Ancaster's 'unique' community under attack

[LikeHamilton]

Heritage character maintained for village core office expansion

Mike Pearson Jun 06, 2008 Ancaster News

A three-storey office expansion in the heart of Ancaster's village core will maintain a heritage theme, a planning consultant says.

Speaking on behalf of his client, Barry Brownlow, consultant James Webb announced a proposed expansion for the Brownlow Associates building at 259 Wilson St. E. at this week's Ancaster Community Committee meeting.

The accounting and bookkeeping business, a village core mainstay since 1980, will increase its floor area by 622 square metres. The project includes a two-storey office expansion and a third storey for underground parking.

Mr. Webb said the applicant hopes to expand his business while limiting the impact on the surrounding area.

"They need to grow. There's not a lot of space at that site," Mr. Webb told the advisory committee. "It's really important to them to do this right."

A land acquisition and parking agreement has been established with the neighbouring property, Ryerson United Church. A shared driveway will be maintained.

An agreement registered on title will give office staff and clients access to an estimated 28 spaces in the Ryerson parking lot, Monday to Friday. The spaces will remain available to the church congregation on weekends.

The applicant is proposing no changes to the front of the building, and a slight increase in height at the rear. The building's natural stone faÁade will be maintained and enhanced. The original office building was constructed in two stages during the 1950s.

The Ancaster Community Committee passed a motion to support the expansion at Monday's meeting.

Ancaster Councillor Lloyd Ferguson was pleased the applicant will maintain the building's physical appearance.

"We would just prefer natural stone above grade," he noted.

A zoning amendment will be required for a portion of the church property, changing it from institutional to village area. Property owners within 120 feet will be notified of a public meeting, which Mr. Webb expects sometime this fall.

[LikeHamilton]

Have your say on city's urban official plan

Mike Pearson Jun 06, 2008 Ancaster News

Hamilton's new harmonized urban official plan should protect Ancaster from high density development, especially in the village core area, argues Ancaster's councillor.

Lloyd Ferguson is urging residents to attend Monday's public information centre at the Ancaster Old Town Hall, beginning at 6 p.m. City staff will formally present plans for the city's new official plan, a document that will shape the future of development within the amalgamated city from the present to the year 2031.

Mr. Ferguson said he was pleased to see city staff recommended a maximum population density of 50 persons per hectare in the Ancaster village core area. Other areas of the city have been earmarked for higher density of 100 or 200 persons per hectare.

"Don't think that wasn't a source of controversy among my council colleagues," Mr. Ferguson told community council members this week.

Mr. Ferguson and the Ancaster Community Committee want Ancaster's unique identity preserved through the updated official plan.

The document will merge the urban official plans of Hamilton's former suburban communities, including Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough, Stoney Creek and Glanbrook.

"We need to reinforce that we're all really quite concerned about what's going on in town," said John Knechtel, a member of the Ancaster Community Committee.

Other key planning principals unique to Ancaster are a 10.5 metre building height bylaw and a 35 per cent limit for residential lot coverage.

The updated official plan will identify areas for activity centres, open space, neighbourhoods and new employment land.

The document provides guiding principals for planning and land use.

City staff will be on hand to answer questions and provide information at Monday's open house. For more background, visit the city's Web site at www.hamilton.ca/opurbanstructure

[SteelTown]

BIA clears final obstacle
Mandate begins in January

By Mike Pearson, News Staff

It’s official. Ancaster’s new business improvement area has been cleared for takeoff.

The BIA is set to hold its inaugural meeting in early December. Its mandate officially begins on Jan. 1, 2009. Last summer, business owners with frontage along Wilson Street from the Ancaster Old Mill to Dalley Drive were formally advised of the BIA plan.

Ancaster Councillor Lloyd Ferguson said the 60-day notification period passed with no objections.

"It’s pretty exciting news," Mr. Ferguson said. The city will hire a consultant to help market Ancaster’s village core as a shopping and tourist destination.

Mr. Ferguson said the BIA concept is long overdue in Ancaster. He looks forward to helping business owners apply for grants for streetscape and property improvements. BIA members are also eligible for commercial property improvement grants, Christmas display grants and other intiatives.

The BIA will replace the Ancaster Village Core Advisory Committee, formed by former Ancaster Councillor Murray Ferguson. The committee, which represents the interests of business owners and residents, will be disbanded.

Bob Wilkins, a member of the BIA steering committee, said the new committee will be a catalyst for renewal in Ancaster’s village core.

"It’s comforting to know there’s not a single objection to it," Mr. Wilkins said. Mr. Wilkins could also become a candidate for election to the BIA executive board. A board election is anticipated before the end of the year. "There’s a lot of great people," he said. "I’d be happy to assist in any way."

Ancaster will become the 13th BIA in the City of Hamilton. A BIA is established through a municipal bylaw and governed under the Ontario Municipal Act.

[Hammer Native]

Originally Posted by LikeHamilton

Heritage character maintained for village core office expansion

Mike Pearson Jun 06, 2008 Ancaster News

A three-storey office expansion in the heart of Ancaster's village core will maintain a heritage theme, a planning consultant says.

Speaking on behalf of his client, Barry Brownlow, consultant James Webb announced a proposed expansion for the Brownlow Associates building at 259 Wilson St. E. at this week's Ancaster Community Committee meeting.

The accounting and bookkeeping business, a village core mainstay since 1980, will increase its floor area by 622 square metres. The project includes a two-storey office expansion and a third storey for underground parking.

Mr. Webb said the applicant hopes to expand his business while limiting the impact on the surrounding area.

"They need to grow. There's not a lot of space at that site," Mr. Webb told the advisory committee. "It's really important to them to do this right."

A land acquisition and parking agreement has been established with the neighbouring property, Ryerson United Church. A shared driveway will be maintained.

An agreement registered on title will give office staff and clients access to an estimated 28 spaces in the Ryerson parking lot, Monday to Friday. The spaces will remain available to the church congregation on weekends.

The applicant is proposing no changes to the front of the building, and a slight increase in height at the rear. The building's natural stone faÁade will be maintained and enhanced. The original office building was constructed in two stages during the 1950s.

The Ancaster Community Committee passed a motion to support the expansion at Monday's meeting.

Ancaster Councillor Lloyd Ferguson was pleased the applicant will maintain the building's physical appearance.

"We would just prefer natural stone above grade," he noted.

A zoning amendment will be required for a portion of the church property, changing it from institutional to village area. Property owners within 120 feet will be notified of a public meeting, which Mr. Webb expects sometime this fall.

So Councillor Ferguson is pleased this building will maintain it's physical appearance, he prefers natural stone. What's wrong with cement Lloyd?

[adam]

I guess he prefers natural stone in his own ward, but when it comes to a building that serves the entire city he wants the bare minimum.

[highwater]

Natural stone for me, but not for thee!

[Hammer Native]

That's the problem this city has, too many councillors just caring about what's good for their own ward and not the city as a whole. But that's probably an argument for another thread.

[adam]

Actually the thread's title is ancaster's 'unique' community under attack. So this discussion fits well here.

By voting against natural stone for city hall, the counsellors lowered the quality of a building that services the entire city - including constituents in their own wards.

[BrianE]

Originally Posted by adam

Actually the thread's title is ancaster's 'unique' community under attack. So this discussion fits well here.

By voting against natural stone for city hall, the counsellors lowered the quality of a building that services the entire city - including constituents in their own wards.

This is very true, all any developer has to do now is wordlessly point at City Hall whenever any heritage request from the City of Hamilton comes in.

"Sorry Hamilton, I can't afford any heritage considerations, I'm sure you understand"

[highwater]

Originally Posted by BrianE

This is very true, all any developer has to do now is wordlessly point at City Hall whenever any heritage request from the City of Hamilton comes in.

"Sorry Hamilton, I can't afford any heritage considerations, I'm sure you understand"

Ferguson has said as much. That's part of his agenda.

[fastcarsfreedom]

Being a purist as far as moderinism and Internationalism--I have strongly supported maintaining the Georgia marble on City Hall.

Nonetheless, drawing a comparison between a publically funded project such as City Hall and a privately financed one is, at minimum, a serious stretch. There is, in fact, no comparison to be made--essentially I chalk this up to an attempt to discredit Ferguson and add to the chorus of suburb-haters.

[adam]

How is a building with heritage considerations that is funded publicly different than one funded privately? Do they have different regulations that I am not aware of? Please enlighten.

[raisethehammer]

[QUOTEessentially I chalk this up to an attempt to discredit Ferguson and add to the chorus of suburb-haters.[/QUOTE]


yea, we get it. that's what you chalk everything up to that you don't agree with.
thanks for the time. feel free to move on to another city's forum and bother all of them.

[fastcarsfreedom]

Quote
yea, we get it. that's what you chalk everything up to that you don't agree with.
thanks for the time. feel free to move on to another city's forum and bother all of them.

I have shown utmost respect to you throughout my time here. I don't know if it's bitter disappointment on your part that I haven't "gone away" yet--but the last time I checked, you didn't have title to this Forum yet. There is absolutely no excuse for your dismissiveness--based on the fact that I don't always agree with you, or that I happen to live outside the city.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

Quote
yea, we get it. that's what you chalk everything up to that you don't agree with.
thanks for the time. feel free to move on to another city's forum and bother all of them.

I have shown utmost respect to you throughout my time here. I don't know if it's bitter disappointment on your part that I haven't "gone away" yet--but the last time I checked, you didn't have title to this Forum yet. There is absolutely no excuse for your dismissiveness--based on the fact that I don't always agree with you, or that I happen to live outside the city.

it has nothing to do with whether you disagree with me or not, or whether you live outside of the city.
It just gets tiring hearing the same old refrain no matter what the issue is. often you have great insight and great posts that add to the discussion. But this constant complex about suburbanites gets old.
Keep in mind, this is skyscraperpage, not big box page.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

It just gets tiring hearing the same old refrain no matter what the issue is.

Is this intended to be irony or hypocracy?

[drpgq]

Oh no! Density in Ancaster.


City, home builder find middle ground

Reach compromise on Ancaster development densities
July 06, 2009
Nicole MacIntyre
The Hamilton Spectator
A housing development on the former Ancaster fairgrounds will bring neighbours closer together — but not as close as originally planned.

Councillor Lloyd Ferguson and Mattamy Homes worked out a compromise tonight to reduce the number of smaller lots in the subdivision at Garner Road East and Kitty Murray Lane.

The project will be less dense with only 68 lots with 30-foot frontages, instead of 98. The smaller lots will also be restricted to the inside of the subdivision.

“I still don’t like it. I still think it’s wrong for Ancaster,” said Ferguson, adding he also knew he didn’t have enough support to stop the proposal. “I can read the tea leaves.”

While other areas across the city have seen similar developments with small lots, Ferguson argued the Mattamy proposal didn’t fit with Ancaster’s character.

Planner James Webb, who represents Mattamy, said the developer agreed to the new deal to avoid defer delays.

“Call it a reasonable solution,” he said, noting he still believes the original proposal represented good planning.

The reduction in smaller lots will mean the development will lose about five units and have a grand total of around 320 townhouses, single-family homes and condominiums.

Mattamy increased the project’s density when it sold part of the property to the Catholic school board to build a new school. The city’s approval was critical to allow the school to be open by fall 2010, said Webb.

Residents submitted a petition opposing the development’s density.

Ferguson said he told residents the compromise was likely the best they could hope for.

Provincial and city policies encourage high density in new housing developments to minimize the need to push out the urban boundary.

nmacintyre@thespec.com
905-526-3299

[Hammer Native]

Gee Lloyd I didn't think any of the the Meadowlands fitted in with Ancaster's character, but you're the politician, what do I know? We've many times on this forum talked about the needs and benefits of densifying cities, and so have urban planning experts, etc. Let's look at another angle. What seems to be lost on Lloyd and these artificial Ancaster residents is that a variety of housing creates balance and why it is good to have balance. Not everyone is in the market for or can afford a big executive home, including those from that community who may want to stay in that community. (i.e. the young people, sons and daughters of the residents who are starting out, the empty nesters, the families who may split up.) Anyway I don't know if LLoyd is one of the councilors who follows this board as you pretty much need an open mind to stay with it.

Oh well good thing there's Hamilton to fill the need.

[Jon Dalton]

I don't think it's necessarily bad to have low density, exclusive areas within the city. Durand south of Herkimer is pretty low density as well. There will always be a slice of the population who can afford this lifestyle and their tax dollars are good for the community. It's the average low density sprawl priced for the middle class that was always the real evil, in my opinion. Let Ancaster mandate lower densities, and vacant land in the city becomes more attractive for those wishing to profit from more units per acre. Of course that only works if development fees are set to what they're worth.

[Hammer Native]

Absolutely, people who work hard and raise themselves up in life and want to live in exclusive neighbourhoods have that right and deserve to. But this councilor is talking about keeping that status quo basically for a whole (former) town, not just a few select neighbourhoods. And that's not what the demographics of the town are anymore, as it's gotten bigger and matured. Same with places like Oakville, and probably Burlington, where some people are slow to recognize there are lower classes of people and social issues, but there are.