The 21 hearings for Tuesday’s Committee of Adjustment (CoA) meeting encapsulate how Hamilton is intensifying.
As noted in an August 26 story on TPR, “there are applications to divide large lots into two with the demolition of a single home to be replaced by two, four applications for additional dwelling units, one conversion of an apartment building locker room into a bachelor unit, and a height limit variance to permit solar panels on a roof.”
City staff are recommending approval for 12 applications, plus two conditional approvals.
Denials
City staff are asking the CoA to deny six applications.
378 East 25th Street: A Six-Unit Multiplex Designed as Two Semi-Detached Houses with ADUs
The applicant tabled before the meeting
City staff say an application to demolish an existing single detached and replace it with two semi-detached single-family homes that will each contain two additional dwelling units is not minor in nature.
They are asking the CoA to deny the application.
In unattributed comments, staff write creating six separate units “would have the effect of making the proposed building a multiple dwelling, as defined by the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.”
“The Urban Hamilton Official Plan contains locational criteria for multiple dwellings and the proposal does not meet these requirements. Furthermore, the resultant built form does not meet the Neighbourhood Infill Design Guidelines from an amenity area depth, parking, massing and height/transition perspective”
Staff write the developer needs to include two parking spaces [one for each semi-detached dwelling] on their own lands. The developer is proposing parking on the public right-of-way.
“This would essentially eliminate the existing landscaped boulevard and make the planting of street trees in the public right-of-way challenging.”
No public letters of opposition are noted in the updated CoA agenda package.
3300 Homestead Drive, Glanbrook
Committee of Adjustment approved all four variances.
A numbered corporation is seeking to build two separate 2-storey residential buildings with eight units each and requesting variances to have lesser setbacks, rear yard sizes, and main entrances to the residences onto an internal roadway.
The developer is also requesting dwelling units to be 0.0 metres above grade. The City requires a 0.9-metre minimum above grade.
The proposal is for 16 dwelling units.
City staff are asking the CoA to deny two of four variances, stating the principal entrances should be closest to the street, and that waiving minimum height above grade is not minor.
2016 Regional Road 56, Glanbrook
Committee of Adjustment approved the SDU.
The rural property owner is asking to add an Additional Dwelling Unit to the property. City staff say the application should be denied due to concerns about source water and septic system.
3417 & 3325 Tyneside Road, Glanbrook
City staff are asking CoA to deny this severance application, in unattributed comments, staff write, “the proposed lot line adjustment does not meet the minimum area requirements for lot line adjustments for agricultural purposes outlined in the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and does not been the intent of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan” because the sizes of the lots are too small and “may reduce it’s future viability as productive farmland.”
44 Union Street, Ancaster (Jerseyville)
Committee of Adjustment approved all variances.
The application is to permit “an Accessory Building within the rear yard of an existing Single Detached Dwelling” with variances to allow the accessory building to be 50 percent taller than the permitted 6.0 metres and to be larger than the permitted maximum gross floor area of 200.0 square metres. The request is to permit 400.0 square meetings.
In the unattributed staff comments, City staff ask for denial of the application, writing:
“The proposed area of the accessory structure exceeds the area of the principal dwelling and the height of the structure greatly exceeds the maximum permitted height. Staff are concerned that the cumulative effect of Variance 1 and 2 would result in an accessory structure that is no longer subordinate in size or scale to the principal dwelling. The proposed accessory structure would be of a comparable height to the principal dwelling and in combination with a greater area than the principal dwelling, the proposed structure would not be accessory in scale to the principal dwelling.”
2405 Highway 5 W., Flamborough
The application is to permit a barn located 2.6 metres from the side yard, where Hamilton’s zoning bylaws require it to be located at least 15 metres from the side yard.
Staff are asking CoA to deny the application.
Partial Approvals
Staff are recommending partial approval of two applications.
17 Percy Court, Hamilton
Approved: the owner agreed to install a rough-in for EV charging
City staff are in favour of approving an Additional Dwelling Unit.
They are asking the CoA to deny the application unless the owner agrees to install an electric vehicle charging station.
Hamilton’s new parking bylaw, which is not in force due to an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, states all new residential parking must have electric vehicle charging.
The CoA has not accepted staff requests for similar denials, taking the position that the new bylaw’s EV charging requirement is not in force.
371 Skinner Road, Flamborough
In Flamborough, the owner(s) of a semi-detached home at 371 Skinner Road are seeking to build an additional dwelling unit. It requires parking, and they are seeking an exception for tandem parking in the driveway.
City staff oppose tandem parking, but their unattributed comments state they can support removing the parking requirement and approving the ADU without parking.
“Tabling”
218 Fruitland Road, Stoney Creek
The applicant requested the file be tabled.
The owner, 218 Fruitland Inc., wishes to sever the land as part of a transaction with a neighbouring property ownership group. The application was originally tabled on January 18, 2024, due to a City staff position that the severance is pre-mature pending the completion of a servicing strategy for the area under the Fruitland-Winona Secondary Plan.
The applicant’s lawyer writes, “previously, the Application involved the severance of a second lot in order to create two residential lots fronting Fruitland Road. The Owner no longer seeks to create this second residential lot” and that the severance should now be approved.
There is a creek running through the property, that will be “re-channelized” as part of the servicing strategy.
“We understand from our client that it is staff’s position the approval of the Application at this time would be premature as the west limit of the creek channel may change once the Servicing Strategy is approved and finalized. We disagree. The approval of the Application will create a new property boundary between the Owner and 226. Once the Servicing Strategy is approved, the precise channel limits will be determined.”
City staff responded, “This application should be tabled until the Block 1 Servicing Strategy has been approved. This application should be tabled until the Block 1 Servicing Strategy has been approved.”
Production Details v. 1.1.0 Published: September 8, 2024 Last updated: September 10, 2024 Author: Joey Coleman Update Record v. 1.0.0 original version v. 1.1.0 updated post-meeting with outcomes.