Okay, we'll uh we'll call our meeting to order. If >> I can have everybody's attention, >> I'll start off with uh with roll call. Uh Nick, >> Yanukica >> here. Uh, Donna >> here, >> Bob >> here, >> Mel >> here, >> and myself, Dale. Um, are there any members of the committee that have a conflict of interest with any of the applications today? Seeing not um, and we need ratification of the minutes of the last meeting. Is there a mover, seconded by Robert? All in favor? Opposed? If any seeing none, that motion is carried. Uh, was there any other business, Justin, before we start? >> I guess the first application is 9:45. >> Yes, the first application will be at 9:45 a.m. And I'll note that Sebastian is not here. Yeah. So, we'll wait till 9:45 a.m. Good. Thank you. Okay. Uh, yep. Through the chair. Yeah, it's 9:45 a.m. So, we'll hear the first application. It is a It's a minor variance application. A2026 00208 64 North Oval Hamilton. Owner is a FYION. Um applicant is J. Vanderland. Agent is the same person. Um was there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application either here in the meeting room or on WebEx? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Uh, please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. >> Thank you. >> Hi. Yes, my name is Andre Fyon. I'm the owner of the prop the property and well uh we are looking for a minor variance. Um, we'd like to put uh a small addition onto the back of the house and the minor variance uh is needed in order to put uh in in order to add this addition so that we get a main floor floor bathroom on the house. It's important to have a main floor bathroom in case someone gets uh has has an accident and breaks their their leg or something. We have a a neighbor who broke their leg and uh was immobile for about six six months and it made it very difficult living in a Westale house. So that's why when we designed this addition, we wanted to put in a main floor bathroom. >> Okay, thank you. Uh does committee have any questions? >> Are you okay with the uh changing of the variance one where it reached today? Sorry, I didn't hear that. Sir, >> are you okay with the variance one being adjusted through? >> I don't I'm sorry. I don't know what that means. Am I okay with the >> varian through the chair? If it's okay, I'll clarify. Yes. Um, as you're aware, the staff comments are were posted on the website and in it the um development planning it was uh they recommend approval, but they recommend revising the wording for variance one. So, I believe the committee members just asking if you're aware of that or if you had any issues related to that. >> I looked at all the documents that was was sent and um >> I guess you go tell them that the only thing they changed was they put the west side yard there where it was there. >> Oh, I see. Yes, that's perfectly fine. It should have been the west side. >> In that case, I'll make a motion to approve. >> Okay. Motion made by Mel, seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. application approved. >> Thank you everyone. I appreciate your time on this. >> The next application will be heard at 9:50 a.m. Thank you. Okay, it's now Okay, it's now 9:50 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application A2026 00236 138 Herkimer Street, Hamilton. Owner is Leewin Holding Limited, J Wang and applicant is T U. Uh, is there any members of the public wish to speak on this application either here in the meeting room or on WebEx? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Hi, morning. Uh, Mr. chair and committee members. Uh my name is Tony and here we have the owner of 140 Herimmer Street regarding minor rights application A 202600236 and uh thanks for allowing me to bring back this property to the committee. uh September 4th uh 2025, the committee approved the minorities application A251 152 permitting the conversion of the former residential uh care facility into a uh 20 unit multiple dwellings. Uh the current application represents a very limited change uh to that approval. We are proposing one additional dwelling unit bring the uh total from 20 units to 21 units. Uh the additional unit will will create entirely through internal alteration. Uh there will be no addition to the building, no increase to the building height and no change to the building massing and step back. Uh the eight rear parking space will continue to access from the uh existing rear laneway and no additional rear uh rear uh rear yard pavement to be proposed. Uh the existing paved area will remain and the parking layout will simply just repaint to use. Uh and uh uh this means there will be no new paving or loss of landscaping in the rear yard. Uh the main concern is additional parking p uh parking pad at the front yard uh besides west neighborhood. The proposed front yard is intended uh specifically uh for the short-term service service uh and will not be assigned to regular tenant parking space. Uh this parking space can keep available for drop by visitors, package delivery, uh food delivery and moving vehicle. Uh it will be very practical for 21 unit residential building without this uh short-term space delivery and moving vehicle may stop the uh traveling on the street and double parking and may object obstract the traffic. uh traffic uh the sorry uh front parking arrangement uh also consist with local street scale streetscape uh the neighbors property at uh 142 1446 150 etc. Basically all all the property on this street has a comparable uh driveway and curve cup driveway. Our proposal just follow this uh established local parking pattern and will therefore remain compatible with the character of the this portion of uh Herkimer Street. Uh the present proposal just add one one unit will adding one parking space and one visitor parking space. Uh it does not create a new or and or substantially different parking condition. is that it improve the condition that uh was previously approved. Uh no loading space was a variance in the previous uh committee uh decision. Uh but we still hope seek this loading parking space available for the building. Uh the property located in an established central neighborhood with a convenient access to transit, working, cycling route, employment, shop, and community uh service. It's reasonable to expect expect that the parking space uh at front yard can serve better to the subject building. So in our opinion uh the application satisfy uh the forecast for neighbor minor wines. It maintain the intent of the official plan by making efficient use of uh the existing building and providing an additional drilling unit within the existing urban area. uh it maintained the intent of the zoning bylaw because uh the multiple drilling use has already been approved and the proposed parking arrangement provide functional parking and access without expanding the rear pave area. uh is desirable for the appropriate development of the property because it creates additional uh house units with no change to the building or it uh its appearance will also improve the on-site parking supply. So overall the virus minor and it impact also minor. Uh the proposal involves only one D additional D units uh internal building alteration, two additional parking space and no expansion of the rear parking area. Uh it will not create an unacceptable uh impact on the neighbors property or alter the established character of the street. Uh for those reason, we respectly hope that uh committee approve this application subject to any appropriate condition. Uh thank you and I'm happy to answer any question. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh committee have any questions on this application? >> Robert, the proposed parking space out front, I'm kind of having mixed feelings about it. Is it a parking spot or is it for a loading spot? What is the main reason for it? Well, yeah. Uh the the the actual parking pad at the front yard uh we just uh designed for this uh this t uh this building for all the tenants use like uh temporary parking for the food delivery uh package delivery. Uh just in case that there's no parking space at front or rear and then uh but the the the delivery guy need uh to send the package to the building. So this building will remain all all time empty for uh the temporary parking only not the permanent parking for the tenant >> because I don't like putting a lot of faith in in Google Maps but there it it kind of conflicts the the notice of a loading dock because there's a perlator truck parked right out front of your building and obviously it could be making delivery, but I think there's enough room on the street for um offloading or or deliveries, etc., etc. My concern is the parking spot where yes, there is a few around the neighborhood, but there's going to be a substantial loss of landscaping to the front of your building. And um I have some reservations regarding that. Uh well yeah actually the landscaping is not one of variance uh requests in this application. Uh in our zoning review shows that we comply with the landscaping area and even we deduct the drive driveway we still have like uh around 46% of the uh landscaping area in the front yard. uh the package because we we just worry that uh someone will block that parking space and uh the package uh the deliver guy cannot uh deliver their stuff and make like a double parking on the street block all the con uh block all the traffic. Uh yeah. Um consider this situation. >> Uh we hope that this parking pad can serve better for the temporary parking. >> Are you okay with that, Robert? City doesn't seem to have an issue with the reduced um green space. No, I agree that that that it is reduced, but I'm just looking at the remainder of the neighborhood that some, not all, have got have driveways, but there's singlestory houses or single houses, >> dual second, you know, twotory. I just don't know if it's the right fit for this uh multi-use building to have parking out front. >> Okay. Any other committee members have any questions or concerns? >> If not, is there a motion? >> Nick. >> Okay. Just turn your mic on when you're There we go. >> Someone helped me out. I'd like to make a motion to approve this application. >> Okay. Moved by Nick. Is there a seconder? >> Yes. >> Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? >> That's uh three opposed. So that motion is denied. Is there another motion? Okay. >> So on that basis on that >> is there another motion chair. I don't know should would there be another motion on the floor? >> I'd make a motion. So just because that motion was was turned down, >> we either need an alternate to that motion or denial >> table >> or possibly to table >> or tableling. Yeah. >> If we uh table it, I don't know if that's going to create the right scenario because it's either a parking spot or it's not. going to be hard to justify that there. The other concern was the letter attached and the public comments from the entire neighborhood. And I can't determine how many of those people have agreed with the letter whether they have their existing driveways or not, but I just don't personally don't feel this is a good fit for a single parking spot in front of the three-story building here. So, Would the agent >> wish to table it at this point in time and see if you can u alternate in some way or have discussion with the city on on a change possibly? >> Uh yeah. Uh are we able just looking for uh the 21 unit if the front parking spot is uh not pos is not terrible just additional in the basement. >> So >> I think right now I'd like to make a motion to deny the application. Okay, there's a motion on the floor for denial by Robert, seconded by Mal. All in favor of denial. >> I have a question. >> I have I have a question. >> Oh, to staff or to someone. Um, can we approve variance one and deny variance two or remove variance two? >> Yes, sir. That's all >> the committee's decision to check. >> Okay. >> So that's a decision that the committee can make. Um >> okay >> whether okaying one variance and denying one variance >> one variance because I don't have a problem with the uh ones in the back. >> Can you pull your mic down a little? >> Sorry. >> Yeah. So but it's number two that I have the problem with. So denying the whole thing I don't know as I would want to deny the whole thing but removing number two that would be mine. So I guess with the um motion on the floor I wouldn't agree with it. >> Okay. So I just planning has a comment first. So through the chair, I just wanted to mention variance number two is specific to the maneuvering requirements for a parking space versus the parking space being permitted in the front yard. So, if you were contemplating the rear yard parking spaces, a potential compromise maybe um would be to revise the second variance so that the maneuvering space wouldn't be required for the rear yard spaces as well because if you deny entire the entirety of the second variance >> um the applicants still wouldn't be able to implement their plan. So, just wanted to um provide that. >> Yeah. Um Emily probably has more >> through the chair Emily co-manager of zoning and committee of adjustment. Uh I just want to note that that front yard parking space is also not required. It's kind of excess because they have a previous variance to allow no visitor parking. So this visitor parking space that's in the front yard is not technically required. So if it's removed um then there's no issue with that. You they wouldn't need the variance for the maneuvering offsite for that particular parking space. So that's another option is that that parking space is completely removed from the site plan. >> That variance is modified to say that the um reduced maneuvering space uh is only for the rear yard and then the other ones can carry forward. >> Okay. >> Robert, do you want to revise your motion or >> I'll just I'll just withdraw the the motion. >> Okay. Okay. Is that okay with a second or >> Okay. >> So, that motion is withdrawn. >> Okay. >> Donna. >> So, then um we can put in uh we would adjust number two to say um the space itself is not required, but we'll keep the maneuvering. Oh, I don't have my We'll keep the maneuvering for the rear yard >> through the chair. That's correct. And then uh variance one would also need to be modified to um require eight parking spaces instead of 21. Um because you're removing that front yard parking space. >> Okay. >> I would also just flag that um once this property is brought into our comprehensive zoning bylaw 05200, no parking will be required for this property at all. >> So um if you want to contemplate that in your decision about that further reduction in parking. >> Okay. So we can keep the um eight spots but require maneuvering through the chair. That's correct. So variance one would be to permit eight parking spaces. >> Yeah. >> And variance two would be no on on-site maneuvering for uh the eight parking spaces. >> No on-site maneuvering. Yeah, reference to the second portion of the variance in variance 2 that connects to the front yard can be removed. So you can say no on-site maneuvering shall be provided for eight parking spaces located within the rear um instead of the minimum required six meter maneuvering aisle width. >> Okay. So you just you can just remove the reference to the one space in the front yard if you're thinking that way. >> Okay. So um one so remove and uh within the rear yard and then remove and one parking space located within the front yard >> through the chair. Yeah, I would keep um so it would read number two would read no on-site maneuvering shall be provided for eight parking spaces located within the rear yard. Then remove the following wording and one parking space located in the front yard. So you're just removing that and one parking space located in the front yard because we're not referring to that anymore. >> Okay. >> So you still want to make reference that the eight parking spaces located within the rear yard. Just so it ties it to that. >> Okay. >> Just so everybody's clear, there is eight parking spots in the backyard >> through the chair. That's correct. But the the variance uh is written to include that front yard parking space for nine. So that's why the first one needs to be changed because if we're moving that one in the front yard, >> that's where I'm going. >> Yeah, that that's why they need eight. So you'll see the first one refers to nine. >> Okay. So it should go to eight. Correct. Minimum eight. Okay. So let me see if I've got this. >> Okay. So I'm going to make a motion to >> just pull your mic down a little bit. >> Yeah. I'm going to make a motion to amend number one or revise number one. So, it says a minimum of eight parking spaces shall be provided. And then revise number two to say no on-site maneuvering shall be provided for the eight parking spaces located within the rear yard. >> Yeah, >> I need to make this bigger. um removing and one parking space located within the front yard instead of the minimum required 6 meter maneuvering aisle width and the requirement that a maneuvering space shall be provided and maintained on the lot. Okay. >> Okay. So that motion is made by Donna. Is there a second? >> I think I can second that one. >> Okay. Robert. All in favor of that motion? Opposed? One opposed. Motion's carried. Application is approved. I hope the agent is okay with uh we're trying to work with it and try and make it work for you. And >> appreciate Yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much for all the effort. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. It is now 1010 a.m. The next application is a minor variance A202600255 85 to 87 Katherine Street North. Owner is Canif Group 1926 Acquisitions Corporation. Applicant is Canif Group K. Freeman. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application either here in the meeting room or on WebEx? Okay. Seeing none, I will ask the uh applicant or agent please step forward, please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good morning, members of committee. My name is Kevin Freeman. I'm the director of planning and development for KF Group. I'm here before you today with a request to permit a modest extension to our existing commercial parking lot to include the lands located at 85 Katherine Street North. For the reasons outlined in my cover letter, I believe that this variance satisfies the four tests under section 45 of the planning act. To provide some context, we're the owners of the adjacent property at 80 John Street North, where we have maintained a commercial parking operation for many years without issue. The requested variance is to facilitate a minor extension of this existing operation to include the property at 85 Catherine Street. We filed an application for site plan approval for the existing parking lot at 80 John Street North, and we are proposing to redevelop the site for highdensity mixeduse purposes in accordance with the city's official plan and zoning for downtown Hamilton. Our acquisition of 85 Katherine Street is part of our concerted effort to assemble and consolidate this block and extend the development limits of our site plan application which will ultimately allow us to introduce a consistent urban streetscape along Catherine Street until we're in a position to move forward with construction. The plan is to maintain the existing commercial parking lot. Visually, the proposed extension of parking has no impact on the streetscape. The lot has been paved and is maintained in good condition. The alternative would have left the site likely overgrown with weeds with a fence around the perimeter of the lot which would not have been complimentary to the Catherine Street frontage. We have recognized that there is an ongoing need for public parking in the downtown to support local businesses and especially development activity. We have recently been approached by several developers including our neighbor to the south at 71 Rebecca Street with requests to utilize parking spaces to support construction activity. This minor extension to our existing lot will address this need and alleviate temporary road occupancies and demand for street parking. Ultimately, parking is a major factor in determining whether highdensity projects move forward. And parking comes with a high cost and high demand. And the availability of off-site parking is certainly a factor when evaluating development opportunities. To summarize, we of the opinion that this request is minor given the limited nature of the request and the absence of adverse impacts. I would like to just share a brief presentation that I've prepared just with a few slides uh just to provide the committee with an understanding of the existing condition uh and what is proposed for our site. Just share my screen here. >> No, just just give me a moment. I I'll share it. Okay. Thanks. >> You do realize the comments from staff uh were recommending uh denial. Yes, I have had a chance to review the comments from staff. Okay, so this is the this shows our existing parking operation at 80 John Street and the minor extension of that lot to include the property at 85 Catherine Street North. We were able to accommodate about 18 additional parking spaces. Um if you can go to the next slide please. This is a view from the streetscape or from the street from 85 Catherine Street. Um this shows that there's a seamless integration of the parking with our existing commercial lot. Um I would like to note that an additional variance is required to provide a zero meter planting strip abing a street whereas a 3 m planting strip is required. As you can see from the street view here, there is an existing 6-foot landscape buffer between the edge of the paving and the edge of the sidewalk. This landscape buffer is within the city's rightway and will be maintained in perpetuity. If you can go to the next slide, please. This is just a high level concept plan showing how we've started to envision how we can incorporate the property at 85 Catherine Street with our ultimate development plans for the balance of the site. Um, this shows a stacked townhouse product along Catherine Street, which will introduce a more urban and contemporary frontage along Catherine. You go to the next slide, please. This is just another iteration of that same plan, just introducing a a mid-rise component along Catherine Street to introduce uh yeah, more urban and contemporary street frontage. I think there's one more slide there. If you can just go to the last slide, please. This is a rendering of the streetscape from Catherine Street that we included with our site plan application. Um, this again shows a very urban streetscape along Catherine Street, which is as envisioned by the city's official plan in the zoning for downtown Hamilton. We are pro proposing to amend our application to ultim ultimately include 8587 Katherine Street North. And this treatment here that you see with the stack showing a stack townhouse product is an example of how we can introduce a more urban and contemporary street frontage. And this will be extended to include the property at 8587 Katherine Street North. >> And that is the end of my presentation. Those are my submissions. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the committee members might have. >> Okay. To the committee. Uh Mel, >> can we hear from staff on this? Is they're recommending denying it? >> Uh through the chair. It's staff's position that this application doesn't meet the four tests of a minor variance. Um the official plan and downtown secondary plan is clear. Um minor extensions are permitted for existing um atgrade commercial parking facilities. However, extensions, additional parking spaces being added to those parking lots are not permitted. Um the fact that a landscape buffer is also not being included is also an issue and does not meet the intent of the secondary plan. Um although like staff recognize the long-term plans for development of the site and we can support the intensification and urbanization of the area, the extension of an existing commercial facility is not appropriate and doesn't meet our policies. Um as we've mentioned before to this committee, if you fail one of the four tests, we have to recommend denial. Um so it doesn't meet the first test. So staff are not supportive of the application. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other committee members for the question? Robert, >> just going back to the uh the notes that were filed by the staff. I picked up this paragraph. It is staff's opinion that a zoning bylaw amendment application is the appropriate mechanism to facilitate the proposed development. And then staff recommended the request of variance be denied. So here we are. Any comments from the agent? >> If if they would um if if the committee would consider uh permissions for a temporary period uh to allow the parking extension for say 5 years, that's something that we would be willing to accept. Um, as I mentioned, you know, we have filed a site plan application for our site. We understand that a commercial parking lot is not the highest and best use for this site. It is for highdensity mixeduse purposes, which we are intent on we have in we do have every intention on developing the site for that purpose. Um, you there is great value in having parking within downtown Hamilton for the time being as the properties around us continue to redevelop. There's several properties that are going under construction right now. Um that constru the construction of those buildings will require workers obviously and those workers need somewhere to park. Um there is a need for this in in downtown Hamilton especially while our neighbors to the south at 71 Rebecca Street. I understand that they're starting construction sometime Q1 next year. they've expressed interest to us to occupy some of the parking spaces on our lot and I think it'll alleviate a lot of the pressures that they will experience with having to accommodate parking for their workers uh potential road occupancies and potential uh you know street parking demand. I know it's it's limited in this this location. So um we would we would uh be willing to amend our application to to allow for permissions for a temporary period if the committee would be willing to consider that. Is that something? >> Can the staff respond to that >> uh through the chair? That's a solution that staff cannot support. It's not supported by the secondary plan. Um the tests is not the tests in the planning act is not whether an application can provide parking for future developments. Um there is parking downtown. Uh the city is encouraging parking downtown in parking facilities. So as these developments occur, the parking in the podium or underground will be available for parking in the downtown area. So the expansion of a atgrade exposed no buffer parking area even for a temporary time um does not meet the intent of the policies. So unfortunately staff cannot support that. Any further comments from committee members? >> The um information you had on the screen there with the one ele with the elevation showing the elevation along Catherine Street. Um, you show the two existing residential units there on your drawing with the proposed around it, but the one building is gone. Is that that's been removed already? So is I'm not trying to read between the lines here, but uh I think at this point based on staff's comments and the um the fact that there's the bylaw goes forward with uh no new commercial parking lots on grade that uh make a motion to deny the application. Okay, there's a motion on the floor for denial from Robert, seconded by Nick. All in favor of that motion. Opposed? One opposed. So that motion is is uh carried and application is denied. Okay, next we have it's now 10 10:28 sorry 10:22 a.m. Next we have a minor variance application A206 00131 715 Upper James Street North sorry 715 Upper James Street Hamilton owner is Staritect Consulting and Construction Incorporated. Uh R. You applicant is design plan. and service applicant or agent. Uh please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Uh good morning, Mr. Chair. Uh fellow committee members. Uh I'm the agent for this application. Uh my name is Addison Milprice. I'm a registered professional planner employed at Design Plan Services. um here on behalf of the owner and appearing in the place of David Eman who could not be here today. >> Okay. Do you have any questions on uh any of the comments that were from planning? >> Uh no, Mr. Chair. Um I've reviewed the report and I'm satisfied that we were able to find a solution that works for development planning. >> Okay. Committee. Any questions? Is there a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve the application. >> Okay. Motion made by Donna, seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. Okay, it is now 10:24 a.m. Next application is a minor variance application to A202600215 631 highway number 8 Clamborough. Owner is Jay Johnson. Applicant is RNR Designs Limited Arcana. Agent is the same as the applicant. Um are there any members of the public wish to speak on this application? either here in the meeting room or on WebEx. Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward and you have please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Are they here? Um, Marana, are you here? I don't know if maybe staff committee of adjustment staff maybe we'll we'll reach out to them. Um, see if they uh through the chair. Did you want to uh wait? >> Oh, are they? >> There's two people. >> Oh, okay. >> Hi. Are you here for um 631 Highway 8? >> No. >> No. >> Okay. You just brought us here. >> Okay. Thank Okay. You're for the next one. Okay. Uh to the chair, did you want us to wait for the applicant or agent or did you uh want to um >> can we uh I mean there's favorable comments, but uh do you want to stand that one down and and see if they come back online? >> Yeah, it's up to the committee. Yeah, we could we could uh we'll we'll try to contact them and we could bring it back later if you wanted. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. We'll put a hold we'll put a hold on this application and staff will be uh we'll try to contact the agent or the applicant or agent right now. Okay. Um, so now 10:26 a.m. Next application is a minor variant A206 00233 147 Highway number 8 Flamro. uh owner is K V and uh Ky and the applicant is the same two people as well. Um is there any members of the public wish to speak on this application? Uh either here in the meeting room or on WebEx. Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. >> Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, >> I'm Kelly. Kelly V. My wife Kim behind us. >> We uh >> just pull your mic down a little. >> Okay. >> Yep. Perfect. >> Okay. Um we're here for minor variance on overight issue and uh extra little bit extra large space on the addition that we put on the back of our barn. >> Um so we put in all the information that was requested. Um what happened was had a back field uh had a barn existing barn and the roof had been leaking for many many years fixed it once it leaked again because the slope of the roof was very very low. So when CO hit and I was home I thought well I'd create you know complete two birds with one stone and fix the roof line on the existing barn and at the same time put some storage space on the back of the barn. So, I did that while I wasn't working and uh I didn't realize that I've been over height and making a situation out of zoning for my area. So, that's why we're here. The uh it was just in my back field. There's no nothing there. Just flat ground. Neighbors have a tree line along their property. Uh there's we didn't take down any trees. We didn't do anything. We just added to the back of the barn. This is kind of the situation where we're at and hoping that we can, you know, carry on with uh completing the uh the addition. >> Okay. Ma'am, >> did you get a chance to look at the conditions that was offered? >> I I beg your pardon, sir. >> Did you get a chance to see the conditions from the city? >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. >> Are you okay with those conditions? >> Uh you mean the pages that were coming back or I'm not sure I understand what you >> the gross conditions for recommend recommended from the planning department, the city. Uh when I applied for the building permit, you mean? >> No. Yeah, just through the chair. Yes, there are when every application when we get it, we we notify the public about the meeting. But at the same time, we also circulate it to the staff, different staff for their comments and usually a week before the meeting, the staff comments are posted on the website and I believe we would have emailed it to you. Okay. >> And um there staff are recommending approval with two conditions. So, first one is that the owner submits and receives approval of a tree protection plan. Um, and then the second that the owner submit and receive approval of a landscape plan. >> Okay. Um, yeah, there's the there the building's already built. So, there was no trees there to begin with. No trees were removed from the property. Uh, so it's and it's just a flat field. There's no landscaping involved with anything. It's in the back very back 40 of the property. So there's nothing nothing there. So I'm not sure uh what type of tree removal or anything study or what you're asking for. There's >> what what they're looking at if there you do remove any trees and now you got to be ready to replant them. And >> I I didn't there was no trees >> but those conditions are added to it probably just standard. Is that right staff? like I I would hope that you guys hopefully can you know >> uh good morning Spencer Skidmore acting manager develop planning east team. Um so for this item I believe our natural heritage planner provided comments and said that because there is trees on the property that during construction they should be protected and if there is trees that are removed they should be replaced at a one for one ratio. Hence the conditions for the tree protection plan and the landscape plan. Um, I'm not sure if it was appreciated that the the structure was already built. So, if it's already built and it's there and there's no further expansion of the footprint, >> nothing. >> Um, then that might be something that we could consider removing in this instance. >> Oh, that would be terrific. I would appreciate that. Thank you. >> Yeah. I'm not sure if if either one of the conditions are are necessary because it's already constructed and there was no trees removed. >> Not a single one. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve with those two conditions removed. >> Uh Robert, >> second. >> Okay. All right. Uh so motion made by Mal and seconded by Robert. Uh all in favor of that motion. Opposed. Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Oh, thank you very much. >> So those two conditions were removed. >> Thank you so much. Really appreciate your time. >> Oh, they were Oh, they were removed. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. Just just through the chair, just for future note to the applicant, once the staff comments are posted, okay, you should review them and if you have any questions, you can always let us know before the meeting and we No, no, it's understood. Yeah. Just possible to do this again. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, no, no. >> Thank you very much everybody. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Is that it? >> Yes. >> You guys have a wonderful day. Thank you. Next, it is 10:32 a.m. and we have a minor variance application A2026 00252 358 King Street West Dungus. Owner is Esco. Applicant is Pam Alliance Limited P. Aziz. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? whether it be in the meeting room or on uh WebEx. Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Good morning everyone. Um my name is Paul Gazizi with Pam Alliance and I'm the applicant on behalf of the owner at uh 358 King Street West. Uh based on the CDS staff report, uh we would like to request the application be tabled and brought back to committee of adjustment on October 8th. I'll meet with the city of staff to review the project and make improvements um as much as we can um in order to address their concerns um and I look for forward um returning to committee of adjustment in October with uh some modifications. Um I appreciate your time and consideration. Okay, thank you. So, is there a motion for tableabling? Donna, sorry. I'll uh motion forward to table the application. >> Seconded by Yanukica. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Um application is tabled. >> Thank you. >> And thank you and through the chair to the applicant. Uh we will be in touch with you just in terms of next steps uh for for how to proceed. Okay, thank you. Okay, it's now 10:34 a.m. and we have a minor variance application. A2026 0263 24 Hoover Crescent Hamilton agent I'm sorry owner is D. Eaton and C Love applicant is Jay Bognar. Agent is the same person. Uh, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in the meeting room or on WebEx? Okay, seeing none, ask the applicant or agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Hello everyone, Jenny Bogner here. Um, I have uh looked over the staff comments and we're happy with their recommendation for approval. We've also seen the uh comments from all the neighbors. Um and we do have a few letters of support as well. Um but I also have prepared a presentation if um someone is able to get that going please. >> Okay. Committee. Any questions? >> Motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the application. >> Moved by Donna, seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. >> Okay, it's now 10:35 a.m. Uh, next we have a minor variance application. A202600234 104 Bond Street North Hamilton. Owner is B. Moore. Applicant is J. Bognar and agent is the same person. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application either here in the meeting room or on WebEx? Okay. And again, yeah, the application number was uh A202600234. Okay. Seeing uh seeing none, I'll uh seeing no members of the public here, I'll ask the applicant or agent, please step forward, please provide your name, and you have five minutes to speak. Jenny Bogner again. Um again, we're happy with staff's comments and recommendation um uh for approval and the the owners have talked with all their neighbors and nobody has voiced any concerns with this. >> Okay. Thank you, committee. Robert, >> there's no other com there's no other comments to make a motion to approve with the conditions and notes. >> Okay. Moved by Robert, seconded by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. >> Okay, it is now 10:37 a.m. Um, next we have a minor variance application. A2026 00248 38 Jerseyville Road West, Ancaster. Owner is Jerseyville Lane Incorporated. E. Carabelli applicant is the same uh company agent is urban solutions planning and land development consultants incorporated and Johnston I believe um development planning and development engine they development planning and development engineering may want to speak first see if they wanted to >> uh to the chair to the committee my name is Zonovski I'm acting manager for the best team. >> Hi, my name is Zikoponovski. I am the acting manager with the vest team and would like to pro to update our comments uh to with the following uh note uh as a comment and uh we uh would like to say that within the any future application of this uh for this property and severance se of the condo of of the draft of condo the owners shall demonstrate that the any increase in loyage above 35% is supported by the owner owner demonstrating that there is a suitable storm outlet for the subject lens including an adequate overland flow route and emergency spway to the mun rightway also uh also confirming no negative impact on the adjusted properties. The applicant shall also ensure that the strong management design is in accordance with the uh city compreh comprehensive guidelines and drench policy and city council direction to ensure the mitigation measures are implemented as per the recommendation of the custom train study phase two. Uh subject inclusion of this note into the uh CFA decision, we have no further comments on this uh application. >> Okay. Yeah. And through the chair, we just sent you an email that just outlines what SO just said as well. Um, it was provided just Yeah. earlier. Um, I don't know if development planning had anything. >> No, no update from our perspective. Thank you. Seeing that I will ask uh is there I believe we have some members of the public wish to speak on this application. So we'll go to them first. Um Alison Fiser I believe is she here? >> Okay. I just had two people here that we noted. There could be other people. That's fine. We had Maria de Damrosie and Allison Fischer. Okay. Yeah. Anyone wants to speak, just just come up then. Yeah. >> Excuse me. There's several of us. >> No, no, no, no. I If you heard what I just said, if other people want to speak, they can speak as well. Of course. Yeah. >> Hopefully there's enough for everyone. >> Sorry. Excuse. Is that a presentation or a >> There's just a handout of the appendix if that's okay. >> The >> uh that was submitted that was part of our written submission. >> Okay. Okay. The committee would have had Okay. All right. Just uh just future notes if there's any kind of presentation please submit it to us prior to the meeting. Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Good morning. My name is Maria Damrosie and my husband and I live immediately beside the subject property at 48 Jerseyville Road West. Although we are appearing as adjacent residents, we are not speaking only for ourselves. We have had extensive discussions with neighbors along Jerseyville Road, including many outside the formal notice area as well as other Ancaster residents. They share significant concerns about this proposal and have expressly asked us to speak on their behalf today. We want to be clear, we are not opposed to the redevelopment of 38 Jerseyville Road West. However, our collective position is that this six home proposal together with the requested variances is not minor, is not appropriate for this site, and is not compatible with the established character of the neighborhood. Ancaster is a historic part of Hamilton. Its character is defined by established streetscapes, mature trees, landscape properties, and homes that have an appropriate relationship with their surroundings. Jerseyville Road West is one of Ancaster's longestablished main roads. Its mature streetscape is an integral part of this character and identity of Ancaster. So I have provided appendix one which was also in our written submission to provide clear visual context for that streetscape. As residents, we understand communities evolve. However, redevelopment should respect the established qualities that make a community distinctive. The proposal would place six residences, a private roadway, multiple driveways, and extensive hard surfaces on approximately 0.43 hectares. Our concern is the cumulative effect of six residences, reduced setbacks, greater building mass, common access, additional vehicle movements on an already busy road, especially during scroll periods, extensive hard surface coverage, and limited space for landscaping and screening together with the servicing and drainage concerns addressed in the written submissions. In the appendix, figures 1 A to 1 C show the properties directly across from the subject property and immediately to its west and east side. These photographs demonstrate the prevailing character of Jerseyville Road West. Detached homes with substantial front yards, mature landscaping, and mean meaningful separation between residences. This same established character continues both east and west along the road. The homes shown are set approximately 80 to 1550 ft from the road. Our home is approximately 150 ft from the road, while even the existing home, which is also in the appendix at 38 Jerseyville Road, is approximately 80 to 100 ft from the road. By contrast, the proposal requests setbacks of only 3 or 4 meters, so approximately 10 to 13 ft. To put that in perspective, we are not comparing setbacks that are half or even a quarter of those shown along the street. The proposed setbacks would only approx be approximately 7 to 15% of the existing setback shown. This is not a minor adjustment. It is a dramatic departure from the established relationship between homes and the street. Setbacks are not simply empty space. They provide privacy, separation between homes, room for trees and landscaping. And any redevelopment should provide setbacks more consistent with the established streetscape and sufficient space for meaningful landscaping and effective privacy screening along the side and rear boundaries. It is also important to provide some context regarding neighborhood communication. After the developer purchased the property last year and especially after the substantial tree clearing that occurred at the property shortly afterward, residents contacted the developer to understand what was being considered for the property. They were advised that there were no plans and the developer declined invitations to meet. As recently as two months ago, residents again contacted the developer and were again told there were no plans, only weeks later to receive notice of the six home proposal. We recognize the developer is entitled to pursue redevelopment and was not required to consult directly with neighbors. We do not raise this as a procedural complaint. However, earlier dialogue is good planning practice and could have identified these concerns and provided an opportunity to explore other designs. That opportunity still exists. We believe there is a reasonable alternative. We would support or at minimum not object to the consideration of three detached bungalows with setbacks more consistent with the neighboring homes. This would still represent substantial redevelopment from one home to three while providing more green space, greater separation, and better opportunities for landscaping, screening, and storm water management. In conclusion, the requested variances are not minor when their cumulative effect is considered in the context of this property and the established streetscape. The position we are presenting today reflects the shared concerns of neighbors and other Ancaster residents who care deeply about Jerseyville Road and about preserving the character of Ancaster while allowing reasonable and responsible redevelopment. We respectfully ask the committee not to approve the requested variances in their present form. We believe a substantially less intensive proposal would better balance the owner's interests with the established character of the neighborhood and the concerns of its residents. Thank you for your consideration. >> Okay. Thank you. Um next and this is just on our list um people we had so it was Allison Fischer. Did you want to speak next or >> Oh, did you did she want to speak later? Okay. Do you want to come up then? Okay. All right. Uh, please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Sander Ambrosia. My wife and I live at 48 yearsville road immediately west of the subject property. In addition to the concerns already raised, I would like to address the sanitary sewer capacity in the storm water management. First, there have been reported sewage backups in the basement in the immediate neighborhood. The city has previously had to power flush local sewers. Residents were advised that one contributing concern was additional development in this older mature area where the existing infrastructure was designed for fewer and smaller homes. We also understand from the previous owners at 38 years ago Road West, the site of proposed development. They experienced a substantial sewer backup shortly before the property was sold. These experiences raise reasonable questions. Can the existing sanitary infrastructure safely accommodate the addition additional demand created by six new residences? Before approving the increased density facilitated by these variances, we respectfully ask that the city confirm based on appropriate engineering information that sufficient sanitary capacity exists and the additional demand will not increase risk to existing residences. Our second significant concern is storm water management. Approximately 7% of this property is proposed to be covered by roofing, ashvault or concrete. Soil can absorb water only if water can reach it. With this amount of hard surface, more runoff will have to be collected and managed by the proposed private system. This is particularly concerning because drainage problems already occur along this part of Jerseyville Road. Water gathers submerging portions of sidewalks and coververts, including the area in front of our driveway. In winter, that water freezes, creating hazard to pedestrians and vehicles. The development must demonstrate that it will not make an existing drainage problem worse. The top the topographic information appears to show that the property is falling from approximately 251.5 m to approximately 249.84 meters towards its southwest quarter. Much of that elevation change appears to occur in the rear half of the property. That's even more drastic. Appendix 2 that was just shared with you from our written submission uh illustrates what is located behind the subject property. There is a commercial plaza directly behind the property. There's waste collection areas. tenant service entrances to their to their units, including a restaurant that's there, a pharmacy say also directly behind a St. An's elementary school property and children playground. These photographs demonstrate why the emergency overflow route matters if the private system reaches or exceeds its capacity. Where will the water go? What safeguards will prevent it from flowing towards these properties and our own? Our understanding there is no municipal storm water sewer along this portion of Jersey Road. If that is correct, the proposed private system and its ability to manage major extreme rainfall events becomes even more important. The proposal relies on an underground aquabox infiltration storage system. By way of background, I founded and continue to operate Canada's largest highdensity polyethylene pipe distribution company and ads. The manufacturer Aquabox is one of my suppliers. I therefore had the opportunity to discuss this type of system with a member of the manufacturers's engineering department. Those discussions reinforce that the systems performance depends on sight specific factors including soil and groundwater conditions and that there are soil conditions in which this type of system may not be recommended. The developed material indicates that the site's actual infiltration capacity may be determined later through insul testing. Later is too late. The soil infiltration rate and groundwater condition should be established through actual site testing before the variances allowing before these variances allowing greater density are approved. The systems capacity and emergence overflow strategy should then be evaluated using those verified conditions not assumptions. We also request clarification concerning the systems location relative to existing property lines. Are the setbacks in system with above groundwater storage? What impact would they have on neighboring basements? Long-term responsibility is equally important. This system must continue to function for decades through changes in home ownership. The Aqua Box system is relatively new and does not have decades of historical reliability. The manufacturer's literature calls for regular inspection, maintenance, cleaning, including annual inspection and inspection following extreme weather events. Who will be legally responsible for that work? Who will pay for the repairs or replacement? Where will every component remain accessible if located beneath private backyards? What will prevent future owners from planting trees, constructing sheds, or making other alterations that interfere with the system? The manufacturer did state that root infiltration could damage the system. These responsibilities should be clearly established and demonstrated before approval. As Maria explained, we are not opposed to reasonable development. A less intensive proposal such a three detached bungalows with the front bungalow oriented towards Jerseyville Road and appropriate setback would be more compatible with the streetscape. It would also reduce hard surface coverage, allow greater natural infiltration, and provide more flexibility to manage storm water safely. Additional concerns have been raised by neighbors written submissions and the five minute speaking limit does not allow us to repeat each one. We respectfully ask that the committee to give it all those submissions careful consideration. In conclusion, we ask that the committee not approve the variances in their present form. Alternative, we ask that the decision be deferred until the noted concerns are addressed. Thank you. And one other comment, I did see that in the last day or so the um this was more recent uh development engineer uh also put up uh a notice that they cannot support the increased law coverage based on a lot of the concerns I brought forward with uh water management. So thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, anyone else? >> Yeah. And then through the chair, of course, just just letting everyone know we have a five minute speaking limit, but of course it's at the discretion of the chair um if uh they wanted to wave that or not or or keep with it. Yeah. Yeah. Uh please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Um, hello. I'm Allison Fischer. I'm one of 46 close neighbors of 38 Jerseyville Road West who have signed this petition I'm presenting to you. Dear commun, excuse me, dear committee members, we the undersigned residents and property owners neighboring 38 Jerseyville Road West formally right to register our strong objection to the minor variance application for 38 Jerseyville Road West, which requests relief for minimum lot area, minimum lot width, minimum lot setback from the lot line, minimum setback from flank flankage lot line maximum lot coverage porch deck and canopy encroachment limits minimum landscape area limits and minimum landscaped area for tree protection limits. We believe the application does not satisfy the requirements of section 45 of the planning act for the following reasons. It is not minor. The scale of the rel of the relief requested is substantial and will create an overconentration of buildings on a lot of this size. This application with eight requests for exemptions to Hamilton zoning bylaws seriously stretches the definition of minor variance. Each of these requests is significant. Taken together, this application proposes major and substantial alter alteration of the size of lot and maximum lot coverage allowed by the Hamilton official plan. The fact that the proposal includes mentions that additional variances may be required on three additional issues stretches this definition further. It will not it will have adverse impact. The proposed construction of six single detached dwellings where one now ex sits, decreases to m minimum lot size allowed by Hamilton bylaws and increases in ratio building to green space and decrease in protection for trees will directly and negatively impact the neighborhoods of 38 Jerseyville Road West. These proposals will result in increased traffic congestion, severe loss of backyard privacy, blocked sight lines, shadow impacts of adjacent properties, and affects the nature and character of this older neighborhood. It falls um and third um it fails to in it fails intent of bylaw and Hamilton official plan. This application for minor variances runs contrary to the general intent of Hamilton's zoning bylaw and urban rural Hamilton official plan which are designed to protect the uniform layout and spacing of our community. proposing to replace one house with six single detached dwellings while shrinking lots, shrinking yards and green space and maxing out coverage would violate the intent and purpose of Hamilton's planning rules and purpose. The proposed construction would be a major intensification. Combining decreased lot sizes, minimal front setbacks, and high lot coverage creates comp compounding massive footprint. This scales completely out of the realm of a minor tweak both to what re already exists on the street and to the Hamilton bylaws created to protect neighborhoods from such over construction and drastic changes to neighborhoods in which people live. Minimize setbacks push buildings too close to the street line, disrupting the established streetcape. Increased lot coverage reduces green spaces, leaves less room for natural water drainage, and creates a crowded environment. Decreased lot sizes bypass the standard density limits set specifically for this zone. We we respectfully request that the committee of adjustment refuse this application as proposed. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Yeah, please step up. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. >> Great. Thanks, Justin. Um, hello. My name is Jennifer Crowe and my husband and I live at 30 Jerseyville Road West, which shares the easterly boundary with 38 Jerseyville. So, to put some scope around that, we have a common property line of 114 meters or 318 feet. So people like myself who still think in feet. Um so we have vested an interest. We have a vested interest from the street perspective as well as an immediate neighbor. And James and I have submitted a written objection which I'm sure you've already read that speaks to the variances um that have been requested. So while many residents on the street have lived here for a long time, James and I moved here seven years ago. We were looking for a place to retire as our poor credit community in Missaga was undergoing increased densities and intensification. Ancaster matched our requirements, especially the walkability of this neighborhood, and our home is designed to allow us to age in place with a lovely yard and garden to enjoy. So, you know a bit about how we ended up here and why we have a concern about the intensification being proposed for next door. We're not against additional housing and in fact we're pleased to see that it's these are single detached homes and bungalows that are being proposed. Our main concern is the request before the committee of adjustment today are not minor in nature and a substantial departure excuse me from the large lot are to intent by not meeting the minimum lot area the minimum lot width and on top of that requesting it increased lot coverage. The six lots are collectively requiring significant departures from the zoning framework intended for this area and the storm water issue has already been covered um covered before. So cumulatively, these variances look a lot like a pathway to building large homes on small lots. And we all know what that looks like, which is nothing like Jerseyville Road today with its variety of architectural styles, ages of homes, and footprints ranging from modest homes such as the one we live in to ones that are significantly larger yet proportional in size to the lot. The cohesiveness and character of our community is achieved by similar setbacks, mature trees, and landscaping. We are concerned about the loss of sunlight and increased shading in our home and backyard as well as having six backyards that are abiding along our property line. The increased daily living activities from those backyards, the sounds from heating and air conditioning units, the lighting from the laneway, the porches, the motion security lights to name a few. And in the absence of any concept drawings and information about elevation, height, roof lines, grading being shared with us, we cannot meaningfully assess the requested variances and the impact and their impact without knowing the resulting built form. The one glaring aspect we can visualize though is that lot one is essentially a house perpendicular to the street with its backyard in our front yard. You would have seen that in the photo submission that we had in our attachment. So among the many submissions made in response to this application, there are other approaches and solutions worth considering. Let's work together to find a way forward that respects the intent of the arch zoning, maintains the character of our neighborhood, and creates a positive precedent that both the community and the developer can be proud of for years to come. I would respectfully ask the committee of adjustment to table this application to provide the community with additional time to understand the revised proposal including the built form and site impacts and for urban solutions to work with the community toward a solution that respects both the intent of the R2 zoning and the established character of Jerseyville Road. So, thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Was there any other members of the public wish to speak? Okay. Then I'll ask if not I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Uh please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Good morning members of committee, staff, and the public. My name is Matt Johnston, registered professional planner with Urban Solutions. Here on behalf of the owner of the application, I'm joined by Mr. Andrew Smith, a professional engineer, also retained by the owner, uh, who will be available for any questions. Um, Mr. Long, I did provide a PowerPoint presentation I'm hoping you could put on the screen and uh, I'll walk uh the committee and the public through Y. >> Thank you. Great. Thank you. Uh if if we could go to uh the next slide, please. Oh, sorry. No. Um, the previous >> Thank you. Yes. So, yes, the subject property, as we know, 38 Jerseyville Road West, uh, just a little over an acre in size, uh, a rather large parcel with 131 ft of frontage, uh, 389 ft in depth, uh, with an existing single detached home. Next slide. Just a little bit of community context. We've heard a little bit about the the area. Um and yes, the property does back onto the commercial properties fronting Wilson Street in proximity to St. An's Elementary School uh a little west of uh the village core. Next slide. From an official plan perspective, the lands are designated neighborhoods on schedule E as well as neighborhoods on schedule E1. This is an important consideration in that the policy direction prescribes 30% of all intensification for the city of Hamilton to occur within its established neighborhoods. The designation also permits the full range of housing forms and types and tenure. Next slide. We're located in the lowdensity residential large lot 2 zone. This is a a relatively new zone category that's been established. Uh it applies to the broader uh area as well as the subject property. And as a result of these new changes to the zoning, town houses, semi- detached dwellings, and single detached dwellings are all permitted uses as of right within this zone. Next slide. I mentioned it's a new zone brought forward in 2024 for the purpose of accommodating intensification. Removing the exclusionary zoning was done with intent by the city of Hamilton council in order to support intensification like what's proposed today. Next slide. Those as of right permissions with our um existing property could accommodate as many as six town houses across the Jerseyville frontage having a minimum lot width of 6 mters. Um of course semi- detached and singles are also permitted as well. Next slide. We heard a little bit about um alternate proposals and there have been alternate proposals considered proposals where the as of right street town houses are are were proposed along the Jersey frontage with singles in the back. Uh there are more intense versions of the proposal that have been considered and in recognition of the context uh the proposed development shown on the next slide is what we're pursuing. This development has been uh refined on a number of occasions in advance of the submission and once the submission was made. I believe originally we were we were near 14 variances prior to a submission continued to work and refine the plan and the built forms minimized the lot coverage increase the sideyard setbacks in order to eliminate variances. We then applied for an application with a total of eight variances. Another round of revisions getting those down to six variances in total. Uh and I'll roll through them quickly. Next slide is variance number one for the minimum lot area. 630 m is required. 515 is proposed. And that's well and above the as of right minimum lot size of a townhouse which is also permitted on the property. Next slide is variance number two. A reduction in lot frontage from 18 m to 16.5. That's over a 60ft lot that we're proposing in 2026. Um arguably unheard of in in today's state um in today's age. again representing uh a modest level of intensification as envisioned by the official plan and zoning. Next up is our increase in lock coverage from 35% to 45%. Um I'll touch on that in a bit more detail later. We also have uh the reduction of a canopy projection. So, what we've done is we've limited the the size of the canopy to 29 square meters to ensure that it's no larger than what's shown on the screen and it's specific only to a canopy, not a deck or a elevated living space. So, it's it's at grade uh patio with a with a covered porch. Next slide is uh our last variance number six. And I note that variant six is only applicable to the first lot and it really accounts for um the driveway configuration that's required from a transportation perspective and it's a modest decrease from 50% to 48%. All in all, next slide um is just a brief summary of the four tests that we're required to consider in evaluating minor variances. Next slide. I'd like to just get at um things from a planning process a little bit. Next slide. Justin shown on the screen here is formerly 15 Church, which was a single detached home that initiated an approval process for six street town houses in 2020. Back in 2020, this level of intensification required an official plan amendment, a zoning bylaw amendment, ultimately an Ontario land tribunal hearing, resulting in a 4-year process. The purpose again of the R2 zone that was introduced in 2024 was specifically to alleviate this type of situation and encourage this type of inf intensification. The policy framework has changed with intent to support applications like this. We now move to the next slide and I have two recent minor variances on the screen uh that this committee considered uh within the last year and a half or so. 28 Oakley, an application for street town houses on Oakley Court just on the south side of Wilson um in relative proximity to the proposal. That application received a positive staff report. It was denied by the committee of adjustment and later rubber stamped by the Ontario Land Tribunal six months later and uh at a cost of uh probably shy of $100,000 delay just in Ontario Land Tribunal proceedings. Similarly, 40 church positive staff report recommending approval denied by the committee of adjustment. Uh about 5 months later, we get approval by the Ontario Land Tribunal. Again, adding significant cost and delay to applications that are supported by staff and supported by the purposeful changes to the plan to accommodate intensification. Today, we have a positive staff report. We're in full support of the comments within and um the changes that had been introduced at the beginning of today's meeting. And I ask you not to send us down the path unnecessarily to uh a an Ontario land tribunal hearing only to approve this down the road. It's it's a poor use of staff resources. It's a poor use of taxpayer dollars and we're asking you to approve the application today as is. We've heard uh on the next slide, Justin, comments from the public um concerns with regards to and I'm I I respect all of the comments, but we tried to summarize um 60 plus pages in in a a few bullets. Um landscaping, privacy impacts, traffic impacts, compatibility and built form and storm water management. Um we've eliminated variances related to landscaping. Um we have a built form that's permitted but as of right subject to these variances um done in a way to limit privacy impacts. We have a traffic brief submitted in support of the application that looks at trip generation and the access onto Jerseyville. compatibility and built form have really been evaluated through the introduction of the R2 zone with these these minor revisions to the bylaw. And then we've heard a bit about storm water management. I'll go to the next slide. Um storm water management probably most related to the variance associated with lock coverage. Um as noted um in Mr. Andrew Smith's professional engineering report. Uh this is sandy lom soil ideal for well it's well draining suitable for ground infiltration. The aquabox uh storage solution for storm water management is an entirely acceptable engineering approach. A low uh a low impact development feature um intended to accommodate storm water management. The conclusions of the report confirm the proposed lot the proposed layout can be adequately serviced from a storm water for storm water based on the use of low impact development infiltration. These measures for storm water management are secured through planning future planning applications. That was uh a matter that was touched on by Mr. Powski at the start of the presentation. Those features will be secured through future planning act applications. We had questions from the area resident with regards to responsibility and future maintenance. The benefit of the proposal here is that uh a con element condominium will be established and those elements can be secured through the condominium corporation responsibility for taking responsibility for maintenance. And with that um it concludes my presentation. Again, we ask you to protection of overflow. So for protection of overflow uh and I'll grant our report as it was presented didn't get into this but we want to make clear that there will be opportunities for further review and refinement of the design but for overflow uh basically the ground the storm water is directed to groundwater infiltration and we would do insitu testing of the soils prior to the construction to verify all the infiltration rates and to use that information to size the boxes. We do believe there is space on the property for these boxes in various locations and they'll be under the purview of the condo for spill. If you had a a major event or backtoback events, it would be overland flow and the city development engineering they brought forward the comment at the beginning of the meeting regarding directing that flow to the street or to an appropriate outlet. So we would work through the grading design to make sure that the water is not impacting any surrounding property. It would be directed to the municipal right ofway and uh protect the local properties. Okay. In regards to the overflow issue, um you've read development engineering's um telling that they can't support the increased lot coverage in that because of the overflow. what this gentleman here was talking about >> through the chair to the committee. Um I believe what Mr. Powki was doing was providing additional details that now allow engineering to support the proposal as presented as they rely on the future applications for the detailed design of the system proposed. >> Okay. So, that's that's an update to the second posting online of of comments. >> Okay. All right. Yeah, I didn't quite hear everything that was said about that. >> Well, I'd like to just make a quick Can I? So, with this application, it looks like, excuse me, the applicant has worked with the city uh on these conditions. So they're a number. I think the notion that it's going to go to the Ontario Land Tribunal and simply be approved is just a fact. So I don't see a reason to deny this application. I'd like to make a motion to approve it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Just before I accept that, I just want to make sure if there's any more questions. Okay. Yukonica. >> Yeah. So, um I personally don't think that this is desirable for the neighborhood um in the event that let's just say um the committee would like you to table to see if you could um change this development. Would you be willing to do that or would you want a yes or a no today? through the chair. We have evaluated different variations of built form and this is a preferred bill form and we'd ask you to make a decision based on today's proposal. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Okay. >> Have you had any input from the neighbors that have affected the outlying proposal for today >> through the chair? Um the changes that have been made, again I I mentioned when we first landed on six six lots on a private road, we had uh 14 variances um that were going to be required. Um through consultation with staff, um it was it was understood that we needed to do more to improve the application and we worked hard to do that. um that got the number of variances down from 14 to eight in our formal submission. So the first thing that went in formally was was six lots requiring eight variances um in in efforts to continue to improve the plan from from an engineering perspective and from just a general open space and and compatibility perspective. We eliminated variances with regards to sideyard setbacks. um tree planting and tree planting requirements. Those were the two variances that were eliminated. By eliminating those, we also had a positive impact on other variances that are still required, but the the magnitude of those variances decreased. So, there's been a number of of small but important revisions to the application to improve things in response to the feedback that we're hearing. Thank you. So at the end of the day, you have taken some of the input from the neighborhoods or the neighbors into the design that we have in front of us. >> No, not at all. >> There has been no consultation, no discussion. >> And I do have a comment about the outgo box because I think it's very important >> through through through the chair. Um just just to reiterate the procedure in the meetings, the members of the public speak first and then the applicant and then the committee will have their deliberations unless the committee asks anyone any of the applicant or the members of the public to for further comment then um just then please don't uh comment. Thank you. >> In response to the question um I agree there hasn't been direct dialogue between urban solutions and the surrounding neighborhood. the revisions uh and the important changes that have taken place um are really in response to liaison with staff uh with the in with the public interest in mind. So um I I respect that uh it hasn't generated support but the changes were made in in attempts to again mitigate the magnitude of the variances as well as the number of variances um in response to the broader concerns. Yeah, I'm just disappointed that there hasn't been any consultation with the neighbors because everyone's going to be affected by this at the end of the day. I know in my previous life, if I was in development of a or construction of a project, I made sure I went around and made find out what the if andors or buts were about. I'm I'm surprised that that hasn't been done here. So, >> okay. If there's no more questions, Nick, I'll accept your motion for approval. >> Okay. Is there a seconder? We'll call one more time. >> Oh, Donna, are you seconding it? >> Okay. Um, so all in favor of the motion for approval and deny or oppose. Three opposed. So that >> sorry who who was opposing? Sorry who was >> uh Mel Robert. Okay. So then the motion would be defeated. Okay. >> So that motion is defeated. >> Sorry through the chair. Is there another motion on the floor? Um, as you're looking for a yay or a nay, I will make a motion to deny this obligation. >> Okay. Motion on the floor for denial. Is there a seconder for that? Now, all in favor of denial and opposed to that. Two opposed. So the motion is carried and the application is denied. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um the uh through through the chair, we did have one more application to be heard and then we were going to take a break. Did you want to take a break now? Did you want to hear that? >> Do you have any uh correspondence with u 631? >> Yeah. Yeah. Anna. No. No. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. We'll have a break now and then we'll come back. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. I don't know. Five >> 10 minutes. >> Okay. We'll take a break now and then uh we'll come back. We'll reconvene around 11:35 a.m. Okay. >> Thank you. the meeting >> have everyone sorry through the chair. >> We had everyone's attention please. >> Yes, we'll reconvene. >> Um yeah. Uh we now next we have a minor it's uh we have a minor variance application A2026 0025842 King Street East Hamilton owner is NHDG Quad Incorporated E Vancle applicant is the same uh company and the agent is Urban Solutions Planning and Land Develop Velment Consultants Incorporated. M Johnston. Um just I don't know if this person wanted to speak. I'll just uh we had an interested party Randy Mlen you here either in the meeting room or on WebEx. Okay. Just check here. Just give me a moment. Okay. Um, okay. Since they're not here, um, I'll then ask the applicant agent please step forward and you have five, please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Musical chairs. Good morning, committee members. My name is Scott Bey. I'm a registered professional planner with Urban Solutions. Nice to be here today on behalf of uh, New Horizon Development Group Quad, Inc. for the minor variance application at 1842 King Street East. I have read the city staff report and am in support of their recommendation for approval. Um I do have a presentation, but I know we're a little bit behind today, so I'm happy to forego that presentation uh and instead just uh answer any questions the committee might have. >> Okay. Thank you. The committee any members have any questions? pretty much straightforward. Is there a motion? >> Donica. >> I'll make a motion to approve the application with the proposed notes with the revised spirits as well. >> Okay. Seconded by Mal. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you, committee. Okay, it's now 11:45 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application. A2026 000262 311 Kaswick Court Hamilton. Owner is A. Frasier, I Frasier, and D. Zimmerman. Applicant is A. Frasier and I. Frasier. Agent is Sarah Brown, Home Design Incorporated. S. Brown. Are there any members of the public wish to speak on this application? either here in the meeting room or on WebEx. Okay. Seeing none, unless the applicant or agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. >> Oh, sorry. Um I believe development planning wanted to speak first on this one. Sorry. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Uh through the chair, um staff have reviewed the comments provided by the negrocarbon commission. staff are unable to support the proposed variance as it has been identified that the Niagara Escarment Plan uh does not permit uh detached accessory dwelling units in their plan area. Uh the lands are designated urban area in the uh NEC plan and are within the development control of the city of Hamilton. Um, urban Hamilton official plan policy C.1.1.1 ident identifies if there's a discrepancy between the official plan and the narrment plan, the most restrictive policy will prevail. Uh, in this circumstance, the negroscarment policy is more restrictive in that it does not permit uh detach accessory dwelling units. As such, staff are not able to support the variance. Thank you. I have a question to that and I don't know if you can answer it or not. There is an existing ADU on the property now. >> Sorry, my name is the owners. Uh there is an existing garage which the owners would like to put an addition on and then convert the garage and the addition to an ADU. So there's an existing building, but it is currently a a garage that you can't park a car inside of it right now. Uh but so it's basically just a storage building. >> So in other words, the ADU new is being attached to the existing >> garage. Correct. >> Yeah. And then the garage will be converted as part of the ADU. It'll be one building. Okay. So can we uh hear from the agent? Go ahead. >> Sure. Um I was not aware of this uh recent development. So um basically we were in support of staff's recommendation uh including the conditions for the tree protection plan and the landscape plan. Um so I'm not sure where to go here. I'm sorry. I'm a little surprised. >> Yes. Just for the chair. Yes. I believe the Niagara Scarment Commission comments came in on August 24th and then uh immediately after we we did post it on the website as well. >> Yeah. >> What th what threw me off here was on the drawing it says existing ADU building on the drawings accessory dwelling unit. So I interpret it as addition to an existing ADU which conflicts again with NEC. >> Right. So >> if that was an existing ADU which I which is on the drawing here. >> Yeah. >> I might have a bit different opinion but if it is a garage and a garage only. >> Yes. >> Then we have a problem. >> Right. >> Okay. comments from staff on this. >> That's what I was gonna ask. >> Good morning. Three chair Spencer Skidmore, acting manager of development planning east team. Um, so this one we've we've had this once before. It's a bit of a I'll say a quirk in our policy and in our zoning bylaw in that the way the Niger plan is set up, it applies development criteria to the entire plan area. So that applies to like um rural lots um in the escarment area um equally as it applies to like these types of lots in the urban area. It doesn't distinguish between the two. So what it says is the Nagascar plan says that you can't have you can have ADUs but they have to be attached. You can't have detached ADUs and that applies to the entire plan area the urban area inclusive. Um, now our official plan does permit ADUs in all designations and our zoning also permits ADUs. Um, so there's a bit of I would say a conflict between our official plan, our zoning and the Niger plan. With that being said, our official plan has policies that say where there is a conflict, the NEP, which is a provincial document prevails. So from a from a land use planning perspective our our comments are there in terms of in terms of impact but from a policy perspective um because the NEP has provided comments and doesn't support it we're technically unable to support it because our official plan um does defer to the Niagara scarment plan and their policy. Um, there has been one other situation where there was a variance um, for a similar situation. Um, and I believe that one was supported and I don't believe it was appealed by the United Commission as far as I'm aware. >> Happy answer to any questions. Thank you. So just for my own personal satisfaction here, if it was the ADU was attached to the principal dwelling, it would be fine. >> That's correct. U the NEP only permits ADUs that are attached to the primary dwelling. It does not permit detached ADUs. So if it was attached, it would be permitted and under the NIS government plan and likely our zoning bylaw depending on setbacks and everything. Um but that's the distinction. You're you hit the nail on the head. Thank you. >> So the fact that the ADU is attached to the garage doesn't fly. >> Okay. >> Through this chair. That's correct. So it would have to be attached to primary dwelling to be considered an attached ADU. Thank you. >> Okay. So we you understand what's going on. I mean we can table it but as a detached ADU. You know the problem. >> Yes. And I don't I don't really see how tableabling it will um change what the owners would like to do with the lot. Yeah. >> Um, attaching it to the principal dwelling is probably not an option for them. Um, they would like to reuse the existing building that is there um and then develop this um detached additional dwelling unit for their in-laws and um to be on the lot. So, attaching it to the principal dwelling is probably not an option. >> Not an option. >> I wouldn't think so. I mean, we could table it and I could ask them. >> I mean, we could table it and you can have that conversation with them. >> Yes. Um but um and and and the application sits >> in limbo. If we deny it, it's denied and then over reapply. >> Yes. So if that's >> Have you ever talked to the conservation authority yet about it? >> Uh no, we have not. >> Would that be a chance to get talk to them and see what you can come up with? >> Yes, we could do that. >> Willing to do that rather than deny it and table it and do it that way? >> Yes. >> Okay, good. Sounds good. >> I'll make a motion to table. >> A motion made by Mel, seconded by I'm going to say Donna. All in favor? >> Opposed? One opposed. >> Uh Nick. >> So motion's carried, application is tabled. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank and thank you to the applicant regent. We will staff will be in touch with you shortly in terms of how to proceed. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, it is now 11:54 a.m. We have a uh minor variance application A2026 000053 22 Lydia Street Hamilton. Uh owner is a Govia. Applicant is the same person. Um is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application either on here in the meeting room or on WebEx? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or to please step forward and please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Good afternoon, uh, committee. Um, I'm applying for a minor variance to an existing garage. And that's it. Did you have a chance to read the comments that were posted? >> I did. And that was that was discussed earlier uh in back in July with uh a few of the members committee. So the minimum setback um they're recommending denial on on variance 4 >> which is which one? >> Uh the setback of 0.9 meters from the railway rightway. >> Okay. >> Instead of the requirement that it be 30 m. Uh, I had spoken to someone, I forget who it was, uh, in regards to that, and they said they looked into the neighborhood and there was a lot of homes that, uh, are that Yeah. are in close proximity to the >> Okay, >> Donna, >> can staff comment on that? um through uh Anthony Mancini uh planning technician one uh through the chair uh staff worked with the applicant on the on the variances that were requested. Uh this additional variance was identified in the review since it was tabled. Um staff uh are unable to support that variance as it's uh as the intent is that um that the 30 meters be provided from a railway. Um staff do acknowledge that it's uh that the applicant could not meet that 30 m setback but um but acknowledge from a policy policy perspective staff are unable to support that I believe it's a 0.9 m setback to the rail right away. Yeah. Thank you to the chair. Just to add just to compliment my colleagues um comments on the application. So we do recognize that, you know, a good chunk of this neighborhood is within 30 mters of that rail right ofway and this is just an accessory structure. So the impact and the risk I think would be low. However, we're unable to support it as the policy tests under the planning act don't we don't feel that they satisfy it. However, we recognize this is a bit of a unique circumstance where it is a it's a garage, not a structure. and there is a number of encroachments kind of throughout the neighborhood within that 30 meters including the existing dwelling on the property which is just set back a similar distance. Um so but with that being said we we're unable to support it because it doesn't meet the technical test under the planning act. Thank you. >> So just so you understand that this is a situation that's why the committee's here right >> the policies are in place and and planning has to follow policies that are there. >> Absolutely. And um that's why this committee of adjustment is here to look at gray areas that >> of course >> make sense >> of course >> um in saying that the committee y >> um yeah I would like to say with the explanation of variance 4 um seeing that there would be no ability to do anything on that property and seeing that it is a an accessory structure um I would make a motion to approve the application for all four variances. >> Okay. Uh is there a second for that motion? Buff. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. the next. >> Okay, it is now 11:59 a.m. and uh we have two applications. They're related to each other. So, I'm assuming uh the committee would want to hear them together. Yep. >> So, first is a consent B2026 00243 1219 Highway number 8 Stony Creek. Owner is Brat Brent Haven Renona Hills Incorporated. T Oleni, I apologize if I mispronounced your name. Applicant is the same company. And then we also have a minor an associated minor variance application A202600244. Same address, same owner, and same applicant. Uh just want to check, we did have an interested party. I don't know if they're here. Um, Gloria Maronado, are you here? Okay. I just wanted to check if she was attending. Okay, since she's not here, is there any other members of the public wish to speak on this application either in the meeting room or on WebEx? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Uh, please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Oh, sorry. Which >> Yeah, which application are you here for? >> Oh, um, 0210. >> Oh, you're here for the next one. Okay. Yeah. No, that's fine. You could take a seat. Thank you. I thought you were here for this this current application. Okay. Um, sorry to the applicant or agent. Uh, yeah. Uh, please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Hello, members of the committee. Uh, my name is Tom Alani. I'm the applicant and represent the honor regarding the concurrent concerning minor variance applications for block 51. It's located within the WOO subdivisionally known as 1219 Highway number eight. I've reviewed staff reporting conditions and I'm happy with the recommendations for approval. Uh thank you and I'm available to answer any questions. >> Okay. Does the committee have any questions on uh we'll deal with both of these uh at once. >> No questions. >> Motion. I'll make a motion to approve the severance as well as the minor variance with all the proposed conditions and the notes. >> Okay. Second by Bob >> and Anna. Did we have to provide an update on this one in terms of the the conditions? Was there not a >> Yes. Yeah. through the chair just to update the uh the committee. Uh there was a condition that was that was missed there on the staff comments for the consent application. There's actually a um an administration fee uh that's for the creation of the lot that we didn't include. So just unless there's any questions about that. Yeah. Um that just wanted you to be aware of that. >> Yeah, it's um typically uh let me see if I can find wording for that. Um you would have you you may have seen it in other consent applications. Let me see if I can find one. Okay. Okay. >> So, to the agent, there's one additional um condition. >> Oh, there it Oh, and there's Yeah. The owner submits to the committee of adjustment office an administration fee payable to the city of Hamilton to cover the cost of setting up a new tax account for each newly created lot. Committee of adjustment section. And I believe generally that's usually around $20. Okay, that includes that condition and Robert, you second it. Right. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Both. >> Thank you. Okay, it is now 12:03 p.m. Please. We now have a consent application. B2026 00210 8155 Chipoa Road. Sorry, 8155 Chipoa Road East Glenn Brook. Purchaser Bansoon and Tonsoon. Owner is GLP Dundis Incorporated. Applicant is Ashenhurst Noans and Associates Incorporated. H Kansikos. Apologize if I mispronounced the name. agent is the same uh company. Is there any any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether in the meeting room or on WebEx? Okay. Um, seeing none, I will uh I'll ask the applicant or agent uh uh to uh step forward. Please provide your name and you have uh five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Yeah, that's you. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Um is the the agent on there? >> Oh, okay. Oh, sorry. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah, I see him. Yeah, I see him here on WebEx. Harry >> Harry. >> Yeah, if you want to unmute yourself and >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Hi there. Harry Kellen Zachos representing the uh purchaser and seller. Um we've received the comments and we're proposing to table it since there's no public comments to address the comments with the city. >> Okay. So, your wishes are to table at this time. Yes, please. Okay. >> Make a motion to uh table the application. >> It's well through the chair. Yeah, it's up to the applicant if you uh how you wish to proceed. Staff are recommending tableabling, but it's your application. So, ultimately, it's your hire the planner. I know the process very well. um truck driver by trade and uh so >> I don't know if you want to speak with the planner or offsite maybe or or >> if if tableling is the best course of action. I just I know for me we have a deadline with the seller for November 5th. Um so we're just trying to try to get by that deadline and like I said I don't know the process very well. Okay. So I didn't know if there's anything I can do because I don't know how to move. >> Yeah, it's um so a recommendation from planning is to table and then >> uh have a conversation with them and see if uh you know you can get different comments or favorable comments. >> Yeah, can help you get that. >> Yeah, Robert, I'm just curious why the reason for tableabling by via staff Um good afternoon Spencer Skidmore, acting uh manager development planning east team through the chair. Sorry, I'm getting some feedback. Uh through the chair, um there's two reasons for tableabling. The first is so lot line adjustments are permitted for legal or technical reasons. Um they've identified I believe the legal technical reason would be it's an undersized lot and they want to increase it to meet our minimum lot size for private on-site servicing. The issue is there's also criteria for that that say um one of the things is it's okay but there can't be further fragmentation of a natural heritage feature in terms of ownership and there is a natural heritage feature identified on the site per our natural heritage planner. So we just want to chat with them to determine um whether that fragmentation kind of the extent of it um whether there's going to be any impacts that kind of thing. So that's one item and I think that can be resolved hopefully through a discussion with natural heritage planning and and perhaps a meeting with with the applicants planner. The other item is um so the portion of the lands to be added or conveyed are industrial existing industrial zoning and if the applicant um I think currently there is some residential accessory structures like a gazebo and stuff on there and those technically wouldn't be permitted because they're res they support a residential use. Um, so we would have to talk about potentially removing those accessory structures, um, as they wouldn't conform with the underlying zoning. Um, so that's another discussion item we'd have to have with the applicant. Thank you. >> My apologies on that if I missed it if it's in the notes. >> So, okay. >> Okay. Motion for table. You got it. >> I'll make a motion to table the application. >> Okay. Seconder, Donna. All in favor to table. Opposed. Seeing none. Motion carried. Application tabled. We've got to go back to Thanks. Yes. Through the chair. Yes, that was um I believe it's 631. Yes, it was a minor v. So, it's now uh 12:08 p.m. And we're returning to a previous minor variance application that was on that's on the agenda. A2026 00215 631 Highway number eight Flambor owner is Jay Johnson applicant is RNR Designs Limited Arcana agent is the same company just to let the committee know we did attempt through email to contact them and we also had a staff member call as well and we didn't get a response so um I'll leave it to the committee how you wish to uh proceed with this application so Excuse me. Favorable comments, a couple of conditions, but uh if I'm right, what's the wishes of the committee? You want to grant this one? Make a motion to approve the application with the proposed conditions and notes in their absence. >> Okay. Seconded by ML. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. And through the chair, we will notify the applicant about that applicant region. Um, next to it's now 12:09 p.m. Chair and staff announcements. So, chair, do you have any announcements to the committee? >> Nope. Okay. Yes. And then uh >> next meeting is >> the next meeting is I believe it's September 17th. Yeah. And then through the chair we did send you um a decision has been uh made by the Ontario Land Tribunal for um it was a consent and minor variance application for 178 Orchard Drive. And I believe the committee denied those applications and then the uh applicant appealed it to the OOLT and the OOLT has now uh approved the applications with conditions. Um so I've c we've circulated the the decision to you so you can review it when you have time and if you have any questions you can always contact us. Uh another thing we want to let you know starting in September 17 you'll start noticing a change in our agenda. Currently, you see we have a time associated with each application what time it's going to be heard, >> right? >> Um we're going to be taking that out. >> Yeah. And it was just determined through staff it would just help in terms of the overall efficiency of running the meeting. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> On the 17th I'll probably on the 17th I'll probably be in Walkerton. If I can get on be online. >> Yeah, you can participate back. Yeah, you can participate virtually if you want. Yeah. >> Okay. >> International power match is what it was. And >> if there wasn't anything else, motion to motion for journal. >> Mel, you need a second or a second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> We are journ at 121.