Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 01, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001320
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant: Riccardo Persi (Owner of 34 West Ave. N.)
Appellant: Wayne Clayton
Subject: Minor Variance
Property Address/Description: 1047-1049 Barton St.
Variance from By-law: Zoning By-law No. 05-200, as Amended by By-law No. 10-128
Municipality: City of Hamilton
Municipal File No.: SC/A-21:225
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001320
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001320
OLT Case Name: Clayton v. Hamilton (City)
Heard: January 27, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Wayne Clayton (“Appellant”) | Unrepresented* |
| Riccardo Persi (“Applicant”) | Jane Pepino, Matthew Helfand |
| City of Hamilton (‘City”) | Patrick MacDonald |
DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID L. LANTHIER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1This Decision and Order of the Tribunal determines the Appeal brought by the Appellant, appealing the decision of the Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) on July 22, 2021, which authorized minor variances requested by the Applicant.
2The Applicant proposed an industrial development of the property located at 1047-1049 Barton Street in Stoney Creek (“Site”), intending to develop a six-unit, 41-loading bay warehouse, with related office space and parking areas. Conditional Site Plan Approval had been obtained from the City on December 11, 2019, but due to the Applicant’s view that there had been changes in market demand for the proposed units, a prohibition on truck traffic on Barton Street to the south, and certain factors affecting ingress and egress, the site plan and concept plan were subsequently altered. With the changes, loading bays were located on the west side of the building, and office space and parking were located on the east side. These changes necessitated the request for minor variances.
3The decision of the Committee was filed at Tab 9 of Exhibit 2. A total of eleven variances were applied for. The Public Notice listed 12 Variances following the review of Planning Staff. The variances identified by the Committee, and authorized, were subject to one condition relating to a Noise Study. The Committee decision also included five “Notes”, which made reference to a contingent requirement for the issuance of a building permit. There was also a reference by the Committee to three barrier free parking spaces being permitted “instead of the minimum required ten (10) barrier free parking spaces, which was identified in the Public Notice, but ultimately not required with the variation in the standard parking space regulation and the fact that the number of barrier free parking spaces is the ratio of that required parking, as varied. The decision of the Committee further made reference to additional requirements, one of which appeared to be worded as a condition and two of which suggested that additional variances might be required. The background to the variances requested, referred to in the Public Notice and dealt with by the Committee, and the Variances now before the Tribunal, are addressed below.
4The Appellant, who owns a residential property immediately to the west of the Site, filed his appeal with the City on August 11, 2021.
5At the outset of the hearing, the Tribunal noted that aside from those issues identified by the Appellant, which do reference apparent land use planning grounds, the Appeal also raised other matters which were not proper considerations for the Tribunal in this Appeal. These extraneous matters include a number of assertions and allegations relating to the City’s purported obstructions to the Appellant’s previous participation in the applications before the City, and fraudulent misrepresentation, breaches of public trust, and negotiation in bad faith on the part of the City’s planning and legal staff. The Appellant also called for a judicial inquiry within his Appeal.
6In regard to these non-planning matters, the Appellant was advised that this Tribunal proceeding is a hearing de novo of the merits of the minor variance application and that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over, nor interest in, such other irrelevant allegations as to the conduct of City staff. As such, the Appellant was advised at the outset that the Tribunal would be focusing only on the planning merits of the proposed Development, matters of provincial interest, provincial planning policies and plans governing the Site and the minor variance application and the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”).
HEARING
7Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Appellant raised concerns with Tribunal staff regarding his participation in the hearing conducted as a Video Hearing using the GoToMeeting platform. The Appellant previously advised the Tribunal that he did not own a computer or a cell phone and would not be able to connect to the hearing using a video feed. The Tribunal subsequently confirmed with