January 20/04 Report
9:30 am

Committee members in Attendance:

Bill Kelly - Chair,
Terry Whitehead - Vice Chair
Dave Mitchell - Second Vice Chair - left at 2:00 pm
Murray Ferguson
Andrea Horwath - absent
Sam Merulla
Brian McHattie
Maria Pearson
Mayor DiIanni - ex-officio

Non-Committee Councillors in attendance:

Phil Bruckler
Chad Collins
Tom Jackson
Bernie Morelli

Approval of minutes of January 6 meeting.

Just after the meeting commenced after 9:30 am an "in camera" session was called to deal with an OMB matter. The committee restarted at 9:54 am and quickly went through two delegation requests, one from Hamilton Association of BIA's and one from Ed Fothergill a developer representative who wanted to speak to this meeting of the committee regarding the Greenbelt Protection Act and Minister's Zoning Order, but Fothergill was not able to attend so his presentation will occur later when city manager Bob Robertson is to submit a report.

There were three "consent items" and then item 6.1 to hear an application to rezone 112 Mohawk Road East for a dentist's office and rental apartments. The rental units were being opposed by neighbours because of increased parking in back yards where neigbours have gardens. The staff report recommended against approval. The building is currently a garage being used for storage of construction materials, so it is already an industrial use. A presentation was made by the property owner (the dentist was also present) in favour of the changes. He explained that it was financially unfeasible to convert the property to a single-family home because it would cost $140,000 just to remove the existing building and prepare the site. He said that the rental unit plans had been cancelled. Two residents were heard from who had originally opposed the change but now thought the dentist's office was ok (because the dental clients were by appointment only and so traffic would not be heavy and the rental units were being dropped). The main neighbourhood opposition appeared to be to the rental units. A question by McHattie was - is staff involved with pro-active infill, to which the staff person said no. Braden asked if the design features would complement the other houses - answer - yes.

During the presentation by the property owner, Kelly (the chair) went over and chatted for at least two minutes with Merulla, after which Kelly went to chat with staff. Whitehead subsequently went to talk to the same staff person, and then Mitchell went to chat with Kelly and then left the room followed by Merulla. Morelli and Jackson also chatted briefly. Ferguson was already out of the room so only two members of the committee actually listened to the full presentation - McHattie and Pearson - although quorum was not lost.

(This chatting activity is not only rude, but actually violates the procedural bylaw Code of Conduct which requires that "During Council meetings, members shall conduct themselves with decorum. Respect for delegations and for fellow members and staff requires that all members show courtesy and not distract from the business of the Council during presentations and when other members have the floor.")

6.2 An application to change zoning of a parcel of land of 7600 square metres from agricultural to prestige industrial for rear portion of lands at 406 Pritchard Road. Staff explained that this was a "squaring off"of land already slated for development and that the parcel is surrounded on three sides by the industrial development. However the fourth side (north) faces conservation, open space, park and recreational ... A Hamilton Conservation Authority report in the agenda said that the property in question is within the Redhill Valley Environmentally Significant Area and contains a small intermittent tributary - and had some recommendations for how to deal with drainage.
McHattie asked if the Environmentally Significant Areas Impact Evaluation Group (ESAIEG) had been consulted and was an environmental impact statement needed. Answer - no, staff didn't see the need since this was the remaining piece of an industrial development.

Comments were invited from the gallery and Don McLean spoke. He asked staff how the official plan affects ESA's and read from a document that said that development cannot affect the ESA aspects of a property - referred to 1994 Greenlands report - a strategic commitment to an intermittent water way - asked how staff came to the conclusion that it is ok to pemit industrial development. Chair Kelly reminded McLean that he could not ask questions of staff - only present a brief. McLean said that this may be part of the "Karst" feature - a provincially significant area and he would like that issue examined.

McHattie expressed worry that this was not referred to the ESAIEG committee and that this is a "one-off" situation without environmental impact statements. He referred to an early 90's report commissioned by the Regional government where a series of properties were examined for small but cumulative effects of development around natural areas with the result that environmental damage is done "piecemeal" . He recommended that this item be referred to ESAIEG prior to approval.

Jackson (not on committee) requested approval of the application (agricultural to industrial) because of the pressure for industrial development (a friend is an entrepreneur and is looking for space) and this represents commercial tax growth. It is also inside the urban boundary, so should go ahead.

Mitchell started a silly discussion about the difference between environmentally "sensitive" and environmentally "significant" . Braden (also not on the committee) said he needed a map with contour lines so he wanted the item to be sent back. McHattie reminded committee that the official plan requires ESAIEG to comment - so asked that they "follow the stated policy."

A motion for further study was defeated and a motion to accept the staff report was carried. McHattie was the only vote for further study and opposed to the staff recommendation. Mayor DiIanni arrived at the beginning of this item and left as soon as it was completed. He did not return for nearly two hours.

DETAILS OF MCLEAN'S OBJECTIONS TO THIS ITEM:

This concerns a zoning change from Agriculture to Industrial of a piece of land owned by Effort Trust and adjacent to the Mount Albion Conservation Area. The staff report mentions that the "Hamilton Conservation Authority advised that the property is within the Redhill Valley Environmentally Significant Area and that there is a small intermittent tributary that crosses the rear south corner of the lot." I have checked and confirmed that the lands are part of this ESA. The HCA comment also raises concerns about downstream erosion in Hannon Creek should the lot be developed.

However, it appears that this information had no impact on staff and in both their written and verbal reports they said that the proposal is "in conformity with the Official Plan" and "compatible with adjacent land uses". Regarding the latter claim, the Mt. Albion Conservation Area is the adjacent land use on the south side. The conformity with the Official Plan is definitely not true. Here is the relevant excerpt from Part C, the Land Use Strategy section of the Official Plan.

Section 1.2 states: "The majority of features included within the Core Natural Areas grouping warrant protection from development. These areas are described as Environmentally Significant Areas." It goes on to say that "to protect natural areas, the Region will… Apply the following policies in assessing the merits of proposed changes in land use within and adjacent to Environmentally Significant Areas;

1. land use changes in or adjacent to Environmentally Significant Areas will only be permitted where, in addition to meeting other policies in this plan, such development:
   i) will not adversely affect, degrade or destroy any of the qualities which are the basis
   for the area's designation;
   ii) will not cause any significant impacts upon water quality and quantity; and,
   iii) will not adversely affect the implementation of any resource protection policies or
2. proposed changes will be referred to the Environmentally Significant Areas Impact Evaluation Group (ESAIEG) for review. ESAIEG will advise Regional Environment staff on whether the proposed changes satisfy the intent of Policy C-1.2.2.
3. in assessing the appropriateness of the proposed change, the proponent may be required to submit an Environmental Impact Statement which may include plans/studies, environmental analyses, cumulative impact assessments, buffer requirements, or other associated documentation considered necessary by ESAIEG.

The lands are also included in the 1994 report called "Towards a Regional Greenlands System" and are designated therein as "Core Natural Area". This Greenlands system is recognized and described in section 1.1 of the Land Use Strategy in the Official Plan which includes the following directions:

"a) adopt the Natural Heritage System as the framework for conservation planning and management within this Region. The components of the system are Core Natural Areas, Linkages and Restoration Opportunities as defined in this Plan in D 11." …

"f) require that existing natural areas within the Natural Heritage System (i.e. Core Natural Areas and Linkages) be identified and that appropriate policies for their conservation be developed in Area Municipal Official Plans, secondary or neighbourhood plans, watershed plans and other policy documents. Policies guiding the review of proposals for land use change contained in these documents will address mitigation of impacts and the opportunities for enhancement through conservation or restoration of habitat."

McLean informed the committee about the designation of these areas as Core Natural Areas within the Regional Greenlands System. He also read a portion of the Official Plan instructions regarding ESAs (quoted above).

The staff report also baldly declares that the zoning change "would not have any negative social, health, or environmental impacts", and that it "meets the goals of Vision 2020 in that the subject property promotes the local economy."

7.1 Budget overview - slides and two large handout documents. City Manager Bob Robertson started to review the budget with the committee. CATCH left at around 11:15 am.