A staff report released yesterday recommends approval of a 42-unit townhouse subdivision by Church Street Developments but also contains 29 letters and a 262-name petition from opponents. The complex 88-page report also puts forward two city-initiated re-zoning proposals that would make about one third of the Community Beach Ponds an official Environmentally Significant Area, and remove recreational use from part of Edgelake Park.

 

The summation of the three proposals says the changes will enhance both environmental and community well-being. The ‘triple bottom line’ analysis section of the report states that “ecological function and the natural heritage system are protected” fulfilling the environmental well-being criteria, and declares that community well-being is also improved because “the public are involved in the definition and development of local solutions”.

 

The report does not mention any public support for the staff proposals.

 

The 12-acre Community Beach Ponds natural area lies between Church Street and Francis Street and is equally divided between three owners. The city holds the 4-acre Edgelake Park on the western edge of a large pond. The remainder is divided between the catholic school board and the public school board and is comprised of wooded areas and other wetlands in addition to nearly all of the pond.

 

It was one of 14 locations that were recommended in a 2002 city report for special protection as ESAs, and is recognized provincially as an “Area of Scientific and Natural Interest” and “the best remaining example of this habitat type within the City of Hamilton”

 

The province has also identified the lands as a “significant wildlife area” because they are an important stopover for migratory birds, contain a rare marsh habitat dominated by the provincially significant buttonbush shrub, and provide breeding grounds for some locally rare species of birds as well as numerous turtles, some of which are several decades old and have been given personal names by local residents.

 

It was approved as an ESA in April 2003, but this was quietly reversed by city planners two years later. The staff report released this week reveals this un-designation was “in response to an objection from Church Street Developments”.

 

This is the first time that developer pressure has been acknowledged as the reason for the unprecedented un-designation of an ESA. The staff report that originally recommended the change gave no reason for the change.

 

The transformation from unprotected to protected and back to unprotected seems to be a sore point with city authors of this week’s report who pointedly declare that “it is important to note that the ESA designation of this site was not revoked or rescinded, as the site was never officially an ESA.”

 

But city documents show the area as an ESA for two full years, and the designation was used by city planners as justification for not purchasing some of the lands in the summer of 2004 when the catholic school board declared them surplus and offered the city right of first refusal.

 

A city document issued in April 2005 just after the un-designation stated that “the

Official Plan Amendment to designate the site as an ESA had to be repealed and replaced.” That’s also the wording that appears in a September 2006 ecological study prepared for the city by Dougan and Associates.

 

The company was jointly hired by the city and the developers and asked to evaluate the “significant wildlife area” depiction. Their September 2006 report confirms the designation and says development on the school board lands “will result in direct and indirect impacts to the natural heritage resources and ecological functions” of the area.

 

“Direct impacts will include the loss of habitat, elimination and/or displacement of species populations and a reduction in overall species diversity”, notes the report. “The clearing of these areas will result in a significant reduction of habitat for flora and fauna utilizing the area.”

 

The boundary for the ESA recommended by Dougan and Associates includes the pond and a strip of larger trees on both sides but excludes about three-quarters of the lands owned by the two school boards. Their report says it is “based on consideration of which lands were considered most important in terms of fulfilling the respective ESA criteria”. But the townhouse complex proposed by Church Street Developments and recommended by city staff further reduces the protected area.

 

“While the current proposal will result in some encroachment onto the area identified for ESA designation, it is not anticipated to impact the remaining natural area to the extent that it would no longer satisfy the ESA criteria”, concludes the consultant.

 

This week’s staff proposal says the re-jigged “ESA boundary recommended in this report balances the concerns of the landowners with the need to protect the environmental features and functions of the site.”

 

They are proposing that part of the recreational zoning of Edgelake Park be changed to allow for naturalization that would expand the remaining ESA lands. A staff report in 2004 said that the neighbourhood already has a shortage of recreational parkland, but there is no mention of the deficiency in this week’s report. It lists both park planning and the culture and recreation division as departments with “no concerns” about the proposals.

 

The adjustments to the park are accompanied by a long string of rule exceptions being granted to the developers. They include allowing a reduction in the front yard setback to 3 metres instead of the required 7.5; cutting the side yard setback to 3.5 instead of the normal 6 metres; and “reductions to the required Minimum Landscape Open Space provisions (from 50% to 40%, and 3 metre landscape strip along Church Street instead of the required 4.5 metres).”

 

The buffer width between the development and the ESA is being set at 5 metres. The city’s rules don’t specify what an appropriate buffer is for an ESA, but 15 metres is widely used by other jurisdictions for protection of environmentally sensitive areas, and some ecologists contend that 30 metres should be the minimum.

 

Many residents expressed concern in their letters about increased traffic from the new development. They point to already narrow roads with no sidewalks as unsafe for neighbourhood children, but the report says that “Traffic Engineering and Operations staff has not indicated any concern regarding traffic flows or pedestrian safety” and argues that traffic could be worse if a school had been built on the lands.

 

The report offers three alternative options to the planning committee, none of which are recommended. The first says if the development proposal is denied “a range of small scale institutional uses, such as churches, community centres, elementary schools, hospices, police stations, residential care facilities, and libraries, would be permitted as-of-right under the Small Scale Institutional “IS” Zoning; with no protection for the natural features and functions of Community Beach Ponds. This option is not recommended by staff because it would not protect the natural features and functions of the site.”

 

A second option is to leave the ESA boundary as determined by the Dougan study and not allow the developers to encroach on it. “If this boundary is chosen, the Church Street development area would be reduced to accommodate the alternate ESA boundary and a larger buffer,” says the report. “This option is not recommended because it does not balance the needs of the environment with that of the development or reflect the agreement that was reached with staff, ESAIEG, and the Conservation Authority.”

 

The third option is to accept the larger ESA that had originally been delineated when the area was first protected. The report says choosing this boundary would mean development on both school board properties“ would be significantly reduced to accommodate the ESA boundary and a minimum 5-metre buffer measured from the woodland drip line. This boundary is not recommended by staff, as it does not include an adequate amount of the mature woodland to the east of the pond on the HWDSB property or does it reflect the detailed EIS prepared and agreement reached by the parties.”

 

The issue goes to a special public meeting of the economic development and planning committee on Tuesday evening at Stoney Creek city hall, starting at 6:30 pm. It may be finalized as early as the next night when city council is scheduled to meet.