Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 9, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000900
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Rainer Hummel
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit a rezoning and severance of a residential lot for a proposed single-detached dwelling.
Reference Number: ZBA-05-2024
Property Address: 187 Queen Street
Municipality/UT: Niagara-on-the-Lake/Niagara
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000900
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000900
OLT Case Name: Hummel v. Niagara-on-the-Lake (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Rainer Hummel
Subject: Consent
Description: To permit a rezoning and severance of a residential lot for a proposed single-detached dwelling.
Reference Number: B-09/24
Property Address: 187 Queen Street
Municipality/UT: Niagara-on-the-Lake/Niagara
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000919
OLT Case Name: Hummel v. Niagara-on-the-Lake (Town)
Heard: January 21, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Rainer Hummel (“Appellant / Applicant”)
Sara Premi
Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake (“Approval authority/Town”)
Callum Shedden
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU ON January 21, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This appeal arises under ss. 34(11) and 53(19) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, by the Appellant, with respect to the Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Consent applications (“Applications”) to permit a rezoning and severance of a residential lot for a proposed single-detached dwelling on the lands municipally known as 187 Queen Street (“Subject Lands”). The Applications were refused by the Town Council and Committee of Adjustment, respectively.
2The Hearing was originally scheduled as a Merit Hearing. Upon the updates from the Parties that a settlement has been reached in principle, the Hearing is converted into a Hearing to discuss the planning instruments in the settlement.
CONTEXT
3The Subject Lands have an area of approximately 0.66 acres and 42.6 meters of frontage and are located in the urban area of the Town. The Subject Lands contain one existing two-storey single-detached dwelling and accessory structures, which are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”) through the Town’s By-Law 3633.02 (Town Bylaw).
4The Subject Lands are designated as Established Residential and Build-up Area in the Town Official Plan, 2017 Consolidation, as amended (“Town OP”) and are zoned Old Town Community Zoning District-Established Residential (ER) zone in the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 4316-09, as amended.
5The Appellant sought to re-zone the Subject Lands to “Old Town Community Zoning District-Established Residential (ER) Site-Specific” zone to recognize site-specific provisions for lot frontage, lot depth, building setbacks and rear yard encroachment. In addition, the Appellant sought to sever the Subject Lands and further to create a total of two lots.
6Disposition of the matter has come before the Tribunal as a settlement proffered by the Parties. The original Applications contemplated the creation of two lots, and the proposed settlement revised the Application by eliminating one lot and creating one additional lot, which results in the creation of total two lots. The proposed settlement provides site-specific ER zone provisions of the two lots as detailed as follows:
Lot 1 (Site-Specific ER Zone)-new vacant lot
Zone requirement
ER Zone
Site-specific ER Zone
Minimum lot frontage Minimum lot depth
As existing
33.0 meters 42.0 meters
Minimum front yard setback
7.5 meters
8.5 meters
Maximum encroachment into a required rear yard for an unenclosed and uncovered/covered porch, deck, balcony, patio or steps
1.5 meters only for unenclosed and uncovered
3.5 meters
A detached or attached garage shall be setback a minimum of 1.0 meter behind the main façade of the dwelling on the ground floor
The door(s) of an attached garage shall not occupy more than 50% of the width of the dwelling facade
Lot 2 (Site-Specific ER Zone)-lot with existing dwelling and proposed addition
Zone requirement
ER Zone
Site-specific ER Zone
Minimum lot frontage Minimum lot depth
As existing
29.0 meters 42.0 meters
Minimum front yard setback
7.5 meters
As existing on the date of passage of this by-law (13.9 meters)
Minimum rear yard setback
7.5 meters
5.0 meters
Minimum exterior side yard setback
4.5 meters
As existing on the date of passage of this by-law to the front face of the dwelling (0.0 meters) 12.0 meters to the front face of an attached garage
EXHIBITS
7The Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed, and considered the following materials and submissions:
The Parties’ oral and written submissions in support of the settlement;
Joint Book of Documents marked as Exhibit 1; and,
Booklet of Policy Documents marked as Exhibit 2.
REQUEST FOR STATUS
8The Tribunal received no oral nor written request for Party and Participant Status prior to and at the Hearing.
NOTICE OF HEARING
9There is no issue with service of the Notice of this hearing.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
10The Tribunal recognized Jennifer Vida, a registered Professional Planner and full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and Ontario Professional Planners with over 21 years of professional land use planning experience, being qualified to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
11In Ms. Vida’s oral and written evidence, she indicated that a professional arborist had been retained for tree protection and a tree protection plan by a certified arborist had been submitted to and approved by Town staff. Ms. Vida further confirmed that mitigation measures would be secured in a future development agreement to be registered on title and would be secured in the minutes of settlement, which is contained in Exhibit 1.
12The Tribunal recognized Marcus Letourneau, a registered Professional Planner, full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and Ontario Professional Planners, professional member of Canadian Association of Heritage Professional, who received Certified Institutional Protection Manager designation, being qualified to provide opinion evidence in the area of heritage consultation planning for the matter before the Tribunal.
13Mr. Letourneau held the opinion that only the main residential building itself is designated under OHA through the Town Bylaw and the streetscape, garden and vegetation were not considered as key features of heritage attributes when the Town Bylaw was approved.
14Mr. Letourneau indicated that the approval conditions related to heritage matters in the planning staff report were appropriate from cultural heritage perspective and would serve to conserve cultural heritage resources.
15The Tribunal recognized Aimee Alderman, a registered Professional Planner, full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and Ontario Professional Planners, with extensive knowledge of and professional experience in land use planning area, being qualified to provide opinion evidence concerning the land use planning in this matter before the Tribunal.
16Ms. Alderman confirmed that Town staff’s position remained the same as that in the planning staff report wherein it recommended approval of the Applications subject to the conditions.
17The Tribunal understands that the aforementioned sworn evidence of expert witnesses reflects revisions to the Applications before the Tribunal that were reached through the cooperative efforts of the Parties. The settlement proposal provides resolution to ensure the two key issues - heritage conservation and tree protection, were addressed appropriately. The Parties jointly requested that the Tribunal approve the Applications in accordance with the staff reports, recommendations, and conditions. The Tribunal finds the resolution is appropriate and acceptable.
18The Tribunal accepts the uncontested opinion evidence of the three expert witnesses, as presented in their statements and oral testimonies, and finds that the settlement proposal:
has regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest found in s. 2 of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”);
is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024,
conforms to Niagara Region Official Plan and Town OP;
meets the applicable tests set out in s. 51(24) of the Act;
reflects principles of good land use planning; and,
represents public interest.
ORDER
19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
The appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act is allowed in part and Town Zoning By-law No. 4316-09 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes; and,
The appeal pursuant to s. 53(19) of the Planning Act is allowed and provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 2 to this order.
“L.P. You”
L.P. YOU
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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
ATTACHMENT 2