Transcript: Ancaster Tower Approved Despite Opposition - Planning Committee - April 14, 2026 | Summary 514

Ancaster Tower Approved Despite Opposition - Planning Committee - April 14, 2026

Sound check. 1 2 3. Sound check. 1 2 3. Good morning and welcome to the planning committee meeting for April 14th, 2026. All electronic devices are to be switched to non-audible function during the committee meeting. Please do that now. As we have quorum present, I'd like to call this meeting of the planning committee to order at 9:31. In chambers today, we have councelor Francis, councelor Bey, councelor Pauls, councelor Cooper, councelor M. Wilson, councelor McMe, councelor Cretch, councelor Wilson, councelor Wang, and councelor Casar. And on the screen we have councelor Nan. We have an introduction from Patrick McDonald's. Patrick, welcome to chambers just on time and you can commence with your introduction. Uh good morning uh members of council. Uh Patrick McDonald, legal services. Uh I'm just here to introduce um a new planning lawyer that started with the city this week. Uh Courtney Boyd. If you want to stand up and say hi. Yeah. Um, so, uh, Courtney joins us from private practice, so she'll be, uh, handling a number of OT appeals in the near future. So, you'll probably be seeing her name and face, uh, frequently in the future. So, thanks for the time to introduce. You're welcome. Welcome, Courtney. We're on to the approval of the agenda. Clerk, clerk Kelsey, are there any addendum items to the agenda? Yes, Chair Tatis. The additions have been noted on the published agenda with the exception of the delegation for item 8.4, John Urbanac, has been withdrawn. Thank you very much. Does the committee have any amendments to the agenda? Looking around, seeing none, may I have a mover and second that the agenda be approved as amended? Councelor Cretch, Councelor Francis, please indicate your hand vote now. That's unanimous. Declarations of interest. Members of the committee, are there any declarations of interest? Not seeing any, we'll move to the adoption of the minutes of the previous meeting, March 24th, 2026. May I have a mover and seconder to adopt the minutes of March 24th, 2026 meeting. Councelor Paul's and councelor Cooper, please indicate your hand vote now. Thank you. That's unanimous. We have no delegations. We have no items for information. We're on to the public hearings. The public has been invi has been advised of how to pre-register to be a delegate at the public meetings on today's agenda. If a specified person or public body would otherwise have an ability to appeal the decision of council city of Hamilton to the Ontario land tribunal, but the specified person or public body does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make written submissions to the city of Hamilton before the bylaw is passed, the specified person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision. If a specified person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the city of Hamilton before the bylaws passed, the specified person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Ontario land tribunal unless in the opinion of the tribunal there are reasonable grounds to do so. We're on to 8.1 PED26024 application for a zoning bylaw amendment for lands located at 1042 and 1050 West 5th Street Hamilton Ward 8. Does the committee wish to see the staff presentation? I'm seeing a no from the counselor in W 8. Okay. So, may I have a mover and seconder to wave the staff presentation? Councelor Cooper, Councelor Pauls, thank you. Please indicate your hand vote now. That's unanimous. It's carried. James Thomas from AJ Clark and Associates is int is in attendance today. James, come on down. Thank you. Good morning staff and committee members. My name is James Thomas of planner with AJ Clark and Associates. I first just want to quickly thank staff uh throughout their work and help with this process in particular to Abdul Pasha, Jennifer Katarino and Zeopanowski. Uh rather than run through all the policies that have been justified in a report and staff's report, I would like to focus on the physical elements of the department itself. This is the original concept design including 19 units across four separate buildings that was submitted uh for formal consultation. It includes six visitor parking spaces which met the parking provisions of the former city of Hamilton zoning bylaw 6593. It must be noted that these properties were stipulated to be included in the city initiated reszoning that was approved by council through bylaw 25189. That resoning would have seen the lands reszoned to the R4 midrise zone permitting apartments with a height of 22 meters and potentially six stories as of right. As we are in the process of finalizing a submission with the draft zoning bylaw amendment to 6593 that very week, we requested be removed from the resoning to ensure our application could be received as quickly as possible. Whereas bylaw 25189 is still currently under appeal. Our design submitted as part of the complete application took the new05200 parking provisions into consideration and we removed the previously proposed visitor parking area. Now, not only was this parking area location seen as inappropriate by urban design staff at formal consultation, but the city parking requirements have been greatly reduced. Now were the land subject to zoning by low 5200 they would be within a parking rate area 2 which requires 0.5 resident spaces and 0.15 visitor spaces per dwelling unit in this form of development. So the original 19 units would only require two visitor parking spaces. Uh we saw a greater benefit in providing an additional two dwelling units. At 21 units, the site would still only require three spaces, and this is why the request to permit tandem parking is included. Now, allowing tandem parking legitimizes the use of driveways to provide an additional parking space per unit, leading to two spaces per unit, providing residents the opportunity uh and space for visitors. It should be noted that the maximum parking permitted in a P2 is 1.25 25 spaces per dwelling and what has been proposed would exceed this but it legitimizes driveway areas that would still be required but as legitimate parking spaces. The parking provision zoning bylaw 05200 also did not require a separated loading area for this form and level of development. Thus the request in the amendment. Now following submission we did receive comments from natural heritage planning regarding the proposed tree removals and compensation. It was suggested by planning staff that an increased southern sideyard of 6 meters should be implemented to ensure retention of trees including those in the adjacent parklands. This proposed setback would ultimately result in the loss of the southernmost units about 15% of the unit yield as the loss would now result in only uh eight block townhouse units. The former two structures in the rear were combined. This significantly increases the sideyard adjacent to the southern lot line to 10.5 m and 8.8 8 m for the stacked. What we have now is an 18 unit multiple dwelling townhouse development contributing to the missing middle of housing. The units are spread across three buildings including two stacked structures with a maximum height of 14 m and one 8 unitunit row townhouse structure with maximum height of 8.5 m. The units are currently designed to contain three-bedroom units. The same single access is proposed along with 36 parking spaces at two per dwelling. Implementing this setback did result in a unit loss but significantly increased landscape open space from 26% to 35% and conserved 32% or 21 of the existing trees on immediately adjacent or subject lands um including an area of existing street trees. Of the trees requiring removal 21 are in poor, very poor or dead conditions with many of these planted as hobby fruit trees. 24 compensation plantings are proposed which would provide 45 trees on site in the right ofway and adjacent lands. In addition to trees, 34 coniferous and deciduous shrubs are also being proposed. The retain and proposed plantings will provide greenery through all seasons. And to give greater context to the project, I've included this image showing the concentric circles of 800 500 800 meters from the subject lands. Uh here you can see within the distance of walking distance are numerous amenities. Here we see the immediate surrounding context. To the south, the citywide William Connell Park. To the west, a single detached subdivision. To the north, a 39 unit, two-storyrey condominium townhouse development. A 9-story 216 unit apartment, which is almost 100% complete. And to the east of that is a fourstory assisted living facility and neighboring street townhouse subdivision currently in planning process. The proposed forums and heights are exemplary in providing transitions of scale and height to the immediate surroundings. In addition to the numerous amenities within walking distance, the subject lands are also currently well serviced with four existing transit lines, including the A-ine rapid transit. The city's also approved transit plans to increase servicing in the area, including a core line running adjacent to the subject lands, the 28 West 5th. This would provide frequent transit of 15-minute headways at peak times. And additionally, the A-ine would be increasing services and a rapid 30s line along Rival would al also be introduced. The existing proposed transit services help reduce demands for private vehicle use and promotes a more transit oriented development within the community. So in summary, the proposal is an infield development promoting efficient intensification within the built boundary to provide 18 missing middle dwelling units with no extension or expansion of services required. As for the submitted traffic impact study which reviewed the initial 21 unit proposal, no negative impacts to the transportation infrastructure are anticipated and the proposed parking is in keeping with the city directed initiatives. The area is well serviced by transit and public amenities including the adjacent citywide park. The development has worked with city planning staff to increase existing tree detention at the loss of 15% of the units proposed. And finally, the development has regard for the planning act, is consistent with the provincial planning statement, is in conformity with the U-HOP, and maintains the intent of the city of Hamilton's zoning bylaws. I'm happy here and happy to respond to any questions or concerns that committee may have. Thank you. Thank you, James. Are there any questions from committee? Maybe a first. I'm not seeing any questions from committee. So, may I have a James, are you in support of the staff report? Yes, we are in full support of the recommendations. Okay. Thank you. So, may I have a mover and secondary to receive delegation? Councelor Cooper and Councelor Pauls. Thank you. Please indicate your hand vote. No. Now. Okay. Thank you. That's carried. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting on this issue? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Finally, are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Not seeing any. May I have a mover and seconder that the public submissions were received and considered by committee and that the public meeting be closed. Councelor Cooper, Councelor Wang, please indicate your escribe vote now. The vote is up. That carries 12 to zero. Round to 8.2. Oops. Sorry. May I have a mover and seconder to to approve the report recommendations? Please indicate your escribe vote now. And the mover is going to be councelor Cooper. And we're going to go with councelor Wang again. And the votes up and that's carried 12 to zero. Now we're on 8.2 applications for a zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision for lands located at 36 Taylor Crescent Flamro. This is in W 13. Does the committee wish to see the staff presentation? Not seeing a wish for us to see the staff presentation. So, we will need a mover and seconder to wave the staff presentation. Councelor Wilson, Councelor McMe, thank you. Please indicate your hand vote now. Okay, that looks uh pretty much unanimous. Craig Row from GSP Group is in attendance today. All right, Craig, whenever you're ready. Thank you. Great. Uh, good morning, committee members, staff, and residents. Uh GSP Group is a planning agent representing uh the applicant Laray Homes Group Limited uh which is local developer uh that works in Hamilton and Halton area. Um GSP is also a local firm and our address is 162 Lock Street here in Hamilton. My name is Craig Row. I'm a senior planner with GSP Group. Um I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and introduce the zoning bylaw amendment which is the subject of today's public meeting. Um, I would like to note that uh draft plans are no longer subject to a public meeting. Uh, but because that application was filed concurrently with the zoning and they rely on each other, uh, it's appropriate opportunity to discuss both applications that are before you. Um, it's always difficult to appear before committ. Um, our client continues to work forward uh continues to work towards addressing city and agency comments provided on the applications as they have been since midFebruary and we welcome the opportunity to provide some greater detail on the intent, purpose, and effect of our applications to the committee today. Uh, following the presentation, I'd be pleased to answer any questions that you may have about the applications that are before you. So, the subject property is within the Greensville Rural Settlement Area. It's uh south of Highway 5 and it's on the west side of Brock Road. Uh the property is known as municipally as 36 Taylor Crescent and it's located wholly within the Greensville rural settlement area. Um the lands are not designated or zone for agriculture. They're wholly within the settlement area boundary. Uh but they were formally used for agricultural purposes. The lands have been surveyed by JD Barnes and measure approx measure approximately 7.53 hectares or 18.6 acres in total lot area. The property currently contains a single detached dwelling in the northeast corner, which you can see with the little red square there. Um, and adjacent uses include a mix of lowdensity residential and estate residential development, uh, as well as the converted former school property, which is now a private school campus, as well as vacant lands to the west. Laray Homes is proposing to create a 12 lot rural residential subdivision on the property. Each lot is intended to be developed with a single detached dwelling and has been sized to accommodate the dwelling, driveways, landscaping, necessary drainage areas uh and their sustainable private services. Uh a new 20 m wide uh public roadway will be connected to Taylor Crescent and will provide access to the new lots that are proposed as well as a new 3meter uh pedestrian block connection that will connect the new development over to the Spencer Creek Estates Park to the south. In terms of the planning framework, uh the subject lands are within a rural settlement area, also known as a hamlet. Uh within the rural Hamilton official plan, the property is designated as settlement residential and this land use designation permits single detached dwellings only, which is what is proposed. The lands are also located within major development area A, which is one of three strategic growth areas that are identified for comprehensive development in Greensville. These areas are meant to proceed through draft plan approvals rather than peacemail through consent applications to be developed comprehensively. In terms of the uh the zoning uh currently the subject lands are within the flamborough zoning bylaw settlement residential R2. Um the -14 site specific uh it has a higher minimum lot size requirement of8 hectares and also the holding provision requires that any development is subject to a hydro geological assessment. So there are two required planning applications that that were identified. Um the first is a draft plan subdivision. This is necessary to create the lots uh as well as the public roadway and the pedestrian trail block. Um draft plan subdivision is also a great tool to utilize conditions of approval uh to allow for additional more detailed work studies and designs to take place at a later date before final approval and registration of the plan. Uh in terms of our zoning bylaw amendment, um we originally were proposing a minor amendment to the R2 zone. Uh but at the direction of state city staff we asked if we could move the subject property into the new zoning bylaw uh 05200. Um and as part of that the minimum lot size is uh 04 hectares. Uh so we do not need a sightsp specific provision for um minimum lot size. However we are asking for two more sightsp specific um provisions. One to establish the as of right building height in the flambor zoning bylaw which is currently 11 m. In the S1 zone it's 10. uh and also for minimum lot frontage. Uh and Mr. Chair, if you just indulge me a couple more moments here, I'll I'll be quick to finish up. Uh so this is the draft plan of subdivision. As you can see, the 12 lots around street A and block 13 is the pedestrian connection which is shown in green. And then with regards to our zoning bylaw amendment, this is the location of the site specific reductions in lot width, also known as lot frontage. Uh as you can see, each of these lots is on the curve of either the culde-sac or the roadway. It's a pinch point and where it's measured, we come in under, but the lots are still adequately sized and have enough frontage to get a driveway in and still develop the sites as as planned. Um there are a variety of um studies and reports that were required through formal consultation which have all been provided uh when the application was deemed complete. Uh we would note that uh and you had seen this in the staff report that the odor impact study uh requires a peer review. This has not yet uh been circulated. Um so we do not have comments back on that at this time. Um I suppose in closing as as I am short on time I I would just like to add that uh we received the comments on this application in midFebruary. Um they were rather significant and there were also direction in there that we consider alternative design. Um, we've been working closely with our engineers and other consultants to respond to staff comments and to uh put forward some amended designs, including things that require storm water management, a reconfiguration of the plan. Um, we asked uh city staff via email on March 5th if we could have this meeting today deferred to allow us a little bit more time to report back to them, uh, answer their questions and flush out what the the key issues are with this application. And unfortunately, that request was denied by staff. Um, so we're before you today with a recommendation uh for denial. Um, unfortunately uh but I'm certainly here and hoping that I can clarify any questions you might have about the intent and effect of the applications uh to give you the clarity that you might need to make a decision on it today. So, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your Thank you for your presentation. Are there any questions? We have a Wilson. Council Larry Wilson, you're up. Thank you through you, chair. I think the biggest uh concern I've heard from neighbors in the area has been with respect to uh water capacity. So I think the staffing report talks about water more generally, but I'll be very really narrow. I think for neighbors, they're saying, "Hey, I already struggled to do laundry. My I've had to redig my well when past um developments have come in. Can you speak to uh the impacts on neighbors with respect to groundwater supply and access to groundwater? uh including kind of some of the design choices you're making. I know you flagged, "Hey, staff suggested alternative designs. You're you're not changing those alternative designs. It seems you're kind of staying there. So, can you speak on the impact to groundwater availability based on that choice? Yes. And through Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you for the question. Um I I'm not an engineer, uh but I I can speak generally to the to the water question. Um for the Greensville settlement area, all water needs to be provided via a private system. So that's either a groundwater well um or the rural official plan also allows for the provision of sistns. So as part of the work that we've done, we did well testing at different intervals and the preliminary analysis that came back. It says that it appears that we do have yield to support the development uh with groundwater, but supplementation via may be required. um things like topping up your sister overnight when there's not a big draw and everything like that. Um but it's typical that more detailed study of the well and putting together uh the loading for for all the development would be undertaken as more of a draft plan condition. Um, in terms of the comments, we've heard the same thing that there is a concern about groundwater quality um and that uh the neighbors that when they spoke to us at the open house indicated that they felt that uh you know there wasn't any water to wash the car, do the laundry um things like that and some other concerns with other development going on in Greensville as well as the expansion of the quarry which is also being considered where they're anticipating impacts. Um so in terms of the policy framework itself, not being able to have a well to support this development isn't the end of this. Uh the rural official plan does allow in scenarios where you don't have a good groundwater supply, if it's not a good quality or there's not enough quantity that can be used as a primary system. So, um, depending on our further analysis, hopefully as a draft plan condition, we'll be able to go through and confirm what we can provide on site and if there's any negative impact, which is really the test under provincial policy uh in the in the rural official plan. If there's any negative impact to that effect, we'll have to pivot and likely go with the sisterbased system for uh the water. Um, I believe, sorry, council, I believe you had a second part to that question. No, I think that answers the first part. I think my other question is just on on the wastewater side of things. Um the staff report says that the hydraological assessment that you conducted shows that you know on some of your lots uh the nitrate levels are going to exceed Ontario drinking water standards. Can you just comment on that? Oh okay. Sorry. Uh three Mr. Chair. Uh yes. So, um, with this development, we're proposing the use of tertiary treatment systems, also known as class 4 advanced. Uh, so those are the ones that there's still a class 4 system with the typical leeching bed. They just have a system in the train that allows it to chemically or UV light. There's different systems out there to help get the nitrate level down usually by about 15%. If we use a typical class 4 system without that that newer technology, um, the ultimate yield on the property is 10 new lots. We're going with the tertiary to help better round out the development, get an even loging pattern and efficiently use that land. So, by using the tertiary treatment systems, um it allows us to be in compliance with what those standards are coming um coming under the I believe the highest concentration is 10 mg per um thousand something scientific again a planner not an engineer but by using that system we're able to come into compliance with what the upper threshold is. Thank you. Uh just a final followup there. Does the class 3 system in order to get those levels require operator maintenance or anything on the operator? Like is it the same as a septic system that's conventionally in a rural area where you largely speaking are walking away from it or in order to actually achieve those ongoing levels? Is there operational work that needs to happen? Is a because it's a bit more of a complicated system. Are the inputs and the management a little bit more complicated as well? Yes. Um through you, Mr. Chair. Um in terms of system, yes, they they do require maintenance. Um so when uh class 4 tertiary treatment systems installed, typically the operator has a maintenance program that you sign up for. Um the municipality that's permitting the septic system would be aware that that system is in place. Uh and we also have the benefit of a draft plan subdivision, which means we can register a subdivision agreement on title that requires the use of these systems in maintenance in perpetuity. um we can appreciate that there are some concerns um about enforcement of that but I would suggest to the committee that this is the same issue that you would have with the standard class 4 without that extra added bit um once maintenance uh and this is based on our discussions with our our consultants and with waterlter who is kind of the typical um group that provides these tertiary systems uh they do have a maintenance program and they typically advise municipality uh once someone is opted out of that maintenance uh period uh but with the pass four. Unfortunately, you typically don't find out until it's too late. You start seeing changes in the ground um before those those issues happen. So, it does come with a bit of added maintenance, but it is a a newer technology and a proven technology. Uh and we believe that there's the right um legal mechanisms to ensure that they're implemented in the way that they're intended to function. Thank you. Okay, we have Councelor Wang. Thank you. Um, thank you for those wholesome answers. Should we deny today your application? Um, what is your next step? Because there are nine outstanding items that, um, gives us as a committee rationale for why we would deny. So perhaps you can just give us a sense as to what your next steps look like through you, chair. Through, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for the question. um the nine items you're referring to um are we just in terms of the staff report is just so I can kind of ground ground my answers right um 12 of 16 okay page 12 of 16 give me one moment here make sure that we're literally on the same page okay um obviously we would prefer to have a positive recommendation uh work collaboratively with staff to come to a solution um where this development gets approved or if we're unable to get that support at least to identify what the key issues are. Um this was a very expensive application to file as well as the large list of studies that have been done. So it's been a money is not a typical planning consideration but we do need to consider the amount of time and effort that's gone into the application. Um so there there may be an opportunity for our client may advance this to the tribunal if if they so choose. Um and that would be for for adjudication. We're still on track with the planning act timelines. I believe council would consider whatever recommendation today uh within that timeline. Um in terms of the rationale uh provided by staff, um I I guess I'll summarize I respectfully disagree with with many of these points that have been made. Um that this application is not premature um in terms of section two of the planning act. Uh I provided a fulsome plane justification report with our submission here and uh really we're dealing with a residential proposal on residentially designated and zone lands in an area that's identified as a as a key development area within Greensville. Um so I would suggest that this is not premature. This is the type of application that the city's working to um procure. Um it's my opinion that the applications are consistent with the provincial planning statement. the key issues at hand are related to um perceived issues with groundwater and septic systems and really in the PPS they're they're grounded in the test of no negative impacts and the studies that our professionals have prepared are indicating that there are no negative impacts and that further designs will be refined through the draft plan process which is which is typical um I don't believe there is a conformity issue with the green belt plan the policies are limited to concerns about water quality but like I've touched on if there is a negative issue where the groundwater can't be used for potable purposes, the sistns can be used and that that risk is alleviated. Um, we comply with the rural Hamilton official plan and the and the rural settlement area secondary plan for Greensville in terms of the minimum lot size which is prescribed in policy as 1 acre. We're up and above that. Um, and as demonstrated in our planning report, we believe that we satisfy and we conform with all of those policies. Um based on our hydro geological study and our water well study um it's it's my opinion based on reading the information from those professionals that uh our lots are of a sufficient size. They're they're suggesting that they have the right system to make for an appropriate uh efficient use of land in a good development there. We're not doubling or tripling the development yield. We're simply rounding out and adding a couple lots. Um there's a note that we don't comply with the midspensor creek uh settlement subwaterhed study. Um that study provided recommendations but it doesn't limit the ability to study and put forward um planning applications uh with technologies that can achieve the no negative impacts or satisfy those requirements. Um we're also uh from a storm water management perspective, we're proposing um infiltration as our method of storm water management rather than just ejecting to a water course to recharge that groundwater which is a key issue for the neighbors in the area. Um the next item uh item V about not satisfying the city of Hamilton guidelines for hydraological studies. Um I acknowledge that there is a position in the guidelines that uh the use of tertiary systems won't be supported but that is indeed a guideline. It is not a policy. It is not legislation. These systems are approved and we feel that the justification that we provided indicates in this circumstance that it is appropriate to consider that system. Um vi is that there archaeological uh potential. We just got our additional clearance letter came in in mid-March. Stage 1 to three are cleared and approved by the province. So that's a non-issue. Um item vi the trees have not been sufficiently protected. We spoke a lot about this with the neighbors. They were concerned that trees would be removed along the boundary. Our tree protection plan indicates these trees will all be uh protected for the long term. Um there were a couple trees that are in the middle of the site. Unfortunately, they're just in the wrong spot and they'll be removed but offset through planting. Uh and the recommendations and the comments that we received from from city natural heritage staff were think about the different types of species and how how you'll lay things out. Um I wouldn't consider that to be a conformity or consistency issue. That's a detailed design element. um the demonstrated matters of odor and noise impact. Um as I've noted, our odor study was a requirement that we commissioned and it has not been circulated for review. So you don't have the benefit of knowing if that can be supported or not. We do have some comments back on our noise study as well, but we believe we can address those with our consultant. And um this is considered in in item ex that this is an overdevelopment of the subject lands. I would say that this is not it's uh it's a fairly uniform development. The lots are larger than the ones that you find in adjacent subdivisions. The density is much lower. Um and it's compatible and it works well. Um and uh I know we've received some public correspondence which appear to be a little bit more generally scoped to concerns about development in Greensville as a whole. Uh but based on our experiences at the open house, it seems like we had a a fair amount of support uh for the development from the immediate neighbors. They just wanted us to make sure that we carefully consider groundwater impacts, natural heritage, and things of that matter. Uh, and I believe I should have covered off. Yes, I believe that's that's all of them, counselor. Thank you. Thank you. No more questions. Thank you, councelor Wang. I'm not seeing anyone else who wants to ask questions. So, Craig, finally, and I think I know the answer. Are you in support of the staff report? Respectfully, no. We are not in support of the recommendation before you today. Okay. Thank you for that. May I have a mover and second to receive the delegation from the agent, Councelor A. Wilson and Councelor Wang. Please indicate your hand vote now. That's unanimous. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Come on down. Yep. You can take the podium. Clerk will assist you. As you begin, just state your name and then you'll have five minutes for your presentation. Good morning. My name is Ranada Tahara Perez and I am a resident of Greensville. My concern here with this proposed development as in Greensville we currently have large issues as already noted with water quality, water access. Apart from that road safety, we have limited services by our police department and our fire department is volunteer-based. So currently within Harvest, if you have a medical emergency, it is limited access. So how are we going to accommodate 12 new residents with more than one occupant per resident? per household, pardon me. Apart from that, the road safety issues continue to increase. There's no nothing mentioned in the proposal on how that will be addressed. Will there be speed deterrent mapping placed? Has there been any road safety study or volume usage within our area? There are other proposed developments in our area and there are equal concerns for them. And while I know that the developer suggests that you can easily move to a sistern unless it's going to be guaranteed mandated within your development that there is a sistern per household. Us as residents we don't have any guarantees. Apart from that you're saying that you're going to be inputting some type of system where the onus is on the house owner to ensure that nitrate levels don't increase. Humans are prone to error. They may not actually look after it. So us as residents currently living there who look after our own water supply system, you are now shifting the onus again back onto us. And as we are in a water protected zone, we need more guarantees, more reassurances that these things will actually be looked after. That's that's all I have. Thank you. Well, thank you. So what I got from you is you had concerns with road safety, emergency first responders, and tertiary septic systems. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from the gallery? Not seeing anybody indicating. Thank you. May I add sorry apologies may just one more thing. Sure. Our access to our elementary schools as well. And that's Greensville. That is Greensville and surrounding areas. Okay. Listen, thank you Ranatada. I appreciate your delegation here today. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? As you make your way to the podium, just reminder, it's five minutes and please identify yourself. Thank you. Good day, council. My name is Kyle Dudney. I only really have one question. With all the development that's happening in the area, is it going to be feasible for a Canadian citizen to afford the housing that's being built? This is a real thing for I'm staying at the Mission Shelter myself. I have suffered homelessness for the last 2 years and so far I can say without the shadow of a doubt that there isn't anything too affordable. So with all the development and the grand plans that are happening, is it going to be affordable? That's my only question. That is my only concern today. Thank you, Kyle. I'm not seeing any questions. I appreciate your delegation. Just sign with the clerks. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So, at this time, I'm going to have one final call out or maybe I'll have to call another one. Um, is there anyone here, any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? May I have a mover and seconder that the public submissions were received and considered by committee and that the public meeting be closed. Councelor Wilson and Councelor Wang, please indicate your escribe vote now. Councelor Beacon. Thumbs up. And that vote carries 12 to zero. May I have a mover and a seconder to approve the report recommendations? Councelor Wilson, Councelor McMegan. So when we indicate our rescribe vote now a vote oh sorry councelor Wilson go ahead through you I'll just finish. Yeah the vote is to deny is the recommendation from staff. I do just want to because at the last committee of adjustment meeting, there was a Greensville planning application. At our next planning committee meeting, there'll be an adjacent application and water keeps coming up at all of these. And so, just given that this is a consistent theme, I'm wondering if staff from Source Water Protection could just explain um two things in their reasoning. One, why is this site not compliant? What is the concern with respect to this area? And the second piece is why does the city of Hamilton not currently tolerate or allow for tertiary septic systems in rural areas? What's the thinking behind that? Because I think those will come up in future future similar applications and so it would be helpful. Thank you. So are you looking for a response from Yeah, apologies with the new mics. uh we waved the staff presentation at the beginning but I think these are the two elements that the public's very interested in is how is source water protection happening and specifically this conversation about what's the city stance on septic systems so if we could answer those that would be helpful okay staff so through the chair I'm not obviously I'm Daniel Barnett the planner on the file not the source water protection they're fortunately not not here but uh in terms of the t the tertiary system I can answer that because I we covered that in our staff report was that uh one of problems with the tertiary system is that we cannot enforce uh the maintenance of it. Um if someone decides that they're they're going to let their system, you know, um go in terms of not doing maintenance on it, we have no kind of mechanism to enforce that they can u that they maintain that system. Um they were talking earlier about how um you know you can set up this program and then they can inform you the city that the from the that program that they'll inform the city that oh they've stopped the maintenance but we have no mechanism to then do anything about to say that well no you have to maintain it. Similarly if someone came along and said I don't want to put uh to keep that system I want to rip it out and just put a regular system in. again same thing we don't have a mechanism to um stop them from doing that basically and say no you must maintain a system this advanced treatment system so that's the concern there in terms of um um why st what why the guideline exists that basically says we don't support tertiary systems for the purpose and I should clarify for the purpose of of accepting smaller lot sizes someone wants to put a regular lot existing lot wants to put a tertiary system and they're fully free to do so. It's for the purpose of justifying reducing the lot sizes. Uh in this case, basically this the Mid Spencer Creek um subwaterershed study speaks to this area being needing about.7 hectares per lot and they're obviously the lots they want to create are below that. And that was one of the concerns that staff had when we did try to work with the applicant beforehand and see if they were willing to reduce the number of lots so that they wouldn't need the to rely on advanced treatment systems and that we weren't able to kind of get a resolution on that and that's why we brought forward the report in the timeline we we did so we would meet the the statutory timelines. Um sorry what was the other half the question? The other piece and I you did speak to this but was about source water production generally. So you mentioned the lot size being the major concern. Um if there's anything else just from the source water side that this application um led staff to being concerned would happy to hear that. But I think you did give a pretty general in terms of source weather. They did review it. Uh they did provide comments with u kind of areas of concern. They did also in uh include a um peer review of the hydrogeeological study. So it wasn't just our source protection staff. They also went to a third party peer review to kind of get that reviewed and they had a lot of concerns in including with respect to the fact that they were relying on the tertiary systems but also in terms of just the kind of the the draw downs of their well testing basically and then concerns that there will be additional draw downs um from other sources like the the up the expansion of the quarry and things like that that u might cause further impacts down the road that were not being kind of in their opinion considered. Thank you. Uh through you chair just a comment from me. I think given those cumitive impacts of planning I there's a real desire from the community um to the province really to think about how does when you have a giant quarry expansion you have two residential lots potentially doing this you have an industrial lot across the road and you're in a water scarce area. Uh does the plan from 1992 still make sense? Um how do we think about where do we develop and how do we develop and what should those thresholds be? And I think the community is really I think concerned that across these developments they're looking for the cumulative safety of the community to be looked at and the planning act is very much what's in front of us right now. What's the what's the application in front of us? And so appreciating that that's the challenge we all find ourselves in evaluating these as one-offs not as the cumitive piece but there's a real ask from the community to do that cumitive piece. So just wanted to walk through what the process does and doesn't cover. I think the big tension that I've heard from neighbors is that when we're talking about no negative impacts, how does that get quantified under Ontario law that you can be guaranteed that just because there was a capacity study done or a well test done over there that you're still going to be able to run your laundry when 30 people are also doing their laundry on a hot day or things like that and being able to actually share that no negative impacts. How do you prove that from an availability test, you know, 100 meters, 200 m, 300 m away? So, those are the concerns I think that I'm hearing from neighbors. I do support the staff recommendation to deny on this one and I appreciate the work done. I think it's important that people have trust in when we have a new development coming in that there's not going to be a negative impact to people's backyards. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Wilson. Are there any other speakers of committee that want to Okay, at this point we're going to we've had a mover and a seconder and we're going to vote to with using escribe and a vote of yes is to deny the application. Okay, that shows that staff recommendations were carried 12 to zero. Okay, thank you. Okay, thanks 8.3 peed 26063 application for the urban Hampton official plan amendment for lands located at 392, 398, 400, 406, and 412 Wilson Street East and 15 Lauren Avenue, Ancaster in Ward 12. This was deferred from the March 24th planning committee meeting. Does the committee wish to see the staff presentation? And yes, we would like to see the staff presentation. So, Elena Belera, you're on. Thank good morning chair planning committee and the general public. My name is Elena Baltera and today I'm presenting an application uh for one second there's a door the lands at 392 to 412 Wilson Street East and 15 Lauren Avenue. The application is for an urban Hamilton official plan amendment. So here you can see some aerial image of the subject site. The image uh on the top left hand side is an aerial image with the sites circled in yellow. And uh it shows the existing single detached dwellings to the rear of the site and those would be at Lauren Avenue, Roar Street and Academy Street. And then there's existing commercial on Wilson Street East. So on the bottom right hand side we have a map that shows the uh lot fabric and it includes the existing zonings. So along Wilson Street e east is a commercial zoning and then at the rear is a low density residential zone. So these are just some images of the subject site. On the right hand side, it's the subject site looking down um going towards Rouso Street. And then on the left is an image of the designated heritage building known as the Mar House on the subject site. These are just a couple of images looking in both directions along Wilson Street East, standing at the corner of the subject site. And this is this is an image of the subject site uh standing on Lauren Avenue and looking towards the subject site. So you can see in the image the existing designated heritage building on alliance. So, this is a view on Academy Street looking towards Wilson Street East. And then there's one more view on Academy Street which is looking at the subject site again with a designated heritage building in the image. So, there has been a significant amount of activity on the subject site in terms of applications. So here you have a bit of a timeline. There's a couple of dates to actually focus on for context as to how this application is before you today. So in the December of 2021, an application was submitted for an official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment for an eight-story mixed juice building. In November of 2022, the official plan amendment number 167 was approved by the province which included a modification to permit the eightstory building within a community node in the urban Hamilton official plan. In September of 2023, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the zoning bylaw amendment. And then in December of 2023, the planning statute reversed uh official plan amendment number 167 in terms of provincial changes and reinstated a 2 and 1/2 story maximum building height within the community nodes within the official plan. And so before you today is an official plan amendment to increase the maximum height to eight stories. Uh so the one thing I want to note on this slide as noted on this slide is that the zoning on the subject lands will be maintained as currently applicable and approved. And so that means that the current mixeduse medium density pedestrian focus C5A 860 holding 154 zone is going to be maintained. So there's no additional holdings or site specifics that are being asked for today. So this is an image of the concept plan that was included in the Urban Hamilton official plan amendment application. On the application you can see it's a eightstory mixeduse building with commercial on the ground floor and residential above. on the site there was a relocated designated heritage building that would be required to be done as part of the development and so the heritage building is currently being shown on 15 Lauren Avenue. There have been discussions about the heritage building and I just want to correct uh an item in the appendix E of the staff report specifically pages three and eight. So it speaks to the location of a possible location for that designated heritage building and it should say 17 Academy Street. So as part of the mixeduse building there's 118 residential units proposed and this includes 26 onebedrooms, 46 twobs and 46 3bedrooms. 270 parking spaces, including 49 commercial spark parking spaces, 190 bicycle parking spaces, and 30% of the site will be landscaped. So, these are just some elevations of the concept plan. The image on the top is what you would see from Wilson Street East. And then again, this is uh the balance of the two elevations. And the image on the top is what you would see from the residential area at the rear. So as per the planning act, we circulated the application to the public for comment. Development staff received over 150 pieces of correspondence from the public as well as additional comments included in today's agenda. The applicants also hosted a neighborhood meeting on February 9th, 2026 where neighbors came and provided uh additional concerns. So the concerns that were identified from the public include infrastructure related concerns, traffic and parking concerns, compatibility with the surrounding uh community pedestrian safety, construction impact concerns, negative impacts on property values, notification processes of the application in the surrounding neighborhood, concerns with the existing designated heritage building on site being negatively impact. the amount of landscaping proposed on site as well as privacy and overlook concern, loss of trees and what uh the involvement of the Ontario land tribunal in this process. So the development planning section provides the following response. The proposal is located within a community node where the city encourages intensification and making efficient use of public services. These policies speak to uh trans there's additional policies that speak to transportation servicing requirements, cultural heritage policies, and urban design. When considering intensification within these nodes, there's a approved heritage permit which addresses the relocation of the heritage building. As per the existing permit, there's conditions that require that if the building is relocated, additional reviews are required to confirm that the this can be completed appropriately. A transportation impact study was submitted to the city and concluded that the road network can accommodate the projected traffic. A holding provision in the current zoning requires the applicant to demonstrate that sanitary flows and water capacity is appropriate prior to the holding being lifted. Urban design and cultural heritage policies speak to the character of the area and will be used to guide development as part of the future site plan application through detailed design. All planning applications are required to be reviewed on their own merits and to confirm that the proposal meets applicable policies. Previous decisions are not used as justification within recommendation reports. Landscaping on the site is appropriate given the zoning. The opportunity was provided for the public to uh include any comments and this was done by way of a mail out updates to the city website, neighborhood meetings, and a posting in the newspaper. Staff don't have any empirical evidence to show negative impacts on property values. So in summary, development planning is satisfied that the proposal has merit and can be supported because it's consistent with the provincial policy statement, complies with the general intent and purpose of the urban Hamilton official plan and the Ancaster Wilson Street secondary plan, and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of conserving cultural heritage resources, providing efficient use of existing infrastructure, and having no negative impact on the surrounding community with opport opportunities to further refine the design at the detailed uh design stage or site plan control stage. That concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks Elena and we have councelor Casar. Thanks chair and through you. Thank you very much Elena. Uh a couple questions now. I'll probably have more for the report. I definitely will have more for the report. Uh but first of all I wanted to go back to the timeline chair and as this has a long history here uh with intervention by the province just wanted to make sure it was clear for everyone committee and the public um just to get confirmation that this application came before planning committee previous term of council. It was denied. It was appealed and during that appeal the province had changed our official plan enabling specifically uh this development application and this then the OOLT um case was settled to then approve the zoning that complemented that official plan amendment because generally planning committee receives official plan amendments and zoning by amendments at the same time. In this case they're kind of separated. So, I just wanted to confirm that is the case and that the zoning for this development is already in place based on those provincial interventions that have happened over the last few years through your chair. Through the chair to the counselor, yes, that's correct. The application was previously submitted and a decision was made and the zoning is currently uh applicable law. Okay. And that wasn't a city decision. That was uh through the OOLT process and what the province had how they had intervened. So secondly um through you chair could I just get a summary on over the past year that this current version of the application has been active just what has been modified uh I know the city has been working with the proponent to uh I would say improve from the community's perspective the application if I could just get a summary of what has occurred. Thank you through the chair. So in terms of changes, I can't speak to the specifics of the previous development, but there were at a high level increases in the amount of parking spaces, decreases in the number of units, decreases in the gross floor area and updates to the massing along Dund along Wilson Street East. Yeah. Okay. So addressing some of the concerns, understanding uh not everything, but there there was some uh negotiation and concession. So I appreciate that. Okay. Those are all the questions I have for now. I'll have some more later for the report. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Francis. Thank you, Chair. And I know on the presentation there was a a slide about how many parking spaces there were. I just wanted the confirmation how many parking spaces are in this application. And is that the same as what the city's parking minimums are through the chair? The number of parking spaces is 270 parking spaces with some being accommodated for commercial. In terms of the number of parking spaces to the zoning, the zoning is uh currently based on the previous Ontario land tribunal decision which indicates a minimum amount of parking and so that would be what the applicants would have to adhere to. Understood. Thank you. I wanted that clarity. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, counselor. Are there any more questions for Elena? I'm not seeing any. So Elena, thank you. May you may sit down. May I have a mover and second to receive the staff presentation? Councelor Casar, Councelor Wang, please indicate your hand vote now. That clears unanimously. Thank you. And we have Matt Johnson from Urban Solutions and Development. He's in attendance today. Are you able to hear me? Good morning, Mr. Chair. Uh, members of committee, you got the two mats back before you again. Uh, my name is Matthew Hen, and I'm the lawyer for the applicant. uh our firm represented the applicant in both of the OOLT appeals that happened uh in the course of this uh process and we're pleased to be back in front of you on this statutory public meeting and we're pleased to have the staff recommendation which we think creates a path to avoid yet another Ontario land tribunal appeal. Um and so Mr. Johnson and I are here to answer any questions you have and I'll turn over to Mr. Johnson for his presentation. Good morning, members of committee, staff, and the public. Matt Johnston, registered professional planner with Urban Solutions. It's my privilege to be here on behalf. There we go. On behalf of Wilson Street, Inc., which is a partnership between uh Urban Core Developments and Spalachi Homes, and we're joined by Mr. Sergio Mania in attendance today. I'd like to uh take a moment to thank staff uh particularly Elena, Jennifer Katarino, Trisha Collingwood uh I don't have on the list but Jill Juki uh for her support through uh the application as well and I want to acknowledge the hard work of Scott Bey of our team uh who helped carry the application through the process. As we know, the subject property is located right in the core of downtown Ancaster, just shy of 2 acres in size. Uh, predominantly vacant with the exception of the MAR house. Um, and past sites, uh, past uses on the site include a former Gaspar at the immediate corner of uh, Academy and Wilson. Uh, in, as I mentioned, we're right in the core. We've got uh what you would uh see a range of service commercial style uses in the village core surrounded by the uh the residential uses to the east. So again, what's proposed? an eight-story mixeduse building, 118 dwelling units, uh 1,400 square meters of ground floor commercial, just over 2,000 square meters of landscape area, 263 parking spaces, as well as 190 bicycle parking spaces, and this again comes with the preservation of the MAR house. Um, one of the questions was how is thing how have things evolved from the time this particular OPA was submitted and what we've been doing working with staff over the the last number of months is making modest improvements to the proposal um you know most notably what we've done is increase the landscape open space on site um by just over 6,000 square me sorry uh 600 square meters um we've decreased this GFA of building. We've also uh reduced surface parking to allow for an increased landscape strip across the rear yard. And we've also introduced a series of enclaves and bumpouts with uh increased articulation and stepbacks uh to um incorporate with the the heritage um attributes of the core. Some more quick facts on the development. Uh 95% of the units are familysized units. Uh 14 new trees are to be planted, three public, 11 private. Um I touched on the reduced surface parking. Uh we've got the mixeduse elements of the project, bicycle parking included and um two very important elements, site remediation associated with the former gas bar and very important infrastructure improvements to the village core uh through an external works agreement. Um we also worked with staff on uh massing and uh one of the key elements of this review was a visual impact assessment. This required consultation with the Niagara Scarman Commission and staff to establish four critical viewsheds, three of them shown on the screen here. The fourth from across the Dundas Valley. Uh here's our results of the first view from across the Dundas Valley. Um just barely viewable uh across the horizon. Here we have looking west along the Wilson Street core, you get a a sense of the building stepbacks to the upper stories. Here we have looking the opposite direction down Wilson Street in terms of how the the building fits in with the core. And finally, we did have a viewshed selected uh down Russo Street. And this just really confirms that the building doesn't uh protrude above the the tree line with the the articulation in red here. That wasn't the only study. Um we had a plethora of application of of supporting materials through the process. I won't go through them all now. Um, how do we evaluate proposals like this? Uh, we start at looking at the urban Hamilton official plan where we're designated in a community node. The Ancaster Village Corps is one of eight community nodes across the municipality. These community nodes are very important in the city's growth structure to accommodate the most activity for intensification and infill. Uh at the next level of detail we have the land use designations one step lower than the urban structure and uh here we have ourselves in the mixeduse medium density designation. Generally across the city this designation accommodates 12-story buildings. Um however at the secondary plan level of detail we've got the further restrictions of the old Ancaster secondary plan um which really predates the current policy regime uh dating back to the the old town of Ancaster days. As we noted we have uh zoning in place to accommodate the eight-story building. uh we have sight specific ex uh regulations that really uh as we we coined the term shrink wrap the development to ensure that the location of the building is secured as as it's been presented. We also have a holding provision in place um with uh two main elements uh one being the the protection of the MAR house and the second being the offsite infrastructure improvements uh necessary to accommodate the proposal and also uh that's really in response to an existing deficiency within the system that uh really prevents the core from thriving the way uh we all hope it will from an engagement perspective. Ive we heard about our uh neighborhood information meeting attended by plus or minus 65 area residents. Um we had a well utilized micro site where all of our supporting material was available for review and download. Uh now we grouped the the public comments that we received into four areas. um concerns with scale and compatibility and and we note that again we really rely on this community node as part of the city's growth strategy. Um we heard concerns over traffic. The initial study um was conducted back in the COVID times. Um there's also been important changes to the intersection of Russo Wilson and Old Dundas Road and we worked closely with uh Jill and transportation staff to have that study updated to reflect 2025 traffic counts as well as the new configuration of the intersection. And that study also specifically draws in um the other proposed application at the immediate corner of Wilson and Russo to account for uh for that element that was a question of area residence. Um there's there were concerns raised over our infrastructure and again we have a def existing deficiencies in the village core that are preventing other applications from advancing. This application uh comes with the external works requirement um to to have that work done which will uh further assist the balance of the core. Um and then there's questions with regards to the MAR house. We have the existing heritage permit to relocate uh the structure. It comes with a lot of securities for the structural integrity of the building. And we also have uh been in discussions as noted in the report on a new application that will preserve the MAR house along public frontage uh subject to the approval by the city of a new heritage permit. So with that said, um we do have an application prevents a a compatible form of intensification right in an area targeted for that growth being a a community node. It's consistent with the provincial policy statement. It conforms to and implements the balance of the official plan objectives. It maintains the existing zoning and overall represents good land use planning. And with that, I would be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thanks, Matt. First question is, are you in support of the staff report? Yes, Mr. Chair, we are in support of the staff recommendation. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And we're going to go to councelor Casar. Yeah, thank you very much, chair. Uh, just a quick preamble and a few questions. So, um, had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Johnston over the last couple of weeks and as he's aware, I've also met with members of the community, including members of Lancaster Village Heritage Community, uh, many meetings and conversations, uh, and was able to help the community understand kind of the timeline and the status of this file. I I'll allude back to the question I asked of Elena earlier just around the fact that zoning is already in place which essentially u takes the decision-m away from planning committee today. So with the support of those community members I spoke to wanted to focus on specific things uh that potentially we can have some influence on knowing that zoning already exists. So the first thing is just around the holding provision which was mentioned in the presentation. Uh if you've read the letters and had conversations in the community, there's concern that the development um there's not enough servicing, whether it's sewage, water, storm sewers in order to support the development. Uh and want to make sure that that's not going to overwhelm residents that already live there. So we just like to get elaboration on the fact that there is a commitment, there's a holding provision, and that this development cannot and will not proceed without the developer uh putting in the necessary infrastructure through your chair. Thank you and to the council for the good question. So yes, the holding provision requires that external works agreement. Uh the functional servicing report identified an existing deficiency with sanitary flows in the village core. Um we'll have the site plan application process to secure the external works agreement where that will be um where that infrastructure will be put forward through a combination cost sharing development charges uh to have those uh improvements made. It also includes there there's no identified deficiency from a water service perspective um but that will be further uh evaluated through the site plan process. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So just summarizing that there is a commitment and a holding provision that the developer must satisfy before anything can proceed. So that's good and good confirmation. Uh the next question is probably the largest one. It's just around uh the heritage aesthetics. Uh there is a lot of pride from the community on the history and the heritage and the rendering that is shown in the presentation um I understand if you can just confirm isn't a final uh elevation of what things would look like. So, one of the requests from the community would be to be able to provide input into what the final look would be uh for staff and the proponent to consider during site plan acknowledging that site plan is not a public process. Uh but it is one of those things where there's very strong feelings and opinions and hopefully cooperation and collaboration to do as much as possible to maintain a heritage aesthetic. So through you chair, uh is that something that the proponent is willing to take input from the community? Thank you. And through the chair, yes. Um it's understood there was a a concern that the building may appear to be a bit too modern, not enough heritage elements incorporated into the facade. Um we we we did have regard for those those heritage elements. Um we're happy to as we uh discuss with staff and yourself um it's noted in the staff report the building elevations get secured through site plan application uh we're happy to receive further comments and consider those comments uh through the site plan application process and uh you know ensure that uh the the building is is well designed and and implemented uh through the site plan process. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So chair, my key takeaway would be that that rendering that we see in the presentation is not the final look. Uh correct. Correct. And to expand on that, um as we've seen, there's been iterations put forward. Um I I do believe that the public's gravitating to the initial rendering uh that doesn't accommodate or reflect the further articulation that we did in the last few months with staff uh that I touched on in the staff report. So um it certainly has evolved and will continue to evolve through the site plan process. Okay, thanks for that. Uh, next topic is the Marfilib House which was mentioned. Uh, that is B the only building that's on these series of lots right now. It is a historic building. Means a lot to the community. I just want to dig into the comment that was made by Mr. Johnson chair uh because the community would very much like to see uh the Mar house stay where it is uh and incorporated into the development. I know that's been discussed and that is not something the proponent's willing to do. But what the community doesn't want to see is it tucked away in the back on Lauren Avenue and there has been work. There's a motion supported by planning committee here to work with staff to get it on a public-f facing street in the core and I heard Mr. Johnson say that uh there is a commitment to keep it on a public facing street within the core um not tucked away in the back. So just want confirmation of that please. right through the chair. So, there's the existing heritage permit that uh provides its uh the original proposed location. There's we're in active discussions with staff and working to compile a new heritage permit application to keep it on a public road. Um, of course, that'll be subject to staff uh appro or I should say the city's approval of a new heritage permit application that is in the works. Okay. Thanks. I'll ask staff about that later. Um just the second question on the Maril Philippo house is I my understanding is there is an order to comply in terms of uh some crumbling or deterioration of the current structure where it sits today. I would just like an opportunity for give an opportunity for the Mr. Johnson to speak to what the status of that is. I understand that maybe it's been appealed uh and there the community really wants to understand is the structure going to be maintained to the point where it can be relocated and ensuring that you know it is does have structural integrity to be able to move rather than crumble where it is. That's clear. Certainly. Um through the chair, we we most recently completed an updated structural review of the Mar house uh just in the past few weeks uh confirming that it remains structurally sound and intact. The conditions of approval for a heritage permit provide the securities uh to ensure the the safe relocation of the home. So that's really buttoned up uh through conditions of approval for the existing heritage permit and would be transferred to the the new heritage permit uh once it does get approved. And just to the first part of the question to confirm that it is the order to comply will be taken care of. Certainly that's right. Uh we're actively working with staff on that uh order to comply appeal. Uh the main basis for the appeal was the inability to do the sens the more sensitive mortar work uh in the cold months that that required uh the the prolonged appeal. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thanks councelor. We're going to give you a chance to come back on later. Okay. Thank you. Um we're going to go to councelor Matt Francis. Thank you chair and through you. Um just a question to Matt Johnson here. what it is about the policy framework that generates support for this project here specifically. Thank you uh through the chair. Um, you know, there's the the existing zoning um certainly plays a role in terms of how we got to where we are, but you know, ultimately, um, regardless of the path to get here, uh, the community node focal point of the city's official plan has been really reinforced through the city's uh, firm position on an urban boundary. um where a more aggressive approach to intensification is a key part of the growth strategy. So um you know I I like to get across that this isn't all about um past uh modifications by the province in in the uh in the process. It's really about good land use planning uh and and a a focus on intensification in our community nodes. Uh and those community nodes across the municipality have a responsibility to play in the city's growth strategy and and Ancaster is no different. Thank you. And uh I appreciate that answer and through you I'm assuming you understand that the community knows throughout the rest of the city um are not the same as Ancaster. Lancaster does have different permissions where they're they're essentially allowed to not build eight stories or you don't have to build eight stories in Stony Creek. That's not the case. I'm sure. Are you aware of that? Through the chair, that's right. The the existing Sony Creek secondary plan um you know it it has a current U-Hop approval date. Um, but what it really is is a carryover of a much older uh official plan, the old town of Lancaster official plan, where the secondary planning process at the time um you know created the the regime that we're in. Um uh and that that old secondary plan that predates the the previous iteration of the PPS. It it predates the old growth plan. It predates the U-HP. But the U-HP did just really adopt those those old policies. And um what this application does is is bring forward the necessary amendments for Ancaster to um you know play a role in in accommodating growth. Um you know at a at an appropriate scale um you know other community nodes accommodate increased density. Uh what we have here is one that's uh reflective of the context. Thank you. Okay. I'll save my questions for staff after. Thank you. Okay, thank you. We're going to go back to councelor Casar. Yeah, thanks Jar. Just the fourth and final uh request from the community was just ensuring that the community is kept up to date with the progress. That's very important to them. Um they would not want to be left wondering what's happening or relying on unofficial channels to stay current with the future steps such as site plan, building permit, construction timing or construction management plans. So it was just looking for the proponent to commit to be proactive and transparent with the war 12 office and the community so that uh whatever the news is and as the things progress uh that that is like I said um transparent for everyone to understand through you chair. Thank you and through the chair. Yes. Um, we did hear a number of concerns that are really implementation related in terms of construction management and uh, we look forward to working with you to provide those updates uh, as the application progresses through site plan and building permit and uh, into construction. Okay, thank you. That's all. Any other questions? Not seeing any. We have a mover and seconder. Just anticipating one last one. um you know with uh there's been some commentary about affordability. Um and what I would suggest here is that we need to look at affordability sort of across the housing spectrum. Uh the introduction of of these units um will have the the sort of ripple effect across the spectrum providing relief um in all built forms all forms of tenure. So um everything kind of really works where where you pull pull one lever on the continuum. it has a positive impact on the other. So the introduction of these units um will have that uh that result across the spectrum. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. And I think I'm going to pass the chair and have a few more questions just now that I was uh reminded of councelor Wilson. Will we take the chair? Okay. Um Matt, what I saw in your presentation was you said 95% of the uh apartments, condominiums are going to be two bedrooms. What's the other 5%. The there will be uh one-bedroom units. Um but in this case, yeah, 95% being family-friendly units, two bedrooms or more. Um is sort of a key element to this particular design. Uh these will be very livable units. Um and uh that's um like I said, a a key component is that family-friendly aspect that you don't get in all condominium applications. Okay. Um, let's go to the Mar Philippo House. Um, what's that process look like? You're saying we're going to move it down to another section. Who who owns that land? What's that like? To me, I just I'm very doubting of that. Thank you. Um, through the chair, um, the heritage permit process, uh, comes with financial securities. It comes with uh a number of supports uh sorry a number of reports that first deal with the structural integrity to to ensure the sequence of the move is done in a way that um won't stress the home and that it can be safely relocated. So it's it's really a process that um is applied across Ontario when you're you're dealing with the relocation of of heritage homes. Um so you know qualification of the actual movers um the structural integrity all of those things are looked at closely through conditions of approval that will be at play and um and then that that's also financially secured. So that um that should really give the community the comfort that um the the Mar house will be preserved uh and again along uh a public street subject to the issuance of that new heritage permit application. Okay. Thanks, Matt. And I'll take back the chair. I have no more questions. Before you before you do that, I I would like to take the prerogative of chair and say that's the best kind of heckling I've ever heard from the gallery and and most welcome. So, no worries. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And Matt, I do see that uh councelor Pauls has now come on and counselor, you're up. Okay. Thank you. Through the chair. I The Marhouse is a part of the property of where the building's going to be when you move it. Through the chair. That's right. The MAR house uh is proposed to be relocated. The primary driver of that relocation is the site remediation uh where the plume of the old gas bar has has um drifted uh below the Mar house and and that's the the initial force for the the relocation. I What's the Mar house used for? I've never been there. What is it like? Uh most recently I hear from the outside but I don't know what's inside. Uh through the chair um the Mar house has now been vacant for a number of years. Um historically it's been used for service commercial type uses uh small shops uh that sort of thing. So um so you're just moving it. You're not opening up or doing like I I don't understand. It's just going to be moved and it's going to be empty through the chair. Uh the initial proposal was the relocation on site where it would form an amenity for the development. What's what's happening now is a new heritage permit application is being compiled where it would be relocated along the public street uh and used for a private residence. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. I thinking that we've exhausted the questions. Matt, at this time you can sit down and I need a mover and secondary to receive the delegation from the agent and it's going to be councelor Casar and councelor Wang. Please indicate your hand vote now. And that's pretty much everybody. Good enough for a pass. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, we have some registered delegations and I have I guess I should have practiced this. Uh, Riv Babar, are you in the are you here? Yes, I'm here. Oh, come on down. And I hope I pronounced that right and you can correct me as you once you get to the podium. Might be Reeves. Can you hear me? We can. Thank you. Good. My name is Reeves. Thank you. Thank you. Deli Barber. Okay. Reeves Barber. Really? Reeves Dally Barber, actually. Okay. I'm going to write that down. Thank you. Reeves Deli Barber. You made your five minutes and carry on. Okay. Yes. I appreciate being here and I appreciate the support that we've heard from our counselor here who has met with our people of Ancaster. Uh I am on the board of the Ancaster Heritage Village heritage community and very keen to see that our village our village is a gem in Hamilton. You as planners for Hamilton realize what an amazing little community we have that has been very much a viable one for over 250 years. I actually have come from a family who have been in the village for over a hundred years. Came from Hamilton since 183 something. And part of this community is Hamilton, let alone the village, the village of Ancaster, the community of Ancaster. So my major concern to the planning organization is how have you allowed something as ginormous as what we're looking at to be in the absolute core and vital part of our little community be out on Garner Road if you please fine that's where these kinds of development should be we have not just even in the core but beyond us we have the muse that's a great example of a three-story lovely development not overbearing not over the hill so to speak for us to live with you as a planning committee what what do you see for our future of our core is it going to be more of this that's very scary for us who live in the community as a child I ran my bicycle all over the place I lived this life in this small community this doesn't feel like you're planning for our future similarly a planning committee you you're the ones that are foreseeing where the infra infrastructure is what infrastructure have we have you all planned for for such a development as this? It makes no sense to me. You haven't planned for this. You've got a developer who's imposing this on our community and will go along hopefully to support what is needed to even get this in hand. let alone the discussion of what's going to happen where Brandon House was demolished at the bottom of uh Russo, which was Milwauke and and Wilson. So, I'm standing here in awe of this beautiful city of Hamilton, which is one that we all in Canada are very proud of. And it's a great industrial city. And we have a core, a gem of a core in Ancaster, older than Hamilton. And you are allowing and the development of this nature in our very core. We still, my family still has property across the street from this, an old house. It was the Gable Farmhouse and that's going to have to tolerate this energy. We don't have the road structure. Wilson's a two-lane road. Come on. It was old Highway 2. It doesn't have the support for this kind of development, for this kind of construction that's going to go on for how long? Five years. You haven't I mean, oops, sorry, getting carried away here. You haven't even really come to terms with our infrastructure. I don't hear any genuine plans of the infrastructure other than, oh, we'll let the developer pay for it. Well, we don't have the sewer systems. We don't have the water system to support you, and we certainly don't have the traffic that can accommodate all these places to park. I'm appalled and I'm just one of many of Ancaster community people who are very very upset with this organization, this planning organization and the city for enabling this to be considered. Thank you sir Reeves. Reeves, you can stay here. I just wanted to I just wanted to let you know that our staff are bound by provincial policy decisions and processes that are beyond their control and they're determined at the provincial government level. And the other piece is that um this council is all about local autonomy. So we do hear you, but there are positions that we don't have control over and but we have influence. Excuse me, chair. Why are we not working with the Ontario tribute land tribunal? Why do we not have influence? Why do the developers influence them? And we are we are a small community who don't have that representation with them. There is a process and that process can be decided by this council if they choose to go to it. It has been there a few times now and it's exhausted and it's to the point where we hear you. But to move in a certain way would be detrimental to the bigger picture for the city and I and I can appreciate that. Not for our little community. We need proactive, not reactive. I understand that. Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for Okay. Thank you. We've actually got a couple people for questions for you now. Councelor Casar. Thank you, Chair. I just want to say through you, thank you, Ree, for being here. I know it's your first time delegating and appreciate the time you spent speaking with me over the last couple weeks and and to help understand and and provide input uh to the comments I shared earlier and we'll we'll share a little later. I just wanted to confirm with you I noted your concerns around traffic servicing OLT. I'll be asking those questions of staff. Uh we'll get to the point where the reports on the floor and then I'll be asking questions on that. So you're welcome to sit here and uh listen to those responses. But very keen to hear those. Thank you for being here. Thank you for having me. and Reeves, we have one more counselor. Councelor Pauls is going to ask you a question. She's over to your right. Thank you. Thank you for delegating. I hear your passion, but I want to ask you a question. It's not only your area, it's everywhere in the city that we're intensification is what we need because of housing. So, how do you reply to um when we say we have to build because we need homes? Yes. Uh, and you're basically saying not Ancaster, which I No, I'm not saying not Ancaster. I'm saying the gem, this beautiful gem that we have that is now part of the Hamilton community. Yeah. So, I just want No, I want you to put it out on Garner Road where you should where all that you people from there can get on the 403 and go wherever they want. Not in a three-story building, not unlike the Muse. That's why I use that as an example. I'm just just saying there is so much pressure intensification even in my war people are so upset you know we have building 10 20 stories high they want it so I'm just saying not in the core not in not in a village core like this we are investing in this we I mean my my family and I are investing in the arts and the reason you come into a core is to enjoy it but not to build a ginormous effort around it which just overwhelms us. No, it could be out on Garner Road. That's part of Ancaster. You're all putting in the systems in Ancaster on Garner Road. Look at Look at these the sewer systems that are out there. All that's where those places should be. Come into our core to enjoy it as a place to be together. I I I agree 100%. But uh I just want to say we are pulled both ways. It's not appropriate. Yeah. So I but I do appreciate you coming and we hear it all the time. Traffic uh you know um just noise everything all those things are in everywhere. But I understand it's the village. So uh thank you for coming and your passion shows and uh thank you for coming and Reeves you're not done yet. We have one more counselor to ask some questions. Councelor Bey. Thank you chair and you thank you Reeves for being here today. represent the the Sunny Creek Winona area on the basically the opposite side of Hamilton from from Manchester. I've been in your downtown many many times and it's lovely. Um just I'm trying to understand uh from the community perspective is there any level of intensification that you would deem to be acceptable and it's not a facicious question but like is there four story, six story, two story? I'm just I'm curious of what you you think might be an appropriate level. All right. So that's why I use the example of the muse for instance, which is just I'm not familiar with it, so I have to guide me through it. All right. So it's it's um a threestory structure and it's lowkey. It has greenery all around it. It has a core area that it complements the type of location that the core it represents. It's not right in the village core itself. It's beyond Fiddler's Green Road, but it is the kind of structure that would be totally appropriate and would blend in beautifully, but not some monster that should be out on Garner Road. That's all. Of course, we should have intensity. I mean, we can't just have all single single houses everywhere. Most of them have gone. And look at Mara. I mean, I grew up with friends that lived in that house. That was a residential house back in the 50s and the 60s. That's okay. But now it's going to be apartments. Got that? Maybe threetory, maybe beautifully landscaped, maybe set back a little, not just blowing you over. And how wide is our sidewalk? Our sidewalks are terrible. Those all need to be dealt with obviously, but this is beyond the pale for the community. But intensity, totally counselors, agree with you. We need intensity. And then so just to summarize then sorry the your your uh preference would be something closer to a a three four story something like that. Yes of course with right gardens and all of that and just the number of I mean hundred over a hundred apartments in in that area just all jammed together with the parking the traffic all of that is unbelievable and I don't know how it's accepted. Okay. Thank you for your uh delegation. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. Reeves, you're not finished yet. We've got one more person. Councelor Francis. Thank you, Chair. Appreciate it. And uh yeah, I appreciate you coming down here. And uh your downtown core in Ancaster is very lovely. It's quite similar if you've I'm sure you've been to downtown Stony Creek. Yes. It's quite similar. And so I can understand the the protective nature that you you come here and that passion you bring here today. I just wanted to know, are you aware that a developer can build an eight-story building uh in the rest of the city's community nodes and including in downtown Stony Creek um without having to come to planning committee and and do you think that that's a fair policy? I'm aware of it and I would like for us to have been more proactive to figure out how we could have been dealing with the Ontario Land Tribunal so that we were not in this position today. Okay. And I think we haven't done our judicial our our thought process to nip that in advance. We are just reacting today. I'm reacting obviously to this situation and I'm very sorry that our ability to plan hasn't been more effective. To have engaged the Ontario government so that we were not in this position but yet that we are now is very upsetting. Thank you. I appreciate that. And the last question for me, are you I know that the urban boundary decision, the city's position on that um is reflective of today's approval. Are you uh supportive of a firm urban boundary or or is that something that you're against? Am I a firm urban boundary? Are you supportive of that? Say that again. Am I building on farmland? Are you supportive of that? On the farmland, uh I'm really not involved with that. I'm here for the core. Okay. Sorry. Understood. Thank you. I'm here for the village. Thank you. Thank you, Reeves. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you. Okay. We have another registered delegation and it's uh virtual and it's Jennifer Assumis and she's online. Jennifer, just uh when you come on, put your camera on for us and give us the correct pronunciation of your name. Yeah. Jennifer, can you hear that you're being called to the meeting? And if you could put your camera on and make your presentation, we'll wait patiently for 10 to 15 seconds. We That's good. Okay. Thank you, Jennifer. Um, what we're going to do is I'm going to ask for members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting. I'm going to ask that three times. If Jennifer, your camera comes on, we'll allow you to make a presentation at that time. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Okay. Are you together or separate? Well, why don't you come on down and then Yes, that's that works for me and I'll give you separate presentations just come to the podium down here and we'll and I'll allow you to speak one at a time. So just the person who's speaking just announce your name and then we'll let you have questions. So whoever wants to go first. Thank you. Okay. I'm Lindy Hughes, resident of Ancaster and I was present at the planning meeting in February. Um it appears to me that the main one of the main objections is the height of this building. At that meeting, there were eight nodes identified in the Ancaster area that could have this sort of building. So my question would be um knowing full well that there are finances involved is if this building were to be the right height, as the previous speaker said, three stories, that would be totally acceptable. It's the eightstory height that is um a major disturbance. Um, if there are seven alternate places it could go, perhaps that should be considered. Thank you for that. And I'm sure that the counselor will ask more questions in line with that. Okay. Um, is there anyone that wishes to to ask Linda any questions? Okay. At this point, what I'll do then is we'll let the other lady come forward and speak and then I'll actually if allow people to ask both ladies questions at the at the end. Thank you. Okay. I'm just going to um try to paraphrase a letter that I did write to the planning. Okay, no problem. And just announce your name first. Uh my name is Jillian Anshall. I'm a resident of Ancaster. Um the first one uh is the position of the building. Uh the Ancaster Village CPS comprising Wilson Street East up to the roundabout west of Ancaster Muse has no buildings higher than three stories. Even beyond that, I've driven around. Not one building is over three stories. Many in the downtown core are old heritage buildings or built in a manner that fits in architecturally with the older buildings. For example, the small plaza at the Wilson and Hollen intersection um and the commercial properties at the same intersection. They've all been built with a view to fit in with the style of the the village. The eightstory building currently being proposed creates a jarring sightelines. What we were um what we saw at the meeting um most most of them elicited gasps from the people in the audience because of the way it stood out in contrast to all the other buildings. It's also going to create shadows and loss of natural light to those houses on Lowore and an AC Academy which sit behind um imagine having an eightstory building that's in your line of of the the sun. So all of that the the microclimate of the buildings behind will be affected. The ne the next point is the unsustainable traffic congestion. If any of you have driven up there will recognize that as the lady before us said it's a twolane road through on Wilson Street. The congestion is it's like downtown Toronto even. Um that is an exaggeration but it the we were told at the meeting if I understand this correctly that there will be tearing up the street in order to update the infrastructure uh that will be required for an eightstory building. um which in itself is going to uh we talked uh the gentleman who made the presentation talked about the ripple effect. So before long maybe a sixstory building will will come into place because now the the water the sewage and all of that uh has gone in and that's going to take a fair bit of time to accomplish. We Ancast is very poorly served by transportation. So unfortunately the car is the major way of transporting anywhere uh out of the out of the village. And so that uh traffic that we see, you can't ask people to take buses because the buses for people my age are uh not only are they few, but they're far away. Um, I think the last thing I wanted to say is what um, Miss Barbara, I think the name was, uh, very eloquently described in my letter to the planning committee finished off with saying this. Is there any vision for Ancaster? And if so, please consider locating it in a more suitable place. I it I don't have the expertise to make a suggestion where a better place would be, but it definitely isn't there where all the buildings are two or three stories high. I have yet to hear an articulated vision for the town of Ancaster. Is it worthwhile? Is it worthwhile? I mean, I I ask everybody representing different areas of the city of Hamilton, is it worthwhile preserving the uniqueness which is described in one tourist guide as, and these aren't my words, it's what's being put out by the Hamilton city. In essence, Ancaster is celebrated for its deep historical roots, preserved heritage, access to nature, and a thriving local scene that offers a blend of quaint charm and contemporary appeal. I ask that these now back to my words. I ask that serious consideration be given to maintaining the threestory limit to new buildings in the village core and that permits for taller buildings be restricted to more appropriate nodes for I'll stop there as I said I don't I don't have the expertise to tell you where is more appropriate but definitely not in the village core. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Jillian. Those are good reflective questions for everyone in the room. Um, at this point, are there any counselors that wish to ask questions for our two residents of Ancaster, Linda and Jillian, at this point, thank you for your presentations, and you may sit back down. Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Kyle, you have the floor. Thank you, council. Thank you to everyone who's come up here and spoken today. I'd just like to start by saying I'm from a small town, so I know what they're saying when they're talking about an eight-story building being built. My only questions at this point would be when it comes to infrastructure, we're talking sewer, water, electricity, etc. What's that going to be on the old system? Because if there's anything I know about old towns, they typically have old systems. I mean, I've put some shovels in the ground and I've hit some clay pipe. That's that's old school. That's 1950s, 1940s. Going back again to this policy, regulation and legislative bodies. Where's the information being put out by these uh officials so that people have access to information and knowledge when it comes to their towns because from what I've heard they may be what's the word? Underinformed trying to find the right information. Again, I would have to say where are the federal provincial leaders? Are they not around here in these meetings? because this is important. You're talking about development. So, I'd like to go right into the geopolitical positioning of Canadian development. What What is the plan there? Because as far as I'm concerned, what I'm seeing from the rural aspect is there's pushing from the rural to the cities. Anytime that I've historically seen buildings go up in any nations, it's from the rural to the city. And there's always a plan. 5year plan, 10ear plan, 15ear plan, 20-year plan, 50-year plan. There's always a plan. So, where are the plans? again when it comes to let's see here well development there is definitely key aspects that I think council is leaving out about development I think that there's informations that council doesn't want to share about development and the planning process because there's always is a plan. And again, with that being said, when it comes to old infrastructure, you're talking 260 units roughly, I would assume. So, 260 units on sewer, 260 parking lots per se, or sorry, parking spaces. Again, that's you know, two people per 260, 500 extra people upon resident streets, right? These are real considerations that must be looked at and addressed. And then truthfully being told, going back to where is the information? Because if there's anything that I've come to find since 2020, there's been a whole lot of censorship here on municipal, federal, provincial. And it's not right. It's not right. So again, with that being said, we have a ring of fire up in the north. There's a lot of people coming from the rural to the city. Why are we not having wonderful developers like this developing in Cochran where we could where they could use a population, population booth, a population growth? They got mines and work up there. So I'm just going to keep it short, keep it sweet. That's all that I have. Thank you. And I'm against this development because it's over three stories. Thanks, Kyle. Thank you. Thanks, Kyle. I will just say that we do try at the city to be as transparent as possible and we do follow the procedures. Um that we are guided upon. Uh there have been some issues with our cyber incident with sharing of information but we do have freedom of information processes to follow and so forth. So just um putting that on the record and thanking Kyle for his delegation today. May I have Okay. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Is there anyone else in the gallery? Oh, Jennifer, Jennifer, by all means, you were a registered delegation, so um you can you can take your time at now. Just introduce yourself and then we'll go. Thank you. Jennifer, we're having an issue with your connection. So, we're going to ask you at this time to shut your camera off and see if that improves the connectivity. Well, got the whole family there. Okay, Jennifer, try it now. You seem to be frozen. Can you try just with your microphone and no camera? Jennifer, we're going to give this one more try. If you have the number that was in your delegate email, you could call in by phone and then we could receive your uh presentation verbally over the phone. Is that something you could try? Do you have that number? Just give us a thumbs up if you've heard me and you want to try and phone in. Okay, stop the video. Jennifer, try and speak to us now. We'll see if we've got a better connectivity. No, I'm I'm sorry it's not working. Your last your last attempt is going to be to try and call us. If not comments and if not you can always submit comments that will be gathered and and we will present them or they will be shared with council. That's okay. We're just going to give 20 seconds for her to make that phone call. And if she doesn't make the phone call, we'll move on. Okay, we're just going to go up right now to the final ask. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Come on down. Jennifer, if you can hear me, you can try and attempt to call in and I believe that our clerk will be able to receive that call and then put you over the speaker system here. We're just taking another and we're just taking another delegation at this time. So, you have a couple minutes to try and line that up. Thank you. Okay. Announce who you are. Hi, I'm Kayie Farth. This is Harvey. I'm going to keep swaying, which might be distracting, but it'll keep him asleep. Um, I'll keep this short. My concerns are mainly the same as everyone else. Um, an eight-story building is too high to put in a quaint little village. A three-story building would be better suited to the area. I do understand the need for development. I just think we need to find a way to make it fit in the area. Um, and the second one, which everyone else has brought up, is traffic. Um, I live 300 meters behind the proposed development with my three children. They go to school at Mount Mary, which is across the street from the development. Already crossing the road is very hard procedure in the morning. Um, we usually walk. This morning, I drove them um so that I could get here. And at 8:31 in the morning, the traffic was backed up from Wilson and Russo all the way past the lights at Church and Wilson up to the library. Um um with with cars trying to turn left into the garage across from the proposed development, cars are then turning or going around them already trying to pass around. Um I think that the increased traffic with the development and the increased load of so sorry um a during building would be unsustainable for the area. Those were those were my main concerns. Thanks Ka. Thanks Ka Kaylee and Harvey. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I appreciate that. Are there any questions for Kaylee or Harvey? Well, okay. Thank you very much. Thanks. I still see. So, just one more attempt from Jennifer to call in and we're waiting for her call and if she does call in, we'll put that we'll broadcast that over the speaker system here. Okay. Okay. Thanks. And Jennifer, you can just submit uh your presentation for council comment. Last potential, are there any other members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Okay, not seeing any. May I have a mover and seconder that the public submissions received and considered by committee and that the public meeting be closed. Councelor Casar and Councelor A. Wilson. We're going to have an escribe vote now. Maybe just having some technical issues with uh computers sleeping and reawakening. Yeah, I was not Yes. Okay. As we navigate the perils of the internet, we're going to have that vote come up very shortly. And this is just to receive the public submissions. We call those the gremlins, the robots. The vote is up. Celebrations. Council Wack. That carries 11 to zero. Now, may I have a mover and seconder to approve the report recommendations? Looking around, councelor Casar, Councelor Francis. Thank you. We're going to have a little quicker escribe vote now hopefully. Oh, well, we're going to have that vote right after we have some comments from our fellow counselors and councelor Casar is up now. Thanks, Jar. I have a number of questions. Probably have to go on for a second time. Just letting you know now. I'll start with some questions that were brought up from our delegates. Uh there was some themes I noted. Uh first was just around location. There was a comment around, you know, location. would prefer to have this built somewhere else. If staff could just speak to uh the process and how planning applications come in and the ability for city the city to direct where development happens. Um if through you chair of staff understand the question and could comment on that please. Reno Davalo, acting director of development planning through the chair to the councelor with regards to directing applicants to certain areas. All the areas of the city have designations and zoned for development of some type. And basically, if there's a vacant parcel or if there's a parcel with um land on it or a bill form on it, that may not be the feasible for it, the applicant or the owner has the has the right to submit that application to change that designation to put something on there. Obviously, staff don't always agree with those types of uh applications or those types of developments, but staff cannot say, "Oh, you should build this development over there." specifically if they don't own the land. Um if they do own the land, uh they have that right to build where you know what they're looking for. You know, I go back also to there are policies in place and a policy the public and the land owners have the right to act as to amend those policies to uh build whatever they wish on that site. That doesn't mean staff always support that, but they have that ability. So yeah, but basically not pushing them to a certain area. There are areas in the city that are zoned and already designated for prime for development. Um but as again as the urban boundary expansion that it's it's a closed boundary. Uh these info projects are what we are looking for for city for development for growth. Right. Thank you chair. And just to summarize, a land owner has the right to bring a development to planning committee and staff has the obligation to consider that and bring it here for us to speak. So thank you for clarifying that. Uh second was just around uh process as it relates to the OOLT and there was a question made or a comment made that the planning committee and staff should have worked better with the OOLT maybe just for the public who isn't ingrained in the planning process just how what the OOLT is and how applications could appear in front of the OT and then the city and planning committees ability to influence as I think the question was at that point in time through your chair. Um good morning again Patrick McDonald Legal Services. So through the chair um the Ontario Land Tribunal is a um administrative tribunal uh that functions similar to a court. So when applications are appealed um from the municipal level to the OOLT um the city is a party in that um the same as they would be in any court proceedings. So uh the Ontario land tribunal is the decider. It is not a party that is actually negotiated with. That doesn't mean parties can't negotiate between themselves or can oppose each other before the tribunal. And the tribunal has the jurisdiction um to make decisions on any planning matter um at the provincial level and they can do that um with or without the consent of the municipality based on the facts before them. Thank you very much. Uh I wanted to then go into some questions first around traffic because that was brought up several times and I know there was a transportation study done. Um there was one done several years ago, one more recently. So just wanted first question to transportation staff to confirm how recent the existing transportation assessment is that's part of this application through your chair. Through the chair uh Steve Moy, acting director of transportation planning and parking. Uh this study was submitted uh this past year in 2026 uh and reviewed by staff and the uh uh the count data that was collected to conduct that study uh was back last June 2025 um before the closure of schools representative of um of the conditions out there um and reflective of the current uh intersection configuration at Russo and Wilson Street. Thank you. So that's an important point to address some of the comments that it is a current study. Just briefly through you chair, could you just uh just explain the traffic study process uh and and how that's done so that the public can have confidence in in that process? Thank you uh councelor through the chair. uh I'll I'll try not to be uh too technical on it, but essentially the process of doing any transportation impact assessment uh is looking at existing conditions as as a base uh and then layering on any uh background um traffic which would be inclusive of either or combination of a um historical growth factor uh plus known developments in the area which is provided through uh planning that are active files. Uh so this this study would have been inclusive of the um Wilson and Russo um development and vice versa that development would have been inclusive of this one. Um and then as such we're looking at the conditions with that layered on background traffic. Uh and then the site would uh generate its own traffic which will also be layered on to the road network to see what the impact would be on the transportation system. um and looking at those conditions and as part of that um site traffic it would be distributed um based on either market information or existing patterns in the area. Um and then for once that's assigned to the transportation network uh then we would again assess as a total future uh condition. Um and as part of our our um guidelines as well we do post five years development. So at the time of the opening of development plus five years. Uh and then if there's any identified mitigation that would be required uh we would um that would usually be recommended by the uh applicant and we would review it for uh accuracy and uh have those discussions with the the transportation consultant. Okay. Thanks chair. So to summarize it's done by by professionals with standard processes. uh it's looking not only at the present but at other applications that are on the docket now including the one at Wilson and Mouso also looking at the future. So okay that that's helpful to understand and then what does this particular uh assessment tell us about the impact of this development if you could share that through your chair. So through the chair, I will defer this question over to Joel Julie who's the acting manager of transportation planning to help with that answer. Yes, good morning Joel Juli, acting manager of transportation planning as Steve said. So the actual impacts of this development from the assessments that we conducted which again conform to the city's transportation assessment guidelines and used industry standard software uh practices and methodology indicate that this development development will increase traffic at the study area intersections by about no more than 6 seconds during the AM and PM peak periods which are the busiest periods on the roadways that occur typically between for 1 hour between 7 and 9:00 a.m. or 3 and 6:00 p.m. And the other notable impact here as well is in the Q links at the study area intersections. They're anticipated to increase by no more than about one vehicle per cycle length over the course of the peak hour period. And that's just due to the distribution of traffic over the study area network. was actor directing Muloy stated, you know, the trips associated with this development aren't going to necessarily use all the intersections within the study area because they are origined and destined to various locations throughout the city of Hamilton and the broader area surrounding the city as well. Okay, thank you very much chair. And uh there was also a question around uh transit and I know there isn't anyone from transit here but there is significant ramp up of transit service throughout the city and including Ancast over the coming years. So, I know I'm out of time. I'll go back on a second. Okay. Thank you very much. So, we're going to go to the next counselor, and that's councelor Matt Francis. Thank you, chair. And I've got a few questions as well. Um, first, I'm I'm struggling with the consistency of our city's planning framework and the old downtown Stony Creek, which is effectively identical to uh downtown Ancaster. Um this development here is effectively anticipated and and permitted along the corridors uh in Stony Creek where it is not in Ancaster. So for example, we've got an eight-story building downtown Stony Creek that was permitted as of right meaning the applicant didn't have to come here to this committee committee go through this whole process in Ancaster. However, nearly identical forms of development require an official plan amendment um adding time, cost, uncertainty, delays. Uh my residents are going to learn about this um this very application before us and they'll be upset that Ancaster was afforded the opportunity to delegate to share their concerns possibly influencing the application and the decision of the application yet Stony Creekers were denied for an identical application. So my question is to staff, if mid-rise intensification is good planning policy in one part of the city, why is it treated as an exception in Ancaster and why isn't this development also a simple as of right as it would be in Stony Creek and the rest of of the city's community nodes? through your chair, through the chair to the councelor, Anita Fayback, acting director of planning and chief planner. Um the the overarching policy framework for uh for example downtown Stony Creek and Ancaster would be the same in terms of both being identified as community nodes in our urban structure. The difference from a policy framework is that there is a secondary plan that was developed for Ancaster uh probably about 14 years ago. So that would be the difference in terms of why there are different policy permissions. But both of those areas as part of our structure are identified as community nodes. Thank you. And so on that point then shouldn't we we be reviewing um the citywide policy to ensure fairness and predictability across the entire city to the chair to the uh counselor. There's a a number of uh projects on our work plan in from the policy group in terms of looking at um opportunities for additional intensification as well as a review of our neighborhood plans and secondary plans. uh that work plan uh should be coming forward to planning committee and council uh before the summer months I would say. So we are looking at those areas and ensuring that there's opportunities uh for intensification within the areas of the city and the areas of the urban structure where we were looking for intensification to be occurring. Understood. Next question. U does the city's position on the urban boundary weigh into staff's support position of this application through your chair? Uh through the chair to the councelor. Um in terms of the policy framework that's been established, it supports the urban um no urban boundary expansion framework. So the the targets in the official plan are premised on 80% intensification within the built boundary and then 20% intensification within greenfield areas. So our policies are um are sort of built around that direction. Understood. Um we got two more questions. Chair um is this infield development considered a brownfield and will this uh contaminated site be remediated through the erase grant? Uh through the chair to the councelor. In terms of the grant, we can't speak to that piece, but yes, remediation would be a requirement. the lands could not be developed until they are remediated. Thank you. I appreciate it. And the last uh part for me here, chair, and uh just recognizing the number of residents here today and the concerns being raised. I think there's a real interest for the community and understanding what council what ability that council has uh to respond to these concerns, particularly within the framework before us. So my question to staff recognizing that parking requirements for this project may already be established through zoning and prior approvals including the OOLT and and building on councelor Casar's comments at the last uh planning committee meeting that minimum parking requirements have created too much parking and that removing them provides freedom for the market to decide what's required which he noted is a good thing for everybody. So in that context, can you clarify whether the parking requirements for this project are fully fixed through the OOLT approved framework or whether council retains any ability to modify them or what that process would look like? Chair, thank you. Through the chair to the councelor, what's in front of planning committee today is an official plan amendment and not the zoning bylaws. So the parking requirements were fixed through the existing zoning. So there is no opportunity for planning committee or council uh today to change those requirements as the zoning bylaw amendment is not in front of planning committee. Thank you. So maybe not today, but is that something that we could look at uh accomplishing to support the uh needs of the board counselor and the community? Uh through the chair to the counselor. Um, with there being sightsp specific zoning in effect, that would be what would uh direct the parking for this particular property. In order to change that requirement, there would have to be um like a city initiated reszoning to amend the parking. Okay, understood. Thank you very much. Thank you, councelor. Next up is councelor Jeff Bey. Thank you, Chair through you. um really really sympathized with the the delegates that have come forward today and and the mirrors as um my fellow Stony Creek counselor uh Francis just stated the mirrors between the Yancaster community, Stony Creek community uh are are a lot uh very similar uh complexity, very similar history. And so, um, you know, it it, um, it it strikes me that we all seem to have these similar issues as it comes to redevelopment and infill and built form and density, whether you're in the east end or the west end of of our city. Um, and while you're dealing in Ancaster with a potential eight-story building, uh, in war 10, uh, you know, hold on to your seats, folks. Uh, up to 32 stories is what we've had to, uh, look into accepting and actually has been approved. You can look up something called the triplets or the triple towers. Um I'm but I'm trying to share through you uh pull apart a little bit um where the constant reference comes into the province's role in this delineated from the OOLT role in this delineated from some of the decision-m around this table in terms of intensificate intensification targets and I'm just wondering if staff can have a a brief a brief overview because I know it's a terribly complex issue but you know how how much of this is attributed to um our own desire to move in a particular way to achieve a particular target as opposed to what we're being you I'll put in quotations forced to do uh by the province. if if there's some kind of broad explanation for folks in the audience um that may help with their understanding and my understanding as we proceed to a decision point on this through the chair to the counselor. Um I would say that the um the beginning or the start of the focus of intensification did come through provincial legislation. There was a plan that no longer exists at this point in time. It was called places to grow which looked at focusing uh 60 at that point in time. It was 60% intensification within bill boundaries. Um and so that formed the basis for uh much of our urban structure which looked at um where should intensification be focused across the city and what are the more stable neighborhoods where some intensification would be encouraged but not looking at significant change. Uh and then I would say the next sort of key point would point in time would be the um council's decision on the no urban boundary expansion which as I indicated in my earlier response looked at a 80% intensification rate within the built boundary. So looking at increasing that intensification the remaining 20% would be what within what we call greenfield areas but are still within the urban boundary. So effectively not looking outside the urban boundary to address the intensification requirements of the province. Okay, thank you for that director. I appreciate it. So, uh to summarize then the the province at some point in the past started the u the ball rolling on this intensification journey. Um this council or previous councils decided to go I think for I heard the provincial target was 60. This council or previous council decided to go to 80 um due to a a desire to hold firm on the old urban boundary. And all of those have precipitated and rolled forward into kind of a culmination point that we find ourselves in here where we have a community that uh doesn't want to see that take place. Um and unfortunately um as noted in other parts of the community, we're seeing this everywhere uh throughout the city of Hamilton. So um I think that that's that's valuable. Um, I'm not really sure where where I may vote on this, truth be told, because I do understand the wishes and the and the feedback from the community and I value that, but I also know that uh trying to I mean, it seems to me in Stony Creek and W 10 at least, eight is probably the minimum and going below that just seems so um unattainable really. So, I'm struggling a little bit with uh how my decision point may be on this uh chair, but uh respectfully looking to see if some of my colleagues have some other uh interesting feedback that they may be able to offer. Thanks for those questions of clarity and thanks for sharing your thoughts. We're going to go to first vice chair, ward one counselor M. Wilson. I have comments, no questions. Okay. Um why don't you take those quest those comments now or do you want to hear the questions from everybody first? I'll let you decide. I'm happy to have comments now. I comments now that's fine. Yeah, some very interesting uh discussion around this table. Um let me begin by thanking the delegates um particularly um the the mother with the the young child for taking the time to be here today. Um, and I'm very grateful to the Ward 12 counselor um at the last planning committee meeting for deferring um this file to this meeting to enable uh the very delegations that we enjoyed this morning. something that seemed to be from my perspective um a source of some questioning uh last meeting and I'm hearing my those very colleagues say they really appreciated hearing from the delegates today. Perplexing. I certainly agree with the delegates who describe this village as a gem and the history and it's wonderful to hear that passion and that sense of pride and ownership from people who have have had family roots here since the 1800s. Um, my comments are that our system of land use planning in Ontario is rooted in private property rights and it shall ever be thus. And that means an applicant can come forward at the owner's wish to seek approval of a development and council or your municipality. We do have plans in place that tries to guide and inform what goes on. But it is always um an applicant's um prerogative to move forward with an application which seeks to deviate or to be uh conform with what is asked and I'm bringing that to the attention of um those who may be interested. The premise and the the principle of private property rights is such that it's a reason why the OOLT rules in favor of the applicant especially in this city over 90% of the time and that's always a tension that your council has to make. It is always good planning to try and work with the applicant to try and accommodate those community preferences and needs. And I think your counselor has done that in good faith and in good effort. And when things get punted to the OOLT, we lose that opportunity. And the the delegates here lose that opportunity to inform and to participate. and I've heard from the applicant's agent that they're willing to engage and I thank them for that. I would like to state that I understand the wish for three stories. Um we also have economics at play in that the cost of development is going up to such an extent. There's a reason why we're not able to achieve familysiz units. If we want familysiz units, usually we have to increase the height because private development has to make sense financially and um that is it shall ever be thus. I want to um close by saying um I appreciate the way in which the ward counselor has worked with the community very much and while it may be good politics to huff and puff and blow pound your chest and say never here never now it's not good planning and it's not honest because we have to work within the rules that have been prescribed for us and in good faith with the developers. So on that front, thank you to the ward counselor and I will be supporting staff recommendations which by the way um it would be very hard at an OOLT to counter when you have professional planning staff in a municipality supporting an application. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. Councelor McMe. Yeah, I hesitate to enter the fray, but want to bring some historical perspective uh to the discussion um in the hopes that it will um enhance uh everyone's understanding of how things have evolved. Um different provincial governments have different ideas about u uh how to proceed around u development. Um um you may have one government that promotes a green belt and um slowing down urban sprawl uh and another that might take a different position. Um there was a time when um a decision was taken, I'm very familiar with it, to uh eliminate the Ontario Municipal Board and to replace it with a local um appeal tribunal where the only deviations um uh that would be allowable uh would be those that u rang contrary to u local municipalities official plan. Um those days are gone. Um some would see a change as intrusive and abusive. Others would see change as responsible and necessary. And those that's the dilemma that we uh need to the road we need to travel along. We've had a very clear um expression of our general populace around urban boundaries. As we all know, uh we have a an appeal pending uh in the in the Al Friday area which is u uh one if if accepted by the Ontario land tribunal and that hearing starting fairly soon. chair as you know um will contribute more to the uh current um situation where 360 acres of prime agricultural land in Ontario is lost every single day. You know that's the uh that's that's the struggle we have. And the other reality is that um you know there are laws that are passed that become the order of the day and and we're obliged fortunately or unfortunately to adhere to those uh with the only mechanism being a u different kind of tribunal the Ontario land tribunal that u um may have or may not have depending on your perspective their their own agenda. So it it puts councils um uh in the position of not having anywhere near the kind of control historically uh to do the kind of official planning including all the stakeholders uh to see a plan developed that reflects the hopes and dreams and aspirations of a local community that to a large extent is taken out of our hands. market driven of course and frustrating often. Um but that is uh some historical perspective. Um the um financial side of it is tricky. Um big parts of a very employment sector are collapsing around us. Uh you know we have to weigh that too. So, I I just offer that chair as some historical and important uh background. I I wish I'll confess, I wish it were different. I wish municipalities uh uh could return to a time when we were radically inclusive in terms of doing official plans that did in fact reflect the hopes and dreams and aspirations of people in Stony Creek and Caster, my beloved Flamborough um and and and my beloved city of Hamilton as well. I've lived in nine different wards in this city and there are challenges in each and they're often different. So, good luck, Horseshoe. Um, we listen, we care, uh, we want to do the right thing. Um, we can have a debate about what that is. Um, but we're also very much restricted by the the law of the land and um, that's where that's where we're at. Thanks. Thank you, counselor, for those words of wisdom and experience um in dealing with this matter and and your reflections. We're going to go to first time speaker, Councelor Cameron Kretch. Thanks very much. I usually don't want to copy what other people have said or expound on it, but I want to give a slightly less polite version of what I think we just heard from these two fine folks here. Look, the province is a bully in this situation. That's all that's going on here. It's pretty simple. Property rights matter more than anybody else's rights. That is clear in provincial legislation. And I'm not saying Doug Ford's the only one to do this. When the city was founded, we used to elect a board of 11 counselors. 10 counselors were elected by the people and one by the other counselors. And we looked at that 11th person. If there was a tie, the man is what it says. The man who owned the most property got to win. I could regail you with hundreds of tales of how the structure of this city and of this province is built on property rights. And so that's what we're stuck with right now, unfortunately, and have been for a long time. And councelor McMaken is right. I'm speaking mostly to the people who delegated here. What I want to tell you is when we had the Ontario Municipal Board, just the name, think about it. The Ontario Municipal Board seemed like it was focused on what was happening in the city. Makes sense. Then they changed the name and the process to the local planning appeal tribunal. Both of those bodies allowed residents like the delegates today to go down to the tribunal themselves, register to oppose what was happening, and have their day in court. And then Doug said, "Nah, not good enough. Doesn't protect people with property rights enough. Get them out of there." So now people don't have that right anymore. At a local level, you had a right to actually have your day with the province and sit down and say, "Look at we don't like the way that you're doing this. Here's our opinion. This is what we want to do." And the province said, "We find that annoying. We're getting rid of it." So they got rid of it. Part of our job here too is balancing a couple of different things. As the downtown counselor, I can tell you, um, and we're in an eight-story building right now, by the way. City Hall is an eight-story building. The whole area around city hall was raised to the ground many years ago. All the single family homes here were gotten rid of. Um, many many heritage buildings were were lost in the process of doing that to build apartments, to build city hall in a process called urban renewal. I'm not saying I'm supportive of that. I'm just giving you a giving you a brief synopsis of where we actually sit today having this conversation. And when we're looking at decisions to make downtown, often we're starting at 30 stories at this point. Frankly, most of our conversations are some areas we have 16, 17, 18 stories as a starting place, but for oftentimes now that conversation about the oil tea is about it. And to give you one example, we had a property downtown that was blocking the escarment that was 30 stories that had, you know, one of the most I think iconic things that we all agreed on was we want to be able to see the escarment if we're downtown. We want to be able to see this natural landscape. Everyone agreed on that. Ontario land tribunal said we don't care about your escarment and just let it go through anyways. So that's the context that we're in right now and the folks who are appointed to the Ontario tribunal are done so by the provincial government. So it's just simply an extension of the political apparatus that runs this province. Last thing sight specific issues like these issues have to be balanced with what's happening in an area. And I think one thing I hear from a lot of delegates coming forward is well why don't you just build it over there? And one of the problems we're stuck with because of the way property rights are protected is the person coming forward the application who has a right to have an application doesn't own the property over there. The city isn't going build this here. The province is saying to the developer and the property owner, what do you want to build? Let us know. That's the context we're in here in 2026. And I want to just, you know, give a less polite version of that because I think that um there's no point in mincing words. This is where we are as a planning committee. If we go against those rules, we got to pay hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and delay things from happening only to inev inevitably have it happen anyways and be on the hook for all that cash. Not just us, everyone who pays taxes. Thank you. Thanks, councelor, for sharing your take on bigger provincial issues that have come to play in our city. And finally, councelor Casar. Yeah, thanks chair. Um, and I will wish for your indulgence. I have a couple more questions and then some comments hopefully to wrap it up. Uh first, yeah, just start to uh what councelor Francis was saying around the need for consistency and predictability for development. Totally agree with that. Um you know, there is a secondary plan in in Ancast. There isn't in other parts of the city. Um one of the things that staff brought to planning committee a little while ago was that the province is actually considering removing secondary plans. So that would bring consistency, but a whole lot of other planning challenges to build community. So yeah, but it's a point well taken and there are differences right now in our city and you know maybe if uh we weren't having to staff weren't having to adapt to so many and react to so many provincial policy changes, they may have gotten further on their work plan. Don't know for sure. Uh just a couple questions on the heritage permit. Uh chair through you to Alyssa Golden who's here. just wanted to get confirmation on the status of where it's at and the next steps and just specifically the one condition around ensuring that the building can be moved uh and retaining its structural integrity. So if I could ask that through you chair through the chair Alyssa Golden culture heritage program lead. Uh so there is an existing heritage permit HP20250010 which is an extension of uh previous permits approved by council and um over the last few years the applicant has worked closely with staff to clear uh a number of the previous conditions of previous extensions including updated heritage impact assessments um submission of a heritage conservation plan, masonry repair plans and um heritage structure relocation methodology. Um so all of those sort of groundwork um conditions have already been cleared through previous extensions. Um what's left on the current heritage permit, some of the main items that still need to be cleared would be informed by all of those previous studies. And the main one being providing a letter of credit for the total cost of securing, protecting, stabilizing, relocating, and then restoring the building as a part of the move. So that's really the major item that's still um outstanding, but the previous reports that have been provided and cleared through staff have demonstrated that that is feasible and outlined what's necessary in order to undertake that move. Okay. Thank you very much. And through you, chair, I recognize that the heritage permit is not part of this OPA, but from the public's point of view, it's all part of the same process. So thank you for that answer. Second question is just a legal question uh to Patrick McDonald. just my understanding and would like to get confirmation that when an application goes to the OOLT uh the matter is out of council's hands and the OOLT has the power to make any decision uh that council could have made to the application. So modifications could be made uh including conditions or other changes and that's not within the realm of council to effect at that point. So just looking for confirmation that is accurate. um through the chair. Uh yes, once an application's at the OOLT, it's at the tribunal's discretion whether any modifications can be made without sending the matter back to the municipality. Okay. So, I just think that's important to understand the delineation between council responsibility and then the OT. Okay. Just some closing comments. Uh I'll be a little over my time, but don't see anyone else on the speakers list. So, thanks. Uh first I'd be remiss not to start with acknowledging Jim Mloud who was the former uh president of Ancaster Village Heritage Community who uh left us unfortunately and suddenly um well not that long ago. Um him and I had an excellent relationship and talked a lot about this development and the other and uh was grateful for his leadership uh through this process as I know many others are. So thinking of him as we speak about Ancaster in general. As I referenced earlier, I've met with many representatives from the community to review this proposal after over the last couple of weeks and discuss this decision that planning committee and ultimately council is required to make today and then next week. So we shared our opinions and concerns and we reviewed the history of the file specifically as it relates to uh provincial involvement in local decision-m and how that has had a profound effect on this file. Um there is a fierce passion for Ancaster's heritage as I know there is in other parts of the former townships and within Hamilton itself. Uh long before European settlement of prominent first nations trails uh were through the area and those are currently Mohawk and Rouso and Wilson Street. So their legacy still exists. I think many know that Lancaster was founded in 1792 uh with a a mill Wilson's mill and there's lots of history on the bloody size the barracks which is part of was part of 1812 the war of 1812 we the old town hall rouso house field coat museum and park and you know we celebrate all that these days with our heritage days parade so to everyone who's written in an email I've read all of your emails uh I know there's a very strong objection to the specifics of what it's proposed. Uh I attended the proponents neighborhood meeting which has been referenced and have had many conversations in meetings in town halls in parks even grocery stores and other places in the community. And from those conversations want to be clear and it's my opinion also that is there is general alignment for the development uh on this mostly vacant lot. The community wants that. And I've heard preferences for three, four, five stories of mixed use. And for the public, mixed use means commercial on the ground floor, amenities that serve the community and then housing above. That's I think in my opinion the right way to do development. And that's what the community wants and we I think we heard that today and I've heard that from many in the community. But realistically, this is not a black and white situation for this planning committee to determine what happens. Uh we absolutely need more housing and businesses to help Anancaster and Hamilton thrive. We need intensification and we need to create sustainable, safe and livable communities. And we should also be respecting the culture and heritage of a historic community, whether it's Stony Creek, Hamilton, Dundas, or Ancaster. And these kinds of decisions should be made locally by local decision makers, which is this planning committee. regret, excuse me, regrettably, as has been referenced a few times, the province has interfered in that process through multiple housing bills that have resulted in what I would characterize as erosion of municipal decision-making powers. Uh, I'm not going to go into the history of that. Some of them have been mentioned. Uh, many of those changes have been done on the under the opaces of cutting red tape to build more housing, which we all agree we need. We need more housing. But housing is just one ingredient of safe, vibrant uh and dynamic communities that we want and need and deserve, frankly. And local planning and all that process around it really shouldn't be reduced to just red tape to be cut. And from an economic point of view, forc focusing relentlessly and exclusively just on supply doesn't build communities, nor does it address the need for housing that regular people can actually afford. affordability was brought up today. So in this heavily supply side policy direction of just build more homes, it's the marginal buyer that sets the price for everyone else. That's just economics. That's not going to solve the housing crisis or uh radically improve affordability. So a decent understanding of economics that acknowledges the complexity and competing pressures on affordable housing creation would lead to better policy and far superior outcomes. But regardless of the policies we're operating with provinially, each day that these vacant lots on Wilson Street East remain the way they are is a lost opportunity to provide homes, to support the village corps, and more businesses to and amenities to improve the lives of people who live there. Good development on this site can and will contribute positively to social, cultural, and the economic life of Ancaster. We've gone through the history. The key point I think everyone needs to take away is the zoning is in place for eight stories. You know, if that was not in place, we could have had the debate here and maybe we landed at the same place, maybe we landed on something different, but because of the history that we saw earlier, the zoning is in place and that's just a matter of fact. And it's really highly unusual for the province to intervene on a specific development application. So, if we're going to be real about it, what's in front of us today is not about city council making a decision on the development proposal. We've seen the province intervention on this file have determined the outcome because the zoning is in place. If we were to deny this and it goes to the OOLT for those that understand how it works, very very very likely that the OOLT approves the application as it is. So, I think it's wise for us to accept that there has been improvements. I asked the planner about this uh softening of the facade and some other things uh that have marginally improved, which is basically what staff were able to achieve. That's only what they're able to achieve. Uh and not continue to extend the timeliness and and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars. As I shared in my public statement, which is on social media and on my website, the wisest course of action is to accept the cards we've dealt, not the cards we wish we had, as councelor McMin has often said. So, in the conversations I had with uh the community, it was identifying what we can influence. And I've covered those topics today. A quick recap, making sure that the servicing provisions are fulfilled. We got confirmation that that is going to happen. uh a commitment to incorporate community feedback into the site plan process or at least accept that feedback. That's been confirmed today that they would accept the feedback on the heritage aesthetic because that is important to everyone in the gym that is Ancaster and that was echoed around the horseshoe today to ensure that the Marilopa house is preserved and is located on a streetscape within the village core. There was a commitment that that process is underway. the permit permissions are in place to preserve it and make sure it happens to have timely and transparent public updates throughout the subsequent steps of this planning process. There was a commitment to do that and I will commit as the war 12 counselor to make sure that work is done. And then finally, it was for the community members to contact their Hamilton MPPPs, the Minister of Municipal Housing Affairs, and the premier, you know, to demand that local decisions are made by local decision makers and the community. So, chair, I'll wrap up there. I will be supporting the recommendation for those reasons. And thanks for the indulgence. Thanks, counselor. We do recognize the complexity that you've negotiated in coming to your decision today. And with that, I'm going to call the question. And we have a a mover was councelor Casar and the seconder was councelor Francis. Please indicate your escribe vote now. And the vote is up. and staff recommendations carry 11 to zero. At this time, I'm going to call for a lunch break and we'll be returning at 1:00. Thank you. Resuming our planning committee. Uh just wanting to note that councelor Francis and councelor Paul's are on city business at this time. We're moving to 8.4 peed26053 application for a zoning bylaw amendment for lands located at 974 and 980 Upper Paradise Road, Hamilton in Ward 14. Does the committee wish to see the presentation? Surveying committee looking online. No. May I have a mover and seconder to wave the staff presentation? Councelor Cooper, Councelor Bey, please indicate your hand vote now. That is passed. So, we're moving to Caitlyn Gillis from Landwise. Caitlyn, thank you. Okay, welcome Caitlyn. You may begin when you're ready. Good afternoon, chair, members of committee, staff, members of the public. My name is Caitlyn Gillis, senior planner, and we are the of Landwise, and we're the retained agent on behalf of uh Windsen Ancaster Town Houses Limited, who are the owners and applicant of the zoning bylaw amendment. So, I'll give a very brief uh overview of the property. So, uh the property is located um bit of a delay on the PowerPoint, pardon. Okay, there we are. Uh, so the subject property is located on Upper Paradise Road just south of Stone Church. Um the property is the remnants. So the hatched parcel in front of you are remnants of um the rear of the property which was acquired by the um applicant to assemble with lands fronting Wood Valley Court in a previous application that has now been constructed as four single detached townhouse or single detached dwellings fronting Wood Valley Court. And uh this front portion would be accessed from upper paradise. The property has an approximate frontage of 53 meters and about a.3 hectare site area. In terms of community context, the property is positioned um at the periphery of a a very predominantly lowdensity residential neighborhood. Um to the south on the east side of Upper Paradise is St. Thomas Moore Secondary School. And then to the north of the property highlighted in red are various commercial plazas um that offer a variety of daily and weekly needs. And then the lands highlighted in yellow are other townhouse or uh apartment dwelling forms within the area. The property is designated neighborhoods and it is zoned uh in the former city of Hamilton bylaw as urban protected residential. As you can see um in the zoning map, there are existing R1 lands along the upper paradise uh streetscape as well as other uh lands still left in the former bylaw which will eventually be brought into zoning bylaw05200. So, the proposed zoning bylaw amendment um is to reszone the subject property from uh the former um bylaw in the urban protected residential district into the low density residential R1 zone under the '05200 bylaw to facilitate the proposed development of 12 town houses uh within two blocks of uh town houses. So, each block would have six three-story towns, each provided with two parking spaces, one in the garage, one in the driveway, as well as uh some on-site visitor parking, including barrierfree parking with one access from Upper Paradise. Um here is a preliminary landscape plan which shows um that the majority of the perimeter trees on both the north and south ends of the property will be retained through redevelopment and then addition of new planting strips adjacent to the rear yards of the new detached uh dwellings to um the west and additional planting strip and then additional plantings throughout the site including uh private trees in the front yards. Here's a preliminary elevations of the town houses. Uh peaked roof, three stories, no basement. Um and then the side elevations fronting or addressing upper par paradise would be enhanced um with additional uh fenistration and glazing. Um in conclusion, we have st read staff's report and support uh their recommendation of approval. I would also like to thank uh Mr. Skidmore and Mr. Mcnyak for getting us here today and their work on the file. Um and I would also like to acknowledge uh we have received the public comments. Uh a couple of the comments were related to um works during construction um and being uh a bit more aware of neighbors. So that will be uh confirmed through the next stage of site plan approval through the construction management plan uh where we will provide a communications plan and contact information for the on-site uh general contractors. Um and then in addition to that there were concerns around traffic and sight lines and through uh this process we have submitted a transportation impact assessment which confirmed Prep Paradise is able to handle the uh very slight increase of um daily trips that will result from the proposed development as well as review of the sighteline assessment of access to the driveway and that meets uh the transportation manual. requirements. So, uh, transportation planning has supported the application from a safety standpoint. And that concludes my presentation, but happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you, Caitlyn. Any questions from the committee? I'm just going to turn it over to Vice Chair M. Wilson. I have a just a question. The properties to the west, lots one, two, three, and four that come off of Wood Valley, are they developed right now? Are they still They are developed through through the chair. Yes, they are developed. Okay, thanks. So, that was an that was a dated picture. Okay, thank you very much. That's the only question I have. Um, not seeing any other. Uh, Caitlyn, last question. Are you in support of staff report? Yes. Okay, thank you. May I have a mover and seconder to receive the delegation from the agent? I guess we'll go with councelor Casar, councelor Cooper. Hand vote, please. That passes and thank you, Caitlyn. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Not seeing anyone in the room or online. May I have a mover and seconder that the public submissions were received and considered by committee and that the public meeting be closed. We'll go with councelor McMaken and councelor Bey. Thank you. Please indicate your escribe vote now. It's up. Councelor Nan, can you vote? Okay. That carries 8 to zero. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the report recommendations? So the mover will be councelor Bey and we'll go to councelor Cretch. Um any questions for staff on this? Not seeing anybody raise their hands or signal. Let's indicate your escribe vote now then. Thank you. Vote is up. Councelor Beacon is a thumbs up and that passes 8 to zero. Thank you. We're moving on to items for consideration. 9.1 peed 2605 application to deem lands being lots one and two of registered plan 62M1229 known as 50 Arrow Park Boulevard and block seven of registered plan 62M1229 known as part of 110 Arop Park Boulevard Glamrook not to be part of a registered plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 503 of the planning act in W 11. May I have a mover and second to approve the recommendations in the report? Councelor Bey, councelor Cooper. Thank you. Is there any discussion on this report? I'm not seeing any. I've had my previous discussions with staff, so I'm satisfied. Um, let's uh indicate our Eastc votes now. Thank you. And that carries 8 to 0. Moving on to 9.2 peeds 26038 fee and process review for formal consultation and holding removal applications. This is citywide. Does the committee wish to see the staff presentation? And yes, I have an affirmative. So staff, I think it's Joseph Severino, come on down. And if you have anybody else Okay, Joseph, whenever you're ready, you may begin. Okay. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Joseph Sanrino. I am a business facilitator with the planning division. Today I'm here to discuss um the recommended approval of peed26038 fee and process review for formal consultation and holding removal applications. Um just some background for the members of the committee and everybody in attendance. Business facilitation staff have been tasked with reviewing the user fees for holding removal applications and to review the fee structure for formal consultation applications in response to the changes ushered in by the province by way of bill 185. This was a recommendation of a past staff reported 24124. Staff are tasked with auditing and streamlining the holding removal application process to remove redundancies such as duplicate submissions and/or reviews of materials and look for efficiencies in an effort to streamline the process of lifting a holding provision from a development site to advance the approval of a development application. Um the objective of the process review, we'll start with the formal consultation. Um this was uh done to encourage continued use of the formal consultation application stream in lie of bill 185 which made it so municipalities can no longer make FC's mandatory. The planning division and our colleagues in the development industry have utilized the formal consultation process for many years as is as it is mutually a beneficial mechanism to ensure good development and identify development stalling issues andor requirements ahead of a formal planning act application submissions. Um formal consultations allow the planning division and development industry to collaborate um on ensuring suitable development occurs. Um, business facilitation staff reviewed the FC process mapping with all sections involved and the formal consultation process and were able to reduce the fees by looking for process efficiencies. Above are the proposed formal consultation fees as well as the fees from the years prior. You will notice that the 2022 fee was significantly less. there was only one FC stream and the submission requirements and review output was very minimal. Um when bill 109 came into effect, the response the to respond to the potential for financial penalties should the municipality miss a decision deadline, we revamped the FC process to introduce the FCSP stream and the FC stream with no DRT. The revamp process required more submission items from the applicant but also extensive review comments from staff to which further time is required to conduct a comprehensive submission review. The FC submission requirements have not changed and staff will still be providing the same level of in-depth review and comments with the proposed reduced FC fees. Um and next the objection of the holding removal uh process review. So the objection of this process review is to assess the application costs in relation to the scope of the holding of the required holding provisions ahead of the expiration of the reduced holding provision application fee currently in place. Um the purpose is to streamline the application submission and circulation process to reduce duplication and/or redundancy amongst processes. Specifically when a holding provision or provisions is tied to a site plan control application by receiving the submission items required to remove the holding provisions when a site plan control application is received. This is to expedite the time fra frame for which the delegated authority may authorize the removal of the holding provision or provisions from a site or development application. And above uh these are the existing um holding removal applications uh fees and these are the proposed holding provision application fees. As you can see, um the top cell is the proposed uh standard process and the middle cell review of AH holding provision site plan. That's the proposed site plan process where the submission items will be um provided by way of a site plan application for comment. Um just want to note that appendix B attached to the report shows an example of how these fees would be applied in the various situations. And next is the revenue projection. So in 2025 there were 59 formal consultation applications across all streams with a total revenue of roughly $639,000. Um, the new formal consultation fees are projected to generate approximately $457,000 in change in revenue across all streams when applying the volume from 2025. Um, in 2025 there were 10 holding or sorry 15 holding removal applications. Just want to note that the report says 15 but the slideshow shows a typo. It's actually 15 holding removal applications across all application types and the um the revenue was roughly 80 slightly over $81,000. Um, and new the new holding removal fees are projected to generate a revenue of between $61,000 and change and roughly $218,000 in change based on the same holding removal volume um of the applications received in 2025. Um just regarding consultation. So staff from various internal groups provided input on the pro proposed fee structures. A summary of the proposed changes to the holding removal process and formal consultation fee audit was presented to the former DG group now citybuilders on April 14th of 2025. Basically a year today. Um, and notice of the proposed fee change was posted in Hamilton Spectator on March 27th, 2026. Um, and now, uh, open to any questions. Okay. Thanks, Joseph. Uh, first up is Councelor Marine Wilson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much for that presentation. I I trust my questions will be on in order. They're not very specific to the report but they are general in terms of our application of fees. So if I could proceed on that basis um just assuring that I understand the starting point in that our planning fees uh cannot under law uh be a source of revenue generation. They have to be on the basis of cost recovery. Could you just confirm or deny that through the chair? um through the chair to councelor Wilson. Thank you for your uh question. I can confirm that the fees are in fact cost recoverable. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. um if it is permitted for me to reference the attached um correspondence. I'm wondering if you've had an opportunity to read the correspondence and and whether staff would offer some feedback for committee members through the chair through the chair to councelor Wilson. Yes, I have read the feedback from the builders association and uh we at the moment we are looking at uh launching how the launch of city flow unravels and um how it all gets implemented and at such time we will uh come back and potentially look at where there are um rooms to reassess the um process mapping for the applications in question to determine if um the fees can be reduced um slightly more on the basis is that we are cost recoverable. Thank you. So, pardon my forgiveness. Do you have a timeline for that review and delivery through the chair through the chair? Um, city flow launched last week. Um, we're in the process of looking at at we're in the process of the launch. Um, so and I can defer to um my colleagues in the bench there, but I would imagine probably later in the year uh through the chair to the councelor. Uh yes, in terms of timing, it would be likely towards the end of the year. The one thing I just wanted to add in addition to what uh Mr. Sans Severino indicated that the correspondence from the West End Homebuilders Association also references a credit. So previously and I think uh it was noted in the presentation that um fees paid to for a formal consultation application could be credited towards a future application. And that was uh that that approach was eliminated with bill 109. And so what the industry is asking and we are agreeable to reinvestigate the use of that credit. Uh I think as as indicated we need to make sure that we are operating at 100% cost recovery. So looking for the new planning permitting and bylaw system to look for efficiencies that may exist. Um, does it take a little less time now to do certain administrative tasks and where there is duplication in process because that would be likely where the credit would be most applicable where at a formal consultation stage and at let's say a zoning bile amendment stage there are uh steps that are duplicated and could that credit be then counted towards a future application. So, we're we're committed to looking into that as well. Thank you. if I may, now that I have the the ear of the chief planner, um, respectfully, I'm I thought I heard or read that the government of Ontario is moving forward with a framework which would see um a daylighting and a consistency of fees across the province. it did I am I misremembering or did I misinterpretate interpret that through the chair? Um through the chair I I don't recall anything specific with fees but what I will say is that they they released a number of postings recently and through some of their communication have referenced consistency across municipalities. So one of the things they're looking at is their own permitting system uh looking at consistency in terms of application types. what could come from that and there there's conversations amongst um other municipalities. Would that include fees as well? Um, so I have not seen anything in particular yet from the province on changes or um approaches to streamlining fees, but there are some other initiatives that they're uh consulting with municipalities and the broader public that would impact or could potentially impact the fees that are uh charged for an application. Thank you. One one f Thank you for that. One final question from me. um we would it wouldn't be in our self-interest to impede uh you know this progressive approach and uh finding new ways. Um, but I'm wondering, do we have the capacity um as a municipality to compare our our our fees to other municipalities to make sure that we are competitive and we're not um unburd we're not burdening um those who uh we want to develop to develop through the chair. um through the chair to the councelor. Um in the early stages of this process, we did look at approximately seven or so municipalities within the area that were comparable in terms of population and size, etc. And we did want we did make an effort to look at what those fees are in terms of what they're charging for formal consultation in holding removals. And if I may, the outcome of that um the outcome is um generally the exact figures I I have them saved somewhere. I can get them to you if you would like, but generally speaking, we are within range with what most municipalities our size are charging for formal consultations and for holding removal applications. Sorry, final question. Is there a capacity for this municipality to provide a an inventory or category of our competitiveness on the basis of development fee? at the chair of the council. Um, sorry. Yeah, sorry. I was just going to say I I was just thinking we are looking at doing some pipeline reporting and I'm wondering if that may be the appropriate time when we're looking at um how we measure up against other municipalities in terms of processing timelines. So there may be an opportunity to look at that uh at the same time. So through the chair, if I've understood the chief planner, our pro one moment, please. We are continuing to experience technical difficulties and uh I believe have lost the live stream. So we just need to recess for five minutes to allow us to get that connection back. My apologies. Thank you. So we'll recess and reconvene at I guess 134. Welcome back. Sorry for that technical delay. Uh we're going to finish off with councelor Wilson who was just asking her last question. Oh, wrong one. Hold on. I got it. Thank you. Further to my last question, again, thank you very much for this report. I I thought what I heard is um our processing work may have an effect on our ultimate fee. Um and there seems to be an opportunity perhaps to map those and provide a comparative analysis for council on the processing and if that's the case I would welcome that and I'll subsequently work with staff in order to action that. Thank you. Okay. So no response needed to that I think. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go to our next counselor with questions and it's councelor Rob Cooper. Thank you chair. Thank you for the presentation. I think this is exceptional. I think this is really the direction we need to go. When we start talking efficient and effective and we start talking a bit about timing, can you see where our process like you can be efficient and effective and still take the same run rate duration? Can you see where that's starting to come in line and starting to come down and making things quicker if we use that word to the chair to the counselor? Thank you for your question and uh kind words. Um with respect to expediting the process or making it quicker um you know one of the examples is um the new holding process where the items are submitted through the site plan control stage. Um so if if an item is submitted um say there's a holding provision that requires say um a noise study or what have you um that item would be submitted with the site plan control application through the initial review. It would be circulated by staff to which the reviewer would review um the site plan contents concurrently with the holding removal contents and provide the comments to the planner. Um and the comments would either recommend you know clearance or perhaps they need to provide more information. Um that's the nature of the review. But um if it if the comments with respect to the holding items um recommend clearance then the planner will forward that to the applicant to which the applicant would then make their application for a holding removal to the development planning counter and um they would no longer require a circulation. What would happen is intake staff would conduct their usual routines through um receiving um the zoning bylaw amendment application for hold removal. The clearance provided to the planner would be submitted with the applicant and the planner would then begin um drafting the review um to get to the various review stages to which it gets to the chief planner who's a delegated authority to which um she would decide whether or not to lift the holding removal not based on the contents of the submission. And just the general sense, how much time would we be saving? Months, days, weeks through the chair to the counselor. Um I mean a circulation is typically 20 days um for a standard application. And of course with volume that could fluctuate depending on other competing priorities. So I would imagine you could conceivably shave off a month or so. um given the fact that the circulation piece is such a big um part of the um zoning bylaw amendment process as it relates to holds. Thank you. I know general manager Prasad also talked in his budget presentation about the idea of uh using technology. Is this an example where we've been able to use technology or is that another phase coming along through the chair to the councelor? My understanding with the new city flow or POSI as it's also called um the holding removal piece won't be a part of the current phase. That'll come in the next phase. But um you know the circulation process um for site plan for that effect would still flush out the comments because it's in the city flow system. they would still flush out the comments um expeditiously with the site plan comments um to which there would be no impact on the actual zoning bylaw amendment application going to the front counter or to planning apps rather or to the the portal um where the planner would then receive the application then begin the report. So yes, it it would it would make things quicker through the use of technology um given that site plan is integrated into the new software that's come online. Thank you. Thank you. And I would think the industry has been supportive of these changes through the chair. Um that was the feedback that we received a year ago today through the DIGG or city builders and also generally um the tone of the correspondence provided um yesterday from the builders association. Thank you. Thank you. So you know when we start to look at this I mean this is really a run rate turns into dollars. time turns into costs. And where we find all those costs is really in house price of a house. And we hear whether it be the West End home builders talking about how uh the prices such that it's hard for people to buy homes. We know that intuitively just talking to people in our our communities. And so this is also has an impact on homeowners and affordability in terms of where this really translate into. There's not a magic pot of money under a rainbow somewhere. This is in fact going right to the homeowner through the developers and the builders. So, we are making homes more reasonable and and I will just say this, you know, um what general general manager Prasad talked about in the budget session about how we're going to make things more efficient and effective. This sounds like step one of a journey that we're on this year. And so exciting excited to hear more about this as it starts to impact us and and really looking for more presentations like this to come back and really let the community whether it be builders or or home buyers uh know exactly how we're really impacting them and lowering costs here as well. So, thank you for your efforts. Really appreciate it. I think you're doing a great job. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, councelor. Councelor Crretch. Yeah, I do appreciate the fact that you're looking for these kinds of efficiencies and trying to reduce the way they're doing and also structuring things to make a little more sense. So you're saying look, if it's just a basic Holding provision base fee, that makes sense here. Here are all the different kinds of things. So from a transparency perspective for us as counselors, that's really helpful because, you know, we're not sitting around looking at schedules of fees. Either are the public, but through reports like this, we get a sense or more of a glimpse into what's actually happening. I do agree that there is no magical sort of rainbow pot at the end of the rainbow of money here. And one thing I've asked consistently for every single time we have a discussion about this kind of fee process is if developers will come to the table with ironclad agreements that say that they will not that the monies that we're saving won't be passed on to home buyers. Then they'll get a heck of a lot more buying than just saying we'll do it. No, put it in writing. Tell us exactly how much it's going to happen. But right now it's just like well it could be passed on to home buyers. It could be absorbed to the profit model. No one knows. I think one of the big missing pieces for everybody in these discussions I think for yourself as a planner and for everybody else in these discussions that makes it really tricky is that there's no transparency with respect to the financing of a development. Right? We're often subsidizing developments, giving incentive grants, you name it. Millions and millions of dollars every year are being given and there's absolutely no financial accountability. Later this week, there's a thing coming up for AFNA where we're talking about grants under $5,000 and making sure we finally have a policy to make sure that receipts are given before monies are given out at a level of $5,000. So, you know, that's I think something I struggle with. Is there anything in terms of regulations, you know, that are coming down for us to understand how that can happen? I mean that's more of a question I think for the chief planner to be fair is is there is there a way to to have that kind of accountability when it comes to fees of any kind that we charge to developers and reductions in fees waving of fees all these kinds of things in terms of asking for actual financial accountability from them through the chair to the council I will say there's been a lot of conversations about that but there is nothing coming down in terms of legislation or anything else that I'm aware of that would require a developer to clearly outline their fees and what they charge and what's charged to the home homeowner and their profit as well. And so that legislation will be provincial. I imagine is your was your implication through the chair of the council. Yes, that's correct. Yeah, I think it's something that unfortunately we don't have the ma a mandate here to do. Um that is again what I talked about earlier in respective property rights, but it's a huge missing gap for the public, for ourselves, for everybody. There's absolutely zero accountability for the financial model, but millions of public dollars being spent anyways. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Not seeing any more questions, Joseph, so you can take a seat. Thank you very much. Uh, may I have a mover and seconder to receive the staff presentation. Councelor uh, Cooper and Councelor M. Wilson. Please indicate your hand vote now. I've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Okay, that's good. Thank you. Passes. May I have a mover? May I have a mover and seconder to approve the recommendations in the report and receive the written correspondence? Councelor Casar. Councelor Cooper. Are there any discussions at this time? Any further discussions about this? Okay, seeing that comments have already been made, um let's go to the escribe vote now. Okay, that passes 8 to zero. Thank you. Moving on to HMHC 26003 Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee minute minutes dated March 27th, 2026. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the recommendations in the report? Councelor Cretch and we'll go to councelor McMaken for the seconding of that. Um any discussions from staff on or from from council on this or committee? Sorry. There we're getting it. Not seeing anything. Okay. So no discussion. Please indicate your escro escribe vote now. I'm struggling. Give me a drink of water. And that again passes 8 to zero. Thank you. Okay, we're on to motions. We have motion 10.1, reducing demolition by neglect. Councelor Cretch, please introduce your motion. I believe the secondary is councelor Nan. Your belief is correct. The seconder is councelor Nan. Thank you. And I won't belabor the point here, but just want to thank staff for helping with this. This is a a notice of motion turned into a motion. So, it's been on the agenda for some time now. I think the thing I want to focus on here is that when we had some serious situations with buildings collapsing, what happened was the mayor brought forward a motion and then a report came back to that. There's still a further report coming back to that about the Gore Park building specifically. Meanwhile, u myself, director quite would had been working on this motion for a while and frankly that just that motion from the mayor frankly just interrupted our ability to get this done. So now that that's all come and been done, um this is finally here and able to be acted on, which is really just exercising our legal authority as a municipality under existing provincial rules, giving more permissions to the building department or rather making sure they have council direction. Uh same thing to the municipal law enforcement and bylaw services folks, right? To be more toothsome about this, frankly, when we know there's an issue with a building and there's a health and safety impact, we already have the right as a municipality to enter if there's going to be a danger to public safety. We have had a culture at the city for a very long time of compliance. And a compliance culture looks like can somebody do something? How quickly can they do it? What's what's reasonable for it to be done? and we work with the property owner sometimes to the detriment of the public. So this is really trying to tighten that space up and fill in the gaps that exist. There's already a bunch of work being done as a result of the mayor's mayor's motion was seconded by councelor Nan as well to try and deal with this. But this is hoping to attack I think another kind of problem which is when there's a heritage building that we don't own, when there's a vacant building we don't own, but we know there's a significant issue with it. What do we do next? What are the steps? How do we attack that? How do we deal with it? I will say I'm really grateful that already we're doing some things and an example for those in W 2 who would know this building, the Canon knitting mills, we had a lot of issues there. We were worried it was a severe fire hazard. We were worried that it had issues of crumbling and falling. We knew that the internal structure was not in good shape and we didn't have compliance from the owner around dealing with those issues. So, city staff went in, they assessed it, we fenced the area off and now we're going through further discussions about what to do with this building. And that building falls into kind of two categories. Some parts of it are very heritage, some parts of it are are vacant. Um, all parts of it are vacant to be fair, but we have a complicated situation going on there, but we're taking action to make sure that the neighborhood is safe and that we're not letting this building just fall down on its own. So already we're starting to take those steps. So that's what this motion is all about. You can read the warehouses and therefore be resolved, but it's asking staff to come back with more information about how to improve our bylaws and that they consult with the Municipal Heritage Committee on the review and update of the Build Heritage Emergency Protocol by Q4 of 2026. and come back with a policy and improvements in Q1 2027. So that's what we're asking to do here and it's going to be done in consultation with the heritage committee because I think they're going to have some important input. I will say also didn't speak about this under the last item, but I will now. I brought this to the heritage committee and asked everyone there for their feedback and information and advice. Also, other local heritage folks reached out to me with their thoughts and whatever I got back I put here to make sure it's incorporated. But by and large, the goal here is tightening this up and doing, I think, what the public expects. And if it involves us maybe having to hire a professional engineer or contract out certain types of heritage or other kinds of professional engineers to be able to provide us advice more quickly, there may be cost impacts that for that to, you know, for council to consider, right? The goal here is we have to resource our staff effectively to be able to deal with this work. We can't just keep going, hey, that looks bad. And then when someone says, well, what are we going to do about it? We say, "Well, we need to get an engineer in there." And then when it comes to budget time, we're like, "Oh, I don't know. Maybe we shouldn't hire more people at the city to to do these things." Look, it's either a priority or it's not. We don't have a system in place right now to have a robust response. This is going to get us there. So, hoping for your support. Thank you. Okay. Just looking for any comments around the chambers here. Not seeing any. So, Oh, sorry. Sorry, Councelor Nan. I forgot to look up at the screen. You're on. That's okay. You were scanning the room. I appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. And thank you to Councelor Crutch, for staying steadfast on the issue. Uh very aware of the work he's been doing to make sure that um heritage specific buildings that have been left vacant um aren't becoming derelict as a result of neglect. And you know, for the earlier conversation today, there the the pride in many neighborhoods is around our older buildings. There's a attachment to the historical and archite architectural significance. Uh it means a lot to our neighbors when those buildings that have been deemed of heritage significance are protected, cared for, and most importantly adaptively repurposed to take on another life and continue serving our communities. Um it has been painful for many members in our communities and neighborhoods to see these buildings go um crumble to crumble into a state of disrepair and um really looking forward to the outcomes of the therefore be it resolved on this motion to see that uh staff are resourced in the way that they need to to make sure that um we're doing what we can as a municipality on our part. Thank you. Thank you councelor Nan. Anyone else? Not seeing anyone. Please indicate your escribe vote now. Okay, that carries 8 to zero. Thank you very much. We're moving on to notices of motion and I believe councelor M. Wilson, would you please introduce your notice of motion? Thank you, chair. Um I'm just trying to get an understanding of what obligations, if any, exist for infield development to assume uh the cost of um of their works to the public realm. For example, um when they shred um public sidewalks uh with their equipment and um the city has to come along um much later and fix the sidewalks. But in the meantime, uh they do present a risk and a hazard to residents. So that's all this is seeking clarity on. Thank you. Thank you for that. What am I missing? Thank you very much. Thank you. Um, private and confidential 12.1 close session minutes. May I please have a mover and seconder to adopt the March 24th, 2026 close session minutes as presented and that they remain confidential. Councelor Bey, councelor Cretch, thank you. Please indicate your escribe vote now. Crutch. Councelor Crretch. Okay, that vote passes 9 to zero. And there being no further business, we are adjourned at 1:52 a.m. or PM, sorry. Sorry, PM. No vote is required, so you're on your own. Thank you.

Full Transcript