Nathan Skeba v. Hamilton (City), 2026 CanLII 7228

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 27, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000748

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

Applicant/Appellant: Nathan Skeba

Subject: Consent - refused by Approval Authority

Description: Sever the existing residential lot into three residential lots to facilitate the development of street townhouses

Reference Number: B-25:038

Property Address: 28 Oakley Court

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000748

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000748

OLT Case Name: Skeba v. Hamilton (City)

Heard: January 19, 2026, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Nathan Skeba	Anna Lu
City of Hamilton	Melanie Benedict (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN MASTORAS ON JANUARY 19, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link To Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is a de novo Hearing, to consider an appeal filed under s. 53(19) of the Planning Act as amended (“Act”), against the City of Hamilton (“City”) regarding a refusal decision from the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) denying a Consent application for severance (“Consent Application”). The property is municipally known as 28 Oakley Court, in the City, which presently consists of an existing single lot and bungalow dwelling unit (“Subject Property”).

2The Consent Application was submitted by Nathan Skeba (“Applicant” / “ Appellant”) who is seeking approval from the Tribunal to ultimately demolish the existing residential dwelling unit, and adjacent shed, severing the Subject Property into a total of three (3) parcels, and allowing for the construction of three (3) new residential townhome dwelling units (“Appeal”).

3Counsel for the City previously advised the Tribunal that the City would not be represented at this de novo Hearing, nor did it intend to participate as a Party to the Consent Application/Appeal.

4For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal delivered an Oral Decision, allowing the Appeal, and the provisional consent to sever the Subject Property into three (3) lots. The Tribunal also determined that the recommended Consent Conditions in accordance with the Planning Staff Report, dated August 7, 2025 (“PSR”), are entirely acceptable, all of which are attached to the Order below, including the replacement of its Condition #12, with an Acknowledgement Note, marked as Attachment B below.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

5The Tribunal’s Decision must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS 2024”), must also be satisfied that the Appeal has regard to s.2 of the Planning Act, and in accordance with s. 53(12) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard for matters listed under s. 51(24) of the Act, along with any other matters of provincial or municipal interest.

6Furthermore, the Tribunal must have regard for the decision by the COA, and the information considered in the course of its hearing, however, is not bound by that decision, and the Consent Application must represent good planning.

PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS

7The Tribunal acknowledged Participant status requests from area neighbours, including Travis Derouin (January 5, 2026) and Phil Paparella (January 8, 2026).

8Concerns from both Participants included, but were not limited to the following:

1. The exacerbation of unsafe road-width conditions, adversely impacting through-traffic, parking conditions and emergency/municipal service vehicle access;
2. Safety concerns for residents, pedestrians, children, cyclists and motorists, noting the absence of sidewalks and poor street lighting conditions, which is inconsistent with the requirements of municipal safety plans and programmes;
3. Stormwater drainage and flooding issues, inherently stemming from the absence of gutters, and stormwater ditches;
4. Precedence with inappropriate density, and long-term impact of “future urbanization” of the neighbouring area, which belongs elsewhere;
5. Reduction/destruction of the urban mature tree canopy coverage, and tree removal/preservation/compensation/protection strategies, root systems issues, and the need for an Arborist report, all at the sole cost to the Applicant;
6. Does not represent good planning, and is not consistent/similar to the existing built-form that exists in the residential neighbourhood, which does not conform to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (“UHOP”); and,
7. A separate petition opposing the Consent Application was also submitted along with the Participant opposition.

9There were no further Status requests presented and there were no objections from Counsel on behalf of the Applicant. Therefore, the Tribunal conferred Participant status to Messrs. Derouin and Paparella.

THE HEARING

10The following Exhibits were submitted for the purposes of the Hearing:

1. Notice of Hearing; and,
2. Document Book of the Appellant.

EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

11Following a general summary of the Appeal, the only witness present was Scott Beedie, who was duly qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert land use planning opinion evidence, in support of the Consent Application. Mr. Beedie has been engaged with the Appellant since September 2025, following the COA decision, dated August 14, 2025, and provided a detailed overview of the Appeal, frequently referencing evidence from his Witness Statement (Exhibit 2, TAB 3). He reiterated that the PSR, as submitted to the COA, recommended approval of the Consent Application, noting that there were a total of sixteen (16) Conditions, modified now to consist of fifteen (15) Conditions, with an Acknowledgement Note, that replaced Condition #12.

12Mr. Beedie described the Subject Property as a site that is generally rectangular, in shape, with a lot size of approximately 0.07 hectares (“ha”), a width of 22.86 metres (“m”), and a depth of 30.48 m. The Subject Property is located west of Fiddler’s Green Road and Oakley intersection and is surrounded predominantly by single-storey/ two-storey residential dwellings, and a number of one and two-storey townhomes to the north and south. The residential community is primarily served by local bus transit (Bus Route 16), which also serves the greater Ancaster community, connecting to other urban neighbourhoods.

13Mr. Beedie outlined the proposed development (“Proposal”) which will consist of of 3-newly constructed townhome dwellings, by adding an additional two lots, to the east of the Retained lot, with an existing residential dwelling (to be demolished), and within the Subject Property’s total area of 207.86 square metres (“m2”). The Proposal will consist of two new lot lines along the proposed shared walls of the townhomes, ultimately forming a newly-constructed, street townhouse block.

14The above survey depicts the underlying intentions from the Applicant, noting that more detailed architectural drawings would follow that may be subject to further applications seeking variances, if necessary, before the City, and is addressed in Conditions 4 and 5 below.

THE PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT 2024

15Mr. Beedie, opined that the Proposal maintains consistency with the overarching components of the PPS 2024, focused on Chapter 2.1.6, which states:

Planning authorities should support the achievement of complete communities by:

a) accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing options, transportation options with multimodal access, employment, public service facilities and other institutional uses (including schools and associated child care facilities, longterm care facilities, places of worship and cemeteries), recreation, parks and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs;

b) improving accessibility for people of all ages and abilities by addressing land use barriers which restrict their full participation in society; and

c) improving social equity and overall quality of life for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes, including equity-deserving groups.

16The Witness Statement references that the Subject Property is also within a Settlement Area, as defined in the PPS 2024, which allows for diverse low density residential uses, which in this case, conforms to the City Zoning By-law (“CZBL”).

THE PLANNING ACT

17Regarding Section 2 of the Act, Mr. Beedie opined that the applicable matters of provincial interest include:

a) The protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions;

d) The conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest;

e) The supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water;

f) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage, and water services and waste management systems;

h.1) The accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to which this Act applies;

i) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;

n) The protection of public health and safety;

o) The appropriate location of growth and development;

q) The promotion of built form that,

i. is well-designed,

ii. encourages a sense of place, and

iii. provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant;

18Mr. Beedie expands further through his Witness Statement, related to each of the above-noted matters of interest (Exhibit 2, pgs.20-23), concluding that the Consent Application has the appropriate regard for s.2 of the Act, and by reiterating that the Conditions, as proposed, assures that the Proposal meets this legislative requirement.

19Furthermore, under s.53(12) of the Act, the approval authority must have regard for matters listed under section 51(24) of the Act, in reviewing the Consent Application.

20Mr. Beedie opined that the Proposal meets the criteria established under Section 51(24) and summarized through his testimony, the reasons for this, but more extensively referenced his Witness Statement (pgs.23-25). The Tribunal noted a few of the following highlights, which assert that the Proposal:

• Appropriately increases the supply of housing within existing infrastructure;
• Among a number of Conditions, the Applicant is required to provide a Stormwater Management strategy, and the execution of a Development Agreement;
• Represents gentle intensification, maintains the character, and is compatible with the surrounding area, with frontage on a public road;
• Complies with the CZBL;
• Provides for a detailed Tree Protection Plan, which contains an Arborist Report, and is expected to provide for conservation measures, and protection of natural resources, along with flood control measures as needed; and,
• Is not subject to a requirement for a Site Plan Control, as no designation for such a requirement exists in this area.

URBAN HAMILTON OFFICIAL PLAN

21Mr. Beedie outlined that the UHOP, as originally approved in 2011, and then in 2022, designates the Subject Property as Neighbourhoods, which consists of “residential uses, and complementary facilities and services,” and that this type of Proposal is encouraged in such circumstances.

22Mr. Beedie further outlined the Proposal’s conformity against a number of sections within the UHOP, more extensively through his Witness Statement (Exhibit 2, paras. 36-57). Additionally, during oral testimony, he focused on the UHOP Section B.2.4.1.4 in particular, by addressing the following criteria for evaluating residential intensification within the built up area, including but not limited to:

a) A balanced evaluation of the criteria in b) through g) as follows;

b) the relationship of the proposed development to existing neighbourhood character so that it builds upon desirable established patterns and built form;

c) the contribution of the proposed development to maintaining and achieving a range of dwelling types and tenures;

d) the compatible integration of the proposed development with the surrounding area in terms of use, scale, form and character. In this regard, the City encourages the use of innovative and creative urban design techniques;

e) the contribution of the proposed development to achieving the planned urban structure as described in Section E.2.0 – Urban Structure;

f) existing and planned water, wastewater and stormwater capacity;

g) the incorporation and utilization of green infrastructure and sustainable design elements in the proposed development;

h) the contribution of the proposed development to supporting and facilitating active transportation modes;

i) the contribution of the development to be transit-supportive and supporting the use of existing and planned local and regional transit services;

j) the availability and location of existing and proposed public community facilities/services;

k) the ability of the development to retain and/or enhance the natural attributes of the site and surrounding community including, but not limited to native vegetation and trees; and,

l) compliance of the proposed development with all other applicable policies.

23The testimony was quite detailed, relating to the above criteria, and by way of general summary, Mr. Beedie concluded that the Proposal is a permitted use, provides for a broad range of housing options, that also serves a range of socio-economic cohorts, and maintains consistency with the variety of housing that already exists within the surrounding area.

CITY ZONING BY-LAW

24Mr. Beedie very importantly testified that as of February 23, 2024, “the City created the Low Density Residential – Large Lot (R2) Zone, and applied to numerous properties throughout the City, including the Subject [Property].” Mr. Beedie expands with extensive detail in his Witness Statement (Exhibit 2, pg.18), on the general and specific thrust of the changes implemented by the City, which “[eliminates] exclusionary zoning, across 40 Low Density Residential Zones, [incorporates] permissions for conversions of existing dwellings to up to four (4) units, develop new permissions for the as of right development of triplex and fourplex dwelling units and to [develops] new Residential Zones in the [CZBL].”

25Mr. Beedie further opined that this Proposal, represents gentle intensification, in line with this new objective, and noted that the lots to be created meet and exceed the minimum thresholds for developable area at approximately 207 metres squared (“m²”), and lot widths of approximately 6.82m.

26Mr. Beedie also concluded that “ The development represents an appropriate form of intensification within a built-up area located in proximity to transit and municipal servicing opportunities.” He further opined that “the proposed severance and resulting [Proposal] support the intent, goals, and objectives of the ‘Neighbourhoods’ designation and meets the regulations which implement the general intent of the UHOP and City Zoning By-Law.”

PARTICIPANT SUBMISSIONS AND COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

27Mr. Beedie reiterated that through his uncontested Witness Statement, all of the concerns of area residents have been appropriately addressed and referenced his response to each of the concerns (Exhibit 2, pgs.34-36).

28The Tribunal generally summarized Mr. Beedie’s rebuttals as follows:

a) Traffic and Parking - there were no objections or concerns from the City Transportation Planning department, also noting that minimum parking provisions would apply to the Proposal;

b) The CZBL will regulate any setback, built form, and massing concerns once more detailed plans are submitted;

c) Regarding density, grading, servicing, and Stormwater Management, he notes that the Applicant is required to satisfy the City, through the various Conditions, as more detailed design drawings come forward;

d) Regarding scale, lot coverage, transition, and other concerns, all should be considered within the context of the UHOP policies, which point to this Proposal as maintaining consistency with good land use planning;

e) Compatibility with the surrounding area is clearly defined in the UHOP as not to mean “the same as” or even as “being similar to”.

29Inherent in Mr. Beedie’s testimony, it was made clear that he differed with the COA decision (TAB 4), which states that the Proposal:

• conflicts with the intent of the Urban/Rural Hamilton Official Plan UHOP;
• contravenes Zoning By-law requirements;
• is not in keeping with development in the area; and,
• requires that a plan of subdivision is necessary for the proper and orderly development of the lands.

30The COA decision also stated that submissions (neighbouring objections) made regarding this matter affected the decision to deny the Consent Application.

TRIBUNAL FINDINGS

31After considering the uncontroverted Witness testimony, and all of the land use planning rationale associated with the Appeal, the Tribunal finds that the Consent Application: has regard for the Provincial interests of s. 2 of the Act; is consistent with the PPS; and conforms to the overall intent of the UHOP. The Consent Application also achieves the objectives as set out in the City’s Zoning By-Law and represents good planning in the public interest and has appropriate regard to the listed criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act.

32The Consent Application creates a total of three (3) lots and does not require a plan of subdivision, or Site Plan Application, and no further variances were part of the August COA hearing. Nonetheless, the numerous conditions set out in the PSR, agreed to by the Appellant, will serve to ensure a redevelopment that is optimal, and will complement the existing variety of dwelling unit types already in existence in the surrounding area.

33Furthermore, based on the evidence, it is not anticipated that these dwellings will create any additional pressure on municipal infrastructure or services, and represent an opportunity to renew the Subject Property in a manner that will surely improve on the currently existing single residential dwelling.

34The Proposal also has regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, as the consent involves an existing permitted use and is therefore not premature and is consistent with uses in the surrounding area. Finally, in its determinations, the Tribunal has also shown appropriate regard for the refusal decision of the COA, as noted above.

ORDER

35THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

36The appeal by Nathan Skeba is allowed, and the provisional consent to sever the lands known municipally known as 28 Oakley Court in the City of Hamilton into three (3) lots is to be given, subject to the following conditions:

1. The plans are substantially in accordance with the severance sketch, as submitted by B.A Jacobs Surveying Ltd., and set out below in Attachment “A”, which is hereby approved;
2. The severances are subject to the list of fifteen (15) provisional consent conditions, containing the added Acknowledgement Note, as attached hereto in Attachment “B”, which is also hereby approved.

37The Tribunal may be spoken to concerning issues arising from the implementation of this Order.

“Steven T. Mastoras”

STEVEN T. MASTORAS

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.