Mikmada Homes is now permitted to build a medium-density, eight-storey apartment building with 191 units and 123 stacked townhouse units with 409 parking spaces at 1065 Paramount Drive in Upper Stoney Creek.
In a 57-paragraph decision, Ontario Land Tribunal Members Yasna Faghani and Carolyn Molinari write that midrise residential apartment buildings must be permitted beyond the City’s present plan of only permitting them in ‘corridor’ or ‘community node’ zones.1 (i.e. along designated arterial roads)
At the same time, they write that apartment buildings must integrate with the neighbourhood context.
“Each development application is evaluated based on its own unique circumstances and applicable policies, and determined based on its own merits.”2
The hearing was officially an appeal for non-decision.
In December 2023, Mikmada Homes decided to bypass Hamilton City Council and file a non-decision appeal after learning that City staff planned to recommend denial at a scheduled January 2024 planning committee meeting.
Height and Density
The decision briefly discusses height, density, and transportation impacts.
On all three of these issues, the Tribunal finds the City’s submissions ‘unconvincing’3 and prefers the evidence of the developer’s experts.
The Tribunal states the height and density are appropriate to the site and that the developer’s decision to place the midrise building behind the townhouses mitigates impacts to the existing single-family homes in the area.
The Tribunal states traffic impacts onto Paramount Drive are managed and acceptable.
Shadowing of Kindergarten Playground
The apartment building will shadow a fenced-in playground used by kindergarten classes for a significant portion of the school day on March 21st.
The City argued this is an unacceptable impact of the development and contrary to the City’s shadow guidelines.
The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board did not formally comment on the proposal during the planning process.4
The City learned during the OLT hearing the school board had reached a deal with the developer to move the kindergarten lot to a different area of the schoolyard, with the development providing funds to the school board for the relocation.5
Notwithstanding the agreement, the OLT rules the City’s shadowing policies must be considered for the whole of a property, and not a smaller section.
“The Tribunal finds that it is not intuitive nor reasonable to interpret the Sun Shadow Guidelines to require all Pens of a school yard to meet the March 21st requirements, but that they apply to the entirety of the school yard. If the intention of the Sun Shadow Guidelines was to analyze the impact of Shadows on each individual play area, the City could have included language in that regard when drafting the Guidelines.”6
Ward 9 Councillor Does Not Like Decision
Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark says, “I do not like the decision,” adding the new Provincial Planning Statement, “really creates a problem for municipalities with planned communities like Upper Stoney Creek.”
Clark says the new provincial planning policy means community plans “do not carry any weight at the OLT,” and developers have too free a hand to plan midrise buildings in the middle of planned neighbourhoods.
He says he is both disappointed and concerned with the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board’s handling of the matter.
“It concerns me that the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board as a commenting agency did not provide comment,” Clark stated in an interview by phone.
“The HWDSB did not give the City of Hamilton any information on its position or what they were saying to the developer.”
Councillor to Ask Staff to Study for Possible Review or Appeal
“I am going to draft a motion to ask staff to review the decision, to see if there is any opportunity for appeal,” Clark stated.
He added that appeals of OLT decisions can only be on points or errors of law, and than even in those instances, decisions of the OLT are often given deference by the courts.
Clark said ensuring the City explores all possibilities “is important for the community and my own conscience.”
The developer’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.
The decision is available on the OLT website here.
Footnotes:
- Para 40 ↩︎
- Para 41 ↩︎
- Para 39 ↩︎
- Para 54 ↩︎
- Para 54, and the Tribunal heard evidence regarding an agreement. ↩︎
- Para 53 ↩︎
Production Details
v. 1.0.0
Published: January 8, 2025
Last updated: January 8, 2025
Author: Joey Coleman
Update Record
v. 1.0.0 original version
OK Brak Clark, waste more tax payers dollars on something you’ll lose again.
These Hamilton councilors need to move to rural areas if they are so afraid of development.