Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 02, 2026 CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000145
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Melissa Lloyd Subject: Minor Variance Description: MV to permit use of easement over Township road Reference Number: A-07/23 Property Address: 7083 Lake Street (Part Lot 3 RCP 427 Hamilton Part 1, 39R720,0 T/W NC315935 Township of Hamilton, PIN 511140485) Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton OLT Case No: OLT-24-000145 OLT Case Name: Lloyd v. Hamilton (Twp.)
Heard: January 28, 2026 by Written Motion
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Melissa Lloyd (“Appellant”) | Raivo Uukkivi |
| Hamilton Township (“Township”) | Jennifer Savini |
DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SAUVE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This written Hearing was convened when the Appellant appealed the Minor Variance (“MV”) decision made by the Township which denied the requested variance to permit the use of an easement over an existing Township Road that is currently being used and maintained by a subdivision for access. A Merit Hearing was held on October 1, 2024 and November 6, 2024. An Interim Decision was issued on August 12, 2025. A rehearing was ordered by the Tribunal on October 29, 2025.
2A settlement has since been agreed upon by the Parties and a Minutes of Settlement has been executed.
3The Parties, with this Motion, are requesting a MV from section 5.26 of the Township Zoning By-law (“ZBL”), which prohibits development on lots not fronting a Township Road/Public Road/Street or County Road. Relief from this section is required for the subject property to proceed with residential development.
4Other variances were requested (sections 5.27, 5.29, and 13.3.1 of the ZBL) within the application however the Parties no longer believe they are necessary.
PLANNING CONTEXT
5The subject property is municipally known as 7083 Lake Street (“subject property”), and legally described as Part Lot 3 RCP 427, Plan 39R720, Part 1, Township of Hamilton.
6The subject property is zoned UR1 – Urban Residential First Density, permitting a single detached dwelling. It is designated Rural Settlement Area in the Oak Ridges Moraine in the Township of Hamilton Official Plan (“Township OP”). The property fronts onto Lise Court, an unassumed public road maintained year-round by the Denis Subdivision developer under a subdivision agreement with the Township.
7The requested MV is from section 5.26 of the Township Zoning By-law, which prohibits development on lots not fronting a Township Road/Public Road/Street or County Road.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
8Despite the Parties having achieved a settlement of the issues, it is incumbent upon the Appellant to demonstrate that the legislative tests have been addressed and it is incumbent upon the Tribunal to be satisfied that the policy framework supports the variances.
9The Tribunal must have regard for matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”) and must have regard for the decision of the municipal council and the material considered by council in making its decision, as set out in s. 2.1 (1) of the Act. Section 3(5) of the Act requires that a decision of the Tribunal affecting a planning matter shall be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 ("PPS") and shall conform with the applicable provincial plans.
10For a variance to the ZBL, the Tribunal must find that each variance meets each of the four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal must find that each variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the by-law and of the official plan, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure, and is minor in nature.
EVIDENCE
11A Motion Record was submitted by the Parties and was made Exhibit 1. Included in the Motion record is the Notice of Motion, Affidavit of Hena Kabir and a copy of the executed Minutes of Settlement.
12Ms. Kabir is a Registered Professional Planner who had been retained by the Appellant. Upon review of her Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert's Duty (included in Exhibit 1), Ms. Kabir is hereby qualified to assist the Tribunal by providing expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning through her written submissions.
13Ms. Kabir, to summarize her evidence, stated that Lise Court is actively used by construction vehicles, regular vehicular traffic, and pedestrians. She also provided evidence that when the subject lot was created by the Township’s Committee of Adjustment in the 1970’s, the current Lise Court was an existing right-of-way, and even at that time, the subject property was intended to be developed for residential purposes. She opined that it has always been the intent of the zoning by-law to permit residential development of the lands.
14Further, she provided evidence that the subject property enjoys a registered right-of-way over Lise Court. Ms. Kabir also testified that the developer of the Denis Subdivision has entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the Township and that under the terms of the Subdivision Agreement, the developer is responsible for maintaining Lise Court to municipal standards of health and safety of the public, until the road is assumed by the Township.
15She also testified that two other lots on Lise Court have been developed and use the road for access.
16Ms. Kabir opined that the PPS emphasizes making land available for development and supports housing supply and that the requested MV aligns with provincial objectives for growth and development in rural areas. Specifically, she looked at Section 3.1 and Section 3.1.3 of the PPS and opined that the infrastructure installed within Lise Court was planned and constructed to municipal standards and it is imperative that growth and development needs, such as the development of the subject property, be coordinated with this infrastructure.
17Ms. Kabir opined that the MV meets the general intent and purpose of the Northumberland County Official Plan (“County OP”) and the Township OP as the policies direct that growth pressures from an expected enlargement of the population would be accommodated by efficient use of servicing, careful planning and decision making.
18Until Lise Court is assumed, Ms. Kabir testified, a building permit cannot be issued for the development of the subject property for the permitted residential use, given that the subject property does not have frontage on a Public Road, as defined in the ZBL. However, she continued, Lise Court is an Un-Assumed Public Road which is being maintained by a developer year-round and all times in accordance with municipal standards via a subdivision agreement.
19Ms. Kabir opined that the Township does have oversight and control over the maintenance of Lise Court through the conditions established in the subdivision agreement and that the maintenance would have to be carried out in accordance with municipal standards including safety and health of the public given that it is being used by public, vehicular and construction traffic.
20Ms. Kabir opined that the development of the subject property can be seen from the same lens and in the context as other lots on Lise Court. She continued, an exception from the provision of section 5.26 of the ZBL is minor as the road is already being accessed by all kinds of vehicular traffic and the exception would help facilitate development, because the subject property already enjoys full access to Lise Court through a registered right of way easement and located on a road which is being used by public and all sorts of vehicular traffic.
21Ms. Kabir ultimately opined that the requested variance meets the four tests under the Act, is minor and technical in nature, and will facilitate orderly development of the subject property in accordance with municipal and provincial policies.
DECISION
22The Tribunal accepts the uncontested opinion evidence of Ms. Kabir.
23The Tribunal understands that the settlement proposal before the Tribunal was reached through the cooperative efforts of the Parties. The Tribunal, having reviewed all the materials submitted and considered the comprehensive and uncontested land use planning evidence of Ms. Kabir, finds that the variances have regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS, meets the four tests, reflects principles of good land use planning, and is representative of the public interest for the reasons provided by Ms. Kabir, which are accepted by the Tribunal.
ORDER
24THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part and the variance to Section 5.26 of the Township of Hamilton Zoning By-law 2001-58 to permit residential development of the Subject Property notwithstanding the lack of frontage on a Township Road/Public Road/Street or County Road is authorized.
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.