Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 23, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000723 OLT-23-000918
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Appellant: Elizabeth Benneian Appellant: The Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society Applicant: Trustees of New Hope Church Niagara Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Reference Number: 22 115593 OP Property Address: 2360 First Street Louth Municipality/UT: St. Catharines/Niagara OLT Case No: OLT-23-000723 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000723 OLT Case Name: Benneian v St. Catharines (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: New Hope Church Niagara Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Reference Number: 22 115648 ZA Property Address: 2360 First Street Louth Municipality/UT: St. Catharines/Niagara OLT Case No: OLT-23-000918 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000918 OLT Case Name: New Hope Church Niagara v. St. Catharines (City)
Heard: January 11, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| The Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society (“PALS”) | Lisa Triano |
| Elizabeth Benneian | Self-represented* |
| Trustees of New Hope Church Niagara (“NHC”) | Tom Hanrahan, Andrea Mannell (in absentia) |
| Regional Municipality of Niagara | Brian Duxbury |
| City of St. Catharines | DID NOT APPEAR |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY KURTIS SMITH ON January 11, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a concurrent Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding Case No. OLT-23-000723 (“Official Plan Amendment Appeals” OR “OPA Appeals”) and Case No. OLT-23-000918 (“Zoning By-law Amendment Appeal” OR “ZBLA Appeal”) pertaining to the lands Municipally known as 2360 First Street Louth in the City of St. Catharines (“City”) of the Region of Niagara (“Region”).
2The Trustees of New Hope Church Niagara (“NHC”) are the Applicants for the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment as they are seeking to expand the existing Place of Worship that is outside the Urban Boundary, within the Provincial Greenbelt Plan Area – Protected Countryside (Specialty Crop Area).
3As outlined in the OPA Appeals First CMC Decision Issued November 2, 2023, the OPA Appeals were submitted by The Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society (“PALS”) and Elizabeth Benneian.
4All preliminary matters were addressed during the first CMC of the OPA Appeals, including Party and Participant Status requests and confirmation of proper Notice.
5The ZBLA Appeal was filed by NHC as a result of the failure to make a decision by the City of St. Catharines within the statutory timeframe.
6Prior to the commencement of this CMC, Counsel for the City advised the Tribunal that they did not intend to appear or participate in either matter.
7The Tribunal received and marked the Affidavit of Service of the ZBLA Appeal Notice of CMC sworn by Suzanne Martin as Exhibit 1. There were no issues with the service of Notice of the CMC, and as such, no further notice is required.
8The intended purpose of the concurrent CMC was to consider the separate Draft Procedural Orders and Issues lists pertaining to the respective Cases and to determine if the OPA Appeals and ZBLA Appeal should be Consolidated or Heard Together.
MATTERS TO BE HEARD TOGETHER
9The question of determining whether the two matters should be consolidated or heard together was raised at the First CMC of the OPA Appeals. For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal consents to having OPA Appeals and ZBLA Appeal heard together, pursuant to Rule 16.3 of the Tribunal Rules.
10Counsel for the Region consented to the matters being heard together and objected to the files being consolidated, as they do not wish to become Party to the ZBLA Appeal as the Region is not the approval authority for zoning matters in the City.
11NHC, PALS, and Ms. Benneian all consented to the matters being heard together.
12The Tribunal granted the request under Rule 16.3 of the Tribunal Rules for the following reasons:
a. Both files have the same applicant (NHC);
b. Both files pertain to the same subject property and proposed development;
c. All Parties do not oppose the request to have the matters heard together; and,
d. It will allow the matters to be heard more efficiently, cost-effectively, and expeditiously than if the matters were heard separately.
PARTY AND PARTICIPANT REQUESTS – ZBLA APPEAL
13No Party or Participant Status Requests were received by the Tribunal prior