More about zoning issues and The Pearl Company -

[hmagazine]

H Mag's Graham Crawford interviews Gary Santucci, co-owner of The Pearl Company. Gary provides an update regarding the zoning issues the City of Hamilton is enforcing upon their mixed use.

http://historyandheritage.podomatic.com/

The new issue of H Mag is now out and will be available at all the usual spots starting this weekend. Graham also has a fantastic piece called "Is anything standard about Hamilton's property standards?"

I'm also really digging Karen Burson's story about the plight of the urban chicken.

Marya Bee also introduces Hamilton readers to City Repair.

[Blurr]

Good listen.

With the enormous cost and time it takes to rezone and work with the department, why bother.

It's as if the people in the department are saying "how dare they try and change something for the better in the city, let's find some way to stop the proposal, or at least make it expensive and slow."

Parking by-laws is a great example. It is not for downtown. These councilors have to be more flexible in their thinking, every development is not a farmland sub-urban box.

For the new zoning fee increase - zoning fees should not go up for downtown.

[flar]

Originally Posted by Blurr

Good listen.

With the enormous cost and time it takes to rezone and work with the department, why bother.

It's as if the people in the department are saying "how dare they try and change something for the better in the city, let's find some way to stop the proposal, or at least make it expensive and slow."

Parking by-laws is a great example. It is not for downtown. These councilors have to be more flexible in their thinking, every development is not a farmland sub-urban box.

For the new zoning fee increase - zoning fees should not go up for downtown.

This city is just so frustrating. They stymie all the good things, like this or converting the old Westinghouse building, while allowing stupid shit like Centre Mall and Shoppers Drug Marts all over the place.

[omro]

Originally Posted by flar

This city is just so frustrating. They stymie all the good things, like this or converting the old Westinghouse building, while allowing stupid shit like Centre Mall and Shoppers Drug Marts all over the place.

Money talks...
Palms greased...

[highwater]

Emma Reilly
The Hamilton Spectator

(Feb 10, 2009)

Pearl Company co-owner Gary Santucci is clashing with the city over the zoning of his arts centre.

Santucci said he's been working with the city since he bought the building in 2006, but that he's met with a morass of red tape.

"We're going to be a catalyst for the redevelopment of this community," he said. "The city is taking a very bizarre stance."

The Pearl Company is zoned as a single-family residential dwelling, which does not permit the building to be used as a theatre.

Santucci said he pursued an application for a variance to his residential zoning. He also proposed a new zoning category for the centre to encompass theatre, office, gallery and residential space.

Despite these efforts, he received a bylaw violation notice that stated he could be fined $50,000 a day for illegal use of the building.

City council will vote on new legislation later this year that will change the zoning in the area as part of the city's official plan. But Santucci says the city is still requiring him to apply for rezoning.

Al Fletcher, manager of strategic projects for the city, said the application cost is $7,000 and is required regardless of the imminent official plan.

Fletcher, who became involved in the Pearl Company issue before Christmas, said city staff helped Santucci last August with the application but it was never submitted.

"I know people have contacted him with support but I don't think we are trying to create difficulties. He is just operating an illegal use."

Even if he applies for the zoning amendment, Santucci says it could be rejected because of parking. The city requires 150 parking spots for a theatre -- an impossibility in the cramped neighbourhood, he says.

[flar]

This is just stupid.

150 parking spaces? $7000 fees?

No wonder practically nothing ever gets done in Hamilton.

[matt602]

I don't see how the city can force a minimum number of parking spots on any development. This just seems bizarre to me.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by flar

150 parking spaces?

Sounds odd, but maybe it's grandfathered into other cases -- looking at the scattershot off-premises parking distribution of HTI's Studio Theatre and the (equally zoning-afflicted) Westside Concert Theatre, the Pearl Co should be able to factor in something like the NoFrills parking.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by matt602

I don't see how the city can force a minimum number of parking spots on any development. This just seems bizarre to me.

A development like a shopping centre, condo tower, or entertainment destination will require space for parking cars to meet projected needs. If this is not provided by the developer, cars will have to park on the street (increased costs for city), park illegally, or use another private parking lot (which may or may not be for customers only).

Otherwise developers could just build no parking and off-load that demand onto the city and to private landowners, who pay a lot of money for parking for their customers and don't want other people parking there who aren't using their business. Sometimes developers pay cash in lieu of parking, meaning they pay the city money to exempt them from the requirements, and the city uses this money for parking lots, parking garages, etc.

Many people feel this is poor policy and parking should be driven by market demand with maximums put in place to ensure good urban form.

good link: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/

[flar]

How about people don't drive to the place at all? That is why we're supposed to be getting LRT. Plus Hamilton is so walkable that any given location in the lower city is accessible to 20-30,000 people via a 10 minute walk.

[Jon Dalton]

Interesting, this is the exact opposite of those illegal parking lots that seem to get away with their bylaw infractions.

On one end of the city someone converts potential adaptive reuse of a historic building into ugly, wasteful, surface parking in an area already plagued by a grossly disproportionate amount of the same. This happends to be against a city bylaw, but the owner is not charged.

On the other end of the city someone converts the potential urban decay of another demolished landmark into successful adaptive reuse, and does so without any parking requirements, thus avoiding any unneccessary destruction of inhabitable space. This happens to be against a city bylaw, and the owner is threatened with charges.

Can't they just call it an eye for an eye?

[omro]

Sounds like the mistake that was made can be summed up in the following line:

Santucci said he's been working with the city since he bought the building in 2006, but that he's met with a morass of red tape.

Those that get away with bylaw infractions are those that just go ahead and do it and the city seems to let it happen. Santucci went by the book, got on their radar and thus was hit by all these restrictions.

I don't know where this building is on a map of Hamilton, but there are SO many car parks in downtown Hamilton, surely one is walkable from it?

[Jon Dalton]

Actually no, this is a little east of downtown so there aren't any big parking lots around it (as sick as that sounds). I used to live across from this building. Parking is on the street, but it was never a big deal because this is a neighbourhood where not everyone drives. So even from the perspective of someone who lives in the neighbourhood and owns a car, it's hard to find fault with what they're doing.

[coalminecanary]

Nobody in the neighbourhood issued a complaint against them. They are on the radar because they requested a fire inspection which set the building department in motion. You can read all about it on their site:
http://thepearlcompany.ca/?page_id=238

[highwater]

It's always the way. The good guys get screwed for playing by the rules. We lost 2 months of prime building weather for our addition while we waited for our permit to come through, meanwhile the scumbags merrily build away permit-free while the city looks the other way. When are they going to learn? It isn't the red tape that discourages investment in this city, it's the double standards.

[SteelTown]

More leadership, less lip service ... that's Landsdale's cry for help

February 14, 2009
TERRY COOKE
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/513542

"Landsdale is now a community in crisis. Decades of neglect have resulted in a neighbourhood best known for its sex and drug trade, crack houses and low income."

-- Landsdale Area Neighbourhood Association, January 2009

Irony seems to be in short supply at city hall these days. The Pearl Company has been ordered by the city to immediately cease the "illegal" activity they are committing in the heart of the Landsdale neighbourhood. That conduct consists mainly of art shows and theatre productions in the cultural centre that Gary Santucci and Barb Milne have lovingly restored from the bones of an old warehouse.

If local politicians were really interested in combating illicit activity, they would walk around the city block near Wentworth and King that Santucci and some dedicated neighbours are trying to reclaim. The streetscape is dominated by slumlords, hookers, drug dealers and heavily medicated residents of halfway houses.

The latest neighbourhood innovation is the creation of men's "social" clubs in vacant storefronts on King Street. Neighbours report the primary activity in these joints seems to revolve around illegal gambling and the patronage of prostitutes. It's not clear if they have received the same order to comply as Santucci.

Remarkably, there are still resilient area residents such as Anita Himes and Cindy Wilson who refuse to give up. They've organized a neighbourhood association and have started pressing the city to reverse planning policies that have directly contributed to the area's decline.

Their submission on the city's new official plan argues forcefully that inner-city neighbourhoods have been saturated with illegally converted rental properties, social housing and residential care facilities, effectively ghettoizing our most vulnerable citizens. They want the city to place a moratorium on any new halfway houses and take aggressive enforcement action on illegal properties and activity.

For years, our neighbours in Burlington and Oakville have used a combination of exclusionary zoning bylaws, tough property standards enforcement and an unwillingness to fund much of the social services we provide, encouraging a migration of their neediest to Hamilton. In addition to destabilizing downtown neighbourhoods, this practice has also unfairly burdened local taxpayers because of the downloading of provincial social service costs.

Hamilton needs to provide tough love in return to our suburban neighbours. We should do an inventory of all social services that attract people from beyond our borders and stop funding anything not 100 per cent recoverable from higher levels of government.

Landsdale activists know their best hope is in more owner-occupied houses and local businesses, particularly from our emerging creative class of artists such as Santucci and Milne. Businesses require more flexibility in zoning, welcoming adaptive re-use of buildings without unrealistic parking demands.

"We must stop trying to cure the inner city's problems by perpetually increasing social investment and hoping economic activity will follow," says Harvard economist Michael Porter.

He concludes absentee landlords and a shortage of business and jobs undermine urban neighbourhoods and believes municipalities can never subsidize their way out of the problem with more social spending.

A better alternative requires understanding the competitive advantages of urban neighbourhoods for commerce and stimulating wealth creation by incubating small businesses and promoting home ownership.

The renewal of downtown will only happen if neighbourhoods surrounding the core are healthy. But today they remain home to too many troubled souls and too few middle-class families with children for that to be true.

City hall would be wise to listen to the people of Landsdale and provide some leadership instead of lip service in dealing with the problems they face.

[Blurr]

I think the Landsdale association is advocating the wrong thing here.

Density is a crucial part of being downtown. I don't know of any good city that keeps 1800+ sqft houses or any type of living space zoned "single family" available for middle income earners that have a 5 min walk from the downtown core. These houses should be divided as they are too big for many of today's living arrangements. How will LRT be of a major benefit to anyone if all the properties along it are zoned single family? Why would businesses locate in the area if the density in the area is so low?

Looking at Toronto or London (UK), sq footage is at a premium. Old houses and other structures are divided up at a more severe rate than Hamilton. This happens because there is a strong demand to live in a particular area. If lansdale wants to create a demand for a class of person they should be looking at creating a demand for the area.

Calling these houses "illegal" in my opinion is a cop out. This lazy city has turned a complete blind eye to all the apartments that have been created out of properties that have had other zonings. I recently asked zoning about how to tell if a basement apartment was legal in an area of hamilton. I also wanted guidelines on what building condition are required for basement apartments. I did not want to give the location away (learned from the pearl company experience) so I said it was in corktown. This was not specific enough, so I gave a stretch of street that had 8 houses on it. I still could not get a straight answer from the zoning department on whether is was possible to do this. What I am trying to say is that the zoning department has been lazily ignoring new apartments and have not made any guidelines on them. There is also an obsurd zoning application fee which is $5000+.

If lansdale were serious, they would do things to promote the area to businesses and neighbours.

1. two way streets.
2. lower rezonging fees in area.
3. more lax rezonging laws downtown.
4. spray paint reduction plan
5. clean up garbage plan
6. go after property standards with owners who have been neglecting their properties.

[emge]

This is a carryover from the photo thread of this neighbourhood, but does anyone know what's going on with this building?

Here's a photo Flar took in 2006:


And one I took this week:


It looks really rough still, but there's new windows on both sides, and when walking by at night a few months ago I thought I saw a nice-looking lamp through a window, so it piqued my curiosity. Notice the one door has been turned into a window amd the adjacent window turned into a ground-level door, which isn't the easiest thing to do. By the other new door (on the right side) there's still no steps though, and the rest of it still looks poorly kept. It's just a very strange mix of repair and neglect (or very slooowww inside-to-out renovation), it seems.

[SteelTown]

Pearl Company pair hope for zoning triumph

February 19, 2009
Rob Faulkner
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/516227

On the heels of the Westside Concert Theatre's victory, another arts venue hopes to solve its zoning dispute with city hall.

Gary Santucci and Barbara Milne, who run The Pearl Company in the Landsdale area, appealed to the city's planning and economic development committee Tuesday to allow uses of the building not now permitted under zoning.

The heart of the issue is whether the site of a former artificial pearl maker at 16 Steven St., which the pair bought in 2006, can be used as a performance hall and art venue.

It is zoned urban protected residential, which bars public assembly inside. Since the cardboard box and jewellery maker ceased about nine years ago, it has been a bar, an auction house and more.

The city legal department wants to end these "legal non-conforming" uses and do a full rezoning.

The city says that, under its current zoning, the site can be a non-retail art gallery or a residence if parking is added. It can't be a theatre or a gallery that sells art. It lacks parking so that makes any use of the 12,000-square-foot building difficult, the city says.

"I think we got their attention and I'm confident something will happen today," Santucci said after his presentation Tuesday.

The city wants him to submit a rezoning application, which he says will cost at least $6,000. He says the arts will be dealt with in the city's new official plan, so why rezone it now when the official plan is expected to change it anyway?

"This is a systematic problem with how the city deals with many things," he says, of "ghettoizing" homes or the arts or bars, which creates problems like the concentration of bars in Hess Village.

Councillor Brian McHattie and others cited the national exposure the twice-monthly gallery tour on the Art Bus based at The Pearl Company brings Hamilton.

The committee simply heard the presentation without a decision, but McHattie thinks a deal may be in the works -- which would see the duo pay the application fee, and then consult the city for a fee on how art fits within the official plan.

"Let's be very cautious that we are not opening the floodgates here," said Councillor Maria Pearson, admitting it "terrifies" her that councillors were poised to waive fees for the rezoning process.

The discussion came the same week as the Westside Concert Theatre, a King Street West entertainment venue that ran into a quirky zoning problem, won its own rezoning dispute at city hall.

In that case, it hired a consultant and went through the formal process.

[Jon Dalton]

Comments like Maria Pearson's make me convinced that most of our councillors have no clue about the condition of our inner city neighbourhoods and what their issues are. They shouldn't just waive the fee, the owners of the Pearl Company should be paid for what they're doing. They keep an eye on the crackhouses and notify the police when necessary. They probably know more about the operations in that area than the police themselves. And this on top of running a legitmate business and bringing outsiders into the neighbourhood for something that isn't drugs and whores. The fact that this even happend is a total failure of our administrative system.