The Ontario Municipal Board will ultimately decide if a Mississauga developer can build as many as 700 condominium and town house units on the Chedoke brow lands.

City planner Kirsten McCauley said the city received notice from Deanlee Management earlier this month asking that their proposal be referred to the OMB.

A date has yet to be scheduled for a hearing.

Deanlee president Ron Starr said the company is appealing to the OMB in a bid to move the project forward. “I’ve been trying to work this out for four years and four months,” Starr said.

Under the Planning Act, a developer may appeal to the provincial body if council refuses or neglects to make a decision on their request within a prescribed amount of time depending on the nature of the request and section of the act after receiving the application.

McCauley said the city accepted Deanlee’s applications for development of the 24-acre site along Sanatorium Road, north of Scenic Drive, in the fall of 2007.

At a special meeting of the economic development and planning committee June 10, committee members agreed to put the issue on hold so that brow land area residents opposed to the development can put together an alternative plan that is expected to suggest a less intensive development.

“Most of us within the committee would like to see (the brow lands) as a park, but we know that’s not going to happen,” said Rod Priel, spokesperson for the steering committee the residents organized following last month’s committee meeting.

Priel said the group is in the process of hiring a planning consultant to help them come up with a lower number of units for the brow lands that the OMB will support.

They’re also looking for volunteers and to raise money to pay for a lawyer to represent them at the OMB hearing.

Steering committee member Jim Stewart said he wants to see the natural environment of the brow lands preserved including the 250 or so trees he says he’s counted on the site.

He’s also concerned about how the proposed development will affect local ground water, adding he hasn’t seen any reports addressing that issue.

While city planners are recommending city councillors approve Deanlee’s application, Starr did leave the door open to a possible compromise with the neighbours before the matter goes before the OMB.

“It all depends what the compromise is,” Starr said.

Peggy Chapman
The Bay Observer

Ontario’s cities have been working hard to meet provincial standards for growth and the control of urban sprawl. The Ontario policy statement – Places to Grow touts concepts like density and intensification – words often supported by environmentalists within communities who have long argued against the growth of suburbs in exchange for the inward growth of downtowns where infrastructure is already in place. So why then, have many of the same people who despise urban sprawl, been protesting against local developers who are investing in the Places to Grow strategy?

Whether it be on the Hamilton Mountain, Dundas or Burlington, developers of new condominiums are being deterred from projects which would meet the expectations of the province’s growth mantra. Two recent examples are the condo units proposed by the St. Joseph’s Villa site in Dundas, and a townhouse complex in Burlington at Walkers Line and Dundas Street. Both projects were modelled on Places to Grow, yet were met with opposition. Jeff Paikin, of New Horizon Homes is “disgustingly shocked” by the recent rejection of his plans for the Burlington project – for which he had been working hand-inhand with city staff for the last 18 months. “We followed the planning principles for land-use and I feel betrayed by council and at the same time assume city staff must feel frustrated. They are highly regarded professionals and council just ignored their work.” Burlington council, who were desperate to find a use for the brownfield property still voted unanimously against the plan.

Paikin, along with other developers in the province are juggling the province’s goal of building more compact communities while at the same time facing local opposition by those who don’t want to share their neighbourhoods with multi-level multi-family homes.

According to Places to Grow, the term intensification means, … the development of a property, site or area at a higher density than currently exists, through development, redevelopment, infill and expansion or conversion of existing buildings. Each community’s form and level of intensification will differ, based on their specific characteristics such as location, history, community strengths and preferences.

Paikin and Burlington’s city staff, feel his project met the criteria, and more. “This project would allow young families to buy their first home, with a garage, in Burlington for $250,000,” he told the Observer. “This kind of planning will help keep our young professionals here in town instead of losing them to Toronto. This is exactly what our cities are trying to do – to keep our young people here for the future.” After a year of working with city staff, Paikin was confident his project would get the green light from council. The only issue that did not meet the exact criteria was its density. His plan was for 31 townhomes, and the zoning only permitted 22. “The councillor for the ward (Carol D’Amelio) originally supported the plan, and although the city’s zoning was for 22 units, the Places to Grow strategy allows for higher density if the rest of the plan benefits the growth. I say it does and I think staff would agree,” Paikin. concluded. The day he was to go to council for approval, D’Amelio called him to ask if he would decrease the number of units. He declined. “Can you imagine, after a year and a half of working with their staff, that councillors expect me to somehow change the plan –within hours?” Even if Paikin did lower the unit numbers, his plan to make the homes affordable would no longer be possible. “I would have to raise the price per unit well beyond the $350,000 mark. That makes the real estate much less attractive.”

In Hamilton’s suburb of Dundas, multiuse condominiums have been opposed as well. Two proposed condo towers at Ogilivie Street and Governor’s Road would have seen 220 apartments with main level commercial space. Well over 100 residents showed up to Hamilton city council to stop the plan, citing loss of green space, density, and declared the development is not compatible with the surrounding area. Yet, Hamilton’s own growth plan states, “While residential intensification should be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, compatibility should not be narrowly interpreted to mean “the same as” or even as “being similar to”. The term “compatible” refers to forms that are mutually tolerant and capable of existing together in harmony within an area.”

Hamilton’s Residential Intensification Study, a major background study for the Official Plan, has identified that citizen’s demand a choice of different housing types within walking distance of shops and transit and states, residential intensification helps to manage the growth of the City’s Urban Area and to protect natural heritage green space features and rural areas from urban expansion.

The study also claims a more efficient use of land results in cost savings, reduces development pressure on farm land and natural areas and increases the housing options within some neighbourhoods. It would also attract new residents to support the revitalization of downtowns and areas in decline while maintaining the population in existing communities to prevent closure of schools and recreational facilities. Most importantly perhaps, it makes more efficient use of roads, sewers and water services. This can result in lower house prices. Hamilton council supported Dundas councillor, Russ Powers in unanimously voting down the condo plan – just as the Burlington councillors did for New Horizon’s project – and asked the developers to bring back plans with lower density and intensification.

Jeff Paikin, who has built homes in both Burlington and Hamilton blames the lack of political leadership for the halting of residential growth in both communities. “My Burlington plan – other than the density issue – was provincially designated and staff approved.” He adds, “Density at a higher level is often approved as long as the development follows planning principles”. Under Places to Grow, brownfields such as the proposed Burlington development must be over-intensified before brought to market. “It’s the lack of political leadership and good policy making that is getting in the way of building better communities,” he added.

As for those who oppose this style of growth and development, Paikin asserts they are the same folks who advocate for public transit and demand more greenspace yet when it comes to intensification in their own neighbourhood – they change their stand. “Even local activists fall for the ‘not in my backyard’ and fear-of- change attitude,” he said. It’s up to politicians to make the right decision for the community as a whole, not just make the easy choice for their political well-being.” peggy@bayobserver.ca

After much perseverance, City Bylaw Enforcement Staff have managed to
cease construction of the temporary parking lot on Scenic Dr. (Chedoke
Site).
I am forwarding a copy of a letter that was sent to our office this
afternoon from Mr. Jim Campbell, General Manager of Columbia
International College.

I trust this information is sufficient and to the satisfaction of the
Mountain Brow Community.

Thank you,

Christine DiGiantomasso,
On behalf of,
Colleen Wicken
Assistant to Councillor Whitehead
Ward 8
(905) 546-2779
Colleen.Wicken@hamilton.ca

Daniel Nolan

The Hamilton Spectator

(Jun 11, 2010)

A Missississauga developer is making rumblings of taking the City of Hamilton to the Ontario Municipal Board after his $200 million townhouse-condominium project was delayed for approval last night by city councillors.

Ward 8 Councillor Terry Whitehead won approval from the economic development and planning committee to hold off deciding on the 600-700 unit project by DeanLee Management Inc. until he has time to consult with the community and a Thornhill planner.

City staff approve of DeanLee’s proposal to rezone the Chedoke Browlands on Scenic Drive to residential from institutional and build townhouse and condominiums for 1,500 people.

Whitehead couldn’t say for sure when he could bring the issue — which has been worked on by DeanLee since 2006 — back to the committee, but he hoped in the fall.

The proposal has drawn the ire of the surrounding single-family community and sparked the ‘Let’s Keep it Scenic’ movement. Neighbours believe the project is too big for the Browlands, will increase traffic and change the feel of their piece of suburbia forever.

Developer Ron Starr wasn’t surprised by the delay after making a presentation including a ritzy video to councillors at a special committee meeting at Peoples Church on Mohawk Road West.

Asked how long he can wait, Starr said, “We’re not going to wait. We’re not going to. We’ll have to consult with our consultants on which way to go.”

Asked if he meant the OMB, he replied, “I have no other comment.”

DeanLee bought the Browlands from the Chedoke Health Corp. and in early 2007 was considering 1,000 units. That got dropped to 750 units in late 2007 and further reduced in the new proposal.

More than 200 people attended the meeting and two dozen people spoke before or had letters read before councillors. Some just spoke to say they were protecting their right to take the matter to the OMB.

One man showed a slideshow of the greenspace on the Browlands and then ended with shots from the movie blockbuster Avatar and the destruction of a woodland.

Whitehead said afterwards he wasn’t worried about Starr taking the project to the OMB by getting a deferral to learn more about intensification in developments.

“The community will be there, strong, voicing their positions,” he said.

“If he wants to go to the OMB, we’ll see him at the OMB.”

Starr told councillors he believed the “adult lifestyle village” of 6-10 storey buildings he was proposing at the site of a former tuberculosis hospital was compatible with the neighbourhood.

City staff backed and cited apartment buildings on Mohawk Road, but that drew howls from the crowd. “We’re not talking about Mohawk Road,” said one man.

Colleen Morrison, who helped organize a 2007 petition, told councillors, “The proposed development is not in keeping with the vista of the neighbourhood. Why do you think six, seven, eight storeys would be acceptable ?”

Barry Colbert and his wife Elizabeth Kurucz told councillors they are not opposed to development on the old hospital lands. But they believe the Dean Lee proposal is inappropriate.

“This isn’t the corner of Mohawk and Upper Gage,” said Colbert. “It’s mostly green space … and we need to treat this differently.”

dnolan@thespec.com

905-526-3351

Terry Whitehead says it’s the most controversial development application he’s had to consider in his seven years on Hamilton city council.

The ward 8 (west Mountain) councillor said he can’t support a city planning staff recommendation that a Mississauga developer’s plan for the Chedoke brow lands be approved when it goes before city council members next month.

“I think it’s too dense,” said Whitehead of the plan by Deanlee Management to build as many as 700 condominium and townhouse units on the Chedoke brow lands along Sanatorium Road, north of Scenic Drive.

“On the north side of Scenic, they’re all large lots with single family homes. This development is not fitting with that area,” said Whitehead, who added he shares neighbourhood concerns the development will lead to increased traffic congestion in the area.

The development plan is slated to go before the economic development and planning committee at a special meeting June 10, 6 p. m. at the Peoples’ Church on Mohawk Road West.

Deanlee has proposed that as many as half of the units on the 24-acre brow lands be aimed at retirees with prices starting at about $250,000 and up.

City planning staff are recommending 700 residential units be permitted on the site as long as 100 to 200 of them are for retirement living, otherwise the site will be limited to 600 units.

They are also recommending Sanatorium Road, north of Scenic, be sold to the developer and turned into a private road.

If councillors refuse to agree to the road change, planning staff are asking the development application be referred back to them for further review.

Whitehead said that might be a way to reduce the number of units on the site.

Most of the existing buildings on the site will be torn down with the exception of the Long and Bisby building which is currently listed as a heritage building.

In their report to the committee, city planning staff said Deanlee’s proposal can be supported for a number of reasons including: it conforms with the city’s official plan, is compatible with existing and planned development in the surrounding area and increases linkages along the Brow Trail and provides protection for the wood lot on the east side of the site.

The development plan has been in the works for three years and has been the subject of several back and forth discussions between Deanlee and city planners.

Deanlee’s original proposal to build 750 units with buildings as high as 10 storeys was not supported by city planning staff.

The staff report says Deanlee has agreed to follow city zoning bylaws that restrict buildings to six to eight storeys, depending on their location.

Whitehead said he’s going to consult independent planners and try to arrange a meeting with residents in the area prior to the June 10 committee meeting where he hopes to come up with a less dense development alternative that he can present to his committee colleagues.

“I’m not going to presuppose what that number (of units) is,” said Whitehead, who added what ever the residents propose, has to be reasonable and defendable at the Ontario Municipal Board.

Brow land area residents participated in a modified secondary plan consultation in the fall and early winter of 2007.

At the end of the process they voted 54 per cent in favour of an option that would allow for 25 single family homes on the brow lands.

No development was the second favourite option with 28 per cent of the vote.

Deanlee purchased the brow lands from the Chedoke Health Corporation in 2006 after CHC deemed the property surplus its needs.

Appendix 82 Pages

OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMITTEE

DATE: Thursday, June 10, 2010

TIME: 6:00pm

LOCATION: People’s Church

510 Mohawk Rd. W.,

Hamilton ON L9C 1X4

Applicant: Deanlee Management Inc.

Agent: Wendy Nott, Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited

Subject Property: “Brow Lands” (former Chedoke Hospital site)

North side of Scenic Drive, East and West of Sanatorium Road

(see Appendix “A”)

Purpose and Effect of Applications:

Official Plan Amendment (OPA-07-014)

The purpose of the Official Plan amendment application is to re-designate the subject lands from Major Institutional to Residential in order to permit Medium Density Residential development. The amended application requests consideration of up to 600 residential units in townhouse or apartment/condominium buildings on the property.

The applicant has also requested consideration for the flexibility to allow a retirement/active lifestyle community in addition to the residential uses. Provisions have been made to allow an equivalency factor for up to 100 residential dwelling units to be allocated for retirement dwelling units at a 1:2 ratio. Therefore, if the Owner chose to develop the lands for the retirement/active lifestyle scenario, this could translate to 500 residential units and up to 200 retirement dwelling units, for a total of 700 units. The Owner would also have the option to develop the entire site as a full retirement community not to exceed 700 units. The proposed amendment also adds the “Brow Lands Area Specific Policy” to the Chedmac Planning Area Secondary Plan and designates the lands as follows:

Re: Official Plan Amendment, Zoning and Subdivision

Applications OPA-07-014/ZAC-07-053/25T-200712, North of Scenic Drive, East and West of Sanatorium Road Ward 8

Area A – Medium Density Residential II

Area B – Medium Density Residential III

Area C and D – Natural Open Space (woodlot and creek/stormwater

management area)

Area E – General Open Space

The effect of the amendment is to allow for the use of the lands in Area A and B for multiple dwellings (apartment), townhouses, retirement dwelling units and associated amenity area, and limited commercial uses. Area C, D and E will be protected as open space areas.

The proposed Official Plan amendment also includes specific policies, related to urban design and heritage that provide design standards and require the protection of appropriate protection of significant natural and cultural heritage resources. See Appendix “B” which illustrates the area for the blocks noted above. A similar amendment/modification will also be required the Council adopted Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

Rezoning (ZAC-07-053)

The purpose of this application is to change the zoning from the “AA/S-1353” (Agricultural) District, Modified in the former City of Hamilton Zoning By-law 6593 to a site specific “DE” (Low Density Multiple Dwellings) District, Modified and “E” (High Density Multiple Dwellings) District, Modified to implement the Official Plan Amendment.

The effect of the zoning by-law amendment is to permit the development of townhouse dwellings and multiple dwellings for the residential portion of the subject lands (Blocks A and B on Appendix B). The application proposes a modified “DE” (Low Density Multiple Dwellings) district and a modified “E” (Multiple Dwellings, Lodges, Club, etc.) district to permit residential development. Limited commercial uses and live/work units will also be permitted. The requested zoning proposes to permit building heights as follows:

Area A the maximum height of buildings shall be 4 storeys interior to the site with a maximum height of 3 storeys abutting Scenic Drive and Area B the maximum height of the buildings shall be 6 storeys with ability to increase the building height to 8 storeys through additional study. The proposed by-law will also provide specific setback requirements for the site.

Additionally, a second by-law is required to change the zoning from the “AA/S-1353” (Agricultural) District, Modified in the former City of Hamilton Zoning By-law 6593 to the Conservation/Hazard Lands (P5) zone in the City of Hamilton Zoning By-law 05-200. The effect of this zoning will allow for the protection of the woodlot, the creek/stormwater management area and the piece of land north of Sanatorium Road (Areas C, D and E) as conservation lands and will restrict development on these lands.

Re: Official Plan Amendment, Zoning and Subdivision

Applications OPA-07-014/ZAC-07-053/25T-200712, North of Scenic Drive, East and West of Sanatorium Road Ward 8

Subdivision (25T-200712)

The purpose of the application is to permit the development of a residential subdivision know as “The Browlands” for the creation of below: (see Appendix C)

Block 1 – medium density residential development and a stormwater management facility;

Block 2, 3 and 4 – road allowance/daylight triangles and a private road;

Block 5 – portion of road allowance for the future continuation of the brow trail;

Block 6 – open space; and

Block 7 – medium density residential development and private open space (woodlot).

Please be advised that site plan applications will also be required to implement development on the site.

Road Closure Application

An application has been submitted for permanent closure of a road allowance for the portion of Sanatorium Road north of Scenic Drive which runs through the Brow Lands site. The purpose and effect of this application will allow the owner to construct a private condominium road with continued public access through a dedicated easement as part of the redevelopment of the adjacent lands. Notice attached as Appendix D.

Public Input:

The Economic Development and Planning Committee will consider the application at a Public Meeting at the above-noted time and location. You are invited to attend at that time to express your views about the proposal. You may also submit written comments to the Co-ordinator, Economic Development and Planning Committee, City of Hamilton, 71 Main St. W., 1st Floor, Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5.

If you wish to be notified of the adoption of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, or of the refusal of a request to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, you must make a written request to the Co-ordinator, Economic Development and Planning Committee, City of Hamilton, 71 Main St. W., 1st Floor, Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5.

If you wish to be notified of the decision of the City of Hamilton in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision, you must make a written request to the Director of Planning, Planning and Economic Development Department, 71 Main Street West, 6th Floor, Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5.

Re: Official Plan Amendment, Zoning and Subdivision

Applications OPA-07-014/ZAC-07-053/25T-200712, North of Scenic Drive, East and West of Sanatorium Road – Ward 8

Appeals:

Official Plan Amendment to the Former Hamilton Official Plan (File No. OPA-07-014)/Zoning Amendment Application (File No. ZAC-07-053)

• If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Hamilton before the official plan amendment is adopted or the By-law is passed, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the City of Hamilton to the Ontario Municipal Board.

• If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Hamilton before the official plan amendment is adopted or the By-law is passed, the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so.

Subdivision Application (File No. 25T-200712)

• If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting, if one is held, or make written submissions to the City of Hamilton in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision before the approval authority gives or refuses to give approval to the draft plan of subdivision, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the City of Hamilton to the Ontario Municipal Board.

• If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting, if one is held, or make written submissions to the City of Hamilton in respect of the proposed plan of subdivision before the approval authority gives or refuses to give approval to the draft plan of subdivision, the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario MunicipalBoard unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so.

Collection of Information:

Information respecting this application is being collected under the authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13. All comments and opinions submitted to the City of Hamilton on this matter, including the name, address and contact information of persons submitting comments and/or opinions, will become part of the public record and will be made available to the Applicant and the general public.

Additional Information:

The joint staff report on the development applications and road closure application will be available to the public on and after May 31, 2010. A copy of the report will be provided on the City’s website (www.hamilton.ca/edpagendas) and may be obtained Re: Official Plan Amendment, Zoning and Subdivision

Applications OPA-07-014/ZAC-07-053/25T-200712, North of Scenic Drive, East and West of Sanatorium Road – Ward 8 from the Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning Division, 71 Main Street West, 6th Floor, Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. If you

require additional information, please contact Kirsten McCauley, at (905) 546-2424 ext. 1292, or by e-mail at kirsten.mccauley@hamilton.ca. Coordinator,

Economic Development & Planning Committee

“We’re still negotiating,” said Ron Starr, president of development at Deanlee Management.

The company is looking at building about 650 condominium and townhouse units on the 9.6 hectares (24 acres) brow land along Sanatorium Road, north of Scenic Drive, that it purchased from the Chedoke Health Corporation more than three years ago.

As many as half of those units will be aimed at retirees with prices starting at about $250,000 and up.

The wood lot on the east side of the property has been deemed an environmentally sensitive area and will not be developed.

Starr said he feels the development plan needs a little more tweaking to satisfy city planners and he’s optimistic the project can go before the economic development and planning committee in June.

“We do not want to go to the OMB (Ontario Mu n i c i p a l Board) on this,” said Starr, who noted the uniqueness of the project has led to numerous discussions and communications with city planners.

Starr said Deanlee Management has addressed capacity concerns about the on-site storm water management pond that was raised by the Hamilton Conservation Authority.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission also raised concerns about the 10-storey building slated for the middle of the site, but Starr said he feels the consultants report provided by Deanlee proves the building will not have a negative impact on the area.

The 64-year-old Starr is no stranger to municipal politics.

He was a city councilor in Mississauga in 1979-80 and has registered to run for a second time against former Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish in Mississauga’s Ward 6.