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

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.

I shot a series of pictures: You can view the sets at Flickr.com by clicking here or you can quickly scroll through each set by clicking on the thumbnails below.

However, the aerial views on the ‘flickr site’ will aid in understanding the environmental framework within which these developments occurred and it is obvious that none are remotely like the Chedoke Brow area. For instance, all of the developments are located within close proximity to major road systems.
______________________________________________________________

	Fram Development- Lakeshore Rd and Hurontario Street, Port Credit	Old Mill and old Mill Terraces - Bloor St. east of Royal York Rd. And West Humber River	Health Street Condominiums - Health St. between Bathurst ST. and Spadina Rd.	Bedford Glen Residential Development

1. FRAM development Lakeshore Road and Hurontario Street, Port Credit
Note that the aerial view is an older picture of this development and the demolition of a city block / brown field site is evident in this image.

2. Old Mill Inn and Old Mill Terraces – Bloor St. East of Royal York Road and west of Humber River [singlepic=1,80,60,right]

Old Mill community also has lawn signs protesting development - check out their website at http://kingswayresidents.com/

3. High Rise Condominiums – St. Clair Ave and Spadina Rd
Same as #4

4. Health Street Condominiums – Health St. between Bathurst ST. and Spadina Rd.

5. Bedford Glen Residential Development – Avenue Rd. north of Lawrence Ave

I observed that all of the developments were built very close (a block or so) from major roadways (at least four lanes)and major high rise areas.

(On the FRAM development site was a very small plot of land that they had left behind as a natural area – you will see the sign posting in the picture.)

None of the areas we looked at were similar to Chedoke Brow, in terms of its beauty, location, heritage components or access routes. I did not see any evidence of development that preserved the natural setting for all residents.

I can’t speak for the planning staff, But from my perspective, I was significantly under whelmed and disturbed by what the developers are suggesting……

Public input will be considered as city planners grapple with development proposal for area north of Scenic Drive

If residents living near Chedoke hospital get their way, development of the brow lands will see only 25 single detached homes erected on the west-side of Sanatorium Road north of Scenic Drive.
The limited development option (option number two) was the overwhelming favourite of residents who voted at a Dec. 13 public information centre at the Nash auditorium or online prior to midnight Dec. 31.

Of the 224 votes cast by the deadline, option number two garnered 120 votes (104 by e-mail). Option number one – no development – drew 62 votes (57 by e-mail); option 3a – medium-low development with 234 townhouse and apartment units – received 10 votes (one by e-mail); option 3b – medium-low development with 122 townhouse and apartment units in new and existing buildings – received 14 votes (10 by e-mail); option four – mixed use medium development with 256 units, mostly apartments and townhouses and a few single family homes – got 12 votes (three by e-mail) and option five – the most development with 469 units comprised mostly of apartments and some townhouses – drew six votes (four by e-mail).

The unit numbers for each option are estimates provided by city planning staff as part of the modified secondary planning work for the brow lands that began with the first of four public information centres last September. Chedoke area residents are hoping the secondary plan will control the size and scope of future development on the brow lands.

The residents’ preferred option is in stark contrast to the plan Deanlee Management of Mississauga filed with the city last June.

Deanlee, who purchased the 9.6 hectare (24 acre) brow lands from the Chedoke Health Corporation last spring, is looking to build 750 high-end condominium units on the site. The developer is also looking to close Sanatorium Road north of Scenic and make it a private condo road. The road closure process is expected to go through the public process in the coming months.

Planning staff are now pouring over Deanlee’s proposal, which includes a number of reports and studies including a planning justification report, environmental impact statement, heritage assessment, archeological assessment and a traffic study.

The city’s economic development and planning committee will consider both the modified secondary plan developed by the residents and Deanlee’s proposal in March or April.

City senior planner Brenda Khes said planning staff will consider the public input as part of the review process. Planning staff also have the option of recommending to the councillors an option that incorporates some aspects of both proposals.

Deanlee had planned to hold a public open house about the proposed development January 17, but company director Ron Starr said they had to cancel the meeting because they need time to review comments from a number of local groups and agencies that have come into the city’s planning department. Mr. Starr said a public open house will be rescheduled in the next few weeks.

After 224 votes, the results are in:

Please note that 5 votes were received after the cut off time and have not been factored into the above numbers:

• 2 votes for Option #1
• 2 votes for Option #2
• 1 vote for Option #5

Thank you for your participation in this process. Your input has been utilized to create the overall community vision for the Chedoke Brow Lands. The public consultation process and the final community plan will be incorporated into City staff’s planning report to Economic Development and Planning Committee on the development applications.

—————————————————————————————–

By Mark Newman
Mountain News
Residents living near Chedoke hospital have until midnight Dec. 31 to vote on-line for one of six public development options for the brow lands.

City planning staff and a subcommittee of residents originally came up with five options after community input in October. One of the options for medium- low development has since been split into two sections, one calling for the use of some existing buildings on the brow lands and the other would see those buildings torn down.

At a Dec. 13 public information centre at the Nash auditorium, residents were given the option of voting for one of six options ranging from no development to medium development.

A vote in person and on-line following a Nov. 13 public meeting indicated the residents’ two preferred options were either no development or limited development with 26 single family homes. But many of the neighbours noted that vote was done without knowing unit numbers, traffic flow numbers and population density estimates that city planning staff provided at last week’s meeting and requested all the options be opened for a final vote.

Some residents also noted many neighbours were unable to attend the Dec. 13 meeting and requested they be given the opportunity to vote on-line.

City senior project manager Brenda Khes said Chedoke area residents who were unable to attend the meeting can vote on-line via www.hamilton.ca/brow lands up until midnight Dec. 31.

Ward 8 councillor Terry Whitehead told last week’s meeting his office will print a few hundred flyers notifying Chedoke area residents of the final on-line vote if some of the neighbours agree to deliver them.

Many of the residents who attended last week’s meeting voted for their preferred option by placing a red sticker on one of six diagrams outlining each proposal.

Option number one – no development- garnered five votes. Option number two – limited development with 25 single detached homes – drew 16 votes. Option 3a – medium low development with 234 units drew eight votes. Option 3b – featuring 122 units, 68 of which would be in existing buildings, received four votes.

Option four – mixed use medium development with 256 units – attracted eight votes and Option five – the most development with 469 units – garnered two votes.

The residents’ input, which began with the first of four public information centres in September, will be used by the city to develop a modified secondary plan for the area which the residents hope will control the size and scope of future development on the brow lands.

Last spring, Deanlee Management of Mississauga purchased the brow lands from the Chedoke Health Corporation and in June submitted a proposal to the city to build 750 high-end condominium units on the site. The developer is also looking to close Sanatorium Road north of Scenic and make it a private condo road. The road closure process is expected to go through the public process in the coming months.

The city’s economic development and planning committee will consider both the modified secondary plan developed by the residents and Deanlee’s proposal in March or April. Planning staff also have the option of recommending to the councillors a proposal that incorporates some aspects of both proposals.

“We’ll prepare a report that includes all the information,” Ms. Khes said. “Everything Deanlee submitted, all the community consultation that we’ve done and we end up with a planning option and we justify what approach we are taking in that planning option. We provide a planning rationale for it.”

Barry Colbert, one of the Chedoke residents who has been part of the public planning process since the beginning, commended city planners for involving the residents in the process.

“I’m really impressed with the city planning department and the length they’ve gone to really educate us and do some pretty professional work here to show us what these things could look like and to facilitate the process as well to try and get us converging on something,” Mr. Colbert said. “I would vote for something medium because I’m concerned about the environmental impact of dropping 2,000 new people on the edge of the brow.”

Deanlee will hold a public information meeting about their proposal Jan. 17, 6:30 p.m. in the Nash auditorium. The developer is also offering to host a tour of Deanlee projects in the Toronto area, similar to the one being proposed for the brow lands, on the same day.

***Please note that numbers and figures are approximate and based on certain assumptions. No formal technical analysis has been undertaken.***

If you did not attend the December 13, 2007 meeting and you would like to vote for the overall community development option, please follow the steps below:

1. Thoroughly review the different community development options.
2. Read the summary and review the analysis provided for the different options. Please be advised that Option 3 has been broken down into two different scenarios (please indicate A or B when voting).
3. Send an email to Kirsten McCauley?with your name, address and your overall Preferred Option indicated (Please note that if your name and address are not provided your vote will not count).
4. If you wish, you may also fill out a comment sheet providing additional information on your choice or the Modified Secondary Planning Public Consultation Process.

If you attended Public Information Centre #4, please do not vote again. Voting will be open until midnight on December 31, 2007. Staff will tally the votes and post the overall preferred community option on the project website the first week of January. Thank you for participating in this process.

Option #1 – No Development 0 Units Density of 0 units per hectare 2006/2011 Population Projection – 0 Persons No traffic impact	?
Option #2 – Limited Development 25 single detached units Density of 3.73 units per hectare 2006 Population Projection ? 68.17 persons 2011 Population Projection ? 66.25 persons Traffic Analysis: AM Peak – 19 Trips PM Peak – 25 Trips	?
Option #3 – Medium-Low Development Option 2A: 20 Townhouses 214 Apartment units? = 234 total units Density of 34.93 units per hectare 2006 Population Projection ? 424.8 persons 2011 Population Projection ? 414.96 persons Traffic Analysis: AM Peak – 82 Trips PM Peak – 92 Trips Option 3B: 20 Townhouses 34 Apartment units in new building 68 Apartment units in existing buildings = 122 total units Density of 12.34 units per hectare 2006 Population Projection ? 233.28 persons 2011 Population Projection ? 227.92 persons Traffic Analysis: AM Peak -?50 Trips PM Peak -?62 Trips???	?
Option #4 – Mixed-Use Medium Development 5 Single Detached Dwellings along Scenic Drive 19 Townhouses 193 new Apartment units 44 Apartment units on the upper floors of Long and Bisby and the CCC (with ground floor for mixed use) = 256 total units + jobs Density of 38.2 units per hectare 2006 Population Projection ? 485.08 persons 2011 Population Projection ? 473.76 persons Traffic Analysis: AM Peak – 108 Trips PM Peak – 124 Trips
Option #5?- Most Development? 18 Townhouses along Scenic Drive 389 Apartment units in new buildings 62 Apartment units in existing buildings = 469 total units Density of 70 units per hectare 2006 Population Projection ? 824.18 persons 2011 Population Projection ? 804.99 persons Traffic Analysis: AM Peak – 181 Trips PM Peak – 209 Trips

Nov 16, 2007

Community-generated options range from no development to modest residential housing

Residents living near the Chedoke brow lands have been given five development options for the west Mountain property. The options range from no development to a modest plan for residential housing north of Scenic Drive.

The options were presented to about 100 residents at the third public information centre organized by the city’s planning and economic development department in the Ewart Auditorium at the Chedoke Hospital campus Nov. 13.

Each of the options were presented by members of a citizens sub-committee that was formed last month to mull over and try to find common themes from 12 general development plans that were put together by Chedoke area residents at a public information centre at Mohawk College Oct. 11.

The citizens’ input is being used by city planning officials to develop a modified secondary plan for the area which the residents hope will control the size and scope of future development on the brow lands.

Last spring, Deanlee Management of Mississauga purchased the 9.6 hectare (24 acres) brow lands from the Chedoke Health Corporation and in June submitted a proposal to the city to build 750 high-end condominium units on the site.

It’s expected the city’s economic development and planning committee will consider both the modified secondary plan developed by the residents and Deanlee’s proposal early next spring.

Eric Soberg, who grew up in the area and his mother still lives on Scenic Drive, presented the first option that calls for no development. He urged residents to fight against any development on the property and preserve it for future generations.

“This is a crown piece of property,” Mr. Soberg said. “Chedoke Health Sciences has sold us out as a community.”

The second option calls for limited development, with single detached homes no more than two and a half storeys high on the north-west side of the brow lands and some

similar homes on a pocket of land at the north-west corner of Scenic Drive and Sanatorium Road.

“Everything else we’d like to leave as green space,” said Colleen Morrison, who presented the proposal. “This is what I see as a good option.”

Option three calls for medium-low development with low-rise four storey buildings behind the former continuing care building on the north-west side of the land and a low rise building on the west side of the site near the wood lot and Long and Bisby building.

“We’re looking at development around existing buildings,” said Bart Brosseau, who presented the option.

The plan also calls for two blocks of three storey townhouses on either side of Sanatorium Road just north of Scenic Drive. Green space is proposed along the majority of Scenic as a buffer to the interior development.

Barry Colbert, who presented option five, which calls for mixed-use medium development, noted the property has a healthcare history and he would like to see that maintained in any new development.

“Let’s make this a wellness-themed, mixed use development,” said Mr. Colbert, who noted that could mean a nursing home or some other kinds of wellness facility.

The option calls for four storey terrace buildings near the former continuing care building with wellness services on the ground floor and residential units above. Single homes are proposed along Scenic Drive (west of Sanatorium) with rear access lanes. Townhouses are proposed on either side of Sanatorium north of Scenic and a four storey building is suggested for the middle of the property on the west side of Sanatorium. The Long and Bisby building would be converted for mixed public and residential use.

The fifth option contains the most development of the five proposals.

“The intent here is to provide heavier development within the centre area (of the brow lands),” said presenter John Norris.

The option proposes to retain the former continuing care building and develop six storey (mid rise) terraced residential buildings on the south side of the facility. Parking will be inside the buildings or screened from the roads. A six storey building is proposed near the Long and Bisby building with two low rise (three and four storey) buildings on either side of Sanatorium, north of Scenic. A row of townhouses facing Scenic with rear lane access are proposed for the west side of the site.

“It allows us to get as much green space as possible,” said Mr. Norris, who estimated the plan could include as many as 400 units, 350 less than Deanlee’s proposal.

Mr. Norris said he believes the option is defendable should the developer take the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board.

After the proposals were presented, the residents voted for their first and second preferred options.

City senior project manager Brenda Khes said Chedoke neighbours who were unable to attend the meeting can vote on-line until Dec. 3.

Several residents complained it was difficult to pick an option because the proposals did not come with a number of units attached.

“We don’t have a unit count on them yet because there’s a lot of work that has to be done to figure out units,” Ms. Khes said.

Ms. Khes said planning staff will tally the votes and bring back the community’s preferred option to the next public information centre on Dec. 13. At that time planning staff will also have an estimated number of units for each option.

“If the votes are really close, then we have to decide whether or not are we going to combine the two types of options or are we going to come back with two preferred options,” Ms. Khes said.

Residents will have one final chance to comment on and make adjustments to the preferred option next month before it is incorporated into the modified secondary plan and sent to the councillors.

Ms. Khes said a final meeting may be required in January to complete the process.

She told the residents the time and effort they’ve spent on the secondary planning process will carry have a lot of weight before city council and the OMB.

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.