Okay, it's 9:30. I'll call the meeting to order. Has anybody got any conflict of interest in anything today? If not, move on. uh the minutes for the uh from the last meeting. >> Everybody had a move by Nick, second by Donna. All in favor? Carrie. And yes, and through the chair, we did we did uh let the committee know at the last meeting, but I'll just reiterate it now that uh moving forward with the committee of adjustment meetings. You'll notice on for anyone who's interested on the agenda, we used to have time slots with each application. So, it would tell you what time each application is heard. Uh decisions been made to remove those time slots just to help with the operational efficiency of the meetings. Um so with anyone any applicants or members of the public um you know it is you know it is advised you do arrive here on time at 9:30 a.m. and uh expect to be here for the duration of the meeting. Um okay with that um through the chair we could go to the first application then it's now uh 9:31 a.m. First is a minor variance application A2026 00225 uh 9 Homeland Avenue Stony Creek. The owner is N Zuponic and M Zuponic. Applicant is N. Zuponic and the agent is D. Keith. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Whether here in council chambers or on WebEx. Okay. Seeing none, I will ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Someone here for that one. Nine Homeland Avenue. Yeah. Please step forward to the podium. >> [snorts] >> All right. >> Your name and address, please. >> Yes. Sorry. >> Your name is and address, please. >> Uh Nick Zapanic, 9 Holland Avenue, Stony Creek, Ontario. >> Yes. Uh Dan Keith. um designer agent for Nick Zupanic here. Okay. Anyway, go ahead. >> Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members and uh like I said, uh nine homeland, formerly Stony Creek. Okay. We're requesting a minor variance of a for a covered patio uh which is an open air. I think it's all illustrated that if you see the the drawings and everything exactly what we're trying to achieve on this and uh the only adjustment that we're making on the uh the existing dwelling is because of a roof. the roof going into the new the existing house. We have to shift the window over to accommodate it in the master bedroom which would be by uh everything that it corresponds with the Ontario building code and everything like that. Also we have uh acknowledged the concerns of the archaeological factor this bug and uh I just want to point out there's only uh there's very little um excavation there's going to be uh five posts put in u sauna tubes. Okay. So, and uh Nick here is uh well aware of of all that during the excavation. So, there shouldn't even have to be any uh fill removed from the site anyhow. So, okay. And uh it's basically the the whole idea for the thing was to put a covered patio on the rear and landscape it and make it part of the the building, but it's open air. It's not enclosed or anything and have no intentions of ever closing it. So right on ground. So anyhow uh if uh uh if there's any questions I suppose >> any question ma'am >> did any clarifications on this not >> I have a question for staff I'm not sure if it goes to staff um there's something here in the uh comments or not the comments just in uh >> public comments comments. Yeah, thank you. Is that the MTO building and land use permit is required for a new deck? That's something new that I've not seen. >> Um, excuse me, madam. There there is no no deck put in at all. Okay. It's all going to be on >> No, I'm asking you asking staff. Okay. >> There is if this is something new that >> we are seeing or what is the um What's the purpose of that? >> So, uh, good morning. Spencer Skidmore, acting manager, development planning east team. So, if they're within the, um, like a radius of a controlled access highway that's maintained by the MTO and operated by the MTO, they automatically ask for a land use permit no matter what it is. And because I believe this is within proximity to the North Service Road and the QEW, um, they asked for a land use permit. I don't suspect they'd have any concerns with what's being proposed. It just they would need to submit it. Probably there's an administration fee and they would need correspondence confirming that um they received a permit or that a permit is not required. So, it's really just coordinating with them, but doesn't doesn't impact our comments. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, that's up to them to contact the MTO. >> That's correct. Yeah. It wouldn't be something the city does. We circulate the MTO on applications that may impact the MTO right away within their kind of um area of control. Uh but it doesn't impact our comments. And then it's just kind of a note for the applicant that hey, you're going to need to reach out to them and make sure they're okay with it. >> Yeah. Thanks. And >> sorry through the chair. I believe the applicant contacted us too after getting the staff comments asking about the MTO comments and we did we did we did advise them to contact the MTO just to get clarification on that as well. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> No. I'll make a motion to approve the application. >> Moved by Donna, second by Janetta. >> All in favor? >> Nobody opposed? Carried. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Next we have it's 9:38 a.m. We have a minor variance application A2026 00293 23 Centennial Parkway South Stron Creek. Owner is United Elite Builders Incorporated Ry and applicant is D Petta. Are there any members of the public wish to speak on this application whether here in council chambers or on WebEx? Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your uh your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> My name is Daniel Petta. I'm the applicant for 23 Centennial Parkway. Um so I'm not the owner. I am the purchaser of the property. It's pending to close in October. >> Can you speak into the mic, please? >> Yeah. and we're uh it's a pending offer that I have on the property and it's uh pending to close in October and we're looking to um reckon a um to wreck a forplex and from my understanding um under the current bylaw there's uh an allowance of two parking spaces per unit. So I understand today that there is a new bylaw that one parking spot per unit is required. So that's a purpose for the minor various to reduce it from 8 to five. >> You did re read this response from the planning part. Did you the city? Did you re read the responses from the city on your application? Any questions? >> Any questions? >> Um, I [clears throat] I'll put a motion forward to approve the applications with the proposed conditions and the proposed notes. >> Moved by Donna, second by Nick. All in favor? >> Opposed? None. Carried. It's carried. Sorry that the motion your application is carried. >> Okay. >> It's been approved. >> Okay. Yeah. And just sorry through the chair to the applicant. Yeah. Usually a week before the meeting, we'll send you an email just to let you know the staff comments are are online on the website. So it's advised you just review the staff comments before the meeting. Yeah. Okay. Just just for your reference. Okay. Thanks. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Okay. It's now 9 9:40 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application. A2026 00283 25 First Street South Stony Creek. Owner is W. D Clerk and J. Medri. And the applicant is the same two people as well. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on whether here in council chambers or on WebEx? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent uh please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. >> Good morning. I'm dialing in from WebEx. My name is u just morning to the chair and member of the committee. My name is the clerk. I live at 25 First Street South in Stony Creek with my wife and our newborn. Um, speaking for both of us, we are asking for a minor variance for a small small rear yard storage shed, which is 13.84 m together with the existing garage. Accessory buildings would be about 56.5 m instead of the 45 meter maximum. We live in a two-bedroom bungalow of just 750 ft. The garage is already full with the vehicle and tools we use to maintain and renovate the house. Uh, and we need modest extra storage so we can stay in this home when we cannot unfortunately afford to move. Um, the shed is a pre-fabricated kit, one story wood in the rear yard. Because it is a kit, it will be built to the exact size proposed. Uh, the walls are set 1.2 2 m from the side and rear lot lines and the eaves overhangs 30 cm. No trees are also being impacted or removed and there are two m two mature trees in the front yard that have been on the property for at least 15 years. Uh the front yard landscaping also does not change after the shed is built. at least 175 square meters of landscaped area remains uh which is well above the 30% requirement which is about 126 square meters on this lot. Uh a similar variance for additional accessory building coverage was approved next door at 23 first street south in 2024 and in our staff report uh the development planning recommends approval and staff found the variances meets the four tests under the planning act. uh it maintains the intent of the official plan and zoning by law. It is minor. It is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. And then just lastly, the shed is under 15 square meters which which is one story. It has no plumbing. So a building permit is not required as our understanding under the city's accessory building rules. We ex respectfully ask that you approve the application. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. >> You did read the response from the recommendations from the planning, did you? Yes, sir. Read it. >> Okay. Any questions? I >> make a um a motion to approve the application as staff recommend that variance ones be approved as it satisfies the four tests of a minor variance under the planning act. >> Moved by Robert, second by Janeka. All in favor? Opposed? None carried. >> Thank you. What's that? >> Okay, it's now 9:44 a.m. Next, we had a uh consent application B202600143 230 McNeely Road, Stony Creek. owner is uh Losani Homes Winona Limited D Belli. Uh the applicant is the same company and then the agent is MHBC Planning S. Mertich. Um just uh just to advise the committee again and for any uh anyone in attendance at the meeting, this application was tabled or was deferred prior to the meeting. So this application will not be heard today. So there's if there's any members of the public here for this application here for 230 McNeely Road, Stony Creek. Uh if you want to be notified of any updates with this application, uh if you're here in council chambers, you can fill out an interested party form or if you're participating on WebEx, you can send us an email at cofa@ hamilton.ca. Okay. Thank you. And next it is 9:45 a.m. We have a consent application B202600 299 560 Barton Street Stony Creek. Owner is P. Sylvestri. Applicant is the same person and the agent is Web Planning Consultants J Web. Um, believe we had an interested party. I don't know if they wanted to speak. Uh, Jackie Gil. Is Jackie Gill here? Council Chambers are on WebEx. Okay. Uh, was there any other members of the public wish to speak on this application? 560 Barton Street, Stony Creek. I believe Jackie Gil, we had provided the the WebEx to them. Okay. Okay. They're not here. Okay. Um Okay. Since I don't hear any members of the public uh wanting to speak, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Uh good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of committee, ladies and gentlemen. James Webb, uh planning consultant speaking to you today on behalf of Sylvester Investments. Um the application before you today is relatively straightforward. Um this parcel was actually before this committee three or four years ago to sever the rear portion to consolidate within a plan of subdivision. Uh the front piece is now reszoned through a city comprehensive zoning bylaw amendment to an R1 zone permit street town houses. The application before you today proposes to take this lot severed into its three pieces and develop it in accordance with the approved zoning. No variances are required. It's it's relatively straightforward severance proposal to divide it into its three lots. Um we have no substantive issues with the conditions. Uh the engineers did raise some concerns with respect to condition number I believe it's condition number six which requests a storm water management brief. Um they feel that one wouldn't be required based on on the prior work. Um but in follow-up discussions with city development engineering staff we understand the issues are relatively minor and can be addressed through a brief as opposed to a more wholesome storm water management report and analysis. So, uh, no further comments or questions, Mr. Chairman. We'd be pleased to assist if there were any questions from the committee. Otherwise, would respectfully request your approval of the application. >> Any questions from the committee? >> I've looked through it and I nothing jumped out. Um, and I'd make a motion to approve the severances with all the conditions be attached. >> Move by Robert. Second by Jennica. All in favor? Anybody opposed? None. Carried. Approved. >> Thank you very much. And for what it's worth, the new format seems to be working rather well. >> Yeah, [laughter] we didn't like having our reserved time slots, but >> yeah, exactly. >> Thank you. >> We'll be out by 11. >> Yeah, >> it's now uh 9:49 a.m. and I believe we have two applications. They're both related to each other. So, uh I would u generally we would we would have them both the committee would hear both of them together. Um so the first is a minor variance application 825171 3325 Tinside Road Glennbrook. Owner is S. Sergio. Applicant is the same person. Agent is Urban Solutions Planning and Land Development Consultants M. Johnston. And then the the next is the the related consent application. It's B25060 uh 3417 Tinside Road, Glenn Brook. Purchaser S. Giorgio. Owner D. Musatano. Applicant S. Sergio. Then agent Urban Solutions Planning and Land Development Consultant uh M. Johnson. Uh, [sighs] first I don't know if uh transportation planning wanted to speak on this. I believe we have one of their staff members here on on WebEx. I don't know if they wanted to or not. Uh oh, I see them there now. Yeah. I don't know if they wanted to speak. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Hi, good morning. Uh yeah, I could just give a brief overview over the uh consent file and our um recommendation. So uh we recommended a uh approval with the condition of a 7.5 meter rightway dedication. Um however upon further discussion internally we we just we reduce that to approximately three. Uh the reasoning is um the existing rightway along the frontage of Tinside Road here is approximately 12.5. It is a rural collector road and according to the official plan they should be 26 m. Um we identify and acknowledge that there's an existing fence there um that would impact and there's a boot there that would impact uh the property owner. So the approximate 3 m dedication should bring it up just outside of the fence. Um the reasoning for that uh or the requirement for the rightway is to ensure that the any ditches that are there are maintained that staff could get to the back of the ditches if uh any coverts need to be replaced that it's all within the municipal rightway and staff have access to all that. Um so yeah that is our reasoning um should the committee uh see that as a um yeah as an appropriate recommendation. So if you have any questions or concerns um I'm here. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Yes. Sorry to the chair. I believe those revised transportation planning comments were were provided to the committee. In addition, uh source water uh our source water protection staff also had revised comments in relation to the consent application which were also pro provided to the committee members as well prior to the meeting. Um Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on whether here in council chambers 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. >> Good afternoon members or good morning members of committee, staff and the public. My name is Matt Johnston, registered professional planner with Urban Solutions. Um, Mr. Long, uh, appreciate your patience with our presentation. I'm hoping you received that. Okay. I know it was late, but as you've heard, we've been working closely with staff and didn't get it before the, uh, noon deadline yesterday. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Great. If you could go to the next slide, please. So, the subject lands are at the northeast corner of Tinyside and Chippoa. And um what we're really looking at is a lot line adjustment to transfer the agricultural portions of the land to the owner who actually wants to do the farming. Uh next slide, please. The property is located in the agricultural designation in the rural official plan. Next slide. We'll see the property is appropriately zoned A1 where uh single detached dwellings are permitted along with agricultural uses. Next slide. You'll recall the application does have a little bit of history. Um we were first here back in 2024 where the extent of the lot line adjustment was substantially different. You can see it on the far left where only portions of the agricultural lands were proposed to be transferred. What we heard at that time is that the concern was about fragmenting the agricultural land further. So what we did was revise our submission in 2025 uh to what you see in the middle where we had a 1.2 2 hector parcel size retained in green and the vast majority of the agricultural lands were being transferred. We still had some concerns um primarily from planning over um the proposed lot sizes and minimizing the the retained size. Um we worked hard with staff over the the coming months to better understand the concerns and filed the application that you see on the far right. And what that did was really shrink the proposed lot size of the retained lands and transfer the balance of the agricultural lands uh to the northerly dwelling. Um at that time a parcel size of82 hectares was to be retained and the rest was to be transferred. Go to the next slide. You can see this in the aerial where the agricultural lands are being transferred. And you also see variance number one highlighted at 18.92 hectares is the reduction in the agricultural lot to 18.92. Now, over the discussions with staff um and on the transportation planning front and the source water protection front, we've been working hard to do some minor revisions in the last couple of days. What was interesting about source water protection is they want a lot size that's large enough from a a sanitary perspective to ensure that the septic beds can work properly. So in the last couple of days we worked with them to determine that that size for this soil type is um is needs to take it from.82 hectares up to88 and that resolves that sanitary concern ensuring compliance with the official plan policies in that regard. the other um and sorry if we go to the next slide that's what's outlined um here we go um that's what's outlined in the revised comments from source water protection uh the next slide speaks to the change in the road widening dedication all of which again are are providing minor adjustments in the total lot size that relate to the required variance. So, uh, the next slide again, Justin, shows the 3 m widening that, um, further adjusts lot size. So, the the next slide, Justin, illustrates um the what we're asking for today, and that is a [bell] reduction in the minimum lot area to uh 18.68 68 hectares where the retained parcel would be88 hectares and that accounts for the road widening that wasn't envisioned in our initial submission and it accommodates um this the small increase in the retained parcel to get to that 888 m. So, um, we do ask that the committee proceed with an approval of the application with an adjustment to that minor variance metric to reflect those minor changes. And if we now go to the next slide, this confirms our ask of the committee today. And then I'll get just quickly through um why we're doing all of this. And uh that's shown on the next slide where the proponent has been actively pursuing site alteration permits that you can see on the left. That's a site alteration permit drawing to ultimately accommodate a tree farm operation. What you see on the far right is a grid of the [snorts] uh drive aisles for the farming equipment. Substantial investments has been made to pursue this matter. And again, it's really about a lot line adjustment to accommodate this agricultural practice to keep an agricultural operation um operating rather than uh keep it under the retained lands where uh we could be at risk of losing that agricultural operation. Uh next slide. So when we look at the overall staff report, um this is really coming down to a question about um whether or not this is a minor lot line adjustment. All the other technicalities have been addressed through source water protection. As I explained, staff [clears throat] are of the opinion that because all of the all of the agricultural lands are being transferred that it doesn't satisfy that minor test. My ask of you guys is to consider it a minor adjustment because the agriculture operation is retained. It's going to be pursued and in that sense we're satisfying the intent of the policy framework to keep that agriculture operation going. Um, next slide please. This application is fairly similar to one that you might recall over on Powerline Road. one that also received a negative staff report uh for very similar reasons. In that case, the retained lands were actually larger than what was proposed today. Um and the as was the transfer of the amount of agricultural land. So in that instance, the committee of adjustment chose to side with the proponent rather than staff and support the approval subject to conditions. And um the preliminaries with this application are are nearly identical from that perspective. And with that, um, I have the following slide confirming no concerns from the conservation authority, no concerns from source water protection, no concerns from development engineering. And with that, I'm asking the committee to approve the application with the updated condition from transportation planning, and we'd be happy to answer any questions. >> I've got one question. Uh, how many acres now you covered over with dirt that won't be agriculture work be able to work with agriculture? There's a big area there you've brought in dirt on and covered up. I don't know how many acres that was, but there's a lot. >> Okay. So, through the chair, uh, good question. The dirt that was brought in was in keeping with the approved site alteration permit, and the purpose of that alteration permit was to prepare the site for the tree farming operation. I don't have the exact number of acres but it it was done in order to accommodate uh the proposed farming operation and again with approved site alteration permits >> and my question would that be a agriculture ready to be worked on that there is a big problem in the agriculture area right now >> right so that the soil that was brought in for is for the purpose of supporting the agricultural operation and and above board from a site alteration permit perspective. >> Other words, it was brought in from an agriculture farm. >> That's right. >> In in Hamilton area. >> Uh yeah, the exact source I can't confirm, but the site alteration bylaw only allows you to move soil within Hamilton. So there's that control mechanism that >> Okay. I just let me just throwing the question at you because I know there's problems some some areas. So thank you. Okay. >> You want to hear from staff on that? Can you hear the staff? I don't know >> through the chair. Tim Vroomman's online and it was he's the area planning manager on that file. So he can speak to it. Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. Tim Froman, area planning manager uh with development planning. Uh so yeah, so as it's indicated, staff's main um concerns is when with the provincial planning statements um that the policy requirement for a lot adjustments is for legal or technical reasons. Um and essentially what is occurring here is a swap of land from an existing parcel um with with agricultural lands and a dwelling and adding it to uh other other property that is distinguished dwelling. um staff's view that the it's not the intent of the policy that's not meant as essentially a swap plans which isn't uh considered a minor boundary adjustment. um as from the policy framework. However, we do recognize the the efforts that have been made here um to ensure that the severed property would be viable for agricultural operations um under the intent of the what is intended for for the use and by the new owner. Um practically speaking and technically speaking all the other issues source water protection transportation planning they're they've been addressed uh natural heritage uh conservation authority they had no um objections. So from a practical perspective we don't necessarily have any major issues with it. It's just the from that policy perspective that there's um from the pro provincial level that there's we weren't able to support it on that basis. >> Okay. Committee. >> Uh I'd like to make a motion to approve this application with the proposed notes and uh conditions. >> Move by. like to ask a few questions before your motion. Okay. >> Reading through the the letter from the NPCA, it highlights a lot of areas that they had some current concerns with, but then they at the end say it's kind of okay. Uh and both and both um application numbers. My question is did the applicant or the owner get all the permits required for the grading etc etc and and the waterways that are there have they been obtained? I know you said here they had no concerns in October 22nd, 2025. That's a year ago, [snorts] >> right? Through the chair. Um I did quote the initial staff report for this application from 2025. Um the report or our presentation was finalized before those comments were posted. Um so it wasn't my intent to um not use the current comments. Um the required site alteration permit was obtained. That site alteration permit is reviewed in conjunction with the conservation authority. Um so that's that's why they're satisfied in the end. There are additional works that could trigger the need for a NPCA permit because portions of the land are regulated and um the conservation authority has all of the the powers and and security to secure their um their interest through those um that regular process as the lands are regulated. So the expansion or the raising of the grade behind the house at um 7 the corner house right that's come up three four 5 ft >> and that was done by them or it was done by the 20 the other owner. >> Um this was done by the applicant. So um the northerly dwelling is the property owner pursuing the agricultural operation. >> Mhm. >> They were denied at their first attempt. Uh recognizing the problem. They said, "Okay, um this is of real importance to us. We're going to go buy that southerntherly home." Purchased that home on the premise that it would resolve staff and committee concerns. um pursued the site alteration permits that get circulated to the conservation authority. Those alteration permits are approved. Um there's follow-up inspections to ensure that the work's done in accordance with those those permits. Um so from that perspective um everything is uh in keeping with those approved permits. >> Okay. It's just that it like having driving by that every weekend is like it just the Phil kept raising and going and going and going I guess it'd be west. So it just it's a concern of mine but if based on staff comments that um and and the conservation authority and Niagara I guess we can uh based on the staff comments we can proceed with approval. Okay, >> go ahead. >> Motion, Janick, I believe. >> Yeah, I'll I'll restate my uh motion to approve of the proposed conditions and notes. >> Okay. Second by Nick. All in favor? Anybody opposed? None. Carried. Approved. >> Thank you. Okay. [clears throat] Uh it's now 10:08 a.m. Next we have uh two applications. It's a consent and a minor variance. Since they are related then uh I would uh as I said before generally the committee would hear both of them together. So, first is a consent application B250341 Kitty Mary Lane and Caster. The owner is a numbered company 1333664 Ontario Incorporated, M Val Valvesauri. Applicant is the same numbered company. Agent is Urban Solutions Planning and Land Development Consultants Incorporated, M. Johnston. Next is the uh the related minor variance application A25102. Uh same address uh same owner, same applicant and the same agent. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application either in council here in council chambers or on WebEx? Okay. Seeing none, I will ask the uh applicant or agent uh to please step forward. Please provide your name and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Good morning, members of committee, staff, and any members of the public in attendance. My name is Matthew Lebla, and I am a registered professional planner with Urban Solutions. Uh, I'm here today on behalf of the owners of 461, Kitty Murray Lane, and Ancaster, which as you noted, it is a numbered company, uh, represented by Mr. Mike and Dave Valvasauri of Valvasauri Properties, who have done plenty of great work here in the city. Uh, I have had a chance to review the staff report and support staff's recommendation for approval of both the consent to sever and the minor variance applications, uh, subject to a few small tweaks to the list of recommended conditions. uh specifically for the consent application. Uh and those are to delete condition number 12 which is really just a duplicate of condition number six related to demolition of the existing dwelling on site. Uh and then second is to delete condition number 15 related to the requirement for an archaeological assessment and have that replace with uh the standard archaeological note in keeping with the committee standard practice uh for this condition. I do have a brief presentation prepared, but in the interest of time, uh, I'd be happy to forego that and answer any questions that the committee might have. Thank you. >> Do you want to take out number 12 or take uh don't want to demolish the structure there? >> We do intend to demolish the structure through the chair. Um, we just think it's a a duplicate of condition number six, which already speaks to the demolition permit required to do that. and through the chair. Of course, if if the committee wants, you can always ask staff uh relating to any proposed changes and conditions as well. Thank you. >> So, the conditions you wanted um adjusted was >> [clears throat] >> um the demolition which was number >> 12. >> Number 12. >> Yes. >> And condition number 15. >> Could we just deal with number 12? >> Okay. I think that should stay. >> Okay. >> Only because in some cases the house turns into a a storage construction office, etc., etc. So, it just it's going to be gone anyway. Get it done and get it over with. That's my two cents on that. What was the next uh condition? It was condition number 15 related to the requirement of an archaeological assessment and the request is to just replace that with the standard archaeological note confirming that the owner uh will abide by any MECP standards related to any found artifacts during construction. I think if we add if required would cover it. Like in in the back of my mind, yeah, they just got to be something there. But at the same token, if you don't find anything, no artifacts or bones, etc., etc., then it would be required to do that. So if we add the phrase if required, >> okay, to that one. What was the other condition? uh through the chair. That was it. It was just the it was the archaeological which is 15 and then the demolition which is condition number 12. >> Um if I may speak to that request there. >> Um in the staff report the uh the property was noted to satisfy some archaeological criteria given its proximity to an existing water body and whatnot. Um which is where the request came from. I think if we added if required that might kind of suggest that we fall back to staff's recommendation for that and if we switch it to the standard archaeological note it kind of does in my opinion what you're asking. It says okay we're allowed to proceed with construction and if anything is is found during that process the owner commits to abide by all ministry standards and complete the standard archaeological work in accordance with that. It gives you a um an out. You might say they don't find anything >> correct >> full speed ahead. But if they do find something, >> then they got >> I think you can identify why we need something in there. There has to be something in the conditions, but we can add that if required. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Any other questions or the committee? >> Uh sorry, Scott Dickinson, culture heritage planner. If I can just chime in on the archaeological comment. Uh in this case, I would state that the consultant's reading of the proposed addition of the as required language as far as staff are concerned. Uh given that this property is within a water catchment area and that it is approximate to a known archaeological site, we would require archaeology. So if committee did add the as required language, we would require an archaeological assessment. So if that is uh not what the committee's intent is in changing this condition. >> Um can I just make a comment? Um I I agree with member Reed here that it's an if required issue. I mean it's it's very straightforward. It's a contingency issue. You find something, you report it. You don't find anything, we don't have a problem. Yep. Anybody else? Committee, >> if I can make a comment on the on that again, if they find something, they've got to stop work. The thing is, it is a residential area now. It's been obviously dug up when the house was installed. Um, to me that says it possibly could be okay. That's why the required kind of covers everybody's backside with that. And it kind of now if it was a virgin property, never had a shovel in the ground, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But in that case, there has been some done that. Yeah, it's uh it's still it just add the if required or as required. >> Okay. And go ahead >> uh through the chair. Thank you for that. Um I do just think that based on what this gentleman from Culture Heritage said if we were to add the if required language um you know he just said based on the criteria that staff are going to require it up front and that wouldn't be a situation where you'd start the work and then go through the motions if you find anything. if we add if required. It sounds like staff are are going to stick to their recommendation and require it. So, I'm not sure that that would be kind of achieving our intended outcome here, if you know what I mean. >> Well, right now, I think you have an option. >> Okay. >> Leave it as is, >> which is you're going to have uh substantial expense >> with the architectural review or as required >> gives you a little bit of leeway. Now, you still could have the expense, but you're not throwing away money. So, that's my two cents. >> Well, anybody else? I'll make a motion to approve both applications. Yeah, there is two with the um proposed conditions with the um the building stays that state the demolition stays in and adding as required to the other one that's [clears throat] right required number 15. >> 15 yeah moved by Bob seconder Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Nobody carried. Approved. Thank you. Okay, it's now 10:17 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application A2026 00330 18 King Street, East Hamilton. Owner is Houston Business Space Corporation D. Blanchard. Applicant is the same company and agent is Landwise S. Mai. Uh, are there any members of the public wish to speak on this application either in council chambers or on WebEx? Okay, seeing none, us, the applicant or agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Hi, good morning. Shannon Mai, principal planner and partner at Landwise. I'm here on behalf of the owner today uh to discuss the minor variance application at 18 King Street East. Uh I did have a presentation. I'm going to forgo that um we have read and are in agreement with staff comments in including the attached conditions. I would like to thank staff and we appreciate the time that has been taken in reviewing the application. Um we understand that submitting the minor variance in advance of a site plan is a little bit unusual. However, in this circumstance, we are going through the all for one process for site plan approval. Uh, and we saw the height modification as something that we needed to have addressed prior to that application being submitted in order to address staff concerns and make that process as efficient as possible. So we do thank staff for the time and energy in reviewing it and understand that through the actual site plan application there may be additional modifications in which case we will have to make an additional minor variance application to address those. I am here to answer any questions you might have on the application but thank you for your time >> committee. Nobody >> going to make a motion. Make a motion to approve the application with the uh the proposed condition and notes. >> Okay. Moved by Donna, second by Janica. All in favor? Opposed? None. Carried. Approve. >> Thank you. Okay, it's now 10:20 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application. A2026 00306 81 Mountain Avenue Hamilton. Owner is C. McKenzie. Applicant is AJ Clark and Associates Limited R. Ferrari. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in council chambers or on WebEx? Okay, seeing none, Austin, the applicant or agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Okay, good morning committee members. Give me one second here. I'm also being on the next file, so I may as well bring everything up at once. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. Okay. Good morning, committee members. For the record, my name is Ryan Ferrari. I'm a registered professional planner and senior planner at AJ Clark Associates. Uh committee members, I do have some housekeeping items in a presentation for you today. Uh just very briefly, and I'll ask Justin to pull up the presentation in a moment. Uh I've read the staff report. I'm understanding that staff are in full support of the application. Uh however, we have some housekeeping items for the committee to consider uh before you uh make your recommendation. Um so maybe Justin, just quickly, I'll ask you to pull up my presentation that I provided. And just while Justin is doing that, um you'll notice on the notice that was sent to the public, we applied for a minor variance for an accessory structure being 0.7 m from a property line. staff have asked that the variance be amended to 0.9 m from the property line. Um in our opinion, we don't think this is necessary. I'll provide you the reasons why. Um but the ask of the committee is going to be to keep the variance as is at 0.7 instead of amending the variance. There are also two conditions associated with the application. One is a tree protection plan, one is a landscape plan. and I'll explain why uh we feel the committee should uh strike those conditions uh from their decision today. So, next slide, please. [snorts] >> There we go. Uh we have a very unique property here out in the Kirkindell neighborhood. It is a landlocked property. Variance one deals with the fact that the property is landlocked. Um there's been a house on it since approximately the 1940s, 1950s. Um my client wishes to uh build an accessory structure on the property. Just really quickly in there, that blue is an existing easement for access over the neighbor's property onto Mountain Avenue. That's an existing easement. Nothing is changing there. Um, that's how my client accesses uh his property. Next slide, please. Uh, so really quickly, the red is the outline of the site. Uh, the green is the accessory structure. It is 0.7 m from the property line proposed. Um, there's an existing accessory structure. the committee will see it's already been removed. That existing accessory structure was right on the property line. And just a quick comment for the committee, we have the benefit of a survey here. This is an actual survey boundary of what the actual conditions are on site. This is not an approximation. It's a real survey. Uh, next slide, please. [snorts] Here we go. So, um, staff have asked for a 0.9 m setback instead of 0.7 m. Uh, the reason for that is to accommodate drainage. So, just a couple things on that. Uh, the first thing is that the site drains from, if you're looking at this photo, from bottom to top. Okay? So, it doesn't drain into the neighbor's yard going down. Um, and actually, if you go to the next slide, I've I've zoomed in on that. Oop, sorry. Next slide. There we go. So, uh, what what we've actually done is actually we've gone on site and looked at what that, uh, variance would do. Um, if you go to the next slide, the red just shows approximately where the accessory structure is going to be located. And you see on the right photo there, there's a white accessory structure that's very similar to what we are building. Uh, that's the neighbor. And I just want to note that fence really quickly. That fence is not on the property line. It's actually about.16 m on the neighbor's property. So if we add the 72 proposed plus the 6 at the closest point we have about8 which is not.9 but it's 2 cm off what staff would like to see uh between to accommodate drainage. So essentially when it rains um there should be room for the for any water to drain around the structure and go north. Um couple other ways we can deal with this. Uh we could put leaders on the north side of the dwelling so it drains uh to to the north instead of on the neighbor. Um, so these are sort of the things we we asked for variances and their numbers on paper, but I just wanted to show the committee exactly how it would look on this site um and how it would actually function. Um, I'll get to the conditions really quickly and I'll leave these pictures up because I think it's very telling. You'll notice there's a tree on the left of that red car there. Uh, the other reason why my client would like a 7 m setback is to in an attempt to save that tree. If we go to 0.9, we're going to have to get rid of that tree. Uh, so that sort of brings me quickly to the two conditions that staff have asked for, the tree protection plan and the landscape plan. Um, I can confirm on the record my client is retaining an arborist to try and save this tree. Um, if the committee were to ask for a tree protection plan, we'd have to hire uh a landscape architect, prepare the tree protection plan, look at the whole site, identify any trees that are 10 centimeters of breast height or above, provide that to staff, debate whether or not that tree should be is going to get injured or not. Um I think it should give the committee comfort that the intent is to retain the tree. If for whatever reason that tree cannot be retained, my client will hire an arborist, remove it and u plant a replacement tree. Um in my opinion, uh these two conditions for just an accessory structure my client wishes to have on this property. I think it's it's a little bit ownorous and not necessary given the scope of work here. Um so just really briefly to summarize I would ask that the committee uh approve uh the variance as was written on the notice for 7 meters instead of how staff have asked it be written and to remove conditions one and two on the application and if there are any questions I'd be happy to answer them at this time. Thank you, >> committee. >> With the proposed dwelling there that would be basically sitting where that car is right now, >> are you saying there will be no foundation that is going to damage the roots of the tree? >> We we my client is going to try to keep the tree. Um, I think if we're putting the accessory structure and part of the reason for the ask closer to the tree, we were damaging more sensitive roots that are closer to the root bulb. Um, and so that's why we're asking for 7. The other, and it's not necessarily exactly to do with the tree. Uh, my client does want a little bit of space between the house and the accessory structure. So again, that's the rationale for the 7. >> No, I can see that on the drawing. The staff request 0.9. Normally, it's 1.2. and we've drawn a line at 0.9 to allow for drainage but also for any emergency access etc etc and it gets a little more complicated because of the neighbor's fence which is on the other side of the property line so I'd be a little hesitant about the the 7 and we should keep it at 0.9 the tree maybe I think from a safety point of view and the water drainage That tree will be a challenge right out of the gate because normally you look at the canopy. You don't want to do anything there. You look at all around the city where they have uh tree protection posted. It's almost all right to the canopy of the tree. So I think that tree just might be a casualty of the development. especially especially if you say it's going to be a problem at 0.9 then it's a problem. So that's my two cents on that. >> Anybody else? >> Mr. Chair, if the committee doesn't have any questions, I think um uh I I understand what the committee member uh is saying with regards to drainage. We're we're well aware of that 0.9 requirement. Um, I just think we presented some mitigating factors to the committee to consider about why this makes sense. Um, you know, it's it's a tight site. Like the existing accessory structure never had a setback. There's another tiny little accessory structure. It's got no setbacks. It's a unique property. So, I just asked that before the committee makes their decision is to factor those, in my opinion, unique circumstances here. We're not building in a green field development where [clears throat] I think this would be a lot different. We're building in a tight urban environment. Uh and so those are just my last comments to the committee to consider uh before they make their decision. So thank you. >> I know the staff did recommend 0.9. So uh yep. So thank you through the chair Jen Katarino, area planning manager for the west development team. Um just wanted to note um as the member did that it wasn't only staff's recommendation to increase the setback to 0.9 for drainage purposes. It's also access and maintenance and it's also to permit any projections that may be required to accommodate eaves troughs or the roof line of the accessory structure. So those are all accommodated within that setback as well. Um appreciate the comments from the consultant or the applicant um regarding the fence. However, we can't really accommodate um the neighbors property when we're assessing a setback. So I it's it's it's such a small space. Um so to shift the accessory structure over by what is it 2 cm >> 18.18 it just seems like a minor thing. Um and to ensure that we have appropriate access around a structure I don't think that's going to also make or break the tree discussion. So to be in alignment with staff, I strongly recommend the 0.9. It's consistent piece we've been applying. We understand the complexities of the site. That's we're okay with the other variances required to permit the accessory structure. Um and when it comes to the tree conversation, the applicant has already said they're hiring an arborist. So in my professional opinion, the conditions are not ownorous. We would just use the work completed by the arborist currently to assess the tree. And if the trees removed, the city would ask that one be planted on the property. [snorts] So, I'll leave it with the committee, but those are the comments from staff. >> Thank you. >> First of all, I forgot to mention, thank you for having an accurate survey. It's better than on the so-called paper napkin when some people come in with or handdrawn. But what is the distance between the proposed addition to the existing house? >> I don't I don't know if it's on the presentation. >> Yeah, it's not it's not on the drawing. So, >> yeah, >> we look at the drawing again. >> Actually, you know what? Maybe I'll >> I know. So actually I have a I have a scale drawing here. I don't actually have a scale. We have a dimension of 1.45 from one of the property lines to the house. And again please this is not a a perfect apples to apples to comparison but if I had to guess it would be about 1.5 is currently 1.5 1.6 just margin of error >> 45 in. >> So through the chair 2 >> I can do the calculation based on just give me two seconds. see accurate my measurement is so through the chair um there's a measurement on the drawing from the property line to the porch of 7.41 m and if we minus the proposed setback of 7.2 I'm sorry 0.72 and the width of the proposed garage which is 4.88 88 m. We have a distance of uh 1.81 m between the accessory structure and the house. So if that's increased, um again, it's still going to be uh more than a meter and a half away from the house and the accessory structure. It's committee I think right now um based on the staff comments and what I've thrown out, we normally don't go below 0.9 and I know there's some extenduating circumstances that you mentioned with the tree and closeness to the to the house, but it still comes back to the distance from the two buildings to be approximately 5 ft. So, I don't think that's sure it'd be nice to have more, but given the circumstances of the 0.9 being required, um I think we'll have to uh call it at that. >> Maybe one final comment before the committee makes a decision. Um I still would like the committee to consider conditions one and two for my client. Um I I understand what staff are saying, but for the scope of work for an accessory structure to prepare a TPP, go through the whole property, identify all the trees, you know, make like identify whether the tree will be impacted or not. It's, you know, that costs money. My client's just building accessory structure. I think if we were doing a, you know, a whole revision to the site, we're rebuilding new house or severing it, um, and doing a much bigger scope of work, I think those would be appropriate conditions. But um I just asked that the consity consider those conditions before uh making their decision. And I think those are all my comments on the application. So I'm in your hands. >> So the proposed building in your opinion, would it be under the canopy provided by the tree? >> Yes, very likely. They're um evergreens, I believe, and the canopy is higher up. But you know and I have experienced situations where you know you can do hand spaiting or and trying to save the tree in that way um instead of you know there's lots of trees on this property. They're all under the canopy like structures are under the canopy. The trees seem to survive. >> Um my client has a lot of trees on this property. He he doesn't want to get rid of them. He wants to keep them. He likes the privacy. Um, so that's why I mentioned to the committee I think it's important he's going to try to save the tree if he can. If for whatever reason he can't, um, you know, he'll he'll deal with it accordingly and he'll plant a tree. Um, I don't see why we have to hire a professional to prepare plans to show the city we're going to do that. >> Yeah. Was I think the term was cost to doing business in this case. I appreciate what he was trying to accomplish going to the point 7 to eventually avoid the tree, but it's going to have to be dealt with. Maybe it'll survive. Don't know. So, >> anybody else? >> I'd like to make a motion. Um, so seeing that there's a lot of mature trees on this lot and seeing that everything is under the canopy, um, I think I would like to make a motion to approve with the revised variance three and all the proposed conditions and notes. >> Okay, that's with revised three, right? >> Correct. [snorts] >> Okay, second. Second Donna. All in favor? Nobody opposed? Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you, committee. So, through the chair, it's around 10:37 a.m. now, and I know Mr. Ferrari has an application right after this one, too. Did Did we want to continue on or did you want to take a break at this time? I just wanted to check with the Okay, I think yeah, I heard break. Uh 5 minutes or uh 10 minutes. 5 minutes. Yeah, we'll come back around 10 uh 10:42 or 10:43 a.m. Okay. Thanks. We'll reconvene now. Next we have a consent application B 2026 00000094 uh 2550 Albertson Road Ancaster. Owner is a numbered company 919631 Ontario Incorporated OA Maple View Wood Farms. Agent is AJ Clark and Associates Limited R. Ferrari. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on WebEx or here in council chambers? Okay, seeing none, I will ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Okay. Good morning again, committee members. For the record, uh Ryan Ferrari, I'm a senior plan with AJ Clark and Associates. Um and I'm the agent on this application for 250 Albertton Road. Uh committee members, I've read the staff report. I'm in support of the comments that have been provided and conditions. Um if committee have any questions regarding the application, I'm happy to answer them at this time, but uh I don't have any further comments other than that. Thank you. >> Yeah, there you're happy with everything, sir? >> Yes. >> Okay. Sorry, just through the chair and just for your reference and you may be aware that the MTO did provide some comments. Their comment was that um they needed to provide comments prior to approval. Uh we did attempt to follow up with them to see if they did were going to provide comments, but we we did not hear back from them. So, but I leave that to the committee uh in terms of your your discussions. Okay. Thank you, >> committee. So I'll make a motion to approve this pending the MTO approval if that's proper way of doing it. >> Is that the proper way put that in or not? >> Or does it need to be there? >> I I through the chair um and I don't know if planning staff have any comment on it. I don't I'm just going to go back to the comments. I don't know if they were setting it as a >> they didn't set it as a condition >> planning. Yeah, I don't know if development planning had any comments on that. >> I've got it right here, Justin. The MTO planners comments are required prior to approval of the COA file. >> Yes. And through the chair, they didn't set they did not make a recommendation that it be a condition. Um yeah, >> committee staff. So through the chair, um despite the MTO not recommending a condition, if the committee wants to acknowledge the comment that they need to clear this beforehand, the committee could apply a condition to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Transportation. So could be pretty vague, could be pretty loose. um that the owner receive I don't know clearance from the ministry of transportation even if you says something like that to the satisfaction of the director of development planning because then that way planning can clear that condition >> Mr. Sure. May May I make a comment? >> I think we should cover it. Antio has long arms. >> Um, >> could it just be put as a note? >> We should include include it. >> May I, Mr. Chair? Um, so I appreciate staff comments on that. I saw the MTO comments, too. Um, just maybe just this application was before the committee previously in July. Uh, we tabled the application to work on other things. nothing to do with the MTO with staff. At that time, MTO didn't comment. Uh, now we're the second time around, they didn't provide you any helpful comments whatsoever. Um, but what I can say is, uh, with respect to the MTO, typical requirement for MTO is that you cannot build anything within 14 m of their rightway. So, I have the plan here, uh, and our proposed severance. The closest we get to the MTO highway is 83 m. Um, I am aware that the MTO has a a land use building permit process where you provide materials to them. Um, I'd be hesitant to add a condition that the satisfaction development planning when it's really an MTO matter. Like I wonder if a a note the applicant shall consult with the MTO and get appropriate permits as a result of a severance. Um if I have been in contact with the MTO um they did acknowledge that they provided comments but there's nothing there was nothing further from that. If we have to get an MTO land use permit in my opinion that's a requirement we have to deal with the MTO. Um I don't think the committee need necessarily given that we're greater than 14 m we're not building anything in that 14 m from their highway. I think the committee could have a little bit of comfort adding a note and you know we we're already in contact with uh I believe her name is Alex at the MTO uh regarding this matter. So, if she wants a building and land use permit, it's we can apply for that. Um, but I'd be hesitant to ask planning staff to clear that because it's really an MTO condition. So, it was a little bit weird one. >> I just went to the um staff comments under proposed notes and there's one line there. The existing property is within the MTO permit control area. So that may cover it right there that it's the [snorts] light bulbs going off so to speak with the MTO mentioned in the notes that covered >> uh through the chair. Uh I don't know if the note covers it. I think this just recognizes that it's within the permit control area. The note doesn't really require any followup or anything like that. So if the applicant um prefers uh a condition can be to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Transportation. I just know sometimes they're a bit it t it it takes them a while to review things. Um so I didn't want a condition to be ownorous. So that's why I suggested to development planning. So had we seen that there had been some back and forth and that something was going planning could sort of cover that off to be like yeah we're satisfied there's been enough consultation with the Ministry of Transportation. That's where I was coming with the recommendation. However, if um the applicant would prefer, we could also suggest a condition subject to the satisfaction of the MTO directly so that then sec the secretary treasurer would have to receive clearance of that condition directly from the Ministry of Transportation. So, um the note is helpful. I just don't know if it gets to what the comments from the MTO actually are asking for. I think at this point if we just leave the uh note that's in the of the existing properties within the MTO permit control if you read between the lines they're aware of it so so on that point I'll make a motion to approve the severances with all the conditions and notes >> moved by Bob second by Jennica all in favor nobody body. Motion to carry. Approved. >> Thank you everyone. Okay, it's now 10:52 a.m. We have a minor variance application here. A202600314, 58 Chattam Street, Hamilton. Owner is B. Jacel and H. Young and applicant is J. Mancini. Uh the committee may be aware this application was actually tabled or it's been deferred prior to the meeting. Um so if there's any uh there's any members of the public here, uh the as the application had was tabled prior to the meeting, the committee will not be hearing this application today. Um if anyone was if this was of interest, this application was of interest to anyone. If you're here at council chambers, you can fill out an interested party form or if you're participating virtually, you can send us an email at cofa hamilton.ca. Okay. Next, I believe we have two consent applications which are are related. So, uh I don't know if it's okay with the committee, we will hear both of them together. Um and it is now 10:53 a.m. So the uh there are two app two both are uh two applications both are consent applications. The first B2026 00249 17 and 29 Barton Street East Hamilton. Purchaser is a numbered company 1 1992637 Ontario Incorporated. G Laka owner is Walter Demetrius Incorporated. P Mariki apologize if I mispronounced the name. Applicant is Bose Fields Incorporated. D Fleta and agent is the same uh company. Um next we have the second consent applica. The second uh consent application B2026 00250 17 Barton Street East and 271 Houston Street North Hamilton. Uh the purchaser is Walter Demetrius Incorporated P. Mariki owner is a numbered company 1 1992637 Ontario Incorporated D Latakia a applicant Bfields Incorporated D Fleta agent is the same company as well and uh through the chair we just uh just prior to this application being called up we did receive an email from development planning staff uh regarding a proposed possible change in terms of an additional condition uh of approval. I don't know if development planning wanted to to to speak to that. >> Thank you. >> Do you want to speak on that then planning? >> Good morning uh through the chair Spencer Skidmore acting manager development planning east team. So we did have some correspondence um with the applicants agent prior to this item being heard. Um, initially we were recommending tableabling uh to deal with some zoning issues prior to the consent um being uh a decision being made in the consent. Um I think we have a level of comfort now that we can deal with those uh through conditions. So for the first application um which is 17 Barton Street East and 271 Houston Street North, we have a drafted condition um that requires the applicant to demonstrate that the existing building on the lands to be severed is legal non-conforming through the submission of a zoning compliance review. Um and if it's not, then they have to submit an appropriate planning act application to legalize the use. Um, so that would be added to the first item on the agenda, which is the 17 Barton Street East and 271 Houston Street North. Um, and then the other application, we would also recommend approval. And we note that, um, our zoning section already has a condition related to they have to demonstrate zoning compliance or apply for the appropriate Planning Act application. So that second one um which is I believe 29 B Street East, we're not looking for uh any additional conditions, but we would change our recommendation to an approval. For the first one for 271 Houston Street North, we're changing our recommendation to an approval and recommending an add condition that I just read and that uh Justin has a copy of. Um any questions? Happy to answer them. Thank you. >> So sorry. Yeah, through the chair. So, so sorry to development planning staff is the recommendation for both applications now to approve. Is that correct? Okay. Yes. And then I'll read out the proposed condition uh wording for the B202600250 consent application. So their propo the development planning's proposed condition is that the applicant demonstrate that the existing uses on the land to be severed is legal non-conforming through the submission of a zoning compliance review or apply for the appropriate planning act application to legalize the use to the satisfaction of the develop to of the director of development planning. Okay. Uh with that, um are there any members of the public who wish to speak on these applications on these two consent applications 17 and 29 Barton Street East and 17 Barton Street East and 271 Houston Street uh North Hamilton whether here in council chambers 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. [clears throat] Hang on. Good morning, chair, members of the committee, staff, and the public. My name is David Fleta, and I'm a registered professional planner with Bellfields. Um, I do have a presentation for you, but given the discussions that we've had with staff, uh, including the the the recommendation, I'm in your hands as to whether or not you want to see it. Uh, we're fully supportive of the staff recommendation, including the, uh, new revised condition to be added to this efforts. So, u, happy to answer any questions at this point and in your hands in terms of whether or not you want to see the presentation. >> You okay? >> I'm okay with that. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve both of the applications with the proposed conditions listed plus the additional one as was noted. >> Moved by Bob, second by Janica. All in favor? Anybody opposed? Carried. Move to approve. >> I ju I just want to thank staff. we, you know, we corresponded with them very late in the process and they've been really accommodating. So, I really want to thank staff for their help on this. Thanks a lot. >> Okay. >> Okay. Next, it's now 10:59 a.m. Next, we're going uh next we have a minor variance application A2026 00322 306 King Street West number one, Hamilton. Owner is King Street West Incorporated, S. Gupta. applicant is Bassfields Incorporated. D Fleta agent is the same uh company. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in council chambers 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. Thanks again. Um, do I need to repeat my name again? David Petta, registered professional planner with Bellfields. Again, I've got a presentation. Happy to walk you through it. This is a really important site at the edge of the downtown. It's the Luna site. Most of you probably know it. Right at the corner of Queen and uh, King Street. We're really excited about bringing forward a new uh, intensification project right along your LRT. um staff are recommending approval. We've gone through the site plan process. It's a really great project. Uh very supportive of the staff recommendation and again I'm in your hands in terms of whether or not you want to see a presentation and if you have any questions. Thank you. Any questions? >> No. I'll make a motion to approve the application with the proposed notes. >> Moved by Donna. >> Second by Nick. All in favor? >> Anybody oppose? Not carried. Approved. >> Thank you. Have a great day. Okay, it's now 11:00 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application. A2026 00165, 13 Clover Hill Road, Hamilton. Owner is A. Ferrer. Applicant is J. Sterling. Agent is the same person as well. Are there any members of the um public who wish to speak on this application whether in council chambers or on WebEx? Okay. I don't see I don't see none of us the applicant or agent. Yeah, you're No, I know I know you're the agent. Yes. So, applicant or agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. Okay. My name is John Sterling. I live at 94 Ontario Avenue in Hamilton. Um the owner of this property um which is to provide storage uh for his business. And this is why we're looking to add a second story to his um garage. Um it will be surfaced by a um like a a foldway set of stairs. It'll also provide more more storage in the first floor of the garage for his uh larger equipment. Um he he is a contractor. However, um the u the property is not a very big one. Um I realize it's a residential area. Um but the is the cost prohibitive of owning a separate property um just for his business is um at this point in time um prohibitive. That's about it. >> What kind of a contractor is he? >> He does interior renovations. Okay. He also does um the snow removal in the winter time. >> Okay. >> Staff, you want to comment on the denial. >> Good morning through the chair. Uh this is my colleague Tim Vman's file and he's online. He'd be happy to speak to it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, I get Tim Roman planning venture with development planning again. So um yes, as our comments have uh indicated the um the zoning bylaws has specific requirements of what uh is permitted in a um for a home business which is um um a business that's operating accessory to a uh primary residence in a residential area. um contractor establishment is specifically not included. Uh so essentially the variance uh that is being sought um is essentially that would add a use uh to the lands. So based on that stuff are not uh in support of of the request. Thank you, >> committee. >> What type of equipment is he storing there? >> Um, on the first floor, he has a truck um um that has um a plow that can come off. Also, he has a a skid steer uh for doing sidewalks for this for slow snow removal. Um on the second floor, he hopes to store um extra windows, trim, um smaller things that leftovers or can be used in a different job, things like that. um extra joist or or flooring material. >> Does he have employees coming there to start their day? >> No, he actually he works by himself. If he does have extra helpers or other people, they come directly to the job site from their house. He doesn't have an office there. >> He does have an office. He >> doesn't. >> Oh, he doesn't. >> Most contractors don't work with offices anyway. [clears throat] >> Everybody just meets at the site. I have a concern that if he's in construction, i.e. cement work, etc., and snow plowing. There's always going to be >> he he doesn't do some work. >> There's always going to be some items out in the driveway and it's not conducive for a neighborhood. I know previously we had a site in town and the an electrician wanted to work out of a garage and there was all just small parts, junction boxes, stuff like that stored and we turned them down cuz it was not a legal concern for that. But just reading the notes from the staff, the requested variance does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the urban Hamilton official plan and zoning bylaw. It is not desirable for the appropriate use of the land and it's not minor in nature. And that's one things we look at is the four steps. The requested variances do not meet the four tests of a minor variance. Staff recommend that the requested variance be denied. um that's a summation of it and at the same token I don't think it's the right thing to have in that the neighborhood the extension on the going you know higher etc. So, I'll make a motion at this point in time to deny the application. >> Moved by Bob to deny. Sucker. >> Donna, >> if I can speak to what he just said. >> Right. We got a motion on the front. All in favor? >> Opposed? Okay. Okay, I have another word. >> I got to make a >> through the through the chair to the applicant. Um the general how it's how we we operate the meeting is we'll ask members of the public to speak first and then the applicant >> and then the committee will have their deliberation. If they have any further questions for you, they'll they'll ask you. Thank you. >> No, the motion's on the floor here for >> sorry through the chair. I believe that previous motion was defeated. >> Um no, sorry. I apologize. Yeah. I know it was a tie vote. So, it would be up to the chair then to to make a to to cast. >> I'm going to move for denial. >> Applications denied. >> All right. Thank you. All right. It is now 11:09 a.m. >> Next. >> We have [snorts] a consent application B202600 275 393 Rhyal Road West Hamilton. Owner is Zest Communities Incorporated. R Bioco apologize if I mispronounced your name. agent is Landex Developments Limited B. Graham. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in council chambers or on WebEx? Okay. Uh seeing none else, the applicant or agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Wonderful. Well, good morning members of the committee, staff, and uh the public. My name is Brennan Graham from Landex Developments appearing on behalf of Zest Communities uh in support of their proposed severance application. Um I'll keep my comments very brief this morning. Uh we have reviewed the staff report comments and the proposed conditions of approval and we are supportive of staff's recommendation. Um accordingly, we respectfully ask that committee approve the application as recommended. Thank you for your consideration and I'd be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. And sorry through the chair I forgot to mention and I don't know if we have development engineering staff in attendance. They had uh there was a uh potential legal issue or something and I didn't know if they wanted to speak to it. Um but I just wanted just to raise that. Um yeah if not then the committee can proceed with their their deliberations. Sorry. Okay. But engineering what do you have on for engineering? I Helen MacArthur senior engineer development engineering we do not have any further comments related to the legal issue going on that's separate from the severance application >> okay thank you >> so through the chair just one note I wanted to make I noticed when I was looking at the um information provided online there's two documents that have conditions I just want to be clear that one doesn't replace the other. The two the two new conditions are to be add it would be staff's recommendation that the two conditions be added to the original list of conditions for your consideration. >> So, um just wanted to note to note that >> I'll make a motion to approve with the proposed conditions as well as the new conditions. >> That's with the revised conditions and added it. Okay. Motion by Janica, second by Donna. All in favor. Nobody opposed. Carried. Application approved. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, it is now 11:12 a.m. And next we have a minor variance application. A2026 00294 42 uh H Houstonman Lane Flambor owner is E McGregor and Perno and applicant is Park 8 Incorporated Bena. Are there any members of the public wish to speak on this application whether here in council chambers or on WebEx? Uh, seeing none, I will ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. >> Hi there, it's Pete from Park 8 out of Dundas. Um, we've read the comments of the client and reviewed them. Um, we are in agreement with staff's position to support and I'm available for any questions. >> So, you're happy with the conditions and it's there. Okay, committee. >> I'll make a motion to approve the application with the um the con proposed conditions and notes. >> Move by a second. All in favor? Opposed? None. Carried. Motion approved. >> Thank you. Okay, it's now 11:13 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application A202600286 to 168 1 McNav Street North Hamilton. Owner is C. Brown and applicant is M. Pon Pongetti. Agent is the same person. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in council chambers or on WebEx? Okay. Uh seeing none, I will ask the uh applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. >> Hi, good morning committee. My name is Michael Isadi Ponetti. I am representing the owner Colin Brown for 166 and 168 McNav Street North. We've gone through the comments and have no concerns and we are in agreement. Uh just to make a note as well with regard to the heritage and um archaeological study, there will be no change to the exterior facade or no excavations on the property. We are simply going to be um utilizing the existing party wall between the two properties and uh in order to create each unit. Uh there is a new development that we recently uh received from our surveyor. I had brought it up to planning staff earlier this week. Um for 166 McNab Street North, the requested variance was for 133.28 m for an area that is now required to be 132.43 and I can repeat this again after as well as a lot width. We have requested 4.8 and that has now changed to 4.67. So again the area now would be 132.43 43 and the width would be 4.67 and this is only for 166 McNab Street North 168. We are in agreeance with that. >> Sorry through the chair. >> I have no further comments or questions. Sorry. >> Sorry. Just just to confirm the revised variance. It was for 166 McNab Street North. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. So slightly smaller area, slightly smaller width just due to the uh the lay of the land and the existing home. >> Have the staff have approved on that changes >> uh through the chair Anthony Mancini plan planning technician one. Uh the applicant did reach out to uh staff and and we're in agreement with the uh minor changes and the figures for the the uh the lot width and the lot area. Thank you. Thank you, >> committee. >> I'll make a motion to approve variances 1 to three for both 166 and 168 um subject to the proposed conditions. But noting that the current area has changed to 132.43 square meters and 4.67 meters. >> Moved by Bob, second by Donna. All in favor. Nobody opposed. Carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. Okay, it is now 11:117 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application A202600323 1620 Ancaster Road Dundas. Owner is F. Manas and T Convert Convary. Apologize if I mispronounced names. Uh, applicant is M. Pongetti. Agent is the same person. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? whether here in council chambers 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. >> Thank Thank you. Hello again committee. Michael Ezadi Ponetti acting on behalf of the owners Francis Manias and The Conbury. Uh we have gone through the conditions and the comments and we are in agreement with everything. Um the requirement for the tree protection plan and the landscape plan we are in agreements with. So at this point no no further comments or concerns. >> Okay. At this point, I make a motion to approve with uh the conditions and notes. >> Move by Bob. Second by Janica. All in favor? Opposed? None. Carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. And then now it is 11:18 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application A202600108 40 Kings Mount Street South Hamilton. Owner is R. Sally Colo. Again, apologize for mispronouncing names. Applicant is M. Pongetti. Agent is the same person. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in council chambers or on WebEx? Okay, seeing none as applicant the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Hello again council. Michael is Petti acting on behalf of Roco Sachcholi. Uh we would like to table this application at this time. Please >> want to table motion. I'll make a motion to table the application. >> Move it down the table. Second by Jennica. All in favor? Nobody opposed. [clears throat] Applicant approved the table. Thank you. >> Thank you. And to the applicant or agent, uh staff will be in touch with you shortly on uh next steps on how to proceed. And I didn't I don't believe anyone was here for the application, but just in case if there was anyone here that was uh attending for this application for 40 Kings Mount Street South. If you wanted any updates on this application, if you were here in council chambers, you can fill out an interested party form. If you're on WebEx, you can send us an email at coffa@ hamilton.ca. Okay. And next, I believe it's the final application to be heard today. Uh it is now 11:20 a.m. It's a minor variance application A2026 00110 31 Chattam Street Hamilton. Owner is K. Martin. Agent is P. Pong, sorry, M. Pongetti. Agent is the same person as well. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in council chambers or on WebEx? Seeing none, I'll ask the applicator agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Hello again, committee. Michael Aadi Ponetti, acting on behalf of Kevin Martin, the owner of 31 Chattam Street. I've read the comments and uh we are in agreeance with everything. Nothing further at this time >> committee. >> I'll make a motion to approve the application with the proposed notes. >> Second, Robert. All in favor? opposed. Approved. Motion carried. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Um thank you. And that concludes the applications to be heard for the me this committee of adjustment meeting today. Now we'll proceed to chair and staff announcements. Does the chair have anything to announce? >> No. Okay. And uh uh on behalf of the committee of adjustment staff, I will inform the committee that we have received two appeals uh to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Um the first one uh so these are both applications that were heard at the August 27, 2026 committee of adjustment uh meeting. The first is a minor variance A2026 00236 138 Herkimer Street Hamilton. And the second was a minor variance is also a minor variance application A202600248 38 Jerseyville Road West Ancaster. Uh so staff uh have received these appeals and we are currently uh working on uh putting together the uh packages that will be forwarded onto the OOLT. Okay. Um and if there wasn't anything else we can Would there be through the chair? I don't know if there's a motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. Oh, on paper. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So, we're adjourned at 11:22 a.m. and the next scheduled committee of adjustment meeting is yes, I believe. Yes. October the 8th. Okay. Thank you everyone.