text:
TPR Newsletter Email For December 16 2022: City Hall Briefs – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 15, 2022
All members of Hamilton City Council voted to oppose Ontario Premier Doug Ford's Bill 23 overhaul of Ontario's land use planning and development charges laws.
The Bill is part of a package of decisions allowing greenfield development on the Greenbelt, removes many development charges on new developments, forces municipalities to fund sprawl, and overrides local planning controls.
The Bill, which Premier Doug Ford's government passed in November, was opposed by groups across the political spectrum.
Protests occurred across Ontario. Approximately 1000 people rallied against the Bill in front of Hamilton City Hall on December 4th.
City of Hamilton staff will calculate the costs of Bill 23 and what it will mean for Hamilton's property taxes. Hamilton's initial estimate is between $14-million to $25-million per year in forgone development charge revenue.
The City of Mississauga summarizes Bill 23 on their website explaining "Why you can't afford Bill 23".
Mississauga residents are receiving political ad pamphlets in their mailboxes calling for them to pressure their local Conservative MPPs to reverse the legislation.
During the next few weeks, I will write on development charges explaining how municipalities use them, how they are calculated, the arguments against DCs and some of the arguments for reform.
For those interested Hamilton's 2019 Development Charges Background Study is 666 pages detailing what Hamilton's DCs fund. [Note: the 2019 DC Bylaw is under appeal at the Ontario Land Tribunal.]
A new study is due for release to the public in 2023. The 2019 study expires in 2024.
For today, I will also share the link to a newly published paper arguing against development charges by Western University Professor Emeritus of Political Science Andrew Sancton.
During the Council debate on Bill 23, Ward 8 Clr John-Paul Danko moved a motion to demand Hamilton's Conservative MPPs Neil Lumsden and Donna Skelly "appear before this council and answer for the reckless, irreversible harm that the government of which they are a part are doing to the City of Hamilton and the taxpayers that we represent."
The wording was watered down from Danko's initial strong language to be an "invite" "to appear" "to discuss" "concerns surrounding Bill 23."
The amended motion passed 14-1 with Ward 2 Clr Cameron Kroetsch opposed.
Kroetsch stated the motion "verges on slightly on the theatrical though I do understand the desire to want to do it," adding, "I don't think it's really the thing we should be doing. Kroetsch suggested Council should travel to Queen's Park and speak to the government in that forum.
Facing the risk of homelessness, 100 Charlton Avenue West residents came to City Hall on Thursday hoping to remain housed.
The new building owners wish to gut the building, removing six three-bedroom units with long-term tenants to be replaced by twelve smaller single-bedroom apartments, which will rent for significantly more profit.
The developer needs full exception from parking requirements. The City's parking formula states the building should have 15 parking spaces and a loading zone. It has none.
Michael choked up, saying, "We're going to be kicked to the curb."
"We are the people that live there. We need to stay in our homes. We don't have anywhere else to go."
Susan McArthur asked the City "to protect the tenants and Hamilton's affordable housing stock."
Hamilton's Committee of Adjustment voted 5-2 in favour of the developer's variance request meaning residents will be evicted in a few months.
The vote was divided between members who work in the real estate voting in favour. The two members opposed are retirees.
As the teary-eyed residents left the Council Chamber contemplating their fate, staff began reading the next file – variances to expand the Mission Services emergency shelter.
The juxtaposition could not be any more pronounced.
During the election, a few candidates promised to reform the Committee of Adjustment in response to the CoA opposition to Secondary Dwelling Units.
Committee members claim SDU rental units will turn Hamilton's neighbourhoods into "ghettos" and vote against SDUs they suspect may be rented to post-secondary students.
What is the most common reason they oppose SDUs? Parking.
Apparently, rental units in Hamilton need a dedicated parking spot – except if the landlord is a prominent developer.
CoA members are political appointees.
Many of them have been on the CoA for over a decade.
It's a powerful position. They can rezone neighbourhoods, overturn secondary plans, and grant exceptions from nearly any City planning rule.
The new Council planned to address qualifications and expectations for the CoA as part of a pending review of all agencies, boards, and agencies.
With the CoA voting in favour of a renoviction, the new Council may need to act sooner.
In an unfathomable ending, as teary-eyed residents left the Council Chamber contemplating the likelihood of becoming homeless, city staff began reading the next file – variances to expand the Mission Services emergency shelter being constructed at 400 King Street East.
In the latest in a series of you can't make this up rulings from Ontario's Information and Privacy Commission involving the City of Hamilton, the IPC is giving the City Clerk's Manager of Records until January 6 to properly process and respond to a freedom of information request for records and policies about the City's freedom of information office.
An FOI asking the FOI office to release its policies for processing FOI requires the IPC to explain FOI 101. You can't make this up.
There is much to unpack in this latest IPC ruling involving Hamilton City Clerks. I break down the ruling and its suborders in a story on TPR.
Hamilton is the only single-tier municipality with multiple adverse IPC rulings of this nature.
In MO-3771, May 2019, an IPC Adjudicator took the unprecedented step of publicly chastising Hamilton's City Clerks writing:
"I feel it necessary to point out that the city … did not participate in the inquiry of the appeal. I remind the city of its obligations as an institution under the Act" after the City Clerks "did not respond to the letter or to the mediator's voice message."
Hamilton is the largest municipality in Canada that responds to FOIs by letter mail as a delaying method.
Hamilton only accepts FOI requests by mail or in person.
The Act does not explicitly require the City to provide service by email or online, leaving operational decisions to the municipal clerks and chief administrative officers.
Ward 2 Clr Cameron Kroetsch, in his capacity as a member of the Police Services Board, asked Hamilton Police to further explain their response to protests that occurred surrounding Terryberry Library on November 24, 2022.
The Library hosted a drag queen storytime that day.
Protesters chanted against the event outside of the library. A larger contingent of counter-protesters tried to drown them out.
Hamilton Police kept the two groups separate.
In response to questions at the Police Board meeting on December 15, Deputy Police Chief Ryan Diodati states the attempt to disrupt the event is being investigated as a "hate incident." Police declined to elaborate citing ongoing investigations.
Media reports from the date in question stated there was some pushing.
CHCH reported one protester tried to enter the library. [CHCH noted a few of the protesters in Hamilton were also involved in similar protests in Oakville.]
Conservative columnist Joe Warmington of The Toronto Sun wrote there were "more supporters than detractors" outside the library.
Mayor Andrea Horwath condemned "the actions of organized hate and discrimination" calling the protest "unacceptable."
Drag queen storytime events have become a target of right-wing media and commentators in recent months.
The Terryberry event was the second hosted by the Hamilton Public Library. An earlier event at the Binbrook library occurred without any protests.
In his December monthly report [unrelated to Kroetsch's tweets] to the Library Board, published Friday, Hamilton Public Library Chief Librarian and CEO Paul Takala wrote:
"We asked Hamilton Police Services to ensure the event could happen safely. I want to thank the Police Service for the support they provided to ensure no one was hurt and the program itself could happen without disruption. I spent most of the program outside where the protesters were kept separate by Police from the larger number of community members showing their support. The communication between the Police and HPL, the professionalism and restraint of the Officers present all assisted in keeping everyone safe." [pg 35]
During Wednesday's Library Board meeting, Takala added, "I'm glad we didn't have to cancel the event," that the police presence was essential.
The Library Board went into closed session to discuss the security implications of the protests.
Ward 13 Clr Alex Wilson lifted a section of November's Municipal Heritage Committee report to return the Osler House at 30 South Street West in Dundas to the heritage designation priority list.
The change comes only days after McMaster University told Metroland journalist Craig Campbell they are selling the property because of concerns regarding "racist views" held by Sir William Osler.
The property was on the City's list of properties for heritage study before McMaster purchased it in January 2021. The City de-prioritized the study knowing the property's heritage interest was secure.
Wilson's motion passed. Staff will research and report on potential heritage designation by December 2024.
Hamilton's Transit division has another embarrassing preventable scandal on its hands.
The City's Taxi Scrips were being misused with "certain gas stations" accepting taxi scrips for fuel purchases.
Scrip coupons were "acquired by third parties and used as barter in illegitimate exchange transactions and by parties that are not eligible to be subsidized," write the City's internal auditors.
Taxi Scrips are paper coupons which eligible persons requiring accessible transit can purchase to ride taxis instead of waiting for and using DARTS accessible transit services.
Users pay $24 for a coupon book worth $40 in scrips. The scrips are similar to cash for taxi companies.
The City reimburses the taxi companies for the face value of coupons.
Officially, companies must provide trip information including passenger number, date, trip, cab number, pick up and drop off location.
In practice, the City's Transit Division did not ask for the information, and did not bother to verify the submitted coupons.
Only 3 percent of scrips inspected by the City's internal auditors "sampled were found to be in compliance with the contractual requirements."
"There is so much missing information from the redeemed taxi scrips that ongoing compliance assessment and monitoring for illicit activity … is not feasible."
The terrible bookkeeping by HSR managers means nobody will be held responsible for potential fraud. The managers remain in their positions.
The City's 2023 summer student jobs applications are now open. This past summer (2022), the City was unable to fill all positions and took the unusual step of hiring secondary students for the months of July and August to fill four-month post-secondary student positions that was unfilled. If you know a young person, let them know.
Mayor Andrea Horwath is hiring a Strategic Initiatives & Policy Advisor and a Community Engagement Advisor. The Mayor is using an open competitive process for the positions. Applications closed on Saturday.
The City is hiring a Director for a new Housing Secretariat.
City Hall states the position will fill gaps and assist the existing Director of Housing position and the existing CEO CityHousing positions by being more focused upon creating new affordable housing and protecting existing market-affordable housing.
The new position "is going to identify and work upon existing work underway across city departments in the community, and includes short term strategies with concrete actions that can be undertaken immediately while simultaneously working towards the mid and long term strategies that will optimize resources available to each sector."
The HSR is adding a new transit planning position, Senior Project Manager – Transit Planning – LRT Integration.
The HSR's (Re)Envision strategy is ongoing, having been paused for the past two years. There are no timelines for the strategy's reports on how to change the HSR's over 50-year old route structure.
Now Ward 4 Clr Tammy Hwang's former city job is posted for hire.
Numerous land-use development planner positions are, once again, posted. The shortage of planners across the GTHA means the City cannot get enough applicants. The City is using college-educated planning technicians in 'junior' roles traditionally reserved for university-educated planners. The techs are doing good work, but the City needs university-educated planners who can secure professional designations to meet the requirements of the Planning Act – especially when processing complex applications.
Ontario's Divisional Court is granting intervenor status to a pro-choice group in the latest court case regarding anti-abortion/pro-life ads on public transit in Hamilton.
The Court ruling states the City of Hamilton rejected an advertisement from The Association for Reformed Political Action Canada that refers to a sonogram image of a late-term fetus in the womb as a person.
The City decision stated the ad needed "to be revised so as not to reflect personhood in relation to" the sonogram image.
Pro-choice organization Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada asked for and was granted intervenor status.
"ARCC would be able to provide additional perspectives that would assist the court in understanding the broader potential impact of the court's decision on those not before the court," ruled Justice Sandra Nishikawa.
Oral arguments in court are months away, at least. With an intervenor, this case may reach the Supreme Court of Canada and finally settle how municipalities should address these kinds of advertisements.
More about this case, including background info, on TPR here.
The Hamilton Public Library system plans to further expand its hours in 2023 once the system fills 22 positions that are presently vacant: [pg 27]
In a new update, the HPL's Chief Librarian writes "we will continue to explore options for a potential branch Library at the Discovery Centre. The location would provide an ideal place for a full-service branch library that could also highlight Local History & Archives exhibits and further advance Truth and Reconciliation initiatives." [pg 28]
Takala told the Library Board that City staff are interested in the Library putting together a plan for a branch. The Library will be ask the City to fund a feasibility study.
The new City Council ordered the release of the City's outside legal spending on the Chedoke Creek 24-billion litre sewage spill.
The answer:
$195,000 is the outside legal costs "with unbilled work in progress of approximately $40,000, exclusive of HST."
Hamilton is budgeting $31.7-million for the next generation 9-1-1 project.
This week, the Province of Ontario opened applications to receive provincial funding for the non-capital portions of the project. Hamilton's non-capital budget for the project is $7.1-million.
The City has until January 10 to apply for provincial funding.
In late October, the Red Hill Parkway Inquiry completed its first phase – testimony of officials, experts, and those involved with the Red Hill Valley Parkway.
It is now preparing to begin the second phase.
"Phase 2 will focus on expert evidence looking at factors that contributed to motor vehicle accidents on the Red Hill Valley Parkway, as well as policy and governance issues at the City of Hamilton that arise from the Inquiry's Terms of Reference," the Inquiry's update states.
Both the City of Hamilton and Golder Associates are seeking to add their experts to Phase 2.
The City wishes to counter other expert testimony regarding alleged problems on the parkway including the number of collisions, inconsistent friction, and wet weather performance.
The City argues, "it is important that the Commissioner receives a balanced response on the technical issues relating to the safety and design of the RHVP." [PDF: City's submission outlining planned oral arguments]
Golder Associates Ltd., the contractor who wrote the buried friction report, plans to argue there are "gaps" in the expert reports commissioned by the Inquiry and will submit further expert evidence regarding asphalt selection, testing, and testing methods.
During Tuesday's oral arguments, Justice Wilton-Seigel probed the City's requests. A few times the Justice noted if the City wished to hire more experts to provide different opinions than the earlier City experts, this will have "timing and cost consequences."
The Justice granted some of the City's requests and granted Golders' requests.
The City seeks to enter new evidence to the Inquiry, primarily to argue no negligence by the municipality regarding friction maintenance and monitoring because no municipalities have these programs.
"Given that the City has called this Inquiry, I am reluctant to prevent the City from putting forward this evidence if, in its considered opinion, this evidence is necessary notwithstanding such timing and cost implications," noted the Justice.
Phase 2 evidence hearings will be heard on February 16-17 and 21-23.
Oral closing submissions will be heard on March 22-24.
Dates are subject to change, if the City requests to add more evidence.
The Collingwood Inquiry report was issued 11 months after closing arguments.
Bird Canada will launch an e-scooter service in Hamilton this coming spring. They've signed a licensing deal with the City of Hamilton.
City procurement documents included a minimum schedule of fees.
Key to the deal is Bird Canada will pay an "operating offset" to Hamilton Bike Share.
City Hall is working to find non-tax levy funding for Bike Share to ensure its long-term viability. The payments from Bird to Bike Share will significantly advance this goal.
Bird Canada is committing to a 30-minute response time for "misparked" scooters, being a Living Wage Employer, and providing discounts to ensure low-income riders can use the system.
The secrecy surrounding City Hall's COVID forecasting contract using Scarsin software is near absolute.
The City signed a non-competitive contract this summer, keeping the purchase price secret.
The contract is worth more than $250,000. We know this because staff needed Council's rubber stamp on the purchase.
A partial release of the Scarsin forecast was made public, that was until the last week of November when City Hall announced it will no longer share even this.
"What we've seen recently is the many factors that help to determine the level of COVID-19 spread and the Scarsin forecasting have become more complex – including the relationship with the rise and competition of other respiratory viruses that may be reducing the spread of COVID-19. As a result, Scarsin COVID-19 forecasting will not be published," wrote Hamilton Medical Officer of Health Dr. Elizabeth Richardson.
Hamilton Police says due to "ongoing staffing challenges," the police service will no longer provide paid overtime duty officers for overnight noise bylaw enforcement.
The City's Director of Municipal Law Enforcement writes noise enforcement will now end at 1:00 a.m. on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights.
Who hasn't accidentally forgotten to get a permit to knock down 23 trees on a designated heritage property?
City staff recommended giving themselves a "retroactive" permit for tree removal at Battlefield House and Park in Stoney Creek.
The retroactive permit was approved.
Hamilton's public transit agency says it will end service at 9:00 p.m. on January 1st, February 20, and April 7.
Shift workers and others who need transit on those nights will have to find another way to get around the city.
City Hall has yet to announce if it will provide service on New Years' Eve.
Internet hacks happen often. A list of approx. 2.9-million emails with passwords were posted as a paste in recent days. There are 208 @hamilton.ca emails on the list. The hack appears to be prior to 2012, many of the names are now retired.
This is an excellent reminder to use strong and unique passwords for your accounts.
A good follow-up by CHML on a national report stating there is a shortage of firefighters across Canada.
Hamilton's Fire Chief told CHML that Hamilton is thankfully not experiencing the same challenges.


text:
TPR Newsletter Email For December 16 2022: Land Use and Development Planning News – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 15, 2022
Ward 5 Clr Matt Francis is concise when he speaks at Council.
He was very concise when he spoke in favour of a 16-storey 316-unit proposal planned for the northwest corner at Nash and Queenston, where there will an LRT stop.
“I just want to say this is, actually, an appropriate place to put this sort of development where we’ve got higher order transit, where this is an LRT corridor. This is exactly the type of development that should be happening in this location. So I’ve got no issues with this proposal.” [YouTube link]
With the ward councillor in favour of the height and density, what remains is negotiating water and sewage services.
City staff stated, “sanitary servicing is constrained and unable to accommodate the proposed increase in wastewater generation and the existing sanitary sewer system does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development.”
I spoke with Francis after Wednesday’s Council meeting to learn more about his land-use planning philosophy.
Read more on TPR to learn why Francis’ does not support the present concept at Eastgate Square nor the proposal for two tall buildings at 2900 King Street East.
Hamilton City Council plans to upgrade White Church Road in the coming years, but Hamilton’s Committee of Adjustment has other ideas, and is now overriding Council’s direction.
Why? It seems because they can.
The owner of 6105 White Church Road in Glanbrook asked for a severance to transfer land to a neighbouring property for a lot line adjustment.
This is as routine as routine can get.
City staff supported the transfer with the standard legal conditions and subject to a requirement for “approximately ±7.00 metres to be dedicated to the right-of-way on White Church Road, per the Council Approved Rural Official Plan: Schedule C-1 – Future Right-of-Way Dedications.”
The agent for the owner asked if the condition could only be applied to the severed portion of the property.
CoA Chair Dale Smith responded, “I think this is something we deal with on a regular basis whenever there’s additions made to lots and it’s the opportune time for the city to, in a few words, to say a land grab.”
The agent responded, “that would add significant cost” and Smith suggested the CoA take away the condition.
The CoA then voted to overrule Council’s Official Plan without providing any no planning rational. [YouTube link]
Due to the impending Christmas Break, City Council will not meet before the deadline for them to file an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
The relocation of social services into Ward 3 from Hamilton’s downtown core is sparking concern and opposition from some residents. There are some good faith concerns, and then there is just plain old NIMBYism.
I live in Downtown Hamilton. I see both the need for services and the challenges in our community.
Unfortunately for those with reasonable concerns, it is the NIMBYs who show up to public meetings to make embarrassing statements on behalf of the entire neighbourhood.
The move of the Mission Services men’s shelter to 400 King Street East triggered variances to permit the addition of a single story to a rear building to expand for the creation of transitional housing units.
A few residents attended CoA in opposition.
One asked if Mission Services has a license to provide transitional housing.
Another stated residential care facilities are contributing to Hamilton’s housing shortage.
“It’s no wonder there’s a housing program because so many of the regular homes are turning into social services.”
RCFs have more residents than a typical home does.
“There should be a moratorium on all social housing in Ward Three,” stated another resident.
Another resident suggested allowing a shelter to operate in Ward 3 violates their Section 7 Charter Rights.
Section 7 states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
I guess they weren’t paying attention in class because Section 7 ensures NIMBY politicians cannot outright ban emergency shelters and housing.
“Right to life” is right there in the text.
Emergency shelters prevent people from dying on the streets.
[The pending Charter challenge against the City’s ban prohibiting outdoor “camping” (encampments) argues the bylaw violates Section 7. We’ll learn and hear much more about this in the coming months.]
The variances were approved.
The Ontario Land Tribunal granted three nearby residents and one community group party status in the Fengate LIUNA non-decision appeal for its proposed redevelopment of the Winona LIUNA Gardens on Lake Ontario.
Fengate LIUNA filed non-decision appeals shortly after the 120-day deadline for Council to decide passed for this property and 186 Hunter Street in Downtown Hamilton.
The filing of the non-decision appeal meant there was no public hearing at Council’s Planning Committee for the public to submit comments.
A second Case Management Conference [formerly called pre-hearing] will be held on Friday, March 3, 2023, to confirm the issues list and procedure order.
The OLT is setting aside ten days for the contested hearing on the development beginning on September 18, 2023. The Tribunal will sit on each weekday for two weeks. The dates may be modified at the CMC in March.
Of note, one of the resident parties hired the law firm Turkstra Mazza as counsel. TMA is one of the GGH’s best planning law firms. More info in this story on TPR
The OLT agreed with City of Hamilton planning staff that a proposed two-storey structure with ground-level two car garage and a second level Secondary Dwelling Unit at 173 Homewood Avenue is not good planning and should not be approved.
The SDU was denied at Committee of Adjustment because of a lack of setbacks and too narrow of an access path between houses for emergency services response.
City staff are reviewing the Site Plan submission by Cadillac Fairview to “introduce new residential uses to the northern portion of the subject site” – the plan presented this past summer to the City’s Design Review Panel for two 12-storey residential rental buildings.
Staff met with CF and its agents on December 14 to discuss the submission.
Site Plan submission review is underway, following Council’s zoning approval in spring to allow 15 storey mixed-use building containing 265 units, 563 sq. m. of commercial retail and 189 parking spaces. The tenure will be condo. City staff and the development met on December 7.
Much-needed mixed-income and affordable units planned by Hamilton East Kiwanis Non-Profit Homes Inc. (HEK) and Victoria Park Community Homes are moving forward in the Site Plan approval process.
The staff review meeting with the developers occurred on November 23.
Now, the partners await the federal and provincial governments to sort out financing for the project.
The federal government a new $500-million funding round for its Rapid Housing Initiative on November 10.
On November 16, during her inaugural speech, Mayor Andrea Horwath said these funds “means resources to quickly build new units will be arriving soon.”
Mayor Horwath and regional federal cabinet Minister Filomena Tassi enjoy a good working relationship.
This project is a top candidate for quick funding.

source: news-thepublicrecord

created: December 15, 2022

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


text:
TPR Newsletter Email For December 16 2022: Questions Answered – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 15, 2022
A feature of the newsletter is this section responding to questions. I’ll prioritize questions sent by email reply to newsletters.
Bryan Webber asks about the City’s current development charges reserve balance.
The City’s DC balance on December 31, 2021, was $373,590,713.
The 2021 annual “Treasurer’s Statement“, required by the Development Charges Act, 1997, states the City’s adjusted balance is -$126,047,631 based upon budgeted capital projects and debt charges.
The City borrows for major infrastructure expansions, which occur before areas are developed. This is reflected in the DC Debt lines of the table above. [The City provides a low-quality table image in the original document]
More to come on development charges in upcoming newsletter editions.


text:
TPR Newsletter Email For December 16 2022: Hamilton Noted – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 16, 2022
Officially, Members of Provincial Parliament are elected to represent their constituents at Queens Park. In practice, government MPPs serve to represent their leader. Hamilton East – Stoney Creek MPP Neil Lumsden is hiding from Hamilton’s media these days. CHCH News Director Greg O’Brien called Lumsden out on Twitter for closing his events to media.
The Waterfront Trail was closed earlier this month between York Blvd and Bayfront Park for “CN to complete underground repairs.” The Environment Registry of Ontario shows CN was granted a provincial environmental permit to install additional stormwater management works. “The approved stormwater management works include storm sewers and an oil and grit separator unit for quality control,” states the ERO. During heavy rain events, CN has experienced minor flooding of its rail tracks in the area, which has caused service disruptions for GO Trains into West Harbour.
Two Hamilton extremes are used to illustrate the cover story for the latest issue of The Walrus – Indoor Air Quality. The Rebecca Towers COVID outbreak, caused by terrible air circulation in the building, which saw COVID drift between units, as the example of what we need to fix in our indoor spaces. Author John Lorinc looks at the renovated Ken Soble Tower with its passive house design as the example of optimum indoor air quality design. Read online here.
IA 10-year-plus-old court case between National Steel Car and Arcelor Mittal Dofasco over Dofasco’s alleged blockage of a drainage channel and if that is a cause of flooding on the NSC site continues. NSC was denied a mandatory interlocutory injunction to force Dofasco and the City of Hamilton to immediately dredge the channel and prevent flooding on the NSC site. The ruling includes an affidavit by a law clerk “the plaintiff owes $6.8 million in back taxes to the municipality.” The City of Hamilton does not disclose individual property tax arrears unless the City registers a Tax Arrears Certificate following three years of non-payment.
Sean Marshall writes a good summary of the history of Hamilton’s City Centre, which will be demolished next year to make way for four planned residential towers with 1,940 units. The City Centre will close on December 31, with the clock tower to ring 12 times at midnight to make the New Year and the end of the former Eaton Centre
Hamilton Centre for Civic Inclusion Executive Director Kojo Damptey is leaving the organization, HCCI announced Friday. Damptey recently ran a very close second for City Councillor in Ward 14. HCCI will celebrate Damptey at their AGM on January 12, 2023, and are inviting the public to attend
The new Hamilton Community Research Partnership released its first reports this week. The Power of Connected Data: Charting Student Pathways to and through Postsecondary in Hamilton and CRP Blueprint: How We Built a Community Data Infrastructure. The research confirms the outcomes of socio-economics, academic/applied streaming in high school, and educational attainment. The research partnership brings together the school boards, post-secondary institutions, the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, and the Hamilton Community Foundation.
McMaster’s student newspaper The Silhouette talks to students regarding their HSR UPass. All undergraduate students must pay $232.94 for the annual pass. The McMaster UPass was approximately 10 percent of the HSR’s pre-COVID revenues. [The City of Hamilton no longer releases detailed HSR revenue figures.] In their last vote on the UPass, February 2020, Mac undergrads voted 91 percent in favour of the UPass. The UPass is now loaded onto PRESTO cards with a voucher. Prior to PRESTO, the UPass was integrated into the enrollment stickers students received each year. Students who do not use the pass can sell their vouchers, with a robust black market in the vouchers online each August. Students will vote this coming Winter on renewing the contract.
Someone is using freedom of information to get records from McMaster University regarding ” injuries and any associated incidents that transpired at David Braley Athletic Centre since its opening in 2007″ and inspection records for the indoor track in the Centre. The request was filed in August 2018. [Over four years later, the requestor is still trying to get records, our FOI system is broken.]

created: December 16, 2022


text:
TPR Newsletter Email For December 16 2022: Municipal Affairs Noted – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 16, 2022
The Province announced more funding for local transit systems to offset decreased revenues due to lower ridership following COVID.
Hamilton will receive another $5,181,247.
Hamilton’s COVID transit reserves remain healthy, but the HSR’s revenues remain significantly down – people are not commuting to work or they are driving.
Hamilton is not in as rough of a financial shape as other cities.
The mandatory UPass agreements at Mohawk and McMaster bring in a large chunk of the HSR’s revenue.
The student unions decided to have their members pay for UPasses last year even as campuses were closed.
This unearned revenue allowed the HSR to bank COVID funding for future rainy days.
Torontonians will continue to enjoy low property taxes as the Province once again gives the City of Toronto a deficit bailout.
This time the City of Toronto will receive ~$266-million to cover one-third of Toronto’s forecasted 2022 deficit.
Toronto enjoys a strong commercial tax base. This combined with frequent bailouts enables the City to keep its residential property tax rates artificially low.
Toronto relies heavily upon its Land Transfer Tax to fund its annual operating budget.
Less year was particularly good for Toronto with over $ 1 billion in land tax revenue.
This year is not looking as good with fewer real estate sales.
Land Transfer Taxes are not reliable nor prudent revenue sources for municipalities.
During the 2022 election, Toronto Mayor John Tory promised to deliver below-inflation property tax increases this year, and the Province is obliging.
In Hamilton, facing a tax increase in a range between 6.9% to who knows for sure, and some on our City Council want the same deal.
Ward 5 Clr Matt Francis gave notice at the end of Wednesday’s Council GIC that he’ll be introducing a motion to seek similar treatment for Hamilton.
To his credit, Francis noted he would seek advice on wording his motion before putting it on the floor.
[Francis also asked “Would this be a good opportunity to look at municipal land transfer tax on the sale of homes?” in Hamilton to address our fiscal crunch.]
Ontario Premier Doug Ford plans to give the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa even stronger strong mayor powers, including the ability to govern with only a 1/3rd minority of their councils.
Hamilton is the next largest single-tier municipality in Ontario, meaning it is possible the “strong mayor” powers will arrive here in 2023.
The University of Toronto’s Institute for Municipal Finance and Governance released a paper last week summarizing a recent academic panel they hosted.
Here are some takeaways.
Dr. Karen Chapple, Director of School of Cities and Professor of Geography and Planning – UofT, noted that in the United States: ‘cities seem to be moving away from the mayor-council form; 56% of American municipalities had a strong mayor in 1984, compared with just 44% in 2008.’
Chapple noted the advantage of the council-manager form [which is the current form in Ontario] includes that ‘it reduces corporate influence,’ ‘quality of public service is higher,’ ‘citizens are more engaged,’ and ‘it reduces conflict among elected officials.’
Journalist Matt Elliott noted Toronto Mayor John Tory ‘the mayor almost never loses a vote.
John Tory has won 98% of relevant council votes this [past] term’ and thus Elliott doubts Strong Mayor powers ‘is going to have major ramifications for the way City Hall operates – at least in Toronto.’
Dr. Alison Smith, Assistant Prof Poli Sci UofT, sees the Strong Mayor powers as a further downloading by the province on affordable and social housing. ‘It is always important for me to note that while we are currently facing a housing crisis across Ontario, there has been a crisis of housing for people with low incomes for decades.’
‘While empowering mayors to accelerate housing production may allow for more nimble action, this is also the downloading of responsibility for addressing the housing crisis to the local level.’
Dr. Gabriel Eidelman, Asst. Prof Munk School UofT, noted having senior staff accountable to the Mayor will clarify lines of responsibility in municipal government.
He discussed the need for safeguards and protections to ensure professional civil servants can still act as professionals.
TMU’s Centre for Urban Research and Land Development is taking a break from shrilling for land speculators’ profits and greenfield paving.
The think-tank asks why there is a lack of low-rise apartment construction in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
Their conclusion?
“The analysis of CMHC apartment starts data shows that the construction of low-rise missing middle apartments in the GGH, defined as buildings of three storeys or less or six storeys or less, falls considerably short of the units required to offset the under-production of market-based ground-related housing as well as the inherent demand for low-rise apartments.
Only 6% of the apartment starts in the City of Toronto were in buildings of six storeys or less. This small number of missing middle apartment starts in the City of Toronto, combined with a robust latent demand, points to the need for an explosive increase in the construction of these apartments in the city. The most obvious way of achieving this is the up-zoning of existing single-family housing neighbourhoods.”
Now that he is “strong,” Toronto Mayor John Tory must approve minor decisions related to land-use planning and housing.
Last month, Mayor Tory gave his formal blessing to some parking changes and speed humps in Old Toronto and East York.
The Twitter mockery is amusing.
Using his strong mayoral powers, John Tory appointed Paul Johnson as Toronto’s new City Manager.
Johnson was first hired into government at the City of Hamilton as director for the neighbourhood action program, then director of LRT.
As Hamilton City Manager, Chris Murray promoted Johnson to General Manager of Emergency and Community Service. Johnson was hired to Toronto by Chris Murray.
Murray became Toronto’s City Manager in 2018. Johnson moved to Toronto in July 2021 to be one of Toronto’s Deputy City Managers under Murray.
The Toronto Police Services Board and the City of Toronto Ombudsman signed a Memorandum of Agreement to enable the City’s Ombudsman to provide independent oversight of the police service in matters not presently captured by provincial oversight agencies.
The City of Hamilton does not have an Ombudsman.
The UToronto student chapter of the Institute of Transportation Engineers hosted Eftekhari who discussed how service levels are adjusted based on projected and observed customer demand in the post-COVID era when travel patterns are less predictable.
The 37-minute talk video is on YouTube.
In a ruling entirely keeping with obvious case law, Ontario’s Divisional Court is making the Municipality of Leamington redo its appeal hearing after the municipality’s Appeal Committee failed to conduct a procedurally fair hearing regarding a tavern.
Similar to Hamilton, Leamington’s Appeal Committee is composed of elected councillors.
A bit more in this TPR Brief.
Retired Hamilton City Solicitor Janice Atwood-Petkovski’s firm, Principles Integrity, is the new Integrity Commissioner for the municipality of Wellington North.
The Township’s Council openly discussed some of the fees they will pay to retain an IC.
Principles Integrity charges a $1,250 annual retainer fee. The firm is paid a “block fee” of $1,750 for each day they are asked to attend a council meeting or provide council training.
PI’s hourly rate is $275.
The Wellington Advertiser states the Township paid former IC Guy Giorno “$1,088 since his appointment” in 2019.
Giorno’s hourly rate was $300 per hour. He was not called upon to conduct investigations during his term.
At the time of this report, October 7, Principles Integrity held 45 municipal and local board appointments as IC.
Ontario’s Divisional Court in a 2-1 decision upheld the determination of Ontario’s Privacy Commission to order the release of 2018 election records in Mississauga, dismissing an appeal by Mississauga’s City Clerk against a ruling of Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commission (IPC) that determined where the Municipal Elections Act states all election records are public documents, the Act states they are public documents.
This case is quirky. Unfortunately for Hamilton 2022 candidates who were denied access to data, this case is not helpful due to these quirks.
There are methods for Municipal Clerks to legally seal records.
Hamilton City Clerk Andrea Holland has availed herself of the MEA Section 86(6.1) to seal voting records that were denied to candidates on Election Day.
Ontario’s Ministry of Municipal Affairs conducts a review following each municipal election cycle.
It will be interesting to see if the MEA is changed in light of the 2018 events in Mississauga and the similar situation that unfolded in Hamilton during the 2022 election.
A little more on TPR here.
Ward 5 Richmond Hill Councillor Karen Cilevitz has a list of Integrity Commissioner adverse findings against her, she’s a bully towards citizens, and she was criminally charged with fraud.
She was convicted of fraud under $5,000 in a plea deal which saw more serious charges dropped.
She was re-elected last month due to vote splitting. Yes, one of Ontario’s worst municipal councillors is back with only 23.34% of the vote in a ten person race.
When people talk about the merits of ranked ballots in municipal elections, they should use Karen Cilevitz as the top example of why ranked ballots are needed.
Alaska, yes, the frozen north, is adopting zoning reforms which eliminate parking minimums and “add a minimum bicycle parking requirement for new large residential buildings and new commercial buildings.”
Anchorage councillors hope the measure will decrease the cost of new development.


text:
TPR Newsletter Email For December 16 2022: Special Section: Ontario Auditor General Annual Report And Hamilton – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 16, 2022
Ontario’s Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk released her annual reports on November 30. Here’s a summary of the value-for-money audit reports discussing programs in Hamilton and municipal affairs.
In an audit of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the AG warns of insufficient conservation efforts,”Changes to the Plan in 2017 [that] allow development that harms endangered species’ habitats,” and the government “provides insufficient financial and staffing resources to the Commission to ensure the Plan and Act are effectively and efficiently implemented.”
The NEC’s insufficient financial and staffing challenges come as the Plan is challenged in Hamilton by developers at the Ontario Land Tribunal.
The most direct challenge is the proposal for three tall buildings at 299-307 John Street South & 97 St. Joseph Drive here in Hamilton.
It is the first tall building proposal near the escarpment since the Niagara Escarpment Plan was enacted in 1985.
If the developer succeeds – which could be more likely if the NEC cannot hire needed experts to testify – there are concerns the Niagara Escarpment Plan will be weakened.
The City of Hamilton is around the provincial average for both cost per vaccination and vaccine wastage during the pandemic.
The City’s use of the single mass vaccination clinic at Copps Coliseum instead of numerous community clinics brought down the cost per dose.
Peel and Toronto are above average as they conducted numerous neighbourhood level clinics. This is a classic last-mile problem. It takes more resources to reach people facing the most barriers or reluctance to vaccinate.
Hamilton’s cost per dose was $50. The provincial average was $52.
Peel spent $79 per dose. Toronto was $68 per dose. Halton, somehow, had the highest cost per dose in Ontario at $87.
The City of Hamilton’s wastage rate was five percent. The provincial average was four percent.
The COVID audit confirms that Hamilton postal codes L8P and L8M were excluded from the Ontario Ministry of Health’s COVID hotspot prioritization at the height of the pandemic in late 2020 and early 2021.
This is despite both being hotspots based on socio-economic factors and COVID case counts.
L8P is an area bound by James Street, the Escarpment, Highway 403, and King Street.
L8M is bound by Wentworth Street, King Street, Ottawa Street, and the Escarpment.
Each of these neighbourhoods includes very wealthy pockets and extreme pockets of poverty.


text:
Video and Transcript: December 1 City Council Vote on $125,000 for Overnight Warming Centres – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 30, 2022
Hamilton City Council passed $125,000 in urgent funding to keep Hamilton’s warming centres open during their December 1, 2020, Emergency and Community Services meeting.
The following is a transcript of the Council debate. [Note: lightly edited for clarity in a written format.]
Ward 4 Councillor Tammy Hwang:
I have a Notice of Motion. Cold Alert Response.
Whereas prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the winter cold alert response was reliant upon existing capacity within emergency shelters, drop-ins and other programs serving vulnerable persons.
Whereas during the COVID-19 pandemic due to social distancing and other factors capacity within these programs was limited.
Whereas provincial COVID-19 pandemic funding was available during the 2021/2022 winter season to fund the activation of new overnight drop-in spaces to support individuals during a cold alert.
Whereas for the 2020 to 2023 winter season capacity pressures within existing services remain.
Whereas provincial COVID-19 funding ends December 31 2022 and will not continue into 2023
Whereas cold alert response was not included within the 2023 housing services division budget.
Whereas lack of additional overnight Cold Alert response could have negative impact on vulnerable persons.
Therefore be it resolved that up to a maximum of $125,000 for the Cold Alert response between December 2022 to March 2023 be funded from any available 2022 Housing Services Division are Healthy and Safe Communities Department surplus or through the tax stabilization reserve number 110046.
B) Should a surplus not be realized, that staff report back to the Emergency and Community Services Committee summarizing whom these funds were allocated and how they were spent in order to address the needs of the community and
C) that the General manager of the Healthy and Safe Communities Department or their designee should be directed and authorized on behalf of the City of Hamilton to enter into execute and administer all agreements and documents necessary to implement the Cold Alert response outlined above on terms and conditions satisfactory to the General Manager of the Healthy and Safe communities Department or their designee and in a form satisfactory to the city, solicitor.
D) that consideration of a contribution up to a maximum of $125,000 annually to support a Cold Alert response be referred to the 2023 Council operating budget deliberations to be funded from the operating levy.
[Council voted to waive rules of notice to allow the motion to be heard]
Clr Hwang:
This was brought as a little bit of a last minute notice but as I had listed in the whereas, funding is ending at the end of December, but we are also in winter and this is by the time this actually hits the next sort of round of ECS [on January 19, 2023] we may or may not have had Cold Alert responses.
Som this is where I would also like to direct to GM [of Healthy and Safety Communities Angela] Burden to add any additional comments.
GM Angela Burden:
Thank you through the chair to the committee.
We are very supportive of this.
I would just have the caveat that we are engaged with community providers and it there is there are capacity challenges with human resources for the overnight service.
So we may or may not be able we have had conversations, we think we have at least one provider that is able to provide the service and we would engage with others to see what we can do in that regard. But our ability to offer the service will depend on provider capacity, but it absolutely is something we support.
Thank you.
[The motion passed unanimously]

created: December 30, 2022


text:
Ward 5 Clr Matt Francis on Planning: What He Supports What He Does Not – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 8, 2022
Ward 5 Councillor Matt Francis is supporting a proposed sixteen-storey 316-unit condo building on the northwest corner at Nash and Queenston.
Last week, staff came forth to Council to state they cannot support the current proposal because it is double the permitted eight storeys for the site in the Centennial Neighbourhood Secondary Plan.
The proposal does not meet the stepbacks required by the City-Wide Corridor Planning Principles and Design Guidelines and “encroachments into the angular plane above the seventh storey.”
The Ontario Land Tribunal will make the decision. The developer, LJM, filed a non-decision appeal 205 days after they filed their application.
Council had a 120-day deadline to make a decision.
Francis’ comments at Council Planning Committee were concise, which is proving to be his style during meetings.
There was no political hedging, no weasel words.
With the ward councillor in favour of the height and density, what remains is negotiating water and sewage services.
City staff write, “sanitary servicing is constrained and unable to accommodate the proposed increase in wastewater generation and the existing sanitary sewer system does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development.”
I spoke with Francis after Wednesday’s Council meeting to learn more about his land-use planning philosophy.
But first, let’s go back to his election statements.
When running for Ward 5 councillor, Matt Francis promised to stop over-development.
Here is a selection of his statements during his The 155 Election Podcast interview:
“I’ve seen a troubling trend of over intensification, traffic and parking concerns that are coming forward from residents. Because of this over-intensification and over-development, people are seeing a drastic change in the way that their established communities function. And it’s troubling to me I know we’ve got growth is inevitable, but that has got to be done in the right places and not at the expense of our residents.”
“I want to keep taxes low and not overdevelop our city.”
Francis stated he would support good development. Emphasis added:
“I will never support proposals that negatively impact our residents and their property values. Growth is inevitable, but it must be done in the right places, and our major transit corridors should be the first place we start. Before we even consider changing the way our established neighbourhoods.”
Francis says he supports this proposal because sixteen storeys is appropriate for the site because of the planned LRT and that it is not over-development.
He says it is “a lot more palatable for the community” than the forty-two storeys proposed at Eastgate Square 500 metres to the east on Queenston Road.
“I’m trying to make the example that eight to sixteen is much more appropriate than twenty to forty-two,” he says.
Francis does not support a proposal for two tall buildings at 2900 King Street East. This site is on the south-west corner at Centennial Parkway.
“The difference is we’re talking about an LRT corridor number one versus not an LRT corridor,” Francis said.
2900 King East “is very close to the downtown Stoney Creek core,” he says, adding it “will set a precedent in downtown Stoney Creek and that’s what scares me about that proposal. And on top of that, the path there’s no way to turn left out of that particular location.”
“Unless there’s some sort of solution that I’m unaware of, there’s no way that one’s going to be very problematic.”
Asked about his present position regarding the proposed redevelopment of Eastgate Square, Francis stated:
“There’s a lot more discussions that need to be had with the community. I do think the community spoke very loud and clear during the election. That the current proposal is way far out of line with what’s acceptable for that intersection and for those for that community.”
Francis’ statement on the LJM Nash Road project does not, on its own, create a precedent.
Precedent requires a Council vote to adopt the position when the City’s planning lawyers go in front of the Ontario Land Tribunal for a settlement hearing.
It signals to the landowners of the large commercial sites between the Red Hill Parkway and Eastgate Square that the ward councillor is willing to support mid-rise development.
This is the stretch of the B-Line LRT with the greatest uplift potential. It is important to Hamilton’s economic and housing goals to see it redeveloped into mixed-use higher density uses.
The Eastgate proposal can be argued at the Ontario Land Tribunal with its current proposed height and density.
We’ll have to watch and see what happens.
The Nash and Queenston appeal remains at the Ontario Land Tribunal.
It is assigned case number OLT-22-004546.
Notice of first pre-hearing has not yet been issued.

created: December 8, 2022


text:
BRIEF: B.C. Human Rights Tribunal Rules Standard ‘Floating’ Bus Design Discriminatory – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 9, 2023
Hamilton’s Chief Planner Steve Robichaud noted a BC Human Rights case on his Twitter account this weekend,
It is a significant decision with potential impact across Canada.
Floating bus stop designs, those with raised bike lanes flowing behind or in front of them, are dangerous for people who are blind or have visual impairments.
Hamilton, like nearly every municipality in North America, is implementing this design. There are design tweaks available to ensure accessibility and safety. The CBC article on the ruling notes some of the options.

created: January 9, 2023


text:
BRIEF: Committee Against Racism Continues Push for Board of Health Professionalization – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 10, 2023
The citizen advisory Committee Against Racism voted at their late December meeting to prioritize pushing the new City Council to adopt a professional Board of Health structure similar to Toronto and Ottawa.Toronto and Ottawa‘s Boards consist of a mix of council members and non-political members drawn from health professions and the community.
The advantage of a professional board of health is the members bring a wider range of experience.
Old Council’s primary concern was the loss of control over public health decisions and the ability of an independent Board of Health to take positions which differ from the elected Council on budgetary decisions and public health approvals such as safe injection/consumption sites.
The new Council, at its first Board of Health meeting earlier in December, moved to have city staff report on the issue at the April Board of Health meeting.

created: January 10, 2023


text:
BRIEF: Edward Soldo Leaves City of Hamilton for Chatham-Kent – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 10, 2023
Hamilton’s Chief Road Official Edward Soldo is leaving to become the General Manager of Infrastructure and Engineering for the municipality of Chatham-Kent.
Soldo’s integrity and professionalism are beyond reproach. He will be hard for the City of Hamilton to replace.
He is best known to the public for his professionalism in light of defamatory and false remarks by former City Councillor Terry Whitehead.
Soldo filed complaints to the City’s Integrity Commissioner, a complaint he filed on his own. He stopped councillors from harassing his staff, and firmly ensured the City’s professional engineers could provide their professional advice without retaliation.
Chatham-Kent’s Chief Administrative Officer Michael Duben holds a reputation within municipal circles as a forward-thinking leader who hires the best and enables them to do their best.
Duben has let go of managers who do not align with his efforts to modernize the municipality.
Soldo begins in Chatham-Kent in mid-January.
There has been no public statement from Hamilton City Hall.


text:
BRIEF: Hamilton Climate Change Committee Terms going to Council on January 18 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 9, 2023
The City of Hamilton’s new Director of Climate Initiatives gave her first public presentation in the role during this morning’s Development Industry Liaison Group meeting.
Lynda Lukasik, who was Executive Director of Environment Hamilton prior to joining City staff, updated DILG on progress towards forming the City’s new Community Climate Change Advisory Committee.
“There is a draft Terms of Reference going to the General Issues Committee on January the 18th,” Lukasik stated.
Recruitment for the new committee will occur alongside the City’s larger call for applications to all City agencies, boards, and committees.


text:
BRIEF: HSR Buses Now Accept Credit Card Payments – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 23, 2023
The Province of Ontario formally announced the beginning of credit card payments on local transit in Durham, York, Burlington, and Hamilton.
HSR buses have accepted credit card payments for a few weeks.
Credit card payments are charged full fare.

created: January 23, 2023


text:
BRIEF: O. Reg. 580/22 Provincial Priorities – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 9, 2023
If/When the province extends Strong Mayor powers to the City of Hamilton, they will do so by regulation. Ontario Regulation 530/22 lists the “designated municipality” of Ottawa at present.
Ontario Regulation 580/22, posted December 20, lists the “provincial priorities” which a Strong Mayor can govern by minority rule with only one-third support of Council:
The following are provincial priorities prescribed for the purposes of sections 284.10, 284.11 and 284.11.1 of the Act:
1.  Building 1.5 million new residential units by December 31, 2031.
2.  Constructing and maintaining infrastructure to support housing, including,
i.  transit,
ii.  roads,
iii.  utilities, and
iv.  servicing.
Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe has stated he will not use the minority rule powers.


text:
BRIEF: O.Reg Change on Rabies Testing to Better Serve Bite Victims – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 9, 2023
Local medical officers of health will soon have the authority to order the testing of already deceased animals for rabies, “thus avoiding bite victims having to undergo unnecessary vaccination for rabies, and decrease personal stress and anxiety. This also will decrease the burden on local public health units and healthcare facilities, create efficiencies for the use of publicly-funded vaccinations, and decrease the time commitment and potential side-effects for bite victims.”


text:
BRIEF: OLT Procedural Order for 442, 450, 454, and 462 Wilson Street East, Ancaster – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 31, 2023
On December 5, 2022, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued the procedural order for file OLT-22-004156, 442, 450, 454, and 462 Wilson Street East, Ancaster.
I’ve copied and pasted from the PDF I received by email.
SCHEDULE 1
PROCEDURAL ORDER
The Tribunal orders that:
1. The Tribunal may vary or add to this Order at any time either on request or as it sees fit. It may amend this Order by an oral ruling or by another written Order.
Organization of the Hearing
2. The video hearing will commence on Wednesday September 13, 2023 at 10:00am
3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is Twelve (12) days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlement on issues where possible.
4. The parties and participants (see the Attachment 1 for the meaning of these terms) are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.
5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. Except for scoping or removing issues, there will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits it. A party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
6. The order of evidence shall be as listed in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence-in-chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on consent or by Order of the Tribunal.
7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address and email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.
Requirements Before the Hearing
9. If the Applicant/Appellant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing (different than initially applied for with the municipality), the Applicant/Appellant shall provide details of the revised proposal, including revised plans and drawings, draft official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and supporting materials to the other parties on or before Monday March 13, 2023 unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. If the Applicant/Appellant provides a revised proposal, the other parties shall have the right to
4 OLT-22-004156
revise their Issues Lists. Subject to reasonable notice to the other parties, revisions to the proposal which seek to settle or narrow issues, after this date, are also permitted.
10. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal, the other parties and to the City Clerk a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered by Friday April 14, 2023, and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. For expert witnesses, a party is to include a copy of the curriculum vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed should be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before Thursday April 20, 2023.
11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday May 12, 2023, and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting each group of witnesses in the same field shall prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues identifying areas of agreement, dispute and the Issues that will be addressed at the hearing. All documents exchanged and discussions held between expert witnesses are on a without prejudice basis, with the exception of the Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues which becomes part of the record when it has been signed by the experts. The Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues will be filed with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday June 2, 2023.
12. An expert witness shall prepare an Expert Witness Statement that shall include: an acknowledgement of expert’s duty form, the area(s) of expertise, any reports prepared by the expert, and any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of an Expert Witness Statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.
13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an Expert Witness Statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence and his or her area of expertise, as in item 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 14 below.
14. On or before Friday July 14 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their Witness and/or Expert Witness Statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
15. On or before Friday July 14 2023, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
16. On or before Friday August 11 2023, the parties shall provide copies of Reply Witness Statements, if any, to the other parties and the OLT case-co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
17. On or before Friday September 1 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence1 to all of the other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model is proposed to be used the Tribunal must be notified before the hearing. All parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a Joint Document Book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday August 25 2023. The Document Book will be electronic in format and include page numbering and electronic tabs. Any party wishing to have a hard copy will be responsible for printing its own copy. If the Tribunal wishes a hard copy, then the parties will share equally in the cost of printing it. Within 10 days of the exchange of Witness Statements the Applicant/Appellant will prepare a draft Index of the Joint Document Book (based on the Witness Statements filed) and will share it with the other parties for comment. Following the exchange of Reply Witness Statements the parties will work together to finalize the Index. While the Applicant/Appellant will prepare the full Joint Document Book, each parties is required to send the Applicant/Appellant those document which are unique to their Witness Statements and which the Applicant/Appellant would thus not otherwise have in its possession.
19. Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness may be password protected and only become accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing. Any such documents shall be provided to the Tribunal and all other parties in advance of their intended use.
20. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
21. A party who provides the written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have that witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the Tribunal and the parties are notified at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday September 8, 2023 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties par Friday September 8, 2023ticipating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.
23. All filings shall be electronic and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic filing sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.
24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.
25. A summary of the various filing dates is contained in Attachment 5.
FOOTNOTE: 1 Visual evidence should be of a general nature, such as air photos, enlarged versions of maps already in the public realm. The Visual Evidence exchange date is not an opportunity to provide substantive new evidence late (i.e. effectively a late Witness Statement). For example, the NEC’s issues, in particular, deal with visual impact of the proposed development on the Niagara Escarpment and, accordingly, the Witness Statements and reports filed in respect of those issues must be adequate to respond to those issues; new evidence or a response to the Issues cannot be left to the Visual Evidence exchange date. This direction binds all parties respecting all issues.
ATTACHMENT 3
ISSUES LIST
City of Hamilton Issues – see Note 3
Planning
1. Is the development proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) (“PPS”) in terms of infrastructure, including but not limited to policies 1.1.1 c), 1.1.3.2 b), 1.1.3.4
2. Does the development proposal conform to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019, as amended) in terms of existing and planned sanitary servicing capacity? Including but not limited to policies 2.2.1.2 a) and 3.2.1.1?
3. Does the development proposal conform to the Niagara Escarpment Plan (2017) in terms of height, setbacks, screening, and visual impact, including but not limited to policy 1.7.5.1, and Urban Hamilton Official Plan (“UHOP”) Volume 1 policies C.1.1.1 and C.1.1.6?
4. Does the development proposal comply with the urban structure policies of the UHOP for Community Nodes in terms of height, density, built form, design, shadow impacts, and the appropriate application of step backs and angular planes, including but not limited to UHOP Volume 1 policies E.2.3.3.7, E.2.3.3.9, and E.2.3.3.12?
JVR note: The issue above is no longer applicable due to OPA 167 decision. The OPA 167 decision permits additional density and height in Community Nodes, provided the applicant has demonstrated there are no adverse shadow impacts to neighbouring residential uses, provided the buildings are progressively stepped back from residential areas and provided the buildings are progressively stepped back from the street where necessary. A portion of this project is outside of a “Community Node” on Schedule E, however the Ancaster Wilson Street Secondary Plan Appendix ‘A’ clearly identifies the site as being within a “Community Node Area”.
5. Does the development proposal comply with the Mixed Use – Medium Density Designation of the UHOP, in terms of design, including but not limited to Volume 1 policy E.4.6.9?
6. Does the development proposal provide for a compatible integration with the surrounding area in terms of scale, form, and character and meet the residential intensification tests of the UHOP, in terms of establishing a relationship that maintains, enhances, and builds upon the existing neighbourhood character and contributes to maintaining and achieving an appropriate range and mix of dwelling types and tenures, including but not limited to UHOP Volume 1 policy B.2.4.1.4? Specifically, does the proposal address matters such as:
a. Building height;
b. Residential density;
c. Massing;
d. Privacy;
e. Overlook;
f. Setbacks; and,
g. Compatibility with and enhancement of the character of the existing neighbourhood?
7. Does the development proposal comply with the Ancaster Wilson Street Secondary Plan in terms of intensification and infill development, cultural heritage, urban design, height, massing, scale, density, setbacks, and parking for the Ancaster Community Node and the Village Core Area of the Mixed Use – Medium Density Designation, Pedestrian Focus Streets, including but not limited to UHOP Volume 2 policies B.2.8.6.1, B.2.8.8.4, B.2.8.8.5, B.2.8.12.1, and B.2.8.13.1.
8. Does the cumulative effect of the proposed zoning modifications, including increased height and density, modified built form (reduction in window/door percentage, increased first floor height), and reduced setbacks, respect and maintain or enhance the existing character of the area?
9. Are the proposed site specific performance standards compatible and in keeping with the intent of Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 05-200?
10. What is the appropriate form and content of the proposed zoning by-law amendment?
11. Is a holding provision appropriate for the proposed development, and if so, what are the appropriate provisions to include?
12. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning and is it in the public interest?
Engineering
13. Does the proposed development support the existing infrastructure including but not limited to UHOP Volume 1 policy C.5.3.11 and C.5.3.15?
14. Has the proponent demonstrated that the proposed development does not negatively impact the existing infrastructure in accordance with Policies B.2.4.1.4 f) and B.2.4.2.2 j)?
15. Does the proposal satisfy all requirements and comments identified by Development Approvals including but not limited to grading, stormwater management and servicing and compliance with UHOP policies C.4.0 and C.5.0?
16. Is there sufficient sanitary sewer capacity for the proposal?
17. Is there sufficient water service capacity for the proposal?
18. Does the functional servicing report submitted by the applicant adequately address issues 13-17?
Transportation
19. Does the proposed development conform with the UHOP Volume 1 policies and Schedule C-2 relating to dedication of right-of-way and daylight triangles?
20. Would the proposed development result in a functional road network to safely support the anticipated traffic associated with the development proposal by preventing or satisfactorily mitigating adverse impacts, including but not limited to access, road infrastructure improvements, traffic calming, signalization, site layout, pedestrian facilities, transit amenities, and commercial vehicle maneuverability?
Niagara Escarpment Commission Issues
21. Pursuant to s.2 of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, is the proposed development consistent with the Purpose of the Act to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure that only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment?
22. Pursuant to s.8 of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, is the proposed development consistent with the Objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Plan (2017) to:
(a) to protect unique ecologic and historic areas;
…
(e) to ensure that all new development is compatible with the purpose of this Act as expressed in section 2;
(f) to provide for adequate public access to the Niagara Escarpment; and
(g) to support municipalities within the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area in their exercise of the planning functions conferred upon them by the Planning Act.
23. Pursuant to s.3(5)(b) of the Planning Act, is the proposed development consistent with the Niagara Escarpment Plan (2017) including:
(a) Its Purpose to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment (page 7).
(b) Its Objectives that include ensuring that all new development is compatible with the purpose of the Plan (#5), and providing adequate public access to the Niagara Escarpment (#6) (page 7).
(c) Land Use Policy 1.7.1 – Urban Area Objective – To minimize the impact and prevent further encroachment of urban growth on the Escarpment environment.
(d) Land Use Policy 1.7.5.1 – Urban Area Development Objectives – That all development shall be of an urban design compatible with the scenic resources of the Escarpment. Where appropriate, provision for maximum heights, adequate setbacks and screening are required to minimize the visual impact of urban development.
(e) Development Criteria 2.2.1 – General Development Criteria – That the Escarpment environment shall be protected, restored and where possible enhanced for the long term having regard to single, multiple or successive developments that have occurred or are likely to occur.
(f) Development Criteria 2.13.1 – Scenic Resources and Landform Conservation – That development shall ensure the protection of the scenic resources of the Escarpment.
(g) Development Criteria 2.13.2 and 2.13.3 – Scenic Resources and Landform Conservation – That a visual impact assessment be completed that establishes a baseline for existing conditions, identifies proposed physical changes, assesses the impact of proposed changes on the scenic resources of the Escarpment, and proposes measures to minimize any visual impacts.
(h) Development Criteria 2.13.4 – Scenic Resources and Landform Conservation – That appropriate siting and design measures shall be used to minimize the impact of development on the scenic resources of the Escarpment, including but not limited to establishing appropriate setbacks and maximum building heights, and changing the orientation and height of built form to reduce visibility and skylining.
James and Nancy McLeod Issues
24. Does approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications have regard to matters of provincial interest in section 2 of the Planning Act including the matters set out in sections 2(h), 2(n), 2(p) and 2(r) therein?
25. Are the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 in particular, but not limited to the following policy sections:
– Policy Sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3 and 1.1.3.4 (Settlement Areas);
– Policy Section 1.6.6 (Sewage, Water and Stormwater);
– Policy Section 1.6.7.2 (Transportation Systems);
– Policy Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.3 (Cultural Heritage); and
– Policy Section 4.6 (Implementation and Interpretation)?
26. Are the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications in conformity with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, in particular, but not limited to the following policy sections:
– Policy Section 1.2 and 1.2.1 (Vision and Guiding Principles);
– Policy Section 2.2.1 (Managing Growth);
– Policy Section 2.2.2(3) (Delineated Built ) Up Areas); and
– Policy Section 3.2.1(2) (Integrated Planning);
– Policy Section 3.2.2(1), 3.2.2(3) (Transportation – General);
– Policy Section 3.2.6(2) (Water and Wastewater Systems)
– Policy 3.2.7(2) (Stormwater Management);
– Policy Section 4.2.7 (Cultural Heritage);
– Policy 5.2.5.8 (Implementation and Interpretation)?
27. Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment in conformity with the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (Volume 1), in particular, but not limited to the following policy sections:
– Policy Sections B.2.4.1.4, B.2.4.2.1and Policy B.2.4.2.2 (Residential Intensification);
– Policy Sections B.3.3.1 (Urban Design Goals), Policy B.3.3.2.3 and B.3.3.2.6 (Principles), B.3.3.3 (Built Form); B.3.3.5 (Vistas);
– Policy Section B.3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.5 (Cultural Heritage Resources);
– Policy Sections C.1.1 and C.1.1.6 (Niagara Escarpment Plan);
– Policy Sections C.4.2.4, 4.5.2, (integrated Transportation Network)
– Policy Sections E.1.0 (Goals);
– Policy Sections E.2.1 (Urban Structure Principles);
– Policy Sections E.2.3.3 (Community Nodes)
– Policy Sections E.4.2 (Commercial and Mixed Use Designation-General Policies);
– Policy E.4.6 (Mixed Use – Medium Density)?
28. Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment in conformity with the Ancaster Wilson Street Secondary Plan of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (Volume 2), in particular, but not limited to the following policy sections:
– Policy B.2.8.3 (Development Concept);
– Policy B.2.8.4 (Principles);
– Policy B.2.8.7.2 (General Residential);
– Policy B.2.8.8.4 (Mixed Use – Medium Density Designation);
– Policy B.2.8.8.5 (Pedestrian Focus Streets);
– Policy B.2.8.12.1 (Urban Design);
– Policy B.2.8.12.2 (Gateways); and
– Policy B.2.8.13.1 (Cultural Heritage)?
29. Does the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications have regard for OPA 167 to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (Volume 1) and the Ancaster Wilson Street Secondary Plan of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (Volume 2) adopted by the City of Hamilton on June 8, 2022 and approved with modifications by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on November 4, 2022, in particular, but not limited to the following policy.sections: [See Note 3]
30. Does the proposed Low Density Residential 3 designation as set out in proposed Official Plan Amendment authorize an appropriate level of density and intensification for the subject lands and are the uses permitted in the proposed Low Density Residential 3 designation appropriate for the Subject Lands?
31. Does the proposed development provide for an appropriate streetscape along Wilson Street and Rousseaux Street?
32. Does the proposed development provide for appropriate transition to the adjacent low-rise residential development on the adjacent lands?
33. Will the proposed development result in undue, adverse impacts particularly relating to privacy, overlook, noise and lighting?
34. Will the proposed driveway access from Rousseau Street result in traffic safety issues and will the location of the driveway access impact the operation of the Rousseaux Street/Wilson Street Intersection?
35. Should either an alternative or supplementary driveway access be provided from Wilson Street?
36. Will the proposed development result in an unacceptable increase in traffic infiltration to local roadways?
37. Does the proposed development result in an unacceptable increase in traffic volume on the Rousseaux Street and Wilson Street?
38. Is there sufficient capacity in the Rousseaux Street and Wilson Street sanitary sewers to accommodate the proposed development and will there be downstream impacts?
39. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment sufficiently regulate matters of built form including lot size, height, density, massing, scale, setbacks, lot coverage and landscaping having regard for the site, adjacent property and the character of the surrounding lands?
40. Will the proposed development result in adverse visual impacts?
41. Does the proposed development maintain and enhance the established character of the area?
42. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning and is it in the public interest?
Note 1: Where two or more parties raise the same technical issue, they can co-ordinate and rely upon a qualified independent expert but must call expert evidence in support of that technical issue. Where a single party alone raises a technical issue then that party must call technical evidence in support of that issue from a qualified independent expert.
Note 2: The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.
Note 3: The parties will provide any updates to their Issues List by January 27, 2023 which result from the Minister’s approval of OPA 167 to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (Volume 1).
ATTACHMENT 4
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
1. 2691893 Ontario Inc.
2. James and Nancy McLeod*
3. Niagara Escarpment Commission*
4. City of Hamilton
5. 2691893 Ontario Inc. (in reply)
* Subject to input from the Tribunal and Parties one or both of these parties could potentially present its case after the City of Hamilton.

created: January 31, 2023


text:
BRIEF: Ontario Liberals Field Deirdre Pike as Hamilton Centre Candidate – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 12, 2023
THIS ARTICLE IS CORRECTED.
Correction note at the end.
The Ontario Liberal Party made it official, Deirdre Pike will be their candidate in the pending Hamilton Centre provincial by-election.
The by-election will fill the vacancy created when Andrea Horwath resigned as MPP shortly after the June 2, 2022 provincial election.
Horwath won her seat but was unsuccessful as NDP leader in the election. Horwath successfully ran for Mayor of Hamilton in the October municipal election.
Sarah Jama will be the NDP candidate in the by-election. Jama was acclaimed in early November. Her campaign office is already open, and she is actively canvassing.
Jama is the organizational front-runner in the yet to be officially called by-election.
Lucia Iannantuono will be the Green Party candidate.
With Horwath, their party leader, the NDP won the riding with over 50 percent of the vote since 2011. The riding is considered a NDP stronghold.
The Liberal Party has placed third in the past two provincial elections.
The Conservatives have placed second.
The Green Party’s vote has hovered around 8 percent in recent elections.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford must call the by-election within six months of August 15, when Horwath officially resigned as MPP seat.
A March election call will result in an April election date.
CORRECTION: The original version of this brief incorrectly cited the Progressive Conservative January 26 2022 nomination meeting for the last election as a 2023 nomination meeting. I deeply regret and apologize for my error. The incorrect information was public for approximately three hours prior to removal.

created: January 12, 2023


text:
CN’s Jamesville Appeal Very Similar to Port Appeals of Pier 8 Plan – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 9, 2023
Canadian National Railway Company (CN) is appealing the City Council discussion to approve 447 residential units at 405 James Street North, the former Jamesville social housing site.
The property is directly north of the West Harbour GO train station and within 300 metres of the CN Stuart Street Yard, which generates much noise during shunting operations.
Council approved the redevelopment on August 12, 2022. [Bylaw 22-220]
CN filed their appeal in September.
The Ontario Land Tribunal received the file on September 28, 2022. It was not posted to the OLT database until November.
During the interim, the now-owners began demolition work after the appeal period ended in September.
It is unknown why the City did not inform the developers or the public about the appeal.
CN’s appeal means site demolition is stopped pending the OLT appeal process.
The appeal leaves City Council with a few issues to resolve, including finding a settlement with CN, determining if the partially demolished townhouses should remain as is or if Council will grant an exemption to development charge credit deadlines, and deciding on changes to the development plan following the Bill 23 Planning Act changes.
Politically, there is ongoing public frustration at the City’s decision to close rent-geared-to-income family housing years ago – during an ongoing housing crisis.
The previous Council’s decision to not replace family housing and instead build smaller apartment units further added to the controversy of the plan.
The previous Council finalized the land sale, and the new Council cannot revisit the deal.
CN’s appeal letter indicates they believe the City failed to meet the planning and environmental requirements to ensure compatibility with CN’s operations.
“Sensitive uses should not be permitted within 300 metres of rail yards, as rail yards have an area of influence of 1,000 metres where negative impacts can occur on the proposed use,” writes CN’s legal counsel Katarzyna Silwa of Dentons Canada LLP.
“CN’s reasons for the appeal are centred on concerns of safety, odour, vibration, noise and whether the proposed sensitive land uses are appropriate for the Lands. CN was not opposed to the approval of OPA 249 and ZBLA 22-220 provided that the impact of the adjacent rail operations were accounted for and mitigated, as required.”
CN’s concerns are similar to those of industries near the Pier 8 redevelopment site.
Bunge Canada and Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd both appealed the City’s original Pier 8 redevelopment plan to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (as the OLT was known then) in 2017.
They were concerned that residents living in the then-planned upscale condos on the east side of Pier 8 would regularly complain about their operations.
P&H operates a large grain transfer operation which causes dust, and Bunge operates a canola processing plant which produces odours.
Both sought to protect the sensitive use zone surrounding their properties.
Negotiations resulted in an agreement between the City and the industrial appellants.
Some residential units shifted towards the western side of Pier 8.
The change in orientation and design of the east side Pier 8 buildings creates both a sound and visual barrier.
The buildings will meet higher environmental noise guideline standards. Outdoor amenity spaces will not face the industry.
The difference in the east (left) side design is shown between an earlier design concept [top] and the present design proposal.
A settlement modifying design standards and layout is a likely outcome of the Jamesville appeal.
Ontario’s Environmental Noise Guideline – Stationary and Transportation Sources (NPC-300) regulates the requirements for new development near railway corridors.
Noise mitigation measures, such as higher-quality windows, sound-mitigating construction materials, and urban design measures, increase construction costs.
Section C7.2 of NPC-300 sets the acoustic measures that must be implemented by the developer.
Hamilton’s development charges bylaw (19-142 – corrupted file on the new city website) Section 30 states developers can receive development charge credits when demolishing existing structures for up to five years.
Council can extend the timeline.
Development charge credits are why the Jamesville development waited for confirmation there were no appeals before beginning some demolition work in September.
Once Council approves a timeline extension, such as ‘five years following a final determination by the Ontario Land Tribunal,’ demolition work can resume.
The passage of Bill 23 in November significantly changed Ontario’s planning laws.
The Jamesville site, situated beside a GO train station, is permitted significantly more height and density than approved.
Council’s Jamesville zoning was designed to minimize deviation from the 2005 West Harbour Secondary Plan, commonly known as Setting Sail.
There were concerns that one of the North End’s neighbourhood associations would appeal any structure taller than six stories. No neighbourhood appeals were filed.
The Pier 8 development plan was significantly changed in that appeal process, with the plan for a 45-storey tall building emerging as part of the settlements to shift new units further from port industries.
A date has yet to be set for the OLT Case Management Conference (pre-hearing), during which the public can register for party or participant status.
The OLT appeal file number is OLT-22-004758.


text:
COLEMAN: Why I’m Okay with Today’s Council Closed Session – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 27, 2023
Open data advocates are strong privacy advocates.
This is why I am okay with today’s decision by Hamilton City Council to conduct their Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act training in closed session.
Municipal governments are permitted to conduct training in closed session.
However, like all open meeting exceptions, closed session should only be used when absolutely necessary.
There are two exceptional exceptions – municipal councils are required to enter closed session whenever directed by the Ontario Ombudsman or Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner.
This is usually to respond to ongoing investigations or draft reports.
Conducting MFIPPA training in public session risks inadvertently exposing private information because councillors’ questions can reveal specific information.
Under privacy laws, releasing indirect information which can identify an individual is a privacy breach.
Council can do better in the future by conducting separate training sessions.
One providing an overview of the City’s privacy practices, to be posted for the public in a “Municipal 101” type series on the City website.
The second session, in closed, can deal with complex situations and even specific cases.
Today’s vote to enter closed session was 7-3.
In favour: Mayor Horwath, Francis (W5), Jackson (W6), Pauls (W7), Danko (W8), Clark (W9), Tadeson (W11).
Opposed: M. Wilson (W1), Kroetsch (W2), Cassar (W12)

created: January 27, 2023


text:
DRP Supportive Overall, With Reservations, of Delta Secondary Redevelopment – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 13, 2023
This afternoon, Hamilton’s Design Review Panel discussed the latest design concept for the former Delta Secondary School site at 1284 Main Street East.
Overall, the Design Review Panel supported the project’s concept, goals, and design elements.
They expressed many reservations regarding the site’s layout, especially the shadowing of the central amenity due to how close the proposed towers will be.
“I think the proposal is really strong as it looks at the context and how this proposal fits in with the surrounding area,” stated DRP member Dayna Edwards, who is a registered professional planner.
DRP expressed concerns regarding apartment building design, the separation distance between the buildings, and amenities for residents and the surrounding community.
“My concern is with the distance and separation distance between Towers A and B,” Edwards stated.  “12.5 meters is about half of what is typical for tower separation.”
She suggests the developer “go taller with more slender floorplates” to achieve better design and separation.
DRP Member Jennifer Mallard, principal at Diamond Schmitt Architects and a Fellow of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, shared this concern.
“At 44 meters high, they are tall buildings and the separation is half of what we would typically want to see with a tall building,” Mallard stated. “It’s a privacy issue. I think it’s a livability issue. And from that, you’re reducing, sunlight in the main courtyard.”
Members also noted the lack of proposed amenities and public space.
“When we’re looking at projects of this kind of scale, in terms of the scope of increase of 900 plus residential units, we’re looking also for some kind of amenity that we get back to the city, whether it be retail, or some other kind of components at the street level that add life to the city,” stated DRP Chair David Clusiau.
Clusiau recommends retaining the Delta Secondary School auditorium as a potential community contribution.
There was a discussion between the developer’s agent and the DPR regarding tower separation.
The agent noted that Hamilton’s Tall Building Guidelines apply to towers taller than 44 metres.
Clusiau responded, “you have gone to the very top of the area where you would. If you went another millimetre over, then yes, you would immediately suddenly have to double your width.”
“I think we’re just saying you’re really pushing it a bit too tight there.”
“That’s more than just that one thing,” he continued. “It’s just the density of having those three things so tight to each other. And you can just see in your own shadow diagrams, what you’ve got in your main park, your center of your complex; it gets almost no sun.”
Asked if the residential apartments will be rental or condo, the developer’s planner Sarah Knoll stated, “it’s leaning towards condo,” but the developer has not made the official determination.
The presentation materials are now on the City website.

created: January 13, 2023