Councillors ‘dreaming in Technicolor’ about Ancaster development: Ferguson

Councillors have rejected a plan for an eight-storey condo they argue is too much density for Ancaster's heritage core.

But they also expect the denial will spur an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal where some don't like the city's chances.

Coun. Lloyd Ferguson, however, argues more talks between planning staff and the developer to come to a consensus on a modified proposal would be fruitless.

Let me first say that this is not in the best interest of the people of Ancaster. It's the wrong thing to do," he said Tuesday.

Councillors are dreaming in Technicolor" if they think talks would lead anywhere before hitting the legislated 120-day cut-off to make a decision.

At that point, Spallacci can appeal to the tribunal for a lack of decision and the city will have no position to stand on, the Ancaster councillor warned. And they'll have a better argument."

Coun. John-Paul Danko had suggested giving staff and the developer time to hash it out rather than shoot down the application right away.

That's a prudent approach" to try heading off a tribunal battle, where there is an extremely strong chance" the developer will prevail, Danko said.

Councillors have expressed frustration over a streak of unfavourable outcomes at the Ontario Land Tribunal for rejected or undecided applications.

On Tuesday, lawyer Patrick Harrington asked for the deferral, saying the client needs time to respond to staff comments on complex material. This is not an easy application."

The developer isn't asking for a radical change" of land use, he said, but his client needs a certain density to make effective use of this site," which needs remediation and the relocation of a heritage building.

Spallacci Group's proposal for the stretch of Wilson Street East between Lorne Avenue and Academy Street has been a flashpoint of controversy for local residents.

A plan to move Marr-Phillipo house, a two-storey stone building that dates to 1840, to the rear of the site is one concern for heritage advocates who worry about the erosion of the historic streetscape.

And residents - through dozens of letters on Tuesday's planning agenda - voiced disquiet that the 169-unit development will overwhelm the area with traffic and ruin its low-rise character.

I hope that we're going to be firm in not allowing it," resident Margarita De Antunano told councillors via video.

The mixed-use proposal clashes with city polices, including the area's secondary plan, which for allows for a maximum height of two-and-a-half storeys at the specific location, staff note.

The mass, height, and bulk of the proposal is not considered to be good planning and is considered an overdevelopment of the site," a report said.

City planners also flagged concerns over sewage capacity, warning of downstream impacts" and the potential for cut-through traffic in local streets.

Staff noted the proposal's 169 units in one shot would cover roughly a third of the 540 that are estimated to be required of the local area to help meet Hamilton's overall target under council's chosen frozen-urban-boundary growth plan.

Harrington said he advises developers local decision-making is their golden ticket."

But with a rejection, he advised, you back my client into a corner" that leaves no alternative but the provincial tribunal. And that's not the best scenario for either of us."

Ferguson, meanwhile, urged his colleagues to brace for settlement proceedings. Let's get it the heck over to the Ontario Land Tribunal."

The planning committee decision awaits final consideration at council.

Teviah Moro is a reporter at The Spectator. tmoro@thespec.com