Velumyan v. St Catharines (City), 2025 CanLII 88177

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 27, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000284

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Naira Velumyan

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit the severance of 31 main street to create two parcels.

Reference Number: A-08/25

Property Address: 31 Main Street

Municipality/UT: St. Catharines/Niagara

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000284

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000284

OLT Case Name: Velumyan v. St Catharines (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Naira Velumyan

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit the severance of 31 main street to create two parcels.

Reference Number: A-09/25

Property Address: 31 Main Street

Municipality/UT: St. Catharines/Niagara

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000301

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000284

OLT Case Name: Velumyan v. St Catharines (City)

Heard: July 11, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Naira Velumyan	Patrick Maloney
City of St. Catharines	Robert Di Lallo

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARON L. DIONNE ON JULY 11, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal are appeals under subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), filed by Naira Velumyan (“Applicant”), against a decision of the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) for the City of St. Catharines (“City”) in respect of two Minor Variance Applications (COA File A-08/25 and A-09/25). The affected lands are municipally known as 31 Main Street, St. Catharines (“Subject Property”).

2Proper Notice of the Hearing was issued and the Tribunal did not receive any Requests for Status in relation to the matters before it prior to, or at the time of, the Hearing.

3On March 19, 2025, the COA considered applications for the division of the Subject Property into two residential lots, by way of a severance and reciprocal easements for shared access. Additionally, the COA considered the two Minor Variance Applications, seeking relief from the City’s Zoning By-law No. 2013-283 (“ZBL”) in the form of a total of 14 variances, to facilitate the severance, retention of the existing dwelling, and construction of a new dwelling and carriage house/garages. The requested variances pertain to minimum lot frontage, minimum lot area, maximum lot coverage, minimum setbacks of dwelling and accessory structure(s), maximum height of structures, minimum landscaped area, and maximum parking area coverage. Based on the recommendations of City Staff, the COA approved several of the requested variances related to the severance of the lot and construction of a new dwelling, but denied others related to the proposed carriage house/garage.

4Since that time, the Parties have been engaged in discussions that have resulted in revised building elevation drawings for the carriage house/garages to reduce its height and revisions to the driveway configuration intended to address the City’s concerns. Having resolved the issues between them, the Parties come before the Tribunal in the Hearing to present a Settlement Proposal and to have the Tribunal consider Amended Applications for Minor Variances.

5Of the requested variances that were denied by the COA, the Amended Applications differ from those originally proposed as follows:

Application A-08/2025 (Retained Parcel)

Variance #2 – An increase in maximum lot coverage for all accessory structures from 10% to 14% of the total lot area (no change)

Variance #3 – An increase of the maximum height for accessory structures from 6 metres (“m”) to 7 m measured from the peak of the roof (as opposed to the original request of 8.7 m)

Application A-09/2025 (Severed Parcel)

Variance #4 – A reduction in the minimum landscaped open space for a detached dwelling from 35% to 31% (whereas the original request was 30%)

Variance #7 - An increase in maximum total lot coverage for all accessory buildings and structures from 10% to 16% of the total lot area (whereas the original request was 17%)

Variance #8 – An increase of the maximum height for accessory structures from 6m to 7m measured from the peak of the roof (as opposed to the original request of 8.7 m)

Variance #9 – A reduction in the minimum interior side yard setback to an accessory building with a height above 4.5 m from 1.2 m to 0.9 m (as opposed to the original request of 0.58 m)

Variance #10 – An increase of the maximum parking area coverage from 20% to 22% (no change)

6The City appeared at the Hearing on consent in support of the Amended Applications as set out in Schedule A to this decision and advised the Tribunal that the City supports the authorization of the variances subject to the imposition of three conditions as set out in the Minutes of Settlement between the Applicant and the City.

7Daniel Romanko, a Registered Professional Planner in the Province of Ontario and a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, was qualified by the Tribunal based on his educational and professional work experience, including his previous experience appearing as an expert witness before the Tribunal, to provide land use planning opinion evidence in support of the requested variances in the Amended Applications.

8The Tribunal received a Joint Document Book dated July 11, 2025, containing Mr. Romanko’s Witness Statement and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty, and marked it as Exhibit 1.

9Based on the submissions of the Parties and the opinion evidence provided in the Hearing, the Tribunal determined that the amendments to the applications for the requested variances are minor and as such, further notice was not required in accordance with s. 45(18.1.1) of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal authorized the requested variances subject to three conditions, for the reasons that follow.

LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

10This is a Hearing de novo, and the onus is on the Applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the Amended Applications are minor and do not require further Notice, and having done so in the Hearing, then for the Applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the requested variances meet the statutory tests.

11When making its decision, the Tribunal must be satisfied that a requested variance meets the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, namely:

1. Does the request maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?
2. Does the request maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?
3. Is the request desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure? And
4. Is the requested variance minor in nature?

12The Tribunal must also have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as have regard to the decision of the COA and the information considered by it, as required under subsection 2.1.(1) of the Act, though it is not bound by that decision.

13In accordance with s. 3(5) of the Act, the Tribunal’s decision must be consistent with the provincial policy statements and plans in effect at the time of its decision, in this case the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”).

PLANNING EVIDENCE

14By way of Mr. Romanko’s Witness Statement and his viva voce opinion evidence, he has provided the Tribunal with an overview of the character of the neighbourhood within which the Subject Property is located and the Settlement Proposal as depicted in the Revised Elevation Drawings and Site Plan (found in Exhibit 1, Tab 4), as well as his expert opinion as to how each of the requested variances (14 variances in total) included in the Amended Applications (see Schedule A attached) satisfy the statutory tests.

15Pursuant to the City’s Official Plan (“OP”), the Subject Property is designated Neighbourhood Residential on Schedule D1 and Low Density Residential on Schedule E1, which permit detached dwellings.

16The Subject Property is zoned Low Density Residential – Traditional Neighbourhood Special Provision 7 (R2-7), which permits a detached dwelling and accessory buildings and structures subject to the provisions of the ZBL.

17The Subject Property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District (“HCD”). There is an existing one and a half-storey dwelling, which was constructed in 1929 to be retained on one of the lots. There are no issues in respect of the heritage attributes, and the City issued a Heritage Permit on December 2, 2024, in relation to the proposal for a severance and construction of a new dwelling, a shared garage structure at the rear of the proposed two lots and the removal of a portion of the existing dwelling to accommodate a new shared driveway.

18It was Mr. Romanko’s opinion evidence that the Original Proposal is appropriate, reflects the character of the HCD and contributes positively to the neighbourhood. He is also satisfied with the Settlement Proposal in that, in his opinion, the Settlement Proposal has been revised to reduce the massing and scale of the proposed carriage house/garage(s) and the revised site layout addresses all of the concerns regarding functionality, has less impact on the abutting properties through a reduction in height, and addresses all the applicable Provincial and Municipal policies and meets all the pertinent land use planning criteria.

19Notably, Mr. Romanko provided his planning analysis and opinion of the Settlement Proposal in relation to matters of provincial interest and the PPS 2024, and how in his opinion each of the revisions to the requested variances is minor, and how each of the requested variances (14 in total) meets the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Act as follows:

i. The requested variance(s) maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP in that, from a land use compatibility and urban design perspective the Settlement Proposal is sensitive to its immediate surrounding context, it has appropriate massing and height, it reflects the character of the HCD, and does not pose any privacy or shadowing concerns.

ii. The requested variance(s) maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL in that the use of residential is expressly permitted, and that the variances collectively provide for a suitable building envelope on each of the two lots, so as not to affect the functions on those lots as contemplated by the performance standards provided for in the ZBL, and the resulting buildings will not adversely impact the surrounding lands.

iii. The requested variance(s), individually and collectively, are appropriate for the desirable use of the land and buildings in that they will facilitate good infill development with a desirable relationship to the street, with parking provided in the rear, and will not create any issues of land use compatibility with the surrounding lands.

iv. The requested variance(s), individually and collectively, are minor in that they will facilitate development in keeping with the character of the HCD neighbourhood and will not result in any adverse impacts.

20Mr. Romanko also opined that the Revised Elevation Drawings and Site Plan found in Exhibit 1, at Tab 4 and the requested Amended Applications represent good planning.

21Mr. Romanko’s evidence supported the requested variances and the revised drawings, subject to three conditions intended to impose specific building and site design requirements in accordance with the Revised Elevation Drawings and Site Plan. The three conditions are as follows:

(a) The roof design for the accessory building shall not be steeper than the ratio of 10 units rise, 12 units run, sloping downwards towards the side yards.;

(b) The garage door width shall be a maximum of 12 feet. The driveway apron providing vehicular access to the garage doors shall be narrowed accordingly.; and,

(c) The driveway apron shall include a 6 m back up area to improve functionality of the detached garage. A paved pathway may be provided from the driveway to the exterior doorway (access to the second storey). The pathway shall be designed (size and orientation) to prevent its use as a parking area.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

22Having considered and accepted the uncontested opinion evidence provided by Mr. Romanko in the Hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that the revisions to the Amended Applications are minor and as such, pursuant to s. 45(18.1.1) of the Act, the Tribunal finds that no further notice in respect to the amendments is required.

23The Tribunal finds that the requested variances have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and if authorized will facilitate a Settlement Proposal which represents an efficient use of existing infrastructure and the promotion of built form that is well-designed, in keeping with the character of the HCD, and compatible with the surrounding lands.

24In consideration of s. 2.1(1) of the Act, the Tribunal reviewed the decision of the COA, the written submissions considered by the COA and the Staff Report and finds that the Settlement Proposal, specifically the revisions to the carriage house/garage(s) height and the site layout revisions are appropriate and respond to the concerns raised by the City.

25The Tribunal finds that the requested variances are consistent with the PPS 2024 as they will facilitate a Settlement Proposal which represents intensification that is compatible to its surrounding context, cost effective, maximizes the use of existing infrastructure, and promotes efficient land use.

26In consideration of the statutory tests in s. 45(1) of the Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that the 14 requested variances, individually and collectively, maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL, are desirable use for the appropriate development and use of the Subject Property, and are minor in nature.

27In consideration of the above, and being satisfied that the Settlement Proposal represents good planning, the Tribunal allows the appeals in part and authorizes the variances as set out in Schedule A to this Decision.

28The Tribunal, upon consideration of submissions of Counsel and Mr. Romanko’s opinion evidence, finds that it is appropriate to impose three conditions as set out in the Order. The fulfillment of these conditions will regulate the size and massing of the carriage house/garages and ensure that its appearance is in keeping with the architecture and character of the HCD, and regulate the design of the driveway to meet the objective of providing adequate functional vehicular access and a separate pedestrian walkway.

ORDER

29THE TRIBUNAL having been asked to consider applications which have been amended from the Original Applications, and the Tribunal having determined as provided for in subsection 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act that no further notice is required;

30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are allowed in part and the variances to By-law No. 2013-283 as set out in Schedule A hereto are authorized subject to the following conditions:

(a) The roof design for the accessory building shall not be steeper than the ratio of 10 units rise, 12 units run, sloping downwards towards the side yards.;

(b) The garage door width shall be a maximum of 12 feet. The driveway apron providing vehicular access to the garage doors shall be narrowed accordingly.; and,

(c) The driveway apron shall include a 6 m back up area to improve functionality of the detached garage. A paved pathway may be provided from the driveway to the exterior doorway (access to the second storey). The pathway shall be designed (size and orientation) to prevent its use as a parking area.

“Sharon L. Dionne”

SHARON L. DIONNE 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.

SCHEDULE A

AMENDED APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR VARIANCE

A08-2025 (Retained Lands, Parts 1 and 2)

Variance #1 – A reduction of the minimum lot frontage for a detached dwelling from 10 metres to 9.58 metres.

Variance #2 – An increase of the maximum total lot coverage for all accessory structures from 10% to 14% of the total lot area.

Variance #3 – An increase of the maximum permitted height for an accessory structure from 6 metres to 7 metres, measured to peak of roof.

Variance # 4 - A reduction of the minimum setback from the front lot line to a platform structure with a height above grade 0.6 metres of less, from 3 metres to 1.4 metres.

A09-2025 (Severed Lands, Parts 3 and 4)

Variance #1 – A reduction of the minimum lot area for a detached dwelling from 300 square metres to 255 square metres.

Variance #2 – A reduction of the minimum lot frontage for a detached dwelling from 10 metres to 7.78 metres.

Variance #3 – A reduction of the minimum interior yard setback to a detached dwelling from 1.2 metres to 0.93 metres.

Variance #4 - A reduction of the minimum landscape open space for a detached dwelling from 35% to 31% of the total lot area.

Variance #5 - A reduction of the minimum front yard setback to a detached dwelling from 3 metres to 1.78 metres.

Variance #6 - A reduction of the minimum front yard setback to a platform structure with a height above grade 0.6 metres of less, from 3 metres to 1.48 metres.

Variance #7- An increase of the maximum total lot coverage for all accessory buildings and structures from 10% to 16% of the total lot area.

Variance #8 – An increase of the maximum permitted height for an accessory structure from 6 metres to 7 metres, measured from the peak of the roof.

Variance #9 – A reduction in the minimum interior side yard setback to an accessory building, with a height above 4.5 metres, from 1.2 metres to 0.9 metres.

Variance #10 – An increase of the maximum parking area coverage from 20% to 22% of the total lot area.