← Back to summary
Full Transcript
Approves Variances Amid Policy Debates - Committee of Adjustment - March 5, 2026
Hamilton · March 06, 2026
Did do we want to begin? It's now 9:40 a.m. So, we can start the uh committee of adjustment hearing now uh for March 5th, anyone on WebEx, please make sure you stay muted. Thank your application is called. Thank you. and through the chair. First we have the first item is to ratify the minutes from the last committee of adjustment hearing. Is there someone like to move uh Mel seconded by Bob? All in favored seeing none. Motion carried. Oh yes through the chair. Should we do a roll call and also um if there's any conflict of possible conflict of interest of the committee members? Thank you. We'll do a quick uh roll call. Um Robert, Donna, Mel, uh Nick, Sebastian, and Yolanda, Yanuka, and myself, Dale. Are there any uh members of the committee that have a conflict of interest with any applications today? Seeing none, the first application is 9:45. Yes. Um and I'll just let the chair know uh we do have an application that um the applicant was just prior to the hearing uh was requesting to table. It's uh for 82575970 Gar Street. It's a minor variance application. I don't know if um at 9:45 if you wanted to handle that one first. Um I know the agent is here. Yeah. Thank you. What was the address of that one again? Sorry. Yes. 970 Gar Street. Okay. Yeah. Hello. Uh just wait. We'll we'll we'll get to you at uh soon. Okay. Thank you. You want to move that and have that looked after now? I'll make a motion to accept the table of uh uh Do you want to handle it now? Do you want to handle it now? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um and I believe the agent is here. So it was um item and I believe there are some some residents here. I believe there are some res uh members of the public here. It's the minor variance application A25075 970 Gar Street Hamilton. Owner is A. Clarisso. Applicant is S. Piscovic and the agent is Dinger Man and Associates S. Povic. So for any members of the public uh the I believe uh the agent the applicant is going to be requesting to table or defer this application. Um so if that is uh allowed there won't be a discussion on the application today. Um however um any members of the public if you want to be notified on the application if you're here in the council chambers um you can fill out uh an interested party form. It's just behind the podium there. or uh if anyone's on the WebEx portal, you can uh just in case, you can also email us at cofa@ hamilton.ca um to provide your information to us and then we will notify you on on any updates relating to this application when they're available. Um yes, and just getting back to the application, is the applicant or agent here? And this was item 2.11. Esposovic. I believe I believe the agent is here. Just check. Is um Espovic here or is the owner here? A Clar Clarisio, are you there? Okay. If they're not here, we maybe have to wait till they Hello. Hello. Oh, the agent here, Sean. If you guys hear me? Yes. Sorry. Go ahead. Hello. Go ahead. Yep. I'm the agent there for uh 970 G. Sean, my name. Yes. And Yeah. And I believe you were requesting to table the application. Uh yes, I was. Please. Okay. Thank you. So, we've got a motion to second by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. application is tabled and when that time slot comes up at 10:30 we'll there may be some people that come on between now and then. So yeah, we can we can remind people then as well. Okay, thank you. Okay. Um All right. Okay. Um next Uh we have a minor variance application. It is A25255 60 Mountsburg Road Flamro. Owner is M. Perry uh J Perry. Applicant is J. Bognar and the agent is Jay Bognar as well. Um are there I believe we have some interested parties here. Um, let me just see if um, okay, I believe they just provided believe these interested parties just let me just double check here. Okay, let me let me just check. We We do have two interested parties. I'm just going to check if they're here. Um, and if or if they wanted to participate. Renato Paloney. Renato Paloney. Okay. And Tammy Burley. Are you here? Council Chambers on WebEx. Okay. I I don't believe they're here. But I I will ask, is there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent. Please step forward. Please provide your name and address. And you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Uh Jenny Bogner, 193 East 43rd Street, Hamilton, Ontario. And this is Mark Perry, the uh the owner of the property. Um, I did have a presentation that I sent in. Do I put my USB in here? How does that work? Sorry. No, we we I think we we have it. I will load it up. Thank you. Just give me a moment. Okay, good to go. Yeah. All right. Um, next slide, please. Okay. So we are requesting one variance to facilitate the construction of an agricultural storage building uh to a five five meter sideyard setback instead of the required 15 sideyard setback. As you were aware, we chose to defer at our first meeting on January 20th so that we could make changes to satisfy the staff in the natural heritage department and reduce the conditions they had opposed upon a possible approval. We also wanted to ensure that we were having the most minimal impact on the surrounding vegetation and trees as possible. Next slide, please. Oh, there we go. Uh we met with the city staff over Zoom to discuss the options and determined that moving the ASB outside of the 30 meter wetland boundary was the most ideal change to satisfy natural heritage staff. As per the staff report, this has alleviated any concerns they once had. Along with addressing staff concerns, we will save more trees and be able to maintain some of the existing natural features on the property. Conservation Halton has and still is in support of the proposed ASB location and no longer regulates this building as it is outside of the 30 meter wetland buffer. No revised permit is required. We also think it's important to note that this ASB will be strictly used for farming equipment such as tractors and possibly seed soil. There will be absolutely no livestock of any kind now or in the future, ensuring the building has very little impact on the surrounding area and the neighbor. Next slide, please. Um, I'm not sure if the neighbor still had the same concerns as at the first meeting, but uh, we'll address those anyways. We would also like to address the neighbor's letter that was submitted from our original application. First, he notes concerns with privacy and sunlight. As we've mentioned previously, there will be no windows or doors on the rear of the building that faces this reduced sideyard, so there would be no impact on his privacy. He also mentioned sunlight. The fact that his primary dwelling is approximately 55 meters away from our proposed structure. We strongly feel that this building would have absolutely no effect on his sunlight or well-being. This it also appears that he runs a business on his property which backs right onto our proposed ASB location. This building would provide a muchneeded barrier for my client uh from this busy and most likely noisy mo mobile wash business which large trucks. Sorry. uh constantly on site, many of which appear to be parked on or over the property line. Next slide, please. Uh he also mentions that there is a difference in zoning between his property and our subject property. He should be aware though that the well over 50% of his property is zoned A2 and usable. Just a small portion is P7 and P8, which can be seen on the map. Next slide, please. For all the reasons laid out, we feel that this request is minor in nature as it strives to work within the constraints of the natural vegetation of the property while imposing little impact on the neighboring property. We are happy with staff's thoughtful responses in the report provided and agree with their recommendation for approval. Thank you for your time and are happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Okay. I did notice on the application um there's no house, no dwelling on the property. There is one being proposed. We're just uh waiting to actually be able to get into the property and get soil samples for septic and all of that. Okay. And the other question was um uh the building's being built under an agricultural purpose and I just wondered what um agricultural industry or type of farming the owner has. I think at this point it would just be tractors to maintain the property. Um riding lawnmowers, things like that. Um, but I don't know if there's plans to do farming. Yeah, I mean eventually we we we're looking at building a greenhouse and maybe uh grinding some plants and stuff like that, but right now we'll just do one step one step at a time. Okay. Committee have any questions? Robert? Yeah, I after reviewing the site and I know there's some concern not some there was some concerns around around the setback but given there's that big outcrop of rocks right out front even to allow access hence makes a little more sense pushing it back and of course as you stated you're not wasting all that property back there too. So, and looking at the contour lines that I saw, this is the best spot period with the outcrop, too. I mean, it was it's a perfect mate. So, yeah. Okay. Motion made by Robert, Secretary Mel. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. Uh, next we have a minor variance application 826 017 90 Oaknull Drive Hamilton. Owner is M. Wexler. Applicant and agent RJ Bognar. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Yeah. Jenny Bogner, 193 East 43rd Street, Hamilton, Ontario. Sorry. Um Okay. Yes. So, we're requesting the two variances. uh one for a 09 meter front yard setback to a mudroom addition which is being built under the existing uh front porch. The roof structures all to remain and then uh a 0 m front yard setback for the uh required landing and steps off of that uh new mudroom. Uh the family just needs a bit more space in their entryway. Lot a couple kids and strollers, all of that. Um, so they just want a bit more space to store that stuff in a in a conditioned space. Um, and also a little less uh weather coming into the house, right? Uh, it goes right into the living room space there. Um, so like I said, we're building it within the footprint of the existing front porch. Uh, not changing the roof structure, so very little impact to, you know, the overall look of the house um, from a massing perspective. And then uh the the required landing and steps um obviously a point uh a 0 meter setback there and uh we're aware of the uh encroachment agreement that we're required to obtain and we're um happy to do that. Okay. And you're okay with the proposed conditions that are listed? Okay. Is there any questions from the committee? I'll make a motion to approve with the proposed conditions. Okay. Motion made by Yanuka. Is there a seconder, Donna? All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried, application approved. Thank you. Uh, next we have anyone on Yeah. Oh, please stay on mute on WebEx. Thank you. Next we have a minor variance application A2616 44 to 48 Dalewood Crest Hamilton. The owner and applicant are both the same. It's J Gotus and P Va Gotus and agent is W. Jasic. Um, we had a I believe we had an interested party. Shingo Yuki there. Shingo Yuki. believe they were going to participate virtually. I don't know if they're okay. I don't know if I don't see I don't shing Yuki. Okay. If I don't see them. Okay. Um is there any members other members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the uh applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. I believe you're still muted. There we go. It's a lot of feedback. I'm sorry. I'll be very brief. This involves building with absolutely no changes at all. It's just just one moment, Walter. With a seance that has been granted as a condition. Oh, okay. Um, yeah, I think it's the speakers in your room. If you can mute those, that might help. Is that a little better? No, there's still an echo. You could also, if you wanted, you could always use the phone in option too if you wanted to see if that might be better or if you had Mr. Chairman, is there a number to We're still getting the echo. Oh, the number. Let me um um yeah, it's um if you're a local it's a local call, it's a 905540 5497. Um I think there is a code unique. Yeah. Yeah. I believe we sent it to you earlier. It's in that WebEx information. Um yeah, we'll resend it to you as well. We'll resend it to you by email. Okay. Um through the chair, did you want to wait for him to reconnect or do you want to do we want to It's 9:59 a.m. Do Do we feel like we have a lot of questions for this one? Yeah. Like we could probably just move forward if possible. Yeah. Through the chair, if if the committee wanted, they could just proceed if they wanted to make a decision. So for the uh for the agent, we um if if you're okay with it, the committee the committee's indicating they they they're comfortable moving forward just to make a decision um and not get a presentation from you. Okay. If that's okay. All right. Okay. So motion forward to accept the uh application. Okay. Donna and seconded by Nick. All in favor with the four conditions. With the conditions. Yeah. Any opposed? None opposed. Motion. We're all in favor. All in favor? All in favor? Yep. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. Motion carried. Application approved. Okay. Um so, Mr. Jazvvic, if you wanted, you could leave now. Thank you. Um next we have a minor variance application 826012 18 Bruce Street, Hamilton. Owner is C. Redmond and C Larabe. An applicant is C. Brown. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Uh seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. Uh good afternoon or morning, sorry. Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, just checking. Uh my name is Christine Brown and I live at 444 Upper Gage Avenue. I am speaking on behalf of the owners here. Uh they have an existing detached garage in their rear yard which happens to be a through lot. Um and it backs on to Hest Street. So along Hest Street there are I think most of the properties on there have detached garages that are either legal non-conforming or um or have variances to permit them to be there. Um, and the owners would like to tear down and rebuild their garage but have um a space above it mostly just as an office space. There is not going to be any um plumbing or otherwise it's not intended to be an ADU. Um, I did read the uh staff report and I see that staff are supportive of variance uh one, two, and I think no one, two, and three. I think the one that they weren't okay with was the um essentially front yard setback. Um they did suggest a condition of.5 meters versus zero meters and um I think we are all in favor of that. So, um, we're we are fine with shifting it back 0.5 m if that would allow the application to be approved. And I did also note that I saw some um aspects about it for cultural heritage. So, we will be going through that process before we go through building permit. Okay. Great. Committee have any questions? Make a motion to approve the application with variance 4 changing to 0.5 meter setback which is with the staff. Okay. Motion made by Robert seconder Donna. All in favor opposed. Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you very much and enjoy the rest of your day. through the chair. I just want to check I know staff comment the development planning staff were indicating their recommendation was to approve variances one to three but deny variance 4. Did the committee approve all the variances? I just wanted to check. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Yeah. And my intent was to approve them all, right? And then alter the last point variance four to the 0.5. Okay. Or 05 whatever the number was. Okay. With the with the proposed conditions and notes as well. Correct. Okay. Thanks. And our next application is at 10:05 a.m. Okay, next we have a consent application B260001 401 Victoria Avenue North Hamilton. Owner is a numbered company 2681270 Ontario Incorporated. A for Cena agent is Civic Planning and Design Incorporated, M. Davis. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. Thank you very much and good morning, Mr. Chair. Um, my name is Mike Davis with Civic Planning and Design based in London. appreciate the opportunity to attend the meet meeting virtually this morning. Um we represent the owners of both 400 Wellington and 401 Victoria Avenue North. Um the owners have filed consent applications to facilitate a lot line adjustment between these two properties. It's essentially a package deal. Um item 2.5 and 2.6 on your agenda. Two applications, but functionally they kind of aim to achieve the one outcome which is that lot line adjustment. Um in in very simple terms, the intent of the lot line adjustment is to generally improve the functionality of these two existing um commercial light industrial sites for both owners. We've reviewed the staff reports and the recommended conditions um and are in agreement with both. So uh we'd ask for your approval today. Uh if committee members have any questions, I'm certainly more than happy to uh address those. And once again, appreciate your time. Okay. Thank you. uh committee have any questions or concerns on this application? Just through the chair, did the committee want to handle this one with the other consent application as well together? I I think we could. Yeah. So, I'll just make a note here just for for further record is that I originally indicated we're hearing uh consent application B26001 401 Victoria Avenue North Hamilton, but the committee will also be handle at the concurrently um handling the related consent application as well. B25076 400 Wellington Street North Hamilton. That one the owner is TKFV Holding Limited K. DLO agent is Civic Planning and Design Incorporated M. Davis. So again, both applications will be heard and considered by the committee at this time. Thank you. Okay, Mel. Yeah, I think both applications are straightforward. I'll make a motion to accept both applications. Okay. Is there a second, Robert? All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. And sorry through the chair, who who seconded that motion? Who was it? Uh, Robert. Oh, Robert. Oh, sorry. Okay. And that was for both of them, right? For both. Yes. Yeah. For B26001 and B2576. And our next application is will be heard at 10:15 a.m. Thanks. Okay, it's now 10:15 a.m. Uh, our next application is a minor variance application 826018 220 Yahara Place Ancaster. Owner is B Coverdale and C Mloud and applicant is also the same B. Coverdale and C. Mloud. Uh is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Um seeing none, I'll ask the application applicant to be please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Hello everyone. Thank you for having me. Uh my name is Brad Coverdale. So I'm the owner of the property at 220 Yahara Place. Um we are obviously inquiring about building a um accessory building on the property. Um, we've I've read the staff notes and I understand that like the square footage portion of the block coverage has been approved. I understand that there's some concern about the height of the property. I want to just take an opportunity to kind of explain the reason why the garage is as tall as it is. We're that is a I'm a builder in town. The plan is to develop a home there, which we have plans for that are going to go in for permit within the next 6 to 8 months. We would like to build this dwelling, this property to be able to store stuff on the property during construction and have a garage so that we were able to do that. Um, this property is right now I just want to kind of explain a few things around like two houses for me. I understand there's a concern about height. Two houses from me there's a house that's uh 10.1 m which is only4 m underneath the requirement. The property that I'm uh you know offering to build is only 9.93 m tall is the height of the house. The garage being 8 point or 7.85 m. I will the plan is to eventually attach this garage to the house with a breezeway from a carport that's on the on the plan of the house. Um I understand that being an accessory dwelling there is some concern of that it is taller. Um but if it was attached to a house this wouldn't be a concern. So, I want to I'm hopeful that you guys understand the whole portion of why I'm trying to do this. I'm a builder in town. I honestly care about what the heritage looks like in this town. I don't want to build a huge monstrosity. Um, our plan is to kind of continue to have that craftsman style and caster heritage looking home. Um, with this garage being something that we would have built before the if you you'll notice of the property, it's got an older home on it. It's really flat roofed. It's going to be obviously a two-story home that's built there for my family. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions that anyone has around it. Um, you know, I I feel that we're being reasonable with the heights that we're trying to propose. Um, it's impossible to get any sort of storage upstairs if there wasn't that um, opportunity, but if anyone has any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Okay. Is there a plan in with the city now for the house or not? No, I have a set of plans. Like I honestly I only read the staff notes yesterday. I got the staff notes at noon yesterday, so I didn't have an opportunity to send you guys kind of a rebuttal to it. I have the house plans. Um there obviously it the house is the house is completely it's just in final stages of engineering so I can get a submit. The plan is I'm hopeful to build the the accessory building this year and then start the garage in or start the home in 2027 is my plan. Um I've done multiple builds in town and I'm a local builder Dan Ker, but um I mean I don't want to I I know I could submit the house attached to it and and build the dwelling first. I don't particularly want to do that. I want to try to get it for obviously not spend so much time trying to get the permit. I would like to get this dwelling first. So, committee questions. Could we could we have the staff comment on that? Is that like putting the cart before the horse or what's uh what's your take on that? Um good morning deur plant west team. um through the chair to the committee member. Um kind of broadly, we could only review what is before us. Um I did discuss this with the with the applicant, but we can only offer our comments on what we have available for review. Um to provide some clarity though, um I I did get confirmation from zoning staff that uh a breezeway necessarily wouldn't call u constitute attached structure. Uh it has to have three walls, not just a roof attached between them. Um but in the event that the proposed garage is connected um right now the plans show about a 1 and a half meter setback or so. They would need a future variance if that was considered attached to the main dwelling as well. Um as the sideyard for the R2 zones 2 meters just just for reference. I I'm okay moving the that property 2 meters off the like the building off 2 meters. So if it has to come off that 2 meters I also don't have to attach it. The my comment to you guys is I'm willing to do whatever I have to do to comply with the ne like the neighboring property. So it makes sense but at the same time I mean it's going to have there's a carport attached to the home that's designed and a small breezeway could be attached if it needs to be and if it needs to be moved to 2 meters I'm willing to do that. How do you tend to handle the easement that's going to be right underneath the proposed garage? The easement that I have, where is there an easement on that property? One of the I think it was on your was it on your drawing you submitted? There's no there's no easement on that property. The only easement on that property is in the far right hand corner like a might want to double check your drawing you sent in then because it indicates there's an easement there underneath right underneath the garage proposed garage. I mean I've quickly reviewed this. It doesn't say on this it's this is survey that was done by at McLaren. That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. And it indicates an easement. Unless I'm reading this wrong. I don't think there there's no easement on that side of the property. The only easement is on the right hand side in the very back corner. There's a um drainage portion in that property. Do you want through the chair? Do you want me to share the share the screen there? Just see. Yeah. Okay. I see that. There it is. Where are you looking? So, there's the easement for this property. The only easement that when we um You see that? See that dotted line? Yeah. Yeah. that runs right through the foundation of your garage out to the right out to the traffic circle. I'm reading that as No, that easement's on my that's on my neighboring property. So that there's a power line that goes on my neighboring property that the the there's no property like if you look at the property, there's no um hydro lines that run anywhere near my like the the side lot there. I mean, I'll move that like the garage is. How far is that easement off the corner? It'll move if I move it to 2 meters, it'll move it on the opposite side of the easement. If that is an easement, I don't believe it is. No, I'm reading that there's an easement there. But I mean, if you want, if it gets approved on condition, I'd prove that that's not an easement. I'm happy to have at McLaren clarify this drawing, but that's just one portion of the of what we have to deal with today. The thing is on on the street there's one house twotory around a corner to the left. Yeah. That's big. Whereas you're that you've got a basically a bungalow there. And I know you've got a growing family with kids. Yeah. Hence the bigger house. But in fairness, right now, the garages you've proposed doesn't fit the neighborhood and your house, which is part of the uh bylaw conditions. It's just overpower. It's going to be overpowering. Okay. But having having the new information that you're planning on building a a newer home? Yeah. Twotory dwelling cuz that's house is probably what in the ' 70s. Oh, it's built in like the ' 50s. Yeah. It's old. Yeah. A while ago. Yeah. We plan on trying to rental the house, but it's not possible. If we had more information, it might on what you're proposed to do down the road, it would make it easier to approve that garage. Is there a way of me sharing that right now? I can email it to anyone. No, I I think right now the the best solution is that we table it. Oh, man. I know. I know it's a six-letter word that contractors fear, but the thing is we can't I know I can't put a blessing on this the way the information we have right now. But I think you need to clarify that and come up with a site plan that's going to show where the new house is, what the elevations are, and how it affects the overall property with the garage. and then figure out this easement and then we have a a way to go forward from there. Okay. Okay. Yeah, it's unfortunate. So, I'll make a motion that we table this until we have more information come in. Okay. There's a motion for table and that's okay with the applicant to Yeah, I don't think I have a lot of choice in the matter. Well, well, you do, but yeah, is the alternative. Yeah. I mean, at this point, I we have the we have a property. We have renderings done with the shop and the garage on it. So, I just obviously wait till when is the next meeting? Next month. April second. Moved by Robert, second by Mel. April. It's it's April 2nd. I I don't know if we're we're able to put it onto that meeting, but um we usually meet once or twice a month. Um but we will be we will be sending you some information after the hearing just in terms of letting you know how to proceed. Thanks. Okay. Thanks. Okay. All in favor? Opposed? One opposed. Okay. Okay. Then motions carried application is tabled. Okay. Um next we have a minor variance application A26013 42 Oscar Drive Dungus. Owner is M. Appalonio and A Tatarin. Uh the applicant is the same M. Appalonio and A Tatarin and the agent is C. Harrison. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to begin to speak. Thank you. Uh good morning. It's Chris Harrison, the agent speaking. I assume you can hear me. Yes. Welcome to our meeting. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for uh for the time. Um so briefly um this project started about a year and a half ago by consulting the Hamilton Conservation Authority who uh subsequently came to the site, reviewed the proposed 150 square foot deck to replace an existing rotting larger deck uh in roughly the same general location, the north side of the house. and they're satisfied that the plans are acceptable to them. Hence, um the conditional uh recommendation for the minor variance which is required for the rear yard setback um which uh we all acknowledge is encroaching on the uh the minimum required. However, as the planning department rightly points out, the the uh the main issue is privacy to any rear neighbor of which there's none because that's where the conservation authorities uh jurisdiction is. There are no houses to the north. So, briefly in summary, we feel the requirement for a tree protection plan and a site restoration plan uh is unnecessary. It represents extra expense. The owners have already gone to extra expense to satisfy the conservation authority. Thank you. Okay. Thank you committee. So, the two conditions that are uh proposed um you'd like to uh or you you don't want to put them into into into play. Correct. That's good question. I just wonder Donna, do you have something in writing uh from the conservation area that Oh, was that attached? Okay. So, I missed. All right. Okay. There is a letter. Yes. Okay. No problem. All right. So, I guess I could make a motion to um approve the application removing those two proosed conditions. Okay. Is there a seconder? Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. I know I was reading it here, but I didn't. So just through the chair confirming it was approved but the two conditions have been removed. Removed, right? But the notes would still be there. Okay. Uh next we have a consent application B25089 1738 Highway number five West Flamro. owner is H and E Vandermulan and the applicant is M andK Bartals and the agent is C. Van Burkel. Um but and um just letting the committee know um there is also an associated um minor variance application A25264. Uh, also the same address, 1738 Highway number five West, Flamro. Owner is H. Vandermillan. Um, applicant is Zultan Engineering, G. Vandermillan. Agent is Zultan Engineering, G. Vandermillan. Um, and through the chair, um, I believe unless you know, unless you indicate otherwise, I believe the committee would be handling both applications together. Um, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on these applications? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the uh applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Good morning committee. My name is Chris Van Burkel. uh 274 German School Road, Paris, and I'm the uh agent for uh the Bartell's and uh Vandermillans for the consent application. And uh I'm I'm Jarrett Vandermillan from Zolton Engineering, 4380 South Service Road, Burlington, and I'm the applicant and agent regarding the minor variance application. Okay. Do you have any questions or any comments you want to make? go first. Um, after we were uh here in January, we had a good discussion with the uh city staff um where we were able to sort out those uh the number discrepancies um and come to an agreement there. So, I think we're we're in agreement with the conditions and notes and we're happy to have the staff recommendation of approval. So, unless there's any other questions, thank you. committee make a motion to approve both of the applications with the uh existing conditions and note. Okay. Moved by Donna, seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you committee. Thank you very much. And then yeah uh through the chair we had a and just just to read it we were supposed to hear a minor variance application next 825075 970 Gu Hamilton owner is a Clarisso applicant is E S Pasco and the agent is Dinger Man and Associates Espco um if there's any members of the public here just to let you know this application was uh tabled or was deferred at the beginning of the hearing the applicant had requested u to table the application. Um so if there's any uh any members of the public if you want if you're interested in this matter you can if you're here in the council chambers you can fill out an interested party form. It's just behind the podium there and just leave it there. Or if you're on WebEx if you want you can always send us an email at sofa@ hamilton.ca CA with your contact information and then we will keep you uh up to date on uh any any any uh any uh future updates on the application. Okay. And the next application is to be heard at 10:35 a.m. Thanks. Okay. Uh next we have a uh minor variance application A25229 to uh Buchanan Court Flamro. Owner is M. Tuchia. Applicant is A. Destra Contracting Incorporated, Drastra um Limestone Trail, and A Coslovski. Are there any members of the public wish to uh just just wondering um is the applicant or agent here for uh two Buchanan Court Flamro? Okay. Just wonder um I believe staff are recommending the application be tabled. Are you just looking to proceed or what do you what do you um sorry it last? Okay. Okay. Sure. Sure. If you want to come one more time. Um okay. So you want to proceed. Okay. If that's the case then I'm going to first ask is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? to Buchanan Court. Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the you're here applicant if you could please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Uh good morning. My name is Darren Drastra and uh address 74066 Wellport Road for the minor variance application of two Buchanan Court. Um the proposal is to permit a modest singlestory detached additional dwelling unit in the sidey yard of the existing single um detached dwelling. This morning like to focus on three points. The four tests um distinction between policy based and impact based planning and um the efforts made with planning and the NEC staff. Um the proposed ADU is a singlestory, small in scale and located in the screened sideyard by the existing fence. Um the revised setbacks have been have been addressed with staff comments. The height complies drainage is acceptable and the forestry comments can be addressed through a standard permit um process. Overall from the proposed design neighborhood perspective, the impacts are minor. Uh the development in introduces gentle density within the bound boundary um and contributes to housing supply and maintains neighborhood character and and is compatible in scale and design. Um planning staff have acknowledged that if not for the NEC plan restriction, they would not anticipate adverse impacts. Uh the intent of the of the sideyard regulations is to protect the streetscape and preserve open space, ensure visibility and prevent uh overdevelopment. We responded uh to staff concerns by increasing the setbacks um protecting the municipal tree root zone and maintaining the the fence and addressing the comments that were made. And then the last concerning the official plan, this is where the discussion becomes more refined. Under the urban Hamilton official plan, additional dwelling units are permitted um and uh they they are encouraged. Planning staff have acknowledged that this proposal maintains compatibility with the neighborhood character. However, the property is within the NE P or the NEC plan area and under 2.2.11 of the plan, secondary dwelling units must be contained within the principal dwelling and cannot be detached. But it creates a policy conflict. It's important to uh the difference between an attached and a detached unit in this case is structural and it's not functional in terms of the actual use of it. Um whether an attached or detached, the land use remains the same. Uh one principal dwelling and one secondary dwelling unit on a residential lot. Um and then why is this application unique? The zoning bylaw permits the ADUs of Hamilton. The official plan permits detached ADUs. Um the secondary plan encourages housing mix. The only restriction arises from the specific Niagara escarment plan clause requiring the unit to be attached Planning staff themselves note that if the committee chooses to approve the application, they do not anticipate any adverse impacts. Um, and this distinction is critical. This is not a case where the development causes harm. It is a policy conflict between overlapping planning frameworks. After the application was previously tabled, we proactively requested a meeting with planning staff and the Niagara Escarment Commission to discuss the policy and explore potential solutions. Planning staff attended and we had a good discussion. Uh NEC staff were not present and we did not receive any further opportunity to discuss the matter directly with them. Um this proposal meets good planning. It is modest, compatible, and we were responsive to staff feedback. For the reasons mentioned today, we respectfully request approval of the application. Thank you for your time, and I'm here for any questions you may have. Okay. Thank you. And sorry, through the chair, I uh just apologies. I actually was looking at the comments from the last committee of adjustment hearing. The last time the planning staff were recommending to table the application, but this time, no, the um and I think the committee members, you've reviewed it. It's the development planning staff. The comments this time around is they're they're indicating they do they're not able to support it as the proposal does not conform with the Niagara's government plan. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Okay. Mel, can I hear from this uh planning department because I understand from what I'm reading here that you're okay with what the conditions are now. Yeah. Uh through the chair uh Anthony Mancini, planning technician one. um to the committee member. Uh yeah, staff have had discussions with the applicant. Uh we acknowledge this is a unusual situation where the um NEP plan doesn't permit detached uh ADUs, but the U-Hawk uh does permit it. Um, in this case, the we don't anticipate any concerns um to the street uh streetscape or the neighborhood character and the applicant has addressed their our concerns with the setback to the uh tree. Thank you, Donna. Is it is it my understanding that we can't supersede the NEC? Is that what the uh Good morning, Spencer Skidmore, acting manager through the chair. So um the NEC and the Nagas government planning and development act so which the act that um gives statutory power to the Nagascar plan it does supersede the planning act um so where there's a conflict between our official plan the urban Hamilton official plan in this case uh and the Niagara scarment plan the Nagascar plan prevails and that's why as Anthony noted um from a technical perspective the applicants addressed all of our technical concerns with the tree and all of that stuff to make sure that street tree survives. Um, but from a policy perspective, we can't support it because it doesn't meet our official plan because our official plan has policies that say everything has to conform to the Nagoscarment plan and where there's a conflict, the Nagoscarment plan prevails. So, it's a bit of a really strange situation. Um, but that's kind of where staff are coming from. Thank you. So if if we approve that goes against NEC. So then the NEC can proceed with um remedial like they could charge him with something or or whatever. They could tell him to take it down. They could do their enforcement, I guess, is what I'm saying is they can forward go forward with enforcement. So through the chair, it's a good it's a good question. So this isn't in what's called the area of development control for the Nagascarment plan. So places like for example like the like uh Dundas Valley where there's really sensitive features the Nagar government plan uh NASA government commission actually has development control. So they actually have to issue a permit for everything that even a deck anything that gets done there any kind of development they have to issue a permit. It's very regulated and in that instance they have a lot more um power under the NEAS development act. Um, in this instance, it's not in the area of development control. So, they don't need a permit. So, really, this is just a policy exercise. Now, I can't comment on whether the Negro Scarment Commission would, you know, look at this application either a appeal, they could they could appeal the decision. I don't know if they would, um, or if they have the ability, I don't know the ins and outs in terms of their enforcement if they would kind of enforce if there's a non-compliance, but they wouldn't be required to pull a permit. So there wouldn't be kind of any kind of permitting process. Okay. Um so there's a potential risk where they appeal. Um but I would leave that up to kind of the folks of the neg commission. Great. Okay. Thanks. So just to sum up on that, if we were to proceed and allow the applicant to development, he would be at a risk of anything coming down the pipe from the NEC. However, it's basically all policy. He wouldn't have to go back to get permits from the NAC at all. That's correct. So the next step for the applicant would be a building permit. I don't know if you've already submitted. probably that's why you're here. Um so that would be a building permit process. Um and then if the NEC wants to pursue either an appeal or some kind of enforcement that would be entirely up to them. Um but that is there is a slight risk there. Yeah. Okay. It isn't wouldn't it be similar to like we're going for a minor variance um for the setbacks and such? So if it gets approved like this um committee still approved that right whereas we're going against the policy of the NEC rather than the policy of Hamilton. So you guys can still approve it but then they still have the the ability to appeal it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And in my opinion I think we should just approve it and then let it flow through. If anyone um challenges it, they challenge it and that's the problem that comes up then. But this is the first step. Um, based off of what we have here, it seems to match up with what we're generally looking for. Um, and then I guess we'll just leave it up to uh the NEC if they decide to challenge it. The thing is with that, and I I agree because there's no permitting required. They can't hang you out the drive on a permit. It's more their policy and um it's totally up to you to take that. Well, at least No, no, I know. I realize that. At least he knows Yeah. the risk is is there, right? Yeah. May. Yeah. And we have talked about that with the contractor and with the owners um that that risk is there. Um yeah, the fact that we tried to speak with NEC uh and like there is no feedback. You you don't really get a hold of them as is. So, we'll we'll see what they come back with. Um, yeah. Okay. Okay. Just another question. If we approve this variance today, is there going to be any issues come up from the city's point of view in planning with other permits at all? No, nothing out of the ordinary. I guess what I'm saying um through the chair, I don't think so because technically we're not supportive of the application because of the policy. So it wouldn't set a precedent where we're supporting stuff that runs contrary to the Niagara garment plan. The committee, you guys can make whatever decision you you you know you feel is appropriate. So I don't think this is a situation where be kind of setting a precedent because staff are being consistent in how we're applying our policies. Thank you. So I guess my other question is if NEC didn't comment or go forward with anything at all, it'd be clear sailing. If if we didn't have to get the minor variance, NEC would have no comments. Yeah. In general, so if we didn't have the flankage yard, if it was a regular yard and we could put it in the rear right corner, the NEC would not have had said anything or been notified of it. Just want to try to identify. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No. No. The wind you're going to have. So, okay. Yeah. If you want to. Um, so just one thing real quickly. So, I'm here um representing the builder on this project, um, Limestone Trail. So, we've been in business for about 40 years. So, we specialize in prefab and outdoor structures. um we have run into this kind of I guess um unique set of rules where the NEC kind of um has some quote unquote outdated policies um where we've kind of run into the situation with other townships within Niagara um where kind of the discussion you guys are having today um and we have seen detached uh additional dwelling units pass where the NEC kind of um hasn't put anything forward once the kind of committee of adjustment does pass. So obviously I know Hamilton is very different to St. Catherine's or Nagara Falls. Um, but I did just want to kind of address that that we have seen this before. Um, so we are obviously aware of the risk of them saying something, but in the past we haven't run into that. So, just wanted to make sure they add that. Hi. Sorry. What was your name? Uh, my name's Adam Kazowski. Okay. Any other questions? motion. Oh, I'm just I'm going to motion to approve with the proposed conditions and notes. Okay. Moved by Sebastian, seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you very much for your time today. Okay. Next we have a minor variance application 826015 18 Hamilton Street North Flamro. Owner is a number company 997484 Ontario Incorporated J. Rabba and the agent is Arcadus J. Marcus and N Digman. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jared Marcus from Arcadus. Our corporate office is located at 360 James Street North here in Hamilton. Um, we we've seen the staff report, the comments. Uh, we note they're recommending approval of the application. Um I would note that some of the variances uh are uh referenced in a different manner than we had applied in the original application. Um we've had some discussion with zoning staff just to confirm that we're in agreement with the changes they've proposed and the additional variance. So we're we're happy with the way it is. Um the only uh question I have is just uh if I could have uh the committee read the variances back to me so I am I'm sure that they're being written down the way uh we understand them to be if that's okay. Um just give me a moment. Um I'm just referring to the staff comments which were which were posted online. Um staff are recommending that variance one it's being revised to notwithstanding the maximum building height of 11 m the maximum permitted building height shall be three stories to a maximum of 17.5 m. And then variance two is stone veneer shall be permitted exterior building cladding material whereas the bylaw excludes stone veneer as a permitted exterior building cladding. Um, variance three, a minimum of 39% of the area of the ground floor facade facing the street shall be composed of doors and windows, whereas the bylaw requires 80% of the area of the ground floor facade to be doors and windows. And then variance four, a minimum 22% of the facade of second and third stories shall be composed of windows, whereas the bylaw requires a minimum of 25% of the facade of second and third stories shall be composed of windows. Uh thank you for that. There was uh other there had been some correspondence uh not between me but between some of my colleagues and zoning staff identifying that there was an additional variance needed for parking. Uh in the in the emails written to us uh they had identified that uh 230 spaces were required where the site is providing 220. Yes. Through the chair. Yes. There is a comment within the init on the staff comments that's from the zoning section. Um they are recom they made a comment that the notice write up should be altered to add the following variance. 220 parking spaces shall be provided for a shopping center instead of the 230 parking spaces required. Okay, thank you for that. The only uh comment I want to make to those revised variances is that the zoning bylaw wording uh for variance number two technically refers to it as manufactured stone veneer. Uh whereas the notice only refers to it as stone veneer. So I think it'd be important to uh keep consistent language with the zoning bylaw by adding the word manufactured. Okay. Um, so thank you, Mr. Chair. Otherwise, we're we're happy with the comments we've received from the city. Uh, the application is uh going through a concurrent site plan review. So, all the the technical matters with the application are being reviewed through that process and we're hopeful to have that resolved in the very near future. Uh, so otherwise, we don't have any more comments for you. We do we did provide some slides, but they're uh the information that was already included in the submission package. So if there are comments or questions from the committee, I'd be happy to try to answer those for you. Okay. Does committee have any questions? I'm going to uh propose to approve the application with the revised variance one and then adding manufactured uh to variance 2 um with all the proposed conditions and notes. Okay. Moved by Sebastian, seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. Sorry. Through the chair, is that parking related variance, would that be added as well or the for the parking? Uh yes, if if it's needed. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Good. All right. Thank you for your time. Uh, and through the chair, we're actually we have a scheduled um, we have a scheduled break now. Um, I'm just wondering um, we ran we're running a little bit later than than our schedule here in the agenda. Just wondering what time the committee like 5 minutes. Okay. So, we'll come back around uh 11:01 a.m. We'll take a short break now. Thank you. break at 11:04 a.m. Uh, next we have a minor variance application A26014 39 Denon Drive Hamilton. Owner is L. Dig Martino and the applicant is Jay Schwab and the agent is Vanroll Associates Incorporated. C. Hogan. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent. Uh, step forward and please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Excuse me. Good morning. Uh Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Elroy Van Gro. I'm the Vang Gro of Van Gro and Associates. We're the applicant for this. Our address is 2 St. Clair Avenue in uh Toronto. Um this is a very simple variance that we're asking for. It's entirely a question of use. Um uh firstly just wanted to confirm did you receive my letter? Sorry, which letter was it? the the letter uh from Vangrol and Associates addressed to uh uh Justin Young. Was it the one yesterday? I think I believe I forwarded it to the committee members last night. Yesterday evening last night. Yeah. Um yeah, I believe I I see some nodding heads. So it feels like you f you you did it. Yeah. uh if I could just run through the the argument that the letter presents uh just to en ensure that you do understand our position. So the the existing site is designated uh employment area business park within your official plan. Your official plan allows for a a broad range of employment uses. And then specifically, this site is zoned M3 Prestige, a prestige business park by your zoning bylaw 05200. It also allows a broad range of uses. Uh the reason we're in front of you today is that while there is a broad range of uses allowed, uh the use that we are proposing, which is private club or lodge, is not permitted in the M3 zone. However, the requested we believe the requested uh variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan as the official plan promotes other uses in the employment area business park that support businesses and employees of the employment area. The official plan only excludes major retail and residential uses. Ancillary uses which primarily support businesses employees include which include hotels, health and recreational facilities are permitted. The the intent of the use is to allow for uh uh a volunteer group to provide uh baseball training to uh young people. We believe that this this use this recreational use will allow young people to improve their skills in baseball. In our opinion, the request of rel relief is desirable and appropriate for the subject site as it will accommodate an important and much needed recreational facility within this neighborhood. We would ask that you uh support our request for the variance. Uh we we also uh further to our letter, there is also a letter from uh Councelor Tom Jackson. Um did the did the committee receive this letter? Yes. I see nodding heads. That's encouraging. Uh um excuse me. Uh Mr. Jackson notes that uh while it this use does sorry I realized it's easier for me just to read the letter than try to parse it for you. I realize the M3 zone does not permit this type of use. However, this use, this type of use, if permitted, will not be precedent setting in the Red Hill Business Park. Past approvals of sports or private clubs include a mixed martial arts club on Stone Church East and a pickle ball facility on Nebo Road and a previous soccer dome, now converted into another pickle ball facility. Uh I I won't continue reading on this other than it speaks about how this is a volunteer organization and u in councelor Jackson's opinion uh is a is a use and activities that should be supported. Then we received on March 1st some comments from the planning department. Uh the planning department note that all their departments either had no comments or no concerns other than development planning and uh zoning provided some comments which they provided to us directly. uh and is the the reason why we are here in front of you today. The main comment from the planning department is that uh this proposed use should be denied because it's inconsistent with the provincial policy, which is a curious statement in my opinion because the provincial planning statement that they're referring to is largely about housing. is in fact almost entirely about housing and doesn't speak to ancillary uses in in in employment lands. Um and the committee of adjustment is here exactly for this reason. We are asking for a variance. We believe it's minor. We believe the the the use and the folks who are running the uses, who are all volunteers, are doing all of this for the best intentions of the the young people of Hamilton. And so we ask that you consider this to be a minor variance and worth supporting. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I know that uh well before I ask the committee, I know that there's there's a need for this in the area. Um the only other one I know of uh is in Dundas or whatever. Um there's a training facility there, but uh the lineups to get signed in are quite long and if you aren't very quick at the start of it, um a lot of kids don't get into that one through the winter months. Um, and I think it's, in my opinion, I think it's a great great idea and a great facility to get kids active and and get them out of the houses in the winter time and and get them into a facility like this. Um, I think there's a tax situation as well where the city will um probably uh incur more taxes when it's a used building rather than it sits vacant. Correct. Yeah. Um, and some of the finance situation of the city, I'm sure they can use as much money as possible. The uh, and I'm not sure, and I know it's, uh, as you alluded to, that's this is one of the reasons why the committee's here. Um, it it's kind of a gray area in my opinion. Um, planning staff have to follow what policies are in place. That is their job. We've had we've had different ones before. We had a bakery once um that wasn't zoned for a certain area and all the neighbors wanted it type of thing and um you know there was a parking issue on that one. Um I'm not sure if it came back to us or not, but uh um in my opinion um I don't have a vote unless there is a tie, but in my opinion that you know if if the committee sees it favorable and it does get through this committee then it's up to planning to decide uh whether they appeal our decision or not. Um that they have that opportunity. Yes. Yeah. And so, uh, even though their, um, their position is is what we see in front of us, they still may have, uh, an idea, too. But, um, I'll leave it at that for now. Committee members, uh, Robert, the building itself and on the drawing that was submitted, there's a back section. Is that currently occupied? It is currently occupied by the landlord. Okay, that makes it easier. Yes. And it's it's all like, you know, you look back from the road, it's one big Is there second story at all or mezzanine or? Uh, not that I'm aware of. It's just all open inside. Correct. The one thing that concerns me is the definition of what you would, you know, we could put you in under the um private club or lodge. Well, keep in mind that we did we made a building permit submission for this project and uh the comments that we received back from the zoning department were that you do not meet the zoning because we deem you to be uh right uh this and so I believe zoning have determined that that is what the use is and that it's but that's kind of that's that's fine. The use is one thing, but it's it's what could happen inside the club. The you know, without being bold, I mean, could it turn into an after hours club for the instructors to have a beer afterwards or something like that? I highly doubt that that's their plan. I just I'm just thinking the the obvious, that's all. So, I think that's counterintuitive to uh throwing baseballs and hitting them. Well, yeah, I know that. I It's just in that definition. I I agree to it. So, we we're we're stuck with definitions that are defined in the in your zoning bylaw and so we have to that one semi fits. I'll use I'll use that. Yeah, I agree. Okay. I think Anybody else got any comments at all? I was just going to say um briefly like less than a minute away there's literally like a boxing club. They what you're saying with events they host events there after hours for boxing events, right? Like to me this is a much tamer version of what's already existing. It's a possibility but it is a tamer. I don't don't forget they're training youth who are not of the drinking age. So I I it wasn't the younger ones I was worried about. Oh yeah. Okay, Nick. Yeah. I mean this is you know I obviously the four tests are what we apply but sometimes there are some really exceptional opportunities, exceptional presentations that you know we just have to think uh outside the box about what is best for for our youth. I mean they are they are really suffering. would surely rather see them training for a great sport than on the street. Um and and it looks like uh the presenter here has worked very hard to try to make this match what would be needed as much as possible. So with that said, I'm going to support this and thank you. Okay. Are there any other comments or questions? I'm going to make a I'm going to make a comment. I played ball all my life. I was a catcher and we and we trained trained in my barn and I think it's a great place to have that. So, I will make a motion to approve us. Okay. Motion's made by Mel, second by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none opposed, application uh carried. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee. Appreciate your time. Good luck and hopefully it uh flies right through. Okay. Next we have a minor variance application A25256 43 Mun Street Hamilton. Owner is PSMG GMT Incorporated. Point Singer. Applicant is C. Point Singer and R. Point Singer and agent is Sarah Brown Home Design Incorporated S. Brown. I believe we have two interested parties. I'll just see if they're here. Uh Glenn Corthers. Glenn Corthers and Marg Johnson. Marg Johnson. Okay. I don't believe they're here. Is there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Uh, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address, and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Hello, good morning. Uh my name is Sarah Brown and I am the authorized agent for the owners of the property at 43 Mun Street. Um my address is 27 German School Road and that's Paris, Ontario. Uh the proposed concept for this property is to construct a new forplex dwelling. The original proposed design for this property uh was tabled uh there were some variances for that and it was tabled back on January 20th. Uh since that time, the owner and myself have been working with city staff to revise both the building and the site layout to align with the neighborhood infill guidelines. Uh as a result of the revised uh revisions to the proposal, the previous requested variances are no longer required. However, there are three variances uh that we are requesting as part of this revision. Um we have read through uh city staff comments and we are in agreement with their feedback and um feel that there's no other way to go. So thank you. Okay. Thank you. Does committee have any questions? So you had a lot of work with the staff to get to where we are today from the previous submission. Correct. Yes. Well, it's the end of the day. I make a motion to approve with the variances and conditions. Okay. Motion made by Robert, seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. Thank you very much through the chair. Next, there was a um minor variance application 825287 163 Albany Avenue, Hamilton. Applicant K Wade and K. Osario Allejo. And the owners are the same, K Wade and K. Osario Allejo. Um this application was tabled or was deferred prior to the hearing. So, I don't believe the applicant or agent is here, but if there's any members of the public interested in this application, again, 163 Albany Avenue. The application was tabled prior to the hearing. Um, if anyone's here, if you want, you could fill out an interested party form. It's just behind the podium. Fill it out and just leave it there. Or if there's anyone on WebEx, um, you can email us at coffa@ hamilton.ca and we will, uh, keep you up to date on this application if there's any any updates to provide. Okay, thank you. And next we're going to chair and staff updates. I don't know if the chair had anything to provide. Uh the one question I have is um we had a online meeting um yeah Bloomberg meeting and I just wondered what uh any comments on that meeting the ones that attended it um what you thought. Okay. I can I can just say like it was just an event kind of um asking us what we thought about uh certain ways to bring more awareness into the committee of adjustment and the committee of adjustment processes for both internal staff as well as external um citizens and essentially they were looking to see if what our thoughts were with their current tactics that they were proposing and if we had any suggestions. I thought it went well and uh they were really receptive to our feedback and what they were proposing was um um good to hear because we do see a lot of confusion coming around the committee of adjustment and exactly what we do. I think um I know we have the uh marathon tomorrow training and all that. A lot of it's already laid out, but there is some open spots looking at the agenda that maybe if we all sit down tonight after dinner and come up with some questions that could be applicable tomorrow. I know I've got one or two. and just to help us make the decisions and understand things better with the planning department and all that to to get this the ball rolling so there's no chilling after effect the threeletter word we don't like oolt um sometimes we have a we don't have any choice like the last one that came out was um an application was approved by city the staff we approved it and it got appealed So, it's um it's a no-win situation, but I think it's the it's our work here with the planning department to get the best resolution going forward so we have a a basis to make a decision on and try to and I know it's come back a few times to try to eliminate tableabling, but there are times that it's nec it's required as ne necessity. I know one my one of my questions tomorrow will be when we get an application from staff and recommended to be tabled because they don't have enough information or can't make a decision then we shouldn't which shouldn't it be coming to us until that was resolved that's something I want to bring up tomorrow but anyway that's it yes so through the chair I mean just to reiterate the Bloomberg initiative it's from the US and they selected certain cities in North America just to look at improving local governance. So Hamilton was selected and for our one of the things we worked on was for committee of adjustment and we developed a pamphlet for minor variances. So we're going to have those provided to the public and online. We're also going to be working on a video um as well to post online. Um my understanding from the Bloomberg group is that they are going to later on have additional funding and initiatives. So, we're um we're going to see if we can be a part of that and we'll try to see if we can then next do the the pamphlet for the consent applications and also do some other um maybe some other work as well. Yeah. Is there notes or anything from that meeting that we that I missed? I can take a look. Yeah. Um I think did we record it? I don't know. Anna, did we record that session? Were you there or no? or some or some information on the Bloomberg. Yeah, I could send that. Yeah, I'll find Yeah, I'll send you over the Yeah, I can send you over that pamphlet, too. Yeah, I'll send that over to you. I think we did, but I can send it to you again. Yeah, I'll send that to you after the hearing. Yeah, I think like Robert and Sebastian said, they were looking more for comments from us on how they could City of Hamilton could do a better job, basically. And then yeah there wasn't anything else. Yeah and just yeah reiterate there is a committee of adjustment member training tomorrow. So that I think it's from it's like a full day uh training. Um so the CFA staff will be there development planning uh and source water protection staff will be there as well. So just to give some more training to all the members and of course to the new member and there will be an opportunity I think there'll be questions and answers as well. Um and that meeting is in which room? It's on the eighth floor at the top. Oh, at the top here of Hamilton City Hall. Yeah. Okay. And then um what's the room number? There's I don't think there's room and it will be catered. So there will be uh Yeah, there will be food as well. Open space, I think. What? Okay. And then just just to let the committee know, there is two appeals that we did receive um to Ontario two appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal. So, one of them was to was related to 117 uh Louden Avenue which was a consent application B25087. Um the city appealed it as uh because there was some conditions that were removed by the committee. So, the city has appealed that and that appeal pack I've prepared the appeal package. It will be going out um end of this it should be going out to the OOLT the end of this week. Um, and then we just also received a an appeal for it was a minor variance application uh 825249 231 Bay Street North. Um, I don't know if the committee recalled it was at the last committee of adjustment hearing. Um, the CN Rail has appealed that one. Yep. So, we'll be preparing the package for that. with that one. It kind of caught me off guard when we got it because I went back and dug into it. The first two conditions that we let came from the staff and we approved was exactly what they're appealing that there is no agreement within 300 meters, etc., etc., etc. So, I'm just wondering where that one's coming from. I mean, is part of the conditions were there? Yeah. I mean, I believe those conditions were imposed by Metro Links though, right? So, this is now CN Rail. It did mention CN the rail yard shunting and everything else. So, I'm I'm not sure. Um I believe the uh just just as a note, I believe the applicant is is is uh is speaking with CN Rail right now. Um but if I don't hear it, we don't hear anything. We'll we'll just continue to process that appeal. It just caught me off guard because what they were asking for in their appeal was right in the conditions. Mhm. Yeah. So, they're looking for more clout. I don't know. Uh, and I believe my manager, Emily Co, has uh some comments as well, uh, through the chair. Just wanted to let you know for tomorrow with the training, there's only one elevator that goes up to the eighth floor. It's the far left elevator in the bank of the three. So, if you happen to get on the other two, you'll have to get off at seven and walk up. So, I don't want you to be arrive here and get in the elevator and there's no button for eight. Uh, so that's how you'll be able to get up there. Okay. Okay. Actually, that's an that's an important note. Yeah, I forgot to mention that. Um, if there wasn't anything else, if you want to adjourn the hearing. Okay. Motion for adjournment. Uh, Donna, do we need a second or Yeah, we um I think we just need a motion. Yeah. Yeah. It's not Okay. And we're journed at 11:29 a.m. And
Click on any part of the transcript to jump to that moment in the YouTube video.