Transcript - Variances Debated and Decided - Committee of Adjustment

Okay. Did we want to get started? It's 9:40 now. Okay, we'll call the meeting in your order and I'll start off with roll call. Uh Nick, um Yolanda, Yanukica, Robert, Donna, here. Al, and myself, Dale, are there any members with a conflict of interest on any applications? Okay, Nick. Uh, when that one comes around, um, yes, for the record, 84 Boulevard. Okay. Um, and we need a nominate or a vote for ratification of the minutes of the last meeting. Is there a mover? Mel seconded. Robert. All in favor? opposed if any seeing none that motion is carried. Thank you. And then through the chair. Yes. So uh when that application comes up 826023 uh member Lowers will will uh he will you know he can recuse himself. Um and then we will also we do have a a conflict of interest registry online and sub subsequently that will it will be uh it will be registered it will be noted there in that registry as well. And just noting that uh member Sebastian, I know I'm going to mispronounce his last name, Ry Ryarts, he's not here today. Okay. However, we do we do have quorum, so we will proceed with the hearing. Um the first application is to be heard at 9:45 a.m. So, we'll wait till then. Thanks. Okay, it's uh now 9:45 a.m. So, uh first we have a minor variance application 826040, which is uh um we have a legal description of this this property. It's a block number five and six of uh plan 62M1278 uh formerly 94 Lang Street and two Hayes Avenue. The owner is Roxboro Park Incorporated S. Mania. The applicant is the same and then the agent is Urban Solutions Planning and Land Development Consultants Incorporated M. Johnston. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Um, seeing none, um, I do note, um, and I believe the applicant or the agent is here. We did note that, uh, um, there's a possibility the application may be tabled, but I'll I'll ask the applicant or agent to to speak on that. Um, thank you. Good morning, members of committee, staff, and the public. My name is Matt Johnston, registered professional planner with Urban Solutions. And uh yes, as the secretary treasure pointed out, uh it is our intent to request committee table the application to the next cycle uh without the required recirculation fee. Um this application implements a conditional site plan approval. However, the the many layers of zoning and and variances that have gone over the years have made crafting the language of the variances a little uh convoluted and we just need a bit more time to sort through that and look forward to coming back. uh uh in uh late April. I believe it's the 30th. Okay. Is there a motion for uh tableabling? I make Robert Oh, sorry. Make a motion to table it as a Okay. Uh seconder. Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application tabled. Thank you. And yeah, through the chair, we will be uh in touch with the applicant or agent about uh how to proceed afterwards. uh this year. Okay. Thank you. And the next application is scheduled for 9:50 a.m. So, we'll wait till then. Thanks. Okay, it's now uh 9:50 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application 825287, 163 Albany Avenue, uh Hamilton. Owner is K. Wade and K. Osario Allejo. Apologize if I mispronounced the name. The applicant is this. The applicant is the same two people. Um I believe we have two interested parties here. I'll just uh ask if they're here. Janet Pike. Did you want to speak? Yeah, please come up. Step uh up to the podium, please. And uh you can provide your name and address and you'll have five minutes to speak. And afterwards, if you can uh fill out an interested party form, it's just behind you there. Just fill it out and leave it there. That'd be appreciated. Thanks. Morning. Um, I live at 154 Newland's Avenue. Um, uh, the reason I, uh, came in is is this house that they've built in the backyard. Um, which they put SLG garage, but it it's a house. um and it has I don't know eight variances or whatever. So I'm saying is uh if there's bylaws and uh rules and regulations then why do we have to come with like there's so many variances and fix the variances and uh make it a house which which it is. It's it's not a garage. So my proposal is they they should uh crack the variances. It's too large at the the eve troughs everything. So, just uh make it to zone, make it the way it's supposed to be. I wasn't aware that we could build the houses in our backyard, but the height and everything, it's it's a house. So, I I I propose that they clean up the variances, and if they're going to build a house, then it it should be a house, but it's not a garage. Is there someone uh living in that residence now in that building? Uh, not to my knowledge. I don't know. Okay. But I mean, it's definitely not a garage. Looks like a house. It's a house. Um, so they need they need to correct it and and stop calling it a garage. Pardon me. That's what they're doing is they're applying for these variances so they can make it an additional dwelling unit. Yeah. But like I thought you have blueprints. You you go to code. like when I had my basement done. Uh so why are there so many variances? Because they need those variances. They're requesting those variances so that they can um make this an additional dwelling unit. It's made. It's there. It's already there. It's built. It's a house. It looks like a house. It's a house. Okay. So that would be So why didn't they make it to spec like it's supposed to be made? Mhm. If it's a house, then they should have made it to spec. Yeah. Definitely not a garage. Never was. Okay. Okay. We'll hear from the applicant eventually. Sorry. Can you can you fill out an interested party form, please? Just behind you and just leave it there. Thanks. Um, next we have uh Bob Gross. Yeah. Please step forward. Please provide your name and address. We have five minutes to speak and afterwards if you can fill out an interested party form just behind you and leave it there that'll be be appreciated. Good morning. Uh morning my name is Bob Grass. I live at 168 Newands Avenue. Uh my backyard and the other streets backyard they kind of but against each other. Uh I have an issue too. I said as my wife and I when this structure was going up, we hadn't received anything in the mail saying that they were going to build this structure. And then kind of were looking at it, word got around that they were building a garage. So I okay, whatever. And then uh as the work progressed, it got higher and higher and higher. And now we're going, there's no way is that a garage? That's a house in the backyard. and it's fairly high. So, the thing I have is they want all these variances now after the structure's been built. Why? If they had to have blueprints and and get a permit from the city to build whatever they were going to start to build, then there shouldn't be a problem with these variances because if it can't fit or this ain't right, then it shouldn't have been built in the first place. Shouldn't this all be agreed upon before you build a structure? Now, if you have if you hire a contractor, I'm not sure if they did, then that contractor is not going to do the work if it's not going to be to code or bylaws or whatever, they're going to know ahead of time, well, we can't really build this this big or we can't build this close to a fence because you can't do it. They shouldn't have been done. So the issue I have is you're just going to entice other homeowners if these people just everybody in our neighborhood decided, oh my backyard, let me see I can put a a place there where my grandkids can live or whatever and just build it and then say oh wow no it's not the code it's all these variances. They're coming back to ask for permission to make that a house now. And I just feel that uh I don't personally feel how they can build a structure and then decide oh well no it's not no it's not right. We built it wrong. And that previous home owner I was one of the ones that yelled at the at the people working on it and it was at close to dark and they were still banging and we were hauling out the window to knock it off. So, I don't know if it was done by a contract or these people just build it on their own, but I I am opposed everything until all these variances are resolved somehow. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, what was your address again, sir? 168 168 Newands Avenue. Is there any members any other members of the public who wish to speak? Okay. Uh, first, thank you to the members of the public who spoke. And again, I just want to indicate if you have any questions or uh, concerns about the committee of adjustment and our process, please contact us prior to the hearing. The staff um, our information is on the notice. It's on the website. My business card is there as well. I just want to give some general information about the process. Um and I it's just some things that the residents raised is one of the things is raised is that if a structure is built um someone can then come in and for minor variances um this issue as I worked in other municipalities this is an issue that's come up and I have uh we I have had to deal with it um I have contacted previously the ministry of municipal affairs which oversees the planning act to ask for clarification on this if someone has built built a structure. Can they then come in for a minor variance? I did not get a response from the ministry on that. They did not appear they were looking to address that. So what happened is several of the municipalities through the Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustment. We did have a discussion about this. So how do we deal with this? So what we've the the kind of the the practice that we have is that if someone's built it, there's a building violation, there's a building order on the on the structure, they are given two options. Either they comply, they change the structure to comply with the with building with the zoning requirements or they can apply for a minor variance. If they apply for a minor variance, we advise the committee of adjustment that they're to look at the proposal as if it's not there as like a new proposal and to assess it according to the four tests in the minor variance. Um so that's what we would advise the committee here as well. In addition, the planning act states a municipality can have a zoning bylaw. It further states a municipality can have a committee of adjustment to hear and consider minor variances. So that's what's happening here, but it has to go through a public process and you're participating here and it's going to be up to the committee to have to make a decision on that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Can I just add one thing or something? Anything else? No. Yeah, sure. Oh, the thing is like if you apply to the city to build build something, you have to have blueprints. You have to have all the information where the split thing is going to be, how far away from a fence or whatever. Yep. that all these variances should not be an issue after it's built. It should all you should know before you put a garage or a house or whatever that if I build it here, which I'm supposed to do. Yep. We wouldn't have we wouldn't have all these variance things going on. Again, seems to people are building something then saying, "Oh, let's go see if we can get something." No, I as again I said, it's always preferable contact us prior to the hearing and we can have a discussion. I I'm always aware of issues and I do try to look into it. Um I have that's that's how it's being assessed. I mean if you want contact me after the hearing we can talk further about it. Okay. Um but again I'll leave it some of these questions to the applicant. They can answer it as well. Okay. Thank you. Um is there any other members of the public who wish to speak? Uh okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have uh five minutes to speak. Thank you. Good morning, um, committee and members. My name is Ken Wade. I'm the owner. Oh, I'm the I'm the owner and, uh, yeah, I'm learning this is all new. It was a garage and then the shortage of housing. Friends said, "Oh, let's do this." And I've learned a lot. And since it's now uh it's going to be a workshop and additional dwelling because there's uh friends of that need housing right now. So that's my uh my end goal is to build it to give affordable housing to im actually immigrants really. But so was there um a permit issued to build the garage? No, because my garage was falling down and I was just doing the garage itself. And then a friend of mine was down from Ottawa for a couple days and stayed a week and helped me do that cuz it's just any silliness and as I said Okay. So, you're here to ask for forgiveness? Yeah. Well, as I said, well, once once I had the the note on um the door, I called uh Jennifer first and I'm like, "Okay, what do I do? How do I make this right?" And she goes, "Well, you got to get somebody to draw it." And I spent months trying to get someone to draw what was there. So, I have all the drawings you guys have seen, I'm sure. And then, uh Okay. Yeah. Now, I have a brother-in-law that's in construction and he's trying to help me go through this. So, the building department has copies of the drawings, the drawings and yeah, my cover letter and Okay. Uh, committee questions. I have a question. Um are any of the ease overhanging to any other their neighboring properties on my adjoining uh the party wall where my existing cuz it was a joint garage. Um that has to get cut off. Correct. So it's not on anyone's Yeah. In the drawing it shows my design guy took it off. So maybe a question to the building department. Um I don't know whether anyone's here to answer but I just uh in this case I guess the garage needed repairs you know should there been a be have been a permit issued for um reconstruction or through the chair. I don't know if we have anyone from the building department here. Um I'm not sure. Um but also I don't know again I'm not sure I don't know if I guess planning has anything to add. Um yeah, Donna, I just um just to clarify, this started out as use fixing the existing garage and then morphed into additional dwelling unit this additional unit on and you didn't look into anything whether you need a permit. Well, and and that's Yeah. So, as Dale says, you're here asking for permission or for forgiveness rather than permission. And um yeah, I I think if the uh if the planning department, zoning department are are uh okay with it, then uh I make a motion to approve the application with the revised um number two um condition or revised number two uh number three as well. I think number two and number three are re revised. Two and three. Oh, okay. I just read uh two. Yes. Well, it says yeah, variances one and three to five. They're they're approving and then a revised number two. I believe it's revising variances two and three. Oh, okay. So, I just read that and then the variances are subject to a condition. And if again, if I say anything doesn't sound correct, please uh development planning correct me. Is yeah, just to just to make sure. Is that uh that's right? Yeah. Uh through the chair, Anthony Mancini, planning technician one. Uh it's just variance two that we're requesting be revised and then the other variances as requested. Thank you. Okay. So, I make a motion to approve the um the application with the revised variance number two and any comment. Okay. Or notes? Moved by Donna. Is there a second Robert or you have a question? I just make a comment. Oh, here. Let me get out. Are you okay with what's been proposed here? Whatever you guys tell me to do, I'm going to do it. What if it means going like this with the building? I I have no choice. My only concern is if you cannot meet these variances as listed, then you might be coming back again. Well, because this this uh number two, it's actually instead of 6, it's 74. or it's on the drawing. Okay. And when I was discussing with Anthony and his uh his boss there, they wanted a a 0.9 and I'm like, well, this is where it was cuz it was there was an old fence post that was I lived in the house when I was born there. And they the new people from the Kanas put a fence a foot away and that's where when I measured I'm at 74. So, I don't know how how I'm going to move that wall. I That's why that's why I brought Yeah, that's why it it's it's uh Well, if if you're okay with these numbers under the pretense that you could possibly be back again after it's built if if he doesn't meet it. Well, he's going to meet the point. Okay. I just Yeah. No, but I see what he's saying now because for number two, you want me to move that whole wall is what you guys are requesting me to do. For number two, yeah. Yeah. It's recommended the setback be 7 m and I'm at 74 is what's on my drawing. Okay. Yeah. Cuz with the with the way they measured the the guy that drew it up measured wrong. So I went back and did my points and I'm at exactly at.74 meters on this number two instead of 6 instead of 6. Yeah. Uh yeah, I sent it to them. Yeah, it's on there from 1992 actually. That's one. Um I appreciate the secretary treasurer uh laying out the gray areas in situations like this and um uh unfortunately um well I I'd like to second uh Donna's motion to approve this. Okay. Okay. A mover and a seconder. All in favor? Opposed? Two opposed. So the motion is carried. Application is approved. Okay. With those conditions. Okay. So the condition that I move this wall number two or is that 74? Good. So that's okay. Go ahead. Sorry. Through the chair. There is a condition that it's and again we did send the the staff we did let you know the staff comments were posted online. So uh you could have reviewed that. Uh the requested variants generally apply to the provided site plan and elevation package that were uh provided as part of the uh your original application package. The notice uh for the notice of public hearing for this minor variance application. And then um there were five variances and staff uh proposed and the committee accepted variance to um uh be revised. Um, and now would be a minimum setback of 0.7 m from the easterly interior sidelot line shall be permitted for an additional dwelling unit detached instead of the minimum required setback of 1.2 m and then all the other variances remain the same. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's wonderful. Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Okay. Um, yes I did. Next we have a minor variance application A26041 134 Beach Boulevard Hamilton. Owner is A. Rick Tash and owner is T. Maz Mazer. Apologize if I mispronounce your names. Um, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing that, I will ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Uh, good morning chair and members of committee. Uh, my name is Trez. I live in Missaga 4205 Ship Drive. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak regarding my minor variance application uh for 134 Beach Boulevard. Um, under zoning bylaw 5 uh 6593, properties in the C district are limited to a maximum height of 2.5 stories. Um, I'm requesting a variance to permit a maximum of three stories with minimum sideyard of 1.7 meters instead of the minimum uh the sideyard setback of 3.2. That's for the third story only um required for the single family dwelling. The variance is required to facilitate the construction of a new three-story dwell single family dwelling that conforms to the maximum height that's allowed already. Uh it maintains the appropriate massing and respects the neighborhood properties. The design fits within the existing pattern of development on the beach strip where three-story dwellings already exist. Uh a number of three-story dwellings already exist including directly nearby and some uh further down the streets. So maintains the official plan. Um it be sorry the the variances meet all the four tests of the planning act. It maintains the intentions of the the official plan. The sites is a designated neighborhood under the urban uh Hamilton official plan. single family dwelling includes a modern form and a you know a ready unit for a secondary dwelling also. Um staff confirms that the official plans fully supports this build. Uh m the second thing is it maintains the intent of the zoning bylaw. uh 2.5 story uh limits exist uh to maintain the building characters, prevent overdevelopment, uh protect privacy overshadowing and overlook. Staff have confir confirmed that three-story dwelling homes already exist in this area such as 91, 180, 174, 188, and even recently 153 Beach Boulevard. The proposed 11 m height is within the expected residential scale. uh the characters the character of the streetscape is maintained. The variance is minor in nature to permit uh 2.5 is primarily legacy required in the zoning bylaw. The newest citywide zoning bylaw measures in in height in meters only. It doesn't uh measure in stories. Uh the proposed 11 meters fits comfortably within the framework. No additional variance is required and the staff from planning, zoning, transportation and the ministry of transportation uh expressed no objections. The variance is desirable and appropriate for the land of use. The beach trip has evolved significantly with a mix of one and a half stories, two stories, and threetory dwellings. Newer builds in the past five years have trended towards the taller narrow homes uh in line with the modern coastal style infills. The proposal supports reinvestment, improves improving of the housing stock and enhances architectural quality of that area and examples. I've already gone through the examples that we have already. So yeah, we're just requesting the minor variance for a three-story dwelling that maintains the 1.7 meter sideyard setback. Okay, thank you. Committee have any questions on this application? So this is a single family dwelling that you're building or you're proposed to build, correct? Yeah. Then I have a concern because on drawings A1.1, A1.3, A1.4, which is showing the floor plan, there's two complete kitchens and two complete laundry rooms. That doesn't it's a single family story being designed. So the uh the owners, they want to have like have a place for their their whole family. they have a nice large family. Um, and they don't want any objections in the future. So, like when they do sell the house, they they're they're not planning on renting it or anything like that right now, but in the future when they do sell it, they want to just make sure make sure that, you know, uh, future homeowners can afford this and if they need to rent it, the the downstairs is available to rent. But, as of right now, they they have no intentions of, uh, renting the basement or anything like that. Okay. Question for staff on this property. Is it with the singlestory dwelling that's being proposed, which is a question mark, is it legal for them to make it into quote unquote a duplex and rent out part of it? Thank you. uh Spencer Skidmer, acting manager of development planning east team. Um so we'll we'll check that for you. The beach strip is under the old 6593, the old um Hamilton zoning bylaw from the 1950s. We did incorporate a sight specific citywide to allow attached additional dwelling units within single family dwellings. Um I got a colleague from zoning who's just confirming that that would be permitted in this instance. However, it was reviewed as a single detached dwelling and it hasn't identified it as being a self-contained dwelling unit. So, what was put forth um on the application and on the plans is a single detached dwelling with two kitchens. Um and some singles do have two kitchens. Um so, that's how we reviewed it. However, maybe um if you give us a moment, we can confirm that the zoning would in the future permit the conversion of that kind of basement unit to an additional dwelling unit detached. So, if you give us a minute or two, that would be great. Thank you. So, Robert, um, I kind of had the same idea, the same question, but I guess, you know, the agent is applying for a single family dwelling with two kitchens um, and maybe uh, zoning changes down the road. And if they decide at some point to sell, they may be able to will that legally make it a a duplex. And I guess as planning said, you know, the the idea right now and the agent said it's just a a single family dwelling with with two kitchens. Well, that's the proposal there with the the variances. Like I have no problem with the variances. Um because the the garage underneath adds to the height. There's no two ways around that. Um but I was just concerned about going forward. This is, you know, you pull it back, it looks like a duplex. So, but we'll leave it to the other people to follow up the planning department, but at the same token, we're only going to vote on the variances that are presented in front of us. So, I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. Motion made by Robert, seconded by Mal. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. Awesome. Thank you guys. Thank You want to speak? Okay. Okay. Building department just wanted to make a couple comments. Oh, sorry. Oh, no. We just did confirm through zoning staff that it does have the site specific that would permit an attached dwelling unit in the future. Okay. Thank you. Can I just add that um there was a request to revise the uh original um variance um as well as there's some proposed notes if we can add that. Yeah. Through the chair. Yes, it would be there was some proposed notes. Um I don't believe the variance request was revised again. Oh, no, there was. Yes. Um yes, there was a Yeah. Yeah, there was a revised wording there. Okay. And then there was the notes as well. Yes. So that motion was with the revised revised. Mhm. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next we have a consent application B260003 22 Alpine Avenue Stony Creek. The owner is a a numbered company 1768855 Ontario Incorporated Centurami. The applicant is the same and the agent is D. Defilipus Design Incorporated J. Defilipus. Apologize if I mispronounce your name. Um, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Uh, seeing none, uh, 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. Uh, Joseph D. Philippus from Dilippus Design, Inc. at 687 Barton Street in Stony Creek. We were the agent for this application. Uh we're just looking for a severance of a of a lot to allow differential ownership of a semi- detached dwelling. Um I' I've gone through the public comments. The public comments seem to um indicate that we're not going to be complying with the zoning or the official plan. Um this site that this building's already permitted um and under construction. So it it will comply with the zoning. There's also a condition to do a zoning compliance review. Um so we'll be doing that uh in order to satisfy the severance. Um it planning staff have indicated that it appears to meet the official plan as well. Um the only condition that I would uh I I I would like the condition for the noise study to be removed. I given that this building's already been permitted, I don't feel that the severance itself is actually creating any sensitive no new sensitive noise receptors that would warrant a noise study. Okay. The So that's condition number eight. Uh it's condition eight. And you're okay with the other conditions? We are. Okay. Does committee have any questions? Donna make a motion to approve the application with the removal of variant or number eight condition. Okay. Condition number eight. Sorry. Okay. Nick seconded. All in favor. Opposed. Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. Okay. Next we have a minor variance application 826010 721 Beach Boulevard Hamilton. Owner is W. Jang and the applicant is Krookies Pub and Kitchen. Um number company 0207915 Ontario in Incorporated M. Krooks and then the agent is the same as well. Um, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Uh, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address. And you have, uh, five minutes to speak. Thank you. Hi there. My name is uh, Mike Krooks. I live at 533 Beach Boulevard and um my business is Krookies Pub and Kitchen located at 721 Beach Boulevard. Um here to talk to you today about a minor variance. Um uh I was tabled previously at our last uh committee meeting and um I've taken a different approach now in regards to the patio that uh we have out front of the building. Uh we've been approved um for the temporary patio program as we have been in the last four years and we are maintaining the inte integrity of the um uh of the was going to be an encroachment on the sidewalk uh with the temporary patio program. The approval has been in to be uh our fence buted up against the sidewalk. What I need approval for is the uh bylaw of the 5 m setback from my neighbor uh at 723 Beach Boulevard. Um and I'm asking for a 2.6 six meter variance to achieve a couple of things. Maintain the current deck as it is and also allow for the entrance to not be on the 723 side as uh my neighbor has requested that either I put up a privacy fence if we go with the current plan of maintaining the 5 m um or we have the current entrance with a wheelchair ramp which is incredibly important. So um that's what I'm here today to do. The plan for me is the lessons have been learned. So the plan for me is to uh get seek this approval, finalize the building permit. Um once this is done, I will apply for a permanent wheelchair ramp uh to be installed as of November 1st when I take down this patio. Uh we will then go with the the wheelchair ramp and then moving forward, I will hire uh an appropriate company to deal with all of this. So it's not me do coming forward. And the plan is is to uh just continue with the temporary patio program as is. The main reason for the deck is for uh a safe entrance uh to my business without a step up and uh we're currently at about a seven degree incline uh on the ashvault that's under the deck and I have had some tripping issues in the past and I just want to avoid those. And again the wheelchair ramp goes right level to our front entrance which allows uh for easy accessibility into the building. Um and and again the intent is to take this deck down and start a fresh and start a new uh going into the 2027 patio season. Okay. Did you There was a revised um comment on on variance 2. You read that? Yeah. Revised. Okay. Yeah. And you're good with that? Yes. Okay. Committee. So going forward, you already have the temporary deck permit. I have the temporary patio permit which allows me on the ashvault, right? Uh but again with the entrance the 5 m there's a large 5 m space that kind of looks weird. And then as it is now it kind of uh with it it's 2.4 m closer to my neighbor. So I need that 2.6 meter variance uh to achieve that. And then moving forward once I have that I think we'll u we will just move forward with that and so I don't have to come back to the committee and if there is changes again it won't be me moving forward I will hire a surveying company. Right now it's just not a financial it's not financially feasible for me to be starting that process right now until I get through a summer where I have some profits. Um I made I made some other investments in the in the property uh inside with replacing floors and bathrooms that kind of sucked up profits from last summer. So, I have to wait and uh build the bank account up. So, in other words, coming back to the sideyard set back to the neighbor's fence, you're okay with building the deck 2.6 m back from that? Yes, 100%. And then that area there currently has a shed that I use for recycling. Uh we'll be moving that. I'm going to be buying bike racks once once I get approval. Be bike racks for people coming off the path um from behi from behind our place uh um the Hamilton Beach Trail that they'll have a safe place to lock their bikes up when they come and visit the patio. Okay. Make a motion to approve with the conditions and notes. Okay. Is there a second? Yuka another. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you very much. Have a great day. Okay, next we have a minor variance application 826038 558 uh 8th Road East, Stony Creek. Owner is El Cilla Sephilon and the applicants El Sephilon and F Sephilon. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the um I do I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and uh I just I note I believe um development planning staff are requesting the application be tabled, but I'll ask the the applicant can speak to that. Thank you. Uh, my name is Lori Sephalone and my address is 558 Roadie Stony Creek. Um, I'm here as a longtime resident of the former Stony Creek, now the greater city of Hamilton, to request two variances outlined in the zoning bylaw for secondary dwelling units or ADU. We are requesting a variance for the height of the building to be more than the currently allowed 6 m in height and a variance to allow the building to be placed closer to the road than the primary residence. My property comprises 69.5 acres of farmland. In regards to the inconsistency in the values, the site survey provided shows the ground floor area of each existing building and proposed ADU building. This shows the current and proposed building takes up less than 25% of the total area of the property as required in the zoning bylaw. The gross floor area is indicated on the application form. The primary dwelling is 297.2 2 m and the proposed ADO gross floor area is 261 square meters as indicated on the house drawings which is smaller than the primary residence. The variance in height will allow us to build a two-story dwelling and will not negatively impact or change the character of the land and reduces the impacts on the existing agricultural land base. Based on the site plan, the new building is located away from all neighboring dwellings. The variance to allow the proposed dwelling in the front of the primary residence and therefore closer to the roadway will ensure we do not negatively impact the agricultural landscape and allows us to use the smallest amount of land possible. This will allow us to continue to maximize the agricultural land to produce commodities and pasture land for our livestock in order to continue to produce food for the community. These two requests for variances in height and location will allow us to be in line with the character of the neighborhood and local community and will allow us to remain on the property for years to come. We will we will continue to strive to be a pillar of the community. We have been farming the land since we purchased the property and this will allow us to continue to farm and preserve the agricultural importance and footprint of the area. This small numerical request will have a much larger positive effect on the agriculture activity and on our financial burden by accommodating current imposed regulations. We're we are requesting approval of these variances rather than them being tabled today. and thank you for your consideration in this matter. Okay, thank you to the committee. Questions on this application? Planning is recommending tableabling just to uh planning department. There's been no comments from source water here. Is that an omission or just didn't happen? Yeah. Uh through the chair to the committee member. um source water protection staff was circulated on the application and they indicated they had no comment on the application. Um I note that the the lot is of a size that can um accommodate um private servicing. So they they didn't have much concern on that aspect. Assuming this was an additional septic bed for the ADU or tied into the existing Yeah. Uh based on the plans, it's a new septic bed proposed. I'm going to speak on it. Do you have any additional comments? Uh yes, I do. Um Frank Silone, I live at the same residence. Uh we've been farming for quite a while. Everything's in order. The only reason they wanted to table this was there was a misunderstanding on square footage or square meters but that's been re retrified. So to table this to go back to them to ask more questions like you said separate septic septic se separate system the dwelling as you can see on the plan is quite far from our residents in order like we the committee has to understand the additional dwelling unit when that policy came out was made for inner city. it never took into effect rural areas. So that's why you have setbacks behind the original house when you look at ADUs in the city because there's no room beside an a house, right? You look at the height because you don't want to interfere with your neighbor's backyard, which makes sense. Here you don't have those restrictions. I mean 69 12 acres. We want it closer to road so that my pasture land doesn't get affected that much because all we'll do is cut out the front yard to some backyard for them and then continue the pasture in a in a U shape and we went to a twotory in order to reduce the sprawl of the agricultural footprint as well. We have had some applications previously uh that requested a front yard and um I think in some if not most of those applications um they were granted it wasn't an issue but every application is on its own merits and that's how we look at each application. So okay Donna you had your mic on. Yeah, I was just going to ask staff um has that has the ground floor area been resolved that that part of it been resolved through uh through the chair to the committee member. Um uh no, we didn't receive any revised plans that demonstrate um the proposed uh gross floor area showing um where it would be consistent with uh the application form. Okay. Have you have you submitted that to the city? I think the difference with the gross floor was one reading took into effect the garage floor area. The other one was discussing ground floor area of living space. Okay. Does that make a difference? Would that And the garage is not living space. Uh through the chair to the committee member. Uh yeah, it would make a I think what's indicated on the plans was the ground floor area of the dwelling. I think the confusion lies in the distinction between ground floor area and gross floor area which are a ground floor area isn't a defined term in Hamilton's zoning by the '05200 whereas gross floor area is um I think planning staff are just noting an inconsistency in the dimensions provided in the application form versus the drawings showing two different things. Um maybe the applicant can speak and clarify the distinction there. Yeah, I'm gonna have my son speak on that because he's been more involved with the plans. Thank you. My name is Peter Sephilone. My address is 50 or 533 Woodburn Road. The site survey that was provided has the ground floor area numbers. Doesn't show the gross floor area. So, the ground floor areas is just the area that the lot the building would take up to comply with the zoning regulations regarding less than 25%. the gross floor plans is on the architectural drawings that we submitted to show that it is smaller than the primary residence. So I think the discrepancy was the value they were looking at. It didn't say G or ground floor area said just the number value they were taking as the ground floor the gross floor. So that's incorrect. So the survey site survey does show just the ground floor not the gross floor plan. The gross floor plan is on the architectural drawings that show that the new proposed ADU would be smaller than the primary residence. Nick. Um, so could you please just confirm that there's a separate sistn and also a new a new septic bed for this additional That's correct. The new ADU has a separate system septic bed all provided all approved through the or building processes has those permits that we're waiting for. Building department has building department. Okay. Yeah. Um, could I make a motion to approve this application with the proposed conditions? Sorry. Motion made by Nick, seconded by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Um, next we have A minor variance application was 826042 371 11th Road East Stony Creek. Owner is K. Simpson and C Simpson. Applicant is R. Lees Chappelle and the agent is the same as well. Um just uh just for the just a a reminder to the committee uh I believe this application was tabled prior to the hearing. Um so it would not be brought to the committee today. So, if there's any members of the public here for this application, um 371 11th Road East Stony Creek, the application has already was tabled prior to the hearing. If you have an interest in this application, please fill out an interested party form here up front um and leave it there and then uh we'll we will notify you of any further updates. If anyone's participating virtually, please send us an email at to cofa@ hamilton.ca. Um and then we can we can also provide you uh updates on this application when they are available. Okay, Justin. So, it since it was previously tabled, we don't have to table it through the committee. No, you do not. Okay. Okay. Uh next we have a minor variance application 826045, 24 Amberwood Street, Stony Creek. owner is Hamilton Wentworth Catholic District School Board. The applicant is the same or no the applicant here is Hamilton Wentworth Catholic District School Board P. Ferry and the agent is Swedish Architect Incorporated M Hart Maxwell. Are there any members of the public wish to see speak on this application? Okay, seeing none, I will ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Hello, my name is Chris Johnson. I am a part of Space Architects Incorporated as a part of the agent for 24 Amberwood Street. The address for our firm is 3600 Billings Court, Unit 100 in Burlington, Ontario. This minor variance application is for a new Moolik location for garbage collection. The reason for this application was due to the fact that we could not put the Mollocks in a sideyard and had to move it to the front closer to the school. This would allow for proper turning radiuses for a garbage truck to move through the existing Ashvall driveway and into the existing area for them to make proper turning locations and for them to properly be able to pick up the garbage as needed. One of the comments that was brought to our attention through the main site plan application was that due to the size requirements for Mollocks that this would be considered an accessory structure. So, some of the concerns that we had throughout this application and through consultation with our planner on the file allowed us to look into providing a privacy screen to allow for it to not be seen from Amberwood Street from both sides of the street along with a new planting area as well that would be composed of multiple different forms of planting species that are local to the area itself. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. You're okay with the uh two proposed conditions that are listed? Yes, those are very reasonable. Yep. Well, you're okay with the conditions. I'll make a motion to approve. Motion made by Mal, seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. I'm sorry, who seconded the motion? I believe it was Robert. Robert. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Okay. Next, we have a minor variance application 826046, 49 Chilton Drive, Stony Creek. Owner is S. Withers and A Stamp. Applicant is G Day and C. McFale. Um, are there any members of the public wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing none, Aussie, applicant or agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Uh, good morning committee. My name is Charles McFale from Charles Lindsay and Associates. We are the agent on this application that we're bringing forward today. Uh, this application has two minor variance requests. One for lot coverage, one for building height. Um, the project entails the construction of a new detached accessory building. uh purpose-built, purposedesigned, pre-engineered/fabricated structure. Um the homeowners own a large RV and are looking for on-site storage when it's not being used. Uh hence the size of the building. We did take uh we did make an effort to contact uh direct neighbors to get their feelings and opinions. The committee should have received one uh letter of support or email of support in the package. We do have three others that we did receive, but we're not able to get them in on time and meet the deadline. I do have copies if anyone on the committee would like to see them. Um, but we do have support from both direct adjacent neighbors as well as two other neighbors in the community. Uh, we did present this to staff before submitting a formal application just to get a feeling of whether or not they would support the variances. Um, our conversations were all positive, so we proceeded with the formal application. You'll see their comments in the in the notice are all positive, as well as any other agency that commented. Um, we're hopeful that this will go through and I'm happy to answer any questions or address any concerns that any members may have. Okay. Committee, any questions? Robert, the owner of the property, the landlord who has the RV, is that 12T door enough? Uh, the building was designed between them and the fabricator. So, if that's what is on there, then that is sufficient. Okay. I just wanted to throw that out cuz I dragged an RV around and that's 12t height. That's a So that's a 12t height, 18t width. Yeah. Yeah. Is there a motion? Make a motion to approve this as submitted with the conditions and notes. Okay. Robert made a motion and seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you very much. Uh next we have a minor variance application 8.26044 3105 Fletcher Road, Glambrook. owner is uh Cashache Developments Bimbrook Incorporated, A L Dibs and the applicant is uh AM Engineering G. Mundy. The agent is the same uh person as well. Uh is there any members of the public? Oh, is there any 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 uh 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Josiah Gavvara. I am speaking on behalf of G Mundi and I'm the agent of own of the owner 3105 Fletcher Road and here for support of the requested minor variance for parking. The application seeks relief from the zoning bylaw requirement of 5.5 parking spaces per 100 square meters whereas propose proposing a reduced rate of 4.8 spaces per 100 square meters. We completed a detailed parking justification study to support this request. The study reviewed three comparable shopping centers within the area and conducted an on-site parking surveys. The findings show the real world parking demand is significantly lower than what the bylaw requires. And across all comparable sites, the average peak parking demand was approximately 3.57 spaces per 100 square meters. Meanwhile, the highest observed demand was approximately 4.34. Our proposal of 4.8 per 100 square meters actually exceeds the highest observed demand and is approximately 34% higher than the average real world demand. This demonstrates that the proposed parking supply is more than sufficient to accommodate peak demand while avoiding unnecessary overbuilding of parking. It reflects a more efficient and appropriate use of land while still fully supporting the functionality of the site. There are no anticipated negative impacts as a result of this variance. The site will continue to function effectively and parking demand will be adequately adequately accommodated on site. The study also confirms that the proposed supply will comfortably comfortably meet your year- round demand. Based on the technical analysis and the support from staff, we respectly request approval of the variance. Thank you. Okay. Um variance three. Um there was revised comments. You're okay with with the revised? Yes. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve this as well with the proposed notes. Okay. Motion made by Yanuka, seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Okay. Next, we have a um minor variance application 826035. Um so this has a it's a legal description for this property. It's a block 31B 25T 201145 812 16 20 24 and 28 test key Crescent Glamrook owner is Cache Developments Bimbrook Incorporated A L Debs. The applicant is the same um is the same as as the owner and the agent is AJ Clark and Associates Limited. Is 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 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Hi, good morning. My name is Chloe Andre. I'm a planner at AJ Clark and Associates, uh 25 Main Street West in Hamilton, sweet 300. Um, we have reviewed the staff report, uh, which is recommending approval. Um, I would like to say thank you to particularly Anthony and Alyssa who've been working on this application with us. Um, I have no comments or concerns. Um, and would ask that the committee approve the application being heard before you as recommended. Thank you. Okay, Don. Just make a motion to approve the application. Okay, seconder. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. Okay. Next, we have a consent application B260005 169 Mount Albian Road, Hamilton. Uh owner is ING I and G Deanovic. Uh the applicants the same uh people and the agent is Landwise C. Simpson. Is there is 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 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Chloe Simpson. I'm a planner with Landwise and the agent on this file. Um, our address is 1122 Wilson Street West in Ancaster Sweep 200. Um we read the staff report and uh we're in support of the recommendation for approval. We would like to request um two modifications to the conditions. Um the first is um if we could request the removal of condition number seven which is uh the storm water management brief requirement. Um the site is already quite flat. Um there won't be really any major changes to the grading required. Um and they will be the applicant will be required to submit a grading and a servicing plan which we believe will be sufficient to determine um how storm water storm water runoff will be handled. Um they'll also have to conform with uh the 30% landscape requirement which will help with storm water runoff. Um and then we would also request a modification to condition 11 which is the requirement for an archaeological assessment. Um, we would just ask that uh any future plans be required to include the standard archaeological warning clause instead of uh requiring a full archaeological assessment. Um, yeah. So, just if we could request the removal of condition seven and just that modification to condition 11. Okay. Sometimes in the cases on uh number 11 the archeological assessment we have just put a note on that. So, we'll see if the committee's okay with that. And number seven, you want eliminated or Okay. And and through the chair, of course, just just a reminder to the committee if ever you have any questions about a potential condition removal. The development planning staff are here. You can ask them questions about that. Okay. Thank you, Mel. I'll make a motion to approve with the seven removed and 11 as a note. Okay. Seconder, Donna. All in favor? Opposed? One opposed. Two. Oh, sorry. You're opposed, Robert. Okay, Robert. And sorry, who seconded the motion? Uh, Donna seconded it. Okay. And then that is to uh approve the application. And was it to remove condition seven? Yes. and then and modify 11 to to become a note. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Motion's carried. Application approved. Thank you. And through the chair, we have a scheduled break now. So, did the committee want to 5 minutes or 10? I don't know. Like 15. Well, the next one's at 11. Is that Oh, it's at 11. Yeah. Till 11. Is that okay for the community? Yeah. Okay. So, we'll we'll just uh take a brief break now and we'll reconvene at 11:00 a.m. Thank you. We'll reconvene now at 11:02 So, next we have Next we have a consent application B26002 uh 58 Car Road West, Ancaster. Purchaser is Aspire Bakeries. The owner is John Vortman and Associates Limited, J. Josie, the applicant is the same person and then the agent is AJ Clark and Associates Limited. I believe we had an interested party here. Um Rachel and Steven Haynes, are you here? Rachel and Stephen. Oh, you're okay. Okay. Uh yeah. Uh if you wanted to speak, uh you could uh just provide your name and address and you'll have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Okay. This is Rachel Adamis. We live at 1813 Fiddler's Green Road. We're right across from the bakery. Um we just have concerns. Um it's not very clear what exactly will the new severed um parcel be used for because we have issues with what our well. It's a low yield well. So, we're concerned naturally for the um you know um how the well is going to keep up w with more um use. We're concerned with lighting um drainage um any future residential lots to be requested. Um, we're just concerned about traffic, noise, um, any type of, again, future development. Um, and we're wondering if the existing bakery has plans to expand. Um, and again, we're not very clear on what exactly they're wanting to do with that parcel. Um, and we're naturally we're concerned with wildlife. We have a lot of wildlife in the area and anywhere from coyotes, turkeys, um, deer. We have a lot of that. Um, so we're just wondering how that's going to affect um the way like what is the long-term plan for this area because we don't want to crowd out the wildlife and the reason why we bought this property was to be out in the country. Um, and so naturally we're concerned with how they want to use this parcel of land because we're thinking that the traffic and noise will significantly increase. And we're just worried about future development. Um, what their object objectives are for future. Um and see will there be um again any outdoor lighting or signs or loading? Um and we are concerned about our well naturally. Um so we're concerned of drainage because we have septic as well. Um, and again, the future of our residential lots, like is it going to impact how much our property is worth? Um, so we're concerned about that as well. We have lived here for 20 years. So again, we're we're just concerned on how they want to ex what they're planning on doing with this property cuz again, it's right across the street from or the road from where we live. Um, so we just were concerned about how it will affect neighboring property values and enjoyment of nearby properties as well because we do again have a lot of wildlife. Um, and then of course there's some environmental concerns about flooding, you know, any type of odors, dust or water use. Um, and yeah, that's probably the gist of my concerns. And I'm sorry I couldn't be there in person, but I was glad that I could attend the meeting through um through this option. And so, and lastly, I'm, you know, we're concerned too about could this create a precedent for more severances nearby and how does this severance fit with the long-term plan for this area? I mean, are we wanting this to be country living or are we going to turn this into city? Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Is there any other members of the public wish to speak? Okay. Uh just thank you to that me uh resident who spoke just for your reference. Um when we send out the notice of public hearing to the to the to all the resident the neighboring residents at the same time we do that we do circulate the applications to different city departments for the review which includes planning, engineering, uh forestry. Um, so if you ever had any questions about certain issues, whether it be, you know, um, whether it be about uh, wildlife or about water, you're always welcome to contact us, this committee of adjustment staff, and we can get you in touch with the appropriate staff to speak with them. And also, um, the the staff have prepare comments typically at least a week prior to the hearing. They are posted on the website. Um, just for your reference, the staff are are recommending denial of the application. Now I'll leave that to the applicant in terms of how they they wish to rece proceed. Uh but at the same time also if we received any resident written comments prior to the hearing they would have been posted online as well. And just for your reference committee of adjustment applications are not precedent setting. Each application is assessed individually on a case-by case basis. Okay. Um and again as I said if you have anyone has any questions about committee of adjustment processes or or procedures please contact us. Um, our contact information is on the notice. It's on the website. Um, yeah, you're welcome to contact us. Thank you. Um, and I don't believe there was any other members of the public who wish to speak. Um, now then I'll ask the applicant or agent to, uh, please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Hi, good morning. My name is Chloe Andre. I'm a planner at AJ Clark and Associates. I did provide a single slide with aerial photo imagery um yesterday. Justin, if you wouldn't mind bringing that up uh just so I can make a brief submission with that. Sure. Just give me a moment. I guess as that's coming up, I'll just uh start uh providing just a general overview of the subject lands. So this um property 58 Caruk West is I'll say a unique property given that there is an existing commercial bakery operating on it. Um and there is a sight specific on the property permitting that bakery uh within a specific location and the remainder of the lands are zoned uh agricultural A1. uh within the uh application you'll see here on the screen I've shown both the uh aerial imagery of the proposed part one to be retained and the proposed part two to be severed. Um I will clarify uh that there is no proposed changes to the existing built form or uses grading. Um the reason we're making this application is to carry out uh or to make an effort to carry out the wishes of John Vortman. Um this was the Vortman Bakery and his wishes in his will was that he that was that all proceeds of the bakery um be transferred to their charitable organization um John and Ellie Vortman Charitable Foundation which has been operating in Hamilton for decades. Um you'll see included with the application submission there was a letter provided by Robert Wyn who is carrying out the estate works. Um essentially um what would happen with this is the severed lands would be uh transferred to the charitable foundation to maximize um the giving consistent with uh his will and his last wishes. And I do recognize I guess um that we have reviewed the staff report um recommending denial um and there is a number of proposed conditions. Um we're requesting that committee approve the application um with the conditions proposed. Um and I'm available to answer any questions of committee. So, just before there's a lot of history to this um correct bakery and um back when it was first started um John Vortman was able to grow wheat to be mil and used in the bakery originally. Um and that was the only way that he was allowed to to have a bakery on that site. And then as time went on, um the wheat that was grown there wasn't of good enough quality to be ground for for the bakery. And so um it was allowed then to stay as a bakery and purchase product to for the bakery goods. Um my so one comment I do have I guess this agricultural land has been agricultural land for quite some time. Um my concern is that if we sever this off and I understand you know um the wishes uh of the previous owner um the trouble I have with it it creates uh 20 20 acre hector building lot um and I don't you know I don't think that's the imp implication of the city to create new building lots in the rural area. Um now whether just a comment would be was whether you know that parcel condition could be that it had to be reszoned um that no residential dwelling could be built on that um agricultural land so that it would have to stay in agricultural use um is just one comment I have towards it at present. options for um Nick. Yeah. Um I do appreciate the application and just um the issue is when we grant a consent that's permanent and there has been no clarification as to what the use the intended use is that's been conveniently left out. So could you help us? No, I there is a I guess we don't know what the intended use is. the intent is for it to be transferred to the charity and then they'll make the decision at that time um how the lands can be maximized to give back to the community. Um, and I will clarify that there is a condition proposed um by planning staff that this is there is conditions and we will need either a minor variance application or a zoning bylaw amendment application um process which you know I think would provide maybe some additional clarity as to how we will address this you know potential sever property going forward. Um so I will say should committee approve the application today. This is um this is not the only application that needs to be approved. Um there there is other opportunities for discussion and and works with staff to potentially address some of the items that have uh been brought up today. Anyone else with questions or concerns? Um, just my concerns as usual. I don't think that this application is transparent on what the plan is. It's nice to say it's for John. I I know John Forman and I I applaud him for his charity, but I still don't think that's grounds for for this severance just because it's for the charity because they can they This this land can be used for other things and like not it shouldn't be used for building new buildings cuz we don't want this. The bakery is enough out here and we don't need more buildings. Sorry. Sorry. Just through the chair uh to Miss uh Miss Haynes. Sorry. Just just to clarify um once you speak um that's unless the committee members ask you we we we're not asking you to to provide any further comments. Okay. It's now the applicant will speak and then afterwards the committee will have their discussion about the application. Okay. Just to clarify for you. Thank you. So the zoning of the property is agriculture. Correct. You can't build commercial buildings on agricultural land. Yes, there is a sight specific. You can see it in um the photo on the left where the dashed line is kind of is shown in a square um if you will. That is the sight specific that specifically permits the commercial bakery. So, it's not permitted beyond those areas. The rest is the standard agricultural A1 zone. I have a question. Would you be willing to defer until there's more information so that we know what is going to happen with that second parcel of land? Uh, we're seeking a decision today. Okay. Do you think there's any chance that neighboring property would be interested in purchasing that to make um the property to the west more viable? Um, unfortunately I I can't speak to that. Um I I know that the the direction that we were provided is to to come forward with this application um in in hopes that perhaps it will be uh approved uh consistent with the will and then if not uh we'll we'll see I guess what happens next, how we can address it. My my thought is is if they're using it to supplement or to add to their charity work, thought would be to to sell. Um and in 10, 20, 30 years down the road, possibility of reszoning and then there we go into the um putting in in homes and and things like that. So that's kind of my concern is that if they're looking at it to supplement their the charity, best thing would be to sell it and then therefore it's out of their hands and anybody could put a application in for reszoning. Well, can we hear complaining? David Bura, plan technician, west development team. through the chair to the uh committee member. Just kind of at a high level, staff aren't able to support the decision or the severance at the moment because of several issues that have already been discussed. The intent of the severed land isn't clear at the moment. Um what might be proposed even in addition to the lot area issues with the zoning haven't been resolved. Um in terms of policy framework um whether it's the green belt plan or the Royal Hamilton official plan there is a minimum lot size of 40 hectares for uh prime agricultural areas and there are additional policies requiring uh either something like an agricultural impact assessment or an aronomous report demonstrating that these are will be economically viable at the sizes proposed. that hasn't been provided either. So at at the moment staff would be unable to support this. And sorry, Jennifer Katarino, area planning manager for the West Development Team to supplement David's response. Um the process in which that this land is proposed to be severed um doesn't follow the policy framework. So essentially David is correct about the lot area. So, uh, an official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment supported by the appropriate studies should have been submitted ahead of time and then followed if those were approved by council. Um, then followed through with the severance application. Severing the lot first without understanding if the 20 25 hectare parcel of land is viable as farmland doesn't support the policy framework that's currently in place. And that's another reason why planning staff is not supportive of the application currently in front of you. Anyone else? Donna, no. Robert, in light of the chairman's comments and his expertise in the rural areas, um, it creates a problem and what the planning department just said makes a lot more sense to table it now. get your ducks in a row on what could be done with that property before the actual severance goes through. So, I make a motion to that effect that we table it. Robert, before I accept that, I just want to make sure that you know what as the applicant or agent um your response to that, you know, whether you want a decision made, yes or no, or whether you're okay with tableabling. We would like a decision today. Okay. Possible. They would like a decision. Okay. Well, then I'll take that back. We'll make a motion to deny the application. Okay. Uh motion made by Robert, seconded by Donna. Uh all in favor of that motion. Okay. Opposed to that motion is zero. So, um that motion is carried and application is denied. Thank you. She knows what to do now. Okay. Um, next we have it's a um there it's the same address. There's a consent and minor variance application. They're both related. So, uh, just through the chair, I believe, um, unless you I I think it would it would make sense for both of them to be heard together. Um, so it's the consent is B25041, 91 Jerseyville Road East. Ancaster purchaser is M. Coleman K. Wilkins. Owner uh is R. Wilkins. Applicant is M. Coleman K. Wilkins and the agent is Landwise J. Badley. And then the minor variance and the associated minor variance is A25132. Same address, owner R. Wilkins, applicant M. Coleman K. Wilkins, and agent is Landwise J. Badley. Um believe we have some interested parties for this application. So we have Sher Parsley. Are you there? are you here? Okay. Um Sherry Parsley. Okay, I'll move on there. Uh Rob Tate. Rob Tate. Okay, next. Rob uh Repchuk. Oh no, sorry. Dave Rapchchuk. Sorry, Rep. Dave Repchuk. Okay. And then uh Fran Welsh. Okay, Fran Welsh. Okay, I don't see them. Um, is there any other members of the public who wish to speak on these applications? Okay. Uh, 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, staff, and public. Um, my name is Jennifer Badley. I'm a planner with Landwise here representing the land owner and applicant for 91 Jersey Bill Road East. Um, Justin, I sent a PowerPoint yesterday. All right, give me a moment. Yeah, no problem. Um, I can start. We have read the recommendation report and support staff's recommendation for approval. However, I would like to uh respectfully request that committee consider removing a limited number of the conditions as we don't think they're uh should be required at this stage. And I'd also like to thank the public for their um comments, taking the time to submit their comments. And I'd like to acknowledge their concerns raised regarding the lot size uh access and tree removal. With respect to the variances, the impacts on the neighboring and the impacts on the neighboring properties. There are no reductions to any of the uh yard setbacks that we're seeking and so any future dwelling would fully comply with the zoning bylaw. Um the variances are for lot area and lot width which are only required as a result of retaining the existing dwelling which has been um acknowledged as having potential cultural heritage value. So if uh the lands were being evenly divided and that dwelling removed there would be no variances required. Um, regard regarding the access concerns, transportation planning and transportation operations, uh, we're have reviewed the application and were supportive uh, of the mutual driveway and the closure of the existing driveway at the intersection. Um, noting that it's an improvement to the current condition. And finally, with respect to trees, um, the property is subject to the town of Lancaster tree protection bylaw. So any um any removal of regulated trees would require approval from the city. So overall we maintain that the concerns raised by the public uh don't outweigh the planning merits of the proposal. So we can go to the next slide. Uh and sorry next one as well. Perfect. So as mentioned um I am respectfully requesting that committee consider removing a limited number of the conditions. Um these include conditions one two three and four for the minor variance application and conditions 15 16 17 and 18 for the consent application um which are just repeated repeats of one another. So with respect to the noise study condition, the proposed land use is already permitted on the property and the applications do not introduce any new sensitive land use that would warrant further noise investigation. And if the consent and minor variance weren't required, uh the applicant would be proceeding directly to building permit and a noise study wouldn't be triggered through that process. And similarly with respect to the archaeological assessment, if the applicant were proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a new dwelling in the undeveloped area portion of the property or build a detached ADU in this location, an archaeological assessment wouldn't be required. So currently we are requesting that both of those conditions be removed and um the standard archaeological warning clause be required. If you can go to the next slide. Um, condition two and three of the minor variants and conditions 16 and 17 of the consent application require tree protection plan and landscape plan. Again, these plans are typically secured through a site plan approval and are not generally required as part of a standard building permit process. The property, as mentioned, is subject to the Ancaster tree protection bylaw. So um the removal of any mature trees will require approval from the city through that process and the intent of the landscape plan condition is to ensure one to one tree um compensation is provided and there's only one mature tree on the property that we're anticipating will be uh will need to be removed to facilitate the development. and the zoning bylaw has a provision in place that does require a tree planting um area which can easily be accommodated on the site and would ensure compensation is provided. So in short, these conditions are not typically required through the building permit process and their intent is already met through the tree protection bylaw and the uh zoning bylaws landscape requirements. Happy to answer any questions. Committee, one of the main concerns I've got there is the driveway to get in and out of that. That's a bad corner. And I hope you can look into making that work, right? Yeah. Our original application um we were looking to have a mutual driveway um that connected to the existing access right at the intersection. Um staff were not supportive of that. So we tabled the application and met with transportation planning and um came to this alternative solution where that existing driveway and it's it will be a condition of the approval. The existing driveway needs to be closed and instead a mutual driveway access will be provided. Um we located it as far west as we could on the property so it'll um exit onto Jerseyville and staff were were satisfied that that um improve the current existing conditions and um wouldn't cause any safety concerns. I guess if you're um okay with the with the rest of the conditions besides the ones you've uh noted um I'm going to make a proposal or to approve the application u removing 1 2 3 4 15 16 17 and 18 conditions. Okay. Oh, sorry. planning you want and through the chair I did uh I'll just reiterate again um whenever there's any condition removal if the committee wants to you can always ask development staff if they have any comments related to that. Thank you. Uh thank you through the chair Jennifer Katarino area planning manager west development team. I just wanted to make a couple um statements. So at this stage um the planning act and our official plan permits us to add conditions to look at things that address policies within our official plan such as tree protection and landscaping and things of that nature. Um so the landscape um conditions that are applied here this is the mechanism in the tool that we currently have to ensure that trees are either protected or the appropriate compensation is provided. If those conditions are removed from the severance application, there is no next step as mentioned by the applicant. The building permit process does not ensure that tree compensation is received. There is no site plan required for this site because two single detached dwellings are proposed um which aren't subject to site plan control. So to ensure that our policies are upheld, uh, planning staff is strongly recommending that the conditions as presented are continued through to the approval. Another thing I would like to mention is I know we often speak about the noise condition that are applied um through the severance pieces. It's often stated that the use is already permitted. Sometimes noise studies actually dictate where residential uses can actually be located on properties. So there is a little bit of relevance to having them complete be completed to to ensure that the standards set out by the province are adhered to. So just because a property permits a residential um development to occur already through the zoning doesn't necessarily mean that the other standards or guidelines are being achieved. So this is another reason why the noise study condition is often recommended. again committee can make the decision that they wanted but planning staff just wanted to reiterate the reasons why we've added these policies um and that just to ensure that the correct tools are used at the correct time to address the policies within our official plan. I would like to make an addition I I also agree that the landscape plan as well as the tree protection plan is very important. Uh, I would be happy to remove the noise study as well as the um archaeological assessment and keep anything in regards to the landscape as well as the tree protection plan in place. Nick, um I um if I could make a comment too, I think um respective to this, I do agree with staff uh about the noise studies. uh noise uh that's actually physical. Noise is is a physical property. It's part of physics. So, it impacts people. It does hit things. So, um I think uh if we were to go forward and support this, I'd support it with the conditions as written. There was no seconder. There's no second. Okay. I'll just draw for the chair. Can This is Emily Bent from Cultural Heritage Planning. Can I make a comment as well to follow up with development planning? Yes, go ahead. Um just to add on to what um Jen Katarino mentioned. Um, similarly to how this is their only point where they can ask for a few studies, this is also the only point where uh, cultural heritage staff can ask for an archaeological assessment because as um, the consultant pointed out if they go to building permit, that's not a point where we can ask for that. Um, so we're asking for this this point because the lands are relatively undisturbed and it meets um, the required amount of archaeological potential as identified by the province. So I just wanted to uh reiterate that that is why staff is asking for an ARC assessment at this time. Okay. Thank you. Just to make a comment to the planning department is um servicing or had any discussions on this because there is some elevation change from the severed to the retained. There's a huge retaining wall out front. Um, I think there needs to be some discussion on storm water drainage on the property uh through the chair. I do believe there is a member of development engineering here who can respond to your question. If not, I can follow up. Yeah, apologies. um through the chair Chuck McFarland, development engineering. Um yes, there there is uh in the conditions uh grading and storm water uh requirement through the chair. There's also um condition 10 requires a consent agreement and often through the consent agreement process um the storm water grading, drainage, anything related to the retaining wall will also be included within the agreements. So, if there's any work that's required within the public right ofway, it's often contained within the consent agreement. I'm sorry. Can somebody point where that is in the conditions because I don't see it. Um, so I see it as condition number 10. Um, okay. It's on the on the other app. Okay. Sorry, I apologize. Nick, excuse me. through the chair and also um condition 12. Robert, your mic's still on. Did you have something to add? No. Nick, I'd like to make a motion to approve this application with the proposed conditions. Okay. Motion's made by Nick, seconded by Donna. All in favor of that motion opposed if any seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. And then to the chair. That was for both applications, right? The consent and the manual variance applications. Yes. Okay. Um. Uh, next we have a minor variance application 826020 99 Pearl Street South Hamilton. Owner is B. Boke. applicant is the same person as well. Um is there any is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Uh if seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Um, it's just time to replace my front entrance steps. And as a with that, the landing at the top is just not wide enough or deep enough to open the door and kind of get around it. Um, so instead of just replacing the exact same footprint, I'm requesting that I can widen the landing at the top and make it a little deeper just so it's a little safer and more functional. Um, and that's the extent of my application. Okay, thank you. Committee questions on this one. I'll make a motion to approve with the proposed notes and condition. Okay. Motion made by Yanuka, seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Okay. Uh next we have uh a minor variance application 826201 35 Stanley Avenue uh Hamilton owner is uh C Bavia and the applicants is the same person. Uh is 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. Awesome. Uh my name is Cameron Belvia. Address is 39 Stanley Avenue. Uh the minor variance is two minor variances. They're for a single detached dwelling that I'm trying to build in the adjacent property to me, 35 Stanley Avenue. Uh the property was severed officially last fall. It's been about two-year project. The two minor variances are for uh the unique zoning that the property is still in. Uh during the severance process, there was a plan to make the zoning match with the rest of the neighborhood. That hasn't happened yet, which is not a big deal, but uh with that old zoning, uh the setbacks for the sideyards are set for 2.7 meters versus the 1.2 that is standard in the area. and uh with a 9 m frontage that makes it pretty much impossible to carry out the project. And then the second variance is for a single parking space versus three. Uh there is no side or rear access. So that would leave only the front yard again at a 9 meter um width and I have a um a competing condition that 50% of the frontage must be left for landscaping. So I can't have the landscaping and the the requisite parking. Um and the the landscaping seems more important for matching with neighborhood feel. So that's why I have requested the minor variance for the parking. Okay. Thank you committee. Donna, just we were having problems with the uh the computer system, but I think Well, I'm back on. I'm back on now and I'll make a motion to approve with the Okay. with the proposed conditions. Okay. Motion made by Mel. Is there a second? Sorry. Just uh there there are no proposed conditions. Just I noticed you said with proposed conditions. Yes. Well, it's it's notes. Sorry. Oh, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Through the chair. Yes. There's no proposed conditions yet. All right. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, moving on, we have a minor variance application A26024 63 Bond Street North Hamilton. Uh, owner is S. Keller Olman M. Keller. Applicant is Jay Bognar. And the agent is also age Jay Bognar. Uh is there um is there a member is there any members of the public who wish to speak on the application? Okay. Uh 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. Hello. Good afternoon. Jenny Bogner here, 193 East 43rd Street, Hamilton, Ontario, L83C3. had a chance to look over the uh staff comments and we're very happy with uh the recommendation for approval. Just trying to uh repair this front porch and uh go a little bit deeper and wider with the steps. Um and that's about it. Okay. Thank you. Committee have any questions? Robert to make a motion to approve with the with the notes included. Okay. Is there a second here? Yanukica. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. And then next we had a um minor variance application A26048 uh 205 Canon Street, East Hamilton. Uh it was listed the owner was listed as a Brands Canada Corporation. Uh applicant listed as Hamilton Alliance um uh for uh FRO Tiny Shel uh Hamilton Alliance for Tiny Shelters Hats agent is DB Bedness. Uh just to let the committee know this application um was tabled uh prior to the hearing. Uh so the committee doesn't have to take any further action on it. Just letting if anyone is here for this application uh 205 Canon Street East Hamilton. The application was tabled or it was deferred prior to the hearing. Um if you wish to be uh uh notified of any updates on the application. If if you're here at the hearing in person, you can fill out an interested party form here and and leave it here with the committee of adjustment staff. If you're participating virtually, you can uh email us at cofa@ hamilton.ca. Provide your information and uh in in either circumstance, we will keep you up to date on on on when there's any updates with this application. Okay. Thank you. And then next we have a uh minor variance application A25022128 Canon Street West, Hamilton. Owner is H Lee and agent is R. Romanovich. Uh I believe we have an interested party. Dario Pacini, are you there? Okay. Is Dario Pacini? Okay. Is there uh 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. Yes. My name is Larry Romanovich and I'm here to ask for the committee to approve the variances which have been resubmitted since the last um time I was here and it was tabled to be um discussed with planning department and since we have um I've gone to planning department and we've come up with a a to plan her approach and um to the variances that we required and we have support now from the planning department for the variances 1 through six. So I'm asking the committee now to approve my new resubmitt. Okay. Committee have any questions on this application? Yanukica, excuse me. Um, I am struggling a little bit with this application as I'm very familiar with the area. Just one second, please. Can you come? Unfortunately, I bought hearing aids for this, but today there are for some reason they're off and I have very hard time hearing. That's all right. So, I am struggling a little bit with this application as the it's it's it's a very busy road and you already have a Tim Hortons right beside it and there's a lot of traffic coming in and out of there and if you have absolutely no parking or anywhere for anyone to park, they will be parking on the road. The nearest grocery stores are a few blocks in either direction, which means there will be a higher traffic of people either using cabs or whatever other vehicles. and seeing that it is already difficult to get out of that Tim Hortons turning right and then you've got a building beside you which is going to potentially have more vehicles parked there. Um again it is a very very busy road. Um my one of my bigger concerns would be um the amount of traffic that that would actually add as as well as the building height. There's a lot of single or uh twotory dwellings in the area and it is a lot higher than a lot building the area actually pertains. Let's do one at a time. Okay. Well, as as far as parking, um there will be no parking um with people who will be renting the buildings because we will be requiring them to have a permit for their duration at from a parking lot. There's two very very close within walking distances and a private one also. Um, and if I'm pretty sure if the parking rate is too high, people who are going to rent with vehicles will not rent. And we as basically the the landlords will be telling people that there is no parking on the road and therefore um there should be no problem with excess traffic or parking in the area. So for someone who does their groceries and has somebody get them a vehicle in order to do so, where does this, let's say, potential cab drop them off? They would do so right in front of the residents. So my issue is there's a lot of traffic stopping right after an intersection and at Tim Hortons with a drive-thru. So it's going to cause more congestion on a route that brings you directly to the 403. So my concern is causing more traffic issues in an area where it's quite busy. Are you talking about people traffic? Yeah, people traffic and how they go to grocery stores. How people go to grocery stores and then there will be traffic congested right before and after the light. You talked louder. It doesn't matter. They can so I can hear loud. Oh yes. So people who go to the grocery stores and they will need like taxis and uh transportation will congest traffic before and after the light especially because the road there go up to the 405 freeway. Oh 403. Yeah. 403. I can't understand the the problem there. People are people and they they travel wherever they want to go. And if you have more people in one area, it shouldn't make any difference to the the circulation. There's actually good routes there for all the people there for bus routes, um bicycle routes and things like like that. So I I can't understand why um one building is going to be over congest a full arterial road. Just doesn't make sense. I'm sorry to me. I believe that the intensification of this many units in a really small space will cause more congestion. That is my concern. Her concern is the identification of this building in this area would cause more congestion. Well, any building will cause more congestion. I don't care if it's one or two. Um, with this one here, I understand that it's got a lot more people than that. But, um, if you're considering 20 or 40 people, more congestion to block the routes, and I say there's something seriously wrong with the infrastructure than for transportation along these routes. I'm sorry to say like you know um just I cannot see where the amount of people are going to make a difference crossing a road or going to a a place more than let's say Tim Hortons right which is right next door where cars are they actually have cars going in and turning out on the main road causing will cause more congestion than people in my building. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you for your comments. Thank you for your comments. Okay. Okay. Uh Mel, uh staff got you heard the concerns about that. Can staff got some answers on that? U volunteer. Uh through the committee, sorry, uh through the chair member to the committee member. Um staff concerns about were our development plan concerns were primarily about the design of the building and potential impacts in terms of shadowing and character. Um through several rounds of speaking with the agent over uh a number of months now we have largely addressed our our concerns through revisions that have been made um that staff requested and they were accommodated in the design. the with regard to the parking specifically um as noted in the staff comments, there are alternatives uh such as the HSR routes and and active tren uh bicycling infrastructure that do provide alternatives and while it is not subject to zoning by F200, it is within what would be P1 and thus these parking requirements would not be required. Um it is generally in line with the policy direction of of the city. Uh through the chair also to address the um question or concerns from the committee member regarding drop off and pickup uh if there are people using taxis for groceries. Um although there is no space directly in front of this property along Canon um staff anticipate the use of the side roads so Railway Street um potentially um even Bay Street um there is also potential for people to utilize the Tim Horn parking lot although we're not suggesting that um but that could potentially be used for a quick drop Any other questions? Is there a motion? Robert, just before we go any further, the planning department um in the comments you referred to the variances one through six. Are those the ones that you can approve or live with or suggest? I just there's so many numbers going around here from the original application to what was communicated back and forth. I just want to make sure that we got the four setbacks with the porch obviously covered. Uh to the chair to the committee member there are correct six variances at this point. There was one variance that was eliminated regarding um the planting strip along the north property line to the rear. That is now shown on one of the revised drawings that was provided. Um the only other thing that staff would note is that variance 3 does need to be revised to 3 m rather than 2.6. That was just not captured in the notification. Okay. Okay. So looking at the staff comments then variances 1 to four and six. One is an easterly sideyard of 1.06 m. The westerly sideyard is 1.0 m. Rear depth is 3 m. Um the square footage meter shall be permitted instead of the 360. That's 291 meter here. That's fine. Right. And then a porch may project 1.06 06 into the east side yard. You're good with all that? Okay, I'll make a motion. Okay, motion made by to approve with the setbacks that we just discussed. I won't mention numbers again because it's there's enough out there on this and um Okay, is there a seconder? Donna. All in favor? Opposed. One opposed. So motion's carried. Application approved. Thank you very much through the chair. Was that approved with the revised variance three? Is that what it is? Uh was that approved with the variance three being revised as indicated by staff or was it Okay. Okay. Yes. Approved with revised variance three. Yeah. Apologies my computer is Yeah. Okay. Sorry, just just bear with me. My computer has been a little bit slow today. Wait for uh Thank you. Yeah. So, there was Yes, there was a there there's variances one to six. Yeah. One to Okay. One to four and six. Okay. All right. Yeah. One to six. And then variance three is revised. Okay. Thank you. Um uh next we have a we have a minor variance application 826023 84 York Boulevard and 89 Park Street North Hamilton. Owner is the trustees of Pilpot Memorial Church. Applicant is the same as that as the owner and the agent is Bowsfield Incorporated. D Fleta. Oh yes. And then I believe yes. Uh member Nick Lowers is stepping out uh as he indicated he has a conf potential conflict of interest with this file. So he will return after the hearing of this file um of this application. Sorry. Is there uh any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Are you are you do you wish to speak or or Oh. Oh, you're you're together. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Um 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, chair, members of the committee. um staff and the public. My name is David Fleta and I'm a registered professional planner with Bellfields. Um and we're here on behalf of the Philpot Church. I'm joined by Jackson uh I'm going to mangle his name unfortunately, Jackson Thun. And we're going to uh do a quick presentation. Um Jackson's going to briefly walk you through why it's important uh for the variance to be approved and uh uh and then I'll I'll walk through and provide a brief overview in terms of what our opinion is uh as it relates to the technical merit. So we might need a little bit more than 5 minutes if that's okay given that there's two of us. So I'll let Jackson start. If you could pull up his presentation Mr. Lung that would be uh fantastic and then mine would go up after. Thanks. Go ahead. So before we get started, I just want to review the the recommendation is denial and I just do you want a decision made today or is there a possible tableabling or Yeah. Uh through you uh chair to the actually to the committee. U you know I would like it if you can hear us out. Um ideally we'd get approval today. Uh however, if we think that there is merit in a tableabling, uh we're happy to try to work with staff. Um but we think that it does have merit and we're going to walk you through that now if that's okay. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. Thanks very much. Uh good morning everyone. Uh thank you for allowing me the time to speak to you today. My name is Jackson Thun. I'm a pastor at Philpot Church here in downtown Hamilton. And uh it's really my privilege to be able to share with you today uh what it looks like to be a part of this community that calls Hamilton home. And I've got some photos on the screen as well that I'll run through as I go. The downtown core of Hamilton has grown near and dear to my heart as I've pastored here for the past 6 years. I love the energy of this city, the architecture, the history. Uh but most of all, I love the people. and I have been blessed to be part of a church that loves the people of this city in all sorts of incredible ways. In fact, at this very moment, just a few blocks east of here, uh nearly a hundred people are gathering for a weekly lunch service at Philpot Church's new location at 160 King Street East. This service, you can see a photo of it here, is going to see many hungry folks in our city fed and cared for. Uh, and this is just one of the many ways that Philpot Church is trying to show love to our neighbors and meet practical needs here in downtown Hamilton. You can jump to the next one there. Well, over a dozen volunteers are in our newly renovated building preparing food, making coffee, organizing clothing to hand out to those who need it most. Uh, there are also a handful of Philpot folks that are at this moment making their way through Gore Park. They're passing out hot chocolate. They're passing up medical supplies, new socks, hats, gloves, uh along with a smile, a prayer if folks would like it, a word of encouragement and grace to those who are struggling. And this weekly Thursday routine, you can actually jump to the next one there. This is just a small picture of what we try to do as a church to love our neighbors here in Hamilton. We work closely not only with those who are unhoused or struggling with addictions, but we also provide care in community to refugees and newcomers to Canada. We offer support in terms of housing and employment services. Uh helping people find jobs and places to live. We help people with furniture when they do find places to live. And we work closely with partners throughout the city which include Indwell, Open Homes, and some of our dear friends here who work with the Salvation Army Booth Center. And some of the other ways we try and love our neighbors, you can jump to the next one there, is through free haircuts. We partner with Market College here in the downtown and we put on uh other events throughout the year. We can go to the next one there. Uh with special meals for Christmas and of course for Easter, which we are celebrating today and the rest of this weekend. And I would love to spend more time talking about the ways that I've seen our church, our community step up and address the real needs in our city. Um I recognize the short time I've been given. Pastors are not known for their brevity. Uh and so I'll try and keep things moving. But one of the realities of all these outreach efforts is that they require funding. Uh, we need money to pay to feed others. We need money to pay for medical supplies, to pay for new clothing and furniture, for books, for Tim Horton's gift cards to brighten someone's day. And the reality that we're here to talk about today is a parking lot that our church currently owns across from the newly renovated TD Coliseum. And this lot is perfectly situated to address a real need in the evolving downtown core. Folks need a safe, secure, and convenient place to park in order to enjoy the amenities around that area. And the many letters that I hope you have seen and read from businesses in the city attest to that fact. But what makes our lot unique is that every single dollar that is spent by those parking there goes directly back into caring for the most vulnerable in our city. You can go to the last one there. As a church, we are a non-for-profit organizations. Uh when and if folks pay to park in our lot, the money spent does not go to a corporation or into one person's pocket, but it goes directly to supporting the ministries that are aimed at making sure this city is a better place to live for those who often need the most love and attention. the unhoused, the refugees, newcomers to Canada, those that are living on the poverty line, and so many others who are worthy of our love, our time, and our attention, and also our consequences for the people of this city. Not just for those who want to enjoy the newly renovated coliseum and the many businesses and services that will continue to grow as a result of a new entertainment district, but for those who need our help the most. the marginalized, the down andout. The least of these are brothers and sisters. And so we are asking that you make a wise decision today that we believe will be proved right by those that we are called to love and care for in the city that we call home. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Um thank you. Unfortunately, planners also uh aren't very brief when they speak, but I will try to be brief. Um Mr. Le Young, if you could pull up my presentation now. I'll be brief and I'll speak specifically to the technical considerations and how we think uh the application does meet the four tests of the planning act by which you are to guide your decision. Um as as the pastor noted, there are seven letters in support of the application really outlining the need for additional commercial parking facilities in the downtown. Uh which I think is is is an important consideration. My presentation is briefly going to outline uh the site's location, what the proposal is, but I'll mostly be focusing on the four tests. Um are we pulling up the presentation? Do you do you need a copy? Oh, okay. Great. Um so I I won't get into the So next slide, please. I won't get into the site's location. I think you're pretty clear in terms of uh where it is, but I will want to spend a little bit of time on the proposal, which is the next slide. Um so as the site's location, we know it's surrounded by a lot of commercial amenities that need additional parking. In terms of the the slide uh before you today, the proposal really is is to to modify the existing or vary the bylaw to allow a new commercial parking facility, not a new surface parking lot. The surface parking lot exists. It has existed for over 120 years and it's been accessory to the existing church. And that clarification is important as we get into the policy framework. Um, next slide please. Um, so as it relates to to the variance before you, again, we're seeking to u to allow the it to be converted to a commercial parking facility. Next slide, please. The first test is uh that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan. I've highlighted the official plan policies for you. Um these these are in the secondary plan and the intent of the policies are really to restrict the creation of new surface parking lots. Not new commercial parking facilities but new surface parking lots. And the really the intention is you want to create a transit oriented community, a well-developed downtown. We know we have a lot of surface parking lots in the downtown. We want it to be developed and optimized in the downtown core. With that being said, what we're doing is we're also as a as as a city, we're reducing parking standards. And what that does do is that creates a gap in terms of need as well as availability of parking. And we'll get get into that in in in a moment. Um, the other thing that the secondary plan policies do is they do permit for minor expansions of existing surface parking lots. And what that means is where you're taking existing surface parking lots, you might be able to tweak them. Uh and and the policy framework does allow that. And in our opinion, we are meeting the intent of that policy framework because we are tweaking the use of that existing parking lot from being accessory to an existing church to being a commercial parking facility. Next slide, please. Um so in our in our opinion uh we do meet that first test and and in our opinion staff's interpretation of that test is incorrect and in staff's comments they specifically identify that as a new surface oh sorry new commercial parking facility they don't meet the test because the test in the the secondary plan is that you're creating a new surface parking lot. They haven't distinguished those two items and our opinion is that's where they fail to understand or interpret that policy correctly. Um, and I'm sure you're gonna have a lot of questions for staff. I do appreciate where staff are coming from. The real intention again is to limit new surface parking lots, not new commercial parking facilities. The intent of the zoning bylaw um is uh again to um uh to restrict the creation of new commercial parking facilities. And that's specifically to implement the official plan policies. And what they've done is they permit commercial parking facilities but only within existing buildings. And again, that aligns with the the official plan policy for limiting new surface parking lots. That's why it's done that. And the other thing it does is it allows any new commercial parking facility or conversion of existing parking lots to come through this process and to be rightfully criticized and scrutinized. Um, and that's what we're doing today. And that's why we think it meets the intent of the uh the zoning bylaw. Again, we're not creating a new surface parking lot. Next slide, please. Um, and then you know the the third test is a minor in nature. In our opinion, it is a very uh minor uh in impact. It's a vacant surface parking lot that's not being used today because that church is currently vacant. We think there's an opportunity to convert it because it's not required to be uh like the the existing church does not require any parking given the new parking standards. So, it's surplus and it's vacant and it's not currently being developed. between now and when it gets developed. The intent is that it should be utilized as a commercial parking facility to allow for uh some additional uh um uh some additional funds for the church. And then finally, desirable for the uh uh uh desirable and appropriate for the land use and our in our opinion. It will facilitate the conversion of the existing lot to allow for additional parking for the surrounding uses. that surround commercial uses including the TD coliseum which has recently been redeveloped and is including a lot of new events to the city. So it provides a lot of great opportunity for those users as well as the other users in the community for which we have support in in the package. And then finally obviously as you heard today it will create nonprofit revenue for the church which will be reutilized into the community. For all these reasons we think it's a great opportunity. Um, we think staff is have have although have good intentions to protect the downtown from new surface parking lots, they've just misinterpreted the policy intent and we think overall this committee should approve it and I'd be happy to answer any questions at this point. Okay. Thank you. So, the church right now uh isn't used. Is that correct? It's it's currently vacant. So, the parking lot that's there now um is it blocked off? Is it so that no one can use it right now? Is that through through you? Uh actually to you the the chair. It used to be fenced off but as part of uh sort of a beautifification project with the city given the the works that were done at the TD coliseum. They've actually worked with the ownership of the church to remove that that fencing and some of that information is in the package for you. So, uh, it's currently not blocked off, uh, but, you know, they've been policing it so that nobody parks in there. Yeah. Okay. So, it is an existing I understand where you're coming from. It is an existing parking area, surface parking lot. Yeah. And uh um we all know on a committee level that city planning department is is black and white and if it doesn't fit in exactly into the situation then you know they they have their comments and that's why we're here as a committee to see whether um this makes sense or not. So um I'll let the rest of the committee have a comment. We'll start with uh Yanukica. Did you uh Yeah, I have a question for the zoning department. Would a zoning amendment in this instant suffice? Uh Daniel Barnett from planning. This is it's more of a planning question. Uh in terms of like zoning is typically done for changes of use. uh which is I mean more typical for what this kind of um I mean uh permitting use that's not per permit which in this case is a commercial surface commercial parking facility uh that's typically done through zoning but it would also in this case in our opinion require an official plan amendment because there are uh official plan policies that civically restrict uh the creation of of new surface parking uh lots and in our opinion that this is creating a new in this case commercial surface parking lot Robert, I was there the other day and drove through the lot or made a whatever. I noticed there's some signs up now for the for collecting funds. Correct. So, you're receiving some revenue now. Okay. Not just a note, put more signs up so they're more visible. It took me a while to find one. We'd like we'd like to Yeah. So the your deal with them is you grant them the access to the or to go through the rigomearroll of buying a parking spot, then you get refunded after the fact. That's correct. Okay. Just for my own curiosity, if somebody doesn't register on their phone and do they have somebody walking around and verifying Yeah. through through our um partnership there. Yes, I believe so. Okay. Yeah. All right. It's not me, but No, no, no. You're you're busy anyway. I know parking is a big problem downtown. My wife and I have been to the TD Center twice and thank goodness there's a city hall parking lot back here. Um but it's it's a challenge downtown as we all know. But I think barring aside from the zoning issues on this on this existing parking lot that it should be we should be looking at granting this to let them generate some revenue from something that's there. It's not doing anything. Let them generate the revenue legally and um drive on from there. I tend to agree with you, Robert. I mean, uh, this Okay. And then I'll make a motion that we approve this going forward. Okay. Motion made by Robert, seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? If any, seeing none, motion carried, application approved. Thank you. They already just Monica, could you go out and find Nick? And sorry, through the chair. I believe that was approved with the notes as well. Yeah. Okay. Um, through the chair, we did want to ask you, uh, it's it's around 12 p.m. It's 12:15 p.m. Now, did we want a break for lunch now, committee? I'm wondering if let's wait and see. Yeah, we've got one, two, three. What's your feelings? We've got four more. Do we want to have lunch or I mean we've got applicants sitting here thinking and then it's okay. Let's do the four and if we have to extend our lunch period, we'll do so. Okay, we'll carry on. Okay. So, we'll uh we'll we'll finish off these application schedules here for this. Yeah. Uh, next we have a uh a minor variance application 825286 20 Duke Street Hamilton. Uh, owner is L. Plu and agent is H. Bonds. Just going to check. We had an interested party. Uh, interested party. Um, Ann Ingram. Ann Ingram, are you here? Okay. I don't see him. Uh, is there any members of the any 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 uh you have five minutes to speak. Yeah. Good afternoon, chair, committee members, and all of the members here. So this application is for um 20 Duke Street. My name is Gagen. I am representing Technoak which is my architectural firm. So um this application is for addition of five more units in the basement and uh the existing 27 units are already up there and the total number of units is 32 now. So we our main scope is only inside the building in the inside the basement area. So uh this application was already discussed in last meeting and most of the variances were already discussed during that. So we are not doing anything outside the building. All existing conditions existing building outside conditions remain same remains unchanged. So we are not changing anything outside. So the I will just go over the uh go over quickly about the five variances which we have now. Um the first variances for the landscape area. The you know 25% of the area shall be provided as landscape and 29ed in one space having at least you know dimension of 6 m. So this is our request and the requirement as per the zoning bylaw is 40% of the lot area which is required as per for the landscape in both cases. So the second variance is for the parking spaces. Parking spaces are 11 which we have provided on the lot and or which are already available on the lot actually. So the total requirement which is as for the zoning bylaw is 26 parking spaces. So the third one is u the for the loading space. So loading space is uh one loading space is required as per the zoning bylaw 6593 and we don't have any loading space on present on site. So the fourth one is for the maneuvering space which is 4.9 m shall be provided for just two parking spaces four and five because in front of that there are existing uh the steps at the rear side of the building. So there is a small variance there and the um which is you know requirement is the 6 m which all other sites we have already provided 6 m or already existing. So the fifth one is for the parking size we are requesting for 2.7x 5.8 m but the requirement is for 2.7x 6 m in length. So these are the five um variances which we are requesting from committee for the approval and I actually I especially thank uh the zoning and the uh the planning department for supporting this application because um these all variance uh you know most of the variances were already discussed in last meet which was tabled and you know uh the variances which uh zoning bylaw 6593 doesn't allow us but they are allowed by zoning bylaw 05200 which is going to be you know uh implicated on this in coming time which you know the departments are already working on that in this zone in some zones it's already applied so this is just my request and that's it thank Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Does the committee have any questions, Mel? Yeah, it's was tabled before when you were here. Excuse me. And you've went to the plan department and got everything straightened out. And are you happy with the conditions and the notes that are there? Sorry, which notes? Are you happy with the okay with the condition and the notes that are here now? Okay. the I mean the notes for there's a note and there's a condition here too that the condition for the metro link y so yeah we have gone through all that okay all right in that case I'll make a motion to approve of the note and conditions okay motion made by Mal seconded by Robert all in favor excuse me please don't clap while there's discussions thank you motion carried application approved Next we have a minor variance application 826 uh sorry yeah 826029 203 3 or 205 Victoria Avenue, North Hamilton. Owner is A. Cascow. Applicant is M. Sabelli and agent is M. Seeelli. Um, uh, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Uh, 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. Melly, I think you're there on WebEx. Did you want to unmute yourself? Um, is the owner here a cascow? Did we want to staff? Did we want to try to contact Michael Sibelli? See if he uh Yeah, we've requested him to unmute. Nick u if we can't unmute uh Mr. Sibelli can we go forward and make a decision on this through the chair. Yes. If the committee uh wished it feels it's appropriate you could proceed uh to make a decision on the application without hearing from the applicant. Okay. Okay. Well, since the comments are all I I'm the owner of I'm Arando Caso. I'm the owner of 205 of Victoria. Mr. uh Mike is unable to unmute um the microphone. Did Did you want to speak uh or no? Um no. Okay. Okay. So to the committee on this application, I'll make a motion to approve the application. Okay. Moved by Donna, seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. Great. Thank you. Okay. Um, next, uh, we have a minor variance application. Um, 826027, 378 and 382 Canon Street, East Hamilton. Um, the owner is a numbered company 0580415 Ontario Incorporated, a Wang. Applicant is Barrett Greni, Surveying Limited, D. Kerchic and Djakovina. An agent is the uh it's the same uh it's the same company or entity sorry believe we had an interested party Jason hand are you there? Yes. Hello. Hi. If you if you wanted to speak uh do provide your name and address and you have five minutes. Thank you. Uh hello, my name is Jason Hand, 360 Canon Street East. Um I don't know the applicants or their agents, but I'm here to speak in support of the application, particularly uh to what city staff refer to as part two regarding 382 Canon, which they recogned that the committee deny. Um there's a um an issue in that area. A number of properties are zones C2 and H. Um and they're residential properties. There seems to have been some kind of generalized zoning process at some point where buildings were captured that have always been resident simply because they were to commercial properties. Um committee noted this logical zoning at the previous hearing regarding this severance uh on September 4th of last year. The committee took a quick look of on Google maps and this made it clear um that it was a strange situation and did the right thing at that time by granting that application to sever. I want to call attention to residential buildings in the area that have been zoned commercial. 377 Canon 381 Canon 383 Canon and 125 Steven are all clearly houses and uh have been zoned as commercial buildings. These are homes that are 110 years old and have no difference significantly no significant difference to uh nearby homes that are zoned R1A. This C2 and H classification has contributed uh to significant has caused significant damage to this area. We've lost housing stock der buildings and uh because buildings are unrepable or unsellable. 378 Canon used to be a residential building now is gutted and empty. 129 Steven used to have residential uh units in it and has now been demolished after sitting empty for a number of years. In addition, there are number of H homes nearby that are zoned H that are trapped and cannot be meaningfully improved or enlarged. This continues to make it costly and painful for me and my neighbors to improve our neighborhood. In the report, I want to call attention to two issues. One is that the development engineering staff propose a $5,000 deposit to ensure that the area in front of the house is made permeable. This is described as needed to address increased runoff. On page three of the staff report, they note that the 378, the building on 378 canon extends right to the sidewalk, but then on 382, they expect this non-existent space to be made permeable. So my questions would be why would tearing out a two square meter front porch meaningfully improve drainage as requested by engineering staff? And what exactly? But res recognizing an existing structure increases runoff. Um the owners uh would never get this money back as compliance is impossible. This pile's arbitrary regulation on top of the logical zoning and adds barriers to owners seeking to approve the properties in this area. Uh, finally, so into conclusion, 382 Canon is one of the few buildings being improved on this stretch of the street, and I'm requesting that this committee bring reason to this application as they did in September 2025. Allow the continued use of 382 Canada as residential, use the predate zoning laws so that we don't lose more housing stock in this area, and remove this 500 $5,000 deposit condition as add as it is both impossible to satisfy and results in no meaningful improvement to the streetscape. I implore this committee to support owners who are trying to improve this distressed area of the city. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other members of the public who wish to speak? 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. Thank you. Uh good afternoon, chair of the committee, staff, and members. My name is Dark Chakovina and Dana Chuchich with me. We're representing Brian land serving and engineering. Um simple thing is it's a minor variances for the for the uh uh zoning. Uh it used to be H zoning. There's the two houses and thank you very much for the J of hand. I don't know who uh uh spoke. It's exactly what I wanted to say and uh it's always been H district suddenly it's been changed to C2 zoning and uh the both houses that we now severing because they all merged at one point so they been allowed to be severed back uh the one end up with H district and one end up with C2 district and the C2 district doesn't allow uh two family dwelling or duplex and that's the reason why we put the minor variances to satisfy. Yeah. To satisfy condition four and five uh for the seventh. Everything else is been approved. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Committee questions on uh this application. The comments from planning guess. Can we hear from staff just on their uh on their recommendations of denial for the uh um 382 to not be allowed to be residential? any any insight into that I guess other than that other than the zoning through the chair to the comm to the committee member apologies um aside from the zoning issue of it being not permitted and kind of conflicting with the intended function of the C2 zone um staff do recognize that the residential use was legal non-conforming previously um before the severance was approved. But um because the severance was conditionally approved, once that new law is actually created, the legal non-conforming status is rendered null and thus the duplex use is not permitted and this is what the variance is for. Um, this was one of the reasons why staff didn't recommend supporting the severance last year at the September. But at at the heart of it, it it doesn't meet all four tests is is the main reason why we don't recommend approval for uh the variance for 382 for part two. There are possible alternatives that the building could be converted to a permitted use. Denying variant the denying variance one does not necessarily mean the var the severance can't proceed. It would just have to conform to the zoning bylaw. Well, what I wanted to say is as as been for 120 years or whatever the building standing up there and all the area it's being residential and suddenly become a commercial and there's uh the whole bulk is a residential and I don't see the commercial any any soon any like in in the near future it's going to be anything to do with the zoning seat. Just through the chair just to reiterate to all members of the public um the how we operate the com how we handle the committee hearings. So first the um if there's any members of the public they speak and then afterwards the applicant speaks and then afterwards the committee members will have a deliberation. So typically the applicant once you've spoke you you wouldn't be speaking again unless the committee asks you to speak. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Nick. Um the issue that I would like to bring forward is uh the proposed conditions. Um I although it isn't, you know, a great thing from an individual perspective, uh we do have to keep the city consistent with test three and in good form. So I I think that $5,000 deposit should be submitted to the city for uh uh fixing the pavement structure. Donna, I have a question for for the applicant. Um, seeing it was a legal non-conforming um before the application of the severance. Do you do you have any knowledge of that legal non-conforming that could be put forward to the the um the city or to staff? Is that a viable option for them is to make it um legal non-conforming um through the through the chair to the committee member. The legal non-conforming status is no longer applicable once that severance is created. Um so it would not be a viable route in this case. That's why variance the variance one for part two is required but that would be as a standard minor variance under section 451 of the planning act not 452. Okay. So they they don't have the option to apply for but not once the legal non-conforming has has been nullified. Okay at the moment because the severance never mind. Okay. Thank you. So to the applicant I not an oh to the applicant that isn't an option um then for the illegal non-conforming okay any other members Robert I'm just looking at an image of the streetscape and the two properties in question are there residential One, two, three, four. I think beside it is all residential. I'm having an issue se segregating out this one house as being in commercial and it's kind of throwing a roadblock up here when it's sur surrounded by existing residential. I don't know what the uh options are with that. Any more questions for planning? It's not for me. You want to table it? I don't I don't think tableabling is the right answer here. We've got to come to a conclusion whether this is going to be a legal residence in a commercial district, which it is right now. So other than the severance, what's changed other than the legal non-conforming status? No, go ahead, Donna. If they choose to not go forward with the severance, then severance done. Oh, the severance is done. Oh, okay. Okay, that's right. We did do that. Yes. Okay. Planning uh through the chair. I just wanted to clarify the the severance has been conditionally approved and one of the conditions is that they comply with the zoning. So this application is has been submitted um to offer the applicant the opportunity to satisfy one of the conditions that was applied through the approval of the con the consent application. Um just wanted to make that clear. And then um I think there was a question about you know surrounding residential um houses next to commercial district. So, just looking at the zoning map, I think there was a this location, unfortunately, I think was split down the center because um the all the lots to the east up until Steven Street are all zone C2 and then those units to the west all the way to um Tisdale Street North are zoned H. I think there um the theory behind that is to provide some lot consolidation and to put a larger um commercial development at least at the corner to the midb block and unfortunately that these two properties were merged at one point but they're actually the dividing line between the two zones. So, I think just to offer some insight into what the direction was for planning and what some of the intent is to the commercial um zoning on the property. Um but I'll just leave it there. So the only way around this is he comes back and and changes the zoning on the on the 382 property and going to change the zoning to make to satisfy the severance right so that one is commercial and one is residential. So my question to staff, if we um choose to accept your proposal, now I forget what my question was going to be. It does that make the severance null and void then? Uh through the chair, it doesn't necessarily make the severance null and void. The applicant has some options. Um if the minor variance application is denied today, they can appeal that decision to the OOLT. Um they could submit a zoning bylaw amendment application. Um there's like those are the few options available to them. So um it's it's in the committee's hands how you want to proceed. I'm going to make a motion. Since that was one of the conditions of the um the severance, they were aware of that. I'm going to make a motion to um approve the application as it is with the denial of um one for part two. Yeah, one for part two and then the the acceptance of one to four I believe for part one. Okay, everybody understands that? No. Okay. Just clarifying it's with conditions. With Yes. Okay. Okay. Is there a seconder? Nick. All in favor of that motion. Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Yeah. Okay. Next, uh we have a minor variance application. 826025 524 to 526 Upper James Street Hamilton. Owner is Oriami Holdings Incorporated. P Oriami applicant is P. Oriami and the agent is Bretchen and Huffman D. Coups. Uh I believe we have some um interested parties here. Rebecca Mills. Thank you, chair. Hi. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chair, committee, and members of the public. My name is Rebecca Mills. I live at 10 Street around the corner from this proposed development. I'm not rising because I'm sitting, but normally if I were at a convention, I'd say I'd rise to speak, but I'm actually sitting to speak against this proposed development as it stands. I viferously request that you deny the current application. Um, and I've written a lengthy opposition letter as to why, which I will not recount because I only have 5 minutes, but it doesn't meet the four tests of the Ontario Planning Act. There are seven public letters all against the development as it stands, and um, the general consensus in the neighborhood is that they would like to see this eyesore of a of a um, the these two houses developed. I was here in 2021 where the um owner, I'm not sure if it was the same owner, asked for a bunch of minor variances for a three-story. We would have welcomed that. Whoever owned it promptly chop down a mature tree, put up a fence, and let the property rot. So, the answer is not to then double the size of the proposed development. It would be irresponsible given the nature of the um the neighborhood, the traffic conditions, the lack of parking. It would create a lot of safety issues. My house is 136 years old, so that the neighborhood is worth saving. We we welcome development. We just don't welcome overdevelopment. I would like to add that I was relieved to see the staff report highlighted some serious issues with the proposal. Specifically, under policy E.3.9 B, C, and E, B being the development shall be integrated with other lands in the neighborhood designation. This proposal clearly does not do that. C, the development shall be um comprised of a suitable size and provide adequate landscaping. This development clearly doesn't do that. And E, um the city may require in accordance with chapter F implementation policies, which I don't think has happened yet. So, this needs to be denied um and the developer needs to go back to the drawing board and find something that's more appropriate. I just also want to comment on an experience that I had with Justin Lung. He rang me at home after I submitted my letter and I felt he was really aggressive with me because he told me that the word minor doesn't have a definition in law. The denotation and connotation of the word minor is very clear in the English language and if there is no definition in law, my understanding is that the definition reverts to the plain language meaning which is minor is something little. This development is major major and it would stand out like an eyesore very close to the brow. So please committee deny it. Okay. Next Joseph Rotella. Thank you. Uh I'll be brief. Thanks Rebecca for that uh um very precise explanation. I have three things. One is we are I'm sorry. Did you cut off Joseph? Hello Sorry there. Uh I own I own the property just just north of the said property that's uh being developed potentially. Uh I have three things. One is we I have been anxiously waiting uh for many years for this development. So we entertain and certainly look forward to a proper development. I have two concerns. One is on the height of the building. it is not consistent with the existing um uh surrounding buildings. And secondly, and most importantly, is the parking. I have uh a property that is constantly being invaded with cars parking on my uh on my property as well as the the the neighbors. It is a concern. Uh we have Mohawk College um H or St. Joseph's uh healthcare that's on West Fifth that occupies a lot of the street parking. Uh the city has implemented 1 hour and two-hour parking in that area. Uh parking is absolutely incredibly important. Uh and this property simply just does not have enough parking. Thank you. Sorry, what was your address again? Uh 520 Upper James. Thank you. Um Jennifer Blunt, are you there? Uh yes. Thank you so much. Um my name's Jennifer Blunt. I'm at 9 Duff Street, which is the property that uh backs onto the west, the western boundary of the proposed development. And um I echo the sentiments of Joe and Rebecca. Um we oppose a sixstory development on such a small uh space. and I've submitted written comments uh regarding this, but I just there were a couple of things I wanted to to add. One of them is yes, I'm in favor of development on this property. The three stories um I feel is the maximum um that the area requires. Um, I also uh wanted to say that I appreciate that the plans now show a wooden privacy fence of 6 feet in height. Um, originally it was uh 4T and there's a 6'4 retaining wall inside the perimeter and uh I think that will further act as a visual barrier um blocking our view of the parking lot from from my property which is directly to the west. Um, my concern, however, these privacy measures are inadequate given a proposed sixstory development with large windows and balconies, which will just virtually eliminate privacy on my property, most of the properties to the west, uh, the rear of the development. It will also um afford views inside our homes to uh spaces especially at the rear of the home where we spend most of our time. And um I'd also again echo my concerns about parking. Our street is very busy. It's right off Upper James which is basically a highway. It's not pedestrian friendly. There's an elementary school not far away. There's a lot of children walking. Increasing traffic, increasing parking is just going to make it feel even less safe to walk around our neighborhood. Plus, parking is at a premium on our street. We have a busy dentist, a hair salon, other businesses. We're close to St. Joseph's Hospital, Mohawk College, and um we handle a lot of traffic overflow or parking overflow from that. Um so I would just encourage that we the developers re uh revisit the threetory proposal and uh please consider your neighbors when you're developing. You're you're not developing in in sort of a vacuum. Thank you very much. Is there any other members of the public who wish to speak? Um, I want to thank the members. I just want to refer to Miss Mills what she just indicated there. Um, I did call as a courtesy and I do it because I just want to give general information to the public. Um, what happened there was I was trying to communicate some information to Miss Mills. Um, and I was being interrupted and then uh, subsequently um, I was hung up on on the phone. I did call her back and I did apologize uh if she felt that I was being uh aggressive or or or not doing it appropriately and and um and if that is the case, I'll apologize here. Again, I'm just going to indicate to hear uh any staff conduct that is not the purview of the committee of adjustment. You're the committee is here just to hear and consider the minor variance application. And as I uh indicated again um uh and I was just giving the information is a minor var the term minor is not defined in in the planning act. So uh and uh previously in the previous municipality I worked in um we did uh we did have discussions with the province about that. We did make written submissions to them. Um the province did not make any changes to the legislation regarding that. However, they have included that if a municipality wants to, they can establish a what's called a local criteria bylaw, essentially a fifth test. Um, and uh, but that's up to each individual municipality to decide on that. And I did indicate, I believe I indicated to Miss Mills if she want um, you can look into that further and and and and, uh, do your own research on that. Okay. Um, and if there's any other questions, and Miss Mills, you're always welcome to contact staff if you have any other questions about the committee of adjustment. Okay. Thank you. And I'll bring it back to the committee. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other citizens on your list through the chair? There isn't. Okay. Uh, excuse me. We we are the owners and we would like to speak. We provided a presentation. No, we no no that we uh the as you saw how the commit the hearing is held. First it's the members of the public and then it'll be the applicant. Okay. I apologize. I thought I heard is there anybody else to speak. Yeah. Yeah. No, I did ask if there's anyone else who wanted to speak. I don't believe there was. Okay. Now we'll go to the applicant or agent. Uh please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. I'm Laura Williams speaking on behalf of Oriami Holdings. Address is 200 Charlton Avenue East in Hamilton. if you could please bring us bring up our presentation. Yep. Just give me a moment. Thank you. I'm happy to share as well if that makes it easier. Just give me a give me a moment. Do you see it? Yes. Thank you very much. Um, thank you again for um the um opportunity to speak to committee about the proposed six-story purpose-built uh multi-residentidential rental development at 524 to 526 Upper James in Hamilton. If you could go to the next page, this proposed development will deliver 20 much needed highquality uh rental residential units in a uh primary corridor where the city of Hamilton desperately desires intensification. We are before committee today uh in a bit of a unique situation. This property was assessed and reszoned as R4 midrise residential with staff uh last year. Um the um the development was redesigned to align with R4 but unfortunately that particular zoning is currently under appeal. Not the zoning in itself but um the inclusion of a particular site in that zone. As such, we are before committee looking for four variances against the inforce DE zone. The first is height, lot width, lot area, and parking. Really important to note that if the R4 zoning were in force, there is no technicality. This particular development would be as of right with a minor variance of less than 1% on landscaped area, which we would address through a redesign and not come before the committee. So, we'll go to the four tests. We believe each one of these application uh uh variances meet the four tests. A detailed planning justification report has been provided to uh the planning department but I want to touch on them very briefly in this conversation. The first is height. The uh increase from 11 m to 19.2 m. What we are proposing falls well within the R4 but we understand that an increase would be required according to the current DZ zone. Um this is still well within what you would expect in a um um R4 zone. It is in alignment with the official plan which seeks to have intensification along a primary corridor which this is. It is in line with the intent of the zoning bylaw, the current and the future zoning bylaw. We absolutely need this height increase in order to make for an appropriate development and efficient land use. We want to make sure that we have sufficient amenities and that the property actually functions. and it is minor in nature because we have taken into account adverse impacts to the neighborhood and I'll speak to that when I get to the public comments. The next variance that we are requesting is on if you could just go to the next slide please is the lot width from 17.2 to 27 m. This again is a technicality not required under the approved R4 zone council approved R4 zone that is currently under appeal. We are not creating a net new non-compliance here. We're ex asking the committee to recognize an existing lot which has a dilapidated to uh one of the uh public uh comments dilapidated building on it. We need this to be able to make the site function. This is an existing lot condition. It is not a net new non-compliance to variance number three which is the reduction of lot area per unit asking for reduction in this area again to make sure that the site will function. If you could go to the next slide please. Um it meets the intent of the zoning bylaw which is seeking to densify along a primary corridor. Um it meets the intent of the zoning bylaw in that it permits multiple dwellings. It is appropriate for the development 20 units on an underutilized lot align with the uh future R4 zone which is currently being heard and it is minor in nature because it does not align with the provisioning that the city is looking to move forward with. It aligns with the modern planning framework that the city is pushing forward and prioritizing house prioritizes um housing delivery and efficient land use. And last, but certainly not least, we're asking for a variance on parking. Really important to note that this particular site falls under the P1 zone, which requires zero parking or will require zero parking once we have the R4. If you could next slide, please. The R4 um zoning approved. So, the current bylaw requires 25 parking spaces. We are proposing eight in total. Um in addition to the parking that we are proposing, we're providing 14 residential bike parking. Two bike parking uh for visitors and transit is at doorstep. In fact, bus routes 20, 21, and 27 are within walking distance, one being 2 minutes walk from the front door and the Mohawk terminal is also within walking distance. And additionally, these routes provide direct access to the city center and Hamilton go. This location is also bikable and walkable. what we are proposing here far exceeds what would be required with the as of right R4 zoning when it comes in force. So really want um um uh the committee to take that into consideration. Um I want to very briefly address both the um staff comments as well as the public comments. If you could go to the next slide please. Um both staff and public comments are respectfully noted. Uh and I will address the general themes that came up through each one of those. If you could go to the next slide. With respect to development planning, um height, massing, shadow, we have taken this into consideration. We do not have any uh height or certainly we don't have any shadow or overlook issues onto neighboring properties. As you can note from our application, we are not asking for any setback variances. In fact, the rear yard variance far exceeds what is required. We're provosing 18.2, I believe, meters versus a 7.5 that is required. But further, the committee's uh role here is to assess against the four tests. Detailed planning discussions happen during site plan control and it is standard practice for site plan control to follow minor variances and therefore we're asking the city not to table this application um on a technicality or for reasons of detailed design which we will address through site plan control. From a zoning standpoint um there are concerns about potential variances being needed. We don't believe any will be needed but if that is the case we will come back uh before committee at that time. uh with respect to the height definition again we believe that the um um the measurement of the height building height is in fact correct but if that is not the case again a detailed design discussion that needs to happen during site plan control and not necessarily at the minor variance stage. We we met with um staff during the formal consultation in March 26th of 2021 and PR transportation planning staff confirmed that there is no further land dedication required on the frontage of this property. Um and therefore we don't believe and again official plan has not indicated any changes to the planned uh right of way. So we don't believe that any further uh land dedication will come into play here. And so the road widening um concern here we think is moot. If you could move to the next slide, we have the support, no comments from development engineering. So that confirms servicing and infrastructure support, no issues from transportation planning. They in fact approve this, which reflects the the reduction in parking that's required in this new corridor location. Uh building engineering has noted that standard permit and code compliance requirements will apply, which is of course the case. We will apply for a building permit and address any concerns that arise at that time. and the archaeology comments are um noted and of course if any archaeological material is located on the site we will follow the appropriate processes. Again we're asking staff to assess this based on the current and future requirements and the four tests. Um we would like to address detailed design considerations through the site plan uh control application process which is where it needs to be addressed. If we move to public comments again, want to address some of the general themes that came up there. Next slide, please. So, with respect to building height, this site is located on a primary corridor where mid-rise development is planned. As previously mentioned, we sat down with staff late last year and this property has already been resoneed are for mid-rise residential. though this is consistent with what the city would like to see in this zone. Having said that, um if there are any issues that are identified during the site plan control process, we will address it at that time. With respect to insufficient parking, again, P1 zone, zero parking is required. We are providing way more than what is required for this zone in addition providing significant bike parking as well having transit literally 2 minutes from the front door. We believe that this has addressed any concerns that may be uh resulting from parking. Traffic and safety concerns, none were uh raised by transportation planning. Um insufficient amenity space. Part of the reason why we need this zoning is to ensure that we have the proper landscape requirements. As you'll know from this application, we are not asking for any variances on amenity space or landscaped area. privacy, shadow, overlook, all intentionally considered in the design that we are putting before uh the city. There are no windows overlooking habitable rooms. Uh we are not asking for any variances on side uh on the side and the rear yard setback is significantly larger than what is required. According to the zoning bylaws, we are providing 18.84 versus the 7.5 that is required. With respect to neighborhood character, we have already made changes to materials and the color palette to better align with the heritage neighbor um heritage character of the neighborhood. Open to making additional adjustments uh where reasonable to ensure that it does even uh more so fit within the neighborhood. Um again I want to ask committee to not table this application on a technicality. This is something that the council the R4 zone is something the council has already approved. This would be as of right had the this application or the R4 uh zone not been um appealed and again the appeal is not pertaining to the R4 zone as committee is likely aware. It pertains to a site that wants to be included. We have submitted a detailed planning justification report to the U planning department to ensure that all of the considerations with respect to the four tests are clearly addressed and we respectfully ask the committee to approve this application. uh noting that any detailed design decisions discussions will happen during the site plan control process which will follow. Thank you. Thank you. Nick, you have a question. Just want to make a few comments. Um so far what I've heard here this this uh project is consistent with the provincial planning statement which encourages dense mixeduse development, promotes affordable housing and transportation. This is these are rentals and it is along a bus route. And um I think the from what I can tell the mid the R4 zone allows mid-rise residential uh projects. I think what I couldn't get clearly here was whether it fails one of the four tests. Uh but it doesn't appear to and I just wondered why staff thought it needs to be tabled uh through the chair. Thank you for the question. Um to the member, this site is complicated. So we have a site that is zoned in the ex like the former Hamilton zoning bylaw and we have a new zoning that is currently under appeal. We have a site that has received previous variances to the old bylaw and we have a revised proposal. So staff's opinion is that this site and the variances and the proposal should be reviewed comprehensively and that will occur at this stage of the game through a site plan control process. At that stage, the applicant can choose which zoning bylaw do you want to develop under? Is it under a 6593, the the current one that's applies to the property or once the R4 zone in the '05200 zoning bylaw is taken care of through the OOLT, they can choose to use those regulations. Where it gets even more complicated is the previous variances that were approved on the site. So, the applicant has walked you through sort of um the variances and what's approved and what can be permitted. So a previous variance reduced the sideyard setbacks. So therefore it's not required for this application because they already have that permission. So we're looking at another situation where we're kind of varying a variance for permissions that were already varying varied through a previous proposal. So that one I think it's one and a half or 1.2 2 mters. They're permitted to have sideyards were approved through evaluating a three-story proposal and now we have a six-story proposal. If you look at the R4 zone that was referred to by the applicants, this proposal will not satisfy all the requirements of the R4 zone. Larger sideyard setbacks are required to provide a little bit more space between the neighboring property. Setbacks and stepbacks are required. So it is staff's opinion that this does need to be looked at in a in a broader sense and we can work with the applicants and then they can come once they figure out what variances they need once they've determined what zoning bylaw they want to proceed we can come back to committee with clear answers. The idea of coming back with future variances is also kind of reinforcing our recommendation that this should be looked at comprehensively and once you have a solid plan then we can can come and make a decent decision because it's it's getting more and more complicated as we kind of step it. So it's like we have previous variances to consider. We have the existing zoning. We have a potential future zone which may or may not apply to the site depending on what happens and what's selected. So it's I think in everybody's best interest to to go through the site plan process so you're not essentially wasting time and then once you've determined exactly what has to happen come back to committee um with whatever variances are required and that's where development planning is landing if unless you want us to choose a side we'll tell you what we think but we figured that there was some merit in giving the applicant a little bit more time on the variances and to work with the site plan team and and to pursue that option. Okay. Thanks for the comments from planning because this is a a difficult one because of as you said the variances previously uh were granted and now as we go higher we need more sideyard clearance. And so, um, I think planning is being fair in the fact that, you know, to actually ask to have it tabled so that with a site plan control so that, uh, everything can be looked at at one time. But, uh, Mel, if I'm not correct, I think this went to the OT and got turned down. Am I not right? That's what it's reading here. Just stay to the zone through the chair. I don't recall that there was appealed by to the Ontario land tribunal and the lowdensity model dwelling district has changed it bylaw now 6593 remains in force. Oh sorry I think that that reference is to the new um midrise zone. So the R4 zone has been appealed and that is currently we're waiting I think staff are waiting for um the appeal to be scoped to sight specific locations and then the rest of the zone can be applied through the rest of the city. We haven't had that determination yet from the OT. So the zone is currently under appeal across the city and my feeling is I think maybe it should be tabled. Let's see what everybody else thinks. That that's uh I agree with that. Oh, sorry. Through the chair, if you had any questions related to that appeal, Emily Co, my manager is here too, if you wanted to ask her. Yeah. As of right now, there's so many convoluted bylaws and current, past, going forward, etc., etc. on this property. But also if you we listen to the neighborhood complaints or concerns, three stories versus six and of course parking. But given all that plus making everything legal, I think we need to uh defer this application. Somebody make a motion if there's no more questions. I'll make a motion to defer. Okay. Is the tableabling okay with the uh agent? We accept the committee's decision on this one. I didn't quite hear you. We will abide by the committee's decision on this. You want a decision? I I through the chair. I believe she said she would if um if you want to table the application, she would. Sorry. Yeah, we will work with Robin and team to make sure that we come up with something that is suitable. So that motion was made by Robert for today table. Oh sorry sorry Yanukica and seconded by Mel. All in favor? Opposed? If any seeing none, motion carried, application tabled. And uh just as a reference uh to the chair, if anyone hadn't previously registered with us, um if you have an interest in the matter, please contact us. If you're here, fill out an interested party form if you're in the council chambers. If not, uh see, uh you can email us coffa@ hamilton.ca so we'll provide you any updates on the application when they're available. Okay. Thank you. And I believe we are now at a lunch break. Um, so 30 minutes. 30 minutes. Yeah. So we'll come back around 1:43 p.m. Okay. Thank you. So we'll just take a break now. Thank you. Sorry for the delay for the people that were supposed to be on time, but we had great discussions. So we'll be back on at uh 1:43. Now it's now Okay. Order. Um we'll uh reconvene the meeting. Uh 1:45 p.m. We're reconvening. Um and I think we have we have a consent and there's a related minor variance application. So um believe uh committee uh if it's okay we would hear them together since they're related. It's a B. The consent is B26006. 63 Orchard Drive, Ancaster. Owner is A Npur. Applicant is A RDI contractors R Farage. And then the agent is also the same person. And then the minor variance application is 8263763 Orchard. The same address, sorry. Uh same owner. And then the applicant is R. Farz and agent is R Farz. Um, just noting I believe the uh planning staff are recommending the application be tabled. Um, unless I'm hearing anything else from the applicant. Um, I'm presuming I'm presuming we're we're proceeding. Okay. Um, first I'll ask is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application on these two applications? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step to forward. Please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Raf Fawaz. I'm representing the owner Ali Nameur for 63 Orchard Drive. We're we're asking here for two variances um for the uh for the site setback and one for the for the lot size at the frontage of the lot size. So the uh the zoning required 18 m for the front for the front yard. We have a lot which is 100 uh excuse me sir. Yes. Would you are you wishing to have it tabled or do you want to have it heard and voted on today? I would have it heard if you don't mind. I will have it heard. Okay. Yes. If you can just speak a little closer to the mic so that we can Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Okay. We will um vote on this one. Okay. Okay. Go ahead, sir. So, what what we're asking here is for the uh for the fronted set yard which is comply with the 17 17.24 m at the for the front yard and for the yard set back because we planning for the severance application. There's an existing house on that property and the existing house is just right on the proposed uh new property line and eventually the the new proposed lot would be a new build there and the existing uh house would stay there for another year and then it will be demolished and build a new new house on it. So we're asking for variances for the 1.2 2 m on the the sideyard for the proposed and 0.1 m for the uh for the existed house which eventually it will be demolished down the road. Just to make sure that you understand that there is the option to table if if you wish today um um the application if uh if we feel that there isn't enough information for us to make a good decision. Okay. Uh that's the kind of the recommendation from planning is to table it but u um the committee may have some questions to try and get some clarity on it. Sure. Is whether we can make a vote or not. Perfect. Thank you. Did you have anything else you want to add at this time or No, that's it. Okay. Committee here you hear the planning on this. Oh, David Boner planning technition uh through the committee uh through the chair to the committee member. Um staff's position remains that we recommend tableabling. But if a decision is to be made, um I would like to be clear that staff do oppose variances one and two for the retained lands. Um 0.1 m sideyard is insufficient for a number of reasons. um access and maintenance for uh development pling staff and in terms of storm water management especially in this area of Ancaster which relies on swells and ditches it is insufficient to accommodate a swale. Um the main concern would be that as these are variances there is no um there's no effective time limit placed on them as is and if if they are approved on the retained land they would stay with the property. Robert, one of the um variances jumps out at me. This 0.1 that's not going to fly between the houses. So, you might have to adjust. I don't know how you're going to do it, but you could adjust the property line over a little bit to get a minimum of 1.2 m, which means the house will be a little narrower, but it's the only way that's going to fly. Okay. Then, we're going to uh going to apply for a demolition permit for the existing house. And then the the new house would be uh where we going to be demolished. It would be uh 1.2 meter set back. I think what the staffer is recommending that it be tabled. Okay. To let you get back with them. Okay. And solve things that way. Okay. Okay. Are you willing to table and get that straightened out? Yes, please. Okay. I'll make a motion to table these two applications in. Okay. Thank you. Motion made by Mal to table and seconded by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application tabled. Okay. Thank you. And uh thank you. And uh just to the applicant or agent, we will be in touch with you on uh how to proceed. Okay. Next. And next we have a it's a consent and there is a related minor variance application. So um there will be u unless I hear anything both will be heard together. So the content consent is B26004 178 Orchard Drive, Anancaster. Owner is A D Rani. Applicant is ARDI. Contractors F R for Oz. And then the minor variance is 826032. Same address. Uh same owner and the applicant is just R for that one. Um is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this on these applications? Oh, sorry. There I believe. No, I apologize. There are um we have uh Nicole Turstra, I believe. I saw her on WebEx. Nicole Turstra. Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? Yeah, you can provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Okay. So, it's Nicole Turstra, but I'm um just reading a letter from my parents, Rick and Anne Turkstra, who live at 173 Central Drive. They're unable to be here. Um and they back into the property in question. Am I good to go? Yes. Go ahead. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Dear committee of adjustment, uh we are the owners of 173 Central Drive in Ancaster. The rear yard of our property abuts a portion of the rear yard of the applicant's property at 178 Orchard Drive and we hereby object the approval of the proposed severance and application for minor variance. We moved to Spring Valley Community 46 years ago in 1980 and the area is known to draw in residents who purchase their homes for open space and large lots. Zoning bylaws are made with intention to protect the city of Hamilton and its residents and our investments. So, we ask, why define a zoning bylaw at all if rules can be brushed aside through applications like this? It's important to visit this site in person because the application is not to split the lot into two equal parcels, which would then be 54 ft each and a little closer to the requirement of 18 m or almost 60 ft. Instead, the applicant first has already demolished the home on the original large lot and begun construction last year in 2025. So, there's a few parts in the application that say it's for two future detached homes. Um, but the first home of the two is already constructed and framed with windows. And the applicant achieved their desired build on the larger portion of the lot and now is secondly applying here to sever a significantly smaller lot that doesn't fall within the neighborhood fab fabric, sorry, and doesn't um fit within the R2 zoning bylaw as it uh states online. So, we're wondering if this is an intentional way to work around the zoning bylaw, um, or if it's a belated afterthought that is lacking planning consideration of the R2 bylaw and turning a blind eye to the neighborhood cohesiveness where the majority of lots are 60 ft wide. So, we object to this variance request because it's not minor in nature. We understand that minor variance has no specific definition. However, the request is not a minor request. First, we want to note that our bylaw for R2 specifies minimum sideyards of 2 meters or 6' 6 in. While this request asked for a sideyard of 1.2 m instead of 2 m uh 4T instead of 6' 6 in and that's a 40% reduction of sideyard in this request. Secondly, uh our bylaw, the R2 bylaw specifying a minimum lot width of 18 m, 59 ft 2 in. And the second request in this application is asking for a minimum lot width of 14.5 m instead of 18 m or 47t 6 in instead of 59 ft 2 in, which is a 20% reduction of lot width in this request from the existing bylaw. So needless to say, these are major requests, not minor requests. Asking for 20% less width in a lot or frontage in a lot and 40% less sideyard in a lot is not minor. Minor does not exist in this application. And since all four rules must be met um in a minor variance, we request this to be denied. And we're told that each application is case to case and not precedent setting. But we strongly disagree. Every variance that is approved is the next benchmark for the next application to come in for a severance or build to just ask for a little bit more. So approving this application would take a wrecking ball to the existing R2 zoning. What would be next? Where would it end? What's next for R2 zones across Ancaster, Dundas, Lamro, and Stony Creek? Request for 20% more height. Request for 20% more lot coverage. Eventually, R2 zoning will become irrelevant. And eventually, our rules won't even have meaning. Approvals like this will change our towns, our neighborhoods, and the homes that we invested in, built our lives in, and worked so hard for. Why create and hold bylaws if we can't enforce them? And who is here to protect the homeowners and taxpayers who worked, paid for, and made sacrifices to be able to enjoy the fruits of our decisions to live here? 40% less sidelot from the bylaw and 20% less lot width or frontage from the bylaw is not minor. We ask you to hear your residents to truly listen and evaluate this application closely. Protect our bylaw and please decide denied. Sincerely, Rick and Anne Turkstra. Thank you for your comments. Sorry. Next we have uh Bill Dodge. You there? Yes, we're here. Hi. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Yes, it's Bill Doge and Monica McCory from 172. Um so good afternoon. Thanks for hearing from us today. Um I'm Bill Deutsch. This is my wife Monica McCory. Uh apologize for not being able to attend in person today. Uh we unfortunately had work that we had to commit to. Um but we appreciate appreciate being heard. Uh my wife and I are uh the owners of 172 Orchard Drive directly beside the property at 178 Orchard Drive. I've lived in Spring Valley Community and Monica and I purchased my grandfather's wartime home over 20 years ago. Uh we care deeply about maintaining the character and safety and liability of our neighborhood. Um, the current zoning bylaw requires a minimum of 18 meters. The applicant is requesting 14.5 meters, which represents an 18% induction. We respectfully ask the committee, how can a variance of nearly 1/5 below the required minimum be considered minor? This is not a small adjustment. It is significant departure from the standard intended to preserve the character of this neighborhood. the the undergoing construction of the new build at 17078 Orchard is already a large modern flat roof structure that is out of character within the surrounding homes on Orchard Drive. A second structure similar in height located within 2 meters of the of our property line with its front wall aligning directly with the rear wall of our home will permanently impact our sunlight, privacy, quality of life in our backyard. A couple years ago, we invested over $120,000 in our backyard, including a pool land and full landscaping. That investment was made in good faith and in compliance with the city's tree protection requirements and with the expectation that we could reasonably enjoy that space. This proposal directly threatens the use and enjoyment and value of that investment. We asked the committee, is this level of density in this type of building form an a building form appropriate for the development of R2 neighborhood like Spring Valley? And our our biggest concern right now is um with this proposed severance and the added dwelling is we have a large heritage silver maple tree um and it's a critical feature in our property. Um I think in the reports you'll see we had on March 30th a certified arborist assessed the impact of the proposed development and his conclusion was clear. The proposed foundation would be 4.6 meters from the trunk and this falls within the critical root zone of the tree. This result would likely be a severe decline in the health of the tree, which could cause a potential structural failure, which would ultimately risk um injury and damage to the property. When we built our pool there a few years back, we were required under the Ancaster tree protection bylaw to remain outside the treere's drip line. The developer is now proposing to build closer to this tree than we were legally permitted to build. Um, we complied with the bylaw and we're asking the developer to be held to the same standard. Also, from our understanding, when applying for a building permit, the owner of 178 Orchard would require our consent for any work that may impact the tree within its drip line. Um, this was confirmed from an email from uh Melissa Kitty, the H City of Hamilton's natural heritage planner. Um, she stated in the email, which I believe we included as well, when a neighboring tree may be impacted, consent from the tree owner is required. If this consent is not achieved, this would become a civil matter between neighbors. Um, we want to make sure that is understood that we are not giving consent and we will not be giving consent. And we also want to be clear that we don't oppose reasonable development. However, this application cannot proceed without violating the critical root zone of the protected heritage tree and ignoring a clear consent requirement that has not been met, creating significant and permanent impacts on our property and quality of life. Additionally, we saw noted in the staff comments that the city forestry staff have formally opposed this application um for the heritage tree that's located on the front part of the lot. Um, for these reasons, we respectfully ask that the committee to refuse both applications at this time. Thank you very very much for your time today. Okay, thank you for your comments. Thank you. Thank you. And apologize, I mispronounced this person's name um their last name. Uh, next we have Clifford McDonald. you there? Hello. Hi. Hi. How are you today? Good. Please provide your name and address and uh you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. My name is Clifford McDonald. I've been a resident of Ancaster for 14 years, 177 Central Drive. Um on my property backs onto the back of the property in question. The original plan for the property dated April 5th, 2024 was one dwelling within the R2 zoning requirements. The current application is requesting severance and variances to the original approved site plan while construction of the approved dwelling is in progress. In my opinion, the location of the existing new build on the property suggests that the parties had every intention of requesting severance later because this property did not qualify initially for severance under R2 zoning. Also, there are two heritage trees that will be impacted with this additional build. I'm not against replacing original home with a new build. in this case, close to 5,000 square feet, very large. Adding a second residence to this same original lot is not in keeping with neighborhood character. Um I just feel that Ancaster is losing concept of all these beautiful wellkept properties and um it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Sorry. Okay. I don't think uh just and thank you to the to the uh residents who spoke. Just just to give a just a general information is uh and again you're always welcome to contact staff and you can speak to us. Um the planning act states that a municipality can have a minor v sorry has a can have a zoning bylaw. It further states that the municipality can establish a committee of adjustment to hear minor variance applications. So that that is how the planning act is written. It provides those provisions to to applicants or property owners. Either you comply with the zoning bylaw and if you do not believe you can comply with it then you could apply for a minor variance and there is a public process as you see here where the we have to get comments and also um the committee has to review those comments and other material and then make a decision on whether the application meets the four tests as outlined in the planning act. Um just another comment about uh that saying that uh and I believe I've noted it before to the public that uh committee of adjustment applications are not precedent setting and some people sometimes uh they will say well not in my opinion and from what I've seen in the community um and and I do understand that just just to just to give a clarification on that the as some of some people may know there is a Ontario land tribunal there's a there's a provincial tribunal that can adhere appeals of these matters there has been success excessive rulings from the tribunal that have stated that these CFA applications are not precedent setting since there's been a series of rulings that have been made and they have been those rulings have been affirmed in the legal context. That's what's called settled law. So this this this concept is now settled. it is it is accepted by all parties within uh within that kind of legal field the legal realm that the CFA applications are not precedent setting um and that's that's that's a principle that so it's not it's not in it's not in dispute so just want to give that clarification on that um however maybe you know people do observe different things in their community and and and I we and we do recognize that okay um I'll turn it over to the uh uh applicant or agent uh please provide your name and address and UFI minutes to speak. Thank you. Yes. Uh my name is Ra Fawaz. Uh I'm the applicant on behalf of the owner. Ahmed Dani. Uh the reason for uh for Miss Nicole Turk Turkstra, we have a yard set back required 7.2 m. We have 18 m back from her property line to this property line. And regarding the trees, we have followed the we brought before construction, we brought the a forestry a forestry consultant and he put the report and we followed the report and whatever it's uh in his report we followed it uh clearly and I believe some brush is here we saw our our fences around the trees and around the around the uh yeah around the trees on that area. when the when the residence that was on that um location when it was tore down was then to build the house on one side and then apply for a severance later. It wasn't the the attention that the the owner the owner himself wasn't sure wasn't sure if he wants to go for another various but because he lives in a place and his mother lives in another place. His plan was to to build another house for his for his mother. Uh Donna I just have a question. Is there a building permit for the house that's Yes. Yes. It's there now. Yes, there is a building permit. Okay. So, it's built on the property line of where you want to separate. Correct. Okay. Not right on the property there is 2 m setback between 172 and 178 Orchard Drive and there is on the other side but on the inner on the inner there is 1.2 and 1.2 Oh yeah. 1.2 m and 1.2 m Anyone else with questions? Just a note, I'm looking at the drawings here that shows for the for the severance, it says new single dwelling. It's fine. But next door or the next lot, the retained lot, it says existing single dwelling. Which is that refer to the new one? To the new one. Correct. This is the uh this is the picture here of the the new lot. I don't think it's on the existing. Yeah. Yeah. I see that every day when I drive by. So Are all the trees gone out of the backyard of the one you got built there now? No. No. None of the trees were all the all the tree and branches piled up. That's correct. in the backyard. There's trees and the trees is still there, but there was some little which is uh above the uh the drip edge that was touching the house. We just trim it and it's all monitored by the arborist. Most times, in my opinion, most times when a house is tore down on a big lot like that, you would center it in the lot and and drive on unless you had other intentions um you know to to split that lot. Um we didn't have that intention before. That's the reason it just gave up afterward. Any other comments from members? Is is there any willingness to reduce the size of the single dwelling so that it can meet the setback requirements for the for the proposed or for for the proposed one? Yes, it is possible. Plus the the new build there is no ER or softet that inter will interfere with the with the set back 1.2 m like there's just straight from the wall. Any more concerns? If not, we need some kind of a motion. My only concern is that theoretically the builder building the home, he had a permit, everything else. So, that was covered. Whether it only took this much of the lot rather than this much, that's out of our hands. So, and he's got the variances for the severance, then I don't know what choice we have. and the old house by sorry but the whole thing too though if you follow that through um both applications the severance and the minor variances one thing that kicks out is the forestry and the lack of discussion on the forestry side of things and probably there's not I my gut says there's some trees removed in the back having drive by that almost every day but the um I don't know where we can go with this other than go forward with it based on the variances that are that are presented to us but to make sure the conditions are there with the forestry comments and landscaping and etc etc. Then uh I can at this point anybody else can I make a motion to approve the variance um 2604 and the variances 26032 with the variance approved for each and all the conditions and notes. Okay. Motion made through the chair. Is that including for the consent application as well? Yeah. Okay. Motion made by Robert, seconded by Nick. And the only one comment I want to make is just that I think I read somewhere in the forestry thing, you know, a tree that's damaged gets replaced by a tree, but it takes a long time for a replacement. You got that big one out there to cover what this they're going to have to really look tight at that to see what they can do with the umbrella, right? And and usually the umbrella is where the roots are, right? So it's but it's they've got to protect it. Period. Yep. Okay. So, I call the vote all. Oh, sorry through the chair. This is Sam Brush from City Hamilton Forestry Department. My apologies. First time at a at a committee meeting here, but I did want to to um disclose that if a lot if this was permitted to be built on that the large municipal tree in the front yard would not be able to incur that type of damage. in which case that that tree that is appraised at just shy of $50,000 wouldn't survive this this impact to the developer. He has complied with all of the existing conditions in properly retaining that tree, but those tree protection limits exceed the proposed lot widths. And so it that's that's why Forestry's direction was was to deny this. and through the chair I believe development planning might have comments. Thank you. So Kane, before I call the vote, is there any teeth in in in your uh you know, you say the tree is worth, you know, x number of dollars, and if the tree um dies because of the excavation work, is there a a penalty, a fee or whatever in a certain time period after the development? There is a very through the chair there is a very high probability that this tree would need to be removed in which case then the developer would be um required to pay the 50,000. The unfortunate thing would just be um the impacts to the community the canopy and and it and it just not um aligning with our urban forest strategy. So, we we would I'll leave it at that because there's a lot of details in regards to the construction applications, but there wouldn't be a driveway wouldn't be permitted and the actual physical like the ability to construct the home would be would be um very very hard for the applicant. Okay. So, is there some followup to this or is it depend on neighbors to alert you that the tree died or is dying? Oh, um the applicant would be required to um apply for a public tree permit. So, just to be clear, my jurisdiction begins and ends with only public trees. It's not the private um aspect of it. uh Natural Heritage would be commenting on that, but they will be required to um apply for a public tree permit, submit a tree management plan, and our staff would be myself would be overseeing the site if like if we came to an agreement in regards to the tree management plan. Okay. I greatly appreciate you being here today because we've had questions maybe in the past and and unable to get some clarity on some stuff. So, thank you very much for being here today. You're more than welcome. Thank you for the clarity on that. But I was just looking at the survey that was submitted. It it the existing building is still there. But if it was uh the protection was set up following what's on the survey, whether that's right or not, I'm not going to determine that. He might have to set the house back a little bit, the new house proposed back a little bit to clear the roots based on the canopy and that um the driveway be have to be on the other side of No, not no not necessarily. Okay. So I think we've had enough discussion and sorry just through the chair I saw one of the residents had raised their hand just to reiterate the how the hearing is held first with any application first the members of the public speak and then the applicant speaks then the committee has their deliberation unless the committee asks you for further questions or clarification usually we don't return back to the members of the public for for any comments. Okay. That's not a Okay. So, do you want to Robert made the motion, Nick second it? And do you want to just repeat your motion just so well make me do it? Eh. Yeah. Okay. Approve the motion with all the variances and all the subsequent conditions for both the severance or the conveyance and the minor variances. Okay. Seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Three opposed. So that motion is um defeated. Do we need a new motion or we Yes, we do. Yes. So either different conditions or a motion of denial. Um, I would like to make a motion to approve with all the conditions, including getting the tree protection plan and working with the city in regards to not only the public tree, but also to be wary of the private tree in the backyard of the neighbor as well because there's a root system there too that may be affected. Okay. So, including the tree of the neighbors. Okay, I understand. Okay. Is there a seconder or Donna, you have a question? I just want Turn your mic on. Just clarification from forestry when you add in that. Um what is it? Uh about the tree. Um, okay. Let me see what is what section is it? The number 12, the tree protection plan included in the review. So, you guys follow up with that. You work with the with the um applicant to make sure that he doesn't affect the tree and things like that. Is that is that how you how it works through the chair? Yes. Um, we do. It is my concern with this development that there wouldn't be an agreement to retain trees. The level of development on this case and more so the significance of the tree asset, the public tree asset at this site, it would require a removal and that's why we have the objection. Okay. So if you if you um so he has the right to remove a city tree in the tree protection plan he could apply sorry through the chair he can apply for a public tree permit but it can be denied by the city of Hamilton forestry department. Okay. Now also this tree protection that only is specifically for city property not a private tree through the chair that is correct. Okay. There there is a there is a private tree bylaw in in Ancaster but also natural heritage comments on all committee of adjustment applications from a private aspect. Okay. So natural heritage hasn't put in their uh their two cents in here then through the chair I believe they have it they would they would be uh mirrored to forestries requirements. Yeah. It it would just both be a tree management plan. Okay. Yeah. So, in my other experience, in other municipalities, when they issue uh before they issue a building permit, they'll come out and inspect the property for the tree protection that's installed. Does Hamilton do that too? Through the chair. That's correct. Okay. Okay. Well, planning has got their hand up. Thanks, M. through the chair. Uh me again. Um given the importance of this uh significant asset, city asset, uh development planning wants to make one more recommendation in terms of a condition. Um given the site plans or the surveys that were submitted with the application, the tree is not indicated along the frontage of the severed lot um or proposed severed lot. I think it would be really important for us to know exactly where that tree is located if it is to remain because there's going to be there could potentially I don't want to say there is, but there could potentially be an access issue. So, we don't know where the driveway location will be. Um, and we also don't know if there's a double car garage proposed for the new house, which would also have implications for the tree. Um given that forestry is here and it sounds like the city definitely wants to do as much as we can to maintain this um city asset, I would recommend that uh drawing be shown where the driveway can go and not impact the tree. Just to clarify with that too, I'm looking at the registered survey and it does show the the trunk just outside the property line. I'm going to assume the surveyor knew what he was doing and that's where the tree is. But a good point with the driveway, the driveway has to be on the left and the other house like probably best to have it on the right. So like a twin driveway, but that's here there for what we're talking about right now. But if they the forestry demands and along with the city that have it have it sectioned off as protection for the tree then we've done everything that we can to prevent the tree from being damaged in my opinion. Um, I don't know. I agree with staff that it'd be nice to have the building footprint and design of the driveway and everything else, but that at this time I I think we're we can uh move ahead. In light of uh the forestry's comments, I would like to remove my motion. Okay, floor's open. Oh, I'd I think I'd like to make a motion to have this tabled so that it can be addressed and um they can get um together on uh what is going to happen with that tree. If the uh applicant is uh to that, you have the right to defer it, table it or um have us vote on it if you want a decision today. Okay. As I said, we're just uh we have a tree plan a tree management plan and then we are we are following what's on the tree management plan. So you don't want to table it then? Um I don't think there is any need to table it. Then I will change my my uh motion to deny the application as it stands. Okay. There's a motion on the floor for denial. Seconded by Yanuka. All in favor of that motion opposed. Seeing none. Uh so the motion is carried. Application is denied. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next we have no one can say that we don't care about nature. Yeah. Next we have a minor variance application 826033 420 Garner Road West Ancaster. Uh owner is Union Gas Company of Canada Limited, Mbridge Gas Incorporated, S. Bashard. Applicant is Stand Deck Consulting Limited, B. Blackwell. And I believe we have some uh let me just check. Yeah, I believe we have some interested parties here. Um Howie and Lorie Jerome. Yes. Yeah. Please provide your name and address and you have uh five minutes to speak. Thank you. My name is Lori Jerome. I am at 424 Garner Road East. I am on the west side of this property. I have submitted written concerns. Um over the years, uh I've been there for 35 years. I've seen extreme expansion of this property and this facility out um without taking into consideration any forward thinking that um this property is substantially smaller for what their requirements uh seem to be in need. It is my understanding that approximately 10 to 15 years ago, they purchased 30 ft to the east um of this property. Uh and if I'm correct on that, I am not understanding why they're not utilizing that instead of trying to expand within the um the framework that they're using. They have promised over the years to address the drainage and flooding um and the the problems that I'm receiving to the west side. They have yet to uh um to address this to no avail. I have written I have discussed this with them many times. I think this would just further expose my property to flooding. They have raised this property over the years. So this is causing more flooding. Conservation should be a major concern to this committee as there are un endangered species at risk in the surrounding area and especially to the um south side of this property. There's the I'm not sure whether the green tree frog is endangered, but definitely the snowy owl. He went missing for two years during their last construction. He has now been there considerably over the last two winters. Um there's also the bats and there are a lot of other uh wildlife in the back there. The layown area is not being identified especially with the safety concerns of some some of the things that go on and the possibility of things going wrong. I personally have been evacuated from my property in the middle of the night on more than one occasion with fire trucks having to use my driveway in order to deal with the leaks of this property. The noise issue is earpier piercing. If they feel they don't feel like coming over and changing the filters, the smell is unbelievable. Just think of the smell you can smell when you turn on a um a gas stove. Now, times that to the pound to the the smell is I can't even describe it. Uh I've noticed though in the last 6 months they have decided to start changing the filters more frequently but I don't expect that'll stay. Like I said I've been there for 35 years. It's been going ongoing problem. I do not see any uh addition for sound barriers I under um different circumstances forced basically forced or bargained I don't know how you would like to describe that um them into putting a sound barrier wall to mitigate some of the sound with this expansion that mitigation goes away and I'm back to where I does the problem with not having any sound barrier or smell barrier on the um north side is it bounces against the uh embankment across the street and still comes back to my house. I would also like to see more detail in regards to the building uh the outer materials they have intentions of using heights. How are they going to uh gain access to these buildings for demolition or the ex uh to rid uh the new buildings as well? How are they going to get onto this property? If you look at Google Earth, their property is already to the max of coverage. I would like to request a minimum of a site visit before any approval to answer some of these questions. I don't find that this um the information being um available is adequate. And this is also a major distraction for vehicles. I have had vehicles go over the embankment and end up half on their property and half on mine. This is a major intersection and they're just to the east of that. And I know it doesn't seem like a major in um intersection, but believe me. Anyways, that's uh that should conclude most of my other concerns that I didn't uh send in in writing. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Is there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Yes. John Wilkinson here from 421 Gardener Road. Oh, are you the same address as Miss Was it? Oh, okay. Okay. Go. Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. 421 Gardener Road. I am a north position of the subject property. I would be elevated from the subject property. I would say maybe 40 ft. I just want to start with some background and Lori would uh be aware of this, but just so you know if you don't read the financials, Embridge uh profited in June of 2025 uh I think it was uh 85 85 billion I wrote it down here. um sort $18 billion uh gross profit increase of 12% and and in just weaving in with what Lori said, Nbridge has not been a responsible partner on that site. Um, we have had noise issues over the years and despite calling Nbridge, uh, I had to get in touch with the embudsman there, that did nothing. And it was not until I called the Ministry of the Environment did anything change on that site with a company making $18 billion and having zero consideration and responsibility for the neighbors. So, a few things of course what Lori said, but the big thing there is going to be the uh what I call the acoustic affluent and that is the noise. I see the tank is doubled in size. I see the uh the the tanks 10 ft high from ground. The fence they want to put up is 7 and 1/2 ft. I'm not sure how you contain noise when the fence level is lower than what the tank noise system is. Um, the other thing that happens is that because I'm elevated, the acoustic affluent travels upwards and travels north. So, all the neighbors on the north side, not even part of my property, but other neighbors now are going to get this acoustic affluence. So there's going to be needed a different sound barrier there. I would say higher than what the tank is. So if the tank's 10 ft from grade, they're going to have to go 12 ft from grade. They're going to have to find a way to contain that so that that noise does not travel. It didn't say in there the DBAs, the decibb that they were trying to get it to. Um, but I think that it needs to go back for consideration or to be tabled to come back to the neighbors on what these noise levels are going to be, how they're going to contain them, and how they're going to make it work for the neighbors. The other part of this in not being a good neighbor is, as you know, they're going to redo Garner Road, add some sidewalks, and beautify that up. There's no consideration on that site for greenification. So they want to put up a beautiful chain link fence. I'm not sure. I guess 18 billion. Cannot buy a proper fence to make that site a little bit more beautified. They could plant some trees down the eastern side to make that more appropriate for the neighborhood. They could also do that on the north frontage, but nowhere in Santax plan do they build in any design to make that appealable to the neighborhood for the consideration of the people there and or for the consideration of Ancaster as a whole. So there's a big noise issue, there's a new build issue, how are they going to landscape that out to make it appropriate for everybody? So those are my comments. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. 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. Uh provide your name, address, and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Hi there. My name's Rachel Haggith and I'm with Stantech. Um would you like me to share my screen for the presentation or are you able to pull it up? Let me uh get it. Let me load it up. Give me a moment. Thank you. So to the agent, uh some of the structures that are there in place now, will they be coming down for the new builds to go up or? Um yes. So I have that. Uh I will touch on that, but there's currently three existing buildings. Um one will be demolished, one will be kept, and one will be replaced. Okay. Sorry. Give me a moment. 826. And the new footprint for the new buildings will take up more area than what is built on now. Uh, yes. Okay. I'm sure we have more questions, but we'll wait till after your uh presentation. Sounds good. Okay, through the chair. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Rachel Hegith and I'm an urban planner at Stantech Consulting representing Nbridge on this minor variance application for 420 Garner Road West. I'm also here with Brian Blackwell from Stantech. Next slide. The subject lands contain the existing natural gas distribution facility which must be upgraded to support the growing demand for natural gas in the area. The proposed upgrades will replace aging infrastructure while ensuring that the current design standards are being met. A site plan approval application has also been submitted to and accepted by the city. As part of this application, we have submitted a noise report, storm water management report, grading plan, lighting plan, tree protection plan, and other identified requirements to complete this application. The Grand River Conservation Authority has also been involved in this process, and we have received a permit for any work that is done on the easement within the wetland. As part of this permit, species at risk, natural heritage, and environmental documentation was provided. Next slide. The site plan shown here shows what is proposed on the site. There are three existing buildings on the site where one will be demolished, one will be kept and one will be replaced in addition of two uh proposed buildings. So once the upgrades are complete, there will be a total of four buildings on the site. The future road widening of 8.3 m is also shown on this plan which will be dedicated to the city. The requested variances are in red. Next slide. Sorry, just please bear with me. My computer is kind of slow today. This table outlines what variances we are proposing. Under the city of Hamilton zoning bylaw, utility uses are permitted in any zone within the city. However, they must conform to the most restrictive regulations contained within such zone. The proposed minor variance would reduce the minimum lot area, minimum front yard, minimum interior sideyard, and minimum rear yard and increase the maximum gross floor area of the agricultural zone A2. Next slide. The four tests for minor variances or minor variance are listed on this this slide and the next which require the variance to meet the general intent and purpose of both the zoning bylaw and official plan be desirable for the appropriate development of the land and must be minor in nature. This proposal does meet the general intent and purpose of the bylaw as the use will be critical natural gas infrastructure which is permitted in any zone with within the city. The variance requested would reduce setbacks in areas to allow for the permitted utility use to be achievable in an A2 zone. Furthermore, the town of Ancaster zoning bylaw number 8757 notes that land uses for natural gas regulator sites uh would be subject to special provisions which are reasonable for a site of this magnitude. If the town of Ancaster provisions were carried forward into the city of Hamilton zoning bylaw, there would only be one variation to the setbacks, the minimum front yard setback. This is due to the city's request for an 8.3 meter road widening which will require a minor variance for the proposed redevelopment of the storage uh of the storage and RTU buildings at the front of the subject site. The rural Hamilton official plan permits utility uses such as natural gas regulators in all land use designations. It is the general intent of the plan to ensure that these uses are developed in an orderly manner consistent with the needs of the city. This proposal does meet the general intent and purpose of the official plan as the existing natural gas distribution facility on the subject site must be upgraded to support the growing demand for natural gas in the area and to ensure that service can continue to be provided without interruption. The proposed upgrades will replace aging infrastructure while ensuring that current design standards are being met. Next slide. The proposed upgrades to this critical infrastructure are desirable as it directly impacts city of Hamilton residents. The purpose of these upgrades is to support the growing demand for natural gas in the area and to ensure that service can continue to be provided without interruption. These upgrades will result in development that is similar in nature to the existing development on the site. As the existing use on the site is remaining the same, this proposal is considered appropriate development for the subject site. The proposed variances are considered minor in nature. The utility use is permitted on the subject site with no land use change being proposed. As mentioned in Hamilton zoning bylaw, utility uses must conform to the most restrictive provisions in the zone. As the subject site is zoned agricultural, meeting the required minimum law area and setbacks is unachievable. As these provisions were set with large agricultural and rural lands and uses in mind, as this use is critical infrastructure and the proposed structures are similar in nature to what is existing on site, the proposal should be deemed minor. Next slide. Thank you for hearing our minor variance application and we support the staff recommendation for approval. Okay, thank you. Did you have anything else to add at this time or not at this time? Okay, take questions from the committee. Um, obviously this is a situation where it's uh been in place. Do you have any idea of how long um Union Energy or whatever has been at this uh Embridge has been at this uh site? Um, I do not. Brian, do you have the uh years for how long it's been active? Okay. Good afternoon. It's for you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Um, sorry. I don't know the exact date when this uh facility was built, but it's been there for quite some time. Okay. And just to add, Mr. chairman. Um the new building that we're constructing on the site is one new building and it's 13 ft by 13 ft by one story. So that is the size of the increase of the buildings on site. Okay. U committee Y I have a question. um where the road widening provisions are. Um what are the plans for revisiting where the structures are as once the road does widen out those two structures will need to be moved through the chair. Um we have taken the 8.3 road widening into account and that's why we need that that variance of the 1.5 to the what would be the new lot line. Um, so that's with it would be 8.3 plus the 1.5. Um, so the road would be fully contained within the 8.3. So it should not impact the structures once they're built. Donna, I'm going to put a motion forward to um approve the application with the proposed notes. Okay. Motion made by Donna, seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you, chair and committee. Have a good day. Okay. Next, we have a minor variance application 826036 1480 Concession Road 2 West, Lamro. B H owner is B Hood and P Hood. Applicant is B Hood and agent is E. Canton. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Um, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Um, please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Hi everyone, Eric Canton, uh, the applicant. Um so uh uh staff recommend approval. It'll make this uh pretty quick. The only thing I would like to ask is if we can make a motion um to approve without the condition. Now I have submitted a new or a different plot plan that if we could bring up. So in um special condition uh for this particular lot there's only two like two numbers that we have to adhere to. So a 49 m uh setback from the road which is staff commented on and you'll see in the drawing uh that it's 49 m and the second is 925 m. So 925 m is quite large. the building that I'm proposing is well within that uh area. So, if the committee feels like those are two numbers that I can demonstrate that I comply with and forego going to the director uh for a separate approval, that would be nice. So, if you zoom in on the Oh, sorry. Sorry. If you zoom in on the top corner there, so there's like a box. I still have room uh towards the rear, but at the top corner there, you'll see there's a dimension for 49 more than 49 mters and an area calculation. We're only about 650 uh 659 square meters in that area. So, that encompasses the building plus some space beside it. And my guess is that at the time when they did the resoning and the special exemption is they basically went 49 m all the way to the back of the property. And then basically that width and that that's where they came up with 900 square 925 square meters. Um but I'm well within the 925 staff please reply uh through the chair. I just um highly recommend that we keep this condition. The parameters of the landscape contractor's yard are outlined in this um sight specific zoning. The condition sounds a bit daunting because it's to the director of development planning, but in actuality um we just need a drawing that proves that the entirety of this shop is within the bounds of that special exemption and that can be sent to David and David can approve that and we can clear the condition. It's not meant to be overly ownorous. It's just to confirm that this shop is in fact not within the I believe it's A1 zone that surrounds um the special exception zone. So that it sounds daunting. It says director of development planning, but it's really me and David. So you can just email us and we'll clear that. Yes. Go ahead. Just just quick point of clarification. So if I sent you that showing 49 meters and showing an area less than 925, we're good. So through the so through the cherry it isn't necessarily the area it's we need so the sight specific zoning was applied to the property it's very specific these types of uh landscape contractor's yards are not permitted in the agricultural area now so we just need to be very clear so essentially we need just an image of where the zoning is because the zoning doesn't extend the full length of the property it's kind of like within the property so we really need confirmation that from the rear property line to where this special exception starts that the building is not within that. So if that's what that shows, I I think you might have to add one more line on here to show us where that zoning line is and then we would be okay with that. So if we leave that condition in, you've got the information. I thought this was going to be easy, but I I'll I'll just just a tiny bit. So my concern is that there is an ambiguous amount of information necessary for me to demonstrate that and to comply. So the special exception has only two numbers. 49 mters from the front and a total area of 925. There's no width, there's no length, there's no location. So, I was okay with the first comment. I'm a little bit more concerned that by agreeing to the condition, I'm going to open myself up to a theoretical line that's driven in a GIS map where there is no detail, no numbers, no way other than staff's just visual opinion that it complies. But I'll leave it. I'll leave it to the committee now. You guys can decide whether or not to with or without is fine. Well, I'll make a motion to approve with the condition. Okay. Seconder, Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. Okay. Um, next we have a minor variance application A26022 24 Caesar Place Ancastaster. Uh, the owner is Jay Aurora and R Perval. Apologize if I mispronounced your name. Um, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing none. Um I do note the uh uh that the development planning might have I don't know if they want to do it now or later. They may have comments. Um there was uh there was something in relation to this the staff comments that the applicant raised. So our staff looked into it further. Um but I'll leave that to development planning staff if they wanted to speak to that or not. Um again I asked if there was any members of the public who wish to speak. I don't believe I saw any. Um, I'll ask the uh applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. J Aurora or R Pval, are you there? I don't know if they're one of the uh the phone numbers there. We have a 416 and a 647 number. Um either of you uh who are calling in, is this the is this your application? 24 Caesar Place, Ancaster, 82622. Um through the chair, I don't know if you did you want to hold down the matter or did you wish to proceed? um leave that to the committee. Did planning want comments on this one or so? Good afternoon. Spencer Skidmore, acting manager development planning. Um through the chair, our comments were really just that there was um a mention of the deck being set back 2.6 mters from the fence. It's actually uh 1.4. It doesn't affect the variance in any way. It was just a discrepancy in the comments that the applicant pointed out. So there's no impact or bearing on the actual variance itself and we do recommend approval. Thank you. Okay, I think we can go ahead with this one. Um I'll make a motion to approve with the proposed notes. Okay, moved by Yanuka, second by Robert. All in favor, opposed. Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. And uh I will we will contact the applicant uh after the hearing just just to give them an update on that. Thank you. Okay. Next we have a minor variance application 826047 uh 1097 Wilson Street West Ancaster. The owner is a numbered company 2592481 Ontario incorporated. A a Patel and applicant is I know I'm going to mispronounce his name so I apologize in advance. Awai S Linen. Um is 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. My name is Yaso Solingham. I'm the um authorized agent on this application. This um um project is under siphon application. Uh we have a just a quick slide slow presentation. I don't know if you could able to share it or not. Just give me a moment. Did you send it to us prior to the hearing your uh Yes, we sent it. Maybe it's might have been sent a little late but um just give me a moment. Give me a moment. Apologies. I don't see it here. Um, could you could you send that over to me? Just just send it over quickly here on this to our email. CFA hamilton.ca ca hamilton Yeah. CFA hamilton.ca set. All right. See, I don't see it yet. Um Why it says sent? I don't know. Yeah, we haven't received it yet. Let me just uh I don't know if maybe we should just let you share your screen. Yeah, it hasn't it doesn't come through to our inbox yet. It's strange. Should have Can you share the screen? Yeah, maybe we'll just uh Sorry. Can I share the screen? Oh, Joe, I think we found it. Just give us a moment. I think we just found it. Sorry. Oh. Oh, there it is. No, it just got it just got to us now. Sorry. Um, all right. Apologies. Just bear with us. Oh, I think uh member Low just stepped out. Should we wait for him to come back? He'll be back. Okay. You just want to Okay. All right. Uh, all right. Let's try. Okay. So, this this Can you start? So simply this this project is under site application and um we have gone to certain level of the application process. Um we are revising the drawing for the resubmission again and one of the requirements is uh the deficiency uh on the zoning bylaw for the parking um requirements. So basically this project has um one uh uh uh uh fourstory hotel development um two restaurants and a community store with a gas station. So basically the the parking requirements um are being shared with all these units and we have done a parking study uh by a professional consultant and uh um the the purpose of um this application is to um um uh get approved for the um the variances on the parking deficiency and originally during the planning application we have number of parking available um on this um uh project but uh because we had to um um we wanted to give more areas for the the the green area or the conservation area for the more um dedicated landscape area. So that's the reason we had released a number of parking and uh the reduction is done such a way that the shard parking is still satisfied uh as per the um um um the traffic consultants report. Um so if you go to the next slide you can see how much area we have dedicated for the um um landscape uh requirements. So the the um the pro the the the the pinkle area is it original requirement of the um conservation area for the dedicated um land. Yeah that's one. And then um we have additionally provided that yellow and the green area for um for dedicated landscape area. And uh we are basically providing the fenced area there. So that the whole area is uh dedicated for the landscaping features and uh we have protected lots of existing trees in that area as well and uh planting new trees uh for um better environmental solutions. So that's the main reason the deduction the parking um came into effect in this project and um still it's me to all the um um um just of the parking consultants who did the um uh study and um uh the planning department and um development engineering is okay with this uh deduction of parkings. That's it. Thank you. This is basically showing how the parking requirements and then what's how we sharing the part. So simply so basically if if someone coming to use the hotel development they'll be staying in the hotel still using the um um um gas station to pump the gas uh and they'll be eating in the restaurant um so one car will be utilized for all services. Any anything else? No, that's it. I'm happy to answer if you have any other questions. Okay. Committee questions. I have some questions regarding access off of Wilson Street. You only show one driveway coming off Wilson Street, which is very near the traffic circle, and it runs basically behind the sea store for the gas bar and then goes back to where the other two restaurants in the hotel is. That is the only identified driveway on the drawing that was submitted. So yeah, that's correct. We assume that's the only driveway for the entire property. That is correct. Yes, it meets uh the fire route on building code requirements and um all the necessary requirements and basically the the planning department, the traffic um the uh the public works they they all reviewed that and then they are okay with that. Well, I'm just asking where the other driveways or entrance points are for the property. That's the only uh entrance uh for this property. The property itself, it's a very long property. It goes all the way to the back. But that's a different type of zoning. So, this is the only area we could able to develop. So, we have limited our development to this area and we have dedicated lots of lands for the conservation. Donna, I'm going to put a motion forward um to um accept the application. I think there's no uh yeah with just the proposed notes. Okay. Approve the application. Motion made by Donna, second by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? One opposed. One driver, one driver. Robert, motion's carried. Application is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh next we have a consent and a related minor variance application. So uh just as I indicated the practice here would be we the committee uh would hear both of them together unless I hear any any uh kind of issues with that. Um so the first is a consent application B2434 96 Kiteon Road Dungis owner is Constructtology Incorporated S. Freeman. The applicant is the same uh person or the same entity and the agent is Arcadus Professional Services Canada MRO. Uh and then there is the um related minor variance application A24118. Same address, same uh same owner, uh applicant and agent. Uh I believe we have we have interested parties here. Um I believe we had um conservation Halton uh staff here. I don't know did they want to speak first? Hi, I'm uh Mickey Hobbs, planner with Hamilton Conservation Authority. Um we provided comments noting that the subject property is in close proximity to a water course, attribut of Middle Spencer Creek. The water course is confined by a steep valley slope extending onto the subject property producing the potential for erosion hazards. Um based on information available to staff, the several lands on the proposed dwelling may be partially affected by erosion hazards. Uh we are recommending the application be tabled to allow the applicant to prepare additional information to address these concerns. Thank you. Okay. Um and I believe we had an interested party Jerry and Clifford. Yeah. I mean if you want if you had any additional comments you could Oh sure. Come up here. Yeah. uh please provide yeah your name and address and uh you'll have five minutes to speak. Hello. Uh thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chair. I'm not particularly familiar with the protocol of of these meetings. It's the first time I've actually I've been here, but the first time I'll speak. I wrote a a rather general letter about my the property. I live at uh 8G Street just above on the Drumland and you would know how shifting the the Drumland would be. And so I just thought I would express my personal experience in conversation with my neighbors. Um, and also because I knew the people who lived at 96R Kraton over the years. I've been at my property since 2010. I have a couple significant considerations. Um, following what the conservation authority rep Mika had mentioned, I did speak with them. I've been here before about 96 Kraton. Uh, my concern is the land and environment uh related. Um, the erosion is observable every year. It's subtle. It's continuous. That particular property is to the slight northeast of my property. There's a bluff that goes right down to the to the waterway to the stream which is a derivative of Spencer Creek. Um, and it's also um an area that's uh significantly changing because of the erosion. Now, the people that lived there spoke to the shifts. They had a pool at the back, which was probably ill advised over the years, and the effect on their house and the um foundation was observable. I went in actually when it was advertised for sale. Um so the the concern there is the integrity of the bank associated with that uh the integrity of the bank are all those trees and uh I was pleased to hear the concern about trees and the significance for uh shelter for protection against winds particularly in that area and most significantly for the integrity of the the build the land on which the building exists. The fact that they're looking to uh sever from an investment point of view, I could see the advantage. Put two two buildings there, put uh triplex, think of the opportunity for housing, a significant concern, and then an additional property. So we now have a number of potential families, people who would be moving in uh along with the environment in terms of the land is the entry and exit. If you look at that the position of that property, it's just at a curve right along that stream which um also is part of a um corridor for the wildlife. And I mention that just because of the busyiness, natural busyiness that would be impeded by this development. Uh it's also the city of Hamilton has increased the cycling and also uh the pedestrian because of the high schools and the elementary schools. The kids walk back and forth through there. So there's that pedestrian corridor. Um and these are just concerns that are significant in terms of the life of a low density property. The other thing I'd like to mention, I guess that ding means it's my time. I've got 50 seconds to finish. Um, the safety for entry and exit, the increased traffic. You will be well informed of the plans for the Blackadar area that are still underway. That whole area is going to change dramatically. This is right now a low density residential. Um and my concern is is uh what it is going to do to change the character of the area, safety and the environment. And I think those are the key things that I mentioned in my letter. I just wanted to put a face to the letter and emphasize our concern. Thank you. I think that's it. Yeah. Um did you did did you provide us a letter before? I wrote an email and you have your Okay. Okay. Or else I would have asked you to fill out an interest or party form. It's essentially probably a little uh more clearly expressed essentially what I've just said. Okay. Thank you. Is there any other members of the public wish to speak? I know that I'm here several. We already have a letter from her. So, we have her contact information. It's fine. Yeah. Thanks. Was there any other members of the public wish to speak? And just just to uh just reiterate to the committee of course we we we do have that five minute speaking limit but if the committee wants you can always expense extend that time frame if you wanted to. Okay. Uh seeing no other members of the public 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. Yeah. Good afternoon uh to the chair and committee members and staff. My name is Mike Crow. C R O U G. I'm a registered professional planner with Arcadus. Um we're at 360 James Street North, Sweet 200 East Wing, Hamilton, Ontario, L1H5. Um I would like to first of all thank Justin actually for helping me with my presentation. I know there was some discussion I've been following all day about some comments about him, but I'd like to point out his helpfulness and his uh quick responsiveness and his ability to to work with me and get a presentation available. So, thank you, Justin, for that. Uh, can we pull that up on screen, please? I'd like to just go through that quickly. Yep. Just give me a moment. And maybe while that's happening, I recognize for for the chair for the committee, there's various comments on this application. And there's I'm glad conservation authority is here. Um, so I guess in one respect, we have recommend recommendation for denial from plan development planning. We have a recommendation for approval from development engineering. Uh no objections from other city departments. We have some requested conditions from others. And then we have a recommended tableabling um for from the conservation authority. So um maybe I was going to go through this presentation top to bottom, but I think what I would like to do is maybe just because of time um we could just skip right to it would be page eight please in the PDF. Justin, if you could go to that. Perfect. Oh, well up one. There we go. Perfect. So, as as the committee would be aware of, the application is to sever uh the existing lot and um the purpose of that severance is to try to accommodate a new uh single detached dwelling and we debated how much detail to show on that dwelling, but we decided to show quite a bit actually just to verify, you know, how this would work and then we could speak to any technical comments. So, that's what we've done. Um, and what I want to really emphasize is the existing building, uh, which which was noted by the the public speaker is being converted to a triplex. That's staying. So, that's not changing. So, in previous submissions, the owner was looking to potentially remove that, thinking that it would be almost impossible to to keep that dwelling there based on conservation authority regulations. They've actually put a lot of time and effort into working on technical material with conservation authority to the point that a permit was issued for that dwelling to be modified and stay as is um and to be converted into a triplex and there's also issuance of a city building permit. So essentially everything on the right hand side of the of the drawing that we've submitted uh is either existing or approved to stay and none of that's really subject to the application. Uh and so for the conservation authority, we actually go did go through a quite an extensive exercise uh preparing a slope stability assessment from paraprobe and that was provided and vetted through the conservation authority prior to any applications. And so our drawings actually reflect that. So what you're seeing on the screen right now is um it's a little hard to see but on the right hand side there's a blue dashed line which goes just up the edge of the ashalt driveway. Uh and that is the stable top of bank as determined by the slope stability assessment. So that was technical work that was done that's been incorporated into the conservation authority permit and as well as previous discussions with staff. I've added a red line there on the left which is the 6 meter erosion access allowance. So that red line is essentially the total extent of um the hazard area plus the the allowance. As you can see almost uh all of the existing driveway and parts of the existing dwelling are already within that uh that setback area but that's already been approved. So the new dwelling is completely outside of that erosion allax access allowance and there really aren't any works associated with that proposal which would really infringe upon um that area and then both properties would use utilize the existing ashell driveway which is proposed to remain in that condition is recognized. So, if you can skip down to the next slide, number nine. Um, one one uh maybe number 10. Sorry. Go one more. I'm losing track of my perfect. So, one option the committee can have instead of tableling the application and you can have conservation authority staff comment on this, but uh we don't really have any issues with the the material they're identifying in terms of requirements. we have a geotechnical report and a slope stability assessment um that could be updated if necessary to consider the new dwelling. Um the hazard delineation really shouldn't change and so the things they've asked for I think mostly have already been done. So rather than table the application we could include a condition with this wording to verify that we'll continue on with that discussion process and we'll I'm confident we'll be able to satisfy those comments. So, we didn't resubmit that material because we didn't think it was necessary, but at the same time, um, if there's some concerns about concerns about some some differences and maybe some need to have some additional information in there, then we can we can definitely do that. Um, if we can go down one more slide, please. So, our request at the committee would be to approve the applications. We recognize development staff were recommending denial. Uh, their two main concerns are character, which we don't think there's really any character arguments here. um this very diverse area of Dundas. There's lots of all different sizes and shapes. There's the great differentials. There isn't really a defining character. And so there really is an argument to be made there. Uh I can understand um where they might be coming at from with respect to to the lot frontage. as we have acceptance from development engineering on our servicing strategy and they're really the authority on uh how lots will be serviced and the easement will certainly assist with ensuring that that will get maintained over time. Um everything would be work would work just fine. So our request really then is for that approval. Uh we would ask um staff or committee to consider removing some of these conditions. Number seven is just because we already have a permit issued for the main dwelling. Um, and whatever happens with the new dwelling would have to meet building code anyway. So, there really wouldn't be an analysis outside of the building permit process required. Uh, for condition 8, storm water management, there's already a request to do the consent agreement, which we agree with. So, it's kind of a redundant condition. I don't think there's any need to do that separately when it would just be part of the normal consent process considerations anyways. Um for uh number 12 um we uh definitely don't agree with the noise report. I mean uh I heard some comments earlier about where the the noise report could dictate where structures can go and that might be true, but we're not asking for any reduced setbacks or variation. So the zoning parameters are what they are and that's what the building can be cited to. And in any event, I would expect it would be normal OBC requirements on building construction anyways just given the type of road and what's being proposed. Uh number 13, we we don't agree with an EIS requirement. Um most of the property, the area that we're talking about has already been developed. There isn't really any impacts to um the features that are of concern, which is really the creek and the the um the creek's valley and the slope and the the linear feature there. That's already protected by virtue of the conservation authority setback. So we can't really do anything closer than that. Anyways, it was kind of a redundant requirement where there wouldn't really be any outcomes different than what you would see on the ground right now. And then we were going to look at conditions four and five. I've actually retracted that. So, you can ignore that. We sorry 14 and 15. We would accept those conditions. So, there's no problem there. We can just go very go back up to uh I think number three. Perfect. Uh so that's really what we're looking to do here. That's the purpose of the application. And then down one more, please. And that's our proposal. And you can see the two dwellings existing and proposed. And down one more. And just to hit home the context, I think this slide speaks volumes. I mean, you can see all the different sizes and shapes of lots and configurations. This is really no different. It's just typical Dundas in many ways. and there isn't really a character argument there. So, I think we can address that. And one last slide just to put in the committee's mind's eye. Um, down one more. Can you can you go down another slide, please? Two slides there. Just so the committee is fully aware, uh, this is the frontage. So on paper it looks like there's plenty of frontage for this property, but really what you're seeing directly in front of you is the actual fiscal frontage. Uh the bu the bridge to the right actually encapsulates a good chunk of the property frontage, but it can't do anything with it. It's a major constraint. So in terms of citing servicing, driveways access, we don't really have the the virtue of using the full legal frontage. you can only use the physical frontage and that's really why the driveway and design and lot configurations are proposed the way they are because we just have that space to work with. So that's it for me. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Um and if it comes to tableabling, you know, we we would accept that, but we're hoping we could we could move on and get a decision today if if uh but we're in committee's hands in terms of what they think is best. Okay. To the committee questions. Well, no question. I I've seen this property when it was first application come out and I've visited again on Saturday and uh I see a big deterioration in that creek and around the banks of that creek down there. So, I I can't see how they could have the another two another house built on there for safety reasons and the for the foundation. So, that's my opinion. I don't know what the planning has would say on anything like that. uh through the chair Daniel Barnett um the planner on this. Um yeah, our position obviously is is recommending denial of the application. Um they need a number of variances including a variance to the minimum the absolute minimum frontage requirement which is in the bylaw 4 and 1/2 mters. Uh they're a severed lot. They want basically 0.72 m uh of lot frontage. Uh so they are requesting variances uh that in our opinion are not meeting the four tests. uh and uh we don't feel that the um uh the severance is appropriate and that's why we're recommending that. Sorry. Um Jennifer Katarino, just to add on to um Daniel's comments just in regards to the agents request to remove conditions. So similarly to the comments I made earlier, staff in this case are recommending denial. So don't don't get me wrong, we don't think that this is a good idea. However, if the committee were to proceed with an approval, we would strongly recommend that all of the conditions recommended by all the departments be included, specifically the consent agreement condition and anything related to the engineering. Um, we have significant concerns regarding the lot frontage that's being proposed and whether or not this lot can even be um serviced. Um, so our servicing bylaw is pretty stringent. Um and a consent agreement would require any works that are required um outside of the lot to be completed. Again, this lot if it is approved, these houses and these developments would not be subject to site plan control. So this application is our only chance to capture the requirements of the city at this time. So again, not to confuse anything, development planning is recommending denial. However, if the committee does want to go a different way, just keep those comments in consideration, please. Well, after hearing from the planning department and you've they want to have all the conditions in there and you don't want that quite a few conditions you don't want. Would you like to table that to get that all straightened out rather than us denying it through the chair? So, um yeah, number one is um respect to the conditions, we aren't requesting removal of the consent agreement. So, we've actually agreed with that condition. Our our request was to not have a separate condition for storm water management because it would be covered in the consent agreement process anyways. Uh we did submit um grading and servicing drawings and you note that rec development engineering recommend approval of the application that they don't have any concerns and their request is to uh go with the consent agreement. So, uh, to say that there's concerns with how the lots can be serviced isn't actually accurate because those drawings are submitted and have been reviewed by development engineering and we go forward and do that. They had some previous comments before about separation of water and sanitary and we've achieved that separation and we've shown how that can be done. Um, so the easement just facilitates that. So, I just want to go on the record saying that because um, that that's not going to change, right? Uh but really um at this point I'd rather table than than deny. So if if that's kind of what's being presented to us then of course we take it back and look at it again. At the very least it would give us a chance to to sort of a conservation authority the fact that they have information already submitted. Um but but to be clear like we're not objecting to the consent agreement. We're not objecting to storm water management or grading and servicing. We've done all that work. So we would just be reiterating that it functions and it's satisfactory and city would staff would say the same thing on this on the resubmission. So you' be willing to table it then? Yeah. I'll make a motion to table this application. Motion to table by Mel, second by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application tabled. Okay. Thanks for your time. Um and thank you. um we will notify the applicant or agent after we will contact the applicant or agent after the hearing just on how to proceed and then if there was any interested parties similarly um we will let you know uh once there's any updates on this application. Okay. Thank you. And if there was anyone here um who was interested in this application do fill out an interested party form um and we will notify you uh if there's any updates on this application. Thanks. Um, next we have we did have a break. Oh, don't I'm sorry. Do we Well, do you want to Yeah, let's Okay. Yeah, let's take 5 minutes. We'll come back around 3:30 4 p.m. Okay. Thanks. All right. Reconvening. Reconvening at 3:36. Um, sorry. Sorry about that. I believe the next application is A2 A2. It's a minor variance. A26028 21 Dungus Street Dundis. Owner is M. Pets and P. Pets. Uh, is there any I'm sorry. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Um and I just I will note development planning is is uh um is proposing to table the application. Um but unless I hear anything else uh I I don't believe I heard anything from the applicant or agent. Um I don't believe there's any members of the public wish to speak on this. I'll ask then I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name, address, and you have five minutes to speak. Hi, my name is uh Mike Pets. Um I don't know what else uh I'm supposed to say here. Didn't really Did you have a chance to read the comments that were posted? Yeah, I think I've put in all the comments uh that I that they needed and uh even with um him with conservation. Uh I've heard that he wants to table it anyways just to look at all um everything. I'm okay with it. I guess uh if they table it for the next one uh April 30th. Yeah, it'll depend on if um if planning has the information they need from uh conservation. Yeah, they they have it all. Okay, they have it now. Yeah. Okay. And so it'll be as long as planning can get in touch with Justin as to whether it will be at the next meeting or not. Yes. Through to share. We'll we'll speak with the applicant on it, see if we can arrange that or not. Yeah. And then coordinate with the other staff as well. Um I I don't know yet if the April 30th committee of adjustment hearing is possible, but we do meet once or twice every month. So if not, we'll we'll look to get you on to the next hearing. Yeah. Which would be May 19th. Yeah. So you're agree for tableabling it? Yes. Well, yeah. If it's going to be April 30th, I Okay, I'll I'll make a motion to table it. Sure. Okay. Seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application tabled. Thank you. Thank you. And we'll be in touch with the applicant uh about how to proceed after. Okay. Okay. Next we have a minor variance application 8260193 highway number 6 Flamro. Owner is C. LeBlanc and applicant is C. LeBlanc. Uh, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Seeing none, the applicant or agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and address. And you have five minutes to speak. Uh, owner applicant C. LeBlanc, are you here or are you on WebEx? I see a 416 number here. I don't know if that's the person. The application is for uh 1593 highway number six. Lamro. Okay. Through the chair. I don't know if they're here. Um I'll leave it to you how you wish to I don't know. We'll maybe we'll try to reach out to them. Maybe staff. Maybe we'll send an email. see if we can contact them. Did you want to wait? Well, there's not much to do with this. I think we go ahead and uh deal with it. Okay, that's up to you. Yeah, you could if you wanted to. Yes. Yeah, the comments are favorable. There's no I think everything's I'll make a motion to approve it. Second. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Uh Mel made motion and Yanuka seconded. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. Um, we will notify the uh applicant or agent after the hearing about that. Okay. Next, we have a minor variance application 826031 623 Milgrove Side Road, Flamro. Owners T. T Mueller and Lcross. Applicant is T Müller. Is there any uh members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Uh seeing none. And I will note um development planning staff are recommending to table the application, but um I don't believe I heard anything from the applicant or agent. So um I'll leave it to them how they wish to proceed. Um applicant or agent uh could you please step forward? Please provide your name, address, and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thanks. Good afternoon. Uh my name is Tyrron Mueller from 623 Mel Growth side in Waterdown. So this application is for a variance in order to put a swimming pool in a P7 zone, which is a protected woodland under natural heritage. Um so the recommendations to table are due to the fact that more studies want to be done to ensure if there's trees there need to be protected and if that would entail a tree protection plan. Um that area is currently entirely grassed and their notes are reflective of that saying that it's landscaped lawn um and there are no trees within 30 mters of where we proposing the site. So I'm requesting an approval with without the conditions. Um I do have images I can present if there's concerns and which to verify that fact. Um but in the interest of time um I move for an approval. Okay. The conservation authority also wants to be contacted or the city wants the conservation authority to make comments on the location I guess of the pool. There is a neighboring PH zone which if we were within 30 m of that PH zone which is a watershed we would need an additional um letter of permission from conservation. But the plan is to be further from that and if we did need a letter of permission that would fall under effect when we get the building permit and not the variance. So the P7 zone runs right through that whole area too, right? Yeah. The P zone is a protected wetland under natural uh not wetland uh woodland under natural heritage. Yes. And and through the chair just believe the comm and development planning stand staff can comment as well. I believe uh Hamilton conservation was recommending tableabling the application. uh through through the chair. I mean uh planning staff did recommend uh tableabling um uh natural heritage um to kind of clarify that what they wanted was to do a site visit and then from there determine whether they would need for example an EIS study or not. Um I think they put conditions in obviously to cover their to cover the basis. Um, so I think that's kind of worth the um uh kind of why they recommending tableabling or or why we're recommending in conjunction with them uh is to make sure that those uh that they can evaluate the the site and determine if uh what the ex exact limits are of the the natural feature and if indeed the pool is uh that's being proposed will be will impact that natural feature or not. Um, so that's kind of where the where the staff position and and and also any buffer um that uh that needs to be provided. Donna, are you um okay with us tableabling it? Not particularly. You want you want a I would prefer an approval motion. Um, we've been in this process since November of last year with no amount of misinformation until we came to the conclusion that this P7 zone was divested from HCA a number of years ago and now falls under natural heritage and the only restriction on HCA would be the 30 m boundary from the P8. Have you spoken with someone from the conservation authority? We have fairly extensive. you have something in writing from them that uh sets out what they're what they want from you. We have numerous emails. Yes. That Have you presented them to our staff to satisfy them that the uh conservation area is okay with it? The well the conservation area would need is requesting additional studies right provided that we are within 30 m of the wetland boundary which we are not intending to be. Okay. But and through the chair, just to let uh just just to remind just reiterate to the committee, we do have a staff member from Hamilton Conservation who's on the on the line as well if you wanted to ask some questions. Could could the uh staff member Yeah. Makia Hobbs, are you there? Actually, it's it's Elizabeth Rhymer. I'm here for this. KIA is um not involved in No worries. Um I'm happy to answer any questions the committee may have. Um we did provide written comments. Um so I know that uh staff have have our written comments. Um I can provide you a brief summary of of our position if that's of interest to the committee. Yeah, that would be uh helpful. Thanks. Um, so just to give you a very brief overview, HC staff were on site in December of 2020, at which time the current applicant was um constructing a second story addition on their existing dwelling. Um, we approved that. Um just to let you know though that typically with um wetland evaluations they're supposed to be done during uh leaf on um like basically during the growing season. So December isn't really a suitable period of time in which to conduct uh a formal wetland staking. So, we're requesting that um we just get a chance to go look at the wetland um during the leaf on season which for us our window of opportunity opens May 15th at which time our ecologist could go out um we could stake the wetland boundary and that would give us you know we'd from there be able to measure more precisely exactly where that 30 meter buffer is which will provide clarity as to like where the pool can be situated away from the hazards. Thank you. Um I'm going to um if you're not amenable to uh table it, I'm going to make a motion to deny the application. Okay. Motion on the floor. Is there a second? I if it's deny or table, I would have to go for table. um table. Okay, then I'll withdraw that and I'll put a motion to uh table the application. Okay, motion to table the application. Is there a seconder? Yeah, Anukica. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application tabled. And just to the applicant agent, we'll uh we'll be in touch with you on how to proceed uh afterward after the hearing. Thank you. Um, next next we have a minor variance application 826039 27 Cumminsville Cumminsville Drive, Flamro. Owner is Dian M. Colette and the applicant is the same person uh same uh two people. Um, we do have an interested party, Ernie Freyer. Yes, I'm on the line. Hi. Uh, if you wanted to speak, uh, you can do provide your name and address and you have five minutes. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Uh, my name is Ernie Frier. I'm at 29 Cumminsville Drive, which is north of the U application in question. I've been at this address for 43 years, and I was here before there was any houses. Okay. So, um I've read the application uh that Dean submitted and I find a lot of false statements. Number one, this is a really strange one and I hope you guys can see through the woods on this. This particular structure was actually being built in July of 2023. On July 18th on 2023, a Hamilton inspe building inspector happened to be sitting in front of my house for about a half an hour. So I went out and chatted with her as to what her uh purpose was here and she acknowledged that she noticed that a structure was being built at 27 Cummingsville. And at that time the driveway was completely full of material related to that structure in including the roof sheathing etc. Uh and so forth. In the um application it says it was going to just be a gazebo with no roof which is false. Okay. So that's that's that. But in other words and in the application it says the structure was built in 24 and and year 25 which is false. It was built in 23 and Lisa Jones could uh acknowledge that. Anyways, um the structure in question is uh built on a concrete platform which uh is above the grade line of the soil the regular lawn uh grade by about 14 in. And therefore the structure then uh the height becomes quite high well over uh the fence our our fence between the structure and our property. And I submitted a couple pictures. I'm hoping that you can display them for the committee uh that the displays uh actually a person standing beside the fence and the structure. The structure on the low end is about 10 to 11 ft and and that the peak is about 14 ft. This structure is also about uh 24 feet wide by 12 feet deep or 26 square meters. The structure I know in in the planning land they call them accessory buildings. However, it is definitely not an accessory building. What what it actually entails is it is a pool cabana but it is a pavilion. And what I mean by that is it only has the one wall that you see that runs parallel to the fence and the rest the other three sides of this structure are wide open. The only thing that uh is there is mechanical screens that go can be raised or closed. So the when the thing when the structure is in use all the sides and the front are completely open and therefore due to the height of the floor in there and the and the elevation when people are using the structure uh they can see right into our backyard into our pool into our practically into our home. The structure is also built quite deep into the lot. It is built uh 30 feet from the end of the lot and these lots are extremely deep. I should uh acknowledge these lots are half acre lots here in Flamborough which means about 230 deep and 100 ft wide. So the backyard's 100 ft wide. I'm unsure why we would build a structure that close to the fence line when we still have 100 ft to deal with. This isn't a 42 ft lot where every inch counts. Here we've got ample footage to incorporate this structure. So the structure is used when it's used it is got a full operating alcohol bar in it with seating of eight people in it and a lounge TV loudspeakers and they often have gatherings of 30 or more people huddled around this bar and structure as you can vision with the pool and of course bikinis and everything and all these people can see into our yard so the privacy is virtually nothing. So I I know I can't question a person building a structure, but I do question how they could build it without a permit, without this variance. I my understanding is you get permits and variances before you build, not after. And now in the in the application it says the structure cannot be moved. Well, I do question that. That's false because last summer they had I guess the issues with the footings and they disconnected all of the uh posts which are they use saddles that are connected bolted to the concrete. So this structure can easily be unbolted and moved the 10 to 12 in to give the proper setback. Okay. So I I just don't understand why we're even talking about a variance for for a uh setback when these lots again are 100 ft wide. Not 42, not 35, 100. So why are we uh even at this point over 10 in 12 in? Secondly, uh these lots on this side where these homes are built were premium lots that I paid an extra amount for. the premium lot because these are green land, farmers field behind us, beautiful sunset, and all I can see is this structure because it's built deep into the lot and so close to the line. So with that all said, I'm asking the committee to not approve this variance by any means and to really consider the fact that this and and and by the way, we have made several calls to the bylaw office for because of the setback and never did we hear officially back from them until this point. So, it's taken three years almost to get to this point and I'm I can't understand how the planning process works that this could happen. This this build was done without a permit without any variance uh application and now it's determined we need a variance. You know, this is people shouldn't just build and not measure. I mean, this was built by a contractor. uh they should know better and uh apparently he said architects and every everybody should know better than the setbacks are there for a reason that's why we have the bylaw you know if I have a 100 foot driveway I don't park my car on the road every day and there's the same analogy so therefore we should ask that the structure be moved and secondly the sides should be enclosed so that the privacy issue is is ended in other words I can't see them and they can't see us. Okay. So then it would be a lot more applicable. Also on the back of the structure, there's at least six electrical conduits all over the place. It looks like spaghetti on the back of the uh structure. Very uh poorly installed. And no neighbor should have to see all that condute and everything. When someone builds a garage, they at least side the back well enough that it looks equal to the front or an accessory building, a shed, whatever. But in this case, they didn't care about the back. They just, if you see it, it looks worse than an old fence. They used some pressuret treated fence boards and built the back. You can see it all in the picture. So, if at minimal, I would like someone to come and see it if if you have any other questions about it. How how's that? And I'll leave you with that. Thank you so much for your time. Okay. Thank you. Was there any Thank you. Was there any other members of the public who wish to speak? And I believe Mr. Fair um and thank you for your comments. I believe you provided your pictures as part of your written comments and those would have been provided to the committee members previously. Um again as I said thank you for your comments. I don't know if you were here for the previous applications at the hearing. Um I'll just reiterate some some comments just some general comments to the public. Um sometimes we have instances where people have already built a structure uh which may have been done without a benefit of a building permit. In that instance, if it's discovered, our building department will investigate and they may issue an order. And in that instance, they are provided two options. The property owner either they comply with the zoning bylaw by making changes to the structure or they can apply for a minor variance. Um the applicant has chosen to apply for a minor variance here. And that is why now we have this public process, right? um the planning act the law that which governs planning and development in Ontario states and municipality can have a zoning bylaw in further states and municipality can have a committee of adjustment that can hear and consider minor variances. So um that's the and if a structure and this as I previous indicated um the the practice we we have here at this municipality and it's consistent with the adjacent municipalities is if a structure has been built um and they then subsequently come in for a minor variance the committee is uh advised by by staff they should re they should review the proposal as if it is not there it just has a new proposal and whether it meets the four tests for the minor variance in the planning act. Um, and you've noted some other issues with building or bylaw. Just letting you know those are separate issues. Um, if my contact our contact information is on the notice. Uh, it's on our website. If ever you're having any issues, if you want to learn more about committee of adjustment, about planning processes, you're welcome to contact us. Um, if there's any issues with you contacting other staff, you're not able to get in touch with them. Um, you can always try to connect with we can connect with us and we can see if there's there's any issues with that in terms of communication with them. Okay, thank you. Um, and I don't believe there was any other members of the public. Um, I'll then I'll ask the applicant or agent, please step forward, please provide your name and address, and you have uh 5 minutes to speak. Um, thank you and through Mr. Chairman, I it's my name is Dean Colette. I'm along with my wife Marcy. We own the property at 27 Cumminsville and um I did provide some photographs which I think will give some pretty strong counterarguments to what you heard my neighbor say. So um when you're ready, Justin, if you want to just put just load them up. And while he's doing that, just so everyone's aware, I do have a building permit. And um as everybody knows, the building permit process can take a long time. There was various ministries that I had to get approvals from. It took many months. I did that. Um the the comments that he made about easily moving it. Um you'll see the structures that he've built that he's built. Yes, he used anchors and just put them into a deck. I d I dug 4ft footings and originally those footings were 15 in wide. When the permit came out and the inspector came out, um I had to increase them to 24 in. But you can't just move this structure. So that is the structure. You can see it. And um so who was on the phone or any his property is behind it. So the comment that he made about how he can't see the sunset because of my structure. It's a disingenuous comment. You'll if you go to the next photograph, you'll see an aerial photo of both of our properties. So my property is on the right, Ernie is on the left. So you can see where my cabana is just at the end of the pool. If you look in his property, there's numerous structures. There's two structures at the at the other fence line built I would argue even closer to the fence line than what I built, but because they were under 15 square meters, he didn't require a building permit, but he still has to be offset a certain amount. But he's he's built two structures larger than mine. He's also built four or five other structures. If you look in the top right corner of his property, there is a he also has a pool cabana. He talked about me having a TV outside. He has a TV outside. He built that pool cabana. If you come down a little bit, you'll see the square roof. That that pool cabana is 5 m x 5 m. He should have got a building permit for it and didn't. He built it. I don't think he put footings into it. I don't think he did any type of building permit at all with it. But you can see all the amount of structures that he's built on his property in including two large structures and and you'll see in further photographs the trees beside it. and he talks about me blocking his view. Look at what he's done with the neighbors. So, if you go to the next photo, sir, let's just Can we just deal with with the minor variance that you No problem. I look at I and and I'm fine to do that. I wasn't even planning on on presenting any of this stuff, but I just wanted that the committee to know that that all of the things that he said, I mean, the pictures kind of speak for themselves and and I'm and I've done everything that the city's asked. I've met with my inspector multiple times and and this has been stressful because as you can tell I've done something nice for my family, but the comments that he's made frankly they're unfair and they're not true. Okay. Did you have any more comments on the variance itself? No, not on the variance. It's just I I've done everything right and and it it is only I'm seeking it's 30 cm. There's still lots of room behind it. There's lots of room and that's why staff made the recommendation to approve. Well, and the difference between 0.9 and 1.2 is only two feet difference. So, it's not even two feet. It's less than a foot. One foot. Yeah. So, as far as I'm concerned, as far as looking over the fence, one foot isn't going to make much difference, but no. Committee questions. Motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve with the proposed notes. Okay. Motion made by Yanuka, seconded by Pick One, Donna. All in favor, opposed. Seeing none, motion carried, application approved. Thank you very much. And thank you. Just and through the chair, just a general notion for everyone. Whenever an application is is a minor variance is is applied for, there's a public process, right? We notify the public and the public can come and provide comments. Um, and it's up to the committee how they they handle that. Just just wanted to make that general comment. Okay. Thank you. I don't know if you want your USB key back, sir. Yeah. Just give me a moment. Let me let me let me save this onto my computer first. All right. There you go. Thanks so much. Thanks. Um, okay. Moving on. We have a minor variance application. A sorry A2634 30 to 44 Dunga Street East Flamro. Owner is owner is Clap Clapison 56 Properties Incorporated and Water Street Properties Incorporated. Applicant is Clap Clapison 56 Properties Incorporated S. Milovich and the agent is MHBC Planning G. Tesla. 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 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Uh, good afternoon. Jerry Chesler from MHBC. We're at 12 James Street North here in Hamilton. Um, before I get into my presentation, I would, if I may, ask the committee for an additional two to three minutes to to speak to this application. I know that staff are refusing three of the the four variances, so I would like to have the opportunity to to explain the the variances to committee. Go ahead. Thank you. And Justin, I believe we have a we do have a letter from Metro Grocery Stores uh submitted and they are the prospective tenant for this development here and we do apologize for submitting it late. Um we were unsuspecting of the um opposition to the variances. In the letter, they just outline um some of the reasons why we're requesting these variances for their operations. And just we can have the presentation as well. And we can go to the next slide, too. Thank you. So, this property is located in West Waterown. It's at the intersection of Highway 6 and Dundas Street. It's about 6.6 hectares in area. It's vacant. Um and it's uh got predominantly uh large-scale retail employment uses and uh automotive predominantly automotive related uses along Dundas Street there in its immediate context. And there is also a grade separated interchange proposed by MTO which will be coming in by about 2029 2030. Uh next slide please. The variance before the committee today is uh to support a first phase of what's going to be a multi-phase commercial development with the initial introduction of a grocery store at 44,000 grocery store um at the north end of the site. And uh next slide, please. And uh the grocery store will have approximately 186 parking spaces, 12 short-term bike spark bike parking spaces, and it's going to be located as close as possible to the Dundas Street frontage there uh while respecting MTO's 14 m setback as a result of the uh the interchange there. Um and then next slide, please. So, four variances are required to support this application. The first one is requesting that parking be permitted between the building facade and the uh public street. Um now staff have modified the wording of this variance so that it only applies to Levit Boulevard which is at the rear of the site and we're okay with this modification. We understand staff are supporting it on that basis. Um so that's fine. But the next three variances uh I understand staff are not supporting and I'll address these in the the following slides here. Uh next slide please. So the next variance is requesting that the principal entrances to the store be located on any facade rather than having to be on the facade closest to the street. So facing Dundas Street and the intent of this zoning provision is to um ensure that uh there's convenient pedestrian access uh to the building and it animates the streetscape. But despite this uh despite the variance we're asking for here, the the building will still be um providing convenient access to uh to the public sidewalk. As you can see here, um there's direct pedestrian access by a concrete walkway to Dundas Street. Um it's only really about 10 m away from where it would normally have to be if it was on the front facade. So, and you can imagine 10 m is a fairly insignificant distance if you're somebody that's walking from home to a grocery store, walking around inside, and then walking home. So, it's it's still going to be a convenient access for pedestrians and it's just located on the side of the building as opposed to the front. And door locations from a grocery store perspective are very critical. Um, it's not something that you can just kind of move around and without any consequence. These store layouts are are planned very intentionally um to ensure an efficient and comfortable customer uh shopping experience. There's a specific layout for racking system uh fridges, freezers, checkout areas, all that kind of stuff. Um, and it's all carefully arranged for security, food safety purposes, and customer circulation. Um, and also, uh, we need to consider how people are actually arriving to the grocery store. Although some people might be walking to the grocery store, most people are going to be driving here. Um, and there's a reason why the zoning by requires that we put 180 parking spaces here, is that that's where most of the traffic is coming from. And by locating the entrance on the side of the building facing the parking area, but but still close to the street, we're providing a what we think is a balance between um you know, pedestrians arriving by foot and also people arriving by car. Um and lastly on this point, uh we do have to consider the context here. Uh this is a very suburban location. Um it's it's in West Waterown. All around here is large format retail. We have a highway interchange coming in right beside us. Um, and along Dundas Street, there's no street related retail. It's mostly automotive uses, primarily auto automotive commercial type uses. Um, so it's far from a pedestrianoriented area. Um, uh, and it would be sort of a different context if we were talking about downtown or like a little commercial street or something like that. That's a different case. It's it's just not the case here. Uh, next slide, please. Variance three. Uh so this site requires three long-term parking bike parking spaces. Uh and variance 3 is requesting relief from that uh requirement. Um we're compensating for this by more than doubling the amount of short-term bike parking spaces from 5 to 12 spaces. And these spaces would be in a convenient location at the front of the building. They would be very visible so it would deter um theft. Uh so it be a kind of a secure location in that sense. And then grocery stores moreover typically attract short duration patrons. Um, and in a suburban setting, cycling mode share for employees is typically fairly low. So, the priority here is for more short-term parking rather than long-term parking. And just from an operational perspective, this is one of the uh items that the Metro Letter addresses. Um, indoor parking is just not feasible for them. Indoor bike parking. um having employees take their bikes through the store to park in a secure um area just impacts uh um customer traffic, food hygiene, and whatnot. So, that's all explained in the the letter from Metro. With the additional bike parking we're proposing, we still believe we're meeting that intent to provide uh convenient access to the to the store by different modes of transportation. Um and variance uh next slide, please. And the last variance um variance four is is really just the technical variance. The bylaw requires that we provide a 6 meter landscape strip across all street frontages um which we are doing um on Dundas Street where this development is located. And we're just asking for relief to defer the landscape strip that's along Leva Boulevard which is uh if you recall that initial slide that I put up oh it's actually right here. It's it's it's far away from where we're actually doing the development in this phase. Um and so our request here just from a practical perspective to defer that to the next phase of development. Uh it'll prevent us from having to plant uh trees and shrubs, having to tear them out when we build that site out while we do all the servicing and grading and then have to plant that back in. Um and the landscaping here at this point wouldn't be meeting the intent of what it's there to do anyways, which is to buffer uh you know buffer and landscape and proide that screening to development. just going to be a 6 m landscape strip, a bunch of vacant land in the development. So, we're just asking to defer for this phase. It will be built um certainly in the in the future phases when those areas are built out. And then uh and my my last slide just the concluding slide that I would request that committee approve all four variances. Um it's my opinion that they do meet the general intent and purpose of the bylaw and the OP as well as our minor nature and desirable. Um the variances are key to being able to put a grocery store here and it would just be it would be a shame to not have um not have this developing here uh for for small um design matters like this and um uh basically forgo about 150 full and part-time jobs here in this node. Um I know there's a number of public comments submitted as well. So I'm happy to go through those uh if committee would like me to or take any questions. You see that the planning is denied 2, three and four. I would like to hear from planning on that whether um yeah through the chair Daniel Barnett the planner uh on this. Uh so as um um uh the applicant has indicated we we are recommending a modified version of variance number one and they seem to be supportive of that. As for variances 2, three and four, yes, we are recommending denial of those. And then also, I would note transportation planning is also recommending denial of variance three. Um, for variance 2, there are policies in the U, urban Hamilton official plan respecting, you know, providing principal entrances facing the street and close to the street as possible to promote uh pedestrian activity as well as um kind of an active street frontage and things like that. So that's kind of where this this the staff's position is with respect to to that variance. Uh in terms of the long-term bicycle parking, there's again policies in the official plan about promoting active transportation. I know the applicant has indicated that they're providing extra uh short-term parking um which is great for for for for patrons and things like that, but we also want to promote uh bicycle parking and active transportation for um um uh employees. And in this case, they need three uh long-term bicycle parking spaces, but that have to be secured, whether that's inside or whether it's in a secure pen or things like that. They have to it would have to provide that. Um and I think that's also why transportation planning is also support not recommending support of that app of that variance. Um because yeah, we want to promote that and like um having it in kind of just a short-term bicycle parking format basically does create challenges because those bike parkings are going to be used for an employee over a much longer period of time than obviously a someone who's going in there for 20 minutes, gets their groceries and and leaves. Uh, and then you get situations where employees could come in with their bike, but then like the weather is really bad, so they want leave try to leave their bike overnight, and that's not a very good situation when it's an outdoor or when it's out in an unsecure situation. So, I think that's kind of where the the kind of the rationale, the reasons behind um the denial of variance 3. As for variance 4, uh part of the challenge is is that we don't know when that second phase. I know there's uh from what I recall there's there's some environmental concerns on certain parts of that that that back part of the property that's going to take some obviously time to kind of work out. So we don't know when that kind of um planting or establishing planning on Levit Boulevard will take place. So we're not we don't know whether it could be you know 6 months or could be 6 years uh before for that. And you know that's a kind of a long time to have to not deal with plant with plantings a planting strip. And to be clear, a planting strip can also include shrubs. It doesn't necessarily have to be trees. So it's not like you have to plant trees and then rip them out, you know, 5 years from now. Um, it could be shrubs. And the other thing is like when you put a variance on the property, it then sticks with the property. So like that's the other challenge in terms of having a variance that so we'll defer later, but then what's going to stop them from an applicant from coming down the later and saying, "Oh, I got a variance. I don't need to provide a planting strip when that second phase comes along." That's kind of also the challenge and that's kind of why we're recommending that variance also be denied through the chair. Just to add to what Daniel was just saying is so it's staff at the site plan stage for variance 4 in particular would then be in a really tough spot to ask for additional landscaping once the variance is in place. So the applicant has indicated that they you know they will do that. So we'll take them at their word. But if it's another applicant in like in a few years or something that variant stays on record. So, um, staff are open to working with the applicant to figuring out a situation or some kind of a compromise on how we can get through the site plan process for the metro without this variance somehow. I don't know how that is, but we're open to working through that, but um, just wanted to add that about variance 4. Is there a way of supplying um, secure um, bicycle um area for say employees like that seems to be one thing they're hanging their hat on here is is you know is there a spot in the store at the back or wherever where employees could park their bike and be secure do you think or is it a possibility or uh through the chair? So the challenge with that is that we're talking about uh building a kind of like a garage or a structure for three spaces. Um, so there's challenges that come with that in terms of ongoing maintenance of a structure, uh, security for that structure. You need to have lighting. You need to have a place where it's not, you know, at the back where it's a it's a safety issue. So, we think that by having these, uh, short-term spaces right at the front of the store, they're visible, they're close to the entrance, um, is a is a good compromise, and there's double the spaces that you need, um, from a from a space count. Anyways, if if I may also note on the the last variance uh with respect to the landscape strip, I believe staff are recommending a note to be added um at least for variance one on the decision that talks about this being applicable only to the first phase of development. I I don't have the report with me or it's something along those lines. That same note could apply to variance 4 as well to avoid this issue of us, you know, theoretically coming in later and and not not doing the planting strip. Just have a couple of comments here. On variance one, parking stacking lanes and aisles shall be permitted to be located between the building facade and the front flankish lot lines. I get where that's coming from, but that would be assuming if the building was there facing right on the street line. Um whereas the bylaw does not permit parking stacking lanes along the front. I think in this case, the way the parking is and the laneways are laid out, it's very complimentary with the building where it is. Um, I know there's been a lot of policies in the past that want to have streetscape presence, the building up front, but in this case with a grocery store and the location you have it in and the size of the lot, I think to me, this is the best location for it. Minimum of one principal entrance shall be provided with any ground floors facade. You've got that. Yes, it's not on the street side, but it's on the parking lot side where it should be. And there is a secondary entrance down further, which if there is an emergency situation, not everybody's trying to climb out through the one exit, they've got the second one, which is good. No long-term bic parking spaces. That's a toughy, but I really think that maybe they're not required. Um, it's hard to say how many people are going to be working there and, you know, for an eight hour shift or whatever and have their bike locked up outside. Maybe you need there's I agree. It's hard to cut to come up with the locking what do you want to call them? Suitcases or whatever. And then no planning strip along Levit Boulevard. Well, I got a sticky on that because I think it's got to go in. is going to dress up the front of the store which is right along the street. I think that should be done. It may have to be manipulate a little bit when the future expansion comes in, but it's done out in front of your out front of um your property. But overall, it's just I know where the city's coming from with the building at the streetscape rather than sideways. And um I think it's uh it's worthwhile to to to look at the the variances as listed, make a decision whether to go forward with it or not. Anyone else? Any other comments? I'm just thinking I'm just thinking of the long-term bicycle parking. like is there any way you can get one of those Rubbermaid buildings or something like that? Is that I don't know if that's secure enough. Um it wouldn't be something you'd have to build or maintenance or Well, there's a little bit of maintenance with that, but if you're only needing three spots, you get one big enough for three bikes and they can be locked up. Just a thought. I'm not sure how many people go to a grocery store on a bicycle to buy groceries, but it's possible. I guess you you'd be surprised to Yeah, exactly. Foros and Ancaster planning has just to clarify when we're talking about long-term bicycle parking that the short-term bicycle parking is what the uh customers who would be going to buy the groceries would be using. So that they they are providing the long-term would be mostly would be pretty much used by staff. Okay. I think right now I'd like to make a motion to approve the application and approve various ones, two three and sorry about number four. So okay to deny number four. Motion's on the floor by Robert. Is there a seconder? So, so approve one two and three and and deny four. One, two, three, and deny four. Is that what you said, Robert? You're second. Okay. Second by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Oh, boys. So, uh, member Switzer, are you abstaining or are you No, no. Oh, you voted no as well. Sorry. Four and two against. Yeah. So, yes, I believe the chair you in this situation in a tie vote situation, you would have to vote. Yep. So, um, yours was to to deny four, right? Correct. So, no planting strip. No, it says no planting would be provided. I'm saying we deny that. That means they have to put in the three-foot Okay. landscaping. I'm in favor of the of the motion. I'm sorry. I'm in favor of the motion. Okay. Okay. So, it'll be three to two. Okay. Thank you. So, then the motion uh so yes, motion is carried and application is approved. Thank you. Okay. Next we have a uh minor variance application A260 26 308 Parkside Drive Flamro. Owner is S. St. James Commons by Kindred Works D. Constable. Is 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 and uh please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Yeah, you're still on mute. Yes. Press unmute. You can uh I'll request you to unmute or Ann or Brian, could you? Yeah. Can we make a request? Yeah, if possible, maybe if you could call back. Also, if you want, you could try the phone in option as well too. Okay, thanks. Just give you a moment. Um through the chair, did we want to wait or did you uh I know we do have one more application. Did you want to maybe handle that one first the committee? We should have maybe asked her if she had any problems with the comments because they're favorable comments, but I believe Yeah. 826. Yeah. I believe development planning staff are recommending approval of the application unless I'm hearing otherwise. Yeah. Again, it's up to the committee if you want to wait for them to come back or of course if you want you can hear the application without the applicant or agent here. Is there anybody against it? Uh, let me just ask again. Yeah. Uh, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? It's a 308 Parkside Drive, Flamro, file number 82626. I don't believe so. Anyway, uh, I think if everybody's in agreement, I'll make a motion to approve the application. Okay. Motion for approval. Uh seconded Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Uh thank you. And we will uh let the applicant or agent know after the hearing what happened. Hi there. Can you guys hear me? Oh. Oh. Hi. Sorry. Forester. Yes. Was this for 308 Parkside Drive? Yes. Sorry. Just letting you know um the the committee while you were away u the committee can if the applicant or agent isn't here they can proceed to hear the application. They chose to do that and they actually approved the application. Great. Thank you. Okay. And we'll we'll send you some further information after the hearing. Okay. Thanks so much. Okay. Next we um and I believe this is the last application for this hearing for this evening's hearing or this afternoon's hearing. It's uh minor variance 826030 65 concession 7 East Flamro. Owner is S. Barasa. Applicant is the same person and agent is S. Wilson. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Uh please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. S E S E S E S E S E S E S E S E S E S E S Barasa or S Wilson, are you here? Okay, they may not be here. Um Oh, they're there. Somebody Sorry, they're there. I believe that's the agent, S. Wilson. Yes, if you wanted to speak, uh please provide your name and address and you'll have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Hi, good afternoon. Uh my name is Shane Wilson from Details Matter Incorporated here in Grimby. We're at 121 Central Avenue. I'm representing my client Sebastian and Venus Barusa at 65 Concession Road 7. Uh over the last year, I've been working through a coordinated series of applications on their behalf uh for this property and we've applied and received permits for a new dwelling, a septic system, detached garage, pool cabana, and also the relocation of their existing horse farm. Uh through this process, I've asked staff on how we could retain the existing farmhouse as my client is hoping to use it for accommodation for visiting family and friends and also to provide a space for their worker and his family who will be maintaining the property and looking after their horses. Uh before we can actually apply for that application, we uh to convert this accessory building, we do need relief from the zoning regulations as this existing building will now not comply with the requirement of being located behind the principal building and it also exceeds the maximum height. Uh we have read the comments from planning and I had a call with them earlier this week to understand why um they don't recommend approving and why we don't meet the two tests for the application to be minor. However, with my client being in a 44 acre property in an agricultural zone, uh we do believe that our impact to surrounding properties will be minor and the general intent of this land will be staying the same. This farmhouse has likely been there for 80 years and is Heritage listed. I also spoke with Heritage staff last year and they had expressed support in us keeping this building. Uh last September when we received our building permit for the new home. My client signed the demolition agreement which gives us one year to work through this process and we would love to obtain an approval so we can move on to the next stage with the building department next month. I'm happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. Okay, thank you. Sorry it took so long to get to your application. No worries. A long day to the committee questions. Donna, no. Oh, sorry. No, Robert. Yeah, I just got a quote here from the um heritage staff and basically is what you just said. Consultation with heritage staff last year confirmed that the building is listed and staff indicated support for retaining the structure rather than rather than demolishing it. Uh believe approval of this request will have little impact or no impact on neighboring properties. The site is zoned agriculture and comprises almost or approximately 40 acres. The new building is set well back from the road and ret and the retaining the existing farmhouse near the frontage helps preserve the historic streetscape and the original character of the property. And I know being on site on whatever day I was there when it was raining. Um the new house is going to dwarf the existing house for sure. So there's no issue that way from size. Um the existing house as proposed ADU is small compared to the new building under construction. So given that and there has been some things in the past that we've looked at and approved on a house very similar to this that we might want to look forward to. But I think Jennifer has some comments through the chair, if you'll indulge me just a minute. This is more of a philosophical planning application, even though it seems really simple and easy to approve. So, because it's in the agricultural area, because we have an existing farmhouse, and because there's a new house proposed, there's a few things to consider. We have an undersized farm lot already, 44 acres. I heard our minimum is 100. We have an existing farmhouse that you know suited the size of the property which is located close to the front. We have a new house that's you know proposed to be 49 m away according to the drawings of this existing house and we have policies. You know let's say this house is sold in 10 years and somebody wants to come in and do a surplus farm dwelling severance. these two houses would have to be severed together along with the septic systems and all that kind of stuff. So the impact to the farming farmland is pretty big. Even though it seems fundamentally like a simple application, a house is permitted, an ADU is permitted, we have to think about what kind of impacts that will have broader than just the heritage house. Because as a development planner, sure, I'm all for keeping the existing farm houses that line the streets. They add to the character of the neighborhood and they kind of keep the history of Hamilton alive. 100% agree with all of those comments. And like I said at the beginning when I started speaking, this is more of a policy kind of question. Um, I also support having extra houses on farms. I just think that, you know, we have to think about how much land is being now used for the residential component versus the agricultural component. What's the impact of that? And moving forward, our policies say that the ADU needs to be behind the principal dwelling. So, that's why our recommendation is what it is. Again, you know, the committee knows you can make what decisions you like, but um just wanted to make sure that we're we're being clear. We're not trying to be tough on these types of things. And I just want you to understand where the planning department does come from when we make the recommendations specifically in the agricultural area um with these types of applications. So right now the policy say this was an already done. Okay. So the ADU was built. It's in the front yard. We okayed it let's say a year ago and um something happens and the farmer wants to sell the property. So he sells the property to another farmer. Right now the policy says that if that farmer wanted to sever a house off as a surplus farm dwelling, he'd have to sever off both houses as one lot. Right. Uh through the chair to the chair. Yeah, that is correct. So the uh additional dwelling unit is always always has to stay with the principal dwelling and any kind of services that are connected to to that as well. Um that's where we struggle because the provincial policy statement and our official plan essentially says that any kind of severance in that regard needs to be the minimum size required to accommodate the use. So there would be a question here essentially to be like well is this appropriate given the distance between the two houses? How much farmland is being impacted? Now, again, we're thinking down the line, but again, it's just trying to give you a little bit of insight into the the planning department's thinking when we when we make these recommendations, and that's why in this particular instance, we we're recommending a zoning bylaw amendment. I'm not saying it will change any of those concerns that we have. Um, to be fair, um, just just to be fair, it will not change our concerns. We will still have the same concerns. Um, but those are kind of where our thoughts are are going. Any other questions? The policies might change down the road, too. And but today we deal with what we've got. I think I think right now I'll make a motion to approve the variances given the information we've we've received and we have and we drive on from there. Okay. Motion made by Robert, seconded by Mal. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. Awesome. Thank you so much. Okay. Um and I believe that concludes the applications to be heard at this hearing uh at this committee of adjustment hearing. Is there any chair or staff announcements? Is there any chair announcements? No. And I don't believe we have any staff announcements. So if if there isn't any we we could have maybe a motion to I know we had the comment earlier today that um you know the number of applications uh is there a way of limiting a certain number so that we don't run uh through through the chair there has been a discuss yeah we do not u we don't currently limit applications to a hearing. Yes. Um but again it you know you you you you will hold the hearing as you believe it's appropriate but uh yeah we don't um was it done before I believe I believe there was a previous practice but now now we don't um because again it's getting into more kind of technical discussion but again if you you know when anyone files an application it's deemed complete and they pay the fee then we have to schedule them to the next available hearing right and if they have a complete application and then you tell them well the this hearing's been capped right there there there's a I don't I don't know if there's a potential issue with that telling them that yeah um but again I thank the committee for your diligence today if there's anything you you want to discuss with us you can talk to me after if you feel it can help just just to be more efficient the hearing let me know yeah thank you um if not uh motion motion to adjurnn motion for adjournment Yanuka, I'll take your name anyway. Yan, you can write any name down. Put it down. Seconded by Robert. Okay, I'll try it. And we adjourned at 4:42 p.m. and I believe the next hearing is April 30th, unless Brian Rana correct me. Yeah, April 30th. Yes.

Full Transcript