Present: Bill Kelly , Maria Pearson , Dave Mitchell , Sam Merulla , Margaret McCarthy (left at 11:30 am) Brian McHattie , Murray Ferguson , Dave Braden (until 12:58), Terry Whitehead , Larry Di Ianni (for 25 minutes at beginning) Phil Bruckler (until end of item 8.2 - 114 pm)

Media: Paul Morse (Spectator) until 1:23 pm, Ken Mann (CHML) until 2 pm, Kevin Werner (Brabant), Maggie Hughes (CFMU) until 10:20 am

Changes to the Agenda

•  Additional delegation requests: Ms. Nancy MacKay regarding Shadowdale Drive, Stoney Creek (Item 4.4) Ms. Mary Flynn Guglietti regarding the Tivoli (Item 4.5)

•  Additional submission to item 7.3 from J. Douglas Shenton

•  Changed staff report (dated July 16) for item 8.1 - Tweedside Church

Declarations of Interest - None

Approval of Minutes - Carried

4. DELEGATION REQUESTS

4.1 Mr Richard Allen , Executive Director, Industry Education Council respecting their current initiatives and the outcome of the Mayor`s Roundtable on Education and the Hamilton Economy (Request is to address Committee at this meeting)

ABSENT

4.2 Ms Mary Jane Dolbear , respecting the sale of Ecole la Jeunesse, 10 McMaster Avenue (Request is to address Committee at this meeting, when Report PD04240, Item 8.3 is considered)

4.3 Mr Tony Evans , Director, Dundas Valley Montess ori School, respecting the sale of Ecole la Jeunesse, 10 McMaster Avenue (Request is to address Committee at this meeting, when Report PD04240, Item 8.3 is considered)

Kelly wants items 4.2 & 4.3 discussed later on under 8.3 on the agenda, and asks delegates to wait until then. McHattie asks to have this issue put forward to the October meeting when a new Dundas Councillor will be in place as it is a Dundas issue. Ferguson states that proponent and petition signers are coming en masse today at 1:15. Kelly reminds committee that this is not a public meeting, and that 8.3 is a discussion item which we will have to make a decision on. (C. Mitchell ?) remarks that the school has given extension to September 20, that's the deadline. Kelly : "Under that context, we'll just have to do with it what we can today."

4.4 Nancy McKay , respecting the issue of lifting the one-foot reserve on Block 125 of plan 62m-665 - Shadowdale Drive, Stoney Creek for a building permit, letter September 1 asking to speak at Committee. Moved to Oct. 5 meeting. Mitchell : I know Committee has already voted on that. I had to be recorded as opposed because Mrs. McKay had requested to come, regardless of whether the meeting was held on Oct. 5 or not, to explain what she had gone through so that everybody could have some food for thought for Oct. 5. I do understand the reason for moving to Oct. 5, but I do have to be opposed.

•  Ms. Mary Flynn Guglietti regarding the Tivoli and representing the Sniderman Family. Move this request to item 8.2, when we deal with that particular item and we will hear from that speaker at that time.

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1 Glanbrook Secondary Plan - Staff presentation (No copy)

Kelly reminds that this is something that Council has passed and acted on and is in the process of moving forward. He states that this is a good prototype to ask some questions about the happenings about long range development, with numerous staff present who will be commenting and then open up for questions. Paul Moore (staff) takes the lead.

P. Moore: This Committee asked that some of the issues to be discussed include employment lands, public transit, and sustainability of some of the projects. Joining in the discussion are Peter Delulio, Gavin Norman and Joe Rinaldo and others. The Glanbrook Village secondary plan was approved by Glanbrook Council February 2, 2000 . and it introduced specific policies and mapping to guide future development of the Glanbrook Village. (A Powerpoint presentation followed.) . Last slide: . you can see that they each have different life cycles, the cost per kilometer vary, but on the whole you can see that any of the cost involved in both maintenance and replacement are very expensive. Now, since we're talking about money, I'll turn it over to Joe Rinaldo , who'll speak about the financial issues.

Rinaldo: The million dollar question is whether development pays for itself, and I've been in this business for 20 years, and I can never hit it on, no matter who does the study, depends on who initiates the study, to determine whether or not it does. But in terms of the existing development in Binbrook, the development charge for that area is around $20,000 compared to $12,600 for everywhere else. There was a front- ending agreement which was initiated by region about $8 million, which was paid by development, front-ended by the development, and in fact, we recover for the developers the money they put up through the special charge. So therefore all the growth, primarily the regional services, which is water, wastewater and roads, were all paid from development, front-ended by development. If you look at Halton Region, north of the QEW was all developed through a front-ending agreement, where the developers would actually put up the money up front and they would get the money as the development occurred. That's similar to Milton which is being developed today. So that's basically how the Binbrook development, the bulk of the dollars were financed for the purposes of existing development.

Next slide please. Halton Region did undertake a study. I look back and I don't recall ever seeing a study that was done in Hamilton on whether or not development pays for itself. But I do know that in Halton Region, in April 2002, did a study on that basis and what I'll provide you is their conclusions. If you want a copy of the full study, we do have a copy of it. I'll give you in essence what their conclusions were.

Next slide please. It looked at the revenue, the taxes generated, rates and the cost of servicing of these developments and whether or not it paid for itself. The conclusions were - on next slide - Residential development higher than $235,000 of market value, created a financial surplus for the municipality. The amount of services that that particular property requires is less than the amount of taxes that it generates. That's in fact what they use. I've seen another threshold in the GTA which was done by another study that used about $250,000, so that tells me that's probably a threshold where in fact the cost of servicing is lower than the taxes generated.

Next slide. Semi detached, townhouses, can produce a financial deficit. The cost of servicing exceeds the amount of taxes that it generates. I should qualify that. One of the reasons that that is, a lot of the front-end capital costs is paid by development charges, and therefore that's built into your capital costs of your house, so when you buy a home in Binbrook or in Halton, you're paying an additional $20,000 up front as part of your mortgage, as part of your property value. That's one of the reasons that happens.

Next slide. Office buildings, ??? tend to produce a financial surplus.

Next slide. Non residential. Their conclusion was that retail, warehouses and light industrial break even on average.

Institutional tend to produce financial deficit, and as you know they only pay PIL's, and as I indicated to you in the past, we generate about $1.8 million from institutional facilites, which is hospitals, universities, and all that. . So for a municipality like Hamilton, that has a lot of institutional use, health care, and all that, that creates a huge deficit for us.

So that was their conclusion. If any members of Council wish to see their study, We'd be more than happy to provide it to you. We haven't done one in Hamilton, to date.

Kelly: Thank you members of staff.. sure there are some questions. Whitehead : Would you classify this development as a bedroom community? How would you characterize this development? Staff: I think prior to amalgamation, probably yes, Binbrook would have been considered a bedroom community to Hamilton. But now that we're all amalgamated, it's a part of the urban area and it's a community within the whole. Whitehead : When this was first ???, pre amalgamation, is that correct? Staff: That's correct. Whitehead : during regional government. We've heard a lot in respect to the smart growth and tying in employment lands to the development of the units. I know that there's been areas zoned and identified as employment lands in this development. . I'm trying to understand, whether or not we're just allowing the development of the residential homes and leave just vacant land that is identified as employment lands. Is that our intent? Staff: There aren't any employment lands designated in the secondary plan. We have the 3 commercial designations. Any property that is designated commercial, the intent in the secondary plan is that residents of Binbrook would work in those commercial businesses.

Whitehead : It was my understanding when this was first conceived that it was supposed to be self-sustainable, so I guess the question I'm going to ask, bluntly, is this development sustainable on its own tax base on the long term? Rinaldo : In terms of front-ended dollars, yes, I would say it is - Whitehead : Front-end to me is a loan. They put the money up for the development, and it's being paid back over time, through either taxes ("no" from Rinaldo in background) or by the city. Rinaldo : If I can just can clarify, the front-ending simply means it was a method of financing. They paid $8 million themselves; the growth paid for it. Instead of us temporarily financing it as a city, the developers (tape break) .

Whitehead: .The assets I'm looking at, replacement cost of those assets, are you suggesting that the taxes paid by that community will pay those replacement costs in the years we have identified? Rinaldo : Basically what happens in the short term basis, in the terms of new development it helps contribute towards the maintenance and replacement of other older facilities, older parts of the city and when their turn comes up they pay it, but if you did a life cycle analysis of their total taxes over that period of time I would expect that you would see that there would be a recovery enough to pay for those replacement costs.

Whitehead : So my understanding then is we will be collecting enough taxes with this development to sustain the replacement costs in future years. Rinaldo : Let me make it clear, the way we tax in the city right now, it's being used to help pay for the maintenance of other parts of the existing, of the city right now. So therefore the money is not being set aside to help replace those assets at this time. It's helping us deal with some of the maintenance costs and replacement costs that we're incurring in other parts of the city. Over time we've talked about developing a replacement strategy for all of our assets. If we reach that goal then I would expect that these properties would be more self-sustaining. Like I said, somewhere in the area of $235,000 roughly speaking, and in our case a little bit lower than that, is the amount of dollars that would be enough to pay for the replacement of those facilities. Whitehead : Ok, but our situation right now is the life cycle that you identify, 18-25 years roads. In fact, we're not even doing that in the current city. Rinaldo : That's right, but what's happening is that these properties here in Binbrook are helping us pay for the existing deficiencies that we are currently experiencing in other parts of the city.

Whitehead : I hear what you're saying, and what we're trying to sort out that was part of this exercise, and I know that you mentioned the Halton report, and I appreciate the fact that you identified the type of housing that can enhance the return, and we talked about apartment dwellings, etc. I'm trying to understand whether or not, if we don't tie certain things into development, and I'm supporting development - it's not that I'm against development - I just want to ensure that there's a balance struck here, that, if we don't tie things into development then it can be a burden on the overall taxpayer in years to come. I need to understand - I'm hearing from you that the Binbrook dollars in taxes are going towards infrastructure and everything in the city of Hamilton, which is great and is assisting us in the short term. On the long term what position is this particular development going to be in regards to the taxes it produces. I'm not hearing clearly that it produces enough taxes to sustain replacement costs on its own. Maybe I should put it a different way. If this is a stand alone community, could it sustain itself and those replacement costs on the taxes that will be bringing in from the development?

Rinaldo : We haven't done that study. I'm just drawing from the conclusions that I've seen in the past and historically what tends to happen with growth. I can't categorically say yes or no to your answer. Generally speaking I do know that growth as a rule helps you deal with some other existing deficiencies, and I'm not talking about Hamilton, I'm talking about general terms. They tend to help contribute in the short term to help deal with other aspects of our budgetary pressures. In the long term, whether they are on a break even basis I can't tell you. All I can tell you, generally speaking, properties over $235,000, according to that study that was done, tends to create a budgetary surplus for the municipality, but I haven't done that study for Binbrook. Kelly : .We don't tax on a stand alone basis, nor do we spend on a stand alone basis.It all goes into the general revenue and we decide where the priorities are going to be through the whole city.

Whitehead : I suggest that we should do our own study to determine - I'm hearing the Halton story, but I'm also hearing the Halton Treasurer or Chief of Committee of Finance stand up and say development is going to bankrupt the city. .I need to understand, if they think it's important to have the finance person to say that development is going to bankrupt the city if they continue to develop the way they're developing, I need to understand whether or not we are approaching development in a smart and sustainable way. And that's why I'm asking the questions the way I am. I'm not sure that the position the city is currently in is the result of the short term fixes in the past and now we're dealing with the pain today, in regards to our tax levels and our infrastructure, our challenges. I'm trying to make sure that we are aware of the challenges we have financially as a city, and when we go to development, and again I support development. The caveat is that when we do development that we have the balances in place in regards to employment lands, commercial lands, etc. that help sustain those particular communities. Then if those communities or developments can't sustain themselves, then I'm concerned about the taxpayers of this city who already, probably the highest taxed residential tax rate in Ontario - amongst the top - it will just add to that burden and that concerns me. . Overall the staff has done great work on this development. I'm asking tough questions 'cause I want to be conscious of the development and ensure we have the accountability in this process. . Last question.we talked about future potential for transit, although it wasn't contemplated for this development. When these roads were put in . there's different ratings for roads I guess when you're using transit buses. When these roads are put in by developers, what is the category of the roads? Will they sustain a busload? Staff (Dennis) : The road network in Binbrook will be built to a standard, to our city standards, in terms of arterial collectors and local roads and there will be bases built to handle trucks and buses in accordance with Hamilton. Most bus service serviced on the arterials and major collectors.

Whitehead : . Question to Joe ( Rinaldo ), cause he's the one who raised the Halton report and identified what type of development actually can create surpluses. What is the percentage in this particular model, the Binbrook Village, . of those high return type developments vs. the single residential - do we have an idea of what the percentages are? Rinaldo : I don't have them with me, but that information is readily available so we can provide you with that information. Whitehead : Thank you.

Merulla : With respect to the Halton report. What role did this report actually play in the decision of the city, back in 2000? Rinaldo : That study was requested, I think, back in 2000 after the fact - it was 9 years for example for the Milton development, the Milton development had already been approved, prior to that. It was more or less members of Council asking whether or not the million dollar question - does growth pay for itself. The study was initiated on that basis. How it's been used since that time I'm not quite sure, but I do know that they have been very, very conscious in making sure that their growth pays for itself, particularly in the area of transportation and that's what they've been doing with it so far. Just to correct - I don't recall the Treasurer from Halton ever saying that growth is going to bankrupt them. . Growth has been very beneficial financially for the Halton region, but it does create other challenges for them. Because I spoke to the Treasurer, I know that she's never said that.

Merulla : My concern to a number of items that were presented as justification. The $235,000 mark is what makes a municipality benefit from any development. From a housing perspective that creates another problem. That's affordable housing, I'm not sure $235,000 if considered to be affordable. I know from my perspective it isn't. Then if you incorporate what it costs a municipality to create that affordable housing, I think you're looking at it being off scale. What also concerns me is that fact they're endorsing lower density. They're basically saying lower density is good, institutional development is bad and high density or affordable housing is bad. I think that's incredibly flawed. Institutional development, when we're dealing with for instance the health field, I don't know that we can consider any development related to our number one employer as being a negative aspect from a global perspective. If we look at the other issue from all this is public transit, I heard that there would be a fee - I guess that's a euphemism - a tax to a certain area if they want that public transit. But the problem is what should come first? Public transit or the development. I think now we're working in a catch up scenario where we develop it and then we worry about the public transit later, which creates hardship within those communities, particularly among adolescents. Then it's also a hardship on the parents who are now being bugged to purchase cars and we all know how costly that can be. Unless C. Braden brings the Smart Car, that would help a little bit. Is there a possibility that we as a municipality can look at public transit and say there needs to be a buy in from the community prior to approving any development? So in essence, your taxes are going up for this public transit, so this is what's going to happen, this is how much it's going to cost you, do you buy into it or not? Can we do that?

Rinaldo : I don't know if you can do that as a condition of development. Really, the residents aren't there yet so it's hard for them to buy in when you're doing the development at the initial stage. If I can respond just to one issue C. Merulla. I want to make sure that everyone understands. I'm not saying institutional development is bad. The problem we have with institutional developments - colleges, universities, hospitals - is the province is short changing us on the "payments in lieu of taxes". So there's no question there's economic benefits and other reasons you want to have institutional development. But just to remind you, we're not getting the proper amount of taxation from the province for those facilities. If we did, instead of getting $1.8 million in tax revenues for our hospitals, universities and colleges, we'd get any where around $50 to 80 million, that's what we should get and we're being short changed by the province. So therefore I just wanted to clarify that. We're not saying institutional development is bad.

Merulla : Let's rephrase that to institutional development is good, province is bad (laughter). From the public transit perspective I'd like to see if we could investigate - I'm not talking about residents moving into new development, I'm referring to the residents around that development. In C. Mitchell's constituents, for example, who would have to be part of the decision, and saying you're taxes are going to go up, there's going to be public transit first and we don't have to work to catch up, providing those services afterwards, which I think creates other problems. So if it's something we can pursue, I'd like to see it evaluated, at least to see how feasible it would be. Is that ok?

Kelly : They're nodding heads over there. It's something it would have to be talked about for the greater community. McHattie thanks staff for putting the report together and acknowledges the delay by Committee. He would like to see it as a case study, new development started with Glanbrook in 2000 and acknowledges the history and that the development is already underway, so change is limited, but important to learn from it and "apply lessons learned to additional development".

McHattie has 2-3 questions. First question: "If we could do this development differently, in light of smart growth concepts, (tape break) . like transit oriented development, live, work and play communities, compact development, that sort of thing, what would we change . we're going through the GRIDS process and thinking those concepts through right now, but using this as a case study, are we happy with this development from a professional planning perspective. I realize it was the year 2000 when we did this, even earlier when a lot of the thinking was going on, so a lot of those ideas are not in this development. . 2 nd Question: Is there anything we can change now to make the village more sustainable, given that the draft approval is in place, the infrastructure planning is in place. Sustainable means to me the transit issue, live, work and play and that sort of thing. I'd like a comment on can we choose the densities to bring transit in there quicker, and what does it cost to provide transit. I need clarification on the comment earlier about the special charge that would need to be applied to residents to bring transit in. . then I'll follow with a question, Joe, on that Halton study and whether we can do something similar here with some modifications." Rinaldo : I can answer the question in terms of transit and how it's financed. It is finance area-rated, however that is a decision of Council. Usually you tend to go into a new area when there's a need for transit, therefore that is a policy of Council that you deal with when you deal with your budget deliberation 2005 or 2006, when the need arises. A lot of this development is still being developed today so therefore not all of it's there. You may not need it in 2005 but there may be a need in the future for further transit services at that time. That's a decision you can make during your budget process. When you do that it would be area-rated against Glanbrook.

Kelly : As to the broad based question, Councillor, with I guess our panel of planners here. Are you happy with this settlement, I guess that's kinda what your suggesting isn't it Brian? McHattie : Yes. Kelly : And then we'll get into if you had it to do all over again. McHattie : I don't want a 1 hour symposium, or anything like that. Staff (Paul): Again, I think everyone recognizes this is an existing situation we're dealing with that right now, the applications that are coming in. In terms of what I would do different personally, if we were looking at this as a new parcel of land brought into a secondary plan, I would look at higher densities and bring down some of the low density. The secondary plan 33% of the area is low density, increase the medium and high density and look at more of the special residential so that you have a true mixture to allow residential and commercial opportunities, maybe in different areas rather than just at the core. So that you do create a live-work community. The overall density, the application that we've got now by Empire Homes, they are looking at smaller lot development and they are looking at increasing the density so we have to do an Official Plan amendment to recognize the higher densities. I think through the applications that are coming in and the basic structure of the secondary plan does allow - they were aiming at a traditional type of development here, so I think they had - the secondary plan does contain policy to allow for some flexibility to allow for higher density, so I think we're looking at the submissions that we're getting and really using the existing policies to try an achieve higher density and get more people up there to make it a more sustainable community.

McHattie : Last point, we do have the capability now of working with developers on increasing the densities. On the transit question.what density do we need for transit, or the right question should be when does transit make sense and do we know if the development either as planned or some modifications with these new ideas these new developers are bringing in, when do we get there? Andy McLaughlin from HSR: I think Paul highlighted a couple of points and certainly transit makes sense when there's density. Without density it becomes difficult. As far as the minimum density, some of the literature suggests a range of 20 to 30 units per hectare to make transit justifiable. However, I think it would come down to how comfortable Council is with funding the transit deficit. Any development can have transit, it's just that transit tax that pays for the deficit is a concern. You have to tread very carefully. Mixed use, live-work-play is something that really benefits transit. We find that as people tend to travel longer distances, they really don't want to use transit as much, whereas people traveling shorter distances transit becomes more attractive. About getting transit in at the beginning, yes, we tend to agree with that. The ideal situation is to get transit in early before people have bought the second or in some cases, the third automobile for the household. All these things can help get transit off the ground. Trans-cab was mentioned. Perhaps in a cost conscious time, Trans-cab might be the approach as far as introducing some sort of public transit and seeing what the uptake is for that.

McHattie : In the interest of moving ahead on this . is there now a possibility of getting Trans-cab in . I'm trying to figure out a way to take it from today forward, whatever commitments you have already made - don't touch those, but can we actually have those discussions and get Tran-scab in there, if that makes sense, what additional charges, taxes there are for the residents, obviously those are issues . trying to find a way to say from here on in we'll do something different, is this possible, using that as an example - trying to pick up on something that's tangible. Kelly : Future applications within this plan? McHattie : Yes

Rinaldo : And to your decisions on whether you want to bring Trans-cab in in those areas that are part of your budget deliberations. If you want to have that looked at and consider during the budget process, that is the time to do that. You can do that . with the developments there yet. So that means there's probably going to be a higher charge on the short term basis for the existing residents. McHattie : Work with others and C. Mitchell on that. Rinaldo : Sure.

McHattie : Last question. The Halton study, Joe, it looked at development charges in particular and the costs of different types of development. It seems to me that there are other costs in development that are not related to development charges. If the more expensive $235,000 house makes sense economically for a municipality, but maybe there's more car use, creates more pollution. I'm thinking of full cost accounting analysis and I'm wondering if we can do that sort of a study. We haven't done our own study, we're looking at the Halton one with a lot of similarities, so we can learn from that. But whether we could possibly again, just using this as a case study, can we look at Binbrook development, development charges is part of that which Halton looked at, can we also add in some other costs that would also influence the sustainability of this development. I'm thinking about the lack of transit, lack of affordable housing, the issues around of having to drive cars more, pollution issues and that sort of thing. Rinaldo : Certainly we can attempt to do that. All I want to caution you is, no matter how you come up with the conclusion of your studies, it's very subjective. Back when Halton did it it was the same thing. No matter who does the analysis, if you disagree with it, you can argue that there was some parts missing. That kind of analysis can be done, but there will be someone that will say, no, I don't agree with that because they have to make some subjective analysis or assumptions in developing that. But if Council want to do that, obviously we don't have the resources to do that internally, I would have to look for some assistance outside. McHattie : I would certainly like to do that. I know it costs money to do that kind of study, but I'd like to investigate opportunities to work with McMaster's economic department. I know that they got a lot of full cost accounting type models, the ??? in particular has that kind of interest. Sometime we have to get into what sustainability really means vs all these words we throw around. I think using the case studies as we grow into new areas in Hamilton gives us that opportunity. I'd like to ask staff to look into that. Rinaldo : We'll take that as direction.

Braden (to staff): Is the only thing different about dc's in this town is the fact that they're paying a special hit for water and sewer, but all of the other numbers are similar to Hamilton Mountain for example? Rinaldo : We have to repay the amount the developers had to pay upfront for water and sewer and I think roads as well. In addition to that they have to pay the existing levy as well.

Braden : If you follow that logic and we took a spot where we didn't have to extend the sewer, and it might be adjacent to an urbanized area of Hamilton, might we draw the same conclusion that because we didn't have the extra money for that rates structure number, that perhaps other adjacent development would also have the same impact on total tax levies as you're suggesting for this development? What I'm trying to say, if you take that extra $6000 hit out, and you take out the fact that it's Binbrook, you put this near Upper James or somewhere, are you asking us to draw the same conclusions bout that development? Rinaldo : The other development should, in terms of what we need for growth, what our average development charge should be, what it currently is about $12,600, because you don't have that additional cost of extending the trunk sewers to the Binbrook area, so I would conclude, that generally speaking, that should be sufficient. Now there is some deficiencies currently, you may recall the Development Charges Act does not allow us to charge the full amount, so if you factor that in and add another $500 to $1000 to our levy, if we were able to charge the full cost, that would allow us to cover all the growth related capital cost initial on it. But because we can't charge a full amount, we're not able to recover the full amount. But roughly speaking, another $500 - $1000 we would need to recover the full cost for any development that's adjacent to the urban area.

Braden : I have no problem from staff and particularly from Joe, getting information that I disagree with, and there's no point in debating staff. I would like to suggest that there are some very important studies in North America about growth, and they're coming from pretty conservative organizations. One is C??C, and the other is Bank of America, and it comes to exactly the opposite conclusions that you've just old us. I'm not suggesting that you're not right in isolation, but I'm suggesting that the information that's available to people like yourself and planners and students and engineers, is in fact quite different. So to bring it to your attention, you don't need to revise it, but if you just look at ??? Airport, if you just look at ???'s work. I was responsible for bring Pamela Blais into this building, and we had a talk ??? and now the administrative assistants are in there, the up to date knowledge is clearly quite the reverse of what you've been told. Again, I respect you too much to be critical of you, I'm just saying that you have an opinion and that it differs completely from what we're all led to believe.

Kelly : Mr. Rinaldo didn't state his opinion, he stated the report from the Halton, and stated at the time that it was very subjective, so I think you should just digest this as more information as well as the stuff that you've got, as well as assuming it's Mr. Rinaldo's comments. Braden : Ok. I will just rephrase that from what Mr. Rinaldo has said from a ??? report, I disagree strongly with that report and I'm putting other information there because I think it's far more credible. If Joe has some respect for me he knows it's not a personal criticism. I want to say something very strongly though. When the issue of Binbrook came up, I actually voted for it. It's not like me to vote for suburban sprawl at all. I voted for it because it was clear to me that the previous government here had made an agreement with Glanbrook that eventually they would put a sewer in to the dump and at that time they would put a sewer in here. In other words there was a real commitment, and if you ask 10 people, 9 people would have said that. I think commitments are important, although I disagree with what's going on. But I made a real fuss about this, because it looked like, what a previous Councillor just said, it was to be a ??? town and we got strong commitment from the planner ??? we were going to have employment lands, we were going to stick to those employment lands to make it a sustainable town and it was going to be in Hamilton. My memory's usually pretty rough, but with this thing it's dead on. We were going to have employment lands and we were going to make sure that no developer was going to come along later and say - we don't need that, we're going to zone it residential. When I look at this and I hear there's no residential [employment?] lands, I'm furious. This is not what we saw coming at all. I am not one to go on attacking individuals if I can help it for whatever the change of event was. But never have I been to a meeting where we deviated from what was going to be a sustainable model to a sort of satellite suburban model that's fairly progressive but without jobs. And I'm not including 'hamburger jobs' as jobs. So this is really an insult to where we're going. This is not to be a particular attack about anybody in this room, it's just that what we saw coming has nothing to do with this. So we missed the boat badly. There's nothing sustainable if you don't have jobs. This is going to contribute tremendously to pollution and to all sorts of problems that costs us money. I just want to make that statement clearly, and it's really too bad that we ??? so badly. I'm not throwing in an answer, but we're going to have this bypass road in there, and it's going to be bigger than a two lane road and we can't ask the developer to pay for it. So now or sometime soon I want to know how much all the non buildup residents are paying for all of those upgrades. So we're going to add the extra lane, and we're going to widen the bridge, if you can give me that number sometime, cause that's the kind of growth I want those guys to pay for. Lastly, I want to give you just a little example, cause it just drives this thing home so well. We took a road in Waterdown that needed to be rebuilt. It did have a region of Hamilton property on it, and it had a church on it. We took the costs of rebuilding the road and we allocated those costs to all of the houses, and this was a 2 tier issue at that time when we had 2 levels of government. For all the money for recreation and for roads and for snow removal and everything else, all of the houses on that one road from all the budgets, could not even afford to pay the amount of money to rebuild the road. What that means is that there was no money left for anything else. And that's a real tangible example of what exists today. The last thing I want to comment on, and I appreciate staff ???, there are some good things here, but there's a lot that leaves to be desired. We need to know what that's going to look like 30 years from now, so when demographics change, ??? going to be duplexed, and we will need twice as much parking as what we've got now, we hope that you and the staff are thinking about that, cause this isn't a snapshot for 2005, this is what it's going to look like in 2020: no jobs and no parking for ???. So understand, this isn't a criticism - we have all failed, and we don't need anymore of this stuff. We need something progressive, and this isn't it. Thank you.

Ferguson : To C. Mitchell, can we get some history on this? Is this the physical boundary, can the urban development go beyond these boundaries? When was the timing of those boundaries - was the agreement tied to the landfill, i.e. sewer, ??? prior to smart growth or GRIDS? Kelly : C. Mitchell on the list, which I assume you are going to touch on, if you want to get a brief overview from staff? Ferguson : Ok. Question to Joe then. If you took this development and dropped it from the sky, would $20,000 development charges pay for all the infrastructure? Rinaldo : Yes, $20,000 is intended to pay for the residential growth. There is some commercial or something that might be subsidized, but it's intended to recover our capital costs, that's what we attempted to do on that basis, so it has paid for municipal services, unlike what I think C. Braden is talking about is the overall impact which affects other levels of governments as well. I focusing only on what impacts it has on the City of Hamilton budget as opposed to what is the global aspects of what is the overall costs. I believe this development, in fact, is paying for itself, for the initial capital costs of that, for that's why we're charging $20,000 a year, for in any other parts of the city except Waterdown, you'd be paying $12,600.

Ferguson : So if this dropped in, it's going to pay for itself. We can assume that maintenance would be covered by the taxes, paid on an annual basis ??? Rinaldo: If they're over 235, like the planners have indicated to you, there is a mixture of housing, so therefore there's some that's below that, I just don't have all the numbers, but there is a mixture of housing of low density, medium and high density, and the cost of municipal services not ???. Ferguson : So basically, the development here that everybody seems to think it isn't good, but was predetermined prior to our enlightened years, we have a development that's going to be built with no impact to the ratepayers of the rest of the city and we have a maintenance cost that'll be covered by the taxes collected by this development. Is that a fair statement? Rinaldo : . do a comprehensive analysis, generally speaking your assumptions are correct. .

Mitchell : I thank C. Ferguson for raising his points, and probably yes, yes and yes is my answer to those. First of all, I want to thank staff and say that all of this development, we have to learn from it. In my great big ward, I have massive development there in Binbrook and in Mount Hope and in Winona as well, and we need to learn from all of it, and all of it is different, i.e. Mount Hope has got the airport. And this process, yes, it was passed by Glanbrook Council in the year 2000, but it goes back farther than 20 years, for the urban boundary was changed many, many years ago so that town could be developed. But it couldn't happen until water and sewers got there, so yes, way back when, there was agreements made but someday they knew the leachate from the landfill site would cost way more to truck than it would to put the sewers out there. And at that time, the sizing of the sewers could go to build that rural town and service it. That was my first point, Mr. Chairman, is the need came from that local community. The people, the boys and girls, young people, everybody born and raised out there could not live in the area in that they were born and raised in. They had to move to Hamilton, Stoney Creek, Dundas, wherever. They couldn't live in that community unless there was going to be water and sewers. So now they can. It was kind of a community dream. Yes, it's much bigger I think than what everybody wanted, but that's economics to the whole process. But there's two adult lifestyle communities there and there's massive amounts of older people and whatnot moving into the town that were born and raised there as there is young people. I think that's great for the area. My second point I think I covered with the landfill site. That's one of the main reasons that development is there because of the water and sewers and servicing for that facility. The third one is, as it develops, I see it as being very much self-sustaining in a lot of ways, the seniors facility there and when the sewers go in and the tile bed, which is about 3 or 4 acres, can come out and there can be a nursing home added on to that, brand new firehall. There's a police station at the firehall in that community. They're getting everything they need. They're just short on some jobs and I'd strongly support some more development of land area for businesses to locate there if they so choose to. The next one would be, and Peter Dulio pointed out, there's also a golf course zoned into this. It was passed by all the people and I certainly don't want to see it ever taken out, because it was passed that the town couldn't develop any more on that side and that there would be green space there. There was also a motion passed that never would there be any groundwater taken for irrigation for that. So the storm water management pond I'm sure could be an issue for a financial money making program for the City here to rent that water or whatever, to the golf course some day in the future, which would be very nice, and the townspeople strongly supported those conditions. On number five, the HSR component. I've had ward meetings out there about it. The majority of people that move there know that there is not bus service there and they do know that if bus service is ever to come there, they're going to have to pay for it. And they also know, and I can tell you in other parts of my ward where we will do and have done pilot projects to see if it's sustainable or not but the sustainability comes in about 70% usage of the buses. It has to be greater than that to have a full size bus come there and I've got areas that are getting pretty close, I'm sure. The adult lifestyle community area on Twenty Road, about 1600 homes in here and we're close to fulltime bus service there because it's needed, and it will get used greater than 70%. My last comment would be I would be strongly opposed to increased densities that far away from a large urban area because it does create more cars, more traffic, more problems. And this whole development, C. Ferguson, was sized through the pumping stations and the sewer capacity that could be there. So if we increase the density in some area in here, we have to be aware that somewhere else is gonna be hurt cause it will only pump so much into the city and it was all sized around that. So I would speak very strongly against any increase in density at this time and always will. This issue does go back 20 years and it was designed by the community right there and the plans from that community, in many, many, many public meetings. I look forward to those type of public meetings down in Winona where the local townspeople can have their say on developing the secondary plan. Just about done. If I had a criticism of what's happening to us here or the City Planning Department, the developers bring in the secondary plans and we pass it. I would rather have us in our communities do the secondary plans and then hand it to developers and say this is what the community wants, this is what we want. That change costs money, but I think it's something that we have to head towards and that's exactly how this was developed. It's not perfect, by no means, we need to learn a lot from it, because it is a truck route through the middle of town, and that happens in a lot of rural towns, but anyway, from that Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our staff and look forward to learning about the future developments and how we can keep on improving them.

Whitehead : C. Braden raised a question, and then C. Ferguson asked a question in respect to the sustainability of this community and I'm really getting mixed messages. I've heard that all the upfront costs are paid for all the capital. So I'm going to ask a couple questions. The road widening, who's paying for that? Does that come out of the capital, out of the development charges? Rinaldo : Yes, I believe it does. Whitehead : The widening of the road is? Rinaldo : The widening of the road, if it's related to growth, is charged to capital and I haven't look at it - maybe Tim can help me on that particular point? McCabe : Only for major collectors and arterial roads. Anything else is considered local and is paid for by the developer. Whitehead : Is there any capital going into this development that is not associated to development charges? McCabe : Well, there would only be, as Joe mentioned, the 10% of the soft services that legislation does not allow us to collect, so 10% of the cost - (interrupted) Whitehead : So the water tower is being paid for - (interrupted) McCabe : Water tower is 100%.

Whitehead : Ok. . I see this as a case study so I shouldn't be overly critical. This was done at a different time and different method and different legislation and different planning policies. But I also see it as a great case study in regards to future development of this community. Especially with what is taking place on the greenbelt stuff and smart growth and GRIDS. That's why, Joe, I'm asking this specific question. I'm going to push it further. I'm going to ask staff to come back with a cost study to take a look and do a full analysis on this particular Binbrook village. And again, . it's not about changing anything that is here, it's understanding the true costs of whether it's sustainable in a long term or whether in fact the broader tax payer is going to be taking on the burden in years to come. I'm not worried about the next 5, 10, 15 years; I'm worried about 25 years from now. Who's going to be picking up the tab there? Are they going to be able to sustain it, or is it coming off the taxpayers on Hamilton Mountain and the broader community. So that's what I'm trying to determine. If it can be self sustainable as an entity, then I'm much more comfortable. I'm not convinced that I've heard that here today and I think we need to do our own study and analysis to make that determination. And again, it's not about going after this particular development, it's just perfect because it's a stand alone development and we can really do a full analysis on it and understand the real short term costs and long term costs and whether the taxes produced by this development can sustain all the capital and services that have to be provided in that community. I think that's what we really need to get to the root of and I don't think we're there yet. So I would ask staff, probably need a motion, to come back with a report on the costing of such a study or analysis.

Rinaldo : Again, I just want to make clear. Are you talking about the impact on municipal services, because what C. Braden and C. McHattie's talking about is a full cost accounting which goes beyond the municipal impact. That's what they were alluding to, so I would need some clarification on what is it you're looking for. If the motion is to identify what the impact is on the City of Hamilton, it's a different study than if you ask for the global, you know, is it fully self sustaining when you look at the environmental impacts. A lot of that is not paid by the City. If you could clarify that for me I'd appreciate it. Whitehead : I'd like to see it as option A and option B and the staff come back with a cost of such analysis and I think that's the debate we're going to have around this table: 1. if it's affordable and 2. which one would provide us the most comprehensive information for the future. It's not a debate I'm prepared to have now I'm certainly prepared to entertain that as piece of request of staff is to took at an option in relative to what C. McHattie has been talking about, the full cost analysis vs the cost of tax - I'm looking at the cost to the taxpayer in the broader community in regards to all the needs in this particular development. We can have that debate when staff come back with the report..

Merulla : I think it's important to focus on the fact that we can't really alter ???. Having said that, that information could be somewhat useful in having some sort of study or case - I think we need to be cognizant of that and ensure that in no way it's going to prevent this from going forward, or in another way, alter what's going to happen there.

Ferguson (to Joe): Was any development charges on this development used to partially fund the pressure line from the landfill site? Rinaldo : I haven't analysed the past studies, but I'm assuming you can't - you would have to allocate part of that and you wouldn't be able to recover the cost relating to the landfill site as part of development charges. But it'd probably help reduce the cost because you share the cost when you do an averaging. It actually helps benefit - just solely for the landfill site, you would have to pay all of the costs and by doing it with development you share the costs. So there is a benefit to existing ratepayers because we actually ??? in this matter.

Kelly : C. Whitehead, I'll come back to you for your motion now. Whitehead : The motion is to ask staff to come back with a report identifying the cost of doing an analysis on the sustainability of the Binbrook Village development and it's impact long term in respect to the broader community. Kelly : Seconded by C. McHattie.

Mitchell : I'm going to support the motion because I think we can learn from all of it. I didn't want to get into this but it probably should be part of it because there are some inequities. With that development paying 100% of what it costs for the water tower - they're paying 100% of everything there, but they're also paying into the City or the regional development charge pot reserve too. They're paying twice; they're paying 100% of theirs, and then they're paying into the regional one, but they're not allowed to draw on the regional one like the rest of the city. This is very unique to us, and I'd like it as an example of what happened. I believe in area rating and this is a prime example of that. So I'm going to support all this . that community is actually paying way more than it's share, and that should come out in this too. I believe this is the way to go. If it costs more, pay more. Kelly : Let's try to bring this thing full circle. Ferguson : The motion is to get a cost of the study? And the second part is, is that study open-ended, i.e. is this a study for the years to come or is it a snapshot? .

Merulla : Just on C. Mitchell's point. My understanding is we are amalgamated now; there is no separate fee. I'm just curious. Mr. Rinaldo, what exactly are you referring to in ??? Rinaldo : In the development charges, not the tax side of it, there is a special charge for Binbrook of about $6000 - $6500. What C. Mitchell's asking is whether or not they are contributing twice, since we charge the base fee as well. I don't believe we are. But if we do the study we would look at that aspect as well, not in terms of property taxes, but in the term of the special charge that are currently being imposed. . In Binbrook area, there's a development charge of $12,600 which is currently what we charge everyone. In addition, they pay an additional $6500 for taking the services out to them. That was front-ended by the developers, but paid by that developer, so the question becomes, since they're being paid $12,600 plus $6500, is there some duplication of costs. That's what C. Mitchell's asking, and I don't believe there is, but in the final analysis, if you ask to do the study we would look at that. ( Merulla talks at same time, not audible). Kelly : (in answer to Merulla) That'll come out in the study.

Merulla : OK, but the answer is there is no duplication at this point. Kelly : He thinks not but we'll obviously make that determination. Whitehead : I want to make it clear, and C. Merulla raised it, . this development as planned, as secondary plan, is going. We got legal obligations, the whole bit. This is not about doing anything dealing with the snapshot with this particular development. I just want to understand when we're dealing with future development applications, urban boundary expansions, etc., the type of mixes we have here, does that work in regards to sustainability or does it not. That's what I'm trying to flush out here. So right now I'm hearing there's 33% low density, and I'm not sure what the mix is with medium and high, but I need to understand if this particular mix is sustainable on the long term. It's not so much about going after this particular development. Kelly : On the motion, it's moved by Whitehead , seconded by McHattie . Motion is carried. Thank you staff for your work on this whole process.

(time utilized for item 5.1 - 84 minutes)

Kelly : Members of Committee, I'd ask you to go back to your agendas now. Consent items 6.1 down to 6.19. Is there anything under consent that anyone wants pulled off?

McHattie : There's a series of demolitions on Upper Sherman due to a parking lot desired by Henderson Hospital. The group CATCH has brought up an issue of the loss of affordable housing, as a result of a loss of these 6 houses. I know in the lower city for actually ask for a house to be replaced when one house is eliminated. Does that policy cover the whole city, I guess the answers no. I think there's some issues here around the loss of affordable housing, and I would certainly express my concern. For clarification, when staff looked at this series of houses being removed was that considered

(end of transcript - remaining agenda items described below)

6.1 Demolition Permit - 210 Weir Street North (PD04208) (Ward 4) Single family house to be replaced with same. Owner is Roger Singh, 860 Queenston Road, Hamilton, ON L8G 4A2

6.2 Demolition Permit - 221 Avondale Street (PD04214) (Ward 3) Loss of existing house without replacement planned. Owner is Jean-Guy Charette, 221 Avondale Street, Hamilton, ON L8L 7C4

6.3 Demolition Permit - 224 Avondale Street (PD04215) (Ward 3) Loss of existing house without replacement planned. Owner is Denis Duchesne, 224 Avondale Street, Hamilton, ON L8L 7C3

6.4 Demolition Permit - 930 Burlington Street East (PD04216) (Ward 3) Loss of existing house without replacement planned. Burlington owner - Parkash Reihal, 4296 Clubview, Burlington, ON

L7M 4W9

6.5 Demolition Permit - 328 Victoria Avenue North (PD04217) (Ward 3) Single family house to be replaced with same. Owner is 992517 Ontario Limited, 971 Hwy 6 North. Hamilton, ON L8N 2Z7

6.6 Demolition Permit - 1324 Rymal Road East (PD04221) (Ward 6) Loss of existing house without replacement planned. Owner is Rystat Properties, 134 Rembrandt Court, Ancaster, ON L9G 3N1

6.7 Demolition Permit - 358 Upper Sherman Avenue (PD04232) (Ward 7) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04232.pdf Six homes (next five items) being removed to allow expansion of Henderson Hospital parking. Owner is 2017506 Ontario Inc., 120 King Street East, Suite 560, Hamilton, ON L8P 4V2

6.8 Demolition Permit -362 Upper Sherman Avenue (PD04233)(Ward 7)

6.9 Demolition Permit -366 Upper Sherman Avenue (PD04234) (Ward 7)

6.10 Demolition Permit - 370 Upper Sherman Avenue (PD04235) (Ward 7)

6.11 Demolition Permit - 374 Upper Sherman Avenue (PD04236) (Ward 7)

6.12 Demolition Permit - 378 Upper Sherman Avenue (PD04237) (Ward 7)

6.13 Tree Removal/Replacement, Paradise Gardens Subdivision, 62M-1008 (PD04212) (Ward 8)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/
Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04212.pdf Cost of removal and replacement of one tree is $10,138.12 to be borne by developer.

6.14 Request for Removal of the Holding 'H' Provision - Lands Located in Part of Lot 33, Concession 7, in the Former Township of Saltfleet (Hamilton) (PD04227) (Ward 6) Owner is Luvale Enterprises Ltd. (Clem Valeri); Agent: Ashenhurst Nouwens Limited; Property Size: Area: 5.3 hectares (13.1 acres)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04227.pdf
Location is Red Hill Vista subdivision on the south side of Mud Street and the west side of Upper Mt. Albion Road. The third side of the Valeri property is a ramp of the expressway. Overall plan is for 19 single-family houses and 110 townhouses. This request only applies to a portion of the Valeri lands. Phase 1 of the proposed subdivision is proceeding to registration. This phase does not include any of the lots that would have direct access to Mud Street. It is anticipated that the Subdivision Agreement will be registered shortly.

6.15 Removal of the Holding Symbol from a Portion of the Lands Located at 52 Highway No. 5 East (Flamborough); Embee Properties Limited, Hilite Holdings Limited and Rosart Properties Limited (PD04230) (Ward 15)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-
Economic-Development/2004/Sept7/PD04230.pdf
Request is to facilitate the construction of a 25,084 square metre commercial development. Applicant is Trinity Development Group Inc. Agent is Planning and Engineering Initiatives. Area: 11.76 ha. (29.05 acres). City's Strategic Commitment: "The City of Hamilton's Strategic Plan encourages development, which makes efficient and economical use of infrastructure and services. Approval of the application would not result in any negative health, social, environmental or economic impacts." This covers the majority of the lands on the north side of Highway 5 (Dundas Street) between Highway 6 and the residential edge of Waterdown, about half of which are currently subject to the holding provision being lifted.

6.16 Sign Variance Application SV-04-02 for 1248 Mohawk Road West (Former Town of Ancaster) (PD04238) (Ward 12) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04238.pdf
This is to permit erection of two advertising signs for "The Meadowlands Retirement Lifestyle Living" development located at Mohawk and the ramp to the Linc. The signs would violate the existing Ancaster bylaws. The agent is Evangeline Korpa. Owner/Applicant: Mohawk Seniors Inc. There is an existing illegal sign on city propety that is deemed a safety hazard, a fact discovered when staff visited the site about this application. Staff recommend approving the application subject to the removal of the existing sign. There is no mention of any penalty imposed on the developer because of the illegal sign.

6.17 Hamilton Downtown Residential Loan Program (PD04218) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04218.pdf
Recommendation to approve conditional loan agreement with five downtown properties for a total of $5.566 million. This program offers interest free loans with principal repayment starting one year after building opened and continuing for five years. $12.8 million has already been provided to twelve properties, most of which are in the under construction phase. The five properties recommended here are as follows:

150 Main Street West is the former Federal Government building to be converted into 180 condominiums. The other four will add 73 additional residential units. Ownership of the properties is not provided in the report.

6.18 Various Surplus Project Sites of the Ontario Realty Corporation; Albion Falls Neighbourhood, Hannon North Neighbourhood, Hamilton and Maps 5,10, 15 & 16 of the Stoney Creek Zoning By-law Areas (PD04241) (Wards 6 and 9)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04241.pdf
There are four parcels being offered by the ORC and staff recommend expressing an interest in three of them. Total area of the lands is 81 hectares, of which 4.5 is the parcel rejected by staff. The interest is mainly for use as parkland or walkways, and includes a piece identified as part of the 'replacement' for the loss of Red Hill Valley parkland.

6.19 Award of Contract C2-18-04 to Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates for the Commercial Policy Strategy (PD04142) (City-wide) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04142.pdf
Contract is for $200,000 and is going to one of five bidders "notwithstanding the fact that the firm did not have the lowest overall project cost." The names of the losing bidders are not provided.

(time utilized for consent items - 20 minutes)

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DELEGATIONS

7.1 Application for an Official Plan Amendment and a City Initiative for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located at Baseline Road and North Service Road (Stoney Creek) (PD04219) (Ward 11) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04219.pdf
This is a city-owned road right-of-way just north of the QEW that is seen as no longer needed for Baseline Road. OPA would change zoning from Neighbourhood Development to General Commercial apparently to allow sale of the lands to an adjacent commercial holding on the north side. The other three sides are not designated commercial. The owner of those lands is not identified.

(time utilized - 4 minutes)

7.2 Application for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located at 1400 Upper James Street (Hamilton) (PD04226) (Ward 8) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Sept7/PD04226.pdf
This is to permit a 4-storey, 111 unit hotel to be built on this property. Current zoning specifically excludes hotels. Owner is Rencoast Holdings and the lands are currently in use as a commercial plaza. The location is just south of Stone Church road and is the vacant White Rose Garden Centre. It is adjacent to Barton Stone United Church and Cemetery, the oldest on Hamilton mountain. One letter of opposition has been received.

(time utilized - 8 minutes)

7.3 Application for a Change in Zoning for the Property Located at 26 Dennis Avenue (Flamborough) (PD04228) (Ward 15) Applicant seeking to sever an existing lot into two parts to allow construction of an extra house. Opposed by neighbours.

(time utilized - 37 minutes)

7.4 Application for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located at 37 Kilbride Road (Hamilton) (PD04229) (Ward 6)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04229.pdf
This is the city-owned waste transfer site and the rezoning would allow establishment of a "Second Hand Merchandise" facility here. The proponent is the city itself.

(time utilized - 17 minutes)

7.5 An Application to Amend Glanbrook Zoning By-law No. 464 for Lands Located on the Southeast Corner of Dickenson Road and Highway No. 6 (Glanbrook) (PD04231) (Ward 11)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04231.pdf
Location is the Southeast corner of Dickenson Road and Highway No. 6. The owner is Macstar Development Inc. (Ward Campbell) and the agent is Planning and Engineering Initiatives Ltd. (Sergio Manchia). Area is 4.6 ha (11.42 acres). The plan is for strip mall development on approximately 11 properties in two clumps south from Dickenson along #6. Permitted uses are Bakeries, Car washing establishments, Convenience food stores, Dry cleaning establishments, Equipment rental, sales or repair, Medical laboratories, Motor vehicle parts and accessory retail store, Personal service shops, and Pharmacies. These are classifed as "airport related businesses". The provincial MTO won't allow any new accesses to the highway, but Hamilton staff are apparently willing to drop this objection once the new #6 bypass is put in place. They do note, however, that they oppose a new dead-end street that anticipates urban boundary expansions. The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority has identified two streams affected by the future development plans. The HSR noted that "The wide setbacks from the street line and parking in front of the plaza and restaurant buildings makes the development unfriendly to pedestrians, thereby discouraging future transit use" but the staff report doesn't respond to this concern.

(time utilized - 24 minutes)

8. DISCUSSION ITEMS

8.1 Declaration of Surplus Property: Former Tweedside Church (Stoney Creek) (PD04143(a)) (Ward 11) - Referred from Planning and Economic Development Committee - June 8, 2004
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04143.pdf
City staff are recommending sale of these lands. There is some opposition to disposing of the 107 year old church, especially from the curator of the Erland Lee Museum who had letters in both the Spectator and the Stoney Creek News.

(time utilized - 4 minutes)

8.2 Request for Consent to Demolish the Former Carriage Factory Portion of the Tivoli Theatre (108-112 James Street North) Pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (PD04204) (Ward 2) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04204.pdf
Staff recommends acceptance of demolition permit for the carriage factory portion of the Tivoli. "Heritage staff has reviewed the Reasons for Designation as they apply to the former carriage factory portion and façade of the Tivoli Theatre complex. It is readily apparent that the cultural heritage value and interest identified in these Reasons are severely compromised." The application excludes the lobby portion constructed in 1908, and does not apply to the Tivoli Theatre whose address is on Hughson.

(time utilized - 12 minutes)

8.4 Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Reform Response Report (PD04224) (City Wide)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04224.pdf
This is the proposed city response to a discussion paper issued by the province in June. The draft is by Paul Mason.

8.5 Response to Province of Ontario on Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement Reforms (PD04239) (City Wide)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04239.pdf
This is the proposed city response to a discussion paper issued by the province in June. The draft is by Paul Mason.

(time utilized for items 8.4 and 8.5 - 36 minutes)

8.3 Surplus School Site, Le Conseil scolaire public de district du Centre-Sub-Ouest, 10 McMaster Avenue, Dundas (PD04240) (Ward 13) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04240.pdf
The city is being given right of first refusal on this school in the University Gardens section of Dundas. The recommendation is to not acquire it, although there is a shortage of parkland space in this neighbourhood and the soccer pitches are in heavy use. " The Dundas Soccer Association does use this site as part of their soccer program, however, funding is unavailable to purchase the lands for parkland purposes. To alleviate the current shortage of soccer fields in Dundas, staff is recommending the conversion of the two baseball diamonds at Veteran's Park to two mini-soccer pitches to compensate for the shortage of soccer pitches in Dundas." Note that two delegations have asked to speak on this issue.

(time utilized - 43 minutes)

8.6 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) -Referred from Planning and Economic Development Committee on July 6, 04) http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Sept7/PD04181.pdf
The disposal of these lands would prevent any future extension of Fruitland Road up the escarpment. Staff opposed this when it was first proposed in 2002 but were overruled by council

New Business:

Bill Farkas (staff) Update on skydragon project

Mitchell: Firearms discharge policy

Whitehead: Control of starlings

McHattie: Filming on closed landfill (Rennie); update on Lister Block; update on naturalized school sites

Mitchell ??