PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Committee went in camera at 11:42 am and emerged at 12:52 am.

12.1  Update respecting Airport employment lands, presently before the Ontario Municipal Board (no copy)

Pearson: “And just for the public's information, members of the public committee met in camera and the discussion will lead to the addition of an extra motion as part of the next report on the Rural Official Plan when the next item is dealt with”.

Moves up item 11.1 because Neil Everson has another engagement.

11.1  Business Development Mission to China (from Outstanding Business List, due September 5, 2006 )

Everson makes brief comment. “…we had been directed to look at a plan for the business development activity right into China . We've had a number of ongoing initiatives on that this summer, but my request to committee would be for a referral until you know this fall we'll be starting the third iteration of our economic development strategy. And I would like to defer this and include it as part of the strategy and work plan that will then come to council early next year.” Whitehead “…I've been working on an … summit. I've been in discussion with Dr Clement Chan Jo Ling and others. We have a blueprint basically put together yet to be implemented … and this was a series of meetings not only here in the city of Hamilton but certainly in some of the key areas in China . So there is sort of a template put together, I've been working on. I certainly would like to work with economic development to discuss that project and how it might be synergistic with this whole approach with the Asian market.” Item is removed from outstanding business list.

PRESENTATIONS

7.1  Official Plan Amendments and New Official Plan – Rural Hamilton - Addendum Report, as directed by Committee on June 26, 2006 (PED06207(a)) (City Wide) [ 02:47 ]

Braden notes he has a conflict if issue of Pleasantview is raised. Also asks that his name be listed officially as a presenter at the last meeting. This is to preserve his option of launching an OMB appeal.

Staff report by Michelle Sergi : “With respect to the Winona Urban Boundary, the area on the map in front of you is the subject of a Consolidated Board hearing. Council made a decision on March 8, 2004 that the city should inform the Niagara Escarpment Commission that the subject lands are designated urban area by the regional Official Plan and that the development of urban residential uses on such lands are considered appropriate. And that in the event that the Niagara Escarpment Commission approves the extension of the minor urban area centre designation that staff be directed to redesignate the subject lands from Agricultural to Winona Urban Community. This council decision [ 08:00 ] and the … decision by the Niagara Escarpment Commission was appealed. As of Friday, a pre-hearing has finally been set to deal with this matter. At this point in time staff are recommending that we not consider altering the urban boundary, but rather that we annotate it. The reason for this decision is that on the onset of the development of the Rural Official Plan, staff made a decision that no adjustments would be made during the rural phase of the official plan program because of outstanding provincial initiatives such as Places to Grow and the ongoing GRIDS study. Changes to the boundary will be made during the course of the development of the urban portion of the plan. No urban boundary adjustments will be made with the Rural Official Plan. In addition, this area is under litigation. It is subject to the Consolidated Board Hearing. And we will be putting that decision into effect for the amendment to this plan once that Board has made a decision. And so the recommendation is that the maps and schedules in the Rural Official Plan be amended to identify the lands that are subject to the Winona Urban Boundary Consolidated Board Hearing.”

With respect to the SCUBE lands, the Rural Official Plan [ 09:16 ]

….

Whitehead asking questions about Greensville deferral area. “Would it not be prudent to wait for the watershed study to be completed before we pre-empt the understanding of the servicing issues? … Joanne Hickey-Evans : “The property is still immediately adjacent to the quarry. The proposed rural designation is an appropriate intermediate designation. It provides for commercial and industrial issues. By permitting that area to go into the rural settlement area boundary, while we may try to limit it to commercial and industrial uses, any thing that's permitted in that rural settlement area they can apply for to a change to. And so the concern is that expanding the rural settlement area …. Once you're in a Rural Settlement Area, you can apply for additional land uses. There are certain studies that you can get done that would permit them to develop closer to the quarry than we would like to necessarily see. And you could potentially end up with a residential development there.” [ 15:23 ]

….

McHattie asks what is permitted here. Staff: “What is permitted under the proposed rural designation is consistent with the Greenbelt . It permits resource based commercial and resource based industrial uses. It will not permit something similar to a highway commercial use … so there's more uses permitted than there were in the past if it were designated agricultural, but it's not a wide designation that would permit urban type industrial uses.” McHattie : “I think that gets us where we want to go, thinking about councillor Whitehead's comments. If we have the opportunity to get some employment in there, I think that's what we were after. I'd certainly appreciate a comment by councillor Braden as the ward councillor just to close the loop on this – see if our understanding is in keeping with the local understanding as well.” Braden : “…that's exactly where I want to go and I appreciate the interest and the commitment of committee members. Not only do we want to encourage it, but we want to make it easy. There's an applicant that wants to make this dry industrial. I think we all understand what dry industry means. He wants to make it work. I think the staff in fact want to make it work. But I think we're stuck in the planning act with restriction, but I think we have very little risk and everything to gain by moving that area so it readily can be taken up for industrial uses, much wider than industrial resources uses, we've got enough of those. To diversify the economy, get that in and … in terms of dry services. And I have some direct experience with dry services and they can work well. Dry services are not on municipal services so they might be on a well and a septic, as opposed to a municipal water service and a municipal sanitary sewer. So not at the corporation's expense, but at the owner's expense. And I think these are exactly the kinds of things that should be promoted. So I'm not saddened but very encouraged by the conversation that the councillors are leading and I will be supportive of that…” McHattie: “Thanks councillor Braden. I'm just trying to understand if we bring it within the Rural Settlement Area, we are possibly open to residential which we definitely don't want in that area. Is there a way of doing that – and I guess it's zoning – to identify it for the kinds of uses that councillor Braden is talking about? Specifically excluding residential and the things we don't want – special policy area, whatever mechanism we might want to use?” Hickey-Evans: “There is always the option of deferring this area now and in the future considering putting a special policy area in and limit it to commercial and industrial. The difficulty is that any time once it's been brought into the Rural Settlement Area anyone can make an application to change even a special policy area, which could leave you open to the liability of permitting …” McHattie interrupts: “But understanding what we're after…” interrupted by Hickey-Evans [hard to distinguish] McHattie: “…so we should defer it then … have that category, put a special policy area on it? I'm just trying to find a way to do what we'd like to do without running into the problems and pitfalls that you're identifying.” Hickey-Evans: “One of things that I'd like to clarify is if we do consider deferring these lands, the only way to get the type of industrial and commercial uses and still be in conforming with the Greenbelt plan, is to bring this within the Rural Settlement Area, in which case you're also leaving yourself open. We can't just put a Special Policy Area on these lands and leave them in a rural designation. They wouldn't conform to the Greenbelt plan. A rural designation can only permit resource-based industrial uses.” McHattie: “So can we bring them into the Rural Settlement Area and put a Special Policy Area on them that …” interrupted by Hickey-Evans: “…subwatershed study. That's an option.” McHattie : “That sounds like where we need to go, then.” [ 21:40 ]

….

[23:40] Michelle Sergi: “With respect to the aggregate resource strategy, the draft Rural Official Plan carries forward an existing aggregate resource3 map from the current regional official plan. As a result of the age of the data that went into the creation of this map, changes in technology, market trends, and the fact that many more quarries are going to be looking to Hamilton to provide them with a source of aggregate, and the high quality of aggregate in Hamilton, has led to questions about the accuracy of this resource mapping. Coupled with this are the significant number of land uses that are incompatible with or sensitive to the aggregate extraction that are scattered throughout rural Hamilton . These two issues really point in the direction that an aggregate resource strategy is in fact needed. Other municipalities aggregate resource strategies were reviewed with respect to timelines, costs, issues that need to be anticipated. Staff has contacted Huron County , Grey, … Kawartha Lakes and Caledon with respect to this study. … that the mineral aggregate policies that are proposed in the official plan be approved more or less as an interim strategy, and that a mineral aggregate resource strategy be included in the capital budget proposal for 2007. Just to make committee aware, we are continuing to work with some clients as well as agencies who have provided late comments on the Official Plan and have made some changes to this as well as a few minor wording adjustments and other changes. These changes do not change the intent of the policy and have been appended to the report. Just as a reminder with respect to the approval process that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is actually the approval authority with respect to the draft Rural Official Plan and that any appeals would actually be to the decision made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, not the council itself.”

Mitchell says he's has info on doing mineral aggregate study costs. “My understanding is that historically the province has always paid for all of those, and now we're going to take it out of their hands and do this great big capital project ourselves? Can I get a correction or an update on that?” Paul Mason: “…the province has a long established program of developing this information in various areas. We are, shall we say, at close to the bottom of the list, in terms of updates, and essentially, realistically, the province isn't going to allocate resources to us unless the municipality contributes in some way, perhaps significantly. And that's been the pattern which some of the other municipalities have followed as well. I think Grey County was the example – Michelle can correct me if I'm wrong. There are some potential economies which we may be able to capitalize on and staff are having meetings with the provincial staff, actually later on this week, of two ministries in an effort to see if we can find some economies in that process. The costs will be substantial overall, though.” Mitchell: “That's what I figured it was. I haven't heard a total dollar value overall. My next question would be does that have to come out of the tax levy, or will that come out of development charges or some other area, and not the general levy?” Mason: “The Development Charges Act would not include this as levy-able item under the DC bylaw, so it would have to be contributed through other revenue generation.” Mitchell: “This report will bring that other revenue generation choices back to us, other than the general tax levy?” Mason: “We would identify any contributions that can be made if our discussions prove fruitful. But if they are not fruitful, I think, just to clarify and agree with the councillor, the direction would be that this would be an expansion item for the capital program, funded from the tax levy.” Mitchell: “And we get to debate that, I guess, at budget time. Thank you.” [28:38]

End of staff presentation, Pearson moves to public presentations. “I'd like to remind everyone in the public that the public meeting has already been held and so speakers should limit their comments to changes in the staff report and not repeat the points raised at the previous meeting. I'd also like to remind everyone of the five minute rule. …”

First speaker if Fred Rudolph. Notes agenda is in error. “I'm here to speak on behalf of property owners in the SCUBE area.” Agreement with staff recommendation. Two other matters before OMB where he's spoken with staff. One hearing is on the Ponderosa Nature Resort in Flamborough. Asks report to show that those lands are subject to a future OMB hearing, similar to notation of SCUBE lands. Other one is Greensville settlement area issue also before OMB. No change asked for in report. “So for all three of those matters mentioned – SCUBE, Ponderosa Nature Resort and the Greensville matter – I simply wanted to say that for the record I'm here before the municipality making a submission in the event that there are some policies hidden away somewhere in this incredibly complex comprehensive planning processes that were undertaken – with the Places to Grow, with the Greenbelt or the consolidation of the rural policies in the City of Hamilton. If there's something in any of that that's being passed or considered here today that changes the lay of the land for my clients in those matters, the rule of law is that the policy's in place at the time the matters were started, that are in place at the time the files are opened to the Board, are the relevant policies. If there's anything that's coming down the pipe here that we're not aware of, in my respectful submission, we object to it, and I'm just preserving the right that councillor Braden earlier in the process, in the event that we need to take these matters to the Board….”

James Webb speaks on Greensville area situation: [33:38]

….

[45:12] Norm Labreche : lives at 168 Winona Road . “…concerned with the area's urban boundary known as the blob … objecting to the blob depicting the urban boundary within the Winona area. In 1994 there was a previous applicant where it appeared to me quite obvious that the urban boundary was delineated … showing proper lines for a boundary as opposed to lines all over the map … wish that staff … research that 1994 decision. Because I thought it was quite obvious, and the Niagara Escarpment maps as well as the Stoney Creek Official Plan it has a boundary depicted differently than the blob. And my concern is why, what has changed? And I was told that in January 1995 the boundary was approved as a blob and I feel different. … My concern is that this blob still hasn't been clarified, six years in the making from my perspective and it needs to be clarified from one level of government to the next. … revisit timing of 1995 letter … a planner in 1991 for the region of Hamilton was opposed to an application in fact then … the Stoney Creek Official Plan is in conformity with the Niagara Escarpment Plan and that's the plan that should prevail. …”

Mitchell: “Can staff explain that if we pass the Rural Official Plan today that we are by no means passing the blob in Winona . That's one thing that I'd like explained. And then the next one, I read under this report under text changes that the Niagara Escarpment Plan provides for the protection of the Niagara Escarpment and adjacent land as a continuous natural environment and to ensure that development of these lands under the jurisdiction of the Niagara Escarpment Plan are compatible with the protection of the natural environment. So it technically recognizes that plan, and that plan recognizes Stoney Creek , and we're not putting the blob in here. That needs to be quite clear in this document somehow. So can that get explained please?” Hickey-Evans: “Through you madame chair to councillor Mitchell. (a) with respect to the blob we've indicated that the rural OP is the only using existing boundaries in the regional official plan. (b) this matter is under litigation. You see with respect to that last point you brought up Councillor Mitchell, that relates to the comments that they had in our formal review of the Provincial Policy plans. They wanted some further explanation about natural environment. And that's applicable right across the new rural plan. It wasn't specifically related to Winona . It was dealing with our provincial plan section.” Mitchell: “I didn't mean to insinuate that it was related to Winona . What I meant to insinuate was that that plan, that they have currently on file right now, takes precedence over anything the former region of the city of Hamilton had.” Hickey-Evans: “The NEC takes precedence over with respect to issues related to land use designations. You can have. We've been through this discussion and I just want to try this … with respect to…”

Labreche: “…comment on one item further. As I look at this map before us now – the Niagara Escarpment Plan is in conformity with a plan that sets the municipal services standard in Stoney Creek if someone wanted to have a burn permit, say, it's in conformity with this. So right now, it's not quite clear as to why the blob is there. It should be depicted it as it is here, as it is in the city service centre, right on the wall, so people can make an informed choice on whether they're going to need a burn permit. That's where they go, and it could be misleading and you need to clarify that blob is not a proper boundary. And I think it should have been conforming many, many years ago to the Stoney Creek and the Niagara Escarpment Plan….”

Pearson: “Staff have noted that. Next speaker is? Brenda Johnson go ahead.”

Brenda Johnson: “Actually just have a series of questions, if that's possible. Through you madame chair can I ask the legal department – the two maps that are up on this board right now that you can see – the Niagara Escarpment Plan being on the left and the Regional Official Plan being on the right – which map prevails? In other words which one would you take if you had to designate anything at this moment in time? The Niagara Escarpment Plan versus the Regional Official Plan, which map prevails?” Pearson: “Who's going to take that? Paul?” Mason: “I don't represent the legal department. I think the question was to the legal department and I don't think it would be appropriate for me to”

Pearson: “But they were going to nicely segue over to you.” Mason: “I think the issue of plan hierarchy is well established in the legislature.” Nancy Smith : “Madame Chair, as you know, I'm a lawyer for the city so I would have to be – for me to answer legal questions of the public is probably not appropriate. But I can say generally that – and it's more a planning question than a legal question – but we do have hierarchies of plans. Just to help out when the decision making was made back in the nineties, and everybody's talking about the Ontario Municipal Board decision, the Niagara Escarpment Plan was not the paramount plan at that time. It now is. So as soon as it is the paramount plan, which I think answers the question, the plans below that plan are in – becomes a conformity exercise. As Joanne has said these issues are before the Consolidated Board right now, so when the decision is made on the paramount plan by that Board, the city will then implement whatever decision is made by that board. So I hope that helps.”

Pearson: “I think that clarifies it. And I just want to just be careful what I mentioned at the very beginning that we're not reiterating we're only discussing items that were raised today. This report before us and I don't think this Winona issue is specifically to the blob is part of this report before today. So just cautioning you that anything you have, we're only dealing with this report today.”

Johnson: “The other question that I have, on page 5 of the staff report it says, about half way down – subsequent to the council's decision in 2004 that allowed certain lands to be included in the blob that were not included in the NEC, there have been letters sent to the city from the province and the Niagara Escarpment Commission respecting the city's interpretation of the Regional Official Plan. In other words, you've had two letters sent to you regarding this Regional Official Plan that we are using as part of your Rural Official Plan. One was from Municipal Affairs and Housing; the other one was the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Has everyone in this committee received copies of those letters? Because I have copies of them right here and both of them claim that that blob in the Rural Official Plan, that that's not in conformity of what it should be. It should be the Niagara Escarpment Plan should be the prevailing plan. And that's not in the Rural Official Plan. I do have copies of these letters if you would like to have them. My third question is to ask staff, through you madame chair, is what is the definition of rural versus urban with respect to septics and a sewer system, if that's possible, please.” Hickey-Evans: “Through you madame chair, the definition of rural and urban don't do it based on servicing. By and large rural areas are serviced by private wells and septics. There are, though, within the city of Hamilton , areas that are rural that do have full or partial servicing. It can't be that there is one defined definition of rural as it relates to servicing. But if you took a general approach, it would be with wells and septics.” Johnson: “Thank you. Okay, if we take this blob, and I've already explained it to you once before, its midway between Lewis Road and Fifty Road, the Escarpment and the QE, and we superimpose it on the true plans that should be in place in the first place, you notice that we have cutoff five of these houses. We have not included any of this settlement – only half of the settlement that's been established here. And this line that used to cut through 194-192 Winona Road , now cuts through the house of 194 Winona Road , which is mine. So going by all these definitions, my kitchen is urban, my living room is rural, my bathroom upstairs should be on septics, and my bathroom downstairs should be on sewer. This is how absurd that this blob has become and you're now trying to adopt it into the Rural Official Plan. There is a Consolidated Hearing discussing this plan, this land right here, if you hear nothing else I've said today, please hear this. If the city of Hamilton steps up to the plate and adopts these three plans that have already been put in place since 1994, then the Consolidated Hearing becomes needless. The Consolidated Hearing has the Municipal Affairs and Housing, has the Niagara Escarpment Commission, Environment Hamilton, and the residents, all saying that this plan here is the ruling plan – the NEP. You have one on the opposite side, and that's the city of Hamilton , saying oh no, we're going to spend all our legal fees on getting that blob into place. So I would really you to hear that and hold that within your minds right now, because I really don't think that we have that much money and that much staff resources to go to a Consolidated Hearing to argue a blob that is not defined, cuts houses in half, leaves houses out and … So that's my comment. If nothing else you've heard today, please hear that. Thank you very much for your patience.”

Mitchell: I've worked with Brenda many many times on this issue, and maybe Nancy's wrong to answer it or not, but it was my understanding that way back when provincial minister ruled on this thing which meant that the city could not over-rule – we would have been overruling the minister and that's some of the reason. I didn't like this whole thing either. I wish we could have made a decision two years ago, but we talked about all this, and because of the whole story of this minister having ultimate power, we couldn't overrule this minister, was my limited understanding about what happened a couple of years ago. Through you to Nancy is the rest of the story there somewhere?” Smith: “That is correct. We're talking about a timing issue between the original Board decision and the approval of the Regional Official Plan by the Minister. Since that time, there's been an application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan. That is the application that is before the Consolidated Board. Even if the speaker's position were the city's position, which it's not. Even if it were, there would still be a board hearing.” [59:52]

Pearson: “Thank you very much. One more?” Johnson: “After the Rural Official Plan was developed and was sent out to outside agencies asking for comment, one of the people that commented back was the Niagara Escarpment Commission. They sent you a 17-page letter stating some of the mistakes and some of the things they found unacceptable. The one paragraph, and it's in this letter here, says that they want this urban boundary to be changed to conform to the Niagara Escarpment Plan. They even went so far as to send you a map to show you what they want, and that is the one on the left where the red goes straight down, right across through 192 and 194 Winona, right up the back of our properties, along Fifty Creek and around the back of the people who live on #8 Highway. So just to let you know that if people can't stress this enough, and outside agencies can't stress this enough, I honestly don't know what residents have much of a shot here. So thank you very much for listening.”

Pearson: “Thank you. Georgina ?”

Georgina Beattie: “... I'm here to ask that you not to support recommendation B1 that's on page 2 of 12, and I'd like to go through the report and try and tell you why I believe it hasn't been justified. If you have the report in front of you, the request from June was that staff research previous council positions and provide appropriate information regarding the potential need for and implications of a reconsideration of the matter. I have, I believe I've read the addendum thoroughly. I'm unable to find where the answers have been given for provide an appropriate information regarding the potential need and so on. So that's my first point. I don't see within this addendum where it specifically explains that. Going on.” Pearson: “Uh, this, and I apologize for interrupting, but does staff have any direction any information in regards to that, at this time?” Hickey-Evans: “…in the report we've gone over what the previous council decision was, and as we've indicated at this point, it's before the board and that's the … that we're iterating. In our opinion this is an urban issue. This is the rural plan. That's where our opinion parts with that of the community.” Pearson [off-mic]. Mitchell: “I have to differ with our staff here. I think for the rural official plan, and the way that this is worded, what I'm tending myself to think is that area is in the rural area of the protected area of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the same as their map shows today. That's where I stand because that's what I've heard. Now if somebody else has got to go make that decision for us, legally, so be it, but in my mind that's where it stands today.”

McHattie: “Sorry to interrupt your talk Georgina , but I just need to understand. I'm hearing a lot of agreement with the perspective that's being shared by the residents and I think that's likely going to be the view of the Niagara Escarpment Commission as well. Obviously it was previously the view at a staff level and the Commission decided to allow the process to proceed. I don't believe that's going to happen this time around. This commission, not wanting to speak for them quite yet, but when this comes to them they'll certainly – my sense is that they'll support the NEC staff position which is the Stoney Creek boundary, the Niagara Escarpment Plan boundary. So given all that, in terms of process, focusing on process for a second – what can we do today – and have some help from clerks on this if I can too – to – if we were to want to change our position today, the position of council, away from the blob and in support of the Stoney Creek official plan boundary, how would we do that. I'm just trying to understand previous positions. I was here two years or so ago when planning committee dealt with it, and I understand we supported the blob at that point. I didn't support it, but it carried the day that day at planning committee. So do we need to have a reconsideration motion, to reconsider the planning committee's decision? The bottom line is that it's going to a hearing, and if nothing else, and if we can't stop the hearing because there's process involved in that, beyond us – the ball's already rolling on that, can we at least clarify, change the city's position, change council's position to the Stoney Creek boundary as compared to the blob? I think that's what we're all about today, by my understanding. So if we can cut to the chase and understand if that's a possibility for us today, how we do it.” Hickey-Evans: “Through you madame Chair, you'd have to go back to the city council resolution March 8, 2004 and revisit that. Because that's where the decision was made that deals specifically with this 10 Lorado Drive . The … is not dealing specifically with 10 Lorado Drive . That decision was made back in March 2004.”

McHattie: “…and that came from planning committee and it went to council after that. So I think what we need today – and help me madame clerk in terms of who can bring this motion forward – as I recall it has to be someone who voted in the majority that day, on the winning side of that vote, which wouldn't be me. Or perhaps a new councillor who's new to the – anyway help me through if we wanted to change that position, how we would go about doing that. It sounds like councillor Mitchell's position has changed. He might be able to lead it for us. Anyways, a question to clerk's, sorry.” Clerk: “Through you madame Chair, obviously it's a very complex process we're talking about. We would need to consult our records and make sure whatever you say. If there is to be a reconsideration, only council could do that. There has to be two votes, the first one to consider whether you want to have a reconsideration of this issue, and then the second one has to be that reconsideration. We would need to look exactly at who voted in which way. Whether it was a recorded vote at that time so that we could get the information correct. We would also need to consult with our legal department, and obviously the clerk to make sure that all the procedures are being followed appropriately and that we don't get the city into any …. So I can't give you a yes or no, at this point. We can research it and get back to you.” McHattie: “If I can provide that direction, then, for council. Thanks.”

Mitchell: “I don't have a problem going back into camera to discuss that again. … But that's where we're going to have to end having to go. What I think a few people forget about that whole process is we spend a lot of time talking about minister's and different liabilities, and so on and so forth. I will stand the same as I did then. And yes, councillor McHattie, I did support sending this to the NEC because I didn't think it was going to be an issue. And it isn't, because their map doesn't show it as being part of it. And it's the prevailing map. So rather than overrule what our legal staff told us at that time, that's where it went. And they haven't made a decision either, so I have no problem at council, if need be, to put that on, and we'll go back into camera and sit in front of our lawyers all over again to hash this thing out, because it goes back about ten years and it's been driving me crazy in that part of the ward, and should not even be at the table today. I thought NEC would have made that ruling. That's what was sent there. NEC was the powerful map. Somebody's gotta make that. If it's going to be consolidated hearings, so be it. I want this issue off of the rural plan. I want to pass the rural plan. It shouldn't be clouded by this issue at all, and our staff have attempted to take it out of the rural plan in this fashion. Thank you.”

Whitehead : “…have a specific question. It was asked or suggested and I'm trying to get my mind around it, and that is the that I understand from the answers given by staff that the NEC is the prevailing hierarchy in planning issues. Is that correct? To staff?” Hickey-Evans: “Yes, of land use designations. But go on.” Whitehead: “Well the next question is – I'm trying to understand because there's been this conflict between the Stoney Creek Official Plan, the blob, and I hear it's been going on for ten years. I need an understanding is this one of those things that would be like non-conforming, meaning that it pre-existed the authority and power that was given to the NEC in this regard? Is this a timing of power relative to this blob being created?” Hickey-Evans: “I can't specifically address the issue of the NEC at the time, but what I can tell you is the timing as it relates to the 1995 Official Plan. The OMB decision was – well the OMB hearing was held, pardon me, the OMB decision was rendered by my recollection, mid 1994. The plan, the new plan at that time was sent to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing …what happens to this plan, and they make the final decision. And in making that final decision the blob, which predates, goes back to probably 1985, even before that, from a long time ago, would not change to look like what you see on the left [referring to the Stoney Creek plan boundaries]. That's what we're talking about. The last approval was January 1995, after the OMB decision, and that is why the blob is the way the blob is.”

Whitehead : “The thing I'm trying to understand is, when we passed it in 2004, was there direction given in the passing and what was that direction? Maybe the clerk could provide answers.?” Clerk: “I believe the planner has that.” Hickey-Evans: “…copy in the report. It says that – there's two parts to it – t hat the City of Hamilton inform the Niagara Escarpment Commission that the subject lands are now designated Urban Area by the Regional Official Plan, and the development of urban residential uses on such lands are considered appropriate. B: In the event the NEC approves blah blah blah to extend the Minor Urban Centre designation, staff be directed to report on modifications to Official Plan to redesignate the subject lands from agricultural to Winona Urban Community in the Official Plan of the former City of Stoney Creek . And then it goes on to increase the proposed residential density.” Whitehead: “So in that B it doesn't talk about if the NEC didn't approve. It talks about, almost being presumptuous that the NEC would support it, but it doesn't talk about what we would do if the NEC doesn't not support it.” Hickey-Evans: “…as part of our professional planning ethics, if it came back to us through the consolidated board that the NEC or the consolidated board has approved it we'd report back at exactly the same kind, on the reverse.”

Beattie : “…very interesting comments. [ 1:12:30 ] It truly is unfortunate that it's … It could have been stopped long before now. Further on page 5 of 12, further reference to the letters that came to the province. I'd like to know how staff acted on the comments in those letters, if I may.” Hickey-Evans: “With respect to the NEC letter, the NEC is a commenting agency to us. We will provide – we amended certain areas. One is the concerns that's – they wanted a new official plan done for the entire city of Hamilton . We indicated to them from the very onset that the OP would be divided into a rural piece and urban piece. Their preference is to do the whole thing together and we indicated to them that that would never be approached. So we can't fix a plan that was never intended. Also indicated that as was mentioned on numerous occasions, that this matter is under litigation. No matter what they say, it's still under litigation, and that's what we are respecting. Now with respect to this provincial letter, I'm not sure which provincial letter that the community members are talking about. There are several. They didn't make any mention of that as it relates to the rural OP. Could be an older one. I'm not sure.”

Beattie: “That was my next question. There's a general statement made – there have been letters from the province and I am wondering if there's any way of finding out what those letters are or whether they were in fact the letters from the Ministry of Municipal Housing in 2004 or whether they were – like I said I tried to find them in this report, or sorry, addendum, where reference is made to them and how they were responded to, I don't find that. Is there a further comment with that?” Hickey-Evans: “Through you madame chairman we've got several letters from the province on various issues. I can't answer, I don't know which ones. But there is a – on the website and the rural official plan there is a table of comments that are identified how we dealt with each and every comment that was received.” Beattie : “Thank you. That's the city of Hamilton website?” Hickey-Evans: “That's correct.” Beattie: “Moving on. In the recommendations for this particular part of the report I do not believe that it's really explained what in fact is going to happen. And I also note that although it refers to the SCUBE lands, the wording for that recommendation is different than the wording is on page 6 of 12 with regard to the SCUBE lands. My concern is that since the wording is different, then perhaps the meaning would be different, and I have great difficulty because of having experienced March 8th, 2004 and the recommendation on the top of page 5 of 12, how things get changed. And I'm very concerned that the same thing is going to happen again. Moving over to page 11 of 12, the official plan amendment. Now I think I may have inadvertently figured this one out. But it says that the new appendix which is attached as appendix F – is that in fact appendix G, because there is no F on the website?” Hickey-Evans: “…when we did the first, on June 26th, we had an amended set of official plan amendments and it was on yellow paper. And those were already printed, so they actually derived from the very first report. Now, it is not on the website, because as of 2007 where we have some minor amendments to the official plan amendment. So if you want a copy, we can … you one, but anything on the website itself.” Beattie: “Okay. Our concern is the statement says a new appendix which is attached as appendix F to report blah blah blah, and A which I assume is the numbered one and it's not there.” Hickey-Evans: “In copy of the report, I do believe there is a copy of appendix F, in the report itself. I can't speak directly to what was posted on the website for this particular meeting. I can return to the report that was available.” Beattie: “Okay, I would very much like to have that, because as a citizen it's very difficult to get these documents if they're not on the website. And I think there's probably, based on what it says there, official plan amendments – there's obviously information that the residents were unable to review. … Moving to three, rural Hamilton official plan, in addition, a few minor adjustments and wording changes have been made to the policy. How does a resident know about these? And where can we find what these minor wording adjustments are?” Hickey-Evans: “…in appendix C in the report identifies the changes by volume, by text, whether it's schedule, what the changes are. They're attached as appendix G.” Beattie: “And, G? [someone speaking off-mic] Mine has bullets. I'm not sure why that is. [more off-mic discussion apparently with Beattie]. I have two double-sided, a total of four.” Pearson: “I'm sure you can work with staff later and they'll provide you with the full report. That would be the agenda that would have it in for today. Correct? Madame clerk?” Beattie: “I would like the members of the committee to be cognisant of the fact of how difficult it can be for a resident to get accurate information if it's not available through the obvious process. Moving to appendix A in that – you heard earlier the map at the service centre. In July, I believe it was, the City of Hamilton approved the passing of the Development Charges bylaw, and that is currently on your At Your Service website. It was also printed in the Stoney Creek News. And it has a map on there, dated May 20th, 2004 and it's marked the urban boundary. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the boundary that we ask that you adopt as the official boundary for the city of Hamilton within the rural official plan for the Winona area. It already exists. I think when you go to the consolidated hearing, this is the one that you should present, and I ask with all due respect that I'm standing here as a resident, as a taxpayer. I do not have the resources that some others with interests in this area have, but I ask that you not go forward to the consolidated hearing as the only agency supporting an irregular-shape known as the blob. I would ask that you correct this now, and follow the OMB decision, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Stoney Creek Official Plan and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and adopt the boundaries as shown on your map as approved in your Development Charges bylaw and the map being dated May 20th, 2004 .”

Mitchell: “Thanks Georgina and Norman and Brenda for coming down today. Georgina as probably everybody knows is a past councillor in Stoney Creek and goes back a little way on this battle over this place, so her information that she's brought forward is always valuable. Thank you.”

Pearson: “Thank you. I have Keith Birch, respecting Pleasantview and Winona? Yes, thank you Keith.”

Keith Birch: [ 1:22:42 ] “Councillors, just a little aside. It was said earlier that the City of Hamilton allows for water to flow naturally. And I want to assure the staff member that given sufficient political pressure for the … it can indeed run uphill. Two things. Winona . I was responding to the delegation for the agenda but arising from and respect to Winona with respect to the amendment proposed in the plan. I think Guy Paparella and myself are the only ones in the room that were present at that Municipal Board hearing that started in 1991. So I have a great familiarity with the situation. I do represent an owner of lands south along Winona Road , beyond what the Board established as the urban boundary. His position is that if there is to be an expansion of the Winona Urban Area, that it should be done on a comprehensive basis, and not on an ad-hoc basis. So in that respect, I come to the amendment to the plan. This is not litigation in the normal sense. It is not criminal litigation. It's not civil litigation. It's part of the public process. And the city's position should be made known on this matter, because you are charged by the Planning Act with setting land uses. To pass it off to another agency because that's what that Act requires an appeal to, is a cop-out. You should have before you information that allows you to make a decision either way, either for or against, and you should take that and make it known to the public. So that is all I have to say on Winona , now with respect to …” [ 1:25:07 ]

……

[ 1:26:24 ] Pearson: “Committee members, we have another speaker who would like to come forward – has not put his name forward earlier – Sergio Manchez. I need to have indulgence of the committee to move and second to allow that. Councillor Kelly will move it. Thank you. Councillor Kelly's moving it. Seconded by? Councillor Braden. Thank you. Sergio, come forward, and what is it your going to be speaking on?”

Sergio Manchez: “ Winona , madame chair, I'll be brief.” Pearson: “Thank you.” Manchez: “I'm here on behalf of Hamilton General Homes, Homes by DeSantis. Prior to that – actually before I get into that. I commend staff for moving forward on this rural policy – as I made my presentation back in the original GRIDS presentation to staff. [off-mic comments] Sorry, I basically presented very … to committee and council that we have to move on with this stuff. And right or wrong, we have to move on with these policies. And it's no easy task. And consistently throwing other requests and philosophies at it, planning philosophies, is going to continuously aggravate the problem and we're not going to get there. Second, I'm here on behalf of Homes by DeSantis and Hamilton General Homes, and we are pleasing and were also following the policies of what the report is before you today – that the lands known as the blob is urban and should be respected as urban, and we're off to the consolidated hearing – at which point in time the experts, the science, all the rest of it, will come out and be dealt with. I'm very uncomfortable with a presentation here before your committee where your staff is being cross-examined and request a lawyer and your directors and so on and so forth, and I don't think that's appropriate. We're not here to do that. We're off to the hearing, and I think that will flesh it one way or another. We are pleased with the recommendation that should this become urban lands – which I must add has the services available – that the density issue is revisited. And we're content with that – on the record, for the record – that our proposed subdivision issue should be reconsidered for higher density. And finally madame chairman, I know that councillor McHattie has been consistent on this, and I respect that consistency because he's been adamant about this blob and this urban expansion. But I don't understand where there's other councillors around this table who are back and forth. And I think that we have to be very clear that staff in 2004, sorry, committee of the day, took a position and there was councillors in favour and councillors not in favour. And that's what we should move forward today. Thank you very much. If there are any questions, I'd be happy – otherwise we approve and we thank staff for the opportunity to work with them on this.”

Pearson: “Okay. Thank you very much, Sergio. Seeing no other speakers, we'll close off on this. May I have a motion to the amendment to the staff recommendation. And that was presented earlier motion. Councillor McHattie? Or did you wish questions and comments on this, my apologies. No you don't? You're allowed comments and questions throughout, so I don't know if anybody has anything further before we go into the motion. Councillor McHattie, did you?”

McHattie: “I just had an amendment relating to the Greensville rural settlement area as per all that discussion we had earlier on. I guess moved by myself and seconded by councillor Whitehead, and I'll just read it out here. That the Greensville Rural Settlement Area be expanded to include two properties located between Brock and Moxley Roads (shown on Appendix “C” to Report PED06207(a)) and be subject to the Greenville Rural Settlement Area Sub-watershed Study and the Class Environmental Assessment Process, and further be subject to a special policy deferring such lands for commercial industrial use pending the outcome of such studies. Do I have two versions here? Yep. And the second aspect of it is that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to defer the subject lands from use for rural settlement purposes, pending the outcome and subject to the findings of the Sub-watershed Study and Class EA process.”

Pearson: “Okay. So it was moved and seconded. All in favour? Carried. Councillor Mitchell did you have something before we move forward?”

Mitchell: “Comments, madame chairman, because of what's gone on because of my little speech earlier, and I think that decision, if we need to, or council needs to, that can be part of that voting the way I did to send this back for legal advice in the future. But that won't be today. That will be at a full council meeting. On a positive note, we're six years into this new city , and we have not had an official plan, and this is a great start I think because it solves a lot of problems in the rural area. And the differences between Ancaster and Stoney Creek and Glanbrook and Flamborough so the many different departments could look at this and make decisions and be comfortable with the decisions with a lot less margin of error. It does support agriculture. It allows farmers that currently farm to purchase more land, add to their landholdings so they can cost effectively keep farming and sever a farm house off – which is a very good thing because it allows the next generation to buy that farmland. It keeps that farmhouse dwelling, which is not needed as a farmhouse dwelling, in the ownership of a person who'll look after it rather than a tenancy situation. So I think it's real good for the rural area. And want to see this go forward. I have heard rumblings of this being appealed to the OMB and whatnot. And that's I guess just the process that it goes through. It's my understanding that once it leaves here, it goes to council. If there's more changes there, so be it, but then it takes six months at the minister's office, where there's an appeal to the minister's office again. And if it gets appealed at the minister's office, they quite generally send it back here to us. So this document in itself that's benefitting agriculture and does an awful lot of good for everybody, could be up to a year away from being passed yet – which is a shame that the bureaucracy has to work that slow, but that's the process that it's going to take. I will be moving this recommendation to move this forward, madame chairman. I will be doing some questions of some of my councillor colleagues and our legal staff again, about whether council should look at that other issue all over again, but, over the next week before council takes place. Meanwhile I will move the recommendation here as amended.”

Pearson: “We have a motion there. Someone's moving it? Councillor Whitehead, correct? No I've taken care of that … Councillor Whitehead, you have a motion and amendment? Yep? [Whitehead off-mic] Shall we put the motion on the table and then speak to it, is that what you.” Whitehead: [initially off-mic] …councillor McHattie and myself have in fact moved an amendment to the staff report. Is that what we're currently debating and discussing now – that amendment – or has that been approved and we're moving on to the main report.”

Pearson: “We've moving on to the main report.” Whitehead: “Okay. I do want to speak to the main report but I do have a motion coming out of camera which applies to the report. So I'm just asking what the appropriate time for this particular motion is?” Pearson: “Move the amendment first.”.

Whitehead: “Move it? Okay. Moved by myself, seconded by councillor McHattie the new official plan rural Hamilton city wide. This is stuff that came out of camera. Do I need to read it all? Yeah. Okay. That section three, Special Policy Area C, future employment growth district, volume 3, chapter A, rural special policy areas as part of appendix F, Rural Hamilton Official Plan to report PD06207(a) addendum Official Plan Amendment and new Official Plan Rural Hamilton be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the revised text outlined in appendix A to this resolution and B that council request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to modify the adopted version of section three Special Policy Area C, future employment growth district, volume 3, Chapter A, Rural Policy Special Areas of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan should future minor adjustments be made to Special Policy Area C by Ontario Municipal Board order – tool dry, but that is the motion [laughter].” Pearson: “Moved and seconded, all if favour? Carried. Councillor?” Whitehead: “Yes I do concur that I think we're moving in the right direction and I certainly support the amendment's gone forward, and certainly with the blob discussion – it is just a mess. It's like the attack of the blob. But the reality is that I think it's in a consolidated board hearing, very capable individuals will be at that meeting making representations, and I'm hearing around the table that we can't deal with it at this point, anyway. And we don't even have legal advice as to what the repercussions would be if we did change our mind. So I, in that context, without that information, I would have to support what's in front of us here today. So I just wanted to speak to that because people were good enough to come out and talk to this issue. I think it's important, not only for us to hear, but to implement or act when prudent. The problem is I'm not hearing that we have the legal advice we need, or the jurisdictional authority to make those types of decisions at this point in time. So I'll be supporting the rural official plan here today. Thank you.”

Pearson: “Thank you councillor. Alexandra [clerk] then on the report? As amended? On the report as amended? Councillor Mitchell and councillor McHattie? All in favour? Carried. Councillor Braden has a really brief presentation he wants to make. Correct? [Braden responds off-mic and apparently says he didn't promise it would be brief.] Well in all due fairness, it's 2:30 . I think there's another committee meeting that's supposed to be starting in here at 3:30 or 4:30 . I just want to share. We still have item 8.1 to deal with.” [1:37:18]

DISCUSSION ITEMS

8.1 G.R.I.D.S. – Twenty Road and Glover Road Lands (PED06365) (City Wide) [May be transcribed later.]

8.1.1 Additional submission from Carmen Chiaravalle

8.2 HamiltonLACAC (Municipal Heritage Committee) Report06-002

MOTIONS

NOTICES OF MOTIONS

GENERAL INFORMATION

11.2 Acquisition of Property Adjacent to 109 and 113 Graham Street , for Future Park . (from Outstanding Business List, due September 5, 2006 )

Return to Part #1