From our perspective…by Renee Sandelowsky and Allan Elgar
1. Decision from the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on North Oakville Secondary Plans hearing (see details below)
2.
Third Line Reconstruction and
Landscaping Public Information meeting/Open House,
Wednesday, June 15,
6 pm to 8 pm, Town Hall (see details below)
3. 2322, 2332, and 2362 Upper Middle Road development application for 9 storey, 207-unit condo/apartment building, (Creekbank) Meeting with Peter Cheatley, director of Planning Services, Wednesday, June 15, Town Hall, 7:30-9:00 pm
4. We thought you'd be interested in an excerpt of the November 16, 2004 Region of Halton's comments regarding the developers' plans for north Oakville. (see details below)
5. Don't forget to check our website, www.elgar.ca for more information on Oakville issues.
**************************************************
North Oakville Secondary Plan OMB hearing
Background: The developers appealed to the OMB because they had submitted a development application to the town, to which the town had not responded. They felt the town was taking too long to complete its own development plans for north Oakville and they wanted the Board to set a hearing date.
Here's what the Board
said:
"…The Board has considered the submissions of all parties and is struck by the
substantial hearing time all parties suggest they need--nine months to a year
for a hearing. This suggests to the Board that the parties have not attempted to
do any real or concerted negotiations or considered mediation. The best land use
planning does not always result from an OMB hearing. By its very nature an OMB
hearing is adversarial. Alternate dispute resolution and in particular mediation
can serve if not to settle a dispute at least substantially narrow and define
the issues. The Board emphasizes the use of mediation in all of its proceeding
and encourages parties to voluntarily enter into mediation. It is appropriate
here. Having said that, it is clear that the Town must focus on the proposal
from the developers and not only on their own proposal. The Town must clearly
delineate what the issues are with the proposed Official Plan Amendment
application <the developers' plan> and the studies in support. The Board is
aware of the challenge to a municipality with a planning exercise of this size,
but the matter has been under review and development for a number of years and
there needs to be a degree of finality in the process…"
"…The Board will not fix a hearing date at this time. At this time, the Board is satisfied that it is premature to proceed to set a hearing date until good faith negotiations have been attempted and issues established. The Board will set a pre-hearing conference for the early fall…This will provide the parties with some four months in which to enter into meaningful discussions about the applicants' proposed Official Plan Amendment…"
********************************************************
Third Line Reconstruction
The Town of Oakville Engineering and Construction Department has scheduled a public information/open house meeting for a review of the engineering plans and construction details for the proposed 2005 reconstruction of Third Line from 100m north of Abbeywood Drive/Kings College Drive to Glen Abbey Gate/Merchants Gate.
Preliminary landscaping concept plans for Third Line from North Service Road to Upper Middle Road, scheduled for implementation in the spring of 2006, will also be available for review and comment. Comments from the public and other interested parties will be invited at this time.
The proposed 2005 reconstruction of Third Line will complete a new four lane divided roadway between Abbeywood Drive/Kings College Drive and Glen Abbey Gate/Merchants Gate. The new road facility will be similar to the previously reconstructed sections of Third Line north of Upper Middle Road. This work is to be carried out in accordance with the approved Environmental Study Report completed in May of 2000.
The typical construction features will include new roadway pavement, turn lanes, medians, curbs, sidewalks, east side bicycle path, storm
sewers, landscaping enhancements, roadway lighting and new traffic signals at the Greenridge Circle and Merchants Gate/Glen Abbey Gate intersections.
Town staff and their consultant will be at the meeting to address any questions and to receive comment from the public. If you are unable to attend this meeting and wish to view the plans during business hours OR wish further information regarding the project or the meeting to be held, please contact:
Erik Zutis, Engineering Design Technologist, (905) 845 - 6601 ext. 3312, ezutis@oakville.ca or Darnell L. Lambert, Manager of Design & Construction, (905) 845 - 6601 ext. 4424, dlambert@oakville.ca
**************************************************
We've selected the environmental excerpt of the Region's comments. (We've bolded the sections we think are particularly interesting.) For the full document, go to www.elgar.ca
November 16, 2004
Re: North Oakville Landowners Secondary Plan
File No. 42.12I.11
Our File No. 3A204
The Region of Halton has reviewed the Official Plan amendment application of the North Oakville Landowners group and offers the following comments.
Generally it appears that the Secondary Plan includes all the Greenlands areas and candidate woodland areas in ROPA 25 and designates them as Natural Area on Figure R Land Use map. The significant difference between the landowners’ secondary plan and that of the Town is that the linkages between the Natural Areas (Core Areas in the Town’s plan) are not included. This is a serious deficiency with the landowners’ plan from an environmental perspective. Linkages are necessary to create a permanent natural heritage system in this urban area and that was the intent of the Town’s plan. Without the linkages, the latest natural heritage science indicates that the islands of green will be negatively affected over time, especially in an urban setting.
It is also noted that the buffer areas around the Natural Areas in the Landowners’ plan are limited or non-existent. This would also have a negative impact on the Natural Areas and there would be much less opportunity to create a permanent natural heritage system. The linkages and buffers support wildlife movement, seed and gene pool interaction, biodiversity and the important connectivity between ecosystems.
In addition, the landowners’ plan offers less policy support for long-term retention of the Greenlands areas. The Natural Areas are divided into NA 1, 2 and 3 and only the first category is protected from development to a great extent. NA 2 and particularly NA 3 are subject to an EIA that could eliminate or seriously reduce the natural area. The EIA is actually comparable to the requirement in the Halton ROP for woodlands and Greenlands B generally. The comparison however with the Town’s strong environmental secondary plan is that the permitted uses in that plan are much more restrictive and the core and linkage area designations are not subject to the refinement of an EIA.
May 2005 Update
1. Developers come to Town Hall to discuss their plans for north Oakville (Tuesday, May 24, 7:30 pm, Town Hall)http://act.greenpeace.org/1115054637/index_html
This week we have two important
updates. Please be sure to read Regional comments and Town comments
March 23, 2005 Regional Planning and Public Works Committee meeting:
We are very very distressed that all the members of the regional planning and
public works committee (except Councillor Elgar) endorsed the March 15 Update on
the North Oakville Secondary Plan.
What worries us the most in that Update, and the reason that Councillor Elgar
voted against it, is that:
·
the
report indicates that the implementation of the Natural Heritage System
(proposed wildlife corridor) in north Oakville is still a concern, and
·
the
report suggests that it may be unnecessary to protect the entire natural
heritage system because of the newly protected greenbelt lands north of 407 and
the recent donation of the ORC lands.
A couple of quotes from the report:
Regarding implementation concerns:
"In light of the concerns with implementing this natural heritage system and the
uncertainty of the results of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing, it is prudent
to consider other options at this time. In addition, the Town indicated that the
size of the natural heritage system, making up more than 1/3 of the North
Oakville area, significantly reduces its ability to meet the urban objectives
for population and employment."
Regarding the size of the natural heritage system: "Given the large permanent east west connection immediately north obtained through the Greenbelt Plan, a review of the linkages within the Secondary Plan to determine if their current configuration is appropriate may be considered. And finally, with the ORC announcement and the large 750 acres protected on the west side of the Sixteen Mile Creek, there are opportunities for the ORC lands to provide valuable functions that would replace the need for other protected areas within the Secondary Plan."
Let's not forget that the Natural Heritage System boundaries were determined by science--experts from the Province, the Region and the Town including experts from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Conservation Halton, all agreed that the Natural Heritage System was a critical element in the development of north Oakville. Why then is the Region backing off now? The science is there--these are environmentally significant areas that must be preserved. What's going on here?
Town Council meeting March 23, 2005
The North Oakville Secondary Plan Mixed Use Study was released and will be discussed in depth on April 11. We have several BIG concerns that we brought up on the 23rd:
1.
The proposed hospital:
At the time when MPP Flynn and the government made the wonderful announcement to
preserve the majority of the publicly owned ORC lands in north Oakville, they
also announced that the province would donate 50 acres of those lands to the
town of Oakville for a new HOSPITAL SITE! This was very exciting news since we
all know how desperately we will need more medical facilities as we continue to
grow so rapidly.
It's important to understand some background before we go on: The process for
funding new hospitals in Ontario is very, very competitive. There are other
communities besides Oakville that desperately need hospitals and funding is
limited.
Even though the Province has offered free land at Third Line and Dundas for the
hospital site, our town staff is recommending that the new hospital be located
at Trafalgar and Dundas. We are concerned that because town staff disagrees
with the Province's selected location for the hospital site, we could very well
hurt our chances of getting the hospital at all.
In fact, a recent letter from MPP Kevin Flynn states that "the clear
advantage we have over other competing applications from other hospitals is that
the Province has agreed to set aside 50 acres of land in the vicinity of
Regional Road #5 and Third Line on the lands known previously as the ORC lands…I
would not want to see any of these ideas impede the development of a much needed
new hospital for Oakville nor cause delay for the decision makers by creating
uncertainty."
We feel strongly that by arguing about the location of the site, Oakville
town staff is creating uncertainty which could cause delay if not a total
withdrawal of the offer for a hospital.
"What bothers me most is that this appears to be jaundicing Oakville's
chances of getting a hospital because of the issue of where it should be," said
Councillor Elgar at the meeting on Monday night.
Town staff, on page 128 of the report, states that "the proposed new hospital is
a project which is already well along in the planning process. It is something
which is going to happen…" Well, our sources tell us that the hospital is
most definitely not a sure thing and may not happen if we keep
arguing with the Province about its location.
We'll keep you informed about this issue.
2. The publicly owned ORC lands in north Oakville: We were unhappy to find no mention of the protected ORC lands in the Mixed Use study. Why does town staff say on pages 139-140 of the report that "if the urban core area is maintained, employment uses would predominate"? From that comment, it appears to us that planning staff is disregarding the fact that the Province has already made the decision to preserve 750 acres of land in north Oakville as parkland. We wonder why the plan hasn't been changed to accommodate the Province's generous gift of parkland to the people of Oakville/Ontario.
3.
Piecemeal planning:
There is no single map that shows the big picture of what north Oakville will
look like. We need one map that includes the natural heritage system and the
roads that will be crossing through north Oakville, as well as residential and
employment areas. It seems that we are working on a piecemeal approach and to
us, that doesn't demonstrate good planning. We want to see the whole picture.
We are also worried because we find "snippets" of roads that appear to cross the
Trafalgar Moraine Earth Science ANSI (provincially designated area of natural
and scientific interest), Sixteen Mile Creek at Burnhamthorpe and the ORC lands.
As far as we can see, there appears to be no one that wants a crossing of the
Sixteen Mile Creek at Burnhamthorpe--no residents, no developers, no
environmentalists--only the town and regional staff appear to be insisting on
this crossing.
4. Heritage: We can't seem to find the Heritage recommendations regarding maintaining the character of Burnhamthorpe Road in the Mixed Use study.
Council meeting February 21, 2005
1.
We
were disappointed that Council did not approve the enhanced wooden fencing along
the east side of Third Line. It was a tight vote, a tie in fact--Councillors
Elgar, Sandelowsky, Knoll, Grant, Robinson and Lansdown supported the fencing.
Mayor Mulvale broke the tie by voting against the fencing.
We believe the enhanced wooden fencing would have been appropriate on Third Line
because 1) Third Line is a major entryway into the Town and we want our
community to look good, and 2) the west side of the street will have the
enhanced wooden fencing, so it would be nice to have uniformity, and 3) there
was surplus money available in the Third Line Project budget that could have
been allocated for this upgrade.
The good news though, is that if you and your neighbours along Third Line, would
like to have the enhanced fencing in your area, you can pay the cost
differential, which is $75/metre. For more information about this option, call
Al at 815-6006 or Renee at 465-3203.
2.
We
were very pleased that our motion to continue the advertising in the local media
of town meeting dates and times, in addition to dates and times of information
sessions, was approved. We feel it is critical that residents can easily find
dates and times of important meetings. How can one participate and give input if
one doesn't know when meetings are being held?
We had been concerned that the town had recently stopped including meeting times
and dates in the paper and that residents were unaware of information sessions.
Even though information sessions are advertised on the town website, one would
have to know that information meetings are being held in order to know to look
for them on the website!
3. We were also very pleased that our motion asking staff to review the by-laws permitting the parking of recreational vehicles and boats in the side and rear yards of residences was approved UNANIMOUSLY! As housing lots get smaller, we are finding more and more problems with RVs being parked very close to residents' homes
4. Council unanimously gave its support to the Music Art Shared Space group.
5. We are still troubled about our new procedural by-laws which were approved and will come into effect in March. We have several issues with the by-laws, but we are still most uneasy about the information sessions. We are not comfortable with the idea that discussion of confidential items are permitted at information sessions, thereby allowing council to go behind closed doors. We believe that confidential items should not be discussed at informal information sessions, where no formal records are kept. We believe confidential items should only be discussed at formal meetings where the provisions of the Municipal Act can be adhered to.