through the chair if you wanted to begin. >> We'll call the meeting to order and we'll start with roll call. Uh, Nick, >> uh, Yanuka, >> Bob, >> here. >> Donna >> here. >> Um, >> Mel, >> I'm here. >> And myself, Dale. Uh, are there any members of the committee that have a conflict of interest today in any applications? Yes. >> Main Street. >> Main Street. You got that one, Justin? >> So, 2022. >> Okay. And first application is at 9:45, >> I believe. So, yes. And then just note, I believe member Sebastian. Yeah. So, we'll start at 95. uh through the chair. Yeah, we had our first application here at 9:45 a.m. It's a minor variance application A2026 000031 132 Top Crescent Hamilton. Owner is V. Bilis Bissimo. Applicant is D Orsini. Agent is also D. Orsini. Uh just to note that the applicant tabled or deferred the application before the meeting. Uh so we will not be hearing that application today. So if there's any members of the public uh whether virtually participating virtually or here in person um this application was uh was tabled um if you want uh if you wanted to be uh added as an interested party um if you're participating virtually please send us an email at cofa hamilton.ca. If you're here, if you're here in person, uh please go to room 222 here on the second floor, fill out an interested party form there and leave it there. And then um and we will also be contacting the applicant as well. Uh and any interested parties when there's any updates relating this to this application. Okay. And we'll wait till 10:00 a.m. to hear the next application. Thanks. D through the chair. Uh I apologize. It's it's up to the committee. Um because this is kind of a special committee meeting we set up. We we were holding. We usually have minutes ratification. We didn't have it there. I don't know if the committee wants to. We did circulate the May 19 committee of adjustment minutes to you. Um >> yeah. Did you want to do that today if you want? Yeah. to do the replication of the one application, right? That youth. >> The May 19th. Yes. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Do that now. If you want to >> Okay. All here. >> And the the minutes from the June 4th committee of adjustment meeting, those will be uh I still I think they're being they're being drafted. Um so I think I believe they will be presented to you at the next committee meeting. Okay. >> Thanks. Okay, it's now 10:00 a.m. So, our next uh scheduled application is a minor variance A2026 000049 224 Klein Avenue North Hamilton. Owner is M. Backax. Applicant is B. Damrosio and N Holland. agent is an Holanda. Um, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether in WebEx or here at the meeting room. Okay. All right. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step up. You just come up here front here to sit and uh please provide your name and address and you'll have five minutes to speak. Thanks. Hi there everyone. My name is >> Yeah, if you could press there. >> It's like a little Yeah. Oh, there we go. There. >> Hi everyone. My name is Nicole Handa. Um my address is 11 Garfield Avenue North. I am the agent and designer that's working with Marshall Bax, the owner of the property. Um we're here today to ask for uh variance to the legal conforming to allow a bigger expansion than what's permitted, which is 10%. Um, we have already went through with the legal departments to make sure that we could rebuild on this property um under the legal non-conforming um this property was reszoned into a commercial zoning um a while back. We don't know exactly when, but uh so it's no longer following under residential uh zoning setbacks and that has posed a problem for the homeowner who does not want to rebuild as commercial. Uh the property itself is a very small house. It's 700 square ft. Um which doesn't leave him much room to expand and grow in the house. Um he loves his community. He doesn't want to have to move out of the community to find a larger property and he's wanting to rebuild the house to make it work for him and going forward into the future. >> Um I think Marshall, do you want to expand on >> Yeah, thank you. Uh good morning chair and members of the committee. Uh my name is Marshall Bax and I'm the owner of 224 Klein Avenue North. I've lived in the home for the past 11 years now. Uh throughout the time I've come to deeply appreciate what makes Westdale such a special special neighborhood. Uh living across from Church Hill Park uh and opposite the elementary school, I see every day the sense of community, history, and character that defines this area. My goal has always been to remain here long term and to invest in the property in a way that respects and preserves the character. The design before you is intended to remain residential and nature and to fit within the surrounding streetscapes while providing a home that can better support a family and meet the changing needs over time. Throughout this process, I've worked closely with city staff to address the property's unique zoning circumstances and to ensure the proposal aligns with the city's planning objectives. I appreciate the thoughtful review uh that has been undertaken and the recommendation of approval by the uh the staff. Um Westdale is a neighborhood I care deeply about and my intention is not to change what makes it special, but to continue being part of it for many years to come. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. Uh does committee have any questions? Uh all the comments from um different departments are positive. There's only one condition that's listed. Um committee have any questions for the agent or owner? If not, is there a motion? >> Yeah. >> I'll make a motion to approve with conditions. >> Okay. And I'll second it. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carries. Application approved. And I believe our next application is to be heard at 10:05 a.m. Okay. The next application is a minor variance application A.206007350 Herkimer Street, Hamilton. Owner is J. Palombo and the applicant is T. McFarland. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in the meeting room or on WebEx? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. >> Uh good morning. Uh my name is Tosh McFarland. My address is 1451 Walker Line, unit 1110. I am the agent here to represent the homeowner for 150 Herkimer Street. Um, so the scope of work for this project is they have an existing three-story rear exit staircase on the property that is in poor structural condition and is not code compliant. Therefore, we are proposing to remove and replace it in kind, ensuring that it beats minimum code requirements and stays within the same footprint area of the existing staircase itself. Um, we have completed the initial building permit application. However, as per the zoning bylaw, the proposed reconstruction of the staircase is considered new construction as it serves three separate units and therefore will project into the minimum required rear yard setback a total of 5.95 meters. Um due to this encroachment of the rear yard setback, we're requesting a minor variance clearance to proceed with the building permit application. Um thank you for your time and consideration. >> Okay. Thank you. Does the committee have any questions on this application? If not, is there a motion? Robert, >> I'll make a motion to approve the um the application is it because it meets all the pillars of the minor variance conditions. >> Okay, seconder. Nick, all in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. And the next application to be heard is at 10:15 a.m. Wok Street all Okay. Uh, it's 10:15 now. 10:15 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application A 2026 00032 to126 Katherine Street South Hamilton. Owner is Martin Stewart Realy Home. Sorry, Martin Stewart Realy Holdings Limited. J. Martin. Applicant is E. Dean Hollander. Agent is Netherly Planning D. Landry. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? >> Yeah, please step forward. Uh, just sit up here. Uh, and please provide your name and address and you'll have five minutes to speak. Yeah, you can. >> So, me first. Okay. >> Sure. >> Okay. Good morning, everybody. We really appreciate you taking your time to see us today. Um, my name is Monique Labberto and I am a retired family business owner. My family has had a business in Hamilton for 45 years and my brother and I were at the helm for the last 36 and we retired last August. Um I first began seeing Mary Jane Denhollander who is Elizabeth's mom as a registered practitioner massage therapist um when she practiced in Corktown. Um she was practicing in the Duran Health Building that Denise is going to point out to you when she gets to speak. She later moved her practice into a home in Stinson and then her daughter Elizabeth took over the practice from her when Mary Jane retired. Um, Mary Jeene was an important part of my healthc care. I was seeing her every two weeks for 13 years during my time at work and when she retired, Elizabeth seamlessly took over her practice and I have been seeing Elizabeth for the last 12 years. Um, Elizabeth um has now grown her practice and is looking to purchase a commercial building in the same Corktown area that her mother was practicing in. Um, and as uh, sorry, I'm little nervous being the first person to speak. You'll have to forgive me. Um, when Elizabeth was looking into purchasing property in the Stinson area to grow her business, there was nothing there. So, she moved into the Cork Town where her mother had been practicing for many, many years. Um, over the years as I have watched Elizabeth grow up because I've known her mother for so long. Um, sorry. As she's been growing up, I also watched her grow into a very, very smart business person. Painted Brick Wellness has evolved and has now I have now added two other practitioners from her clinic into my own healthcare. I also attend and very much enjoy the community workshops that Elizabeth provides. Uh this new space that they're looking to purchase would help them help the community and help provide more services to the community that we all live in. The impact that the clinic has created in my life has extended into my own family. Uh, growing up, my daughter Zoe was also one of Elizabeth's clients, and being part of that community has helped my daughter realize her potential, and she is now a registered massage therapist and has been practicing with Elizabeth for the last year and a half. um uh today as the as the clinic is starting to evolve, this opportunity will allow them to give more to the community that they all love and care about. Um as a longtime client, I have seen firsthand how this practice not only supports the client care, but also the development of the health care professionals and the accessibility wellness services in the community. For nearly 25 years, this practice has remained within a 2 kilometer radius, consistently serving the community while evolving over time. I hope to see that this practice will remain in the same community and in the same areas that it is really quite helpful in supporting the area that we all live in and love. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak? Yeah. Um, chair, I do have um a presentation that I had emailed in for myself. I am the >> Oh, did you send it in? >> The agent? Yes. >> Yeah, I should have it then. >> I also brought a key as per the instructions. If you need it, let me know. >> Um, sorry. What's your name? I think >> Denise. >> Yep, there it is. Okay, let me load it up >> and then Elizabeth will be speaking after me. Perfect. And then I'll just ask you as we go just uh as we go to to tab forward. What we'll start with? Oh, we'll start with the first one. I tricked you. If you can just pull up the first one. Sorry, Justin. >> Thank you. Great. Um, for the record, my name is Denise Landry. My address is 120 Houston Street South in Hamilton. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Denise Landry and I'm a principal planner with Nether Planning and I'm representing the applicant this morning. With me today is Elizabeth Denhollander, owner of Painted Brick Wellness, who will be speaking following my presentation regarding her practice, the services that are currently being provided, and her commitment to the community. The property owner is also present today and he will be presenting along with several supporters of the application and one that you you just heard from. I'm going to focus my my comments on the planning merits of the application and why I believe the requested variant satisfies the four tests under section 451 of the planning act. At its core, this application is not about constructing a new building, expanding a building, or introducing a high impact use. Rather, it is about allowing a wellness practice to operate within an existing commercial building that has been vacant for approximately three and a half years. Next slide. The applicant is proposing a wellness practice consisting of services such as osteopathy, massage therapy, myofunctional therapy, and aesthetics. Respectfully, while the application has been characterized as a medical clinic, the proposed use functions much more similarly to a professional office or personal service use than what most people would traditionally associate with a medical office. The requested variance seeks to recognize a low impact wellness practice within an existing commercial building. Importantly, no building additions, site alterations, or physical changes are proposed. Next slide. The property contains an existing commercial building that has been vacant for approximately three and a half years. Importantly, again, no physical changes are proposed. There are no additions, no redevelopment, no expansion of the existing building. This application is strictly about the use of an existing building. I would also note the property has historically accommodated commercial activity for decades and you will hear more about that in John the current owner's presentation. As outlined in his correspondence from the owner, the previous business operated from this location with multiple employees, clients, sub subcontractors, bankers, insurance representatives, and other visitors attending the site on a regular basis. In my professional opinion, the proposal represents a logical adaptive reuse of a building that has already demonstrated its ability to accommodate commercial activity within the neighborhood. Next slide. And one over. Perfect. The proposed wellness practice operates on an appointment basis and provides services entirely within the existing building. The proposed wellness practice is similar in scale and operation to the office use that previously operated from the property. In my opinion, this is a low impact use that can comfortably operate within the existing building and neighborhood. Next slide. The committee has received an extraordinary volume of correspondence regarding this application. A consistent theme throughout the correspondence is that the proposed use is viewed as quiet, low impact, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The comments also note that the property has been vacant and underutilized and that bringing the building back into active use would be a positive contribution to the community. And last slide. Oops, second last slide. Thank you. In my professional planning opinion, the application satisfies all four tests under the planning act. While staff have characterized the proposal as a medical clinic, in my opinion, the proposed wellness practice functions much more similarly to the office and personal service use already contemplated within the neighborhood designation of the official plan. The proposal maintains the intent of both the official plan and zoning bylaw, represents desirable adaptive reuse of a long vacant building, and is minor in nature given that no physical changes or expansion are proposed. The practical land use impacts are comparable to and potentially less than the commercial office use that historically operated from this location. And last slide. Thank you. In conclusion, this application represents the adaptive reuse of a long vacant commercial building for a low impact wellness practice. In my professional planning opinion, the proposal satisfies the four tests under the planning act. It is compatible with the neighborhood, functions similarly to the commercial office use that previously operated from the property, and has received significant community support. And for those reasons, I respectfully request approval of the requested minor variance and I'm happy to address any questions. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh does this committee have any questions at this time or >> and just was there any other members of the public who wanted? >> Yes, we do have we do have a few. >> Okay. Okay. >> Shall we do that and then you'll go to questions >> from the first? >> Do you have questions for the agent or do you want to wait to hear? I'll ask the agent, what is the uh current zoning of 120 Katherine Street? >> Both properties are zoned the exact same thing. So, the one property where the where the parking is used to be a building and that building was was torn down and is used just for parking. So, the zoning is is similar on both. >> So, there you're saying both 126 and 120 have the same zoning, >> correct? Okay. Mel, >> can we hear from staff? >> The chair, supervisor zoning, Matt Stavrov. Um, I'm just pulling up the zoning map here to confirm uh the two current or the potential of two zonings. Is he check? Nick, do you have >> Yeah, perhaps while we're checking uh this out, I'd just like to ask staff why they consider this to be a medical clinic. Why has it been defined as a medical clinic? I know that the main issue here is one of them is about policy E382B which is about the arterial road issue and I'm just curious as to why it fell within that definition as opposed to existing commercial uses. >> Yeah. Sorry question. Okay. >> Yeah, you go ahead. >> Oh, it was your question. Okay. >> Yeah. So, just looking for just, you know, it seems that there's already commercial uses there. Uh, and I'm that's the question that I'm sort of looking to resolve as just why, you know, it is deemed as a medical office. It does seem more like a commercial service than a medical office. through the chair and I apologize as the map loads. Um but to answer your question, um the Hamilton zoning bylaw 6593, um it has separate definitions for a commercial office, if you will, and professional per person's office, which is essentially medical. Um, >> I I just have a question too. Are we are we under 6593 or 05200 >> through the chair? 6593. >> Okay. So the definition of a per personal service is >> professional >> service which is included in the >> office >> personal service sorry personal service I looking at the wrong the wrong things >> there's a professional person's office personal service >> is a definition and it includes like a massage um >> aesthetic and things like that which it sounds like that's >> registered massage therapists are considered medical in our interpretation. >> Okay. So what about aesthetics and things like that? Osteopath is that considered medical >> through the chair. That's correct. >> Same with aesthetics. So again, this is kind of why I know there's more people that want to speak and so, you know, we should hear from um the other people. Um did you have some >> through the chair aesthetics would be considered personal service >> and some of these questions are why we're here as a committee. um planning it's black and white for them but for us we have that decision that we can look at this and and understand all the comments that come from the general public and make a decision on that. So, um Justin, if there's other people that wish to speak, um before we get into any more questions, um we we may come back to the agent for questions later, but uh >> Okay. Yeah. If any other members of the public want to speak, please come up. >> Yeah. Planning has a comment or >> Yeah. through the chair. My map is now loaded. Confirming that the um current zoning of the property in its entirety is E3 with sight specific 524A. And that site specific permitted the use of a commercial office in the existing building. >> Okay. has a second presentation. >> Okay, >> perfect. >> Okay. Okay. So, uh, my name is Elizabeth Dunhollander. I reside at 148 Emerald Street South in Stinson, where I used to have my business. Um, so I'm also professionally known as RMT Elizabeth. I'm a registered massage therapist and I've been in practice this September for 12 years and I'm also the owner of Paint Brick Wellness. So, we operate as a collective. So, each of us actually run our own businesses within the space. So, as uh the question was it's like how are we not you know defined under commercial office? Great question. That's why we're here. Um anyways, so our hearing obviously was supposed to be on June 4th um the same day as the data center land parcel. Um but with the amount of community engagement, we had to be postponed to today. Um but in that time, it actually gave us a little bit more space to reflect on how important community engagement really is and how valuable it is to show up and speak directly. We are really grateful that we had over 60 letters of support about our move into this new space. Today we will have six total speakers. We've already had two, so we'll have three more. Um, we do recognize these hearings usually are quite efficient and so we're going to do our best to keep things concise while still reflecting how important this application is to us. We're really hopeful for a positive outcome so we can move forward into this new building. As uh as we've said, we're requesting for minor variance relating to the relocation of our practice from 118 Jackson Street East to 120 to 126 Katherine Street South. This is 250 meters around the corner from where we're already operating. And the Katherine Street location is zoned commercial, including commercial offices, which I feel like we are um under, and we're just requesting to be included within that definition. So, you can go to the next slide, please. So, Painter Brick Wellness has been serving the Hamilton community for years, building trusted relationships with clients and neighbors alike. As we said, we're currently located at 118 Jackson Street East and we're just looking to move around the corner to 12126 Katherine Street South. You can go to the next slide. So we are a group of professionals um operating under um either we are regulated health professionals or those practicing under personal wellness business licenses that are within the compliance of the city requirements. We have built a strong reputation in the community reflecting in over 150 five-star reviews. We have osteopathic manual therapy, registered massage therapy, aesthetics, um, as well as myofunctional therapy. All of our businesses are appointmentbased, quiet, and professional. We are a calm environment for our clients and for our neighbors. Uh, next slide, please. So, why does this new location work? So, the proposed location at 120 to 126 is well suited for our practice for several reasons. So the existing layout, the building already has appropriate professional layout with treatment rooms, reception, waiting areas, and accessible main floor washrooms. It also has ample parking as 120 um is um the extra lot and it is all parking. The building is also designed and zoned for commercial and prof professional use, which aligns directly with the way we want to operate within it. Appropriate scale. The building is appropriate in our in size for our small community oriented clinic. It fits the neighborhood. The location is consistent with its original commercial land use. It sits at the corner of Augusta and Catherine within a corridor that already includes local commercial and service-based businesses. It's approximately 250 mters where we currently reside and is roughly 250 meters away from the Durand Health building which is where my mom originally started working as a massage therapist in 1998 before Durand Health existed. Um as well we're looking to write revitalize a vacant building. This proposal helps bring a current vacant building back into productive community use. The property has been vacant for approximately three and a half years as you've heard and our intention is to restore it back as a maintained, active and welcoming space. Uh, next slide please. So, our commitment, we are committed to being responsible owners and great neighbors. We commit to maintaining the building. We maintain the building through regular upkeeps and improvements, ensuring the property is well cared for after its long period of vacancy. reinvest in the site. We're looking to care and update the building and the parking area. We will contribute positively to the building and the streetscape. Uh we are also a responsible operation, respectable operation. Our operations are quiet, professional, appointment-based. We are operating during daytime hours. We don't have any late night activity at the space and we maintain a low impact presence within the neighborhood. And final slide, please. So, thank you for listening. As uh as I said before, we're just requesting to that our use be recognized within the de definition of commercial office as we are professionals operating in a professional office-based model within a commercially zoned building. We are simply asking to be included within that definition so that we can continue providing care and a space that is appropriately suited for our work. We are committed to continuing to be a stable, respectful, and community oriented practice within Corktown, and we'd love to stay in the Corktown neighborhood. So, thank you for your time and consideration, and we welcome any questions. Otherwise, we're going to have two other uh businesses within our space that will talk as well as the owner. And I think the owner is going to be next. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Committee have any questions for >> No. Okay. Good morning everybody. I'm glad to see everybody just casually dressed for the first day of summer because I wasn't dressing up for you guys. So good morning. My name is John Martin. I currently live at 38 Bellow Drive Bell Drive. So to give you perspective where that is I'm at my house back into um Queensdale school and I we've been there for 40 years. My parents who lived over on uh Skyland have been there since 1967. So I'm the current owner of um 126 Katherine Street South and the pro in and the property in question. My father and his and his business partner purchased the property back in 1977 so they could grow their business. At the time the building was a four apartment residential building with the help of the area um alderman at the time. They successfully changed his zoning from residential to commercial. For the next close to 50 years, Martin Stewart was a successful business in the area. At times, we played we employed up to 10 full-time employees in our building with regular visits from our outside staff, subcontractors, suppliers, consultants, and even owners such as the city of Hamilton. From time to time, there would be cons congestion in our it would get congested. But after after we purchased 120 Captain Street South at Congestion became less problematic over time we knew that our neighbors over times we got to know our neighbors very well with some of them would even inform us of issues of the property after hours. Just recently one of our neighbors informed us of a fire at the northwest corner of our building and called 911 for us. When it came to selling our building, my wife and I were hoping to sell to a community-minded business that would fit in the neighborhood. We received an offer from Painted Black um wellness center, a local business is two and a half blocks away on Jackson Street East. Because of the structure of our offer, I wanted to meet with the people who were going to purchase our building so I could get a feeling of who I was dealing with. After the meeting, I was satisfied that we were selling to a to our our property to a kind group of people who were community oriented and would fit nicely in our neighborhood of which they are already a part of. In my opinion, the I believe painted black a painted brick being a regulated wellness service business would be a natural continuation of business in our building with appointments based on with multiple practitioners. This will allow This will allow them to grow their business in their community of which they're already established. Now, there was some talk here earlier about um about the artery, about the not um being um accessible. I can tell you from going to that that building for 42 since 1982, there's a lot of activity on that street. Um it seems ambulances, uh fire trucks, police always seem to use that corridor on a regular basis. Um if you're not watching when you're crossing the street, they good thing there's a stop sign at our street where they people are fly right through it. But um our street seems to get plowed out more regular or quicker than some of the other streets around the area because it is so heavily used. I just want to make that point so you people understand that it's it's there's something about not being on an Ontario road, but I in the past and what I've seen, I think that that that that corridor is well used by all emergency services um vehicles. So anyways, u thank you for your time and um I hope you vote in favor of us. So I'll go back there if you want to pass me questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? >> Okay. >> Hello. Good morning. My name is Michelle and I am an osteopathic manual practitioner. I'm a professional member of the national council OSCAN and I hold a personal wellness business license with the city of Hamilton. After graduating from school, I was able to immediately open and operate my own business within this clinic, which is a rare opportunity for someone entering the profession. Most new graduates need to work as an employee or contractors in another practice for several years before building the experience, client base, and financial stability to become business owners. The collective model at this clinic made that possible for me as it provides the support of a professional environment while allowing practitioners to build independent businesses from day one. That opportunity has allowed me to build my own business, serve clients in Hamilton, and establish myself as a local entrepreneur much earlier than I otherwise would have been able to. Over the past few years, we've become a part of the Corktown community. Many of our clients live, work, and spend time in this neighborhood, and we've built relationships that extend beyond individual appointments. The opportunity to move into this space just around the corner means we can continue serving the community we've already invested in. We really want to remain in the neighborhood that has supported our growth so we can remain accessible to so many of our clients. Our work is entirely appointment-based. Clients arrive individually. They receive treatment in a quiet private room and they leave when their appointment is complete. The clinic operates respectfully with very little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. One of the greatest benefits of this space is the opportunity to work alongside other regulated professionals. We regularly collaborate and refer clients to one another and when their needs fall outside of our individual scopes of practice. And we can create a more connected and comprehensive experience for our clients. From my perspective as someone who has built a business here from the very beginning, this model supports independent practitioners, strengthens local small businesses, and expands access to healthcare services in a way that fits naturally within the community. I hope to continue growing my business and serving Corktown for many years to come. Thank you for your consideration. >> Thank you. Okay, good morning. Thank you for your um time and consideration and the opportunity to speak. My name is Susie. I'm a certified aesthetician and I focus on uh facial massage. Before joining this clinic, I operated my business from home. While that gave me a place to start, it limited my visibility, my ability to collaborate with other health care professionals and the overall experience I could provide for my clients. Joining this collective clinic changed that. Having a professional welcoming space allowed my practice to grow, reach more people, and become part of a community of independent healthcare providers who support one another and regularly refer clients based on their individual needs. Over the past few years working here, we've also become part of the Corktown neighborhood. Many of my clients live or work nearby and appreciate having access to multiple regulated wellness services in one location. The opportunity to move into the Katherine Street space just around the corner means that we can continue serving the community we've already invested so much into. My business is entirely appointment-based. Clients arrive one at a time, receive treatment in a quiet, private room, and leave after their session. The nature of our work is calm, respectful, and has very little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. What makes this model special is that we are independent business owners working together instead of in isolation. At the clinic, we share knowledge, collaborate on client care when appropriate, and create an environment where both practitioners and clients benefit. The support and stability of this collaborative model gave me the foundation to apply for to apply for and to receive the starter company plus grant, allowing me to continue investing in and growing my practice. It has helped me build a stronger, more sustainable business while contributing to the local economy and expanding access to regulated wellness services within the community. From my perspective, this clinic is more than a workplace. It's a space that supports small business ownership, makes health care more accessible, and strengthens the neighborhood we've all been proud to call home. I'm excited about the opportunity to continue growing here and serving in the Corktown community for years to come. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. >> Was there anyone else wanted to speak? Okay. Uh just make sure after you speak, um if you haven't already, do fill out the interested party form. It's in the other room after. Yeah, you already have. Okay, thanks. Okay, there wasn't anyone else that want to speak. Bring it back to the committee. >> So to the committee questions for I guess maybe if the agent wants to come back to the table. Um the uh this building's been vacant for three and a half years roughly >> approximately. Correct. >> Yeah. And it seems like it's a it's get something in this building and get it working. um and someone who wants to take care of this building and and the surroundings. Um it's a technical situation, but um as the committee um we do have um I'm hoping anyway that we have some questions for uh for the agent on this. Um, and I'm not sure whether we can um classify this as a sightspecific um area for for what's asked for. Um, but I'll leave it up to uh the committee to ask any more questions if you have some. >> Question on the parking lot again. If this was to be turned into a medical center, how many parking spaces would be available on that parking lot through the the chair to the committee member? We did do a sketch in the presentation showing the parking to ensure that we could meet parking. There is at least three three to four parking spaces that meet all the required setbacks. Of course, if you weren't meeting those significant setbacks, more spaces, more cars could fit, but we did ensure that we could meet the minimum amount of parking spaces, which is about three, and we're showing four. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Nick. Yeah, I think one of the questions maybe pertaining to risk would be uh how unwell are the populations that you see? Are they people that maybe have heart problems or you know uh are really sick and could have a heart attack in your office given the arterial >> sure >> road risk. I mean any patient really could right >> answer the question. >> I think I'll defer that to to Elizabeth um who who knows the the practice in and out. >> Um >> I mean we have clients of all types of health. I mean I I don't feel like that's a question you would ask like the old owner if it's like are you checking they're not assessing he had a business there right for 20 50 years >> I'm asking you >> okay yeah know our clients are quite healthy >> elderly elderly >> we have all so everyone in this room could be a client >> are your clients elderly >> we have some older clients but we have lots of young clients lots of active young >> I think that's a pretty simple question it's not that >> I know but it seems like it doesn't even make sense >> it surely does make sense This is a business within it. >> This is a medical setting >> that matters. >> Okay. I'm just saying. I'm just like he operated a business within it and they obviously never checked the health histories of all of the participants coming into his business. >> Do you know what I mean? Do you know what I mean? Thank you. Yeah. No worries. I'm just confused by that question. >> I would surmise that at your clients would be from any age. >> Yeah. >> From babies to uh >> Yeah. Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. All different health. Yeah. But no, I mean, we don't treat clients if they are at a health risk. We don't Yeah, we're not. >> So, that was the question and that is an important question. >> Okay. I'm sure that clients have to fill out forms and whatever as to whether they're of course um >> my daughter is a massage therapist so I kind of have an idea what >> of course yeah we only treat people who are in good health but people could come in and we could look at their history and if they're not in a good you know space to be treated we wouldn't be treating or or we would call 911 or you know like right >> yeah but no we wouldn't be treating people who are at risk of a heart attack >> or any major >> that was an easy one to answer quickly Okay. >> Okay. Anyone else with questions? >> I just have some more questions for staff. I'm just finding it difficult in the bylaw to find definitions or anything of what a definition of a personal clinical service or a medical service. I Yeah, I can't find any here. that the chair um that's correct. This Hamilton zoning bylaw 6593 um is missing a lot of uh definitions for the defined terms. So um in some instances it relies on staff interpretation. Uh so to answer your question there is no definition for medical clinic. Exactly. >> So again Donna oh your mic is off but I mean it's it's yeah >> it's a perception as to what the intention is. >> Okay. So, those are your definitions because there is nothing in the uh in the bylaw that defines a Now, in the new bylaw, there's definitions that I found, but um which this to me would fit into, but it's so we're still working with the old bylaw there. >> That's correct. This property is still subject to the old zoning bylaw. um Hamilton zoning by 05200 the newer one um we would have a similar um these or these uses would classify as medical as well. >> Okay. They would classify as medical. What do you classify as medical? something that needs a certificate or that like that's that's where my through the chair um it'd be classified as health professionals for the purpose of consultation, diagnosis andor treatment of persons. >> Okay. Thanks. I have a question for zone. >> I don't think your mic is on. Nick Pierce is on. Sorry. Oh. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Uh I have a question for zoning as well. Uh in the comments you say something about getting a a zoning bylaw amendment. Would that basically if a zoning amendment is completed, would that change? Like would would you need to do this minor variance for that >> through the chair? I believe that may have been a comment from development planning staff. >> Oh yes. So through the chair Tim Bowman by a manager with development planning. Uh so yeah the the comments do indicate that the the effect of the application would be to add the use of a medical clinic to the to the lands. Um so through the process of zoning by amendment to add that use to the property uh that would have the effect of making it uh uh permitted use. they would no longer require any minor variance. Uh that that process would proceed and it staff's a position that to add use to the land uh is the zoning by is the appropriate uh method the appropriate um avenue for an application to in order to add add this uh use. Sorry, I missed half of that. I didn't hear half of what you were saying, but what I'm understanding is that if they make an amendment to the bylaw, is that like a reasonzoning or is that just an amendment? Is that another process to the tree? Yes. Uh zon amendment uh reszoning they are on synonymous terms. Um it would be the same type of application um and it would be add the use um to the property. Uh it would be a separate application that be reviewed on its own merits different from the minor variance application before us and if it were approved by council then they would no longer require this man variance application. >> Okay. >> But a reasonzoning situation can get fairly expensive for >> yes >> uh through through the chair to to the committee member. Uh I I did look at that uh as part of my review. Um I only take on applications where I believe uh in my professional opinion uh that this application could proceed via minor variance. We are looking to tweak the definition of the commercial office use to permit the wellness use through a minor variance. And it is my professional opinion that it does meet the four tests. We are not a medical office and I do not agree with staff on the interpretation of the medical office. >> So again, I guess I'm I'm it's the interpretation as committee members as to how we see this. Um and and I'm not sure on the procedure, but um if this was to get past this committee, then it's planning has the right to appeal our decision to council or whatever. And then it's council has the the final say at that time. If it was to go that way, um then of course it's your job um to contact your counselor in that area and and get support from that way. Um Bob, did you have a question? >> Yeah. If um if we change the variance to a wellness clinic, is that within our powers to do? >> Well, hear me out. Hear me out. Is >> that a question to planning or to staff? If we if we were to change variance one the use of a medical clinic and we change that to the use of a wellness clinic >> through the chair to the committee member. This is only for 120 uh 126 Katherine. It's only for the client's client's property. >> Um so we're just looking to add those aesthetics um osteo and we're defining those as wellness uses. We just want to add those to these two properties or two addresses. They're they're one property now. >> So, this is not you're not changing your parent bylaw like you're only >> No, no, I'm not talking about I'm just talking about the varian that you submitted. >> Absolutely. Um I've sat on that side of the table of staff for 12 years um as as head of planning for for a number of municipalities and I've absolutely um given the opinion when I was on that side. Of course, you can always, of course, defer to your staff. Um, but that you you have the rights and and the powers to make a decision on this. Um, >> I know that, but what I'm trying to do is streamline this a little bit. Would you be in agreement with changing the medical clinic to wellness and would that meet your terms? So the way we outlined it in the application was very specific to allow the wellness and aesthetics to make it very clear so that when the applicant does proceed if they need they don't intend on getting a building permit for the work, but if they happen to need to put a wall up and they need a building permit that we were very explicit on what the use is and the way that we've defined it in the application to ensure that it addresses exactly what they do. >> Well, either way, no matter what you do inside, you need a building permit. So that's not even >> sorry. Their their intent is they're looking at painting that that's the majority of of >> what I'm trying to do is come up with a proper variance to get this approved >> for sure. So the way that the committee of adjustment notice is written is how we've applied. Uh so the exact variance that is written out is what we're looking for. >> Yes. So the wellness >> medical clinic. >> So if we took that out and put in wellness. >> Yes. That is exactly what we're looking for. >> It still meets your needs, >> correct? >> To get this through. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay, Nick. >> It looks to me like one of the core issues here is that medical clinic is not defined, but under bylaw 6593, you know, medical clinics are they're treated distinct in the sense that a commercial office use is commercial. It's business transactions and talking. Hands-on treatment seems to fall into medical in the framework, although it's gray. It's a gray area. >> Again, I bring it back to the committee. It's it's our interpretation as to >> Yeah. So, >> is that do we agree with our own right? Yes, sir. >> I'm sure you can hear. >> You'll have to come to the mic. I'm sorry. >> Well, it it has to be recorded, so it has to go through >> here. Are we allowed to use Oh, that one is >> Yep. The red light's on. You're good. >> Um I don't know if you picked up, but my dad's business, my business, it was a general contractor. And uh so over the years, we have worked in in medical and done uh doctor's offices and worked in the hospitals. And the wellness center does not require the the services as required that may be for a medical room. Each room doesn't need plumbing. Each room doesn't need certain electrical stuff. They are on their own. And there's and they have enough washroom facilities to deal with what they have to do. So that that doesn't come into play. And for the gentleman who was asking about parking spaces there that that area can handle 14 goodsized vehicles any day. And if the if the building if the the vehicles were smaller, it can handle even more. So there's enough ample parking for the guy who was asking to to accommodate. That's why we picked up that other place because we at time had a lot of people coming into our business. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else questions? How about a motion? Robert, >> I'm going to make a motion to approve a wellness clinic. In other words, change the initial application for this property. Um, I know the staff came back and are in the opinion that the requested variance does not meet the four tests or minor variance. Furthermore, it's staff opinion that a zoning bylaw amendment application is the appropriate mechanism to facilitate the proposed development. Well, when it comes back to development, the parking lot's already there. The building's already there. Okay. Yeah, you're going to have to put a wall up here and there, whatever. But I think as right now is has been come across that it is vacant right now. I'm surprised it's as good looking vacant considering some of the other places in town. And um like I said, I'd like to make a motion to approve this variance as a wellness clinic. >> Okay, there second. Yukica. All in favor? Oppos? If any seeing none motion carried, application approved. >> Thank you very much. >> Please. >> Okay. To the chair, please. No. No clapping in the meeting. Thank you everyone. All right. Uh okay. Uh just just so I apologize everyone. We just don't have enough space. So once your application is heard, if you could leave, would appreciate it. We have some other people that need to come in. Uh through the chair, we actually had a break scheduled at 10:40 or 10 around 10:45 a.m. Did you want to take that break now or do you want to >> No, I think we should hear a few more if that's okay and then uh >> Okay. Okay. All right. All right. >> Okay. Next we have a Okay, next we have a minor variance >> 825240 460 Canon Street East Hamilton. >> Owner is J. Stip Stipos M Stypsanos and applicant is also J Stypanos and M Stypsanos. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application, whether it be on WebEx or here at the meeting room for 460 Canon Street East? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to uh please step forward. Please provide your name and address, and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Oh, there we go. Okay, go again. >> Hi, my name is John Tipsos. address 460 Canon Street East. We're here today to uh a reapplication for a garage uh the recommendations from the committee uh to move the building back one foot um on the east side to the west and we resubmitted the application and that's what I'm here for today to get the approval. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh committee have any questions? I see um revise variance two and three as well as add variance four. >> Are you okay with the variances way they are now and and they added variance to it? Revised variances. >> Yeah, everything that was on the application we we are good. Um I said the recommendation from the committee uh to move the uh building one foot in the west uh position and that's it and then that's all. Everything is great. >> Okay. You had a chance to read the comments that were posted. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> In that case I'll make a motion to approve the application with changes in them. >> Okay. Moved by Mel, seconded by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. application approved. >> Okay, great. So now a question. What what do we what do I wait for now? Like so now I need to go make the application uh to the um to make the permit. So what's the next step? >> The chair staff will be in touch with you after the meeting. Yeah. So there's typically there's a 20-day appeal period where any decision of the committee can be appealed to the provincial planning tribunal. So if there is no appeal, then you could proceed to the building permit. >> So 20 20 another month. Yeah, we will send you some further correspondence after the hearing today. >> Okay. Yeah. Thanks. >> Okay. Next, we have a minor variance application A26. Sorry, A2026000070 1 190 Woodhill Road, Flamro. Owner is M. Overme. Applicant is Eve V. I apologize if I mispronounced your name. Eve Vancesi on behalf of M Overmmy and the agent is VCT Group Incorporated. Uh is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether it be on WebEx or here in the meeting room. Okay. I see a hand raised for someone from BCT group. I think that's the agent. Um yeah. So, uh, if we don't see anyone, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address, and you have five minutes to speak. >> Morning. Uh, my name is Emily Vance. Uh, I'm the director of operations at BCT Group located at 54well Drive in Kitner. Uh, we're a solar construction and energy developer based in Kitner. We design and build solar, EV charging, and energy systems across Ontario. and I'm here on behalf of the owner, Michael Overmmy, the application at 190 Woodill Road. This is a small open air solar carport that's going to be built beside an existing garage. It supports a solar array that powers the home and it's sized to fit in the existing space while covering the owner's vehicle. And it's been designed to match the the rest of the building in the area. We're seeking two variances on this one. Uh it's an accessory building in a front yard and a zero meter side lot setback where usually there's a meter required. The canopy also slightly overhangs the property in the air. We've obtained the neighbors written consent for both the overhang and the reduced setback. Um, we've read the the notes on the application and we're also asking that the tree protection plan uh condition be removed since we're not removing any of the trees in the existing area or changing the landscape. Uh, there was an older view from from Google Maps that was used that was showing some trees in the area, but those were those were removed a couple years ago before before this was in play. So, happy to ask answer any any questions. Um, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, committee. Do you have any questions? You're okay with the uh proposed conditions? >> I know you said protection plan. >> Yeah. And there's a there's a tree protection plan and a landscape plan. Uh, so since we're not we're not changing the landscape or the the tree protection, but everything else on the conditions looks fine. So, do you want uh three and four removed? >> Yes, sir. >> And through the chair, I don't know if you wanted, you could always have one of our >> forestry technicians comment on that if you wanted. >> Are they available? >> I don't believe I saw them on WebEx. Um, no, I don't see them here. >> Okay. No >> committee Donna >> going to make a motion to approve the application with the removal of condition three and four. >> Okay. Is there a seconder? Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Oh, Bob posted. Okay. One opposed. Um so motion's carried and application is approved. >> Thank you very much. Next we have a minor variance application A2026 000039 256 King Street West Dundis owner is a numbered company 1612464 Ontario Limited El Maderos applicant is Virtual Creations Incorporated E Canton uh I believe we had an interested party here um online. Mandy Salter, are you there? Mandy Salter. Um we have someone participating by phone with a 519 area code. I don't know if that you're here for that one. It's uh 256 King Street West Dundas. Uh okay. All right, then. Um, is there any other members of the public wish to speak on this application? Sir, were you here for this one? 256. Oh, you're the applicant. Okay. Was there any um Okay. Was there any other members of the public? 256 King Street West. Okay. Seeing none, I'll then I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address. And you have uh uh sorry, is there an interested party? Sorry, you're the chair. We may have an interested party. We're just going to check. Um see if they're here. >> Oh. Oh, there he is. Okay. Yes, I think we do have a member of public wish to speak. If wanted to come up, please. Yeah, please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. I sent in a presentation that I have on the USB. I sent it in for the original meeting. This has been rescheduled because of the >> Y protest thing against power that everybody needs to cover these computers. >> So is it it should be on file or I have it on a drive as well if that's a help. >> I think this this is yours PDF. >> Yeah. Yeah. Just give me a moment. >> Yep. >> Okay. Do I start now? >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Okay. So, I'm a neighbor and we live next door. Um, and I'm speaking on behalf of other neighbors who also would like to see some changes to the application before moving forward. I can provide those after on a a hard copy. I just have a little bit of a with signatures and names. So, um, what we're what we don't like about this plan is well, let let's start at the beginning. When we got this plan, we weren't crazy about it for a few reasons. Um we spoke with a bunch of neighbors who also um had some reservations and we we spoke also with someone who was familiar with the OOLT the Ontario Land Tribunal I believe and they suggest that we should look at whether the fact that this is indeed minor and I think you'll see that it's really not that minor indeed because it's an additional building. Is it desirable not with the neighbors that we have um got names from? And there's a few there. Also, does it meet the intent of the bylaw? Maybe. Um but it's not conducive to family living or senior living, which are two of the important features that need to be looked at when we look at this is a major impact here. Um also, does it meet the intent of the visual plan? Again, that's a maybe. So, what we're looking at here is, you know, two nos and two may with regards to does it meet the OLT criteria. So, if we could move to the next slide. Um, here is the original drawing and you can see here that there is um uh it's up against our property line. And so, what that does is um it it impacts us in a in a number of ways. It also it's an additional building and this is a commercial triplex right now. Um and so there's no families living there. There's no um so it's just basically tenants and I'm I'm without you know not the greatest landlord because there's always garbage and there's always stuff that could be the tenants. But the point is right now it's quiet. Um and that's one of the we're all in a very quiet very conservative neighborhood and we'd like to keep it that way. So, one of the things we don't want to see is a a party pad coming in. And this is what this might look like. One of the things you'll see in the drawing is there's a space underneath the second floor, which is indeed that's going to be against a fence. And it's essentially a garage. It's only used it's wasted space. Um it's only really useful on a rainy day or snowy if you're going to go out. You can't have a barbecue. You can't um really go in the sun there because of the the orientation. So the other one is for some reason on the actual drawing um somehow the move the building is moved back. So if if you look on the left hand side that's the actual drawing and the building is actually right up against the the sidewalk. So I don't know why but on the designer's drawing there's an extra 20 or 30 feet on the front yard and I don't think that's really a street. That's not going to happen. So the drawing is kind of weird. So next slide please. Um so essentially um what we're doing is we're saying that this provides this is there's overlook directly into our bathroom and the bathroom of our neighbor and our bedrooms. There are also some issues because of the second floor thing. There's also some drainage issues. I don't know if there's a storm water management plan in place. Don't know. Haven't seen that. Also, it's very prefab looking. If you look at our neighborhood, it's Victorian. Uh, it's classic housing. Um, so it doesn't really look and feel like it's part of the neighborhood. It would be an outlier for sure. It's also a commercial venture. It's not a family building. It's also a commercial building right now. Um, so again, it's going to it's going to mess up sight lines. It's going to do all that kind of stuff. Um the other thing is um yeah, so we're we're worried that again it doesn't fit into the neighborhood and that there's um there's also possible drainage issues because it is in the lower side of things. So again, what we're suggesting along and I have our neighbors say so if you wouldn't mind advancing the slide one more time. So, what we're proposing, and we wouldn't object to, is if the building was moved to the other side of the property where there is a commercial building in a parking lot, not shown here, instead of against our property, and that it's only one floor, so there's no overlook issues. And again, we'd like to see a storm water management plan. The other thing is here, what we'd like to do is have the new garage in the place of an existing garage. There's no reason to move the garage back. There's a garage there right now that can be renovated or strug demolished and rebuilt, but this drawing shows the garage exactly where it is. Also, you don't have to build a whole ton of new driveway here. So, drainages are less and you can do a walkway. There's easy access to double two cars in that big driveway right now. So, um, if we see these changes, the neighbors and I will not object not, uh, with the Ontario Land Tribunal, which I assume we can do. I think we have 20 days to make an objection. Um, um, so which we would do in the case if these changes are not made. Um, but again, for reasons of um, overlook, loss of green space, loss of legacy trees, drainage issues, kind of a outlier in terms of look and feel. Um, we suggest making these changes and then we can possibly move forward with this variance because in our mind it's really major. It's not a minor variance. And that's about all I have to say. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you for your presentation. >> Uh, can I give you the list of neighbors? Does it is it Yeah. >> Yeah. Just just Yeah. Provide it to me or just Yeah. Um >> Oh, let me fine. >> Yeah. I'm not used to this kind of presentation stuff. You guys look great. >> I hope you help me today. >> You want me to come over and get it or >> Yeah, >> if I can find it, I'll bring it over. I got legs. They're not painted on. So, let me see if I can find it somewhere in my office. >> Okay. I feel like I'm a very big job interview. >> Oh, take your time. Sorry to waste your time here. Okay. Somewhere. Sorry folks. That it's going to be the last one. Oh, the last one was on the bottom. Here we go. I'll bring it up. Okay. Thanks again for your time. Is that it for me now? I exit stage left. Is that it or >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you so much. >> You can stay in the room if you wish. >> Yeah, you can stay there. Sit in the back if you want. Okay. Was there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Um 256 King Street West Dungus. Okay. Uh just just just as a reference, of course, thank you to the resident who spoke. Just to clarify, this is the committee of adjustment that hears minor variances. Um any decision of the committee could be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Um so that's the process and any kind of specified person can could appeal. Uh just as a note of any when we send out a notice to the public at the same time we do circulate the applications to the different departments at the city whether it be engineering planning or parks. So if any members of the public have ever have any questions about the assessment of an application let's say for example is there any possible storm water issues you're always welcome to contact the committee of adjustment staff. We can get you in touch with the appropriate staff if you wanted to speak with them. Okay. All right. Seeing I don't believe there was any other members of the public. Um then I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Hi committee. It's Eric Canton uh for the owner. Um I have a presentation as well if you want to bring that up. >> Yeah. I have a a question that I can ask staff because this is an application under 452. Um, and I actually have I don't think I've ever done an application on 452. So, it's a little bit quirky as far as like a variance, right? We're not really asking for like a use. We're not asking for something. We're asking to recognize that this property is residential, not commercial. And if it was residential like it was in 2017 uh under the Dundas bylaw uh that this would have actually been as of right that you would be allowed to to construct this. And I just want to double check if that's the right interpretation or the right explanation. >> That's a question to planning. Thanks. through the chair, Emily, co-manager of zoning and community adjustment. That is correct. The zoning was changed in 2017 to a commercial and mixed use zone. Uh prior to that in the town of Dundas, it was under a residential conversion zone. Um and the use of a duplex uh I believe up to a triplex would have been permitted. >> Um Is that it? Is that is this it? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Um so I would like to thank staff uh prior to uh la uh this hearing the previous hearing uh we had to go through some steps to validate that in fact the previous or the existing use is residential that it has maintained uh being residential uh for the number of years we did that and staff um changed the uh recommendation to committee from to table to uh recommending approval. So that was very nice that they worked with me and they got that. So at a high level uh I has um I was aware of the uh neighbors concerns. So I did want to prepare some some answers I guess. Um so regarding um privacy, we made sure that none of the second floor windows overlook onto the neighboring properties. As far as density is concerned, as this committee knows, uh all as a matter of right, all residential properties in Hamilton are permitted to be three. Uh so this ADU on any of the other neighboring residential properties uh would be permitted. Uh we looked at shading actually. Uh this was kind of like a side uh project that I attempted. Um and uh there's no shading issues. style wise is always debatable about what something should look like and who what someone thinks is is uh um you know appropriate not appropriate but of course committee and zoning and planning we don't really like to get into architectural style the main uh argument that I'm going to have is I'm actually going to ask this committee to uh to take or remove the two conditions so condition from forestry and landscaping and the condition for um uh the uh grading and um storm water management. Uh can we get to the next page please? Uh can we zoom out a little bit just so it's formatted as 8 and 1 half by 11. thoughts. >> So, this is kind of like a a zoomed in uh picture of the building uh relative to the site plan and then the two elevations. So, both the rear as well as the uh left side have no windows on the second floor. Um so, the windows only face um the existing building on the property. So, I was cognizant of privacy and tried to uh mitigate that as best I could. Uh, next page. The style question. So, I'm a Dundas boy, born and raised. Um, and in my retirement, one of my uh plans is actually to write a book, an architectural book on Dundas because I've always been fascinated how there's so many different um architectural styles in Dundas. Uh they're very very small, but you know, there's there's a mushroom house, there is uh that's close by the Dundas driving park, there is um uh some modern homes. Uh there's a modern home just behind this one on Hat Street. And I think the important question on style was uh cultural heritage comment saying that they did not feel that this uh structure would negatively affect uh the neighboring uh culture c architectural cultural. Um next page. So the uh green space and the uh interesting party they had comment about what was the purpose of that space below the second floor area. So that's actually done um on purpose uh to because one of the zoning requirements is to provide some amenity space, some very specific amenity space, especially when you start getting into uh two and three units. Uh so this actually creates a at grade level landscaped area that is clearly their space. So we don't have to like down the road start building fences and cording off the backyard to make it seem like well this is you know this person's space and that's this person's space. This has been integrated into the architecture of the building and they have their own private basically patio where they can have uh furniture and they can enjoy the space without having to uh add something else. The other thing that is a little bit difficult um I shaded this elev this plan a little bit differently. So the ground floor um area is very very small. It's a very small unit and so we we get the total square footage of 75. But again the thought process is that we're trying to limit the amount of land we're actually using by elevating it slightly. Uh next page. Uh this is just the uh shadow study. So I just ran through um uh only very that top left corner. Only first thing in the morning in December will there be a shadow cast. Uh but of course that's first thing in December when the shadow's quite low. all the other times of the year uh there will be very little uh loss of sunlight in the um neighboring property. Next one. Uh so this is city of Hamilton GIS and the green boxes so that represents all of the residential uh zone property that would uh permit uh an this more or less this exact same accessory structure. all around this commercial, provided that they met the setbacks like we do, um all of those green boxes could potentially be a rear yard uh unit and would not require a variance. So, I I think I've I've done my best to design something that complies with the bylaw, which is why there's no other variances requested. Um it is uh just an extension of illegal non-conforming use. It is what everyone else would be permitted uh to build uh as a matter of right and there's only the two conditions uh that I want to address. So one of the plans I showed you was showed you how small that footprint is. So, according to the city of Hamilton's uh drainage uh bylaw, uh this application is exempt. If I were to apply uh for this exact building on a the next property over like residential property, uh building and development engineering would not be able to request for the conditions that they ask for. It is less than 55 m. It is more than uh 1.2 2 meters from the sideyard. So, no grading plan would normally be requested. Uh same with forestry. I know forestry is working on a private tree bylaw, but we don't have a private tree bylaw right now. There's no reason why the owner of this property couldn't cut down the tree today with or without this uh variance. And if it was another residential property that again complied that anywhere else in the city and they wanted to build this um this ADU forestry would not be able to impose the conditions that are listed in this variance. >> I think that's it unless you have questions obviously. Well, I guess my question to the tree protection if if they don't have uh the power or the right, I'm just wondering why they put it in as a condition and I don't know whether we have uh I don't think we have anybody here from forestry uh through the chair. I don't believe so. Uh but we do have someone from I believe from engineering on WebEx. Um yeah, Chuck McFarland there. son. He has his hand raised. >> Hi. Uh good morning everyone. Yes, we would be opposed to the removal of condition one uh regarding the storm water management brief um and grading plan. Um it's generally on these they're fairly straightforward. Um it's not particularly ownorous as far as making sure that the additional drainage from the uh proposed new structure and it will help address the uh the neighbors concerns as well. So for those reasons we don't support the removal of that uh condition. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. Go ahead. So, if if staff's here, can we ask staff, does the application meet uh I believe it's section E of the exemption clause in the city of Hamilton grading bylaw. >> That question is to engineering. Yes. Yeah. Sorry. >> Did you hear the question? >> Sorry. Can that be repeated? >> Sorry. The question is, does the proposed application meet section E of the exemption listed in the city of Hamilton's grading bylaw? >> I'd have to get back to you. Uh if we can see the uh sorry uh to the uh committee. Sorry, I forgot what Justin's position is. Uh can I see my presentation again? Uh maybe one more page or two more pages. >> Next. So that this Sorry, let's go back one. Sorry. So this one is the site plan indicating that the uh total building area is less than 55 square meters. And there's a little excerpt on the left about the city of Hamilton's grading bylaw, which if you go to the next page, you'll see a larger version of it. And under uh exemption E, it states that the building is not greater than 55 m and that the building is more than 1 meter from the property line, which we meet both of those conditions. Well, I suppose we could put uh you know on condition one that if it's required and then that's >> and absolutely correct because when I apply for the building permit if I do not meet the that exemption building will initiate the grading requirement >> and through the chair yes any condition if it is imposed it's up to the the department how it's satisfied right sometimes they could afterwards wave a condition if they believe right >> it could Okay. Yeah. >> Is that the presentation? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh want to talk about it and I'm ready to make a motion. >> Oh, make one. Okay. I would like to make a motion to approve this application with the conditions. >> Okay. Is there a second? Yukica. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved >> with conditions. >> With conditions. All right. Um Okay. All right. Next. Next we have a uh next we have a consent application B25007 1058 highway number eight uh Flambor. The owner is K and K Green Green Houses Limited K Dillar and the applicant is the same person as well as the same uh is the same company. Uh I believe we had a source water protection was going to be attending. I don't know if did they want to speak first. I think I see Akmad Sarwir here on WebEx. Were you looking to speak first or no? Okay. Um so through the chair yeah I can certainly uh provide our uh comments. Um >> okay go ahead. >> I I think the uh the lot size was originally considered to be uh not adequate. However uh you know given that the site is also hydrogeeologically sensitive. Uh the bedrock is uh quite shallow within the site. Um, however, we did note in our comments that if the applicant is able to increase the lot area for the severed portion to at least a hectare, then we would be able to conditionally support the application. But I understand based on um certain email correspondences, there needs to be a farm economic study to be completed to confirm if that lot size of one hector is adequate or not. And I think planning would be able to speak more on that. And from our perspective, from source waters perspective, uh a lot size of a hector is good. Uh but again, uh planning would also need to confirm from their end if if that's acceptable or not from uh from their side. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, go ahead. >> Oh, sorry. Is there any members of the public wish to speak on this application whether it be on WebEx or here in the meeting room? Okay. Uh 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. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair and uh members of the committee. My name is Peter Dulio. I'm a registered professional planner with Metropolitan Consulting, 2555 Barton Street East, Hamilton. And just to get to source water, um, yeah, we had done a a report by soilm to, uh, look at the septic and even after we submitted that, I guess they're still concerned for the lot size. we were able to look at um uh the property further and if we um extended the depth of the property to the same as uh the property to I guess it would be the southeast which is about 141 m deep and the 75 m wide we'd meet the one hectare requirement and so we agreed to that and uh planning staff had sent me an email uh outlining that now the concern again with the farm economics report. Well, the policies and the official plan is only required for when you have prime agricultural land or specialty crop land and even the guidelines for preparing that type of report uh quote the policy from the prime agricultural and specialty crop lands. Now, I understand the combined parcel between this piece and the existing greenhouse operation around the corner on the sixth concession road west is far less than what the official plan says. Having worked at the city and former town of Flamro, there's always a concern when you write official plan policies with putting numbers in. And in this case it says generally and well you may say well 20 hectares less than generally was required is not minor but we know that a minor variance could be 50 to 75% less and there's no impact. My client has has had a viable farm operation just on an existing piece on the six concession road west with the green houses. he picked up this parcel and has increased the the amount of land that he's farming and it is still viable and uh I mean he can speak to that but I um have concern for doing this farm economics report yes we can provide uh income uh uh statements perhaps but the problem is this farm economics report has to be prepared by a professional and agronomics who knows and um I think it's just an expense that's not warranted and like I said the report I don't think is required according to the policy just because the parcel is substantially less that policy doesn't take it into account greenhouse operations I I worked in farmer from ' 89 to amalgamation and I mean I dealt with farm operations all the time greenhouse operations they're intense you don't need the land the 40 45 acres 45 hectares 38 hectares to have a viable operation he has a viable operation like just on his old piece existing piece that he established on the six road west this piece added to his viability and he's still producing and I think he won an award uh recently from u the agricultural society and he can speak to that so we've addressed source water you see we've addressed um transportation with reducing the widening. So, it's really just to address the planning matters and again I I have a concern for the report pharmaceut report as well as an amendment to the official plan to reduce the size of the parcel. I mean, I I don't know what we're accomplishing with that. Yes, it's a number. It says generally, yes, it's such a large reduction, but again, when you look at minor variances, you can't just look at percentages. You can have a 70% reduction. It can be minor because there's no impact on the adjoining properties or and in this case it's an aggra it's a greenhouse operation. It's viable. There's no need to be at the 38 hectares and it's not prime land. We talked about the the high rock and hence the name Rockton just down the road the village. I know there's high rock surface rock there and not a lot of top soil in certain areas. So, um, if we're going to proceed, I I would I mean, I think we're willing to table if we see where we're not going uh favorably here, but I I don't see the need for the farm economics report and I don't see the need for a real official plan amendment to reduce the size of the parcel. And I'll let my client speak to other matters. Um, just regarding that, um, I've been to committee before. I've been to committee 10 years ago. We came twice. Um, at that time as well, the size of the farm came up. Um, so we only had 10 acres before we we were able to purchase beside um, which meant some lot line adjustments. Of course, then the farm was still too small. So I I did get um approval at that time from committee to to proceed with the farm because it it is a farm. Um last year we issued uh 60 T4s. So we have a lot of employees. It it's definitely viable. Um however the size of our farm is small. We've had opportunity now to um we spent over half a million dollars already developing the farm. Um because it is poor land. You can't grow anything on that land. Um but it is it is rural on his farm. So we've uh created a space to grow um fall moms there. And we just had an opportunity to start growing strawberries uh tabletop strawberries which allows us to produce uh we're producing just starting now but right up till frost. So where we're importing uh July, August, and September. Um there's some new technologies, new varieties. So we're really hoping to expand that. Um on a personal note um um we have two sons who are taking over the business. So part of succession as well um like all the the legal is done um lawyers and accountants I paid more for that than I paid for my first house. But anyways it's very difficult uh to to do succession properly. And my wife and I live in that house now. And when we when we got the property was rented, um I couldn't even insure it. The the deficiencies were and it was COVID, so the owner let us run through it for 5 minutes. That was all we could get, which didn't matter. We needed the land. Um in the meantime, we have um brought the house back to a level where it's habitable. Um that is also, I guess, one of the requirements from this when I So, we're doing the best we can. Um and no neighbors have come and all the neighbors got the notification. We've been talking to the neighbors neighbors involved. Uh one of our biggest neighbors is the conservation authority. Um they've had no no nothing to say and and we've been working with them on different things over the 30 plus years that we've been there. Um you know we're we're as far as the how everything functions there, nothing will change because there's already a driveway for the house that's separate from the farm. There's actually another access for the farm in the highway. There's an access at the back. Uh if we could get approval for this, it would just it would just help um our sons to to continue to move forward without being landlords because yeah, when I got that place, I bought five gallons of rat poison and it took a week to eat that all up. Like it was a mess. >> And so, you know, we're doing our best and because no neighbors have come, that shows that that they know that we're doing our best. And um yeah, this would just this would help with all the things we hear about uh local production of food, uh helping with the family farm. Um even us downsizing. My wife and I live in there right now. We have a house uh uh up north. We don't it's 3,400 square feet. It's it would be a burden for the boys to look after this property. And so that's why we're here at committee. Um the only other Peter didn't bring it up. MTO had some concerns. Um, I spoke with two people there in the office. Um, we hope we can reason with them to just leave everything how it is, but they would be satisfied if I put in a new driveway and shared it with both properties. It It's something about But nobody's bothered to reply to me to come and take a look at it. But if if that's a condition that stays, there's provision already in their comments to make it work. again source water. We went to great expense to get um there was a permit issued by the city six years ago. This is a a a they call it a category 4 um septic system there that the water coming out of that is cleaner than the water of the creek. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Mel. >> Yeah, this is a greenhouse operation and the city was wanted to table it, but you made a slight change in the size of the lot. I'm going to make a motion to approve it. >> Just before I accept that, I just want to see if there's any other questions from the committee. Robert, do you have a question or >> No, no, I'll take that. >> Okay. >> No other questions. I'll accept that uh >> with all the >> motion. Yep. With all the conditions. Yeah. >> Is there a seconder? Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> And >> thank you very much. >> And through the chair, would that be the approval with the proposed conditions in the staff comments and the proposed notes? Okay. >> Are you okay with >> Thank the committee again. Like I said, we've been here before with conditions. um you've been granted me the privilege to try and it's turned out well a family business. >> Thank you. I'm with my father and I went to the community with him 10 years ago and some things didn't go our way and some things did and so yeah thank you me and my brother are really >> okay I think maybe the agent has some questions >> sorry I wasn't expecting such a turn of events here so in terms of conditions as I spoke I mean I have a concern I guess for 10 um can I get clarification I mean I know there's reszone or this uh uh restrictive covenant, but then when it speaks to the restrictive covenant, it says then the city would resone in the future. I guess I think I saw that in comments. Does that mean the restricted covenant would come off? So I just wanted some clarification on that. For the longest time, from what I understand, from the longest time, it was strictly a reasonzoning and then we got some information or we had some agents that brought in that terminology and from what I understand it was accepted um because it's a lot cheaper to go that route and still has the same power as a resoning. Um but sorry, just just because if we have to go through a res >> and an official plan, then there's no need. But I'm trying to avoid this official plan amendment which I just >> that's expensive and and I just don't see the the rationale like I know the lot of science it's quite a difference but like I said it doesn't take into account the reality of greenhouse operations which I'm shocked I mean my flies like we said we we did recognize that if you have greenhouse operation you certainly don't need that much land and I remember the little flaming bile I only had a minimum lot size department of two hectares for a farm operation I know that's changed a lot I have no issue with new lot sizes, but it just it just seems so ownorous to for to have to do that like official plan. It just and that's the problem I said with numbers official plans. >> So acceptable is a restricted government. >> Yes. But sorry condition 10 says we still need amendments official >> through sorry through the chair as as the agent is aware the staff are recommending denial right and you wanted to come forward today to get an approval. Yeah. >> Did it say >> table? >> Sorry. Let me just give me a moment there. >> Oh, no. You're No, two of the departments said deny uh and that the development planning asked to table the application and you chose to proceed today with the committee, right? And they did uh approve it, but there are the proposed conditions in the staff comments there. So, I don't know if the committee wants the planning staff to comment on that. Well, >> I'm wondering if the mover can add a friendly amendment >> to remove >> the zoning part of it. >> As long as the mover and the second are agreed. >> Go ahead. >> Can you make an amendment on the zoning part of it? Um good morning still uh Spencer Skidmore acting manager of development planning east team. So there's a number of conditions that we've included to address official plan policy. So the first is related to when you don't merge lands in title for surplus farm dwelling severance you end up having one standalone agricultural piece that isn't merged with another house. Right? So the the fear is that then they apply to build a building a house on that and they just rinse repeat and eventually you just degrade the agricultural land till there's nothing left. So what we require for that is either you reszone the property or under our policy which is not our preference but it is permitted they could register a restricted covenant on title that says any the current and any future owners can't build a house. So that's condition number one and I think that condition as far as I know they're okay with. There's two more conditions that the applicant has raised in his submissions. One is for the official plan amendment. That one we did discuss at length with our policy planning group. Um and we have applied this consistently across the board where the policy does say that you have to be generally a certain size and that size is for the consolidated farm operation about 38.7 hectares 95 acres and they're about 42% or 43% of that. So even though there's the word generally it's our opinion that they're not satisfying that policy. they don't conform to it. So in the past what we've done is planning staff subject to a satisfactory farm economics report that shows that the the parcels are of sufficient size to be viable recognizing they are green houses. They are more intensive. We would still like to review that through an official plan amendment application from a process perspective. We've been consistent in the past. Um so that's the one of the conditions the applicant wants removed. Um we would our our um recommendation would remain that it that it remains in. Um and then the last one was related to um the farm economics report itself which is just um they're not super ownorous reports. Um they can be we recognize that especially with a greenhouse operation um it is more intensive use. Smaller lots are appropriate. um our our policy and provincial policy requires kind of an professional opinion um demonstrating that it is viable and should there be a change of use in the future should the green houses be decommissioned that it remains viable for other farming operations as well. So it just kind of a high level review of that and something you know sealed by a professional that we can review and hang our hat on from a professional perspective. So, um, that's where that one comes from and we consistently ask for those in situations where they're, you know, 40% quite deficient on lot area. Um, so, thank you. Any more questions? Happy to answer. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, the owner, >> um, could my accountant prepare that or is there like my accountant could just lay it out for staff that this absolutely viable and then so I'm I'm asking would you be would staff be satisfied if my accountant just presented the books you said then you would make your own opinion say yeah it's fine because to for me to hire another third party to do that again it'd be the same as a source water those are like10,000 bills to prove something we all know. I I get that he would like to see the documentation, but I'm asking if if if I did, my accountant could present a year's books. You see, that's a viable operation. >> Mr. Chair, point of order. Could we please resume talking about this and bring it to a vote? >> Okay. I was just allowing the agent to I know there was conditions in there that Okay, we have a motion on the floor and it was seconded. I'll call the vote. All in favor? >> Sorry. >> Opposed the motion. >> Approval >> with the conditions. Call a vote again. Just get out of here. >> Mel want to Sorry. My understanding was that maybe Mel was going to reconsider his motion or something like that. >> Yeah. Sorry. That's what I meant. Sorry. Yeah. >> Was there another motion on the tape on the >> No, there wasn't. >> Okay. >> I I asked the mover if he wished to make an friendly amendment to his motion. to talk about the zoning part. I hope you see why there's zoning changes. We've done this before many times. We we understand that that we've worked the green houses before and the very same thing that they can't build another house on that property. That's what you're worried about. You're okay with that? >> Yeah. Through the chair's zoning. It wasn't the zoning they were concerned with because it says or covenant. But if we have to go through the official plan amendment, then we might as well just go through the zoning at the same time. Yeah. But I mean, I know that's an extra cost, too. But um the only thing I want to make sure of, too, is that uh sorry, condition seven, the widening says eight, but we're down to three. That's all. Like the transportation staff said they were okay with 3 meter widening, and the condition still says eight. >> Which ones did you want to remove there? Number 10. So the road widening that's >> that's usually a a consistent thing that >> No, no, I know. But they reduced the requirement from 8 mters to three. They're actually doing a study right now reclassifying the roads, but they did make a comment that they're okay with three. >> Is transport anyone here from transportation planning? >> You had you had the comments in the package. uh through the chair I don't believe so transportation plan no we do not >> through the chair we can confirm we did receive correspondence that the 3 meters is good >> okay >> so we would be um okay on transportation behalf if that condition got reflected got revi updated to revise their updated comments of 3 meters >> thank you >> so can we take that condition out >> no Okay, just change it. >> It would just be >> want it changed >> through the chair. That's correct. It would just be updated from six meter widening to a 3 m widening. So just be swapping six to three. Correct. >> Yep. Thank you. >> There's a um a fair bit of loose fodder on this one. There's uh a lot of variables out there with all the conditions and everything else. And the original recommendation was deny from source water planning or source protection planning, deny from development engineering, and then table from development planning. With everything going on back and forth, it's not really in front of us on paper. I think that we should be tableabling this to let the applicant and his agent get back with the planning department, sort out everything that's been floating around here today and get it in black and white. Done. That's a motion. Well, I already have a motion on the floor. >> Okay. Well, then >> yes. Do we want to address that first motion? >> You're not going to make any friendly. I would like to take the >> So, if we vote and turn it down, then we'll make a new motion. >> Okay. >> I'm gonna >> Yeah, do it that way. >> I'm going to call the vote on Mel's first motion, which was um approval >> with with all the >> with all the conditions. Okay. >> So, all in favor of that motion? Three opposed. Two opposed. Motion's carried. Application is approved under those conditions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Uh to the chair, it's 12:04 p.m. Did we want to take a break now? >> What's your feelings? >> You want a break? Can >> we do a few more and then lunch or what? >> Anyway, >> maybe five minute washroom. Do a few more then. >> Okay, >> that's >> 5 minutes enough. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Five or 10 minute. Okay. >> All right. >> 5 minutes. Yes. So, we'll come back. We'll uh take a short break now. We'll come back around 12 10 p.m. Thanks. mean now at 12:11 p.m. >> Okay. Next. Next we have a minor variance application 825075 970 Guard Street Hamilton owner A Clar Clarisio and applicant is Espiscocovic agent is Dinger Man and Associates Espco. Uh I believe we had an interested party here. Um, Michael Marterana, you there? >> Yes, I'm here. >> Hi. Okay, if you wanted to uh provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. >> Okay. >> Yeah, this is Sean here. Sorry, guys. >> Sorry. >> Hello. >> Yes. Go ahead. Uh, Michael. Uh, >> it's Sean from the center here. Just checking in. >> Yeah. No, we're asking the members of the public to speak first. >> Oh, okay. My bad. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. You can stay on mute for now. Thanks. >> Okay. Okay. And Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Michael Martana. I reside at 79 KBY Drive, Port Dover. I'm speaking today in opposition to the addition of a second story to the existing additional dwelling at 970 Gar Street under the authorization of the owner of the property which borders the rear of the subject property. The subject property is designated an R1 zone in Hamilton. The minimum setback for a rear lot line for R1 zone is 7 and 12 meters or 24 foot 7 in. The setback in the drawing ID03 incorrectly shows the rear setback of 6'6 in. And that's what's documented in section 4.2 of the application. The actual rear setback for that building is 2'8 in on the south corner and 4'6 in on the north corner. The building wasn't even built parallel to the property line and you can see it on Google Maps. Um, so where is the variance for rear setback? Uh secondly, there's an overhead 2,400volt power line that runs north south just west of the rear property line in parallel with this building. The addition of a second story would result in the power line being adjacent to the additional dwelling rather than above it. At 2400 volts, Electra requires a horizontal clearance of 4 meters or 13.1 ft from any building. Per my discussion with Electra, this building has a horizontal clearance of approximately 6 feet, which is less than half of the requirement. Um, proceeding with this second story addition would require approval from Electra and I recognize that this doesn't fall within the responsibility of this council. However, seeing that the owner didn't disclose the rear setback discrepancy to council, I don't have confidence that they will inform elector that their property is currently built in violation of the required clearances. So, I'd like to suggest that this committee highlight this to Elector through perhaps the planning department. Um, a bit of an aside may or may not be relevant. I grew up in the home that borders the rear of the subject property. Many years prior to the additional dwelling being built, the hydro pole on the southwest corner of the property was struck by lightning. It caused significant damage and with the existing structure so close to the property line of 2'8, it's possible that a lightning strike would track to the building, particularly if it was built higher with a second story. So, I just thought that was worth mentioning. So in summer, before a decision is rendered on whether to approve any of the submitted variance requests, I respectfully suggest the committee request an inspection of the property to confirm that the building is not correctly represented in the submitted drawings and that the planning department contact electric to inform them that of the close proximity to the structure to their high voltage lines. At the last meeting in March 2025, this committee of adjustment directed the owner to meet with the city of Hamilton building department to address many discrepancies with their proposal, including rear setback and the building being skewed from the rear property line. And I don't see any of these issues addressed with this variance request. Thank you. >> Is there any other members of the public wish to speak WebEx or virtual? Okay. Um again, thank you to the member of the public who spoke. Just just as a general reference, um uh the when an application is submitted, the applicant has to indicate that what they they provided us is accurate to the best of their knowledge. Now, if the application was approved, it went to a building permit stage. If there was any discrepancies, that would be flagged. Um and that could potentially affect the var any potential variance approval. Um in terms of uh just just as some members some people may know we do at the same time as sending out the notice to the public we do circulate the applications to the to different city departments and external agencies uh which included Electra and the staff comments are posted online. Uh we do have comments from um Electra utilities as well that was posted online. Now, I don't know if that specifically addressed the that member of the public their their their comments or concerns, but just just as a reference. Okay. Um if there wasn't any other members of the public, um I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address, and you'll have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Yeah. This is Sean from uh Design Associates. the agent for Mr. Tony Claritzio for this property 970 Ger. >> Hello. >> Yes. Yep. Go ahead. >> Okay. Yep. Okay. So, yeah, I'm just here to propose and present this revised package based on last time it's been tabled uh to correct some things. Um, so long story short, you can see what the layout is right now, what we're doing and what we're proposing here. Uh, the homeowner has reached out to people non-stop. The guys literally run around the neighborhood, I don't know how many times now, and people either throw the blind eye or don't open the door, don't answer his phone calls or whatever. And, you know, I'm going to just leave it at that. But when you're trying to resolve a matter, you know, behind the scenes and away from court time and he's making every attempt to do so and nobody's working with him but working against him, it just shows the character of the kind of people that we're dealing with here at the end of the day. Um, at the same time, he doesn't mean bad or harm. He just wants to, you know, do what he has here on paper and we're here to appease everybody so everybody's on the same page as best as possible based on the variances that are being asked for and uh presented here. Um if there's any issues with the design, by all means, let me know. I can correct them to the best of my ability. This has been an active file for some time now. And you know uh we're asking for some matters today such as you know the landscape area and we amended the building height overall the balcony in the front and the uh max floor uh gross floor area for the main level portion of the unit. So with an existing structure being altered everything falls within the guidelines and within you know OBC compliance as best as possible minus these few minor things which is why we're here today. and I'll be you know able to answer any questions anybody may have as best here within reason. Um it's come down to pretty much to me minor in nature most of these things based on how things started originally long ago the higher building and other things but as you can see the revised site plan the revised documents everything is very straight and narrow here and what's going on. We even located the staircase to the far right which would make more room in here for travel and path and set back uh the drawing. So ultimately it just comes down to the procedure and I said you know we're here to work with people not against them but the position that we got after Mr. Ditio running around with like a chicken with his head cut off in the neighborhood you know trying to talk to people having zero response or luck just uh how much is too much and how far can things really go right in all honesty in all fairness. So, uh, yeah, if anybody has questions, just by all means ask me and let's talk. >> And sorry, through the chair, I forgot to mention someone. I think they were supposed to attend in person. I don't know if they're I just uh just just mention their name. Tara Larose. Is there a Tara Larose? Okay. All right. And seeing that. Okay. Sorry. I'll bring it back to the committee then. Okay. Yeah, >> I'm just uh you had a chance to read all the comments that were posted. >> Yeah, they're on the document here in front of me >> because uh I mean they're okay with variances one and three, but um they're um recommending denial of two and four the height and >> we did lower that we did lower the height within a reasonable height to make it work for head height proper rates. So you can see the new elevations and the revision that was made. >> And has that information been supplied to planning? >> Yeah, it has been sent over to we have the single one here. >> It's down to 7 m uh when it permits 6 m. So we got one meter extra of height that we're seeking relief for based on the design of the roof. The way you see it there, uh you can see a low slope, a flat to low slope towards the front. So, and that's like I said, that's just to meet headlight, you know, between your roof frame thickness and a reasonable head height inside, you know, to keep at the 8 foot mark, right? So, that's why that height is up there. And >> and the gross gross floor area >> uh the gross floor area that is for for the ADU. So, we're like right there minus like I think it was so close. It was like we were asking for relief for so much over it, but it was like not even much to tell you the truth. Uh, give me a second here. Like the whole unit for the ADU portion of it minus from, you know, his personal use portion of it. you know, the ADU for the unit is not the whole main level and it's all stated that on the floor plan there on the main level floor plan. You can see the right side storage room, you know, it's X amount that's for him, but the living space in the far left labeled as unit number one. And uh, you know, the total GFA for that unit number one, you're looking at 77.6 m, which is 835 ft. And if I believe the maximum here we were asking relief for check my notes here sorry was 75 meters. So you're looking at a difference of 2.6 square meters above and beyond the maximum allowable you know ADU floor space. The reason why we can't really change that because there's already a firewall in between the storage room and the unit which is a fire separation. So we're working within the space that's there right now. And that's what it gives it to be right. So for 2.7 square meters, yes, it flags a need for variance, but it's so minor in nature in my mind that hopefully everybody will understand that, you know, >> Donna, do you have a question? >> No. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So that was my question to staff to planning is is this >> Yeah. Some of this updated stuff we don't have. I mean, we're going by what we have in front of us. And uh >> Do you see the floor plan with the staircase? The far right of the building, not in the middle kind of. That's the one that you should be referring to on the site plan and the floor plan. Right now, the staircase is flush with the far right side property line. That's the revised site plan and the floor plans and the elevations >> through through the chair. The revised drawings were attached to the the notice that was circulated for this meeting. It shows a flat roof. >> Yeah. >> With a slight little in the front there. Yeah. >> To check I can share my screen. Um >> you stand out. So through the chair um we do have zoning staff here to confirm the 300 meter calculation. However, it's my >> No, we don't. However, it's my understanding that um if a building is connected to an additional dwelling unit and it's all shows space that can be used by the additional dwelling unit, it's all counted the same. So the variance as written in the notice is actually requesting 300 square meters um instead of the 75 square meters that is permitted. Um but zoning staff is here to to confirm that. So when planning did review this we were looking at 300 square meters versus >> you were looking at it entirely pretty much right. Yeah it's not the case. Yeah. It's just the one unit in the main level. The portion of the main level there in the far between the storage room and the space there. It's labeled on the floor plan there accordingly through the chair. I'll uh just confirming that that is accurate. We would look at the GFA of the entire detail structure for this regulation. >> So that's 300 >> 300 >> square me that's 300 square meters. >> That's correct. Oh >> okay. So total. So two and four and you're still recommending denial uh through the chair. Yes. It's um planning staff's opinion that the 7 m height for the building that's proposed for the size that it's proposed is not appropriate in this instance. If the design was a peaked roof and the top of that peak required the 7 m it could be a bit different. However, to permit a flat roof that would facilitate an additional dwelling unit that's 300 square meters in size is is not appropriate. Um it would make the accessory dwelling unit no longer subordinate to the main house on the property. Um and it has other implications like then you see the projection of the porch and you see the extension of the stairs. It does add to a larger appearance for the building on the site as a whole. >> Okay. Thanks. >> So to the Oh, sorry. >> Oh, I defer to you >> Donna. >> To the applicant. Uh did did you hear that you understand that uh they're still recommending denial for um varants two and four? >> Sorry. Can everybody hear me okay now? >> Can everybody hear me okay now? >> Yes. >> Hello. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Can everybody hear me okay now? Yeah. So, did did you hear that uh that staff is still >> I I heard that. Sorry, I was sorry, I was playing with the buttons there for the mute. Uh long story short, you know, the second level needs, you know, minimum 8 foot height just, you know, head height, right? You know, a small person needs your standard room is 8 ft high plus the roof frame thickness itself on top of that, which is why we got the seven mters. Right? When you're designing for a low slope roof and you're using roof trusses that are flat trusses that are, you know, anywhere from, you know, 24 in thick, let's say, plus roofing material, you got eight plus two, that's 8, 9, that's 11 ft pretty much, right? And that's your 7 m right there. We're not designing it for short people on the second level. We're designing it for, you know, full grown men, which is around, you know, 6'8, 7 ft at the most, plus a little bit of, you know, height on top. That's the reason why for the height there. See when you overlook at the over overall height you don't think about the structure and the thickness of things in between within that. That's why we designed it for that. So the height is the height that's the way I can't make it shorter because who wants to walk into a room that's 7 ft high let's say you know if you reduce it down to a foot or so a comfortable head height is 8t that's what's labeled on the elevations there and the low towards the front. So, you know, when you somebody mentioned peak roof, you know, that's going to be higher than the flat roof. Does the bylaw go to the top peak or does the bylaw go to the midpoint of the peak? Is it going to be a 212, a 312? You know what I mean? These are things that we took into consideration after making these revisions to this elevation. So, that's why the height is asked for at an extra meter to accommodate the roof material thickness to make this structure work design-wise, architecturally, you know. Is that >> maybe the the biggest hiccup here is that the the square footage? Um >> I just want to resolve the height issue first of all here. Just move on to the square footage next, but it's the height issue. But do you guys see what I'm saying here? Because you got the roof material thickness. You know, this design incorporates trusses that are two foot high to span from front to back. You know, that's where you're losing two feet of cavity space in the air. That's just for your roof frame. >> It's not 11 feet to this underside of drywall. You know what I'm saying? >> Okay. Thanks. Um, would you be willing to table this so that you can get that all sorted out with the uh >> Well, no. This has already been tabled. If it's already been tabled here, like this is we're back here with a revised design. Like I don't want to make this room shorter than it is designed right now. >> If you read the elevations, >> you want a If you look at >> a decision today, >> you want a decision today. >> Long. Thank you very much for this interesting >> Nick. Go ahead. >> Thank you for this interesting presentation. I think um I tend to agree here with city staff. I think they got this one right. Quite often they do get things well done and and correct. And um I'd like to make a motion to uh uh approve variance one and two, the land sorry variants one and three landscaped area and balcony permission, deny variance two, height increase, and deny variance four gross floor increase. Okay, there's a motion on the floor seconded by Donna. All in favor? >> Can I can I speak more here or is this uh >> we've we've made a motion. It's been seconded and voted on and it was >> Yeah, we're not denial. >> We're not designing a room for short people. We're designing >> Excuse me. Excuse me. The the committees made their decision now. Thank you. Motion is is carried on >> one and three were uh approved and three one and three approved and two and four uh denied and that was the motion and it was carried. >> Okay. >> You have can we can we further talk here like is this a cut off? >> No, there was no further discussion sir. It's already it's already decisions. >> Yeah. No, I appreciate that. We just we're trying to this is the whole point of having a variance to discuss things not just you know shut the door on me here and say it's going to be 6 meters and that's it like I'm trying to prove my point here all the time and effort design >> sir stop thank you >> discussion has already occurred decisions been made by the committee any decision of the committee is now subject to a 20-day appeal period okay and you will we will provide you further correspondence after the hearing okay thank you >> so where am I going to get >> we will we'll notify you after the hearing Okay, thanks. Okay, moving on. >> We have a minor variance application A206 000048 43 McDonald Court Flamro. Owner is J. Herb and Lerb. Applicant is J. Herb and L Herb. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? >> Okay. Whether in WebEx or here at the meeting room. >> Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Hi everybody. It's Jeff Herb and Lisa Herb here today. Um we'd like to start by thanking everybody for working through the breaks today to keep things moving. It's greatly appreciated. Um, yeah, we I I don't think we have a lot to say. I think uh we're just planning uh to extend our existing onecar attached garage into an oversized twocar garage. We're extending uh we're going to exceed our lot allowance, which is 15% lot coverage. We're taking it to 17.1%. It seems from the material provided to us from the committee of adjustment that uh there doesn't seem any to be any strong opposition or concerns. So I'm hoping we can get an approval today. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Comments from uh the departments uh are positive. Um committee have any questions? If not motion I'll make a motion to approve uh with the notes, proposed notes. >> Okay. Is there a seconder? >> Bob. All in favor? >> Opposed? If any seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. >> Great. Thank you. Uh the 20-day waiting period, is that calendar days or or is that work days? >> It's uh it's calendar days. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> From the date of the decision. Yeah. We'll we'll be we'll send you some further correspondence after the hearing. It'll outline that for you. Okay. >> Okay. >> Thanks very much everybody. >> Have a good day. >> Next we Oh. Uh next we have a minor variance application. A 2022 6 000051 330 Main Street North Flamro. Owner is D. Patton and applicant is M. Rabbo and agent is M. Rabbo. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Uh whether on WebEx or in the meeting room. 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 begin. Good morning, committee members. My name is Matthew Reebo of Perspective Views at 5359 Timberlio Boulevard, Missaga, and I'm the agent representing the owners of 33 330 Main Street North. This proposal will facilitate the owners to continue providing auto mechanic services to the growing community and doing so more safely. Uh the variances that we are seeking are only related to legalizing existing site conditions regarding the parking lot and we are seeking no variances for the addition to the building as we have complied with all of the zoning requirements. We are confident as well as planning staff and other municipal departments that the requested variances meet the intent of the official plan. The intent of the bylaws is very suitable for this neighborhood and is very minor in nature. Therefore, meeting all four tests of the planning act. Um I will uh also state that the owner is here today as well and they would like to put a couple comments on record. Um otherwise uh thank you for your time today and I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. >> Okay. You're okay with the uh proposed conditions? >> Yes, I am. Sorry, forgot to mention that. >> Yep. Committee have any questions on this application? If not, motion. Robert, >> make a motion to approve as it meets the four guidelines for minor variance. >> Okay. Seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you, committee members. Have a good afternoon. And through the chair, I believe one of our committee members stepped out. Yes. >> Yeah. And do you want to wait for her to come back first? Okay, let's wait for her. >> She'll probably come. >> There she is. Okay. All right. Um Okay. Next. Next we have a minor variance application A2 026 00006320 Park Street North Hamilton. Owner is Skyway Construction Group. Aaliyah Parker. Applicant is also Skyway Construction Group and the agent is Metropolitan Consulting Incorporated PDIO. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on WebEx or here at the meeting room? Just call it out again. 120 Park Street, North Hamilton, Ron Webbex. Yeah, you can raise your hand or if you're in here at the uh here, you can come into the meeting room here at 264 here at city hall. Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name or and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of committee. My name is Peter Dulio. I'm a registered professional planner with Metropolitan Consulting, Inc. 2255 Barton Street East, Hamilton, Unit 3B. Um, obviously I don't agree with the staff recommendation, but what make us concerned with is not with with the variances were listed is what we applied for. If you look at page two of our application form, we were asking for notwithstanding the definition of a multiple dwelling, which is five units in the building. We were asking uh variance of the definition to allow four in the main building and one in the accessory building. That's what we applied for. Now I understand it was written up um and I think it might have to do with inquiry I think a year ago the designer about what to do with this property and I think the approach was going to be let's you know add ADUs and then detach ADU to it but like I said that's not what we applied for or and uh so I'm just a little concerned the way it was written up and as opposed to what we applied for because I think what we applied for was pretty simple and straightforward and minor in nature. So, the discrepancy is what you applied for and what you ended up with. Correct. And um I mean if if we're going to be going with the staff recommendation obviously I mean I prefer tableabling to discuss it further staff but I guess I don't understand how we what we applied for and what was actually written up how that happened. From what I see here, are you're willing to table this to get everything straightened out so it comes back so we know exactly what we're looking at >> uh through the chair unless there's an explanation of somebody explain to me why it was written up the way it was and and uh but yeah, I mean if it's going to be denial based on what was written, then I would prefer a tableling to discuss it further with staff as to why it was written the way it was. Well, I'm guessing that it was written the way it was because of the change or the inadvertent change to the way it was applied for. So maybe we should table it or did you want to hear from planning as to why? >> Again, I you apply for one thing and then all a sudden it gets written up a different way. And I I just don't understand how that happens without it the notice going out and us not being able to provide feedback as to why it was written that way when we apply for something else. >> Okay. >> I would I think I think right now with the uh variables there we should uh defer this application as part of the applicant's request. >> Okay. Is that a motion, Robert? Yes. >> Okay. Seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application is tabled. >> And thank you. Just through the chair also when we uh send the notice out, we do we do I believe we send it to the applicant as well. So if you see an issue with the notice, please try to contact us as soon as possible and then we can try to take a look at it as well too. Okay. Thanks. Um, next we have a minor. >> Justin, just before you call the next one, I just wonder what time does committee want to stop for lunch? Like how many more do you want to hear? >> This one. >> Okay. this pretty far away 15 minutes. >> Okay. You want to go till 1:00 then and break for lunch or >> may I also propose lunch is slightly shorter. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> It's through the chair. Just a reminder that uh through the ESA or by employment standards act staff are required to have a half hour break every 5 hours for work. So we have to give a half hour for lunch. >> Okay. Okay. All right. We'll go till 1:00. >> Okay, that's like 20 minutes or whatever. So, uh, call the next applicant. >> Okay. Through the chair. Uh, we have a minor variance application. A20260040 1038 Garner Road West, unit 207, Ancaster. Owner is Yellow Birch Holdings Incorporated, C. McIac. Uh the applicant is the same uh company and then the agent is Urban Solutions Planning and Land Land Development Consultants Incorporated. Is there any members of the public wish to speak on this application whether on WebEx or here at the meeting room 1038 Garner Road West, Unit 207, Lancaster. 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. Thanks. >> Good afternoon, members of committee, staff, and the public. My name is Matt Johnston, a registered professional planner with Urban Solutions, and I'm here joined by Dr. Caroline Mckisac. And um Justin, if you don't mind, we do have a a brief presentation to take you through. Thank you. And you could uh quickly jump to the second slide. So, the subject property is located on the south side of Gardener Road, directly south of uh the Ancaster Power Center, uh anchored by Walmart, directly to our north. the unit in question. So, we have what's really a a commercial condominium. So, each individual unit is is owned. It's it's not a typical retail plaza where where units are rented. The these are actually owned. And the unit in question is on the second story uh highlighted in red. Next slide. Now, while we're located in an employment zone, uh the property actually has uh characteristics that are a little bit different. You can see we've grouped them into uh five themes where we have about five typical retail establishments. We have four restaurants. We have uh four personal service uses. We have uh three offices uh including uh another one that's rather similar in the sense that it also offers uh mental health counseling. And then we also have uh a few more uh recreational uses uh gaming and uh martial arts etc. Uh next slide we have um a few more details of uh the units themselves. Uh you can get a closer look at them. Um and specifically our request today is to permit a medical clinic. And I know this is the second time we've had this conversation today. Um and it's entirely different from a policy perspective and from the nature of of the user. So uh with that we'll go to the next slide and uh Dr. McKisac can just give a brief overview of how she found the property and and what it is that she does. >> Sure. Hi everyone. I'm Dr. Caroline McKisac and I'm a child and adolescent psychologist or as I say to the young people and families that work with me, I'm a feelings doctor. And so what that means is I work with kids, teens, and families. And they come to me for help. And the help that I offer is talking and listening and being present with people, young people, when they're having difficult emotions. Emotions like sadness, worry, stress, loneliness, frustration. They all come and they spend time with me in my office. A really important principle that I always think about in my work is meeting people where they are at. Not just within their feelings, which is, you know, what I do, but also logistically because a very significant barrier to therapy is actually the logistics of making it work. Having a young person come to therapy. I don't know if any of you are parents in the room who have had young people that you're involved with go to therapy. It's a really big commitment of time. Usually I see young people, it's hard to come up with an average, but a couple of months at least for an hour appointment. And so I want to make things really workable for families. Right now my office is downtown. Although I do see young people from downtown and families from downtown, I actually find that I'm pulling from people all over the Hamilton community. And I was thinking where can I go that will really actually help and make it workable for families. As a parent myself and if I was looking for a space to bring my child to therapy, I would think about where could I go where I could take my young person to meet with their therapist for their appointment, their weekly appointment, and I could also get the things that I need to get done as a parent. So, in the Ancaster um area where I've purchased a unit, there's shopping nearby, there's schools, um there's neighborhoods, it's a community, and so when families drop their son or daughter off for a session, they can go do errands and other things. And I thought, what a beautiful location. Also within the office where I've purchased a building, there are as um was mentioned there are other counseling centers. There are wellness adjacent um services. There's a tutoring facility for kids. There's cafes and restaurants. And the cafes work well because oftentimes after a difficult therapy session with me, kids will like to go with their parent to have a coffee, a snack, something along those lines. And so, so I thought, wonderful. And I was so excited when this unit came up for sale. I never even thought to think deeply about the zoning issues. And it was only when I submitted my approval for building that we got it back and it said actually the building is okay but the use that you want is not technically allowed because of zoning. And I was very surprised. So, I'm really hopeful that the committee um will give me the opportunity to run my office through this new location, which I think is very family centered and I think it's a wonderful service for for young people meeting them where they are at. Thank you for your time. >> Justin, if I could have the next slide. So from a policy perspective as I mentioned the uh the lands are designated employment at the uh urban structure level as well as on the land use schedule itself and then it's got the corresponding prestige business park M3 zone with a couple of sight specific exceptions. What you see in the staff report is comments on the application being premature given the ongoing review of the definition of employment areas. And if we could go to the next slide, we know through the 2024 provincial planning statement, they've changed the definition of an employment area to really limit it to what includes manufacturing, research and development in connection with manufacturing, warehouses, good movements, and associated retail, office, and auxiliary facilities. So the city's embarked on a process to adopt that new definition as the first phase of their employment review. And the second phase is looking at which properties now warrant that employment area designation. And as I mentioned through the uh the introduction to the property, what we have here is really a commercial facility that's got employment zoning. The makeup of the uses are not consistent with the employment area definition through through the provincial planning statement and the ongoing process with the city of Hamilton to update their material to reflect that change. Our ask today is to consider this by way of a minor variance. We do know that the committee of adjustment is empowered to add uses by way of a variance. We do know that staff prefer uses be added by way of a zoning bylaw amendment. When we look at the two differences between them, there's really two two elements. The the first is a more robust public engagement session that you get through a zoning process. And I think when we look at what's transpired through the circulation of the minor variance, we have no interest from area residents. We have uh no interest from on-site property owners. So there's no warrant in that more robust engagement process that comes with the zoning bylaw amendment. Um, what we do have is a use that's consistent with the makeup of the property. We have the request for a medical center to be added as a permitted use that is entirely different than the employment area definition that now applies. And what we don't want to do is um delay or further encumber Dr. from Kisac's good work when staff note that it's premature until this study concludes. It's very clear that this site doesn't have the characteristics of the new definition of employment and on that basis we can be satisfied that the four tests of the planning act are maintained and we can uh comfortably add a medical clinic uh to the property similar to what the committee did for personal service uses just over about a year ago where um a salon came before the committee and again it was that notion that it's not a true employment center by definition. Uh despite the staff recommendation, committee supported that endeavor and approved the application and it was with that in mind that we felt this was a comfortable avenue to pursue uh the relief that we need here for Dr. McKisac. So with that um that really concludes uh my presentation. There's a note on my last my second last slide um that it's just important that we get the description correct. The actual legal description is unit 7 level two and that level two is omitted from the notice and we just really want to ensure that that gets accommodated should we receive committee support. So uh again with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. Thank you committee questions for the agent. >> I just actually I'd just like to make one quick point. So I have a similar clinic to Dr. Mcisac. Um, this use requested here is much more of a commercial retail use than the one that we approved earlier this morning, which is actually handson. That's the only point I'd like to make. >> Thank you for that support. Yes, I'm not there's no touching. It's listening, talking, and just being present with young people. What was uh interesting as I was looking at things, it it hit me that, you know, as a planning consultant, I can uh operate out of this location and provide land use strategies for people's property. That would be a permitted use. But unfortunately, Dr. McKisac providing mental health strategies isn't a permitted use. the the day-to-day makeup of of what would happen in that office um is entirely in line with with other permitted uses on site and and for that reason we're we're hoping that the committee can see it uh and and support the application. Okay, Robert, >> I'm just wondering to the planning department, is there another definition or description for a medical center that we could other than a medical center that we can use for this application or is a medical center? No. Okay, >> I withdraw it. Anyone else? Any other questions? Well, >> if you can hear me, uh to the staff who called out wellness clinic, would that pass through the chair? Um the issue with proceeding with a wellness clinic is we don't have a definition of that. Um so preference would be medical for that reason. >> What distinguishes this one from the application this morning is that being in '05200 uh you do have a definition of medical clinic. And um we're not we're not hiding the the fact that by by definition um Dr. McKisac uh being uh in the field that she in would be categorized as a medical clinic. Yeah, I I tend to agree with uh one of our committee members uh Nick when you commented this morning um and again this afternoon. Um >> Robert, your mic's on. >> I think we should uh I'll make a motion to approve the u the variance for this site. I know this the area there pretty well because I live not too far and the way that that whole area is developed um it could be a good thing for everybody. >> I agree. That's why I picked the spot. >> Yeah, but you have a biased opinion. >> I do. >> But I I know parking right now is getting tougher and tougher there. But I mean that goes with the the mall or the condo association is going to survive. So like to make that motion that we approve it. >> Okay. Motion made by Robert, seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Uh motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you so much. >> And through the chair, did you do we want to go for a lunch break now? >> Yeah. So 30 minutes. We'll come back around 1:30 p.m. Thanks. >> Sorry, Matt. No worries. lunch. Somebody started this up for me. >> Yeah. Okay. Next we have a minor variance application A2640 which is Give me a moment. Which has a legal description. It's block numbers 5 and6 of 62M-1278. Former 94 Lang Street and two Hayes Avenue, Hamilton. Owner is Roxboro Park Incorporated, senchia. Applicant is the same uh company. agent is Urban Solutions Planning and Land Development Consultants Incorporated and Johnston. Okay. Is there any members of the public wish to speak on this application whether it be WebEx or here at the meeting room? 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. >> Good afternoon members of committee, staff, and the public. Matt Johnson, registered professional planner with Urban Solutions. um had an opportunity to review the staff report um and in in full I'm in full full agreement tongue tied sorry uh and no concerns with the proposed note. Um I do have a presentation available if there's any detailed questions but otherwise uh I'm ready to get out of your way so you can get on to the next one. >> I don't think there's any questions. So um committee have any questions? If not, is there a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve the variances with uh proposed conditions one through six and the notes and just the fact that the uh criteria meets the four stages of a minor variance. >> Okay. Second by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. Sorry, you you mentioned note in six conditions and we we just have one condition and I just want to make sure that everybody uh unless I'm missing something. I didn't see anything beyond condition. >> Yes, that >> sorry through the chair. Yes, in the staff comments there is one um it's it's there's six variances and there's one proposed condition in the staff comments >> and no sorry no notes. >> Sorry, you're right. You're right. You're right. >> Okay. >> One condition and one through six bares. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then through the chair, I'll just note um two of our members, Yanuka and I believe Donna, they had they had left uh at one uh they left just before this this meeting just before we reconvened just now. Okay. Um Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Okay, next we have a minor variance application A2026 000046 1565 Barton Street East Hamilton owner is Rosart Properties Incorporated G. Rosart and City of Hamilton D. Cold. applicant is the same uh company and the agent is web planning consultants J web. Is there any members of the public wish to speak on this application whether be in WebEx or uh here in the meeting room? Are you are you here for this application which sorry the two of you? No. Okay. So not for Okay. Not for 1565 Barton Street East. Okay. So, I don't believe we have any members of the public wish to speak on that. If not, then I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear and see me? Okay. >> Yes, we can. Sorry for the week. >> Well, this one seems to be cursed by delays, but that's fine. I'm happy to be before you today. Um, Mr. Chairman, members of committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is James Webb. I'm a registered professional planner and speaking to you today as the agent on behalf of Rosar Properties, Inc. Um we've had a chance to go through the staff report. Um I will extend my thanks to staff for um getting this through to you today and in a relatively clean staff report and recommendation. There is the one condition which we're absolutely fine with because staff again have have made accommodations by acknowledging that yes the variance is necessary to implement a site plan but they have included the lovely adjective of generally applies such that it recognizes that our final site plan isn't in place so um the intent will be met. So Mr. Chairman full agreement with the recommendation for approval no issue with the conditions and the notes. Thank you. >> Okay thank you James. Um, committee have any questions? >> No. I'll make a motion to approve with the conditions. >> Okay. Moved by Mel, seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you very much. Have a good afternoon. >> Uh, yeah. And next, sorry, next we had a consent application which is uh B2026 000069 600 Pritchard Road, Hamilton. Owner is Living Hopech Christian Assembly J. Leech. Applicant is the same group and agent is Metropolitan Consulting Incorporated, PD Ulio. I will note this application was tabled or it was deferred prior to the meeting, so it will not be heard at this meeting today. So, if there's any members of the public here for this application, 600 Pritchard Road. Um, if you wanted to be an interested party, if you are here on WebEx, do uh send us an email to cofa at hamilton.ca. Or if you're here in person, do fill out an interested party form in um meeting room 222 here in city hall, second floor, and then we will notify you of any other any updates on this application. and we will be in touch with the applicant as well about any uh any update on how to proceed with this application. Okay, next we have a minor variance application A2026 000033 106 uh Crosswite Cross Avenue North Hamilton. Owner is S. Ble. I apologize. I'm going to mispronounce the name here. S Ble Bti and R Belgi and agent is RWF custom con contracting. Um is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether WebEx or here in person at the meeting room? Okay. Uh 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. Good afternoon. I'm the agent for the uh uh my clients on Well6 Crossway. Uh we're applying for a minor variance to turn a single car garage into a double car garage. >> You read the comments that were posted. >> I couldn't find them where they were to be honest. I was looking but I >> Oh, okay. I believe we do typically send it to the the agents prior to the meeting. Yeah. If there's ever any issues, please contact us and then we we try to help it there. >> Um >> I apologize. >> I believe staff comments is recommending uh approval. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Committee have any questions on this one? Uh >> oh Christ. >> No conditions. >> No. Robert, >> make a motion to approve the uh the notes to go along with this application. >> Okay. >> And also note that it does meet the four criteria of a minor variance. >> Okay. Seconded, Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carries. Application approved. >> Thank you very much. Have a nice day. >> Okay. Next we have a minor variance application A2026 000062 343 Strathther Avenue Hamilton owner is L rate applicant is the same person um I believe we have an interested party here um FA and Pat Mali are you here believe they were going to phone And uh did we have them here? Uh FA and Pat Mali. Um, believe they contacted us a few times saying they wanted to see if uh I don't know if maybe do we need to reach out to them or um maybe I'll just see is there is there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this application? 343 Strath Avenue, Hamilton. um through the chat. I don't know. Did you want us to try to get in touch with them or uh did you want to proceed to hear from the applicant? >> Well, there's uh it's all favorable comments on this one. Uh there was no letters that came in. No, no, just threw the chair. But I I do note this this member of the public did contact us a few times. They they wanted to participate. So, um that's just that's just a note. But again, it's Yeah, we'll we'll try to reach out to them. One of our staff will try to reach out to them. I don't know. Did you want to hear this application now or uh >> Well, if you're going to try and reach out to them then um >> do you want to go to the next one or do you want to wait a few minutes or how long do you think it'll take to >> Yeah, we'll have to see. Yeah, let me just just I don't know confirm there's no other members of the public who want to speak on this application. 343 Strathurn Avenue, Hamilton. >> Okay, we could go to the next one if you wanted. >> Okay, let's go to the next one and we'll just hold. Are you here for Strath? >> Yes, I'm >> Okay. >> You're the owner. >> Yes. >> Okay. I guess there was one concern. >> I'm okay. >> Okay. We don't complain about what we say. I don't think you're going to be able to get them because I believe Pat is at work right now. >> Okay. >> Pat is somewhere. He's not at home. >> He has home for the last week and Ba is at work. >> Okay. Okay. >> But it doesn't surprise me that they're going to say so. >> Okay. No, it's just that they they had contacted us a few times. So, I was wondering Okay. We could maybe just wait. We could go to the next one and then maybe back to >> We'll go to the next one and then we'll come back. >> Yeah, we'll come back. Yeah, >> we >> don't touch base. At least we tried. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um, next application is a minor variant A20600523 Eaglewood Drive, Hamilton. Owner is M. Dylan. The applicant is Noble Prime Solutions Limited, T Ry. Agent is the same uh company. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Whether here on WebEx or here at the meeting room. Okay, seeing none, I will ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. >> Good afternoon everyone. My name is Kai from Crime Solutions. Our address is 19-2131 Williams Parkway, Bmpton, Ontario. So we are proposing an extension to the existing house. It's a singlestory extension to a single family home. Based on the extension we are seeking a variance to reduce the line the setback of the rear yard from 7.5 m to 4.21 m. Apart from that all the other uh requirements are met. So we're just seeking a variance for the behavior setback. We have gone through the city's comment and we totally live with this. But I'll be happy to address any concerns that the meeting may have regarding this. Thank you. >> Okay. You had a you had a chance to read the comments that were were posted. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Committee have any questions on this application? Is there a motion? Robert. >> Well, staff recommended it to be tabled, right? >> Uh through the chair. Actually, planning staff had revised comments. Um they're now recommending approval with conditions. >> Yeah, I think it was on the staff. Sorry, it was posted. >> Yeah, as part of the updated comments. >> Uh no, not this one. >> It appears to be recommendation for approval with >> one condition. >> Yes. Yeah. Yes. I think we did circulate that that meeting agenda to you. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There's one condition. Did you get it, Robert? Or >> I think No, it's approve. Um I can share my screen if you want. >> Yeah. >> So, it's approval with condition. >> Yeah. >> Or is it generally applies to sketch. >> Yeah. An elevation package. >> Was that is there a motion? You moved it. Okay. Moved by Robert. >> Okay. >> Seconded by Mal. >> Okay. >> All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. >> With the one condition. Okay. Next we have a minor variance application A2026 00000047 105 East 41st Street Hamilton. Owner is a number company 891-4273 Canada Limited J. Sansen. Applicant is S. Roberts. Is there any members of the public wish to speak on this application whether here on WebEx or here in the meeting room? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. >> Yeah, there's a but yeah, >> like a little face there. There you go. >> Okay. >> Uh yeah, Shane Roberts. I live at uh 18 Cosby AB in St. Catherine's. I'm the uh builder for the garage uh that we're looking to rebuild. Um the minor variance application is to rebuild the garage where it was. Um it unfortunately had a fire and had to be taken down. The pad is still there. So, we're just looking to rebuild back on the pad where it exists. Um I did read the comments um from the city. They have proposed uh three feet instead of the existing 2 ft uh that is there. So that's what the minor variance application is asking for. >> Okay. Committee have any questions on this one? >> Motion. I'll make a motion to approve. >> Motion made by Mal, second by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you very much. >> Did we have any luck on that? Anna, have we heard? >> No. No. We could just come back. >> Did you want to go back to it now? >> Yeah, let's do it now. Do it. >> Okay. Let's come back to it. Yeah. So, we'll return to uh Strath. It was I've marked it as item 18 here. We'll come back to it now at 1:48 p.m. A2026 000062 343 Strathan Avenue, Hamilton. Um, and we put a hold on it because there was an interested party uh who had previously indicated to us they contacted us a few times saying they wanted to speak on the matter, but we've attempted to contact them without success. So, uh, committee is going to bring the application back. Apparently the owner is here and if uh you want you have you can you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Okay. My name is Len Ryo. All I'm trying to do is enclose my existing front porch and put a new front porch on the property. It would be 3 by by 6 ft long. And the stairway I was told by the committee of adjustments I need to have minor variance for the stairs. Uh there was a comment, the one that I remember is something about the gas meter and they want to know how far away I was from it. Uh the end of the porch would be seven feet away from the the uh gas meter and it wouldn't be any closer than that and that's all I really want to do. >> Okay, any questions from the committee? >> Nope. Motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Motion made by Mal, seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carries. Application approved. >> Thank you. >> And have a great day, guys. >> Okay, next. And I think we already heard this one, right? Uh 105 East 41st Street, I believe. >> Yes. Yes. So next we have the minor variance application A2026 000053 222 Lydia Street Hamilton owner is a Govia and applicant is the same person. Is there any members of the public wish to speak on this application either on WebEx or here in the meeting room? Okay, seeing none, all the applicant agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. >> Hello everybody. Uh my name is Antonio Goa. I am the owner of 22 Lydia Street and I built the garage that is oversized for the within the bylaw. And I'm requesting a committee of adjustment, minor committee of adjustment, minor variance, sorry. staff is recommending tableabling. >> Uh go ahead. >> Can we have staff re remark on the tableling issue? >> Uh through the chair uh uh to the uh committee member. Uh staff uh are requesting the application be tabled to uh allow discussions between staff and the applicant uh uh to resolve some conflicts with the proposed setbacks and uh allow the applicant to provide additional information to ensure that uh there's sufficient um ability for access and maintenance uh between the the lot line and the uh the sideyard of the uh proposed accessory building. So that's the request from planning. You understand what they're wanting >> to the to the owner? Are are you >> Oh, sorry. Yes. >> Understand what what planning is requesting? >> Uh I'm not very sure. No. >> Okay. Can you explain that a little better for uh Thank you. Um, good afternoon. Spencer Skimro, acting manager, development planning east team. So, I think what we're just after is there's a number of numbers on the site sketch. >> Okay. >> That conflict with what you've put in the application form. I think you got summer meters, some are inches maybe. >> Yes. >> So, we just really want to clarify what you're asking for. Um, so I think I'm not sure if this was a result of an order >> that you received. It was. Okay. So, we can work with building department to know that we're working together. >> Okay. Perfect. >> Um, and we can let them know you're kind of working to satisfy the order. Absolutely. >> Um, >> but we would like it tabled because I think we'd like to sit down with you and confirm some measurements. >> Okay. >> Um, to ensure that we're capturing the variance correctly, the ambassador. Okay. >> Yes. The numbers. Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, is there a motion for table? >> No. >> In that case, if you're willing to table it, I'll make a motion to table. >> Okay. Second by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application tabled. And uh we to the applicant. We'll be in touch with you after the after the hearing on how to I won't be able to get a permit. And >> um no, not at this time until this time you address this application. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, next. Next we have a consent application B2026 000034 75 to 85 Kennorth Avenue North Hamilton. Um, owner I have a feeling I'm going to mispronounce this name. R B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B F F B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B and P B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B. So, there's three owners. And then agent is Arcad Arcadus J. Marcus and Iligan. Elegant. Iligan. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing it correct. Apologize. Uh is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? 75 to 85 Kennaworth Avenue, North Hamilton. 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. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jared Marcus, uh, associate manager with Arcadus and with me is one of the property owners, Mr. Borasia. >> Paul, thank you. >> Borasia. >> Borasia. Close enough. >> Good. Got it. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Mr. Basia has a pretty simple application here. Uh he has he him and his family own five uh contiguous uh le or previously legal non-conforming forplexes. Uh in 2011 uh the first of these lots I think it was 85 85 through 89 were purchased. Um each street address represents u each two street addresses represent one lot. So 83 and 85 are one lot. 87 and 89 are one lot and that that's one each of those are one forplex. Um we bought those in 2011. They were already merged because the previous owner had kind of gone through this. Uh I went to the committee of adjustment at that time and uh thankfully I got them severed back into their original use of two legal forplexes. We subsequently went on as a family to purchase the three properties that are in the application today. and we gave our lawyers instructions to please make sure you buy these and make sure they don't merge when we buy them. Lo and behold, whatever 15 years later, we found out our lawyer made an error and now all these three properties have merged on uh under the Land Titles Act. So, we're basically just trying to go and reestablish what has been existing since I understand the uh 1940s. >> Right. So the the the lot the request in question is to separate those the consolidated lot so that it'll be recognize the original lot boundaries uh from prior to 1940. Uh in 2011, uh zoning verification letters were issued by the city of Hamilton, uh which confirmed the legal non-conforming status of these dwellings prior to the implementation of uh the CMU zones under the '05200 zoning. Uh so up until this date, as far as anyone knew, these were legally existing separate lots with separate uh legal non-conforming forplexes. and had they not been consolidated, that would still be the case. We'd still be moving forward. So, it is just a simple application to reestablish the lot lines. We recognize um that legal non-conforming status on the lots may not exist anymore because of the consolidation, but the legal use of the dwellings as forplexes would still be protected in the future. Um and that matter of legal non-conforming status in our opinion is captured under I believe condition proposed condition number five from the zoning department that the applicable application is filed. So there's no question no concerns from us as far as um how to address that legal non-conform or the prior legal non-conforming status. Uh so we're supportive of that condition. The only conditions that we have concerns with are conditions six and seven. um one six uh respects independent services and these were legal these were dwellings that have existed for greater than 80 years. So it doesn't make sense to have to reestablish that independent services exist. >> They also all do have independent services just so everyone is aware like they have their own water lines, their own gas lines, their own hydro >> if it makes a difference. And similarly, the noise study, I understand the OP suggests that new lot creation requires a noise study where residential uses are on our interial road and understanding that technically we are creating new lot because of the law consolidation, but again the uses have existed for greater than 80 years. So we are respectfully requesting that conditions uh six and seven be removed from the approval if you see fit. Okay. Anything else? >> No, that's it. >> Okay. Committee members, any questions? Understanding that their wishes are to um eliminate uh conditions six and seven >> and just through you through the chair and the committee might be aware that staff were recommending to table the application. Um yeah. Does staff want to comment on their wishes to table or just to get more information or uh through the chair? Uh yeah. So uh staff's uh position is uh for the application to be tabled uh to allow discussions um uh between staff and the applicant. uh to allow or to uh determine if the proposed lot configuration is appropriate and it complies with the applicable policies of the urban Hamilton official plan. Um as well as address any uh zoning def uh zoning deficiencies and u yeah thank you. Oh, sorry. Hi. Um, senior engineer Helen MacArthur. We also would not be willing to um delete the condition with regards to the independent services. We have no evidence uh currently that those services are independent exist to each unit. So, we would require some sort of supporting documentation before we would consider eliminating that condition. possible. >> So if the current utility bills, would that be sufficient? >> Well, somebody would have to give us a plan showing that each where all the laterals existing laterals are to each unit. So some your engineer can prepare that for us. >> Wouldn't you have that existing information? >> We do not have that. We've certain we looked we do not have that. So that'll be your responsibility to show us that in accordance with the bylaw. >> Thank you, Robert. I think at this point we have to go with the staff to uh table the application that everything we've heard so far um and to make sure it's applicable policy the urban ham urban Hamilton official plan that a concurrent planning application be applied to address the deficiencies of the zoning bylaw. So as they say a motion to table it let them sort that out with the planning department. Even though they're existing lots, there may be variances that that won't hold you up, but there still may be variances because they don't fit into the the new laws. But anyway, there's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Yes. No. Seconded. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. application table. Thank you. And to the applicant, we'll be in touch with you on how to proceed next after the hearing. Okay. Thank you. Next we have a uh consent application SC/B-10 um colon 181 106 Byron's Avenue Stony Creek owner is uh Dravco Marinovic applicant is Burich Grinkey Surveying Limited D Kitchen D. Jacabina and the agent is the same uh as the applicant, the same company. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on WebEx or here in the meeting room? 106 Byron Avenue. 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. >> I think there good afternoon. Um Mr. chairman and staff uh we are satisfied with the conditions except two of them which is number five uh special separation I don't think it's this is a necessary due to original existing house that will remain and the new proposed lot is more than 10 mters in a distance so I don't think number five special separation will be needed and also Um but well uh I don't think the landscape plan is needed for this area especially when uh we got um uh tree protection plan lots of trees uh to uh under the number 11 which arburist will be able so this two uh conditions number five and number 12 I don't think it's needed everything else is in order and we are happy with Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. Just to clarify, there was three conditions >> or two. >> Those are two conditions. Number five and number 12. >> 12. Okay. >> Okay. M committee have any questions on this application? Robert with the um appropriate uh setbacks number five. >> Is that it's two separate buildings or it's a common wall or what are we dealing with here? >> Question is to the agent >> or planning >> for planning. >> Planning. >> Good afternoon. Spencer Skmer acting manager through the chair. So that condition what it is is anytime it's like a standard condition anytime you're creating a lot line because it's a new lot line and this the existing structure happened. That's when I started working from beginning. >> It's there for free. >> I think so. I'm not sure. >> We don't hear anything. >> Okay. See Now This one. We were hearing this application, the consent application, SCB10181106 Byron and Avenue, Stony Creek. And I believe a motion was passed for that one. Yes. The committee uh passed a motion to approve this consent application with all the conditions. >> Thank you. Yeah. And uh so the agent is here. So >> yeah. Yeah. Okay. So the agent that's just letting you know that. Okay. All right. Um we'll then proceed to the next application. Uh >> 224. Next is >> a it's a minor variance application. A2026 000038. for Tes Crescent, Glennbrook. The owner is Cache Developments Bimbrook Incorporated, Al LDS. Applicant is the same company and agent is AJ Clark and Associates. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on WebEx or here in the meeting room? 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. >> Hi, good afternoon. My name is Chloe Andre. I'm a planner at AJ Clark and Associates. Uh the agents retained for this application. Uh our address is 25 Main Street West, Sweet 300 in Hamilton. Um I will keep it brief. Um but the application before you is for one minor variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 6.2 2 m uh whereas 7.5 meters is required. Um we have reviewed the full staff report and are in support of the recommendation for approval and I'm happy to answer any questions if there's any of committee. >> Thank you. >> Looking at the uh the map layout of the future lots that along there, they'll probably all be very similar in the shortage of possible. >> Yes. So, I I was here actually a month ago for the lands directly to the south that are actually the lots themselves haven't yet been created um through the draft plan of subdivision process. Um but this lot because it's a flankage lot is a bit larger. Um so it was able to be created, but we still do need a variance for the rear yard and because it is its own independent parcel, a separate application um was advised for staff. Um so that's why we're here before you today. >> Okay. Uh, committee have any questions on this one? >> Have no questions, but I'll make a motion to approve. >> Okay. Motion made by Mel, seconded by Robert. All in favor? >> Opposed? Seeing none. Um, motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. >> And I believe that concludes the applications to be heard for this committee of adjustment uh hearing. Is there any chair announcements? Is there any staff announce? >> I believe so. Our our next meeting is >> it's next week July 2nd. >> Okay. >> 2026. Yeah. And it will be I believe we returning to council chambers. >> Chambers. >> Yeah. So there wasn't any chair staff announcements. Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? >> Motion to adjourn. No. Okay. Do >> we need a second or yes? Yep. Nick. Okay. So we're adjourned at 2:27 p.m. Thank you.