Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 11, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001035

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: 2628934 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Consent - refused by Approval Authority

Description: To accommodate two single family dwellings, and for minor variances to allow for the construction of a single detached dwelling on each lot

Reference Number: HM/B-20:35

Property Address: 386 East 25th Street (386 East 25th St. Hamilton)

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-21-001035

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-21-001035

OLT Case Name: 2628934 Ontario Inc. v. Hamilton (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Subject: Minor Variance

Reference Number: HM/A-20:126

Property Address: 386 East 25th Street (386 East 25th St. Hamilton)

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-21-001036

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-21-001035

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Subject: Minor Variance

Reference Number: HM/A-20:126

Property Address: 386 East 25th Street (386 East 25th St. Hamilton)

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-21-001037

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-21-001035

Heard: September 9, 2022 by video hearing and by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
2628934 Ontario Inc.	Jennifer Meader
City of Hamilton	Rachel McVean

DECISION DELIVERED BY M.A. SILLS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

1This was a re-hearing ordered by the Alternate Chair of the Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) in response to a Request for Review of a Decision and Order issued on January 4, 2022, pursuant to s. 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act and Rule 25 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Context to the Applications

22628934 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”) is the owner of the property municipally addressed as 386 East 25th Street, in the City of Hamilton (the “property”). The property is generally rectangular in shape, has approximately 19.4 metres (“m”) of street frontage, extends for a depth of 37.48 metres (“m”) and comprises an area of approximately 723 square metres (“sq m”). East 25th Street curves slightly to the south-east in front of the property.

3The property is situated within a neighbourhood that was established in the mid to late 1950’s and is one of the largest lots in the neighbourhood. The neighbourhood is primarily comprised of a range of single-detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and townhouses. The lot widths within the neighbourhood range between 7.8 m and 20 m.

4The property is bound by semi-detached dwellings to the north, south and west. A townhouse complex owned by City Housing Hamilton is located directly across the street. Commercial uses, including various retail establishments, restaurants and service provider uses, are located along the periphery of the neighbourhood. There is a public park within 250 m of the property and, among other facilities, the Franklin Road Elementary School is located within a short walking distance.

5The property is currently developed with a single-detached dwelling and maintains three accessory structures (sheds). The Applicant is proposing to sever the property to create two residential lots and construct a one-an-a-half storey single-detached dwelling on each property. The proposed new homes will be 1,200 square feet ("sq ft”) in area and each will have three bedrooms. The existing dwelling will be demolished and the sheds removed.

6The property is identified as “Neighbourhoods” on Schedule E – Urban Structure in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (“UHOP”), is designated “Neighbourhoods” on Schedule E-1 – Urban Land Use Designations, and is currently subject to the City’s comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 6593 (“ZBL”) – “C” (Urban Protected, Residential, etc.) District. Single-detached one-and-a half storey dwellings are a permitted use of the property.

7The original application materials for the Consent and minor variances (the “Applications”) were submitted to the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) in about mid-June 2020. The Applications were deferred at a subsequent COA meeting as City staff were requesting that amendments be made to the development proposal.

8It was noted by Ryan Ferrari, and confirmed in Mark Michniak’s witness statement, that City staff at that time supported the variances related to maneuvering space and the variances to permit two required parking spaces to be provided in the front yard.

9Between June 2020 and April 2021, amendments were proposed in an attempt to reduce the number of variances required to facilitate the proposal, including that the driveway was reconfigured to allow for tandem parking with additional landscaping area being provided in the front yard, eliminating a variance. Revised Applications were submitted and put before the COA on April 22, 2021. City staff recommended that the Applications be denied. The COA denied the Applications and the Applicant subsequently appealed the Decision to the Tribunal.

The Revised Applications

10The Applications before the Tribunal for the purpose of this hearing have been revised in order to bring the development proposal into greater conformity with the established neighbourhood character. Notably, no changes have been made to the building footprint as originally proposed or the configuration of the severance proposal that was before the COA in April 2021.

11The severed parcel (Part 1) has a frontage of 9.5 m and comprises an area of approximately 360 sq m. Authorization for the following variances is required to regularize Part 1:

1. to permit a minimum lot frontage of 9.5 m, whereas a minimum lot width of 12 m is required;
2. to permit 0.0 m of on-site maneuvering space, whereas a minimum of 6 m of maneuvering space is required; and
3. to permit a total of two parking spaces to be located within the front yard, whereas only one parking space is permitted within the front yard.

12The retained parcel (Part 2) has a frontage of 9.8 m and comprises an area of approximately 360 sq m. Authorization for the following minor variances is required to regularize Part 2:

1. to permit a lot frontage of 9.8 m, whereas a minimum lot frontage of 12 m is required;
2. to permit 0.0 m of on-site maneuvering space, whereas a minimum of 6 m of maneuvering is required; and
3. to permit a total of two parking spaces to be located within the front yard, whereas one parking space is permitted within the front yard.

Planning Evidence - Applicant

13Mr. Ferrari provided detailed contextual and land use planning evidence to support the development proposal and Applications. Mr. Ferrari is a Candidate Member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and a Full Member of the Canadian Association of Certified Planning Technicians. He has been employed by A.J. Clarke and Associates as a Land Use Planner for approximately two years. Prior to that, he held the position of Planning Technician at the City of Hamilton (the “City”) for three years.

Consent Application

14Mr. Ferrari maintains that the development proposal has sufficient regard to the applicable matters of provincial interest enumerated in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”), specifically, ss. (f), (h), (i), (j) and (p). The proposal represents an efficient use of the existing infrastructure and municipal servicing on lands contained within the urban boundary and an expansion of the infrastructure is not required (f). The subject property is within an established neighbourhood and the development proposal represents a logical intensification of the neighbourhood (h). The property is in close proximity to school facilities and a neighbourhood park (i). The proposal will increase the housing stock and contribute to the housing mix within an existing urban neighbourhood (j) and the property is an appropriate location for intensification (p). The proposed new dwellings will be 1,200 sq ft (111.5 sq m) in area and contain three bedrooms and, as such, are capable of accommodating a family in a desirable location.

15In regard to the criteria established in s. 53 (1) of the Act, it is Mr. Ferrari’s opinion that, as the subject property has frontage onto a public roadway and municipal servicing is available, a plan of subdivision is not required. His analysis of the relevant criteria set out in s. 51 (24) of the Act follows:

a) the effect of development on matters of provincial interest as referred to in s. 2; The proposal implements the applicable provincial planning policies and documents which speak to promoting residential intensification within existing built-up areas.

b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest; As the subject property has access to adequate servicing and maintains frontage onto a public road, the proposal is not premature.

c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; The proposal conforms to the UHOP.

d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; The subject lands are suitable to be sub-divided, as each lot is able to accommodate a modest sized single-detached dwelling with adequate private amenity space.

e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them. The proposed redevelopment has access onto a municipal roadway (East 25th Street) which is able to support the proposed land division. Municipal Transportation staff have indicated that they have no concerns with the severance proposal.

f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; The proposed lots are generally in keeping with the lotting pattern of the neighbourhood. The proposed lots are able to accommodate modest sized single detached dwellings while maintaining the required setbacks outlined in the ZBL.

i) The adequacy of utilities and municipal services; The proposal has access and can readily connect to existing municipal services along East 25th Street.

j) the adequacy of school sites; The proposal is within walking distance to a nearby school. No adverse comments were received from any of the local School Boards.

k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes; No lands are required to be conveyed to facilitate the proposal.

m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of the Act; The subject lands are not subject to Site Plan Control.

16It is further his opinion that the Consent applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), in particular, the policies that focus growth and intensification to within Settlement Areas. The property is situated within a designated Settlement Area along an existing roadway and in close proximity to active transportation and transit services. The proposal presents an efficient development pattern while making use of existing municipal servicing infrastructure and will assist in the achievement of the minimum intensification target established by the City. There were no concerns raised during the application process related to the provision of municipal services.

17Schedule C of the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“GP”) identifies the subject property as being within the Built Boundary. The policies of the GP direct growth to within the delineated built boundary of designated Settlement Areas containing existing municipal water and waste water servicing systems. The property is an appropriate location to direct additional growth and intensification. The development proposal presents an opportunity to provide for additional housing units and will facilitate the GP targets related to the allocation of residential redevelopment to within the delineated built-up areas.

18The UHOP encourages residential intensification to be compatible with the scale and established character of existing neighbourhoods. Chapter G of the UHOP provides the following definition for compatibility:

Means land uses and building forms that are mutually tolerant and capable of existing together in harmony within an area. Compatibility or compatible should not be narrowly interpreted to mean “the same as” or even “being similar to”.

The development proposal is consistent with this definition in that it will facilitate the establishment of two single-detached dwellings that are generally in-keeping with the built form and size of the existing dwellings in the neighbourhood which currently maintains a mix of single-detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings units, which incidentally, have harmoniously co-existed for some time.

19From an urban design perspective, the proposal is compatible with the existing lot fabric and scale of the existing neighbourhood, which primarily consists of one and one-and-a-half storey dwellings with single-vehicle-wide driveways. The development proposal introduces a modest form of development in harmony with an existing neighbourhood, and in-keeping with the residential intensification policies of the UHOP.

20In his opinion, the subject lands are an appropriate candidate for some residential intensification and the overall proposal represents an appropriate and compatible form of intensification that will facilitate much needed residential intensification in-keeping with the established character of this neighbourhood.

21Overall, the proposal presents an opportunity to create a more efficient use of land by dividing a lot that is larger than most others in the surrounding neighbourhood to create two residential building lots. Both lots have frontage on a public road and each proposed new lot is fully serviced with municipal water and wastewater. The proposed new homes will be consistent with the general size and massing of the other dwellings in the neighbourhood and will contribute to the existing stock of single detached family-sized dwellings in this neighbourhood and the range of dwelling types and tenures in the municipality. There are no perceived impacts to the existing transportation and infrastructure capacity of the neighbourhood and, as the intended use is one-and-a-half storey single-detached dwellings, there are no perceived nuisances related to shadowing, overlook, traffic or noise.

22Mr. Ferrari confirmed he has reviewed the proposed conditions of Consent approval provided by the municipality and is satisfied they are appropriate and reasonable.

Minor Variance Applications

23It is Mr. Ferrari opinion’s opinion that the relief required to the “C” District zoning regulations meets the criteria set out in s. 45 (1) of the Act. The variances are necessary to facilitate the severance and development proposal.

24The UHOP permits residential intensification where it can be demonstrated that the development being proposed is compatible with the neighbourhood. The lot widths found on East 24th Street and within the broader neighbourhood vary between 7.8 m. and 20 m. The lot widths being proposed are 9.5 m (Part 1) and 9.8 m (Part 2), whereas the required lot width is 12 m.

25The general intent and purpose of the minimum lot width is to ensure that development is in-keeping with the range of lot widths found in the neighbourhood. The development being proposed represents appropriate and compatible intensification that is in-keeping with the wide variety of established developments in the immediate neighbourhood and the range of lot widths found on East 24th Street and within the greater neighbourhood. The proposed lots are of sufficient size to accommodate a suitable building envelope and will allow for ample landscaped areas and outdoor amenity space.

26The proposed variances will facilitate lot creation and a form or residential intensification that is compatible and in-keeping with the character of the neighbourhood and adjacent development. The resulting lots will be functional and can accommodate modest sized single detached dwellings, while meeting all setbacks requirements of the ZBL, and there are no anticipated impacts in terms of visual impact, shadowing, overlook, or traffic resulting from the proposed development. In his opinion, the general intent and purpose of the UHOP and the ZBL is being met and the variances for lot width are minor in nature.

27In regard to the variances to permit the inclusion of two parking spaces within the front yard, Mr. Ferrari said consideration has been had for the balancing of on-site landscaping and the general nature of the neighbourhood. The current proposal allows for an equal balance of landscaping and hardscaping to be located in the front yard, which is a common condition shared by other properties in this neighbourhood. As the proposed parking format maintains the existing neighbourhood character, it is his view the variances also maintain the intent and purpose of the UHOP.

28The intent of the parking provision of the ZBL is to ensure that front yard parking does not dominate the streetscape. In this case, the design of the driveway allows for adequate landscaping to be provided in order to ensure that hardscaping and parking do not dominate the streetscape. Mr. Ferrari maintains that, as the proposed parking scheme is consistent with what is found within the neighbourhood, the variances to allow parking spaces to be located within the front yard maintain the purpose and intent of the ZBL. The inclusion of two tandem parking spacing within the front yard is not anticipated to negatively impact the surrounding neighbourhood and therefore the required variances are minor in nature.

29The variances for maneuvering space are required due to the introduction of tandem parking. Although the UHOP does not specifically speak to maneuvering space for single detached dwellings, the Urban Design policies, which are applicable to the subject property, generally requires new development to be compatible and complementary to the existing neighbourhood. The variances will facilitate a parking solution that is in-keeping with the neighbourhood, which is generally comprised of single vehicle wide driveways which accommodate tandem parking. A bump out on each of the driveways is provided to accommodate maneuvering space in the case where vehicles conflict with one another. The variances will provide for a driveway configuration that is common in the neighbourhood and in keeping with the neighbourhood. In his opinion the purpose and intent of the of UHOP is being maintained.

30The purpose of the parking provision in the ZBL is to ensure that motor vehicles can enter and exit the property without conflicting with one another. As each of the proposed lots will be developed with a single-detached dwelling intended to accommodate one household, the potential for conflicts within the driveway are reduced as the occupants can coordinate the order in which vehicles will be parked.

31Furthermore, as East 25th Street is a local road which carries a minimal amount of traffic, it can be utilized for safe maneuvering in the case of a conflict between motor vehicles on site, as vehicles are able to reverse onto the street. The proposed variances are not perceived to have an adverse impact on any of the surrounding properties and, in his opinion, are desirable and appropriate for the subject properties and minor in nature.

32In view of his overall planning analysis, it is Mr. Ferrari’s professional opinion that the development proposal presents an opportunity to create a more efficient use of land by dividing a lot that is larger than most in the surrounding neighbourhood to create two residential building lots. Both lots have frontage on a public road and each are fully serviced with municipal water and wastewater.

33The two new homes being proposed will be consistent with the general size and massing of other dwellings in the neighbourhood, will contribute to the existing stock of single-detached family-sized dwellings in this neighbourhood and will add to the range of dwelling types and tenures in the municipality. In this case, there are no perceived impacts to the existing transportation and infrastructure capacity of the neighbourhood and, as the intended use is one-and-a-half storey single-detached dwellings, there are no perceived nuisance impacts related to shadowing, overlook, traffic or noise.

34It is his recommendation that the Consent application be approved subject to the prescribed Conditions of Consent Approval and that the minor variances be authorized in accordance with the plans prepared by UrbanScape Architects.

Planning Evidence – City

35Mr. Michniak is a Registered Professional Planner and a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. He currently holds the position of planner in the City of Hamilton Planning and Economic Development Department.

Consent and Minor Variance Applications

36It is Mr. Michniak’s position that the development proposal does not represent good planning and the Applications should be denied.

37It is his contention that the development proposal is not consistent with the PPS and is not an appropriate form of intensification for the area as the minor variances for reduced lot width permits the creation of two narrow lots which reduces the range and mix of residential types in the community and is not consistent with policies 1.1.1(b), 1,1,2, 1,1,3,3 and 1.4.3.

38The GP directs growth to built-up areas within settlement areas and requires municipalities to establish intensification targets. Policy 2.2.1.2 indicates that within settlement areas growth will be focused in delineated built-up areas within settlement areas that can support the achievement of complete communities. Although Mr. Michniak recognizes that the property is within a delineated built-up area, in his view the Applications would allow for intensification that is not appropriate for the neighbourhood. In his opinion, the severance proposal is not consistent with matters of provincial interest, as set out in the Act, and is not consistent with matters of provincial interest set out in the PPS.

39In response to the established Consent criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act, it is Mr. Michniak’s position that the proposed severance does not meet the criterion set out in s. (a) (b) (c) (d) and (f) because it:

a) is not consistent with matters of provincial interest as set out in the PPS and the GP as specified in policy 51(24)(a);

b) is not in the public interest as the severance will reduce the range of housing available in the neighbourhood, the location of parking spaces will have a negative impact on the streetscape, the additional driveway accesses will have a negatively impact on the streetscape and the addition of a driveway accesses will negatively impact the street parking;

c) does not conform with the UHOP;

d) is not suitable for the proposed use and is less functional than the current pattern as Part 2 will have a reduced and less functional rear yard and the parking layout will have a negative impact on the streetscape;

f) is not a suitable shape or dimension, as the side lot line between the two lots features a kink that reduces the rear yard space and functionality of Part 2. The widths of both proposed lots are narrower than the width of the other single family dwellings in the neighbourhood and will have a negative impact on the neighbourhood.

40In his view, the need to accommodate growth must be considered with the intention of creating complete communities and providing a diverse range and mix of housing options. The development proposal reduces the diversity of housing options in this neighbourhood, which in turn reduces the ability of the neighbourhood to support all household sizes and people at all stages of life. By contrast, properties with larger lot widths allow more area for development which can accommodate growing families or large households.

41The UHOP establishes policies for appropriate intensification. The subject lands are identified as “Neighbourhoods” on Schedule E-1 – Urban Structure and designated “Neighbourhoods”. The UHOP and the ZBL requires a lot width of 12 m. The minor variances for reduced lot width is not an appropriate form of intensification for the area.

42The UHOP indicates that Neighbourhoods shall permit a full range of housing forms, types and tenure. The residential intensification criteria establishes that neighbourhoods shall be generally regarded as stable areas with a unique character and that changes compatible with the existing character or function of the neighbourhood shall be permitted. Applications for residential intensification are to be reviewed in consideration of the local context.

43Mr. Michniak further contends the Applications to permit a reduced lot width and additional parking in the front yard do not recognize the unique character of the neighbourhood, do not contribute to a full range of residential dwellings, do not ensure that parking areas do not dominate the streetscape and do not meet the intensification policies of the UHOP.

44On that basis, it is his professional opinion that the Applications are not consistent with the “Neighbourhoods” designation and do not meet the regulations of the ZBL in respect to lot width and the location of parking spaces. Therefore, the proposal is not consistent with the low density designation, does not meet the criteria for appropriate residential intensification and does not meet the urban design criteria of the UHOP.

45The proposed lot widths are smaller than the majority of lot widths for the nearby existing single dwellings. In his estimation, the proposed building form places too much parking space in the front yard, overemphasizing the impact of parking on the streetscape. The reduced lot width results in challenges to meet the minimum lot area regulations and results in a kink in the side lot line that is out of keeping with the neighbourhood.

46The development proposal is not consistent with the PPS and is not an appropriate form of intensification for the area. The ZBL requires a lot width of 12 m. The minor variances for reduced lot width permits the creation of two narrow lots which reduces the range and mix of residential types in the community in a manner that is not consistent with PPS policies 1.1.1(b), 1.1.2, 1.1.3.3 and 1.4.3.

47Moreover, the variances for a reduced lot width results in the creation of two narrow lots which reduces the range and mix of residential types in the community. Large lot widths of 15 m or greater make up a minority of the lots within the community. The proposal would result in the creation of two lots with a width of less than 12 m, which would only add to an already ample supply of small lots.

48The resulting lots will not be desirable as an atypical side lot line is required to meet the minimum lot area requirement, resulting in reduced rear yard area for Part 2. The narrow lot widths will limit the location of parking spaces, resulting in parking being located in the front yard that reduces the space between driveway accesses and has an adverse impact on the streetscape.

49The variance to permit reduced lot width results in a constrained site, with parking spaces located on the front yard, will have an adverse impact on the streetscape and reduce the spacing between the driveway accesses, thereby reducing the amount of on-street parking, which will have an adverse impact on the neighbourhood.

50In regard to the variances to permit the two required parking spaces in the front yard, Mr. Michniak pointed out that the majority of single detached dwellings in the neighbourhood have driveways that extend along the side yard into the rear yard, allowing for parking in the side and rear yards. This configuration prevents automobiles from dominating the streetscape by placing them in less visible locations from a public road. This proposed variance would have an adverse impact on the neighbourhood streetscape.

51The driveways are proposed to be located in a prominent location in the centre of the lots. The positioning of the driveways will result in parked vehicles obscuring the front façades of the dwellings and there will be a cumulative impact, as each of the lots are narrower than the original single lot so parking will take up a greater portion of the frontage.

52Mr. Michniak indicated that single vehicle wide driveways that accommodate tandem parking are a common feature in this neighbourhood. It is his opinion that the variances for reduced maneuvering space does meet the four tests.

53Mr. Michniak is not opposed to the variance for the reduction of maneuvering space as it allows for more landscaped space in the front yard and reduces the visual impact of parking on the streetscape.

54In view of his planning analysis, it is Mr. Michniak’s professional opinion that the proposed severance is not consistent with matters of provincial interest as specified in policy 51(24)(a) of the Act, the PPS and the GP and is not in the public interest. The property is not, in his opinion, suitable for the purposes for which it is to be severed and it is his recommendation that the Tribunal deny the Applications.

Analysis and Disposition

55In arriving at this Decision, the Tribunal has reviewed and considered the oral and written planning analysis and opinion evidence of the planner witnesses and has had regard to the written closing submissions of counsel.

56In this case, the Tribunal found the planning analysis and opinions of Mr. Ferrari to be cogent and compelling. By contrast, the Tribunal did not find the planning rational and, by extension, the opinions expressed by Mr. Michniak to be authentic or persuasive.

57Moreover, Mr. Michniak’s comment in his witness statement, “my role at the Tribunal hearing is to prepare and provide opinion evidence in support of the position taken by City staff in considering these applications…[emphasis added]” is disconcerting. Albeit he recanted this statement under cross-examination, it is the Tribunal’s expectation that an individual seeking to be qualified as an expert witness, and having signed an Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty, understands their duty is to provide independent evidence that is fair, objective and impartial.

58In any event, the Tribunal finds on the evidence of Mr. Ferrari that for all intends and purposes the Applications meets the respective tests identified in s. 45 (12) and meets the applicable criteria in s. 51(24) of the Act. The Tribunal is satisfied that in this case a plan of subdivision is not required.

59The provincial planning policy regime encourages residential intensification in neighbourhoods. The Applications result in the creation of two lots from what is currently one of the largest lots in the neighbourhood and the replacement of a single detached one-and-a-half storey home with two single detached homes of the same height. The neighbourhood has sufficient municipal water and sewer servicing infrastructure and available capacity and vehicular access to the lots is provided by existing municipal roadways.

60The ‘Neighbourhood’ designation is intended to accommodate residential dwellings and single-detached homes are a permitted use in this designation. No variances are required to the building format of the homes. Rather, the variances being sought are necessary in order to regularize the dimensions of the proposed severed and retained parcels, which the Tribunal finds to be minor in nature. In that regard, there has been no tangible evidence put before the Tribunal to demonstrate or otherwise validate that the proposed lot configurations and/or the building format of the proposed new homes will adversely impact adjacent properties, abutting properties or the greater neighbourhood.

61The Tribunal is satisfied that due regard has also been had to the parking solutions being proposed. The Tribunal having reviewed the photographic evidence provided by the City is satisfied that the parking arrangement being proposed will not present undue safety risks or diminish the aesthetics of the neighbourhood.

62The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applications are not in conflict with the policies, intent and direction of the GP, the PPS and the UHOP. To the contrary, the Provincial and, by extension, the municipal planning policy regimes underscore the importance of creating new housing opportunities, with an emphasis on homes able to accommodate a family household.

63Overall, the Tribunal finds that the severance and minor variances to facilitate the development proposal align with the principles of good land use planning and are in the public interest.

ORDER

64THE TRIBUNAL, having been asked to consider an application which has been amended from the original application and having determined as provided for in subsection 45(18.8) of the Planning Act that no further notice is required, orders that the appeal is allowed and the variances to By-law 6593 are authorized, subject to the plans prepared by UrbanScape Architects, dated March 19, 2021.

65THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the provision consent is to be given subject to the following conditions:

1. The owner shall submit a deposited Ontario Land Surveyor’s Reference Plan to the Committee of Adjustment Office, unless exempted by the Land Registrar.

2. The owner shall pay any outstanding realty taxes and/or all charges owing to the City Treasurer. (Committee of Adjustment Section)

3. The owner submits to the Committee of Adjustment and administrative fee, payable to the City of Hamilton, to cover the costs of setting up a new tax account for each newly created lot. (Committee of Adjustment Section)

4. That the owner shall receive approval of any necessary variances from the required (sic) of the Zoning By-law as determined necessary by the Planning and Economic Development Department. (Building Division Section)

5. The owner shall submit survey evidence for the lands to be severed and the lands to be retained, that the lot width and the lot area, conform to the requirements of the Zoning By-law or alternatively apply for and receive final approval of any variances from the requirements of the Zoning By-law as determined necessary by the Planning and Economic Development Department. (Building Division – Zoning Section)

6. The owner shall demolish all or an appropriate portion of the building straddling the proposed property line, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Economic Development Department (Building Division – Zoning Section). May be subject to a demolition permit issued in the normal manner.

7. The owner shall demolish the accessory building (3 sheds) on the lands to be retained and the lands to be conveyed to the satisfaction of Planning and Economic Development Department (Building Division – Zoning Section) or the owner shall receive final approval of any necessary variances from the requirements of the Zoning By-law in order for the three (3) to remain when no principle uses is existing (Building Division – Zoning Section). May be subject to a demolition permit issued in the normal manner. [sic]

8. That the Owner enter into with the City of Hamilton and register, on title of the lands, a Consent Agreement, having an administrative fee of $4,310.00 (2021 fee) to address issues including but not limited to: lot grading and drainage to a suitable outlet on the conveyed and retained parcels (detailed grading plan required), erosion and sediment control measures (to be included on the grading plan); cash payment requirements for items such as street trees (City policy requires one (1) street tree/lot), inspection and grading, stormwater management infrastructure and securities for items that may include: lot grading ($10,000.00 grading security), water and sewer inspections, driveway approaches, relocation of any existing infrastructure (such as hydrants) and any damage during construction (unknown costs at this time). Cash payments listed above are subject to change. (Development Engineering Approvals)

9. The Decision shall apply to the Elevations labeled 386 East 25th Street Numbered A.2.1, A.2.2, A.2.3, A.2.4, Revision No. 2 and 388 East 25th Street Numbered A.2.1, A.2.2, A.2.3, A.2.4, Revision No. 2 prepared by Urbanscape Architects, dated March 19, 2021.

10. The Decision shall apply to the Site Plan Drawings A-0.1 – 386 East 25th Street and A-0.1 – 388 East 25th Street , prepared by Urbanscape Architects, Revision No. 2, dated March 19, 2021.

“M.A. Sills”

M.A. SILLS VICE-CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.