Blair Capital v. Clarence-Rockland (City), 2026 CanLII 22809

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 13, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000821

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

Applicant and Appellant: Blair Capital Fund 3 Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: Minor Variance to reduce the number of parking spaces for townhouse dwellings

Reference Number: D-13-25-12

Property Address: 2440 Albert Street

Municipality/UT: City of Clarence-Rockland/United Counties of Prescott and Russell

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000821

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000821

OLT Case Name: Blair Capital v. Clarence-Rockland (City)

Heard: January 30, 2026, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Blair Capital Fund 3 Inc.

U. Melinz T. Belley

City of Clarence-Rockland/United Counties of Prescott and Russell

Not present

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS ON JANUARY 30, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act as amended (“Act”) against the City of Clarence-Rockland (“City”) regarding a refusal decision from the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) denying a Minor Variance Application, consisting of four specific variances (“MVA” / “Appeal”).

2The Appeal was filed by Blair Capital Fund 3 Inc. (“Applicant”) and the property is municipally known as 2440 Albert Street, in the City, which is presently a vacant lot (“Subject Property”).

3Moreover, the purpose of this Appeal, is to facilitate the development of six townhouse dwellings, with the intention of establishing two Secondary Dwelling Units (“SDUs”) per primary townhouse dwelling unit, for a total of 18 residential units. Additionally, this Appeal, if allowed, will further facilitate the legal establishment of the SDUs, allowing for a shared parking lot, including 19 parking spaces, with a single barrier-free parking space, and a visitor parking space (“Proposal”).

4The MVA is the prerequisite application, that is part of a Consent application, which is expected to be heard pursuant to s. 50(1)(a) of the Act, under separate consideration, as part of “an upper-tier municipality with planning responsibilities” - Consent hearing process.

5In this case, the anticipated Consent application will come before The United Counties of Prescott-Russell (“County”), at a later date. The Consent application will be seeking the severance of the Subject Property, in order to create five new lots alongside one retained lot, with a shared parking lot, including 19 parking spaces, a single barrier-free space, and a visitor parking space, which is not a matter before the Tribunal at this de novo Hearing of the MVA. Also important to note is that no Site Plan Application is required in this matter.

6Legal Counsel for the City previously advised the Tribunal that the City would not be represented at this de novo Hearing, nor did it intend to participate as a Party to the Tribunal’s consideration of the Appeal.

7There were no requests for Party or Participant status submitted, although the Tribunal has reviewed public input from area residents, expressing concern with the Application.

8For reasons that follow in this written Decision, the Tribunal delivered an Oral Decision, allowing the Appeal and authorizing the MVA consisting of four separate variances (“Variances”).

THE VARIANCES

9The proposed Variances requested in the MVA include:

a. A reduced lot frontage of 4.26 metres for the proposed Lots B, C, D, and E, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 5.5 metres.

b. A reduced landscape coverage of 29.47%, whereas the By-law requires a minimum landscape coverage of 30%.

c. A reduced parking requirement of 1 space per unit, whereas 2 spaces are required per dwelling, townhouse unit in the By-law; and,

d. A reduced minimum driveway width of 3.0 metres, whereas a driveway width of 6.0 metres is required.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

10An Appeal under s. 45 of the Planning Act is a hearing de novo. The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) have been met, namely that any and all requested Variances:

1. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;

2. Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”);

3. Are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and,

4. Are minor in nature.

11In addition, s. 3(5) of the Act requires the Tribunal’s Decision to be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”) and must also have regard to the matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as for the decision of the COA and the information considered while making its decision, as set out in s. 2.1(1) of the Act.

THE HEARING

12The following Exhibits were submitted for the purposes of the Hearing:

1. Document Book of the Appellant (January 30, 2025);

2. Witness Statement of Scott Alain (January 30, 2025); and,

3. Book of Authorities (January 30, 2025).

PLANNING EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

13The only witness present was Scott Alain, who was duly qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert land use planning opinion evidence, in support of the Applications, in his first appearance before the Tribunal.

14Mr. Alain was first engaged with the Applicant, following the COA matter, as a Senior Planner with Fotenn Consultants Inc. (“Fotenn”), who were also engaged with the matter prior to the COA consideration of the MVA, on September 24, 2025.

15Mr. Alain provided a detailed overview of the Appeal, frequently referencing evidence from his Witness Statement (Exhibit 2), and initially confirmed that the Subject Property is vacant, with one existing, mature, coniferous tree. A previously two-storey residential dwelling and garage structure were demolished.

16Mr. Alain submitted that the surrounding area consists of a number of low-rise residential apartment buildings, and is situated south of Highway 17, with a detached residential dwelling to the east, adjacent to a surface parking lot. Further south from the Subject Property, the area is residential, with a range of housing types including single-detached, duplex and townhome dwellings, and abuts a single-detached residential lot to the west, with various built-form residential dwellings further to the west.

17The Planning Staff Report (“PSR”) (Exhibit 1, pg.92), as submitted before the COA on September 24, 2025, recommended support for the Proposal and all Variances requested, with opinion evidence, including but not limited to, the summary below:

• [The Proposal] supports intensification and housing diversity within the Urban Policy Area, and represents a compact, medium-density infill project that replaces an existing [single residential] dwelling, with innovative solutions that optimize the use of existing [City] infrastructure;

• The inclusion of two [SDUs] per townhouse unit is in accordance with Bill 23 –More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, which permits up to two additional residential units per lot with municipal water and sewage services. Since this permission applies per lot, the proponent has submitted a concurrent Consent application to sever the property into six lots—one for each townhouse unit. This severance is necessary to legally establish two [SDUs] per lot, resulting in a total of 18 residential units across the [Subject Property];

• [The] Minor Variance and Consent applications represent good planning and meet the applicable evaluation criteria established in Sections 45, 51, and 53 of the Planning Act. The applications therefore uphold sound land use planning principles and are in the public interest.

[Emphasis Added]

18The PSR concluded that all of the Variances meet the four tests under the Act, and recommended approval of the Proposal, including a summary of the Variances to be approved as follows:

a. Minimum lot frontage reduced to 4.26 m for Lots B, C, D, E, as shown in image 3 of the report PE2025-057;

b. Minimum landscape coverage reduced to 29.47%;

c. Parking reduced to 1 space per primary dwelling unit; and,

d. Driveway width reduced to 3.0 metres

19There were also no objections from external municipal departments or public service providers related to the Proposal, with Site Plan as submitted with the Appeal below:

The above Site plan excerpt showing the footprint of the proposed building including the configuration of the parking area with narrow street access (source: page 5 of Applicant’s planning rationale prepared by Fotenn dated August 21, 2025)

20Variances a., b., and d., were authorized by the COA, however, despite the PSR recommendations, the only variance refused through COA written decision on October 1, 2026, was variance c.

21Mr. Alain’s written and oral evidence is further reflected below.

THE PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT 2024

22Mr. Alain opined that the Proposal maintains consistency with the overarching components of the PPS 2024, and focused on some of the following Sections, which state:

2.1.6 Planning authorities should support the achievement of complete communities by:

a. accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing options, transportation options with multimodal access, employment, public service facilities and other institutional uses (including schools and associated child care facilities, long-term care facilities, places of worship and cemeteries), recreation, parks and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs;

2.2.1Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by:

a) permitting and facilitating:

1. all housing options required to meet the social, health, economic and wellbeing requirements of current and future residents, including additional needs housing and needs arising from demographic changes and employment opportunities; and

2. all types of residential intensification, including the development and redevelopment of underutilized commercial and institutional sites (e.g., shopping malls and plazas) for residential use, development and introduction of new housing options within previously developed areas, and redevelopment, which results in a net increase in residential units in accordance with policy 2.3.1.3.

c) promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of active transportation;..

2.3.1.1 Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development. Within settlement areas, growth should be focused in, where applicable, strategic growth areas, including major transit station areas.

2.3.1.2 Land use patterns within settlement areas should be based on densities and a mix of land uses which:

a) efficiently use land and resources;

b) optimize existing and planned infrastructure and public service facilities;

c) support active transportation;

d) are transit-supportive, as appropriate.

2.3.1.3 Planning authorities shall support general intensification and redevelopment to support the achievement of complete communities, including by planning for a range and mix of housing options and prioritizing planning and investment in the necessary infrastructure and public service facilities.

23Mr. Alain concludes that despite the proposed reduction in parking supply, the Proposal maintains consistency with the PPS 2024, in all of the above noted sections, and encourages alternate modes of transportation, which makes efficient use of the Subject Property by prioritizing the provision of housing.

24The range of housing in the Proposal further represents consistency with the PPS 2024, as it accomplishes compact, medium density, and a diverse mix of housing, that is compatible with the surrounding character of the area.

THE PLANNING ACT

25The applicable framework, regarding section 2 of the Act, according to Mr. Alain are as follows below:

(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

(r) the promotion of built form that,

(i) is well-designed,

(ii) encourages a sense of place

26Mr. Alain opined that with eighteen separate dwelling units in the Proposal, the Subject Property: is well serviced by existing infrastructure and sidewalks; represents orderly development; and uniquely represents a full range of housing options, within such a versatile design.

THE FOUR TESTS

27At a high level, Mr. Alain briefly outlined his opinion regarding the statutory ‘four tests’, which were consistent with his very detailed Witness Statement (Exhibit 2, paras. 63-111).

28Mr. Alain reviews in detail the Variances, both individually and collectively, throughout these sections of his Witness Statement, throughout the Hearing and the Tribunal has generally summarized the rationale in support of the Appeal, with uncontested evidence, below.

Do the Variances Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan(s)?

29The PSR states that the Proposal conforms to both the United Counties of Prescott and Russell Official Plan (“UCPR OP”) and the City of Clarence-Rockland Urban Area Official Plan (“COP”).

30Mr. Alain concurs with the PSR analysis and further references his Witness Statement extensively (Exhibit 2, paras. 40-47), as it relates to the UCPR OP, with a particular focus on the view that the Proposal satisfies the relevant policies applicable. He opined that the Proposal respects the existing diversity of neighbourhood character, and provides a balanced provision of parking, also showing regard for an appropriate level of intensification, that “interfaces strongly with the public realm” within the Urban Policy Area.

31Regarding the COP, Mr. Alain notes that the related regard for residential intensification falls within both the UCPR OP and the COP, whereby modest intensification is appropriate. Emphasis was asserted on the requirement that residential intensification should be integrated with common, built-form, existing buildings, and maintaining compatibility with the surrounding area.

32Mr. Alain also opined that the Proposal, results “in a compatible form of development within the “Urban Policy Area” and with “a range of unit types and tenures.” The Subject Property is within the regulatory COP framework, and the Proposal offer market-driven demand options for a variety of residential needs. The section Mr. Alain refers to in the Witness Statement further outlines the relevant elements of COP sections 2.6, 5.6, 5.6.3, including the permitted uses reference below:

• section 5.6.3.1

a) Semi-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, linked dwellings, multiple unit residential uses such as townhouses, or back-to-back townhouses to a minimum density of 35 units per net hectare and a maximum of 55 units per net hectare and stacked dwellings and low-rise apartment buildings no more than five storeys in height to a maximum of 65 units per net hectare

33Mr. Alain concludes with his opinion that the Proposal, with these related Variances, individually and collectively, meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan policies of the City and County.

Do the Variances Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the ZBL?

34The PSR and the Appellant confirm that the Subject Property zoning is Urban Residential Third Density Zone (R3-13), which permits the Proposal, inherently, by way of its reference to “townhouse dwelling” permission.

35The Proposal’s design meets the general requirements of the ZBL, except for the Variances requested, through this Appeal. This includes secondary residential units, as ancillary structures, anywhere that this is a permitted use, as long as:

i. it is not a stand-alone, principal unit capable of being severed; and,

ii. it must be located on the same lot as its principal dwelling unit.

36Noting that the townhouses are permitted within the ZBL, Mr. Alain concluded that the Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

Are the Variances Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land?

37Overall, Mr. Alain opined that each of the Variances, a to d, as outlined above demonstrate that they are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land. Mr. Alain provided detailed rationale for his support through written and oral testimony, regarding Variances a, b, and d, which were all recommended for approval in the PSR, and authorized by the COA.

38Much of the Hearing testimony allowed for Mr. Alain’s focus particular on Variance c, specific to the reduced parking requirement of 1 space per unit, whereas 2 spaces are required per dwelling, townhouse unit in the By-law. The following was noted regarding Variance c:

1. One-to-one parking is standard for urban infill projects and that lease agreements would clarify parking limitations for tenants;

2. Any overflow parking would be managed by existing municipal by-laws and that the risk of insufficient parking would be borne by the property owner;

3. The [Proposal] includes 19 spaces, with one barrier-free spot to support the 18 proposed units, including a visitor space.

39Mr. Alain further opined that this provision of surface parking on-site, makes efficient use of the Subject Property, within the designated residential area. This “functional supply of housing” supports the “contextually appropriate intensification” of the Subject Property in a “manner that interfaces strongly with the public realm.”

Are the Variances Minor in Nature?

40Mr. Alain reiterated that the COA’s support of Variances a, b, and d were based on the fact that the Variances were all considered minor in nature, and further opines that based on the information reference above, regarding Variance c, he confirms that all of the Variances, both individually and collectively, should be deemed minor in nature by the Tribunal.

41Mr. Alain provides very detailed opinion evidence touching on each of the Variances individually (Exhibit 2, para. 65-105), as contemplated in the context of the ‘four tests’ and concludes accordingly, that all tests have been satisfied by the Appellant.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

42After considering the uncontroverted witness testimony of Mr. Alain and all of the land use planning rationale associated with the matter, the Tribunal finds that the MVA, as a component of the Proposal before the Tribunal, and the Variances it must consider, individually and collectively: all have regard for the Provincial interests of s. 2 of the Act; and are all consistent with the PPS 2024.

43Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that all Variances meet the ‘four tests’ under s. 45 of the Act, in that the Variances, individually and collectively: conform to the overall intent and purpose of the UCPR OP and the COP; maintain the general intent and purpose of the CZBL; are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and are minor in nature.

44Appropriate regard has also been given to the decision of the COA, including any and all concerns from the immediate residential area, related, to traffic, parking, safety, and unit design elements.

45Finally, the Tribunal concluded that it will allow the Appeal and approve of the four Variances requested, as the Proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.

ORDER

46THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The Minor Variance Appeal by Blair Capital Fund 3 Inc. is allowed, and all four Variances requested, are hereby authorized.

“Steven T. Mastoras”

STEVEN T. MASTORAS

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.