Todd and Laura Barlow say they want to protect their property values. They are appealing to the Ontario Land Tribunal to stop the construction of new seniors’ rental housing at 2800 Library Lane in Binbrook.
On November 22, 2023, City Council unanimously approved the construction of a new three-storey 105-unit seniors’ rental apartment building that will include 52 affordable units on land the City transferred to the Township of Glanbrook Non-Profit Housing Corporation.
Ward 11 Councillor Mark Tadeson gave his full support to the project.
“Just for the record, I just want to say that I fully fully fully support this for seniors. It’s nonprofit. It’s considerate. It’s comparable. It’s complimentary. It definitely fills the need that our whole city should embrace,” Tadeson stated.
The City also provided a $1.7-million loan to enable the project as part of the City’s affordable housing strategy.
The non-profit housing corporation operates a 31-unit affordable seniors building on the property. The 105 units will be in addition.
Neighbour Primarily Worried About Property Value
“First and foremost, the intrinsic damage to our property value from the proposed rezoning is our greatest concern,” the Barlows write. “In addition to the pure financial impact to our property value, we will loose all the enjoyment of our property outdoor space, which will be equally damaging to us.”
The Barlows wrote they bought their home with the expectation that no development would occur behind them.
“We specifically purchased our home at this lot location with a significant premium and the
knowledge that we would live with our property adjoined to a restricted agriculturally zoned property. The premium paid and the intrinsic value of this zoning was a key factor in our purchase decision 16 years ago.”
The Barlows raised concerns regarding waste management, height, shadows, lighting, and parking.
Appeal Filed to the Ontario Land Tribunal
Following Council approval on November 22, the Barlows filed an appeal to the OLT on January 2, 2024.
Their appeal letter states:
“The proposed land use and subsequent zoning change is not consistent with surrounding land use and will have significant negative impacts to local land use and community. A zoning change from Restricted Agriculture to a multi unit high density residential is drastic deviation from current single and 2 storey residential use. Please see written objection to council for further details and objections.”
The zoning change is to Residential Multiple “RM4-322” Zone, which is not high density as the Barlows write.
OLT Hearing on April 24, 2024
The OLT has set a contested one-day hearing for April 24, 2024.
Often, when appeals go directly to a one-day hearing – without any case management conference – the OLT orally dismisses the appeal after allowing the parties to make their argument.
Production Details v. 1.0.0 Published: February 8, 2024 Last edited: February 8, 2024 Author: Joey Coleman Edit Record v. 1.0.0 original version
NIMBY, and unjustified. I grew up less than a kilometer from Barlow Road, which is a dead-end lane off of Sinclairville Road. It’s surrounded by farmland… which was owned by the Barlow family. Moving to “downtown” Binbrook 16 years ago would be pretty much a guarantee of seeing dense development spreading around your property.
Don’t sell the farm and move to the middle of town, then complain that you wanted to live on a farm and not in the middle of town.
John – interesting comment. I would recommend some research before posting that is inaccurate – I am not or ever have been related or part of the Barlow Farms Family in Binbrook. I am however a life long resident of Hamilton and Stoney Creek with a genuine concern for the communities development. It is simple and easy I’m sure from your perspective to classify our local objections to the development as NIMBYism. Given the strain on the local housing market and functional housing for seniors in Hamilton we are not opposed to the development – we are opposed to the development in its current form or proposal. We have expectations that the City would constructively engage and acknowledge local residents concerns and incorporate or address those concerns with modifications to the development plan in the same way the City would expect a private developer to respond to receive permitting from them. That is not happening. I’am curious how a communication between a private citizen and a non profit housing organization became part of the public record when it was not part of the OLT application – regardless I stand by our statements – it would be any reasonable home owners concern for their house value when a 10-12 m wall is being proposed to be built 3-4 m off their property line where there currently exists open space would you not agree? I remain open for discussions and look for a reasonable path forward – Todd