HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Downtown & City of Hamilton


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2008, 9:58 PM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,421
Retail is allowed in any building provided that
- individual stores are under 500 sq m
- total building sq m is over 2000, and at least 75% of that has to be on the second floor

And in a beautiful move by the city, they have NO parking requirement for restaurants, retail, personal services or financial establishments.

Clearly what the city is trying to avoid is single storey big box retail - which is exactly what trinity wants to put there which is why they want to be completely unhindered by the bylaw rather than follow it (or at least come within a minor variance of it).

If they just wanted to get a variance to allow a larger anchor (grocery?) on the main floor of an office building, then they'd probably get it because it could be done to fit in with the spirit of the land use.

Instead, what they are asking for is to take their parcel of the innovation district and remove the innovation zoning just for them - that is why we shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt as it stands. What they are shooting for is not an exception but for a blank slate.
__________________
no clever signoff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2008, 1:15 AM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
Assuming that I accept the opposition to this proposal from some posters here--why the reliance on the previous proposal from Trinity to illustrate the project--when in fact they've completely revised their plan to make it more appropriate for the district?

You leave the impression that you're playing a spin game with the facts in order to drum up local opposition to this project, by portraying it as something it is not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2008, 1:28 AM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,421
Because
a) the only proposal publicly available on their website is the old one
b) the new proposal was not much more than a revised overhead shot, and only saw the light of day at one public meeting so far
c) the proposal has not been part of the OMB process to date - they have simply been asking for a reversion of zoning.

If they make the new proposal public (and available for others to see on their website for example), then I will revise my original post. But I have to point out that the new proposal still does not fit in with the inno park zoning. They were verbally adamant that they could not move forward unless they had two large single storey retail buildings in their development (they did not specify but the implication was grocery and "automotive" which will likely be cantire). As a result, the revised plan they showed at the meeting was still mainly single storey with loads of parking - but they added a second storey to a few of the smaller buildings. Well, you can see earlier in the thread - it's still not anywhere near the league of the MIP as far as density and diversity of uses...

So let's hold on and see what the MIP attracts. It's worth waiting for. Lets not let these guys cash in "on the ground floor" without giving anything back to the city (in the form of future development promise).

Once the MIP is up and running, that land is going to be premium - and to pry it out of Trinity's hands is not going to be easy. We are setting ourselves up for disappointment if we give in to them now
__________________
no clever signoff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2008, 1:41 AM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
Trinity builds crap.
I don't care what proposal they use.
It's not high paying, career jobs or spinoff of the IP.
I don't want them involved at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2008, 3:05 AM
highwater highwater is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,555
Does Trinity own the land outright now? Last I heard, their offer to purchase was conditional to the zoning change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2008, 3:49 AM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,421
Current owner is "aberdeen holdings"
__________________
no clever signoff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2008, 2:33 PM
highwater highwater is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,555
That's what I thought. I was confused by the argument that they should get their way because of 'property rights'. So if they don't get their zoning change, they walk away? Doesn't sound very 'flexible' to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2008, 3:18 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
ps...the OMB is a bloody joke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2008, 3:29 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is online now
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 19,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by highwater View Post
That's what I thought. I was confused by the argument that they should get their way because of 'property rights'. So if they don't get their zoning change, they walk away? Doesn't sound very 'flexible' to me.
The current owners went to OMB for the changes to the bylaw. If the current owners are successful the biggest bidder, Trinity, will purchase the property.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2008, 12:45 AM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
Consider this--I'm not "on side" with most of the posters here--and I agree the OMB is a joke and waste of time/money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2008, 12:53 PM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,421
Yes it is - a complete waste. And somehow it's arranged so that things can be drawn out indefinitely. So it usually goes that whomever has the most money/time to invest wins. It's usually about who can wear down the slowest. Meanwhile the entire process costs taxpayers money.

You should have seen the last hearing... the judge (or whatever his title is) was asking trinity for some reports they were supposed to have ready. Trinity said they weren't ready yet. Then most of the hearing was spent determining exactly who was supposed to be bringing the case forward - aberdeen holdings was having a falling out with their lawyers, who were also representing trinity. They had to adjourn to a back room to discuss who was representing whom. It was a total waste, and the outcome was "ok we will postpone this til september". What a waste of time and money.

THe city had all of their shit together, meanwhile the guys who had CALLED FOR THE HEARING (aberdeen/trinity) didn't even know who was supposed to be representing them let alone having any actual case prepared. If it were me, I would have thrown the entire thing out right then and there. So frustrating.

Consider this though - without the OMB, Trinity would be out of luck. They'd be told "no" to their zoning request and the land would be up for grabs to someone who can follow the rules. Man would that be sweet!
__________________
no clever signoff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2008, 12:59 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
I'm sure the OMB will reward Trinity for being so unorganized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2008, 3:37 PM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
Bruatalism gets no respec
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Williamsville NY
Posts: 4,059
OMB is a waste and likely been corrupted. Someone should investigate their vacations, cars and size of their homes that a $75k salary could afford.

They are just as responsible for hollowing out urban cores as city council/staffers who continue to service greenspace and expand city borders.
__________________
Height restrictions and Set-backs are for Nimbys and the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2008, 5:50 PM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
I am no fan of the OMB.

Nonetheless, I for one am tired of this Forum being used as a platform for people to make baseless and libelous accusations. Having a dissenting opinion doesn't give anyone the license to make defamatory statements such as those above. I see no reason why this should be tolerated (or celebrated) here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2008, 6:42 PM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
Bruatalism gets no respec
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Williamsville NY
Posts: 4,059
Why it's tolerated?????? FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (Freedom of Speech in USA)... Freedom of expression my friend, is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. You could live in China where one's opinions are considered not just slanderous/libelous but considered treason. Just because you have a different opinion.

Sidebar: Slander refers to defamation by the spoken word. The written word (like this forum) is conveyed as libel. All the same, we are only expressing our own opinions, that are clearly not defamatious. I've read 'slander/libel' accusations before on here and I'm starting to think that it's a scare tactic for other posters to not say (write) what's on their mind. Give it a rest.....

People can say freely what their opinion is, even if it offends or contradicts another party's perspective or opinion. For someone to suggest to ask for an investigation into an organization's officers is not libel. Last time i checked this is a country with a Charter of Rights.
__________________
Height restrictions and Set-backs are for Nimbys and the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2008, 9:48 PM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
It is amusing to be preached to on the merits of democracy. You will not meet someone more staunchly in favor of freedom of expression/speech than myself.

Thank you also for the tutorial on the difference between slander and libel. I correctly labelled the Forum activities as libelous and never mentioned slander. My concerns have nothing to do with squelching your voice--in fact, your worldview is disproportionately represented among posters here. Where you seem to be confused is over what constitutes opinion and what borders on being libelous. Saying you find the OMB ineffective, saying you dislike the OMB, calling the OMB a band of gorillas--that's opinion. Levelling an accusation (specific to the acceptance of bribes, perks, vacations, etc in this case) - is not opinion, but is potentially libelous. If you have evidence that OMB members are living lavishly on their incomes, you are more than aware of the proper channels for reporting such evidence, and I suggest you follow that. Unless of course your statement is merely one of bluster, which I suspect to be the case.

As someone whose day-to-day work entails great defference to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms--I can assure you that I am well acquainted with the Charter--which is more often than not invoked by the guilty as a means of obtaining acquital in the criminal courts. I don't believe the Charter provides you the leeway to level accusations in the public realm simply because you don't agree with a particular body's decision(s) or operational scope.

With that being said, I strongly encourage you to report your specific allegations against the OMB to the appropriate authorities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2008, 1:25 AM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
Wow. The attacks against RealCity's comments are a bit over the top. Nothing libellous was said. Time to bring down the rhetoric a notch or two...
__________________
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2008, 2:09 AM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
geez, just because you don't agree with an opinion doesn't make it illegal.
Chill.
Realcity is probably right. I'd lay more money on the OMB being corrupt than not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2008, 5:18 AM
fastcarsfreedom's Avatar
fastcarsfreedom fastcarsfreedom is offline
On Guard For Thee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Essex County
Posts: 1,007
When did I say I disagreed that the OMB sucked? I've been pretty clear as far as saying so--I might have different reasons for the belief--but we share the belief nonetheless.

What I don't do is level ridiculous accusations of corruption at people I don't know when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it's the case. I might not have been so inclined to comment on it, if it weren't so damn normative around here. We've had various individuals declared thugs, arsonists, mafia kingpins and now, apparently, the recipients of free vacations. It is neither logical or morally appropriate--and it IS potentially libelous. To correct whatever misconception I may have left--I'm talking in a civil context, not a criminal one. I didn't disagree, and I didn't suggest illegality--so before there are accusations of rhetoric levelled, I would suggest taking a hard look at what you're trying to defend.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2008, 7:58 PM
ryan_mcgreal's Avatar
ryan_mcgreal ryan_mcgreal is offline
Raising the Hammer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 527
I just received this update from the office of Councillor McHattie:

-----------------------------

We have received a number of enquiries recently about the status of the Ontario Municipal Board appeal of the West Hamilton Innovation Park zoning.

You will recall that Trinity Developments appealed the City's Official Plan Amendment, which created the West Hamilton Innovation District, to the Ontario Municipal Board. Trinity has made a conditional offer to purchase 37 acres for a "box store automotive commercial development."

At a prehearing meeting held on January 15, 2008, Trinity was directed to submit their documentation to the City of Hamilton by June 2008 and another meeting would be scheduled for September. The documentation was not submitted by the June deadline.

A prehearing meeting was held this week on September 15. In exchange for the City agreeing to a delay in Trinity submitting all of their planning studies, Trinity has agreed to limit their appeal to only their own lands. This does two things: simplifies the OMB case and allows development adhering to the City's West Hamilton Innovation District zoning to proceed (ie. research park type uses).

Trinity has provided a Functional Services Report and a Marketing report to the City.

Trinity has yet to provide Traffic and Planning Reports to the City. These are tentatively expected by the end of September.

A further prehearing conference has been confirmed for January 13th, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. This will give the City some time to review, consider, and react to the above reports.

Recall that the AWWCA, the Kirkendall Neighbourhood Association, the Westdale Village BIA, the Locke Street BIA, the Main West Esplanade BIA, and a few independent individuals were granted participant status. Participants are permitted to submit a prepared statement outlining their views/positions on the matter before the Board. They can be cross-examined by the Parties, but cannot cross-examine themselves.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Downtown & City of Hamilton
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:16 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.