View Single Post
  #72  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2019, 3:11 PM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 1,809
Stoney Creek residents continue to fight against proposed three-tower development
The three towers proposal is scheduled to be discussed at the design review panel committee April 11.


The battle over a massive three-tower development proposal on Stoney Creek's lakefront area is set to begin this week.

But Stoney Creek Coun. Maria Pearson says the war may already be over for residents opposed to the plan.

While Pearson said she has "several concerns" about the development that proposes 59, 54 and 48-storeys respectfully at 310 Frances Ave. near Green Road, the area, she points out, is already zoned for such buildings by the former City of Stoney Creek prior to amalgamation.

"There is nothing we can do," said Pearson. "Density was incorporated into the zoning. It has already been approved for this."

She pointed to the already established 19-storey Bayliner and Shoreliner residential buildings located along Frances Ave and across the property.

"We wanted intensification. The (former City of Stoney Creek council), was very forward looking in those days," she said.

New Horizon Development Group, a Burlington-based company, co-owned by Jeff Paikin, which has been constructing residential developments in the area for the last few years, is proposing to add 1,836 units to the area.

Councillors already approved in 2016 New Horizon Development Group's proposal for 40 townhouse units, 38 freehold townhouse units and 129 residential units at 311 and 312 Frances Ave.

The three towers proposal is scheduled to be discussed at the design review panel committee April 11.

Pearson, who received notice of the massive development application Dec. 30, and a site plan application Jan. 23, said she is already providing staff and the developer with suggestions to address a variety of issues, such as parking and traffic.

"I can make my suggestions to staff and I will be doing the same thing to the applicant," said Pearson.

It is expected planning staff will be deciding on the site plan application at the beginning of May.

Residents in the area remain frustrated at the lack of opportunities for input from the community about the proposed development that will have a major impact within the neighbourhood.

Vivian Saunders of the Lakewood Beach Community Council, stated they have requested a public meeting be held to discuss the development.

"Citizens want their voices heard," she said.

A number of residents have already been approved to speak at the April 16 planning committee meeting on the issue, even though the development will not be on the agenda for discussion.

"It's unusual, but no other option was provided," she said. "It's only fair that people are given a forum to speak (and) ask questions. Especially due to the sheer size and the impact it will have on our community."

Pearson said she has considered hosting a meeting on the issue, but since the development isn't before the planning committee, she didn't believe there was a need.

"I don't want to stir up the neighbourhood," she said. "There is nothing to see."
Reply With Quote