Sound check. 1 2 3. Sound check. 1 2 3. Good afternoon everyone. As we have quorum present for today's meeting, I would like to call this meeting of the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee to order. Uh just as a reminder, all electronic devices are to be switched to a non-audible function during our committee meetings. And that's for both our meeting staff and audience. Um, as we go through our um, list of of members here, can you uh, please identify yourselves? Councelor Crutch, >> I'm here. >> Karen Burke, >> present. >> Graham Carroll, >> present. >> Andrew Douglas, >> present. >> Lyn Lensstead, >> present. >> Andy McLaren, >> present. >> Uh, Stefan Spalnik, >> present. >> Thank you, everyone. Um, we'll now move on to the approval of our agenda. May I please have a mover and a seconder to approve the agenda as presented? >> I see Graham and Karen. >> Are there any amendments for today's meeting from our committee members? >> Um I would like to propose that we move up item 8.3 in our agenda uh to follow delegations of that this this one group. >> Yep. So just if there's any if there's no objections we can go to the vote on the agenda as amended. Uh as we move to the vote, is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. Our next item is item four is our declarations of interest. Are there any declarations today? >> Uh Graham. >> Yes, I have a disqualifying qual uh conflict with the item 8.3. >> Thank you, Graham. Um so we'll just through the chair. You just need to identify what the conflict is. >> Okay. I am uh the treasurer and board of directors on for the friends of Okamar which has been obviously promoting for the preservation. >> Okay. Thank you Graham. Um so just as a note uh oh >> oh sorry uh go ahead Stephen. >> Um I don't know how this works but I'm good friends with Mr. Stinson's daughter so I don't know if I'm allowed to vote on anything that involves that. Just wanted to put that out there as well. >> So, through the chair, we can't advise on whether or not a conflict exists. You just have to use your best judgment. Um, a disqualifying conflict would mean that you're unable to participate in the matter impartially and would abstain from voting. A non-disqualifying would allow you to continue to in the decision-m process impartially. Okay. Um, so Stephan, you need to make a decision between um voting or not voting on the the matter. Uh, all right. I get I guess to be safe, I shouldn't vote. I I I don't know. >> Yeah. No, that's that's totally understandable. No, that's So, we'll document that again as disqualifying interest. So, we'll just note that those who have noted a disqualifying interest, please ensure that when it's time to vote on the matter that you vote, abstain and your disqualifying interest will be noted uh correctly in the council matters. three minutes >> and through the chair when we get to items for information we'll vote on item um so we'll vote on item 7.4 four separately. Is there any other declaration to be declared today? Seeing none, um we will now move on to the adoption of our minutes of the previous meeting. Item 5.1, HM H26004. So may I have please have a mover and a seconder to adopt the minutes of the previous meeting as presented. >> I see Graham and Lynn. >> Is there any discussion on those minutes? >> Seeing none, we'll move to our vote. And is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. Item six is our delegations. Before we begin our delegations today, members are reminded that questions of our delegations are for clarification purpos purposes only and not for debate. Uh and just a note to our delegate uh you have 5 minutes to complete your delegation. So we have before us item 6.1. We welcome Harry Stinson respecting item 7.4 PED26119 the proposed actions to remedy the unsafe buildings at 134 Canon Street East and Hamilton the Canning Knitting Mills in W 2. Welcome Harry. >> So again just as a reminder uh you have five minutes for your presentations. >> Okay. I will try not to take five minutes. Um, these are simply some comments that might be useful for your discussion. I'm not here to make a case or or seek any particular vote. Um, the building when it was purchased many years ago from the city uh was already in a state of considerable collapse. Um, it was not usable at the time. Um, it also is the ground is considerably contaminated. It is not a case of simply well you know just tidy it up and that'll solve that. The major concern um in the area as I understand it of course is that something happened on the site. I'm well aware of that. I won't get into the reasons as to why the delays on it but it's um I entirely agree that the solution here needs to be a long-term one not an interim patchup job just to sort of buy some time. Um, on that note, I have reviewed all of the options that are listed in there. Uh, the one option that isn't in there on option five would be to properly develop it and see it completed as opposed to something interrum. Uh, all of the options with the exception for option four, which was the complete demolition, which would be a terrible shame. Um note that uh there is a the all the options have a potential for further impact on costs. In other words, these costs are not realistic. They're going to be at least double if not triple, especially trying to uh short-term temporarily stabilize the building. It's long far past the stage of temporary stabilization. Um the approach that we are moving forward with and we are moving forward with it at this stage um is a low-rise six to sevenstory building not a tower but a simplistic building with mass timber construction that can be completed within 24 months because of the low-rise and the mass timber approach to it. Um it will not be a high-rise. Now, if um if we don't proceed with that plan for one reason or another and we're prevented forward or discouraged in any way, I think it's a fair um prediction that whoever else buys the site is going to take the example of 188 Canon and any all the other buildings downtown, which is a high-rise tower, which I think is not what the neighborhood really wants or is appropriate for the architecture of the neighborhood, which is more of the mid-rise uh structure as it is now. So, um in the long run, um the I think that the best solution for this site is is a smaller low-rise uh structure is our plan to do that. I am working on that. I will be submitting those designs within the next 90 days to the city um for the for the actual construction of which will include underground parking. Not not saying that everybody's going to ride a bicycle, which is not not necessarily practical. Um, I have done this before. Ironically, if my closing comment is, um, I did a building in Toronto about 30 years ago called the Candy Factory Lofts, and it was also owned by Sam Sable, who owned 134 Canon as well. I'm very familiar with Sam Sable's management techniques, which is to stick a bucket under a lake. That building was long gone. Um, but Candy Factory changed Queen Street West radically. It changed downtown Toronto radically. It was not easy. It was years of facing negativity and skepticism. But the irony is that even in this terrible market, which is a terrible condo market, it was a terrible condo market in the 1990s in Toronto for sure. It was flatout dead for about six, seven years, but there was massive interest in that building because it was unique, because it had character, which are not words that are often associated with the condomin market in this day and age. So that's those are just my my comments and um I leave it to the committee but I'm not giving up or leaving and my obituaries have been prematurely published often. >> Thank you Mr. Stinson. Um do we have any questions for the delegate? Again these are clar these are clarifying questions. Um any any debate would be during the uh report but do we have any questions for so Karen did I see any other hands? >> Um hello um thanks for the uh brief presentation. My question was around your your plans. Would that involve taking down every building that's currently there in that block or? >> No, it would involve keeping every building that is on that block. >> Keeping >> the inside is rotted out completely has been for years. The exterior facade is actually quite solid. Those peers are five, six bricks thick. They're not falling over. They're not going to topple down. Whether it's a replication or a stabilization with steel structure around it temporarily. Um, that is up for debate. I think I'd prefer the stabilizing and just some underpinning on it. Um, but it would keep the entire facade. I think if you try and chop it up and have a little south corner and a little north corner, it's going to look silly. There's far too many heritage preservations that consisted of a gluedon facade and then a big tower on top of it. >> Okay. >> It needs the majesty of the streetscape. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Uh council. >> Hi Harry. >> I'm ready. >> I'm only allowed to ask questions for clarification Harry. So >> okay, >> lucky for us both I guess. So John G. Cook and Associates produced a report um which is an appendex to this report. Have you read or seen that report? >> I've read the entire report, all 78 pages of the original one. >> Are you disagreeing with the findings in the report? >> No, I agree with the findings of the report. >> Okay, that's helpful. My other question is that uh for you to clarify what you were saying earlier, you've owned this building now for 10 years. Yes. And so, um, could you clarify, you know, sort of what your relationship to this development, this ongoing development is, cuz earlier in your comments, you said something like, you know, if I'm stopped from developing it or if there's some type of >> Well, it was this silly comment, you know. >> Well, fair enough. Thanks, Eric. >> One gets that feeling sometimes and and it has been there is considerable skepticism. It will be done. I've had my share of challenges in the last year. There's no question about that. Not necessarily to do with this building, but I'm determined to finish it. Okay, thanks Eric. >> Are there any other questions? >> Seeing none. Thank you very much, Stans, Mr. Stensson, for for coming tonight. >> All right. So, uh, may I have a mover and a second to receive the delegation? >> I see Andy or um Andy and Karen. >> Okay. And as we move to the vote, is there anyone opposed? So, seeing none, plus one abstension. Uh that item is carried. So we will now move on to item 8.3 in our agenda. Um so item 8.3 is PED26092. It's the recommendation to designate 71 Claremont Drive in Hamilton Claremont Lodge Omar Gate House under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act W 8. I'd like to call upon Meg Oldfield, cultural heritage planner, to provide committee with a presentation on this item. Welcome, Meg. >> Thanks, Lisa. Uh, good afternoon everyone. Meg Oldfield, cultural heritage planner. Uh, today I have, uh, staff reported 26092, which recommends that the property located at 71 Claremont Drive, Hamilton, also known as the Omar Gate House or Claremont Lodge, be designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. There we go. Uh, as you can see, the property is located in Hamilton on the corner of Claremont Drive and Arcade Crescent. Uh, the property is comprised of a 1 and a half story stucco clad brick structure that was constructed circa 1855. Uh, the property was first surveyed for heritage interest in the 1990s. Uh, the current owners purchased the property in 2008. Uh, in 2009, staff received a request to designate the property. Subsequently, the property was added to the municipal heritage register and to staff's designation work plan as a high priority. Uh following its inclusion on the register, the property owners offered to donate the property to the city uh and move it off site. However, at this time, we were unable to coordinate the studies that were needed to confirm the feasibility of the move. Uh the owners were provided with information regarding the notice of intention to to demolish process. Uh and the property was also added to the vacant building register. Several years later, there were further ongoing conversations regarding the feasibility of moving the building uh designation as well as demolition requirements. Uh in 2025, municipal law enforcement conducted a site visit uh accompanied by heritage and building staff. Uh planning and heritage resource management staff coordinated with the owner for a review by a qualified engineer of the state of the building and the feasibility of moving the building. So, in preparation for this report, uh staff conducted a site visit in April of 2025 and drafted a statement of cultural heritage value or interest uh attached as appendix B to this report. Uh it's been determined that the property meets six of the nine criteria contained in Ontario regulation 9006. So, I will now outline the cultural heritage value of the property. Uh the property is comprised of a one and a half storyclad brick structure constructed circuit 1855. It's a representative example of the Gothic revival style of architecture and is also a rare surviving example of a gate house in Hamilton. Uh gate houses were situated at the entrance of an estate and served as accommodations for a gatekeeper who was employed by the property owner to control access to the property. Uh while functional, gateous also served as visual statements to the owner's wealth and influence and were often modeled after the main estate house. Uh the property also displays a high degree of craftsmanship in the form of of its decorative barge board uh which you can see here which mirrors that of the Omar estate. The historical value of the property lies in its direct association with prominent Hamiltonian Isaac Buchanan, a merchant and politician. Uh Buchanan immigrated to Canada from Scotland in 1830 and established a dry good wholesale firm with his brother Peter. In 1840, a branch of the firm was established in Hamilton and soon became one of the largest and most successful wholesale businesses in Upper and Lower Canada. Buchanan was instrumental in the formation of boards of trade in Upper Canada and as a promoter in Hamilton's commercial future, heavily investing in the Great Western Railway alongside Sir Alan Nab. Buchanan was also elected to the Legislative Assembly in 1841, serving as the first member of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada for Toronto following the formation of the province of Canada that same year. Uh, Buchanan also served uh he served as a member until 1843 and again as a representative for Hamilton between 1857 and 1864. Uh, finally, the property helps define the historic character of the area, marking what was once the entrance to the long formal driveway that led to the Omar Manor. While the contextual link between the two buildings has been severed, the gate house remains in its original location and provides a historical data point marking the extent uh of the original land holding and the linkage between the escarment setting and the Amar estate uh located on the northeast corner of Fenelv West and West Fifth Street. Due to its prominent location on the corner of Claremont Drive in Arcade Crescent, its shallow setback and the commemorative plaque, the property is considered to be a local landmark. So in summary, uh 71 Claremont Drive meets six of the nine criteria. It has design value as a representative example of the Gothic revival style of architecture and is a rare surviving example of a gate house and also displays a high degree of craftsmanship. It's associated with prominent Hamiltonian Isaac Buchanan and the property is important in defining the historic character of Claremont Drive and the surrounding residential area and is physically and historically linked to its surroundings. uh and is also considered to be a local landmark due to its prominent locations, shallow setback and commemorative plaque. This is a very condensed version of the statement of cultural heritage value or interest. Uh the full version of which can be found in appendix B of this report. Important to the conservation of 71 Claremont Drive is all elevations and the roof line and the one of the one and a half story stucco clad brick building which includes all the historic elements and decorative details present on these features including the stucco facades, steeply pitched gable roof and window openings. So staff recommend that the city clerk be directed to give notice of council's intention to designate this property as a property of cultural heritage value under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. I will note that staff also do have an alternative recommendation uh which is declining to designate. By declining to designate, the municipality would be unable to provide long-term legal protection to this property. Uh while the property is currently listed on the municipal heritage register, which provides it with 60-day interim protection from demolition, it will automatically be removed from the register on January 1st, 2027. Uh a structural condition assessment completed by John G. Cook and associate and associates which is attached as appendix G to this report indicates that the building is not structurally unsound but that the cost to repair and conserve this building would be between $500,000 and $1.6 million uh depending on the scope of work. Uh the property owners have indicated that the estimated costs are not feasible or reasonable and object to the proposed designation. Uh relocation of the of the building to the Omar estate has also been explored. Uh but the estimated cost is approximately $3.3 million and tourism and culture have determined that taking possession of the building and relocating it is not an appropriate alternative for financial feasibility reasons at this time. With that being said, do we have any questions? >> Thank you, Meg. Um do we have any Oh, go ahead, Alyssa. And through the chair, Alyssa Golden, cultural heritage program lead. Just want to um build off Mick's presentation and just point out the delegation letter that has been provided by the owners for further information in terms of their objection to the designation that's included on your agenda. And also with us today is uh Deborah Sebrook from tourism and culture should there be any questions related to the aspect uh that's spoken to into the report as well. >> Thank you Alyssa. Um before we go to questions, may I have a mover and a seconder to put the report and the correspondence on the floor? >> I see Andrew and Lynn. Thank you. Uh so do we have any questions? Any discussion items? So if there's no discussion or comments, um we'll move to our vote. Um so before us is the motion uh provided by staff. As we move to vote, is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried with one abstension. Thank you everyone. We now move back in our agenda. We move to item seven, which is our items of information. Uh may I please have a mover and a seconder to receive the items for information? We'll be voting uh separately on 7.4. So um >> I see Karen and Graham. >> So our first item is heritage permit review subcommittee meeting minutes 26003 March 24th 2026. Is there any discussion on this item? Item 7.2 two is PD26120 delegated approvals respecting heritage permit applications HP2026-004 HP 20226-005 HP 20226006 and HP 20226007 ws 3 11 12 and 13 is there any discussion on these items go ahead through the chair I'll just point out that included in this is an extension of um previously approved permit for 398 Wilson Street East in Ancaster. And if folks might not be aware, um that file did finally get a resolution at planning committee and council in terms of the planning application for redevelopment of the site. So this would provide a further extension of the uh previous council approval for the relocation of the MAR house as a part of that redevelopment. >> Thank you for that clarification, Alyssa. Uh any any questions or discussions based on that? Go ahead, Graham. Uh when you say the moving of the Filippo Mar house or Mark Filippo, sorry, is that to that back street or to city own property further down Wilson? >> Through the chair, what is on uh in the memo provided on the agenda is an extension to the previous permit, which is the proposed relocation on site to the rear to the 15 Lauren Avenue site. Uh but as was mentioned uh at planning committee during the discussion of the planning act application for the proposal, there are ongoing conversations with uh a separate private property owner uh nearby to relocate to a public street facing location. We have not yet received an application for a new heritage permit for that, but that we understand that that is being worked on. >> Thank you. Uh and then we have item 7.3 PD26104 heritage framework uh transformation proposals related to the Ontario archaeological program citywide. Is there any discussion in regards to that? >> Excification when it comes to that dig. We recently approved the permit for the Oxar property where they're going to trench and put waterline sewer line in. So does that now narrow the scope of the archeological dig required on that property for that um through the chair. So included in this report is a summary of some proposed changes to the Ontario here to Jack's um standards and guidelines for licensed archaeologists and the scope that uh Graham is speaking to relates to clearer language around how to scope an assessment on site related to a particular project. that is something that the city of Hamilton already does as a regular practice as a part of maybe um a project not requiring um a planning act application um potentially something as a part of a committee of adjustment variance something like that. So that is part of our standard practice already. What the changes would do is actually just streamline and clarify how that fits into the requirements that the province has for reporting. >> Okay. Thank you. because I just know sometimes you get these digs and they go way too far and it really holds up the project. So, I'm hoping that I hopes it narrows it down to a narrow rally the way was described. >> Any other questions on that item? Uh and then again, as noted, we'll vote separately on 7.4. We'll move to 7.5, which is our policy and design working group meeting not uh notes of March 9th and April 7th. Is there any discussion on those notes? Seeing none, uh we'll now move to vote on those four items. Um is there anyone opposed to receiving? Seeing none, that item is carried. Item 7.4 is PD26119, proposed actions to remedy the unsafe buildings at 134 Canon Street East, Hamilton, Canning Knitting Mills, W 2. Um and just a note that there's correspondence from Scott Fairley. Um, so I'd like to call upon Ken Quite, director of heritage and urban design to provide an overview for item 7.4. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, we have here guests from the building department. Um, as you know, um, in reading the submission, we have a building that's being ch heritage building that's has some challenges at the moment and, you know, working together with the building department have we had as we have been over the past year and several others. um we wanted to give them the opportunity and they asked for the opportunity to come before you with the strategy on how to deal with this building and get your input. So previously uh this uh year we had a discussion about vacant buildings that went into a report that went on a planning committee and I think we wanted to use this opportunity for uh building staff to hear your different opinions on uh the various scenarios that have been laid out in this report for managing this very unique and complex building um going forward. So, I was hoping, Madam Chair, that we could take a minute and hear from each member on their thoughts. Um, after we hear a bit from Rob and his team, um, I'd also note that there isn't a recommendation here. Uh, building staff will be taking notes and using that to inform their decision going forward, unless of course the committee feels that, uh, there is a consensus and that they feel they wanted to move a motion to support one option or another. So, with that, I'll hand it over to Rob. Yep. Rob Lai, chief building official. Thank you very much, Ken, for the introduction. Um, I wasn't planning on speaking to this. Ken has done a good job of introducing it, and I think we've done a fairly good job of providing a thorough report and laying out the four options in front of committee today. Um, the as as Ken alluded to, this is not uh this is an information report. We're here gathering. wanted to hear your input on each of the options. I will be taking the information back with my team and we'll be providing a formal recommendation at an upcoming planning committee meeting. So, I guess we'll begin by taking any comments. Councelor Cret, would you like to begin? And then we've got Graham. >> Sure. while people are considering their opinions. I have the opportunity to provide my opinion in many forms outside of today. So, I'm not going to say much about what I think, but I have some questions. So, I think one of the underlying issues here relates to how this work is going to be undertaken and why it's being undertaken at all, and why it's even before us in the first place. So, usually if there's work of this nature to be done, the property owner themselves will do that work and they will take care of the property, they will stabilize the property, they'll do whatever is ne necessary and needed as they develop the property. So that's not the case here. And so we're taking over as a city because we recognize there's an issue. We have a report and this all like simple what I'm saying, but I want to confirm it, right? That we have a report in front of us that identifies a number of risks. We've had to intervene to secure the property and keep the property safe. The properties presented risks to the public, which is why we've done that, and it could present more risks to the public. I'm just summarizing the long 78 page report. Um, so what we're doing here is saying there are four options. Of those four options, each one costs between 600 and something thousand and 1.3 million $23 million depending on the option. All those would be undertaken by the city. We'd pay for it and add to the person's property tax role. Is that generally speaking right >> through the chair? That's correct. >> Right. So, we're intervening as a city here because there's a safety issue. That's the decision before us. Um the option to do nothing is not an option of the four presented. I want to also say that. So, at a top level, just to confirm that I have this right, option one is basically saying, look, we should we can stabilize this, right? And it's a cost of around $600,000. We can stabilize things and make sure that things don't get worse. And the report outlines all the different places. Of course, there's some unpredictability in that because as the report outlines, there's a lot of weather uh coming into the building and that can create further deterioration, stabilization that efforts we could put into this aren't guaranteed to last, but they would mitigate some of the concerns. Is that my general understanding of that? >> So the chair that's correct. >> Okay. And options two and three are various kinds of demolition and stabilization. So options two and three involve different buildings. And frankly it's a little confusing because there are eight buildings and there's 3A and 3B in the report. It's a little bit confusing but the point is that there's preservation of some buildings, demolition of others. And again same thing we'd be stabilizing those buildings to the best we could. Similar to what's happening with the James Street Baptist Church, right? Once you have a partially demolished building, it becomes a bit of a shenanigan. And so over time it can deteriorate. And that's two and three. Is that right? >> Through the chair. That's correct. >> Okay. And then four is see you later. Um we're demolishing the whole thing because it's a safety risk and we don't have faith um that it's going to going to be maintained or maintainable. >> That's correct. >> That's about $100,000. Okay. Thanks for that. Um, I'm not going to make a long statement, but I'm just going to get my comments out of the way briefly just to say that I agree with Scott who wrote a letter in here and primarily what Scott said was, listen, we even promised this thing is going to be happening or underway or going concern for 10 years. In the very first article written on the subject, the claim from the owner was, I'll be building this in the next two years. And then today, the claim from the owner is I'll be building this in the next two years. For me, like I've have 10 years of promises that haven't materialized into anything. So that's how I feel about this project. That's my concern overall is that the neighborhood is the one bearing the burden of this. The neighborhood's bearing the burden of the uncertainty of the project. It's continued degradation which brings down everybody in the neighborhood. It's bearing now the safety concerns of this and the fencing which is impacting people's homes. All kinds of stuff like this. I'm not going to weigh in on which option I think today is the right option because I'm going to listen to the neighborhood. I'm going to go back to a couple meetings with them, talk to them, hear from them, and then I'm going to bring my thoughts forward to the planning committee on July 7th, which is when it's scheduled to be there. Um, so really it's today for you folks to kind of say, "Hey, you know, here's what we think and and this is what our opinion is and we think we should preserve it or not or whatever, right?" So that that can be taken into consideration. But from where I sit, um, if I was had faith in the property owner's promises, I might have a different perspective on this. I just don't. >> Thank you, counselor. Um, who who would like to speak next? Graham, and then I have Andrew. Well, thanks for coming in and giving us this report and informing us. I do believe in the preservation of buildings in the city. And in the last little while, I've seen the Gore buildings fall down. I've seen the loss of the Tivoli. I've seen other buildings we've lost due to water ingress because we have sat on our hands as municipality and not sealed the buildings up. And that's what we have to do here to prevent the rot. Get the roof fixed. Get the leaks fixed. Get the windows covered so the water doesn't get in the building. Make it safe so it's not going to fall down like the Gore buildings or get full of mold like the Tivoli was. We're losing heritage due to inaction by the municipality. And that has to stop. >> Thank you, Graham. Andrew, you're next. Yeah, I'm to be honest confused why this is even coming forward to us. We have been very clear that we do not want buildings demolished by neglect in this city anymore. It happens way too much and I I don't want to see it anymore. So, and I don't know why there's also multiple different options. We should be saving all the buildings. That's what should be happening. They're designated. There were criteria given very recently as to why they were designated. So I want to see them saved all of them. >> Go ahead, Ken. >> Through the chair, I just wanted to clarify. So um once we're in a life safety situation or a possible health situation, our colleagues in building have a lot more responsibility and it does become more of our responsibility and more of an engineering question. And so why it's before us today is there's kind of a balance between cost and and safety and engineering. And that report from uh Jonathan D um lays out the various structural problems and those risks. So we're just looking to this group to kind understand the balance. I would say at this point parts of this building are too far gone similar to the Tivoli and we're in this very difficult situation of balancing this off. And so our colleagues in building are just looking to see you know we understand what what you're saying and the same with you Graeme and that has been in a previous report to council and that's part of ongoing work. So we're in the same situation here. We may be in this situation with other buildings going forward given where the market is and and and what's happened with certain buildings over the past 5 to 10 years. Hopefully that will stop soon. But I think that we're we're here to try and understand that balance. So that's kind of the the reason why why we're here. Andrew, >> thank you. Ken, uh Karen, you had a question. >> Um through the chair, my thoughts. Uh option four, complete demolition. I wouldn't recommend that. I can't see that is supported by the fact that this is significant heritage buildings in Hamilton. I really think um that they should be protected or um yeah. So honestly as much as possible my recommendation would be towards number one you know two and three potentially if absolutely necessary for safety and definitely not for if that can be at all avoided. Thank you. >> Thank you Karen. Uh do we have any other speakers that Andy go ahead. >> Yeah through the chair. Um I'm just curious um of how we ended up getting here. I know we've talked about buildings before of uh demolition by neglect, but the owner owned this building for um 10 years and it seems that there was um there's an interest to save the buildings and build possibly a low lowrise, not a high-rise. And I'm just curious on on um why why this decision is that we want to move forward 10 years later when we're thinking when we're in this situation. So, um um so it's more I'm a little confused on that what like how how um we're um in the situation we are as far as the um the four options. I kind of agree with Karen um with the stabilizing or demolition if needed to for portions of it, but a complete demolition um I can't see me being in favor of that for for these buildings. But um but it goes back to that if we do decide to stabilize um is the owner willing to take that over or and cost to put in the lowrise or whatever he wants to do with the property. Um, so, uh, that that's sort of my my thoughts on the four options, but I'm, uh, a little unclear of, uh, if we decided to go on demolition, then any kind of lowrise and all that, unless unless it wasn't going to be incorporated for the old buildings, but my understanding is that all the old buildings um, the owner wants to save. Um, so there is an interest there. Um, but I'm not sure if the city has to put out that cost to stabilize if the owner is willing to um possibly stabilize and build on the property on the lowrise or what have you. Um, but anyway, those are my thoughts on the on the four four um proposals um right now. Thank you >> through the chair um Ken Quite, director of heart engineer and design. Thank you, Andy. Um so our issue is we are in a safety situation. The owner has not been able uh either willing or unable to move forward and make the repairs necessary uh in the short term. Um if parts of these building were be to be to demolish the city would be doing it putting that money back on the the tax role for the property. They would be stabilizing the buildings as much as possible and those buildings would be deemed vacant and would be falling under our new process for inspections and checking the buildings and any new development that came forward on the site whether m Mr. Stinson stays as owner or sells it or whatever happens would be subject to a whole new planning act and those existing building planning act application and those buildings would remain those portions of the building left would remain designated. >> Okay. Through the chair. Thank you Ken. >> Uh Council Crunch. I thought it might be useful and I know it's not as easy for staff to say some things as me. So, just to clarify a couple things. So, this isn't an activity where the city is jointly collecting up with property owners in some kind of family party where we uh get to decide what we want to do. It's not how that's not how it works. The province is unbelievably and I want to say this to you and I emphasize this with 85 underlines protective of private property and people who own private property at all costs. The cities across Ontario have been asking the provincial government for tools around vacant commercial properties and other kinds of properties or vacant land in order to tax people to disincentivize them from doing it. And the province has flatly said no at every turn. We won't give you that authority. We want private property owners to do whatever they want. Best example, right at the corner of King and Wellington downtown at the welcome to downtown sign for 25 years plus. There's been either a parking lot or vacant lot at the corner there that's protected by provincial law to stay that way unless we can expropriate it. And if we try to expropriate it, which by the way, that discussion is ongoing. But when we try to expropriate that, we have to pay a premium to do so and then meet a very high legal bar which can be challenged and appealed over a multi-year process. That's how protected this situation is for people. I just want to say that out loud like we are not in a situation where it's a luxury for us to just kind of b walk in there and go hey we have to wait until it's actually in bad shape unfortunately right we have to wait till there's a concern that allows us legally to intervene and say enough already um so I think it's really really important you asked why this is here before us partly because I asked for it to be me directly specifically said I don't think this should be an issue that goes right to the planning committee I actually think the people here should weigh in on this a little bit because um it is a heritage building and we should have a say in terms of forming an opinion. Otherwise, what happens usually is this kind of stuff goes right past us to the planning committee and then we don't have a say at all. So, it also allows the public an extra opportunity to participate. It allows people to delegate a second time, allows the owner to delegate, allows the neighborhood to be informed and so on. So, I think that's actually a really important part of the public process is things coming to a subcommittee and then going to a standing committee and then going to council. So, that I think is really crucially important. And also, I think I understand our frustration here collectively. is you all know I'm frustrated too, but you know, we haven't necessarily had a program in place up to now that does all the things this committee has wanted to do. Um, we're starting to do that now and that's great and we've moved some things here and I brought some motions here and a motion's been passed and staff have brought forward recommendations and motions in the last year or two. But I'll be honest, until council as a whole, right, prioritizes funding operations, um, making sure we have enough money, cuz I know we're talking about this like options one through four, but there are considerable costs for each option and there's no guarantee the city will get its money back anytime soon or kind of at all. Um, there are some scenarios in the situation where you put this money in the property tax role and the city ends up kind of absorbing the cost. So, when we were debating the council budget in 2020, who knows at this point what time is like, but sometime in this term of council, we were talking about underpasses downtown, a maintenance program for $130,000. It almost lost at council during the budget for 130 grand to maintain our underpasses and clean them and keep them in good repair. This these amounts are at least six times that. So, that's what I guess I'm saying to is like the emotional sensitivity of the people who make decisions here and their ability to understand a budget is limited. And so that's part of the problem at the council table too is that when they see a number like this, right, 600,000, 1.2 million, 1.1 million, whatever it is, right, they're going to b at that because it sounds like a lot of money, even though we have a $2.4 billion budget. So I just want to say to you, those are the kinds of weird political problems we run into here is that people um will choose something um they'll pick on it, they'll start saying this is a wild expense, and the next day they'll move a motion for something 10 times the expense and not even shrug a shoulder. So that's that's the reality staff unfortunately have to live into is is is that's what goes on here. So I think these costs are not insignificant. It's a lot of money um to be able to spend on one of these options. And I think everyone here does also want to care about that fact that if we do spend $600 and some thousand dollars to stabilize the building, you're going to hope that that's going to get us somewhere. We're not going to stabilize it and then watch it all fall down one day. So I think that's part of the risk also, right? is just like identifying that we don't have every answer and that that report that we saw the heritage report was like um very tentatively being like yikes um this is going in a going in a bad way. So I'm just I'm not again not sharing my opinion today. I'm just saying to you here all the other things that are going on that you can that you can know about um that I have in my brain. I hope it's helpful. >> Thank you counselor. Uh Ken >> Madam Chair just a bit of context. So, this committee doesn't talk about the financial you. We're talking about heritage, but just in terms of what staff are looking at when they measure a building like this. Um, it's the balance of what the property is worth as opposed to what we can put on it in terms of tax for work we do on the property. And as the councelor said, be able to get that back. That's a measure. But one also would also consider that a site once vacant isn't generating as much tax. in the long term if you have a viable project built there the taxes coming in and helping to pay for that kind of stuff. So those are the things we're kind of thinking of but of course we don't want to be in a situation where we put more on the tax role than what the property is worth and that's the kind of balance that our colleagues in building are playing off of the safety and the heritage all at the same time here. So, uh, our poor chief building official has some stuff to balance and hopefully this conversation has provided a little more context to help with that decision going forward. Uh, and presenting information to planning committee. >> I would just add to the discussion. So, it this is an extremely complex and issue to deal with. We know that there's so many there's heritage aspect, there's the financial aspect, there's public safety aspect. from the Municipal Heritage Committee. We're It is such a significant site, an a very unique property, unique to Hamilton. Um there are very few examples of of this kind of a property. So to be able to maintain that in some way, um Graham listed all of the properties that we've lost, the Gore, the Tivoli, we have the opportunity to do something to try and save, if not all of it, at least a significant portion of it. And maybe there's some viability in the future. So, I think that's a perspective that I think we need to think about as we need to take the opportunity to forget the losses that we've we will not forget them, but we've lost those, but we have the opportunity to save some if if not all of this building if we if we can. Um, but then also putting in that factor of making sure that it's safe. Um, it's a significant property located within that neighborhood. So, finding that balance, I think, is is going to be key. >> Graham. >> Yeah. This is a final comment. This is the city of Hamilton. We have a heritage of labor. We have a heritage of steel working. That building was a castings plant at one time. One of the first organized labor unions in the city was in that workforce for that building. We have to preserve both the tangible and the intangible heritage and history of our city. And preserving that building also preserves that. And it's very important that we do so. Uh just before we leave the item, is there any other comments or questions that the members would like to No. Seeing none. All right. Um, so if there's no other discussion, um, may I have a mover and a second to receive? >> I see Karen and Graham. >> And if there's, uh, no one opposing, that item is carried, plus one abstension. Uh, we will now move through our agenda to items of consideration. We have item 8.1 which is PD26085 as a recommendation to designate 6 Main Street East in Hamilton the Hamilton Club under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act wid now call on Kira Cook culture heritage planning technician to provide committee with a presentation on this item. How many players here? All right. Good afternoon. I'm Kira Cook, cultural heritage planning technician, presenting on staff's recommendation to designate the property at 6 Main Street East Hamilton through report PED26085 located at 6 Main Street East in the neighborhood uh in the downtown neighborhood in the city of Hamilton. Come on to next slide. Not slide seven. There we go. Okay. The property was first surveyed for potential heritage interest in the 1980s. It was then listed on the M municipal heritage register in July of 2014 as part of the downtown built heritage inventory project as part of report PEED14191. The property was then added to staff's work plan for designation at that time at a low priority. In 2023, the property was reprioritized as a high priority designation. Here we can see a summary of the staff's evaluation which determined that the property meets eight of the nine criteria for designation under the Ontario regulation 906 which I will now go into more detail. The property meets two design and physical criteria. The property has design and physical value as a unique example of a vernacular brick building influenced by the classical revival style of architecture that was converted for institutional use through a series of renovations and additions. The east wing, renovated in 1907, has physical value as a rare and representative example of a building in Hamilton influenced by the art and style of architecture. The original dwelling is no longer reflected in the modified facade of today as it was replaced by the three-story 9 1907 renovation. The oldest remaining facade is the two and the two and a half story additional addition constructed in the west circa 1874. Subsequent twostory two and one half stories additions were built in the late 19th century including a wing ex a wing extending west a butting James Street south and a rear brick wing extending south from the original dwelling. These 19th century editions continue the classical revival style of the original dwelling. Features of the 19th century red brick portions of the building typical of the rec classical revival style include the gabled gabled decorative brick coining returned eaves dilled morning and central pediment with a half rounded window beneath the later edition fronting onto James Street South retains physical value as it is sympathetic to the rest of the building. Hold on. Features of the 1903 property. There we go. The 1903 property uh 1903 brick wing to the east. Typical of art nuvo style of architecture include the tall vertically focused buff three buff brick three bay front facade shaped parapit finished with stone broken molded cornice decorated freeze central window in the third story. Below a broken cornice with a half round transom which is framed by round and banded stone columns with dork capsules and molded stone cornis belief below and wooden windows and transoms with the decorative curved horizontal muttons. Oh, there we are. Oh, my numbers are off. There we go. The property displays displays a high degree of craftsmanship and artistic merit through the 1903 um 1907 threetory art nuvo influence wind. Why is that twice? Never mind. The rounded projected bay window of the first story of the northwest circa 1897 edition of the property also displays a high degree of craftsmanship in the effective handing of the round brick work construction, curved stone window sills and lintils decorated cornice and curved hung windows. There we go. The property meets all three historical association criteria. The historic value of the property lies in its histo in its association with significant Hamiltonians including including Dr. Edwin Headwood Charles McIll and its long-standing use as the headquarters of the Hamilton Club from 1873 until present day. The Hamilton Club yields information on the Hamilton's elite and business community with the construction of the 1959 ladies annex, marking a key shift toward inclusiv inclusivity as women were formally then admitted. The property has a long and complex architectural history and holds associations with many of Hamilton's prominent architects including William L, Alfred Peen, Charles William Charles W. Mulligan, William Monroe, Robert Meade, Lester B. husband and Arthur Wallace. There we go. The property has historical value in its association with his ham significant Hamiltonians including Dr. Hedwood Charles McIll and it's where are we? Okay, there we go. Dr. Henwood purchased the the uh why is Dr. Dr. Henwin relocated from Toronto to Hamilton in 1848 and is listed as occupying the the subject property by 1850. Dr. Henwin purchased several lots along Main Street where he mostly he most likely commissioned and the con the construction of the subject property. Hen Henwood would live and practice on the property for approximately 10 years before commissioning a new larger residence nearby at 3 Main Street, which is now 21 Main Street. As Hamilton's first municipal near uh physician, Dr. Henward served in multiple roles, including the city's coroner and jail physician. He was also appointed the physician and surgeon at the city's first publicly funded hospital, originally known as the House of Industry, which primarily served the underprivileged. In 1868, during or in 1854, during the Colorado epidemic, city council appointed Dr. Henwood to devote himself solely to the assistance of the poor affected by the disease. By 1862, Charles McIll was residing at the subject property. An Irish immigrant merchant, McIll began his career working for prominent businessman Isaac Buchanan before establishing his own dry goods and carpet store on King Street. He became a prominent figure in Hamilton civic history, serving as mayor six times over the span of 29 years. His leadership during the 1854 chalera epidemic where he chaired the city's board of health contributed to his early popularity. McGill also contributed to federal politics representing Hamilton as a member of parliament from 1867 to 1872. In 1873, McIll would lease the subject property and then sell the property to the Hamilton Club nearby. The first chairman of the Hamilton Club was Isaac Buchanan, Miguel's former employee and key figure in Hamilton's early commercial development. The Hamilton Club has many connections to Hamilton's most significant figures and visitors to the city, including a visit to a young Winston Churchill in 1902. Initially without a permanent meeting place, the club would move into the subject property in July 1873. The next year, architect William Leth was hired to make additions and alterations to convert the property from a residence into a social clubhouse. The details of this renovation are unknown, though he could this could be when the two-story brick wing was constructed to the west of the original 1840s dwelling. In 1882, the club sought further alterations and held a design competition for a new purpose-built clubhouse. Four architects were invited to submit the proposals. Richard Wait, James Blefor, David Dick, and Charles Mulligan. Wait, a prominent architect in architect in Hamilton and beyond, won the competition. Weight's design would call for tenders in a newspaper in 1882. The resulting tenders would come back outside the club's budget, causing the project to be cancelled. Faced with growing membership but project constraints, the project would the the club opted for renovation rather than a complete rebuild. The project preserved elements of the original architectural fabric of the residential dwelling and most likely involved the expansion of the rear wing westward. This renovation was then completed by Charles Mulligan, one of the original competition candidates. Another renovation was completed in 1897 by Alfred Peen. Although the scope of this renovation is not clearly documented, it is most likely involved the creation of the Northwest edition featuring a projected round bay window as as a circa 1892 photo of the property is without this addition and a 1904 photo includes this addition. On July 8th of 1906, a hurricane swept through Hamilton, damaging many parts of the city, including the Hamilton Club. The Hamilton spectator reported that one of the club's chimneys was blown over, leaving a hole in the roof, while other sources suggested there was a fer fire caused by lightning. Insurance records confirmed that the damage was caused by the storm and not a fire. Unfortunately, that meant that the that meant that the property's insurance did not cover this damage. The need for significant repairs presented an opportunity for expansion as the club once again was facing overcrowding. The possibility of rec re reco relocation was considered. The club al ultimately chose to remain on the property due to its central downtown location. 1907 another competition was held for uh architecture inviting submissions from Stuart and Whitten, Stuart McY, Monroe and me, John Lyall. These three firms submitted proposals, although Mcvy declined due to time constraints. Gerald Gerald Wright, a New York-based architect born in Hamilton, was hired by the club to evaluate the submissions. Wright ranked John Ly's Boats inspired design as the winner which proposed another complete rebuild of the property. However, once again the chosen design would be over budget and the estimated cost of 49,000. The club would abandon this design and the idea of a complete rebuild. There we go. A complete rebuild of the property. As an alternative, the club commissioned Monroe and me to execute execute a more modest renovation focused on repairs. These designs featured the three-story east edition with the grand central staircase. The damage and renovations were so extensive that the club then temporarily relocated to White Hearn, the McQueston family home located within walking distance at 41 Jackson. Construction lasted only 9 months and the club returned to the property on Christmas Day of 1907. The Hamilton Club operated as a gentleman's club with membership restricted to gentlemen of high society. This policy remained unchanged until the 1940s when the board permitted members to bring ladies and their friends to the club in evenings. Notably during 1907 renovation, one concern was raised by the was raised was space to be given to the ladies. Though it remains unclear whether this reference is to female guests or staff. By 1949, other clubs such as Toronto Alberty Club had begun admitting women as members. The Hamilton Club held a vote that year whether to follow suit and 44 voted in favor and 88 against. It would take another decade before women were granted membership. In 1959, the club under underwent another renovation and this time to create a women's anti annex fronting onto James Street South and that same year women were allowed as members. There we go. Okay. The property has a long and complex architectural history and holds associations with several prominent Hamilton architects including William Lenth Afro Alfred Peen, Charles McGlet Mulligan, William Monroe, Robert Me, Lester B. Husband, and Arthur Wallace. Here we go. Why are my numbers not correct? Okay, there we go. The property meets all three contextual criteria. The property is important in defining the character of Hamilton's downtown core and commercial district. The property is visually, historically, and physically linked to its surroundings. And the property is considered a local landmark. It plays a significant role in defining the character of Ham Hamilton's downtown core and commercial district. Hamilton's commercial district emerged from the Gore district with the construction of the Bank of Hamilton 1890. district district would continue to expand in the early 20th century with other commercial institutions and businesses establishing in the area and moving south along James Street. The intersection of Maine and James Streets became its center with the development of the Bank of Montreal, the landed bank and loan company and the Federal Life Insurance Company known as the Sunlife Building at the corner at the three corners with Hamilton Club at the southeast corner. These properties long-standing presence in the heart of the city's downtown stands at a reminder of the beginning of the city of Hamilton and its prosperity into modern day. And here we can see a summary of our statement of cultural heritage value. I'm not going to read it again because you don't need to hear all the the architects again. Um so we are going to move on. And then here are the description of our heritage attributes. And this is going to be broken up into its different if it's different renovations. This is the first bit here in the northwest brick northwest brick portion of the building that was built in 1874 but and 1897. And then come on there we go. Then this is the threetory circa 1907 eastern wing with the art nuvo style. And then we also have the 8 1959 women's annex. And then our last one is the staff recommendation that we ask to the city clerk to be directed to give notice of council's intention to designate 6 Main Street East known as the Hamilton Club. and questions that went on. >> Thank you, Kieran. Um, do we can I get a mover in a secondary to place the report on the floor? >> I see Graham and Lynn. >> Do we have any questions for Kieran? Gra. >> Not really a question or a comment. Thank you very much for your work. We appreciate it. And it's nice to finally get the fourth corner uh for designation. That'll be I think the only place I can think of in the city where all four corners of an intersection will have a designated building upon it. Thank you. >> Other questions or comments? Seeing none, so we'll move to vote. Um as we move to vote, is there anyone opposed to receiving the presentation and approve the recommendations contained within the report? Seeing no one opposed, that item is carried. Item 8.2 is PD26098, recommendation to designate 1401 King Street East Hamilton, the former Grace Anglican Church under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act, W3. So, I'd like to call upon Cara Cook again, cultural heritage planning technician, to provide committee with a presentation on this item. Hello again. It's Kira Cook, cultural heritage planning technician, presenting on staff's recommendation to designate the property at 1401 King Street East Hamilton through report PEED26098. Located at 1401 King Street East, Hamilton, located on a triangular lot bound by King Street East, Groer Avenue, and Maple Avenue in the historic Delta neighborhood in the city of Hamilton. In in 2009, city staff received a public request from the former owners of the property, the Christ Choice Spiritual Church Paris, for designation. In 2010, the property was added to the city's heritage register and added to the staff's work designation plan. In n in 2023, the property was progressed to a high priority. Here you can see staff's summary of the of the evaluation which determine that the property meets eight of the nine criteria which I will now go into more detail on. The property meets two design and physical value criteria. The property has design and physical val value as a representative example of a neo gothic style and displays a high degree of craftsmanship through its 15 stained glass windows. The features of the original original church building constructed between 1923 and 1925 have design and physical value as a representative example of the neo gothic style of architecture that demonstrates the that demonstrates the neo gothic style of architecture include features like the gable roof with step parapit projecting main entrance featuring a parapit decorative limestone elements and pointed archway and arch entry with lime limestone surrounds and double wood panel doors. Decorative use of nonstructural step buttresses with limestone caps, pointed arch window openings with stained glass tracery and limestone window hoods and surrounds. The property underwent two expansions completed in 1955 and 1968. The 1955 Chancel edition to the north was designed in a manner sympathetic to the original 1925 nave extending its mass and roof line with neo gothic influence detailing including flatheaded window openings with stone hoods and coin surroundings. However, it does not fully replicate the neo gothic exterior features of the 1925 nave as it does in does not include any buttressing and only one pointed arch window with tracery is found in the north rear e um in the north rear. The 1968 western expansion is of a contemporary design reflecting its intended utilitarian function as an office space and expanded Sunday school and is not considered to have cultural heritage value or interest. The property demonstrates a high degree of craftsmanship through its 15 stained glass windows, the majority of which were produced by the Canadian firm Hobbs Glass Limited, as well as demonstrated through the pointed arch window openings with tracery and limestones. The fan volted plaster ceiling of the 1955 Chancel further demonstrates a high degree of craftsmanship. The property meets all three historical associative criteria. The property has historical value for its association with the historic Grace Anglican Church, which has had a presence in Hamilton since 1919. And with the congregation's expression of commemoration in the form of artistic stained glass windows, the property has the potential to yield information that contribute to our understanding of the early development of the Delta neighborhood. And the property demonstrates the work of prominent architects, local building company, and nationally recognized stained glass window manufacturers. the architect George Thomas Evans, architect William Stouter, and associates Hill Brothers Contracting and Hobbs Glass Limited. The property holds historic value to its association with the Grace Amlland Church as one of the first institutional buildings constructed in the upandcoming Delta neighborhood in East Hamilton during the early 20th century. In the years following the First World War, Hamilton's East would expand tremendously, would experience tremendous growth. The continued expansion of industry beyond the city of Hamilton's eastern border brought demands for housing from the workers flocking to these new factories. The Delta, named after the intersection of Maine and King Streets, was one of these new growing neighborhoods. As early as 1919, before much of the surrounding neighborhood was constructed, a woodframed Sunday school and temporary church was constructed on the property. Sadly, the structure was demolished in 1967 and replaced with a new Sunday school and office space connected to the main church as the west wing. The present church structure would begin its construction in 1923 and be completed by 1925. Grace Ankley Church was a successful and growing congregation in the mid to late 20th century. By 1929, the church reported 400 families attending service and 600 children attending their Sunday school. The success of the congregation would be demonstrated through improvements of their church, including the commission and installation of a number of stained glass windows, the first being installed in 1944. The majority of these windows are memorial windows created by well-known company Hobbs Glass in his Toronto facility. Two of these windows are signed by Hobbes Glass and are for the commemor commemoration of the church's 25 uh 5th anniversary. There are 11 more stained glass windows installed on the site which are attributed to the company or its successor. The most notably and impressive of the stained glass windows was commissioned in 1945 as a second world war memorial. The property yields or has the potential to yield further information that contributes to the understanding of a community or culture. The church's construction during the early development of the Delta neighborhood in Hamilton's East and along with the establishment of many nearby churches of different denominations reflects the significant role that church affiliation and attendance played in the daily lives of Hamiltonians. Continued strong attendance and community is demonstrated by the expansion of the church with the construction of the chancel in 1945 or 55 and the west wing in 1968. The attention and expansion of the congregation devoted to decorating and enhancing their church over several decades further emphasizes its importance to the local community. Where is there? The property has historical value for its association with prominent local architects George Thomas Evans and architectural firm Solder and Associates to the local construction company the Hill Brothers Contracting and the nationally recognized stained glass manufacturer Hobbs Glass. George Evans was a Hamiltonbased architect whose practice primarily focused on church and school buildings. In January 1925, he published an article planning a new church in the Canadian Baptist that argued that church need not only to be beautiful but should include a community space. Later on in his successful career, he became the chairman for the Hamilton chapter of Ontario Association of Architects. He designed many churches, schools, and libraries in Hamilton beyond this one. His other known churches in Hamilton include Faith United Church, Livingston United Church, and Delta United Church at 47 Ottawa Street. Delta United, a still active congregation, is similar in architectural style as the former Grace Anglican Church, but with more subtle Neo Gothic features and is only located 100 meters away. The majority of the stained glass windows are manu manufactured by Hobs Glass, one of the most successful manufacturers importers of memorable stained glass windows in Canada. The C company began as Hobbs Osborne and Hobbes in 1876 in London, Ontario. It was advertised as Canada's great house of glass. The company would expand into Toronto, Montreal, and Winnipeg. The 1954 Chancellor Edition was designed by William Souer and Associates under the lead of John Howard. The firm was led by William Souer and is best known and he is best known for his work on the Basilica Christ uh King. Yep. Basilica of Christ the King for which he was awarded a medal from the Pope in 1933. The firm worked on several prominent buildings in Hamilton, including the Dominican Dominion public building. It was most likely their ex ecclesiastical work like the Basilica and others like that of the Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church on the mountain that demonstrating the neo gothic architecture that the church chose them. The property also has historic value for its association with the local construction company Hill Brothers Contracting who were successful contractors in Hamilton. They worked on significant projects like the Basilica and the Bank of Montreal. The company was led by Victor Hill, a past president of the Hamilton Builders Exchange and a member of Grace Anglican Church. The property meets all three contextual criteria. The property is important in defining the historic character of the Delta neighborhood, is visually and historically linked to its surrounding, and considered a landmark. The property is important in defining the historic car character of the Delta neighborhood in East Hamilton. As one of the first institutional buildings constructed for the growing community, it supported the de development and emerging Delta neighborhood in the early 20th century. The property continues to contribute to the prevailing early 20th century architectural character of the Delta neighborhood. The property is visually and historically linked to its surrounding. The property is also linked to the Delta United Church on nearby Ottawa Street designed by the same architect. Uh the property is considered to be a local landmark with a unique triangular shaped lot bound by King Street East, Groer Avenue, and Maple Avenue. The unique angled fronting onto King Street along with its shallow setback and large massing fill most of the lot maximizing the property's visibly visibly visibility and impact on one of Hamilton's major thorough affairs. Here you can see a short summary of the criteria for your reference with a full version of the statement of cultural heritage value available in appendix B of the staff report. Here is a summary of the list of heritage features identified to be included in the designation and will inform the writing of the bylaw. And here is the summary of the attributes for the 1955 chancel by the architect of William Solder and Associates. A full copy of these can be found in appendix B of the staff report. And finally, staff recommend that the city clerk be directed to give notice for of council's intention to designate 1401 King Street East Hamilton >> questions. Thank you, Kira. >> Another great presentation. May I have a mover and a seconder to put the report on the floor for discussion? >> I see Andrew and Lynn. >> Okay. And do we have any questions or comments? Go ahead, Graham. Hey, thank you once again. Really appreciate it. And as we know from dealing with the committee for very many years, places of worship are all struggling right now. So, it's very important that we protect the important ones as much as we possibly can. And this is definitely one of uh the nicer ones that have come across our committee lately. And it's fantastic that we got a chance to protect it. So, thank you for the work, >> Lyn. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Cara. That was really good. Uh, it says in your report that the property is vacant right now. Um, is this going to be subject to vandalism and city costs and everything going forward, or is it in a neighborhood that doesn't really had problems because there's all those beautiful stained glass windows? through the chair again, Alyssa Golden, cultural heritage program lead. Um, it is currently vacant and it has been rented off and on since the congregation, the last congregation had left. Um, it is also currently up for sale. So, we have explained to the property owner what designation would mean and any inquiries that we get moving forward. We'll obviously clarify um depending on the timing of how this recommendation to designate moves forward. Um, but as of right now, there haven't been any significant concerns from a property standards perspective. Okay, thank you, Lyn. Any other questions or thoughts? Seeing none, um, we'll move to vote. Um, as we move to vote, is there anyone opposed? So, we'll be voting to receive the presentation and approve the recommendations contained within the report. Seeing none opposed, that item is carried. And before we move on, just thank you to the staff team for all the work that's gone into to bringing forward those designations for the the three landmarks in the city. Item 11 is our general information and other business. Um so we have 11.1 is our heritage buildings and landscapes watch list. Um do we have any additions to the watch list today? So Graham um do we have anyone looking to uh um remove a property from the list today? And do we have any? We'll start the speakers list for updates. Uh would anyone like to update a property? So Andy, I've got you on the list. Karen, any other property updates? Okay, so we'll start with Graham first for additions to the list. Well, it was just a I've received two or three messages about the buildings immediately west of the former Regal Hotel, George Hamilton bar that just came down and couple people were concerned about their condition and possible redevelopment of those buildings. So, that'll be all the buildings from the edge of that property west to the A&W I think it is. I'm not sure the numbers off hand. Should we be concerned on those buildings and should we add them to the watch list >> through the chair? So, that would be up to the committee's discretion to confirm. Um, the addresses that you're referring to, I believe, are 158 to 178 King Street West. Um, the remainder of those buildings, so as this committee recalls, the building that was on the corner uh did go through the process of giving a notice of intention to demolish. It was listed on the register. It has since been removed from the register and demolished. The remainder of the buildings that I just mentioned are on the register and will be on the register until the end of this year when they're removed as a part of the provincial changes to the expiry dates for listing. Um, but they would remain on the inventory after that and are also identified um as candidates for designation. So that status would remain, but they would no longer have interim protection at the end of this year. So I think it would be worthwhile then to put them on with just like a yellow caution just so we do monitor their condition to make sure they don't degrade anymore because they are significant buildings. There were very few left in that area from that era. >> So if you bring that motion forward that's to add your your mic wasn't on. >> Sorry. Oh. Uh, so so that's so that's adding 158 to 178 King Street West to the list um under yellow. And we would need a representative from the committee as the the watch person. >> Council C. That be okay then. yours because you're in the ward, too. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Um, so may I have a mover and a seconder? So, we've got Graham as a mover, seconder, Karen. And as we move to vote, is there anyone opposed to adding this to our list? Seeing none, that item is carried. We'll now go to our updates on the property. So, we have Andy first and then Karen. Go ahead, Andy. Uh thank you through the chair. Uh just an update on uh this is going to be in the um buildings and landscapes of interest yellow uh item number eight in Flamro which is 265 uh Mil Street South in Watertown and known as the Brayborn House. Um uh as we all know uh this p uh the property has been purchased by the monastery school uh years ago and they've been going through the planning process uh to uh save the original home and um um redevelop the property. So I'm just happy to uh say that the construction has uh begun on the property. Um the garage and storage sheds out buildings have been demolished and removed um from the property as has the um uh carport portion um which is sort of the lean to addon at the side. All this would had been approved through this committee uh to be removed. So that's been demolished and removed from the property. They do have bins out front. Um, and it looks like they're starting to work on the original helm. Um, which is good news. Uh, the one concern uh that I still have, so I think it should still remain on on the list. Um, just to as a watch is there's still no fencing around the property. This is quite a remote property. Um, and uh, so it's it's easy access for any kind of vandalism or graffiti, that kind of thing. But there is nothing there touchwood um, as of right now. But uh um I just wanted to update that it looks like that they are moving full steam ahead with the plans which uh my understanding is has already been approved by planning. So uh they should be ready to go to develop that property. So I'm happy to report that. Thank you. >> Thank you Andy. And we have Karen next. >> Thank you. I have two updates um both in the category of yellow buildings and landscapes of interest. Um, Dundas property number two, 24 King Street West, the former Majestic Theater. So, that's just on the inventory. Um, they are still doing renovations. However, it is they're working right now on the outside. They've put uh new doors installed. They have a awning over top with the business name on it. Looks really nice. So, that is coming along. It's still not open yet, but um that's moving. And the second item is um property number three, three Main Street. the formasonic lodge which is a designated building. Um I had the opportunity to actually be in there for an event recently and um so they're not officially opened as a as a a permanent space, but um they've retained beautiful brick work inside. It's very nice looking. Lots of wood. Uh they got a bar set up and it's it's just really lovely. So it's good to see these buildings being preserved. >> It's great. Thank you, Karen. Uh, do we have any other updates from our members before we So, seeing none, may I have a motion to receive those updates? >> I see Graham and Lynn. >> And as we move to vote, is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. Um, and just to uh is there if there any other new business or staff update? Ken >> through the chair. I don't know, madam chair, if you were going to give an update, but between now and our next heritage committee meeting, we will be hosting right now the count looks like over 205 people from across the province for the community heritage Ontario conference June 18th, 19th, and 20th. So, um, lots of work has gone in from volunteer members of this committee, specifically our chair and Graham. Thank you very much. and uh you're going to do a lot more work over the next couple of weeks. Thank you. >> And I was going to say something, Ken. So, just as a reminder that the deadline for registrations is June 1st, so there's still some time if anyone is interested in signing up for the uh the heritage conference, but we're looking forward to inviting all of those people from across the province um that are coming to to join us. So, and showcase Hamilton. Um is there any other new business to add to that list? If not, we'll move for adjournment. Um, >> so there being no further business, the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee is now adjourned at 125. Our next meeting will be June 26, 2026 at 12 p.m. Thank you everyone.