text:
Hamilton Committee of Adjustment for February 24, 2022: Updated – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 22, 2022
The Committee of Adjustment is scheduled to meet again this Thursday, February 24. The agenda is available online.
Staff comments on the applications were released Tuesday, February 22, following the long weekend.
The continuing trend of larger lots with older homes being severed into two separate property lots and two new single detached homes continues this week with four applications.
Even prior to the Planning pendulum swing to permitting intensification, the CoA was approving nearly all applications of this type.
Of note within the severance applications is 59 Brian Boulevard (Waterdown). This application may draw delegates in opposition, Waterdown residents often express concerns about traffic. The property is owned by a development corporation. The proposal is in keeping with provincial planning requirements, following the Provincial Policy Statement, the CoA is supposed to approve the application.
Staff are recommending tabling the severance to negotiate further regarding the design of the proposed new homes.
There is one secondary dwelling unit application this week. The CoA is inconsistent in its decisions regarding SDUs, often determining if they will approve based upon who they believe may live in the units.
The application for SDU is at 275 Huxley Ave S (Hamilton). Staff are recommending approval.
There are numerous letters from nearby homeowners expressing concerns about the property being rental housing, intensification of the “protected” neighbourhood, and on-street parking.
Additionally, multiple letters state renovations began without permits. Violations of building permit requirements are not the purview of the Committee of Adjustment but are often considered by the CoA.
UPDATE: CoA denied the Secondary Unit Dwelling Unit on a 4-3 vote.
Here are some of the other files I believe to be notable.
536 Upper Paradise Rd – LiUNA Local 837 is asking to add a general or medical office use within the existing building known as Regina Gardens Long Term Care Residence.
The existing zoning bylaw does not allow this as a stand-alone use and requires nine parking spaces for a 160 m² medical clinic.  Parking is not required a small general office.
A letter from LiUNA’s planning agent reads, “the initial structure contained a 150.0 m 2 daycare in the northeast wing of the building, which was later used by Affiliated Services for Children and Youth as a professional office for children’s mental health from 2013 onwards as indicated on the enclosed Floor Plans. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Affiliated Services for Children and Youth could no longer afford to use the space as their office.”
Staff are recommending approval. There is one letter from a nearby resident expressing concern about parking.
501 Barton St, Stoney Creek – The proposal is to expand a legal non-conforming (grandfathered) single detached home on the property which is zoned “M3” (Prestige Business Park) district.
Staff are recommending approval.
142 Barclay St (Hamilton)- The application is for a two-storey rear addition on an existing home in Westdale.
Staff are recommending approval.
The drawings for the addition include labelling to indicate it will not be student rentals. The CoA is reluctant to approve anything in West Hamilton that they believe may become student housing.
Clearly, the agent for the application knows this, writing “This design is required to accommodate a growing single family dwelling. The addition will allow them to stay in Westdale, as their roots are in the community. The design will allow them to have the required space to raise their family here.”
The key to approval here is assuring the CoA this will not become student rentals.
The CoA meeting is scheduled to begin at 1:00 pm on Thursday and is supposed to be streamed on the City’s YouTube page.
[CoA streams often crash due to problems with the laptop the City uses to screencast meetings]
Note: There is one application that I’ve given further review to as the applicant is a full Manager level employee at the City of Hamilton who at times has authority over reviewing staff. The application is routine and not newsworthy.


text:
Hamilton Considering Converting Streets into Parkland – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 15, 2022
The City of Hamilton is considering road closures to create more park space as part of its review of the Parks Master Plan.
Johnathan Vandriel, of the City’s landscape architectural services division, says the City needs “to be creative, flexible, innovative” in creating new parkland supply, “especially for urban intensification areas.”
“That means finding and acquiring land in possibly non-traditional places. Closing streets for parkland, using surface parking lots … using former landfill sites or brownfield sites, to help offset that deficiency and look at where we can expand and create parkland in some of our existing neighbourhoods.”
Hamilton’s newest downtown park at John and Rebecca is on land previously used as a municipal parking lot.
City Council approved closing a portion of Kelly Street to expand Beasley Park.
Vandriel’s statements came during Monday’s Development Industry Liaison Group meeting.
Vandriel states the City wants to look at partnerships with the development community to create public access to parks on private lands, including “long term leases, joint provisioning, and public access agreements.”
The City will consider waivers or reductions in parkland dedication fees as part of agreements. Depending on location, these fees range from $5,000 per unit to $8,000 per unit for multiple dwelling developments.
The DILG is one of the first consultations of the review. The City is meeting with various stakeholder groups, including “school boards, community organizations, environmental groups” before launching wider public engagement.
Vandriel states staff plan to present recommendations to City Council “in the fall of this year.”
Representations of the development industry are requesting the City consider allowing parks to over underground parking structures.
“There’s some pretty creative urban design or blending in with architecture that you can create pretty exciting, public, public-private spaces” above underground parking, stated Mike Collin-Williams, CEO of the West End Home Builders’ Association.
Vandriel says there will be a public consultation portal on Engage Hamilton.

source: news-thepublicrecord

created: February 15, 2022

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


text:
Hamilton Farmers Market Chair and Treasurer Both Resign in Protest – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 8, 2022
The Chair and the Treasurer of the Hamilton Farmers Market Board of Directors have both resigned from the Market Board on Monday in protest of City Council’s plans to privatize the downtown Hamilton facility.
Chair Elly Bowen and Treasurer Wilf Arndt both served on the Board for over four years. They were both steadfast in their support of the Market during recent years of turmoil and dysfunction.
Last Wednesday, Council voted to hire a fourth consultant, at a cost of $100,000, to review the Market with a stated intention of privatizing the facility prior to this October’s municipal election. [City Hall uses the term “partnership” with the private sector.]
In their resignations, Bowen and Arndt expressed opposition to both the continuous spending by Council on consultants and Council’s plans to privatize the Market.
These resignations follow the resignation of citizen member Joshua Czerniga in December, Czerniga resigned in exhaustion following an ongoing dispute with other citizen members on the Board. [The details of the dispute are unconfirmed, all members declined interview requests]
The Market Board is now down to two citizen directors, four vendor directors, and Ward 7 Clr Esther Pauls. There are three citizen vacancies and one councillor vacancy with Ward 2 Clr Jason Farr not sitting on the board.
TPR has emailed both Bowen and Arndt to request interviews.

created: February 8, 2022


text:
Hamilton Planning Committee Summary Notes for February 1, 2022 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 6, 2022
Council’s planning committee met Tuesday. Here’s a summary of what happened.
Approved
Denied
Notice of Motion
Received
City planning staff updated councillors on the Ontario Land Tribunal appeals by New Horizon Development Group regarding their contentious three tower development at 310 Francis Street in Stoney Creek’s lakeshore community.
New Horizon is appealing the decision of Hamilton’s Committee of Adjustment to deny minor variances sought for the development. City staff denied their site plan application following the CoA decision, New Horizon is also appealing that denial.
City of Hamilton staff state they will defend the decisions at Committee of Adjustment.
New Horizon will seek the OLT to approve three towers (44, 38, and 33 storeys in height) with 1,346 dwelling units in total, a five-storey parking podium with 1,732 parking spots in total, and 11,943 square metres of amenity space, 1,562 sq m of which will be located indoors.
More details on the discussion at Planning Committee, including next steps, here: Hamilton City Hall Prepares to Oppose 310 Frances Three-Towers at Ontario Land Tribunal
Councillors formally approved upzoning City-owned lands at 1400 Baseline Road in Stoney Creek in a 6-0 vote.  The vote must be ratified at Council on Wednesday, February 9.
The City plans to sell the lands and place the proceeds of the sale into its affordable housing capital budget. The City hopes to gain “north” of $3-million for the property with the increased land value resulting from upzoning.  The land is one of 19 city-owner properties identified as being underutilized that may be sold to finance affordable housing projects.
The local neighbourhood association argues the site is being zoned for too much height when it should be zoned for a mid-rise height with greater density. The local ward councillor says the City is trying to allow more height to prevent an appeal after selling the lands, while a Mountain councillor argues the City is underzoning the lands in light of two recent OLT decisions forcing greater density on arterial roads.
Summary of the debate here: Planning Committee Upzones City Lands at 1400 Baseline Road Prior to Sale
The developers who own the properties at 262 McNeilly Road and 1036 – 1090 Barton Street in Stoney Creek wants wishes to build 545 residential units, being 154 single and semi-detached dwellings, 206 street townhouses, and 185 block townhouses, with the creation of a neighbourhood park, and a stormwater management pond.
They are taking the City to the Ontario Land Tribunal after staff indicated they cannot support the present proposal. The non-decision appeal bypasses Council Planning Committee.
Viv Saunders delegated on behalf of the Lakewood Beach Community Council asking questions regarding urban design, why the development is not being designed with pedestrian amenities, and why a low-density use is being proposed along Barton Street when the City of Hamilton needs to intensify.
The Community Council states it wants to see transit-supportive development along Barton Street.
Ward 10 Councillor Maria Pearson, who represents the area, says there have been neighbourhood meetings and “the neighbourhood as a whole, that we had the neighbourhood meeting, were in support of this development.”
Ward 8 Clr John Paul Danko expressed frustration at the joint developers, Losani Homes and Branthaven, for “building minimum code stick-figure McMansions” at the minimum density. He cited recent Ontario Land Tribunal rulings imposing mid-rise density along minor arterial roads, and expressed a wish the City or another group could “have an alternative appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal for something that is better or more in line with our 30-year growth plan.”
Council received the staff information report, it will return for settlement direction at a future date in closed session.
There was a debate regarding if the lower density is transit-supportive (staff say it is) and how despite the site being on Barton Street, because it is new development on greenfield, the density does not need to meet the density standards of grayfield intensification.
Read more in the full story here: Sub-Division Developer Bypasses Council with OLT Appeal at Barton and McNeilly in Stoney Creek
“The ink is still drying,” said an exasperated Ward 11 Clr Brenda Johnson referring to the recent Ontario Land Tribunal settlement between the City of Hamilton and UrbanCore developments to allow a six-storey building at 3033 and 3063 Binbrook Road with 111 residential units and ground floor commercial.
On Tuesday, UrbanCore asked Council to allow them to get a minor variance to increase the height to eight storeys, adding 46 additional dwelling units. The development principals, Sergio Manchia and David Horwood, cite Council’s recent decision to freeze the urban boundary as the primary argument for additional height.
“It’s not a variance. It’s not something that can be done on a minor scale. This is major,” Johnson stated.
Ward 15 Clr Judi Partridge agreed with Johnson, saying she is glad Council is “nipping this one in the bud” as developers will cite the urban boundary freeze in attempts to get more units. Partridge emphasized she supports the boundary freeze “100 percent.”
Committee did not approve the request.
Councillors approved spending $29,000 to hire two summer students to patrol the Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail in Ward 5 to remind people of the prohibition banning electric-assist bicycles, electric scooters, and other electric-powered devices.
Ward 5 Clr Russ Powers requested the motion.
Director of Bylaw Enforcement Monica Ciriello states the students in previous years issued approximately 45,000 warnings in 2020, and about 30,000 in 2021.
Ward 1 Clr Maureen Wilson says the City of Hamilton to adopt a nuisance by-law to address the growing annual chaos caused by McMaster University’s Homecoming celebrations.
The nuisance by-law, if passed, will apply year-round and could be used to respond to other unsanctioned events.
In Kingston, their nuisance by-law includes posting the names of individuals issued by-law tickets, Queen’s University then sanctions any of its students who match the name and age description released by the municipality.
Wilson wants staff to bring back a bylaw for Council to pass prior to Council’s summer recess in July.
The motion will be debated in two weeks during the February 15 Council Planning Committee meeting.
Ward 10 Clr Maria Pearson moved a motion director By-Law staff to create a specific “clearing” snow and ice to clarify a standard for property owners to know when they are compliant with bylaw requirements.  The motion passed.
Chief Planner Steve Robichaud told councillors that the City’s internal planner lawyer Patrick MacDonald will “will be coming forward at a future planning committee, I think the next one February 15, to speak about these two recent OLT decisions. And some of the issues of the challenges that we the city have in terms of dealing with these OLT matters.”
Robichaud is referring to the decision involving West 5th and Stone Church, and the decision involving 1630 Main Street West.
Ward 15 Clr Judi Partridge stated she was leaving the meeting “for other appointments” on Tuesday.

created: February 6, 2022


text:
Hamilton Veterans Committee Discusses St. Giles Church WWI Memorial Plaque – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 22, 2022
Hamilton’s Veterans Committee is willing to assist in finding a fitting new home for the World War I memorial plaque that was part of the St. Giles United Church memorial cairn.
The plaque commemorates nine members of the parish who died serving during the First World War.
St. Giles was also the regimental church of the 86th Machine Gun Battalion. The Regimental Colours of the 86th Battalion were laid up in the church during a service held in November 1919. When the church was closed, the colours were framed and preserved.
The colours are now displayed in the Sergeants Mess of the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry. The 86th Battalion is perpetuated by the RHLI.
The Friends of St Giles, a citizen group not affiliated with the church, is seeking to retain the Church building. They asked to delegate to the Veterans Committee regarding the memorial cairn seeking the intervention of the committee.
The Veterans Committee declined the delegation because they do not have jurisdiction over private memorials.
Members of the committee stated they are interested in assisting in the preservation of the plaque.
The Friends of St. Giles website includes extensive information on the memorial, the relationship between St. Giles and the 86th Battalion, and the nine men who are remembered on the plaque.
Additional: Sarah Sheehan of the Friends of St. Giles states they did not seek to delegate. Sheehan writes, “We didn’t submit a delegation request to the Veterans Committee, it was simply written correspondence.”

created: February 22, 2022


text:
Hamilton’s Committee Against Racism Concerned About Vaccination Mandates – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 28, 2022
The City of Hamilton’s Committee Against Racism (CAR) says the City’s COVID vaccination policy ‘disproportionately impacts Black and Indigenous and other racialized newcomer’ communities, and is preparing to speak to Council calling for a removal of the policy.
Committee member Simone McWatt says the City’s mandatory vaccination policies for citizen volunteers disproportionately effects equity-seeking communities who have experienced historical traumas which have created distrust with public health authorities and government.
“I obviously have an issue with the policy and with the City expecting volunteers, racialized volunteers from the public that they’re not allowed to be part of a Committee about Racism because they won’t participate in a vaccination that they don’t want … is incredibly harmful,” McWatt stated.
“I worked in public health for 27 years with Toronto Public Health. I have a Master’s of Public Health. I’ve worked in HIV my whole career pandemic, and then on to COVID. And my Master’s is in the social determinants of health and health equity. It’s in health promotion and community development,” McWatt added.
McWatt wants the City Council to end the policy, especially as Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Kieran Moore, is ending the provincial vaccination policy on March 1st.
“My concern was how the mandates are telling black and indigenous and other racialized folks newcomers, that they will get fired if they don’t take the vaccine, that they may not watch their children play sports, if they may not take the vaccine, and going as far as altering the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to remove creed,” McWatt stated.
“Who is the colonial government to tell racialized people that no, I’m sorry … if you don’t take it [the vaccine], you’ll get fired.”
McWatt objects to the City requiring citizen volunteer advisory committee members to submit proof of vaccination or be removed from their roles on June 1st.
Members of CAR share similar concerns with the policy.
Editorial Note: The City of Hamilton stream of this public meeting was audio-only. Only one of the speakers directly identified themselves, and one person provided enough biographical detail to be identifiable. Due to the potential for misidentification, TPR is not attaching names to the remaining voices heard in the audio.
A member with a male-sounding voice [Voice 1] asked, “what would happen to my granddaughter who has been fired because of her, not taking inoculations after all the requirements and all the restrictions have been stopped.”
W. Matthew Sutcliffe, Director, Employee Health and Labour Relations in the City Manager’s Office, responded to CAR member questions.
“I think it’s absolutely acknowledged by the City that when we look at the primary social determinants of health like income, education, employment and housing, as a City, as an employer, as anyone who guides social policy in any way, shape, or form, I think we would be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge the impact of experience with racism, and historic trauma has had upon racialized or marginalized communities,” Sutcliffe stated.
“I think that those are absolutely acknowledged by the City. And certainly from a social determinant of health perspective. The reality is that there are systems that do continue to perpetuate racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. And it’s this ongoing systemic racism and mistreatment of these marginalized and racialized communities that led to vaccine hesitation wariness of public health mandates, wariness of mandates in a very general sense,” Sutcliffe added.
Sutcliffe said the City, and public health agencies, are working with diverse communities “with respect to providing correct and accurate medically sound data and information, evidence-based study, but at a very personal and community-based level, to combat mistrust and misinformation.”
The City follows the directives of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Sutcliffe stated, citing the OHRC’s statement on vaccination mandates which reads, “receiving a COVID-19 vaccine is voluntary. At the same time, the OHRC’s position is that a person who chooses not to be vaccinated based on personal preference does not have the right to accommodation under the Code. The OHRC is not aware of any tribunal or court decision that found a singular belief against vaccinations or masks amounted to a creed within the meaning of the Code.”
The member with a male-sounding voice [Voice 1] questioned why the City applied the mandatory vaccination to include volunteers.
“In addition to being racialized folks, we are volunteers. Again, this applies to racialized folks and non-racialized folks,” they stated. “But what I’m wondering is, is it in the letter of the law that an institution like the City of Hamilton chose to see a volunteer is equal to an employee as per this policy?”
Another member, with a male-sounding voice [Voice 2], stated the policy will exclude marginalized people from having a voice at City Hall.
“By definition of the vaccine policy, we’d be limiting the voices of some … possible accusations could arise that we’re only championing the voices of those who fit a certain category … if you’re unvaccinated, you would have no opportunity to have your voice shared on this Committee,” they stated. “I understand it’s a blanket policy … the impact is a great concern.”
Another member, with a female-sounding voice [Voice 3], moved the motion passed by CAR to draft a Citizen’s Committee Report “on serious concerns re[garding] the disproportionate impact of vaccine mandates on the BIPOC community and its volunteers and it to be presented at next at our next month’s meeting for further discussion.”
CAR did not formally adopt a position regarding vaccine mandates.
CAR will next meet on March 22nd at 6:30 p.m.

created: February 28, 2022


text:
Hamilton’s Tax Assessment Increased 1.1% in 2021 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 22, 2022
Hamilton’s final tax assessment growth for 2021 is 1.2 percent, which represents approximately $11.1-million in revenue for the City of Hamilton.
Residential growth accounted for 0.7 percent and non-residential 0.4 percent, which is a better split than in most years.
The decrease in residential assessment growth, which had been over 1.0 percent in recent years, is attributed to a decrease in construction completions due to the COVID pandemic.
The non-residential growth is despite tax assessment appeals.
City staff are reporting non-residential assessment appeals resulted in “reduced assessment of over $85 M, including approximately $23 M from 30 properties owned by ArcelorMittal Dofasco, which represent a revenue loss of approximately $1.8 M.”
Industrial assessment decreased in every ward with industrial properties except Wards 6, 9, and 15.
Industrial assessment growth in Flamborough, primarily the new L3 Harris Wescam facility, accounts almost entirely for city-wide industrial assessment growth.
Ward 15’s industrial assessment grew by $79,466,800, Ward 6 by $7,320,200, and Ward 9 was nearly unchanged with an increase of $64,700. The rest of the City lost $25,250,100 in assessment.
Most of the growth in residential assessment is from greenfield development.
The impact of intensification within the existing urban boundary is illustrated well by one development.
The Marquee apartments at 20 George Street is assessed at $67.7-million, which generates $818,000 in new tax revenue for the City of Hamilton.
The entire 0.7 percent in residential growth (which includes the Marquee) amounts to $7.56-million in new tax revenue.
The City report states staff “settled” a number of commercial assessment appeals during 2021.
East Hamilton’s Ward 4’s total tax assessment decreased in 2021 due to commercial tax appeals. Commercial assessment decreased by $27,767,800 and industrial assessment decreased by $1,925,800 in the Ward.
While residential assessment increased by $14,738,600, the overall decrease in assessment in Ward 4 was $10,631,000
City staff are expecting strong assessment growth in 2022 as construction activity increased during 2021 and COVID-related construction supply shortages have alleviated.
The full report is online here.
Council will debate the report during their Friday budget meeting, which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 am and will be streamed on the City’s YouTube page.


text:
Municipal Heritage Cmte to Debate Objections to Heritage Registrations in Waterdown Village – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 22, 2022
CORRECTED VERSION: The agenda item is actually deliberating on appeals of the already approved registrations. TPR regrets the error.
Hamilton’s Municipal Heritage Committee will consider objections from five property owners (296 Dundas Street East, 362 Dundas Street East, 30 Elgin Street, 19 Flamboro Street and 280 Mill Street South) who are objecting to the being added to the non-designated heritage properties list.
The non-designated properties registry delays the issuing of any demolition permit applications by up to sixty days, and invites heritage scrutiny for any major renovations or changes to the registered properties.
Council approved adding 208 properties in Waterdown to the heritage registry in November. Additionally, seven properties are recommended for full heritage designation status.
Ward 15 Councillor Judi Partridge sought to have all buildings in Waterdown Village granted heritage protection to better retain the existing built form of the original European settlement area that developed surrounding Grindstone Creek.
The City issued non-designation registry notices to 209 property owners in Waterdown Village.
Five property owners objected.
City staff state they’ve reviewed the objections.
Heritage planning staff are recommending all but 19 Flamboro still be added to the list, stating 19 Flamboro “was found to not retain sufficient physical heritage value to remain listed on the Register.” 19 Flamboro is an automobile service centre, Jays Auto Services, which plans to redevelop the site in the future.
“This building appears to have been built by the Carson Construction circa 1930,” the staff report states. Carson Construction “was responsible for highway construction in northern Ontario and runway construction at the Mount Hope and Toronto airports for the Federal government in the 1940s and 1950s,” the staff reports reads.
Staff write one of the properties owners “do not feel as though their home has any heritage value or importance. However, they do indicate that they bought this property because they loved the character of the home and the historic neighbourhood it is located in.”
Most objections related to property value, insurance costs, and renovation permit concerns.
Heritage planning staff continue to recommend designating the following buildings under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act: 289 Dundas Street East (Smith-Carson House), 292 Dundas Street East (Maple Lawn), 298 Dundas Street East (Former New Connexion Church), 299 Dundas Street East (Crooker House), 1 Main Street North (Royal Coachman/Former Kirk Hotel), 134 Main Street South, (Former Wesleyan Methodist Parsonage), and 8 Margaret Street (Reid House).
Staff state “At the time of writing this report, staff have not received any formal correspondence from owners expressing their opposition.”
Other properties in the Waterdown Village will be designated at later dates.
340 Dundas Street East (Eager House) will be designated “at a future date after the bridge-related matters have been resolved.”
299 Dundas Street East (Crooker House) will be designated at a later date “to give the owner time to complete the alterations approved” by heritage planning staff.
Studies of two properties were not completed. 341 Main Street North (Rymal/Buchan House), due to “resource constraints” and 201 Main Street South (J.K. Griffin House) due to “access issues.”
Heritage planning staff state they are negotiating with City Public Works staff regarding designating City-owned properties at 9 Margaret Street (Waterdown Union Cemetery), 115 Main Street South (Sealey Park), and 200 Hamilton Street North (Waterdown Memorial Park).
The Heritage Committee meeting is scheduled for 9:30 am on Friday, February 25.
It will be streamed on the City of Hamilton’s YouTube page.


text:
OLT Approves 11-storey building at 325 Highway 8 in Stoney Creek – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 24, 2022
The Ontario Land Tribunal approved an 11-storey, 148-unit residential building with a density of 551 units per hectare at 325 Highway 8 in Stoney Creek.
The City of Hamilton argued the development is too dense for the site, violates the City’s Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and does not appropriately transition to neighbouring townhouses.
In a 30-page ruling, the OLT rejected the City’s position.
OLT Member Kurtis Andrews ruled the City’s approach “an overly mathematical approach to [the] assessment of neighbourhood character, compatibility and setbacks.”
The City argued the proposal needs more than the planned 145 parking spaces (123 resident spaces and 22 visitor spaces). The City’s planning witness stated the location lacks sufficient transit to support parking reductions.
“The City provided no evidence, in the form of a report or otherwise, to support the contention that the proposed number of parking spaces would not actually meet the demand of the proposed development,” Member Andrews writes.
HSR routes 55 and 58 pass in front of the site, with 30-minute headways on each route.
This ruling is the third in recent weeks to overturn Council decisions along arterial roadways. The OLT approved a nine-storey 160-unit residential midrise at 1630 Main Street West, and, in a separate decision, a nine-storey 216-unit midrise residential midrise at Stone Church Road West and West 5th Street.
In each ruling, the OLT states mid-rise intensification along arterial roads is good planning.
This is the second development plan for the site by LJM Developments.
In 2017, City Council approved a six-storey 93-unit condo building for the site (bylaws 17-052 & 17-053). LJM was selling units for this development when, in 2020, they submitted the new plan.
In September 2020, representatives of LJM told Council’s Planning Committee that the six-storey project was no longer financially viable. They stated increases in construction costs meant the project had become too “risky,” and they could not secure financing to build.
LJM’s agent stated an increase in height and addition of 55 units was necessary for the project to be viable.
Council unanimously voted against the application. LJM appealed to the OLT.
In a nine-day hearing during late November and early December of 2021, LJM called six expert witnesses. City Hall called one expert witness, an internal planner.
A person who purchased a unit in 2017 tells TPR that LJM contacted them in January to cancel the sale agreement.
In November, Premier Doug Ford criticized Pace Developments, based in Richmond Hill, for cancelling sale agreements and increasing prices. Ford pledged to end the practice. No legislation is yet before the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding sale agreement cancellations.

created: February 24, 2022


text:
Ontario Securities Commission Orders Hearing Against Harry Stinson – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 11, 2022
The staff of the Ontario Securities Commission allege Hamilton developer Harry Stinson violated the Ontario Securities Act making “false or misleading statements to investors,” and improperly transferring investor funds intended for Stinson’s Buffalo Grand Hotel project into other projects and accounts controlled by Stinson.
The OSC issued a news release at 6:03 p.m. on Friday with the Statement of Allegations.
None of the allegations are proven. Stinson and his companies will have the opportunity to refute the allegations during Ontario Securities Commission hearings.
Stinson, and one of his associates Stephen Kelly, are ordered to attend a hearing on March 9, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.
The staff of the OSC allege hotel investor funds “were used for other Stinson projects and transfers were made to other bank accounts and credit cards, including certain accounts and credit cards held by Stinson.”
Beginning in March 2019, the OSC alleges Stinson’s entities “were unable to meet their loan obligations under loan agreements related to the purchase of the Hotel.” The statement does not provide further details.
The OSC states Stinson and his entities raised “approximately $19 million from approximately 207 investors” for the Buffalo project.
The OSC alleges “Stinson and the Stinson Entities spent only a modest share of investor funds on renovations to the Hotel” and that, “instead” Stinson “allowed investor funds to be co-mingled into omnibus accounts.”
The OSC alleges funds were used for other purposes and transfers were made to other bank accounts and credit cards controlled by Stinson.
“Despite advising investors that they intended to undertake substantial renovations to the Hotel that would increase the value of the Hotel and ultimately benefit investors who stood to share in resulting increased profits from Hotel operations,” the allegations state.
The Statement of Allegations does not detail how funds were allegedly allocated, transferred, or spent.
During the past two years, the OSC issued repeated orders to Stinson and his companies to cease selling shares and investments in his hotel.
The first order listed on the Canadian Securities Administrators database is dated March 20, 2020. Further amended orders were issued on April 3, 2020; January 9, 2021; April 28, 2021; October 29, 2021; and November 16, 2021.
The Statement of Allegations states “breached a Temporary Cease Trade Order in this matter by issuing shares to investors after being ordered to stop.”
The OSC alleges Stinson and his entities engaged in the “business of unregistered trading and, pursuant to section 129.2 of the Act, is deemed to have contravened subsection 25(1) of the Act.”
“Stinson and other respondents also made false or misleading statements to investors that all investments were RRSP and TFSA-eligible, and that some were secured by a mortgage and interest reserve. They were not,” the OSC allegations state. “Instead of securing investor funds, Stinson caused them to be commingled with funds in bank accounts from other projects without appropriate segregation and recordkeeping.”
Stinson is alleged to have advised, “investors that they intended to undertake substantial renovations to the Hotel that would increase the value of the Hotel and ultimately benefit investors.”
In 2006, Stinson was disciplined by the OSC for “acting contrary to the public interest.”
Stinson also owns the Cannon Knitting Mills, which he purchased from the City of Hamilton’s joint venture Hamilton Realty Capital Corporation in 2016 for $3-million dollars, and the former Gibson School on Barton Street.
Neither of these projects is mentioned by name in the allegations.
Stinson’s website is presently promoting both projects.
Last year, Stinson promoted a new rending of the Cannon Knitting Mills project, called The Beasley Lofts, at 20-storeys and 366 units. The development application is not listed on the City of Hamilton website.
OSC hearings are open to the media and public, anyone who wishes to observe the hearing can email registrar@osc.gov.on.ca to request the videoconference link. Included the file number (2022-3) and date (March 9) in your request.

created: February 11, 2022


text:
Ottawa Actions Outside of Hamilton’s Licensing Bylaw Jurisdiction – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 7, 2022
City of Hamilton staff state there is no role for Hamilton’s licensing regulations in potential Provincial Offenses Act fines which may be issued to Hamilton companies participating in the Ottawa “Freedom Convoy” disruptions.
“City of Hamilton by-law’s provide regulation and are applied within the boundaries of the municipality only. Activity occurring outside the boundary of the municipality would fall outside the jurisdiction of City to provide enforcement.  The authorities within the City of Ottawa would be the responsible agency to act on any unlawful behaviour or act,” the City of Hamilton writes in a statement responding to questions.
Section 14(1)(d) of Hamilton’s Licensing Bylaw states the City can conduct a hearing to revoke licenses when “fines for convictions under the Provincial Offences Act are due and unpaid,
or a prohibition or other court order made upon such conviction has not been complied with by the licensee.”
Vehicles owned by Hamilton businesses have been photographed in Ottawa.
A trailer bearing the markings of B & G Heating Air Conditioning & Ventilation is clearly visible in widely circulated photos showing a shack being built by “Freedom Convoy” participants in a park across from Ottawa’s City Hall.
HVAC contractors operating in Hamilton must be licensed by the City of Hamilton. For HVAC contractors, this involved a basic check of qualifications, including providing disclosure of any criminal or recent provincial offences act violations.
Licencing of trucking and towing industries is done by the Province of Ontario.

created: February 7, 2022


text:
Planning Brief: 1107 Main Street West Developer Public Info Site – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 14, 2022
The owners of 1107 Main Street West have updated their public information site with updated planning documents.
They have applied to the City of Hamilton to rezone the property to permit building a 15-storey mixed-use building with ground-level commercial units and 269 residential units.
The project was reviewed by the City’s Design Review panel in January 2021. (Meeting Video)
Since the initial application in February 2020, the developer has made adjustments to the mix of units, increased amenity space and decreased parking.
Noteworthy among the changes are the additions of dens to over 70 percent of the proposed unit. The first submission, in January 2020 prior to the pandemic, did not include any dens.
With the adoption of work-from-home during the pandemic, dens are serving as home offices for many apartment/condo inhabitants.
The full documents site is here: https://www.1107mainhamilton.com

created: February 14, 2022


text:
Planning Brief: 200 Centennial North Mixed-Use Redevelopment Public Info Site Launched – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 14, 2022
Centennial Parkway is about to follow Rymal Road in being significantly redeveloped. The street is lined with large lot suburban plazas and strip malls, all of which are within the provincial higher-order transit zones of the Confederation GO Station and the Eastgate Square LRT terminus.
SmartCentres is applying to the City of Hamilton to begin redeveloping its plaza at 200 Centennial Parkway North at Barton Street East.
The plaza is home to the large plaza which houses a Food Basics, a Jysk, and a Burger King. Much of the plaza has been vacant during the past two decades with the departures of anchor tenants Pizza Hut, Kelseys, and Future Shop. COVID has ended the business of King’s Buffet.
The first phases of the site redevelopment will convert 45 percent of the site into a mix of mid-to-tall buildings. “Phase 1A: A 20-and 15-storey mixed-use building;  Phase 1B: A 9-storey residential building; Phase 2A: A 16- and 12-storey mixed-use building; and Phase 2B: A 9-storey residential building.
GSP Group is serving as SmartCentres planning agents.
All the planning documents can be read here: https://www.gspgroup.ca/active-projects/smartcentres-mixed-use-redevelopment/


text:
Planning Committee Upzones City Lands at 1400 Baseline Road Prior to Sale – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 5, 2022
Councillors formally approved upzoning City-owned lands at 1400 Baseline Road in Stoney Creek in a 6-0 vote.
The vote must be ratified at Council on Wednesday, February 9.
The lands are located directed adjacent to the Queen Elizabeth Way highway interchange at Fifty Road.
The zoning designation is changing to “Medium Density Residential 3″ from “Low Density Residential 2b.”
This change will allow residential development of up to nine-storeys on the 1.17 hectares site with a permitted density of between 50 to 99 units per hectare.
The City plans to sell the lands and place the proceeds of the sale into its affordable housing capital budget.
The City hopes to now gain “north” of $3-million for the property. It is one of 19 city-owner properties identified as being underutilized and marked for potential sale to finance affordable housing projects.
Tuesday’s vote is the end of a three-year process that began in May of 2019 when Council directed staff to make the land development-ready prior to sale.
The process was delayed a year after the City failed to meet its own public consultation requirement in January 2021 after some residents within a 120-metre radius of the site did not receive mailed public meeting notices.
Council’s planning committee originally approved the upzoning on January 12, 2021, but did not ratify the decision as planned on January 20, 2021, after a public outcry regarding the lack of notification.
At the time, Ward 10 Clr Maria Pearson moved for staff to hold a public consultation and return to Council with a new report after considering feedback.
In their updated report, staff state they added urban design guidelines and increased parking requirements to the zoning in response to public feedback.
One of the changes is that if the developer builds a mid-rise building, they will be required to set back 30 metres from neighbouring townhouses on Red Cedar Crescent, the usual standard is 7.5 metres.
“The medium density designation will provide a unique opportunity in this area to provide a mix of dwelling types other than the predominant grade related dwelling types found in the Urban Lakeland Area Secondary Plan,” stated Senior Project Manager Alissa Mahood, the City planner for the file.
“The medium density designation of the secondary plan only permits nine-storey apartment buildings. So we have added a site-specific policy area that will also allow for multiple dwellings, and that would include townhouses, sorry, block townhouses, maisonettes and stacked townhouses.”
Ground-oriented housing remains one of the most profitable building types for developers.
Clr Pearson says the upzoning ensures the City of Hamilton controls potential development of the site, and that leaving it to a future landowner to change the zoning risks an application for more density and height than proposed.
“We want to be sure that we have a defensible development proposal, should a developer come forward and decided to go to challenge, and apply for an intensification, and go even higher and go to the OLT.”
Ward 8 Clr John-Paul Danko stated concerns that recent OLT decisions indicate the Tribunal will permit further density and height on the site.
“I’m kind of questioning why we’re not for shooting for higher, much higher,” he stated. “I think it’s  a shift in thinking that’s coming from the Province and from what’s being approved by the province through the Ontario Land Tribunal.”
Danko cited the OLT’s recent approval of a nine-storey development at West 5th Street and Stone Church Road at three times the density proposed for 1400 Baseline Road.
Nearby residents expressed concerns about the plan.
Tammy Felts, President, Wentworth Common Element Condominium Corp. Which are the townhouses east of the site, say the area is already overcapacity with vehicular traffic.
Viv Saunders, representing the Lakewood Beach Community Council, told councillors, “I believe that rezoning to accommodate a nine-storey portion on this corner lot in Ward 10 will set a precedent and be used as evidence to support other collector local road corner lot development applications throughout the city.”
Saunders said the City should retain the lands to address the housing crisis, especially with the increase of land costs making it harder for the City to purchase land elsewhere for affordable housing.
“Besides accommodating growth, I also strongly believe that we as a municipality should take every opportunity available to us to try to help curb the rising cost of housing.”
The neighbourhood already has above average density, “according to the 2016 census tract data. The number of people per dwelling in this area is 4.166 in this specific neighbourhood,” stated Saunders. The City’s GRID plan calls for 2.14 people per dwelling unit.
Saunders called on councillors to work towards a lower height land use with greater density similar to the mixed-income communities being built at Roxborough Park and the former Mountain Secondary School site.

created: February 5, 2022


text:
Sub-Division Developer Bypasses Council with OLT Appeal at Barton and McNeilly in Stoney Creek – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 5, 2022
The developers who own the properties at 262 McNeilly Road and 1036 – 1090 Barton Street in Stoney Creek wants wishes to build 545 residential units, being 154 single and semi-detached dwellings, 206 street townhouses, and 185 block townhouses, with the creation of a neighbourhood park, and a stormwater management pond.
They are taking the City to the Ontario Land Tribunal, following planning staff indicating they have concerns with:
Viv Saunders delegated on behalf of the Lakewood Beach Community Council asking questions regarding urban design, why the development is not being designed with pedestrian amenities, and why a low-density use is being proposed along Barton Street when the City of Hamilton needs to intensify.
The Community Council states it wants to see transit-supportive development along Barton Street.
Ward 10 Councillor Maria Pearson, who represents the area, referred the delegation questions to staff for answers. [Delegates are not able to directly pose questions to staff]
Anita Fabac, Manager of Development Approvals, stated that staff have “shared concern” regarding pedestrian design, and are “not supportive of having a line of fences along Barton Street.”
She states the development is considered to be transit supportive by “introducing a number of different unit types in the range of 545 units. That would bring additional people to the area that are currently not there”
Steve Robichaud, Director of Planning and Chief Planner, states the proposed density of 70.4 persons per hectare, “would be consistent with the [Ministry of Transportation] transit-supportive guidelines.”
“I believe these lands are outside of the built boundary, so they are not subject to the provincial intensification policies,” Robichaud stated.
The provincial requirement for greenfield development is “50 persons and jobs per hectare. This development would be meeting or exceeding that requirement, as a greenfield site.”
Robichaud stated staff still need to review the appeal before making a recommendation regarding a potential settlement.
“Based on the density that has been proposed, and the vision that was laid out in the Fruitland Winona Secondary Plan, this proposal is consistent with requirements of both the growth plan and the PPS, as well as the city’s official plan in terms of how new neighbourhoods are to develop.”
He states planning staff will work to ensure good pedestrian-focused design in the development.
Ward 8 Clr John Paul Danko expressed frustration at the joint developers, Losani Homes and Branthaven, for “building minimum code stick-figure McMansions” at the minimum density.
Here's some of the context (I've clipped as if I write a note, I will need this video) of what Danko stated at Council today regarding a minimum density development proposal on Barton Street in Stoney Creek. #yhmcc https://t.co/FjTovkRbwq pic.twitter.com/tNAvKIlKaW
— Joey Coleman (@JoeyColeman) February 2, 2022
He cited recent Ontario Land Tribunal rulings imposing mid-rise density along minor arterial roads, and expressed a wish the City or another group could “have an alternative appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal for something that is better or more in line with our 30-year growth plan.”
Clr Pearson says there have been neighbourhood meetings and “the neighbourhood as a whole, that we had the neighbourhood meeting, were in support of this development.”
Council received the staff information report, it will return for settlement direction at a future date in closed session.
The Ontario Land Tribunal file numbers for the appeal are OLT-21-001726 & OLT-21-001725. 1725 is the parent case.


text:
Summary of Hamilton’s Committee of Adjustment Meeting for February 17, 2022 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 21, 2022
Decisions of note from this week’s Committee of Adjustment meeting includes denial of a secondary unit because the owner rents to students and students, in general, ‘pose a problem for the neighbourhood,’ approving variances for a multiple small unit residential renovation which represents a departure from past practice as the CoA states Hamilton needs more housing to address affordability, and approved a secondary suite with a complex situation of unintended implementation of the building code due to the property being a through lot.
In administrative matters, the CoA requested City Council review their remuneration, and discussed if they will continue to meet by video after City Hall reopens.
Hamilton CoA members are paid $100 for each meeting date they attend. This rate has been frozen since 2001, and is a fifth of the remuneration paid to CoA members in Mississauga and Toronto.
Finally, the CoA held a non-public “business meeting” in violation of open meeting laws, ending their live stream prematurely. The CoA is not subject to oversight by the Ontario Ombudsman.
The CoA decided to vote down a secondary dwelling unit because, in the words of CoA Member Nancie Mleczko, student housing “poses another problem both for the neighbourhood and for the, what do you want to call that? The comings and goings of that number of people renting within that house.”
The significance of the decision, and its violation of planning regulations which explicitly state local bodies regulate land use, not people, is covered in a separate TPR story here: Committee of Adjustment Votes to Against Allowing Secondary Unit Because Students
The CoA approved a series of variances for a property at 94 Kenilworth Avenue North, which they have traditionally have not approved.
Citing rental affordability, the CoA approved the renovation of an existing low-rise commercial building to include six small residential units in the rear and on upper floors, retaining a commercial unit on ground level at the front.
CoA was asked to approve smaller widths for parking spaces, allow the alleyway to count as maneuvering space whereas bylaws require maneuvering space on the property, and a host of grading variances.
In approving the variances, CoA members focused upon three themes: “cleaning up” areas of urban decay, increasing housing units to address affordability, and efficient use of existing vacant structures.
CoA Member Mark Dudzic: “There are a lot of people that are looking for places that don’t drive older people that want to use the bus or whatever. You go to large cities like New York and whatever, they don’t have parking whatsoever. I kind of agree with the applicant, we got to clean these places up.”
CoA Member Bob Charters: “If we’re going to have affordable housing, we have to be able to make some sacrifices” referring to granted variances the CoA has not in the past.
CoA Member Nancie Mleczko: “That area does require some rejuvenation.”
CoA Member Laverne Gaddye gave a disapproving chuckle at claims this represents affordable housing.
Charters, who is a former City of Hamilton Alderman, stated the CoA needs to continue supporting smaller rental housing outside of the Downtown Core.
The new units will meet Hamilton City Council’s definition for affordable housing, Council defines affordable housing as 125% of market rate [By-Law 16-233].
The latest CMHC figure for Hamilton’s market rate is $1,273 per month for a one-bedroom apartment, meaning $1,591 per month meets City Council’s threshold for “affordable housing”.
CoA approved a secondary dwelling unit (SDU) at 14 Bruce Street which may not be allowed due to a legal quirk of the Building Code. The property is a though lot, meaning that both the rear and front property lines are street-facing.
The legal front property line is Bruce Street. The Ontario Building Code requires secondary units to be at the rear of the primary residence and that a pathway with a minimum one-metre clearance exists between the front property line and the SDU.
In this instance, while the SDU’s front door will directly abut Hess Street, the official address for emergency services dispatch will be Bruce Street.
[Link to Google Streetview showing the proposed SDU location, the garage behind the black car.]
CoA members discussed this and agreed to grant variances to permit the SDU, stating it evident to them emergency services could safely access the SDU from Hess Street.
City staff state there is no legal means for them to approve issuing permits due to the Building Code.
This is despite the best efforts of staff who included a site-specific provision in Hamilton’s SDU by-law specifically in an attempt to allow secondary units on Bruce Street. [Video of staff discussing this specific block when creating the SDU by-law in April 2021]
CoA is asking City Council to increase their remuneration to become “level with similar-sized municipalities.”
Hamilton’s Committee of Adjustment members are paid $100 per meeting and receive City mileage allowances.
The $100 per meeting rate was set in 2001 shortly after the former municipalities of Wentworth County were amalgamated into the new City of Hamilton.
Remuneration rates for Committees of Adjustment are not universally posted. Many smaller municipalities pay rates of between $50 to $100 per meeting.
The City of Toronto pays its CoA members $1500 as base honorarium, plus full-day per diem of $460 and half-day remuneration (3.5 hours or less) of $275 for hearings, business meetings or training sessions.
All municipalities are required to provide annual disclosure of compensation given to Council committee appointees. In Mississauga, CoA members’ annual disclosure shows they are remunerated at nearly five times the rate of Hamilton members.
CoA Members discussed if they will return to in-person meetings in the coming months as City Hall reopens.
Chair Dale Smith stated, “I think it’ll be a combination of both from here on in.  We will probably meet at City Hall and then any applicants that want to do it virtually will do it virtually. And anybody that wants to come in, will come in.”
“I’m going to guess that it’s going to stay virtual. That way, they don’t have to do all the parking and get the room and all that type of stuff,” said Member Mark Dudzic.
“Even within us, we could get a split,” stated Member Nancie Mleczko, “I prefer not to stay online, but that’s beside the point.”
Chair Smith stated, “the only way I would support it is if we were unanimous in staying with web meetings.”
Member Margaret Smith asked, “is there a way that you could do both? I’m just thinking that I’ve really liked the fact that people can log in from away. So say, if you’re going on vacation, you wouldn’t have to actually miss a meeting. You could just log in.”
Hamilton City Council meetings will be primarily online after COVID to enable council members to attend meetings remotely. The Council Chamber is being renovated to install tablets in desks for any councillors who wish to join the video meeting from the physical council chamber.
It is not known if the CoA discussed this further during their non-public “business meeting” held in violation of open meeting rules.

created: February 21, 2022


text:
“Anti-Housing”: Ontario’s Conservative Government Calls Hamilton Boundary Freeze – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 31, 2022
Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs Steve Clark says Hamilton’s plan to freeze the urban boundary and require all new housing units be within intensification projects is an “anti-growth and anti-housing ideology.”
Clark’s made the comments in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario today, in response to a government question from Flamborough-Glanbrook MPP Donna Skelly.
“Ontario has a housing crisis driven by a severe shortage of supply … and our government is using every resource at our disposal to build all kinds of homes” Skelly stated. “But some city councils including Hamilton Council, are pushing an anti-housing and anti-growth ideology that is preventing orders from being built and driving up home prices. This includes Hamilton Council refusing to expand urban boundaries.”
Minister Clark says he may send Hamilton’s urban boundary freeze plan to the Ontario Land Tribunal “as an impartial adjudicator” for review.
The OLT is required by the Planning Act to implement provincial planning policies, which are set by the Minister and Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
This includes requiring municipalities to prioritize ground-oriented housing by expanding urban boundaries.
“The Official Plans that I’ve seen like Hamilton and Ottawa don’t maximize the housing outcomes for Ontarians and instead prioritize anti-growth and anti-housing ideology,” Clark stated.
In a follow-up statement, Skelly asked Clark to “share the government’s long term strategy to address the housing crisis.”
Clark says the Progressive Conservative government is committed to its More Homes for Everyone Plan with “targeted policies in the immediate term that would help get housing built faster, get shovels in the ground and build all types of housing for Ontarians that deserve it.”
“Over the long term, the Housing Affordability Task Force is our government’s housing roadmap.”
Hamilton City Council is expected to approve a new Urban Hamilton Official Plan, with an urban boundary freeze, at a special meeting to be called in early May.


text:
BRIEF: Clr Terry Whitehead No Longer Chair of Hamilton Council’s Governance Committee – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 31, 2022
Ward 14 Councillor Terry Whitehead is no longer the Chair of Hamilton City Council’s Governance Committee.
The Committee meet for the first time this year on Thursday and, as per the procedural practices of Council, conducted their annual vote for Chair.
Ward 1 Councillor Maureen Wilson was acclaimed as Chair. Wilson was Vice-Chair during the previous year.
Ward 13 Councillor Arlene Vanderbeek is the new Vice-Chair.
Whitehead was not present for the meeting.
The Governance Committee, which at one time was known as the Accountability and Transparency Committee, oversees Council’s procedures, Code of Conduct, and the Integrity Commissioners.
During the past decade, councillors Whitehead and Lloyd Ferguson have dominated the Chair role.


text:
BRIEF: Environmental Defence Granted Party Status By OLT in Hamilton Wetland Fight – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 18, 2022
The owners of 140 Garner Road East are asking the Ontario Land Tribunal to overrule the Hamilton Conservation Authority and allow for the relocation of a wetland.
The application was denied by the HCA Board of Directors in a close vote, despite having the full support of HCA Chair City Councillor Lloyd Ferguson.
Environmental Defence attended the first OLT hearing and sought party status in the hearing. Developer ONE Properties Limited Partnership opposed the application.
In a decision released this week, the OLT granted Environment Defence full party status.
“Environmental Defence has a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding, its work will likely be impacted by the Tribunal’s decision, and it will assist the Tribunal in making its decision,” reads the ruling by OLT Members Hugh S. Wilkins and Warren Morris.
The OLT granted participant status to 22 individuals. OLT participants are able to make written submissions that the Tribunal will consider when making its decision.
ONE Properties, Environmental Defence, and the HCA are directed to negotiate to create the issues list for the OLT to consider.
The OLT will hold a Case Management Conference on Monday, May 9, 2022, commencing at 10 am to finalize the issues list and set dates for the full hearing to occur.
As a Party, Environmental Defence must agree to any settlement proposal between the developer and the Hamilton Conservation Authority.
OLT settlement negotiations are held in secret, with politicians and developers able to reach deals with no public input.
In effect, the wetland now has its own lawyer to protect its interestings.
More information, and videoconference link, on CanLII.


text:
BRIEF: Hamilton Ontario 2021 Census Population and Dwelling Data By Ward – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 29, 2022
The City of Hamilton’s Planning and Economic Development department just released its preliminary analysis of the 2021 federal census population data.
General Manager of PED Jason Thorne writes the population increased in every ward except Ward 13 where “there was a minor population decline.”
“City’s fastest growing communities are Glanbrook and Stoney Creek,” Thorne’s update reads. “Wards 2, 9, 11, and 15 saw the greatest population growth.”
Hamilton exceeded its 2021 population projection by 1,755 persons, with the census reporting  584,755 persons living in our city.


text:
Changes Coming to Residential Building Demolitions in Hamilton – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 14, 2022
City Council will debate changes to Hamilton’s demolition control by-law that, if passed, will create new conditions for residential demolitions designed to ensure the retention of housing stock and prevent demolitions resulting in eyesore low-tax vacant lands.
The changes follow public outcry resulting from the demolition of Ancaster’s historic Brandon House in early 2020. The over 150-year-old building was not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The owner of the property applied for demolition which was granted without public notice under the delegated authorities of Hamilton’s existing bylaw.
City staff are proposing Council take back delegated authorities and that in the future, applications similar to Brandon House will be subject to a public hearing and decision.
Alissa Golden, the City’s Heritage Project Specialist, who is leading the review, says the “inferred intent” of the Ontario Planning Act’s demolition control provisions is “the retention of housing stock in residential units.”
The proposed changes “reflect the intention to help maintain the integrity of our residential neighbourhoods” and “prevent the premature loss of dwelling units and the creation of vacant land,” Golden told the Development Industry Liaison Group on Monday.
The changes will also help “prevent the premature loss of municipal assessment by the demolition of buildings.”
While the review was prompted by Brandon House, Golden notes “demolition control is not a huge conservation tool” and the City is working “to engage with the public as a part of our existing built heritage inventory strategy and proactive heritage inventory work” for those concerns.
Under the proposed new language for the by-law, residential demolition permits will go to Council unless the demolition is to facilitate an already approved development proposal or severance of property.
Examples of delegated proposals include those with as-of-right zoning approval, approved zoning and official plan amendments, approved minor variances, and approved severances.
In the case of approved developments, demolition permits will only be issued by City staff when all conditions are met for the new build, such as final site plan approval, and staff are satisfied construction will quickly follow.
Property owners can also appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal if Council denies a demolition permit request.  The public cannot appeal the issuing of a demolition permit.
The proposed changes are scheduled to go to Council in late April, with the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee expected to review the recommendations at their April 1, 2022 meeting.


text:
City Hall Adds Privacy Glass in Council Chambers, Blocking Front Row of Public Gallery – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 25, 2022
The City of Hamilton continues to spend undisclosed amounts on physical changes to City Hall in response to “safety” and “privacy” concerns.
A few weeks ago, at a cost of over $125,000, the City added hoarding to the rear of City Hall to block homeless people from gathering in a protected area where the building’s warm air exhaust is located.
In the process, the City violated both the Building Code and fire safety requirements. The City did not apply for the required permits.
A consultant has been hired to begin planning a retrofit of the City Hall HVAC systems. The City is not disclosing the cost.
At some point during COVID, the Council Chamber was renovated to enable physical distancing.
Among the changes, is the addition of privacy frosting that blocks the view from the front row of the public gallery. The City did not apply for heritage permits, as required.
The Council Chamber design is a heritage feature that emphasizes the concepts of open democracy by enabling the public unobscured views during public Council meetings. The City did not disclose how much was spent on the renovation.


text:
City of Hamilton Advisory Committee Roundup for March 21 to 25, 2022 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 29, 2022
City of Hamilton staff state administering December free parking in BIAs is onerous and are looking to decrease the city workload in blocking payments at street parking metres.
A fruitful discussion occurred between the representatives of various BIAs and City staff. Some possible solutions were proposed by BIAs. There will be further talks between the City and BIAs
BIAs are local boards under the Municipal Act and must comply with open meeting requirements. BIAs will be required to livestream their meetings beginning this spring.
The BIA Advisory Committee lost quorum before they could complete the meeting.
More details of the meeting here: Hamilton Business Improvement Area Advisory Committee Roundup for March 2022
The Committee Against Racism did not make quorum this morning. They held an informal discussion regarding their opposition to the City’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement for citizen volunteers. They will formalize a position asking Council to remove the mandate at their next meeting.
Related from last month: Hamilton’s Committee Against Racism Concerned About Vaccination Mandates
Affordable housing and affordable commercial spaces was the primary topic of discussion at the Arts Advisory Committee.
The AAC is looking to propose the City of Hamilton support the creation of performing arts lodges such as PAL in Toronto.
Performing arts lodges are cooperatives which can include affordable housing for performing artists.
“There’s a whole bunch of housing that has been boarded up. And I know there was a tent city literally camped out Have that boarded up affordable housing. So I’m not sure what the plan is for that boarded up affordable housing,” stated AAC member Annette Paiement.
Member Jayne Cardno stated the committee should join other advisory committees in calling for the City to better coordinate affordable housing in Hamilton.
“There’s 32 housing providers already out there,” Cardno stated. “There should be a more streamlined one place to go application process and some uniformity, and criteria and assessment.”
The City should ask for “twenty percent of all new builds to have affordable housing attached, that’s not really going very far.”
Members of the committee noted the City now pays living wages to musicians and artists. They discussed how to encourage other entities to adopt similar policies.
Committee Vice-Chair Autumn Getty summarized their presentation to Council’s Emergency and Community Services Committee calling on Council to end encampment evictions.
“Unfortunately, they did not really discuss our submission,” Getty stated.
They discussed the upcoming City Code of Conduct training sessions, and the process of filling vacancies on the committee.
Morgan Stahl, the City’s Director of Government Relations and Community Engagement introduced herself to the committee. City Advisory Committees presently report to the Human Resources Division of the City Manager, Stahl states their reporting structure will change to the Community Engagement portfolio in one to two months.


text:
City of Hamilton Makes Significant Changes to Planning Department Structure – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 29, 2022
Hamilton’s Chief Planner Steve Robichaud has changed the structure of the City’s planning department to streamline functions and clarify responsibilities.
The planning department now consists of four sections: Development Planning, Heritage and Urban Design, Sustainable Communities [Community & Policy Planning], Zoning and Committee of Adjustment.
The development planning section is responsible for processing planning applications with four sub-sections. Applications will continue to be processed by geographical location with three sub-sections: the Urban team, the Suburban team, and the Rural.
The fourth sub-section is Business Facilitation, the staff who handle development application intake and questions at the fifth floor counter in City Hall.
Anita Fabac remains the Manager of Development Planning. The Senior Project Managers leading the development application teams are Ohi Izirein for Suburban, and Charlie Toman for Rural.
The SPM Urban position is presently vacant. Shannon McKie has been promoted to Manager of Zoning and Committee of Adjustment. McKie continues to lead the Urban team until a replacement is hired.
Ken Coit’s previous role as Manager Placemaking Public Art and Projects is expanding in this new position as manager for the heritage and urban design section.
There are two sub-sections: Design & Heritage, and GIS & Cartographic Services.
The City’s urban design, cultural heritage, and natural heritage planners are included in this section.
Coit’s expanded role will increase the importance of design and public art in new developments, especially intensification projects.
Christine Newbold is the Manager of Sustainable Communities, continuing to manage the City of Hamilton’s longer-term land-use planning projects, including secondary plans and the urban boundary freeze.
There are two sub-sections: Community Planning and Policy Planning.
Heather Travis remains Senior Project Manager for Policy Planning.
The SPM position for Community Planning is vacant.
Shannon McKie is the Manager of Zoning and Committee of Adjustment, a new section with three sub-sections: Zoning Review, Zoning Reform, and Committee of Adjustment.
All the planner positions in Zoning Reform are presently vacant, reflective of the planning department’s push to process applications before a potential Lame Duck City Council takes effect in August.
The section’s primary role will be reviewing minor planning and building permit applications.
The number of applications is increasing due to intensification.
More information, including a listing of all the City’s planning staff as of March 25, 2022, is on the City’s website here.


text:
City of Hamilton to Stop Posting Safe/Unsafe for Swimming Signs at Beaches – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 17, 2022
Hamilton City Hall states it will no longer post “safe for swimming” or “unsafe for swimming” signs at Hamilton’s seven public open water swimming beaches.
“Changing or “flipping” on-site signs is not required under the Protocol and impacts internal/external staff resources and creates an unfavourable image of City of Hamilton public beaches,” writes the City of Hamilton’s Director of Healthy Environments Kevin McDonald in an information update to City Council.
Ontario’s Recreational Beach Water Protocol requires the City of Hamilton to conduct weekly water quality testing at public beaches.
The Protocol requires results “be posted on the board of health’s website in a location that is easily accessible to the public immediately as they become available.”
The Protocol does not require posting the results anywhere else, including using signage at beaches. This is why the City plans to remove existing safe/unsafe signs that are changed weekly depending on E.coli levels at the beaches.
City staff write Hamilton is the only region in the area with weekly signage at beaches.
“Surrounding Public Health Units post permanent signage at public beaches informing the public of conditions that can increase bacteria levels and direct the public to their websites for up-to-date beach status information,” McDonald writes.
The new signs state factors that can cause E.coli levels to raise and encourage people to visit the City of Hamilton website.
Hamilton’s seven public open water swimming areas: Beach Boulevard, Van Wagner’s and Confederation Park Beaches along Lake Ontario; Binbrook, Christie and Valens Conservation Area beaches, and Pier 4 Park Beach in Hamilton Harbour.
The public can comment to City Council on the change until 12:00 noon on Friday, March 18 by emailing the Board of Health legislative assistant, Loren Kolar, Loren.Kolar@hamilton.ca.
UPDATE: Council voted to request Public Health staff not remove the signs.


text:
COLEMAN: User Names as Political Expression During Online Meetings and the Charter – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 15, 2022
Some observers of tonight’s school board meeting changed their names to various statements against mask mandates.
Freeyourface, No Mask4Me, SayNO 2FaceDiapers, and Smiling Faces over Masks were just some of the statements.
The staff and trustees of the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board could see the names, much in the way they could read placards if this were an in-person meeting with people sitting in a physical public gallery.
Does using the “user name” function to communicate a political message constitute expressive activity under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this era of electronic meetings?
People routinely bring signs and placards expressing their political viewpoints to in-person public meetings.
This enjoys Charter protection, as per the Ontario Superior Court in Gammie v. Town of South Bruce Peninsula, 2014 ONSC 6209.
The open meeting regulations in Ontario’s Education Act are similar to the Municipal Act.
Therefore, Gammie is persuasive in the context of school board public meetings.
Mere attendance at an in-person meeting is expressive activity. Politicians change their demeanour when being observed by an audience.
Similarly, many people watching a live stream signals public interest to politicians.
People have a Charter right to attend meetings. They can be removed for disruptive behaviour, and using the name feature to express non-offensive messages does not disrupt an online meeting.
Is the MS Teams’ name feature a platform for expressive activity?
In Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, 2009 SCC 31, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a ban against political advertising on public transit. The Supreme Court that public transit agencies are an arm of government bound by the Charter. In creating advertising space, they created a platform for expression and could not ban political messages.
This case is foundational to Section 2(b) Charter challenges against local governments.
It is not the intention of the HWDSB to provide a platform for expressive activity when using Microsoft Teams to conduct meetings.
The video and microphones of observers are disabled. The chat feature is turned off.
People are invited to share their names in the name field. That is its sole purpose.
People using it for political statements does not create a platform.
Ultimately, the HWDSB acted prudently.
No disruption, no removal.


text:
COLEMAN: ‘Way Left’? Hamilton City Council is Centre-Right and Will Remain So – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 15, 2022
We are now 224 days from municipal election voting day.
Looking at the demographics and who is expected to run, I expect we’ll see a majority of the members of 2022-26 who share a right-of-centre “Blue Liberal” and “Red Tory” political philosophies.
Yes, this is a debunking of former mayor and lobbyist Larry DiIanni’s claims. Di Ianni is also Cable 14’s lead municipal commentator.
Of Hamilton’s 15 municipal wards, At least eight of them are likely to elect candidates who are either centrist, progressive conservative, or conservative.
There are three wards likely to elect candidates who are left-of-centre or progressives.
Municipal election turnout is lower than that of the other levels of government. Municipalities are funded by property tax levies paid by all residents, with tax bills sent to property owners.
Homeowners have a very tactile knowledge of municipal government expenditures. They literally hold the tax bill when it arrives in the mail. For renters, municipal taxes are a hidden cost, the landlord pays them out of rent revenue.
This helps explain why “homeowner issues” tend to dominate during municipal elections, and the majority of municipal councillors tend to land in the centre to the centre-right part of the political spectrum.
DiIanni’s claims that Hamilton City Council is somehow ‘way left’ is absurd, nearly as absurd as there is an NDP-led influence with only one NDPer among the sixteen members of council.
DiIanni is calling for people on the centre-right to run in the municipal election.
Let’s look at the individual wards.
The three wards which are likely to elect progressives are .
Without knowing the candidates, and thus how votes will potentially split, there remains the possibility that  incumbent Maureen Wilson and  incumbent Nrinder Nann could be defeated, but not likely at this time.
In , Cameron Kroetsch is taking a second run at defeating incumbent Jason Farr.
There is a strong wave of frustration with Farr for being an absentee councillor this term. Farr does not live in Ward 2. He resides near Ottawa Street. Some of the underlying factors that saw decades-long Ward 2 incumbents defeated in 1997 are again evident 25 years later.
By running a second time, after a strong showing in 2018, Kroetsch benefits from being the candidate voters are likely to coalesce around to address the “coordinating problem”, the challenge of determining which challenger is most likely to defeat the incumbent.
Kroetsch has a donor list ready, a voters list from 2018, and will benefit from significant media coverage in 2022.
There are three wards that I consider toss-ups: .
In , incumbent Sam Merulla says he is retiring, bragging about how he is fully pensioned. However, the rumour mill and Merulla’s at-times erratic nature leaves me wondering if he will actually retire.
If Merulla does stick to his retirement plans, there are organized progressives looking to field a candidate who will have a good chance of winning.
incumbent Tom Jackson is the longest-serving member of City Council, being first elected in 1988. Jackson has not signalled his intentions for this election.
As the longest elected member, Jackson will be the focus of much negative attention.
Ward 6’s socio-economic demographics lean towards a centrist municipal councillor. It is an area which the NDP carries in provincial and federal elections.
If Jackson runs for reelection, a left-progressive challenger can win if they present themselves as an agent of positive change.
If an open seat without an incumbent, after 34 years, there is no past data I can use as a foundation for predictions.
Thus, this is a toss-up.
In  is a toss-up that can be won by anyone.
A left-of-centre candidate can appeal to the large number of blue-collar labour union members who live in the ward, a centrist can appeal to a broad cross-section of people, and a conservative, like the incumbent and the councillor prior, benefits from a well-run Conservative Party machine in Ward 7.
Who wins will depend on how many candidates are running and how votes split.
Incumbent Esther Pauls should not be under-estimated. She enjoys people and the retail side of politics. Pauls does not enjoy the policy work of council politics and struggles with difficult decisions, she truly enjoys the rest of being an elected official.
Pauls is great at connecting with people at the door, and will likely have the strongest campaign organization..
incumbent Brenda Johnson is retiring.
I am awaiting more data including the federal election poll-by-poll results and 2021 census demographics to provide further insight into the likely political leanings of Ward 11 residents.
The wards which I expect are more likely to elect centrists to conservatives are .
will have its first competitive council race since 1997. Then Ward 5 Alderman Fred Eisenberger bowed out of facing off against Alderman Chad Collins for the one Ward 5 seat in 2000’s first amalgamation election.
With Collins now a Member of Parliament, this is an “open seat”.
The demographics and voting patterns of Ward 5 lean towards the centre-right spectrum associated with Blue Liberals and Red Tories.
We do not yet know of any candidates in Ward 5.
Ned Kuruc, who ran for Ward 3 councillor in 2018 and owns businesses in Ward 5, ran in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek for the Conservatives in the 2021 federal election putting up a respectable showing.
Kuruc’s 2021 campaign team included Ian Thompson who is a Liberal who once sat as a public school trustee and Thompson ran for Ward 10 councillor in 2018. With name recognition and identified voters, Kuruc has a good foundation for a Ward 5 campaign. Kuruc spent $19,115.22 on his 2018 Ward 3 campaign.
incumbent John-Paul Danko could be defeated, but that is not likely at this time.
incumbent Brad Clark is Hamilton’s political chameleon. He’s a political survivalist who is well-regarded when presenting thoughtful considered political positions – positions which appear to be his true principals – but can switch those views when the political background changes.
He is a formidable retail politician and keenly aware of concerns in his ward. Transit and urban sprawl are issues all Ward 9 candidates heard at the door in 2018. Clark rides the HSR to City Hall, gained increased service to the Heritage Green hub, and played a key role in freezing the urban boundary.
Clark will likely win re-election.
incumbent Maria Pearson faces a challenge gaining re-election.
Pearson won with 36% of the vote in 2018 against three challengers who split the vote.
This is a classic example of the municipal coordination problem. For voters who want change, which candidate is most likely to defeat the incumbent?
2018’s third-place candidate Jeff Beattie announced earlier this month that he will run again this year. 2018’s second-place runner-up Louie Milojevic has not yet declared his intentions.
Pearson, Milojevic, and Beattie all fall within the Blue Liberal / Red Tory zone of the political spectrum.
. incumbent Lloyd Ferguson has not declared his intentions.
Bob Maton of the Ancaster Village Heritage Community is a possible candidate for the race. Maton ran for public school board trustee twice in the past and was the Family Coalition Party candidate in the 2011 federal election.
. The overall leaning of the Dundas and rural West Flamborough ward is centre-right, with strong progressivism among the voters of Dundas.
In 2018, incumbent Arlene Vanderbeek held the seat with only 34.49% of the vote. Within the polls of Dundas, Vanderbeek won by only a handful of votes.
Vanderbeek won convincingly in West Flamborough which was merged into Ward 13 after the elimination of the rural Ward 14.
Second place runner-up Rich Gelder, at 26.93% of the vote, ran as a progressive, with most of his votes coming from Dundas.
Gelder spent less than half of the winning incumbent and also the third-place finisher.
Conservative John Mykytyshyn placed third with 18.24% of the vote.
It is possible for a progressive to win Ward 13 in a favourable vote split scenario.
Former MPP Ted McMeekin’s name is being discussed as a candidate in Ward 13. McMeekin was Mayor of Flamborough prior to amalgamation, which will greatly assist him in securing votes in that portion of the ward.
McMeekin is now a resident of Dundas and is very engaged in the community. If McMeekin runs, he becomes the candidate to beat.
‘s demographics and municipal voting history lean towards expecting residents of this ward to pick a centrist to a progressive conservative councillor.
The potential candidates are not yet known.
Incumbent Terry Whitehead has not declared his intentions. 2018’s second-place runner-up Bryan Wilson is not running in 2022.
‘s race could be a re-match of 2018 when incumbent Judi Partridge won by a narrow margin of 216 votes against first-time challenger Susan McKechnie. Partridge and McKechnie are both conservatives.
McKechnie’s near victory was remarkable considering how little media coverage there was of the race, it was basically ignored. Partridge was not seen as a vulnerable incumbent.
[There’s a lesson here for incumbents regarding the municipal voter coordination problem, do not end up in a two-candidate race.]
This is how Hamilton ends up with a centrist council, and why Larry Di Ianni’s latest comments are little more than attention-seeking.
Keanin Loomis is going to run as a centrist. If Bob Bratina runs, he’ll be a populist. Incumbent Fred Eisenberger is a conservative who portraits himself as a centrist.
We continue to hear rumours of a candidate from the left. A person from the left can run as a blue-collar centrist who supports progressive-aligned urban positions.
The Mayor is one vote at Council, and the majority of Council will be firmly in the centre.
Way left? The only thing that’s way out there is Di Ianni’s claims.
The original version used the term centralist, it has been changed to the more common centrist.


text:
Council Planning Committee Unanimously Approves New Waterdown Zoning and Traffic Plans – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 27, 2022
Council’s planning committee unanimously approved a new Secondary Plan for Waterdown, Urban Design Guidelines, and a new Traffic Management Plan for the rapidly growing suburb upon the escarpment.
The plans will work together to guide the transition of Waterdown’s residential core to a pedestrian-friendly form while enabling conversion of suburban commercial plazas to mixed-use while retaining the pre-confederation neighbourhood character of the original Euro-Canadian settlement area centred on Dundas Street around the Grindstone Creek.
Ward 15 Councillor Judi Partridge, who represents Waterdown and initiated the planning, says the new plans will “protect the heritage within Waterdown and Flamborough.”
Partridge asked staff to confirm the new plan provides heritage character protection to 40 Mill Street North, commonly known as the Jam Factory, which is presently for sale.
“40 Mill Street North and the other properties that the councillor mentioned are located within the existing Millstreet Heritage Conservation District and are therefore designated under Part V (five) of the Ontario Heritage Act,” stated City of Hamilton Planner Melanie Pham.
The new Secondary Plan limits properties to “three storeys within that area to maintain the small scale character of that portion of the core,” she added.
Councillors praised the plans.
Clr Maureen Wilson commended Partridge for initiating and working on the plans.
The Waterdown Transportation Master Plan says the City needs to add transit service connections west on Dundas Street into Burlington, and direct transit east to Downtown Hamilton. Additionally, the plan maps out plans for a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes to enable local trips to be taken by active transportation.
“We know where we are today with the traffic concerns, which are which are just ridiculous,” Partridge stated. “The sooner the last extension of the bypass is built, the better.”
Partridge asked how concerned Council and the community should be regarding rumours the Province will overrule local planning as part of expected Planning Act changes.
Hamilton’s Director of Planning and Chief Planner Steve Robichaud stated the Secondary Plan reflects present provincial planning policies.
“I’m not anticipating that we will see in the short term, any of the significant provincial changes around that anything could happen after an election,” Robichaud stated. Adding he is “confident that we can still proceed with a secondary plan today, and that we will then obviously respond to any provincial changes as they come down the pipeline.”
Councillors approved the plan unanimously. It needs to be ratified by the full City Council at the March 30, 2022 ratification meeting.


text:
Council Votes to Expand Sewer Capacity on Dewitt Road Following 2019 Study Showing It’s Maxxed Out – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 25, 2022
Hamilton city councillors approved adding $1,561,000 to the budget for road reconstruction to expand sewer capacity underneath Dewitt Road between Highway 8 and Barton Street in Stoney Creek.
The expanded capacity is needed to both address present capacity constraints and to respond to development plans along Highway 8.
An August 2019 engineering report found portions of the existing sewers are already overcapacity.
The 375 mm portion of pipe which runs from Highway 8 to just north of Juniper Drive is already overcapacity.
The pipe expands to 450mm in front of Orchard Park Secondary School. This 450 mm section is nearing its capacity between approximately MacIntosh Drive to Dupont Street, where it expands to 525 mm at the northern edge of the Our Lady of Peace Catholic Elementary School.
Half of the expansion will be funded from Development Charges, and half funded from the existing rate budget.
The 2019 Development Charges Study determined half the expansion need is attributable to existing uses and half is to facilitate new development.
The sewers north of Barton Street, which run to the Sanitary Sewer Truck under Seaman Street will require further expansion in the future..
In 2018, a developer initially applied to build a Long Term Care complex of three buildings (applications files UHOPA-18-025 & ZAC-18-059) that would house 1,075 persons.
The Highway 8 application was amended to a four-storey 224-bed LTC and two rental buildings of eight and nine storeys with a total of 260 dwelling units. Council approved the application in July 2021.
Following the 2018 application, the City commissioned a study of wastewater sewers on both Dewitt Road and Millen Road. Dewitt was determined to be the better outflow option.
“I’m really pleased that we are anticipating this going forward this summer,” Ward 10 Clr Maria Pearson stated at Public Works Committee on Monday.
The overall budget for the sewers and road reconstruction on Dewitt Road is $4,173,238 (not including contingency and non-refundable HST).