Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 21, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000174

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Niagara-on-the-Green Properties Inc. and 1120048 Ontario Limited Appellant: F.T.A Condor Holdings Inc. Appellant: Jeremia Rudan & Darko Vranich Appellant: Niagara Townline Road Inc. Appellant: 2085308 Ontario Limited Appellant: Niagara York Road Inc. Appellant: Niagara York Road (East) Inc. Appellant: Niagara York Road (West) Inc. Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Description: Official Plan Amendment for the Glendale Secondary Plan Reference Number: OPA-06-2022 - Glendale Secondary Plan Property Address: Glendale Secondary Plan Municipality/UT: Niagara-on-the-Lake/Niagara OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000174 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000174 OLT Case Name: Niagara-on-the-Green Properties et al. v. Niagara-on-the-Lake (Town)

Heard: March 6, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake	Callum Shedden Gillian Belford
2085308 Ontario Limited	Denise Baker
Niagara Townline Road Inc.	Denise Baker
Niagara York Road (East) Inc.	Denise Baker
Niagara York Road (West) Inc.	Denise Baker
Niagara York Road Inc.	Denise Baker
Jeremia Rudan & Darko Vranich	Denise Baker
F.T.A. Condor Holdings Inc.	Sara Premi
Niagara-on-the-Green Properties Inc. and 1120048 Ontario Limited	Isaiah Banach
Non-Appellant Parties
White Oaks Tennis World Inc. & 1526882 Ontario Inc.	Rodney Gill

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON MARCH 6, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This hearing concerned appeals pursuant to section 17(36) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by numerous Appellants resulting from the approval by the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake (“Town”) of Official Plan Amendment No. 99 (“OPA 99”), namely the Glendale Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”), which was approved by the Town on January 28, 2025. OPA 99 was exempt from approval by the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

2A Case Management Conference (“CMC”) took place on June 6, 2025, wherein it was confirmed that adequate Notice was served, and White Oaks Tennis World Inc. and 1526882 Ontario Inc. (jointly) was added as a non-Appellant Party. A second CMC took place on January 19, 2026, wherein Julie Smith was added as a Participant. Moreover, the Parties advised that the Town had reached a settlement agreement with two of the Appellants and was near reaching a settlement agreement with the remaining Appellants. Thus, this hearing was scheduled and took place to allow the Tribunal to consider these settlement agreements and approve them, if warranted.

EVIDENCE

3In support of the settlement agreement, the Parties presented written and oral testimony from Taya Devlin. The Curriculum Vitae and signed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty form for Ms. Devlin were provided, confirming her expertise in the area of Land Use Planning. Ms. Devlin was qualified by the Tribunal, without objection, to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of Land Use Planning.

The Glendale Secondary Plan / OPA 99

4Ms. Devlin testified that a defined area of the Town is subject to OPA 99. OPA 99 was a Town-initiated OPA to update the policies and mapping of the Secondary Plan. The Secondary Plan applies to all lands within the urban area boundary of Glendale and sets out a policy framework for future development within this area. It is intended to build on the vision of becoming a complete community with a mix of built form and land uses, which protects natural heritage and supports economic prosperity. The Secondary Plan work is complemented by urban design guidelines and supported by the following technical studies: natural heritage/subwatershed study; transportation study; infrastructure study; commercial/employment study; and fiscal impact study.

The Appeals

5Ms. Devlin explained that the Town received the following appeals:

a. The first appeal (“Appeal 1”) was submitted by F.T.A. Condor Holdings Inc. (“F.T.A. Condor”), who is the owner of lands known municipally as 360 York Road.

b. The second appeal (“Appeal 2”) was submitted by Niagara-on-the-Green Properties Inc. and 1120048 Ontario Limited (“NOTG”), who are the owners of lands south of the outlet mall.

c. The third appeal (“Appeal 3”) was submitted by the other Appellants listed above (except for the non-Appellant Party), collectively referred to as “Rudan,” who are the owners of the industrial lands on York Road and Townline Road.

Appeal 1 – F.T.A. Condor

6Ms. Devlin testified that F.T.A. Condor and the Town have reached a resolution that constitutes some changes to OPA 99. With respect to F.T.A. Condor’s lands specifically, the Town and F.T.A. Condor have agreed as follows:

a. The definition of low impact employment generating uses in Section 9.2.5(ix) of OPA 99 will be amended by the deletion of the reference to Class I Industrial Facilities. Specifically, the definition of ‘low impact employment generating uses’ in Section 9.2.5(ix) will be amended as follows:

ix. The term ‘low impact employment generating uses' when used in this Plan means modestly scaled research and development facilities, light manufacturing uses and warehousing facilities and other employment uses where the operations are not noxious or offensive by reason of dust, odour, fumes, particulate matter, noise and/or excessive vibrations (i.e. those uses defined as Class I Industrial Facilities in the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks Land Use and Compatibility Guidelines).

b. The Urban Park Symbol (“UP Symbol”), which is applicable to F.T.A. Condor’s lands, as shown on Schedules 1 and 4 of OPA 99, provides direction for an amenity space for future redevelopment of this site. Provided that the lands are used for employment uses permitted in Section 6.6 of OPA 99, the amenity space is permitted to remain as a private amenity space for the employees on site, in accordance with Policy 7.3.1(d) of OPA 99. The Parties further agree that, as the UP Symbol appears to straddle the property and 320 York Road to the east, having the UP Symbol remain provides flexibility should there be a development application submitted for the adjacent property. Should either of these properties be redeveloped for a Mixed-Use development, the Urban Park Space in Section 7.3 of OPA 99 would apply.

c. The Stormwater Management Facility symbol which is applicable to F.T.A. Condor’s lands, as shown on Schedules 1 and 4 of OPA 99, does not show the exact location of the existing Stormwater Management Facility on the site and is included to reflect an understanding that there is an existing Stormwater Management Facility in this general location outside of the Environmental Protection Designation. The exact location of the Stormwater Management Facility will be determined through a future application if/when there is a proposal for new development for F.T.A. Condor’s lands, at which time the policies of Section 8.2.3(a) of OPA 99 would apply, enabling a framework to redesign or reconfigure an existing Stormwater Management Facility.

7Ms. Devlin opined that:

a. The modification of the definition for ‘low impact employment generating uses’ is appropriate as it eliminates reference to a classification that is unnecessarily specific (where policies exist elsewhere in the Secondary Plan and in other governing documents providing consideration for compatibility, potential impacts, and suitable mitigation measures).

b. The agreement that the UP Symbol applicable to F.T.A. Condor’s lands provides direction for an amenity space for future redevelopment of this site is appropriate and consistent with the overall purpose of the Secondary Plan to set out a policy framework for future development within the Secondary Plan area.

c. The agreement that the Stormwater Management Facility Symbol reflects a general location of the existing Stormwater Management Facility outside of the Environmental Protection Designation, and the exact location will be determined if/when a future application is made, is appropriate as it acknowledges the spirit of utilizing a symbol.

Appeal 2 – NOTG

8Ms. Devlin testified that NOTG and the Town have reached a resolution, agreeing to certain changes to the Secondary Plan, including policy and mapping revisions affecting NOTG’s lands, as follows:

a. The appendix to the Secondary Plan, identified as ‘Appendix A – Natural Heritage System’ in the document, shall be removed, and the Urban Design Guidelines, identified as ‘Appendix B’, shall now be identified as ‘Appendix A’.

b. The language ‘have regard to’ will be added to policies where the Urban Design Guidelines are referenced.

c. Amendments are made to the Mixed-Use I Designation causing townhouse units (all forms) within a mixed-use development is to be added to the list of permitted uses. The amendments include the addition of language to Policy 6.4.3(f)(i) to clarify that where residential development is proposed, no dwelling units are permitted at-grade along Niagara-on-the-Green Boulevard and a minimum of 75% of the at-grade Gross Floor Area frontage facing the street be occupied by non-residential uses (emphasis added to amendments/additions). A new Policy 6.4.3(f)(iii) has also been added to Policy 6.4.3(f) to confirm that stand-alone residential buildings shall be permitted without the need for an amendment to the Secondary Plan where a Commercial Needs Assessment has demonstrated non-residential uses are not feasible. This new Policy further states that active uses shall continue to be required along Niagara-on-the-Green Boulevard. An additional Policy 6.4.3(j) has been added to direct that any mid-rise building with primary frontage along Niagara-on-the-Green Boulevard is to include a podium of no more than four storeys, and any additional height above four storeys will be stepped back from the streetwall/podium.

d. Amendments are made to the Mixed-Use II Designation, including the replacement of Policy 6.5.3(e), which now states that stand-alone, non-residential buildings may be permitted within the Mixed-Use II Designation. The at-grade Gross Floor Area along the street frontage is required to be utilized for non-residential uses and residential accessory uses.

e. Policy 6.5.3(f), 6.2.3(b), 6.4.3(c), and 6.5.3(c), and certain policies relating to minimum and maximum densities, are removed.

f. Amendments are made to Policies 5.1.6(f) and 5.1.6(g), permitting building heights of up to 25 storeys for lands identified as ‘Special Policy Area X’ on Schedule 2B of the Secondary Plan, and heights up to 10 storeys for lands identified as ‘Special Policy Area Y’. Policy 5.1.6 notes that Special Policy Areas require the use of a Holding (H) symbol respecting an exemption to the Airport Zoning Regulation. The area of NOTG’s lands that is the subject of additional building height, as shown on Schedule 2B, has also been updated. Policy 5.1.6(g) has been added to outline the requirements applicable to the increased heights identified for the Special Policy Areas, including the requirements of a zoning by-law amendment and submission of an urban design brief.

g. Policy 6.9.1(c) is amended to acknowledge that the potential regional Transit Hub Symbol may be removed without an amendment to the Secondary Plan, where an agreement to acquire the site has not been established within a maximum of three years, rather than five years, from the date the Secondary Plan is approved.

h. Schedules 1 and 3 are amended to remove the Environmental Protection Designation overlay to the lands outside of the Secondary Plan area to the west of Homer Road.

i. Schedule 4 is amended to remove the UP Symbol on NOTG’s lands.

j. The Schedules are amended to identify an additional proposed local road to assist with site circulation.

9Ms. Devlin explained that Glendale is expected to accommodate a significant number of new and diverse housing units. The Secondary Plan policies, in line with provincial and regional policies, encourage and permit mid to higher density housing types, styles, tenures, and affordability characteristics to meet the economic requirements and affordability needs of a growing and diverse population. She opined that the amendments agreed to are appropriate from a planning perspective, as they create more flexibility for the provision of residential units, in a mix of housing types, while maintaining a focus on design in support of an activated main street. Moreover, she added, the proposed building heights within the identified Special Policy Areas support the desire for a mid to higher density built-form, and the amendments ensure the increased height will only be considered when certain conditions have been satisfied, through the implementation of a Holding ‘(H)’ Provision.

Appeal 3 – Rudan

10Ms. Devlin testified that Rudan and the Town have reached a resolution by agreeing to certain changes to the Secondary Plan in terms of policy and mapping revisions affecting Rudan’s lands, as follows:

a. The language ‘have regard to’ will be added to policies where the Urban Design Guidelines are referenced.

b. Amendments are made to Policies 5.1.6(f) and 5.1.6(g) permitting building heights of up to 10 storeys for lands identified as ‘Special Policy Area X’ on Schedule 2B of the Plan. Policy 5.1.6 notes that Special Policy Areas require the use of a Holding (H) symbol respecting an exemption to the Airport Zoning Regulation. Policy 5.1.6(g) outlines the requirements applicable to the increased heights identified for the Special Policy Areas, including the requirements of a zoning by-law amendment and submission of an urban design brief.

c. Policy 6.2.3(b), regarding maximum net densities within the New Residential Designation, shall be removed.

d. Amendments are made to the Mixed-Use II Designation, causing townhouse units (all forms) within a mixed-use development to be added to the list of permitted uses. The amendments include the addition of Policy 6.5.2(c), which requires development of any residential apartment use to contain a mix of unit sizes.

e. Policy 6.5.3(c), regarding maximum net densities within the Mixed-Use II Designation, shall be removed.

f. Amendments are made to Policy 6.5.3(e) resulting in permission for stand alone residential buildings, and where residential development is proposed, active uses are encouraged at-grade along public streets.

g. A new Policy 6.5.3(n) is to be added, which establishes a minimum non-residential Gross Floor Area of 7,000 square metres to be provided across the two sites identified as ‘Special Policy Area “X”’, and that a minimum of 1,750 square metres of non-residential Gross Floor Area will be constructed prior to, or together with, any residential development.

h. A new Policy 8.1.7(g) is to be added, clarifying that the road pattern shown on the Schedules is conceptual and changes to the road patten will not require an amendment to the Secondary Plan.

i. Policy 9.1.5(j), regarding Inclusionary Zoning, shall be removed.

j. Amendments are made to the Schedules, including the conversion of identified lands from Industrial/Business Park Designation to Mixed-Use II Designation, and removal of a Parks Symbol.

11Ms. Devlin opined that the amendments agreed to are appropriate from a planning perspective, as they create more flexibility for the provision of residential units, in a mix of housing types, remove unnecessary density maximums, supporting the provision of housing, while maintaining policies and established expectations for suitable built form within Glendale. Additionally, the proposed building height within the identified Special Policy Area supports the desire for a mid to higher density built-form and the amendments ensure the increased height will only be considered when certain conditions have been satisfied, through the implementation of a Holding ‘(H)’ Provision.

12With respect to the amendments pertaining to conversion of identified lands from Industrial/Business Park Designation to Mixed-Use II Designation, Ms. Devlin opined that they are appropriate from a planning perspective for the following reasons:

a. The inclusion of Policy 6.5.3(n) ensures a minimum non-residential Gross Floor Area of 7,000 square metres to be provided across the two sites, which is the equivalent of approximately 50 jobs per net hectare. This represents a similar ratio of jobs to the overall target of 60 jobs per hectare for the Employment Area as a whole and will not impact the Town’s ability to sufficiently accommodate projected employment growth.

b. One of the two sites is constrained by the Natural Heritage System, which affects its ability to develop for larger scale employment uses.

c. The lands have been designated as a knowledge and innovation employment area typology planned to accommodate higher density type employment uses, such as research and development and offices use. The Mixed-Use II Designation is an appropriate designation to continue to permit these uses, while also allowing additional flexibility to introduce housing.

Conclusion

13Overall, with respect to all appeals, Ms. Devlin testified that the proposed resolutions and amendments are supported on planning grounds as they meet the legislative tests in the Act, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, and conform to provincial, regional, and municipal planning legislation.

14The non-Appellant Party took no position on these matters. It did not object to the resolution reached between the Parties.

FINDING AND ANALYSIS

15The Tribunal was persuaded by the uncontested evidence of Ms. Devlin and was satisfied that the amended Secondary Plan / OPA 99 is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, conforms to the Regional Municipality of Niagara Official Plan and the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake Official Plan, and has regard to matters of provincial interest as outlined in the Act. The Tribunal found that the amendments, arrived at by way of settlement agreements, represented good planning and were in the public interest. The Tribunal found that the amended Secondary Plan / OPA 99 warranted approval and made an oral ruling to that effect at the hearing.

ORDER

16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed, in part, and the amended Glendale Secondary Plan, as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, is hereby approved.

17THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that, in accordance with Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Order is effective as of March 6, 2026.

“Bita M. Rajaee”

BITA M. RAJAEE 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