West Harbour Residents' Association   What is the WHRA    * Mission Statement    * Boundaries    * Committee members    * Becoming a member Area's History Local Concerns Meetings and Events Gallery Four-Legged Residents Related Links Support Local Businesses Click on Graphic for more information on that business

To Whom It May Concern: As follow up to our previous email in which we expressed our complete opposition to the Moldenhaur's 16 storey proposal for Lakeshore Road along with opposition to any changes of the current zoning, we do recognize the benefits of a certain degree of development. We are not in opposition to a continuation of work/live type townhouses along Lakeshore Road. This would benefit the merchants of Kerr Street while maintaining a "village" feel within the community. Although, even under the low rise work/live scenario, there remains the issue of traffic and parking which needs to be addressed before any further development can occur. A 16 story (or any development above 3-4 floors) will destroy the heart and soul of the community. Protect the uniqueness of Oakville: we are not Burlington, we are not Port Credit. Above all do not turn Oakville into another Toronto Harbour Front! Regards, Bruce and Patti Hone 58 Brant Street Oakville, ON, L6K 2Z4 My husband and I have attended the two public information meetings held with respect to this application and are very concerned about the proposed development. We are members of WHRA and are very much opposed to this proposal but not opposed to change. We have been residents on Burnet Street since 1984 and have gone through many developments such as the water treatment plant, the hydro substation, mariners cove, and the redevelopment of many of the older homes. We are not against change but are very much against this prosposed development. The following are some of our concerns: -how can you drop a huge development that does not conform to the existing or proposed official plan on this property? -this is a long established residential area where most new development is residential and new developments are compatible with the existing character of the community -the density of this development is substantially over the proposed limit and would create increased congestion, increased lack of parking spaces and the related safety concerns for families and children in our neighbourhood -the quality of life in our unique little neighbourhood would definitely be adversely affected -we believe this development would lower our property values as already witnessed by buyers and sellers -lastly...we do not want this development and find it hard to believe that any developer would consider seriously making such a proposal Pat & Joe Lewis I live at 79 Brant Street, Oakville, and recently attended the information session regarding the above proposal. Below I have listed my take always from this meeting. Nobody (mainly residents at the meeting), supported the proposal. Although offered by the WHRA, no compromise in the development of the structure and surrounding area was considered by Mr. Moldenhaur. What was proposed was what we are going to get! It is inevitable that this area will be developed and I do not believe any of the residents would object to an esthetically pleasing low rise building at this location. ("The Granary" type structure was proposed as an viable alternative). The WH will be severely changed with the introduction of this development in terms of population, traffic flow and parking. These subjects appear to have been overlooked in this proposal as I did not hear from Mr. Moldenhaur or his representatives as to any solutions towards these changes. (As a resident in the WH area it is becoming apparent with the recent building developments that any of these issues have been addressed. The recently completed Moldenhaur construction at the corner of Brant and Lakeshore remains half empty with very little consumer traffic attracted to these stores, the adjacent Matas building seems to have a similar status. Quite simply, there is no parking, consumers prefer to drive and park downtown bypassing these outlying stores, and yet we continue to propose the building of similar units around this area!) As stated at the meeting by Mr. Moldenhaur, this proposal would benefit the surrounding community! I failed to hear from Mr. Moldenhaur or any of his representatives or any of the planners, of one benefit from this development. I only heard negative comments from the surrounding residents! Several residents eluded to the very poor quality of Moldenhaur,s previous development of Lakeshore and Brant, which quite frankly are an eyesore and as stated previously, only 50% occupied. Who is going to be attracted to an expensive, high rise, low square footage, poor quality condominium? Surely, and as stated by several of the existing residents, Moldenhaur,s strategy will be to gain building permission and then sell on to another developer! A major question which was well answered but little understood by the residents was; if there is already a designation for a maximum of 4 storey's in that locale, why would we even have to discuss an amendment, we do not arbitrarily change speed limits for example, and aren't amendments supposed to improve a certain condition? In conclusion, there is a uniqueness surrounding the downtown Oakville, Lakeshore Drive area stretching from Creditview to Burlington which attracts house purchasers like my family and which needs to be maintained. In relative safety we can walk, jog, take our families downtown, shop, attract a lot of out of town visitors which helps the local merchants, etc, etc, etc. I would hope that the Oakville councilors, planners, Mayor, Federal and Provincial members of parliament do not succumb to the pressures of developers in detracting from this unique area. Logistically and esthetically this is not a well thought out development. Nobody, with the exception of Mr. Moldenhaur and his fellow developers wants this proposal to succeed. Thank You. Richard Penkett. Dear Mr. Penkett, Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. Other members of the West Harbour community have also raised this matter with your Ward 2 Councillors and myself, including your local residents’ association the West Harbour Residents’ Association. Your Councillors and I appreciate your engagement on this issue. In terms of the process, under the context of the Planning Act, the proponent is entitled to submit an application to the Town, and the Town is obligated to review that application. The Planning Act provides for a thorough public process, which includes opportunities for the public to present their comments and observations on an application. The feedback received by the public is taken into account by Planning Staff when formulating their recommendation on the matter and is presented to Council for their consideration with the staff report. Your concerns have been forwarded to the Planning department so that they will be taken into consideration. We hope you will remain involved as the application moves through the process. Sincerely yours, Mayor Rob Burton During November and December my wife and I attended the two information meetings arranged by the Oakville Planning department for the purpose of providing residents with information regarding the proposed Moldenauer development of the property bounded by Brant Street, Brock Street and Lakeshore Road. As we understand the proposal, it neither fits the height nor density limits as identified in either the official plan or the current zoning. Indeed, the proposal does not seek minor variances but is vastly out of compliance with either the plan or current zoning. Our first objection is to the proposal to build 165 residential units plus retail space plus 14 townhouses. As presented at the information meeting by a representative of the West Harbour Ratepayers Association, when compared to the 244 residences which currently exist in the area bounded by 16 Mile creek, Brookfield, Lakeshore Road and the lake, this would result in an increase in residences by over 73%. Traffic increases would not only adversely affect Brant and Brock streets, but overflow onto Burnett and all north south streets between Forsythe and Brookfield. This would likely necessitate four way stops signs being introduced to many of the intersections in an attempt to slow traffic through a residential area. Also, I expect additional stoplights may be required along Lakeshore Road to accommodate the additional residents and retail customers. Along with the additional traffic come heightened safety issues. The West Harbour area is highly pedestrian-oriented as most residents moved here to take advantages of the proximity to the lake, the parks and nearby downtown. Many of the streets have either no sidewalks or sidewalks along one side only. This is the way the neighbours like it. However, with an increase in vehicular traffic of over 73%, the safety of these pedestrians along these streets becomes a significant issue, especially since there is a higher than normal concentration of both seniors and school age children here. I would argue that visitors to a residential neighborhood do not show the same courtesy to pedestrians or speed restraint as do the locals. Hence the peace, calm and safety of our streets would be changed forever. With a total of 179 residences and retail space, a major issue will arise with on street parking in the nearby residential streets, especially Burnett and John. The developer proposes two levels of underground parking, however the vast majority of visitors to either the residences or retail space will likely look to on street parking as the primary choice. Lakeshore Road provides no parking spaces west of Kerr Street with the exception of 5 parking meters on the north side. On street parking is not available on Kerr between Lakeshore and Burnett; no parking is allowed on Brant Street below Lakeshore; no parking is allowed on Brock Street for its full length. Reasonably, parking could only occur on Burnett Street south of the proposed development and John Street, one block north. Frankly, there just is not enough on street parking available within the vicinity. This would mean that the legal parking that is available would be used constantly, not by the residents of these streets or their visitors, but rather the visitors to the proposed development. Also, there would undoubtedly be a great increase in the frequency of illegal parking along all these streets. Our second major objection is to the sightlines and shadows created by a 16 storey tower. We had a chance to review the studies as well as to listen to Mr. Moldenauer’s explanations at the first of the information meetings. Frankly, his explanations unfairly dismissed the real concerns of the nearby neighbours. To the residents on the north side of Burnett, backing on his property, he explained that if they stood by the back fence they would hardly be able to see the tower over the townhouses. This totally ignored that most residents don’t live at their back fence but rather at their back door. No acknowledgement was made of the impact of the views or shadows from their rear decks or windows. To the residents along the east side of Brant Street, while acknowledging there would be shadows, Mr. Moldenauer dismissed these as insignificant as they would be on the front of their homes and since people apparently only live in the back of their homes therefore the loss of sunlight in their front windows wouldn’t matter. A 16 storey tower certainly casts a shadow and is visible much further away than just along Burnett and Brant and so these adverse affects will be more widespread. We currently live at 78 Kerr Street which is on the west side of the street and from our backyard and windows we currently look across and over the townhouses that front on the east side of Brant Street. From our home we can see the tops of the trees that currently grow on part of the proposed development’s site. I cannot understand how a 16 storey building can be put up and create no shadow across my backyard and the rear of my house in the afternoon and evening. If we can see the treetops we will certainly get an unsightly view of a 16 storey tower replacing our view of the western sky. Unless Mr. Moldenauer has also applied for a deviation to allow for a change in the tilt of the earth, since the path of the sun currently arcs over the tops of the Brant Street townhouses and sets north of Lakeshore Road, we will experience considerable shadowing throughout the year. Many of the current residents have been here for many, many years while others have moved here more recently. Regardless, all have been attracted by the eclectic nature of the neighborhood as well as convenience to facilities and an ambiance unmatched elsewhere in Oakville. The current residents have made a significant investment, financial, but in other ways as well, to live in the West Harbour. All are convinced that if this proposal goes forward, this investment will be certainly damaged commensurate with the damage to the quality of life we currently enjoy here. The West Harbour residents have worked long and hard with the town providing input to the zoning and official plan that we feel will continue to enhance the quality of life of the current residents while providing for the successful redevelopment of those areas along Lakeshore Road and Kerr Street. The residents, indeed, are all in favour of redevelopment but ask and expect that it is done in accordance with the plan and zoning, and takes into consideration the current unique characteristics of the neighborhood. Otherwise what is the value of these documents; and what is the purpose of soliciting the residents’ input if the financial objectives of one developer can override what we believe is the unanimous objections of all other residents of the West Harbour. Robert and Virginia McCluskey 78 Kerr Street I moved to Oakville because I liked the feel, atmosphere, safety and “small town” feel it offered. I moved to this area of Oakville for the same reasons. The “west harbour” area of Oakville is a lovely quite neighbourhood, with no high-rise. In fact, from west of Sixteen Mile Creek, south of the Lakeshore, there is no high-rise until one comes to the Bronte area. The homes in the area are within a height restriction, as are the live-works and other buildings. It is a beautiful “green” part of the Town, with plenty of trees and many tree-lined streets. Generally there is a feel of quiet and secure family residences, mixed with low –rise commercial along the Lakeshore corridor. Should this development be approved, it will forever change the look and feel of this beautiful area of Oakville and furthermore, it will stick out like a sore thumb. At the public information meeting held on 7 November, 2007, it was mentioned that it would bring vibrancy and excitement to the area. Had I wanted that, I would be living in downtown Toronto, not in this (current) quiet area of Oakville. Why change the look and feel of this beautiful area of Oakville? One of the main attractions for Oakville residents and visitors alike is the “small town feel”. I understand the need for densification and the need to curb urban sprawl, however, would it not be more appropriate to have high rise where there is already high rise? Should this development be approved, it will forever change the look and feel of this lovely area of Oakville. There will be no going back. The urban design of the area will change, in my opinion, for the worse. More and more high rise developments will move into the area, and the lovely Town of Oakville will begin to take on the look and feel of the Mississauga Square One area. Density/Set Back There will be a huge increase in density from what we have at present. One only has to look at what there is currently in the area. There are mainly single family residences, town homes, live-works, and some commercial (all within a height restriction). Our complex will be over-shadowed by the tower and building as a whole. The height of the proposed tower and indeed the whole proposed development will be introducing a new and generally unwanted development for residents of the area. There will be a major impact on privacy for the townhouses in our Complex fronting onto Brock Street. The living rooms and patios of these homes will be overlooked from the retail component and tower of the proposed development. Traffic Impact This development would be facing onto Lakeshore, a major thoroughfare of Oakville and bordered by two small side streets, Brock and Brant. Both Brock and Brant are small as evidenced by no parking/stopping on either side of these two streets. With the current restaurant at the corner of Lakeshore and Brock, (and the previous Wimpy Diner), truck (small and large) drivers would park on Brock Street – although it is clearly marked for no stopping or parking – and leave the vehicle while having a meal at the restaurant. Often the vehicles were left idling. I am not aware that these vehicles were moved on, tagged or ticketed. A development of 165 residential units, grade level retail and 14 townhouses will greatly increase the number of vehicles in the area. If each residential entity only has one vehicle that would be an increase of 179 vehicles – and nowadays most families have two vehicles. Already at peak times, Lakeshore is an extremely busy thoroughfare and it is very difficult to even turn right from a side street onto Lakeshore. This will only get worse with the proposed development. Lakeshore being the major artery, the traffic light obviously favours Lakeshore and one has to wait for a long time for the traffic light to change. This will only get worse with the proposed development. Because there is a traffic light on Brock Street, vehicles in the area tend to use Brock Street to cross over or turn left onto Lakeshore. With increase vehicle traffic this will definitely increase – resulting in more idling and more exhaust fumes. There will also be the added vehicle traffic of large trucks servicing the retail stores, garbage, etc. Site Servicing At the public information meeting held on 7 November, 2007, it was mentioned that the plan had been altered and now allowed for an “underground corridor” with servicing vehicles (such as garbage/recycling) entering the site on Brock Street and exiting on Brant Street. As Dorval is the truck route, even if the servicing vehicles exit onto Brant, they will more than likely travel south on Brant, turn west onto Burnett and then north onto Brock to make use of the traffic light to turn west onto Lakeshore to reach the truck route at Dorval. Will this underground corridor also be used by delivery vehicles and large transport vehicles for the retail outlets? The Site Plan handed out at the meeting held on 7 November, 2007 shows the loading bay being on Brock Street, almost directly opposite the entrance to our Complex. This will have a major impact on entry and exit to our Complex. Retail At the public information meeting held on 7 November, 2007, it was mentioned that the plan is for larger sized stores, including a coffee shop and antique store. I question how one can control the type of business. E.G. If a “dollar store” is willing to rent a store, would they be turned down? One can hope for a “high class” coffee shop or restaurant, but again, can this be controlled? For retail to be successful, good access and good visibility are paramount. What sort of signage can be expected? Again, I bring the example of a “dollar store”! Parking The proposed development plans for two levels of underground parking. At the public information meeting held on 7 November, 2007, it was mentioned that some of the underground parking would be for guests and for the retail component. It was also mentioned that there would be parking on Lakeshore, which is not the case now. By my reckoning this would be about 6-7 parking places on the street. Depending on the nature of the retail, 6-7 parking places at street level is not much. I fear that “casual” parkers will overflow and illegally park on Brock Street. There is also the possibility that “casual” parkers will make use of the visitor parking in our Complex. I submit these comments with the hope that they will be taken in the spirit in which they are meant and that serious consideration be given to turning down the application for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment referred in File: Z.1716.14. Sincerely, Dawne Rudman I wish to wholeheartedly endorse the letter dated December 7th 2007 from Frank and Mary Beth Dunnigan in opposition to the application by Moldenhauer Developments for the construction of a 16 storey building on Lakeshore Road between Brant and Brock Streets., Although it is clear that the Town is bound by the Ontario Municipal Planning Act to review the application, it is so totally out of context with the Town's Official Plan that approval of the application, whether by the Town or ultimately by the Ontario Municipal Board, would make a mockery of the whole Municipal planning process. Carole Gilbert 130 Burnet Street Dear Councillor Duddeck, My wife and I, residents of this area for 35 years, are opposed to the Moldenhaur proposal for a 16 story development on Lakeshore Rd. as it is totally out of character with the area. I suggest that the alternative plan as proposed by the West Harbour Residents Association would be much more in keeping with the general flavour of our neighbourhood. Kaethe Looman-Irvine, Len Irvine I too am very opposed to the Moldenhauer development. It is ridiculous to think that a building of this enourmous size would "fit" into the existing neighbourhood. It will be this behemoth in this quaint little part of town,even the "shadow" will be felt 2 blocks away. It's time this Town stood up for it's residents and told these developers to "get realistic" and get lost. A new development should be attractive to as well as an attraction for local residents. ie. be an alternative residence for the current local residents or somewhere I might want to move to because it's a next step or an alternative for my current lifestyle. This won't be attractive for any of our current residents. Norm & Nancy Byrne 41 Burnet St Am not a WHRA member, but live in the general area. Have been involved with residents on Belvedere and Bayview in West Oakville who were successful in have the proposed senior citizens residence in Coronation Park cut back dramatically (if not cancelled). Would recommend calling Mr. John Kirk (905-827-6350) who was actively involved in the process. One of the concerned residents who presented at the hearing was a retired planning manager (Oakville/Burlington) and he presented a masterful analysis which pretty much put an end to the project as proposed by the developer and Mr Hicks. Hoping you all the success in this endeavor. Allen Walsh Hello, I tried filling out your form regarding the Moldenhauer Development and hopefully you received the information regarding the poll. We are totally opposed to any changes in the current zoning. It's sad to think we have to continually go up against developers and those who only have $$$$'s top of mind. After the long battle with Sharkey's and the Daniel's development, it appears the public and town council have little say or power in the scheme of things. Money talks. The face of Oakville is changing and nothing we do seems to stop the outlandish proposals for development. Not to say we should sit back without saying anything. However, until the process of decision making is fair I don't hold much hope. We contributed to a lawyer for the Sharkey development with dismal results. We were even asked for more money to cover outlandish expenses to no avail. The note from the mayor regarding this issue is a typical response. Does anyone besides the residents care about Oakville? Sorry for my negative comments. Anne Grove, 124 Chisholm Street. The following are from the online poll. Name 16 Storeys? Limit to 2? Ammend to 4? Low Density? Martin Brown no no yes yes Philip and Jocelyne Whalen no yes no yes Paul Attwood no yes no yes J. Linstead no yes no yes Norman Byrne no yes yes yes Shahrokh Zangeneh no yes yes yes Noreen Brandolino no yes yes yes m.j.brophy no no yes yes Renate Penkett no yes no yes David Hardy no no yes yes Jean & Gordon Ross no - yes yes Are you in favour of a 16-storey tower apartment building to be built along Lakeshore Road as proposed by Moldenhauer Developments? Are you in favour of sticking to the current zoning by-law that stipulates a 2-storey maximum height? Are you in favour of amending the zoning to allow for a 3 - 4 storey building? Are you in favour of a density lower than 60 units?

To Top of Page
To WHRA Homepage	Last revised on January 21, 2008 by Peter Markiewicz