"Corktown is a success story"!

"Hamilton is a success story". The words of a very nervous Brian Bogusat the President of the Corktown Neighbourhood Association as he led off the residents defense of their neighborhood against a new residential care facility at 121 Augusta.  The request to change the zoning at this address came from the owners, the newly amalgamated Lynwood Charlton Centre.
Some facts before I get on with the story.
Charlton Hall is an existing residential care facility operating out of two connected houses at 152 and 156 Charlton. It cares for 8 girls aged 13 to 18 who have mental issues and who have in many cases run away from home. It's a seven day all day operation with two staff on hand at all times. The proposal asks that these girls be moved from what is described as a crumbling facility to 121 Augusta where existing day programs are run and have been run for some time. If approved the request would have seen renovations taking place on the second floor to house the girls. 
However since 2001 the City of Hamilton has had on it's books a bylaw prohibiting the establishment or location of any new residential care facilities within 300 hundred metres of other existing residential care facilities. In this case a move to Augusta of the existing program would take it to within three hundred metres of another residential care program  on Forest Ave also run by the proponents. It currently has six beds four of which are used on a rotating basis for adults who are mentally challenged. In other words a home that gives caregivers a break. Both the programs we are told are necessary and for the girls we are told it is a one of a  kind program for the city. But the rub is this, Hamilton's downtown is saturated with residential care facilities which led to council's 2001 decision to create a moratorium on further expansion of these kinds of programs unless they were more than 3 hundred metres apart which the programs proposed for Augusta and existing at Forest are not. They are to be clear both run by the same proponent. The idea then and now is to encourage these kinds of programs to find homes elsewhere within greater Hamilton instead of imposing the burden on the downtown core. On the surface a clear cut violation of not only the bylaw but the intent of the bylaw. But now the story really gets going. The city owns Charlton Hall described as "crumbling" by the head of the city's economic development department Neil Everson. Indeed he reported to the Planning Committee that next month there will be a recommendation that along with a couple of other city owned properties the city should divest itself of 152-156 Charlton. Why you might ask? I'm glad you did. It is falling apart and it has been identified that there is asbestos on the premises among other things. Total estimated cost of repair to the landlord, the taxpayers of the city of Hamilton, 1.2 million dollars. The value of the property estimated at 550 thousand dollars according to Mr. Everson. Thus the proponents for 121 Augusta described a positive variance of the bylaw as a win-win for everyone. The program for the girls would go on. The Charlton Hall program would come out of a designated moratorium on residential care facilities area into a less dense neighborhood on the fringe of Corktown, the city would save the 1.2 million on renovations, and might even see some revenue by divesting themselves of the property. Does this seem to make sense to anyone?
Not to the residents like Mr. Bogusat who freely admitted to me afterwards that he came to Hamilton 16 years ago to buy a cheap property fix it up, then flip it. He's still here because he fell in love with our city. Two other residents who did their research came to Hamilton from Toronto aware of the changing face of Corktown and it's emerging new image. They believe that progress, that "success story" could be harmed if another residential care facility takes place no matter what good work may be going on at 121 Augusta. This debate got heated at times with Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr leading the charge against the proponent suggesting that while in print Lynwood Charlton was implying there would be no impact on the neighborhood in fact verbally in front of the committee they admitted there likely would be some. Further adding fuel to the fire were the questions and comments of Ward 8 Councillor Terry Whitehead who asked staff had there been exemptions anywhere else in the core since 2001. The answer was yes, but they were different issues than this one. He also asked when the Good Shepherd asked to amalgamate two of it's facilities totaling 34 beds did they get what they asked for? Now it really gets interesting. The staff recommendation was to not amend the bylaw which Council agreed with. But as we all know the Good Shepherd have their amalgamated facility because they took their case to the Ontario Municipal Board and won. Is this the road we're about to go down again? Committee afters hour and hours of delegations and debate supported the staff's recommendation to deny the variance which now goes to council next week for ratification. But have we heard the end of this story? Once council makes a decision will the proponent take on the neighborhood at the OMB? We'll keep following for you.