Future of west Mountain site now lies with OMB

By Mark Newman, News Staff

Members of the city’s planning committee have turned down a settlement offer from Deanlee Management for development of the Chedoke brow lands.

Committee members reviewed the offer for nearly 90 minutes in private Monday afternoon before Ward 8 councillor Terry Whitehead emerged to say the committee had refused the Mississauga firm’s proposal and was sticking with the city’s earlier decision to limit development to no more than 450 units.

Deanlee had proposed building as many as 700 units on the 24 acre site along Sanatorium Road, north of Scenic Drive and has spent the past several months working on a new plan after the planning committee turned down its original proposal in a 7-1 vote last September.

Whitehead provided few details of the settlement offer, only that it included more than 450 units and Deanlee has added a builder-contractor partner to the development plan.

He would not divulge the builder’s name.

Whitehead speculated that Deanlee is looking to resell the property to the builder if it can get a larger number of units approved.

“I feel very comfortable (saying) that if Deanlee is successful meeting the conditions with this particular builder that the builder would actually end up owning the property,” Whitehead said.

Many residents in the area are opposed to the development, arguing it’s too dense, will destroy valuable green space and does not fit the character of the community.

“The community through this entire process has really felt like they’ve been left out,” said Andrew Knowles, who is representing his grandmother Shirley Fawcett, a longtime brow lands area resident.

Knowles said a 1,146-name petition opposed to the development has been given to the city.

Calls to Deanlee Management and its lawyer for comment were not returned by press time.

The committee’s decision leaves the future of brow lands development in the hands of the Ontario Municipal Board, which has slated a three-day hearing on the matter starting Sept. 7, 10:30 a.m. at the McMaster Learning Centre on Main Street East.

Whitehead said the committee also briefly discussed the possibility of the city purchasing a parcel of brow land property, once home to a baseball diamond, on the north-east corner of Sanatorium Road and Scenic Drive.

He said it was decided that matter should go before the government issues committee as a separate matter.

Letters To The Editor – TheSpec.com Re: Brow lands

I have heard some people talk about how the brow lands on the Niagara Escarpment would be the perfect place for condos, and that residents are mad about it simply because they need something to complain about.

Let me set a few things straight. This is about land that has historical and green space value. The first and largest tuberculosis hospital in North America was built on this land and treated our First World War veterans and the Inuit people.

This land was donated by local residents to Hamilton Health Sciences (Hamilton Health Association in 1906) for medical purposes only.

Now this citizen-donated land has been sold for $5 million to a speculator, which expects to make $100 million by selling it to a developer that wants to build 10 multistorey condos on it.

Not only does this deal smell bad, but where does the development stop? Of course communities are growing and need expansion, but do we keep developing until there is no green space left?

The brow lands make up one of the last beautiful green spaces in Hamilton, which people from all over enjoy.

When does green space become legitimate? Why is it OK to develop over a First World War and medically historic site and one of the last green spaces left in Hamilton?

Why don’t we put condos on the Battle of 1812 site? Or even Gage Park? Or let’s get rid the rest of the Red Hill Valley, which was a rare feature in our city and in the province that now has an expressway through it.

We need a new approach to balance green space and development. Right now, development carries the greater weight.

Andrew Knowles, Hamilton

A Mississauga firm looking to develop the Chedoke brow lands remains hopeful an alternate plan can be worked out after its proposal was voted down by the city’s economic development and planning committee last week.

“We want to resolve this,” said Michele Starr, president of Deanlee Management Inc., after committee members voted 7-1 on Sept. 21 to refuse the developer’s bid to build as many as 700 townhouse and condo units on the 24-acre site along Sanatorium Road north of Scenic Drive. “Nobody wants to go to the (Ontario Municipal Board).”

City council was expected to reaffirm the denial at last night’s (Wednesday) meeting.

Committee members voted to deny the proposal after hearing from representatives from both sides.

Speaking for brow land area residents opposed to the development, planning consultant Jamie Bennett from the Thornhill-based MMM Group said Deanlee’s proposal is too intense for the site and not consistent with the city’s vision for future growth.

Ward 8 (west Mountain) Coun. Terry Whitehead said $4,800 of Bennett’s $5,000 fee was paid through the portion of his office budget, which provides for the hiring of consultants.

Whitehead said the expenditure was appropriate and approved by city staff.

“Nothing ties my hand from going out and utilizing my budget,” said Whitehead, who noted the consultant was hired in August with approval from the area residents before the city had established its position on the issue.

Under the city’s purchasing policy, expenditures under $5,000 do not require a request for proposals.

While city planning staff have supported Deanlee’s development proposal, Whitehead noted that with city council support Bennett will become the city’s planner of record on the brow lands issue and any future fees will be covered by the city.

The councillor said he’s “cautiously optimistic” an alternative development plan can be worked out between Deanlee, area residents and the city prior to an OMB hearing.

“I know there’s already been calls in from Deanlee to meet and see if they can find a mediated settlement,” Whitehead said.

Deanlee said in June it would take the matter to the OMB after committee members put the issue on hold to allow Whitehead to consult with the neighbours and gather more information on the matter.

Tim McCabe of the city’s planning department said Whitehead hiring a planner is not something that is done very often.

“I think it’s unusual for him to get a peer review of a report that has no council decision at that point,” he said.

Councillor Whitehead generously funded the majority of the cost of the planner.  Jamie’s work is to examine the Deanlee proposal against recognized and supported land use planning principles and policies that have been approved by the City and the provincial government.  He will present his findings to the Economic Development and Planning Committee on September 21st, 2010 (Council Chambers, City Hall at 9:30 a.m.).  We are hopeful that this work will, of course, point out deficiencies in the staff report and that council will NOT support the staff’s recommendations and therefore oppose the development when it goes before the Ontario Muncipal Board (OMB) sometime in the New Year.

The notice below from the City Clerk’s Office indicates that residents do not have the automatic right to speak at this meeting .  It is expected that the land use planner ie Jamie Bennett will be speaking on behalf of the community.  It would be great though if community members could attend the meeting to hear his presentation.

We have come to the sad conclusion that there will likely be development on this beautiful piece of property – however, we remain hopeful that we will be able to minimize the impact on our community.  Your support is appreciated – Talk to your neighbors and get the word out!

P.S. you may get this email twice as I will be sending it to two separate mailing lists.  One list is the people who registered at the June 10^th public meeting; the other list is comprised of the registered users of chedokebrow.ca  – however, I think some names are on both lists.  My apologies in advance.

Respectfully
Rod Priel
“Chedoke Browlands Community” group:
info@chedokebrow.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________
Notice:

Re: “Chedoke Brow Lands”, Located at Part Lot 57, Concession 2 OPA-07-053/25T-200712
Dear Residents:
Further to your attendance at the Public Meeting regarding this matter on June 10, 2010, this is to inform you that the item will be back on the agenda of the Economic & Planning Committee of September 21, 2010. The Meeting will take place in the Council Chambers of City Hall, starting at 9:30 a.m.

As the public Meeting was concluded on June 10^th , 2010, there is no automatic right for anyone to speak to Committee. If anyone does want to speak , I would need a written request, to place on the Agenda. Committee would then decide whether to hear any speakers. Please note that a delegation requests will only be considered if new information is to be presented. Committee does not permit repetitions of previous points already made at the public meeting.
http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/CorporateServices/Clerks/
_____________________________________________________________________________-

Read the June 10^th , 2010, Planning & Economics Minutes online at http://chedokebrow.ca/june-10th-2010-agenda/

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.

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

Letters To The Editor – Mountain News
Nov 20, 2009
Re: Chedoke brow lands plan targets retirees (Nov. 13)

It seems to be a pattern in Hamilton whereby a problem arises, a mediocre plan is developed and neither side in the dispute is at all satisfied with the outcome

This pattern is soon to repeat itself with the “re-development” of the Chedoke brow lands.

Deanlee Management has submitted an official proposal to the city’s planning department that would see another exclusive, destructive and unsustainable development scar the face of our community, already in desperate need of a new attitude.

The units in this sprawling new development along the escarpment will start at $250,000, well out of the reach of a vast majority of the seniors in Hamilton.

Over 25 per cent of local senior citizens live in poverty, while countless others have trouble getting by on their dwindling pensions.

In a time of economic hardship, it is insulting to the people of this city to claim a new housing project will be “targeted to retirees” when, in reality, it fails to even make the appearance of inclusiveness.

Furthermore, this development will be ruthlessly destructive, carving through our community without regard for local heritage.

Deanlee’s plan will demolish the 92-year-old East Pavilion that was used to help rehabilitate soldiers returning home from the First World War.

Truly one of the saddest things about Hamilton is our seeming lack of respect for heritage buildings, especially ones with vibrant and often hidden histories such as this structure.

To destroy the East Pavilion would be removing it from our landscape and from countless generations to come that could have learned about their city’s magnificent past through it.

To simply add to the obvious problems with this development is the fact that it is single-use, adding nothing but extra traffic to an area already plagued by congestion.

No shops, theaters, parks, recreational facilities or institutional buildings such as churches and community centers will be part of this plan, and the addition of 1500 new residents will simply increase demand for all these services.

This entire development shows the same lack of foresight that has seen the rising prevalence of poorly accessible power centers fill the void in the community for desired services.

I strongly urge the planning department to study these facts and reject this proposal.

The expected $3 million in tax revenue will be eaten up in road maintenance, snow clearing and extra services the rapid influx of new residents will require.

The heritage of the area will be compromised, the exclusive nature of this program is appalling and the unsustainable development style will cause major problems.

If the planning department approves this proposal, I urge councillors to vote against it. If council accepts this plan, I urge the taxpayers of this city to show their disapproval to Deanlee Development, the city planning department and city council.

It’s not too late to save our community from another disastrous development.

Chris Erl, Hamilton Mountain

In 2007, Deanlee Management Inc. submitted applications to amend the City of Hamilton Official Plan and Zoning By-law and submitted a draft plan of subdivision for a property located on the brow of the Niagara Escarpment at the intersection of Sanatorium Drive and Scenic Drive. The proposed development sited in the NEP’s Urban Area has evolved since the original application in response to feedback from the City, NEC staff and other agencies. The proposal now includes the following:

· 81,000 square metres of gross floor area and 725 residential apartment units

· some limited commercial or other non-residential uses

· conversion of Sanatorium Drive to a private road

· retention of two heritage buildings

· preservation of a 2 hectare woodlot

· the extension of a trail along the Escarpment brow

· minimum 30 metre setback of any buildings from the Escarpment brow

· minimum of 30% landscaped open space throughout the site

· creation of two stormwater detention ponds in the centre of the site, and creation of a traffic circle at the southern intersection of the two roads.

NEC staff have provided several comments to the City on this development and our latest set of comments, and the Demonstration Master Plan dated February 3, 2009 are attached. We are providing them to the Commission at this time as there is some expectation on the part of the applicant that the City could make a decision on the applications in May.

At the time of writing, NEC staff have not reviewed the final text of the Official Plan amendment, zoning by-law or conditions of draft approval but based on the discussion with the applicant and City staff at a meeting held on March 9, we can provide the Commission with information on the intent for the site based on the draft documents that we have reviewed. Further comments will be provided to the City and the Commission will be advised of the staff position, if the development changes subsequent to our report.

The key issues for NEC staff have been the visual impact on the Escarpment, building heights, protection of the woodlot and the preservation of open space within the site to maintain the character of the Escarpment Urban designation and links to the Escarpment.

Based on the staff evaluation of the Visual Impact Assessment Supplementary Report, dated February 2, 2009 prepared by Siteline Research on behalf of the applicant, there could be a visual impact from the proposed 10 storey building on Block 9 when viewed from the King Road perspective. In discussions with the applicant, they are now considering lowering this particular building by 2 storeys which could resolve the visual impact. We have requested a final consolidated Visual Impact Assessment and the incorporation of the recommendations of the study in the Official Plan policies. These recommendations relate to building roof details, building colour, fenestration and lighting; all designed to minimise the impact of the buildings on the Escarpment.

In order to allow views through the site from the south, NEC staff recommended that adequate setbacks between the proposed 6-8 storey buildings on the east and west side of Sanatorium Drive at Scenic Drive be established in the zoning bylaw. The applicant’s planner suggested a 30 metre setback in this location and this is satisfactory.

Opposite San Pedro Drive on the subject lands is a grassed and treed area through which Chedoke Creek passes. It is proposed that some of this area would be preserved and two dry storm water management ponds would be created. The precise extent of this area is still under discussion as the Sanatorium Road Flood and Erosion Impact Study for the larger surrounding area is not yet complete. However, in discussions with the applicant, they intend to preserve a 15 metre buffer on either side of the creek at the request of the Hamilton Conservation Authority through the zoning bylaw which will be of assistance in preserving views through the site and maintain a park-like setting. The preservation of a component of the open park-like setting to balance the built form is an important factor in mitigating the visual impact of medium density development within this Escarpment Urban Area. The 15 metre setback along the Chedoke Creek centreline is not considered sufficient to provide this balance. The provision of a wide opening with views into a central contiguous open space area, consistent with the Demonstration Master Plan provided by the proponent, is a matter that continues to be discussed. We have also raised a concern with the City as to whether the proposed 30% landscaped open space will be achieved on the site. This issue remains pending until the applicant produces a scaled drawing of the development concept.

An existing 2.7 hectare woodlot on the north east portion of the site will be protected but will remain as private property. A ten metre setback around the woodlot will be established to protect the edge of the woodlot during construction.

Underground parking is proposed for this development. In order to excavate, some blasting will be necessary. The applicant advised that a further report on blasting is being prepared and the NEC will be provided with a copy. If the report demonstrates that underground parking is not feasible, then the overall density of the development would be reduced.

Once the City has made a decision on the applications, and assuming the applications are approved, this applicant will likely sell the property to others for development and applications for draft plan of condominium and site plan approval will be submitted. We believe the City will continue to keep us involved in the consultation process and will circulate these applications to us for comment. It will be important to ensure that the new owners of the property understand the importance of requirements of the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the urban design guidelines so that the final form of the development incorporates the principles that we have conveyed to the City with respect to the open landscape character of the site and the importance of adhering to the recommendations of the Visual Impact Assessment.

By Mark Newman
Mountain News Aug 08, 2008

When Deanlee Management submits its final draft plan for Chedoke brow land development to the city in the next few weeks it could contain fewer then the 750 units the Mississauga developer had originally proposed.

“It could vary any place from 600 to 750 (units), but we don’t think the 750 is something that we’re going to push simply because I think, given some of the market studies we’ve done, we’ve seen people want larger units,” said Ron Starr, president of development at Deanlee.

After reviewing comments from city planning officials and agencies such as the Niagara Escarpment Commission about the proposal that was given to the city in June 2007, Mr. Starr said Deanlee filed revised conceptual drawings of the proposed development north of Scenic Drive with the city’s planning department about three weeks ago.

Mr. Starr said the company is now in the process of refining those drawings after hearing back from city planners and some agencies and he expects a final draft plan to go to the city in the next few weeks. He’s hoping to get approval from the economic development and planning committee in mid September which would allow the development to go forward.

Deanlee purchased the 9.6 hectare (24 acre) brow lands from the Chedoke Health Corporation in the spring of 2007, with the sale slated to close in December. The developer is also looking to close Sanatorium Road north of Scenic and make it a private condo road.

Under the revamped proposal, Deanlee is looking to build an eight to 10 storey condominium building and a couple of six to eight storey buildings at the centre of the property. The four to six storey condo buildings proposed for the northwest side of the property and on either side of Sanatorium Road just north of Scenic are retained from the earlier proposal.

The two to three storey condo town houses planned along Scenic Drive west of Sanatorium Road have been reworked so it won’t look like row housing.

“It’ll look like a very, very large house, but with multiple units in it,” Mr. Starr said.

In addition, Deanlee is looking to build a three to five storey condo building in front of the wood lot on the east side of the site. The wood lot is expected to be turned over to the city for preservation.

The high end condos are expected to sell for upwards of $300,000.

Mr. Starr said the green space near the centre of the property that includes the storm water management pond will be expanded.

NEC concerns

In a Jan. 7 report responding to the city’s request for comments on the project, the Niagara Escarpment Commission said Deanlee did not submit enough documents to determine whether the development was acceptable under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and recommended the city refuse the developer’s application until additional information to satisfy the requirements of the Act were submitted.

NEC planner Martin Kilian said the proposal must comply with section 1.7 of the Act which, in part, the states: “All development should be of an urban design compatible with the visual and natural environment of the Escarpment.”

Essentially, Mr. Kilian said, that means when someone looks up from the base of the Escarpment they will see natural features rather then tall buildings.

Mr. Kilian added the NEC is also concerned that Deanlee is considering too many tall buildings too close to the brow.

“We’re not saying they are, we’re saying they might be,” Mr. Kilian said.

The NEC has asked Deanlee to provide a visual assessment of their proposal. Mr. Starr said that has been done and that report is included as part of the revamped proposal that has been submitted to the city. It will be circulated to commenting agencies such as the NEC.

In its earlier comments the NEC said the 30 meter set-back (from the brow) proposed for the development should be the minimum setback should the existing brow building be demolished.

Mr. Starr feels Deanlee has addressed the NEC’s concerns. He noted the tallest building on the site will be at least 200 metres from the Mountain brow and the brown and green buildings they are planning to build on the property should blend in well with the existing landscape.

“From the ground you can’t see this project,” Mr. Starr said. “With…the visualization and the angle and the right facade treatment, I challenge people once the project is done to find it from many miles out.”

All of the existing buildings on the site, with the exception of the Long and Bisby building, currently home to a day care operation, will be torn down.

Mr. Starr said the Long and Bisby building may be used as a medical clinic in the future.

“We’re exploring all that,” he said.

Deanlee is also looking at possibly saving part of the former continuing care building near the brow which dates back to 1917 and has been empty for more than two years.

The revamped plan is unlikely to get approval from a group of nearby residents who have been adamantly opposed to the project.

“It seems like a bit of a shell game,” said Barry Colbert, a neighbour who feels the developer is just moving units around from one part of the site to another.”I don’t think any of the residents are going to be impressed by that.”

Mr. Colbert is concerned Deanlee’s development will result in more pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area, adding the move to reduce the number of units from 750 to somewhere around 600 is still no where near what the residents are seeking.

HamiltonMountainNews.com: News: Story: Brow land could see fewer units

Last stand for Mackie’sArchery range owner seeks support for Nov. 15 protest in Georgetown

By Marcel Vander Wier

Grimsby

Nov 09, 2007

Mackie’s Mountain Archery is down to its last arrow.So on Thursday, Nov. 15, the Beamsville archery facility is hoping to pack a bus full of people and head to Georgetown for the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s monthly meeting.

At this meeting, the commission will make a decision on Bob Mackie’s archery facility regarding whether it is going to order him to close his business or not.

Mackie’s Mountain Archery, located at 3922 Zimmerman Road, has been entrenched in a battle with the NEC over an alleged land use violation for two years.

The nine-acre archery range and training facility has been operating since January of 2002. Alongside outdoor ranges, the property also includes a 175-square-foot pro shop and a portable classroom converted into an indoor range.

“It’s my property and my livelihood,” explains owner Bob Mackie.

The facility was originally built without a development permit, and concerned neighbours brought it before the commission two years ago.

The NEC made it clear the business is not permitted under the Niagara Escarpment Plan. According to the plan, the archery range is contrary to both municipal and regional policy plans and must be closed or face legal action.

Since that time, Mackie has appealed to the commission multiple times in an attempt to change the decision.

He said the Nov. 15 meeting will be the last kick at the can.

“The commission doesn’t want to defer this issue any longer,” he said.

Close to 50 provincial landowner directors have already confirmed their attendance at the meeting to show their support for Mackie’s facility.

“This time, we’re going to come with a large number of people and say our words in a forceful manner,” said Ontario Landowner’s Association president Jack MacLaren.

“Bob Mackie’s use of his nine-acre property is a very passive and environmentally friendly use. We’re going to say those words loud and clear.”

MacLaren acknowledges this isn’t the first time they have explained this to the NEC. However, the escarpment commission is the only group that continues to act against the archery range.

“Everyone is on board,” said Mackie. “The only one that is standing in our way is the commission. And they’re just a regulatory body that doesn’t seem to have an answer for anyone.”

“The frustrating part is we operated for four years before there was even an issue.”

NEC manager Ken Whithead said the issue needs to be resolved, one way or the other.

He admitted that although the commission is still accepting submissions concerning the archery range, their decision likely will not change.

“I’ve been here for over 30 years, and the commission generally agrees with the staff recommendation,” he said. “That’s the best I can give you.”

Problems with the facility remain two-fold, he said.

First, the commercial-recreational facility never received permits or approval before opening up shop. Secondly, it is not a permitted land use in the area.

Even though the landowner’s association backs Mackie, other rural landowners remain in opposition to the archery range.

“In favouring one, you sort of dismiss the others,” Whithead said.

The two-year battle with the commission over land use rights has cut Mackie’s income by a third, he said. People have stopped coming for business thinking the facility has closed.

Mackie said his business has introduced more than 200 new archers to the sport, some of whom have become provincial and national champions.

The facility also provides training and recreational opportunities for youth, handicapped persons, scouts and schools.

If the commission’s ruling does not change, Whithead said a formal order would be made regarding closure and removal of buildings. If Mackie’s Mountain Archery does not close in time, the issue could land in court.

Mackie vows that regardless of the NEC’s decision, he will continue to operate.