SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE - Hamilton, Ontario...Special Planning Committee Report 15-006 March 31, 2015 Page 6 of 25 partnership with the City of Hamilton, and the City of Hamilton

SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEEREPORT 15-006

2:00 P.M.Tuesday, March 31ÿ, 2015

Council ChambersHamilton City Hall

71 Main Street West

Present: Mayor F. Eisenberger, Councillors J. Partridge (Chair),B. Johnson (1st Vice Chair) M. Pearson (2nd Vice-Chair)C. Collins, D. Conley, J. Farr, A. Johnson and R. Pasuta

Also Present Councillor L Ferguson

THE FOLLOWING IS REPORTED FOR THE INFORMATION OF COUNCIL:

(a) CHANGES TO THE AGENDA (Item 1)

The Clerk advised of the following changes to the agenda:

Added written submissions:

3.1(v) Correspondence from David W. Aston of MHBC Planning UrbanDesign & Landscape Architecture respecting Trimac Trucking, 489Highway 8

3.1 (vi) Correspondence from Diana Vlasic, Planner, Metropolitan Consulting,445 Paletta Court, Burlington respecting 619 Centre Road,Flamborough and 111 Parkside Drive, Flamborough

3.1 (vii)

3.1(viii)

3.1 (ix)

Correspondence from Joe Molditz Junior respecting the Green Belt

Correspondence from David & Leanne Vollick

Correspondence from Laura Bisset, Davis LLP, Suite 6000, 1 FirstCanadian Place, 100 King Street West, Toronto

Council- April 22, 2015

Special Planning CommitteeReport 15-006

March 31, 2015Page 2 of 25

3.1(x) Correspondence from Lee Van Wyngaarden, Flamboro Machine ShopLimited, 952 Brock Road, RR 4, Dundas

3. l(xi) Correspondence from William and Jerre Bell

3. l(xii) Correspondence from Jan Whitelaw and Mark Rudolph

3.1 (xiii) Correspondence from James Webb, Planning Consultants, respectingConnon Nurseries

3.1(xiv) Correspondence from Teresa DiFalco, President of the Fruitland-Winona-Stoney Creek Community Association Inc.

3.1(xv) List of Submissions to the Special Planning Committee from EdFothergill

3.1 (xvi) Correspondence from Sharon Cashen, Finance/Office Manager,Environmental Design, Landscape Contractors Limited,

3.1(xvii) Correspondence from Multi-Area Development Inc.

3.1(xviii) Correspondence from Brenda Khes, GSP Group, Associate SeniorPlanner

3.1(xix) Correspondence from Tim and Leah Sieders, Mapleridge LandscapesLimited

Added speakers:

2:00 P.M. TO 5:00 P.M.

11. Victor Veri

12. Catherine Beattie

13. Lorne Haverty

13(a) Written Comments

14. Georgina Beattie

15. Achim Klaas




16.

17.

18.

19.

20.


Sam Shah, Soheil Flamborough Inc., 1129 Highway 5 West, Flamborough

Don Hardwick of HGH Granite Inc., 451 Ofield Road South, Dundas

Cathy McMaster

Dan Van Delden, Valleywood Landscaping Inc.

Rosalyn Vanderboom, 933 Brock Rd

6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

3. Greg Gowing, 339 Old Brock Road, Dundas ON

4. Debbie Whaling, 3868 Hwy #6 Mount Hope/Airport Mini Storage

5. Reverend Jason Small, Lead Pastor Community Church,Concession Road East Flamborough


6. Jim McCullough

7. Steve Hozjan

8. Victor Veri

9. Phil Zylstra, Growing Gardens Inc.

10. Tony DiGiovanni, Executive Director, Landscape Ontario

271 6th

11.

12.

13.

Derek Conorton, Live Dream Dance, 12 Barton Street, Waterdown

Terence Fulton, 18'24 Regional Road 97, Flamborough

Carmine Filice, Greentario, 15 Ditton Drive, Hamilton

The Agenda for the March 31, 2015 Special meeting of the Planning Committee wasapproved, as amended.




(b) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (Item 2)

None were declared.

(c) PRESENTATION/PUBLIC MEETING/DELEGATIONS (Item 3)

(i) Proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Draft Rural Zoning By-law (PED13167(b)) (Wards 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15) (Due to bulkcopies of Appendices "A" and "B" are not included in the agenda butare available for viewing in the City Clerk's Office, at all the MunicipalService Centres and on-line on at www.hamilton.ca.) (Item 3.1)

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, Chair Partridgeadvised those in attendance that if a person or public body does not makeoral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to theCouncil of the City of Hamilton before Council makes a decision regardingthe proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rural Zoning By-law theperson or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Councilof the City of Hamilton to the Ontario Municipal Board and the person orpublic body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appealbefore the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board,there are reasonable grounds to do so.

Diana Yakhni, Planner, addressed Committee with the aid of a PowerPointpresentation and provided and overview of the report. A copy has beenuploaded onto the City's website and copies were distributed.

The topics she covered included but were not limited to the following:

• Purpose of today's meeting;• Current applications;• Areas to be excluded from rural zoning by-law;• Why have we prepared a new rural zoning by-law;• Provincial Policy Statement, Greenbelt Plan, Official Plan, Zoning

By-law;o Purpose of the Official Plan Amendment;• Supporting the Rural Economy;o Proposed Zones;• Schedule "D" of Rural Hamilton Official Plan;• Agriculture (A1) Zone;° Rural (A2) Zone;° Existing Rural Commercial (El) Zone;• Existing Rural Industrial (E2) Zone;




• Extractive Industrial (M12) Zone• Conservation/Hazard Land - Rural (P6), (P7) and (P8) Zones;• Update to the Site Plan Control By-law;• Settlement residential ($1) Zone;• Settlement residential ($2) Zone;• Settlement residential ($3) Zone;• What we heard (November/December 2013 and January 2014);• What we heard (November 2014);• Questions, comments and public input.

The staff presentation respecting Report PED13167(b) was received.CARRIED

2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Registered Speakers

1. Representative from the Agriculture and Rural AffairsCommittee

Doug Cranston, Chair of the Agriculture and Rural AffairsCommittee indicated that the Members have been consulted bystaff regarding this issue and they having been working extensivelytogether. In their opinion, the agriculture lands have to beprotected and cannot be a dumping ground for any type of businessin the Hamilton area. The Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committeesupports the draft plan.

= Cathy McMaster - 745 Woodhill Road, RR1, Troy

Cathy McMaster addressed Committee and expressed concernsover the rural zoning project as directed by the Province. Her landwas given to her family by the government of Upper Canada byCrown Grant transference of land issued in 1886. It gave her familythe right to farm and to use all woods and waters on the land. Therewere conditions associated with the Crown Grant transference, theowner had to build a sufficient dwelling on the land within 2 yearsand if the land is polluted the magistrate from Upper Canada shallnull and void the Crown Grant transference. Her property fallswithin the jurisdiction of the Greenbelt Plan and must be used foragricultural purposes only - she agrees with this because the areawill have to feed an increasing population in the future. The CrownGrant transference agreement from Upper Canada was in

Council -April 22, 2015



partnership with the City of Hamilton, and the City of Hamilton shallnot propose any development or sprawl on her lands.

A2 permits additional uses secondary to agriculture. She does notagree with Landscape Contracting Establishments being permittedas an accessory to Nurseries. Landscape contractingestablishments employ hundreds of people and the proposedregulations will allow landscape contracting establishments tomorph their business plans into nursery uses, which may push outor saturate the rural area with nurseries. A possible compromisemay be to allow contractors to continue the use of existing buildingsthat are not being used for farming.

M3 has not been included in the proposed rural zone project. TheM3 zone permitted a variety of uses in Flamborough related to foodproduction. The M3 zone should not be eliminated in the Ruralzoning as it is required.

If it were up to her, she would propose the following zones for theproject:Al-agricultureA2-rural agriculture and industrialM 12-remains extractive industrial

The Hamilton-Wentworth Federation of Agriculture, of which shewas a member, was consulted and they focussed on only twotopics: A1 and A2 zones, what you could do and what you couldn'tdo. A list of 15 items was created as a result and the PlanningDepartment and the Federation of Agriculture came to anagreement on 80% of the list of proposed changes.

= Gregg Wilson, representing LBM Trucking & Leasing andWaterdown Garden Supplies Limited, 1771 Hwy 5 W, Troy

Gregg Wilson submitted two documents created by the ResearchTeam of the Ontario Landowners Association - one is entitledOfficial Plans: What Municipal Councils need to know and theother is The Municipal Councillor's Guide: Making Ontario a BetterPlace to Grow Supplement to 2014, 2015 for the official record. Healso submitted a copy of his prepared statement for the publicrecord and it is hereto attached as Appendix A.

He indicated that he is in attendance for two reasons. The first is toregister the companies he works for in order to retain their right toappeal to the OMB. They have concerns with the impact the




proposed changes will have on the property values. As a privatecitizen he is concerned that the overstepping by the City will resultin costly litigation.

In his opinion, according to the Municipal Act, zoning cannot beapplied to private property. Existing businesses shouldn't need toconform. It is the owner's land.

All regulations involving agriculture can be overturned becauseagriculture is federally regulated to feed the population. By-lawscannot interfere with agricultural business or farming practice.Marihuana is agricultural and only federally regulated.

= Marty McCann, McCann Professional Dog Trainers - 929 BrockRoad, Flamborough

Marty McCann of McCann Professional Dog Trainers addressedCommittee and read from a prepared statement a copy of whichwas submitted for the official record and is hereto attached asAppendix B.

He indicated that he is the owner of a property and dog trainingbusiness at the above noted address. The property is 20 acres,next to Flamborough Speedway. The business is not a kennel asno dogs are kept overnight. The business provides family pettraining expertise and dog entertainment (i.e. fly ball). Thebusiness employs 16 people. The facility is 26,000 sq. ft., whichwas built in 1996. He began training dogs in 1975 at the Ancasterfairgrounds, and has been part of the local dog club. He out-grewhis rented space at the Ancaster Fairgrounds, consequently boughtthe current property because it was on a busy street, near alandmark the existing Flamborough Speedway.

He would like to expand the business into dog agility training forcompetition as it is becoming popular. The facility he would like tobuild in the future to facilitate dog agility training would require a30,000 sq. ft. building which Would not be permitted as a result ofthe proposed rural zoning project.




= Ed Fothergill,DevelopmentTrainers)

MCIP, RPP, President, Fothergill Planning &Inc. (Representing McCann Professional Dog

4(a) Correspondence fromand Development Inc.Dog Trainers.

Ed Fothergill, Fothergill Planningregarding McCann Professional

Ed Fothergill of Fothergill Planning & Development Inc. addressedCommittee and made the following comments with respect to hisclient Mr. Marty McCann:

= The property is already zoned commercial;o Current zoning permits 35% coverage and would allow him to

build 200,000 sq ft. on his property that already includes houseand facility. He would like to build another facility and it would bepermitted under current zoning;

• 5,000 sq feet is what he is restricted to with the proposed zoningand that would not fit with the desired business;

• The proposed zoning would allow the use but the size would berestricted;

o Could submit an application now to get current rights but notready right now and could apply and then keep renewing butagain this not ideal;

• Would like staff to consider increasing the size for this specificproperty;

• The reality is that the site increase might not be supported bystaff in the future once zoning is approved because theproposed expansion would be 6 times the size that would beallowed and would not be considered minor;

• Would like to retain the 30,000 sq ft allowed on property;o A business that is putting Hamilton on the map and bringing

world awareness and it is a world renowned operation;

Ed Fothergill also wanted to note his list of submissions which wereadded to the agenda as Item 3.1(xv) regarding the followingbusinesses:

1. Coverdale Trucking - 955 Regional Road 972. Barry Humphrey - 735 Mud Street3. Barry Humphrey - 540-62 Centennial Parkway4. Larry Bojeski- 1050 Highway 565. Transagro - 381 Highway 8, Dundas




6, Arend Kersten, Executive Director, Flamborough Chamber ofCommerce (FCC)

Arend Kersten, Executive Director of the Flamborough Chamber ofCommerce (FCC) read from a prepared statement copies of whichwere distributed. A copy has been retained for the public recordand is hereto attached as Appendix C.

The FCC has been very involved in this initiative hosting "planningsummits" in Flamborough.

Given Hamilton's financial challenges, the FCC is baffled at thisinitiative that can chase hundreds of businesses out of the ruralarea. Staff explained that the City must conform to the Provincialpolicy statements.

Although hundreds of businesses located in Flamborough,Ancaster and Glanbrook could be negatively impacted by therecommendations presented today, he will focus on two issues-landscapers and properties zoned industrial.

With respect to landscapers, staff have indicated that the Greenbeltlegislation is silent on landscapers and therefore they are notpermitted. The problem is that so much planning is based oninterpretation.

With respect to the properties zoned "industrial" the proposedchanges will significantly reduce the permitted uses.

It is time to stand up to Queen's Park. He suggests delay makingchanges and lobby the Province and approve the existing ruralbusinesses by grandfathering them.

= Eric Hagens - 17 Garwood avenue, Dundas (in Waterdownarea)

Eric Hagens addressed Committee and he read from a preparedstatement a copy of which he submitted for the public record and ishereto attached as Appendix D. His comments included but werenot limited to the following:

@

@

Owns 17 Garwood Avenue just west of Hwy 6;Currently zoned A4 within the Flamborough Zoning By-lawwhich is proposed to be zoned as A2 Rural;Objects to the proposed zoning change;




O

O

@

Purchased 17 Garwood as their retirement home and whenthey bought they visited the City of Hamilton building,planning, and public works departments to obtain informationprior to buying the property;Received positive information from staff with regard tosurrounding zoning and highway expansion and thereforebought the property;Misled from the City of Hamilton because he was invited to ameeting with the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO)about a highway expansion after they purchased theproperty.Discussed the information with Diana Morreale who blamedMTO;He wanted to sue but could not afford to;Did not receive the mailing which was confirmed by City staffmember Lynsie Wilkinson;Objects to front yard setback which has increased throughproposed zoning and will impact any additions that may becompleted on the property;Objects to minimum side yard setbacks because it hasincreased through the proposed zoning and would result inlimitation to addition to west and east side compared toexisting zoning and this would be more pronounced on hisproperty since it is pie shaped;Objects to major rec equipment shall not be stored in frontyard outside of May 1 - Oct 1 as this is more restrictive thanbefore and the regulations are confusing;Draft plan proposed 27 dwellings - 12 bought by MTO andthat would leave 15 dwellings left and more will likely betaken by the MTO which will eventually eradicate theresidential area;City of Hamilton is changing zoning of only 15 residents andis this needed? The results and effect of these changes arehard on homeowners in the area;People are not pawns and should not be used in politicalrealms;Proposed Highway 5/6 corridor change within this area - aroad to connect Garwood and the other road (Woodsworth)but the MTO have not indicated their plans for thisconnection so unsure of what is going on.




m Danya Scime, Mizener's Antiques & Flea Market, 367 Highway5 West, Dundas, Flamborough

7(a) Correspondence from Danya Scime

Danya Scime addressed Committee and referred to her letter whichis included in the agenda.

She indicated that 6,000 businesses will be affected by the ruralzoning project. Her property is zoned highway commercial and sheis only permitted to operate the existing flea market. She hasencountered difficulties in obtaining a licence for her restaurant andshe has been advised by the City that the existing apartments onher property are illegal. Records from the former Town ofFlamborough are missing which have caused her difficulties inconfirming what was previously permitted.

. Anthony Quinn, Mine & Mill Installations located at 524 6thConcession Road West, Millgrove

Anthony Quinn, Mine & Mill Installations addressed Committee andhis comments included but were not limited to the following:

O

®

®

0

®

0

®

O

@

Wants to retain their existing use which has been there since1978;They build water filtration systems (fabrication on theproperty of the water systems);Business is located in the woods on 80 acres;Payroll is $5 million and generates support for thecommunity;Staff is local - unionized staff;Business does $70 million in annual sales;Don't want to move business but would have to leave;Pays residential and commercial taxes;By-law enforcement previously visited and told them theyneeded to vacate because they are illegal and the use is notpermitted and it is non-negotiable;Files from the former Town of Flamborough are missing;Talks with staff, third parties, and Councillor Partridgeensued about how they can move forward and exist in theCity of Hamilton;Currently considered illegal because they were in operationsince 1978 and the existing bylaw was passed in 1964;




Have an application in (OPA/ZBLA) to recognize the use.

10. Relf Devaney and Paul Pascoe of Halton Structural SteelLimited, 437 Ofield Road South, Dundas

Relf Devaney and Paul Pascoe addressed Committee. Theysubmitted a copy of a letter addressed to Planning staff outliningtheir concerns together with a draft zoning map (Schedule A toZoning By-law 05-200). A copy of their letter is hereto attached asAppendix E.

Their comments included but were not limited to the following:

O

4.5 hectare parcel, purchased in 1989 with M3 industrialzoning, operating a legal structural steel plant;A traditional industrial use for the area and employs 15families, serves tax base;Proposed zoning is rural E2 zoning which is not appropriatezoning for the property or my neighbour's property;They request M3 which is more reflective of the existinguses;If changed will not maintain the existing value of the propertyor business;The valuation will be adversely impacted - E2 will be lessthan M3;Property values will be impacted greatly for business loans,expansions, and the existing business;Higher risk for loans through banks as it will not beconsidered industrial anymore;As such, money will be lost due to change in what'spermitted on the property as a result of the rural zoningproject proposed;Please consider leaving M3 zoning on the property, just likeM12 zoning;The urban border is within one or two properties of theOlfield businesses, a slight realignment of the border wouldput the whole zone in the urban area and M3 would be partof the City of Hamilton industrial zone.

11. Paven Bratch, 1405 Milborough Line, Waterdown, ON

Not in attendance.




12. Victor Veri, 971 Highway 6 North

Not in attendance for this session (see Item No. 30).

13. Catherine Beattie, 904 Old Dundas Road

Catherine Beattie read from a prepared statement and a copy wassubmitted for the public record. A copy is hereto attached asAppendix F.

Q

She referred to the her previously submitted detailedcomments included within appendix G2 of the staff reportand relate to the more expansive P zones that have beenincluded within the proposed zoning;The proposed draft by-law fails to restrict development in theRural Official Plan (OP) and the policies within it;The provisions are not defensible as a lower document thatimplements the OP;Clear language and provisions and not troubled with how it isinterpreted;Previous Official Plan that was proposed was progressiveand this draft is not;Needs to include more limitation on development ofconservation lands;No resistance to get Niagara Escarpment Commission(NEC) development permit application that would otherwisebe if they were within city jurisdiction / less protection withinthe NEC;Overall protection on conservation lands is grim and doesnot consider the future;Since amalgamation there has been a great loss of rurallands;If adopted the zoning by-law will increase the erosion ofconservation and rural lands because the regulations aretoo permissive;Alternative for consideration in report appears onealternative or no alternatives.

14. Lorne Haverty, 949 Slote Road, Copetown


In addition to the comments submitted by Gillianne Shaver of thesame address, Lorne Haverty addressed Committee and hiscomments included but were not limited to the following:




= He lives at 949 Slote Road, Copetown which is under theNiagara Escarpment Commission Regulated Area;

,, Has concerns with wording in P6 zone, which is proposed onhis property;

• He is worried about selling his property and the value for hisproperty;

,, Even though there are areas on his land that would conformwith all the proposed regulations, the uses are restricted;

,, Why hasn't the NEC been contacted by the City of Hamiltonfor their comments?

15. Georgina Beattie, 1375 Highway 8 in Winona

Georgina Beattie read from a brief prepared statement and a copywas submitted to the Committee Clerk for the official record and acopy is hereto attached as Appendix G.

She indicated that their family home and business located on 1375Highway 8 in Winona existed long before what is being proposedtoday. Their property is referenced in the staff Report AppendixG7, page 13 of 16 and Appendix F7, page 1 of 6.

She asked that if their property is removed from the Greenbelt, theyare seeking to have their lands recognized in a commercial zonewith the range of uses agreed to by City staff in June, 2010. If theirlands stay within the Greenbelt, they seek to retain the presentHighway Commercial zone designation agreed to by City staff inJune 2010.

16. Achim Klaas, Klaas Design Inc., 1285 Kirkwall Road, R.R. 1,Cambridge


Not in attendance.

17 Sam Shah, Soheil Flamborough Inc., 1129Flamborough

Highway 5 West,

Not in attendance.




18. Don Hardwick of HGH Granite Inc., 451 Ofield Road South,Dundas,

Dan Hardwick addressed Committee and advised that he movedhis business to the Ofield business park for the legal (M3) zoning.He operates a good solid business which provides jobs. Hethought he had a good investment. He objects to the proposedchange to the M3 zoning.

19. Dan Van Delden, Valleywood Landscaping Inc.

Dan Van Delden addressed Committee and read from a preparedstatement. He submitted a copy to the Committee Clerk for thepublic record. A copy is hereto attached as Appendix H. Hiscomments included but were not limited to the following:

O

O

@

0

0

Small landscaping one person business and sole providerfor family with 6 kidsImpact and implications to move landscaping businesses tobusiness parks;Based on cost this would be prohibitive for him;He would have to increase his rates by 25% to cover theoverhead costs;Implications are discouraging for small businessesIllegal use and cannot meet the proposed zoning financially2 trucks in building

20. Rosalyn Vanderboom, 933 Brock Rd

Rosalyn Vanderboon submitted a copy of her written commentsand a copy is hereto attached as Appendix I. Some of the issuesshe spoke to are as follows:

,, Family owns the subject property;,, Access to local viable services, spending time attending

public meetings, reviewing planning law and policy andimpact on its value;

,, Vibrant, economically sustainable agricultural community;,, A2 zoning neighbourhoods may include an abattoir (odour

and water contamination) agricultural processing plant(noise, dust, water table changes) or a kennel;

,, Lack of freedom for home businesses; why was it removedas a use in the rural area?




° She has an issue with her abutting neighbour'sproposal(McCann Professional Dog Trainers);

o Requirements for landscape contractors are part of the ruralcommunity;

• Any impacts can be addressed by site plan;° Reconsider restrictions on landscapers;• Why can't lands that are no longer farmable be used for

entrepreneurs and employers in the rural area?

21. lan Bristol, Bristol Sales

• Operates his business out of his home which has evolved overtime;

• The proposed changes are against small businesses• Be merciful to business owners.

Chair Partridge asked if there was anyone else wishing to addressCommittee before the break. No one came forward.

Committee recessed from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, Chair Partridgeadvised those in attendance that if a person or public body does not makeoral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to theCouncil of the City of Hamilton before Council makes a decision regardingthe proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rural Zoning By-law theperson or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Councilof the City of Hamilton to the Ontario Municipal Board and the person orpublic body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appealbefore the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board,there are reasonable grounds to do so.

Diana Yakhni, Planner, addressed Committee with the aid of a PowerPointpresentation. A copy has been uploaded onto the City's website andcopies were distributed.

She provided an overview of the report and responded to questions fromCommittee.




The staff presentation respecting Report PED13167(b) was received.

Registered Speakers

22. Don Marsh, Marsh Bros Tractor Inc. and County Ag Services,1379 Hwy 5 West, Peter's Corners, Dundas

Don Marsh read from a prepared statement and he submitted acopy to the Committee Clerk for the official record. A copy is heretoattached as Appendix J.

His comments included but were not limited to the following:

O

@

O

®

O

@

He is the president of the company for 38 years;Machinery business, ag and industrial equipment, fertilizersupplier on 14 acres/a fair size business;Currently M3-10 Industrial zone because of the fertilizer sale;has been told the City is doing this because have to come inconformity with the Greenbelt;had to rezone in the past and they want to keep the zoning;thinks that El/E2 zones are flawed since they essentially justallow commercial and industrial;there is no need to change the current zoning that allows theindustrial;financial ramifications if the rezoning goes through becausehis property value will go downunder the impression that he is allowed everything from M1through to M9 under the M10;He is asking to retain the zoning he has today.

23. Barry Zimmerman and Barry's Welding, 4th Concession Lots1403-1421, Troy

Barry Zimmerman submitted his written comments to theCommittee Clerk for the official record. A copy is hereto attachedas Appendix K.

o He's been in business 40 years on the subject propertywelding and fabricating

• his father was in the same business on the same premisesfor 30 years

Council - April 22, 2015



• he is zoned M3 and has a letter from the Town ofFlamborough as proof;

o he was always taxed as a commercial operation;o the back part of the farm is A agricultural and the front is M3

industrial;• the City is calling it A1 but he has proof that it is M3;, He wants to maintain the M3 zoning.

24. Greg Gowing, 339 Old Brock Road, Dundas ON

Greg Gowing addressed Committee with the aid of a PowerPointpresentation and he submitted a copy to the Committee Clerk forthe official record. A copy has been uploaded onto the City'swebsite.

• He has lived at 339 Old Brock Road for 10 years;• He is against shipping containers being permitted as

temporary structures on rural residential properties;• They are prohibited in other cities and towns and they are

permitted in Hamilton;o The rural zoning changes should spell out that shipping

containers should not be permitted on residential property.

25. Debbie Whaling, 3868 Hwy #6, Mount Hope/Airport MiniStorage

Withdrew her delegation request.

26. Andy Galer, Galer Farm Equipment Ltd, 557 Highway 5 West,Dundas

Andy Galer submitted his written comments to the Committee Clerkfor the official record. A copy is hereto attached as Appendix L.

He advised Committee that this is his official objection to theproposed amendments to the Rural Official Plan and zoning by-lawas it relates to his business Galer Farm Equipment Ltd. located at557 Highway 5 West.

His comments included but were not limited to the following:

O

O

Family run business at this location for over 65 yearsCurrently zoned Highway Commercial which permits a widerange of uses;




= The proposed zoning is E1 and would only allow anagricultural processing plant, agricultural storage, farmproduct supply and a kennel;

• This would strip them from future business opportunitieso Would restrict future potential buyers and value of their

property which is their retirement investment;o The immediate impact would be to the ability to carry

inventory and to borrow against it;o If the property valuation changes, it could impact the

immediate business;• He has had no discussion with planning staff previous to this

public meeting;o He does a lot of business with landscape contractors;• He asked that the proposed change in zoning be

reconsidered as he wishes to retain the current HighwayCommercial zoning.

27. Reverend Jason Small, Lead Pastor Community Church, 2716th Concession Road East Flamborough

5(a) Written Comments, November, 2014

Reverend Jason Small read from a prepared statement a copy ofwhich was submitted to the Committee Clerk for the official record.He also submitted a letter from Reverend Bill Thornton, Chair of theWaterdown Church Network. Copies are hereto attached asAppendix M.

He indicated that he is representing a few groups - the WaterdownChurch Network, The Superintendent of the PentecostalAssemblies of Canada, the Flamborough Chamber of Commerceand as pastor of Community Church.

He has come to challenge the by-law when it comes to places ofworship as it limits where they are permitted and the size isrestricted. Flamborough is a growing community and needs placesof worship which play a vital role.

It is impossible to build new churches where they are permitted.The parcels of lands are not big enough. There must be room toexpand.

He suggests that the City expands the permitted use of small scaleplaces of worship that serve the rural community to be a permitteduse in either:




,, The entire rural community,, Within a 5 km radius of the rural settlement areas• Allow places of worship as permitted use along major artery

roads such Highways 5, 6 or 8, Centre Road or ParksideDrive to name a few.

28. Tanya and Jim McCullough

Tanya and Jim McCullough came to the podium and TanyaMcCullough read from a prepared statement and a copy wasprovided to the Committee Clerk for the official record. A copy ishereto attached as Appendix N.

Her comments included but were not limited to the following:

®

O

O

O

O

@

o

0

0

G

@

Concerns over items not addressed in current draft;Permitting landscape contractors will result in a loss ofcommercial revenue for the City of Hamilton;Have had firsthand experience with "pseudo-farms" thathave used the guise of rural farming for rural businesses;Large well established contracting businesses are theprimary source of income and use of the land;They have been dealing with this over the last few years;This by-law has the potential to become a free-for-all to userural properties to be over-run with commercial enterpriseswith huge impacts on the residential hamlets;Secondary use was created under the premise thatagriculture was prime use on properties;The proposed by-law does not take into account theequipment or machinery being used and the scale of thatequipment;Major differences in product and business hours (dusk tilldawn, 7 days a week);Burning has been endured, noisy and foul smells;Landscape contractors should not be governed underagricultural regulations as they are not the sameprocesses/functions;The Landscape contractors will overtake the nursery use;These operations should not be permitted in the rural area;This will exacerbate the brownfields problem;Not all landscaping businesses are horticultural in nature;




Landscape contracting should be subject to site approvaland compliance inspections and enforceable by-laws withpermits being revoked for non-compliance.

29. Steve Hozjan, 4376 Hwy 56, Binbrook

Steve Hozjan addressed Committee and the following are some ofhis statements:

®

O

Many families living in the rural communities have lived therefor generationsConcern with the new P6, P7, and P8 and how it has be-enadded;It is arbitrary and they have not walked the lands;It applies to many properties and will have detrimental effecton properties;Concerned with marihuana growing facilities and breweriesbeing permitted in the A1 zone;Other municipalities, Toronto, Milton, etc only permit themarihuana in the industrial area and not in rural - why has itbeen allowed here?

30. Victor Veri, 971 Highway 6 North

Victor Veri indicated that he is speaking to preserve his right toappeal to the OMB. He is a farmer and is concerned with farmingissues but he has some friends in the industrial park who currentlyhave M3 zones. His position is that under the M3 zone, what theyhave is better than what the Planning Department is proposing.

He invited everyone to join with him in appealing to the OMB toshare the costs.

31. Phil Zylstra, Growing Gardens Inc., Flamborough

Phil Zylstra provided a copy of his written statement to the Clerk forthe official record. A copy is hereto attached as Appendix O.

His comments included:

He is the owner of a small landscape business;




O

O

e

Q

Would like the City to reconsider the restrictions placed onthe landscapers to ensure a vibrant, sustainable and diverserural agricultural community;Employs 6 full time employees and 4 summer students;Forcing them to operate nursery business or shut down;Classified as agricultural works under provincial/federal andwould like the City of Hamilton to consider landscapersunder the agriculture umbrella and permit landscapecompanies to operate in the rural area;He is not trained to grow plant material and his land is notsuited to grow plant material;Don't turn the rural community into an impoverished area.

32. Tony DiGiovanni, Executive Director, Landscape Ontario

Tony DiGiovanni addressed committee with the aid of a PowerPointpresentation and he submitted a copy to the Committee Clerk forthe official record. A copy has been uploaded onto the City'swebsite.

o There are 245 Landscape contractors in Hamilton;° Economic impact of the industry is 7 billion dollars;° 70,000 people are employed in the Province;, Majority of LCE operate in rural land;o Many live on the land where they operate their business;. If they weren't allowed in rural area/agricultural land the

economic impact to Ontario would be great;. They are not a good fit in industrial areas;o Landscape operations that cause problems for neighbouring

residents/properties should be dealt with through propertystandards, instead of not allowing them in the rural area;

- Agricultural lands are good for expansion;o Ask - it would be great if you allow the existing landscape

companies to be legal non-conforming;° The former Town of Flamborough had an amnesty program

and allowed 10.

33. Derek Conorton, Live Dream Dance, 12 Barton Street,Waterdown

Not in attendance.




34. Terence Fulton, 1824 Regional Road 97, Flamborough

Terence Fulton addressed Committee and his comments includedbut were not limited to the following:

O

®

Wish to continue auction and flea market on his property;Also have transport and feed business that has beenoperating since 1971 (2 trucks and feed is in Cambridge);Would like to operate in A2 zone with grandfathering thecurrent uses (Special exception).

Terrence Fulton submitted some letters and newspaper articles andother documentation regarding Fulton Auction.

35. Carmine Filice, Greentario, 15 Ditton Drive, Hamilton

Not in attendance.

36. John P. Kemp, 2219 Upper James

John Kemp and Liam Doherty came down to the podium and LiamDoherty spoke on behalf of John Kemp.

John Kemp's property is an 87 acre farm. He just found out aboutthe proposed rezoning. It is now zoned agriculture, why is itindicated as an environmental sensitive area on the map (P8, P7) -water features, wetlands, streams? This is farmland not woodland.Staff to revisit property and provide justification for these highlyrestrictive zones. John Kemp opposes this zoning.

The public meeting was closed.

All the delegations heard at today's meeting and all the submitted writtencomments were received and referred to staff to incorporate in their upcomingreport regarding Proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Draft RuralZoning By-law which is targeted for completion in June, 2015




Chair Partridge relinquished the Chair to Vice Chair B. Johnson to move thefollowing motion. (A revised version was approved at the April 8, 2015 Councilmeeting):

Re: To Permit and Recognize Rural Landscape ContractingEstablishments

That Staff be directed to:

(a) to amend the Rural Hamilton Official Plan, as required, and ZoningBy-law No. 05-200 to permit and recognize rural landscapecontracting establishments existing as of March 31 2015 located inWards 12, 14 and 15 provided the establishment informs the City ofthe address or property description of the business;

(b) For those rural landscape contracting establishments existing as ofMarch 31 2015 located in Wards 12, 14 and 15 that contact the Cityby no later than May 15, 2015 be included in the comprehensiveZoning By-law as special exceptions;

(c) For those rural landscape contracting establishments existing as ofMarch 31 2015 located in Wards 12, 14 and 15 that identify theirlands after May 15, 2015 and no later than August 30, 2015, aonetime separate by-law amending which will be prepared toincorporate these lands into the comprehensive Zoning By-law asspecial exceptions and presented to the October 6, 2015 PlanningCommittee;

(d) With respect to clause c), and in accordance with Section 34(17) ofthe Planning Act, no additional public meetings shall be required.

Chair Partridge assumed the Chair.

Councillor B. Johnson indicated that she wishes to be recorded as OPPOSED tothis motion.

Re: Review of Zones in which Abattoirs and Livestock Assembly Pointsare Proposed

Staff were directed to review the regulations and the zones in whichabattoirs and livestock assembly points (which include feedlots) areproposed to ensure impacts adjacent residential uses (such as alongDickenson Road) are mitigated and report back to the PlanningCommittee.



March 3t, 2015Page 25 of 25

(k) GENERAL INFORMATION AND OTHER BUSINESS (Item 4)

(i) Outstanding Business List Amendments (Item 4.1)

(a) The following Item was identified as completed and removed fromthe Outstanding Business List:

Item "N" - Amendment to Site Plan Control By-law No. 03-294, asAmended by By-law No. 08-298 (PED14014) (City Wide)The changes to the By-law and the revised By-lawdescribed/attached to the rural zoning by-law)

is

(m) ADJOURNMENT (Item 5)

There being no further business, the Planning Committee adjourned at 8:55p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Councillor J. PartridgeChair, Planning Committee

Ida BediouiLegislative Co-ordinatorOffice of the City Clerk


Appendix A to Planning Report 15-006

City of Hamilton6 kÿ,,Public HearingG,ÿt(,ÿ i intQ,Zoninÿ P,ÿ n ning iP ÿ-ÿ ÿ- changes. March 31, 2015

Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen:

My name is Gregg Wilson, and I am here for two reasons. The first is to register

the companies I work for with the City in order to retain their right of appeal to

the OMB. The companies are Waterdown Garden Supplies Ltd of Troy Ontario. An

email was sent to Ida Bedioui of the City of Hamilton with the address and phone

numbers of the business. WGS Ltd. has concerns about the impact of the Plan on

the property values of the inhabitants of the area. They also have concerns that

the Municipality is acting beyond its authority. The second reason is as a private

citizen of Hamilton I am concerned that such overstepping by the Municipalitycould result in costly litigation.

As many of the Planning Department Staff know I have been asking a lot of

questions for the past year about the limits of your authority over Private

Property. The Municipal Act States in Sections 10 and 11 Subsection 2 sub 4 that

a Municipality has the power to make bylaws respecting:

"4. Public assets of the municipality acquired for the purpose of exercising its

authority under this or any other Act" (Municipal Act, 2001)

A Public Asset means an asset that is a "municipal property asset" means an asset

of the municipality that is land, equipment or other goods. O. Reg. 599/06, s. 14

(2).

Nowhere in the Municipal Act does it state that these bylaws affect private

property.

Since the Municipality has the powers of a Natural Person under Section 9 of the

Municipal Act

9. A municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural

person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act.

2006, c 32, Sched. A, s. 8. (Municipal Act, 2001)

In addition there is the Planning Act that has Section 25 in it that has the ability ofa Municipality to acquire land to develop any feature of the Plan. This would

include having the land Zoned.

25. (1) If there is an official plan in effect in a municipality that includesprovisions relating to the acquisition of land, which provisions have come into

effect after the 28th day of June, 1974, the council may, in accordance with such

provisions, acquire and hold land within the municipality for the purpose of

developing any feature of the Official plan, and any land so acquired or held may

be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of when no longer required. R.S.O. 1990, c.

P.13, s. 25 (1); 1994, c. 23, s. 17; 1996, c. 4, s. 15.,Planning Act R.S.O. 1990,

Your Urban Tree Cutting Bylaw has the definition of "Owner" in its definitions.

This definition is:

"owner" means a person having any right, title, interest, or equity in land

including right, title, interest, or equity to the trees standing on the land;

The bylaw mentions 10.2.5, the economic, social and environmental interest of

the Municipality, but ignores the public assets section directly above it.

What Right Title and Interest does the City have in dealing with somethinganother person owns? Where and how did they gain a right title or interest? My

Employer had to pay to buy the property they own. That gives them the RightTitle and Interest to it. Where is there compensation to lose some of the rights

they have to the land as your bylaw would do.

This was settled 20 years ago in the 1994 case of Attorney General of Ontario Vs

Roundtree Beach Association. The private property was deemed to include the

beach, despite the wishes of the Municipality to claim the beaches were able to

be zoned as public beaches.

The decision stated "Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario has no right, title

or interest in and to the lands described.." (paragraph 123)

(http ://caselaw.canada.ÿlobe24h.com/O/O/ontario/superior-court-of-iustice/1994/O3/11/ontario-attorney-pÿeneral-v-rowntree-beach-assn-1994-7228-

on-sc.shtml)

Other examples of Court decisions include Georgian Bluff Township vs Moyer

2012, Saker Vs Middlesex Centre 2001. The Township had to pay fifty-thousand

dollars after they tried to enforce a bylaw on private property. In the Saker case it

was shown that a piece of Provincial Legislation, let alone a Municipal bylaw did

not apply to private property.

The Planning Staff have made their position quite clear to me over the past year.

They do not agree with what they refer to as my interpretation of the Municipal

Act, nor do they acknowledge the court cases previously mentioned. Under

Section 14.1 and 14.2 of the Municipal Act a bylaw (which could be a zoningbylaw), is withouteffect if: .ÿ. -

Conflict between by-law and statutes, etc.

14. (1) A by-law is without effect to the extent of any conflict with,

(a) a provincial or federal Act or a regulation made under such an Act; or

(b) an instrument of a legislative nature, including an order, licence or approval,

made or issued under a provincial or federal Act or regulation. 2001, c. 25, s. 14.

Same

(2) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), there is a conflict

between a by-law of a municipality and an Act, regulation or instrument described

in that subsection if the by-law frustrates the purpose of the Act, regulation or

instrument. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 10.

My question is: What Acts, regulations, and instruments, licenses, and approvals

does the Municipality recognize as having the authority and power to make a

bylaw to be without effect? Are there any Instruments that they do not recognize

and if so, why not?

The risk for the Municipality and the Councillors and Staff is quite high. There areover half a million laws in Ontario (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-

comment/randy-hillier-ontario-beinFÿ-stranfÿledby-too-many-laws/) and if your

bylaw interferes with any of them, it can be made without effect. A provincial Act

could override the bylaw, or a judge could quash it as being ultra vires, that is

beyond the powers of the municipality. That is from the Municipal Councillors

guide page 30.

I have handed a document entitled "The Municipal Councillor's Guide: Making

Ontario a Better Place to Grow Supplement to 20i4, 2015" into the public record.

This was done to satisfy the requirements of The Municipal Act Section 448.2.

There will be a speaker in the evening session. His family bought land in

Flamborough in 1875. They lived, farmed and ran a business on that land for the

last 140 years. Since the 1940's they have run a repair and fabrication shop on the

site. They had all the permits, even getting demolition and construction permits in

200ÿ. The city has no record of this. The Flamborough records are incomplete,

and I have spoken to several staff about missing and incomplete records.

Despite this, and despite having the 200ÿpermit showing, the City initially

notified him that he was Agricultural only. After arguing and showing his

information, they may give him Legal Non-conforming.

His family has used the land for 140 years, and run a business on it for 70, yet only

a few years after Amalgamation the City came out with their Plan for him. Why

should he, or anyone conform to the City's plan? The City has not paid for the

property, nor the improvements thereon, yet they come in with a plan, ignoring

everything he has done, and the resulting paperwork may end up preventing the

landowner from selling his business to another party. It could costs him hundreds

of thousands of dollars. Given the broadened definition of injurious affection

under the Antrim decision concerns me as a taxpayer. A business may well be

able to sue for damages if the decisions of the Municipality costs them money.

Please consider the information and court cases I have entered into the record

today. As a citizen of Hamilton I am concerned thatoverstepping its authority

could cost the City, and myself as a taxpayer a lot of money.

Thank you for your time and'attention.

4

Marti McCann. Co-owner. MPDT.

CORE BUSINESSAppendix B to Planning Report 15-006

- dog training school. We are NOT a kennel. We are People trainers.

-16 people on" our payroll + another 30 associate trainers work elsewhere full time-train 500 dogs and owners every week in classes-70,000 dogs trained-trained more family pets than anyone else in the world.-26,000+ sq.ft facility.-Jaakko. Goose bumps.

HOW WE STARTED-1975 my wife Deb and I Started training dogs competitively for obedience trials.Lot of early success. Other trainers wanted to learn from us.

-1982. Open Heart surgery at 28.- wouldn't have predicted where we are now.

1986:1996. Rockton-had been teaching in Dundas/London/Toronto. ;ÿ ÿ1,,ÿ2- l?-raised 3 children in one spot" ÿÿÿÿÿ,--,,,v

-1988. bought our 20 acre property for the location, i-swampy uncleared on bedrock. Landscaped. Like a Park

ENTERTAINMENTTSS. Calgary Stampede. PNE. Edmonton Klondike. Ontario Place. Royal Winter Fair.Wiggle Waggle Walkathon.

#

-1 991seminar. NBA AIIstar game. San Fran 49ers . iÿw

-1 992 World Series. Skydome.

-woofstock. d#--¢k ##4ÿiÿ/tÿf ÿ-ZyS/V_Yÿ c__ÿ ,_fÿ¢a_lÿ,ÿ--,ÿK ÿ

-Labour day. Halftime Tigercat/Argos. Eighties. Harold Ballard " ÿ-just hired PAN AMERICAN games at Harbourfront.

FUTU REÿAG! LITY- KAYLEY 3ÿ ÿ--o

-1 7x world champion. 30+ medals-50+ Seminars requests around the world.-Rome. Finland Germany. Hawaii. NY. NJ. SC.

-vvona ÿeam tryouts aas[ z years nos[ea.

-Rose Savkov. Westminster. Televised. Fox sport.

-snowboarding. OLYMPICS

Sent from my iPad

/

f'

\

Appendix C to Planning Report 15-006

FLAMBOROUGH CHAMBER OF COMMERCEPresentation to the Planning Committee re Rural Zoning Bylaw - March 31, 2015

My name is Arend Kersten and I am the Executive Director of the Flamborough Chamber ofCommerce (FCC). Thank you for the opportunity to address you, because to say today that theFCC is concerned about some aspects of the proposed Rural Zoning Bylaw would be theunderstatement of the year.

We want to begin my informing you that the FCC has been very pro-active on this file. We haveorganized and hosted two 'planning summits' in Flamborough to address the issue. I personallymoderated a meeting organized by Councillors Partridge and Pasuta convened to listen and learnand then share concerns. More recently, the FCC - along with representatives of LandscapeOntario - participated in a meeting here at City Hall with senior officials in the PlanningDepartment.

Almost immediately after yon were elected late last year, we sent an 'Open Letter' to each of youcongratulating you on your victory. In that letter, we argued the following:

- Hamilton is facing significant financial challenges, perhaps characterized best by an annual'infrastructure deficit' of tens of millions of dollars.

- The residential property tax base - responsible for some 87 percent of the total tax pie - is'maxed out.' As a matter of fact, many residential property owners have seen their property taxrevenues double since the creation of the 'new' City of Hamilton.

- A major component to addressing Hamilton's fiscal challenges is new industrial andcommercial economic development and the attendant property tax assessment and employmentopportunities that accompany such development.

Given the above, the FCC is 'baffled' (and that's the kindest word we could come up with) at aninitiative that has the potential to chase hundreds of businesses out of the rural areas of the 'new'Hamilton.

Our initial reaction was: 'WHY?' What was it that prompted this initiative ... and why now?

Staff have been quick to argue that this is a provincial requirement facing a mid-March deadline.It also points out that whatever the city eventually adopts must 'be consistent with' or 'conform to'provincial policy statements, including the Greenbelt legislation and the Niagara EscarpmentCommission.

There are hundreds and hundreds of businesses located in rural Flamborough,Ancaster andGlanbrook that could be negatively impacted by the recommendations before you today. Frankly,we haven't had the time to digest all the proposals and what it could mean for all existing - andpossible new - businesses. So, for the purposes of this presentation, I will focus on just two -landscapers and properties that are zoned 'industrial.'


There are almost 200 landscapers located in the 'new'Hamilton - most of them in ruralFlamborough. These landscapers are in the business of beautification. However, only a handful -as few as 10 or so - are zoned properly. The proposed Rural Zoning Bylaw has significantimplications for the remaining rural landscapers.

Will you force them to move ... or shut down?

Your Planning Department says its hands are tied. It argues the provincial regulations leave it nochoice when it comes to rural landscapers in the Greenbelt. It argues that since the Greenbeltlegislation is 'silent' on landscapers, such a use is prohibited.

We then asked the Planning Department to provide 'chapter and verse' how the Greenbeltlegislation prohibits rural landscapers. It instead provided a 2-page document justifying itsopinion, entitled - ironically - 'Landscape Contractors Greenbelt Interpretation.'

And that's precisely the point. 'Interpretation!'

So much of planning is all about interpretation. That's what keeps independent planningconsultants in business. Just what constitutes the requirement that planning documents must 'beconsistent with' or 'conform to' provincial policy statements? If the answer to that question wasclear in all incidences and in all circumstances, there would be no need for the Ontario MunicipalBoard (OMB).

Then there is the matter of rural properties that are zoned 'industrial.'

ff we are correct, the permitted uses will be significantly reduced. For instance, if a rural propertyis zoned industrial with numerous 'permitted' uses (up to two dozen in some cases) and iscurrently used as a farm implement dealership, the proposed legislation before you will severelyrestrict many currently-allowed uses. That - of course - will have a dramatic impact of the landvalue. And impact retirement and estate strategies.

Again, we ask the question: 'Why?'

So, where do we go from here? Let me use the following example to make a point.

I hope you will agree that one of the most challenging aspects of amalgamation was the issue ofarea rating. It was on the front pages of supercity irritants for over a decade and consumed muchof Council's time and energy.

The three chambers of commerce in the 'new' Hamilton - Flamborough, Hamilton and StoneyCreek - appointed a committee to address the issue. After nearly two years of deliberation, wecame to Council and presented a unanimous recommendation. And - without belabouring thedetails - the Council of the day - under the leadership particularly of Councillors Collins and


Powers - adopted the framework of our recommendations. And today - save for the recentresurrection of the area rating and public transit - you don't hear about area rating anymore.

Why is that?

Several things. As a joint 3-chamber committee, we were passionately committed to 'citybuilding.' We respected each other, spoke thoughtfully and listened carefully. Perhaps mostimportantly, we parked our narrow parochial interests at the door.

And the results - however imperfect - speak for themselves.

As you consider the recommendations before you today, please consider the principles of 'citybuilding' we used - and you embraced. And I plead with you to never forget that there is more tothe 'new' City of Hamilton than the old city of Hamilton.

As you know, technically local municipalities are the 'children' of the province. Well, sometimesthe adult children have to tell the parents that they are wrong.

Frankly, it defies understanding that the provincial government would want to close downhundreds of local businesses. Perhaps it is an unintended consequence. But the reality is that isexactly what is happening here. With the greatest of respect, I would suggest to yon that theprovince wants you to do its 'dirty work.'

Respectfully, it is time to 'stand up to the parents' in their cozy home at Queen's Park.

As 'The Voice of Business' in Flamborough, we would like to conclude by providing some

specific suggestions for your consideration:

- As must be obvious by now, our preferred recommendation is for you to stand up toQueen's Park and simply defeat the recommendations in front of you.

- Alternatively, we suggest that you defer making any decision and instruct staff to lobbythe province aggressively for changes as its undergoes its 10-year review of the Greenbelt

legislation.

- Or, move forward by approving existing rural businesses on a 'grandfathering' basis.

As you may know, the FCC publishes a newspaper - the Bottom Line - that is distributed to over15,000 Flamborough homes and businesses every month. In an article published in the Marchedition, we concluded this way:

FLAMBOROUGH CHAMBER OF COMMERCEPresentation to the Pianning Committee re Rural Zoning Bylaw - March 31, 2015

"For the most part, these are 'salt of the earth' folk," argues Flamborough Chamber of Commerce(FCC) Executive Director Arend Kersten. "They work hard, they pay their taxes, they providelocal employment opportunities, they are committed to their families and communities. And theyare not a drain on the city's social services or budgets.

"Why the city wants to drive these businesses out of Hamilton baffles me," Kersten added."Especially when there is such a dire need for new commercial and industrial tax assessment inHamilton to address the significant fiscal challenges the city is facing."

Thank you for your time and attention today. I am prepared to answer any questions you may[lave,ÿ

C!TY TARGETS ! 70+ RURAL J,__A_NDSCAPERS-Planning Department: Provincial Greenbelt dictates thatover 90 percent of ruraI landscapers are illegal

Tile -'new' Hamilton has ap- what will that mean for the other The Planning Department ar-proxhnately 180 land.ÿcaping busi- 170 landscaping businesses? gues thai It's hands are tied as localnesses - most of them located In Tile Plam}Jng Departrnent is zonioghyiawsmust'corfformwlth'rural Flamboreugh. But according developlnga 'Rural Zoning ByLaw' or 'be conslsteot xÿth' provincialto the city's Planning Depart- which - ff adopted - will confirm poficles and leÿsladon. Speclfleal-meat. only about I0 have the re- that dmse rural landscape bus|- 1ÿ staffclalms the Greenbelt ieavesquired 'site specific' zoning. ,50 neÿtÿ are not zoned properly, the city no choice,

Members of the Flamborough Chamber of Commerce {'FCLO hod the opporamSty lo meet with newly (m)deeted Mayor Fred F.lsenberger at themost reeeni Bushwssltoundtabte at the llarry Howell Arena, 1ÿ provided an oppartunRy to dlseuss a wide range of Issues n a eorofertable ÿetflng, ABOVE, LEFF; Ward 14 (WeÿtFlambotanghl Coanclllar Robert Pa,ÿu ta (left) and Mayor lÿsenborger (centre) listen as FCC P.,xccutlvo Director tries to make a pain t. ABOVE, RIGHT: FCC ExecutiveDirector Arend Kersten (left) welcomed Team Flamboro Downs. which Included ffrom lel't) llruee Barbour, Wendy Wasyinwleh and Jo.bn Stolte - to the meeting,

Proposed changes regarding property zoninÿ In rural Flamborough ÿ the !ocus at a recent mÿtln8 organized by Coun-cillors ludl Partridge (belowj spcaklngO of Ward 315 (East Fhmborough} and Robert Pasuta (belmv, left) of Ward 14 (WestFlambarough) at the tlarry He',vail Arena at ClappisoNs Corners, Flamborough Chamber of Commerce (FCC9 ExecutiveDltectar &end Kersten (boinw, rlgh0 modecaCed the discussion, General Manager Jason Thorno of Hamlltonÿ Planningand Econen'de Development Department (show, speulanÿ brought a/nng ÿulor members of Ms tÿam (above, seated at

t) to .provide an explanation of the pmpoÿd ehaages and ans'ÿr questions, Particularly disconcerting are theacts tee changes will have especially on landscapers and Ihe owners of'industrial' pmpoa-ties.ln rural Flamborough.

The Greenbelt legislation Iscurrently under review - and WardM (West ÿamhorough) CouneÿorRobert Pasuta has arrange31 anurgent meeting vdth Ancaster-Dtmdas-Hanÿoorough.WestdaleMPP Ted McMeekln, the Mlnl,ÿterof Municipal Affairs and HouÿlngIn Premier Kathleen ÿ'ÿ'nne:s LI-beral Cabinet.

The new proposals will beconsidered by the city's PlanningCommittee at two special sessionson Tuesday, Marcb 31. Those Im-pacted by (he proposals am ragedto not only attend but also to pres-ent their concerus, The F-CC tlasalready registered with the city toshare its thouÿlts.

Any decision made by thePlannIng ConLrnlttee (chaired byWard 15 - East Flamborough -Councillor Judl Partridge) muststÿbsequenfly be retffled by theentire Hamilton Council,

"For the most,part, these ,are'salt of the earth' folks,ÿ arguesFlamborough Chanther of Com-merce [FCC)Executive DirectorAmnd Kerstan, "They work hard,they pay their taxes, they pmvlda1oe23 employment opportunities,they are corrmlltted to (heir fami-lies and communities. And theyare not a draIn on (he eltyÿ sac/a/services or police budgets.

"Why the city wants to drivethese businesses out of Hamiltonbaffles me," Kersten added. "Es-pecially when there is such a dlreneed for new commeredal and In.dustrlal tax assessment In Hamil-ton to address the significant ilscalchallenges the city ÿ facing."

HAVEYOffR

SAYRural Zoning

Public MeetingHamilton City Hall

Tuesdayÿ March 31:2 p.m. - S p.m.

6p.m.-8p.m,

Pre-register to speaklda.Bedioui@hamilton, ca

Mayor Fred BJsenlmrger with "PennyDeathe - the newly elected Hamtiton.Wentworth District School Boardmtstee for East Flamboroulÿa at theBuslne*s l?oundtablg

for ::

Appendix D to Planning Report 15-006

,i

t City of Hamilton, Zoning Meeting, March 31. 2015

My name is Eric Hagens and together with my Wife we are the owners of 17 Garwood Avenue

Dundas,.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak against the proposed zoning change on our homefrom A4 Agriculture to A2 Rural.

By letter to the City of Hamilton I indicated those objections on March 12. 2015.

By way of background my Wife and I, following due diligence purchased 17 Garwood as ourretirement home in November of 2011. That due diligence included a personal visit to theCity of Hamilton, Zoning ,Planning and Building Permit Departments and City of HamiltonPublic Works Department.The purpose of that visit prior to buying 17 Garwood was to determine the present propertyzoning, whether any extensions to the property would be possible based on the buildingspresent location, zoning of adjacent land and proposed construction of the new HWY5/6clover leaf and associated construction.

The information I received from City of Hamilton Staff which appeared to be positive turnedout to be, at best erroneous and at worst, a pack of lies. Based on this positive informationwe purchased the property, subsequently to find out at an MTO information session in Juneof 2012 that the MTO proposal was totally different to what I had been led to believe by Cityof Hamilton Staff. I subsequently discussed this situation with Diana Morielle who basicallyshrugged her shoulders and threw the blame on to the MTO of course conveniently trying tomask the fact that the City of Hamilton is also an integral part of the proposed works. Myoption at that point was to pursue the case legally which was not possible financially. So inescence we were faced with a Fete- Accompli from which our only option then was to sell aproperty which had become severely devalued not only by the MTO but also by the actions ofCity of Hamilton Staff.

Fast forward to January of this year I was approached by a neighbour on Garwood askingwhat my feelings were regarding the proposed zoning change to residences in our areaincluding Woodsworth Avenue.I was surprised by this comment as we had not been informed about the change by the Cityof Hamilton as required by law.

During my subsequent discussion with City of Hamilton staff member Lynsie Wilkinson afterinsisting that the information had been sent to us she admitted that our name was not on alist sent to an independent third party who was responsible for forwarding information toresidents affected by the proposed zoning change. Rather strange that property tax invoicesand Utility bills always seem to arrive on a regular basis.

--2--

Information was sent to us on which my letter of objection on March 12 2015 is based. Theobjections are.

I will refer to my letter of March 12.1. Front yard setbacks.

2. Minimum side yard requirements.

3. Parking provisions.

Currently within the area defined by Draft Plan # 73 for our area dated November 14.2014there are, or should I say there were 27 residential dwellings, 12 of which have now beenbought by the MTO and 8 of those already demolished with a further 4 to follow. This willleave 15 properties only on HWY 6, Garwood Avenue and Woodsworth Avenue. It is alsolikely that at least another 3 or 4 properties located on Hwy 6 will suffer the same fate as theprevious 12 dwellings leaving only 11 or 12 dwellings still standing.

Although this may in part be supposition it is our opinion that the aim of both the MTO theCity of Hamilton is to wipe out the entire communities of Garwood and Woodsworth which inturn would delete the need for a link road between Garwood and Woodsworth as proposedby the latest MTO preferred options.

Even if this supposition is incorrect the fact still remains that the City of Hamilton is proposingto change a zoning which potentially affects only 15 residences. The effect of this zoningchange may for some of those residents may be nil but in our situation that is not the case,for the reasons outlinedWhilst the change in zoning may be just the stroke of a pen or a new plan to City of Hamiltonstaff the resultant effect of those changes is significant to ordinary people who havepurchased a home with hard earned money only to have their lives subjected to changethrough more restrictive zoning requirements, which in our opinion are totally unnecessary.

It is also recognized that variance options are ava!lable through an application process if thezoning change is approved but these options are both costly and time consuming and are anunnecessary drain on City staff resources.

Finally, we believe that it is time that the City of Hamilton should realize that ordinarycitizens people are not just pawns in a power or a number on a board and an ongoing sourceof increasing taxation.

I ask that you do not proceed with the proposed zoning change affecting the Garwood/Woodsworth areas.

Appendix E to Planning Report 15-006

Aldcrshof Structural( 1986 ) LIMITED

Heather Travis - Senior Planner

City of Hamilton

Planning and Economic Development Department

Development Planning, Heritage and Design71 Main St. W., Fifth floor,

Hamilton, Ontario L8P 4Y5905-546-2424 ext. 4168

437 Ofield Rd. S., R. R. # 2, Dundas, Ontario, L9H 5E2Paul Pascoe: (905) 572-0453, Fax: (905) 628-4428

[email protected]

March-31-15

Re: City of Hamilton Rural Zoning By-law No.05-200

The Hamilton Planning Committee:

Public meeting March 31,2015.

Halton Structural Steel Limited owns the property at 437 Ofield Road South, a 4.5 acre irregular shaped

parcel. The property was purchased in 1989 with the M3 - dry- industrial zoning in place. Currently operating

on the propeRy is a structural steel fabrication plant, operated by Aldershot Structural (1986) Limited, a

traditional industrial use. Aldershot Structural employs approximately 15 families and the majority are

residents and contributors to the City of Hamilton economy.

My neighbours in the area bounded by 419 Ofield Road South north to Highway 5 and then west to 588

Highway 5, also use their land for industrial purposes.( see map 95 for the boundaries )

I want to thank the staff for consideration throughout the public meetings and subsequent discussions. The

zoning has evolved a long way from the original proposed A2 zoning, to the creating of the E2 rural industrial

zoning.

The proposed Zoning for my property and the lands within the street boundaries described above is the Rural

(E2) Zone. This is an new industrial rural zoning that I do not feel is the appropriate zoning for my property

and my neighbours, given the historic non-farm related industrial use of the area and the small parcel sizes. I

would recommend that the zoning be maintained at the current designation - M3 industrial zone reflective of

the uses in the area.

One of the concerns that AIdershot has is the new zoning does not show the ability for future expansion of

legal uses inside the parameters of the M3 or new E2 zoning and the ability to maintain that current zoning

designation upon sale of the property and or business.

Another concern is the valuation of the properties with the new E2 zoning designation is going to have an

adverse impact on the value of the industrial lands in discussion. I do not think that the zoning change has

been fully considered on the future viability of the local businesses and property values.

The difference in property value based a property designated M3 changed to E2 is going greatly affect the

ability to maintain business loans and or mortgage in a value ratio to mortgage values. The banks and other

lending institutions will re value the properties and in turn will either call for more or different collateral,

interest rates increases due to higher risk of the loans. These businesses are generally of a small business

nature. They represent the back bone of the future of the various owners and families. The land and business

may be the only form of future retirement, legacies that have been toiled over for decades in the Hamilton

area.

Aldershot Structural would like tO have the staff and the council consider leaving the designation of M3 and

incorporate these areas into the unchanged zone as they have kept the extraction M12 zoning for some large

corporations directly abutting the Ofield businesses. Plus the Urban border as designated on Map 95 is within

one or two properties from the Ofield businesses. The re aligning very slightly this border would put the whole

zone in the urban area and M3 would be part of the City Hamilton industrial zoning.

The area of land relative to the city of Hamilton represents a very small amount of land. Considering the area

of Hamilton is approximately 1117 square kilometers and in a percentage basis the area of land to be left as

M3 without re designating the zoning as E2. The impact of the ratio of land uses and zoning would be much

less than 1/1000 of a percent of Hamilton's overall area.

In conclusion Aldershot Structural would encourage the staff and council to have the zoning remain as M3.

Please respect the work and investment all of the small businesses have risked to grow Hamilton one small

business at a time.

Thank for the time today.

Regards

Relf Devaney (905-577-2497) [email protected]/Paul Pascoe (905 572-0453) paul@aldershotstructural .ca

Aldershot Structural (1986) Limited

Appendix F to Planning Report15-006

March 31, 2015-03-31

Presentation to City of Hamilton Planning Committee re Zoning By-law

Introduction

My name is Catherine Beattie and I live at 904 Old Dundas Road.

My detailed comments on the draft before you appear on pages 14 to 21 of Appendix G2 -the

document entitled "Written Comments received since June 2014". They focus on the ÿ'more permissive" ,

provisions resulting from the division of what was the P zone in the preceding draft, into three distinct

zones: P6, P7, and P8.

Most of the people who submitted comments on the previous rural City-wide Zoning by-law, were

complaining that it would restrict the extent to which they could exploit their land, "develop" it in some

fashion to suit their personal objectives, as compared with the provisions of the old municipal by-laws

still in force. In response, City staff produced the draft before you and presented it to the public in

November of 2014.

In my view the draft before you is an unacceptable and retrograde step because it fails to restrict

development in the Rural Area as identified in the City's Official Plan and called for by that Plan.

Further, it has not been demonstrated in the presentations or Staff reports that the provisions of the

latest proposed by-law are defensible as a lower-level document that implements the OP. Nor does the

proposed by-law give citizens and those who are to implement and oversee the application of the by-

law the clear guidance that is essential to resolve disagreements concerning its application.

In fact the first draft of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan, released about a decade ago, provided

principles explicitly designed to ensure the City would have a distinctive rural area involving protected

conservation and agricultural land. It appeared to be a progressive document. Unfortunately in the past

decade protection of the rural land base from development has been weak; protection has been

seriously com promised within the City's boundaries. As a resident of the Dundas Valley, I have seen

first-hand acquiescence to requests for permission to develop conservation and agriculture land through

a variety of strategies. For example, C!ty staff and representatives on the Niagara Escarpment

Commission have offered no resistance to development permit applications submitted to the NEC which

would have been denied were the lands in question to fall within City planning jurisdiction.

The overall record on protection is grim. Although no specific figures have been presented, it is obvious

that since amalgamation there has been a significant loss of rural land to development. This is occurring

at a time when food security andthe preservation of farmland and wildlife habitat are recognized to be

matters of vital public interest. Yet you have before you a Zoning by-law that if adopted will accelerate

the erosion of vital natural resources.

If you do not resist pro-development pressure, the continuity, health, and viability of Hamilton's rural

land will be compromised into extinction. There will be no authentic rural area in the City of Hamilton.

Apparently another nail in its coffin may soon be driven home. Under "Executive Summary" on page 2

of the Staff Report submitted to you, it is said that the Rural Zones proposed "achieve a balance

between" the goals of "the pÿrotection of agricultural lands and natural features in Rural Hamilton" and

"flexibility and innovation in agricultural practice to accommodate the introduction of value-added uses

to support and enhance the agricultural community." If this was the objective of the draft, it must be

given a failing grade. The goal of protection is subservient to development goals that will not "enhance"

the agricultural community.

Finally, I would like to consider the "Alternatives for Consideration" offered to the Committee. (It is

said on page 2 they are on page 37, but in fact they are on page 38.) It appears there is either one

alternative or no alternatives. On the first interpretation, the option exits of retaining the by-laws of

the formerly autonomous municipalities. On the second interpretation this is not an option because the

Planning Act requires that within three years of the OP coming into effect, a municipality is required to

pass a comprehensive zoning by-law that brings it into conformity with the OP. In the case of Hamilton,

the relevant OP apparently came into effect in March of 2012. Since this is March 31, 2015, that could

mean you are required to adopt the by-law before you. But if it must be adopted, why are we now

discussing whether or not you should adopt it?

Appendix G to Planning Report 15-006

..................................... :4- ...... "L .....................................

,ix (Pÿ2ÿJ I "ÿ I6" "IL ')) -" " ........................................................................

" . ,.I/..I i>'" " Y / " ' <" " ¢

i .............................................................................................................................................................................................

[ .......................................................................................................................................................................

.y<ÿ_l_ÿ_:ÿ ........

___ÿÿ.ÿ__ ,_,ÿz-_ÿ ........... .,oÿ,.ÿ _sÿ..-_ÿ___,ÿ ...... .-,-ÿ_ÿ_, .........

Appendix H to Planning Report 15-006

• Small, i crew landscape operation in Jerseyville

• Sole provider for my wife and 6 kids via landscape operation

÷.

Understand in some capacity the factors and parameters under which the

planning committee have work to bring the zoning bylaw to what it is

e Wish to give a statement of the deduced implications with impact for your

consideration

• Primary implication and unstated purpose of the new zoning is to move

landscape operations into industrial and commercial zones

e With my preliminary investigation, the associated costs of doing so are

prohibitive. Catastrophic.

• I would have to increase my rates by 25% to sustain that new cost.

Unrealistic.

• That is working on the presumption that suitable space is even available

These implications are discouraging and/or unachievable for small

landscape business to achieve the protection of appropriate zoning.

Appendix I to Planning Report 15-006

Rural Zoning bylaw

My name is Rosalyn Vanderboom, and I speak as a rural resident. My family has lived at933 Brock Rd, in the Millgrove area, for the last 15 years. Deciding to purchase a ruralresidential property has presented some of the best opporÿnities for my family & themost significant Challenges in our lives. Rural living is not for the faint of heart.

Some of my family's biggest challenges have included: neighbouring land uses inproximity to our property; access to local viable services - including recreation, libraryservices, schools, and a church. Spending time attending the multiple public planningmeetings regarding this zoning bylaw becomes a necessary commitment, as One seeks tounderstand the potential future land uses surrounding our property & the impact on ourcommunity.

Reviewing planning law & local policy is neither engaging nor fun. As many residentsattest, it is draining & overwhelming to learn what your property can & cannot be usedfor, into the future, & the impact on its value (no matter what you originally paid &envisioned for the property). However, this is where I have a choice. I can choose toremain defeated or I can choose to engage, and speak about the community that I havefought for, & become passionate about. I sincerely hope that as residents, we cancollaborate with the city, to fight for a vibrant, economically sustainable, diverse ruralagricultural community. The whole city of Hamilton needs this. The rural area is thebiggest land mass in Hamilton, & must remain the best place to raise a child.

Living on A2 & next to A2 zoned land, I am fully aware, based on this proposed zoninglaw that my future neighbours may include: an abattoir, an agricultural processing plant,or a kennel. Living specifically in my area, I know that the extractive industry may comeas close as 90ft to my property line. Each of these businesses will impact my propertyuse, enjoyment & property value greatly. They are not all attractive neighbours.An abattoir has the potential to impact by odour & the risk of water contamination. Aprocessing plant will likely impact the water supply; involve trucking, and the challengesof an industrial like use. The extractive industry impacts include noise, dust, vibration, &changing the water table. Each presents its own significant challenges, next to aresidence. These are all permitted uses. When I consider the freedom these businesseswill have to operate, I am stunned by the lack of freedom provided to operate a homebased business, on A2 land. Please know, I work within the city of Hamilton, in ahospital, and am not representing any business interests. I speak as a home owner, on asmall rural lot, impacted by the uses that surround me. Today, my neighbour MartyMcCann will present on his need to be able to expand his kennel business & request anallowance to build a kennel, up to 30,000sq feet in size, which is 6x the proposed size inthis zoning law, and to reduce the setbacks to 50m from 60m. While McCanns have beengood neighbours, I ask that my concerns be noted. I do not believe the set backs need tobe reduced on a property size of 20 acres. These setbacks are designed to protectneighbouring residential uses. I also do not know why a building 6x the proposed sizeshould be facilitated. Without the assurance of a site plan, there may be a 100x300ftbuilding situated 150ft from my 100x200ft lot. While Marty & I have been good

neighbours, there are other future potential uses upon sale that need to be considered, andI would like to further discuss this proposal with the city &Marty & his planner.

.ÿ.

Today, I also want to speak specifically to the requirements for landscape contractors,and my concern that they will be removed from the rural landscape.Landscape contractors are part of the agricultural sector. They are legislated under theOntario labour law as agricultural employees. They work closely with our ruralaggregate industry, our local farmers who have topsoil businesses & our rural nurseries.They work with plants, soil & aggregate, sounds agricultural to me. Similar to someonewho has a company car, they bring their vehicles home. The only difference is, they needmore space. The majority of their work occurs offsite & has limited impact onneighbouring uses. In terms of nuisance factors, outside storage of equipment may be anissue, which can be regulated by site specific planning. In terms of being goodneighbours, guidelines can be established for hours of operation to minimize impact. Todate, our local landscapers have been an asset to our community. The Millgrove schoolplayground has been recognized internationally as a "green playground". Each year,local landscapers donate time, equipment & materials to enhance it. I state this, as not allrural residents associate landscape contractors as an inappropriate rural use or as anuisance neighbour. Similar to the city, property standards infractions can be rectifiedwith appropriate enforcement. Though landscapers have asked to be recognized as anappropriate agricultural use and have their zoning & taxes adjusted, this has been denied.The result of not recognizing the use is that many types of businesses operate illegallywithout regulation. Having personally experienced the limitations of enforcement, it isfar better to regulate an anticipated use than the cost & heartache of litigation. As a ruralresident, I ask you to re-consider the restrictions that have been placed on landscapers. Iam uncertain how it will benefit the city, to recognize landscapers only as a secondaryuse to a nursery, which will presumably result in farming taxes. I also question why acompany vehicle that looks like a car can come to a rural driveway, while a landscapercannot bring their vehicles home. How can a home office, not related to agriculture, beallowed to exist, when the same opportunities are not afforded to an agriculturally baseduse?

As I watch the transformation of the downtown core, through successful developmentsubsidy programs, I am thankful for its growth & vibrancy. Likewise, a vibrant viablerural community should be our shared goal. With the removal of home based businesses,not currently deemed agriculturally based, I question, who defines what is a necessaryhome based business for my community. Is it the person who can work from home? Is ita thriving online business, invisible, operating without restrictions & not related to therural agricultural community? Or is it truly a service that serves the agricultural & ruralcommunity? One would hope that a rural resident can continue to have their essentialneeds met within their community.

As I consider my children, needing work in their teen years, I hope that there will besome local businesses left that will employ them. We cannot travel into the city foreverything, and there are no local transportation systems available to support those who

do not drive. What employment will be available locally? What services are availablelocally? I am not asking for a walkable community. I am asking for sustainability.

Hamilton has identified that the growth of small local business is the key to our economicfuture. Historically, many Hamilton businesses started in the rural area and as they grew,moved to an appropriate industrial area. My home, built in 1975, was the starting placeof Cole transport. While provincial policy has changed & restricts many previousacceptable uses, our rural community is left with a legacy of pieces of land that do not fitcurrent policy. What is being done with pieces of land that are no longer farmable or aresmaller than 10 acres - are we allowing iÿ & their owners to languish? Why can't there bea broader view to use these lands in a productive way that strengthens the ruralcommunity. The rural community must support entrepreneurs with opportunities forsmall business growth, as key employers in the rural area.

One final question I have pondered - will the city be forced, by their own zoninglegislation, to move any current rural city works areas, their associated vehicles &equipment to industrial areas within the urban boundary? Has the city considered themultiple layers of cost to achieve this? This is what we are asking the landscapecontractors to do.

As a homeowner, I am aware of the need to balance protecting this agricultural land withopportunities to sustain its growth. I ask you to, before this zoning bylaw is passed & itsimpact felt for years to come, to re-consider why landscape contractors remain outside ofthe definition agricultural, and whether you are truly being equitable to all the residentsof this wonderful area.

Thank you.

Appendix J to Planning Report 15-006

Iron City Ag Leasing Inc.1379 Highway 5 West, RR#2Dundas, Ont.

L9H 5E2

March 31, 2015

Re: Zoning Changes

I am Donald Marsh, President of Marsh Bros. Tractor and County Ag Services at 1379Hwy 5 West in Dundas (Peter's Comers), a 14 acre enterprise. We are heavily involvedin the supply of farm supplies, blending and mixing of fertilizers, seed and agriculturalchemicals, along with our ag & industrial equipment business. This also encompassesrentals, service, sales and parts, along with accessory sales eg. lawn and garden, pressurewashers etc.

I maintain this whole process is flawed because nowhere in the Greenbelt Plan or theProvincial Policy Statement do I see where we are forced to change existing zonings tobe more restrictive. We have had an M3-10 zoning since 1986. This is necessary for thestyle of business we do and its' constantly changing parameters.

You can not back up our zoning because someone now thinks it needs to be curtailed. Wehave had an Industrial Zoning for over a quarter century and now for no real reason, it isto be reworded. NO! You can call apig a cow and it doesn't make it a cow.

We have had no issues in what business we conduct, with the neighbours or themunicipality till this started.

When there was amalgamation, it was said there would be no changes, only efficiencies.Now basically there will be two types of commercial or industrial properties, those in thedowntown and those in the rural area are stuck with this E2 label. Why? It is notnecessary.

We are located at the crossroads of Highway 8, 5 and 52, just north of the 403. We chosethis location for the access and visibility to the highways. We are not in the ruralbackwoods.

This E2 Zoning is far more restrictive than what we currently have and according to theProperty Appraiser, will substantially devalue the property resale value.

I have found it hard to get the city planners to agree to what I currently do and it's likethey are doing me a favour when I already have the zoning. Yet they get very restrictivein their terminology. I wonder what the future brings with this attitude going forward.They started out 5 years ago talking of calling our zoning agricultural. This is totallyridiculous and 3 or so rewrites later, it still hasn't become woi-thwhile.

This land has been leveled and yards were created for supporting large trucks andequipment. We are next door to 2 large international fIeight companies.

In conclusion if you maintain your process and proceed with the proposal, we willdefinitely hire a planner and go to the next step. I am not a radical, I just believe in fairtreatment for myself and my business of over 39 years.

Don MarshPresident

Appendix K to Planning Report 15-006

""4- .............................................................

.............. ÿ .... ÿ.fÿ-ÿ..ÿ-N,,ÿ,.ÿ, ..... ,s.__j....-._..ÿ ....... ÿ/ÿ .... .ÿ.ÿ.:.-....ÿ:ÿ ................

.-. ........ z. ........................................... " ............................................... = ........................ : .............. • ....................... . ............. 7 T:.. ;: ....

...... .ÿ:ÿ....ÿÿ..----ÿ.ÿ: ...-:Ts-.- rÿ_y..,- ....... .ÿ.ÿ..ÿ.... ÿ..._..ÿ.. ÿ4_. ................... ,.,. ..../,.ÿ ÿ: . ÿ-ÿ:_N-..TLÿ- o'7 ÿ.1.

.... d .ÿ.. .ÿÿ . .<:..ÿc,ÿ ÿ c ÿ

........... ............

..... ÿ:..... cuÿ..,,pÿ >4!'o T. ÿ>ÿ-X., YS.. . iLVc...L-. ÿ f= _._

-- . '. " .... 7 ...... :/".- _ "-. ...... i-";dÿoi,,'.ÿ. _sSfuÿ,ÿ.Oÿ ÿ . z.ÿ,ÿ ;ÿ . LN .. ÿ-4:-ÿ..'ÿ ÿ/.-_Z. .CO i- ...H-Aÿ..ÿ

.1. . ;..."/..Z.;A/;ÿ_£..ÿd il ÿ ....

.ÿÿ cuW__.pi.ÿ, c--,.o

December 20, 1988

aterÿown, OmtaÿoL0R ÿHO

Telÿ €4ÿ) 6eÿ-ÿsÿHÿ. (41sÿ ÿ4.oÿ.Tot, (416) 8ZS.217e2ÿ,nl:ÿ No. 3ÿsO

Our File 4!.58.26

jonnson, Ramsbottom and CastleBarristers and Sollcltors11 $ydenÿam StreetDUNDAS, OntarioLgH 5ÿI

Attention: David J. Ramsoottom

Bear Sir: "

Re: Zlmmerman p/f ZimmermanPart Lot 29, Concession 4141g-!421 4tÿ Concession Road West

,T.O,WA.ÿ,ofÿ,f I ÿa m b.or..o,.u_A n ........

Tnls wll] acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 30,IgBB concerning the above referenced property.

We are unable to find any work orders on file.

The property Is zoned :Aÿ (agricultural) and 'M-3' (generall.ndustrlal) per zoning By-law #72.22-B-Z for the former Townsnlpof Beverly as amenOed by #78.BB.B-Z.

Please De advised tnat this department has done its best toanswer your request accurately but the municipality does notwarrant or certlfy tnis response. It is suggested that theproperty owner nlmself also verifies this letters4 contents andconsult wltn nls soilcitor,

Our recelpt #0785 is attacnedj for your payment in the amount ofSZO,O0. Thank you.

Yours truly,

Peter J. VanderBeekChief Building OfficiaXPJV/wsencl,

Appendix L to Planning Report 15-006

Attn:

Ida Bedioui, Legislative Co-ordinator, City Clerks Office, 1st Floor 71 Main Street West,Hamilton, Ontario, L8P 4Y5 Phone: 905-546-2424 Ext. 4605 Email: [email protected]

This correspondence is to be considered my official objection to the amendment to the RuralHamilton official plan and Hamilton Zoning By-Law No. 05-200 as it relates to the propertywhere my business is located.

The aforementioned property is located at 557 Highway #5 West, in Dundas, Ontario where it ishome to Galer Farm Equipment Ltd. Our family has been operating a legitimate business in thissame location for over 65 years spanning 3 generations. We are currently zoned "HighwayCommercial" allowing us to operate as an agricultural Equipment sales, rental and servicefacility. This zoning also permitts the following uses:

• Accessory open storage

° Automobile sales and service

° Any permitted use in an Automotive Commercial Zone

o Convenience retail store

° Fruit/vegetable market

° Garden Centre

° Hotel

• Motel

• One Dwelling unit within a building containing a permitted use on the first floor

° Restaurant

° Retail establishment forantiques/crafts

While it would be my pleasure to extend our business to a fourth generation Galer and evenbeyond, there are no guarantees a fourth generation will be able to or interested in perusingthis. It has always been our intent - and right- to sell or change our business to suit one of theselisted permitted uses if the need arose for whatever the reason.

The proposed amendment for our property is "El" Existing Rural Commercial. The proposedpermitted uses would limit us to:

° Agricultural processing plant

e Agricultural storage

• Farm product Supply

• Kennel

Effectively what is being proposed strips us of many, many opportunities for future businessshould we be unable to continue to operate as a Farm equipment dealer. Even more troublingis the restriction of potential buyers of our property. The future potential value of our property -which is our retirement - would be reduced in exponential fashion as you restrict the market itcould be sold to.

I ask you to reconsider this portion of the amendment as it affects myself, my children andperhaps generations beyond. I ask that my zoning remain equal to what it is now - allowing usno less opportunity than we have an agreement with the city under our current zoning now.

Respectfully,

Andrew Galer

Galer Farm Equipment

905-628-0551

a,qaler@,qalerequipment.ca

Appendix M to Planning Report 15-006Rural Official Plan Regarding Places Of Worship

Community Church c/o Rev. Jason D. Small

March 30, 2015

Attention: City of Hamilton Planning Department,

I come to you representing a few groups here this evening. I come on behalf of the Waterdown Church

Network... An Association of the 25 churches from West Flamborough, second on behalf of The

Superintendent of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. I serve on the district executive giving

leadership to just over 500 churches here in Ontario. Third, as the president of the Flamborough

Chamber of Commerce where we want to see growth and expansion in Flamborough .... And most

importantly I come as pastor of Community Church.

We are church that was started not quite 10 years ago with a handful of people, but now has

grown to over 600 adherents. We currently do 4 week-end sessions to fit everyone in because we are

oversized for our building.

I acknowledge all the hard work that has gone into this official plan. I acknowledge many of the

strong points of this plan but want to challenge one area that we feel has been overlooked. I come to

challenge the bylaw as it pertains to places of worship.

Flamborough is a growing community with an expected increase of 17,000 new residents before

the end of this decade. Locally we have around 12 churches to service our residents. Some of these

churches are as small as 50 people, while others serve lO0's. Regardless of size, these local churches

play a vital role in the health of a community. As Flamborough grows, the church needs to grow to

meet the needs of this rapidly growing community.

According to the Canadian national average of church attendance, this will mean an increase of

approximately 200 people per church. The churches of Waterdown are not equipped to serve this

growth with our current facilities. Our rural settlement areas are also underserved by the local church.

Frelton, Carlisle, Rockton, and Lyndon are all examples of rural communities with no evangelical-style

church presence and a limited number of churches in general. You have permitted small scale place in

the rural settlement areas but these areas for the most part are historically developed and land size

would be undersized to meet the needs todays church. A new church today, built in the rural setting

would face setbacks, septic beds and wells would require a minimum of five acres.

Our church is growing and finding facilities in Flamborough has been a challenge. We have now

used 4 locations since we started. Our last location in the development of Clappison's Corners was

challenged and the city took us to the OMB after a committee of adjustment voted one hundred percent

in our favour. The city then withdrew less than one week before the hearing. The expense of this was

great for our community minded congregation. Our church has a good history of being a goodneighbor. At our current location at Flamborough Centre, all of our neighbours on every side have

started attending, and we have never once had a complaint or issue.

When I met with our City Counsellor I unfolded a map of West Flamborough and asked where we would

be permitted to go and the answer was; "nowhere" except if we purchased an existing church; which

defeats our purpose. When meeting with one of the city planners concerning a rural area we were

interested in, the response to me was, whatever property you go for we will fight you to the OMB but

llPage

Rural Official Plan Regarding Places Of WorshipCommunity Church c/o Rev. Jason D. Small

you will probably win at the end. He said churches do not pay municipal taxes and therefore you are

not a priority or wanted in prime locations. He said we would support you in the downtown corridor off

Barton where I quote "No One Wants to go"

Large scale developers are able to take risk and go to the OMB because they have the money to

tie up in capital projects and can risk if the decision does not go their way. We as a church which are

trying to steward donations from a congregation do not have that luxury.

Our church operates as lean as possible when it comes to facility so that we can maximize our

funds to care for our community. Over our short decade of operation we have given over one million

dollars to community support and charity .... Though building isn't our first priority we do still need

somewhere to meet that fits everyone in.

As you consider planning, I would like to consider another city, Scarborough who left places of

worship out of there planning over 20 years ago and understand decades later the challenges they arefacing as a result. MacLean's magazine recently wrote than when studying communities that faith and

worship played a key role in communities being healthy socially.

I would like then to suggest that you expand the permitted use of small scale places of worshipthat serves the rural community to be a permitted use in either:1) the entire rural community2) within a 5km radius of the rural settlement areas3) allow place of worship as a permitted use along major artery roads such as Hwy5,6, or 8, Centre Road,or Parkside Drive to name a few.

Zoning for places of worship on lands in the rural plan, and as well as in the Waterdown core ismore than a want, but a need of our growing community. Future generations of Flamborough residentswill be significantly affected if this issue is not addressed. Please consider how we can work towardsecuring appropriate future places of worship in Flamborough.

Respectfully Submitted

Rev. Jason D. Small

Community ChurchPO Box 290 Waterdown LOR2HO271 6th Concession Rd. East Millgrovewww.communitychurch.ca

[email protected]

2]Page

FLAMBOROUGHBAPTIST CHURCH

Love God Love Others. Serve the World

March 30, 2015

Attention: City of Hamilton Planning Department

The Waterdown Church Network would like to challenge the revised rural zoning by-law.

This new by-law restricts the ability for churches either to expand their current facilities orbuild new ones.

Flamborough is projected to grow by over 17,000 people in the next five years; hence, thisgrowing community requires churches to grow in order to meet the spiritual, emotional,relational needs of people.

According to an article in the March 26, 2015 Maclean's magazine--entitled "Religion isn'tdying. It may be rising from the grave"-- journalist Aaron Hutchins writes:

Turns out the decline of religion is not nearly as steep as we mightbelieve ... While it's true that ever more people {now 26 per cent of thepopulation) are inclined to reject religion, a solid segment--30 per cent ofCanadians--embraces religion. (Forty-four per cent of Canadians said theywere "somewhere in between.") And of the religiously inclined, more thanhalf attend a service at least once a month, while almost nine of 10 prayprivately on a regular basis.

Flamborough residents are community-minded people; they prefer to worship locally andcontribute to local charities.

We ask that places of worship that are located in the rural communities be permitted notonly to serve their immediate "zones" but the growing communities around them.

Respectfully,

Rev. Bill ThorntonChair of the Waterdown Church Network

41 Concession 5 E, Waterdown ON LOR 2H1 / (905) 689-8476 / Fax (905) 689-9421www.flambc.org

Appendix N to Planning Report 15-006

I am here to speak with you today about the Draft Rural Zoning Bylaw. My family andneighbours have attended numerous rural community open houses and meetings at city hall to

discuss our concerns with the new rural zoning bylaw. We understand that the current draft has

been amended; however there continues to be concerns that have not yet been addressed.

Specifically, we are concerned with how landscape contracting as a secondary use to agriculture

has been conceived in haste and will not only result in negative outcomes for rural residents of

Hamilton but will also result in loss of commercial revenue for the city of Hamilton. While we

realize that this proposed bylaw is still under review, we speak to you today from first-hand

experience as our rural residential community has witnessed an influx of pseudo farms popping

up over the last few years. These business owners have used the guise of'agriculatural farming'

to operate their commercial business in our quiet, country neighbourhoods. In some cases these

large, well-established landscape contracting businesses (which are meant to be secondary) are

actually the primary source of income and use of the land. My family and immediate neighbours

have personally dealt with this for the past few years and we plead with you today to take ourconcerns seriously and to realize that although this bylaw is being proposed in order to help

support the farming community, this also has the potential to become a free for all for

commercial businesses who now have the advantage of legally using rural properties to run their

businesses. We support self-sufficiency and sole-proprietorship, but when it negatively affects a

community that is an issue.

Foremost, we feel that the secondary use was created under the premise that agricultural farming

and landscape contracting is one and the same. Under this proposed bylaw, landscape

contracting will be governed by the same rules and regulations as agriculture. For instance, this

bylaw states that the 15m setback requirement for buildings and structures is in keeping with theregulations for agricultural use. Unfortunately, this bylaw does not take into account the type and

quantity of equipment required to run a landscape contracting business, nor does it take into

account the frequency at which this equipment is being used. We feel it's important to realize the

maj or differences between landscape contracting and agriculture. Aside from the obvious

machinery and equipment differences there are also major differences in product and service and

hours of operation. For the past few years, our community has had to deal with this type of

commercial business running from dusk till dawn, 7 days a week. We have had to endure

numerous trucks coming in and out of our neighbourhood picking up and dropping off

equipment, debris and bulk goods all day longl None of which are farming related. We have hadto smell the foul odour of burning commercial debris brought in from off-site jobs. We have to

endure summers where we can't even open our windows for fear of the noise waking our

children or of the foul smells entering our homes. To my knowledge, none of these concerns

have arisen with the legitimate farming operations that are found close by. Clearly, agricultur, al

farming and landscape maintenance and contracting are two very different operations and serve

very different purposes and should not be governed under the same regulations.

Furthermore, we ask you to question what's to stop other businesses from adding 'landscaping' to

their title and moving out to the country in order to take advantage of the much lower operating

costs and the minimal restrictions under the agricultural designation. As the bylaw states, one

would need 3 hectares of growing area that can be used for nursery and/or agricultural

production. This means that one could potentially only have a quarter hectare of horticulture and

the majority of the remaining 3 hectares as agricultural production. We ask you, how could this

minimal area possibly be a viable nursery that would allow landscape contracting as a secondary

use? In addition, these businesses would be free to run with no restrictions on noise, fumes or

dust or hours of operation and could potentially have an unlimited number of employees and

equipment entering and leaving the property throughout the day. Ultimately, this will result inhealth and safety concerns in that there will be more traffic, noise, unsightly veiws and foul

odours in our rural neighbourhoods. Over the years we have witnessed tranquil, residential rural

properties being turned into pseudo farms in an attempt to run large-scale commercial

businesses. Our family would never choose to live beside a commercial establishment. That's

why we made an educated move out to the country to be surrounded by conservation and

agricultural properties and to enjoy the peace and quiet of the land. Instead, we may now be

forced tollive beside commercial operations. Under this new bylaw, our property may potentially

be surrounded by 3 landscaping contracting businesses and 1 home industry. This secondary use

and all of its associated noise, pollution and health and safety concerns will not only have a

negative impact on our property values but will be a detriment to our quality of life as well.

Finally, the city must take into consideration how this secondary use will negatively affect thecity of Hamilton's commercial taxes. For instance, this secondary use would allow landscape

contracting businesses and other businesses to move from previously rented and/or owned

commericially taxed properties in the city into the country. By doing so, these businesses would

no longer be paying commercial property tax and would instead be able to take advantage of the

very low agricultural property taxes. With all the current brown space and vacant commercial

property throughout the city, it's likely that this proposed secondary use will only exacerbate thisproblem.

In closing, we are asking you to seriously reconsider landscape contracting as part of secondary

use to agriculture. We strongly feel that the negative ramifications associated with landscape

contracting as a secondary use far outweigh the positives for the rural community. We highly

doubt that this is in the spirit of the green belt act. In contrast, if landscape contracting is to bepermitted it should only be allowed on lots large enough to actually run a viable nursery and thatwill not impact surrounding properties. Especially in rural residential neighbourhoods where

dwellings may be abbudding smaller agricultural and conservation lots. In addition, the city ofHamilton should appreciate the fact that landscape contracting and agriculture are not the same

thing and as such, landscape contracting should have its own set of rules and regulations

including hours of operation, number of employees and controls for nuisances that come from

operating such a business. Moreover, the city of Hamilton needs to consider all the different

types of landscaping businesses and realize that not all landscaping contracting businesses are

horticultural in nature. Instead, many of these landscaping businesses involve lawn maintenance,

snow removal hardscaping and deck building; none of which are directly related to agriculture.

Finally, landscape contracting should be subject to site approval and compliance inspections and

enforcable bylaws that would result in permits being revoked if the bylaw is not upheld. Indoing so, this would allow the city to be able to better enforce this bylaw and to make certain thatthis secondary use actually remains secondary to the primary agricultural use of the land.

We appreciate your time and thank you for listening to our concerns.

Jim and Tanya McCullough

Appendix O to Planning Report 15-006

My name is Phil Zylstra and I speak as an owner of a small landscaping business in

Flamborough. I would like to take this time to urge the city to reconsider the

restrictions that have been placed on landscapers by zoning by-law #05-200. We

share a common goal, we want to collaborate with the city and have a vibrant

economically sustainable, diverse rural agricultural community. The whole city of

Hamilton needs this.

I have been involved in the horticultural industry for about 30 years, dating back to

working as a young teen. Back in 1994 I found myself unemployed and at that pointwas accepted into a program at the "Hamilton Technology Centre" whose mission is

and I quote "to serve as the catalyst[or continued economic growth, job creation and

revitalization. To have a positive impact on the City of Hamilton's economic

development by maximizing the success o[ emerging companies. Many graduating

businesses have become very successful and have contributed new jobs and facilitated

economic diversification and brought personal wealth to Hamilton and the

surrounding area" (finish quote). With their assistant, I started a small landscaping

company. 21 years later, we are a successful company which has chosen to remain

small. We employ 6 fulltime employees and approximately 4 summer student

employees. Over the 2i years we have been able to give employment to 15+ local

students who either walk or bike to work. We now find that the city is ÿeÿeitherforcing us to operate a nursery business, move to'location that wouldn't be suitable to

our business needs or forcing us to shut down.

Landscape contractors are part of the agricultural sector. We are legislated under the

Ontario Labour law as agriculture employees. WSIB, Ministry of Labour, Human

Resources and Skills Development and Statistics Canada have all classified our

business as agriculture. We are asking that the City of Hamilton also recognize that

landscaping falls under the agriculture umbrella and therefore permits landscape

contracting as principal use in zoning, not secondary. We're&city of many communities

with a broad mix of urban centres and sprawling farmland. Hamilton is a city of

innovators. Unfortunately one size does not fit every situation and what may work in

the urban area, may not work necessarily in the rural areas. We need to have space

for our equipment, we need a space to temporary get rid of our brush, store bulk and

excess material. We need to be close to our suppliers, the quarries, the sod farms, the

topsoil businesses, the nurseries, the tractor dealerships, they're all located in the

rural areas. We worked hand-in-hand, we're apart of the same industry.

We recognize at the same time we do need to be respectful of our neighbourhood.

We have 6 neighbouring houses directly across the road from our 4.9 acre business.

We have a built a positive relationship with each one. We've hired their children, our

shop is set back from road and also has large evergreens blocking their view of our

business. We regularly have bins come in to take away our compost and recycling.

Majority of our work occurs offsite and has limited impact on our neighbours. We live

on this property too, we raise our children here. We maintain high standards when it

comes to our property to ensure we are not impacted by odour, or risk contaminating

our water. These are basic stewardship standards that should be adhered to by all

property owners.

Our business, along with many other landscapers in the area, have been active in our

community for many years, from sponsoring local sports teams, local missions,

charities, to volunteering labour and material to work with the students at the local

public school.

Having all the landscapers in Hamilton primarily run a nursery business would

negatively impact the current nursery industry. I am not trained in growing plant

material, nor is my property suitableÿlÿ for growing, nor do I have a desire to take

business from my industry partners. It would also negatively impact our immediate

neighbourhood by increasing traffic on the road, dust coming off the fields and could

potential effect the water supply. It would turn us into a nuisance neighbour.

Reconsider this by-law before successful business' that are a beneficial part of our

community are forced to move to a more business friendly environment in

neighbouring jurisdiction and take along their tax dollars and jobs that they provide.

Don't risk turning the rural community into an economically impoverished area

needing support. Hamilton's economic development must allow and support

entrepreneurs with opportunities for business growth as key employers in the rural

area. Consider amending the by-law to make it appropriate for the horticulture

industry by making guidelines for items such as things like lot size, setbacks,

outbuildings, hours of operation etc. to minimize impact. Make the companies

responsible for being good, responsible stewards of their properties which will ensure

a vibrant rural community which should be our shared goal.

Thankyou.

Documents

SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE - Hamilton, Ontario...Special Planning Committee Report 15-006 March 31, 2015 Page 6 of 25 partnership with the City of Hamilton, and the City of Hamilton