The persistent Winona blob
July 4, 2006

Four Winona residents were in front of councillors last week again trying to correct an apparent error that has persisted in the official plan for over twenty years, and which is being used to justify a subdivision proposal by Peter and Gabe DeSantis. The residents convinced the planning committee to defer adoption of the city's new rural official plan until the fall, but that decision nearly got reversed two nights later.

The Winona blob is outlined by the broken black line. The purple area is fruitbelt, and the green is the Niagara Escarpment. The urban boundary of Winona as defined in the Stoney Creek official plan is shown in red. The letter D marks the approximate location of the DeSantis-owned lands.

The problem for the Winona residents is "the blob". That's the official description of a pimple-shaped extension of the urban boundary that appears as far back as 1985 in the official plan maps of the former Region of Hamilton-Wentworth and remains in force today over the amalgamated city.

The blob pushes the city's urban boundary in the Winona area north of Highway 8 almost to the base of the escarpment on both sides of Winona Road. In its largest incarnation it stretches almost to Fifty Road in the east and nearly to Lewis Road in the west. But unlike all other parts of Hamilton's urban boundary, it has no straight edges - hence the 'blob' designation.

Some of Winona's urban area lies inside the blob, but so does a considerable amount of undeveloped land that is within environmentally protected areas immediately below the Niagara Escarpment. The principle owner of those lands, and a big supporter of the blob, is Hamilton General Homes, a development company controlled by Peter and Gabe DeSantis. Protected fruitbelt lands surround both sides of the blob.

Blobs are a device used by planners to indicate uncertainty about the precise location of boundaries. Clarifying them is normally left to the lower-tier municipality of the time - in this case, the city of Stoney Creek - which establish the precise boundary lines. That was done in the 1980s, and the DeSantis lands were excluded. But the blob remained in the regional official plan and was included in the version approved in early 1994.

A 1994 Ontario Municipal Board hearing considered an application for residential expansion in the area and ruled that the DeSantis lands - owned by Carriage Gate Homes at the time - were outside the urban boundary. However, the timing of that decision seems to have allowed the blob to persist - at least in the minds of the city planning department.

Normally OMB decisions result in all affected official plans being amended. That happened with the Stoney Creek plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan, but not with the regional official plan.

The 1994 official plan, with the blob in it, was approved by council just prior to the OMB decision. But the formal signature on the plan by the Minister of Municipal Affairs came six months after the OMB decision. City planners argue that sequence of events means the blob remains the official boundary.

"The OMB decision was completed in July of 1994," city planner Joanne Hickey-Evans told a 2004 committee meeting. "The ministerial approval was January of 1995. That is the last approval that was given. Therefore the regional urban boundary stands the way it is."

That explanation left ward one councillor Brian McHattie scratching his head. "So if the OMB decision set the boundary at a different point . would we have not have altered our boundary to reflect the decision of the OMB which happened six months earlier than the Ministry decision in January 1995?"

Hickey-Evans said she wasn't with the regional staff at the time so couldn't comment on what happened. "All we do know is that the ministerial approval in January 1995 has a reflection of the blob as you see it on the map behind you, and that it is our opinion that these lands are within the regional urban boundary today."

The contradictory maps, and the persistent position of Hamilton planners with regards to the blob, has allowed Hamilton General Homes to keep trying to obtain a subdivision approval in the blob lands. One of their attempts was launched in 2002. The application required a ruling by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, so its planners wrote to the ministry of municipal affairs for clarification of the status of the blob.

A September 2002 response from the ministry seemed to settle the question. "This application proposes to develop land outside of the urban boundary as defined by the Hamilton-Wentworth and Stoney Creek Official Plans." said the letter.

It went on note that both official plans designate the lands as escarpment protection area and there are specific rules in the regional plan that prevent the DeSantis lands from being brought inside the urban boundary.

"The Regional Plan prescribes that development and growth of currently designated 'minor urban areas,' such as the Winona Urban Area, 'shall not extend into the designated.Escarpment Protection Area'," declared the Ministry letter.

That letter either didn't get to the city planners, or didn't change their mind. In March 2004 city staff asked councillors to approve advice to the escarpment commission that the DeSantis lands "are now designated 'Urban Area' by the Regional Official Plan, and the development of urban residential uses on such lands are considered appropriate."

Several Winona residents spoke at the March 2004 planning committee meeting that considered and approved this recommendation. (see CATCH transcript of the meeting at http://www.hamiltoncatch.org/planning/plan_040302_winona.htm.)

In response to the city's advice, planners at the escarpment commission wrote to the province for clarification. In a July 2004 letter, the province's senior municipal planning advisor said that the ministry's September 2002 comments "accurately reflect the position of this Ministry on this matter". The letter also noted that the city didn't get a copy of the Ministry 2002 letter and said "we are correcting this oversight". A copy of the letter went to the city's head of planning.

But the blob has persisted - and it may even be growing. Earlier last month, city planning staff issued maps for the rural section of the new city official plan. The blob is a prominent part of several maps but is larger on some than others, despite earlier promises to resolve the map contradictions.

In the 2004 meeting Phil Bruckler specifically asked staff "Are we in a process of . blending the official plan with the former municipality's into one singular plan?" and was assured by city planner Joanne Hickey-Evans that "Yes, there will be one plan and there will be one urban boundary."

When that didn't happen, it brought Winona residents to last Monday's planning committee meeting. They argued again that the blob contradicts the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Stoney Creek official plan and the 1994 OMB decision, and questioned why city planners seem intent on putting it into the new city plan.

They pointed to the continuing discrepancy between the regional plan and other planning documents affecting Winona, including the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Stoney Creek official plan and the 1994 OMB decision.

Paul Mason, the director of long range planning, noted that the issue will be addressed in an upcoming OMB hearing, but in the interim the blob is being retained because of the 2004 council vote endorsing it.

The residents pointed out that the city's own plan says that the escarpment commission rules trump city rules. Section 1.5.1 of the regional official plan states: "Where there is a discrepancy between this Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the most restrictive policies will prevail." Section 1.5.4 refers specifically to the Winona area and says that "development and growth shall not extend into the designated Escarpment Natural Area or Escarpment Protection Area".

On a motion by Terry Whitehead and Brian McHattie, the committee voted to send the plan back to staff for more study and bring back a report to the September 5 meeting of the planning committee. The motion specifically directed staff "to research the previous council position on the Winona urban boundary matter, and provide appropriate information regarding the potential need for and implications of a reconsideration of the matter".

But the residents' achievement was almost short-lived. When the matter came to city council for ratification two nights later, planning committee member Dave Mitchell tried to fast track the approval of the new official plan by having it reconsidered on July 10 instead of waiting until September. Mitchell's move was seconded by Dundas councillor Art Samson.

An initial vote called by Mayor DiIanni seemed to show unanimous support for Mitchell's change, but apparently councillors thought they were voting on the September recommendation, not the subsequent Mitchell change. That led to a demand for a standing recorded vote, and Mitchell's motion went down to defeat - supported only by Di Ianni, Samson and mountain councillor Bill Kelly.

And that means the saga of the blob will now continue on September 5 - a meeting that will no doubt be attended once again by Winona residents.