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

Good morning Chairperson Kelly and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to address you once again regarding planning issues in our city.

Over the years, concerned citizens have been tracking proposals to expand boundaries in various locations throughout the municipality. We have witnessed, over the course of quite a few years now, the municipality's on-going struggle to get to the point where it is able to take a bigger picture look at how and where it makes most sense for our community to grow. In fact, at the last meeting of this committee, Councillor Horwath raised concerns about a proposal with the potential to re-surface in the near future as a boundary expansion application. Planning staff responded by reiterating the fact that expansion requests outside of the broader boundary expansion review being pursued as part of the GRIDS process, suck up staff time and resources, distracting from staff's ability to get on with the broader planning initiatives.

I view the Winona proposal before you today as a boundary expansion request. When I asked about this proposed development back in 2002, I was told by staff that they believed a regional official plan amendment was required to allow this development to proceed - in other words, that these lands were not designated for urban use in the Regional Official Plan. They based this opinion, I was told, on an evaluation of relevant official plan policies and related Ontario Municipal Board decisions. Further, staff explained that the policies of the Regional Plan allowed the former lower tier Councils - and that would include the City of Stoney Creek - some ability to define the Regional urban boundary where that boundary was not clearly defined or subject to a previous Official Plan decision. And, sure enough, if you go to the Regional Official Plan, you can read these policies which defer some detailed boundary-establishing power onto area municipalities. The Regional Official Plan contains a map that shows the urban area of Winona as an undefined blob. But Stoney Creek's Official Plan contains a map that clearly delineates the boundary of the Winona Urban Settlement Area and this boundary DOES NOT include the lands being discussed here today. Further, the Niagara Escarpment Plan map for this area shows this same clearly defined boundary. Note that the Regional Official Plan very clearly states in Part C - Land Use Strategy, Section 1.5.1 that 'Where there is a discrepancy between this plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan will prevail.

So, after reading the staff report I am concerned about the assertion that these lands are currently designated 'Urban Area' by the Regional Official Plan, and I am also concerned that development of urban residential uses on these lands is being deemed an 'appropriate option'. It seems that this assertion rests on a strange slip-up referenced in the staff report - a failure of the municipality to update the ROP in 1995 to include the delineated boundaries for Winona that were established through a 1994 OMB hearing .

So, I'm stuck here on this point - and very concerned about the recommendation that the NEC be informed that urban residential uses on these lands are appropriate within the context of the Regional Official Plan. What about the commitment within the ROP not to extend development into Niagara Escarpment Protection Area? What about the commitment 'to compact urban form and the preservation of agricultural lands and natural features? Others here today have raised similar concerns - we need to understand why an apparent oversight is so heavily influencing the course of action being recommended and whether this is appropriate.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.