Sound check. 1 2 3 Good morning. As we have quorum quorum present, I would like to call this meeting of the planning committee to order. Please remember that all electronic devices are to be switched to a non-audible function during committee meetings. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the agenda as amended. >> As presented. >> Oh, as presented. Thank you, M. Wilson and Councelor Wang. Are there any amendments to the agenda from the committee members? Not seeing any, please indicate with a vote by show of hands. All in favor? That passes. The motion is carried. Are there any declarations of interest? Seeing none, let's move on. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. This is from July 7th, 2026. May I have a mover and second to adopt the open and closed minutes of July 7th, 2026 meeting and that the closed minutes remain confidential? Councelor Wang, Councelor Bey, is there any discussion on the adoption of the minutes? Please indicate your vote vote by a show of hands now. All in favor? Thank you. That motion is carried. We're on to delegations. Members are reminded that the questions of the delegations are for clarification purposes only and not for debate. We will hear all the delegations and receive them together at the end. Delegates are reminded that you may not repeat information provided in previous delegations on the same topic. Your delegation must consist of new information only. So, we're going to delegations respecting Heritage Designation of 7-Eleven Concession Street, item 9.2, HMC 260007, minute item 8.2, 6.1. I'd like to call upon Kelly Campbell, Leila McNamera, and Jennifer Robbins to please come down to the podium to begin your delegation. You do have five minutes. And can I just clarify are three people coming down in just one? Okay, thank you. Are you ready? Okay, you may begin when you have through the chair. Good morning. My name is Kelly Campbell, vice president of corporate services and capital development at Hamilton Health Sciences. We appreciate the opportunity to present here today on the impact of a heritage designation on the Mwing of our Jerinsky Hospital redevelopment project. The city staff heritage report included in the minutes for adoption note that retention and incorporation of the existing M-wing is viable for the proposed hospital redevelopment. HHS would respectfully disagree with this assertion. As part of the due diligence of the project, we have investigated the possibility of renovation of the M-wing to bring it up to modern standards. The consensus of this work is that the Mwing cannot be used for patient care in the future, even with renovation, due to its significantly aging infrastructure of 90 years and floor plan limitations. As the oldest building on the Dravinsky Hospital campus, it is impossible to bring it up to modern infection control, CSA, and accessibility standards to provide patient care. We have heard from multiple staff of our own across the organization that when caring for patients in these older wings, they struggle to provide safe care. Previously, it has been questioned why the building could not be retained for administrative use. At the completion of the redevelopment project, which is all about patient care, HHS will not need additional administrative space. We would move out of the M-wing into new space and leave the building vacant. We see receive minimal operating funding from the Ministry of Health as it is. We have to use that to maintain our modern facilities and not aging ones. This project will be delivered through a partnership with Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Health. Having uncertainty on the limitations of of demolition or salvage of the Mwing will only add complexity to an already complex project. See, do we change? The hospital is located within one city block and it is tight to say the least. Every square foot is precious to us being able to build the facilities required for patient care. We did explore putting new construction on the concession street side. However, there's not sufficient space to build modern inpatient facilities. We heard at the heritage meeting suggestions of building the new facility where the existing parking garage is or on the other side of Mwing. However, injacencies are crucial within healthcare. The new ICU beds and inpatient beds as part of the project require the shortest reasonable travel time to the existing emergency department and operating rooms which are on the newer east side of the facility. Again, this leaves only the escarment side of the campus for new construction and the M-wing takes up a substantial footprint that could be used for potential development. In the city staff heritage report, it references the prominence of Mwing on the escarment as part of a rationale to maintain it. While currently Mwing is one of the taller buildings on the site, the new development is about patient towers that will quickly eclipse it. If we have to maintain Mwing, the new patient towers will be even taller in order to accommodate the inpatient rooms required for future health care needs. As you can see from the potential rendering on the slide, the new building will in itself be a beacon and really show the importance of public investment, prioritizing patients and modern health care in the region, showing that Hamilton is continuing to develop to meet the future needs of its residents. We are delegating this meeting today with requests that the planning committee consider the alternatives listed with the staff report generated specifically the alternative of council directed salvage and interpretation. This alternative in lie of a full designation directs HHS to work with the city to maintain the key historical features and identify and salvage those for reintegration into the new hospital design. HHS has shown our willingness to collaborate in previous projects with the former nurses residents on the Jerinsky campus and the willox building from the Shid campus. Both examples that you can see on this slide. We strongly believe that this option is the most responsible choice for Hamiltonians in honoring the legacy of the M-wing, but also being responsible stewards of healthc care funds while allowing Hamilton Health Sciences to build the infrastructure needed to provide quality patient care for ye years to come. We really appreciate the opportunity to present here today and participate in this important process. Thank you. >> Thanks, Kelly. So, there are some questions. Uh, Councelor Crretch, >> thanks very much for being here today. I represent city council on the heritage committee. And so, I had a couple of questions for you about some of the things that are happening here. I know you don't want to demolish this building. That's a fair assessment, isn't it? That you don't want to have to do that unless there's an absolutely necess necessity. >> It's a very small footprint and we have to build to meet the needs of the future. healthc care standards are very rigorous around the size of an inpatient room, the setup of an inpatient unit and we have to be able to build to accommodate that. What we don't have are the funds to build new, maintain new and also maintain an older building. So I don't think anyone wants to see Mwing just become vacant and a derelic building on an active hospital campus. >> Right. And so I think I want to drill down a bit more into understanding the funds part of what you say. I know that you have funding coming from a variety of sources, but for maybe it's helpful for people here to understand what that looks like as a breakdown, what percentage you get from the province in terms of the funding, etc. to get a sense of where the funds are lacking that you would need to do both things in terms of maintaining a heritage structure and also building new >> almost 100% of our funding comes from the Ministry of Health. We have donor funds that come in to help us buy equipment, but they don't pay for infrastructure largely. Um, so we're we're using what we have available from the Ministry of Health. You know, we have right now a significant funding deficit in our operating budget. That's not new information. That's unfortunately a position we've been in for a few years. Um, so there are not funds to maintain anything beyond what we already have. Even maintenance of our existing older facilities um is very challenging and we get very limited funding through the ministry to even maintain existing older structures. Um so as we build new then we have the ability to demolish old so that now we can reinvest in those new facilities. >> Same is true for many provinially funded programs including city housing [clears throat] Hamilton etc. understand the struggle you're in. >> My other question for you and the last question for you is just about the space itself. So when we talk about space in the city of Hamilton, every time we have a conversation about space, no matter what that conversation is about, we discuss that it's at a premium. That people need space for administrative work, people need space for programming work, for community work, you name it. A building of this integrity, and frankly, it's not in a situation where it's going to fall down tomorrow. We're in a situation where we have something that's been taken care of to the best of your ability up to this point is a pretty amazing asset as a heritage uh a heritage building that could house other things. You're saying you don't need it for for what you're going to be doing because you're going to have new facilities to use. But there is the potential, I imagine, for it to be used for something. It's just that you wouldn't be able to maintain that. You wouldn't be able to use it for something. But there is the potential for the building, I assume, to be used for some other good. >> Yeah, the building's in rough shape. It would require significant uh investment um even to bring it to a standard to have it as office space. Um the ability to heat and cool it is very challenging. It was not built obviously even for floor to ceiling heights that would allow you to put appropriate venting in. Um so right now it's you know 30 degrees Celsius today on the upper floors. Um it's not an easy building to even invest in to renovate. What I think is important is the architectural features of the building and those we're absolutely willing to work with the city on to maintain those to put them into a new structure where they can be maintained for many years to come. Absolutely willing to do that. >> Since you've said that, I do have one more question. Uh, one of the rare examples of this building, of course, is the upper floor of the building, as you know. Um, it's one of the only examples we have of this anywhere. um and certainly in this local area, which is what makes this a heritage gem for people. I don't think there's a way that I know of that you can preserve that in in the manner it is. So, did you have some way that you were contemplating you would would preserve that because for me that seems like a difficult thing and I'll talk to her staff about that when when the report's on the floor, but I want to get your sense of that is probably one of the most important architectural features of the building. >> And when you reference the upper floors, you're referring to the balconies. The balconies open area. Yes. >> Yeah. I there I think there absolutely I'm not an architect um but I think there would absolutely be a way that we could look to maintain that the architectural features of that. Yes, >> I see. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thanks very much for answering my questions. I appreciate it. >> Thanks Council Crutch. And I'm not seeing any other questions. So thank you for your delegation. You may have a seat. >> At this time I'd like to call Graham Carroll to please come down to the podium to begin your delegation. Once you begin, Graham, you'll have five minutes. >> Thank you. I'd like to start by thanking everyone for the opportunity to present my position on Hamilton Maternity Hospital. I'm here to advocate obviously for preservation. It's an important building. I brought it to the attention of the heritage committee that we needed to preserve this many years ago. Multiple citizens of Hamilton's are supporters of preserving Hamilton's built and the natural heritage. They are aware of the rarity and importance of this maternity hospital. If it is demolished, Hamilton will lose yet another piece of it rich heritage and it will be gone forever. [clears throat] We need to save our heritage for future generations. And the what little built heritage still remains. Many like myself were born in this hospital. Well, that is not the only reason today I'm advocating for the preservation. The legacy of the imagination of William Palmer Whitten is strong in Hamilton. Alone and with his partner Walter Wilson Palmer, he designed many of this city's mold not excuse me notable buildings. The South Drill Hall, the St. Charles Church, Maray School, Playhouse Theater, and the Her Apartments are merely a few of the examples of this man's amazing imagination. The structure should not just be left cold and rotting. We know that. We know it has to have a purpose. The gem can easily be repurposed into multiple uses if it's no longer needed for medical purposes. The former maternity hospital is not only rare, it is a unique structure. The location on the escarment make it makes the William polymer wooden gem visible to the city. It is the only notable art deco building on the mountain. The north facade is magnificent. The remaining open balconies are the only one of two open balconies I know of on any commercial or institutional property in Hamilton. It should be possible to repurpose the northern section along the brow either for hospital use or for badly needed rental accommodation or for supportive housing in ward 7 which is severely lacking on the property located at on 7-Eleven concession. We have a parking ramp and a surface parking lot. Since when do we prioritize buildings over people or sorry parking lots over people? We need to do something better. Other cities have modernized older buildings. One example I'm very familiar with is the Glasgow Infirmary. It was started founded in 1791, though no buildings from that era survive. The oldest buildings were erected in 1914 and they are still open today and still house inatients. These are category Blisted buildings, so they cannot be severely altered on the exterior. The hospital has added new wings connected to the the red stand Gothic structure, but still house patients and clinics in the 1914 building. So, it is possible. We have one example here in Canada as well. We have the hotel d Quebec. It was founded in 1637 and was declared a national historic site in 1936. And it there are still structures from that time being used today and they range in eras from 19 1695 to 2001. So it is possible with a little bit of thought imagination that we can find a new purpose for that building. The hospital itself does not need to use the building. That section of the lot can be severed off and that front section on the escarment, can be done to something new, can be made into apartments, can be supportive housing. We have outfits here in Hamilton like Core Urban and Inwell who would love to get their hands on a well-maintained envelope and change the purpose. It can be done. All it takes is the will and the imagination to do so. And with that, I'd like to thank you very much. finished. >> Thanks, Graeme. I'm just waiting to see if any questions populate our list and there's nothing. So, thank you for your time and you may have a seat. I would like to call upon Alyssa Denim Robinson to please come to the podium to begin your delegation. [clears throat] Good morning through the chair. My name is Alyssa Denim Robinson and I'm chair of the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee. Um the Municipal Heritage Committee is an advisory committee to council and we advise on all matters related to heritage under the Ontario Heritage Act. What is before you today is part of our meeting notes from July 17th. And that's staff's recommendation to designate 7-Eleven Concession Street in Hamilton, which was the former Mount Hamilton Hospital Maternity Wing. Um, and that's under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. And during our meeting, it was a unanimous vote to recommend ST or approve staff's recommendation. I have been in the last month here a couple of times to present to planning committee and you will see a few slides that are are information that you've seen before because it's very important information that we need to reiterate as a municipal heritage committee. Um but I think what we need to uh talk about is the in this situation um the the property owner and their representatives have been very clear that there is no future for this building. Um what will be lost is a six-story M-wing that was constructed in 1932 to34. Um 100% loss loss of all the architectural features and loss of the building and the use. Um this was a property that was built for the city of Hamilton for its people and was a significant heritage uh piece for the mountain. Included in that loss potentially could be even the remains of the historic uh nurses residents. Um, and really with the last demolition in 2010, all that what was remained was this portico and a plaque that was installed to highlight the significance of the property that was demolished at that time. What is before you as the recommendation for for staff suggesting designation of this property? Um, really council has two choices. Choose to designate or choose not to designate. designation is important because it allows the municipality to manage change. And really that designation is allowing this committee and council to be part of the conversation and to be a part of what could potentially be future uses of the building. Um potential salvage and restoration. Um it allows and provides measures for city property standards and then it also opens up the access to financial incentives. So choosing to designate is helping to at least give the municipality that opportunity to be a part of the conversation with the property owner. Choosing to oppose designation means that the city is unable to provide any protection. Right now the property is on the register. It allows an interim 60-day protection from demolition. Um but if the designation is not pursued on this property, the property will be removed from the register as of uh January 1st. um there will be no protection and even if the building is still standing, the property won't be able to be rem added back onto that list uh till 2032. So 5 years. As we mentioned before, designation does not restrict the legal use of the property. Designation does not prohibit alterations. Um we have the heritage permit process and that's the whole point of having designation so that there is that conversation. It does not restrict the sale of the property or the use. But what it does do is it helps to preserve that property and the asset that it is for the city of Hamilton and for the mountain heritage community. Uh doing the assessment for the regulation 906 criteria, this property was found to meet eight of nine criteria under all of the the criteria values. And again, as a reminder for the Ontario Heritage Act, you only need to meet two of those criteria in order to make it significant enough for your designation. And this property meets eight of nine design value. It is a rare example, one of the only examples of art deco style architecture applied to a medical building. And we have that example here in Hamilton. It ex uh displays a high degree of craftsmanship and artistic merit. And these views here are of the uh top balconies that we were talking about and the um the vated ceilings in those areas. It's very easy to drive by this property and not really take in the impact of the detailing, but as you can see the lower the lower level areas where there's detail in the stone, the upper level uh detailing of the stone porticos and the the vated ceilings, the rug brick and detailing of this time when it was built in 1932. significant and we have this as a property in our city. Historically, this property is linked to how the system of healthcare has developed in Hamilton. It can yield information about how the community developed especially on the mountain here uh on the mountain. Um this was property was built to take impacts of healthc care and and integrate both design with function and it's a prime example of the significant architect William Whitten. Contextually it's defining the area. Um it it is a landmark for the community and again just reiterating what is being considered for demolition is 100% of the Mwing um the historic um [bell] property. So we would just ask that this committee and council consider supporting staff's recommendation in order to protect this property under the Ontario Heract. >> Thank you very much. We have a series of questions and the first uh questions are going to come from councelor Casar. Yeah, thank you chair and just through you. Thank you very much for the delegation. It is a beautiful building. Uh I just wanted to get your comments on um what the proponent in the hospital has suggested as a council directed salvage and interpretation strategy. Could you elaborate on your perspective on that please? >> Um well a lot of times we will hear that and then what it becomes is again a a portico attached to something. Um it is a a piece of an architectural feature that is added to a lobby. um it amounts to some plaing and sometimes it's not as thoughtfully thought out and as as council has has mentioned about how the challenges of maintaining or featuring those architectural features that really are the important part of this building. Um how can that be done? Um so having having the designation opens up that conversation for council and staff to talk about how that can be done. How can the building potentially be adaptively reused? So more of a significant portion is maintained um than than just having sort of lip service that something is going to be done in a public space. That'll be a reminder of what was was there. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Casar. Councelor M. Wilson. >> Thank you. Um really appreciate the knowledge and commitment you bring to heritage and have for some time. Um I'm if I'm within my boundaries, your focus is necessarily on heritage and I've heard you reference uh re adaptive reuse. Um, we've also know whether we've been having to be in a hospital or from people in the medical profession that there's is a highly regulated um exercise uh space requirements um which are very particular to the successful um operation of a hospital. And I'm I'm wondering how you see those two um either colliding or cooperating um when it may just not be possible given both their operational requirements and their their funding requirements. >> Absolutely. Um it is definitely a challenge and a lot of it is coming down to the funding question. Um but at the end of the day, the the um Infrastructure Ontario actually commissioned a report from a qualified heritage consultant and they outlined a number of options that a series of things that could be done. Everything from 100% demolition right through to maintaining a portion of the building and adapt to really using. And in their exploration um they have gone right to the zero uh maintenance. So keeping a 100% demolition as opposed to looking at how could a portion of that property even if it is the the main area where the the vaulted ceilings are having that portion of the building maintained um trying to do there. There's a lot of options and exploration that could have been done um to see how they could still maintain part of that building as opposed to just demolishing 100%. Um and really having a more imaginative project, something that again is a collaboration between multiple levels of government. um to make it a standout facility. Um the design of this what Whitten had proposed was how to integrate um medicine with the function and architecture of a building to make it a property that was linked to the escarment was using the views and the the fresh air. That's why the balconies were proposed so that it was creating a healthy space. So taking the heritage of that property and being able to move forward in the future. How can you take that building and make it an even better project for the city of Hamilton. Um so that's I mean that's where we're coming from. It doesn't have to be a 100% demolition. There can be a collaborative conversation that that finds a project that is a standout award-winning um project that could be funded. >> Thank you. I this is not a gotcha question. I am trying to explore this. It's a difficult one, but you're acknowledging that any kind of repurposing would require a different or amended or enhanced negotiation and funding formula. Is that what you maybe >> Well, again, it's if if the province is choosing not to fund renovation projects, that's another level of of discussion. Um but when there's funds available through their private fundraising and the various levels of government and if the city of Hamilton's involved again uh financial incentives that are available for heritage designated properties having the designation is only an added level of support that the council can show towards this project. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm not seeing any other questions. So you may have a seat. Thank you very much. I have a mover and second to receive the delegations for 6.1. Councelor Cret, councelor Bey, please indicate with a show of hands. That carries. Items for information. We'll address all items for information and then receive them all together at the end. So it's uh first one is 7.1 PEED2611 update on site plan and draft plan of subdivision applications for 700 Garner Road East in Ancaster at W12. Are there any questions for staff? Okay, moving onward. 7.2 Peed 26128 city initiated secondary plan work citywide. I'd like to call up staff to please come to the podium to begin your presentation. Good morning members of planning committee. My name is Stacy Kursikoski, senior planner with the sustainable communities division of the planning section. I am here today to present staff report peed 26128 city initiated secondary plan work program. This staff report has been brought forward to be received for information purposes. In 2009, a staff report was brought forward which outlined the secondary plan work program. This is an update to that work program. It provides an overview of the key provincial and municipal policy changes and priorities. It summarizes secondary plan work completed over the past 17 years. And it introduces new flexible work program for city initiated secondary plans that identifies ongoing planned and potential future projects. For context, secondary plans are area specific land use policy documents adopted as official plan amendments through the planning act. They provide more detailed planning direction for spec sorry they provide more detailed planning direction for a specific area than the official plan does. A secondary plan establishes a long-term vision by addressing matters such as land use, density, urban design, natural heritage, cultural heritage, and the infrastructure needed to support growth. The city currently has 30 secondary plans under the urban Hamilton official plan and one under the former city of Hamilton official plan, and that is the West Harbor secondary plan. It is important to recognize that while secondary plans are a valuable planning tool, they are not the only way to guide growth and development and they are not appropriate in every area of the city. Depending on the context, other planning tools may be more suitable. Ultimately, the planning tools should reflect the unique needs and objectives of each area. The purpose of the secondary plan work program is to provide a strategic framework that guides where and when the city undertakes future secondary plans. It helps prioritize staff resources in areas where more detailed land use planning is needed. This program applies only to city initiated secondary plans and does not include areas uh does not include plans that are initiated through private development uh applications such as the urban boundary area expansions. The work program also supports the city's broader planning framework by directing growth within the existing urban boundary consistent with the city's no urban boundary expansion strategy. It also helps coordinate future uh land use planning with major transportation investments including the future light rail transit, major transit station areas and the blast transit network. Another key component is the ongoing review of existing secondary plans to ensure that they remain consistent with current provincial legislation, city policies, and evolving planning priorities. The program is intended to be flexible and will continue to evolve in response to council's direction, emerging priorities, growth trends, infrastructure planning, and available resources. As the committee is aware, the province province recently consulted on potential changes to the use of secondary plans through Bill 98. The public consultation period closed on May 14th of this year. However, the province's final decision is still pending. As part of that consultation, staff emphasized the continued importance of secondary plans. Based on the information available today, we understand that the province is not considering eliminating secondary plans altogether. However, they may introduce changes that limit when and where they can be used. Until further direction is provided, staff will continue advancing the secondary plan work program. And if any legislation legislative changes are introduced, staff will bring forward their impact to planning committee. The proposed secondary uh work program was developed through a combination of technical analysis and consultation. We worked closely with the internal technical advisory committee and key departments and also met individually with Mayor Horvath and ward counselors to better understand the local priorities and emerging planning needs across the city to identify potential new secondary plan areas as well as existing plans that may require comprehensive updates. Staff applied a consistent set of criteria. This included alignment with provincial and municipal planning policies as well as opportunities to coordinate planning with major municipal initiatives. Staff also considered where secondary plans could best support complete and sustainable communities. Together, these considerations help shape a strategic and flexible work program that reflects both citywide planning priorities and local community needs. This slide shows the existing city initiated secondary plans across the city. As part of the developing the work program, staff reviewed the current secondary plan framework to determine where comprehensive updates may be needed. While some plans will require updates over time uh to reflect changing policy direction or local planning priorities, many of the city's existing secondary plans continue to function well and provide effective policy framework for managing intensification. As a result, staff have determined that most secondary plans do not require comprehensive update or review at this time, allowing resources to be focused on areas where new planning work or more significant updates are needed. This slide shows the proposed city initiated secondary plan work program across Hamilton. The work program has divi been divided into three categories. the planned or in progress projects, the priority areas, and the potential new areas. Projects one through three on the work program are the ones that are currently in uh progress or planned. Number one is the airport employment growth district secondary plan. Staff are currently in the process of updating the policies and maps to ensure consistency with the new transportation master plan while also reviewing and updating the area's natural heritage system mapping. Number two is phase one of the West Harbor secondary plan which falls under the former city of Hamilton official plan. The secondary plan is subject to a long-standing non-decision and staff are currently working to resolve that with the Ontario Land Tribunal. Phase one will include the ultim ultimate resolution and incorporation into the urban Hamilton official plan. Number three is the most westerly portion of the Futland Winona secondary plan. An update is required to bring to implement the block one servicing strategy that was completed last year. The second set of uh items on the work program are numbers four through seven and they are highlighted in light red and they are identified as our priority areas. They are anticipated to be short to midterm projects and are not listed in any uh particular order. Number four identifies the Anleywood Westale secondary plan. With increasing development pressures in that area, the future light rail transit system and the introduction of the McMaster and Longwood major transit station areas. This plan is needed uh to be reviewed. Number five is phase two of the West Harbor secondary plan. This this phase will consist of a comprehensive review and update of the entire secondary plan to reflect the recommendations of the uh sorry the James Street North mobility hub study, the Barton Tiffany urban design study and other studies, citywide plans and strategies. Number six is a proposed new secondary plan that is centered on the Ottawa Street North corridor and the center on Barton, including the planned uh Ottawa and Kennallworth major transit station areas. There is a need to coordinate invest uh intensification and redevelopment and to align with the future light rail transit investments and to consider its unique commercial character. Number seven is the proposed new secondary plan focused on the future A-line rapid transit corridor along Upper James Street. With higher order transit plan for this area and continued growth anticipated around the Upper James and Rimmel Road community node, a secondary plan would help guide future intensification and mixeduse development while coordinating land use planning with future transit investments. Numbers 8 through 13 shown in blue hatching consider consists of all new potential areas. These projects are intended to be longer term and are not listed in any particular order. Number eight is the proposed Rimal Road corridor which has experienced potential has experienced peacemeal redevelopment over recent years and there is a planned road widening and future blast investments along that route. Number nine focuses on the area east of downtown including Barton Village. A secondary plan could help guide intensification, support the revitalization, and coordinate future growth with planned transit. Number 10 focuses on downtown Dundas. There is there are uh there is an identified community node and a secondary plan that could help manage intensification while uh strengthening the urban design direction and protecting heritage resources. Number 11 centers on Limebridgeidge Mall subregional service node which is expected to accommodate significant future growth. Number 12 includes the waterfront neighborhoods north of the QEW that are not uh covered by the existing secondary plan. This could help uh provide direction for the area's unique waterfront character, public spaces, and recreational assets. And the last builds on the Bayfront industrial area strategy as industrial uses and areas evolve over time. A secondary plan would provide a coordinated framework to guide redevelopment, improve connectivity to the waterfront, and support future economic opportunities. The timeline for each secondary plan will vary depending on factors such as project complexity complexity, uh competing priorities, emerging issues, and the feedback received throughout the planning process. Where appropriate, staff will retain consultants to provide specialized expertise, support community engagement, and undertake technical studies that complement internal staff resources. A collaborative approach will be central to every project. Staff will work closely with internal departments, external agencies, indigenous communities, community groups, and the public. Each project will have a tailored community engagement strategy to ensure meaningful community participation. Thank you so much for your time. Myself and uh Melanie Fam, community planning program lead would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> Okay. Thanks to our senior planner. Are there any questions from the committee? Councelor M. Wilson. >> Thank you. Thank you very much for your work on this. Um just wondering um about the process used to um allow for perhaps a previously unidentified area uh to be identified as in need of a secondary plan. How how would that process unfold? >> Uh as mentioned, it is a very flexible work program. So if there is interest in having a an area reviewed or um assessed, we'd be happy to um we'd be happy to look into it um you know if we are happy to work with other departments to understand the background and the context of that area um so that we have a fuller picture um from the inside but also understand uh any concerns that you you may have or interests in other areas. >> Okay. So just so I'm clear, thank you for that. It would come um from a a counselor to staff. They would assess um the planning environment, the development pressures, the infrastructure plans uh present and future and would you have to report back to council um for the insertion of an area? I don't believe so, but I will refer because it is brought forward for information purposes only, but I will refer to the bench for the technical. >> Thank you. >> Through the chair to councelor Wilson. So, yes, this is really intended as an information report to um provide council with the priorities that staff have identified going forward given we have a limited resources and we can't obviously be looking at every area at the same time. Uh but we are as we indicated we're this is a flexible program which uh can can pivot depending on council direction. So if council we receive direction from council uh if we receive um informal interest in looking at an area we can also look at that as well and we be prepared to adjust our work program based on on input from council and and and other uh stakeholders. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so just so that I understand if it is um determined by staff that those variables are not active at present and perhaps your council is that a particular neighborhood doesn't warrant a secondary plan despite perhaps the neighborhood thinking it does and it wishes to have one. Um I'm just trying to understand the runway involved because uh perhaps their their their view might be that by the time um you uh see these patterns of development or change emerging, it will be too late to put to begin the process of putting a secondary plan in place given all the the heavy lifting that is involved. Can you just comment on that that iteration through the chair? >> Yeah, through the chair certainly. Um, I think we would be very open to having discussions with a neighborhood association, you know, off the hop to understand what their interests are um and see what, you know, what they're seeing through their lived experience. I think, you know, that is something that this is a very public um consultationheavy process in general. I would also um perhaps suggest that uh if there is another secondary plan that is in our work program that is in the potential geographical area, perhaps some of the information that stems through any of those reviews might feed into um the need for a a future one in a general in a more specific geographical area if that makes sense to you. >> Yeah, thank you. It does. Um one more question if I may. I thought I heard in your presentation that secondary plans are are one way in which we can address emerging um changes and pressures and opportunities. Um and I thought I heard you say there are other tools available. Would you be able to daylight what some of those other things might be through the chair? Certainly through the chair. Uh there's heritage conservation districts, there's um public realm master plans, um there's area specific policies, there's specific policies within the OP that we can um integrate. Um you know, right now we are currently uh the planning department is is working on the the mid and high-rise residential policies. So that might also change certain areas and and um in you know in in one way or another. Um it might also identify areas that um you know where we're not seeing trends where we're not seeing the need to intensify further. Um so those are just a few of the other tools. >> Thank you. Thank you through the chair. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I'm not seeing any more questions for you senior planner. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> We're moving on to 7.2 correspondence from Mike Colin Williams, West End Homebuilders Association, respecting city initiated secondary plan work. Are there any questions for staff on the correspondence? Not seeing any. May I please have a mover and seconder to receive the items for information 7.1, 7.2, and 7.2A. Please. Uh, so, councelor McMaken and Councelor Wang. Thank you. And please indicate with a show of hands. Any opposed? Nothing. Okay. Thank you. That motion carries. We're on to public hearings. Public has been advised how to pre-register to be a delegate at the public meetings on today's agenda. If a specified person or public body would otherwise have an ability to appeal the decision of council, city of Hamilton, to the Ontario Land Tribunal, but the specified person or public body does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make written submissions to the city of Hamilton before the bylaw is passed, the specified person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision. If a specified person or public body does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make submission written submissions to the SE Hamilton before the bylaw is passed, the specified person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the entire Ontario land tribunal unless in the opinion of the tribunal there are reasonable grounds to do so. We're on to 8.1 peed 26002. application for a zoning bylaw amendment for lands located at 360 Beach Road, Hamilton, Ward 4. Does the committee wish to hear the staff presentation? Okay, we'll have Mark Mishnick come down for a presentation. [clears throat] Good morning, chair, members of committee, staff, and public in attendance. My name is Mark Myak, and I'm a planner with the development planning division. Today, I will be discussing zoning bylaw amendment application for lands located at 360 Beach Road in Hamilton. The subject property is located on the south side of Beach Road between Ottawa Street North and Kennallorth Avenue north. Subject property is approximately.7 hectares. Surrounding land uses include industrial uses to the north, single detached dwellings to the south, and automotive and single detached dwellings, sorry, automotive service and single detached dwellings to the east and to the west. The lands currently contain a vacant building uh which formerly contained a public school but most recently used for commercial purposes. This slide shows views of the subject property and the surrounding lands. Starting at the top left and going clockwise, these views are of the subject property, the industrial uses to the north, the automotive service use located to the east, and finally the automotive service use located to the west. The proposal is to reuse an existing building as a private school for grades junior kindergarten to grade 8 with 28 classrooms, 46 surface parking spaces, a student pickup/dropoff area, and two outdoor play areas. The subject site has a ve vehicular access from both Woodley Avenue and again Court Avenue. This slide shows the elevations of the proposed development. Again, starting at the top left and going clockwise, you see the elevations of the west, north, south, and east. Here you see a 3D model of the proposed development looking from the south. And again, the 3D model uh looking from the north. The purpose of the zoning bylaw amendment is for a change in zoning from the community commercial C3 uh 340 zone to a sight specific community commercial C3 zone. The zoning bylaw amendment includes modifications to the community commercial C3 zone. Some of the proposed modifications include permitted uses and minimum required parking. As part of the planning process, this application was circulated to property owners within 240 meters of the subject lands. A sign was also installed on the property. In response to the circulation, four pieces of correspondence were received. Subsequently, a petition with 21 signatures opposing the application was received uh and also four other um pieces of uh uh submissions were received. Individuals uh expressed concern with traffic, noise, air quality, and the impact on industrial activities. In response to the traffic, a transportation assessment was submitted with the application. Staff found that the transportation network has sufficient capacity. However, there are concerns with the ability of the site to operate safely. According to the assessment, 70% of the students are estimated to be from outside the city of Hamilton. The resulting traffic creates pedestrian conflicts with the two outdoor play areas and the pickup/dropoff area and also the site's capacity to handle uh traffic and operate safely. uh a land use in response to the conflict with the industrial activities, a land use compatibility mitigation study was submitted with the application. The study identifies one large scale industrial facility located within 1,000 mters of the uh within the 10,00 meter potential influence area, seven mediumcale industrial facilities located within the 300 potential influence area, and five small scale industrial facilities within the 70 m potential influence area. The large scale industrial facility is located 25 mters from which the subject lands and within the recommended 300 meter minimum separation distance. The two small scale industrial facilities are located 15 mters from the subject lands and within the recommended 30 m separation distance. Based on the information submitted with this application, staff are not satisfied. The proposal shall avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential adverse impacts from the facilities. In conclusion, the proposed zoning ball amendment cannot be supported as it is not consistent with the provincial planning statement and does not comply with the urban Hamilton official plan. The proposal cannot be supported as it has not demonstrated that the proposed sensitive land use avoids or where avoidance is not possible minimizes and mitigates any potential adverse impacts from odor, noise, air quality, and other contaminants and results in potential impacts on the long-term viability of major facilities. It is not accordance with the provincial D6 compatibility between industrial facilities guidelines in determining compatible mixed land uses. It does not comply with the city's transportation safety policies. It does not comply with the educational facilities policies as it does not provide a suitable outdoor space for students and it is not considered to be good planning as it is proposed as the proposed sensitive land use is not appropriate for this site. This concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Okay, thank you Mark. And we do have a few questions lined up for you. First from councelor Critch. Thank you. So my question for you is about the uses in the area that you're concerned about. You talk about industrial uses. So directly north of the property I think it is the industrial uses that are there from DeFasco. And you talk about automotive uses. Can I understand the context for your concerns of automotive uses? I understand you're a planner, but when I think about downtown schools, what I'm thinking about is the conditions in downtown schools in general. So, Dr. J Davyy Elementary School was built in 2010 surrounded literally surrounded by automotive uses. How much of a consideration does that play? So, for for instance, we were saying that there was just automotive uses that were there and not an industrial use. Would that change staff's interpretation or are you basing this primarily on the industrial use? I'm just trying to get a sense because when we're talking about schools that are currently existing in the downtown, I'm also trying to think about the equivalency here uh through you chair. Uh I would say the uh industrial use to north the fasco is one of the major uh concerns with this application. Uh as as I mentioned uh one of the requirements is for an outdoor amenity area for the students. Um and uh based on the land compatibility study that we received, there is concerns with the air quality in the area. Uh we can't say sorry specifically where those uh are coming from. Uh we just know that the area does have that uh air quality concerns. Um and then the automotive, another thing that could um and would require further uh investigation was would be noise. Uh and then finally I would comment is uh we're looking uh specifically for you know uh the merits of this application. So I can't speak to uh why that in the case that you provided why that exists. >> Yeah, I understand we do sight specific applications here. I think what we're doing though is we're making a comment regardless about schools uh whether we're intending to or not and about outdoor play spaces and mitigation. So I'm curious to know if any comparative work was done to look at air quality in other downtown schools when trying to assess what's happening here >> uh through your chair. No. >> No. Okay. Um there's another concern in this I understood from the materials about not being able to you know there was a mitigation plan for poor by the school. The school said we want to address the concerns that are being raised by the planning department. Here's what we're going to do. And one of the things the planning department said was we can't enforce that. So, I guess I'd like an answer from somebody who can say what what couldn't we enter into a voluntary agreement or couldn't the school voluntarily agree to um enforceable regulations for the life of their occupancy there? >> Uh through your chair, I can't comment on that. >> Could someone comment on that? Maybe I can ask that later. I don't know. I'm just trying to understand if if there's a possibility for of course the school to voluntarily agree to mitigation plan for the duration of their time there. >> Good morning um acting managers uh Spencer Skidmore development planning east team. So staff concerns with the mitigation plan. Yes, enforcement was a concern in terms of once the monitoring plan is in place, how do we mitigate that long term? It's not something that we have strong tools under the planning act to implement um or to enforce um through any kind of development agreement. Now with that being said, the larger concern is that the main operational need of a school is to have kids playing outside and the primary mitigation technique would be to keep the kids inside. So that would conflict with kind of the land use in terms of operational needs. Um, and that was primarily the concern was implementing the mitigation plan, but also the need for the mitigation plan in and of itself was a concern. Thank you. >> Yes, I understand all that. I guess what I'm saying to you is right that that notwithstanding the challenge that was presented I was trying to address was specifically around enforcement. Can this could the school not simply just say we would agree to enforcement? We agree to we'll put a plan in place to comply with the city like we will voluntarily expose ourselves to your enforcement on a long-term basis. Could we not enter into an agreement with the school? I think the answer is yes. I'm just wanting someone to understand like the school can volunteer to to do this on a long-term basis. Even if we can't enforce it, they can enforce it upon themselves. through the through the chair Ken Kite, acting chief planner and director of planning. That question may be perhaps best answered by our legal. >> Sorry, apologies P [snorts] McDonald legal services if you could repeat the question. >> Sure. So, one of the questions or concerns that was brought up was that there's not a mechanism that currently exists de facto in the planning act for enforcability of a mitigation plan from the school on a long-term basis. My point was, well, I understand there's a deacto way for doing that, but couldn't there be a way the city can enter into an agreement with the school so as long as they occupy the property, they would agree to certain terms and conditions that would allow that enforcement to take place in the long term. Um, through the chair, uh, yes, as Mr. Way mentioned, there's no tool in the planning act. So, anything that would have to be arrived that would have to be contractual. Okay. um but would have to deal with the fact that uh that there may be subsequent owners of the property as well. >> Sure, I understand that. Thank you. My last question is about the zoning. So from my perspective, I understand that we're concerned about zoning. It's important that when we zone something and there are all these conditions in the zoning that we adhere to those conditions in the zoning and the different uses in that zoning and that's a lot of what frankly planning staff do. Also mindful that it's just in this case we're talking about if you can clarify it was a school and that was the permitted use and then people reszoneed the property to use it for something a bit different and now the current owners are saying we want to use it for a school again. Had this is a maybe hypothetical question and if it's not fair you can just say so but I'm assuming that had there not been another use in the middle this would have been a zoned the same way and therefore we wouldn't be having this conversation like if the zoning had been maintained this would have been permitted so this is more of a zoning issue than anything else if I if I understand it correctly >> uh through you chair uh that's correct if the zoning hadn't changed uh we wouldn't be having this application >> indeed okay thanks comments I'll save them for Thank you, Councelor Cretch. Councelor Wang, >> thank you. I I know that you had mentioned this on your very last slide and you had actually given this as a verbal update. So I wonder if you can unpack a little bit around the transportation aspect of around this because uh with having Devasco right next door uh and this is a designated truck route what are some of the concerns especially if 70% of the students are being um bust in uh from outside of Hamilton. So what what were those can you just unpack that sort of transportation bit that you were talking about at the very last slide >> uh through you chair. Uh so as I mentioned 70% of the uh estimated students are to come from outside the Hamilton. Uh so as a result of that a lot of those students would be arriving at the site uh in you know private automobiles and uh there's also plans for buses on the site. uh given the volume of uh automobiles coming to the site uh and the amount of space allocated for uh the pickup and the drop off. Uh staff had have determined that that amount of space is in insufficient and would result in spill over onto the adjacent uh local roads surrounding the school. uh which uh Beach Road as you mentioned is designated as a truck route currently used uh for DeFasco for uh for special uh steel coil transporting vehicles. Um and so we have concerns with uh the interaction with those vehicles and uh people dropping off their children at the on the local roads. >> Okay. So um getting back to the zoning aspect of it because it was transferred over so it was decommissioned in what 2003 the school was de decommissioned >> uh through your shirt. I don't know the exact date. >> Okay. But then it was ultimately changed over to C3. C3 allows for even a daycare. It allows for um a commercial school. So what is the when when the proponents were talking to you about this uh what was their rationale for transferring it over to much a high much higher sense of the uh sensitive use into the I guess institutional zoning what was their sort of rationale there can you speak on that >> uh through you chair I the argument I guess I I guess I can say is is the in the urban Hamilton official plan chapter B uh section 3.5.5 we have uh specific policies for uh educational establishments uh which do not apply to commercial schools or daycarees. So when evaluating this application we have to evaluate against those policies. uh we found that this uh proposal does not satisfy uh some a number of those policies uh and specifically uh the requirement that an outdoor play area is provided. >> Okay. So thank you for that. Can you unpack that a little bit more? What is because uh it seems as though they have included an outdoor play area. So what is the uh what is the challenge there? uh through the chair. Uh the challenges with the air quality uh as mentioned the studies that were submitted indicated that the air quality uh is contains contaminants that are not safe for uh people to breathe. Uh the recommendation is that on days when contamination is particularly bad, people do not go outside. Uh so from staff's perspective that they're not able to provide a safe outdoor play area for the educational facility. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I will have more questions for the proponent. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. And I think councelor Nan wanted to ask some questions. >> Did counselor, but councelor Wang and councelor Crutch have covered them all off. So I'm good. >> Okay. Thank you very much. [snorts] May I have a mover and secondary to receive the staff presentation? Councelor Wang and councelor Nan, please indicate your hand vote now. That carries. Thank you. Uh we do have the agent Evan Sugin the from the big group is available to delegate. Um please turn on your camera and microphone. Evan. >> Uh good morning through the chair. Can you hear me? All right. >> Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Um Evan, are you in support of the staff report? >> Uh through the chair, we have reviewed the staff report and we do not agree with the opinions therein or the recommendations to staff. Um we have prepared a presentation today. >> Okay, take it away. >> You may begin. >> Okay. Please let me know if um if you see my my screen. >> We do. you should see the um >> planning committee 360. >> Perfect. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Um there's a lot of information to go over so I apologize in advance. Um I I may ask for a few extra minutes, but I will try to go quickly and not duplicate. Um so as as Mr. Mcnak mentioned, this is the subject site. It uh has an interface on three roads, Woodley Aav, Ain Cordav, and Beach Road. Um, three sides of this are residential existing residential neighborhood. The Beach Road interface is one of many interfaces in the city of Hamilton that have developed over the years with an industrial and residential um shared road line. Um, this means that you have sensitive land uses abudding um let's call them industrial or noxious emitters u people that are classified as industrial facilities. This is this is not special uh for this site. This is a common evolution of the city of Hamilton. It's the Hamilton story. We've seen this all over the city and it's how the city has developed and we have to deal with the available land that's there when you have situations like this. You can see here on this map, it even has a a label saying the former Lloyd George School. This was a school that was uh erected in I think 1918 and was an operating school for 85 years. It was deemed surplus by the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board in I think 2003. Um, and the reason for that surplus is well documented on Hamilton spectator articles and staff reports. Um, it it was nothing to do with pollution. It was deemed surplus because they didn't have enough pupil enrollment as a public school. Um, and it was sold off for redevelopment opportunities where it sat uh for quite some time as a a vacant abandoned school. Um, you can see here it's sort of hoarded here with the windows. This is what it looks like today. Asheville parking lot and uh trailer storage. It in in fact in in my opinion it's a bit of a blight on the neighborhood. It's um you know it's an underutilized vacant site. In 2012, um staff had uh undertaken a city initiated exercise to redesate and reszone this uh for commercial uses. And this is essentially um an exercise that you know was considering what we do with the site at an interface like this. And essentially, you know, you know, you're when you're looking at how to deal with a transitionary area, beach road being that transition where there's a consideration of the type of uses. Typically, you see things like open space or parks. I don't think staff wanted to see that. Uh in this case, commercial uses and institutional. There's, you know, there's either either that or there's an acknowledgement that the industrial uses continue to creep further south or the residential uses creep further north. And so one of those three interface uses was selected and commercial was the was the victor in this case. Um however since 2014 I believe um or or since 2012 um the site has been vacant or underutilized uh as a commercial property. It's there's never been a viable tenant here for a long-term commercial use. And so this is where uh Mack, our client, has come in to acquire the property and determined that perhaps the best thing forward is to reactivate this historic school use, bring it back to um a school, but not as a public school. It's a private uh religious-based institution. And so you can see the subject site here in its context. The yellow are the established residential areas. You've got some parks nearby and then you've got the industrial kind of to the um further west and then to the north uh abuing it and then a commercial plaza a rail corridor and this 400 meter is essentially representing a natural 5minute walk. Um now this is not a completely twocale map but what it does do is it shows other existing schools um in the city of Hamilton official plan context. Um, so you've got the in black stars the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board schools and in purple the Hamilton Wentworth Catholic District School Boards all located within the neighborhoods designation save for for two which are institutional. Um, and so you can see that schools exist both within the institutional designation and the general neighborhoods designation which the school is. You can see here a couple of uh three-dimensional aerial views. We're surrounded on three sides by a residential neighborhood and then of course the interface with Beach Road and DeFasco. Um I think you know one of the things staff maybe went over too quickly was just exactly what we're proposing. You know it's we're there's a few things. If this application is is advanced MAC have agreed to work with City of Hamilton heritage staff to designate this school following the resoning. this would protect this property uh in perpetuity and work with city staff to identify the attributes worthy of conservation as a school. That designation protects this building as a school as a historic school use. Um if we don't have school permissions, it's essentially a vacant school building that is forced to cater to commercial uses. In addition, what they're proposing is full a full entity adaptive reuse of the school. Meaning, they're not proposing additions uh uh alterations to the exterior, demolitions or other interventions that would increase uh building height or appearance from the street. In fact, they're going to um make this building better. They're keeping all of the beautiful mosaic brick work. They're keeping the existing window uh rhythm and placement and openings, but they're replacing the old outdated windows with new um sealed window system. They're replacing the um vent HVAC system in the school to be a hepoiltrate hepoiltration system to ensure that uh occupancy in the building is is clean air, fresh air and and void of any pollutants as a safe escape. Um, and I'm going to come back to that work because pollution is being sort of touted as a um an evil entity that exists all the time. Uh, and that's not the full story. But in addition to the the building itself, you know, we are proposing or our clients are proposing to beautify the site. Um, they've done an extensive landscaping job. They've provided on street or off- streetet parking. They've provided a gated area for the children's safety, which you can see uh in the corner here and here. Um and they've provided what we're calling the green dome. So essentially, um they're providing probably triple or quadruple the amount of trees that's required typically on a site like this. It's atypical for a school. They're avoiding a, you know, a track and field area because what they wanted to do with these trees is create a reduction in the urban heat island effect, create shade space, create a nice visual space, and in in um, you know, a practicality standpoint, create a canopy that can stop uh, outfall from any of the the industrial buildings. We hear stories of soot in the neighborhood periodically. The intent is that these trees are are pollution eating trees and can stop outfall uh, physically. So, this is not the only mitigation solution, but this is part of it. In addition, they're committing to installing about somewhere around here a pollution an on-site pollution monitoring station. That station would essentially monitor pollution events uh day-to-day. They would have an app that they make available to parents. They're also offering to make this app available to the neighborhood for the members of the public. And the intent is to monitor pollution on a day-to-day basis so that in the event there is a day where there's levels that are beyond the safe allowable levels that kids can make or parents can make the choice to either not send their children to school or the school school can ask the students to to stay inside. And this is um a really important aspect and on the topic of pollution just just because we're talking about the monitoring station which should be somewhere here. The pollution that's being touted as as the issue is small periods of pollution throughout the year. Uh it's not every day all day. There are small periods of events um that occur throughout the year during specific times. you know, um, stagnant weather days, uh, overly warm days or heavy manufacturing days. You know, those are the days we're mitigating for. The balance of the year has has safe levels, and we have our, um, uh, technical experts on this call to answer any questions, too. So, I'm going to speed things up a bit, but you can see this is the site plan. Uh, we have a a private internal pickup and drop off area, which is unique to a private school. Many public schools will have this as a layby in front of the school or or if they're lucky they get one inside the site. We're proposing one inside the site and then that will be gated off uh from you know outside traffic. Sorry. Here here and here. Uh this is the the blue is what you see are the classrooms. These are existing classrooms. These will be um renovated and revitalized. the existing elevations of the school remain unchanged as a conservation technique and to utilize this beautiful existing building. Uh this is a sort of a highlighted version of the green dome concept. You can see all of the trees uh that are being proposed, trees, shrubs, landscaping. This is an overall improvement to the site in terms of aesthetic and hopefully a bit of a mitigation effort as a kind of the cherry on top to the the mitigation strategy that's been proposed here from the pollution from a policy standpoint. You know, we are in the neighborhoods uh area of the city in terms of structure. This is where a variety of things for community uses are contemplated including expressly schools and same thing with the neighborhood's land use designation. We fall under um the community facilities and services category which includes schools in the city's own definition which is where schools are permitted. They are also permitted in institutional designations. Uh in terms of the zoning, so today the site is currently zoned community commercial sight specific exception 340. This includes a wide variety of uses, but it also includes a few existing sensitive uses which staff are commenting on uh which includes child care center, a commercial school. If the owners wanted to, they could go down to the building division and get a permit for childc care center tomorrow. This is uh the same the same type of sensitivity you would see with an educational establishment. It's just that we are understanding that kids would like to play outside. Um, same as a child care center, there's probably a requirement to have an outdoor area. Um, but even if there was no requirement, we want to make sure that there is a good area because kids will be kids and go outside. So, we need to mitigate for the situation. So, these are already permitted. The exception 340 essentially limits the the uses to within the building only. So there would have to be some reconciliation between, you know, getting a building permit for a child care center and dealing with the fact that the province typically requires an outdoor play area uh for these types of uses. So we have done a few things in terms of consultation and engagement that are above and beyond. Um in January, we met with W4 counselor um Miss Wang. We also hosted an applicant-led public openhouse to hear and gain staff uh staff and um uh public comments which was beyond the requirements of the planning act. We created three temporary signs to advertise. We mailed notice letters to 240 meters as Mr. Mcnak mentioned. This is greater than the planning act requires by double. We also mailed notices uh to any identified major facilities including any class 3 facilities. So we made sure that our neighbors were informed within a thousand meters. So within a kilometer, we sent out extra letters. We also mailed invitations specifically to the ward counselor and the mayor. Uh following the open house, we met with Mayor Horwath to hear her comments as well as uh senior staff. Um and then the application and all uh circulation or supporting materials were then submitted to the city departments in May followed by the notice sign uh on May 21st and then the statutory meeting which is which is today or upcoming today. Um so we have all of our technical experts on here. I think most of you have probably seen our our um conversation, but we've had um I'm going to skip these because I want to be able to answer questions and get to the recommendation. Um but we have extensive mitigation strategy to make sure a variety of things are addressed because we heard loud and clear there were comments on pollution. We heard loud and clear there were comments on land use compatibility uh on transportation and traffic um and also um on the policy and regulatory considerations. So we have submitted a transportation impact study and we have our transportation consultant Scott Kenton from Paradigm. We've retained um a land use compatibility experts and noise experts. They are RWDI. Both of these experts are on the line able to answer questions of clarity. Um, we've done noise impact, we've done air quality impact, and we've also brought in a toxicologist to specifically identify what the issues are with pollution and how to come up with a strategy. Um, that's through intrinsic and we've brought in a landscape uh architect who helped us develop the green dome concept. So, one of the things we're recommending and this is my last piece and I will stop is there's essentially three options. Our client has asked for something new today. Um, as of yesterday, we met with staff to talk about an alternative approach because although we do agree with staff's opinion or do not agree with staff's opinion or recommendations, we feel that they've identified valid comments uh and valid concerns. And same thing with the public where we feel deferring might be the better approach to it warrant an opportunity to just uh have the experts talk and and come up with a strategy. Um so there's essentially three options today and the one we're recommending is a new third. So there's you know the third op first option is recommend the approval of our zoning amendment as proposed. Um and then the second option which is going to help staff uh deal with the um implementation of the mitigation that was brought up by one of the other members of committee today which is to refine how the zoning bylaw would be introduced which is to to you know what we're asking for now is to permit an educational establishment. What we could do is refine that to permit a private educational establishment. So that way it's not any school, not just any public school together with the required air quality monitoring station and and mechanism. And then on top of that, there's a variety of other implementation options that we do feel are available legally and under the planning act that can certainly gather this. But the request uh today and you know essentially these are being scratched off purposefully because what we're requesting for today is that uh the committee defer the uh decision on this application until September so that we can have a chance to go over all of the comments and concerns from staff and the public. um have our technical experts speak uh in the same room and go over those items and hopefully come to a an agreement to position this application um in a way that works for both parties uh back in September. So that's what I would ask for today and I'll and I'll write it here in a really uh messy handwriting. Thanks Evans. We do have a couple questions for you that we will uh hopefully get any more information that wasn't presented there. Councelor Nan, >> thank you. Thank you so much for the thoroughess of your presentation um and appreciating the last uh few comments you made in terms of wanting to work in a way that really does pinpoint and address the concerns that have been raised either through staff or through the community and the public consultations and the and the written comments that you're seeing today. Um could you speak a little bit more in detail to the mitigation factor? uh air quality is a deep concern for neighbors in that area and now increasingly even all the way up into the escarment in terms of some of the fallout and impact by um by the raw materials that are used by Defasco. Um could you speak a little bit about what what is the rigor that you're bringing to it? How are you ensuring the uh the health impact to your students or future students um is paramount here and what is the standard by which you're establishing those mitigation um pieces >> um through the chair. Uh thank you to councelor Nan for that question. I think that's one of the pivotal questions here and I we have been very rigorous in this regard. I I mean I'm not in a position to recommend any application that would put public health and safety in danger. That's my bottom line when I signed on for this project. Um so in order to answer that from a technical perspective, I'd like to call on our um our air quality experts um and our um language compatibility folks. Perhaps starting with um RWDI. I know they're on the line. Good morning. My name is Brian Sulie with RWDI, a consulting engineering firm based out of GE. Uh I am the air quality expert that's been retained for this project. So just to look at the concerns that have been raised from an air quality perspective, we are looking at data, air quality data that was obtained from St. Christopher's uh park, the playground that is located two blocks east of the subject site. So again, in terms of getting uh local air quality data, it generally doesn't get better than this unless we have a monitor directly on the site, which again we're two blocks away. So that is uh extremely localized data. We are aware of course that when we look at that data we do see occurrences where fine particulate matter which would be associated with heavy industry um although of course as we've seen this summer and again looking back at 2023 when we have large forest fires uh that can also spike those numbers. So this year and then 2023 would be considered abnormal um years with high levels of particulate but again due to forest fires not specific to local industry in Hamilton. When we look at the air quality data from that park, we do see those elevated levels at time to time. And so what we've proposed is an air quality monitoring program that educates and informs decisions at the school for how they utilize the space uh for outdoor use so that we limit outdoor activities um to ensure that the students are protected. So that is over and above anything that the surrounding community currently has at their disposal other than looking at air quality uh the air quality health index um that's issued by the province. So in terms of you know comparison if we have a playground at the school versus the playground at St. Christopher's Park um the air quality monitoring program would actually be more protective than what people that currently use uh the public playground uh at St. Christopher's Park would have uh at their disposal. Furthermore, the building itself has been designed to ensure that when students are in the building, they have better protections than uh they would have uh if they were living in a house nearby since the building will have sealed windows and have filtered filtered air intakes that ensure that the air quality inside the school is generally better than that outside the school. to ensure that again given the air quality uh concerns in the area, we're proposing mitigation to ensure that the students are are you know better protected uh than the uh essentially the [clears throat] existing surrounding community as it is today. >> Thank you. Appreciate that. Um, and then in terms of the recreational uses, and I know that this is getting into the weeds a little bit in terms of operations, but um, there was there was a point in the presentation saying that the students wouldn't be uh outdoor as often. Um, is there a gymnasium inside the school? Can you speak to us a little bit about how you're ensuring that the the future students would be accommodated in their needs for physical activity? So I can't comment to the programming inside the school necessarily but in terms of outside the purpose of the air quality monitoring system would be to ensure that if the students are going to play outside it's only when the air quality levels are within acceptable criteria and and you know we've sort of settled on 75% or lower of the relevant benchmarks that are set by the province and by the federal government for air quality contaminants in the area. that data. Um, you know, we we deal with these monitoring systems all the time for various projects. Everything from construction to mining to uh to other industries and uh looking at the community data as well. These systems can be set up to ensure that those alarms are provided um to the school to ensure that they're making decisions based on good data and in this case the monitoring system would be at the school itself and that informs that outside programming. >> Thank you. No further questions. and and through the chair counselor Nan I can confirm there is in fact a gymnasium inside the school that would operate like every other school gymnasium to host sports um attract me anything uh that you would typically do with gymnasium to offer you know recreational use when there's a bad pollution day or otherwise >> appreciate that thank you >> okay thanks Evan we're going to go to councelor Wang >> thank you for coming in and giving us this very report. I wanted to speak a little bit about some of the questions that residents have brought to me for me to ask you. So, uh, in particular, you will see from the correspondence that there was a petition of the immediate adjacent properties, uh, around the school. The majority of them are really worried about increased traffic, parking difficulties, and safety issues with the continuous influx of vehicles in the neighboring area. So I wonder could you speak to that a little bit about I I do recognize that you are putting a private pickup drop off on the back side of the school but that still doesn't alleviate any of their concerns. So I wonder if you can speak to that a little bit >> through the chair. Uh thank you to board counselor Wang. Those are very good questions and I think probably the second most critical issue that we needed to address. Um so a couple of things that I think staff had spoken to this too in their report is you know parking and site circulation and the transportation policies. You know the the way that we would test and staff would test any other school is to look at are there enough parking spaces provided and loading spaces pickup drop off spaces provided to accommodate the use. In this case, we are not actually asking for an amendment to the to the parking or uh vehicular operation of the site through the zoning amendment. We comply with the educational use parking requirements in terms of parking spaces and loading. We're only asking for the use to be permitted. So, from the zoning perspective, uh there's that aspect in addition the to the design and shape of the site. Um but from a technical perspective, I'd like to um introduce our um transportation planners which are um paradigm through Scott Kton I believe is on the call. Scott, you can answer some of the mitigation specifically that your team has recommended to ensure this is safe from a pedestrian standpoint and from truck traffic on Peak Road. >> Sure. Hi. Hi everyone. My name is Scott. I'm from Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited. We're a private consulting firm based out of Cambridge. I was born and raised in Hamilton. Um, as part of the uh the application here, we've prepared a traffic impact study that assesses the operations of the street around the school. And within that study, there's several measures that uh can be proposed or implemented to manage traffic and parking concerns. Um, there's uh continuous sidewalks on all streets and except for the north side of Beach Road where it transitions to a paved shoulder. Um we're suggesting that a school speed limit zone be implemented uh which would be a flashing 30 kilometer per hour uh speed limit during bell times. Uh we've also recommended additional pavement markings in terms of ladder crosswalks so that students have a safe crossing at intersections and we've also recommended that speed cushions be implemented on the two adjacent local streets Woodley Woodley and Ain Court. So those would help control vehicle speeds. Uh as mentioned there is a pickup drop off lane that uh will operate or is proposed to operate as one way through the site. So uh parents and buses would enter from one end and exit the other end um to help manage the sharp peaking of traffic that's associated with schools. Uh things can be done such as staggering bell times for different grades. So, we can, for example, have the morning bell for grades 1 through 3 be at 8:00 a.m. and then for the later grades be at 8:30 a.m. So, that helps spread out the demand. In addition to that, uh, the city of Hamilton encourages a drive to five program where parents would drive to within five minutes walking distance of the school, park their vehicle outside of the immediate area of the school, and then continue on foot to the school. So, in one of the previous slides that Evan was sharing, there was a um a map with a 400 meter radius and that almost covers most of the uh residential area to the north of the rail line. I hope I've uh answered your questions. >> Thank you. Um what we were hear what I've been hearing from residents is that and I think you kind of addressed it Scott was the peak times because um MAC the proponent has stated on their website that this could very this starting out phase is going to be a K to5 school where there will be a lot of buses 70% of the students will be bust in um from all of these different locations but with the catchment being as large as St. Catherine's to um essentially Oakville, Missaga. It's there. It could stand that many of the families might be driving longer distances to get here. But then there is an also uh potential expansion of those grades to uh essentially grade 12. So then if you have sort of younger um teenage drivers that might be driving in as well. So their concern is that peak time of 338 vehicles that were was listed in the transportation report and there and staff have also concluded that there would be weight times or some sort of queuing and that might be one of the challenges. So perhaps you could speak to that aspect and just try and help with answering that particular question if you can. >> Uh sure. So um as you mentioned um it's there it's expected to have a regional uh catchment area. So there will be uh students coming from outside of Hamilton. Uh students are expected to be busted. Uh not all of them will be busted as you mentioned. So I suspect it would be similar to um Hillfield Strath Allen uh in terms of the number of buses that uh the school operates and of course the number of buses the school operates would be based on the demand. Uh so uh initially the enrollment number is much lower. Uh ultimately as uh demand increases uh there could be older grades uh at the school and uh as as that um plays out uh the school would of course adjust their transportation plans to manage traffic as best as possible because they do want to be good neighbors. Um, and part of school traffic mitigation, and you can see this at many schools across Hamilton, is there's adult supervision that's typically provided outside of the schools. So, they're usually teachers and they help manage um sort of where the kids are coming from and getting into the school zone, sorry, the um the school play area safely. And uh they also uh to a lesser effect uh help manage traffic. Um so for the pickup drop off uh we could implement um adult uh supervision to uh help encourage parents to drop off and pick up kids efficiently to of course try and manage any spill back onto the adjacent streets where possible. >> Okay. So again, I'll just leave this as a comment and um for committee's point is I'm hoping to defer this at some point like to follow with their recommendation. But just as a comment, the the residents have also stated that the roads on Woodley and Ainor and McNelte are only 24 meters wide. So having a parked car, there is literally not enough room for two cars to pass each other. So that is part of their concern with um where like just the the congestion, the added added uh parking, queuing, that sort of thing. So I'll leave that as a comment because I think that that's a necessary point to bring up uh to you because these are the concerns of residents uh adjacent to this property. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you, Councelor Wang. We're going to Councelor Matt Francis. >> Thank you, Chair. And I apologize if I may have missed this, but just picking back up on the topic of air quality. Um, do we know roughly how many days a year where the indoor uh mitigation plan would apply in this situation? >> Uh, through the chair, I'd like to bring Brian Sutley back to an answer to this question. >> Good morning. Thank you for the question. So, [clears throat] looking at the data based on uh again St. Christopher's Park. Uh that would be on a normal year perhaps uh 40 days out of the entire year where the air quality levels would be um you know at a level where you might want to restrict indoor activities. Obviously 2023 was an abnormal year and as we saw this past July or this a couple of weeks ago, you'd probably obviously have those dates as well, but typically somewhere around 40 days out of the year where something might have to be restricted. Some of those days do actually occur in the winter. Again, we haven't gone into to that granularity, but uh during the uh the spring and the fall, again, there'd be a certain number of days, but over the course of a year, about 40. >> Thank you, chair. I appreciate that clarification. >> Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Evan. Um just reiterating that you're not in favor of the staff report at this time. Um, can I have a mover and second to receive the delegation from the agent? That's going to be councelor Wang and councelor Nand. Thank you. Please indicate with your hand vote now. Thank you. That carries. And we do have a number of written submissions on this matter. So it's 8.1 written submissions from Jane Garno who has a petition. 8.1B Nadine Delsordo, Regina Delsordo. Three, Marcus Wei. and fourth, James Thomas from AJ Clark and Associates. Now, we'll hear from registered delegates. So, we're going to 8.1. And our first registered delegate is James Thomas from AJ Clark and Associates. Please come down to the podium to begin your delegation. And when you start, you'll have 5 minutes. Good morning committee. My name is James Thomas, a land use planner with AJ Clark and Associates and a longtime uh resident of Ward 4 in Crown Point East. Uh we have been retained by our slim defasco to comprehensively review the materials submitted for the application as our client has reasonable concerns regarding the implementation of a commuter-based private elementary school directly across from their industrial facilities. It should be disclosed that we were contacted by the applicant to facilitate submission of formal consultation and at that time we were not confident the location would be appropriate considering land use compatibility and the likelihood of significant contamination and pollution. We suggested the applicant seek more appropriate locations. Those concerns have only been strengthened when evaluating the submitted materials and we share the opinion of staff and agree with their recommendations for denial. A letter was provided by our client outlining their concerns which are primarily tied to safety and operations surrounding their industrial land use and appropriate compatibility with such. The stretch of Beach Road, as we've mentioned, is a full-time truck route with significant transportation, industrial transportation, and is protected by an agreement with the city of Hamilton and through a special vehicle configuration permit with the province of Ontario to operate the specialized vehicles known as coil transporters. These are the only roads in which these immense vehicle types are permitted, and it is vital to our client's operations. This local two-lane industrial road does not contain a turning lane, nor has one been recommended. The submission describes that the private religious school aims to have enrollment of 700 students, 7% of which would come from outside Hamilton's boundary and include Milton, Oakville, Burlington, Cambridge, Brford, and St. Catherine's. Clearly, this is not a typical neighborhood school or asset as it is described in planning rationale report. This is a destination commuter school that should have appropriate transportation management in place. Further, the transportation demand management protocols that were uh highlighted by paradigm uh are they truly feasible when so much is dependent upon uh the singular mode of transportation being private vehicles? I wanted to speak to some of the comments that were made in a question, how do we enforce bell times to stagger through traffic throughout the operations of the school's existence and where would cars park if we're looking at different parking locations to then walk along the industrial roads to get to the site? The transportation assessment states that the school at school moment would require up to 10 school buses and 338 private vehicle trips, 70% of which would be coming from Kenworth Avenue. And the transportation assessment does not include an assessment of the intersections at Kenworth and does not provide a true analysis of how the 338 private vehicle trips together with the 10 buses will be facilitated at dropoff. As designed, there are five drop off spaces with room to queue up to 17 vehicles in the public right ofway before extending into Beach Road. Queuing onto Beach Road could have significant traffic impacts to the adjacent industrial and commercial land uses and their operations and could lead to traffic safety issues and HSR delays. Beyond concerns of impacts to traffic and operations for our client, we have significant concern for the existing contamination on site, existing air quality and pollution and noise pollution. The submitted environmental site assessments conclude that further evaluation of the extent of the site's contamination is needed along with remediation prior to submitting any record of site condition as required. The areas impacted are the proposed play areas for students. Further, both the property conditions assessments and the ESAs do not include any evaluation of noted possible asbestous, lead, polycllorinated bifphenols, radon gas, or mold. Air pollution is an obvious concern as are the proposed mitigation measures that are mechanically based which is the last form of mitigation to be considered for compatibility. As noted in the submission, a nearby monitors installed providing measurements for airborne particulate matter and contaminants of concern. In the past several years, the ministerial standards which are well below the WHO recommendations have been exceeded dozens of times. The existing monitoring station in the nearby park is under what the applicant defines as a green dome. The development's mitigation measures include installation of an additional monitoring system that would provide notice to staff and parents when pollution levels exceed just 75% of those standards and restrict outdoor activity. Presently, we cannot confirm just how many times the air quality in this neighborhood has exceeded the suggested 75%. Further, as stated in the staff report, there are no measures in which to hold the school accountable for maintaining the proposed monitoring systems. As further described in the language compatibility report, even if each individual industry were to meet their respective MECP requirements, the accumulated density of these uses can still exceed what is safe. Aside from air pollution, there's no consideration or discussion in the mitigation of industrial fallout that continue lands in the area. Residents have made their concerns regarding this matter known. Based on the review of the submitted application materials, it is my professional planning opinion that the proposed land use does not have appropriate regard for section two of the planning act is inconsistent with the provincial planning statement and does not conform the applicable policies of the urban Hamilton official plan and is not in good planning. We agree with staff's recommendations to deny the application and we would suggest the proposed land use find a more suitable location to facilitate the scale and sensitive land use intended. Thank you. >> Thank you, James. Uh we have some questions and councelor Nan is going to start off. >> Thank you. Uh thank you for coming to delegate and so that I have this really clear um you are a paid representative for DEFASCO in putting together your assessment and your delegation. Today >> we are retained by Arcel to review the submitted materials. That was phase one. upon the review of the submitted materials, if we felt that it was in poor planning, we would be speaking on their behalf today, which is phase two of that retainer, and that's why I'm here today. >> Thank you. So, yes. Um, could you actually I I tried to type your comments. You had mentioned um specifics around air quality and um limits and excessive of like air quality, particulate matter being in excess of limits. and you referenced uh WH. Could you just go back to that portion of your [clears throat] notes and repeat what you said? >> Yes. So, the nearby monitoring station as described by other consultants does measure those contaminants. Um the MECP standards are typically well below what the WHO recommendations are. uh especially given I believe the 2021 WHO recommendations which lowered those levels even further. Um that's where that comes from is is the the WHO reports regarding that. >> Okay. And so you're relying on data coming from the air quality monitoring station at the park that was referenced earlier. >> Yes. From that and from the submitted materials uh from uh I'm sorry I'm RWDI. We relied on that report, their findings, um, and also looked at the 2024 stats that were not included. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, James. I'm not seeing any other questions. >> Okay. Thank you very much for your delegation today. >> Thank you very much. [clears throat] >> Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? You may come down now. Thank you. >> So, the first thing you can do when you begin is just identify yourself and then you'll have five minutes. Thank you. >> Hi there. I'm Naen Dosordo. I was born and raised 49 McNei which is right in front of >> Sorry, one one moment please. I'm just getting some instructions from the clerks. Sorry. >> Okay. So, I've just been informed that if you've submitted a written [snorts] >> I can't speak then. >> You you you cannot repeat the information. >> No, I'm not going to repeat that. I'm just watching what everything was said. >> And you cannot um share private and personal information. >> Okay. Okay. >> I can't say I live in that neighborhood, W 4. >> I can't give your address. >> Okay. I live in Ward 4. >> Thank you. Okay. We'll carry on from there and um hopefully we can share new information. >> I just have a few questions for Evan. He said, >> "Sorry, you can't ask those questions >> to him either, >> but you can kind of generally just ask them and maybe one of the counselors could pick something up that >> would be asked at a later time during >> questioning and future meetings. Thanks." >> Okay, so it was brought up about the soot. We have soot in that area forever. I'm not saying it is DeFasco. There's a lot of businesses around that area. So, our air quality um down there. I don't know where these guys get the numbers, but uh [laughter] I would like to see though. I'm going to check. I have some information. I'm going to check. He also said about trees aren't dying. Yes, trees down in that neighborhood die all the time. I removed two that were there for 50 years. I live in a home that has been there for built in that 1950s down there. So, the quality is poor down there. We all we all made choices to live down there. I grew up there. Like I said, I brought my family and lived there. Neighbors grew up with me are in that area because it was family. We only have five blocks. Defasco took the other guys. A school down there with all this extra plus Defasco. That was our biggest thing. We still fight with Defasco, but they're our neighbors. They help us so far. And you know, traffic down there is crazy. I fought with to get a uh for our award down there, our neighborhood, a 40 for like three years. He's saying that well, we're going to get a 35 down there. Well, when's that going to happen? Not in the [laughter] next few years anyways. So, traffic is our big concern down there. Safety isn't like you said, these kids haven't been brought up in these trucks. It's not just trucks. It's the uh buses, the local buses. It's now all these new car lots and um mechanics down there that just zip around the neighborhood. It's the scary thing. And Woodley and Agent Court is small. They have you can you like when he's saying about parking and walking to get your children. I don't know where he's parking because there is no parking. And then you know this is where it's going to start again. We feel we fight with DeFasco all the time. They they work with us. Now we're going to be fighting with the school. That school has been closed forever. My children went there. I mean, I went there. My mother went there. The point is there is a speestous in there. We were told it wasn't because we didn't have students. It was because the board of education wanted to get money and build a new school, which I'm still waiting for down there. They said, uh, Ray Mahalan told us we're going to get a brand new school. Our kids will go there. Never happened. Down in that basement is asbestous and mold. We know that for a fact. The neighborhood that was one of our things too. So how are you going to have kids in that school? Has that ever been tested in that school like I mean even through the movies everybody in our neighborhood would talk about how is that's happening with all you know we what we were told. I think they have a big school. I think our little five blocks should just stay our five blocks and find somewhere that is more reasonable closer to these kids being bust in. And uh that's all I have to say. I think talk to the experts. Come talk to our neighborhood and see the experts. We've been all there for many, many years. Thank you. >> Thanks, Nadine. Um, Nine, there is a counselor who would like to ask you a question and it's councelor Wang. >> Hi. Hi. Thank you so much for delegating. Thank you for your advocacy and also the letters that you've also submitted. Uh I know you were also on the um public consultation call when uh we had it early in February. >> Yes. >> Uh so some of the challenges that you had brought up on that call were definitely that traffic related things. Uh you were talking about >> the the small size of the street. Um I think that you had also talked about the just how would it access to for emergency vehicles was part of that those concerns. Um any other sort of concerns because I know that you had done this delegation in a variety of different ways. I was just trying to make sure that we're capturing all of the different >> when our neighborhood sorry when our neighborhood did talk at that meeting about using their playground like a lot of the older people who live in front of the school penalty did ask it was a cut down like it was just like we'll have to talk to our our lawyers our liability de schools Hamilton has all kinds I I help a lot of sports teams in Hamilton so we need schools we we rent them out we have our basketball our football whatever we ask them and again we were shut down. The gated privacy was is the words that they used and we know what it is. The the neighborhood is not when you move into a neighborhood you meet your neighbors you're you know down there is a family we do our our things to keep us still but like I said it's five blocks so you're going to put this big school in now and a lot's going to interrupt the normal that was our safe haven. People laugh when they like you behind the train tracks. And it's like Sam Wura said years ago, anything from Barton Street down is industrial. And if you start changing for one person down the down from Barton down is industrial. As Sam said it years ago, what's going to happen? All these you'll have to start changing for everybody else zonings. So let's just keep it how it is and >> pray everybody gets happy. >> All right. Thank you, Nadine. So just just so that I'm clear is that part of the concern of the neighbors was also access to that green space too just because there isn't a lot of green space that's down there. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair >> Naen. You do have to fill out some paperwork. I just wanted to make you aware of that. Okay, so thank you. I'm not seeing Okay, so at this point, are there any other members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Not seeing any. At this point, I'm going [clears throat] to have councelor Wang speak. >> Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Um, it is my hope that committee will uh take this as a motion to actually keep the public meeting open and also defer consideration of the report until the next planning cycle which will happen on uh September 1. Uh the the proponents through the Muslim Association of Canada have been very proactive with reaching out to staff to help with um connecting and talking a lot about some of the mitigation strategies. uh as well as the results of this particular report and they have asked for a little bit of extra time to try and uh see if the there are solutions to be had. So my hope is that a committee will uh will allow for a continuation of this public meeting into the next planning cycle and as well defer consideration of the report until that time. And I think my second is uh is Narender Councelor Nan Okay, thank you. So that's councelor N. So I'm just going to confirm with clerk. So the motion before us is that the public submissions be received and considered by committee and that the public meeting remain open and defer the report to September 1st. Is that correct? >> That is correct, councelor. >> Okay. Are there any questions to that? Not seeing any. We'll go to our first electronic vote for the day. The vote is up. And that motion carries 10 to zero. Thank you very much. Okay, at this time we're going to 8.2 peed 26141. Applications for an urban Hamilton official plan amendment zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision for lands located at 219 and part of 235 Glover Road and 869, 873, and 877 Highway number eight, Stony Creek in Ward 10. Does the committee wish to hear the staff presentation? Okay, I'm seeing that's a positive. So, could we have Drew Meta come down to present? Good morning chair, planning committee and the members of public. Uh I'm Duv Mata and I'm planner one in development planning and I'm going to present a recommendation report for an urban Hamilton official plan amendment zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision for lands located at 219 and part of 235 Glover road and 869 873 and 877 highway number eight Stony Creek. So this slide is the location map. It basically shows you the HSR bus lines and stops within 500 m of the subject property. So this is an aerial view of the subject property. The subject lands are an irregularly uh shaped parcel having an approximate area of 3.3 hectares and approximately uh 87 m of frontage along Highway 8 and 17 m along Glower Road. The subject lands currently contain single detached dwellings, a detached garage, uh a building used for metal fabrication and a commercial auto body shop which are all proposed to be demolished. And the northern portion of the subject land consists of natural open space and a water course within the regulated area of Hamilton conservation authority. So these are some of the site photos. The top left photo are the subject property and the view from the global road. And the top right is a view from highway 8. The bottom left is a view of the neighboring property on the south currently used for agricultural purposes. And the bottom right is a photo of a single detached dwelling. So the proposal the proposed development is for a common element condominium townhouse uh development uh consisting of 57 three-story block townhouse units 32 three-story backto-back townhouse units and 13 three-story dual fronting townhouse units and a total of 102 dwelling units with private parking amenity and storm water management facility and a potential private trail connecting through natural open space area subject to completion of trail feasibility assessment. Access is proposed via Glover Road with an emergency access provided via highway number eight. Therefore, an amendment is required to amend the Fruitland Winona secondary plan land use plan by redesating the redesating the rare portion of their subject lands from lowdensity residential one to natural open space and in the front portion of the subject lands from low density residential one to medium density residential one. And through a draft plan of subdivision, the applicant is seeking to divide the lands into one block for the development of 102 townhouse units, two right road right-of-way dedications, and one natural heritage open space. This slide basically shows the front and rear elevations of the proposed town houses. This slide shows front and rear elevations of the proposed dual frontage townouses. And this slide is another slide showing the rear front and rear of the proposed town houses. And this slide shows exterior and interior uh elevations of backtoback townouses. This slide shows a 3D modeling of the proposed development and a view from the highway 8. And this slide shows a 3D modeling from of the proposed development and the view from the Glover road. So through the zoning bylaw amendment application, the applicant is proposing to reszone the portions of the lands from agricultural specialy zone to rural residential zone um and to multiple residential zone to facilitate proposed development and to add lands to the conservation hazard land zone to protect and enhance natural heritage features. The proposed zoning bylaw amendment seeks sight specific modifications to zone interpretation definitions, yard setbacks, building separation, maximum density, amenity areas, landscape open areas and parking regulations. So in conclusion, we haven't received any public concerns on this application and staff support the proposed official plan amendment, zoning bylaw amendment, draft plan of subdivision and a class 4 area noise classification as a proposal is consistent with the provincial planning statement, complies with the general intent of the urban Hamilton official plan and fruitlin secondary plan and represents good planning. The proposal provides a compatible and compact form of residential development that expands the range and mixing mix of housing options. Make efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure and municipal services. Supports public transit and active transportation. Contributes to development of a complete community. Protects and enhances natural heritage through appropriate zoning and redesation of environmentally sensitive lands. addresses potential noise impacts through recommended class 4 area designation and mitigation measures and supports the orderly and sustainable development of the area. Also, I'd like to make a note and get your attention to a minor typo. It's on the zoning bylaw document related to numbering which will be shared with the clerk's office post meeting. Uh, and no information on the bylaw itself has changed. Thank you, and I'm open to any questions. >> Thank you, Drew. And we do have questions from councelor Bey. >> Thank you Drew for the presentation. Much appreciated. Um and you you noted that um your office may not have received any concerns, but I know that there have been some raised and I know that there's people in the gallery today that uh will likely be uh delegating to bring those concerns forward. Knowing the the kind of weird layout that we have here where we give the presentation first and then we hear the concerns, I'd like to kind of proactively ask you a couple of questions if I can. Uh knowing that we've got some residents um with those concerns that they've shared directly with my office. Um and whether it's through you uh Drew or or chair, if there's somebody on the bench that's uh going to be able to answer those questions, hopefully we can uh be a little proactive today. Um, Drew, the uh, first concern I think that's raised is the placement of the entryway, the roadway off of Glover Road. It kind of slices through some existing residential uh, properties. In terms of um the city's perspective on layout, width, size, uh can you speak to uh how the city planning department views that in terms of appropriateness and that uh all all things have been considered u in terms of the impact on the adjacent properties to the best of the city's ability? Do you have a comment on that >> through the chair? Uh so so I'd answer the first question of why basically the global road inter uh global road was selected uh as the entry to the property. It's basically because our secondary plan discourages any uh accesses via highways um and highway 8 is a major arterial road. Uh so um that being said uh all all the uh aspects were considered by our our transportation department and the studies being submitted by the applicant. Uh and through that the global roads entrance was deemed to be the most fit uh entrance to the property. Um and regarding the uh the neighboring property properties and uh consultation and any effects on it, we did as per planning act, we did reach out to all the neighbors for any concerns regarding the proposal. Uh but as mentioned, unfortunately, we did not receive any uh feedback or concerns from the neighbors. >> Okay. Just to reiterate though, it's a standard practice for the city of Hamilton that we don't have entrances and exits were possible off of major arterials such as Highway 8 and that's one of the driving forces before uh the consideration today. Is that true >> through the chair? It is partly true, but if there is no other access on a property other than a highway, then then that would be considered the main main entrance to the property. >> Okay. Um the storm water management pond that's located on the property on the north side uh abuts a number of existing residential properties. Um unfortunately in all of the documentation that always shows blue uh which I think creates an impression that it's always full of water. Um do you have the ability to speak to the functionality of storm water management ponds in terms of how they actually function? Are they expected to be constantly full of water? Where does the water go? How do they work? You able to offer that or is that something that we better serve from the bench? >> So, does the chair I defer that question to the bench? >> Okay. Chair, I'm wondering if I could get uh some alliteration for those members of the public on how these storm water uh ponds actually function and and whether or not they're expected to retain water at all times or not. >> We have someone three, Mr. Chair Binu Korea, director of growth management and chief development engineer. The in accordance with the subordinate study, the applicant actually has to construct a storm water management pond. This pond is a dry pond. The most of the time the uh water is actually going to be dry because that's be called as dry pond. So but in a major storm events this storm water management pond is going to be contained 2 year to 100 years storm within the within the pond. One of the main reason is actually the water study recommend that the control actually has to be in placed. Quality and quantity has to be contained in the snow water management pond. The uh answer to your question is councelor this is a dry pond and most of the time you may not actually see any water. >> Thank you for that B appreciate it. Um Drew, back to you. The uh you kind of use two different terminologies. I'm wondering if you could just um put a fine point on in the beginning of the presentation you spoke to the designation of the property to the north the northern portion where there was a natural water course already. You referred to it as being redesated as natural open space but then a little later on it came up that the I think the actual designation is conservation hazard lands. I'm wondering if you could just clarify what the um application actually speaks to and what does that do in terms of uh protection of that existing land and and potential future developability of that property through the chair. So uh there are two two aspects of of uh how how we go about uh presenting this is one is the OP itself that's why we are asking for an official plan amendment to redesate the northern portion of the lands uh to to the uh open space u u uh designation. The reason uh uh and also the to protect it again so that it doesn't fall in in the zoning issue is we are redesating the same portion of the lands into uh into the uh conservation hazard land P5 zone. So these are two two separate uh one is a policy related uh designation and the other is a zoning bylaw in itself which we are amending um because uh they play hand in hand to ensure that the city city protects protects the the portion of the land and to ensure that you know the city has access to the to the land as well. We we have also added the condition uh in the in the subdivision. um one of the conditions does say that we need the access to the to the land whenever you know it's it's a need be. So um this is how we kind of define in in both the uh designation as well as the zoning by amendment. >> Okay. And but just to kind of summarize the intention is that these become protected properties. It's not ever intended to for future development given the sensitive nature of the property >> through the chair. Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Uh final question if I may. Chair. Thank you for your indulgence. There's going to be a lot of concern raised about downstream impacts. Um, and BU gave us kind of a an opening taste of the design requirements for uh containment of storm water on property. Um, but there's there's a big concern about property owners to the north about impact on their lands uh as a result of this. Uh I'm wondering if you can speak to and again if we need to pull from the bench um just uh how much design and regulation going go into ensuring that this uh proposal doesn't become an issue or problem for neighbors to the north and that there's a series of heavily regulated conversations and design features that have to go into the creation of this. I wonder if you can speak to that >> to the chair. I defer that question to the bench. >> Okay. >> Three Mr. Chair Binu Korea, director of development engineering. So um councelor to a question there are lots of history actually on on particularly to the scooby area. So I just wanted to start from the beginning actually for the understanding what are the regulations as we are in place to make sure that there is no impact to the downstream. Originally the stony creek numbered water course flood mapping is actually completed in 1985 and after that the conservation authority updated the mapping standards in 2010 and also then city actually completed the scooby uh subwater study in 2013 and then after the fact the uh fruitland wana block 2 servicing study also completed in 2018. One of the important component actually we have to make sure is that the scooby subwater study completely analyzed the post and pre-development scenarios and what are the how the land actually is going to be developed and what are the quality and quantity control actually need to be in place for every developments based on this they also come back with a targeted flow what that means is in the pre-development and the post-development scenarios every development actually how much flow they can discharge to the creek. That is the one of the component actually city and the ministry of environment and parks and parks is actually looking at all the storm water management pawns is actually required private or city pawns requires the uh environmental compliance approval from the ministry. So there are and also the um Hamilton consolation authority is the custodian of this. they are making sure that any flows actually discharging from the pond to the creek is regulated and they need to get the approval. So the downstream impacts is actually going to is going to be minimized because especially the subordinate system analyzed the uh upstream to the downstream to see is there any impact if these lands are to bring for development. So the controlling is the one of the important component will be in place as part of these developments. Okay, >> thank you for that V. Appreciate it. And um I'll ask a very similar line of questioning to the proponent uh at the appropriate time. Chair, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Councelor Bey. And councelor Bey, will you be the mover? And can I have a seconder for the presentation? Councelor Casar, thank you. Um let's vote with our hand vote now to receive it. Thank you. That carries. So, Edward John from Landwise is here. Please come down to the podium and make your presentation. Good morning, chair, members of committee, and staff. My name is Edward John. I'm a registered professional planner uh and a partner at Landwise. The application before you today is an official plan amendment and reszoning and draft plan application for lands located at Glover Road and Highway 8. The lands are up for a residential subdivision consisting of 102 condo units and the application is made on behalf of homefield communities. I have read the staff report and I am in full support of the staff recommendation. I do want to take this opportunity to thank staff. This has been a multid-disciplinary uh review exercise and obviously with some of the line of questioning from the good counselor uh recognize uh a number of interests on this file. I won't spend too much time on the community context. I think Drew did an excellent job of orientating where we are with respect to the location. Uh I will note that within this planned area there is a neighborhood park central of the area which will come through in uh additional slides. As Drew mentioned, um we are uh applying for an official plan amendment that is to deal with the Futinland Renona secondary plan. It essentially looks to redesate the lowdensity one area to a month a medium density residential one to permit the range of uh townhouse units as well as to designate the natural open space. This is to recognize through the environmental work done on the file the ongoing protection of that area. the corresponding zoning for this area. We'll see an update to ensure that we're permitted for those town houses and once again we have that P5 conservation area um for the protection of the environmental area. Uh while not raised in Drew's presentation, I do want to draw committee's attention to the block to Fruitland Winona block servicing strategy. I do believe we have um delegates within the audience who may speak to this. Um so in terms of the application itself while this is not part of a planning act application the blocks are subject to this servicing strategy and um changes to this plan do require council endorsement um as it is in a council adopted plan. So as you can see on the slide hopefully you can see the highlighted um block in yellow that is the subject lands. Um currently within the servicing strategy there is a road pattern that sees an east west connection across the subject lands. When this was first approved um there was for one of a better term an asterisk on that road pattern which required an EIS an environmental impact study to review the location of that connection. The purpose of the connection um is more for transportation as opposed to servicing and through the private application that EIS was conducted and completed. Um the findings of that study did identify a larger than previously anticipated flood plane area. As such, there was an indication that significant impact as a result of that road crossing would occur across that um wetland area. Uh as well as uh a significant municipal infrastructure cost as that would have to be a raised crossing. So essentially 150 m wide bridge across uh water course 7 uh with no development opportunity either side. And as good practice when you build a road, the intent would be to ensure development either side. In this case, as it is essentially a bridge, you wouldn't be able to put houses either side uh to to ensure that you get uh efficient and comprehensive development. I I will also note that um I believe back in the spring we had an application to our neighboring uh west which was for a long-term care facility. They have the similar road patent um and through that process as a result of those challenges um the road was not secured on those lands either. In terms of our process, we did consult with neighboring properties and the city obviously with options. You know, we're identifying that the challenges with this road pattern would exist. Where else could that east west connection happened? Obviously, the options before you today, which is forming part of the recommendation of the staff report uh is to explore um the two areas in green. So those would be north of water course 7 where the the challenge of crossing it would not be of such an issue and obviously where the development potential would be increased. Uh I understand that we may have representatives for the property owners particularly Winona Vine Estates um through this process those road patterns would only be um required in the event of development of those properties. So in the absence of that um they would not be required to build or maintain those streets. In terms of the submission to staff, uh they did note that um they are satisfied with this amendment as the revised approach reduces municipal infrastructure requirements and represents a financially sustainable and environmentally responsible long-term solution for the block two area and continues to supportly development. Once again, Drew did an excellent job taking us through the development. Um we did hear from the ward counselor about the access point that will be a condo road. This is intended to be a condo development um with the ability to landscape and ensure impacts that may be otherwise uh experienced by neighboring properties is mitigated. Um in terms of amenity space, each unit will come with its private amenity area for each unit um with uh a dedicated outdoor amenity area of approximately 800 square meters. um for the use of all uh residents. And it should be noted that as you can see on this slide, over half of the lands are then protected um zoned and designated for open space. Um this will provide potentially in the future some passive recreation uh as well as uh the option for a trail to meet with that centralized parkland area. I don't know if I don't have a strong enough touch. It takes me a while. Uh Drew did take us through this. I'm mindful of your time, but these are just some uh uh elevations of the various form of town houses. Drew took us through that. Um obviously this has a number of supporting studies that inform the decision making and outlay of the current proposal. Um there are obviously some to note being the functional servicing and storm water management report and the air drainage analysis. In terms of the main elements of this plan, um it is proposed to provide a diverse townhouse uh selection of units and attainable home ownership, site connectivity um through the private loop road loop and pedestrian connections and future trails. An updated block servicing plan which I walked you through um the ear drainage consideration. So a specialized report talking about that air drainage uh demonstrating that the patterns between the uh escarment and the lake are protected and then the uh the designation and protection of those ESA areas. So in summary, uh it's my professional opinion that the application is consistent with the provincial pol uh planning statement, provides a compatible compact development with a range of housing options, supports the city's transit objectives, and protects and contributes to the existing natural heritage system and overall represents good planning. I am happy to answer any questions. >> Okay, thanks Edward. And just one more time, I know you said this in your presentation, you are in full support of the staff report. >> So you chair, yes, I am in false support of both the recommendation on the zoning and the draft plan conditions. >> Okay. Thank you. And we have questions from councelor Bey. >> Thank you, chair, and through you. Uh thank you for the presentation, Edward. Um much appreciated. And specifically, um, this this, uh, committee has learned a lot about air drainage in the last little while. It's something that we're all familiar with out in the Winon area with our, uh, our still highly functional uh, orchard tree fruit industry. So, uh, I'm very pleased to see that that was continued to be a a consideration that was given a lot of weight. Um I'm wondering if uh you may be able to just highlight you mentioned attainable housing uh and I know that um the proponent has a particular business model uh that helps to incentivize home ownership. Uh it's a little different unique to uh to Hamilton might be the first of its kind. I'm wondering if if there might be just a brief uh ability to comment on that because I I do see this as uh filling uh filling a need in the area, but it's important to note what this is and what this is not. So, if you've got uh a minute or two that you might be able to explain to committee about that. >> Absolutely. And through the chair to the councelor. So, not just a range of condo units in terms of size. Um the applicant are exploring the option of land lease which is a growing uh consideration obviously in a challenging market. The land lease option looks to potentially reduce the overall cost of the unit with the expectation that the land itself is leased for a period of time. The uh potential resident would then just be looking at the costs of the unit. This saves a lot of land transfer tax and obviously reduces significantly the cost of the unit. Once again, it's still being explored in terms of the applicability and the market appetite for that type of of product, but this is something that the uh the developer has experience with and is seeking to explore on these lands. >> Okay. And I think that's a really unique and interesting uh opportunity to get people into home ownership, particularly in this challenging market. Um, you spoke to the neighbor to the west, uh, the long-term care facility that this body approved some time ago, and I know that there were concerns raised, uh, by your proponent that we worked through and appreciative of that, and I think that, uh, given the proximity to the long-term care facility next door, there could be a nice uh, symbiosis between the two uh, proposals. Um, very quickly, we asked questions about the uh the road already. Uh, the the storm pond has I think has been addressed, but maybe you could just confirm that it is the intent that the design would be a dry pond as opposed to something that's going to be consistently full of water and that all design considerations have been put into meeting all city uh conservation authority and provincial regulations on that. >> So, through the chair to the council. Absolutely. So this is a private swim facility. So it is intended just to deal with the storm water on this site. Um as Benu mentioned, it will be a dry pond. It will have controls both in quantity and quality as it drains into the area. Um and there are a number of draft plan conditions that govern both how it is built, how it is accessed, how it is maintained. Um and we'll be ensure to comply with all of those regulations. >> Okay. um the natural open space conservation hazard land portion I think it's 40 to 50% of the actual land mass is just going to be designated uh as undevelopable essentially and I'm just trying to get a confirmation from you that that's the intent the proponent is going to permanently designate these um as such and that there would not be a plan to somewhere down the line try to do a switcheroo or something like that. The intent is long-term that we're going to protect this natural heritage feature >> through the ch of the council. Yes. So, an environmental impact study was conducted for the site. It was reviewed by both city staff, ESAG and the conservation authority. ESAG being the environmentally sensitive assessment impact group um who looked at the uh characteristics of the wetland area and the naturalized areas. As a result, the flood plane increased. We were able then to capture that, survey that and then provide that as a meets and bounds uh zoning designation. That zoning designation being the P5 restricts anything but that conservation hazard number of uses which are all related to natural environment. >> Okay. Um it was addressed by Beu earlier but of course a big consideration on the downstream effects and I think you spoke to it just a moment ago in terms of the design of the storm water management pond or what is referred to in planning circles as a swim pond that just to be clear no actual swimming in the swim pond just to be clear. Uh but the downstream impacts uh from your perspective uh have been taken into account and working with both the property owners to the north, the city, all applicable agencies. There's been a lot of thought into making sure that there there will be uh no uh impacts on the the downstream property owners >> through the chair to the counselor. Absolutely. So a lot of study making sure that this can go forward. But then there's a number of elements such as the draft tank conditions which secure how it's built, how it's constructed, how it's maintained um with respect to all of those not just downstream impacts but just for the the site itself. >> Okay. Final question if I might chair. Sorry to go over um you introduced a new element that wasn't brought up uh in the staff presentation and that is the east west corridor road and you spoke to the original design that was essentially to punch a road through the middle of a wetland which doesn't really make a lot of sense in today's context. Um and staff have worked with uh your uh group to come up with a possible alternative. But just wanting to restate that there's no uh obligation uh per se that uh property owners are going to be required to build a road uh in any length of time in any future scenario. That's a proposal. Um but uh nothing's going to be necessarily uh carved in stone. uh maybe the best way to describe it maybe if you can offer some words on that. >> Absolutely. Through the chair to the council. Yes. So the the block services strategy which doesn't form part of the planning act so that's the council adopted plan identified the potential for crossing uh across these lands. Um in its study itself it did identify that that would be subject to an EIS. So they didn't have the ability to access the property get that detailed information. Obviously through this private application we did those works, we did that study um and there were significant impacts as a result if that water course crossing was to be in that location. Um we then worked with staff to look at alternative options looking to move it uh northwards to avoid obviously having to cross the water course 7. Um and I think what we have before you is a number of options that would meaningfully meet the intent of an east to west um access area but without having to cross that water. In terms of what that means for residents who own property there, obviously there will only be a requirement to construct that or review that if they came forward for development. So in the absence of any development application, it's status quo. >> Okay. Thank you for that. No further questions. >> Thank you, councelor Bey. We all fear the dreaded switcheroo. And um there's no more questions that I see. Edward, thank you. You may take a seat. And uh councelor Bey, will you move? And councelor Casar, will you second to receive the delegation from the agent and then please indicate with your hand vote now. Okay, that carries. Thank you. Now we'll hear from registered delegates. And uh first person is MV Pink. MV's in person. Come on down MV. Once you begin, you'll have five minutes and then after you present, if there's any questions, um the counselors will ask them. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair, member of the council. Um two of my major concerns about this have already been brought up by the counselor. Um the first one is the roadway where they want to put the road. You have 102 town houses there. You have the potential of 202 cars or 204 whatever cars coming in and out of there every day. First of all, the road in and out of there is only the lot is only 55 ft wide. In Hamilton, you need 66 feet to build a road, street, avenue, you need 66 feet. But if you call it a laneway, you don't have to apply to those rules. So they want all the heaviest traffic in and out of there on a road, first of all, that's not suitable. And the second thing is the road that is coming out on because we have buses going up and down there now is literally falling apart. So, we need to see what we can do about maybe moving it to the Highway 8 exit where they can put a wider road in. They could put four lanes if they wanted in there and use this one for an emergency exit. The second problem I had was the what they're now calling a dry pond is literally right in my backyard. I've lived there six years. I don't have any water collection there now because the water runs the other way. So, what they want to do is what they call a dry pond. In my whole life, I've never seen a dry pond. A pond is a pond. It collects water. That's what it does. What they want to do now is put that in four people's backyards. Not one person. Four different houses are going to have that in their backyard. For some reason, it looks like they're reversing the way the water is flowing. The water usually flows the other way out to the wetlands. Um, those were my main concerns that the counselor brought up. So, I don't know what can be done, but I don't I don't really want that street coming out handling, like I said, with the potential of 200 plus cars coming out onto that road that 6 years ago when I moved there, you'd hardly see a car on. Today, with all the development, it's a job to get in and out of your own driveway now. So now you want to put 200 plus more cars there. I don't understand why you can't just put it out to Highway 8, which is much more suitable to to handle all that traffic. Um that's pretty much all all I had to say that between that and the pond. >> Okay. Thanks MV. And we do have some questions from councelor Bey. >> Sure. >> M I just want to say thanks for coming out. I know that you and I have spoken about this um on a number of occasions. Um, I I hope that uh perhaps there may be an opportunity for some deeper explanation in terms of I'm not a professional on dry pods. Uh, I I'm with you. A pond is a pond. Uh, as it's been explained to me, it's designed to function in a certain way and I'm wondering if perhaps, and I'm floating this out there, um, that there would be an opportunity for someone uh, maybe to sit down with the three of us and and go through how this thing actually works. That' be great. I' I'd love to be able to say, you know, let's take their word for it, but I' I'd rather be shown the details of how it's >> We've already caught them in a couple. >> Understood. >> I I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate that. Uh in terms of the the roadway, um I'm not sure what can be done, but I I certainly do appreciate what you're uh what you're offering there. And I do want to perhaps at the appropriate time, uh chair, I know that there are plans for upgrades on Glover Road. is designed to be u turned into something a little more robust and fixed as you mentioned it is uh being punished a little bit right now uh and perhaps the appropriate question if there's somebody in uh one of our divisions that may speak to the timeline in terms of when Glover is planned to be renovated and upgraded >> wouldn't make much sense to fix it now with all the construction that's going to go on in there >> correct I'd just like to get a timeline for you and >> but I don't understand how you can still put a street in when the lot's not big enough to put a Understood. Okay. >> So, just by not calling it a street, >> call it a lane, it's okay, I guess. >> I hear you. I hear you. Thanks, M. Appreciate it. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, MV. >> Okay, next delegate is Bosco Asovvic, movement of the Serbian CNN Ravine Grove. And Bosnik, Bosow, are you in person here? Come on down to the podium over there. And when be once you begin, you'll have five minutes. And if you need to raise the podium up, there is a button there that the clerk will help you with or councelor Casaro will help you with. Thank you. And before we begin, can we raise the podium up a bit? Thank you. Okay, Bosco, take it away. >> Okay, good morning uh chair, councilors, uh members of the city planning committee and public in attendance. Uh I am Bossko Asanovich. I am president of the movement of Serbian Cetnik Radna. Uh I apologize for this PowerPoint presentation. My uh secretary uh from the property management committee put it in but we got uh it auto correct to but anyway so how do I move this goouse? >> Use the mouse. Okay. Now, what not? Nothing's happening. Next. There we go. >> Okay. Uh we'd like to note our organization the movement of Serbian Chattnik Ravnagora has been engaged with the city of Hamilton planning department as well as with the developers of the project noted in peed 26141. We are the owners of uh Winona Vine Estates at 269 Glover Road and our property is downstream from the proposed development project. For the agenda item 8.2 2 PED26141 applications for an urban Hamilton official plan amendment zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision for lands located at 219 and part of 235 Glover Road and 869 873 and 877 highway number eight Stony Creek Ward 10. We met with the developers homefield communities landwise along with members of the city of Hamilton planning department on May the 20 uh May the 26 2026. The goal of this delegation is to make our feedback for the official record and for the city council to be aware of our concerns. The following is a summary of the reasons we are opposed to peed 26141 application for development. Homefield Landwise is recommending to replace the current planned east west Glover Road connection from their lands to 269 Glover Road. This change allows Homefield to maximize their land usage without having the east-west road connection travel through their development. The movement of Serbian Chetnik Ravnagora confirmed they have no intention to develop its lands. If maintaining the east west connection to Glover Road is a priority for the city of Hamilton, alternative alignments outside of 269 Glover Road should be explored. We suggest the city look into the alternative that the Stony Creek urban boundary expansion subwater watershed study Aquafor Beach 2013 recommended for the existing Glover Road connection to cross water course 7 immediately upstream at south of wetland number three and 269 Glover Road. It avoids fragmentation of wetland three. This location requires the city road to cross a small ditch south of wetlands 3 with minor ecological impact. This is the planned east west glover road connection confirmed in the block 2 servicing strategy from 2018. Unfortunately, Homefield Landwise will need to adjust their development site plan as the city road will pass through. I can't get this up. I don't know how I move this. Uh, >> clerk will help you. >> Hi. >> Oh, okay. There we go. That's it. Okay. It's coming back. Okay, there we go. Number four. The majority of Homefield's argument to move the city of Hamilton's approved planned east west glover road connection is the flood plane. Who provided the 100-year flood plane boundaries shown in the area of the Homefield development drawings? The note shown on Homefield's topographical map reads flood plane provided by others on December the 1st, 2025. It appears to s appears to be significantly larger than our initial assessment. How can an overland ditch result in this size of flood plane when the developers claim no change in storm water flows into water course 7? The entire topography slopes down towards the north. [bell] This must be looked at in more detail. We are recommending the east west Glover road connection crossing over the ditch located south of the wetlands. Uh three resulted in very minor impact to the area ecology. Our proposal south of wetlands is negligible when compared to the ecological harm resulting from the Lozani Sweet Berry development clearcut of the mature trees identified as woodland six. This occurred in two stages and was completed in 2025. The forest was located north of 269 Glover Road. This has resulted in significant environmental loss of habitat, reduced biodiversity and water management. If clearcut and woodland 6 was approved, then why is the less impactful ecological alternative of crossing uh south woodlands or south wetlands 3 in the current approved plan for the Glover roads east west connection not acceptable. And I'd like to add there as well. We've had a lot of flooding just lately there. There are several alternatives proposed by Homefield to move the current East West Glover Road connection from their development onto 269 Glover Road. As indicated earlier, we are not developing our land and are requesting the city of Hamilton confirm they will not expropriate land if they insist on locating the planned east west Glover Road connection through 269 Glover Road. We also raised concern regarding the cumulative impact of multiple developments within the contributing drainage area. The impact to 269 Glover Road from the cumulative engineering assumptions made by independent consultants working on their individual developments impose significant engineering risk for error or emissions. For example, the Sweetberry development is proposing to raise their grade 6 ft directly next to our property. That's the height of me right at 269 Glover Road along the north and west property lines. This development alone has a significant impact on storm water management facilities at 269 Glover Road. It will require grading works as well as tree removals from the grounds of our wedding hall and banquet center. There are additional storm water management changes proposed by but not limited to projects 861 highway 8 long-term care facility city file SPC-2026-000057 and two 219 and part of 235 Glover Road and 869 873 and 877 Highway 8 condominium and townhouse developments city file 25T-202506. Both of the projects cited are subject to the city's general storm water policies and guidelines and must adhere to on-site water quantity quality and flood and erosion control volume requirements provided by the Scooby subwater subwaterhed study and the block two servicing strategy recommendations. Who is accountable and taking on the responsibility of these cumulative changes? Thank you. >> Hey, Bosco. Thanks very much. And stay there. Uh, Councelor Pety has some questions for you. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, chair, and thank you, Bosco. Good to see you, sir. Um, and I just want to first state that um we've had a number of conversations and about the property. I'm a lion and I know that the importance of the property to your >> I know that there was a lot of effort and intentional work that went into >> acquiring that property and nurturing it and and it has a special place and I understand that. Um, I just wanted to get your very last point. Who is responsible? If you could just rearticulate that because I I think that there may be some additional uh questions of clarification that I can uh ask >> from from number six. Uh, yeah, >> I was trying to take some notes. I'm wondering if you could just who was responsible for ensuring the future downstream impacts someone of that nature. >> Uh, I've got uh let's see. I got to go back. Move back. Got to go here. I'll have to read it off here. Sure. Go ahead. The majority of Homefield's argument to move the city of Hamilton's approved planned east west clever road connection is the flood plane. Who provided the 100year flood plane boundaries shown in the area of the Homefield development drawings? The note shown on Homefield's topographical map reads, "Flood plane provided by others on December the 1st, 2025. It appears to be significantly larger than our initial assessment. How can an overland ditch result in this size of flood plane when a developers claim no change in storm water flows into water course 7? Right. The entire topography slopes down towards the north. This must be looked at in more detail. We are recommending the east west glover road connection crossing over the ditch located south of wetlands 3 resulting in very minor impact to the area ecology. Our proposal south of wetlands is negligible when compared to the ecological harm resulting from the Lazani sweet berry development clearcut of the mature forest. So, Bos, I'm wondering right uh your last panel that you were reading to us, >> there was a question about um the impacts given the group of changes that are taking place around your property. Who is responsible for that? To summarize, you're interested as >> right. We're we're going to be uh we're going to have property raised around us six feet round a hole. Six feet, right? I'm 6'2. So up to there all around us and they're going to build on top of that 35 foot tall town houses. Right. Meanwhile, 20some years ago, I was at a city hall meeting with Brenda Johnson, Maria Pearson. We were told that there would be a 50 foot wide corridor for wildlife. right round our property so the wildlife can go from the escarment to the lake the very next day it was clearcut the very next day and then last year the rest of it was completed since then we have puddling on our grounds I think we've called you a few times about it right Jeff >> Mhm. Yeah, we've had uh puddling on the ground. There's we've had numerous issues. Uh now with the uh long-term care facility coming, uh we're going to have more water coming on our property. Everything's coming on our property. We're going to be we're going to be in a hole with this development. And the other thing is uh the the water, the way it's flowing, everything flowing into a stream. We've got a uh little stream uh going through our property. We got a small culvert there. And if we can do a small culvert, why can'tfield do a covert where they are with the ditch? We need that east west. I I I agree. You need the east west road, but you don't need it through Winona vine estates. >> Okay. Okay. I'm going to chair at the appropriate time like to ask some follow-up questions of staff. I think I've got it summarized here, Bosco. And appreciate you coming and uh speaking before this committee. >> Okay. >> Thanks, Bosco. >> Thank you. >> There's no more questions, so you can have a seat. >> So, are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? And one final time, are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Not seeing any. I'm just going to ask the clerk, is this the time that we would have councelor be ask us questions or do we have a mover in second or first? >> You'll put the report on the floor first. >> Okay. So basically I have a mover and seconder. >> So yes. So first of all you're going to be um receiving the um the public submissions and close the public meeting and then move on to uh consideration of the report and then at that time councelor Bey can ask his questions of staff. >> Okay. Thank you. So uh can mover and seconder that the public submissions be received and considered by committee and that the public meeting be closed. Councelor Bey, councelor Wang. Thank you. Please indicate electronically now. >> The vote is up. Okay, that motion carries 9 to zero on the report. May I have a move and second to approve the recommendations in the report? Councelor Bey, councelor Wang, Councelor Bey, this is the time for your questions. >> Thank you, Chair and through you. Uh first just want to thank uh the delegates for coming out today and I want to acknowledge that um the sensitivity around this. It sounds to me uh particularly our last delegate like um there were conversations that have taken place over a long period of time as I've said in this chamber before. The Stony Creek urban boundary expansion plan has been on the books for roughly 30 years and these are decades of ongoing conversations that have taken place. And it sounds to me like asurances made and the lived experience of what's taking place is not matching up to the expectations that were set previously. I want to acknowledge that. Uh so I think it's important uh as the word counselor for the area that that I try to do everything possible to daylight those concerns to ask staff for their uh responses to acknowledge uh that there's um there's got to be a a show me don't tell me attitude in here that we have to ensure that the uh concerns are uh addressed that they are listened to that they are explain that mitigating uh mitigation factors or design features are are thoroughly understood by all parties because um it it just feels like the previous experience has not been good and I want to correct that. I want to make sure that we're able to move forward on this. So through you chair uh if I could ask uh staff in terms of uh once again the the downstream and perhaps I have to reframe the question because it's sounding like we have for this particular property owner not just downstream effects and concerns with this proposal and the one that we've already approved and there are also now emerging concerns on a previously approved application to the north like this this particular property owner is expressing concerns from all sides. So how do we address that and how do we ensure that the uh that there is no impact on this property and that uh some of the experiences that they're having right now are recognized and and mitigating u mitigation factors are put in place. So through you chair, could staff offer a response on how we can better assure the the existing property owner um that the concerns all around are going to be addressed >> through Mr. to the councelor. Any application, I just wanted to talk about the process. Um, any subdivision application actually comes along to the city, we always actually have to make sure we follow the city standards. We have a comprehensive development guidelines talks about how the storm water management or the roads everything actually has to be designed. In addition to that we also have a subwater studies and the target flows is actually has to be discharged in accordance with the with the standards staff actually always make sure that those components actually is re reviewed and this is all in accordance with the with the standards. So the downstream impacts it's already gone through a multiple analysis as from 1985 right up to now. um there are analysis and the hecas model that is what the consultants actually normally use to analyze the overall effect of the creek. So they analyzed and identified a number of of mitigation measures. Number one the controlling the flow in accordance with the suborder studies. In addition to that city you know council also approved the low impact development guidelines. We have to make sure any development comes in we actually normally uh we have to make sure the staff has to make sure the low impact development techniques actually it's applied within the uh within the site. So all the approval process and especially this particular um application is actually coming for site plans and we also heard actually previous delegates about the storm water management pond and the locations and I was talking to the consultant few minutes ago what we can do is actually as part of the site plan we could also look at some screening looking at landscaping and and making sure that those concerns actually can be addressed through the site plan. So when um we were talking about the uh um Swedbury just north of this particular 269 or Wona um uh sorry Wona wine estates lands if I look at to the north there is city actually building a stormwater management pond and this is actually completely managed by the city departments and making sure that those storm water management pond can perform as designed. the we are actually currently working with the Winona estates um property owners and their consultants meeting with the land the the north land owner's loan homes we were actually working very closely to resolve some of the uh uh drainage issues actually happening at the moment if I look at actually the north property we didn't approve a portion of the land until proper snow water management is in placed What they are proposing at the moment is they actually installed several cash basins uh to collect all the flows and the property owner and the developer actually has met on site. My understanding is correct. Last week there was some discussions are actually we are going on but what we approved the engineering drawings what we approved is in accordance with the city standards and in accordance with the subordination studies. This is just the grading the the pregrading impacts but finally there won't be any flooding as should happen because staff has reviewed and approved these drawings. Not only this the storm water management pond we need to get approval from the ministry of environment and also the conservation authority those approvals are already in place. >> Okay. Uh thank you for that. That's a big answer, Bonu. But if I'm summarizing it for those watching at home, um there's a commitment there to continue to work with this property owner to address a number of and and this is kind of outside the the conversation. I apologize, but I think it's gerine to ensuring that we say publicly that we're going to work with this property owner to address the concerns to give them some uh assurance that uh we we take their concerns seriously um in accordance with all of the different guidelines that you've already spoken to and ensuring I think that um through the site plan approval process which is still to come there's another layer of um planning mechanisms that affords all groups to to um mitigate negative impacts. Bene um there was a question raised about who provided the 100-year flood plane map. Uh it wasn't particularly noted. The question was asked. I'm wondering if you could uh answer the question of where that 100red-year flood plane map came from. >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair, to the councelor. Is it possible it's appropriate for the applicant consultant is here so he could um probably actually give us that answer where they got these informations. My understanding is actually correct. The city actually has the Scooby secondary uh sorry subwater studies and we did actually came back with a uh flood mapping and we received those information from the conservation authority and also we completed the 2018 as we completed the Futa and Vona um block servicing study that also we did actually use the same informations in these documents. My understanding is correct. Actually reading actually their uh function surveys report the applicant actually did a complete they did a topographic survey and they had consultation with the HCA and they pro they consulted with with them and they developed a heas model to to demonstrate where where is actually going to be the ultimate flood mapping is going to be. I think I that's the information I can read from their function report. Okay. Uh, thank you. I think that answers the question. Um, one of the big concerns was, um, an east west road. Um, there is no plan to expropriate. That's not how the city does business. We we don't, as a rule of thumb, uh, require that. And, um, and as part of this approval process, that would not be on the table. The city's not going to go in and and take this land from the property owner. Could you confirm that? >> Three, Mr. Chair, to the council. That's correct. City is actually not going to be at this time actually it's not planning to do any expropriation. This is normally all the developments actually happens based on when the development application comes in and city doesn't have any any plan to expropriate at this stage. >> Okay. And from a planning process um the east west corridor road I mean it's been moved once now should this uh approval be given today. It is possible in a theoretical sense that it could be moved again um should there be more conversations around future development that come forward. That is still a possibility. Correct. >> Chair that's correct. >> Thank you for that uh chair. Thank you for the indulgence. Um I I want to publicly said that uh it's my expectation that the city planning department the proponents will all continue to work together. I know that there have been a number of meetings. Um we have to we have to continue to communicate very well with our community on this and um I I would uh ask that that uh goodwill continue and uh that we try to restore some of the confidence that potentially has been lost through uh prior actions. So uh with uh with that chair I'll conclude my remarks. Thank you. >> Thanks Councelor Bey and I'm just going to ask one follow-up question as well. Also, I'll turn the chair over to councelor M. Wilson. Um, one of the delegates, MV, said that we it was his feelings that this plan reverses the flow of the water. Is that the case? Three, Mr. Chair. At the moment actually when I look at the lay of the land the uh most of the drainage actually goes towards the creek. What they have to do is actually when they come back with the site plan they have to contain all the flow into the storm water management pond. So they have to capture through the uh catch basins and so on and bring it to the stormwater management pond. Therefore, the design of the of the land has to follow the storm water management pond process. So, it has to drain towards the pond. Okay. Thanks. I think I understand that better. I'll take the chair back. And at this point, there are no more questions for staff. So, let's indicate with our electronic vote now. [snorts] And the vote is up and that vote carries 9 to zero. I think we're going to continue onward with 8.3. It's peed 26089B, the revitalizing Hamilton's commercial district's community improvement plan and associated financial incentive programs. There is no staff presentation. There's no agent. There are no registered delegates or written submissions. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting on this issue? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? And are there any members of the public that wish to speak at this public meeting? Not seeing any. May I have a mover and seconder? Councelor Casar and Councelor Wang that the public that there were no public submissions and that the public meeting be closed and we'll indicate that with our electronic vote as soon as it comes up. The vote is up. That motion carries 9 to zero. May I have a mover and seconder to approve the recommendations in the report? Councelor Wang, Councelor Casar, are there any questions for staff on the report? Councelor Wang, >> thank you uh through your chair. This has been a I think labor of love for John Paul. I think that he has worked really hard on this and I'm really thankful for the amount of work that he's done just to update all of our seas. I guess a question that I'd like just a tiny bit of clarity on is um after we get this approved here at GIC, it does go to council to get ratified, but we've already kind of seen this previously. Um, so what's the uh what's that mechanism to if we wanted to change different aspects of it according to market conditions or something like that, what what does that look like after we get this ratified at council? And I know that it's inside of a 5-year program. So >> through the chair, uh, I'll take that one. Phil Caldwell, manager of commercial districts and small business. Uh so as a matter of practice, we do these five-year reviews to ensure the programs are are aligned with uh market uh conditions and council priorities. Um but having said that, there is always an opportunity to amend the programs midyear or mid cycle in order to respond to uh council priorities as they arise. Um the mechanism of the CIP is the legislative document that uh is why we're here today. But the [snorts] program terms specifically that administer the programs and and provide more wholesome details about what the programs are can do grant amounts things of that nature are appendices and can be amended without invoking planning act requirements um as needed. >> Okay. Thank you. A question then um for some of our commercial districts. Uh I know that previously I know I had talked to John Paul about this a long time ago was uh how do we enable um some of the commercial districts on not it's not called fortification but it's like thinking through like how do we um help business owners feel that they have safety and security of their storefronts and I think that that has sprinkled in throughout multiple of these CIPs. I just wanted to get a better understanding on how do we support small businesses along that sort of uh vein >> uh through the chair. Uh thank you for the question. Uh yes, we have seen businesses looking to um better protect their operations and their investments given some of the conditions and and um uh vandalism and and graffiti tagging and things like that that have been kind of social matters that have been arising in some of our commercial areas. uh we took that to heart through this review and specifically in the commercial district revitalization grant program we have provided more avenues for people and businesses to apply for things like security cameras. Um uh we continued the graffiti removal grant uh this provided to owners to help them offset costs for removing graffiti. And we've also introduced crime prevention through environmental design or septed as a cost for assessment as well as any upgrades to the buildings required to meet SEPTED principles as an eligible cost under these programs. and uh the threshold and due diligence required for businesses to utilize those is much less compared to some of the other improvements in order to help them better uh support the businesses with uh uh crime prevention uh opportunities. >> Okay. Thank you. My last question for you chair is um I appreciate the updated wording around the Barton Kennallorth revitalization grant specifically allowing for um creative industry to uh be kind of incorporated in there. Does this mean that the motion I had put forward previously around looking at a strategy for account work, does that mean that this has been checked off now that the SEIPA has included the creative industry or does this mean that there is still an additional body of work that um could be coming forward on the strategy side of how we look at Kennaworth Street? >> Uh John Paulo, senior project manager. Um uh through through the chair uh we prior to um introducing this uh amendment to the program you referenced uh we did we did meet with uh with planning staff um and essentially you know we looked at things like zoning and there's no nothing in terms of zoning um that uh that could could be done to to address that motion. So we were we were hoping through this uh introduction of the uh creative industries uh grant uh in this program that it could um spur some some sort of uh uh further investment and um and and we can also treat it like um well not like a pilot but we can go back to it, review it, see what comes of it. Um I I think a lot of times we the these programs we have to just um you know it's not an exact science right so we have to see uh how they evolve what the uptake is um and just generally along Kennallorth the uptake has been has been slow even though the the grants have been um have been uh you know uh generous so uh we're here we're introducing uh a new new eligible sort of um options to to enhance the uh the the corridor and uh and I think what we'll do is we'll see what what comes of it and then uh propose maybe some additional uh amendments or modifications to the program to uh to further address any concerns along Kennaworth. >> Okay, thank you so much. And then my last question is what happens afterwards? What's the implementation look like um to get all of these SEPA documents out into the community? So, what's that what's that action plan look like to get this out um out for the community to understand and ideally take advantage of? >> So, through the chair, uh we we talked a little bit about this at at GIC last and and we're going to continue to talk about including at uh open for business subcommittee coming up, but our our plan is to um further use social media. So, for example, I think we do a really good job during the review periods to to reach out through social media. We're going to continue to do that to promote the programs. And then I think what we have to also do is sort of do a little boots on the ground, maybe uh target some specific corridors, which we're which we're thinking about now. Obviously, we can't touch all the all the corridors. That that would be a little bit ambitious, but um right now we're coming up with a plan to actually get out to the to the actual businesses um in person. um and and uh figure out which which areas to target specifically to uh to increase uptake to increase the um you know the knowledge of the programs etc. >> Perfect. Thank you so much. Uh that answers all of my questions. I'm really thankful for the amount of work that the team did and I'm very excited to see how we might see some more uptick especially along Kennorth Street. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Wang. I'm not seeing any more questions. So, what we'll do is we'll vote electronically on this now. The vote is up. That motion carries 8 to zero. And unfortunately the next item 9.1 I know there's some people in the in the stands that are waiting for this but we're going to have we're not going to get through it until before 1:00. So we're going to have to break. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to call a break for lunch right now until 1:30. So it'll be a 1:30 start and then we'll go to items for consideration item 9.1. Thank you very much. After lunch, items for consideration were on item 9, 9.1, PEED26016, tariff of fees, updates to exempting charitable and nonprofit organizations proposing affordable housing projects from planning application fees citywide. I'd like to call upon Kenzie Jazvak, business facilitator, and Sebastian Cummings from business facilitator to begin the presentation. And it's my understanding that you're going to be 10 minutes. Okay. And just, you know, I should have checked before, but please correct me if I pronounced your names wrong. Good afternoon, chair, members of committee, staff, and public in attendance. My name is Kathy Jazbach. I'm a business facilitator with the develop with the planning division and I'm here today to present updates to the process which authorizes ex authorizes exempting or reducing planning application fees for charitable and nonprofit organizations proposing affordable housing projects. And before I continue, I just want to make a quick note that there was a revision to the uh to the presentation which will be updated on the website as well. The purpose of the report. >> There we go. The purpose of the report is to update and expand the current process for exempting planning application fees as approved by council in 2016. Proposed updates will align and clarify eligible fees for exemption with the current planning division fee structure and expand fee exemptions to other planning act applications, including some fees which are required as per conditions of site plan approval and certain administration fees. The key objective of this update is to continue providing incentives, financial support, and encourage the development of new affordable housing throughout the city. So, as some background, the planning application fees that are currently eligible for fee exemptions include an official plan amendment, zoning bylaw amendment, rental housing protection, and site plan control applications. All are eligible for 100% fee exemption. However, for site plan control, any fees that are required as conditions of site plan approval are currently excluded. The plan of subdivision and plan of condominium applications are each eligible for a 25% fee reduction. Since the implementation of the fee exemption process, planning has undertaken several updates affecting development application fees and processes, which created inconsistencies when evaluating eligible applications for fee exemptions. Phase fee increases for planning and engineering applications came into effect in May 2019 and January 2020. In January 2023, as a result of legislative changes, planning implemented process changes to more accurately reflect the work involved in reviewing planning applications under stricter timelines. And this resulted in fee increases and changes to when certain fees are collected. To better understand what the inconsistencies are, staff compiled an analysis of key changes for each planning application within the scope of the original fee exemption. A detailed summary is provided in appendix D and E of the report. As a brief overview of the six application types that are currently eligible for fee exemptions, other than fee increases, there has been no impact on how fee exemptions are are evaluated from a process perspective. For an official plan amendment, plan of subdivision, plan of condominium and the rental housing protection applications. The two application types I would like to highlight where process changes have had an impact on how fee exemptions are evaluated are zoning bylaw and site plan control. First is only bylaw amendment application. There are currently two reszoning application types. Previously there were three and each of them had a different fee. In addition, there are also additional perunit fees which were not not applicable in 2016. This change has mainly had an impact on the funds allocated for fee exemptions. Staff recommend that the base resoning application fees continue to be exempt and any perunit residential fees also be included. Fee exemptions for the removal of holding provision is also recommended to continue. Key changes for site plan control. This application has had the biggest and most impactful changes. Currently all fees required per conditions of site plan approval are not exempt. This created an issue when the restructuring of fees which occurred in 2023 separated the fee for reviewing submissions to clear sipline conditions from the base application fee and it is now collected as a condition. As a result, these fees which were previously exempt as a component of the base application fee became a distinct fee for which exemption had not been clearly established. Further, the associated perunit residential charge is required to be paid as a condition of site plan to be consistent with zoning bylaw amendment application. Staff recommend exempting these fees since they are also directly associated with processing an application. This next slide lists the proposed expanded scope of applications and other related planning fees to be eligible for fee exemption. staff undertook a municipal scan to determine which fees other municipalities are currently exempting and also considered inquiries received from charitable or not not for-profit organizations about eligibility of certain fees. On this basis, staff recommend including 100% fee exemption for minor variance applications, formal consultation, and select administrative and review fees which are directly related to the processing of applications. A 25% fee reduction is recommended for part law control applications and appendix B provides a comprehensive summary of the proposed expanded scope. Financial implications. To assess financial implications, staff conducted a review fee review of fee exemption applications submitted in the last three years. Staff note that application numbers will fluctuate annually due to various factors including availability of incentive programs and economic conditions. Therefore, an average between the start of 2023 and the end of 2025 was used as a basis for analysis. To account for fluctuations, staff recommend increasing the annual budget from 150,000 to 450,000. The full breakdown is a is available in appendix C. Consultation has been undertaken with staff in the following departments. Planning and economic development, healthy and safe communities, corporate services, and notice was was notice of the proposed changes was posted in the Hamilton spectator on July 10th. In closing, the recommendations we are bringing before the committee today propose to approve the updated planning affordable housing fee exemption program, direct staff to update the application process and the associated application form. that the increase of 300,000 in the tax operating budget to support the expansion of affordable housing fee exemptions be considered as part of the 2027 budget process and direct staff to continue to monitor the program and report back to planning committee in Q1 of 2029 to recommend any necessary modifications to this budget item. Thank you. This concludes my presentation and I would be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you Kathy. Um, not seeing any questions at this time. You good? Okay. So, may I have a mover and second to receive the presentation and approve the recommendations in the report? Councelor Cretch and Councelor McMaken. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Oh, sorry. Sorry. >> To receive the presentation. >> Yeah, to receive the presentation and to approve the recommendations in the report. And that's councelor K and councelor McMaken. And then we're going to go to questions from staff or for staff. Are there any questions for staff? Not seeing any. Councelor M. Wilson. >> Thank you. Um, sorry I read this a few day days ago. On page uh six of the report, the projected [clears throat] projected annual average amount of exempted fees is just over 400,000 resulting in an an annual average exempted fee of Okay. Okay. Do we have um or perhaps it would be better asked at GIC, but do we have uh a full account of how much the city of Hamilton is um contributing towards affordable housing in its totality, meaning DC exemptions, uh these sorts of permit fees, um actual uh funding off the levy, etc. through the chair. >> through the chair. Um, so the scope of this update was just to assess plenty application fees, but I think uh we would have to, you know, um, >> yep, I got it. >> Inquire about that and and get back to you. >> I I will actually not ask at the appropriate committee. I just thought I would try it here. Thank you for your work. >> Okay. Not seeing any more questions at this time. Please indicate your electronic vote now. [snorts] Councelor [clears throat] Kretch and Councelor McMakin. It's up now. Thumbs up. Okay. Okay. Okay, that motion carries 9 to zero. Thank you. We're at the 9.1A correspondence from Graham Carroll. Hamilton is home. May I have a mover and seconder to receive that correspondence, Councelor Casar and Councelor Wang. Thank you. Please indicate by show of hands now. All in favor. Okay, that carries. Thank you. We're on to 9.2 to HMC HMHC minutes 260007 Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee minutes July 17th 2026 may have a mover and secondary to receive the minutes and approve the recommendations therein councelor Cretch go ahead are you just moving or are you going to say something okay and then councelor Wayne will second okay so carry on sorry thank you thank you and >> keeping me on task. >> Thank you. I did want to make some comments and ask staff some questions about the designation. We heard a delegation earlier today from the hospital with respect to the Mwing on the mountain and they request that we not follow the recommendations from the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee. So, a couple opening comments for me, then I have some questions for Director Ky. [clears throat] As council's representative on the Heritage Committee, I've tried to make this point maybe 10 different times since term of council. I don't think I've been entirely successful. I'll try for the 11th. Heritage designation is not in and of itself a blunt instrument. It's not as if when we designate a property that that's it. This property is protected permanently forever and no one can do anything over there and everyone's prevented from doing things. Two recent examples of heritage designated properties that we fully demolished were or one that's going to be the candidating mills and the Tivoli. Just to give you a sense of the kind of scope and breadth of what happens with the heritage process when something is designated and what the heritage permit process allows for. A great example just a block half a block from here or a block from here is the somewhat demolished James Street Baptist Church. So that's got a heritage permit attached to it. And that process allows us to work with that proponent around all kinds of things. So, one thing we were able to do, for instance, was get the property graded recently, remove all the debris on the site, fix the fencing, address all kinds of other issues, secure the building. So, that's just what goes on when we're doing this kind of thing. So, the reason why I'm supporting designation is because this allows us to actually have that conversation publicly. If we don't, we have two other options. one is just not designated at all and a likely outcome of that will be it gets demolished, we lose the heritage features and becomes a parking lot. That's one outcome. Not saying it's going to happen, but that's an outcome that happens in these situations. Secondly, we could do what's in the alternative here and the alternative suggests that we delegate authority to staff to work with the proponent to preserve heritage features. We've done this a number of times. It's just not a designation necessarily in the same way. And we would designate staff for that. That's a not a public process. So that would just happen sort of between staff and their proponents and that would go on and they would negotiate around what they're going to do here to try and save the attributes and make the building work out. It's just not a public process. I think what the heritage committee wants is to see the process remain public so that whatever happens has that level of scrutiny and accountability which can only really happen if we designate the building. So I want to say all that because I feel like there's often misunderstandings about what happens here. My questions for Ken are important. I think in terms of the hospitals plans, I understand broadly speaking that these plans are subject to all different kinds of funding. So one of the things they're subject to is provincial funding and they say primarily they get almost 100% of their funding from the province. The plans for this are not yet finalized. Is that correct? >> Through the chair Kite director of heritage inter design through my role in site plan. They have come in for preliminary applications of formal consultation. uh they have not finalized uh their design. It's they're still going through their process with the ministry and they have several other steps to come before they come in with their uh full planning act applications for the site. >> Right. So I want to add that as the as the discussion happens and this was my misunderstanding earlier when I spoke to a colleague but what's happening is there's a there's a tugof-war going on in some places around this area locally and proincially around funding. Uh ultimately we hope that what happens is the final plans approved by the province and it's finally funded. If it's not and the building goes down in advance of that, we lose it forever. So I just want to say the project is not finalized yet. And so that's a risk that we have. And because of what the Ford government did with respect to the planning act and with respect to heritage designations, what happened and changed was we used to be able to do these much more flexibly before. I'll just that's just a summary. Flexibly. So we could designate a property and if the property came off the register we could put that property back. There was flexibility. Then they said nope once it get off it can't come back for five years. So there's a mortorium you cannot do it. So that would mean that if we took it off it wouldn't be able to come back on the list until 2032. So that's why this is a little more serious or important than it might have been [clears throat] even four or five years ago because we don't have any more flexibility under the planning act to do these kinds of things. It's kind of a one-time operation. So, if we give up that designation opportunity, we are at the mercy of all kinds of forces. Have nothing to do with us. Um, I have another question for Ken, but this is a rare example, I'll say again, of this type of building, especially in Hamilton, but also Ontario. It's just it's something that we ought to be thoughtful about before demolishing. I think there are examples of things that are not as rare and not as beautiful and maybe things that we understand have different kinds of heritage significance. This is eight out of nine on the list. I think you only require two for designation and it says eight. My other question for Ken is if you want to add anything specifically about this process or what we should do, any thoughts you have about what I was saying with respect to this designation um that you wanted to clarify so that committee could get the the wisdom of your advice here or anything you wanted to mention because we're just kind of pulling this out of some minutes right now. No one has the benefit of seeing the whole presentation except for me at the heritage committee. So I just want to give you the opportunity to comment if you wish to. >> Ken Koi, director of heritage and design through the chair. I think the delegations this morning pro painted a fairly good picture of the issues around the site. The one thing that may be missing from people's knowledge is in fact the city does own the site. Um and so there's an extra level of working with the hospital and getting permissions for planning act applications that perhaps makes heritage staff a little more comfortable with the alternative than we would be if it was a private developer. >> Thanks so much for that, Director K. So that those are my comments on this. I think we should designate it, let staff do this, let the plus the public process remain. What I'm going to ask is that we vote on this specific item. If the vote fails and people don't want to go down that designation route and someone wants to put the alternative, like I'm happy to put the alternative forward if it fails. But I'm hoping we can vote on the designation. If people are okay with it, great. If not, then we can go to an alternative. Procedurally, I'm not sure how that works, but that's not my job. Those end of my comments. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Wang. Okay, I have heard this same um conversation from councelor Crutch the 10 previously times and I think I'm still a little bit confused because obviously the hospital still believes that having it designated is going to impede on their access to potential funds. uh help me understand how the designation would enable it to be transparent and in the public realm and then how does it I just don't understand that particular point if you can help me with answering that >> through the chair kite director of heritage and urban design um if they were to come forward with changes to the building facade whatever other justifications similar to what we've had to do with the Tivoli and other other um other projects is it would go through the heritage permit process which involves the heritage permit subcommittee which is a public committee the heritage committee which is a public committee and then depending on the level of change would then come forward again to planning committee and council so it would for the hospital if they're negotiating I could see them seeing that as a little more ownorous in terms of negotiating um if they have to move quickly although I will point out the heritage permit process is much quicker than the st a lot of the standard planning processes is delegated to staff in many cases and doesn't have a fee. Um just for clarity but yes whereas opposed to the alternative which speaks to working through the planning process through site plan um and other ways to secure features of the building. Typically uh an example is Pinehurst House uh television city. That is a designated property. we took securities on that building that they would keep it in good shape until they're finished their construction at which point they get the securities back when they've proven that the features are are safe and everything is good. So those are the kind of the options and I could see the hospital wanting although I haven't got clear direction from them that um they would not want to make that process as public and confrontational as it may become >> uh [clears throat] if they're working through a a delicate negotiation with different partners. >> Okay. And then how would the designation affect any potential funding envelopes from different ministries? Because ideal I think that we would see time lag on one um additional red tape and bureaucracy which is a lot of where the provincial government wants to try and eliminate. So help me understand that part. >> Uh through the chair, um IO has been involved with this and would be the sponsor for the project. They've already done a number of heritage studies on the site before we got to this point as part of the hospital's due diligence, which they've shared with us. Beyond that, I really don't have any insight to how the ministry funding process works, what they reward and what they don't reward. Uh so I can't really speak to that. >> Okay. Um, and can you speak about the financial incentives? Um, if they do designate, are they material at all? Because we're looking at an over over a billion dollar renovation, uh, re like redevelopment. So, what does the financial incentives mean? >> Um, through the chair, in this case, very little. the financial incentives are really more calibrated for smaller struggling property owners and smaller that really do need financial help. The scale of this project $125 or $150,000 maximum grant I'm sure they would welcome um but wouldn't make a huge difference I would think in their overall performer for the project. >> Okay. So when you did the calculus and um as a staff put that recommendation forward knowing that this is a $1 billion redevelopment project um the the designation process how long would it add to the potential like permitting planning process like is that >> through the chair depending how it's handled and where it happens in the process could be none there'll be there could be larger issues that need to be dealt with. We're too early in the process to really definitively speak to that. >> Okay. And then my last question for you, chair, is what is the um what was the expectation of staff? Was it going to look like a connelly like facade only or were we looking at like a full-on keep the whole building in its existing type and place? What what was the expectation that staff had for this >> through the chair? The standard best practice for heritage is to keep as much of the building existing as is and adaptively reuse in its own envelope. Second would be removal of a wing or a portion of the building. And then lastly would be the kind of facadism or partial uh partial um retention of just a structural piece of the building in place. And then the last preferred is the we're taking features out, we're storing them, and we're reinstalling them, >> which is the alternative >> to a certain degree. Yes. >> Okay. I think chair, my comment is that I have my family works in that building and they tell me all the time that that building is falling apart on the inside. It's also the facade outside is also falling apart. And the fact is um it's it is impeding on the hospital's future growth and planning. So it was one of those things that when I think about what to do with my decision on this, I I recognize that uh if the building cannot be repurposed, they've been my my sister tells me all the time there's absolutely no way for them to do anything on the inside. And then it's this is where I struggle with this because I see the value and I see the heritage aspects of it but the lived experience of those working in this building is [clears throat] just terrible climate like the the temperature the the doorways don't fit nothing nothing works in this instance. So, uh, hearing from the hospital that this is a, um, going to be left vacant if they're they they just don't have an a an a an a an a an a an a an a an a an a an a an a an a next plan here. So, I think that that's where I'm struggling with this decision. So, that's just um sharing with committee my my sort of fight my internal mental fight right now. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks so much. Um, looking around for first time speakers. Councelor Casar, you're up. Yeah, thanks. Um, I'll ask a question just based on what council Gretch and Wang had asked. Is this idea of having a heritage permit or heritage designation in place and with the intention of a full demolition because that was clearly what and and redevelopment. That was clearly what we heard from the delegates today is the current footprint isn't part of the vision in the future. So how would a heritage designation provide any benefit to any party, city, hospital, community, whomever else if the intention and the need of the project is full demolition and redevelopment? Through your chair. through the chair. Um the heritage permit process is not that um draconian in terms of you essentially the final outcome could be uh keeping Syria pieces of the building and reusing it. It would just be a more public and ownorous and studied uh process to to get there, but it would also be public. Um so you're right. There's there's this impression that once it's designated and it it would signal council's commitment to the heritage of the site and the heritage of the building. So, it would help in terms of negotiations around those issues, but the hospital would still have the ability to appeal for a large-scale demolition. It would just be more difficult. And, you know, in terms of I think councelor Kretch put it and and councelor Wang said it quite well. there is a perception about heritage designation in terms of negotiations in the public's mind um about what it means it is more flexible but again when you're negotiating it it's back and forth right so it's a kind of perception issue um I will say in terms of the state of a building when we look at the heritage of a building we don't look at you know how bad a shape it's in if you know many buildings can be reused we always look at the long-term plan for a building Um, you know, it could be that this hospital project doesn't go through for some reason and we've lost a heritage building as the other delegates said. It could be repurposed for other things as housing or some other Mc Ronald McDonald type use or something for for the hospital. So, there's always options. It's just where we are with this proposal now and what the hospital wants to do going forward. >> Okay. Thank you. If I can just go a little deeper, ask you to explain a little more the difference between what you just described. So the plan is demolition. There's just more negotiation. There's a little more process about what heritage elements get preserved or incorporated or some whatever it might be versus the council directed salvage and interpretation. So I get the the former is public and the latter is not. Is there any other significant difference that you can help us understand between the two? through the chair. I think you'd be signaling signaling to the community through that communication that council was more comfortable with the demolition. >> Okay. Okay. Thanks for those answers. >> Okay. Thank you very much. We're going to go to Vice Chair Marine Wilson. >> Thank you. Um, I I heard the um I heard the narrative about, you know, it could be used for many other things, housing and the like, but I just want to make sure that I'm clear. Um, that outcome may or may not be, are you suggesting through the chair a consequence of what? um it's not the city's role to prescribe use and uh to prescribe options on use. So in saying that, are you suggesting through the chair that I think you have acknowledged that it would perhaps prolong um a decision perhaps by the hospital on what ultimately it wants to do. Um it would just I'm just trying to understand where this idea that I just want it clear on the public record that we cannot prescribe alternatives and I think the suggestion is if this is perhaps I can't speak for the hospital if this is ownorous in order to bring some sort of successful formula they'll have to maybe suggest an alternative use sort of comma and I I I'm just trying to understand where this part of the discussion is coming from. Through the chair. >> Through the chair. It um you're correct. We cannot say what use uh or what future use they'd want to do with it. That's completely up to the hospital. They've made it clear to this committee what their short-term plans and what their goals are. um in terms of the long-term thinking around the building and someone who's seen many different applications come and go and different proposals come and go um the designation of the building would um if for some reason the hospital had changed its mind or something changed in the planning act the planning application that's before us that made them look at the building differently it would still be there for those future opportunities that's all I'm saying >> thank Okay, thank you. Um, as I understand things right now, we're going to have a separate vote on 8.2. >> Oh, councelor Crretch. >> Yeah, I think I want to try and simplify this further if I can because I think there's still some confusion. What I heard the hospital say really clearly is they're not using the building. That's not going to change whether they designate the building or not. the people who are going to be in there administratively are going to move out of this building if the new project happens. So that's that's a foregone conclusion. What the hospital's also saying though in their delegation was they intend to be nice. I'm just saying that this way. They intend to try and do something to preserve some of the features and that's great. So in order for that to actually happen though without us just taking their word for it at the delegation, we only have two options. One is designation, the other is the alternative. The only difference between the alternative and designation is that we involve people from the heritage community in that publicly. So we established the Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee and the purpose of doing so was to allow there to be a group of citizens and a counselor there so they could weigh in on these discussions and decisions as they came forward. We also have a heritage permit review subcommittee which is below them and it looks at all kinds of issues that come through for heritage permits. That's actually not as ownorous as it sounds and as director Gordon think has made clear regardless we own the land so it doesn't really matter what like the hospital can't just free and clear do whatever it wants anyways what this does is it preserves the ability for the public to weigh in through the heritage permit review process and the heritage Hamilton municipal heritage committee that's it right and then we negotiate and have those conversations and as Dr. report said if it gets to be an issue where it's significant, it could come to the planning committee for review as some items have come during this term of council. So, it seems like what I'm saying to you is everyone's on the same page about what the future is going to be. The question remains whether we want that future to be a public conversation or we want to delegate that authority to staff through through this. Not designating the property though, right, doesn't ensure anything will come except for ensure any of those outcomes, including the very outcomes the hospital said they were interested in doing. So I think it's been a reasonable practice of this council that we haven't basically as far as I know anyways for the most part have just taken the word of someone. We've made sure there was a public process or some kind of process that was there to guide that and that's all I'm saying. So I think we should vote on this separately. Again I'm going to vote in favor. If you if people vote against it and vote down the designation I'll just bring the alternative which would be which would be the next thing I'll do. So just letting people know that's what's going to happen. Thanks. >> Okay. So I think I understand things. So basically, we're going to vote on it separately. If that vote fails, then someone will bring the alternative. Okay, fair enough. So I'm not seeing any other questions. Now, a yes vote is designating the hospital as heritage and a no vote moves to the next alternative. Okay. So may I have a mover? So we've got the mover in the secondary. It's councelor Cretch and councelor Wang. Um, let's There's no more questions for staff. Let's uh go to the electronic vote. Okay, that vote carries. So, it's uh designated heritage. We're going to 9.3 peed 26084. Recommendation to designate 265 Wilson Street East and Caster. That's Ryerson United. >> Mr. Chair, we need to vote on the B balance of the minutes first. >> Oh, sorry. Got all caught up there. Okay. Thank you. Uh, we're going to now vote on the balance of the Heritage Committee minutes. And the votes up. Okay, that carries. Thank you. So, on to 9.3. Recommendations to designate 265 Wilson Street East and Caster. That's Ryerson United Church under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Uh may I have a mover and second to approve the recommendations in the report PED26084 item 9.3 and receive the report PEED26084A item 9.3A. Councelor Casar and seconder would be councelor Wang and councelor Pasar. Do you have any questions for staff? >> No questions. Just a comment. reminded that this was moved from the previous planning committee to today just to allow some more conversation. Those conversations happened and the representatives from the church got some answers they needed that made them feel comfortable. So, thank you to staff for doing that and I'm supportive of what's before us. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. And not seeing any other um people in the queue, let's go to the electronic vote now. Okay, that vote carries 9 to zero. We are going to private and confidential item 12. May I have a mover in secondary to move in close session respecting items 12.2 2 and 12.3 pursuant to section 9.3 subsections E F and K of the city's procedural procedural bylaw 21 021 as amended and section 2392 subsections EF and K of the Interior Municipal Act 2001 as amended as the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation including matters before the administrative tribunals affecting the city or local board advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board. So, can I have someone to move that? Councelor Casar, thank you. And councelor Wang. Um, show of hands. All in favor? Thank you. Motion's carried. Members of the public, the meeting will continue following the close session meeting portion of the meeting. When you see the members of the committee rejoin the meeting, committee will wait up to five minutes upon reconvening in open session before proceeding to the meeting to provide members of the public and the media time to return. Before we move into close session, I would ask that all members of the public please exit council chambers and the WebEx meeting now. Thank you. Any staff that are not directly related to item 12.2 are asked to please exit the meeting now. Thank you. And this is a reminder to all members of the committee to please ensure you move into close session portion of escribe. I also remind members of the committee that as per section 8.7 of the procedural bylaw, the use of personal electronic devices during closed meetings is strictly prohibited and the use of city electronic devices during closed meetings are limited to text communications only and not as a telephone, recording device or camera. Staff from the the office of the city of clerk are exempted from subsection 8.7c when using electronic devices for recordkeeping purposes. When the clerk has determined that only the appropriate attendees are still in the room and the WebEx, we will move on to item 12.2. Thank you. Okay, welcome back. We're coming out from close session now into open session. It's dealing with 12.2 to LS2604, appeal to the Interior Land Tribunal for lands located at 1630 Main Street West and 69 Saunders Boulevard for lack of decision on official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment applications for Ward One. May I have a mover and second to approve the following recommendations. A that the close session recommendations A, B, and C to report LS26004 be approved and remain confidential until made public at the Ontario Land Tribunal. and that the balance of the report at L26000A remain confidential. Can I have the mover and seconder? Councelor Wang, Councelor Casar. Thank you. And this is going to be an electronic vote. Vote is up. Councelor Meak is hands up. That carries 8 to zero. Now we're on to 12.3. May I have a mover and seconder to receive the report and that the and that the report remain confidential. Please indicate your vote with a show of hands now. >> Oh, sorry. Councelor Alex Wilson and Councelor Wang, please indicate your vote with a show of hands. Okay, that's unanimous. All in favor? The yes. Thank you. It carries. And with that adjournment at 302. Thank you.