the 16-storey proposal.”

Through a PowerPoint presentation, Brandolino outlined how most of the homes in that area are one to two storeys in height with only a few commercial buildings and town houses reaching the three-storey mark.

“It’s (the proposed development) a very, very high structure, even the four-storey pedestal is a lot higher than the surrounding three-storey buildings,” said Brandolino.

“The townhouses he’s proposing to put against the backyards of those Burnet residents are three-storeys high, quite an imposing mass. Even though they are meant to separate those residences from the big tower, those townhouses are as imposing as anything else.”

Brandolino also voiced concerns about the property’s proposed density, which he feared would lead to significant traffic and parking problems within the surrounding neighbourhood.

The huge shadow the building would cast was another concern listed by residents.

West Harbour Residents’ Association member Hart Jansson noted his group would like to see the townhouses reduced from three to two-storeys in height with the main building scaled back to a three-storey development instead of a 16-storey one.

He also noted that access to the retail component of the development should only be permitted from Lakeshore Road West and not from the side streets.

After three other resident delegations voiced similar objections to the development, Town staff noted that the developer was requesting that the decision be deferred to another day as he had received late notice of the meeting and was unable to attend.

Town staff noted they had attempted to contact the developer earlier, but were unable to do so.

Despite the request, council opted to proceed and passed a motion denying the developer’s application.