text:
Hamilton City Council Ends Evening Meetings, Making COVID Time Change Permanent – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 15, 2022
Hamilton City Council will no longer meet in the evenings.
Council voted this week on a new meeting calendar with no evening meetings for the rest of 2022 and all of 2023.
For decades, the various councils of the Old City of Hamilton and former suburban municipalities met at 7:00 p.m. to allow citizens to attend meetings to both observe and delegate.
Following in 2001, the new City of Hamilton Council continued to meet at 7:00 p.m. for the “full Council” ratification meetings on the second and fourth Wednesday. The practice of public delegations ended with amalgamation.
Over the past two decades, senior staff and some councillors tried to end evening meetings.
During the 2010 – 2014 Council term, the 7:00 p.m. start time was changed to 5:00 p.m.
In February 2019, Council attempted to change their meeting time to 9:30 a.m. The change was stalled because Council failed to issue 30 days for public notice.
Following public notice, Council’s Governance Committee held the required public meeting on April 25, 2019, receiving 52 letters regarding the change. 49 of those letters opposed the change.
The meeting time remained 5:00 p.m.
In March 2020, the Government of Ontario declared a state of emergency due to the COVID pandemic.
City Council decided to move their meetings to 9:30 a.m. during the emergency.
During the August 21, 2020, Council meeting, Ward 14 Councillor Terry Whitehead walked on a no-notice motion, written by city staff, to change the procedural bylaw to make the COVID emergency change permanent.
Council declared the motion to be urgent in a 12-3 vote, with Nrinder Nann, Sam Merulla, and Chad Collins opposed. Esther Pauls was absent.
Whitehead said the City “has a responsibility to its employees” and late meetings are not an “ideal situation from an occupational health and safety perspective.”
“We are answering the call from our staff,” Whitehead stated as his reason for acting on the request of the City Clerk.
No other members of Council spoke to the special motion.
Council voted 11 to 4 for the permanent change. Nann, Merulla, and Collins opposed, with Maureen Wilson joining them.
“We have a Clerk’s picture of happy face,” said Mayor Fred Eisenberger immediately after the vote. “They seem to be pleased.”
The Mayor and City Clerk Andrea Holland were both in the Council Chamber at City Hall during the August 2020 meeting.


text:
Hamilton City Council Planning Committee for April 5, 2022 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 4, 2022
Hamilton City Council’s Planning Committee will debate a mid-rise development application in Ancaster’s Village Core (staff are recommending denial), allowing outdoor patio entertainment city-wide, permittingv temporary tents on patios for three more years, early stages of a new Master Plan for the Stelco lands, and an appeal of a staff decision ordering the removal of a top soil pile in rural Glanbrook.
The meeting begins at 9:30 am on Tuesday morning and will be livestreamed on YouTube.
City planning staff are recommending Council deny an application to build an eight-storey mixed-use development at 392 to 412 Wilson Street East saying it failed to conform with the Ancaster Wilson Street Secondary Plan and does not meet the intent of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.
In October, with the support of Ward 12 (Ancaster) Councillor Lloyd Ferguson, Council voted to approve moving the Philip Marr House, a designated heritage building from c. 1840, to facilitate this development.
This planning application was filed on December 22, 2021. The City’s planning staff moved quickly to process the application to get it in front of Council for a denial vote prior to the 120 days threshold for a developer to file a non-decision appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
By denying the application before the April 20, 120-day deadline, Council requires the Ontario Land Tribunal to give consideration to both the position of Council and the feedback received from the public.
Public notices were issued on February 4, 2022. 77 letters and emails opposing the development were received by City Hall.
City planning staff state the development does not conform with Official Plan policies requiring developments to respect and enhance community character.
“It is noted that the historic Ancaster downtown area is unique in that the street front has many breaks and spacing between buildings. Based on the scale and massing of the proposed building, the proposed development would interrupt this pattern. The solid massing is not representative of the village form of individual buildings along the street, the proposed height is more than triple what is currently supported, and the arrangement of building components does not complement the nature of the Ancaster Village Core area.”
Other reasons for denial listed by staff include greater density than permitted, traffic impacts beyond what Wilson Street can absorb, and insignificant studies to determine if “the existing downstream sanitary system has sufficient capacity to support the proposed density on the site.”
The Hamilton Conservation Authority is not satisfied with the proposed stormwater control measures.
Among the 77 letters opposing this development application, a handful of letters express support for intensification along Wilson Street in the range of four to five storeys.
“I feel that Ancaster residents will have to accept gentle densification in order to accommodate population growth within our urban boundary. This being said, the proposal for an 8 storey structure is too tall but I believe a 4 storey building would fit in nicely with the aesthetics of the town and would maximize the amount of housing it provides,” wrote Anka Cassar.
“As an Ancaster resident, I am in favour of missing middle density (2-5 storeys) being allowed here. It is my belief that the Ancaster Secondary Plan is out of date and needs to be revised in light of the absolute necessity of municipalities to meaningfully address the climate emergency. Hamilton has declared a climate emergency and allowing well-planned infill projects to be built within all neighbourhoods across the city is one step we can take to do our part. Additionally, Hamilton City Council has voted for no urban expansion so gentle density in the city is now crucial if we are to avoid sprawl onto farm fields,” wrote Nancy Hurst. Hurst is a key organizer with Stop Sprawl HamOnt.
The vast majority of the letters called for a maximum height of 2.5 to 3 storeys.
There are over 200 pages of “housekeeping amendments” to the City’s various zoning bylaws and official plans.
Councillors are being asked to approve a new Temporary Use By-law to allow businesses across Hamilton to continue operating outdoor patios using tents as they have during COVID.
The extension will allow for the continued use of temporary tents by businesses and institutions such as places of worship, seniors’ homes, and educational establishments.
The Temporary Use By-law allows tents to remain in place for up to six months, whereas Hamilton’s permanent bylaws limit their use to five consecutive days.
It will remain in effect until March 31, 2025, to give time for the City’s planning staff to further review how businesses and institutions are using temporary tents.
Staff will bring forth recommendations before the by-law expires in 2025.
City staff will also monitor to see if temporary tents are used for outdoor entertainment.
In a separate report, City staff are recommending the City rescind its outdoor entertainment ban.
Council voted in February to create a permanent program for temporary outdoor patios following their success during COVID.
Both programs will be reviewed regularly by staff, with reports to Council.
City of Hamilton staff are recommending Council allow patio entertainment city-wide.
This follows a successful four-year pilot allowing live or recorded entertainment on outdoor patios in a few districts such as Downtown Hamilton, Downtown Dundas, and Upper James Street.
During the four-year pilot, the City states there were no noise complaints regarding outdoor patio music. The pilot capped noise at 60db.
Patio operators could apply for a noise exception permit to exceed 60db, for example, to hold an outdoor concert. There were no permit applications during the pilot.
“Most [patios] in the pilot project areas declined to introduce any form of outdoor entertainment,” writes City planner Alana Fulford. Patios “elected to introduce soft background music/videos or acoustic entertainment to avoid any public complaint.”
Staff recommend rescinding the City’s bylaw provisions banning outdoor patio entertainment and relying solely upon existing noise bylaws.
If Council rescinds the bylaw provisions, all patios across Hamilton will be allowed outdoor entertainment.
This includes the North End where neighbourhood association Harbour West Neighbours appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board when Council created the pilot in 2017.
HWN withdrew their appeal in 2018 when the City agreed to remove the North End and West Harbour from the pilot area.
The City will implement an administrative penalty system offence using the Licensing By-law to use alongside the noise by-law to fine any businesses which exceed the 60db limit or that cause disturbance to neighbouring properties.
Hamilton’s Acting Director of Growth Management Carlo Ammendolia is asking Council to uphold a staff decision to not permit a stockpile of 1,750 cubic metres of topsoil at 2330 Guyatt Road in Glanbrook.
City staff issued an order to comply against the owner on June 25, 2021, after observing “Site Alteration activities without a valid Site Alteration Permit.”
Following the order, the owner applied for a permit. Staff denied the permit application stating the “proposed stockpile is not consistent with the regulations for ‘Stockpiling for Agricultural or Commercial Operations’ per Section 6(1) of the Site Alteration By-law No. 19-286.”
The soil is already stockpiled on the Guyatt Road property.
The soil originated from a development at 90 Glover Road in Hamilton. The tenant farmer, John Vanderwoude Sod Farms Ltd., states they will use the topsoil as part of their sow farming practice.
The land is owned by P & L Livestock Limited, a Burlington company with offices at 4450 Paletta Court. This corporation is part of Paletta International Corporation. A development arm of the company completed the 90 Guyatt Road project.
Staff write, “there is no evidence that top soil rehabilitation or spreading across this property is necessary as part of a Normal Farm Practice.”
The staff opinion was peer-reviewed by City’s Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee, and they agreed with the staff assessment.
In their appeal, the developer argues that sod farming requires replenishment of soil, and City Council should allow this stockpile to be used by the farming operation.
The appeal package includes testing verifying the soil is clean fill.
If Council upholds the permit denial, the City’s 2021 order to comply requires the topsoil to be removed.
Council is being asked to approve implementing a Holding Provision upon the Stelco Lands to allow the company to being the process of creating a new Master Plan for 287.12 hectares of land which the company hopes to redevelop into a range of uses to be determined.
Stelco will retain 31.78 acres of land which is core to their operations on Hamilton Harbour.
The holding provision is a condition of severance. It effectively “freezes” the land use until the Master Plan, associated studies, and associated plans are complete to the approval of Hamilton City Hall.

source: news-thepublicrecord

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Hamilton City Council Public Works Committee for April 4, 2022 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 3, 2022
Road safety will be the dominant discussion at Council’s Public Works Committee on Monday.
There are two notices of motions responding to recent pedestrian deaths and serious injuries, the new truck routes which will forbid heavy trucks in the Downtown Core and much of the Lower City, and a staff recommendation to expand the Red Light Camera program to ten more intersections.
Also on the agenda this week: preparing for Highway 403 weekend closures, 2020 structural inspections of City of Hamilton bridges, and a few ward councillor budget spending motions for safety and sidewalk improvements.
The meeting begins at 1:30 pm on Monday, April 4, and will be livestreamed on YouTube.
There are two notices of motion following the recent deaths and serious injuries suffered by pedestrians at two of Hamilton’s most notorious intersections.
Three pedestrians died early in the morning of Saturday, March 19, 2022, when they were struck by a speeding vehicle. The operator of the vehicle “lost control, mounted the curb and struck a concrete hydro pole. During the collision, the vehicle struck three pedestrians and debris caused by the collision struck a fourth.”
On Wednesday, March 30, 2022, a Westdale Secondary School student walking home from school “was struck by a 2016 Hyundai motor vehicle that was being driven by a 49-year-old Hamilton male,” and suffered critical injuries at the intersection of Main Street West and Dundurn Street South.
The councillors of the wards where the collisions occurred, Ward 1’s Maureen Wilson and Ward 3’s Nrinder Nann, are seeking road safety reviews.
Councillors will vote to ratify last week’s recommendation from the Truck Route Sub-Committee to prohibit heavy trucks from cutting through Hamilton’s Downtown and along arterial roads in older residential areas of Hamilton.
The sub-committee voted 7-0 to approve the changes. Lower City residents who delegated last week were mostly supportive of the change, with some calling for a complete ban. Business representatives, the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, and the trucking industry say the changes will harm Hamilton’s economic competitiveness. Full story on TPR here: Council’s Truck Committee Votes to Axe Heavy Truck Cut-Through Routes.
City staff are recommending adding more red light traffic cameras locations in 2022, with ten new locations recommended. City staff say the ten locations have the “highest potential to improve roadway safety and also found to be technically suitable for installation.”
The installation of the cameras will add approximately $820,000 to the annual operating cost of the red light camera program, this includes the cost of administration and the legal/court services costs.
The City says it issued approximately 19,600 red light camera tickets during 2020 at 32 camera locations. The City says the ten new locations have a “potential for an estimated increase of approximately 6,000 additional charges [tickets] filed annually.”
Staff state red light cameras are effective at decreasing right-angle collisions by 58 percent and decrease “injury/fatal collisions associated with this type of collision” by 65 percent compared to the three-year period before cameras are installed.
The list of locations is:
Paramount Drive and Winterberry Drive;
Highway 8 and Gray Road;
Barton Street and Fruitland Road;
Upper James Street and Airport Road East;
Garner Road East and Southcote Road;
Wilson Street West and Highway 52/Trinity Road South;
Cootes Drive and Dundas Street/East Street North;
Stone Church Road West and Upper Paradise Road;
Garth Street and Fennell Avenue West/Scenic Drive; and
Highway 5 East and Hamilton Street North.
Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr is moving a motion to spend $30,000 to install a pedestrian crossover with raised crosswalk on Harbour Front Drive at the marina access road and $10,000 for a speed cushion on the Drive approximately 80 metres north of Bay Street as well as painting a yellow centre line.
Ward 6 Councillor Tom Jackson is moving a motion to install three speed cushions on Princeton Drive at a cost of up to $21,000.
Ward 1 Councillor Maureen Wilson has a motion to spend up to $240,000 to repair sidewalks, curbs, and driveway aprons along two kilometres of various streets in Ward 1. The streets named in the motion are Sanders Boulevard, Pearl Street S, Kent Street, and Breadalbane Street.
City of Hamilton staff state Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation will implement two weekend closures of Highway 403 between King Street West and Highway 6 to replace two overpass bridges.
The MTO will replace the Highway 403 Macklin Street overpass and the Old Guelph Road overpass.
“Two full weekend closures, one direction at a time, will be utilized to complete the work and during the closures, traffic will be detoured onto the Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway, Red Hill Valley Parkway, York Boulevard and Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW),” writes Hamilton Acting Director of Transportation Operations & Maintenance Mike Field.
“The two full weekend closures will be coordinated with the City and the MTO and City will develop a robust communications plan to inform the public of the
construction, closure and detour.”
Dates for the closure are not finalized.
The City is releasing its 2020 Bridge Ontario Structure Inspection Manual summary report on the PW agenda.
Two firms were engaged to inspect both City owned and non-City owned bridges. The consultants found a total of 22 City structures and 2 non-City structures with “urgent and/or critical works as defined by inspection standards.”
The City immediately removed loose concrete on the Upper Sherman Avenue overpass above the Lincoln Alexander Parkway. Other immediate repairs were “safety issues related to performance deficiencies of the steel beam guide rail at Bridges 234 and 244, and a missing utility access hole lid at Bridge 314.”
Bridge 234 is South Service Road (257 m east of Jones Road), Bridge 244 is Highway # 8 (15 m west of Fifty Road), and Bridge 314 is the Claremont Access (over Charlton Avenue).
Many of the deficiencies found were railings needing repair and broken or heaved concrete along the pedestrian walkways of bridges.
The City does not spend enough on infrastructure to keep up with road and bridge preventative maintenance. The City’s infrastructure deficit is over $3-billion and growing.


text:
Hamilton City Council Says Provincial Planning Changes will Cost Hamilton Taxpayers More, Harm Housing Approvals. – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 11, 2022
“The More Homes for Everyone Act should really be renamed the More Money from Campaign Donors Act,” says Ward 8 Hamilton City Councillor John-Paul Danko.
“The Province is downloading the cost of development to municipal taxpayers.”
Hamilton City Council opposes Bill 109, the provincial Conservative legislation that will change the Planning Act that Hamilton City Council says will do nothing to address housing prices and will instead cost Hamilton taxpayers while developers get even richer.
Bill 109 will force municipalities to refund development fees, create more parkland deficiencies along transit corridors, and increases the Minister of Municipal Affairs’ powers to overturn local comprehensive official plans [urban boundaries], while increasing costs upon municipalities.
Mayor Fred Eisenberger says Hamilton taxpayers are being forced to subsidize new development and sprawl.
“We’ve said all along, growth needs to pay for growth,” the mayor says. “Now we’re doubling down on existing taxpayers to pay for the kind of growth that developers obviously want.”
Both Eisenberger and Danko said the bill will not address the housing crisis.
Eisenberger notes the prices of houses are increasing due to low interest rates, not municipal policies.
“People are paying more and are able to pay more because they’re able to able to pay more on a monthly basis based on the low interest rates. That’s the main driver and in the absence of fixing that prices are going to continue to escalate,” says Eisenberger.
There are approximately 35,000 approved housing units that developers can build right now, says Hamilton’s Director of Planning and Chief Planner Steve Robichaud.
“Some are already zoned” and others are “working their way through the planning approvals process,” he says. Hamilton grows by approximately 3000 units per year, Robichaud says the unbuild units “equate to a 12-year supply” of new housing.
Two weeks ago, Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark stated he plans to send Hamilton City Council’s plan to the Ontario Land Tribunal “as an impartial adjudicator.”
The OLT is required by the Planning Act to implement provincial planning policies, which are set by the Minister. It is not an independent adjudicator.
Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark is concerned that Bill 109 does not require the OLT to hold a hearing for matters referred by the Minister.
“Section 58 of the Bill … the Tribunal may hold a hearing doesn’t say shall hold a hearing. Which is a little bit disturbing,” says Clark
Bill 109 will require municipalities to refund a portion of development application fees whenever Council fails to decide within 90 days of receiving a zoning application, or 120 days for an official plan amendment.
A full refund must be provided after 180 days for zoning or 240 for OPA applications.
Anita Fabac, Manager of Development Planning [de-facto a deputy chief planner], described the challenge of meeting the 90 day deadline, even in ideal conditions.
It takes 30 days to deem an application complete, Fabac states.
The City then must circulate it to various agencies (utilities, conservation authorities, provincial and federal ministries), and wait 20 days for those bodies to review and comment.
There is 17 day public notice requirement, prior to the Council Planning Committee’s consideration of applications, and another 8 days between Planning Committee and Council’s ratification meeting.
“75 days,” Fabac said. “That would leave the planner, the applicant, as well as engineering and other staff 15 days to review all the information to negotiate any changes with the applicant and then write a staff report.”
Robichaud says Bill 109 will force the City to deny applications before the refund deadlines.
“After 120 days, if it was an official plan amendment, we would have to refund the money to the applicant, even if the applicant didn’t ask for a fee refund.”
Three days prior to the special council meeting, at council’s planning meeting, the lawyer for an Ancaster developer asked council to defer making a decision on their mid-rise application.
The developer stated they wanted more time to negotiate with staff, rather than having to appeal a Council denial to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Council voted deny because of the looming 90 day decision deadline, and a concern the developer would appeal to the OLT for non-decision after 90 days.
“We saw this on Tuesday, where the applicant said they were in no rush for a decision, they knew they needed at least another 90 or 120 days to respond to the staff comments,” Robichaud said.
Bill 109 “really removes that discretion from Council to work with the applicant and the community. Because there’s a financial penalty,” Robichaud said.
“The province is also looking at a lower standard for parkland dedication around transit oriented development,” Robichaud informed Council.
Robichaud says this will make it harder for the City to address the existing “parkland deficiency” in the Lower City.
He says new population growth will “further aggravate that parkland deficiency, rather than maintaining it at a neutral state in the sense that new development should pay for growth should pay for growth, and that includes the adequate provision of Parkland.”
Many members of City Council criticized the political motivatives they say are driving Bill 109.
“It’s pretty clear that this is a conservative election stratagem … It may well backfire,” says Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr.
Ward 1 Councillor Maureen Wilson calls the Bill “obviously egregious, and political,”
Ward 3 Councillor Nrinder Nann says it is “clearly an unnecessary and unfair overreach on a fast track to approval.”
Eisenberger says “the planning regime can be fixed, it can be improved,” saying this Bill will do the opposite.
“The chances of this government getting back into office [after the provincial election] is really high. We need to understand that,” noted Clark.
Bill 109 is expected to be passed in the Legislative Assembly, where the Progressive Conservatives hold the majority of seats, later this month.


text:
Hamilton City Council to Send Lawyers to Oppose Booze at 7-Eleven – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 28, 2022
Council voted this week to send lawyers to the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal to seek restrictions upon the sale and consumption of liquor in convenience stores.
7-Eleven is seeking liquor licenses for two of its Hamilton locations: it’s 415 Melvin Avenue location at Woodward Avenue in East Hamilton, and 622 Upper Wellington Street at Brucedale Avenue on Hamilton Mountain.
The City did not detail any of the conditions it is seeking to have imposed upon the licenses.
The Tribunal has already dismissed objections in four cases: Toronto (twice), London, and Sarnia.
In each case, the Tribunal imposed standard license conditions with a time limitation that 7-Eleven can only serve alcohol between 12:00 pm (noon) and 11:00 pm.
The convenience store company states they will only serve alcohol with the purchase of food. They state they will not serve “hard” liquor. The applications request permissions for seating areas for up to 10 customers.
Of the four cases, only one involved a municipality as an intervenor.
In this case, the City of Toronto reached an agreement with 7-Eleven and granted its consent to the application.
The City’s conditions were nearly the same as what the Tribunal is already imposing.
In the other Toronto case, a group of thirteen objectors banned together to hire a lawyer in oppose to an application at 1 Eglinton Avenue East.
In this Toronto case, and both the London and Sarnia cases, the objectors called University of Victoria psychology professor Tim Stockwell, Ph.D.
Dr. Stockwell detailed the concerns regarding convenience stores serving alcohol, especially with poorly paid staff who must potentially deal with the challenges of intoxicated and aggressive patrons.
Objectors expressed concerns both about underage persons seeing alcohol in a convenience store setting and the risk of underage persons being served.
In the cases, 7-Eleven cited its procedures for tobacco in response, which includes training and the use of mystery shoppers to verify compliance with regulations.
They were also alcohol served at 7-Eleven stores will contribute to an increase of aggressive and disruptive behaviour in the immediate vicinity.
Ontario’s liquor laws state the Tribunal is to issue liquor licenses unless objectors can prove it is not in the public interest.
The Tribunal noted this, “the onus is typically on any objectors to establish that issuing the licence is not in the public interest.”
Regarding expressed concerns, the Tribunal cited high rates of compliance by various liquor licensees with regulations and that 7-Eleven would risk their license if they fail to serve in a responsible manner. The Tribunal noted that 7-Eleven states they are not seeking to operate a bar, and will only sell alcohol with food.
The City of Hamilton, in its public statement, writes it expects the licenses will be granted in Hamilton.
“Understanding that municipalities have had little success in achieving a denial of licenses of these types by the AGCO, the City of Hamilton will seek reasonable constraints to be placed on alcohol sales at these locations,” it reads.
The City is not revealing what conditions it will seek. The City states the hearing at the Tribunal is scheduled for June 14 to 17.


text:
Hamilton Committee of Adjustment and Secondary Dwelling Units: April 28, 2022 Meeting – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 28, 2022
Hamilton’s Committee of Adjustment (CoA) approved five of six secondary dwelling unit (SDUs) applications at this week’s meeting.
All six applications were supported by the City’s planning staff.
Ward 6 Councillor Tom Jackson, who opposes SDUs in what he refers to as stable neighbourhoods, asked the CoA to deny an SDU application in Ward 6 at 131 Winchester Blvd.
The other five approved SDU applications were: 77 West 4th Street, 101 Weir Street, 37 Paradise Road South, 478 John Street North, and 28 Arthur Street North.
One CoA member opposed the SDU on Paradise Road.
Ward 8 Councillor John-Paul Danko wrote a letter opposing the SDU on West 4th, writing, “77 West 7th [sic] St. is part of the Bonnington neighbourhood which already suffers from an overrepresentation of converted single family home rental properties.” Danko did not attend the video conference meeting.
City staff supported the backyard detached SDU application. The proposed separation between the primary residence and the proposed SDU was 4.1 metres, whereas the SDU bylaw requires a separation of 7.5 metres.
The CoA denied the application stating this was too much of a change to be acceptable.
“Community voices again, have spoken loudly,” stated Clr Jackson to the CoA. “It takes a lot for citizens everyday citizens to appear before a committee of Council such as this which you are appointed by Council.”
“Again, going from one unit to three on the same property that traditionally was a single family home for decades, in my humble opinion is over intensification and who knows the three may even lead to more and in my humble opinion, that’s way over intense for this property, and overall altering the character of the neighbourhood,” Jackson stated.
Nearby residents shared their opposition, some of it grounded in concerns about change and others about property standards due to existing issues with the rental property.
“I feel this is a jump in the “proverbial rabbit hole” to alter our city and community into another ‘Toronto'”, wrote Cindy Gaston.
“Please don’t allow this variance to happen, not at this property, not at other properties in the future,” wrote City of Hamilton staff member Rebecca Tait using her official City account. “As a homeowner on the mountain, I already see homes around me turning into duplexes and issues this creates.”
Neighbours stated the basement unit is presently being used as an AirBnB.
CoA Member Laverne Gaddye confirmed it was being used for short-stay rentals when he visited the site.
Gaddye says he spoke to a person having a smoke outside the basement unit. “I said to him, do you rent the basement? And he said to me, no, we don’t rent it. This is an AirBnB.”
Property owner Michael Sifontes, who describes himself as a “Home Buyer” responded to neighbour comments in his own letter to the COA.
He objected to being referred to as an “out of towner” because he states his hometown is Burlington. His letter was signed using his Toronto address.
There were letters in support of the SDU, all of which were from residents in other areas of Hamilton.


text:
Hamilton Committee of Adjustment for April 7, 2022 [Post-Meeting Summary] – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 6, 2022
The Committee of Adjustment (CoA) approved three secondary dwelling units (SDUs), a series of severances, rezoned a subdivision proposal – despite the City’s planning staff saying it was not the proper process, and approved the final variances for the new Hamilton Urban Core Community Health Centre at 430 – 436 Cannon Street East.
The CoA announced they will resume in-person hearings on May 26, 2020. The CoA will stop streaming their meetings and no longer allow public participation by video and phone.
The CoA rejected an attempt to sever a farm property within the Greenbelt. The owner of 1130 Ridge Road (Stoney Creek) hoped to keep the existing house and sell the remainder of the land.
An application to further decrease the parking requirement at the Corktown Plaza was tabled.
The CoA approved three SDUs this week, on split votes with some members continuing to oppose SDUs because they are usually rentals. A few weeks ago, one member stated that approving SDUs will make Hamilton’s neighbourhood’s “into ghettos”.
CoA unanimously approved the conversion of an existing detached accessory building, which has a basement, into an SDU.
SDUs are not intended to have basements, and the SDU by-law sets the maximum size of a unit at 75 square metres. [Variances are usually permitted for more space, with conditions] Due to the basement, this SDU is just over twice the permitted size.
City’s planning staff wrote “SDU will not set a precedent as it is often not common to have an existing accessory building with a basement. This situation is unique as the basement unit has helped to increase the GFA of the SDU.”
Ward 10 Councillor Maria Pearson stated she is “concerned of a precedent being set. This is not an old building, this is a fairly new building … I am okay with this being approved.”
CoA member Margaret Smith expressed concern this accessory garage building was built with the intention of it becoming two housing units.
“I do notice that the basement has a full washroom in it,” Smith noted. “So two full washrooms in this.” Other members of the CoA joined in expressing concerns the owner will divide the permitted single unit into two.
The City will monitor and enforce bylaws.
CoA unanimously approved variances for this SDU. The house is located near the intersection of East 39th and Crockett Street, one block west of Upper Gage Avenue.
The property owner requested two variances:
1) to allow a 2.6m x 5.9m parking space where a 2.7m x 6.0m is required
2) minimum front yard landscaped area of 36% is proposed, whereas a minimum landscaped area of 50% of the front yard is required.
Staff recommended approval.
One CoA member expressed concern that a storage room within the unit could be converted into an additional bedroom that is not permitted within SDUs.
The owner of the property is returning for additional variances for an already approved secondary dwelling unit.
The new variances are required for a second parking spot where zoning only permits one spot to ensure at least 50 percent of the front is landscaped.
The second spot will reduce landscaping to 12 percent.
Environment Hamilton’s Lynda Lukasik spoke to the CoA seeking to make the use of a permeable service for the driveway a condition of approval.
CoA member Nancie Mleczko remarked she is concerned there is “a little bit of a lobbying process” due to an increase in public interest delegations to the committee.
[Read more on this here: Joey’s Notepad: CoA Member Concerned about “Lobbying” by Environment Hamilton]
The application was approved, without conditions.
This site is north of Burlington Street, with an existing small bungalow on the property.
The developer who owns the site is planning to replace it with a three-storey single-detached house as permitted in the zoning bylaw.
They plan to have an SDU within the new home, which is an as-of-right permission.
There are two variances requested:
1) 40% landscaping where 50% is required.
2) Two parking spots at the front, whereas bylaw permits only one.
Environment Hamilton wrote they support the SDU but do not support the variances due to an existing street tree at the front of the property.
EH states they oppose the decrease in landscaping in front of the house.
There is an existing street tree in the front which EH wants to be protected.
EH encouraged the applicant to use street parking instead of adding a second parking spot.
The variances were approved.
This week’s land severances, with the exception of a rural application, all sought to split larger lots to have two homes where there is presently one.
The following addresses were approved: 73 Chipman (Hamilton), 628 Mill Street (Ancaster), 11 Kilbourn Ave (Stoney Creek), and 1367 & 1371 Hwy 8 (Stoney Creek).
CoA denied the application at 1130 Ridge Road in Stoney Creek.
The owner sought to split a farm property that is within the Greenbelt.  The Greenbelt plan imposes strict conditions to protect farmland.
The agent for the owner tried to argue the land cannot be farmed. The agent, who is not a farmer, proceeded to argue with CoA members who are farmers.
At numerous points during the 10 minutes of this hearing, the agent interrupted members of the CoA to repeatedly state he was going to the “Ontario Municipality Board” to get approval for his plan.
[I clipped a highlight video and posted it to Twitter here]
CoA approved the final variances required for HUCCHC’s new centre at 430 to 436 Cannon Street East.
City planning staff recommended approval of the variances for landscaping waivers, sideyard setbacks, the location of the main entrance not being directly out to Cannon Street East, and parking lot design.
There was a letter of opposition from local resident, and former Ward 3 Council candidate, Laura Farr.
A nearby neighbour, who delegated by telephone, stated he is opposed to the health care centre because it serves “mental people”.
“My objection is this. First and foremost you got to have like mental people there. You have two schools. you have a high school and you have an elementary school,” the man opened. This neighbourhood is already filled with homeless people. Drug users every day, I pick up needles in front of my house.”
“Secondly, my property, the value of my property is going to go down.”
He continued to refer to “mental people”, drawing a rebut from the CoA chair.
The CoA quickly approved the application after hearing the delegate.
The Corktown Plaza redevelopment is seeking further parking reductions beyond what was approved by Council in February 2021.
In 2021, Council approved the two tall building redevelopment for 769 units with a parking ratio of 0.6 spaces per unit.
The developer is now seeking a rate of 0.44 parking spaces per dwelling unit.
“0.6 parking ratio is already a reduction to the parking requirements,” wrote city staff in their letter opposing the variances. “The proposed parking rate is lower than the Transit Oriented Corridor Zones which implemented reduced parking requirements based on developments having direct access to the LRT.”
Staff noted, “The City of Waterloo requires a parking rate of 0.65 plus visitor parking” within 800 metres of the Waterloo LRT line.
There were letters of opposition from area residents.
The developer tabled their application to negotiate further with city staff.
The owner of 130 Wellington Street South is seeking to legalize four units in this large detached house. The house is presently an illegal six-unit multiplex.
For a variety of reasons, City staff did not support the variances.
The CoA denied the application.
What makes this file noteworthy is the owner is at the Ontario Land Tribunal for a zoning by-law amendment (ZBA) to legalize the existing six units.
In February of 2021, Council voted down the ZBA application at the request of Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr. Farr agreed with neighbours who stated there are too many rental units in the Corktown neighbourhood.
The City’s planning staff supported the ZBA.
The owner appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal. That appeal will be heard over six days beginning on Monday, May 30, 2022.
The developer, 5000933 Ontario Inc. – A. DiCenzo, is seeking ten variances which staff state are effectively an attempt to rezone portions of the site.
DiCenzo wants to build 79 residential dwelling units consisting  of townhouses and back-to-back townhouses.
A full development application was submitted to the City on March 20, 2022. Staff state they are reviewing the file, the variances are premature, and that rezoning is required for a portion of the property.
Ward 10 Councillor Maria Pearson requested the CoA approve the rezoning.
The CoA, which serves at the pleasure of Council, approved the “variances” as requested by Councillor Pearson.
The meeting was livestreamed on YouTube.


text:
Hamilton Committee of Adjustment Going Back to In-Person, Ending LiveStreams – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 10, 2022
The City of Hamilton is beginning to return public meetings to in-person only formats.
The May 26 Committee of Adjustment meeting will be the first to return to City Hall.
There will be no livestream and the public will not be able to delegate by video, ending two years of transparency
The City plans to require all citizen-majority committees to resume in-person meetings during the coming months.
Committees with a majority of members being city councillors will continue to meet in an electronic “hybrid” format to allow councillors to work remotely.
CoA member Bob Charters remarked, “it seems a shame” to end electronic public delegations.
Charters says the City is “certainly losing opportunity for public input by reducing it.”
“We’ve done it now for an extended period of time.”


text:
Hamilton Council’s Planning Committee to Hold Final Vote on Urban Boundary Freeze May 17th – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 11, 2022
Mark May 17th in your calendar for the final vote at Hamilton’s Planning Committee on the urban boundary.
The final version of Hamilton’s Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR), more popularly known as the urban boundary freeze, will be presented to councillors on this date.
Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark stated two weeks ago he will not accept the City’s urban boundary freeze, which he calls “anti-housing.”
Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government is requiring municipalities to plan for population growth until 2051 using a market-based approach.
The market-based approach requires municipalities to provide a supply of land for developers to build ground-oriented housing. Ground-oriented housing includes townhomes and stacked townhouses.
Using the market approach to evaluate Hamilton’s housing needs until 2051, the City’s planning staff concluded Hamilton must expand the urban boundary by 1,340 hectares to provide land for developers to build more ground-oriented housing.
In early 2021 Hamilton City Council conducted a city-wide mail and email survey to gauge the opinion of Hamiltonians. Over 90 percent of survey participants stated they opposed any urban boundary expansion.
In November 2021, Council voted to freeze the urban boundary. The decision requires planning staff to overhaul all of the City’s official plans and zoning bylaws to enable intensification within the urban boundary. Hamilton’s Land Needs Assessment states the City needs to build homes for population expected to grow by 238,000 people to 820,000 in 2051.
In January 2022, the City’s planning staff presented Council with a draft overhaul of Hamilton’s official plans. Notable among the changes is permitting multiplexes as-of-right in all residential zones, provided the multiplex meets design and dimension requirements.
This morning, Director of Planning and Chief Planner Steve Robichaud stated the final updates to the MCR are nearly complete.
Robichaud says staff are considering removing density caps and minimums from Hamilton’s official plans.
He says new developments are above the City’s zoning density limits, nearly “all the time.” The density caps are triggering requirements for lengthy and costly rezoning applications.
“The intent is to remove [density caps] from the official plan to help facilitate intensification and re-urbanization in the city,” he says.
The Province’s proposed Bill 109 changes to the Planning Act will require municipalities to refund development applications fees when decisions are not made within legislated timeframes. Streamlining the City’s official plans and zoning bylaws will decrease the complexity of reviewing applications and assist Hamilton’s planning staff to meet deadlines.
The official notice for the May 17 meetings will be published in the coming week.
Registration for delegations is now open.
Delegations will have the option of speaking in person or electronically.
The meeting will begin at 9:30 am on May 17. Members of the public can attend City Hall to watch in person or watch online via the live stream.
The final version of the MCR will be sent to Ontario’s Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for review following ratification during the May 25 City Council meeting.


text:
Hamilton’s Red Hill Valley Parkway Inquiry Begins Today – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 25, 2022
The long-awaited Red Hill Parkway Inquiry begins today at 9:30 am and will be live-streamed on YouTube.
The Inquiry will seek to determine how a 2013 asphalt friction report was buried for nearly six years.
The report found the asphalt along portions of the highway was failing to provide the required level of friction. The report reappeared at some point in 2018 when a City staffer found it. In 2018, the City’s senior-most managers choose to delay revealing the report until after the 2018 municipal election.
Once the report was revealed in January 2019, an emergency repaving of the Expressway was completed.
During the six-year delay in repairing the highway, there were hundreds of collisions and four deaths.
Following a public outcry regarding the cover-up, a Public Inquiry was called. For the past two-and-a-half years, the Inquiry has poured over tens of thousands of documents, conducted dozens of interviews, retained experts, and engaged in legal wrangling with City Council.
One of the first orders of business is dealing with a request from Hamilton City Council to prohibit the Inquiry from seeing and considering 83 city documents related to their cover-up of asphalt friction.
Council is claiming the documents are subject to legal privilege.
The Inquiry’s Counsel (who represents the public interest) says the documents are essential for consideration and Council waived its privilege when it called the Inquiry.
Inquiry Commissioner Justice Herman J. Wilton-Siegel will need to determine how to deal with the request for privilege. In similar public inquiries, the Commissioners have referred privilege questions to another Justice of the Superior Court to review the documents and make a ruling.
Virginia Tech Civil Engineering Professor Dr. Gerardo W. Flintsch will speak on Day Two to provide a “Primer on Friction, Friction Management and Stone Matrix Asphalt Mixtures.” The doctor’s overview will help the Inquiry and public better understand the methodologies, standards, and best practices involved in the composition of highway asphalt mixtures.
On Wednesday, Day Three, Professional Engineer Russell Brownlee will provide testimony entitled “Principal Design and Maintenance Standards, Guidelines and General Practices for Ontario Highways” to help the Inquiry and public understand the foundational standards and practices which will be discussed throughout the Inquiry.
The Inquiry will post all exhibits online for the public to see.
The first phase of the Inquiry will “focus on questions of fact relating to the construction of the Red Hill Valley Parkway (RHVP), friction testing conducted by Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation on the RHVP, consultant and staff reports on the RHVP, and the discovery and public release of the report on friction testing,” states the Inquiry website.
There are 17 witnesses for the first part of Phase One of the Inquiry. The 17 witnesses on the list include the consultants who research, tested, and wrote the 2013 friction testing report that is at the heart of the Inquiry, the City staff involved in receiving the report, people involved in the construction of the Red Hill, and Ministry of Transportation Ontario [MTO] staff involved in various aspects of both the construction and the MTO’s own testing which found concerning information about the friction quality.
Former Hamilton City Manager Chris Murray, who was the City’s Red Hill construction project manager, and the City’s construction engineering managers Gary Moore and Marco Oddi are listed. The Inquiry list states Moore and Oddi will be called to the stand again in later phrases. Murray is not scheduled to return to the stand.


text:
James North Tivoli Property and Centre Point Plaza Purchased by Same Developer – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 2, 2022
Aventus Developments and Society Developments state they’ve acquired the Tivoli Theatre property at 108 James Street North and the neighbouring Centre Point Plaza.
The assembly of the two properties gives the developers ownership of the entire north side of Wilson Street between James Street North and Hughson Street North.
Here is a look at what they can theoretically build with the existing zoning following the planning policies of Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan
The zoning for the Tivoli site is prescriptive. [By-law 05-200, Schedule C, 451 (on Page 251)]
In 2015, Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr pushed the rezoning through Council, despite planning staff’s recommendation to deny the rezoning application by land speculator  Diamante Investments.
The Tivoli site’s zoning is a site-specific exemption to allow for a 22-storey tall building on the James Street frontage of the property (108 James Street North) as an accessory use to the auditorium in the rear portion (111 Hughson Street North). It prohibits the demolition of the existing single-detached house at 115 Hughson Street North.
The site-specific by-law “transfers” the development permissions from the Hughson Street properties to the James Street tower.
“The residential tower is actually an accessory and incidental use to the auditorium,” stated Hamilton’s Director of Planning and Chief Planner Steve Robichaud, in 2015 when the by-law was being finalized.
“If the auditorium was to disappear, then the tower component would no longer be accessory to anything other than a vacant lot. That would remove those zoning permissions for the residential component. They have to have the auditorium in order to get the accessory residential component.”
The principal of Diamante Investments, Domenic Diamante bought the property in a “deal under negotiation [which] would see Hamilton developer Domenic Diamante buy the property from the Hamilton-based Canadian Ballet Youth Ensemble, the charity run by his wife, Belma Gurdil-Diamante,” reads a 2013 Hamilton Spectator article. The Ballet originally purchased the property in 2006 for $2.
The Centre Point Plaza, 1 Wilson Street, is zoned “Mid Rise” in the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan with a height limit of 12-storeys. The entire plaza is part of the James Street North Streetscape Culture Heritage Landscape.
As a separate property from the Tivoli site, the site is neither large enough nor deep enough to construct a 12-storey mid-rise within the rules of the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan (DTSP) and the Downtown Hamilton Tall Building Guidelines.
The plans require 25 metres of separation between tall buildings. Nearly the entire plaza, with the exception of approximately 250 square metres at the eastern end of the plaza bordering Hughson Street North, is within the separation zone of the approved Tivoli tower.
The James Street North Streetscape Culture Heritage Landscape requires a pedestrian-friendly streetscape. 123 James Street North, constructed in 2015, shows how the cultural heritage landscape is applied to new builds.
The landscape envisions stepbacks at the third storey for buildings along James Street North.
The economics are weak to redevelop the plaza into a three to six-storey commercial use with a 250 square metre floor plate mid-rise building bordering Hughson Street North.
The existing strip plaza is fully occupied. Demand for Downtown Hamilton office space is low, with many units vacant.
In 2015, Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr persuaded City Council to waive parts of the Tivoli’s heritage designation to focus on saving the auditorium. The lost historic front lobby would not be restored.
To save the auditorium, Farr stated it was necessary to exempt the Tivoli tower from setback requirements, urban design guidelines, and to accept a narrower lobby to the rear auditorium than the City’s planning staff stated should be required.
“It is the opinion of staff that the design, accompanied with the location of height, scale and massing, serves to erode the existing desirable character pattern and form of the area,” stated City planner Edward John. “Staff maintain that the proposal does not provide sufficient urban design techniques in order to achieve compatible integration with the existing context and character of the area.”
Ward 5 Councillor Chad Collins said he had “some questions” about Diamante’s lack of history in developing residential towers.
“Someone has emailed us a couple of days ago to suggest that this might be just about increasing the density on the site,” Collins asked.
Diamante’s architect Drew Hauser stated, “In all honestly, the only thing slowing down this applicant, because they have their financing ready to move forward on components of the project to the best of our knowledge, is our development partner, the City of Hamilton.”
Farr gave private assurances to councillors that the project would be constructed.
During the final meeting to approve his Tivoli tower motion, Farr stated, “much of the correspondence against this proposal are almost taken verbatim from the staff denial.”
Moments before voting for Farr’s Tivoli tower motion, Ward 15 Councillor Judi Partridge stated, “it’s the timing of when this build is going to happen that I am most concerned about. So I’m going to put my confidence in Councillor Farr to stay on top of this.”
Society Developments is a Burlington headquartered company with over a decade of experience completing projects in London and Waterloo.
Aventus Developments website is best summarized as a placeholder.
Aventus’ Chief Financial Officer Chris Mlinaric is a Downtown Hamilton resident. He recently attended the Beasley Neighbourhood Association’s video meeting.
Mlinaric was CFO of Vrancor prior to joining Aventus.
As the owners of both sites, Aventus and Society developments can submit a new proposal combining the two properties to potentially build two towers with a connected street-level podium while restoring the auditorium as required by both the zoning and heritage designations.
Before submitting a plan, the owners will meet with the City’s planning staff to understand their expectations. City staff will take the opportunity to understand what the developer desires to build.
This is an opportunity for city staff to address what they stated were shortcomings in 2015. They can seek a three-storey podium instead of a five-storey podium with minimal stepback. A larger more appropriate lobby design and ancillary spaces for the auditorium can be sought from the developer.
The Tivoli tower development rights may be “transferred” between the properties to achieve a new plan.
22-storey slender towers are more costly to construct per square foot than a more traditionally sized building. There are various “sweet spots” for mid-rise and tall building construction.
The Tivoli tower is none of those. The 22-storey plan achieved its purpose, upzoning and land flipping.
Section 6.1.4.4 of the Downtown Secondary Plan states transfers can be authorized to achieve the “provision of at-grade open space,” “retention of existing open space/park areas adjacent to private development,” and “conservation of built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.”
“Extending” the Tivoli residential building onto the eastern portion of the plaza will improve the project’s economic viability by creating a larger floor plate.
An “extension” adds additional underground parking, creates more commercial space, and enables amenities to enhance the restored theatre.
Preserving and enhancing the existing parkette in front of the plaza at James Street and Wilson Street meets these three objectives.
The City and developer both benefit from enhancing this parkette.
A proposal, such as a three-storey podium across the entire site, with setbacks to a mid-rise form between six to ten stories, with increased height in the site’s depth and the corners of the intersection, is possible.
The key to gaining density is how the developers integrate the auditorium lobby into the proposal.
Hamilton’s Design Review recommended that the developers who own the Hamilton City Centre – diagonally across the intersection of James Street and Wilson Street – break up their podium into separate buildings to create a pedestrian-friendly streetscape.
The integration of the auditorium lobby, with a grand street entrance, into a connected podium can achieve the desirable building articulation which the DRP is likely to expect in this project.
In summary, combining the two properties provides a wealth of possibilities for a landmark building with a unique design.
The developers will be able to gain profitable higher density. The community will receive a restored Tivoli auditorium with modern amenities to create a vibrant cultural venue.
This is a project to watch.


text:
Joey’s Notepad: CoA Member Concerned about “Lobbying” by Environment Hamilton – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 8, 2022
Let’s quickly highlight a statement by a Committee of Adjustment member during this week’s hearings.
CoA member Nancie Mleczko stated to Environment Hamilton’s Lynda Lukasik:
“I’ve found that in the last couple of meetings, I’m going to say in the last month or so we’re getting unsolicited support from people who are not neighbours and are not affected by the particular applications directly.
I guess part of me is feeling that it’s a little bit of a lobbying process.
I don’t mean that in a formal way, but I know between yourself and that particular architectural group, you guys are super, super supportive of the additional housing units. And I totally am as well.
I am just not sure how comfortable I am feeling that organizations are out there lobbying on behalf of each individual application.
Only my two cents worth doesn’t need a response.
While I do appreciate the work that you do, I just find it a little bit too much for an individual having outside agencies. As I say, advocate for them.”
Moments prior to the remarks, Lukasik spoke to an application to allow a two-car driveway in front of a house. The driveway will remove most of the front lawn, leaving only 12 percent of the property with landscaping.
Lukasik encouraged the applicant to use a permeable surface for the parking, and for the City to make this a condition of approval.
Speaking in a public meeting is not lobbying, which Mleczko seems to understand as she stated she does not “mean that in a formal way.”
The Planning Act guarantees the right of anyone to speak in front of both Council’s Planning Committee and the Committee of Adjustment.
The CoA enjoys all the same powers as City Council’s Planning Committee, the only difference is they must classify their decisions as “minor”.
A few years ago they approved a 33-storey tall building as a “minor variance” from a six-storey height limit, and just this week rezoned a property in Ward 10.
Environment Hamilton is an advocacy organization. Their submissions to the CoA are always regarding environmental concerns.
This is entirely appropriate and part of the democratic process.
Maybe Mleczko should consider writing a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs with her concerns. I suspect the Minister will determine Mleczko’s “two cents worth” “doesn’t need a response.”


text:
Joey’s Notepad: Mayor Eisenberger Responds to MPP Skelly on Urban Boundary – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 4, 2022
Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger was asked about urban boundary expansion and truck routes during an interview on CHCH Morning Live this morning.
On urban boundary expansion, the Mayor responded to last week’s staged statements by Flamborough-Glanbrook MPP Donna Skelly and Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs Steve Clark saying they will override Council’s decision to freeze Hamilton’s urban boundary.
“Obviously, clearly the province has a different opinion in terms of what kind of growth is appropriate for the City of Hamilton,” the Mayor stated. “We in Hamilton believe that we ought to maintain a firm urban boundary and have all of our growth happen within that urban boundary.
“The province has different ideas,” he continued. “I think that’s unfortunate. I think local planning is most effective and makes for better communities.”
Eisenberger is critical of the province’s plan to “penalize” municipalities if they do not meet development application approval timelines.
He says the City is working to deal with affordability and supply issues, and wishes to work with the province.
During the interview, Mayor Eisenberger expressed support for the new Truck Route Master Plan which will prohibit heavy trucks in the Downtown, older parts of the Lower City, and on the Mountain north of Fennell Street.
“Those 18 wheelers, those five-axle heavy-duty trucks that take up a lot of space and are very intimidating through our downtown and also have air emission issues need to go elsewhere, [they] need to take a different route.”
The full interview can be viewed on CHCH’s website here.


text:
Joey’s Notepad: Nrinder Nann and Jamila Sheffield’s Excellent Meeting Management – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 10, 2022
Chairing a meeting – any meeting – is a challenging task.
This past week, we witnessed two excellent examples of meeting management.
On Wednesday, Ward 3 Councillor Nrinder Nann effectively dealt with numerous disruptions during Council’s General Issues Committee. Nann is the Deputy Mayor for April.
In the face of repeated disruptions, Nann calmly maintained order. For example, this clip of Ward 12 Councillor Lloyd Ferguson trying to speak over her and change the order of the agenda.
City staff member Jamila Sheffield, the Secretary Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment displayed an impressive mastery of the Planning Act and de-escalation tactics during Thursday’s meeting.
There were many application hearings involving complexities of the Planning Act, especially the complexities of the transition regulations triggered by the many amendments to the Act in recent years.
Sheffield provided comprehensive answers and explanations during the hearings.
Public meetings can be unpredictable. The CoA hears from dozens of applicants and delegates each meeting.
Hearings can become tense.
CoA applications nearly always involve personal property. The applicants own their lands, often it is their personal home or their largest investment. Tens of thousands of dollars can be on the line.
The stakes can be equally high for neighbouring property owners, who often attend to oppose their neighbours’ application. If there is an ongoing neighbour dispute, people bring their animosities to the hearing.
Navigating the Planning Act, Building Code, and City Hall bureaucracy can be frustrating for people. Sometimes, they decide to vent at the Committee of Adjustment.
Defusing these situations is challenging at the best of times. In-person meetings at least offer body language and verbal cues. It is easier to use humour to defuse tense situations, a tactic
For the past two years, Sheffield has defused dozens of situations and masterfully maintained order. [It is why there are no videos to share of things getting out of control].
At the end of this week’s meeting, Sheffield masterfully handled an arrogant agent whom I’ll refer to as Super-Confidence Guy.
I’ve clipped the highlights of Super-Confidence Guy and posted the 3:40 clip to Twitter.
In short, the agent wanted to sever a rural property within the Greenbelt and make a bunch of profit.
The problem for him is he can’t sever the property because doing so will violate basically every planning law and regulation on the books.
That’s not going to stop Super-Confidence Guy.
In response to the CoA explaining the application goes against the Provincial Planning Statement, the Greenbelt Plan, the Rural Hamilton Official Plan, and Hamilton’s Zoning By-law, Super-Confident Guy declared he is going to go to the “Ontario Municipality Board” to get his approvals and that will cost the City more money.
You see, Super-Confidence Guy is really a good guy. “We are here to help the public,” he declared at one point.
Numerous times, he interrupted the meeting trying to speak over committee members. Each time, Sheffield professionally explained he had his opportunity to speak.
Upon having his application denied, Super-Confidence Guy made sure to tell the CoA again how he is going to the “Ontario Municipality Board” to get the decision overturned.
Sheffield professionally explained the process to file an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
The Ontario Municipal Board [not municipality] was replaced by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in April 2018. The LPAT was itself amalgamated into the Ontario Land Tribunal in June 2021.


text:
Port Authority Plans to Install Lighting on the Hamilton-Burlington Skyway Bridge – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 11, 2022
LED lighting is coming to Hamilton’s iconic Skyway Bridge says Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority (HOPA) CEO Ian Hamilton.
“You can just imagine the spectacle all over the harbour, how good it would look with being lit up,” Hamilton said Monday during a City-Port Liaison Committee meeting.
HOPA CEO Hamilton says they are working with local artist Patrick Bermingham.
Mayor Fred Eisenberger says the news is “absolutely fabulous,” adding this is a “very good long term opportunity to highlight the Skyway.”
HOPA states the Skyway Bridge lighting project will occur as part of the redevelopment of Fisherman’s Pier.
The Pier, which runs alongside the canal connecting Hamilton Harbour to Lake Ontario under the bridges, was a popular fishing location as well as a gathering place for observing freighters and large ships traversing the canal. It was closed for various reasons, including the security of shipping.
The redevelopment of the Pier seeks to create a space that is a destination for the public while at the same time ensuring the security of shipping.
HOPA and the City of Hamilton agreed to work together on the project. The Skyway Bridge is owned by the Province of Ontario. The Lift Bridge is owned by the Government of Canada.


text:
Affordability ‘Crisis’ along Hamilton LRT Corridor Needs to Be Addressed Before It Gets Worse, Say Resident Groups – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 16, 2022
Council’s Light Rail Transit Sub-Committee held its first meeting since 2017 this morning to receive City staff updates on the project contracts and design updates.
“The LRT project requires approximately 90 full property purchases,” stated City of Hamilton LRT Project Director Abdul Shaikh, in his first presentation to Council since taking on the role earlier this year.
“To date, 60 full properties have been purchased on a willing seller, willing buyer basis. Metrolinx continues to negotiate on a willing seller, willing buyer basis and will rely on expropriation process in future if it is necessary.”
Many of the purchased properties were rental housing units with long-term tenants who’ve been displaced, and now face the burden of paying higher rents and potential homelessness as the rentals along the LRT corridor gentrify.
Members of Hamilton’s ACORN chapters, the Hamilton Community Benefits Network, and Environment Hamilton rallied in front of City Hall before the meeting to call on Council to act immediately to begin implementing inclusionary zoning along the B-Line LRT corridor, and to act to stop the renoviction of tenants from affordable private housing units.
Inclusionary Zoning requires private developers to set aside a percentage of units for residential rental housing at a more affordable rent than average market rent.
Hamilton City Council plans to begin the process of studying Inclusionary Zoning in mid-2023.
“The City of Hamilton will not even look at using an easy tool to address affordability!,” stated Karl Andrus of the Hamilton Community Benefits Network (HCBN) during the 9:30 am rally in front of City Hall.
Andrus says every day delayed means less affordable housing and more displacement. The City was given the ability to implement inclusionary zoning in 2014.
“2023 to begin the review is too late,” he said.
ACORN, HCBN, and Environment Hamilton separately delegated to the LRT committee. Their delegations almost did not happen.
Not enough city councillors were in the video conference meeting to maintain quorum. The meeting recessed for 15 minutes as city staff tried to contact missing councillors to gain quorum to continue the session.
Eventually, failing to make quorum, the City Clerk’s Office changed the definition of “majority” to reduce the number of councillors required for quorum.
A majority means more than 50% of a group in an accurate reading, as 50/50 is an even split. Section 237 of the Municipal Act is commonly referred to as the “50 percent plus 1” rule.
Effective immediately, Hamilton City Council’s new quorum rule is 50%.
The new quorum for the LRT committee is now 4 of 8 members.
Voting records from this portion of the meeting show Mayor Fred Eisenberger and Councillors Jason Farr, Sam Merulla, and Lloyd Ferguson as absent.
Eshan Merali, the Community Engagement Coordinator for the Hamilton Community Benefits Network, delegated to Council asking the City to replace lost affordable housing units, add new units, and lobby Metrolinx to meet with HCBN to begin negotiating community benefits agreements.
HCBN is a coalition of groups, including neighbourhood associations, the Hamilton-Brantford building trades, the Hamilton and District Labour Council, and many non-profits and charities. Metrolinx has not met with nor recognized HCBN, Merali told councillors.
Due to the ongoing Provincial election, as a Government of Ontario agency, Metrolinx did not attend today’s Council meeting and is not taking any substantial actions during the election period.
Merali said immediate action is needed to strategically “replace lost market affordable housing along the corridor.”
“It’s important to note that the Metrolinx needs for the project displaced Around 150 people [were displaced], taking away 61 or more units of deeply affordable market-rate rentals due to long-term occupancy,” he stated.
He added displacement continues “as the market began to buy up undervalued properties along the corridor anticipating LRT development.”
HCBN’s Community Benefits Manager Karl Andrus said developers are “snatching up many traditionally afforded affordable market-rate units for redevelopment or demolition.”
“The affordable housing crisis is skyrocketing since the first announcement of LRT. Rents have almost doubled in the corridor area,” he stated. “the homelessness situation is at a peak. I have never witnessed in my lifetime. There are more tents and countless forming across the city, and they tend to be concentrated near the LRT corridor.”
There were nine delegates during the meeting.
Responding to the delegations, Ward 3 Councillor Nrinder Nann says Hamilton cannot wait to implement Inclusionary Zoning, saying that it is a “missed opportunity” to not conduct the review as part of the current Official Plan Review regarding urban boundary expansion.
“I would love to hear if there is the possibility of staff being directed to identify whether an accelerated timeline for development of an inclusionary zoning bylaw, which would be applied to the LRT corridor,” Nann stated.
Nann wants the plan to include clear rules requiring minimum affordable housing percentages, including deeply affordable units, and to tell Council what is needed to achieve these goals.
Nann plans to bring a motion to Council’s Planning Committee in the near future.
Ward 12 Councillor Lloyd Ferguson is concerned about how vehicle drivers will move between Downtown Hamilton and Highway 403 once the LRT is built.
Ferguson wants to see a large commuter parking lot built near the Longwood Road station. Staff say there is no plan for a lot, which staff say is not planned. There is no land available.
“No major parking structure currently being planned at the end of the line,” said Hamilton’s Director of Transportation Planning and Parking Brian Hollingworth.
Hollingworth said the City plans to encourage people to use HSR public transit buses to connect to the LRT.
“That’s not a very good, but it’s not practical. People won’t do it,” Ferguson responded. “They just won’t come downtown.”
“If we go ahead with the twinning or two-way traffic on Main, you might have one lane westbound on Main. But it will have to end before you get to Dundurn because of the ramps coming out and 403 from the east,” Ferguson added.
“I just think you’re creating a monstrous problem.”
Director Shaikh says the LRT Office is reviewing design plans along Main West between McMaster University and Longwood Road to consider a protected bicycle track.
“We will also be looking at enhancing the cycling connectivity with existing and unplanned facilities,” he stated.
Ward 1 Councillor Maureen Wilson says the Longwood Road bridge over Highway 403 needs to be made pedestrian and cyclist safe.
The bridge provides “at present a small sliver of a sidewalk that is not hospitable to safe pedestrian travel, particularly in the winter,” Wilson stated.
Wilson wants the new bridge to include “a secure protected bike lane and a wider sidewalk,” especially with nearby Westdale Secondary School.
It “is important to parents, and to all users,” she added.
With the design of the LRT being updated, Hamilton City Council can reconsider its decision not to include a stop at Bay Street as part of the route.
There are no future meetings yet scheduled for the LRT sub-committee.
Council adjourns for the municipal election in early September.


text:
Brian Malone Knew About the “Buried” Friction Report, Why Did He Not Say Something? – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 30, 2022
In 2015, following a seemingly endless number of wet weather collisions and high-profile fatal crossover collisions, the City of Hamilton’s Traffic Division hired CIMA to conduct a comprehensive safety review of both the Lincoln Alexander Parkway and the Red Hill Valley Parkway.
CIMA’s final report in December 2015 did not include the 2013 friction study. CIMA knew about the friction report, but did not include it in their public report nor brief City Council about the report.
In at least one instance, Malone remained silent when Gary Moore falsely claimed the friction test results were satisfactory.
The Red Hill Valley Parkway Inquiry is trying to find out why CIMA did not include the friction study results in their reports.
We can expect CIMA Vice-President Transportation Engineering Brian Malone to be asked this question this week.
Malone will be on the stand at the Inquiry for four days this week, beginning this afternoon.
On August 7, 2015, at 2:58 pm, Hamilton Director of Engineering Gary Moore sent Brian Malone the “buried” friction report.
“Brian Here is the Red Hill friction testing summary. Not for republication! Thanks,” reads Moore’s email to Malone.
28 minutes later, Malone responds to Moore writing, “Thanks very much Gary. Don’t worry, we will not re-publish this information.”
In this 3:26 pm response, Malone asks “Am I correct that FN numbers of less than 30 are below a desired level?”
In less than 28 minutes, Malone asked the key question. Yet, on December 7, 2015, when Malone’s CIMA team presented their comprehensive safety review report, there was no mention of the friction report. The Inquiry is likely to ask why.
Malone forwarded his correspondence with Moore, including the friction report, to his internal CIMA team on August 8, 2015 at 8:16 am writing:
“For your information. Not for public release.
It does not help very much since it appears that the City abdicates responsibility for assessing friction on the pavement surface to the MTO for some reason. We’ll need to decide how to deal with this in the report.”
Officially, CIMA was working for the City’s Traffic division, not Gary Moore’s Engineering division.
On October 20, 2015, Malone along with two other members of his CIMA team met with the City’s Traffic managers Martin White and David Ferguson. Gary Moore was in the meeting.
Minutes written by CIMA state, “Mr. Moore stated that friction testing was conducted recently following standards and resulted satisfactory.”
Why did CIMA not correct Moore’s statement during this meeting?
On December 7, 2015, the CIMA report was presented to Council’s Public Works Committee.
Councillors asked questions regarding the pavement of the Red Hill Valley Parkway and were told there were no concerns with the pavement.
Gary Moore told Councillors that the MTO had performed friction testing in 2007 and the results were at or above what the MTO typically expected from high grade friction mixes.
Why did CIMA not speak up then?
We may get answers to these questions and more this week.


text:
City of Hamilton Loses Procedural Motion in COVID Vax Labour Arbitration – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 31, 2022
The Union representing the majority of the City of Hamilton’s employees won a procedural motion in front of an arbitrator and will get an expedited hearing to answer the question if the City of Hamilton can fire employees who refuse to get vaccinated against COVID.
CUPE Local 5167, which represents approximately 3850 City workers, says the City cannot fire the approximately 154 employees represented by the Union who are either not vaccinated against COVID or refusing to disclose their vaccination status.
Of these 154 employees, “ten of those employees have refused to declare their vaccination status and/or undergo Rapid Antigen Testing and had been placed on an unpaid leave back in 2021 as a result.”
The Union’s collective agreement states the City “cannot force an Employee to be immunized or to take the prophylactic alternative without their consent. It is further understood that where such immunization (or the prophylactic alternative to immunization) is required in order for the Employee to attend work and the Employee refuses the immunization or its substitute, they may be placed on unpaid leave with no loss of seniority. In this event the Employer agrees to take reasonable steps to accommodate workers through alternate work arrangements.” (Article 10.3(g) of the Collective Agreement.)
In an Arbitration decision released Monday, Sole Arbitrator Jesse M. Nyman ruled that a separate hearing will be conducted to decide the interpretation of Article 10.3(g) to determine if the City of Hamilton’s plan to fire employees violates the Collective Agreement.
CUPE argued that the issue of interpreting Article 10.3(g) is “sufficiently dispositive” of the overall grievances filed in response to Hamilton City Council’s COVID vaccination policy that it warrants immediate adjudication.
The City of Hamilton argued against splitting this issue from the overall grievances.
City Council voted last week to extend the deadline for employees to become vaccinated against COVID until September 30. The City had planned to terminate non-vaccinated employees on June 1st.
In April, the City’s Senior Management Team recommended Council end the mandatory vaccination requirement. Council divided in a 6-6 vote during their April 27. A tie vote maintains the status quo and the policy remained in effect.
Arbitrator Nyman ruled the City has until June 20 to provide “particulars of any evidence it intends to call” regarding Article 10.3(g).
Hearing dates will be scheduled during upcoming conference calls between lawyers for the Union and the City.
Both the City and Union expected the hearing and ruling to be expedited.


text:
Councillors to Debate Integrity Complaint Fees After Ontario Ombudsman Calls Them Out – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 30, 2022
Ontario’s Ombudsman Paul Dubé has denounced the City of Hamilton’s practice of charging a $100 fee to file a complaint to Hamilton’s Integrity Commissioners when a person believes there has been a violation of Council’s Code of Conduct.
Dubé wrote City Council on January 12, 2022, calling on Council to remove the fee “as it penalizes complainants for exercising their statutory rights, and may prevent legitimate complaints from being brought forward due to concerns about financial cost.”
The Municipal Act requires the City of Hamilton to retain an Integrity Commissioner and maintain a process for citizen complaints.
The Act does not proscribe any qualification requirements for Integrity Commissioners, nor does it explicitly prevent the charging of fees.
Hamilton is one of the few municipalities to charge a fee.
“Charging a fee to complain is entirely inconsistent with the primary intent of the Integrity Commissioner scheme, which is to foster democratic legitimacy and public trust at the local level,” Dubé wrote.
The Ombudsman says if Council wishes to keep the fee, it should create a mechanism to “ensure that staff have the discretion to waive the fee depending on the circumstances, such as where the complainant does not have the means to pay.”
The letter was presented to City Council during their January 19 meeting.
At the January meeting, Councillor Nrinder Nann moved to send the letter to Governance Committee. Nann wants the fee eliminated.
“I think that it’s appropriate for Council to take action on the recommendations,” she stated.
Councillor Maureen Wilson, who is the Chair of the Governance Committee, states she will move to eliminate the fee.
The Councillors on the Governance Committee are Wilson, Brad Clark, Lloyd Ferguson, Maria Pearson, Arlene Vanderbeek, and Terry Whitehead.
Hamilton’s “Integrity Commissioner” is the firm of former Hamilton City Solicitor Janice Atwood-Petkovski.
The meeting is scheduled to begin at 9:30 am and will be livestreamed by the City of Hamilton.


text:
Hamilton Reports 261 Watermain Breaks in 2021 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 16, 2022
Hamilton’s water utility says they responded to 261 watermain breaks in 2021 with a repair cost of approximately $2.25-million.
“Approximately 39% of the watermain breaks were caused by corrosion, 57% were caused by ground movement, and 4% were the result of displaced pipe joints,” writes Dave Alberton, Manager, Water Distribution & Wastewater Collection for the City of Hamilton.
Watermain breaks are more frequent during winter months due to freeze-thaw cycles.
In 2021, 27 percent of watermain breaks occurred during January and February.
12.5 percent of the year’s breaks occurred between February 8th and 17th, with all but 3 of these 31 breaks resulting from ground movement.
Overnight low temperatures repeatedly dropped below -15°C during those ten days in February.
The five most expense breaks were:
Jun 17 Ground Movement King William St $82,482
Mar 24 Corrosion James St $60,435
Feb 14 Ground Movement Ottawa St $55,660
Feb 17 Ground Movement Fennell Ave $48,372
Aug 22 Corrosion Main St $44,430


text:
Hamilton’s Committee Against Racism Wants More Inclusive Police Board Recruitment – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 28, 2022
Hamilton’s Committee Against Racism wants members of Hamilton’s “diverse communities” to have a seat on the selection committee this fall when Hamilton City Council decides who will sit on the 2022-2026 Hamilton Police Services Board.
During their meeting last Tuesday, CAR unanimously voted to call for Council to create a special selection committee for the process to ensure the voices of diverse communities are heard.
CAR members focused upon including communities which most often experience negative interactions with police and communities most targetted by hate crimes.
There are seven members on the Hamilton Police Services Board (HPSB). Three members are appointed by the provincial government, three City Councillors are appointed to the Board, and Council selects the final civilian member.
Presently, City Council appoints this person via their closed-session selection committee entirely made up of City councillors.
This is what CAR says needs to change.
They want to see a wider interview committee process with members from Hamilton’s Muslim, Jewish, Black, South Asian, LGBTQ, and Indigenous communities among those represented in the process.
CAR’s motion must be approved by City Clerk Andrea Holland’s office to be placed on a future meeting agenda for Council’s Audit, Finance, and Administration Committee.
The video of the meeting can be watched on the City’s YouTube page.


text:
Hamilton’s Committee of Adjustment Reverses Plans to End Online Delegations – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 29, 2022
The City of Hamilton is reversing plans to end electronic participation at the powerful Committee of Adjustment.
The City had planned to return the CoA to an in-person-only format, with no live streaming nor electronic delegations, beginning on May 26.
Following public uproar after TPR reported on the plan in an April 10, 2022 story, the City delayed the resumption of in-person meetings.
During the COA’s videoconference meeting on Thursday, May 26, 2022, the committee voted to continue meeting by videoconference until they can create a plan for hybrid meetings which will allow citizens to participate by video.
“I think that, especially in today’s environment, it’s important that we do everything possible to allow people to attend meetings, and it doesn’t make sense that we now have the technology that we wouldn’t use it,” stated CoA Member Bob Charters.
He says it is important that “people that are working can still be able to come online” to delegate to the CoA.
“I just think it’s a much better system for the public.”
Member David Serwatuk agreed. “I think that’s a great idea,” he stated.
The Committee of Adjustment’s meetings will remain by video conference for the foreseeable future until new procedures can be put in place.
The City will need to set up public meeting rooms at City Hall to enable hybrid meetings outside of Council meetings.


text:
Hamilton’s LRT Committee Meeting for the First Time Since 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 15, 2022
Hamilton City Council’s Light Rail Transit Committee will hold its first meeting since 2017 on Monday with staff updates on the project’s progress since the May 2021 announcement of a new 100 percent funding package of 3.4 billion dollars for the B-Line.
Major construction on the 14-kilometre line from Eastgate Square to McMaster University will begin in 2024 following a procurement process. Early works, including utility relocation and the demolition of buildings along the corridor, are underway.
ACORN Hamilton, the Hamilton Community Benefits Network, and Environment Hamilton are holding a joint rally in front of City Hall before the meeting to call on councillors to implement community benefits and affordable housing as part of the project and the City’s public transit agency operates the LRT.
Hamilton LRT Director Abdul Shaikh will update on project progress during the past year.
In their written report, the City’s LRT office states they”ve reached agreements with the Province of Ontario regarding staffing for the project, communications protocol, a real estate protocol, and governance terms of reference.
Negotiations are ongoing to complete: a municipal funding agreement, commissioning and acceptance protocol, fare and non-fare revenue matters, permits licenses and approvals, and the dispute resolution protocol.
City staff state they expect to complete these agreements in the first quarter of 2023.
Director Shaikh writes that Metrolinx has demolished 30 buildings on the corridor thus far.
Staff are working on an affordable housing and community benefits plan to present to Metrolinx and City Council.
Cycling infrastructure may be added along Main Street West between Longwood Road and McMaster University to fill “a gap in the cycling network.”
The 2017 LRT design proposed three eastbound lanes for vehicle traffic. “The fact that the design includes a third lane in the eastbound direction may present an opportunity to allocate space for cycling infrastructure,” writes Shaikh.
The staff design update report was submitted before Council’s vote last week to convert Main Street to two-way traffic and implement pedestrian safety improvements along Main Street and King Street.
The LRT Committee meeting begins at 10:30 am Monday morning, and will be live streamed on the City’s YouTube page.


text:
McMaster & Mohawk Student Special Polls Will Be For All Wards – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 1, 2022
The City of Hamilton will conduct special advance polls on campus at Hamilton’s post-secondary institutions this fall as part of the 2022 municipal election.
Hamilton had been the only municipality in Canada to not place polls on post-secondary campuses.
Hamilton’s new election manager committed to placing polls on campus shortly after taking over the election’s office in 2021. [Note: the City Manager’s Office deleted the public meeting video where the commitment was stated.]
Two weeks ago, during a candidate information session, Elections Manager Aine Leadbetter stated students will be able to vote at the special polls no matter which ward they live in.
“We’re going to be having a vote anywhere pilot at our post-secondary institutions, so that students on campus can vote regardless of which Ward they live in,” she stated.
Leadbetter states she hopes to conduct similar special polls
“We’re additionally looking to put it in put a vote anywhere in a couple of additional spots throughout the city. And we will provide more information as those become finalized. If it’s successful, we may be looking at this in the future.”


text:
The Hamilton Municipal Preview for May 29, 2022 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 30, 2022
Today’s meetings and hearings
9:30 am: Governance Committee  Agenda City Livestream
1:30 pm: Public Works Committee  Agenda City Livestream
The Governance Committee will respond to the Ontario Ombudsman calling them out regarding the $100 fee to file complaints to the “Integrity Commissioner” regarding potential violations of Council’s Code of Conduct.
Governance will also look at launching a review of the future of the Hamilton Future Fund which is sitting drained after being used by Council for various short-term initiatives and spending.
The Public Works Committee will decide if the City’s free Downtown to West Harbour Waterfront shuttle will continue to go to Pier 8 or instead go to Bayfront Park starting in 2023.
Beginning at 9:30 am. There will be two witnesses on the virtual stand on Monday.
Retired General Manager Gerry Davis will be the morning witness.
Brian Malone will begin his first day on the stand in the afternoon. Malone is a Partner and Vice-President Transportation Engineering at CIMA Canada Inc. He is scheduled to be on the stand four days this week, and then will return to the stand for a second round of testimony later in the Inquiry.
Malone knew about the “buried” friction report in 2015, yet he did not include it in his 2015 comprehensive safety review of the Parkway. Malone agreed to a request by Director of Engineering Gary Moore to not reproduce the friction reports. Why? these questions and more will likely be asked of Malone. Preview story here.
The Inquiry will livestream on YouTube.
The OLT will conduct its hearing for a multiplex application at 130 Wellington Street South this week. The hearing will begin each day, Monday to Friday, at 10:00 am. [Details on how to observe here.]
Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr opposes the application, voting it down in February 2021. (TPR story on the denial here)
The property owner is appealing the denial. City Council will defend its denial, alongside nearby resident Jesse Razaqpur who has Party status in opposition to the multiplex.
The City has hired an outside lawyer and experts. The City’s planning staff recommended approval of the multiplex.


text:
BRIEF: City Can’t Cut Grass Due to Lack of Staff and Broken Equipment – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 4, 2022
The City of Hamilton is receiving a large number of complaints about overgrown grass and weeds at parks and parkades across Hamilton.
In an update, quietly posted to the City website on Friday, Acting Director Environmental Services Cynthia Graham says the City’s parks section is short-staff with 19 full-time positions vacant and 39 summer student positions unfilled.
“Parks Operations has seen impacts to staffing levels due to retirements, Covid absences, and difficulty in hiring for positions,” Graham’s memo states. “These factors have led to a delay in getting sports fields cut and lined and to the standard normally achieved.”
Graham adds, “Many Parks staff are new and supervisors and superintendents are working hard to train new teams.”
The City says weather conditions prevented early rounds of cutting.
The City “has also had multiple equipment breakdowns across multiple yard locations, which slows down the wide area cutting schedule across the City,” Graham writes.


text:
BRIEF: City of Hamilton’s S&P Credit Rating Raised – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 10, 2022
The improved credit rating of the City of Hamilton will assist Hamiltonians by lowing the interest rates on the City’s debt and bonds.
The City uses debt and bonds to finance capital projects, such as service expansions for development.
In the City’s press release this morning, the City states “In the formal review of the Canadian municipal institutional framework, S&P’s upward revision reflects their assessment that Canadian municipalities have demonstrated resilient budgetary performance during 2008 financial crisis and, more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic. S&P noted that with support from upper levels of government during the pandemic, Canadian municipalities’ finances fared much better than expected in 2020 and into 2021 as the pandemic unfolded.”


text:
BRIEF: Hamilton’s Public School Board Opposes 7-Eleven Liquor Licence Applications – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 4, 2022
The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board is joining the City of Hamilton in opposing convenience store chain 7-Eleven’s liquor licence applications for two of its Hamilton locations: 415 Melvin Avenue at Woodward Avenue in East Hamilton, and 622 Upper Wellington Street at Brucedale Avenue on Hamilton Mountain.
Hamilton City Council voted in April to send its own lawyers to the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal to oppose the application.
The OLAT has approved all the 7-Eleven applications heard thus far.
HWDSB Trustees state they are concerned about the sale of alcohol at the convenience stores which are popular lunch destinations for students at nearby schools.
“It will increase the availability of alcohol in the community and youth exposure to alcohol, which will lead to increased risk of underage drinking in impacted neighbourhoods along with the associated health risks for our youth (City of Hamilton Public Health Services, Mental Health and Harm Reduction Program Team, 2017),” reads the letters signed by HWDSB Chair Trustee Dawn Danko.
The Board of Trustees writes they “strongly oppose the application and recommend denial of the appeal.”
The Board is requesting, if approved, the OLAT impose conditions under the liquor license to provide alcohol sales prior to 5:00 p.m., prohibit the sale of hard liquors, and limit the amount of alcohol to two servings to a person during each visit.
The OLAT hearings will occur during the week of June 14 to 17.