the future of the maplewood facility in the dundas valley · 2020. 6. 25. · maplewood hall, two...

The Future of the Maplewood Facility in the

Dundas Valley

Public Participation Report

Updated 12/12/13

The Future of the Maplewood Facility in the Dundas Valley: Public Participation Report 2013

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Background

1.0 Purpose of Public Participation 5

2.0 Level of Participation and Techniques 6

3.0 Results 8

4.0 Key Findings 24


3

Executive Summary

The purpose of this process was to gather public feedback on potential future uses of

the Maplewood facility in the Dundas Valley. This report provides an analysis and

presentation of results collected to date. Methods of analysis include a mix of both

quantitative and qualitative techniques. There were a total of 130 responses received.

Results of the data analyzed show that the majority of 85 participants think that the

Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) should find a use for the Maplewood facility.

The report finds that a majority of 64 participants believe that the HCA should pursue

option 3 to open up the Maplewood facility to a Montessori Adolescent school while 48

participants believe that the facility be demolished. It is important to note that this report

is limited in scope by the number of people who participated in this process to date.


4

Background

The Maplewood facility formerly known as the ‘Resource Management Centre’ is

a rental hall and conference facility owned by the HCA and located on Artaban Road in

the Dundas Valley Conservation Area. The facility under consideration entails the

Maplewood Hall, two associated parking lots, a caretaker’s residence, two outdoor

buildings, and an associated access road. In the past, the Maplewood facility had been

utilized for a number of activities by various groups such as summer camps, outdoor

education, and nature retreats among others. However, due to the age and location of

the building, it is anticipated that upgrades will be required to maintain current standards

if the facility is deemed suitable for a use in the long -term. In addition, the facility has

impacts on the HCA budget and the encompassing natural environment.

In 2012, HCA staff presented a report to its Conservation Advisory Board (CAB)

with a recommendation that the facility be demolished and the area naturalized (see

Appendix for report). After reviewing the report, the CAB directed staff to explore other

alternatives aside from demolition. In 2013, an unsolicited informal proposal was

received from a Montessori Adolescent School for consideration. Prior to moving ahead

with detailed financial estimates, lease agreements, and a formal proposal, the CAB

suggested to the HCA’s Board of Directors that staff facilitate a public participation

process to obtain feedback on potential options and report back with findings. The

public participation process would then be used to assist the CAB and in turn the HCA’s

Board of Directors to make a decision on the next steps that would be needed in this

process.

With a number of concerns being raised among the community concerning the

future of this facility, the HCA wants to ensure that the public has an opportunity to

examine potential options that have been put forward to date and provide input towards

next steps in making a decision on future use of this site. This report should be

considered a living document that will be continuously updated as needed.


5

1.0 Purpose of Public Participation

The purpose of public participation towards making a decision about the

Maplewood facility was to facilitate community input towards this process. The HCA’s

goals were to provide the public with information to help them understand issues,

possible alternatives and/or solutions, and obtain feedback on potential alternatives.

The public participation process strived to seek out and facilitate the involvement of

potentially affected and interested people while at the same time recognize and

communicate the needs and interests of participants. The primary objectives were to:

To provide information about the history, location, uses, and present state of the

Maplewood facility

To create awareness of the myriad of concerns and issues surrounding the

Maplewood facility

To highlight potential options that could influence future decisions affecting the

Maplewood facility

To obtain public feedback on potential alternatives/options

To facilitate open dialogue with interested persons about this matter


6

2.0 Level of Participation & Techniques

The following levels of participation were selected:

1) Inform- to provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them

in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions

2) Consult- to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives, and/or decisions

This in turn determined the type of techniques that were to be used:

1) Inform:

Public Information Centre

An informal setting with multiple display panels where participants view information on

set topics at each station and discuss the topic with staff. Participants stop in when it is

convenient for them to visit display panels and have the opportunity to talk to staff and

share their comments and questions. The purpose of the Public Information Centre

(PIC) was to provide the community with information concerning the past, present, and

possible future scenarios for Maplewood. The PIC was selected because:

- It would serve to increase public understanding about the concerns and issues

facing the Maplewood facility

- It would explain a variety of complex points and present potential options in a simple

and non-technical fashion that would be easily understandable to a layperson

- It would collect a variety of contrary viewpoints in a peaceful, and productive manner

Website

A web page with background information, report, additional resources, and staff contact

information was posted on the HCA’s main website. This also served as a medium to

facilitate a virtual PIC where display panels were posted along with a questionnaire for

consultation. A webpage was posted because:

- It would reach people who could not attend the PIC

- It would reach out to a broader geographic area

- It would maintain an online repository for public access

Hand Delivered Notices

A number of hand delivered notices were dropped off by HCA staff to adjacent residents

of the Maplewood facility. The majority of residents along Artaban, Lions Club, Old


7

Dundas, Lower Lions Club Roads, Montgomery Drive, and Millcreek Court had received

these notices (see Appendix). In addition, notices were also distributed to residents

along Mineral Springs, Sulphur Springs Roads, and Ontario Street. These notices

comprised of an invitation to the PIC (see Appendix), staff contact information, along

with details of how members of the public could also participate online.

2) Consult:

Questionnaire

A questionnaire consisting of both multiple choice and semi-structured questions with a

total of 10 questions was developed and made available for public review at the PIC

and online (see Appendix). The questionnaire was selected because:

- It would gain perspectives from people unlikely to participate otherwise

- It would gather input from a cross-section of the public

- It would cater to online participation and people who were not able to attend the PIC

in person

- It would provide a safe environment for participants to express themselves freely in

an anonymous manner


8

3.0 Results

Overview

On Tuesday 5th November, 2013 a PIC was hosted at the Old Ancaster Town

Hall from 6.30-8.30pm by the HCA. Approximately 50 people were in attendance along

with 10 HCA staff members. At the PIC, 11 display panels were presented to the public

for review and comment (see Appendix). To summarize, the panels provided

information on topics ranging from background historical information, location of the

facility in the Dundas Valley, environmental characteristics of the site, current issues

and concerns, the 4 options under consideration, and next steps in the public

participation process. A public participation guide was also distributed to participants

with details of how they could provide their comments to the HCA (see Appendix).

These panels were also made available on the HCA’s website as part of an on-going

virtual PIC along with supporting resources and the questionnaire. There was much

discussion and exchange of views and concerns between members of the public and

staff.

After the PIC, comments and questionnaires were collected up until early

December 2013 prior to the HCA’s Conservation Advisory Board (CAB)’s meeting and

review on December 12th, 2013. Members of the public were informed that delegations

were welcome to present additional comments at this meeting and that this meeting was

open to public attendance. To date, a total number of 130 responses have been

submitted. At the PIC, 17 questionnaires were submitted while 7 were mailed to HCA

offices. The majority of 101 responses were submitted online via the online

questionnaire that was posted on the HCA’s web page. An additional number of 5

detailed responses in the form of emails and letters were also submitted to the HCA.

The views and concerns of these submissions have also been incorporated into

this report. The results collected are presented here in a general format as both a

quantitative and qualitative analysis. All submitted letters and questionnaires could be

referenced in the supporting Appendix. In keeping with the principles of the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the personal information of all participants

(unless consented) was kept anonymous.


9

3.1 Geographical Distribution of Participants

From Figure 1 below, 53% or 66 responses came from residents in the Ancaster and

Dundas area who do not live close to the Maplewood facility while 5% or 6 responses

came from participants who live outside the City of Hamilton.

Figure 1: Geographical Distribution of Participants

The majority of participants from Artaban, Lions Club, Lower Lions Club Roads,

Montgomery Drive, and Millcreek Court participated in person at the PIC

Most participants from Ancaster, Dundas, and other parts of the City of Hamilton

participated online

3.2 Activities Undertaken in the Vicinity of the Maplewood Facility

Figure 2 on page 10 illustrates that the greatest number of 67 participants use the area

around Maplewood for walking, running, and/or hiking activities. The least number of 8

participants use the area for other activities and nature photography. Some of other

these activities include studying nature, nature appreciation, horse-back riding, snow

shoeing, cross country skiing, and dog walking.

Artaban, Lions Club, Lower Lions Club Rds., Montgomery Dr., Millcreek Ct.-7

Other parts of Ancaster or Dundas-66

Other parts of the City of Hamilton-

46

Outside the City of Hamilton-6


10

Figure 2: Activities Undertaken in the Vicinity of the Maplewood Facility

A total number of 6 participants do not use the area with 3 participants residing in

areas outside of the City of Hamilton

The 67 participants who use the area for walking, running, or hiking were mostly

residents of the area around the Maplewood facility and the wider Ancaster and

Dundas area

3.3 Frequency of Area’s Use

For the purpose of this report, the area under consideration shall be referred to as the

lands surrounding the immediate vicinity of the Maplewood vicinity that is used for the

activities as demonstrated in Figure 2 above. The greatest number of 74 participants

does not use this area frequently, while the least number of 7 participants use the area

on a daily basis.

Walking, Running, or Hiking

Mountain Biking

Bird Watching

Nature Photography

None of the above

No

. o

f P

art

icip

an

ts

Type of Activity

Other


11

Figure 3: Frequency of Area’s Use

For the 7 participants who use the area around the Maplewood facility on a daily

basis, the majority of these people live in close proximity to the facility i.e. along

Artaban, Lions Club, Old Dundas, Lower Lions Club Roads, Montgomery Drive, and

Millcreek Court in addition to Ontario Street

In contrast, the 74 participants who do use the area frequently do not live in close

proximity to the Maplewood facility

3.4 Importance of Various Criteria

53% or 77 participants felt that environmental and geographical factors are most

important to them when it comes to making a decision on the future of the Maplewood

facility. 15% or 17 participants felt that financial criteria are most important.

Not

frequently

None of

the above

At least once a week

Daily

No

. o

f P

art

icip

an

ts

Frequency of Use


12

Figure 4: Importance of Criteria in Decision-Making

12% or 21 participants felt that other criteria should be considered as well such as:

- Historical

- Recreational

- Educational

- Activities geared towards getting retired and older people outdoors

- Health and wellness

Some participants commented that all three criteria are equally important and go hand in hand with the notion of sustainability and did not provide an answer

On the other hand, some participants chose more than one criteria e.g. the environmental and social criteria was most selected

Environmental/

Geographical

Financial

Social

Other

77 people

17 people

29 people

21 people


13

3.5 Should HCA find a Suitable Use for the Maplewood Facility

For the purposes of this report, ‘suitable’ use means a use for the facility and not

demolition. Figure 5 below demonstrated that 85 participants believe that the HCA

should find a suitable use for the Maplewood Facility while 37 participants think

otherwise. Some participants did not provide an answer to this question.

No. of Participants

Figure 5: Should HCA find a Suitable Use for the Maplewood Facility

Some participants who chose option 4 to demolish facility did not fully comprehend

what was meant by ‘suitable use’ and selected yes instead of no

In the 85 participants who responded yes, 2 chose option 1 to mothball the facility,

16 chose option 2 to upgrade and operate as a rental facility, 64 chose option 3 to

open up facility to a Montessori school, while 10 chose to demolish the facility

NO

YES

Cate

go

ry

No. of Participants

NO

Cate

go

ry


14

3.6 Group 1: What do people living close to the Maplewood facility think?

For the purposes of this report, the people living in the immediate vicinity of the

Maplewood facility shall be referred to as the residents who had identified that they live

along Artaban, Lions Club, Old Dundas, Lower Lions Club Roads, Montgomery Drive,

and Millcreek Court, who participated in this process.

Map 1: Location of Group 1 Residents

Summary of results for this area:

- 7 participants from this area

- None of the participants were connected to a Montessori school

- 2 out of 7 participants stated that the HCA should pursue option 2 to upgrade and

operate as rental facility

- 5 out of 7 participants think that the HCA should pursue option 4 to demolish the

facility

Key: Location of Maplewood Area Boundary


15

3.7 Group 2: What do people living in other parts of Ancaster or Dundas think?

For the purposes of this report, the people living in other parts of Ancaster and Dundas

shall be referred to as the residents who identified that they do not live in close proximity

to the Maplewood facility and but participated in this process.




- 25 of these participants were connected to a Montessori school

- 1 out of 66 participants stated that the HCA should pursue option 1 to mothball

facility



- 38 out of 66 participants stated that the HCA should pursue option 3 to open up

facility to a Montessori school

- 18 out of 66 participants think that the HCA should pursue option 4 to demolish all

building and naturalize area



16

3.8 Group 3: What do people living in other parts of the City of Hamilton think?

For the purposes of this report, the people living in other parts of the City of Hamilton

shall be referred to as participants who have identified that they do not live close to the

Maplewood facility, or in the Ancaster and Dundas area and participated in this process.




- 13 of these participants were connected to a Montessori school

- 1 out of 46 participants stated that the HCA should pursue option 1 to continue to

mothball facility



- 23 out of 46 participants stated that the HCA should pursue option 3 to open up

facility to a Montessori school





17

3.9 Group 4: What do people living outside the City of Hamilton think?

For the purposes of this report, the people living outside the City of Hamilton shall be

referred to as participants who do not live close to the Maplewood facility, in the

Ancaster and Dundas area, or in other parts of the City of Hamilton and participated in

this process.




- None of these participants were connected to a Montessori school



- 2 out of 6 participants stated that the HCA should pursue option 3 to open up facility

to a Montessori school





18

4.0 Connection to a Montessori School

31% or 38 participants identified that they were connected to a Montessori school in

some capacity (i.e. as a staff member, student, parent, or other) whereas 69% or 86

participants identified that they were not.

Figure 6: Connection to a Montessori School

In the 38 participants that were connected to a Montessori school, 37 participants

chose option 3 to open up facility to a Montessori school, while 1 participant chose

option 4 to demolish the facility and naturalize area

Out of the 86 participants that were not connected to a Montessori school, 21

participants selected option 3 to open up facility to a Montessori school while 47

chose option 4 to demolish the facility and naturalize area, 16 chose option 2 to

upgrade and operate as a rental facility, and 1 person chose option 2 to mothball

facility

6 participants did not identify whether they were connected to a Montessori school or

not

38

participants-

YES

86

participants-

NO


19

5.0 Options Selected by Participants

From Figure 7 below 57 participants believe that the HCA should pursue option 3 and

open up the facility to a Montessori school. While 31 participants think the HCA chose

option 4 and pursue demolition of the facility and naturalization of the area. Only 1

participant felt that the HCA should continue to mothball the facility.

Figure 7: Options Selected by Participants

16 participants who chose option 2 believe that the facility should be upgraded

and utilized for weddings, meetings, banquets, artists’ sanctuary etc.

Out of the 64 participants who chose option 3, there were 37 participants who

were connected to a Montessori school while 21 were not, and 6 participants did

not provide an answer to whether they were associated with a Montessori school

or not but chose this option

47 out of 48 participants who chose option 4 were not connected to a Montessori

school

Some participants did not provide an answer to this question while some

participants provided two options in their answer

Option 3 Montessori

Options

No

. o

f P

art

icip

an

ts

37 Connected to Montesssori

21 Not

Connected to Montesssori

Option 4 Demolish

Option 1 Mothball

Option 2 Upgrade


20

6.0 Summary of Public Comments by Option

What did the 2 participants have to say in support of Option 1: Continue to

Mothball Facility but against the other options?

Area should remain and be open to the public

Area should remain naturalized

Demolishing too invasive and would create disturbances to the environment


21

What did the 16 participants have to say in support of Option 2: HCA to

Upgrade and operate as a Rental Facility but against the other options?

Facility could generate enough money

Mothballing delays decisions

Options 3 and 4 put public in dilemma

Difficulty to find event venues in Ancaster

Use as educational advertisement for Hamilton

Conduct an open call for proposals

Safety of Montessori children in unprotected area

Maintain heritage for all community access rather than restricting to Montessori

Montessori will create traffic

A few extra square feet of green space

Still have traffic in area due to the residents who live nearby

Montessori school might increase cost of living

Desirable location for functions

Canadian Forces or local Police can use

Have business plan to support facility

Paid parking lots would generate revenue

Facility was great because it was affordable

Using it as a rental facility would limit disturbances while allowing inflow of capital and

retaining the natural ambiance


22

What did the 64 participants have to say in support of Option 2: HCA to

Upgrade and operate as a Rental Facility but against the other options?

School has demonstrated sound ecological principles

Children overstimulated in a world of technology

Teaming HCA with Montessori will meet their goals

Way for people to use the facility during the school lease

Opportunities for children to connect with nature

Educational program should be off the grid

Support use of school bus

Not huge numbers of students to attend school

Provincial support for outdoor education growing

Young people need to learn how to care about the environment

Limit traffic in the area-Montessori would be willing

Teach youth to work with native plants and learn about naturalization

Education will bond students, families, teachers, and friends

Good strategy for appreciation and protection of natural heritage

Obesity on rise in youth a natural setting would allow students to exercise

Education has been a historical feature of facility

Focus on educating the next generation

Valley should be for the enjoyment of all

Restoration would take a very long time

A good re-use of an existing property

Don’t listen to a few selfish people

A long-term goal should be considered over short term ones

Retains value of the centre as an educational facility with proposed low-impact

Montessori school will be respectful of the environment and the community

surrounding Maplewood Hall and the opportunity it presents to the students is

invaluable

My wife and I were Montessori School students in the Netherlands in the 1930s

and 40s-we consider the Maplewood location and environment ideal for a

Montessori School; a unique opportunity to include the natural environment in

the curriculum

In Hamilton we see buildings demolished, parts of our history demolished all the

time


23

What did the 48 participants have to say in support of Option 4: Demolish

Facility & Naturalize Area but against the other options?

Purpose of purchase from Diocese was for property to remain open space for all in

perpetuity

I am so angry with the authority for continuing to ignore public opinion

To sell or lease this property is not keeping in faith with vendors of land

Property was acquired for its value as part of the Valley

Philosophy and purposes of HCA has suffered a shift

Demolition would allow savings

Historical record that facility doesn’t generate enough money

Options 1, 2 & 3 seem expensive and unrealistic

Access road not good-hills, safety, inclement weather, and stability

Public conservation area for all not for private school only

Pollution to Sulphur Creek

HCA primary mandate should be to naturalize

Options 2 & 3 turns the facility over to private uses

Good for the ecosystem

Organic gardening and chickens interacting with deer, raccoons, foxes, and

coyotes

Naturalization is one time cost with no financial burden

Revitalize area for wildlife and at risk plants

Increase forest habitat

Facility in the middle of the Valley and is a hole in the canopy

Rent won’t result in more than $35,000 a year-demands on road, reconstruction,

liability claims, possible damages linked to the occupants or visitors

Montessori proposal commercially subject

HCA must explain how they intend to use facility and let that use be evaluated

Too much of a long-term risk

Supporting an entrepreneur is dubious and could affect the funds

School populations can be very destructive on an area

Trail Centre should be used for education

Isolated school a poor model in a world where ease of access is needed

Dangerous for cycling and walking and parents in their idling cars who come to

pick up their children

Loss of green space for a few dollars

What about emergency vehicles being able to get to the Hall if required?

HCA is not a business where making profit is an object


24

4.0 Key Findings

From an analysis of the results obtained to date, the main findings are as follows:

Environmental and geographical characteristics are of greatest importance to most

participants

Public access and use of the facility (if not being demolished), for a private group

only is a concern

Access road that leads to the Maplewood facility is a key concern due to safety

during adverse weather conditions, the capability of the Montessori or another user

to maintain it, along with the unknown environmental impacts

Increased traffic in the Dundas Valley Conservation Area and around the area e.g.

along Old Ancaster and Old Dundas Roads

The need to grow the next generation of people and connect children with nature so

that they could take care of the environment through learning and growing in an

outdoor setting

HCA’s mandate under question as some participants believe that environmental

protection should come first whereas others think that outdoor education is integral

for the development of future generations who will become stewards

the future of the maplewood facility in the dundas valley · 2020. 6. 25. · maplewood hall, two...

Documents