on check. 1 2 3 Good morning. Welcome to the planning committee uh of Tuesday, September 1st, 2026. It's 9:30. We're going to call this to order. As we have quorum present, I'd like to remember I'd like please to everyone to remember that all electronic devices are to be switched to non-audible function during committee meetings. Can we take care of that? Now in chambers today we have councelor Wayne, councelor Kretch, councelor Casar, councelor Clark is a guest today. Uh council online we have councelor M. Wilson, councelor A. Wilson and councelor Francis. going to turn to approval of the agenda. May I please have a mover and secondary to approve the agenda as presented? Councelor Wayne, Councelor Cretch, are there any amendments to the agenda from committee members? Not seeing any, please indicate a show of hands. All in favor. That passes. >> Declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest? Not seeing any. We'll go to the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. So we have 5.1, 5.2, 12.1, and 12.2. May I please have a mover and seconder to adopt the open and closed minutes of July 28, 2026 and of the August 25th, 2026 special planning committee meeting and that the closed minutes remain confidential. Now is there any discussion on the adoption of the minutes? No. Okay. So the mover and second councelor Casar and councelor Kretch please indicate by a show of hands now. All in favor? That passes. Thank you. We are on to delegations. Members are reminded that questions of the delegates are for clarification purposes only and not for debate. We will hear all the delegations and then receive them together at the end. Delegates are reminded that you may not repeat information provided in previous delegations on the same topic. Your delegation must consist of new information only. With that, we're going to go to 6.1, delegations respecting development of a vehicle for higher bylaw. And this is in accordance with item 9.3. First up will be James Kemp virtually. I'd like to call upon James to please turn on his camera and his microphone and begin his delegation. Once you begin, James, you'll have five minutes. >> Hello. We can hear you. >> Perfect. Thanks very much. Um, uh, thank you very much, Councelor Tatison and members of the planning committee. Thank you for taking time to hear from me today. I apologize. I've not had a chance to prepare remarks. Um, I'm three days out from the fair and things are very busy. Um, but I do have a number of things that I'd like to discuss regarding this this report. as as I've been here before several times, uh I've been here sort of uh reminding people that there's some serious alarm bells with regards to the accessible taxi program, being able to ac accessible taxis. Um over the past several years, we've been told, don't worry, there's going to be a review coming. We're going to we're going to have things u you know, incorporated together. It' be all fixed up. Just wait until next year. Then next year turn into this year. Um, now the report is out and while there's a couple of things mentioned about accessibility, uh, for the most part we've been told that we're going to have to wait again to hear about accessible planning regarding taxis. Uh, which is concerning because, uh, if we're if we're re redesigning the entire uh, program to include PTPs, uh, the taxi taxi system and limousines. Um, we should be incorporating accessible design into the legislation. Um, unfortunately, the accessible taxi program uh is not doing well. There's very few vehicles on the road. There's very few operators still holding licenses. Um, we were about to be aged out at the end of this year. Uh but now according to this report they've increased the age limit to 12 years. So technically we could have vehicles on the road uh until 2028 I believe. Um unfortunately the machines that are on the road are pretty much punched. Uh if anybody's actually had to use an accessible taxi uh recently they are in uh very bad shape. I actually only saw one new accessible taxi which was a blue line the other day. Um, this this sort of means that a lot of us aren't using the accessible taxi program anymore because we don't factor it into our daily planning for trips. Uh, it's no longer our emergency um, use uh, program um, simply because you can't rely on it. Uh, if you're waiting uh, two hours for a taxi, that's not reliable. You just can't use it. Um, recently there was an issue with a counselor from another city in a local city nearby us that actually was stranded for three hours waiting for a taxi in Missaga. If they were to come to Hamilton, they would have experienced the same problem uh and and have been stranded. Um, one of the problems regarding that is that the licenses are being held uh by the operators, the taxi cab operators as opposed to the brokerages. Uh now the brokerage is required to provide accessible transportation but if they don't hold the license then they cannot uh force vehicles onto the road um when needed. Uh so they they have to conol they have to you know um get the the operators to agree and the operators they can they can just park their vehicle. They don't they're not required to provide an accessible vehicle. Uh this is this is an inherent flaw in the system. Um, another inherent flaw is the requiring of uh investment, an initial investment. It costs over $100,000 to purchase a vehicle, upgrade it, have people trained. Uh, so it is a significant investment. Now, the idea of the incentive program was over time that investment was going to pay off. Um, but the reality of the situation is the uh taxi program was paused several times over several months. there was no retroactive payment and a lot of the operators um recognize that that investment may be not as good of a decision. These these are some of the flaws that should be in baked into this uh new uh legislation. Uh another issue is the inloo fees. Uh the P2Ps are providing an inloo fee as opposed to providing accessible service. Uh they're they're paying way too low. they need to be providing a lot more money in the new fees um to pay for an accessible taxi service. Um it comes down to the city and the brokerages are most likely going to have to purchase a fleet of their own uh and maintain a fleet of their own and the brokerages uh in discussion with them seem to be on board with the idea um but they need a commitment from the city as well. It really is the only way to ensure that the vehicles are going to be on the road at the hours needed in parody with non-accessible transportation. Um I I apologize I'm a little bit uh battered here. Um now there was a mention in here about requiring return uh from the operator. So if an operator books a ride and they take you out somewhere that they're required to book a ride back. uh this this may work depending on uh if that operator is still on the road on the return trip. But if this was required by the broker as opposed to the operator, then you could be ensuring uh a ride back regardless. So if I got a ride out somewhere at 9:00 a.m. and I need to come back at 8 in the evening, I could get a different vehicle and a different operator to come and pick me up guaranteed by the broker. So again, it's a it's a system design issue that needs to be addressed. Um I apologize. a minor time. No. Okay. Sorry. >> Um, so our concern is that the uh waiting to kick this can down the road a bit further uh means that you've already created the legislation for bylaw and trying to add accessible uh service on top of it is like stapling it on top of the bulletin board. You're just going to hope it all works out in the end. >> So these are some >> James, can you wrap it up? Yeah, that's that's that's pretty much it. I apologize. I'm kind of rambling. By all means, I'm finished. >> Okay. Thank you, James. And are there any questions for James? >> I'm looking around the room, not seeing any. And none online. Thank you, James. >> Thank you very much. >> At this time, I'd like to call upon Lloyd Ferguson to please come to the to the room now. While we're waiting, I'll welcome Councelor Ted McMe to the room who's joined us. Thank you. Good morning, Lloyd. >> Morning, Mr. >> H. I think you know how this operates. You just have to push the little button, the lights on. I'll turn mine off. You have five minutes to begin your delegation. When you begin to speak, we'll start the timer. Thank you. >> Okay. So, I'm doing this presentation now, but you're not going to hear the vent until way on in the agenda. >> Okay. Okay. So, thank you for allowing me to appear before you today to present my thoughts on this very important issue. Um, the last time I was here was December the 5th, 2023 to speak about getting a level playing field between the PTPs and and the staff confused me because sometimes they're called right share, sometimes they're called Uber and and of course there's the taxis, but staff are referring to um personal transportation providers. Right now, the two providers, taxis and PTPs, are essentially the same in the eyes of the public to move people from one location to another for a fee. The planning committee uh passed a resolution on the leveling of the playing field and director of staff report back in the fourth quarter of 2023 or 10 months and it's been three years before this report got here and so things are a little still and and I guess one of the disappointing parts is that um It's not they don't address the issue of a level playing field between the two providers. What they're doing is there's a lot of chatter on administrative stuff. At the time Uber was eating our lunch and CO was having an impact. Taxi brokers were no longer leasing our taxi plates as there was no business. And uh so I'm the president of of Fleet Taxi. I own four taxis uh taxi plates. I started buying them in 1973. and finished up buying just in the 80s. So, I I've been around this business for a long time. Before before Uber came to town, our plates were worth a lot of money and now they're virtually worthless. And there 400 taxi plates, 400 plus taxi plates out there. So, there's hundreds that are being affected by this, losing their investment that they made in playing by the rules. Most people employed in this business are diverse and are not comfortable coming into this environment in these chambers. English is not their first language and I know Hamilton Council supports EDI record equity, diversity and inclusiveness and this a lot of hardworking people that have been hurt by your policies on the topic. Some of the areas that are rules are different between taxis and PTPs uh who provide the same services. Uh taxi drivers are required to have a city Hamilton issued license. Taxi drivers need a taxi license, obtain a clear driver's abstract from the MTO on driving record, police checks for criminal convictions, and can display knowledge of the city. Um, they have to have a clear understanding of the knowledge of the city. Uber drivers can be sexual predators, child molesters, and other things the public should be protected from. Uber should not be allowed to self-regulate this. Taxi drivers have to come to the counter, have to get a taxi driver's license, and it gives you a chance to deal with someone who may be one of those categories and suspend that license. You have no power over the drivers that are put on there because you don't have them licensed. They should be. The second is insurance. Taxis are required to carry full commercial insurance, which can cost up to $20,000 annually uh to purchase it. Uber drivers have regular family car insurance and the passenger is covered by Uber policy umbrella policy. However, under the terms and conditions and I was actually quite surprised when I downloaded the app from Uber and uh it is multiple page. The public would never look at it because they just want to download the app and be able to order a trip. But they limit liabilities from your constituents from the public or the passenger to $1,000. and uh taxis have to have 2 million and that's not fair to the passengers. They don't know about it. And you have the power to fix this through amending the resolution to make sure that both taxis and personal transportation providers or Uber have the exact same insurance for the passenger that's in the car. Your staff will tell you that that's probably not enforceable for the $1,000 and liability for the passenger, but who's going to challenge that? is one of your constituents after they've been in a collision with the Uber and they have to go off to court and prove that this thing is not reasonable. Once again, you can fix this by simply adjusting the the uh the bylaw so both taxis and PTPs have the exact same insurance for the passengers. into the public staff. Uh public staff there's also a big issue for um uh the mechanical fitness of the vehicles. Taxis have to come in at least once or sometimes twice a year depending on the age and have the mechanic the licensed mechanic outside the company. um certify that the car is safe. Uber doesn't have to do that. In fact, our staff don't even know how many Uber cars are out there. And so, they only do random checks, which is not fair to the public. You can fix that by simply amending the bylaw that all drivers must have a certificate of mechanical fitness of at least once a year. >> Lloyd, about 30 seconds. Okay. >> Okay. I'm just at the last point now. Uh Uber is a US company based located in San Francisco. The c the council is giving huge advantage to the US company by giving them all these breaks and all these fees that taxi operators have to have. Um this is a Hamilton company. Both both brokers are Hamilton companies and we see what the Americans are doing to Canadian companies with their tariffs. I mean the steel industry right here in Hamilton has experienced as much as 35% tariffs on their product. But you were agreeing giving them significant cost advantage to the US company versus Hamilton company. So my ask today is to please refer uh report back to staff. Now please refer this report back to staff and have them report on one true on a true level playing field for all personal transportation providers, especially with the insurance, mechanical fitness, city license and cameras. and please give them a firm date to report back because waiting three years is not reasonable. And uh with that, I'll open myself up for questions. >> Thank you, Lloyd. Are there any questions for Mr. Ferguson? Not seeing any. Oh, councelor Wang. >> Yes. Thank you, former counselor Ferguson, for coming in. Uh, I think my question is when when we hear of other municipalities that may have limited the amount of um ride share or any of these like Ubers, uh, what what is what is the example that you would like us to look at as the sort of best case in your opinion on how on your ask? My ask is you need to protect the passenger when you download the app from Uber. It's pages and pages and pages of conditions buried in there. And it took me a while to find it, but staff you're you know I've have met with staff and they found it where they're limiting the amount of liability to $1,000 in a collision. And and you know the the public don't know that because they don't read the whole thing. they just hit accept and then they can go on and get their ride picked up. Most people download the app just when they need a trip and and and I tried to go back and find it again after I had accepted. You can't do that. Uh you're not able to find it. So the the staff uh and the staff have been very supportive. I want to congratulate Jillian and and Stephanie. U but they say they well that's up to Uber to self-regulate. You can't put the fox in the hen house. they're not going to do it. And I'm not aware of anybody uh who's tried to put cameras in an Uber vehicle, you know, get $2 million in liability insurance instead of $1,000. And and so that's my ask is just make it the same for both. We don't mind competition. Just make it a level playing field that so we're all playing by the same rules. >> Thank you. Those are all my questions. Thank you, former counselor Ferguson, for being here. And not seeing any other questions. >> Thank you. Not seeing any other questions. Thank you for your delegation. >> Thank you. Just on the procedure now. Uh you're not going to debate this for probably a few hours from now. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That's just the way things go as we run this meeting. Okay. Because if every other delegate could say the same thing. >> Yeah. Well, because the fear is that you've hear all kinds of delegates. It's not fresh in your mind when you're actually debating the issue. >> Understood. We'll take that up with the clerks at sometime in the future. >> So, you think I should stick around for 4 hours or >> I think you could probably go for lunch or something or breakfast and come back if you if you want to be here or just watch from home. time and and then come online virtually. >> Okay. But I won't have chance to provide rebuttal at that time then. >> Well, there are no rebuttals from delegates. >> Oh, back. >> Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. We're going to move on to the next delegation now. >> So, on to 6.2 two, delegations respecting review of the fortification bylaw. That's item 9.2. So, we'd like to call Vic Pelon. Vic, make your way to our room here. Counselors who are attending virtually, can you please make sure you have your cameras on so that we can uh confirm quorum? Welcome Vic. Once you begin, you'll have five minutes. I'll try to warn you around the four minute mark if you get it onwards to that level. Okay, >> perfect. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good morning. Thank you to the chair and members of the planning committee for hearing my delegation today. My name is Vic Peland. I am a policy professional, a privacy advocate, and a resident of W 2. The review of fortification bylaw 10122 recommends removing surveillance cameras entirely from the definition of excessive protective elements. I want to start by acknowledging that the city's reasoning on enforcement is sound. This provision was not designed to regulate residential cameras and it has been difficult to enforce under the provincial offenses act. My concern is with what the recommendation leaves out since it does not propose a replacement. Residents with concerns about a neighbor's camera facing their property or tracking their movements, would be directed to federal and provincial privacy law or to civil court. These options cost more money and time than most residents can spare, and both are harder to access than the current municipal process. This amendment removes that process without putting another one in place. The scale of the issue supports my concern. The report's own numbers show complaints under this bylaw grew from about 11 in 2012 to about 171 in 2023, most involving cameras and neighbor disputes. Staff treat this trend as proof the current process does not work, but it can just as easily be read as proof of a real and growing problem. This amendment does not solve that problem. It makes it harder for residents to reach. Staff looked at one other option, exempting certain types of camera use instead of removing the provision entirely. They set it aside mainly because it would still be hard to administer. That is a fair concern for staff to raise, but on its own, it does not justify full repeal. Since since this option addressed the same legal and enforcement problems while still giving residents a place to go, I would ask the committee to consider whether this option was judged by its impact on residents or only by its impact on staff workload. I have three further questions for the committee to consider. First, does the jurisdictional scan behind this report show what happened in other municipalities after they removed similar rules or only what their rules and the associated administrative burden look like today? That distinction matters for judging how this change impacted the safety of residents. Second, what does the city know about the disposition of the 171 complaints from 2023, including whether they were resolved and what kind of harm was reported? That data speaks directly to whether this amendment simply solves the underlying problem or displaces it. Third, is there a plan, a timeline, or council direction to bring forward a new private surveillance policy if this one is repealed? I would also note that public notice for this item was given less than 24 hours in advance and that I am the only delegate registered today for this issue. This reflects how little time residents had to respond to a change that affects how they can address surveillance in their own neighborhoods. My request to the committee is to defer this amendment and to ask staff to return with either a new way for residents to address private surveillance disputes or a clear explanation of why none is needed before the option residents currently have is taken away. Thank you for your time and your consideration. >> Thanks Vic. Um I've got a number of questions here for you. So we'll start with councelor Kretch. Thanks for coming in today. I've heard from a number of war two residents about this as you can imagine and my question for you is about disputes between neighbors in general. So this is a the way you're defining this or the way you're framing it is as a you know dispute between neighbors and I'm wondering what your understanding of is of what is your understanding of how the city intervenes with disputes for neighbors period because we have many other kinds of disputes between neighbors. Um most of those things are civil matters. So if someone doesn't like what someone else is doing, especially on their property, just want to get a better understanding from you about where you think this falls into that larger spectrum of issues because the city of course has limitations on what it can do with property. >> Yeah, I think that's a really good question and thank you for asking it. Um, again, I didn't have a lot of time to research this particular issue and determine where it falls in terms of bylaw addressing it. Um, and so I'm not really sure how the city does go about addressing these disputes. My understanding is residents can ask the city to communicate with the offending party and determine whether cameras can be moved or whether that offending party wants to pursue some sort of litigation or appeal. Um, I understand that that might be very timeintensive and it might create administrative burden, but I do think it gives residents a direct um way to a direct process to address this matter through the city rather than navigating like an overly burdened legal system. I think you acknowledged at the beginning that the current system isn't very effective in terms of it being placed inside of a fortification bylaw and wanting there to be some other type of instrument whatever that looks like a bylaw policy something that the city could employ when we get to staff the report on this. I'll of course ask them questions about it but what are you what are you asking for essentially? I mean you recognize this is not the the way to do it. Fortification and cameras have changed. Yes. Yes. >> So what is it that you're asking for in terms of another instrument to use? >> I do feel and I do believe that another bylaw here for surveillance equipment, audio and visual um is necessary. Um consumer surveillance technology uh the cost barrier to that has been significantly lowered and as a result the report states that we've seen a number like a a rise in bylaw complaints. um as a result um and I'm not sure what the details of those complaints were. Um but I do believe like a process, a point of intervention for residents is important. I believe that should be in a bylaw. I believe that the city should then be able to address this directly with the offending party. And I believe that that bylaw should state that consumerowned, privately owned residential cameras should not be facing public areas, should not be recording and uploading um that data to a cloud server. It should be saved locally um on the device itself. Um and I you know I would like in an ideal world to ensure that residents should that data end up somewhere on social media for example that they are able to request that those things be taken down because I I do see incidents um you know anecdotally of you know residents with this technology then uploading that to the internet for other people to see. >> Thanks very much for your delegation. appreciate your answers, >> Councelor Wang. >> Thank you, Vic. Actually, um, Councelor Crutch and his line of, um, reasoning and questioning for you had really helped answer some of my questions because I think that what you said in your outset that again, the fortification aspect of this is likely not and I think that that's where we're we're going with this this sort of conversation. So, I really really appreciate the latter part of your second answer. um talking about it from a privacy, but Vic, if you could talk a little bit more about your background, you're a policy person, you said in your introduction um and just as from your policy sort of brain and mindset. Um, it feels as though the way that this amendment works is just to help with cleaning up the fortification bylaw, but help me clarify that you're looking at asking us to maybe do a new bylaw, uh, which feels a lot more encompassing. So, can you just help me with that clarity? >> Yeah. No, thank you for asking that question. So, I am a policy professional. Um uh my particular research area is actually in data and digital technologies um and emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. Um I've worked in data privacy protections um specifically. Um and so that really informs my desire to be here to speak on this issue. Um sorry, what was the second part of your question? So, help me understand the sec uh what you're really asking, which it sounds like you're okay with the fortification stuff kind of getting cleaned up, which is what what's in front of us today, but you're really looking for a much more wholesome it sounds like a much more wholesome discussion and potential um bylaw creation of a new sort of audiovisisual. Is that what you're going with? Is that what you're you're asking for today? Yes, that is what I'm asking for. I think my concern with amending the current bylaw as it is is there is no other bylaw in place for people to um pursue um like a complaint for a surveillance technology recording them without their consent. Um so if we do amend this bylaw and we get rid of you know residents one avenue to pursue some sort of stat city intervention there is nothing in place right now for them to be able to move forward. >> Oh that's a very good and clarifying point. The idea that it is not just about the amending bylaw but the fact that there is nothing in protection for um residents should we move forward with this at this time. Thank you. that really helped me with um identifying what what are potential next steps here. Thank you so much, Vic. >> Thank you, Councelor Wang. Councelor McMe. >> Thanks, Chair. Um I'm very impressed with your presentation and I share a lot of your concerns. >> Thank you. >> Um I get as a council, I get two kinds of complaints. I get the complaint about people with dark cameras with dark dark capability focused in into somebody's bedroom, particularly kids kids' bedrooms. And and I get a lot of concern expressed by people who are afraid the car is going to get stolen. And I think how you line your cameras up in those situations ought to be looked at very differently. One could be an aid to um identifying and recovering stolen goods and the other could be stealing somebody's future. So I I like I like your idea. I my question to you is in terms of and I particularly appreciate your sharing your professional credentials. Is there a municipality um that you're aware of that you would lift up as having a best practice on these matters? >> That is a great question and and thank you for asking it. Um I didn't know there was going to be so much followup on my delegation. I sincerely appreciate everyone's comments. Um, like I said, I I haven't had very much time to research this issue, so I cannot provide a jurisdiction that I would hold up as a a shining example at this time. Um, but I do believe that this should be researched extensively. I am sure that there are municipalities that have um very robust bylaws in place for this particular issue because they are seeing an increase in complaints from residents because of invasive surveillance technology. So, I would highly recommend that staff research this issue very thoroughly before amending this bylaw. >> Uh thanks for that. I I uh I appreciate your comment. I I I I agree with that as well. >> Thank you. >> Um and I I think when this comes up for discussion, we would want to ask staff to what extent they've actually attempted to do that. So, thank thanks for taking the time to come and share your concerns. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Counselor M. Wilson. >> Thank you. Um I'm up on the screen. Thank you for your participation today. Uh I think you tasked this committee with a few things and I just want to make sure I understand uh one of those uh proposed actions or suggested actions. Um and please correct me. I think your thesis was that the number of complaints uh received on this subject, I think the date stamp was 2023, I'm not sure, um is significant. And in addition to perhaps suggesting that the number is significant and therefore it's telling us the challenge of enforcement. You're suggesting there's another part to that that we should analyze and that is looking specifically at those reports as part of an analysis to see if there's any um any other information that we could glean for the from that in perhaps um in our ongoing analysis. is that like in terms of trying to get clarity on the problem statement, you're suggesting that we do some deep dive into those exact numbers and see if we can tease anything out as part of our analysis other than or in addition to the challenge of enforcement. I just want to make sure I'm clear on the proposal. Thank you. >> Yes, I I think that's also a good question. So, just let me clarify. Um in my original statement um I ask whether the out of the 171 complaints from 2023 how many were resolved. I think that's an important um piece of of uh detail to look into and what kind of harms were being reported um from the complaints themselves. I I would I would definitely recommend looking into those. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarity. Appreciate it. Thank you for your delegation. >> Thank you. And we're going to go to our non-committee member, councelor Clark. >> Thank you, chair, and I appreciate the latitude so that I can ask the delegate a couple of questions. The first question is, is the delegate aware of what crime is being committed if someone is literally having their video cameras pointed in their neighbor's backyard or in the neighbor's bedroom window? what crime is being committed? >> Like how would they go about getting re getting that resolved? I I I'll give you an example. I have had three now residents in my ward who gets in a dispute with their neighbor and the next thing you know they've got several cameras pointed at their home and they're struggling trying to understand well what's the crime? If it's not a bylaw violation then what's the crime? Who do we go to to have charges laid? >> Do you know >> to have charges laid as in criminal charges? >> Yes, >> there are provincial and federal privacy laws um which would be applicable in that case. I think navigating through the court system and seeking a criminal charge is very difficult. Um, but being recorded without one's consent is a privacy violation. >> So, do you know if it is a provincial offense? >> It's a sincere qu question because these folks I've been struggling to try and find a solution for them and the the cameras have pointed right at her home. So from my understanding of provincial and federal legislation, provincial legislation regulates the Ontario public service and the broader public service sector. So I know that there are municipal privacy laws through the provincial legislation, but those are for broader public service organizations. Um so in this case it would be federal privacy from my understanding that would then be a route if one were to pursue criminal charges for a privacy violation. So, one last question. If this amendment to the bylaw is approved, then what would one do if they find their house being surveiled by a neighbor? Well, I think in the unfortunate case that it is amended without another bylaw in place for Hamilton residents, they would have to pursue a criminal court case, which could take a lot of time and, you know, create financial burdens for the person pursuing that. Um, which is why I'd highly recommend that we carefully consider whether we should amend this right now or whether we should defer. >> Thank you. I appreciate your presentation today and very sincerely. >> Thank you. >> Okay, thanks Vic. I don't see anybody else with any questions. So that con that concludes your delegation here and thank you for answering those questions so elegantly. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> Okay, thank you. We're on to 6.3 delegations respecting review of bylaw number 1 19-114 respecting the discharge of firearms and bows. And this is item 10.1. I'd like to call Melinda Ramsey. She's here in person to come to our committee room and sit at the microphone. Good morning, Melinda. So, when you begin, you'll have five minutes and then I'll try and warn you about a minute before if you if you're going beyond that amount. Okay. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh so, Councelor Tatison and the committee, I want to thank you for letting me be a delegate today. And um I wanted to start off by saying I really do appreciate the work that councelor Tatison and Dan Smith and the various other people they've involved in this have put into um getting this motion where it is today. I am somebody who lives rurally that is directly impacted by the way that the bylaw currently stands. Uh, I have an immediate neighbor that um fires guns multiple times a week for hours at a time. He has um guests over, you know, invariably almost every time he's firing. Uh, they are firing long guns as well as handguns. And we know that they're firing handguns from the type of report that we're like the sound that we're getting. Um, and they are firing guns that have rapid fire capacity as well. Um there's we have videos and um other recordings of the sounds and you know members of um like you know councelor Tatison and others have heard are our like documented evidence of the fact that it's not just isolated once you know every few seconds target shooting like the guy is actually um uh shooting off you know hundreds if not thousands of rounds a day multiple times a week. uh his targets directly abut our field where we would have our livestock except for the fact that we have gunfire beside us. Uh we have um had our hay being taken off the field and he's been firing guns directly alongside that. We feel um you know hesitant to go in that field for any purpose because at any time he's going to be firing our neighbors uh their property above his property on the backside at like a um in a perpendicular fashion and they've had stray bullets landing in their backyards. Our neighbors are reluctant to let their children play in the backyard because of gunfire. Um and they most of us now don't enjoy um the use of our backyards because of the sound. We have uh people my farm partners um mother is elderly who now doesn't spend any time outside because of the stress of the gunfire. I have workers in my um shop directly like alongside his property that don't want to work outside because they the sound of it sometimes makes it sound like the ricochet from the targets is actually hitting off my shop. And um my farm partner runs a boarding kennel for dogs uh on her property and uh her the dogs are stressed, won't go outside to use the bathroom. um and her uh customers are, you know, understandably alarmed when they come and there's gunfire. And all of that is to say that uh at this point all of that is actually um legal right now according to not just the federal and provincial laws, but according to our bylaws, which at one time were um I'm sure designed for different use of gunfire. these people that live at this property are have moved here from the city and have a certain understanding about what living rurally means. Um that is not the same as my neighbors that would be like hunters or do target practice or ski shooting. And I also want to point out that I am two concessions away from the Hamilton gun club. So like we do have people in our area that do a lot of work um you know do use guns. Um, so I I feel like mo I speak for the residents likely um to say that it's it's intolerable and unsafe and directly impacting our reasonable use of our own properties. And I guess um I appreciate so much that u this motion is to ask the city to investigate the uh points that are within the motion. But I would ask that the final point which is uh asking directing the city to report back by Q4 2027 uh I guess I'm here to advocate and ask if that could actually be expediated. Uh that a year and a half for us is this has already been going on for three years. The police have done everything they can uh to try to help us. Um, we've tried reasoning with the gentleman, um, who has not only told everybody where to go, but has subsequently put up gates to his property, so you can't drive down his property. Um, and is, as I say, doing everything that is currently, uh, considered legal and he's unwilling to compromise with us. And so, um, I guess I'm just asking if we could possibly consider expediating this motion if that would be possible. Thanks for your delegation, Melinda. Um, councelor McMaken has a question for you. >> Yeah, thanks chair. A couple questions. First of all, thanks for coming. >> Thank you. >> This is not an issue that is reserved just for your neighborhood. We have similar kinds of concerns up in >> in Flamborough. And uh I I think one of the key components of that is >> is what I would call encroachment. There was a time when there was a divide. If you were part of the rural community and the fields went forever and there weren't people kids playing in the fields, >> uh you didn't have to worry about stray bullets. You know, it was seen as being more acceptable particularly for gun owners who like target practice. But now I see an element of fear. Is that part of part of your concern? >> Yes. like my where I am personally I have less we do have fear in the field of ricochet bullets um but I know that the people that are directly behind him have in fact had bullets landing in their property and so don't and I would like to also point out that he's only on 10 acres and he uses um and this is not about him like I'm not I realize that this motion is not about this particular individual but I'm using this as an example of why this motion for me is important because he's using the LA back two acres of his property for his target practice, which even though the bylaw he is technically 100 m away from the nearest residence, but he's certainly not 100 meters from the backyard where these kids would play or, you know, fly kites. I know that one of my neighbors also submitted a letter. Um, so I guess, you know, I am somebody who appreciates um the the the rights that gun owners have to use their guns on their property, but I feel like there's uh, as you say, like as we get a little bit more into areas are developed and different people are now living in the country, right? people that are afraid of guns and they people that move from urban centers and are not they don't have the same I guess cultural um experience with guns that maybe you know people have now from the city >> chair through you this is I think a serious issue it's right up there with chickens in the backyards and all that sort of stuff as well >> um that needs to be ideally expedited. I know the couple of times that as a counselor I've had to intervene um police have visited and more often than not um you know they're often engaged in target practice shooting themselves. So there's not a lot of uh >> um there's not a lot of sense that there's a lot of sensitivity around the issue. Uh the other big issue chair and I just want to ask the um presenter about this um up in our area and I'm wondering if it's the same in yours is the uh is the bang bang bang bang bang um >> um particularly on on weekends when families are trying to get to spend some time together. Is that an issue? Yes, absolutely. On an is so on the weekends. And again, I'm not trying to make it about my neighbor, but I feel like we share the same uh problems. So, I would say two or three uh weekdays, uh the shooting will start around 3:30 and go until exactly half an hour after sunset, which is by the bylaw he's allowed to do. And then on the weekends, generally like all afternoon. And and I guess if for the speaking for myself, if it was like once in a while and just for a couple of hours and he was doing target practice, I would probably be a little bit more understanding. But it's literally like five times a week for three, four, five hours. And it's not just it's not like ski shooting or really um focused in target practicing because he's actually firing semi-auto. So it's it's bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang and because he has multiple people it's incessant and it's like a it I know it doesn't I mean I know it doesn't seem I guess if you haven't experienced it but it does actually elevate your stress level because it's gunfire and it's consistent and it's very it just becomes like such a drain emotionally and like mentally you know and I guess it would be different if he was like I don't know revving an engine or something that you know but >> it's a classic conflict between what would be perceived by different players is as competing goods >> you know the gun owners who want to >> you know good gun owners who want to practice safely and uh >> citizens who have some real concerns about safety and noise >> and I would say in my area because I know that the motion deals specifically with corridors like ours and mo many of the people that are in our corridor are actually legal gun owners and you know do enjoy you know all the activities that come with gun ownership but in this case it's it's just excessive and I feel it's not a lawful use of his property and that he's not taking into consideration children and you know all the activities that other people would like to use their properties for >> thank thanks for your sharing. Thank you chair. >> Thank you so much. >> Well, Mel, thanks. You've uh made your case and I appreciate your delegation and you may either go back and >> and sit outside or >> and should we stay like in case there's further discussion or you know >> actually you know what you can go and join online probably at home by the time it comes around. Okay. >> Because of course I have to be gainfully employed. So thank you so much. I really I appreciate the opportunity so much. Thank you. >> Okay, we're on to 6.4. Delegations respecting notice of complete application for section 99.1 permit for lands located at 34 Mistywood Drive, Stony Creek. This is in W 9 and it's item 7.3. So, at this time, we'd like to call Jesse Vincent from Stony Creek Community Homes. Uh Jessee's here in person and we'd like to call them into the room at this time. Greetings, Jesse. So, once you begin, you'll have five minutes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can you hear me? >> Okay, perfect. Can. Um, Mr. Chair and members of the planning committee, uh, my name is Jesse Vincent and I'm the director of operations at Stony Creek Community Homes. I'm here today to review our tenant relocation plan we developed according to the rental housing protection bylaw. We're in the middle of the rental demolition application process. The next slide, please. Thank you. Um, in the planning timeline, we submitted our rental demolition application in July and it was deemed complete, which triggered our tenant information meeting August 25th. And that I know that's going to be presented later today, that application. Next slide, please. Um, so uh that uh triggered us a request for us to do some more consultation uh for a relocation plan. So, I'd just like to say on this timeline, we started our planning for the relocation plan quite a while ago and got into details in January of 2026. I'd use my pointer, but I don't want to get anyone at the end of the table. Um, we sent out surveys to learn more about what the uh impacted families as part of the demolition. Um, what their needs were and what their preferences were for relocation housing. And then at a statutory public meeting in July, there was a request for further consultation. So, we did on July 13th, we met with ACORN and councelor Brad Clark here who uh worked through this with us and three tenant representatives from the affected tenants. They brought their concerns to us on the 13th and then on August 11th, we met again to address those concerns directly in a nice line by line discussion. In parallel, our tenant relocation coordinator began individual conversations with tenants um about uh what kinds of things they need and what kind of support they need along the way throughout the relocation. On the week of August 17th, we had our final draft of the relocation plan and we sent that to all the affected families. August 25th, we had our tenant information meeting, uh the one that's defined by the bylaw and uh it was well attended. we were able to address all the questions that came forward and honestly we didn't have very many questions. Tenants seemed fairly satisfied with the process. Um at each step of the way we were careful to keep the tenants who are not represented by ACORN informed as well. So we made sure that every single tenant got all the same information. Next slide please. So I want to share a few points that are relevant from our relocation plan. Um, our plan meets or exceeds all the mandated sections in the rental housing protection bylaw. For example, our communication strategy includes this piece of ongoing conversations one-on-one with each affected family. These conversations actually highlighted to us that a number of families have neurode divergent children of all ages. And so, one step we are taking is to modify their town houses so that they're safer for those families to live in and better manage their children's needs. And those are specific modifications to that family. Next slide, please. So, the tenant survey that we sent out in January brought us a lot of information and we really learned three key things about the affected families that um live there. We learned that most families want a townhouse. They are not interested in living in an apartment building. They like their yards. They like their garage. They like the space. Um, most families would also prefer to live at 34 Mistywood Drive rather than move outside the complex because there will be 50ome units remaining and some families are interested in moving elsewhere because of they have families somewhere else or they might work somewhere else. So, Stony Creek Community Homes will rehouse as many as possible at Mistywood Village. And we're going to guarantee that two priority groups will all be offered a townhouse in the complex before construction starts. So those priority groups are on the next slide. So we've broken it down into four groups depending on what their needs are, if they have social or medical support in the neighborhood, elementary school children, and then high school children and adult families. So, we are committed to relocating all families in groups one and two within Mistywood Village if it's their preferred location. Um, we have enough units of vacant now to house all of group one. Any extra vacant units that open before the new building is complete will be offered to tenants from groups three and four. We'll help them move back into vacant town houses as they arrive. and the children and again we will be modifying town houses for families with neurode divergent children. So next slide please. We intend for this to not be a financial burden to the families at Mistywood Village. We know that uh you know money is tight and they're trying to raise young children. Um so this is the compensation package that we are our compensation and assistance that we are offering to make the relocation go smoother. Um I don't want to read it all to you, but some key points are that we will pay for the movers, we'll pay for the um moving materials, boxes, and such. Renewal of utilities, connections, uh mail forwarding, um and two days of uh wages for loss time for doing the uh for packing up and getting ready for the move. Um and yeah, I think that covers most of it. Insurance for their furniture and things like that during the move. So the next slide, please. Uh, all families from Mwood Village will have a right to return if they are in good standing with both Stony Creek Community Homes and their new relocation landlord. They can, uh, all families are welcome to move into the new building. Uh, if they are interested in a townhouse, we will continue to offer vacant town houses as they come up for 24 months after uh, relocation has begun. Of course, that would be with uh regard to the teny type and the unit size. It has to be a good fit that way. So, the next slide, please. Um, this isn't the first time we've relocated tenants. We have some experience with this. In April of 2021, we had a significant fire that destroyed 30 units. And within days we had all of those tenants rehoused um both within our portfolio and also with our fellow um housing social housing providers. It took about two years to reconstruct COVID delays for uh supply chains. But we got everyone who wanted to come back into their original units at their original rent and some tenants did stay where they had been relocated to because they found they were quite happy there too. So we feel like we can manage this process pretty well. And that is the end. And thank you to the chair and the planning committee for giving me this opportunity to speak. >> No worries. I'm just going to look around for members of the committee who would wish to ask questions and then we're going to go to councelor Clark. >> Thank you, chair, and thank you for the opportunity. Um, I'd just like to ask Jesse how she felt at a from a personal level, how the process worked from the beginning to where we are now. >> From a personal level, >> that's a good question. Um, I think it's always very rewarding to meet the tenants face to face and have these discussions. In my role as director, I tend to oversee higher level things, health and safety, you know, building compliance and so forth. And for me, it was a nice opportunity to meet the tenants where they are and see what their needs are. And and we did learn a few things along the way, like the piece for families with neurode divergent children. >> Um I'm I'm really satisfied that we're going to be able to help them. They get a lot of damage in their units because they're not robust enough for some of the issues that the children are experiencing. and we're pretty excited to be, you know, upgrading some fixtures, upgrading some surfaces and stuff in the units so that the parents don't have to worry so much about damage and the children can be safer. So that, you know, that's a little gem there that I think I feel good about that'll be helping some people have a better experience. Um, just a quick comment if I may, chair, instead of asking questions, I do want to thank Jesse and the Stony Creek Community uh, homes as as well as the residents who participated in Acorn. I felt the process went very well. Um, initially there was some stress and some anxiety in our first meeting and then as we went through the process and heard from the tenants and address the issues that they were concerned about. Um, we came to a resolution. Um, and I don't think that would have been possible had you not been at the table. So, I want to thank you personally for being there and for helping us through that process. I'm proud of what was accomplished. Um it could not have been accomplished with just one person but the entire group they did an amazing job chair and and this is how a relocation process should look for all housing providers. Thank you. >> Thank you and we appreciate your assistance too council. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you Jesse. That concludes your delegation. There are no more questions so you may move to the ante room and we'll call our next delegates. So thank you. Thanks. >> So, at this time, we're at 6.5 delegations respecting applications for an urban Hamilton official plan amendment and a zoning bylaw amendment for lands located at 34 Mistywood Drive, Stony Creek in W 9. And this is pertaining to item 9.1. So, our first delegate is from Able Living Services and it's Lucy Shien. So, Lucy, make your way into the room and you may sit down at the mic and begin your delegation. welcome Luciso at I see you've got someone beside you. So um that's not Crystal, is it? >> No. >> Okay, thank you. Um okay, so what'll happen is So it's Andrea I'm seeing. Oh, thanks. Okay. So, you'll have 5 minutes once you begin. I'll try to warn you. It's at now 10:35. So, around 10:40, I'll be Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. And uh thank you so much for having us here. Um my name uh Mr. Chair, members of uh the planning committee, uh members, um uh my name is Lucy Sheen. I am the chief operating officer for Thrive Group, which oversees the member organizations, which includes Able Living Services, one of our uh healthcare organizations in the community. Um I'm here delegating support for uh Stony Creek Community Homes um and this purpose-built uh housing at 34 uh Mistwood Drive. Um so just a little bit about next slide, please. Just a little bit about able living services. We do provide uh support services to individuals uh that are disabled as well as uh frail seniors and older adults. Uh we have had a longstanding relationship with uh Stony Creek uh community homes. Um 25 years plus is how long our uh services have been on the property. Uh we support uh 12 individuals um in that complex and um we've been uh certainly really impressed with Stony Creek um as far as their uh ability to respond to some of our concerns around this move uh this potential uh new build. um they've included us from the onset and we've looked at the different pieces uh around accessibility particularly for our for our individuals that we're serving. Um currently uh next slide please. Currently our um uh homes that our residents uh live in they they engage in the lease with Stony Creek themselves. Um uh there are some limitations there. Um certainly um they are managing well enough. However um as people are aging in place, we're finding that uh you know the different pieces of equipment, the turning radiuses in the homes, those kinds of things uh the the widening of doors and um uh any accessibility pieces are are lacking. And so we're managing as I say, but um this uh support that we've been receive uh receiving from uh Stony Creek and and our ability to provide feedback um has been uh certainly um you know a really exciting initiative for for our organization but also for our residents that live there. Um so being able to use ceiling lifts, having widened doorways again um you know those pieces. Currently, one of our um town homes have a has an elevator. Um the fact that that um maintenance and the high costs of m maintaining that as well as the disruption when the the um elevator goes down uh which happens from time to time has a real impact on our on our uh um clients. Um social isolation is also something that we have to be really concerned about for for our residents. Although they live uh communally. There's uh two or three in each of the units. Um there's no community space, no opportunity for our clients to come together uh and participate in activities and different things like that. So we try to make it work, but it it is really challenging and these are folks that don't really have much beyond the services that are coming into the home. So um this purpose-built um uh uh building will really uh have an impact. There is uh a community room that uh we have worked through that that is an opportunity for our folks as well. um being on one floor and having the opportunity for for individuals to engage with one another as well as the the value ad is is around funding and the cost as we're a publicly funded organization and have uh specific hours that are attached to our organization um for uh a budget for that that location that absolutely makes a difference as far as you know critical mass in one area to be able to support people appropriately. So, um, in spite of the disruption that's going to, uh, cause that this building will cause as far as demolition. Oh, sorry. >> We have one. >> Okay. In spite of that disruption, um, uh, Stony Creek Housing has really been, um, super supportive, uh, been, you know, transparent from the beginning around, um, accepting some of those costs that are that are, uh, incurred and also looking at what is important to the people of that that home. What's also exciting is that as an organization we have um are part of a number of different um uh committees and things uh to to address sorry the next slide that to address um system pressures and uh have a number of different programs that with this type of building will allow for us to actually bring some of those uh community hubs, navigation, all of those things into um the area which is um uh a benefit not only to our clients but the but the uh complex in in total. >> Are we're going to end it there? Is that okay? >> Thank you. >> And I'm hoping that councelor clerk can do you have any questions? Councelor Clark, take it away. >> Um thank you chair. And similarly, we'll have to shut off the other mics. We're going to get feedback here. Thank you. Um, similarly what to to when Jesse spoke, I do want to thank Able Living. Um, they are an amazing organization that has been doing amazing work. They have participated in this prom wholesomely. Um, and and with vigor explaining what the needs are and what Stony Creek Community Housing could do to make things better for folks who are using able living. So I do want to thank you for not only the last 25 years of work that you've done um but on the go forward basis. It's been very helpful. So thank you very much for appearing today and thank you for the work. >> Thank you councelor Clark. And I'm not seeing any other questions. So thank you. And you may have a seat outside and wait or you may carry on with your day. At this time, I'd like to call upon Crystal Locky to please come to the podium to begin your delegation. Okay, I'm not seeing Crystal come. One last call for Crystal. She's not on the call. >> Crystal, if you're online, can you turn your camera on? >> No. >> Okay. At this time, there are no more speakers. I want to thank all the de delegates for um being here today. May I have a mover and secondary to receive the delegation 6.1 to 6.5? Councelor Wang, Councelor Gikin. Please indicate by a show of hands. That passes unanimously. Thank you. And now we're on to items for information. Item seven, what we're going to do is we'll address all items for information, then receive them all together at the end. So first item for information is 7.1 PEED260006 options to consolidate consent and zoning bylaw amendment applications citywide. Are there any questions for the staff on this report? Not seeing any. We're now going to go to 7.2 2 PED26135 short-term rental enforcement fund the stressf fund and that's citywide. Are there any questions for staff on this report? >> Councelor Crutch I'm sorry to do this but I want to go back to the previous item if I could. 7.1 to ask a question. >> Okay. Thanks. We're going to 7.1 options to consolidate consent and zoning bylaw amendment applications. >> Thank you. Sorry, I wasn't quick enough in my brain to conjure the right question. My question is related specifically to an a motion I put forward I believe three years ago now, maybe two years ago now. And that motion was specifically related to committee of adjustment applications. At the time what we were seeing happening was development applications were coming forward and then suddenly we'd see a committee of adjustment application come forward maybe a year later sometimes months later that was related directly to the application the planning committee had considered. So my motion directed staff and it passed to when there was a situation where a committee of adjustment motion uh sorry committee of adjustment application and an application of planning committee were going to be happening that the the planning committee actually saw the committee of adjustment application because it was already related to an application they undertook. I'm trying to understand if that's related to any of the work that's happening in this report. I don't see it there but I'm just trying to understand that because I don't I think it's just too technical for me to understand the distinction between these things and I'm trying to get an answer on that. So my question is when there are the motion I put forward was about committee of adjustment applications that are on the same property about an application that the planning committee had already considered and they're not supposed to go to committee of adjustment anymore. These are about consent applications and consolidations of zoning ble applications. Is this is there any overlap in these things? >> Uh through the chair uh Emily co manager of zoning and committee of adjustment. Uh thank you for the question. Yeah, this is a a result of that motion. Um it was some time ago. It predates both myself and Justin in this role. Um but this is the report that speaks to considering those committee of adjustment consent applications um and zoning bylaw amendments together. >> Thank you very much. I just didn't see the same kind of language in here and I got confused about what it meant um versus how it was intended. So my question is about specifically this is an information report. So you're not proposing a recommendation today. I want to understand that distinction because that's what I thought was going to happen. I thought a recommendation was going to come forward and so can you maybe explain to me why there isn't a recommendation here and why this is just for information >> uh through the chair uh Justin Leong secretary treasur committee of adjustment. Um I believe uh and you you would have reviewed the report in the appendix A, it does provide uh different options for the for the planning committee to consider in terms of um either the change to handling of uh reszoning and consent applications on a property or to potentially maintain the status quo. Um so it is an information report but in the appendix it does provide you uh some further information on possible options in terms of how you would want to potentially change the process. Okay. Interesting. You don't have a preference either way then because my understanding is that staff would make a recommendation if there was an alternative. You'd have a recommendation report and there'd be an alternative in that report and we could pull those up. But information makes it trickier. >> Yes. Through the chair as part of this report, our recommendation is to maintain the status quo. Um, in terms of our our analysis, we we don't um um we don't believe there is any efficiency or or improvement by by combining the reasoning and consent applications being heard together. Okay. So, I have another question here to make sure I understand this. I'm trying to take the technical language out of this and make sure again this is exactly on what I asked about because I what you're looking at is a consent application and I'm understanding it that way. I'm looking at this more strictly as any application that comes forward to the plane department. I'll give you an example of one if it makes it clear. In 2018, I believe there was a six-story building built on Charlton Avenue East at the border of W 2 and W 3. That application came here. Niagara Escarment Authority weighed in on that application. It was approved for five stories. That application then went to the committee of adjustment for a minor variance to have a sixtory and the Niger carbon commission of course was opposed to that but you can understand the different governing bodies here between the committee of adjustment and the planning committee right and this kind of workaround process that was used to go around the planning committee and do a minor minor variance which frankly wasn't minor um that's my opinion but that was what I'm trying to avoid here is these situations where applicants are trying to go around the planning committee or around council to go to the committee of adjustment and have things done. So that was the impetus or the idea behind it. This is not about efficiency. Uh this is about ensuring that when this council makes a decision about a property that that's the decision that's made and if the applicant wants to come back, they can come back here and have that conversation again, not uh trivialize that or attempt to trivialize that decision over at the committee of adjustment. Obviously, there are many things we never see here, which is fine. Um we don't need to see them here. But if we've already been talking about an application here, that was the whole point of this. So I'm trying to understand if that's exactly what this is because you're using language that I didn't use my put the motion forward. So it's very specific to talking about consent applications and zoning. And that wasn't really entirely what I meant. I meant that. >> Yes. Thank you. Uh through the chair. Yes. Um with the committee of adjustment, we u since I began here with Emily, we do have continuous training with the committee members. And part of the training that we have provided to them is of course reminding them that when they get the staff reports or the staff comments for or CFA application, we do reference if there's been other applications approved on the site. Um and then of course they're recommended to do a site visit as well and review all other materials. So they um they've been advised to be aware if an application has gone to council um and and to take that into consideration as part of their decision. Um the training is we we continually train the committee and of course that's something um I'll make a note of again and we can we can just reiterate it to the committee as well um just to make sure they're cognizant of that. >> Yes. So sorry I understand that and ultimately you can train them as much as you wish with all due respect and they can do what they want. My question isn't about that. My question is about making sure that this actually captures what I was trying to achieve because the way you're wording this is not the way that I understand it. You're saying council would decide all option B all such consent applications. >> Does that really cover what I'm specifically talking about? >> Uh through the chair. So this report was actually written some time ago and by a previous staff member. Um Justin kind of picked it up. So um again it unfortunately it predates both Justin and I in this role. We did not have that background. So I I I'm apologize. We're just not aware of where this came from and we weren't able to find much. Um but I just I do want to add on that um we can't uh force someone to come back to planning committee uh for you know zoning permissions. Um it is within their uh purview and their it's their prerogative to apply for a minor variance. Although it may not be the appropriate application that it should come back to planning committee. There's nothing that we can do to stop someone from applying for a minor variance instead of a resoning application. Um so you know staff will appropriately comment on that development planning staff to say this is more appropriate for a zoning bylaw application and again then that comes into where Justin has said about the training that we are training the committee of adjustment members to you know analyze staff's comments and hopefully go with a recommendation that uh they should be kicked to planning committee for a reasonzoning instead of through a minor variance. >> Okay. So rather than debating this here I'll just take it offline with you and I'll bring a motion forward on September 29th instead of doing that here. Thank you very much for your answers. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Clark, >> so are we changing the definition of minor variance? >> Um through the chair, no, I don't believe so. Um and as some of the themuh committee members may be aware, the term minor is not actually defined in the planning act. Um so it is up to the committee looking at each application within its specific context to determine if it is minor in nature. So the committee of adjustment decides whether or not it's a minor variation to what council has decided. So if council's made a decision as per councelor Cretch's comments, how is it possible that the committee of adjustment can reverse the decision and for example add an additional story to an apartment building when council and the Nagas carpent commission stated something else? So how does that work? it. My fear is that I've been watching the committee of adjustment over time morph into something greater than the original intention and developers and um lobbyists are getting very wise as to push items into the committee of adjustment that in the real world wouldn't necessarily be an item that should be considered by the committee of adjustment. So, how do we prevent that from happening? >> Yeah, through the chair. It's a it's a good question. In my previous municipality I worked in, this issue came up with me and some other CFA secretaries. For example, if you have an apartment building 10 stories, the applicant comes in for a minor variance for five additional stories. >> Exactly. >> Is that a minor variance? The secretaries and I approached the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to ask for clarification about that. Does the planning act need to be amended to address that? The ministry declined to make any changes in that regard. Now, they have put in that additional um provision in the planning act for what's called a local criteria bylaw, what we call a fifth test. If a municipality wants to, it can implement its own fifth test um to further define what a minor variance is. Um as of now there has been no municipality that has uh undertaken that but barring that it is up to the committee uh the committee members to satisfy themselves that it meets the four test for minor variance and whether to approve it or not and of course any decision they make is subject to possible appeal to the Ontario land tribunal. So if I heard you correctly, the planning committee can add a fifth test to the criteria. There were changes to um based on discussions with municipalities and other stakeholders. The province did put that in place within the planning act. It is up to each municipality whether they want to do it or not. Um, but as I stated earlier, I believe Oakville did a study about it, but I don't believe they pursued it. But that's the only one I'm aware of. Yeah, >> thank you for that additional information. >> Councelor Pauls, you were going to ask a question. >> I did. How did you >> You looked at me and went like this. >> Thank you. You know what I wanted to ask because this is very interesting. I have one in my area where it was a three building and then uh I I didn't know it changed to four and people were really upset and I said when did it change to four? It was three for the longest time and uh I'm just wanting to ask when the committee of adjusting uh approves an extra floor and that's what they did to mine. Uh does the public get notified? Do they have a meeting? Do they have another meeting whether they want it or not? Where's the process in that >> through the chair? If uh if an applicant pursues an additional minor variance application, the public notification requirements in the planning act would have to be adhered in terms of sending a notice to everyone within 60 m sign being posted on the property. And we also post material on our website and uh notifying them of the upcoming committee of adjustment meeting. and uh they can either submit written comments or they can come in person to make uh oral comments to the committee. Um so that public uh process exists separately for the minor variance. >> So so let me understand um 60 m from wherever it's only 60 m. Usually we have 140 to 200 meters but anyways that's beside the point. So the point is once you send out they could come to the committee of adjustment. >> The problem is it was a planning decision done two three years prior and believe it or not I don't get involved too much with the committee of adjustment because of maybe conflict of interest. We were told we shouldn't really come to those meetings. So, I didn't even know about this and now I'm going door todoor in that area and they're all mad at me and I'm wondering when did this happen? I actually emailed staff and said when was that done? And they said, "Oh, it was a minor uh adjustment, just minor, an extra floor." Well, to those people, it's not minor. So, I want to clarify what is our duty as a counselor. uh we can't go to the committee of adjusting and show favoritism or whatever, but I want to know what our duty is as a counselor knowing precisely when this happens so that I can uh inform the residents myself and maybe have another meeting uh through the chair. I believe currently for any Ca application when we send out the notice uh to the public at the same time we do send it to the counselor's office as well or to the counselor staff. Now of course I know you have a significant workload so you may not be sometimes you may not have reviewed all of them but that's part of why a process that we do want to notify you as well and let you know about it because at the end of the day the committee is appointed by you so their authority comes from council. So the way we see it is you have an obl you you have a right to know what's going to the committee. So if you do receive that notice and you're aware of it I mean I would leave that to you in your office in terms of if you wanted to speak to the public about it. Um but the public who received notice or they see the sign they're always welcome to contact us and we can let them know how they can participate. I I I appreciate that and I probably I did come in my uh office but I I just want to say that because we were told not to get involved with the committee of adjusting I usually see them and said okay this is what you guys are deciding so I don't get involved too much but now as I'm seeing this I have to get really involved because a minor variance I just heard you say could be an extra five building or five stories. This is uh this is unacceptable. I I I'm going to have to check every committee of adjustment now to make sure this doesn't happen where I was told do not get involved with the committee of adjustment. >> Counselor, >> I'd just like to let you know that you can inform your constituents. >> Okay? So that's your that's your limit of involvement. You're not to influence. Okay. So thank you for >> Thank you. Thank you for Thank you for your question. >> Thank you. Um we're going to go to councelor McMaken for questions. >> Yeah, thanks. Um just uh to clarify before before asking a question and as a former minister of municipal affairs and housing, what let me say something that I think is helpful. The my understanding of it is the reason the integrity commissioner says uh we're not to be involved in the committee of adjustment is because council um is the the body to which the only body to which other than the OOLT which is a more recent creation um can can uh can actually petition to have again to to go back um and to to set aside the uh u the Committee of adjustment a committee of adjustment recommendations. I I can't think of a case where that's happened. I'm sure it has happened historically, but that's the rationale. And I guess I I want to just ask ask the uh the presenter of the question, my esteemed colleague council focused appropriately. regarding five addition additional forces is that a minor adjustment and he noted that the the ministry refused to comment which I I think highlights and I wonder if you agree that it's even more important for municipalities to weigh in on this uh uh the need to identify what's minor and what isn't minor. Would you agree with that >> through the chair? I mean, we we've had, you know, the CFA secretaries have had discussions with the ministry and other stakeholders and that's why they propose that local criteria bylaw or what we call a fifth test. Um the basically their thinking is if a a municipality feels they want to further define or control what a minor variance is, they can do that on their own accord. Um but the the province did not want to go in further to actually define it for the municipalities. Um, so that's something, you know, if if that's something that's really ultimately council's decision if he wanted to pursue that. Um, you know, um, I'm only aware of Oakville has done a study on it, but I'm not sure what happened there. I don't know. I it appears they they chose not to pursue it. Um, there's always pros and cons with these type of things, too. Um, you know, the four tests are established under the planning act. um if a municipality was to establish a fifth test um there's a potentiality that it could be challenged to the OOLT or to the courts on on the basis of its validity. So that's something um possibly legal would have to maybe have to u you know may have comment on. Um yeah. So just for the for the point of further clarity through you chair um I think it it would be appropriate to uh indicate that um if the assumption is we're councilors not to be engaged because they ultimately have the capacity to revisit uh then to councelor Paul Paul's if she or any one of us as someone around the horseshoe had a concern that could be reflected back to council. for a second look or and perhaps ultimately to the the new body that adjudicates some of these things. So I I just want to share that for uh for the record less somebody who has some power thinks they're powerless. >> Your mic is gone. >> Thanks. >> Thanks Councelor McMen. Um, at this time I'm not seeing any other questions and I'm going to leave it there. It is just an information report that can be further followed up and I think councelor Cretch has indicated that there will be a notice of motion coming forward at some point um and that that will come forth before the end of September. Okay. So, we're going to move to 7.2 peed 26135 short-term rental enforcement fund. That's the STREF citywide. Are there any questions for staff on this report? Thank you to our staff for that last one. Not seeing any. No discussions. We'll go to 7.3. Peed 26166. Notice of complete application for a section 99.1 permit for lands located at 34 Mistywood Drive, Stony Creek, W 9. Are there any questions for staff on this? Not seeing anything. May I please have a mover and second to receive the items for information 7.1 and 7.3. Councelor Paul's and Councelor Wang. Please indicate your vote by show of hands now. Thank you. That passes. We are now going to item 8 public hearings. The public has been advised how to pre-register to be a delegate at the public meetings on today's agenda. If a specified person or public body would otherwise have an ability to appeal the decision of a council city of Hamilton to the Ontario Land Tribunal, but the specified person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or makes written submissions to the city of Hamilton before the bylaw is passed. The specified person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision. If a specified person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the city of Hamilton before the bylaw is passed, the specified person or public body may not be added as party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Lamb Tribunal unless in the opinion of the tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so. So, we're going to 8.1 peed 260002 application for a zoning bylaw amendment for lands located at 360 Beach Road, Hamilton in Ward 4. This is deferred from the last meeting and the public meeting does remain open. Does the committee wish to hear an update from staff? Mark Michel is available. Is that a no? >> There's no need to hear from staff at this time. Do we have questions for staff? You do. Okay. Councelor Wang. >> Thank you. Three of you, Jair. Just wanted to um get a quick update from staff on the amount of back and forth work that has happened between last planning committee and this planning committee. I wonder if you could just give us an update, Mark, on um on the number of meetings you've had on this pile >> uh through you chair. Yes. Uh since the last uh public meeting uh in July, staff had received uh a resubmission response package from the applicants on August the 18th. Uh staff had met um the applicants as well. However, at that time um following that submission, we hadn't had uh time to uh review the materials. Uh those materials have been circulated uh starting on August the 19th to the appropriate staff and agencies. Uh and I am still awaiting a response from that circulation. >> Okay. Thank you. Um in terms of that resubmission, um there was a variety of different uh reports, right? So I wonder if you can give just a a brief I a roundabout uh sense of the types of reports that were included in the resubmission if you could. uh through you chair also I don't believe I've introduced myself Mark Mak senior planner uh development planning uh we received uh an updated planning justification addendum uh from bigeri group uh they provided uh response letter uh from Azour group uh regarding the uh record of site condition process um we received uh response from OMC landscape architecture regarding their landscape uh plan uh uh a response letter from intrins intrinsic um in regards to the land compat uh compatibility uh as well as a response from RWDI about land use compatibility. >> Okay, thank you very much. Um chair, I don't have any questions until we get to the report. Thank you very much. >> Okay, I'm not seeing anyone else. Uh the agent Evans Sudan from the Big Group is available to provide an update. As the agent gave their presentation at last meeting, a motion would be required to enable them to speak. Is there a will from committee to hear them speak at this time? Councelor uh Wang. Yes. Okay. So then that would require a motion. >> Wants a second. >> Pardon? >> Second. >> Okay, that's fair enough. And so um we'll do a hand vote right now for that. Okay, that passes. Thank you. Uh Evan, you may you may speak. >> Uh good morning, chair, members of the committee. Uh thank you for allowing me one more chance to speak on the application. Um as mentioned, my name is Evan Sugdan. I'm a senior associate and professional planner at the Big Eye Group. Um, we're here today to give you a bit of a summary as Mark has, uh, between the July 28th planning committee and what has been done to date. Uh, as well as a bit more information and then myself, um, representatives from the owners of the property and members of the technical team are again here to answer any further questions. Um, so since the July 28th meeting, we have undertaken to prepare very comprehensive responses to all of the comments received on the original application submission from staff and agencies. We've also undertaken to provide responses to members comments received from members of the public, comments received from members of this committee, uh, counselors and members of the public at the last planning committee meeting. And so our response has been uh submitted in in letter format as as opposed to a very detailed technical submission um in an effort to help staff review um in an expeditious format. So everything was in letter format and we have submitted a detailed planning response addressing very targetedly all of the specific comments asked. We've also provided um in addition to what Mr. Nickniaak has has confirmed two different um letters from RWDI. Um one of them focusing on the um land use compatibility and air quality. One on noise and vibration. Um another one that was missed in the conversation was a detailed response to the transportation and traffic related comments. Intrinsic is actually our our team uh toxicologist. intrinsic is providing a um sort of a an additional level of investigation and analysis into the air quality um opportunities and has bolstered RWDI's response. So all of those letters have been filed um it that Mark has mentioned in addition to the paradigm and additional RWDI letters to staff uh at the dates mentioned by Mark. We've met with staff. Uh our client has also done um quite a number of um community outreach including door knockocking, meeting with members of the public, the same members that have provided comments previously to have one-on-one conversations. We've met with members of council um both our team to provide information on the planning merits and also our our team's um uh political liaison have met with with members of the public and I think we've come to a position where we've managed to address very comprehensively all of staff's comments. Um, we have provided an alternative motion to staff and to the committee, which is essentially a refinement to the original zoning bylaw requested, going from a request for a educational establishment to try to make the enforcement of our mitigation strategy uh, very simple. Uh and so our new refined ask is a a zoning bylaw amendment for um a private educational establishment with an air quality monitoring station as the actual permitted use which we think simplifies the request. Um that being said u we have met with with uh the ward counselor and the ward counselor has been meeting with staff and we understand staff has a different alternative motion uh which brings into play a potential for an approval with a holding provision and that the negotiation there would be time between now and October to negotiate and discuss the the conditions that get attached to that hold. So we are open uh and amanable to the holding provision option uh as a as a solid compromise moving forward. So I'll leave it at that. I don't have a presentation deck to share. It's just a bit of an update and if there's any questions for myself uh from our client um but the one final thing I do want to mention last meeting there was a conversation about the population for the school and 75% of that population being taken from outside of Hamilton. We're actually not sure where this population um percentage came from. This is not a correct assumption for the site. It's actually 75% of the reg pre-registration um is in Hamilton. So 75% of the future students who would be enrolled at the school are local. Some of them are immediately in the ward. Um it's it's almost the opposite exactly of what staff had said previously. So, we did really want to clarify that as uh there was concerns about traffic coming from out of the city, but 75% of the student population that would attend this school is is a local. Um, so with that, I'll I'll leave it there. And if there's any uh further questions of myself, of our technical team, uh, or of our client who has representatives here, we're we're available. Thank you. >> Any questions from the committee? I'm not seeing any. So, may I have a mover and secondary to receive the delegation from the agent? Councelor Wang and Councelor Nan, please indicate your vote now by show hands. That passes delegations. >> Okay. Um, right now we're moving to delegations and we're going to call Jane Garno. Please come down to the podium to begin your delegation. We're inside the room. There's not really a podium. >> Order. Hi Jane, welcome. And um right there, this is a new room for you. So you just have to push the little um icon that looks like a person speaking and your mic will come on. >> Okay, Mr. Mr. Chair and members of the planning committee, my name is Jane Garnau. I am a long-term resident of Ward 4. I submitted a petition to be considered at the July 28th meeting outlining the community's four main points of concern. That petition focused on the streets immediately to the east, west, and south of the subject property. Since the meeting on July 28th, a second petition was circulated to the entire neighborhood bordered by Beach Road, Kennallorth Avenue, McNelte Boulevard, and Ottawa Street. This resulted in an additional 151 signatures against having the subject property reszoned. Regardless of the models the experts generate on computers, I would like to talk about the impact additional traffic in the area would mean to residents. Although technically the numbers say that it is safe for two vehicles to pass each other when there is parking on one side of the street, it is the best case scenario when vehicles are parked tight to the curb and drivers are experienced. The reality is scraped tires on curbs and side view mirrors being hit unless car on the side of the parking pulls to the side to allow the other vehicle the right of way. A major concern is access for emergency vehicles. I have a photo showing um the amount of room that an emergency vehicle actually needs on our streets. Um, if there are any other vehicles on the road simply pulling over at a time when minutes matter, the emergency vehicles do not have room to get up and down those streets. Um, in the area immediately surrounding the subject property and extending one street east to Bayfield Street, there are 100 residential buildings plus apartments above a tavern. Of these buildings, 84 have driveways. If we account for 1.5 vehicles per building, it results in approximately 66 needed street parking spaces. There are approximately 55 currently available. On two separate random weekdays, I sat at the corner of Beach Road and Woodley Avenue and counted vehicle traffic. The day I was there, between the hours of 2:30 p.m. and 400 pm, the traffic along Beach Road consisted of 206 cars or pickups, 12 Defascal coil trucks needing access to Beach Road at either end, and 11 commercial trucks, 24 vehicles needed access to Woodley Boulevard and Agent Court Avenue. The day I was there, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m., the traffic consisted of 168 cars or pickups, 25 Defasco trucks needing access to Beach Road at either end, and 14 commercial trucks, 23 vehicles needed access to Woodley Boulevard and Agent Court Avenue. The number of vehicles requiring access will increase during the school year as the school buses pick up and drop off the neighborhood children who need to exit the neighborhood to go to their own schools. In addition, the number of children walking during these hours will increase. In a meeting with Solomon Abus from the MAC, I was assured of the following. This will be a standalone private elementary school, meaning no high school classes, night school, or weekend sessions. There may be some daytime summer classes during the weekdays. At this point, around 75% of the students will come from the Hamilton and Burlington area. About 90% of those students will be bus, which cuts down on the number of individual vehicle traffic originally noted in the traffic report. MAC will also put up signs at their expense along Beach Road to indicate that there's no parking or stopping for their students in that area. MAC has an app that requires parents who are dropping off or picking up their children to register their vehicle license plates. This system enables community members to photograph and report any vehicles that are not complying with parking or traffic regulations directly to the school. After three violations, parents will be subject to a fine. Continued violations may result in more severe penalties up to and including the child no longer being allowed to continue at the school. Any fencing installed around the school will be designed to maintain clear sight lines for the driveways on the east side of Woodley Avenue and the west side of Agent Court Avenue to ensure that the area stays safe for everyone. There was also discussion regarding community access to the school and playground. Salman and I canvased the streets immediately surrounding the subject property as well as Bayfield Street. After presenting the proposed solutions, the majority of residents expressed no further issues regarding the property. However, we would need to accept these conditions in good faith as they would need to be accepted by the MAC board of directors unless there is a way that the city of Hamilton can ensure these conditions are met. If the neighbor can be neighborhood can be assured that the city of Hamilton can enforce MAC solutions to the problems, I will respectfully withdraw my objection to the reasonzoning of the property. >> Thank you. Are there any questions? Councelor Wang, >> first off, I would like to thank Jane for her tireless work. Um, just the idea of counting cars, canvasing the whole neighborhood multiple times. Um, and also sitting down with the MAC team on I think six days in a row uh to actually work through some of these big uh resident concerns and challenges. I genuinely thank you so much for all of that work and also keeping me informed on um that work too. So I have a couple of questions. You did talk about parking, Jane. I wonder if you can speak about um you spoke about parking directly adjacent to the school, but maybe um what are what were your sort of workings findings on parking as it related to the whole neighborhood? >> Okay. through the chair. The neighborhood consists of approximately 335 residential buildings. So those buildings would be from Kennallorth, Ottawa Beach, and McNelte Boulevard. These are composed of single family homes, homes with basement apartments, duplexes, triplexes, and the apartments above the tavern. Uh approximately 75% of these buildings have driveways. Uh there are approximately 170 legal parking spaces available. Uh the number of these parking spaces does fluctuate uh depending on the time of year due to the switch over month to month, the 1st to the 15th, one side of the road, the 15th to the end of the month, the other side, and the parking that is allowed in uh December. Uh, one other comment that I do have as we got further away from the subject property, uh, the residents did not feel quite as impacted and although I did not go up and down the laneways, I know that some of the residences near Kennleorth Avenue, uh, there are laneways, so I suspect that there may be some backyard parking for some of these people. Uh, however, these laneways are not maintained and I'm not sure if it's the responsibility of the city or if it's the responsibility of the residents to maintain those laneways. >> Thanks, Jane. Actually, those are unassumed. So, therefore, nobody takes care of those laneways. But, but that's a whole that was a yesterday conversation that we had. So, um, and you might want to go back and look at the tape of that one. Okay. Thank you for that. Again, like the tedious work of actually counting driveways and everything like that. Sincerely, thank you. Uh my other question was around community access. You specifically said that towards the latter part of your delegation. Could you just expand upon that a little bit? So upon speaking with Salman from the uh MAC um to ensure the school would be a welcoming space for entire community. Uh there would be opportunities for the community to to rent out the gymnasium and meeting rooms. Uh the playground would be open after school hours until a specified time at night. We were thinking maybe 10 or 11 o'clock because there shouldn't be children out past that time anyway. Um, and there's also the possibility of the MAC hosting some seniors programs at the school. Uh and the MAC will also suggest to the principal once he is hired that he holds meetings approximately every four months which will include a delegate from the neighborhood to address any issues or concerns that may arise in that time. >> Thank you. I'm really glad to hear that. So, it sounds as though MAC has been really cooperative and really um collaborative with the residents on trying to find solutions to a lot of these challenges. And you just said that they have also committed to maybe having a regular check-in with residents via the new principal that might be hired. So then that way there would be regular contact, but then also you're doing that through the app as well, right? So they have informed us that >> Oh, got to turn on. Hold on a sec. Jane, it's on now. >> Can Can somebody help me? >> Oh, it's good now. Sorry. Sorry about that. Um through through the ch through the chair. uh they have informed us that there will be a way through their website that we will have access 24/7 in order to submit any issues that we are uh facing that may not be able to wait until the four month meeting. Perfect. Thank you so much. Uh, and genuinely again, thank you for all of the work that you've been doing. Uh, especially how collaborative you've been with not only the MAC team, but also with myself and my office. And I'm just genuinely thankful for all of your advocacy. Thanks. Those are all my questions. Chair >> Council McMe questions. >> Yes. Thanks, Chair. Um, Jane, thanks for coming. I I uh I'm really I'm really um excited to to uh see how balanced your your presentation was. What you first began I thought oh no here we go you know we're going to have some and you know what because this is a a tricky one. we're trying to find a way forward and you uh wrapped up your presentation by saying if certain conditions could be met, you'd respectfully withdraw your appeal. And uh so I I read into that chair that there's a there's a a growing sense as you engaged with back of some hopefulness around getting this resolved. Would that be a fair a fair summary >> through the chair? All of the uh residents that Salman and I managed to speak to in the immediate vicinity uh did state that they had no further concerns as long as the parking and we feel that with it being just an elementary school and most of the students being busted in will resolve most of the traffic issues. The MAC has also informed us that during school pickup and drop off times, there will be staff members monitoring the pickup and drop off zone. And if they find that residents are having a hard time getting out of the neighborhood, they will hold the buses up to allow the residents to e exit the neighborhood. >> Thanks, Jane, for playing such a facilitative role. I'm u >> really pleased to hear near this. This is the kind of uh citizen representation I think that we need to hear around this table explain what the the situation is present some potential solutions and decide the covenant based on getting the problem solved. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Mikin. You may now turn your mic off Jane. I'm not seeing any more questions. So, thank you again for your delegation. >> Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? I may want to speak at the uh on the item the 520 highway 8 item that's coming up, but I That's not >> Please turn off. Please do not inter interrupt the meeting. This is not your item. We'll call upon you when it's time. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought they were calling. Sorry. >> Different item. So, when the mic when the mic turns on, which you'll see there's a little light right there. Um, you'll identify yourself and then you have five minutes. >> Good morning, chair and members. My name is James Thomas. I'm a land use planner with AJ Clark and Associates retained by Arsel and Talasco. We have provided two letters of delegation to this committee in respect of the application and we hope that uh planning committee has reviewed these letters in detail and we are still of the opinion that the application should be denied on a basis of land use compatibility. If committee were presented with a secondary plan describing an elementary school adjacent to a large-scale industrial facility, we believe it would be outright denied. We recognize that this is a unique situation. When dealing with sites and issues such as this, we must ensure we proceed with the health and safety of the public in mind and to ensure that appropriate measures are made to protect the staff and students of the school. This is why in our letter we have outlined potential paths forward beyond denial. While we believe that it should be denied, our recent letter of delegation has provided alternatives. First, we would suggest for the sake of public interest that the materials submitted that are of such significant issue to be appropriately peer-reviewed as is the standard procedure with other applications. This can be done by referring the application back to staff for their own detailed review of the resubmitted materials provided two weeks ago along with peer review. The last option, our least preferable would be to approve with significant holding provisions and have staff working meeting them on preparing the detailed holding provisions to ensure mitigation is implemented. We have even suggested these holding provisions be added to the currently permitted child care center to ensure the most sensitive land uses that are consistently protected. The work outlined above will help to provide detailed analysis of the application and ensure the health and safety of future users of the proposed land use if committee permits the sensitive land use in the proposed location. We thank you for your time and your thoughtful and careful consideration on the matter. >> Thanks, James. Are there any questions? >> Uh, councelor Wayne will speak. >> James, thank you so much. this is your second time uh delegating to us. I truly appreciate your expertise here. So, I just I have no questions, but thank you so much for your letters and I will put that bug in the ear of all of the planning staff that are seated right behind you that maybe they should look at that letter too just, you know, out loud multiple times. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Wayne. I'm not seeing any more questions, so thanks. Oh, >> okay. There's no more questions. So, thank you for your delegation. >> Thank you very much. >> At this time for item 8.1, are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Thank you for coming in. once you uh be first of all we would like to ask you to identify yourself and then you have 5 minutes to complete your delegation. Thank you. >> Uh thank you. My name is Ellery. I am a W 2 resident. I'm here speaking today about the application for zoning bylaw amendment for lands located at 360 Beach Road, Hamilton. I'm speaking in agreement with the building of the private school proposed by the Muslim Association of Canada. I know many people in Canada have rising concerns of marginalized communities causing a rise in ra being caused by a rise in racism and other issues in these marginalized communities. I feel a private school hosted and offered by marginalized groups would expand education and equal treatment of to marginalized communities. I think this is extremely important going forward in this divisive growing period of our country. It is going to be an amazing step forward towards equality and higher education for our friends, family, and neighbors. Not only would this be beneficial for marginalized communities, but having a private school in the area would also increase the neighbor appeal, the neighborhood appeal to prospective investment in the neighborhood, which would be a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, I only learned about this this morning and I was unable to ready a better response, but thank you for taking the time to listen to me, to the public, and everyone here today. Thank you, counselors. >> Thank you, Ellery. And, uh, councelor Wang's going to address. >> Thank you, Ellery. Uh, thanks for noticing and then coming here. Awesome. Thanks. >> That's it, counselor. Okay. Well, listen. Thanks. That was just that was brief as well. Um appreciate your um perspective. So thank you for sharing it with committee. >> Thank you for having me. >> Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? This is for item 8.1. So, this is item 8.1. Please identify yourself um and then we'll turn the mic on for you and once you start speaking, you'll have five minutes. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, uh, my name is Yanuka and I'm here, um, I'm from Waru and I'm talking with the about 520, um, highway number 8 Stony Creek, proposed highdensity apartment building. >> Um, sorry, I'm I'm sorry. We have you for the wrong You're here. This is for 8.1. It's on um, Beach Road. So, what you can do is go take a seat and we'll call you back when that item comes forward. I I apologize. >> Okay. Sorry about that. >> That's okay. No problem. It's hard. It's hard for us to follow and I have a I have a document in front of me. So, don't worry about that. Okay. So, if you can just go back outside right now. We'll finish off this one and then we'll call you back and it won't be long. Okay. >> Not at this time because you're not >> Oh, yes. Yes, the private school. >> Okay. >> The Muslim private school and the >> Yes, thank you so much. I really appreciate that. I can speak from the heart. >> Okay. >> Um Okay. So, um I would like to ed advocate for the education of um marginalized communities. um as somebody who has I mean I don't look like I've been marginalized but I have certainly experienced a good share of marginalization in my life for a variety of reasons. Um, and as somebody who's been to private school, um, I can ensure that because of, um, those marginalizations, um, I've achieved an actual education. Um, and even though there was some problems, uh, regarding that, um, at least I achieved an education. Um, and I hope that we can do better um, going forward. um even knowing the mistakes of the past. Um I'm not a fan of bigotry. I'm not a fan of hatred. I'm not a fan of racism. And I don't like seeing that happen on a regular basis in our communities and in our society. It's really painful to watch and it paints us all in a terrible, terrible light. Um, I I don't know um much of what else to say, but um but yeah, I I would like to advocate for uh for a really decent private school for marginalized communities, please. >> Thank you, Anakah. Are you finished? >> Um I think so for now, but um >> Well, thank you. >> I really appreciate your time. Thank you everybody >> and thank you for speaking from the heart on this. Um we've heard you we've heard you. Uh councelor Wang, anything to say? Not seeing any other counselors, so you may take a seat outside and then we'll be calling you back in. But thank you. I've called three times. Okay. At this point, um, may I have a mover and seconder that the public submissions be received and considered by committee, councelor Wang, Councelor Nan? Um, we're going to indicate that and it's an electronic vote. >> And this vote is also that the public meeting be closed. >> It's an E vote. So bear with me for one moment and cancel. >> Yes. >> My screen. >> It's coming up. >> The first vote of the day. The vote is up. >> Councelor McM >> 10. >> That carries 10 to zero. Thank you. Um, we're on to the report now. May I have a mover and second to approve the recommendations in the report? Oh, Councelor Wang, would you like to speak at this moment? >> Yes, Chair. I would like to move the alternative. Uh, I have been working with staff on, uh, what this might look like. So, I'll ask Elsie Bates to put up the language so uh, committee can see what we're talking about. >> Okay. So, we're going to, uh, move the alternative that's going to appear on the board. So, uh, we'll put that up so that committee can see that. >> And my seconder is councelor Nan. And the seconder is councelor Nan. Thank you. >> Once it comes up, you can speak to it. >> Thank you. So committee as you can see from the alternative it is really asking for a approval. However there are conditions holding conditions and holding holding provisions attached to this. So I can read it out loud that says that zoning bylaw amendment application DPA2600071 by the big group um on behalf of Horizon's Endowment Foundation for a change in zoning for the community commercial C3 zone to a sightspecific community commercial C3 zone to permit an educational establishment of 28 classrooms within the existing building on lands located at 360 Beach Road Hamilton as shown in appendix A attached Should report peed 260002 be approved based on the submitted concept plan provided in appendix C of report PEED260002. B, that staff be directed to prepare the necessary bylaw to amend the zoning bylaw number '05200 for council on October 7th, 2026 to implement the concept plan contained in appendix C uh attached to report BED 2602 and include the appropriate holding provisions under section 36 of the planning act committee. uh between the last planning committee and this com planning committee as you might have heard uh there has been significant back and forth between not only city staff but with uh Muslim association of Canada as well as my office and you also heard the extensive work that Jane and um the residents have also embarked upon when it came to that connection with MAC. Uh, as you also heard, MAC and the Big Group have submitted a resubmission document. Between last planning and this planning, staff have not had a chance to actually look at all of the resubmission documents, but because there has been so much uh connection back and forth. uh the concession was made to look at it from an approval at this stage but not have the bylaw come into effect until October 7th. This gives city staff and the proponent some time to actually work through the very detailed sausage making of the bylaw. So, uh, there's a lot of stuff in there that is, uh, it's a little beyond my, uh, technical expertise, but I trust that the proponent and the city staff will be able to work out a work out something that works for everyone. So, committee, I hope that you will take this as the opportunity to approve with significant holding provisions. uh again uh knowing full well that the proponent and city staff will be working together very closely on bringing forth a bylaw at our follow our October um council meeting. Thank you councelor Min. We'll go to councelor Nan. >> Thank you and through you chair. Um thank you councelor fang for moving the alternative. Um I think that um this is an example of some really important and good faith engagement on the part of the applicant and proponents both working with the municipality and the local community. I think there has been some demonstration of excellence that I took due diligence notes of in terms of what to expect going forward when an applicant is seeking these kinds of zoning amendments and changes. I think ultimately um you know feel like there are nuances between child care facilities, a vocational school and then educational establishment. And had this location not been reszoned by a previous owner, um it was prior an education establishment. And from that perspective, as well as how much we're getting closer together in terms of being able to um reach agreements that that staff were concerned about, uh I feel very confident about the alternatives that councelor Hang has put forward and happy to support it. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor Nan. Council McMegan. >> Thanks, Chair, and thanks to the previous my two previous council colleagues. I I wanted to comment um as uh I I believe the the only counselor that actually has a working Muslim school in their ward. I may be wrong, but um I believe that to be the case. a highly respected uh group of educators who have experienced some challenges um some of which have been subtly referred to from time to time that um we need to be aware of. And u I was really impressed with the um amount of homework that Mack and the the group has done and uh and I know councelor Wang has been struggling trying to find a an appropriate way to bring uh uh diverse challenges together and u that's really important. the community outreach uh has been uh I think it would be fair to say remarkable. Um and um I I just want to uh to flag that the demand for uh this private school initiative uh is um is very real. Uh the pressures on the existing school are immense. uh and I suspect a good uh um cadri of people of that 75% that are located within the bounds of our beautiful city. um many of them will be coming I suspect the o the o overflow from from my word where there's a an amazing transformation going on in the community and one of my major roles as a as a counselor is to try to find creative entrepreneurial ways to bring um the current community of of uh Water down in particular and and the new arrivals who have so much to contribute together to build strong, healthy, caring communities. I think this particular initiative um will meet a real need. I know there's some challenges. There are other schools in the area that face similar challenges and uh uh I know the staff have struggled. I think the holding provisions uh that were outlined uh um are appropriate and I I I cannot let it go without saying u you know Jane and her colleagues doing the kind of work that they did to uh actually instead of jumping up and down with identifying all the problems actually walking around and trying to to find a way forward. So I I support the alternative. It's it's timely. Uh it's needed badly. Um and uh I have all the confidence in the world that those who are leading the efforts uh uh nobody cares more about their kids and their health and the air they breathe and you know than the parents and uh and they've they've they've done somersaults trying to sort this these things out and I want to applaud that and be supportive as supportive as they can. Thanks chair. >> Councelor Casar. >> Yeah, thanks chair. I just had a question in the alternative about the holding provision. So it's a highle statement. I would just like to get staff to explain what kind of holding provisions are included in there. Uh what kind of details um just to get a sense on what issues are going to be addressed through discussions. Good morning. Uh Spencer Skidmore, acting manager of development planning east team. So through the chair, um so the the motion is broad. You'll see in the actual report in the alternative section, there was a number of holding provisions outlined. Um so should uh committee and and council choose to provide direction to staff and move the alternative um we can compile a list of um holding provisions in the implementing bylaw um that would best address staff's concern and any risks. Um some of them include uh some some noise um transportation uh concerns. um obviously the concern around air quality and the monitoring protocol and how that gets implemented and kind of a a a mechanism for um ongoing uh implementation and enforcement and some kind of framework. Um and then there also is one related to CN um they operate a main a main line within I believe about 80 meters to the south of the subject lands and they requested an environmental easement for um noise and vibration emissions. So that would likely be included as a holding as well. Um but that's just kind of uh a preliminary list. We would have to work with kind of the applicant to to best um implement council's direction this instance. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you for that. So my takeaway is that the extra time that'll be invested in this between now and October 7th will address staff concerns ideally and if they're not then the project would not proceed. But the plan is that the um holding provisions will be in place and that's all of staff concerns are addressed and therefore we can move forward. So just confirming that's that's correct understanding through the chair. Um so coun uh planning staff was still were not supportive of the application. The the report that is before you remains a denial. should planning committee and council choose to move the alternative or work with the applicant to best address staff's comments. But we currently as we've not completed the review, we're not supportive of the application and we do the recommendation for denial does remain. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you councelor Casar. Looking around, not seeing any other questions for staff. So, at this point, we are going to um have a vote to approve the alternative as presented by councelor Wang and seconded by councelor Nan. And that will be an electronic vote. And uh when it appears, we'll let you know. >> And you'll be receiving the report as well. >> And we'll be receiving the report as well. The vote is up. >> Thank you, Council McNe. for councelor Nan. >> Thank you. >> 10 to zero. >> That vote carries 10 to zero. Thank you. Now we're on to 8.2 peed 26140. applications for an urban Hamilton official plan amendment and a zoning bylaw amendment for lands located at 520 Highway 8 Stony Creek in W 10. Does the committee wish to hear the staff presentation? I'm not seeing anything. So, are there any questions on the presentation? >> Oh, sorry. Are there any questions for staff at this time? No. May I have a mover and seconder to wave the staff presentation? Oh. >> Oh, sorry. Question for staff from councelor Francis. Go ahead. >> Can you hear me, chair? >> I can. >> Okay. Uh, is now the time to ask questions on the report because I was just unclear about how you presented that. Apologies. Yeah, it's probably I should be apologizing to you. So, it's okay. We'll uh when the report comes on, then we'll indicate that. >> I've got questions on the report, so I'll wait till then. Thanks, Chair. >> Okay. So, may I have a mover and second to wave the staff presentation? Councelor Kretz, Councelor M. Wilson. Um, show hands. Okay, we've waved the presentation. Uh the agent Robert Walter Joseph from Gladkey Planning Associates is in attendance to delegate. Uh please come to the podium and do your delegation. Looking for Robert Walter Joseph. Welcome, Robert. We'll turn your mic on and when you begin, you'll have five minutes. I'll kind of give you a little hand wave when you're getting close to the five minutes. Okay, thank you. >> Good morning, chair, members of committee. Uh, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning. I will speak uh briefly um appreciating that uh we have had the opportunity to review uh the staff report. My name is Robert Walter Joseph. I'm a principal and uh planner uh registered professional planner at Gladkey Planning Associates. Uh here representing the owner of the property, Oneway Path Group. We have reviewed the staff report and are in support and concur with staff's analysis and findings as well as the recommendations. Uh one thing to note briefly is that we're currently working to address the holding provisions. Uh on those issues, we have completed the uh water main hydraulic analysis and that was filed in August as well as updated the visual impact assessment. We're currently working with staff uh on those items. Regarding the sanitary works condition, uh the city's asbuilt records for the highway 8 and dwit road works uh were not able to be located and so our engineer has adv has advanced a uh an assessment um of the sewer system and that update is expected to be provided shortly. So that will be available this week uh and submitted to staff as well. Uh so we are making progress on uh advancing the the holding conditions. Uh the site is located southwest of the intersection of Highway 8 and Dwit Road. Uh it is currently occupied by an existing commercial plaza. Um it has frontage on uh Highway 8 and Dwit which is a signalized intersection and access to the site is currently gained uh via Dwit Road. Highway 8 is a major arterial and secondary corridor. Um and the corridor has seen significant uh uh evolution over time. Uh also within this area there has been the infill development of progressive uh multi-unit forms over time as well. The area is well served by transit uh with future transit uh enhancements planned. Also um highway 8 is a secondary or is an emerging corridor uh within a surrounding low-rise community, a predominantly low-rise community uh to the north and south as well. Uh what is before you today is a proposal for a 61 unit purpose-built rental uh development. Um we have worked uh with staff from the initial formal consultation in order to advance uh a familyfriendly uh unit sizes. So over 26% uh of the units uh proposed are uh in excess of onebedroom. So two bedrooms, three bedrooms as well as uh townhouse forms uh which are located at grade um uh as well as uh there is um uh ground flooror retail uh provided. Also um what is notable is that there are no uh bachelor units uh proposed. Uh this concept is intended to support an age friendly community and so it is the uh owner's uh object to found in other communities where we've worked is that there is an appetite and desire uh often in predominantly uh low-rise communities for expanded options including rental um to be provided where people are able to move from their homes uh free up some equity in their homes and can continue to live within their existing community uh and the supports provided by that community as well. Uh what is welcome here is that uh this proposal uh joins what I I believe is an emerging uh uh naturally occurring agefriendly community. And so, uh, this building will join the, uh, approved, uh, institutional care facility, uh, that has been provided at 466 Highway 8 and is currently under construction. Um, so that includes a an eight and a ntory building as well as the long-term care facility in that location, which is just located just to the west of uh of this property. The Hamilton official plan is supportive of a 12-story form uh where uh larger um household or unit sizes can be provided and so that is uh something that we have been working to pursue as well. Uh uh consultation was originally conducted there was a session held in in March. Um we've heard consistent concern from community regarding uh massing height and parking in response to that as well as uh correspondence that we received from uh staff. Um the most significant change uh provided in the resubmission of uh June uh of this year was the introduction of an enhanced western setback. So this is uh consistent with the city's R4A zone. Uh so the western setback at grade was increased from 4.5 meters to 7.5 meters with an additional step back uh going to 10 m above uh 14 m in height uh consistent with uh corridor development within the city of Hamilton. uh we have provided I'm just noting uh we we've reviewed some of the uh correspondence also received by by this committee uh and noting that we have provided uh uh what is typically required uh at this stage in terms of support of uh an official plan amendment and and zoning bylaw amendment application. There has been a geotechnical assessment provided uh to the city. Um there has been a transportation assessment for the city as well uh which staff uh have had the opportunity to review. Um uh as well we will continue uh noting that um there are some continued landscape comments uh that will be resolved through uh the site plan control stage uh of this application as well. Um I'll just say briefly uh one thing that that is notable and also challenging in this application is the provision of purpose-built rental. It has required uh since our formal consultation in in 2023 uh a careful approach that has been advanced by the ownership group um uh uh regarding uh what they have uh put forward as a uh environmentally friendly and and uh attractive development uh here. Um so in order to preserve uh the unit mix uh when we uh provided that enhanced western setback uh it did result in a change to the nominal number of or building height. So the number of stories increased from 11 to 12 stories in order to retain uh the unit mix and unit provision of 161 units on this property. Uh if you note in that uh it uh also involved a change in building technology. So we moved from what was proposed as a mass timber building which has fairly uh expanded floor to floor spans uh to a traditional concrete structure. So the overall increase in height to the roof level is a 85 m increase in height. Uh so most of that additional story was accommodated through uh the uh change in in in Florida floor spans. Uh but thank you. I'm available for any questions that this committee has. >> Thank you, Robert. And as noted, you are in support of the staff report. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. Are there any questions? Oh, councelor Francis. >> Thank you, Chair and uh to Robert there. I uh you touched upon it briefly there regarding the sewer capacity holding provision. Uh will your analysis I just want to get a little bit more detailed. you did touch upon it, but um will your analysis inform whether or not there's sufficient capacity or what is it that you're exactly going to be bringing back shortly here? >> That's correct. So, the uh sewer assessment uh one of the holding provisions uh is is is provided regarding um the completion of city works uh within uh the highway 8 corridor. um in order to provide uh staff with the assurance that those works have been completed. Uh we had originally uh sought from uh engineering uh as built plans uh to confirm that those works were completed. Um in our conversation with engineering those plans couldn't be located and so we've had um our engineer uh conduct an on-site assessment. So they went in and just confirmed uh that those works are completed. And so that report is being completed this week. It is noted by staff. It is a holding requirement. And so that is something that we are confirming has been completed. Um so that will be provided uh for staff review uh in order to address that that that holding provision. It it's something that I think is is common with development within uh this area of Stony Creek as well that requirement. >> Understood. And so through your chair, that holding provision will basically give us inform us whether or not that we can remove that holding provision, which would allow them to approve this application. And and and and secondly, this is to approve it on the basis of 161 units and 12 stories versus your original proposal of eight I guess eight stories. And remind me of the unit count there. >> So uh through you chair, the number of units has not changed. It it remains 161 units. Uh the changes have been an increase in bicycle parking, an increase in in parking. Uh but the unit count and population remains the same. The water main hydraulic assessment which was uh completed and found to be favorable which is also a holding provision will confirm that uh capacity uh uh as well. So that uh has been submitted that's currently under review and that's at staff discretion for their review and and and and finding those conditions to be favorable. >> Understood. So my final question then chair is so you started out at eight stories um and now we're at 12 but you've kept the unit count the same. What what is it that you why is it that you wanted to move from eight stories to 12 if you get the same unit count within that envelope chair? >> Sorry through through you chair. I'll speak to the what was submitted was an 11story building. Uh what was originally contemplated at formal consultation was an eightstory. Um that was in 2023. Um in order to uh advance what this is, it's a purpose-built uh rental. Um and there have been drastically changing market conditions. Um so in order to advance that concept, um our our client has advanced this application for 11 stories in 161 units. Um the change from 11 to 12 stories uh accounts for the shift in geometry of the massing of the building. Uh so originally the building uh on its western um property line came closer to there are adjacent low-rise properties and within the city's R4A uh zoning bylaw. Um the standard transition provision within that zone is to have a ground floor setback of 7.5 m. We originally had 4.5. So that enhanced setback and step back above the uh 14 m in height resulted in the loss of a certain number of units which could be recouped by uh reintroducing a 12th story. So there's no change in terms of the population or unit mix or unit or uh uh largely unit sizes are also held the same. Um what has changed is is and height also is quite similar as well. Uh what has changed is just the um nominal number of stories rather than a a significant shift in uh the massing of the building. >> Okay. Thank you. And and so with your and that just sparked another question, chair, um in your consultation with the community, what you've had, have you had an opportunity to hear if they prefer hitting the same units in an eighttory structure or or they prefer the setback with the 12story? What is it? What is it that you're hearing from community on that? >> So there there there's there's a balance of considerations here and through you chair in response to to this question. What we heard from community was uh a strong desire for uh well concern about uh the massing of this building. Um the concern and we entirely understand that concern especially with respect to the western property line. What was originally consuh submitted at 4.5 m um uh was a closer setback. Um we are now advancing something at 7.5 m which is in line with the city's approach to corridors. Uh also in advancing that we are seeking to uh fulfill obligations within the city's official plan uh for um uh diversity and tenure uh for um uh this age friendly strategy which we're advancing and which also contemplates development to 12 stories. So it's both a balance of uh the opportunity provided by the official plan as well as expressed concerns by community regarding uh the massing present here. So we understand those concerns and we've worked with staff to address them within the framework of what continues to be a viable building. Uh there are points at which the viability of uh this development don't work. So you know advancing an eight-story building uh currently in this market uh is not a viable mid-rise. Uh so in order to to to have that viability on this property uh this is the performer that that uh that is required. Sorry, chair. I just I don't understand why if you could fit the same number of units in an eight-story structure, how that changes the performer whatsoever. But that's my I guess >> that's just a slight correction. The same number of units were not provided in the eightstory structure. Uh this the same number of units were provided in the 11 story. >> Gotcha. Okay. I I'll wait to see what the community's got to say. Thank you. >> Thank you, counselor. May I have a mover and seconder to receive the delegation? Councelor Cretch, Councelor Casar, please indicate your hand vote now. That passes. Thank you. Um now we'll hear from the registered delegates. Thank you. Uh we'll hear first from delegates who are in attendance and then we'll listen to pre-recorded v video delegation. So our first registered delegation that we'll be calling forward is Dr. Charles Hostavski from McMaster Redeemer Universities. And Dr. Hostski is in person. If you can make your way into the room through the chair, um Cal Defelco on the call, please stop turning your camera on. We will let you know when it's time for you to speak. Sorry, I did hear you thinking. Um what we'll do is you're going to identify yourself doctor and what was going to happen is um we'll turn on your mic and once your mic begins you'll have five minutes to make your delegation. >> Sure. Well, good morning. I'm uh Professor Charleski. I'm a registered professional planner for going on 45 years. I retired from full-time academia. I worked uh 20 years full-time in planning, three or four years with the municipal planning department, five years with the province and ministry of transportation, municipal affairs and housing and environment. and I worked in consulting for many years full-time uh most notably with WSP. Um I've been uh last 25 years been teaching mostly at the University of Toronto department of geography and planning and um I've been a a resident uh of Stony Creek for 35 years. So, in fact, my three sons graduated from Orchard Park Secondary School with the help of the Oxford Learning Center and the proposed site for this uh rental apartment building. And um some my excuse me, I'm having some problem with my throat. So some of my friends and neighbors are concerned about this development. So they started talking to me about it. I normally don't get involved in local planning issues even though I am a a planner of note and um I'm I'm involved with the city. I've been sitting for many many years on Hamilton's clean air committee and on our egg environment sensitive areas impact evaluation group. Every month we go out and look at development sites and make comments to planning staff about the potential ecological impacts uh to our invariably significant areas. Oh, that's enough about myself. So I anyway I I looked at it. So normally, like I said, I don't get involved in local issues, but my friends goed me into doing this. And when I looked at it, I thought this was a I I told them, okay, I'll go to planning committee, but I'm I'm in favor of the project. I'm not opposed to it. So, first thing I want to do, this is the Hajj Gordon and Shaw textbook. Every planning professor in Canada uses this, including myself. I'll be using it this coming. I'll be teaching part-time at McMaster and at Redeemer for the first time this coming academic year. And um so this is our Bible. Um I'm referenced in here in some of my research. And I just little going to read one little excerpt from here on smart growth. So I didn't I forgot my reading glasses. So smart growth in urban planning principles include using residential raising residential densities, emphasizing public transit, providing for fixed man land uses, mixed land uses, revitalizing old neighborhoods, and allowing for more diverse layouts and street designs. The now I don't read this. I'm preaching to the converted here. So this is more for for the public and for those who oppose this development. This broad menu of policies is often associated with the movement among planners, politicians, environmental groups, and others to control sprawl and develop more compact communities. So, um, that's what I see here. Um, this is an excellent site for intensification. That's right along the Highway 8 four-lane corridor going directly to Eastgate Square, which will be the terminus for our light rail transit project and which will be redeveloped for much higher densities uh once that is or as it's be being complete. So, um I really think that um that this is a good assignment. In fact, for my studio courses, I make each of my planning students pick a different strip mall in the city, design an 8 to 10 story condominium development for that strip mall, and produce a do fieldwork and produce a draft planning justification report. So it's really quite interesting that uh this is a lot like the assignment I give my advanced planning students. >> Doctor, you have one minute. >> Yeah, that's it. That's all I wanted to say. Thanks. >> Well, good for you. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> Um are there any questions? We have Councelor Matt Francis has some questions for you. >> Thank you, chair, and I appreciate the delegate coming today. Uh just a quick question for me. Do you find it a little unusual that this particular site for this development proposal is an outlier? Like just a few hundred meters away, they've been approved for uh I think it's three or four stories and then two that's the east to the west approved for nine. Across the street that's it's seven. So do you find that this is an unusual outlier in this community? No, there's a lot of intensification already occurring along the highway 8 corridor and along Barton and uh and I think it's good this is this is what we want as planners. This is what we're preaching to our students. So it's textbook example of in of smart growth intensification and we already have the infrastructure. This we're we're fighting sprawl and we're in a housing crisis. So, I still got a a son who graduated from Brock and most recently from McMaster in data analytics. And don't get me going about the data center. I really think we need that. But um uh he's still living at home with us because there's no place for him to go u to live. He's a single guy, doesn't have a girlfriend, has two degrees, graduate degree from Mac and a undergrad from Brock. So, I'd really like to get rid of them. >> I've got the other three are gone. >> Any more questions, counselor? >> Yeah. No, just last thing for me here, chair. I I I agree with your assessment. We need more growth. I've been consistent with that. I've approved 12tory buildings on a number of roads in my own ward. Um but uh for me, I do um maybe just take a little bit of a different approach here given the fact that this in this particular um neighborhood is an outlier. But thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions for the delegate? Not seeing any. Doctor, thank you for your delegation. We may turn to the you may return to the foyer. At this time, we'd like to call up Eric Miller. Eric, if you're in the foyer, you can come on in. Hi, Eric. Welcome. I'm the chair up here. Um, you'll see a little light come on right here. And when that light comes on, Eric, that means that you can begin talking. And you'll have 5 minutes. And I'll kind of warn you with about a minute left. Okay. So, right now it's 12 23 or 12 >> 23. >> 23. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity to speak uh Chair Tatison and members of this committee. My name is Eric Miller. I am a resident and homeowner and I support the application at 520 Highway 8. And I feel the members of this committee should also vote to uh support this application. I come to this conclusion after reading through the other written comments and the staff report which recommends approval. I agree with other writers who've expressed their uh views through the written materials before you uh to support reasonable responsible growth of new housing especially purpose-built rental. For this reason, we should support this application because it would add apartments with a mix of one to three bedrooms. For personal experience, it's hard to find three-bedroom rentals for a family in this city and especially in the neighborhoods of Stony Creek. My parents live in a multi-unit building similar to what is being proposed. And so I've seen the importance of having this mix, bringing young and old together, families and singles, retirees and new parents, people downsizing and newcomers, enriching our community. The application would add this housing within our urban boundary on lands identified as urban area using existing municipal infrastructure. And this within, for example, even an existing bus stop out front with a number 55, they can bring people very easily without needing another car on the road. This seems to be exactly the kind of development we need in our city at this time when there's too much of the opposite happening. Kudos to this committee and to council for having pushed back in prior meetings against deficient applications that are attempting to build an agricultural lands and to push on our urban boundary and make it more expensive for all those within our cities. So keep pushing back on those applications and please couple that with supporting good applications like this one. Uh in my concluding uh remarks on this um there's obviously a lot of considerations that go into any application and certainly in this one with lots of details. Um having read through the materials myself, planning staff recommended this be approved and I couldn't find any reason to challenge their recommendations. So I'm not bringing forward any challenges here to committee at this. So these are the reasons that I conclude that this should be supported. And so once again, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. >> Thanks, Eric. Looking around for some questions. Council McMeon, did you have anything? >> I just want to say nice job. >> Okay. Thank you. And so for those of you online, council me said nice job. Okay. Uh Eric, >> thank you, Eric. There's um no questions for you, but thank you for your delegation. You may take a seat or continue with your day. Okay. Thanks. At this time, I'm going to call up Yanoush Gagorchic. Yanoush, if you're out in the foyer. >> Oh, yes, he's online. >> Oh, Yan, turn your camera on and um please correctly identify yourself. I know I probably didn't do it justice. if he's not there. Leslie Far. >> Okay, we're just waiting for Yian. And Yush, if you're online, not online. Okay. So, our next So, what we'll do is if you if you come into if you're here, we'll put you after the next delegation. So, the next delegation that we're going to have is Lesie Farago. Lesie, come on into the room, please, for your delegation. Okay, welcome to our committee meeting today. Um, you'll see a little light on your microphone when it comes on and it's on now. You may begin speaking. Please identify yourself first and then you'll have 5 minutes. It's now 12:27. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, is it on? Yep. All right. Good morning, chair, uh, and members of the planning committee. My name is Lesie Fargo. I'm a lifelong Stony Creek resident and I'm the person behind W10 residence.ca. I became involved after the first community meeting at Orchard Park. After speaking with the developer, I came away with a strong impression that from my perspect from his perspective, this development uh was going to happen one way or another, regardless of the clear concern and opposition being expressed by the residents in the room. I organized my research online so residents could understand the proposal. My family, neighbors, friends, and our kids delivered flyers doortodoor, and many people had no idea this was happening. More than 500 residents signed the petition. After reviewing the peed 26140 report and its appendices, I want to use my time today to raise four specific concerns. First, why this density? So, the secondary plan establishes an MDR3 medium density residential 3 range of 50 to 99 units per hectar on this site. The maximum means that maximum means roughly 32 units. Staff today are recommending 503 units per hectar or 161 units. So staff rely on the provincial complete uh complete community objective pointing to transit park services and nearby schools, but their own figures show 118 one-bedroom units, 32-bedroom units, and 13 three-bedroom units. Almost 3/4 of the building would be one-bedroom apartments. There's nothing wrong with one-bedroom housing, but if nearby schools and accommodating a range of household sizes are being used to justify this extraordinary density increase, it is fair to ask how strongly this unit mix supports that justification. Complete uh complete communities require an appropriate mix of uses, not residential density alone. The existing local commercial designation can provide services needed by both current and future residents. The complete community objective does not explain why that designation should be removed or why 503 units per hectar is necessary. So second too much of the justification is being left until later. Appendix G identifies 16 commenting bodies. I count 10 explicit referrals to future site plan control. Nine involving substantive design technical and environmental matters plus one addressing matter. Some deferral is normal, but council is being asked to grant the heightened density while holding while the holding provision leaves sanitary capacity and upgrades, a water mane analysis, and a revised visual impact assessment unresolved. Site plan control will still refine landscaping, rooftop screening, window placement, access, and parking details, while the zoning expressly permits the mechanical parking stacker system. together. These leave important servicing and site function questions until after the major permissions are granted. Third, these permissions attach to the land. The property was listed for sale. Some of you don't know that this is a recent event. The property is listed currently for sale the same day the recommendation was released. A sale does not invalidate the application, but a future owner could retain the 12story height, 503 unit density, and sight specific zoning while proposing a different site plan. Finally, the report uh sorry, committee is not only uh judging this drawing, it is deciding what permanent development rights attached to this property. So, finally, the report's alternative section presents only one alternative. deny the application and leave the existing C2 and R3 zoning in place. It describes that outcome but does not seriously evaluate it. The existing planning for a merc remains a reasonable alternative. Public health says this area uh this area has limited walkable access to nutritious food and that this site is well positioned for food retail. Six Nations also encourage the applicant to provide more commercial space. Those comments support retaining designated local commercial land. Yet the application would remove that designation for a predominantly residential development with only 453 square meters or square meters of commercial space. In closing, the Niagara Escarment is not simply a line on a map. The revised visual impact assessment should also consider the public views experienced while traveling south toward the escarment on Dit Road, Futland, Milan, Green, and Gray. Not only the views along Highway 8. It is the backdrop when I sit at Orchard Park watching my three boys play flag football with families gathered in escarments and the escarment rising behind them. So some things can be measured in meters, setbacks and shadow studies. But some things are experienced by the people who live here today. More than 500 residents have asked the city to not make these changes. So today I am asking committee to deny this application and retain the existing planning framework which continues to permit appropriate commercial and residential uses on this property. The applicant has not demonstrated why the local commercial designation should be removed or why 503 units per hectar is necessary to achieve complete community objectives. If committee is not prepared to deny the application, then at an absolute minimum, it should refuse the extraordinary sightspecific height and density permissions and defer any further decision until all of the sanitary capacity and required upgrades are confirmed. The water main analysis is complete and the Niagara Escarment Commission is satisfied with the revised visual impact assessment. So, sorry that's a lot of kind of words and prep, but there's much more than this. Uh the website is available with all the information that we've collected since March when this all began. Um but yeah, that's uh thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Lesie. Are there any questions? >> No questions from committee. So Leslie, thank you for your delegation and your work on this. Appreciate it. >> Okay. Thank you. Oh, toth. Yes, >> Marian. Marian Toths is Oh, it's pre-recorded. So, we'll hook that up and then we'll go to the U members who are waiting outside. I am Marian Toth and I live in the Duet and King Street area. There are many concerns regarding this company and its proposals. Firstly, this company and their reputation are unknown to me. They come across online as being as much a nonprofit social agency as they do a developer. To quote from their website, Oneway Path Communities is a real estate company based in the greater GTA dedicated to designing and building healthy communities. Our vision is to build the world's most livable communities. A livable community is a community in which people can lead lives they consider to be worthwhile and enjoyable. Our mission is to build living spaces and provide health services that promote mental and physical health. We strive to promote community mental and physical health through building design and the services offered in our communities. How legitimate are those comp claims above? What due diligence has the city done to investigate these claims from this firm? It is true that Hamilton needs quality rental housing and multi-generational housing. The dwit site would be appropriate for this type of housing. At a maximum of two stories high that is otherwise at a height greater than that it becomes a bully building dwarfing the homes and street parking its needs will consume and blocking critical views. Does a company that espouses to ensure quote living spaces with mental and physical health feel it is okay to take away those qualities from the existing homeowners in order to provide them with new renters they hope to attract as well again clearly stated by multiple voices within the community a greater than twostory structure will impede the view of the escarment which is a gift of nature to all who live in the area and those who travel along King Street from Grimby to Hamilton. The view does provide mental well-being to thousands on a daily basis. No one's entities need is greater than anothers. No new building developer has the right to take away what longstanding home owners have purchased, such as private backyards, so they can profit from their loss. You can't take what one person has purchased and give it to another and call that fair. Fourthly, insufficient parking spaces are included in their plan. Being a suburban area, everyone relies on car transportation. While some may wish to have that slowly disappear over time, the true test of reality is that it is not happening. People continue and will continue to use cars. There will be no place for renters and their guests, their work crews, the property maintenance teams, the essential services that must get to clients within the units have to park elsewhere. It will be on the existing streets that cannot support this increase. While bylaws may exist to deter this behavior, the reality is that it does not. Ask anyone who lives near an infield condo development for a reality check. Lastly, there are two schools in spitting distance of this property. Predominantly, students are driven, bus, or they walk, all creating busy streets and sidewalks. Peak hours for school arrivals and departures coincide with morning and afternoon rush hours, making it a concern at the moment. Given the extra burden of car traffic will create with the new development, the situation becomes something to avoid at all costs. So, let's do just that. Avoid this development project. Okay, I'm assuming that's the end of that uh pre-recorded message from Marian Toth. So, we'll thank her for that virtually. Um, we have members of the public who wish to speak. I'm going to call Cal Defalco. Cal Defelco to come in at this time. >> Thank you very much, uh, Mr. chair and uh um my name is Kell Defalco. I'm a W 10 resident. I'm also the former chair of the Stony Creek Urban Expansion Advisory Committee known as Scooby. And I do understand that this site does not fall within the Scooby boundary, but I just thought I'd mention that for context um in terms of my experience. And um I've uh I've read the petition um and I've met with some folks who have signed the petition and I think what leaps out to me is that the the height that's that's being proposed isn't within range of what people would see as acceptable. I think we just heard a speaker saying that she thought it would be more appropriate to be two stories. And I guess my point is when you're starting at the height that you're starting at and you're hearing from residents that's not even close, kind of sends a strong signal in terms of what the community does not want to see. So I don't think I think we should we shouldn't treat every corridor location is interchangeable. Intensification must still respond to its immediate context. I don't think this proposal does. I I really hope that uh the proponent goes back and rethinks this and comes back with something that uh that fits that the community wants. Um and I I can't support this at this point in time. So anyways, that's what I wanted to say and I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much for the opportunity. >> Thank you very much, Cal. >> Not seeing any questions. Okay, thank you. We're going to go to uh another member of the public that wishes to speak. It's Yanuka Glasnova. And Yanuka, if you're here, you can come back in. Start calling. Welcome back. Okay. When once your mic Okay, your mic's on and then you'll have uh five minutes. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Please forgive me. I have it all written down here. So, I'll be reading from the screen. Okay. Thank you again for having me back. Um, so I'm here talking about 320 um, highway number eight, Stony Creek, the proposed high density apartment building, um, which is a blatant attempt at continued sprawl and the the destruction of our local small communities. These highrises do nothing besides exponentially increase the use of our resources in a community, forcing property taxes to increase while living conditions quickly degrade. Highrises make small neighborhoods and roads become busier and less safe for children. The number of cars would quickly become a problem. There are many num members of the community which are here talking about this bylaw and I hope you listen to them today. Their voices deserve to be heard. Their children deserve to have fun and live a safe and long lasting life. These buildings are not the answer to lower the cost of housing. They only serve to increase the the housing crisis instead of alleviating it. Unfortunately, I only heard about this this morning. Um, and I was unable to write a a better um speech. So, sorry about that. Thank you for listening. >> Thank you. Are there any questions? I appreciate your delegation. Thank you for coming in. >> Thank you. Okay. At this time, I'm understanding that there's a lineup outside. So, um, we'll have are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? We'll have the clerk go out and one of those people will come forward at this time. Six people. I hope they're all This is the only one. Okay. This is the only issue, right? Oh, hello everyone. >> Hi. Welcome. So, what's going to happen is you're going to identify yourself. There's going to be a little light. It's going to come on. Um, once it comes on, then you be you may begin and you'll have five minutes. Please, the first thing you can do is tell us your name. My >> name is Magdalena Soldis. Uh, I have lived at 51 President Drive in Stony Creek, which is where >> no address. Just identify yourself. Sorry. >> Oh, well, you did say identify. Um, is that enough? >> Just your name. >> Just your name. >> Oh, Magdalena Sultas. >> Yeah, we've got that. Thank you. And now you can continue, but don't identify where you live. I'm sorry. >> That's the best part. >> Oh, you like it. >> Uh, councelor McMan, please don't engage with the delegates until >> not engage with me. I'm dangerous. >> Magdalena, we're going to get you refocused now and you can begin your delegation now. Thank you. >> Okay. So, um I am signing uh my um I am um I am a known troublemaker and a mental health disability survivor. I have something called borderline personality disorder which causes me to be emotionally unstable and um I do I am a survivor because I did have a suicide attempt that I survived. Thank you. Thanks to and this is important why because there is uh several very deeprooted research by our um Ontario scientists that relates to um overcrowding of rental housing and uh that's how it ties to what I'm going to uh tell right now and the mental health issue is on the agenda with the mayor right now with their intention to um coers people to become, you know, to into treatment and also with our housing problems, right? We have so many unhoused people and um that this rental development is both a could become a tool to help remedy and um um alleviate this problem or it could become a source of aggravation of this problem. Now um I'm not going to say anything else but I think that you um my council please you do understand my connotation. Is that clear to everyone why I'm making this connotation? >> Not okay. Excellent. I mean we are we're all intelligent people here. So I do I I encourage you to check out that research. >> The rest of it will be uh read out read out to the planning committee. I am writing to you about the new apartment building planned at 520 Highway 8. I have lived in my home at 51 President Drive >> at 51 President Drive. >> Tell me your address. >> I have lived in my home. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Um I as I said bipolar, not bipolar, BPD. Okay. I'm right now I'm like at 99%. I'm all shaky, you know, and uh so you please don't interrupt me. >> You live in you live near the area. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, I live right across the street almost. >> Thank you. >> Um, yeah. Oh, I lost my track. Okay, sorry about that. Um, I don't mind having new apartments in this neighborhood, but the plan right now just doesn't fit how people actually live around here. I know the builder thinks the people moving in won't need cars because the bus stop is right out front and maybe they will ride ebikes. It's a nice thought, but families, older folks, and workers here really do need cars forever their life. You have to drive to get to the cheaper grocery stores like Costco, no frrills, and food basics. foros is closer, but it's too expensive for families to shop at all the time. And uh carrying heavy bags is just too hard. If the building doesn't come with enough parking, those new residents are still going to own cars and will just end up parking them all over our neighborhood streets instead. To stop our street from getting overcrowded, I am asking you to please make them put at least 1.25 parking spots for every apartment. And also counselors, honorable counselors, it would be smart to count the beds, not the apartments itself. Okay? So be smart, count the beds. Uh so there we will be able to figure out what the actual ratio would be. Also if the builder is planning to use those mechanicals parking stackers machines to lift cars in. I really hope you look closely at that. They might save space. Okay. But in the morning rash people could be waiting in long lines just to get their cars out. And in the evening there's going to be a lineup spilling into the street because they are waiting for those machines to bring a empty tray to drive in and so on. >> Uh sorry about that. You know, >> we're pretty much out of our time right now. So if you want to just finish up quickly. >> Yes. Um I will finish up very quickly. Sir, >> thank you. >> Just let me see. I don't have my glasses. Okay. Oh yeah. So those mechanical stackers, they might save space. My god, where is it? But in the morning rush, people could be waiting long lines to just get their cars out. And also, I don't know if you are familiar, I bet many of you are not that a lot of family SUVs and heavy electric cars won't even fit in those machines because of weight and height limits, you know. And if their cars don't fit, they will park in our streets. Plus, those machines need to work perfectly all the time. Or else a bunch of people will be stuck without their cars if it breaks down. Now, where is the representation from the uh from the developer? Are they here? Who are they? Can they un identify themselves? No. No. But I had to say my name. >> No, they were here earlier. They presented earlier. >> Oh, they presented earlier. So not here to listen are going to pass the message. >> They're probably listening online. So >> Okay, great. Wonderful. >> So Magdalina, you're going to have to wrap it up now. I'm sorry. >> I am shaking like this. Please be patient. Okay. Because of my mental health. One more minute. Okay. >> 30 seconds, please. >> 40. Uh >> yeah, I'm trying. I'm sorry. I'm really do. >> It's really emotional for me to be here and speak like that, you know? It's like you have no idea. Um, okay. The last uh two paragraphs, very short. The last thing I want to politely bring up is the elevators. Please make sure you that you're responsible not only for those apartments, but for my mental health and the mental health of people who go there because those people will go crazy and they will go to the streets and contribute to those little tent cities that we have. Think of the future 15 years, 20 years from now. Okay. Not just five years from now. So, elevators, this the last chapter, sir. I hope you can make sure they put Oh, no. That's not uh the last thing I want to politely bring up is the elevators. Oh my god, look at that. And please make sure that this building has enough elevators for everyone living there. If there aren't enough, and I know that the drawing proposes two, people will be waiting a long time and they and they al also they break down more often. Uh that is a really big problem for older people, folks in wheelchairs and parents trying to push baby stroller, which is the vulnerable population which will rent. I mean, think about it. This is the people who will rent. People who can't afford a car, who can't afford to live in a luxurious condo that has many elevators. Why are you nodding your head like that? Do it after. No negativity. >> Magdalena order. Please. Thank you very much for your delegation. >> Please don't do this. Turn you a friend and do this. >> Magdalena, I'm not sure what the conversation was happening, but I'll address it. Thank you. >> Thank you. So unfortunately at this time we are legally bound to break for lunch at 1:00. So we cannot take another delegation because that delegation might run overtime. So at this point what we're going to do is sorry guys. Um we're actually going to we have to break for lunch right now. So we're going to come back at 1:30 and you'll be our first group on. >> Have to take half an hour. >> Half an hour. >> Do you have to? >> Yeah. Half an hour. >> Thank you. Thank you. So that's a break for 1:30. We had um some members of the public that were about to speak and we're going to ask that they come back in now and we're sending the clerk out to collect those individuals. All the mandatories. Hi. >> Moving to the intolerance portion of the meeting. >> Got it. >> What's happening is due to some renovations to our regular chamber count room, we are um having our delegates sitting outside and uh we're just a bit waiting in transition for them to appear and then once they do then they sit down at the mic and then they speak. So gentlemen, what's going to happen is um this is going to come on for one of you. Um first thing you're going to do is identify yourself, but don't tell us where you live other than a general area, okay? Because we can't identify your specifics. >> Fair enough. Fair enough. Okay. Um anyways, then once you start talking, you'll have five minutes. What I'm going to do is around four minutes, I'll start like giving you a little signal like 1 minute to go. Okay. Thanks so much. and you may carry on when the mic turns on. >> Good afternoon. Uh my name is Tony Bethfano. Um I'm going to speak from the heart. I don't have uh any notes or anything like that. Um I was born and raised Central Hamilton and uh I met my wife 37 years ago. She's from Stony Creek. Her father was a builder in Stony Creek. And I thought I hit the jackpot when when I met her. And we moved to Stony Creek. And uh the area was fantastic. It was quiet. Uh the the traffic wasn't there. There was no Tim Hortons on the corner. There was nothing. And we used to sit in our backyard and love it. It was fantastic. So we had a pool put in. And all of a sudden, 10, 15 years later, uh we've got Tim Hortons there and we've got everything building there. Now we have this building that is going to overlook my backyard. And honestly, I think it's an invasion of privacy. It really is cuz I'm going to have this building that's going to look over my backyard. And uh I I think it's sad. Um years ago, we used to bring people over from all over uh the world, like people visiting from Italy and uh Niagara Falls or whatever. We used to drive them up to Ridge Road. Ridge Road, you look over the city, everybody loves it. Fantastic view. What we're going to see now when this building goes up is a 12story building that's going to block Lake Ontario. It's going to block the view of the east of East Hamilton. I think it's sad and I don't think the Niagara Parks Committee or whatever that committee is called knows about this building being planned to be there. And it's it's interesting to find that in the last 3 days there's a for sale sign there now. M >> and why is there a for sale sign? Are they trying to sell it now as a plan approved uh building and I am totally against it. I hope you guys really really help us out because we live in the court that's going to be the back of that building. It's going to block the sunlight. It's going to it's going to look really bad for everybody all around and it doesn't deserve it. It really was a nice area. It was where I believe uh M the Farmer Dit actually lived on that corner. And I don't understand how they can build a building that tall and that wide in that little space. It's not that big of a space. And the back of the building is going to go right into Farooq's backyard. And I I'll let him talk now. Thank you for your time. Thank you. >> Good afternoon. My name is Farooq. Um, as you see, I didn't prepare anything, but I'm here just to raise my concern about this building going up. I did buy this house because the privacy that this house was located on. Now, I got two kids, which I have a pool in the backyard and a jacuzzi, and I'm worried about the privacy of a 12story building going into my backyard, and there will be no privacy whatsoever. everyone from that side of the back of the building will be able to look into my backyard. And I just want to say that I am against it. I know the community is against this building going up and I hope you guys it's it's really seriously >> it's really interesting that we had a a privacy thing with the cameras earlier on. This is exactly the same. People are going to look out their window. We don't have privacy. That's an invasion of privacy. So, never mind the cameras. Let's see what we've got here. Let's take a look at this closely. Um I I'm I trust that you guys will make the proper decision. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Tony. Thanks, Roo. Um any questions? >> Okay, I'm not seeing any questions. Thanks for your delegation and coming down giving your experience. Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, at this time, are there any other members of the public that wish to speak at this meeting? The clerk will come out and we'll guide one of you in. Hi, thanks for coming down today. I'm the chair. Um, you're going to see a light come on and when that light comes on right here on your microphone, then you'll have about five minutes to speak and uh I'll let you know when you get to about four minutes. First thing we want you to tell us is your name. Thank you. >> Okay. My name is Maria Bartellini. I live on Juniper Drive. is off Highway 8 and Wit just across from where you want to put the building there where you want to Well, I'm a post because we already have a traffic jam. There's been too many accidents over there. I witnessed it and I almost was hit by a few cars there because people do not respect the traffic, the stop lightss and people that come from Dwit, they go up. That's the only way to get up there. The traffic is brutal. The scenery once the building goes up, it is bad. We like the way it is. There's no need for that building or any other building there because we it's our we've been there for many years. Okay. I don't see why all of a sudden they want to put that humongous building over there bring so much traffic ignoring the rules. They put a a a one of those pedestrian walking just across from Orchard Park because I live there. They failed to stop. I was hit by it because people they did they ignore it. Now the traffic is getting bad. Winona comes from there. Okay. From Highway 8. All that traffic come over there. the uh the highway going up onto it. It comes from there. Now, where you want to put where you want to give them the license to put that building, it's just on the corner. It's not equipped for it. No privacy. Our values are going to go down. There's only one way out and that's facing the wit. There's only one way for the traffic. You cannot have all the traffic there. Someone is gonna get killed. You want to bring all the traffic back there. It's ridiculous. There's nothing for us. It's only going to bring more traffic. Okay? It's not equipped. Please do not let them put that building there. I do not want to walk down there and get hit by a car because people they ignore it. Now you're going to I hope you're not going to give it the permission to put the building there because that is wrong. You don't live over there. You don't know what it's like. At 12:00 I'm catch I'm waiting for the bus. And guess what? I see people racing down the street going up the mountain. It's not appropriate. Please do not let them put the building or anything there. It's not equipped for what they want. It is not. It's unsafe. It is not for our safety and for everybody else that lives there. It's the quality of life. We already have Orchard Park. We have another school that an elementary little kids go there. people dropping off their kids and now you want to bring that building there to bring more traffic. Can you imagine what it's going to be like? No. Please do not let them build that building there. It's appropriate. All right. >> Okay. >> Please. >> Thank you for your delegation today. I hope and I pray that you do not let them put it there. There's other places they can build it. >> Okay. >> Where it's appropriate. Not on that area. It's not big enough. >> Okay. Thank you for coming down and delegating today. The c the committee has heard your delegation. >> Well, I hope so because uh the other the other uh counselors, they did not address the issue. They did not Well, thank you. Okay. >> All right. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Please. >> And so what I'm going to ask right now is is this is you finished your delegation. Your time is now up and then you can go and sit in the foyer and wait and listen to the other delegates or you're free to go home at this time. So thank you very much for coming down. >> Thank you. And I hope you consider it. Not do not let them put it there. Please. >> Thank you. >> We do not want to have fatalities. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Yeah. Thank you. and it's going to be really bad if it does happen. Please, thank you. >> Okay, >> have a wonderful day. >> Thank you. You as well. We're now going to see if there are any other people. Are there any member of the public that wish to speak? Thank you. So, Okay, welcome. So, um, I'm Chair Tatison, so I'm running this meeting. You'll have five minutes to speak. It looks like you're going to kind of do it in tandem, and that's fine. So, we'll turn both mics on. Um, one of the things is you can identify yourself, but don't tell us exactly your exact address. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Uh, my name is Heather Wendy. I live directly behind this property. I won't tell you my address, but it's right behind there. And this is my husband, John Wendy. Um, we've lived there since 1982. So, we've seen this area develop. We are a community. Um, we have raised our children there. They're now grown and gone. We have a beautiful backyard with a pool. And this now is an invasion because you can't have a camera, but you can have a tall apartment building with windows going right into our backyard. I totally cannot understand why anybody would do that. We fought back years ago when um it was Stony Creek at that point in time and the Dit farmland was sold and we fought to keep it at a low residential like two to three stories high with a little bit of commercial. Oxford Learning went there. Nothing wrong with that building whatsoever. They were great for the community and that's what we need in that area. Community. We don't need tall rental buildings that have 161 apartments and no parking. And on our street, which is smaller, it's crowded at holidays, etc. with people looking for parking spots. So, this developer has not provided enough parking. Also, that intersection is getting very bad. There was an accident there last week and you know what? We can prevent this by not having such a monstrous building built there. Um the building that they have proposed is far too small for the property that we live at and I don't understand why we are reszoning it this for that other than the benefit of the builder from Toronto not from our area where the it should be. And um I think we fought once with uh Stony Creek to get it zoned the way it is. And I don't understand why a builder from Toronto is coming here. And also on the note of the developer, we went to the meeting in Orchard Park. We voiced our concerns. He did not listen or talk or ask questions of us. Instead, he was at that point 11 stories, which was far too high. He wanted it up to now 12. So, he's not taking what anybody says into his heart, his brain, whatever. Do you have anything to say, John? I'm very angry at this. I'm sorry, but I am. >> We do not agree with this. And like my wife says, our backyard goes right onto the property. actually where the uh entrance to the underground parking is proposed is right up against our fence up against our pool. And I know with excavation uh ground like that it's going to create damage and to our pool and fence whatever but we do not approve it. I mean, uh, >> there's lots of >> there's no understanding or rhyme or reasoning why, uh, we opposed 11 stories and now it's coming back with a another proposal of 12 stories. And again, uh, that corner lot there is it's very small. It's, uh, I think it's8 of an acre. And for the size of that building and the number of unit balconies, windows. >> So, >> it's just wrong. >> Please, we don't agree with it and hopefully council sees our concerns. >> Thank you. Well, thank you, John and Wendy, for coming in and taking the time to come down here and share your concerns about the possible build. Okay, thanks for now. Are there any questions? I'm not seeing any questions from council at this time, so you can take seats out in the foyer. Again, I appreciate you coming down. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? >> No. Hey, welcome to our committee. Um, just as you come in or when you sit down, the mic will turn with a little light on there. That's when you can begin. First thing you're going to do is tell us your name. Don't tell us where you live. Exactly. Thanks. >> Perfect. All right. Thank you. Um, so I'm Eugene Fargo. I'm a resident in Ward 10. And, uh, you know, I'm kind of here today listening here. We, we've heard a lot of really good arguments already. And uh people have brought up a lot of the points that I would like to bring up anyway, but I think what I'm most curious and probably hopeful to see is that this process that we've have in place here with the city works that that these that that we've had our chance to get our voices heard, that you've listened to those voices, and you've taken a situation that is um a bylaw adjustment that is extreme. It's it's not just let's take it from commercial to medium density, but commercial to medium density times five. And we've got a very very extreme situation with a large number of residents that are opposed. So to me, this is a situation where this this process that we have where people can speak their voice, you guys are able to listen and really look at a situation that should be reviewed, that should be discussed. And um I I really hope to see that this process works and um and that the voices are heard. That's more or less what I'm here to say. >> Well, thank you, Eugene. Does anyone have any questions for Eugene? >> Hey, thank you. Thanks for coming down today. >> Are there any more members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Clerk is coming out. Hey, welcome. Um, when the mic turns a light on there, that's when you can begin. You'll have 5 minutes and just state your name first. Thank you. >> Uh, hi there. My name is Nathan Black. Um, I came here today actually, um, unprepared. Uh, I do live in the community. My kids go to school in the community. And just hearing my fellow uh community members just talk about what this means has definitely um you know provided that I I felt that I I I really did need to get on this platform um and and echo similar fears. You know, I I I believe they've already expressed concerns um and the fears that going through with this would would definitely uh bring upon the community. Rightly or wrongly, we all put our trust in the elected officials to do what's best for our community. I understand the argument that there is more housing needed in the city of Hamilton. We get that and nobody has has expressed that that there shouldn't be housing but it's obviously the proposed development is not simply more housing. It requires the city to make an extraordinary sightspecific ex exception to an area's existing planning framework. The city has to demonstrate why this particular site warrants that exceptional increase and I feel the current proposal has not done that. I did do research before coming obviously. Um like I said I live in the community. Um I just didn't I didn't know if I wanted to speak and I really felt I owed it to everybody including my kids that that I need to be here to to to voice my concerns as well. I don't it feels that the true motive of this property is owned for 12 stories. It's almost recurring profit and not actually what the best what's best for our community. If we're working if you guys are working for our best interest in the community and we want what's best for our community, why is it so decisive? Like what? Like what? Like why are we not together on this? 12 stories. That's an extraordinary ask. And I and maybe I I walk my kids to school in the mornings. We have to cross to it there. It's very busy as is. And we're going to add all the additional vehicles. I'm not going to call in question the data that we that you've had to review this proposal. I will say I would like to have a better understanding maybe on the sample of it. Were they there at 8 in the morning before school starts? Do they witness people trying to cross? Are they just counting cars? Does Does anybody fully understand what it's like for a full year? We're not talking about a sample of three months, four months, and maybe you will say it's been years. I like I'd like to know a sample as of today. So, I'm going to just conclude this was saying I did the ask for 12 stories. That's that's much larger than what I I believe anybody here could comfortably say would make sense for that for that spot. Thank you for your time. >> Thanks for coming down, Nathan. Much appreciated listening to you today. Um, I think you are our last delegate, so you can make your way out to the foyer and watch from there. Thank you. >> Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Clerk is out in the foyer at this time and we'll bring you in. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Ellery, you're back. Okay, carry on. >> All right, thank you for listening to me again today. I'm here talking again about 520 Highway North or sorry, number eight, Stony Creek. The proposed highdensity apartment building is a blatant attempt at continued city sprawl and destruction of our local small communities. These highrises do nothing besides exponentially increase the number of cars or sorry decrease the increase the use of resources in a community forcing property taxes to increase while living conditions quickly deteriorate. Highrises make small neighborhoods roads become busier and less safe for children. The number of cars would quickly become a problem. There are many members of the community which I have spoken to today and which are talking here today about this bylaw and I hope you listen to them. Their voices deserve to be heard. Their children deserve to have fun and safe spaces. These buildings are not the answer to low to lower the cost of housing in the city. They only serve to increase the housing crisis instead of alleviating it. Unfortunately, I only learned about this again this morning and I was unable to make a better response, but thank you for taking the time to listen to me. As for the amendment, I would like to say that I approved the amendment. It is a good thing to have another school in that area. Um, of course, there are many, but it is a very high density populated area. Thank you again for taking your time to listen. >> Thanks, Eller, for your delegation again today. Um, any questions? Not seeing any questions, uh, you may return to the foyer. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? The clerk will come out. Good afternoon. You can have a seat in the chair there. >> Thank you. >> And um what's going to happen is this little light's going to come on on your microphone and when it does, you'll have five minutes to make a delegation. The first thing you should do is introduce us by or introduce yourself by telling us your name. Thank you. Hi everyone, my name is Gurbir Benwal and I am living in this community from 21 year. I am living in two Selena place very first get impact very hard. Uh sir my concerns are similar to rest of community and you guys are all aware you probably get emails even my next neighbor he's away uh number four Selena place we have similar kind of concerns we we have a backyard we going to lose our privacy we already have lot of concerns sir about parking all that right and pe people already aware you guys and I'm the first and my house on a corner leaving more impact on the rest of neighborhood. I have to clean trash from Tim Horton all that and in future having that big building next to us. I don't know I can stop like in person if somebody having a pet they are throwing trash right I try my best to maintain and they will visually see like impact and since then like we are trying our best we are so frustrated since I hear this thing somebody from far like from Toronto like real estate agents or all that they came they want to like bring that building towards on our head and even we had our like bedroom on the back kitchen living area. I have to shut my window all the time and we do have concern living on that building. Who knows what kind of like when we search for this house we look everybody even you guys are investing your hard-earned money to that kind of neighborhood where you can raise your family your kids they get a better educate right all that but due to this I don't feel safe because who knows somebody live what they will throw and it's right right next like we have at least like gap between our houses like all that neighborhood it will sounds different but even this building in future those residents live in that building it will leave on health impact on them I used to live in a building is that neighborhood like that intersection is so crowded with bike sound heavy trucks cars etera right and I don't know how they cannot live in that in onebedroom apartment most are what onebedroom and they they probably have senior water level people living in that building it it's leaving like I don't know I since we here and they put this proposal whole community is shaken they want you guys hear our voice and respect our concerns because in the end we have to live in that neighborhood right we are paying tax we want we love this community we respect as a good citizen to this whole city even in future we always be there for this city we want everybody will be treated and here properly thank you sir these are the major concerns hopefully whole chamber whole people they will respect our concerns thank you >> thank you Goriel um thanks for coming down today >> thanks >> I'm not seeing anyone with questions so thank Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Are there any more members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? And are there any more members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Not seeing any. May I have a mover and seconder that the public submissions be received and considered by committee. >> Hold on. >> I apologize. Sorry. Have a seat. If you're here to delegate, um what you're you'll see this little light will come on. Once that little light comes on, you may begin speaking. You have five minutes. And at the five minute mark, I'll let you know. Thank you. >> Hi there. Um, I originally showed up today to talk about the um uh the uh surveillance camera uh thing that we are not allowed to talk about. Uh but it's always good whenever we show up to these things that the uh to you know uh to see communities engaged with trying to keep their communities uh you know uh thriving and the things that we um are like the things that I've seen today are pointing that to two main things. one, this develop uh this developer and the project itself doesn't appear to be properly suited or sized for the community itself. Um I am a big proponent of missile uh missing middle housing and trying to alleviate the housing crisis and homelessness because it is quite frankly a truth that young people are increasingly being priced out of uh out of uh futures that no longer exist. Um, and we need to do some serious thinking as a society about how we want to address those those concerns and make sure that we are building a community that works for everyone around here. That being said, uh, the kind of development that we need to see in that area is things that are more in line with the uh, surrounding buildings already. I saw just I saw on the street that there right beside that site there are four and even some sixstory buildings that look like they are suit well suited to the community. They um and buildings that are under eight stories have a significantly lower contribution to suburban sprawl and urban sprawl uh than uh than any other types of housing. So why did has the developer develop developer gone from seven to eight to 12? Um the like a uh high-rise buildings typically cost a lot more expensive styles of materials to build and then they also increase ongoing service costs for the community as well which inc uh which lead to increases of property taxes over the long term as well. Um because at the end of the day, whether it is high-rise buildings or single-unit detached houses, you end up with uh buildings that are severely unsuited to largecale city uh city municipal service de uh uh service provision. the um the result out of touch with reality to say that we can only uh build two or three story houses in that area and housing. the it is equally out of touch to just jam a 12 12story building in there right away and expect there to be no problems long term. Um the um what we need to see going forward from the city is uh spread it more spread out development of middle uh middlesized housing between four and eight stories ac spread out across not just uh not just a handful of communities that are taking the brunt of it but AC spread out across all of our uh all of our uh communities regardless of the uh average income area uh income of the area. Um, I am looking forward to seeing uh us continue to uh negotiate this between the uh people who are working uh there to protect their communities and the people in this room who are hopefully ideally um trying to alleviate the housing crisis without uh also making it difficult for uh communities to continue thriving. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your delegation. Can we just have your name? I didn't catch it at the very start. >> Gemma Lambert. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. >> Say it again. >> Oh, Gemma Lambert. >> There's some You'll need to sign in the form before you. >> Sure thing. >> Thank you very much. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Okay. Are there any more members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Not seeing any. May I have a mover and seconder? That the public submissions be received and considered by committee and that the public meeting be closed. Councelor Cretch and councelor Casar. Thank you. Please indicate your vote now. And that's going to be electronic. Okay, the vote is up. This is to receive the public submissions and that the public meeting be closed. >> Councor Pauls and council Megan. Thank you. >> Okay, that carries 8 to zero. Now on to the report. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the recommendations in the report? Move and second. Councelor Cretch, Councelor Casar. Um, are there any questions for staff on the report? >> Councelor Francis, go ahead. >> Thank you, Sheriff. Taking time to listen to several residents of W 10, not just today. and I've spoken to councelor Bey over the past several months about this application. Councelor Bey unfortunately obviously can't be here today, but um I want to speak to the concerns he's been hearing from residents. Uh he's been very clear that he does not support this proposal and uh from what I've been told this started as an eight-story building um then was presented to the community as an 11story building and now today we're being asked here as the planning committee to approve 12 stories, 161 units. And ironically, this property is now listed for sale in the past few days. So, I think it's fair to ask uh what exactly is going on here. And I support housing and intensification. I've supported multiple 12 stories, 12tory developments, similar in my own ward um this term, Centennial and Barton, Centennial and King, Highway 8 across from Fiesta Mall, just to name a few. Uh but this site is a complete anomaly and and and there you know we have four stories just a few uh hundred meters to the east um seven stories across the street nine stories uh further down from this site and uh we're talking about approximately 503 units per net hector here which uh we've actually seen the Ontario Land Tribunal reject proposals with even less density than that. So this is a significant departure from surrounding context. I'm not convinced that it warrants it. Um I do have two questions for staff. Uh my first question, the report says the applicant has uh has to demonstrate sufficient downstream sanitary sewer capacity and what happen I just want to know chair what happens if uh that analysis comes back and there's not enough capacity through you >> through Mr. Chair Binu Korea director of growth management and chief development engineer. So uh to the counselor the applicant actually has to complete a sand receiver analysis to demonstrate there is sufficient capacity to support this development otherwise they have to upgrade the system uh at their cost to accommodate this development. >> Thank you. And my second question following up that the so this property is currently listed for sale. So if council approves this application and then this property is subsequently sold, do these planning permissions go with the property while those outstanding service conditions still have to be satisfied? Chair >> through the chair James Vanroy, senior planner um east team. Uh that is correct. These planning permissions, if you approve it today, those holding holding provisions, those conditions will remain with the land. That means the next owner who comes in will still have to do that sanitary sewer capacity analysis. They'll still have to provide a visual impact assessment and they'll have to provide a water main hydraulic analysis to meet that they can't pass go they can't go to a building permit until that is provided. >> Understood. And and uh chair that's the question that I have. Um and I'll just wrap up by saying this. I understand the argument about crazy creating uh more housing and I wholeheartedly agree with that. Um, but when this property is already being marketed for sale, well, important conditions are still yet to be cleared, you know, we have to be honest about what we're we're approving today. Like, it's it's substantially increased development potential. That's what we're approving. We're not necessarily approving 161 homes. I've been highly supportive of intensification, particularly on our main corridors. I've been supporting appropriate housing on this side, support appropriate housing on this site, too. uh and the whole point of this committee is to determine whether particular any particular application is appropriate, not to simply approve anything that lands on an agenda as it's presented. So listen, chair, I've I've listened to residents um I've listened to councelor Bey who has been clear in his opposition um and I've looked carefully at this application and the report and I'm not convinced that this is the right development at the right scale for this site. So for those reasons, Sher, I'll be voting opposed. Thank you. >> Thank you, counselor. Any other questions from any other counselors? Councelor Pauls. >> Thank you. >> I'm just uh wondering because I'm not familiar with it because it's uh not my area. My question is I don't know if you could answer when did they put up the for sale sign after uh the committee presented it or when was the actual for sale through the chair? I'm I'm not aware of the exact date. Again, James Vanroy, senior planner, not aware of the exact date. Um, but it is a good question. My I came to knowledge of the for sale sign sometime last week. La >> last week. So, obviously something maybe that they don't want to go through it. I'm not sure, but uh uh I I will lean towards not uh supporting it because that's one question that I don't really understand why a builder would all of a suddenly uh try to sell what he wanted to do in that area. And obviously I always follow the counselor that's in that ward. And I know councelor Bey's not here, but I hear what councelor Francis has said. So I will not be supporting this. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Are there any other comments? Councelor Wang. >> Thank you. Three chairs. This question on in the report, it's the alternatives. So, um, right now, should the application be denied, the subject property can be used in accordance with the neighborhood commercial C2 zone and the single residential R3 zone? I'm not familiar. So could you just explain a little bit more about what those alternatives are please? >> Through the chair that that alternative basically allows what is existing on the property to remain. So that Oxford Learning Center building would still remain on property or they could potentially develop within the parameters of the local commercial zone uh or within the R3 zone. That R3 zone is a very thin strip of land at the southern portion of the property. So it's likely that there really wouldn't be any development on that piece. That's uh >> Oh, so it's just essentially it just stays exactly the same then. >> Correct. >> Um cuz in that commercial neighborhood commercial, there's no um commercial on the bottom, residential on top. That would be called mixed density, right? Is that how that would work? >> Uh through the chair, uh the local commercial zone does permit mixed uses, mixeduse buildings. So there could be um residential on the um upper portions of the building and then ground floor commercial. >> Okay. And then um how much of that property is the neighborhood commercial then? Because you did say that the residential R3 was a very thin strip. So what do you mean by that? >> Through the chair, I'm not exact don't have the exact numbers, but I would say more than or around 90% of that property is probably zoned >> commercial >> local commercial. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Those are all my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Wang. Are there any other questions? Councelor McMaken. >> Thanks. Is it on my question through you, Chair, is is it unusual for us to be dealing with uh an application to build a 12story building when the person making the application has the property for sale? through the chair J7 senior planner. Um it is unusual. It's not something I typically come across. Um but there's nothing really we're bracing the application on the merits the the the policy that uh based on the merits of the application is how we address this. So uh there's nothing really to prevent the exchange of lands during the planning application process. >> Okay. Um, I'm I'm thinking of the integrity of the process. You know, does it really make sense to to be doing something for someone who wants to do something who actually doesn't want to do something because they're selling the land? Like, is are we dealing with the right uh right applicant? Should we be dealing with somebody who's going to buy the land? Um, it just seems unusual to me. >> Yeah, thank you. It's a fair question. It's um I I really can't comment on the owner's intentions. Um but it is uh this is kind of why we have holding provisions in place as well and the zoning bylaw itself to ensure that the next owner the the land uses that you put in place will carry over with the land. >> So you're comfortable with this >> uh through the chair based on the merits of this application and this application that we have and the materials with that I I am >> Thank you. No other questions from committee members, so we'll go to Councelor Clark. >> Thank you, Chair. The province has changed several rules, legislation, and regulations as it pertains to housing. One of them um removes the opportunity for municipalities to argue that the development does not in fitting with um the character of the community. So when you're looking at this property and the residents are saying, "Look around us." Is that ruling preventing us then from making the argument that, you know, this isn't right for this community? Does that bind our hands somehow? >> Through the chair, thank you for the question. Um, I'll try to step back a bit. Yeah, that we did merge our provincial planning statement and our growth plan and that really did take largely away the character argument that a lot of municipalities were using for infill applications. Um, fast forward, we then had emerged uh planning provincial planning statement, which the character argument is it's it's harder to make if things get appealed and uh uh if situations get sticky. So we still base the the application on our official plan policy which does have consideration for compatibility for character. Um things like impacts such as sun shadow and overlook and privacy. Um we we require studies traffic impact studies functional surfacing reports to address the land use compatibility. Um, sorry, I don't know if that answers your question, but >> um, not completely. I understand that you look at it and I understand that you stated that the official plan for the municipality addresses the character of the community. Um, you can understand the concern of the residents then who are saying this uh 12story um monster apartment building doesn't quite fit in with single family and town houses in that community. How much weight does that have in your decision? It's a it has um the way we look at it is the way um we look at it from a policy perspective. So what we're looking at is this is on a secondary corridor. That's an area that's planned for rapid transit. Uh this is on the B line which is supposed to go from uh eventually have rapid transit from East Gate Mall all the way to Futland Winona Crossing. We're looking at is this in an area that's stable or transitional. Um from my my professional opinion is that this is a transitional area. We have sevenstory building uh stone stones throw away from the property. We have a four-story building under construction. Um also nearby the property we have nine and eight stories. Um so we are looking at the character as well but um we're also trying to evaluate it's a nuanced approach where you're also trying to eval evaluate the policy and the character um and as well consider these comments from the public. So and then the last question chair is with regards to the consideration of the comments. So the planning act, the provincial planning statement, all of those things on our official plan, they all have different weights on any application and you have to make those considerations. um with all of the changes that the province has provided, how much weight do we have now um with the community's concerns or opposition >> through the chair? It is um uh there is as you know a lot of the the rights appeal rights have been stripped for yes third party appeals. Um so the comments that we take are are very I would say uh from a very broad perspective we're looking at you know not particularly someone's backyard but at the the overall goal u uh for the public is do we want to expand into our urban you know our urban area um does the province want to do that for other municipalities um so it's a very broad perspective I would say >> um the last question and I know I said that twice so my apologies chair um privacy. Several of the residents came forward uh quite concerned about the lack of privacy that people will be literally looking down into their backyards where their children are swimming. It's a serious concern for those residents and that's why they raised it. Um how do you address privacy in the application consideration? through the chair. Um we do evaluate uh overlook concerns particular with angular plane. Um you'll note that a lot of this building does encroach into the angular plane. So there are also um design measures that you can implement at a site plan control stage. Um if I were to turn your attention to appendix D, there are elevation drawings um that show the sides of the building and you'll see a strip of windows along the center of the building. That strip of windows is really for the corridors and the hallways within the building. Um through the site plan control stage, you could uh require or uh comment that you don't want habitable windows facing uh towards backyards, rear yards. Um there is also uh required through this or recommended through the wind studies report screening on certain floors of the building uh which would also help and prevent privacy and overlook from from the rooftop areas on this building. Um but the long and short of it is that that would be measures that we typically deal with at the site plane control stage. But you can't eliminate them if the angular plane is such that the the size of the property isn't large enough to tear the building backwards. So you can't really put tearing on that building because it's a small piece of property to begin with. Is that correct? >> Through the chair, we have implemented taring um stepbacks and setbacks for this zone. So we we have required certain floors to step back and be out of that angular plane. Um, there are certain floors, I can't remember exactly what floor above a certain story that it encroaches into that angular plane >> and that's where the only risk of privacy is on that top floors, those top floors. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, counselor. Are there any other counselors who would like to speak at this committee meeting or ask questions? Okay, not seeing any. Um, may I have a mover and second to approve the recommendations in the report? >> You have that. >> Oh, sorry, Creten. Okay. Thank you. It's been a long time. Um, I guess then we'll go to the uh to the electronic vote. Thank you, >> Paul. McMorin is thumbs down and councelor Pauls is thumbs up. >> No. >> Uh, we're voting on >> on the report. >> On the report, the recommendations. You said you were leaning to a no. >> So, are you going with a no? >> Thank you. >> Defeated 3 to five. That is defeated 3 to 5. So now we're moving on to 8.3 peed 26159 housekeeping and strategic amendments to the urban Hamilton official plan, rural Hamilton official plan, city of Hamilton official plan, and region of Hamilton Wentworth official plan. Does the committee wish to hear the staff presentation from Scott Turbo? >> Yes. >> Yes. Scott, you're on. are you here? >> Oh, is there anyone else prepared to give that presentation? >> Okay. Uh since councelor Wang was the only counselor who had to hear it at that time, she is uh changing her perspective on that now. >> Okay. >> Vote to wave. >> So, we're going to vote to wave. Thank you. Uh may I have a move in second? Oh, okay. Well, now we're going to have you, Scott. Thanks for running over. Okay, no problem. So, we're going to have that now. Almost. >> Okay, Scott, Councelor Wang, and the rest of us want to hear a presentation. >> Okay, just going to share my screen. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh, good morning uh, chairs, members of the planning committee, and members of the public in attendance. My name is Scott Turbull. I'm a planner in the sustainable community section of the planning division. The report before you today provides an overview of the city's housekeeping and strategic amendments to the city's official plans. Housekeeping amendments are undertaken periodically as part of the ongoing maintenance of the city's official plans. The purpose is to ensure the plans remain accurate and current and the policies and mapping can be clearly and consistently implemented. The amendments also provide an opportunity to make strategic updates that implement existing official plan policy and reflect updated city standards, provincial legislation, or council direction. It's important to note that through Bill 17, municipalities are now required to obtain ministerial approval before adopting an official plan amendment that adds, changes, or removes complete application requirements. As I'll touch on in the next slide, uh, one of the amendments being proposed falls within that category and therefore will require provincial approval before it can take effect. This housekeeping amendment includes a total of 73 text amendments across the city's official plans. The amendments cover a fairly broad range of topics, but generally fall into a few categories. There are updates to cultural heritage definitions and policies to reflect changes in provincial legislation and municipal naming practices. The amendments update references to approve city strategies, bylaws, and reporting tools that support implementation of the official plans. And there are a number of administrative, grammatical, and technical corrections intended to improve the overall clarity, accuracy, and consistency of the plans. And lastly, the amendment proposes to update the name of a transportation study to align with council approved guidelines. As previously mentioned, because this study forms part of the city's complete application requirements, bill 17 requires this particular amendment to receive approval from the province before it can take effect. In addition to the text amendments, a number of mapping amendments are also proposed as part of the housekeeping. The mapping amendments resolve inconsistencies between different volumes of the official plans, secondary plans, existing zoning, and established conditions. Other amendments address more specific issues, including aligning the mapping and policy text of an area specific policy and reflect in the findings of an approved environmental impact statement. Finally, appendix B, major transportation facilities and routes, is being updated to reflect the transportation network approved through the reinvision the HSR and HSR next reports. In addition to the urban and rural Hamilton official plan, amendments are also required to the former region of Hamilton Wentworth official plan and the former city of Hamilton official plan as they are still in effect for the West Harbor secondary plan area. These amendments are required to ensure those plans remain consistent with the urban and rural Hamilton official plan. In preparation of the 2026 official plan housekeeping amendment, members of the planning and economic development department, public works department, and healthy and safe communities department were circulated for input. In addition, members of the tech city's technical advisory committee were informed of the proposed housekeeping amendment on March 6 and provided an opportunity to submit comments. The statutory notice of the proposed amendments was published in the Hamilton spectator on August 18th. In addition, where the proposed amendments concerned a specific property, notice was also provided to the applicable property owner. In summary, staff are recommending approval of the proposed official plan amendments to the urban and rural Hamilton official plan, the former city of Hamilton official plan, and the former region of Hamilton Wentworth official plan as outlined in the report. Staff are also recommending approval of the proposed update to appendix B of the Urban Hamilton official plan. And lastly, staff are recommending that the proposed official plan amendments related to complete application requirements be held in obeyance until written approval is received from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. That concludes the presentation. Thank you for your time. I'd be happy to answer any questions from committee. >> Thanks, Scott. Uh, Councelor Wang has a question. >> Thank you. And I'm going to be very quick because otherwise Councelor Crutch may kill me. So, um, anyway, my question is, um, all of these amendments are are written. What needs to go to the M minister MMAH? I don't understand that part. So, can you just clarify that part for me? That's that I was hoping that you could explain that in your presentation. >> Sure. Uh, through the chair to to the counselor. Uh, great question. Um, so the province through Bill 17 uh now requires any uh amendment to a city's official plan complete application requirements to go to the ministry for approval before it's adopted. In this housekeeping amendment, we're changing uh the study name of transportation impact study to transportation assessment. And since that forms part of the complete application requirements, uh we're consulting with the province uh uh before adoption. >> Okay, that's it. Because I thought that there was going to be something much more substantial there. So that's why I was like I don't understand what are we asking the province for. Okay, so thank you. That's all my questions. >> Okay. Uh not seeing any more questions. May I have a mover and seconder to receive the staff presentation? Councelor Wang, Councelor Cretch, thank you. Um, that's with a hand vote now. Show of hands. Thank you. That passes. There are no registered delegates. We do have written submissions. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting on this issue? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting on this issue? That's what Okay, thanks for coming down and uh you know the process. You may begin. I'll give you 5 minutes. The time right now is 2:37. Thanks. >> Right. I'm here again to talk about the heritage sites of our community. Um, my wife is currently working to become a librarian at Mohawk College as she is in identify. >> Oh, sorry. Ellery, >> identify yourself again. >> Ellery, I'm sure you've all noticed me today. Um, >> for the record. >> Yeah. My name is Ellery. I'm from W 2. I'm here again to talk about the heritage sites. Uh my wife is currently working to become a librarian at Mohawk College as she is incredibly happy about the education and understanding of the world around us. One of the things that is part of the West Harbor secondary plan I believe is to implementation of indigenous people's educational facility down by the harbor. um in cooperation with Hamilton Public Library, it is incredibly important to protect our waterfront and also to further the education and knowledge of our country's and city's past and history and culture. Um these things are very important to us as a community and I think you've seen me several times this summer talk at length about the waterfront uh regardless of what I'm talking about. Um, but thank you so much for listening and thank you so much for reading this uh and listening to this uh delegation. >> Hey, thanks for coming in, Ellie. >> Yeah, you too. Have a good one. >> Okay. >> Sorry, Ellerie. Can you just be clear? Are you opposed to the to the amendments? >> I wasn't able to uh read the amendments, unfortunately. I just want to get my feelings and thoughts heard about it. >> So, concerns for the record. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Hi, Unika. Um, again, you're going to have five minutes. Introduce yourself and then you may begin when the little light goes on. Thank you. >> Thank you. Hello again. Thank you so much for hearing me out again today. Uh again, I'll be speaking from the heart this time. Um as I just found out that um this particular amendment has to do with the harbor waterfront and uh the installation of an indigenous library, which I'm definitely all for. Um once upon a time, for what it's worth, um library, a library saved my life um when I was a little kid. and um I was being bullied and all that nonsense. Um I was able to run into my library for safety. Um when uh I came to Missaga, I stood in the council and um I learned about the uh the attempt for the e the eagle um the eagle people to um have a long house installed on their on Missaga land where there was landfill and there was some difficulty with regards to getting that established unfortunately but I was there in support of that. Um so I would definitely like to be in support of having an indigenous library on the waterfront or wherever there is capability to get get them land back. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your delegation. Much appreciated. I'm not seeing any questions. You may return to the foyer. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Final time. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Not seeing any. May I have a mover and second that the public submissions be received and considered by committee and that the public meeting be closed. Please indicate your vote now. And that's an electronic vote. >> Oh, the mover and seconder. Sorry, it's going to be councelor uh Wang and councelor Casar. Thank you. Councelor McMegan. Thank you. Council Francis is not there. Is it correct? 7 to zero. >> So that carries seven to zero. This is on the report. May I have a mover and secondary to approve the recommendations in the report? Councelor Wang, Councelor Cretch, are there any questions for staff on this report? Not seeing any. Uh let's indicate your vote now and it'll be an electronic vote. >> Thumbs up. Thank you. >> 7 to zero. >> That motion carries. 7 to zero. We're on to 8.4 peed 26100. Housekeeping amendments and strategic updates to the city of Hamilton zoning bylaw number 05-200 and the zoning bylaws of the town of Anancaster, town of Dundas, town of Flamro, Township of Glenn, former city of Hamilton, and the city of Stony Creek. Does the committee wish to hear the staff presentation? >> We wave that. >> Do we have to vote on that? If you're moving that we wave it. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, um, may I have a mover and seconder to wave the presentation? Uh, that'll be led by councelor Cretch and seconded by councelor Casar. Um, please indicate your show of hands. Thank you. You're just a little ahead of me there. Okay. So, that motion is carried. There are no registered delegates and no written submissions. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? last time. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? May I have a mover and seconder that this where there were no sub public submissions and that the public meeting be closed? Councelor Cret, councelor Casar, please indicate your vote now. Secondar >> chair. Oh. Uh, councelor M. Wilson, did you have something to contribute before we vote? >> Nothing to contribute, but I I would appreciate you, uh, since I've just reentered the meeting, identifying the agenda item, please. >> Item 8.4, 4 housekeeping amendments and strategic updates to the city of Hamilton, zoning bylaw number 5200 and zoning bylaws of the town of Anancaster, town of Dendis, town of Flamro, Township of Glenn Brook, and the former city of Hamilton and the city of Stony Creek. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> The vote is up. Councelor Morin Wilson, are you able to vote? Oh, thank you. That carries 8 to zero. Now we're on the report. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the recommendations in the report? Councelor Casar, Councelor Cretch, are there any questions for staff? Not seeing any questions for staff. Please indicate your vote now. It's electronic vote and it is up. Thank you, Councelor Mory Wilson. Councelor Wilson, can you vote? >> Councelor M. Wilson. >> Thumbs up. Thank you. That motion carries. >> 8 to zero. Thank you. We're on to items for consideration. Item 9.1, PED26101. applications for an urban Hamilton official plan amendment and a zoning bylaw amendment for lands located at 34 Mistywood Drive, Stony Creek, Ward 9. Would any would anyone like to hear the update from staff? >> Oh, councelor Clark would like to Yes. carry on then. Um, the agent Shannon Mai from Landwise. Oh, sorry. This is update from staff. Okay, we'll give you your little cue there and then you may begin. Good afternoon chair and members of committee. I'm Du Mata uh and planer for the east team. Uh so the purpose of today's uh report was to uh advise the planning committee and council that the city has received a complete application uh for the section 99.1 permit under the rental housing uh control bylaw 24109 and section 99.1 of the municipal act. The application relates to 34 Mistywood and proposes the demolition of four existing rental townhouse blocks containing 28 rental units to facilitate a new six-story multiple dwelling containing 128 units. Approximately one quarter of the proposed units are planned to be affordable rental housing including some rent to get uh to income units. Eight existing townhouse blocks containing 52 units would remain. And as committee will recall, the related official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment applications were considered at the June 16 planning committee meeting and were deferred to allow for the further tenant engagement and submission of a complete section 99 uh.1 permit application. The rental housing control bylaw requires staff to advise committee when a complete uh section 99.1 application is received. Given the relationship with the related planning application, staff are recommending that the application be referred to planning committee for council's consideration. The applicant is also required to provide notice to tenants and hold a tenant meeting as a part of section 99.1 process. Staff will continue to review the application including matters related to tenant protection and replacement uh rental housing. Uh this report is which was there earlier is primarily to advise committee of the complete application and the process moving forward. A future report will be brought back to planning committee with staff's recommendation on the section 99.1 permit including any proposed conditions. Thank you and I'm open to any questions. Thank you, Drew. Any questions? Councelor Clark. >> So, with regards to the 99, um the applicant has met all of the requirements for that particular document >> through the chair, the application uh has been deemed complete with all the requirements. Uh at this moment, uh we are we will be looking into further analysis once the uh comment period is completed. So it's still under comment period from the >> how long is the comment excuse me how long is the comment period >> through the chair it's 28 days after the complete application and we are in week three of the process. >> So we have a week left to go on that. >> That's that's correct. Uh so if the committee approves it today then the week will proceed and then once that has been met then it will go to council for ratification >> through the chair. So both these applications are different. So uh just to explain further uh the application what we are seeking right now uh for an approval is the OPSZB application which was presented on on the June uh 16 planning committee. We delayed that so that we could have more. >> Yes. So through the chair. So basically once we have that that is one step complete towards the planning application and that's that's the land use approval which we are seeking. >> Uh and this is a separate application. This will go through its due process and once all the comments are received they analyzed. Uh at that time we will get forward that application to the planning committee for approval. >> Okay. Um so just some quick comments chair if I can. Uh the process uh went very well. Um we met with the residents. Acorn group was um helping with the residents and facilitating um their comments and putting it together in the appropriate manner that is needed. Um they attended all of the meetings. I attended all of the meetings. We had uh two meetings with the residents leaders who were representing the leaders and trying to come up with a a plan that that would be accept acceptable to the residents. And so um Stony Creek Community Homes has agreed um that they are going to work to house all of the residents who still want to live at 34 Mistywood. Um and they've already started doing that. they they have been doing renovations to empty units to make them um good for residents coming in. Obviously um it's important to understand that this process was a healthy process that this process helped people come together find common ground and move forward. Um, and I I think um the requirement for the permit application really makes a difference. Um, I worked with the residents. One of the issues that they they wanted was a an expanded um playground in the center of the property. And I worked with uh Stony Creek Community Homes and and we came up with an agreement that um Ward 9 reserve funds could be used for uh helping them with whatever needs to be purchased to put into that u expanded and um exciting new playground. So, folks are really excited about this. um they're seeing an opportunity for new affordable housing being built there. Um and they're seeing an opportunity for new attainable housing being built there. Uh so I do want to thank Stony Creek Community Homes. I want to thank the Acorn Group. I want to thank Crystal and all of the residents who volunteered to sit in on these meetings and and have these discussions. I think in the end it was a a good process. Um and at council I would support um the application. Thank you chair. >> Thank you counselor. I agree it did seem like a very healthy process that they embarked on. Um the agent Shannon Mai Landwise is available to provide an update if committee wishes. As the agent gave their presentation during the public meeting on June 16th, 2026, a motion would be required to enable them to speak again. Does anyone need to see that? >> I don't know if she's here. >> Oh, okay. Okay, there we go. So, maybe they're not available in line. So, we'll just May have a mover and second her. >> Did she leave? >> Okay. Does anyone want like in the committee? >> No, I'm not seeing anything on the committee. Councelor Clark, you're you're you have a voice here. I if she's here I it doesn't >> Okay, we'll wait for we'll wait for a minute or two >> and if she's >> great. Okay, so we're going to need a motion for that. So, council clerk wants to hear this. Councelor McMe uh >> on the committee. >> No, he's not. But council clerk's on. So, councelor Makin is going to make the motion and I'm going to second it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. and um have a vote for that. Hands to show support. That carries. Thank you. >> Thank you. Shannon Mai. I'm a principal planner and partner at Landwise. Um I'm here today to answer any questions that might come as a follow-up to Drew's presentation and um additional comments. The deferral that came from the June meeting was meant to give us the opportunity to consult with tenants further. Um Jesse Vincent's earlier delegation went over the cons consultation process that we've embarked on. Um to councelor Clark's uh comment, it has been a very fruitful conversation with the most recent meeting being August 25th with tenants. Uh it was well attended and we went over the tenant relocation plan together and those comments from the residents were were fairly minimal uh and positive. So we do feel like that consultation has been uh wellreceived with the tenants and Stony Creek Community Homes will continue to do that consultation through the process. Happy to answer any questions. >> Chair, I just want to thank her for for the update. Um, and I agree with her. It was a very good process and thank you for helping us do it. >> Thank you, counselor. Any other questions or comments? >> Not seeing anyone any at this time. Thank you, Shannon. May I have a mover and seconder to receive the presentation and approve the recommendations in the report? Councelor McMakin. Councelor Casar. >> First of all, first of all, you need to receive the presentation. >> Did I miss that? >> We did that. >> Okay. >> Oh, maybe we didn't. I just thought because we voted to allow her to speak, but that was it. >> Okay. Can I have a mover and second to allow No, that's No, that's it. Then it's down here. >> I'm following right here. May I have a move and second to receive the presentation and to approve the recommendations in the report? Okay. So, uh that is incorrect. We do need to uh receive the presentation from Shannon Mai. >> Okay. Let's uh vote to receive. Thank you. That's from councelor Casar. Councelor Cretch. Um hands to receive that. Thank you. That carries. Thank you, Shannon. >> That motion carried. And now may I have a mover and seconder? I think it was >> receive the report. >> To receive the >> report and approve the recommendations in >> to receive the report and approve the recommendations in the report. >> Okay. Thank you. And that will be councelor Casar and councelor Makin. Are there any questions for staff? Not seeing any questions for staff. Can I please indicate your vote now electronically or I guess electrically. >> Okay. Order down there. Order down there. >> Councelor Moren Wilson. >> Councelor M. Wilson. Are you thumbs up? >> I am. I'm getting a vote displayed in a very long format and the uh vote button is very much at the bottom beneath the screen. So, >> how about a thumbs up? >> Sure. >> Thank you, Council McMin. Thank you. >> 8 to Z. >> Okay, that motion carries. 8 to Z. We're on to 9.1 correspondence respecting item 9.1 report peed 26101. Um we have one correspond piece of correspondence. May I have a mover and second to receive the correspondence. Councelor Casar, Councelor Wang, please indicate by show of hands. All in favor? Thank you. That carries. We're on to 9.2 to peed 25276A, review of fortification bylaw 10-122. And at this moment in time, I'm going to go to councelor Kretch. >> Thanks. I'd like to defer this to the consideration of the confidential item in the closed session so I can ask some legal questions of staff. Only the seconder. >> Sorry, defer it till after closed. >> Okay. Councelor M. Wilson. Seconder. That's a show of hands. >> Show of hands. That passes. Thank you. So, we will defer that. And then I guess we go all the way through to 9.3. 9.3 PEED26058 Development of a vehicle for higher bylaw repealing and replacing schedule 25 taxi cab schedule 24 personal transportation providers and schedule 8 limousine of licensing bylaw number 07170. Dan is here. Dan uh you're the director of our licensing bylaw services. So you have a presentation for us. So you can begin. uh chair. >> Yes. >> I just uh would like to introduce Stephanie Weeb who's going to be doing the presentation on behalf of um licensing violence services. >> Well, thank you. Greetings to Stephanie. Good afternoon. My name is Stephanie Weeb. I'm a project manager for the policy and program section in licensing and bylaw services. Presenting on the recommendations for report PEED26058, development of a vehicle for higher bylaw. Next slide. The taxi cab industry has evolved as a result of technological advancements in the digital dispatching and rise of consumer choice due to the arrival of personal transportation providers, which is the term that we associate with ride sharing. As a result, in December 2023, council directed staff and licensing and bylaw services to review schedule 25 of the business licensing bylaw 07-170 and report back to planning committee to complete a comprehensive review of the tax cab schedule. staff completed the following. A review and of the historical and evolution of taxi cab regulation in Hamilton, jurisdictional scan of municipal taxi cab regulations in Ontario, operational evaluation of the administrative enforcement of taxi cab licensing and a comprehensive engagement initiative with stakeholders called let's talk taxi cab. Next slide. During this review, staff completed a jurisdictional scan of taxi cab regulations in Canada. As outlined in the table uh in the in the table above, most municipalities have opted to take a unified regulatory approach, meaning taxi cabs, limousines, and personal transportation providers are regulated under a singular bylaw, but do maintain distinct regulations for each class of operations. Comparatively, the city of Hamilton regulates all three categories under three separate schedules. Next slide. To establish a unified regulatory approach, taxi cab, personal transportation providers, and limousines all fall under the same umbrella, vehicles for hire. A vehicle for hire is a motor vehicle that is conveying or available for conveying one or more passengers in exchange for a fear compensation. Although all three businesses provide the same business objective, i.e. provire services, the way that they provide these services are distinct. Each require specific measures to recognize their exclusive prop operations and safety needs which is you which is reflected in the unified regulatory approach taken by other jurisdictions. Next slide. Given this staff recommend schedules 8 limousine, 24 personal transportation provider and 25 taxi cab of the city of Hamilton's business licensing bylaw 07-170 be repealed and replaced with a new consolidated vehicle for hire bylaw. The proposed proposed singular vehicle for higher bylaw is in part a structural reform creating consistent and modernized regulation while maintaining the nature of the regulation from the repealed schedules. Next slide to establish the proposed vehicle for hire bylaw. Staff determined the goals and level of necessary revisions were different across all three business operations. For taxi cab regulations, the goal was modernization. Schedule 25 is the longest schedule in the licensing bylaw spanning across 82 pages. This the regulation is repetitive, uses outdated ter terminology, and lacks clear organization causing the rules to be unclear and antiquated for personal transportation provider regulation. The goal was to strengthen pre-existing regul uh provisions. staff determined areas in which pre-existing provisions are limit limited our authority over PTP platforms and recommended strengthening these regulations and ensuring the vehicle vehicle standards are consistent with other vehicle for higher operations for limousine regulation. The goal was clarification. Schedule 8 is the least expansive bylaw, meaning revisions needed were to clarify the definition of limousines and ensure that their vehicle standards are consistent with others. The review and consolidation of all three of vehicle fired classes allowed staff to ensure that an appropriate level of harmonization was completed, establishing consistency in the regulations. A singular regulatory approach is recommended by staff as the current approach of separate schedules has the following limitations. Separation leads to unnecessary barriers to continuous modernization. Future amendments must be made across three separate schedules, risking a lack of consideration on how updates may impact other schedules and cause further regulatory fragmentation. Next slide. Each pre-existing schedule was reviewed in order to establish the consolidated vehicle prior bylaw. Report peed26058 outlines the changes, removals, and additions of those pre-existing regulations guided by the previously outlined goals to modernize existing taxi a regulations. staff facilitated the following. Uh maintain certain CR uh uh removal of outdated terminology and processes that are no longer required for the evolved taxi cab services such as removal of the priority lists and minimal service standards. Adjusted regulations to better regulate the operations of a modern taxi cab industries such as simplifying the requirements for leasing and transferring taxi cab plates. added provisions to better address accessible trip concerns and provide greater meter flexibility for trips dispatched through apps. And we also did maintain service and skills training for drivers based off of feedback received during consultations. Next slide. To strengthen existing personal transportation provider regulation staff facilitated the following adjusted provisions to strengthen the information collected from personal transportation providers in the frequency of its collection. added provisions that strengthen the city's authority over personal transportation providers and unified st vehicle standards with other vehicle for higher operations such as the requirement for u maintaining uh any sort of vehicle issues regarding to safety as well as winter tires. Next slide. To clarify uh clarify existing limousine regulations, staff facilitated the following. adjusted the definition of limousine to provide better clarification and ensure consistency with bylaw definitions across municipalities Ontario. Adjusted insurance requirements to be consistent with best practices and step standards set for other vehicle for higher vehicles and added and removed permissions to promote consistency and unify vehicle for higher standards uh vehicle standards with other vehic operations. Next slide. Subject to the approval of the report reports recommendations, staff will facilitate a transition plan which includes the following. Establishing establishment of set fines and administrative penalties, a communications plan, a com a complete system modification and updates and as indicated in the report, the proposed changes will not uh change current staffing levels. As part of the transition plan, current staff will receive training on the proposed vehicle for hire bylaw. Next slide. I would like to thank everyone for their time and welcome any questions. >> Okay, thanks Stephanie. Are there any questions? We had some we had a delegate earlier. Um just councelor Casar, go ahead first. >> Yeah, thank you and thank you for the presentation. I did want to bring up questions were brought up by the delegate. Is it okay to do that now? >> Yeah, >> of course. >> Okay. Uh yeah so I had five questions that were raised during delegation and if the first one if I understood it correctly was between PTPs and taxi drivers there was a different standard for who could operate within each of those areas and I think there was an example given that you know an Uber driver could have some serious criminal conviction but there's a higher standard for taxi drivers because all this was around having a le level playing field was the theme of the delegation. So, uh, are you able to speak to that first piece? >> Through the chair, Stephanie Weeb, uh, project manager, uh, policy and programs. So, uh, there is consistent requirements across the board for all drivers, including limousines, taxis, and PTP. iation is that you are required to vet and ensure those documents are are are submitted to them prior to access to the platform and this is a consistent approach across all of Ontario. >> Okay, that was going to be my supplemental questions. Thank you. Second one was around insurance. Uh, and what we heard from the delegate was it could be up to $20,000 of a required insurance for taxi drivers whereas Uber drivers it's much less. I think to paraphrase if you could help me understand that. >> Yeah. Uh through the chair. So uh that was just a misunderstanding in regards to uh the terms and service in regards to Uber. So um essentially PTPs are required to have insurance which are is within the requirement and was has always been a requirement for both the license holder as a platform as well as the uh vehicles themselves. So both of them are held to the same standards as taxi cabs in regards to insurance. Um as for the uh uh the limitation liability um I'm not sure if Patricia's on if she's able to provide a little bit more of a clarification from that. I know she she said she was going to join on the link. Um just from a legal perspective in regards to that terms and service element. >> Is she with us? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Patricia, you've been hailed to come on. Patricia Duza. While we're waiting for Patricia, I just wanted to uh indicate through the chair that the feed um does keep cutting out uh periodically for those of you who are online. It does come back very quickly. Uh it's out for just a couple of seconds. So, I I I hear your concerns, but it is coming back. So, I think we just need to be patient right now. Patricia, you're gonna have to turn your mic on >> or we're going to have to turn our speakers on. >> Can you try it without the mics? >> Without the headset? >> Without the headset. Sometimes we unplug the headset, it miraculously fixes itself. Uh, uh, Director Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh, while we're working on that, I'll try and answer the question. And sorry, Dan Smith, director of licensing and violence services. And Patricia can let me I saw her mouth moving. We couldn't hear you, Patricia. Um, I'm trying to answer the question. So, I have some notes here, so I'm just going to refer to them quickly. Um, so Uber's what the delegate was speaking to about the $1,000 and things like that. So Uber's terms and service um limiting all damages and loss to $1,000 only pertains to liability uh respective to their app and all drivers are required to have their insurance included in commercial liability insurance up to $2 million. So the $1,000 is referenced but it is associated with their their app. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So hopefully that was okay. Sorry. >> No, she you're muted right now. >> Try now. You're not muted any longer. I got >> Okay, you know what, Patricia, we're having some technical difficulties and councelor Casar has indicated that he got his answer. So, we're just going to let you stay there and um look down upon us from the big screen and uh if it does start to work later, let us know. Um >> anything else, Councelor Casar? >> Two more questions. Uh the next point brought up by the delegate was that taxis need to have cameras but uh other drivers PTPs don't. Could you please comment on that? >> Yeah, of course. So uh one of the reason Oh, sorry. Can you hear me now? >> Oh, hello. >> Yes, we can hear you now. >> We'll just go. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> Hello. Were you prepared to answer the question? >> Start to work later. >> We can hear you. >> Okay. You know what, Patricia? We're going to just move onward. Uh, councelor Casar's already asked another question and we're just going to receive the answer for that. Thank you. >> Yeah, of course. What are the reason >> through the chair? Uh taxi cabs had to or as part of um the amalgamation process in 2001 when the city of Hamilton harmonized all of the taxi cab regulations across the um the amalgamated townships. One of the portions that they did was in look at things like safety. And in during I believe it was 2007, there was an increased number of robberies that were actually happening to taxi cab vehicles that prompted the city of Hamilton to require uh cameras specifically in taxi cabs. And the reason why this is consistently only required in taxi cabs across other municipalities is because taxi cabs have exclusive permissions to do street hailing and take on anonymous rides. That is something that is not allowed for PTP or personal transportation uh vehicles as they're only dispatched through the licensed application. Meaning that the actual vehicle in the taxi cab operations o operates like a point of sale machine because there is the ability to provide cash or take on payments which increases the risks for both the driver and for the actual passenger. So it was mainly instilled as a safety mechanism for both of those parties and requiring it in the bylaw was also in order to make sure that those that own the actual vehicles that may not drive it place those in those actual vehicles themselves. So that's something that was insured to protect the drivers and put the onus on the actual plate owner to add that. One thing in the recommendation that does say is PTPs and limousines are able to have cameras if they believe for their safety that they would like to have cameras. Um, one thing that the recommend this uh proposed recommendation is does require that all of those vehicles including taxi cabs are supposed to have a public um a public notice of recording a decal which is something that's currently lacking which should be included under PI the privacy act. >> Okay, thank you for that. Uh the final question I had that was raised by the delegate is that around um mechanical fitness and certificates therein and that there was a difference between the two parties we're talking about here. Is it the same? Is is even is it a level playing field >> through the chair? The consistency is now the same in the proposed. We do now require PTP vehicles to do any annual and semianual safeties. previously if they're over three years old. Previously, that was only a requirement for taxi cabs where PTP vehicles were only had to submit an annual safety. However, to that was one of our efforts to promote consistency for things that have to do with public safety um is creating that consistency across the board. So, those are they're both required to do so. >> Okay. Thank you. Then one last open-ended question. Is there anything in what's being before us today that would uh create a a remaining unlevel playing field between taxis and PTPs where taxis have to do more? It's more expensive or is there anything that we know that remains more difficult or higher bar for taxis? >> I'll start stuff. So through the chair um I think the thing that we have to remember first is that they're they operate the purpose of their operation is the same. They're taking passengers from point A to point B. However, they operate differently because of the um technology that they're able to use. Um and the the way that we have structured our uh licensing scheme through data sharing agreements and things and also tried to be consistent with other municipalities. they outside of the fact that they're taking somebody from A to B, um there are some things that are slightly different um where we have improved uh and updated and strengthened the PTP aspect to make it more in line with um the current taxi cab schedule. Um which includes like winter tires. um we have some more information that we're requiring from Uber now uh related to drivers information um and how we're getting that information from them. So those are some things that we've used to strengthen it. But there are there are some differences and and what we actually heard through consultation with um the taxi industry is there is a lot of support for it to also be slightly different. They we heard from brokers that they like the fact that there is a separation there because they can promote themselves differently. A more regulated uh industry through the city uh to help promote themselves as being safe and secure for people to to be provided transportation. Um so that was one of the things that we actually did here is that there some people wanted it to be consistent other people wanted it to be remain separate and not deregulate ultimately taxi cab services. So we've tried to find a fine balance there and uh how that ended up looking within the uh schedule and Stephanie if you have anything else to add. >> Thank you very much. Those are really helpful answers. >> Thank you councelor Casar. Are there any other counselors wishing to ask questions? >> Councelor Francis. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh, not so much ask questions, but if this is time to move a referral motion, it would do that. >> So, you're asking to refer this back to staff? >> That's correct. Do you have um instructions >> direction >> to the staff or that the report be deferred to allow staff to undertake further work and report back to council? >> Okay. Is there anybody that will second that? >> Oh, >> I'm sorry. I didn't see that. >> There's no secondary yet. >> There's no secondary yet. >> Okay. Councelor Councelor McMakin is going to second that >> or to for further consultation >> for further consultation. Referral back to staff for further consultation. Apologies, councelor clerk. I'm just following the guidelines of um trying to let committee members speak. >> Yeah, I I didn't see it. Sorry, I'm looking backwards. >> Well, sir, >> it's it's it is just that committee members go first. That's what one one of the issues is. Thank you, >> chair. I can't hear the uh the talking in the room, but if if there's another member that wishes to speak, I'm happy to hold off until they speak and then move this referral. I don't need to move this at this moment. >> Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. That should accommodate everybody's needs in this room. Councelor Clark, you are now up. >> Thank you, Councelor Francis. Do we track the number of rides that are in PTP as opposed to taxis >> through the chair? Yes, we do. And has there been any drop in taxi use since PTP came on? And if so, how much? >> Through the chair, I don't have an actual number about how much, but I would say there is definitely a change for the taxi industry and there's a significant number of PTP rides that are um being operated in the city of Hamilton now. And so when taxi cab owners are expressing that they're losing money because of PTP and that it's not a level playing field, how do we respond as a city? So through the chair as I mentioned, sorry I'm just thinking answers. So as uh as I mentioned earlier is that we want to make sure that we understand what the uh operation of each of these companies is. Uh what we were undertaking and just uh to go back to the report is that uh our goal with the report was to modernize schedule 25 which is the taxi schedule because it was quite outdated. It hadn't been updated for some time. Um our direction at the time was not to create consistency between the two industries. Um what we learned as part of the work that we were doing was that there are there were a number of things that we felt were gaps in the PTP schedule. Um further what we learned from municipality comparisons is that a number of these a number of the municipalities um and I think I can't remember what slide it was all but two us being one had already combined these industries together but all individually separated out the different types of operations that they have. Um so we then deferred this report and created this new vehicle for hire approach so that we could create better consistency where we felt it was most appropriate and most of that was in the regulation and enforcement end. And uh that's how we've aligned these industries better to ensure that the vehicles and the public safety aspect is consistent. And chair, if I may, if when you're consulting with either the taxi industry or the PTP industry, um, who do you consult with and how much consultation occurred before you made the changes that you're recommending today? Uh, through the chair. So, yes, we consulted with all of them. Uh, we also completed a survey. I believe it was called Let's Talk Taxi. and Stephanie maybe can speak to more detail there, but we consulted with them and had uh meetings with each of the brokerages. Um, our lead writer Stephanie and our manager Julian Burkovich met with them individually. Um, I've recently met with them as well to give them updates in some of the uh changes that we were going to make. Uh, we did intend to bring this report back in July. However, because of some uh further consultation that we had did, they identified a few things that they felt were significant um challenges for them, uh we did pull the report in July to work further with the taxi industry where we did make three uh fairly significant changes to the report. Um that was something they had recommended to us that we do and we agreed that it was reasonable. So we did make those changes um provided updates and had the report brought back to uh committee >> and those changes were just briefly >> through the chair. So um one of them was related to English speaking uh requirement in the bylaw. We were proposing to remove it uh out of the taxi schedule. Um we don't require that in any other schedule that we have related to licensing. the taxi industry felt that it was important to have in there. They wanted to ensure that when they were uh delivering the service that the individuals that uh they were picking up um they do a number of contracts with school boards and things like that that uh there was um um comfort that individuals would be able to speak English and they wished to have that replaced or put back into the bylaw that we had originally had taken out. So we agreed to put that back in. The second one was related to customer service. We require a driver to complete a customer service training course as part of their uh license application stage. Um again, this was something that we looked at that other municipalities uh as a whole weren't doing. Some do. Uh we felt that again we weren't doing anything specific with other schedules within the bylaw. for instance, we don't require rest um a server at a restaurant to go through a customer service course. We leave that to the business. Um however, they were strongly uh against us taking that out. Um, again, very similar to what they had mentioned previously about the English speaking piece that they they felt it really created um a good platform for them to be able to share with prospective clients that the city of Hamilton regulates this so they could be ensured that they have good customer service when they're being up and there are some financial difficulties that some of the plate owners have. We agreed to allow for u the inactive plate fee an option to be placed back into the bylaw. >> Thank you. And the other question that I have and and councelor Casar asked the question, but I I'm still not quite sure about it. Can you walk me through the differences for insurance requirements for PTP and the taxis >> through the chair? Just give me one moment. Let me just pull it up because I don't know off by heart just specific numbers. >> That's okay. So for uh PTP, so that would be uh in the recommended bylaw schedule or section 25A. Every PTP shall maintain uh I commercial general liability insurance subject to limits of not less than $5 million inclusive per occurrences for a body bodily injury, death and damages to property including loss of use. That includes one, blanket contractual liability, premises, property and operation liability, products and completed operations liability, contingent employers liability, personal injury, owners and contractors protective coverage, broad form property damage occurrence, property damage and employees as additional insured and cross liability and several of other of interest provisions and such commercial general liab liability policy shall be in the name of the PTP and the city of Hamilton. Hamilton shall be named as an additional insured and non-owned auto automobile insurance with limits of not less than $5 million per occurrence. Every PTP shall ensure that every PTP driver obtains and maintains at all times during the provision of transportation service automobile liability insurance for owned or leased PTP vehicles with limits of not less than $5 million. inclusive per occurrence for insurance shall include the NPCFSTN permission to carry paying passengers for transportation networks endorsed or an equivalent endorsement acceptable to the director. So that's pertaining to the PTP. >> It's the same for the taxis. Uh for the insurance requirements for the taxi, every taxi cab owner and limousine owner shall maintain automobile liability insurance of not less than $2 million per occurrence exclusively exclusive interesting interest in costs and limit against loss or damage resulting from bodily energy death and property damage including passenger hazard endorsement fill out less than $2 million and naming of the city of Hamilton as an additional assured. >> Sorry, but I thought you said $5 million on the other side. >> Uh yes. So PTP does have 5 million whereas taxi cabs do have 2 million. >> Okay. And can I get clarification on the cameras? Councelor Casar asked that question as well. I thought I heard you say that if the drivers feel that they need the camera, they can put the camera in. Is the camera optional for PTP? >> Through the chair. Yes, for PTP the camera is optional. >> And it's not for taxis. >> Correct. >> Why? through the chair. As explained before, the taxi cab specifically has increased risks associated with the fact that they are paying with cash. Cash is not permitted to be a way of payment in ride shares, PTPs. Um, as such, there was an increased case of robberies associated with um specifically against the drivers during that 2007 period in which the cameras were required and we have not had an issue since. That was a recommendation I believe originally proposed and uh like recommended to staff by the Hamilton Police Services at that time. Um and again we received from consultations uh a confirmation that it should be maintained. >> So what about the safety of the passengers >> through the chair? uh for PTPs or taxi cabs >> PTP >> through the chair they >> there's no camera then what stops the driver from doing something wrong and it's not going to be recorded >> through the chair one of the portions in which that the cameras were not originally added including for majority of a jurisdiction across Ontarios is because there is increased information that is provided to the passenger prior to accepting the trip for PTPs which is not the case for taxi cabs >> you're missing my point there's There's been reported cases of assaults on women in PTP >> in Uber drivers. We don't have cameras required in those then there's no protection for the passengers that are getting in those vehicles. And the argument, well, you don't have to get in those vehicles doesn't wash. We have many young people who are using those vehic vehicles that use Uber. It's kind of cool for young people to use Uber. um but they don't have the same protection that they have if they ride in a a taxi in Hamilton. So why is that? So, chair, I think just I believe that one of the things that Stephanie was mentioning that I'll just elaborate on is the fact that the information that a individual has before they get into a PTP is far superior than that of what they do in a taxi. Taxis are allowed to do street hails. Uh Ubers are not. Um, so the the information sharing prior to an individual getting into a taxi cab versus PTP is limited. So the the theory behind it and again a lot of it >> does that prevent assaults >> through the chair. I don't I don't think we can ever prevent >> No, but you can have a camera there so that there's safety for the passenger >> through the chair. So I believe that what we did is we tried to align ourselves with other municipalities uh in best practice. Uh we do believe that there is there is uh information that's being shared in advance that can alert uh a passenger of who's picking them up and what the vehicle is. That's not to say that there isn't a risk uh there's a risk of getting in any vehicle, I would say. Um but our our approach is to align it with best practice within the um the the greater municipal field. >> Yeah, I don't I don't understand that. I have concerns. I'll be speaking to it when it comes before the council. I >> Thank you, Council Clark. You have any other >> people across the board. >> Thank you, Council Clerk. Councelor Francis. >> Oh, councelor. >> Okay. Councelor M. Wilson. >> Thank you, Chair. Can I just ask uh staff to once again repeat the terms of reference with which they were tasked to do as directed in the original motion. Thanks. >> Uh through the chair, so I don't have it in front of me, but it was a feas feasibility on um Sorry, it's just being shared with me now. Give me a second. uh that the appropriate staff and appropriate city of Hamilton licensing staff be requested to report back to planning committee on the feasibility of reviewing schedule 25 and whether a review if deemed appropriate by staff may benefit from including broader range of stakeholders. >> Thank you. And uh from your answers you have exercised that uh activity >> through the chair. Yes. >> Yes. That's what I've heard. And through your exercise, you've done a comparative analysis >> through the chair. Yes. >> Yes. And were you tasked with ensuring that those who own plates um have a return on their investment >> uh through the chair? No. >> That's right. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Francis. >> Thank you, Chair. I just go back to the original referral motion if that can be put up, please. >> Okay. Oh, we don't have a referral motion to put up. Sorry. >> Uh, one second. Did he did he send it? >> Did he send something? >> Councelor Francis, did you send something to >> basically what I've I've given you verbally that was already discussed prior to the two previous speakers. >> Okay. Thank you. So, >> if you want to read it out, I'll read it out. >> Read it out. >> That the report be referred to allow staff to undertake further work and report back to council. When >> when >> I don't I would ask that I was not allowed to ask the question. I don't remember for a motion, but what the appropriate time frame that they could bring something like that back would be >> through the chair. I think it would help us if we could clarify what the work uh would be related to. Councelor Francis >> trying to make this as uh broad as possible. I don't want to You know what I'll do, Chair? I I will withdraw and bring something to council that I'll have ready for council and get a better understanding of the exact nuances that I'll share. I'll circulate that with council. I just don't want to be in a position where I'm I'm not including or capturing everything that needs to be captured. So, I'll work on that and I'll I'll publish that uh prior to the council meeting on Wednesday. >> Okay. Thank you. That's appreciated. Thank you. >> Um councelor M. Wilson, is your hand up to speak again? >> Okay. Thank you. So, no more questions for uh Director Smith. May I have a mover and second to approve the recommendations in the report and to receive the presentation? Councelor Cretch, Councelor Wang, are there any questions for the staff at this point? No more questions. Okay, please indicate your vote now. And it's an electronic vote. Just waiting for councelor Francis and councelor McMaken. Thumbs down for councelor Francis. >> Are we voting for that motion or >> for the recommendations in the report? >> The recommendations in the report. That's 7 to2. Okay, that carries 7 to2. We are on to watch this. >> So, are we here now? >> 9.4. >> 94. >> Sorry. Yes. Uh, yes. 9.38. Okay, we're going to 9.3A. The motion is carried. Thank you. Um, correspondence respecting development of vehicle for higher bylaw from Naval Deep Singh. May I have a mover and second to receive that correspondence? Um, councelor Wang and Councelor Casar. And please indicate you're with a show of hands. Okay, thank you. That carries. We are on to 9.3 Heritage Committee meeting minutes August 21st, 2026. May I have a mover and seconder to receive the minutes and approve the recommendations? Councelor Crretch. Councelor Wang, please indicate your vote now. Are there any questions for staff? Anything? Okay. Please indicate your vote now for the heritage committee minutes minutes. >> Just one second. Um I'm sorry. We are >> Heritage Committee minutes. >> Yeah, let's do we skipped uh 9.4. four withdrawn. >> I thought it was withdrawn. >> Yes, it was. Okay. Thank you. I can't see that full piece. >> That's okay. >> So 9.5. So we have >> So we're just doing 9.3 for the vote right now. >> Did we vote already? >> 9.5. Yeah, this is >> 9ish minutes. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Correction. Give me one second. Apologies. Oh, okay. I got you. We changed our numbers. Okay. >> Was always >> 9.5 heritage committee minutes. >> Okay. The vote is up. Francis, Council Falls is gone. Councelor McMaken, thumbs up. Thank you. Council Francis is gone. 7 to zero. >> Okay, that carries. 7 to zero. We're on to 9.5A. Correspondence from Dr. Andrew Adams respecting 206 Main Street West Heritage Committee minutes from item 8.2. May I have a mover and second to receive that correspondence? Councelor Wang. Councelor Crretch. Thank you. Hands up. That's a hand vote. Thank you. Councelor McMaken, did you have your hand up? Thank you. That motion carries. We are on to item 9.6, amendments to the outstanding business list. Items requiring a new date. Um, may I have a mover and second to approve the amendment to the outstanding business list. >> Thank you, Councelor Kretch and Councelor Wang. Are there any questions for staff? I see we're at a certain point in our meeting right now. Um, we're going to go to an electronic vote now. Thank you. Let's just dig a little deeper. Dig a little deeper, people. >> McMe, thank you. T, thank you. That passes 7 to zero. >> And that passes 7 to zero. We are on to motions. And I'm going to uh pass the chair to our second vice chair, councelor Wang, who's in the room. >> Thank you. Councelor Tatterson, you have a motion on discharging firearms. would you like to read it out and uh please indicate who your seconder is, please? >> Um my >> my second will be you. Thank you. Uh I'm not going to read it out. It's it's in the minutes or it's in the agenda. Uh but I will give a summary of my key points. Basically, I'm asking our committee to have staff review bylaw number 19114, which regulates the discharge of firearms and bows. No one is going to lose their legal weapons here. I'm looking for regulations that can help us enforce reasonable use of firearms and review of discharge areas. The review aims to balance public safety with the needs of rural agricultural, conservation, hunting, sporting and regulated range activities. The review is prompted by public safety concerns, especially in one area of Glenn where the delegate and writer of the correspondents earlier today that were received currently live. Their public safety concerns and their noise nuisance concerns are due to excessive repeated gunfiring and it's noise which forces them inside too frequently depriving them of the enjoyment of their property because they are in the proximity of a permitted discharge area. People should not be having to live beside an unregulated shooting range. Based upon our current rural bylaws, this could happen in any rural ward. Imagine le loud gunfire going off repeatedly several nights a week for hours at a time next door to your house or beside your backyard. This is happening. This has been happening for several years now. As a rural counselor, I strongly feel discharge areas should not become makeshift shooting ranges set up by anyone anywhere in the rural area because our bylaws have never considered that as something that someone will go about doing. So I believe something needs to change here. So the scope of the review is going to assess whether to expand firearms and bow prohibition areas, especially in Glenn Brook and the rural areas. Consider new criteria for identifying prohibited areas based on population, land use, public access, and proximity to dwellings. Review of current setback distances are still appropriate. Examine enforcement and regulatory tools for managing recreational discharge uh near homes and public spaces. and uh focus specifically on the area that was identified in the motion um as needing review. So, one final thing, uh you heard the delegate this morning. This is quite a stressful issue. Uh staff had come back and suggested quarter 4, 2027. I've had uh consultation with uh director Smith and he has agreed to move it forward to uh quarter two of 2027 for that report back so that we can possibly get something done before next summer because this is unbearable especially in the summer months. So um thank you to that and I'll leave it at that for the vote. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from committee at all? >> Seeing none, may I have the vote, please? votes up. Councilor McMe >> is a thumbs up. >> Thank you. Councelor Morin Wilson >> is also a thumbs up. >> Thank you. >> That's seven to zero. >> Vote passes seven to zero. Back to you, chair. >> Thank you, co- vice chair. Um we're going to private and confidential. It's item 12. May I have a mover and seconder to move into close session respecting items 12.3 and 12.4 pursuant to section 9.3 subsections E F and K of the city's price surgical bylaw 21-021 as amended and section 238 subsections EF and K of the Ontario Municipal Act 2001 as amended as the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals affecting the city or a local board. advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and a position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board. Can I have those? Okay. Councelor Casar and Councelor Cretch and show of hands. Thank you, Council McMen, for getting the hand up that time. Um, motion is carried. Members of the public, the meeting will continue following the closed session portion of the meeting. When you see the members of the committee rejoin the meeting, committee will wait up to five minutes upon reconvening and open session before proceeding with the meeting to provide members of the public and the media time to return. Before we move into closed sessions, I would ask all members of the public to please exit council chambers and the WebEx meeting now. Thank you. And any staff that are not directly related to items 12.3, 12.4 four are asked to please exit the meeting now. Thank you. >> 12.3. If you're not related to 12.3 then you can come back. Yep. It's >> Yep. We're going to do 12.3. >> Okay. Sorry. I get it now. We're going to do 12.3 right now. So, anyone not connected to 12.3, please exit now and be prepared to come back for 12.4. Thank you. Yeah, I think so. You'll keep me on task if I'm not. Okay, we're uh back to open session now. We have our cameras operating. Thank you. >> 12.4 Four, appeal to the Interior Land Tribunal regarding the Futland Winona Secondary Plan, Ward 10. May I have a mover and secondary to approve the following recommendations that the direction to staff set out in close session recommendations A, B, and C to the confidential report LS17004A be approved and remain confidential until made public at the tribunal and that the balance of the confidential report LS17004A remain confidential. Councelor Cretch and Councelor Wang will uh first and second that. Please indicate your vote now electronic or by a thumb >> okay >> thumbs up. >> Thank you. 7 to zero. >> Okay, that passes. Seven to zero. We go into 9.3. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the direction to staff in closed session? Councelor Cretch, Councelor Wang. >> Yeah. And show of hands. >> And that's a show of hands. And that's unanimous. Thank you. >> And then we're going to return to 10.1 to receive the correspondence on 10.1. Um, just show of hands or does show hands. Show hands. >> Okay, I'll I'll you you can move it. Councelor I'm losing it. Sorry. Councelor Wang and councelor Casar. And then uh show hands. Thank you. That passes. Thank you everybody. Uh we are now >> adjourned at 450. >> Adjourned at 450. Thank you. Not bad.