Mayor Fred:

I voted for you because of your professed concern for development within Hamilton and surrounding areas.

I don’t know if you are aware of the development concerns regarding the Chedoke Browlands.

The stewarts of the Chedoke lands inheritance have over the last 10 years sold off this inheritance to support programs in health care facilities other than the west Hamilton Mountain area. (This heavily populated community has been told that area health care for the west Mountain is not a city priority; and that funding must be redirected to other areas.) Consequently, the assets of this community have been redirected away from this community to meet the needs of other Hamilton Health Care Facilities. Many members of this community do not believe that this was the intention of the Chedoke inheritance, and that a covenance should be honoured.

Developers have purchased the Chedoke Browlands. Three years ago, the stewarts of these lands promised that Hamilton zoning laws would protect the development integrity of these lands. “The lands are zoned as Agricultural AA/S-1353 District.” (City of Hamilton, “Public Information Centre”, September 11, 2007.) At the community meetings, we were told that because of city zoning the development could not exceed any existing structures. Thus, these regulations dictated that development structures could not exceed the existing Chedoke Continuing Care Centre. Additionally, the development structure(s) could not exceed a three story building, and the existing ground base.

I attended several meetings where the stewarts (sellers) reassured the community that the existing city zoning would protect these lands. Any purchaser of these lands would need to abide by these city zoning restrictions.

Subsequent community meetings have demonstrated that these reassurances were premature, and, frankly, deceptive. City representatives informed community members that the City of Hamilton is hostage to provincial “Intensification” planning. Thus, the existing zoning regulations are at risk.

West Hamilton Mountain has experienced excessive development. Businesses and home owners no longer invest in older communities, instead gobbling up undeveloped lands for development.

City and area health care facilities have benefited from the Chedoke lands inheritance, resulting in a variety of housing developments, long term health care structures, arena facilities, and the expansion of the Columbia International schooling structures, etc. These developments are costly, as existing older infrastructures decay at the expense of implementing the needs of newer developments. (Why would anyone invest in older communities as homeowners or as developers?)

Is it not possible to protect one small section of these lands as dictated by city zoning? “Keep It Scenic” is not a reactionary NIMBY response. This community has been responsive to the needs of the greater Hamilton-Wentworth area. The development of the Chedoke Browlands, however, is too costly for this community, and for the City of Hamilton.

Mayor Fred, I am appealing to you to become involved. Can you help this community? Does the city of Hamilton have any interest in protecting the escarpment from developers? Should we who invest in older homes and communities be secondary to the newer developments that temporarily add to the city coffers?

I am discouraged and disillusioned. I perform my civic duty by attending community meetings, paying taxes, and by voting for representational government. I also support and endorse the socio-economical programs vital for a caring Hamilton community. I don’t, however, want to attend any more meetings where I am lied to, or given presentations by City of Hamilton employees who seem to have a subversive hidden agenda. It has been proven to me that zoning laws and the community development vision is too easily subverted.

The Chedoke Browlands are in the trust of all Hamiltonians to guard for future generations, and these lands should be protected against development.

Your support and response to this concern would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

D. B. McIlveen

The attached article has incorrect information reported.
The 2 preferred options were
Number 1. No Development
Number 2. Mixed Use Development
The vote was opened up again because of the new information
regarding density and traffic flow and how it would impact the “Mixed Use Development”. These stats/numbers were not available to the community for the original vote.

Please report the facts correctly.