APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OF INPUT RECEIVED AND RESPONSES PROVIDED

& CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX C ARVIN AVENUE EXTENSION

SUMMARY OF INPUT REEIVED AND RESPONSE PROVIDED

CONTACT INFORMATION

ISSUE/CONCERN

ACTION TAKEN/RESPONSE PROVIDED

Council George Montour, Chair Six Nations Lands and Resources Committee Six Nations of the Grand River

Letter response (February 6, 2007) – Six Nation’s rights and interests in relation to lands six miles either side of the Grand River was also confirmed by way of treaty, through Haldimand Proclamation

Six Nations remains concerned about the overall pace and scope of development within the Grand River Tract and region

The cumulative effect of this development has and is increasingly infringing our Treaty rights and impacting our claims and interests

We are concerned about any archaeological sites in the subject lands and surrounding area given its proximity to the harbour. We request further information on the potential impacts from the project on archaeological and heritage values

Please keep us informed of any new developments on the project

Please contact Jo-Anne Green for further information

Notified of study commencement January 31, 2007 Notified of PIC (April 11, 2007)

Miranda Lesperance Environment Officer Environment Unit INAC – Ontario Region 25 St. Clair Avenue E. 8th Floor Toronto, ON M4T 1M2

Letter response (February 15, 2007) – INAC requests that the proponent of such projects make efforts directly from the initiation of a project to identify and notify all potentially interested First Nation communities. It is recommended that this identification and notification occur at the earliest planning stages of the undertaking and if requested by any First Nations, maintain communication with such communities

Notified of study commencement January 31, 2007 Notified of PIC (April 11, 2007)

APPENDIX C ARVIN AVENUE EXTENSION

SUMMARY OF INPUT REEIVED AND RESPONSE PROVIDED

CONTACT INFORMATION

ISSUE/CONCERN

ACTION TAKEN/RESPONSE PROVIDED

Barbara Ryter Environmental Assessment and Planning Coordinator Air, Pesticides & Environmental Planning Ministry of the Environment 119 King street West, 12th Floor Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y7 905-521-7864 Barbara.ryter@ontario.ca

Comments received (April 20, 2007) – though the MOE will not be attending the PIC, one copy of the Notice of Completion with the complete ESR is requested for review, filing and potential comments as well as any information that is available in the interim

Notified of study commencement January 31, 2007 Notified of PIC (April 11, 2007)

John F. MacTaggart, P.Eng Senior Engineering Services Officer Canadian National Railway 1 Administration Road P.O. Box 1000 Concord, ON L4K 1B9

Correspondence (January 30, 2007) - CNR interested in potential impact that increased traffic may have on the existing at-grade railway crossings on Lewis Road, McNeilly Road, Glover Road and Jones Road

Please keep us informed during the EA process and advised if there will be any potential impacts to the CN railway crossings within the study area

If any at-grade crossings are to be widened, it may take up to 18 months or longer from the date the Purchase Order is received to complete the Automatic Warning Device modifications

Notified of study commencement January 31, 2007 Notified of PIC (April 11, 2007)

ACT Office McMaster University ACT@mcmaster.ca

Email response (February 12, 2007) - The ACT Office (All modes Commuting & Transportation) exists to inspire all at McMaster to bike, hike take transit and share the ride to campus. Our mandate is to reduce the demand for parking at McMaster and in surrounding neighbourhoods through increased awareness of alternatives and enhanced services and infrastructure

We would like to know the plans to extend HSR service to this neighbourhood

Notified of study commencement January 31, 2007. Hamilton PM responded (February 12, 2007) that

comments will be forwarded to HSR office and will become part of study. Once clarification has been received on this study; a more informed response will be provided

Notified of PIC (April 11, 2007)

APPENDIX C ARVIN AVENUE EXTENSION

SUMMARY OF INPUT REEIVED AND RESPONSE PROVIDED

CONTACT INFORMATION

ISSUE/CONCERN

ACTION TAKEN/RESPONSE PROVIDED

General Manager Environment and Cultural Heritage Ontario Realty Corporation 416-327-3937

Letter response (January 22, 2007) - Our preliminary review of your notice indicates that ORC managed lands are present in your study area. Your proposal may have the potential to impact lands and/or the activities of tenants present on ORC managed lands

Notified of study commencement January 31, 2007 Notified of PIC (April 11, 2007)

Engineering Design Supervisor Horizon Utilities Corporation 55 John Street North Hamilton, ON 905-522-6611

Relation, modification or removal of any existing hydro facilities shall be at owner’s expense. Contact Horizon Utilities to facilitate this.

HUC must be contacted if the removal, isolation or relocation of existing plants is required, all cost associated will be at owners expense

Clearances from Overhead and Unde3ground existing electrical distribution system must be maintained

Notified of study commencement January 31, 2007 Notified of PIC (April 11, 2007)

Senior Transportation Engineer BA Consulting Group Ltd. 45 St. Clair Avenue West, Suite 300 Toronto, ON M1V 1K9

Comments received (May 25, 2007) - Issues related to the extension of Arvin Avenue through Giffels Lands (northeast corner of Barton Street and Arvin Avenue). Our understanding that constructing Arvin Avenue is to:

1) facilitate efficient development of employment lands between Barton Street and rail line by providing public street access and splitting block into sized development parcels; and

2) offload traffic associated with development of employment lands from residential areas along Barton Street

No purpose to construct Arvin Avenue Arvin Avenue should be shifted south 45 m towards

the north limit of the first phase of the Giffels development without compromising the above principals (i.e. provide access to employment lands and offload traffic from Barton Street) without creating operational issue on Lewis Road

Attended PIC (May 3, 2007) Letter response (June 14, 2007) – Traffic is only one

of the factors that must be considered when evaluating the Arvin Avenue extension through a particular block within the study area. Other factors must be considered, for example providing service to the industrial lands so that right-of-ways can become utility corridors. We are currently in the process of evaluating the alignment alternatives and will evaluate your input to have the proposed Arvin Avenue alignment located further to the south

APPENDIX C ARVIN AVENUE EXTENSION

SUMMARY OF INPUT REEIVED AND RESPONSE PROVIDED

CONTACT INFORMATION

ISSUE/CONCERN

ACTION TAKEN/RESPONSE PROVIDED

Director, Development Giffels Management Limited 30 International Blvd. Toronto, ON M9W 5P3

Comments received (May 14, 2007) – plan to develop the property at the northeast corner of Barton Street and Lewis Road for industrial use. Arvin Avenue is planned to extend through our property and will prevent us from developing the site as intended. Our anticipated timeline to build is to begin construction on the second building in 2008 and the third building in 2009. Should Arvin Avenue be extended through our property, it will preclude us from developing one of our buildings, planned for the central area of the site. The extension of Arvin Avenue through these lands will reduce City’s tax base, reduce the number of available jobs as well as reduce industrial footprint in the city by 15, 000 square metres

Site and surrounding industrial areas would be better utilized if Arvin Avenue were to terminate at Lewis Road

Letter response (June 14, 2007) – Traffic is only one of the factors that must be considered when evaluating the Arvin Avenue extension through a particular block within the study area. Other factors must be considered, for example providing service to the industrial lands so that the right-of-ways can become utility corridors. We are currently in the process of evaluating the alignment alternatives and will consider your input as we progress through the EA process

APPENDIX C ARVIN AVENUE EXTENSION

SUMMARY OF INPUT REEIVED AND RESPONSE PROVIDED

CONTACT INFORMATION

ISSUE/CONCERN

ACTION TAKEN/RESPONSE PROVIDED

Lafarge Canada Inc. 7880 Keele Street Concord, ON L4K 4G7 905-738-7732

Correspondence (June 26, 2007) – Lafarge operates an existing slag processing plant, the Stoney Creek Slag Plant, within the Arvin Avenue Extension Environmental Assessment Study Area. The plant is located at 360 Jones Road, where Arvin Avenue currently terminates at Jones Road. We have concerns with this proposed project, specifically Option 1 that will extend Arvin Avenue west from the existing terminus to align with the existing Arvin Avenue west of Jones Road. This extension would require the expropriation of Lafarge owned lands and significantly reduce its land holdings. The impacted area is used as a staging area for transport trucks to load and unload materials associated with the processing activities at the site. The loss of this land would create a significant negative impact on our operations at this site

Letter response (July 6, 2007) – At the current phase of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process, alternative alignments are still being considered. We understand that a road traveling through the Lafarge lands would not be ideal as a result of the land expropriation and the costs associated with such expropriation. At the next Public Information Centre, scheduled for late summer 2007, the preferred alignment alternative will be presented, which will have been evaluated based on cost

Armstrong Hunter and Associates

Correspondence (September 20, 2007) – We are the planning consultants representing Losani Homes, who have submitted applications to amend the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Official Plan, the City of Stoney Creek Official Plan, the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law and for the approval of a draft plan of subdivision in order to permit residential development on lands located at the easterly end of the study area for the above noted Class EA. Please note that Losani Homes has appealed these applications to the OMB. The following comments are based upon whether our lands are developed for residential, industrial or mixed use. We have had the opportunity tot review the alternatives presented and note that we do not support alternatives 6, 7 or 8 on the following

Response letter (October 2007) - Your comments regarding our three proposed alternatives have been noted

In regards to your comments on Option 6; the exact location of where this alignment is to intersect with Barton Street has not yet been determined. At this point, we are stating only that it will intersect with Barton Street at some location along Barton. We have assumed that the best location would be to intersect Barton Street inline with Tuscany Drive to eliminate the need of an additional intersection along Barton Street. The location of where Arvin Avenue is to intersect with Barton Street will be assessed at a later date. At this point, the alternative is only to show that the option is to

APPENDIX C ARVIN AVENUE EXTENSION

SUMMARY OF INPUT REEIVED AND RESPONSE PROVIDED

CONTACT INFORMATION

ISSUE/CONCERN

ACTION TAKEN/RESPONSE PROVIDED

basis: o Option 6: the proposed intersection with

Tuscany Drive to the south is inappropriate as it aligns with a local residential street which should not be impacted with Industrial traffic. Further, this option would place Arvin Avenue extension in very close proximity to an existing Bell Canada building

o Option 7: this option proposes to outlet onto West Avenue - a local residential street which may not be built to full urban standards. The removal of existing single detached dwellings is required to implement this option which drives the cost of this option up as the City would be required to purchase and remove the dwellings. West Avenue is also not built to industrial standards which again would increase costs of the road extension. Industrial traffic would be introduced into the residential area which could create issues with existing residents

o Option 8: concern is similar to that of option 7 as Petit Drive is a local street not built to industrial standard, and this option would also introduce industrial traffic into the residential area which could create issues with the existing residents

The three options noted above, all have detrimental impacts on the existing residential area as they would introduce industrial traffic into existing residential neighbourhoods and onto residential roads which may not be able to accommodate industrial usage. We do

intersect with Barton Street. Also, we do not expect that each segment of Arvin

Avenue will be considered or implemented at the same time throughout the study area, rather each segment will be considered individually (ie. Options 6, 7 or 8)

We will add your name to the project mailing list and notify you of the next Public Information Centre (PIC) scheduled for late October 2007

APPENDIX C ARVIN AVENUE EXTENSION

SUMMARY OF INPUT REEIVED AND RESPONSE PROVIDED

CONTACT INFORMATION

ISSUE/CONCERN

ACTION TAKEN/RESPONSE PROVIDED

not believe that these options would satisfy the social-economic environmental criteria of the EA process.

In review the Long List of Alternatives we have noted that the current City of Stoney Creek Official Plan location for Arvin Avenue terminating at Barton Street approximately halfway between Lewis Road and West Avenue) has not been included as an option. We would suggest that this be included as an option as it has been a designated location in the City of Stoney Creek OP since the Plan’s adoption in 1986. The proposed location for the 26 metre right-of-way connection to Barton Street would be located on the west-side of 1215 Barton Street. This location provides adequate spacing between Lewis Road and West Avenue and can be aligned with a future Collector/Arterial road to the south through the Secondary Planning process for the SCUBE lands. We would request that you consider adding this option to the list of alternatives and further request that we be added to the notification list for this Class EA.

General Public

Comment sheet received (May 23, 2007) – satisfied with range of alternatives & satisfied with evaluation criteria and the method of evaluation

Responded (June 11, 2007) – your support for the Arvin Avenue Extension has been noted and is appreciated

We have added your name to the project mailing list and you will be notified of the next PIC through direct correspondence

APPENDIX C ARVIN AVENUE EXTENSION

SUMMARY OF INPUT REEIVED AND RESPONSE PROVIDED

CONTACT INFORMATION

ISSUE/CONCERN

ACTION TAKEN/RESPONSE PROVIDED

General Public Correspondence (May 2, 2007) – I am the owner of a property located along Barton Street. My concerns with the extension of Arvin eastward are that it would run along the rear of my property and I am not sure what repercussions this would have on me. The property has been in the family for the last 45 years being designated as agricultural and will continue to be used in this regard. The extension would not be of any benefit other than a developer in the area. I am not against change, but am concerned about the impact of the road on the existing local residents. What is the cost of the extension? Is there a cost to the local residents? Who pays for this? Surely the municipality would like to recover some of the construction costs by issuing a special levy to the affected properties; if this is the case, I would suggest that the levy be deferred and implemented at the time the property is being developed. The local existing industries and future developers would have the major benefit of the extension, not the present property owners. Please add me to the mailing list

Responded (June 11, 2007) - In the current phase of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process, costs have not been determined so far. As we move ahead in the EA process, including evaluating alignment alternatives, costs will be incorporated and will be presented in the next Public Information Centre, scheduled for late summer 2007

CORRESPONDENCE