Evidence presented by those appealing zoning and official plan amendments for a nine-storey, 64-unit residential building at 71 Main St. is not "coming fully to grips with the significance of being within ... a designated intensification area that is expected to evolve," the lawyer representing applicant Centurion Holdings and City of Hamilton said in a closing statement to an Ontario Municipal Board hearing Friday.
Closing statements by Scott Snider of law firm Turkstra Mazza, and Dundas resident Jeanne Norris, representing appellants Scott Munro and Greg Lawson, officially ended the second of two weeks of evidence and argument that started in April and reconvened last week.
"We have to maximize these opportunities. There aren't many. There's precious few vacant lots, but there it is, on Main Street. And what provincial policy is directing us to do is to optimize that opportunity," Snider said.
He stressed the property is found within a planning node — created by the City of Hamilton — that designates specific areas for "transformation" by creating higher density.
While Norris argued the node had already passed the density target of 100 people and jobs per hectare, and the building — agreed to be the tallest and most dense between Spencer Creek and the escarpment, Dundas' two defining natural features — was not necessary at its proposed size to optimize intensification within the node.
"Whether density and intensification targets are fixed, or minimums, doesn't speak to whether (the application) should be approved," Snider said. "It's the nodes and corridors that are targeted for intensification."
Norris argued development on the vacant lot at 71 Main could reasonably take place within the current zoning allowing six storeys, but the applicant wants to squeeze the most possible units within the available space.
"Intensification is being used as an excuse for bad planning," Norris said. "The city has not created a secondary plan for Dundas, so we don't have specific areas targeted for intensification."
She said optimization of intensification calls for a balance, and infill projects that "fit" within an existing built up area.
"No planning document states intensification is a maximization of density," Norris said.
Snider disagreed with the appellants' arguments that the seven-storey apartment building next door set a height standard or maximum, and that a new building next door should be lower to transition downwards to the three-storey historic Oddfellows hall at 63 Main St.
"Nodes are expected to develop at higher intensity, so we expect some flexibility," Snider said.
Norris cited a long list of official planning policies that attempt to "balance" the transformation of optimizing intensification opportunities with impacts on surrounding properties, including transition in height and density, enhancing character and compatibility with existing buildings and land uses.
She said it was "not clear why these provisions weren't given more weight in the staff report."
Snider said the list of policies cited by Norris in her closing that appear to support denying the application are not necessarily applicable within a planning node. He asked the board chair to use "caution" in applying those principles that may apply more specifically to other planning designations, such as neighbourhoods.
"This (node designation) is calling for transformation," Snider said. "These nodes were destined for change. The emphasis is on evolution."
After 10 days of evidence and arguments over nine months, OMB member Stefan Krzeczunowicz said no decision would be coming immediately.
"I know what's at stake here," he said.
Appellants Art Samson, Justin Lewis and Peggy Lewis each submitted written closing statements.
Evidence presented by those appealing zoning and official plan amendments for a nine-storey, 64-unit residential building at 71 Main St. is not "coming fully to grips with the significance of being within ... a designated intensification area that is expected to evolve," the lawyer representing applicant Centurion Holdings and City of Hamilton said in a closing statement to an Ontario Municipal Board hearing Friday.
Closing statements by Scott Snider of law firm Turkstra Mazza, and Dundas resident Jeanne Norris, representing appellants Scott Munro and Greg Lawson, officially ended the second of two weeks of evidence and argument that started in April and reconvened last week.
"We have to maximize these opportunities. There aren't many. There's precious few vacant lots, but there it is, on Main Street. And what provincial policy is directing us to do is to optimize that opportunity," Snider said.
He stressed the property is found within a planning node — created by the City of Hamilton — that designates specific areas for "transformation" by creating higher density.
While Norris argued the node had already passed the density target of 100 people and jobs per hectare, and the building — agreed to be the tallest and most dense between Spencer Creek and the escarpment, Dundas' two defining natural features — was not necessary at its proposed size to optimize intensification within the node.
"Whether density and intensification targets are fixed, or minimums, doesn't speak to whether (the application) should be approved," Snider said. "It's the nodes and corridors that are targeted for intensification."
Norris argued development on the vacant lot at 71 Main could reasonably take place within the current zoning allowing six storeys, but the applicant wants to squeeze the most possible units within the available space.
"Intensification is being used as an excuse for bad planning," Norris said. "The city has not created a secondary plan for Dundas, so we don't have specific areas targeted for intensification."
She said optimization of intensification calls for a balance, and infill projects that "fit" within an existing built up area.
"No planning document states intensification is a maximization of density," Norris said.
Snider disagreed with the appellants' arguments that the seven-storey apartment building next door set a height standard or maximum, and that a new building next door should be lower to transition downwards to the three-storey historic Oddfellows hall at 63 Main St.
"Nodes are expected to develop at higher intensity, so we expect some flexibility," Snider said.
Norris cited a long list of official planning policies that attempt to "balance" the transformation of optimizing intensification opportunities with impacts on surrounding properties, including transition in height and density, enhancing character and compatibility with existing buildings and land uses.
She said it was "not clear why these provisions weren't given more weight in the staff report."
Snider said the list of policies cited by Norris in her closing that appear to support denying the application are not necessarily applicable within a planning node. He asked the board chair to use "caution" in applying those principles that may apply more specifically to other planning designations, such as neighbourhoods.
"This (node designation) is calling for transformation," Snider said. "These nodes were destined for change. The emphasis is on evolution."
After 10 days of evidence and arguments over nine months, OMB member Stefan Krzeczunowicz said no decision would be coming immediately.
"I know what's at stake here," he said.
Appellants Art Samson, Justin Lewis and Peggy Lewis each submitted written closing statements.
Evidence presented by those appealing zoning and official plan amendments for a nine-storey, 64-unit residential building at 71 Main St. is not "coming fully to grips with the significance of being within ... a designated intensification area that is expected to evolve," the lawyer representing applicant Centurion Holdings and City of Hamilton said in a closing statement to an Ontario Municipal Board hearing Friday.
Closing statements by Scott Snider of law firm Turkstra Mazza, and Dundas resident Jeanne Norris, representing appellants Scott Munro and Greg Lawson, officially ended the second of two weeks of evidence and argument that started in April and reconvened last week.
"We have to maximize these opportunities. There aren't many. There's precious few vacant lots, but there it is, on Main Street. And what provincial policy is directing us to do is to optimize that opportunity," Snider said.
He stressed the property is found within a planning node — created by the City of Hamilton — that designates specific areas for "transformation" by creating higher density.
While Norris argued the node had already passed the density target of 100 people and jobs per hectare, and the building — agreed to be the tallest and most dense between Spencer Creek and the escarpment, Dundas' two defining natural features — was not necessary at its proposed size to optimize intensification within the node.
"Whether density and intensification targets are fixed, or minimums, doesn't speak to whether (the application) should be approved," Snider said. "It's the nodes and corridors that are targeted for intensification."
Norris argued development on the vacant lot at 71 Main could reasonably take place within the current zoning allowing six storeys, but the applicant wants to squeeze the most possible units within the available space.
"Intensification is being used as an excuse for bad planning," Norris said. "The city has not created a secondary plan for Dundas, so we don't have specific areas targeted for intensification."
She said optimization of intensification calls for a balance, and infill projects that "fit" within an existing built up area.
"No planning document states intensification is a maximization of density," Norris said.
Snider disagreed with the appellants' arguments that the seven-storey apartment building next door set a height standard or maximum, and that a new building next door should be lower to transition downwards to the three-storey historic Oddfellows hall at 63 Main St.
"Nodes are expected to develop at higher intensity, so we expect some flexibility," Snider said.
Norris cited a long list of official planning policies that attempt to "balance" the transformation of optimizing intensification opportunities with impacts on surrounding properties, including transition in height and density, enhancing character and compatibility with existing buildings and land uses.
She said it was "not clear why these provisions weren't given more weight in the staff report."
Snider said the list of policies cited by Norris in her closing that appear to support denying the application are not necessarily applicable within a planning node. He asked the board chair to use "caution" in applying those principles that may apply more specifically to other planning designations, such as neighbourhoods.
"This (node designation) is calling for transformation," Snider said. "These nodes were destined for change. The emphasis is on evolution."
After 10 days of evidence and arguments over nine months, OMB member Stefan Krzeczunowicz said no decision would be coming immediately.
"I know what's at stake here," he said.
Appellants Art Samson, Justin Lewis and Peggy Lewis each submitted written closing statements.