Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

August 25, 2025

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-24-000477

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant:

Fengate Homestead Holdings Inc. LP

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

To facilitate the development of a five-building industrial subdivision

Reference Number:

UHOPA-22-008

Property Address:

3054 Homestead Drive, 9166, & 9174 Airport Road

Municipality/UT:

City of Hamilton

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000477

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000477

OLT Case Name:

Fengate Homestead Holdings Inc. LP v. Hamilton (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant:

Fengate Homestead Holdings Inc. LP

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description:

To facilitate the development of a five-building industrial subdivision

Reference Number:

ZAC-22-017

Property Address:

3054 Homestead Drive, 9166, & 9174 Airport Road

Municipality/UT:

City of Hamilton

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000478

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000477

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant:

Fengate Homestead Holdings Inc. LP

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description:

To facilitate the development of a five building industrial subdivision

Reference Number:

25T-202202

Property Address:

3054 Homestead Drive, 9166, & 9174 Airport Road

Municipality/UT:

City of Hamilton

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000479

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000477

Heard:

May 20 to 23, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Fengate Homestead Holdings Inc. LP

M. Helfand

City of Hamilton

R. McVean

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. deboer and INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matters before the Tribunal were the Appeals by Fengate Homestead Holdings Inc. LP (“Appellant”) pursuant to sections 22(7), 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) due to the City of Hamilton’s failure to make a decision on the applications pertaining to the properties municipally known as 3054 Homestead Drive, 9166 Airport Road and 9174 Airport Road (“Subject Lands”).

2The purpose of the applications would permit the development of five industrial buildings, an extension of the East Cargo Road right-of-way and would include a natural heritage compensation area.

SITE AND AREA CONTEXT

3The Subject Lands are an irregularly shaped parcel of land that is approximately 31.38 hectares (“ha”) in size. The Subject Lands have an approximate frontage of 90.3 metres (“m”) along the west side of Homestead Drive and an approximate frontage of 50.95 m along the north side of Airport Road. The Subject Lands abut East Cargo Road, which is a private road that is owned and maintained by the Hamilton International Airport (“Airport”).

4The Subject Lands are primarily undeveloped except for a single-detached dwelling and detached garage situated on 9166 Airport Road, which are proposed to be demolished. Abutting the Subject Lands to the north are vacant, undeveloped lands. These lands are designated as Airport Reserve Zone (M9 H37) in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (“UHOP”). To the east of the Subject Lands, along Homestead Drive, are 1 and 2 storey single-detached dwellings, the Mount Hope Community Christian Reformed Church, and a mix of local commercial establishments which are designated as District Commercial (and zoned as C6, 580) in the UHOP. To the south of the Subject Lands along Airport Road is comprised of 1 and 2 storey single-detached dwellings, local commercial establishments, and Mount Hope Elementary School. To the west of the Subject Lands is the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport (“HAI”) and airport-related industrial uses, which are designated as Airport (U1) in the UHOP. All of the Subject Lands fall within the City’s Zoning By-law No. 05-200 (“ZBL”).

5The Subject Lands are a part of two separate secondary plans. Firstly, the majority of the Subject Lands at 3054 Homestead Drive are designated as ‘Airport Reserve’ in the Airport Employment Growth District (“AEGD”) Map B.8-1 – Land Use Plan, while a portion of the eastern boundary of the lands is designated as ‘District Commercial’ in the Mount Hope Secondary Plan (“MHSP”) Map B.5.4-1 – Land Use Plan. The Subject Lands at 9166 Airport Road are wholly designated ‘District Commercial’ in the MHSP Plan Map B.5.4-1 – Land Use Plan. The southern portion of the lands at 9174 Airport Road along Airport Road are designated ‘District Commercial’ in the MHSP Map B.5.4-1 – Land Use Plan, with the remainder being designated as ‘Airport Reserve’ in the AEGD Map B.8-1 – Land Use Plan. The majority of the Subject Lands at 3054 Homestead Drive are zoned ‘Airport Reserve (M9, H37) Zone’ in the ZBL, while a portion of the eastern boundary of the lands is zoned ‘District Commercial (C6, 580) Zone’. The Subject Lands at 9166 Airport Road are wholly zoned ‘District Commercial (C6, 580) Zone’. The southern portion of the Subject Lands at 9174 Airport Road along Airport Road are also within the ‘District Commercial (C6, 580) Zone’, with the remainder falling within the ‘Airport Reserve (M9, H37) Zone’.

6A Tributary of 20 Mile Creek traverses the Subject Lands from west to east and is located at the northern portion of the property. The Subject Lands contain an unevaluated wetland of approximately 1.1 ha.

BACKGROUND OF THE APPLICATIONS

7The applications were received by the City on January 22, 2022, and were deemed complete on February 10, 2022.

8The Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) would change a portion of the lands that had the designation of ‘Neighbourhoods’ to ‘Employment Areas’ per ‘Schedule E’ of the UHOP. The OPA would remove the portion of the Subject Lands that are currently in the MHSP and add them to the AEGD. The OPA proposes to amend the City’s Natural Heritage System Schedule B, Schedule B-8 and the AEGD’s Natural Heritage System Map B 8-2.

9The purpose of the AEGD is to provide direction for a new business park development in the vicinity of the Airport, which partially includes the Subject Lands. The AEGD’s intent is to offer a range of employment and employment-related land uses in the context of an eco-industrial park for prestige industrial, light industrial, airport-related business uses.

10The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) was intended to change the zoning of the Subject Lands from Airport Reserve (M9, H37) Zone and District Commercial (C6, 580) Zone to Airside Industrial (M7,) Modified Zone and change the lands from Airport Reserve (M9, H37) Zone and District Commercial (C6, 580) Zone to a site-specific Conservation/Hazard Land (P5) Zone.

11The original Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) was submitted on December 21, 2021, which proposed a six-block DPS, which was to establish the proposed ‘Street A’ (1.9 hectares), two blocks (Blocks 1, 2) for employment uses totalling 26.79 ha, one 0.18 ha block (Block 3) for a proposed stormwater management channel, and one 1.90 ha block (Block 6) for natural heritage offsetting compensation from the existing 1.1 ha feature. The Plan also included a 0.06 ha block (Block 4) for a temporary cul-de-sac intended until such time as ‘Street A’ connects to the proposed employment subdivision to the north with an associated 0.0006 ha block (Block 5) for a one-foot reserve, and a 1.9 ha Natural Heritage Offset Block.

12City Staff provided their comment consolidation document on April 22, 2022, which outlined all the City Department and external agency comments on the applications. On March 3, 2023, a second OPA, ZBA and DPS were submitted by the Applicant which addressed the comments and concerns of the City and the external agencies. These applications included the lands located a 9166 and 9174 Airport Road as the Applicant had purchased these lands since the time of the original applications. This increased the total size of the Subject Lands to approximately 31.88 ha. The total amount of employable lands decreased to approximately 25.33 ha. The natural heritage compensation block increased from 1.9 to approximately 1.99 ha while ‘Street A’ increased from 1.43 ha to approximately 3.9 ha. With these changes to the applications, the proposed number of buildings dropped from five to four, and the total proposed Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) dropped from 141,600.92 m^2^ to 131,626.00 m^2^.

13On May 16, 2023, the City of Hamilton issued their second comment consolidation document in response to the March 2023 OPA, ZBA, and DPS resubmission package. As a result of the comments, a third set of applications was submitted on September 18, 2023.

14The third set of applications was similar to the second applications; however, the third set of applications took into consideration an increase in the width of the maintenance easement and conveyance swale along the northern property boundary from 7.0 m to 13.0 m, reducing the total proposed GFA from 131,626.00 m^2^ to approximately 129,551.32 m^2^.

15The City had remaining concerns about the natural heritage area and the City proposed new engineering requirements for the dry stormwater management ponds.

16Based on the non-decision of the City, the Applicant filed appeals to the Tribunal.

17Since the time of the appeals, the Applicant filed a revised DPS to the Tribunal dated January 25, 2025, which proposed a six-block DPS. Block 1 is an industrial development block measuring 19.07 ha, Block 2 is an industrial development measuring 6.26 ha, Block 3 is identified as an Industrial Block measuring 0.075 ha, Block 4 is a 0.3 m reserve, Block 5 is a Natural Heritage Offset Block measuring 2.64 ha and Block 6 is a Dry Storm Water Management Pond measuring 0.5 ha. A Public right of way (‘Street A’) is also proposed.

THE HEARING

18The Tribunal marked a total of 30 Exhibits for the hearing event. These Exhibits are referenced in Appendix 1 attached to the end of this Decision.

19The following persons were qualified to give expert opinion evidence in their area of expertise for the Appellant:

1. Matt Johnston (land use planning)

2. Olivia Robinson (ecology)

3. Andrew Fata (water resource engineering).

20The following persons were qualified to give expert opinion evidence in their area of expertise for the City:

1. James Van Rooi (land use planning)

2. Melissa Kiddie (natural heritage)

Land Use Planning Evidence

21Mr. Johnston reviewed the history of the applications and gave a description of the Subject Lands and the surrounding area as listed above. Mr. Johnston then began his analysis of the applications based on the relevant planning policy framework.

[Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html), as amended (“Planning Act”)

22Mr. Johnston gave opinion that the applications, as presented before the Tribunal, have regard for relevant matters of Provincial interest as outlined in s. 2 of the Act. He advised that Ms. Robinson would speak to the protection of ecological systems including natural areas, features and functions. As for the other areas of Provincial interest, Mr. Johnston continued to opine that the applications will not adversely impact agricultural resources beyond the urban boundary. The Subject Lands do not contain any features of built heritage significance. The applications and specifically the conditions of the DPS will ensure the best practices for the conservation of energy.

23Mr. Johnston continued with his opinion that the applications will provide for an adequate provision of energy, water, wastewater, communications, transportation, and waste management. The applications will ensure an orderly development of the Subject Lands and will be compliant with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The applications will provide for a development of approximately 129,511 m^2^ of industrial space which will assist the City in achieving its employment targets. The applications are an appropriate use of the Subject Lands as they are located in an area planned for employment uses. Mr. Johnston concluded that the applications have regard for provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act.

24As for s. 51(24) of the Act, it was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that the DPS is in the public interest as the Subject Lands are designated for employment uses. The concurrent OPA and ZBA applications demonstrate that the applications as a whole are not premature, and the applications are in the public interest. The conditions proposed in the DPS will ensure that the Subject Lands are developed in a sustainable fashion with a focus on an increase in the total size of the wetlands.

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”)

25Mr. Johnston opined that the applications are consistent with the PPS. The Applications will assist the Province in providing employment opportunities and will help the City achieve its future employment targets. The Subject Lands are located in close proximity to public service facilities and will optimize the existing and planned infrastructure for the area. The Subject Lands are located within a strong local road network with access to major roads such as Highway 6 and Highway 403.

26Overall, it was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that the applications are consistent with the PPS.

UHOP

27Mr. Johnston opined that the Subject Lands conform to the UHOP as the Subject Lands are currently designated as Neighbourhood and Employment Areas on Schedule E – Urban Structure. The proposed OPA seeks to redesignate the portion of the Subject Lands designated as Neighbourhoods to Employment Areas. The Subject Lands are designated as Airport Reserve to protect the long-term development of the Airport. The Airport has provided comments that this designation is no longer required. The OPA seeks to place the lands under the Airport Industrial designation to facilitate employment uses that will complement the Airport’s uses. Overall, Mr. Johnston opined that the applications conform to the UHOP.

ZBL

28It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that the rezoning of the Subject Lands from a designation of Airport Reserve (M9, H37 Zone) and District Commercial (C6, 580 Zone) to a proposed designation of Airside Industrial (M7,_ Zone) and Conservation/Hazard Lands (P5) Zone. It was his opinion that the redesignation of the Subject Lands will allow for an appropriate development of the Subject Lands while increasing the total amount of wetlands. The applications are appropriate and represent good land use planning.

29The Tribunal notes that some of the issues (specifically the engineering issues) had been resolved prior to the hearing. As a result, the issues that are remaining and before the Tribunal maintain the same issue numbers that were listed as apart of the Procedural Order.

Land Use Planning Issues

Issue 1: Is the development proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) (“PPS”), including but not limited to policies 2.3.1.2 b), 2.9.1 b), c) and d), 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8 and 4.2?

Policy 2.3.1.2 Land use patterns within settlement areas should be based on densities and a mix of land uses which:

b) Optimize existing and planned infrastructure and public service facilities;

c) support energy conservation and efficiency;

d) promote green infrastructure, low impact development, and active transportation, protect the environment and improve air quality;

30It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that the applications are within the Urban Boundary of the UHOP. Concerning 2.3.1.2 b), it was his opinion that the applications would optimize the planned infrastructure development for the AEGD and any further infrastructure can be secured through the proposed Draft Plan Conditions. Concerning 2.3.1.2 c), Mr. Johnston opined that provisions for active, multi-modal transportation secured through both Draft Plan and future Site Plan conditions collectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, concerning 2.3.1.2 d), Mr. Johnston opined that the proposed conveyance swale, NHS compensation area, and on-site landscaping will support the mitigation of the urban heat island effect in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a changing climate.

31It was Mr. Van Rooi’s opinion that at the time of the hearing, it was his understanding that the proposal had not demonstrated adequate existing or planned infrastructure.

Policy 2.9.1 Planning authorities shall plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate through approaches that:

b) incorporate climate change considerations in planning for and the development of infrastructure, including stormwater management systems, and public service facilities;

32It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that the applications demonstrate a design with nature that is eco-friendly and creates an enhanced wetland through stormwater management ponds and conveyance channels. Mr. Johnston continued with his opinion that the development uses underutilized lands within the City’s Settlement Area.

33It was Mr. Van Rooi’s opinion that the applications did not provide a stormwater management system that was satisfactory to the City’s Engineering Department, and the type of bicycle spaces has not been determined.

Policy 3.6.1 Planning for sewage and water services shall:

a) accommodate forecasted growth in a timely manner that promotes the efficient use and optimization of existing municipal sewage services and municipal water services and existing private communal sewage services and private communal water services;

b) ensure that these services are provided in a manner that:

1. can be sustained by the water resources upon which such services rely;

2. is feasible and financially viable over their life cycle;

3. protects human health and safety, and the natural environment, including the quality and quantity of water; and

4. aligns with comprehensive municipal planning for these services, where applicable.

c) promote water and energy conservation and efficiency;

d) integrate servicing and land use considerations at all stages of the planning process;

e) consider opportunities to allocate, and re-allocate if necessary, the unused system capacity of municipal water services and municipal sewage services to support efficient use of these services to meet current and projected needs for increased housing supply; and

f) be in accordance with the servicing options outlined through policies 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.4 and 3.6.5.

34It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that proposed development can be accommodated by municipal servicing infrastructure. The proposed servicing plan implements an appropriate layout of servicing infrastructure that is intended to serve the development over the long-term to meet current and projected needs of the land use. Mr. Johnston continued with his opinion that the proposed Conditions of Draft Plan pertaining to servicing infrastructure ensure the development will not proceed until the City is satisfied that adequate servicing capacity is in place to support the proposal.

Policy 3.6.2: Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are the preferred form of servicing for settlement areas to support protection of the environment and minimize potential risks to human health and safety. For clarity, municipal sewage services and municipal water services include both centralized servicing systems and decentralized servicing systems.

35It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that the proposed development will be serviced by existing municipal services, therefore, the proposal before the Tribunal is consistent with this policy.

36Mr. Van Rooi defered his professional opinion on both of these Policies to the appropriate civil engineers.

Policy 4.1.1 Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term.

37Mr. Johnston opined that the current natural features on site have no protections from farming activities, invasive species or other disturbances. The proposal before the Tribunal includes a conveyance channel with easements in favour of the City of Hamilton and an enhanced and enlarged natural heritage block, inclusive of a Vegetation Protection Zone, to be dedicated to the City. Both features are proposed to be placed in and protected by the appropriate Conservation/Hazard “P5” Zone in the Zoning By-law. As such, it was his opinion that the proposal is consistent with Policy 4.1.1.

Policy 4.1.2 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.

38Mr. Johnston opined that the ecological functions of the existing natural heritage features are compromised and as Policy 4.1.2 states that natural features should be “where possible improved”. It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that the proposal seeks to include a conveyance swale along the northern boundary of the subject lands which will serve to preserve existing flow patterns on site and reinforce the east-west connection currently existing on site through the identified wetland features. This conveyance swale will maintain the connectivity of natural features within the surrounding area and the proposed NHS compensation area. This dedicated natural heritage block, enhanced with increased biodiversity, will increase the wetland area on site at a ratio of 1:1.38 resulting in approximately an additional 0.43 ha of additional wetland, protected by a Vegetation Protection Zone. As such, the proposal is consistent with this Policy.

Policy 4.1.3 Natural heritage systems shall be identified in Ecoregions 6E & 7E1, recognizing that natural heritage systems will vary in size and form in settlement areas, rural areas, and prime agricultural areas.

39It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that the Subject Lands are not located within either of the Ecoregions and that this Policy is not applicable to what is before the Tribunal.

40Policy 4.1.5 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

a) significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1;

b) significant woodlands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Marys River)1;

c) significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Marys River)1;

d) significant wildlife habitat;

e) significant areas of natural and scientific interest; and

f) coastal wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1 that are not subject to policy 4.1.4.b), unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

41Mr. Johnston opined that GEI consulting concluded that there were not any of the natural features noted in Policy 4.1.5, therefore, this Policy is not applicable to the proposal before the Tribunal.

Policy 4.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

42Mr. Johnston noted that the EIS report by GEI identified indirect fish habitat was identified on the Subject Lands. As such, GEI contacted the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (“DFO”) and DFO determined that a Fisheries Act authorization was not required. As such, Mr. Johnston opined that Policy 4.1.6 was not applicable to the proposal before the Tribunal.

Policy 4.1.7 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

43Mr. Johnston opined that as reported by GEI, no identified habitats of endangered species and threatened species on the Subject Lands. Therefore, this Policy did not apply to the applications.

Policy 4.1.8 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 4.1.4, 4.1.5, and 4.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.

44It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that GEI confirmed that there were no significant wetlands or significant coastal wetlands have been identified on or adjacent to the subject lands, therefore Policy 4.1.4 did not apply. No heritage features and areas were present within 120 m or on the Subject Lands, therefore Policy 4.1.5 did not apply. And finally, the DFO clearance demonstrated that there will not be any negative impacts to the natural heritage which confirms that the applications are consistent with Policy 4.1.8.

45Mr. Van Rooi opined that concerning Policies 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7 and 4.1.8, the applications intend to remove 1.11 ha of unevaluated wetlands and proposed a new 1.54 ha wetland while realigning a tributary at the north end of the Subject Lands. The PPS 2024 requires the establishment of natural heritage systems, should the appeals be granted, an OPA to change Core Area boundaries and a ZBA to appropriately zone the lands for conservation uses to implement the removal/relocation of the natural heritage features are required. The UHOP and AEGD both implement the PPS 2024 direction for identifying natural heritage systems and both contain policies that are beyond the PPS for protection of natural features. The UHOP identifies the tributary on the northern portion of the property as a Key Hydrologic Feature Stream, the AEGD indicates this stream as Support/Indirect Fish Habitat.

Policy 4.2.1 Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by:

a) using the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for integrated and long-term planning, which can be a foundation for considering cumulative impacts of development;

b) minimizing potential negative impacts, including cross-jurisdictional and crosswatershed impacts;

c) identifying water resource systems;

d) maintaining linkages and functions of water resource systems;

e) implementing necessary restrictions on development and site alteration to:

1. protect all municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas; and

2. protect, improve or restore vulnerable surface and ground water, and their hydrologic functions;

f) planning for efficient and sustainable use of water resources, through practices for water conservation and sustaining water quality; and

g) ensuring consideration of environmental lake capacity, where applicable.

46Mr. Johnston opined that the EIS Addendum dated March 25, 2025, demonstrated that all of the Headwater Drainage Features identified provided an indirect fish habitat to downstream fish habitats. The proposed conveyance swale and NHS compensation area will maintain the contribution of flows and nutrients to those downstream habitats, with flow contributions maintaining the pre-development flows to avoid impacts to natural features downstream. As such, the proposal is consistent with Policy 4.2.1.

Policy 4.2.2 Development and site alteration shall be restricted in or near sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features such that these features and their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored, which may require mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches.

47It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that in the EIS addendum, all local natural features on-site can be identified and appropriately addressed within the natural heritage compensation block on the DPS and will provide a net gain in ecological function over the long term. The EIS addendum notes that the retention of the existing wetlands in place is not warranted as they can be easily replicated elsewhere onsite. As a result of the ‘natural features' limited ecological wildlife value, the compensation area will ensure that there is not a loss in function over the long-term in health benefits and wildlife habitat. As such, Mr. Johnston opined that the proposal is consistent with Policy 4.2.2.

Policy 4.2.3 Municipalities are encouraged to undertake, and large and fast-growing municipalities shall undertake watershed planning to inform planning for sewage and water services and stormwater management, including low impact development, and the protection, improvement or restoration of the quality and quantity of water.

48Mr. Johnston opined that the Functional Servicing Report (“FSR”) completed by Odan-Detech confirms that that the proposed stormwater management and servicing infrastructure can adequately accommodate the proposal. Onsite stormwater management is supported by the proposed conveyance swale and NHS compensation area, which will work in tandem with the proposed dry ponds and other stormwater management facilities to retain and appropriately manage water runoff on the Subject Lands. Mr. Johnston continued to opine that the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval relating to servicing infrastructure will ensure the development does not proceed until the City is satisfied that adequate servicing capacity is in place to support the proposal. As such, the proposal is consistent with Policy 4.2.3.

Policy 4.2.4 Despite policy 4.2.3, where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality that includes one or more lower-tier large and fast-growing municipalities, the upper-tier municipality shall undertake watershed planning in partnership with lower-tier municipalities, including lower-tier large and fast-growing municipalities.

49Mr. Johnston opined that this Policy did not apply since the City is a single-tier municipality.

Policy 4.2.5 All municipalities undertaking watershed planning are encouraged to collaborate with applicable conservation authorities.

50Mr. Johnston opined that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (“NPCA”) is the conservation authority who regulates the Subject Lands. On August 6, 2021, a site visit took place between NPCA staff, GEI Consultants, and Urban Solutions. The analysis and site staking conducted during the site visit identified a total of 1.1 ha of wetland communities on the subject lands, located generally along the north and western portions of the site. This collaboration has allowed for these natural features to be relocated into the proposed Natural Heritage System compensation area to minimize the proposal’s impact on the existing ecological functions of the features. As such, the proposal is consistent with Policy 4.2.5.

51Concerning Policies 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4 and 4.2.5, Mr. Van Rooi opined that the proposal provides new surface water features and realigns a tributary. The predevelopment and post development water quality/quantity is to be maintained and appropriate mitigation measures are to be implemented. The tributary is regulated by the NPCA, should the development be approved, appropriate conditions should be confirmed with the NPCA.

Issue 2: Does the proposal conform to the policies of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, including but not limited to policies C.2.2.2, C.2.2.4, C.2.2.8, C.2.3, C.2.3.1, C.2.3.3, C.2.5.3, C.2.5.4, C.2.5.5, C.2.5.8, C.2.5.9, C.2.5.10, C.2.5.11, C.2.5.12, C.2.5.13, C.2.11.1, C.2.11.4, C.2.11.5, F.1.14.1.2 of Volume 1 of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan and B.8.2.2 b), B.8.2.3 e), B.8.2.11, B.8.12.1, B.8.12.2, B.8.3.5, B.8.9, B.8.9.3, and B.8.12.1 of Volume 2 of the Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan?

Policy C.2.2.2: The boundaries of Core Areas and Linkages, shown on Schedule B - Natural Heritage System, are general in nature. Minor refinements to such boundaries may occur through Environmental Impact Statements, watershed studies or other appropriate studies accepted by the City without an amendment to this Plan. Major changes to boundaries, the removal or addition of Core Areas and Linkages identified on Schedule B - Natural Heritage System and Schedules B-1-8 – Detailed Natural Heritage Features require an amendment to this Plan.

52Mr. Johnston opined that the proposal includes the realignment of the Key Hydrologic Features Streams to the conveyance channel while introducing a Core Area for the enhanced compensation wetland. Based on the recommendations of GEI, the realignment of the Key Hydrologic Features Stream and the introduction of the Core Area for the enhanced compensation wetland represents good land use planning as it provides appropriate protections for these features while balancing the need to optimize employment opportunities, therefore, the realignment proposed conforms to this Policy.

Policy C.2.2.4 Notwithstanding the designations on Schedule E-1 - Urban Land Use Designations, the policies of this Plan shall apply to Core Areas not currently identified on Schedule B - Natural Heritage System and Schedules B-1 to B-8 - Detailed Natural Heritage Features. Additional Core Areas may be mapped and identified or Core Area boundaries may be refined under the following circumstances and may require an amendment to this Plan:

a) individual Environmental Impact Statements;

b) watershed or subwatershed studies;

c) natural areas inventories;

d) Environmental Assessments; or,

e) other similar studies.

53Mr. Johnston opined that the GEI EIS Addendum appropriately identified all natural heritage features and recommended a strategy to realign, protect and enhance them in a manner consistent with the PPS and UHOP. The addendum helped form the structure of the proposed OPA, using the permissions contemplated by Policy C.2.2.2 listed above. Mr. Johnston continued with his opinion that the ZBA used to implement these policies, provides further protections by placing these features in the appropriate Conservation/Hazard “P5” Zone.

54Mr. Van Rooi opined that the proposal requests for a major change by adding a Core Area and realigning a Key Hydrologic Feature Stream. The proposed OPA would add a Core Area to Schedule B of the UHOP; add Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Feature Wetlands to Schedule B-4 and realign the Key Hydrologic Feature Stream on both Schedule B and Schedule B-8. The draft OPA mapping dated February 6, 2025, would require a minor refinement to the Key Hydrologic Feature Stream on Schedule B and Schedule B-8.

C.2.2.8 All natural features, required vegetation protection zones, and enhancement or restoration areas on a property shall be placed under appropriate zoning in the zoning by-law and/or protected through a conservation easement to the satisfaction of the City or the relevant Conservation Authority, or deeded to a public authority. Acquisition by a public body may also be considered as an option for protecting natural features and functions.

55Mr. Johnston gave opinion that the DPS proposes to have Block 5 be dedicated to the City of Hamilton and it will include a Vegetation Protection Zone (“VPZ”). Block 2 of the proposed DPS includes an 11.3 m wide conveyance channel with an easement in favour of the City of Hamilton. This conveyance channel and Block 5 are both located in the Conservation/Hazard “P5” Zone and therefore conforms to Policy C.2.2.8

56Mr. Van Rooi gave the opinion that the proposed Natural Compensation Area would be dedicated to the City and would be appropriately zoned. The appropriate VPZ will need to be accommodated within the realigned tributary and within the NHS compensation Block.

C.2.3 It is the intent of this policy to preserve and enhance Core Areas and to ensure that any development or site alteration within or adjacent to them shall not negatively impact their natural features or their ecological functions.

57It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that the stream and wetland have been identified as Core Areas by GEI. The ecological functions of the existing natural heritage features are compromised by anthropogenic behaviour, comprised of monocultural stands and are small in size. Their proposed alteration will replicate and enhance their size, form and function resulting in an ecological net gain with more biologically diverse wetland and protected conveyance channel. The DFO and the NPCA have reviewed the proposal, and both have given the opinion that they are satisfied with the proposed as presented to the Tribunal.

C.2.3.1 In accordance with the policies of this Plan, Schedule B – Natural Heritage System, identifies Core Areas to include key natural heritage features and key hydrological features. Core Areas of the City’s Natural Heritage System also include other locally and provincially significant natural areas. Schedule B – Natural Heritage System shall be amended when new Core Areas are identified.

58Mr. Johnston opined that GEI confirms the proposed conveyance channel and new wetland area would be considered Core Areas once completed. Mr. Johnston opined that the revisions to the Schedules as proposed would appropriately designate these features as Core Areas and therefore would conform to this Policy.

C.2.3.3 The natural features and ecological functions of Core Areas shall be protected and where possible and deemed feasible to the satisfaction of the City enhanced. To accomplish this protection and enhancement, vegetation removal and encroachment into Core Areas shall generally not be permitted, and appropriate vegetation protection zones shall be applied to all Core Areas.

59Mr. Johnston gave opinion that this Policy states that alterations to Core Areas ‘shall generally not be permitted’ is not a total prohibition. The City has in the past allowed poor quality and low functioning wetlands to be relocated and enhanced in size. Such cases are a part of the Joint Document Book. In the proposal before the Tribunal, development is proposed to encroach on these features, however, they will be replicated, enhanced, and protected, resulting in an ecological net gain, conforming to the intent of Policy C.2.3.3.

60It was Mr. Van Rooi’s opinion that the EIS found unevaluated wetlands on the site, as such, the UHOP considers unevaluated wetlands as a Local Natural Area. A Local Natural Area falls under the definition of Core Areas, and the mapping will need to be updated whether the proposal is approved or denied. Since the proposal before the Tribunal is proposing the removal of a wetland, Mr. Van Rooi opined that the removal of the wetland will cause the proposal to be in conflict with Policy 2.3.3.

C.2.5.4 New development and site alteration shall not be permitted within fish habitat, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

61Mr. Johnston opined that the GEI reports have demonstrated that the Subject Lands do not contain any fish habitat, therefore, this Policy in not applicable.

C.2.5.5 New development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in Section C.2.5.2 to C.2.5.4 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there shall be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.

62Mr. Johnston opined that the GEI Addendum, which included the DFO clearance, demonstrates that there will be no negative impacts to adjacent natural heritage features or their functions. Therefore, the proposal conforms to this Policy.

63It was Mr. Van Rooi’s opinion that the proposal realigns a tributary that has been identified as a Supporting/Indirect Fish Habitat. Policy C.2.5.5 permits development/site alteration adjacent to fish habitat provided there are no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. Staff were unable to determine that the replacement of 1.1 ha of wetland and the realignment of the stream would have no negative impact.

C.2.5.8 New development or site alteration subject to Policies C.2.5.3 to C.2.5.7 requires, prior to approval, the submission and approval of an Environmental Impact Statement which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City and the relevant Conservation Authority that:

a) There shall be no negative impacts on the Core Area’s natural features or their ecological functions.

b) Connectivity between Core Areas shall be maintained, or where possible, enhanced for the movement of surface and ground water, plants and wildlife across the landscape.

c) The removal of other natural features shall be avoided or minimized by the planning and design of the proposed use or site alteration wherever possible.

64It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that the NPCA provided comments in support of the proposal and the DFO provided a clearance for the proposal based on the submitted EIS and EIS Addendum. The altered Core Areas will be physically protected and appropriately designated and zoned while the mitigation, restorative measures and monitoring program will be secured through the proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval. By implementing the EIS and EIS Addendum findings in the OPA, ZBA and Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, the proposal conforms to C.2.5.8.

C.2.5.9 An Environmental Impact Statement shall propose a vegetation protection zone which:

a) has sufficient width to protect the Core Area and its ecological functions from impacts of the proposed land use or site alteration occurring during and after construction, and where possible and deemed feasible to the satisfaction of the City, restores or enhances the Core Area and/or its ecological functions; and

b) is established to achieve and be maintained as natural self-sustaining vegetation.

65Mr. Johnston opined that the VPZ has increased in size to 15 m. GEI does not recommend, nor did the DFO or NPCA require, a VPZ on the conveyance swale. Reduced VPZ are permitted by Policy C.2.5.11 of the UHOP. A monitoring program is recommended by GEI and the proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval will ensure the planted species will be maintained and flourish to ensure conformity to and implementation of Policy C.2.5.9. These same comments apply to Policies C.2.5.10, C.2.5.11, C.2.5.12 and C.2.5.13.

66Mr. Van Rooi deferred any further opinion to the Natural Heritage Planning staff and the ecologists on whether an appropriate VPZ has been provided and whether the conditions proposed can achieve a self-sustaining vegetation community.

C.2.11.1 The City recognizes the importance of trees and woodlands to the health and quality of life in our community. The City shall encourage sustainable forestry practices and the protection and restoration of trees and forests.

67It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that the DPS conditions will require the review and approval of a Tree Protection Plan and Tree Management Plan. There will also be a restoration plan for the NHS block which will ensure conformity with this Policy.

C.2.11.4 The City shall maintain and update as necessary a Woodland Conservation Bylaw and Tree Protection Policy. A Woodland Protection Strategy to protect tree cover on new development sites within urban and rural settlement areas and provides technical direction and practices to protect trees and other vegetation during construction shall be prepared to minimize the impacts on trees and woodlands to be retained.

68Mr. Johnston opined that this Policy does not directly affect a private Planning Act application. However, the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval will provide an opportunity to secure a combination of financial compensation for any required tree removal and on-site planting for the proposed development.

69It was Mr. Van Rooi’s opinion that a Tree Protection plan has not been approved for the Subject Lands and the preservation of mature trees is essential in maintaining the urban forest canopy.

F.1.14.1.2 Council shall approve only those plans of subdivision that meet the following criteria:

a) the plan of subdivision conforms to the policies and land use designations of this Plan.

b) the plan of subdivision implements the City’s staging of development program;

c) the plan of subdivision can be supplied with adequate services and community facilities;

d) the plan of subdivision shall not adversely impact upon the transportation system and the natural environment;

e) the plan of subdivision can be integrated with adjacent lands and roadways;

f) the plan of subdivision shall not adversely impact municipal finances; and, g) the plan of subdivision meets all requirements of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 c. P.13.

70Mr. Johnston opined that the proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval will ensure the staging of development and servicing. The Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”) proposed ‘Street A’ and the new intersection at Airport Road. The TIS confirms that the development can be integrated with adjacent lands and roadways with no adverse impact on transportation and the development. The proposal before the Tribunal will have a positive impact on multi-modal transportation, including public bus transportation. The EIS Addendum dated March 25, 2025, confirms the related proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval ensure no adverse impact on the natural environment.

71Mr. Van Rooi deferred his opinion to the civil engineers, transportation planners and the natural heritage planner regarding the impacts to the transportation system and the natural environment.

B.8.2.2 The employment district is vibrant and visually appealing. It is a working community with a unique sense of place derived from a strong connection to its natural setting and the existing airport. The intent is to:

b) Design with nature by protecting streams, mature trees, wetlands, significant habitat and integrating topography into developments.

72In Mr. Johnston’s opinion, the natural heritage features on the Subject Lands have not been protected from a zoning or encroachment perspective in the past. As a result, these features have been compromised by human activity. By applying the recommendations of the March 25, 2025, EIS Addendum, which include providing easements for the conveyance corridor and dedicating the new, larger, and enhanced wetland to the City, Mr. Johnston opined that the proposal will deploy a ‘design with nature’ approach.

73Mr. Van Rooi opined that the intent behind the AEGD secondary plan is to protect and design with nature, and when there is a discrepancy between the policies and/or designations of Volume 1 and Volume 2 (UHOP vs. Secondary Plans), the policies and designations of the Secondary Plan shall prevail. The Secondary Plan’s Natural Heritage Principles are more restrictive than the UHOP’s.

B.8.2.3 Beautiful public spaces, streets and parks reinforce the employment district’s character as a green, vibrant and prosperous community. The public realm provides structure and amenity to the employment district. The intent is to:

e) Use native species in landscaping.

74Mr. Johnston opined that the DPS conditions of approval will ensure that only native species will be used on the Subject lands.

B.8.2.11 Through sustainable design and appropriate development the employment district protects and enhances the natural environment. The intent is to:

a) Develop in a manner that is sensitive to the natural environment;

b) Use innovative, sustainable storm and wastewater infrastructure to protect water quality and source water;

c) Protect and integrate provincially and municipally significant natural features, such as streams, valley lands, wetlands, mature trees and forests into the employment district’s development, implement provincial policy and meet municipal policy;

d) Use sustainable design to limit the emissions, water and energy consumption of buildings within the employment district; and,

e) Connect the employment district’s open space system to surrounding natural areas to allow employees to enjoy and explore the region’s natural heritage.

75Mr. Johnston gave opinion that the proposal results in the protection of enhanced natural heritage features. Dry ponds and other low impact development features provide for sustainable infrastructure while the dedication of the natural heritage block provides an opportunity for future employees to explore the City’s natural heritage on the Subject Lands.

B.8.3.5 All development within the Secondary Plan Area shall be planned on a comprehensive basis, avoid where possible impacts on natural features, and effectively integrate with adjacent development and future development. The implementing zoning by-law shall incorporate provisions relating to the height, density and design of development based on the provisions of this Secondary Plan and the Airport Employment Growth District Eco-Industrial Design Guidelines and Urban Design Guidelines.

76Mr. Johnston opined that the proposed DPS satisfies the evaluation criteria of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act ensuring a comprehensive approach to the design while the March 25, 2025 EIS Addendum confirms that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features. The City has confirmed connections to East Cargo Road or the lands north of the Subject Lands are not required. The subdivision also secures a ‘complete streets’ approach to the public ‘Street A’ and future Site Plan Applications provide the opportunity to apply the Airside Industrial ‘M7’ Zone that ensure AEGD Eco-Industrial Design Guidelines and Urban Design Guidelines are implemented.

B.8.9 An integral component during the creation of this Secondary Plan was the preparation of the Subwatershed Plan for the watersheds within the Secondary Plan Area. Lands within the Airport Employment Growth District are uniquely situated within the headwaters of four watersheds, Sulphur Creek (Cootes Paradise), Twenty Mile Creek (Lake Ontario), Welland River (Niagara River) and Big Creek (Grand River). The myriad of small headwater features, combined with restrictions on open water/wetland features imposed by the airport, present a unique challenge in terms of protection of stream corridors and natural heritage features, and storm water management design that require state of art technologies consistent with Low Impact Development design.

77It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that this Policy is mostly an observation Policy and that the features will require state of the art technologies. Dry ponds and other conditions of approval ensure low impact development design is implemented in this development to ensure conformity with Policy B.8.9.

B.8.9.3 The stream corridors in the Subwatershed Plan for the Secondary Plan Area shall be protected in accordance with Section B.8.12 of this Secondary Plan to address flood/erosion control and fish habitat requirements, as well as storm water management to prevent increases in flooding and erosion, enhance water quality and maintain the existing conditions of water balance.

78Mr. Johnston opined that the proposal conforms to this Policy because there are no flood/erosion concerns from the NPCA nor DFO concerns with fish habitat. The conveyance channel will be protected with an easement in favour of the City while the new natural heritage block will be dedicated to the City, and both are protected with the proposed ‘P5’ Zoning in the proposed ZBA.

B.8.12.1 Within the Airport Employment Growth District, there are wetlands, streams, woodlands, meadows, successional areas and hedgerows which are identified as Core Areas, Linkages, and Hedgerows in Map B.8-2 – Airport Employment Growth District Natural Heritage System.

The policies of Volume 1 Section C.2.0 – Natural Heritage System apply, with the exception of Section C.2.4. B.8.12.2 Streams are identified in Map B.8-2 – Airport Employment Growth District Natural Heritage System. If the stream has not been classified as part of an Environmental Impact Study, subwatershed study, or other study, a scoped Environmental Impact Study is required to determine the classification.

79Mr. Johnston opined that the EIS has confirmed the Key Hydraulic Features located on Map B.8-2 of the Secondary Plan is on site. The EIS also confirms the features can be realigned and enhanced resulting in an ecological net gain without have any negative impacts.

80Mr. Van Rooi opined that concerning polices B.8.2.11, B.8.12.1 and B.8.12.2, the proposal removes and replaces wetlands and realigns a stream, and it was his opinion that this is not developing in a manner sensitive to the natural environment. The policy calls for protecting and enhancing municipally significant natural features, such as streams, valley lands, wetlands, mature trees and forests. The City does not have policy direction in place to consider compensation of natural areas as enhancement. (The enhancement of a feature would be including additional VPZ area or appropriate zoning of an existing natural area for Conservation/Hazard lands). As such, Mr. Van Rooi opined that the proposal before the Tribunal does not conform to these Policies.

Issue 5: Does the proposal comply with policy E.2.2.4 of Volume 1 of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan?

E.2.2.4 Changes to the urban structure, including classification of elements, extensions and expansions of elements, or additions of new elements, shall be considered only during the five-year review of this Plan.

81It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that he proposed OPA presents an opportunity to make such changes to the boundaries of secondary plans outside of a five-year review process. The proposed changes to the boundary of the Mount Hope and Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plans in the OPA are minor refinements that align the boundaries of the Secondary Plans with the existing property boundaries. Mr. Johnston continued with his opinion that the intent of this Policy is more about a full-scale review of the City’s Official Plan and the AEGD. Mr. Johnston opined that the requested amendments are minor in nature and do not need to wait for the five-year review process to occur.

82It was Mr. Van Rooi’s opinion that the proposal before the Tribunal results in an amendment being required to the City’s Urban Structure (Schedule E) by redesignating lands from “Neighbourhoods” to “Employment Areas”. Typically, this schedule is only amended through Municipal Comprehensive reviews as it establishes the City’s long term planning vision. Should the proposal be approved by the Tribunal, the proposed draft OPA and mapping materials submitted reflect the boundaries and designations that require amending.

Issue 7: Does the proposal meet the intent of policies B.5.4.4.1 d) and f) of Volume 2 of the Mount Hope Secondary Plan?

B.5.4.4.1(d) Development of commercial uses shall be planned and coordinated to limit the establishment of a continuous strip of individual developments.

B.5.4.4.1(f) The District Commercial designation adjacent to Airport Road West and Homestead Drive enjoys a high degree of visibility and provides a gateway to the John C. Munro International Airport. To ensure this area develops in a coordinated, well-designed and aesthetically pleasing manner with adequate infrastructure and amenities, and to provide funding eligibility, the City shall investigate the designation of these lands as a Community Improvement Project Area.

83Mr. Johnston opined that there is not a Community Improvement Area involved with the Subject Lands and that the proposed OPA removes the District Commercial designation from the Subject Lands. The removal of such small portions of this designation aligns the boundaries of the Secondary Plans with the existing property boundaries and it is not anticipated to have negative impact on the Mount Hope Secondary Plan’s ability to realize its vision for commercial uses.

84It was Mr. Van Rooi’s opinion that the lands fronting Homestead Drive were intended to form part of a commercial district and that the proposal will fragment the commercial district on the west side of Homestead Drive and does not conform to this Policy.

Issue 8: Is it appropriate to amend the boundaries of both the Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan, and Mount Hope Secondary Plan without a Municipal Comprehensive Review?

85It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that Municipal Comprehensive Reviews are no longer required by the new PPS. As a result, it is appropriate to make minor refinements of the boundaries to align the boundaries of the Secondary Plans with the existing property boundaries. The refinements are so minor, they do not hinder the application of each Secondary Plan area to be fully implemented and realized.

86Mr. Van Rooi opined that the AEGD and Mount Hope Secondary Plan boundary adjustments should occur through a Municipal Comprehensive review as the MCR process is meant to ensure that the City has adequate Employment and Community land designated to accommodate forecasted population and employment growth.

Issue 9: Are the proposed site-specific performance standards compatible and in keeping with the intent of the City of Hamilton Zoning By-law No.05-200?

87It was Mr. Johnston’s opinion that the proposed uses under the ‘M7’ designation are permitted elsewhere in the AEGD and will build off the proximity and synergies with the Airport. This demonstrates their appropriateness for the area. The exception from the location requirements for loading doors, loading facilities and parking spaces are required to account for the number of frontages each block will have while sound urban design principles will be deployed at the Site Plan stage ensuring their intent is maintained. Therefore, the proposal is in keeping with the ZBL.

88Mr. Van Rooi opined that if the OPA is approved, then the site-specific performance standards must be compatible with the ZBL.

Issue 10: Does the proposed development represent good land use planning and is in the public interest?

89Mr. Johnston opined that the proposal before the Tribunal, as a whole, provides an opportunity to balance planning objectives which would optimise employment opportunities while protecting natural heritage features. The proposed development as implemented through the planning instruments represents good land use planning as the proposal is consistent with the PPS, has regard of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act, satisfies DPS criteria under s. 51(24) of the Act and as presented, conforms to the UHOP and the AEGD.

90Mr. Van Rooi opined that the proposal is not representative of good land use planning nor in the public interest as it conflicts with the PPS, the UHOP and the AEGD. The proposal should not be approved.

Ecology and Natural Heritage Issues

Issue 11: Does the applicant’s Environmental Impact Statement demonstrate that the features and functions of the Core Areas will not be negatively impacted, including required setbacks, as required under the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, including but not limited to Volume 1 policies C.2.3, C.2.3.3, C.2.5.4, C.2.5.5, C.5.8, C.2.5.9, C.2.5.10. C.2.5.12, and C.2.5.13?

91Concerning Issue 11, it was Ms. Robinson’s opinion that as discussed above, the EIS identified two key natural heritage feature types (wetlands and indirect fish habitat) and one key hydrologic feature type (wetland) within and adjacent to the Subject Lands. These key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features are considered Core Areas under the UHOP. While it is acknowledged that these features will not be retained in their existing locations, their form and functions will be replicated on site and will ultimately be enhanced with respect to fish habitat and to wetlands. Ms. Robinson continued to opine that the proposed mitigative and restorative measures are sufficient to prevent and/or minimize impacts to these natural features and their associated functions. The newly created wetland and conveyance swale corridor will be preserved and will ensure that no loss in Core Area and associated ecological functions occurs within the Subject Lands. There will be a net gain in total wetland and Core Area of 0.43 ha. The proposed restoration concept will combine six smaller wetland units into one larger contiguous unit, which connects to offsite wetlands (to the east) and connects to the proposed conveyance swale (realigned Headwater Drainage Feature H1). All Core Areas within the Subject Lands will be contiguous and connected to each other. It was her opinion the proposed development conforms to the UHOP.

92Ms. Kiddie gave opinion that the proposal does not satisfy the Natural Heritage Policy requirements of the UHOP. She continued with her opinion that the Natural Heritage Features on the Subject Lands are not being protected for the long term, nor are the diversity and connectivity elements of the features being maintained, restored, or improved. She continued with her opinion that the Core Areas represent the largest blocks within the Natural Heritage System and that the Core Areas sustain species populations and perform critical ecological functions. Indirect fish habitat are important features that provide downstream flow, which include organic debris including leaves, twigs and natural sediment inputs. These elements are important to maintaining a healthy watershed.

93Ms. Kiddie continued with her opinion that is the first step should be protection of the wetlands and Core Areas. If this cannot be achieved, then mitigation measures should take place. It was her opinion that leaving the wetlands in-situ had not been contemplated or adequately explored in any of the previous submittals, nor with the proposal that is currently before the Tribunal. The proposed development will remove the existing features and replace them with new features. It is her professional opinion that this will fragment the habitat for birds, insects, and other wildlife that use the natural features within the Subject Lands. It was her opinion that that ecological restoration has not been adequately contemplated and the proposal before the Tribunal would be in favour of maximizing the development potential of the site and does not contemplate the development of the site versus the environmental impact.

Issue 12: Does the proposed development comply with the Urban Hamilton Official Plan Volume 1 policy C.2.11 and Volume B.8.2.2 and B.8.2.11 to encourage sustainable forestry practices and the protection and restoration of trees?

94It was Ms. Robinson’s opinion that a Tree Protection Management Plan has been prepared to preserve trees where feasible. Trees will be protected using tree hoarding fencing, which will be erected prior to the commencement of construction. This fencing will be inspected throughout construction to ensure that any retained trees are not impacted by construction activities. Where trees are proposed for removal, they will be compensated in accordance with the City’s Tree Protection Guidelines (2010). There will be a net gain on the total amount of trees on the Subject Lands when the proposal is completed. She continued to opine that there are no permanent or intermittent streams, or local natural areas present within the Subject Lands.

95Ms. Robinson opined that the EIS and EIS Addendum have demonstrated that no negative impacts are expected to wetlands and indirect fish habitat as a result of the proposed development plan, provided that the mitigative and restorative measures are enacted and monitored. The proposal before the Tribunal will follow federal, provincial, and municipal policies. DFO and NPCA, who are other reviewing agencies on this file, have reviewed and signed-off on the proposed development concept from a fisheries and natural hazard (wetland) perspective.

96It was Ms. Robinson’s overall opinion that the proposal before the Tribunal contains proper mitigation and restoration measures while allowing development to occur without negative impacts on the natural heritage features. The proposed development is ecologically feasible and will result in a net gain of Core Areas on the Subject Lands.

97Ms. Kiddie gave opinion that there has not been adequate consideration given to the retention and protection of the existing trees within the Subject Lands. The proposal before the Tribunal has not taken into account the existing trees’ contribution to the Subject Lands and the removal of these trees will reduce the amount of natural habitat available for the common wildlife in the area.

98It was Ms. Kiddie’s overall opinion that the proposal has not taken into consideration the proper retention and protection of the existing Core Areas on the Subject Lands. No consideration was given to a development that would work harmoniously with the wetlands in-situ. The development should not be approved as presented.

Resolved Engineering Issues

99Prior to the Hearing, the Parties held Tribunal-led mediation. This mediation led to the agreement on the engineering issues of the proposal. The Appellant presented Andrew Fata, who was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the area of water resources Engineering. Mr. Fata gave opinion evidence based on the agreed upon engineering issues.

100It was Mr. Fata’s opinion that the proposal demonstrates that the new wetlands would be able to meet the requirements of a projected “100-year” flood event. Mr. Fata described a “100-year” event as the amount of water that would occur during a major flooding event like “Hurricane Hazel”. The modelling and engineering of the expanded wetlands will reduce the amount of potential damage that would be created on the Subject Lands and downstream from the Subject Lands if a “100-year” event happened. The larger wetlands would cause less damage downstream than if the wetlands remained as they currently are.

101Mr. Fata continued with his opinion that the stormwater requirements of the proposal are met even without the proposed wetland itself, however, the proposed wetland does provide an additional and effective natural water treatment function.

102It was Mr. Fata’s opinion that the proposal was a technically robust plan that is beyond the minimum standards, even without the expanded wetlands.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

103At arriving at its Decision, the Tribunal has reviewed the Exhibits, the material evidence provided by the Parties and the oral evidence of the expert witnesses.

104The Tribunal notes that the Tribunal-led mediation had resolved the engineering issues prior to the Hearing as presented by Mr. Fata.

105In reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal prefers the expert opinion evidence provided by Mr. Johnston and Ms. Robinson. Each of the pertinent planning and natural heritage issues pertaining to the applications will be discussed in further detail below.

[Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

106The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has demonstrated that the proposal before it meets the relevant criteria listed under Section 2 of the Planning Act including but not limited to the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions. While there will be a removal of some wetlands and an expansion of others, the Tribunal finds that the overall function of the natural heritage feature will be improved, not only in size, but in also in its overall function. The proposal before the Tribunal demonstrates that the new wetlands will be able to withstand future extreme weather events more effectively than what currently exists on the Subject Lands. The proposal has demonstrated an efficient and orderly use of the Subject Lands, and the Subject Lands are an appropriate location for growth and development.

107Concerning Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal finds that the proposal is not premature and is in the public interest. The Tribunal finds that the proposal demonstrates a proposed use that is suitable for the Subject Lands and will provide needed employment opportunities to the area. The proposal will provide easements for the City of Hamilton to access the dry storm ponds and the conveyance channel. The proposal calls for the natural heritage block and one of the dry pond blocks to be conveyed to the City, while the easements will allow the City to have access to the two dry ponds and the conveyance channel, which the Tribunal finds is an appropriate measure.

PPS

108The Tribunal finds that the Subject Lands are located within the Urban Boundary and the proposed intensification of the Subject Lands are appropriate and an efficient use of the Subject Lands. The proposal will provide employment opportunities that are currently limited or unavailable in the area. The proposal will provide an opportunity for long-term economic growth in the area and the proposal will enhance transportation activities to the adjacent airport and airport lands. The proposal will help ensure and enhance the economic role of the Airport as it is the intent of the proposal to develop that Subject Lands to grow and develop the economic viability of the Airport.

109The Tribunal finds that the applications will make use of existing public services and optimize the existing and planned infrastructure. The Subject Lands are located within the Urban Boundary area as defined by the UHOP and the applications will create an appropriate form on intensification for employment uses on the Subject Lands.

110The Tribunal finds that the applications will support the long-term economic prosperity of the Province by adding employment opportunities that will operate cohesively with the adjacent Airport. The Tribunal finds that the applications will not conflict with any Airport operations, in fact, it is the purpose of the applications to help ensure the long-term viability of the Airport by providing employment opportunities that are complementary to the Airport and its current uses. The Tribunal finds that the proposed land uses are appropriate, and the built form presented to the Tribunal will make efficient use of the Subject Lands.

UHOP

111The purpose of the OPA is to add the Subject Lands to the Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan from the Mount Hope Secondary Plan. The OPA would then redesignate a part of the Subject Lands that are currently designated as ‘Neighbourhood’ to and ‘Employment Areas’ as per Schedule ‘E’ and designated as ‘AEGD Commercial in Schedule ‘E-1’ of the UHOP. These new designations will permit the lands to be used for commercial uses. The Tribunal finds that the proposed OPA designations are appropriate as the OPA will allow for a diverse range of employment opportunities which will be complementary to the adjacent Airport lands and its current uses.

112The Tribunal finds that the proposed designations on the Subject Lands will help maintain the long-term viability of the Airport and its operation. The Tribunal finds that the OPA before the Tribunal is appropriate and conforms to the general intent of the UHOP. The Tribunal notes that the Airport provided supporting documents when the original application was submitted to the City stating that the ‘Airport Reserve’ designation was no longer required.

ZBL

113The ZBL currently designates the Subject Lands as ‘Airport Reserve (M9, H37) Zone and District Commercial (C6, 580) Zone’. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would remove the ‘Airport Reserve’ designation and would remove the holding symbol ‘H37’ when the City is satisfied that adequate municipal services have been secured. The ZBA proposes to designate a portion of the Subject Lands as ‘Conservation/Hazard Lands (P5)’ pertaining to the areas of the Subject Lands that will contain the new Natural Heritage features.

114The Tribunal finds that the proposed designations are an appropriate use of the Subject Lands and allows for the most efficient use of the lands. The proposed designations will allow for employment opportunities that will be complementary to the adjacent Airport. The Tribunal finds that the proposed Zoning By-law instrument conforms with the general intent of the UHOP and the AEGD Secondary Plan. The Tribunal finds that the proposed planning instruments will provide an appropriate balance between the portions of the Subject Lands that will be developed for employment purposes and the newly designed conservation lands.

Ecology and Natural Heritage

115The proposal before the Tribunal includes changes to the existing Natural Heritage features. The Appellant’s EIS and EIS Addendum proposed changes to the Natural Features has been reviewed by the DFO, the NPCA and the City’s Natural Heritage Staff.

116The DFO has determined that the proposal before the Tribunal will not cause the death or harmful alteration of fish habitat and that no federal authorization would be required.

117The NPCA has reviewed the proposal from a Natural Heritage perspective and approves the development concept as presented before the Tribunal. Even though the NPCA does approve the concept, a development permit will still be required by the NPCA to ensure the development occurs as presented.

118The City would have preferred that a proposal be brought by the Appellant that kept the wetlands in-situ. The Appellant was not able to provide such a concept plan through its multiple submissions to the City that would be satisfactory to both the Appellant and the City. As such, the Tribunal finds that the proposal before it maximizes the use of the Subject Lands while providing the best alternative solution by increasing the size of the wetlands and providing proper mitigation measures that will not harm habitats downstream.

119Based on the evidence provided by the Appellant, the Tribunal finds that the proposal will create a new, larger wetland that will be able to withstand a 100-year storm event. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has demonstrated that the proposed changes to the Natural Heritage features will allow for an efficient development to occur while balancing the need for an effective wetland that will not harm any existing downstream habitats. The proposal before the Tribunal will ensure that the conveyance corridor and the new wetland will be connected and will continue to convey appropriate waterflows downstream. The Tribunal finds that the proposed wetland is projected to enhance the ecological functions and long-term biodiversity of the proposed wetlands.

120The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has demonstrated that the proposed wetlands will include the appropriate vegetation and tree preservation plan to enhance the new wetlands’ capability of protecting downstream habitats.

121The Tribunal finds that the DFO’s determination and the NPCA’s approval of the concept demonstrates that the Appellant has brought forth a proposal that is efficient in design in balance with the creation of a new and larger wetland that will be able to enhance downstream habitats and withstand a 100-year storm with minimal damage to the new wetlands themselves or downstream habitats.

Draft Plan Conditions

122The Tribunal finds that the Draft Plan Conditions as submitted by the City Engineering Department and the City Transportation Department are appropriate. The City Heritage Planner’s report stated that if the Applications were approved, that certain heritage conditions should be included with the DPS approval, which are not a part of the proposed Draft Plan Conditions that were before the Tribunal.

123Since the time of the hearing, the Tribunal asked the Parties as to the City’s recommended Heritage conditions that were requested to be included in the DPS conditions if the Tribunal approved the applications. The Tribunal gave the Parties until August 15, 2025, to come to a consensus on these proposed conditions. The Parties stated that there are four remaining Heritage conditions that have not been agreed upon. The Parties also stated that the City has not received any recommended Draft Plan Conditions from the Airport that the Airport would deem necessary to these applications.

124The Tribunal finds that since there is not any consensus on the DPS conditions, the Tribunal will allow the appeal of the OP and ZBA, and it will allow the DPS appeal in principle, on an interim basis, until the Draft Plan Conditions can be agreed upon by the Parties and reviewed by the Tribunal.

ORDER

125THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the Official Plan for the City of Hamilton is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. 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.

126THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the City of Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 05-200 is amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order. 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.

INTERIM ORDER

127THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, on an interim basis, and the Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Urban Solutions Planning & Land Development dated January 23, 2025, comprising 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9176 Airport Road West in the City of Hamilton as shown in Attachment 3 is approved in principle, subject to the Tribunal’s review of a finalized set of Draft Plan Conditions.

128THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Parties are to submit an updated set of Draft Plan Conditions by Thursday, November 27, 2025. If the Draft Plan Conditions are not submitted by this date, the Tribunal may schedule a hearing to finalize the Draft Plan Conditions.

129The Tribunal Member will remain seized for the review of the Draft Plan Conditions and consideration of the Final Order. The Tribunal Member may be spoken to in the event that there are any issues arising from the implementation of this Interim Order, schedule permitting.

“S. deBoer”

S. deBOER

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.

APPENDIX 1

ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Fengate Homestead Holdings Inc. LP

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the development of a five building industrial subdivision

Reference Number: UHOPA-22-008

Property Address: 3054 Homestead Drive, 9166 & 9174 Airport Road

Municipality: City of Hamilton

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000477

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000477

OLT Case Name: Fengate Homestead Holdings Inc. LP 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: Fengate Homestead Holdings Inc. LP

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of a five building industrial subdivision

Reference Number: ZAC-22-017

Property Address: 3054 Homestead Drive, 9166 & 9174 Airport Road

Municipality: City of Hamilton

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000478

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000477

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Fengate Homestead Holdings Inc. LP

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of a five building industrial subdivision

Reference Number: 25T-202202

Property Address: 3054 Homestead Drive, 9166 & 9174 Airport Road

Municipality: City of Hamilton

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000479

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000477

EXHIBIT LIST

Updated May 23, 2025

NO.

DESCRIPTION

DATE

FILED BY

1

Joint Document Book Volume 1

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

2

Joint Document Book Volume 2

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

3

Joint Document Book Volume 3

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

4

Joint Document Book Volume 4

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

5

Joint Document Book Volume 5

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

6

Joint Document Book Volume 6

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

7

Visual Evidence Package of the Appellant (Fengate)

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

8

Visual Evidence Package of the City

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

9

Witness List of the Appellant (Fengate)

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

10

Witness Statement of Mr. Andrew Fata (Fengate)

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

11

Witness Statement of Mr. Zivko Panovski (City)

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

12

Witness Statement of Matt Johnston (Fengate)

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

13

Witness Statement of Olivia Robinson (Fengate)

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

14

Witness Statement of James van Rooi (City)

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

14 B

Reply Witness Statement of James van Rooi (City)

May 22, 2025

City of Hamilton

15

Witness Statement of Melissa Kiddie (City)

May 20, 2025

Pre-filed

15 B

Rely Witness Statement of Melissa Kiddie (City)

May 22, 2025

City of Hamilton

16

Draft plan conditions for engineering

May 20, 2025

Fengate

17

Draft plan conditions for transportation

May 20, 2025

Fengate

18

Compendium of Documents from Robinson Testimony

May 20, 2025

Fengate

19

Recommendation Report to Planning Committee re 3479 Binbrook Road - July 11 2023

May 22, 2025

Fengate

20

Information Report to Planning Committee re 30 Dundas St E - October 19 2021

May 22, 2025

Fengate

21

OLT Decision (OLT-21-001345) re 30 Dundas Street East - August 4 2023

May 22, 2025

Fengate

22

EIS Addendum for 3479 Binbrook Rd - March 2023

May 22, 2025

Fengate

23

Credit Valley Conservation Authority Ecosystem Offsetting Guidelines

May 23, 2025

Fengate

24

Lake Simcoe Ecological Offsetting Plan - July 2021

May 23, 2025

Fengate

25

Lake Simcoe Offsetting Programs Update - May 2025

May 23, 2025

Fengate

26

NVCA Achieving Net Gains through Ecological Offsetting

May 23, 2025

Fengate

27

Ontario Nature Wetlands Report - July 2017

May 23, 2025

Fengate

28

TRCA Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation

May 23, 2025

Fengate

64050033.1

ATTACHMENT 1

Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment No.

The following text constitutes Official Plan Amendment No. to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

1.0 Purpose and Effect:

The purpose of this Official Plan Amendment (OPA) is to redesignate the subject lands within the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (UHOP) and Airport Employment Growth District (AEGD) Secondary Plan to permit the propose industrial and natural heritage uses on site. The amendment also seeks to modify the boundaries of both the AEGD Secondary Plan and Mount Hope Secondary Plan within the UHOP to ensure that the full extent of the lands is located within the AEGD Secondary Plan boundary.

2.0 Location:

The lands affected by this Amendment are Part of Lot 5, Concession 4, Geographic Township of Glanford, now in the City of Hamilton, municipally known as 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West, Hamilton.

3.0 Basis:

The basis for permitting this Amendment is as follows:

• The proposed Amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024);

• The Employment designation on Schedule E of the UHOP, the Airport Employment Growth District designation on Schedule E-1 of the UHOP, and the Airside Industrial designation on Map B.8-1 of the AEGD Secondary Plan support the proposed employment area policies of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan through the creation of industrial land uses that contribute to the provision of a diverse range of employment opportunities in proximity to the Airport;

• The proposed changes to the natural open space designations on Schedules B, B-4, and B-8 of the UHOP; and Maps B.8-1 and B.8-2 of the AEGD Secondary Plan provide appropriate land use policies and protections for the natural heritage features on site;

• The proposed development has regard for the Airport Employment Growth District Eco- industrial Design Guidelines and Urban Design Guidelines; and,

• The four (4) proposed industrial buildings represent a compatible form of development for the subject lands.

1.0 Actual Changes

4.1 Map Changes

4.1.1 Volume 1 – Schedule B – Natural Heritage System of the UHOP is amended by realigning the existing ‘Key Hydrologic Feature Streams’ designation within the lands located at 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West, and designating a separate portion of the lands as ‘Core Areas’, as shown on Appendix A, attached.

4.1.2 Volume 1 – Schedule B-4 – Detailed Natural Heritage Features: Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Feature Wetlands of the UHOP is amended by adding a portion of the lands located at 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West to the ‘Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Feature Wetlands’ designation, as shown on Appendix B, attached.

4.1.3 Volume 1 – Schedule B-8 – Detailed Natural Heritage Features: Key Hydrologic Feature Streams of the UHOP is amended by realigning the existing ‘Key Hydrologic Streams’ designation within the lands located at 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West, as shown on Appendix C, attached.

4.1.4 Notwithstanding Volume 1, Policy E.2.2.4 of the UHOP, Volume 1 – Schedule E – Urban Structure of the UHOP is amended by redesignating a portion of the lands located at 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West, from the ‘Neighbourhoods’ designation to the ‘Employment Areas’ designation as shown on Appendix D, attached.

4.1.5 Volume 1 – Schedule E-1 – Urban Land Use Designation of the UHOP is amended by redesignating a portion of the lands located at 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West from the ‘District Commercial’ designation to the ‘Airport Employment Growth District’ designation as shown on Appendix E, attached.

4.1.6 Notwithstanding Volume 1, Policy E.2.2.4 of the UHOP, Volume 1 – Appendix A – Parks Classification Map (Parks Outside of Secondary Plans) is amended by adjusting the boundaries of the Mount Hope Secondary Plan and AEGD Secondary Plan, as shown on Appendix F, attached.

4.1.7 Notwithstanding Volume 1, Policy E.2.2.4 of the UHOP, Volume 2 – Map B.5.4-1 – Mount Hope Secondary Plan: Land Use Plan is amended by removing portions of the lands located at 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West from the Mount Hope Secondary Plan, as shown on Appendix G, attached.

4.1.8 Notwithstanding Volume 1, Policy E.2.2.4 of the UHOP, Volume 2 – Map B.8-1 – Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan: Land Use Plan is amended by adding portions of the lands located at 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West to the AEGD Secondary Plan under the ‘Airside Industrial’ and ‘Natural Open Space’ designations. This change also amends the AEGD Secondary Plan by redesignating two separate portions of the subject lands which are currently designated ‘Airport Reserve’ to the ‘Airside Industrial’ and ‘Natural Open Space’ designations, as shown on Appendix H, attached.

4.1.9 Volume 2 – Map B.8-2 – Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan: Natural Heritage Systems is amended by adding a portion of the lands located at 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West to the Secondary Plan under the ‘Core Areas’ designation, and redesignating a separate portion of the subject lands currently located within the AEGD Secondary Plan boundary to the ‘Core Areas’ designation. This change also amends Map B.8-2 by realigning the existing ‘Support/Indirect Fish Habitat’ designation within a portion of the lands, as shown on Appendix I, attached.

4.1.10 Notwithstanding Volume 1, Policy E.2.2.4 of the UHOP, Volume 2 – Map B.8-3 – Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan: Road Classification Map is amended by adding a portion of the lands located at 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West to the AEGD Secondary Plan, as shown on Appendix J, attached.

4.1.11 Notwithstanding Volume 1, Policy E.2.2.4 of the UHOP, Volume 2 – Map B.8-4 – Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan: Phasing Plan is amended by adding a portion of the lands located at 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West to the AEGD Secondary Plan, as shown on Appendix K, attached.

4.1.12 Notwithstanding Volume 1, Policy E.2.2.4 of the UHOP, Volume 2 – Appendix A - Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan: Transit Routes and Trails Map is amended by adding a portion of the lands located at 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West to the AEGD Secondary Plan, as shown on Appendix L, attached.

4.1.13 Notwithstanding Volume 1, Policy E.2.2.4 of the UHOP, Volume 2 – Appendix A – Secondary Plan Index Map is amended by adjusting the boundaries of the Mount Hope Secondary Plan and the AEGD Secondary Plan, as shown on Appendix M, attached.

Implementation:

An implementing Zoning By-law will give effect to this Amendment.

This is Schedule “A” to By-Law No. 25- , passed on the day of , 2025.

Mayor Clerk

APPENDIX A

AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN

Lands to be identified as Core Areas

Key Hydrologic Feature Streams feature to be realigned.

Date: March 11, 2025

Revised By: UrbanSolutions

Reference File No: OPA-

APPENDIX B

AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN

Lands to be identified as Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrologic Feature Wetlands

Date: March 11, 2025

Revised By: UrbanSolutions

Reference File No: OPA-

APPENDIX C

AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN

Key Hydrologic Feature Streams feature to be realigned.

Date: March 11, 2025

Revised By: UrbanSolutions

Reference File No: OPA-

APPENDIX D

AMENDMENT TO THE URBAN HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN

Lands to be redesignated from Neighbourhoods designation to the Employment Areas designation.

DATE:

September 17, 2024

PREPARED BY:

Laura Drennan

REFERENCE FILE NO.: UHOPA -

APPENDIX E

AMENDMENT TO THE URBAN HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN

Lands to be redesignated from District Commercial designation to the Airport Employment Growth District designation.

DATE:

September 17, 2024

PREPARED BY:

Laura Drennan

REFERENCE FILE NO.: UHOPA -

APPENDIX F

AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN

Lands to be removed from the Mount Hope Secondary Plan and added to the Airport Employment Growth District.

Date: March 11, 2025

Revised By: UrbanSolutions

Reference File No: OPA-

APPENDIX G

AMENDMENT TO THE URBAN HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN MOUNT HOPE SECONDARY PLAN

Lands to be removed from the Mount Hope Secondary Plan

DATE:

September 17, 2024

PREPARED BY:

Laura Drennan

REFERENCE FILE NO.: UHOPA -

APPENDIX H

AMENDMENT TO THE URBAN HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN AIRPORT EMPLOYMENT GROWTH DISTRICT SECONDARY PLAN

Lands to be added to the Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan and added to the Airside Industrial designation

Lands to be added to the Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan and added to the Natural Open Space designation

Lands to be redesignated from Airport Reserve designation to the Natural Open Space designation

Lands to be redesignated from Airport Reserve designation to the Airside Industrial designation

DATE:

January 31, 2025

PREPARED BY:

Laura Drennan

REFERENCE FILE NO.: UHOPA -

APPENDIX I

AMENDMENT TO THE URBAN HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN AIRPORT EMPLOYMENT GROWTH DISTRICT SECONDARY PLAN

Lands to be added to the Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan

Lands to be added to the Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan and identified as Core Areas

Lands to be identified as Core Areas

DATE:

January 31, 2025

PREPARED BY:

Laura Drennan

REFERENCE FILE NO.: UHOPA -

APPENDIX J

AMENDMENT TO THE URBAN HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN AIRPORT EMPLOYMENT GROWTH DISTRICT SECONDARY PLAN

Lands to be added to the Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan.

DATE:

September 17, 2024

PREPARED BY:

Laura Drennan

REFERENCE FILE NO.: UHOPA -

APPENDIX K

AMENDMENT TO THE URBAN HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN AIRPORT EMPLOYMENT GROWTH DISTRICT SECONDARY PLAN

Lands to be added to the Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan.

DATE:

September 17, 2024

PREPARED BY:

Laura Drennan

REFERENCE FILE NO.: UHOPA -

APPENDIX L

AMENDMENT TO THE URBAN HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN AIRPORT EMPLOYMENT GROWTH DISTRICT SECONDARY PLAN

Lands to be added to the Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan.

DATE:

September 17, 2024

PREPARED BY:

Laura Drennan

REFERENCE FILE NO.: UHOPA -

APPENDIX M

AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN

Lands to be removed from the Mount Hope Secondary Plan and added to the Airport Employment Growth District.

Date: March 11, 2025

Revised By: UrbanSolutions

Reference File No: OPA-

ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF HAMILTON

BY-LAW NO. - ______

To Amend Zoning By-law No. 05-200, Respecting Lands Located at 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West, in the City of Hamilton

WHEREAS the City of Hamilton has in force several Zoning By-laws which apply to the different areas incorporated into the City by virtue of the City of Hamilton Act, 1999, S.O. 1999 Chap. 14;

AND WHEREAS the City of Hamilton is the lawful successor to the former Municipalities identified in Section 1.7 of By-law No. 05-200;

AND WHEREAS Zoning By-law No. 05-200 was enacted on the 25th day of May, 2005;

AND WHEREAS the Council of the City of Hamilton, in adopting Item of Report 25- of the Planning Committee at its meeting held on the day of 2025, which recommended that Zoning By-law No. 05-200, be amended as hereinafter provided;

AND WHEREAS this By-law will be in conformity with the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, upon finalization of Official Plan Amendment No. ;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of Hamilton enacts as follows:

1. That Map No. of Schedule “A” – Zoning Maps, to Zoning By-law No. 05-200 is hereby further amended as follows:

a) By rezoning the lands and boundaries of which are shown on Block No. 1 on Schedule “A” from the Airport Reserve (M9,H37) Zone to Airside Industrial (M7, ) Zone, Modified.

b) By rezoning the lands and boundaries of which are shown on Block No. 2 on Schedule “A” from the Airport Reserve (M9,H37) Zone to Conservation/Hazard Lands (P5) Zone.

c) By rezoning the lands and boundaries of which are shown on Block No. 3 on Schedule “A” from the District Commercial (C6) Zone to Airside Industrial (M7, ) Zone, Modified.

d) By rezoning the lands and boundaries of which are shown on Block No. 4 on Schedule “A” from the District Commercial (C6) Zone to Conservation/Hazard Lands (P5) Zone.

e) By rezoning the lands and boundaries of which are shown on Block No. 5 on Schedule “A” from the District Commercial (C6) Zone to Airside Industrial (M7, ) Zone, Modified.

2. That Schedule C – Special Exceptions to Zoning By-law 05-200 is hereby amended by introducing the following within the lands described as 3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West:

That the Airside Industrial (M7) Zone regulations, as contained in Section 9.7 of Zoning By- law No. 05-200, are modified to include the following regulations for the lands zoned Airside Industrial (M7, ), Modified:

(a) In addition to the uses contained in Section 9.7.1, the following uses shall be permitted within

the Airside Industrial (M7, ), Modified Zone:

• Aquaponics

• Building and Lumber Supply Establishment

• Building or Contracting Supply Establishment

• Computer, Electronic & Data Processing Establishment

• Educational Establishment

• Equipment and Machinery Sales, Rental and Service Establishment

• Greenhouse

• Industrial Administrative Office

• Laboratory

• Labour Association Hall

• Motor Vehicle Dealership

• Motor Vehicle Rental Establishment

• Repair Service

• Surveying, Engineering, Planning or Design Business

• Trade School

• Tradesperson’s Shop

(a) Notwithstanding Section 5.5.1 a) i), loading doors, loading facilities, and parking spaces shall be permitted within a front yard.

3. The By-law No. 05-200 is amended by adding this by-law to Section as Schedule ;

4. That the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to proceed with the giving of notice of the passing of this By-law, in accordance with the Planning Act.

5. PASSED AND ENACTED this day of , 2025.

Mayor Clerk

ZAC-22-017

This is Schedule "A" to By-law No.

25-

Passed the day of , 2025

Clerk

Mayor

DRAFT

Schedule "A"

Map Forming part of By-law No. 05-200

to Amend By-law No. 05-200

Subject Property

3054 Homestead Drive, 9174 & 9166 Airport Road West in the City of Hamilton.

Block 1 - Lands to be rezoned from Airport Reserve (M9, H37) Zone to Airside Industrial (M7, ) Zone, Modified.

Block 2 - Lands to be rezoned from District Commercial (C6, 580) Zone to Airside Industrial (M7, ) Zone,

Modified.

Block 3 - Lands to be rezoned from Airport Reserve (M9, H37) Zone to Conservation/Hazard Lands (P5) Zone.

Block 4 - Lands to be rezoned from District Commercial

(C6, 580) Zone to Conservation/Hazard Lands (P5) Zone.

Scale: N.T.S

File Name/Number:

Date:

Planner/Technician:

PLANNING AND ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

ATTACHMENT 3