Sound check. 1 2 3 present. Graham Carroll >> present. >> Andrew Douglas >> here. >> Lyn Lindstead >> present. >> Andy McLaren >> present. >> Present. And as we move 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 Stefan. >> And before we move forward, are there any amendments from the committee members today for the agenda? >> Uh, go ahead, Grant. >> I'm not really sure it's an amendment, but I'd like to ask staff some questions about the heritage permit for Radio City's uh old building. Does that have to be an amendment or I just do that after? And it's not uh that's not currently on our list of properties. >> What about under watch? >> Under >> that might be. Yes. >> So you can ask those questions during that time. >> Was the was the item at um heritage permit review? >> No. >> No. Okay. Yeah. So I would do 11.1. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um so seeing no other amendments as we move to vote, is there anyone opposed to the agenda? >> Seeing none, that item is carried. We'll now move on to our declarations of interest. Do we have any declarations of interest today? Um I would like to declare disqualifying interest for item 8.1. U my husband works for the architect that worked on the original uh renovation and conservation works for that property or those properties I should say. Are there any other declarations? Seeing none, we'll move on to our adoption of the minutes of the previous meeting. Item 5.1 is our HMHC meeting. Minute 26008. May I please have a mover and a seconder to adopt the minutes of the previous meeting as presented? >> I see Graham and Lynn. >> Before we move to vote, is there any discussion on the meeting minutes? >> Seeing none, as we move to vote, is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. I'll now turn the chair over to Graham. This item uh 6.1 we have the delegations. So before begin our delegations members are reminded that the questions of the devel of the delegations are for clarification purposes only and not for debate. And a note to our delegate you have five minutes to complete your delegation. So at 6.1 we have uh David Aragon David Page sorry from Aragon Development Ontario respecting an 8.1 that deals with deck recommendations as an 8 11 to 3 15 King Street East. Thank you. pull this down or >> that's all I got to do. That's it. Good afternoon. My name is David Paige. I'm from Aragon Properties. Uh a little bit about uh Aragon. We've been in business for 35 plus years. We have offices in Hamilton, Toronto. Our head office is in Vancouver. We also have offices in Victoria. Uh I'm uh responsible for everything in Ontario. Uh we are the owners of 2 to four James Street North, 6 James Street North, 1:3, 5, 7 to 9, 13- 15, 17, 19 to 31, and 35 King Street East. Our first acquisition in Hamilton was the right house, which we purchased over 30 years ago. And over the intervening years, uh, we continued to add to our holdings, uh, extending our presence to encompass virtually all of the block on the north side of King between James and Houston. Throughout the past 30 years, we have endeavored to act as good stewards of these properties. Over the years, the city has acknowledged our efforts by presenting us with various certificates and awards for our efforts in maintaining the properties. I've got a few of these uh with me. Um from uh Mayor Morrow in 1999, the 1999 Excellence in Property Award um for maintaining buildings and businesses with sensitivity to window displays, signage, etc. Um, and in 2013 from uh, Mayor Bratina, uh, the 2013 award of excellence presented to the White House. Um, ongoing pride and maintenance of your property and business. an undated one. I believe it was also 2013 from Mayor Batina for the uh up your alley alleyway beautifification project to Aragon Properties. And then the last one was actually from the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee and that was um for the right house and we did a quite extensive update to the exterior of the building and uh that was very nicely acknowledged and I made copies of all of these which I'm happy to leave with you or pass around whoever you uh handle that type of As a company, um, Aragon has a history of incorporating reused and reclaimed items within our new development projects. In Ontario, we've incorporated reclaimed brick into feature walls inside units. We've made efforts to preserve mature trees, sometimes even fighting with uh the city or municipality to allow us to preserve them when they want to take them down. Uh we've created landscape features incorporating materials sourced on site. In Vancouver, we have similarly used reclaimed brick for interior feature walls and they do something a little different out there where they reclaim wood off of the exterior of buildings that are being demolished and then plane them and have them finish for interior finishing and flooring among other examples. I mentioned these to demonstrate Aragon's interest, practice, and awareness of the benefits of incorporating existing elements into new construction. They often provide a feeling of being grounded or connected to an area with reused interior finishes providing a natural warmth to those spaces. However, I would also point out that based on our years of experience with these practices, it's not always practical to preserve or protect on-site materials exactly as they exist. Turning to the items on the agenda today, I would like to make the following comments in report uh 26168. Um, and I realize this hasn't been uh shown yet, at least I don't believe it has. Um, but I'd like to speak to it. Um, the report is incorrect. It states that the buildings located at 11 to 15 King Street East and 14 James Street North merged in title with the neighboring building located at 10 to 12 James Street North. As I mentioned earlier, we own 13 to 15 King Street, 11 King Street, 1012, and 14 James Street are owned by another party. They never merged. This is a significant distinction both from a legal as well as a physical point of view. And these properties cannot be lumped together in a single designation. In addition to the ownership being different, there is a substantial physical differentiation. 11 King Street is completely visible, whereas 13 and 15 King Street have had metal screens covering up their upper stories. And those screens have been in place for decades. you will note in the presentation. I I'll guess I'll point it to you in advance. Um but on slide eight, there's a really nice picture of the three buildings and you can see the exterior um uh uh details are similar all the way across. And then when you look at slides two and five which convey the conditions today and have been in place for decades, you can see that the projections off of our properties have been completely sheared off at some point. There's no consistency there at all. We also don't know. They've been fastened in multiple points and I've got no idea how they were fastened into the facade and what damage or impact that has had on the on the facade. I haven't even seen what those facads look like, so I know that no one can speak to their condition um details, features, impact, etc. Our heritage consultants, erra architects, have submitted a memo to the committee pointing out that without being able to identify or present evidence of the heritage components of a property, that designation of 13 and 15 King Street is at best premature and may be inappropriate and indefensible. Accordingly, we object to the inclusion of 1315 King Street East in the notice of intention to designate. Turning to report 26180 dealing with 17 and 19 to 31 King Street. 17 King Street has metal screens in place on its upper facade similar to those of 13 and 15. These screens have also been in place for decades. Again, without being able to identify or present evidence of the heritage components of a property, erra didn't mention it, but I feel that 17 King Street should not be included in the notice of intention to designate either, and I would object to its inclusion at this time. I would also point out that um when you look at uh the uh it's it's described as a limestone that the corner pieces on the ground floor um at 17 either were never there or have been removed and they doesn't look like it's consistent with the uh with 19 to 31. With regards to 19 to31, while the facade appears to have held up reasonably well, a closer examination by our staff has indicated there are several instances of cracking and chipping, and these items need to be considered, which is why ERRA has requested that staff continue to collaborate with our team to refine the statement of significance so we can all have a clear understanding of how this will be dealt with during the future redevelopment of this property. Thank you for your time and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. >> Thank you very much. Does anyone on the committee have any questions for the delegates? >> Yeah, thanks for coming by. I represent the downtown core, so this is where these buildings are located. My question for you is really around why you're objecting to the designation. Like what's what's it your thinking anyways about why you don't want to have them designated? I mean, we could do a heritage purism test on every heritage building and we'd never pass 100%. So, of course, there are going to be things that have been modified and have changed over the years. Let's put that aside for a moment in terms of factual accuracy. Maybe there's some things to update. Maybe there's some some wrinkles to iron out, but my question is why you're objecting to heritage designation. What do you understand it means um when a building is designated as heritage that you're concerned about? Uh as I said, I just think it's um as we said, we don't object in principle to 19 to 31. It's it's very uh it's very easy to see. You can assess it and you can say, okay, this is how the statement of significance should be wording to reflect what's there. You can't do that with the other properties. And also, it's also um uh 13 to 15 is wrong being incorporated or lumped in with 11. So that's just that's just wrong and shouldn't be done like that. Um so we would just like the opportunity, which is what erra I understand, has reached out to staff to say we're not going to we're not we're not trying to pick a fight. We just want to make sure it's done appropriately. And right now it's premature to designate them. That's why we're objecting to it at this point. >> So if I understand correctly, you're not objecting to them being designated. You just would like some of the wrinkles ironed out. Well, there might be more than little wrinkles, but uh you know, we need we need clarity both for the the city and for us so we all know what the expectation is going forward and how the properties are going to be handled during the redevelopment. That's all we're asking for, >> right? Which is the entire purpose of the heritage designation process and the heritage permit review process. That that does all of that work for us. But the first step is a designation. So, I'm just making sure I understand because we're going to hear presentations from staff about this where they're going to talk about the reasons why they're designating it or suggesting it. And it may not meet all the criteria underneath of the Heritage Act and no building does. Rarely does every building meet all the criteria, but I think what you're suggesting is maybe deferring this and allowing a little bit more work to be done and bringing it back at a future date. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Y anyone else have any questions? Well, Lyn, >> yes. Thank you very much. And I'm sorry, but you spoke very quickly. >> Sorry, I was trying to stay under five minutes. >> Did you say that one or more of these buildings are not under your ownership? >> Uh, correct. >> Which addresses are not? >> So, in 26168, um, we own 11, sorry, we own 13 and 15. >> Mhm. So 11 is not 10 to 12 and 14 James Street North are not. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else any questions? >> Anyone else have any questions? >> Andrew, go ahead. >> Yes. I was just wondering if you had any uh timelines or plans to actually remove the coverings on the face of the buildings because I know that's one of the reasons you said that we can't tell because the coverings are up there. Do you is there a plan to remove those soon or no or >> Well, that'll be we'll have to do that in conjunction with the whole redevelopment process because the heritage component is obviously a big part of it and uh I'm just nervous about taking that off. >> So I I don't want to do it until we're going. So >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I don't think no one else is there's me. Uh when it comes to items like designation, you do realize that if we find after those are off, it's easy to work around the designation to get the work done that you want it, right? >> Uh I'm sorry. >> Like the designation is not permanent. It's not like it's going to be locked in stone. If we if we do designate those two properties to protect it for the future of the city and then two years from now you take that off and you find that it's an open skin, it's not like it's written in stone that we can't develop that building the way you want it. But if we don't protect it, we won't have the option of looking at it later. That's why we kind of look at that building. >> Yeah. No, I understand. I'm just saying uh and this you know now I'm deferring to uh my expert consultants who are saying in their view it's premature to uh to designate it and that's what I'm here to convey. >> Yeah. >> But again, if we don't get it, we're going to lose the ability. We we waited way too long across the road and we lost everything. That streetscape is just one of these things I grew up with. I don't remember Northways department store when it was there, but it was all one building and all absolutely beautiful in the pictures. Be nice to see it get back to that again if there is the heart was in it and there is uh grants available to redevelop that facade which is something you could look at in your things your development plans. Anyway, thank you for your time. Anyone else have any questions? Okay, thank you very much. >> Thanks. Thank you. >> And can I have a mover and a second to receive the delegation? >> I see Karen and Lynn. >> Is there anyone opposed? >> It's scary. >> Thank you, Graham. Uh, we'll now move on to item 6.2, two, which is Matt Johnson, Urban Solutions Planning and Land Development, Inc., respecting item 8.3, which is the Heritage Permit application HP206-021 under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act for the relocation of the designated structure at 398 Wilson Street East in Ancaster to parcel a municipally addressed as 17 Academy Street, Ancaster in Ward 12. Uh, so welcome to our delegate and again with five minutes for your presentation. >> Right. Uh, good afternoon members of committee, staff, and the public. My name is Matt Johnston, registered professional planner with Urban Solutions. I do have a detailed presentation that I took the subcommittee through. Um, I can go through it if if the committee would like. Um, my main messaging today is to uh show some appreciation for staff in terms of the processing of the heritage permit. Um, what we're doing is implementing really a a council commitment when the official plan and zoning bylaw amendment were approved for 3 398 Wilson Street um to relocate the Mar House to maintain uh public frontage on a street and that's what this heritage permit accomplishes. Um, in full support of the staff report uh subject to the revised condition H that I appreciate uh staff worked with us on to get the language corrected there. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. And again, if if you'd like to see more details, uh, I do have a presentation available. So, um, I'll be at the will of the committee there. >> What would the committee like to do? Would you like to see the presentation or would you like to just ask questions of the delegate? >> Counselor? >> Yeah, I just had a brief question. Maybe it might be helpful for the folks to hear more about H that you were referring to and specifically what that that's about without having to go through the whole presentation perhaps just that bit. >> Certainly >> if I understood sorry correctly what you were saying was that you were in agreement with staff about the recommendations they had made and the only thing you had to quibble with perhaps was around H. >> Uh correct. So through the chair, um the conditions of approval associated with today's permit are identical to the existing permit for the relocation that was previously approved with the exception of a new condition that being number H. And when the condition was first put to us in draft, the request was to see the agreement between the the private agreement between the two parties. And essentially what um we discussed with staff is that you know sharing a private agreement between two parties and putting that on the public record was a little concerning. So in in lie of that we've agreed to a revised wording where there's an attestation signed by both parties um that speaks to the responsibilities of the move that are all secured through the uh the letters of credit. >> Thank you. That's my only question. Do we have any other questions for the delegate today? Seeing none, thank you very much, Matt, for for that. Is there any other comments or statements that you wanted to make or >> No, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you so much. May I have a mover and a seconder to receive the delegation? >> I see the council crutch and Graham. >> And as we move to vote, is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. We now move on to item seven which is our items for information. May I have a mover and a seconder to receive the items for information? We have 7.1 and 7.2 before us. >> I see Karen and Graham. >> And is there any discussion on these items? Any questions? Seeing none, as we move to vote, is there anyone opposed to receiving these items of information? Seeing none, that item is carried. I'll now turn turn the chair back over to Graham for item eight. Okay. Uh number eight, items for consideration. Uh this is 8.1 peed 26168, which is the recommendation to designate 11 to 15 King Street East, the former Mills Department Store, 10 to 12 James Street North, former Oak Hall, and 14 James Street North, former Mills Hardware store in Hamilton under part four of the Tero Heritage Act. I'd like to ask Kira Cook, cultural heritage planning tech, to provide the committee with a presentation on her item. Hello, I'm Kira Cook, cultural heritage planning technician, presenting on staff's recommendation to designate the properties 11 to 15 King Street East, the former Mills department store, 10 to 12 James Street North, former Oak Hall, and 14 James Street North, former Mills Hardware store through report peed 26189. The properties located at 11 King 11 to 15 King Street East and 10 to 14 James Street North Hamilton are comprised of three buildings historically known as the Mills Department Store, Mills Hardware Store, and Oak Hall. In 2013, the properties were surveyed as part of the downtown built heritage inventory and added to the city's heritage register. In 2018, 11 King Street North uh King Street East and 14 James Street North merged on title with 10 to 12 James Street North. And in 2026, Heritage staff were circulated a formal consultation. Here you can see a summary of staff's evaluation which determined that the properties meet eight of the nine criteria for designation which I will now go into detail of. The properties meet two design and physical value criteria. The properties have design and physical value as a unique and early example of a row of 20th century commercial buildings that display a high degree of craftsmanship and artistic merit. 11 to 15 King Street West uh King Street East, sorry, and the Mills Department Store and 14 James Street. The mills depart uh hardware store together form a rare 20th century commercial row that blend Victorian and Eduardian commercial architecture. Their character defining features that display a high degree of craftsmanship and artistic merit include the decorative brick work, terracotta plasters, prominent sheet copper cornises with brackets, dentals, and stamped lion heads. Their Eduwardian influence is displayed through their large Chicago style windows and semi-ircular arched upper windows with molded trim and keystones. The facade facads of 13 to 15 King Street East were significantly altered in the late 1960s with the installation of a metal grill on the second to fifth floor facade. It is unknown what is under the metal grill, but some of the same original features that can be seen on 11 King Street uh could be there. The largely intact and sympathetically restored facade at 11 King Street and 14 Dream Street North retains the defining architecturual attributes of the original commercial row architecture. Despite the modifications, the overall massing in form of the King Street block continues to convey the historic scale and rhythm of the early 20th century commercial streetscape along the north side of King Street East at Gourd Park. 10 Drain Street North, known as Oak Hall, has physical value as a representative example of a Roman-esque revival influenced commercial architecture that has been sympathetically restored. The features typical of this style include its front facade with its dark red brick finish with distinctive banding in the second story created by horizontal ropelike courses. The second story Chicago style tripart windows. The third story contains openings of various sizes with semic-ircular transoms, decorative brick restores, keystones and a continuous stone sill. In 2018, Oakh Hall underwent a sympathetic restoration that reinstated its historical vistad and introduced a contemporary two-story glass edition designed to be invisible from ground layer level and does not alter the building's historic streetscape presence. The properties meet all three historical associative criteria. The properties have historical and associative value because of its direct uh associations with the prominent Mills family and with Senator We Sanford. The properties have the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of how previous generations experienced life in Hamilton's downtown core and they demonstrate the prominent work of Hamilton architect Charles Mills and prominent metalmith John E. Riddle. The properties have historical value through their direct connections with two significant commercial enterprises that cont contributed to the development of Hamilton's downtown commercial corps. The properties are associated with the prominent fam mills family. one of Hamilton's earliest settler families and influential bi business business leaders whose department store at 11 to 15 King Street East was among the city's first department stores and whose renowned china and gift shop businesses operated until 1983. The Mills brothers Robert Edward and Stanley established Stanley Mills Co. as a hardware store on John Street in 1888 before expanding into its second location on King Street West. Stanley Mills became the public face of the business and was a prominent local businessman. In 1893, the original hardware store expanded its inventory to include China toys and other dried goods, establishing H one of Hamilton's first department stores. The company then relocated to 11 to 15 King Street East in 1896. In January of 1903, a devastating fire destroyed the original building. During the period between the fire in January and the opening of a new premise, a new building on the premises in August of 1903, the department store operates operations were temporarily relocated to the Mills Hardware store at 14 James Street North. The replacement building, which remains in place today, was designed and constructed by Charles Mills, an prominent architect and a brother to the other Mills brothers. Although the department store remained successful by 1920, the Mills brothers sold most of the retail business and turned their attention to real estate and investment. The Mills Hardware store continued operating at Fort 14 James Street North until 1935 after which the Business continued at 95 King Street East under the management of Nelson Mills, son of Charles Mills. That location operated from 1911 until its closure in 1961. Robert Mills retained ownership of 11 King Street East and together with his son Hubert established Hubert Mills China and Gift Shop. The store became a fixture of Hampton of Hamilton's downtown commercial corps, specializing in fine china and gift and becoming particularly well known for its wedding registry. This business was in operation until 1983. The second historical association is with Senator William Eli Sanford as at 10 to 12 James Street known as Oak Hall which was one of the two flagship retail stores operated by Sanford the other being in located in Toronto. Established it circa in 1879. Oakh Hall specialized in ready-made clothing and became one of the most prominent retail establishments in Hamilton for its time. The store served as the principal retail out outlet for the production for the products of the Sanford Manufacturing Company, whose ready-made clothes were produced at a manufacturing warehouse located at the corner of John and King Streets in Hamilton. The Sanford Man manufacturing company was the first and largest manufacturer of ready-made clothing in Canada. By the 1890s, the company employed more than 2,000 workers, making it one of the ca uh country's largest employers. Sanford became one of the wealthiest businessmen in Canada and was widely known as the wool king of Canada. Though through Oakh Hall and the Sanford manufacturing company, Hamilton emerged as an important center for the production and ready retailing of ready-made clothing during the late 19th century. Sanford was also an figure of national significance serving as a senator and as one of the wealthiest men in Canada. He then constructed a prominent 56 room mansion known as Westford West Sanford. This mansion was then demolished in 1939 to make way for a residential development. But Sanford's legacy within Hamilton remains evident through the naming of Sanford Avenue and West Sanford Place, which commemorate his contra contributions to the city's commercial and industrial development. Following Sanford's death in 1899, Oakhall continued to operate under new management and remained a prominent retail establishment into the late 1930s. The property yields and has the potent potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture as a commercial as commercial buildings with connections to defunct businesses which had long tenures in Hamilton. These properties yield insight into how previous generations of Hamiltonians experienced life in the downtown core. The properties meet all three contextual criteria. The properties are important in defining the historic commercial character of the surrounding area of Gore Park. The properties are physically connected by an elevated over path linking 14 James Street North with 11 to 15 King Street East, reflecting their historic function as components of the mill's commercial enterprise. Together, they form an important part of a of a cohesive commercial street cape surrounded by buildings that are complimentary in scale, massing, and design. The properties contribute to a continuous commercial street wall extending from the north side of King Street East from James Street North to Wellington Street, refor reinforcing the historic commercial character of Gore Park. The properties are also considered local landmarks due to their prominent locations fronting onto Gore Park and Jane Street North, their substantial scale and massing and long-standing contribution to Hamilton's commercial development through its association with the mills business and Oakh Hall. two of Hamilton's significant commercial enterprises. And here you can see a short summary of the criteria for your reference with a full statement of the full version of the statement of cultural heritage value and interests in appendix B of the staff report of peed 26 uh89. Here is a summary of the heritage features identified to be included in the designation and will inform the writing of the designation by law. Starting with the buildings of 11 to 15 King Street North or East and then continue here is the continuing of King Street East. And then here is the summary of the heritage features identified for 14th James Street North. And lastly, here is a summary of the heritage features for Oak Hall, which is 10 to 12 James Street North. And the last for our contextual values here. Finally, here is a summary of staff's recommendation that the city clerk be directed to give notice of council's intention to designate 11 to 15 King Street East, 10 to 12 James Street North, and 14 James Street uh and 14 James Street North. uh shown in appendix A attached to report PEED2618 as appropriate for uh as appropriate properties of cultural heritage value questions. >> Thank you very much. We have a mover and a secondary to put the presentation in the report and correspondence on the floor. >> I see Andrew and Councelor Crutch. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the committee? Okay, so start with Lynn. >> Uh yes, thank you. Uh I just I don't really have any objections or comments on the report itself. Just um with the fact that not all of these buildings are owned by Aragon, would this not have to be rewritten through the chair? through the chair uh Emily Ben, acting program lead for cultural heritage. Um so there is a little discrepancy in the report and we appreciate um the delegate from Aragon pointing that out. Um there we the later in the report it is acknowledged that there are two different owners. So the the merging piece um may need to be flushed out further in that paragraph. Um but yes, there's Aragon that owns a portion of the site and then another owner that owns the other portion. So what we would be doing is we would be registering the designation bylaws on the two different property titles. >> Okay, Andrew, >> thank you. Yeah, so I have a whole bunch of questions. Apologize. Uh first I just wanted to say that I 100% agree that these are worthy of designation despite what is happening on the facade. You know, you only have to meet two criteria to be designated and these definitely meet that. First question is why was the decision made to combine the uh designation for all these different properties as one designation instead of breaking them apart >> through the chair. Um the decision was made because the three properties that front onto king 11 to 15 they are physically historically visually attached. Um and then also they are physically attached to the properties on James. Um they were yeah they were constructed and connected as one. Um and then they are 11 king and the properties on James are owned by one owner. So, it's one designation bylaw. It is maybe convoluted, but the way it was constructed, staff felt it made sense to write it as one designation bylaw, and as we mentioned, we would register the designation bylaws on the separate titles of the property. >> Okay. Uh secondly, do you guys have any evidence that the uh the details that are hidden are actually there >> through the chair? um that we haven't had any condition assessments completed to to our knowledge. Um but the evidence is there on 11 King. So staff were hopeful and the way that the >> heritage attributes are listed is sort of if they are there intact um the bylaw would would protect them. Um so we we don't know for certain at this time. >> Yeah. Because my only concern is that just the way that the draft designation statement is written saying that you're trying like you're basically putting in that there are elements that may exist into a draft designation bylaw and that goes in law and that's protected then and I cannot see and I do not have any like I can't remember any case where the uh the uh OOLT has ever approved a designation that says they may be there. Like they really require the evidence and I worry that if you bring that forward and it ends up going to the tribunal, they're going to say absolutely not and then we've lost a designation on all these properties which would be terrible. Um yeah, so I don't know if it would be better to break them out just so you can do that or maybe again because they are like it meets the designation without that. So being really specific in the draft designation like here's what we're protecting and just ignoring that completely to give yourself a better chance of actually moving forward because with that in there it would be my huge concern that you know if it goes forward to the the land tribunal that they're just going to say no because you have no proof that that's there >> um through the chair Ken Ko director of heritage and urban design they will be registered separately separate nids. So um I'm not as concerned about the whole designation going. I'm also we are under a bit of a timeline as you noticed from the and um so we are still willing very much through the NOID process to work with um to work with Aragon and uh ERRA to see if there's some adjustments to that um great that designation um going forward. >> Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any council Gretch? >> Yeah, I understand the timing concerns because we're up against a deadline and if we defer this because of the municipal election, other kinds of things that are going on, then we're not going to make those deadlines and so it's important. Can we maybe at least codify in writing a motion to say that you will work with Aragon on some of these um quibbles perhaps, whatever you want to call them formally, uh to make adjustments. Is that something we could just do as part of a motion just so it's codified and folks here know that you're going to have that discussion with them? Because I understand your concerns about deferring because of the way that the province has manufactured the legislation has put us all in a situation where deferring risks not the ability not to be able to designate at all. So through the chair, I'd leave that up to the committee. Uh, I can guarantee that we are planning to have that conversation. And as we've demonstrated in other instances, we do have some other heritage easements and other things we can put in place to help work through planning applications a little quicker and with a little more flexibility as we've done recently on other applications. >> Well, I have complete faith in you. I just think that legislatively speaking, we should probably have a motion just so it's there and if anyone goes back and looks later, they can say, "Oh, it's here. I see that it's here." um I can refer to that thing so I know that it happened. So I'm not sure what the wording would be, but I think the wording would be something like before the NOIDS are finally approved that there would be an opportunity to meet with whomever the property owners to discuss any additional minor modifications as necessary. I don't know like I'm I'm just doing my best here. I have no idea exactly what the should be. I'm looking at the legislative coordinator as well. >> You want to try? Go ahead >> through the chair. So I'm I don't believe we can make a modification to the notice of intention to designate as presently written and once it's passed through if it is passed through the committee um and it goes on to planning committee and and council um because that is how it's written and how it would be approved. Um, and what we would have been willing to do if there had been meetings being held in October, we could have deferred this and had the meetings um, and put it through there so that we could everything could be passed before these properties fell off the register January 1st, 2027. But unfortunately, we're missing those meetings because of the election. And so we're not able to do that. So we are putting it through as is and we may have to make adjustments after we meet with the team at RA and the owners. um we may have to make the adjustments through the objection period to the notice of intention to designate because of the timing of the election. So it's kind of there's more admin to be done but it doesn't preclude us from having those meeting. It's just that our our hands are a bit tied. >> So just looking for how to word that that's all. So through the chair um Ken Ko director of heritage and urban design perhaps a um a direction to direct staff to work with the applicant between now and planning committee or council uh to see if we can make some changes um would be welcome. Uh the alternate is if that doesn't work once we get into the full NOID designation process if there's an objection to the NOID which we welcome if there's an issue we also have that opportunity of another 60 days to work through changes and come back to council with changes >> which would then bring us probably to the December 9th council meeting I believe. >> Uh if that's the case it would probably be a January council meeting >> right and we have till the 22nd. So there's time for the notice of intention to designate objection period to occur and a response to happen in that time. Yeah, that makes sense to me in terms of a direction if we can ask staff to come back before the planning committee with anything that's possible and like you could actually just come forward at planning and say, "Hey, we have this conversation because I'm just mindful that we'll be on the floor planning. There'll be a set of minutes there. Embedded in the minutes will be this conversation and I'm worried there's not going to be a report back." So if we can just have a minor report back at planning on where we're at just so that everyone's aware, if that makes sense. and planning I believe is September 29th just for the audience >> uh through the chair Anita Fayback director of planning and chief planner the conversation we're just having is procedural so uh should there be direction for staff to amend the appendices what would happen at planning committee there would be a revised uh revised dependencies on the planning committee agenda for planning committee to consider. >> Okay, that's fine. So, you're going to attempt to meet with the folks before the 29th and if there's a revised addition coming out, then there is. And if not, then you have the object ability to object to the notice and there's a period of 60 days in which that can happen. That seems reasonable to me. So, I'll move that whatever that looks like in writing. I'll leave it to the legislative coordinator to figure it out. But so, so through the chair, I can draft language to that effect. But it's almost not needed because the direction isn't approved until it goes to council. So the action is already going to be taken prior to it being approved. >> Do you know what I'm saying? >> Yeah. But unfortunately, I'm trying to track it. It's a tracking issue more than anything else. In this moment, I'm lucidly having this conversation with you about an issue my mind is charged to. As I leave this room, it may no longer be charged. And so I'm just being honest like there's a million things. So I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle. >> Yeah. So through the chair I understand what the um the intent is and draft something for the minutes. So we just need a seconder. >> I see Andrew. >> Thank you. >> So then vote on the amendment. So if there's any discussion >> any discussion. >> Anyone else have any further discussion? >> So sorry we have an amendment on the floor. So we'll deal with the amendment first. So if there's any discussion on the amendment if not we'll vote on the amendment and then we can go back to the main motion. >> How do we explain the amendment? Sorry, >> just the amendments to work with the developer between now and planning. >> Yeah. So for that staff to work with them. >> Yeah. Okay. So does everyone understand the amendment? >> Okay. We have a mover and a seconder. >> Yep. We have >> the mover >> and Andrew is the seconder. >> Okay. So anyone opposed? >> Seeing none, motion passes. >> And then back on to the main item. Yep. Does anyone have any further questions on this item? Seeing none. So, and now we have to carry it. Correct. So, I have a mover and a seconder to accept the recommendation of staff to designate these properties. >> So, we'll do Council Crutch and Andrew. >> Okay. Is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, the motion >> one abstension just the motion passes. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Graham. Item 8.2 is PED26180 is our recommendation to designate 17 at 19 to 31 King Street East in Hamilton, the former Woolworth building under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. I'd like to call upon uh Scott Dickinson, cultural heritage planner, to provide committee with a presentation on this item. Welcome, Scott. Uh, good afternoon. Scott Dickinson, culture heritage planner, and this is report PED261 180, the recommendation to designate 17931 King Street East Hamilton. Uh, this property is located on the north side of King Street East between the intersections of James North and King and Houston North and King. Some brief background, this property was surveyed as part of the downtown built heritage inventory and was added to the city's municipal heritage register in 2013. In 2026, heritage staff were circulated on a formal consultation application regarding the uh proposed mixuse three tower of redevelopment of the block bound by King Houston James and King William. Uh this property meets seven of the nine criteria laid out in Ontario regulation 9-06. Firstly, this property has design and physical value. Pardon me, these properties, there are two of them. Uh they are representative examples of a row of commercial buildings influenced by the art deco style of architecture. Uh features typical of this style include the flat roof, the plasters with stylized fluting and capitals and the geometric decorative motifs in sized on the front of the building and on the parapet of the windows. Uh this these properties consist of two distinct structures and they're associated dresses. The first is in the photograph to the right, which is 17 King Street East, a three-story single-unit commercial building rebuilt in 1949. Uh, this property or this guess this property prior to 1949 was one of four units that made up the 1853 White Block Building, which was a commercial structure demolished over the course of the first half of the 20th century until only 17 King remained. Uh during the 1948 expansion of the neighboring Woolworth building, it was decided to replace the Gothic Revival frontage of 17 with an art deco frontage to match the neighboring building. During that process, structural issues were found at 17 and so the front and rear walls, the roof and the fourth floor were all removed at that time. It is not entirely clear how much if any of the 1853 building might remain. And of course by 1973 the frontage of 17 had been covered over by metal screening. Uh the other property is 19 to31 king in the photograph to the left which was a 1949 art deos style commercial building built to replace a number of 19th century commercial buildings destroyed by a fire in 1947. These properties display a high degree of craftsmanship uh through their Pardon me. Lots of notes today. Uh through their uh smooth finish and clean and sized lines making up the limestone facade of the second and third stories. Uh these properties have historical and associative value. They are directly associated with downtown Hamilton's historic commercial character and with the former FW Woolworth Company. By the 1850s, people in Hamilton had noted that the streets around Gore Park were the city's commercial corps. Along the north side of King Street, uh we would you would have found in the 19th century a large number of retail stores. And the closer these stores were to the intersection of James and King, the more uh high-end they were. So, it's perhaps not surprising that uh John White, a politician and horse breeder, built in 1853 his four-story commercial building u which everyone called the white block. The white block housed uh high-end retail offices for professionals, meeting halls, even some light manufacturing. And a few of these uh a few of their long-term tenants in the white block were Hamilton fixtures in the 19th century, including Alexander Murray's exclusive uh ladies wear dry goods store. You can see in the photograph there, the A Murray and Co sign. It's Alexander. And his neighbor was John Eastwood's bookstore. You can also see the book sign in that photograph. Murray's company last between 1858 and 1896. and Eastwood's bookstore was opened from 1860 till 1911. So quite a long tenure in these buildings. At the turn of the 20th century, the White Block underwent some changes. The westernmost unit was demolished to make way for the expanded Stanley Mills department store as you can sort of see at the this angled view in this old postcard. And the other three units lost their local business tenants and were replaced with a new sort of business. these Canadian-based national chains like Metropolitan Stores Limited, Lobla's Groceries, and the Toronto-based Tamblin Drugstore. And um as mentioned uh under phys when we talked about physical design the two eastern units would be demolished as part of the expansion of the Woolworths building we'll get to in a moment while 17 remained until the late 1940s at which point its frontage was rebuilt from the Gothic revival style which you can see here to the art deco style which replaced it. Now, between the white block and the right house were a series of three-story commercial structures throughout the 19th century. They seem to focus more on uh men's uh stores, Taylor's shoe, and boots shops until 1902 when SH Knox, a subsidiary of the FW Worth Company, moved in. Uh by 1912, as you can see in these photographs, the name had been changed to FW Wworth and Co., maybe a little better known. And Woolworth was joined by many other department stores along the stretch of King Street East, including, of course, the Wright House and the Mills and the Mills brothers on the other side, SS Craigs, just a little further down the street, Grafton's Zellers. This was a popular area for department stores. And despite all this competition, Woolworths found Hamilton to be a good market. Uh they would open another Worth store just down the street at 105 King and would later open an East End branch on Ottawa Street North. And the Ottawa Street North building still stands today. It's near the corner of Ottawa and Barton. In 1947, the original Woolworth building, which was a 19th century commercial building, burned down March 24th. And Woolworth, of course, being quite dedicated to being in Hamilton, as you can see from all these fun ads from the period, were not deterred. They decided to not just rebuild, but to expand. And so, beyond their original site at 2731 King Street East, they would they would take over the neighboring properties, so 25 King and then the white block units at 19 and 21 for demolition and the construction of their new art deco style store. And you can see that here in this photograph, the art deco FW World Wars plus the art deco frontage on 17 King which housed Tamblin drugs. So that was 1949 when sub when the when suburbia in postwar Canada was just getting started. And yet this downtown location still proved to be very viable. Uh Woolworths at least was convinced that it was still a good spot for their business. They did a massive renovation in 1966. Unfortunately, the advent of the Suburban Mall and the big box store provided competition that Woolworths couldn't match. The store at 1931 King Street East closed on December 29th, 1990, and FW Woolworths and Co. themselves closed in 1997. Uh, these properties have the potential to yield information that contributes to the understanding of a community or culture. As commercial buildings with connections to defunct businesses, which had long tenures in Hamilton, they yield insight into how previous generations of Hamiltonians experienced life in the downtown core. And these properties also have connections to local architects and construction firms. uh Ward Bruce Riddle, a Hamilton architect who operated in the mid- 20th century, oversaw the demo and rebuild of 17 King in 1948. And the Hamilton Bridgeworks Company, the structural steel designers, assemblers, and well, manufacturers who designed many bridges, buildings, and other structures all across Canada were responsible for the new hopefully fireproof uh steel frame structure for the new wars in 1949. Uh these properties also have contextual value. They are important in defining the historic commercial character in the area around Gore Park. Uh despite being of course of a newer architectural style than the surrounding ar the surrounding Victorian and Edwwardian buildings, uh the art deco style of this building speaks to this area's continued commercial importance not just in the Edwwardian era but well into the 20th century. And of course these properties being on their original loca their original sites surrounded by buildings that are sympathetic and massing pardon me size and design. Uh they are they are considered to be visually and historically linked to their surroundings. All of the foregoing is summarized in the statement of cultural heritage value. And this is itself a summary of the full statement which you can find in the appendices attached to the report. Also in that report you'll find a description of heritage attributes which we'll touch on at a high level. Uh the key attributes that embody the physical value of these properties include the front elevation and roof line of the of this three-story row, including its three-story massing, its limestone facade, the window bays grouped into sets of two and four, its parapet, the wide stylized plasters, and the geometric insized decorative designs between the second and third story windows and on the parapet. and uh of course any of these attributes which may still exist at 17 under all that screening. Staff recommend that the city clerk be directed to give notice of council's intention to designate these properties under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Of course, we open it for any questions from the committee members. >> Thank you very much, Scott. May I have a mover and a seconder to put the presentation, report and correspondence on the floor? >> I see Graham and Karen. >> So, do we have any questions from the committee members? >> Graham, go ahead. >> Thank you again, Scott. Great report. And Will did have a massive presence in Hamilton during that time. They even had two stores up on the mountain. So, it's uh been a big presence over the years. And I think it's important to save that facade, make the street look proper. Thank you. >> Any other questions or comments? Uh, councelor Crretch. >> Yeah, just the same thing I said in the last one. I mean, the same request from RA is here to ask that there be some work done between now and council to work on the statement of certificance. So, just the same motion as last time. >> If I have a second. Yeah. Yeah, >> I see Graham. >> Okay. Uh, so we'll vote first for the amendment. Um, as we move to vote, is there anyone opposed to that amendment? >> Seeing none. Thank you. And, uh, if there's no other questions for Scott, um, we'll move to vote to receive the presentation report and correspondence and then approve the recommendations contained within that report. Um, >> we have that. Yeah. So, so now, so we're just voting if there is there anyone opposed to that vote? Seeing none, that item is carried. We'll now move on to item 8.3 which is PD26195 and it's the heritage permanent application HP2026-021 under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act for the relocation of the designated structure at 398 Wilson Street East in Ancaster to a parcel municipally addressed at 17 Academy Street in Ancaster Ward 12. Um so may I have a mover and a seconder to put the report on the floor. >> I see Graham and Lynn. Are there any questions from committee members? >> Comment. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. Uh, most of you know we've fought long and hard to uh protect Marvel House. We didn't want it put on that back street where no one could ever see it. It was nice that the the principles have come to a not perfect solution, but a solution to get it back into the visible realm. and I 100% support the movement of the building to that location reluctantly. I'd rather stay on Wilson, but that's just me. But anyway, it's nice to have a better solution than was originally proposed. >> Thank you, Cam. Uh, are there any other questions or comments in regards to this item? Oh, go ahead. Oh, go ahead. >> Ken Ko, director of heritage and urban design. Before we get too far, in response to the delegates request, we would need a motion to change um item H of the of the uh conditions before it moves forward to council uh to commit planning and council. >> Matt, do you need >> So, through the chair, this is the amendment that um we would need a mover and seconder for. >> So, may I have a mover and seconder for that? I see Karen and Graham. >> Okay. So, we'll vote first on the amendment. As we move to vote, is there anyone opposed to the revision? Um, our online members, we need to check to make sure that there's no Okay. Um, so as we move to vote, no opposed. That item is carried. And if there's no other questions, we'll vote to receive the report and approve the recommendations that are contained within the report. Um, as we move to vote, is there anyone opposed on that? Seeing none, that item is carried. Item 8.4 is our PD26186. It's the monthly report on the proactive listings for the municipal heritage committee register September 2026. May I have a mover and a seconder to put the report on the floor. >> I see Graham and Andrew. >> Okay. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing none, we'll move to vote to receive and receive the report and approve the recommendations contained within that report. Is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. Item 11 is our general information and other business. Uh we're doing an update re uh respecting the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee's recognition awards being held on September 24th, 2026. Um so I can just I just pull that up on the screen. Um so that is coming up next week. We've been doing our planning and getting things coordinated. Um we have a lot of excited uh award recipients that'll be attending. So we hope um anyone that's interested in to come uh please join us next Thursday night. Uh doors will open to the public at 6:30 and we'll start our awards at 7:00. So we'll have a very nice event. We've got again like I said uh many uh excited award recipients that are looking to um uh tell us about their their properties and and what they've done. So hopefully everyone can join us. Um, is there any other comments that anyone would like to say about that? If not, uh, may I have a mover and a second to receive this update? >> I see Graham and councelor Cred. >> And is there anyone opposed? Seeing none, that item is carried. We'll now move on to L1.2, which is our heritage buildings and landscape watch list. Are there any additions to the list that anyone would like to make today? Uh, or any removals of properties? Is there anyone that would like to do updates? Uh, got Graham, Karen, Councelor Crutch. Go ahead, Graph. >> Excuse me. Well, just my usual St. Giles. The the property has good days and bad days for people breaking in. There's been two entries in the last month. Litter on the ground, but overall, it's actually not as bad as normal. They wish they would do a little more work on it, but it's the entries that are terrifying us. Urban explorers are a bane of heritage buildings that are empty and it's aggravating. This is where I asked a question about Radio City. Wait till the end. Yes. Uh it just came to mind after we had our permit review last week about McMaster with the vines on the building. What provisions was there to control the growth on the stone of the heritage building at Radio City? I can't remember the conditions. intelligence >> television city. Thank you. >> You were radio city >> through the chair kite director of heritage and German design. Sorry, I can't recall the address off the top of my head right now. Uh although it's a very hard project to miss right now given its size. There is a significant security uh on the on that building so that it remains in good shape um during construction. And so, uh, I will go take a look, uh, on my way home and we'll have a discussion with the owner if there's something that's, um, problematic in terms of the stone. >> Well, I'm asking what the conditions are after because there is vines growing up it again. It's getting up into the slate roof again and it's not so much they tear it off, it's just it's going to grow back again. Those vines are so hard to control. So, we would like something in there so they would actually just get them out of the ground so they don't grow back up >> through the chair through the site plan. There's an approved landscape plan. So, we'll take a look at that too and see what the final planting is for around that building. I assuming something like that would be removed. >> Thank you. >> Uh Karen, you're next. >> Uh thank you through the chair. I just have one update and that is um under buildings and landscapes of interest. So the yellow category and it's property number three. So three main street the former Masonic Lodge which is a designated building. Um I just wanted to let people know that the promised pub has actually opened and it's really lovely inside. Um just take a look on the internet to see it's called Punky's Flat. Anyhow, I haven't been in as it as a business, but it is it's nice when these things come to fruition and uh it looks lovely. So, that's my update. Thank you. >> Take a pardon. >> No, I don't think we need to remove it yet. There's things I don't know. Do we need to remove it? Is this appropriate? >> I No, we'll leave it for now. See what happens. >> Thank you, Karen. Uh councelor Cut. Just wanted to let folks know that there have been some issues at the James Street Baptist Church over the last day or so. The fencing there had been opened up. So, there's access now to the building and uh our friends, the weeds have returned uh and they're returning in some force at this time. They did a good job, the current owner, keeping the weeds under control actually, relative to everybody else who's ever owned this property. But, uh just a slight weed caution as they continue to grow. Last thing I'll say about this and I'm going to ask her staff to get back maybe the next meeting about this is although I understand that Vue developments I think VUE was one of the owners of it before and frankly maybe I've gotten that wrong but the folks who erected the scaffolding so the scaffolding is not in great shape anymore. Scaffolding maybe is not the right word. Um I don't have the right word. It's the hoarding. That's what it's called. I hate that word. It's the word in front of the the stuff in front of the building and the old signage that's there still from the developer who owned it two times ago. And so it's really not projecting any type of confidence about the project. First of all, since it's from two developers ago. And secondly, that stuff is deteriorating to the point now where we've had dead city staff go by and clean up the ground area there because of all the deterioration of the wood and the bits and things like that. It's kind of was coming in like a road silt and wood bits and it was a whole schlamzle of things. So, they've come and cleaned that up once. I'm just asking the current owner if they can decide what they're doing with that, if they're going to repair it, they're going to upkeep it, they're going to replace it, what's happening because it's now entering a state of ugliness through the chair Ko, director of heritage and urban design. Of course, that's not a designated feature, but I'm happy to I'm happy to have a conversation through my role in site plan uh with the uh with the owner and and express express your concerns. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. If you want me to join that for any reason, I'm happy to. But I just wanted to flag that because I think that as we continue to hope that something good is going to happen there, I think that the outside of the facility should remain secure. It should look good and we should be kind of on a way there. So, that just means they've got to paint it and replace a bit of wood to make it look better and take a bit better care of it. Uh, so so be it hopefully. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Uh, Ken is your update or should we close off? Yeah. Uh, so may I have a motion to receive those property updates? >> I see council crutch and Graham. >> And as we move to vote, is there anyone opposed to receiving? >> Seeing none, that item is carried. Uh, go ahead, Kim. through the chair Ken Quite, director of heritage and urban design. Just a quick verbal update on two previous uh designations that have been that we've received objections to. So 71 Claremont um Okamar Gate House is currently scheduled to come back to planning committee on the 29th. Um so you have to check the agenda to see when if that's going as well. 650 and 672 Sanatorium Road uh up in the old former Shadow Hospital site. They've also um we've also received an objection to that designation and we are working with them now and expect um a report at the September 29th planning committee. >> Thank you, Ken. Uh any other updates or new business? Council Crush, >> I suppose it's new business. Um, this is the end of the term of council, so I just wanted to thank the people on this committee. I sit on 5050 committees. This is top five for sure. All the staff here do an amazing job. Uh, legislative coordinator runs this like a tight ship and we have one of the best chairs of any committee in the city. So, I just want to say that. No, I'm not here not here to butter anybody up um in advance of an election to be honest with you, but I just wanted to say it because once the term turns over, right, the new mayor decides how quickly people get replaced, what the new process will be like. And so, who knows what'll happen to this committee in the next couple of months, but uh since this is our last committee before the election, I think it's important to state it. And I think also as a model for the rest of committees, I think one of the great things that happens here that doesn't happen at council that would really aid counselors, I think, is the way the legislative coordinator intervenes here. It's a little bit of romper room style for those of you who know what I mean by that. Um the LC here has always said, "I see so and so. I see so and so. I see so and so." Right? It's a different style we have here. But frankly, that intervention would be even helpful at council. So, we could use a model there because often times chairs are distracted by the many different things that are going on in the room, things in front of them, things that are coming in for messages that having the extra help from the LC might actually help meetings go better. So, in the new term, if I'm here, I'll be suggesting we take up that model. Thank you to everyone here. I mean it. Everyone here does exceptional work. and from from the committee. Thank thank you very much uh councelor Crutch for the time that you've served with us and and we wish you well for through the election process and um thank you for those compliments that the staff doesn't get to hear that as much so good to know to do the great job that they're doing. So um thank you for being a part of our committee and and doing what you've done representing us at council. >> Okay. >> Do we have any other new business or other items? Seeing none, uh we're going to move for our adjournment. Uh there being no other further business, the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee is now adjourned at 1:12. Um so our next meeting will take place on November 27th at 12:00 p.m. Uh so we'll take a bit of a break for the election process and and we'll reconvene on November 27th. Thank you everyone and have a great day.