Login

SOUTHAMPTON
RESIDENTS'
ASSOCIATION

News

  • 17 Mar 2017 5:53 PM | Web Master (Administrator)

    As most know,  Lloyd Robertson and the W5 news team travelled to Kincardine on Friday, March 10 for an Open House discussion of the Deep Geological Repository proposed to be built at the Bruce Nuclear site.  Residents of Southampton will remember the event because Highway 21 was closed (due to weather) so none could attend!!  Reports are that it was well-attended and fairly evenly divided between those supporting the project and those opposed.

    We understand that the resulting program will be broadcast on CTV’s W5 program at 7:00 pm on April Fools Day, Saturday April 1.  (Let's hope there is nothing significant about the date!!)  In any case don’t blame us if something else comes up and the program is bumped (or Trumped) to a later date.  


  • 17 Mar 2017 5:49 PM | Web Master (Administrator)

    For a number of years volunteers from Southampton Residents Association (SRA), along with others, have assisted in the annual cleanup of the main beach in Southampton between South Street and the river mouth.  This year’s cleanup is scheduled for 10:00 am to noon on Saturday, April 29.  The SRA effort is again being coordinated by Ken and Jane Harlock who will meet all volunteers at the flag at the foot of High Street on that day at 10:00 am.

    All SRA members, their families, friends and neighbours are encouraged to participate in this group effort.  Please bring your own gloves; garbage bags will be supplied.  If you are able to help, please email Ken and Jane at kharlock43@gmail.com or at 797-1879 so that they know how many to expect.

    And, for the First Time

    This year Joyce Stirling (on Tyendinaga) has offered to coordinate a beach cleanup on the North Shore, focussing primarily on the various sandy areas north of the river.  If you are on the north shore and can help Joyce out this could become an annual social/work get together for north shore neighbours.  Please contact Joyce directly at joystirling@yahoo.ca or at 797-5208.

  • 04 Feb 2017 2:26 PM | Web Master (Administrator)

    SAUGEEN SHORES SEEKING COMMUNITY FEEDBACK 

    Public input requested through an online survey to help guide the Town’s Strategic Plan

    Saugeen Shores, ON: The Town of Saugeen Shores is seeking community input through an online survey which will help to guide the municipality’s strategic planning process. The online survey is less than 20 questions and will capture the opinions and public perspective of the Town of Saugeen Shores.   

    “This strategic plan will provide a path for the Town of Saugeen Shores for the next 20 years. Part of ensuring this plan’s success is to look to the public for their input.” Mayor of Saugeen Shores, Mike Smith, is confident the community will be engaged with the process.

    The community survey is open to full time and seasonal residents, visitors and anyone with an interest in the Town of Saugeen Shores.

    “Anyone with a connection and a passion for this municipality is encouraged to complete the survey.” said Mayor Smith in a news release.

    For those unable to access the online survey, paper copies will be available at the reception desk at the Municipal Office (600 Tomlinson Drive, Port Elgin).


    For more information:

    Jessica Linthorne

    Community Development Officer

    Town of Saugeen Shores

    linthornej@saugeenshores.ca

    519-832-2008 x 121

  • 02 Feb 2017 11:07 PM | Web Master (Administrator)

    OVERVIEW

    1. Event Background and Description

    On Saturday, October 8 at 4:00PM, the Southampton Residents Association held a Fall Open House at the Bruce County Museum in Southampton, ON. The event was open to both its members and any residents of the community of Southampton. As part of the event, an hour-long discussion was facilitated by Brooks Turton and Jackie Serviss regarding current and future housing needs in the community of Southampton. Attendance was strong at approximately 80 individuals and the attendees were split into two groups. Each group was given the same six themes linked to current and future housing needs and asked for their feedback. At the end of the hour-long discussion, each attendee was given an opportunity to also provide feedback on the facilitation and the process.

    This report includes the original themes that guided the discussion, an executive summary, and a summary of feedback collected regarding the facilitation and the process. The report also contains an appendix with all notes, discussions and feedback broken down by theme.

    2. Discussion Themes

    Prior to the event, the facilitators solicited feedback from various community members to create a list of themes to help guide the discussion. An amount of time was also given for Open Discussion to ensure feedback outside of one of the themes was still gathered. The themes to help guide the discussion included:

    1. Adult Lifestyle Retiree Looking to Downsize

    2. Single Family Residence Clusters

    3. Housing for the Next Generation

    4. Waterfront

    5. Aging in Place

    6. Open Discussion

    3. Executive Summary

    Affordability is the most important item discussed during the session. The attendees do not believe current housing prices are affordable and are trending in the wrong direction. With the continued expansion of Bruce Power and with the attractiveness of Southampton as a retirement community and summer cottage haven, housing demand will continue to outpace supply. Prices across all segments or themes will continue to increase and affordability will worsen unless changes are made. Feedback on Affordability came up for virtually every theme for both groups.

    The adult lifestyle retiree discussion theme gathered the most interest from the group, given the demographic of the attendees. A new development on Grey Street South is being built with the retiree in mind and this was discussed in both breakout groups in detail. It is felt this is the type of development that will flourish in the town and its increase in retirees looking to downsize, however, many attendees believe the location to be less than ideal. After affordability, location seems to be the second most important factor regarding housing in Southampton. Locations in the highest demand are those west of Highway 21 and with close proximity to the amenities of High St. Land to build such a development close to the downtown core either does not exist or may be too expensive to develop.

    Another common topic was Communal Living or Co-Housing Developments, which are new and innovative ideas for cost effective living. Based on a European model, these have common living spaces shared by multiple residents that drive ownership costs down and increase the sense of community. These types of developments seem to be attractive for the reason of affordability but also due to the idea of supporting one another. As they age, individuals want to be in proximity to those like them to be able to support each other.

    Lastly, keeping the uniqueness and charm of Southampton is important to the attendees. Feedback was consistent across all five themes and in the open discussion that without the proper bylaws or controls, the uniqueness of Southampton is at risk. From oversized cottages on the waterfront to poorly controlled commercial zoning on Highway 21 to improper sidewalk and parkland allotment in new subdivisions; control is needed to protect the town’s heritage.

    4. Summary of Event Feedback

    Some Attendees took the opportunity to provide feedback on the venue. There were a lot of common themes and they are summarized here:

    •   They appreciated the event and the opportunity or forum to voice their opinions

    •   Would like to see more events like this put on by the SRA

    •   Need more engagement between SRA and Saugeen Shores town council to foster appropriate action

    •   The timing of this venue is an opportunity; Future events should be in the summer to increase attendance

    •   The venue would be improved by breaking into smaller groups in separate rooms to stimulate conversation

      and improve the ability for all to hear each idea. 


      Appendix - Summary of All Comments By Theme

      Themes

      Theme 1:

      Adult Lifestyle Retiree Looking to Downsize

      1. Location was most important factors in both groups

        1. West of 21 and close proximity to High St

        2. Want to be close to downtown for local shopping

      2. Four Unit Townhouses built on Cedar Bush are highly favourable

      a. Quality, Size, Location West of 21

      1. New 50+ Unit Development on Grey St S between Spence and Peel

        1. Location less desirable

        2. This type of development meeting location criteria would be very popular

        3. Not enough crossing for walkers across 21 (only Morpeth south of High St)

      2. Freehold or Condo style are both of interest

      a. Monthly Condo Fee for lawn care and snow removal important to some

      1. First Floor Accessible – wider door ways

      2. Affordability was discussed across all themes

      a. $300-350K discussed as an affordable range

      1. Communal Living / Co-Housing

        1. Multi-Floor Complex with Common Living on each floor

        2. Discussed in both break-out groups

        3. Commercial on 1st floor – i.e. grocery/restaurant/convenience

        4. Example on west coast is Sooke, BC

      2. Renting – people very open to renting as it meets affordability criteria

      Theme 2:

      Single Family Residence Clusters (i.e. Creekwood Subdivision)

      1. Affordability is a real concern in the Creekwood area ($400K+)

      2. For future development don’t want “cookie cutter” with properties on top of each other

        1. Don’t want the feel of a “ghetto”

        2. Reid’s in Port Elgin Or New Development in the City of Milton

      3. Feel of Community in these clusters is very important

        1. Aging Population – want to take care of each other

        2. Community Center within the cluster are great

        3. Dedicated transportation to downtown or shopping for those who can’t drive

      4. More Dedicated Parkland is needed for future development

      5. Traffic Flow – designed to ensure inclusion of non-residents

      6. Some prefer the mixed housing feel and simple streets of non-clustering

      7. New development need to be more pedestrian and cycling friendly

        1. More Sidewalks and/or wider sidewalks

        2. The trails (the Shore Path between South St & Port Elgin, the Path along beach

          between Gerry’s Fries and the Flag and the Rail Trail) are extremely important

      8. Environmental Protection

        1. Natural habitat should remain and be improved upon

        2. No bylaws restricting tree removal or encouraging growth

      Theme 3:

      Housing for Next Generation

      1. Affordability was first item brought up in both groups

      2. For permanent residents, jobs are a concern (outside of Bruce Power)

      3. Communal Facilities are opportunity for permanent residents

      a. Medical and Hospital

      b. Schools
      4. Taxes – are not, but should be proportional to market value

      1. Lots are zoned too big relative to building size

        1. Should sub-divide existing lots for intensification of area close to High St

        2. Set-backs don’t support intensification for small lots close to High St

        3. Bylaw restricting multiple dwellings on a single lot don’t support intensification

      2. Rentals don’t exist

      Theme 4:

      Waterfront (i.e. Existing, Future Development, Controls or No Controls)

      1. More Development Rules are needed for Waterfront properties before permit

        1. Monsters are driving up taxes of existing properties

        2. No designation or incentive to keep heritage feel of older smaller cottages

        3. New permit applications for waterfront cottages need to go through more

          screening. Review set-backs, height and width restrictions as well as potential

          view obstruction

      2. Waterfront properties are only Affordable for a very small minority

      3. Control - No new commercial development on waterfront

      4. Control - No parking lots, hotels or condos on waterfront

      5. Review quality of maintenance on waterfront from a safety perspective

      Theme 5:

      Aging in Place (i.e. Independent Living to Long term Care)

      1. Affordability

      1. No “Continuum of Care” Facility

        1. Tiered Lifestyle based on Needs

        2. Condo (Independent) -> Nursing Care -> Long Term Care

        3. Example: Tansley Woods in Burlington

        4. Example: Collingwood

      2. Lack of Public Transit

        1. From facility to shopping/amenities

        2. Golf cart paths

        3. Summer trolley between Southampton and Port Elgin was a success

      3. Co-Housing / Communal Living discussion again similar to theme #1

        1. Sooke, BC

        2. European Model

        3. Example: 4 parties in 1 unit – common kitchen/living and private bedroom and bathroom

      Other:

      Other Discussion Comments

      1. Empty lot prices have soared and new construction is not affordable

      2. 66% of Southampton is still seasonal

      3. Need an economic development strategy that is not reliant on Bruce Power

      4. A future balance between existing cottages and new towns/condos is important

      5. Developers currently do not ask the community for ideas on future development

      6. Highway 21: Improve Corridor between High Street and South Street

        1. Blend of Condos/Commercial/Aging/Recreation

        2. Control Commercial

      7. Currently a 1 year waiting list for Affordable Housing

      8. SRA must continue to ensure the “Uniqueness” of Southampton is maintained

      9. Don’t feel current Saugeen Shores building plan matches needs of Southampton

      10. Rules are needed for Short-term rentals (Air BnB)

      11. TaskForceshouldbeset-upforpre-approvalofallbuildingsinSouthamptonpriorto permitting

  • 30 Jan 2017 7:14 PM | Web Master (Administrator)

    Memo to Councillors re Design Guidelines

    On January 16, 2017 the Saugeen Shores Council Members met as the Town Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) to discuss the Design Guidelines that were developed and published in 2009 and largely ignored since.  These Guidelines set out the way in which development should be “shaped” along the various sections of highway 21 that fall within the confines of Saugeen Shores.  Southampton Residents Association (SRA) has spoken frequently requesting that these be given Council endorsement and some teeth, complaining that they have been essentially ignored while the Rexall, Mac’s and carwash were built in Southampton.

    If any one wishes to read even further, or to refresh their memory regarding the content of the 2009 Guidelines they can be found in the list at http://www.saugeenshores.ca/en/our-town-hall/reports-and-publications.asp?_mid_=17040.  The one referred to specifically in the following comments is Southampton Albert Street South Design Guidelines.

    **********

    Dear Councillor:

    The following are questions from Southampton Residents Association biennial members’ survey carried out in the spring of 2016 asking what issues were important to them:

    • ·      Guidelines for future highway development and commercial growth that require landscaping, low monument-style signage, parking at the rear of buildings, etc. to create an attractive entry to town.  (Over 80% said important or very important.)
    • ·      Zoning bylaws that seek to protect and promote businesses on High Street and prevent migration to highway locations.  (Over 80% said important or very important.) 

    important or very important)

    (Note:  The entire survey results can be seen on our website at www.southamptonontario.org.)

    The foregoing concern of our members was outlined in the comments I made in speaking to Council last February, and accordingly SRA is pleased that Council members (wearing their PAC hats) will be looking at the entire series of Design Guidelines that were prepared back in 2009 with extensive public input and with both Town staff and County Planning staff involvement.  My understanding is that these Guidelines were never either considered or endorsed by Council and that this will be the first time Council members have had an opportunity to debate the issues.

    We believe that the implication the staff Information Report that these Guidelines have been and are currently being followed is incorrect.  While they perhaps have had some impact on the placement of driveways and access to developments, there is little indication that other issues covered in the Guidelines are being given any consideration.  What our members are looking for are Guidelines that are endorsed by Council, formalized and enforced.

    It is important to note that, in preparing these Guidelines, the Highway 21 corridor through Saugeen Shores was divided into six “distinct areas”.  This division reflects, in the first place, the differing objectives of development in Port Elgin and Southampton as set out in the Official Plan – Port Elgin to become a regional commercial centre and Southampton to develop its historic tourist-based economy.  This difference necessitates different zoning bylaws and developmental guidelines – one size does not fit all areas of Saugeen Shores.  Many municipalities have local zoning and development guidelines for specific areas within their borders and are universally the richer for it.

    As an example I would like to discuss the Southampton Albert Street South District booklet of the Design Guidelines series.  I, with many others, share a disappointment that the principles espoused were not enforced when the Rexall, the Mac’s and the carwash were built.  If they had been the towering freestanding signage would instead be no more than 2.5 metres high, the main entrance for Mac’s would have been facing the street, the Rexall building would have been much closer to the street with parking in the rear, and so on.  More emphasis would have been placed on enhancing the Streetscape, including Active Transportation, Landscaping and Environmental matters, all as set out in this booklet.

    I personally recall sitting in a meeting with Town staff approximately two years ago arguing for these provisions to be enforced and was told that “if any effort was made in that direction these developers would go to Kincardine instead”.  This is manifest nonsense.  There was no way the Rexall was going to abandon Southampton with its hospital, seniors residences and retirement population.  Neither was Mac’s going to give up when they saw an opportunity to be the only reliable gas station in the community.  All that was required was some direction from Council that these guidelines were to be formalized and enforced.

    Accordingly we disagree with the suggestion that we need to embark on another round of review, inevitably occasioning additional delay.  What is required is to consider what already exists and to give some direction to staff that it should be formalized and enforced for future developments.

    Respectfully submitted,                     Jim Henning, President

    Southampton Residents Association

  • 01 Dec 2016 2:22 PM | Web Master (Administrator)

    Every two years the SRA conducts a survey of members to gauge their thoughts and gather input on the many issues facing the Town of Saugeen Shores and the community of Southampton.  Presented to members at the July SRA Annual Meeting, a copy of the survey results are now available.   

    Presentation-final.pdf

Copyright 2015 Southampton Residents' Association.  All rights reserved.

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software