Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 12, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000380
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Justin Slovak Subject: Severance Description: Consent to sever Reference Number: B-2025-008 Property Address: 3548 Bond Street Municipality/UT: Niagara Falls/Niagara OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000380 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000380 OLT Case Name: Slovak v. Niagara Falls (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Justin Slovak Subject: Minor Variance Description: Minor Variance to request relief for minimum lot area & frontage Reference Number: A-2025-012 Property Address: 3548 Bond Street Municipality/UT: Niagara Falls/Niagara OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000381 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000380 OLT Case Name: Slovak v. Niagara Falls (City)
Heard: August 1, 2025, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Justin Slovak | A. Mannell J. Patrick Mahoney |
| City of Niagara Falls | N. Punyarthi |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON AUGUST 1, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
1The matter before the Tribunal is the Appeal filed by Justin Slovak (“Appellant”) against the decision of the City of Niagara Falls (“City”) Committee of Adjustment to deny Consent and Minor Variance (“MV”) Applications (“Applications”), pursuant to ss. 53(19) and 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for the property located at 3548 Bond Street (“subject property” / “site”).
2The Appellant is seeking to convey a parcel of land (Part 2) for future residential use, whereas Part 1 will be retained for continued residential use, and is requesting relief for minimum lot area and frontage.
3The subject property is 24.38 metres (“m”) wide, has a lot depth of 41.15 m and is currently zoned Residential 1C (R1C) by Zoning By-law No. 79-200 (“ZBL”).
4The site is located in a residential subdivision and after the severance will become similar in size and nature to the surrounding properties.
5The City staff’s Planning Report was in support of the Applications, subject to conditions.
6In advance of the Hearing, the Parties informed the Tribunal that they had resolved their issues.
PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS
7Prior to the Hearing, the Tribunal received Participant Status request forms from Andrea Waters and BJ Murray. Some of the concerns identified in the request forms are related to the presence of the Additional Dwelling Units (“ADU”), parking, municipal servicing and other issues.
8Andrea Waters was not present at the onset of the Hearing; thus, her request for Participant Status was denied. The Tribunal granted Participant Status to BJ Murray and will consider his concerns when making its decision.
REQUESTED RELIEF
9The Appellant is seeking relief from the ZBL for minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage for Part 1 and Part 2, as follows:
Part 1
| Provision | Permitted | Proposal | Extent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum Lot Area square metres (“m2”) | 550 | 511.02 | 38.98 |
| Minimum Lot Frontage for an interior lot (m) | 15 | 12.42 | 2.58 |
Part 2
| Provision | Permitted | Proposal | Extent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum Lot Area (m2) | 550 | 492.25 | 57.75 |
| Minimum Lot Frontage for an interior lot (m) | 15 | 11.95 | 3.05 |
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
10The issue before the Tribunal is whether the Consent Application meets the general requirements set out in the applicable Provincial Planning Legislation and municipal planning policies, the specific criteria of the Act, and whether the proposal represents good land use planning. The proposed severance must also meet the applicable policies of the Official Plan (“OP”) and ZBL, and satisfy the relevant criteria set out in ss. 51(24) of the Act.
11The Tribunal shall also have regard to matters of provincial interest.
12An Appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Act is a Hearing de novo, and the Appellant bears the onus to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the criteria established in ss. 45(1) of the Act has been satisfied:
- The intent and purpose of the OP is being maintained;
- The intent and purpose of the ZBL is being maintained;
- Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure; and
- Is minor in nature.
HEARING
13Greg Taras, a Land Use Planner with over 40 years of experience, appeared on behalf of the Appellant and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning.
14In Mr. Taras’ professional opinion, the proposed development has regard to the matters contained within s. 2 and ss. 51(24) of the Act, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and conforms to the Regional Municipality of Niagara (“Region”) and City OPs. It satisfies the four tests of ss. 45(1) of the Act and represents good land use planning, as outlined in detail on pages 7–13 of his witness statement (Exhibit 2).
15Mr. Taras recommended that the proposed Applications be approved.
Response to Participant Statements
16In his viva voce and written evidence (Exhibit 2, at pages 13–16), Mr. Taras addressed the issues raised by the Participants, and came to the same conclusion – that the proposed development should be approved.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
17When making this decision, the Tribunal has considered the written submissions of BJ Murray. However, the only planning evidence before the Tribunal is the City’s Planning Report and the professional evidence of Mr. Taras.
18The Tribunal finds that the variances satisfy the four tests of s. 45(12) of the Act, meets the applicable criteria set out in s. 51 (24) and have appropriate regard to the matters of the provincial interests set out in s. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the policies of the Region of Niagara and the City OPs, the ZBL and is representative of good planning. The Consent Application is consistent with the policies of the PPS, conforms to the OPs, satisfy the relevant criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act, meet the requirements of the ZBL, and represents good planning in the public interest.
ORDER
19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeals are allowed, the variances to Zoning By-law No. 79-200 are authorized, and provisional consent is to be given subject to the following conditions:
- The Appellant shall provide 5% parkland dedication in the form of cash-in-lieu payment for the newly created lot (Part 2), as determined by a qualified appraiser;
- The Appellant shall provide $600 for the planting of a boulevard street tree for the newly created lot (Part 2);
- The Appellant shall remove the existing garage on Part 2, to the satisfaction of the City of Niagara Falls; and
- The Appellant shall submit a servicing plan, completed by a professional Plumber or Engineer, licensed in the province of Ontario, illustrating existing and proposed service laterals.
“P. Tomilin”
P. TOMILIN 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.