Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 14, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001189
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: RCG Upper James Hamilton Inc. and Pure Upper James Street Holdings ULC
Subject: Failure of Approval Authority to announce a decision respecting a Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Description: To permit the development of two industrial buildings, parking, and loading bays.
Reference Number: UHOPA-22-014
Property Address: 2876 Upper James Street
Municipality/UT: Hamilton
OLT Case No: OLT-24-001189
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-001189
OLT Case Name: RCG Upper James Hamilton Inc. et al. v. Hamilton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: RCG Upper James Hamilton Inc. and Pure Upper James Street Holdings ULC
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of two industrial buildings, parking, and loading bays.
Reference Number: ZAC-22-027
Property Address: 2876 Upper James Street
Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton
OLT Case No: OLT-24-001190
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-001189
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: RCG Upper James Hamilton Inc. and Pure Upper James Street Holdings ULC
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of two industrial buildings, parking, and loading bays.
Reference Number: 25T-202204
Property Address: 2876 Upper James Street
Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton
OLT Case No: OLT-24-001191
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-001189
Heard: October 29, 2025, by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
RCG Upper James Hamilton Inc. & Pure Upper James Street Holdings ULC
Ira Kagan Sarah Kagan
City of Hamilton
Rachel McVean
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND G. DRIEDGER ON OCTOBER 29, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Decision and Order relate to a Settlement Proposal concerning appeals brought pursuant to s. 22(7), s. 34(11) and s. 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) from the failure of the City of Hamilton (“City”) to render decisions within the prescribed timelines regarding applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning by-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) (together referred to as the “applications”). The appeals were filed by RCG Upper James Hamilton Inc. & Pure Upper James Street Holding ULC (“Appellant”) regarding lands municipally known as 2876 Upper James Street in the city (“subject property”).
2Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal received correspondence that a settlement had been reached between the Parties. The Parties made a request that the Tribunal review the settlement materials and approve the proposed planning instruments.
3In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a Hearing on the terms of the settlement.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
4When considering appeals filed pursuant to sections 22(7), 34(11) and 51(34) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in section 2 of the Act. Decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters must conform to the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), and in this matter, to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (“UHOP”), and Zoning By-law No. 05-200.
SUBJECT LANDS AND SURROUNDING AREA
5The Subject Lands is located near the southern limits of Hamilton’s main urban boundary, directly abutting the Airport and generally north of the Mount Hope community. It is located within an area generally planned for employment uses through the Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan. Currently, the surrounding land uses include a mix of airport-related operations, agriculture, low-density residential, commercial, recreation and places of worship.
BACKGROUND OF THE APPLICATION
6On January 18, 2022, the Applicants submitted the subject OPA, ZBA and DPS Applications to permit the subdivision and development of the Subject Site. The Applications were deemed complete on April 5, 2022.
7On October 31, 2022, the Applicants filed a resubmission of revised and additional materials accommodating only minor shifts in the block areas on the DPS.
8On February 23, 2023, the Applicants filed a further resubmission with minor modifications to the width, area and classification of the blocks along the north and south property lines which contain the re-aligned headwater drainage features which were reduced in size, while the areas for natural heritage compensation and buffer were increased.
9On November 20, 2023, the Applicants filed a final plan that eliminated the proposed public road and the dedicated stormwater management block/dry pond. A revised development concept for the industrial block that featured two narrow rectangular buildings were introduced and the areas of wetland compensation and environmental protection were further increased as was the area of the environmental buffer blocks.
10On November 14, 2024, an appeal was filed as City Council failed to make a decision on the Applications within the statutory review period.
11The Tribunal provides the following statistical comparison of the Original Proposal, and the Revised Plans filed in support of the Settlement Proposal:
12Table 1 - Statistical Comparison
SUBMISSIONS
13Planning evidence and opinion to support the revised OPA, ZBA and DPS was provided by Mr. David Falletta, a land use planner and partner with Bousfields Inc., and a Registered Professional Planner with full membership with the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. He was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert land use planning evidence.
14Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal received the following documents as Exhibits to the hearing:
Exhibit 1: Affidavit of David Falletta
Exhibit 2: Executed Minutes of Settlement
15Mr. Falletta provided a comprehensive contextual and planning rationale in support of the Settlement Proposal. In addition to the key revisions listed in the chart above, he noted there has been a number of improvements recommended for the existing natural wetlands on the Subject Property.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
16The Tribunal heard that the Settlement Proposal has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, as they protect in-situ the portion of Three Mile Creek that traverses the northeast corner of the Subject Site, as well as the adjacent woodlot, with the goal to protect ecological systems. Additionally, the Settlement Proposal provides an appropriate rate of compensation area for the existing headwater drainage feature (“HDF”) that is required to be removed to allow for the establishment of a functional industrial development block that is supported by existing transportation, sewage and water services, and waste management systems.
Provincial Planning Statement, 2024
17The Tribunal heard that the implementing planning instruments are consistent with the 2024 PPS and will facilitate the development of employment uses at a location where employment growth is planned which promotes economic development and competitiveness (Policy 2.8.1.1); the Subject Property is immediately adjacent to the Hamilton International Airport. The two warehouse buildings proposed will relate to logistics uses associated with the airport (Policies 2.8.2.3); the DPS will ensure Policy 3.6.8 relating to stormwater management, of the 2024 PPS are addressed within the draft approval included conditions.
Urban Hamilton Official Plan (“UHOP”)
18The Tribunal heard that the settlement proposal has due regard for the UHOP in the following areas: (Policies B.3.4.4) a further archaeological investigation will be completed and will be subject to a future site plan control application where the efficient use and conservation of energy and water will be addressed. The settlement proposal provides warehouse space in an employment area that is within the urban boundary on a primary corridor that will support the Airport’s position as one of the top cargo hubs in Canada. (Policy E.2.8.3) Additionally, the settlement proposal addresses the applicable natural heritage policies (Policy C.2.2.8). Road design will respect the transportation policies as a result of proximity to the Airport to avoid any conflicts between the two adjacent land uses (Policy C.4.8).
19The stormwater management approach proposed for the Subject Site as part of the settlement proposal conforms to the stormwater management policies in the UHOP. Careful consideration has been given to ensure that water quality and quantity targets can be met while respecting the integrity of the relocated wetland and maintained natural heritage features on the Subject Site.
Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan (“AEGD”)
20The settlement proposal conforms to the applicable policies of the AEGD Secondary Plan by offering a range of employment and employment-related land uses in the context of an eco-industrial park by balancing the needs of industrial development within the constraints of the existing natural heritage features on the Subject Site. The settlement proposal and implementing planning instruments conform to urban design policies of the AEGD with a reasonable and appropriate level of development intensity considering the natural heritage elements on site. Adequate landscape strips and vegetation protection zones have been accommodated to ensure the industrial development block will be sufficiently buffered from adjacent natural features, the street and nearby sensitive land uses.
City of Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 05-200, as amended
21The settlement proposal proposes to rezone the Subject Site to the Airport Prestige Business (M11) and Conservation/Hazard Land (P5) Zones, with holding provisions and special exceptions apply to address the site-specific regulations while ensuring the matters related to servicing and archaeological potential are addressed prior to development proceeding.
Draft Plan Conditions
22The Tribunal finds that the proposed DPS, with the amended Draft Plan Conditions required to effectively implement the draft plan, have due regard for the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act.
Participant Statements
23The Tribunal heard the concerns expressed have been addressed through the City’s review of the transportation materials and Appeal settlement discussions.
24In this regard, the conditions of draft plan approval include transportation upgrades including the installation of a new traffic control signal at the intersection of Upper James Street and the Subject Site’s proposed driveway access, which can also be utilized by St. Paul’s Anglican Church, which is located immediately opposite Upper James Street.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
25The Tribunal finds the uncontroverted evidence provided by Mr. Falletta that the OPA and ZBA are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, conforms to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan and is in keeping with applicable policies and guidelines of the Province of Ontario and the City.
26Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Settlement reached by the Parties is fair and reasonable and that the resulting OPA, ZBA and DPS represents good planning in the public interest. The Tribunal commends the Parties in working collaboratively with Tribunal-led mediation in order to reach a settlement in these proceedings.
ORDER
27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part and the Official Plan for the City of Hamilton is amended as set out in Schedule A to this Order is hereby approved. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Hamilton to format and assign a number to this Official Plan Amendment for record keeping purposes.
28THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part and the City of Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 05-200 is hereby amended as set out in Schedule B to this Order is hereby approved. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Hamilton to format and assign a number to this By-law for record keeping purposes.
29THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, and the draft plan shown on the plan prepared by Bousfields Inc. dated July 29, 2025, comprising of Part of Lot 5, Concession 4 (Geographic Township of Glanford), City of Hamilton set out in Schedule C, is hereby approved subject to the conditions of draft plan approval which are set out in Schedule D to this Order.
30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act (“Act”), that the City of Hamilton shall have the authority to clear the conditions of approval and give final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act, subject to subsection 51(56.2) of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal orders that nothing in this order shall prevent the City from changing the conditions of approval as prescribed in section 51(45) of the Act.
31In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
“D. Chipman”
D.CHIPMAN
MEMBER
“G. Driedger”
G. DRIEDGER
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.
SCHEDULE A
SCHEDULE B
SCHEDULE C
SCHEDULE D