Presentation to the Hamilton standing committee on Planning and Economic Development
by Brenda Johnson
March 2 , 2004

My name is Brenda Johnson and I live on Winona road. Please understand that I am speaking on behalf of a much larger group of people who have been following the development on agricultural land within the Niagara Escarpment Protection Area.

In 1991, the NEC refused a previous attempt to develop this property.

IN 1994, the OMB reinforced that denial by ruling that this development application not only be denied but also that this property not be included within the Winona Urban Boundary. The OMB stated at that time that there needed to be a study within Stoney Creek on the land use to establish boundary lines. Stoney Creek council spent over $300,000 and the Land Use Budget Study was created and adapted by the council in 1995. In that study it clearly stated that all lands south of Highway #8 was to be left undeveloped.

In February 2000 the applicant asked the NEC to allow him to build one house for his family. He indicated at that time that he had no other plans for the rest of the property except to maybe build a barn and raise some horses. On those grounds the Commission granted his application. Less than 6 months later, the residents in the area were made aware of a proposal to sever the property and build approximately 23 houses had been sent to the City of Stoney Creek.

In July of 2000, an informal meeting was held between the residents and the City of Stoney Creek Planning Committee to discuss this proposal. The residents of Winona made it clear that they did not support a development imposing on agricultural lands within the Niagara Escarpment Protection Area. City planner Steve Miazga stated that there was already sufficient land to develop within the City of Stoney Creek and that this proposal should not be supported. Each of the seven councilors present with Ms. Pearson there as well unanimously said that should this proposal come before Stoney Creek council, they each would vote against it. Shortly thereafter the applicant tabled their proposal with the City of Stoney Creek and began the application to the NEC.

In 2001 the NEC staff report recommends that this application be deemed frivolous and be denied.

In 2002 the Agricultural and Rural Advisory Committee with councilors Mitchell and Ferguson in attendance voted unanimously to send the NEC a letter stating that their committee could not endorse this application.

In October 2002, I presented this very proposal to you at the sub hearings committee with Paul Mason in attendance and the sub hearing committee unanimously voted to send a letter to the NEC stating that you could not endorse any development within the Niagara Escarpment Protection Area. What has changed? Did policy change?

We presented our concerns to various agencies who were commenting to the NEC. I was reading your list of commenting agencies on this staff report I noticed that the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority was not circulated for comment. Why? In checking with them I learned that they consider this land to be a flood plain. Is this not an important factor to development? Flood plains make for great tender fruit belts but not for great basements. Should this not be in your report?

Speaking about the blob...

As you can see the Stoney Creek Official map is clear and concise. The Niagara Escarpment Official map is also clear and concise and look they match. Now look and the Regional Official map. It is a blob. It is a nightmare. It doesn't match anything. In fact there are 2 surveys that are actually outside the blob Bel Air and Milikin/Park Manor. Also the line of the blob actually goes through 12 houses and a business. No not only does it not match it is grossly inaccurate.

When the region was still waiting for the 1994 decision from the OMB on the application for this land, the Regional council appears to have approved this blob. One month later the OMB specifically stated that this land should not be included within the Winona Urban Boundary. A senior planner from the OMB told me yesterday that if the OMB decision was made after the council approved the ROP then the OMB decision prevails. I understand that it is the region's responsibility to be the one to notify the ministry of any amendments to the ROP. So why wasn't this done? And this begs the question why are we here?

Now you have to ask yourself:

   1.. Shouldn't your map be concise and accurate like the SCOP and NEP
   2.. The Stoney Creek map was the main map to be used to define boundaries because it is detailed and the regional map was conceptual and only used as an overview as was confirmed by a representative with planning and development for the ministry of municipal affairs.
   3. When amalgamation occurred the municipality maps were to be used until a more clearer regional map.

In other words people, the only thing that needs to be changed is this ROP to make it look like the other two. Therefore the subject lands are not within the Urban boundary and are not considered appropriate for development.