Hazem Gidamy

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment, and consent applications to create two new residential lots.

The applicant proposed to consolidate two existing rural residential lots with an adjacent agricultural operation and create two new lots elsewhere on the property.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed new lots were located within an Airport Influence Area with a Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) contour above 35.

The Provincial Policy Statement and the Rural Hamilton Official Plan strictly prohibit new residential development in areas with an NEF contour above 30 and 35, respectively, to protect the long-term operations of the airport.

The appellant shooting range appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit a single detached dwelling on an undersized agricultural lot across the street.

The tribunal allowed the appeal and refused the variances.

The tribunal found that the proposed modification to the definition of 'Farm Dwelling' could not be authorized under s. 45(2)(b) of the Planning Act because the term was not defined in general terms.

Furthermore, the requested variances under s. 45(1) failed the four-part test, as the significant noise impacts from the shooting range could not be adequately mitigated, making the proposed residential use incompatible and the variances not minor.

The proposal also failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, which restrict residential uses on undersized agricultural lots to existing lots of record.

The appellant, operator of a concrete batching facility, appealed the terms and conditions of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) issued by the Director.

The amendments changed the calculation of truck arrival limits from 'per hour' to 'per 60 minute period', clarified that 'deliveries' included all truck arrivals and departures, and added a requirement to record the arrival and departure times of all trucks.

The appellant argued these changes were novel, impractical, and not supported by noise guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the amendments were appropriate to prevent the clustering of truck arrivals, mitigate noise impacts on neighbouring residents, and ensure compliance with the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal confirmed the Director's amendments and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a restaurant operator, applied to change conditions on its liquor licence to permit amplified music on its outdoor patio.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the changes, which the appellant appealed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove a change in circumstances that would justify altering the conditions, which had been voluntarily accepted upon transfer of the licence.

Furthermore, based on extensive testimony from local residents and a municipal council resolution opposing the application, the Tribunal concluded that allowing the changes would not be in the public interest, as the existing conditions were necessary to maintain a peaceful balance between the commercial establishments and the community.