Sound check. 1 2 3 Welcome to today's planning committee. Today is Tuesday, September 29th, 2026. It's now 9:31. Good morning. As we have quorum present, I'd like to call this meeting, this planning committee meeting to order. Currently, we have councelor Francis, we have councelor Casar, councelor Wang, counselor Wilson, councelor Cretch, councelor McMakin, councelor Wilson, myself, councelor Nan, and councelor Paul's up on the big screen. We do not have any ceremonial activities. And at this time, I'd like to remind all people, including myself, to switch your electronic devices to a nonaudible function during committee meetings so that we do not have interruptions. Okay, we're on to the approval of the agenda. May I please May I please have a mover and a seconder to approve the agenda as presented? And I'm looking around and I'm seeing that councelor Cretch may have an amendment. >> No. Okay. Sorry. So, you're going to move it. Okay. And then councelor Wang. Thank you. Um, indicate with your hands. >> Oh, sorry. Clerk, do you have a Go ahead. >> Yes. Thank you. Uh, through you, Mr. Chair. I've been advised that the outstanding business list item 9.8 8 be which is the um report for sorry the two 2023 Hamilton community heat response plan. Uh the current request is to uh propose a new due date for December 1st 2026. I've been advised that uh the plan now is to bring this report to council on October 7th. So just a small amendment to that proposed new due date. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Please indicate with a show of Oh, Councelor Kretch. >> Thank you. Just wanted to briefly speak to the change. Say thanks to staff for accommodating this timeline. This is about the maximum heat bylaw and want to make sure that that gets addressed in this term of council. And part of the reason that the Obl is structured the way it is is so the delegates can come forward today and then we can approve the report by council next week. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Kretch. So at this point, let's indicate a show of hands. All in favor? That passes unanimously. Thank you. Are there any declarations of interest? Looking around, not seeing any. So, we're moving to the approval of previous minutes. Item 5, 5.1, PLC2612, planning committee minutes, September 1st, 2026, and 12.1 PLC26012 planning committee closed session minutes September 1st, 2026. May I please have a mover and seconder to adopt the open and closed minutes of September 1st, 2026, and that the close minutes remain confidential. You passing. Okay. Thank you. And so it's councelor Cretch and councelor Wang. Please indicate with a show of hands. That's unanimous. Thank you. It carries. We are now on to delegations. Members are reminded that questions of the delegation are for clarification purposes only and not for debate. We will hear all the delegations and receive them together at the end. Delegates are reminded that you may not repeat information provided in previous delegations on the same topic. Your delegation must consist of new information only. So 6.1 first delegation is Jennifer Meter and this is TMA law respecting notice of intention to designate 71 Claremont Drive Hamilton. I'd like to call up Jennifer Meter to please turn your camera on. Oh, sorry. You're here. Sorry. Thank you. So, Jennifer, you've been here before and you know that it's five minutes, right? And we'll kind of you'll hear a little sound that will say there's about one minute left and you may begin. >> Oh. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. If I could please request a few additional minutes. If I could request that now. Um, Mr. Chair. >> I'm sorry. Someone was whispering in here. Did you ask for extra time? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, that'll that'll require one of our committee members. Okay. Councelor M. Wilson and Councelor Wang are supporting that. All in favor? >> Two minutes. >> Two minutes. >> Thank you. Um, as you indicated, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Jennifer Meter. and councel to the owners of the property 71 Claremont Drive which contains a building referred to as the Akmar Gate House and we filed a written notice of objection which is attached as appendix A to the staff report for this matter and I don't intend to repeat everything in our notice of objection which I believe you will find to be very detailed and comprehensive Instead, I'm going to be focusing on the key factors which are on the screen right now, which together illustrate that designation of the Omar Gate House uh is unreasonable and inappropriate. There have been substantial alterations and additions to the gate house. And to be absolutely clear, these changes were not made by the current owner. They were made by previous owners. Any work the current owners have done to the building have been only to prevent further deterioration relative to the condition the building was in when they bought the property. In the photo on the left from about 1967, you can see narrow windows and the original gingerbread barged bargeboard trim on the gable on the Gable eaves. And then if you compare that to the photo on the right, you can see that the previous owners widened the window openings which dramatically and irreparably altered the original design of the gate house. The original gingerbread trim has also been completely lost. And as you can see from the middle and upper right photos on this slide, the front facade has also been been substantially and irreparably altered with widen windows and loss of original trim. The prior owners also constructed a one-story addition to the gable house as seen in recent photos contained in the staff report. The original architectural elements and craftsmanship which do remain are so degraded and deteriorated that they no longer meet the criteria for designation. Here you see uh some photos of the interior which is also severely deteriorated with compromised structural wood, dry rot, extensive animal contamination and black mold. And this is confirmed in the Cook report which was prepared on behalf of the city and which concludes there is very little that we believe is in fair or salvageable condition. And due to the collapsed floors and unsafe conditions, consultants, including the author of the Cook report, have refused to enter the second floor of the gate house due to safety concerns. Moving to slide nine, and then you can see some photos of the exterior deterioration. And then slide 10. Since 2012, no fewer than five experts have assessed the property for deterioration in structural integrity. All five experts conclude that the building is significantly deteriorated, structurally unsound in many areas, and not worth saving. As shown on this slide, there has been significant structural displacements suggesting that the walls are no longer properly supported and are likely bearing unintended loads or reacting to movement. I'm going to skip over slides 11 and 12, which relate to loss of contextual value, and move to slide 13. Since the owners bought the property in 2008, they have voluntarily attempted to initiate collaboration with the city towards a solution to preserve the gate house or relocate it to the Akmar estate lands. Yet no progress was made by the city between 2008 and 2025. That's 17 years. Then due to legislative changes in 2025, staff initiated the designation process. The Cook report estimates the cost of preserving the gate house in situ to be between 500,000 and $1.6 million and likely even higher than that once further investigation ensues. These are costs to the owner, not the city. And that's taking into account all nominal grants and subsidies that might be available. The Cook report again concludes that demolition is a reasonable course of action. Simply put, and unfortunately, the gate house is not worth conserving. I think it's very important to point out to you that council's authority to designate this property is discretionary. Council may designate if criteria are met. Council can and should and in my view must balance the criteria with other considerations such as the practical and financial reality of a designation. the prohibitive costs, the uncertainties and risks associated with restoration, which would require a complete rebuild with new materials, and the loss of heritage value are all considerations we are asking the committee to take into account in making its recommendation to council today. What I can conclude with certainty based on all of this information is that designation and restoration is not reasonable. It is not feasible and it is not sensible. This planning committee has already agreed with this conclusion. On May 26, you voted to recommend that council not issue a notice of intention to designate. You made the right decision then and nothing has changed. We urge you to make the same decision today and recommend that council withdraw the notice of intention to designate. Subject to any questions, those are my submissions to you. >> Thank you, Jennifer. And we do have some questions. Councelor Kretch. >> Thanks very much. So, I'm council's representative on the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee and go through a lot of designations. My understanding from staff is the designation is not a threat. You've posed what I've seen from hearing what you've had to say today. It seems like a threat. Can you outline how this is a threat to to anyone designating this property? >> Three, Mr. Chair. I I don't believe I ever said that it's a it's a threat. Oh, good. Um, I think, um, what we're trying to say is that it's just not a fiscal fiscally responsible decision to make given the state of the the property and the costs that would be borne by a one-off homeowner. We're not talking about developers here or a municipality or a public agency. We're talking about two individual homeowners. >> Thank you. So, you're also aware that the Hermit Heritage permit review process is a free process that we can go through with staff to have them review heritage permits. Um, discuss the kinds of issues that you're concerned about and have the property managed in the way that makes sense for the property, right? So, that you're aware of that process and how it works. I presume >> through you, Mr. Chair, are you talking about the heritage revitalization grant program? >> No, the heritage permit review process. So once something's designated, right, as a heritage property, then there's a review process through a permit and I can get staff to explain when the time is right, but essentially you go back and forth with staff and they clarify for you the different things that need to happen there. They're not forced things that need to happen in the situation. I'll give you examples of buildings where if you want where um in fact actually that led to demolition in some cases through a heritage permit review process. >> Counselor, do you have questions? >> Yeah, that's the question. I'm asking if she understands that process. That was the question. I'm clarifying because she responded. >> Yeah. Do you understand that process >> through you, Mr. Chair? I do understand that process and it's uncertain at this point in time and there's no knowing if demolition is appropriate in in in 6 months. Why is it not appropriate now? Um there's all sorts of uncertainties associated with that process and where the city will will put their foot down and require unnecessary um uh uh mitigation or restoration. We don't know what's what's going to come of that, but we see it as today at making this point in time, making this decision, there is no um there is no uh value in the property as it stands today to warrant designation in the first place. >> Last question for me is you're also aware of course that the heritage permit review committee is not the city. It's a group of volunteers who have dedicated their time to reviewing these matters and you can appeal to them, have conversations with them about the permits. through you, Mr. Chair. I think my same response would stand that um we have I think my clients have attempted to work with the staff and um with heritage staff and anyone who will listen about collaborating and and addressing their concerns with this property, but their their um requests for um collaboration have gone unanswered over a very long period of time. And now um after 17 years of deterioration and want for um a solution that works for everyone, we are now faced with this designation process. >> Okay. Thanks so much for answering my questions. >> Thank you, Jennifer. There's no more questions. Oh. Oh, sorry, Councelor Pauls. Go ahead. >> Thank you. And uh yes, thank you for coming. Um I just want to understand a little bit more. Uh we did um not designate back in what what year when was it again? You had uh when we had our meeting and then it was changed at council I think. When was the meeting that we said not to designate >> through you Mr. Chair? That was May 26th of this year. So May 26, we did have a meeting and we said not to designate. My question to you is uh um is this um house uh danger to the public? Can some kids go in there? As I look at the pictures, uh I think uh uh the resident want it down and um and we did vote I think May 26 not to designate. Is it uh your opinion or the people that live there know? Could it be cause danger to people to kids going in there um and causing more damage and hurt themsel through you, Mr. Chair? That is absolutely a possibility and I understand that has happened in the past. There has been illegal entry and and um uh vandalism done to the property. Of course, my clients are doing everything in their power to um keep it boarded up and so that people cannot trespass, but that is a possibility and it would be incredibly unsafe if anyone was successful in entering the building. >> I appreciate that. And uh you know, we have buildings that are old and we have to make sure they're safe as a city responsibility. I would be asking um staff some more question. Uh I I just want to know what changed from May 26 till the following week when we said now designate. Um and I'm really shocked to hear that the cost would be 500,000 to six 1 million.6 six uh six that is a lot of money for someone to have a building beside their property and uh which is endangering other people or people that even go and visit that family. So I I do have a lot of question I really don't understand uh why we switched uh we said not to designate and then we said to designate I'd like to have a more understanding of that. So, I will be asking staff uh more questions to that. But I do appreciate you coming and um and the owner. I I just feel for the owner spending that kind of money and not having anything on their property. Just this building that's really uh is dilapitated really. Those are the pictures you showed me. I haven't been there, but uh I understand. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Pulse and Jennifer. Thank you. You may have a seat. Thank you very much. >> We are now on to 6.2 and I'd like to call up Bianca Ferrari or Faria to please come to the podium to begin your delegation. And is Bianca here? Bianca, if you're in the gallery, could you just raise your hand? And I'm not seeing. So, at this point, we'll just perhaps if she comes in later, we'll look out for her. And we'll go to 6.3 delegations respecting new due date 2023 Hamilton Community Heat Response. And we have Isabelle Caven or Caven, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, and that's Cape in person. So, I'd like to call Isabelle down to the podium. Hi, Isabelle. You may begin your delegation. You have five minutes. >> Thank you very much. And you pronounced my last name right. Thank you. Um, hello everyone. My name is Isabelle Caven and I am a final year medical student at McMaster University. Today I am speaking on behalf of CAPE, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Um, in January 2026, uh, with support from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, we submitted a letter to city council with over 70 signatures from healthcare providers across Hamilton urging the city to not further delay implementation of this maximum heat bylaw, recognizing that extreme heat is in fact a public health emergency. Uh now in September, we see ourselves at another crossroads uh where additional delays on this report that the chair mentioned risks another summer with tenants exposed to extreme heat. Groups like Hamilton Acorn and Environment Hamilton have been pushing for this bylaw since 2023. The delays with this have been unacceptable. Releasing the report and voting on the maximum heat bile this term is desperately needed to protect the health and well-being of tenants this summer in Hamilton. I won't go on and on about how the extreme heat kills and the chronic health impacts of extreme heat. I think we are somewhat familiar with that. I just hope the city takes action before it kills our neighbors. I will see you all on October 7th. Thank you very much for the time. >> Thanks, Isabelle. And I'm not seeing any questions. So, thank you for your presentation. At this time, I'd like to call upon Seth Floyd to please come to the podium to begin your delegation. Um, Seth, are you in the building or is he online? >> Is not here yet, so maybe. >> Okay, no problem. So, we'll go to 6.3. Um, Mark Davinan, could you please come down to the podium to begin your delegation? Thank you, Mark, for being here. As you're making your way down, I'd just like to acknowledge our students from MAC who are with us from City Lab and and observing today. They're usually here and and their function is to uh do small research projects for the city and uh better our operations. So, thank you very much for being here today to participate and watch the events. Okay, Mark, you have five minutes. You may begin. >> Thank you, uh, mayor and members of the council. My name is Mark Deano and I am the co-chair of the downtown chapter of ACORN. I live in Ward 3. Uh, and I want to thank you all for agreeing to bring forward the report on the maximum heat bylaw next week. But I would like to discuss some dates since we are talking about delays. The first number I would like to bring up is 1,232. That is the number of days since May 15th, 2023 when this council unanimously directed staff to explore a maximum and adequate temperature bylaw for Hamilton rental housing. A child born on that day could come before this council and with a step stool delegate on the matter. And while we have been discussing this bylaw, Hamilton has continued experiencing exactly the conditions that prompted this discussion. This year alone, according to the figures before us, there were 86 paramedic calls of Hamiltonian citizens. There were 44 emergency department visits. There were 10 days of heat warnings. There were 8 days with a humidex above 40°. There were 55 days where the temperature was above 23°. These are not abstract climate projections. Those are days in Hamilton and those are days which affected Hamilton residents and those were in Hamilton homes. We have seen times of extreme heat and we are only going to see more. So here is the question I think this council should consider answering. What exactly have we been waiting for? I understand that legal reviews matter and I understand that drafting a bylaw takes work, but there is something that matters, too. People have to live in their homes while the government is doing this work. A heat warning tells someone to find somewhere cooler. A cooling center tells someone where they can go. A spray pad tells someone where they can take their children. But none of those things changes the temperature inside of the apartment they have to return to. And that is the fundamental issue here. The question is after 1,232 days, where is the decision? You know, I appreciate that this matter is going to come up on October 7th, but I could have said the same thing on June 15th, and I could have said the same thing about today. There is another date that matters, December. At the end of this year, we will have a new municipal council and quite possibly a new mayor. This means that there is a very real accountability question surrounding the timing of this work. If this report is delayed any further, a single day, a single hour, its consideration will be pushed beyond this council and the responsibility becomes considerably easier to pass from one set of elected officials to another who hold no responsibility back to the original vote. That may be procedurally convenient, but it does not make any apartments any cooler. It does not change the next heat warning. It does not change the next emergency call because last year, the last emergency call of the year was on October 5th. It may be cool today and it may be cool for the rest of the year, but none of you can say that Hamiltonians will not suffer excessive heat again this year, let alone next year. It does not change that the next person sitting in a bedroom at 35° because they cannot afford air conditioning, will be suffering. and it certainly does not make the problem disappear. So, I want to leave the council with a very simple question. When will the report actually come before council? And when will Hamilton City Council actually vote on the proposed maximum adequate temperature bylaw? Hamilton has spent 1,232 days considering that question. The weather has not waited while we have been forced to wait. New Westminster, BC became the first municipality to pass a maximum heat bylaw in this country. Can Hamilton be the second or will it let other municipalities pass it by like they did when the city of Oakville became the first to pass a data center moratorum? Thank you. >> Thanks, Mark. >> I'm not seeing any questions, but I appreciate the passion. Thank you very much. Chris Haidider from McMaster University. Um, could you please come down to begin your delegation? Chris. >> Oh. Oh, sorry. Hi, Chris. Up on the screen. Okay. Um, you have five minutes. >> Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Chris Hyereirect and I'm delegating as both a resident of Hamilton living in Ward 1 and a PhD candidate at McMaster University. My research is focused on extreme heat from a climate justice perspective, working with those who are most affected, understanding their lived experiences of heat and trying to address inequalities and unfairness. As a committee member who is very aware that heat is experienced as a crisis by so many Hamiltonians, I was dismayed and disappointed about the spring delay in a report describing the development of a maximum temperature bylaw that had been requested in 2023 in a motion unanimously approved by council. This week, I'm going to be honest, I'm heartbroken that this report and the action dependent on it has been delayed again. Initially, this delay was going to extend until December. and I'm grateful to those who work to ensure that the report will be presented next week at the last council meeting of the current term. In our rapidly warming world, protection from heat at home is not a luxury or a nice to have. It is a basic necessity of life and a bylaw ensuring this protection for tenants is absolutely essential. The continued delays in assuring this protection are unacceptable. I urge you to ensure that the report on Hamilton's maximum temperature bylaw is released as soon as possible so members of the public can see and respond to it and above all to support this bylaw next week when it is presented to council. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. I'm not seeing any questions. So I appreciate your delegation. >> Thank you. Hi, Nicole. >> Mr. Chair. >> Um, yeah, I think it sounds okay, but I was just wanting if you want to pull the mic a little closer. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you, members of the planning committee. I am Nicole St. Louis from Ward 3 representing Acorn. Uh my husband's son and I moved here from Vancouver 18 years ago. We raised our son in Stinson Village and we love Hamilton. And I wanted to start by saying thank you to all of you for everything you do for our city. I am a mom who cooks dinner so I feel your pain when it comes to pleasing everyone. Um so uh I just got stressed out even just reading the agenda, you know. I I have what you deal with. So, but I especially got stressed out when I saw the max heat bylaw was absent. Um, this isn't how I wanted my first delegation to go. I wanted to be positive and speak on the report. But instead, I'm disappointed and frustrated to be restricted and a third time writing this speech to only speak on the delay of the report. So, let's speak about that. three years, four months and counting. I was reading news articles from 2023 to prepare for today and how embarrassing it is to have made such a display of forward thinking and then nothing for years. And um I keep hearing about transparency and accountability from city hall and I guess this is a prime example. So um can you imagine if a corporation ran like this? Um, anyways, courageous change. I took that from your mission statement. Um, courageous change. We have an opportunity here to set a precedent in Ontario and to show that Hamilton is ahead of the game when it comes to responding to climate change. And this delay may cause us to miss the window to be the leaders of this change, facing the new challenges we have ahead. I'm here to remind you of the need and the urgency to protect vulnerable people because the heat is not going to wait. The cost is un unacceptable and uh you know bill 97 doesn't solve all the issues. Um we're putting more cost on the taxpayers and less on business owners with that. And uh I'm concerned about the records that we're coming up with this next summer. And I'm concerned about the elderly people who live above me. I mean, you know, heat rises and uh heat kills people. So, let's not forget the urgency of getting this bylaw passed and uh to help people in the harrowing times we have ahead. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, everyone. >> Okay. Thank you, Nicole. There are no questions. Oh, look it. We're back up. Okay, so we won't have We were just going to take a five minute recess to get our computers back up, but they are back up. So, we will carry on. Um, next up, I believe we have Ian Borsuch from Environment Hamilton and it's virtually. And Ian, are you online? Could you Okay, perfect. You know the procedure. Five minutes. you as well. Hello, council. Um, my name is Ian Borsick. I'm the executive director of Environment Hamilton. I have delegated on this topic uh a number of times and I was directed to not bring new information forward. Um, so I hope I can frame things differently for you folks that will meet that criteria. Um, previous delegate mentioned how long it's been since you unanimously directed staff to uh draft and implement this new bylaw, which is desperately needed and will only become more desperately needed as we progress into the future with climate change continuing unabated. But I think there's another risk for you guys. We are in an election where right now it really seems like to a lot of folks out in the city that the city is unaccountable. That council unanimously gave direction to city staff to do something and for ideological reasons for reasons of that have never been explained the work just wasn't done. Um there was an apology issued which I mentioned in my last uh delegate in my last delegation but again there was no explanation about why the work wasn't done that you directed to staff to do and there still isn't any explanation about why it's still taking so long for this report to come forward to you which you asked and directed staff to draft. I know from speaking to staff who actually have been doing the work that they were only assigned this a short few months ago. Considering the fact that this was approved by you in 2023, I think this is completely unacceptable. The reason why we have low voter turnout, the reason why people only focus on what am I paying in taxes and not what the city can do for me is because there's been an absolute failure in ensuring that there is a follow through on doing what you said you will do. When I talk to regular Hamiltonians around the city and I talk to them about things that city council is trying to get done, a major piece of feedback I hear is that it's not worth anything because city hall doesn't know how to do anything. And the few things that are able to be accomplished are just exceptions to the rule. This is I'm sorry for using inflammatory language, but this is frankly shameful and the fact that a number of you um aren't speaking out about this, aren't raising questions publicly about this with staff, um are getting pictures taken with the former staffer who just never did the work, I think is it it's shameful. And I think this absolutely needs to come to council. You need to approve it and you need to do what you promised over a thousand days ago to the city of Hamilton. What you will do to prepare for the future. Otherwise, this is only going to increase the level of apathy and cynicism that people have in the city of Hamilton with regards to any action that council can take. Take control over the employees you oversee and ensure they do the work that you have directed them to do. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. I'm not seeing any questions, so thank you for your time and your presentation today. We're going to go to Jacqueline Wilson from the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Jacqueline, I see that you're virtually. Could you come on? Thank you. And you may begin. You have five minutes. >> Thank you very much. My name is Jacqueline Wilson. I'm a lawyer at the Canadian Environmental Law Association. I'm here to echo the disappointment and concern that's been raised about another delay with coming forward with a report and a bylaw to set maximum temperatures in tenant homes. We strongly support the report being brought forward to council on October 7th and we ask that it's posted publicly this week to allow for written comments by the public on its contents. As you've heard, we cannot wait for another council session. We need to pass a maximum bylaw this council session. I think it's quite telling that so many people came to delegate to make sure it's understood by the planning committee, by Hamilton Council, how much support there is for this bylaw and how important it is to tenants that it is passed. Every delay in bringing forward this report and the bylaw itself has a real cost in human health and risk to life. When you hear advocates talking about climate change, you often hear people say that climate change is an existential crisis. That's of course true, but I think it's more accurate to say that climate change is an existential crisis for lower inome people who are faced with climate impacts, including worsening extreme heat, which they did not cause, where they don't benefit from continued burning of fossil fuels, but it's an existential crisis because they can't pay their way out of uh the situation that they're facing. The science about the serious health risks of extreme heat um are well understood and it's indoor temperatures above 26° C, especially as heat waves drag on and especially overnight which puts people's lives at risk. It needs to be addressed in a bylaw without further delay and without the prospect of another summer passing. The most recent Canada's changing climate report was released in 2026 in September. I'd ask you to take a look at it because what it found is perhaps not news, but it's that climate change impacts have already been locked in. That the worsening heat that we're already seeing um is going to get worse. And those impacts again are locked in. Over the period of the last 50 years, Canada has warmed by 2° C. And in the near term, the annual average temperature in Canada can is expected to rise by another one degree by 2040. It's nearly twice as fast as the global average. And the report echoes what we all know, which is that part of that change is including more extreme heat. The initial motion to bring this bylaw forward to address some of these serious health risks was in 2023. After four summers have gone by, we're strongly supportive of the report and the bylaw being voted on on October 7th. And we look forward to supporting council in implementing this important health protection for tenants. Thank you. >> Thanks, Jacqueline. I'm not seeing any questions, so thank you for your delegation. At this time, I'd like to call up Amanda Amanda Dick to come on down. So, I've said it a 100 times. Amanda, you have five minutes. >> I won't I won't even need the five minutes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Hello. And thank you, Mr. chair and members of the planning committee. My name is Amanda Dick. I am the chairperson of the downtown chapter of Hamilton Acorn. I am a tenant in Ward 3 and I'm also the chair of the 103 Emerald Street Tenants Union. I need my glasses. I'd like to start by saying that I appreciate the effort to bring back the Max Heat bylaw to city council on October 7th. rather than during the planning committee meeting on December 1st. There have already been too many delays. Passing the max heat bylaw before the end of this term shows Hamilton tenants that their city council supports them and follows through on their commitments to keep them safe. I acknowledge the challenges of creating a bylaw that is the first of its kind in Ontario. Creating anything that's worthwhile takes time. However, this is also an opportunity for Hamilton to remain on the forefront of public health policy and to continue as trailblazers in tenant protections. This isn't the first first of its kind. Hamilton created the very first anti-run eviction bylaw to keep tenants in their homes. On October 7th, you will have the opportunity to keep them safe in those same homes by voting for a robust max heat bylaw. However, I am concerned about the timing or with how the timing of this report could impact public feedback. The cut off for registering written delegations for the October 7th council meeting is on noon the day before. Repeated past delays have created uncertainty about whether the report will be ready by that deadline. It's important that the public and community stakeholders have access to that report so we can raise any concerns in our delegations. I am asking that the report is available well in advance of the deadline to register on October the 6th. Lastly, I'm asking for your support next week. City council unanimous unanimously voted in favor of this bylaw back in 2023 and the need to protect tenants from dangerous heat is now greater than ever. We can't afford further delays. We can't wait for a new term and a new council. It's time to finish the work that you started three years ago. Council can use the end of this term to create a new beginning where extreme heat no longer prevents tenants from being safe, healthy, and happy in their homes. Thank you so much for your time. >> Thanks, Amanda. >> Thank you. thanks for acknowledging the time and um that it takes to prepare for robust um legislature that comes forward and then also just wanted to thank you for the um comments about having that report available for people. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh next on the list is Carl Andrews. I'd like to call Carl down to the podium. Is Carl here? Is he online? >> Okay. Not seeing Carl. So, at this time, I'd just like to say that um Delegate Seth Floyd and Pastor Curtis withdrew their delegations today. So, that's for the record. And we will move on to 6.4. This is delegations respecting follow-up review of fortification bylaw 10122 citywide item 9.6. So first up I think we have Vic Passelon and Vic are you online? >> Yes I am online. >> Okay Vic you have five minutes and it's yours. >> Thank you. Uh good morning chair and members of the committee. My name is Vic Pelant and I am a resident of Hamilton's W 2. At the planning committee meeting on September 1st, I spoke as an individual resident. I returned today as the director of the Hamilton Privacy Alliance, a new coalition of Hamiltonians comprised of tenants, homeowners, parents, and people who work in law and technology. Many of us own cameras and we are not opposed to them. We are asking for clear rules on how they are used set by a government that residents can hold accountable. Although I continue to acknowledge the rationale put forward by city staff, this does not override Hamiltonian's charter right to liberty, which the Supreme Court has increasingly ruled as including an individual's right to reasonable privacy. Council has already been asked by the Ontario Privacy Comm Commissioner to retain the bylaw as removing it would infringe on the privacy of passers by and neighbors. This means council has a responsibility to update and amend this bylaw or create an alternative that reflects modern technologies and considerations, not to simply get rid of it. What we are concerned about is the direction of the technology. Cameras sold today can track movement, zoom in on windows, record audio, and identify faces. Companies and police services are also working to link private cameras into shared networks. Thus, a resident who installs a doorbell camera may not know what their footage will be used for, and a neighbor who is being watched has no say in the matter. The rules Hamilton sets now need to account for that. This bylaw is also one of the few places where a resident can bring a privacy concern to their own city and receive a response. Removing it without a replacement tells residents that their concerns belong somewhere else. Consequently, we are asking the committee to keep that channel open and make it work. We are asking for five steps, each within the committee's authority. First, use the information and recommendations the Hamilton Privacy Alliance has gathered as the basis for a replacement motion. Our proposal refers the bylaw back to staff and legal services with clear direction. Ordinary devices such as doorbell cameras and fixed cameras that only incidentally capture a sidewalk would be permitted. Regulation would instead target devices and placements designed to intrude. pan, tilt, zoom tracking, continuous audio, facial recognition, thermal imaging, and cameras mounted above fence height or aimed at a neighbor's windows or backyard. Second, set a deadline. Direct staff to report back within a fixed number of meetings so the work does not remain open-ended. Third, launch the guidance page that staff have already proposed. The report lists what it would cover. Speaking with a neighbor, community mediation, independent legal advice, and when to contact the police. Residents should have that now rather than after a bylaw is drafted. Fourth, consult before drafting. Table one of the staff report shows that Brford, Burlington, and Ashawa exempt typical security cameras and that Missaga amended its wording to make prosecution easier. Municipalities are taking different approaches. Hamilton should hear from tenants, neighborhood groups, privacy experts, and the residents who filed complaints, and then choose deliberately. Fifth, direct staff to scope a standalone surveillance technology framework. It would begin with education, guidance on installation, masking, audio settings, and signage, followed by a self- assessment tool, and mediation. Technical privacy assessments would follow for disputes that remain unresolved. compliance orders would come last and only where intrusive surveillance is substantiated. The framework should also require a warrant or judicial authorization before municipal officers or police access stored private footage. If the city builds a system that draws on residents cameras, it should set the terms for how that footage is accessed. This approach responds directly to the concerns in the staff report. Enforcement becomes narrower because it applies to defined capabilities and conduct rather than to field of view. Likewise, legal exposure is reduced because the rules target intrusion rather than recording itself. Finally, residents retain a local process that starts with a conversation rather than in court. We are ready to work with you and with staff. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Okay. Thanks, Vic. Are there any questions? Councelor Wang, >> thanks for your delegation, Vic. Uh phew, that's a lot of stuff. It's also super technical in nature. It's also uh strikes me that there is a lot of um jurisdictions that you're trying to get in in this one five minute delegation. So I wonder, have you sent this information to clerks for us for clerks to disseminate to council at all? Um, so we did try to submit it through the delegation process and then also try to send it to counselors. Yes. >> So I wonder if you could just do it um just send it through clerks at hamilton.ca. Ask them to disseminate it all to all council because I don't know if all council got got this very lengthy and detailed uh report that you have just laid out. Um, my concern is that it's a lot of stuff for the building department to be ontaking. So, I'm uh I'd like some opportunity to regroup with staff at some point um to potentially look at this at another it's it's a lot. Um so, if you could just forward that information directly to staff, that would be great. I'm also worried that this is getting into a bit of um unknown territory. uh when we talk about privacy, there's a reason why other municipalities haven't really touched this. So, I am very happy to continue working with you and your um privacy alliance on figuring out what's the best way forward and just wanted to make sure that we all were on the same page that I think that this is not something to be ignored. I think that we do need to find a good way to do do that. So, so I want to say thank you, Vic, for your delegation today, and I look forward to the other delegates that will be speaking on this matter. Thank you. >> And and councelor Wang, I've been um I'm aware that that draft motion is going to come to clerks and it will stay with clerks and then be disseminated to us at a later time, but it the draft is not in front of us at committee today. And I just want to make that clear to the public. >> Perfect. Yeah, I think that that's just it's it's meant to be information, I think. Um, but I think if I can ask Vic to forward that directly to clerks so then that way it goes through the proper channels and so that way we have that transparency. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council W. Thank you. >> Um, Councelor Wilson has some questions. >> Um, thank you, Vic. I certainly really appreciate all the detailed work and look forward to when I can kind of get some of those recommendations in writing, going through them myself. Um, but one of the things I think you spoke of just really I wasn't expecting to hear and I'm just looking to make sure I heard you correctly. um because I thought it was a really interesting idea or kind of conversation to explore. Um I think we've heard about flock and we've heard about some of the dangers of kind of access to a system um when it's privatized or in the private sector. Um but you've also kind of talked about the trend is connecting these cameras together. Um and there may or may not be a benefit or a concern with that in any given neighborhood or community. Uh I heard from you a recommendation that um as standards and are evolving, as laws are evolving and as jurisdiction between maybe the province and cities is getting clarified, uh the city actually walking into the space offering a network um with our own rules um for the linking or for the sharing um of that might be a way to through that is rather than relying on a private company that has to follow kind of laws from a different jurisdiction as if we had our own system and our own regulations um that folks were part participating in. Did I hear you right? I just I wasn't necessarily sure and given the technology is kind of new, I just want to make sure I'm understanding what you're what you're proposing clearly. >> Yeah, thank you so much for for raising that question. Um, so I do think that um drafting a municipal bylaw that regulates this technology, there is room for considering worked technologies within it. Um I think the uh body of my delegation was focusing on the devices themselves and the technical capabilities of those devices. But I definitely think there is room to fit in um regulations uh forked devices themselves at the municipal level. Um and also cloud-based storage is an issue that I think should be looked at very carefully as well. um because uh it does offer more capabilities for access versus local storage like local storage on the device itself. >> Thank you. And just to clarify, are you thinking that the city are you suggesting that the city would be effective as like a service provider and a regulator or just a reg? I'm just trying to understand the role in which you're seeing municipal government because I heard um regulation throughout that makes sense. That's the traditional role but sometimes also you know we have crown corporations. I'm just trying to understand if that's what you were also talking about was do you see there's a role for service provision in addition to regulation or is this predominantly focused on regulation? >> Yeah, the uh this was predominantly focused on regulation. I don't think we've considered um the city being a service provider. Um but I don't think at this point in time we're necessarily negating the idea. Um just it hasn't been considered in in this um proposal. >> No, thank you so much. I really I just I heard I wasn't clear when I heard your delegation. I appreciate getting that clarity and again when the recommendations come out in writing. I'm sure it'll be so much more easy to kind of follow that. So, thank you for all the time and effort that's been put into working with uh community members to put those together. Thank you. >> Thanks, Councelor Ray Wilson. We're going to go to second vice chair w 15 counselor Ted McMegan. >> Thanks very much, Chair and uh Vic. thanks for your presentation is very thorough and uh thoughtprovoking. Um I appreciated your reference to uh the importance of education and uh as I listen to you and I reflect on what I hear in my uh in my belly wick the ward I'm privileged to represent uh there there are are two predominant issues privacy on the one side and protection on the other. We're in a community where fairly wealthy community where there are lots of very expensive vehicles that are being stolen routinely and it's uh the one crime area that seems to be on the rise. Uh and so they've got cameras focused on driveways and the adjacent sidewalks. Have you struggled with that as a group around uh and and tied to that uh any kind of review of existing jurisdictional uh and and uh and legal um um definitions around privacy and uh and enforcement? Those those would be my questions. >> Yes. In drafting this proposal, um we did struggle with how what exactly should be regulated and what the focus of regulation should be. Right now it's based on um placement and um perception like the the camera view. um we are more concerned about the actual capabilities of the technologies themselves. So whether those are AI assisted um or they use facial recognition um that is our concern is is what kinds of uh capacities do these technologies have for one um and sorry what was your your follow-up question to that? >> Well, it's around protection. You mentioned facial recognition. I I have heard from some u uh law officers that uh that some of the videos that are produced in response to a a crime committed don't don't don't include enough uh enough ability to identify who who the car theft or vehicle theft theft person is. So, you know, it was around trying to balance the the need for uh legitimate personal um protection uh and the privacy of the uh of the broader public, I guess, is where where you're heading from or heading to. >> Yes. Um we in our proposal, we acknowledge that we're not opposed to cameras. Um we understand that they can be used uh to safeguard property. Um I think what we are concerned with especially when you speak of something like facial recognition and its use of that technology by law enforcement is that these technologies are not proven to be 100% accurate. Um so they can make mistakes. There have been, you know, um, cases of individuals being identified, misidentified by these technologies and imprisoned until such time that their name could be cleared. Um, so there are significant issues with the technology where it's not foolproof and it shouldn't be applied on a broad scale. We're asking for regulation to v focus on a very specific set of issues which includes some of these capabilities and also whether or not that camera is aimed intrusively at another person's private property. So whether that be a neighbor's windows or backyard, that's a very specific scope that doesn't include all of these other cases. >> Yeah, thank you. I'm with you entirely on the intrusive and abusive use of any technology to spy in somebody's uh life. Um, and I want to just be clear, I wasn't uh I wasn't advocating any particular technology or facial facial recognition. Just it was a generic generic question. Thanks. That's it. Chair. >> Well, thank you. Thank you very much. And Vic, thank you. There's no more questions. And at this time, I'm sorry to announce that we are no longer live streaming and we're going to have to take a >> Well, we are going down. We're going up. We're back. So, just remove all thoughts of what I just said and we're going to move on to Jared Allen. Allan Zoler Zner, are you here? Jared getting good answers. >> Just gonna say you're okay if you don't start answering. >> So Jared, welcome to the podium and you may begin. You'll have five minutes once you start. If you want to raise it up, there's a little button there or you can just pull that up. All righty. just get my information. Apologies. I thought this was previously pulled up. All righty. Thank you to members of the planning committee for being here to listen to my delegation. I am here talking about the bylaw 10122 in conjunction with the Hamilton Privacy Alliance. I've spoken in here uh in front of this community and our counselor several times over the last eight months about various concerns I have for the privacy of the people of Hamilton and myself and I would like to continue to do so here today. Bylaw 10122 has found itself being far more important than the nuisance neighbor bylaw that that it originated as. as I'm sure it was originally defined to protect Hamilton residents from electronic peeping toms. Staff have supposed that it has been ineffectual in its job doing so and as another of our delegates has stated has failed to provide proof of this. However, I think now more than ever we all have a nuisance neighbor that none of us want peeping on us. ALPRs are automated license plate readers by the name. However, committees such as Flock and many other various copycat companies have baked in a lot more functionality into these devices than just reading numbers on a license plate. These cameras can note stick family stickers on the windows, make notation of rust spots, make a database of facial data through the windshield, and a million other data points to identify people with readily accessible information on public facing web. Furthermore, this these devices have been time and time again found to have s severe security flaws and vulnerabilities which have allowed people not authorized to use the them to track people across whole networks of ALPR camera readers. In a world more and more controlled by data and the lucrative business of hacking, bypassing and breaking digital locks has been booming. The city found itself at the end of one such in February 2024 and that was with security systems that were at least monitored by people. Every movement, sorry. Imagine the damage someone could do to you or your neighbors with a fleet of cameras able to track every movement. Able to freely access on the open web. little to no security. These are the issues that committees in the states with the AOPR cameras are facing wretched people deciding that it is their right to be a digital peeping tom on unsuspecting victims. One claim I've heard is that the bylaw does not stop the city from deploying the these cameras. So I should so I shouldn't worry. And while I am concerned about the city deploying these cameras, Flock and other ALPR cameras companies are not licensed to work with just city vendors. They will and have sold to any company or private consumer a number of times. And rightfully, I think that terrifies me to think that any number of businesses could be tracking any of us at any time, any day of the week. Counselors, if this bylaw gets repealed and these cameras were placed in your neighbors, what is to stop me or any other miscreant from finding your home address, watching your children and grandchildren know when they're home or when the house is empty? It's terrifying, isn't it? This law needs to change, but I don't think it needs to become less restrictive. I think it needs to be updated to the modern times. This law was put in place in 2010 when video cameras did little better than render blurry spots onto home network computers. Not only has camera technology and price massive uh drastically changed in the last 15 years, but what happened to that data has also skyrocketed with massive possibilities. 2010 I was 12 years old. I wish I had the back of a 12-year-old now, and I'm 28. I'm a little older, maybe a little smarter. The city, I think, could use a little bit of an update after 16 years as well. But a repeal or loosening of the restrictions is not safe for our community or our children. To that end, I would suggest to a type of amendment to the bylaw. I won't pretend to be very ligious, so I apologize if my ideas may be less than researched. However, I believe adding an addendum to the bylaw specifying limitations for use of AI capable cameras on private property at the minimum, keeping any of these types of cameras from being able to see outside the property while releasing the limit of non-computer enhanced cameras. Thank you. Good timing. Thank you, Jared. >> I cut it off. >> Okay, perfect. Um, there's no questions, so thank you for your delegation today. >> Thank you so much. >> Okay, we're looking for Nikita Desai. Nikita, are you in here? >> Oh, it's not here. Okay, so thank you for verifying that. So, we'll go to Hi, Mario. Oh yeah, >> just ignore that. We'll go to Bill Duny. Bill, are you here today? Hi, Bill. So, Bill, thanks for coming down. You have five minutes. We'll begin that time when you begin. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I have to say this is a rather incredible moment for me personally. It has been 53 years since I last addressed a city council meeting. >> Thank you. The reason for the that gap is I became a journalist and as a journalist I chose a different role and a different way of influencing our life. 10 years ago I retired and turned my back on the real world and have spent the last 10 years writing comedy and doing improv and my soul is much the better for it. But then I saw this report. I want to thank staff for producing a report on a bylaw that crystallized the real privacy concerns that are being ignored. We are here today as the Hamilton Privacy Alliance. Because of this, you have created us and we are going to be around and helping this community protect its privacy. Excuse me. It's been a long time. We proposed and uh the legislative clerk quite correctly said that the motion that was prepared, the draft motion um was not an appropriate form for distribution. So the for those of you who don't know the details of what we are proposing, we did try to provide it. We sent it to the clerk and they said it's not the right format. I have copies here if anyone wants to see the wrong format. But the point of it was this is not terribly complicated. We haven't seen the secret legal brief that your department prepared. But in less than a week, I was able to produce a 10-page draft that identified numerous authorities that exist for the city to take action. And it's rather astonishing that those are not contained in the public report. As a writer, I recognize persuasive writing when I see it. This report was not truly providing council with the information it needs to address this critical issue. the draft motion that we provided which offers a privacy framework, simple technical solutions removing a lot of the concerns about the territory we're asking you to venture into. That was produced by amateurs in the space of a couple of days. Every delegation, every delegation to this committee today, everyone is citing delay. That should tell us something. I'll distribute the motion in paper. I'll answer questions about the details. Council has real options. Privacy. You will not find another issue that unites this city so clearly as the protection of personal privacy. You remove your ability to regulate that in the municipal space and you are saying only the rich get privacy. This is not the Hamilton you want. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will answer questions and I apologize for the odd emotion that's appeared in my voice. It has been too long. I'll get better. >> Thank you, Bill. Bill, no one is asking questions at this time, so I'm thinking they're waiting for the report to and maybe they will contact you at a different time. So, thank you. >> Thank you very much. So those end the delegations from the about the Hamilton privacy uh issues. So at this time I'm just going to go back and call upon Bianca and Bianca have you come into the gallery? Okay. Not seeing that she has. May I have a mover and seconder to receive the delegations? Councelor Kretch and Councelor A. Wilson, please indicate with a show of hands now. All in favor? Oh, sorry, Councelor Cretch. Sorry, I did forget about you. Thank you. It's okay. Thanks very much for giving me a second here. I want to ask a couple of questions of staff with respect to the delegations that were presented on the maximum heat bylaw. Two things came up and then I'll have a brief comment. When will the report be out for public consumption in advance of the city council meeting? October the 7th. >> Uh through the chair to the council. Um you're referring to the adequate temperature bylaw report. Um staff are putting the final touches on it as we speak and we'll be working with clerks to uh get that out as soon as possible before Friday. >> Okay. Thank you. Maybe that's helpful. I think it is worth asking the question about the delay. So, you have a chance to respond to that because this is now at least the third time publicly and more times privately where promises were made around when this report would come forward. So, I guess it's important and we don't need history back to the beginning, but perhaps even just why is this happened now and can you guarantee it will be ready and presented at council on October 7th? Uh through the chair as acting general manager. Um I'm relatively new to this, but uh have been brought up to speed relatively quickly. Um, and I can commit that the report will be ready for council meeting. And I want to just take take the opportunity to say that the city really recognized the importance of moving this work forward. Uh, it's it's really important work. Um, the proposed bylaw would be the first of its kind in Ontario. Um, and it is important that it receives thorough review and we we've done that. Um, and look forward to the pending discussion at council. >> Thank you for your answer. Uh just a few comments for me. When this was passed in 2023, it was a pretty important moment. I represent a ward with nearly 80% of people who rent their homes. I always say that and I want to pause after I say it and I'll say it a second time for people who are new to it. 80% nearly has a massive impact on the people who live downtown in the densest part of our city and who are most impacted by these issues. And I didn't expect that we'd be here 3 years later. That's for sure. This follows on a similar situation that happened with the renovictions bylaw where previous direction was given to the renovations bylaw come forward and it didn't. The rental housing housing licensing bylaw was instructed to come forward on a certain timeline then didn't. It pains me to say this. Every single one of these things impacted renters. So for me going forward, I hope the next council continues to focus on improving things for renters because we know disproportionately the rules that are set up to establish municipalities. The rules that are set up to establish our bylaws and the literal foundation of everything we do here is not set up for those who don't own property. That's just the history of the place we live. And if people don't know that, take it in your heart. It's the truth. So, we have to work extra hard to ensure those who are disproportionately impacted by the systems we've set up have some outcome of fairness and their health and safety is protected. I'm committed to coming here on October 7th, whether the reports here or not, and passing the bylaw myself if I have to write it myself. Uh because this is something this council prioritized unanimously and it's going to happen before the end of this term. On that note, thank you. Thank you. And and just for clarification, you'd be out of order if you tried to write it yourself. >> There we go. Um we're going to go to councelor A. Wilson at this time. >> Uh thank you through you, Chair. Just a a comment and a bit of a reflection from me. I think one of the things I heard from uh the delegate Nicole specifically, but lots of the delegates is the impact of wanting to engage in our city. Um I think the line that really stuck with me was I wanted to be hopeful. I wanted to be positive. I wanted to say thank you for doing the right thing. Um, someone didn't want to complain. They didn't want to yell. That's not how they wanted to engage in their city and oh my goodness, all of us seeking election and doing that work. Isn't it nice when someone says, "I didn't want to be mad. I didn't want to be frustrated. I wanted to find a way to work with you." And then not being able to meet folks at that opportunity um really does um have an impact on trust and confidence and that was spoken about. Um I also think though reflecting on this term of council and uh reflecting on how extreme heat has shown up whether it's been in a public health context whether it's been at the climate change council whether it's been in building whether it's been in bylaw um I think what I'm reflecting on is the real importance of term of council priorities and the fact that even though I would say extreme heat uh is directly related to being a livable community priority number two um and sustainable um development priority number one of this term of council. Um there hasn't actually been a multiddisiplinary ability to prioritize getting folks access to cooling. Um so this came up at the climate change and this isn't I think about any naming and shaming. I think it's meant as what is the point of priorities if we're not able to think about them and take them on in all of our work. uh the climate change committee, there was a comment brought up by um a members asking, "Well, if we're going to be helping folks uh retrofit their homes, why aren't we prioritizing homes that don't have access to cooling?" So, we can make sure that we're adding cooling and energy efficiency to those homes, an equity consideration and a climate consideration at the same time. Um when we've talked about our extreme heat response in the um summer, there's continued issues there. And I think we've had to have motions at public health about bus passes. I'm really hoping that as the next term of council sits around its priorities and thinks about how does a livable community get realized, there can be work um done not just at these high value priorities, but we can think about extreme heat in all of our work plans and disciplines and move it forward. Um my frustration with this file is individual departments get to be accountable to an individual piece of the pie for a specific moment in time or a specific staffer gets it. We're all accountable to the fact that our city's too hot on this front bench and in this in this horseshoe. But the way we divide the work allows us to not feel that accountability um and have it be kind of siloed over here, siloed over there. And I think part of that change needs to be all of us thinking that whether it's in our work plans, what are we doing for extreme heat? Whether it's us as deliberation, we're thinking about it because we've heard today the impacts of when we promise something to folks and we don't deliver. when we say we want to engage on a priority and then we don't engage, um it just leaves people further behind and disappointed. And I think that's a real gap in our collective accountability of saying this is a problem and we're all going to take it on. It's not just one department's job. Like we should all we should all be checking in on this work as counselors. We should all be checking in on this work as SLT members because it's a priority. Thank you. >> Thank you, counselor, for your eloquent passion and expressions there. We're going to go to second vice chair councelor Ted McMan. >> Thanks. Thanks chair. And I don't pretend to be as eloquent as my Dundas colleague whose comments I appreciate. Uh stats can Canada indicates that the growth of residential households from uh 2011 to 2021 is up 21.5%. It's an interesting stat particularly given that rental properties pay higher taxes than uh us non nonowner ownership properties. I think if renters could ever get their act together they could have a lot of uh a lot of p lot of power. That's something I'm sure councelor Cretch is now now if he hasn't already thought of it is now thinking about. Um, I I I just want to follow up on councelor Cretch's question because I don't think he got an answer. And uh I think when somebody said to me the other day, when they don't expect perfection, but when council messes up, they should fess up. Mess up. Fess up. Something mom used to say as well sometimes. I I didn't I didn't hear an answer as to why. what caused what has caused may and no I'm not nobody may be directly responsible but we're we're all accountable uh can we get an answer to that why what why hasn't this happened not only in this but the other two instances uh with regards to renters that have been flagged this morning specifically what is there a jurisdictional problem is it uh are we getting uh advocacy from the province or or what's what's holding this up. >> Okay, thanks for that question. We'll uh turn it over to the bench and let's hear >> uh through the chairs. Dan Smith, director of licensing and bylaw service. So, I'll um I'll jump in on that portion. So, what I'll speak to specifically is the last couple um of delays that we've seen. the one in the summer or late summer or sorry early summer and then the one that we just saw now. Um the one in the late summer we had uh prepared a report uh and just before the report was to be published publicly on the agenda. The provincial government made um pass some new legislation related to the ability for uh renters to put in their own air conditioning. We needed to take time um because of the timing of that legislation passing to assess if there was an impact to the uh work that we had done and were prepared to bring forward. Um we did have the Obl item placed on the agenda. It was discussed uh at committee. Um we had asked for the extra time and that's what uh we have been doing for the last few months is to assess what that legislation change means to our program. Um there was a lot of work involved with that. There were a lot of checks and balances that needed needed to take place. We continued that work literally right up until Thursday of last week. um where we felt at that point that it was uh we we weren't prepared to have every single appendices prepared in advance for people to take the time to review the information properly before it was placed on the council agenda. Uh at that time a decision was made to move the report based on timing uh so that appropriate review of our proposal and recommendations could be done. Just in the last few days even yesterday uh we were able to confirm that the work that we were uh waiting on and continuing to do would be complete this week. Uh and we do intend and uh commit to having that prepared as the uh acting general manager mentioned um ready for public review prior to Friday. So thank thanks for that and chair chair through you. I did I asked the question not to point fingers but to to try to sort out direction and I and I suspected there might have been some jurisdictional um interventions there and you've articulated that that was in fact the case. So, so I I appreciate hearing that and u that being acknowledged publicly because people need to know that as well. So, thank thanks for your your response. Thanks, Councelor McMe and I'm always reminded of your wisdom when you say things like complex problems don't have simple solutions. So, that's taken in regard as we move forward. Um I think we need to vote. We did have it forwarded and um or we we have the mover in the second or so. Show of hands in favor of delegations. Thank you. That's carried. We are moving to item seven. So we have items we have 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. Are there any questions on any of the following reports? 7.1 active official plan amendment zoning bylaw amendment and planning of subdivision applications. Going once, going twice, not seeing any. 7.2 annual report on building permit fees. I'm seeing unanimous shaking of heads. No. 7.3 appeal of draft plan of subdivision zoning bylaw amendments. Thank you. And then 7.4 Agriculture and Rural Affairs Subcommittee minutes of September 23rd, 2026. Not seeing any comments there. So, may I have a mover and second to receive the items for information? Councelor A. Wilson, Councelor Ted McMe, please indicate your vote by show of hands. And that's all in favor. That's carried. We are now on to public hearings. The public has been advised how to pre-register to be a delegate at the public meetings on today's agenda. If a specified person or public body would otherwise have an ability to appeal the decision of council, city of Hamilton to the interior land tribunal, but the specified person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the city of Hamilton before the bylaws passed, the specified person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision. If a specified person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the city of Hamilton before the bylaw is passed, the specified person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario land tribunal unless in the opinion of the tribunal there are reasonable grounds to do so. We are going to 8.1 PEED26173 application for a draft plan of subdivision for lands located at 509 South Coat Road, Ancaster. That's in Ward 12. Does the committee wish to hear the staff presentation? And yes, we do. So, thank you. So, that's Daniel Barnett is available to present. So, Daniel, when you're ready, we await. Um, good morning uh, chair and members of the planning committee and members of the public. Uh, my name is Daniel Barnett. I'm the planner for this application. U, the application is for a draft plan of subdivision for the lands located at 509 South Coat Road in Ancaster. Uh the subject land is located on the east side of South Coat Road and is located north of Gardener uh road east and the subject lands are approximately 1.07 hectares in area. Um the surrounding area includes uh single detached dwellings to the north. um single detached buildings and town houses to the east, uh commercial uses and uh vacant lands to the south, and then also vacant lands and a cemetery to the west. Uh and the subject property is currently used for a single detached uh dwelling. Just take a a few quick photo tour. Um starting from the the top left. Um this is a photo of the subject lands seen from South Coat Road looking east. Um top right is the existing single detach wellings immediately to the north of the subject property. Uh bottom left is the uh is a photo of the vacant lands to the immediate to the south. And then the uh bottom uh right is an existing photo is a photo of the existing houses and um the frontage that the property has on Morland uh Crescent. This is seen from Morland looking south. So this the proposal is for a development of 59 townhouse dwelling units uh which front onto and are accessed from a proposed uh future condominium road. Uh the proposed development will include 118 resident parking spaces and 16 visitor parking spaces. Uh the proposed uh condominium condominium road will include vehicular access to South Coat Road uh as well as pedestrian access to South Coat Road, but also pedestrian uh only access to Morland Crescent. Uh so the proposed um this is an the elevations of the proposed development uh with the the the top uh elevation is for the front uh the the two in the middle are the side elevations and the one at the bottom is the rear elevation. And this is uh there's different blocks but this is just one example of one of the blocks. Uh, so this is a 3D rendering of the proposed development looking northeast and a 3D rendering of the proposed development looking north. Uh the subject lands are zoned multiple residential M uh RM27-718 in the town of Ancaster zoning bylaw 8757 which permits townhouse dwellings which front onto a common element condominium road. Uh the RM2718 zone was established by the Ontario Land Tribunal uh through a settlement which was approved by the Ontario uh land tribunal in January of 2025. Uh the proposed draft plan of subdivision will facilitate the future condominium uh common element uh application and allow the creation of individual parcels uh of the land uh of lands for the townhouse dwelling units uh which will have tied interest into that condo road. uh notices of complete application uh were sent were circulated to property owners within 240 mters of the subject land and a note a public notice sign was posted on the subject on the property. Uh three written correspondents were received with respect to the subject uh application. Uh the concerns raised included uh loss of green space, loss of mature trees, loss of wildlife habitat, noise impacts, traffic impacts, privacy impacts, storm water impacts uh a dispute with respect to potential uh property boundaries and then uh request for additional studies to be undertaken. Uh in ter terms of these concerns in respect to the concern about loss of green space uh staff note that the lands are privately owned uh property and do not form any a public park uh nor a public amenity area uh which would provide shared green space. Uh however and through the conditions of draft plan a subdivision the applicant will be required to provide one for one to one compensation for loss of mature trees and we required to provide a landscape plan uh for the proposed development. uh in terms of the loss of concern mature trees as just as noted uh that was that issue was going to be dealt with uh through in the notice of settlement uh for the Ontario Land Tribunal minutes of settlement um would be dealt with at the site plan stage. Um however at this time a tree protection plan has not yet been finalized. Uh so there will be a condition uh in the draft plan of subdivision that they undertake that. Uh in respect to the concern about loss of wildlife habitat, staff note that while uh trees do provide uh wildlife habitat, the subject uh lands are not located within any natural air uh heritage core area or linkage. Uh in respect to the concern about noise impacts, staff note that this is proposal is for a residential development uh which are not generally a substantive generator of noise. Uh, additionally based on the orientation of the the development um the kind of more noisier aspect of the front yard front uh portions of the um um the front yards of the individual town houses are facing internally and the rear yards are but the adjacent properties. Um uh in respect to traffic impact staff note that a traffic impact study was previously undertaken uh for the uh the previous applications for official plan amendment and zoning by amendment uh and the study was approved by city staff. Um the development is therefore uh not anticipated to result in adverse traffic impacts. Uh in respect to the concern about privacy impacts, uh staff note that based on the orientation of the uh the development, um the the majority of the buildings will be 7 and 1/2 mters, it will be three stories in height and 7 and 1/2 mters away from the adjacent lands. Uh so there is not anticipated to be a privacy impact on the adjacent residents. Uh respect to storm water impacts um they will be required as conditions of draft plan approval to uh control uh storm water runoff and ensure that it's directed to um self-contained and directed to a suitable outlet. uh in in respect to the concern about the property boundary uh issues. Uh a survey was provided with the application which did show kind of where the existing fencing is. Uh and in many cases it's along the property shared property line but in other cases the fencing is either uh partially on the subject property or partially on the um the adjacent property. And then in terms of the require request for additional studies um as previously mentioned there's that an environmental it's subject property is not located within any core area or linkage and so therefore um specific stud sorry the specific studies they mentioned was an environmental study a hydrog study and a geotechnical study um and the hydrog the environmental study was not required because it's not in a core area or linkage uh and they did not require a hydrogeeological study or geotechnical study however they will need to provide hydro geological data that's part of their functional servicing report and storm water management report. Uh and those will be taken required as a condition of sub draft plan of subdivision. In conclusion, staff are recommending that the proposed draft plan of subdivision be approved subject to special to to special conditions as a draft plan of subdivision is consistent with the provincial planning uh statement 2024 complies to the urban Hamilton official plan and the Medallands neighborhood uh 3 secondary plan and is compatible with the existing land uses and represents good planning. Uh that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thanks Daniel. Um questions from councelor Casar. Thank you chair and through you. Thank you Daniel for the presentation. U it won't be the first time the public has heard this address as you alluded to. Uh it has been before us for decisions and at the OOLT. So just one question. Could you just break down the steps that have occurred on this file in the past? So I think the ZBA OPA the site plan and then today what's what's decided in those previous steps and what's being decided today just for those that don't understand or are familiar or not familiar with the planning process so there's clarity on what actually is being decided. >> Uh so the the first applications were for the official plan amendment and zoning by amendment um and those were uh previously heard by council. I don't ex the exact date off the top of my head but it's a couple a couple years ago. Uh and then that was appealed uh ultimately to the Ontario Land Tribunal and um the decision was made by the inter through a settlement between the city and the the the applicant to settle that application um subject to certain uh conditions and specifically in terms of minutes of settlements saying that we'll do this this and this and that was approved in January of 2025. After that they applied for their site plan application which um they then appealed because they didn't agree to certain conditions. Uh that is I believe still not yet resolved. Um uh so that's still kind of pending in terms of that being finalized. Uh and then they also and then earlier this uh couple months ago they applied for their official plan so their draft plan of subdivision uh to move that forward which will then facilitate in the coming forward in the future a a draft plan a condo application. So there will be another application after that uh after this basically but they need this to kind of allow them to proceed with that because they needed to be on a block of on planet subdivision. >> Thank you. So thank you for clarifying that the decisions on zoning and official plan amendments were made in the past and site plan is in progress and then can you just dive a little bit deeper into what a draft plan of subdivision is and what the purpose and outcome is. So yeah, draft plan subdivision is an application to kind of create in this case to create in this case a block which they can then parcel off um various lots for the individual townhouse units uh will be able to be freehold basically be sold sep sold independently and then they will in this case have tied interest to a condo which they would have to then come in at in a later application to establish that condo but it's ultimately about giving them tenure or allowing them to establish tenure for the individual townhouse units. Yeah, thank you. So, just in layman's terms, it's not changing uh necessarily what's permitted. Those permissions have been given. It's just an administrative step to actually produce the type of housing, the tenure as you said that will be on the property. >> Yeah. And and said it will be subject to conditions so we can make sure that they do the work that they need to do. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to have that on the public record. Uh because planning process is not simple. There are many steps and this has been before us and before the OOLT decisions have been made on what can be there that's been approved and this is a largely administrative step uh to continue that process. So I just wanted that to be uh clear for everyone. Thank you chair. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. And I'm not seeing any more questions for you Daniel. So you may have a seat. Are there any questions for staff? >> Not seeing any. Um may I have a mover and second to receive the presentation? Councelor Casar and Councelor Wang. Vote now with your show of hands. Thank you. That passes. The agent Scott Bey from Urban Solutions is available to provide a presentation. Scott, please come to the podium. Thank you. >> Good morning, committee members. My name is Scott Bey. I'm a registered professional planner with Urban Solutions here today on behalf of South Hill and Caster, Inc. for the draft plan of subdivision application at 509 South Coat Road. I have read the city staff report and I agree with their recommendations for approval and those proposed conditions. I do have a very brief presentation I would like to go through and I'll avoid uh repeating any information that you just heard from Daniel. So Daniel did a great job of covering what the where the subject lands are, its current zoning and that site plan that is in. I'll make one minor correction. um that uh appeal of those site plan conditions is resolved now. So it is moving through the process as uh you typically would uh that conditional approval is issued. Um and I just wanted to note as well that as part of this application there's a 6 m road widening dedication along South Co frontage. Um, so this just gives you a better sense of the draft plan of subdivision that we're applying for today. As you can see, it's really just made up of two blocks. One block representing that 6 m road widening dedication and then the other block representing the balance of the subject property. Um, as Daniel alluded to, the intention of this draft plan of subdivision application is really technical in nature. Just trying to secure that ultimate tenure for the site as a common element condominium. A common element condominium can't be established until there's a registered block on a plan of subdivision. So this is just sort of that intermediate step to establish that block in a plan of subdivision which then allows that future application for draft plan of condominium to go in. The site design and built form is all consistent with what was already reviewed through that previous resoning and that uh conditional site plan approval. Uh something I wanted to get on committee's radar is just one amendment to one of the uh proposed conditions of draft plan approval for this file. It's specifically special condition number four on the screen here. You can see in black the text uh showing what the condition read initially and then the blue text is just what has been added through that amended wording. We worked with city staff in advance of this meeting to agree on this wording and uh work this out. Really all it's trying to do is provide the flexibility both for the city and for the developer to either construct the multi-use trail along South Coat Road or provide that cash in lie. And that's all just around timing of the balance of that multi-use trail being added to the South Coat Road uh frontage uh from Burbridge Way down to Garner Road East because there could be a scenario where this development is moving faster than those uh broader improvements are and so it might make more sense to just provide uh a payment to the city so they have the funding to do it all uh improvements in tandem. So that is the one change from what you would have seen in your uh staff report today. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions at this time. >> And you did state that you supported staff recommendations? >> That's correct. >> And do the recommendations contain number four? >> They contain number four, but I believe it's agreed with staff. I might defer to staff to ensure that there isn't any uh administrative backend work that they need to do in this motion to make sure that that amended wording is captured. Uh so through the chair I mean I can I can uh confirm that we have worked with the applicant on that revised wording and we are okay with the the revised wording for that condition. what exact measures in terms of providing that before council? I'm not one 100% certain about that. >> Okay. Well, I'm going to go to councelor Casar while we sort that out and councelor Casar, you can begin your question. >> Yeah, it was just on that matter and would be willing if today to ask for that amendment or if it needs to be done at council uh be at the the mercy of the chair and the clerk's direction. Yeah, I think we if if the bench is okay if do you want to wait till council for that or could you make that amendment now >> through through the chair to the uh council? Yes, we are in agreement with it. We will provide clerks the revised condition appendix E. We will provide that revised appendix prior to going to council with the changes that are being requested. >> Okay. So we can pass today and then it will change or do we defer. >> Okay, we'll have the clerk clarify. >> Thank you. Through the chair. So, uh, what we would be looking for is, um, a member of council to move an amendment forward that will revise appendix E with the amendment that we, that was just on the screen. So, and then, uh, so that would be appendix E, correct? Yes. Um and then that re then staff in between uh now and council staff will revise that appendix E and that will be um available if necessary for council. >> So is when we get to the report then I'll happily move that amendment. >> Okay. Um, I'm not seeing any other questions for you, Scott. So, with show of hands, can we Let's first of all, sorry, need uh mover in a second or so. We'll go with councelor Casar and councelor Wang to receive the delegation and indicate your hand vote now. Thank you. You're received. No more questions. >> Thank you, committee. >> Thank you. So, at this time, are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? And final call. Are there any members of the public that to wish to speak to this public meeting? Not seeing any. May I have a mover and seconder that public submissions received and considered by committee and that the public meeting be closed and we're going to have a electronic vote now. Oh, >> sorry. Councelor Casar, do you have to do you want the um >> move to close the meeting as you had requested? >> Oh, sorry. You caught me off guard there. I'm okay. So, you're moving to close. Thank you. And then we'll have councelor Wang second that. And then um we're going to vote with that electronically. And my computer has gone to sleep, so I'm a thumbs up. Okay, that motion carries 9 to zero. May I have a mover and second to approve the recommendations in the report? Councelor Casar, Councelor Wang, are there any questions for the report on staff for for staff on the report? Not seeing any. Um, councelor Casar, I believe you have some amendments to bring forth. Yes, as was just discussed, uh, moved by me, seconded by councelor Moren Wilson to move an amendment to appendix E condition for to add the LM option for payment by the applicant to that condition as was up on the screen and I think staff have the language. >> Okay, thanks. So, are we voting on that amendment correctly right now? Okay, let's Is it electronic or show hands? Electronic. Okay. So, electronic vote will be up on the amendment. Okay. Okay. The amendment carries 9 to zero. May I have a mover and second to approve the recommendations and report with the amendment? And councelor Casar and we'll go councelor M. Wilson again. Please indicate your vote electronically now. That carries nine to zero. Thank you. Now we're on to 8.2 applications for an urban Hamilton official plan amendment zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications for lands located at 562 Dundas Street East in Flamro and that's W 15. Does the committee wish to hear the staff presentation? >> Yes. Okay. So that's Elena. You can come down and make the presentation. All right. So, good morning. Thanks for morning chair, planning committee, and the general public. My name is Elena Baldeser, and I'm the senior planner in the development planning section. So today the application being shown is for a official plan amendment, zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision application at the lands known as 562 Dundash Street East. The lands are circled in yellow on the screen. And just for some context, the eastern side of the property is adjacent to Karns Road, which is actually a boundary road between Dunda or the city of Burlington and Hamilton. So on the east side of Karns Road is a park and a natural heritage feature. North of the site, so north of Dundas Street east is uh single family dwellings and the property is actually located within the rural area. To the south or the rear of the site is uh the Niagara Escarment and so that's a natural heritage feature. It's identified in green on the map. And then to the west of the site is uh residential and commercial development. Specifically along Dundas Street East, the area in pink is for a district commercial use. So this is a more zoomed in view of the site. So you can see at the rear is the wood lot and scarment and natural heritage feature. This feature is to be protected as part of the application and adjacent to it will include vegetative protection zones as well. Within those areas are some wetlands to be maintained. So just a quick photo tour of the site. To the top left of this screen, uh the images of the rear natural heritage feature or wood lot. To the top right of the screen is a view of the area to be developed um looking from Karns Road towards the site. So that would be looking west. And then on the bottom left of the image is standing at the intersection of Dundas Street East and Skinner Road looking towards the site. Again at the rear you can see a large number of trees in the background. And then the last image in the bottom right is standing directly adjacent to the site at that same corner. And so this corner the proposed development will include multiple dwellings as well as some uh proposed road additional road network. So this is just a concept plan showing the or this is the draft plan of subdivision that will be approved as part of the application. So the area circled in the blue dashed line is actually the area subject to the Niagara escarment development control commission's permit area. And so prior to coming to planning committee today, a decision need to be needed to be made uh and a decision was issued on September 1st with the actual permit being issued. Sorry, September 1st with the actual permit being issued on September 17th. The draft plan of subdivision, which is the area encircled in red, is proposed to include a mixeduse medium dwelling block, and that would be adjacent to Dundash Street East. That block includes uh up to a 12story building permission. The site also includes two blocks for a six-story multiple dwelling. The rear uh identified as lands other lands owned by the applicant is to be zoned conservation/hazard land. And so that's the area where you saw the wood lot in the image. Uh the road network shown includes a collector road. the collector road, although a little hard to see, comes off of Skinner Road and that's to be uh constructed and eventually as part of the secondary plan uh go through to Skinner or Karns, but at this time that is not being proposed because the existing place of worship is not subject to this application. But the secondary plan does envision that collector road uh continuing and the rest of the site is proposed to have block town houses, street town houses, single detached dwellings and semi- detached dwellings in various forms. The uh last piece is the storm water management facility that's being proposed as part of the application and that storm water management facility is being located adjacent to the natural heritage features. So just a image of the proposed development from a conceptual phase. This proposed uh concept or 3D model does not reflect specific detailed designs. that information especially for those uh multiple dwelling blocks which you can see along Karns Road um Skinner Road there's a six-story building and along the frontage of Dundas Street would be subject to a site plan application at which point those details would be finalized. The rest of the development includes the semi- detached dwellings, single detached dwellings, street town houses and block townous. And this is looking from the intersection of Dundas Street East and Skinner Road looking east. And then this is just the reversed of this the reverse of the site. So this would be looking west. So in terms of the application, there are multiple zones that are being proposed to be implemented on the subject site to reflect the multiple different uses. So, just to give you some context, the block along Dundas Street East will be zoned a commercial and mixeduse zone, which will permit that 12story building. The block with the polka dots on it and the block with the hatch marking along uh Karn's Road sort of flanking the sides of the site are the location of the two medium density blocks, which would permit six stories. In all three of those blocks, a long-term care facility would also be permitted and added as a use. In terms of the natural heritage zoning, that's all sort of identified in gray at the rear of the site. So that would be your storm water management pond, your natural heritage feature um and your vegetation protection zones. And then the balance of the site is uh intermingled with zones to permit the block town houses, street town houses, single detached dwellings and semi- detached dwellings. There are some site specifics that are required for in the different individual zones and those reflect requirements to meet policies in terms of both the Niagara escarment uh plan as well as the city's official plan. And so those specific sites or those specific regulations are uh modifying the definition of building height, adding specific requirements for a maximum workplate landscaping and building separation along that block on Dundash Street East, as well as a minimum lot area and frontage reduction requirement. The sight specific blocks also include holding provisions and that's to address some infrastructure requirements as well as again similarly official plan and agartment policy. Those holding provisions are related to a visual impact assessment, uh functional servicing study requiring proof that services uh have been provided to the block on Karns Road, as well as a shadow study and uh confirmation that the storm water management facility has been appropriately designed prior to any development occurring adjacent to the facility itself. So in terms of the circulation to date staff have received one public comment which was included in the report as well as the responses since uh posting the notice of public meeting out the notices and posting the notice of public meeting online. I have received some additional comments. Two of those are included on the agenda and I did receive one by email just to highlight some of those additional concerns received and they're related to the fact that there's no sort of bank or grocery stores nearby. Um again, similarly to other comments, concerns about traffic and uh concerns about infrastructure and impacts on wells on Dundas Street east to the north side. So in terms of responding to some of those comments, there is a geotechnical study required and conditions related to monitoring preconstruction, during construction and post construction to address uh wells in the nearby area. A traffic impact study was submitted and approved and um shows that the proposed road network and existing road network can accommodate the development and the uh functional servicing study has been included in the draft plan conditions which would address infrastructure concerns. Overall staff is recommending approval of the official plan amendment, zoning bylaw amendment, and draft plan of subdivision because we are satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the provincial planning statement. The Niagara escarment plan complies with the general intent of the urban Hamilton official plan as well as the water down south secondary plan and among other other things represents good planning, makes efficient use of infrastructure, protects the natural heritage feature and continues to contribute to a complete community. Thank you for listening to my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thanks Elena. Councilman Beacon. >> Thanks, Chair. And uh I want to thank uh thank our planning staff for their work on this. I want to lead by saying that I think the report that I've had a chance to read and consult in at least in passing the staff is amongst the most comprehensive reports I've seen in the last three and a half years around this table. So, I I just want to put that on the table. Um, I'm particularly appreciative of the U and and we'll invite comment from from Elena that of the 109 specific conditions that have been attached to to the project. the couple questions I've had from from locals in uh sharing u uh this u development in what really constitutes the last big area within a urban center to be to be developed in Waterdown um is uh related to how we can uh functionally guarantee that those 109 conditions will be met. So through the chair, in terms of the draft plan conditions, the draft the draft plan of subdivision cannot be registered until those conditions are satisfied. In which case, those lots for development wouldn't be able to be created or uh grading or servicing wouldn't be able to be completed until such time that they've met all special conditions as well as standard conditions within the draft plan of subdivision as outlined. And those conditions have been laid out and articulated >> through the chair. That's correct. The special conditions are before you today as well as standard conditions included. >> I I want to note chair through you that the uh Naggriscarpment Commission has reviewed this and offered their concurrence with with the exception of the specific holding provisions in the southern part of the property which will need some review. through the chair. So in terms of the Niagara scarman commission, the permit that was issued was only for the draft plan of subdivision. So only for the purposes of creating the lots. There was some additional information which is reflected in the draft plan of subdivision conditions required for any grading or construction on site prior to them issuing further permits. So it's more they've they've issued it as a phased permit. So phase one was really for what's before you today and future construction or grading will be required to have additional permits approved. >> Thank you. I appreciate your drawing attention to the concern about wells and uh the geo technical report that will follow. Uh the another concern that we're hearing through you chair from uh several residents. Uh notwithstanding the fact we have four grocery stores in Waterdown. They they'd like to see one located in the the far east end. Um we don't control that though, do we? >> Through the chair, we cannot control who uh locates where in terms of commercial businesses, but there is opportunity both immediately adjacent to this site on the other side of Skinner Road as well as on the block in front of Dundas Street for commercial uses. Okay, this is where that conversation we had the other day about community benefits chair through you that might come uh potentially into effect at the secondary uh stage. Um okay. Um the the collector road was uh was raised. Uh this is a different collector road than what was uh originally proposed. Can you comment on that? So through the chair, there was always a collector road envisioned in the water down south secondary plan. The application before you just slightly moves it north and the result of that was uh because of discussions to protect the natural heritage feature that I identified at the rear, but transportation planning has reviewed and approved that relocation. >> Yeah, thank you. I should flag, by the way, chair, I have walked this site. At one point I thought it'd make a beautiful golf course, but that isn't in plan. So, so that the uh reference to lifestyle uh care options uh can can you just elaborate a little bit on that? Uh the fact that it's very much a mixed unit development and the potential for upsizing downsizing. So through the chair in terms of uh the response to a complete community staff are of the opinion that this especially this proposed draft plan of subdivision allows for um aging in place to a certain degree given that there's single family homes uh semi- detached dwellings, town houses and uh apartment units all within this one draft plan of subdivision. And so there is a range of units to accommodate both uh differences in income andor uh >> okay >> lifestyle. >> Final final question through you chair. Um some of my colleagues may have other questions. Um the the biggest single concern we I hear is the one privileged to represent this uh this area and with all the u the building that that is coming um people say they've come to Waterdown because they like the small village aspect and um but it's certainly transitioning to both that and and uh and other other lifestyles has to do with parking and the uh traffic and parking. I I think from what I've read from the the study and the comments that have been made by our transportation people, um we appear to be on on track with the the the car travel, the vehicle travel. Not so sure about the parking. Can you comment about that and any options that may be available to expand uh the provision of parking on site? >> Sure. So through the chair in terms of the parking, the applicants didn't request any modifications to the parking in terms of what's required within the zoning bylaw. So they would have to meet those requirements. Um in ter of subdivision also requires that 40% of on street parking be provided as part of a proposed application. And if the c if the counselor felt there was a need for some additional parking, there is, as I said, some of those blocks along Dundas Street and those multiple dwellings are required to go through a site plan application at which point um you could have discussions or work with the consultant to see if there's a way to add more parking uh on those sites. >> One final comment. >> Uh sorry, sir, we got to go to the next one. Councelor Wilson. >> Okay, >> put me up. put me up for a >> I will. I will. >> Thanks. Uh looking forward to hearing councelor McMin's uh further comments on this. I just have a couple of questions. Just I'm not sure I understand some of the pieces with respect to I think it was called block C in the secondary plan, but it's that first indent. Um on slide six or seven, it's just that it's the most detached kind of home. if you could just talk me through um because when I look at the zoning map, it looks like there's going to be a single detached island surrounded by um natural hazard space. And so I'm just there's obviously going to be a road or a driveway um to that one that's kind of furthest back. Could you just walk us through what's a semi what's semi- detached or understanding the built form and the road connection um because I'm not necessarily seeing it all come together. >> Yeah. So through the chair, that sort of individual semi- detached walling that you're seeing at the rear of that or in this image is is exactly that, a semi- detached walling. The road network, um I know it's a little hard to see, but the draft plan of subdivision, you can sort of see the sacs at the bottom. Uh I'm not sharing my screen. Um but there is a culde-sac at the end of that road. That would be the access for that semi- detached walling. So it is surrounded by natural heritage features but it is on a municipal road or culde-sac. >> Thank you. And the rationale for putting it I guess like further towards let's call it the back of the site or further into the forest along that kind of existing area as opposed to adjacent is because my understanding is the vegetation protection zone of the existing wood lot would not allow there to be space to kind of have that kind of in the two rows leading up to that driveway and then have the turnout. I'm just trying to understand like the spacing on the site and what were the considerations. Um because it seems like there might have been an opportunity to have slightly more of a dense site. Um but I'm wondering if there's a reason why that wasn't possible for example because I it looks like the vegetation protection zone. But I'm just trying to understand what the trade-offs were that led to this design. So through the chair in terms of the site, the majority of the natural heritage feature is at the rear. And so to your point, the vegetation protection zones follow that area or line. There are still some conditions that uh require those vegetation protection zones to be looked at and assessed as part of the draft plan of subdivision application. But for the most part, the area of that is proposed to be developed was uh at that bottom end largely created to protect the natural heritage feature to the best of our ability. >> Uh thank you. I I understand that. I don't appreciate that added clarity. I was just trying to it looked weird given that you could just tuck it in right in line. So was it going to be a bigger house? Was it going to be sold at a different price? Just trying to understand some of those design features, but it seems like it's just trying to fit things in as maybe the biggest consideration there. Um my only I think other question or two other questions. One is about the trail um at in the natural heritage lands public access. Just understanding that I'm not seeing a lot of commentary around the Bruce Trail and the Bruce side trail and what does that look like going forward? So how is that public access um going to be maintained or protected. It feels it looks like it goes along two of the property lines but may cross onto the property in that kind of natural heritage lands. So through the chair in terms of the Bruce Trail, I at this time don't have any specific information, but that would be located within the Niagara Escarpment Commission development permit area. Um, and so any further changes or any further assessments would be done as part of those. >> Thank you. I guess my question is one of the um various conditions and I appreciate councelor McMin bringing them up was that the applicant acknowledges that functionally these um lands are undevelopable and it's an agreement. Um I'm just wondering if there could be a language or maybe when the applicant comes up we can talk understand their intentions but just given that the Bruce Trail is so multi-owner um wherever it's possible to get an agreement that and public access to the Bruce Trail will be preserved um we're not going to as our property put a gate up um and say no people can't use it anymore. I'm not sure if there is a um legal agreement already on the site, but that's uh with the trail, but I think if there's not, this would be an opportunity to ensure that public access gets maintained forever. Um and so I'm just trying to understand from that community benefits perspective. Um and maybe I don't know if other staff have the answer. I think you've said you don't have the details at this time. Just wondering if maybe the applicant's the best next person to ask. It sounds like >> through the cherry. There's no additional information we have on that at this time. Um but we can look into it. >> Okay. Um, thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, Councelor Wilson. So, can I have a mover and second to receive the presentation? Councelor A. Wilson and Councelor U McMin. Thank you. Please indicate your vote now with a show of hands. And that passes. Thank you. Elena, thank you for your presentation. Is there an agent in attendance today? I see there is an agent. Sir, please identify yourself and begin with your presentation. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, staff, the public. My name is Peter Dulio, registered professional planner with Metropolitan Consulting, Inc. here on behalf of Penta Properties, now known as Elenia Group. I'm just here to say that uh we concur with staff recommendations uh for all the applications and personally like to thank uh Elena um Jennifer and Trisha for the hard work on this over the last five and a half years. Um we've been through I think four or five different planners. Elena being the last uh through the years and it's been a excellent back and forth. um with the studies, the revisions and what have you. Uh unfortunately, this it's not on the screen, but what was in Elena's presentation was not the latest draft plan. It is in the recommendation. Uh what is being recommended as the appendix, but was was in her presentation didn't reflect the latest plan, which was I think our fifth version. Um so, uh like I said, we're in support of staff recommendations. I don't have anything further. I'm here to happily answer any questions you may have on what's gone on in the last 5 and a half years. >> Okay, Peter, I'm just looking. Any comments or any questions? Councelor Wilson A. Wilson. >> Thank you. Um I generally agree. I think this is an example of good planning. Appreciate a lot of the division of the site with the natural heritage lands. Could you just let us know um what's the applicant's goal for the land? So whether that's resident access, whether that's um being close to the Bruce Trail, whether that's applying for your own tax grant via the federal government's conservation program, but just trying to understand how does that um ownership of the site, which is not being developed, link into the future plans for the site. >> Yes, truly, Mr. shared to the councelor. Uh I just when you raised the question about the Bruce Trail, it is in the area that's at the back of the property and it's going to be maintained and my client had just advised that they are in discussions with the Bruce Terrell Conservancy or association to uh potentially I guess transfer lands to them. >> Okay. Um that's really really wonderful. Appreciate the willingness to have those conversations. Um, and I think just again, uh, just from a housekeeping perspective, just trying to make sure that we're we're not losing an opportunity to protect that parkland because I'm sure future residents would also appreciate having that access. Um, I don't have any other questions at this time. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. I'm not seeing any other questions. So, Peter, thank you for being here today and you are in support as I heard. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. all recommendations for all three applications with all the conditions attached and uh just want to get going on this. >> Okay, thanks for stating that for the record. Um may I have a mover and seconder to receive the presentation? Councelor Mikin and councelor A. Wilson. Uh hand vote now. That passes. Thank you. Now we will hear from registered delegates. We have Jeff Jagger. Are you here, Jeff? I see Jeff is making his way down. Jeff, when you get down here, you have five minutes from the time you begin. And then we'll see if there's any questions for you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Good morning, chair, uh, and members of the committee. My name is Jeff Jagger. I'm resident Waterdown. Uh, also a W 15 candidate. Um, but I'm speaking about the proposed development at 562 Dundas Street. >> Just you cannot say anything about the campaigns. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, I'm not opposed to housing growth. My concern is approving growth before the supporting infrastructure, the emergency access and daily services have been demonstrated for the number of homes that could actually be built. The first issue is is the unit count. Flembro today and the city's development map refer to 885 units. The current presentation and detailed breakdown indicates approximately 96. The staff report refers to approximately 1,21. Committee needs one confirmed number and an explanation of which number was used for the traffic, water, wastewater, storm water and emergency response assessments. A study based on 885 or 96 units cannot automatically support permissions that could produce 1221. The second issue is servicing capacity. Hamilton's infrastructure records show the municipal services immediate beside the property are relatively new. They include an approximately 300 millm water mane, 525mm sanitary sewer, and nearby storm sewers generally ranging from 375 to 600 mm installed mainly in 2021. It's useful information, but age and capacity are not the same thing. A newer pipeline can still be undersized if it was not designed for another 900 to,200 homes. The public package does not include the pipe-to-pipe pipe pipe hydraulic results showing existing flows, capacity already committed to approved development, the additional peak demand from this proposal and the remaining capacity in the downstream system. Staff conclusion is also qualified. Development Engineering says the infrastructure can accommodate the development only in principle while final infrastructure design and storm water sizing are deferred to detailed design. Blocks 24, 25, and 28 have servicing holds. Block 28 cannot proceed until water and sanitary services are extended and adequate sanitary capacity is demonstrated. Those are material questions, not minor details. Water supply must also be considered beyond the property line. Waterdown currently depends on a single 600 millimeter trunk supply route. The city is planning a second trunk water man and pumping station capacity improvements to support growth and improve system security. Committee should know whether this development's water model assumes either project will be completed before occupancy. Traffic and emergency response are connecting are connected to these servicing decisions. Hundreds of additional households will depend on Dundas Street, including the two-lane section west of First Street. If major road or underground work is required after occupancy, more residents, businesses, and emergency vehicles will face lane restrictions and detours. Saying there is no empirical evidence that response times will increase is not the same as modeling travel from the relocated fire station during peak congestion construction or a blockage on Dundas. Daily service matters as well. Walmart, No Frills, Freshco, and Forinos are all on the west side of Hamilton Street and the proposed metro would be farther west. Unless meaningful commercial services are delivered in eastern Waterown, new residents will travel west through the constrained section of Dundas or shop in Burlington, and that doesn't help our community out. The mixed use block permits commercial use, but does not appear to guarantee a grocery store, a meaningful minimum amount of commercial space, or delivery before most residents arrive. I'm asking committee to defer final approval or require a supplementary public staff response before council before council ratification. That response should confirm the maximum unit count. Release the cumulative traffic and servicing results. Identify any dependence on future trunk projects. Document emergency service review and state which upgrades must be completed, when they must be operational, and who will pay for them. waterdown can grow, but growth, infrastructure, and services must be sequenced together. We should not approve the density first and determine afterward whether the community can carry it. And just from the response um earlier uh talking about notice, um there was only uh 29 property owners within 120 mters were notified in 2021. An additional 78 property owners were within 240 m. But water down that's that's spread out. So at the far end where this development is happening, it's going to affect traffic. It's going to affect travel through to services. It's going to affect the whole town. And there was no public meetings and no notifications other than uh happening to see an uh an article in Flamro today. I've also um I'll leave you with u uh a number of questions that I have uh for for you to to look at later. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you for your delegation. Are there any questions for our delegate? Councelor Casar. >> Yeah, thank you chair. Thank you for the delegation. Just a question of clarification. I think near the beginning of your delegation, I heard you express concerns about servicing needing to be in place uh prior to the development happening and I think you also referenced there are uh conditions in place that the servicing must be provided. Did I hear that correctly? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. It's BA basically from what we've experienced in Waterdown. Um there's there's been a lot of work happening all at the same time. Uh construction services where Parkside was closed, the the bridge the Grandstone bridge construction was going on. Skinner was closed. We only have a limited number of access routes in and out of waterdown and every single one was under construction at the same time. So, being able to make sure that our residents are taken care of um and not having to be uh being delayed to to ridiculous amounts um and then having to it it affects the how long construction takes to to get things done because you're constantly having to to deal with with uh with detours. >> Okay, there's no more questions. So, thanks for your delegation. Take a seat. Are there any members of the public? Oh, you can hand that to the clerk. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? You may approach the podium and when you get down there, just uh announce your name and then you'll have five minutes. Thank you, Elizabeth Barnett. Um, I had no intention of speaking, so I apologize. This is my first time being at a council meeting and I'm learning I'm I'm guessing that I'm not allowed to ask questions. Um, so I'm going to just try to make some points. Is that correct? That I can't ask questions. >> You can state your questions in your delegation today and maybe the committee members here could ask that of staff. >> Fair enough. Thank you. I um live a a kilometer away from this location and I have great concerns and as the previous delegation mentioned, I did not receive any kind of notification about um receiving input from the public. I realize it's possible that I missed it. I doubt it very much. Um I do subscribe to um emails, etc. Um, I'm shocked to be honest that the Niagara Escarment Commission and Conservation Halton agree with this plan. I've done renovations to my own home and had to jump through many hoops to do to not even touch the ground outside my house. So, not changing the footprint at all. So, this shocks me. I have great concerns about the um displacement of wildlife. I've heard yes mention of um the Bruce Trail and I appreciate that because my family walks on it on a regular basis and um I cared a great deal for the environment itself. Um, so I I worry about the wildlife that's being um that will absolutely be displaced and I know that we all hear about all of the um concerns that people have when that wildlife ends up in their backyard. Um, this is former farmland and I again we're we're paving farmland for what um I've heard no mention of lowincome housing which I realize is extremely important um in our city. I think my my biggest concern is the infrastructure that doesn't seem to be there. were when you think about and I know most of you don't live in water but if you had to drive from this location 562 Dundas into town to go to the grocery store um across once even if we say once that um construction is finished at the bridge at Dunda on Dundas in Waterdown it's still a two-lane road there's only one one lane going east one lane going west and I cannot imagine that the number of homes, the number of people that are proposed to live in high-rise and lowrises and town houses and detached homes, how is the infrastructure there to to support those people driving into water down to access grocery stores and and um drugstores, etc. Um I I guess I would end this by and by saying I'm disappointed that there has not been more access to um input from the public and I apologize if I'm wrong on that, but perhaps someone can inform me and help me figure out how can I continue to um be involved in this process and um be be informed and have a voice. Thank you. Thanks, Elizabeth. Just one second. Are there any questions for Elizabeth at this time? No. And um what might happen is some of your the counselors have heard that and they may ask staff later. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? And for a final time, are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Not seeing any, may I have a mover and seconder that the public submissions be received and considered by committee and that the public meeting be closed. Can we have councelor McMaken, Councelor A. Wilson? And that's going to be an electronic vote. It's up for vote. And that carries 8 to zero. Now on to the report. May I have a mover and second to approve the recommendations in the report? We'll go with the same. Councelor McMaken and Councelor A. Wilson. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Councelor McMe and then we'll have councelor M. Wilson and then councelor A. Wilson. That's our order. Go ahead councelor. >> Uh thanks so much chair and just by way of background let me begin by uh acknowledging um what uh one of the presenters uh shared around some of the stresses around travel in the area. um and simply state that that's why so much of the work that's been going on has been going on. Um uh water down road um widening was uh first proposed in 2013. It's now happening in partnership with the city. Um the Parkside Drive was closed for a bit in order to facilitate um sewer and water into the police fire uh dispatch compound and Skinner Road was a major sewer breakdown that uh needed to be repaired. Um and the five and six work on the so ledge killer highway is now $115 million project that's proceeding uh beginning to proceed as we speak. Just to to to put it in context, um three of the four access routes into the city are now clear. And um I hope uh notwithstanding the patience that constituents have had around that simultaneous uh necessary work um will be recognized and celebrated at some point. That having been said, there were some serious questions asked and why don't we go right to it. the uh can we confirm the number of units uh officially for the record there? I think there were three different figures that were mentioned through the chair. So in terms of the number of units, the number based on the draft plan of subdivision application is 96 at its minimum but can go up to 1,221. The reason for the variation is because of the multiple dwelling blocks. It just depends on at the detailed design how many units or what size units are on the lot to accommodate or to uh get that final number. >> So it's it's a range of units is what you're saying range number of units >> through the chair. That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um there was mention of u infrastructure and the ability to handle um water sewer related infrastructure roads and such. Can you can you comment on uh at least generically if not specifically on uh our ability to handle uh handle that should this proposal go forward. >> Three Mr. Chair Binu Korea director of growth management and chief development engineer. The developers consultant actually submitted a function servicing report. The function servicing report actually recommended that there is sufficient capacity to support this development. staff actually has reviewed those details and we concur with their proposal and in addition to that we also have several conditions to address the storm water management the sand river design and also the road design and during the detail design they have to provide additional information to confirm these numbers are correct. >> Thank you. Um third question, what percentage of the entire site is will remain as part of the natural uh uh natural um uh portion that that gray area that we uh Elena that you talked about >> through the chair. I I don't have that exact percentage number in front of me, but I can uh quickly see if I can do the math. >> Let me let me ask a more specific question. There was reference to wildlife and and the impact on wildlife. Was it was that something that uh was considered um either in conversations with the NEC or with the with the planning process? Are we as a result of this chasing animals out of the areas that I think that was the was the suggestion. So through the chair in terms of that area in gray, the zone um as well as the Niagara Escarment Commission won't allow any development or changes within that area and as part of the conditions there's a vegetative protection zone that's required around the natural heritage feature. Uh and that is also limited to uh minor grading. So the area that's zoned and to be protected will not have any development within that. >> Okay. >> Through you chair. There was uh reference by Mr. Dilio in response to my esteemed counselor Wilson's comments about the uh Bruce Trail that there was some assurance given about the Bruce Trail as well. Um that's correct. Well was given. So, there have been followup there. I guess the last point um and it's one I'm I'm very sensitive to as one who's run a a business uh in the community for a number of years. Um the number of grocery stores and uh and I I think if there was a a big area like this in the extreme east end bordering Burlington, um I' I'd want a grocery store next door. But grocery stores are market driven. They're not something that we determine. And um my sense of the community is that those who are coming to the community and have have a market interest discover it fairly quickly. So to the extent that that is a possibility, I would be optimistic that something would happen. But we just to be clear, we don't have any jurisdiction to guarantee that at least at the present time. Is that correct >> through the chair? That's correct in terms of requirements. >> Those are my questions. Thanks, chair. >> Thanks, Council McMakin. Councelor M. Wilson. >> Thank you, Chair. Um my my questions are just more of a from a high level because um I think uh we repeatedly uh do hear from some public delegations about um questioning uh about holding provisions and almost seeming that we're approving something and then subsequently seeking to ensure that we have the capacity to um to service. So, uh, my first question is through the chair to staff, um, what what are holding provisions and, uh, why are they standard practice in most development applications? Through the chair. >> Through the chair in terms of holding provisions. So in principle, a holding provision is used when the proposed development has been assessed at a high level or in principle, but additional information at the detailed design stage is required for a specific development. The intention of a holding provision generally is to make sure that if a holding provision is applied, it can be lifted. If it's not supportable, then um additional discussions would have to occur. >> Okay. Thank you. Is it fair through the chair uh to staff to say that municipalities are having to use holding provisions because of some of the provincial planning changes which are um encouraging um um more progressive if you will uh deliberations on on planning approval applications or is that incorrect? >> Uh through the chair of the councelor Anita Fayback director of planning and chief planner. Um I would say that is correct and in addition to that holding provisions um are a tool applied to ensure that we can also meet legislative timelines. Um >> that's that's the one I I was hoping. Can you sorry to interrupt you because that's the the thing I I think we need to highlight for the public record in order to try and build as much as possible public confidence in the process uh because that process is defined for municipalities by the government of Ontario. So could you just through the chair just highlight uh that very point you're making director >> through the chair to the councelor uh the planning act lays out timelines uh that within which council is to make a decision and if council does not make a decision an applicant can appeal a non-decision excuse me to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Um so the holding pro holding provisions um are applied uh as as uh Elena indicated when there's been a um a high level review in general support of an application but additional details may be required uh and so that allows um legislative timelines to be met while ensuring that the technical review will be completed. >> Thank you chair. And therein uh lies the the rub, I think, in our efforts to try and uphold public trust and confidence while also advancing the priorities of the municipality. In not meeting those statutory timelines, uh we risk uh appeals and when something is appealed, there is no public activity. there is uh a more limited opportunity for the municipality to affect and influence um and to demand that those uh servicing requirements, natural heritage requirements, all of those things are are daylighted, delivered and secured according to the priorities of the residents. So it it is difficult. Um but hence uh we're forced into using holding provisions because uh the government of the day it's their right and and it's one of the consequences thereof. Um on the servicing um uh item uh this is all always uh brought up and I appreciate why it's brought up but if I could ask uh additionally through the chair um how that is done and how the public interest is upheld. um in the application of that condition for servicing through the chair those are my questions through Mr. Chair Binu Korea, director of growth management and chief development engineer. So once the planning application is done on the drop plan is approved, the applicant actually has to submit a detailed engineering drawings to clear each conditions. So at the time uh we will be working diligently with the uh with the applicant to make sure that those engineering drawings are meeting the city standards. So this is where we protect the city's interest and also the public interest. So and also um one of the conditions actually talks about the holding provision for storm water management pond. We already reviewed the storm water management pond locations the sizing and all the components. However, during the detail design, if city decided or the design is not meeting the standards, we put two blocks on hold because the developer cannot um develop those blocks until the design of the storm water management uh pond meet the city standards. That's where we are also protecting the interest of the natural heritage systems and also the public interest. Thank you, Councelor M. Wilson. Are you finished? Okay, we're going to go to councelor A. Wilson. >> Um, thank you. My comments and questions aren't as specific to the application as they are. I think this application is an example of something and I'm trying to understand that. So, from I'm looking at the agency comments, I think that's um appendix I. I don't see any comments from natural heritage staff. I do see some comments from various public works departments, but not from a planning perspective. While external agencies that previously commented on natural heritage were included, my understanding is it's now the city's responsibility to provide those comments. So my first question is on applications like this, who provides natural heritage um commentary? And again, I think the outcome here is that largely good like it's divided correctly on the site. It's not a concern, but I'm just I'm not seeing that commentary in the report. And I'm wondering procedurally how does that commentary get in reports like this? >> Uh through the chair to the councelor. um proposals such as this where there's significant natural heritage features would be circulated um internally and externally to agencies that internal uh circulation would include natural heritage staff. They are part of the planning division. So their comments are reflected through comments from planning staff. They're not separated out um um separately, but their comments and policy references become part of planning staff's um commentary in the report. >> Um thank you. Through you, chair, it's my opinion or assertion that I think there's a bit of a gap here. Um we broadly speaking are going to approve a KTO escarment eco park plan later that talks about the economic value we already understand that these lands have um and we're going to have anou with various partner agencies doing acquisition this is bounded by three sides by um protected lands um and I think just not having those partners make those comments or not including them in the comments if we're saying that we want to be part of a collaborative a collaborative team to acquire and protect lands in the Koots to escarment eco park Um, this is one of the primary parcels that's not currently in public protection. Um, it's a priority parcel by lots of agencies. I'm not saying everyone has cash right now to have that conversation. Ultimately, it is a land negotiation and people may not have the resources. It may not be the time. Um, but I'm just flagging that I didn't feel like there was an opportunity to explore that through some of the commentaries. And so, given that we're approving the Koots desc yesterday, we had an annual update on our biodiversity action plan. I guess I'm just curious about now that natural heritage is fully in the city's responsibility, how are we providing both natural heritage comments about the protection of species, that piece, but also the long-term vision included in city plans like increasing access to green space and some of those other things that maybe staff haven't been trained on how to provide comments on um because there may not a traditional species protection issue, but it's more about lands management citywide >> through the chair to the councelor. Um I guess what I would what I would indicate and I think it came up yesterday through the presentation sorry that was yesterday on the biodiversity action plan uh and about the coordination internally. So you you raise a a valid point in terms of there is a technical assessment completed. Um but perhaps through the some of the actions in the biodiversity action plan there can be more coordination and communication on things like acquisition. Um and coupled with that or on top of that is I mean we do have a natural areas acquisition fund that is available to support agencies in purchasing lands that would support biodiversity. Um so I think um through it would be through those actions and through those plans where that comm that better coordination would come through. Um and it was discussed yesterday in terms of um the steering committee that meets monthly and then there's a management uh uh committee meeting that would meet a couple of times a year. Uh and I think it was noted that that would be one item on the agenda. This uh it's actually in October the the first meeting is to talk about that coordination. >> Uh thank you. who I really appreciate and I'll just say um kind of closing remarks back to this file. I think I always point out the language in our official plan when we're talking about natural heritage areas which is to protect or enhance um the amount of lands being protected is absolutely being enhanced. There's a bit of an incursion into the OS on this one but overall um I think this is one of the clearest examples of an enhancement happening and I just want to as I've pointed out when I haven't seen that enhancement and I've maybe just seen a status quo so I want to point out the reverse and say I do see a substantial enhancement as part of this application and I'm grateful to see that. Thank you. >> Thanks, Councelor Wilson. Um, any more questions from anyone? >> So, I'm not seeing any. I think we still need a mover and a seconder for this. So, we'll go >> Oh, >> okay. Thanks. So, then we're going to go to the electronic vote and when it's up, I'll let you know. It's up and that motion carries 9 to zero. Thank you. We are now on to 8 point I can't hear. Sorry. Are you saying you want a break? Okay. So, we'll break until 1:00. >> Thank you. Sound check. One, two, three. Sound check. 1 2 3 back. We're returning from our lunch break. We now have quorum. It's We're on to 8.3 peed 23105 major transit station areas and protected major transit station areas. This is a draft of the official plan amendments. Does the committee wish to hear the staff presentation? I'm sensing no. Are there any questions to staff? May I have a mover and seconder to wave the staff presentation? Councelor Wayne, councelor. I could I don't think the video those of us who are virtual are being acknowledged. Um I would like to see the staff presentation. Thank you >> staff. Thank you. To my friends who are in the virtual world, apologies. And Charlie Tolman will now make his presentation. And I hope you can see it. >> Yes. Uh good afternoon chair, members of planning committee and public public in attendance. My name is Charlie Toman. I'm the program lead polic policy planning and municipal comprehensive re review within the planning division and I will be presenting the draft official plan amendments to implement the major transit station areas and protected major transit station areas policy framework for approval. Uh, also on the call is Patty Kennedy from Dylan Consulting who uh who helped us with this project and is also available to answer any specific questions. M major transit station areas or MTSAs are gen generally defined as the area between 500 to 800 meters around a transit station or stop which is about a 10 10 10-minute walk. And planning for higher densities and employment around major transit uh station areas supports the development of transit oriented com communities by increasing the number in people and jobs around higher order transit infrastructure. the the city has identified 19 major transit station areas shown shown here around the city's three go rail stations and its uh uh 17 planned light rail transit stops. I'll also note that the MTSA's overlap with the West Harbor secondary plan area and as a result of that secondary plan area not being part of the urban Hamilton official plan, staff are also recommending amendments to the former region and former city of Hamilton official plan to ensure that those policies are also within those documents. Under the provincial planning statement, the the city is required to define the boundaries around major transit station areas for both for both existing and planned higher order transit stops. The uh provincial planning statement requires that land within major transit station areas have a planned minimum density of 50 people in jobs per hectare surrounding go rail stations and 160 people in jobs per per hector surrounding LRT stops. Note that these targets are for for the full buildout of that area and are not associated with a specific time horizon like say 201. A protected major transit station area or PMTSA is a subset of a major transit station area where a municipality is required to assign minimum densities for individual properties. Under pro provincial planning rules, inclusionary zoning may be implemented within protected major transit station areas and staff are re recommending that all MTSAs also be PM PM PMTSAs so that inclusionary zoning may be applied. uh work. Um so so this this work being being done for major transit station areas is to test whether the city's existing land use per permissions around those different um higher order transit stops meet the uh uh minimum targets set out by the province. Um to to this the city retain Dylan Consulting to uh model the uh the the the a city's existing OP and zoning per per permissions at a full buildout. Uh and this modeling included looking at the increase in residential per per permissions approved by the city in 2022 including up allowing up to four dwellings as a right in low low density areas. The modeling also took into account existing protected heritage properties as well as development applications that had been approved by the city. And the work by Dylan showed that all 19 major transit station areas are anticipated to meet the minimum targets set out by the province. And as a result of that, the the the official plans being being proposed now do not per propose to increase any of the uh maximum heights or maximum densities that are currently set out in the official plan. back sorry back in March of of this year staff presented the the a proposed uh official plan amendments to implement the MTSA policy framework and and received direction by council to con consult with both both the province as well as the public on those official plan amendments. Uh staff received written feed fe feedback from the minister of m municipal affairs and housing on the proposed official plans which is attached to the staff report. And one of the major comments from from from the province was asking that the city split the proposed official plan amendment into two separate types of official plan amendment. And I'll go through those. The uh the the first is referred to as a section 26 official plan amendment. And that is only matters that are directly related to provincial plan and policy conformity and therefore are subject to approval by the minister of municipal affairs and housing. And then the se and the second is a section 17 official plan amendment under the planning act and this is a more typical official plan amendment that city council is the approval authority for. So, I'm now going to talk about what's in the proposed official plan amendments. Starting with the section 26 amendment. The um official plan amendment includes uh several mapping changes to the urban Hamilton official plan including provisions to schedule Europe urban structure to define the boundaries of the 19 proposed MTSAs. a new map showing the boundaries of the MTSAs in more detail as well as new maps scheduled for each protected major transit station areas showing the assigned minimum densities in more detail. The uh text text amendments in the section 26 official plan amendment include a new table that in that identifies the planned minimum density for each um MPSA identified as people and jobs per hectare and new policies for protected major transit station areas to ensure that new development meets the assigned minimum densities. The uh separate section 17 official plan amendment includes new policies that clarifies the relationship between the urban structure. So, how the proposed NPSA policies relate to current official plan policies, including secondary plans, new policies that support the con con consolidated consolidation of lands along priority transit corridors to better uh encourage intensification while also having policies in place to have suitable built transitions to other areas. as well as a new appendix to the official plan which which sets out how to calculate people and jobs per hectare. Uh re recently the uh province also amended the planning act to to state that where the city has established a major transit station area that the city can't have assigned uh minimum parking requirements for for those those those lands. So, part of the section 17 official plan amendment includes a policy stating that that that the city won't assign minimum parking requirements uh within each each NTSA except for uh bicycle parking which which the planning act allows. And the uh map shown here shows the boundaries of the proposed major transit station areas with the uh current um parking requirements. And the area shown shown in blue are areas where the city re removed minimum parking requirements for residential uses back in 2024. So as you can see uh the a city has already largely removed the parking requirements within uh most of the MTSA areas. So now talking about uh protected major transit station areas. The planning act requires that the city establish minimum densities that are applied to individual properties where for a m just a major transit station area you just have to have a minimum density for the overall area. The uh recommended section 26 official plan amendment establishes new schedules like the one shown here that that that that assigns minimum densities based on the official plan designation and zone zoning by bylaw regulations that are currently in in effect. The recommended minimum densities were largely based on the work done by Dylan Consulting. But rather than looking at the maximum potential buildout, we we looked at sort of the average potential buildout based on those land use rules. Uh under the recommended official planned amendment, the requirement to meet these um uh minimum densities is only triggered if there's a major redevelopment of the site. So if say a doctor's office wanted to build an addition, they wouldn't have to show that they now meet this uh minimum density requirement. But if a site is proposed to be cleared and redeveloped for say a retail store, then they would have to meet that this this minimum requirement. uh for lands designated and zoned for a mix of uses. The u minimum densities are are proposed as people and jobs per hectare rather than just units per per hector or floor space index. And this this approach more accurately accounts for the different types of uses that can occur within mixeduse buildings including the mix of dwellings sizes. The slide shows shows shows shown here uh illustrates what a different people and jobs per hectare requirement looks looks like on sort of different lot kind of configurations and the site on the left um or the model on the left for 160 people jobs per hector. This type of designation would be applied to a neighborhood commercial area along a major arterial road and the 400 people in jobs per in a high density downtown context. And also I just want to note on these slides the lot coverages modeled is relatively low at about 30 and 40% and similar to floor space index as the lot coverage in increases the modeled uh height would lower. So it's kind of like a a cording I guess you can move it. Um so the city held several work workshops and open houses on major transit station areas in 2023 and more recently we held two two open houses to share information on the project as well as to get input on the proposed official plan amendments. Planning division staff also shared information on the proposed amendments at open streets uh the um the Hamilton citybuilders committee as well as local indigenous com communities and notice of the special meeting of planning committee for the draft official plan amendments was posted in the Hamilton spec specator and sent to the project mailing list. So staff are re recommending that council approve the section 26 draft official plan amendments and send them to the province for approval and that council adopts the section 17 draft official plan amendments but hold them at bayance until the minister approves the section 26 official plan amendment. So the overall MTSA policy framework would would come into effect at the same same time. So for the section 26 official plan amendments, once they are submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, they will post them on the Environmental Registry of Ontario website for public comment prior to the minister's uh making their theision. I also want to note that under the planning act, the minister can make any changes to the council approved section 26 official plan amendment that they see fit. That concludes my presentation. be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Do we have any questions online? Not seeing any here. Thank you, Charlie. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Councelor Marine Wilson snuck in there. >> Thank you, Chair. I apologize. Thank you very much uh for that thorough presentation. I'm I'm not sure if now is the appropriate time, but I um the um the consultation and the receipt of a comment or question from the indigenous on the where are we on the familyfriendly unit. Could you just remind me if or if now is not the appropriate venue for that but it was raised in the >> go ahead >> in the work. >> Yeah. Uh through through the chair. So when we provided an up update on this work, we did receive a comment from uh uh six stations sort of asking for for for an up update and how this work relates to that other work and that both both inclusionary zoning and the familyfriendly housing policy. So we responded with sort of an update where where that work currently sits. I would defer to the bench in terms of the the current stat status as as of now. But but that was a comment that came out of our consultation. >> Okay. >> Please. >> Uh Steve Burke, manager sustainable communities. Just on the familyfriendly housing piece. Yeah, we're anticipating we can bring forward uh the final strategy for council's consideration in Q2 of 2027. >> Okay. Excuse me. Thank you. And on the inclusionary zoning uh reference, um could you remind me it it um it was when this was originally started, it was at the discretion of a municipality to provide for inclusionary zoning citywide. Then it was changed um to only uh around high order transit lines and then it was subsequently changed to pegging it at a maximum of 5% and I'm wondering if you could help me with my recollection on on the history of that please and thank you. >> Yes. uh through through the chair. So when this work was originally is initiated, inclusionary zoning could could could be applied more in more areas and through legislative and I believe policy changes, the planning act states that in order for the city to introduce inclusionaries zonings, it has to be within a a protected major transit station area. Um, and then in terms of the rules around inclusionary zoning cuz cuz there's other rules that the province sets out for when and how the city can apply it. I would again defer to uh Mr. Burke. >> Sure. Yes. I believe there was a change. I I have to actually check on that whether it was reduced to 5% um because my recollection was remained at at 10%. We can uh we can we can check that for you. Um and and you're can I can you repeat what you were what else you were asking around the eyes piece? >> No, I I I think that was it. Um just a um looking for confirmation of its iteration over the many years. My recollection also is a cap of five po following um a market study being conducted. Thank you very much. Are you finished? >> Sorry. Through the chair, if I can just confirm, I was able to just quickly uh check um in terms of the inclusionary zoning, it is uh capped at 5% for 25 years. >> Okay. Thank you. And we're going to go over to councelor Casar. >> Thanks. Thanks, Jar. And just one simple clarification question on the topic of prescribed minimum densities. You mentioned that minimum densities would not be triggered uh by a number of things including minor additions. Is there a clear definition of minor addition so that the city doesn't think of it one way and a property owner thinks of it another and it creates some tension >> through through the chair. There is no um there is no definition per per proposed in the official plan, but as we look to implement the zoning bylaw regulations around the minimum densities, we would probably more in more detail code codify what that what that would would be. Uh there is some advantages to having some the the the discretion with it too. And um I I I do want to note too, I I I forgot to note it in my presentation that when we were looking at assigning these proposed minimum densities, we've been tracking all of the different redevelopment applications and sort of testing our our uh our our minimum densities. And we found that every single site that was proposed to be redeveloped already met or exceeded the minimum densities. So staff aren't anticipating a lot of applications where where that minimum density requirement would be sort of triggered unless it was say a main main street site that it has is proposed to be redeveloped to just like a single story single building building use where the minimum density may recognize you know you should have at least >> two stories you know something like like that. >> Yeah. Okay. I think it's just something to keep in mind so that we can minimize the chance of conflict and um lack of confidence in city process. Thanks. >> Sorry, I just got distracted for a second. I think we're done, Charlie. So, you're finished with your presentation and are there any questions for staff? Oh, who was a quest? There's a hand up there. Do you see that? Okay, thank you. So, bottom line, this is there are no registered delegates and no written submissions. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? >> Okay. Uh, I'm online. Can I speak? >> Yes, you may turn your camera on and you may come in now. Sorry, I uh wasn't quick enough to recognize you before. >> Okay. Thank you so much uh for giving me the opportunity. Um, by profession, I'm an economist, but I have properties in Hamilton. I live in Miss Saga. So when as an economist when this I see when this >> can you just identify yourself please so that we can have an official >> my name is Yasim Janua Muhammad Yasin Janua my preferred name is Yasim Janua I'm an economist by profession and I have a property in Hamilton Stony Creek area 1413 I highway 8 and it's a parcel of land with a mixed three different type of zone zoning which we are trying to redevelop and when this kind of uh exercise is done because it's done after sometime 10 15 20 years uh we have to look forward for this kind of exercise so I believe that where the city is expanding in the future and there are actually small midrise developments going on in that area and uh the 50 road is one of them is identified future growth and a major transportation corridor uh for the uh you know gold station and other stuff. So how can this area and our properties can be included in this even smallcale uh midrise um development. So, at this time, we're not going to entertain questions from delegates, but the the committee members can ask that question for you to staff at a later time. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> Uh through the chair, um perhaps it may be beneficial for the speaker to confirm which item they're here for. It sounds like they may be here for the midrise zoning, which is an item a little further on the agenda. >> Okay. So sorry if are they there now still? >> Yes. >> Are you there still? >> Yeah, I'm still here. Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought this is the mid. I >> think you're delegating on the wrong topic. We're just being informed. >> Sorry about that. Yeah. So, we'll have to um call you back when it's 8.5. Okay. We're currently on 8.3. Sorry for the confusion. So, at this time, I'm going to move forward. There are no other reg Council Crutch. Go ahead. Might it make more sense for us just to refer that delegation to 8.5 rather than have this person come back and repeat themselves? They were done their delegation. They asked their question. I don't think we should ask them to have to come back and repeat themselves later. We should be have some procedural way to deal with that mistake. >> Well, you're always problem solving, councelor Critch. Uh in time in in best aspects of time >> through through the chair. Um, this is a different public meeting than that one is. So, I believe through the requirements of the planning act, they would have to speak at the correct public meeting. >> Perhaps, Councelor Crutch, we're just going to move on. Thank you. Um, there are no registered delegates and no written submissions. I'll ask again, are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Going once. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Not seeing any. Last time, are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? May I have a mover and seconder that the public submissions be received and considered by committee and that the public meeting be closed? Councilors A. Wilson and Councelor McMe, please indicate your electronic vote now. That carries 8 to zero. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the recommendations in the report. Councelor Casar, Councelor Wang, are there any questions for staff on the report? Not seeing any. When there are no more questions, please indicate your vote now electronically. Mover and seconder were councelor Casar and councelor Wayne. Vote is up. That motion carries 8 to zero. So we're now on to 8.4. Amendments to the additional dwelling unit and additional dwelling unit detached regulations and zoning bylaw number 05200 urban area citywide. Does the committee wish to hear the staff presentation? looking up at the screen. Not seeing that there's a need for that at this moment. So, may I have a mover and second to wave the staff presentation? Councelor A. Wilson, Councelor McMegan, please indicate with a show of hands. That goes. The motion is carried. We'll now hear from registered delegates. Is Brian O' Grizzo here? Brian, please come down and enunciate your name correctly for me. And when you begin, you will have five minutes. Good morning to the public, chair, members of the committee and staff. My name is Brian O' Grizzlo. I'm an urban planner and I'm a public policy professional living in W 3. I want to first make it clear that I support the principle of this amendment to clarify AD permissions in um in semi- detached and street townhouse dwellings. My concern is that the committee is being asked to recommend the amendments while essential questions about the administration full effects and public notice remain unanswered. The genesis of these permissions was in November 2022, nearly four years ago with bill 23. Staff have explained to me that bill 23 that amended the planning act restricting municipalities from prohibiting specified residential unit configurations on qualifying parcels of urban residential land. Equally important and unreferenced is section 35.1 sub 1.3 stating that conflicting zoning provisions are of no effect to the extent of that conflict. That matters because this provincial permission has long existed before today's recommendation. The middle row here shows the configuration at issue. One principal unit and two internal ADUs for three units in total. The municipal wording appeared to limit these semi- detached and street townhouse dwellings to one internal ADU. So how then did the city administer the provincial permission? Staff have told me that the city adopted interpretation when bill 23 took effect. So it begs some reasonable questions. What was that interpretation? When did staff begin applying it? And what guidance reached staff and the general public? On September 21st, staff told me that a third unit internally is currently not permitted. On September 23rd, they referred to the interpretation adopted in 2022 without explaining that interpretation. Those statements need to be reconciled. Redline notes first appeared in public consolidations on July 22nd of 2026 this year. What information guided applicants before then? Simply updating the text now leaves administration administrative questions unanswered. Committee also needs clarity about the full amendment. What does divided lot mean? How does the proposed three-unit limit relate to the report's discussion of four-unit permissions? What does the definition and other wording changes meaningfully do? Additionally, we are how are provincial permissions administered under former zoning bylaws and on qualifying parcels of urban residential land outside the report's familiar zone names and building typologies. Residents and staff need clear, consistent, and public-f facing interpretation. I'll try and capture the an idea of the scope of my concern. Hamilton census data record 34,395 semi- detached and rowhouse dwellings, 21.6 of single detach, semi- detach, and rowhouse dwellings citywide. While these counts can establish the prevalence of relevant housing forms, determining eligibility and actual applicant outcomes requires a much deeper investigation. The distribution across wards is uneven. Eight wards exceed that 21.6 six citywide benchmark. This demonstrates why these administrative questions have different significance across city wards while also warranting a coordinated city response. It's important to understand that unclear or inconsistent administration can mean delays, unnecessary expenses, change proposals, reputational risk to the city, and potentially lost housing opportunities. The scope of this issue's impact has not yet been established. The city holds the records needed to examine inquiries, applications, advice, and procedures. The committee can direct that review and require recommendations to address identified effects on applicants. The September 18th notice described the proposal broadly without identifying the specific permissions and limits proposed, while the report and draft became available 5 days later on September 23rd, leaving approximately two business days for residents to respond ahead of yesterday's written submission deadline. In my communications with staff on September 25th, they advised me they could not answer my questions before this meeting and suggest raising them through my delegation. Receiving essential information for the first time today leaves little opportunity to assess it and respond before committee makes its recommendation. In closing, conformity should not be presented as granting a permission that already existed since 2022. I respectly ask committee to first clarify the draft bylaw's full effects and how AD permissions will be administered going forward citywide. Second, to obtain the clerk's advice on the notice and further opportunities for informed co public comment before council acts. And third, to de direct a documented review of administration since November 2022 or sorry, November 2022 with a public report back by a specified date and recommendations to address the identified problems. I leave you with this quote from Justice Michael Tullik and it captures my sentiments. The rule of law lives not in it lives in how a complaint is answered, how discretion is used, how reasons are given, and how mistakes are addressed. Thank you, and I welcome your questions. >> Thanks, Brian. >> Uh, councelor A. Wilson. >> Uh, thank you. I just have a couple of clarifying questions where I'm just going to try and summarize what I heard and you tell me if I got it right or not. So, high level, there's three types of typologies allowed by provincial legislation. through our city laws, we allowed two of those typologies for the past period of time. It's your kind of belief that folks may have been turned away. Um, and now while we're updating that and we're saying, "Yep, we're going to match the provincial standards today." Uh, one I heard three kind of asks. So, one of them was, can you go back and explain what happened with that or that disconnect and what the implications of that were, I think, is the piece there. So, it's not just, oh, we've been out of conformity. we used an internal definition but some sense of how many applicants reached out to the office at that time or some information about that and then the other piece was something about public consultation. So I'm just because the changes are relatively innocuous aligning up with provincial or more housekeeping in nature. Um can you let me know if I got the summary right and can you help me maybe understand what the public consultation asks specifically is because it doesn't sound like this is a a particularly controversial change but you're trying to maybe understand more of the process behind it. I'm just trying to understand. >> Yeah, absolutely. Like I'll fully say I fully support ADUs. I've been long supporting ADUs in the city of Hamilton. What what really needs to be explained is how we were administering ADUs since November 20 2022 with the change of bill 20 bill 23. Unfortunately, we don't know the quantifiable impact. I can give you relevant housing typologies, but I can't quantify how many houses were lost or how many applicants went to a minor variance or who inquired about these typologies and were told that they weren't permitted to go for three internal full three full internal units. And that's really the crux of this issue is we have people who may have been impacted and it we deserve answers to those kind of questions like what what happened in the intervening period and I recognize the planning act makes subst there's substantial changes going on in the in the planning world um and staff have been diligent in making a lot of important and necessary changes to our bylaws to conform to that. Unfortunately, this was a big one. This could affect, you know, like I said, upwards of 34,000 homes. Um, but without the data behind it, it just leaves a big question mark. Um, to speak to your concerns or your question around um, public notice. Unfortunately, I'm not going to say that the public notice was essentially deficient, but it was published on September 18th with what I believe was a overly broad definition of what was actually occurring here today. Um, it did speak to ADU permissions. It but it didn't say it was affecting semi- detached and street townhouse dwellings. It didn't say um the the specificities of what was actually being meaningfully amended so that the public could meaningfully engage with that material. Additionally to that, when the public when we did receive some level of oper how that was going to be operationalized and what the draft bylaw looks like, that was five days later. You know, I I had been inquiring since I think September 20th or 21st trying to ask some of these questions with staff and they've been diligent in communicating with me and that's really important. Um, but the there's still a bunch of questions that I feel are left on the table and providing, you know, it sucks for me as a resident to get, you know, two to three business days worth of communications before a public hearing. And it sucks for staff who would probably want to uh answer my questions, but they don't have the opportunity to meaningfully ask that. And that's a result of our alternative um procedures that are enshrined in the Planning Act. normally would under the planning you'd get 20 days of public notice. We often go towards seven. Um that's what I I believe the alternative procedure um permits. Um but 20 days would provide most people with a reasonable opportunity to ask questions, review the materials, and ask about it. And I think that's what's really um the kind of the core concern is we're not giving enough time to for people to engage. >> Thank you. And through the chair just confirming. So, it's more of a general concern about the notice uh for planning committee, the ability for people generally speaking to provide feedback on issues like this. It's not specifically like the legislative change of being in compliance with bill 23 is specifically something you think there's lots of feedback on without with the exception of the oper operationalization or how it's been enforced previously which you've said. But I'm just like on the technical change itself. I'm just trying to reconcile your comments about public consultation and I understood them to be more general. Um is that fair or am I wrong? >> I think it's fair to say that. Um however I do think that there is room to provide more clarity across more typologies. Staff plate provided a very detailed explanation about a parcel of residential land for example. Um we had a a an item earlier about bunch of rowhouse dwellings on a private road condominium road for example. Um currently we would prohibit that in our zoning bylaw but under the definition of a parcel of residential land still meets the qualifying criteria. So that has impacts citywide. So we need to make sure that we're investigating these issues fulsomely across all our typologies to make sure we enable housing options that a is legislative but also works towards our kind of city vision to creating sustainable and vibrant communities. >> Thank you so much for the clarification. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. And uh councelor Wayne. >> So I need some clarification. um given what you've just told us, what is your expectation for what we ought to do next >> through the chair? Um it it's it's a complicated question. You can ask staff what the opera whether if we accept this or we do not or we defer it or we move forward. It's my opinion that section 35.1 provides the mechanisms to enable those housing typologies as of right regardless, but it's up to the interpretation of the city staff on how to administer it. So, you could defer this that's up to to this committee. Um, I would say that it shouldn't have an impact on housing delivery. It shouldn't have impact on on applicants, but I don't know how that would be operationalized with the city staff themselves. So, So um given your interpretation too, do you think that we are in a timeline crunch then? Like do we have to have this sorted out today in given your interpretation? >> Um I think we were in a timeline crunch at the onset of bill 23 in 2022. That was 3 years 10 months one day ago. So I think we should have acted. It was an important interpretation that we missed. And you know mistakes happen. It's about taking accountability. You know, I wrote down here, uh, Councelor McMegan said, "Nobody is directly responsible, but we're all accountable, right?" And I think that's that's the core crux here is we we want to know how it impacted people. Did people go to minor variance for something that was a provincial permission and a provincial right and they should be should be notified about that or or at least considered in that in that process? And I think that's a really important consideration. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your delegation today. And there's no more questions, Brian. So, thanks for coming down today. Much appreciated. >> Thank you. >> Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Not seeing anybody come forward. May I have a mover and seconder? Councelor Cretch and councelor A. Wilson. That the public submissions be received and considered by committee and that the public meeting be closed. That was Casar and A Wilson. And we'll have the electronic vote now. Give a thumbs up. Okay, that carries 8 to zero. Now we're on to the report. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the recommendations and report? Councelor Wang and Councelor A Wilson. Are there any questions for staff? Councelor Wilson. >> A Wilson >> through you, Chair. I understand the like the activity in this report. Um is we're update like we're we're doing a housekeeping legislation functionally. We're updating with provincial standards. I'm so from that perspective, I'm not necessarily inclined to delay or move away from that because that seems like a standalone activity. But I think there's also been some questions about understanding this change, the historical access, what does this relate to our housing strategy um more broadly like have we had missed opportunities for example I think was one of the main questions um that we heard from the recent delegate and so through you to the bench I'm just seeking some understanding in what does this report if we passed it as is what are we doing um if additional direction or additional kind of some of the questions have been going back and forth like my my thought is that those might be separate paths forward and I'm just maybe getting uh check in with the bench um if I'm misunderstanding their report in front of us um or some of their engagement on the file >> uh through the chair. Sorry, I just want to make sure I understand the question. >> The impact of the passing the report today is updating to match bill 23. Is that kind of nothing else happens beyond we update our definition to that >> through the chair? That's correct. >> There's also been a request from at least one community member. This is how frame it to do a bit of a Q&A um regarding what's happened before this moment in time. What's staff's recommendation on the best way um to have some transparency um to meet that request >> uh through the chair? I mean, we're happy to answer some of the questions here today. We do have um some of the information that's um some answers to the questions that have been raised and uh in terms of the historical in terms of what has happened historically. So, I mean I'm happy to provide that overview at a high level. Um, I mean really it simply comes down to the definition of a lot for a semi- detached and a street townhouse that was contained in the zoning bylaw. Uh, and at the time that the legislation came out, there wasn't a lot of clarity from the province in terms of what is a parcel as they define it and what is a lot as we define it. And so I'm going to use the example of a semi- detached dwelling. Our definition defined a semi- detached dwelling as two units on a lot. So it's looking at it before you sever it in half down the middle. So the interpretation that was taken at the time aligned with the definitions and I think I can't speak for staff but my understanding was in terms of their understanding of the legislation. Um so since that time I think in June of this year we did receive correspondence from the ministry which indicated that there was a misalignment and so um staff took it upon themselves to uh bring forward this report to correct that to ensure that there is alignment in terms of impact on applicants. We are only aware of two instances. Uh one instance was someone did go for a minor variance. Um that has since been been rectified. they've been given a building permit and there was one other circumstance and that uh individual was allowed to proceed. So we're only aware of two over the last four years in terms of where there's been a question of the misalignment. So um really zoning bylaws are living documents that are constantly being updated and I think that this is an example of that where uh since the time that the definitions were created and the time that the legislation came out there's been clarity provided. We want to make sure that we're in alignment. So, the changes that are being proposed today are to ensure that there's no uh no miscom miscommunication, no lack of clarity in terms of what the provincial legislation says and what our zoning bylaw permits. So, that we just want to make sure that there's that alignment there. >> Thank you. Um and through you chair um because bill 23 uh the definition that's being updated here with is with respect to urban lots I believe the language just confirming that as a result of this there's no changes to the ADU permissions which I off the top of my head I believe are um non-detached in rural areas largely but there you're allowed one in unit um so we're not changing those even if I got the wrong summary of the current practice but we're not changing that current practice in rural areas this only applies to the urban areas >> uh through the church to the council Emily co-manager of zoning and committee of adjustment. Uh that's correct. There's no impact on rural um additional dwelling units. This is just dealing with urban. >> Thank you. >> Councelor M. Wilson. >> Thank you very much. Um just on the further to councelor Alex Wilson's questions from stemming from the delegation. Um so you've if I've understood your answer uh staff have gone back in time and they've uh been able to identify two files which um if they were assessed today one of them would not have required uh a minor variance. And is that what I heard said through the chair? >> Through the chair to the counselor. That's correct. >> Um, how does this work? If I if I may ask, uh, we received a letter I thought I heard you say in June that said we were, you know, not unintentionally misinterpreting something. Um, is there any exposure on on our part for the cost that may have been incurred by that applicant through the chair? >> Uh, through the chair to the council? No, I'm not I'm not aware of of anything. And they've, like I indicated, they've since received building permits. So, um, there's been uh, no followup since then, but I believe Miss Co has something to add. >> Uh, through the chair to the counselor. Um with that minor variance application, there were other variances that were required in addition to the variance that was identified to allow um another unit in a semi- detached dwelling. So they would have had to come for a variance anyway. That particular variance relating to the secondary dwelling unit in the ADU was withdrawn. So it didn't go forward with the rest of the variances. Okay. >> So it's not like um they incurred a cost of a minor variance application were denied and then not reimbursed. Um there were other variances required anyway. So >> okay, thank you for that detail. Um and through the chair, I the other item that um I heard from the delegation was the issue of notice and communication in reference to um 7 days as opposed to I think reference uh I mean uh 20 days that could be employed and I'm wondering if someone could help me with that one through the chair. >> Uh through the chair to the counselor. So the planning act requires a minimum of 20 days notice of a statutory public meeting but does go further to indicate unless an official plan has a different provision. So it does give municipalities the opportunity to have a different notice provision. So uh back in 2022 when bill 109 was uh uh received a sentent by the um provincial government um and that's when there was the fee refund requirement. >> Yes. And so at that time we amended our official plan to uh include an alternative notice requirement. So it does allow a minimum of 7 days of notice. I believe in this case since the team can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe we had given 12 12 days of notice but um so it would it exceeded the minimum requirements of 18 excuse me 18 days of notice. Um 13th of September. >> So notice was given on September 18th. My apologies. Um uh so just to summarize, we we do have an alternative uh requirement for notice but that is permitted uh under the planning act. So we have the if I interpreted that um in this instance so we have granted ourselves the permission uh to employ the 7 days. Um we did so with a notice on the 18th but when was the report itself a available following that time through the chair >> through the chair of cancer I would ask the legislative coordinator to clarify >> I guess I guess the the the the nature of my question is we're giving notice but specifically on on what and I'm trying to understand that gap between notice and then notice on the particulars of what through the chair. >> So, I'm sorry. Are you looking to me to tell you what the particulars of the notice were or of the date? I'm sorry. I was No, no, I understand. I'm trying to understand if I heard the point from the delegate correctly is we have given ourselves as a municipality the permission uh for a a particular time of notice. the notice is sent and I think there was a comment on perhaps the language could have been more specific to the public on the particulars of what we're going to be talking about but the gap between the notice and the actual availability of the report so if notice was given on the 18th when was the actual public report available? Uh the public report was available when the agenda was published on Wednesday of last week. Uh so seven full days. >> So sorry, what what's that date? >> Wednesday of last week, which I believe was the 23rd of September. The public notice does note that the that the report will be available on or after the 23rd. Okay. Um then may I ask finally I heard the ding staff's comment on um their confidence in the language that we're providing in the public notice um along with the public availability of the the particulars in the report uh between the 18th and the 23rd. Do we feel that that is sufficient time for the the public to be to go from what sounds like a more general notice to then having access to a particular the particulars on the 23rd? Is that a best practice where you feel comfort comfortable with that and confident? Those are my questions. >> Uh through the chair to the counselor I would say yes. I think as I indicated our official plan permits a min 7 days I believe sorry and I apologize for the confusion earlier it it was 11 days notice so we do exceed our minimum requirement in the official plan and as indicated by the clerk the report was available a week in advance Okay, thank you. So, back to where we are now. I think we are No more questions. So I believe we're at the electronic vote now. Okay. So let us go to the vote. That vote carries 8 to zero. We're now on to 8.5 peed 23069C mid-rise residential zones phase 2 and strategic and technical amendments to implement the mid-rise residential zones in city of Hamilton zoning bylaw number 5200 CI 26F citywide does the committee wish to hear the staff presentation yes I believe it's Shiovi come on Yeah. The presentation needs to be loaded. >> Okay. I think we're just queuing up the presentation at this time. Okay. Thank you. Um good good afternoon chair, members of the committee, staff and public in attendance. My name is Shel and uh I'm a planner with the zoning by the reform team. Today I will uh today I'm bringing forward phase two of the midrise residential zones project which is part of the broader residential zones project under the banner of reimagining neighborhoods. Throughout this presentation I will be referring to the mid-rise residential zones as midrise zones as well. The midrise zones are next um sorry to give you an overview. The larger residential zones project is introducing new residential zones into the citywide zoning bylaw which helps expand the types of housing permitted mainly along the periphery of neighborhoods. Overall, this supports the residential intensification goals of the urban Hamilton official plan. The broader residential zones project has introduced residential zones into the citywide zoning bylaw in stages beginning with introduction of low density residential zones in 2022. The mid-rise uh zones are next phase of this work with phase one being completed in 2025 and phase two being presented today. This map provides some statistics showing how the introduction of residential zones has supported an incremental increase in housing choices across the city through expanded residential permissions. More than 100 u more than 100,000 properties have been captured through the larger residential zones project. Phase one of this project introduced three mid-rise zones to the citywide zoning bylaw in October 2025. Phase one applied these zones across Hamilton's urban area to properties outside of secondary plan areas. The application of the midrise zones has increased housing opportunities across the city, which supports intensification within Hamilton's built-up area. Through phase 1, midrise zones were applied to approximately 3,000 properties across the city. This slide shows the typology and scale of housing that is permitted through the introduction of mid-rise zones. The midrise uh residential small scale R3 zone typically permits a building height of up to three stories. The mid-rise uh residential R4 zone typically permits a building height of up to six stories and the mid-rise residential large scale R4A zone typically typically permits a a building height of up to 12 stories. The R4 and R4 Z R4A zones also permit some neighborhood level commercial uses. This next phase of the project expands the midrise permissions to additional lands outside of secondary plans. These properties meet the criteria uh met the criteria for zoning zone assignment but were excluded from phase one because their sight specific zoning permissions required additional evaluation. Through this phase, staff evaluated and modernized staff sight specific zoning permissions. Staff also reviewed legacy zoning with existing midrise permissions with lower city within lower city neighborhoods. Phase 2 also addresses strategic and technical amendments to implement the midrise zones in citywide zoning bylaw. Approximately 750 properties were added to this uh through this midrise raising zones phase. The application of the midray zones was guided by a comprehensive evaluation of multiple factors including policy direction from urban Hamilton official plan, sight specific context, existing zoning permissions and current land use. Additional evaluation criteria were established to evaluate properties with existing sight specific zoning permissions. This evaluation considered whether a sight specific permission remains relevant, whether the permission is still required given the existing development on the property and whether the permission is already addressed through the regulations of the citywide zoning bylaw. Phase 2 addresses legacy zoning in areas of the lower city where there is a prevalence of zoning from the former city of Hamilton zoning bylaw. This legacy zoning permits a range of residential permissions and building heights within these neighborhoods. A comprehensive evaluation was undertaken to assess these areas based on three key criterias. First is existing site conditions such as land use and build form. Second is reviewing legacy zoning permissions and third is the road classification where the prop where the property is located such as local collector or arterial road. In undertaking this review, emphasis was placed on balancing the permissions of existing legacy zoning with the guiding principles and zone assignment methodology of the midrise zones. Where the R3 zones and R4 zones have been introduced in the lower city, low density residential uses are also proposed to be permitted in addition to the mid-rise uses providing additional flexibility in land use and build form. This additional flexibility is implemented through special figure 46.1. The final component of this phase includes strategic and technical amendments to further implement the midrise zones in citywide zoning bylaw. In addition to addressing technical amendments, the purpose of these amendments is to ensure the midrise permissions and regulations are consistently applied throughout the citywide zoning bylaw. Project updates were shared with the stakeholders through the residential residential zones project web page and email communications. Information packages were provided to affected neighborhood associations and information regarding the project was also shared with the respective word counselors. Staff staff have continued u to engage with residents and stakeholders through a variety of commun community outreach uh activities helping to raise awareness of the project and its ongoing implementation. These are examples of the ongoing engagement activities associated with the pop uh with the project. The photo on the left is from open streets. Uh the center photo is from a pop-up event at McMasters University and the photo on the right shows uh examples of feedback received from residents and stakeholders. Moving on to the next phase, additional work is underway to inform future phases of the residential zones project. This includes the review and update of medium and highdensity residential policies in the urban Hamilton official plan, including policies within secondary plans. This work will help inform the future application of mid-rise residential zones to additional lands across Hamilton's urban area. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Are there any questions from the committee? So, I'm not seeing any. Oh, go ahead, C. Uh, Councelor Crutch, >> thanks very much. My questions primarily um refer to the letter that's been sent in. I'm not sure if now is a better time to ask that or if I should ask that after this presentation. So, I thought I would just inquire now. letter sent in from the Duran Neighborhood Association with respect to the changes and the impacts there. So, I'll pause and wait to see when I should ask that question. >> Shal, are you prepared to answer that? >> Um, I can try and answer that question. Uh, any questions that may be related to the letter and if I'm I don't have more information, I can refer to the bench. >> Let's have it now. Thanks. >> Sure. Sure. So, a couple of the things that are going on here in the neighborhoods you've chosen specifically for this midterize review. When I first saw this materials, I didn't think there'd be a material impact to the heritage status or heritage buildings or those kinds of things. And then, of course, the government introduced regulations and changed things and changed the way the heritage buildings are designated. And so, for Duran South specifically, Corktown South specifically, there's a pretty static or stable 18th century heritage, 19th century heritage I should say, sorry. um inventory in that neighborhood. So, how will these mid-rise zoning changes impact that? Will it create as of right permissions for demolition because of the way that the intersection happens now with the new heritage legislation? So, that's my kind of question broadly speaking is are the concerns outlined in this letter um something that people should be worried about? Are there protections? Maybe uh Ken Quite if he's there could answer some of these questions as well. I'm not sure but I think given the unique nature of the areas that we're talking about I wonder how those were considered. >> Thank you uh through you chair. Um I can try and answer this question and I can also refer to the the colleagues at my bench uh in addition if they want to add something. Um so by expanding midrise um zoning permissions to these neighborhoods um or particularly particularly to properties with heritage significance um in my opinion it does not impact uh the status of uh of the building. Um in fact a lot of properties within uh the lower city neighborhood uh such as uh in in Duran neighborhood have uh current zoning as E or DE districts which uh permits uh as of right permissions to to build up to build a variety of buildings uh from three stories till 12 plus stories. Um so in in in my opinion it would not uh impact directly as we've tried to capture these properties uh through the midrise zones and assign those properties uh of zones which are relevant to existing build form or the site context. But I would also refer to the the bench for additional information if they want to share. >> Alena Fulford uh supervisor of zoning by reform. Um and just further to uh what uh Shyel has described, um these neighborhoods were singled out because they have a a predominance of legacy zoning which essentially reflects um midrise zoning permissions um across the neighborhood. So uh internal and along the periphery. And so this um exercise essentially took those uh zones that Shival mentioned. So that would be uh the DE district and the E district uh zones from former city of Hamilton zoning bylaw 6593 and translated them to an appropriate uh midrise residential zone um in zoning by 05200. Um, so we we look at this as as predominantly an exercise of translating legacy zoning um into uh an appropriate zone um in the citywide zoning bylaw as opposed to an exercise of of upzoning. Um uh it really was uh built on um uh looking at the existing uh built form and the existing uh zoning permissions and translating that appropriately. >> And through the chair perhaps I can just add to what Miss Bulford um indicated. So to summarize um there's no increase in zoning permissions. It carries over what currently exists. And the other thing that I would add is the zoning does not um does not impact any heritage status and any uh requirements or uh regulations under the Ontario Heritage Act. So if a property is designated, they would still be required to go through a heritage permit that the heritage permit process is the way to assess change to a designated building. Uh for properties that are within a heritage conservation district, they would also be required to uh go through a heritage permit process to um to review and assess any change. And for properties that may not be designated or may not be within a heritage conservation district, our current official plan policies would apply, which also talk about uh preserving heritage and incorporating heritage um attributes into new development. Thank you. >> Thanks. I think we're almost there. I think what the letter is actually asking though something a little slightly different than that. So I think I understand what you're saying is listen a lot of these zones which were E1 D elemento P are all being put into this one zone now those former zones already shared mid-rise characteristics and already shared mid-rise zoning. We're now just making this called mid-rise zoning. What I'm trying to understand are two things. One, um have there been any properties that have been upzoned as a result of this gone from a lower density to a higher density? and B because the province has changed the way that we understand heritage properties and how to designate them. I'm not worried about the ones that are already designated or heritage districts for that matter. But I'm talking about when going to designate buildings now, we have to go through a different process and there's going to be some changes coming in 2027. So my question is does this now open a door for any of the buildings in the area to sort of say well they're now being upzoned or they're now being the zoning is changing and uh because it's harder to protect buildings now they're more vulnerable. That's generally speaking my question and perhaps director quite knows where I'm going with this but I want to make sure we can answer that question in public to satisfy the concerns raised in the letter. through the chair, Ken Quite, director of heritage and urban design. Um, I'll note that Atlanta's team work closely with Alyssa Golden and the heritage team in looking at the zoning and it's our understanding that there is no upzoning that would affect any of any heritage character at the moment. Um that being said, I also understand your concern that the registry, which is a way we do kind of protect projects in the short term, is changing considerably. Um I will note that for development applications, we have a process now where we do add projects to the register as if something's coming along where we're expecting some change. And I'd also note that heritage staff are looking in the new year to come back to this committee with some ideas about different ways of possibly looking at different heritage districts or other different heritage tools to help protect these uh these important neighborhoods and their character given that zoning isn't always the best tool uh in a complex um heritage neighborhood such as Durand. >> Okay. Thanks very much. So my understanding then based on what everything everybody said is there's not upzoning here. So, we're not changing the zoning to increase density for properties in these neighborhoods. And B, um, that issue with the protection exists regardless of whether or not we're do doing zoning and staff are going to be coming back with tools to try and address those provincial legislative changes. But these two things aren't related to one another. Thank you very much for that and that should satisfy the concerns in the letter and I'll follow up with folks from the DNA if they have further questions or if there's properties they're concerned about. >> Thanks, Councelor Kitch. Can I have a mover and second to receive the presentation? Councelor Wang and Councelor A. Wilson. Hand vote. That passes. Thank you. That motion carried. We have no registered delegations, but um we do have a member of the public and it's Yassen again and he is going to be allowed to present to um protect his appeal rights. So Yashton if you're here you you can come online and um we'll do your delegation now. Thank you so much chair for giving me the opportunity. My name is Yasin Janua and I'm member of the public with interest in Stony Creek area. I respectfully request the city to consider whether additional lands in the Stony Creek area uh including the lands with an established development history and appropriate access to existing infrastructure and transit corridor could be included within the midrise residential phase 2 initiative. In particular, I encourage planning staff to review opportunities for appropriate redevelopment and intensification in Stony Creek area as there are already ongoing um small mid-rise uh developments going on. And uh this could be because it's a city-wide exercise. So, as part of the city's broader citywide approach, while taking into account the applicable official plan policies, servicing, transportation, environmental, and other technical consideration, this may be a good exercise to consider now as to futureproof this exercise. And uh and finally, I would also respectfully request that my comments and today's delegation be recorded as my formal submission concerning CI26F and that I received notice of the city's decision in this regard. Thank you. >> Okay, thanks Jassen. Um fair enough. We will possibly ask those questions at the time when it's um to engage with staff. Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? And final time, are there any other members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? May I have a mover and a seconder? Councelor A. Wilson, Councelor Wang, that the public submissions be received and considered by committee and that the public meeting be closed. Please indicate your vote electronically when it comes up. That passes 7 to zero. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the recommendations in the report? Councelor A. Wilson, Councelor Casar. Are there any questions for staff on the report? Anyone going to consider councelor Casar? >> Yeah, thanks. So just picking up from the delegation and sort of lines of the question I had. Can uh staff just speak to this the geographic scope? I know there was an appendix I think it was 80 plus pages kind of hard to grasp uh the geography of it. So speaking to the request in Stony Creek and then just the geography of where this come is being proposed to be put into effect across the city if that's clear. Thank you. >> Okay, good question. through the chair. Thank you. Um, so we've tried to as as I mentioned in my presentation, we uh phase one captured properties um outside of secondary plan areas and also did not capture properties that had sight specific zoning. But uh through this phase two, we've tried to capture properties um more properties um and we've tried to capture focus uh on properties that had sight specific zoning. Um the main area of focus was uh the properties which had legacy zoning from uh the city of Hamilton zoning by law 6593 and we've also captured some properties outside of this area. Um there are some remaining properties which we need to evaluate further in detail uh make sure that it's it's part of the urban area of Hamilton and um in in through the next phase we hope to capture properties that are part of uh the secondary plans uh planning areas. I hope I answered your question. >> Okay. Yes. a lot of detail in the in the answer, but at a high level, uh, understanding secondary plans and sight specific, put that aside for a minute, does this apply to all of Hamilton through your chair? >> Through the chair, that's correct. Yes. >> Okay. So, it does with all those caveats and whatever. Um, so is there any specific answer for the delegate who I think had previously mentioned an area or is is that in scope or is that something that would need to be taken offline to answer in detail >> through the church to the counselor? Um, Sorry about that. Through the care uh chair to the counselor. Um phasing wise we're looking at uh the next phase phase three would be sometime in 2027 likely toward the end of the year to bring in uh additional midrise. >> Okay. Um so I'm just thinking from the delegates point of view uh how do they interpret that answer relative to what they were asking? Is there a way to to triangulate you know what they were asking with that answer? >> So in through the chair just to clarify are you asking if we can include his property today? >> No. Yeah. Just trying to understand what's being already included what's being included today and what's being included in the future and do we know based on what he shared which phase his question is going to be answered? >> Understood. Thank you through the chair. Um it's not included in this phase because the property is in a secondary plan area. believe we believe is fruitona. Uh so that would be the next phase uh again. So phase three the where we're looking at properties and secondary plans. So sometime next year. >> Thank you for bearing with me. That's a helpful answer. >> Thanks counselor. Any more questions for staff? Not seeing any. We already have our mover and seconder. Um there are no more questions. So let's have the vote. It'll be electronic. Councelor Cretch, are you able to vote? So that carries six to zero as we're going down slowly. Um items for consideration. Now item nine 9.1 notice of object objection to the notice of intention to designate 71 Claremont Drive Hamilton uh let's see Okar Gate House at Claremont Lodge under part four of the Interior Heritage Act. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the recommendations in the report? Councelor A. Wilson. Councelor Casar. Are there any questions for staff? Councelor A. Wilson. >> Thank you. Through you. Um I'd appreciate a better understanding chair of under of um the pathway towards demolition for a per uh for a designated property. I think I heard um what I understood as somewhat contradictory or conflicting information this morning um that there's a deep willingness to work with the city around these issues, but also that designation is a barrier. Um, my understanding of the designation process is what allows staff to have resources to have those conversations about collaboration and we can't necessarily collaborate to protect a property or to do work on a property that's not designated. Can you help me understand like what how flexible a designation might be? What are some of the options there? I'm just not sure um I'm fully aware of what whether it means that the building has to stand forever um it gets demolished tomorrow like how difficult and what's the range of processes within that designation. I think we'll go to >> through the chair Ken Kite, director of heritage and urban design. Um, we depend on the heritage permit process once a building is designated and there is a fair amount of flexibility within that process. Of course, its intent is to try and maintain as much of the heritage fabric of the building as possible, but this committee will be aware there has been two major examples of designated buildings that have been demolished or have been approved to be demolished through the heritage uh approval process this term, often related to structural integrity. other issues. There's been uh other uh another example would be um Main Street West where a portion of the facade has been maintained and changed as part of a planning approval and heritage permit process. So, there is a fair amount of flexibility to work with an applicant. There's also grants and interest free loans available to help as well. >> Thank you. And I'm not a structural engineer, but if I was convinced by the delegations or convinced that um demolition is 100% the necessary future, and I I don't necessarily know that that is the evidentiary kind of record we have, but if if that was and I was fully convinced that you know what, the future of this property unfortunately because of past neglect um is likely demolition, um is that a cumbersome process under the permit? Like I think that's that's the concern I heard is that we're not actually going to be able to have it happen or there might be a process there. So can you are there fees associated with the uh the heritage permit process? Um can you just walk through maybe a little bit more from a customer service perspective? What does that look like? Um if you're a citizen of Hamilton trying to navigate getting a getting a heritage permit. >> So through the chair there's no fees for a heritage permit. Uh there's actually also um funding to cover any studies up to a I think it's a $1,500 amount which may not cover everything in in this case. Um in terms of demolition through that process uh and engineering uh we would need an engineers report a certified engineer indicating that the building was structurally unsound and not safe. Um and that is not the case with the uh city commissioned report by John Cook on this site. We do recognize of course the building is is compromised in many ways but it hasn't got to that level of structural unstability and not being safe yet um by that report. >> Thank you through you chair. My final question, in my experience working with heritage staff over the term, I think folks have been quite sympathetic to the concerns of folks who are owning buildings trying to be balanced in the recommendations, noting here that um there is still a recommendation from staff to designate. Um at a high level, are you able to clarify why um staff are recommending designation or not withdrawing designation rather is the recommendation today? uh through the chair uh staff are governed by the Ontario Heritage Act and the nine criteria and feel in this case uh that the property in question meets at least two. I believe the report indicates six of those criteria. So it does meet the criteria for designation for so from staff's perspective and heritage perspective it does meet the requirement for designation. >> Thank you. Are there any other questions before we go to the vote? Okay, I'm not seeing any. So, my understanding of this is a vote yes is to designate and then that would require further work with the owners and staff if they want to demolish and a vote no is to not designate and then that would expedite the demolition. Oh, councelor Cretch, you're up. Okay, go ahead. Thanks. I really appreciate councelor Alex Wilson's questions. I just wanted to add a couple things to this. I think there's this suggestion that out there that this is somehow a threat. That wasn't what the agent said, but that's been a suggestion put forward before that somehow designating a building puts it in some jeopardy or makes it difficult. What it means again is that in public around heritage assets that the city cares about, we have a process for how to protect them and if necessary due to safety concerns or other things, we demolish them. And the concern that well, we're going to have to do something with this property or we're going to have to maintain the property. Listen, this has been a this has been a property of some interest for a very long time. The fact that it hasn't had a designation on doesn't mean that it shouldn't have in the past. And now we're up against it in terms of the way that the province has changed legislation and we're making sure that we're designating properties before a certain date that have some significance. This meets a number of the criteria in terms of heritage significance. I don't disagree with some of the things that were shared about, well, this changed or that changed, this is not in great condition. Sure, that's the case with lots of heritage buildings, but um continuing to to kind of approach this perspective of heritage designation as if it's some terrifying thing, I think undermines the entire heritage process. As council's rep on rep on the committee, asking everyone to vote in favor of this, we'll figure out a way of working through the heritage permit process in public with the community of people who are appointed to the committee to make sure that this is stewarded properly. Thank you. Okay, not seeing any other comments. We will go to the electronic vote now. >> And that vote carries six to one. We have 9.1. May I please have a mover and seconder to receive the correspondence? Councelor Wang, Councelor A. Wilson, please indicate by show of hands. All in favor? That passes. Okay. PED26097 notice of objection to the notice of intention to designate 650 672 sanitarium road Hamilton under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. May I have a mover and second to approve the recommendations report? Councelor Wang and Councelor Casar. Are there any questions for staff? Councelor Crretch. Any questions? I think he does. No. Okay. No questions. Okay. So, please indicate your vote now electronically. That vote carries seven to zero. On to 9.3. Coots to escarment to sorry coups to escarment eco park system update and memorize memorandum of understanding extension wards 113 and 15. May I have a mover and a seconder to approve the recommendations? Councelor A. Wilson and councelor M. Wilson. Are there any questions for staff? Councelor A. Wilson, go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh through you, chair. Uh really appreciating this and really appreciating our uh partnership in this voluntary organization. Uh my question uh is a bit more about how we kind of accountably show up or kind of carry on that work. And I asked it a little bit with respect to uh uh natural heritage comments on planning files earlier. Um but my question is to uh our staff team about how we can translate the um outcomes from this working group into staff's various roles and accountabilities um and what work might be needed. So we've touched on the biodiversity action plan. We have our watershed um plan as well. But then we also have these types of convening groups or groups where people come together and maybe set goals or measure outcomes um and trying to make sure that the knowledge that we gain through participating in this network that we pay to participate in um actually use that value to the fullest extent we can um and that if we've learned something in terms of local knowledge or there's a best practice to be shared it's getting implemented across the organization. So I don't think that's necessarily something specific to theou but I'm wondering how within thatou and within that renewal we as an organization can think about the implementation of some of these outcomes through the chair Thomas uh program coordinator for the biodiversity action plan thank you for that question maybe I'll start and say the structure of the eco park system was used as a model to build the BAP governance structure. So that that's one way we're directly reflecting some of these really great projects like the ecosystem service work that the eco park system conducted. I also think of the parks Canada ecological corridor program um that that was concluded. uh those get reflected and have been reflected in BARE action plan actions and we talked about earlier yesterday the uh working groups internally that the BAP team has set up where we're actively looking and using those resources to to make sure we're implementing them. Um a good example is uh Cooch Drive wildlife fencing. That was a project that was uh that RBG led through the Parks Canada pilot staff are looking at how do we extend that fencing um and that's as a result of that collaboration too. >> Thank you. Really appreciate that answer and I might use the example of fencing through you chair. I think what I'm hoping to get to is when do we get to the point where as a result of that work around the eco park table where people are able to come together identify a problem that problem is then fully governance like it's it's a city of Hamilton priority because it's named in our bodiversity action plan so there's no clear governance question about mandate or is this a priority it's been a dictated priority but I I think my question is very operational inside the city what then gets city of Hamilton parks department to put that funding request in their budget as opposed opposed to it being a idea that exists on a paper that the person who comes to the working group table does like how does it get into the budget. So it actually becomes a a priority as opposed to maybe the you know middle staffer kind of there that maybe has some program expertise or has some knowledge but isn't necessarily writing the budget submissions for the department. I my question is really about that knowledge translation just because not every single city staffer is going to sit at this table. One or two are how are those lessons getting actioned into people's work plans? uh through the chair. I think one of the ways is the representatives of from the city that are participating. So in terms of the biod biodiversity action plan management committee meeting um myself uh and the director of um I forget Cynthia director Graham's title my apologies but both both director Graham and myself are participating and I think that is the way um that items like that would move beyond just a conversation is to have those around the table so that when budget time does come those conversations are happening and and the the people at the table that can help move those projects forward are at the table. >> Uh thank you through you chair. Just a final comment for me. I think this is a really excellent partnership and we've uh seen the benefit uh firsthand whether it's been understanding the ecosystem service value and grindstone area um some of the other collaboration that's happened. Uh I do think when it comes to kind of actioning that there's also though so many quick wins that if we are to be strategic so for example road allowances we could close every road allowance in the eco park that city of Hamilton owned. That's an administrative activity that could happen in the background. I guess what I'm saying is right now it seems to me that that requires external direction and there's not necessarily an ability to have those ideas come cir start at that table and then be added into work plans or then have if they do need council buyin to say hey this is a change we need resources to it. um it's not getting kind of that trigger. Uh so I do think uh that if city departments reflected on the eco park and said this is a priority, how can we move this forward? Uh then we we'd close all the road allowances when there's some spare time to do that and we'd get those done or just some other like really low hanging fruit to be strategic about moving some of these things forward. Um that said, I think as a voluntary table where we come together to have conversations, help each other out, see what we can do. Um we've done so much there. I just think finding a way to be more accountable to continuing that partnership would result in even more getting done. Thank you so much. >> Okay, thank you. Do we have any other questions from staff or for staff? Not seeing any. Let's go to the electronic vote. That carries 7 to zero. We're on to 9.4 peed 26073. Comments on the provincial transit supportive guidelines and technical guide river and stream systems. May I have a mover and second to approve the recommendations? Councelor Casar. Councelor McMakin. Are there any questions for staff? Not seeing any. We'll go to the electronic vote. Votes up and it clears. Seven to zero. Passes. Thank you. 9.5 HMC 2900 9.5B proposed amendment to the recommendations contained in item 8.1 9.5C proposed amendment to the recommendations contained in item 8.2 of the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee many meetings from held on September 18th. I think councelor Cretch is going to speak and clarify some of my notes here. Thank you. Yeah, really briefly. I'll move all these things and I'm happy to move them all as a block if that's simpler. And these are two amendments that are proposed here just to ensure that some of the concerns that were raised by delegates about these properties are addressed. Uh we wanted to make sure that we could do that. So at the heritage committee, we modified some of the language, but then staff were asked to come back in time for the planning committee with those amendments. So they're there for you and you can see them there. and I'll be moving those amendments and looking for a seconder just to make sure that the information we shared and discussed at the heritage committee makes its way to the planning committee onto council. That was my commitment. Thanks to staff for doing that. >> Okay, councelor is looking for a seconder. Councelor A. Wilson will second that >> to confirm. Uh, councelor Crutch, you're putting the uh, recom alternatives set out in the memos on the floor, which will amend appendix B in both of the reports in question. >> Yeah, as long as I haven't lost the plot. That's right. And I can't look at Ken right now, but if Ken wants to give me the eyebrow of a scent, that would be helpful. >> Chair Ken Ko, director of heritage and urban design. Yes, that's the that's the intent and I would leave it to the legislative coordinate coordinator to make sure we got the words right. >> Yes. I just wanted to make sure uh through you, Mr. Chair, that everybody was clear on what was happening. >> So, we're passing the alternative if we we're voting on the alternative >> in both memos. >> In both memos. >> So, you're receiving the um the minutes of the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee. >> Yeah. uh receiving the two uh memos and putting forward the alternative in both memos which uh essentially is um approving appendix or sorry uh amending appendix B in the original memo the original two staff reports >> clear as mud to me but I think we can figure that out so first of all we're going to have a mover and secondary to receive the minutes and approve the recommendations therein of memos 9.5B and 9.5 C. >> No. Uh the alternatives. >> Okay. So, basically we got a mover and second to receive the minutes and approve the alternative. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And receive those memos as well. So, I believe councelor Crutch has moved it and we're just looking for a seconder is in councelor Alex Wilson. >> Yes. Sorry, he didn't say that. >> Up. I think we're ready to >> go to the electronic vote. That vote carries 7 to zero. Thank you. We're on to 9.5A. Correspondence from Kyle Ford respecting 313 Barton Street. May I have a mo and second to receive the correspondence. Councelor A. Wilson. Councelor Wang, please indicate with a show of hands. I saw most people got it up, so that carries. Thank you. We're going now to peed 25276, follow-up review of fortification bylaw 10122 citywide. May I have a move and seconder to approve the recommendations and report? Councelor Wang and Councelor McMaken. And what we'll do is are there any questions for staff? Here we go to councelor Wang >> through you chair. What's the activity here that we're trying to do today? I wonder if you could get um ask CBO Lai just to give us a brief overview as to what this is >> uh through the chair Rob Lai director of building. Um the activity today was uh at the request before of committee to bring forward a terms of reference which we brought forward in December of 2025. And as part of that terms of reference was to review the fortification bylaw and um as best determined if surveillance cameras the intent of surveillance cameras were u in the bylaw as they were intended to be. Um through that review we brought forward a report earlier in September um for committee to review and then based on the inc camera discussion from there we provide we provided further information in the report on options for um options for citizens to pursue should they have any complaints on surveillance cameras. The intent of the fortification bylaw was never to be a camera bylaw. uh as as noted in the report, it was to deal with clubouses that were excessively fortifying their property um and preventing uh EMS uh from being able to attend the site. That's that's the whole intent of that bylaw. It now it appears uh that it's morphed into something more than that. And uh we've provided our our direction in that report. >> And the direction in the report is essentially to remove surveillance cameras from the fortification bylaw. Has nothing to do with the uh surveillance aspect, the privacy aspect, the um use of camera, the use and type of camera, the spying or the um voyerism, potential criminal natures. Is that correct? What is the what was the int what was your recommended action here if you could through your chair? >> Yeah through through the chair um as I said earlier in the fortification bylaw it was really to deal with the fortification pieces of excessively fortifying buildings. At the time that the bylaw was drafted in uh 2009 2010 um as I said previously there was no Ring doorbell camera. there was no mainstream cameras that people were purchasing for low dollars and um attaching them to their properties. Um now everybody or every second person does has some type of surveillance camera at their property. Um so this was never the intent. Um I think now it it makes sense to remove surveillance cameras from the fortification bylaw and leave the fortification bylaw as it stands without the surveillance camera piece. And if it is the will of committee to pursue some type of other camera bylaw, if I call it that, um, then we can do so. >> Okay. Thank you. So then just for public record, then if we remove the cameras aspect from the fortification bylaw, where does that leave enforcement? because I know it's stated in the documents, but I wonder if you could just say it out loud for us in terms of what what are the potential actions that citizens can take in today's day and age without if we don't have another camera surveillance bylaw at some point coming forward. >> Sure. Through the chair, um as as noted in the report, uh we provided four bullet points that rate that residents may be directed to in the absence of cameras being in the bylaw. Um the first one is normal as speak to their neighbor directly and request that the camera be repositioned or certain features disabled if they in if they believe that certain features are enabled. Uh consider community mediation services where concerns cannot be resolved through direct discussion. Seek independent legal advice where they believe a security camera is in inferring with their privacy rights or enjoyment of their property. And lastly, they can contact Hamilton Police Services where they believe a security camera is being used in connection with criminal activity, harassment, intimidation, or other public safety concerns. This is very similar to other municipalities and how they handle them. >> And in your report, you had outlined the jurisdictions of all of the other municipalities in the surrounding area that has something of this ilk or nature, but not at all the same as the fortification bylaw. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, chair, just as a quick comment, I truly appreciate the delegations this morning and their concerns and I do take them quite seriously. I think that what ended up happening was it kind of it morphed into something different and I will be um honest and transparent. I've been talking to Vic and the Hamilton Privacy Alliance about this. So, I intend to continue working with them on figuring out what does this look like because I think the concerns that they bring up are very important, but not the same as what we're talking about today. Um, which is a recommendation to remove surveillance cameras from the fortification bylaw. It's not at all what they were talking about. So, I think that that's where I want to assure the Hamilton Privacy Alliance as well as any um listeners or um anybody that's watching this that this isn't going to get forgotten. It's just that it's probably not the right place for that kind of conversation. And so I hope that um we can continue moving this forward and go with um CBO LI's recommendation in order to clean this up, make sure that we're we're being as um thorough as possible with a fortification by law, but then knowing full well that there is a separate and distinct separate activity as to what the Hamilton Privacy Alliance is asking for and I intend to follow up with that. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Wang. Councelor Cretch. >> Thanks very much. So, I wanted to make a couple comments here about this. I think that councelor Hang has covered a lot of it, so I'll be brief, but there's a lot of these concerns have been raised in war and and as Tammy says, a lot of the things that people brought up here are really serious concerns. Those aren't the same thing as a fortification bylaw. When you read this report, and I appreciate staff's clarity here, what they're clearly saying is essentially this by has been acting as a holding basket. People are able to complain or cite violations of the bylaw. They go into this little holding basket. Staff review them at extreme time uh time for staff and resources of staff and in 100% of situations can't enforce. So what it is is frankly US sited frustration. They've cited charter rights policies and other policies and said that those mean that they basically can't even if they're trying to enforce these things. So the bylaw is ineffective and doesn't work and doesn't make sense and it's trying to be used in ways that it was never designed to be used. If in the next term of council people think it's worthwhile trying to explore something else that exists in terms of trying to address some of the other broader issues, great. But that's not this bylaw. and leaving it in there just keeps creating a loophole for staff to have to keep going back and saying to the person who complains, we can't do anything about this. That's not effective. That's not policy and we should be updating our policy so they're legal. The municipalities who have them in place also can't enforce their bylaws, right? Um so we're not seeing municipalities who have bylaws that they're able to enforce with respect to cameras. That's handled by other people, not by cities. Yes, it's a problem. I think it's a problem especially concerning um people being filmed without their consent but we do also have some laws on the books around voyerism other kinds of things where the police can intervene if that's what occurs and that's who's supposed to intervene so thankful for staff really laying out what the reasons are talking about the rationale for why they're doing it what their experience has been the uninforcibility of this and where people should be going with their concerns in our roles we're often frustrated about things we can't change or that aren't in our jurisdiction. That's okay. That makes sense. Cities can't do everything. Municipal councils can't do everything. That has been a really difficult discussion I've had to have with residents time and time again. And this is another example of that. And I wish there was more we could do, but it's clear we can't in the situation. >> Thank you, councelor. >> Uh councelor A. Wilson. >> Thank you. appreciating all the comments about uh what's a fortification bylaw and what's not and what's maybe an issue with neighbors between security cameras or potentially the grounds for future action. Uh just referring to page six of eight of the report residents may be directed to and this is the kind of bulletpointed list of you know conflict resolution skills that we might recommend or deploy right now and I think that's the root of my question is right now um the intake for the city of Hamilton whether appropriate or not has been the fortification bylaw for these concerns. I think one of the concerns from residents uh from one of the delegates I heard today was you have an intake point even if it's not an appropriate one. That's where people are reaching out. That's where these things are happening. Maybe they're not being addressed appropriately. Would staff be able to comment on just some of the conversation about whether it's a web page as was referenced in Toronto, but the timeline of some of those pieces. So there's still an intake uh if a neighbor has a security camera concern with another neighbor. Right now they may find their way to the fortification bylaw. um what's the what's the door to intake that concern or give this information that's in the report to that resident um after we remove this from the fortification bylaw >> uh through the chair. Thank you for the question counselor. Um what we can do of course it would be updated on our on our building division website. So we could provide that information for these four bullet points and the link uh on our website. But in the interimm um in the near future, what we'd probably do is just be providing a standardized response. So as that complaint came in as it would in the normal manner, we would probably just have composed a template email that we would respond back um with these four bullet points and direction where to go. >> Thank you. And just making sure that we includes the the whole city and not just the building team. So if someone called the customer contact center and doesn't make their way to build it, they're still able to get that referral. Um just understanding that again it sounds like there's been one department that's kind of been leading the intake and this report is asking to stop leading that intake. Um saying you're not necessarily the most effective people to do it. I appreciate that but just making sure that there is a door for the public who has this concern. So again on that note of timeline um given that this isn't necessarily only build like I I appreciate that as this becomes not a fortification bylaw issue is it still a building issue? Um, and so just trying to understand who has ownership over making sure this info gets on the website, it's communicated to folks who are engaging with the public. Um, whether that be at the contact center or in other departments. Um, just given that it's maybe not in a bylaw that building is responsive for after today. >> Yeah. Through the chair. I'll take I'll take ownership for that. At the end of the day, the majority of the the complaints that do come in, they actually come in through Dan's office and he forwards them over. Um, so I'm happy to provide some guidance, some some correspondence back to Dan's office and happy to update the contact center so they have a script on on what they can say and what they can't say. Okay. Uh, thank you. Just a final comment from me chair. I just want to echo that I think there's a real act like I I really do want to echo delegates. I think there is a legitimate concern going on here. Um, especially as technology is changing. Um, and this would be hopefully the role of the information and privacy commissioner or the province in setting out some standards or in clarifying legal jurisdiction. I think we've we found a lot of the time as municipalities when we get into that uh difficulty of private property rights and trying to access private property we find um consistently when it comes to enforcement sometimes there are big difficulties that result uh and so having some clear guidance on how cities can close this gap that is only growing um as technology changes would certainly be appreciated by myself and I'm sure appreciated by lots of folks who are feeling like there's not any um work being done right now to um address some of these growing concerns. Thank you, counselor. Well said. So, any more comments? Not seeing any. Let's go to the electronic vote now. Council Megan, are you thumbs up? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. That carries seven to zero. Okay. 9.68. Correspondence respecting the fortification by law. May I have a mover and second to receive that correspondence. Councelor Wang, Councelor A. Wilson, please indicate with a show of hands. Enthusiastically, yes, that carries. Thank you. Housekeeping amendment for building bylaw 15058 citywide. May I have a mover and second to approve the recommendations in the report? Councelor Casar and Councelor Wang. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff on this housekeeping amendment item? Not seeing any. >> Oh, sorry. Councelor Wang, you are on. Go. >> Thank you. Um, with this housekeeping amendment, uh, how much time does this free up or like red tape elimination with just this one little bylaw amendment? >> Uh, through the chair. Thank you, counselor, for the question. I'm not sure if I could quantify how much time it takes, but I rather just say how much frustration it would alleviate from the applicants. Um, time on our part is quick. Our response is quick. you have to complete the form, but for applicants, there was just many hoops that they had to jump through in advance of uh receiving their demolition permit. >> Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay, I think we're going to the vote. Electronic. It's up. Councelor Meican Council Cretch. Okay, thank you. That carries seven to zero. We have amendments to the outstanding business list. I am not going to read them all. They are in black ink. So that means I can move to the red ink and go with May I have a mover and seconder to approve the amendments to the outstanding business list. Let's go with councelor A. Wilson and Councelor McMaken. Are there any questions for staff on any of those items? Councelor Wang, you're up. >> Just a confirmation that item B E, the correspondence for the new date that's going to get updated to October 7th, right? Just the just the confirmation that that's going to happen. >> I see that now. So, that was for next week, which is October um 7th. Okay. So, we'll note that correction and uh we can approve it now that we've made that correction. Thank you for catching that. Okay. So, we have our move in our secondary and we're going to indicate with an electronic vote now. Oh, sorry. Councelor M. Wilson. >> Thank you. My apologies. Um I have a question uh in relation to it would be B C green building standards. Um it was added October 2024. I know there's been provincial legislation. There's a new date. I if it's possible and I apologize for not asking in advance. Is there anyone who can speak to me about what is the expectation of that which is forthcoming? Thank you. >> We have anybody up there? Okay. Sorry. Go ahead, Emily. >> That's okay. Through the chair, uh Emily, co-manager of zoning and committee of adjustment. Uh apologies. I'm just pulling up our update here. So um in light of bill um 98, which is the latest bill passed um preventing municipalities from being able to impose green building standards, uh we will be looking at um pivoting to a voluntary program instead. Um so staff just need additional time in order to uh determine how that's going to roll out. So we're looking at sometime next year uh to begin to do so. >> Okay. Thank you. You good now, counselor? Okay. Try to relocate myself. Okay. So, I guess we're going to go to the electronic vote now. Thank you. Okay. That motion carries seven to zero. We are now on to 9.8 correspondence respecting new due date 2023 Hamilton community heat response. May I have a mover and second to receive the correspondence. Councelor Wang, Councelor Casar, please indicate your hand vote now everybody. Thank you. That carries. We are on to item 10 motions. Oh, I'm gonna throw the chair over to Councelor M. Wilson. Well, I present my uh motion, but I don't have it in paper, so I'm going to try and call it up on here. So this is moved by myself. I'm going to ask councelor Wang to second it. Uh Glambert Community Recreation Center water and wastewater services. Whereas the proposed Glambert Community Center is a vital municipal priority that directly impacts community well-being, economic development, and quality of life for W 11 residents and must be placed at the forefront of infrastructure and planning and execution. And whereas the site of the Bimbrook Arena at 4300 and 4280 Bimbrook Road is situated outside of the Bimbrook settlement area and within protected countryside of the green belt plan and therefore does not qualify for municipal sewer and water connection under the policies of the green bait belt plan or our RHOP. Therefore, be it resolved that the Glam Brook Community Recreation Center as a municipal priority for W 11 be confirmed, that the preferred location for the new rec center indoor pool gymnasium walking track is a city-owned 27 acres at Glenrook Arena at 43 and4280 Bimmerick Road be confirmed and that staff be directed to prepare a draft official plan amendment to establish a sightspecific policy area in volume 3, chapter B, rural sight specific areas of rural Hamilton official plan to permit the extension of lakebased municipal water services and municipal wastewater services to service lands located at 43 and 4280 Bimmerick Road to give notice of the draft official plan amendment and to hold a public meeting in accordance with the planning act before council considers the amendment. So in speaking to that I will just say that well I have a lot to say. Um it was councelor Wang. Basically during yesterday's presentation of community benefits council makin spoke about our focus should be more than building complete streets. We should be building complete communities. This motion is a point in case of building a complete ward. Glenn Brook ward 11, our third largest ward by area with has some residents who face a 40-minute drive to access city hall. Our ward is incomplete without a rec center and an indoor pool. An indoor pool that would locally support our seniors, our families, our youth sports and recreation. As a city, we have an invaluable asset of 27 acres of recreation land that lie only 600 meters from services. The current arena is 50 years old. vastly underperforming uh using heavily mineral mineralized well wellwater and an aged end of life septic system. So yes, the land sits outside the urban boundary service area. Yes, it's in the green belt and I get provincial policy is very restrictive, but when something is sitting right there within basically two and a half of my golf shots of services, I strongly feel that this is a worthy endeavor that we should capitalize on. Nowhere else in the city do we have a parcel of recreation land that sits so close to services that doesn't that's not connected. This is a geographical center of W 11 sitting just west of Bimbrook several kilometers from Mount Hope. That's easy access from rural roads and it's only six kilometers for residents from Summit Park which historically identify as Glenn Brook even though they're in Ward 9. This makes sense to me because our Glamrookch borders W 9. It borders w 6, 7, 8, 12, and 14. And an indoor community uh center pool here and the community center would relieve swimming capacity for pools at Stony Creek Park, Valley Park, Hunting Park, West Mount, McNab, and Ancaster Aquatic Center. Facilities supports this, public works can do it, recreation supports this as confirmed in our PIC uh that we conducted in the past two years. and we are just waiting for planning. But planning can't move without corre council direction. So this is just for staff to work on the draft to chart the path. We've had similar official plan amendments done like this before without incident for the community good. We have the Ancaster Bakery where services were brought to its location with no issues where many residents are now gainfully employed baking happily. The only thing I heard from that location basically in the last five years was we just did a proposed demolition for a house that was on the property. Um there's a French immersion school in Bimbrook and it's accompanying a gas station. They also need to receive services and that was also formally approved for the good of the community. So again, our ward has 28,000 residents and we need this support and we need this now because again, what's our motto? It's can we raise a family and age successfully in place. This helps us. It is an exception to the rule, but it makes sense when we look at things. So just to give planning, this is just to give planning staff direction to work on the amendment to the bylaw. All the other like everything's good with that. So again, this was proposed originally a pool 1979. I've got the site plan in my office. We are now at the time where it's right to extend the services because they have been brought down to Fletcher's Road and they're there and they're waiting to be connected. So Glenn Brook needs this. It helps every ward we touch and it allows a central location where all families across G Glam can come together, play, and recreate. Thanks for your consideration. Are there any questions? Oh, sorry. You have the chair. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, are there any questions uh on the motion? I have two up. Uh, recognize councelor Casar. Microphone for councelor Casar. Or do I have to turn mine off? Yep. Okay, good. >> Thank you. I admire council Tatis's passion and um persistence on this file. Um and yeah, I totally understand the benefit of bringing to the community. My questions are just about kind of the process and the elements specific in the motion which are kind of independent of what the independent of the recreation center. So just the first part of the resolution was this being confirmed that this is a municipal priority for W 11 understand from the W counselor is a priority. Um would staff be able to speak to the recreation master plan and does that uh support what's in part A of the resolution here through your chair? >> This is a planning committee but um the motion does speak to priority and need. So, is there someone here from recreation? I see uh Director Haulingworth queued up there >> uh through the through the chair. Um I I can't speak to public works's view on this and recreation's view, but I can say that there has been um internal steering committees formed uh around this issue and have met to discuss the opportunities and I think it's it's fair to say that it it is a priority. >> Okay. Uh, do we know if it's part of any capital long-term capital budgeting? >> Uh, unfortunately, I can't answer that on behalf of public works, but >> looks like maybe the mover has something to add. >> Yeah. Uh, when I first looked at the budget four years ago, there was, I think, 30 million set aside. As we've gone forth, it's raised up to 40 million. I think the last total I saw was Yeah, it's it's there's 40 million aside for in the next four years and it's part of the recreation master plan, the three uh rural community centers, Glenn Brook being one of them, Flamborough and Winona and so we would be the third. >> So am I interpret am I to interpret that that there's a reserve or it's just that it's budgeted? Is there anyone from finance who can ask answer the questions please? >> There's no one from finance here to answer the questions. >> Okay. >> My understanding that it's from reserves. >> I think that's an important question that the counselor wants clarification from. >> Yeah. So, it's kind of challenging not to have that answer, but I'll go on to the next one. Um just on the fact that this is asking for a draft OPA and sight specific policy area um outside the urban boundary in the green belt. Um just is that consistent with policy? I think the mover said it was an exception. I'm just trying to understand that because it's a little uncomfortable to just move this without a report or other staff input. So, I'm just trying to do the due diligence here because good reason. I get it. But it just seems it doesn't have lack of supporting information from staff. If anyone could address that for me, please. >> Director Febeck or Chief Planner Fayback. >> Uh through the chair to the counselor. So um the direction for staff to report back with an official plan amendment that report would include the applicable policies um and the and the hierarchy. So in terms of what our uh regional sorry what the rural uh Hamilton official plan says what provincial policy says um because the green belt plan does not permit the extension of services. I think from a planning perspective um planning staff would not be able to support um an official plan amendment. Um but the direction is that staff prepare it and schedule a statutory public meeting. So the opportunity would be to hear from the community um and to um for planning committee and council to um um what's the word I'm looking for? Sorry. To consider the official plan amendment. >> Okay, I understand that's helpful. And then uh just a followup to that is there recent precedent of this kind of motion directing an OPA on Yeah, I'm just curious if there are I think the mover mentioned that just like with would like staff to weigh in on any examples of that just so we you know have some comfort. >> What else? We'll wait for staff to answer, please. Colleagues, >> uh through the chair to the councelor. Um I believe councelor Tison mentioned the two examples. Uh certainly Oakrun Bakery being one of them. I think the the more recent one though I would say and I'm going to call it the Wills Bus depot because that's still what I call it. The one south of Bimbrook. >> Yep. >> That was a couple of years ago at this point in time. I don't I don't have the specific timeline, but that's the last one that I can recall. >> Okay. I see there are other speakers. I'll leave it there for now. >> Thank you, Councelor Wilson. Alex Wilson, please. >> Microphone. >> No. >> Uh, thank you. Just seeking confirmation. I can get followup before council. Um, but just on A and B, I just don't understand like the meaning behind being confirmed. And so maybe that's a question for finance. Maybe that's a question for public works. But just putting that out there that I'd like to understand the implication of something being confirmed. Does that prioritize it? Um I'm just not under because we don't get a lot of these understanding the impact of uh A and B. Um does that create a capital sheet? Does that like what happens as a result of that? It also sounds like we maybe don't have the folks here today to do that. So I can name that do my own homework before council on that. Um what I heard in response to uh item C or the planning space is just uh at a very high level um the green belt act which is planning legislation does not allow that and so there's no way that our provincial plan like our um regulated planners are ever going to be in support of this. It is by definition outside of the professional kind of policy of the of planners. Um but there's still mechanisms for bringing an OPA forward. That was kind of the I just want to go back. I heard so staff would never and I'm just trying to understand that commentary. Is it because there's a policy issue there? Um just so I can understand the difference between getting a report back versus staff weighing in on that report back or opining on that. >> Uh through the chair to the counselor. In terms of staff providing a professional opinion, um the the planning hierarchy would require that the official plan policies be in conformity with provincial legislation. And so because the green belt plan does not permit the extension of services, planning staff would not be able to bring forward a supportive recommendation for an official plan amendment which is different from um a a statutory public meeting being scheduled to consider comments from the public. >> Thank you. Can you play that forward for me? So we have the meeting and then what happened? I just I'm not understanding um the like what happened. So we have the statutory public meeting. I'm assuming we either hear concerns from the public, support from the public, a bit of column A, a bit of column B. How does that policy mismatch between um our official plan and the green vote plan, like how does that get resolved after that statutory public meeting, assuming that we hear broad scale support for the OPA, could do we have the power to do anything in response? I'm just not understanding the >> through the chair to the counselor. Uh so I would say that the next steps would then be in the hands of council. So they could choose to approve the official plan amendment that would be in front of them. They could choose to not approve it. Um in terms of the green belt plan, there's nothing um in the legislation that prevents an official plan amendment from being passed. Um so I think we've jokingly sort of said there's no green belt police. >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I don't mean to put it like that, but there's there's no I guess um there's no one at the province, I don't believe, that would then be appealing the decision of council. >> It's up to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to decide whether or not there's a provincial interest and whether or not they would like to take it to enforce their legislation in an act of non-compliance, but it's the the minister's uh discretion whether or not they would like to enjoy their privileges of enforcing their own legislation. Is that kind of the >> very eloquently said? Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. So we can walk forward. I just maybe so we go forward with the public meeting. We do hear from the public that they say yes. Um hypothetically we then as council are convinced because there's widespread public support. We say yes this is a technical issue. It's a couple meet like all the various kind of sight specific ration that might come into it. I'm just trying to understand how those sight specific ration the mover and others have talked about from the local area. What happens when they hit like when they hit the hard black and white provincial policy that says no is the outcome that the province could at that point squash it. They could say yep do whatever. They could just ignore the fact that we made a decision. I'm just trying to understand what happens after we have that public meeting and we make a decision with respect to what to do with the OPA. What are the likely outcomes? Sorry. Uh, Steve Burke, manager sustainable communities. Yeah. So, I think the way it would work, um, I haven't done this often, but the council could pass a section 17 OPA. Um, but the the province, I guess, could take it a couple of ways. They could they could simp they could simp they could appeal it, right? uh the minister can appeal that amendment or they could they in the interim they could I suppose they could um remove the exemption the our our exemption to pass a section section 17 amendment. So there's there's a couple of hypotheticals there um that I'm not sure I'd want to look into more because you know it's this is not not a circumstance we deal with >> perfectly clarified final question from me um an applicant uh comes to that sorry not an applicant a delegate comes to that official meeting uh regarding the OPA they are against the change uh we as council think all the sight specific reasons sound maybe sound great or are worth the kind of policy uh incursion at the provincial level. Uh would that uh delegate who delegated at the public meeting have appeal rights? Um and would they be able to take us to OOLT for violating the Green Belt Act? >> Uh through the chair to the counselor. My recollection is that only this a specified body which is a defined term in the planning act only those that met that definition would be able to file an appeal. And has that change and has that been the planning act for a long time or is that a more recent change to the planning act? >> Through the chair of the council that's more recent within the last few years. I've lost track of a lot of them but it I would say within the last four to five years something like that. >> So prior to this uh some of the actions of this provincial government, we could do that and the public may have appeal rights and we could potentially be in a legal challenge. because the province has taken away the public's appeal rights and the province may or may not uh do anything uh if we're in a violation of the Green Belt Act, um there's potentially less litigation risk than there has previously or may previously have hypothetically been on that. And I don't need staff to comment. I think that's more well pining on my end. Um and so thank you. I think that clarifies the questions from me. >> Thank you, Councelor McMin. >> Yeah, thanks. Hold on a sec. Microphone for Thank you. >> Thanks, chair. Um, here's my take on this. We've got a provincial government that hasn't always been that keen about protecting green belt in the first place. And we've had a fair bit of talk about community benefit. Um and and there are some uh some examples of where we've exercised some discretion to uh enhance uh the ability to embrace a community benefit. I'm thinking of uh of my predecessor um achieving a an exemption in order to expand long-term care facility in Waterdm. that that happened and u and that met a a legitimate community need. Um I I guess I would say too that um you know even even the turtle moves ahead slowly by sticking its neck out. Um the reality is uh we're we can sometimes tie ourselves in knots about uh uh jurisdictional stuff um and and it and it may be necessary to try to move forward um with the possibility that it won't be well received. But I think at the same time we can't we got to do more than just talk about community benefit. We've, you know, we've got a legitimate priority set here. A counselor who, and councelor Casar was right, is passionate about uh about this. I know that community quite well. Um, and I think we don't lose anything by u I don't know, it's almost a negotiation. I don't think you negotiate out out of fear, but you should never fear to negotiate. I think it's a old Kennedy quote, but I think we should move ahead with the public meeting, see where the people stand, explain to them what some of the potential constraints are. And to tell you something, my my money's on the provincial representative in that area saying to her government um based on community benefit and based on community priority that, yeah, maybe we should uh maybe we should just bend a little bit on this and move forward. So, I' I'd like, you know, that's my bet. That's my bet. Um, but uh but I have to confess I'm not a betting man. So, we'll see what happens. But, uh I I think we should support the motion. I think the request is is reasonable. It doesn't uh tie us absolutely to moving forward. I think it allows us to gather information. Good information allows us to make good decisions, especially when we they're probably a a brave process we'd have to go through to get there, counselor. Uh so I appreciate your motion. I stand in in uh solidarity with your uh passion and I think we need to have a uh passion for the possible here. Thanks. Good luck. >> Thank you. Thank you, counselor. If I can pass the chair over to the second vice chair, please so I can exercise my questions. >> Yes, go ahead. Counselor, >> is it respectfully? Is it you or counselor Wayne? I don't >> I think it's me. >> Okay. For planning to the second chair here, but I thought it was >> for planning. >> Yeah, I think it's >> I think it's council Wayne. >> Well, I'll yield to council Wayne. I desire that you have Go ahead, >> please. Go ahead. >> All right. Thank you. Um, my comments and questions are not at all to be uh inferred uh that I do not enjoy or respect uh the commitment of the mover to this outstanding uh need. But certainly of late, I have learned or been reminded of the importance of having a staff report to inform our decisions, particularly one that intersects with a number of different divisions. Um, and we have had uh questions here about financial impact and what that means for other recreational investments. We have questions about the recreational master plan. We have had legal questions about the issue of precedent when it comes to uh a municipality intentionally extending its services and development into the green belt. >> We have had questions um about uh precedent and so let me begin there. Um to be fair to staff, the two precedents that have been uh referenced were initiated by elected members, not by staff. Both of which were controversial. And I'll speak to the second one, which was an extension of service to a gas station wrapped up in some argument about the school needing the extension and then the school subsequently saying it didn't, but it went ahead anyway and I didn't vote for it. We have been told uh that there's 170 $176 million deficit for existing recreation centers and $133 million deficit for existing parks. That means if we do not fix our block funding or funding formula over the next we while we'll have to be shutting down those existing assets. The funding that is presently available to this municipality does not include new. A question was asked about what money has been set aside. I would appreciate um knowing that factually. Um I would appreciate knowing where this does sit in the recreational master plan and how it is proposed to be actioned. Above all else, I do believe that every child, every senior, every resident should be within reasonable distance to public services just like this. I also believe that every those same people across the lower city may suffer the consequences of un unallocated or un um earmarked funding for their centers that exist now. And they will be the first ones that face closure. because they are the oldest. I would appreciate receiving a legal document. We just uh won we on an OOLT file on Sulfur Spring Road because the green belt plan trumps everything else. And now we're going ahead and I would appreciate my due diligence is what does it mean when a municipality who uh appeals something at an OOLT or uh at least participates in it and then um intentionally and willingly um uh extends that service into the green belt. I'm not advocating one way or another, but I think my dil my responsibility as a steward here is to as much as possible um ask and understand these intended or unintended consequences. So, we're setting the public up for a report. We're setting our staff up coming back with a report that says, um, here's the amendment. By the way, we can't support it. and we're going to have a public meeting filled with people who of course want this. Who wouldn't? But it it puts this body in a really precarious position in unless and until we have that analysis done in advance so that we have answers to the questions. So that's my predicament as a governor around this body is I I can't answer those questions because there's no staff report. I don't understand uh or appreciate what precedent or what risk or anything that this may present. I do not understand um and forgive me if I've forgotten what affirmed confirmed precedence we have given this compared to all outstanding needs. I can't remember. I don't know. Um it's not contained in a report before me now. So I can uh deliberate wholesomely and responsibly on this motion. And for me that is regrettable because I began my remarks by saying I absolutely understand why the community um I don't accept the fact that we have extended uh development without extending this kind of basic local service. and I understand the impact that it may have on alleviating some of the uh uh stresses on neighboring services. I support and understand all of that, but my deliberation must be fulsome um so that I can be held accountable for the ultimate decision that I take have to take and I can't do that right now in the absence of that information being uh brought forward. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Chair's back to you first vice chair. She might need a microphone. >> Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? I will recognize uh the mover. Councelor Tison. >> I'm just wondering if uh the general manager from public works is here. appears to be >> GM Kennedy. Um, are you available for Oh, hello. Thank you. I, uh, Councelor Tatison, I think would has a question for you. >> Hi. Um, just thanks for thanks for coming. Uh, dire or general manager Kennedy. um in terms of public works and so forth. Can can you please uh share well I'm sorry maybe I'm looking for facilities we've gone through PIC's um your staff I believe have have uh been supportive of that and um what were the results of those PIC's that we conducted around the uh recreation centers being in Flamborough Glenn Brook and Winona? Oh, I would I would need to get the um the more direct staff level involved to be able to speak to that. I'm I apologize. I um coming into this a little bit cold at the moment. Um we can get that information. >> Okay. Thank you. And uh I'll appreciate that for possibly uh council next week. Um just then another question in terms of uh the ability for public works to bring this down. It's not it's it's not an issue. It can be done other than the fact that 25 years ago the green belt was labeled to this area. Is there any impediment physically to bringing it down other than the fact that it's in the green belt? Is it that question for Jim Kennedy? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It's a public works question and it's it's mostly about the supplying of the the water resources and the um sewage capacity from the um from the potential facility. Um and and I think that the the question is about somewhat about tradeoffs um where there's capacity in the system and where we would allocate that capacity. Um, and so it's it's an overall question that involves planning as well. And so the the Hamilton water team would work with the um the growth team with director Fayback to review that and um and assess where we would allocate that capacity. >> Okay. Thanks. And then just a question to um the PL the uh planning team. The motion says that we're going to conduct a public meeting. Is the public meeting before or after you develop the process to get it down to to bring services down to the um I guess the site? uh through the chair to the council. If I understand the question correctly, the the because an official plan amendment would be needed to extend the services the statutory public meeting and the official plan amendment would occur prior to any extension of services. >> Is that your question? I'm talk I'm talking about prior to any work done by staff to draft the plan to draft the amendment. >> Sorry, counselor. May I just seek confirmation? Is your question one of sequence in yes such that >> um does there have to be is your question does there have to be an approval of extension and does there have to be a confirmation of capacity prior to an amendment or is it do I have that I'm I'm just trying to help out in clarity here. Well, what it says is that staff be directed to prepare a draft official plan amendment to establish a sight specific policy there. So, and then to hold a public meeting in accordance with the planning act. So, I'm trying to understand can you draw up the draft official plan before the public meeting or do you have to have the public public meeting and then draft the plan the official plan amendment after there? And I'm saying it's just a draft >> uh through the chair. So the sequencing to make sure that we meet the legislation, excuse me, would be a draft of the official plan amendment. We would give notice and at the same time make the draft available for for the public to view. Um that notice the notice of the statutory public meeting would go out. Then there would be the public meeting and then council would deliberate and make its decision. >> Okay. Thanks for that. And and then just my final question, direction was given to staff more than a year ago for a report to come back in February for the report that my counselors are looking for. and we're now into October and I've been asking staff and requesting that report and here we are today me putting a motion in front without that report. So can I have some understanding of what were the difficulties in bringing that report forward >> uh through the chair? Um yes, you are correct. That motion um the previous motion did direct staff to do a number of things including looking at the feasibility of of services. Uh growth management has been been working on that. Uh we're not quite there because it's uh requires a lot of coordination with um different departments including public works and Hamilton water. Uh but that work is is ongoing. Um, our hope is to bring that back in very early in the ne next term of council and it would would inform this uh this ongoing deliberation about the Glam Brook Arena. >> Uh, just to add this this was considered a separate sort of planning uh type approval. >> Okay. So, when you're saying it was separate, is this different than what I'm asking here? in the motion >> uh through the chair. The the previous motion didn't have this specificity uh regarding the extension of services into the green belt. I don't think >> that Okay, I'm not going to I'm not going to argue with that. I'm just saying that in my mind the arena has always been in it's been in the green belt for 25 years. Everyone's known that that was the conditions that were presented. They haven't changed. So I'm finding it difficult to understand why this motion is different than what was asked previously in order to how do we get services down when everyone knows it was in the green belt. That's my challenge here. So, not needing any um not needing any answer to that, that's just a statement. I would like to say that I really think that in spite of all the due diligence, in spite of all the public, there are still time. There is lots of time to do that due diligence. as we move through the process as opposed to waiting and delaying and delaying and delaying because that will get us nowhere. So for me at this point, I'm ready to push this and support it. And if there's due diligence that needs to be done, that can happen along the way. And we're not going to get caught on this because this is just an ask to basically it's just an ask to direct staff to prepare a draft of the official plan amendment. It's not voting on the official plan yet. Thank you. >> Thank you, counselor. Uh for second time speakers, if I could if there's anyone joining us online, if I could ask you to put your cameras on. >> Okay. Councelor Casar, I guess. Thank you. Just listening to uh the deliberations, all the questions, I wanted to make a suggestion. It may not be perfect, but it could be helpful for a little time is to potentially defer the motion to council to allow maybe some of the questions to be answered so that the members would have some more information to be able to consider. Um I'll put that out there. Uh it's just for the reasons that council me Wilson expressed it's a it's a little difficult now to exercise good governance with the lack of information. So maybe some of that could be achieved by council, maybe not, but at least it has some time and you've been able to hear what the questions are. So I guess that would have to be someone who hasn't spoken, but I'll put that out there. I know there are a couple members that haven't. Thanks. >> Okay. Um, councelor Alex Wilson, please. >> Thank you. Uh, through sta uh through you chair uh to staff. When the draft OPA amendment is prepared for a public meeting, what's the agenda of that public meeting? Would it be to approve the draft OPA, hear feedback? Would it be set up as a public hearing much like we do today? Um I'm just trying to understand how we can have a fundamentally not an information report but a recommendation report or a implementation report. Uh as staff aren't aren't recommending it but a a do something report an action report. Um not an info report come back have a meeting to discuss the merits of that action report and then somehow say that we're not taking an action. I'm just it seems to me like we'd be having a formal planning meeting about a amendment to the official plan. That's an act like that's an active an active thing not a consultation activity. Um are you able to help me understand if I'm reading the language of the motion correctly and if I'm understanding what that public meeting is in terms of planning legislation like what is that actual legislative activity? Do people have planning rights by participating in it? That's that's what I'm not clear on >> through the chair. So in terms of the process, it would be a formal public hearing under the planning act. Uh which means so similarly to today it would there would be a report on the agenda. There would be a call for delegations or speakers. Um anybody who wanted to delegate whether registered or unregistered could speak to the item. In terms of what the report would say, I mean, I I I've never written one, but what I suspect it may look like is um it would be a direct response to the motion and that there may be alternatives that council could choose to act on. >> So, the report may read, "Staff, because you have a legislative authority, you do not recommend pursuing an OPA, but we are directed to pursue an OPA. So, the alternative is here's your drafted OPA. um should committee choose, they could implement it. At that moment in time, if a majority of members of the planning committee in that room voted for the alternative, is the draft OPA the exact same as the final OPA through the chair. Correct. To be no different than a report that would come forward today. So there would be uh an official we call it a draft official plan amendment but it would be the uh the official plan amendment that could be approved by council. Alternatively members of planning committee and council could make amendments to that. Correct. But that it would it would be what planning committee and council would deliberate on. >> Thank you. And in fairness because there's no like we are the applicant or motion is kind of the the source of this. there's no legislated timelines or there's no appeal risks um from a proponent which which would be a difference potentially in some of the tension other than us >> uh through the chair of the council. That's correct. We would then have to meet we would treat we would almost fall in under what like a city initiated amendment would do. So we would still give notice there's still legislative requirements but there is no applicant who would have appeal rights. >> Thank you. Um through the chair just two quick comments from me. Um I'm not on side on this motion for two reasons. One of them is not the movers or anyone's fault. It's the provincial governments. By removing public appeal rights from the planning process, we have made the planning process fundamentally undemocratic. And as a result, by participating in it as a municipality, by trying to do these things, we cause harm. Like fundamentally, by not giving the public an ability to appeal their own green belt act, things get broken. Like it is it is a challenge government. So that's not the mover's fault at all. Um that is a decision the provincial government made to remove rights from Ontarians. And this is one of the the difficulties of that. The other issue though is this just isn't a draft. This is doing something. And I think the it just needs to be really clearly said. I want to build into the green belt. I think it's a good idea and I would like to do it. I think pretending that we're getting an information report back is what is adding risk to this is what is adding uncertainty to this. This is an action is my read of the motion. And I think if we could talk about it as such, we could understand as such and we could have a conversation about risk as such, we'd be much easier to move on. But for me, the constant um suggestion that this is just getting information or just getting a report back is so fundamentally not connected to what the actual recommendations say in terms of preparing a public meeting that we're going to have a vote in about whether or not to do this thing. Um and so as a result for me, I just I don't think that the information package is prepared for that level of decision, but I'd be happy to get more information on this. I just see the motion as doing way more than just getting information back. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any further speakers on the item? Uh, councelor Wang. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Please, please proceed. >> Yes. I think that we should defer this to council. So, we have an opportunity to um have a couple more days to work on this. So, I'd like to put the motion forward to defer to council. Please. >> Can you identify your secondary, please? >> I have no councelor Pauls would second this. Okay. So, uh, there's a deferral motion on the table. It's been duly moved and seconded. Uh, the spot for referral, I think, is council. The instructions are Could you articulate, please? >> It's a deferral. Okay. Thank you. Are there instructions to be warranted? >> I think we'll just defer it all to council. Um, and then that might be something that we can work with the mover to see what other additional information or either whether this motion needs to be firmed up in some way, shape or form. So I think just moving the whole thing as a deferral right to council. There's no other instructions just to defer it to council. Defer this decision to council. Okay. I I the reason I'm asking is I'm always cautious of not setting people up for for failure, right? Um I don't want to set up city staff for failure that there's an expectation that there's something additional that's supposed to be coming. There's not an expectation on behalf of the the mover. Um so you just you want to refer the whole thing to council. >> Yes. >> Period. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh there's no debate on uh on the matter. So, I would ask you to express your your uh wishes electronically. >> It's just a show of hands for deferral. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh I've been told that there's no electronic vote needed. So, if you would like to uh express yourself with your hand, uh yay is up and nay is down. >> Yay is a deferral. >> Yay is a deferral. >> Okay, >> that carries. Councelor, over to you. >> Thank you. We are on to notice of motion. Item 10, 11.1, McMaster Homecoming Unsanctioned Events. Council Marine Wilson, I understand you'd like to introduce a motion to suspend the rules. >> Thank you. Um I would and my my reasoning is as follows. Um this is appearing just as a a notice today uh because the ruling uh only arrived very recently. Um, I would appreciate the support uh of getting it uh as a notice because I know that the um multidisciplinary table that meets post um in this in this case the McMaster Homecoming will be meeting soon and if this motion passes it would inform uh their assessment analysis and the data that we're asking them to formally bring to the table and that's the rationale from my request uh rather than uh waiting until um December which will be too late because obviously I'm hoping to have something in preparation um before the next St. Patrick's Day and it takes folks time to do so. Thank you. >> Oh, I need a seconder if anybody's willing or able. Thank you, Councelor Wang. Okay. So, let's um Is that just a hand vote or is that a >> Okay, let's vote electronically. >> And this is a twothirds majority vote. As a reminder, Okay, that vote carry 7 to zero. >> Thank you so much. Um so the essence of this motion is uh um there was a a recent uh ruling um with respect to the delegated authority enjoyed by staff which was to seek an injunction and of course we accept um the the the privilege and the ruling as it was provided by the court not quibbling with that but it is what does what are the consequences of this. Um, so it is uh the motion is of of a few points of action. I'm asking that staff uh kindly report back to the planning committee in early 2027 um on McMaster and sanctioned events including just giving us a summation of what was the outcome of that decision um and uh some of that may or may not be enclosed. I'm not sure what are the consequences of it. Um also to move forward with a confir uh comprehensive uh um matrix to populate with what what happened um throughout these events so that we have some consistency in our recording and measuring of whether things are getting better, whether things are getting worse, what are um are there any patterns that are emerging. Um and this I think would be of assistance to staff as well. Um that they are uh being charged with something and so they know what to collect and how. Uh and then the final thing is just an assessment of the nuisance party bylaw and that ma that assessment will actually be informed um by by the matrix um and in addition to the the nuisance party bylaw and assessment of the effectiveness of other policies and enforcement tools. Thank you. And I'm hoping councelor Wang will second it. Thank you. I forgot I for neglected to uh identify my seconder. Okay, we're moving forward. Sorry, just uh off in space for a bit here. So, um I guess we're going to call >> questions. >> Questions? Anybody? No questions. Okay. So, can we call the vote then? Thank you. vote carries 7 to zero. So private. Okay, that carries. May I move her in second to move into close session responding item 22? Yes, go ahead, Alex. >> Thanks so much. I'd like to move to defer uh one of the items before we go into closed. Uh the W 2 counselor wasn't able to stay for the full meeting. Um and so just as a result uh wanted to participate and this is stemming from a motion that they had previously moved. So, I'd like to uh move the deferral of uh item 12.2 PD26189, acquisition of property in the city of Hamilton Ward 2. Um defer that to council. I'd look to councelor Wang as my seconder. Um just to allow the ward counselor to participate. >> Makes sense. Is that a electronic vote or hand vote? Okay, hand vote. All in favor? That passes unanimously. Okay, we're going into close se close session. May I have a mover in second or two to move into close session respecting items 12.2 and 12.3 pursuant to 9.3 subsection CF and K of the city's procedural bylaw 21. >> Sorry to interrupt uh Mr. Chair, just for the record, it's we given the deferral of item 12.2, 2, we are just moving into closed for E, F, and K. >> E, F, and K. So, we're just items 12.3, EFK of the city's procedural bylaw 21 as amended and sections 2392 subsections. Do I read these? >> EF and K. >> CFK of the Ontario Municipal Act. >> Still not C. Um I if I if if I may read it so we're clear um because it's all it's all in the road map but I've got it here separated out. Um so it's as the subject matter. So it's we're going into closed for um section 9.3 subsections E F and K of the C city's procedural bylaw 211021 as amended and section 2392 subsections E F and K of the Ontario Municipal Act 2001 as amended. And as the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the city or a local board, advice that is subject to solicit solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that privilege, and a position plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board. Thank you. >> Okay. Please indicate your vote by show of hands. >> Oh, mover. Oh, we didn't even do. Okay, sorry. Casar and um councelor Wang. Thank you. Show of hands. That carries. Members of the public, the meeting will continue following close session portion of the meeting. When you see the members of the committee rejoin the meeting, committee will wait up to 5 minutes upon reconvening in open session before proceeding with the meeting to provide members of the public and the media time to return. Before we move into close session, I would ask all members of the public to please exit council chambers and the WebEx meeting now. Thank you. Any staff that are not directly related to item 12.2 are asked to please exit the meeting now. Thank you. A reminder all members of committee to please ensure you move into close session portion of escribe. I'll also remember remind members of the committee that as of section 8.7 the procedure bylaw the use of personal electronic devices during closed meetings is strictly prohibited and the use of city electronic devices during closed meetings are limited to text communications only and not as telephone recording device or camera. Staff from the office of the city clerk are exempted from subsection 8.7 when using electronic devices for recordkeeping purposes. When the clerk has determined that only the appropriate attendees are still in the room and the WebEx, we will move to item 12. Oh, I rather that that was all three. We're just 12.3. So, we're going to 12.3. No, you said >> I don't You know what? I don't care. It's okay. We just got to get through this. We just got to get through it. I just needed to say, "Okay, don't reach C." I heard it the first time. I didn't hear it when it kept reading. >> Yeah. >> Boom. Boom. Boom. >> Yeah. >> So, it's all good. We're good. So basically read this. Yeah. Okay. We're back in live open session. 12.3 LS26018 appeals to the OOLT regarding official plan amendments to expand the urban boundary to include white church lands. May I have a mover and second to receive the report and to approve the following recommendations. That directions provided to staff in close session be approved. that close recommendations A, B, and to and A and B to confidence report LS25017 remain confidential until made public as the city's position before the Ontario Land Tribunal and B or C that the balance of the confidential report LS25017A remain confidential. Please indicate with an electronic vote now. Oh, the mover is of course councelor Casar and councelor Wayne. Well, I'm going to wait for the electronic vote. Vote is up. >> Oh, what happened? Motion is carried 70. There being no further business, planning committee is adjoined at 4 adjourned at 4:37. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.