Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003384 (Formerly) PL210084
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Matt Snieder
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 31
Municipality: City of Welland
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003384
Legacy Case No. PL210084
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003384
Legacy Case No.: PL210084
OLT Case Name: Snieder v. Welland (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Motion By: Niagara HP Properties Inc.
Purpose of Motion: Request for an Order Dismissing the Appeal
Heard: June 29, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Matt Snieder | Self-represented |
| City of Welland | Thomas Hanrahan |
| Niagara HP Properties Inc. | Robert Di Lallo |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI ON JUNE 29, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The purpose of this Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was to hear the request for Party status of Niagara HP Properties Inc. (“NHPP”) to these proceedings and the Motion brought forward by NHPP to dismiss the appeal of Matt Snieder (the “Appellant”).
PARTY STATUS REQUEST
2The Tribunal granted Party status to NHPP.
BACKGROUND
3NHPP applied to the City of Welland (“City”) to permit the development of a residential standard condominium development with 24 stacked townhouse units. The development would have three blocks of townhouse units and 36 parking spaces.
4The Subject Property is municipally known as 781 Clare Avenue (“Subject Property”). It is located on the west side of Clare Avenue, south of Woodlawn Road. The Subject Land have an approximate area of 2,574 square metres.
5The application was deemed complete on October 5, 2020. A concurrent application to rezone the Subject Property was made, as to rezone the Subject Property from Residential Low Density 1 (RL1) to Site Specific Residential Multiple (RM). The rezoning is not under appeal. Planning Staff recommended that the application be approved.
6An Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) would redesignate the Subject Property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, with Site Specific provisions to allow a maximum density of 94 units per hectare.
7OPA No. 31 was adopted by Council of the City on December 15, 2020.
NATURE OF THE APPEALS
8The Appellant appealed under s. 17(24) of the Planning Act indicating that the decision of Council failed to conform with or conflicts with a provincial plan.
9The Appellant states that the Ontario Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (the “Growth Plan”) encourages growth on grey and brown lands, which is not the case for this matter.
10The proposed 24-unit development does not blend with the surrounding homes.
MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL
11The Tribunal was presented with a Motion to dismiss the appeal without holding a hearing by the Applicant, NHPP.
GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION
12The Tribunal heard the grounds for the Motion are:
- The reasons set out in the Notice of Appeal do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the plan or part of the plan that is the subject of the appeal could be approved or refused by the Tribunal:
A Notice of Appeal dated January 7, 2021 was filed by the Appellant on January 8, 2021 with respect to the decision of the Council of the City to adopt OPA No. 31.
OPA No. 31 relates to the property municipally known as 781 Clare Avenue in the City (Subject Property) and provides an increase in density to 94 dwelling units per hectare for the Subject Property.
The OPA was one of two planning applications submitted by NHPP to implement the proposed development. NHPP also submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment Application, which resulted in the passing of Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-152 (“ZBLA 2020-152”) by the City’s Council.
While OPA No. 31 essentially establishes a maximum density of 94 units per hectare, the Notice of Appeal does not even mention the proposed density.
The Appellant has appealed OPA No. 31 but has not appealed ZBLA 2020-152. Any reasons pertaining to the standards for the proposed 24 dwelling units are reasons for an appeal of ZBLA 2020-152, which is not before the Tribunal in this proceeding, and do not relate to OPA No. 31, which is under appeal.
The reasons set out in the Notice of Appeal are grounded in a factually incorrect assumption that the applicable planning policies only support intensification on brownfield sites. This assumption is obviously false and no reasonable land use planner would agree with it.
The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS”), the Growth Plan, the Official Plan for the Niagara Region (the “NROP”) and the City’s Official Plan encourage intensification within the identified Built-Up Area, in which the Subject Property is located. Further, the PPS and the Growth Plan require a municipality to implement intensification within its Built-Up Area with minimum percentages as identified in the NROP and the City’s Official Plan.
The reasons set out in the Notice of Appeal remark that “this 24 unit build would not blend in well with surrounding homes”. However, the reasons do not provide any land use planning basis or analysis to support this conclusion. All available land use planning advice indicates that the proposed development will integrate well with surrounding land uses. Further, this remark relates to ZBLA 2020-152 and not OPA No. 31.
OPA No. 31 and the corresponding proposed development is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan, the NROP and the City’s Official Plan and represents good land use planning.
There are no genuine, legitimate and authentic land use planning grounds to be addressed in the appeal.
- The appeal is not made in good faith or is frivolous or vexatious and is made only for the purpose of delay:
The reasons set out in the Notice of Appeal are notably brief, comprising a few short sentences.
The Appellant was fully informed regarding the proposed development, having attended the Open House and Public Meeting and made both oral and written submissions in this matter.
The Appellant is an experienced participant in planning processes in this area of the City. As such, the Appellant knew what was proposed by OPA No. 31 and ZBLA 2020-152.
The reasons set out in the Notice of Appeal disclose fundamental errors in respect of the application of each of the documents.
The reasons set out in the Notice of Appeal have identified no legitimate land use planning issues.
It is reasonable to conclude that the appeal is not made in good faith; is frivolous and vexatious; and is made only for the purpose of delay.
- The Appellant intends to argue a matter mentioned in s. 17(25.1) of the Planning Act, but has not provided the explanations required by that subsection:
Under s. 17(25.1) of the Planning Act, the Appellant intends to argue that the appealed decision fails to conform with or conflicts with a provincial plan.
The Notice of Appeal must explain how the decision fails to conform with or conflicts with the provincial plan.
In the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant provided the following explanations in regard to s. 17(25.1) of the Planning Act: “the Ontario growth plan says that it encourages growth on grey land and brown land which this property is not on.”
The explanations set out in the Notice of Appeal is grounded in a factually incorrect assumption that the applicable planning policies only support intensification on brownfield sites.
The explanations provided are deficient and do not meet the requirement in s. 17(25.1) of the Planning Act.
The Appellant’s Position
13The Tribunal heard that the Notice of Appeal is sufficient.
14The Appellant in their response to the Motion, submitted numerous letters and emails from neighbours in support of the appeal.
15The Tribunal was informed, the Appellant’s Notice reiterates the appeal under s. 17(24) of the Planning Act indicates that the decision of Council failed to conform with or conflicts with a provincial plan.
16The Appellant states that the Ontario Growth Plan encourages growth on grey and brown lands, which is not the case for this matter.
17The proposed 24-unit development does not blend with the surrounding homes.
FINDINGS
18The Tribunal finds that the reasons set out in the Notice of Appeal, do not disclose any apparent land use planning opinions whatsoever upon which the plan or part of the plan that is the subject of the appeal, could be approved or refused by the Tribunal.
19Further, the Tribunal finds the appeal is frivolous and is made only for the purpose of delay.
20The Tribunal finds, as the objective of the appeal cannot be achieved and there is no reasonable prospect of success that the Motion shall be granted and that the appeal will be dismissed without holding a full hearing.
ORDER
21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Motion is granted and the appeal by Matt Snieder is dismissed.
“Carmine Tucci”
CARmine Tucci
MEMBER
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.