NOTE: Council chambers sound system was malfunctioning so that direct taping from the microphones was not possible. This situation has prevailed for more than five weeks now.

Present: Kelly, Merulla, Pearson, Mitchell, McHattie, Ferguson, Braden

Also present: , Bruckler, Jackson (until 10:45), Collins (for 20 minutes)

Media: Eric McGuinness (Spectator), Kevin Werner (Brabant)

CATCH: Don

Changes to the Agenda:

There were two added delegation requests. Both were approved without discussion. There was also an added consent item " Demolition Permit - 2820 Barton St. E., Hamilton (PD04189) (Added Item 5.12) That the Acting Director of Building and Licensing be authorized and directed to issue a demolition permit for 2820 Barton Street East in accordance with By-Law 74-290 pursuant to Section 33 of The Planning Act as amended." The owner is Nick Eveley. This will demolish a single family house and leave the land vacant. The staff report says that two properties have been merged so the new property now has two homes which is contrary to the zoning bylaw. There is no explanation of how the land merger took place in violation of the bylaw. The lands are outside the central area where policy would require a building permit for redevelopment before issuing a demolition approval.

Chair Kelly welcomed Dave Braden to membership in the committee. Braden had requested to join the committee, and has in fact been a regular attendee at nearly all of the meetings of the committee held to this point.

Kelly notes "we're under a bit of a time constraint here today. I have some duties as deputy-mayor at noon today and councillor Mitchell has to leave on some pressing family matter, so we're going to try and be as quick as we can."

5. CONSENT ITEMS

5.1 Enterprise Zone Municipal Realty Tax Incentive Grant Program -

Application EZ04/05, 19-25 John Street South (PD04166) (Ward 2) Convert top two floors to 12 residential condos, 2 nd floor to office and first to retail. Applicant is Camden Properties.

5.2 Demolition Permit - 432 Macnab Street North (PD04174) (Ward 2) Owner is Hamilton Community Credit Union. House is fire-damaged. To be replaced within two years.

5.3 Demolition Permit - 2812 King Street East (PD04175) (Ward 5) House being removed next to Tim Horton's to allow construction of drive-thru restaurant and variety store by Tamlann Investment Ltd., c/o Sam Destro, 75 Lancing Drive, Unit H, Hamilton, ON L8W 2Z9.

5.4 Enterprise Zone Municipal Realty Tax Incentive Grant Program - Application EZ04/06, 221 York Boulevard (PD04177) (Ward 2). The proponent, 1554080 Ontario Inc., is converting the former one storey grocery store into a two storey Premier Fitness health club. A former Barn supermarket consisting of some 32,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing adding a second floor of 21,326 square feet. The completed renovations and additions will result in a 53,326 square foot two storey Premier Fitness health club.

5.5 Heritage Permit Application (HP2004-011) Under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to Permit Construction of a Shed and Fence on the Property at 132 St. Clair Avenue, Hamilton (PD04179) (Ward 3)

5.6 Heritage Permit Application (HP2004-012) Under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to Permit Alterations to the Designated Property at 40 Cross Street (Cross-Melville Heritage Conservation District), in the City of Hamilton (PD04180) (Ward 13)

5.7 Declaration of Surplus Property/Sale of Part of the Unopened Road Allowance, Between 711 and 723 Ridge Road, Stoney Creek, Designated as Parts 1 & 2, Plan 62R-16479, to Mrs. Edna Chrystian (PD04181) (Ward 11)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/July06/PD04181.pdf
This is the unopened extension of Fruitland Road as it crosses the escarpment. Decision to sell was made by Hearings Committee in 2003 despite staff recommendation to retain this road allowance. Initiating adjacent owner has now failed to respond to correspondence and plan is to sell the land to the other adjacent owner. This item was tabled for one month at the request of Mitchell. Seconded by Merulla.

5.8 Appointment of Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the City of Hamilton (PD04185) (City Wide)

5.9 VISION 2020/Clean Air Hamilton Dubai Award Waterfront Trail Project (PD04184) (City Wide)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/July06/PD04184.pdf
Award money being used to install interpretative signs on Vision 2020 and plaques honouring winners of sustainable community awards.

5.1 0 Heritage Permit Application (HP2004-013) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to Permit Alterations to the Designated Property at 73 Melville Street (Dundas Central School), Dundas, in the City of Hamilton (PD04186) (Ward 13)

5.11 Urban Design Guidelines for Outdoor Boulevard Cafés on Public Property (PD04113(b)) (Ward 2) - Referred from City Council June 16, 2004

All consent items were adopted without discussion, except 5.7 which was tabled at the request of councillor Mitchell.

6.1 Application for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located at 1175 Stone Church Road East (Hamilton) (PD04176) (Ward 6)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/
Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/July06/PD04176.pdf
Applicant is Chris Zolis who wants to use this site for a Toy and Hobby store. Currently zoned "Prestige Industrial" and previously used as a swimming pool supply outlet. Councillor Jackson was present for this item. There was a very brief staff presentation by Trevor Horzelenberg and no public delegations. The proponent indicated that he supported the staff report. This item was passed without discussion. (3 minutes for this item - 9:39-9:42)

6.2 An Application to Amend the Stoney Creek Zoning By- law No. 3692-92 for Lands Located at 241 Crompton Way, Former City of Stoney Creek (PD04183) (Ward 10)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/
Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/July06/PD04183.pdf
Recommendation is to deny application because of previous OMB decision. Applicant is Bruno Roberto. This is part of a former hydro right-of-way. Staff report presented by Peter De Iulio . Notes three letters opposing this and petition of seven in support. Denial recommended because OMB decision said there shouldn't be an additional lot in this area because it would take away from the open space. Board expressed concern with severances without a larger survey. There were no questions of the staff. There were no public delegations, but the applicant did speak to the committee. While waiting for him to sign in, Kelly introduced and welcomed two new members of the Planning department - Joe Muto and Mathew Johnson. Also suggested that councillor McHattie looks a lot like Danny McManus of the Tiger-cats.

Bruno Roberto makes a brief presentation. He says there have been other property severances and changes since the OMB decision four years ago, and that their property backs onto semi-detached land which is "fairly dense". Acceptance of application "would allow my wife and I to stay in the neighbourhood that we love". He also circulates some photographs. No questions from councillors.

Pearson: "I have spoken with the applicant in this particular situation and I have been out on the site. I actually support the applicant's request to be allowed to build a semi-detached unit there. It speaks well for residents in Stoney Creek who want to build and stay in the neighbourhood that they've been in for a number of years. It is a wonderful community. I did not being on site and seeing the photographs being handed around today see an impact as far as this home being built on the residents who I understand signed a letter in opposition to the rear, that their sunlight, daylight, etc would be affected. As you can see by the photographs the applicant is proposing to build a single floor home which would fit in very well into that on that street, and there would be no impact on the residents in behind. There are residents, as Mr. Roberto has said, there are residents who are supportive of his application. It is good infilling. It's not over-intensification. And I certainly would request that my councillor colleagues that we support the request of the applicant."

No further speakers. Pearson moves to accept application. Seconded by Mitchell. McHattie asks for staff comment. "Have things changed since the OMB decision?" De Iulio: "The policy framework has not changed. The official plan is still in place . the zoning hasn't changed from five years ago. So the policy framework is identical today as it was 5 years ago." McHattie asks about rationale of OMB decision and the impact of acceptance of the application on that. De Iulio : "In the OMB decision.there is a quote from the Board that it wasn't necessarily the size of the property that was the concern. It was the loss of the open space nature for the residents backing onto it. If they approved an additional lot here, there be a continuous or solid wall that the people would be facing whereas before they were backing onto a hydro corridor with an open space. And the shallow depth of this corridor - it's only 64 feet where you have typical lot which is a 100 feet, so allowing the house to be built - we'll we do have a typical backyard here of 25 feet backing onto another back yard where you have another 25 feet. The applicant had requested a reduction based on a one-storey unit to six metres. That was reducing the front yard setback to accommodate a slightly reduced backyard. So there'd still be a sense of a large backyard space between the two units backing onto each other, but the Board was concerned about a larger wall of houses blocking the view of the people backing onto it." McHattie : "So is it fair to say. that we probably wouldn't have a problem with it if it had just come to us and that this is an intensification in a neighbourhood, and there is the open space issue and maybe some size lot issues, but we perhaps would have looked upon this favourably?" De Iulio : "Previous Stoney Creek planning staff had a problem with it as well, so the position hasn't changed."

Pearson: "Just the comments made about the open space in the area. With regards to this particular application I think that there is some protection. The fact that it is a one-storey building that is going to be built so there is protection for the neighbourhood behind in that they will not have a wall that they're looking at. And if you look at the photograph . there is a very large tree that actually provides a buffer for the residents in behind there as it is, so they won't be seeing a building there. And there is existing landscaping that is intended to be maintained. So I don't see this having a major effect on the residents in behind. There is open space, actually green area across the street. There is a park right on the corner so there is a lot of open space in that neighbourhood, and by allowing this building to go I don't see an impact as severely as has been mentioned."

Kelly moves to vote on the motion. Tim McCabe intervenes and asks for modifications that accepts smaller yard sizes and "implementing councillor Pearson's comment that we restrict the height of the building to one-storey in the zoning bylaw." Accepted by Pearson. Moved by Pearson, seconded by Mitchell. Carried. (14 minutes for this item 9:42-9:56)

6.3 Applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision Known as "Glanbrook Hills", Amendment to the Township of Glanbrook Official Plan and Amendment to Glanbrook Zoning By- law No. 464, for Lands Located at 8029 Twenty Road East, Glanbrook (PD04168) (Ward 11)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/
Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/July06/PD04168.pdf
Applicant is Weizer Investments Ltd. For 186 single-family homes on 16 hectares. This is the urban boundary expansion approved last year at Twenty Road East and Highway 6. The owner is Mr. Arthur Weisz.

Peter De Iulio makes the staff presentation ". The proposed draft plan of subdivision was submitted and it included about 190 lots. What's being recommended before you now is a approval of 186 lots, all single-detached dwellings, with a minimum of 15 metres of frontage or 50 feet. We have a natural open space block here with a top of bank basically running along this line here. This is a natural area which is unusable in terms of park development. We have a park block here which roughly represents about 5 percent of the subdivision. It's almost 2 acres. One of the major issues that came about as a result of the circulation to the various agencies was a stream or watercourse running roughly south easterly through this area here. As a result of that the Conservation Authority was recommending a holding provision be placed on this portion of the draft plan until fisheries issues were dealt with as part of that watercourse. As a result we are recommending draft approval of the whole subdivision but the second phase which is roughly this area here would be in a holding provision and cannot be registered until the condition is cleared by the conservation authority with regards to that watercourse. Here is the proposed zoning bylaw. Again, Block 1 would be a modified residential R3 zone, basically with 15 metre frontages. Block 2 is the same zone but with a holding provision on it. Block 3 is an open space park zone and block 4 is open space conservation zone. The applications were circulated to landowners within 120 metres of the subject property. Letters of opposition or concern are attached to the report. Many of the concerns have been addressed in the staff report. Other agency concerns have been addressed or are being addressed through draft approval conditions and the proposed conditions of draft approval. Based on the foregoing, staff recommend approval of the applications for draft plan approval, Official Plan amendment, and rezoning. Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman. I'll be happy to answer any questions."

Kelly asks for questions of staff, "just questions at this point".

McHattie: There's a comment in your report about GRIDS . and I just want to try and understand where this property is in relation to the urban boundary and the whole greenbelt issue."

De Iulio: "Actually a year ago the applicants had submitted an application to amend the Regional Official Plan and that was adopted by council last year. So this is within the urban area within the Regional Official Plan. And these applications, particularly the Official Plan amendment for the Glanbrook Official Plan is to bring that in conformity with the Regional Official Plan. So this is urban. This property is urban in the Regional Plan."

McHattie : ".what are the GRIDS implications. Item number (b) there under Regional Official Plan Amendment no. 16, item (b) refers to infrastructure and environmental needs and GRIDS. Just wondering what the implications are of that for the GRIDS study?"

Kelly : "Did you get the reference point, Peter? Okay. I'll tell you what, while you're looking, go ahead Tony. Mr. Sergei."

Tony Sergi : "I believe that condition was brought forward as a result of the original application being made included the additional lands to the east that would be required to be serviced by a pumping station and it was felt that at this point of time that only the lands that can be serviced by gravity sewers can be included in the original draft plan."

Kelly : "Thanks, Tony. Peter, do have something?"

De Iulio : "Yes. If you look at this location map, this is their total holdings, but their actual draft plan is only about what's in this area here westerly. So that was the area that originally they had submitted for was the entire property. But the Regional Official Plan Amendment only allowed for what could be gravity fed, basically from here westerly. If you look at the next draft plan, the divisional line, the property runs further to the east here in this portion." McHattie : "Can you show me where the urban boundary is on that map? ." De Iulio : "It essentially falls where you can see on the next slide we had up. It's essentially a line somewhere in here. Straight down, so if you look at the draft plan, this is the urban boundary line." McHattie : "Is there anything that we're doing in approving this application that presupposes an increase to the urban boundary in the future. Are there any servicing things we're doing here that means we're really setting up to service the rest of the property in the future? I'm just wondering whether by approving this now we're effectively approving an urban boundary expansion in the future, given the decisions we make today."

Kelly : "Tony?"

Sergi: "Not at this point in time. This is not predetermining any additional growth or expansion. This is just the natural extension of the existing streets and servicing."

Kelly: "Any further questions of staff? Councillor Braden."

Braden: "Is there any particular why we would be encouraging, and I'm assuming that we are, that it's a favourable recommendation, why we are at the extremity of this urban municipality that we're encouraging such low density? We just had something else, I think, where really the interest of this committee is to encourage intensification and this looks a little old-fashioned to me."

Kelly: "Peter?"

De Iulio: "It's a matter of compatability of what's out there right now and existing larger lots here which are not fully serviced yet and even the new development on the north side are larger lots. So it's really an issue of compatability."

Braden: "I presume what's on the left side of the slide is low density non-serviced so it's left over and we will assume that services will come in and maybe we will entertain them at that point re: intensification of that land? Is that reasonable?"

De Iulio: "That would have to be examined in terms of once it's fully serviced whether there's opportunities for infill development in that area as well."

Braden: "And if you just hopped over that street, Twenty Road, that looks like much more intensification. That's much more recent development at a more intensified standard?"

De Iulio: "Yes, but still the lots are fairly large. I believe they're probably 15 metre lots in that area as well."

No further questions of staff. Kelly invites public delegations. "And before I have members of the public come down . Peter, there's something you wanted to add. Why don't you do that while this gentleman's signing in."

De Iulio: "I have an amendment to the draft approval conditions that I wanted to introduce. . The condition would read that the developer pays a proportionate share of the increased costs of the downstream sewer resulting from the increased depth of sewers to service this development by gravity sanitary sewers. . added to appendix C. This has been presented to the applicant. He's in agreement with that."

Public Delegation: Mark Tadebon: "I reside just to the north-eastern boundary of this property . I have two concerns . the future development and the existing. Right now they've expanded the urban boundary what I believe was outside of the GRIDS proposals originally. There was a few protests brought forward last year dealing with that. However, it was overturned, or it was brought forward by the existing council at that time. My concern now is that once this development is allowed, further provisions are made in this plan to expand into the agricultural zone to the east of this property. . At the end of each of the roads which run east-west are . I imagine that there's a proposal to continue forward those roads at some time in the future which again would have to be done at a time, well they would apply later for that. My second concern. So my one concern is that they are going to expand the existing urban boundary. When I moved there three years ago I checked with the zoning. It was all agriculture and then this came out. So I'm kinda of upset by that issue. These three lots here. If you check the contours of those three on a contour map, the elevation, the road is at the existing level, but in this area here which is like watershed, a marshy area, I'd say probably from . the contour lines drop off showing that there's a significant elevation change there and I'm afraid that to service those lots properly or build a house there properly you're going to have to back fill into that marsh area. And that's my concern. My one concern is the environmental concern of those three or four lots right there, and then expanding the existing urban boundary later on ."

Kelly: "Thank you very much, sir. We'll give the proponents a chance to talk in a couple of moments, see if they can address those."

Public Delegation: David Harris , 165 Mother Street "and I made a prior submission and I have a letter I gave to councillor Mitchell with copies for the mayor and Peter De Iulio. I'd like to read the letter."

"We have read the Report to the Chairman and Members of the Planning & Economic Development Committee recommending approval of the draft plan of subdivision, known as "Glanbrook Hills" subject to certain conditions. We are still opposed to the proposed applications to change this land designation from Agricultural to Residential because they are not consistent with good planning principles and are not appropriate for the development of the land. Just because the intended development is consistent with, and complementary to the existing development to the west and northwest does not justify the destruction of prime agricultural land. This prime agricultural land should not be destroyed for many reasons. First one Greenbelt Protection Act, 2004. After writing this letter we were told this Act does not apply to Glanbrook Hills but we have referenced it for the principle involved. This Act was passed June 24, just two weeks ago, 2004, and places a one-year moratorium on new urban development on designated rural and agricultural lands in the Golden Horseshoe. The moratorium is retroactive to the date of Bill 27's introduction on December 16, 2003. Effective June 24th, the moratorium will include applications for amendments for new urban uses on non-urban land in the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.

"Next item the Hamilton-Wentworth Official Plan. Glanbrook's Official Plan had it right by designating the subject lands as Agricultural. The Hamilton-Wentworth Official Plan purports to make projections to the year 2020. Although we have not read the Official Plan, that is my wife and I who've written this letter, it does seem a little presumptuous to ignore the demographic realities as mentioned in our May 13th letter. The subject was not treated seriously as shown by the non-sequiter that "while staff is aware of the aging population, unquote a euphemism for Canada's missing youth, resume quote, the City's policies encourage a variety and range of housing types." This was the extent of the so-called analysis promised to be in the Comments Section of the report. Also, what plan is in place for when the real estate bubble bursts?

"That the staff does not seem to understand the implications of the Statistics Canada data is shown by not addressing the reality of an imminent population decline resulting from a population profile distortion during the past 40 years. We have enclosed the graph from the Statistics Canada web site that may not have been examined carefully by staff. We have highlighted an extrapolation in green to show the missing youth that would normally make up a natural population profile. Also attached is the CBC web site news item of April 19th showing Canada's fertility rate at a current 1.50, well below the 2.11 necessary to maintain a nation's population.
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/
census01/products/analytic/Multimedia.cfm?M=1

"Next item: Increased property taxes. In response to another resident's concern about increased taxes, the staff report states: Approval of the proposed development should not directly result in increased property taxes for existing residents. End quote. The wording gives no real assurance against increases. Glanbrook Township residents were given similar promises when amalgamation with Hamilton was first being considered. The reality is now known that with inferior services our taxes have increased dramatically. For us it's 12% this year. Have we not had enough of these kinds of lies?

"Next item: Incomplete infilling. Our May 13th letter dealt with this issue by quoting from Councillor David Mitchell's letter dated March 23, 2003, but the staff report did not address it. What percentage of the old City of Hamilton has yet to be infilled? Does the Hamilton-Wentworth Official Plan give priority to lands that are easier and less expensive to service than "Glanbrook Hills"? Has a summary matrix showing development priorities ever been published for the general public?

"The attached Agricultural Land Use Policy Statement adopted by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture Board on April 22, 2002, states in regard to large communities: And I do have the attachements relating to these items here. Quote. The OFA believes that urban areas should be allowed to expand out onto abutting agricultural lands only after the redevelopment of underused or vacant areas within the existing urban boundaries has occurred. This would include the rehabilitation and redevelopment of 'brownfield' sites. We further believe that in urban areas higher density residential development should be encouraged to take full advantage of existing infrastructure. In those large urban centres where agricultural lands are included with the municipal boundary, as the result of annexation or amalgamation, the OFA supports the mandatory creation of an agricultural advisory committee. And I believe there is one for Hamilton, at least that's what I've been told.

"And finally, Hamilton's downtown decay: The Hamilton Spectator editorial of July 3, 2004, entitled Make downtown a people place states: Quote There is no instant fix for the troubles afflicting Hamilton's downtown. No magic bullet. No white knight. ... What is needed downtown is people. Not scary people, but people who want to live and spend their money downtown. ... Ron Marini, the city's director of downtown renewal, has his priorities straight. The long-term strategies have to be residential development. End quote. The message should be clear. By the way today's headline in the Spectator also emphasizes this point with the closing of La Costa. The message should be clear to the Planning and Development Department that residential growth downtown must be a bigger priority than Glanbrook Hills, that is, unless there are factors influencing decisions leading to the destruction of prime agricultural land that are not readily known to the general public. Thank you."

Kelly thanks speaker and asks if he want his letter circulated to the committee. No other public delegations. Ask the proponent to speak represented by Mr. Manchia.

Sergio Manchia: "Planning and Engineering Initatives, Planners, Engineers and Landscape Architects. I'm here on behalf of my client, Weizer Investments, and today I have with me Mr. Tom Weisz of Effort Trust group. We are happy with the report and wish to thank staff for their efforts. It's been a productive year on this application. Also want to thank . and Rob Norman for their assistance on the park matter. . As staff has indicated within the report there are or were basically four issues in our April 2003 application making this urban land which dealt with fish habitat, stormwater management, top of bank and the parkland dedication component. I'd have to say that . we've resolved for the most part all of them. Fish habitat, as Mr De Iulio has indicated, right now is an administrative area has been reviewed by fisheries consultant Cam Portt and a report was submitted to the NPCA. It's being reviewed. We can conclude that this is not a fish habitat area, but does have some significant relevance to the Twenty Mile Creek. Therefore, the proper storm water management and the design features which the engineers, specialists and biologists etc will deal with in a short while. Having said that, I think we'll be able to resolve this matter. Regarding the top of bank, we have established the top of bank with the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority on site, and therefore established an open space area. A stormwater management area also has been resolved and we will further deliver information to Mr. Sergei's department regarding these matters. With regards to the parkland dedication, we do wish to have this discussed before committee for a brief moment. If I can go to . this slide here . what we're presenting as the combination of open space and parklands. . Originally this is our parks submission which included parkland requirement and a combination of parkland and open space, which I must add, Mr. Chairman, when combining these two we have close to 12% of greenspace and park area. I just want to acknowledge clearly that we understand that the open space does not include our park dedication calculation, nor do we accept or request that. Just want to make our point that this whole area will be a very enjoyable passive area with some limited active which I'll get to in a moment. Mr. Chairman, what our concern is today is, well first of all, the original submissions included an approximately 10-metre frontage onto the park. With policies and considerations of Mr. ??'s department . we agreed to shape the parkland area so it would allow for approximately 220 feet of frontage which is a considerable difference. In addition, we are deleting three lots which my client is satisfied with. The issue that we're concerned with today, which we don't agree, agree to disagree, is this last lot. Just want to point out to the committee that this line here is an imaginary top of bank, but this whole area is one entire parcel. The concern it's my understanding of parks planning is that this lot, what they'd like to see is to square off this area. And our opinion is if this line were down here and . it wouldn't make a world of difference because we still have this corner issue with the open space. . The issue is to try and prevent any corners for possible safety issues. In our opinion I don't think it's quite strong enough point to eliminate a further lot. Once again, we have lost three of them and we're not contesting elimination of those three. The total hectares of this subdivision is about 16.43 less the open space which is not calculated as part of the park dedication. Not to get too technical we're approximately at 4.7 and change percentage. Now the key here is to be at 5%. Once again, as I mentioned, not that we're looking for compensation on the open space, but we're clearly are over that 5% open space which I think we have to take into consideration. . Also want to point out that the neighbourhood further east is the Turner Park which has facilities for baseball diamonds and soccer pitches. It's an active park. Hence . through the neighbourhood discussions and their concern is there's an open space or park area to walk the dog, to basically enjoy a passive activity with the grandchildren, etc. And with the combination of open space and parkland, I think we've achieved this clearly. According to my statistics here, Mr. Chairman, once we complete the calculated plan and in addition as I mentioned previously with the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and their concerns regarding the channel, they may be introducing some type of open stream thing. We're probably going to lose a few more lots. So I clearly stand here today before you and say that 5% will be achieved. . once we redo these numbers we're going to have our required 5% which we're obligated to, in additional to approximately 1.2 hectares of open space, sorry 1.1 hectares of open space. We clearly exhibit what we have to. I'd appreciate if the committee would consider keeping lot 59 in, allowing for over 220 feet of frontage, and amending our draft plan as we're proposing today. ."

Kelly asks for questions but before that occurs Manchia resumes: ". some sketches that our firm has prepared that show clearly tennis courts, bocce courts and open space, and clearly we can demonstrate that they do fit."

Mitchell: "Mr Tadeson when he was up here, we didn't get a staff comment or Serge's comments on how much fill is needed or what the process is down on lots 61 and 62. I know from serving with the conservation authority if things were in a flood plain and fill was brought in, the appropriate amount of fill somewhere else had to be taken out. How is the floodplain being addressed.?

Manchia: ".with regards to this line it is the top of bank established by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and in my experience, the top of bank has always been generous. . But the lots here will not be affected per se by hazard lands. We're within the top of bank, but there has to be alteration. This whole area must be cleaned up and tidied up. That will have to go through the NPCA fill and permit process and in addition to submissions to the municipality. . Clearly the lots along here are within the top of bank."

Mitchell: "So if there needs to be fill brought in for lots 60, 61 and 62 . that agreement is with the conservation authority that the appropriate be taken out of the flood plain somewhere else? Is that right?"

Manchia: "Top of bank is established, Mr. Chairman. You can't alter that. With regards to cutting and filling in, there are two processes if I understand it correctly. One will be with your engineering staff and also with the NPCA. With that together we have to come up with a resolution and a balance."

McHattie: ". Sergio, I'm trying to get a sense of the density involved with this development. One of the things that we're trying to do, as you know from planning principles . is to provide for a denser form of development which will allow for transit-oriented development . I'm reading the HSR section of our report . and it talks about being outside the urban transit area . what sort of density would we need in this area to provide HSR service? I would hope that one of your goals as a planner and for the development that you're working with is to try and fit within the new style of planning, trying to get the densities required, and it appears the densities that we have right now do not allow for transit to be put into this area. I have to make the statement that if we into going about with development at this point, we have to do it now. Now ithe goal is to make it dense enough that the car impacts and all the impacts that we see with inappropriate urban sprawl is minimized or perhaps negated in some way. . ask you to comment on what sort of density do we need here . or refer to HSR staff."

Manchia: "I'm not a transportation engineer or a specialist, but I do appreciate the capability of these communities. One thing that I can add, is that this area may have not been sufficient enough . for transportation . aside from this subdivision, and of course on Mothers Street . I think with respect to bringing transit, we're a stone's throw away from Upper James, Highway 6, and it's my understanding that in the very near future Highway 6 is going to be presented to council to become a municipal road . [tape break] . to integrate some type of HSR. kind of strange that you bring it up."

Kelly: "Just to add on to that I know that through Economic Development, Mr. Everson, had some discussions with Tradeport too about the airport, because one of their long-range plans, of course, is bus service between the airport and the city as well. I know that somethings on the plate right now, we're looking at it. It's on our radar although I'm not sure we've nailed anything down as yet. Discussions are taking place.

McHattie: "At the appropriate time, I'd like to ask HSR to comment on that."

Andy McLaughlin: "As a general rule, HSR doesn't have a minimum density with respect to the implementation of public transit service. We do have a guideline that provides for a minimum, like rush hours Monday to Friday, bus service, operating at a 30 minute frequency for all lands, or 90% of the lands within the urban area. That is our guideline, but at this stage, due to financial considerations, we don't have any plans to introduce any additional public transit service."

McHattie: "In a perfect world we want to actually have the transit in place before the development went in, or at least to co-design the two of them, that the density is such that the transit goes in at the same time as the houses start to go up. And I'm trying to understand why that doesn't happen, or whether what would happen in this case, . it just seems against the principles where we're hoping to advance this transit-oriented development . maybe GRIDS is going to set us in that direction, but here's an example where we're not going to have transit for X number of months. Perhaps you can comment on the highway 6 opportunity which Sergio has indicated might provide for transit in the future."

McLaughlin: "We certainly are hoping that the transportation master plan for the city will include some policies, some very concrete policies that would allow us to perhaps consider, as councillor McHattie points out, in a perfect world where we could look at implementing transit service as development occurs, as opposed to waiting several years and then trying to implement it. As what normally happens in these situations, without transit service people do tend to go out and purchase a second automobile. And once they have that, it becomes very difficult in the long run to ever attract them back onto transit. With respect to the opportunities on Upper James Street - Highway 6 - certainly transit planning staff see Upper James as a major corridor with the anchor of downtown and the airport at either end, and we're hoping in the future with sufficient budget that we could implement a very attractive public transit service along Upper James that operates seven days a week and has a frequency that encourages ridership."

Bruckler: "Related to the park issue Sergio, I'm trying to reconcile some of the slides that you had put up and that which is provided in the report as a recommended red line. . Looking at the drawing in the report, Peter, the top of bank doesn't seem to coincide with what Sergio had shown on his."

De Iulio: ".The top of bank essentially runs along the back of these lot lines to this yellow line here and cuts on a diagonal here. So there is some greenspace shown here that has been included as park . there's a little bit of triangle here that would be above the top of bank and would potentially be developable. And what our staff report is showing is that we're recommending that these lot lines be extended down to the top of bank which is right about here, and the park would be a square with lots lines extended down to the top of bank." Bruckler : "Which is what is shown in the report?" De Iulio : "Yes." Manchia : "Mr. Chairman, my fault here. I was supposed to bring that up. There is that triangle and . probably best . as open space without extending the back yards so we just decided to cut it off. . we think it's best in public hands." Bruckler : "The other one is the lot, obviously you're looking for one additional lot Sergio and staff has indicated. Is that one additional lot or two additional lots?" Manchia: Originally two, now down to one "and we think that 200 feet of frontage is ample . the area we've eliminated is 2 acres, with the open space it's five. That's a great deal of open space for 200 lot plus or minus subdivision and we will meet that 5%... so yes we would like to see that lot 59 incorporated."

Mitchell : ".for the existing residences along Twenty Road that don't have hookups, how is that being dealt with? ." Manchia is unsure. Kelly asks Tony Sergi to comment: "The applicant has made two different proposals, one is extending it along Twenty Road. One is extending the existing sanitary along Twenty Road . The existing sanitary sewers that exist on the most easterly portion of the catchment area, Twenty Road, is available to service the land, but would require the removal of the existing . sanitary sewer, to lower it to accommodate the gravity feed along Twenty Road, and /or to extend the sewers through the existing Mother Street network. So there's two possible options. We haven't determined which one is best yet, and most economical for both parties, the neighbourhood and developer."

Kelly notes no further questions of proponent, and debate of committee begins.

McHattie: "Vision 2020 speaks to the loss of agricultural land and we want to have zero loss of agricultural land as a goal. And it's been tracking the loss, and we've been very poor at that over the last 10 years that Vision 2020's been in place. We've seen from the Indicators Report of Vision that we continue to lose agricultural land. I'm cognizant of the comments by one of the presentors, Mr. Harris, who ends his May 13, 2004 letter to planning staff by speaking to Mr. ?? who I guess is a landowner in the area, farmed the land in the area affected by the OP amendment, and he's stated there's no better agricultural land in Glanbrook township and the land bordering the Twenty Mile Creek. . ask staff how much agricultural land are we losing in this application?"

De Iulio : "Technically, we're not because this land is urban already in the Regional Official Plan. You're looking at 16 hectares, less the open space or top of bank area which is about 1.143 hectares, so 15 hectares, you're looking at just over 30 acres."

McHattie : "That leads me to my next question, because you mention technically we're not because the urban boundary expansion happened last summer I guess. I wonder if you could provide for me the history of that decision to expand the urban boundary. I have a vague recollection of it, not having been around this table at the time. I think I was in the audience that day on another issue and heard some of the discussion, where actually the applicant asked us to sort of split the land in two . or divide the land in any case, to allow part of the land to be developed and the rest of the land to be left behind until the GRIDS process goes through its route. And I find that a very unusual decision to actually split the land in two to allow the additional urban boundary expansion, when the GRIDS process was going to look at all the different options and to consider all the different places that Hamilton could expand into over the next number of years as we look to the future. So I wonder if you could provide me the planning recommendation at that time, whether we're in favour of the urban boundary expansion or against it, and what the rationale was for expanding the urban boundary in this area at that time?"

Kelly : "Peter, you might not have that at the tip of your fingers, but if you have a recollection perhaps."

De Iulio : "The staff recommendation on the Regional Official Plan Amendment was not to support it due to the GRIDS process being undertaken at the time. Staff recommended that it not be supported, but committee and council, I guess through presentations or what have you by the proponent, decided to support the application in part through what could be gravity-fed as serviced by gravity. And that was I guess essentially a political decision, but the staff recommendation was not to proceed with the application due to the GRIDS process looking at it the bigger picture."

McHattie : "I certainly can't support this development today. To me it's a clear example of us ignoring proper planning principles where staff recommends against urban boundary expansion. We're into a GRIDS process last summer, we we're into the GRIDS process already, and for some reason we decided to one-off this development. Not only not the whole land, but to split the land it two to allow the developer to move ahead of the GRIDS process, based on half the land being allowed to be serviced from a gravity feed perspective. That's a very difficult decision to support, and I certainly can't support that decision that was made. And certainly the loss of 30 acres of what seems to be - and I know this is an issue that the two farmers on the committee are concerned about, is the loss of agricultural land, and continued loss of that land, in this case in the Twenty Mile Creek floodplain and the area which is a fairly rich area. In my view, what was perhaps a questionable decision last summer, council made it in any case against the recommendation of staff, and I certainly can't support it today. And I don't know whether there's going to be an OMB challenge to the decision that we make today, but I guess we'll have to see how that goes. This is really an example of urban sprawl in my mind. We know that it's all single-detached housing and it doesn't meet the density that we'd like to see from a new planning perspective. So I think in light of the way we're thinking these days, or moving toward thinking these days with smart growth thinking, this is not the kind of thing we'd like to see happen."

Mitchell : "I'd like to thank our staff being so diligent with me and I guess this whole process, because I too opposed the urban boundary expansion last year. But staff have gone forward and worked with the developer in a fair fashion. I thank them for that. I want to thank my political colleagues around the table, there was more last summer, for recognizing the fact that I did support it and . downsizing the whole project so that it would be gravity-feed . Now I have an amendment Mr. Chairman. Through this process of meeting with our staff and the development people about park space out there, because it's important. I'm also appointed on the conservation authority working group committee on Twenty Mile Creek, and I'd have to agree with councillor McHattie that Twenty Mile Creek land is one of the best lands left in the city, because my farm is part of that process as well. So all this concerns me. But in saying that, it was passed by this council last year, and I'm not one to waste taxpayers' money on fighting things when somebody's passed it already. I think this city's done too many years of fighting things and costing taxpayers on other issues way too much money. So councillor McHattie and I somewhat disagree on that philosophy. The transit component, Mr. Chairman, I don't encourage transit area expansion unless the local residents that are living there absolutely want it. Because the way the process is, it's 50% paid for by the users and 50% paid for by the people that live there and drives their taxes up. So until I hear as the ward councillor here that a given area demands that service, I do not want to see that service put on them to have pay for it. And that was a positive change from amalgamation was area rating and so on. So I'd like to see it left that way until the demand is there. I'm very much looking forward to the LEAR study, Mr. Chairman. Maybe our staff could comment a little bit on that, on the LEAR process, because I am concerned about expanding any wider than this. I'm not a firm believer in pumping stations if they are not necessary, and that's why this fortunately when this development went in place, because it is gravity feed. So at this point in time, could staff comment on the process of the LEAR study that's taking place on agricultural land right now?"

Kelly : "Sure. Ms. Coveyduck."

Coveyduck : "That study is well underway. In fact the timing of it is going to coincide perfectly with the work that is being done on the greenbelt task force that the province is working on. That study will be looking at the various classes of agricultural land and we're hoping to have that completed in time to meet with the province so when they actually define where their boundaries are going to be as part of their smart growth and part of their greenbelt task force, we'll be able to use that work to help define the boundaries for the City of Hamilton. That should be completed, I believe, by September."

Mitchell : "So if one of the concerns from the area residents is further expansion, these documents will put an end to some of this. Is that correct? Or an idea of where the boundary should be?" Coveyduck : "It will certainly be one piece of information that will be used to help us determine the boundary, that's correct."

Mitchell : "If committee chose to oppose this today, and it goes to the OMB, what is that going to cost us as taxpayers to go to OMB and fight this development, in light of the fact that it's already been inside the urban boundary?" Coveyduck : "I don't know how many days of a hearing would be required for something like this, but as a ballpark we usually look at costs in the neighbourhood of $5000 a day for a hearing." Mitchell : "And what would be an average one, cost wise? Like I'm thinking $100,000 to $200,000 at times for a lot of these fights when it goes forward." Coveyduck : "It really depends on the length of hearing, how many opponents there's going to be, whether we'd have to bring experts to the hearing. They can range anywhere from one week to six weeks. I really can't get any more specific than that."

Mitchell : "I, as a Glanbrook councillor, opposed the urban boundary expansion at that time, and still do, but it was passed by council. So to stop this at this point in time. What I've been trying to do is get back for the area certain things I believe in, in the community area of having bigger size lots, Mr. Chairman. And our staff have fit it in to have bigger size lots there because that was important to me. I've worked with staff and the proponents on the parkland part, and keeping that green area there, that's all important as well. So at the appropriate time, I would move the amendment to have the one lot put back in, 59, as requested, and that up in the far corner that both lots not be made bigger [lots 61 and 62]. That that be part of the open space that the City will own. So those two amendments, I don't know exactly how they should be worded Mr. Chairman, but if they are presented I will vote for those two amendments. I've met with Peter De Iulio. I think the question there is will things still meet the 5% parkland dedication, and yes it will. So I'm pleased with that component and that the city's going to keep a significant green area in that area."

Merulla : To staff ". I recall this issue quite vividly from last year and I supported it at that time, but I do notice that in this report - and I remember the report last year which was very contentious - but in this particular report staff supports the proposed application as they are consistent with good planning principles. How do we reconcile that particular contradiction?" De Iulio : "Given that the decision was made to make this an urban area, we look at the urban policies of the Regional Official Plan and the local plan to determine conformity with those documents now that they are urban. It's a different policy setting once it is urban. Whereas last year it was being reviewed as greenfield expansion, urban expansion, the decision was made to go urban so now it's being reviewed under urban policies. So in that context it conforms with the Hamilton Wentworth Official Plan."

Merulla : "Another contradiction I've noticed. I know that I've been trying to encourage a great deal of projects in my area, particularly ones that are concerned to be an over-intensification by neighbours. And we always seem to approve the over-intensification, which is far more environmentally friendly, but we seem to support under intensification here. Can I have a clarification on that glaring contradiction." Kelly : "That's more a philosophical question." Merulla : "No, not at all. Why don't we support over-intensification which is environmentally friendly, and why do we support under-intensification which is environmentally unfriendly? ." De Iulio : "Certainly urban intensification I've dealt with over the years . just selling an existing large urban lot which is just been fully serviced, it is split into two. It's an issue of neighbourhood compatability. A lot of intensification areas areas are single low-density established neighbourhoods and when you bring in a higher density there's always a resistance, neighbourhood wise, in terms of compatability issues. Certainly that's a major concern. And OP policies speak to that. While we encourage intensification we do have to deal with the compatability issues. And while you have the services there that would support intensification, it comes down to that compatability issue. And I take light in an OMB decision I had from the past. In terms of compatability, it's not meaning the same as. When you're approving something, it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be the same. It's just something that is generally that is supportable and it could be blended in with the neighbourhood."

Merulla : ".it almosts give me the impression that we have a one-size-fits-all kind of scenario. If we have a scenario where, for instance, a neighbourhood has been consulted and we've reduced it to two or three people opposed to it, with the vast majority approving it, why would staff not consider that in their reports rather than just simply discouraging any type of inner-city or infill type of development?" De Iulio : "Certainly we take all comments into consideration of all people. I'm not sure of examples where unfortunately there's two or three people who are opposed to something and staff is basing its opinion on two or three in opposition as opposed to the majority of people that supported it. Each application is evaluated on its own merits and our recommendations are based on the current policy framework, not necessarily what the general public has to say. If it fits with what existing policies indicate, in terms of there's tests that have to be met for intensification, it should be supportable. And if it fails those tests, it certainly staff would be in a position not to support such application. So each is evaluated on its own merits and staff evaluates it on the policies that exist."

Merulla : "Now on the point you stated that public opinion shouldn't interfere with the policies, with the principles of planning policies, but yet you have issues such as lands where the actual principle from a planning perspective there wasn't a problem. The reason why we were denying it was because of the OMB decision, which would have obviously been initiated by public opinion. How do we reconcile that?". De Iulio : "In that case, the OMB decision was based on current official plan policies which haven't changed for five years. So at that time, five years ago, Stoney Creek staff could not support it based on the existing official plan policy and that policy is still in place now and staff cannot support it because the same policies are in place. The policies haven't changed, and the staff position hasn't changed from five years ago to today. So it was the public that was influencing our decision, it was the approved policy that was in place both then and now."

Merulla : "And just with respect to councillor Mitchell's theme about the cost. How much was it going to cost to police, provide fire services and ambulance services and all other services to that area once it's completed? Approximately, a ballpark figure." Kelly : "I don't think anybody has that number off the top of their head. Mr. Rinaldo?" Joe Rinaldo : "In terms of the cost, unfortunately when you do any new areas, you're doing it on an incremental basis. Therefore it's a matter how you allocate those costs in terms of what's already there to begin with. So to determine it would be very difficult for us to do at this time, but I'm sure that the police would be able to tell you, for example, how many additional officers they would require. But what you would find is that on a net basis that would be a net benefit to the city because there's only an incremental cost. It's not reflecting the true cost which includes some of the overhead that currently exists." Merulla : "Let me simplify the question. The cost of providing fire, police, ambulance, schools and so on - the question to simplify it - would be considerably a lot more than fighting this at the OMB. I think the answer to that would be yes." Kelly : "That's been answered." Merulla : Through you to Mr. Rinaldo ." Rinaldo : "I don't know the costs of the OMB would be . and I couldn't tell you." Merulla : "Through you Mr. Chairman could we have a clarification of the cost of the OMB?" Kelly : "Well I think Ms. Coveyduck already stated that she can only, $5000 is her estimate times how ever many days it's going to be." Merulla : .?" Kelly : "Again, Ms. Coveyduck" interruped by Coveyduck : "Through you Mr. Chairman I would estimate that this hearing probably wouldn't last more than a couple of days. It is in the urban boundary. It's clear that the issues that would be looked at would be any details of this . not whether it should be left urban, or whether it should be left rural. So the only thing that the Board would be left deciding would be 'is the zoning appropriate, is the size of the lots appropriate, is the subdivision appropriate'. They would not be determining whether or not it should be urban." Merulla : Right, so it would be a quick process. So it could only be possibly $10,000 as opposed to the millions of dollars that it would cost to provide the services, regardless of what the argument is. Alright, I guess that's about it."

Braden : "I'd like to ask some questions first. If we get beside the parkland, not the natural areas, I need to know from staff if we have policies or if we have preferences for using when parks are adjacent to roads. Do we want to make them look open because it's a pleasing effect? Or are we concerned with economics and we'd really rather get a tax advantage from people lining the street? So if we take that piece of property there for example and magnify it from one or two lots times six - I mean why don't we go with a 30 foot entrance into the park and be getting at least the tax money for the rest of the frontage? ." De Iulio : "It really becomes a parks open space development issue and the visibility from the street. If you have the park developed behind all the homes with just a 30 foot entrance, the visibility of the park is not the same. People may miss it, and a safety issue occurs where if problems occur behind these homes and there's no visibility of what's going on behind the park. And just from a functioning point of view, if you want to put facilities up, the bylaw requires 50 foot setbacks from all residential property lines so you would be a little more limited in what you could do with that park for the more active park purpose, whether it's tennis courts or the bocce courts that were shown. So from that perspective it would be preferable to have more frontage."

Braden : "Okay. I hear that but I'm a little sensitive to the money, but now balance that with the idea that we want developers to pay their own way, and if you look at item (a 2), it looks like we're volunteering in a somewhat charitable way to pay for half of the servicing costs all the way along that adjacent strip. Now, I don't know if we have a policy, but we should have an understanding, developers to pay their way. This is not doing that, so I need an idea - Tim [McCabe] wants to say something - I'm not interested in paying for the developers to put in a park." Kelly asks McCabe to speak. Tim McCabe : "As a result of the new development charge background study, all of these park frontage charges are now within the development charge, so all developers are paying for that frontage, not the city. It's not coming out of levy. Development is paying for that." Braden: "Tim can you just go through that slowly and talk specifically about (a 2) and then talk about the new development charge bylaw so that I am very clear on that." McCabe : "In March of 2003, council approved new financial policies for development. And it was a harmonization across all the former municipalities saying that half the cost of fencing adjacent to active parks be paid for by the city, and half paid for by the developers. As well, the half the road costs - the servicing and the asphalt works and the above ground entity, below ground -with respect to the park frontage, be paid for by the city since the developers didn't have lots on that side. Some of the former municipalities had those costs in the development charges. Most of them did not. So we made sure as part of the background work in terms of estimating all the park frontages - there's a minimum frontage set out in the development charge background work - that those costs, both from a fencing point of view and the above ground and below ground works with respect to park boundaries, were included in the total cost of growth included in the development charges bylaw. So that money is being funded out of development charge reserve. When you see these references in our subdivision reports - the city pays for this and the city pays for that - that is coming out of development charge reserve."

Braden : "If I can go on. If we can get to the slide . the one that has a separate block on the north east corner where it'really phases but they referred to it as this thing of blocks . if the street going along the southerly boundary within this development is street A . you can see where there's going to be a temporary cul-de-sac down in the right corner." Notes that there is no temporary cul-de-sac on the next street up. "How come?" De Iulio says there will be a temporary connecting road cutting across the residential area. Braden : "I need the planner's experience on this. If something goes differently in block 2, because of fisheries or because of something, have we somehow boxed ourselves in, draft approving the whole thing, which is unnecessary? In other words, might we not be a whole lot smarter to draft approve block 1 and leave block 2 out of it for now?" De Iulio : "If the fisheries issue cannot be resolved and the conservation authority essentially says 'yes, this watercourse has to stay in it's current position' or whether they relocate it along the periphery, we'll have to come back with a revision to that portion of the draft plan. The conservation authority has accepted that approach. Yeah, ideally it might be better just to deal with phase one, but the conservation authority and through their fisheries report it may appear that really it may not be assured in the end so by putting it in a holding zone we have enough, uh, restrictions in place to prevent that from proceeding. And if it comes back that that has to be preserved as a natural creek or a natural watercourse through this area, they have to come back and amend the draft plan and come back before committee."

Braden : "Mr chairman the reason that I put forward that idea, you can just envision the arguments. You know, let's say the find one minnow. Fisheries go crazy and says you have to put 50 feet buffers. You can hear the developers saying 'here we have 15 lots at $125,000 for one dead minnow'. We're going to go . a little bit obliged to deal with a dead minnow and it would just be better not to go in that direction at all. And that's almost a legitimate example of how silly things are getting. But we wouldn't want to go near there. I just want to mention with regard to the OMB, it seems that I want to fight everything, and in fact I don't. But the way . need to fight for the things that we think are right. . nobody is pushing us this, but in fact, I think we've gone backwards where I think we've said 'we're afraid to fight, go ahead'. I don't want to be involved with either of the extremes. I just want to do what is right. Finally, I want to say, and I want to be seen here as most critical, as opposed to negative. This was a one-off project right from the beginning. Staff told us 'don't do this, it doesn't fit'. It was the political people here that approved this whole thing. It certainly wasn't staff. So we put staff in a position of having to respond to this. In all of the things that I think we are pretending, not pretending, I think we are saying are important, we're not doing. This has been one-offed right from the beginning. It has been a boundary extension when it shouldn't have been. We know we don't want low density, or a lot of it, although we want diversity. This is low-density. We do want mixed development. This couldn't be farther from the truth. We want development that eventually will be reasonably efficient to provide transit for. This will never be. We want developers to pay everything on their own, and I think with some exceptions, we haven't really got that clear. So it's not sense in being mad at the world, but you want to bring this up so this doesn't happen again. You remember, this happened about six months before an election. This is completely political and not planning. We don't want to replicate this again. We do need to play with the players and get it going. I think that this draft approval could be done much better. I would suggest strongly that you don't do block 2, just because we don't want more fights than we're going to get already. I leave those there, if anyone wants to second that. And the block fee, I don't know if we can afford to have parks, if we don't have people facing the street. I really don't think we can afford to keep doing that. Because local people will know exactly where the park is cause they're buying in there. That park is not for people who live a mile away. It's for them. Those are meant to be critical comments that we please do not replicate again and it's happened every year. it just keeps happening every time and they're completely against all of the things that we say we stand for."

Mitchell : "I hear what councillor Braden has said and I agree with a large majority of that. I'd like to amend this to put one lot back into - lot 59 - putting one lot back in which was along the lines of what councillor Braden was talking about. And the property lines to the left for the open space area right there that that they be square off and that be part of the open space rather than having those big deep lots so nobody can fall off into the ravine there. So it's kind of a tradeoff for total land space." Pearson seconds. Motion loses. Only councillors who indicate support are Mitchell and Pearson.

Kelly : "We just voted on councillor Mitchell's amendment. It lost four to three."

Ferguson : "Just for clarification. Can somebody give me a 30 words or less history of this. It's foggy. There's a reason why we approved this, a couple of years ago." Kelly : "Last year I'll give you 25 words. It was staff did not recommend it at the time. Council decided to move forward with this and that was the decision. It's been characterized in various ways over the last few minutes here." F e rguson: "But there was a proviso on that for lands to the east already in the urban area. What's the reason for that?" De Iulio : "Regional Official Plan amendment 16 was approved a year ago. It was essentially for this entire piece, but what was approved, the application was for the entire piece but what was approved was what could be gravity fed which is essentially from about this area westerly and it was 15 to 16 hectares which was approved to be incorporated into the urban area through that regional amendment." Ferguson : "But there was a valid justification for expansion of the urban area of this particular piece, I just can't remember what that was." De Iulio : "Staff did not support it in the absence due to the GRIDS process. We wanted it be considered as part of the GRIDS process. We thought that it was premature at that time to be dealing with this application." Ferguson (off-mic - inaudible).

Kelly : "We've had a pretty full discussion on this. I'd like to move ahead on the motion now. The amendment has failed. Councillor Mitchell are you willing to move the motion?" Mitchell : "I'd like to have it split into three parts, because I can support (a) and (c) but I can't support the (b) part, Mr. chairman, as I did last year, but I think there's some positive changes here. And I tried an amendment to that effect. Maybe it'll have to be somebody else at council that can bring that amendment forward. That's been negotiated and I think it's a cost effective thing to do for the city. But that's fine." Kelly : "So you want these voted on individually." Mitchell : "(a), (b) and (c), Mr. Chairman, I can support (a) and (c), but consistent with what I did last year I cannot support B. But it is already in the urban boundary so I'm not real keen on going to the Ontario Municipal Board either, cause that's wasting taxpayers' money. But anyway." Kelly : "Alright then let's vote on them individually."

Kelly : "On 6.3 (a). All in favour? Opposed? Motion carries. On 6.3 (b). All in favour? Opposed? Motion is defeated." McCabe : "Mr Chairman, sorry for interrupting, but (b) is the Official Plan amendment that allows (a) to proceed." Kelly : "Yeah, I thought so myself, Tim." Kelly argues with Mitchell [several voices make part of the exchange inaudible]. Mitchell "I can't support changing the Glanbrook Official Plan there, but we've already voted on this once before, so there's got to be a clarification. I have to stick to what I did in the past because I believe in what I did, but it's already in the regional document." McCabe : "Mr. Chairman." Kelly : "Maybe we can get some clarification." McCabe : "Last year was an amendment to add an additional urban area to the regional plan. So it's the regional plan that defines the limits of the urban area within the large city. The Glanbrook Official Plan is like, is the local official plan in the previous structure. So the local official plan has to comply with the regional official plan. So this is just a pure implementation of a previous council decision where the local , or the lower tier plan, has to conform with the upper tier plan which has been amended already to include it in the urban area.". Kelly : "Councillor Mitchell?" Mitchell : "Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess it's admitting that I've lost this so I have worked on trying to build in some better things for Glanbrook into the development agreement which some of them have been done. My amendment was not, but some of the other ones have been done and I support those two, just because I want them left in there, but I still am the Glanbrook - half of ward 11 is Glanbrook - so I still believe in the rural official plan. So I have to oppose that. Now if everybody opposes that I guess it's going to OMB, but that's other councillors' options. I support in principle what's gone on because I lost the battle last year the other side. I'm just sticking to the initial way I voted on the Glanbrook official plan." Kelly : "Do you understand the ramifications councillor, which is that voting on (a) is not going to happen if you vote against (b), it's essential" Interrupted by Mitchell : "Well I understand that but I would hope councillor colleagues look at this as not wasting taxpayers' money because I don't want to that either." Kelly : "Count the hands, councillor." Mitchell : "We already voted on" Interrupted by Kelly : "That is passed. Vote on (b). All in favour of 6.3 (b)? All in favour? Opposed? [vote remains at 3-4 and loses]. On (c), for what it's worth. All in favour? Opposed? (c) carries." Mitchell : "Wonders of amalgamation, Mr. Chairman."

[VOTE on 6.3: (a) and (c) are adopted; (b) is defeated.
(a) 4-3 - Kelly, Mitchell, Pearson and Ferguson support. Braden, McHattie and Merulla oppose.
(b) 3-4 - Kelly, Pearson and Ferguson support. Braden, Mitchell, McHattie and Merulla oppose.
(c) 4-3 - Kelly, Mitchell, Pearson and Ferguson support. Braden, McHattie and Merulla oppose.]

Kelly : "Could I get some clarification from Mr. McCabe on what the ramifications of this may be. I'm not going back to the vote, by the way. What's done is done. I guess, Tim, essentially what we've done." Interrupted by McCabe : "Mr Chairman, what you've actually done. You've recommended to council that an urban plan of subdivision, with urban residential small lot zoning not in conformity with the agricultural designation in the current Official Plan. So you cannot pass a zoning bylaw that doesn't comply with the Official Plan. So you've left an agricultural desigation, but you've now tried to implement residential small lot zoning in a residential plan of subdivision. And it just can't happen." Kelly : "Thank you, Tim."

Mitchell : "Mr Chairman, I know that we are going to lose at OMB. You know that. So if you need to have somebody here with a little intelligence to say let's go forward, I will change my vote." Kelly: "I don't believe they can do that. The vote's already been taken. It can go to council. This will go. Item 6.3 will go to council on the 14 th of July and" Mitchell interrupts: "My comments to be will be lifted then and we can vote on the whole thing." Kelly : "The whole Committee of the Whole and eventually council will at it on July 14 th . Thank you members of committee. Thank you members of the public. That was enlightening." (84 minutes for this item - 9:56-11:20)

Kelly asks to change the agenda and do item 8.1 next "because it is still of a planning nature" and "because the other ones are just staff reports and information kind of things". No opposition from committee.

8.1 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) (Referred from Committee on June, 22, 04)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/July06/PD04160.pdf

Kelly notes: ". we have two additional submissions on the item, Mr. John Waugh and Mr. and Mrs. Wilk. [They both oppose the application]. They have been distributed this morning. I'm sure you've had an opportunity to read them. Councillor Pearson has been working on this file for the last little while. Perhaps we can ask her for an update. Councillor?"

Pearson : "I will support the recommendation by staff before us today. I have met with the residents. I've met with the applicants of this particular development and the applicants for the development to the south that will be coming forward to Planning committee in September. In trying to address the concerns, we've come to a bit of a solution to the fears of the neighbourhood and I have an addition to add to item 6 on the recommendation. And what I'm wishing to add: . Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraphs (b), (d), and (m) of Section 6.10.3 and Paragraph (d) of Section 6.10.5 of the Multiple Residential "RM3" Zone, on those lands zoned "RM3-25" by this By-law, the minimum lot frontage shall be 46 metres, the minimum easterly and southerly side yards shall be 3 metres, the minimum landscaped open space shall be 41%, and parking spaces shall be provided no closer than 0.5 metres from the rear lot line and 2.2 metres from the northerly side yard. Mr. Chairman, this is the addition. In addition, vehicular access to the lands to the south shall not be permitted. Just so I can refresh the committees memory on this, when the presentation was made at the last meeting there was two road stubs in the proposal. And this was the fear of the residents with the development to the south coming on line that these roads would be continued and they will impact the residential neighbourhood southerly. So in trying to resolve this, the applicant is agreeable to this and staff has supported the addition of this particular wording."

Motion moved by Pearson, seconded by Ferguson. No discussion. Carried.

8.2 Revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines (PD04178) (City Wide)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/July06/PD04178.pdf

Staff report presented by Cathy Plosz. No questions. Moved by McHattie, seconded by Pearson. Carried.

8.3 Various Surplus School Sites, Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board; Jerome Neighbourhood, Hamilton; Gourley Neighbourhood, Hamilton; Lakeview Area, Stoney Creek (PD04182) (Wards 7, 8 and 10) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/July06/PD04182.pdf
Recommendation is to express no interest in these lands with the exception of a 20 metre slice of the Lakeview piece for stormwater purposes. In Gourley there is a 2.45 hectare shortage of parkland. The available property is 1.66 hectares but is deemed unsuitable for a neighbourhood park because of its location. The cost is $3.5 million. In Jerome it is calculated that there is sufficient planned parkland. The property is 2.8 hectares and the cost is $760,000. In Lakeview although there is a shortfall of parkland space in the Lakeshore community, these lands are environmentally significant and are not suitable for active recreational use. Staff thought that the Conservation Authority might be interested, but the report says they aren't. The cost is $202,000.

No discussion. Moved by Braden, seconded by Pearson. Carried.

8.4 Municipal Act Project - Sanitary Sewer on Hamilton Drive from Garner Road to 698.5 metres northerly and on Garner Road from Hamilton Drive to 485 metres easterly in Ancaster PW03165a/FCS03166a - (Ward 12)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/
Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/July06/PW03165a_FCS03166a.pdf
Report referred from Public Works and Environment Committee on June 21, to Planning and Economic Development Committee. Opposition to the very high cost being charged to homeowners to hook up to the sewer system - $74,000 per home.

Rinaldo : ". agreement . where the developers have front-ended the money and we have an agreement in principle . to recover the funds from future development on serviced lots or properties in that area. . I believe it's straightforward. . Peter Crockett and myself developed that report."

Kelly : "Moved by Merulla, seconded by Pearson, all in favour? Have you got a question, Dave? Go ahead."

Braden : "Probably on a day when we're not rushed, we need to look at the attitudes that go into this. Don't get me wrong. I want the developer to pay, obviously. . I'd like to come back to the approach of this . at a future meeting." Rinaldo : "The intent of this reads, because of the arranged agreements were different with every different developer, it was just on a different basis. From my point of view, you know, we developed these on a more consistent basis so I don't see any issues. We'll try to develop them in the future on a more consistent basis, but essentially we are obligated to pay these funds to the developer who put up the money. The City did not put up the money." Braden : (off mic) Kelly says staff will take that as direction. Mary Lou Tanner : "The funding methodology agreement that was approved by council allowed some discretion on whether we go on a frontage basis on whether we go on a per lot basis. It is generally a per lot basis unless there are exceptional circumstances where the frontages are completely different and vary substantially. We also look at whether there's potential future development for any of the properties, and whether or not they are in the urban boundary. So it's actually quite a complicated decision-making process to determine if we should stay with a per lot basis. In this case we did."

Kelly : "You know you cursed this, Joe, when you said it was straightforward. Councillor Bruckler."

Bruckler (off-mic).

Ferguson: "I didn't hear what Joe said, maybe it was very important. (two people talking at once). It is straightforward. ."

Rinaldo : "It's what the agreement we've developed with the subdivision developers at that time. And we're obligated to come up with these, to recover these funds on a best effort basis." Ferguson: "That's probably the kicker - a best efforts basis." Kelly ask staff to comment. Tim McCabe : "The sewer in question was identified in previous 1999-98 development charges background study, and the city supplied portion split has been identifed for local component versus rural component. And the best efforts at identifying the local component's aspect isn't viable. So the developer's already front-ended and paid for the entire project, and he will receive back credits and payments for the DC component. The remaining portion is an obligation to the frontage people who have frontage on Garner Road." Ferguson : "I have a problem with a person who lives on Garner will pay $3200 and just around the corner his neighbour's going to pay $74,000. Something doesn't wash there. There was problems with this. Soil conditions were. Is the motion to refer to staff? Is that what the motion is?" Kelly : "I'm waiting for a motion." Ferguson : "I'll refer it to staff. This is unacceptable. You can't expect people . to pay $74,000 to hook up to septic system." Kelly : "The referral motion is not debatable. Moved by Ferguson, seconded by Braden. All in favour? Carried."

7.1 Elimination of Duplicate Street Names (City Wide) (PDO4088) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/
Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/July06/PD04088.pdf
This involves 231 duplicates and nearly 6000 residences. Some existing street names occur six times in amalgamated Hamilton. Bell Canada, which feeds the 911 emergency system, is demanding the change. The City is demanding that the province foot the $1.75 million bill.

Ray Lee: "The City of Hamilton has received a formal request from Bell Canada to eliminate duplicate street names in Hamilton that have been created as a result of municipal amalgamation. Duplicate names are those that share identical address and characteristics. For example, Park Street in Dundas and Park Street in Flamborough . Under the present system, the 911 designation includes the name of the former municipality . and that information is displayed on our dispatcher's computer during an emergency 911 call. . Later this year, Bell Canada is proposing to update their address database, that's used by our 911 dispatchers, to remove the names of the former municipalities that no longer exist as a result of municipal amalgamation. . The current 911 system works fine and if and when Bell decides to drop the municipal identifier then this becomes an issue. In 1993 the former region had entered into an agreement, referred to as the PRRS agreement - the Public Registry and Reporting System - with Bell Canada to participate in the 911 program. Under that agreement .the City of Hamilton has an obligation to provide Bell Canada with accurate addressing information. . Staff have identified approximately 221 duplicate names . that share the same name and suffix such as Mill Street in Flamborough and Mill Street in Dundas. Street names that share the same name but have a different suffix or extension, like Apple Drive and Apple Place are not considered duplicates by Bell. . This project is not unique to Hamilton. Other amalgamated municipalities in Ontario . also struggling with this issue. . To this date the City of Ottawa is the only comparable major urban centre to Hamilton that has completed this exercise. Meanwhile the City of Toronto council has agreed to undertake this program . Rural communities such as Haldimand County have completed their program. . Chatham-Kent and Norfolk county have initiated the street naming project. . Greater Sudbury, on the other hand, has not made a political decision to proceed with the street renaming exercise. . Staff have identified two options. First is the do-nothing option. This option will simply not address the issue with duplicate street names, especially for a city that has taken so many steps to harmonize and rationalize the delivery of service as a single municipality. As Bell has indicated in our correspondence, there is a high probability of emergency vehicles being dispatched to the wrong location and the question of liabilitiy may be at issue. Bell has consistently warned us that they will not take responsibility with emergency vehicles being dispatched to the wrong location as a result of duplicate street names. The second option is to proceed with the program to eliminate duplicate street names . it would be the responsible course of action in the interests of public safety and the protection of property. Due to the sensitivity . staff intends to include . a significant public consultation process to determine what street names are to remain and which ones are to be changed. . Bell is the sole provider in Ontario of the 911 system ." Staff recommends proceeding and asking the province to pay for the cost. A four to five year phase in program at an estimated cost of $1.75 million.

[Summarized discussion] Kelly asks if Ottawa got provincial money and Lee confirms that they did. Merulla: ".I don't want to see any names changed . wouldn't it be a lot simpler just to simply as an example use Wilson Street in Ancaster and Wilson Street in Hamilton renaming it as 'Wilson Street Ancaster' and 'Wilson Street Hamilton'?" Lee: "That'a very very good recommendation. . one of the problems with this is that if we do add a suffix to the existing street name, it still constitutes a street name change. Residents affected will still have to notify their banks, their credit card companies, their friends." Would still have to replace street signs. . Merulla asks what realistic risk is. Acting Chief Kay says 40% of 911 calls are through a cell phone so many could be coming from people not familiar with area. "Fire response, approximately 30,000 occurrences; . ambulance, EMS, probably 80,000 plus; police probably respond to anywhere from 125 to 150,000 occurrences per year." Ferguson : "Let this be a landmark day, I'd like to second councillor Merulla's motion." Suggests 330 Wilson A for Ancaster or H for Hamilton. Would support Bell's proposal "at exactly the same time as hell freezes over." Provincial money has to be place "before we turn one wheel". Kelly : Suggests asking Bell to drop the long distance charges between Ancaster and Stoney Creek. McHattie : Current system working for last few years? Can't we have discussion with Bell and CRTC to retain it? "It's $1.5 million of public money and all sorts of public consultation . ask Bell to reconsider." Lee : Transition Board considered this and decided it was not necessary. Been on the table for a number of years now. "The reason Bell is not willing to [continue status quo] is that the 911 system is not just in Ontario and Quebec, it's throughout North America, and the database they're using is a recognized standard throughout the country." Bruckler : "Sounds like to could be quite a Canadian exercise where we have Wilson Street Eh?" "What would Bell have done had there been no amalgamation? There must be many Mill Streets in this geographic area between here and Niagara." Lee : Notes that Copetown, Freelton and Winona are still listed in the telephone book. Kelly : "What they're doing is simply taking amalgamation to the nth degree." Pearson : "Boy this is really going to open a huge can of worms." Recalls fight about Canada Post changing community names. "It's very very important for the public to understand that this is going to be a huge cost." Asks Kay if there is possibility of another database system that could be used. Kay : Not aware of any other database, and "we would lose the universality of the entire program." Kelly : "Not our call". Kay : "Basically the 911 system belongs to [Bell]." Mitchell : "In Ward 11 I gotta pay long distance to phone everywhere." Binbrook to Winona or Ancaster. "To bend over backwards for Bell . no way." Kelly : "This is a worst case scenario as far as I'm concerned . opening up wounds . seeming indifference of corporations." Wants addition to resolution to drop long-distance charges within Hamilton. Ferguson : On long-distance charges, notes that "the people in Sheffield want to call Cambridge, people in Winona want to call Grimsby". "This is completely driven by a corporation that wants to make things easier for them." Braden : Appreciates everyone being on the same page. "Our plan A is to deal with Bell. If Bell needs to be threatened a bit, I'm quite happy to be part of that because they don't want to lose a lot of business and get a black eye." Merulla moves motion including "asking CRTC to review the entire matter". Kelly asks for long distance charges to be included. Bruckler : Changing names or asking Bell to carry on status quo? Kelly says change names. Merulla says better to keep status quo. Staff notes that changing names will still cost $1.7 million. Kelly suggests making CRTC first item. Merulla changes motion [discussion off-mic]. Carried. (28 minutes for this item - 11:31-11:59)

7.2 Binbrook Secondary Plan-verbal presentation (no copy)

Kelly : "Here's the status, gang. Councillor Mitchell has to go. I've got to go probably in another 15-20 minutes. I'm told that the secondary plan presentation will take about half an hour." Should we do this now? Off-mic suggestion to put it off until August. McCabe : "The key staff will not be here in August, they'll be on vacation, so it would have to be referred to September." Merulla off-mic question. Kelly : "Oh no, Sam. This is just a review of something that's already been passed and is in the process of being implemented. Councillors on the committee had just asked for an update, an overview. Problem was . two or three of these things came to us incrementally and there were a number of questions asked . so staff decided 'we'll give you a holistic approach on this' . Do we want to do this today? If not today, it's September. ." Braden off-mic. Kelly : "We're not voting on anything here. It's simply an overview and a time for Q and A for staff about this whole situation." Ferguson notes Whitehead had asked for this and isn't here. Moves to table to September. Carried. Kelly asks for distribution of printed material "it makes great backyard reading". McHattie : "I think the important thing is . to give us full consideration". Kelly interrupts "Yeah, that's my concern too. I don't want to give this thing short-shrift" McHattie agrees with Merulla that all members of council be invited. Kelly : "I suggested at the time that why don't we do this as a staff presentation. It doesn't have to be done at the committee level, but that's something that the committee could entertain. We could do this in 110 some afternoon. We don't have to wait for a committee meeting to do this. We can decide to do this next week, technically, . and say 'hey, there's a presentation on the Binbrook settlement plan. Anybody who wants to attend. The vice-chair [Whitehead] wasn't very amenable to the suggestion at the time, but I'm saying that's an option. We did at the time say . it has to come back to this committee . but they don't have to, because they are just information reports." McHattie : "Make this item 1 for September." . "I think it's important. We put this off a number of times. I think there is also little bit of a credibility issue with staff as to how important is this for our committee to hear. I'd like to send a message to staff that we do appreciate the report and I would think that a lot of citizens would want to hear it as well." Kelly : "So staff will take that as direction."

ADDITIONAL ITEM (not mentioned at the beginning of the meeting in changes to the agenda)

Tree Removal/replacement Garner Road West for Garner Grove Estates (PD04-0136) (Added Item)

Ferguson : "I'd like to interject a report that was tabled on outstanding business, to raise it from the table." Kelly : "I was just coming to you. This is the tree removal for Garner Road West/" Ferguson : "Yes. The reason why I had it tabled was involved . staff have since come back with revised price. $27,560 so I'll move that." Kelly : "So you're comfortable with that?" Ferguson : "Yep." Kelly : "Do you have a seconder. Councillor Merulla. Discussion. All in favour? Motion is carried."

Motion in the official minutes reads: "(a) That the removal and replacement of the Municipal street trees along the north side of Garner Road West be approved and that all costs associated with the removal and replacement of the trees by City staff, estimated at $27,560.00 including GST, be at the sole expense of the developer of Garner Grove Subdivision." [a copy of the May 14 staff report was circulated at the meeting. It called for $52,207.22 to be charged to the developer, and included the following sentence: "City staff has determined that the tree removal and replacement cost to be $48,791.79 plus GST for a total of $52,207.22." At the June 8 meeting, Ferguson had asked to table part (a) dealing with Garner Grove so he could hold discussions with staff and developer. There was no discussion of the request.]

Meeting adjourned at 12:09.