• How they voted in June
• Expressway flooding and climate change
• Infant health program cut back

• Documents
• Acronym Glossary
• CATCH Website 2004-2006

• City Council (33)
• Committee of the Whole (27)
• Board of Health (6)
• Audit and Administration Standing Committee (9)
• Economic Development and Planning Standing Committee (76)
• Emergency and Community Services Standing Committee (4)
• Public Works Standing Committee (18)
• Other Committees (6)

*NEW* = within 14 days

List All Articles

CATCH Articles:

Turtle ponds safe for now

Apr 26, 2007

Massive opposition and a string of unanswered questions have stalled proposals to build townhouses on environmentally sensitive lands in Stoney Creek. City staff recommending the development faced intense questioning and criticism in a nearly six hour planning committee meeting attended by over 300 opponents of the project.

The 6:30 pm Tuesday evening meeting began with surprise changes to the staff recommendations, and ended a little after midnight when the nine councillors voted unanimously to defer a decision and to instruct their staff to provide more information.

The last minute change in the staff recommendations advised councillors that all decisions they made about the project and the environmental status of the remaining lands should “not be adopted by City Council until determination of the species of the salamanders found on April 14” on the affected lands.

Staff explained that DNA testing is required to distinguish if the salamanders are the provincially-threatened Jefferson Complex or the locally uncommon Blue-Spotted Salamander, and the results may alter recommendations as to how much of the property should be designated as an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA).

The decision to push ahead with the meeting despite the uncertainty was characterized as “a panic response” and was one of numerous staff actions or inactions that were challenged by politicians and/or speakers at the meeting.

Major issues in the meeting included:

•  The quiet removal of the ESA designation on the lands after it was challenged by Church Street Developments, the group that wants to construct 42 townhouses on a portion of the area that is owned by the Catholic school board;
• The status of a prior environmental designation in the Stoney Creek official plan that may require an official plan amendment prior to the current re-zoning attempts;
• The status and timing of development of an additional townhouse complex on the Public school board lands that occupy a third of the area adjacent to the Church Street Development on the Catholic board property;
• The ethical message being sent by both school boards to children in selling environmentally sensitive lands for development;
• The failure of the city to purchase the lands when they were initially offered to them in 2004 and 2005;
• The lack of a secondary plan for the neighbourhood;
• The failure of city staff to act when a salamander was provided to them by residents nearly a year ago;
• The joint hiring by the city and the developers of an ecological consultant to re-draw the boundaries of the ESA to accommodate the proposed development;
• The appropriate size of a buffer between the townhouses and the reduced ESA lands, or even whether there is any actual buffer being proposed;
• The failure of staff to provide councillors with key documents including the environmental impact statement prepared by the ecological consultants;
• Accusations that the citizens group was denied access to a city advisory committee that nevertheless met with the developers;
• Possible conflicts of interest of the developer’s agent who is also a Catholic school trustee and a city appointed board member of the Hamilton Conservation Authority;
• The influence of election donations on the ward councillor, Maria Pearson.

The latter issue was raised by prominent Stoney Creek dentist Rolf Langer who noted “a significant donation to Mrs Pearson’s re-election fund” from Planning and Engineering Initiatives Limited (PEIL), the agents for the developer.

“Is it unreasonable to question whether or not Councillor Pearson has a conflict of interest?”, asked Dr Langer, who drew loud applause from the audience.

Pearson said she didn’t recall the PEIL donation but “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 probably going back to 1994.”

“Do I support development because of that?” she asked rhetorically. “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.”

She said that her position was determined by the staff recommendations.

 “If something changes that we can go against this, if staff says no, we’re 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.”