The following was forwarded to me. This is very concerning. Will this happen to us and the Chedoke Brow Land?
Turtle ponds in jeopardy again
A new plan to build townhouses on environmentally sensitive land in Stoney Creek will not face a local public process. Parkside Hills has decided to take their proposal directly to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), thus freezing citizens out of the process and leaving councillors to decide the city?s position in secret.
The company wants to build about 60 units on public school board property north of the QEW and just east of Confederation Park. Massive resident opposition ended a similar proposal this past spring on adjacent lands owned by the catholic school board, when that developer withdrew. Both properties include parts of large pond frequented by turtles, and large parts of each form part of an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) designated by the city and then undesignated.
Tim McCabe, the head of planning and development, informed councillors yesterday that Parkside has taken advantage of Planning Act provisions that allow developers to skip the city planning process and go instead to the OMB if they think the city is not responding quickly enough to their development application.
?He waited his 90 days and is off to the Ontario Municipal Board.,? McCabe told council?s planning committee. ?We haven?t even circulated the application because we?re waiting for the background study.?
McCabe explained that this means there won?t be a local public meeting and that any council decisions about the development will be made in secret.
?When you go to the Ontario Municipal Board, we have no public meeting process, there?s no public involvement,? he said, noting that instead the councillors will have city lawyers ?coming to you in camera asking for your direction on what position to take at the Ontario Municipal Board.?
The news surprised local councillor Maria Pearson.
?How do I let the residents know in the ward when they haven?t even had a look at what was proposed?? she asked McCabe. ?I can?t believe the legislation would allow this to happen.?
McCabe noted that individuals can ?make representation? to the OMB and said Pearson could do a ?mini circulation? of the development plans to the affected residents.
He explained that planning staff had been working on re-doing an environmental assessment of the turtle ponds area and re-establishing its environmentally significant designation. The ESA was originally put in place in 2003, but pressure from the developer of the catholic board lands convinced staff to un-designate the area two years later.
A new ESA was proposed earlier this year, but with much reduced boundaries that accommodated the development plans endorsed by planning staff. The recommendation was heavily criticized at a six hour public meeting in April that attracted over 200 residents.
Planning committee chair Dave Mitchell was also taken aback by yesterday?s turn of events, apparently unaware of the 90-day rule.
?Isn?t that a flaw in the legislation if the local community doesn?t get to have a say on it?? he asked. ?I thought there was something in the new system that would have said you have to have a decision one way or the other locally first in order to have the right to appeal something.?
McCabe explained that ?it?s been like this since the 1970s? although the length of time for the city to respond to applications has gradually increased.
?At one time it used to be 60 days, then 90, and now it?s 120, but there?s nothing in the legislation that requires a council decision,? he pointed out. ?Otherwise if we don?t like something we could just sit on it forever.?
McCabe also pointed out that Hamilton asks for a variety of studies to be submitted by a developer before his application is considered acceptable, and noted that recent amendments to the provincial rules now allow councils to make such documents a mandatory part of a development application.
?But until you have those requirements in your official plans on what constitutes a complete application, all you have to do is submit the fees, name, address and phone number and it?s complete,? he said. ?Most developers are cooperating with us because they know at the end they?re going to need to do the studies anyway.?
Parkside obtained an option to purchase the school lands as part of a deal that also includes lands on the west mountain in exchange for a parcel in Waterdown owned by Parkside that the public board wants for expansion of Waterdown High School.
Their manueuvres on the west mountain outraged Terry Whitehead earlier this summer who described it as ?where capitalism has gone sour at the expense of the taxpayers?. He said the school board was on the verge of selling these lands ?at $180,000 an acre before Parkside came in and ransomed the school board? and recently offered them for sale at $500,000 an acre.
?I think its unconscionable that developers could do this in this day and age to the taxpayers of this community, or the school board,? he declared. ?Talk about padding one?s pockets.?
CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) updates use transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. Detailed reports of City Hall meetings can be reviewed at www.hamiltoncatch.org. You can receive all CATCH free updates by sending an email to info@HamiltonCATCH.org.
About Tech