City of Hamilton v. 330113 Ontario Incorporated, 2026 CanLII 41002

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 27, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001289

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

Appellant: City of Hamilton

Applicant: 330113 Ontario Incorporated

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit the severance of 1 parcel of land from the existing property and to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling on the newly created lot.

Reference Number: FL/A-20:04

Property Address: 177 Hwy 8

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001289

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001289

OLT Case Name: Hamilton (City) v. Hamilton (City)

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

Appellant: City of Hamilton

Applicant: 330113 Ontario Incorporated

Subject: Consent

Description: To permit the severance of 1 parcel of land from the existing property and to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling on the newly created lot.

Reference Number: FL/B-20:01

Property Address: 177 Hwy 8

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001290

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001289

Heard: March 25, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

City of Hamilton ("Appellant" / "City")

Melanie Benedict

330113 Ontario Incorporated ("Applicant")

Anna Toumanians

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU ON MARCH 25, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Decision

INTRODUCTION

1The appeals arise under s.45(12) and 53(19) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”) by the Appellant with respect to the City’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) approval of the application for minor variances and consent (“Applications”) initiated by the Applicant on the lands municipally known as 177 Highway 8, Flamborough (“Subject Lands”). The intent of the Applications is to permit the severance of one (1) parcel of land from the existing property and the construction of a single detached dwelling on the newly created lot.

2The City advised the Tribunal in writing that a settlement had been reached between the Applicant and the City.

CONTEXT

3The Subject Lands are currently vacant and have a lot area of approximately (“approx.”) 18.4 hectares in irregular shape. The Subject Lands have a frontage of approximately 40 metres (“m”) along Oak Avenue and approximately 110m fronting Highway 8.

4The Subject Lands are surrounded by agricultural uses with single-detached dwelling units to the west and single-detached dwelling units to the east.

5The most southern portion of the Subject Lands (located to the south of Oak Avenue) contain significant woodland areas and forms part of the Niagara Escarpment. The Applications propose a residential development on the northern half position of the Subject Lands.

6Municipal services are unavailable on the Subject Lands. The Applications propose to service the Subject Lands with private water and wastewater systems. The municipal solid waste collection is available on the Subject Lands.

7The Subject Lands are located within an Escarpment Rural Area and within a Minor Urban Centre in the Niagara Escarpment Plan (“NEP”). The southerly portion of the lands are designated Escarpment Natural Area. The Subject Lands are not subject to NEP Control.

8The Rural Hamilton Official Plan (“RHOP”) designates the Subject Lands as Greensville, Rural Settlement Area and Open Space on Schedule D – Rural Land Use Designations, and Settlement Residential and Natural Open Space (Hazard Lands) on Map 8a: Greensville Rural Settlement Area.

9The Subject Lands are split-zoned within the former Town of Flamborough Zoning By-law No. 90-145-Z (“Town ZBL”). The northern portion of the Subject Lands are zoned Settlement Residential Zone R2-24(H) and Conservation Management “CM” Zone. The R2-24(H) Zone of the Town ZBL allows single-detached dwellings. The Holding Provision excludes conditions for lifting, which is acknowledged by the Applicant.

10The southern portion of the Subject Lands are zoned Conservation/Hazard Land Rural (P6) Zone within the City of Hamilton 05-200 Zoning By-Law (“City ZBL”). The P6 Zone of City ZBL does not permit new buildings and structures, and no dwellings are proposed on the southern portion of the Subject Lands.

11The Applications proposed access for the new single-detached dwellings from the existing cul-de-sac.

12The Applicant originally sought the approval of the Applications to facilitate one single-detached dwelling unit. The intent of the consent application is to sever one parcel of land from the Subject Lands.

Consent application:

Frontage

Depth

Area

Severed Lands

Approx. 30.0m in width, 20m of which are fronting Oak Avenue

Irregular shaped lot

Approx.8 hectares (including Block 9 of Registered Plan of Subdivision 62M-903. Block 9 is about 1,578 square metres)

Retained Lands

Approx. 24.0m along Oak Avenue and approx. 111m along Highway 8

Irregular shaped lot

Approx.10 hectares

Minor Variance application:

Severed Lands: To permit a minimum lot frontage of 28.7m, whereas 30m is required.

Retained Lands: To permit a minimum lot frontage of 24.0m. whereas 30m is required.

13City Staff recommended to the Applicant that the Applications should be tabled to allow the Staff to discuss the Applications with the Applicant. The COA conditionally approved the original Applications despite the Staffs’ conclusion of not supporting the minor variance application without the Applications being tabled.

14In the settlement proposal, the Parties agreed on the approval of amended Applications subject to the conditions. The settlement proposal indicates that the severed lands will have frontage onto Oak Avenue, and the retained lands will have frontage onto Highway No.8 and Oak Avenue subject to the approval of the severance application.

Consent application:

Frontage (m)

Depth (m)

Area (square m)

Lands to be Severed (Part 2)

Approx. 60.0

Approx. 596

Approx. 81,729 .0

Lands to be Retained (Part 1):

Approx. 24.0

Approx. 601

Approx.104,517.0

Conditions of Approval of Consent Application (“Conditions”):

The owner shall submit a deposited Ontario Land Surveyor’s Reference Plan to the Committee of Adjustment Office, unless exempted by the Land Registrar. The reference plan must be submitted in pdf and CAD format, drawn at true scale and location and tied to the City corporate coordinate system. (Committee of Adjustment Section).
The owner shall pay any outstanding realty taxes and/or all other charges owing to the City Treasurer. (Committee of Adjustment Section).
The owner submits to the Committee of Adjustment office an administration fee, payable to the City of Hamilton, to cover the costs of setting up a new tax account for each newly created lot. (Committee of Adjustment Section).
The owner submits a Hydrogeological Report prepared by a qualified professional (P.Eng., P.Geo.) to the satisfaction of Director, Hamilton Water. The Hydrogeological Report will be completed in support of the proposed severance, and will include:

(i) wastewater assessment;

(ii) water supply assessment; and,

(iii) a site plan demonstrating that the minimum setback requirements in Section 8 of the Ontario Building Codes are maintained. The study shall demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse impacts on the quantity and quality of groundwater and surface water resources due to the proposed development.

The “Updated Proposed Hydrogeological Study Terms of Reference” prepared by Terra- Dynamics Inc., dated May 16, 2025 (as amended to the approval of Source Protection Planning), will be utilized to inform the scope of the proposed Hydrogeological Study, however additional work may be required in accordance with the City’s Hydrogeological Guideline (https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/2023-06/pedpolicies-guidelines-hydrogeological-studies-2023.pdf) should any concerns arise from the results of the applicant’s study.

That the Owner enter into with the City of Hamilton and register on title of the lands, a Consent Agreement, including the current administration fee to address issues including but not limited to: grading and drainage to a suitable outlet on the conveyed and retained parcels (detailed grading plan required), erosion and sediment control measures (to be included on the grading plan); cash payment requirements for items such as street trees (City policy requires one (1) street tree/lot, stormwater management infrastructure and securities for items that may include: lot grading ($10,000.00 grading security), driveway approaches, and any damage during construction (unknown costs at this time). Cash payments mentioned above are subject to change (To the Director of development Engineering and City’s Source Protection Section).
That the owner shall receive final and binding approval of minor variance application FL/A- 20:04 (To the satisfaction of the Director of Heritage and Urban Design).
The Owner is to convey to the City an approximate ±5.0 metre Right-of-Way dedication on Highway 8, for a total Right-of-Way of approximately 25.3 metres. The exact dimension of Right-of-Way to be dedicated is to be confirmed by staff with Geomatics & Corridor Management (corrplan@hamilton.ca) and the condition cleared by Transportation Planning (tplanning@hamilton.ca) subject to the satisfaction and approval of the Manager, Transportation Planning.
The owner shall prepare a Landscape Plan for the Severed Lands (Part 2) showing a proposed 1.8m tall fence in the same location as Figure 3 of the Environmental Impact Study Addendum prepared by North-South Environmental, dated November 11, 2024, to the satisfaction and approval of the Director, Heritage and Design.
The owner shall prepare a Tree Protection Plan over the Severed Lands (Part 2), to the satisfaction of the Director, Heritage and Design.
The owner shall prepare a Vegetation Enhancement Plan for the area identified in the same location as Figure 3 of the Environmental Impact Study Addendum prepared by North-South Environmental, dated November 11, 2024, to the satisfaction and approval of the Director, Heritage and Design.
That the proponent shall carry out an archaeological assessment scoped to the building envelope and access to it, however, this includes the location of the structure, any associated landscaping, septic fields and septic tank, any areas that are graded and/or landscaped, any plantings of trees and other plants, driveway and access road, temporary construction access and workspace and storage space, and any other soil disturbing activity and mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found. No demolition, grading, construction activities, landscaping, staging, stockpiling or other soil disturbances shall take place on the subject property prior to the approval of the Director of Planning confirming that all archaeological resource concerns have met conservation requirements.

All archaeological reports shall be submitted to the City of Hamilton concurrent with their submission to the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries. Should deeply buried archaeological materials be found on the property during any of the above development activities the Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) should be notified immediately (416.314.7143). In the event that human remains are encountered during construction, the proponent should immediately contact both MHSTCI and the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Small Business and Consumer Services (416.326.8392).

Notes:

The lands municipally known as 177 Highway No. 8 in Hamilton are currently under the Flamborough Zoning By-law No. 90-145-Z and subject to a Holding Provision (H). Please note that Section 4.5 of the By-law states that where the zone symbol on Schedules A-1 to A-48 inclusive has the suffix (H), no lot shall be used or no building or structure shall be erected, located or used therein except for the following purposes until the suffix (H) has been removed from the zone symbol by a by-law passed pursuant to Sections 34 and 35(4) of the Planning Act as amended from time to time:

(a) Existing Uses; and,

(b) General provisions in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 hereof.

Minor variance application:

Lands to be Severed (Part 2):

Notwithstanding the minimum setbacks for an R2-24 Zone, a minimum Setback of 7.5m shall be required from the southerly and easterly lot lines.
Notwithstanding the minimum setbacks for an R2-24 Zone, a minimum Setback of 13.3m shall be required from the westerly side lot line.
Notwithstanding the minimum setbacks for an R2-24 Zone, a minimum Setback of 10m shall be required from the northerly side lot line.

Lands to be Retained (Part 1):

A lot frontage of 24.0m shall be provided instead of the minimum required lot frontage of 30.0m.

NOTE: Retained Lands (Part 1) are subject to a Holding Provision (H) within Zoning By-law No. 90-145-Z. Any future development proposed on Part 1 will be subject to the necessary studies to the satisfaction of the City of Hamilton. No development can occur on these lands until such time as the proponent submits a Formal Consultation Application to the City of Hamilton and appropriate development standards are identified.

NOTE: Severed Lands (Part 2) are subject to a Holding Provision (H) within Zoning By-law No. 90-145-Z. The proponent is required to submit an application to lift the Holding Provision (H) from the subject lands prior to any development occurring on the severed lands.

STATUS REQUEST

15The Tribunal received and granted the requested Party status to the Applicant with consent from the City.

EXHIBITS

16The affidavit of Ryan Ferrari was marked as “Exhibit 1” during the Hearing.

NOTICE OF HEARING

17There is no issue with Notice of this Hearing.

EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Evidence

18The Tribunal qualified Mr. Ryan Ferrari, a registered Professional Planner and full member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and the Canadian Institute of Planners, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning.

19Mr. Ferrari indicated that the overall nature of the development remained the same and minor changes were made to the Applications. He added that the revised Applications and the Conditions had been modified to address the City’s concerns about matters related to natural heritage, adequate private servicing and cultural heritage.

20In Mr. Ferrari’s opinion, subsections (a), (d), (f), (h), (p), (r) and (s) of s.2 of the Act are applicable to the Applications based on the nature of the Applications and relevant policies of the RHOP and provisions of the Town ZBL and the City ZBL. Further, he indicated that the Applicant had submitted necessary studies and reports to address matters related to ecological protection, natural heritage features, and significant Archaeological features. Mr. Ferrari added that the Applications represented efficient use of the lands and existing infrastructure and orderly development of healthy and safe communities while significant natural and archeological features would be properly protected. Mr. Ferrari concluded that the Applications had regards to matters under s.2 of the Act.

21Further, Mr. Ferrari provided his overview of relevant policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”) while considering the Applications. He cited s.2.6.1 and 2.2.1 of the PPS to support the Applications, which represented an efficient use of a large parcel of land within a settlement area boundary and were consistent with these policies.

22In addition, Mr. Ferrari opined that the Applications provided additional housing to support the needs of the community and promoted appropriate development within the existing neighbourhood while maintaining consistency with s.2.5 of PPS. He also repeated that the Applications proposed efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure, including the constructed road, water, and wastewater systems to be built. As such, Mr. Ferrari indicated that applicable policies under s.3 of PPS were considered in the Applications and that no inconsistency was identified during the assessment.

23In terms of the protection of natural, archeological and agricultural resources, Mr. Ferrari expressed his opinion that relevant policies under s.4 of the PPS 2024 had been considered and addressed in the proposal and by submitting additional studies providing mitigation measures as required in the Conditions.

24Lastly, Mr. Ferrari confirmed that the Applications did not propose structures or dwelling within or adjacent to hazards identified on the Subject Lands. It is Mr. Ferrari’s conclusion that the Applications were consistent with the entirety of the PPS.

25In Mr. Ferrari’s evidence, he examined s.1.6.8.1 to 1.6.8.7 of the NEP that speak to how to proceed with the development within Minor Urban Centres and further defer to the local Official Plan for detailed land use issues. It is the view of Mr. Ferrari that the Applications were compatible with the character of the neighbourhood and responsible pursuant to the specified policies of the NEP. Further, he indicated that the Applications represented compatible growth and had no impacts on natural and cultural heritage features. Therefore, he concluded that the Applications conform to the relevant policies of the NEP.

26Mr. Ferrari considered s.1.2 General Policies that speak to developments within Rural Settlement Areas identified in RHOP. He confirmed that a single-detached dwelling was permitted on the Subject Lands subject to the conditions as described under s.1.2.4 of the RHOP. Further, Mr. Ferrari reviewed the conditions under s.1.2.4 and held the opinion that these conditions had been considered and addressed through the Conditions. In addition, he opined that there was no impact nor change to the existing settlement area boundary identified in the RHOP and both lots met the minimum lot size requirements of 0.4 hectares (1acre) to accommodate future servicing requirements as described in policy 5.1 of the RHOP.

27In Mr. Ferrari’s statement, he indicates that policies 1.3.1 and 1.7 of the RHOP speak to the permitted uses and restrictions on the development on the lands designated as Natural Open Space (Hazard Lands), respectively. He repeated that the Applications did not propose any development to the lands with the designation of Natural Open Space (Hazard Lands) and confirmed that Hamilton Region Conservation Authority had no comments nor objections to the Applications. Therefore, he opined that the Applications conformed to these two policies of RHOP.

28It is Mr. Ferrari’s opinion that the Applications were compatible with the Greensville Rural Settlement Area – predominantly consisting of single-detached dwellings, and the Consent application to facilitate a new single-detached dwelling conformed to the Greensville Rural Settlement Area Plan and the lot creation policies of the RHOP. Mr. Ferrari also opined that the Applications were consistent with the planned form of residential growth for the area as encouraged by the policies for new development within Rural Settlement Areas of the RHOP.

29Mr. Ferrari explored relevant policies of RHOP for the Applications in the settlement proposal. He confirmed that the Subject Lands are located within an area of archaeological potential under the RHOP and Condition number 11 of the Conditions was sufficient to address this policy.

30Mr. Ferrari also presented his overview of the policies related to Natural Heritage Features under subsection 2.0 of Chapter C – City Wide Systems and Designations. He confirmed that key natural features, located to the south of the Subject Lands, were beyond the development area for the future single-detached dwelling unit. Further, Mr. Ferrari confirmed the Environmental Impact Assessment identified an existing wildlife corridor on the Subject Lands and provided appropriate mitigation measures to mitigate impacts on this corridor. He added that these measures were required in the Conditions.

31In addition, Mr. Ferrari discussed the policies of RHOP related to the land dedication for road widening and services for the new lots. He indicated that these matters had been addressed through the requirement of the conveyance and a Hydrogeological Study included in the Conditions.

32In conclusion, Mr. Ferrari opined that the Consent application conforms to the RHOP.

33Mr. Ferrari demonstrated his overview of criteria through (a) to (d), (f), and (k) under s.51(24) of the Act. He stated that the Subject Lands were suitable for the intended use. In Mr. Ferrari’s opinion, the Consent application was of provincial interest and was not premature.

34Mr. Ferrari added that the Applicant was acknowledged and agreed on the conditions in the settlement proposal, including the land conveyance to the City for road widening. Mr. Ferrari opined that this condition satisfied the criteria of s.51(24)(k) regarding conveying or dedicating any land to the City for public purposes.

35Mr. Ferrari presented the Conditions with respect to s.51(25) of the Act. In his opinion, these conditions detailed the requirements of necessary fees, land dedication to the City, and additional studies to address the City’s concerns as mentioned above. He lastly summarized that the conditions were reasonable.

36Finally, Mr. Ferrari concluded that the Consent application met the appliable criteria as set out under s.51(24) of the Act.

Four Tests review for minor variance applications

Lands to be Severed (Part 2)

37Mr. Ferrari assessed the minor variance application on the Lands to be severed from the built form, location, and size of the new single-detached dwelling with respect to relevant policies of the RHOP. He indicated that the general intent of the relevant policies of the RHOP was to ensure the new dwelling would be located at an appropriate location and be compatible with the existing rural character of the neighbourhood, that being comprised of large lots with single-detached dwellings with large setbacks. In Mr. Ferrari’s opinion, the minor variance application on the Lands to be severed maintain the general intent and purpose of the RHOP despite the variances to the setbacks.

38Mr. Ferrari stated that the overall intent of the R2 Zone was to facilitate developments on large lots with large setbacks and to maintain the rural character of the neighbourhood. He held the opinion that the variances on the Lands to be severed were proposed to provide adequate setbacks applied to protect identified natural features and maximize on-site tree protection while maintaining the general intent and purpose of the Town ZBL and City ZBL.

39Mr. Ferrari expressed his opinion that the minor variance application on the Lands to be severed was desirable to the appropriate development of the lands as this application proposes to match the rural character of the neighbourhood and would add housing to the area.

40Lastly, he indicated that this application would not result in any negative impact, including visual, shadowing, overlook or traffic on the neighbouring properties, and therefore, Mr. Ferrari concluded that this application on the lands to be severed was considered minor in nature.

Lands to be Retained (Part 1)

41It is the expressed opinion of Mr. Ferrari that the RHOP was intended to permit appropriate residential intensification and further ensure that the infill development be compatible with the neighbourhood. He confirmed that the minor variance application on the Lands to be retained proposed a proper lot size for the development for a suitable building envelope and would be in keeping with the wide variety of existing rural development patterns in the neighbourhood. In conclusion, Mr. Ferrari opined that this application maintained the general intent of the RHOP.

42Mr. Ferrari further stated that the general intent and purpose of the minimum lot width requirements in the Town ZBL was to ensure the development maintains the character of the existing neighbourhood and be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

43Mr. Ferrari added that, according to the Town ZBL, this lot would be classified as a through lot as it has frontages along both Highway 8 (approx.111m) and Oak Avenue (approx. 24m). Mr. Ferrari further referenced the relevant provisions in the Town ZBL and indicated that Oak Avenue (the shorter lot line of the lot lines abutting the street) would be the front lot line.

44In Mr. Ferrari’s opinion, this application for the variance to lot frontage was appropriate and the lot would function properly to accommodate a single-detached dwelling on the lands. He concluded that this application maintained the general intent of the Town ZBL and was desirable for the appropriate development of the lands to be retained.

45In summary, Mr. Ferrari held the opinion that the variance to the frontage had no anticipated impact on the adjacent properties and could be considered minor in nature.

46Mr. Ferrari repeated that, collectively, the application for minor variances on the Subject Lands met all of the four tests set out in s.45(1) of the Act.

Analysis and Findings

47In the view of the Tribunal, the Applications will increase the housing supply in the neighbourhood by properly utilizing the existing infrastructure and the planned private services on the Subject Lands under the current planning policy framework. The Tribunal further accepts the opinion evidence of the expert witness that the Applications are compatible with the character of rural settlement areas and the immediately surrounding neighbourhood.

48The Tribunal also agrees with Mr. Ferrari’s assessment that the Applications will not impose negative impacts on the identified on-site natural and heritage features nor on the adjacent properties.

49The Tribunal acknowledges the effort of the Parties to reach the agreement on the final Applications and on the Conditions. The Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of Mr. Ferrari and finds that the Applications are appropriate and the Conditions are reasonable.

CONCLUSION

50In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the Applications have regards to s.2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS 2024, conform to the Niagara Escarpment Plan, are of the public interest, and,

Consent application

the Consent application meets the applicable criteria as set out in s.51(24) of the Act;

Minor variance application

the Minor Variance application meets the four tests as set out in s.45(1) of the Act, as follows:

the minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City OP;
the minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the former Town ZBL and the City ZBL;
the minor variances are considered desirable for the appropriate use of the lands; and,
the minor variances are considered minor in nature.

ORDER

51THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

the appeals are allowed, in part;
the provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions, as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order; and,
variances to Zoning By-law No. 90-145-Z, listed in Appendix A, are authorized.

“L.P. You”

L.P. YOU

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

Conditions of Approval

PURPOSE AND EFFECT: To sever the Subject Lands into two parcels. The severed lands will have frontage onto Oak Avenue, and the retained lands will have frontage onto Highway No.8 and Oak Avenue subject to the approval of the severance application:

Consent application:

Frontage (m)

Depth (m)

Area (square m)

Lands to be Severed (Part 2)

Approx. 60.0

Approx. 596

Approx. 81,729 .0

Lands to be Retained (Part 1):

Approx. 24.0

Approx. 601

Approx.104,517.0

Conditions of approval of Consent Application:

The owner shall submit a deposited Ontario Land Surveyor’s Reference Plan to the Committee of Adjustment Office, unless exempted by the Land Registrar. The reference plan must be submitted in pdf and CAD format, drawn at true scale and location and tied to the City corporate coordinate system. (Committee of Adjustment Section).
The owner shall pay any outstanding realty taxes and/or all other charges owing to the City Treasurer. (Committee of Adjustment Section).
The owner submits to the Committee of Adjustment office an administration fee, payable to the City of Hamilton, to cover the costs of setting up a new tax account for each newly created lot. (Committee of Adjustment Section).
“The owner submits a Hydrogeological Report prepared by a qualified professional (P.Eng., P.Geo.) to the satisfaction of Director, Hamilton Water. The Hydrogeological Report will be completed in support of the proposed severance, and will include:

(i) wastewater assessment;

(ii) water supply assessment; and,

(iii) a site plan demonstrating that the minimum setback requirements in Section 8 of the Ontario Building Codes is maintained. The study shall demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse impacts on the quantity and quality of groundwater and surface water resources due to the proposed development.

That the Owner enter into with the City of Hamilton and register on title of the lands, a Consent Agreement, including the current administration fee to address issues including but not limited to: grading and drainage to a suitable outlet on the conveyed and retained parcels (detailed grading plan required), erosion and sediment control measures (to be included on the grading plan); cash payment requirements for items such as street trees (City policy requires one (1) street tree/lot, stormwater management infrastructure and securities for items that may include: lot grading ($10,000.00 grading security), driveway approaches, and any damage during construction (unknown costs at this time). Cash payments mentioned above are subject to change (To the Director of development Engineering and City’s Source Protection Section).
That the owner shall receive final and binding approval of minor variance application FL/A- 20:04 (To the satisfaction of the Director of Heritage and Urban Design).
The Owner is to convey to the City an approximate ±5.0 metre Right-of-Way dedication on Highway 8, for a total Right-of-Way of approximately 25.3 metres. The exact dimension of Right-of-Way to be dedicated is to be confirmed by staff with Geomatics & Corridor Management (corrplan@hamilton.ca) and the condition cleared by Transportation Planning (tplanning@hamilton.ca) subject to the satisfaction and approval of the Manager, Transportation Planning.
The owner shall prepare a Landscape Plan for the Severed Lands (Part 2) showing a proposed 1.8m tall fence in the same location as Figure 3 of the Environmental Impact Study Addendum prepared by North-South Environmental, dated November 11, 2024, to the satisfaction and approval of the Director, Heritage and Design.
The owner shall prepare a Tree Protection Plan over the Severed Lands (Part 2), to the satisfaction of the Director, Heritage and Design.
The owner shall prepare a Vegetation Enhancement Plan for the area identified in the same location as Figure 3 of the Environmental Impact Study Addendum prepared by North-South Environmental, dated November 11, 2024, to the satisfaction and approval of the Director, Heritage and Design.
That the proponent shall carry out an archaeological assessment scoped to the building envelope and access to it, however, this includes the location of the structure, any associated landscaping, septic fields and septic tank, any areas that are graded and/or landscaped, any plantings of trees and other plants, driveway and access road, temporary construction access and workspace and storage space, and any other soil disturbing activity and mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found. No demolition, grading, construction activities, landscaping, staging, stockpiling or other soil disturbances shall take place on the subject property prior to the approval of the Director of Planning confirming that all archaeological resource concerns have met conservation requirements.

Notes:

(a) Existing Uses; and,

(b) General provisions in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 hereof.

Appendix A

Lands to be Severed (Part 2):

Notwithstanding the minimum setbacks for an R2-24 Zone, a minimum Setback of 7.5m shall be required from the southerly and easterly lot lines.
Notwithstanding the minimum setbacks for an R2-24 Zone a minimum Setback of 13.3m shall be required from the westerly side lot line.
Notwithstanding the minimum setbacks for an R2-24 Zone a minimum Setback of 10m shall be required from the northerly side lot line.

Lands to be Retained (Part 1):

A lot frontage of 24.0m shall be provided instead of the minimum required lot frontage of 30.0m.