Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 05, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000877
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Delta Joint Ventures Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the development of 975 residential units
Reference Number: UHOPA-23-006
Property Address: 1284 Main Street East
Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000877
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000877
OLT Case Name: Delta Joint Ventures Inc. v. Hamilton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Delta Joint Ventures Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of 975 residential units
Reference Number: ZAC-23-012
Property Address: 1284 Main Street East
Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000878
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000877
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 33(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Delta Joint Ventures Inc.
Subject: Refusal of Heritage Alteration Application
Description: To permit an adaptive reuse of the former Delta Secondary School and redevelopment of the balance of the property for residential purposes
Reference Number: HP2023-036
Property Address: 1284 Main Street East
Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001217
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000877
Heard: October 22, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Delta Joint Ventures Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”)
David Bronskill
City of Hamilton (“City”)
Patrick MacDonald
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG ON OCTOBER 22, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal was a hearing to consider a settlement proposal (“Settlement”) of the Appellant’s appeals of an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) of Zoning By-law No. 05-200 (“ZBL”), and a Heritage Permit Application (“HPA”) (collectively, the “Applications”).
2The purpose of the Applications was to facilitate the development of 975 new residential units, including three 14-storey residential buildings, two blocks of four-storey stacked townhouses, and two blocks of townhomes on lands municipally known as 1284 Main Street East (“Subject Property”/ “Site”) in the City of Hamilton (“City”).
3The Appellant and the City have settled the matter through this Settlement. Following the Settlement, a draft OPA and draft ZBA were provided. The Subject Property with a school structure has been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. As such, the Settlement included Heritage Phasing Plans (“HPP”) and conditions pertaining to development of the Subject Property.
4Sarah Knoll, a Registered Professional Planner, swore an Affidavit on October 16, 2024, on behalf of the Appellant, in support of the Settlement. She was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in land use planning matters. The Affidavit was marked as Exhibit 1A, the Evidence Book as Exhibit 1B, and the Minutes of Settlement as Exhibit 2.
5The Participants’ [Kim Croonen, Grant Deegan, Anita Hayes, Michael Hayes. Gregory Heins, Barbara Marshall, Gene Penko, Sherry Petrie, Mona Powell, Colleen Ryan, Katie Schuessler, Noelle Unsworth, and Dave Wilson] concerns on the proposed development of the Subject Property were responded to and addressed by Ms. Knoll through her Affidavit and testimony. Their concerns about the proposed development generally relate to the scope, scale, density, height, traffic, compatibility, and the heritage designation.
6The Traffic Impact Study for the Applications indicated that there were no traffic-related issues. Transportation Planning at the City reviewed the report and approved the Traffic Impact Study and access location with their comments issued through the Applications’ circulation.
7ERA Architects Inc., in consultation with the City’s Cultural Heritage department, prepared a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (“CHIA”), which assessed the heritage attributes within the entirety of the Site. A HPP and Heritage Permit with conditions have been developed to allow for the demolition of the rear portion of the building and adaptive reuse/restoration of the original building. These experts agreed that the prominent heritage attributes of the Site will be maintained through the Heritage Permit.
8The size of the Site allows for taller buildings to be situated internal to the Site, with a transitional low rise massing fronting onto the exterior municipal streets and complies with staying well below a 45 degree angular plane.
9The Tribunal, having reviewed the Settlement, the documents, and the uncontested sworn testimony of Ms. Knoll, allows the appeals for the reasons set out below.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
10Ms. Knoll described the background to the OPA, ZBA, HPA, and the Settlement to the Tribunal. She reviewed the legislative and policy framework in support of the Applications and Settlement.
11The relevant policy framework includes the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (“UHOP”). She opined that the Settlement, the OPA, and ZBA represent good land use planning and recommended approval of the OPA and ZBA. She recommended approval of the HPA with appropriate HPP conditions.
AREA CONTEXT
12The Subject Property is located within the neighbourhood known as Delta East, along its northern limit, in the City. The Delta East neighbourhood is bounded by Main Street East to the north, Kenilworth Avenue South to the east, the escarpment beyond Lawrence Road to the south, and Ottawa Street South to the west.
13The Subject Property fronts Main Street East, a major arterial road. The streets in this area of the City follow a grid pattern. The blocks of the grids are rectangular in shape, and the longest lengths of each block run north to south. The Site bisects Houghton Avenue, and as a result, the 2.49 hectare Site occupies two City blocks.
14Residential, institutional, and commercial land uses surround the Site. Single detached dwellings present in the area are mostly two storeys in height, with the portion of Graham Avenue South, opposite the Site, primarily characterized by one-storey dwellings.
15Immediately to the east of the Subject Property, beyond Wexford Avenue South, the area includes commercial (a gas station and convenience store), institutional (Redeemer Lutheran Church), and low-density residential dwellings. Immediately to the south of the Subject Property, beyond Maple Avenue, the area is primarily low-density residential dwellings. Further south is A.M. Cunningham Elementary School, an institutional use. Immediately to the west of the Site, the area is primarily low-density residential dwellings.
16The land uses to the north of the Site, along Main Street East, are commercial at grade, with apartment units on top. Immediately north of the Subject Property is a cluster of two-storey mixed-use commercial buildings.
17Some lands fronting Main Street East have undergone redevelopment opportunities. Approximately 500 metres (“m”) west of the Site is a new seven-storey mixed-use building.
18The neighbourhood has a variety of public facilities and amenities necessary to support the achievement of a complete community, including: education facilities, a wide variety of commercial amenities, parks, community/religious facilities, and is in close proximity to employment opportunities.
19The Site is currently served by three local Hamilton Street Railway bus routes. The planned Light Rail Transit (“LRT”) corridor follows Main Street East. The nearest LRT stations are planned at the intersections of Main Street East and Kenilworth Avenue South, and Main Street East and Ottawa Street. The Site falls within the Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) limits of both of these stops, as the Site is located within less than 500 m of each stop. The proposed LRT along Main Street East forms the B-Line of the City’s B.L.A.S.T network. The B.L.A.S.T network is a series of higher order transit lines planned throughout the City.
20Following the Tribunal-led mediation, and as part of the settlement discussions with the City, a revised proposal was submitted with the plans being modified. The Subject Property school structure comprises three distinct sections. The first section is the original school structure built in the 1920s and is prominent along the Main Street East frontage. The second section is the 1950s addition (wing extensions and rear building), and the third section is the 1970s renovation to the central portion and extensions at the rear and east facade.
THE REVISED PROPOSAL
21The revised Settlement includes plan modifications as follow:
Increased tower separation distance of new 14-storey buildings (A and B) that are connected to the heritage building from the stand alone 12-storey (revised) building (C) to 18 m (previously 12.5 m).
Revision to massing of the new 14-storey buildings that are connected to the heritage building (A and B).
Revision to the massing of the new stand-alone 12-storey building.
Revision to floor plans of the exterior buildings along Graham Avenue South and Wexford Avenue South (D and E) with a step back above the third storey (at the 4th floor) and improved articulation to reduce the appearance of long facades through design elements.
Revision to floor plans of the exterior buildings along Maple Avenue (F and G) to provide 14 three-bedroom units.
Inclusion of three-bedroom units within the three taller buildings (A, B, and C), totaling nine units.
Provisions to increase two- and three-bedroom unit count based on market demand, by allowing for convertible units if required.
Reduction of total gross area proposed.
Addition of surface parking spaces.
22The implementing planning instruments, the OPA and ZBA, were modified to implement the revisions expressed above in the settlement plan.
23The OPA remained as submitted to harmonize the UHOP designation on Site. A site specific policy is required to allow for the 14-storey height maximum.
24The ZBA was modified from the initial submission to address the settlement revisions.
25The draft ZBL was further modified from the initial submission to address the previously under appeal parking regulations with holding provisions, specifically approvals of an updated pedestrian wind study; updated sun shadow study; updated visual impact study; watermain hydraulic analysis; and receipt of a heritage permit.
26The HPA was modified to include special conditions and incorporate a HPP.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS
27The Tribunal agrees with the uncontested opinion evidence of Ms. Knoll that the Settlement has proper regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”). In particular, s. 2(d) of the conservation of significant historical features, s. 2(h) on the orderly development of communities, s. 2(n) on the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests, s. 2(p) on the appropriate location of growth and development, s. 2(q) on the promotion of development that supports public transit and is oriented to pedestrians, and s. 2(r) on the promotion of built form that is well-designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are high quality, accessible, attractive, and vibrant.
28Further the proposed development is consistent with the PPS issued under s. 3 of the Act, which came into effect on October 20, 2024. The PPS is a streamlined province-wide land use planning policy framework that replaces both the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019.
29Ms. Knoll opined, and the Tribunal agrees, that the Settlement is consistent with the policies within the PPS and conforms to the UHOP.
Provincial Planning Statement, 2024
a) The proposal is a redevelopment of an underutilized vacant institutional Site. Residential development is supported on the Site as it is on a primary corridor, supporting the transit investment of the LRT on Main Street East and will contribute to the minimum density targets (PPS ss. 2.2 and 2.4.2).
b) The Site is within the settlement area, strategic growth area, and MTSA, making this Site a priority for residential intensification (PPS ss. 2.3 and 2.4).
c) The proposal will assist with the impacts of minimizing climate change by adaptively reusing the original existing heritage school building and developing the Site with features such as geothermal for the new building and permeable pavers. Long term and short-term bicycle parking will be provided (PPS s. 2.9)
d) The proposal is consistent with PPS s. 4.6 as through the submission of a CHIA by ERA Architects Inc., and with discussions with the City’s Cultural Heritage department, the proposal includes a Heritage Permit with conditions and a HPP to facilitate the adaptive reuse of the heritage resource on the Site, the original school building.
e) Conforms with the UHOP by:
Urban Hamilton Official Plan
Proposing a development within the planned urban structure identified along the Primary Corridor and in the Priority Transit Corridor.
Providing a development conforming to the development criteria and City’s vision for growth including Urban Nodes, Urban Corridors, and MTSA within the Urban Boundary and within the built-up area intensification policies in the UHOP (s. E.2.1).
Conforming to UHOP s. E.1.0g by:
Promoting and supporting appropriate residential intensification throughout the urban area with focused attention to development in the strategic growth areas of the Urban Nodes, Urban Corridors, and Major Transit Station Areas.
Proposing a built form that respects, and which residential form is compatible with, the neighbourhood’s existing development in the area. The proposed townhouse form along the perimeter is an acceptable built form compatible with the low-rise built form and to the mid-rise development situated 500 m to the west of the Subject Property (UHOP s. 2.4.16). New development shall respect the existing built form of adjacent neighbourhoods where appropriate by providing a gradation in building height. New development shall locate and be designed to minimize the effects of shadowing and overview on properties in adjacent neighbourhoods.
Providing a mixed-use medium-density development with a maximum height of 14 storeys, with a mix of unit sizes of studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, within the existing heritage building and new multiple dwelling buildings, representing residential intensification through this development that is accommodated in the UHOP (ss. E.4.6.5f; E4.6.7, and E4.6.8).
Designing the buildings that are progressively stepped back from adjacent areas designated Neighbourhoods to provide for appropriate transition to adjacent lands. These measures conform to the UHOP (s. E4.6.8).
Being designed with the scope, scale, mass, and height to fit the existing and planned context of the neighbourhood with no adverse impacts.
30The Tribunal finds that the Settlement:
a) Is consistent with the PPS. The proposed development is within a strategic growth area and MTSA making this a priority site for the kind of residential intensification envisioned by the City.
b) This redevelopment of an underutilized vacant lot in a primary corridor is transit supportive, considering the transit investment of the LRT on Main Street East and the existing and planned transit network connections in this area.
c) The proposal is consistent with heritage conservation policies of the City where the HPA is supported by a CHIA, which led to the inclusion of a HPP to facilitate the reuse of the heritage resource (i.e., the original school building).
d) The proposed development is located within the primary strategic growth areas of the City, specifically along an Urban Corridor and within two MTSAs. The proposal will contribute to the City’s 40% residential intensification target to be planned within the City’s Urban Nodes and Corridors (UHOP s. A2.3.2b).
e) The existing character of the neighbourhood is low-rise residential interior to the neighbourhood and low mid-rise single use or mixed-use along the periphery at Main Street East. Properties along Main Street East have begun to be redeveloped, including a mid-rise mixed-use new building approximately 530 m to the west of the Site. The existing building on Site is heritage designated and at a height of a mid-rise building. Existing residential buildings are mostly located close to the street frontage with few driveways.
f) Building on the established pattern of the street, the low-rise buildings are pulled close to the street frontage with driveway access scoped to one combined entrance/exit. With the large block configuration, the Site can build upon built form and patterns to provide a taller multiple dwelling form interior to the Site without negatively affecting the neighbourhood.
g) The neighbourhood character will continue to be enhanced by building upon the heritage component on Site with the adaptive reuse of the original building. The architectural design of the new buildings will borrow design elements from the heritage architecture of the retained building.
h) The proposal on the Subject Property represents appropriate intensification development that is compatible with the neighbourhood character and can co-exist without adverse impacts to the area.
i) This proposal seeks to further broaden the housing options offered not only on the street, but also within the broader neighbourhood.
j) Studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units are proposed to allow for a variety of unit sizes.
k) The proposed development provides greater housing options for those who would like to live near the future LRT with convenient amenities and access to institutional and public service facilities, without the need to maintain a large home or property.
l) The UHOP defines compatible as:
Compatible: 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 as “being similar to”
m) The proposed architectural design uses materials and colours consistent with the existing context in both the existing heritage building on the Site, as well as the surrounding residential uses abutting the Site, as referenced in the Urban Design Brief prepared by Whitehouse Urban Design.
Use
n) The proposed residential use is compatible with the area, given that the area includes residential and mixed-use developments.
Scale
o) The low-rise perimeter buildings create a comfortable transition in scale to the surrounding residential neighbourhood.
p) The mid-rise buildings comprise towers with podiums to align with the scale of the heritage building and perimeter blocks. The height and massing of the interior buildings are sensitive to the pedestrian experience by providing a comfortable transition in scale that respects the angular plane.
q) Overall, the Site is organized in a way which preserves the existing heritage building as the focal point and provides context-sensitive intensification along Main Street East and its surrounding residential streets.
Form
r) The built form that comprises this development is strategically placed, with the original heritage building prominent in its position along Main Street East. The addition of the taller buildings on the interior of the Site allow for a transition to the low rise residential surrounding the Site in a compatible manner, while also creating a carefully designed ‘campus like’ setting on the Site.
Character
s) The character of the neighbourhood includes the heritage component, of which, the proposal will retain the original structure by adaptively reusing the building for residential purposes.
t) The proposed development optimally utilizes the Subject Property while maximizing the use of public service and transportation infrastructure. The proposed development will result in a community that is transit supportive in the area.
Zoning By-law
31The Subject Property is zoned Institutional (I2, 293) zone. Given that the institutional use ceases to exist on the Subject Property and the building is to be adaptively reused for residential purposes, along with purpose built residential buildings, the Transit Oriented Corridor Mixed Use Medium Density (TOC1) Zone is proposed for the Site. This zone is reflective of the zone imposed on the adjacent lands along Main Street East.
32Specific modifications to the proposed zone are required due to the adaptive reuse of the existing building on site, respecting its prominence. Amendments to the parent TOC1 zoning by-law regulations are required.
CONCLUSION
33The Tribunal is satisfied that the Settlement represents good planning and that the proposed draft OPA and ZBA have regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, and conform to the UHOP.
34The Tribunal will grant the appeals and approve the OPA, ZBA, and HPA (with HPP conditions).
ORDER
35THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed, in part; and,
The Official Plan for the City of Hamilton is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
City of Hamilton By-law No. 05-200 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to assign a number to this By-law for record keeping purposes.
The City of Hamilton is to consent to the alteration of the structure at 1284 Main Street East in accordance with the plan terms and conditions contained in the Heritage Phasing Plans attached as Attachment 3 to this Order.
“T.F. NG”
T.F. NG
MEMBER
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.