1 2 3. Sound check. 1 2 3 As we have quorum present for today's meeting, I'd like to call this meeting of the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee to order. Uh just a reminder that all electronic devices are to be switched to a non-audible function during our committee meetings. As we go through our agenda, if I could ask everyone just to um their uh for the attendance, if they can just acknowledge that they're here. Uh Councelor Crutch, uh Karen Burke, >> present. >> Graham Carroll, >> present. >> Andrew Douglas, Lyn Lensstead, >> present. >> Andy McLaren, >> present. >> Stephan Spalnick, >> present. >> Thank you everyone. And as we move through to the approval of our agenda, may I please have a mover and a seconder to approve the agenda as presented? >> I see Karen and Andy. >> Thank you. Are there any amendments from the committee today for the the agenda? Seeing none, uh we'll move on to vote. Is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. We'll now move on to our declarations of interest. Are there any declarations to be declared today? Seeing none, uh we will now move on to the adoption of our minutes of the previous meeting. Item 5.1 is HMHC 260007. May I have a mover and a seconder to adopt the minutes of the previous meeting as presented? >> I see councelor Cretch and Graham. >> And as we move to vote, is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. Um we now move on to item six, which is our delegations. Before we begin our delegation today, members are reminded that questions of the delegations are for clarific clarification purposes only and not for debate. Uh and just a note to our delegate, you'll have 5 minutes to complete your delegation. So item 6.1 is Dr. Andrew C. Adams respecting item 8.2 recommendation to designate 206 Main Street West in Hamilton known as Arlo House under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act 2. welcome today and thank you for coming to see us. >> Good afternoon. Thanks everybody. Uh my name is Andrew Adams. I'm a dental specialist um one of 60 of our specialty in Canada. I was born, raised, and educated in Hamilton. I attended McMaster. Um and I live in Hamilton. I own property in the city and I am committed to Hamilton's long-term future. I want my city, your city, and our city to be better. I operate a unique specialty dental practice at 206 Main Street West where we serve young children, those with developmental delays, special needs, and people with fear, phobia, and anxiety, or those with medical complexities that require anesthesia. We serve vulnerable populations. I would not be surprised if we had treated a family member or somebody close to you, the people in this room. We're the last dedicated sleep dentistry clinic in Hamilton proper. We serve an area from Burlington to Lake Erie and Niagara. We have 6% of the national specialists working in this one practice. Whether you've whether we have had the privilege to treat any of you or not, we provide an important service for Hamiltonians and it's an honor to treat people in this region. But operating out of Maine and Hess is getting more and more difficult due to significant social problems in the downtown core and we need change. We need to change for our business to adapt and grow and we need to make the city better. The building has three commercial units. Units two and three have been currently vacant and they have been for well over a year. Unit one is our specialty dental practice which we may soon have to move due to crime and safety concerns. This leaves the future of the current building very bleak if nothing changes. We would like to invest in the site making it better, but a heritage designation as currently written would be too rigorous for us to make meaningful change. In all likelihood, if our practice leaves and we sell the building and with office vacancies in the downtown core at an all-time high, the building would likely just suffer demolition by neglect. The building owners object to and do not want a heritage designation at this time. We accept it can work with the alternative pathway of a heritage easement and we can continue to work with the heritage department on a new development. We've had a good, productive, and respectful relationship and enjoy working with Megan and Alyssa. We'd like to see the property developed in accordance with the Hamilton Secondary City Plan. The property is within 60 m of the LRT and it's zoned for high density. Metroinks even has their name on our title. The current building does not conform to the city sidewalk bylaw either. Now, we're not suggesting demolition, nor do we want the site to lose its architectural beauty. But there has to be a solution where the architecture can be emphasized and the public and the city and we all benefit. We've already taken steps to work on a development for this site. An easement pathway gives us that opportunity to explore that and the city always has the right to bring a design designation forward at a later date. In conclusion, respectfully, a great majority of the building's historical value has been diminished and the building is run down entired. I invite you all to look at it up close. Its historic historical significance is not of particularly important Hamiltonians from their contributions to the city, but the common theme is that they were wealthy and privileged. A history that stands in stark juaposition to the building's current surroundings. The building is no longer a viable commercial enterprise, unable to attract tenants or find a modern use. The current building is a nod to the past, but very little about it is original with the interior completely renovated for use as a dental clinic and office space and many of the exterior components being new or changed over time. We propose the opportunity to study the site so it can be an architectural wonder, something for Hamilton to be proud of. And like the current building, it can be a nod to the past, to an Italian8 design, and it can add to the revitalization of Hamilton's downtown core and to the city's population and tax base. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for that presentation. We'll now take questions from the committee members for our delegate. >> Uh, councelor Crutch. >> Yeah, thanks for being here. I know we talked about this a little bit at one point. Can you tell me a little bit more about the saying you don't want the building to be demolished? Is that what you're saying? >> What I'm saying is that that's not what's on the table right now. That's not what we're suggesting. >> We just want the opportunity to work with the heritage department to see what we could do to look at what's truly the original architectural uh features and what could we incorporate into a new development on site. And are you aware of how the Heritage Private Review process works? >> No, I'm not I'm certainly not an expert in it, but I would much appreciate the opportunity to continue working together via the um easement pathway. >> Yeah, this isn't a chance for me and you to talk. It's only a chance where I'm allowed to ask you questions. So, I'm not going to get into the rest of it, but as the presentation goes on and the meeting goes on, I'll make sure to raise that point and have staff explain that process because I think that there's still an opportunity to work with staff whether or not there's a designation. So, we have a heritage permit review process that allows for that to happen anyways and we can get into that later in the meeting and I can ask staff to to speak to that more specifically. Thanks. >> Thanks. >> Uh, so we've got Lynn and then Graham. >> Yeah, I just had a question and I may may have missed it. How long have the other two uh units been vacant? >> One unit uh has been vacant since 2020 and the other unit about a year. >> Thank you. >> Well, thank you very much for coming in and expressing your concerns and worries plus optimism hopefully for the site. Uh Karen and myself are both on the heritage permit review subcommittee. So whether it's a heritage easement or a designation, you would have to come to the heritage permanent review subcommittee and work with us the exact same way. So that's not going to hinder you in the slightest. And we do understand a building has to have a purpose in order to live. So we're never opposed to things changing on a site. we would be against the wholesales demolition, but to make a building more useful, that's how a building lives. So hopefully it may ease your concern a little bit because it is a very nice building, very important building, and we would like to preserve it if possible. Thank you. I'm I'm not sure there was a question, but my response would be that um I I respectfully believe that there those two pathways are very different and we can work together, but one of the issues I believe is that we're at current not um in complete agreement with the report as written and we have had our own um uh specialists from MHBC look at the building and we respect respectfully disagree about some of the um historical attributes of it. >> Thank you, Council. >> You may not realize this, but this is your only opportunity to actually say that in public. So, if you wanted to say what you disagreed with, um now might be that moment to say so at a high level if you wanted to make that point. >> Sure. Um so, first of all, which building is original? uh we we disagree on that. Um so we've spent countless hours and tens of thousands of dollars to determine this information um on our own. Uh in 1966, the spectator published an article whereby they showed the building as you see it from Main Street. They state that the little side building, which we've always referred to as the farmhouse and we always knew to be the original building, that it was the original building and then the main house was added later. Um, they state about Mr. Murray moving into a new house on the property. The report uh takes that as acknowledging that there were substantive renovations or expansions to the building at that time, but we actually believe they were being literal, that it was a new house. Again, this building is mostly a nod to the past. It was designed to reflect an Italian8 design, but a lot of it is not original. So our research is that in your report what you have is building A is actually building B. It's the addition and that's the main house not the original house. Uh both the moldings, the existing window sills, the tripartate window, the three-sided bay window, uh and the entire portico are additions to the site added later on. Um, much of this building has just changed over time. There is a lot of evidence to support this from old insurance documents that do not list many of these features that should have at the time. But just like how this building is a nod to the past, we believe we can keep that going with the development at that site and preserve a lot of these features. Thank you. >> Any Oh, Karen, go ahead. >> Um, thanks. Uh, I appreciate your concern. Do you um would you at this point be prepared to share with us what your plans would be? Is it taking down a part of the building? Is it keeping the facade? Are you um able to share that with us? >> We don't have an engineering study to tell us what we could do. And I think that's the first step and that's why we would prefer an easement. So now we can engage in these studies. We can take the time to go through this properly um and then come up with a plan. And that's something that we could work in lock step with with this department. >> Thank you. >> Any other further questions? Go ahead, Andy. >> Yeah, through the chair. Um, do you know the age of the you say the addition to the house itself? Do you have a date on that of when you uh >> think it was built? >> I believe we have it in a report. It could be as old as 1891. >> 1891. Okay. And and through the share. So the original part that's older than that then. >> Correct. Barn. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um before we move on, any other questions? Last chance. >> Thank you everyone for your questions. Thank you very much for your presentation. We do appreciate you coming to talk to us. So with no further questions, may I have a mover and a seconder to receive the delegation? >> I see councelor Cretch and Indie. >> And as we move to vote, is there anyone opposed to receiving? Seeing none, that item is carried. Moving on to item seven is our items for information. May I please have a mover and a second to receive the items of information. Item 7.1 to 7.5. >> I see councelor Crutch and Stefan. And before we vote, is there any discussion on any of those items? Seeing none, we'll move to vote. So, is there anyone opposed to receiving items 7.1 to 7.5? Seeing none, that item is carried. Under item 8, we have 8.1 is PED26172 is our heritage permit application. HP2026-019 under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act for the construction of a new two-story detached dwelling at 174 Mil Street North in Flambor 15. May I have a mover and a seconder to put the report on the floor? >> I see Lynn and Andy. >> Uh are there any questions today from committee members? Um if not, we will move to vote to approve the recommendations contained within the report. As we move to vote, is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. Item 8.2 is PD26121 is the recommendation to designate 206 Main Street West in Hamilton, known as Arlo House, under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act, W 2. So, I'd like to call upon Megfield, cultural heritage planner, to provide the committee with a presentation on this item. Welcome, Meg. >> Good afternoon, everyone. Mag Oldfield, cultural heritage planner. Uh, today I'll be presenting staff reported 26121, which recommends that the property located at 206 Main Street West Hamilton, also known as the Arlo House, be designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. So, as you can see, the property is located in Hamilton on the corner of Main Street West and Hes Street South. Uh, the property is comprised of a two-story stucco clad brick structure constructed circa 1856. The property was first surveyed for heritage interest in the 1980s. Uh in 2014, the property was added to the municipal heritage register and to staff's designation work plan as part of the downtown built heritage inventory project. Uh as a result of the changes to bill 23, the former staff work plan was rescended in favor of the public list of candidates for designation and 206 Main Street West was rep prioritized for review for designation as a high priority. Uh in 2023, staff also received a request to designate the property. Uh so in preparation for this report, staff conducted site visits in June of 2024 and April of 2025 and drafted a statement of cultural heritage value or interest, which is attached as appendix B to this report. Uh it's been determined that the property meets six of the nine criteria contained in Ontario regulation 906. So I'll now outline the cultural heritage value of the property. Uh the property is comprised of a two-story stuckleclad brick structure constructed circa 1856. Uh the property has physical value as a representative example of a 19th century Italian villa and an early 20th century upper class dwelling. While originally built as an Italian villa, Arlo House underwent major renovations first in 1891 and then again circa 1908 to 1931 with support from architect Julian C. Forester who updated the building in a more modern style to suit the tastes of a changing early 20th century upper class. Uh the historical value of the property lies in its direct association with a number of prominent Hamiltonians including John Davidson believed to be the original owner of the property who served as a customs collector and the director of the Gore Bank. Uh John Gamble Gets a significant figure in the Church of England who served as the first dean of Niagara between 1875 and 1879. Alexander Murray a dry goods merchant and Fenner Fally owner of a wholesale business called FF Dallian Co. and his wife Mabel Dally a prominent Hamilton socialite. Uh the property also has the potential to yield information that contributes to the understanding of the Hess Village area and community. Uh finally, the property helps define the historic character of Hess Village and contributes to the historic 19th century streetscape. The property is visually and historically linked to its surroundings and is considered to be a local landmark due to its deep setback and prominent location on the corner of H Street South and Main Street West. So this is a condensed version of the statement of cultural heritage value interest, the full version of which can be found in appendix B of this report. Uh important to the uh conservation of 206 Main Street West is the front and side elevations and roof line of the two-story stucco clad building which includes all historic elements and decorative details present on these features including the stucco facades, truncated hip roof, symmetrical front facade, flat roof portico and window openings as well as as its location, deep setback and low perimeter uh low stone perimeter fence uh along Main Street West and H Street South. The property also includes a 20th century one-story edition that's not considered to be of heritage value. Uh as such, staff recommend that the city clerk be directed to give notice of council's intention to designate this property as a property of cultural heritage value under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Uh I will also note that we do have an alternative recommendation which is that the city enter into a heritage conservation easement agreement in lie of designation to ensure that the existing building is maintained and that the cultural heritage attributes are protected while any potential planning act applications for redevelopment of the site are processed. Uh the property owner has indicated they're interested in pursuing redevelopment of the property but have not submitted any applications under the planning act or any formal consultation application proposals. So, in the event that the proposed development doesn't move forward and if council declines to designate the property, this alternative would ensure that the existing building and cultural heritage attributes are protected after the property is automatically removed from the register on January 1st, 2027. Uh, the property owner has been advised of this alternative and is supportive of an easement. Uh, given that the existing building is structurally sound and that adaptive reuse and integration of the building into a new development is feasible, staff are not recommending this alternative. Uh, with all that being said, are there any questions? >> Thank you, Meg, for that. Uh, may I have a mover and a seconder to put the report and presentation on the floor? >> I see Karen and Lynn. >> Uh, so now move on to questions. Do we have any questions from the committee? Councelor Cranch. >> Yeah. My question is just about the things that uh Dr. Adams had mentioned with respect to the different houses. Um, one being building A versus building B. Would that really change your assessment of this property? I know you talked about some modern features, right, that the Stuckco and different kinds of things that um you think are also worthy of preservation. So, I'm just trying to get an understanding from you when you're analyzing this whether or not those types of idiosyncrasies are relevant to the designation. Would they change the number of items that qualify and make a designation? That kind of thing. I'm trying to understand better. >> Uh for sure. Thank you. Uh so we did review the report uh that the delegate uh mentioned um and largely it didn't impact uh our review of this property. Um it still meets all the necessary criteria to warrant designation. uh staff respectfully disagreed with some of the points that were brought up in the report and there were also a number of attributes that after reviewing the report we were happy to remove in order to kind of uh uh continue ongoing discussions with the applicant. >> So if I understand what you said in a different way is some things you agreed with, some things you didn't agree with, but overall regardless of whether you agree with them or not, they wouldn't have changed your ask that it be designated. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay, thanks. That's helpful. Um, my second question is really about the heritage permit review process. As someone who doesn't sit on that committee, but generally speaking understands it, could I get some information from staff, whomever wishes to speak to that about what that allows to still carry on in terms of a conversation? And then I have a question about the easement. >> Hi, uh, Lisa Christie, cultural heritage planner. I typically deal with most heritage permits. Um so the heritage permitting process allows for um owners of a property to make changes to their building. Um the permit process is designed to help um monitor that change and uh ensure that the changes are appropriate for the structure. It doesn't disallow any changes. Um and it would just be um we would be working with the owner to ensure that the change is appropriate. Um and we we do quite large applications as well. Um which would involve like um larger scale developments in adjacent to the building to the existing structure. Um and that process takes about a month to do and we hold monthly meetings. So um it's not a tedious process and it it doesn't cost anything either. So >> Okay. >> So what's the real difference between because you used a double negative there so I want to make sure I think no you just said not disallow. I think what you're saying is it does allow for there to be changes to be made. So materially speaking, what is the difference between the easement process and the heritage designation process? Because both allow for there to be ongoing discussions and changes to be made. So what's the difference between these two on a on a basic level? >> Um that is a good question. Um typically the the process is generally the same. Um we would be we would be looking at the same kind of application. Um the the H the heritage conservation easement agreement would also have a list of elements in which we are protecting under that agreement. Um so any changes to those items would still require a heritage permit and still would require um consultation with staff prior to change making those changes. Um it's just a slightly different process under the act um in terms of whether or not it's municipally designated or municipal uh conservation easement agreement through the chair Kore director of heritage and urban design. Uh in addition to what Lisa said, the easement does provide us a little more flexibility in working through the planning process um in developing what the design proposals would be and what are the planning process approvals are required. >> Okay. So then that my last question is then why not propose the easement process recognizing this is something that's probably going to go through the planning process. Why not recommend that um instead of designation if they're not dissimilar and you recognize that this site is going to be a future site for planning? >> So through the chair we're always thinking of the long-term use of the building and protection of the building. The heritage designation provides that. We don't have an application at the moment. We're not certain of where the market is. We don't know what changes are proposed. So we don't have anything in front of us to evaluate. I see. >> So that's why the easement was suggested as an alternative in terms of meeting the criteria. It does meet the criteria in staff's opinion uh as to be designated under the heritage act. So that would be our our preferred recommendation. >> I see. And so usually in situations like this when there are easements, if I understand what you're saying correctly, there are plans in place. You do have a sense of the ownership of the building and where it's going to be heading. you do know have a general sense of how the easement can be worked into the planning process because you know what's going to happen with the design or you have some sense but we don't know about that quite yet >> through the chair that's generally correct >> okay and can we enter into an ement process once we have that later down the road if we wish to >> through the chair once it's designated we would use the um permit process to >> right the similar process okay thanks I understand that my basic understanding if I can make a couple comments is that there's not it's not dissimilar process, but the easement process would be better if there was actually a stable plan in place or some type of knowledge of what the planning process might look like um and what the future of the building would be. So, I understand without having that information, it makes it more difficult to do it that way. Thanks. >> Uh other questions? Uh Graham. >> Okay, this is going back over to staff and continuation on with the counselors. What is the actual difference in protection for the building? Because I know we have buildings that are strictly easement agreements like the baby dispensary we just dealt with and now a Barlo house which could go either which way. So my concern is ultimate protection of the building. So what is the difference? uh through the chair. Um the easement would allow us more flexibility in terms of what features are designated and how it relates to the proposed future design. So the easement hasn't been negotiated yet. So we don't know exactly what would be in there, but the building would be protected under the terms of that easement that would be worked out with the applicant. >> Okay. So with the building not being under threat at present, we could delay the designation enter into an easement agreement to provide that level of protection that we're all comfortable with. And then if we don't get that level, we could designate at a later date >> the al through the chair. That's the way the alternative is written. There's a deadline to meet to have the easement in place to protect the building by December. If that isn't met, then the building would be designated. That's the way the uh the alternative is written. >> So, I think I I've got Karen, first- time speaker. Do we have any other first- time speakers? If not, and then council crutch, go ahead. >> Okay. And this isn't a question. and it's more of a comment, but having been on the permit review subcommittee for several years now and on this committee, I I just want to reassure the delegate that there have been numerous examples of buildings that are designated that have massive uh changes made to them where new parts are built on, you know, modern sections that still respect the um preserved area, the the designated aspects. And so it doesn't limit you in development plans. I'm sure staff could provide you many examples if you would request it, but there are you should be reassured that it's definitely not a limiting factor. Okay. >> Uh Council Cran, did you have a question as first- time speaker? >> Uh yeah. Yeah. Through the chair. Um all right. So, if we went with the easement option, would that allow the owner of the property to demolish the building within the whatever the demolition permit is instead of what we would have if we had it uh protected under the Heritage Act. >> So, through the chair, the building is protected under the registry until January 1st, 2027. After that point, uh yes, demolition could occur. I'm just reiterating with with the easement only the demolition. >> Sorry through the chair. I'm not understanding the question then. Stefan, could you repeat it? >> No, no, no. I under I uh I understand what you're saying with the it's registered now that Yeah, it makes sense. Understand. Council Gretch. >> Yeah, I'm a little torn. I mean, I'm always one of the support does example of two buildings that were designated as heritage in war II that have been demolished. We know that it serves a function but it's not ultimately inflexible and that's why we have the heritage permit review process to allow that flexibility to happen. But in trying to develop some sites again and I'll say I don't understand this thinking but I think it's maybe a thinking from yesterday year or I don't know where it's from coming from exactly not you specifically but just in general the development industry has a feeling about heritage designations and they want as few barriers as possible. Um, so I just think it might limit people's u, frankly imagination, ability to try and think about what they could do there. Wishes or wants to invest in the property, wants to actually develop something there. And then we're going to end up in a situation where it is sat there for a really long time and then it is uh in a in a series of neglect. Then the city has other mechanisms now in the term of council to step in and do something about that. But then it becomes a burden to the city. It becomes a burden of us paying to maintain things, a burden of adding things to the taxes and and so on and so forth. I'm not sure that's the place we want to have on Main Street, which is a place that we're trying to have more active development if we can preserve it. So, I'm not wanting to go against the committee here in trying to do this. I I can certainly just take everyone's thoughts here, but I think it's worth us maybe taking a moment and thinking about whether the easement makes more sense because it is time limited. Um, and if it doesn't work out that we have something that we're comfortable with or the staff is comfortable with, then we can come back here and designate it on January 1st, 2027. So, wonder if other people think about that. I've >> got Graham and then Karen. Okay. Uh, thank you, counselor. Uh, Stephan's question brings up another question for me. It sounded like the heritage easement would not protect against demolition after January 1st, 2027. >> You know, through the chair that the easement would protect against demolition until such time that approved planning act application is in place. Megan, perhaps I could ask you to share the easement text again. Is that possible? >> Um, just give me one second. >> Okay. Well, thank you because this sounded like it was the other way and I was concerned about that because we're going into a new council where the heritage committee may not be sat until the new year where we have a window where it wouldn't be protected and that's what I was concerned through the chair. If it's I believe the date was December 4th, if we haven't got an agreement by then, then the we'd automatically switch to the designation. And this is because we are in a period where council will not be sitting. This was an opportunity way to move that forward to get that direction at this point. >> Okay. So I have uh so Karen next to speak and then I've got Lynn. >> Thank you. Yes. So my concern would be that with council not sitting that we might there might be some window where it is neither like the e easement agreement is not being fulfilled. Is that right? And and it's not designated and therefore something negative could happen to the building >> through the chair. That's not the intent of this. So the building is protected under the register until January 1st, 2027. Um and so that's the deadline. We we want to get that easement done by December 4th. If it's not done, then the NOID would be issued and the building would be protected. And so the ANOID can be issued even if council is not >> I don't are they having meetings at that point? >> Yes. Because this recommendation will go to council. >> Okay. >> As it is, right? So council will be giving us the direction to do that. We're just delaying it until such time that the easement is registered. If the ease is not registered, then council's direction is to automatically do the NOID. >> Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to avoid any loopholes. Thank you. >> Uh go ahead, Lynn. uh through the chair. Yeah. Just more follow up on Karen for the timing because isn't annoyed 30 days. >> Um >> which would take it over January 1st >> once it's issued. Um so you can correct me if I'm wrong. I understand once a noise issue protection is in place until there would be a um appeal or >> council. >> Yeah. So just to summarize because I think that was a lot of back and forth but if I understand correctly what you're saying is if we approve the alternative that we'd uh be working toward an easement and that easement if we got it satisfied by December the 4th would set out the terms of how the property would be protected. If for any reason by December 4th it didn't come into place, we would automatically designate that and council would approve that before the election period happened. Meanwhile, this is protected under the register until January the 1st. So there's kind of two layers of protection here, right? It's already protected till January 1st. And if December 4th comes and goes, we don't have the proper reason agreement in place. It automatically gets designated and council would approve this at the September 9th meeting of council. So I'm happy to move the the alternative knowing all that. I mean, I think there's sufficient protections here in place for this. I think if we get an easement agreement in here to protect the features, that's good. I trust the staff can work that out and it makes sense in a situation like this. So, I'm happy to move the alternative. If somebody wants to second it, I I'd be happy to second that because I feel that we can work with the applicant or the the delegate. That way, we can protect the building, which is important to do, and then we have that second protection if the herage agreement is not entered into. >> So, through to the clerk. Um, so should we be um voting to receive the president? >> I have a question. >> Oh, go ahead Andrew. >> Sorry. I just wanted to confirm that regarding the easement, I know a lot of the times easements are put in place as a temporary measure. So, it's put in place saying that uh whatever is going to be protected and then the person builds whatever they're planning to build, protects those pieces, then the easement is removed. So, are we saying that the easement would be a permanent uh feature on the um on their title forever >> through the chair? I believe the wording of the alternative was that the easement would be in place until they had planning approval or heritage permit in place. But that means then that the after they have that in place, there's no more easement and no more protection on this building moving forward, >> which to me is an issue because it's not about what this individual is doing. It's about what the next individual what the next individual what the next individual is going to do. And to my understanding, that's the difference between a heritage permit and an easement is a heritage permit is forever versus an easement is until such time as the new thing is built. So through the chair, just to be clear, the easement would be registered on title and any subsequent owner would be subject to the same easement until such time that they come forward with a design that is appropriate for the site through the plan uh developed through the planning approval process which also would include review by the heritage group as part of the planning process. >> Okay. So there would be nothing in that easement saying that the easement is removed once they have approval. through the chair. At some point, we have to trust them that they have enough planning approval and building permits in place that they're going to do what they say. >> Uhhuh. >> And at that point, we would be we'd have to remove the easement. >> Yes. And that's what I'm saying. Then the person after it's removed doesn't have to follow any rules whatsoever. >> They would have to follow the planning approvals they have in place and any permits they have in place to construct. >> Yes. Once it's built and the permit's been satisfied, if someone comes with a new permit, that permit doesn't have to follow the rules anymore because there are or sorry, there are no more rules for it to follow because the easement is gone >> through the chair. That would be correct. And hopefully the the building in place would be the ultimate reuse of the site that we were looking for. >> Well, that's never the case. The buildings change all the time and then so we would have no ability to protect it after that point in time. >> Counselor, would you like to add to the discussion or did you Okay. through the chair. We could add to the um instructions. We have planning approval. Um we have heritage permit approval. We could also say um >> substantial >> prior to construction something related to the construction >> um I don't want to say substantial completion >> something related to >> uh so say issuance foundation permit or building permit typically there's very few developers that will go to that level of approval and that level without being committed to actually doing what they say. >> Yeah. So, let's we can suggest um Andrew if that that works that we'd add foundation permit in there. >> My my issue is still that once this application is done and successful, you know, whatever new development's been built, you know, everything's hunky dory. uh it doesn't stop that building or a severance from happening it to be sold off again a new person to come in buy it a new development application to come in saying they want to demolish and then we have no protections whatsoever at that point in time could be 30 years 40 years down the road but it's still we lose that protection now having said that it could come back for designation at that point in time but we do we wouldn't have that protection on it at that point in time >> through the chair to Andreas part of the discussions in the permitting, we could request that the features remain or that the design features left as part of the building are then again designated. Y >> councelor >> and just to add a little bit more clarity to the situation, I think what you're concerned about happening um Andrew is not quite exactly what I think the outcome will be based on the way that the approval and permitting process works. So for every single development, and I mean all of them, I sit on the planning committee so I'm saying this with some knowledge. All of them have to meet some planning approval at some point. All projects for development. So when they come to the planning approval stage, before they get to the planning approval stage, they have to meet a number of conditions. What the easement does is actually attach a a separate set of conditions respect with respect to the heritage of this building that are going to come through the permit review process as well. So until those are satisfied and met and and signed off on as part of the approval process, it won't be happening. Now, could a developer just lie, say they're going to in writing sign off on the thing and do something the opposite? Sure. Then we could take them to court. There's many mechanisms we have as a city to hold them to that approval process. But I think what you're thinking is going to happen is that once the easement comes off, there's a space in between the easement and the planning approval that may happen because of the turnover of property or so on and so forth or once the planning approval happens and that property is then sold, then the people who will get the next the next iteration of that property will have an easement in place in order to to um make them follow through on the planning approval. But what I'm trying to say is the planning approval deals with that through the permit process that the mechanism itself. It will address this issue you're concerned about when it is approved and the approval will do with because we have an easement. So I I understand your concern, but I just don't think it it can it's material here because the approval process has a heritage permit attached to it as well and because this easement goes through the heritage per review process. So let's all sign off on >> I'm I'm actually not talking about this person. I believe 100% that this person is going to do what they say they're going to do. I think it sounds, you know, I think they're committed to the heritage. I think that's great. But my concern is not for them and for this application. It's for the future. Like, you know, let's say I build a house today. Uh I sell that house. The house is built. The house is done. Everything they said they were going to do has been completed. But that doesn't mean in 40 years someone's not going to come go, you know what? I don't like this house anymore and I want to tear it down. That's, you know, everything's been done exactly as they said they were going to do it. But now we're in the future where we're hoping this heritage building stands for another hundred years. And at that point in time, can someone come forward for a new application? That's all I was talking about. But >> yeah, the difference between the approval, the approval is not for a person, it's for the property. And I think that's an important distinction to make. And that's that's the difference is that these approvals are happening for the properties themselves. they're not happening based on the actual owner itself. If a new owner came along and wanted to have a different approval done, they'd have to actually go through a process to make that happen as well. So, I think that protection ensures because the easement pro ensures the protection of the heritage elements and then because it's attached to the property, not the person, the next owner would have to come along and reapply through that and all the same levers and checks and balances will come into place because in order for the original approval to have occurred, they would have had to got a heritage permit to make it happen. So in order to cancel that, you'd have to go through this process again. So I'm saying is that undoing the thing we're doing is not just a matter of the next person, the next person, the next person. >> I'm not talking about canceling it, though. I'm saying they did exactly what they said they were going to do. It happened. They got approvals. They built exactly what they said. It was built. It was done. It's approved. But then, you know, 50 years from now, someone comes with a new application where the easement's already long gone because it's already been approved. I'll let staff explain this. I mean, I think I've done my best here, but I think you're just misunderstanding the planning framework a little bit. Sorry. >> Uh through the chair, Emily Ben, acting program lead for cultural heritage. I just want to reiterate something that I think director Ken Quite said and I just maybe it was lost. Um but in the event that the easement is removed and the development is completed um in theory those heritage elements have been preserved and incorporated into new development and at some point in the future staff could revisit designation. So that would be so if it was under threat again in the future. Um we this doesn't mean that the opportunity to designate is completely eliminated for this owner. They have they want to pursue the heritage easement agreement. So, it sounds like people are wanting to move forward with the alternative recommendation. Um, but it doesn't mean that in the future staff couldn't couldn't move to designate the property under a different owner. Hopefully, uh, other questions. Graham. I've been involved in heritage committee now as my four third term and we've all seen buildings been lost through lack of development. I don't want this to be another one. Every time we approve designation on a building, Delta High School being a classic example, we've lost design heritage features. Maral house, the designated property got picked up is going to be picked up and moved elsewhere because of development. So, we have to do the best we can to protect what we can and work with the ownership with the development people and sometimes trust them. There's other ones we don't trust. So if we put a pl easement in place that protects the building for the time being, allows a sympathetic development to go forward where we preserve the house, preserve the heritage features, and then later on we can look at designating what is left. I'm comfortable with that. >> Thank you, Graeme. Uh Karen >> um yeah I am prepared to withdraw my motion to designate and instead have an easement agreement that would be acceptable to me as well. >> So through the chair we just need to second it also you're in favor as well of withdrawing. So and then so you're going to you're withdrawing and then you're going to bring forward the easement recommend. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. So I can put it up so everyone is aware of what is being voted on and then staff you or uh can you had suggested an amendment I believe as well >> through the chair. Can you post it again? >> It's not every time for him. >> Every time is happens every time. So >> Lyn, are you okay to second? >> Yes. >> Further. >> Yeah, just write the top of the next page. Until such time the proposed development of the property is approved under the planning act, say or through a heritage permit and a foundation permit has been issued. Oh, wait a minute. Sorry. Under steady easement or covenant. Quick, Emily, read that. Is that making sense? >> So you can see both. >> It says issue. It says issued. It's not issued. >> It does feel like an issue, but it should be issued. Heritage permit and a foundation permit has been issued under said easement or covenant. Are we comfort search time? >> Yeah, I'm trying. I need to be sure. >> Oh, thank you. >> So, so that the so I'll read through. So that the city enter into a heritage conservation easement agreement or covenant under section 37 bracket 1 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the owner of 206 Main Street West Hamilton to be registered on title to conserve the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the property as identified in the statement of cultural heritage value or interest attached as appendix B to report PED26121 until such time as a proposal for development of the property is approved under the planning act and or through a heritage permit and a foundation permit. permit has been issued under said easement or covenant. >> Is there any addendum that needs amendment needs to be made in the >> trying to understand the underset easement or covenant? Let's leave this as it is if you're okay with that >> through the chair. Um I'm generally comfortable with this. I'd like to run it by our legal staff as their their control of the easement. So we can do that and if there's a change I would look to um possibly councelor Kretch to help us make an adjustment on the floor at planning if we need to >> just to yeah just for staff's review uh paragraph C is there any change amendment that needs to be made to anything that's in >> No that's the chair through the chair. Early December is better for staff as we get into vacations and everything else and it' be better for the applicant as well. I'm sure we can get started on that as soon as this is at planning committee. So then through the chair just if there's any discussion on the that motion if there's not you can put it to a vote. Okay. And we're also receiving the presentation and report and then Okay. Do we have any further discussion or questions in regards to what's before us? Okay. So if there's no questions uh we'll move to vote. So that's to receive the presentation and approve the amended recommendation. So through the chair, you'd be voting to receive the presentation and the report and approve the those recommendations that were displayed. >> Okay. >> All right. So we're move to vote. Is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. Thank you everyone for that discussion. Well, we'll now move on to item 8.3 is PD26164. It's the recommendation to designate 103 Kennallorth Avenue North Hamilton Kennallorth Library under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act Ward 4. So, I'd like to call upon Megfield, Cultural Heritage Planner, to provide committee with the presentation on that item. Welcome back, Meg. >> Great to be back. Uh Meg Oldfield, cultural heritage planner. Uh today I'll be presenting staff report peed 26164. There we go. Uh which recommends that the property located at 103 Kennallworth Avenue North Hamilton, also known as the Kennallorth Library, be designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Uh so as you can see, the property is located in Hamilton near the corner of Kennallorth Avenue North and Roxboro Avenue. The property is comprised of a two-story brick brick building constructed in 1931. Uh in 2014, the property was listed on the municipal heritage register and added to staff's designation work plan following a request to designate the property. Um as a result of the changes from bill 23, the former staff work plan was rescended in favor of the public list of candidates for designation. Uh at which time the subject property was listed as a candidate. In 2025, staff received a second request to designate the property. Uh, in preparation for this report, staff conducted a site visit in June of 2026 with library staff to undertake uh to take updated photos of the property and discuss how a heritage designation could impact the property. Uh, staff drafted a statement of cultural heritage value or interest attached as appendix B and have determined that the property meets six of the nine criteria contained in Ontario regulation 906. I'll now outline the cultural heritage value of the property. Uh the property is comprised of a two-story brick building constructed in 1931. The property has physical value as a representative example of the Georgian revival style of architecture as demonstrated by its steep side gable roof, symmetrical 5ay facade, brick corner coins, and central entrance with sidelights and elliptical fan-shaped transom. Uh the historical value of the property lies in its association with the Hamilton Public Library system and its role in the construction of civic buildings that promote a sense of community, provide a source of social interaction, and facilitate the exchange of ideas. In the late 1920s, the Hamilton Public Library System commissioned the building of a new branch to serve the needs of the growing East End Kennorth community. Since its opening in January of 1932, the Kennallorth Library has played a significant role in its surrounding community and is directly associated with community clubs, events, children's programs, and clubs. Uh, the property is also associated with prominent architect George Thomas Evans, a Hamilton based architect largely known for his ecclesiastical works. After studying at the University of Pennsylvania, Evans worked under Hamilton architect Stuart McI and the Montreal-based firm of Ross and McFarland before opening his own firm in 1914. Evans designed a number of prominent schools and churches in Hamilton, including Grace Anglican Anglican Church, Delta United Church, and Queensdale Public School. Uh, finally, the property helps define the historic and distinctive character of Kennallworth Avenue. Standing out from the surrounding two and two and a half story mixeduse early to mid 20th century streetscape. The property is physically, functionally, visually, and historically linked to its surroundings. Cited on its original location amid the historic Crown Point West neighborhood it was built to serve. Due to its prominent location and moderate setback, the property is considered to be a local landmark. So, this is a condensed version of the statement of cultural heritage value or interest. the full version of which can be found in appendix B of this report. Uh important to the conservation of 103 Kennallorth Avenue North is the front and side elevations and roof line of the two-story brick building which includes all historic elements and decorative details present on these features including the brick facads laid in Flemish bond steep side gable roof five bay symmetrical front facade and twotory projecting three-sided bay window on the south facade as well as its location fronting on Kennallorth Avenue North and its moderate setback. Uh the property also includes a contemporary side and rear edition and an accessible ramp that are not considered to be of heritage value. Uh staff are also recommending the designation of interior features of the property including the second story wooden hammer beam trusses, the f first floor coffford ceiling, uh the built-in wooden benches, bookshelves, and window seats and the first and second story fireplaces. Uh some of those features you can see here. Uh, so staff are recommending that the city clerk be directed to give notice of council's intention to designate this property as a property of cultural heritage value under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Any questions? Thank you again, Meg. Uh, before we go for questions, may I have a move secondary to put the report and presentation on the floor. >> I see councelor Crutch and Graham. >> Thank you. And we'll now take questions or comments. Graham, >> thank you very much for this report and your previous report. get a chance to thank you for that. I'm very happy to see this building's finally being designated. I know it's been on the the books for a long time. It's very important to get it done and it's a amazingly lovely building. So, thank you. >> Any other speakers? Seeing none, we'll move on to our vote. Um so, um voting to receive the presentation and approve the recommendations within the report. May I have a or do we have any opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. We now move on to our general uh information and other business. 11.1 is an update respecting the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee's Heritage Recognition Awards, which will be held on September 24th, 2026. So, um this is our last meeting before our event. So, we'll have um uh doors are opening at 6:00 and awards will start at 7:00. Um so, we invite everyone. Invitations had been sent out to our committee members. So, please feel free to forward that on. Um, and uh it's going to be a great event. We're making contact with the the property owners and getting prepared. I would ask members of our um heritage committee. If you can please let me know if you uh will be attending the awards and and willing to uh participate and present awards, we'll we'll do some coordination on that. Um but again, that event's going to be taking place at BridgeWorks and it's it's going to be another hopefully great event. So, we just wanted to provide that as an update. May I have a mover and a seconder to receive the update? I see Graham and Lynn. >> And is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. Item 11.2 is our heritage buildings and landscape watch list. Um, are there any additions to the list that we should address today? Graham, >> I'd like to uh to add the Stelco headquarters head office building at 386 Wilcox. We're finding out that Stelco is moving to the former Otis Falsome building. We found out just the last heritage permanent review subcommittee that their headquarters are moving over there and the that 19 I think 47 construction. Yeah, 1947 constructed front part of the office is pretty important. Probably 50,000 Hamiltonians walk through that front door to apply for jobs over the years, myself included. in 1979 and uh it's a pretty important part of the industrial heritage of Hamilton and the labor heritage of Hamilton. So I kind of like to put it on there just a yellow I'm not overly concerned but just and I'll I'll monitor it as well to the chair. We just need a seconder. >> Okay. >> I see Lyn. >> Okay. And as we move to vote to add it to the list. Is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. Uh, are there any other additions to the list? Additions, uh, any removals from the list? So, we'll now go to updates. Uh, Lynn, did you have an update? >> Uh, yeah. Through the chair, this isn't an update, it's a question, I guess. Uh, Waterdown has a tree designated, the Vimemy Oak in front of the Waterdown Legion. I believe the tree is dead. So, uh, what happens now? uh through the chair. We'll have to look into that and see if it's a hazard. Then a heritage permit obviously wouldn't be required or if it's this is a question we have been discussing with our friends in forestry as as we've been working through the new tree bylaw and tree bylaw work that'll hopefully be coming to council in the new year. Um we'll follow up on that though. Thank you. Uh updates from Graham just >> Okay, I have Okay, I have a a few updates. One's on the elbow listing, which is uh 206 King Street East as both a comment and a question. Uh so this is the former Brenner Grocery Forbidden City on the corner of uh Walnut in King. I've noticed that there's some new windows have gone in. It's not a designated building. is only on the inventory. So hopefully it means there's life being put back into this building. So I wonder if heritage staff could take a look at that and see if there is actually anything going on, if they're going to try to revitalize that building. I know it was in pretty poor condition for the longest time and it was actually under threat of demolition. So if is if it is being saved, I'd be happy to find out. And I'm apologize to councelor Crutch. This is actually in your area. Guess I somehow stole it off you. I didn't know I had it. more under under the reds. We have the Long and Bisby building at 820 Sanatorium Road. Uh I emailed Matt a couple of pictures. I don't know what's going on here, why they're not complying with bylaws and orders, because I know they have had orders. There's three openings that are completely wide open. One's propped open doors. I think that's what this picture is. If I can get it down in size. Yeah. So, the doors propped open. Then down at grade, there's two openings that people can just walk right on through. And this one here, wide open, allows rain and other elements to get in. And all the way around the building, like that's a halfopen window where rain can get in. There is cameras on the building. They've been recently added and there's a like a solar pack that powers them. Are they being monitored? Because if people are getting into this property and doing this kind of damage to get in, why aren't they catching it themselves? Have you heard anything recently? >> Um, Ken Ko, director of heritage and urban design through the chair. No, I have not. Um, other than the email you shared that I saw either yesterday or this morning. So, we will follow up with bylaw enforcement. I do know the whole area is subject to planning act approval. uh and the status of the road which has recently been closed to public traffic uh is another issue we'll bring up with uh bylaw in terms of access and safety and all that around the building. So we'll definitely bring it up with our friends in bylaw and make sure the building's meeting all its current orders and requirements. >> Thank you. Because with two previous fires at the building due to people getting in and now the roads closed, how does the fire department get in there to protect the building? Okay, so let's go to my other favorite 85 Holton Avenue, the former St. Giles Church. Uh people have been getting in. There's been, I think, three police calls for unauthorized entry onto the either the property or into the building. One time the chief of police who lives around the corner actually caught the people on site. Uh and just again yesterday that one was ripped off and people could get in wide open. So, they're not securing this building very well. And apparently the grass cutters and maintenance people were on the site when this was open. Now, uh this is a the sad one. The former maternity hospital at 7-Eleven Concession Street, as you know, last meeting we recommended to council to designate the building, but they turned us down. So, the building is now probably going to be reduced to a salvage report and a couple of bricks. Hopefully planning staff can or heritage staff can do better. This building is very important to us. We got to somehow protect it. Why the hospital can't sell that section of the land off and take the the money and put it into their new hospital and let someone redevelop that gorgeous building. It would be very that would be my ultimate goal for the building. That's my listing. Those are all reds. Thank you, Gra. Oh, Ken, go ahead. >> Through the chair, I just had some other business when you're finished with >> uh do we have any other property reports uh council crutch? >> I don't really have a report, but I can respond to what Graham just said with respect to that report. So, I think it's still in order. Um yeah, so when I moved the motion to designate that property, it didn't pass. And so then I put the alternative on the floor. So did my best to try and get that preserved, but it didn't pass. Again, I think it comes down to the same issues where people are nervous or concerned. The hospital is competing for funding against other partners. And just having come back from the association of municipalities of Ontario conference where I met with several ministers and provincial people the level of understanding about these things is non almost non-existent and secondly the fear and concern about the word heritage heritage is very alive for a lot of these people and so um the the when the premier was giving a speech he kept referring back to shovel ready ready to go these types of different projects like he's very they're very preoccupied in the provincial government when it comes to funding with projects that have nothing in the way of it doing because they want to look good, right? They want to be able to come to a project where they say, "We're going to fund this thing. It actually happens." They get to show up to the ribbon cutting and say, "We did something." If there's something in that whole landscape for them politically, which seems like it's not going to work out. They just freak out. >> So that's what the landscape for a lot of these decisions ends up being about is the hospitals competing for funding for the hospital with everybody else. My opinion which I said at planning is the province should just I don't know preserve heritage buildings as part of what it does like it should just give enough funding for the preservation of the heritage building because in that situation the obvious solution is retrofit it so that it works as an administrative building don't build a new administrative building more hospital space so the new building could be all medical this building could be all administrative. is so easy to accomplish that. But then the government would have to kick in probably an extra 10 to$25 million to make that happen and they don't want to. So for them it's more expeditious for them to just have the building torn down. That's what it comes down to in the end of the day, right? Is they they're not interested in preserving the heritage. They're more interested in expediting this thing happening and getting as few barriers as possible having it built. It's ultimately it's not the hospital's fault. Ultimately it's the province who just doesn't care about heritage. Those are my uh welcome. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. I appreciate it. Any other updates or property? Seeing none, uh, may a motion to receive the property updates. >> I see Karen Lynn. >> And as we move to vote, if is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. And we have uh staff updates. >> The chair. Uh, couple staff updates. Uh, our most recent student, Kira Riley, will be leaving us at the end of the month. She we had her for eight months. Unfortunately, going forward, due to budget constraints last year, our student position has been cancelled for the foreseeable future. Uh, we'll see if we can get that back in the fullness of time. Um, and other good news, Scott Dickinson has been successful. You know, Scott has been here on temporary uh doing helping us get through our our our crush of uh designations over the past number of years, and I think you're going to be very happy in December to see the number that this group has actually done over the past four years. It's quite good. He's been a very important part of that, and he's been successful in the job to replace Emily, Meg, and Lisa on rotation over the next year while Alyssa's off. So, he'll be staying with us. Very good news. Not not good news about the student. Hopefully that >> nobody but congratulations to Scott. Um any other new business that we like to bring forward? Uh if there's no other business today um then uh the Camel Munal Heritage Committee is now adjourned at 111. So our next meeting will be September 18th, 2026 at 12:00 noon. So, so we do have a September meeting, right? Thank you everyone and we'll see you in September.