Firstly, I would like to advise the community of some FACTS:

1. Deanlee is paying 5 millions for this property…I think that’s a steal

and a profit margin would be easily obtainable.

2. We have submitted a pettition to the City with approximately 600

names against this type of development. (note that these are

voting individuals in the community).

3. The community voted for the type of development they could live with,

The vote overwhelmingly opted for the single family homes. The

stats are posted on our site for your information.

In my opinion, the above outweighs the 14 individuals that have

expressed their interest in the type of units Deanlee is proposing.

____________________________________________________

Brow lands development proposal not carved in stone

Developer willing to look at fewer units if return on investment not compromised

By Mark Newman

News

Feb 01, 2008

Deanlee Management is willing to look at fewer then the 750 units it has proposed for the Chedoke brow lands.

“It’s not carved in stone,” said Ron Starr, president of development at the Mississauga firm. “There’s flexibility in this process.”

Possible ways of reducing the number of units Mr. Starr offered, could include increasing the size of the single family homes, townhouses and condominium units proposed for the the site thereby requiring fewer of them or by adding luxury penthouse condos to the top of some of the proposed buildings, which would also reduce the total number of units.

Mr. Starr said Deanlee is willing to look at fewer units on the site if they can be shown to be financially viable for the company and there is planning support and justification for the change.

“Show us a solution,” Mr. Starr said. “We still haven’t seen any (alternative), we’re either had no development or limited development and we knew that from day one.”

In December, as part of the secondary planning process for the brow lands along Sanatorium Road, north of Scenic Drive, the majority of residents living near the site voted for either limited development that would see 25 single family homes on the brow lands or no development at all.

Mr. Starr said those two options are non-starters.

“It’s not even reasonable,” said Mr. Starr, who added Deanlee has been prepared since “day one” to go to the Ontario Municipal Board to seek approval for the project if a development agreement with the city and the neighbours cannot be worked out.

“I think the residents truly believe what they’re doing is the right thing, but I think they’re missing the opportunity to really come back to the owners (and) developers of the land to say this is what we’ll live with,” Mr. Starr said. “If somebody can give us some good ideas and there’s the ability to compromise and utilize the lands as we as builders think is a good compromise, we’re quite willing to listen.”

Mr. Starr estimated Deanlee will spend as much as $250 million on labour, materials and other costs to develop the brow lands. He expects most of builders and sub contractors they use will be from the Hamilton area.

“You utilize as many local people as you can because it’s cost-efficient,” Mr. Starr said.

In addition, Mr. Starr said the company expects to pay as much as $20 million in development charges and about $3 million a year in property taxes.

Mr. Starr said not all of the neighbours in the area oppose the development plans, noting Deanlee has received requests from as many as 14 people who live within “walking distance” of the brow lands to be put on a reservation list for the condos.

City planning staff are reviewing Deanlee’s proposal as well as information gathered from the residents during the secondary planning process and are expected to make their recommendation to the economic and planning committee in March or April.

On Jan. 17, Deanlee officials took a group of city planning staff and brow lands area residents on a bus tour of some developments in Toronto, Oakville and Burlington to give them an idea of the kind of buildings and surrounding landscaping they hope to construct and how some residential development has been merged with open space.

“I think some of the examples they showed us were very positive,” said John Norris, a brow land area resident and member of the group Mountainview Residents for Recreation of Hamilton.

Mr. Norris said the non-profit group is pushing Deanlee and the city to maintain as much open space on the brow lands as possible.

Their proposals include: preserving the east side of the development at Scenic Drive and Sanatorium Road (a former baseball field) as parkland; installing a set of stairs from in front of the Long and Bisby building to the rail trail below and improving pathways around the water retention pond area in the centre of the brow lands to make it a more scenic walking corridor.

(Oct 26, 2007)

Neighbours group meets with CHC officials

They weren’t able to stop the sale of the brow lands, but a group of Chedoke area residents came away with a better understanding of what the Chedoke Health Corporation does after a meeting with some CHC board members earlier this month.

“It was information gathering on our part,” said Barry Colbert, one of the four residents who attended the meeting along with Ward 8 councillor Terry Whitehead.

The Oct. 11 meeting at the Hamilton Yacht Club was organized by CHC planner Don May at Mr. Whitehead’s request.

Some west Mountain residents wanted to question CHC officials about the sale last spring of the 9.6 hectare (24 acre) brow lands to a Mississauga firm that is looking to build 750 condominium units on the property.

Chedoke Health Corporation president Paul Southall was one of three CHC officials, along with Mr. May, who attended the meeting.

Mr. Colbert said the residents were told the sale of the brow lands had been talked about by the CHC for more than a decade.

“Part of what they were telling us…they’ve been talking about this (land sale) for 16 years and they’ve been notifying the city and the community that something is going to happen to this land and it’s only recently that there’s been a real groundswell of opposition around it,” Mr. Colbert said. “What they said was it is out of our hands now, it’s up to you and the city and the developer.”

Mr. Colbert said the issue of a covenant in the 1935 sale of some of the brow land from the landowners to the Hamilton Health Association (forerunner of the CHC) that restricts future use of the property to parkland or for residential purposes was also discussed.

But the west Mountain resident doesn’t put much stock in the covenant.

“We’re all living here now and in 100 years there’s going to be a bunch of other people living here and I don’t think I should be able to control things from the grave and I don’t think other people should be doing that either, it should be us as a community who are here now and try to decide what do we want to do with the land,” Mr. Colbert said.

The CHC and Deanlee Management, who purchased the brow lands, have stated previously they feel the restriction no longer applies because covenants expire after 40 years.

Mr. Colbert said he found the meeting to be useful for getting information, adding he did not go into the discussion expecting they were going to get the CHC to reverse the decision to sell the brow lands.

Mr. May said the two sides had a frank and open discussion for more than an hour.

“I think the telling part was at the end where everybody shook hands,” he said.

Mr. May said some of the residents were relatively new to the area and did not know much about the CHC’s mandate to help provide funding for healthcare programs in the community through land sales or of the previous consultations the organization has had with the community.

“For 12 years we’ve been saying the brow land would be sold,” said Mr. May, who noted many of the healthcare programs they support at other hospitals in Hamilton were once offered at Chedoke.

Mark Newman, Mountain

Sep 21, 2007)

Residents living near the Chedoke browlands are hoping a document from 1935 will force a Mississauga firm to de-intensify plans for browland development.

Deanlee Management is looking to erect 750 units in a combination of low rise and townhouse condominiums on 9.6 hectares (24 acres) of browland property north of Scenic Drive that it purchased last spring from the Chedoke Health Corporation. The sale is expected to close in December, 2008.

After pouring through a large pile of title search documents supplied by Deanlee, city officials recently came across a land transfer document dated Aug. 31, 1935 regarding the sale of a piece of browland property to the Hamilton Health Association (forerunner of the Chedoke Health Corporation) for what appears to be $1,200. The sellers were Hamilton lawyer Cecil V. Langs, his wife Edith Langs and a New York City resident.

According to a photo copy of the faded document obtained by the Mountain News, the sellers put in some covenants or restrictions that the property be used for “park and/or residential purposes only” and that no buildings other than single family residences worth more than $6,000 shall be built on the site.

If the document still has any legal application to the property it could affect Deanlee’s plans for development.

Ward 8 councillor Terry Whitehead has asked the city’s legal department to see if the covenants can be enforced.

“Do we have a legal recourse to ensure the covenant is adhered to and not lifted and does the Chedoke (Health Corporation) have a moral responsibility to let the (public) know there was a covenant in place and do we have a moral high ground in pressing them to abide by the spirit of the covenant that was in place,” Mr. Whitehead said.

The councillor said his staff are trying to track down descendants of Edith Langs to see if there are family members who wish to pursue the land restrictions or have an agent (such as the city) do it on their behalf.

“It’s another piece of the argument in the context of trying to push or force Deanlee to understand the concerns of the community,” Mr. Whitehead said.

Colleen Morrison, one of a group of area residents opposed to the proposed development, is hopeful the document will help them in their battle.

“I believe it does, saying that this land was intended for parkland or single family homes and when you say single family homes, to me I think of individual houses, I guess that is open to interpretation,” Ms. Morrison said.

Other browland area residents remain vehemently opposed to the development.

“I’ve always regarded (the browlands) as a park,” said Willi Wald. “All of a sudden it has been sold to a speculator to build vertical slums in there.”

“The project proposed for this area goes against every common sense,” said Constatin Lacatus. “Destroying such a beautiful area here doesn’t make any sense.”

Chris Robertson, who is running for the Progressive Conservatives in Hamilton Centre (which includes part of the west Mountain), said he supports the residents in their opposition and urges Hamilton Health Sciences (a beneficiary of monies from the Chedoke Health Corporation raised through land sales) to do what it can to ensure the browlands becomes parkland or only detached single family homes are built on the site.

Deanlee director Ron Starr said the old land document has no bearing on the proposed development.

“As far as we’re concerned it doesn’t apply.” said Mr. Starr, who noted that under the land registry system, restrictions like the ones in the document expire after 40 years.

Mr. Starr said Deanlee would not have gone to all the trouble and expense of purchasing the land and making development plans for the property if there was anything that would have stopped the project from moving forward.

“We’ve done our homework,” said Mr. Starr, who noted no one from the opposition group has come to the company with an alternative development proposal.

Mr. Starr said he was going to discuss the matter further with Deanlee lawyers this week and send a letter to the city and the community in the coming weeks to clarify the covenant matter.

Chedoke Health Corporation planner Don May also said the 40 year rule applies to the browlands.

“Our lawyers are satisfied (the document) has no status,” Mr. May said.

He added the parcel of land the document refers to is about an acre in size on the west side of the browlands.

This will be a ‘charrette’ meeting. Attendees will be put into groups and discuss ideas of what we, the community, would like to see done with this land. If you plan on attending the next meeting, you will need to contact Kirsten McCauley to be added to the list so they can plan for the appropriate number of people planning on attending and hold the meeting in an accommodating venue.

Kirsten McCauley, Planner
City of Hamilton Planning and Economic Development Department
Planning Division
Community Planning Section
77 James Street North, Suite 250
P.O. Box 2040 LCD 1
Hamilton ON L8N 0A3
Phone – 905-546-2424 ext 1292
Fax – 905-643-7250
kmccaule@hamilton.ca

**********

Further to Mr. Whitehead reference to a ‘Covenant’ on the property, I received a voice mail from him and was asked to share information with you. I have attached the following for your information:

*********************************

September 13, 2007

Councillor Terry Whitehead met with the lawyer yesterday and confirmed that there is a covenant which says the land is to be used for parkland or single family housing.

For Clarification:

Covenant means – agreement, contract, convention, treaty, promise, pledge.

The Land was actually purchased for $1,200 in 1936 ($1200 was fair market value in 1936) from Edith Lang.

The question is whether or not the covenant still has any legal standing or not. The City is still trying to determine this. The City lawyer thinks it does. However, Mr. Whitehead’s wife works for the Land Registry; she does not think it does under the new act. There is a sunset clause that removes it after 40 years (automatic removal) and it has been more than 40 years.

Terry feels that there are 2 tracks that we need to pursue:

1. Is there in fact a Legal track

2. The Moral/Ethical track

Councillor Whitehead asked me to share this with you. In summary, there is a covenant and as stated above the land was purchased from Edith Lang. Mr. Whitehead is in the process of trying to find descendents of Edith Lang, or determine if Edith Lang is still living, to see if we can have some moral support to uphold the covenant. This might give us some weight to support the community’s position in regards to the development of this land.

If anyone out there can share any information regarding Edith Lang or her descendants, it would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me and I will share the information with Mr. Whitehead.

Colleen

Quashes proposal to build 17 luxury homesJuly 18, 2007
Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator
(Jul 18, 2007)

The Winona blob is dead.

A provincial board ruled this week against a proposal to build 17 homes on a piece of farmland in the shadow of the Niagara Escarpment. The decision ends more than a decade of strife over the 3.8-hectare lot and settles a long-standing debate over where new development should end.

“Urban sprawl has stopped here,” said Ken Whitbread, manager of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The ruling by the joint board, which represents the Ontario Municipal Board and Ministry of Natural Resources, sends a signal that even small intrusions into protected green space won’t be tolerated, he said. It comes the same week the joint board is considering another 250-house development on the Niagara Escarpment in Milton.

“I think precedent is always important and this is a really good one,” said Whitbread.

The board decided the proposed development southeast of Winona Road and Highway 8 would not preserve or enhance the area’s landscape, including the prized view of the escarpment.

Every year, there are six to 12 requests to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan to permit development. Most often it’s for rock pits and quarries.

In the Winona case, Hamilton General Homes, owned by Peter and Gabriel De Santis, wanted to build high-end homes. They could not be reached for comment yesterday.

The board’s decision can be appealed to the provincial cabinet in the next 28 days.

The board’s decision also resolves the long-standing dispute about Winona’s urban boundaries. Different planning documents have offered conflicting interpretations. The region’s official plan just drew a circle to designate the boundary, leading to the infamous nickname the Winona “blob.”

The ruling means the contentious area will remain outside the urban boundary, preventing future housing developments. The city will update its planning documents to comply with the ruling in the fall.

“It’s just putting it all to bed finally,” said Councillor Brad Clark, who has urged his colleagues to take a strong stand against the development in recent months.

Residents in the neighbourhood incorporated themselves to fight the housing project and sat through the 18-day hearing to show their opposition.

“We did this on a shoestring budget,” said Brenda Johnson, adding she’s hopeful the victory will motivate others to fight for causes in their neighbourhoods.

“Residents actually do have a voice.”

With the escarpment view protected, the property would make prime parkland, said Councillor David Mitchell.
nmacintyre@thespec.com

905-526-3299