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.

One of the few remaining open spaces on the west Mountain with a scenic view of the lower city is slated for development, upsetting neighbours who don’t want to lose the view or the peacefulness of the area.

The residents are trying to preserve as much as they can with a campaign to keep Scenic Drive scenic, by working on alternatives to 750 condominium homes, some in highrises, planned for the old Chedoke hospital site.

Ward Councillor Terry Whitehead calls the Chedoke brow lands the last bastion of green space on the Mountain and likens its high heritage value to that of the city’s beachfront.

“A lot of people want to protect Scenic Drive,” he says.

The size of the development on the 9.6-hectare property will add at least 1,500 people, assuming two per household, to the already congested rush-hour traffic on the west Mountain, residents say. The site is an expansive property with a handful of heritage buildings and large open green spaces and trees. Hamilton Health Sciences, which took over the Chedoke site, is selling it to developer Deanlee Management Inc. of Mississauga. The deal is expected to close in December 2008.

Following the initial residents’ outcry, Deanlee reduced its original plans for 900 units to 750 and reduced its 12- to 14-storey highrises to eight storeys. The proposal is for three-storey and four-storey townhouses, four- to six-, and now eight-storey condominium buildings. The units are selling for about $300,000 each.

The area’s current dwellings are mostly single family homes.

The city, at Whitehead’s request, has started a secondary planning process so the residents can present alternatives to the development — one that avoids highrises, reduces the number of homes and preserves mature trees.

“I think 200 is reasonable,” says resident Barry Colbert, who lives beside the site. “It’s the last good-size piece of land left on the brow,” he says.

Colbert says the traffic generated otherwise will overburden area streets. Traffic near the Queen Street hill down to the lower city is already paralyzed whenever there’s a minor accident.

It is an example of the difficulty in balancing a community’s character with provincial policies steering development to already urbanized areas.

The residents will present their alternative plan at a public meeting Nov. 13.

TheSpec.com – Local – Keep it scenic, Mountain residents tell condominium developer

Ted Brellisford, the Hamilton Spectator The Book House is considered a rare example of early Georgian architecture. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Hamilton, which owns it, says the city can take it for $1.

August 11, 2007

Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator
(Aug 11, 2007)

The front door to Book House is wide open, welcoming visitors inside.

The only guests in years, though, have been of Mother Nature’s kind. Ancaster Councillor Lloyd Ferguson stopped after poking his head inside.

“I was afraid I’d fall through the floor.”

It is said that a heritage building is never loved more than in the moments before its death. Admiration for the crumbling house on Book Road is mounting with each disintegrating red brick.

“If the Book House comes down, it’s a disaster,” said Anne Charlton, chair of the city’s heritage committee.

She knows the house’s history by heart. Built in 1831 by Adam Book, son of early settler John Book, the two-storey residence is a rare example of early Georgian architecture.

The house came into the hands of Roman Catholic Diocese of Hamilton decades ago. It had a tenant until recent years and has since sat vacant.

The diocese has an affection for heritage buildings, too, but it also has priorities, business administrator John O’Brien said. Restoration of its churches demands resources first.

There are no firm plans for the Book House property, said O’Brien. He’s heard passionately from heritage advocates who want the church to protect the house from further disrepair. He’s repeatedly responded that the city must foot the bill if it wants the work done — or they can take the building away for $1.

The diocese has also served notice it will fight any attempt to designate Book House.

“I don’t think you need to wield the heritage stick, so to speak. It just creates adversaries where there doesn’t need to be,” said O’ Brien.

But the city doesn’t have the money to save Book House, counters Charlton.

The diocese has “a public responsibility to maintain this building for the future.”

The city has played white knight before and saved city landmarks such as Auchmar and St. Mark’s Church from the wrecking ball. Years later though both buildings are still vacant as staff search for adaptive reuses.

And there isn’t even a consensus among the public on heritage buildings. As many people cheered the recent demolition of the 160-year-old Dynes Tavern as mourned it. Opinion is as divided over the 70-year-old Lister Block.

The city does have the right to rescue a building from neglect through designation, whether the owner supports it or not. While not the preferable step, it’s necessary when significant buildings are under threat, said Tim McCabe, head of the city’s planning and economic development department.

“It’s a community resource. The heritage of a city is for all its citizens.”

It’s unfortunate that Ontario doesn’t offer financial incentives for heritage preservation, but property owners still have a duty to maintain their buildings, said McCabe.

“They have to accept some responsibility for a community resource.”

He predicts Hamilton will start being more aggressive about designating heritage properties.

Across Hamilton, about 600 properties are already heritage designated. Another 7,000 are listed as being of heritage interest. City staff are starting to work their way through the latter list to determine which properties merit a spot on the official registry. Once there, it takes longer to demolish a property.

Owners must wait an extra 60 days to give the community a chance to find an alternative or fight for its protection.

Councillors placed the first property of interest, a 1854 stone building at the corner of James Street South and Charlton Avenue, on the registry this week. It’s current owner, St. Joseph’s Health System, has already served notice it wants to demolish the building to make room for a mobile unit in the short-term.

While respectful of the city’s responsibility, hospital executives say they’ve already explored the cost of saving the building and the $1-million-plus price tag isn’t feasible.

The only solution to the inevitable clash of economics versus heritage is compromise, offers University of Toronto professor Thomas McIlwraith.

“It comes down in the end to good communication.”

Both sides need to sit down at the table to brainstorm creative solutions that meet the needs of both. Middle ground is possible, he said.

That’s what Ferguson hopes for Book House. He has set up a meeting with the diocese next week. “It’s a delicate balance. Obviously we want to preserve our heritage buildings, but not at any cost.”

nmacintyre@thespec.com

905-526-3299

TheSpec.com – Local – It’s love of heritage vs. economics