Hamilton City Councillors grappled this month with demolition control policy after three different developers sought permission to demolish existing housing without finalized redevelopment permits.
During the June 10 Council planning committee meeting, councillors approved one set of demolitions, while denying two other sets of applications for properties that did not meet the criteria of Hamilton’s demolition control bylaw.
During the week that followed between the committee meeting and the June 18 Council ratification meeting, a consensus emerged that Hamilton’s demolition control by-law needs to change.
Whereas past councils were concerned about land assembly and speculation, this council is concerned that vacant properties are deteriorating and creating a public nuisance.
Hamilton’s Demolition Control Bylaw Requires Submitted Redevelopment Plans
The City of Hamilton’s residential demolition control by-law requires replacement building(s) must be erected within two years following the demolition date. Failure to build within this timeframe results in a penalty of $20,000 for each dwelling unit contained within the demolished structure.
City staff are only permitted to issue demolition permits following the issuance of a building permit for a new structure.
On June 10, three different owners came to committee seeking to demolish properties without having firm plans to build new replacement structures.
Only one of the owners gained approval at committee, however, at the Council ratification meeting, councillors reversed one of those denials.
Valery Group Applications in Stoney Creek Approved
Ward 10 Councillor Jeff Beattie advocated for the demolitions of four vacant homes at 2-4 and 6-8 McDonalds Lane, and 822 Barton Street, and 829 Hwy 8.
“The properties have been disconnected from services for a period of time and I can attest to the fact as I drive past nearly every day that they have been deteriorating for a number of years,” Beattie stated. “We’ve heard that trespassing and vandalism is currently a problem.”
“I don’t see the value in retaining the homes strictly based on an engineering assessment that says structurally, yes, they are sound, but as we have seen, the interiors are not inhabitable.”
Beattie stated the redevelopment projects at these locations are in the final approval processes and will be moving forward.
Councillors approved these applications unanimously at both committee and council.
Upper James: Denied at Committee, Approved at Council
It was initially a different result for another developer, despite the strong advocacy of Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls in favour of their development applications.
However, she was successful at Council with many councillors stating it is time for the City to review demolition control in light of developer desires to demolish houses during land assemblies for future development.
“I want it to be approved,” Pauls stated at Planning Committee on June 10, adding that people are calling her about issues in the structures.
Beattie seconded the motion to demolish, saying, “If we were talking about homes that had occupants in them, were inhabitable in some way, shape or form, I wouldn’t have even seconded the motion.”
Acting Chief Planning Officer Anita Fabac stated that “there is no application that has been submitted by the owner or an applicant for either of those two properties.”
Beattie noted, “We’re talking about some of the most coveted developable property in the city. I would argue that it’s inevitable that the sites will be redeveloped at some point.”
“The challenge that I have with these two properties is that there is no plan. They specifically said it,” noted Ward 4 Councillor Tammy Hwang. They have “no idea and timelines of what they want to do with these two properties.”
The committee motion for demolition failed on a 5-5 tied vote.
YES (5): Francis, Pauls, Beattie, Tadeson, McMeekin
NO (5): M. Wilson, Nann, Hwang, Cassar, A. Wilson
Following this vote, committee voted 6-4 to deny the demolition permit application.
YES (6): M. Wilson, Nann, Hwang, Tadeson, Cassar, A. Wilson
NO (4): Francis, Pauls, Beattie, McMeekin
A week later, at the June 18 council ratification meeting, it was a different result with a unanimous vote to permit demolition.
Ward 14 Councillor Mike Spadafora said “it makes absolutely no sense” for the City to require developers to repair and maintain buildings when they are going to demolish them in the future for development.
“The houses that are being asked to be torn down, as you’ve seen in the pictures from Councillor Clark who actually went in the home as opposed to staff that stays outside the home. This shouldn’t even be here.”
85 Catharine Street North – Denied, Then Deferred for Reconsideration
Kaneff Group applied to demolish a single-detached house at 85 Catharine Street North, a property they acquired to add to a pending 700-plus unit residential towers project on the surrounding service parking lots.
The house, constructed in 1879, appeared in good condition from the exterior, however, Kevin Freeman from Kaneff states the internal condition is very poor.
“The foundation has completely failed. The floor joists are completely rotten,” he told committee on June 10. “It would cost approximately $2.8 million to restore this building.”
The company stated it is having issues with trespass and other nefarious activities.
Ward 15 Councillor Ted McMeekin moved a motion to permit the demolition. It failed on a 5-5 tied vote.
YES (5): Francis, Pauls, Beattie, Tadeson, McMeekin
NO (5): M. Wilson, Nann, Hwang, Cassar, A. Wilson
Following this vote, committee voted 6-4 to deny the demolition permit application.
YES (6): M. Wilson, Nann, Hwang, Tadeson, Cassar, A. Wilson
NO (4): Francis, Pauls, Beattie, McMeekin
In the days following committee, but before the council ratification meeting, Kaneff boarded up the building to make clear from its appearance that it is vacant and the interior is not maintained.
At the ratification meeting, McMeekin won support for a deferral of the decision.
He says staff should look inside the building, because the developer says there is significant deterioration inside.
“They have indicated they won’t repair the house,” McMeekin noted. “It’s about land assembly for 700 housing units. My fear is, I don’t want to lose that development of 700 housing units.”
Ward 2 Councillor Cameron Kroetsch says “there are definitely situations where property owners have a responsibility to take care of their property. If you just leave it unfenced, let the windows open and rain come in. Yeah, it’s going to deteriorate. Your job is to make sure it doesn’t happen in the first place.”
“Neglecting it doesn’t give you the right to suddenly come forward and say, ‘Well, hey, wait a minute. I neglected this, so that should absolve me of the fees and other considerations.'”
Review of Demolition Policy to Occur
Councillors agreed to review the City’s policies regarding property standards, vacant properties, and demolition control.
The review will include asking the question if the City should continue to have demolition control for non-heritage buildings.
Land assemblers and developers prefer to have no structures on properties they may one day develop. Maintanence costs are lower, plus without a property on the land, they pay lower property taxes as well.
A timeline for completion of the policy review has not been set.
Production Details
v. 1.0.0
Published: June 22, 2025
Last updated: June 22, 2025
Author: Joey Coleman
Update Record
v. 1.0.0 original version