Transcript: Variances Debated and Decided - Committee of Adjustment - April 30, 2026 | Summary 636

Okay, I think we'll get started now. 9:40 a.m. Okay. will uh call the meeting to order. I know the first uh application isn't till 9:45, but we will do attendance. Uh Nick here, Yolanda, Robert here, Donna here, Mel here, and myself, Dale. Uh is Sebastian joining us today or not sure through the chair? I'm not sure. Yeah. Okay. We can we can reach out to him. Yep. All right. Are there any members of the committee that have a conflict of interest on any applications today? Seeing none, um, we need a motion to, uh, ratify the minutes from the last meeting. Moved by Mel, seconded by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, carried. And then um the first application will be heard at 9:45 a.m. Just um just to let any if there's anyone here for this cuz we were we were told that there may be some people here in attendance. There's a an application. It's um it's for 337 Gage Avenue North. The file number is A202600000022. Just to clarify, that application is to be scheduled to the May 19 committee of adjustment hearing. And we've actually printed copies of the notice of hearing which was sent out to uh all the neighboring residents within uh 60 m of the subject property. They're just uh they're just uh there in the back over there. Um so if anyone wanted, they could take that. But just to let anyone know if they were here that that application is not scheduled to be heard today. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, so it's now 9:45. Our uh first application is a minor variance 82605237 Main Street West Hamilton. Owner is F. Taib and the applicant is L. Angeliki. Um, 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 up here. Oh, member of public. Yeah, please step forward then to the podium. Please provide your name and address and uh you'll have 5 minutes to speak and then afterwards if you can fill out an interested party form just behind you. Uh we'd appreciate that. Thank you. Hi, my name is Alan Starks. I'm at the um I'm I'm at number eight Stroud Road unit 7. We have a condo unit right behind that place. It's over 75 years old. We are very concerned about all the construction that might disrupt our foundation. Okay. Do you have any other concerns? No. Thank you. And if you want um please if you could fill out an interested party form just there. Yeah. Yeah. and and again, thank you for your comments and just just as a general comment to the public, um once you receive a notice in the mail, um if there's any questions or concerns about an application, you're always welcome to contact the committee of adjustment staff prior to the meeting and we can try to get you in touch with the uh the appropriate staff uh to discuss it. Okay, I think my business card is there as well if you wanted it. Um is there any other 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 five minutes to speak. Thank you. Uh my name is Len Angelisi of Len Angelisi Design. Uh I am the agent overseeing this application. Um I don't really have anything further to add. I will uh to the gentleman's uh concerns regarding the foundation. Uh I believe he said that he is at the dwelling located behind this building. Yes. Yeah. We're, you know, nine over 9 meters away from the rear property line of that building. So, I I feel pretty safe to say that, you know, obviously all care will be taken during the excavation, though. But we're a pretty significant distance away from that neighboring dwelling. Okay. You had a obviously had a chance to read all the comments posted. Yes. Uh yeah, we have nothing further to add, but we're obviously happy to answer any questions if necessary. Okay. Does committee have any questions? Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve with including the notes. Moved by Mel, seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. And the next application will be heard at 9:50 a.m. Thanks. Yes. Just just leave the form there. Thanks. Okay. Um 950 A.M. next application is a minor variance 826049 94 Limebridgeidge Road East Hamilton. Owner owners are S. Madelina and D Bllelock and applicant is L. Angel Lisi. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please forward. Please provide your name and address. And you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Hi, me again, uh, Len Angeli of Len Angeli Design, Inc., uh, 270 Sherman Avenue, North Hamilton, Ontario. Um, I've read the staff comments. They are in support of the application. So I'm just happy to answer any questions if necessary. Okay. Does committee have any questions? Is there a motion? Donna, I'll make a motion to approve the application. Okay. Is there a seconder? Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you everyone. And our next application is to be heard at 9:55 a.m. Yes. Okay, it's um 9:55 a.m. Um the next application is a it's a minor variance 826 051 65 Murray Street West Hamilton. Owner is U K. Shringer and Jay Yach. The applicants are is the same two people and the agent is uh Lauren Berer architect. Just uh for the committee's reference, this application was tabled uh prior to the meeting so it will not be discussed today. So, if there's any members of the public here for this application for 65 Murray Street West, um it's been tabled. So, there won't be a discussion today. If you want, you could um fill out an interested party form here up front if you're here. Um if you're attending virtually, you can send us an email at coffa@ hamilton.ca and then when there's any updates on the application, we will let you know. And if it's okay, we'll um we'll just move on to the next application. Now then um and it is a it's a consent and a minor variance. They're both related. Um so they should um they they will be heard together. It's a the consent is application is file number B26008 237 Spring Brook Avenue. The owner is a numbered company 072010 Ontario Incorporated. A Crow. The applicant is the same number company and the agent is Landweise K. Gillis. And then there's the U minor variance application which is file number 826 053. And again the same address, same owner, applicant and agent. Um just as a note, I believe development planning staff were recommending um denial of the application. However, um if I'm not hearing any anything, Justin, should we wait till 10:00 on this? Oh, I was wondering. Oh, okay. We can wait till then. Yeah. Okay. All right. Let's just wait till Yeah. 10. Okay. Thanks. Okay, it's uh 10:00 a.m. now. Again, um just reiterate, yeah, it's um it's a consent and a minor variance application B26008 and which is the consent and the minor variance is 82653. Both of them same address 337 Springbrook Avenue, Ancaster, same owner um numbered company one 0 one00000072010 Ontario Incorporated A Crow. The applicant is the same number company and agent is Landwise K. Gillis. Um, as I previously indicated, um, um, the development planning staff are indicating are recommending denial of the application and I believe our development engineering staff also had revised comments relating to the the proposed conditions. Um, but unless I'm hearing anything otherwise, we'll we'll proceed with the application. Okay. Uh, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? 237 Springbrook Avenue, Ancaster. Okay. Uh, seeing none, I will ask the, uh, applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address, and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Good morning, chair, members of committee, staff, members of the public. My name is Caitlyn Gillis, senior planner at Landwise, and we are the retained agent on behalf of the land owner and applicant. Um, first I would like to thank staff for their review and conditions of approval. Respectfully, uh, I do disagree with development planning's recommendation of denial and their basis of denial is based on lot fabric and character impacts on the neighborhood. As you can appreciate, I do have a presentation I would like to go through and I do ask for a bit of grace on the five minute delegation limit. Um, but it will be well under 10 minutes. So, I just want to confirm that that's okay. Great. Thank you. Let me load it up. Great. Thanks. Just wait. I'm sorry, Jess. Perfect. Thank you. Do you mind skipping to the next slide? Yeah, I appreciate it. Uh so 237 Spring Brook Avenue is within the Meadowlands neighborhood surrounded by lowdensity residential uses primarily single detached dwellings. There are town houses that exist uh just to the east on a window street fronting Stonehenge Drive. The subject lands are a through lot with dual lot frontages with approximately 30 and a half meters of frontage on both Chambers Drive and Springbrook Avenue. And the property has an approximate lot area of 68 acres. Next slide, please. Here is a concept plan that demonstrated a six lot proposal consisting of two semis and one single on each of the frontages. A sightsp specific lowdensity residential R1 zone was approved by council in 2024 withholding provisions to facilitate this development. Next slide, please. And here is a concept plan that's before you today. Seeking approval for eight lots, uh, four semis fronting Springbrook and four fronting chambers and a reduction in lot width from 9 m to 7.6 m for those semi- detached dwellings. All other regulations of the bylaw of the R1 zone are met, including maximum lot coverage, sideyards, front yard landscaping, etc. And this proposal results in a net gain of two additional familysiz dwellings. And um this footprint here represents approximately a 2500 square f foot uh dwelling um in a standard two-story form. And that would not include a basement. All other developments or all other departments have no comment or provided recommendations of approval with conditions including engineering forestry and legislative approvals. On that note, engineering's uh revised condition is related to condition 11. Uh where the combined external works agreement and consent agreement referred to Church Street and Lodor Street. We're just asking for that to refer to Spring Brook Avenue and Chambers Drive. And we are in agreement with those conditions and acknowledge that the holding provision must be removed prior to development. Next slide, please. development plannings um in their recommendation for denial state that the intent of lot width provision is to ensure that the lots are both consistent with the existing lot fabric patterns and character of the area and also large enough to meet all other applicable requirements of the zoning bylaw as mentioned other than lot width the proposed lots meet or exceed the other zoning provisions of the modified R1 zone and no concerns with the proposed density were raised as the proposal conforms to the maximum permitted density of 30 units per he per hectare. Further development planning note that the 7.6 meter lot width is more consistent with the small lot R1A zoning and thus the lot fabric and scale are not consistent with the intended character development of the area. In my opinion, character and loting pattern go beyond just looking at the lot width. It also includes lot area setbacks, front yard condition and function, building form and massing which is aligned with the lot creation policies of the U-HP. Next slide please. My interpretation of the secondary's plan policy objectives are for flexibility that d facilitate diversity and housing options in the neighborhood. Variances are a tool to request relief of the zoning bylaw. I believe that uh the policies of the general residential policies of the secondary plan are quite flexible and clear that they the neighborhoods should provide a mix and diversity of housing opportunities in terms of lot size, unit size, style, etc. And that to make the best use of higher of urban lands, higher density is encouraged throughout the neighborhood. and that this density can be achieved through the provision of smaller lots interior to the lo um apologies in interior locations and higher density developments located at external locations in the neighborhood. So going into what is the character of this neighborhood? Next slide please. Starting with the Melan secondary plan land use plan. As you can see there's not a ton of diversity in land uses. It's primarily low density residential permitting single semis, duplexes, and town houses. Uh but arguably the majority of the neighborhood are single detached and uh townhouse townhouse developments integrated throughout. Uh in terms of lot fabric, as you can see, it's quite a consistent regular shaped lots fronting public roads um with a pretty consistent spacing between buildings. Next slide, please. Here is a closer look at the subject property. Springbrook, we're at the terminus of the Springbrook. So, um just to the north of the plan is the end of the street with the culde-sac and along Chambers is um both flankage and front yard conditions. Next slide, please. And here is a grade level view of Chambers Avenue. As you can see, there's that bit of a consistent rhythm between uh building separation and the front yards are pretty consistent with double width driveways, double car garages and standard front yard uh condition with ornamental landscaping. Next slide please. And uh the same pattern and character is repeated on Chambers which is a window street to Stonehenge. So there is that separation with the landscape buffer between the two public roads. Next slide please. Here is a graphic that demonstrates the approved and the proposed development and how it fits into that rhythm of the streetscape. There isn't too much of a difference. However, I would point out that in my opinion, the reduced lot width to integrate a second set of semis provides a more consistent streetscape rather than larger gaps between existing and new development due to sideyard setbacks and limitations for lot coverage. And also uh the form of the semis uh together of course are two dwellings attached present a similar facade width as the singles on the adjacent sides of the proposed development and throughout the neighborhood. Next slide please. So while both development scenarios represent good land use planning, the proposed eight lot scenario provides widths that will have no material negative impact on the character loing fabric in the neighborhood. In fact, in my opinion, it provides an improved streetscape to integrate the semi- detached dwellings better while adding two familysized homes. I I think um I don't see much of a difference. Um the footprints are generally the same. Um but proceeding to the next slide please. So in addition to looking at the municipal framework and whether we maintain the intent which in my opinion we do uh recent amendments to the planning act by the province indicate a clear and consistent direction to allow for responsible growth. Bill 98, which is under review at the provincial erra at this time, which if it's passed after the review period of May 14th of this year, will have the effect of mandating minimum lot areas, and which at this time is proposed to be 175 square meters for urban residential lots, which will have the cumulative effect of eliminating larger lot widths and depths that would result in a larger lot area than the stated minimum, whatever that may be, across Ontario. So in addition to provincial direction which is quite clear um again for responsible growth the requested variance maintains the intent of the U-HP the metalland secondary plan is minor and desirable and will have the effect of facilitating two additional new homes without material impact the character of the neighborhood. The variance res represents responsible and good land use planning. Thank you and happy to answer any questions. So originally um there was six units right and that that satisfied the 9 meter the frontage the for the semies yeah just over 9.2 too was what was uh shown on those concepts. And so it's it's quite a full neighborhood there now, right? Like I mean um yeah, I don't I don't see a lot of difference between 7.62 and and 9, but um we'll let the committee uh have any questions. I mean, we want more housing in Hamilton and this seems to fit the criteria, but can you hear from planning, please? Uh, through the chair, Jennifer Katarino, area planning manager for the West Development team. Um, I thank the applicant for the presentation. Uh, this application is a tough one to analyze. Like, it sounds minor. It looks minor when she shows the uh concept plans and the graphics that she prepared. I think um the proposal as described in the presentation by the applicant failed to talk about other priorities and other policies that this site was hoping to also achieve and contribute back to the neighborhood. So, when we evaluated the original zoning bylaw amendment application to permit the six units on the site, um trees, um compatibility with the neighborhood, um looking at different things like that, the site also has a bit of a grade change. When you're looking from I'm going to get the street names wrong, but when you're looking from I think it's Chambers, you're lower. Um and Spring Brook, you're higher. So, there was also some consideration to a single and a semi. uh working with the slope of the property and how that comes into play. Um there was also some consideration there are some large trees on the property and what would be appropriate to save some of the trees. Hence one of the holding provisions that is on the property that was applied through that previous resoning application was for the applicants to complete uh uh a study to try to retain more trees. So by severing the property to create additional units and it sounds minor and it's two um it does kind of reduce the ability for there to be any tree retention um and it also kind of um puts into question our tree canopy uh piece. So the previous uh consideration and concept we thought was the balance between that it was introducing a new built form the semis into the neighborhood. Um we thought it was a balance for all that um all those other pieces. Um, so when we saw this one, it also takes away any well, it doesn't really take it away, but it challenges makes it more challenging for let's say people to consider an additional dwelling unit with smaller lots. Like the six units that are permitted now provide a little bit of flexibility for there to be a detached dwelling unit in the rear yards of a, you know, sufficient size because the lots are a little bit bigger. Um, so it does provide a little bit more flexibility to have additional dwelling units. So I don't think that planning staff's position on this one is we don't want density, we don't want lots. We're just looking to achieve the balance and looking at um all the policies and direction from council and that would be planning's position on this one. Okay. Um so I guess another comment I make and I know I appreciate your comments from planning. We have had other applications and I know each each application is on its own merits, but um this tree problem, we had that problem in another spot in Ancaster where a lot of trees were taken out for development and as long as they replaced new trees in appropriate area and seemed at that point that planning was okay with with that. Um, so I'm just wondering, you know, the tree issue, uh, um, could be satisfied by replanting trees either in the front yard or rear yard. Yep. Um, so and through the chair, there are, uh, to Miss Scott Reno's point, there's a holding related to tree protection, a landscape plan would be required to show any compensation for any trees if they were approved to be removed. Um, and also I if you noted on the concepts for both scenarios, it's quite a deep lot and the existing trees are located in those rear yards. So until we get to gre uh detailed grading, we won't really understand the impacts of uh the development on those existing trees. And again uh both the holding and conditions of approval uh require a tree protection plan and compensation as appropriate. Well, I know I visit visit a lot and looked at I was having trouble visualizing that many houses and then in there to be honest with you. Um it was hard to to do without getting out and measuring things out. But I was having trouble visiting like that. So I mean I you know I know with what the planning has said there would you be willing to sit down with him and see if he could work something out to get um respectfully through the chair um I think a conversation with staff would resolve going back to the the six lot proposal um which again I don't disagree that it's a it's a fine proposal but I also think that the eight law proposal is truthfully better Um, it integrates two sets of semis instead of one pair of semis in a in a sea of singles. This will look more complete, more purposeful. Um, and again, we're in a housing crisis. This is two additional homes uh in this neighborhood, which is quite desirable. Um, and in fact, there's opportunity for more street trees through the consent agreement. Uh, there's agreements made for street tree planting on these lots. So, there was potential to even add more trees per lot. Um, and I I truly think that the secondary plan, uh, to the chair's point earlier, a lot of this neighborhood is built out. There's not a lot of opportunity for intensification, which is in in line with the secondary plans direction. Um, so I I can appreciate that looking at the lot. Um, as it stands today, it's hard to visualize that spatial planning. Um but we do have to scale drawings and the dwellings comfortably fit within uh the required setbacks of the R1 zone. If a landscape plan was completed um and let's just say trees are replaced with the conditions, I would be supportive of approving this proposed eight unit for how many? Eight. Eight. Robert, there is one paragraph in the uh staff comments. The variances or the one variance does not maintain the general intent of the urban Hamilton official plan, metallands neighborhood secondary plan and the zoning bylaw is not desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and is not minor in nature. You know, looking at all the houses around there, and then they're going to be uh two rows of uh town houses, I can see where this comment came from, cuz everything else is a two-story home. And then in the middle of this, you're going to have the town houses. So, I'm at a I'm at a crossroads here. Um because it all comes back to the subject subjective nature of the which is not in the zoning bylaws. Does it fit? And as for the staff comments and my own personal comments, I don't think it does. So um sorry if I may through uh the chair. Um, to your point again, just looking at the policies of the official plan, which I did have on the screen, it says that the neighborhood should incorporate a diversity of housing. The neighborhood at this time includes singles and town houses. This will integrate another form in a way that again is more purposeful in my opinion. And when you look at them, if you were to look at 9 m lots, a semi- detached then would and you subtract the the sideyards, you're looking at a facade width of about 15 to 14 m total of those two dwellings. The homes in the neighborhood have a facade width of 8 to 10 m in facade width. So, um, larger semi- detached dwellings would actually result in a lot larger of a facade width than the rest of the homes on the street. So this the reduced lot width would actually restrict um those dwellings to be about 12 m total width which would be more aligned with the facade widths of those dwellings throughout the neighborhood. Any other questions or comments? Has there been any work on a on a landscaping plan at all? Sorry through the chair the question. I'm just asking if there's any any plans available for that's been done towards the landscaping and not at this time. There would have been a preliminary plan done through the resoning but again there um condition nine is that a landscape plan is completed um and would be approved by urban forestry. Um and then again in terms of provincial direction, uh this type of housing shouldn't really be going through site planning um type requirements. Uh but that said, um a landscape plan will be provided uh through um removing satisfying these conditions as well as removing the holding provision. Nick, actually I believe uh the agent answered my question. Okay. Anything else, Nick? Well, I'm I'm not afraid to make a motion to approve this application with the proposed conditions, and I'd like to put that motion forward. Okay, there's a motion on the floor. Seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Two opposed. Mel and Robin. So motion is carried. Application is approved. Thank you very much committee. And through the chair would that be including the revised condition? Yes. That was which condition was that? Condition number 11. 11. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next we have a minor variance application 826056 1247 Sheffield Road, Flamro. Owner is J. Fritz and E Ferber. And applicant is the same two people. Um, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Uh, 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. Hello, I'm James Frri, the owner, one of the owners of the property and the applicant. Uh, regarding the staff comments, um, there was a comment about putting in a driveway and it would be a different permit. This is, uh, not something I was planning on doing was putting a driveway to this building. It is just a storage building. Um, and there isn't approved engineered drawings yet as I was looking for approval for the size of the build before I paid for the money to have the drawings done. And those are my only comments towards Okay. Committee have any questions or concerns on the application? Mel, I'll make a motion to approve. Motion made by Mel, seconded by Robert. All in favor? opposed. Seeing none, motion carried, application approved. Perfect. Thank you very much for your time. Okay. Next, we have a minor variance application A260553142 Jerseyville Road, West Ancaster. Agent is J. And A uh Crows Crowsberen and the applicant is A. Crosburgen. 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 to please step forward. Please provide your name and address, and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. Hi, I'm Andrew Crosburg. I live at 3142 Jerseyville Road. Um, pertaining to the staff comments, there was a comment on archaeological potential. Uh, not really saying there was to be a dig or anything, but to keep an eye out. But, um, looking back on, uh, pictures, there was previously a dairy barn pretty much in the same spot of where I would like to put the building. So, um, I don't think that'll be an issue. Um the main reason for the minor variance is that uh heightwise I would like to be 1.2 m over the bylaw. So um I think the staff was pretty well in agreement, but I would just like to reiterate that uh my existing house is already 8 m or more than that. There's uh pretty much farm country. I guess there's plenty of barns in the area that uh surpass that uh height limit already. So, um, yeah, I think it'll fit in well with the neighborhood. And that's all I have to say. Okay. Committee, I have any questions? I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. Motion made by Yanuka, seconded by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. All right. Thank you. Okay. Next we have a minor variance application A2512052 Pernell Drive Hamilton. Owner is LNS Loricella and the applicant is Jay Bognar and the agent is the same person. Um I believe uh development planning staff want to uh speak first on this application. So I'll let them speak. through the chair. Um I think we're on 21 Dundas for right 21 Dundas Street is the file. Yeah. 21. Okay. I think you said 52 PL Drive was Oh, sorry. Sorry. So, just to confirm, I was reading jumping ahead. 826028 21 Dungus Street, Dundas. Yes. Yeah. And it is Yeah. Let me just Okay. Sorry. Let me just correct myself. It's uh actually main minor variance application A2 826 028 21 Dunga Street Dungus owners M Pets and P Pets and uh as I indicated earlier development planning staff wants to speak first on this matter uh through the chair to the committee. Um since our comments were posted, um the applicant has provided additional materials which are posted in the agenda uh which demonstrate the scope of the proposed uh development um of the dormer uh for the existing dwelling. uh cultural heritage staff have indicated they are now satisfied uh that the form materially and the color of the proposed dormer is compatible with the existing built heritage resource which was a prior concern. Uh staff are now in a position to recommend approval of the proposed variance. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um are there any members of the public wish to speak on this application? 21 Dungus Street. Dungus. Okay. Uh seeing none, I'll ask the uh applicant uh or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Hi, my name is uh Mike Pets. I'm the owner of 21 Dunda Street and I'd just like a approval of the thing I don't really have. Anything else to say of the dormer? Yes. Okay. Committee have any questions. So at the end of the day when this is developed, the addition that you're putting on is going to be match the existing decor, design, colors, bricks, etc. of the existing building. Yes. Okay. Anyone else? Mel. After hearing the reply from staff that they're satisfied what the re things are, I'll make a motion to approve with the Okay. Moved by Mel, seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. And just Yeah. through the chair. That's to approve it with the proposed notes as well, right? Yes. Okay. Um and we have a break now. So, did they want to take uh how long did the committee want to take? 10 5 Okay, 10 minutes and we So, we're taking a break now at 10:31 a.m. So, we'll come back around 10:41 a.m. Thank you. now at 10:49 a.m. Um so the first application we have um coming back it's a minor variance application 825120 52 Pernell Drive Hamilton owner is LNS Loricella and the applicant is Jay Bognar the agent is also the same person. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Um, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Uh, please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thanks. Sorry. Did development planning have a com Oh, sorry. Sorry about that. Go ahead through the chair. No need to be sorry. This is a on the mo like on the spot request. Um just before we hear from the agent, um development planning had a chance to review the comments on this particular file ahead of time. We recognize that development engineering has recommended denial. I'm not sure if anyone online from development engineering would like to speak to that recommendation. It's development planning's understanding that um a piece of information uh I guess was missed during the review um that would change their opinion. Um it's since been confirmed to development planning that development engineering is in support of the application subject to um confirmation that the neighbor is okay with the minor variance. So I don't I see Raul on the his name's there but I don't know if he's there. So I don't know Raul if you would like to speak to that but um I just wanted to highlight that before the applicant uh would probably speak speak to that point. All right. So good morning everyone. Thanks Jen u to enlight that part. So yeah we did review the approval from the neighbor um allowing them to implement the grading which kind of amends your comment. Um so we would recommend approval and we we have no objections for this um minor variant. Okay. Thank you. Um there wasn't anything else. Uh and I had already asked if there was any members of the public wanted to speak on this application. 52 Pernell Drive. Okay. Seeing none. And uh yeah uh applicant or agent if you wanted to speak uh you have please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Okay. Uh Jenny Bogner 193 East 43rd Street Hamilton Ontario L8 T3C3. Um as you all know we were here before the committee with this application back in August of 2025. We've taken some time to alter the design and uh piece both planning staff and development engineering. Few months ago, we met on site with staff members from both those departments and our own engineer to discuss the concerns and it was determined that the newest proposal put forth was acceptable to everyone. We pulled the addition back from the south lot line to match the setback distance of the existing accessory structure in the rear of the property. This structure has been there for quite some time and the homeowner assured staff and was willing to demonstrate that uh he was easily able to access the south side of the building for maintenance and cleanup purposes. Um and then the other thing I was going to do is address uh development engineering's comments, but thank you for bringing that up. Um, we do have a copy of the email from Chuck McFarland, who was the commenting staff there, as well as the signed survey from the neighbor, um, approving the shared swale. Um, so we've taken the time and worked with staff to come up with a solution that works for everyone, including the neighboring property who is most affected by this addition. They've been supportive of the addition the entire time, which is very much appreciated, and we'd appreciate your support as well, and open to any questions you may have. Okay. Does committee have any questions? Robert, just to the staff, every 100% okay on this application. Okay. I just wanted layman's terms on that because I know we're going back and forth with the point4 and all that. Make a motion to approve with um the conditions and notes. Okay. Motion made by Robert, seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? opposed. Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. Okay, next we have a minor variance application A26050 Alger Alger Flamro. Owner is T. Sarsson and Aarsson. The and the applicant is T. Sen. I believe we have some interested parties here. Um so I'll just call them and see if they want to speak. Uh, Amanda Ahing, correct? I'm on the line. Council, did you wish to speak? My husband will speak first, but I would like to speak as well. Okay. What's Okay. Okay. If he comes for Yeah. Just have him uh provide his name. Just provide your uh name and address and uh you'll have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Darren, are you on the line? Oh, go ahead. Council Amanda Hing, 7 Alger, Carile, Ontario, L1H1, 20-year Carile resident. So council, I'm urging you today to deny and immediately pause the application for the expanded development at five algebra court. What's before you today cannot reasonably be characterized as a minor variance or a simple secondary structure. Um to approve under these conditions would not reflect due diligence. It's undermines the integrity of the city limitations and the laws, the the planning process and and more so public trust really the environmental and structural expanded scope alone. Um they're impossible to ignore. So the key issues include one the removal and damage to the property line swale. It clearly risks uh the drainage, runoff, water flow and this project has expanded far beyond what is showing in uh our photographs. There continues to be a brick wall built that currently sits at about 3 ft again elevating the property line and damaging the swale and runoff. Third is there is an anticipated fence that will be stacked on top of this wall exceeding bylaws of the 6.5 sideyard rear yard fence and height violations on the current existing structure of 6 m meters. And the last point which is an existing shed that has not been removed and uh still remains. Again council these are not minor variances and to confirm what is being presented today. It is not the full picture. There are very very serious concerns of the intent of the future use of these structures. The scale and the layout suggests I'm speculating, but short-term rental, Airbnb, use of secondary dwelling for an in-law suite, the increased density, parking demands, infrastructure strain. it it's extensive and I we truly don't feel that things are being properly disclosed or reviewed and the residents see a pattern of these rapid approvals and a process appearing to truly shape outcomes rather than the rules. In closing, uh it's created a broader concern around fairness and consistency, whether we're all being held to these standards. And this is why council should truly pause um approving this application without fully addressing the structural issues, the environmental impacts, the deviate deviations from the original plans and the intended use. It sends a troubling message about the standards that are being applied and for the sake of transparency and fairness. Um, we're asking that council deny at this point and pause the application and undertake a full review for the true scope on the project the unapproved elements, the neighboring property impacts and the intent for the future use. It clearly is larger and more complex and impactful and otherwise we will continue to review, escalate and investigate and expose. Um residents are not asking for any special treatment only for a process that is consistent, transparent and grounded in the public interest. Thank you. Thank you. Thank Thank you. Is your um spouse I think he was unmuted. Um is he there? Does he want to speak now? Can you can you hear me now? Go ahead. Yes. Thank you. Um so to add on to my Amanda's comments, I I would also share the view that the the SAS are asking for um a 50% increase in the square footage beyond the bylaw limits. They've already constructed a building up to the bylaw limits that sits between the houses. Um, and now they're asking for an increase beyond that. Uh, which is raising significant concerns. The the neighbors in general, the neighborhood has changed character now because of this construction and it's potentially affecting the look of the neighborhood, the values of the neighborhood. And we would like to understand uh in as part of this analysis as well how this project plans to return the neighborhood to its former character residential character. These are this is carile. These are wide open lots, open spaces, low inensity use. This has now changed the character of the neighborhood and we need to understand how this project plans to return the neighborhood to its former character. as well. Uh my wife alluded to the fact that there's a significant amount of construction that's going on here that is beyond just the buildings that are before the council or the committee. Um there's going to be associated hardscaping with all of that which introduces um there's also been elevation changes. This all introduces serious drainage concerns. The neighbors are now all downhill from this construction. This will be something that is significant for a drainage perspect from a drainage perspective. We'd ask the K committee again to pause and gain understanding from the SARS on how those issues will be addressed. So, two things from my perspective to add on to Amanda's. One, how is the neighborhood going to return back to its original look and feel? And two, how is the serious drainage changes going to be dealt with with this application? And I believe there are others from the neighborhood that um are wanting to speak as well. Thank you. Um I think those were the two interested parties we had. Um is there any other members of the public wish to speak on this application? Okay. Um, again, thank you to the the residents for their comments. And I did I believe I did have a chance to to speak to Miss uh Ahing. Um, and uh just just to let just just to reiterate, of course, do provide your comments. The the city staff here um we are always guided by the public interest in what we do. I mean, it may not appear that way, but we do. And we even for me, we take no favor to anyone. Um, if there's any once you get the notice, if there's any questions about processes, procedures with any of our departments, please reach out to us. Call, email, come in and talk to us and we can get you in contact with the appropriate staff. Um, the staff comments are also posted for this just prior to the meeting. You know, you you can also review that and if you have questions about that, let us know. Um, there could be potential issues that maybe may not have been uh addressed to your satisfaction. we can get you in touch with that staff and they can talk to you. Okay. Um just just want to just give that information to the public. Thank you. Um is there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please pro provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Hi, Todd Sen Alger Carlile. uh here today to seek a minor variance for a covered patio structure at the rear of the yard um to address some of the comments that have been made by uh Amanda. We um have not changed any grading. I have photos attached before and after that I could submit. Um the swale in which is on our current property has also been untouched. The wall in which he indicates has been built um is on our property on the hillside which does not affect any drainage whatsoever. The accessory building in which he indicated um would then also cause visual impairment to the neighboring hood. I have taken every precaution to make sure the aesthetics of that approved building looks and fits within the neighborhood and the extensive amount of tree planting and landscape that will occur to continue to have that aesthetic is at our top priority. Anything else to add at this time? I'm not sure if you'd like to see photos or I followed all guidelines and approvals. I'm looking at some of the pictures that were sent in. Um, and it does seem it seems by these pictures that there is a grading change or elevation change. Um, it looks like a pool was dug in or a pond. Um, and some of the retaining wall would have been originally put on on the surface or a foundation or a footing put in for the retaining wall to be built on. Um the other question I have too is if there is to be a uh let's say a wooden fence built on top of this retaining wall um is the height I guess it's to planning is the height from the resident that's building the fence because there's obviously where the retaining wall is there's a drop down to the neighbor's property. So, a six foot or whatever the metric is on that wood fence. Is that from the applicant that's going to build the fence on there or is it a standard height from grade? It would be standard height from grade and it would not be a wood fence at this time. Okay. And to answer the question on the footings and so on, um the hill that it was put on, the grade has not changed. The footings were dug to put the wall there. The purpose of the wall was for the ease of our neighbors to be able to cut their lawn, which is basically a nice edge as opposed to putting a fence just on the inside of the swale and or the outside. Being that the swale lands on our property as well as a foot outside of that swale, which if you review the pictures, there's grass still there. So, there has been no impact on the swale whatsoever. And as for drainage in her photos, you can see the white pipe in which she was taking pictures of. That pipe was laid out to go on the inside of the retaining wall which then disperses water from our patio to our backyard center. So if there is any impact it would be less probability of drainage to the neighboring property. Okay, committee. This surface area that that we have pictures of, um what's the ultimate uh landscape to it? Will it be non-permeable surface or will it be partially non-permeable and some grass or? Yeah. So, it's going to be a mixture of grass and patio stone. So, the existing patio, which I'm not sure if there if she had submitted pictures, but I do have, that would remain to be patio. Um, the proposed structure for the barbecue would also be an additional patio. Um, and then the remainder of that area is grass just how it was previously. Um so changing of the hardcape andor the surface in its entirety is not too far additional than what we had existing excluding the um proposed covered patio section. The building that we see in the picture um was there a permit issued for that building? Yes. Okay. And I know we're we're just dealing with the the one minor variance I guess that we should be reminded of. Yep. Uh through the chair. I just want to note that Miss Ahing is raising her hand. Just to explain the the CFA procedures. Uh so we once the members of the public speak and then the applicant speaks. So there isn't any kind of follow-up discussion that happen afterwards. We're not asking for the members of public to speak again unless the the committee wants that. And now it's now we've entered into the committee members are are having their own deliberation on this matter. Okay. Thank you. Committee Donna. I'm going to put a motion forward to um to accept the application um on the in in compliance with the um the planners and zoning and that with the proposed notes. Okay. Motion made by Donna, second by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Okay. Next. Next, we have a minor variance application. Um 82660 335 Carlile Road Flambor is N Venturan M and M Pancratz. Apologize if I mispronounced your name. Um are 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. Uh, please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Yeah. Uh, good morning. I'm calling remote. My name is Angela Ventur. I'm the owner of 335 Carlile Road and I'm looking to build a detached uh garage on the property. I purchased it a couple years ago. Um, I've reviewed the uh staff comments. Uh, I understand there areological concerns uh when we excavate to do the footing. Um, you know, obviously we'll abide by their request. Um, that's really about it. I don't know what else I need to say at this point. Thank you, committee. I'll make a motion to approve with the proposed notes. Okay. Motion made by Anukica, seconded by Mal. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Great. Thank you. Sorry, just receiving an email. Is there was there a Tanya Kilgore there for an application online participating by telephone? They were saying that they wanted to speak. Okay. I don't see them here on WebEx now. Um, okay. She's not online now. Okay. Um I believe we did ask if there's any members of the public. Okay. All right. Just checking. Um again, there can be technical issues sometimes. We do try our best here. Okay. Um, next we have a consent application B26014 364 and 368 Mil Street Dungus. Owner is A Quacia Realy Holdings incororated and the agent is D. Robertson. Um and I believe that uh development planning staff are requesting to table the application. However, uh unless I hear anything otherwise, we'll from the applicant or agent will proceed. Um I'm not hearing anything. 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. Uh, Don Robertson, 27 Vanderliff Road, Jerseyville, Ontario, L0 R1R0. Is that good? Yeah, please go ahead. It's always nice to pass the first test. I uh I did speak with planning uh earlier on uh regarding this. What this application, the intent of it to do is, it's kind of new for me cuz it's in town. I'm usually talking about farms and so on, but the uh my client bought these properties separately. Um, and unbeknownst to him, they merged and we had the conversation about separate tax bills, meaning absolutely nothing. And now it's time to step forward. And what he's trying to do is recreate what was already there. Um, we did get late um, conservation comments and I believe I'm wouldn't be speaking out of line to say that they had no objective to objections to that. Um, and that I do recognize that the size the preference would be 4,000 square meters and this is 2600 and change. Um, a conversation next week won't change that size, but we could talk about it. It's been independently that 368 is now being operators of wood shop. I brought those people in from Toronto. They employ about eight people in the city of Hamilton/Dundash now. So, they're getting along fine on that size. They have no I spoke with them, no interest in expanding the footprint, which would be dealt with after the fact. So, um I'm kind of hedging my bets because I'd like to know what your position is. Um to to move it forward rather than table it and sort out some of the concerns that the the planning department had. And like I've said, lot size isn't isn't going to change. And it's been like that for a number of years. For those that didn't have an opportunity to go and look at it is right across the road from Turk Lumber and Mil Street on Mil Street in Dundas. So, used to be uh WP power equipment. Okay. Committee questions. Do you um do you you have a letter from the conservation authority as of Okay. Yeah. I think the planning must have got it too. Okay. Is it in the is it? Yeah. Got it yesterday. Like it's not like had it for weeks or anything like that. So I I Mr. Chair, I'm interested to see what the thoughts are before considering tableabling it of the committee. I any questions from the committee? Do you see the purpose in tableabling or from what I looked at it? I looked at the property and they were joined together. I couldn't see anybody looking at over there exactly where the line was on there. It's actually uh it's the it's the fence. It's the fence that's probably there right now beside 368. Okay. It just encompasses it. The owner owned that then bought the other piece. He does have some CC cans across the back that if the satellite image might look like a building, it's not. Um and they'll, as I understand, give if they're not gone, they're going to be gone. But it's just what he bought which was fenced and it will be refenced when they get moved. I guess the question maybe to planning is is are you okay with the well received a letter from conservation is there other issues that that's what I was going to ask of the planning you have any response on that with joining together and separating it again um planning technician David u through the chair to the committee members um potential concerns over if there was any mitigation measures required was just one reason staff were looking to table the application. Um some of the things that were discussed with the applicant uh in the meantime before this file came up was um we we did have some concerns over what appeared to be uh an accessory structure based on satellite imagery. Um there are also broader concerns regarding um applicable zoning uh provisions that may or may not still apply or variances that were approved previously that might need to be captured in a future variance application or might not. Um there there there's a number of things that we would like to be certain of before proceeding. So I guess that kind of tells you what what they're looking for in addition to what you have available. Chair, it seems yes. There seems the reason I didn't come up and immediately agree to just tableabling is because there was an awful lot of whatifs and if you do this in the future and I always think you can deal with problems in the future when they're real problems rather than now. But I understand there's a process here. And if uh let me put it this way, if you're not going to approve it, I better suggest we table it. I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but that's probably the best route for sure. Um and if that's what's the committee feeling on this? Um can I make a comment? Yes, Nick. Well, I believe you know the the applicant has stated that they'd be willing he'd be willing, sorry, to table this application. Um I think looking at the concerns here, um they're uh reasonable enough to table it to get a little more information. And that's just a comment I'll put out there. I'll let the committee deliberate. Is that a motion, Nick, or you just suggestion? Okay. I take it to Robert in defense of the uh the applicant. Yeah. I I know you want to get this resolved, but there's a lot of loose ends that staff have mentioned. I think the best case is to agree with them and tablely or defer the application and then you can get back and deal with all the dot thet eyes and cross the tees. Yeah. Cuz when you're dealing with the severance, it's you can get over it. We don't want that. So I think the best way is as I'll make a motion to to table the application or defer it. You agree with that tableabling? I will be back. Okay. So, you're okay with table? Somebody say that. Nick, I'm gonna take Yeah, that's fine. Okay, I'll take Nick has made the motion for tableabling and Robert second it. Okay. Okay. Was a long- winded second, but okay. All in favor of tableabling the application. Opposed. Seeing none, motion carried. Application is tabled. Chair, thank you for your time. Enjoy the rest of your Have you got over the tournament down the East Coast yet? What's that? Over the hockey tournament? you got over that yet? For uh the reference, I was at the Allen Cup and did actually play by play in color with Rod Black on the national broadcast. Yeah. And the guy that was going to do it, Terry Ryan, who's a famous Newfanlander, got uh his flight was delayed and they got a foot and a half of snow in St. John's during the game. And I being the uh dummy I am, didn't take a winter jacket. But yeah, we got through it. It's beautiful part of the country though. Yeah, I was thinking about you down there. Yeah, it was wonderful. Thank you. Thanks for your time. Okay, we'll meet Next we have um a a sorry that was yeah previously was a consent application. This is also a consent application. B26151 West View Crescent Flamro. Owner is M. D. Ro and M. Laferty. Um I believe we have some interested parties um here. Um first is Mike Kumbani. You here? Yes, I am here. Yeah, if you did very well, thank you. Did you wish to speak? Uh, yes, please. Okay. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes. Uh, my name is Mike Kani. I live at 2 Westview Crescent in Waterdown. Uh, L0R, oh, sorry, Lab0e4. Change that. Um so I live directly across from one west view uh the subject property and I am speaking today as an affected landowner uh under section 53 of the planning act. Uh I plan to focus on public safety, drainage and infrastructure capacity. Uh all of which are as you know I'm sure uh required considerations when reviewing applications for consent. Um, at this point, Westview Crescent, it's a quiet, familyoriented street. Uh, we have no sidewalks. Uh, so our children, uh, play, bike, and walk on the roadway. Uh, this proposal would introduce three new lots, uh, each with driveway access onto this street. Uh so that increased traffic and multiple new driveway entrances uh raise uh very legitimate safety concerns especially for children. Um again I I have lived in this neighborhood for 21 years and and we raised our children here and we've noticed a significant uh increase uh and it it seems to be um a growing concern. Uh what I am requesting uh in regards to this is clear plans showing the lot configuration uh the exact driveway locations um and confirmation that traffic and safety impacts have been thoroughly reviewed as part of this application. Uh next I would like to look at uh drainage and storm water concerns. Uh there are existing drainage deficiencies surrounding my property. um water routinely collects in the ditches uh and do not drain adequately into the storm sewer system. My household, we have contacted uh the city numerous times uh regarding this. U during heavy rainfall, the water levels rise right to the edge of our lawn. Like they rise right to street level uh in that ditch. And that's probably a depth of about um I'm going to say about 4 ft. Uh under section 53, uh the committee must consider uh whether the land is suitable for this proposed use and whether adequate uh municipal services, including storm water drainage, are available. Approving additional development without resolving these existing drainage problems increases the flood risk. Uh also potential damage to neighboring properties. I respectfully request that drainage conditions be fully investigated and any deficiencies be addressed before consent is granted uh not after the construction begins. I'd also like to look at road conditions and the construction impacts on those road conditions. Right now, the roads in our subdivision are already in very poor condition due to nearby construction projects uh just in the other parts of this neighborhood. Uh there are numerous potholes and damaged pavement that create unsafe driving conditions. Uh this proposed severance will require multiple construction phases and repeated use by heavy construction vehicles. Uh this will further deteriorate the road conditions and increase the safety risks for residents. Uh especially again uh the children that sort of congregate on the corner that's right uh in between our property and and the proposed severance property. Uh that's a a major sort of collecting point for all the children because there's lots of children um very close by ride their bikes and so forth. uh this construction is going to uh deteriorate those road conditions and increase our safety risks. Um the road conditions must be assessed and any repairs should be completed prior to the severance approval and construction uh not deferred. Uh so in closing, I'm not opposed to responsible development. Uh but under section 53 of the planning act, uh these decisions must reflect public safety, uh infrastructure capacity, suitability of the land, a broader public interest, and I respectfully request that my concerns be considered on the record, appropriate conditions of consent be imposed, or the approval be deferred until these issues are adequately addressed. Uh thank you very much for your time and consideration. Thank you. Okay. Um, next we had Mandy Pereira. Are you there? Mandy Pereira. Okay. I don't know if we'll try to come. Okay. I don't know if she's there. Is there any other members of the public who wish to speak? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you will have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Hello, Mike D. Rocher, 193 Mil Street South in Watertown, L2 Ho. I'd have taken my socks off, too, if I could be more comfortable. Um, I really don't have much to say. I'm the whole survey has been severed throughout time. I'm doing nothing different than what's already in the survey. Um, I don't really have much to say. Okay. Committee Mel, are you happy with all the conditions they got there? Because I think there's 16 of them. The conditions there. Um, I understand the archaeological study. I don't get it. I don't know why on this property. I had to do it on um on my Mil Street property. I severed that property. I had to do it there. But this is a survey. It's a survey property. I don't really think an archaeological study would be any interest to what's going on or or It could be just uh we could put it on as a note. As note. Yeah. If required. That's what I think. We put it on as a note is required. Sorry. Just we could put it as a note if required. If required. Yeah. Great. The chair and and I don't know if you wanted to if the committee wanted to ask the the staff about that. Thank you. No, whatever conditions you guys have, I'm I'm good. I I went through most of them. Most of them are give us some money for this, give us some money for that. I understand. Um survey of course got to have a survey. I'm already working on that. I guess a question to planning. Are you okay with a note on the archeological or pardon me? Uh it's a question to staff. Sorry. The chair Emily Bent from Cultural Heritage Planning. Um we've asked for the archaeological condition um at this stage because we don't have an option to apply an archaeological condition when this goes to building permit because it bypasses all other planning applications. Um I understand it is an an existing survey but we don't have any record of previous archaeological assistance on file. So that's why we have asked for it and um the concept of it we are asking for it now. So it is it is required um and yeah just we don't have another option to ask for it and that is why we're asking for it now. Okay and sorry through the chair Mandy Pereira contacted us I think she wanted to speak are you there Mandy Pereira are you online? Um, okay. Let's Um, there's a person here on the phone 289. Starting with the phone number 289. Is that Are you here for this application? Uh, one Westview Crescent. Okay. There's another person. The phone number uh uh starting with a 905 number. Okay. Let's uh let me let me just uh let me just reach out to her again. I don't know if the committee wants to to wait. I believe they they contacted us by email saying they want to participate. Um there's no response. I've indicated to them they could use the phone in option as well as an alternative. Okay. Just wait. Um Oh, okay. I think my colleague said she sees her. Um, Mandy Pereira, are you there? Mandy Pereira. And then I I think Mandy prayer if you want you can use the phone in option as well and it would have been in the email that we sent you. There's a phone number you can use. You have to unmute yourself. I think your uh your phone number is ending in 51. Is that correct? Yeah, you have to unmute yourself. Yeah, it shows you're unmuted, but we can't hear you. Um Okay. I don't know if we're going to be able to to connect her again. Um I'm just going to let uh we we did have another person re previously with another application for the ALUR one. Um there that's the person who's trying to call me. Um there can sometimes be technical issues when you participate virtually. Um just letting everyone know that primarily the hearing is to be held in person and as a courtesy we provide the virtual option as well. However, um there can be technical issues and we can't always guarantee it's going to work uh accordingly. Okay. So, that's just something people um anyone participating through through WebEx need to be aware of. Okay. Um All right. Is there any other Okay. Any other members of the public? Okay. If not, um I'll just return it to the committee then. Thanks. So, back to the owner. Um, does the committee have any other questions for the owner on this property? He's agreeable to conditions that are in place in reference to 15 and 16. Um, the landscape or the um surveyor will do a tree where the trees are. Um but for the for the landscaping can that be done during building process because it'll have to be done twice a landscape then it's going to be three houses and then it's going to be a new landscape. So it's sort of redundant. So I guess question to planning on the landscape um to the chair to the to the applicant. Um the way those two conditions from natural heritage planning work is um there's a number of trees on the property that could potentially be impacted by the severing and then future construction of of the dwellings. The tree protection plan is to essentially catalog what trees will be coming down and what trees are to be preserved and protection measures will be shown on the tree protection plan and the landscape plan is required to show one toone compensation for any trees that are taken down. So if say five trees are taken down, the landscape plan would show where on the existing whole property where you would put the new five trees for example. Okay. Um if no trees wind up being taken down, the landscape plan wouldn't be required, but the tree protection plan would still be required based on um Nacho Heritage's concern for preserving trees on the property. So it it would have to be done before construction essentially. That's part of That's the landscape. Yeah. So the the landscape plan, they go together. Yeah, they do. Okay. The landscape plan would only be required if compensation's required. Um so if no trees would be taken down Oh, there's trees. Yeah. Trees will be taken down. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve with all 16 conditions. Okay. Motion's on the floor by Mel, second by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, uh, motion carried, application approved. Thank you, gentlemen and ladies. Have a good day. Next, we have a minor variance application A26061 26 Cel Crescent Flamro. Um, the owner is M Patel, C. Patel, and C. Patel. M. Patel and C. Patel. Applicant is S. Terica. and the agent is the same person. Hi, good morning committee members. This is Siobhan. I'm the Yeah, just just give me a moment please. Um just letting uh just again just indicating here development planning and development engineering are requesting to deny the application. Um however, if I don't hear we don't hear anything further on that, then we'll we'll just we'll proceed. Um, is there any members of the public that wish to speak on this application? 26 CIL Crescent Flamro. Uh, okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant to region please for please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Good morning, chair members. Uh, this is Shivang. I'm the applicant at the property 35 uh sorry 26 catal crescent my uh I have gone through the staff report as well and I understand that developing engineering has some issue with the swale and also with the AC setback on the on the air condition setback on the westerly side. I would uh request uh the committee to please uh defer this application at this time. I want to work with the planning department to see whether we can uh solve those variances and come up with the solution and if you can provide us uh some time that would be a big help to us. So your wishes yeah I've looked at the property and I agree with you it should be tabled so they can get things straightened out. So, the agent or the owner, you're okay if we table this? Uh, sorry. Yes, if we table this for the next hearing. Yeah, I would be very happy with that. Okay, we'll leave that. Um, you can contact uh staff um Justin to see if when it can be put back on. So, I need a motion for table. Yeah, I made the motion to table. Okay, seconder. Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried, application tabled. Thank you, sir. One question. Uh, in order to work with the planning consultant, which planning consultant I can talk to regarding some advice or suggestions in this matter? Sorry through the chair. Are you asking you want to hire someone? No. No. I'm the architect. I'm the applicant only. I was asking that uh from the planning department which person I should talk to regarding this application. Yeah. No, I was going to I was going to just make an indication afterwards that we will be uh we will be in touch with you after this hearing and we'll let you know how to the next steps in terms of how to proceed. Okay. Okay. All right. Thanks so much. Next we have a minor variance application 826 05477 Parkdale Avenue North Hamilton owners O Bizour and applicant is Jay Garnett. Is there uh is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Uh seeing none, I will ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Good uh good morning everyone. My name is Joey Garnett and the address of our office is 875 Main Street West. Um the purpose of this uh minor variance, this property has operated as a car dealership for decades. So, we're proposing to replace the existing trailer office with a permanent building to support the same use. So, there's no change to use and the application is strictly for setback relief to allow appropriate placement of the building. Okay. Thank you, committee. Questions or concerns? Robert, I think we need a motion to approve with the conditions and notes. Okay. Moved by Robert, seconded by Yolanda. All All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you for your time, everyone. Okay, next we have a minor variance application. It's uh 826058 141 Cole Street Flamro. Owner is Parkside. Yeah, Parkside Hills Incorporated, Jay Nesbbit. applicant is the same company and the agent is web planning consultants. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? 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. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, staff. Uh ladies and gentlemen, can you hear and see me? Okay. Yes, we can. Great. Thank you. Uh I'll just provide some very brief comments. We are before you today in full support of the staff recommendation to approve this variance. It's it's very much a technical variance. This project has recently gone through a site plan approval process as a large block townhouse development. It's been site plan approved and building permits are underway. But because of a change in tenure from a block townhouse development to ultimately in the future it's going to become a condominium. the manner in which um interior yards get measured changes. So right now in all cases all of these units have setbacks far greater than 2.4 meters. But as soon as we go to a condominium application and put in place individual potholes, then we have an issue where those those internal lot boundaries are are reduced and in some cases below what the zoning bylaw would otherwise require for that form of development. So that's the background. It's it's very much a technical issue that just results from a change in tenure from a larger project down to individual pothles and um planning staff are in support and we um were aligned with that recommendation would request committee grant its approval to this. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Committee questions or concerns? Robert, I don't think there's any issue with this application and as recommended to be approved. So I will make a motion to approve it with conditions and notes. Okay. Motion made by Robert, seconded by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you very much. Have a have a great rest of your day. Okay. And next we have it's two uh related applications. It's one the one is a there's a consent and then there's a minor variance application. Both related to each other. So the consent is B2430 is the file number and the minor variance applications file number is A24112. The address uh is 107 Beach Boulevard Hamilton for both and then the owner is S. Clark and agent is Sabelli for both of them. Uh just uh just to reiterate to the committee this these applications were tabled prior to the hearing. So uh the committee will not um be handling these two applications today. If there's any members of the public here for these two applications, it's for 10007 Beach Boulevard, Hamilton. Um, please note we're not the m this application will not be heard today. These applications will not be heard today. Um, and uh if anyone had already uh registered with with us previously, we will notify you of any updates on this application. If not, if there's anyone here in council chambers, you can fill out an interested party form. um that's just uh just near the podium there and leave it there. Or if there's anyone participating on WebEx, please email us at cofa@ hamilton.ca and then we will notify these parties of any updates as they uh come up for this if they do come up for this application. Okay, thank you. And then next we also had a consent application as well. B26 01 013 1 Roscl Cliffe Avenue Hamilton. The owner is a numbered company 16112277 Canada Incorporated B. Choan. And uh here uh this application was tabled prior to the hear to the meeting as well. So as such the committee will not be handling this application uh today. And again if there's any members of the public here for this application one Rosscliffe Avenue Hamilton. Um, if you want to be uh if you want to be added as an interested party, you're here in council chambers, you can fill out one of the forms here. It's just next to the podium and leave it there. Or if you're participating on WebEx, do email us at cofa@ hamilton.ca and we will provide you uh any updates when they are a if they are available. Okay. And we are supposed to take a break now. So I believe that's Are we going to take a lunch break? Um, I was wondering how long the committee won. Um, sorry. 15 minutes. 10, 15. Okay. Maybe 15 minutes. Um, okay. So then we'll come back. Yeah. Um, we can come back around. What time would that be? 15. Yeah. So quarter. Yeah. We'll come back around quarter after. Uh, so we'll we'll take a break now at 11:49 a.m. and we'll reconvene after. Okay. Thanks. We'll reconvene now at 12:19 p.m. Okay. Next we have a minor variance application A26062 718 Rhimo Road West Hamilton. owner is a numbered company 169 31618 Canada Incorporated Kali and the applicant is Bright Hope Child Care Center Incorporated Kali uh K Ali. Um are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Um seeing none, I will ask the uh applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Hi, good morning everyone. Uh can you all hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay. Good morning. My name is Kamisha Ali on behalf of Bride Hope Childcare Center. Address is 718 Rhyme Road East. Uh so basically uh we're just requesting two minor variances um as it relates to the parking lot of our proposed childcare center. Uh we're in the process of working with planning as well as uh the building department. Um everything is moving forward and uh thank you for your time. Okay. Does the committee have any questions or concerns on this application? Well, okay with the conditions and are you? Are you okay with the conditions that are proposed? Did you hear what I said? Sorry. Are you speaking to me? you you you're okay with the the conditions that they have? Yes. Yes, we are. We're quite eager and ready to get started. Um so we're we're we're in we're in uh alliance with all the conditions. Okay. In that case, I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. Motion made by Mel, seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. Okay, next we have a consent application B26009 128 Slinger Avenue, Stony Creek. Owner is I Stanic and I Stanic. The applicant is Bar Gr Surveying Limited, G V F V F V F V F V F V F V F V F V F V F VI and D Jack and D Jakovina and the agent is the same uh uh same company and is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? 128 Slinger Avenue, Stony Creek. Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward, provide your name and address, and you have uh five minutes to speak. Thank you. Hello. Good afternoon. Uh my name is Nar Jakina. I'm representing BR land serving in engineering and uh we representing um applicant this instance owner of the property. We are pretty much satisfied with everything. uh what it is except for the uh landscaping plan. I don't think the landscaping plan is necessary in this area especially the size of the law and especially uh that the big plan for the whole area is in a process to uh remove all the ditches and put in a brand new sewer system and storm system which city working on that and that will happen in about 3 to five years and everything with the new sidewalks they're going to be involved and obviously they're going design what the trees they wanted in this area. So in this instance, I don't think the landscaping plan is unnecessary. Okay. Was there anything else on the No, we are satisfied with everything what's uh what's in consent and uh we are ready to move on except uh like I said the consent agreement because if any trees is planted it's going to be removed in three years because it's going to be huge constructions around. Okay. Committee questions or concerns taking note landscaping plan and through the chair if you want you can also um you can ask staff about the the conditions as well if you wanted to. Okay. Question to staff about the landscaping plan. Yeah. um through the chair uh to the committee. Um yeah, the landscaping plan was a condition imposed by uh forestry staff. Uh I don't know if they're on the call that they could uh expand on that. Let's take a look. Is there any forestry staff here on Webex? Um, I don't believe so. No. Well, it does say in the condition that it it could be waved or may be waved. The chair, Tim Roman, area, planning manager with development planning. Uh, yeah, for staff isn't available to speak, but yes, I was about to state that the the condition they've asked for does say that uh that requirement may be waved. Um it's also something that can could also be addressed through the consent agreement for that that discussion. So um which is a separate condition. So I see no no issue if that declared condition were to be waved at this juncture. Okay. Thank you. Committee have any other questions? Robert, I was just looking at the famous Google Earth and uh there's a lot of trees here that need to be protected or be acknowledged there. So, I don't really think it's the best nature to remove the landscape tree condition. Okay. Anyone else? Make a motion to approve with all the conditions and notes. Okay. Moved by Robert, second by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. Next, we have a minor variance application. 826042 371th Road East, Stony Creek. Owner is K. Simpson and C Simpson. Applicant is Ra Le Chappelle and agent is the same person. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Um I will state uh for this application development planning applica uh development planning staff were recommending denial um for the the variances. Um, unless I hear anything otherwise, we'll we'll proceed. Um, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application, 3711 Road East, Stony Creek. Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Hi there. My uh my name is Rob Blashel. Address 371 111th Road East in Stony Creek. Um, just to speak on that, the variance one, um, which was moving the building in the front lot, uh, is no longer required. So, that's the one that was denied. Uh, uh, variance 2 is the height, um, and that's the one we're applying for, um, which I believe had planning approval. Um, so what we're looking to do is change the building height from the 6 m allowance and we're going to look, uh, look at up it to 7.7 m. um which uh which planning I believe has has has uh approved on their end. Okay. So the building is no longer accessory building is no longer going to be in the front yard. No, it's going to be set back from the principal dwelling now. Um and it'll be set back as well uh about 40 meters from the road. Okay. Does planning have that information? Uh through the chair to the committee. Uh the applicant provided a updated plan which demonstrates the the building being uh out of the front yard. So staff are um recommend denial of variance one and approval of variance two for the height. Thank you. Well, hearing from the staff, I'll make a motion that we uh approve the application with variance number one not required and the building variance number two. Okay. Okay. Seconder Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. And then through the chair, presumed the proposed notes would be included as well. Yeah. Okay. Next we have a consent application B260007 486 Glover Road Stony Creek. The owner is a number company 2452593 Ontario Incorporated M. Abu Abu Hussein. Applica applicant is the same company and agent is Zelanka Primo Lim Limited D. Eisenber. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Um, seeing none, I'll ask uh the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Can you hear me well? Yes. Excellent. So, good morning committee members, city staff, public attendees. My name is Daniel and I'm a planner with Zelinka Priamo Limited. We are coordinating the consent application for 486 Glover Road and representing the land owner of the subject lands. Personally, I would like to thank staff for their work on this file and I just would like to highlight some key points. Back in February 2024, a consent application for these lands were conditionally approved and most of the consent conditions were satisfied. However, a few remain outstanding. So since the original consent application lapsed on February 16, 2026 this year, we submitted a duplicate consent application just to finalize the previously approved conditions for these lands. In terms of the staff report, we have carefully reviewed it and we welcome the approval recommendation. We have also reviewed all the consent conditions and we are aware that the city's engineering department is recommending an amendment to condition number 10 which pertains to a 0.3 meter reserve along the front edge of spring breeze heights. The amendment only refers to revising the block number uh with which we agree. Additionally, we respectfully request that the zoning condition number five and the OBC condition number six be removed from the consent condition list. We have uh discussed this matter with the staff and both the zoning department and the building division agree that these conditions have been satisfied and can be removed. Thank you for your attention and if you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. Okay. Is planning okay with uh variance five and six being removed through the chair. I think um Spencer Skidmore acting manager planning east team. Um, that was zoning's condition for five and my colleague here next to me, Brody, just indicated that he is good with that one being removed. Um, I'm not sure if we have anybody from the building department with regards to condition number six or if my colleague Tim Vinman has correspondence from building that they're good with the removal of condition six. He's shaking his head. No, looks like. Um, so we don't have it unless somebody from the building department is here. Um, we don't have confirmation that that one could be removed, but if they've already satisfied it, it would be as easy as them resubmitting it to the building department showing that there's no separation issues usually for fire separation and then they would clear that fairly fairly quickly. So, it shouldn't be too ownorous. Thank you. And through the chair, my um colleague was letting me know that we did have email correspondence indicating condition confirming the removal of condition six, I believe, from the building department. Yes. Committee have any questions or concerns on this application other than the requests? Donna, I'll just make a motion to approve the application uh with the removal of condition five and six. Okay. Is there a seconder for the motion? Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. And through the chair, was that including the amendment to condition 10 as well? Yes. The wording. Okay. Okay. Uh next we have it's two applications that are related to each other. It's a consent um which is file number B26010 and then there's a minor variance file number 826057. Uh both the addresses are 8 Shore View Place Stony Creek. Um owner is a company uh Seasons Retirement Company. No, sorry. Seasons Retirement Communities, Stony Creek GP Incorporated. Um, the applicant is the same company and the agent is Urban Solutions Planning and Land Development Consultants Incorporated, M. Johnston. And that that applies to both the consent and the minor variance application. Uh, we had an interested party, Daryl Skidmore. You here? Okay. Yes. Please provide your name and address and you'll have 5 minutes to speak. and afterwards, uh, please fill out an interested party form just behind you and leave it there for us. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair, uh, members of the committee, staff, and, uh, interested public. As indicated, my name is Gary Skidmore. I'm the current chair of Bell Harbor Condominium. Uh, it is WSCC 379. And I'm joined by one of my director colleagues Dave Suzinski and uh online by uh other director uh Brian Sweeney uh as well as uh a number of our uh members of our residents who uh are joining online as well. And Mr. Chair, we appreciate that opportunity because many of them are not able to join uh for a meeting of this nature. We appreciate the opportunity presenting to you and your committee this afternoon. I want to emphasize that we are not here to be obstructionists or to be confrontational about this matter in any way. However, we are here because we are genuinely concerned by the potential of your decision today that it could have on the impact of the quality of life not only in Bal Harbor community but along the entire North Service Strip. I was here, Mr. chair, back in 2023 when the uh committee approved variances related to this property. I would draw attention to the committee members that at that time the variance allowed for the construction of a 37story and a 25tory tower containing 730 dwellings on this property. Included in the request for the variance and severance at that time Mr. chair was the request to reduce the street setback, parking reduction, shrinking of the size of the units to accommodate more apartments in the two buildings. In other words, an increased density. Already there is an incredible demands of parking in that area. And secondly, the traffic flow is a huge, huge problem. At the break, I had the opportunity, Mr. chair to meet with Mr. Mancini and Mr. Skidmore of the planning department. Um Mr. Skidmore of the planning department, Spencer um indicated that at times he has been asked if he's related to me and he has defiantly objected to that possibility because of what the implications might be. On a more serious note, we are very appreciative, Mr. Chair, of the comments that they were able to make which has altered our presentation today. First of all, um I would like the chair to be aware and members of this committee to be aware of our concerns about process related to being able to address this committee. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, had it not been for our local counselor Jeff Bey, we never would have known that this application was before this committee today. This is the second time that this has happened over major issues that affect our community. The 60 meter radius should have entitled every single member of our 24 units to have received notification of this. The only person who received members of the committee notification was my wife on a letter dated the 13th or 14th of this month. And with us being away had we not been notified by email by Mr. Bey. We would never have known this. Members of the committee, I have checked with all other 23 members of our community and they did not receive a copy that would have made us aware that this variance was even here today. And so through you, Mr. Chair, I would ask that the minutes reflect that the chair will in fact be asking questions related to that. And to Mr. Skidmore's um uh credit. He has indicated that they internally will look at that, but I would like it through you to be on record that that is a formal request that we are making before the committee of adjustment today. The second thing that I I would ask that the committee be aware of is this. Mr. Chair, are you aware that there is not a secondary plan that exists in North Stony Creek regarding any of the variances you have been asked to consider today and I have sat here and listed them very carefully. There is not a secondary plan related to that. The rest of the city of Hamilton enjoys having a secondary plan that deals with transportation that deals with all of the other infrastructure issues. Mr. Chair, there is no secondary plan for this part of the city and that was confirmed at a December meeting by your incoming manager of planning and economic development. In addition to that, we were told that we would be receiving additional information such as today's and that commitment has not been actualized. Mr. Chair, um, at the risk of sounding egocentric, in one of my previous professional lives, I was the director of education for Metropolitan Toronto before the amalgamation. I have been on both sides of the committee of adjustment and know the difficulties of the decisions that you make and all the factors you have to take into account. Members of the committee, we in Stony Creek are entitled to the same due process that the rest of the city of Hamilton has related to a secondary plan and questions being brought before this committee. And I ask you as members, were you aware that we did not or do not have a secondary plan for that area of the city of Hamilton? So, Mr. Chair, um, in coming to you today with the information, uh, that we have gleaned, um, we are well aware that all of the expectations are being met related to this. However, as I conclude my comments, I share this with you as an observation through you to each member of the committee and that is the broad term that is used mixed commercial use. When we were initially told as residents of that community about the seasons property being developed, there were to be two residential towers for seniors, residents at that property. One has been constructed and in fact we didn't oppose it because many of us saw that in the years to come we would simply move down the street. That is no longer the case. They are now talking about mixed density and with no definition. Mr. Chair, you will be approving this today with no definition of what is anticipated around mixed commercial use. Is it going to be another 37 and 27 story buildings on a reduced property? Take a look at what the property is being reduced to that they're trying to sever. Probably in all likelihood, it's being severed for the purposes of selling it to a developer. it is going to be just over half of what it is supposed to be and that's what you're being asked to consider. And then when they come forward with a site plan approval and a building permit with it will invariably have to have the variances that I described to you at the beginning of my presentation. So Mr. Chair, what I am saying to you is I understand that you function within limited parameters as to what a committee can do, but I want to go on record as as suggesting this to you. Please consider that when you are dealing with all issues along that that corridor of Stony Creek, you are dealing with it with no secondary plan as you would be in all the rest of the city. And finally, Mr. Chair, I I simply want to emphasize that these are concerns that we have that are legitimate enough that I'm asking they be on the record of this committee as concerns raised regardless of your decision because it is our intention to delegate the planning committee in order to have this redressed in terms of fairness to the cit citizens of North Stony Creek along the North Service corridor. Please picture that on the weekends, if there's a problem on the Queen Elizabeth Way, we are unable without any additional residents in that area, we are unable to get onto the service road because of that. I'm limited of time. I could go on and explain where we have not been serviced in terms of commitments made related to traffic control, trucks in that area, signage that was supposed to be put up that hasn't been, and intersections that were supposed to have traffic lights that still have not. So, I apologize to you, Mr. Chair, and to members of this committee and sounding like a whining uh record of some kind. That was not the intent. But in fairness to the residents of Bell Harbor and other people in that community, I want this committee through you, Mr. Chair, to be aware of the serious grievances that we have related to due process. Thank you for the opportunity of presenting to your committee and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Do you have any questions? Okay, thank you for your comments. Hey, can you if you could fill out an interested party form there just behind you there? You see the table there with the pens there? Anna, can you point it to him, please? Mr. Chair, did I sound like an interested party? I think so. Yeah. Yeah, please fill it out and just leave it there. Thank you. Is there any other members of the public wish to speak? Um, thank you for your comments. I do want to comment on the not the public notification which is overseen by the community of adjustment by me. Um, I was in contact with councelor Bey about this. Our practice is to notify all the condo unit owners. Um, typically for a condo apartment, it would be automatically done. If it's like a condo townhouse, it may not have been. We wanted to do that. I told councelor Bey due to the how close it is to the hearing date, if we were to send out a notice, it may not get to all the residences prior to the meeting. and I asked him to have the condo association have you maybe contact me and we could coordinate that. I didn't get a response from him on that. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. But again, my my business card is there if ever you have any questions, please call, email. Yeah. And you can even come in and talk to us if you want. Okay. Three. Mr. Chair, I I believe that you and I did have the conversation that I registered wanting to be here. Oh no no no I mean about other things about committee of adjustment if ever you have any questions. Sure. Um and I don't think there was any other members of the public you wish to speak. Um yeah I'll just return it to the committee then. Thank you. Okay. Is the agent through the chair? Apologies. Forgot. Um thank you for reminding me. Um, if there isn't any other members of the public who wish to speak, um, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and you have 5 minutes to speak. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Stephano Rosatone, planner at Urban Solutions. Oh, I'm a planner on Urban Solutions, the uh agent uh acting on behalf of the owner for the applications at 8 Shore View Place. Um I do have a quick presentation that I'm hoping I can uh flip through. See short presentation. Steph, I'm just wondering, did you send this presentation to us by 12:00 p.m. yesterday? I think it was shortly afternoon yesterday. I do have a USB also if uh that's Yeah, because you you're Let me uh Yes, it came in after and I think I I let you know that it passed the deadline and I didn't hear a response from you. Um just please for future reference if you can. It's just to help us just to make sure everything's working in here. try to get it to us before uh 12 pm. Okay. Yeah, of course. Okay. All right. Let me just uh Thank you. We can flip to the next slide. Yeah, it's perfect. So, yeah, as I said, the subject lands are 8 Shore View Place uh in Stony Creek located at the northern terminus of Milan Road uh shown over here. If we can move over to the next slide. So the subject lands are designated neighborhoods in the urban Hamilton official plan and as shown on the next slide they are zoned mixeduse commercial uh special exception five. So the designation and the zoning both permit a wider range of uses. Um however at this time there is no proposed development on the subject lens. uh if we could move to the next slide just to provide some context on the previous applications uh spoken about by the community. So this was the previous consent application. Um this was approved in February of 2024 and this was required to facilitate uh a conditional approval of a site plan for a mixeduse development on the western portion of the site. If we flip over to the next slide, we'll show the current proposal. So, this is the proposal before you today. The previous site plan application and consent application that were conditionally approved uh have been abandoned by the owner. So, that development is no longer on the table. Um, this revised concept is really about flexibility for the owner. Uh moving forward, the severance line is implemented in a way to maintain all of the existing parking facilities and uh site services infrastructure on the retained parcel associated with the existing seasons retirement community while creating uh that vacant land uh parcel on the other side. uh notably so seasons uh their parent company Fengate owns like the entire parcel and this severance it wouldn't be to sell the vacant lands to a different developer. It would still remain under ownership of the parent company Fengate. Um again this is really just to kind of fix this lot line and really reflect the existing conditions on the site. if we can flip to the next slide. So, just an aerial view overlaying to better show uh what I've just described there with the severance line really following the existing condition of the lands. Um as well as just a few easements that were requiring. Uh two of them are for storm water management between the two parcels as well as shown in purple. There's an access easement just to retain the season's access to using both of the existing driveways out onto Shore View. Um we can move to the next slide. So only two variances are required to accommodate uh this severance. Uh as I mentioned earlier, no development is currently proposed on the site and the sight specific zoning actually implements a minimum lot area exactly what the current lot fabric is made out of. That's just how it was completed during the sight specific uh zoning bylaw amendment. If we can move to the next slide. Yeah. So, as noted in the staff reports, um the variances meet the four tests. Um and the consent is uh appropriate and a subdivision is not required. I would like to discuss a couple of the conditions that were proposed for the severance just on the next slide. So we would like to request the removal of conditions four and five for a landscape plan and for uh permit and tree management plan. Uh we did discuss this with forestry staff who recommended these conditions and they circulated to the committee of adjustment I believe it was Tuesday uh that they have no worries with uh the removal of these conditions as shown here. Uh, other than that, that was my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. And I'm not sure if I actually let you know that we do agree with staff's recommendation uh to approve both the applications subject to the removal of those two conditions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So I guess one of the questions or a couple questions maybe to planning. It was brought up um by the concerned citizen um a secondary plan. Is that needed at this time or not? And also uh the mixed density which is a changed use through the chair my colleague Tim from who answer that question on online. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Tim Roman, area planning manager with development planning. Uh, as for the secondary plan, that's correct. There isn't a a secondary plan for this area of of the community. Um, secondary plans are for the most part areas that are broadly um aside from downtown, they're broadly green field um areas, areas that are developing. Uh the secondary plans that do exist in the lower Stony Creek are by and large all were all brought forward from the previous former Stony Creek community. Um those are surrounding areas but the former Stony City of Stony Creek didn't develop a secondary plan for this particular area on the north side of the QEDW. Um and it's there's not within the work plan to to establish a secondary plan. uh within a by and large builtup uh area that is otherwise it does have neighborhood plans to kind of guide for for growth in existing zoning which in relation to that the property is zoned to mixeduse commercial sight specific five in the former Storing Creek zoning bylaw um that will be direct for directed for future development but as the agent has indicated on this there was a proposal that was at the site pipeline stage that has been indicated that has now been uh that development's been abandoned. So any future development would need to uh go through the site plan process as well and be reviewed against the zoning permissions on the lands. Thank you. Okay. Thank you committee members. Any questions or concerns? Justin. Yeah. Again, as I said, it's it's up to the committee. You wanted if you needed any additional updates from uh the residents, the question made by staff that this is a an area that's largely developed and doesn't require any kind of secondary plan is what I interpret to me. Mr. Chair, I would suggest to you that along that strip there is two 45 story plans to be developed. There are five if not six current plans that are elements of the planning committee develop through that area. So that density is as large as many of the areas that this committee will deal with having a secondary. So the suggestion that there's no need for a secondary plan is from the residents of that service area inappropriate. Okay. Thank you. Noted and we can only go by the what the comments come from planning to us. Um I appreciate that Mr. Chair. committee questions for the agent. If we going forward with this application, if we approve the severance as is and it's been stated that there was a plan originally and that's gone. They're back with a second plan if I'm not mistaken. How would that be approved if we approved the just the easements or the sorry severance? Is that a question to staff? So to the chair then will it come back to site plan control for the severed property. Thank you. So Spencer Skidmore acting manager of development planning east team. So through the chair currently it all depends on what we don't know what they're proposing on that severed parcel that hasn't been conveyed um a current development proposal. Um so it really depends if what they propose in the future on the severed parcel is zoning compliant. If it's not zoning compliant, they would be back before this committee with the minor variance application. If it's significant enough in terms of a departure, there might be a zoning bylaw amendment which would go to planning committee. Um, and then short of that, any type of development um well, not any type of development, but any substantial development would be subject to site plan control under section 41 of the planning act um which is a detailed design process for for development. So there would be a planning act application to facilitate um a future development on that lot um regardless of whether or not he was severed. Thank you. So in other words, we come back to with the information in front of us is a straight severance. Yeah. And in that case make a motion to approve variances one and two and the proposed lot severance with the easement included. Okay. And is that with the uh removed conditions four and five as well? Okay. Yeah. Okay. Second. Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you everyone. Okay, next we have a minor variance application 826059 5398 White Church Road East, Clanbrook. Owner is LNS Zaher Rod Radini. Um, applicant is A. Zahor Rodini and agent is Ale. is are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and address and uh you have 5 minutes to speak. Uh good morning, Mr. Secretary, Treasurer, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Angela Beel, 548 Marksbury Road in Pickering, Ontario. Um I do have a quick presentation. May I uh share my screen to do so? Yes. Go ahead. Thank you. Sorry. Did you send this presentation to us prior to the meeting today? Uh I did. Yes. Okay. Just give me a moment. Just wait. I can load that up for you. Yeah. Give me a moment. Oh, okay. Okay. Do you see it? Uh I I do see it. Yeah, you can you can go directly to the next uh page, please. Ready? Thank you. Um so, good morning. I'm agent for the uh owners of the site today. Um this application is fairly straightforward, we think. Um there is an existing trailer on the property which is serving a multi-generational family which occupies the main house currently and seeks to um allow their adult children to occupy the uh dwelling unit if um approved and we're asking the committee to recognize it as a an additional dwelling unit detached. Um it's this is a required step in order to bring the unit into compliance um and getting getting a building permit to legalize the ADU. Uh so the three minor variants requested are regarding uh the lot area. Obviously um this does not meet the one and a half hectare standard as identified in the A1 agricultural zone as the existing residential lot is 0.23 hectares. And secondly the unit sits partially in the front yard rather than exclusively in the interior sideyard. And finally no setback was proposed from the front front facade of the um principal dwelling for that reason. I note at the outset that this lot was created uh by subdivision in 1978 or thereabouts and its dimensions have remained the same for more than 40 years. Um so the variances we're seeking today are as a result of that pre-existing condition. Um so unlike most farms in an A1 zone, this is a residential lot in a residential area. Um, so although it carries an A1 agricultural zoning, um, it's been residential in character, like I say, for just over 40 years or almost 50 years actually. So it says it sits a contin contiguous row of residential lots fronting White Church Road East. Um, so on both the um, sort of easterly and westerly sides are residential and directly to the rear of the subject site is zoned P6 conservation um, which we do have comments from the conservation authority addressing that. and the larger agricultural parcels lie to the south and northeast of the property uh and do not touch in any way. Um so the immediate context though it is in the A1 zone is residential and not agricultural. Um so the residential character within the A1 zone is actually is recognized within the A1 zone itself. So even though 1.5 hectares is the referenced um site area, there are subsections within the zoning bylaw um such as section 12.1.3. Uh so if a new lot was created now, a minimum it would require a minimum site area of 0.4 hectares. Um and uh that would be for residential and residential care facilities. And furthermore, um section 4.7 of the general provisions does speak to lot air uh lots which are below the minimum lot threshold in the zoning bylaw itself. Um so when we apply uh the framework um the setback framework in the section 4.7 um we did a quick analysis of what the built area on this lot this 0.23 23 hector lot would be and I I can confirm that uh in combination the existing dwelling unit and the proposed uh ADU represent uh about 42% um of the buildable lot area taking into account of course that there weren't other um factors mentioned in the zoning bylaw which we could rely on in our analysis. Um so under the four tests the variances are minor. Oh sorry next slide please. Um yeah, sorry I forgot to move you along there. Uh you can keep going. Thank you. And next slide. Thank you. Um so uh let me see here. So the variances are minor. Um there's no lot there's no new lot creation. It's a limited density increase. the existing residential dwelling unit is a four bedroomedroom uh four bedroomedroom unit uh with two to three bathrooms uh two and a half bathrooms let's say uh a pool and whatnot and the proposed ADU is uh two bedrooms uh with uh two bathrooms uh it's desirable in the sense that they support uh this application supports uh developing housing supply while maintaining the rural character of the area it's very gentle density um it meets the intent of the official plan with self-sustaining services on one lot and no adverse groundwater impact um according to a septic assessment done by a qualified septic um uh designer and it meets the intent of the zoning bylaw in the sense that residential use is maintained um and the function of the zone uh even though it is A1 zone it's not agricultural in function so there's no change in use and that remains unchanged in regarding the front yard variances um the main house is actually set further back from the road than its neighbors. So, the proposed location effectively borrows the neighboring uh front yard setback uh yeah of the house to the uh west. Locating the unit farther back was not possible due to the existing um buildings and septic system on site. Uh the immediate neighbor uh most impacted by the proposed location is not only supportive of the ADU but indeed helped my clients with its construction. So, he's very much in support. Um, and regarding the uh impacts on the front yard and the streetscape impacts, uh, my clients are agreeable to installing a fence or some other mitigating screening uh, which would help to to ensure that the um, ADU remains subordinate. Um, oh, sorry, that's uh, the next slide and the next slide again, please. And then in regards to the servicing requirements identified um with respect, we weren't really clear on the condition regarding a water supply assessment. There doesn't seem to be a definition of what that looks like. However, it seems like a hydrogeeological survey as um per planning staff's recommendation. If you look at the terms of reference and the guidelines of the city that the city of Hamilton has prepared itself um that seems to be guidelines for a much larger scale of development such as subdivisions and se uh severances. Um so the requirement under um the rural Hamilton official plan and indeed under the building code itself is that lots must be serviced entirely uh in their own right on on the lot itself for both sewer and water. Um we we have had uh a number of consultations with different designers all of who all of who have confirmed that the site may be serviced um with a suitable uh building code compliant class 4 septic system involving a tank in leechfield. And the proposal before you today, the site plan you see is is one is the most favored design of that of many options. Um therefore, yeah, we're just not really clear on um why the hydrogeeological survey is the necessary requirement when it seems like the building code itself uh has the technical components to ensure that if a uh if a if a septic system is suitably designed and approved by the building department, it passes the building code compliance test and proves that it actually does service um waste management on site. Um so that's basically the overview. Uh I do have on the next slide um a few ideas. Uh obviously our preferred outcome is an approval with conditions. Uh my clients are very agreeable to installation of a fence in front of the ADU. Uh we also note that the conservation authority had no issues um with the application but did request some fencing on the northerly lot line which my clients are also agreeable to. Um, and we also had a few ideas for additional conditions which could address the uh concerns of source water protection um while making it a more uh a more scale appropriate more appropriate to the scale of a residential intensification as opposed to larger subdivision or uh like larger level analysis. Uh so I have here on this version um making uh uh tying approval of the ADU conditional. Um we can we are agreeable to uh coming to terms with planning or legal services whoever the proper party is to enter a memorandum memorandum of understanding or even filing an instrument on title uh which would require removal of the additional dwelling unit upon sale of the property so that this use would not um continue. Uh and then also uh kind of a latebreaking idea or or concept is also to make approval conditional of course on the chief building official or their designate. Um uh being satisfied with the proposed septic plan in advance and making it tying it to the conditions of approval as opposed to just tying it to the um the building permit process which is it is a normal uh part of the building permit process. Of course. Um otherwise, if you're not in in a position to approve today and the outcome would be refusal, we do ask for additional time to defer this application. Um because we have not had time due to the timing and the compliance issues with the building department, we have had to move fast and apply quickly and so we haven't had the proper time to consult with city staff that we otherwise would have in a different application. Um thank you very much for your time today and I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. So my question or comment right off the start is that I think that you have to make a decision as to whether you want it heard today or not because I mean if we have a discussion here and um it it doesn't go the way you want then you want it uh tabled. Um so I think on my position as chair um that you need to make a decision as to whether you wish to have it heard today and us we make a decision on it or whether you want it tabled so that you can talk with planning and try and u get let's say more favorable comments from them. Um do I I do have my client um on um available by text. I I would need to consult with them on direct next steps forward. Uh is that acceptable or shall I make a decision now? How fast can you get it? Uh just just like five minutes at max I'd say. I just want a quick confirmation from her so I don't speak out of turn. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you very much. Is that okay with the rest of the committee? Let her contact. Sorry. Okay. And through the chair, we don't have any other applications to be heard today. So, I guess we can just maybe take like a 5m minute break then. That's okay. Okay. Yeah. Come back around 1:20 p.m. Okay. Thanks. Does anybody need a break? 5 minutes or just wait till she comes back? Okay. Well, we we'll wait. Okay. I think we should just deny it. heard or denied. I think denied. Is this not going to change the size of the water? Yeah. And they've never got a building. No. No. It should be denied. We're just overstating the feet over the property. Like what Mel just said, that's here or there. It's kind of I Miss people, are you back? Uh, yes, sir. Yes. Through the chair. I believe the agent is back. So, just reconvene at 122 p.m. Okay, go ahead. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um yes. So I have spoken with my clients and they have requested that I seek a deferral at this time to further consult with staff um to further clarify what we can deliver to satisfy their concerns. Okay. If that would be acceptable. Yeah. Okay. So we'll uh accept a motion for uh um I'll make the motion to table. Okay. Motion table by Mel and seconded by Robert. All in favor of tableabling. None opposed. So the motion is carried and the application is tabled and you can get in touch with our uh secretary Jason as to reschedule a a date. I think the May meeting is already booked through the chair. Yes, we will be um we will be contacting the applicant afterwards just to let them know how to proceed in terms of next steps. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Thank you very much. Thanks for your time. And then that concludes the applications to be heard for this uh committee of adjustment meeting. Um next we're going to chair and staff updates. I don't know if the chair has any updates. Um okay. I don't have anything extra to add. Any committee members anything to add? No. Okay. If not, I'll just let the Yeah. Just just to let the committee know. And I did inform you earlier there was an OT decision was issued for a uh it was a previous I believe it was a consent and a uh minor variance application. I believe it was uh 177 uh it was 177 highway 8 in Hamilton. Uh apologies. Let me see if I can open it. Yes, it was a this order was issued in uh April 27th, 2026 for the minor variance which was file number FLA20004 and then there was a consent application related to this one file number FLB2 20001 and it was approved by the Ontario land tribunal by the OOLT. I believe it was part of a a settlement between the city and the appel uh between the appellent um which was the city and and the applicant. Um which is a numbered company 330113 Ontario Incorporated. Um, also I do want to let the committee know we have received uh two appeals uh for two different uh two applications that were heard at the last uh committee of adjustment hearing, the April 2nd hearing. So uh one of them it was for 178 Orchard Drive which is it was a consent application and a minor variance application. So the file numbers were B26004 and 82632. And we've also received an appeal for the minor variance. It was uh file number 826023 for 84 York Boulevard and 89 Park Street North. Um and we are currently working on uh preparing those packages to be forwarded on to the OT uh the York one the 84 the Orchard Drive is is been appealed by the uh by the applicant. I believe the committee previously denied those applications, the consent and minor variance for the 84 York Boulevard. That has been the committee approved it and it's been appealed by the city. Um I don't know if I don't if I have anything uh to add on that. It was it was signed by the by the planning manager. Okay. Yes. Um Thank Okay. If there wasn't uh anything else, we could have a motion to adjurnn. Okay. Motion for adjourn. Nick, don't need a second. Do we do we need a seconder or not? Yeah, we could. Yeah. Okay. Huh? Different organizations run under different rules. Okay. Thank you. We'll adjourn at 1:26 p.m. And the next uh meeting will be at on May 19th, 2026. Thank you everyone.

Full Transcript