Closing statements in Doug Hammond’s Ontario Municipal Board appeal of a city denial of his zoning and official plan amendment applications began Monday.

Hammond’s lawyer Brian Duxbury argued a storage facility fits into the area, with an intensity of use similar to the neighbouring recycling facility. He said the proposed rezoning is a better plan for the site than the list of recreation-associated uses already allowed under current zoning.

Duxbury asked OMB chair J. P. Atcheson to give little weight to the city council denial of his client’s applications, arguing council’s decision was political.

He argued natural features surrounding the site, including Volunteer Marsh and the Desjardins Canal, were not significant and would not be affected. He suggested the property’s current open space designation should be given little weight by the board, because it only means the soil cannot support large industrial development.

“However they arrived at it, the amendment is what it is,” Atcheson said. “There was some attempt (to ensure) that a major part of the site should remain undeveloped.”

City lawyer Michael Kovacevic spent nearly four hours Monday pointing out where the proposal does not satisfy the Town of Dundas official plan.

Atcheson acknowledged the Dundas OP is the key planning document he will use to make his final decision on Hammond’s appeal. Kovacevic said self-serve storage is allowed only in industrial zones, but Hammond’s application is to change the open space recreational zoning to highway commercial.

“The requested zoning is inappropriate for self storage,” Kovacevic said.

He said industrial zoning was clearly set aside in the west end of Dundas, and the town’s official plan designated the eastern area for utility, recreation and open space. He suggested there is plenty of suitable space across Hamilton for such a facility and using land set aside for open space and recreation would be bad planning.

“Hamilton has several vacant brownfield sites,” Kovacevic said. “There are 163 acres of brownfield and we’re being asked to take away open space designated for recreation.”

Atcheson noted one of the hearing’s witnesses stated allowing the amendment applications would mean “a drastic planning change.”

“The city is not moving toward more commercialization of the area. The only change is toward more open space for recreation use,” Kovacevic said.

Julia Croomeokokk, a lawyer representing Protect Our Dundas, argued Hammond’s proposal is incomplete and does not include information necessary to determine its impact on the surrounding Environmentally Significant Area.

“The evidence before the board is that the change in use would result in a net negative environmental impact and destroy the open space nature of the site and area. The current designation and zoning allow for environmentally and ecologically sensitive development that preserves the open space nature,” Croome said. “This appeal should consequently be refused in its entirety.”