7.1 City Initiative for an Official Plan Amendment and Applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Revisions to Draft Plans of Subdivision Known as "Southampton Estates" and "South Mount Hope Estates", Located at White Church Road and Highway No. 6, Glanbrook (PD04138) (Ward 11)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Jun22/PD04138.pdf
Applicant is Anthony DiCenzo 1536708 Ontario Inc. Property is 11.6 ha (28.77 acres). No information on number of units. Two blocks are undeveloped - one designated high density and one designated medium density residential. Forestry notes that trees of "unknown ownership" have been removed and other City trees are not protected despite city bylaws.

Peter Delio does staff presentation. Brief with use of maps. Combined city initiative and modifications to subdivision application. Located between #6 and the new #6 which is "supposed to be open in the fall". "Ultimate loss is only 13 units." The report says 19 but they did a recalculation and only 13 units is lost (perhaps partly because of elimination of a couple of parkettes). Staff support for the changes. It "will result in appropriate and efficient development". No questions of staff. No public delegations.

Proponent's representative is Sergio Manchia of Planning and Engineering Initiatives. Thanks staff and councillor Mitchell for holding an open house in Mt. Hope. "As Mr. Delio has noted, we've basically introduced some housekeeping amendments. In addition we've reduced the density just slightly to better improve the line fabric and the road layout and I think it's a much better design with more positive neighbourhood including a better designed park that will benefit the entire Southampton neighbourhood. In other words I think this is a good news report." Raises issue of noise wall. "We just wish to have some clarification on this". Starts with map and photos of storm drainage channel - "something new and exciting in my opinion. We've taken a ditch . and working with the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority .we've established a new approximately one kilometre channel run that we hope at the end of the day will be exactly as a creek should be with habitat and fish etc." Unique situation. "We are now creating a natural stream which in my opinion is not only going to enhance the neighbourhood but the whole Mount Hope area." Notes debate was whether to pipe it or not "and the NPCA was adamant that we move forward without piping it and this is the result. After spending literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on this new channel." Shows pictures of revitalized creeks from the Waterloo area. All of this is pre-amble to his request to relocate the 2.4 metre noise wall to the edge of Highway 6 instead of between the "stream channel" and the subdivision. Notes that it #6 will become a municipal road when the new bypass opens up. Not debating the requirement for a wall. "The clarification that we'd life from committee is that rather than establishing a noise attenuation wall that's 8 feet high along the rear of these units here, we would like to have it on the most easterly side, on the highway side, so the potential residents of this neighbourhood can enjoy the vista of that new creek. . if we're going to follow that philosophy of opening up storm channels and improving them, we should lead by example and not block them off and have these noise barrier basically cutting off any vista." Hoping residents will take "sort of a stewardship approach to this creek" and wall will block that. Had discussion with staff and concern is long term maintenance. So rather than using a wooden fence with lifespan of 15-25 years, proposing to go with a higher standard, "which is three-fold the cost" cement or Durisol wall which has "closer to 50 years". Also will provide a black chainlink fence between properties and creek channel so people don't dump or expand into creek which is zoned as public open space. Asks for committee support for wall relocation.

Merulla: Asks staff if this is possible to do. Sergi: "The location of the noise wall has to be contained within the property of the developer at this point in time. We cannot locate it on Ministry property." "I believe the applicant is proposing to put it within the 15 metre [stream] corridor that's currently part of the channel system." As far as do-able: "Anything is possible, it's just a matter of liability and future maintenance of the structure. Typically noise walls are placed on private property and become the encumbrance of the landowner for maintenance and upkeep." Merulla says he doesn't see a problem with Manchia reqommendation.

Whitehead: Asks for staff clarification of Manchia's response to staff. Manchia: "We have 15 metre wide creek. Five metres is the creek and we have five metres on each side of it which is sort of a buffer. On the top side on #6 side we may have a few more feet. . that's all we'll need. It's not like we're going to be intruding and we would keep it as close as possible to the eastern boundary of the property. And once again trying not to intrude on the buffer or the creek." Whitehead: How do you respond to liability? Manchia: "My understanding is that it wasn't so much a liability issue as a maintenance issue. So we stepped it up 3-fold to something that we believe will last literally a hundred years versus something that will last only 30 years."

Mitchell: Says majority of concerns at public meeting were about storm drainage "and this development has covered that off fabulously because the storm drainage has been put in a creek channel that's absolutely gorgeous. I attended the sight last night. I will say that Serg's pictures there are just a little misleading because it takes a few years to looking just as pretty as that because the vegetation has to get there. But anyway he did a pretty good job in his presentation. computer enhancement. But it will be absolutely beautiful, and the storm drainage is covered off, and the people who are going to live there will get the feeling of living in a rural town and the country because that creek channel is right there. I've also had to deal with quite a few noise wall situations and what I've learned about noise walls is they have to be close to the highway or very close to the home to be effective." Need to put noise wall where Manchia wants it to be effective. Moves amendment to staff report to support it. Also notes that he wants to have a meeting of the planning committee at Glanbrook town hall, at least once this term of council, as well as in Stoney Creek city hall. Kelly notes that amendment they discussed when they met at Stoney Creek City Hall last term "was shot down by the provincial government". [reference is to urban boundary expansion]

Whitehead: Supportive of proposal. Also wants to have planning meeting in Ward 8 too. Development taking place there too.

McHattie : Asks about going from medium density to low density. Notes official plan talks about compact mixed use being the type of development we want. "I'm not familiar with the overall Mount Hope plan. Hopefully we'll get a presentation on the Binbrook plan in an upcoming meeting [this was promised for early May by staff]. I'm trying to get a sense of how this fits our interest in trying to get the best form of densities on these lands, and how it fits with employment lands as well. I think we have to start looking at each of these subdivision proposals in a holistic sense. We need compact mixed use. That's the desire. We're not always going to get it and perhaps we don't always need it, depending on where exactly it is. But without understanding the full context of the development in this area. I can' tell whether this is a problem that it's going from medium density to low density." Ask for staff comment. Peter Deleo: "As a result of the change in the plan we've gone from 89 singles to 141 for a gain of 52 singles; but we've reduced the medium density from 137 to 72 units, so the total loss is 13 units. But if you look at the plan on the screen here, we're only talking about this area here. This section of the plan in particular right here there's a high density block that we haven't got a proposal for yet. We do have some areas of medium density here which we haven't seen a plan for yet, up in this area here which we haven't received any proposals for yet. So overall, in this plan itself we've lost 13 units, but we still don't know how many units we're going to get on this high density block and we don't know how many units we're going to have in this future area here or down here. In terms of employment lands, this is the Mount Hope urban settlement area, but just to the north here we have the airport . there is an industrial business park basically stretching from the north limit of Mount Hope all the way up to the City of Hamilton limits on the west side, we have airport-related industrial business park which is basically vacant. So there's opportunities for growth north of Mount Hope here all the way up to the city of Hamilton boundary."

McHattie: "What's our commercial in this area. The idea that we want to get people out of their cars as much as possible. Is there places here people can walk to?" Deleo: "This whole core area here of Mount Hope is designated for commercial purposes. A lot of it probably is still residential but it's designated for commercial purposes . again north, well not walking distance, but north along #6 there are some areas that are commercially related to the airport uses as well. You've got a core of Mt Hope here which is essentially commercial." McHattie: Asks about bike lanes from the subdivision to the commercial area. Deleo: "In the Glanbrook plan I don't think there's anything that speaks to bike lanes. I know in the Stoney Creek plan it has a lot of bike-related policies, buy I have not seen anything in the Glanbrook plan which talks to creating a pedestrian link to the core area there. I mean it is a relatively short distance. Homestead Drive is a fairly major road, but it's certainly within walking distance of this development. The thing is, I guess, to look at future phases as tying in this whole area a little better to the core area instead of having these cul-de-sacs, but we'll have to wait for plans to come in for those lands." McHattie: "I'd appreciate getting that kind of context particularly in the newer developments where we can do different things and we should know that we can walk to the commercial areas. It's fantastic. That's exactly the kind of development we want to see. And get the densities that we need in the overall area, if not in a particular development, necessary to get HSR in the area, and that sort of thing. Bike lanes if possible or if needed, because I don't know the area as well as councillor Mitchell and others. . watching future development in this area . hoping those high density areas actually stay high density and we're able to achieve the overall densities throughout the Mt. Hope settlement area that was originally envisioned." Asks for this type of info in future presentations from staff.

Braden : ".With regard to that wall issue: For some reason this week we've dealt with three noise wall issues and they're coming back to get us already, like the second generation on the QEW already in which our government is looking at spending money for sound walls. Can I ask staff if there are a range of possibilities and the staff start at one end moving toward the other from the most desirable from the corporate point of view to the least desirable, can I have them talk about the idea of the wall and the long term costs of the wall, privacy perhaps to the individual, and maybe that concept about whether or not where this new creative ditch is going to be is going to be maintained by the city somehow through default or whether there's going to be a sense of ownership from the individuals to keep it clean. Cause that's going to be a mighty handy place to dump stuff - little stuff. Can I get some sense from the staff where do they want to go with this. Talk to me about money, long term." Tim McCabe: "There's nothing in this report or recommendation that recommends the noise barrier be located in one location or the other. In fact, we've actually made a comment that we're waiting for information in order to assess the situation, in just before the conclusions section. The information was supplied yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and we need time to look at this. And if you are proceeding with agreeing in principle to the location closer to the highway, I would ask that the specifications, the exact location and the implications for future maintenance liabilities be subject to the Department of Public Works on the understanding that council supports a location closer to the highway. So we need to look at this. There's other issues in terms of safety. The residents are going to be separated between a noise wall, a city-owned creek, and the exposed - in terms of people may be down in that area. So we do want to look at the final location of the noise wall with respect to all of it. If it is the wish of this council to have preference for a wall along the highway, we certainly would want your resolution to be subject to Public Works review - future maintenance liabilities, specifications and noise wall design." Braden: "I really appreciate the answer, and I'd suggest that clearly, based on that, we don't want to make any specific decisions on that area until - we can't make the decision in isolation of professional advice. So we need to hear the advice first before - and I'm not on the committee - I would ask anybody to make long term decisions. . This week already we're talking about couple of million dollars, and as sure as shooting, this corporation wants nothing to do with the long-term maintenance or liability of that wall. Absolutely nothing. We want to make sure of that."

Mitchell: "I have the original motion. I'll leave it that way ." Clerk reads amendment: "That the applicants noise wall be approved as presented subject to the input of staff". Mitchell: "That's fine." Kelly : "Seconded by councillor Whitehead. All in favour. Opposed. Motion is carried. Motion as amended, moved by Mitchell, seconded by Pearson."

Mitchell: "Just a quick comment. I know where councillor McHattie's coming from and I understand that side of it, but every meeting I go to the local residents want to have lower densities rather than higher densities because they don't want more people and more cars and more streetlights and more stop signs, and so on. Now a monorail system going out there might be really supported, but higher densities - it never goes very good when you get talking to those people out there. So we're on opposite ends on that issue."

Whitehead: "I respectfully disagree with my colleague here." Kelly: "Let's deal with the motion. I don't want to hear ." Whitehead: "New development has to pay for itself and the only way to do that is to have a mix of density and otherwise. I don't know what the people might want but the reality is that other people have to subsidize that development, so in the best interests of the broader community we have to share the . effects." Kelly : "Thank you. Point made. On the motion. All in favour, opposed. Motion is carried. Lively discussion. Thank you so much." (33 minutes for this item).

7.2 Application for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located at 999 Upper Wentworth Street (Hamilton) (PD04157) (Ward 7) City owned property, currently a parking lot but zoned agricultural, being rezoned so it can be sold to Cadillac Fairview (owners of Limeridge Mall) for parking area. They have leased it for that purpose for over 20 years from the City. Services by watermains and sewers. Currently designated as single and double residential in neighbourhood plan. Staff report presented by Dave Samis. No public delegations. No discussion by the committee. Moved by Mitchell, seconded by Pearson. Carried.

7.3 Applications for an Amendment to the Stoney Creek Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 and Draft Plan of Subdivision Known as "Clovervale" for Lands Located at 478 Glover Road , Part of Lot 10, Broken Front Concession, Former City of Stoney Creek (PD04156) (Ward 11) Marz Homes is the proponent. 31 single family homes and 15 townhouses on 3.1 hectares. North of north service road of QEW. Kristen West provides staff report. Staff report supported by proponent. No public delegations. No discussion by committee. Carried.

7.4 Application for a Modification in Zoning for Lands Located at 101 Nash Road North (Hamilton) (PD04171) (Ward 5) This is the site of the former St. Bernard's school at Nash and Kentley. Proposal is for 120 unit retirement home called Marie Curie Lodge renovating existing school for 52 residents and building a three-storey addition for 68 residents. Proponent is Marie Curie Sklodowska. Nine opposing letters (eight identical except for signature). Concerns about traffic, parking and height of addition. Latter is actually same height as part of the existing school building. Staff report notes that traffic and parking issues should be less problematic than when it was a school. Heather Boles presented the staff report.

McHattie: Notes that residential care facility minimum separation distance is 300 metres. Not opposed to this development but wants staff rationale for ignoring this. Boles: There's a community living centre across the street but not considered a problem because "retirement homes generally do not create a lot of nuisance within neighbourhoods. The purpose of the bylaw was to ensure that there wouldn't be an over concentration in any one neighbourhood and these are the only two facilities within the Kentley neighbourhood so there is not an over concentration within the area. In addition, this site represents a very good opportunity for adaptive reuse." McHattie: ".very important that we understand the rationale behind that". Makes sense but needs to be clearly articulated.

Pearson: Wonderful project. Drives by a lot so knows the area well. Only question is have we allocated parking spots for staff. Concerned that it may become a neighbourhood issue. Boles : Does take into account staff parking. "Most of the residents themselves will not own cars".

Whitehead: Suggests that retirement homes should be exempted from the 300m rule. "I don't see senior retirement homes being an issue relative to the intent of that original bylaw." McHattie: "You know that the Loretto Academy - Good Shepherd proposal .also contravened the 300 metre minimum separation distance and that was supported at the OMB" so he wants a re-examination of the issue for a number of reasons. In light of OMB decision, we need tight criteria "so we don't get questioned as to why did you make that decision." Kelly agrees and suggests motion moved by McHattie and seconded by Whitehead to ask for staff to review the minimum separation bylaw. Paul Mallard notes that it is being reviewed as part of the comprehensive zoning bylaw review now underway. McHattie asks if there are criteria now being used. Paul Mallard : "Actually there are no established criteria. Each application is evaluated on its own merits and circumstances that are particular to that location and that type of the use." Says same thing was done on Loretto Academy. McHattie : Says he needs greater clarity. It wasn't at all clear to public why staff supported Loretto Academy application as compared to other situation. "Not transparent for members of the public." Kelly says McHattie and Whitehead and others will be consulted by staff. Collins : Notes other seniors homes applications that may be affected by 300m rule. Serbian church on Nash is looking at a similar seniors development and is close to new facility at King and Nash. Mallard: "I think each one has to be evaluated on its own merits as they come forward. In terms of the radial separation distance, the criteria was set to minimize the concentration of them, and what happened in the older parts of the city, when the original bylaw was passed, the separation distance was only 180 metres, and what was found in the review 20 years later was that in those neighbourhoods the numbers of facilities that it was intended to try and reduce - there was no reduction, so we increased the radial separation distance to further minimize the concentration. . standards will be revisited as part of the zoning bylaw review." Collins: ".still leverage for someone who wants to impose such a facility and may use that as a tool . the intent of the bylaw was not to prevent seniors homes. It was to look at other facilities that had some of the nuisance issues ." Interested in taking part in a sub-committee on this.

Kelly to Coveyduck: "Maybe to try and bring some clarity to this. Leigh-Ann, based on the tone of the conversation, we have an agenda review coming up next week. I think maybe we could discuss this as an item, and have councillor Whitehead and councillor Mitchell join us, and talk about how actually we can approach this." Coveyduck: "That's not a problem. The only concern we have is the more one-offs that we do in terms of the zoning review, it takes staff time away from doing the comprehensive bylaw. But if we think it's something that could be moved forward fairly expeditiously, without a lot of negative opposition, then we could do that."

Whitehead suggests there is consensus that retirement homes are not an issue, should be exempted from the 300 metre radius. Kelly says wait to have discussion and Collins point is well taken that this can be used against the city. Promises to "get feedback" and report back to the committee.

Public delegation: Robert Cope who lives right next door to the school. Only concern is privacy of back yards. Asks for frosted glass in windows. He supports the project, but notes that parking for the school is still occurring because the location is a pickup point for buses to take the children to their new school. So "traffic will be there for the morning and afternoon unless they're going to change the pickup point".

Vice president of corporation doing the project speaks to committee. He is willing to put in frosted glass in the one window that overlooks the backyards. Collins : Issue of traffic. "We've been dealing with school closures in our area - four or five separate school properties have been put up for sale within the past year in my ward alone . how do we re-use these properties" without prejudicing neighbourhood. Thinks this is one of the better ones he's dealing with "in that it involves seniors, and any time you involve seniors in a project I think most communities will welcome them with open arms knowing that they are an asset to the community, and little baggage comes with these types of facilities . supportive of concept before us . parking is still an issue" notes that number of people couldn't come this morning. Suggests tabling this to Council and give him time to investigate and consult further, and if there is no problem "then we could walk it onto Council next Wednesday ."

Moved by Merulla, seconded by Whitehead. Carried. (23 minutes for this item)

7.5 Applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Change in Zoning for the Properties Located at 145, 147, and 149 Green Road (Stoney Creek) (PD04160) (Ward 10) Proponent is Clemente Valeri. Wants to build 30 townhouses on 0.8 hectares adjacent to existing townhouses near King and Highway 8. Rezoning from low to medium density. Staff report indicates it is transit supportive but each townhouse will have 2.5 parking spaces.

Kelly announces "there has been a petition presented here this morning signed by over 130 people". Greg McDonald provides staff report. Change in zoning from R2 to RM3 and OP amendment to change from low density to medium density. Promotes infill and intensification. Density of 37.5 units per residential hectare. Also lands to the south with an application for single family low density development. Neighbourhood meeting was held last week after staff report completed. Concerns around traffic on Green Road and potential for access to Carla Avenue. Traffic study done in 1999 on Green and updated "within the last couple of years". "Thirty townhouse units would not contribute to a major increase in the problems on Green Road." No access to Carla Avenue proposed in this development. Other development to the south won't permit access.

Public Delegation: John Wah (ph.) . Lived there 32 years. Brought the petition yesterday to table recommendation "until such time as both developments can be dealt with together". . "If you look at the diagrams presented by the city, they do join, and to say that there is no intent, that's not quite true." "Look at it closely. There's something wrong here, and the citizens of the area are asking that of the council. Will you please look at it." Praises Maria Pearson. Says Green Road has become "a major thoroughfare because of these two banks" at Green and #8. Also a school on another corner. Argues that Carla lot is related to this development. "Trying to find out who owned this property was a real circus . in 24-hours three different people owned this lot. It was amazing. And finally a member of city staff assured me she would tell me who exactly owned the lot before the day was out and she did. She called me back and told me that the City of Hamilton still owns this lot. . hydro pole moved about a year ago . nothing wrong with the pole. The other poles have been there for pretty near 40 years. Why was this pole moved?" People moving the pole were told "they had to move the pole because somebody had bought the lot to build a house on it." Then yesterday hydro said "they were told to move the pole because the wires were too low for development. Interesting. And nobody in the city knows this? There's something wrong. I'm just a citizen and I'm asking because I walked this petition around the neighbourhood with a few other people, and there's a lot of angry people in this neighbourhood. even the people in the condominiums were signing the petition. A lot wouldn't sign it because they were afraid of reprisals from the owner, but you appreciate their concerns. It's bona fide." Initially no problem but second development appeared "and they do interlock. Look at the plans." . Asks if petition will still stand if the item is tabled, or "do we have to do it again?"

Public Delegation: 2 nd citizen . Concerned about the development. Asked to table and consider two developments together. "Why it has to be done today, not together, when the second development will be presented here on September 23? . Who will lose, who will gain?" Notes many people had to leave meeting before this item came up on the agenda.

Public Delegation: John Ahriens : "I'm here on behalf of the two property owners to the south of this property . what we're proposing to do is low density single-detached condominium. It's a small enclave of 18 units. And those units are proposed to have their access to the south towards Carla Avenue." Could join two developments if Mr. Valery purchased all these lands, "but those negotiations have happened and they have not been successful. The application .is an extension of Valery Village . a condominium townhouse project currently rented out. It's a rental project. That's not what our clients are proposing. We're proposing a more upscale low-density smaller enclave of single and semi-detached homes. . If you're doing an adult lifestyle community, would you want your main access coming in from a rental townhouse project? It just doesn't work that way. We're two separate and distinct properties." Says residents want them dealt with together and his development not to have access onto Carla. Would only generate 23 trips onto Carla in the peak hour. "And that does not represent a significant traffic impact." Valery project should proceed independently. "Our project is catching up. It will be before you in September. They are two separate and distinct entities and there is really no merit in blending them because they are different owners. We're here fully in support of the Valery project." "We just don't want to integrate what we consider a more upscale project with a rental townhouse project."

Public Delegation: Shelley Menegazzo , representing some members of community living on Green and Carla. Supports tabling. Wants to revisit the entire Corman neighbourhood plan. Address the concerns about traffic. Notes that 'new' traffic study is not noted in the staff report. "Not only traffic but property values as well with these low-income medium density housing - that's a concern as well. It would dramatically affect the residents on Green and Carla, their property values. ."

Public Delegation: [tape break - missed name] Bank staff parking on Green Road because they are not allowed to park in the bank parking lot. Lots of kids also school bus pickup and notes that connecting new development to existing Valery Village would mean more kids coming out on Green Road. A safety concern for the children. Notes staff say Green has to be widened. Why if there is no traffic problem? "A few years we had exactly the same proposal . nothing done to address the issues . if nothing has been done why is it okay now when it wasn't a few years ago?"

Steve Fraser [applicant's agent]: From AJ Clarke and Associates. Thanks Pearson for assistance. Mr. Clem Valeri "has no concerns with tabling the application for two weeks". He will talk to adjacent landowners to see "if they can resolve something within the two weeks". If unsuccessful wants council to proceed and review application "on its own merits". No problem restricting access to the south. Could also make changes at the site plan stage.

Whitehead : To staff - do we have any leverage to bring the two developers together? Work out a compromise. Coveyduck : Always willing to try to mediate, and sit in on discussions.

McHattie: Notes public comment on safety of school children. Asks what role citizens would have in discussions between developers. Fraser: ".the more neighbours we can get together in the short amount of time before the next committee hearing, the better. Mr. Valery's intent is to address as many concerns as possible. I know that he's addressed the one of access and the one of dealing with Carla Avenue. I think that's a great idea if we can residents involved in these meetings as well."

Pearson: ".just speak to some of the comments made. I did have a neighbourhood meeting on this particular development AND the future one coming in in September - because they just happened to line up at the same time as notices went out to the residents. In a way I guess it was proactive because it let the residents know what will be coming forward and how this will affect them." Thanks staff and proponents of both developments. Lively debate. "Mr Valeri has been very very cooperative in supporting my request to him in pursing tabling this on behalf of the residents for two weeks to sit down and see if we can resolve the issues that the residents have one way or the other. . with regard to the petition, I think the question was whether or not the petition will stand today . yes that petition will stand .. it is on record. . traffic study I will ask staff to give more input on that because Greg mentioned a more recent one has been done." Asks for staff comment.

MacDonald : " .I believe it was 2002 just before the bank was created but it still indicated the traffic was well within acceptable limits on Green Road and that the development will not impact that." Pearson: ".I want to get this info and carry it back to residents. Comment also made as to why these developments can't be tabled and dealt with together and I asked staff that question. The reasoning that I got is because Mr. Valeri has his application before us today, we have a time period in which we have to deal with it at this committee and council. If we do not, the Ontario Municipal Board could be applied. So that is why, just so the residents understand that. We have to deal with this particular application today and then we'll deal with the one that's coming forward in September at that time. Another comment was made with regards to revisiting the neighbourhood plan, and I think that we'll be doing that in due process with regards to the secondary plan that is ongoing. Just trying to answer the questions. And with regards to the development . speaker mentioned that there was an application made last term . and it was turned down. My understanding of that, and I wasn't involved with it at the time, was that it was a retirement home. It was a totally different use. Just trying to answer these questions . after saying all that, I would like to put a tabling motion on the floor. I'll move it and Dave Mitchell will second it that we table this for two weeks and that I as the ward councillor will arrange to meet with the proponents of both developments and certainly get back to the neighbourhood with regards to whatever resolutions have been achieved and bring this back to committee in two weeks."

Whitehead : Re traffic studies "Who designs these standards? How do we understand the capacity of these roads?" No one present from engineering to answer. Whitehead continues: "My concern is that I hear this over and over again, even in my ward. They always tell me that 'it's within the capacity', yet if you live there, you saw the volumes there, yes it's within capacity but at what point do you say it's actually impacting on the quality of life in those neighbourhoods? . I don't know if the actual numbers that staff used are actually reflective of what's happening in those neighbourhoods. That's my experience. I've talked to other councillors and that's their experience and I guess my question to staff is let's take a look at the numbers we're currently using and see if they really are relevant to what's happening in the neighbourhoods and then maybe set new standards because I don't think the standards of today are acceptable relative to the complaints I'm getting on traffic." Kelly: "Then we'll have to hold the mirror up to ourselves because those are council-approved standards. If we want to review those then obviously we can ask staff to do that. Valid point though."

Pearson reiterates motion. Kelly suggests checking with traffic on Whitehead's comments. Pearson notes that staff parking on the streets "seems to be an ongoing problem". Happening with both banks at this corner "that the staff are required to park on the streets and we may have to deal with this as far as restrictions put in place."

Motion carried. (29 minutes for this item)

7.6 Applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located on Part of Lot 3, Concession 3 (Flamborough), Owner - Upcountry Estates Limited (c/o Larry Lecce) (PD04158) (Ward 15) On 19.43 hectres (49 acres) for 173 single-family, 136 townhouses, plus 34 units mixed and a commercial block. Part of OPA28 in Waterdown. There is no secondary plan because of a Flamborough council motion to dispense with this requirement. It is within the Niagara Escarpment Commission development control area and currently zoned agricultural. Several submissions circulated to councillors as noted in agenda changes.

Jason Thompson provides the staff report. Total of 347 residences proposed. Details some 'red-line' changes required by staff such as widening a street, extending a street, squaring off a block, temporary turning circle where streets will eventually be extended. "Please note that this proposal is supportable as a pilot project to evaluate innovative designs and setbacks for single-family dwellings and street townhouses and not considered a benchmark for future applications." . "The proposed development will not reduce the water pressure for existing residents to the west . The purpose of Official Plan Amendment #28 is to expand the urban area of Waterdown to accommodate residential growth to the year 2021. OPA 28 outlines several conditions that need to be addressed a limited amount of residential land to address the housing shortfall. The first being that secondary planning is only required where deemed necessary by council. As such Flamborough Council passed a resolution in March 1996 saying that no secondary plan is required for the Upcountry lands. . sewage capacity available . identified need for more housing . this phase of the subdivision proposal does not prejudice the transportation study process or the environmental assessment process for the master transportation plan. Therefore staff is confident that this proposal will not prejudice future development in the master transportation process." Condition 34 eliminated because it's covered by new DC bylaw. No questions from councillors on staff report.

Public Presentation: Herman Turkstra on behalf of Paletta International which is an additional landowner in the OPA28 area. "This committee has about one-tenth of the information that you need to make a wise and fair decision. . In the 1960s Mr. Paletta started developing in this area." Chair Kelly returns and Turkstra starts over. Says OMB hearing was to try and resolve who would develop first in this area. Decision on Feb. 18 1997. Said that "Paletta, Salem and Upcountry had to be dealt with the same". Decision appealed to cabinet. Memorandum "binding on this council and committee" says "the parties agreed to take no action which is inconsistent with or derogates from the terms of this agreement". He says staff recommendation takes us back before the OMB hearing. "For reasons which I cannot explain to you, the planning process has stopped for Paletta. They have paid $65,000 to the city to try and get the planning process going" to hire an outside planner to do a secondary plan. "We are told that we need a secondary plan. The report in front of you says Upcountry doesn't. Why are we being processed through a complete secondary plan process where we'd have to contribute cash to overcome the difficulties of not having enough staff members to do the secondary plan, while this thing goes through like slick? I'm here to advise the committee . that we have an agreement with you, and the agreement is explicit, and it says you won't develop until the transportation master plan is finished and until the issue of financing the sewage treatment . are resolved. . You have a statement from your staff that says there's no impact on the transportation analysis, but I have no opportunity in five minutes to tell you why that statement is incorrect. . Now it will be said, I'm sure in this debate, that this is just a cat fight between some developers. Well, this is why we have this committee. Because there are limited resources for sewers, there are limited resources for water, there are limited resources for roads. There are very specific demands in the community for a variety of community services. This is the place where those conflicts are resolved. And you can't dismiss it as just being a cat fight between developers. The fact is there are interests at stake which are legitimate and if you don't deal with them fairly then they end up having to be resolved with everybody in this process and take hundreds of thousands of dollars . which is crazy. I'm here to ask you . to defer this decision today, to table it, and instruct your staff to convene a meeting of the priniciple landowners and to resolve how the available capacity can be resolved among the existing landowners . who should be treated as equal by you in any event . this is a huge major project with very very significant issues."

Whitehead: "How long are you suggesting this be referred or tabled?" Turkstra: "I would think that a month or two at the outside." Whitehead: appears to be a dispute between developers trying to get to the market first. Turkstra says Paletta's process "just doesn't move". Whitehead: secondary plan was waived for reasons. . didn't address those issues." Turkstra : "Give me an hour and I'll take you through those issues . you won't get that from me in five minutes. It's not even remotely fair ." Other issues are transportation master plan, groundwater. . Whitehead: what's wrong with Flamborough council decision on secondary plan. Upcountry has "had their ducks in a line and moved fairly rapidly on their development and it's not a matter of leapfrogging. They were just quicker on the draw in regards to the development. . my perception . is there's a cat fight going on between the two developers because one's ahead of the others in getting to the marketplace." Turkstra says the background in staff report is incomplete.

McCarthy : ".how many proposed units for the Paletta lands?" Turkstra doesn't have that information. Was only brought into this in the last few days.

Mitchell: not clear on whether all Turkstra's concerns have been addressed by staff. "I've lived some of these concerns in my ward where the allocation of existing water and sewer capacity is neither fair nor appropriate. In ROPA9 we had that similar problem . had discussion with the players ... to try to be fair to the different developers involved . there does appear that there may be some inequities here about fairness and I'm not in a hurry to see any development just massively build a whole lot more. I don't have a problem with tabling for one month . I'd rather see the developers work something out and come in together." McCarthy intervenes and says this isn't the time for debate, just questions of Turkstra. Kelly agrees and instructs Mitchell to withhold his comments and just ask questions. Mitchell apologizes.

Turkstra notes that he won't get a chance to comment on the presentations of Upcountry representative who will speak after him. Kelly agrees but this is the process. Whitehead points out that applicant only gets one chance, not two as before. Not perfect "but we can't have an ongoing debate between two applicants and the public and the applicants".

Mr. Horesco (ph) representing Upcountry Estates Limited: Brings Brad Smith, their planning consultant and notes that rest of development team are also in attendance. "No need for a cat fight here at all. Mr. Turkstra and I have been involved . for over 10 years . both . at the OMB hearing." Says Paletta lands delayed because they are on the brow of the Niagara Escarpment and face very complex environmental issues. Turkstra said in hearing that his client "would not oppose Upcountry Estates proceeding in advance of Paletta". Paletta in past was proposing 3500 units and Upcountry only asking to develop half their lands. Supports staff recommendation. "The reason for half the lands being approved right now is to deal with some of the transportation options in the future that your staff have identified." Staff satisfied [Kelly says he 'just wants to remind you of the 5-minute rule'- it is unusual to impose this limit on the proponent who often speaks for 10-15 minutes] Horesco says the OMB hearing was about Paletta trying to be added and they were opposed by the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth, the NEC and the Town of Flamborough. Notes transcript from OMB where Turkstra says if his client's property is included "my client will accept the staging as discussed with you which is Upcountry proceeding first, and secondly we will give an undertaking to the Board to take no appeal process or adversarial decision with regard to the two subdivision - Upcountry and North Waterdown. I want to make it absolutely clear sir, they, that is Upcountry and North Waterdown, they should go ahead, they're needed. We think we're needed as well. Diane's taking down my words and my friends can have them for years. They should go." . Horesco rhetorically asks why Upcountry should proceed today. "There is a shortage today of housing in Waterdown. There's been no significant approval there. There's an obligation under the Provincial Policy Statement to have a significant or substantial supply of draft approved lots. Two, this application has been fully reviewed by all staff and we're ready to proceed with a plan of subdivision. Thirdly, we're proceeding with only half of the land, the other half is being frozen and held up so your municipality can deal with other public benefits and other needs . Thirdly [sic] Paletta's is a far more complicated piece of property . they have a stream running right through the middle of their property . they have not even filed a proposed plan of subdivision ."

Whitehead : cites capacity issue. Brad Smith says the city has "reviewed issue of sewage capacity and there is adequate sewage capacity within the system to accommodate the proposed development. Similarly in the trunk lines going to and from our development, there is no indication at this time that there any capacity issue or problem. in regard to water supply, we are being required to construct a 400 mm water line from the old part of town . together with a water boosting pumping station . sufficient to accommodate our development." Horesco says it may be 5-10 years before Paletta applies.

Mitchell : has just heard from the presentors that "there's a shortage of homes in Waterdown". Wants to know if that shortage is from local residents "or is it a shortage from Toronto or Mississauga"? "Where's the shortage being created here, cause it's been a fast growing town. If there's a shortage in Waterdown, I'm somewhat puzzled." Is there shortage for Waterdown people themselves? Smith: ".in your Official Plan, Waterdown is identified as one of the principal growth areas for the Hamilton area". Reason for growth is that its close to the GTA, GO station, and there's a lot of demand of housing. Used to work for Flamborough and there was a freeze because of sewage capacity. When it was lifted "we built houses at the rate of some 700 per year which for a small community is a sizeable amount". "There has actually been no capacity for additional housing in the Waterdown area for the past five years. We had houses going up in subdivisions that were draft approved previously . some infilling . but . there has not been any subdivisions approved in four or five years..."

Merulla : "I'm prepared to move the staff recommendation." Pearson seconds.

Whitehead : Issue of capacity. "I'm waiting since March for a presentation of the Binbrook situation. . If we were de-amalgamated, would Flamborough be able to support this development?" McCabe : "There's a market demand. It's not just Flamborough. I mean there's a demand for housing in that area, whether it be people working in Burlington or working in Hamilton, there's a demand for more additional houses in that area of the city, as there are in all the areas of the city. For a city this size, we have very few new areas left for major housing developments. We have Waterdown, we have the Rymal Road area, and Binbrook. Everything else is just small parcels, and for a city this size it's a huge demand. So we have no problem supporting a test that there's a market demand for additional housing." Whitehead : "I don't think in any bedroom town there's going to be a market for residential housing, but residential housing does not pay for it. And I'm tired of Hamilton taxpayers subsiding these kinds of developments, quite frankly. And the reality is that we're looking at a pretty aggressive plan for development in Waterdown. I think we're doubling or tripling the population currently there and I don't know where the rationale is for that from a planning perspective. . and we're not talking about a lot of employment opportunities or employment lands in conjunction with this particular proposal, which concerns me. And that's why I asked the question specifically: 'who's subsidizing this development?' How long will the taxpayers of this community have to subsidize this size of development? I want to get to the core issue of lifecycle costs and that's why I was looking at the Binbrook project, not to prevent it, but to understand it and educate the broader community and those who take interest, on whether or not residential development in outlying areas pays for itself. We have to take advantage of services, and I believe when we do greenfield development there is a substantial cost to that and that it's this community that continues to have its taxes go up that has to subsidize it. So I think from a planning perspective I would love to start putting some restrictions on these kinds of developments until we understand, clearly, the cost to this community, and the ongoing costs of these kinds of developments. That's my concern. My taxpayers that I represent, cannot continue to subsidize developments that do not pay for themselves. I want to make that absolutely clear. I'm not against development but it has to be smart development. I don't see this as smart development."

McCarthy : "First let me begin by stating my bias. I'm not pro-growth. To be perfectly honest from a councillor's perspective and to see what's happened in my area over a very short period of time, it's more headache than it's worth. And I have for that reason caused a lot of headaches to these developers of Upcountry Estates. I've made them jump through several hoops as well as the planning department. So it would be no skin off my teeth to defer, to defer to defer. Except that it would be fundamentally unfair, because from the very beginning - and it's been a decade now that I've been involved in this process - they have done what they've been asked to do, and they've been ahead of the process. And in fact what we're looking at today is a reduction in units, I think 47. And that was the last red-line approval that they were asked to go through, and it was ready to hit this table months ago and it didn't get here for various reasons. . ten years ago when I got on Flamborough council, it's quite true, Paletta lands were not included in the urban area for development, for all the reasons that were identified by the lawyers for Upcountry Estates. They simply weren't anticipated. It wasn't the logical area to develop in, because of all the complications that surrounded that very big section of land. It was looked after by Niagara Escarpment, and they were all against it - every planning process from the beginning was opposed to the Paletta lands being developed. And this is OPA28 which Hamilton council was involved in ten years before that. So we're talking . twenty years of debate.

That said, they went to the OMB, Paletta did, and were included in the lands that were to be developed. That's fine. They made their argument. They won. Okay, fine. But what we've got here, we have a developer, Upcountry Estates, who was far and away ahead of the process, who jumped through the hoops, and is now asked to be delayed - indefinitely - you're hearing a month, and with respect I hold Mr. Turkstra in very high regard, but he'll have to respect the fact that I've been in this process for the last decade as well and I understand it fairly well. With that in mind, I'm asking my colleagues to give this the attention that I believe it deserves and that the staff reports - they're very thorough, the i's have been dotted and the t's have been crossed - and I feel it is the right thing to do to move forward on that, in spite of the fact that I could really do without the headache of new development.

There's a couple of issues that I'm going to ask council to consider in your outstanding issues that I think should be dealt with, because I'm going to be hit with a lot of applications for development over this next term. One of them you'll notice in the report . we haven't dealt with the school issue. What's going to happen is there's going to be signs put on these development proposals that say 'your kids could be bused out of town'. When I got on council, 90% of our kids were housed in portables. That changed because I got a council resolution on the table to ask developers to pay their way for the construction of new schools. And that didn't actually have to happen, but it rattled the cages of the powers that be to release the funds to get two new schools built. Now if this development goes forward, and every other development goes forward, I'm behind the eight ball again, and it'll take me the next five years to try to catch up. And I don't want to see that happening, and starting from scratch again. So I'm asking this council, there's an outstanding issue that needs to be addressed, and that is that schools have to keep pace with development, and developers have to be involved in that process. I piggybacked off a Mississauga resolution that was started by councillor Pat Fatoe (ph) in Mississauga. That resolution is still on the books in Mississauga and it's working very very well for development areas, and developers get involved in the process early on, sometimes build it and get the money back from the school boards. I'd like to see that happen, even if it doesn't happen city-wide. It's going to affect me the most and I ask that I get council support for having staff come forward with some solutions around that issue.

The second thing . is long term maintenance agreements. The city ends up taking responsibility for various components in a design feature in a new subdivision. And with those two things in mind, I support the motion that's been presented ... and the staff report. And thank you for your consideration as I'm not a member of this committee."

Mitchell: Still going to put tabling motion. But defers first to Braden.

Braden: And I'm not a member of the committee either, but this is an interesting exercise to watch. First of all I want to confirm Margaret's comments because they're most articulate and her memory's better than mine. But the one thing that I want to get across is this and really I always say the unsayable. This has got nothing to do with planning. This is all to do with lobbying. . Let me give you the history . as best as I understand it. I was a planning student in my former life. We really struggle with the idea of growth - and I second Terry's - we got a get ahold of this finally. Waterdown doesn't want the growth. Stores don't want the growth. The growth is being driven by regional statistics. We hold them up there based on the past, and we use that as a rationale to develop. . So we create the target and we want to see if we can hit the target. So it's that love affair with growth. Do we want it? No. Anybody want it? No. Three or four developers want it? Absolutely. Does it emply a lot of people? Absolutely.

But let's just come down to the process. Cat fight is too gentle a term to use for this. When we looked at this, and I was a member of regional council and town council, we had I think six meetings most of which were devoted strictly to the idea of where would growth go. We had lobbyists and those kinds of people in those days too. And I can remember talking to engineering staff at the region, because the region was responsible for water. They said all things equal, because of pumping stations, because of gravity, because of where the waste is going and where the water is coming from, we should develop in the north-west. But there are some people who are very astute about the planning process and about how it works, and in spite of trying to be logical and inclusive and taking expertise and sort of our best thought and going northwest, we ended up going north-east. We didn't go there because of choice. So there are a lot of problems and again that person that speaks for Upcountry's pretty articulate.

There are real problems there. The reason I know that is my mom still lives next door . I know that land because I walked across it and rode my horse across it. . The Agro lands were owned by two Agro brothers, if you want the history, and they used to have a dairy farm and they did very well. When they came to us they said 'we're in no rush, we'd simply like to be included'. They're gone now I believe. It was the idea that they just wanted to be treated in the process. Other people said, we want to be first in the line. There's always people who want to be first. We talked about the idea of phasing. You can ask our planners. It's pretty hard to do. It's a great idea to phase at school. It doesn't work too well because it's exactly the kind of scenario you see here. There's real competition because this is real money. When we finally looked at the south east, because you want to be fair, as a politician you don't want to say 'you know you really you should be included'. We tried to be open, but this is a dog eat dog business. So we put a little bit of land in there, subsequently went to the Board, subsequently went to the appeal, and land that we thought was sensitive and completely inappropriate is pushed in. So the process was I think legal, but was the process fair? Depends on what your level of fairness is. . almost none of this land would be in.

But going back to Upcountry. We're unfortunately now talking about personalities. They've been waiting for a long time, and they were always going to be first. They've always been there. It doesn't mean they deserve to go first, but they have their ducks in order. When people come later and say 'we want to be treated fairly' I don't know what this idea of fairness is. . This is not an industry known for integrity. I suggest you listed to the comments. Ask staff if you've got a problem. They suggested there are some things here why this shouldn't go because we have to dot the i's. I think pretty well those i's are all dotted. If they're all dotted, this is strictly a deferral for personal reasons. I'm so tired of the Hamilton culture dealing with personalities and politics. This is about planning." Kelly: "Councillor, your five minutes are up." Braden: "So, if it's about planning, let's deal with the planning issue and no further comment is necessary. And no further comment is necessary. In fact, I'm really discouraged when there are even some comments. I think this is a really serious thing and it shows who we really are."

Mitchell: "I think maybe I'm sorry I asked that question in the first place. (laughter). Kelly: "Watch what you wish for Dave." Mitchell: "Anyway I want to say to councillor McCarthy how much I admire HER work ethic and her honesty and sincerity and what she's told us informed me a lot. I did, however, give my word that if I thought there was some unfairness to something, because I've lived through ROPA9, that I would ask my council colleagues to table this, and I'm going to continue to do that, because I know I've read the staff report. I do think there could be some inequities here that may still need to be answered. They will get answered, whether this goes forward or not, so that's fine. Councillor McCarthy's comments about the work she did with schools, I find that admirable too, and it takes me back to a time when I totally disagreed with the amalgamation of the Hamilton-Wentworth county board to the Hamilton board. Because at that time . the Wentworth county board was allowed to charge development charges to build new schools and I'm having the same problem now trying to get new schools built. And we can't charge development charges anymore when we used to be able to. And that has hurt Hamilton, that amalgamation has hurt Hamilton really bad for that reason alone - we can't charge those development charges. We will get this corrected over time. I will move to defer this for one month as was requested and the reasons that were here presented.

Whitehead: "I came across a bit strong but that's how I feel. No-one's really been able to quantify how much subsidy goes into development. If the developments were self-sustainable, I wouldn't have an issue. So I guess the question I have to staff is . how many employable lands are zoned in this plan?" Kelly : "I think the answer in this case is self-evident. There are no employment lands. This is a residential development." Staff notes commercial zone of 0.5 hectares. Whitehead: ".with that size of development, we need to have more employment lands and commercial lands relative to the size of the development proposal so that at least some of the employment is right there. It right now appears as if this development is - we currently have over 40,000 people commuting out of Hamilton for jobs outside the city. It appears to me that this whole development currently, the way it's being proposed, I'm not talking about just the uplands, I'm talking about the whole general concept, is to service the GTA by providing bedroom housing so the people can live here and work somewhere else. And I just don't know where the benefit is to the community for that kind of development. So I want to lighten it up a bit, but the reality is that I believe we need to be pushing in these kinds of developments for more employment lands, lands that would help subsidize through taxes the costs of sustaining these kinds of developments."

Kelly: "Point taken. We need to look at in holistically too. Don't forget there's a huge enterprise just down the street that will come before us in the not too distant future - an industrial park too. Just to put it in context." Asks Mitchell if he has a seconder for his deferral motion. Mitchell says he has to make one more point. "Well then I can't come back to you for the motion. If it's new information, I'm dying to hear it, but if its redundant, I don't think I've heard a lot of new information in the last 25 minutes. If you can do that I'd love to hear it."

Mitchell: "Well it's another comment and I believe that I'm right, but some people would disagree. But I had it written down here about the current value assessment and the fact that as the GTA grows, that money comes out here and they pay a whole lot more to be able to live in Waterdown, okay, and commute back and forth to Toronto, and that drives all the taxes up because it's current value assessment. And that moves around the Golden Horseshoe into the Stoney Creek part of my ward and drives those ones up as well. And I represent a rural area where taxes have gone crazy, and I believe that that impact of CVA is coming from Toronto and the GTA this way. And every new home that gets built, and I've seen it and they sell for $700,000 in Toronto, $500,000 in Waterdown and Flamborough and $350,000 or $400,000 in Winona. And it just continually drives the suburbs taxes through the roof for the existing people that are there. It's another issue. But if we're going to be upfront and straight-shooting councillors, its costing my ward and some of the seniors in my ward it's kicking them out of their houses." Kelly "Your right, councillor, do you have a seconder for your motion? Apparently not. Motion dies on the floor. Councillor Merulla, back to you."

Merulla: "Moved by myself and seconded by councillor McHattie that the staff report be approved. .Oh, I'm sorry, it was councillor Pearson." Motion carried. Merulla notes that McCarthy has a motion.

McCarthy: "Just if I could get somebody to move that the issue of the school accommodation and the issues that have been raised by councillor Whitehead regarding self-sustaining long-term maintenance agreements be dealt with in the planning process." Kelly: "If we could ask staff to come back with a report on that. That encompasses development charges and a number of other issues too which crosses not just this department but a number of others too." McCarthy agrees. McHattie moves motion, seconded by Merulla. Carried. (71 minutes for this item)

7.7 Applications for Approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision, "Hemlock Meadows", and Change in Zoning for the Property Located on the North Side of Hemlock Avenue, West of Ferris Park, Between Madoc Street and Valrose Drive (Stoney Creek) (PD04149) (Ward 10) Proponent is Berrisfield Estates (Hamilton) Ltd to build 26 single-family homes on 1.4 hectares all fronting on a cul-de-sac. Lands designated as a separate school site. Public concern about loss of parkland (area was effectively part of Ferris Park). City was offered the land in 2002 but turned them down. Staff report says: " The subject lands are surrounded to the north, south, and west by low density residential development consisting entirely of single detached dwellings. The Official Plan contains policies that promote redevelopment and infilling that are consistent with the residential character and density of the area. A townhouse or other form of higher density development may result in a development out of character with the neighbourhood and result in associated impacts from increased traffic or other impacts from incompatible development."

Greg Macdonald presents staff report. Subject lands were owned by separate school board until 2002. "The school board was notified in August 2002 that the City of Hamilton had no further interest in the property due to lack of funding to purchase the lands for a public park. That other neighbourhoods in Hamilton were more deficient in parkland, and that the Poplar Park neighbourhood had sufficient parkland. . consistent with Stoney Creek Official Plan in that surplus school sites are permitted to be developed for low-density residential uses without a secondary plan amendment." Neighbourhood meeting held by ward councillor. Residents wanted more parkland. Also concerned about traffic, but staff report notes that traffic impacts will be less than if the site was developed as a school.. No questions of staff.

Public delegation: Don McLean : ".there seem to be continuing issues that come up, and this is an example of it, where school board lands or schools get sold, transferred to the private sector and the local community doesn't know about it. I know that the school board has to come to the city and offer the lands and/or the schools before they pass them on to a private owner. That process perhaps you might consider developing a process that when that occurs you go to the adjacent homeowners with a notice that that has occurred so that they have an opportunity to intervene in the process when it actually matters. At this point it obviously doesn't matter. We've got a school site that has been transferred to the private sector where the public can't say to the city 'buy the land' because it's already been sold. So in fairness to the people who live in those neighbourhoods, I think it would be an appropriate alteration in policy and probably not a big financial burden on the city, to introduce a notice provision. We've gone through another one in the last month or so on Scott Park, where Scott Park is being transferred to a private owner as well, and again the neighbourhood hasn't had the opportunity to know that was going to happen, because it hasn't been formally notified. ."

McHattie : asks staff for a comment on that. "What is the process right now and how would things change?" Kelly: "We've discussed this before and it's not our land in the first place, so that's obvious a factor in this case." Staff: "It is a policy of the school board. We don't have any control on their circulation notice requirements, so it's an issue that would have to be addressed by the Board." Kelly: "But I'll tell you what. Councillor Ferguson and I sit on the school board liaison committee, and we can bring it up there with members of both boards and see if we can get some flexibility within that. It's a good point."

Staff recommendation carried. (11 minutes for this item).

8.1 Response to Downtown Hamilton Business Improvement Area Request for Parking Accommodation (PD04165) (Ward 2) Rejects request made by BIA at previous meeting. Staff say the scheduling of construction is no longer concurrent so loss of parking doesn't occur all at once.

8.2 Information Report: The City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment (Urban) Denial of Minor Variance Application HM/A-04:44 (Hamilton-Wentworth Chapter of Native Women Inc., Owner), 47 East Avenue North, City of Hamilton - Supported by the Planning and Development Department (PD04170) (Ward 3) This issue is headed to the OMB and council must decide who they will support if anyone. Carried. No discussion.

8.3 Information Report: The City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment (Urban) Denial of Consent to Sever Application DN/B-03:121 and Minor Variance Application DN/A-04:33 (Norma Maxwell, Owner), 171 Melville Street, Former Town of Dundas - Supported by the Planning and Development Department (PD04173) (Ward 13) This issue is headed to the OMB and council must decide who they will support if anyone. Carried. No discussion.

9.1 Motion from Councillor McHattie respecting quarrying in Carlisle " That staff report on the compatibility of the land located in the North Carlisle area for the purpose of mineral aggregate extraction in light of existing municipal planning policies."

Return to Part 1