through the chair. If you want, we can start now. >> Okay. Good morning. Um, we'll start off with uh roll call. Uh, Nick, uh, Yanukica. Uh, Robert, Mel and myself, Dale. Um, do I need >> Yes. And through the chair, I believe members Donna and Sebastian are not here. And, uh, with the first item we had was the ratification of the minutes from the previous committee of adjustment meeting. >> I have a mover and a seconder for the minutes of the last meeting. Nick Bell. All in favor? opposed. Seeing none, motion carried. Okay. The first application to be heard is a minor variance. It's now 9:31 a.m. So, the first application to be heard is a minor variance application A 202600305, 61 Broadway Avenue, Hamilton. Uh, owner is H. Leu and applicant is S. Jung. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on uh on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers? Okay. Um, seeing none, I'll ask the uh applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name. Um, and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thanks. I believe we had S. Jung there. Oh, I I think I see their hand raised there. >> Oh, hi. >> Yep. Go ahead. Uh, go ahead. >> Oh, hi. Good morning, uh, Mr. Chair and committee members. Uh, my name is Shanu Jan, architect, uh, the architect and agent for this application. So the project is a proposed um new forplex devel um and um we have three uh four uh variances. The first one is about the uh side the setback from the the flankage street. Uh the bylaw requires a three meter setback. we provided 2.3 m setbacks and that variance two and three actually is related to this the bylaw allows uh um excroment of the sale and uh cany with half of the uh setback of three uh 2 uh 2.3 mters which is 1.15 m. So we proposed 1.3 mters uh which is uh 0 15 m um more encroachment to the uh Frankish yard. So that is for the uh variances two and three and the variances four about we have um parking space on the side yard from the side yard. So the uh um the staff we reviewed the staff comments they uh required to have uh premiereable papers and I have talked to our clients. We agreed to provide um permirable papers for this parking uh the driveway. So that's what I can tell for now. and then uh I'm ready to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. >> Okay. So, the variances that you've applied for one, two, and three are okay by planning department. Um variance number four, um they have a a problem with with the surface material in the parking spot. >> Correct. Yeah. Now we we decided to use pverse which is ponderable. >> Okay. So you're not gonna no technical issue at all on the market. We can uh easily find the products. >> Okay. So you're going to use permeable pavers in that area. >> Yes. >> Okay. Does the committee have any questions or concerns? Is there a motion? >> I'll uh I'll make a motion to approve um variances 1 to three and um deny variance for as per permeable pavers will be used. Um and that includes the proposed notes and uh and condition. >> Okay. Seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Uh it's now 9:36 a.m. Uh next we have a minor variance application A202600139 291 Main Street West Hamilton. Owner is Kade Koi. Applicant is A. Hellwick and agent is Andrew Allen Hellwick Design Consultants Incorporated. Uh is there any members of the SP public who wish to speak on this application whether uh on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent uh please step forward, please provide your name and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thanks. Good morning, Mr. Chair, committee members. Um, thank you. Uh, we I was hoping I could provide a bit more Oh, sorry. I was hoping I could provide a bit more information regarding this particular application. Um, the owner is here with me today. uh having read the the staff report and the proposed denial of this application, I wanted to provide a little bit more background to the uh to the site and the building and the use that's been going on for in excess of 20 years. As you know, the the um the application was to permit the ground floor dwelling unit to be returned because it was there once before. Um the owners had decided to attempt a retail component on that floor level. um that did not work out um unfortunately. Um so uh the hope was to return that floor level back to the residential use. Um again it's it's quite a negligible component of that whole building. It's about 800 square f feet, Ben, I think. Um, and we're hoping that the committee members will kind of consider that in regards to the uh the um I guess the vibrancy or the the negative impact on this on this particular corridor. Um uh yeah, beyond that, I was hoping that that information might be uh might be an assistance to the committee members when they're making their decision this morning. Thank you for your time. If there's any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them or if the owner would like to talk to. >> Hello. I've also um I also our family lived there for 20 plus years and then just like Andrew talked about we try to do a retail business the ground floor. Um the file that I've submitted um it shows that uh we had a big loss in that year. Also, we've um had a listing with a market commercial business and we had no foot traffic or no interest in that um area. I also had an around the area of our uh property there are nine vacant commercial properties which shows that the commercial interest is very weak at the moment in that area. I've also attached um the the tenants or the the neighbors uh with a confirming letter that they would rather have a residential area back in that spot. So, I hope that um the file that I've submitted and the evidence that it shows that the having a residential area back will be the best um approach um for the city as well. So, you've read the comments that were posted. Um, they're recommending denial. I mean, we um we can table it if you wish, if you want to talk with planning and see if you can get more favorable comments from them. >> Um, yes, we've already tabled it once before when we received the initial comments. Um, so Ben had kind of composed as much information as we possibly could to kind of illustrate the complexity of trying to get another retail tenant in that space. And again, from an urban planning perspective, as I stress, it's such a negligible component um that that floor plate would be returned to residential use. Um, we feel it wouldn't be a negative a negative impact. So, >> okay. Committee members, Robert. >> Well, after reviewing the staff's comments, one thing struck out to me. An expansion to a legally established non-conforming use within C5299 zone. And it requires approval of the appropriate planning act application, which means the property has to be reszoned. We don't have the ability to do that. So, I think I I'm not sure where to go other than deny. We have to deny it. And I'll make a motion to deny the application based on that. >> Okay. There's a motion on the floor for denial. Is there a second or Nick? All in favor? Opposed? Yanukica, are you voting? You're in favor. Okay. Um in that case um the motion is carried and the application is denied. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Sorry just through the chair check. So Yianica you were not support in support of that motion. >> Oh you were okay. Apologies. Okay. >> All right. Uh, it's now 9:42 a.m. And next we have a minor variance application AE2026 00050 174 174 Stanley Avenue Hamilton. So the owner is C. Pussar applicant is Jay Bognar and the agent is the same person as well. Um, are there any members of the public wish to speak on this application whether uh on WebEx or port on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers? Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward please provide and provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Hi everyone, Jenny Vogner here. Um, so we brought this application um to committee and we were supposed to be on the June 4th meeting. uh we weren't happy with the staff comments and uh their recommendation of denial. So we tabled um that meeting to hopefully work with uh planning and engineering to come up with a plan that would satisfy everyone. Uh we ended up reducing the overall size of the building from 43.29 m to 41.39 and moved the building over to the west to provide the requested 0.9 um minimum sideyard setback uh 0.9 m on the east side. This in turn required an additional variance on the west side of 0 98 instead of the required 1.2. Uh we spoke with Helen MacArthur and Daniel Barnett and they both assured us they were in support of these changes along with the original variance for the rear yard setback. Uh so yeah, not a whole lot of changes, some minor things uh that made staff happy. Uh the client also talked with his neighbors who originally had some concerns with the original proposal and they are all in favor of these changes. So happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Does committee have any questions? >> You're happy with the staff the changes ends. >> Yes. >> The staff is happy with it. So I will make a motion to approve with all the new >> by Mel, seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you everyone. >> Okay, it is now 9:44 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application A2026 00350 33 Sanford Avenue South Hamilton. Uh owner it's is plat Holdings Incorporated J. McCarter applicant is the same company and agent is Landwise K. Gillis. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on the WebEx platform or here on here in council chambers. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Hi, good morning chair, members of committee, staff, public. My name is Caitlyn Gillis, senior planner at Landwise. Um we have received staff's um recommendation report and reviewed their comments acknowledging um that it is not very favorable. We are uh working with staff currently to uh provide more documentation um and work through the recommendation. So because of that, I am kindly requesting to table the application today until the October 29th uh CFA hearing. >> Okay. Is there a motion to table? Nick, >> I'll make a motion to table this application. >> Seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application tabled. >> Okay. Thank you very much, committee. >> Thank you. And uh just uh to let the applicant agent know that staff will be in touch with you afterwards in terms of next steps on how to proceed. And just in case if there was anyone here for this application which is uh for 33 Sanford Avenue South Hamilton um if you wanted to be notified on uh any updates with this application. If you are on WebEx uh you can send us an email to cofa at hamilton.ca or if you're here at council chambers you can fill out an interested party form here. Okay. All right. Thanks. Um, next we have a minor variance application. Uh, next it's 9:47 a.m. We have a minor variance application A2026 00350. Oh, no, sorry, that was the previous one. A2026 000088. uh 653 Barton Street East, Hamilton. The owner is a numbered company 01164959 Ontario Incorporated S. Zubati. Applicant is Build Genius Incorporated. D Thiagi. Um just going to check. We did have an interested party. Just want to check and see if they were here. Uh, Nadine Ubel Ubi or Ubel with the uh, okay, I believe they're with the the Barton Village uh, group. Okay, just checking. Okay. Um, I don't believe they're here. Okay. Is there any other uh is there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Uh, 653 Barton Street East. uh whether on the WebEx platform or in council chambers. Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the uh applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and you have uh 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Good morning, chair uh and the members of the committee. My name is Deepakiagi and I am the authorized agent for the property owners at 65 653 Bart GPS East. We are requesting the committee's approval on minor variance application. Uh firstly I would like to clarify one very important point regarding the parking because simply uh describing this application as six parking spaces and required and zero spaces pro zero space provided does not tell the full story of how we arrived at the prison condition. Our original site plan submission included four parking spaces with within the Earl Street Boulevard together with five additional off- streetet parking spaces at the neighboring property 657-61 Barton Street East. The city's own site plan comments confirmed that was originally uh provided to us. During the site plan review application, transportation planning specifically directed us to remove those four beling spaces. Uh city's written comment is with us uh because stating that Boulevard parking is no longer permitted. City does not issue Boulevard parking agreements and the parking proposed which was there uh um as a registered uh registered with the property previously. Forestry also advised that it did not support continued parking within the boulevard and instead wanted the area restored to a soft surface with new street tree planting. Uh we complied with those city's directions. Therefore, current zero zoning compliant onsite parking condition is not the result of the applicant simply deciding not to provide parking. It is the result of revisions made during municipal site plan approval proc review process. Following our discussions with city staff, all street layout was revised to provide three designated loading spaces together with a dedicated pedestrian connection to the building entrance. In addition, the owner has secured five actual car uh car parking spaces at the immediately neighboring property through a private rental agreement. The agreement specifically provides five five parking stalls for the clinics use. We fully acknowledge that this private rental agreement does not meet technical requirements of the zoning bylaw for registering offsite uh parking on the title. We are not asking the committee to treat those five spaces as legally satisfying the six space zoning requirement. However, we respectfully submit those spaces remain highly relevant when the committee considers the actual impact of this variance. The owner originally attempted to provide four boulevard spaces secured another five spaces privately commissioned as a profession. Uh I would now respect respectfully address the four test of the planning. Uh first uh the property is designated at mixeduse medium density and is located along a pedestrian focused street. City's own planning comment states that these areas intended to support pedestrian oriented mixeduse development and a confir comfortable active streetscape. The removal of boulevard parking restoration of public realm and provision of landscaping and street trees directly respond to city's objective. Second, the general intent of the zoning bylaw is maintained. the proposed medical clinic is permitted in the C5 zone. Uh the most important factor is like that medical clinic is already approved and we like it'll be operational like uh by next month. So we are just uh this is a small addition to the existing uh medical clinic. So the existing medical clinic is operation will be operating without any parking. So I think like uh having uh no parking for this addition should not be creating any additional issues for uh so like I respect we will respectfully want to emphasize that the application did not come to the city proposing zero parking. We originally proposed four boulevard parking plus neighboring spaces. The four boulevard parking was subsequently removed because transportation planning expressly required us to remove them. So we request committee to consider that and uh help us to get this approved. Thank you. >> Well, can we hear from staff on the parking? Right. Uh David Bowman, planning technician with the West team. Uh through the chair to the committee member. Um, at a high level, staff do acknowledge that there have been some there have been efforts made to address parking issues offsite, whether it was the right to parking agreement or um efforts to improve the like the the loading area within the side street for example. Um there are still some concerns that staff have regarding them such as the the agreement is not registered on title of the neighboring property. So it doesn't meet the requirements of the zoning bylaw to be technically offsite parking and the the loading spaces for example won't be for the exclusive use of the clinic because it's within the public right of way. So technically anyone can use it as a parking space or a loading space. um it does help address some of the demand and concerns. It it you could consider it a mitigating factor, but it wouldn't meet the forecasts in the staff's opinion. So that's essentially why we came to our our recommendation. >> Sorry, what was that? You're still recommending chang >> I also have a question for staff uh in the event that they are able to do a rental parking agreement on title would that change the denial >> uh through the chair. If the rental agreements were registered on title, it's our understanding that the parking would then be recognized through the zoning bylaw and staff would be able to um support that approach. Then >> my next question would be to the applicant. Um is that something that you could foresee happening that the rental agreement be registered on title? >> Uh so we spoke to the neighbors uh like the problem with like having registered on title is like uh let's say like if like they have like some plan like down the line of like 10 years or 20 years they want to like develop their land then at that time like that parking might not be available. So that's that's why like they are uh not in favor of like having it registered on the title as an easement or something like that. But a long-term like a parking agreement like for let's say one or two years can be done for sure. And also like uh this like second floor we we have a an approved permit for a medical office like at the first floor. Uh this is just an extension to that. We are adding like some more staff rooms and few more clinics. So like if if like there's a problem with zero parking that problem should be with the first floor medical clinic as well. So like if first floor medical clinic can operate without the parking because like there are lots of street parkings, there are lots of like parking lots within the vicinities. That's why like we secured a rental agreement for the parking. So there are like surplus parking within that area. The only problem with us is like nobody is like uh willing to register it on their title cuz like if they want to like sell that property in future so there will be a limitation on that property itself. But there are like surplus parking and that's why like our medical office got approve got approval for the first floor. >> So I if if there's nothing on title I don't know if I would be able to support this application. Um would you be willing to defer to see if you could sort something out with the owners to put something on title? And if not then I will make the motion to deny this. So let's say like if we u if if we like if we defer and we have something like uh as a registered uh on title then would would it like still be uh requiring a minor variance application or would it be like considered to suffice >> if you were to defer to the next hearing and you were able to get something in on title your >> staff would be in approval of this and your odds would be pretty good to get this approved >> because the only thing holding it back right now is what's not on title. >> Yeah. But like it is like very unlikely cuz like uh uh we have uh we had a we had like multiple round of discussion with the neighbors like where we secured the parking. So we have like secured almost 15 car parking spaces within uh the neighborhood. So we got like 10 parking space at the nearest church where like church is using their parking lots only on the weekends and on during the weekends uh our medical office is closed. So like it's it's a very good like mutual understanding between us and the church property. So we have like 10 parking over there, five parking within the neighboring lot. But registering in on title might be an issue with everyone. I think I think that um if you get the feeling of of um where maybe the committee might be going on this one um if we tabled it and give you that option to try and and uh source out um some parking on title type of thing, then maybe you might uh receive favorable comments from from the planning department. uh as it sits right now I I I think you can sense the feeling of of possibly where the committee is going with with the application with the recommendation from planning. Uh we tabled it like last time as well and uh we had like discussion but we can like take one more chance if like city is like not planning is not like supporting without having uh it registered on the title. I have a I have a question to staff. If this was changed to a medical facility in the bylaws, how many parking spots are recommended for for that excuse me through the chair um just want to make sure we're understanding the question. So it's currently they have a onef flooror a singlestory medical clinic already approved and the the parking is actually required for the second story. So you're asking if the use changes, how many parking spaces would be >> Well, no. If what just in general, what are the parking requirements for a medical plaza or building zoning staff is is checking that the the variance is for six spaces. I' I'd like to hang this out for another meeting, but I don't know if things are going to change enough to go forward with it. Um, it's tough. There was a convenience store there previously and obviously it's it's closed. Correct. the existing to the applicant the existing sea store is closed. >> Oh yes like we like our our medical office uh is like almost ready to start next month. So all the inspections most of the inspections are already done. We are uh we will be like starting starting our operations like in November >> and like >> okay well here I'll say I'll save you for a second. The convenience store closed on its own. >> Uh, yes. >> Okay. So, a convenience store is for convenience items and have a convenience offer to pick it up. There is no parking around the building. A medical center is going to put more pressure on what limited parking there is. So, again, I'm not in favor of uh approving this. because some things are just not going to change. Um, going back to the comments, the general intent of the urban Hamilton official plan and zoning bylaw is not desirable for this appropriate use of development of the land and is not minor in nature. So, and staff do not support it. So, I don't know where they're going to find parking to make it desirable. in the comments. >> So like we have we have like parking agreements like the only problem is like having it registered on the title. We have like lots of uh street parking which are ready available to the public and we have uh we have secured five parking on the adjacent lot where we have uh a direct connection to our medical office. See, and the other thing that kind of caught me off caught me off guard here, you're offering a medical clinic and no accessible parking spaces, this is variance number two, shall be provided instead of the minimum required one accessible parking space, but you're a medical clinic. You would think there'd be a need to have an accessible parking spot. >> For sure. But like the thing is like if you if you go through the drawings which we had submitted the original survey shows a boulevard parking which was uh there like for a period of like 20 years now and like even like like last year like we paid the fee for that to get it renewed but going forward urban forestry and transportation planning is not supporting that boulevard parking but like that was there and because of that parking uh client has invested did over 3 million on this property. So, he has just bought this one. >> Okay, we're going around in circles here. Um I'll make a motion to table it as per and um and hopefully they can solve the issue with parking. Uh it concerns me that the site plan has been been approved by the city. So there's a little conflict of interest here, I think. So we'll just table it. Let the planning department flush it out and we'll go for there. So motion to table. >> Okay. Motion on the floor for table. Seconded by Yanuka. All in favor of table. Opposed if any seeing none motion carried application is tabled. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. And through the chair, the uh to the applicant agent, we will be in staff will be in touch with you on how to proceed afterwards. And again, just in case if anyone was here for this application for uh uh 653 Barton Street East, uh if you want to be notified on any updates on this application, if you're on WebEx, do email us at cofa@ hamilton.ca or if you're here in council chambers, you can fill out an interested party form. Okay. Thank you. It is now 10:05 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application A24161, 83 Sanford Avenue South, Hamilton. Owner is Zusco and applicant is E. Porter. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on the WebEx platform or in council chambers? >> Hey, are you speaking on this application? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay, go ahead. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Uh, good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Ebony. I'm here on behalf of Elizabeth Porter and the owner, uh, William Zusco. >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. We we were first asking if there's any like residents who wanted to speak. Uh >> yes, 283 Sanford South. >> But you're representing the applicant or No. >> Yeah. Um so, um I'm I'm representing the applicant and I'm here on behalf of Elizabeth Porter. >> Okay. No, we were first asking if there's any other residents first who wanted to speak. That that was what we were asking for first. So, let me just check first. Yeah. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Okay. Okay. Seeing none then. Okay. Please uh yeah, please provide your name and you'll have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Um my name is Evony Trenton and um or the owner of the property. Um he he owned one of the properties and then he eventually purchased another property right beside the one property. So the properties got merged into one property and um he came to our office to sell one of the properties and didn't realize at the time that they were attached. So um we're we're trying to sever the property so that he can sell the one property. Um so we have um we have a deny in the engineering department side that um we wanted to possibly talk to the engineering um department to come to some sort of conclusion about that. Well, and and the recommendation from planning department is to table >> um so to be able to sit down and and have a discussion as to whether they can come up with favorable comments both from uh development and from planning. So I'm wondering if at this time uh if you don't have any other questions Mel did you have I question would you respect want to table this so you get things straightened out that's what chairman's asking you >> yeah um we'd like to table it so that we can sort of get it figured out >> okay that case I'll make a motion to table >> okay motion made by Mel seconded by Robert all in favor opposed seeing none motion carried application tabled >> thank Thank you. >> Thank you. And our agent will be uh staff will be in touch with you on how to proceed after this meeting. And just a just in case if there's anyone here was here for this application, 83 Sanford Avenue South. If you want to be notified on this application on any updates with this application, if you're on the uh WebEx portal uh on the sorry the WebEx platform, please email us at coffa@ hamilton.ca. Uh or if you are here in council chambers, you can fill out an interested party form. Okay. Okay. It is now 10:09 a.m. We now have a consent application B20 2600219 305 Stone Church Road West Hamilton. Owner is Duchenzo Construction Company Limited. A Duchenzo. Applicant is the same company. Agent and the agent is the Big Group R. Laro. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers? Okay. Seeing none, unless the applicant or agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Good morning members of committee. My name is Michelle Lorac. I am a registered professional planner with the big area group. I am representing Duchenzo Construction Company this morning. Um we have reviewed the comments that have come in. Our application is to sever one about 9 and a half th000 square meter property and retain the remaining 62,000 square meter property for future residential development plans. I just wanted to provide a few comments of clarification regarding some of the comments that were provided from city staff. Um the application will sever off a portion of the lands that 9500 square meter portion but it will continue to allow for that retained parcel behind to have two accesses. One will still be maintained to Stone Church Road. The other would be provided to Rayano Crescent Chzley Street which runs along the east side. the severance will continue to meet that minimum standard um despite what the comments have provided. I also want to provide that the neighborhood plan that's referred to is a guiding document. This plan isn't within the city's official plan. It provides guidance but it isn't something that needs to be strictly adhered to which given the age from the early 90s there's a significant change in planning and development since that time and what we're proposing reflects that or what we're intending to construct reflects that. I also wanted to note that the number of accesses on to Stone Church Road wouldn't change as part of this application as suggested. There was always the intent in this neighborhood plan that there would be two accesses from these properties to Stone Church. The only difference is that one of these accesses would be for a condominium road. Saying all of this, we recognize that there are some objections and that there are some additional requests for information specifically from the Hamilton Conservation Authority to undertake um additional on-site investigations. And in order to further address this with city staff as well as Hamilton Conservation Authority staff, we'd request that this application be tabled for a minimum of six months. Okay. So, a motion for table Nick, seconded by Yanik. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion is carried. Application is tabled. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And to the applicant or agent, uh staff will be in touch with you on next steps on on uh in terms of how to proceed with this application. And again, just in case if anyone was here for this application, 305 Stone Church Road West Hamilton. If you wanted to be notified of any updates on this application, if you're on the WebEx uh platform, do email us at cofa@ hamilton.ca or if you're here at council chambers, you can fill out an interested party form. Okay. Next, we had a uh it's now 10:13 a.m. We had a minor variance application A202600217 one Bishop Tono's Way Hamilton. Uh owner is Zest Town Square Developments Incorporated R. Beoko and the agent is Landex Developments Limited B. Graham. Uh for the um just just for the committee's reference, this application was tabled prior to the hearing. As such, the committee will not be hearing this application today. Um but just in case of anyone here whether on um WebEx platform or here in council chambers if you were here for this application one Bishop Tono's Way Hamilton this application was tabled prior to the meeting. Um if you want to be notified on any updates with this application please if you're on the WebEx platform do send us an email at cofa@ hamilton.ca or if you're here in council chambers do fill out an interested party form. Okay. Next, it is 10:14 a.m. We have a and this is a consent application B2026 00331 1329 Old Highway 8 Flambor. Owner is C. Pereizes S. Periz Miard and Munch. Applicant is C. Pereiz and the agent is the Angish group are Angish. Uh this application was tabled prior to the uh meeting today. So, as such, the committee will not be hearing this application today. Um, if there's anyone here for these this application, again, 131329 Old Highway 8 Flamro. If you wish to be uh notified on any updates on this application, if you're on the WebEx platform, do send us an email at cofa@ hamilton.ca or if you're here in council chambers, do fill out a interested party form. Okay. Next, it's uh 10:15 a.m. We now have a minor variance application A202600292 95 Orcne Road, Flamro. Owner is Jay. Apologize if I mispronounced name Jay Zoki. Um, is there any members of the public wish to speak on this application whether on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers 95 Orcne Road, Flamro? Okay, seeing none, I will uh ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Good morning everyone. Uh thanks for listen letting me explain my uh situation that has come about uh um and how I got to where we are. Um uh 2022 um uh or co it shut my company down. 2022 we were starting to make a climb back up and I was um seriously injured, shattered both my ankles, broke my jaw, punctured my neck, lost feeling in my face. Luckily lucky to be alive. Um and as uh I was making a recovery from that, finally getting back on my feet again, starting to get my business going up again, um I became uh I collapsed. I ended up having a 6 cm abscess in my intestines and uh became septic and went in the hospital. They told me I was not going to leave the hospital. Uh here I am. Fortunately, I I uh recovered. Um 3 months later after that, they had to open me up uh from top to bottom here. 7 hours of surgery to remove a bunch of my intestines. And uh um as I was recovering from that to try and get back up and running again to uh be able to maintain my property and and my uh my home, uh my partner um became pregnant with twins and uh so she has a I have a stepdaughter with her and I have a son. So we have a a busy home and uh we have a lot to pay for because I've been off my feet for a few years. So, in a scramble to try and keep our home and and a roof over our family's head, um my parents being an only child said that they would uh work together with us and uh be there to provide an assistance for the for the children and uh help pay my bills with me as my business recovered and uh and my partner was off work with the twins. Um, so we put an addition on um existing building and uh at the time I didn't think it was going to be an a major issue uh with all this um because the original building wasn't an issue. Um I guess there's different rules under P7 for a living area, not just a building and I didn't know that obviously. Um, so, uh, as we built the building, um, the inspectors put a stop work order on it and and and we tried to do the processes to get here. And, uh, I know the comments have said about the forestry and and some and the zoning and all that around there. The only thing I can say to you is that the GRCA has absolutely no issue with our area and um Dan Muse, our local MP, did a site visit and had no issue and we didn't affect any of the trees on the property. Um like the the building is is built on the existing driveway and existing lawn. Um, so it didn't affect anything from a environmental standpoint and in fact that whole area of my property is extremely level and flat and borders uh farmland. So it it doesn't affect anything environmentally and um um and like I said it was it was a scramble to save uh save my property, my home and and and take care of the situations we were dealing with. and uh um you know that you know that that's it really. Okay, committee members. There's four four variances requested. >> Obviously you've read the comments from from planning. Yes. And we put every dime we've had into this and and like we're just stretched so thin. I just, you know, if it if it goes sideways and and we have to tear it down, like we're I'm going to be like we're going to be really in a pickle. I when I first read the uh application, I wasn't sure whether whether it was under construction or had already been built. Um, and I what I was thinking was if it was built uh away from the existing buildings on a standalone, um, would the square footage be different? Um, yeah, we just tied it into the existing building that was there and all the services and everything into it and uh, it um, you know, that that building we built 11 years ago. So, was that building at that time habitable type of thing? >> No, it was just a 42x60 shop that I had built to put our stuff in and uh um and we had no issues building that. So, that's why I I went forward thinking there was going to be no issues. I guess as soon as you try to have someone live in something, that's where the zoning issue is where if it if it was just an addition, it would be a minor variance pretty easy, I think, is what I was told. But because someone's sleeping in there, it makes all the difference, right? But like we're not affecting anybody. We have 32 almost 32 acres, 31 and a half acres. Uh we're nowhere near any neighbor or in the road where we're 500 ft from the road, right? So it's not visually affecting anyone. You can't even see it from the road. I'm in the bush. Uh it's not like it's hindering anybody. >> No. And we haven't received any letters uh of complaint or anything like that. So um there aren't any neighbors complaining. It's just a a policy um situation that that you've fallen into. >> Yeah. >> Um >> I know they've I know they've like I've I think I read I was trying to do some research that they've allowed some of these situations in the past and I was hoping that maybe we could, you know, have it. >> So, when you applied, did you apply for a permit to build this additional building? >> No, I'm sorry. and and I was in such a scramble and such a rush because my mortgage was up and I had no money. I was completely broke from being sick and all that. And I'm now my like I said my girlfriend's pregnant with twins. I just turned two a month ago and you know I have other kids and all this going on and I was like it was like sell my home and and and my you know I use that my shop to store my equipment and things in my motor home for I travel for my work and I was just I had no I had no idea where I was going to be going and uh so my parents scrambled to sell our family home to come there and assist us. Right. So, we rushed to build it, but I I honestly I didn't think it was going to be an issue because it wasn't getting an issue for the the original building permit. And I it's my fault not I'm not a builder. I don't know the rules. Right. >> Sorry. Through the chair, just a just a reminder and you may be aware there there is there were two letters that were submitted by uh two residents in relation to this and they were posted on the website as well. >> Okay. I didn't I don't know what the letters say. I'm sorry I didn't see them. Yes, they they would have been posted um just uh one two one or two days just prior to the meeting. Um yeah, there are two uh they were sent in by email by two uh neighboring residents. Um one I believe is is in o is in opposition to the proposal. The second one um there was some communication with that resident. They were just asking questions about uh just just about the process and and how um the committee of adjustment process and how things are being handled. Um like none of the neighbors can see only in the winter time when the leaves are down they can you can see my property but it's not it's not an issue that way and it it hasn't affected anything. But neighbors get notification um when an application comes forward within a certain distance from the applicant and so it they have the right to to comment uh positive, negative or no comment at all. Um that's their right. some of the variances that are in front of us um you know we might be able to uh um work with but some of these variances are uh are well say fairly large variance um and because it's attached to the existing building it it takes into consideration the square footage of the whole building and that puts us in into a situation. Um, and you have admitted um, you know, that a permit should have been issued or you should have received a permit before you started and maybe that would have uh, flagged some variances at that time. Um, like I I I have it was all built to code. I have the engineered stamped off on all the inspections. I have like the ESA everything's done properly. Um, there's no issues there. I have the HVAC, everything's done perfectly and and and all that. Um, I think I one thing I forgot to put in my prop my package to you guys is I think I forgot to put in there is we have a managed forest act on the property too cuz I know there was some concerns about the trees, but we didn't affect any of that. Um the the height variance I think it's because the existing building is above the height but the addition isn't a height issue. It's the existing building that's the height. >> Yeah. And that's that could have been one of the variances that that um you know we could be okay with. >> Yeah. Yeah. cuz I had I did when I built the existing building, I remember having to get a variance for the height and it was like you guys were it was in and out because you know why >> I think because because it it becomes a habitable space then it kicks into different policies in place. If it was just an addition on the on the building that was there it would probably be a totally different scenario. Um but because it's going to be um a dwelling unit, an additional dwelling unit, then different policies get put into place, height and and whether it's allowed in in the P7 um and the square footages. Um >> yeah, >> could be greater than what's allowed for a a secondary dwelling unit. Um, I'm going to turn it over to the committee uh for any questions or concerns on this one. We do hear you, you know, um, and believe me, we do feel weal issues, but you also have to understand that that we are regulated by some of the policies that are in place. But the reason that we're here as a committee is, you know, if there are gray areas um that we can see passed. >> I know that uh like they want me they're trying to do reszoning, it would be hundreds of thousands of dollars, which we don't have. And like when they drew the zoning, it seems like they just labeled it, you know, like they didn't >> Yeah. >> The area the the property is like it's nothing. >> I don't know whether resoning is an answer to to satisfy this. But uh >> and then uh like I said, we had the GRCA supports us and then the the local MP came by and seen it and didn't think it anything of it. Um and like like I said, like it I don't even know how we would tear this thing down, right? So, I'm going to turn it over to the committee. I mean, we're we're like I say, we're governed by policies that are that are in place. uh help us make decisions. Um but there are times when um um we can make other decisions. Uh Anukica, did you >> I just have a question about the shed that it's attached to. Is there like a concrete pad on the shed? Like how if it's just like a simple drive shed, it may even be easier to remove the shed or move it so that they are two separate entities. No, it's attach like it's a 42x60 heated and serviced uh building and then we we kind of the attachment it was like almost like an L off the back and side. Um the front part of the on the on the side is uh is a garage for my parents and then the back is the living area and um so and it tied into the existing building to build it. there would be no way to to separate the two. >> Robert, >> what um what is the foundation for the new for the addition >> addition? Uh so it's a like Doug, you know, they go down 5 ft and pour the concrete foundation. Um, and then uh it's a we heat the we heated the house with like heated floor and then we have like a air exchange unit with the air conditioning and all that, right? >> Yeah. I I looked at the drawings and as you said they're stamped but you missed the part of a building permit. Um like the building inspector that came out, he like he doesn't know the rules necessarily either. He cuz he thought, "Oh, this will be easy. Just go get a building permit. I love what you've done here. He was in support of it. And then when I went to do that, that's where we ran into the P7 issue that I I had wasn't aware of. See, in one sense, unfortunately, I didn't drive by this one, and you can't see it from Google Earth off the road. Your the existing house, but is the proposed ADU in the back and the garage, etc., going to, I guess in easy terms, overpower or bigger than the existing house? >> Um, I don't think so. Like the existing house is a 5,000 foot home with a threecar garage. >> Okay. >> On on on it. And uh so it's very big footprint, right? I know. I know. When they do the square foot of your home, I don't think they include the garage, right? But there's a threec car garage attached to the house. >> I'm just looking at your >> site plan. >> I'm sorry. Yeah. >> With the one with no scale. Yeah. Um that that's why I was asking cuz you can't see it like I said. >> Yeah. My and my driveway is really long. It's like it's three or 4 hundred feet to the house, right? Like it wraps around and up to the shop. Um that's why you can't see it from the road. >> Yeah. >> The one problem that that's brought up here by the city staff is is their opinion that the zoning bylaw amendment application is the appropriate mechanism to facilitate the proposed development. That's a pretty big nut to crack. >> Yeah, it's 35,000 just to apply, right? Let alone everything else you need. And it it it's you know, >> well, I just to say we're we've got what we've got to follow. >> Yeah, I know. I know. Yeah. >> And then of course the variance do not meet the intent of the Rural Hamilton official plan. Staff noted variances will result in negative impacts to natural heritage features and functions. I can't I can't buy into that one, but that's just me. Um, >> well, the GRCA came and said that they have no issue with anything and they approve our variance, right? So, >> as chairman said, you know, we do deal with some gray issues, but these are could be a little bit more than gray, unfortunately. like we could massage it a little bit, >> but it's it's a tough one to look at. >> So, can I ask a question? What's the what's the like what's the major issue? Is like with is it uh like the size or is it the is it just because it's in a P7? Cuz I I seen that in the past you guys have allowed uh additional dwelling units on P7 properties. Um, and I So I was just like, what's the major hurdle? I guess >> the major hurdle is the comments that came back from the staff cuz that's their that's their job. >> Yeah. >> Right. And they've got to follow the Bible, the whatever. But we do have some leeway here. Did we but we did we address uh some of the staff's concerns by the GRCA um issue and and the fact that we we didn't affect any of the the surrounding forest that was built on existing lawn and driveway. >> Well, there is one one possibility is that we table it or defer it. >> Okay. And allow you to sit back and look at all the comments that came in and deal with staff to try to massage them a little bit. give them a little bit more information, maybe some pictures of what's gone on there and and reference. >> Okay, >> I'm not going to say go and get a survey because that'll be four, five, six grand. >> Okay. >> Um but um that would be my suggestion. >> The only other other option is that we >> Yeah. >> it. >> So I would say table it. >> Okay. get with staff again and try to massage everything out and see where they're coming from or what they have to deal with and and whether you can >> accommodate it or not >> and get better better comments on it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Is that your wishes to table? >> I I guess so because it it's the only option I have, right? Yeah. Yeah. So putting it that way. >> Yeah. So do do they reach out to me? or I go reach out to them. >> I would reach out to them. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, is there a motion to table? >> I'll make a motion to table it. >> Okay. Motion made by Robert, seconded by Mal Mah. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application tabled. >> Thank you. Thanks for your time. >> Thank you to the applicant agent. We'll be staff will be in touch with you on how to proceed after. Okay. >> Um, thank you. And if there's any members of the public here for this application, 95 Orcne Road, Flamro, if you want to be notified on any updates with the application, if you're on the WebEx platform, you can email us at cofa@ hamilton.ca. Um, or if you are here at council chambers, you can fill out an interested party form. And also just for through the chair, just for your reference, I know you were uh uh asking about uh you weren't um sure if there was um you know, if a if a building permit had been issued for building a structure. In the staff comments, if you go down to where uh building engineering provides comments uh for this application, you'll see under the notes, it says order to comply and it has a file number there um dated August 25th, 2024 remains outstanding. So generally if you see that there says order to comply that t that generally means that there was a structure built there that that uh was built without the benefit of a of a building apartment. Just just for your reference. Um it's 10:36 now. Uh 10:36 a.m. Now did we want to take a break? >> Yes. 5 minutes. That's okay. >> Okay. We'll take Yeah. Sorry. Oh, sorry. >> 10 minutes. >> 10 minute. Okay. All right. 10-minute break. Uh, so we'll break now and we'll come back or we'll reconvene around 10:46 a.m. Thanks. Now 10 52 a.m. We're reconvening now from our break. Uh, next we have a consent application B2026 00111573 Regional Road 97 Flamro owner D. Braden. Applicant is the same person. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? either uh on uh on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers. Uh seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent, please step forward. Uh please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Uh good morning members of the committee, Mr. Chairman. Um thanks for the opportunity. I was here once about three months ago and I was asked by a gentleman at mighty business person to my left to get a survey of what we are intending to move. We want to move a very very small amount of property from my farm to my late wife's estate, the property next door where I live and I have permission to speak on both properties. It is really minor in the sense of minor adjustment. So, I want to thank the staff for having a a very clear recommendation, and it's a positive one. I agree with it, but I have a bone of contention that I want to share with you, and I'm sorry if it will annoy you, but it's a personal principle of mine that I want to share with you. So, the recommendation is to approve the minor adjustment, but it says that the condition is to take a strip of property along the front of my property and donate it to the city for a future road widening. Now, you might use different words, but that's what it's that's the nature of what the condition is. Let me go backwards for a while. when it was a provincial highway and it was being downloaded to the city, the agent for that process came to me and said, "We need I'm going to make this number up 25 ft for this new road profile to make it a bigger, more substantial road." And I said, "I I have some experience in the business of land development." I said, 'I'll give you all the land you need, but I won't give you all the land you want because we we got to get serious about farmland and about treating people well. The province immediately understood that I knew how to play the game. They bought the land that they needed to do the proper road, surface, ditching, other side of the surface and fencing. No arguments, no difficulty. My late wife and I applied for a severance about 20 years ago. I forget the date, but about 20 years ago. I came before a committee like this. And in fact, at the time, not to blemish my personality anymore, I was an elected official. So, you can just assume that there was a bit more scrutiny to make sure I wasn't getting any favors. I didn't get any favors, but I I did receive permission to have a severance, a retirement severance from my wife and I. A point that I'm very proud of that may be irrelevant is that I said to this committee, the committee before you were here, maybe we would build a demonstration of a low energy house that is cutting edge, probably the best low energy house in Ontario. I made that commitment. We built that house. It might be the most energyefficient house in Ontario and we've had 3,000 people through that house to help educate them, including some staff members and some political members. I mention this because I'm really proud of it. It's personal and this committee gave me the opportunity to do that. So we have we have the answers and I've had the answer for 40 years for the climate change problem as it affects houses. Anyway, in that process where there was more scrutiny, the committee did not ask for more road widening land. There is no plan, I'm sure, on the books for widening regional road 97. There's nothing in the capital budget really if we're talking about basics. The only reason to ask for this is you put clean lines on the map. The fact that my neighbor probably sold 25 ft and I sold 15. Everything works. I've worked my whole life to try to preserve farmland. And I'm not perfect, but this is taking land out of farming. What should be done, and I don't mean to lecture you, but you can see I'm passionate about this. Land that's capable of being farmed should be farmed. We don't need more assets in the city bank. Just like we don't need more houses, empty condemned houses in the city. We need land or buildings to work for us. my business, all of the agricultural business that's really important and that's unique, I do on my farm. I have other financial interests in cattle across this country and the country to the south. All of the genetic work I do, I do by my hands and my brain. I need the land and on principle, I don't want to surrender it. If the city wants to expropriate that land, it can do that any day it wants to. But on principle, we want to preserve farmland. And I don't want to give the premier any excuse to say that this city is not protecting farmland. So what I want to do, thank you, Mr. Chairman, you give me a few extra minutes. I want to say I agree and I thank you for seeing clearly. This is a minor minor adjustment to a boundary. But the principle of surrendering farmland for eternity is not one that I support. So I implore you to take that condition out because you don't need it. City has no plans for it. They don't need it. Any day they want they can take it. I thank you for your attention. Thank you. That's always been, let's say, a burr in my saddle type of thing. Um, to give up farmland um for supposedly future development or war road widening when it may never happen. And it's it's uh I guess if I put words out there, it's um legal theft or whatever. But I know that was on your tongue. Um, and we've had these applications before and um um side on your side. I I do not agree with they if they want to expropriate it that's one thing but just to give it up when you're looking at a minor adjustment um on that on that severance committee Robert I agree also and you stated it that they really want the land for ex to expand the road they're going to expropriate it >> exactly >> so I'll make a motion to approve the severance eliminating the u >> motion of it was number four the variance >> madam came in >> to remove um >> number three sorry I got get ahead of myself which condition >> number three >> okay is there a second I guess before I call a vote is there any other comments on Yes. >> Um, in my experience in the city of Missaga, some people have had to give up their front yard for wide rodenting provisions. Um, I believe I also come from an agricultural background and I understand that you don't want to give up farmland. Um, this is for future provisions, so you wouldn't necessarily be giving it up yet, but if they're going to take it, they're going to take it. And this just means that you're taking care of this now rather than later. Um, I would not support taking out number three. Um, and so I would oppose this approval. >> Okay. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, if if I can, I I I just want to respond. I understand this. I I've sat in the inner circle before and this this is not going to make me popular but I actually share a boundary line with the city and my operation depends completely apart from my knowledge and my brain power on on having good fences and I've lived with the city on a particular fence problem that needed to be addressed. It's completely the city's responsibility. And finally, I blew my top a bit, but I wasn't rude. I went to the city manager and after 20 years, we got the fence fixed. So, it's really serious. My cattle are extremely valuable. And I would love to tell you about it. You don't have time. But genetically, they are so far superior to normal animals, and it's going to change the way agriculture is, the beef part of the agriculture industry is done, and I'm one of the people that are changing it. So if I have the city going to control one of my perimeters and they behave like they have in the past, I'm in trouble. So I ask you because you wouldn't have thought of that. I don't think I ask you to think about this carefully because anytime you want the land, you can take it. The city's not going to do anything with it. And you can just imagine me coming to this committee or somewhere else saying, "Will you fix the fence? Can I tap my trees? Do I need to have an arborist? The overreach of local government on this particular thing is substantial. Now, I don't want to burn any support that I might have, but I'm here sincerely. I've got piles of agricultural degrees. I know what I'm talking about. I've been an OM witness, but I'm a practitioner. It's farming that I'm passionate about, and I really want to be allowed to continue to farm the way I do for the rest of my life. and and if I have to move that fence or that boundary line, it's going to cause me trouble. So, I say that, madam, to you respectfully. >> Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor and we have a seconder. Um, all in favor of that motion, opposed. >> Did you Did you vote for Okay, I didn't see your hand go up. Um, so it's uh the motion is is carried. Um, application is approved. >> Well, thank you very much for your sensitivity. I really appreciate the fact that I've asked for something. It's a little unusual and you've seen through it and you've done the right thing. >> That was one oppos. >> Thank you very much. >> Yes. And through the chair, who seconded that motion? >> Second. >> Thanks. Thank you. Okay. All right. Um, >> and one opposed. >> Yes. Monica opposed it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. >> Okay, it is now 11:04 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application A20600366, 248 Skinner Road, Flamborough. Owner is G. Yuva and applicant is C Architecture Limited. A Sadiki. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? whether on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers. See none, unless the applicant or agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Uh good good morning chair and committee members. Uh this is Arshad, architect from C Architecture, office location Oakville, Ontario. Uh we are authorized agent for owners at 248 Skinner road plano. Uh the project is addition of additional dwelling unit in the basement level of existing single family detached house. Uh currently there's one parking space in attached garage and one on the driveway. Uh so a total of two parking spaces. Uh we are requesting relief in requirement for additional parking space uh to be provided for the proposed second unit uh in basement level. Uh the property is within parking grade area 3 which has recently approved parking regulation modifications of no parking spaces will be required for additional dwelling units. So our permit application which was initiated back in 2025 is now in conformance with zoning bylaws. Uh the proposed development is outside of Niagara Scarpment area. Uh and they have no objection. Uh we have favorable staff comments. Uh as well uh we request this committee to approve this application. Uh I'm available to answer any question this committee may have. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Does committee have any questions on this application? >> If not, is there a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve with the proposed notes. >> Okay. Moved by Anukica, seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carry. Application approved. >> Thank you, chair, committee members. Okay, it is now 11:07 a.m. Next, we have a a minor variance application A2026 00381 170 West 25th Street, Hamilton. Owner is C Brow and G Love. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers? Okay, seeing none, I will ask the applicant or agent please step forward and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Good morning, chair and councel. Uh, I am the owner of 170 West 25th. My name is Colin Bro. Uh, my wife Jillian is working this morning, so I'll be representing um the building in question. We're applying for a accessory building, a double car garage. There is no existing garage on property. Uh, the property is zoned R1. Uh, it's my family property. parents own the property from I guess 1959. House was built in 1960. So we are requesting I have dealt with uh uh the planning department and I believe to my knowledge they've approved the larger footprint which I'm going to go from metric to to feet 25 by 26. And then we were requesting a height adjustment. Uh back to metric uh approval is for 4.5 m and we are asking for 4.87 that does not exceed the height of existing homes in the neighborhood. And the present home um present home is about 17 1/2 ft high. The auxiliary garage will be about 16 ft. So, we were requesting the height for aesthetics, for loadbearing, although the roof trusses will be engineered. Um, just a bit more pleasing to the eye as the building grew wider um frontage, so to speak, or square footage. Uh, the height met in appropriation with the look and and the load. So, that's it for my end. Okay. And you're okay with the archeological as a note on that? >> Um, where would that be? Maybe I was something >> just u below um proposed notes or proposed conditions. There are no conditions. It's just a archeological and it's acknowledgement note. >> Okay. Um maybe I see that you accepted everything. I'll make a motion to approve. >> Okay. Motion made by Mel, seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. >> Okay, it is now 11:10 a.m. Uh, next we have a minor variance application A202600154. 21 Granite Ridge Trail, Flamro. Owner is T. Ramen. A design consultant is Sed Kashif. Uh I believe we had an interested party. I'm just going to check and see if they're here. Akshai Puli. Okay. Um I don't believe they're here. Uh okay. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application either here either on the WebEx platform or on or here in council chambers? Okay. Seeing none, I will ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have uh five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Yes. Uh good morning uh Mr. Chairman and the respected committee. Uh my name is Tanzil Raman and I'm living in 21 Granite Ridge Trail uh Waterdown and u I'm the owner of the house on the behalf of my architect and presenting the uh the minor two of the minor variances. one regarding to the parking space for the second dwelling and the second one is for the site entrance uh fire escape for the exter exterior staircase shall be permitted. So the stand is that that the the parking space as per the for the various number one uh which is it's not subject to the zoning by law the subject land would be located within the parking area three with the parking area 3. No parking space is required for additional drawing when staff are the opinion for the minor ones is consistent with the recently approved parking regulation for the zoning law uh opening by law. That is for the first variance and the second variance is for the uh side entrance uh required for the second dwelling. We propose to have a maximum of.3 m whereas the bylaw does not permit for the fire escape. So we we we we required to approve this one uh uh to have uh site entrance. So that is for the second uh variance. >> Okay. Positive comments from planning committee have any questions? Robert, >> I make a motion to approve the applica the variances. >> Okay. Seconded by Mal. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Okay, it is now 11:13 a.m. And uh next we have a minor variance application A202600387 63 Witherspoon Street, Dungus. owner is M. McFersonson and L. McFersonson. Uh is there any uh is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers? Okay. Seeing none, unless the applicant or agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Morning. >> Morning, council. Uh, my name is Martin McFersonen. We're my beautiful wife, Dana McFor Dana McFersonen. And, uh, well, our story begins. Uh, we have an old house, 1940. And, uh, we applied for a building permit to get a coat room addition put on the front. And that required uh a a covered addition basically with uh the same dimensions uh coming out for a front yard setback that we had already with a porch there. However, um we were told that we needed four meters uh and we four meters for that setback and we're applying for a 3.6 six meter uh setback to uh accommodate our wishes and uh we saw that the comments uh from the staff were in favor uh or favorable. So that's that's all. Thank you. >> Okay, committee have any questions on this application? >> Straightforward. >> I'll make a motion to approve um with the proposed notes. >> Okay. Seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you very much >> so much. Okay, it is now 11:15 a.m. and we now have a uh minor variance application A202600402 479 to 485 Springbrook Avenue, Ancaster. Owner is M. Wasik Khan and applicant is S. Con. Uh are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here uh whether on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Are you here? The owner M. Was Khan or Scon? I think I see a Sadi Khan on WebEx. Are you here for this application for? >> Yeah, I'm here. >> Hi. Okay, if you wanted to provide your name and then you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Yeah. My name is Si Khan and I'm the applicant on this application. Uh we got approval consent to serve uh this property and one of the condition this is there are two conditions but they are you know like the same conditions. uh I don't know why they did two conditions which is the same but uh this is one of the condition of that consent to server and we are here and the staff is supporting so I uh I don't have to say much about this thing >> okay committee any questions >> is there a reference to the um consent application that was approved Yeah. B24 D-75. >> Yeah. Drew the chair. And I don't know. Um I can take a look and I don't know if planning had a comment on Yeah, there I'm just going to take a look at the staff comments here. >> Yeah, >> through the chair. The consent applications are referenced in the background section of the development planning um report. There are two there. Okay. Any other questions? Is there a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Motion made by Mal, seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. Okay. Uh next we have um there there are two it's a minor variance and there's a a related consent application and uh generally the committee's practice is to hear both of them together. So, uh, and it is now 11:18 a.m. So, the first is a minor variance application. A20, no, sorry, apologize. A24112 uh 10007 Beach Boulevard, Hamilton, owner is S. Clark. Agent is M. Sibelli. And then the related consent application is B2430. the same address, same owner, and same agent. Now, we had some interested parties here. Um, I just want to check and see if they they were here if they wanted to speak or not. Uh, Peter Bax. Okay. Brenda Bax, Terry Lan, and David Siratuk. Okay. I don't believe they're here. Okay. Then I'll go. Is there any uh other members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers? Okay. Okay. Please step up. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Good morning. Uh my name is Michael Van Dyke. Um I'm here with my partner Donna Stevenson. Uh we live at 987 Beach Boulevard for the last nine years. Uh we moved there because of the benefits we saw in the area that included but not inclusive to the close location to the beachfront, the walking cycling trails behind our homes, the community vibe, and the fact that the the homes in our area are mostly single family dwellings. So here we are again uh a reddraft a proposal that's still blatantly in contradiction to the existing bylaws in the fabric of the neighborhood. We and most of the immediate neighbors are adamantly opposed to the site plans that have been presented to us for this property designated as a single family home. I'm not an expert in regulations regarding water runoff, lot size restrictions or height restrictions. However, I do believe that the bylaws are there to put in place uh should not be seen as loose suggestions. These are bonafide. There's a bonafideed reason that these are implemented. Developers, builders, and opportunists should be restricted from working outside the parameters unless they can prove that the variance is indeed very minor in nature and does not adversely affect the homes nearby or the existing neighborhood in any way. Unfortunately, in our opinion, the proposal that has been submitted is neither minor in nature or beneficial to the neighborhood. In fact, the requests are far from minor and do absolutely nothing to enhance or even attempt to fit into the neighboring area. We're also very concerned and somewhat disturbed regarding the deception of some of these requests. Case in point, the height restriction based on the drawings and simple calculations show that it will sorry it'll exceed the restriction by approximately 2 meters. The drawings are deceptive by nature, showing a small basement windows yet have a ceiling height of 9 ft. We all know that you can't have such a basement without being under the water table. This means that the house will actually be even higher than the drawings projected because it can't be built 7 ft into the ground. The next item of concern is the request for two single family homes. It's already a big ask to request a lot designated for a single family home to be split into two lots for two homes. However, these aren't obviously not your typical single family homes. They are duplexes in every way but the description. Each proposed home has two furnaces, two electrical services, and two kitchens. This type of camouflaged wording is deeply concerning as well as the former garage which has now been edited to make it a hobby room. On top of all this, the request is for a lot that's 38% smaller than the allowable size. How can this be deemed a minor variance? Lastly, parking. To the best of my knowledge, the local bylaw requires that every new home to have a parking for a minimum of three cars. The minor variance is to reduce this to one car per lot. And once again, this request has some confusing details. The site plan shows a 6 meter driveway, yet the building plan shows a driveway of 2.4 m, approximately 8 ft. My question is, what car can be parked in an 8 foot space and not encroach the sidewalk? Furthermore, a published analysis of millennials and older adults of 65 years and plus automotive behavior was done on behalf of the urban planning and transport research for Hamilton. The report indicates that the average millennial family has 1.94 cars. The average older adult has 1.13 cars. So in reality, even setting aside what the code requires based on one millennial family and one adult family in each unit, there will be at least six cars. Therefore, there needs to be proper parking for at least six cars. These plans can't even accommodate two normal cars or, god forbid, two SUVs. There is a parking shortage for at least four cars in both code and in actual reality. This is not a hypothetical situation. Where will they park? The street immediately in front of the property has no available street parking due to the bus stop. The other side of the street has no parking due to the existing bike lane. The request for a minor adjustment is asking for a 300% variance no matter how you slice it. With no solution for where the vehicles will actually park, this definitely in my mind does not constitute a minor variance. Again, based on the actual facts, not the vague, distorted, missing information we received, we are strongly opposed to this request. We'd also like to challenge the fact that there is no way minor variances based on Hamilton's own guide describing what a minor variance is to be to be. In summary, if this would be allowed, it sets a re very real and dangerous precedent for any owner or developer to tear down a single family home, subdivide the lot, and build highdensity income producing units regardless how much it would affect the existing neighborhood. This, in our opinion, this in our opinion has nothing is nothing more than an opportunist venture trying to capitalize on squeezing as many units onto a property as possible. This property is was purchased as a single family home with an obviously tired and run-down home on the property. It's the responsibility of the buyer to do their due diligence prior to the purchase of the pop property to calculate the cost of adequate renovations or town tear down and replacement cost to justify the purchase price. It's not fair to the neighboring owners to now have to fight this new owner developer from changing the property to a highdensity money-making opportunity. The only permit that should be permitted for this property is for the renovation of the existing home or demolition with plans for a new single family home that fits into the heritage designation of the immediate area. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. Was there anyone else? Okay, please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Oh, anyone who spoke. Yeah, please fill out an interested party form there on that little table there and just leave it there. Thanks. >> Good morning, uh, committee members. My name is Brenda Bax and uh I am the owner of 1011 Beach Boulevard which is located to the south side of this application. I'm here today similar to and I was here two years ago um when this these applications started in June 2024. I'm here to request the committee to deny these applications. There's too many risks and not enough space to sever and construct two homes on this property. This is evident by the size and the scope of the variances requested. Number one, the bylaw states that no structure shall exceed 9 m in height. The variance request for 9.4 4 meters on the application before you today is misleading because as the neighbor um Mike spoke about in some of the written submissions of the neighborhood, it's missing information um because it doesn't talk about the 9 ft basement or how much is below grade. So without the information, how high are these houses going to be? Are they going to be 8 ft? Are we back for another variance request? 10 ft above the bylaw requirement. It just appears that that can't be determined at this time. Two, the bylaw requirement for a lot width is 12 m or comparable to feet 39 1/2 ft. This these applications are requesting variances to reduce these frontage to 8.7 m. This is a reduction of approximately 11 ft for each of the lots that they are requesting. 22 feet in total when I'm looking at the plans and again I'm not an expert. We might have a width of about 57. So close to half of the property width. Three, the bylaw requirement is a minimum area of 360 square meters. This applicant is requesting a variance on one lot to reduce this to 348 square meters and to 354 on the other. This is a combined total of 193 square ft. 129 for one and 64 for the other. I'm not going to speak to the concerns around the parking or the sideyard variances. My husband and I and the neighbors to the other side submitted something in writing and um but I just want to ask at what point do these requests become major in nature versus minor? This lot is too small to construct two homes. Information on the plans are missing. I want to acknowledge and thank city staff for answering numerous calls and inquiries and um for your due diligence on this file. And again I ask how many times do applications need to be tabled before there is a decision is made. The last points I want to make is which is um most important well is equally important. It's about the fact that the Hamilton Beach community is on a flood plane. These plans are an example of overbuilding on a lot that is designed for one home. Storms are becoming fiercer and more severe. One just has to read the paper, watch the news to see what's happening in the city and the surrounding areas. In May of this year, the Hamilton Beach made front page news. And it made front page news on an article that said, "Where did the beach go?" And it talked about the high lake levels, which we continue to monitor as homeowners down there. We experienced the flooding in 217 and 219 and we actively participated in the city's work um around the beach ponding and community study. At around the same time in May, the city of Hamilton issued a letter to all beach residents. And the letter was from Hamilton Water. And a few quotes from the letter that we received explained that the elevated lake levels can increase groundwater levels and reduce the capacity of nearby drainage and sewer systems. This may increase the risk of basement, surface, and sewer related flooding in the area. Understanding the issue, the Hamilton Beach Boulevard neighborhood is uniquely low-lying, also requiring sanitary waste water to be pumped to a higher sewer to reach the wastewater treatment plant located on Woodward Avenue. During periods of high lake levels, groundwater levels can rise and soils may become saturated, reducing their ability to absorb additional rainfall or runoff. This can lead to surface ponding and overland flooding, which we have experienced firsthand living down there for more than 30 years. Asking for these applications to to be denied in their entirety, is not a case of nimiism. It's a information I'm presenting today are based on facts and as a Hamilton taxpayer, we all have a responsibility to do our part. Many of us are extremely worried about the the impacts to our homes and our neighborhood if these applications are approved. I urge committee members to carefully consider these facts and vote to deny these applications. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there any Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on these applications? 1017 Beach Boulevard. uh whether it be on WebEx or here in council chambers. Okay. Um thank you to the residents who spoke and and I think I I did provide some responses to some of them, but I I'll just just reiterate it here. Um just just letting you you know that there is a minor variance and there's a related consent application. Minor variances are assessed according to the four tests for a minor variance. Consent applications are assessed under a different set of criteria. It's called the criteria for the subdivision of land and that's under a different subsection of the of the planning act. Um so just letting you know that and and um you can actually uh the province has a they have a website called the citizens guide for land use planning if you could Google it if you wanted to and uh it'll it outlines there under land severances there outlines the criteria that uh that consent applications are assessed according to. Um just again to reiterate the committee of adjustment applications are not precedent setting. Each of them is assessed individually on on a case-byase basis. Um in terms of any uh in terms of any submissions that we receive um you know any application that meets a minimum submission requirement, we do accept it and we have to accept it under the planning act. Um and we will then review it. Uh and you know uh thank you to the residents. they were raising some potential issues with with the application. That's something that staff will do as part of their review of the application once they receive it. If any residents have any questions about that, they're reviewing it and they have any questions or concerns, you're welcome to contact us, the CFA staff here, we can get you in touch with the um the appropriate staff to to speak to about that. Okay. All right. Um, since there's no I don't think there's any other members of the public who want to speak, I'll ask uh is the owner or applicant here? Okay. Please step forward. Please provide your name and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Good morning everyone. My name is Michael Sevel. I'm the agent for the owner, Miss Sandra Clark. Uh, this has been going on since 2024 when this was initially proposed. Uh, we've gone through numerous numerous meetings with staff. We retain the services of a highly technical engineering company to provide an approved and I emphasize the word approved grading and drainage plan with the requested variances. Secondly, we also approve retained conditional approval from the cultural and heritage committee to which they approved unanimously for two single family dwellings that will complement the area. Also, in discussions with the owner, we have and with the architect, we no longer need a variance for the height. The new dwellings will re will have a mass a total height of nine meters. Therefore, there's no variance required. Secondly, the owner has agreed not to provide a basement. So, this will be a grade on slab with no basement, which therefore does not make this no longer a duplex. There is no intensification here. Let's make that clear. Therefore, this will be no variance required for parking as this will be a single family dwelling with one vehicle. The owner is prepared to retain the services of a professional architect landscaper to provide a landscape plan which will complement the area and which will be reviewed by the cultural and heritage committee. These days the province and the city mandate is intensification. Days of 60 foot lots are no longer economically feasible. We have to face reality that smaller lots are a fact of life and we have to live with it. This owner has gone through painstakingly meet meetings with staff to obtain these approvals. Details were provided to everyone. There's no details lacking. Application included grading and drainage plan which again I state was approved by growth management. It it also contained the approved design of the houses and also contained the architectural drawings which will be submitted as part of the possible or the probable building permits. Uh I can emphasize that zoning was reviewed reviewed this and all concerns were addressed. In order to facilitate the severance of these lots, we are willing to compromise on the sideyard. I know the required sideyard is 1.2. However, if it makes things easier for approval, we will consider to wide to increase the sideyard to 1.5 to I guess add a level of comfort. But then again, any deviation from what's here in front of you for the variances will require another initial review by cultural and heritage and will again cost the owner more money and will and all you have now is a 60foot lot with a house that is beyond repair. Uh and basically that's all I have to say. Are there any questions? >> Apologies through through the chair. I forgot to mention I believe de development engineering is here. I don't know if they if there was comments they had to provide they wanted to provide. Yeah, sorry. >> Good morning. Uh Ryan Moore, senior engineer development engineering east. Um hearing that the applicant is uh willing to uh increase the sideyard to 1.5 um and that there's no basement being proposed. Uh the comments that we were going to have um are no longer um of concern. >> So variance 2 is not required then. >> Is that right? >> Correct. I will make a motion to approve this variance given that variance 2 will no longer be required because the drawings will show 1.5 meter cider setback and that there will be no replacement on this dwelling. >> Okay. Just before I ask for a secondary, I'm just going to ask if there's any other questions or from the committee. Are there any other questions or concerns? >> Robert? >> Yeah. I just um I appreciate you mentioning all the changes you proposed, but we don't have them in front of us. That's one thing. But there's a long list of things here. um heritage permit condition that was required to be satisfied prior to a decision on the consent application has not been satisfied. Staff at this time are unable to provide a wholesome review of the applicable policies. Additional variances required which are not identified in the public notice were not made available to the public at the time of the application circulation. staff recommend that the proposed application be tabled to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide additional information which also feeds us. So all required relief from the applicable zoning bylaw is captured in the public notice and staff can provide a wholesome review and recommendation of the proposed variances concurrently with the purs. So I read through that. I know it's a lot of legal beagle stuff, but at the same token, I don't feel comfortable advancing this this application, but I would be able to support it a tableabling to get them back to staff with all the changes that he listed and that they're in a total approvement approval of it and then we can deal with it from a table point of view >> for the building permit. Okay. Are there >> may I reply to these comments? First of all, we have conditional approval from heritage. The conditions to get full approval will be things done under the building permit. One is the final architectural drawings and material choices will be provided at the building permit. Landscaping plan will be provided at the building permit. All the other ones are strictly concerns or notes. That's all those are. Secondly, looking at the and this was several meetings with zoning, all those concerns were addressed. Like I said, we had I've had numerous meetings with staff and what you've read there, uh, sir, is comments. There's no further information we can provide. Everything has been provided. There's no further variances. I included the architectural drawings to prevent any questions. things like these are strict notes and do not pertain to the approval process. I discussed the each individual concern with staff. Things like a front porch were addressed. There's no garage. Fences will be constructed according to the bylaw. Again, this was approved by cultural and heritage planning. Also, I recently received an email from Hamilton Conservation Authority stating, and I quote, "HCA is satisfied that the application is consistent with the natural hazard policies of the provincial planning statement and staff do not have any concerns with the approval of the requested severance and minor variances. So I can get Okay. >> There's one comment in here too. And now you've you've stated that it's going to be two single dwellings. >> Yes. The application shows duplexes >> and what we can do sorry what we can do is and if that's possible we can uh approve it based on that there is no basement and a 1.5 meter end >> okay like I like I said earlier there's too many things up in the air with this application and I agree there's there's an opportunity there for two two single family homes But I'm not going to make a decision on what's been said today unless it's on paper in front of us. And that's my position. So I guess a question I would have to planning is is uh do you change your comments from tableabling uh with the comments that from the applicant or are you still on the side of tableabling till you have further notification of what he's talking about? Thank you. Good morning. Spencer Skidmore, acting manager of development planning east team. So through the chair, um there's a couple of concerns. So I think I appreciate the concessions that the applicant and the their agent are discussing in terms of the sideyard and the building height. Those are some areas of concern from both planning and development engineering. So I think there's definitely a good discussion to be had there. Um I will note that a couple of things. So the first being the heritage permit condition that was conditionally issued for the demolition and the proposed two new singles. The specific condition that was referenced by our cultural heritage colleagues says that the landscape plan um including new street trees in the front yard be submitted to the satisfaction and approval of the director of planning chief planner prior to submission of any application for a consent to sever. So to indicate that it's going to be dealt with the building permit after severance approval is is not that would be contrary to how the condition is administered. Um and that's in our report. The other thing is that um we did discuss with zoning staff and there are variances that are potentially missing. So even if committee was to approve this today, there's the risk that the applicant has to reapply to get more relief for additional variances which nobody wants. Um so at minimum I do not believe there is a variance indicated for lot area but I believe you are below the lot area that's required of 360 m. So that wasn't captured and if that if that doesn't get captured um it would be a relication and they'd have to reapply for another variance which nobody wants. Um and I believe there was for front yard landscaping as well. Uh, so I think they're providing about 29% and they require 50. Once again, if we approve it as kind of indicated on the notice, they'd have to come back for a new variance. So, it would be staff's preference. Um, as member Reed indicated this, there's a lot of kind of loose ends and balls in the air. Um, we'd like to have kind of a sit down meeting with the applicant. We can bring our zoning team in. We can bring our development engineering team in. we can talk about all the issues and potentially talk about a path forward um in what needs to be provided to us to provide a comprehensive review. So we are still very much of the opinion that this should be tabled to deal with those outstanding concerns. So thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> May I answer that? First of all, this has gone on for two years. If I may be frank, please. This is ridiculous. We I've discussed this with zoning in the building department at Nauseium. The approved grading and drainage plan clearly shows the percentage of landscaping. When I started this process, I applied for a zoning compliance request. At that time, I expected at a fee to get all the identified variances. It's not my fault that these were not discussed. I don't understand why we keep coming back to all of this. Again, to table this again, we've in good faith against the owner's decision, I thought to facilitate this severance, we would concede a couple of points. What I'd like what my hope was and I'll be again frank is to at least get the severance approved and then work with staff on the other issues. We don't know what kind of landscaping is going to be until we know what the size of the lot is. like I need something concrete here to work with and and we're going in circles uh to say that there's a lack of information. Again, I've got pages and pages of emails and numerous meetings with staff over two and a half years. And again, it's suggested at tableabling. Uh this is ridiculous. I I'm sorry. Again, I'm not I'm showing no disrespect to staff or the committee, but if we can at least get the severance dealt with today and approved like it it shows on the actual application the size of the area. I I don't have to spoon feed building or zoning as to this is a variance. That is part of the process. This is why we pay the fees for staff to identify this. It's clearly shown what the frontage, the depth, and the area is going to be. Uh, again, I'm I'm I'm sorry I'm venting now, but if we can at least get the severance approved today, we will gladly sit down with staff and work out any further variances or concessions we have to make to facilitate this development. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, I'm going to ask uh Yanuka, do you still want your motion or >> I will withdraw my motion. Okay, >> Robert, do you want to make a motion? >> Anyone else? >> The um to the planning department, the applicant's requesting we proceed with the severance. Does that create any issues or offshoots or problems or whatever? >> Good morning. Uh Spencer Skidmore, acting manager, development planning east team through the chair. Um it it does create a couple of um concerns. The first being that heritage condition that I mentioned that is very specifically says prior to any consent submission. So that needs to be satisfied to comply with the conditional consent or conditional heritage permit issuance. Um and the other item is typically when we approve variant u improve severance applications we like to know what accompanying variances are going to be required to implement it. And right now we don't have a complete picture based on the notice that was provided. Um there are variances that appear to be missing. Um so we would be kind of be providing advice or recommendation to committee on kind of an incomplete picture when it comes to zoning relief. So, our strong preference would be to table both applications, meet with the applicant, clean everything up, and then bring a well-informed and complete and sound recommendation back to committee. Thank you. >> Again, if you don't mind, I don't know how much clearer we can be in what we've submitted. I again, you're going back to the heritage. We have conditional approval A B through F. A lot of these are irrelevant. Minor changes to the plans and elevations. Irrelevant. Demolition. Irrelevant. Reasonable effort to facilitate removal and salvage heritage materials. Irrelevant. The landscaping plan will be provided as part of the building permit as it states here. final architectural drawings and material choices prior to submission of the building permit. I I don't know. I I'm sorry, but I don't like there's nothing to discuss. I'm sorry. I'm here to get a severance approved based on the variances of lot width and as shown on the application lot area. if staff the staff this was pointed out in one of my meetings with staff about the area and I I I'm sure nobody from zoning is here which doesn't surprise me. I'm sorry for some of the things I'm saying here, but you have to understand our level of frustration in two and a half years. Like I said, this is the file I have on a simple severance and variance application, and we're still wanting to clear things up. There's nothing to clear up. We're here for a severance application. It does not affect the variances in terms of height which has been dealt with. Parking has been dealt with these the variances we've cons conceded which are pleasing growth management which will now require a further revision to the grading and drainage plan. We're spinning our tires. Again, I'm I'm sorry for for for appearing exasperated, but but I am. I I I don't know what there's to clear up. We've provided I made a point on providing all the necessary information. There's nothing like I I don't know what the level of comfort staff needs. We just want the severance basically approved and we will deal with the variances in good faith like I said with staff. We will if necessary with the variances. We will also we could also discuss the sideyard even though like I said we have an approved grading and drainage plan and no basement. So there's no issue with flooding in this area. This is not intensification as was stated. So, if I can if I can interrupt just for a minute, but just as a committee, we're you know, we're here and we're uh we rely on comments from planning. >> Yes. >> As to try and make the right decision at the right time. >> Yes. >> And and as you've heard, you know, we're we're hearing from planning that that they are still wishing to have it tabled. Um which is better than having a denial. >> Mr. Chairman, it's been tabled three times. I and I hear you on that, but >> and each time it cost the owner 300 and some odd dollars to table this and it just again I'd like to direct this to the d to the planning staff. What is there to discuss that is not been outlined now like I I don't know what the discussion is going to be to table this and and to get a level of comfort from staff is not fair to the owner. I think we've had a few comments from planning as to what what uh may be required to allow this to happen. Um the the bonus to it is that they are definitely not totally against it uh happening and I apologize if there's been issues back and forth between you and planning over two and a half years. It does seem like a long period of time to get something finalized and sometimes policies change within a within a two and a half year period which can affect uh comment sometimes. But again, Mel, did you have a question or >> Yeah, I want to make a comment here. You want to do the severances and I look at the the square uh meters of the lots. You're way small on the square meters meters for the lots. If you put two lots on there, I think you've got a choice here today. You can either table it or we can deny it. >> What What do you mean by take it? >> You can table it and get things straight down because there a lot of things that's not in front of us right here right now and you've made a quite a few changes and have said things that we haven't got in front of but the discussion >> but just a second. >> Okay. and and we're looking at that. If we had that in front of us, we if it gets tabled, we had that in front of us. We can look at it and go over things things that talk about the planning. But we can either table it >> or the committee I can make a motion to deny this application and you're done. You got to start all over again. >> Let me talk. >> I'm giving you a choice. >> Okay. With all due respect, the variances >> the the we can discuss at nauseium with staff the lot frontage the lot area is not going to change. That's the size of the lot. We cannot build a house economically on a 60 foot wide lot. Like I said, the policies of the city and the province are intensification. We we're like again if it's nec again if it's necessary to table this so be it. But I want to go on record saying that this is just ridiculous. >> Fine. >> On that note >> I'm the owner. This is this is not my first rodeo. I have to tell you that this is going to be my third house third house third and fourth houses that I'm building. And when I severed a lot in the past, you go in, you sever the lot, and then you have your your architect draw plans, you go to the city, and if you need variances, you do you do what the city asks you to do. What's what's so difficult about that? That's what I've done in the past. I've I've built three houses. I know what I've done it before. You know what I mean? And it's and the thing is that that um um we left and you guys wanted grading plans and we got the we got the drainage report and it was passed by the city. I don't understand that. Then then then they said the heritage and the heritage were very difficult and they've agreed that that they will give me the heritage permit. I don't know about the other variances, but I do know that when I go in front when I go to get a building permit, I I have to get it approved. It's a it's a completely other process. The thing is that that I've provided um uh house plans and everything. All this I've spent all this money and I don't even have asurances that I'm going to get this permit, this severance, which is really unfair. I never had to do that before. But I've done it in the interest of helping you guys understand that I'm taking a house that was at one time a crack house. I'm knocking it down and I'm putting two individual houses. People are not going to fight about about uh um duplexes and all that crap. I'm putting two individual houses. I I was going to put basement um aart not it's not an apartment. It wasn't going to be approved of an apartment. And it was for like if you got an in-law living there or whatever. If I can't have a basement, I can't have a basement. So what? I'm building these houses for me. >> Okay. So, and uh I'm going to go to Nick here first and then just my comment before Nick was just that Beach Boulevard is can be a unique area of of the city of Hamilton. And every area regardless of where you have severed houses or whatever, right, uh every area is totally different. Um, Nick, >> yeah, I'd just like to make a comment. I mean, I can see why this applicant is frustrated. Uh, I believe I've seen this file about three times. Uh, can only imagine myself being right here in their shoes. Um, my thoughts, there's many proposed conditions. What they're asking for is reasonable. This is a an example of just bureaucratic entanglement. Not really a good rationale for for denying or tableabling. I'm only going to uh support this. I'm not going to support denial or tableabling. Okay. I need if there's any more comments from committee, I need a motion one way or the other or what you want to do here. I can't do it. So, >> I don't want to deny it. We all recognize the work that you've done, but there appears to be a little bit more that needs to be done. I get it. I understand. Okay. There's been a lot of back and forth, but you can also appreciate we as a committee or at least from my perspective cannot make a decision based on some of the facts that are on on the application, but you've spoken about today unless it's on paper in front of us coming from the planning department, I can't make a decision on that. So, as much as I hate to say it because you have been through a lot. I remember when you were here in 24 that we need to table it again to allow you to make all the right decisions with the planning department. Then you come back and it should be a rubber stamp. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Make a motion to table. >> Okay. Is there a second here? M. All in favor of table. Opposed. One opposed. So motion is carried. Application is tabled again. >> Will, Mr. Chairman, will the tableabling fee apply or can that be >> through the chair? We'll you can >> I don't know why there's people sleeping in tensome. >> Just just please um we can talk after about that. Yeah, generally there is a recirculation fee, but if you want we can we can talk about it after if you if you wanted to. Yeah, we'll we'll send you an email after just letting you know how to proceed after. Okay. >> And again, just to reiterate, anyone who came here to speak in person, do make sure you fill out an interested party form. Um, and uh if there was anyone on WebEx, do uh you can email us coffa@amilton.ca. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I apologize for not calling security on me. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh to the chair, it's 12 pm. Did you want to take Do we want to take a lunch break now or we do have three more applications or did you want to continue on? >> Okay. Okay, we'll unless I hear anything else. Okay, we'll continue on then. Uh next we have it's now 12:04 p.m. Next we have a minor variance application A20260027745 Crestwood Drive, Hamilton. Owner is M Adzenic, V Adzenic and M Adzenic. Applicant is M Adzenic. Again, I might have mispronounced the name. I apologize. Um I had an indicator here. Staff uh Ross McIntosh from zoning, did you have comments on this application? Um, >> uh, hi there. Uh, this is Ross Macintosh. Um, uh, I do not, we have, uh, zoning has no further comments to this file. >> Okay. All right. Uh, with that, was there any members of the public who have um who want to speak on this application either on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers? All right. Uh seeing none, I will ask the uh applicant or agent to please step forward. Uh please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Hi everyone. Uh my name is Mike Adsick Junior. >> Oh, sorry. Sorry about that. Um my name is Mike Adsick Jr. Um, I'm a single father full-time and I take care of my father full-time as well. Uh, I wanted to get this built so I can finish the basement for my sons. They're 16 and 18. Uh, at that age, they need some privacy and the house is not exactly huge. So, um, the contractor started this. He said, "You don't need a permit. It's in the backyard. It's not attached to your driveway. It's cut off by the cedars. It's just storage. Um, and then the gentleman from the city showed up and I felt like a complete because he said I did need a permit. Um, which I said he said, "I'm just going to take pictures." I said, "Go in, look at whatever you want. Like, by all means." And he he said, "This thing is built so strong it's it's it's better than to be here when your house is not here." Um, but I I I've tried to do everything. Um, I I I didn't know. I I feel like an an idiot. Um so uh I I've done everything that's been asked. I don't know what else I'm supposed to do. >> Well, the comments from planning are are favorable. The the recommending approval. >> Okay. >> So, um does committee have any questions for the agent? Is there a motion? Robert >> make a motion to approve the application. >> Okay. Seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none done. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Now it is it is now 12:07 p.m. Next we have a minor variance application A2026 00361 3036 Got Road Glennbrook. Owner is M. Symmetron Symmetron. Applicant is our is the same person. Agent is D. Taylor. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the uh applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and you have uh five minutes to speak. >> Hi there. My name is Derek Taylor. I'm the agent for the owners at Laura and Radimir Smitron of 336 Gaia Road and we're here to seek some relief today for the location of an accessory building. Um I submitted a presentation. I'm not sure if we can put that on screen. Um sure. Thank you. Um so long story short, it's right on the corner of Guyatt Road in Highway 56. It's a large just 62 hectares of an A1 zone property and he's seeking to build an accessory building. The the size of the accessory building falls within um all regulations. It's simply the location given the fact that it's a double fronting property. If we could just skip ahead a couple slides, that'd be appreciated. Yep, thank you. Right there. So, it's not to scale. The uh accessory building is smaller than the existing dwelling. Um but as you can see uh given the irregular location of the lot the front is justified as highway 56 whereas the address of the uh residential dwelling is on guy road. So it just so happens when we appropriately place the accessory building it's in the technical front yard even though realistically it's in the adjacent side/backyard. So we're seeking relief on on that section. Uh next slide please if possible. Yep. So I mean as I've noted here uh it complies with all their aspects. It's just section 4.8b where it's in the technical front yard. Uh next slide please. Sorry. Yep. So it's one locationational variance no dimensional relief. Uh it complies with all four tests set out by the planning act. So I ask please say that we have this relief so we can build the accessory building so he can store his equipment. uh for his agricultural property. Thank you. >> Okay. >> It's kind of unique because of being a corner lot. >> Yeah. >> And and of the size of the lot or whatever. I mean, it's zoned agriculture, but there's there's no agricultural work being done on that lot because of the size of it. >> No, that's correct. Yeah. >> Just that's a zoning of it. >> Yeah. >> But still to maintain it, there's still he has a tractor. He has some small things. It's still It's not a small property by any means. >> No. No, no, >> yeah, >> no. I appreciate the work you did on the property to make it look cuz there was it was in rough shape there and also the front of the property is on guy road. I'll make a motion to approve >> and we note that the ar archeological is is a note on this one as well. >> Yeah, we saw the note and if we come across we we're still going to over the winter plan is to have the building designed and then go through the approval process >> when we're digging for the foundation. If we come across anything, we'll definitely call the number that's been noted. >> It's ju just a note. Y >> y >> uh so a motion's made by Mel, seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Thank you. Have a great day. Okay, it is now 12:11 p.m. We I believe this is the final application to be heard today. This a minor variance application 7 sorry 8 A202600394 76 Upper Gage Avenue Hamilton owner is S is Maragi I apologize miss if I mispronounced the name applicant is Madi Pangetti agent is the same person is there any members of the public who wish Oh we als um Um, oh, I had to hear. Yeah, I had a staff here, Ross Mintosh. I don't know if he had any comments. >> Um, now, >> no, no, sorry, Ross Macintosh from zoning. Uh, no, there are no further uh zoning comments. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Um, with that, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application, whether on the WebEx platform or here in council chambers? Um, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant agent please step forward. Uh, please provide your name address. Sorry, just please provide your name and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Hello committee. My name is Michael Isadi Ponetti, uh, acting agent on behalf of Charbal Isadi. Um, we've reviewed the comments and we would like to table this at this time. We will work with zoning and planning staff to address the comments and concerns that they have to then come back to you guys at a later date. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Is there a motion for tableabling? >> I'll make a motion to table the application. >> Okay, seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application tabled. >> Thank you. And to the uh applicant or agent, staff will be in touch with you after the hearing just uh after the meeting just uh in terms of next steps and how to proceed. And of course, just in case if there's any members of the public that were here for this application, 706 Upper Gage Avenue, Hamilton, if you want to be notified on any updates on this application, if you're in the WebEx platform, you can send us an email, cofa@ hamilton.ca, or if you're here in council chambers, you can fill out an interested party form. Uh, next we have chair and staff announcements. Chair, do you have any announcements? >> Nope. >> Nope. Staff, I don't have any. I don't know if Emily has any. Nope. Okay. Seeing none. Um, >> motion for adjournment. Yanukica, >> I'll make a motion for adjournment. >> Seconded by Mal. All in favor? So, okay, we are adjourned now at 12:14 p.m.