Developer floats plan for Eagle Place brownfields

03/24/2004

BY MICHAEL-ALLLAN MARION
EXPOSITOR STAFF / BRANTFORD

A flurry of activity is swirling around the Greenwich-Mohawk Brownfield area just as the city is dosing in with its plan to take it over for a cleanup and redevelopment.

First, a developer of old industrial sites is being asked to follow the proper steps of a public process for Brownfield redevelopment, rather than build support for its proposal through closed meetings with politicians.

Coun. Marguerite Ceschi-Smith made that point at a meeting of the Brownfield’s community advisory committee Tuesday.

Some members of the committee - made up mostly of citizens - had come with copies of a questionnaire that King and Benton Development Corp. has circulated around the Eagle Place neighborhood, soliciting information for its proposal and volunteers to sit on a community advisory committee.

With all kinds of interest suddenly rising around the Greenwich-Mohawk area, members wanted to know what was going on.

Ceschi-Smith, the committee's chair-woman, responded by handing over a binder containing a draft proposal by King and Benton that calls for a massive $55-million redevelopment of the Greenwich-Mohawk Brownfield area.

The proposal covers 146 acres, an even bigger area of Greenwich-Mohawk than the 52-acre, three property site the city wants to dean up. Much of the site would be taken up with housing, some commercial areas, tennis courts and a park (see map).

It would be done in three phases, starting with the 22 and 66 Mohawk Street and 347 Greenwich, which the city is looking at. It would continue with six other properties further east along Greenwich and Mohawk, some of which King and Benton already own.

While members were studying the document Tuesday, Ceschi-Smith explained that Charest had asked her for another meeting on March 5. She agreed, but took along two city officials, Terry Spiers, manager of environmental services, and Matt Renters, coordinator of Brownfield projects,

She told the committee that Charest went through the proposal with them, and then said he wanted it kept confidential. "He said he didn't want to see it in the newspaper."

She said she took the binder first to a Brownfield’s technical committee, made up largely of staff and some politicians then gave it to the community advisory committee.

"We have to be open," she told the committee, noting the city's implementation plan calls for the municipality to issue a "request for proposals" from companies to redevelop the area.

"If the city does a (proposal call) all interested companies have to be given an equal chance," she said, noting she hopes King and Benton is one of them.

"This needs to be done through due process and it needs to be done openly. We can't have another Harding Carpets. This hasn't come in the way it should be coming in. He (Charest) hasn't put it in the formal process."

In an attempt at damage control, Charest said Tuesday afternoon he would have preferred the public to see final proposals rather than draft ones.

He said he didn't mind the committee seeing his proposal, even if it is far from final, and suggested he might have misunderstood the process.

Charest said the company has been open all along, starting with a design team, followed by a public consultation process, with more open discussion to follow.

SPECTACULAR

He said he has been getting "very, very positive" feedback on his Greenwich-Mohawk proposal.

When its ready, he said: "I'm hoping it will knock everybody's socks off."

He suggested the results would be even more spectacular than his work at Harding Carpets, another Brownfield property which appears to be undergoing a successful transformation into a warehousing operation.

Mayor Mike Hancock agrees it's important to keep the Brownfield rehabilitation process open. "We don't want it to look like we're doing a deal with just one developer."

He recalled staff and other politicians at a technical committee meeting last week expressing unease with the way the proposal was coming forward.

"This King and Benton proposal has been making them concerned," Hancock said of the company's practice of pushing the proposal in private meetings with politicians before council is ready to consider the implementation plan and what land of proposal call to make.

"We don't even have control of the properties yet. I'm feeling just a little bit pushed on this. I'm pleased to see King and Benton wants to make a proposal. My discomfort is that we're being asked to move faster than we're ready to."

Meanwhile, engineer David Sebarras appeared before the committee to explain he has been retained by businesswoman Audrey Wells-Delaney to oversee demolition in two stages of most buildings at 347 Greenwich, which she manages.

Sebarras said it would take one year to complete the first stage and another year to complete the second one. The long building along Greenwich would remain standing.

He asked that the city hold off on any tax sale on 347 Greenwich during those two years.

Committee members were skeptical. Chris Markell wondered why Wells-Delaney is suddenly moving to tear down so many buildings when she has had them in her control for nearly two decades, and wants another two-year delay just as the city is dosing in.

Dave Belleville wondered what guarantees Sebarras could give that the demolition work would be carried out completely.

Sebarras said he could give nothing other than his word.

Belleville also asked if the engineer had seen 66 Mohawk St., which is a mess since a salvager knocked down some buildings and left piles of debris everywhere.

"I've seen that site," Sebarras responded. "I do not want to be associated with a project like that. We're not going to leave a mess."

The members still said they were skeptical.