|
Province Appealing Aerotropolis Decision
August 3, 2005
The provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs is appealing the recent decision of Hamilton city council to expand the urban boundary by 3000 acres around the airport. Council approved the expansion in late June over the objections of hundreds of residents who jammed meetings at city hall and Marritt Hall in Ancaster. The provincial appeal, and two others filed by local residents, will be heard before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) likely sometime next year.
The Ministry says the boundary expansion around the airport "is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS) including but not limited to sections 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3.9, 1.6.1 and 2.3.5." In addition, their letter says the city "has not undertaken a comprehensive review which the PPS requires be undertaken prior to either the establishment of a new settlement area or the expansion of an existing settlement area" as required by the PPS.
Such a review assesses future land requirements, plans for infrastructure services, and "determine[s] whether the removal of land from prime agricultural areas is appropriate." Virtually all of the 3000 acres around the airport fall into the class one category for agricultural lands, a designation that covers less than half a percent of the lands across Canada. Provincial rules forbid the urbanization of farmland except under specific conditions.
The first cited section of the PPS requires cities to promote efficient development of "healthy, liveable and safe communities", while the second and third emphasize intensification and redevelopment of existing urban areas. The fourth section (1.1.3.9) states that expansion can only occur at the time of a comprehensive review "and only where it has been demonstrated that (a) sufficient opportunities for growth are not available through intensification, redevelopment and designated growth areas to accommodate the projected needs over the identified planning horizon; (b) the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available are suitable for the development over the long term and protect public health and safety" and there are no reasonable alternatives which avoid prime agricultural lands.
Section 2.3.5 lays out the rules under which agricultural lands may be sacrificied for urban growth.
The letter is signed by the senior legal counsel of the ministry and copied to Bev Hendry, the ministry official who authored a June 15 letter to the city that warned councillors not to proceed with the boundary expansion. Hendry's warning was dismissed by aerotropolis supporters as merely the comments of "a mid-level bureaucrat".
Mayor Di Ianni said on June 15 that he was "satisfied that we can satisfy this particular bureaucrat of the concerns that they have". He told councillors he had assurances from "the highest levels . indicating that we had the right to proceed with what we're doing."
Councillors Bratina, McHattie, Braden and McCarthy voted against the boundary expansion.
The Ministry's appeal was filed on July 27 and joins one by Michael and Carol Desnoyers of Ancaster which also challenges the process (or lack thereof) followed by the city in making its expansion decision. A third appeal has been filed by a couple who live near Upper James and Rymal Road.
It's unclear how much it will cost the city to fight the province and the citizens at the OMB, but it's now nearly certain that taxpayers will foot much of the bill.
The Provincial Policy Statement 2005 can be viewed at
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_23137_1.html#1.1.
Council debates on the aerotropolis and the provincial warnings took place at the June 15 and June 29 meetings. The relevant portions have been transcribed by CATCH and can be viewed at
|
