Sunday, September 19, 2010

Regarding the 'Green Millen Shores Estates' issue

As there has been a fair amount of discussion about the project being approved (at the Stoney Creek News, and here on this very blog, with Ward 10 candidate Bernard Josipovic weighing in, as well as his own 'Open Letter To Councillor Maria Pearson' on 'The Hamiltonian'), I sought clarification from Councillor Pearson.

"This site was zoned back in 1973 for 13 high rise condos. Two got built in the 70's and that is as far as it went. The developer even put the services in and they still exist, with no further developments having been made since then. This is where the unopened road is on Frances Avenue that is currently being used as a pedestrian access and bike trail. It will be maintained with the new development and the roadway will be a cul de sac at the easterly end, and the westerly end with the path continuing through the middle of the environmentally sensitive area is being preserved along with the City green space, creating a strip of green space from the water to the North Service Road.

The developer came forward with a considerable reduction in units per hectare and a variety of housing types with two high rise and one mid-rise unit being proposed. The developer will also be responsible for building over 2200 feet of breakwall before construction can even start. Currently over 2 meters of shoreline is lost every year due to the action of the lake. At the easterly end of the development where the Millen Road overpass comes down and around there is a strip of land fronting this section of road that has become virtually unbuildable because of the setback requirements and the loss of shoreline. This land and a strip of at approx. 100 feet all along the development will be open space and publicly accessible. This is much better than what was done in the 70's when the towers went in and there was no waterfront access for the public.

As this was a downzoning I was very pleased to approve it and I am sure that if it had been appealed to the OMB (which it was not) that the OMB would have looked at it the same way.

Again, for the record, yes, there were letters of correspondence received in regards to the application, some for and against. On the day of the public meeting there were 6 residents who spoke and none were in opposition of the development, just had concerns of how it would affect their private waterfront area. As there are no real controls over trespassing, everyone needs to be pro-active to protect their own properties. Even as vacant unused land, this scenario could occur."

Maria Pearson
Councillor Ward 10

No comments:

Post a Comment

I'm always interested in feedback, differing opinions, even contrarian long as they're delivered with decorum...with panache and flair always helping.