Developer submits proposal for 750 units on Chedoke browlands
Height of buildings will be lower than initial proposals
Mark Newman, Hamilton Mountain News
A diagram of the proposed development of the Chedoke browlands by Deanlee Management. The numbers indicate the number of storeys for each building.
(Aug 24, 2007)
There won’t be any skyscrapers, but development plans for the Chedoke browlands call for at least one eight-storey building and two other complexes that could reach the same height as part of the proposal to build 750 units on the site.
If each unit has two occupants, the new development will bring another 1,500 residents to the west Mountain community over the next several years.
The request for an official plan amendment and by-law amendment were submitted early last week by Deanlee Management of Mississauga, who purchased the 9.6 hectare (24 acre) property from the Chedoke Health Corporation last spring with the deal expected to close in December 2008.
According to a concept drawing included among the box of documents submitted by Deanlee, the developer wants to build an eight-storey condominium complex in the middle of the browlands north of Scenic Drive and two, four- to six-storey condominium buildings on either side of Sanatorium Road at Scenic. According to the diagram, two six- to eight -storey condos are planned within the footprint of the two smaller units further back from the intersection.
In addition, an L-shaped, four- to six-storey building is planned for the north-west side of the property and a couple of rows of two- to three-storey condo townhouse units are planned along Scenic Drive, west of Sanatorium.
Several residents in the area sounded alarm bells earlier this year when previous development options floated
by Deanlee included three or four 12- to 14- storey buildings near Scenic and Sanatorium.
Deanlee director Ron Starr said they backed off from the higher structures following public complaints.
“It’s medium density,” Mr. Starr said. “We listened to the folks in the area.”
Regarding the number of units planned for the development, Mr. Starr called the 750 proposal “a good number for the site.”
All of the units are expected to be targeted at the high-end market, selling for upwards of $300,000 each.
The former long-term continuing care building near the brow that dates back to 1917 will be incorporated as part of the L-shaped building. Mr. Starr said they are hoping to save part of the structure.
Most of the other buildings on the site are expected to be torn down although the Long and Bisby building will be maintained. Mr. Starr said the daycare service currently operating in the building will likely remain there for at least the near future. He added the building could become home to a social agency some time down the road.
Mr. Starr said the green belt near the middle of the property west of Sanatorium will be expanded and left open as a rain-water catch pond and the woodlot east of Sanatorium will be turned over to the city and public access to local trails on the browlands will be maintained.
Deanlee, Mr. Star said, has spent about $500,000 preparing its submission to the city. The submission was expected to contain a number of reports including: an environmental impact statement, traffic study, archeological assessment, heritage assessment, a planning justification report and a functional servicing report.
“Hopefully we don’t have to go to the OMB (Ontario Municipal Board), but if we do, we’ve generated all the information we need to go ahead,” Mr. Starr said.
The developer is hoping to begin construction next spring, with the work being done in two or three phases, probably starting with the redevelopment of the former long-term continuing care building.
Mr. Starr said Deanlee has heard from about 12 area residents who have expressed interest in buying one of the units.
Brenda Khes, project manager of community planning at city hall, confirmed Deanlee’s application has been received.
She said the proposal will be reviewed by city planning staff to see if any issues need to be resolved. The proposal will also be sent to a variety of departments and community organizations such as the Niagara Escarpment Commission and Hamilton Conservation Authority for comment.
By late August or early September, the city will notify residents living within 120 metres of the site of the development proposal and provide a number to call for more information.
The next step would normally be for city staff to forward the proposal to the planning and development committee with a recommendation for or against approval.
But, at the request of Ward 8 councillor Terry Whitehead and with input from local residents, the city has begun a modified secondary planning process for the area that is expected to govern the size and scope of future development on the browlands.
Ms. Khes said nothing will go to committee until after the secondary plan is done and the public comments gathered as part of that process will be taken into account when Deanlee’s proposal is reviewed.
Under provincial law, the city must respond to Deanlee’s proposal within six months of receiving the application.
About Tech
to Mountain News
…do not call yourself a community newspaper
This was my first thought when I started reading the Mountain News articles regarding the Chedoke browlands development.
From the first article I felt is just one way news.
After the city hall meeting when your representative showed up I had a bit of hope that you would be able to get things right on this issue.
Boy was I wrong.
It is very interesting how you did not see the more than 100 lawn signs, evidence of our objection to such a terrible development in a sensitive area like the Niagara Escarpment. It is very interesting how an owner can’t cut a tree but a developer can build 12 story high buildings. It is very interesting how you ignore a very lucrative community webpage trying to preserve a place that is internationally asked to be preserved (UNESCO) yet you know people who will be happy to buy in the new development.
This is just on of many “community’ issues that are constantly ignored by Mountain News.
I believe good homework makes a good newspaper and impartiality makes it even better (and no racist articles).
When the newspaper called itself a community newspaper it makes it even more stringent to have a real understanding of the issues.
Regards,
Adriana
Adraina
sounds like you are really mixing apples and oranges and are on a rant.Time to face reality and realize the land owner actually listened and did cut back on certain elements of their first proposals. In fact , I feel relieved that we dont have to fight for all the green woodlot/ stream / trailways which in many instances, a “bad” developer would apply for total removal.
I called the developer this week to clarify a couple of points on the Provincial and City of Hamilton growth directions and much to my chagrin not one of our community leaders, who have so much to say negatively on a web-site, have been in touch with them, since our meeting mid-June. Did you personally, have any ideas or concepts for the lands except no/ no/ no ?
Interesting , though, they have had nearly a dozen calls /emails from local people to reserve a waiting list spot .
Last but not least, cheap shots ( “no racist articles” above) are a form of intimidation and bullying.
I think the Mountain News did a good job on reporting the facts on the application and in their previous articles. Facts are facts.
Screaming, derogatory comments and a bunch of signs do not project a community willing to discuss all issues in a reasonable fashion.
If this is the way you really want go, we better raise a LOT of money to get alternative equivalent studies already submitted as per the news article.
Erin
p s
my research indicates these lands were offered to all levels of government before they went to public sale. Why no interest ? If we really want no development, let the City or Province buy it back.. 10 or 15 million should do it.
Erin
Lecturing and bullying Adraina, by dismissing her comment as a rant, is hardly discussing the issue in a reasonable fashion.
Reasonableness was not your intent, rather, rhetorical trickery and smears are your game.
You defend the developer, because of a generous nature, in your words, “the developer would apply for total removal” how fortunate for us. The good developer gets to give away the woodlot. What Woodlot are we talking about? Do developers get to give away Parks?
Has Mountain News revealed this false beneficence to its readers? Nope, in fact by an act of omission, they appear to be supporting the developers trickery.
The rhetorical trick, that trumps all, is to attack our local politicians for their malfeasance. You can never go wrong with that angle. When all else fails, blame the politicians.
The trashing of Adraina is complete and you come in for the kill you conflate the whole neighborhood as being over the top with Adraina, with this, “screaming, derogatory comments and a bunch of signs do not project a community willing to discuss all issues in a reasonable fashion.”
You have managed to sneak by the editors, your small prickly piece and attribute the defensible act of informing ones neighbors, and protecting the interests of our neighborhood, as the behavior of a bunch of radicals.
Won’t fly my friend, you are much too transparent.
I totally agree with your email to Erin. I found her email to Adriana obnoxious. I bet Erin is one of the 12 individuals that has contacted the developer interested in buying one of the units. Go figure.
? are the lands owned by the public or are they owned by a private group?
if you had 50 acres in the country who should tell you what to do with it? have people enjoyed to much tresspassing over the last 50 years…. development and city growth… hard to do with things like green belt…