Your position in Q is seven and your estimated weight time. >> 905. Okay. Um, welcome everyone today. We'll start uh start our session with roll call. Um, Nick, >> Yolanda, Yanuka, pardon me, Robert >> here, >> Donna >> here, >> Mel >> here, >> and myself, Dale. Is there any members with a conflict of interest on any applications today? >> Yes, I got 800. >> Okay. Uh, anyone else? >> Okay. >> At 11:45. >> Okay. And the minutes from the last meeting, they're aren't finalized yet. So, >> through the chair? No, not yet. And sorry, uh, member Switzer, which which application is it? Which file number is that one? >> 2800. >> Okay. You have Okay. So you'll recuse yourself for that one. Okay. Thank you. >> So we can't uh ratify the minutes from the last meeting. Uh waiting for some additional information to finish that. So the first application is at 9:45 which is now. Yes. Through the chair. The first application to be heard is a minor variance application. It's uh 82060014 136 Beach Boulevard, Hamilton. Owner is T. Hamdy and agent is T. Mazer. Let's take a look. Um and uh is there any members of the public wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Are you here? T Hamdy or T Mazer 136 Beach Boulevard. Okay. Are you here? maybe on the are you on the participating virtually? Let's just check. >> I don't know. WebEx see them uh through the chair. I don't know uh I don't know where they're at. Um I don't know if uh did you want to leave the application or um of course through the chair if the committee wanted you could proceed to hear it if you wanted to as well. Um >> what's the wishes of the committee? The comments are favorable on this application. >> Revised a bit on Okay, good to hear it then. Okay, so is there a motion? >> I'll make a motion to accept the application, approve the application um with the uh variance one revised by the staff. >> Okay. Moved by Donna, seconded by Mel. All in favor? Opposed? If any seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. Thank you. And to the chair, we will notify the applicant and the agent about the what the outcome today. And we will wait till 9:50 a.m. to hear the next application. Thank you. and through the chair. It's now 9:50 a.m. Um, so we'll proceed to the next application. It's a consent application B2026000017 28000 Library Lane, Glanbrook. Owner is Glennbrook Nonprofit Housing Signing Authority, M Switzer and B Switzer. Applicant is Glennbrook Nonprofit Housing, L Burroughs. And agent is SHS Incorporated, Merik. And I believe um member Schwitzer did step out of the hearing as he had previously declared a conflict of interest on this matter. Thank you. Um are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'm Marco Merich. Uh, address is 410 McNab Street North. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. I do have a presentation. I have it on a USB here. Sorry. Did you send this to us before the meeting? >> I did email it last week. Yes, >> last week. Let's see. Library. There it is. Okay, I'm loading it up. Can I control it with this? >> Just tell me when and I'll move it along. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Uh, all right. Thank you committee for your time today. My Marco Maritch with SHS Incorporated. I'm here on behalf of Glenn Brook nonprofit housing um in support of this severance application. Next, please. Uh so just to quickly introduce you to the lands, the site, and our proposal here. Uh so these are the lands quite a large parcel in kind of the heart of Binbrook. Um right now it has a twostory affordable seniors apartment on there already run by Glenn Brook nonprofit housing. Um the zoning and the designations are all supportive of the proposal. So those are in line. Next, please. So the proposal is to take the vacant back portion of those lands and to add a uh 111 units of affordable seniors rental apartments. Again, extending the the uh work that Glenn Brook NPH does uh in a three-story building and it'll have 82 additional parking spaces. Next, please. Um so this has been kind of an ongoing project since 2017 that uh Glenn Brook NPH has been going at this. Um and at this point we've been through many of the major applications. So in principle this development is already approved. We have a memor memorandum of understanding with the city in regards to land transfers signed in 2021. Um we have completed our resoning in 2023 and then one and associated Ontario land tribunal case in 2024. Uh we have a conditionally approved site plan application in 2025 and that brings us to the severance today which is a condition of that site plan approval which will hopefully flip to approved after this meeting. Uh next please. So uh yeah perfect. Uh so this is how the severance breaks down. Really the need for it is part of this is owned by the city and part of it is owned by Glenn Brook and PH. through that memorandum of of understanding the lands will transfer in a way to allow the development of this building so that the proposed new building is not bisected by a lot line. Um so the yellow portion there that you see is currently owned by Glenn Brook NPH and it's going to be retained by Glenn Brook NBH. Um the green portion is also owned by Glenn Brook. So it is part of that parcel but that is the part that is to be severed off and then joined to the blue parcel parcel C which is owned by the city which will then be transferred back to Glenn Brook NPH as a single cohesive parcel which will allow the development of the proposed building. Uh next please. So in the end the results of the severance and with the the development building there uh this is what it'll look like. So there's that blue lot line that will kind of separate the existing Glamour NPH building to the front at 2,800 Library Lane. And then the back will become 2750 Library Lane, which will have the proposed three-story building on it as well. Um it'll kind of operate in conjunction. Glambor is going to own and operate both parcels, but they will stay separate parcels for uh funding reasons. Um and that's it. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Does committee have any questions at this time or concerns? >> Robert, >> with the application, um are you uh in agreement with all the proposed conditions that are attached? >> Yeah, we believe most of those are carried over from the site plan conditions. Um there there is one regarding uh variance. We were advised that we don't need variance that we do comply with zoning. Um we do have commun like recent communication with staff to that effect. >> Okay. On that note, I'll make a motion to approve the application with the conditions that are listed. >> Okay. Motion made by Robert, seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. Okay, next uh moving on we have a minor variance application A202600000019 8524 Helderbrook Road Glennbrook owners A Taylor and applicant is C Brown. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Uh seeing none, um I will ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Hi there. Um my name is Christine Brown and I live at 444 Upper Gage Avenue, Hamilton. Uh I am the uh agent on behalf of the homeowners for this one. Um, this one is a bit unique for us because I've had discussions with uh city staff and the Hamilton building department because usually I've been taught to get my variances before I do any kind of permitting or construction as far as basically asking for permission instead of asking for forgiveness. Um, I have read the staff comments and I see that staff recommend denial. So, um, if the committee isn't favorable, I will request a deferral or, uh, table this. Um, and I suppose in in that situation, what they would like us to do is to get our building permit first. um on behalf of the homeowners, this poses a little bit of a problem because the amount of money that needs to go into getting to a building permit ahead of possibly uh needing a variance is significant. Uh and so there's a chance that variances would be denied after we've already put in a lot of money and time into getting this permit. So that's the only reason why we're seeking variances before we go to permit versus after. Um I have also been notified and speaking with the building department that um our application would get flagged um in the review process for requiring the variance at that time. So this is just the order of operations that we thought was necessary. >> Okay. Thank you. And it's not necessary uh when you do apply for the building permit and if you need variances at that point um even though has happened in the past even though if there's recommended denial that's why the committee's here to see if it's uh uh possible to give you a favorable comments rather than to follow what might be a recommendation. So um I'll accept a motion for tableabling Mel seconded by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application tabled. >> Thank you. Have a good afternoon. >> And through the chair, we will be notifying the applicant or agent about uh next steps after uh this application has been tabled. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> The next application is to be heard at 10:00 a.m. We'll wait till then. Thank you. Okay, it's now 10:00 a.m. The next application to be heard is a minor variance application 826003 74 Treymore Avenue, Hamilton. The owner is a numbered company0000-867-620 Ontario Incorporated TM Valencia JC Valencia. The agent is Build X Design VW. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing none, I will ask the Oh, is there Oh, sorry. It's okay. Everyone just please keep quiet. Yeah, please come up. Please provide your name and address and you'll have 5 minutes to speak. And uh after you speak, if you could fill out an interested party form, it's just behind you there. And just leave it there. Appreciate it. Thanks. >> Good morning, everyone. Um I bring this down. I'm Bonnie White. I live at 42 Dalewood Avenue. I live next door to the 74 Traymore Avenue. I'm a little bit concerned of what he's planning on putting on the property. Is it going to affect my backyard? >> Okay. Any other concerns? >> Now, there is a 45gallon drum buried in that backyard where he wants to put these two um structures. Uh it had to do now the the university put the 45gallon drum in the sideyard for the water drainage or the water coming from 76 Traymore Avenue. I know because we were renting the house from the university at that time and they to alleviate the water they put this 45gallon drum in the sideyard. >> Okay. >> And I think that's it. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Oh, sorry. If you could fill out one of those forms just behind you there. Yeah. Yeah. And then just leave it there. Appreciate it. Thanks. Is there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this application, 74 Treymore Avenue. Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address. And you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Uh hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Uh, my name is Victoria Suen. I am the applicant for uh 74 Traymore Avenue located at 53 Green Law Avenue in Toronto. Um, today we're applying for one minor variance for the minimum rear setback to construct an addition for two ADUs at 74 Traymore Avenue. Um, our client did have uh consultations with the north neighbor at 42 Dalewood and we had received their letter of support. So I'm actually um a little bit confused as for the concern and that could be I guess maybe uh discussed uh at a later time but uh our understanding is that uh their concerns were addressed and we had noted um and redesigned um this proposal as per uh city comments um and heritage comments back in February. So this is to address a lot of the kind of noted items from before. Uh we have designed the addition so that there are now there are no new windows or no windows on the north side where there is a reduced setback to maintain privacy. Uh we have worked with heritage staff um to get their approval and noted is staff has recommended approval as well and we are okay with the noted conditions as part of that um recommendation for approval. Um I'm available for any questions if needed. >> Okay. Thank you. And as you said that um you could possibly have a conversation with the neighbor on a couple of her concerns. Um, does the committee have any questions? >> Based on the comments we just heard from the neighbor as going through the conditions, there is nothing there for storm water management or a grading plan. Should we add that in? >> I guess that chair, >> I don't know if you want to direct it to the staff. >> We'll direct that to the staff. uh through the chair uh Anthony Mansiny planning technition one. Um I'm not sure if uh someone from development engineering is uh online. Um they might be uh be able to answer that question. Thank you. Yeah, through the chair. I'm just through the chair. I'm taking a look. I'm not sure if we have someone from development engineering here. Um >> I could comment on that if needed. >> Yeah. >> As the applicant, >> I don't believe we have someone from development engineering online. Sorry. >> May I comment on that piece as the applicant? Is there anyone from engineer? No. Okay. Yes. Go ahead. >> Uh so I believe it is in the staff comment report that we will be required to do that and we intend to uh move through engineering provide a grading plan as part of uh the building permit application and that will be noted as our next step. >> Okay. Okay. Is there right I'll make a motion to um approve variance one with the conditions and notes. >> Okay. Is there a second? Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Okay. >> Okay. That was Robert and Donna. >> Robert Donna. Move to approve with the conditions. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um, next we have a consent application B2026 00009 73 to 75 Cathcart Street Hamilton. Owner is A Cubed Enterprise Incorporated, A Pchini and the agent is South Coast Consulting S. Rivers. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing none, I will ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Steven Rivers. Steven with a V. I am the principal of South Coast Consulting. I'm a registered professional planner, member of Canadian Institute of Planners. My address is 189 Clare Avenue in Port Coburn. First off, I'd like to commend your staff on the assistance they provided on this application. Uh with deference to my uh fellow uh people here in the uh Salvation Army, I want to discuss something that's uh devil in the details. particularly I'd like to ask coun or ask the committee to delete two of the conditions that have been asked for. Uh the first one is the uh requirement for a noise study. The second is uh the requirement for site plan control. The detail in the first uh request is in the definition and the definition that is triggering I believe the requirement for the noise study is the definition of development. Uh, as I'm sure you're aware, the planning act uh defines an um a consent application as development and because of the policies in the official plan, uh development requires a noise study uh along uh Cannon Street. In this case, there is no development in terms of of actual building changes. It's an existing building. It's been there for a number of years. Uh a noise study I I believe is redundant in this case. Uh it's not there's not like there's no change. There's no addition. There's no construction going on. Uh staff I'm sure has is um is required to request the noise study simply because policy says if there's development it requires a noise study. uh and in a lot of cases uh severance would may create a new lot where something new will be going on and this is not the case in this one. The uh second uh uh I wish um condition I wish you would uh delete is the requirement for site plan control. I would bring to the committee's attention that the planning act uh does not require and actually prohibits site plan control for uh uh developments under uh 10 10 residential units. There will be no new residential units uh as result of this project or this application and the site is fully developed at this point. Hopefully I can answer any questions you have. Okay. Committee Robert. >> So the condition number seven, the sound study. That's no problems with that one. It should be deleted. >> I I believe it's redundant and should be deleted. Yes. >> Unfortunately, sometimes they go through a boilerplate and that's there. And in this case, in my opinion, it's not required, but it'd be up to everybody here. >> Having been in their place many number of times, I understand what they've done and I have no problems with that. But the other comment you made about site plan control, um I don't see that in the conditions. >> Uh I apologize. I don't have the uh the application in front of me. Uh so I'm going to have to to defer. >> It's in the notes. >> It's in the notes. >> It's in It's in the notes. >> Yeah. So this would be Thank you. >> which is Yeah. I would not worry about that in the notes. Okay. >> It's under the zoning. But on um on the over application I think we approve with the conditions and delete number seven the noise study. Okay. Moved by Robert. Is there a seconder? Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Thank you staff. Okay, next we have a consent application um B2026 000011 386 Wilcox Street Hamilton. Owner is Slate HWD Incorporated. Sonuri, apologize if I mispronounced your name. MH and agent is MHBC Planning G. Tesla and um I believe I believe the agent is is online and that they're going to be um let me just see actually sorry uh well sorry believe they're here um we had an interested party Mark Cam Cameron Mark Cam Camera, are you here? Was there anyone else? Was there any other interested parties? Was there anyone else wanting to speak on this matter? Okay. If not, I'll ask the uh the agent to step forward then. Please provide your name and address and you have uh five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Good morning. Jerry Chisler with MHPC Planning. I'm a partner and registered professional planner. Um, we're at 12 James Street North, unit 301 in Hamilton. Um, this morning, uh, we are requesting a deferral of the application to the next meeting on June 4th. Uh, we've worked closely with staff over the past couple of months on this application and we made some great progress. We're just not quite there yet on the conditions of the application. So, we think that the additional two weeks would allow us to uh work with staff to uh get an agreement on all the conditions and and uh get a clean application to the next meeting. >> Other words, you're looking for to table it then. >> Yes. To the next meeting. >> I'll make a motion to table. >> Okay. Motion to table. Moved by Mel, second by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. application table. >> Thank you. And yeah, just through the chair, the agent or applicant, we will notify you on next steps after the hearing. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next, the next application is to be heard at 10:15 a.m. Thanks. Okay. Um, next we have a minor variance application A2026 00022 337 Gage Avenue North Hamilton owner is Skyward Real Estate Incorporated F Salvator. The applicant is the Salvation Army Hupic Corporation and the agent is Lanwise E. John. Um, so we have some interested parties here. We'll go through them. Uh, we'll go through this list first. We have um Gabriel Barau. Apologize if I mispronounced the name. Just want to make sure people outside hear me too. Gabriel Gabriel Barabau, you here? >> Yeah, I'm here. >> Oh, you're here. Okay. Uh if you wanted to speak, please provide your name uh address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Yeah. Good morning. Um my name is Gabriel. I live at 113 Beach Road. Uh that's 50 m from uh 337 Gauge Avenue North. Um I want to say something clearly right off the bat. Um I support Hamilton finding a good home for the Salvation Army shelter services. The work they do matters. The people they serve deserve a facility that actually works for them. Um, my submission today is not about whether or not the shelter should exist. It's about whether 337 Gage Avenue North is the right site. And on the evidence uh before the committee, I it is not. Uh Hamilton's zoning bylaw requires a minimum of 300 meter separation between an emergency shelter and any residential care facility. The Sack Joa nonprofit housing project at 204 Gage Avenue North approximately 500 meters from the site on the same street qualifies as such a facility. At 500 m, this site does clear the 300 meter threshold by only two city blocks. Two city blocks which are have not a single public-f facing space or service. The proposed site requires any and all people accessing the services there at the Salvation Army site to pass by the Sackage Joa housing project before ever coming into contact with a single business or service outside of auto records, dumps, and industrial supply. That is not a comfortable buffer. It is a barish technical margin on a rule designed to ensure meaningful separation. This application does not request a variance from the 300 meter separation requirement. That variance has not even been identified yet because no site plan has been submitted. The committee's own notice confirmed. It says no site plan, no zoning review completed. Further variances are likely required. No site plan has been submitted, so no separation analysis has been conducted. The committee cannot confirm compliance with this rule from the materials it has today. And this kind of proximity at least warrants that analysis before approval, not after. This site plan also fails the applicant's own criteria. The application the applicant's own supporting materials describe what makes a good shelter site. transit access, proximity support services, and a compatible surrounding environment. On those criteria, 337 gauge fails. It sits on a high volume industrial trucking corridor, Beach Road and Burlington Street by way of gauge with no pedestrian safety instructure safety safety infrastructure identified at all. The closest concentration of addiction, health care, and case management services is in the downtown core, and the applicant is being asked to leave that. Not to mention being sandwiched between two sets of highly active train tracks. Let me mention here that the statistic majority of deaths by suicide on tracks are people who live within one kilometer of train tracks. Just last week, trains were shut down from Alershot to West Harbor. For this reason, the Salvation Army shelter in Oakville knows this issue very well. A shelter placed here would be worse for its residents, worse for the sackage at tenants approximately 500 meters away, and worse for this community all at once. This site was chosen by HUPEG needed. This site chosen by HUG needed the York Boulevard property cleared for an arena precinct not because a proper site selection process identified has been is appropriate. The residents of WI 3 should not be absorbing the consequences of a private development deal. Another point, the law requires more than this application offers. Under section 451 planning act, all four tests must be satisfied. This application fails the first. It eliminates two express prohibitions in the M5375 zone, which is not minor by any legal standard. It fails the fourth. The committee cannot access appropriate development without a site plan that doesn't exist. The divisional court in Vincent v Dasparis was clear. A variance can fail the minor test because it is too important regardless of impact. Introducing a prohibited use at 170 a pro introducing a prohibited use at 170 residents. It's both too large and too important. If this use belongs somewhere in Hamilton, the right process is a zoning bylaw amendment with a proper site search, full council accountability, a comm community input, not a minor variance on a incomplete application. Chair and members, I'm not asking you to deny the Salvation Army a future in Hamilton. I'm asking you to invest in a process that finds them the right future in this in a location that works for their clients, respect the city's own separation requirements, does not undermine a $12 million federal investment just 500 meters away, and goes through a zoning bylaw amendment with proper planning justification. We need the right shelter at the right site with the right process that will have community support. This application has none of those things. I live here in industrial sector D. That's the name of this neighborhood. There are no parks. There are no restaurants. There are no third spaces. The green space is the train tracks. You wouldn't put a daycare between two sets of train tracks fronting onto a street moving 18 wheelers and steel. You wouldn't put a youth drop in between the tracks 15 minutes from the nearest McDonald's. And you wouldn't put a safe injection site amongst the largest amount of brownland in the city. You wouldn't put a 170 unit condo where there's no parking. This is not where you put social services. That's uh all I have to say. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I'm just wondering uh Justin um I know we have a lot of concerned citizens and we've received a lot of letters. >> Yes. um on this application and I just wonder, you know, to the uh agent um not to waste anyone's time that's here, but I'm just want to make sure that the agent uh representing Salvation Army is is going to go forward with today's application. I mean, uh the comments from planning are uh recommend. And I don't want to waste everyone else's time here coming up to the mic. Um, uh, we only slot so much time for every application and we want to hear everyone's com concerns, but I'm just wondering if the agent, uh, you know, if you want to carry through with this application today, um, then we'll we'll carry on with, uh, the residents and if you want to table it, uh, type of thing. Um, I'm just wondering if if you want to make that comment now rather than later. Okay. You want to hear it today? Okay. So, the committee will make a decision today then on on the comments that that uh come forward and to what planning has advised to us as well. I will uh also recommend that um um try not I'm not sure how many people are coming down. We've received a lot of letters for and against uh and we've all read those letters. And I just want to make sure your comments uh only dwell on the fact of the two variances that are in front of us. And u try not and repeat if something's already said previous to you. Um try not and repeat everyone's comments that comes to the mic. Um each one will have five minutes. That's what's uh legislated for speakers. And so um Justin, >> yes, >> carry on. >> Yep. And yes, through the chair. Yeah, once it there is a five minute speaking limit. When you hear the ding, that means it's it's up. But again, it's at the chair's discretion if you wanted someone to speak longer. Okay. All right. Um, next we have on the uh on our list here, Sharon Jones. Sharon Jones, are you here? I see her there. I think she's on WebEx. Yeah. Do you want to unmute yourself? >> Uh, we can't hear you, Sharon. Yeah. Press press unmute. Yeah, we can't hear you. >> No. >> Yeah. If you're having uh technical issues, you can also use the phone in option too if you wanted to try that and see if that works. Yeah. Yeah, we can't hear you unfortunately. >> Can you >> Yeah, we sent her a request to unmute. Yeah. >> Does that work? >> There we go. >> There you go. Okay. >> Okay. >> If you wanted to provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Yes. Hello. My name is Sharon Jones and I own the house at 81 Beach Road in Hamilton. I live at 123 Ruth Street in Porcupine, Ontario. It's part of the greater city of Timonss and uh uh my uh my house in Hamilton is right near Gage and the the uh proposed new home for the people of the Salvation Army in downtown Timonss. in Timmans. I helped the homeless in the living space with life's essentials. And um last month I was in Hamilton and drove past the Salvation Army on York Boulevard and I saw uh people lots of lots of people outside talking and not bothering theatergoers across the street. But the rich and famous of this city want these people gone from our downtown. who will pay for their new location, not the rich. No, it'll be you and I, the taxpayers. And uh that is why they are here. They pay nothing and yet we'll make money too. When 160 members um move into a primarily industrial residential neighborhood, uh they will have narrow sidewalks, no parking, a huge auto body shop across the street, roaring transport trucks, dirty, smelly air, and a dump next door to the school. And uh this dump is a nursery for mice and rats as big as cats. For the homeowners, the houses will crash in value and they will lose their tenants who don't want the violence. There will be break and enters, attacks on innocent people by druggies and alcoholics because there is no room and no programs to keep these men involved. And I know about the violence because being in Timonss, we had a lot of homeless people moved into our city and the neighbors complained about fires in their yard, constant break and enter, damage to their cars, and it's it's ongoing there. Um, instead I suggest the men um be invited inside of the Salvation Army for activities, meals, and snacks. During theater openings, owners of the theater can offer to pay for trips to parks, Niagara Falls, a church, a local hockey game. Um, the theater across the street earns millions and can and the people can write these trips off as charity. Lives may also be changed for the better. Our new governor general, Louise Arbor, was um introduced last week by a prime minister. And this woman has already served Canada well in the justice system. She said that um the strength of the of our nation results in stable institutions maintained with wisdom ensuring the well-being of the nation. I urge you to put yourselves in our shoes and show the wisdom to defeat this plan and then show the bravery to create new programs to help these men rebuild their lives with all of us, the homeless, the homeowners, and the renters being insured of well-being in Hamilton. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, next we have Jessica Vlic. Are you here? Jessica Vassic, you here at Council Chambers? Are you on WebEx? >> Hi. Yes, I'm here. >> Okay. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Yes, my name is Jessica Vlic. I live at 64 Kensington A South, but I'm speaking um today on behalf of EIT Institute, which is um located at 105 Cage A, directly across from the proposed location. So, I just wanted to say thank you for allowing me the chance to speak today. Again, speaking on behalf of Eph institute, which is a multid-disciplinary mental health and wellness center located directly across from the proposed development. Um, it's where I work. I'm a registered nurse. Um, at EIT, we work with individuals living with PTSD and complex trauma. Approximately 95% of our clientele are women, many of whom have experienced violence, abuse, and exploitation or trauma involving men. The environment we provide is not incidental to treatment. It is part of the treatment and our clients rely on our our space feeling safe, calm, predictable and regulated in order to participate in therapy, sematic work, exercise and other aspects of their recovery. For many of the women we serve, simply leaving their homes and attending treatment is already incredibly difficult. A significant change to the environment directly outside our center would severely impact their willingness and ability to attend care consistently. and we're concerned that some clients may stop accessing services altogether uh because they no longer feel emotionally or physically safe to come to our facility. This would not only impact the vulnerable women we support every day, but it would also directly impact the viability of our business and the healthcare services we provide to the community. Ephit has invested enormously into creating a specialized trauma-informed treatment center in this neighborhood. Our ability to operate depends on maintaining an environment that supports nervous system regulation, emotional safety, and therapeutic trust. And if clients can no longer feel safe attending, it compromises both treatment outcomes and the sustainability of our organization. I want to be really clear and others have mentioned as well that our objection is not about the importance of social services. We absolutely recognize the needs for supports in our community. Our concern is whether this particular proposal has been thoughtfully planned in a way that considers the existing healthcare services already operating directly across from the site and the vulnerable populations being served there. We believe this proposal requires a more comprehensive review process that carefully evaluates the broader impacts on neighboring businesses, healthcare providers, clients, residents, and the surrounding community. We've worked hard to contribute positively to this neighborhood by building a safe, healing, community focused healthcare space. And we're asking the committee to consider the very real impact this proposal could have on both the vulnerable population we serve and continued operation of our business. And for these reasons, we respectfully ask that the application be declined and that any future proposal proceed proceed through a more appropriate and comprehensive planning process. Thank you. Thanks for the time. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Okay. Next we have Next we have Dante Telus. Are you here? Dante Telus. Apologize if I mispronounce any names. Okay. I don't see them. We'll >> Yes, I'm here. >> You're here. Okay. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, just give me a second here. All right. Hi, good morning everyone. Thank you uh for hearing me out today. My name is Dante Tees uh at Len 30 Ruth Street uh which is just blocks away from the proposed site. Uh I'll try not to repeat myself after everyone's comments here. Um, I just want to raise my concern about the site planning that's being proposed here. Um, and the importance of the the the application that's been missed on on this on this site. Um, my main focus is online news and compat compatibility and the completeness of the application record and accountability for the impacts in war three. Um the city notice states two are requested and then uh permanent social service establishment is second story application which uh has been said before. Um um this is very uh this is especially important for me because the um the residential and cloud mixed contacts and meaning sensitive residential uses are close by. Um just what was mentioned before uh the incomplete and premature record. Um the notice explicit says uh and warns that no site control no site plan control application has been submitted. Uh fully scaled and dimensionized site plan was not provided. Therefore full full zoning review could not be conducted and further variances might be required once a full review occurs. Um uh I I kind of request that uh this application's uh been denied because um of the concerns that the uh race of violence could could uh could trigger on this on this neighborhood. I'm just sorry I'm going through my notes. Just try not to repeat everyone's comments. Um, >> okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And sorry, what was your address again? Sorry. >> Uh, Terry Ruth Street. >> No, no. What your your full address? Sorry. Do you have a >> 330 Ruth Street? >> 330 Ruth Street. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next, we have uh Bella Buu. you here, Bella. Boo, are you see? Okay, I don't see them here. Um, we might we may come back to them. Um, next we have Kier Roy. Kier Roy, you there? >> Okay. >> Hi, hi. >> Yes, I am here. Give me one moment a little bit early. I'm just going to skip out. Um, apologies for the delay. >> All right. Um, just getting familiar with the WebEx platform. Are you able to hear me and see me? >> Yes. Yeah. Do provide your name and address and you uh you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. All right. Um, good morning, uh, chair, members of planning or the committee of adjustment. My name is Pier Roy, resident of W three. Uh, my address is 1257 King Street East. I'm joining you virtually today to discuss the planning merits of the application for 337 Gage Avenue North, analyzed through the lands of statutory obligations and the planning act. We're sharing my opinion supported by the facts that to my best of my knowledge are true, which I will cite when possible. As youware, the application before you is not a typical minor variance application through section 451 of the act. Meaning the normal for tests that we're all familiar with do not apply here. Rather, this application is done through section 452 AI of the planning act, which is more appropriately referred to as a permission. This is because section 452 recognizes a landowner's right to the reasonable evolution of a legal non-conforming use. Put plainly, this section states that if a building was legally used for any purpose, in this case a school, and a new zoning bylaw is passed that prohibits this use, then the landowner has the right to continue that use and can seek permission from the committee to permit a reasonable evolution of that use so long as the use in question or any other use permitted by the committee continued until the date of the application to the committee. So before we can even consider discussing anything about the application, the burden is on the applicant to satisfy the committee of the following. one that this property was legally used for a purpose prohibited by the bylaw on the day the bylaw was passed. In this case, to prove that an educational facility was legal use on the date these institutional zones of zoning bylaw 05200 was passed in May 2010 and that this use or any other use previously permitted by the committee has continued until the date of this application. For the following reasons is my opinion that the applicant has not and cannot meet this burden and this application must be denied. The applicant asserts that the existing use of the property is an educational establishment as evidenced by a zoning certificate verificate or zoning verification certificate issued by the city in 2023. The applicant has not included this application or this in their application materials and it was not available is not made available to me when I inquired. It's my understanding that is not before the committee either. Despite this assertion, property ownership records, Google Street View imagery and tax assessment records tell a much different story. According to the land registry, the property was sold by the Hamilton Wentworth Catholic District School Board to 1540874 Ontario Limited 2003. Tax records from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, EMPAC, provided by the clerk's office confirmed that the site was assessed as taxexempt educational property until 2004. By 2006, the property was assessed commercially, which remains the case today. Google Street View imagery can help us from here. Now, I'm not going to be able to provide it to you right now, but I it's my understanding that several other residents have shared it or will be sharing it shortly. Looking at the 2009 imagery, you can see a portable sign advertising household electronics. Uh, and a newspaper clipping that I have located, which I'd be happy to provide at a later date should this be necessary, uh, shows that the site was used for retailing of household electronics, advertising TVs and uh, air conditioners and whatnot for sale. By 2011, there's a new sign on the building reading home surplus. And by 2014, there's a new wall sign on the north side advertising it as a liquidation warehouse or house of electronics. This important because it shows that the retail use continued after the bylaw was passed and during that time as well. Uh the retail use appears to have operated from about 2004 to 2019. This corroborated by EMPAC, whose aboutmypropy.ca website allows any homeowner to view information about properties in their city. The page for this property recognizes the site's 15-year long retail history and describes it as retail one-story generally under 10,000 square feet, basically a strip mall. Despite this record, the applicant has stated that no other youth has legally occupied the property. It's important to clarify that the term legally occupied in planning does not refer to if building permits were issued to legally establish the use. It simply means whether the use was permitted by the zoning bylaw of the time. In this case, retail was a permitted use under the provisions of the K district of the former zoning bylaw 6593. This means that the retail use was legally established, superseding any educational uses. But it doesn't end there. In May of 2022, the property was sold by the numbered Ontario Corporation to a new Canadian numbered company who later changed their name to Micro Storage and Warehousing Inc. That company was shortlived going into power of sale in April 2023. However, real estate photos of that time would have be happy to share at a later date, show the company operating a light industrial warehouse and self- storage facilities at the building. Warehousing is a permitted use under the M5 zone of 05200. The building, the use of a building as a warehousing facility, even for one year, superseded even the previous retail use, meaning the site no longer enjoys any legal non-conforming rights in my opinion, and it is now fully subject to the requirements of zoning by viol05200, whether it looks like a school or not. Because the most recent legal most recent legal use is not a legal non-conforming use. It's my opinion that the section 452 application is not an appropriate mechanism and that the zoning bylaw amendment and official plan amendment are required to permit the use. I trust this information will be useful in your deliberations on this file and I'm available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Yeah, through sorry through to chair just to clarify when you hear the first ding that means it's four minutes um have have elapsed and then when you hear the second ding that means it's five minutes. Just wanted to clarify that. Okay. Um next we have um Raphael Gonzalez. Are you here? >> He's outside. >> Oh, okay. Step on in. Yep. Please provide your name and address and you'll have five minutes to speak. >> Yes. Hi, good morning. My name is Raph Gonzalez. Uh 164 Balsam Avenue North. Um I want to begin by making something very clear. Um I fully support charities, shelters, addiction services, organizations that genuinely work to improve lives and strengthen communities. Uh I believe that compassion matters and helping vulnerable people matters. Um, but what is being proposed here does not feel like a thoughtful or balanced solution. To many residents, it feels like moving a growing problem out of sight so that another downtown redevelopment project can move forward and make millions. It feels like a money grab. All the while, Ward 3 is once again asked to absorb the consequences. The Salvation Army has stated that its goal is to be a good neighbor. If that is truly the case, then residents are fair in asking one simple question. Why is Ward 3 once again being asked to carry a disproportionate burden? Stippley neighborhood and the broader W 3 area have fought incredibly hard over the last decade to rebuild themselves. Families, homeowners, local businesses, community organizations have invested enormous amounts of time, money, and energy into transforming this part of Hamilton. Around Tim Horton's Field, Gage Park, Ottawa Street, Crown Point, and Stipley, we have seen real progress. Businesses have opened. Homes have been renovated. Young families have moved in. Community pride has actually returned. This area has become one of Hamilton's emerging success stories. But W 3 is not just a residential neighborhood. It's one of Hamilton's cultural sports and entertainment hubs. Thousands of people from across Hamilton and from outside the city come here every single week to Tai Cats games, forge FC matches, concerts, festivals, cultural events, community gatherings. This neighborhood has become literal front porch of Hamilton. And yet, despite all this investment and momentum, W 3 continues to carry a disproportionate concentration of addiction treatment, supportive housing, social assistance, and homelessness related services compared to most other WS in the city. Now, I know that we are not looking at an alternate location here. I understand that. But the data is clear. Ward 3 and the surrounding urban core remain the epicenter of Hamilton's opioid crisis. Multiple addiction clinics, housing supports, homelessness services are already concentrated within this immediate area. Residents are already dealing with open drug use, discarded needles, overdoses, encampments, prostitution, property crime, and increasing disorder along corridors like Bartons. People are exhausted and now the residents are being told that another major shelter and support hub should be placed directly in the heart of a densely residential neighborhood filled with schools, parks, churches, daycarees, recreation centers, and young families trying to build stable lives. At some point, balance has to matter. Compassion should not mean concentrating every major social challenge into the same few neighborhoods over and over again. A truly compassionate city distributes responsibility fairly. And that raises another question. Why not on the mountain? Again, I know we're not looking at an alternate site, but why not? Is it because the wealthier lowdensity areas with more available space continually are continually shielded by these decisions and the lower city gets to absorb more and more? If Hamilton truly believes in shared responsibility, then every part of the city should participate in solutions, not just W 2 and three. Before I continue, I just want to ask, if you guys were here in the '9s, early 2000s, do you remember what WI 3 looked like in the '9s and early 2000s? It was widely seen as a rough, struggling, economic, depressed area compared to suburban parts of the city. And one of the greatest concerns residents have today is not simply the shelter itself. It's the long-term ripple effect that it can that can happen when social disorder and addiction related services become increasingly concentrated in one neighborhood. During the '9s and 2000s, as poverty, addiction issues, rooming houses, and social services became more concentrated in the lower city, many working families who had the means to leave did exactly that. And our fear in our neighborhood that we've built up over the last decade is that this is going to happen again. The problem is it created a snowball effect. Once confidence in the neighborhood begins to erode, it does not happen overnight. It happens gradually. Families stop investing in their homes. Young couples stop moving in. Small businesses reconsider opening opening nearby. and residents quietly begin planning their exit because they fear losing the value of the largest investment they have, which is their home. This is what many residents fear could happen because progress in urban neighborhoods is fragile. W 3 has spent the last 10 to 15 years fighting its way back from that exact period of decline and now residents are worried that history may begin repeating itself. This concern is not theoretical. Hamilton has already lived through it once. Residents are not saying vulnerable people should not receive help. They are saying no single neighborhood should continuously absorb a disproportionate share of the city's most difficult social challenges especially after spending years fighting to recover from the consequences of that concentration in the past. The people are of Stipley are asking for fairness. They are asking for balanced planning and they are asking pe they are asking to stop this and to stop treating W 3 as a default location for every major social service challenge in Hamilton. Thank you. >> Thank you. Please no clapping. Please keep quiet when someone's speaking. Thank you. Could you Is it okay if you could fill out an interest uh a form just behind you there and just leave it there for us? Appreciate it. Thanks. Uh, next we have Randy Hoover. You here? >> Randy Hoover. >> Oh, up in the top. >> Step on down. >> Again, just a reminder of uh the repetition of some of the uh comments. Yes, please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. Good morning. My name is uh Randy Hoover. Uh first I'd like to thank you guys for listening anyway and uh um for 16 years I've had have re resided at 393 Aenddale Street within 60 mters of the uh minor variance application. Um I have worked in the steel industry close to this site for over 40 years. I retired as a shift leader and been happily retired for for 10 years until now. I am here to provide you with my concerns and objectives. Um I'd like to focus on the the site specific impact. Uh to convert a building that was once an elementary school facility that has not been in operation for over two decades. uh 16 years ago when I did move here, it was a warehouse and commercial sales building for electronics. Uh it lasted approximately three years and then the building has been empty ever since. Uh I can't see it being considered a school now. um to put in 120 bed 24-hour social including overnight accommodation shelter that has significant change in intensity plus the duration around that area. An elementary school is primarily a daily daytime use facility. Uh Mr. Mr. Chair, this uh applicant contends that because of random occasional evenings used two decades ago justifies the round clock use. This obviously is a huge part of an imagination. A shelter is a continuous 247 operation with full residence and service use. This is no way similar to a school. It will have a severe effect on the infrastructure of the whole residential area as in sewers, power. Um, for example, there's floods quite a bit down in that right in that building. Uh, plus we we we get our power out every year. Our power goes out and the last time a couple months ago was 19 hours. We had no power. Um this application introduces uh exceeds what can be similar under section 452 of the planners act. In addition, even with the similarity was there which is not now section 452 demands continuous non-compliant use. The school has not been used or in operation for decades. redoing this non-com compliant use would be null and void. Uh a few more technology technical issues. Uh key impacts. Uh no fully site plans were provided. There's no complete zoning conducted. They acknowledge additional variances will be needed which means extent of impact is being approved without even knowing what the impact will be creating dangerous precedent peace meal planning and zoning processes. There's no parking study, no traffic assessment, and no noise or operational impact assessment. In addition, there is lack of retail or food access. No public indoor or outdoor facilities, no public washrooms or cleaning areas, no social or health service, no pedestrian oriented infrastructure, no service ecosystem to absorb the demand of 337 Gauge Avenue, no mitigation strategy for the neighborhood impact. Nothing. With this all said, 120 bed facility requires all of the above. And if not applied, the clients and overloads will filter into the public areas, empty lots, residents, yards, creating sea safety issues for both the neighborhood and the clients. This is a mismatch between the intended use of establishment plus zoning of the establishment and the capacity of the area. Uh parking is a big thing. Uh it's a totally major variant. There has been no parking plan, no accounted for how many parking spaces will be needed by staff, uh nurses, doctors, maintenance, ODSP workers, etc. Plus no analysis of operational demand. Also there is mentioned a nightly soup van operating even there will be stream of emergency vehicles, ambulances and police more than we have now. Uh no sidewalk parking lots, street parking for anywhere. There's no parking period. This would this neighborhood is already at a major capacity on the streets already. Parking for the facility of this size will overwhelm the streets with cars. Also show the lack of similarities to a school. As with a school, parking and traffic is predicted only during the daytime hours. In conclusion is that this application should be denied. This proposal represents a major change and not a minor variance and should not be approved as such. It lacks critical support and studies. It introduces a high intensity of use in an area that is not equipped to support this application. It fails to emit and demonstrate parking sufficiency, compatibility or mitigation of impact. I think the approval of the minor variance application would be a premature situation without a complete application and respectfully request be denied. Thank you very much for listening. Thank you. >> Oh, thank you. And if you could fill out a form just behind you there. Just leave it there. Yeah, appreciate it. Next, we have Lindsay Tipping. You here? All right. Please step up. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Yep. I'll load it up. >> I want to give my address to everyone watching. It's >> just step up to the mic so that >> Oh, uh I prefer not to give my address on broadcast for personal safety. Uh you have it in my email. >> Yeah, just when you fill out >> for when you fill just fill out the form. Okay. >> Thank you. >> And just a reminder of the of the uh the repetition. Um >> we have to keep it to five minutes and and hit the high points if they haven't already been mentioned. >> All right. Okay. Okay. Uh, you can go to the next slide from the chair. Good morning. Uh, my name is Lindsay Tipping. I'm a homeowner living steps away from 337 Gage Avenue. I'm also a professional fundraiser in the not for-profit sector supporting homelessness and shelters. I also want to say this clearly at the outset. I understand the language of vulnerability and compassion that surrounds this proposal. I'm a single mother. I'm a survivor of sexual assault and a survivor of domestic violence. Next. But we're not here today to determine who among us is the most vulnerable and most deserving of compassion. We are here to determine whether this application meets the legal and planning test for minor variance. This application requests two variances. However, the merits of this application are deeply questionable. Next, because this entire application relies on continuous legal non-conforming use of the site as an educational institution, continuity that no longer exists. Next, residents have directly observed a wide variety of industrial and commercial style uses at this property over decades, including warehousing, liquidation, and surplus operations, electronics, servicing, and periods of vacancy. Next, the application states that the property is currently occupied by an educational establishment. However, 337 Gauge Avenue has not operated as a school in decades. Next, please. Empact currently classifies 337 Gauge Avenue as a retail property. Next, City of Hamilton tax assessment records indicate that the property has been assessed as commercial since 2006. Next, the last time the city recognized the property as educational for tax assessment purposes was in 2003. Next, because the educational continuity has lapsed, section 452 cannot apply and this committee does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. Next, beyond these concerns, this proposal introduces a 247 institutional style operation into an industrial residential neighborhood not currently designed to support an operation of this scale. No clear plan has pres been presented. The surrounding area lacks the infrastructure and support network typically associated with a shelter operation of this scale. This application seeks major land use relief through a process intended for minor variances. This application does not meet the intent or purpose of a minor variance under next. We believe real solutions are needed for the issues in our city. However, that does not exempt this application from pl proper planning scrutiny. Last slide, please. The applicants frame this proposal not only as a planning matter, but through a moral lens as an urgent social necessity. However, this committee is not being asked to decide whether compassion matters. It is being asked whether this application meets the legal and planning test for a minor variance. Urgency should not replace proper planning review, zoning analysis, infrastructure assessment, or meaningful public scrutiny. The applicant's own materials acknowledge that modern sheltering models are evolving away from large institutional approaches. Yet, this application is simply another mega shelter in a new location. This is not a transformational solution, but rather a rapid relocation of existing challenges into a new neighborhood. a neighborhood expected to absorb major impacts without proper planning, transparency, or meaningful engagement simply because it is perceived as having less political or economic influence. Residents of this neighborhood feel that this process has treated our community as the destination for a decision that was made by people with vested financial interests bei behind powerful doors that do not open to ordinary working people. We keep hearing about revitalization, strategic vision, years of discussion, and institutional partnerships. But the people who actually live here were not meaningfully part of those conversations until the moment we were expected to accept a finalized proposal. Residents are not obstacles to planning. We are not hurdles to overcome. We are stakeholders, too. People are allowed to care deeply about homelessness while also questioning whether a 120 bed emergency shelter should be pushed through a minor variance process without full planning review or proper public scrutiny. City planning staff reviewed this application and recommended denial. I respectfully ask this committee to follow its staff recommendation and refuse this application. Thank you. Thank you for your >> Could you f Mr. Could you fill out a form please and just leave it there? Appreciate it. Um next we have John Lamb. You here John Lamb? I think he's outside. Yeah. >> Outside. >> Yeah, he's outside. He's coming in. >> Hi. Please provide your name and address and you'll have five minutes to speak. Yeah, my name is John L. I live at 56 Street >> in Hamilton. I just have one question. Uh, I'd like to know how many times the police have been called to the the Salvation Army property on York Street and how many times has the ambulance been called there? Does anybody know that? >> You can just state your your questions or your concerns and then they may be answered later by the agent. >> Okay. I like just like to know how many times, you know, these services have been called there to this facility. I drove by there on Saturday and I seen a lot of litter on the street. I seen a lot of um people sleeping on the street, people sleeping standing up. It It's just not a good thing. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Have a good day. >> Oh, sorry. Um if you could fill out a form there and just leave it there for us, appreciate it. >> Yeah. Thanks. Okay, next we have Samantha Reynold. Again, I apologize if I'm mispronouncing your names. Samantha Reynold, are you here? Okay. Um, we'll see if we can come back to her next. Aaron Ankart, you here? Is that you? Okay. Yeah. Please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. also have me. >> Hi sir, did you provide that to us prior to the meeting the presentation? Did you last? >> Yeah. Okay, let me take a look. >> There it is. Let me load it up for you. >> Thank you. There you are. Okay. >> Good morning, Mr. Chairman and esteemed members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to have the floor to speak today. I'm here today to recommend denial of a minor variance application A202600000022. My name is Aaron Ankart. I work as a data center administrator in Hamilton and uh I bought my first home in Whitfield Avenue last year. That's 50 Whitfield Avenue. I presently share a lot line with 337 Gage Avenue North. Next slide. While judging the character of this neighborhood and its compatibility with my family's lifestyle, I was delighted to see that the businesses nearby respectfully operate between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. since they were so close to residences. My understanding was that a 24/7 business would not be permitted to operate next door to my home. At the time, 337 Gauge was vacant and my real estate agent explained what M5 exception 375 zoning allowed on this lot. I was comfortable with a business of that sort moving into the building, accepting the possible daytime noise that may come with its M5 zoning and confident my privacy would be respected after business hours. I was happy to see that it had not been a school in decades by observing Google Map Street View. In the Landwise document included in this application, it claims a subject lands are currently occupied by an educational establishment. Uh, sorry, two slides. But we can visually confirm from street views from 2009 through 2017, the subject property has since been occupied by three different commercial businesses. Next slide. The application is claiming no other use has legally occupied the property. However, these commercial operations appeared compliant with the superseding zoning uses. Next slide. Thus breaking the continuous non-conforming status it was granted as an elementary school long ago. I first I first encountered issues with the 337 gay job of property north in September that I believe are relevant to this variance decision. Next slide. Construction workers were often there late into the evening making an inordinate amount of noise after quiet hours as late as 1000 p.m. Not only could I hear banging and power tools, but I could hear the conversations they were having indoors as the sound bounced between our two buildings in the alleyway. I could clearly see all activity through their windows and they could see me. Next slide. On September 13th, I registered a bylaw complaint as they had left parts of a boiler and the insulation in the alleyway between my home and their building for several days. I observed it blowing into the neighborhood and into my backyard. My biggest concern was asbestous contamination. The matter wasn't addressed in a timely manner as I had to make follow-up calls and emails for the issue to be addressed. Next slide. Notably, the plans speak of renovating the alleyway into a private internal outdoor courtyard, but they do not mention how privacy will be achieved, considering that I can easily see into it from several windows and hear nearly everything that happens within it, even with my windows and doors shut. Next slide. The lack of planning in this application around achieving sufficient privacy raises concern that the application is incomplete. No mention of a barrier between my home and the properties in the current plans. If this minor variance is passed as it planned now, I'd be able to hear the visitors sensitive private conversations, especially those in the alleyway, giving them and myself no reasonable expectation of privacy, both audibly and visually. I recommend that the committee of adjustment reject this minor variance application. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me and my neighbors today. >> Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. And if you could fill out a form just behind you and leave it there, I appreciate it. Uh, next we have Sher Ryan. Are you here? I think she's outside. >> Hi. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Um, hi, my name is Sheri Ryan. and I live at 74 Gertude Street about two and a half blocks from where the proposed site is. Now for years we dealt with the homelessness that were up on the tracks. Um they went into the neighborhood. There were thefts, car breakins, and the same thing's going to happen again. You're going to have people that the shelter isn't going to let in and they're going to spill into the neighborhood, into the backyards, into the cars, into the businesses. And it really they shouldn't be allowed. It should be put somewhere where they can access services, access help, you know, get what they need. You have the building down here, which apparently it's been here for years, but you still have an overflow outside. I was at the market last week and one of the ladies there gave these two people some food to eat. I go outside 5 minutes later and he's overdosing outside. We have children that live in our neighborhood, seniors that live in our neighborhood. We don't need to walk out. I will leave my house at 5:00 in the morning to go to work and I walk. I have to walk to a bus stop. I don't want to have to carry a can of hairspray, my keys, or anything else to defend myself in my own neighborhood. They need to be put where they can get the help that they need. not have the city take them and put them into a little corner of the city that not too many people are aware of. You come into our neighborhood for four reasons. You live there, you're visiting, you work, or you're going from point A to point B. There's no other reason that people are in our neighborhood. And now we're going to be afraid to walk out our front doors because of what we might stumble into. I walk by train tracks, discarded needles, broken bottles. The CN, they do nothing to clean up the mess. The city of Hamilton, they do nothing to clean up the mess. But now they want to take the mess that you have downtown and just hide it away in our neighborhood. And really, I don't think it's fair. It should be put somewhere where they're going to get their help. And that's all I have to say. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Next, we have Scarlett Gillespie. Yeah, please step up. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Good morning. My name is Scarlett Gillespie. Um my g I actually provided my comments in written format already. But um because I've been instructed to not make redundant comments, I'll just say everything that I stated in my letter which was very well articulated as everybody who spoke prior to me today. Um I would just ask you to refer to my written comments and if I were to speak on them, I would be saying something redundant and I don't want to disrespect anyone's time. So please refer to my written comments and reread them. Thank you kindly. I support all of the commentary that has been made today and I endorse them. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Did you want to fill out a form there? Yeah, just leave it there. Thanks. >> Okay. Next, we >> Yeah, it's just for our records. Yeah. Oh, >> thank you. >> Thanks. All right. And then next we have Paul Ward. W law you here? Yeah. Please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you'll have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Good morning. >> Morning. >> Uh my name is Paul Wlaw. as you stated, uh I live at 44 Gertude Street, uh which is on the site map that is shown on the um application. Um so I've lived there for about 10 years and as has been stated before, uh that school has not been occupied that entire time, especially not as a school. Um just going through here trying not to be too redundant as stated before but uh essentially we're looking at this uh in the application as a social service establishment. Um however with overnight accommodation added it is officially classified as an emergency shelter uh which is more what we should be looking at here. So the question before the committee realistically is whether or not an emergency shelter is similar to a school if we are still calling it a school at this point. Um we've uh we've already stated that it has not been occupied by a school. Uh I have the actual writing from the MLS listing here uh right prior to the current purchase and it says uses are broad manufacturing as well as alcohol production production studio laboratory cannabis growth and harvesting. Uh none of these uses are educational in any way. uh and right uh prior to this and I have uh in the letter that I submitted. I uh have in the appendix as well some evidence of the uh production studio that uh was housed there and operated there for just over a year. Uh and I believe that was its last use before uh before this sale. Um so essentially at this this point it seems like all of these arguments have rendered um section 452 irrelevant. Um even if the committee proceeds past these issues, um the staff, as we've said, have formally recommended denial. Um and the proposal itself has warned, um against further variances uh and that they may be required uh in a full zoning review be done. Um approving this variance today sets a legal baseline that will be used to justify every future variance request on this property. Um, and until there is a proper zoning review and site plan, there really is no way of knowing how many future variances you may be unwillingly unknowingly approving today. Um, one thing that uh hasn't been addressed in full is uh the fact that Arselor Mattel Defasco operates less than a kilometer away. um as well as from my own property and uh I can tell you that my beige siding will uh I will p pressure wash it and about 24 to 48 hours later it is again black with soot. Uh that is something that people will be breathing in all day every day if they are outside or realistically inside. Um, so if approved, this uh this is the area where 120 plus vulnerable people will be asked to live around the clock every day of the year uh with nowhere else to go. Unlike the area's current residents, this is not their choice either. Um, also schools tend to send children home at the end of the day. These adult residents uh would be breathing in this air full-time in a location that was not built with their needs in mind. um needs which exist downtown where the infrastructure was built to spec specifically support this type of facility. Um Hamilton's downtown has always had visible poverty and people in crisis. That's not new to any downtown core. U and this has never been a deterrent to any of the people going to any events realistically anywhere. Um, this move will create more harm to the existing community than it would helpful be helpful to the downtown core. Uh, this is, as we understand, a business decision. Um, and the cost of that business decision is being handed to this neighborhood without our consent. If this committee approves this application, it will do so against the formal recommendation of its own planning staff on the basis of an invalid non-conforming use. and it will do so using a legal definition that its own zoning staff has said on the record is incorrect. Uh this would make the message to the neighborhood clear. The law doesn't always apply nor does it protect its res the residents of the area. It gives them no say in what major changes happen in their community. Uh what matters is protecting the perceived revenue of downtown redevelopment regardless of whether this location actually serves the people being uh being moved in or the community receiving them. The zoning laws were put in place to protect communities, business owners, and residents. If this committee overrules its own staff, we will know exactly what those laws are worth. I'm asking this committee to follow the law, follow its own staff advice, and do what's right by the communities um on both sides of this decision. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Okay, next we have Lacy Tanner. Are you here? I think she's outside. Yep. Step on in, please. Pro just wait till she come in. How many more uh Justin you have on your list? >> Uh four. >> Okay. >> Please provide your name and address and you'll have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Hi, good morning. My name is Lacy Tanner. I live at 57 Gertrude Street in Hamilton, Ontario. I just want to say this is not feasible in our neighborhood. There's no resources for these people anywhere in that neighborhood. If these people were going in and being rehabilitated and being sent back out as productive members of society, it would be okay to put it in our neighborhood. We wouldn't have a problem with it. But you are not rehabilitating these people. They are continuing their drug use. I have two daughters I'm raising in that neighborhood. I've lived there for 30 years. I've never ever had to deal with anything the way downtown is. There's a reason I don't live downtown. And it's it's very sad that you guys think you can just put this through because a lot of you do just put whatever wherever and in this city and where you're planning to put them, which has been repetitive and said already, but we all have children. In the same way you wouldn't want your children going out front and walking to school and seeing what you see downtown, you don't want them to see it in my neighborhood either. And that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. >> Hi. Could you uh fill out a form there just behind? Yeah, right after him. And just leave it there. Okay. Next, we have uh William Tanner. Yeah. Please step up. Please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. >> Uh, Bill Tanner, 57 Gertude Street, Hamilton. I've lived down here there for 45 years. My wife 60 years. Her family lived down there for 40 years. We're all taxpayers. We want We don't need this in our neighborhood. You guys think you fix these people, but you don't. And the only reason this is happening is because of the Karman group. Everybody that's got money. I work. My whole family works. You're going to move this here whether we fight this or not. I know you are. You step on people's We're taxpayers. We vote you people in. You're supposed to work for us, not work for these people. They got pockets this deep that we and we're just working this. That's all I got to say. The the drugs are going to come no matter what you do over there. You try and fix this. You buy tiny houses. It don't work. You got to know something. You don't fix a drug addict unless he wants help. You You got to do something. Moving the problem ain't the answer. Fixing the problem is, but moving it ain't the answer. >> Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. >> Just just to let you know, this is a citizens committee. Um we all live in and around Hamilton. So, um, >> it up the mountain like Buddy said besides banquet hall. That'd be nice. Would they like that? >> Sir, I'm the one. It's Sir, >> sir. >> Excuse me, sir. You You've made your >> thought about this before they did that. >> Sir, they dump it on us. No, >> sir. You've made your comment. Thank you. >> Okay. Please, >> like I said, you work for us. I pay taxes all my life, 45 years. That's You should listen to us people. We pay your wages. We should listen to us people. >> Please. >> Okay. I'm just going to just reiterate the meeting expectation. Once you've spoken, thank you. If the committee members have any further questions, they'll ask of you. To the members of the public attending, when someone is speaking, please don't interrupt. Okay. Thank you. Next we have uh William Allen Kiteon. >> Sorry for that. >> Uh please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Hello. I thank the chair and the committee for hearing me today. My name is William. I live with my wife, my one-year-old son, and our six-year-old daughter. Our home at 25 Gertrude is roughly 80 m from the building that Hoopeg wants to move Hamilton's largest, most notorious homeless men's shelter to. We love our home and we love our neighborhood. The other day, my daughter asked me, "Daddy, why do people move? I don't want to move. I want to stay here forever." Myself and residents in our community feel the same way. Many people may not know it driving up Gage Avenue, but o both east and west, you will find a quiet, tight-knit residential enclave. Gertrude Street, Aendale, Whitfield, Rowanwood, Lynhurst. It's made up of good people, families with young children, the elderly. It's quiet and neighbors look out for each other. In the evenings, you find people chatting in the dog park and children playing on scooters. In the proposal from Hoopeg and the Salvation Army, they talk about being a good neighbor and conducting this process in good faith. Unfortunately, so far we've seen exactly the opposite. In my opinion, they've gone about this process in the most deceitful way pro possible. There's no formal pre-conultation calling it a minor variance, a small technical change to the zoning bylaw. Nothing could be further from the truth. This will change our neighborhood forever. Would a minor change generate upwards of 500 letters from the community, media coverage, including the Spectator and CHCH, multiple community events, and a door-to-door campaign? A Facebook group with over 400 members in two weeks. They argue that the property was once used as an educational facility, but that is not the same as providing large-scale overnight accommodation and social services. It's my understanding that an exemption for legal non-conforming use must be continuous. Tax records and our lived experience can confirm that this exemption was abandoned decades ago. Calling this a minor variance is a calculated effort to avoid proper scrutiny, proper site plan evaluation, and proper consultation with both the community and city experts. The public is being denied our legal right to participate as per the planning act. Even our city councelor is not allowed to speak. So why are they taking this approach? Because they know that the only ones who stand to benefit are the Karmen group and their shareholders. It won't be good for the Salvation Army clients, moving them further from their medical services, health and addiction treatment facilities, food banks, and the places they stay warm in winter. It won't be good for our community. The infrastructure to support a facility of this size simply does not exist here. City planners are against it. We worry about the safety of our vulnerable, our children, elderly, our residents in recovery from addiction or victims of violence. Neither neither the Salvation Army or the police have the resources to keep the spillover from a shelter of this size under control. We've all witnessed a complete failure to manage the overflow of hard drug dealing and use, loitering, vandalism, violence, and garbage from the Booth Center. A failure so bad they had to build a wall for the Paul McCartney concert. Is that the plan for Gage Avenue? Build a wall. What is the plan? Because right now, nothing has been shared with us. I invite the committee to spend a couple of hours in front of the current location on York Street. Then tell me if that's a place children deserve to grow up next to. The mega shelter model is antiquated. It has the highest negative impact on the community and the lowest rate of successful rehousing. Repeating the same mistakes in a less visible location will not help. Real solutions are needed. We need to ask ourselves who we are. Will Hamilton be a place where corporate interests always win at the expense of the families and working class who built this city? Or will we work together to fix this problem the right way? I have faith in the impartiality of this committee. Faith that they will follow the rule of law, faith that they will allow the transparency, oversight, due process, and community input a major decision like this warrants. I thank you for your time. Thanks. >> Thanks. And if you could fill out a form just behind you there, leave it there. I appreciate it. Uh, next we have Rick Zalinski. Rick Zalinsky, are you here? Yeah. Is there? Yeah. Please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. >> Oh, sorry. Okay. I believe Okay. Did you want to >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Was there also a James Molton? Were they? Yeah. Okay. All right. So, you're you're with the applicant. Okay. Um, let me just go back and see if these people are here. Bella Buu, are you here? Bella Buu. Okay. And then Samantha Raino, are you here? Okay. I don't believe they're here. Um, then I'll just ask, is there anyone else who wants to speak? Any other members? Okay, please step forward. Yeah, I think there's Yeah, please step forward. >> Uh oh, yeah. No, that's fine. We'll wait. We'll wait for you for the applicant later. Yeah. Uh we'll just go through any other members of the public want to speak. Please provide your name and address and you'll have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Hello. Uh my name is Rudolph Bangert. Live at 36 Whitfield Avenue. So, just a few houses down from the condemned structure in question here. The building that uh basically has had no maintenance since the school left. Right now, the glass is like a foot and a half high. There's uh windows that are boarded up in it. Uh the current owner is doing nothing in uh even as we speak to maintain proper standards of uh a structure. So, uh, uh, I agree with all the people who, uh, do not want, uh, the shelter to go in place here. Uh, but there's another thing I want to bring up, and that is, uh, where is the survey of the homeless men of where they want to go, right? It's a site that has no services available for them. How come they have not been surveyed and questioned as to where they want to go? Right? Are they being treated like cattle here and just herded off to wherever? So, uh, show us some respect to these homeless guys and not just treat them like cattle and send them off to, uh, who knows where, right? Okay. So, thank you. >> Thanks. And if you could fill out a form there just be Yeah, just leave it there. Appreciate. Uh, was there I believe there was someone else who wanted to speak. Yes. Please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Hello, my name is Christine Huga. I live at 30 Whitfield Avenue. Uh I want to state by start by saying I'm not in disagreeance that the Salvation Army booth should be relocated. It would vitalize uh the downtown core. However, having it moved to 337 Gage Avenue is not a good fit. The building is not a school. It hasn't been a school since 1996. I know this because my kids friends went there as daycare people and school residents. The school that you're proposing, the building that you're proposing, the services that you're proposing don't fit the neighborhood. They don't the street, where are they going to stand? When the kids go to school in the morning, who's going to walk them around the people that are sleeping on the sidewalks? We have kids that are 7 8:15 17 that walk up Gage Avenue to go to school and they have to leave about 7:30, 7:00 because they have to walk so far to get to school. Who's going to walk those kids to school? Their parents are going to work the same times those kids are going to school. What safety measures are there to ensure that this that their safety is met? when the Salvation Army had the fire uh in the residence and now you're saying you want to give them individual rooms and not have these big rooms, who's going to monitor their safety and the other residents that will be staying in there? When a resident uh has a mental crisis and they are going out into the streets, what services are you providing to ensure that the residents, the lady standing at the bus stop going to the farmers market isn't going to be accosted or going to be hurt. And I understand that it's important for us as a community to acknowledge everyone and acknowledge all the wards. just not W 3, but everyone Hamilton as a whole community. We could do better. We could do better, but putting this facility at 337 Gauge Avenue is not the proper fit. The building doesn't work. The area doesn't work. The services aren't there. Community residents aren't happy. They don't want it in their neighborhood, and I understand that. And downtown doesn't want it in their neighborhood with the TD Stadium being rebuilt. But 337 Gauge Avenue building is not a good fit. It is not a minor variance. It is a major variance. You're adding a whole other floor. If this was a condominium project, it wouldn't be considered a minor variance. And I know that's temporary living to full-time living. But the fact of the matter is this isn't a minor variance. It is a major variance. And as everyone said, this building is not a good fit. And that's all I have to put in. Thank you. >> Thanks. And if you could fill out a form just behind you, leave it there. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else wanted to speak? >> See someone else. I just saw someone outside. We'll come to you after. >> Just move a little bit. >> Yeah. Move a little bit closer. >> There you go. >> Bella is here. Sorry. I was trying to figure out how to make this work. >> Sorry. Sorry. Is there someone there on on WebEx? Can um just if you could just mute yourself first, please. Thank you. >> Yeah. U sorry. Do provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Hi, my name is Martin Ojinski. Uh I am the owner of 105 Beach Road and 389 Aendale. We purchased this property back in 2016 from a previously operated organization. Our goal was to invest in the building, improve the surrounding area, and contribute positively to the local community. I believe we accomplished that by removing and rebuilding the property into a productive and positive space for the neighborhood. This property is 20 m away from the proposed location. Unfortunately, shortly after making significant changes to the property, we were heavily impacted by CO 19. Our tenant at the time, Canary Films, which also reside across the street on Gage. Ultimately went bankrupt, creating another financial and operational hardship for us. Despite these setbacks, we continued moving forward because we believed in the future of Ward 3 and the importance of investing in the community. Approximately three three years ago we partnered with with EIT institute. Since then they have created a safe, supportive and positive environment focused on mental health, fitness and support for two SLGBTQ plus community. Their facility located AC directly across 20 meters from the proposed project location has been important and meaningful part of the neighborhood and helped many individuals through constructive programming and community support. In addition, we also own the property located at 389 Boulevard, Aenddale Boulevard, sorry. Over the years, we made several attempts to develop this property in ways that could help address housing and community needs. We propose residential developments, multi-unit residential concepts, semi- detached housing, and even single resident options. Unfortunately, all of these applications were denied. After years of discussions, delays, and rising construction costs, we ultimately proceeded with multi-unit commercial development instead. There's also a residential building located 4850 Whitfield Avenue, only approximately 20 meters from the proposed sites. This raises significant concern concerns regarding the public safety security and the impact of project that may have on nearby residents and families already living in the immediate area. I grew up on Barton Street and this area is very close to my heart. My intention was always to give back to the community through investment, redevelopment, and creating opportunity and to contribute positively to the neighborhood and support local residents. While I understand the intentions behind the proposed Salvation Army project and that recognize the importance of supporting vulnerable individuals, I do not believe this proposal is the right fit for Ward 3 in the current form. My concern is not with helping people in need, but rather with the lack of long-term solutions addressing the root cause affecting the community. Over the past several years, residents and business and owners have increasingly witnessed open drug consumption, discarded needles in public spaces, trespassing, vandalism, encampments, theft, and ongoing public safety concerns throughout the neighborhood. Families, businesses, community organizations already struggling with these realities daily. Concentrating additional high impact social service in the area without stronger enforcement, treatment programs, rehabilitation support, mental health resources, and long-term planning risks intensifying the issue at the already affecting the community. Even driving through the downtown core today at 9:00 a.m., you're able to see the open drug use on York. The city must also consider the broader financial impact associated with additional policing, emergency service, bylaw enforcement, public cleanup, healthc care response, and infrastructure strain. Ultimately, taxpayer and local property owners continue to absorb the growing costs. The community deserves long-term solution focus on rehabilitation, addiction treatment, mental health support, housing accountability, public safety, and responsible urban planning. Simply concentrating additional services into one area without adequately addressing the root cause places further strain on the neighborhood that has already carried a disappropriate burden for many years. I respectfully ask the city of Hamilton to carefully consider the long-term impact of this project that may have on Ward 3. We ask this application to be denied. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Thanks. Um I think we had someone on the WebEx. Their phone number starts with the 365 area code. Did you want to speak on this application? I believe it's uh for the um for the Gage Avenue application. Did you want to speak on this? Did you want to unmute yourself starts with the area code 365? Hi. >> Hi. Uh I'm actually yes, I wanted to speak on behalf. I just couldn't figure out the online stuff. They literally would not let me get on. >> Okay. If you wanted to speak on this application, yeah, please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Okay. Um, well, my name is Belu. I'm a resident at 378 uh Aenddale Street. Uh, by saying good morning uh chair and community members. Uh, I was actually at one point a uh homeless resident myself. Uh but I would like to object against this. Uh the my objection is the ty found on the uh this proposal is not a minor variance. It introduced a mass 24hour land change that belongs before the city council has a full zoning uh bylaw amendment uh not in the front of the committee. Uh but the most glaring issue of this application is that it le it lacks the pedestrian safety and there is no uh safety assessment for the pedestrians. Uh I would like to uh try to see if we can get an comprehensive pedestrian safety assessment done adjust addressing the heavy industrial traffic in railway crossing. a full parking traffic impact review and a complete site planning and industrial compact assessment. Uh that is all I have to say but I would I really think that we need if there's going to be 120 people put there personally I believe we need pedestrian safety to be tested in this area. This is a high industrial area that really lacks the the uh retribut uh to understand that the safety net of course pedestrians behind all of the traffic the railways like honestly I feel like it's more of a hazard. There's going to be people trying to kill themselves in front of traffic, throw themselves there. It's all just a major hazard. Uh, if we could get a public safety assessment done, then maybe it would be a little bit better. But until a public safety is done, I feel like this should be just Thank you for your time. If there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer. Unfortunately, I have children, so it's really hard to talk. That would be all I have to say. Thank you guys. >> Thank you. Thanks. Sorry. Could you just repeat your name and address if that's possible? Ella Bella and 378 Aendale. Sorry, >> Ella. Sorry, Aendale. Ella, >> Ella, 378 Avenue. >> Okay, thanks. All right. Um, I believe there was someone else who wanted to speak. This gentleman in there. Yeah, please step up. >> Mario, we don't have him. Okay. Sorry. What was his name? Mario. Okay. Sometimes we may have that's why we'll ask at the end of it if there's anyone else who wants to speak. Okay. Yeah. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Hi, my name is Kevin. >> I live up the mountain, but I do have my wife and my children and my grandchildren that lives pretty much two doors away from the site. I'm very very concerned about safety, especially my kids and my grandchildren. I wouldn't want this up the mountain where I live. So I sure don't want them near my children's where they live either. I want you to really consider the safety of the children that in that area and not to mention if that happens they have no choice but to move and the financial loss that that they're going to be hit is going to be huge. I mean, they're already not doing very well financially. And again, my main concern is the safety of the children. Not only mine, but my neighbors and all around that area. Again, I live up the mountain. I wouldn't want anybody up the mountain to face those. I do drive by the site sometimes. It's it's not good. These people chose to be in that situation. Unfortunately, they need help. They don't need to be real. They don't need to be relocated. They need help. That's my opinion about this whole thing. And thank you. >> Yeah. Please. Uh and sorry, what was your address, sir? >> My address is 155 East 24. Thank you. >> Okay. Um was there any other members of the public wish to speak? Okay. I'm just going to Okay. I don't see I'm gonna ask again. Oh, sorry. Come, please come up. Provide please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Uh, good morning. My name is John Strawback. I live at four Lloyd Street. I'd like to say that this shelter is not suitable for the proposed location at 337 Gage Street North. I think that it'll have a negative impact on the families and children that reside in the area, particularly exposure to drug use, needles, loitering, people sleeping outside on the side sidewalks and garbage. Uh I also think that there'll be a increase in criminal activity in the area such as thefts and breakins. Um this area already has a number of homeless and drug users due to McDonald's restaurant, Tim Hortons, Sammy's Pharmacy and Freshco. I also feel that there's a lack of social services and mental health services located in this area. Um they're building a new building for native women and children residing at B Gage and Barton Street. I'm wondering what impact that would have on the construction of the shelter. Also, bus routes uh is limited. There's only a number four Bayfront bus that services the area. Uh people could get off at Barton and Gage, take the Barton bus, but they'd have to walk down from Gage and Barton to Gage and Beach Road. Also, I'm concerned about future expansion of the facility. Um, and I'm worried about uh the decrease in property values of my house located in this area. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. And if you could fill out a form just behind you there. Oh, you just And sorry, what was your address again, sir? Sorry, I didn't catch it there. For Lloyd Street for Thanks. Okay. Um, let me just go back and I I believe Bella Buu, she spoke. So, I'm going to ask uh Samantha Rain Rainald, is she here? Just want to check again. Okay. Is there any other members of the public wish to speak? Um, okay. >> I believe the applicant said there was someone who was going to speak. >> Okay. Yeah. Can I just uh can we just take a 5m minute break cuz I know uh some of us been sitting here for quite a while and uh so okay >> and if anyone up there wants to have a bathroom break that's good too. So okay >> or get up and stretch. Um so uh 5 minutes or committee gets back here. Yes. >> Yeah. We'll come back around 12 p.m. then. Thanks. 12. Yeah. Okay. back to order. Um, >> Justin, if you want to call. >> Yes. >> Um, I believe the next person we had was a there's supposed to be an interested party. It was a Mario. Mario. >> Yeah. If you want to step forward, please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Sorry. Through the chair, the applicant was indicating they had some material here. If you want, if you wanted, we could pass it out. It's just related to their application. Yeah. Some of it was already provided previously, the written comments, and some of it's just presentation type material as well. If you wanted, I could pass it out if you wanted me to. Yeah, I could pass that out. Oh, thanks. I need one. >> Okay. Apologies. No worries. Okay. >> Did you want to provide your name and address, please? >> Yes. My name is Mario Frank. I'm a vice president with Franor Group, Inc. Franor is located at 366 King Street West. Uh you've received uh a letter of support for the application for minor variance from the company. Um, I'm going to truncate some of my comments in that I wasn't aware that that staff was not supportive of the minor variance and and I'll I'll limit my my comments really to we've worked for a number of years with Salvation Army looking to help them find ways to be more successful in in outcomes with people that they serve. And and Salvation Army isn't the only organization that we worked with. We were very supportive of the good shepherd. And so our discussion really is one about human needs and and how can how can the Salvation Army be more successful at helping people who really do need help. Um what's been identified to us and I'll leave it to the Salvation Army to to speak in detail about it itself. But one of the barriers to success for them is the building that they have. not not the location of it but the building that they have it is not uh it's not conducive to successful outcomes for them just because of the limitations that are there. So I our the basis for our support was if not now with full funding available to make a move to facilitate a move then what how do we help these people and so we would be supportive of a move on the basis that there are human needs out there and we certainly understand all of the the conflicts that happen. There is no perfect place to move anything, but we do need some kind of solution to help people who are having difficulties that uh they can't solve on their own. And so that's why we're supportive of the Salvation Army. That's it. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And if you could just fill out a form just behind you there and just leave it there. Appreciate it. Um, I'm just going to read I'll just repeat this person's name again who was an interested party. Samantha Rainold. Okay. Okay. I don't think she's here. Was there anyone else wanted to speak on this application or anyone I didn't call who wanted to speak? Okay. Um, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward again. Please provide your name and address and you have uh five minutes to speak. Thanks. Good afternoon, committee. Edward John, registered professional planner and partner at Landwise. My address is 11:22 Wilson Street West. Uh, I do believe I have a presentation that was forwarded to the secretary treasurer. >> Yeah, just give me a moment. While the secretary finds that, I'm uh just going to note that I am joined today uh by James Molton, executive director at the Salvation Army and Major Rick Zalinski. I truly appreciate the comments and concerns raised today. I understand the gravity of the application and I do seek to provide guidance on what is being requested by committee, provide information on why this approach is appropriate and ultimately why when judged on the applicable criteria can be supported. However, I do seek committee's indulgence as I am hoping to receive some additional minutes recognizing that I may just be over the allotted five minutes to address some of the comments raised today. Thank you. If you go forward, please Justin. So, in terms of background, the subject lands are located along Gage Avenue North, occupying the frontage of lands between Beach Road and Whitfield Avenue. The lands are within what can be characterized as a residential and institutional enclave that have been subject to city initiated changes that have reszoned and redesated the area in order to achieve the city's vision for an employment area. The building itself is institutional in form utilized previously as a school. Grade related dwellings exist to the rear and in front of the building as well as a number of other surrounding uses. Next slide please. These are the permissions being requested of committee. I do want to draw attention to provision one. Just to ensure complete clarity, we are seeking an additional story on top of the existing building. I just a little bit concerned in how it reads. But as long as committee is aware that that is the request that an additional story on the existing building is being requested. In terms of the two requests, at first glance, it may appear that the application is seeking to add a use not permitted within the applicable zoning and as such is often not a supportable approach through the minor variance. However, over the next few slides, I am willing to highlight how in this particular instance, the planning act under section 452 actually contemplates the ability to consider through variance uses that are similar to that existed on the lands when those when those uses were legally established but became non-conforming as a result of municipalled changes to the zoning and official plan. Next slide, please, Justin. This committee is no doubt familiar with the typical variance process governed under 451 which applies the four tests of the planning act. However, today committee is being asked to evaluate the merits of the application under the less often applied 452 section of the planning act. Unlike 451, the criteria for assessment shown on this slide allows approval of a new use for the lands which in the opinion of this committee is similar to that which existed previously. I of course recognize this file and this decision is in no doubt based on what we've hear today a challenging one for all members of committee. But albeit that the decision itself is difficult, there are criteria for assessment is simple and by that measure lies fundamentally on whether this committee considered the use to be similar to that for which it was used previously. Next slide please. Justin, I do want to take a moment as I think it's important to walk committee through why this planning rationale exists, why the section of the planning act and why it is appropriate to evaluate the proposal under this criteria as opposed to the more typical variance approach under 451 or as staff and their comments suggest through a reasonzoning and official plan amendment. The subject lands and those surrounding it were previously permitted as of right to have a wide range of uses. This included residential and institutional uses. During that time, as illustrated in what exists today, institutional and residential uses were legally developed and utilized for those purposes. However, the municipality then reinviged and reddes designated the area strictly for employment uses and in doing so removed previous institutional permissions that existed on the lands. The intent of the municipality was to have this area over time develop into a more comprehensive and consistent employment area occupying uses focused instead on industrial operations. However, as you can appreciate, this creates uncertainty and potential challenges and conflicts for uses currently in existence. As such, the planning act recognizes that when this occurs, property owners deserve the right to modify and evolve their own lands without having to comply with the new policy requirements applied by the city. Indeed, 452 exists for these very instances. It is the correct process in which to evaluate the question before committee which is whether the use is considered a natural evolution of the previous use. Staff indication that reszoning an official plan amendment is the appropriate process is in my opinion incorrect. Reszoning and official plan amendment applications are required when new uses are proposed which seek to change the vision for the area. Instead, the 452 is to recognize that while transition to that new city imposed vision takes place, which as I mentioned takes, you know, a significant period of time, uses similar to that which existed before can continue to evolve without entrenching the said vision. Next slide, please. Certainly, if this section of the planning act did not exist, the owner of the lands would only be able to implement those new uses proposed by the city as seen in this slide. Many of these uses would face significant constraints in being implemented as the lands are surrounded by sensitive land uses and as such those more intensive industrial uses currently permitted would face compatibility challenges with the existing sensitive land uses and would impact viability and developability of the lands in accordance with the city's vision. In the absence of the 452, the owner would not be able to expand or modify the previously legally established use, nor by virtue of constraints surrounding the property in the form of sensitive residential uses, be able to readily develop the lands for the full range of uses permitted in the current M5 zoning. The planning act therefore offers criteria to address this matter of fairness and natural justice in the form of the 452 which is discussed provides the committee of adjustment with the authority for uses that in their opinion are similar to that which previously existed. Next slide please Justin. On that note, as reviewed in detail within the submitted supporting information on the subject to similar to, which it must be stated is not to be treated as the same as, it is my contention that a social services establishment with temporary overnight accommodation is similar to that of the former institutional use of the lands as a school. Indeed, staff in their own report acknowledged that there is alignment and similarities between the uses with regard to how the use would operate. Acknowledging the existing classrooms and layout would readily accommodate social services proposed and how the proposed use will provide wraparound services to support the focus on education, social well-being, health supports, life skills development and community integration. In fact, based on staff's own review, agreement to this position is acknowledged, save and accept for the overnight accommodation. To that note, I draw attention committee to the definition of an estab educational establishment which does not prohibit overnight accommodation. Furthermore, colleges, universities, and private schools are not only permitted to accommodate students overnight, it is in fact not considered outside of normal operation or expected use of such facilities and is instead considered an extension to the services provided. In this instance, the overnight accommodations function in a similar way to a boarding school in so much as it facilitates the most meaningful access to the services available on site. While those services are not limited to only those being accommodated, having both the services and the accommodation on site ensures the most successful potential opportunity uh for outcomes for those involved in the programs. Next slide, please, Justin. I won't spend too much time on this, but I do want to just go through even how the the infrastructure in the building exists aligning with this idea of similar space and similar operations. You know, the building will continue to operate with spaces similar to a school's original use, including the cafeteria, allpurpose rooms, office space, private rear courtyard, areas previously used for classrooms will continue to host educational training and program related activities. The front office will continue to operate in the same approach that it did as a school. Just as a school provides structured programs and guidance, the proposed use will provide organized support, training, and services for participants. Overall, the building's core function as a place for structured programs, education, and community focused activities remains consistent, demonstrating the proposed use is a natural evolution of the site. Next slide, please. To further emphasize this IDOR similar to um I've drawn upon here what is typically involved in the I1 zone I want to emphasize the position that the uses are indeed similar. I did want to note that had the vision not been changed by the city and that institutional uses remained permitted on the lands it is likely that the use contemplated today would permitted as of right. These are all permitted uses within the same standard institutional zoning and therefore deemed by the city to have similar impacts and function that work together from a compatibility and impact assessment. So once again drawing attention to this slide with educational establishment, emergency shelter, retirement home, residential care facility all uh considered to represent an appropriate set of land uses in a similar institutional land use zone. Next slide please Justin. And in summary, um the proposed expansion and permission for social services establishment with temporary unite over accommodation is in my opinion similar to the form, function and operations of an educational establishment. The proposed reuse of the building provides the layout instruction necessary to facilitate the services that will be provided on site. The site itself can accommodate additional operational features that are not currently feasible at the existing location. once again to focus and develop additional services geared towards educational and support programs. And then finally, we do have um representatives of the Salvation Army who are going to come and approach today and provide additional information and speak to additional communications hearing today that that was seriously uh a concern that has yet to to be tackled in a meaningful way. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to address any questions. >> Okay. Thank you, committee. Oh, did did you want to speak? >> Was there someone else who was going to speak? >> So, the Salvation Army representatives. So, James and Major Rick. >> Okay. >> They wanted to come up. Yeah. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> There's a presentation that was sent. >> Yeah. Just give me a moment. >> Thank you. There we go. I'm Rick Sinsky. My address is 63 Yatesbury Road, Toronto. Uh thank you very much to the chair for and committee for uh giving us audience today and to those who have already spoken for bringing forward their uh cares, concerns and and wishes for their community. I appreciate hearing that from you today. The Salvation Army has existed in Canada for 144 years. Um, we exist in 400 plus communities including the city of Hamilton. Sorry, next slide. We work in partnership with municipalities, provinces, federal government, health care providers, community agencies to support vulnerable populations. Um, we require the support of uh individuals and communities who financially support us as a nonprofit organization, including the people in the letter in the package that you got um with Leuna uh Health Sciences, Chamber of Commerce, and other business owners uh who represent over 100,000 uh residents in the city of Hamilton. Next slide, please. If you look at Hamilton specific, this is where the Salvation Army is currently operating um in the city, including places of worship, uh halfway house uh for people moving back into communities, uh a home for people who have developmental disabilities, etc. in the city of Hamilton. Um last year almost 11,000 pe almost 11,000 families visited the Salvation Army to receive help for food insecurity. That's families. Uh we had over 21,000 individuals who also came to the Salvation Army for help. Lawson Ministries is has over 40 years providing adults with de developmental disabilities, mental health challenges with locally based programs. And the Boost shelter uh has been supporting 120 beds for men as well as operating a street outreach where they take meals to people who are not housed inside our facilities up to 100 meals a night. I want to tell you just a little bit about the people who reside at Booth Center. Um, what people often witness on the streets of York Boulevard does not represent the people who have housing and meals and supports inside of our building. Um, we're concerned for that as well. this community and the concern that people have for this community. The people who come to us for help, they need a community around them who's going to rally for them, who's going to present hope. And this is an opportunity for us to move into a space that will allow us to give them life skills, to give them strategies for coping, to give them the skills that they need to be functioning members of society. The goal is not for them to live at 337 gauge for the rest of their lives. We want to move them back into community in a healthy way. Um, these are residents of Hamilton. Homelessness does not uh recognize or respect boundaries. Um but the people who who stay at the booth center are people who need help as has been said a number of times today and they are Hamiltonians. Um it might be interesting for you also to know that some of our um people and many people who through the years who have stayed with us are actually um people who have jobs and this is a this is a stopoff place for them to get their lives in order that they can then move back into society again. This is not a long-term solution for them to live in our building. I'm a little bit little bit nervous. Um I I I'm not just representing the Salvation Army today. Uh I'm emotionally connected to this um to this issue. Uh I I was born at St. Joe's and I was raised at uh 87 Barnesdale Avenue North where where Beachwood and Barnesdale intersect. I lived in the family uh with two alcoholic parents at three years old actually uh because my parents didn't really have great boundaries. Um I took my 2-year-old uh neighbor and we walked out to Barton Street and got hit in front of the uh uh Dairy Queen. Now thankfully I wasn't injured and everyone came rushing with free ice cream. So, I'm not sure that was, you know, if that's a negative or a positive thing, but I've I lived in that environment until the day where a lady from the Salvation Army came and brought hope to my mom and uh she delivered hope because we believe in the transforming power of uh of God in people's lives and we believe in programming that helps them get out of that. And that lady brought this to my mom and to my dad by extension. And I stand here today as a former resident of uh this ward. Um someone who's been successful because of the uh uh the miracle that happened in the life of my family, but also because of the relationship and the influence of somebody from the Salvation Army. That's what we're looking for for the people that we serve. And uh I appreciate the the comments today. We think we think the passion that this community has for its community is exactly what our people need to be successful and to be thriving in community. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate that. And my colleagues James will take over. We can stay on the same presentation to through the chair. It's been a long morning. But I think a good morning too. Um, hearing both sides of the story is always very important. We hear the passion of the community and it's very encouraging I think to see that almost everyone that presented who's actually imposed his application still wants to help people. If I get emotional, which I am, it's not about the applications, but the people that we work with. Um, we are very humbled to be there. Sometimes when no one else is. Sometimes when the community forgets but then's reminded today again. We've done a lot of work in a facility that was never designed for the work that's being done. A facility that could have don't want to make the number because maybe someone would give it to me today. millions and millions of dollars and it wouldn't change the fact that the building was never designed for the purpose that is intended and it would be very difficult for us to look to the future to a modernized facility that can provide the support that these individuals need to be successful in the community. The work we do every day is not necessarily visible to the community. We have successes every hour of every day of people whose lives are being transformed. um whether it's through their personal um struggle, maybe it's workrelated, maybe it's the fact that society today um we probably all are aware of the challenges and the financial problems in our economy and the cost of living and the cost of rental and the loss of rental and those challenges there. Yeah. And yes, some of our clients also have challenges as it relates to mental health, physical health, and yes, some also have addictions uh issues. And we work with that every single day uh 24/7, 365. This facility can modernize that work and take us to a better place, balancing and creating greater accessibility as we work with aging populations. I know some of the things I say some people might not agree with. That's good. That's healthy. But we see proximity to transit. We see even more closeness to healthcare. We see opportunities for bringing people into our facility which are currently not available to provide better service integration and even on the aspect of over um integration or uh of services within a particular area of the community. And while some have pushed back that ward three, um we also see it differently from what's on the court right now. Going back to the community, we've heard the community. This from my perspective was a single point in time that is certainly not indicative of all the work that would go beyond today if this uh was granted today. This is not the ending state by any stretch. It's the beginning of a conversation. So with that in mind, what I would like to offer is the opportunity to create a community liaison committee and that would be um members of the community, particularly members of the ward, uh to work directly with me, um so that we can have open dialogue and conversation not only through the process of of a of a new facility being developed, but ongoing as the operations continue into the future. Um we're also committed to having to public engagement uh through information sessions and we've also started uh a website that allows um a little more expansion on some of the ideas and thoughts and hopefully answer some of the questions that the residents might have. Supporting shelters and supporting neighborhood well-being are not opposite goals. Safer, healthy communities depend on both compassion and collaboration. And with that, I thank you for your consideration. Thank you. And sorry, your name was Sorry, was it G? Is it G? >> My apologies. James Molton, executive director, Salvation Army. We operate at 182 Rebecca Street. >> Is that the same for Mr. Zilinsky, too? Okay. 182 Rebecca Street. The same address. >> No, Rick. Major Zalinski would be to Overly Boulevard in Toronto. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Oh, sorry. I think I have five seconds. If you could just flick through the rest of the slides. I wasn't too good on telling you to do that, but much as my apologies. >> Okay, that's Yeah. Okay. Okay. Just again, just just want to check, was there anyone else who wanted to speak on this application for um 337 Gage Avenue North? Okay, seeing none, I'll bring this back to the committee >> if the agent wants to come back down if we have any questions. Okay, committee questions, concerns on this application. You have the comments from planning and I think for everyone that's here, we all uh we all care about what this is about and uh we don't take it lightly as to what decisions have to be made here today. Um Nick, did you have a question? Yeah, I was just wondering how many uh people do you plan to help in this facility at one time >> through the chair to the committee member. Um you know 120 residents are currently at the existing facility. We would be looking to represent the same in this new building. >> Well, yeah. I've been out and looked at the place there. How many employees are you going to have and where are they going to park >> through the chair to the committee member? We recognize that you know parking is a challenge on site. It's it's part of the reason why other uses are also challenged to go into this location. Um I'll look towards um James who may come down and just respond more accurately on the uh the number of uh folks who would uh work and be employed at the location. through the chair to clarify the question was how many parking >> the number of employees you're going to have and are you going to need fair parking space that there's no parking there at all on that property or near on the street. So >> um so I I can speak to the staffing compliment. We have at least five individuals on every shift. uh that would be mainly case worker uh support um staff. Our uh during the day we have would have our kitchen staff and more of our other support staff there which would be a maximum of about 8 to nine people on site. Uh we currently have I don't know the exact number of spots but I think we use six of those uh for staff at any given time because many staff are not actually driving. Um, also there is actually some parking available on the front of the building. So, if you look at the front of the building, uh, facing it, uh, on the left hand side, uh, I believe I counted up the possibility of, I'm not a planner, but up to six or seven spots there. And there's also some parking on the back of the building as well. So I think some of that question could also be addressed during what we believe to be the next stage which would be the planning stage and the site development uh stage which we're in we I don't think we thought we were at at this point in time. Yeah. >> I guess I have a question for planning. So one of the or some of the comments in here um you know previous use educational establishment commercial school um and it's been other uh businesses after that. Um you look at that as as a situation or like in your comments you talk about the educational part of it uh more than any other business that was in there. Uh is that just because of of the of the comparison between that and what this next use could be through the chair reno acting director and planning. Yes. Basically we looked at the original comparison of the educational component because that the ask is to look at similarities through the section 452 of the planning act. So we did look at that ed that we had to compare that to what was originally there. Um so that's that's the comparison through the report we were looking at. >> Okay. And I guess the comment from the agent 2 was um if it had have been uh uh an educational establishment and if it was more of a university type of thing or a college um would it have been allowed at that time to have um rooms there for housing through the chair? Um it's interesting question that that has been brought up before. um that wasn't evaluated through this application cuz that's not what the ask was that it was the two asks which were being evaluated by. So we can't really look at what if if it was. We have to look at what is being asked. >> Okay. Any other questions here, Nick? >> Okay, >> you're first. Robert, go ahead. >> Okay. Well, just just a comment here. I think you know, hearing you know, I really appreciate the fruitful discussions from both residents and from uh you know, interested parties. Uh it's been lively and I think for for me, my perspective on this, it's not establishing something new. It's a relocation. City of Hamilton's annual budget for housing and homelessness support is approximately $186 million, which a taxpayers fund. for this outrageous price tag. We don't have solutions in sight. So to me, this is a solution. Section 452 of the Ontario Planning Act empowers local committees of adjustment to grant permissions to alter enlarge or change legal non-conforming building structures and land uses. So it offers an alternative less restrictive test than the four part criteria required in section 451. Thanks, Robert. >> This has been a real challenge to uh to sit through today, not from the timing aspect, but to listen to all the the neighbors and their concerns. You know, there's if you cut through the chase of everything, there's a very common subject of everybody who spoke and that is the safety in their neighborhood and this fitting into the neighborhood. On the other side of the coin, what the Salvation Army is doing is um above and beyond what I ever expected that they did. Never been exposed to it. But at the end of the day, you know, is it the right place in that neighborhood? Yes, there's a lot of industrial around, but there's over 50 55 resident residential houses in the area, and it's been known for that. But you come back to some of the uh rationale submitted by the by the applicant of I'm not going to say stretching it, but some of the definitions they went after is a little gray in my opinion in some areas because it was a school at one point when then it was closed and it went through a a bunch of other opportunities there between the storage and the warehouse and electrical service and all that, but that was also 25 years ago. So, you turn around and look at the fact that they're trying to capitalize on an extended use. I'm not sure that's the right thing in this in this case to go forward. Um, they're banging on the door. They want to be there, but at the end of the day, you know, it's it is the way it's been submitted to us as a committee. It comes back to the four minor or the four conditions of a minor variance application. And I think we can all agree this is not a it's not minor in nature. It does not maintain the intent of the zoning bylaw. Does not maintain the intent of the official plan. Some of that could be subject to interpretation of all the recent changes etc. But from what we're sitting here right now, it's in front of us, I don't think it works. And then number four, the biggest one, the negative impact on the community. There's there's a lot of other notes that have been thrown around and tried to explain social services establishment similar to the previous institutional use of the site. It's again I'm I'm having trouble seeing that. But I also don't have a solution for the Salvation Army. They're there where they are. They've been there for a long time. And um is it right for them to pack up and move? Some people might suggest that, but other people are saying you're just we got to pick up the problem and move it somewhere else. that somewhere else is the $100 question here. And in my opinion, what's proposed in front of us today is not the right solution. Yes, it's a vacant building. It has some similar structure that has been explained that could be utilized, but at the same token, as it was mentioned about parking, we have the city hasn't even looked at that for the for the requirements of zoning of parking, the landscaping, etc., etc. And um I think right now it's uh it's a it's a tough nut which way to go. >> And probably in most situations wherever um if if they do move um you know it's always that no one wants it in their backyard type of thing. And it's it doesn't matter where probably the the area is. it it may not fit into that area. Um it it it's difficult. Uh >> unfortunately the demand for help is in the downtown core. We see at every meeting we come to surrounding the YMCA in the parking lot back here and everything else. It's the downtown. But if that was to be moved, would it solve the problem downtown? I don't know. I'm guessing maybe not. But there's got to be a solution other than where they are right now because obviously there's a lot of impact or suggestions to solve that problem. Um the applicant mentioned something about supporting v vulnerable populations and the thing that I'm struggling with is like what about the citizens? What about children? Like they're also vulnerable, right? I would not want to worry about my kids having to walk to school because they could be accosted, you know? And I understand the purpose of the Salvation Army and I think it is great and I think that there are many many people who need this and would never cause a problem. But that's not what people are concerned about. It's for the few that do cause a problem. It's for those that do have addiction problems and that I I've lived downtown and we lived in an area where there was a lot of mental health and addictions and I didn't want our kids to be exposed to that in a very close right around the corner kind of way. So for me, I also fully support moving the Salvation Army for the purposes, but I don't believe that this is the appropriate place as even just the knowledge that it's there, whether it causes issues or not, is going to highly affect people living there, whether it's a shelter that houses mostly women or for those families that have to worry about their children while they're driving to work. Um, so for me the huge concern is not why, but it's where. >> Robert, >> I think we've uh all spoke our thoughts here and I think it's time to and I'll make a motion to deny the variances as presented to us. >> Okay. Motion made by Robert. Seconded by Yanuka. All in favor of that motion opposed to the motion. Seeing none, that motion is carried and application is denied. >> Every again, please excuse me. I said please don't clap in the room. Thank you. through the chair. Um, I think we have a break scheduled now. >> Do you want to wait for everyone to leave first? >> Well, I think we could want to >> we could have a >> We had a scheduled break. Now, do you want to take a lunch break? >> Yeah. >> Um, how long? 45 minutes. How long you want for for >> 30 minutes? >> 30 minutes. Okay, we'll come back around uh around 1:15, I guess. Okay, so we'll take a brief uh recess now and we'll come back at 1:15 p.m. Thank you. We're reconvening now at uh 117 p.m. from our break. So, The next application we have is a minor variance application A2026 000026 uh 1057 to 1071 Barton Street East Hamilton. Owner is YW.CA Hamilton M. Uppo and the agent is GSP Group Incorporated S. Null. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to uh please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Thank you. And Justin, I think you have my presentation. >> Yes. Just give me a moment. >> Thank you. Sorry to keep you waiting. We're only about three hours behind. >> I know. >> That's okay. My name is Sarah Null and I am a registered professional planner with GSP Group on Lock Street South. We have been retained by the YW.CA and I'm here with Madora who's up there in the gallery uh the CEO of YW.CA Hamilton. The approval of this minor variance today would allow for the advancement of the conditional site plan approval that was granted by the city this past month. The proposal is for Oakwood Oakwood project, a new purpose-built six-story building used for transitional housing, 84 units for women and women led families. The building will also have supportive uses in the form of counseling space and accessory medical clinic and child care. The minor variance before you today is to permit reduced sideyard setbacks of 3 m whereas the bylaw requires 7.5 m. Next slide. I've included the survey and a picture of the previous existing two buildings on the site. The large one was a twostory rising to a three-story building in the rear and the smaller one is a one-story building. Both were built right up to the side lot lines providing a zero sideyard lot line setback. Next slide. This slide highlights the requested sideyard variances. It is important to note that all other regulations have been met or exceeded. I wanted to highlight the increased setback being provided to the existing residential homes along Clooney Avenue to the left of the slide at a setback of 10.5 meters. Also highlighted on this slide is that the 3 m is not a consistent 3 m and sixstory building on both sides, but rather the building has a step back in the orange area noted on the top of the slide with a one-story uh portion of the building. And then on the west or the bottom of the slide, the yellow six-story section is the only area where the variance would be required. So we appreciate your consideration of the application. I support staff's recommendation and welcome any questions. >> Committee have any questions? Mel, >> uh, you have any problems with the, uh, proof of variance and the conditions and the notes? >> No, I do not. >> No. In that case, I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. >> Motion made by Mel, seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. Okay. Next we have a minor variance application A2026 000013 360 Book Road West Ancaster. Owner is a Gail. Agent is Arcadus Professional Services Canada Incorporated. Mike Crowe. Uh is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Yeah. Uh through the chair, I'm Mike Crow, C R O U G. I'm with Arcadus. I think you have our uh address with the application materials. I don't have any comments or questions other than just to say that we've read the staff report and obviously accept the recommendation and if there's anything from the committee I can help with, I'm I'm here to do that. >> Okay. Thank you for waiting. Uh committee have any questions? Motion. >> Nick. Okay. Motion made by Nick, seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Through the chair, we next we have uh two applications. They are related to each other. So um unless I hear otherwise, we the committee may want to consider them both together. So the first is a consent application. It's um B26006 and then there's a associated minor variance application which is A2637. So both are 6063 Orchard Drive Lancaster owner is a name agent is ARDI contractors R for um so those are both the same owner and agent. Um is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? I do not know we had a Lorraine Davidson, but she I think she just wanted to get information on the notice, but I'll just check. Anyone want to speak on this application? 63 Orchard Drive. Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address, and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Yes. Good afternoon. Uh my name is Raf. I'm representing the applicant Al uh the owner uh Ali Nur. It's for the property we've been addressed before uh regarding the uh the severance and the minor variance for that property. We have revised our uh our previous uh hearing for uh to have the uh existing house to be demolished and to create two lots equal lots with the proper setback of 2 m. But the lot the second the seventh lot is 18 m and the second lot is only 17.42 m which is 60 cm less than the uh proper lot width and we're asking for a minor variance for that purpose. >> Okay committee have any questions or concerns on the two? Nick >> I'd like to make a motion to approve this application with the proposed conditions. >> Okay. Moved by Nick, seconded by Mel. All in favor? Opposed, if any, seeing none. Motion carried. Applications approved. >> Thank you. Apologies. Who seconded that motion? Apologies. >> Uh, Mel. >> Oh, no. Mel, apologies. Okay. Um, next we have a minor variance application. It is A2603 1182 Brock Road, Flamborough. Owner owners are A. Wilbrink and H uh Crowsburgen and the agent is Urban in Mind D. Young. Um are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Um seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. >> I submitted a presentation. I don't know if it could come up. >> Yeah, just give me a moment. >> Sure. My name is Terrence Glover from Urban and Mind Planning Consultants. We're out of Burlington. >> Give me a moment. >> I'm here on behalf of the applicant. >> I guess while we're waiting for this to load up, just a little discussion. This one's a little bit confusing, I guess you'd say, because uh two of our applications are supported. two of our application. There's no objection to it and there's one application that should that's recommended to be refused. So, it's not a straightforward yes or no. I'll explain the the differences and nuances of that. Yep, it's up. Great. Uh if we can advance to the next slide. So, just for context, this is a real community. Um uh 1182 Brock Road is traditionally a farming community. It's not an urban center, anything like that. It's not a rural center. Uh it's a rural area that has um historically uh ribbon housing along the street and farming in behind it. Uh it's surrounded by agricultural uses, low density uses, uh recreation, open spaces, and RV park uh within a few miles of the site uh and institutional. Next slide, please. Excuse me. Um what we're proposing to do, that house that you see there is an existing dwelling um is built in the 40s50s. Uh that's where the uh applicants currently live. They want to build a new uh bigger house uh for their family on the same property and the property is approximately 3.7 hectares in size. So it's quite a large property. um they've wanted to move it uh to the to further back because um there's two sets of of frontage on this property and I'll explain that in a second. This property or this house is located on the first set of the frontage. Uh there's currently a vacant frontage that has a a large burm in front of it so it can't be built in that area uh with a driveway that services an existing uh landscape um uh business that's permitted on site through a special provision uh historically. Next slide, please. And this is the property here. Um so near the front of the street on the bottom corner uh is the existing house. Then there have been two houses carved out of this historically uh 50 60 years ago or so. Um I don't know the exact date of that. There's the burm, the circular thing to the top there. And then there's an existing driveway that services the landscape area. They wish to use that existing driveway to service the new house which would be at the back there. And the existing house has its own driveway as well. So as you can see because of the the horseshoe I guess there's two frontages on this street. Next slide please. Um this is in the rural Hamilton official plan is designated rural area. Uh as you know uh official plan amendment 39 permits additional dwelling units as per the provincial legislation that came through. Um the required lot area is 1.5 hectares. Uh this property is approximately 3.7 hectares in size. Um you'll see as I speak to the variances that are being requested the current zoning in Hamilton uh hasn't caught up to the provincial legislation or the uh OPA number 39. Um, and there's some issues that are that are um created because of that. Um, I will say that Hamilton is currently developing a new zoning bylaw to address these matters. Um, but they haven't hasn't been brought before council yet. Um, and because of that, there's a technical issue that staff um cannot say they support an application and they have not said that they refuse an application. Basically what they've done is put it in your lap to say is this appropriate um does the variances that are being requested make sense um or is it too great of an issue that it should not be supported. Staff have not really given an opinion one way or the other because of the technical issue of it. Next slide please. So again, this is the site. Um the the round red box or the red box area is the landscaping area that's already established there. Um the A2 exception. Um and then the green area is currently used for housing. If I may continue, um this is a complicated application. Thank you. Uh this is used for housing as well as agricultural purposes. Next slide, please. So variance number one is recommended by staff um to permit onto the front yard or flankage yard. Um and that's created because there's two front yards uh created on here um because of the the horseshoe aspect of it. Um so that's recommended by staff. Staff Barance number two is recommended for refusal. Um the city has suggested that we enter into a demolition agreement um and then convert that demolition agreement to a a de additional dwelling unit and then um apply for the the permission that we'll explain how that's complicated and how that it doesn't make sense from a practical point of view. Next slide please. Uh variance number three has been recommended by staff um and that is to allow the additional dwelling unit within the front yard. Um variance number four again that's a technical issue where um the zoning bylaw has not yet caught up to the official plan amendment or the provincial legislation. Um so staff technically can't support it because the zoning doesn't say you can actually do this. Um number five again um it's 6.7 m as opposed to 6 m uh I think is permission. Um that's a technical issue as well. Um next slide please. Um okay we do the next slide as well. So variance number two this one's a complicated one. Um so stat instead of typically what happens is you want to build a new primary house. You uh submit an application for demolition for the existing house. Um when that house is the new house is occupied you demolish the old house. So you have one house per lot. In this case, we we are applying for an additional dwelling unit. And as I mentioned, the zoning hasn't caught up yet. Um so, uh the way staff have proposed this, they said refuse, um variance number two because we have an alternative solution to this. Uh if we permitted the variance number two, then we could have we can build this primary unit and then simply convert that uh second unit to the additional dwelling unit. basically just it's a it's a conversion application as opposed to anything else. If we go the way the city has suggest or staff have suggested, we have to apply for a demolition permit, pay $1,500 for that agreement at the city. We have to then post about $25,000 um securities for the demolition of the house, even though we don't intend to demolish the house. Um we have to register that agreement on title. So, we have to have our lawyer do that as well. Uh upon the primary dwelling being completed, we have to request to the city that we want to convert the demolition permit to the additional dwelling unit permit for the conversion. Uh there's a fee for that, I believe. Um there's uh we have to remove the agreement from the the land title and then we can apply for a permit. So, as you can see, I hope you can see the the the necessity to go through that process and the financial burden instead of just allowing a variance to let this thing be developed in time. The conditions of the variances by staff are that the variances only apply to this building. We're not building a new building other than the primary. The existing dwelling will be converted to an additional dwelling unit. We can even add a condition that says all these variances are applicable only to that uh additional dwelling unit. Um next next uh slide please. So you know all this but the committee is made up of um lay people or or non-political people I guess appointed by council. Um they're to review the applications to see if they're appropriate or not. Um usually under the four tests. Um the committee is purposefully uh made up of local citizens. Um and they have the power to to decide what's right or wrong. If uh the committee or council doesn't approve of that, council has the ability to appeal their decision as well. Um oftent times the the committee is uh looking at the appropriateness of an application and you can use uh public feedback to usually gauge the appropriateness of an application. I believe everybody's in support of this application. Um next slide, please. As you recall, the new primary dwelling is going to be in the middle there. The existing dwelling is going to be turned into an ADU. Uh, as you know, we need housing in Hamilton, especially in this area. There's not too many opportunities and this is a perfectly fine house. Uh, I'm not sure why we'd want to demolish it. Uh, next slide, please. I have one more thing to point out to you. So, some of you u may recall last year I was before you on uh application for West Road. It was essentially the same application as today. The building was in front of a of the uh a new building. Uh so it triggered a number of variances. Uh next slide please. And this is what it looked like. I know we don't talk about precedent anymore in planning. It's more of the situational uh every application has its own merits. Um but this is the same merits and you approved this one. Um just a reflection. So we have the new building at the back and the the existing building was at the front. Uh the existing building turned into an ADU. Um so it's we have precedent or or it's it's a same application essentially for this one and the same issues with the zoning were there too. Uh that there was no objection or no no support. It was a technical matter that count the committee had to decide. So on uh in this regard I'll ask you to um appreciate what is actually being requested through the variances what the outcome would be uh the process that would have to go through in the financial burden for the applicant if they went through that. Um and hopefully you see that uh support us in our applications that we can we can u as of right build a new primary dwelling but also um with the new legislation we can have the additional dwelling unit maintained in the existing building um and therefore provide additional housing uh as well as uh additional revenue for the the landowner to continue farming. Thank you. Okay, committee have any questions? Robert, >> question on the two houses that are existing on Brock Road. Are they under the same title as the entire property or they've been severed off? >> They were historically severed off. So, it's not part of this property at all. It just creates a horseshoe effect. So, there's two frontages. >> Okay. No, I just just want to make sure it's >> Sorry, through the chair. I apologize. I may not have referenced. I just want to I think there was an interested party. I just want to double check if they're here or not. Adrien Wilbrink, you here? Adrian. Okay. Just wanted to check. Sorry. Because if that's the case, those are severed lots, dedicated house, etc., etc., and it's not part of the horseshoe. Then why are we talking about an ADU then? >> So, uh, if we could go back to the slide that shows the the site plan. >> So, you're not technically allowed to have two house primary houses on the same lot. Um, >> no. I I get that. But what I'm what I'm looking at here >> for a demolition permit that you mentioned, >> other site, please. Other site plan. >> Yes. >> That one there. Yeah. >> Okay. So, those two houses, they're not part of our property at all. >> Not part of your property. >> So, what are you asking for a demolition permit for? >> We don't want to demolish anything. The city is saying you can't have two primary dwellings, so you have to demolish one. By the way, if you don't want to demolish it, then where's the other one? Where's the other house? >> So, the existing one's at the bottom corner here. That's the existing one. And the new house is is up up on in the middle. >> Okay, now I now I understand cuz my mind went to those two and I'm going >> No problem. >> Yeah. >> And that's the reason we have a frontage issue and a flankage issue. >> Go ahead. Sorry. Three apologies through the chair. I think Adrian Wilbring, I think he's on WebEx. Adrian, are you there? >> He's the owner at my client. >> Oh, he's the owner. Okay. We had him as an interested party. Okay. All right. So, apologies about that. >> Yeah. Uh I visit the property, but I didn't get around to see it because it went to the main house there and the dog was there and nobody home. But I understand we've done this before. Uh, and I think I can make a motion to approve it with uh with the all proven all the uh the uh what do you call them? One to five approve all. >> Yuka, did you have a question? >> Yeah, I have a comment. Do you have plans for this new house? >> Um, I believe they're in development. We don't have um plans I can provide you today, but it will be in character with the neighborhood and it's set enough back that you're not even going to see it from the neighborhood. It was all the Burman front, but um we don't have current plans for it, but it's being in development. >> Okay. Motion's made by Maler. Seconder Nick. All in favor? >> Opposed? One opposed. >> Just to clarify, Mr. Chair, uh one to five are approved. >> Yep. >> Thank you very much. >> Who the chair? Who opposed? Oh, >> no. Oh, you can propose. Okay. So it's approved with the condu the proposed conditions and the notes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. So motion carried application approved. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Uh next we have next we have a minor variance application A25101 1961 concession 6 West Flamro. Owners are DNS Seymour. Agent is Ducell Design and Landscape Incorporated. A Ducell. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Let's check on Okay, seeing none, I will ask the uh applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have uh five minutes to speak. I thought I saw a ducel there. Alicia Ducell, did you want to unmute yourself? Yeah, I see the agent there. I don't know if maybe she stepped away. >> No, no. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Sorry. Thank you for your time, committee. I'm just uh you can't see my video for some reason, but it doesn't really matter. This is a very simple situation. Uh we have abided by all the requirements that forestry department in Hamilton has asked us to do. Uh, this was a Oh, sorry. I should leave my address as well. I am the applicant, Alyssa Ducil of Ducil Design on behalf of the clients, uh, Sid and Denise Seymour. Uh, and we are uh, looking to get a pool enclosure permit for an existing house uh, on Concession West. This we have abided by all other requirements. The only final requirement that we needed to work on was a existing tree that is close to the pool to which we needed to move the pool closer. uh we had to shift it a little bit towards the house and be outside the tree drip zone which at that point at this point we have now done that in the drawing and we have satisfied forestry uh and well a couple of the forestry uh people and I believe we are pretty much where we want to be at this point with the pool location in order to get approval from the city and commun and the committee Okay. >> Okay. Committee. >> I'll make a motion to approve. Um >> motion made by Yanuka. Is there a secondary Nick? All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approve. >> Thank you. kindly. >> Thank you. And I believe the next application is the uh that's the last application to be heard for this meeting today. It's a minor variance application. A2026 0000121570 center road Lambor owner is M. Job agent is we tread and associates incorporated M. Sanderson. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Um Okay. Um seeing none, I will uh I will ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. >> Yes. Good afternoon. My name is uh William Outrred. Um I'm actually the agent for this particular item. Uh Megan Sanderson is one of my planners that works for me. Um we are asking the committee today uh just to table the application to the July 2nd hearing date. Uh we've been working with planning to come up with uh uh basically some rewarding of the actual variance application to what they would be willing to support and we have agreed with planning that we would table the application today. Uh once again uh we can get this uh the request in right away. so that we can be uh rescheduled for the July 2nd meeting if that's appropriate uh with the committee. >> Okay. Is there a motion? M. >> Yeah. I'll make a motion to approve to table it. >> Okay. Seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application tabled. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And to the applicant or agent, uh staff will be in touch with you shortly on how to and how to on the next steps for your application. >> Great. Thank you. And I believe that concludes the applications to be heard for this meeting today. Um, next we have chair and staff announcements. Is there any announcements from the >> No announcements for me? >> Anything from staff? >> Okay. I'll just let st I'll let the committee know that uh last week was the Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustment. They had their conference in Ottawa and Anna and I uh attended. I believe it was the first conference Anna attended. So, uh, yeah, you know, if anyone's interested, we could let you know what happened there at the conference. Okay. Um, if there wasn't anything else, maybe motion to >> motion for adjournment, Robert, second by Mel. All in favor? Carried. We're done. >> Okay. So, we're adjourned at 1:45 p.m.