Downtown Bureau Residents Concerned About 467 Charlton Development It's a bit strange that so much opposition should well up against a five- and six-storey residential infill development on the former site of a one-storey taxi/limo/ambulance depot. By Ryan McGreal

Published August 11, 2014

this article has been updated

A zoning by-law amendment for 467 Charlton Avenue East is on the agenda for tomorrow's Planning Committee meeting (see item 6.8 for the associated documents). Planning staff recommend approving the application to build three multi-storey buildings on the site, a plan that has some local residents crying foul.



Rendering by developer - south facade facing Charlton



Rendering by developer - view from southwest

Note: there are newer renderings of the plan that more accurately reflect the size, shape and placement of buildings and trees on the site.

Three New Condo Buildings

The plan is to build two six-storey buildings and one five-storey building with a total of 162 condominium apartment units with 1.2 parking spaces per unit on the long, narrow property.

The property sits on the north side of Charlton Avenue East on a terrace of the Niagara Escarpment. The site is in the southern edge of Stinson Neighbourhood, just west of where Charlton bends into Wentworth Street and just south of the Escarpment Trail.

Originally a bowling alley, the old one-storey building on the site served as a Hamilton Cab, limo and Ontario Patient Transfer ambulance depot before it was demolished earlier this summer.



The old building was demolished in July (RTH file photo)

The development plan requires the main part of the property to be rezoned from Prestige Industrial to High Density Multiple Dwellings, while the back of the property (adjacent to the Escarpment Trail) must be rezoned from Zone A - Conservation, Open Space, Park and Recreation to Zone P5 - Conservation / Hazard Land.



Appendix A - Site Location Map

Staff recommend approving the plan because it supports the Provincial Policy Statment by revitalizing a brownfield site, increasing density in an existing built area and providing a more diverse mix of residential housing types. It also supports the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which emphasizes building compact, complete neighbourhoods and maximizing the use of existing municipal infrastructure.

Local Opposition

The proponents have engaged in public consultation to receive and address neighbours' concerns, including meetings on March 25, 2013 and May 15, 2014 and a letter circulated to property owners and residents within 120 metres of the site. The City received 15 letters expressing a number of concerns. (See Appendix K in the list of documents.)

Some local residents have organized a group called "Residents Advocating Responsible Escarpment Development" in opposition to the plan, citing concerns about: how the development will affect the Escarpment Trail; its impact on the visibility of the "green wall" of the Niagara Escarpment from other vantage points around the neighbourhood; and excessive noise and traffic.

Views

Residents worry that the buildings will block their view of the Escarpment. A resident created a rendering suggesting the buildings will tower over the neighbourhood:



One resident's rendering of how the building might look (Image Source: Skyscraperpage)

The staff report argues that due to the tall, narrow lots already characteristic of Stinson, the new buildings will not make a significant impact on escarpment views. (See Appendix H, linked from the documents page for scans of printouts of example photographs.)



View of Escarpment from Grant Avenue

Staff also recommend reducing the height of "Building C", the most visible of the three buildings, to five storeys to reduce its visual impact.



Revised Conceptual Site Plan (Appendix D1)

The report states in part:

The area of the highest visual impact is generally directly north of Buildings "B" and "C" along Grant Avenue, Ontario Street and Erie Street, and between Alanson Street and Stinson Street. The proximity of this area to the Escarpment and the site, the viewing angles, the open nature of large properties such as the Stinson Street Lofts, and the absence of mature trees, contributes to a more pronounced view of the Escarpment. Within this area it was noted that the viewsheds to the Escarpment would be limited to portions of the proposed buildings (i.e. the ends of the buildings and the upper three floors) due to the vegetated nature of the slope, however, Building "C" would have a strong visual presence from certain viewing areas such as Alanson Street and Grant Avenue, which provide a wide panoramic viewing area. As noted, to reduce the impacts of Building "C", it is recommended that the building height be limited to five storeys. The use of appropriate colours and materials, particularly during periods when there is no foliage, would also be recommended for all of the buildings, to enable better integration with the natural colours of the Escarpment.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) issued a review of the Visual Impact Assessment that disagrees with the plan as proposed, arguing that the building heights should be reduced further - four storeys for buildings B and C and a terraced design for building A - to reduce the visual impact of the buildings.

Natural Environment

In terms of its impact on the Escarpment natural environment, staff stress that this is already a developed site and the development is designed to maintain existing nearby vegetation and to minimize the risk of bird strikes against the building.



Rendering by developer - north facade facing Escarpment Trail

The building is set back from the property line on all four sides and will not impact the lower slope on the north side - it will be built entirely on stable land.

The most significant disturbance in the plan is a possible walking/cycling connection from the property to connect to the Escarpment Trail on the northwest side.

The Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) reviewed the engineering report and grading plan and concluded that the development will make the site less impervious for the purpose of absorbing rainfall and storm water runoff.

The HCA also requested more detail on the plan to reduce bird strike risk and will review the plan again at the site plan approval stage.

Increased Traffic

Increased traffic is another concern raised by opponents. Traffic is already a problem where Charlton bends into Wentworth and crosses the Escarpment Trail.

Last year, a runner was killed by an impaired driver at the corner, and the Ward 2 Participatory Budget process recently approved a capital investment for a safer pedestrian crossing at the trail.



Charlton Avenue, on the left, curves into Wentworth Street (RTH file photo)

According to the Corktown Traffic Management Plan, Charlton carries 8,000 - 14,000 cars a day on one lane in each direction. That plan recommends traffic calming measures to reduce automobile volumes and speeds on Charlton.

The 467 Charlton development plan, in contrast, calls for Charlton to be widened with a dedicated left turn lane for eastbound traffic to serve the site.

Noise Issues

Opponents also cite a noise study by Aerocoustics noting that due to the combination of automobile and rail traffic, noise levels in outdoor areas on the development itself will be higher than the Ministry of Environment regulations.

However, the staff report notes that acoustic barriers are no longer required in the revised development plan, as the outdoor terrace areas between the buildings have been reduced in size below the minimum size that falls under MOE regulations.

In addition, people buying units in the buildings will have to sign warning clauses to state that road and rail noise may occasionally exceed recommended levels and that rail noise may occasionally interfere with outdoor activities on the site.

The report concludes that the development will not introduce additional noise impacts to other properties in Stinson. However, local opponents argue that the development will bring additional automobile traffic, which will increase noise more generally in the neighbourhood.

Fear-Based Opposition

It's a bit strange that so much opposition should well up against a five- and six-storey residential infill development on the former site of a one-storey taxi/limo/ambulance depot.

The density is fairly modest, the height is by no means excessive, the project has been designed to minimize disturbance of the Escarpment Trail green belt, and the buildings themselves have been styled and coloured to minimize their visual impact.

This seems like a good project - exactly the kind of thing we should be encouraging. The fact that its close proximity to the Escarpment Trail is being viewed as a positive value proposition is encouraging. It should attract buyers who appreciate active mobility.

My main complaint about this project is that I wish it had a more urban design, something with more of a streetwall rather than three separate buildings set back from the street, each other and their neighbours and surrounded by parking.

And as an example of how regulations can backfire in perverse ways, the developer has gotten around the issue of excessive outdoor noise by shrinking the outdoor socializing areas so they don't fall under MoE regulations. That does nothing to reduce people's exposure to excessive noise, it just gives them less usable space in which to do it.

It would be easy to chalk the opposition up to reflexive NIMBY opposition, except that it's easy to understand why people become skeptical about the claims of developers and the oversight of city planners. This city hasn't had a lot of great examples of infill developments over the past couple of decades to instill a high level of confidence that this won't just be another bait-and-switch.

In that regard it is encouraging that the plan has been modified from its original proposal to address the legitimate concerns that have been raised. The purpose of community engagement should be to make developments better, not to prevent them from going ahead.

But realistically, it will probably take a few years of good projects followed through to successful completion before residents start to regain confidence in our collective ability to design and construct good buildings that improve their surroundings.

See also:

Update: added a link to a more recent article with newer renderings. You can jump to the added paragraph.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan wrote a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. His articles have also been published in The Walrus, HuffPost and Behind the Numbers. He maintains a personal website, has been known to share passing thoughts on Twitter and Facebook, and posts the occasional cat photo on Instagram.

34 Comments Read Comments

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.