Economic Development and Planning Standing Committee:
Apr 24, 2007
April 24 2007
Community Beach Ponds
Committee Chair Dave Mitchell. We welcome everyone to this special meeting of the economic and development planning committee here in Stoney Creek. Are there any changes to the agenda please?
Clerk. …We have one change to with regard to the recommendation [..?..] . Secondly there are two additional written submissions received today and distributed to committee. They are from Paul Glendenning, Hamilton, respecting Turtle Pond Development at Church and Teal Streets, and Karl Gonnsen, Metropolitan Consulting, 2290 Queensway Drive, Burlington, respecting Official Plan Amendments for Community Beach ponds
Motions to approve agenda as amended (Bratina, 2nd Pearson) . Asking re declarations of interest. None
Mitchell. Item 6.1 the official plan and zoning bylaw amendments for the community beach pond located in the avenue between Teal Ave and Green Road between Church St. and Frances St in the former city of Stoney Creek, Ward 10. We have added submissions from the [..?..] distributed [..?..] .. one from Paul[..?..] and a letter from Carl Johnson[..?..] on behalf of Parkside Hill . We have before us for consideration three city initiatives, being 2 official plan amendments and one zoning bylaw amendment and one private zoning bylaw amendment respecting the community of … . We’ll now have a staff overview of Joanne Hickey-Evans and Cathy Plosz are here to give us an overview and they will also explain the[..?..] being proposed [..?..] to the [..?..]
…Mitchell notes standing room only, invites people to come into the council chambers to stand along aisles…
Plosz: At this point I would like to introduce the revised recommendation which is item 6.1. On April 12, 2007, city staff and members of our environmentally significant areas impact evaluation group were conducting a site visit at community beach ponds and found a blue spotted salamander near the main pond. On April 14, staff from Dougan and Associates , which is the consulting firm doing the environmental impact statement, also trapped an additional 2 blue spotted salamanders, also near the main pond. Because it’s difficult to distinguish blue-spotted salamanders from another species which is the Jefferson salamander – it’s threatened. They can only be distinguished through a DNA test. So we are unable at this point to conclusively say whether the salamanders found on this site were the threatened Jeffersons or the uncommon blue-spotted. So we have sent DNA tests to a laboratory in Guelph , and the test results should be available in a few weeks . Therefore until the results of the DNA test are available, city staff has revised the recommendation from the original report.
We’ve revised the recommendations – I’ll just summarize – are that the city-initiated official plan amendment to designate the site as an environment significant area; the city-initiated re-zoning for Edgelake Park , and the private re-zoning for Church Street Developments not be adopted until the salamander species is determined. Any necessary amendments to the EIS, the environment impact statement, are made, and staff report back to this committee.
We’ll now go ahead with the main part of the presentation. I’ll just talk a bit about the history of the original official plan amendments. Community Beach Ponds was originally identified as an Environmentally Significant Area in April 2003 and [..?..] official plan amendment. In the fall 2004, an error in the public circulation of the official plan amendment was identified. Therefore the official plan amendment to designate the ESA was not legally adopted. The Planning Act requires us to circulate the agencies as part of the official plan amendment now and this was not done. To correct the error staff re-adopted the official plan amendment in April 2005, but the subject site was excluded.
The subject site is now being addressed through this process to deal with the concerns of the landowners. This process involves preparing an environmental impact statement to determine the ESA boundary that would protect the significant portions of the site. I should point out that the process this site underwent was the same as it would have underwent if it would remain an ESA. So it’s going through the same process with an environmental impact statement and a look at the boundaries.
The site was identified as an ESA and listed at the top of the screen are the criteria that it meets from the original official plan. It meets the significant ecological function criteria, and this is because there is significant habitat for seasonal concentrations of wildlife. In other words, this site serves as a migratory bird stopover area. Also there’s habitat for species determined significant in the city, the province and Canada.. In this case the site provides breeding habitat for bird species which is considered rare in Hamilton. It may also contain habitat for a threatened salamander species and again … we will determine that through the DNA testing. Also, there are biotic communities that are rare in the city and the province. This site contains locally and provincially rare vegetation community.
The site also has provincial significance. It’s been identified as significant wildlife habitat because of its migratory bird stopover function and it contains a provincially significant vegetation community. If we do find Jefferson salamander on the site, this is a provincially threatened species. So that’s another area of provincial interest.
I’ll just describe now the process that we use to identify ESA boundary for the site. An environmental impact statement was carried out in the spring and summer of 2005, and it involved all three landowners – the city of Hamilton, the public school board, and Church Street Developments. The ESA boundary was drawn to ensure that the significant features and functions of the site were protected. The environmental impact statement was conducted by Dougan and Associates consulting firm, and they were specifically looking at the features which fulfill the ESA criteria I mentioned earlier. ESAIEG, which is our environmental advisory group, the Hamilton Conservation Authority, and city staff reviewed the environmental impact statement and some intrusion was permitted into the ESA boundary proposed in the environmental impact statement and mitigation measures were going to be required as a result of this. Some of the mitigation measures would be sediment and erosion control, tree preservation plans, stormwater management plans and ongoing management of the habitat for these target species.
This map here shows the – red line shows the ESA boundaries by defined by Dougan and Associates and goes all the way around the pond and up and juts out a bit on the separate school board property. The yellow line on the map which is just dealing with the Church Street Developments property, shows the line of development proposed for the Church Street site, and it does show, as you can see, slight encroachment into the ESA. The red dot between the yellow line and the red line is the main problem. There’s a large mature hickory tree there that would be lost as a result of the encroachment. Staff believe that this encroachment which involves the loss of a mature hickory tree and some other associated vegetation can be mitigated by management within the ESA on the edges of the city Edgelake property and within the development site.
This location map shows the Environmentally Significant Area in gray. And the 5 metre buffer between the ESA and the proposed Church Street Developments site and the dark shaded section is the Church Street Developments site – that would be the area permitted for residential development. The dotted line on the map is the original boundary of the ESA which was proposed in the 2003 original plan amendment. So you can see there is some changes.
This next map shows the proposed changes in the zoning. Block 1 which is the diagonally hatched area shows a section of the city-owned park which would be re-zoned to P5, which is conservation hazard land. Block 2 shows the area to be re-zoned from institutional to P5, which is conservation hazard. Block 3 shows the area proposed to be re-zoned to multi-residential from institutional.
I’ve provided some photos to give you some idea of some of the features of the site. This photo shows the buttonbush community around the main part of the pond and it’s looking to the south towards Frances Ave. This next photo shows a view of Edgelake Park, which is a city-owned park. It’s looking from Church St. to the south. And you can see the vegetation and the Buttonbush community just to the gap, just to the left. This photo show a view looking into the proposed ESA across the main pond as it’s looking from the city-owned park into the public school board property. I’ll turn you over to Kristin West to talk about …
Kristin West. [..?..] define the limits of the ESA and as such a portion of the Catholic school board lands shown here. This is the Catholic school board lands here. This is the public school board land and the city-owned park. The area in the darker shade of gray will be zoned for [..?..] This area will be zoned for site specific residential …. So we are ….S32 holding provision … zone…. Official plan amendment that is proposed to designate the ESA …and is proposed for 42 townhouses. The development of townhouses at this site is supportable, as it is compatible with the existing and planned development of the area. This area has a range of housing types from high rise apartments located at 500 Green Road to townhouse developments located at to the east and to the south as well as having single dwellings along Church St. and Teal Ave. The proposal also conforms to the Stoney Creek official plan The development of 42 townhouses is appropriate for residential intensification on a vacant surplus school site.
These lands are to be rezoned to RM3-32(H) meet the minimum lot frontage of 15 metres and the minimum lot area of 4000 square metres. They do require some modifications. There’s a front yard set back of 3 metres proposed with the exception from the required 5.8 metres…..We have put in ….. garages… on Church St. in the event the plan changes after the zoning is passed we have permission if there is to be a garage it should be 8.metres to account for parking space. . The side yard setback of 3 ½ metres is to address this area right here so if there’s any buildings going to….. 3 ½ metres . This area will still be a minimum of 6 because of … provisions of the bylaw. There is a minor reduction of one to visitor parking…. For one parking space in order to get a 5 metre buffer in this area. And the minimum distance between buildings is down to 13 metres instead 15 in this area. This is also in order to … in order to accommodate the five metre buffer.
Minor increases to the maximum density from 40 to 42 units, still fits in with the …medium density in the Stoney Creek bylaw. And the maximum lot coverage 35 to 36%. We have reductions to the minimum landscaped open space. Because we have … there are 2 separate bylaws to define zones in the 2005 bylaw . If … the whole site as long then it would adequately cover the minimum land. .space open space provisions, we will have to address but we have to address it as a standalone site with the default. These complications are minor in nature and appropriate for many years and still provide protection of the ESA end as provided.
The holding is for the completion of the … archaeological assessment and a minimum 5 metre buffer in this area here, with an average width of 5.3 metres. The width of the buffer was identified by ESAIEG and supported by staff and the Hamilton Conservation Authority. The public ….. public response on this application. There were petitions in opposition to the townhouses on the site and there were a number of responses that cited the increase in traffic as a major concern as Teal Ave does not have sidewalks. [shows location of existing sidewalks on map]. Frances has some in developed portions. This area where its undeveloped along here has no sidewalks. Traffic and Engineering and Operations have not indicated any concern regarding traffic flow or pedestrian safety. (extended laughter and noise)
Mitchell. Ok everybody, please.
Kristin West. In addition under the current small scale….zone… number of uses could be developed as that would generate a higher level of congestion such as a church, elementary school or a place of worship. The objections received to the development of town houses instead of single detached dwellings along Church St. frontage. The form of the proposal is an appropriate form of residential intensification and is compatible with the existing development in the surrounding areas, including the town houses to the east., and the apt. buildings over in this area right here. The proposed development conforms to the Official Plan policies that guide proposals for multi-residential developments. Concern for the protection of the ESA zoning are concerned and Ms Plosz has outlined staff’s position that the ESA will be protected through the designation of the Environmentally Significant Area. Furthermore, as you know, staff are recommending that the bylaws and official plan amendments be held until the salamander is identified properly. If the ESA boundary is deemed appropriate upon the completion of the testing and analysis required of the salamanders, the zone changes for the protection of the ESA and the development at these addresses is supportable, as it is consistent with the Provincial policy statement, the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Official Plan, and the Stoney Creek Official Plan.
This is a view of the property right next to the Church Street Developments where it will be townhouses This shows the high rises in the background and sidewalk… and the single family dwelling. This is a view of the land proposed for town houses looking west and looking into the ESA. This is the area for development and the trees you can see in the background will be a formal part of the new ESA. This is a view …This is…so the town houses will be located here, and these are the existing town houses ... property. This is a view of ESA from Green road. This is the public school property so this is a line … the ESA… school property. This is a view of the proposed town houses towards Lake Ontario, so this is the procession of the road from across the street and as you can see, you can’t really see houses on that side, and there’s no sidewalk. This is the house that’s located directly across from the ESA on the shoreline of Lake Ontario – it’s set back. This concludes my presentation. I’d be pleased to answer any questions of both the committee and the public.
Mitchell: I have Councillor Pearson on the list.
Pearson. I just wanted to back to Cathy’s presentation. I want to be sure of this and I get clarification. Because you mentioned right at the beginning of your presentation that there were three parties involved when you started doing the ESA – the formal process. You mentioned the Hamilton public board. Isn’t it the Catholic board? Is that not correct? I just want to be sure we’re representing the Catholic board properly not the public…….
Plosz. Yes. The three parties that were involved were the city of Hamilton, the public school board and Church Street Developments.
Pearson: No, sorry. It was the separate school board, correct? Not the public.
Discussion/noise off mike.
Plosz: It was the Church Street Developments on behalf of the Separate school board. They were involved in the process.
Pearson: That’s what I wanted to be sure about because there is another application on the public school board site which is …… I just want to be clear that ……. To answer the question, I don’t know the answer at present. The city parklands to the west – Edgelake Park. Do we know how that came about and how the city acquired that land. [Discussion off-mic by Mitchell and others] I’ll leave that with staff then. It just dawned on me now. Cathy, we are proposing that part of the ESA is going to go into the park … and that there’ll be more protection on the westerly side of the wetlands …
Mitchell. .? please.
Whitehead: Question I have is who’s Dougan & Associates? What’s their qualifications?
Plosz: Dougan and Associates, ecological consultants, is a firm in Guelph Ontario. They are actually on the city’s roster of qualified ecological consultants and they were actually picked because they do have a biologist who deals with migratory birds. So we did want to focus on … specialty.
Whitehead: Can you describe who ESAIEG is and what their role is.
Plosz: ESAIEG is the Environmentally Significant Areas impact evaluation group, and they are a group of local experts who volunteer on a city committee to review environmental impact statements. They have a variety of expertise in botany, biology, ecology, hydrogeology and stormwater management, so any of the environmental impact statements they review for, and advise the city as to whether the environmental impact statements have adequately done the field work, adequately assessed the impact.
Whitehead: Would that be a peer review of the impact?
Plosz. Yes, it’s like a peer-review.
Whitehead: I was going to ask a question on traffic and I see Ed’s here. …. Increase in traffic is a major concern, not adequate sidewalks. … operation staff has not indicated any concerns regarding traffic flow and pedestrian safety. . In addition under the current small scale institutional zoning, a number of uses could be developed as of right Also a concern to the residents in the area. Could you just elaborate on that, Ed?
Ed Switenky: The proposed development on Church Street – 42 units – will generate approximately 19 trips in the morning and about 25 trips in the afternoon. If that site was developed as the school site or a church site it would generate more traffic than that. Concerns about traffic…. more problems than that. Concerns about traffic…if you have concerns in the sense …the percentage of the traffic increase is about 30%. Church Street is a very low volume roadway. If you have concerns about no sidewalks, and how long… whole subdivision was to develop without sidewalks . It could have had a school site without sidewalks too, so the decision was made previously. This plan of subdivision does have sidewalks ….
Bratina. What would the impact be whether it’s the Jefferson salamander or the blue-spotted? Suppose it’s the right one or the wrong one, depending on how you look at it. How would it impact on this decision?
Plosz. The determination of the species of salamander. I can’t really say at this point how it might affect the proposal. What we would do at that point if it were identified as a threatened species of salamander is we would call the province in. So we’d get the Ministry of Natural Resources involved because it a provincial concern – it’s a provincial species at risk. And they have a Jefferson salamander recovery team who would advise us on the amount of area that the species would need in order to maintain its population.
Bratina. So there’s the possibility that this proposal would not be acceptable if it were a rare species?
Plosz. Yes. That’s always a possibility.
Bratina. Then as C. Pearson suggested that the public school part might also be developed in consideration for more townhouses there?
West: Yes, the planning staff have an application for the public school board site that was received in 2007 [loud talking, disagreement, someone says “can’t hear you.] ] Yes, we do have an application
Bratina. . She says yes there is an application for development on that site . So the question then becomes – I’m going to guess that 42 town houses would generate at least 42 kids. The school boards are not going to use these sites for schools, where would these children then go to school. I guess it’s a rhetorical question, but perhaps councillor Pearson [ much general talking}
Pearson: … the school board, neither the public nor the separate school board need this property as a site for a future school. They are… I have had meetings with the public school board trustee and they are addressing public school board sites in the inner sort of Stoney Creek area as opposed to off of the lake. There are a number of issues that are being addressed. …. Part of it is the funding from the surplus lands that the province… And the issue about how many students that will be coming out of the new development ……They will be accommodated in the schools at Lake Ave. RL Hyslop, Eastdale, Memorial and area. [Says Catholic students would go to St Francis Xavier …]. There are schools within the area …
Mitchell. Mr McCabe, do you want to add to that?
McCabe. I just want to provide clarification to councillor Bratina’s question as to what the effect on what you have before you would be would be in the case that one species of salamander came out the results rather than the other. That was a concern we had in preparing this agenda. If it is the more rare kind – the Jefferson, it may in fact increase the boundary of the ESA and/or increase the buffer. So staff don’t feel confident enough that we want council to proceed with considering and pass the bylaws, find out the DNA tests determine it’s the rare one and have to start the whole process over again. That’s why the recommendation before you to consider it but hold it until we see the results and if it’s the more common version then what we are recommending with respect to the boundary and buffer will still apply. If it’s the more rare, we will report back to you and possibly have it changed to the zoning bylaw in the official plan.
Bratina. A final question. Can someone give me an idea what the value to the school boards is that these properties have been sold for development. What do the school boards make on this?
McCabe. Values in this areas are going to approximately $350/360000 an acre. We don’t know what they paid for, but that’s the value.
Hickey-Evans: The whole area including the ESA is 8 acres – four and four. I don’t know what it is for the ESA lands.
Bratina: Okay. Somewhere in the range of $1 million.
Brian McHattie: “I just want to start off by trying to understand the Environmental Impact Statement process. Trying to understand how the terms of reference for the EIS were determined, which I think is very important because that led to the determination of the boundary and that sort of thing. So what was the basis or the context in which Dougan & Associates in this case were given the terms of reference for the EIS and how were those terms of reference determined? Is that a public process, or is it determined by city staff or by the developers? Can you give me a sense of that?”
Cathy Plosz: “..The terms of reference for the Environmental Impact Statement were determined. They’re normally determined with city staff and the Hamilton Conservation Authority. Sometimes we bring in, you know if its in the Niagara Escarpment we’ll bring them in, but normally its city staff with the Conservation Authority. In this case we focused on, we used the natural areas inventory from the original inventory done in 1993, and the Nature Counts inventory done in 2003. And those studies identified the main pond areas of interest for the terms of reference. So they identified the buttonbush community mosaic, pointed out the fact that it was a threatened migratory bird stopover area. So we draw from our past study, our past inventory work, in order to outline the terms of reference. And this is the standard procedure for many development applications where we – it’s very rare when we have a full blown environmental impact statement. Something like that would occur for a quarry or some large controversial development, but in this case for a smaller residential development it was thought to deal with what the natural areas inventories found.”
McHattie: “Just to clarify that for me. So when the terms of reference for the EIS are determined is the consultant told that there’s a development being proposed, and here’s what the development looks like? Here we have the designs for the development, how large it might be, and where it might be situated on the property, and is the ecological consultant asked to say where is the ESA boundary based on the development being there? Or is it where is the ESA boundary based on ecological requirements for the property?”
Plosz: “..The ESA boundary is usually is usually based on information that is based on ecological criteria, so the consultant would go through – and that’s what happened in this case – Dougan and Associates went through and identified what they thought was the significant portion of the site which met the ESA criteria. They delineated the boundary based on what they thought was ecologically required, and then – which was the red line on the map. So that was the boundary that was proposed on the ESA.”
McHattie: “And that was different than the original boundary that was through the natural areas inventory? And just so I understand the significance of this site – I’ve got down four different items here. I’ve got the buttonbush vegetation community which is rare in Hamilton and rare in Ontario – so provincial significance. The Black-crowned Night Heron colony, I guess, which is rare in Hamilton. [Plosz confirms]. And the migratory bird use of the site which qualifies in the Provincial Policy Statement for significant wildlife habitat. And the last one that I’ve got here, asks for recent field work … the blue spotted salamanders or Jefferson depending on the genetics which is rare in Hamilton – well I guess the blue-spots are rare in Hamilton and the Jeffersons are a threatened species provincially. So is that the four sort of significant either species or habitat types?”
Plosz: “That’s correct. The only correction I would make is that the blue spotted is uncommon in Hamilton; it’s not rare.”
McHattie: “And I’m just trying to get a sense of how the system works then. I think it was verified at the very beginning of the presentation, there was some extra fieldwork done a week or so ago and that’s when the blue spotted salamander was found for a second time, or a third time?”
Plosz: “That’s correct. The field work – we asked for additional. The Hamilton Conservation Authority and the city asked for additional field work as a result of the new application which was submitted to the city on the public school board property – so the southern part of the site. So that was why we had an ESAIEG meeting and we were having a site visit at the time.”
McHattie: “So this was just a week or two ago when the blue spotted salamander was found?”
Plosz: “That’s correct.”
McHattie: “I understand that is was found by some citizens previous to that as well …”
Plosz: “Yes, that’s correct and I should say we did get a picture of it just recently and it doesn’t look like a blue-spotted. The other thing that I should add is that the Hamilton Herpetofaunal Atlas identified this spot as a site, and we do have it in our natural heritage database as occurring on this site, so it’s definitely historically – we were talking to Bill Lamond who is our expert in Hamilton and it’s been on that site for twenty years.”
McHattie: “Now we’ve got these four areas of significance, I’m just trying to understand how we apply, or how we use that information. I’m just looking at page 14 of the staff report under Provincial Policy Statement. There’s two policies identified there, and policy 2.1.4 (d) outlines development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant wildlife habitat – in this case, that’s migratory bird habitat – unless it’s been demonstrated that there’s no negative impact on the natural features or their ecological functions. And then the next policy, 2.1.6, is similar but says shall not be permitted on adjacent lands unless the ecological function has been evaluated – and it goes on to talk about the importance of ecological function. And then on page 15 and I guess maybe 16, it refers to the Stoney Creek Official Plan. And it outlines subsection B 1.2.2 down at the bottom – environmental impact statement required for ESAs. And the top of page 17 it says that the EIS must demonstrate that ecological functions have been maintained and the effects of the proposed development have been identified and minimized through mitigation.
So with that introduction, Mr Chair, my question is would the blue spotted salamander or the Jefferson salamander – we’re not sure yet – or the buttonbush community with the black crowned night herons or the migratory birds. Can you explain for me exactly where or perhaps reference the EIS – I didn’t see it in there exactly – is with this proposed development, and we’ve seen pictures of it – it’s a pretty large part of the EIS or the natural site, the natural area – how will the ecological function of those four species and habitat types be maintained? For example, what are the ecological requirements of the Black-crowned Night Heron, and are the issues around proximity of development to a Black-crowned Night Heron colony? Or this blue spotted salamanders, buttonbush community? Those are significant sites. The way I read the policy in question – both at the provincial and the local level – is that it’s important to sort of review the function and what kind of area, for example, is required to determine if development should be allowed or not, or proximity thereof? So I didn’t read that anywhere. I’m wondering if you could help me out with that question.”
Plosz: “I think it might be good at this point if Ken Ursic wouldn’t mind coming up to speak to that in detail.” He is welcomed by Chair Mitchell.
Ursic: “Good evening. I’m Ken Ursic. I’m an ecologist with Dougan & Associates, the consultant you have retained … Your question was concerning how the line was determined. Obviously there were four separate criteria that we … examined in the determination of where that line went and protection of those functions. The easiest one, I’ll give you that one, is the buttonbush swamp community … which extends throughout the main pond. This community is provincially significant. It’s a wetland community. It’s quite sensitive to massive changes in hydrology, and our evaluation basically determined that what was proposed for the site in terms of Church Street Developments – we have specified mitigation measures to make sure that they don’t impact with the hydrology issue. So basically, any changes to the water quality, as well as the flows and fluctuations would have an impact on the system. And even though a stormwater management system hasn’t been prepared for the site, the EIS makes very strong recommendations that a hydrological investigation be conducted, perhaps at a future date to determine that those impacts don’t occur. So that’s the one criteria.
In terms of the migratory bird stopover, the area of wildlife concentration, we did extensive surveys of birds utilizing various area. We compared this site to Fifty Point during last spring’s bird migration. We visited the site numerous times and identified the different types of species utilizing the site as well as what portions of the site they were observed in and in what densities. And our determination was that this site was on par with Fifty Point Conservation Area in terms of its importance as a stopover area – in the diversity of species, the number of species coming through there, the number of birds … was on par with Fifty Point. And in our opinion, we looked at the … contact and it’s a city decision that needs to be made, but what the city needs to look at is some of the best examples of migratory stopover areas within its jurisdiction. And when we looked at sites along the lakeshore, we felt that this site would definitely qualify in terms of that function. Saying that, we also looked at what portions of the site were the most important for that function. And the biologists that were doing inventories advised us that the more mature forested portions of the site were the most important for that function.
In terms of the Black-crowned Night Heron just a correction, it’s not a colony there. I believe there was a single nest observed, and so I can’t really speak to the significance of a colony but the nest was observed in the area that’s being retained as an ESA, at least the area that we’re recommending be retained as an ESA. And
I think the final one was related to the salamanders, and that’s, I believe, Ms Plosz elaborated on that in terms of the determination of – it’s somewhat tied to the significance of the species and the status of the species. Obviously blue-spotted is considered uncommon, so it doesn’t necessarily meet the ESA criteria. So obviously the conservation requirements for them – the bar would be slightly lower. But saying that, you know, … Environmental Impact Studies ask for the protection of the species. It’s remarkable to us as biologists and ecologists to see that we have a buttonbush thicket swamp community persisting in this area. It’s remarkable to see we still have a population of salamanders retained in this environment, given the modifications that have occurred over the years in the landscape.
What we do know is the habitat requirements for both Blue-spotted and Jeffersons and their related species is that they breed in the ponds, preferably fish-free ponds. And in this case, this trapping several weeks ago, that’s where they were captured in the main pond. We also know that when they’re not breeding or laying eggs in the pond, they’re a subterranean species. They spend most of their time under the ground and in deciduous forest habitats primarily. They look for typically high quality habitats with a lot of leaf litter, organics and sandy loam. But given the circumstances and the urban context, beggars can’t be choosers. It’s a very small site, so the habitat, the amount of suitable habitat for this species on this site is quite narrow. It’s confined to a band of forest along the perimeter of the pond. Once you start venturing out of what we’re recommending as the ESA, into the light green section on the map, we’d be stepping into different type of forest community which is an ash community where the diversity is relatively low, where the trees are not .. and the ground conditions are definitely different. It’s a tighter clay moisture soil. We consider that to be sub-optimal. I’m not saying that salamanders can’t be found there, or can’t potentially be utilizing that habitat. But what I’m saying … our understanding is that the preferable habitat is the more mature deciduous forest which is also being utilized by birds and is also providing the primary sort of key ecological functions within this area that needs to be maintained.”
McHattie: Thanks, Mr Ursic. So with this additional development that is being proposed here, your sense’ll be there will be no negative effects on the ecological functions of those four categories you thought, or other animals that are not deemed significant in the context of what we’re talking about. I’m just trying to get a sense of - it seems intuitive to me that if the development goes in there’ll be impacts on the adjacent natural area. Thinking about even pets and other things that might occur when house developments go right up against in this case a five metre buffer area or in this case against the natural area. You didn’t seem to say that in previous comments, I just wanted to check to see if that’s - that’s the case.
Ursic: Yeah, most - most certainly any development will have impacts on the ecology of the area. [applause] This is the thing I won’t be - I’ve - we’ve never be - in that EIS clearly describes how much habitat is going to be lost, what types of species we feel are going to be impacted, it speaks to the potential impacts of cats and perhaps of pedestrian traffic on the ESA. So there’s no secret that there are going to be impacts. In terms of where the ESA boundary is, the issue is a bit more beyond whether we’re going to have an impact or not. It’s whether we going to have an impact on those features and functions that are considered significant at the city’s jurisdictional level. The ESA system isn’t established to protect every bit of green space that’s out there in the city. What the city does is looks at what’s in its land base, what is significant features and functions of the land base, and then it decides, OK we’re going to protect the most representative and some of the best examples of these features and functions in our land base. So our job is to - to look at what the most significant things that are happening on this site and establish the … based on the science and the information we have at hand, where that’s most
McHattie: Referring to my earlier questions about the context of the EIS, with a development pending sort of thing. If there wasn’t a development planned for this site where would you place the ESA boundary based on ecological needs rather than having the development there? I’m just trying to get a sense of the - of how much influence the development is having on the end result in terms of the ESA boundary?
Ursic: Through you Mr Chair. The ESA boundary was established with the knowledge that the development is being contemplated for this site, however plans were not provided to us at that time - we ignored any plans that were provided to us and - and you can see from the figure that’s on the screen that the red line corresponds with what we jointly with the city and the … and our ecologists walked and established in the field as being the most appropriate, and I believe that the Conservation Authority and ESAIEG endorsed that line. You can see the development isn’t necessarily respecting that line. We haven’t revised it based on the development. That line has remained there, to say here’s the original line that was established. Obviously the development is encroaching on that, and as a result of that, the EIS has responded by specifying numerous mitigation measures that the development - developer can enhance the adjacent natural area, to clean it up, to remove the trash, to plant native species, remove exotic species, and so forth. There’s numerous recommendations that I’ve ensued as a result of that choice to encroach. That we have to offset those impacts.
McHattie: I appreciate that. Thanks very much. [applause]
Mitchell: Councilor Clark.
Clark: Thank you Mr Chair. I want to go back in time a little bit, so that they can understand what’s happened here. When the original ESA boundaries were proposed, I think that was back in 2003, somewhere around there, and there were a number of ESAs that were coming forward at the same time, I’m going by memory, eleven, twelve, maybe thirteen I don’t know exactly, and this one didn’t go forward. I’ve heard lots of stories [uproar, “ask Di Ianni” . . .] OK, ladies and gentlemen, really. I’d like to ask some questions of the staff and you’ll hear the answers to my questions, but I can’t do that if you interrupt. I understand your frustration.
Mitchell: OK, Mr Clark, I’ll address that with the public here. It’s goin’a be a long meeting, but it will turn into a public one, so everybody will have their opportunity to speak. I’ve got six members of the public registered already, so I do have to ask that you be quiet, and pay respect for our councilors to ask the staff questions, and your opportunity will come. Thank you. Councilor Clark.
Clark: To reiterate my question. The proposal went forward with twelve to thirteen ESAs, I’m not sure exactly what the number was, one of them was removed. Why was it removed?
Hickey-Evans: Through you Mr Chairman. Back in 2003 when the original thirteen or fourteen had come forward, Community Beach Ponds, everybody knows, was part of that. When we reintroduced it in 2004 we removed that land from - on a temporary basis. Our report was very, very clear that it would be brought forward through a separate amendment, and the reason for that was - were - we weren’t a hundred per cent sure of the boundaries. So - which is typical of environmental - of ESAs if there’s any development or we are unsure of boundaries we conduct Environmental Impact Statements to determine the exact limits. We were unsure of the limits so we thought we’d better pull in the lands, do an Environmental Impact Statement and once those limits had been determined in a more rigorous way we would then bring forward an Official Plan Amendment with appropriate boundaries. So that’s the action we chose to do at that time.
Clark: Now I’m curious because the documentation that we received indicated that it didn’t come forth because of a technicality that there was no notification to a landowner.
Hickey-Evans: Through you Mr Chairman. For the purpose of this clarification, in 2003 an Official Plan Amendment was introduced to update our Environmentally Significant Areas layer, across the entire city. That amendment at that time, I think about eighteen months had passed and there was an identification that an error had occurred in the public notice. So, when an error occurs in a public notice, Official Plan Amendments are not legally constituted, therefore we went back to our original strategy of holding a public meeting and following the process through. So it was at that time when we did the second adoption of the amendment that Community Beach Ponds was checked, and decided that we would introduce it at a latter date. That’s the history of the Official Plan Amendment because it was a city-wide amendment it wasn’t specifically related to Community Beach Ponds, it was in fact a major update throughout the entire city.
Clark: Now the other ESAs that were approved at the time, were there any difficulties with their boundaries?
Hickey-Evans: There were a number - the short answer is “no.” No one had come forward at that time to identify a problem with the boundaries. However, it should be noted though, that even if someone came forward today and they wanted to know the exact boundaries and they weren’t happy with the boundary that we have on our map, they would go through the exact same process that we’re following today, which is a detailed Environmental Impact Statement to set the boundaries. The Official Plan allows for that, and that is how the process is contemplated. We’re trying to do our best, based on the information we have, but until you actually get down right to the property specific and do detailed studies, your boundaries may be subject to minor tweaking here and there.
Clark: And the Environmental Impact Study itself, who normally is responsible for the EIS on any ESA?
Plosz: Through you Mr Chair. The Environmental Impact Statements are conducted usually by private consulting firms, and they’re retained by the development applicant.
Clark: So in this case there seems to be - and it just pops up, I’m just asking a question. Why was the city a partner in the EIS? Wouldn’t we normally be a commenting agency on it, receiving their opinion we make a final determination as the planning authority?
Hickey-Evans: We are a part-owner of this land, on the Edgelake Park and so it’s in our best interests as a municipality to actually know from our perspective where our lands are, what we need to protect, and so that’s why we entered into the agreement, because it bounded three properties. You can see the boundaries by the dark blue lines, so it’s three owners, and so it’s prudent on our part to make sure our land’s protected as well.
Clark: The terms of reference that was attached to the EIS indicates that talks between the City of Hamilton and Church Street Development failed to reach an agreement on terms of reference and a consultant for the study, as a result the City of Hamilton will conduct a separate study on its portion of the proposed ESA. So the terms of reference indicate that you are going to do your own Environmental Impact Study on your land. So, my question still stands: why are we partners in this one? [murmuring offside] It’s the documentation you provided. Community Beach Pond Environmental Impact Study, page twenty-eight. [murmurs below threshold] As I understand it there’s three land owners in question. [28 second pause] I’ll read the paragraph for you
Hickey-Evans: Yeah, -
Clark: “The area proposed as an ESA is under three separate ownerships: City of Hamilton, Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, and Church Street Developments. They should be studied as a whole unit, splitting the process into smaller components (i.e. studying parts of the land separately) is undesirable as ecological systems must be viewed as a whole. However, talks between the City of Hamilton and Church Street Developments failed to reach an agreement on terms of reference and a consultant for this study, as a result the City of Hamilton will conduct a separate study on its portion of the proposed ESA.
Hickey-Evans: Through you Mr Chair. That was a caveat. We were having some discussion about how the terms of reference was going on, and if we could not reach an agreement it would not nullify the City’s responsibility to undertake an Environmental Impact Statement, for our lands only, to ensure our protection. We have always at staff been very, very cognizant of the protection of the ESA, and then from our perspective being a municipal - being a land owner in this area, and that’s what that was intended to do.
Clark: So does this Environmental Impact Study constitute a study on the Church Development lands, as well as the City of Hamilton owned lands? Yes or no?
Plosz: Through you Mr Chair. Yes, this study - what is done by the three parties and - and the main reason we had an interest - I think we all recognized it was an opportunity to - look at the - to examine the ESA boundary and to refine it. The City was interested in refining it on our section of the property and the Public School Board, I believe they had an interest because they were - you know, certainly considering - the sale of the land too. So they - I think all three land owners had an interest in determining exactly where the boundary was on their portion of the land.
Clark: So, this document that we have is the EIS for the City-owned land as well.
Plosz: That’s correct. It’s an EIS to identify the ESA boundary. Obviously we’re not proposing any development, so the impact assessment which is part of the EIS only deals with the Church Street section, because that’s the only section proposed for development at this time.
Clark: So, there are a few more Environmental Impact Studies that have to be done?
Plosz: No. There won’t be one for the city-owned property because no development is being proposed for Edgelake Park. The purpose of an EIS, an Environmental Impact Statement, there’s usually two reasons. One, we refine the ESA boundary. The reason we refine the ESA boundary is because - when we draw out our ESA boundaries on our mapping on our Official Plan, they are as Joanne says, general in nature, and the Official Plan speaks to this, that what happens with natural areas is - it’s difficult to define boundaries. Boundaries change over time, there’s regeneration, you know, there are things happening with boundaries that five years from now the mapping may be different. So the Environmental Impact Statement, first off, allows us to refine the boundaries because the boundaries on the mapping, we try and keep them up to date but they could be five years old. So - that’s the first thing that the EIS does and that was the purpose of the City getting involved in the EIS was to define the boundaries of our property. The second part of the EIS is to look at a development proposal, because they are usually done as a result of a private development proposal, and to determine first of all, whether there will be significant impacts on the features and functions for which the area was designated as an ESA, and - and then lastly, of course, to recommend any mitigation measures of development - development were to be permitted.
Clark: The Hamilton Conservation Authority, do they support this recommendation from our city?
Kirsten West: Yes, they do. If you look at our staff report their comments are under the section of - consultations.
Clark: What about the ESAIEG group?
West: It also went through ESAIEG and they have recommended a few - some additional mitigative measures as well, that will be incorporated into the site-plan application __ _.
Clark: Do we have copies of the ESAG report ‘cause I couldn’t find it here?
West: The ESAG? The meeting minutes are what was - you look under the same section where the Conservation Authority is, I think their’s is before the Conservation Authority’s and it was what their meeting - what their minutes said.
Clark: So it’s not the actual minutes, it’s just you reiterating what they said, that’s what we have here.
West: Well, its - the minutes came out with a listing of what happened at the meeting and what the recommendations of ESAIEG were. I included the recommendations and relevant comments in consultations.
Clark: You state that ESAIEG generally agreed with the approach to the ESA boundary, and later on states that the HCA shares the same concerns as ESAIEG and support the recommendations made, they have concerns about encroachment and hydrogeology.
West: Correct. At that time a five-metre buffer was being proposed. This is the development concept that is before us today is the result of changes that were required because of ESAIEG’s and Conservation Authority’s recommendations. So the concerns that ESAIEG that were about the delineation of a buffer have been addressed through ESAIEG asking for a five metre buffer which is what Church Street Developments has …
Clark: In future it would be helpful to have the actual reports … ESAIEG …
Plosz: Just a clarification. The ESAIEG meeting minutes are fully contained within this report. Usually the meeting minutes, there’s no report from ESAIEG. Staff, which is myself, records the minutes and then the minutes are circulated to the group and they confirm that they are factually correct. And so Kristen has just simply taken the meeting minutes and placed them into the report.
Clark: Which report are you referring to?
Plosz: The staff report
West: …starts on page 18 and it goes through to page 19 and to page 20
Clark: Are you telling me that the fact that it says Hamilton Conservation Authority on top it, that it’s paraphrased or the actual report’s in there?
West: No, in the report, the page number is in the header. I have re-typed their comments.
Clark: Oh I see. Thank you. The only other question that I have now is that there have been changes to the revised recommendation by staff and it would appear as though they’re recommending that we approve it tonight, subject to a holding provision. Is that a correct interpretation?
Mallard: It’s not the application of a holding provision. Our recommendation is that we approve it tonight, but before the actual bylaw is adopted of the official plan amendments proceed to council for adoption and approval, that we get the information back on the DNA for the salamanders, and if necessary we … there’s no requirement for that, then we will report back to committee and our recommendations as presented will go forward to council. But we will report back to committee regardless.
Clark: I’m just curious why that’s the recommendation. Why wouldn’t you simply wait until you get the report back, add the information and then make the decision? Why would we approve first and then?
Mallard: The reason is we have scheduled a public meeting to fulfill the requirement under the Planning Act for a public meeting. If there is no further change required as a result of that, then there is no need for any further public involvement and participation and the recommendations can go forward. If it requires further studies, and any change is required to the boundary of the ESA or the zoning …
Ferguson: This property’s currently zoned for institutional?
West: Yes, that’s correct.
Ferguson: Does that meant that the school board could use this site if they wish and build a school without any further rezoning.
West: That’s also correct. We would require them in the site plan process for the school to go through the ESAIEG process and Environmental Impact Statement to adjust the ESA (pause) impacts, and then at some point in time. The site plan is not a public process.
Ferguson: Correct. So if they wanted to build a school, they would just have to file a site plan in regards to the site before construct a school?
West: Correct.
Mitchell: Okay I have second time speakers. Councillor McHattie and councillor Whitehead, please.
McHattie: Just a question I forgot to ask earlier. In terms of the four categories of significance, etc, was the site reviewed by the province as a provincially significant wetland? If not, why not? I don’t know the answer to that question…
Plosz: The Ministry of Natural Resources has not evaluated the wetland at all.
McHattie: In your opinion, Cathy, as a planner, or perhaps maybe Mr Ursic has a comment, is that not something that we’d want to do, given the significant buttonbush community and the …
Plosz: Uh. I’m going to defer to Ken on the ecology of it, but I will say as a planner if it were a provincially significant wetland, it would probably be delineated around the buttonbush community, and I don’t think that it’s – provincially significant wetlands usually require a 30 metre buffers which is being provided. So I don’t know if it would make too much change.
McHattie: We haven’t had the opportunity to ask the province to do that? … I should re-phrase that as well because I understand the consulting companies do wetland evaluation on behalf of the province. They’ve been through the training and they do that, so maybe that’s a question for Ken whether they decided not to do that or it wasn’t posted in the terms of reference perhaps.
Plosz: It actually wasn’t in the terms of reference. Again, we just didn’t have any indication that it would, that that was something that needed to be done, as far as evaluating it.
Mitchell: Ken, are you comfortable with that?
McHattie: Okay, that’s fine. It’s certainly something that would be of interest to me as outstanding concern for information. Mr Chair…
Mallard: Sorry for interrupting. Specifically through our circularization we have an active Conservation Authority … to comment for Ministry of Natural Resources and should they identify any issues they would then bump it up … … Conservation Authority is wearing a Ministry hat in its …. Capacity
Plosz: I should also mention that we had contacted the province and they just came back with a written review today and they did confirm it hadn’t been evaluated, but I know Donald Kirk who is the ecologist with MNR drove by the site last week and didn’t indicate any need to evaluate it [loud extended laughter]
McHattie: I understand there may not be any need to evaluate specifically. We want all the wetlands throughout Hamilton evaluated, just so we know whether or not they’re provincially significant or not, to increase our information that it should be … But you’ve replied on that. The last question I have is just the size of the ESA based on the different boundaries. I’d like to know the size of the original ESA – and by original I mean the natural areas inventory version that which I guess was probably the first time this was designated by the city, before it was removed? And the size of the ESA as per Dougan & Associates.? And the size of the ESA as per the developer or the city in terms of the final what we have before us today?
Mitchell: Okay Cathy, you’ve got to look that up? I’ll go one to councillor Duvall for first time question and we’ll come back to that councillor McHattie. Councillor Duvall.
Duvall: Reading this report, I just want to make this clear. If this application was denied, could you build a school or a police station or some kind of a library with no protection for the natural environment here?
Mitchell: Who wants to take that? Mr Mallard?
Mallard: Under the current institutional zoning that’s in place, there’s a broad range of what we consider small scale institutional uses permitted. Uses that you referred to as the school, police station, place of worship, … library. It also contemplates certain residential uses such as a residential care facility, group homes. These would all be as of right. They would be subject to site plan approval and at that stage we would endeavour to have an environmental impact statement … to provide for indicating any measures on the remaining ….
Mitchell: Thank you.
Mallard continues: There’s no public input involved in that process whatsoever. It’s strictly an administrative process with city staff.
Mitchell: Cathy do you have answers to councillor McHattie’s questions.
Plosz: Actually I don’t have areas, but I can get back to you on that.
McHattie: Yes, I think that would be important information. My sense is the size of the ESA is very much smaller than it was originally identified from an ecological perspective as compared to when it was evaluated from a development perspective. So that to me is – I’ll save comments on that until later on in the process.
Mitchell: Okay. Councillor Whitehead for a second time.
Whitehead: Just going to expand on councillor McHattie’s question. What kind of science was established in regards to the original lines for the inventory?
Plosz: The original ESA boundary as proposed in the 2003 official plan amendment is based on the natural areas inventory and the nature counts inventories that were done – it was a partnership between the Hamilton Naturalists’ Club and the City of Hamilton. These were large scale inventories that looked at all the natural areas in Hamilton. So that’s what the boundaries that we use in our ESAs are usually the same boundaries that the Hamilton Naturalists’ Club study recommends.
Whitehead: Okay. When we’re dealing with ESAs across the city, do we find we’re often redefining ESAs from the inventory based on environmental [pause]
Plosz. Yeah. The environmental impact statements usually make refinements to the ESA boundaries. It could be extensions to ESA boundaries. They could be, uh, uh, reductions in ESA boundaries based on the original field work and the official plan marking. So we get all different situations.
Whitehead: So would it be fair to say that the Naturalist approach would be like the 50,000 foot level and then when we get to the actual environmental impact we’re getting down closer to the ground relative to the implications and impacts.
Plosz: Well not necessarily because the natural areas inventory. We do them every ten years. We’re trying to do them every ten years. So the problem is not so much that field work wasn’t done, because there was detailed field work done, very extensive fieldwork done by very competent people. But what happens is, even over five years, you know you can see changes in natural areas over very short times. So this refinement is just basically to deal with some of the changes. If you get a few dry years in a row, then wet areas can dry and they can completely change their character. Natural succession occurs. So it’s more to do with natural changes to areas.
Whitehead: The original drawing, there’s a big finger that was part of the inventory. The thing has disappeared and I from the reports don’t have a clear understanding as to why the finger was no longer needed for the ESA.
Plosz: You’re referring to the fingers in appendix H? [Whitehead confirms]. Yes, those were taken and again these are deliniated based on air photos and then refined based on field work. And it seems they were meant to pick up some of the more mature trees and perhaps, and again I can get Ken Ursic to describe why we ended up changing that. We felt that a larger block of habitat is better; that it’s better not to have these fingers coming out because it creates more edge habitat, and edge habitat, there’s more impact on natural areas where there’s increased edge. So we felt that picking up the ponds with the buttonbush community, providing a stronger buffer around that and getting a bigger contiguous block of habitat would be better for the overall health of the ESA.
Whitehead: Does that finger represent mature growth and the ash trees, or is that growth consistent with the mature growth that’s been identified around the pond?
Plosz: That area is a little difficult to see on the map. There’s actually some yellow dots that represent trees and I think they’re 30 centimetre diameter breast height, so they’re 25 years old or so. So they’re you know not a super mature tree but they’re fairly basic of what’s occurring on the surrounding community. That whole green community is a fairly mature … compared to community number seven.
Whitehead: I’d be interested in Ken’s … in the context of the actually Jefferson Salamander, if that’s what is determined, whether that mature growth would be consistent with the type of habitat that the salamanders would be utilizing for their protection. I’ll save that for later.
Mitchell: You asked a question.
Whitehead: I asked in the context of we’ve had a number of floods and problems with … weather that we’ve received in this community. And you take a look at – you know you’re going to have a problem when you have surface area the amount of absorption in storm management. You addressed some of that when ESAIEG was making some recommendations in regards to protecting some of the vegetation growth along the watershed. The concern is reverse – the question I’m really asking is not so much what is going to be … to divert the waterflow from the hard surfaces through engineering. I guess my concern is that in nature of rainfall. What would that development relative to the … that that wetland might need in regards to the absorption. So you see it’s the reverse – not issue of hard surface water fluctuating pond, but it’s more the pond being impacted by … How that’s going to be handled relative to protecting the species around the pond?
Plosz: Your concern is that the pond level will raise and will be higher?
Whitehead: Right. Hundred year storm – which is now a ten year storm.
Mitchell: So how’s the stormwater management going to affect this area?
Plosz: I really can’t say at this point. It would require a stormwater management plan – and that is key. I mean that’s one of our recommendations and it’s one of things that ESAIEG committee has to review, so I really can’t speculate on that right now. I do know that it’s extremely important that the hydrological regime of the area, as Ken says, is maintained. So it can take some fluctuations, but it can’t take long term flooding. But that’s going to have be looked at in stormwater management and we’ll be looking at that carefully.
Mitchell: Okay, councillor Whitehead …
Whitehead: The setbacks … the Conservation Authority and they’re not working in the context of the type of … we’ve been talking about. You’re talking about a 5 metre setback? How was that selected? Is that just a current standard that we go to and plop down or is there real science behind that?
Plosz: Yes, buffers are kind of an interesting area. Normally on buffer … according to a variety of criteria, so I can’t give you a set standard that we use. They will differ according to the habitat and concerns, according to what the proposal is. In general, for woodlands, buffers range from 5 to 10 metres. We tend to use the larger buffers for areas adjacent to something like escarpment areas, something that’s in Dundas Valley or Beverly Swamp or provincially significant wetland. Something very – some of the larger natural areas that we have, or an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest. So something we tend to go for higher buffers for areas like that. For smaller urban woodlots we tend to go with 5 metre buffers within woodlands. The buffer changes again according to whether it’s a stream, so that usually gets an increased buffer.
Whitehead: The reason why I’m asking the questions is that in my area and certainly the experience in the Meadowlands and … Cootes Paradise. The question is if the setbacks we use now adequately reviewed with regard to the standards. So going back to … with regards to the we go to, I’m trying to understand if there’s a science in regards to ensuring we are protecting the ESA land with setback, or in fact we’re just borrowing off the provincial standards and utilizing those standards…?
Mitchell: Buffers. Science of buffers.
Ursic: …just to clarify when we delineated the ESA boundary in the field, the line was primarily placed at the drip line on the edge of the more mature trees, which corresponded with the deciduous forestry – the upland deciduous forestry .. as opposed to the Green Ash deciduous forestry. And the line that you see came out to capture a mature shagbark hickory tree that we consider to be part of that species complement that’s found in that community. The buffer – sorry – the ESA boundary was delineated inclusive of a buffer. We then marked the base of the trees, against the trunk of the tree, was found to be a buffer. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, when you identify key natural heritage features of significant woodlands, you’re actually identifying the trunk of the tree – where the actual trunk of the tree is – and then applying additional buffers you would look at the five metres the branches are hanging out or the ten metres. If you look at Edgelake Park, some of the trees are quite mature in there, the oak trees, and in the barrens come out a good 6, 7, 8 metres from the trunk of the tree. So in those cases the suggested ESA boundary was wider because of that. So the science of buffers is a fascinating subject, but I don’t think we have.
Mitchell: Councillor Whitehead, is that all. Thank you. Councillor Pasuta, first time.
Pasuta: Dougan and Associates report. I believe I’ve not seen it. I don’t believe my colleagues have seen it. I believe there’s missing information here tonight. I’d like to entertain it and the opportunity to … this report. That’s one thing I’ve got to say. And the second thing – the Church Street Developments, the portion that’s left of the ESA that’s there should this development go ahead. Is there any indication from the Church Street Developments what they’re intending to do with this property? Do they intend to retain it, manage it, donate it, manage it? That’s another question. And I’m looking for there’s supposed to be two ponds on here. I haven’t seen where the two ponds are, and I’d like to see where they are. And in conjuction with the two ponds I’ve heard about the turtles that go from one pond to another and they cross the street somewhere. And I’d like to be informed on that too.
West: Through you Mr Chair, this is one pond here. This is the one that’s considered provincially significant … the buttonbush community is the whole area there. Number thirteen is a dug pond that’s also on the site.
Mitchell: Does dug pond mean man-made pond at one time? Okay.
West: This here is the Community Beach Pond here. This is the pond here and this will be the street they cross. I believe the reference in here they go along Church Street and go across. [someone says Francis Street too] And along Francis to this other pond.
Pasuta: Okay that some of the comments. Back to Church Street Developments and did they indicate what they plan to do with the land, indicating managing it, or donating it to some group or handing it back to the city?
West: I’d ask John Ariens that.
Mitchell: [explains Ariens is going to speak next on behalf of developer and Pasuta says he’ll wait.]
Pasuta: And Dougan & Associates report … is there any chance of fellow councillor members here getting the Dougan Associates report?
Plosz: Yes I have an on-line version. I can email it to everybody.
Mitchell: Okay, we’ll get that done. So next on the agenda will the applicant’s agent John Ariens like to address the committee regarding the zoning application by Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic School District School Board? Hello John, welcome, and you heard a couple of questions pertaining to your concerns. If you address those first, please, and then any comments you may have about the application.
Ariens: Thank you Mr Chairman, members of committee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is John Ariens. I’m vice president of Planning and Engineering Initiatives and I’m here on behalf of Church Street Developments who have an agreement to purchase the separate school site, the most northerly block. Basically my role here this evening is quite straightforward. I’m a land use planner. I rely on the environmental experts. I rely on Dougan – their birders, their salamander experts, to determine where the line is on – the slides they showed it as a red line – defined the boundary of the ESA. Let’s for all intents and purposes call it a green line because that’s really what it is.
Once the green line is established, my job as a land use planner then is what is the appropriate land use on the land that is not covered by the green line. In other words, the surface land that’s left over. And when you have this development proposal before you which is a small enclave of 42 townhouses. And I agree with staff that that’s an appropriate form of development – you know, it meets the regional, local, provincial planning policies and objectives. When we discovered recently that the science behind the green line may be subject to change based on recent discovery and the confirmation about the salamander species, my client is prepared to accept the recommendations of staff. Let’s do the science. Let’s do the environmental research. Let’s find out for sure where the green line is because no one in this room wants to go and destroy important habitat. I think we’re all on the same side.
This has been a two year cooperative process between the city, the public board, and Church Street Developments in order to come together with the environmental impact statement, the terms of reference, the funding for the studies. ESAIEG has accepted the location of the line. The Conservation Authority has accepted the location of the line. What’s left over is approximately 58% of what was intended as a public school – or, pardon me – a separate public school site, leaving approximately 42% as a natural environment area.
And in answer to one of the councillor’s questions, wherever that line is determined, whatever is one the green side will be dedicated to a public agency – more than likely the Conservation Authority of the City of Hamilton. Our client has no interest in retaining and keeping that property.
The form of development proposed is a standard condominium development. Special designs have been incorporated to address the Church Street frontage. We have no units fronting that street. We have planned this development which we think will result in a compatible streetscape. Special architectural designs will be incorporated onto the frontage units to make sure it’s a compatible development.
Another councillor asked a question about stormwater management and we will be dealing with that particular issue. We would have to maintain certain base flows heading in a westerly direction to maintain whatever water is feeding that environmentally sensitive area. We have to maintain that. Our main discharge point is Lake Ontario to the north and we’re only one tier of blocks away. Mr Vander Marel is one of the principles of Church Street Developments. He owns the properties directly to the north. So we do have an immediate outlet available to the lake for stormwater discharge purposes. Having said that, stormwater management also deals with quality issues, and with – whether it’s mechanical means such as a stormwater interceptor unit or other means, more natural means – stormwater will be controlled. It will address the quality issues before going in a westerly direction.
So again, as a planner, I think my role here is fairly straightforward. We need to determine where the green line is here. Once that line has been established, we’re very confident it’s not going to shift significantly whether it’s blue-spotted or Jefferson or Tremblay salamander. We’ve fairly confident that the habitat will be … and we look forward to receiving those results and moving forward with this application. [27:45]
Mitchell: Mr Ariens would you sign in that book there with your address and so on. Councillor Pasuta are you satisfied with that answer. [he affirms he is]. Okay. Councillor Bratina.
Bratina: Through you Mr Chair, all you want is to design the study to know where the line is. Why does it encroach the line at that point?
Ariens: As Mr Ursic indicated, it’s one shagbark hickory tree that has been identified as the reason that that line bows out and as complete – it’s a balancing act that we’re dealing with. And in compensation for removing that shagbark hickory our client has agreed to go into the ESA, plant additional natural native species, remove the invasive non natural native species, clean up the garbage, clean out the trash that’s been dumped there over the years. So again, it’s a tradeoff sir.
McHattie: Just trying to understand the nature of your work, PEIL’s work. I always respected PEIL’s work but my understanding in this is the planner who was working on this project for your firm from the beginning, and carrying on as far as I know, is also a separate school trustee, is also on the Conservation Authority Board. This property is owned by the separate school board as well, so [talking off-mic] I’m just trying to understand the [someone is repeatedly calling out ‘conflict of interest’ in the background] …because I know this is very important to you, John. I’m just trying to understand what the thinking was at PEIL as the project showed up and evolved?
Ariens: You’re referring to my partner Mr Manchia. Since day one when this thing was before the school board, he declared a conflict of interest with the board. He has not put himself forward as a trustee representing. I’m here on behalf of Church Street Developments. Mr Manchia was retained by Church Street Developments [someone calls out ‘and stands to be paid’] from day one he has declared that conflict at the board. As professional planners we adhere to a very strict code of ethics, sir, and we uphold those codes with all our integrity. We are one of the largest planning and engineering firms in Hamilton and we take pride in our reputation.
McHattie: Okay. Thanks
Mitchell: Okay, I want to thank you. Thanks John.
Ariens: And if there are any questions …
Mitchell: [Reads standard statement on public input as it relates to right to appeal to OMB. Introduces list of six registered speakers. Asks everyone who speaks to sign in.]
Sherry Revesz: Mr Chair, councillors, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. Mr Ursic, I guess I have just one question. When you were talking about the boundaries, you said no plans were given to you but then you turned around right away and you said, well yes, we ignored all the plans that were given to us. So if …
interrupted by Chair Mitchell: Sherry, we need to go through carefully … directed to staff. When you ask those questions our councillors will note them down for you and we will get them answered after your presentation. And if you have questions written down and you want to hand in to our clerk’s department, we’ll get those answered for you too.
Revesz: Okay. I apologize. This is very interesting timing. I am not sure if you are all aware, but I would like to acknowledge that this is Earth Week. We were very fortunate to be invited to Earth Day Hamilton this past weekend. It was a great success and it was fantastic to see all these people from all walks of life get involved in understanding the environment. Mr Larry Pomerantz, I thank you for the invitation, and I and my family will be there again next year to help celebrate this occasion.
We are here, we are very much here, to ask you, our elected politicians, to listen to the facts both morally and legally and we ask you to support your constituents and reject this zoning by-law change that affects Community Beach Ponds.
We received a letter back in June of 2006 stating that there was a rezoning application in to the City of Hamilton for the purpose to amend the City of Stoney Creek Zoning zoning by-law 3692-92 from the Institutional “IS” Zone to the Multiple Residential “RM3” Zone. What happened next could be written as a book. Our brief summaries below are nine, very long, very hard, months of research, into the Community Beach Ponds fiasco.
We attended an open house on August 15, 2006. We met with close to 100 people in attendance. We were told, and I quote, “whether you like it or not, the development is going to happen.” That is just wrong. We have heard earlier of the inconsistencies and incorrect information that was given to us by both the City of Hamilton and the developers.
Ms. Pearson, you spoke that night that a school could go up at any time without even being discussed as these lands are designated as IS – which is institutional. This would not be the case if the Environmental Sensitive Area (ESA) status was still in force and was not removed by the City of Hamilton over a paper error. There are limits to what and where buildings are allowed on ESA lands. That is why, I believe, the designation needed to be removed before the lands were put up for sale. The onus would then be on the school boards to justify to the public, to the taxpayer and to the government why they would snub their noses at the environment. What are we teaching our children? We are all responsible for the environment, except the school boards? We hold public corporations responsible for the environment, not the governments?
I was told, “well Sherry, the school boards are strapped for cash.” We are all strapped for cash. That does not give them the right to use our monies against us and contrary to the health and well being of Hamilton residents.
Mr. chair, when Mr. Manchia spoke to us at the last meeting, he stated that he had found in his words, “the loop hole” to have the ESA rescinded. I have a few questions from that:
Was he a Separate School Board Trustee in 2004? Was it not Mr. Manchia on November 2, 2004, in the Planning and Economic Development Board Meeting that addressed committee on behalf of his clients, Mr. Murray VanderMarel, the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic School Board and the Hamilton-Wentworth Public School Board and that he proposed that the decision on OPA (Official Plan Amendment) 97 should be rescinded due to a circulation error? These are the exact words. Did he declare his conflict after this meeting since he spoke on behalf of all parties?
Mr. Mancia also stated, to us and to the paper that he declared a conflict of interest to the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic School Board? Is this in writing? If he declared his conflict of interest with the school board, does that relieve him from following the Code of Ethics of Trustees? One in particular that concerns me tonight: Not use my position for personal advantage or to the advantage of any other individual apart from the total interest of the school board, and I will resist outside pressure to so use my position.
This was given to me by the school board trustees. Has he declared any conflict of interest to the Ontario Professional Planners Institute? This is more than a one way street. This is a three way street that we’re talking about.
Mr. Manchia also sits on the Board of the Hamilton Conservation Authority. The Hamilton Conservation Authority was consulted in regards to the Community Beach Ponds. Has he declared any conflict of interest with them? In writing? They have a decision to make on these lands, and he sits on their board. Did he have any influence?
Mitchell: It’s my understanding, Sherry, that he did declare, but keep all your questions and hand them in. Cause we need legal answers …
Revesz: In the public meeting in August, it was brought to the City’s staff attention that there are rare species in the forest. We actually brought to the meeting a salamander – the Blue Spotted Salamander that I had brought forward before, we had brought to the meeting in August. We had shown staff this salamander that was in there. Why was it not brought forward to you then, and. That was a question from me. The Jefferson Salamander is a threatened species.
The Jefferson Salamander is a Nationally Threatened Species. This brings me to the Dougan and Associates report. The Environmental Impact Statement that was commissioned by Church Street Developments, the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Wentworth Public School Board – all of whom have a financial vested interest in these lands.
I have the following issues with the Dougan report. This is not a full Environmental Impact Statement. It is a migratory bird survey only. It started in May tenth,well after spring migration and it is less then 19 hours in total with a few hours to cover breeding birds, site walk and vegetation survey.
There is no mention of the found salamander. There is no mention that this site is recognized in the Stoney Creek Official Plan as Open Spaces and Natural Environment System. There is no mention of the breeding swans. There is no mention that Environment Canada has stated that there are Milksnakes, Blandings Turtles and Stinkpot Turtles that are known to be in this area and would be protected under SARA (Species at Risk Act).
Let me correct myself, there is mention in the Dougan Report of a Stinkpot Turtle. Has this been reported to SARA? What was also mentioned is – and this is their final analysis once you read their report - direct impacts will include the loss of habitat, elimination and/or displacement of species populations and a reduction in overall species diversity. The clearing of these areas will result in a significant reduction of habitat for flora and fauna utilizing the area.
When I spoke with Dougan they stated that the new boundaries were given to them and they worked on that criteria. They also stated that they wanted to do more work but they followed their mandate. I was particularly concerned with the timing of the bird survey. From what I read and what I have been told by bird watching experts, bird surveys are done in both the spring and the fall and usually over a two year period because different birds will migrate at different times due to wind patterns, etc. Dougan agreed and actually stated that there are more birds migrating in the fall then in the spring. Again, they would have loved to have done more research on this property. We agree there should have been more. Remember the rule is when – and this comes from the Ontario – I’ll have to get the exact wording, or sorry, the exact paragraph that says: In an Environmental Impact Study, the client is always the Environment. The client has been let down.
I made a phone call about a week ago to get the Nature Counts to the Hamilton Conservation Authority. This came as a surprise to them because they specifically said to me today – Sherry, you brought up a very good point. Nobody has asked us for this. The Dougan report did not include that in their study. So … that they were … there, like this blue-spotted salamander, which also they refer to as a Tremblay, which I guess is a hybrid between the two – and they could have seen that, and could have done it, and came … natural counts. So what I’m saying is that the Dougan report should be taken under consideration at this time until they do a full environmental impact study, until they look at the Nature Counts and take that all into consideration.
This brings me to a meeting help with city staff. The conversation started with these lands were never designated ESA. That led to a big disagreement, with us showing them the by-law that designed them and others as ESA. There response was that it was never legal because of a circulation error. In a meeting with city staff was asked of them if the City of Hamilton sought legal advice on the matter of excluding these lands from the new OPA 115 and the answer was ‘yes’. We asked to see a copy of the legal documentation and we were told that we could not because it was confidential on the grounds of client/lawyer privilege. We decided to ask for this decision under FOI (Freedom of Information). What we received back was even more of a shock and I quote – the Legal Services Division was never involved in this matter; hence there are no responsive records.
You deem something to be not legal and you have legal staff available to you and you would not seek out their advice and then mislead the public once again?
We first spoke with the Hamilton Conservation Authority back in the summer. Unfortunately, the person we spoke to, Mr Bruce Duncan, the head of the HCA, died shortly after in a car crash. He told me, and this has been confirmed by another member of the Hamilton Conservation Authority, that he did not know that the Community Beach Ponds were no longer part of the ESA and he would be very surprised to see an ESA removed.
We later met with others from the Hamilton Conservation Authority and they stated they did not know that the Community Beach Ponds were undesignated, rescinded or whatever wording will be the flavor of the month tonight. Because you deem the process to be not legal, I guess that is your way around not informing the Hamilton Conservation Authority of the change. And if they were informed of the change, then it was not read by them at the time of our meeting. The Hamilton Conservation Authority turned down this land to purchase because they say, in their documentation, they were already an ESA. They should therefore be given the right again to purchase these lands, if you’re now deeming them not to be ESA.
This brings me to ESAIEG. I have personally requested meetings with the group from ESAIEG on different occasions. To date, I have not been granted this meeting. You are welcome to present technical information - species occurrence records, wildlife observations to an ESAIEG meeting that adds to the information from the Dougan and Associates Environmental Impact Statement, which focused on migratory birds. I once again asked to present to ESAIEG this past month. I did not hear back from the group.
You can imagine my surprise recently when I saw a lot of cars parked outside our park. We investigated who was there and it was the group from ESAIEG doing a tour of the back site, which is the bog in the park. I introduced myself and we had a few discussions before I was interrupted by the developers agent for the Public School Board site. When I reviewed the other ESAIEG meeting notes, I realized that they had a meeting with Mr Manchia and the developers. Do you not feel this is unfair? How did the agents for the developers get a meeting with ESAIEG and not the people in the community? Did they bring technical information to the table that I couldn’t?
Ms. Pearson. We had coffee for over two hours the other evening. In that meeting, I discussed how we might be able to find funding to purchase these lands and turn them over to a conservation group for preservation and your comment, and I quote, was - well that is great but who is going to pay the developers. [noise from audience then applause] I said, Maria, this is part of doing business, it is their due diligence, they knew going into this that it was, at one time, ESA lands. You started: you don’t understand, they have put over two years and a lot of money into this already. Are you telling me that the City of Hamilton and city councilors are in the position of agreeing to zoning changes based on the amount of monies and time a developer spends? [applause]
Mitchell: I have councillor Pearson on as the first speaker when you’re done. [noise from audience]. Councillor Pearson, you may note some of these question for you. Thank you.
Revesz: Do you have any idea of how much time and monies that I have spent? With absolutely no financial benefit to me, or us as a group? You also stated that one concern raised by a citizen is that this would bring down the value of their homes. You were assuring me that this would not happen and that the values of our homes would actually increase. Councilors, we are here today to tell you that we believe there are more important things in life than money. [applause] It is not always about money. Take this from me first hand. It is not how much life you have that matters, it is what you do with that life that matters.
When there was a circulation going around – from planning going around to all the different departments in the city, they had questions. So the developer fills out the questions and then goes around and all these departments can comment. Well there was a big error in one of them and that was were these lands ever subject to an official plan amendment. And the answer was no. Well that’s an error. They should know and have to know by your documentation … or what was in there. I sent an email to the city, and to the mayor direct, and requested that it be changed. Please amend and recirculate it to the various departments. They refused. They said if you have any concerns you can bring it up on the 24th. However, my issue is, if you send out false information for comment from the other departments in the city of Hamilton, and you know they’re wrong and you don’t correct it, then it becomes a lie. They can’t comment correctly if they didn’t know it was an ESA at one time and why it was an ESA.
The forest and horticulture section – this is a quote in big black letters – the Forestry and Horticulture Section has no alternative but to agree to this change in zoning from Industrial to Multiple residential, but feels strongly that this area should remain as undeveloped as possible. Why do they feel they have no alterative? Did they know that these lands were once a part of an OPA that designated them an ESA? Would they have a different comment if they were to see that the … was part of an ESA. You talk to any birder in the area – and believe me there’s quite a few – they will tell you that the birds that migrate aren’t necessarily just by the pond. They’re all over that four acre parcel. They need those lands to stop and rest before taking that migration route over Lake Ontario. They will decrease or not visit at all if we get rid of this site.
Also one of the major questions I have is that back pond number 13. When I first met the city – and I do know that it’s a man-made pond. I brought up the concern that we have that swans, duck, the heron are breeding in there. I was told that was environmentally insignificant because it was man-made. I was later told and it was confirmed by the Hamilton Conservation Authority, that whether it’s man-made or not, if sufficient wildlife breeding habitat that does become significant. You can not avoid that. And the reason I’m bringing that up today, is that I know it’s on public land, however if we deem it to be significant then what is the encroachment going to be on the ponds or the Catholic board site? Could that development be encroaching on this significant site and pond?
Also when I found the blue salamander – whether it’s blue or it’s the hybrid or whether it’s the Jefferson Salamander – it was not found in the pond. It was found in the middle of the Catholic school board site. And again that was found last summer.
No matter what you state, no matter what kind of twisting of the truth you would like to portray here tonight, no matter what great length our City of Hamilton will go to support developers , the bottom line is: These lands were and still remain (with or without your ESA stamp from a City) the best remaining example of this habitat type within the City of Hamilton These are rare lands and shoreline ponds that are left on the Great Lakes. If you approve this zoning change, then we believe, you councillors, are denying the community, our children and future generations and the City of Hamilton the right to preserve our natural heritage.
I want to quote just one more thing that I found out. Two more things. Under that Nature Counts that I received. I’ve just briefly gone through it because I just received it. It says it provides habitat for rare or endangered species that are endangered regionally, provincially or nationally – two rare birds. And this is the Community Beach Ponds. We go into the breeding birds – adequate coverage. Nature Counts surveys recorded 34 species in 2001. Of these, four are locally uncommon, and two are locally rare. Sixteen species were observed in 1991 including one locally uncommon species. We’ll flip down to the recommendations. The area should be protected from development or other impacts.
I have another piece of paper here from the evaluation community found this to be a significant landbird stopover area, and it specifically states: Based on the 2005 spring study and available background information, at least two species at risk have been documented during migration – Red-headed Woodpecker and Hooded Warbler. This number is likely higher because little information is available for review.
Therefore, we are here today asking you not to approve this by-law change, not to table this by-law change, but to flatly reject this by-law change. [prolonged applause]
I also just want one more thing clarified. When you talk about caring about our community and our homes, I want you to take a good look at these pictures. These are our roads in our community. These are our children in our community. We have no sidewalks. We have a park behind us. All these children walk the roads to get to the park. You were … are going to put them into jeopardy if you go ahead and put another 100 cars coming down this road … [applause]
Mitchell: Sherry, job well done. Now I’m going to let the councillors ask you questions or answer some of the concerns that you had and I’ll go to councillor Pearson…
Pearson: Thank you Mr chairman and Sherry thank you very much. The first questions that I’m going to direct to staff and then direct two comments to Sherry. But I thank you for the presentation, Sherry, and a copy would be really valuable … but we did have a good meeting, I won’t deny that Mr chairman. … But at the beginning of your presentation, I just wanted to ask staff one more time to please clarify with regards to the issue – and it’s been asked by other councillors – of the institutional zoning on this land currently. That if this school board wished to build there tomorrow, is the requirement that would be in place for the school board. Could we please just get clarification of that again.
West: Through you Mr Chair. The school boards would have to submit an Environmental Impact Statement to determine the ESA boundary, or any requirements of the ESA boundary as proposed under this designation, or as a candidate ESA, if the designation wasn’t in place. There’s also a pond area and a pond core area under the Stoney Creek schedule B which would also require some investigation. At that time, that would be done as part of a site plan process. The site plan process and the ESAIEG process are not public processes. Therefore it would not be turned over to the public for comment prior to that.
Pearson: And all that is if the school board wanted to build there. I just want residents to understand the context of what a lot of our … entails is because of what is in place currently. And it’s not just I keep saying the school board. It could be any institutional zonin. Who would be required under any of that to that to maintain the ESA area?
West: Through you Mr chair, because staff had an intention of moving forward with an ESA designation on this site, we would have gone through a similar process but instead of a townhouse development it would have been a school development, a church development, or any other institutional.
Pearson: But who would be responsible for maintenance of the ESA site?
West: If the school board or the property owner decided to give the ESA portion of the lands to a public agency, free and clear, and the public agency accepted, then it would be the responsibility of that public agency.
Pearson: Would it be turned over to the city?
West: Or a portion of it be turned over to the city – similar to the same process that we’re going through now. At some point in time, where you see townhouses could have been a retirement home, and it could be, the ESA portion could be dedicated to a public agency. But the same mitigative measures, the same recommendations of the Dougan report would apply, or similar recommendations. Because they would have analyszed the impact of the development based on the development that would have been proposed under the institutional zoning as under the residential zoning.
Pearson: And I’m just going to ask again for clarification on the process with regards to the ESA, and the comment that this was an error. That is was a definite order. If I could get clarification.
Hickey-Evans: Through you Mr chairman, as I stated previously it came to our attention in 2004 that the original OPA that we passed was in error. There is absolutely no issue with respect that it was not legally constituted. We used the term official plan amendment – we got rid of – we have been asked OPA 12 or 15, I can’t remember the number. We’ve removed it from the books. We’ve readopted it. There is absolutely no question about that process. If you do not follow the Planning Act, especially at the beginning of the process, an Official Plan Amendment is not legal and valid.
Pearson: Just a comment – I’m just going to go through that there is a comment and in regard to discussions I had with Sherry before the developers. I’m not supporting the developers. [laughter] I just ensured and I was present … for the meeting … [continuing noise]
Mitchell: I ask for respect please.
Pearson: We did chat and there was more comments and more information that was put forward with Sherry. And I know she won’t deny it, she did put forward that she’s been working on trying to arrange for funding through the federal government with regards to the land. And I think that is wonderful. You also have to understand that this has gone through two years of process, not just with the developer, with the board, with the landowner, but also with staff. And somewhere, somehow, somebody will have to address this. If the federal government were – I’m not saying I’m supporting the developer to get compensation for this – but somewhere down the line, just as yourself … you run into issues. You’re going to be asking to be compensated or taken care of. That’s not between the city. That’s not between us and the developers. But somehow, somewhere somebody has to come good on this. And it’s unfortunate, because the comment was made that the school board – yes the school board is, scrambling for dollars – and that unfortunately with the provincial directives – a number of years ago, I can’t remember what party put this through – that the school board has to get rid of their surplus lands in order to address their funding needs. This … passed down on the boards. It’s unfortunate because this will be the third site in ward 10 in the last number of years that has been downgraded to be declared surplus property.
And this is the third time I’ve come before residents on issues just like this. … with regards to public funds. It’s unfortunate the board is put in this situation. We didn’t put them there. And unfortunately they have to address that. In order to get funding they have to take away everything that they have. The province says if you have surpluses, you must clear your books … And that’s where a lot of these issues arise and it’s very unfortunate. I’m not going to go into other comments. I know Sherry knows we had a lot of discussion that evening. I won’t go into because I know between Sherry and myself did … there is something ultimate that I could throw back at Sherry and I’m not going to go even let that get started. [noise] … With respect to the work that she has done, she has done a tremendous amount of work and … helped us here around the table with absolutely everything. You have to remember that there is a report before us that staff is recommending approval of this application. There is a process that we have to follow to make sure we go through this again and staff go through it again. We can all deny this at the end of the day. It doesn’t mean that may be the end of the story.
There is another process that kicks in after this, and Sherry is well aware of this and I’m sure everyone around here is … Ontario Municipal Board hearing. When you have a staff recommendation, and in the position that it is, it puts our committee and our council in a very difficult situation, because it would be having – and maybe I’ll ask staff to clarify what happens if this is turned down…
Tim McCabe: Under the provincial legislation … being the Planning Act, a refusal by council, or actually a no decision by council within 120 days, the applicant has the right to appeal a refusal or no decision to the Ontario Municipal Board – a tribunal of the province. Council will be in the position that they will have to hire their own expert witnesses, environmental planners, to defend their decision if it is a refusal decision. Staff would be in a position where we can be subpoened by the applicant and under oath give professional evidence against our council’s decision.
Pearson: Thank you Mr chairman and just in closing – but there was a comment – we had a terrific meeting last August with the residents … not that many, about 100, but there was a comment, andI know I did make that comment, Mr chairman. And I’ll stand by that. I’m not embarrased to say what I said. We had a resident saying that their property value is going to depreciate – right along Church Street. And with all due respect, if that resident is here, I have not yet, in all my days as an elected official seen a residential property value devalue because of a development like this or single-family or whatever in a residential neighbourhood. And that’s with the greatest respect to everyone here. I have never seen a property value depreciate – and believe me with the tax time comes around and the impact assessment notices come around, things will always be higher. I’d love to have homeowners show me one that’s not… Thank you Mr chairman.
Mitchell: Thank you councillor Pearson, and Sherry, I had councillor Pearson on first because you cited her and she’s your area councillor. Councillors the next part of this meeting would be ask the speaker any individual questions. Now Sherry brought forward a lot of questions that I don’t think we can get all answered tonight. Sherry, did you hand in that to the clerk? Thank you very much. I would ask my councillor colleagues
Revesz: I apologize Mr chair. I did not hand in my questions. May I please hand it in later? I had a lot of markups on it.
Mitchell: Okay. That’s very very important Sherry that you send those in because the councillors are going to – if they have questions of you directly, I will allow that, but if they have questions of staff that they wait because we have five more major speakers here now, so if you have questions directly…
Whitehead: I just want to suggest that there might be some obvious questions that staff may be able to address, and at least those in the audience here will be able to hear the answers. If we go through email, I’m not sure if we’re going to get … to hear the answer or response to those questions. So where it’s feasible, where staff are comfortable they have the answers, we should allow them to answer the questions. And where it might take time we can do it through the email…
Mitchell: Okay, does staff got some of the questions or I can get the councillors to ask at the end of the process? Seeing none at this point in time, we’ll go to the next speaker. Questions directly…
West[?]: Can I ask you a question for a clarification of the forestry’s response. Forestry was speaking of the trees in the municipal road allowance, only. They don’t have a mandate to speak of the forest beyond the municipal road allowance, and in this instance our development engineering section has not, will not be completely urbanizing the road, and also through speaking in conversations with Tony Sergi, he has indicated that there will be some alternative form of sidewalks, such as an asphalt sidewalk instead of a concrete that would preserve more trees within the municipal road allowance. But the comment of has no alternative but to green the area should remain as undeveloped as possible – Tony Sergi said they’d be willing to work with Forestry to retain as much of those municipal trees as possible. He’s not here at the moment.
Mitchell: Okay. Mr McCabe?
McCabe: Mr chair, I just wanted to make a couple of comments about the comments that were made about the individual Sergio Manchia. She made a reference that we may look at legally. This is not a matter for this committee or the council. We have … where should we direct by the person to the school board, to the Conservation Authority, or to the Canadian Institute of Planners. It is not up to us to investigate the appropriateness or inappropriateness of …
Mitchell: Thank you. I have councillor McHattie and councillor Clark for questions referred to the presentor. And we’ll go to the next speaker … Alexandra Bennett.
Bennett: Thank you and … I do have a few questions. I just need to clarify a question that you brought up today Mr … and my question is addressed to you. I believe that you said that OPA 97 …. … I just want to clarify, and correct me if I’m wrong, that … My question to you – since all of the ESA do not require ESA boundaries to be redefined, why then two years later should this one?
Hickey-Evans: Through you Mr chairman, we used specifically this site required additional information to be refined. I wouldn’t call it redefined. And so we want, when we pass the inforamtion, we knew that. So we undertook the studies, because we also own a piece of the property, and we’re committed to bringing forward an environmentally significant OPA for this piece of property. It wouldn’t serve us to bring forward a boundary, re-do it, go through an Environmental Impact Statement, and then have to amend the plan to reflect the new boundary. That would not be appropriate.
Bennett: I understand that. What I don’t understand is that no … , why then do the boundaries have to be refined?
Hickey-Evans: Through you Mr chairman, we were not confident in terms of all the various detail with respect to this boundary. There was a request to look at that, and we knew that at some point in time an environmental impact statement would be required, so we took a pro-active approach to do one.
Bennett: Why did we know an environmental impact statement was going to be needed? This is after 115 was replaced with 97, this area was left out. Was it left out because there was a proposal for development? Because there was a proposal for development … need to do new ESA boundaries?
Hickey-Evans: We knew that these sites had been declared surplus. There eventually would be development on that site – whether there would have been [noise from the audience] But notwithstanding whether it was an institutional zone which has been described in detail. Let’s … If a church or … site had come forward and done exactly the same thing, they would still be required to do an environmental impact statement. We would have then been in an Official Plan Amendment twice. That is not. We were being pro-active. We also own a piece of property on that …
Bennett: … I ask you
Mitchell: Alexandra.
Bennett continues: You declared a surplus. Was the surplus declared before OPA 97. [Mitchell inaudible]. It’s very important because if a surplus had not been declared, then why would they need to redefine the boundary. It was already deemed an ESA … and it was already …. So to answer my question why would you redefine the boundaries, I need to know the answer, because if it was surplus, it was surplus before the … [laughter and then applause]. I’m not trying to lead … in this issue.
Mitchell: And Alexandra you may be right but that’s a school board question. They have to declare it surplus and we don’t know tonight …
Bennett: When was it declared a surplus? Before OPA 97? Or between 97 and 115? Because if it was before 97 then her answer is absolutely useless to us.
Hickey-Evans: Through you Mr chairman, the original OPA which the speaker says OPA 97 was in 2003. Surplus was in 2004.
West: And then it was in the beginning of March 2004 that the city was notified and was circulated around the department as to whether the city was interested in acquiring any … It was in 2005 when the new OPA came through removing this site from
Bennett: Then it was offered to the city when you believed it was ESA, as we all did?
West: Through you Mr Chair, the Catholic school board site was offered to the city when this was understood to be an ESA. The public school board site was offered to the city when this site was, no longer had the ESA status, because it was done in [confers off mic] I think April 1, 2005 meeting was when it was declared, when the public school board site came to committee.
McCabe: Mr chair, I can clarify. I have the report here. In April 26, 2004 the city of Hamilton was advised by the Hamilton Wentworth Separate School Board that this property had been declared surplus, and we responded back on June 18, 2004 that we had no interest in purchasing it..
Bennett: I’m just going to provide a quote from the 2003 OPA 97 which forms a part of By-Law 03-096. It states adding new ESA's to the Official Plan ensures that the natural areas of significance are protected resulting in a healthier environment and high quality of life for Hamilton residents. The ESAs presented in this report were selected based on a set of scientifically rigorous ESA criteria. The committee consisted of biologists from the four Conservation Authorities in Hamilton, the City of Hamilton, Royal Botanical Gardens, Hamilton Naturalist Club and the Ministry of Natural Resources. I am bringing this to your attention for the purpose of demonstrating that it was a time consuming, comprehensive and rigorous process which was followed. I would like to ask the planning staff this evening, are there any scientific studies from other scientific authorities or for that matter, ANY reports, aside from the 2006 migratory bird survey, which would have negated the original studies and justified to the planning department to propose OPA 115, effectively, the amendment which removed the Community Beach Pond site from the Official Plan and to contemplate the development before us here tonight. Council, I am here tonight to ask you to reject this rezoning bylaw application. [applause]
Mitchell: That last question, Cathy, … Alexandra will you leave that question here, please?
Bennett: Can I just make one comment?
Mitchell: Yes.
Bennett: In this report … it says – in April 2005 – the only change to the OPA was the removal of the subject site in response to objections from Church Street Developments.
Mitchell: Alexandra, I need you back at the podium to sign that list. … We will go to our next presentor. Everybody that’s coming to the podium for the rest of the evening needs to sign in, name, address and telephone number please. That’s to be able to get back with concerns and answers to questions and so on. I have Mr Langer next. Question to Alexandra? One question, councillor Whitehead.
Whitehead: Just that last comment I found interesting there. ...identify just for clarity And that was there’s the suggestion and inference that it was an objection by a developer that may have influenced the decision to pull this protected designated property out of the ESA, and you made a reference to – I’m wondering if you have the documentation? What’s the source of that information?
Bennett: The last piece I just read?
Whitehead: Yes.
Bennett: That is in the document that we have here. [reference is to staff report]
… Mitchell …. Joanne …
Hickey-Evans: Through you Mr chairman, when in November of 2004 when it came to the attention of the city that there was an error in the notice, that’s what we’re talking about here. We – it was related to this property – we went back to investigate whether or not that was actually true, and we found that the notice was in error. Hence we went back through the process and re-adopted. That’s …
[2:36:50] Rolph Langer: Good evening. I just have a couple of quick things to address. Again, my name is Rolf Langer. I’ve been a Stoney Creek resident and business owner for 30 years. My concern is that if this development is approved I’m also concerned that it will set a precedent for higher density houses on Church Street property. Mr Vander Marel, who I’ve known for many years, has told me personally he intends to apply for an additional 50 units on lands he now controls which was the long house that you saw. That puts 92 residences on what is now prestige single-family homes. Initially, years ago, I always thought he would do a cul-de-sac – which he has done a very nice job at the end of Grays Road and … Fifty Point. He did well … but recently I see that his aspirations are a little higher.
Many residents are wondering about the relationship between the mayor’s office and local developers during Mayor DiIanni’s term of office. Instead of planning – through you Mr chairman – instead of planning, you must have been under great pressure to get certain projects approved. Councillor Pearson and Sergio Manchia worked closely together from the time the loop-hole was found by Mr Manchia … many areas of the process. The forcefulness with which the project has been presented is way out of proportion to its value … to the community. It also should be noted that PEIL, the firm that employs Mr Manchia, gave a significant donation to Mrs Pearson’s re-election fund. … [noise from audience and applause]. ...a list of numerous hundreds of residents who are in opposition to this. In your packages, you’ve read information from numerous residents as well. I dare say that most of the people who have taken the time to be here tonight are opposed. Is it unreasonable to question whether or not Councillor Pearson has a conflict of interest?
One question through the chair, to councillor Pearson. Can we now count on you to vote in favour of the residents who gave you their trust on election day – a long list – or will you be voting for the side of the short list? Thank you to all the councillors who have made this evening possible as it has given us enormous opportunity to give out input. There are many layers of government that tend to fight amongst each other, but there is only one level of property taxpayer. We would ask that an organization be found to provide an environmentally sound solution for this property for the future good use of the community. Please keep the asset public. A couple of years from now your foresight will be admired. Thank you. [loud applause]
Mitchell: Councillor Pearson.
Pearson: Thank you Mr chairman…. Thank you, Dr Langer for your comment .. campaign donations .… I do not recall a contribution that was given to me by Planning and Initiatives [noise from audience] That’s fine. … thank you very much, I appreciate that. I have never denied that I take campaign contributions from whomever wishes to give them to me. I have received contributions from Planning and Engineering Services [sic] probably going back to 1994. Do I support development because of that? If you think I don’t know you may wish to tell me that maximum of $750 that that would sway my vote, that that’s why I’m voting this way, you’re absolutely wrong, sir. I have clarified earlier, staff just explained the position that staff has on this. The informatin has been done, all the evaluation that has gone forward – if something changes that we can go against this, that staff says no, were definitely in the wrong to approve this, I would absolutely support it. But right now staff’s recommendation is to support this application, sir. That’s what we have to look at as a committee.
Did I push applications forward when I was chair of planning and economic development last year? Absolutely not, sir. I will tell you honestly. I could probably go through my files – you made comments of me meeting with Mr Manchia. I would believe that all of meetings, I may have had one in my office, and I can show you the map of what was given to me by Mr Manchia that was not in the presence of staff and any other time – well all the other times, I would have been in the presence of staff, the applicant and the board representative. That would have been the position. I am not in collusion, or have any conflicts of interest on this, sir, and I take great exception to that comment. And there’s nothing illegal about what I have done. Thank you.
Mitchell: Okay, councillor Pearson. Dr Langer if you want to come down to the podium. This issue is not one of - we’re not dealing with integrity here.
Langer: I understand that. Is this final decision one that is made through the elected representatives who are here, or is it one that has already been made by staff – because staff has made it, it’s just that
Mitchell: This decision is one that will be made by this group when all the information has come forward, and whatever way the decision is made everybody here has the opportunity to take it to the Ontario Municipal Board if they disagree.
Langer: Thank you.
Mitchell: Okay. I’ll deal with the next speaker, please. Stacey Long. Is she here [applause]
Long: Thank you. I just wanted to thank all my neighbours and friends for attending tonight. My name is Stacey Long and I live on Teal Avenue. What I have come to know over the past few months is that the land belonging to the Catholic School Board and Public School Board were designated an Environmentally Sensitive area (ESA) in 2003, OPA #97. I now understand that in order for a property to receive this designation it must meet one or more criteria. In the case of this land, not only one criteria was met, but two. Two years after this process the agent from the Catholic School Board brings to the attention of the City of Hamilton that a circulation error had been made and his client (the Catholic School Board) had not been circulated a letter officially notifying them of this environmental designation.
What happens next becomes a process in city administration which frankly, in my opinion, defies simple logic. Rather than correcting the error and proceeding forward, the city then replaces #97 with a new OPA #115. However, in this OPA the changes made were not to re-instate the ESA in the correct manner, rather it mysteriously removed it altogether to be determined at a later date, which is this evening. In the meantime, sadly, that did not stop things from happening. The land has been sold to developers – or I should say optioned – and this land is now being considered for high density townhouses. From the perspective of a community member perhaps it might be a simplistic view of things, but while many things have changed since the developers good fortune of discovering a circulation error, I know one thing for certain that has not changed, and that is the nature of this land and the reasons for why this land was given the status of environmentally sensitive in the first place.
As a lifelong citizen raised and educated in Stoney Creek and more recently a resident down the road from this land, I struggle to understand how at the realization that a circulation error was made, it seemed to have prompted concerted efforts on the part of our city to provide every opportunity for the developers to treat this land like any other parcel of land, when we know, it is not. Equally disturbing is the decisions made at our school boards, a decision to take full advantage of a series of unfortunate events surrounding these lands. They have chosen to sell off, for all intensive purposes, environmentally sensitive lands at the cost of the environment, for in the long run, a small financial gain. What is this teaching our children? A message I can only imagine the public school board prefers not to publicize. I can only urge the councillors this evening to do the right thing and to work towards re-instating this land with the designation it so deserves. Thank you. [lengthy applause]
Mitchell: Thank you Stacey. Questions for Stacey? Next speaker then please, Carolyn McPhail. Please sign in. Welcome.
McPhail: Thank you. Good evening all. Can I sign in …
Mitchell: Absolutely. [pause] Just add to what councillor Pearson said earlier, we … there at all our council and all our committees we rotate chairmen. So every year – like this is a four year term of council now – there will be four different chairmen of every standing committee. And we do that to try to be fair to absolutely everybody…. Every year. This is a four year term of council. Our first four year term we’ll have four different chairmen of planning, four different chairmen of public works, and so on. …
McPhail: And what’s your official title?
Mitchell: I’m the chairman for this first year of the four year term of planning and economic development.
McPhail: Thank you. I don’t have very much to say. I just have a letter here addressed to our mayor, from Wayne Marston, our MP, that I’d like to read. It says, Dear Mayor Eisenberger. I’m writing this letter to convey my support for preserving the Community Beach Ponds. It is my understanding that these eight acres have been designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area of our community. As you know, … is becoming more and more critical as we take all necessary steps to eliminate the destruction of these kinds of biological spaces. The area known as Community Beach Ponds is a natural area in my riding of Hamilton East Stoney Creek and was recognized as ESA by the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources and by the City of Hamilton just five years ago. Further this site has been identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources as a Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest of local significance. My constituents and myself are concerned about the removal of the designation and the fact that this area will be considered for development and destruction of this rare natural space. Hamilton is one of only a handful of cities that can brag about its vast … biosphere, greenspace, and countless varieties of flora and fauna – fauna? Thank you. The Community Beach Ponds are the best remaining example of this habitat type within the city. I would like to set up a time to meet with you regarding steps that could be taken to preserve this area. Sincerely Wayne Marston.
This was dated April 5th. I also spoke to Jennifer Mossop’s office. She’s in session in the legislature and she’s apparently … doing very well, but verbally she has confirmed to me that she is also supporting our support in saving those lands. [applause].
Could you put up the picture of the area showing the townhouses backing onto the greenspace? You know the one I mean? Okay. This picture we’re looking at right now. I was just talking to a girl in the audience whose name is Melissa. She lives in one of those that back onto the greenspace. She was planting flowers in her garden, and a blue-spotted salamander was in her front yard – and through the fence onto the front of those townhouses. So when we look at the area as not say protect this because it will protect these species – these species are using the whole land plus. Right? I also talked to Dougan and Associates and they told me over the phone that if construction happened in this area at all, all species would die. I thank you for your time tonight… [applause]
Mitchell: Councillor Clark?
Clark: Can I just ask you a question please? You spoke about Ms Mossop’s office and did she give you any indication that the province was going to do a land swap with the school board to solve the problem …
McPhail: Actually, I heard her say – I called her office and her father-in-law’s not been very well – and she is going to call me. I have some things to discuss with her. And as soon as I find out, I’ll let you know… she did say she was in support.
Clark: The Eramosa Karst lands – that’s how we did that in 2003. The ORC gave the land to the Conservation Authority which resolved all the problems.
…McHattie: Quick question in relation to the response I guess of the salamander being in the front yard there. Can we see where that is on the big map as well please. [Kristen West points out]
West: These are the townhouses that were referenced. The front yard is in here where it looks like it’s largely asphalt. There might be a small yard. I’m not sure if there’s any representatives of the public that live in this area that might be able to …
McHattie: And maybe a map as well that shows where the development is … compared to the townhouses. [West indicates location]. The ones that had the blue-spotted salamander … that’s on the far side of the proposed development. Okay.
Long: I just wanted to confirm that I did meet that lady. Her house backs onto the proposed development. I met her when I was canvassing the area. I met her and I can even point her out in the audience right here… She told me…
Mitchell: Okay. Dennis would you please pronounce your last name for us
Dennis Trinaistich: I will, gladly Mr Mitchell, but there will be a test at the end of the evening [laughter]
Mitchell: It’s been a long day.
Trinaistich: Yes, it has.
Mitchell: So you’re the lawyer for Community Beach Turtle Ponds Association?
Trinaistich: Yes, sir. My name is Dennis Trinaistich.
Mitchell: Trinaistich.
Trinaistich: Trinaistich.
Mitchell: Thank you.
Trinaistich: I’ve provided a card, do you still want me to sign here?
Mitchell: Yes, please.
Trinaistich: All right, I’ll do that. It feels good to stand up actually. Would you mind if I moved this for a few moments while I speak? I’ll put it back at once.
This binder is full of paper, but I assure you that most of the pages are empty. So, again: Good evening Mr Mitchell and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening. I’m appearing before you as the lawyer on behalf of the Community Beach Turtle Ponds Association. The Association is a new entity, however it has a membership of over two hundred adults, and we haven’t yet counted the children, but I can tell you that there are many of them that are eagerly interested. And - those people, the membership stands in the neighbourhood around the subject site and many of its members are already known to the city, to councilors and to staff due to their past interest and their past inquiries about this matter.
The Association is opposed to the application before you this evening. There are actually two applications pending for approvals to permit townhouse projects, as you heard, on two abutting parcels of land respectively owned by the two area school boards. Although the two applications have much in common and raise a number of common issues they are being dealt with separately. It is my understanding that both school boards have gone through the requisite process of declaring their sites surplus to their needs, and in both cases the City and the Conservation Authority have declined the option to purchase the sites, in both cases as you heard, citing reasons having to do with the fact that the lands are not required for parks purposes since they were believed to be already designated as Environmentally Sensitive or Hazard lands. So in other words, and I don’t know if the decision would be different today, but if the City or the Conservation Authority or any of the other agencies entitled to notice were informed that the lands were in fact not designated as Environmentally Sensitive, they might have come to a different decision. It’s this understanding, or misunderstanding, that has led to a great deal of confusion in these matters, and I say with the greatest of respect, that much of the confusion lies at the doorstep of the city in terms of a series of errors with respect to process, or notice, or circulation. It’s not to point fingers or lay blame, but those are the facts.
The development proposal before you this evening concerns the Separate School Board site. It’s the more advanced of the two. That application was brought up to the City in May of 2006. It was circulated after being deemed complete. The City required the applicant, in this case Church Street Developments Inc as conditional purchaser of the School Board lands, to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in conjunction with the review of the proposal. As you heard although there were some disagreements, or potential disagreements about who was going to do the study and on what basis, ultimately an agreement was entered into among the City, Church Street Developments as purchaser of the site, and the Public School Board as owner of the adjoining site which resulted in the firm of Dougan and Associates being retained to produce what we talked about this evening as the - what I’ll call the Dougan EIS, and that was published in September of last year.
The Dougan EIS deals with both School Board sites and the parkland together. And I’m critical of that, and supportive of dealing with all three together in one environmental study, but the fact is that it’s not tied to any one of the three properties, nor should it be. This application would permit, if approved, forty-two townhouse units on a private condominium road having access only onto Church Street, with only a five-metre vegetation buffer from an Environmentally Sensitive Area. And it’s kind of curious because the notice of the application actually states that, and Environmentally Sensitive Area is capitalized, but oddly enough no ESA zone is proposed in the application before you. The specific re-zoning proposal is to re-zone from the existing small scale institution, or IS zone, to the P5 Conservation Hazard zone, and a Residential Multiple Holding zone.
And I’d like to just pause for a moment if I may to knock down a strong man or step on a red herring if I can. I don’t know how many times I heard it this evening that it was frustrating to listen to, and that is - well, it’s kind of a devil you know rather than a devil you don’t argument, and we hear this all the time when someone’s proposing something new they say: "Well, look at what could happen under the existing zoning and this is so much better for the following reasons...". Well, I don’t know why we had any discussion this evening whatsoever, let alone repeated questioning and repeated clarification, that the site could be developed as a school site. Well, who’s going to develop it as a school site? [laughter] The School Board that declared it surplus to its needs? I don’t think so. So, please, let’s get rid of that and let’s not offend the intelligence of the public any more. [applause]
The application for the Public School Board is less advanced. It was filed with the City recently, and in March of this year the City has circulated the application for comments. It’s really similar in nature, different number of townhouses, forty-four, but the same idea with a private condominium road with access only onto Frances Avenue. And intending, as the Notice of Circulation says, "To preserve an existing ESA”. Curiously again, no ESA zone is proposed and we are all left scratching our head exactly listening to the dialogue tonight as to what ESA PEIL is talking about in these notices. Otherwise, the specific re-zoning is to re-zone from IS to P5 and RN3.
Now in both cases no application has been filed to amend the Official Plan, and I intend to indicate to you why that may be a critical omission. We have yet to see any notice of Public Meetings of the Public School Board site, and there are none anticipated for several months, while I’m making submissions to you that the two should proceed together, if either is to proceed at all.
Now collateral to those two development applications, the City on its own initiative has brought forward a proposed amendment to the two current Official Plans. There are two of them, a Regional Plan and a Town of Stoney Creek Plan, and I can tell you that that has led to some confusion as well. So it’s an amendment to the two current Official Plans to introduce an Environmentally Sensitive Area, an ESA, on parts of - small parts of - the two School Board sites, and a significant part of the City-owned parkland. I don’t know why we’re going around designating City parkland as ESA and zoning it for those purposes but maybe someone on staff can tell me that. But it seems to me that the reason the City and the Conservation Authority declined to purchase the two School Board sites is: "they were already designated ESA and didn’t need to be protected." Here we are going out of our way to protect the City-owned parkland by designating it and zoning it as ESA. That’s a curiosity. But apparently this is what the City intends should occur when a development application comes forward on these sites.
And again I’ll have something to say about that later, but aren’t we getting things backwards here? The City apparently feels that it is doing something positive, not negative, by introducing what I call the City OPA. Well let’s see if it is positive. The purpose and effect of the City OPA according to the Notice is to delete the existing "Pond", that’s capital P in quotation marks, and the existing "Class 2 Core Area", capitals and quotation marks, and "Open Space and Parks Class 4", capitals and quotation marks, and to replace them with a Pond and Class Pond ESA designation.
Effectively the City OPA gives the appearance that it would be upgrading the existing environmental status of a small part of the School Board sites and a significant part of the City-owned parkland, but it would do so with respect to a significantly reduced area, compared to what was designated before, and already here was designated, the pond. And that’s being done ostensibly on the basis of the Dougan EIS, so that amendment is also before you at tonight’s meeting.
Now I want to spend a few minutes, and I know it’s late and I apologize, but I think it is important to talk about the Official Plans that are in place. We have two. We have the Regional Plan which is the Official Plan that’s still in force and in effect and inherited by the newly restructured City of Hamilton, the former Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Official Plan, and we also have the former Town, later City of Stoney Creek Official Plan which was a … municipality within the Region and therefore had to have its own plan which had to conform with the upper-tier or Regional Plan.
The Regional Plan designates the lands here as Urban Area and that permits a wide range of uses. There’s really not much to talk about there, but under the category of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Regional Plan has a bit of a peculiar history as it concerns the Ponds in this vicinity. So Regional OPA 12, I’m reading here some numbers and try to make sure I don’t confuse them for you, Regional OPA 12 added a number of new ESAs to the Regional Plan including one in this area. That was done in April 2003.
And it’s just quite a coincidence, every time something major happens in this area it’s in April of an odd year. So you can see that this area was designated as an ESA in April of ‘03, out the door in April of ‘05, here we are at a Public Meeting to really shrink the ESA potential in April of ‘07. So I’m betting that the OMB hearing’s going to be in April of ‘09. [laughter and applause]
I can’t speak for the developers, so if you turn them down I don’t know if they’re going to the Board, but I can assure you that if you approve - and that’s not a threat but a promise - if you approve the proposals, we’re going. [applause]
That was OPA 12, Regional OPA 12, Regional OPA 15 comes along. It corrects the locations of some ESAs but it doesn’t do the undoing that we heard about. OPA 24 at the Regional level is the one that repealed and replaced the ESA locations and those two Regional 12 and Regional 24 parallel similar amendments to the Town Official Plan which we’ll talk about in a moment. But I can assure you that this history has created a great deal of confusion not only with members of the public, but in some cases with staff and in other cases with other departments and agencies who get circulated.
So according to Map 4 in the Regional Plan there’s an ESA Number 79, and it bears the name, Community Beach Ponds. So one might easily get confused, is it talking about this pond, maybe the one the other side of Teal Avenue, maybe the one on the other side of the apartments on the opposite side of Green. This is really a very, very small scale, and you really have to get a magnifying glass to even find the green on that map. But it’s clear though after careful examination that ESA 79, as approved, and as adopted, as it stands today following Regional OPA 24, is located east of the apartment buildings on Green Drive [sic Road].
The site that we’re talking about is not designated as an ESA in the Regional Plans. And that comes as a disappointment - I’d expect a piece of information I can assure you from the residents. It’s interesting though, because the Regional Plan includes some appendices, and I know that they do not form part of the Official Plan that’s in force. I don’t need to tell you that, your own solicitor would tell you that. But Appendix Map 3 identifies the ponds in this area as what’s called a Core Natural Area, which is in turn a part of what’s called Natural Heritage System, there’s also something else called an Ecological Link identified in this vicinity. I think what the Ecological Link tries to do is trace the path that those turtles follow when they go from pond to pond.
Part C of the Official Plan, which is effective, sets out the land use strategy and it describes this area as a "natural setting which is to be valued, protected, and enhanced" not developed, "valued, protected and enhanced". It incorporates, by reference, policies for these four natural areas. So what are these things? Well Part D of the Regional Plan which is also in effect, contains definitions in Section D11.
There are no definitions for Core Natural Areas or Ecological Links, however the definition - I mean there are no separate definitions, if you look for those things you won’t find them in the list with a separate definition, however the definition for a Regional Natural Heritage System includes within it sub-definitions for these Core Natural Areas and Ecological Links. And the term ESA is also defined. The current definition was introduced by Regional OPA 24, so when all the new ESAs were put back in, except for this one, there was also a definition for ESA.
An ESA is an area that meets at least one of the listed criteria. Criteria that are relevant here are listed under Clause C of the Definition, and it would appear that the Turtle Ponds would qualify for designation under those criteria. So it appears the same Official Plan document, Regional OPA 24 - trying to re-do what hadn’t been done right the first time, but leaving out this particular Turtle Pond area because for some reason it’s no longer an ESA even though it was considered to be one two years before. It includes a Definition for ESA and guess what? This pond qualifies. So how could the same document not designate this pond as an ESA, but lay out a definition that would tell you that it does qualify? It doesn’t make any sense. Without a further amendment to the Regional Official Plan this site would still not be designated as an ESA even though it qualifies. That causes some confusion as well I can assure you.
I want to spend a few minutes talking about the Stoney Creek Official Plan. Under the Stoney Creek OP the area here is designated as Residential, and that grants a wide range of uses, but Schedule E of the Plan also identifies the boundaries of what are called Planning Districts. And the area between the QEW and Lake Ontario is identified generally as District C which has got a name, it’s called Urban Lakeshore. I’ll come back to that in a moment.
The existing park is designated as Class 4, Open Space and Parks, and it shows up as a light green colour, you have to have a Schedule in front of you to be able to see it, but nothing’s available. On the Schedule B the Turtle Pond is designated as what’s called a Pond Core Area and show’s up in dark blue. Then there are some small irregular areas next to the east side of that and they’re designated as Class Two Core Area, and they’re shown in dark green. All of these designations are schematic and they’re difficult to decipher with any real accuracy, but the two School Board sites are not designated as - Class One Environmentally Sensitive Area. Now that’s what they should have been designated if OPA 115 had redone what OPA 97 had done, but it was left out. So that designation Class One Environmentally Sensitive Area has only been applied against the very east of the apartment buildings in the version of the Plan is now in force.
However that doesn’t mean that you could just ignore matters environmental because there’s a section in the Town, or the City OP - I’m looking for the numbers but B point one point two point one, small b [B.1.2.1b] requires a - not a five metre buffer but - unless there’s a typo in the current consolidation - that a fifty metre buffer be provided around Class One [applause] - Class One and Class Two areas, OK, so as I mentioned there are some areas on the east side of the Turtle Pond somewhere around where this squiggly line is that are designated as a Class Two Core Area. So that section of the Official Plan has to be given some meaning and I didn’t even see it referred to in the staff report. And the Town’s Official Plan also requires that an EIS data to define the boundaries of the ESA
When I was first consulted by my clients I saw material that tended to suggest that the two School Board sites had been designated as part of an ESA, and then removed from that designation. While it was difficult to unravel - on the scale and detail of the mapping leaves a great deal to be desired, a review of OPA 97 and 115 reveals that the subject sites for one part of the two-part area [were] designated as an ESA. OPA 97 we heard was repealed apparently for reasons related to Notice errors, but when it comes time to do it again OPA 115 was adopted two years later in its place.
However, the School Board sites, both of them, not one but both of them, were apparently not carried forward and were not designated. And the question came up earlier and this is something else that I’d like to dispose of tonight while everybody’s here - and remembers the issues - in the staff report, page five gives the reason, the real reason, not the old ‘you know, we don’t have enough information to be sure’, or ‘we’ve got so much information we just need to do a few more things to clarify it’ - they say, and this is the second paragraph after the second bullet point there: "Community Beach Ponds was part of an OPA in April 2003 to designate new ESAs and extend the boundaries of some existing ESAs. However in the fall of 2004 an error in Public Notice provisions for the OPA was identified."
And just so you know, that was brought to the attention of staff by Mr Manchia on behalf of Church Street Developments as conditional purchaser for the Separate School Board site. So it wasn’t just somebody just noticed it one day. An individual brought it to the attention of staff on behalf of the development planner with respect to a particular property. OK. So that was identified - meaning that the OPA was not legal. To correct this error staff re-adopted - well I guess Council probably did that but - staff re-adopted the OPA in April of 2005. Here’s the key. The only change to the OPA was the removal of the subject site in response to an objection from Church Street Developments. That’s the reason. [applause]
And why’d the developer want their site left out of the OPA - they’d put back into place something that was done before that they’d noticed wasn’t done correctly? Can’t imagine. Read on. Council directed that the site should be considered in detail through a separate amendment at a later date. Why? You got it, do it, right? So that’s why you shouldn’t always listen to what staff recommends. [applause]
You do have a choice. This solution - here’s the explanation - this solution allows the remaining ESAs to be designated and protected, while staff worked to deal with the concerns of Church Street Developments. So all the other ESAs have to be designated and protected, but this one, well, we’ll kick it around and see what happens, and we’ll try to see what we can do to make Church Street Developments happy. So that’s why it’s done, and for no other reason. [applause]
So the two School Board sites and the adjoining parkland are not designated as an ESA, not one square inch of any of them. And this is significant because as I said Section B point one point two point five [Section B1.2.5] of the Stoney Creek Official Plan would require an Official Plan Amendment to re-designate an ESA to put it to any other use. So, because of their intervention Church Street Developments has a site that is not designated as an ESA even though we all know it should have been. As a result, they don’t have to apply for an Amendment to the Official Plan. That’s convenient because all they have to do is come before you with an amendment to the zoning By-Law. And that’s what’s before you this evening. And I say that you should reject it for that reason alone. [applause]
That’s not the end of the story, however. There’s an official plan amendment … that also appears to be required to remove the environmental designations on any portion of a class 2 or class 3 area. That would appear to apply to the class 2 core area here. And that would appear to apply to that area. If that’s correct then the applicants must apply to the Stoney Creek official plan, despite their best efforts to avoid them.
I mentioned before that this area is in what’s called the urban lakeshore planning district. There is no secondary plan for this immediate vicinity. This is significant. The lakeshore area secondary plan encompasses the geographic area that includes the two school board sites – quite a large area actually. The approved secondary plan which you’ll find in schedule A 4 of the document applies only to the eastern end of that lakeshore area. It doesn’t extend anywhere close to these sites. Now that same official plan, section S.3.2, requires – it doesn’t suggest, it requires that a secondary plan be prepared for the urban lakeshore plan district. I guess you could say prepare a secondary plan for a small part of it, but that’s not a fair reading of the policy.
Clearly according to the policy, you need a secondary plan for that whole district. And to date none has prepared for this area. The reason this is important is because it’s – and again my reading of the plan and have somebody correct me if I’m wrong – it’s the absence of a secondary plan that effectively deprives my clients of the benefit of arguing what I call the alternate use policies. It’s my submission that – I know you’re busy with lots to do, but somewhere in the process, the city, the town before, the town of Stoney Creek before, the City of Stoney Creek before, now the city of Hamilton, somebody should have produced a secondary plan for this area.
And what would have happened? Well, that’s the document in which school sites get designated. So, if that had been done, the separate school site would have been designated SE – separate elementary. The public school site would have been designated PE – public elementary. And what’s the significance of that? Well, if they are so designated, then the option of these policies kick in and they restrict the types of uses that are permitted and also regulate densities. And guess what one of the uses is that wouldn’t be permitted under the alternate use policies? Townhouses. Unfortunately because there’s no secondary plan and there’s no SE and PE designations and an approved document that’s part of the official plan, those sections don’t apply and my clients can’t have the benefit of them. This is a further indication of how confusing the entire planning regime is in Stoney Creek.
Now under the … which I first saw was something called a neighbourhood plan in – capital letters, quotation marks. Now this plan is very clear on its face that it has not been approved by the city of Stoney Creek council. So it’s therefore not part of the official plan that’s in force. And it’s only on this plan that you see the two school sites actually designated SE and PE. And that’s what would be required to trigger these alternate use policies.. So effectively the absence of a secondary plan deprives my clients of arguing the benefits of those policies to protect the neighbourhood. Now you may say we’ll were stuck with that, it’s a fact that the failure of the town or the city to approve the plan designating these sites as SE and PE shouldn’t be used to allow the developers to escape the usual policies and the usual consequences that will follow, which is no townhouses. So again I say to you, these applications should be refused on that basis alone. I’m making legal submissions to you, but this fault in the category would … tomorrow, submission.
So, leaving the official plan I just want to talk about environmental sensitive areas. My clients believe that the 2 school board sites should both be designated as an ESA for all the reasons that they are so designated in regional amendment 12, and Stoney Creek amendment 97 in April of 2003. The evidence is there. Those designations are based on science. It just needs to be studied properly without any pre-determined constraints.. My clients also wonder what happened between April 2003 and April of 05 that warrant excluding this area from the ESA designation. If it was good planning based on scientific evidence to put them in, why is it suddenly not good planning to do so again in 2005? What changed in two years? I’ve already talked about that and I’m not going to review it. But that’s the only change that we’re aware of is that the site was declared surplus, optioned to a developer who probably convinced the staff to leave it out. So when the official plan amendments were re-adopted in 05, presumably with the proper notice, the developers got their wish and this area was left out. But there is no planning basis, no planning rationale anywhere in these document anywhere that would justify splitting these lands from being designated as an ESA on that basis. So again, is it a legal issue or a moral issue? I’ll let you decide that. … [much laughter]
The firm of Dougan and Associates was undertaken – don’t worry, I’m not going to throw darts at you – to undertake an environmental impact statement to – in my view – support the townhouse projects. My clients believe that that EIS is flawed and should not be acted upon to either establish the ESA proposed by the city which we don’t think is big enough, or to permit the two development proposals . In our view, the EIS should be redone. It should be expanded in scope and should be peer-reviewed independently by and on behalf of the city and the conservation authority before any decisions are made about these valuable community assets. [applause]
We believe the EIS is flawed for at least the following reasons.
Human activity is known to disturb the habitat and habits of birds. I’m sure the representative from the firm will admit to that, if asked to do so. Doesn’t have to today, but there may be a day. And the impact of human activity associated with an intense townhouse project in such close proximity has not been adequately addressed or considered. A 5-metre buffer, which we learned tonight is actually included within the ESA, not 5 metres on top of it or outside the ESA – even worse – is inadequate in any event and flies in the face of current best practices. I can tell you of situations – any you may be aware of them … there is minimum 30 years up to 100 metres. The developers restraining but they’re toeing a line. That’s the direction we’re going in. So you’ve got an official plan that says a 50-metre buffer, and instead of doing what the rest of the world is doing, we’re being asked to approve the 5-metre buffer. And that is just not right. It doesn’t makes sense. Five metres isn’t very far.
The list of direct and indirect impacts – and they’re actually cited in the report and I was astonished to learn that some – maybe all members of the committee haven’t had the opportunity to read the EIS and it’s absolutely critical if you’re going to make any kind of decision. You should have that information and then you should be able to ask questions about it. It’s just astonishing to me that it wasn’t provided to members of the committee. If you do get a chance to read it, you will see, … page 19 is a section of impact assessments and there’s just no question that there will be impacts. And you know that the language in the PPS says ‘no negative impacts’. That’s the language. So, if you know the impacts, that admission in itself mitigates against approval. – at least of what is proposed without further study.
And despite what we heard this evening, it’s arguable that the EIS was limited by the townhouse proposal rather than flowing directly from, and only from, the science and field investigation, and that’s critical. In fact, it’s noted by your own staff in their report, and it appears on page 8. It states that the original ESA boundary proposed by Dougan and Associates was reduced. Why? To reflect the impacts of the development proposed by Church Street Developments. It’s bizarre. [laughter/applause]
So the representative from Dougan said no you have project to look at and we just did our work and there’s the line that has to be respected . Your own staff report says – it was reduced to reflect the impacts of development growth on Church Street Developments.. In other words, the tail is wagging the dog. The way I look at it, either it’s and ESA or it’s not. Whatever it is, the ESA is the ESA. The development has to have regard for the ESA, not the other way around. [applause]
I’m surprised to see this evening that there is revised recommendations. I’ll have something to say about that later. Information given to me today by the Conservation Authority indicated that they had concerns and that they too wished to have an EIS carried out before they can support any development in this area . So when a questions was asked by a committee member this evening to staff - was the conservation authority circulated, do they support the proposal? Well the answer you got was based on the earlier information. It wasn’t based on the new information.. Conservation Authority staff have told us directly that they’re very concerned about the new information that came up in the past week or so , and they’re not happy with the EIS, and I don’t know why someone from that Authority isn’t here. …
Anyway, in my submission – this matter has to be deferred until you know the results of that further investigation. It’s preposterous for your staff to even think of suggesting to you that you should go ahead and approve it anyway, but just don’t pass the bylaws just yet. Approve the proposal, approve the recommendation. We’ll see what comes back, and even though my good colleague, Mr. Ariens, whom I’ve worked with in the past, starts out be telling you he’s a planner, and he’s not an ecologist, he’s not a botanist, he’s not a biologist. He could go on and on about all the thing he isn’t. He’s a planner – well, so am I. Planner before I became a lawyer. But so what?
But he says he has to rely on Dougan for the details of the ESA. Once the ESA boundary is set, then it falls to him – the planner, to take out what’s appropriate for the balance of the lands. That’s fair enough. What did he say at the end before sitting down? You should go ahead with the revised recommendations because he is, and I quote, confident that the revised recommendations will not change. ESA boundary will not change significantly. How do you know the answer already? You don’t even know what salamander it is. You can’t do that. It’s just fraught with difficulty. It’s extremely immodest. And I strongly encourage you not to follow the revised recommendations. In fact, I strongly encourage you not to follow the original recommendations from your staff.
So as I said at the beginning it’s no surprise to you that my clients are opposed to the two development applications in principle . They also believe that the city OPA does not go far enough, based on a number of conclusions which I’m not going to summarize because I’ve taken longer than I expected, and I apologize for that.
My clients have a number of options open to them . One is to oppose both applications and to do so right through to an OMB hearing. They have other options too. Two can play the game that the ESA was never legally in effect, and golly gee, there was a notice problem and when you do it again, please leave us out. Two can play that game. We can apply to amend the regional official plan and the town official plan to designate all of the parts of the two school board sites as an ESA, with the intention of following that through the OMB if necessary as well. And my clients can do that, as I’m sure you know. But instead of adding all of these OMB warrants, and arguing what was legally in effect or not, or what should be morally in effect or not, why not work to find a solution?
So collaterally my clients are anxious in petitioning city council, the Hamilton Conservation Authority, and anybody else who wants to step up to the plate, to reconsider the purchase of these two sites based on correct information. They are not environmentally sensitive areas. There is a need to protect them and the city and the conservation authority both have public mandates to do so, and they ought too do so.
So there are alternatives available to you this evening other than approving either the original or the revised recommendations. You can refuse to do so, you can table it, you can ask for more information, you can do anything you want. It’s your decision. You are not bound by the staff recommendation. You can leave the sites as is and revisit the decision to define purchasing them, and acquire them and/or designate them as an ESA. You can take steps to restore the natural environment as much as possible and you’ll have the help of the community in doing so. [applause]
Even your own staff realize you have options available to you and try to spell some of them out. I commend them for that but on the other hand it’s not the area and I’ll tell you why they make any sense. On page 13 of the staff report there are three options for consideration. So option 1 again is this red herring they’ve already thrown out the window or straw man that they’ve knocked down. It talks about if you deny the application, that’s the end of the road, and somebody could come along and develop a small scale institution use and it would not protect the natural features and functions of the site. Well, I’d like to disagree. To get a single institutional use, they’d have to go through site plan approval, and they’d have to go through an EIS process and you’ll have a better opportunity to control much larger parts of the sites than what is proposed this evening.
Option 2 dismisses re-enlarging or going back to the original extent of the Dougan ESA boundary. Why? Because the development area would have to be reduced to accommodate it. So what’s the problem? [laughter and aside remarks] … So, where’s the logic – I guess there’s some logic in this, consistent, but it’s not a very good logic.
And option 3 makes the most sense, but for some reason it gets watered down by discussion again about how the development area would have to be, quote, significantly reduced to accommodate the ESA boundary, unquote. Isn’t that what the EIS is supposed to do – define the limits of development? Anyway I suggest to you that the options suggested by my comments make more planning sense. And here they are - a series of possibilities.
First is to refuse the applications on principle. These applications are not worthy of your approval. They are premature. They don’t represent good planning. They are based on a flawed EIS which is the result of a tri-party agreement which in my submission had too much regard for concerns about reducing the development area. That’s not the purpose of the EIS.. The EIS shouldn’t be aggressive – it should be objective and balanced. Here’s the line – respect it. These applications are fast and people see they have no choice or that it’s too late. But they’re being rushed, and that’s just not true. It’s not a sound basis for making important long-term land use planning mistakes. The obvious immediate alternative is to defer further consideration of these matters indefinitely. And you can do it on a number of grounds.
We heard that the EIS has to be re-done or extended. We’ve heard that there’s no site plan application yet. If that gets left to the end, my clients get left out. How do you do that? If you’re looking for a place to tie things down, those conditions or obligations are not going to do it and the rezoning you don’t have the jurisdiction. You need a site plan to do it – well bring it forward. And I heard this evening again there’s no stormwater management plan yet, and the staff didn’t want to speculate about what it might say. But I … [ laughter]
And there are some very thoughtful and intelligent questions coming from committee members on things that were occurring to them as they heard things come out of the mouths of the staff. These things require attention and careful study.
So the second suggestion is – and if you don’t want to do it, we will. We’d rather you did, and out of respect and also because we think it’s properly in your balleywick to do so – and that is to initiate a new OPA, both regionally and at the town level, to re-instate the ESA designation to the lands. City council should right the wrong of April 2003 and April 2005. That’s your responsibility. [applause]
City council should restore the ESA designation on the lands as it was in April 2003, and we know you’ll get it right this time There won’t be any errors in the notice of circulation or process. [applause]
There was good reason to designate these lands in 2003. There is no planning basis to exclude them in 05. The entire circumstance I can assure you that excluding these lands in 2005 will be subject to very close scrutiny at the OMB, if the city proceeds to grant the approvals being sought tonight.
The third option is to initiate a secondary plan for this area.. I’m sure you’ve got lots to do. I don’t know it it’s part of your budget or program, but it is a thought. Do residents of this area deserve a secondary plan? Among other things, it would provide more certainly for future land use particularly if you apply those SE and PE designations to the two sites. Alternatively, you could save yourself some time and trouble, not do the secondary plan, and just re-instate the ESA as it ...[applause]
Another option to you is not to make a decision either for or against the applications tonight, but to refuse to process them further without an official plan amendment. It’s my suggestion that the applications do not conform to all of the policies of the region and town official plan, in particularly the ones having to deal with using a class 2 core area without an official plan amendment, and having a 5 metre buffer instead of a 50 metre buffer around those areas.
It’s also noteworthy in my submission that these applications are not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. You only have to look at policies in that document dealing with significant wildlife habitat, or for that matter page 5 of the staff report, where they tell you that the site has been identified as significant wildlife habitat under the PPS because it is a significant migratory bird stopover area. The vegetation community surrounding the pond – the buttonbush area – is also provincially significant. So they told you that there are two things that are governed by the PPS, and as you know, the PPS keeps changing back and forth as to … planning act. as to whether you have to have regard for it or whether your decision has to be consistent with it. So in this case, your decision has to be consistent with the PPS – as it says, no negative impact. So in my submission, neither of these applications, nor the upcoming public school board application, whenever it comes forward, should be considered without an accompanying official plan amendment that addresses those policies.
Next option is for you to refuse to process these applications further indefinitely to require a further and better EIS. Not only for the new information you heard – about whether these salamanders are threatened or endangered – but also for the reasons I gave you before as to why the EIS is flawed and should be done properly in different terms of reference and should be carried independently on behalf of the city or the Conservation Authority.
And it’s my respectful submission that the storm water management plan should be part of the EIS because it has significant impact on its findings. And that is even done yet. So a further option – I’ve alluded to it before – is that you really need site plans to come forward. So it’s my submission to you that you should not entertain approving the separate school board application, or the public school board application, or either of them, until they come forward the site plans, and they should be processed simultaneously with the two rezoning applications and any city official plan amendment. This is important … implementing any approval, such as environmental and access related issues, as well as insuring that all detailed matters that require agreements on title to be tied down and enforced, or are capable of being addressed at the same time either before you or any future appeals to the OMB.
Your staff has told you a few times that your site plan process is not public, and that’s correct. If somebody just needs site plan approval prior to getting a building permit, that’s what they apply for. And this is just between the city and the owner. And it’s only the owner that has the right to appeal if they don’t like the city’s conditions. But you can make it public. You can require these applications to come forward with site plans and process them simultaneously and when over that hurdle, my clients have the right to be parties to the site plan issues as well. And again, it’s a legal issue. Yes it is, but it’s also a moral issue.
Last, but not least, I would say to you that if these applications were to come forward again, for whatever reason at some future date, my clients request that the separate school board application be joined together with and processed simultaneously with the public school board application because they raise similar issues and the city can better address those issues and site plan issues in a comprehensive plan.
I’m going to take some time to go over some of the comments that staff have made, but I‘m going to reserve those, save them for another day, and just say to you a few things by way of completing. …
First of all it’s interesting to know that page 21 of staff report under city’s strategic commitment, The triple bottom line – policy of [laughter] which is commendable and doesn’t refer to financial bottom lines but. The triple bottom line is community, environment and economic implications . I like the sound of this. If you read them they are all checked off as ‘yes’. Community well being is enhanced. Yes. The public are involved in designation and development of local solutions. [laughter]. Environmental well being enhanced. Yes. The ecological function and natural heritage system are protected. Are they? [laughter]
Remember what the natural heritage … which are defined for you in your regional plan.
Anyway, in my submission two out of the three in terms of the triple bottom line should be checked off as ‘no’, and you have the reasons for that. So I don’t know how you treat the triple bottom line strategic directive in your decision making, but I think it’s important for you that majority is satisfied, then that should be very easy for you to refuse these applications because in my view the majority are not satisfied. [applause]
Now I come to the yellow pages. … The only way I can explain it - is a sign of panic. There’s a new issue that’s come up, what are we going to do?. Well let’s go ahead anyway and let’s have somebody study it. As Mr. Ariens said you’re probably all confident that there’d be no change in the ESA value. Shouldn’t we know that first? And if this bolded revision hadn’t been repeated, so many times, it might not have been so offensive. I understand it being said once to say that staff further recommend we don’t want you to do any of the things we said you should do until we get this further study. That would make sense.
So these amendments, in my respectful submission, are just too little too late. It’s a panic reaction and they don’t change my client’s position in any way and they shouldn’t change or influence your decision in any way. That’s bad advice, and you shouldn’t follow the recommendation.
In conclusion, in no case should this committee in my respectful submission recommend approval of these applications. These applications should be refused on the grounds of very poor planning and to do otherwise would be a travesty of justice – not only to the natural environment of this area but to the residents of this area. Thank you for your attention. [extended applause/cheering]
Mitchell: Members of the committee, any questions for Mr Trinaistich? Seeing none, at this point in time where do we start. Other members of the public that would like to come down and address us, please come down write your name, address., postal code, and telephone number on the sheet provided prior to speaking. [noise] Alright I have it moved by councillor Whitehead, seconded by councillor Ferguson that we take a 5-minute recess break for …. All in favour? Opposed. Carried. Thank you.
The remainder is from the official minutes of the meeting that can be found at http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/DF792684-9694-432C-993F-80913A346CCE/0/Apr24Minutes.pdf . The numbering refers to the order of the speakers:
Following Mr. Trinaistich’s comments, Chair Mitchell called a ten minute break. The meeting resumed at 10:40 pm, and Chair Mitchell requested any other speakers from the audience to come forward.
7. David Hart Dyke, 28 King Street West, Stoney Creek
Mr. Hart Dyke addressed Committee and expressed his opinion and concerns regarding the proposed Development. These included, but were not limited to;
• The local population of the blue nosed salamander is determined to be rare and threatened
• Institutional designations do not require public input
8. Alcida Landry, 46 Church Street
Ms. Landry addressed Committee and expressed his opinion and concerns regarding the proposed Development. These included, but were not limited to;
• has only lived here five years, originally from New Brunswick, and will be moving in June, but loves this area
• Urged Committee not to lose this special area
• never made Hamilton my home because it smells, it is old, doesn’t feel like home, it’s blue collar and doesn’t feel comfortable living here, but liked living on Church Street, this is an example of what Hamilton could be
• people want to live in a community like Church Street – not cookie cutter communities in Oakville, but with another 42 town houses, this may cause more impact on the wetlands
• if this by-law passes, you are losing the opportunity to keep one of these special areas of Hamilton.
Chair Mitchell addressed the meeting and noted the lateness of the hour. He asked whether the additional members of the public wishing to speak would like to continue tonight, or adjourn to a later meeting. The audience indicated that they preferred to speak tonight, and conclude the Public Meeting.
9. Don McLean, 68-151 Gateshead Crescent, Stoney Creek
Mr. McLean addressed Committee and expressed his opinion and concerns regarding the proposed Development. These included, but were not limited to;
• Noted that most of his comments already stated by others
• Advised that Public Consultation process for the 20 ESAs across the City appeared to be a fairly complete approach
• The staff decision not to circulate all the landowners in the area appears reasonable, and questioned the assertions from PEIL that their clients, the school board, were not aware of the process
• Noted that in 2004, when the subject site was declared surplus, the price was $202,000
• Expressed concern that there was no notice of the proposal to undesignate the ESA and the public did not have a chance to address Committee.
10. Brian Bonham, 45 East Avenue North, Hamilton
Mr. Bonham addressed Committee and expressed his opinion and concerns regarding the proposed Development. These included, but were not limited to;
• ESAs should be reviewed as a whole
• Speaking as a Downtown Hamilton resident, there are similar situations across the City
• when areas like these are lost, everyone loses
• since other natural areas in the City have been lost, this area is even more valuable
• encouraged Committee to refuse the application.
11. Jim Stollard, Hamilton Naturalist Club,
Mr. Stollard addressed Committee and expressed his opinion and concerns regarding the proposed Development. These included, but were not limited to;
• ESA recognized as a result of the leadership shown by his Club, need to preserve this area and others like it
• quoted from the report highlighting findings of Dougan
• development will degrade this natural area, asked Committee to restore and preserve this area as an ESA.
12. Marilyn Gomes
Ms. Gomes addressed Committee and expressed her opinion and concerns regarding the proposed Development. These included, but were not limited to;
• were studies undertaken prior to the rows of townhouses that have been already built in the area
• Save the earth so that our children can breath the clean air
• Makes common sense that if turtles are wandering through the area, it’s their area
• Need to protect the area, our duty to protect.
13. Karl Gonnsen, Metropolitan Consulting
Mr. Gonnsen addressed Committee and expressed his opinion and concerns regarding the proposed Development. These included, but were not limited to;
• Represents Parkside Hills, the proponent wishing to develop the lands purchased from the Hamilton Wentworth School Board
• part of complex Waterdown/Stoney Creek land swap
• his client was not affected by the previously mentioned planning circulation errors
• his client does support the staff recommendations
• the boundaries of the ESA have actually been increased, and the shape of the ESA has been improved, by the elimination of the “fingers”
• there is no official ESA at the present time – there’s an alleged ESA, and so far the first time there will be an official ESA defined
• his client accepts the smaller parcel of land, and they have submitted a site plan application with the zoning application, together with a Storm Water Management Plan
• these lands are not subject to flooding in 100 year storm event
• non-traditional method of storm water management being proposed
• suggested that the next Committee meeting should consider both this site and his client’s lands
14. Speaker who read letter from Professor Jim Quinn
The speaker read from a letter from Professor Jim Quinn requesting that Committee refuse the application, designate the area as an ESA and protect natural areas. He will e-mail a copy of the letter to the Committee.
15. Kimberly Mitchell
Ms. Mitchell challenged staff’s comments respecting the traffic impact in the area. She disagreed with the numbers stating that each townhouse will have two to three cars, and that this will certainly pose a threat to the turtles that cross Teal Avenue.
The Committee clarified that staff were referring to the number of trips and not the number of cars.
16. Naomi Gardner, 121 Teal Avenue
Ms. Gardner stated that she feels lucky to live in this area and she and her husband deserve this because they work hard to keep their home. While Councillor Pearson referred to property values not being adversely affected by development, she considered the value of her home is in its natural surroundings which will disappear with development. She’s also concerned with preserving the natural habitat for her children. Ms. Gardner explained that her daughter’s class will be using the area as a turtle study project.
She asked that Committee reject the recommendations.
17. Frank Simons, 76-44 Frances Avenue, Stoney Creek Mr. Simons addressed Committee and expressed his opinion and concerns regarding the proposed Development. These included, but were not limited to; • he’s speaking about the Public school board property • he loves his house but it shouldn’t have been built – he can see the effects it has had on the area wildlife • we need to protect the environment • totally disgusted with the part that the school boards are playing, this is not showing a good example for our children • potential conflicts of interest identified tonight • the lands were originally acquired by City taxpayers, at a low cost and now the property should be handed back to the community for the preservation of the natural area.
18. Gerald Watt, 91 Teal Avenue, Stoney Creek Mr. Watt addressed Committee and expressed his opinion and concerns regarding the proposed Development. These included, but were not limited to; • five generations of his family have lived in this area • the turtles cross Teal Avenue, as they always have • concern with the incredible amount of development that has been going on with the construction of the Redhill project, this means loss of habitat for wildlife and now developers are targeting the Community Beach area • you can’t drive out of the survey without seeing road kill and the increase in the traffic is going to be insane • for most of the older homes on Teal, they have limited frontage, and if sidewalks and road improvements take place, these homes will lose part of their frontage, which will decrease the value of the homes • if I wanted to live in an overcrowded concrete ghetto I would have moved to downtown Hamilton
19. Anthony DiCenzo, on behalf of Church Street Developments Mr. DiCenzo addressed Committee and explained he was legal counsel and co-owner of Church Street Developments. His comments included but were not limited to the following: • tried to explain the necessity of public consultation with respect to by-law changes • just like any other land owner, the school board needs to be notified, and as the owner of the property was not notified, the process was incomplete. Essentially, the Board was told its land was worthless, with no opportunity for discussion • the Dougan Report was commissioned by the City and the school boards. It was supported by ESAEIG and the Hamilton Conservation Authority, and therefore, should be relied on.
Councillor McHattie questioned some of the comments made by Mr. DiCenzo. He noted that of the 20 ESAs designated, following the public advertising only this one was held back, and all the others proceeded. In addition, there is other environmental information available respecting the subject property, and he noted that an EIS basically addresses mitigation measures when a development is proposed. Chair Mitchell asked if any further speakers from the audience wished to address Committee. As there were none, Committee considered the next stages in the process. They agreed that based on the questions and concerns raised tonight, additional information was needed before a final decision could be considered.
On a Motion (Whitehead/Duvall) Committee approved the following:
That the Community Beach Ponds applications for Regional Official Plan, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments be referred to a future meeting of the Committee, pending the completion of the following:
(a) Discussion with Wayne Marston, MP, respecting the points mentioned in his letter to the Mayor of April 5, 2007.
(b) The circulation of the Dougan Report EIS to all Council members
(c) The results of the Salamander testing are received
(d) Staff has reviewed the comments received at the Public Meeting, and has held further consultation with the Hamilton Conservation Authority, including their potential interest in purchasing the site.
(e) Clarification of the issues respecting the Stoney Creek Official Plan.
(f) Staff has researched the process of designation of a Provincial life cycle ANSI, and has considered the potential of a peer review of the EIS.
Chair Mitchell confirmed that the Public Meeting on this matter was now concluded. Mr. McCabe suggested that the staff report be considered at the Committee Meeting when the second development application for the area was to have its Public Meeting. He also noted that staff could bring forward a concept site plan.
Public Consultation Process
On a Motion (Clark/McHattie) Committee approved the following:
WHEREAS, the current public consultation process practiced by the Economic Development and Planning Committee results in new information being introduced via citizen input;
WHEREAS, it is important for citizens to know that their input is important, valued and considered seriously by members of the Economic Development and Planning Committee;
WHEREAS, the Planning Act encourages public consultation and allows municipalities to go beyond the minimum standards noted in the Act;
WHEREAS, other municipalities hear public consultation at one meeting and then table planning applications for decision at future meetings, allowing for full consideration of new information and citizen input;
AND WHEREAS, City Council is interested in citizen perspectives and best management practices in public consultation.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a Special Evening Public Meeting of the Economic Development and Planning Committee be held to gain perspectives on possible improvements to public consultation as practiced by the Committee.