Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 27, 2026 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000672

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

Applicant/Appellant: Spencer Farrell Subject: Minor Variance Description: to demolish the existing single detached dwelling and to construct a new three-storey Multiple Dwelling containing six units Reference Number: A-24-246 Property Address: 5 Barnesdale Avenue Municipality/UT: City of Hamilton OLT Case No: OLT-25-000672 OLT Case Name: Farrell v. Hamilton (City)

Heard: February 2, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Spencer Farrell Counsel Denise Baker Siraj Syed

Parties City of Hamilton Counsel Melanie Benedict

DECISION DELIVERED BY MATHIEU E. QUESNEL AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by Spencer Farrell (“Applicant” / “Appellant”) under section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), against a decision of the City of Hamilton (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) in which an Application for Minor Variance (“Application”) was refused. The Application affects the land that is municipally known as 5 Barnesdale Avenue South in the City of Hamilton (“Subject Property”).

2The Applicant is seeking relief from section 5.7.1(a)(i) of the City Zoning By-Law (“ZBL”), which requires a minimum of two (2) visitor parking spaces. The Applicant wishes to demolish the existing single detached dwelling to construct a new three-storey multiple dwelling (“Proposed Development”). The Applicant is requesting relief to permit reduced visitor parking space to zero (0).

3The Applicant is appealing the COA decision to refuse his Application.

4Notice of Hearing dated January 12, 2026, was sent by email by the Tribunal and was marked as Exhibit 1.

SITE AND CONTEXT

5The Subject Property is a residential lot located on Barnesdale Avenue South, south of King Street East.

6The Subject Property is zoned Transit Oriented Corridor Multiple Residential (“TOC3”) Zone in the ZBL. Under the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (“UHOP”), the Subject Property is designated “Neighbourhoods”, is located within the designated “Urban Boundary”, and is designated “Built-Up Area”.

LEGISLATIVE TESTS

7The Tribunal’s authority to grant variances is given under section 45(1) of the Act, which sets out the four tests that must be satisfied by an Applicant when making an application for the authorization of variances. It must be noted that the Hearing before the Tribunal is a hearing de novo and the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the application meets these tests remains on the Applicant. The legislative tests require that the variances:

a. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;

b. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;

c. Be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,

d. Be minor in nature.

8In addition, section 3(5) of the Act requires the Tribunal’s Decision to be consistent with the Policy Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).

9The Tribunal must also have regard to the matters of Provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Act, as well as the Decision of the COA and the information considered in the course of making its Decision, as set out in section 2.1(1) of the Act.

PARTIES AND EVIDENCE

10The Applicant was represented by counsels Denise Baker and Siraj Syed, and they called one expert witness. The witness was Alicia Monteith, a planning consultant from Monterra Planning Consultants. Ms. Monteith is a Registered Professional Planner and full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners. Ms. Monteith was called as an expert witness to give evidence in the areas of land use planning. After reviewing Ms. Monteith’s qualification, professional experience, and Acknowledgement of Expert Duties, the Tribunal qualified her as an expert in land use planning, and she was affirmed to provide opinion evidence. Ms. Monteith’s Witness Statement was filed as part of the Document Book of the Applicant and was marked as Exhibit 2.

11The City was represented by counsel Melanie Benedict and she also called one expert witness. The witness was Daniel Barnett, a Planner 2 for the City of Hamilton. After reviewing Mr. Barnett’s qualification, professional experience, and Acknowledgement of Expert Duties, the Tribunal qualified him as an expert in land use planning and he was affirmed to provide opinion evidence. Mr. Barnett’s Witness Statement was filed and was marked as Exhibit 3.

12Before the start of the Hearing, City’s counsel requested that even though the only variance before the Tribunal was for the reduction of visitor’s parking space, she wanted the Tribunal to also hear evidence on other possible variances that might have to be dealt with later. The Appellant’s counsel opposed to this as these were not in front of the Tribunal and cannot be addressed. The Tribunal agreed with Ms. Baker and directed the Parties to only present evidence in relation to the sole variance in front of the Tribunal.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

Matters of Provincial Interest

13Section 2 of the Act sets out a number of provincial interests and land use planning decisions that are required to have regard to those relevant matters of provincial interest.

14Ms. Monteith and Mr. Barnett both agreed that the Minor Variance has appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in the Act.

Provincial Planning Statement 2024

15When considering an application for the Minor Variance, the Decision of the Tribunal shall be consistent with the direction of the PPS.

16Ms. Monteith testified that the Subject Property is located within the designated “Urban Boundary” and designated “Built-Up Area” under the UHOP. The Subject Property is located within the “Primary Corridor” with King Street East being identified as a “Priority Transit Corridor”.

17Ms. Monteith reviewed applicable sections of the PPS and testified that the Minor Variance is consistent with the PPS citing that the PPS promotes the residential intensification and redevelopment of lands within built-up areas, in proximity of the public transportation network, and serviced by existing municipal infrastructure.

18Ms. Monteith also testified that through the UHOP and the ZBL, the City has established policies consistent to the PPS and that the Subject Property is located within a Major Transit Station Area and that all new non-specialized residential development be limited to multiple dwellings with a minimum of five dwelling units.

19Ms. Monteith testified that in her opinion that the Minor Variance is consistent with the PPS.

20Mr. Barnett also agreed that the Minor Variance was consistent with the PPS and had no concerns or issues to raise.

21The Tribunal accordingly finds that the requested variance is consistent with the PPS.

THE FOUR TESTS

Does the variance meet the general Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan?

22In accordance with the UHOP, the Subject Property is located within the “Urban Boundary” and within the “Built-Up Area”. As per Chapter A, section 2.3.4.4 of the UHOP, the City shall plan to achieve a minimum 80% of all residential development within its built-up area.

23Ms. Monteith testified that Chapter B, section 2.4 of the UHOP establishes policies for residential intensification. She went in great details of this section to demonstrate the Proposed Development is consistent with the UHOP.

24Ms. Monteith opined that the Proposed Development meets the definition of residential intensification as per the UHOP.

25Ms. Monteith testified that the Proposed Development will facilitate intensification within the Urban Corridor and Major Transit Station Area.

26Ms. Monteith also identified that Chapter E, section 2.4 of the UHOP establishes policies for Urban Corridors, which the Subject Property in located within. She went through this section and specifically section 2.4.17 where it is indicated: “Reductions in parking requirements shall be considered in order to encourage a broader range of uses and densities to support existing and planned transit routes”.

27Ms. Monteith opined that the denial of the Minor Variance to reduce visitor parking spaces does not conform to the policy of section 2.4.17 of the UHOP. She opined that the requested variance to eliminate the visitor parking spaces serves to support existing and planned transit routes, not only because it permits more density on the Subject Property, but because it encourages visitors to use the public transit.

28Ms. Monteith opined that UHOP policies prioritize compatible, transit-supportive intensification within the strategic growth area in a manner that supports the requested reduction in visitor parking spaces.

29Ms. Monteith opined that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the UHOP.

30Mr. Barnett also agreed the Proposed Development meets this part of the test.

31The Tribunal accordingly finds that the requested variance meets the intent and purpose of the UHOP.

Does the variance meet the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-Law?

32In a zone TOC3, a multiple dwelling of five or more units is permitted. The requirements for parking in this zone is that no parking spaces for residents are necessary but a minimum of two visitor parking spaces, plus 0.05 visitor parking spaces are required per unit. For the Proposed Development the calculation results in 2.25 visitor parking spaces but is rounded down to 2.

33As per Schedule ‘A’ of the ZBL, the Subject Property is located within the “Parking Rate Area 1 (PRA1)”.

34Ms. Monteith testified that the Application will facilitate the development of the property for a Multiple Dwelling, being a permitted use within the TOC3 Zone and in a manner which complies to all applicable ZBL regulations except the provision of dedicated visitor parking spaces.

35Ms. Monteith testified that the allocation of visitor parking spaces on the Subject Property would be impractical and would require alternative relief from the ZBL.

36Ms. Monteith also testified that the City does not permit non-permit parking on Barnesdale Avenue South of King Street East, however there are on-street non-permit parking options available to visitors within 200 metres of the Subject Property.

37Ms. Monteith opined that with its urban context and with the Subject Property being located within a current transit service and at proximity of two future Light Rail Transit (“LRT”) services planned transit station, extra short-term bicycle parking, on-street non-permit parking options, and general walkability of the surrounding neighbourhood, the proposed reduction in visitor parking spaces maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

38Mr. Barnett testified that there are no commercial parking lots in the proximity that would offer alternative to visitor parking spaces and not many other options for visitor parking spaces.

39Mr. Barnett testified that even though the ZBL was changed to remove the necessity for parking spaces for residents, the visitor parking spaces requirement were maintained. He also added that when the ZBL was amended, the LRT was in the plans.

40Mr. Barnett opined that the visitor parking space requirement is not only for the visitors but also for delivery and services vehicles. Without any visitor parking spaces, it would be difficult for residents to receive deliveries or services for people in need.

41Mr. Barnett opined that the removal of all visitor parking spaces and given the lack of alternative visitor parking options in the area, the Application does not meet the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

42The visual evidence presented to the Tribunal showed that most of the neighbouring properties have no parking in front for visitors, delivery, or service vehicles, and the reduction of visitor parking spaces would not be different for the Subject Property.

43The Tribunal can appreciate the concerns raised by the City but agrees with the expert evidence of Ms. Monteith and accordingly finds that the requested variance meets the intent and purpose of the ZBL.

Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure?

44Ms. Monteith testified that the proposed reduction in visitor parking spaces will prevent the minimal front yard of the Subject Property from continuing to be hardscaped and used for the parking of vehicles. Contrary to most of the residential buildings in the neighbourhood, the Subject Property does not have access to a parking from a rear public lane or alley. By having visitor parking spaces, those spaces would have to be located in front of the Subject Property.

45Ms. Monteith opined that the reduction of the visitor parking spaces represents an improvement to the streetscape in front of the Subject Property and reduction in the potential conflict between pedestrians and vehicles from the current conditions on-site.

46Ms. Monteith testified that the proposed reduction in visitors parking spaces will support the use of existing and future transit and active transportation infrastructure, which aligns with the vision of the Urban Corridor and Major Transit Station Area policies of the UHOP.

47Ms. Monteith opined that the Application is desirable for the appropriate development and maximises the use of the Subject Property.

48Mr. Barnett testified that in his professional opinion the general intention for development within the TOC3 Zone was for smaller properties to be consolidated in order to facilitate a comprehensive and more intensive redevelopment of the lands. Permitting a new Multiple Dwelling on the Subject Property would, in his professional opinion, substantially reduce the likelihood of the lands being included in any future redevelopment and would impede the ability for the lands to be developed in a comprehensive manner with a larger scale development that provides adequate visitor parking spaces.

49Mr. Barnett opined that with limited alternative visitor parking spaces in the proximity, the variance to remove the required on-site visitor parking spaces is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

50The Tribunal cannot agree with Mr. Barnett as to what was the general intention of the City when the property was zoned TOC3 as no evidence was called on this. There is nothing in the evidence that confirmed that the City wanted to facilitate more intensive re-development of the lands.

51The Tribunal agrees with Ms. Monteith’s testimony and agrees that the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure.

Is the variance considered Minor in nature?

52The determination of whether a variance is minor in nature is not a strict question of the quantum of the variance being requested, but rather if the variance results in unacceptable adverse impacts.

53Ms. Monteith testified that the reduction in the required visitor parking spaces is minor in nature because the overall impact of the reduction is positive since it will permit the development of the Subject Property with a building with a proposed setback of 3.0 metres, which is consistent with the neighbourhood and will incorporate soft landscaping, improving the existing streetscape in front of the Subject Property. She also testified that the visitors have the option to park in nearby on-street non-permit parking and that visitors travelling by personal vehicle in this neighbourhood can expect having to park on the street.

54Mr. Barnett testified that due to limited alternative options for visitor parking in the area, the proposed Minor Variance is not considered minor in nature.

55The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms. Monteith and is satisfied that the requested variance is minor in nature.

FINDINGS

56The Tribunal is satisfied with the evidence provided by Ms. Monteith through her testimony and finds that the proposed variance satisfies the four tests of section 45(1) of the Act, has regard to matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS, and constitutes good planning.

ORDER

57THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, and the variance request for the reduction of visitor parking spaces from 2 to 0 is authorized.

“Mathieu E. Quesnel”

MATHIEU E. QUESNEL 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.