Carole and George Parazader v. Fort Erie (Town), 2025 CanLII 130898

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 9, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000549

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Carole and George Parazader

Subject: Severance

Description: To convey Part 1 from Part 2 to create one new lot for residential purposes.

Reference Number: B06/25

Property Address: 986 Ridge Road North

Municipality/UT: Fort Erie

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000549

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000549

OLT Case Name: Parazader v. Fort Erie (Town)

Heard: October 6 and 17, 2025, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Carole and George Parazader

George Parazader *

Town of Fort Erie

Tom Halinski

DECISION DELIVERED BY GREGORY J. INGRAM AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal is related to an appeal filed by Carole and George Parazader (“Appellant”) under s. 53(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”) regarding the imposition of a Restoration Plan condition (“Restoration Plan”) by the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) for the Town of Fort Erie (“Town”) as part of the Provisional Consent application filed by the Appellant.

2The Provisional Consent approval permits the creation of one new lot of 3.6 hectares (“Severed Lot”) from the approximately 5.63 hectares parcel (“Subject Lands”) resulting in 1.8 hectares being retained (“Retained Lot”). The Subject Lands contain a single detached dwelling and consist of meadows, woodlands, and manicured areas. The COA added several conditions to Provisional Consent but only Condition 8 is being appealed:

8. That the Owner / Applicant shall submit and receive final approval of a Restoration Plan to the satisfaction of the Town’s Senior Environmental Planner.

3The Provisional Consent also required that the conditions be fulfilled within two-years of the Decision. The Conditions requiring a landscape and tree preservation plan were removed from the original list of conditions.

4A Zoning By-law amendment was approved for the Subject Lands in February 2025, which resulted in the zoning being changed from Rural Residential (RR-651) to Rural Residential (RR-812) and Rural Residential (RR-651) and realigned the Environmental Overlay Zone. The re-zoning was initiated to facilitate the creation of one new lot.

5There are Natural Heritage features present on the Subject Lands and they consist of a mapped significant woodland on the south of the property and the lands are subject to the Town’s ‘tree’ By-law 33-2024. The surrounding land uses include detached dwellings, woodlands and an equestrian farm.

PARTY POSITIONS

6Briefly summarized, the Appellant takes the position that the woodlot will not be impacted by the creation of the Severed Lot and therefore the requirement of a Restoration Plan or “dense vegetative buffer” is not needed. The Appellant submits that this requirement be completely removed from consent approval as it is in the best interest of the woodlot to remain untouched and as is. The Appellant contends that the applicable planning legislation in combination with the Environmental Impact Study completed by Colville Consulting in August 2018 (“EIS 2018”), along with other environmental opinions, do not support the requirement of a Restoration Plan that requires a “dense vegetative buffer.”

7In contrast, the Town contends that the Restoration Plan condition is a common requirement for consent applications and that the 5 metres (“m”) setback, in combination with the Restoration Plan is a compromise by the Town to support the Appellant’s redevelopment plans and the natural heritage feature on the property. The Town submits that generally, policy dictates that a 20 m to 50 m setback would be required. The Town also contends that it has not placed specific requirements for the Restoration Plan (i.e.: “dense vegetative buffer”), as a condition of this consent approval.

8The Tribunal has considered the oral and documented evidence provided and for the reasons set out in the Decision below, the Tribunal finds in favour of the Town and upholds the decision of the COA and directs that condition number eight remain a required condition of the approved Provisional Consent.

THE HEARING

9These proceedings were originally scheduled for one day by video on October 6, 2025, but required the addition of a second date, October 17, 2025, with written closing submissions, on consent of the Parties, submitted by November 5, 2025.

Legislative Framework

10In making a decision on a Provisional Consent appeal, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act. The decision must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and it must conform with any applicable provincial plans under s. 3(5) of the Act. The Tribunal must have regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act when making its decision, including conformity with the County’s and Town’s Official Plans. Finally, the Tribunal must consider whether the proposed conditions are reasonable under s. 51(25) of the Act.

Conditions

(25) The approval authority may impose such conditions to the approval of a plan of subdivision as in the opinion of the approval authority are reasonable, having regard to the nature of the development proposed for the subdivision, including a requirement,

11In determining whether an imposed condition is reasonable, as required under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act, the factors that the Tribunal generally considers are whether the proposed condition is also relevant, necessary, and/or equitable.

Exhibits

12In addition to oral submissions and evidence, the following exhibits were relied upon as evidence in these proceedings:

• Exhibit 1: Notice of Hearing
• Exhibit 2: Eldon Darbyson, Folder Materials, Witness Statement: #1 Bylaw; #2 Sketch; 4.2; #5.0; #7 second Vroom letter ; #3.0 planning brief , #4 Town staff report for approved severance; # 6.0 letter of opinion.
• Exhibit 3: Provincial Policy Statement: Section 4.1 Natural Heritage
• Exhibit 4: Niagara Region OP section 3.1 excepts.
• Exhibit 5: Town Document Book
• Exhibit 6: Town Official Plan: Policy 8.1 Significant Natural Areas
• Exhibit 7: Dave Jolly Witness Statement
• Exhibit 8: White Wood Aster Recovery Document – Federal version 2019.

WITNESSES

13The Tribunal qualified the following witnesses to provide evidence in their respective areas of expertise as noted and with the consent of both Parties:

For the Appellant:

• Eldon Darbyson – Land Use Planner, G. Douglas Vallee Limited
• Dave Jolly -- Senior Terrestrial Ecologist/Botanist, certified Arborist

For the Town:

• Jessica Abrahamse – Environmental Planner, Town of Fort Erie
• Devon Morton – Registered Professional Planner, Town of Fort Erie

ISSUE

14Is the restoration condition required reasonable, relevant, necessary, and/or equitable and supported by relevant provincial, regional and local planning policies.

15The Tribunal heard that the Parties have not discussed the expectations of the Town related to the restoration condition. The Tribunal offered to pause these proceedings to allow the Parties an opportunity to discuss the restoration condition further before proceeding, which was entertained by the Town as an option and declined by the Appellant.

EVIDENCE / ANALYSIS / FINDINGS

Planning Evidence

16Planner Darbyson, in summary, opined that the proposed Restoration Plan, given the “scope of a single residential lot” is not proportionate to the scale of the development, imposes a permanent cost and maintenance burden, is unnecessary as there is no “ecological risk,” and it may negatively impact the informal trail system created by the landowners over the years.

17Regarding consistency with the PPS, Planner Darbyson opines that the Consent is consistent with Natural Heritage Section 4.1.8, which states that rural residential development can be supported where there has been an ecological evaluation, as result it demonstrates that “there will be no negative impacts to the existing natural heritage feature or its ecological function.”

18Planner Darbyson opines that the Vroom Report (Exhibit 2) recommending that ongoing maintenance and care of the woodlands is best served through education of the property owner and the expectation of ongoing care and maintenance of the property, which is the current practice and is the best way forward. Vroom indicates that:

the most effective mitigation measure is not the imposition of an additional dense planted buffer, but rather the ongoing stewardship of the woodland through invasive species monitoring and removal, combined with adherence to the prescribed 5 m no-disturbance dripline setback.

19Regarding conformity with the Niagara Region Official Plan (“NROP”), Planner Darbyson opines that the EIS 2018, prepared for the Zoning By-law Amendment application and submitted by the Appellant, satisfies the requirement under section 3.1.30.3.2 which says:

Where an environmental impact study or similar study has been formally accepted by Local or Regional planning staff, but the application for development or site alteration has yet to be approved, the application may be approved in accordance with the approved study as long as the study remains valid in accordance with the Region’s Environmental Impact Study Guidelines.

Planner Darbyson proffers that the Town and the Region accepted the EIS 2018 and therefore the requirement of a Restoration Plan adds an additional requirement that has already been met by the 5 m buffer recommended and accepted.

20Planner Darbyson opined that while Section 3.1.9.8.1 references minimum buffer requirements, Table 3-2 does not require a “dense buffer” and referenced the Vroom Report which indicated that a “dense buffer” may cause more problems for the White Wood Asters that exist in the woodlot.

21The Planning Staff Report prepared for the COA meeting of June 2025, referred to the EIS 2018 study and noted that County staff confirmed the recommended 5 m setback from the woodland dripline is sufficient to mitigate impacts on natural features and “that a Restoration Plan is required.”. Planner Darbyson proffers that this was the first time a Restoration Plan was mentioned, and that the EIS 2018 recommendation of a 5 m setback is sufficient.

22Under cross examination Planner Darbyson acknowledged that the Appellant was made aware of the potential of a Restoration Plan expectation previously as it was referenced in a Niagara Region Staff Report from July 2023, related to the Zoning By-law Amendment:

staff indicated that a Restoration Plan would be recommended as a condition ofthe CD application in order to ensure that the 5 m buffer is appropriately restored. In a letter addressed to Cara Lampman, Regional Manager of Environmental Planning, from George Parazader, dated May 27, 2023, it was requested that the provision of a restoration plan be waived as there are no development activities proposed within the woodland feature or buffer.

23The Restoration Plan expectation was referenced again in January 2025, in another Staff Report regarding the zoning plan amendment application, which reads as follows:

Regional staff confirmed that a minimum 5 metre setback, as measured from the woodland dripline, was sufficient to mitigate potential impacts.

A Restoration Plan and further applicable conditions will be recommended by Regional staff when the future consent application is circulated for Regional review

24Planner Darbyson proffers that the zoning permissions protect the woodlands in that they permit the construction of a residential dwelling, which is a low-risk development that would be 20 m from the woodlot dripline and have a septic system located in the meadow area of the property.

25Regarding the imposition of the Restoration Plan at the consent stage, Planner Darbyson opines that this condition should have been addressed through a ‘holding’ provision at the time the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved. Under cross examination, Planner Darbyson acknowledged that the consent stage does provide a second opportunity for the imposition of a restoration condition but opined that the holding provision was the more appropriate option.

26Planner Darbyson referred the Tribunal to the analysis of Regional EIS Guidelines in the Vroom letter dated August 2025 (Exhibit 2) which indicate that “buffer widths are not mandatory but should be based on site-specific assessment and proportional to potential impacts.”. The analysis goes on to indicate that “uses like a single-family dwelling with a 5m setback…can often be sufficient—particularly when backed by an EIS or constraints analysis.”. Planner Darbyson opines that this further analysis is sufficient to support that the 5m setback and continued stewardship by the property owner is appropriate and reasonable.

27Under cross examination, Planner Darbyson acknowledged that section 4.1 Natural Heritage of the PPS emphasizes the importance of maintenance and improvement of natural heritage areas.

28Further, Planner Darbyson agreed that policy 4.1.8 of the PPS is important as it indicates that “development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to…natural heritage features…unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts.”.

29Planner Darbyson indicated under cross examination that the 5 m buffer is considered an enhancement area and that he did not review policy 3.1.16 Enhancement Areas policy of the Niagara Official Plan (“NOP”) and in particular policy 3.1.16.2 which states that:

The presence of potential enhancement areas shall be screened for by a proponent when an environmental impact study…is required to support an application for development or site alteration.

30Devon Morton, in contrast to Planner Darbyson, opined that Condition 8 should be imposed and is supported by provincial, regional and local planning policies.

31Planner Morton opined that Section 4.1 Natural Heritage in the PPS is particularly relevant to the Condition 8 requirement as it emphasizes the need to protect natural features for the long term and that natural features “should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved.”.

32Planner Morton proffered that Section 3.1: The Natural Environmental System supports the imposition of Condition 8 and referenced various sections:

g. “protect woodlands… restore ecological functions…enhance woodland cover through …restoration.”

i. identify and protect other woodlands as a way to maintain treed area in the region;

l. maintain protection for woodlands that have been disturbed in an effort to maintain tree cover in the region;

r. minimize the impacts of invasive species through the proper management and control, and the promotion of native species plantings

33Planner Morton opined that the 20 m buffer outlined in Table 3.2 in the NOP was only reduced to 5 m due to the expectation of a Restoration Plan condition.

34Planner Morton indicated that there is not a requirement for a “dense restoration plan” as has been suggested by the Appellant and confirmed that the condition is for a Restoration Plan to initially be brought to the municipality by the Appellant.

35Regarding the suggestion that the condition is not proportionate to the proposed development, Planner Morton indicated that the imposition of the condition is not based on the size of the development but based on the policies of the PPS and NOP related to natural heritage.

36Regarding the Appellant’s suggestion that grading may be required within the 5 m buffer, Planner Morton indicated that grading is not a requirement made by Town Staff.

37Planner Morton referred to the Niagara Region comments submitted in support of the Zoning By-law application from 2023, for the Subject Property and confirmed approval of the 5 m setback to mitigate potential impacts to natural features and indicated that a Restoration Plan be required at the consent application stage. Planner Morton proffers that it is clear from this that a Restoration Plan would be a future condition of consent approval.

38Planner Morton also opined that the restoration condition would be included in a consent application as indicated through the Town Staff response to comments regarding the zoning application provided by the Town’s Environmental Advisory Committee (“EAC”) who were concerned with the 5 m setback. The Town Staff, in their response indicated that the “Niagara Region will be requesting a ‘Restoration Plan’ at the consent stage to further protect the woodlot.”.

39The Tribunal, upon considering the testimony of the planning witnesses, is persuaded by the testimony of Planner Morton with respect to the support in planning legislation for the imposition of a Restoration Plan, in considering whether Condition 8 is reasonable from a planning perspective.

40The Tribunal finds that the imposition of a Restoration Plan is supported by the provincial, regional and local planning policies which emphasize the importance of restoring, maintaining and monitoring natural heritage features. Table 3.2 in the NOP clearly indicates that a 20 m buffer would be required and given the 5 m buffer permitted, a Restoration Plan is a reasonable requirement supported by policy.

41The Tribunal finds that the creation of a Restoration Plan was clearly contemplated as early as 2023 as indicated above, which was acknowledged by Planner Darbyson.

42The Parties agree that the woodlands require ongoing maintenance and support but differ in their positions as to how this should be provided. While the Tribunal respects the ongoing efforts by Mr. Parazader to maintain the woodlands, the Tribunal prefers the position of the Town and concurs that it isn’t enough to rely on a property owner to maintain the standards of protection and maintenance required for these ecologically sensitive woodlands and looks to PPS Policy 4.1, which indicates that a Natural Heritage feature “should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved.”.

43The Tribunal prefers the position of the Town regarding the expectation that the Appellant fulfill the Restoration Plan condition by engaging with the appropriate Town Staff to develop a plan that is appropriate given the site-specific conditions and the ecological information available.

44The Tribunal finds that there remains a discrepancy as to the expectations of the Restoration Plan condition. The Appellant suggests that a ‘dense vegetative buffer’ is required and uses this perceived expectation as the foundation of their opposition to Condition 8 while the Town has indicated that the condition requirement does not automatically translate into a ‘dense vegetative buffer.’ Given that the Parties have not discussed the Town’s expectations of this condition, the Tribunal accepts the Town’s explanation in this regard.

Natural Heritage Evidence

45On behalf of the Appellant, David Jolly was qualified to provide opinion evidence in ecology, botany and arboricultural practices and risk assessment. He was retained by the Appellant in August 2025, to provide a letter of opinion on the COA decision and during cross examination indicated that he was not the primary author of the second Vroom (August 22, 2025), but simply reviewed its contents at a “high level.”.

46Ecologist Jolly provided an in-depth analysis and overview of the Significant Woodland based on his assumption that the Town requires a “dense restoration plan within the 5m buffer area zoned Environmental Conservation” and that the Town has required “grading” and “additional plantings” as part of the Restoration Plan condition in the Provisional Consent. Under cross examination, Ecologist Jolly indicated that he has not discussed the Restoration Plan condition with the Town nor reviewed materials associated with it. He also acknowledged his reference to “grading” is an assumption based on the assumed requirement of “dense” plantings.

47Ecologist Jolly opined that a Restoration Plan based on the assumptions noted above (see paragraph [44]), is not supported by science and guidelines related to the preservation and maintenance of a Significant Woodland. He identified specific invasive plant species and at-risk animal species located on the property and provided detailed analysis on the current location of White Wood Asters and the best plan to protect their continued success of these species in the Significant Woodland.

48Regarding the EIS 2018, Ecologist Jolly indicated that a study such as this starts to get ‘out of date’ after 10 years and this report omits some important information including the requirement to include a (Species At Risk) Bats survey.

49Regarding restoration plans, Ecologist Jolly contends that there is no guidance document on restoration plans, and they are typically “left to the experience of the consultant who is putting it together and based on interpretation.” He proffered that most ecologists follow a format that relates to the ecological land classification document to help to interpret what needs to be put into a plan. The plan should respond to the general nature of the site, the size of the development and proximity to natural heritage features.

50Ecologist Jolly proffered that based on his assumption regarding the Restoration Plan expectation by the Town (see paragraph [47]), the best strategy is the alternative strategy proposed by Vroom and Associates, which “is to do nothing and leave the existing 5m dripline setback intact as a ‘no-disturbance zone.”. Ecologist Jolly opines that it is redundant to require the Restoration Plan as the existing vegetation is dense (rose type plant with thorns), which reduces human access and that the woodland is healthy and is already 20 m from the proposed development.

51On behalf of the Town, Jessica Abrahamse (Environmental Planner for the Town, “EP Abrahamse”) was qualified in the field of natural heritage planning and planning ecology to provide opinion evidence in these areas. EP Abrahamse has been involved with both the Zoning By-law Amendment application and the Consent application pertaining to the Subject Property.

52EP Abrahamse, in contrast to Ecologist Jolly, supports the Restoration Plan condition imposed by the COA and specifically opines that the EIS 2018 is out of date and that the 5 m setback was only approved with the requirement of a Restoration Plan being developed as part of the Consent application process.

53Regarding the EIS 2018, EP Abrahamse opines that it is deficient in several areas and indicated that it only includes a two-season analysis which is insufficient in analysing bird breeding, it lacks an extensive survey for hibernacula and doesn’t include a reptile survey. She agrees with Ecologist Jolly, that a Bat survey should also have been completed.

54EP Abrahamse opined that the NOP Section 3.1 is pertinent given the issues identified with the EIS as it states that where “the application for development has yet to be approved, the application may be approved with the approved study as long as the study remains valid in accordance with the Region’s EIS Guidelines.”. EP Abrahamse opines that the EIS 2018 is not valid on its own given its age and lack of specific details noted above.

55Regarding the suggestion that the requirement of a Restoration Plan condition was only indicated with the Provisional Consent stage, EP Abrahamse, proffered that the EIS 2018 contemplated a restoration plan referring to it as Mitigation Measures which is “typical wording of a restoration plan…even though it is not called that” and referred to the following examples from Section 9.0 Mitigation Measures as examples:

• A limit of work fence should be established on the property no less than 5m from the location of the White Wood Aster to minimize the potential for impacts to the species.
• Any lands not included within the development areas should be allowed to re-vegetate naturally. It is recommended that plantings of suitable native trees species be incorporated into the Significant Woodland to diversify habitat in this area.

56EP Abrahamse opined that Section 3.1.20.1 of the NOP provides a “range of actions” that guide the formation of a Restoration Plan and acknowledged that while it is not mandatory both the NOP and the EAC support the condition.

57Regarding the suggestion that it be left to the landowner to manage the Significant Woodland, EP Abrahamse opined that this approach has not been successful in the past and indicated that it is “standard that environmental measures” are included with an approval.

58EP Abrahamse opined that the Appeal Letter inference to Condition 8 requiring “dense plantings within a 5m setback buffer” is incorrect and that the Town has not asked for a dense planting requirement, nor has it discussed a grading requirement of the Appellant.

59EP Abrahamse opines that a new EIS plan should have been required and that a Restoration Plan is the minimum requirement to help to ensure the health of the woodlot and its endangered species.

60Under cross examination, EP Abrahamse opined that an informed Restoration Plan would provide protection for the woodlot by providing further habitat for endangered species and removal of harmful invasive species such as garlic mustard.

61In considering the written and oral evidence of the ecological experts, the Tribunal prefers the position put forward by EP Abrahamse and finds that the Restoration Plan condition is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the NOP and the Town’s Official Plan and the approach is reasonable based on the environmental analysis provided.

62The Tribunal finds that a reference to “dense plantings of native trees and shrubs” provided through an email by a former representative of the Town in reference to the Zoning By-law Amendment application, does not automatically become the expectation of the Restoration Plan condition required for this application and the basis for the professional arguments against the imposition of a Restoration Plan condition.

63The Tribunal finds that the environmental position supporting “do nothing” is based on an inaccurate assumption of the Town expectations of a Restoration Plan (dense plantings/grading) given that no in depth discussions have occurred between the appropriate professionals with respect to what is appropriate and founded in the various guidelines referred to during testimony.

64The Tribunal finds that both environmental experts have concerns with fully relying on the EIS 2018 report given its age and the significant omissions that each identified in their testimony, which further supports the need for a Restoration Plan.

65The Tribunal finds that the evidence and analysis provided by each environmental expert will serve well to assist in the formation of a Restoration Plan, which will respect the development goals of the Appellant and the long-term preservation and health of the Significant Woodlands on the property.

SUMMARY OF DISPOSITION

66Having regard to the requirements in s. 51(25) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal finds that Condition 8, Restoration Plan is reasonable, relevant, necessary, and equitable and will remain a condition of the Provisional Consent.

67Having weighed all the documentary and oral evidence, the legal submissions from counsel, and for the reasons set out in this Decision, the Tribunal finds that the condition requiring a Restoration Plan has regard to the Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Regional and Town Official Plans, and represents good planning in the public interest.

ORDER

68THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is denied, and the Provisional Consent conditions imposed by the Committee of Adjustment of the Town of Fort Erie on June 19, 2025, including Condition 8, the requirement for a Restoration Plan, remain in effect.

“Gregory J. Ingram”

GREGORY J. INGRAM

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.