Present: Bill Kelly (chair), Maria Pearson, Dave Mitchell, Andrea Horwath, Sam Merulla, Brian McHattie, Terry Whitehead, Murray Ferguson

Also present: Chad Collins (for 30 minutes), Phil Bruckler (after 10:30 am), Dave Braden.

Media: Eric McGuinness (Spectator), Ken Mann (CHML), Natalie Marconi (CH)

Agenda: Addition of 4.1 request to be a delegation, minor text change in recommendation for item 6.4, and two additional requests for delegation status on 8.1 and 8.3. Clerk notes that these latter requests need to be okayed by the committee. Kelly asked for a motion from the committee for each of these. Agreed.

DELEGATION REQUESTS
4.1 (added item) Request by Merv Matier, Director of public board of education to speak at a future meeting on Veteran's Park. Carried without discussion.

CONSENT ITEMS

Items 5.1 to 5.4 accepted without discussion.

5.1 Demolition Permit - 132 Frederick Avenue (PD04089) (Ward 4) Demolish existing single family residence. Intention is to replace it with a single family residence but no building permit has been applied for.

5.2 Removal of the Holding Provision for Block 99, Plan 62M-906, Peachwood Crescent (Stoney Creek) (Ward 10) (PD04096) Rezone to permit 15 singlefamily homes in middle of residential area.

5.3 Tree Removal and Replacement, Atherley Drive (PD04100) (Ward 7) City planted trees but developer wants to put driveways there. Proposal is to have forestry remove trees and replace them with same size trees at cost of developer. Trees may be replaced somewhere else in the City.

5.4 Commercial Property Improvement Grant Program (C.P.I.G.) Applications (PD04103) (Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15) This is a grant program for façade improvements to commercial properties in BIAs. City pays 50% of costs up to $7500 per property. Approval is for 37 properties. Cost to city is $207,000.

PUBLIC MEETINGS/DELEGATIONS

6.1 Application for a Change in Zoning for the Property Located on the West Side of Gatestone Drive, Between Shadyglen Drive and Foxtrot Drive (Stoney Creek) (PD04097) (Ward 9) Application from the public school board to allow construction of a 29-classroom K-8 elementary school south of Highland and west of Highway 20 in upper Stoney Creek. Staff presentation by Greg Macdonald. Lands are designated residential in Stoney Creek OP and school site in Secondary Plan and Neighbourhood Plan. Paved rear yard and playing fields as well as internal bus drop-off area (in response to citizen concern about traffic).

Pearson: Commends staff. "I think it's excellent that they've taken the buses off the road. One question I do have is confirm that there is sufficient visitor and staff parking, because I understand the school that I'm on the council with in Stoney Creek has more than this and it's not as big a school." Macdonald: Stoney Creek bylaw requires 1.5 parking spaces per classroom. Future expansion with portables could be accompanied by expanded onsite parking. Some limitations on size of property. Also parking on one side of Gatestone Drive.

McHattie: "This is a brand new school, and it seems to me that there may be opportunities in new schools in particular and maybe retrofitting old schools, to look at naturalized schoolyards. We're in a situation where often there's not enough greenspace around for children to learn about nature and the schoolyard is largely paved and with active playing fields - which is necessary, playing fields are important - but are there opportunities at the very beginning to build in a naturalized schoolyard." Not expecting staff will have a response but wants to identify the issue and "look for a policy" and pass this on to the school board. Kelly says this is an interesting comment and notes that staff are taking notes. He suggests there is a point person for each board for liaison. Macdonald: "I have been in contact with open space development section of public works because this proposal does abut a public park to the west and my understanding is that staff in open space development will be working with school board staff on an appropriate transition between the school property and the city park, so you may want to contact open space development to incorporate some of these concerns." Kelly suggests this would be a good place to start. "Good idea, though, good concept." McHattie points out there is funding for this from Evergreen Foundation whom he's worked with in the past.

Horwath: Supports McHattie initiative and "asks that we perhaps direct staff to put a pilot together for this very project. It sounds like it lends to a pilot project to be done" because of city property abutting the school property. "That area in between might be the exact spot for a pilot project of this nature, and that way we can figure out who the people are who need to be involved, and how the project can move forward, and how the funding can be obtained, and all of those things." Suggests ward councillor and McHattie work together with staff to put together such a pilot project.

Merulla: "I too want to commend councillor McHattie for bringing this forward. I know that in Ward 4 we were fortunate enough to put almost $60,000 towards greening projects in various schools. And it's been an incredible partnership and one that perhaps can even be looked upon - A.M. Cunningham school is an example - as a case study of how well it can adapt within an academic environment." Kelly asks for a motion to direct staff. Moved by McHattie, seconded by Horwath. Carried.

Whitehead: "It would be nice if the school boards consulted to the same degree on closing schools as they do on building schools. I just want to make that statement."

Kelly: "Pursuant to discussions we had after our last meeting, we've decided you remember to change, to modify the way we're doing things here. We're going to ask the public to come down first and then talk to the proponent. We'll just see how that works because we did have some concerns raised about the methodology we've been using before." Asks for public comments. No one comes forward. Then asks for representative of school board, Mr. Ed Bordeau . He supports the staff report and informs committee that they have gone out to tender and are prepared to award a contract. "The school should start construction before the fall of this year and should be open for September of 2005." Kelly has only question: "Could you make yourself available and enter into some discussions about some of the open space development and concepts that we had talked about. As you say, if you've gone to tender it may be a little late for this particular project." Bordeau: "There may be some transitiion areas between the school and the park, as was said, the park is immediately to the west of where we have our soccer field and playground, and there's also a trail that leads through the community and to the park, along the south side. So there could be some interaction between still at this point."

Staff recommendations moved, seconded and carried.

6.2 Applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision Known as "Jackson Heights Addition" and Zone Change Located on Binbrook Road, Glanbrook (PD04095) (Ward 11) Approval of 29 single family homes in Village of Binbrook on 1.56 hectares of agricultural land in the Jackson Heights subdivision. Proponent is Rob-Geoff Properties. Staff presentation by Diane Biuk. Lots have a frontage of 12 metres and area of 5700 square feet.

McHattie: Recalls discussion at last meeting on a Binbrook subdivision application and the request of councillors for a presentation by staff on the overall plans for Binbrook development. "Concern I have is that it's not a mixed use approach. What we've seen so far is single family homes for the most part, which are single use. . That's ideally not what we're after. What we're after is more of a village type of development." Questions staff report statement that this is keeping with a village atmosphere. "I don't see how just adding homes on their own is a village kind of atmosphere. The village itself would have developed as a . village with different uses around, that people walked or at least had opportunities to do those things. So I would ask staff what we're doing about developing an actual planning charette or workshop for Binbrook that will allow us to build on a mixed use approach." . Also asks about HSR service. "What density do we need for transit and when do we get there with Binbrook, as well. That's something from a sustainability perspective, Vision 2020, that wording, we need to know about that sort of thing." Coveyduck: "Staff will be coming back a month from today to give committee a presentation on the Binbrook secondary plan. But I did want to clarify it is a presentation to present what has already been approved in the secondary plan, where all the densities have already been worked out to be included in that plan. So it wasn't a charette to be looking at how to plan it. It was more of an information session to explain to you what has already been planned. And this particular application does comply with that secondary plan that has already been approved. We're also going to coordinating that presentation with the Public Works department so they can give you a bit of an overview on servicing in the area as well."

McHattie: "Can I have it explained to me how this particular development - and I'm not picking on this particular development. It's just an example of one's we tend to see where it's a single use situation. Can I have it explained to me how this fits into the Binbrook plan, how it fits into a mixed use vierw of the world?" Biuk: "The Binbrook Village secondary plan designates this area on the screen here as low density residential, and the development that we've seen come forward before council conforms with that. The area in the village secondary plan that talks about mixed uses including commercial type of uses, public institutional uses, and residential above those uses, is to be focused at the intersection of the Binbrook Village secondary plan. So that would be on the west and east sides of Regional Road 56 and on the north and south sides of Binbrook Road, consistent with some of the existing commercial uses that are right there in the Binbrook Village at this time. And then throughout the rest of the Binbrook Village there are other designated uses for higher density, for parks, for elementary school uses, as well. And in other areas of the plan on the west side of 56, such as what we saw in Elizabeth Gardens, there are also small areas for corner type of retail. So that's where the mixed uses are really concentrated and on the periphery of the Binbrook Village area, most of it is low density residential with some very good pockets of medium density and high density uses that are concentrated on the collector roads - areas that are very accessible by traffic."

McHattie: "Can I ask with the playing around with densities now, when do we get to a position when HSR, bus rapid transit if that's what it is, is viable. And I have concerns about urban sprawl, but I'd like to see a density around Binbrook which may mean an additional density beyond what we have planned, that would support HSR, getting away from the cars going back and forth between the lower city and the upper city." Biuk: "At this time based on the existing residential that's in Binbrook, the density is not there and the funding is not there to provide HSR transit to Binbrook. The intention is to eventually to have that funding and that density in place so that public transit is available. And in preparation for that we are collecting comments from HSR and acknowledging issues such as providing walkways, sidewalks in residential developments, to easily facilitate future bus stops and transit pathways throughout the village area."

McHattie: "I'd like to request a report from Public Works through Planning on when HSR is going to be available. What are the densities that we're going to need for HSR in Binbrook and when that might come about and what kind of densities are required for doing that. Again not to hold up this particular development, and maybe that can be discussed at the presentation that we're going to receive." Kelly interrupts and agrees that would be a good time. Asks McHattie if there is anything else. McHattie: "Just to say I didn't hear anything about employment lands. I know councillor Mitchell is interested in trying to get some employment up there as well because that's part of the mixed use as well. There's the commercial, and there's the residential, but any thoughts in terms of the employment lands? ." Biuk: ".there isn't a concentrated area of employment lands other than the intended mixed use and commercial areas that are focused at the main intersection of the Binbrook village community. For the most part it is a residential community that is supported by schools, parks and a limited amount of commercial mixed uses. But the Binbrook Village area isn't intended, as it was planned out and approved by the previous council, to accommodate employment lands."

Whitehead: "I too have some reservations about urban sprawl and I'm going to ask the question quite bluntly. Are we subsidizing this development or is it paying for itelf?" Tony Sergi, staff: "This is part of the special area charge. All development pays for itself. There is no city cost sharing here at all." Whitehead : "The other concern is that with the greenbelt freeze it's been suggested that Binbrook is becoming a very attractive place. And I'm wondering if the capacity of Binbrook, relative to the interest, can be accommodated in the near future?" Kelly: "Is that from a servicing standpoint, councillor?" Whitehead: "Yes". Sergi: "The whole Binbrook area is established for in the equivalent of 5500 single family units. The first phase that proceeded under special area charge can accommodate up to 2000 units at this point in time. Any further expansion will be required , additional servicing will be paid through development charges at that point in time." Whitehead: "My last question is about phasing. In the context of what I've just talked about, is there any contemplation with regards to slowing down the phasing of these developments so that they're done in a comprehensive manner." Sergi: "In terms of how the area's been established, everything has to develop in an orderly fashion in order to provide for sufficient capacity. So there is no leapfrogging effect that's going to occur in Binbrook at this point in time."

Mitchell: "I appreciate all the questions and concerns from my councillor colleagues, and on our information day hopefully we call all learn a lot about this. I've been going to meetings for 18 years now on the development of this town and to look at it on a map it's somewhat difficult to fathom, I guess. I don't look at it as urban sprawl in any way, shape or form because it's development of a town, and a town can only grow so big by the capacity of the high pressure sewer line that has to be pumped into here. Nobody along the way, between the large urban centre and Binbrook, can ever hook into that line because it's a high pressure line. And also the fact that there's Twenty Mile creek farmland between there and Binbrook, which is some of the best farmland that we have, which is also the flight path for the airport, so we know there'll never be any development in there. Which is good planning. City, greenbelt, town greenbelt, town, greenbelt. So I'm real pleased with the way the development has gone so far. As far as the HSR service there, when I get asked about it, as far as having staff do a report on HSR, it would be about one paragraph, When the demand is there from the public, and they're willing to pay to have HSR service, it will be provided. We've done pilot projects in other areas through the ward that say if the people are willing to use it, we're more than willing to provide it. And we've done pilot projects to that effect. One thing that is missing on this map, and it is kind of exciting, is the fact that all this development - right here it doesn't point it out real clearly - but it's called Library Lane. And the library's there, the doctors office's there, and our seniors home is right there. It's beside this development. And when the water and sewers are finally hooked in - and this may come forward, I have to speak to Tim McCabe about it - there's a large area that's tilebed right now, that of course isn't working, and as soon as we can hook that to sewers, we can have the next step, which may be a nursing home facility added to the end. And that would be a dream come true for the town. Cause then you can have your single families, adult lifestyle community which is there now, the seniors home, then nursing home. So people can be born, raised, live in the community, and live their whole lives and work through the social programs that need to be provided in the community. I'm very excited about that. And there's going to be some proposals come on how to hook those sewer lines in to maybe have that expansion into a nursing home in the future. I'll have to talk to Tim about that, but that's exciting news as well. There's a new fire hall there, a huge park in the middle that's owned by the Agricultural Society. All this information will be brought forward but it's really about the design of a rural town and not about urban sprawl. Children that have been born and raised out there have never had the opporunity to live in the town they've been born and raised in because there wasn't services there provided for that. Now they can. So a lot of seniors, farm people that have lived up and down the many side roads in the rural area, are now moving into the town, which is good planning. We want them in there. . It was one of the first areas to have a special area charge for the development of the city. A special area charge that meant that new people that were moving into that town were paying 100% - 100% of the water tower, 100% of the sewers, 100% of everything needed, was paid by every new homeowner that's going in there. The development charges may change some of this a little bit, because there is some inequities there. There's inequity that every. That special area charge also includes the general levy charge that's paid to the Region at that time, but to the City now. And that development is not allowed to draw one cent out of the general levy charge. So they're paying 100% of everything that's going there, also paying into the general levy charge, and not allowed to draw off the general levy charge. So there is an inequity there, but it was an agreement signed by Glanbrook Council at the time, to have the town go forward.."

Kelly : "We're kind of drifting into discussion and debate which I really didn't want to do. This is supposed to be questions for staff."

Horwath: "Gee, staff are regretting that we don't have that workshop today. . How do we get to the mixed use commercial along the major roads? Following up on councillor's McHattie's points, the anxiety is that we'll only get, because of the potential development pressures, we're only going to get the single-family development like we see here today. And we'll never get to the part that actually makes it a town, as councillor Mitchell so describes - the pieces that are mixed development, the pieces that are commercial and the residnetial above, and the things that make it a bigger town than it is right now, but that still keeps the town flavour as opposed to urban sprawl leapfrog type of development. So can I ask is there any leverage that exists that requires some of the other types of mixed use to occur in tandem with or prior to the buildout of all the single-family residential?" Kelly directs question to Coveyduck and asks Horwath to repeat question because Merulla was chatting with Coveyduck while Horwath was speaking. Coveyduck: .In terms of forcing individuals to come forward sooner rather than later in terms of commercial development, is that the question? I'm not aware of anything we can do. It's really the market that will dictate. It's their land, they own it. It's up to them when they want to proceed." Horwath: "Perhaps we'll pick that up again when we have the broader discussion next month because I think it's an issue. As we look toward the pressure that's coming forward in regards to our residential development pressures, we need to look at whether there are levers that we can put in place in terms of phasing. . Councillor McHattie was talking about the HSR issues. I have attended workshops in Toronto and other areas where there's research that's been done to indicate when transit hubs are viable, the densities of possible transit users, the populations, and the percentages of those populations that tend to be transit riders, and what density you need to be able to get to a point where it's - well it never pays for itself as you know - but where it's at least viable to provide transit out to those areas. I know we've talked about transit in regards to just providing extra service farther and farther afield, but in reality people will know that transit in only somewhat viable in high density urban areas. So the more we send it out far afield without having the densities there to support it, the more we hobble and cobble our HSR system and actually reduce it's viability and its financial viability. So we really need to seriously look at those issues, and avoid the situations we have now where we have significant, significant problems in the urban area in regards to undercapacity. Huge numbers of riders and not enough buses. It's affecting the business districts severely. It's affecting the university students as we heard a couple of times. We really need to take a hard look at that and make some hard decisions in that regard."

Whitehead : "How many households in Binbrook currently?" Sergi: "I believe we're at 296, under 300 currently." Whitehead: "And how many are expected to be developed after these phases are completed?" Sergik: "I believe that Jackson Heights will be in the neighbourhood of 150 to 200 units total, and the previous application supports 260 in its entirety. That was Elizabeth Gardens." Whitehead: "So it's safe to say that with this development we're going to double in size. Is that correct?" Sergi: "Correct, but it's all based on the absorption rate. Particularly up in that area you're growing at approximately 100 units per year growth." Whitehead: "I just wanted to make the point that this in not just an area that's absorbing families retiring and seniors, but in fact it's a community that's being built to absorb growth. I just wanted to make that clear. The second point is that I did ask bluntly about whether this is paying for itself. I think the answer was clearly given with respect to fact the upfront costs are there. My next question is with respect to the lifecycle costs. Who would be paying for that?" Segrik: "As in any infrastructure, taxes that are collected will be responsible for maintaining existing infrastructure, and replacement costs in the future." Whitehead: "So my question is then is this sustainable on the lifecycle?" Sergi: "At this point I'm in no position to comment on the sustainability of the growth." Whitehead: "Is that not important, Mr. Chair, that we understand whether or not a development is going to be sustainable under the context of why it was put in place? Can we get that answer?" Kelly: "Perhaps that may be part of the discussion that we have when Ms. Coveyduck makes her presentation next month. We're talking about sustainability of the whole project, as opposed to just this particular aspect of it." Tony Sergi : "These questions we really need to sit down and have conversation with Public Works who track the actual cost per kilometre road, cost per kilometre sewer, maintenance costs. Relatively speaking, new development does not have, per se, additional costs right up front, within the first. The roads are designed for a 35-year lifecycle, then the replacement costs. Sewers are typically designed for a 100-year lifecycle, watermains 60 year lifecycle. So those are the time frames that you're looking at. Beyond that window, Public Works could tell you exactly what the replacement cost is per kilometre of road, per unit at this date, for the existing city, throughout the areas." Whitehead: "Mr. Chair, I was listening to the chair of the finance in Oakville when they concluded their budget. And the first thing he said is that Oakville can expect mid-percentage increases for the next number of years as long as they continued residential growth because it's not paying for itself. He made that absolutely clear. So my concern relative to our deficit, is that we need to understand whether or not the city taxpayer is off the hook on these developments or in fact they are self-sustaining. So in that context is why I'm asking the question. And I know that we identified some of those lifecycle costs, but I'd like to understand all of the lifecycle costs and how that relates to this development. And whether or not this development will sustain those lifecycle costs." Kelly: "Well I think you heard Mr. Sergie say that at this time it's a little premature for him to make those guesstimates at this stage. I mean we need someone from Public Works and from Long Range Planning. Ms. Coveyduck has already suggested that we'll be doing that this month in an overall look at the Binbrook area. And I would suggest that perhaps, I'm not trying to put you off, but I think at that point staff will be better prepared to address those sort of questions. Because we're dealing with a specific situation here as opposed to a long-term plan. I know where you're going on this, but I think what you should do is hold off until next month until we actually have that presentation." Whitehead: "That's fine. It's not necessary on this development. I want to start taking a look through a broader lens and understanding the cost implications and make sure that we address all those issues in the future. So it's not necessarily a target on this particular development. This is just a good example to start thinking about those long-term ramifications." Kelly: "Absolutely. Those are the things that we do have to have a discussion about and staff are taking notes and asking them to redflag that. So hopefully when they do the presentation."

Merulla: "I think what councillor Whitehead is emphasizing is important. I think the aspect that's being missed here is the cost of actually doing business when we expand in this way. For instance, providing policing, ambulance services and other public - or fire, police and ambulance services - not to mention the fact that we're going to have build schools, community centres. And I don't believe the costs, the long term costs of those endeavours, are attached to the upfrront costs. And that's why I think the focus isat this point, if I'm speaking of behalf of councillor Whitehead. . [to staff] When we incorporate all those potential, and all those inevitable costs in the future, do you still feel that development charges actually pay for full cost recovery?"

Tim McCabe [Director of Economic Development]: "Development charges pay for the capital costs of these facilities. They do not pay in any way shape or form for operating costs. There is some exceptions that are kind of in a grey area - police cars and certain fleet vehicles that are over seven years, if you want to consider that a type of operating cost, but the cost of operating the community centres and the physicial infrastructure works which are paid for out of development charges, but the costs of continuing operating comes out of the tax base." Merulla: "So in essence the whole argument that suburban sprawl is sucking the life out of the inner city is quite accurate. Just wondering if there is any way we can look at those projected costs and incorporate them in the upfront cost recovery method, as opposed to the long term indebtedness, I guess, that we're faced with?" Kelly: "Is that a rhetorical question?" Merulla: "No, is there anything we can actually seek out a formula to incorporate some of those operating costs up front, as opposed to alternately having to look at deficit situations as a result?" Coveyduck: "The DC legislation does not allow us to do that. That's actually what the collection of taxes are for. When you collect taxes from the properties that are now going to be developed. And it would be up to the City whether they want to set aside some money from the collection of those taxes to put towards long term maintenance." Merulla: "So we can't directly impact the developers on this. It would be something that we'd have to look at over and above that. Okay, thank you." Braden indicates he wants to speak. Kelly responds (repeating it twice): "Are we getting philosophical or does it have to do with this application?" Braden: "Do I have to answer that question?" Kelly: "Councillor, what I'd love to do is this. I'd like to follow the process here. We'd like to invite members of the public to talk about this. We'd like to have the proponent come down here. Then I can bring it back to the floor. We can debate and talk about.. You can wax philosophical at that point. Give us your hockey scores. Doesn't matter, but at this point I'd kinda like to move the process along because we're kinda get off.. And it's very important. It's a very important topic that we're talking about, and something we have to make a determination on, but staff have already told us that they'll be bringing back a report next month on the overall development of the Binbrook settlement area. And I think a lot of these broad-based questions would be better addressed at that time as opposed to now. So questions ON this proposal."

Whitehead: "I just want to ask the staff in the context of this here, when they do the presentation on Binbrook if they could try to include all those different things we talked about in regards to cost and sustainability. Because we need to understand as councilors whether it's about cost recovery, I mean that's always great, but I think we need to understand when we're talking about future development what all the costs are and whether or not it's a sustainable development. And I think we need to understand it in this context, because this is a good example. I'd just ask staff if they can bring back in that presentation what the lifecycle costs are, what the policing, all those other costs that are incorporated into sustaining a community, whether or not that community itself is assisting in those costs." Kelly: "I think they got that message. Good point." Asks for public input. No one comes forward. Asks for the proponent to speak.

Steve Fraser [Works for A.J. Clarke and Associates and they are representing Rob-Geoff Properties, the proponent of this subdivision]. "In terms of this proposal specifically, it is a low density designation in the Binbrook secondary plan. And furthermore, in terms of phasing, for this specific property itself, it is the same proponent that brought to you Jackson Heights plan of subdivision that was recently draft approved and I know through speaking with him, his intention is to register this plan of subdivision pending the approvals, subsequent to the registration of phase two which will establish Tanglewood Drive, which is the north-south road within the Jackson Heights subdivision. Our offices worked extensively with staff on this project, Miss Diana Biuk in specific. And we're very satisfied with the report and with the conditions."

No questions. Kelly asks for debate but says he thinks it should occur next month at the staff presentation. Moved by Merulla, seconded by Mitchell. Carried.

6.3 Application to Amend Zoning By-law No. 87-57 (Ancaster) for Property Located at 1151 Garner Road West - Applicant: Calvary Pentecostal Tabernacle (PD04092) (Ward 12) Application to permit a church within an existing building on the site. Charlie McConnell presents the staff report. (tape malfunction obscures the report - may be connected with staff microphone). However, it noted that access to Garner (formerly Highway 53) was not permitted by the provincial Ministry of Transportation when it was still a provincial highway, but City will entertain a proposal from the proponent to allow such an access via the Access Permit process. No discussion by councillors. No public comments. The proponent indicated he supported the staff report. Moved by Ferguson, seconded by Pearson. Carried.

6.4 Applications to Amend the City of Hamilton Official Plan for Lands Located at 1057 - 1067 Beach Boulevard and to Amend the City of Hamilton Zoning By-law for Lands Located at 1067 Beach Boulevard (Hamilton) (PD04090) (Ward 5) This will permit construction of six street townhouses on lands currently designated as "open space". The owner is Andrew Schaafsma Holdings Inc. The application also rezones an existing residential building to residential. (Continuing problems with tape. Records from notes) Heather Boles presents the staff report. Says the proposal is infill development. Mitchell raised concerns about loss of open space. It is clarified that there is no shortage of open space in this area and that the homes back onto the waterfront trail. Collins [who attended the committee meeting for 30 minutes including this item which is in his ward] spoke in favour of the application and the staff view that there is sufficient open space here without these lands. McHattie noted that on page 7 of the report makes reference to Policy 1.1.3(g) requiring that "sensitive land uses are appropriately designed, buffered and separated from each other to prevent adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants." This has led staff to require a noise assessment because the development is near the QEW. McHattie asks if this can be used to look at air contamination. Notes that this area is also downwind of the steelmills and that he has heard concerns from beach residents about air pollution. "And I know Environment Hamilton's been doing some sampling down there of lichens on trees, and not finding any." Collins suggests this concern should be referred to Public Works. McHattie moves motion, seconded by Merulla, that the matter of air pollution and its impact on residential development be referred to the Public Works committee for their review. Carried. There are no delegations from the public and the proponent supports the staff report. Moved by Horwath, seconded by Merulla. The proposal is adopted.

6.5 Application to Amend Ancaster Zoning By-law No. 87-57 to Permit a Fifty (50) Unit Block Townhouse Development Within a Modified RM6-486 Zone, 60 Cloverleaf Drive (Ancaster) (PD04098) (Ward 12) Application by Marz Homes to change previous plan for low-rise apartments with density of 50 units per hectare to current plan of 50 townhomes on 1.35 hectares (reduced density). This project appears to have initially generated a lot of opposition from the neighbourhood but it has since been revised and now is supported. Whitehead raises concerns about the apparent reduction in density. Dr. Wally Bolus, a dentist who lives in the area addressed the committee. He supports the current version of the project but along with others was opposed to an earlier version. He raises concerns about the traffic flows in the area which have generated high traffic accidents rates, and which he fears will be exacerbated by the new project. He also offers specific suggestions to mitigate some of these problems. Whitehead agrees there is a significant traffic issue here.

6.6 International Village BIA representatives regarding Downtown issues. This originated in concerns about the Good Shepherd proposal on King East. Request asked to be at beginning of agenda, but that didn't happen. The representative made several points. First, that zoning ensure that commercial uses remain on at least the main floors of the buildings. Second, that there be improved enforcement of property standards. Notes that city staff say their hands are tied and asks that council petition the province for strengthened enforcement authority. Third issue is the policy that imposes lower taxes on vacant properties. The BIA thinks this is counterproductive. Cites examples of properties in which the owner has no interest or intention to actually have them occupied. Fourth issue is nuisance properties.

Kelly thanks presentor. Horwath follows up on the issue of property standards enforcement and says the rules are being successfully gotten around by abuse of the process, delays, etc. There was discussion with Planning Director Leigh-Ann Coveyduck about combining property standards work with fire inspections McHattie addresses this issue as well as the vacant buildings and suggests that staff look at the idea being practiced in some parts of the U.S. of taxing land rather than buildings so as to encourage best use. Horwath moves a motion that the issue of taxation levels on vacant properties be referred to the Corporate Administration committee.

PRESENTATIONS

7.1 Our Downtowns and BIAs - 2003 Annual Report and 2004 Downtown Renewal Division Work Plan (PD04101) (City Wide) Presentation by Ron Marini r eviews full range of downtown renewal efforts. No recommendations, but notice that they will be coming back to the council in future about the founding of a for-profit Urban Development Corporation.

Ferguson asked whether the BTR is important for downtown renewal work. Marini said it is a "huge piece" of the puzzle. Whitehead asked about problem of banks not being willing to back downtown efforts and suggested the City use its accounts to leverage action. McHattie asked Marini if his program ($1.5m) is well enough funded and if he could do more with more money.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

8.1 Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board School Closures - Surplus Sites to be Considered for Acquisition - Phase 2 (PD03135(a)) Recommendation to purchase Fairfield and Tweedsmuir for parkland, and Stinson to preserve the building, and to inform board that the City is not interested in acquiring Pleasant Valley, Queen Victoria or Dundas District schools. The committee was addressed by three Dundas residents who are opposed to the use of part of Veteran's Park for a new school. It was noted that council has already stated it has no interest in a land swap with the school board for part of this park.

8.2 Sign Variance Application SV-04-01 for 1056 Highway No. 6, City of Hamilton (PD04099) (Ward 15)

Recommendation is to deny approval of this application. Applicant wasn't present. Ferguson moved deferral but couldn't obtain a seconder, so the staff recommendation

8.3 Letter from Millgrove Garden Supplies Ltd., Part Lots 10-11, Concession 4, West Flamborough. Item Referred from Council on March 24, 2004. This company was approved by Council to relocate their business. The decision was appealed to the OMB and now the OMB has deferred the hearing because of the Greenbelt Moratorium. The owners claim this will force closure of their 50-year-old business. Motion by Ferguson that the City support the owner's application to the province to obtain an exemption from the greenbelt moratorium. Seconded by Whitehead and carried.