Present: Bill Kelly (left at 10:23), Maria Pearson (out 1x for 8 min), Sam Merulla (out 3x for 23 min; left at 12:01), Brian McHattie (out 2x for 6 min; left at 1:55), Murray Ferguson (out 5x for 59 min), Bob Bratina (out 2x for 17 min), Dave Mitchell (out 4x for 30 min), Dave Braden (out 2x for 3 min), Terry Whitehead (out 2x for 5 min)

Also present: Art Sampson (until 9:55), Tom Jackson (out 4x for 16 min)

Media: Carmelina Prete (Spectator), Kevin Werner (Brabant - arrived 10:08),

CATCH: Linda Hall and Don McLean

Changes to the Agenda

• Revised recommendation on 8.1
• Additional delegation request by Graham Flint, Chairman of FORCE, respecting the Green Belt issue on December 7, 2004.
• Additional delegation request by Al Frisina, Frisina Group, re Item 8.2, Rymal Road Secondary Plan.
• Additional delegation request by Stephen Diamond, McCarthy, Tetrault, re Item 8.2, Rymal Road Secondary Plan.
• Naming of the new section of Highway 6, referred from Council on November 10, 2004.
• Additional delegation request by Art French, re the naming of Highway 6 - added as item 4.3

Committee agreed to consider the naming of Highway 6, and to hear the four delegations on December 7, 2004.

Kelly notes he has to go to Queen's Park and won't be able to stay for the whole meeting. Suggests dealing with item 8.1 because councillor Samson is present, but first asks for direction on item regarding naming of highway 6. He suggests moving it to the Dec 7 meeting because the agenda is overloaded today "and give the members of committee a chance to give that some reflection and thought rather than doing some brainstorming on the spur of the moment here. I understand there is some time sensitivity . but if you want to do it, let's do it at the end of the meeting." Ferguson : "It's too late now. The signs go up this morning." Merulla : ".so they come to us for permission and when permission wasn't granted they unilaterally put the signs up? Can I have a clarification on that please, from staff." Kelly asks if anyone on staff "has any insight on that". Ferguson : "It's a provincial highway. It's their perogative. It was just an invitation for us to submit a suggestion. They didn't get a suggestion so they're naming it themselves." Merulla : "So the airport's naming a major highway on their own .?" Ferguson says it was just a courtesy "because I asked them". Merulla asks again for staff information. Coveyduck : "This is an MTO highway and it's my understanding they typically name their own highways. I think in this particular instance, from what I understand, they may have come to the city to ask if we had any suggestions. They didn't receive any so I understand they've gone ahead and named it." Merulla: "So in essence they . had the decision already made, they had the signs printed .they've been playing with us and brought it forward for window dressing more than anything else. From my perspective I think that's somewhat shameful if not outright disrespectful. And I don't appreciate it." Ferguson: "As I pointed out last Wednesday night, it was a courtesy. They gave us the opportunity to put some suggestions in. They made it quite clear, and I made it clear in council that they were going to paint the signs last Thursday or Friday . the posts are going up as we speak now." Kelly: "So it seems as if we're wasting our time talking about this." Braden: "I'd like to move the agenda as written and in that I'd like to move that the naming of the road be put off until the next meeting." Kelly: ".Councillor Mitchell do you have some new insight to add to this?" Mitchell notes there's a citizen delegation (Art French) here to speak to the issue. Kelly : "That's if we're going to name it councillor and apparently were not" Mitchell : "Well we can have a say." Interrupted by Kelly" Well that's why I suggested moving it to the December 7 th meeting in which case we could hear from the delegation at the December 7 meeting as well." Mitchell: "Well you already have the delegation here." Interrupted by Kelly : "Councillor, we're not dealing with it today." Mitchell : "We can hear what the delegation has to say. It doesn't matter Mr. Chairman. Just being fair to the public who requested to be here." Kelly : "I understand that, but it seems as if the whole thing is kind of a waste of time from what we're being told now." Mitchell starts to speak and is interrupted again by Kelly : "We've already spent 10 minutes talking about something that I said we really didn't need to spend a whole lot of time on. That's my concern at this point." Mitchell : "Well my concern is just treating the public right. We've got a member here that's requested to" Interrupted by Kelly : "I'll get to that in a second, councillor" Mitchell interrupts: "that the idea of possibly naming it the Veterans Highway. I'd like to hear from him." Kelly : "Well let's find out if the Ministry even wants to entertain any ideas at this point. That's the concern that I've got." Mitchell starts to speak and Kelly raises his voice: "My suggestion is that councillor Braden has already alluded to is that we put this off to the December 7 meeting in which case we can entertain delegations and MAYBE between now and then even find out if the Ministry even wants us to have input into this. That's the concern I've got. If they're painting the signs right now, that's one thing. If they're saying, sure but we can redo them, then what the heck, I'm amenable to that too. If they're saying no, it's a done deal, then we're really kind of spinning our wheels here." Mitchell starts to speak again but is drowned out by Kelly : "Well listen, the councillor." Mitchell interrupts: "maybe we could request the province to NOT put the signs up until". Kelly : "I don't know where we're going on this. There's a motion before us right now to hold this off until the December 7 meeting. It's been moved and seconded. So is there discussion on that motion. Councillor Bratina?" Bratina : "If we entertain the delegation today, which delegation I endorse and I've already spoken to them, but then that will open the door for other delegations to suggest other names. So I don't think that it's appropriate for today's meeting. I think we should just move as councillor Braden suggests." Motion carried.

Kelly notes request from Graham Flint of FORCE to speak on December 7 about the Greenbelt legislation. "We had discussion, members of committee, about this, about the Greenbelt legislation. And as I'm sure members of committee remember and members of the public are aware that there are a couple of public meetings, one at the RBG - which .they have identified as the BURLINGTON Royal Botanical Gardens, but that's another issue - which is going on today. And then Thursday at LIUNA Gardens in Winona for public input. Our concern at the municipal level is that this essentially is provincial legislation, not municipal legislation. We are actually directing most of the people who have requests, delegation requests, to go to those meetings, because that is actually where this legislation will be drafted. But again I'm at the will of the committee . should we start hearing public delegations on something that we're really not drafting, that's certainly up to the members of the committee if they want . December 7 we will be dealing with a STAFF report about their perspective on the Greenbelt legislation which is why I'm sure Mr. Flint wanted to appear before us. ." Pearson : "Can we direct that staff advise Mr. Flint of the meetings that are going on so he can attend those meetings, and if he still feels he wishes to come forward on December 7 . fine." Mitchell says the staff are going to be at the provincial meetings. Kelly : "They are." Mitchell : "and they will be able to take notes . and bring info from all that public meeting here to us, which is what I expect to see happen." Whitehead : "I just wonder what is the mechanism by which the community can help influence the city's position in respect to the Greenbelt. And we hear that they have opportunities with the province with respect to their hearings. We hear that staff is going to be at those presentations to listen . but what is the vehicle that allows the taxpayer of this community to have input on the city's position?" Kelly "I guess that's a rhetorical question which means that you think that Mr. Flint and others should have input into the city's position and like to comment on it, then by all means we'll entertain the delegation at December 7." McHattie moves the motion to receive the delegation. Carried.

Kelly turns to request of Stephen Diamond to appear and notes Mitchell has a prepared motion on this. Mitchell reads it seeking approval of request and notes director of development will advice council on November 24 meeting if a settlement has been achieved. Seconded by Pearson. Whitehead notes committee is supposed to receive an update today. Kelly: "Well the 15 second update is .they're still negotiating" and it should be put off until the next meeting. Whitehead notes it's been postponed twice. Kelly interrupts and offers to do the update right now. McCabe : "There is a framework for an agreement that is with the parties. Both parties are acting fair and reasonably and in good spirits and a cooperative form. And I'm hoping this matter can be settled very shortly." Kelly says Mitchell's motion is agreed to by the parties involved. Whitehead asks if it's all three parties or just two. McCabe confirms the third party is agreed and "is the proposed purchaser of some of the commercial lands." Seconded by Pearson. Carried. McCabe explains that Frisina request is for the next meeting. Carried.

5. CONSENT ITEMS

5.1 Declaration of Surplus Property; By-law to Stop-up, Close and Sell; Offer to Purchase - Portion of Public Assumed Alley Between 14 and 18 Mary Street, Hamilton (PD04300) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04300.pdf
Applicant is Lyric Century Apartments who "owns the property at 14 and 18 Mary Street and this will allow a merging of the properties for a condominium development." Price is $22,500.

5.2 Declaration of Surplus Property: 0 Stone Church Road East, Hamilton (PD04301) (Ward 7) 7300 square metre property on north side of Stone Church just east of Upper Sherman. " The Hamilton Public Library Board purchased the property in 1992 for the construction of a Branch Library to service future needs of the south/east mountain. It has been determined that the future Library site at Turner Park will service the area of the south/east mountain."

McHattie asks about policy on using parkland for buildings. "Trying to understand if there's a policy in place for using parkland for buildings. . understand that there may be certain circumstances when this makes sense, but .whether there's a policy in place to leave parkland as parkland - greenspace that would be .to staff" . Kelly : "Yeah, sure. It was kind of a one-off situation because of the large amount of space at Turner Park and of course we decided to make this a municipal COMPLEX as opposed to a library here, a rec centre here and a police station here, to kind of make it a gathering spot. And I think that was indentified in there, but I'll ask Mr. McCabe to add some clarification on that as well." McCabe : ".There is no formal policy. There is a public use provision that we use right now that allows any city lands to be used for city purposes. The new official plan, there is a draft that is looking at keeping some types of parkland only for park and open space purposes. And I would also comment that the Planning Act, any proceeds from the sale of parks have to go back into the parkland reserve to acquire additional parkland. That's where we are right now in terms of the policy. We're looking at it as part of the new zoning bylaw as well, considering which types of park zones would allow only what types of park uses." McHattie : ".I would certainly advocate for parkland remaining parkland, and not for having buildings on there . maybe not in this case, but certainly in other cases, that's been misused, or this sort of thing. So when we look at the zoning bylaw we consider uses that can be put in a park I'd like to suggest that it doesn't include buildings. we'll see that again as it comes back to the committee. Just a related question that I've asked before and maybe staff are working on it - where are we at in each ward. Can we get a report on that or an email . understand how far behind we are in each area." Coveyduck : ".work undertaken as part of the open space policy in the official plan review . still five or six months away from having that finalized." McHattie : "I'm a bit confused on that because we know that in Ward 4 we are definitely behind. Is that not a number we've been keeping track of all the way along, that we were able to make the call in ward four?" Coveyduck : "We did have some of the information for some of the wards, not for all of them. Perhaps we do have for ward four. My answer was in general, in terms of city wide. . I do know in some of the wards we do have those details from previous information we had." McHattie requests ward one information and Coveyduck promises to provide it. Kelly suggests information be provided on an individual basis on request. Whitehead: ".if you went by population, no we don't, and I'm really disturb that we're still waiting another five months. How do we make comprehensive decisions on school purchases when we don't know the pressures across this community from ward to ward and what is falling behind? I hearing staff say that ward 3 and 4 are way behind. I'm not disputing that but we have nothing to compare it to because we don't know where ward 8 is and ward 7 is. So my concern is we're making decisions in a vacuum without having the appropriate information to make the proper decisions. Now I'm hearing another five months before this report is done, and that concerns me, because if you're saying you have stats in one ward but you don't have it another, I'd like to know why that is the case. ." Coveyduck asks him to repeat the question because she has been chatting. "Because when we amalagamated not all that information was available for all areas of the city. We're now trying to get all that information available. In the older city of Hamilton you'd have some of that information for most of the areas, but we are in the process of updating it."

5.3 Declaration of Surplus Property/Sale: 131 Nash Road South, Hamilton, City Owned Strip of Land Shown as Instrument 162754 AB on Plan 62R- 7321 (PD04302) (Ward 5)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04302.pdf
Narrow strip of land near former Catholic elementary school on Greenbrook Drive. Being sold to facilitate a 24-unit single detached development on the former school lands.

5.4 Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan - Administrative Official Plan Amendment (PD04298) (Ward 2) " This amendment does not result in any changes to approved policy, rather it its purpose is to effect the corrections identified in the body of this document."

Consent items adopted. Only discussion was on item 5.2.

8.1 Application to Amend Dundas Zoning By-law No. 3581-86 for Lands Located at 346 Park Street West (Dundas) (PD04272) (Ward 13) (deferred for 2 weeks by Committee on November 2, 2004, to permit discussions between parties)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04272.pdf

Samson : ".this has been tabled twice . I'm happy to report as a result of a lot of good will which has been expressed, and the help of our planning department . it's been vetted in the community. The proponents, Valvasori Construction, are happy with it as well, and I would like to welcome Valvasori Construction to the community of Dundas. I would like that particular recommendation moved. You have it in front of you. And I would say that this has certainly been a baptism by fire of a new councillor. And I think we have a compromise that everyone's happy with." Resolution moved by Pearson, seconded by Mitchell. Carried with no discussion.

Amendment adopted [not read out at the meeting, but provided to the councillors in writing]: "That the revised draft by-law, as presented to Committee on November 16, 04, which has been prepared in a form satisfactory to Corporate Counsel, not be enacted by City Council until the owner has submitted, and received approval of a site/landscape plan for landscaping and the extension of the sidewalk along the Brock Street frontage including requisite securities, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Planning."

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DELEGATIONS

6.1 Application for a Modification in Zoning for the Lands Located at 144 to 190 (Unit 168) South Service Road (Stoney Creek) (PD04291) (Ward 10)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04291.pdf
RPR Environmental Services is the applicant. Location is at corner of Pinelands Avenue. Owner is South Service Industrial Group Inc. "Since April 21, 1999, the applicant has been permitted to operate a waste disposal site for the transfer of liquid industrial waste, hazardous waste and non-hazardous solid industrial, commercial, or institutional waste under Ministry of Environment (MOE) Certificate of Approval No. A650214. . The applicant is requesting a modification to the Preferred Industrial "MP" Zone in order to permit the storage of self-contained non-hazardous waste material in Unit 168." 1875 square feet of storage plus 1250 square feet for transportation area. Joe Muto made the presentation. No concerns received about the proposal. ".maintains the goals of Vision 2020."

McHattie : "I guess I don't fully understand what's going on in this facility. I'm trying to understand why waste is being stored in an industrial park as compared to one of our waste transfer stations or landfill site or something like that. And I just want to understand the characterization of the waste a bit better as well . some terms here . self-contained non-hazardous waste, I don't know what that means. . Why is waste being stored in an industrial strip plaza." Muto : "Self-contained waste is basically drum waste, the applicant has advised, and in terms of . if I can ask the councillor to repeat the question." McHattie : "Just unclear on why this waste is being stored in an industrial business park or strip plaza along the service road, as compared to a landfill site or a waste transfer station that the city of Hamilton would maintain. It doesn't seem to me to be a traditional use, uh location, for storing waste." Muto : "The existing facility that the applicant is currently operating has been in use for I believe since the late nineties. It's been approved as a facility through the Ministry of the Environment . certificate of approval. The subject unit here.is also subject to an amended certificate of approval. I'm not sure if that answers the councillor's question." McHattie : "I think I'm probably asking you a difficult question because it's not necessarily a planning question, probably more Public Works, Scott Stewart type of question . I understand that MOE has approved this, and approved the amended use as well. But I just don't understand why waste is stored on the service road." Kelly ask Paul Mallard to respond. Mallard : "By way of background, essentially what they are doing is collecting waste that is being shipped to them for trans-shipment to other facilities for disposition. It's a matter of them storing it until they get enough quantity together to trans-ship it to another location. There's absolutely no opening of the waste material. No testing of it all. They just pick it up, bring it here, sort of put it together in shipments so that they can go to another location for disposal. So, just strictly the transfer of the waste." McHattie : "Is it all non-hazardous or do they also handle hazardous waste as well?" Mallard : "My understanding is that it's all non-hazardous waste." McHattie : "Well I still have some concern about that happening on the South Service Road versus a more contained facility at a waste-tranfer station or a landfill site. But I guess if the MOE's okay with it, and the ward councillor's okay with it. I'd just express those concerns and I guess I'll retain those concerns." Kelly asks Pearson to comment. Pearson : ".in my ward, being an old use . this particular operation has been taking materials from say companies that produce soaps or cake mixes - could be anything like that - but they have it disposed of properly so that it doesn't go to our average landfill site. You know, it could be vast amounts of deodorant. It could be pulled off shelves by manufacturers. Things like that. These are the materials that are being taken in and stored and then disposed of properly in the proper waste stream."

No further questions of staff. No public presentations. Proponent's agent says he is happy with the staff report. Moved by Pearson. Seconded by Merulla. Carried.

6.2 Application for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located at 872 Concession Street (Hamilton) (PD04293) (Ward 6)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04293.pdf
Owner is Steve Trach and Lori York. Agent is Camex Engineering Corporation. Land area is 1,173.6m2. "The subject lands are located at the southwest corner of Concession Street and East 36th Street, in the Raleigh Neighbourhood, as shown on Appendix "A". The purpose of the application is to change the zoning on the subject lands from "C" (Urban Protected Residential, etc.) District to "RT-30" (Street - Townhouse) District, Modified, to permit the subject property to be developed for six street townhouses fronting onto East 36 th Street, as shown on Appendices "C" and "D"." Public concerns: "The primary concerns raised in these letters included parking problems, tenure of the units, existing trees on the site and loss of green space, the impacts of the proposed development with future area development, including townhousing on the Peace Memorial School site, and the impact on property values."

Heather Travis gives staff report and provides photos of property. Notes four responses from public which she responds to. ".parking adequate. none of the trees on municipal property. won't have negative impact on property values ." Also reports Peace Memorial school has been purchased and will be used as parkland.

Ferguson: "In the provision for parking, ie two per unit, is the garage considered as one?" Travis says yes. Zoning requirement is only one parking space. Ferguson: "So if the garage is full and they have one car sitting outside, the second car sits on the street?" Travis agrees and reiterates no requirement for extra parking.

Jackson notes concern of resident Frank Morley who says there used to be the site of an old gas station. "Are you aware of any possible left over contamination of the site. I think the Shell station probably closed in the early seventies.". Travis : "We did some search of the old property records and we couldn't find any indication of it on the site. And the applicant in their application didn't indicate that a gas station had existed. So that being the case, we wouldn't generally ask for any record of site condition, because we had no indication that there was a gas station on the site. Regardless of that, though, the fact that it has been residential through the past at least 30 years, it's not going to a more sensitive land use . it's remaining residential, so in that case generally we wouldn't be asking for any phase one environmental assessment." Jackson thanks her. Whitehead : "Just on that point, I believe that even under an old regulation .converted from . to residential, there was pretty high standards to meet with respect to converting this to residential. And that information should be somewhere within the city. So I guess that's the question I'm asking." Travis : "As I mentioned, we did a search of our property records, and we actually have a record from 1946 for a dwelling established. We can certainly look into it a bit further but at this point we can't find any record of a gas station on the site, and certainly not any record of a cleanup because there's no record of a gas station." Whitehead thanks her.

No members of the public come forward. The applicant concurs with the staff report. Jackson : ".I'm supportive of this application. The applicants . were kind enough to come and see me . to show me the proposed development. At a time when some people in our community are somewhat critical of urban sprawl, this is another infill opportunity that's going to provide some beautiful townhomes . close to public transit, close to a lot of amenities that neighbourhoods provide. Cleanup of the property will occur. It's been dilapidated and deteriorating for quite a period of time from the original family . Council supported the purchase of the Peace Memorial school site. we're going to be demolishing it in the next few months and turning it into a ten acre park for the neighbourhood because of the deficiency of parkland in that area. Parking on the street. I've told the residents, look, bring me a petition. If we need to provide greater restrictions with regards to on-street parking, because as you know with the expansion of the Henderson Hospital and the regional cancer centre, parking will continue to be a problem as it spills over . we can put greater parking restrictions on the street that would address that problem. And I want to say I'm very pleased they are going to be freehold townhomes. Once you provide ownership it just - studies will show that the greater deal of pride comes into the home and they're going to be freehold townhomes, aesthetically pleasing from the concept designs that I've seen. So this is a welcome development in that area and I know the proponents are going to make it very nice and compatible. And on East 35 th , just west of this property, we already have a beautiful townhome development - four or five executive style townhomes - so it will be compatible with that existing project." Moved by Whitehead, seconded by Merulla. Carried with no further discussion.

6.3 Application to Amend the City of Hamilton Zoning By-law for Lands Located at 1042 and 1050 West 5th Street (Hamilton) (PD04294) (Ward 8)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04294.pdf
Applicant is Crystal Homes (Wildflowers) Corporation. Change in zoning from "AA" (Agricultural) District to "C" (Urban Protected Residential, etc.) District, to permit six single detached dwellings, (two existing plus four new ones). Area is 0.56 ha. There was no public notice of the application because city policy doesn't require it.

Brief staff presentation by Shannah Murray . Provides two photos. Whitehead : ".Where is the water and sewer services coming from for this particular development?" Murray : ".last two will be services from Fontana Drive." Whitehead repeats question, says he is asking because "the Sheldon area is primarily serviced by septic services and currently do not have water and sewer. Houses have been there for years and years and years waiting for this service, and we keep telling them, it's coming it's coming . so I'm not clear on where the services are coming from." Tony Sergei explains the existing sewers on West 5 th will be extended in the future. Whitehead asks when. Sergei says first lot does not have existing services but has sufficent land to sustain itself. Whitehead: ".concerned about services and hoping that we get services in that whole area because I'm concerned about timing and I think we'll see more development flourish with regards to residential and ." Sergi says 2005 construction of servicing. Whitehead also asks about a neighbouring property giving up seven feet of easement on their home. Notes the individual has been on a septic system for years "and been given a runaround in regards to when he can actually tap into a service." Is 20 metres from an existing service. Next door neighbour has it, but he doesn't. . "If this condition means he has to give up that land, is he going to receive remuneration for that, or is that just a donation to the city..?" Staff says it's a standard requirement. Whitehead asks for a report on whether there are unique circumstances here. "As far as the development goes, I'm absolutely in support of it. It's a good development, it's infill, it's taking advantage of the land available." Mallard : "The decision of the committee is final and binding with respect to the conditions that it imposes and as Mr Sergi's indicated, the dedication for any future road widenings is always taken at the severance or subdivision stage. That's the opportunity for the city to secure the necessary land." Whitehead : ".here's the situation. here's an individual that lives in a house, he isn't a developer. Development's happening in his backyard, basically. He gives up some land and says to the developer 'look you take care of everything. . and then he gets a notice that he's going to lose 10-17 feet of his property for doing it. He's not a developer, he's not a builder. because the land is being severed, we're forcing him to donate 17 feet of easement and that's the distinction that concerns me. It's not so much that the city's going to get the land one way or the other. The distinction is whether or not the individual gets compensated for it. And that's the issue." Kelly : "I think your points are well taken, councillor. Perhaps you can sit down with Mr Sergei and Mr Mallard. It's a one-off situation in this particular situation. I think those are concerns that need to be addressed."

No other questions. No public delegatations. Agent is okay with staff report. Whitehead moves the recommendation and asks direction of what to do about issues. Instructed to meet with staff. Seconded by Pearson. Carried. (49:18)

Kelly leaves and Whitehead assumes the chair.

6.4 Application for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located at 85 Robinson Street (Hamilton) (PD04295) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04295.pdf
Applicant is V & R Investments and Matterhorn Construction c/o Vince Molinaro to permit the development of a 37 unit condominium townhouse complex. This is the site of the former Thistle Curling Club. 0.79 ha in area. Public meeting was held in June with over 50 people in attendance. Project is supported by Durand Neighbourhood Association.

Staff report presented by Trevor Horzelenberg . There is a holding provision on this proposal. 84 underground parking spaces. Landscaped courtyard. ".development maintains the character of the downtown urban built form through a design concept that recognizes and enhances the scale of the existing residential area . this proposal is providing an excess of residential parking spaces . and as a result does not affect the on-street parking by way of curb cuts .". McHattie asks about accessory recreation building and inclusion of the façade of the Thistle Club. Horzelenberg notes several features that will be incorporated, more will be determined at site plan stage of the development.

Public presentation by Frank D'Aurora , owns building adjacent to site at corner of Bay and Charlton built in 1920. Concerns about parking in the neighbourhood. Has nine units with one parking spot. Relied on Thistle Club for parking. Nearest spot is now 200 yards from the building. Major apartment one block away with 300 units but only 150 parking spots. Pays over $18,000 in taxes and can't get adequate tenants because there is no parking available. Asks for a further review. No questions from the committee.

Bratina : "I'm very delighted to be part of this meeting because of the development at 85 Robinson Street. It's part of the rebirth, the revitalization of downtown Hamilton. I understand Mr. D'Aurora's problems. We've communicated and I know the staff is looking at the issues around his property. But the fact is that this is a remarkable design . the people who will be living in this new development, will be living downtown and will bein large part be accessing public transportation, GO Transit and hopefully VIA service. The kind of people who tend to move to downtown developments like this are often trying to get rid of one car. Each of these units has two spots, so it's beautifully designed and I'm sure there's plenty of room when their guests come to give a call and say 'yeah, there'll be a spot" Whitehead interrupts and asks Bratina to hold off because Whitehead has forgotten to offer an opportunity to the agent of the proponent of the project to speak to the committee. Asks Ed Fothergill to speak.

Fothergill : Notes presence of proponent and architect. Supports the staff report. ".we think this is a really neat and innovative project for the downtown area. It's not large. It's not right within the downtown area . within the shoulder area of the downtown . no government funding in this project. A lot of the projects now downtown are relying on municipal financing. This one is totally privately financed. It's an upscale development. It's a bit of departure for infill development in Durand . normally high-rise . and this site is actually zoned for high-rise development . site does provide much more parking than the bylaw requires. It's two spaces for each unit . plus some additional visitor parking . instead of the twelve required visitor parking, we're providing ten and we think that's more than sufficient . good community support . had an open house. We've been in touch with the Durand Neighbourhood Association and they're fully supportive of this project as well .We will be trying to save some of the elements of the Thistle Club building in the club house itself ."

Bratina moves the recommendation, seconded by Ferguson. Carried.

6.5 Applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision Known as "Upper Wellington" and for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located Within Part of Lot 13, Concession 7 (Hamilton) (PD04292) (Ward 7)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04292.pdf.
Owner is 456941 Ontario Ltd. (Silvestri Investments). Lot Area: 9,110 square metres. Subdivision of 12 single-detached houses. Zoning is currently agricultural.

Paul Moore makes the staff presentation. Located on west side of Upper Wellington and comprised of rear portion of lots fronting onto Upper Wellington. Part owned by City. Applicant paying $85,000 to city for this land. Application circulated to public in area and no comments received.

No public presentations. Proponent's agent Hugh Thompson asks to speak to committee. City parcel acquired for a road because it was always intended and has enabled them to put subdivision together. City parcel is 0.5 acre "and the city is saying that we should pay $85,000 for that piece of land, while this assembly costs us approximately $100,000 an acre. So there is a considerable discrepancy in our view between the amount of money that the city is asking for this property and the amount of money we had to pay to make this thing work. And then of course we buy the land from the city, we service it completely, and we dedicate it back to you as a public highway. So we do have a little bit of a problem. .. At least half of this road is abutting adjacent properties which are not contributing at all to the cost of the development, the servicing of this road. . we're asking for some relief in the cost of this parcel of land."

Pearson : "In light of this information, I'd like to ask staff what our policy is in regards to the dedication and reacquiring .". McCabe : "The value of that land is actually $132,000. We got direction as part of the council resolution when we acquired it to recover our costs. So we're giving them a huge break. They're lucky that the city actually owned this or they would have had to acquire that lot and probably the house that was on it, in order to facilitate this subdivision. All we're asking for is the money that we expended, plus the $5000 legal expenses, not the value of what it is today. So we're giving them a huge break." Pearson : "In light of that information, I will move the recommendation."

Braden : "The approach we have here is to sell property for what its worth. I've been in the developer game before and I assure you that the city didn't give me any favours and I didn't ask for any favours because you just don't do that. This is probably worth $132,000 so that's what you sell it for. You can take off the commission, but this allows the project to go ahead. Development is a business. People are in the development business to make money. If it wasn't the fact it probably wouldn't go ahead. But I don't want to - and I'm probably using the wrong term - I don't want to use this property to the developer. That's not my business. Our corporate business is we want to keep this type of development happening. But we don't need to subsidize it. The profit motive is enough to make this work. So this property in fact should not be sold at this price . it really should not. That's not the kind of precedent we want to have at all. So I'm going to vote against this if in fact we're going to give this property away cheaply. That's not what we want to do. This isn't downtown where we're trying to make something happen. This could happen by itself. So we've got to be consistent with looking after the taxpayer's interests. It doesn't matter if they're giving it back to us for a buck. That's completely irrelevant. That's part and parcel of the whole business. I want to make that pretty clear, and I'm not always so hard nosed, but we should be hard because it's the taxpayer's money."

Pearson : "I don't disagree with councillor Braden. In a previous meeting we did deal with the issue of what we charge for lands that we consider surplus and we will be dealing with it further in our reports today, but through to staff, how does this impact. Is it better that we refer this back or how far along are we in the negotiations?" McCabe : "It is somewhat of an unusual situation. I totally agree with councillor Braden and that's what you're going to see as we roll out the real estate portfolio strategy, but in this case we're not actually selling it to a developer. We bought it for future road purposes to complete the neighbourhood plan. We are retaining it, we're not selling it, so it doesn't go through our surplus market value type assessment. So we're going to dedicate it to ourselves as public highway with no exchange of deeds to the developer. So we acquired it for road purposes to facilitate the neighbourhood plan. We're retaining it, we're not selling it. But in order to facilitate that private development we want our money back, with costs. So it is somewhat unusual and I don't think it is a precedent." Pearson : "I still put my motion on to move this."

Ferguson : "Further to Mr. McCabe's comments. If we hadn't . road access it would lamp off the property behind that .. infill .. still second the motion." Braden asks about the "two houses on Upper Wellington Street below the new entrance way. If they go to redevelop sometimes for say townhouses coming in there, and there are services in that new road allowance, do we have any way to recoup some of the costs of that servicing?" McCabe : "The subdivision agreement will put a reserve along there and in the case of a severance it will be best efforts where the developer is paying for the total cost of the construction, we'll get paid back the frontage there for that development."

Motion carried.

6.6 Applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision Known as "Southcote Woodlands" and for a Change in Zoning for Lands Located on Part of Lot 47, Concession 3, Part 1, Registered Plan 62R-2119 (Ancaster), Owner - 1520869 Ontario Ltd. (c/o Gilbert DiGregorio) (PD04299) (Ward 12)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04299.pdf
Area is 14.14 hectares (34.94 acres). Agent is The Odan Detech Group Inc., (c/o John Krpan). "to facilitate the development of a residential subdivision located on the west side of Southcote Road, south of Gray Court Drive . a maximum one hundred and twenty-five lots for single detached dwellings, four blocks (Blocks 127 - 130) for twenty-five street townhouse units, two blocks (Blocks 132 and 149) for future development, one block (Block 141) for a neighbourhood park . Staff has received seventeen written comments/e-mails from the public (see Appendix "F"). The primary concerns are impacts on and preservation of the large forested area, impacts on Harmony Hall Drive and construction on the neighbouring properties and streets, stormwater management, grading, height, traffic volume, expansion of Southcote Road, location of Street "A", archaeological assessment of the land, parkland and street townhouses, servicing and density of the development."

Staff presentation from Jason Thompson. Written submission circulated as well. Thompson : zoning change from agriculture to residential. Some changes being required. Road network allows for continuation of Harmony Hall Drive with four access points. Describes zoning for various blocks. Seventeen written responses received from citizens. . "The issue of tree preservation and the future development of adjacent lands have been addressed in the conditions of draft plan approval. The proposal conforms to the Garner neighbourhood secondary plan with respect to the location of street A, street townhouse blocks and ancillary development. The existing pumping house and wet well can adequately service the proposed development. The issue of drainage with respect to the watercourse that tranverses this property has been reviewed by the Hamilton Conservation Authority and the water crosses Southcote Road comes across this way. And it's been determined that it will continue the natural flow of the water across the property. Harmony Hall Drive is to be extended and will provide vehicular and pedestrian links to this new development as well as the neighbourhood park. Two accesses have been provided onto Southcote Road and will filter most of the vehicular traffic through the subdivision. with respect to the construction impacts on neighbouring streets or properties, the applicant is required to obtain approval from the city on issues of mitigating the impacts . Soutcote Road is been identified as an arterial road . designed to carry relatively high volumes of traffic in and through Ancaster. Therefore staff is confident that this application will not prejudice future development and conforms with the Garner neighbourhood secondary plan." Shows some photos of drainage swale, and of properties "showing an area that has been cleared". No other comments.

Braden : "Isn't there a lot of tree loss here, and if it is, where is it?" Thompson : "There will be some tree loss in here [laughter from the gallery]. The trees that will be taken out are in this area here. The trees in this open space area and through here are to remain. What happens with the neighbourhood park? . The trees are probably going to be removed through here . some of the tree removal impact analysis and that's part of the conditions as well. They've indicated that there are mature trees on the periphery of the lot here will be retained." Braden : "One picture we saw where there was sort of a farmhouse in the background? Yeah, right there. Those trees there, will you show me where those trees are on the map, please?" Thompson: "Those trees would be in here." Braden : "Is the grade level going to stay so that there's half a chance to save some of these trees?" Thompson : "The intent is for that to occur." Braden further comment inaudible.

McHattie : "It's often difficult, and I must admit that I don't know the area all that well, to get the context around this development. You mentioned an environmentally sensitive area. Was that an official Environmentally Significant Area as we know it, an ESA?" Thompson : "No it's not. It was recognized as part of the Garner neighbourhood secondary plan because of a significant woodlot with species. It was identified right in the plan. This area here is to be protected, and there's a buffer of 10 metres along here as well buffering it from the protected area. ." McHattie : "Just to clairify, I wasn't sure that I heard you right in response to councillor Braden's question. . the park . did you say that trees are going to be removed from the park as well?" Thompson : "It's a neighbourhood park and I can't speak for the overall design of the park at this time, but as part of the secondary plan the park will extend into this area. So how the city deals with it in the setup of the park, I can't speak to at this time." McHattie : "And during the discussions you had with the developer as this was evolving, what sort of opportunities did we investigate, or can we investigate, to perhaps reduce the number of units, perhaps suggest a denser form of development to sort of protect as many trees as possible around the outside of the area to maintain the urban forest, or I guess rural in this case?" Thompson : "In this case it was discussed with the developer and some of the lotting pattern has changed. We've increased. . some of the lots went to 15 metres . the densities are actually underneath what is permitted in the secondary plan. . in here permitted 18 dwelling units per hectare, and they're around 15, and then for these areas here there's still underneath the density provisions." McHattie : "So there is the opportunity, at least under the neighbourhood plan, to increase the densities . to actually compress the amount of land that's being used to put those houses in. Is that a possibility?. ." Thompson : "The density levels that are there now are actually less dense than they could actually make it, and therefore more lots could go in which would make it impact again on the number of trees being cut down."

No further questions of staff.

Public presentations:

Donna Vardy , 440 AnnaLee Drive: ".during July of 2004 approximately 11 acres of Carolinian forest in this area was clearcut in contravention of bylaw 2000-118. What I'd like to know is what action will the city take against those responsible for this action? I'd like an answer." Whitehead : "Well the purpose of these presentations is not to ask questions but to advise. If the committee members would like to ask those questions, when you finish your presentation they may do so. But we don't want to get into a debate between the public and staff." Vardy : ".On december 14, 1978 one of these developers petitioned this particular neighbourhood, I'm talking about the Harmony Hall neighbourhood, and was supported in stopping development on this very land. And this went to the OMB and then stopped the development. Why now is the developer proposing exactly the opposite? Number 3: I am aware of the work of the Ancaster Community Committee (ACC). How does the city handle situations where the developer refuses to implement ACC recommendations. Two more. Traffic in and out of Harmony Hall Drive. The report states increased traffic from 153 homes will have minimal impact on Harmony Hall. Is this correct? . Why does the new proposal significantly increase this density?"

Ferguson : Asks for answer on the density issue and tree preservation from staff. Thompson : "For tree preservation one of the conditions of the subdivision agreement is that tree preservation be . to ensure that what's being done will try to save as many trees as possible" Notes periphery trees. "With respect to density, in the secondary plan low density residential one allows 18 building units per residential hectare and that's the area adjacent to the Harmony Hall . area. The applicant's proposal here is actually about 15.2 . so he's well within the density levels that were approved as part of the Garner secondary plan by the former Ancaster council. Ferguson : "So he could increase the density?" Thompson : "Yes." Whitehead asks if there's anything further. Ferguson : "And the tree preservation bylaw is an infraction an enforceable act, same as it was last summer. In fact, I think it was Jason who went out.?" Thompson : "They started removing trees and one of the neighbours gave us a call and asked that it be stopped. I spoke with a member of the staff that deals with the tree preservation bylaw and I phoned the applicant and they ceased . go and take a look at it." Whitehead : "I think the question asked was there any penalty applied as a result of removing trees without proper" Thompson : "I don't believe there was." Bratina : ".If trees are removed illegally, how do we attack that? That was the answer to that question, that just because the guy stopped." Whitehead asks for staff response. Coveyduck : "We do not have a tree bylaw that applies. We do have a regional one for large woodlot areas, but we do not have a tree bylaw that applies in this particular instance, so there would be no enforcement." Bratina : "I'll have to study this. This sounds weird to me." McHattie : "Sorry, I don't want to prolong the same issue, but it's alleged that in July 2004 eleven acres of Carolinian forest were clearcut in violation of a bylaw. The specific bylaw is indicated here. Even though I've asked for clarification, I'm not quite getting it. Can we verify that the 11 acres were in fact cut, and I understand the neighbours called the city and we went out and had a look? But if this developer cleared 11 acres, or five acres for that matter, before any development was approved, that certainly raises concerns for me as a member of this committee when I'm considering this application right now. And just a clairification on that bylaw. I'm not familiar with that particular bylaw. So a little description of the bylaw and the ramifications if somebody contravenes that bylaw." Whitehead : "Okay. Just so that we can move the meeting along. We had the . presenter. She did raise a number of questions. I think that you're trying to get to. You've asked a couple of specific questions. So I'm going to try to ask councillor McHattie to ask the question and hopefully try to get a response from staff. I'm just trying to think what's the most efficient way to move through a number of delegations we have here . and maybe save some of the questions, perhaps directly to staff, perhaps to the end of the presentations. If the questions are directed to the presentors, then I'll certainly take the latitude to entertain questions from the committee. But if it's questions for staff if I can ask committee to just hold onto those questions and ask them at the conclusion of the public presentations." McHattie : "So you're allowing me to ask these questions and have a response then? Thank you." Whitehead asks for staff response. McCabe : "I wonder if we can come back to it. Paul Mallard's just gone to talk to our environmental planner who's more up-to-date in terms of that bylaw, so we'll have some further information for you as soon as Paul gets back." Ferguson : "There is a tree cutting bylaw because we had a situation like this and it was clearcut over one weekend. We imposed a tree cutting bylaw in year 2000."

Public delegation: Mike Jefferson , 532 Calder Street: On corner of Southcote. ".What concerns me most about this is the allowance of the density that we seem to keep packing in to these outlying regions of the city instead of getting on with fixing the downtown core areas which are more in need of any kinds of assistance . Along with the density comes the automobile traffic. There are times along that road when it is absolutely incredible. It's not that the road won't take the traffic, it's just that the neighbourhood is not designed to take the traffic. . speeding at very high rates . don't stop at stop signs . I don't have any children, thank God. I wouldn't have children in that neighbourhood the way that traffic goes and police seem to do very very little in the way of actually ticketing or slowing down what actually happens out there. I have already had what you could call major accidents with my property and with the city property beside me on Southcote Road . BMW that came flying up the sidewalk . got stopped by one of my trees . about 10 feet from the house. . very very concerned about the lack of support from this city for anything that happens out there. We know who the person was who did this . and what we're talking about is jamming more and more into an already stressed situation. By the time we get finished with this development and maybe the cornfield next to it, I think we could see a thousand more cars out there, and they are all going to be pushing and jostling each other on the way to work in the morning and home at night. And I think our neighbourhoods are going to end up as speedways, not to mention the pollution that we're going to have, and the bad air quality that we're going to have. Quite honestly I have had quite enough of this entire area and I have been here since 1946."

Public delegation: Bruce Mochrie , 354 Harmony Hall: Issues on traffic, density and design. ".staff report says traffic impact will be minimal . we find that very hard to agree with. 150 dwellings, 300 cars, recreational activities for kids . we estimate 1000-1200 trips a day in and out of that survey . Harmony Hall Drive, no sidewalks, no street lights. It was never designed to take any traffic flows of this magnitude . the plan . shows rows A and B the ones running east and west extending into the cornfield. The cornfield is a 60 acre field owned by the province of Ontario that we understand is now for sale, or will shortly be for sale, once the new Highway 6 extension is opened. They bought the Whaley farm in order to put that road through. Sixty acres, what, 600 homes? 4000 car trips a day? And those roads are extending down into that area and coming up an exiting onto Harmony Hall . exacerbating even more the traffic in this older survey . zoning about one-third of what's proposed in this development . the design . this is not a cluster design . this is not good planning. It's high density. It's high speed, straight roads at right angles just to get traffic through in increased density. I don't believe that this conforms with the planning . lived there 30 years . I've not found one person that's in favour of the density or the traffic patterns that are going to result . we see absolutely no compelling reason to change the zoning on this little unique parcel of land at this time. . until it's taken into a larger context with what's happening to the west and what's happening to Southcote Road. Get a new site plan. Something better than this. If you look across the mountain,how it's developed, each neighbourhood is uniquely the same - arterial roads to the outside, greenspace in the middle. Curvilinear roads slow traffic. Not this stuff. We don't need Meadowlands West and we don't need Meadowlands further west in this very very unique area."

Public presentatation: Paul Graham , 416 Southcote Road: lives in oldest house on the street. Repeats questions of Mrs. Vardy. Increased traffic on Harmony Hall. Why increase in density from R1 to R4. "The developer proposes that they'll be preserving 5-600 trees . most of those trees will be in the conservation area and there'll be actually few trees remaining in the public per se . steady increase in traffic on Southcote Road. I have three children myself who have never been allowed to walk on Southcote Road because of the traffic issues. . suggest that the developer acquires sufficient lands on the west side of Street A, which is my property, to establish the 12 metre by 12 metre daylight triangle. .unrealistic. . not sure how that's going to impact that road development. . the value of my home will definitely be affected . no provision for screening and privacy . am I going to be stuck with shovelling an extra 200 feet of sidewalk along that road and next thing I suppose will be a bus shelter on my front lawn as well . back in 2003 I went back after a heavy summer rain and took that picture. This is along street A and it seems that the whole plan is severely flawed. If you look at the impact of that rain . will drainage handle that type of volume."

McHattie : "I didn't understand point number two that well. Twenty years ago the same developer petitioned to stop development on these lands. It's counter-intuitive that a developer would want to stop development. Maybe you can explain what was going on at that time and the context ." Graham : "The current developer petitioned against development on that property and the OMB turned it down so there was no development happening at that point in time. What's happened now is that he is developing what he petitioned against 25 years ago." McHattie : "He didn't own the land at the time. Another developer owned the land . you mentioned an OMB case . it was turned down by the OMB as well." Graham's response doesn't clarify. Ferguson : ".those questions are best asked of the developer who's here today."

Public presentation: Bob Vardy , 440 AnnaLee Drive. He didn't use the microphone so the following is cited from the official minutes: addressed Committee and explained a number of concerns about the development, including extending the urban boundary for residential development, especially when residential development does not pay for itself, and the imbalance in the tax ratio between residential./industrial property. He requested that Committee delay the decision until an evening public meeting is held in Ancaster. ".Mr.Ferguson you have an Ancaster Community Council. I agreed with their recommendation because they state that infilling, the priority for it shall be on a regional designation of brownfields and other unproductive lands within the urban boundary before .agricultural lands that are already productive. .. There should be no loss of agricultural land for residential purposes within the urban boundary . support developers who wish to improve our existing urban area. there is a perception that Hamilton is pushing for population growth, developing .at developer's request ." Asks for meeting to be held "in the evening in an Ancaster location" on this development.

Rick Rolland , 382 Southcote Road, ".it's on the northeast corner of the proposed development. My concern along with all of the others that have been raised thus far, is one of the environmental sensitivitiy and the unique wildlife in the area. I have a small barn on my property, the loft was open and I discovered evidence of a barn owl that was in my barn. So I did further study on that and I found out that in a study done by Birds Ontario that there is only two confirmed sightings of barn owls in all of Ontario - one of them is in Dunnville. The other is Southcote Woodlands. These are two nesting pair of barn owls. They're very sensitive. What they need is forest to hide in during the day, and a large open field to hunt in at night. So this is just one of the many sensitivities in the area. I know that barn owls are somewhat of a secretive . in the area. They're disappearing and they're just one of the many wildlife that are going to be affected. I have lived in other areas before where I've supported development, but I'm afraid that this developer has proven themselves capable of ecological rape by what they did in July of 2004, and I believe that they will not be sensitive to the need of the environment. I believe they will clearcut all these trees, because look what they did without a building permit. What will they do with a permit? ." (2:05).

MORE TRANSCRIPTION TO COME

Linda Rolland , 382 Southcote Road, addressed Committee and expressed her concerns regarding the development. She said that she wanted compensation from the developer for the adverse impact that construction would bring about.

Laurelei Jones , a planning consultant, for an adjacent property, addressed Committee in support of the application.

Olga Janovich , 515 Highway 53 East, addressed Committee in support of the development. She asked a number of questions regarding the servicing of her property, and requested that she be included when a sanitary sewer became available.

The applicant`s agent, John Krpan , Odan Detech, advised that he was satisfied with the staff recommendation. He noted that the street patterns in the development are following the Secondary Plan.

Sam Battaglia , one of the owners, explained that a tree preservation plan had been submitted and that the study showed many of the trees were already dead or diseased. He said that cutting had taken place in an area of 4-5 acres only and that there had been no clear cutting.

7. PRESENTATIONS

7.1(a) Hughson Streetscape Master Plan from the Escarpment to Murray Street East (PD04276) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04276.pdf
"The Hughson Streetscape Master Plan is the City's design strategy for public realm improvements for a Traditional Street in the Downtown core . anticipated to be undertaken over the next fifteen years. . Implementation of the Hunter to King Streetscape improvements is expected to be completed by December 2004, and the implementation of the section from King to Rebecca Streets (part of Precinct 2, excludingRebecca to Wilson) will occur in 2005."

7.1(b) King William Streetscape Master Plan from James to Wellington Streets North (PD04277) (Ward 2)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04277.pdf
"Implementation of King William Streetscape improvements, between James and Catharine Streets, (all of Precinct 1and part of Precinct 2) is scheduled to start in Spring 2005."

7.2 Real Estate Portfolio Management Strategy, and Consolidation of the Policy, Procedures and Disposal By-law (PD04303) (City Wide)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04303.%20REVISED%20doc.pdf Purpose is to adopt "policy and administrative principles and procedures for the acquisition, management, lease and disposal of municipal real property [and] t hat the delegated authority for the acquisition, disposition or lease of properties, as approved by Council on September 18, 2001, be amended to increase the limits of value for such authority from $150,000 to the City Manager to $250,000; and to the General Manager, or designate, from $60,000 to $150,000. . The new City of Hamilton came into existence in January 2001, and became the owner of about 1,700 properties totalling approximately 46,135 ha. (114,000 acres).

8. DISCUSSION ITEMS

8.2 Mr. Stephen Diamond, McCarthy,Tetrault, representing 100 Main Street East Limited, respecting stormwater servicing issues within the Rymal Road Secondary Plan.(Referred by Committee on October 19, 2004 to permit discussions between parties)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/Item%208.2.pdf

8.3 Harmonized User Fees for the City's Animal Control Program (PD04266) (City Wide)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04266.revised%20doc.pdf
Currently different fees in various pre-amalgamation municipalities. This will standardize all fees across the city. Managers will be given authority to waive fees in cases of hardship such as elderly, disabled, etc. No overall increase in revenue expected. New fees are included in staff report as appendix B.

8.4 Standard Form Pre-Grading Agreement for the City of Hamilton (PD04290) (City Wide)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Nov16/PD04290.pdf
"The term "pre-grading" refers to grading operations carried out by a developer in the time period following approval of a draft plan of subdivision and before a developer has executed a Subdivision Agreement with the City for the draft approved land. This period of time in the development process is often the most advantageous for the developing land owner to pre-grade the undeveloped land in preparation for servicing. Unfortunately, the City is unable to enforce grading control during this time period because the developer has not yet executed a Subdivision Agreement with the City . Therefore, staff propose that the City adopt the use of a standard form Pre-Grading Agreement