Dundas Pleasant View building approved in error

News Aug 12, 2019 by Craig Campbell Dundas Star News

City of Hamilton staff accidentally approved a building permit for a home where it is not permitted in the Pleasant View area of Dundas.

The error was discovered three months after the permit for 10 Newman Rd. was issued in April. The permit was revoked in July, after construction had started.

Now the proponent has applied for a minor variance to the zoning bylaw — scheduled to be heard by the city’s committee of adjustment on Thursday, Aug. 15, in hopes of getting permission to build on a lot less than half the size required by the zoning.

Existing zoning, stemming from a 1995 Ontario Municipal Board ruling, requires a minimum 25-acre (10-hectare) lot and 135-metre frontage.

The Newman Road house is on a 10-acre (4.07-hectare) lot and has a 50-metre frontage.

Questions to city building and planning staff were referred to Jason Thorne, general manager of planning and economic development.

“We discovered it had been done in error,” Thorne said of the building permit issued. “When we realized what was being done was not in conformity with zoning, the chief building official did what the chief building official is supposed to do and revoked the permit.”

He said planning and building staff are aware of the multiple layers of development control and lengthy efforts to protect natural areas in Pleasant View.

“That’s not lost on us while reviewing the variance application. It is our position the zoning does not allow the use,” Thorne said.

The city staff recommendation and comments to the committee of adjustment on the minor variance application were not available by deadline.

Jordan Hart, president of Black-Hart Construction Inc., the builder of 10 Newman, said the project received necessary site plan and building permit approvals from the city before construction started.

Hart said a request would be made at the Aug. 15 committee of adjustment meeting to postpone the hearing to another day.

Thorne said he was aware of the applicant’s plan to request a deferral but noted it’s up to the committee of adjustment to decide whether the application is deferred to another day, approved to permit the building, denied, or determined not to be minor in nature and referred to the planning committee of city council.

The property is located within the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s planning area. The commission is supposed to approve development in the area before it begins, but senior planner Jim Avram said the NEC did not review or comment on the 10 Newman Rd. site plan or building permit applications. It has, however, submitted comments on the minor variance application.

“The NEC has advised the city that the Niagara Escarpment Plan does not permit the residential use on the property,” Avram said.

Pleasant View residents were shocked to learn a building permit had been incorrectly issued and construction allowed to move forward for four months.

“They must have been sleeping for the past 10 years,” Kris Robinson said.

She is concerned about a potential precedent being set. She’s also concerned the whole mess will pit neighbour against neighbour, and wonders what the is city will do to fix the problem.

“Let’s put the blame on the city, where it rightfully belongs,” Robinson said. “It’s the city that’s at fault.”

In her submission to the committee of adjustment, Robinson stated her concern that the development was not “properly scrutinized and somehow slipped through” clear regulations that don’t allow it.

“This needs to be addressed and reversed quickly and decisively,” she wrote, adding the minor variance requested would set a dangerous precedent.

“The land is now scarred, which is unfortunate, but it will come back if the building comes down,” she said.

In another submission to the committee, Peter Hurrell noted the long history of community effort to establish multiple layers of development regulation in Pleasant View, and called on the city to make a firm commitment to protecting the area — and the Cootes to Escarpment EcoPark vision.

“The fact the bureaucrats in Hamilton don’t seem to know what they are doing, or the requirements of the zoning in the areas they are dealing with, is appalling,” Hurrell said.

Caroline Thomson’s York Road backyard runs alongside part of 10 Newman Rd. She said the property went up for sale more than three years ago and was subsequently cleared of many trees. Aware of the development restrictions, Thomson said she contacted the city with concerns about what would be done on the property but never heard back.

“It was a shock to see this go up,” said Thomson, who moved to Pleasant View 13 years ago knowing she was surrounded by protected land intended as a link between Cootes Paradise and the Niagara Escarpment.

“The right answer is to take (the house) down, remediate it ... and pay attention,” she said.

The property is located within the Greenbelt Plan and the Parkway Belt West Plan, which further limit development there. Amendments to both of those plans would have to be approved by the City of Hamilton. As well, an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan would have to be approved by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, in addition to a zoning change, to permit the existing building.

Coun. Arlene VanderBeek said she would submit written comments opposing the requested minor variance.

“They cannot approve that,” VanderBeek said. “There are so many layers of regulation and history that have to be upheld. It’s not a minor variance.”

Dundas Pleasant View building approved in error

Permit revoked, applicant attempting minor variance

News Aug 12, 2019 by Craig Campbell Dundas Star News

City of Hamilton staff accidentally approved a building permit for a home where it is not permitted in the Pleasant View area of Dundas.

The error was discovered three months after the permit for 10 Newman Rd. was issued in April. The permit was revoked in July, after construction had started.

Now the proponent has applied for a minor variance to the zoning bylaw — scheduled to be heard by the city’s committee of adjustment on Thursday, Aug. 15, in hopes of getting permission to build on a lot less than half the size required by the zoning.

Existing zoning, stemming from a 1995 Ontario Municipal Board ruling, requires a minimum 25-acre (10-hectare) lot and 135-metre frontage.

Related Content

The Newman Road house is on a 10-acre (4.07-hectare) lot and has a 50-metre frontage.

Questions to city building and planning staff were referred to Jason Thorne, general manager of planning and economic development.

“We discovered it had been done in error,” Thorne said of the building permit issued. “When we realized what was being done was not in conformity with zoning, the chief building official did what the chief building official is supposed to do and revoked the permit.”

He said planning and building staff are aware of the multiple layers of development control and lengthy efforts to protect natural areas in Pleasant View.

“That’s not lost on us while reviewing the variance application. It is our position the zoning does not allow the use,” Thorne said.

The city staff recommendation and comments to the committee of adjustment on the minor variance application were not available by deadline.

Jordan Hart, president of Black-Hart Construction Inc., the builder of 10 Newman, said the project received necessary site plan and building permit approvals from the city before construction started.

Hart said a request would be made at the Aug. 15 committee of adjustment meeting to postpone the hearing to another day.

Thorne said he was aware of the applicant’s plan to request a deferral but noted it’s up to the committee of adjustment to decide whether the application is deferred to another day, approved to permit the building, denied, or determined not to be minor in nature and referred to the planning committee of city council.

The property is located within the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s planning area. The commission is supposed to approve development in the area before it begins, but senior planner Jim Avram said the NEC did not review or comment on the 10 Newman Rd. site plan or building permit applications. It has, however, submitted comments on the minor variance application.

“The NEC has advised the city that the Niagara Escarpment Plan does not permit the residential use on the property,” Avram said.

Pleasant View residents were shocked to learn a building permit had been incorrectly issued and construction allowed to move forward for four months.

“They must have been sleeping for the past 10 years,” Kris Robinson said.

She is concerned about a potential precedent being set. She’s also concerned the whole mess will pit neighbour against neighbour, and wonders what the is city will do to fix the problem.

“Let’s put the blame on the city, where it rightfully belongs,” Robinson said. “It’s the city that’s at fault.”

In her submission to the committee of adjustment, Robinson stated her concern that the development was not “properly scrutinized and somehow slipped through” clear regulations that don’t allow it.

“This needs to be addressed and reversed quickly and decisively,” she wrote, adding the minor variance requested would set a dangerous precedent.

“The land is now scarred, which is unfortunate, but it will come back if the building comes down,” she said.

In another submission to the committee, Peter Hurrell noted the long history of community effort to establish multiple layers of development regulation in Pleasant View, and called on the city to make a firm commitment to protecting the area — and the Cootes to Escarpment EcoPark vision.

“The fact the bureaucrats in Hamilton don’t seem to know what they are doing, or the requirements of the zoning in the areas they are dealing with, is appalling,” Hurrell said.

Caroline Thomson’s York Road backyard runs alongside part of 10 Newman Rd. She said the property went up for sale more than three years ago and was subsequently cleared of many trees. Aware of the development restrictions, Thomson said she contacted the city with concerns about what would be done on the property but never heard back.

“It was a shock to see this go up,” said Thomson, who moved to Pleasant View 13 years ago knowing she was surrounded by protected land intended as a link between Cootes Paradise and the Niagara Escarpment.

“The right answer is to take (the house) down, remediate it ... and pay attention,” she said.

The property is located within the Greenbelt Plan and the Parkway Belt West Plan, which further limit development there. Amendments to both of those plans would have to be approved by the City of Hamilton. As well, an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan would have to be approved by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, in addition to a zoning change, to permit the existing building.

Coun. Arlene VanderBeek said she would submit written comments opposing the requested minor variance.

“They cannot approve that,” VanderBeek said. “There are so many layers of regulation and history that have to be upheld. It’s not a minor variance.”

Dundas Pleasant View building approved in error

Permit revoked, applicant attempting minor variance

News Aug 12, 2019 by Craig Campbell Dundas Star News

City of Hamilton staff accidentally approved a building permit for a home where it is not permitted in the Pleasant View area of Dundas.

The error was discovered three months after the permit for 10 Newman Rd. was issued in April. The permit was revoked in July, after construction had started.

Now the proponent has applied for a minor variance to the zoning bylaw — scheduled to be heard by the city’s committee of adjustment on Thursday, Aug. 15, in hopes of getting permission to build on a lot less than half the size required by the zoning.

Existing zoning, stemming from a 1995 Ontario Municipal Board ruling, requires a minimum 25-acre (10-hectare) lot and 135-metre frontage.

Related Content

The Newman Road house is on a 10-acre (4.07-hectare) lot and has a 50-metre frontage.

Questions to city building and planning staff were referred to Jason Thorne, general manager of planning and economic development.

“We discovered it had been done in error,” Thorne said of the building permit issued. “When we realized what was being done was not in conformity with zoning, the chief building official did what the chief building official is supposed to do and revoked the permit.”

He said planning and building staff are aware of the multiple layers of development control and lengthy efforts to protect natural areas in Pleasant View.

“That’s not lost on us while reviewing the variance application. It is our position the zoning does not allow the use,” Thorne said.

The city staff recommendation and comments to the committee of adjustment on the minor variance application were not available by deadline.

Jordan Hart, president of Black-Hart Construction Inc., the builder of 10 Newman, said the project received necessary site plan and building permit approvals from the city before construction started.

Hart said a request would be made at the Aug. 15 committee of adjustment meeting to postpone the hearing to another day.

Thorne said he was aware of the applicant’s plan to request a deferral but noted it’s up to the committee of adjustment to decide whether the application is deferred to another day, approved to permit the building, denied, or determined not to be minor in nature and referred to the planning committee of city council.

The property is located within the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s planning area. The commission is supposed to approve development in the area before it begins, but senior planner Jim Avram said the NEC did not review or comment on the 10 Newman Rd. site plan or building permit applications. It has, however, submitted comments on the minor variance application.

“The NEC has advised the city that the Niagara Escarpment Plan does not permit the residential use on the property,” Avram said.

Pleasant View residents were shocked to learn a building permit had been incorrectly issued and construction allowed to move forward for four months.

“They must have been sleeping for the past 10 years,” Kris Robinson said.

She is concerned about a potential precedent being set. She’s also concerned the whole mess will pit neighbour against neighbour, and wonders what the is city will do to fix the problem.

“Let’s put the blame on the city, where it rightfully belongs,” Robinson said. “It’s the city that’s at fault.”

In her submission to the committee of adjustment, Robinson stated her concern that the development was not “properly scrutinized and somehow slipped through” clear regulations that don’t allow it.

“This needs to be addressed and reversed quickly and decisively,” she wrote, adding the minor variance requested would set a dangerous precedent.

“The land is now scarred, which is unfortunate, but it will come back if the building comes down,” she said.

In another submission to the committee, Peter Hurrell noted the long history of community effort to establish multiple layers of development regulation in Pleasant View, and called on the city to make a firm commitment to protecting the area — and the Cootes to Escarpment EcoPark vision.

“The fact the bureaucrats in Hamilton don’t seem to know what they are doing, or the requirements of the zoning in the areas they are dealing with, is appalling,” Hurrell said.

Caroline Thomson’s York Road backyard runs alongside part of 10 Newman Rd. She said the property went up for sale more than three years ago and was subsequently cleared of many trees. Aware of the development restrictions, Thomson said she contacted the city with concerns about what would be done on the property but never heard back.

“It was a shock to see this go up,” said Thomson, who moved to Pleasant View 13 years ago knowing she was surrounded by protected land intended as a link between Cootes Paradise and the Niagara Escarpment.

“The right answer is to take (the house) down, remediate it ... and pay attention,” she said.

The property is located within the Greenbelt Plan and the Parkway Belt West Plan, which further limit development there. Amendments to both of those plans would have to be approved by the City of Hamilton. As well, an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan would have to be approved by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, in addition to a zoning change, to permit the existing building.

Coun. Arlene VanderBeek said she would submit written comments opposing the requested minor variance.

“They cannot approve that,” VanderBeek said. “There are so many layers of regulation and history that have to be upheld. It’s not a minor variance.”