Friends  of  the  Cawthra  Bush


Greater  Mississauga  Area

• Home Page • Table of Contents • News Flashes • Chronology •

YouTube  site
where my videos are posted

Pages  of  Special  Interest;

• Defense Fund for Donald Barber •

• Flowers with Wings are Butterflies • Photo Gallery • Sound Chip Gallery •

• End of Suburbia & Continuous Communities as the Solution - JOBS for LIFE • The Culham Brief •

Other  Table  of  Contents;
• Events • Animals & their Welfare Issues in Mississauga •
• Biological Issues - Academic Letters - Documentation Table of Contents •
• Geological & Hydrological Issues • Historical & Heritage aspects of the Cawthra Bush and Estate •
• News Letters & Literature • Air Pollution in Mississauga • Political Methods & Issues •
• Ratepayers Groups in Mississauga • Persons of Interest & Political Players •
• Media - News Articles & Letters to • Freedom of Information Results & Issues •

E-mailed copy.  If there are errors, please e-mail me with corrections:

Opening comments:  More at the end.

Revised City minutes  - Do not recall the last time I have seen minutes labelled "Revised".  Given what was said at this meeting I can understand why City politicians would have wanted the first draft changed.  On the City's web-site, at the time of the writing of this web-page, the minutes for this meeting are not listed.  The minutes for the Planning & Development Committee meetings before this one and after this one are listed - interesting.

Government rule of thumb - control the meeting by controlling the writing of the minutes & what is in them. Councillor Corbasson has even gone back and changed City minutes to include an event that did not even take place!

It was at this meeting that the Mayor, Hazel McCallion, said that the City's environmental committee had all resigned because of me!  Right here, but of course it is not noted in City minutes.  It was right after I noted that the City's Urban Forestry Management Advisory Committee (UFMAC) had appeared to disappear.  There are many good reasons for saying that.  More at end.

Our item is put right at the end of the agenda, item # 7, where things often go that the City does not wish people to address.  If the meeting goes late, people often give up and leave before speaking.  Add to that, the meeting is at City Hall, far from the community it affects and the City can usually count on a low turn out but not this time.

Paul Szabo M.P., for Mississauga South spoke at start of this meeting and requested another meeting due to the lateness of the notice to Mississauga homeowners.  The Mayor was quick to agree to his request.  Given the way the City treated us, it is not likely we would have got the Feb. 4th, meeting, right in our community, if any of us had asked for it.

14 people from the community spoke.  An excellent turn out.  None supported the plans and most out right opposed the plans, even if City created minutes did not reflect that fact.

Hazel was really acting like a politician who had just been elected and had no fear of voters at the polls, more then her usually out-spoken self.  She lets the cat out of the bag as to how the City is going to get rid of established communities' that are not earning the City enough money and have no one important, to the City in them.  It called - RUNNING THE CITY LIKE A BUSINESS - and what the Mayor is all about.

"She advised them that although they did not want change in their community, change was inevitable and the large lots some day would also be developed as intensification and redevelopment was occurring across the City. ... should be looked at in a positive way "
Makes me sick to read about things so harmful to the foundation elements of a community that are so important to people's home life, being eliminated and the City saying be happy about it, be positive!  How happy will a person be if one of their children is run down on the over crowded streets the City creates?  Change is happening as that is the will of City Council, lead by Hazel McCallion! So speaks the Queen of Urban Sprawl, at this meeting.

A key issue is the effects to the Cawthra Bush and what the City says about it - "City had no intentions of developing the Cawthra Bush for residential purposes."
Click here for more.

When you read these City minutes be mindful of the old phrase - conspicuous by its absence.  The main issue that many people stated - the plans had jumped from 1 bedroom empty-nesters, seniors townhouse units to 3 bedroom, family units, 3 times the number of people being added to just this one development.  The local population would be tripling and quadrupling as more and more townhouse subdivisions are added. The City simply censored it from the record.

Does our Mayor know the Fix Is In at the Ontario Municipal Broad (OMB)?

It sure sounded like that, at this meeting and then who should appear but an ex-City of Mississauga Councillor to be the judge at this OMB hearing.  Who's efforts to aid the City in destroying the Cawthra Bush, by of the City's Forest Management Plan, are well known to us.   Check this out too.   Statements like the above are just another example of what the City or politicians will tell people to make them give up and go away think there is no hope.
Remember in Mississauga politics - it is not how you win, just as long as you win!

At the end - The great irony of it all.






No Afternoon Session
Evening Session - 7:00 P.M.


Internet Address -

  MEMBERS PRESENT:             Councillor F. Dale
                                                        Councillor E. Adams
                                                        Councillor G. Carlson
                                                        Councillor N. Iannicca
                                                        Councillor K. Mahoney (Chair)
                                                        Councillor P. Saito
                                                        Mayor      H. McCallion

MEMBERS ABSENT:                 Councillor C. Corbasson (Bereavement)
                                                        Councillor P. Mullin
                                                        Councillor M. Prentice 

STAFF PRESENT:        Mr. E. Sajecki, Commissioner, Planning & Building
                                        Mr. J. Zipay, Director, Planning & Building
                                        Mr. W. Nishihama, Manager, Planning & Building
                                        Mr. R. Miller, Planner, Planning & Building
                                        Mr. R. Poitras, Manager, Planning & Building
                                        Ms. P. Mikicich, Planner, Planning & Building
                                        Ms. I. Sulz-McDowell, Manager, Planning & Building
                                        Ms. K. Crouse, Planner, Planning & Building
                                        Mr. R. Poitras, Planner, Planning & Building
                                        Mr. H. Yeghouchian, Planner, Planning & Building
                                        Mr. J. Riddell, Manager, Planning & Building
                                        Ms. L. Christie, Planner, Planning & Building
                                        Mr. O. Terminesi, Manager, Transportation & Works
                                        Mr. D. Marcucci, Planner, Community Services
                                        Mr. O. Fatigati, Legal Counsel, Office of the City Solicitor
                                        Ms. S. Alleluia, Coordinator, Office of the City Clerk







     1.    Draft Vales of Humber Secondary Plan - City of Brampton

     2.    Sign By-Law 0054-2002, as amended - Sign Variance Applications

     3.    Removal of the "H" Holding Symbol from Zoning By-law 5500, as amended, Part
           of Lot 19, Concession 2, N.D.S, South of Eglinton Avenue East, on the east and
            west sides of the future extension of Confederation Parkway, Joe Madill,
            H-OZ  03/010 W4, Ward 4

     4.     PUBLIC MEETING - Rezoning Application to permit industrial uses, 6650
             Hurontario Street, West side of Hurontario Street, north of Courtneypark Drive
             West, German-Canadian Club "Hansa", Bill 20, OZ 03/030 W5, Ward 5

     5.     PUBLIC MEETING - Rezoning Application to permit additional commercial uses,
             1010 Dream Crest Road, Southwest corner of Dream Crest Road and Terry Fox
             Way, Kee Group Inc., Bill 20, OZ 03/035 W6, Ward 6

     6.     PUBLIC MEETING - City-initiated Rezoning to permit greenbelt uses, Parts 16
             and 17, Reference Plan 43R-25655, 6740 and 6770 Second Line West,
             Northwest quadrant of Lamplight Way, and Second Line West, Bill 20,
            OZ 03/024 W6, Ward 6

     7.   SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT - Official Plan Amendment and
             Rezoning Applications to permit 5 freehold detached dwellings and 30 row
             dwellings in a standard condominium development, 1619, 1623, 1635
             Northmount Avenue and Lots 15 and 16, R.P. 308, East side of Northmount
             Avenue, south of South Service Road, L. Smith in Trust for Moldenhauer
             Developments Ltd. (Formerly 1518554 Ontario Limited), Bill 20, OZ 02/023 W1,
             Ward 1


Planning & Development Committee                        10                                January 12, 2004

7.  SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT - Official Plan Amendment and
     Rezoning Applications to permit 5 freehold detached dwellings and 30 row
     dwellings in a standard condominium development, 1619, 1623, 1635
     Northmount Avenue and Lots 15 and 16, R.P. 308, East side of Northmount
     Avenue, south of South Service Road, L. Smith in Trust for Moldenhauer
     Developments Ltd. (Formerly 1518554 Ontario Limited), Bill 20, OZ 02/023 W1,
     Ward 1

    Report dated January 5, 2004 from the Commissioner of Planning and Building
    with respect to an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applications to permit
     5 freehold detached dwellings and 30 row dwellings in a standard condominium
     development, 1619, 1623, 1635 Northmount Avenue and Lots 15 and 16, R.P.
     308, East side of Northmount Avenue, south of South Service Road, L. Smith In
     Trust for Moldenhauer Developments Ltd. (Formerly 1518554 Ontario Limited),
     Bill 20, OZ 02/023 W1, Ward 1


     That the Report dated January 5, 2004, from the Commissioner of Planning and
     Building, pursuant to the direction of City Council, regarding the applications
     under file OZ 02/023 W1, L. Smith in Trust for Moldenhauer Developments Ltd.
     (formerly 1518554 Ontario Limited), 1619, 1623, 1635 Northmount Avenue and
     Lots 15 and 16, R.P. 308, east side of Northmount Avenue, south of South
     Service Road, be adopted in accordance with the following:

    1.   That City Council direct Legal Services and representatives from the
          applicable City Departments to  attend the Ontario Municipal Board
          hearing scheduled to commence on February 9, 2004 in support of the
          applicant’s appeals, pertaining to the subject Official Plan Amendment
          and Rezoning applications and the associated Site Plan application under
          file SP 03/383 W1, subject to the satisfactory resolution of outstanding
          issues pertaining to on-site amenity space, landscaping, building
          elevations and the reduction of hard surface areas, and the submission of
          an implementing zoning by-law to the satisfaction of the City, as outlined
          in the report dated January 5, 2004 from the Commissioner of Planning
          and Building.

    2.   In the event that the applicant refuses or does not satisfactorily address
          the outstanding issues noted in 1. above, that City Council direct Legal
          Services and representatives from the applicable City Departments to
          attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing scheduled to commence on
          February 9, 2004 to object to the applicant’s appeals pertaining to the
          above-referenced applications on the basis that the City requires
          adherence to those conditions.

Planning & Development Committee                        11                                January 12, 2004

    3.   That in the event the revised applications are approved by the Ontario
          Municipal Board, that City Council direct Legal Services to request the
          Board not to issue its final Order for the proposed development until such
          time as all conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City and
          any other official agency concerned with the development.

     Paul Szabo, MP, House of Commons, requested Committee to allow him to
     address them at the start of the meeting as he had to attend another
     engagement.  He stated that it was not his intention to intervene on the merits of
     the development application but with regard to process and it was brought to
     attention that adequate notice was not provided.  He stated that since the
     developer has made revisions to the site plan, the residents should be given an
     opportunity to make comment.  Further, he requested that Committee consider
     deferring the above matter to allow the Ward Councillor to have a meeting with
     the area residents on the revised site plan.  A letter dated January 12, 2004 from
     Mr. Paul Szabo, MP, Mississauga South, making such a request was distributed
     to Committee.  Mr. Szabo felt that it was  vital to respect the integrity of the
     process and all interested parties.   The Ontario Municipal Board hearing is on
     February 9th. and he felt that deferring the approval of this matter would not be
     disruptive to the application.

     Mayor H. McCallion responded that staff have met with the developer who is
     cooperative. [1]  She pointed out that staff feel that they can work with the
     developer on the site plan and resolve the remaining outstanding issues and
     hence the application can proceed.  Mayor McCallion advised that she could
     request the Ward Councillor who was absent due to bereavement, to meet with
     the area residents, however, she did not feel it necessary to defer it.  Further,
     Mayor McCallion pointed out that although the applicant was now changing the
     units to two storeys, the second storey was going to be located within the roof
     line resulting in minimal height difference. [2]

     At the appropriate time, when this item was discussed, Ms. P. Mikicich, Planner,
     Planning and Building Department, presented the above development
     application.  The lands are located on the east side of Northmount Avenue,
     south of the South Service Road.

     A public meeting was held by the Planning and Development Committee on
     December 2, 2002 and subsequently on June 17, 2003, the Supplementary
     Report was presented to Planning & Development Committee and on June 25,
     2003, Council adopted Resolution  0156-2003 which amended the City Plan
     Policies to allow the above development in accordance with the concept plan
     presented to the area residents and the Planning and Development Committee.

Planning & Development Committee                        12                                January 12, 2004

     Since then, the lands have been transferred into the ownership of L. Smith, in
     Trust for Moldenhauer Developments Ltd.  The previous owner had filed an
     appeal before the OMB and Ms.  Mikicich stated that at the Pre-Conference
     Hearing, the new owners indicated that they wished to proceed with the appeals
     with further revisions to the plan including the addition of a second storey to all
     of the row dwellings.  Staff expressed concern at the OMB with this revised

    With the use of an overhead (page 7xx of the Agenda), Ms. Mikicich explained
     the original application which was supported by Council and compared it with the
     revised application, noting that previously they were mostly single storey with the
     centre block being two storey, while the revised application has a second storey
     within the roof structure and most have double car garages.

     Ms. Mikicich explained that the purpose of the report was to provide Committee
     with the Planning Staff's evaluation of the revisions sought by the new owner
     and to obtain Council's direction with respect to the revised applications for the
     upcoming OMB Hearing.  She pointed out that Council cannot make a decision
     on the application because it is seized by the Board.  Also, the Board had
     required the Ward Councillor to hold a community meeting on those changes;
     this meeting was held on November 20 2003.  For the benefit of all present, Ms.
     Mikicich explained the chronology of the application.   Also, she pointed out in
     response to the earlier request by MP Paul Szabo, that there was not enough
     time to defer the matter because there was no Council meeting before February
     9th.  She concluded stating that the applicant was interested in making further
     modifications to the plan.

     Councillor K. Mahoney requested clarification of the notice period and was
     advised that this was not a public meeting under the Planning Act and the OMB
     did not request that they give such notice.

     Ms. M. Flynn-Guglietti, McMillan & Binch, Solicitors for the applicant, addressed
     committee stating that for the past 70 years, this site has been an unsightly
     salvage yard and this development proposal will result in an environmental clean
     up.  She pointed out that a residential development on this site will provide the
     area residents with some certainty with respect to the residential uses. [3]

     Ms. Flynn-Guglietti noted that the previous owner of the property had referred
     the application to the OMB and they are following the previous applicant with
     some additional steps taken to notify the public as per the requirements of the
     Board.  She stated that they have basically maintained the same plan including
     layout, however, they have attempted to address some of the issues raised by
     the area residents and made some changes which she explained.  Ms. Flynn-
     Guglietti stated that the previous application was intended to draw on empty-
     nester home buyers with the single storey and loft arrangement, however, the
     revised plan is a two storey with most of the second storey in the roof lines and a
     difference of approximately 4 ft. in the height.

Planning & Development Committee                        13                                January 12, 2004

     Ms. Flynn-Guglietti explained the history of the application including the OMB
     and the reasons for the various steps.  She indicated that the overall layout of
     the plan and the number of units are still the same, adding that they have looked
     at the comments from staff and based on those comments, they have made
     further changes including having provided an amenity space and conceptual
     landscaping.  Further, she advised that they have used this adjournment time to
     revisit the site plan and address outstanding issues.  Ms. Flynn-Guglietti
     summarized stating that she hoped that after hearing from the residents, the
     modifications they have made to address the concerns, will be supported.

     Mr. Scott Arbuckle addressed Committee on behalf of the applicant and
     distributed copies of the conceptual landscape plan.  With the use of overheads,
     he explained the elevations, architectural renderings, etc. showing the carriage
     styled garages, second storey in the roof line, landscaping, etc.  Mr. Arbuckle
     also showed the elevations of the end units.

    With respect to landscaping and fencing, Mr. Arbuckle highlighted that the
     existing vegetation areas which will be preserved, pointing to the remediation of
     the site, interlock walkways, pillars, etc. and the new proposed amenity area.

     Mr. Jason Larouche addressed Committee stating that even though the lot has
     been abandoned for some time, it has been the home for wildlife.  He did not feel
     that this development was necessary as there were other housing developments
     occurring in the area.  Mr. R. Poitras, Manager, explained that these lands were
     designated for residential purposes and would allow for singles, semis and street
     row dwellings on the property and the Official Plan Amendment is for a slightly
     different form of housing.  Mr. Larouche was advised that the GTA was growing
     and there was great demand for residential housing and hence the multiple
     housing opportunities were needed.  Councillor K. Mahoney further explained
     the Official Plan process and its public involvement, adding that it was entirely a
     public process from the City Plan to development application approval. [4]

     Mr. Larouche advised that he was a student at the Cawthra Park Secondary
     School and used the woods as part of their education and the development
     would impact the woods and this could be considered a major theft of education. [5]

     Mr. Don Barber addressed Committee on behalf of the Cawthra Ratepayers' and
     Residents' Association and the Friends of the Cawthra Bush and Greater
     Mississauga Area, thanking Mr. P. Szabo for requesting an additional meeting
     on their behalf.  He stated that he did not get 20 days notice for this meeting nor
     was the report available until the previous Friday. [6]

     Mr. Barber submitted two letters dated January 12, 2004 with an attached
     petition regard concerns relating to the impact of intensification on the Cawthra
     Bush and requesting that only single detached homes be built on the subject
     lands.  He read out segments  of the letters for Committee's benefit.  He stated
     that the area residents object to the above proposal for townhouses and
     requested that the zoning be removed. [7]

Planning & Development Committee                        14                                January 12, 2004

     Further, Mr. Barber spoke to the Cawthra Bush as being environmentally
     significant and an asset to the City.  He felt that the City should not have zoned
     the Northmount lands for townhouses and considered it a mistake as the
     Cawthra Bush would be destroyed by this intensification and would set a
     precedent to other land owners in the area.  Also, Mr. Barber noted that there
     were no other townhouses on Northmount and very few close by.  He felt that
     with the approval of this development, there was more at stake than an increase
     in taxes i.e. traffic, forestation and preservation of the existing character of the
     community. [8]

      A resident on Tenth Street whose name could not be clarified addressed
     Committee stating that he did not feel that this type of development fit into the
     existing community.  He felt that single or semi-detached homes would be more
     compatible and used an overhead to compare the surrounding density with what
     was proposed.  Further, he pointed out that the surrounding homes had wide
     and deep lots which would make the proposed development incompatible and
     difficult to integrate in a neighbourly way.  He requested  that the above
     development proposal not be allowed.

     Mr. Victor Fachada stated that he has lived there for many years and asked if
     the lands currently permitted townhouses and since the OMB has not made a
     decision on the lands yet, he requested that they not be allowed but that the
     current zoning continue. Mr. Fachada stated that he supported development and
     urged the Councillors to support them in not allowing townhouses.

     Mr. Joseph De Faria stated that he too has lived there for many years and was
     opposed to the development proposal because of its intensity in a small area.
     He expressed concern with the revisions to the proposal which would increase
     the square footage of the townhouses.

     Mr. Gabriel Ciccone addressed Committee stating that the existing salvage yard
     did not bother him and was concerned about parking on the surrounding streets
     when the residents moved in.

     Mayor McCallion explained to the residents that this was an old application
     which was being revised and she did not feel that the changes being proposed
     were  major.  She advised them that although they did not want change in their
     community, change was inevitable and the large lots some day would also be
     developed as intensification and redevelopment was occurring across the City.
     She also pointed out to the residents that these lands were designated
     residential and this should be looked at in a positive way rather than the lands
     being redeveloped as industrial. Further, Mayor McCallion explained that a
     variety of housing types were available across Mississauga and this was part of
     the City's philosophy. [9]

Planning & Development Committee                        15                                January 12, 2004

      Ms. Erlene Naunheimer  also stated that she was opposed to the townhouses
     because the community had single detached homes and the proposal for 35
     condominium homes did not fit.  She wondered if it would be affordable housing.
     Traffic was also of concern, adding that this site was too close to the corner of
     the South Service Road and this development was too much for this location.

    Ms. Ileen Ramsey addressed Committee to oppose the application. [10]

     Mr. Frank Ornat addressed Committee stating he too was opposed to the
     development, the density was too high, the South Service Road was a single
     lane in each direction and becoming very busy.  He expressed concern that the
     Cawthra Bush may be replaced with development as this application could be
     precedent setting.  Councillor Mahoney explained to the residents that the
     Cawthra bush was not up for development and they were public lands while the
     subject lands were private lands and the owner had the right to bring forward
     and application for Council/Committee's consideration.

    Mr. Barber returned to the podium and explained how he felt the Cawthra Bush
     would be impacted by this development. [11]

     Mr. Andrew Boss addressed Committee to enquire about the process because
     he felt that the Ward Councillor, Carmen Corbasson, had attempted to reduce
     the density and now there was no reduction in density but an increase in height.
     With the use of an overhead, the density was clarified.  There would still be 35
     homes but they would be 2 storey homes.  He pointed to the 6 ft. fence, adding
     that the trees will take a longer time to grow. [12]

     Ms.  Shirley Rowett stated that she lived there for many years at the top of
     Northmount Avenue and this corner has been a dangerous location without the
     proposed 35 townhouses.  She stated that she was opposed to the above
     development proposal.

     Mr. Vincent Rowett addressed Committee stating that he hoped that there would
     be a set of stop lights at the corner of Northmount Avenue and the South Service

     Mr. Odillo Rotella  stated that he would like to have a new community centre as
     he felt that the area was short changed.

     Carolyn Sheprak and Robert Honeyford stated that they appreciated their large
     lot which is currently long and narrow because of a previous severance.  They
     asked that Committee revisit the application as the land was not large enough
     for 35 homes, 5 new driveways and 2 new accesses off Northmount Avenue in
     addition to a home at the corner.  Mr. Honeyford  pointed out that there will be
     children and school buses which could make it dangerous.  Further, he noted
     that the developer had changed his original request to increase the size of the
     homes which would indicate an increase in the size of the families that live there.
     He felt that there should have been something to tell the residents that these

Planning & Development Committee                        16                                January 12, 2004

     lands could have been developed for townhouses, suggesting that the lands at
     the Queensway west of Dixie Road were available for sale for such purposes.
     Mr. Honeyford stated that he has lived in the area for the past 7 years and the
     community would change on account of this development; and was concerned
     that the Cawthra Bush could become residential at a future date.  He felt that the
     Planning process needed to be overhauled and the proposed application not be

     In response to further clarification with respect to the designation and the
     proposed development on the subject lands, Ms. Flynn-Guglietti further clarified
     that the permitted density was 30 units per acre and the proposed plan was
     30.24 units per acre which was a minimal increase.  She also added that the
     units were not going to be skinny tall townhouses but would have a frontage of
     between 22 to 24 ft. with rear yard setbacks of 7.5 metres (25 ft.) similar to the
     existing homes that abut these lands.  Further, she pointed out that the parking
     was almost double to what was previously submitted.  She advised Committee
     and the residents that they have attempted to address most of the issues raised
     in the previous discussions.

     Mr. D. Barber again returned to the podium and stated that the existing trees
     may be cut down and did not feel that this was a good decision to approve the
     townhouses.  Further, he pointed out that the previous Urban Forestry
     Management Advisory Committee (UFMAC) which dealt with issues relating to
     the preservation of the Cawthra Bush, no longer existed. [13]

Planning & Development Committee                        17                                January 12, 2004
     Mayor H. McCallion responded by reconfirming to the residents that the City had
     no intentions of developing the Cawthra Bush for residential purposes. [15] The
     Mayor stated that she would move the recommendation along with its conditions,
     adding that the matter was before the OMB and at this point Council could only
     give staff direction on how to proceed at the Board.  She pointed to the
     conditions of approval in the report as the basis for the approval and hoped the
     OMB would support those conditions.  Mayor McCallion also requested the
     Transportation and Works Department staff to look at the concern raised by the
     residents with respect to traffic and school buses and to ensure that adequate
     provisions are made in this regard.  She explained to the residents that the
     changes being requested were minimal, double car garages to address parking
     concerns, adding that the developer has been cooperative. [2]

The Mayor explained to the residents that the Ward Councillor has worked hard
     to bring this application to a satisfactory resolution and address most of the
     concerns raised by the area residents. She pointed out that as the City moves
     into another phase of growth, redevelopment of existing older uses  will occur
     and the residents must be prepared to accept more such changes in the mature
     areas of the City. [16]  Further, she pointed out that the report was late in being
     made available to the public because the final version of the site plan had further
     changes including an amenity area which was raised with them previously.

     Mayor McCallion stated that she would be recommending to the Ward
     Councillor, Carmen Corbasson that since the site plan now has an amenity area,
     she have a meeting with the residents so that they are fully aware of the latest
     changes.  Finally, she assured the residents that the Cawthra Bush was not up
     for development and there were no plans to change its uses.

     A verbal motion by Mayor H. McCallion, to approve the staff recommendation as
     outlined in the Corporate Report was voted on and carried.  Also, the letters
     submitted by Mr. D. Barber were received.

          See Recommendation PDC-0007-2004  (Mayor H. McCallion) [17]

          OZ 02/023 W1


It will make a difference!
  Home page   -  Main Table of  Contents  -  Back up a Page  -   Back to Top


[1] - As the developer is doing what the City wants, that is called "cooperative".

[2] - Classic case of political misdirection and manipulation.  The main issue was that the plans had jumped from 1 bedroom empty-nesters townhouse units to 3 bedroom family units, 3 times the number of people.  To distract from the worse the Mayor focuses on the roof height, when she knows what the issues are but only seeks to avoid them.  The changes are significant enough to merit re-starting this development proposal.
Remember they are not stupid or deaf ,  they chose to ignore our repeated concerns.  It is called playing "Silly Bugger" to act stupid or crazy, to avoid an issue or deny a service.  Outside of myself who has the guts to take Hazel to task in public forum, who else will?  I treat her like a politician, not a little old lady, unsightly as it may seem.  If more people did we could get better results.  people who attended meetings where the Mayor spoke left with a totally different and very low opinion of Hazel McCallion.  They saw the true person not the media created myth.

[3] - Such as a precedent being set that will eliminate their community.

[4] - What Councillor K. Mahoney did not talk about was how the Ratepayers have been kept out of the process.  How the City refused to recognize the local Ratepayers group, the Cawthra Ratepayers' and Residents' Association.  How we and I have been harassed and threatened trying to make us give up and go away.

What her statements really means is that she is blaming those in the community for not fighting the City tooth and claw in court and spending their life savings vs. Hazel's use of taxpayers dollars, to save their community and the Cawthra Bush, from City plans.  Our fault for not having a lawyer on call, like a business to earn the respect of City hall enough that the City would not try such tricks, like trying to eliminate the Northmount community.

[5] - No truer statement than that!
The Cawthra Bush is within walking distance of 9 schools.
An Old-Growth ecosystem with rare and threaten wildlife, a treasure for educators and all the City.  All Hazel, can think about is how to get rid of it while blame other people for what they know will happen.

[6] - The City's use of words is very important and even small things like this can aid the City in creating  a false impression in peoples minds.  It is worded to sound like I was the only person who got a late notice, in fact it was noted that everyone did.

As for the report, the facts I pointed out are that City staff did not tell me about the report being available till earlier on the same day as this meeting, Jan. 12th (Mon.), when I had asked the committee Coordinator to call me as soon as it was ready from the printer.  About the middle of the week before.  I just happened to be at the Clerks Office, the Friday before, and was given the Additional Agenda with the report in it, but a the report, as it turns out, was incomplete.  The point being that City staff did not make a reasonable effort to contact a community representative about the available of a report that the community was very keen to review and even having it the Friday before gives very little time to research it.  Especially, when it comes to calling places that keep normal business hours.  Just another of the tricks the City uses to keep taxpayers out of the loop.  Denial of the facts and services, that the City claims it wants people to comment on.  Controls what can be said at the upcoming meeting.

[7] - It was noted that the Ward 1 Councillor had promised homeowners a forum about changing the zoning.  A promise she is unwilling to keep.

[8] - What is important is what did not happen.  The City has taken the position of ignoring what I say and not showing the respect they should to a community leader.  Earlier on they did list the groups I lead but when I speak they have no questions or comments, in other words they do not show an interest or care at all for what I have said or even properly consider it.

The other thing they do is not to address what I have said till after everyone has spoken and returned to their seats, then take cheap shots at me or say falsehoods.  This is to try and provoke me to return to the speakers stand so they can threaten me with security for trying to defend my self from their unfair comments or point out an error in their statements.  Mature professionals would not do this.  This can also be seen in how they treat the others that spoke that night, speaking to them when they were at the speakers stand.

[9] - Mayor McCallion explained "that although they did not want change in their
     community, change was inevitable and the large lots some day would also be
     developed as intensification and redevelopment was occurring across the City.
     She also pointed out to the residents that ... this should be looked at in a positive way"
By far one fo the best quotes from our dear sweet Mayor as to what people can expect from City Hall, taxpayers communities are to eliminated so the City can profit.  Try here to.   It also needs to be noted there are other recent quotes from the Mayor that it was the development boom in Mississauga that was keeping taxes down.  As the Mayor thinks that is what she was elected to do and many do see it as her recipe for success over the years.  Development, development, development, all she knows how to do and we all know - can't teach an old dog new tricks.  Now she thinks more of the same must be done but  who's communities will eliminated and who's will benefit from lower taxes?  You can be sure the poor and middle class will suffer the most.  Richer communities will get the low taxes.  Some things never change.

The environmental impacts across the City will be devastating.  Low destiny around environmental significant areas, protects those areas.   Low destiny also means large lots with trees and shrubs which greatly aid the community by way of health benefits - lost because of Hazel's grand plan for building HER City!  Children will suffer the most.

"Mayor McCallion explained that a variety of housing types ... part of the City's philosophy.", what makes this "philosophy" so insane is that we are being told that in one small community the City wants "a variety of housing types".  What defines community is what it has or has not.  To try and have all kinds of housing, in all communities is just plain crazy!  But that is what the City is trying to ram down our throats and make it sound reasonable.  Reasonable only after hitting yourself in the head with a hammer a few times.

This is making the errors in City building that have been made time and time again, no respect for the Character of an existing community.  Turn unique communities all into the same kind of assembly line mistake.   Hazel is called the Queen of Urban Sprawl for creating Mississauga by making the urban planning errors of the 1950's.  Now she wants to create a City by making the mistakes of how a City should be created, at our & our children's expense.  The Big Lie is about things being the exact opposite from what you are being told.

[10] - Ms. Ramsey spoke just one sentence and you would think the City could properly quote it.  She said that this development would be a "Disaster", to the community.

[11] - The use of words "Mr. Barber returned to the podium", the City makes an effort to point out that I went up to help another resident who was getting a hard time from the City.  When the developer returned to the podium, the City does not make a big deal of it by noting the fact.  The City is trying to make it seem wrong.

The fact was Mr. Ornat was being given a hard time by the Chair (Mahoney) about how exactly how the Cawthra Bush would be threatened by this development.  I stepped up to help and was let in by the next person to speak to address this topic.  The Chair gave me 30 seconds, an unreasonable length of time and I believe she would never try such a restriction on the developer.  None-the-less, had some fun with it and spoke really fast to get it in and the Chair even was entertained by it.

Simply put, an environmental significant area only has protection if it has environmentally significant features.  If they are destroyed by over use by an ever expanding neighbouring human population, it loses it protection and can be developed by either the City or sold off to developers, to make money for the City.  It is a standard government method.  City staff have called it pounding a forest into the ground.

Just as it is a standard method to say the City has no current plans to develop or build in the Cawthra Bush.  Actions speak stronger then words, the City is not protecting either the Cawthra Bush or the community protecting it, therefore the City wants both eliminated, in time.

[12] - "Ward Councillor, Carmen Corbasson, had attempted to reduce the density and now there was no reduction in density but an increase in height.".  The full quote of what he said would be more along the lines of, that at the last meeting June 17-03, the Councillor said the people had spoken and lower destiny is called for.  Mr. Boss was the only person who had standing at the OMB Hearing as well.  Thanks to how the City generally kept me and the community out of the loop.

[13] - Words that shows the developer gets special treatment.  The developers lawyer can return to address the Committee without being noted as doing so but again the City minute makers who take their orders from City politicians have noted "Mr. D. Barber again returned to the podium", as if it should mean something.

As the developers representative gets to address the comments made and the Chair unquestionably allowed it, so should not the community representative?  This bit by the City "existing trees may be cut down", should be regarded as the kind of falsehoods the City will put in its minutes to make a person appear unreasonable.  It is like a form, of punishment.

The Urban Forestry Management Advisory Committee (UFMAC).  This committee has gone into secret meetings so the public can not know what is going on and so the public can not present their concerns to it.  City politicians are very jealous of their power and I was using this committee to great effect to change or halt City plans.  This committee's Agendas and Minutes were listed on the City's old web-site but when it changed over, they all disappeared, along with its listing as a City committee.  A recent listing in the Mississauga News that the City posted asking for volunteers for its committees, did not list UFMAC.

You have to ask yourself in this day and age, what responsible government would get rid of its Environmental committee, especially at a time like this?  At the Feb. 4th, City meeting the Ward Councillor said they planned on rezoning the Cawthra Bush in March of this year.  How convenient that the City is doing these things with the environmental over-sight committee not around to address them!

Then by shear chance or fate, as I was making photocopies for this meeting, ran into one of current members of UFMAC.  He explained that the City had not had meetings for months.  That he had been offered the chance to renew his term on committee but declined.  There was a feeling among committee members that the City was not making the best use of their time and efforts.

[14] - This again is a matter of what is not in the minutes.  After I returned to my seat.  Hazel starts to speak and right away attacks me, saying I made UFMAC or the City's environmental committee all resign.

Not being one to allow the City to get away with such an obvious effort to defame me in front of the local community, I returned to the podium damning Hazel repeat her statement so I could address it.  Being the BULLY she is, Hazel would not!  It is OK for her to take shots at people from her chair on City Council but when they stand before her with an equal chance to respond, she loses her voice!

The Chair, kept saying sit down or security will this or that and in time I did but not before expressing my displeasure over her juvenile attempts to put me down.  Really should not let her or other City politicians get my goat so, even if I know they are totally wrong.  They do so just they can start a fight and call the cops on me.  That is how morally bankrupt they are and as for Hazel?  At over 80 and more then 30 years as a politician, can her mind really know facts from fantasy?  After all, she thinks there is a "coup" out to get her  and that I am a part of !

[15] - "City had no intentions of developing the Cawthra Bush for residential purposes.", not to be believed, in general.  Although technically right the City's action are those of a party destroying the Cawthra Bush's environmental significance thereby opening it up to future development.  See more here.  Some would call this the lie of omission.

[16] - " She pointed out that as the City moves into another phase of growth, redevelopment of existing older uses will occur and the residents must be prepared to accept more such changes in the mature areas of the City."
Translations - "another phase of growth, redevelopment of existing older uses " & "mature areas", established and working community that do not have the lawyers or Ratepayers organizations to fight off the City efforts to eliminate them, are the City targets for high density development now.

- "existing older uses", people's homes and the property that they sit on.  Homes that form communities that are healthy, safety and that people would want to live in.  To retire in and many have.  Places where people have spent a lot of their time and money to make a liveable community, they have pride in.

- "residents must be prepared to accept more such changes", sounds more like McCallion's Mafia telling people to get out, they not make the City enough money. Once the City lets developers in to tear up existing communities they will do whatever they can, to force people out.  It is often called Block Busting.  Make your community unliveable and buy your land cheap, then as the City so politely puts it "intensification" & "redevelopment" it.

At this meeting I asked what was so wrong with the Northmount community that the City felt it needed to eliminate it.  Not only had they no answer, they would not get back to us on that.  Not surprising that question is not in the City minutes.

It would be very interesting to see how Hazel would react is someone were to treat her the same way as the City is treating mature communities, she being an "older use" of a body and a physically "mature" person.  It is always easier when these decision affect other people and not you or your friends.

The Great Irony in all this is the Friends of the Cawthra Bush got started as the City wanted to cut down the "mature" Trees in the Cawthra Bush (then the rest of the City), to make money for the City coffers.  Now we are trying to save peoples homes & property in "mature" Communities,  from being treated the same way, by the City!

[17] - Hazel McCallion is the point person to make sure this is forced through so she also does the "verbal motion".
Let us not forget Hazel McCallion is a developer and an unlawful one at that!   ]

Your Financial Donations are Greatly Appreciated
and Very Much Needed to
Ensure the Survival of the
Friends of the Cawthra Bush

Now Accepting Pay Pal
Donations to aid my efforts in every way.

• Home Page • Table of Contents • News Flashes • Chronology •

Back to Top

About this Web-site & Contact Information • Petition • Contributions