Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 9, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000547
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Curtis and Tanya Byrd
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description: To facilitate the development of 6 townhouse dwellings and 1 semi-detached dwelling
Reference Number: AM-2024-035
Property Address: 6111 Carlton Avenue
Municipality/UT: Niagara Falls/Niagara
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000547
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000547
OLT Case Name: Byrd v. Niagara Falls (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Curtis and Tanya Byrd
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Refusal by Approval Authority
Description: To facilitate the development of 6 townhouse dwellings and 1 semi-detached dwelling
Reference Number: 26CD-11-2024-0007
Property Address: 6111 Carlton Avenue
Municipality/UT: Niagara Falls/Niagara
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000548
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000547
Heard: February 13, 2026 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Curtis and Tanya Byrd
Raj Kehar Kelin Algayer
City of Niagara Falls
Nidhi Punyarthi
DECISION DELIVERED BY f. Lavoie AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision and Order arises from a Case Management Conference converted to a Settlement Hearing, regarding appeals filed by Curtis and Tanya Byrd (“Appellants”) pursuant to subsections 34(11) and 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c P.13, regarding the refusal by the City of Niagara Falls (“City”) of the Appellants’ Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Vacant Condominium. The applications seek to retain the existing residence while adding six townhouse dwellings and one semi-detached dwelling at the property municipally known as 6111 Carlton Avenue (“Subject Property”).
2The Appellants and the City settled these appeals on November 17, 2025, for which they seek the Tribunal’s approval. The Settlement modifies the original proposal by proposing the addition of one semi-detached dwelling instead of two and the extension of fencing on the north boundary to ensure adequate privacy for 6099 Carlton Avenue, among other things.
CONVERSION TO SETTLEMENT HEARING
3The Tribunal received from the Appellants an Affidavit of Service sworn by Marie Wakefield, marked as Exhibit 1, attesting service of the notice package was served in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions. The Tribunal finds the required notice of the hearing was provided.
4The Tribunal received a Participant Status Request from Catherine Bowman. Her property abuts the Subject Property. Her concerns with the proposal relate to the density, traffic, parking, privacy for backyards of Corwin Avenue, snow storage, and the destruction of trees. The Tribunal granted her Participant Status.
5The Appellants requested the conversion of the Case Management Conference to a Settlement Hearing. The Tribunal granted the request and proceeded to conduct the Settlement Hearing.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
6The Subject Property has a developable area of 0.335 hectares (“ha”), being the largest lot on the block bounded by Culp Street, Corwin Avenue, Barker Street, and Carlton Avenue, with 22.88 metres frontage on the latter. It is currently developed with a single detached dwelling, as are all surrounding properties. The lot fabric of the existing established residential neighborhood is varied, as shown below:
Figure 1: Aerial View of the Subject Lands, Exhibit 2 (Affidavit of Mr. Heikoop) p.20
7The Appellants proposed to redevelop the Subject Property with a private road along its northern boundary, extending the existing driveway to the rear of the lot. Six block townhouse dwelling units would be in the rear of the Subject Lands. An additional detached dwelling would be located between the proposed block townhouses and existing single detached dwelling. The latter would be severed from the Subject Lands before the final registration of the vacant land condominium. The ZBA is required to change the zoning from Residential 1E Density Zone, which does not allow block townhouses or more than one proposed uses on the same parcel, to Residential Low Density, Grouped Multiple Dwellings Zone (R4) with special provisions to address these and other zoning deficiencies.
THE SETTLEMENT HEARING
8William Heikoop is a Registered Professional Planner retained by the Appellants, whom the Tribunal qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning.
9In his opinion, the proposed development contributes to a mix of housing options within a built-up area, promoting efficient land use, which is consistent with policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”). The applications conform with the Niagara Official Plan (“NOP”) and the City of Niagara Official Plan (“City OP”) by gently intensifying an area identified for intensification, fully serviced, accessible by public transportation, and in proximity to existing public facilities.
10Mr. Heikoop reviewed and opined the Planning Act subsection 51(24) criteria were met. Notably, he testified the proposal was not premature and the land was suitable for the purposes of the Draft Plan of Condominium. Further, the highways, proposed units’ dimensions and shapes, municipal services, and school sites were adequate.
11Mr. Heikoop referred to the concerns raised by the Participant, Ms. Bowman, as follows. On density, he said City OP policy 1.10.5 requires intensification to be developed to a maximum net density of 40 units/ha, and a minimum net density of 20 units/ha. At a density of 23.88 units/ha, the proposed development falls squarely in the lower end of what is required for this type of redevelopment. For traffic and parking, he said the City identified no traffic concerns, and three visitor parking spaces are provided. He said privacy and overlook concerns are minimal since the block townhouses will be of a similar height as the existing neighborhood. Regarding snow removal and tree clearing, those matters are not found in the by-law but could be assessed as details at the site plan stage.
CONCLUSION
12The Tribunal accepts Mr. Heikoop’s uncontroverted evidence and finds that the ZBA and Draft Plan of Vacant Condominium meets the tests below.
13The Tribunal finds overall the ZBA and Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium have regard for matters of Provincial Interest, are consistent with the PPS 2024, conform with the NOP and City OP, and constitutes good land use planning in the public interest. The Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium has regard for the s. 51(24) Planning Act criteria.
ORDER
14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT
a. The appeals are allowed in part;
b. By-Law No. 79-200 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Niagara Falls to assign to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes;
c. The Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium shown on the plan prepared by Brent Larocque dated February 6, 2026 comprising Part of Lots 12 & 13, Registered Plan No. 49; Plan 59R-8795, City of Niagara Falls Regional Municipality of Niagara, set out in Attachment 2 is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order; and
d. Pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the City of Niagara Falls shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the Plan of Vacant Land Condominium for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act. If there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
“F. Lavoie”
F. LAVOIE
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
Attachment 2
Attachment 3