July 14/04 Report – Partial
5:00 pm (actual start 5:08 pm)

Excerpt - Item # 6.1 - Planning and Economic Development Committee Report (specifically Item #14 of the Report on Glanbrook Hills)

============================

Mayor DiIanni : "Thank you. Okay. That's been noted. What say you Council, on the Communications ? All in favour?" (hear councillors say carried) "That's carried. Councillor Kelly, a motion to move into Committee of the Whole for consideration of Reports."

Kelly : "Moved by myself; seconded by Councillor Jackson that Council move into Committee of the Whole for consideration of Committee Reports."

6. Committee Reports

6.1 Planning and Economic Development Committee, Report 04-013,
July 6 , 2004
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/July06/REPORT%2004-013.pdf)

Mayor DiIanni : "Thank you. All in favour?" (hear Councillors say carried) "That's carried. The Planning and Economic Development Committee presents its 13 th Report and respectfully recommends Item #1 . . . #14" (glass clinked by Councillor Braden) "Fourteen, Councillor Braden."

Item # 14

("14. Applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision Known as "Glanbrook Hills", Amendment to the Township of Glanbrook Official Plan and Amendment to Glanbrook Zoning By-law No. 464, for Lands Located at 8029 Twenty Road East, Glanbrook (PD04168) (Ward 11) (Item 6.3)

1. That approval be given to Subdivision Application 25T-200313, by Weizer Investments Ltd., owner, to establish a draft plan of subdivision, known as "Glanbrook Hills", on land located within Part of Lots 7 and 8, Concession 2 (Glanbrook), as shown on Appendix "B" to Report PD04168, subject to the execution of a City standard form Subdivision Agreement, including the conditions contained in Appendix "C" to Report PD04168 and an additional condition 19(a) That the Developer pay its proportionate share of the increased cost of the downstream sewer resulting from the increase depth to services this development by gravity sanitary sewers, and acknowledgement by the City of Hamilton of its responsibility for cost-sharing with respect to this development for the following items:
   1. One-half of the cost of a 1.5m high black vinyl fence along the perimeter of Open Space Block 187 and Park Block 188, where they abut residential lots; and,
   2. One-half of the cost of above and below ground works for Street A along the entire frontage of Park Block 188; all in accordance with the financial policies for development, as approved by Council.
2. That approval NOT BE GIVEN to the application by Weizer Investments Ltd., owner, for Official Plan Amendment No. __, for land located within Part of Lots 7 and 8, Concession 2 (Glanbrook), as shown on Appendix "A" to Report PD04168, for a change in designation on Schedule "A" - Land Use Plan of the Township of Glanbrook Official Plan, by redesignating the subject land from "Agricultural" to "Residential".
3. That approval be given to Zoning Application ZAC-03-54, by Weizer Investments Ltd., owner , for a change to Zoning By-law No. 464 on lands located within Part of Lots 7 and 8, Concession 2 (Glanbrook), shown as Blocks 1 to 4 on Appendix "D" to Report PD04168, on the following basis:
   1. That the amending By-law apply the Holding provisions of Section 36(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, to Block 2, until such time as fish habitat issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.
   2. ( That the draft By-law to amend Zoning By-law No. 464, attached as Appendix "E" to Report PD04168, which has been prepared in a form satisfactory to Corporate Counsel, be forwarded to Council for adoption.
   7. That the amending By-law be added to Schedule "E" of Zoning By-law No. 464.
   8. (viii) That the proposed change in zoning conforms to the Hamilton-Wentworth Official Plan, and will conform to the Township of Glanbrook Official Plan upon approval of Official Plan Amendment No. ___ . " )

Braden : "Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We had a presentation this afternoon, which I think was a bit troubling. It was to do with really the slope and where really the lots were. And, we need to ask before we deal with - or, at least I do - I need to ask the staff if there is any more concern or less concern or whether or not they're still happy with their position as before. But, I specifically need to make a statement that when - we heard earlier today that the bank on that drawing, went sort of from North to South across contour lines. In fact, it's something I know about. You can't have a bank crossing contour lines. Banks are, in fact, horizontal. So, that just doesn't make any sense. So, there's a problem, a fundamental problem there. Either I'm a little slow, or we're just using the wrong words. But, you can't do that. So, I need some understanding. And, that's one question. I'll just give you the other one at the same time. I was not aware, but need to have confirmed that there are storm water facilities for this particular development that, in fact, haven't been shown on any map. But, in fact, may be planned to be outside the urban area. If that's true, we need to have that information - beforehand. So, could I have those 2 issues responded to, please?"

Mayor DiIanni : "And, Peter."

Peter Delulio (staff - Planning and Development) : "Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First at the top of bank. As indicated at the Committee meeting this morning, the Conservation Authority was out with the applicant's agent and staked the top of bank on site on November 28, 2003. I have the survey here and it clearly indicates that it basically does run North / South. It is a straight line. The contour map that was provided by the presenter this morning - I do have an air photo which had the general contours that the Conservation Authority would've done for some preliminary mapping for the flood plain and top of bank in the absence of actually going on site. But, the contours or the top of bank was staked on site to the satisfaction of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and I have that survey. With regards to the second item, in terms of the storm water management pond, a temporary facility is proposed at the East end of the development. So, there is a facility proposed, just to the East of the sub-division, as a temporary measure."

Braden : (Councillor Braden started speaking before he turned on his microphone) ". . . elaborate on what will probably happen. Is that temporary one within the urban boundary. And, it's temporary. And, then what will the permanent facility be and where will that be?"

Peter Delulio (staff - Planning and Development) : "The temporary facility is outside of the urban boundary. The Glanbrook By-law, allows for these facilities in all zones. We have other examples in the Binbrook and the Mount Hope areas where these facilities have been located outside of the urban areas. And, the permanent facility, we do not know, yet, where that will be."

Braden : "Within this amalgamation, do we have in the Official Plan at the former Regional level - the Upper Tier level - or, do we have it at the City level that in fact all facilities require to service something need to be inside that urban boundary. Is there opposing regulations or policies concerning the whereabouts of those facilities vis à vis the urban boundary?"

Peter Delulio (staff - Planning and Development) : "Through you, Mr. Mayor. I believe most Official Plans or Zoning By-laws allow for public facilities to be outside or in any zone in the municipality - in particular, agricultural zones. In the Glanbrook, in the case of Glanbrook, the By-law specifically says: 'Facilities for a storm water control required by a Conservation Authority or public agency, can go in an agricultural zone.'"

Braden : "Thank you."

Mayor DiIanni : "Okay. Thank you. Councillor Pearson."

Pearson : "Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On Item 14, with regards to the sub-paragraph (a), paragraph (b), we voted on these individually at Planning Committee and on Item (b) the recommendation was that it not be given approval and I'd like make a motion to rescind the word 'not' and that it be changed to read that 'approval be given' to the application. I'd like to move that, Mr. Mayor, and Councillor Kelly will second that."

Mayor DiIanni : "I will take that motion and deal with it and we'll probably deal with these in a, b, c fashion, as well - let's just take whatever general questions there are, so I'll take that at the appropriate time. Councillor Whitehead. Councillor Whitehead, did you want to speak on this - sorry, I thought I - "

Whitehead : "My question was actually - one was on the top of bank but it - that, in fact has been answered. And, I think the only other suggestion I would make is it sounded to me like staff - or certainly the individual that made the presentation this morning - had an out-dated version of the contours and that. And, I just like to make sure we do our due diligence and ensure that appropriate and current information is provided to citizens of this community when requested so that they have the most up-dated information."

Mayor DiIanni : "Thank you. We'll make sure we do that. Mr. Delulio may want to speak to that."

Peter Delulio (staff - Planning and Development) :"Yes, Mr. Mayor. The mapping that the individual probably had was done by the Conservation Authority - but that's in the absence of more detailed surveying when a development application comes along. So, that's the best mapping that was available both to us and to the public. And, once a development application comes along, they'll go on site - actual site - and do the surveying, to stake it with an authority there present to determine the exact location of that boundary."

Mayor DiIanni : "And, that point's been made."

Whitehead : "Thank you. I'd like to thank staff for that explanation, thanks."

Mayor DiIanni : "Councillor McHattie."

McHattie : "Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just - after the Planning Committee meeting, I had a chance to look at the discussion from last summer when the urban boundary was expanded. And, I just wanted to clarify something that appeared to have happened then, which is different from what we're seeing now in this application. The discussion last summer was the approval of 14 hectares of property which have servicing available on the site. And, the application that we have before us - as far as I can tell, anyways, is for 16.44 hectares - that's an extra 5 acres or so - 5 and a half acres of subdivision, which is substantial. So, I just wanted to clarify through you to staff, the difference between the two - the two numbers."

Mayor DiIanni : I remember that discussion - staff."

Peter Delulio (staff - Planning and Development) : "Yes, through you, Mr. Mayor. When we look - the proposed sub-division that was presented last week - 16. 436 Hectares, when you take out the open space area and the proposed park area, we're down to about 14.5 Hectares. So, the actual development area is very, quite in line with what can be gravity fed. I've received no comments back through the circulation of the subdivision that this slight increase of developable area will have an impact on the servicing capacity. It's still a gravity-fed area and the, no concerns have been expressed with regards to the slight increase with acreage - or hectarage"

Mayor DiIanni : "Councillor."

McHattie : "Mr. Mayor, has the urban boundary actually been expanded larger than it otherwise would, though? Is it 16.4 Hectares versus 14.2 or whatever?"

Peter Delulio (staff - Planning and Development) : (started a couple words before turned on microphone.) " . . . that would be the size of their urban expansion. It would be 16.436 Hectares."

Mayor DiIanni : "There is an explanation for that and I don't know whether this was your file, Peter, at the time, or not. Maybe Ms. Coveyduck can - "

Lee Ann Coveyduck - Acting City Manager (a.k.a.General Manager, Planning and Development) : "I was just going to indicate as well, when that application was approved, it was an approximate number because at that point in time we didn't exactly know the exact acreage that could be gravity fed. So that was further detailed when we were going through the details and the intent of Council was that only that amount of land that could be gravity fed is what would be approved and that's how we came up with the sixteen point whatever hectares."

Mayor DiIanni : "In fact, that was the direction of Council because, Councillor McHattie, I recall because I made the motion. The applicant came forward asking that a much greater area be brought into the urban boundary and when the issue became one of how to service pumping station or gravity fed, Council simply approved whatever, in terms of engineering, could be accommodated through gravity. And so we left it approximate until the engineering study was done. And that's why there's a slight variance."

McHattie : "Okay. Thank you."

Mayor DiIanni : "In other words, it could have been less, if it couldn't have been accommodated through gravity."

McHattie : "Right. Okay. Great, thanks. And, just not to belabour the point about the top of bank issue, but just so I can know for sure and I can respond to others who ask this question of me. The discussion this morning suggests that lots 61 through 64 and perhaps a good chunk of lot 65 were below the bank and maybe just to, I know you've already answered the question in other terms, but just in those terms, can you confirm that those lots are not in the flood plain - not down below, please, through you, Mr. Mayor?"

Peter Delulio (staff - Planning and Development) : "Yes, through you, Mr. Mayor, I have a survey that was done stake at the top of bank and it was, it showed the original layout of the sub-division and the top of bank was actually staked a bit further back than the lots were originally shown. So, I think the lots have been increased in depth to go back to the top of bank, but that the survey clearly indicates that the top of bank was even further back than the lots were originally show on the original draft plan that was submitted to us."

McHattie : "So, all those lots are available for development, then, is what you're saying is it - just to clarify?"

Peter Delulio (staff - Planning and Development) : "Based on the . . ." (could not understand what he referred to) "I have and the draft plan that was submitted, yes."

McHattie : "Okay. Thanks. Now, the last question I have, Mr. Mayor, is just in terms of process, here, I know this urban boundary expansion happened fairly quickly. It was sort of a one off in the sense that it wasn't part of a GRIDS process, or a larger examination of where the urban expansion should occur in the City. It is, is this not the kind of thing we'd like to have a secondary plan in place before we do these kinds of urban boundary expansions? Just in terms of process and maybe even for the benefit of next time we consider these sorts of things. If I can I have a sense from planning staff on that, through you, Mr. Mayor?"

Peter Delulio (staff - Planning and Development) : "Through you, Mr. Mayor, given the scale and the relatively small size of this parcel, I don't think staff would recommend any secondary planning process for this particular parcel - given it's one ownership and it was determined to be basically a low-density residential development. The street pattern fit in with, basically, to the one street we had connecting from the west and there was a property available to link between 2 existing houses. So, the street pattern and the lot layout was essentially determined through the sub-division process and there was no need seen for a secondary planning process for this particular application. Yes, certainly, when we get into larger expansion areas, where you have multiple landowners, we will be doing a secondary planning process. When we considered lower Stoney Creek a year ago, that would have had to go through all the secondary planning processes for the, to determine all the uses, because that was a much bigger area."

McHattie : "Okay. Thanks very much for that. From my perspective, this is a one-off development. I realize here, the boundary was expanded last summer, so the ball started rolling at that point. But, given the one-off nature of this proposal and the fact that staff was actually was actually against the urban boundary expansion last summer, I won't be supporting this, tonight."

Mayor DiIanni : "Fair enough. Councillor Mitchell."

Mitchell : "Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And, I woke up in the hospital, last Wednesday morning and I was inside the front cover of the Spectator and that whole story didn't highlight exactly what I said at the meeting when I was here. So, I've talked to Eric about that already, but I definitely want to get that corrected so the whole story might end up, if he's got space to write it - out to the Glanbrook area. Eric, smile on. I'm glad some Glanbrook people were here because they have the opportunity to hear me speak. I opposed this urban boundary expansion a year ago. My Council colleagues saw fit to share that concern with me and at least down-sized it to something whole lot smaller that was gravity feed. I still opposed it, but I agreed at that time with and appreciated the down-sizing. So, from that point on, I go back to my community - I'm not happy; they're not happy. You start to design something that fits. This application for that area fits. It's on bigger sized lots; you have the open space put in; you have the parkland put in - a lot of things done that if you have to eat something as a Ward Councillor, then let's make it the best you can for your area. And, that was done. And, I thank staff for that work - the Conservation Authority and so on and so forth." [parts] "(a) and (c) of this, Mr. Mayor, was passed. To stay consistent with the Ward I represent, I chose to oppose it. Well, I also spoke at that meeting, saying full well, that it's not opposition to the urban expansion, now, to oppose this was to be consistent. But, if we oppose this, staff have already informed me, we will lose at OMB - no . . . " (not sure exactly what Councillor Mitchell said) "or nothing - automatic loss as soon as it goes there, because it's inside the urban boundary, already. Well, I do not - and I stated at that meeting - want to go to OMB and throw taxpayers dollars away. I did have an input, Mr. Mayor, to the design of this operation. I've met with neighbours, met with people to try to make it as best you can because it's going there. And, I would say, it's the closest thing to suiting the existing survey, because they are big lots - that existing survey at one side over there has been there for 40 to 50 years, on big lots. And, no doubt water and sewers are needed and there's a lot of talk about how some of the existing people that were in the original survey get hooked up to that, too. So, with those reasons, I will support this going forward because the work has been done. But, I definitely want all the public to know through that newspaper that I'm still adamant against the urban expansion that was there, but this is what I've been dealt with, this is how I've taken it to the public and this is where it is. So, I will support this recommendation, Mr. Mayor."

Mayor DiIanni : "Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, then, I'm going to take a - thank you. We're going to take the question right now and we're going to separate them out. 14 (a)" (hear councillors in background say carried) "14 (b) as amended" (hear councillors say carried) "I guess we have to deal with the amendment first, right? Yes, so, the amendment is to remove 'not' from the recommendation, right - to remove 'not'? All in favour of that?" (hear councillors say carried) "Against?" (Councillors McHattie and Merulla opposed, I think) "Opposed by a couple of individuals. And, (b) as amended. All in favour?" (hear Councillors say carried) "Against? (Councillors McHattie and Merulla opposed - Mayor DiIanni said that there was a 3 rd Councillor who opposed - I missed who that was) "Opposed by 3 members. And, Item number (c)" (hear councillors say carried) "Opposed?" (Councillors McHattie and Merulla opposed) "Opposed by a couple as well." That's carried."

Mitchell : "Mr. Mayor."

Mayor DiIanni : "Yes, Councillor."

Mitchell : "I don't know if it's unique or not, but could I have our Clerk's department, please log my comments, because they are important to the scenario of the Ward. Thank you."

Mayor DiIanni : "Please do that."

Mayor DiIanni : "Okay, now, Item # 15 - the Elimination of Duplicate Street Names. Is there any speaker there? Who did I speak to in terms of (some discussion in background, couldn't hear what was said) Councillor Merulla can you speak to that?