Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 28, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-26-000159
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: MW Ontario Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of seven (7) two-storey townhouse dwellings
Reference Number: AM-2025-019
Property Address: 7956 & 7948 Spring Blossom Drive
Municipality/UT: Niagara Falls/Niagara
OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000159
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-26-000159
OLT Case Name: MW Ontario Inc. v. Niagara Falls (City)
Heard: April 22, 2026, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
MW Ontario Inc.
Rocco Vacca
City of Niagara Falls
Nidhi Punyarthi
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION delivered BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS ON april 22, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1The matter before the Tribunal was originally scheduled as a Case Management Conference (“CMC”), however, the Tribunal was advised on consent of the Parties (April 9, 2026), that a proposed settlement (“Settlement”) has been confirmed between the Parties. In accordance with Rule 12.1 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), the Tribunal commenced the Hearing of the proposed development appeal, in the context of a matter of Settlement between the Parties.
2The appeal was pursuant to section 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) as the result of the City of Niagara Falls (“City”) refusal or neglect to make a decision regarding a Zoning By-law Amendment application (“ZBA”) (“Application” / “Appeal”), at the municipal address known as 7956 and 7948 Spring Blossom Drive (“Subject Site”) under the ownership of MW Ontario Inc. (“Applicant” / “Appellant”).
3The Subject Site is irregularly-shaped, approximately 0.19 hectares (“ha”), and is in close proximity to a transit route along Kalar Road, within 700 metres (“m”) from the Proposal. The surrounding area consists of detached residential dwellings to the north, east and west of the Subject Site. Immediately to the south there are commercial uses, with a plaza, car wash and motel.
4The Appellant is seeking approval to permit the development of seven residential townhome units at the Subject Site, which will also be subject to a Consent application (“Consent”), expected to convey a portion of the rear yard of 7948 Spring Blossom Drive to the adjacent property to the east of the Subject Site.
5The Notice of Hearing for the originally scheduled CMC, was properly circulated under an Affidavit of Service, signed by Lissa Bondio, on March 19, 2026, and is marked as Exhibit 1.
6On consent from the Parties, a Witness Statement, Acknowledgement of Experts’ Duty, and Curriculum Vitae, from Nick DeBenedetti, was submitted by Affidavit to the Tribunal (signed April 20, 2026), which was marked as Exhibit 2.
STATUS REQUESTS
7The Tribunal was in receipt of two separate, written Participant status requests from Mary Ann Quait (dated April 7, 2026), and William Lindsay (dated April 7, 2026). There were no objections to the requests from either of the Parties. Therefore, the Tribunal, conferred Participant status on both Mary Ann Quait and William Lindsay.
8The common issues relevant to land use planning concerns in opposition to the Application from the Participants, included but were not limited to the following:
a) Traffic flow and safety;
b) Conformity with the City’s Official Plan, and possible reduction in the number of units;
c) Garbage and waste management/disposal;
d) Projection of exterior stairwells;
e) Infrastructure and emergency access;
f) Landscape concerns;
g) Side yard / Front yard setbacks, and building height; and,
h) The cumulative impact of all of the above.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
9In determining the outcome of the Appeal through, and based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal: must have regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and to any information and material that the City Council as the approval authority, received in relation to the matter; in accordance with s. 2.1(2) of the Act; and, that under s. 3(5) of the Act, further requires that any decisions of the Tribunal must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), conform with any provincial plans, and conforms to relevant policies and guidelines that are in effect.
UPDATED PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND EVIDENCE
10Following brief opening statements from counsel for both the Appellant and the City, Mr. DeBenedetti was duly qualified, on consent of the Parties, to provide expert land use planning opinion evidence regarding the updated proposed development and Settlement details.
11The Application before City Council was also seeking the following:
Reduced minimum lot frontage from a required 30 m to 15 m;
Reduced minimum rear yard depth from a required 7.5 m to 6.2 m;
Reduced minimum interior side yard width from a required 5 m to 2.5 m;
Reduced required parking standard from a required 1.4 parking spaces to 1.25 parking spaces;
Front-yard landscaping requirements of 3 m wide strip of land (excluding a garbage pad);
A projection of steps into a required side yard for a deck encroachment into a northerly interior side yard; and,
Reduced privacy yard depth for each townhouse dwelling from a required 7.5 m to 6.2 m.
12Mr. DeBenedetti testified that the updated proposed development is seeking site-specific approval to permit the development of seven, two-storey residential townhome dwellings, with up to seven additional dwelling units (“ADUs”), representing a density of 36 units per ha (“UPH”), on an existing infill property (“Proposal”).
13Mr. DeBenedetti also testified that the current Residential (R1E) zoning designation on the Subject Site allows a variety of residential uses including townhomes, at a maximum density of 40 UPH. The Proposal will require a rezoning to Residential Low Density, Grouped Multiple Dwellings (R4) Zone, through the approval of a site-specific ZBA.
14Mr. DeBenedetti opined that the timeline for the Proposal included an Open House in November 2025, and a City Council meeting on January 20, 2026, which refused the Application, following extensive public opposition.
15City staff provided comments, recommending approval of the Application, through a Planning Staff Report (“PSR”) (dated January 20, 2026), authored by Mr. DeBenedetti. The PSR noted the following for historical context:
On January 16, 2001, the City’s Committee of Adjustment granted conditional approval for a consent application that severed the subject lands from the adjacent Aston Villa Motel property to the south (now the Petro-Canada gas station). As a condition of approval, the Committee required that the owner obtain Council approval for a rezoning to ensure the newly created lot complied with the City’s zoning regulations and were appropriate for the intended residential development.
Council subsequently approved the required Zoning By-law Amendment on February 12, 2001, rezoning the subject property from Tourist Commercial (TC) to Residential Single Family (R1E), thereby establishing the existing residential zoning framework for the parcel created through the consent process.
16A separate Consent to sever application related to the rear lot line regarding 7948 Spring Blossom Drive, was expected to follow this Application/Appeal, to “refine the site’s lot fabric to better align with the [Proposal].” Mr. DeBenedetti further opined that the Proposal included that:
a) All Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management issues were satisfactory, and would be subject to any conditions under a Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium agreement;
b) The Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium application would follow Tribunal approval of the ZBA;
c) Any City works within the road allowance, including City connections will require City Engineering approval;
d) The City was satisfied with the Applicant’s Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Study by Vintec Acoustics Inc. (July 19, 2025);
e) Other measures such as proper façade glazing, and quiet mechanical equipment can be required of the Applicant to minimize disruptive noise levels from nearby commercial facilities;
f) A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (July 4, 2025), determined that no archaeological resources or artifacts were identified and no further assessment was necessary;
g) There were no objections or concerns from First Nations groups.
h) A Site Plan Application is not required for the development of this size; and,
i) Waste collection at curbside was available through the provision of Regional collection services, if required;
17The Proposal has now incorporated the following as a result of the Settlement:
i. A decorative wall or landscaping between the front lot line and the parking space in the front yard maintaining a revised 5 m width removing the garbage pad exclusion;
ii. A relocation of waste collection which will now occur at the rear of the Subject Site, with an enclosed waste bin or earth bin, requiring private-contractor services;
iii. Enhanced front-yard landscaping, and cedar tree line plantings to be implemented;
iv. A tree root protection implementation plan, intended to address concerns with abutting/adjacent properties relating to tree preservation;
v. Added privacy fencing and a 2.44 m acoustic barrier wall, in accordance with City staff requirements, will be installed along the southern property line, along with proper façade glazing;
18Although the PSR recommended approval in January 2026, Mr. DeBenedetti, further opined that with the revisions associated with the Settlement, the Proposal continues to demonstrate that it has appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Act, including the following sections:
(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;
(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
(i) the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities;
(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;
(n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests;
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development; and,
(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians.
PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT 2024
19Mr. DeBenedetti opined that the Settlement maintains consistency with the PPS 2024 in a number of areas (Exhibit 2, paras. 28-32), and opined that in support of the Proposal, a particular focus on Sections 2.1 to 2.3 of the PPS 2024 was emphasized. He asserted that the Proposal: responds to the need for higher-density provision of a mixture of housing, sensitive to the surrounding area; is within close proximity to existing infrastructure, community facilities/parks; is located within a Settlement Area; and strives to achieve complete communities.
20Mr. DeBenedetti further opined that the Subject Site is within the Urban Built Boundary with access to transit opportunities and provides a variation of housing typology on an underutilized site, which represents an important priority in the City.
21Finally, Mr. DeBenedetti concluded that the Proposal represents compact residential development in an area designated for and appropriate for growth and development.
NIAGARA REGION OFFICIAL PLAN 2022 (“NROP”)
22Mr. DeBenedetti reiterated the PSR view, dated January 20, 2026, that highlights how the NROP direct new density and growth in settlement areas, where municipal servicing exists, along with transportation options, and the need for a range of housing.
23The Proposal reflects these priorities, as it falls within the urban boundary area and is fully serviceable.
CITY OFFICIAL PLAN (“COP”)
24The Proposal conforms to the COP, consistent with built-up area policies, directing growth to fully-serviced areas, also seeking the need for a broad mix of housing options.
25Allowing for greater density within on an infill lot with the proposed two-storey height, is acceptable within the existing residential surrounding area, and with adequate setbacks, poses no adverse impact.
26The Tribunal was persuaded by Mr. DeBenedetti’s testimony that the Proposal was consistent with evidence expressed in the PSR, (Exhibit 2, pgs.32-33).
PARTICIPANT ISSUES
27Mr. DeBenedetti reiterated that any and all Participant issues have been properly addressed and resolved, mostly through the PSR referenced above in this Decision, but also as a result of changes agreed to through the Settlement. Some of these included: changes to the physical waste disposal, location and resulting requirement for private collection; enhanced landscaping; and the tree root protection plan. He further recommended the Tribunal should conclude the same and allow the ZBA Appeal with the resulting updates/conditions referenced above.
CONCLUSIONS
28The Tribunal considered and accepted the uncontroverted, expert land use planning testimony of Mr. DeBenedetti and the details pertaining to the Settlement, all of which is respectful of neighbouring Participant issues of concern referred to in this Decision.
29Therefore, the Tribunal has determined that the Proposal has the appropriate regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and to any information and material that the City of Niagara Council received in relation to the matter, in accordance with s. 2.1(2) of the Act; and, further that under s. 3(5) of the Act. is consistent with the PPS 2024 and conforms with all provincial plans, conforms to relevant municipal policies and guidelines that are currently in effect, including the NROP and COP.
ORDER
30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
The appeal against Zoning By-law 79-200 of the City of Niagara Falls, is allowed, in part, and the Tribunal directs the municipality to amend By-law Zoning By-law 79-200 as follows, and as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
In all other respects, the Tribunal Orders the appeal is dismissed.
The Tribunal may be spoken to should any matters arise respecting the implementation of this Order.
“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.
Attachment 1