[andrewhann7]

I think they just worded it badly. They also called them "elective" vehicles.
View attachment 558817

The problem with zoning is there unfortunately isn't much room for it to be badly worded. Because a specific standard is specified in the definition I would assume zoning staff will require that specific standard. If that wasn't the intent then more time should have been spent getting the wording right before finalizing it.

Either way this wording will cause delays, either now when it's appealed, or when applications come in and a zoning reviewer applies the definition exactly as written.

 

[Chris R.]

The problem with zoning is there unfortunately isn't much room for it to be badly worded. Because a specific standard is specified in the definition I would assume zoning staff will require that specific standard. If that wasn't the intent then more time should have been spent getting the wording right before finalizing it.

Either way this wording will cause delays, either now when it's appealed, or when applications come in and a zoning reviewer applies the definition exactly as written.

As I said, staff have confirmed with the industry that it's any charger capable of level 2. With by-laws there is a certain amount of wiggle room where staff can approve based on the "intent" of the by-law. Staff have confirmed that it's any level 2 capable charger or the J1772 standard. That's why I asked someone who knows about this to check. The development industry is comfortable with the intent of the level 2 charging expectations which is not only the J1772 standard.

I can't really say much more without providing details I'm not at liberty to provide. I just don't expect it to be appealed by the development industry.

 

[andrewhann7]

As I said, staff have confirmed with the industry that it's any charger capable of level 2. With by-laws there is a certain amount of wiggle room where staff can approve based on the "intent" of the by-law. Staff have confirmed that it's any level 2 capable charger or the J1772 standard. That's why I asked someone who knows about this to check. The development industry is comfortable with the intent of the level 2 charging expectations which is not only the J1772 standard.

I can't really say much more without providing details I'm not at liberty to provide. I just don't expect it to be appealed by the development industry.

I hear you, and I can't comment on discussions the City has had with industry groups. As a rule though it's bad practice to rely on "intent" when drafting the By-law, since you have the time to get it right before finalizing. For example, staff understand the intent now is that any charger capable of Level 2 is sufficient but what about a year from now when there are new staff that weren't in those discussions, if you rely on "intent" that varies with staff interpretation. By doing this the City is needlessly opening up the opportunity for appeal and project delays when you could just ensure its worded right initially.

 

[innsertnamehere]

yup. If you don't intend on enforcing something like the J1772 standard, why put it in your by-law. I also don't believe that the industry is fine with requiring full level-2 chargers in basically every parking space city wide, and I really struggle to believe that staff will interpret this by-law so liberally to allow exemptions to that without amendment to the by-law through a MV or zoning amendment. I just don't.

I mean WEHB may have changed their stance on it since, but when the by-laws went to council they still have a letter registered with council opposing it. https://pub-hamilton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=401062