Proposed site layout for 262 McNeilly Road and 1036 - 1090 Barton Street in Stoney Creek Credit: HANDOUT

The developers who own the properties at 262 McNeilly Road and 1036 – 1090 Barton Street in Stoney Creek wants wishes to build 545 residential units, being 154 single and semi-detached dwellings, 206 street townhouses, and 185 block townhouses, with the creation of a neighbourhood park, and a stormwater management pond.

They are taking the City to the Ontario Land Tribunal, following planning staff indicating they have concerns with:

  • “Reduction of yard setbacks and unit widths;
  • On-street parking design does not meet municipal requirements;
  • Narrow lot frontages hinder adequate Engineering design;
  • Overall the Engineering design does not meet municipal standards, nor does it meet the Block 3 Servicing Strategy of the Fruitland-Winona Secondary Plan;
  • Natural Heritage considerations from the Block 3 Servicing Strategy have not been incorporated into the development proposal;
  • Revised Noise Study required with up to date data;
  • Further detail is required in the Urban Design Report with revisions to the lot fabric; and,
  • Inadequate information for waste collection serviceability.

Viv Saunders delegated on behalf of the Lakewood Beach Community Council asking questions regarding urban design, why the development is not being designed with pedestrian amenities, and why a low-density use is being proposed along Barton Street when the City of Hamilton needs to intensify.

The Community Council states it wants to see transit-supportive development along Barton Street.

Ward 10 Councillor Maria Pearson, who represents the area, referred the delegation questions to staff for answers. [Delegates are not able to directly pose questions to staff]

Anita Fabac, Manager of Development Approvals, stated that staff have “shared concern” regarding pedestrian design, and are “not supportive of having a line of fences along Barton Street.”

She states the development is considered to be transit supportive by “introducing a number of different unit types in the range of 545 units. That would bring additional people to the area that are currently not there”

Steve Robichaud, Director of Planning and Chief Planner, states the proposed density of 70.4 persons per hectare, “would be consistent with the [Ministry of Transportation] transit-supportive guidelines.”

“I believe these lands are outside of the built boundary, so they are not subject to the provincial intensification policies,” Robichaud stated.

The provincial requirement for greenfield development is “50 persons and jobs per hectare. This development would be meeting or exceeding that requirement, as a greenfield site.”

Robichaud stated staff still need to review the appeal before making a recommendation regarding a potential settlement.

“Based on the density that has been proposed, and the vision that was laid out in the Fruitland Winona Secondary Plan, this proposal is consistent with requirements of both the growth plan and the PPS, as well as the city’s official plan in terms of how new neighbourhoods are to develop.”

He states planning staff will work to ensure good pedestrian-focused design in the development.

Ward 8 Clr John Paul Danko expressed frustration at the joint developers, Losani Homes and Branthaven, for “building minimum code stick-figure McMansions” at the minimum density.

He cited recent Ontario Land Tribunal rulings imposing mid-rise density along minor arterial roads, and expressed a wish the City or another group could “have an alternative appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal for something that is better or more in line with our 30-year growth plan.”

Clr Pearson says there have been neighbourhood meetings and “the neighbourhood as a whole, that we had the neighbourhood meeting, were in support of this development.”

Council received the staff information report, it will return for settlement direction at a future date in closed session.

The Ontario Land Tribunal file numbers for the appeal are OLT-21-001726 & OLT-21-001725. 1725 is the parent case.

One reply on “Sub-Division Developer Bypasses Council with OLT Appeal at Barton and McNeilly in Stoney Creek”

Comments are closed.