Benneian v. St. Catharines (City), 2025 CanLII 2769

ISSUE DATE: January 17, 2025

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 Land 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: 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: St. Catharines/Niagara OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000918 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000723 OLT Case Name: New Hope Church Niagara v. St. Catharines (City)

Heard: October 16 to 23, 2024 by Video Hearing; Closing submissions, November 1, 2024 in writing

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
The Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society (“PALS”)	Lisa Triano
Elizabeth Benneian	Self-represented*
Trustees of New Hope Church Niagara	Tom Hanrahan, T.A. Richardson, Evan Alderman (Student-at-law)
Regional Municipality of Niagara	Brian Duxbury
City of St. Catharines	Did Not Appear

DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal held a six-day hearing regarding Case No. OLT-23-000723 Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Case No. OLT-23-000918 Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) pertaining to the lands municipally known as 2360 First Street Louth (“Subject Property”), in the City of St. Catherines (“City”) of the Regional Municipality of Niagara (“Region”).

2The Trustees of New Hope Church Niagara (“NHCN” or “Church”) are the Applicants for the OPA and the Appellants regarding the ZBLA as they are seeking to expand the existing Place of Worship that is outside the Urban Boundary, within the Provincial Greenbelt Plan (“GBP”) Area – Protected Countryside (Specialty Crop Area).

3The proposed development is for a 2,397 square metres (“m²“) expansion to an existing 1,216 m² place of worship, parking would increase from 95 to 229 parking spaces, seats would increase from 400 to 1,000 seats, a new driveway access from Rykert Street and an upgrade to the existing on-site private water and sanitary sewage system.

4For the following reasons, the Tribunal dismisses the OPA appeals pursuant to s. 17(36) and allows the ZBLA appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) both under the Planning Act (“Act”).

PURPOSE OF THE OPA

5The purpose and effect of the amendment is to add site-specific policies within s. 15.7 of the Official Plan (“OP”), being a provision to permit the expansion of a legally established, existing place of worship beyond what is permitted by the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”), in response to the criteria set out in s. 14.2.10 of the OP.

PURPOSE OF THE ZBLA

6The purpose of the requested ZBLA is to amend the Special Provision 85 of the ZBL. Please see below the ZBL proposed conditions diagram:

APPEALS

7The appeal of the OPA was filed by Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society (“PALS”) and Elizabeth Benneian.

8The ZBLA appeal was filed by NHCN as a result of the failure to make a decision by the City within the statutory timeframe.

9In the previous CMC on January 23, 2024, the Tribunal granted to hear the Appeals together under Rule 16.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Region is the approval authority for the OPA and the City is the approval authority for the ZBLA.

BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF THE APPLICATIONS

10In 2001, site specific OPA and ZBLA applications were approved with respect to the subject property to permit a place of worship on the Subject Property. This approval was not recommended or supported by City staff at the time. The approval was granted prior to the implementation of the first established GBP in 2004, and prior to the current Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS 2020”), Regional OP (“NOP”), and current City Official Plan (“City OP”).

11The permission for an existing place of worship with site-specific provisions was carried forward into the site-specific policies of the City’s current OP and ZBL.

12In 2022, the landowner applied for a site plan amendment for a proposed addition to the existing building. In reviewing this application, City staff noted that the proposed expansion would result in a building that significantly exceeded the maximum permitted lot coverage prescribed in the site-specific ZBL and that the size of the addition should be reduced. City staff identified that the scale of the proposed enlargement of the church did not conform to the applicable policies of the OP and ZBL. The Applicant opted to apply for the subject OP and ZBLA applications.

13The City staff recommended refusal of the applications on the basis that the applications did not conform to the prevailing land use planning framework, and specifically that the expansion did not bring the existing non-agricultural use into greater conformity with the GBP.

14Despite this recommendation, Council for the City adopted the OPA on April 3, 2023.

15As the City is located within the Region, and a two-tier municipality for the purposes of the Act, Council for the Region are the statutory approval authority for the OPA in certain instances.

16As the proposed OPA was not in conformity with the NOP and the GBP, a decision by Regional Council on the proposed Amendment was required.

17Regional staff recommended refusal of the OPA based on the finding that the expansion did not bring the use into greater conformity with the GBP.

18Notwithstanding the recommendation of Regional Staff, Council for the Region approved the OPA as set out in the application on June 15, 2023.

19Regional Council’s approval of the OPA was appealed by PALS and Ms. Benneian.

20The decision on the ZBLA was deferred by City Council pending the decision on the OPA by the Region.

21NHCN subsequently appealed the ZBLA on the basis of non-decision within the prescribed timelines set out in the Act.

SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA

22The Subject Property has approximately 197 m of frontage onto Rykert Street and approximately 250 m of frontage onto First Street Louth.

23The Subject Property has a lot area of approximately 3.957 hectares (“ha”).

24The Subject Property currently contains an existing place of worship occupied by NHCN.

25The existing place of worship is a two-storey building, which is setback approximately 80 m from its Rykert Street frontage and 22 m from its First Street Louth frontage.

26The Subject Property also has a surface parking lot containing approximately 95 parking stalls, a stormwater management pond, and outdoor amenity areas.

27The Site is surrounded by a mix of commercial, industrial, agricultural, and rural residential uses:

(i) North:

• Lands to the north consist of active, uncultivated and permanently fallow agricultural lands and some woodlands.

• Immediately north of the site on the west side of First Street Louth are active agricultural lands while on the east side of First Street Louth are uncultivated and permanently fallow agricultural lands.

• Near St. Paul Street West are three rural residential properties including one with a home based business.

(ii) West:

• Opposite the Subject Lands on the west side of First Street Louth is a mix of commercial, industrial and rural residential uses. The commercial and industrial uses include Niagara Concrete Canada, Boomerang Grooming and Hy-Grade Precast Concrete. These commercial and industrial uses include large areas for outdoor storage of concrete products, materials and equipment.

• Rural residential uses consist of bungalow dwellings.

(iii) East:

• Abutting the Subject Lands is a hydro corridor that extends in a north to south direction. East of the hydro corridor are lands within the Vansickle Neighbourhood of the St. Catharines Urban Area. Residential uses consist primarily of 1- and 2-storey detached dwellings. One-storey townhouse dwellings are also located nearby. Westburne Alliance Church, Shauna Park and Westdale Public School are located along Rykert Street and Westland Street.

(iv) South:

• South of the Subject Lands along First Street Louth comprise of a mix of commercial, industrial, rural residences and active, uncultivated and permanently fallow agricultural lands.

• Active agricultural operations are found along First Street Louth including lands under cultivation for grapes and field crops. Woodlands and uncultivated and permanently fallow agricultural lands are found opposite the Subject lands on the south side of Rykert Street and the east side of First Street Louth.

• Niagara Soil, a large landscape company, is located on the west side of First Street Louth. This site has large stockpiles of bulk building and landscaping materials and outdoor storage of trucks and equipment.

• Other businesses along First Street Louth include Framecraft (retail and wholesale picture frames), and two home based businesses (Mackay Heating and Cooling and Birchview Custom Cabinetry).

• Rural residences are found along First Street Louth.

SUBJECT PROPERTY (PALS Visual Evidence Book, Exhibit 4)

LEGISLATIVE TEST

28In making a decision with respect to a ZBLA appeal, filed pursuant to s. 34 of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, which requires that decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”). This provincial document sets out detailed policies that address matters such as land use compatibility.

29In consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, the three fundamental planning determinations to be made by the Tribunal in these Appeals are whether, as a matter of fact and law, the approval of the OPA is: (1) consistent with the PPS 2024; (2) conforms with the applicable already noted plans; and (3) in the case of the ZBLA conforms with the City’s OP. The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the proposal represents good land-use planning in the public interest.

30The Tribunal is directed to render a decision that has, pursuant to s. 2.1(1) of the Act, regard to the decision made by Council, and to any information and materials that Council considered in making its decision.

ORDER OF EVIDENCE AND WITNESS

31It was agreed by the Parties that the following Order of Evidence and Witnesses would govern the Hearing:

1. Charlotte McEwan, City, Land Use Planning (summoned by PALS)

2. Alex Boekestyn, Region, Land use Planning (summoned by PALS)

3. David Galbraith, Land Use Planning (PALS)

4. Craig Rohe, Land Use Planning (NHCN)

5. Mary Lou Tanner, Land Use Planning (NHCN)

6. Sean Colville, Agrologist (NHCN)

7. Allan Ramsay, Land Use Planning (Region)

32Evidence in support of the application was provided by the above noted witnesses. All experts were duly qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in their above noted field.

33The Tribunal noted that Ms. McEwan was before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”) one time before in 2018. In addition, Mr. Boekestyn is currently a candidate member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and Candidate Member, of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and was qualified for the first time before the OLT.

34Mr. Colville was qualified in Agrology which involves advice and services related to agriculture. He is not a certified member from either the Ontario Professional Planners Institute or Canadian Institute of Planners.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS (“ASF”)

35The Parties’ experts entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) dated August 15, 2024 and agree on several issues including the existing place of worship was established on the subject lands prior to December 16, 2004 and is considered as an “existing use” under s. 4.5 of the GBP and s. 8.1.2 c) of the NOP and as an ‘existing non-agricultural use” under s. 14.2(10) of the City OP.

36Through the ASF, the Parties agree the G1 zone (the creek and buffer as identified by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority are zoned G1 – Conservation/Natural Area) pertains, generally to the location of the Richardson Creek and associated floodplain. The proposed development does not encroach into the G1 Zone and no revisions to the extent and/or boundary of the G1 zone are proposed through the zoning amendment.

NHCN POSITION

37The proposed development is an expansion to an existing, non-agricultural use outside of a settlement area. The expansion increases the lot coverage of the building from the existing 3% lot coverage to a proposed 9.1% lot coverage, whereas the maximum coverage permitted in the site specific ZBL is 5%.

38The NHCN expert witnesses noted that the subject lands do not appear to have been used for agricultural purposes at any time in the past 88 to 90 years. The current church building was constructed in 2013. As the lands have not been used for agricultural purposes, the expansion of the existing structure will have no impact on the agricultural viability of the site. Furthermore, it is noted that most adjacent lands contain industrial land uses or infrastructure corridors with no agricultural elements. An unaddressed parcel of lands to the northwest appears to be the only actively farmed agricultural property in proximity to the site. NHCN contend, given the existing site context and surrounding land uses, the expansion will not adversely affect agricultural recourses or hinder their protection for the long term.

PALS POSITION

39While the subject application is for an expansion of an existing non-agricultural use rather than the establishment of a new non-agricultural use, the PPS is clear that the intent of the policy is to only permit non-agricultural uses that are specifically limited in size and scale. The proposed expansion would cause the building to substantially exceed the limited lot coverage established for the non-agricultural use when the use was initially approved in the agricultural area. As such, the proposed expansion of the place of worship is not in keeping with the intent of the PPS, City and Regional policies for non-agricultural uses in prime agricultural areas.

ISSUES

40What is in dispute is the non-agricultural use and the size of the expansion of the development within the GBP Area, in the Agricultural Area, within the Protected Countryside, within the Specialty Crop Area, also identified as Tender Fruit and Grape lands. Accordingly, the following main issues including interpretation became the focus of the hearing;

1. Does the approval of the Official Plan Amendment (the “OPA”) have regard to the matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, in particular, Section 2 (b) and (p). These matters are:

(b) the protection of the agricultural resources of the Province;

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

2. Is the approval of the OPA consistent with the relevant policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”) in particular:

2.3.1 (Agricultural Areas; Specialty Crop Areas)

2.3.3.1 (Permitted Uses)

2.3.6.1 b) (Agricultural Areas; Specialty Crop Areas – Alternate Locations)

2.3.6.2 (Expanding of Non-Agricultural Uses)

4. Does the approval of the OPA conform with the provisions of the Greenbelt Plan (“GP”) specifically s. 4.5 (4) more into conformity test.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Issue 1; Does the approval of the OPA have regard to the matters of provincial interest

41In regard to s. 2 (b) the protection of the agricultural resources of the Province, Mr. Rohe, Ms. Tanner, Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Colville all testified the subject lands do not appear to have been used for agricultural purposes at any point in the past 90 years. In addition, all experts testified the expansion to the south side of the existing building will have no impact on the agricultural viability of adjacent agricultural resources.

42In regard to s. 2 (p) the appropriate location of growth and development, Mr. Rohe and Ms. Tanner testified s. 2 (p) is of relevance as physical development is proposed and the appropriateness of its location is to be considered.

43Mr. Rohe, Ms. Tanner and Mr. Ramsay all testified, the expansion of the church is a physical change only. No new uses are proposed that would create a new or more significant conflict with adjacent agricultural operations. Site specific provisions in the NOP, City OP, and City ZBL permit the church use on the entirety of the site. With regard to the zoning, the watercourse and buffer on the subject lands are zoned G1, and the church/place of worship is not permitted on this portion of the subject lands.

44An unaddressed parcel of lands to the northwest (The Vaughn Farm), across First Street Louth is the only actively farmed agricultural property in proximity to the site. There would be no impacts based on land use planning considerations, as noted by the owners of the Vaughn Farm, who provided a written submission in support of the applications.

45PALS asserts, the value of the land is immaterial and it is the designation of the land that attracts the protection.

FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1

46The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Rohe, Ms. Tanner, Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Colville. The Church is a permitted use in Regional and City planning documents. The subject lands are Specialty Crop Areas in the GBP, however, the church use is permitted through site-specific permissions on the entirety of the Subject Property and was a use permitted prior to the in-force date for the GBP.

47The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Tanner, Mr. Rohe, Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Colville, that it is appropriate for an expansion to be considered and approved on the lands, as the site contains sufficient area for expansion. Due to the number and scale of surrounding non-agricultural land uses, and minimal interface with agricultural operations, the location will have no significant land use impacts on adjacent land uses, agricultural uses or the natural environment.

48The Tribunal finds that the Church is expanding within the confines of its own property and there will be no impacts to adjacent properties or any other agricultural operations. The protection of agricultural resources is still maintained even with this expansion.

49Even though the Tribunal somewhat agrees with the argument and the principle that the insignificance of the value of the land is immaterial, and it is the designation of the land that attracts the protection in theory, the Tribunal has a Public interest mandate under the Act whether it is practical or not and therefore, all factors, characteristics, including site context have to be analysed.

50Site specific provisions in the NOP, City OP and ZBL permit the Church on the entirety of the site. The expansion is not obtaining adjacent lands but only utilizing lands within its site which has been shown not to have any impacts to adjacent properties or other farm operations. The Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that these subject lands do not appear to have been used for agricultural purposes at any point in the past 90 years.

51The Tribunal finds the church expansion within its own site is an appropriate location of growth and development, and even though some agricultural land will be developed this land is disputed as not being a viable agricultural land and was never used for agricultural purposes nonetheless in the past 90 years. The ability to farm the subject lands in the future would still be limited by the existing built and natural heritage areas on the subject land. The expansion is only on the entirety of its own property.

52Therefore, based on the evidence before it and the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal finds the applications have regard for matters of Provincial Interest as identified in s. 2 of the Act.

Issue 2 - Is the approval of the OPA consistent with the relevant policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”) in particular:

2.3.1 (Agricultural Areas; Specialty Crop Areas)

2.3.3.1 (Permitted Uses)

2.3.6.1 b) (Agricultural Areas; Specialty Crop Areas – Alternate Locations)

2.3.6.2 (Expanding of Non-Agricultural Uses)

53The Tribunal will note that during this hearing the new PPS (2024) came into effect. On August 20, 2024, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”) announced that the new 2024 PPS would be brought into effect on October 20, 2024. This new document merges the function of the 2020 PPS and 2020 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”). On that same day, the Growth Plan was repealed and will no longer be applicable to Planning Decisions in Ontario. There has been no transition policy applied to date.

54It is noted that the effective date of the 2024 PPS was October 20, 2024 and occurred during the middle of this hearing, and therefore, the Tribunal’s decision must be consistent with it.

2.3.1 (Agricultural Areas; Specialty Crop Areas)

55Policy 2.3.1 is a general policy that states that “Prime Agricultural Areas shall be protected for the long term-use for agriculture.” In addition, “Speciality crop areas shall be given the highest priority for protection.”

56According to Mr. Rohe, the proposed OPA does not seek to remove or change the Agricultural land use permissions from the property in a manner that would affect the ability for the lands, or adjacent lands to be used for agricultural purposes now or in the future. As these agricultural permissions remain in place, it is his opinion that the lands remain protected for the long term for potential agricultural uses.

57Ms. Tanner testified, the ability to farm the subject lands in the future would be limited by the existing built and natural heritage area on the subject lands. According to Ms. Tanner, the long term use of adjacent lands, which are also within the Specialty Crop designation, will not be impacted.

58Mr. Galbraith contends, in order to protect and enhance the agricultural land base, the PPS encourages decision makers to take an “agricultural system” approach which is defined as “a system comprised of a group of inter-connected elements that collectively create a viable, thriving agricultural sector. It has two components: a) An agricultural land base comprised of prime agricultural areas, including specialty crop areas, and rural lands that together create a continuous productive land base for agriculture; and b) An agri-food network which includes infrastructure, services, and assets important to the viability of the agri-food sector.”

59In Mr. Galbraith’s opinion, the PPS encourages this systems-based approach to the protection of the province’s agricultural land base to not only maintain but also enhance the continuity of the agricultural land base, which includes the Subject Property.

60In Mr. Galbraith’s opinion, the ultimate goal of these policies is to provide for the permanent protection of Ontario’s agricultural land base and to generally prohibit the expansion of urban uses within these areas.

61Mr. Galbraith contends, the definition of specialty crop areas specifically recognizes the rarity of specialty crop areas and the defining characteristics of these areas as those with unique soil and climate conditions, areas with skilled labour in the production of specialty crops and areas with long term investment in the production of these crops and storage and distribution of the same.

62Mr. Galbraith testified, the proposed expansion is significant within the policy context applicable to the site and seeks to vastly expand the extent of the non-agricultural use provisions of the site, which is not consistent with the policy direction set out in the PPS as the site is located within a specialty crop area.

Findings - 2.3.1 (Agricultural Areas; Specialty Crop Areas)

63The Tribunal understands the plain definition of “Prime Agricultural Areas shall be protected for the long term-use for agriculture” and “Specialty crop areas shall be given the highest priority for protection,” however the Tribunal disagrees with the concept that the ultimate goal of these policies is to provide for the permanent protection of Ontario’s agricultural land base and to generally prohibit the expansion of urban uses within these areas.

64The Tribunal finds that other factors and characteristics are required to be considered, which the NOP and City OP, 2024 PPS and even the GBP allows for, before an outright ban on expansions on these designated protected lands. There is no dispute that all plans need to be read in their entirety.

65The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Rohe, Ms. Tanner, Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Colville. In this case, through the evidence in practical terms, the expansion is planned into lands that would be otherwise impractical for farming. The lands to be expanded on to are already constrained by the setbacks and more importantly, there is no evidence that there will be impacts on adjacent lands. The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Rohe and finds these are important factors that must consider including existing non-agricultural uses and the characteristics or status of an area of agricultural lands in general.

66The Tribunal finds that the OPA does not create any conflicts or does not impede the promotion of all types, sizes and intensities of agricultural uses and normal farm practices in the surrounding area. The interface of a parking area and municipal roadway between the church building and the farm will remain the same unaffected by the expansion.

67The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Ramsay that OPA 36 merely clarifies that an expansion of the place of worship/church beyond the current zoning regulations is permitted. Mr. Ramsay testified, while specific policies sometimes refer to other policies for ease of use, these cross-references do not take away from the need to read the 2024 PPS as a whole. There is no implied priority in the order in which the policies appear.

68The Tribunal finds another consideration through the evidence of the NHCN’s witnesses is that the proposed OPA does not seek to remove or change the Agricultural land use permissions from the Subject Property in a manner that would affect the ability for the lands, or adjacent lands to be used for agricultural purposes now or in the future. Therefore, the definition of protection of lands is met by the lands remaining protected for the long term for potential agricultural uses.

2.3.3.1 (Permitted Uses)

69Policy 2.3.3.1 of the PPS (2024) outlines the permitted uses for Prime Agricultural Areas, which include:

• Agricultural uses,

• Agriculture-related uses; and

• On farm diversified uses.

70Ms. Tanner testified, the existing use is permitted through site specific NOP and City OP policies for the entirety of the subject lands.

71Mr. Galbraith testified, while the Subject Property currently contains an existing place of worship, it is his opinion that the overarching direction set out in the PPS envisions the agricultural use of the lands and broader area given its location within a prime agricultural area and specialty crop area.

72Mr. Galbraith asserts, while it is acknowledged that the existing place of worship is a permitted non-agricultural use on the Subject Property by way of a past site-specific planning approval permitted prior to the enactment of the GBP, it is his opinion that the underlying prime agricultural and specialty crop policies of the PPS and GBP remain relevant and applicable to the matter before the Tribunal.

73NHCN asserts that the church is a legally permitted use. As of right condition is distinguished from a use that is a legal non-conforming use. NHCN contends that planning theory contemplates that legally non-conforming uses will disappear over time, which is not the case here, the use is entitled to remain on this property in perpetuity.

Findings - 2.3.3.1 (Permitted Uses)

74The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Rohe that Policy 2.3.3.1 is to be considered when contemplating the establishment of new uses in Prime Agricultural Areas. Since the Church is an expanding use, this is addressed under s. 2.3.6 of the PPS.

2.3.6.1 b) (Agricultural Areas; Specialty Crop Areas – Alternate Locations)

75Policy 2.3.6.1b) provides that “planning authorities may only permit non-agricultural uses in prime agricultural areas for limited non-residential uses,” should all of the following criteria be met:

1. the land does not comprise a specialty crop area;

2. the proposed use complies with the minimum distance separation formulae;

3. there is an identified need within the planning horizon provided for in policy 1.1.2 for additional land to accommodate the proposed use; and

4. alternative locations have been evaluated, and

i. there are no reasonable alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas; and

ii. there are no reasonable locations in prime agricultural areas with lower priority agricultural lands.

76Ms. Tanner explained, the subject lands currently have a non-agricultural and non-residential use that is permitted on the entirety of the property based on the NOP and City OP. Non-residential uses are to be limited in area based on the land that would no longer be available for agriculture.

77According to Ms. Tanner, the subject lands are currently designated as Specialty Crop Area but have not been used for this purpose since prior to the GBP coming into effect. The ability for the subject lands to return to Specialty Crop uses is compromised by the existing level of disturbance/development. The proposed use also complies with the Multi Distance Separation (“MDS”) requirements as identified by Mr. Colville.

78Ms. Tanner testified the church congregation has grown and requires a larger building to accommodate for the additional capacity. The proposed church building expansion would use a minimal amount of additional land to accommodate the expansion.

79In addition, the expansion of the church building is modest in scale relative to the existing state of the subject lands. Alternative locations would result in the splitting of the congregation or could result in the sale of the subject lands, which have been substantially developed and disturbed with the existing uses (buildings/structures/private services). Ms. Tanner advised it would be challenging and costly to return the lands to a state in which they could be farmed in future.

80Mr. Galbraith testified, while a place of worship is permitted on the subject lands as a result of historic planning approvals, the site-specific ZBL (A1-85) implemented at the time included clear provisions to ensure that the scale of the non-agricultural use would be limited, including regulations establishing a maximum lot coverage of 5%.

81In Mr. Galbraith’s opinion, these regulations were deliberately established to limit the scale of the non-agricultural use within its agricultural context, and to ensure that the impact of a non-agricultural use on the broader agricultural system would be limited. Suitable Location

82Counsel for PALS submits the evidence of Pastor Nathan Braun and the video marked as Exhibit 10, confirms that NHCN did find a suitable alternate location. While the date of providing worship service was not confirmed, this fact is relevant and material to the determination of this matter, considering its growth and the applicable policies regarding such. The ability of NHCN to secure a suitable alternate location with a ten-year lease and an option to buy, is a material fact and provides an additional reasonable basis to deny the proposal to expand.

83Counsel for NHCN submit the evidence of Nathan Braun, together with the video, are conclusive that the Church’s use and rental of Jordan Public School can in no way be seen as an alternate location for the Church. It is clear from Nathan Braun’s evidence that the Church always considered the First Street Louth location as the main or “mothership” Church, but that other sites were sought out to provide additional locations to provide services to the community. The size of the Jordan Public school could not be seen as an alternative location for services of only 200 people and the growth of the congregation to approximately 400 people.

84Both Ms. McEwan and Mr. Galbraith assert, impacts on the agricultural system are fully avoidable for the matter before the Tribunal, with a more appropriate option to the extensive expansion being to relocate the place of worship to another location within the urban area or a reduction in the proposed expansion aligned with the current planning controls applicable to the site.

Findings 2.3.6.1 b) (Agricultural Areas; Specialty Crop Areas – Alternate Locations)

85The expansion of the church has been described by various witnesses as expansive, doubling or tripling in size and modest in scale relative to the existing state of the subject lands.

86Although there was an argument from NHCN that alternative locations would result in the splitting of the congregation or could result in the sale of the subject lands, which have been substantially developed and disturbed with the existing uses (buildings/structures/private services), the Tribunal finds these reasons hold very little weight to the overall alternative location issue along with the argument that it would be costly to return the lands to a state in which they could be farmed in future.

87However, the Tribunal heard evidence through several witnesses that the expansion would not cause any impacts on the agricultural system. In addition, the evidence of Nathan Braun was clear that the Jordan Public School was for other services to the community and not the main congregation of NHCN. The splitting of the congregation, sale of the subject lands or costs to return the land to farming are not determinative in the analysis of this specific policy. The Tribunal finds a more compelling argument in the ability for the subject lands or challenge to return to Specialty Crop uses, which is compromised by the existing level of disturbance/development.

88In response to the argument of simply relocating the place of worship to another location in an urban area, the Tribunal finds this is a simplistic approach without analyzing the factors and characteristics of this expansion with the various policies on policy 2.3.6.1b) and criteria 1 through 4.

89The Tribunal analyse the practicality of the alternate location. The evidence has shown that the subject lands have not been used for farming in approximately 90 years although not determinative the Tribunal views this as one factor that requires to be considered. The site context with only one farm operation, which has advised in writing there will be no impacts to expansion. The difficulty or challenge of returning the land back into farmland considering the evidence of Mr. Colville concerning the poor soil is another factor to be considered.

90In addition, although NHCN acquired another property (Jordan Public School) on a ten-year lease, the Tribunal is not persuaded that this property can replace the existing and proposed development and satisfy NHCN services for the increased congregation. The Tribunal has no information to dispute the testimony of Mr. Braun that the Jordan Public School is for other services and not for the main NHCN congregation. Therefore, the Tribunal finds the applications meet all the criteria of Policy 2.3.6.1b).

2.3.6.2 (Expanding of Non-Agricultural Uses)

91Policy 2.3.6.2 outlines impacts from any new or expanding non-agricultural uses on surrounding agricultural operations and lands that are to be mitigated to the extent feasible.

92Ms. Tanner testified, the southward expansion of the church building will not impact existing agricultural operations across Rykert Street (to the south). A 40 m wide landscape buffer is provided between the church building and Rykert Street. This area currently has trees and the tree planting will be enhanced.

93According to Ms. Tanner, the church expansion will not impact the agricultural lands to the west (opposite side of First Street Louth). Although the building will be expanded, the setback on First Street Louth is retained.

94Ms. Tanner testified, the church expansion will not impact the agricultural lands to the east (on the Subject Lands) as the expansion is on the south side of the existing church. Between the church building and the agricultural lands to the east are the parking area, the creek and vacant agricultural lands with trees.

95Finally, according to Ms. Tanner for the lands to the north, there is no change in building footprint or parking area, the separation and current circumstances are maintained in relation to the property to the north.

96Ms. Tanner explained, the proposed expansion is in scale and would expand into lands that would be otherwise impractical for farming. The limited size and location of the area proposed to accommodate the church expansion would already constrain existing opportunities for conversion to agricultural uses. The agricultural uses on adjacent Specialty Crop Lands are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed expansion given the separation of adjacent lands by the road network. Existing conditions, with the proximity to the surrounding sensitive land uses and MDS requirements, would currently limit any new livestock operations south of the Subject Lands.

97Mr. Galbraith testified while the expansion may not result in any MDS impacts to immediately adjacent land uses, the significant expansion of a non-agricultural use, within a specialty crop area, will limit the ability of potential future agricultural practices in the area and diminish the continuity of the broader agricultural system.

98In Mr. Galbraith’s opinion, the increased size of the place of worship can restrict the use of lands in proximity to the site by introducing new setback requirements for different forms of agricultural practices to an expanded sensitive land use.

Findings - 2.3.6.2 (expanding of Non-Agricultural Uses)

99The Tribunal has heard evidence that the agricultural uses on adjacent Specialty Crop Lands are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed expansion given the separation of adjacent lands by the road network.

100Mr. Galbraith asserts the proposed expansion will introduce many avoidable impacts, including significantly increasing the size of a non-agricultural use of the subject property. The Tribunal finds increasing the size of a non-agricultural use by expanding moderately an already existing church on its own property is a negligible impact on agricultural land uses. The Tribunal finds that there has been no evidence that the expansion will impede the future use of the site or potentially create limitations on the agricultural use of surrounding/nearby lands or reducing the continuity of the agricultural land base.

101The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Rohe, Ms. Tanner and Mr. Ramsay, that the OPA 36 does not detract from the protection of the specialty crop area land base and does not prevent the introduction of agriculture-supportive infrastructure and value-added uses necessary for sustainable agricultural uses and activities. OPA 36 authorizes the expansion of an existing non-agricultural land use within the limits of the Site.

102The Tribunal has heard evidence, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the site design to ensure nearby agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by the expansion. OPA 36 neither enhances nor diminishes the strengths of the Agricultural System.

103The Tribunal relies on the evidence of Ms. Tanner, that the subject lands currently have a non-agricultural and non-residential use that is permitted on the entirety of the property based on the NOP and City OP. The subject lands are currently designated as Speciality Crop Area but have not been used for this purpose since prior to the GBP coming into effect. The ability for the subject lands to return to Specialty Crop Area uses is compromised by the existing level of disturbance /development. In addition, the proposed use complies with the MDS.

104The Tribunal relies on the evidence and analysis of Mr. Ramsay that the construction of the church expansion and general improvements to the Site facilitated by OPA 36 will have no adverse impact on surrounding agricultural operations. Many of the surrounding land uses are commercial, industrial or rural residential. The closest active agricultural operation is located north-west of the subject lands on the opposite side of First Street Louth. This agricultural operation involves the growing of field crops. The church expansion authorized by OPA 36 will be located south of the existing place of worship building and adjacent to Rykert Street. The addition will be well removed from the active agricultural operations and will not impact agricultural operations in the area.

105The Tribunal has considered the argument from PALS that any compromise to Specialty Crop Area lands, including extending permitted non-agricultural use and the expansion of a non-agricultural use footprint, can fairly be accepted as an adverse impact as it prevents growth.

106The Tribunal cannot look at issues in a vacuum. In this case, concerning extending permitted non-agricultural use, the Tribunal is required to look also at the context to adverse impacts. The Tribunal has heard evidence that there is no adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The Tribunal does not agree that any compromise to a specialty crop area is considered an adverse impact. In considering the subject property itself, by expanding the church on its own property can be viewed as a negligible impact.

107The subject property is disputed as not being viable agricultural land and was never used for agricultural purposes in over 90 years, and evidence was heard that it will be difficult to return the subject land back to farming due to existing level of disturbance /development. The soil is questionable for a specialty crop area so as far as preventing growth, the Tribunal relies on the evidence before it, which may not foresee any specialty crop growth on the subject lands or no reasonable prospect of any economically viable agricultural or agriculturally-related use on the subject lands in the future and therefore, there is negligible impact with this expansion.

108In any event, as noted by NHCN’s counsel in regard to PALS’ argument, any expansion is equivalent to an adverse impact, no witness for PALS gave any evidence, which would support such a proposition.

Issue 3; Does the approval of the OPA conform with the provisions of the GBP specifically s. 4.5 (4) more into conformity test.

109The GBP was prepared and approved under the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and took effect on December 16, 2004. The current consolidation of the GBP took effect in May 2017, as approved by Lieutenant Governor in Council, Order in Council No. 1025/2017.

110The subject lands are located within the Niagara Peninsula Tender Fruit and Grape Area, which is considered as a Specialty Crop Area under the GBP.

111Policy 3.1.2.5 of the GBP requires that where non-agricultural uses and agricultural uses interface, that the land use compatibility shall be achieved. This is to be accomplished by avoiding or mitigating adverse impacts, which may be caused by development.

112NHCN contend that the subject lands are not adjacent to any active agricultural uses. Instead, the subject lands interface with land uses including industrial facilities and infrastructure corridors. Accordingly, the expansion of the church is not considered to adversely affect the surrounding agricultural area in a manner that is more intensive or obnoxious than current conditions. Therefore, the expansion of the church is considered to be appropriate and in conformity with the policies of s. 3.1.2 of the GBP.

113Ms. McEwan testified that the proposed expansion to the existing building has not been demonstrated to be bringing the use more into conformity with the GBP in any manner. The size of the building is proposed to nearly triple from its existing lot coverage (nearly double the lot coverage permitted in the site-specific ZBL) in the designated Specialty Crop Area.

114According to Ms. McEwan, increasing the size of a place of worship achieves the opposite of bringing the use closer to conformity with any of the Specialty Crop Area policies that are outlined in s. 3.1.2 of the GBP, which promote and protect agricultural uses, and generally discourage non-agricultural uses. Accordingly, the proposed expansion is not supportable.

115Mr. Boekestyn testified that the large scale of expansion of a non-agricultural use in the specialty crop area as proposed, which is doubling of the size of the existing use, would not bring this use more into conformity with the GBP or the NOP. The expansion as proposed would not be in keeping with the NOP’s objectives for protection of the specialty crop lands and could further adversely affect the sustainability and function of future agricultural uses in this area.

116Policy 4.5 (4) states that:

Expansions to existing buildings and structures, accessory structures and uses and/or conversions of legally existing uses which bring the use more into conformity with this Plan are permitted subject to a demonstration of the following:

a) Notwithstanding section 4.2.2.2, new municipal services are not required; and

b) The use does not expand into key natural heritage features or key hydrologic features or their associated vegetation protection zones, unless there is no other alternative, in which case any expansion shall be limited in scope and kept within close geographical proximity to the existing structure.

117Mr. Galbraith agrees with the City and Region’s position, in their respective staff reports that a fundamental test, which must be considered is whether the proposed OPA and ZBLA required to permit the proposed expansion brings the existing non-agricultural use (the existing place of worship) into greater conformity with the GBP.

118In Mr. Galbraith’s opinion, while this policy permits existing uses, which would include the existing place of worship, it is in his opinion that the expansion fails to satisfy the expansion criteria of the GBP and in no way brings the use into greater conformity with the Plan.

119Mr. Rohe testified, in his opinion, the “closer conformity” test only applies to the conversion or redevelopment of a property that currently contains a non-agricultural use. He used the example, the church building or use of the lands would only be able to be converted to a new use that is in closer conformity with the GBP. Mr. Rohe asserted, closer conformity is only an appropriate test if the use of the land or building changes.

120In Mr. Rohe’s opinion, it is not reasonable or correct to apply this (City and Region’s) strict interpretation, as the permitted church use remains unaltered – only the building is increasing in size. Closer conformity is only an appropriate test if the use of the land or building changes.

121In Mr. Rohe’s opinion, the proposed expansion conforms with and satisfies the test of Policy 4.5(4) a) as the development will not require new municipal services to be developed. The subject lands are located outside of the Urban Area Boundary (Settlement Area Boundary) and are supported by private services (septic, well). In addition, the proposed expansion conforms with and satisfies the test of Policy 4.5(4) b) as the proposed development will occur outside of the limits of on-site and adjacent key natural heritage and key hydrological features.

122Ms. Tanner emphasized the existing use is established in site-specific OP policy (NOP and City OP) and ZBL provisions. Lot creation is not proposed. No redesignation has occurred although the site specific NOP and City OP policies pre-date the in-force date of the original GBP.

123In regards to the conformity test, Ms. Tanner advised that this provision is to be read as independent clauses where expansions to existing buildings, structures and uses are permitted subject to criteria a) and b), and/or conversions of legally existing uses which bring the use more into conformity with this Plan are permitted subject to criteria.

124Ms. Tanner testified, there are numerous instances in Niagara in the GBP where legally established non-agricultural uses have expanded, including schools adding portables, a new retirement home, and residences adding accessory structures. Ms. Tanner asserts that these examples did not bring the use more in conformity with the GBP, yet have been granted approvals.

125In Ms. Tanner’s opinion, the expansion of the existing building and uses can be supported because:

a) new municipal services are not required for the expansion. The church uses private water and septic systems.

b) the use will not expand into key natural heritage features or key hydrologic features or their associated vegetation protection zones.

126Mr. Ramsay testified that this policy applies in two situations. In the first instance, it applies to expansions to existing buildings and structures, accessory structures and uses. The second situation involves conversions of legally existing uses, which bring the use more into conformity with the GBP.

127Mr. Ramsay testified that you cannot evaluate the concept of more coverage from a more conformity perspective, the two concepts do not relate to each other which serves to underscore that the expansion of coverage cannot trigger a more conformity evaluation.

128In Mr. Ramsay’s opinion, the expansion falls within the first instance as it is an expansion of a building and not the conversion of a place of worship use to another use. The expansion to the existing place of worship building, as authorized by OPA No. 36 (“OPA 36”), conforms with the requirements of s. 4.5(4). The existing place of worship is a legal existing use and the expansion does not require new municipal services or the expansion into key natural heritage features, hydrologic features or their associated vegetation protection zones.

129In closing, the Region’s counsel submitted, the wording of the NOP (Policy 4.1.10.2) adds clarity to the interpretation and makes clear expansions of non-agricultural uses can take place independent of a consideration of achieving greater conformity providing that a more detailed criteria is met (e.g. MDS Guidelines). In other words, the GBP and NOP should not be interpreted to lead to inconsistent results.

130In closing submissions by PALS’ counsel, highlighted the interpretation of s. 4.5(4). of the GBP and recognized the clear and expressive conjunctive language of the provision.

131PAL counsel advised, there is no comma after “Plan” which brings the use more into conformity with this “Plan” and therefore, this fact confirms that it is not only conversions that requires more conformity with the Plan. According to PAL counsel, proper grammar confirms that each reference is to be read as having to be more in conformity.

132According to PAL counsel, to sever the first part of the paragraph, "Expansions to existing buildings and structures and accessory structures and uses" from the provision would lead to the absurd interpretation that any expansion is permitted without qualification. This can hardly be the intent of the drafters of the legislation. This interpretation is directly contradictory to the intent of the legislation. The stricter interpretation ought to apply.

133PALS in their closing submitted that while there is a dispute in the interpretation of the GBP, s. 4.5(4), this is not determinative of the matter. However, it submits that its interpretation is consistent with the goals and is the only reasonable interpretation.

Findings - Issue 3 - Does the approval of the OPA conform with the provisions of the GBP, specifically s. 4.5 (4) more into conformity test.

134Ms. McEwan and Mr. Boekestyn both acknowledge that GBP Policy 4.5(4) allows expansions to existing buildings and structures that bring the use more into conformity with the Plan and by demonstrating that new municipal services are not required. Both planners acknowledged the proposed development does not require new municipal services and will remain on private services. Also, the proposed expansion does not expand into key natural heritage features or key hydrological features, or their associated vegetated protection zones as outlined in the GBP under Policy 4.5(4).

135Mr. Boekestyn did raise a concern that a preferred option would be for the proposed development to be on municipal services than private services due to the size of the expansion.

136The Tribunal agrees with PALS’ counsel that s. 4.5(4) of the GBP is not determinative of the matter. However, is the “more in conformity” test limited to conversions of legally existing uses, or does it also apply to expansions of existing buildings and structures.

137The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Rohe, Ms. Tanner and Mr. Ramsay that relies on the structure of this provision grammatically, and as highlighted above, establishes two distinct and separate considerations, one for expansions of existing uses and one for conversions of existing uses, that is the plain reading of the section.

138The Tribunal agrees with counsel for NHCN and finds the conversion of an existing use to a new and different use clearly engages the “more in conformity” test, in accordance with the overall goals of the GBP. In those circumstances, this new use should be required to come “more into conformity” with the GBP. However, to apply the “more in conformity” test to the expansion of existing buildings or structures goes against what is practically happening.

139It has been shown through the evidence that there are a wide range of uses in the immediate area, all of which collide with the objectives of the GBP. Ms. Tanner has shown other non-agricultural permitted uses within the GBP having expanded, including schools adding portables, and the expansion of retirement homes. Mr. Ramsay, in his evidence, has provided examples of at least four other churches in the Niagara region, which are located in the protected agricultural area of the Greenbelt including the expansion of Hy-Grade Concrete across the street from the subject lands.

140The Tribunal agrees that if the expansion must achieve greater conformity with the Plan i.e. agricultural uses, by definition, that can never occur. The extension of the argument is that an expansion of a non-agricultural use could never be allowed therefore, rendering the first consideration contradictory.

141The Tribunal also relies on Mr. Rohe’s evidence, in regards to policy 4.1.10.2 of the NOP, which has similar provisions of Policy 4.5(4) of the GBP. This provision refers to the “more in conformity” test only applying to conversions and that this is, in essence, the local planning policy interpreting and applying the GBP. The wording of this policy adds clarity to the interpretation and makes clear that expansions of non-agricultural uses can take place independent of a consideration of achieving greater conformity providing that a more detailed criteria is met (e.g. MDS Guidelines).

142Therefore, the Tribunal finds in terms of the objective and purpose of the relevant plans and policies, the long-term protection of these lands remains with the continuing underlying designation of the lands as Speciality Crop Area and the approval of the OPA conforms with the provisions of the GBP specifically s. 4.5(4).

City Zoning By-Law No. 2013-283

143The subject lands have an existing site-specific zoning (Special Provision A1-85), which includes the following:

1. A place of worship is a permitted use;

2. Zone Provisions for the following;

a) Lot Coverage: 5%

b) Maximum Height: 18 m

c) Exterior Side Yard: 19 m from First Street Louth property line 34 m if the exterior side yard is within 100 m of Rykert Street property line

d) Front Yard: 50 m from Rykert Street property line

e) Landscape Buffer: 50 m along Rykert Street property line, 5 m along First Street Louth property line

f) Minimum Parking: one space per five persons seating capacity

g) Minimum Rear Yard: 18 m

h) Minimum interior Side Yard: 18 m

144The ZBLA would allow for the following;

• Increase in permitted lot coverage from 5% to 9.1%.

• A reduction in the permitted Exterior Side Yard Setback from 34 m to 21.76 m.

• Reduction in the permitted Front Yard Setback from 50 m to 42 m.

145The provisions set out in the zoning by-law provide an exterior yard setback of 34 metres – the application to expand the place of worship seeks to reduce the exterior Side Yard to 21.76 metres.

146Ms. McEwan testified that the place of worship was initially approved subject to a site-specific maximum size. The City staff also noted that, at this time, the existing building has a lot coverage of 3%, where the ZBL allows a lot coverage of 5%. According to Ms. McEwan, the use has room to expand built into their current land use permission. The building could expand by approximately 760 m² in lot coverage, and up to 18 m in height, and still remain in keeping with the ZBL.

147According to Ms. McEwan, if the use has grown to require more than the permitted lot coverage on this site, expanding or relocating onto a different site would be more appropriate than expanding within the specialty crop area. In Ms. McEwan’s opinion this consideration is not satisfied.

148In regard to Minimum Front and Interior Side Yards, Ms. McEwan testified the proposed reductions in the minimum front and exterior yards are not considered appropriate in this context. This property was initially approved with specifically large setbacks from the south and southwest to accommodate proximity to an existing industrial operation, and to maintain vegetated buffer and distinctly rural streetscapes. The building as currently constructed mostly exceeds the minimum permitted setbacks. There is some room for smaller, appropriate buildings and additions that afford the place of worship additional square footage without compromising the setbacks put in place specifically for this use.

149According to Ms. McEwan, the proposal to reduce the setback is not in keeping with the intent of the rural context-sensitive, site-specific considerations applied to this property at the time the use was established. In her opinion, every effort should be made to meet all required setbacks.

150In Mr. Galbraith’s opinion, the existing site-specific provisions/regulations applicable to the subject property were applied in order to limit the scale of the place of worship for the subject property and in turn minimize the impacts of the introduction of a non-agricultural use on adjacent lands and within a broader agricultural area.

151Mr. Galbraith contends, while the existing zoning applicable to the property permits private services, it is noted that the site specific provisions set out in the ZBL (A1-85) also restricts the overall size of a place of worship to a maximum lot coverage of 5%.

152Mr. Galbraith testified the scale of the proposed expansion, which will increase the lot coverage to 9% and intended occupancy to 1,000, is significant and would be more appropriately located in an area serviced by municipal infrastructure given the significantly increased building area and capacity.

153Mr. Rohe testified, the physical expansion of the existing church building is from a 1,216 m² footprint to a total footprint of 3,618 m² by way of a 2,402 m² addition on the south side of the building.

154NHCN asserts that although there is room to expand within the current zoning, the proposed scale of expansion cannot be accommodated through the existing provisions due to the needs of the congregation.

155Counsel for NHCN submits in closing, an increase in lot coverage cannot be looked at in isolation from other relevant circumstances, and the determination of the effect of any proposed change in zoning requirements is never simply a mathematical formula, it must always be considered in the context of the specific circumstances at hand.

156Furthermore, counsel for NHCN, highlighted that Ms. Tanner stated that the question of lot coverage has to be considered together with the proposed setbacks. In this regard, there is already a 40 m wide buffer between the church and Rykert Street and that the proposed reduction of the setback from 50 m to 42 m is minor in nature, and simply to accommodate the existing expansion of the structure. With respect to the exterior side yard setback, Ms. Tanner noted that it continues an existing and significant setback from First Street Louth and maintains the distance separation of 70 m from Hy-Grade Concrete.

157Ms. Tanner also noted that in relation to the request for an increase in lot coverage from the maximum 5.0% to 9.1%, that the proposed location of the expansion is already in use by the Church, through temporary Hoop buildings used to accommodate services and other functions. Ms. Tanner also noted that the configuration of the expansion avoids any natural heritage impacts and that landscaping and tree planting is part of the proposal in terms of the expansion.

158The provisions set out in the zoning by-law provide an exterior yard setback of 34 m – the application to expand the place of worship seeks to reduce the exterior Side Yard to 21.76 m.

159Ms. McEwan testified that the place of worship was initially approved subject to a site-specific maximum size. The City staff also noted that, at this time, the existing building has a lot coverage of 3%, where the ZBL allows a lot coverage of 5%. According to Ms. McEwan, the use has room to expand built into their current land use permission. The building could expand by approximately 760 m² in lot coverage, and up to 18 m in height, and still remain in keeping with the ZBL.

160According to Ms. McEwan, if the use has grown to require more than the permitted lot coverage on this site, expanding or relocating onto a different site would be more appropriate than expanding within the specialty crop area. In Ms. McEwan’s opinion, this consideration is not satisfied.

161In regard to Minimum Front and Interior Side Yards, Ms. McEwan testified the proposed reductions in the minimum front and exterior yards are not considered appropriate in this context. This property was initially approved with specifically large setbacks from the south and southwest to accommodate proximity to an existing industrial operation, and to maintain vegetated buffer and distinctly rural streetscapes. The building as currently constructed mostly exceeds the minimum permitted setbacks. There is some room for smaller, appropriate buildings and additions that afford the place of worship additional square footage without compromising the setbacks put in place specifically for this use.

162According to Ms. McEwan, the proposal to reduce the setback is not in keeping with the intent of the rural context-sensitive, site-specific considerations applied to this property at the time the use was established. In her opinion, every effort should be made to meet all required setbacks.

163In Mr. Galbraith’s opinion, the existing site-specific provisions/regulations applicable to the subject property were applied in order to limit the scale of the place of worship on the subject property itself and in turn minimize the impacts of the introduction of a non-agricultural use on adjacent lands and within a broader agricultural area.

164Mr. Galbraith contends, while the existing zoning applicable to the property permits private services, it is noted that the site specific provisions set out in the ZBL (A1-85) also restricts the overall size of a place of worship to a maximum lot coverage of 5%.

165Mr. Galbraith testified, the scale of the proposed expansion which will increase the lot coverage to 9% and intended occupancy to 1,000 is significant and would be more appropriately located in an area serviced by municipal infrastructure given the significantly increased building area and capacity.

166Mr. Rohe testified, the physical expansion of the existing church building is from a 1,216 m² footprint to a total footprint of 3,618 m² by way of a 2,402 m² addition on the south side of the building.

167NHCN asserts that although there is room to expand within the current zoning, the proposed scale of expansion cannot be accommodated through the existing provisions due to the needs of the congregation.

168Counsel for NHCN submits in closing, an increase in lot coverage cannot be looked at in isolation from other relevant circumstances, and the determination of the effect of any proposed change in zoning requirements is never simply a mathematical formula, it must always be considered in the context of the specific circumstances at hand.

169Furthermore, counsel for NHCN, highlighted that Ms. Tanner stated that the question of lot coverage has to be considered together with the proposed setbacks. In this regard, there is already a 40 m wide buffer between the church and Rykert Street and that the proposed reduction of the setback from 50 m to 42 m is minor in nature, and simply to accommodate the existing expansion of the structure. With respect to the exterior side yard setback, Ms. Tanner noted that it continues an existing and significant setback from First Street Louth, and maintains the distance separation of 70 m from Hy-Grade Concrete.

170Ms. Tanner also noted that in relation to the request for an increase in lot coverage from the maximum 5.0% to 9.1%, that the proposed location of the expansion is already in use by the Church, through temporary Hoop buildings used to accommodate services and other functions. Ms. Tanner also noted that the configuration of the expansion avoids any natural heritage impacts and that landscaping and tree planting is part of the proposal in terms of the expansion.

Findings - City Zoning By-Law No. 2013-283

171The Tribunal finds the City staff’s position on this policy, is rigid which requires strict conformity with the in effect ZBL. The Tribunal has considered the site context and lot size and the current planning controls applicable to the site.

172The Tribunal has heard through the evidence of NHCN witnesses that the proposed location of the expansion is already in use by the Church, through temporary Hoop buildings used to accommodate services and other functions and that the configuration of the expansion avoids any natural heritage impacts and landscaping and tree planting, which are part of the proposal in terms of the expansion.

173City staff have a strong argument that the building could expand by approximately 760 m² in lot coverage, and up to 18 m in height, and still remain in keeping with the ZBL, and the Tribunal agrees that the existing building has not exhausted the available “room” within permitted thresholds of development set forth in the site-specific zoning. As noted by Mr. Rohe through his evidence, based on the current scale of the development, there is room for an increase in lot coverage and height within the as-of-right permissions.

174However, the evidence has shown NHCN has demonstrated the need for an expansion to this facility and that what expansion is permitted under the current zoning would not be sufficient due to the growth of the congregation. The Tribunal cannot rule in isolation or on a strict interpretation without looking at all the factors and characteristics of an application.

175The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Rohe, Ms. Tanner and Mr. Ramsay, that A1-85 Zoning provides flexibility and contemplates expansion and that this meets the requirement of the post-expansions being on lands which are currently zoned to permit the enlargement.

176As noted by the Parties, lot coverage has to be considered together with the proposed setbacks. The Tribunal finds the setbacks are appropriate since there is already a 40 m wide buffer between the church and Rykert Street, and that the proposed reduction of the setback from 50 m to 42 m could be considered as minor in nature.

177The Tribunal finds the exterior side yard setback, of 70 m distance separation from Hy-Grade Concrete is also adequate. The lot coverage is increasing to 3% with an as-of-right 5%, to 9.1%. Ultimately, there will be no negligible impact. In addition, there is no lot creation arising out of the proposed expansion.

178The Tribunal finds no development is proposed within the Natural Area designation. Notwithstanding Part D, Section 14.1 of the City OP, a Place of Worship serviced by private water and sanitary sewers, is permitted on the subject property.

179The Tribunal is satisfied that there is only modest increase to the lot coverage and setback requirements as set out in the ZBL. Therefore, the Tribunal finds the proposed reductions in setback and the increase in building coverage are consistent with the PPS 2024 and City OP.

Mr. Colville’s Witness Statement and specifically Agricultural Impact Assessment (“AIA”)

180The Tribunal finds it imperative to briefly discuss Mr. Colville’s evidence including his AIA report. As noted by PALS’ counsel in her closing submission, no weight ought to be given to the evidence of Mr. Colville. The evidence provided no valuable assistance to the Tribunal for the determination of this matter.

181The Tribunal will note that PALS’ counsel did object at the start of the hearing to not allow NHCN’s witnesses, Mr. Rohe and Ms. Tanner to both testify as their witness statements were the same. After hearing submissions on both Parties, the Tribunal ruled that a motion could have been raised before the start of the hearing and that there was a procedural fairness issue to NHCN not to allow both expert witnesses to testify since all Parties received their respective Witness Statements, in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

182PAL counsel highlights that no AIA was required by the City or the Region for the OPA or ZBLA applications and none of the applicable policies or plans in this circumstance required such.

183The Tribunal agrees that there is no requirement for an AIA since the proposed expansion application is not a new non-agricultural use. As noted in NOP s. 4.1.3.3 Applications for non-agricultural uses shall require completion of an AIA.

184Counsel for NHCN submitted in closing, Mr. Colville’s evidence did not opine on conformity with the Plans from an agricultural analysis and that Mr. Colville gave uncontroverted expert opinion evidence and concluded that the proposed development will have no impact on the existing agricultural land base and surrounding agricultural uses, and that there is no reasonable prospect of any economically viable agricultural or agriculturally-related use on the subject lands in the future.

185Mr. Colville provided a report on land use descriptions arising from his land use survey. The summary of that survey indicates that within the 1.5-kilometre radius study area from the subject lands, there were six Agricultural Uses, one Agriculturally-Related Use; zero On-Farm Diversified Uses; and 11 Non-Agricultural Uses. Mr. Colville also pointed out that the 11 Non-Agricultural Uses did not include the over 20 Non-Farm Residential Dwellings found within the study area.

186Mr. Colville assessed the potential for the proposed expansion of the Church to impact the agricultural system and he concluded there will be no impact on the agricultural land base or the agri-food network. He also provided his opinion, the proposed expansion is consistent with Provincial, Regional and City’s agricultural policies and will comply with the MDS formulae.

187The Tribunal heard through the evidence of Mr. Rohe that Mr. Colville’s Witness Statement should be relied upon for opinion evidence, beyond land use planning considerations with regard to specific agricultural impacts on adjacent agricultural operations and lands.

Findings - Mr. Colville’s Witness Statement and specifically, AIA

188Mr. Colville was qualified in Agrology, which involves evaluation of agricultural resources, assessment of impacts on the agricultural system and the interpretation of agricultural policies involving land use planning matters. He is not a certified member from either the Ontario Professional Planners Institute or Canadian Institute of Planners.

189The Tribunal agrees that there was no requirement for an AIA in regard to these applications. Regarding Mr. Colville’s opinions on planning matters, the Tribunal did find he provided opinions on conformity with land use planning matters from an agricultural analysis.

190Mr. Rohe clearly stated that Mr. Colville’s Witness Statement should be relied upon for opinion evidence, beyond land use planning considerations and in Mr. Colville’s Witness Statement itself, which provides land use planning opinions.

191The Tribunal finds that although Mr. Colville provided interpretations of agricultural policies involving land use planning matters some of these opinions were not related to the matters that was within his area of expertise and should not have been referred to or relied upon by the other NHCN’s witnesses. These include whether the proposed expansion of the Church is consistent with planning policies.

192Mr. Colville is not a land use planner and his opinions on consistency with Provincial, Regional and the City’s agricultural policies cannot be relied upon.

193However, in regard to his AIA even though it was not required, specific analysis on his land use survey and MDS calculations was beneficial to the Tribunal to understand the context and characteristics of these issues. The Tribunal would note that the Parties allowed his Witness Statement and his testimony even though some of his opinions were outside his area of expertise while the AIA and MDS calculations were not.

194The Tribunal disagrees with PALS’ position that “no weight ought to be given to the evidence of Mr. Colville” and “the evidence provided no valuable assistance to the Tribunal for the determination of this matter.”

195The Tribunal has given weight to Mr. Colville’s AIA and MDS calculations, and finds his evidence provided assistance to the Tribunal for the determination of this matter.

196In conclusion, the Tribunal relied only on his land use survey, his AIA and MDS calculations and not on his land use planning opinions on consistency with Provincial, or conformity with Regional and City’s agricultural policies.

BOOK OF AUTHORITIES

197The Tribunal has considered two cases of jurisprudence from PALS.

198PALS submitted a case, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing v. Innisfil (Town) 2022 CanLII 486 9 (ONLT) (“DLR Holdings”). In this case, the Member states in Para [33] and Para [34] respectively:

33The Tribunal agrees that both the PPS 2020 and the Growth Plan 2020 emphasis the importance of preserving and protecting specialty crop areas and prime agricultural lands. The emphasis on the protection of specialty crop areas and prime agricultural lands needs to be understood in the context of the general thrust to protect the agricultural system by protecting agricultural lands and the functional and economic connections to the agri-food network.

34The PPS 2020 and the Growth Plan 2020 both set out minimum standards from the Provincial perspective. Municipalities implement these standards and may impose more stringent standards appropriate to their community.

199Counsel for NHCN submits, the DLR Holdings case, deals with a redesignation of a property, which is a very different planning application than that in this Hearing. Counsel for PALS took the Tribunal to paragraphs 33 and 34 of the DLR Holdings decision, in which broad statements as to the goals of the GBP are listed. NHCN contends it was explicit in its submissions in that it agreed with those statements; there is no dispute by NHCN that protection of agricultural lands is of primary importance in the GBP.

200NHCN’s position, however, is that PALS seems to be suggesting that this is the end of the analysis and that any type of expansion or redevelopment is or should be prohibited. It is NHCN’s position that this runs contrary to existing policies in the GBP, which speak to both the expansion of existing uses and the establishment of new uses.

201The Tribunal concurs with NHCN that this case involves a redesignation and a different planning application and very little substantial reasoning. However, the Tribunal agrees with the NHCN’s comment that the analysis does not stop. In the present case, the more stringent standards by municipalities have been met through a thorough analysis of the various policy criteria established by the City and Region.

202PALS also submitted a case, City of St. Catharines v. City of St. Catharines (Town), 2024 CanLII 77590(OLT-24-000431) (“City of St. Catharines”), regarding an appeal of a decision of St. Catharines’ Committee of Adjustment and deals in part, with the “minor in nature” test employed in determining a Minor Variance.

203NHCN contends the “minor in nature” test has no applicability in the instant case, as it only applies to Minor Variances and not to the determination of a ZBLA.

204NHCN also noted in respect of the City of St. Catharines case, that the matter at issue was a Consent to determine a minor boundary adjustment, which engages very different considerations and policies than does the expansion of an existing use, which is the subject matter of these appeals.

205The Tribunal finds in the City of St. Catharine’s case, the issue before the Tribunal panel was whether the Consent was to be permitted, it must be deemed a minor boundary adjustment and may require an analysis for “legal or technical reasons.” The Tribunal agrees with NHCN’s counsel, this engages different considerations and policies than the present case.

206However, the Tribunal will comment on Para 48 of the City of St. Catharines decision, which relates to Agricultural lands to be protected and states;

…The lands in questions are the highest classification of agricultural lands to be protected under land use policies. Whether these lands were previously in agricultural production or not, is irrelevant in their designation. The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Semple, that the Consent takes more land than necessary to satisfy a technical reason (replacement of septic system), and further depletes an already undersized agricultural farm lot. While there are adjacent residential lots, there are still significant existing agricultural uses surrounding the property, and thus the greater context supports the need to protect agricultural uses. The Applicant stated that there would be no impact on surrounding land uses and that the proposal would not impact the ability for Parcel 3 to be used for agricultural purposes. The Tribunal prefers the testimony of Ms. Semple and similarly finds that this does not account for the greater context of surrounding agricultural uses; nor does the Consent address its effect of removing specialty crop lands from a Prime Agricultural Area; or that Parcel 3 is a vacant lot of record that may in the future require lands for development.

207The Tribunal compares the relevancy of this case only to similar phrases including that “whether these lands were previously in agricultural production or not, is irrelevant in their designation.” As noted by PALS the fact that the subject lands have not been farmed for over 90 years is not determinative of the designation.

208The Tribunal concurs with the Tribunal Panel in that case and PALS argument in the designation of the lands, however, as noted earlier the analysis it does not stop there. As noted further in the paragraph (48) the Tribunal panel noted, “ …further depletes an already undersized agricultural farm lot. While there are adjacent residential lots, there are still significant existing agricultural uses surrounding the property, and thus the greater context supports the need to protect agricultural uses…”

209The Tribunal highlights that the Tribunal Panel in the City of St. Catharines case, analysis includes a greater context and then comes to a determination. Even though, in the present case, it has different facts since in the present case it has not been determined that there are still significant existing agricultural uses surrounding the property, the Tribunal finds it is important that a greater context analysis was completed and does not automatically end the analysis when an expansion or development is contemplated on protected agricultural lands on whether the underlying designation as specialty crop lands continues to exist, survives and provides for long-term protection of the property for agricultural use

210Although determinations in other cases are neither binding nor do they fetter the discretion exercised by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has exercised its discretion in not referencing the DLR Holdings case for the reasons above, however, only referenced the City of St. Catherine’s case in one instance on the same phrases as noted in the analysis and nothing more due to the different fact patterns as described above.

Summary of findings

211The Tribunal finds based on the evidence, findings and reasons summarized, and after due consideration for all of the arguments set forth in the opening and closing submissions of the Parties, the Tribunal finds that NHCN has demonstrated that the requested applications have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 and the criteria under s. 17(36) of the Act.

212Furthermore, the applications are consistent with the PPS 2024 and conforms to the GBP and NOP. The applications conform and further the goals, objectives and policies of the City OP provides the appropriate standards of expansion through the proposed ZBLA. The applications protects the natural heritage feature and natural hazard, and also represents good planning and are in the public interest.

213Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (“NPCA”) offers no objections to the approval of this application. In regard to traffic, the City’s traffic staff expressed no objections to the proposed amendments. They noted that the traffic impact study determined that a left turn lane to one of the site accesses on First Street met the warrant but was not practical for this location. Staff concur with this assessment. There were no Participant Statements to consider with only one (1) letter of support from a neighbouring farm. During the public meeting one (1) letter of objection was submitted by a resident of the residential subdivision to the east of the property citing concerns about tree removal and noise.

2001 Applications

214In 2001, notwithstanding the recommendation of staff to deny applications of NHCN (the “Applicant"), to permit a place of worship, site specific OPA and ZBLA applications were approved to permit the existing place of worship on the subject property.

215The Tribunal finds that the City and Regional staff were not trying to correct a wrong with the critique of these applications to challenge the underlying historical approvals for a Church use as suggested by NHCN’s counsel. Ms. McEwan and Mr. Boekestyn were clear in their testimony that the only references of the previous applications were for background context.

216The Tribunal would only note that Ms. McEwan, Mr. Boekestyn and Mr. Galbraith were forthright in their testimony and provided strict interpretations of policies whereas, the Tribunal preferred the testimonies of Mr. Rohe, Ms. Tanner, Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Colville with their deeper in-depth analysis.

Precedent

217The Tribunal finds it important to comment on precedent. Various witnesses for PALs highlighted a “very troubling” precedent would be set for expansions to existing non-agriculture uses are supportable without improving the conformity of the existing use to the GBP and to the NOP.

218Mr. Galbraith stated approval of the applications would be “establishing a precedence for the significant expansion of non-agricultural land uses within a specialty crop area.” Ms. McEwan advised, without this requirement, there is very little protection for properties within the protected Specialty Crop Area that contain existing uses. In addition, significant and undesirable expansions of non-agricultural uses within the GBP area would have a very low threshold for approval if conformity with the GBP were not a significant consideration in their approval.

219In closing PALS submits “that the proposed expansion will further destabilize the long-term intention for the Niagara Tender Fruit and Grape Area to be permanently protected, managed and enhanced as a Specialty Crop Area.”

220These Applications come to the Tribunal under unique set of circumstances and which have to be determined within those confines of the specific facts. The Tribunal did consider the GBP policies throughout in determining consideration for approval. The Tribunal does not view this as a “significant expansion” as described but a moderate expansion with the particular dimensions. To suggest this expansion will “destabilize the long-term intention…” is an overreach.

221As noted by Mr. Ramsay, the subject lands are surrounded by a mix of agricultural properties, commercial and industrial developments, rural residences, residential and rural home-based businesses. The existing Place of Worship has existed on the Site for over 10 years and has not resulted in development pressures such as severance applications or rezoning proposals to add nonfarm uses on other lots in the area.

222Therefore, the Tribunal agrees with NHCN that ultimately, no precedent will be set since each application is based on its own planning merits within each specific application that the City and Region oversees.

OPA Requirement

223The Tribunal will briefly discuss the requirement for the Region as the statutory approval authority for an OPA in certain circumstances since opinions were submitted on this issue during this Hearing.

224In the initial applications, Mr. Rohe highlighted that in the Staff report it identified the change in process whereby, the Region would be the Approval Authority for the OPA, and not the City.

225A City Council decision on the concurrent ZBLA application was deferred until the Region had issued a decision on the OPA, on the recommendation of staff.

226Both the City and Region staff and Mr. Galbraith contend, as the City is located within the Region, and a two-tier municipality for the purposes of the Act, Council for the Region are the statutory approval authority for OPA in certain instances.

227It was the position of NHCN that an OPA was not required. PALS and the Region’s witnesses took the opposite position.

228NHCN highlighted Policy 14.2.10 of the City OP, which speaks to the enlargement of existing Non-Agricultural Use. NHCN asserts the operative section of that Policy, which speaks to enlargement occurring “on lands which are currently zoned to permit the enlargement”.

229It was NHCN’s submission that the interpretation of that Policy by PALS’ witnesses is unduly strict and would lead to nonsensical results. Mr. Ramsay in cross-examination agreed that this strict interpretation of this policy would result in an OPA being required for an Application for a Minor Variance from the standards of the ZBL. Mr. Ramsay also volunteered, in cross-examination, that in his entire career as a planner (being approximately 45 years) he had never seen such a provision in a local OP.

230NHCN advised Mr. Rohe posited that A1-85 Zoning provides flexibility and contemplates expansion and that this meets the requirement of the post-expansions being “on lands which are currently zoned to permit the enlargement”.

231NHCN submits in closing, even if the Tribunal determines that an OPA was required, this does not detract from conclusions reached by NHCN’s planning witnesses, and by Mr. Ramsay for the Region, that the proposed OPA constitutes good planning and is in the public interest.

232Mr. Rohe also opined that this approach was irregular, as the Act allows for the provisional approval of a ZBLA with a concurrent OPA. The separation of the two approvals by the City later led to the requirement for NHCN to appeal the ZBLA for non-decision so that the matters could be considered by the Tribunal concurrently.

233Mr. Galbraith advised, based on Regional Staff Report 18-2023 that as the proposed OPA was not in conformity with the NOP and the GBP, a decision by Regional Council on the proposed Amendment is [was] required.

234Notwithstanding the recommendation of Regional Staff, Council for the Region approved the OPA as set out in the application on June 15, 2023.

235Mr. Ramsay contends, the City was correct in requiring the Applicant to apply for an OPA. An OPA is required to permit the expansion of the place of worship beyond the existing zoning parameters established in the A1 – 85 Zone. Section 14.2.10 permits an enlargement of existing non-agricultural uses “…where the enlargement occurs on lands which are currently zoned to permit the enlargement”. The proposed expansion does not comply with the maximum lot coverage and front yard and exterior side yard setbacks. OPA No. 36 addresses this by waiving the requirements of s. 14.2.10.

236The Tribunal finds that the City was correct in requiring that the Applicant apply for an OPA based on zoning requirements even though it was not a common practice. In any event, as of March 31, 2025, the Region will lose its planning responsibilities as an upper-tier municipality as per the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, S.O. 2024, c. 16 (Bill 185).

Closing Submission and Party Evidence

237The Tribunal finds it necessary to also comment on Ms. Benneian’s appeal.

238Ms. Benneian was a self-represented litigant. At the start of the hearing, she advised she would be calling no witnesses and would be relying on PALS’ witnesses.

239Ms. Benneian was provided an opportunity for an opening and closing statement/submission. In her opening statement, she commented on the correctness of the 2001 amendments to the City OP and ZBL.

240NHCN advised that in Ms. Benneian’s closing submission, she stated that Jordan Public School is within the Urban Boundary. NHCN contends, no evidence was presented on this point during the Hearing. Ms. Benneian did not call any evidence at the Hearing and NHCN submitted that it is improper for evidence to be given in submissions.

241The Tribunal finds that a key word in a Role of a Party under Rule. 8.1 of Tribunal Rules is “may”. In regard to presenting opening or closing submissions or presenting or examining witnesses a Party may do these things but it is not a requirement under the Rules.

242However, in this case, regarding allowing evidence where no evidence was called from a Party (in this case, Ms. Benneian), the Tribunal agrees with NHCN’s counsel that this is improper evidence and therefore, no weight is given to these closing submissions on this point.

Order

243THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are dismissed and Amendment No. 36 to the Official Plan for the City of St. Catharines is approved.

244THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and By-law No. A1-85 is amended as set out as follows, and as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, maximum lot coverage of 9.1%, Exterior Side Yard 21.7 metres (“m”), and Front Yard 42 m. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of St. Catharines to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.

“Eric S. Crowe”

ERIC S. CROWE 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

Zoning By-law Amendment – 2360 First Street Louth

1. THAT Section 11, Schedule A (19), Zoning Maps, be amended by further revising the site-specific zoning of 2360 First Street Louth, as illustrated in the Schedule attached to this recommendation as Area A, zoned as Site-specific Agricultural 85 (A1-85).

2. THAT Section 13.1, List of Special Provisions, be amended by modifying Provisions a), c) and d) of Special Provision 85 as follows:

Special Provision	Zone	Schedule A	Schedule B	Location	By-law
85	A1	19	24	2630 First Street Louth	2024-X

2. Provisions

a)	Maximum Lot Coverage	9.1%
c)	Exterior Side Yard	21.7 metres
d)	Front Yard	42 metres