Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 04, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000783
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Christoper Adams
Subject: Consent
Description: C & MV to facilitate the creation of one new residential lot
Reference Number: B-10/25
Property Address: 2052 York Road
Municipality/UT: Niagara-on-the-Lake/Niagara
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000783
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000783
OLT Case Name: Adams v. Niagara-on-the-Lake (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Christoper Adams
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: C & MV to facilitate the creation of one new residential lot
Reference Number: A-14/25
Property Address: 2052 York Road
Municipality/UT: Niagara-on-the-Lake/Niagara
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000784
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000783
OLT Case Name: Adams v. Niagara-on-the-Lake (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Christoper Adams
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: C & MV to facilitate the creation of one new residential lot
Reference Number: A-15/25
Property Address: 2052 York Road
Municipality/UT: Niagara-on-the-Lake/Niagara
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000785
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000783
OLT Case Name: Adams v. Niagara-on-the-Lake (Town)
Heard: January 30, 2026 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Christopher Adams | Rocco Vacca |
| Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake | Callum Shedden Gillian Belford |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON JANUARY 30, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This event was a Hearing to consider appeals pursuant to sections 53(19) and 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Christopher Adams (“Applicant”) regarding the refusal by the Committee of Adjustments (“COA”) of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake (“Town”) on September 22, 2025 of a consent and a minor variance application pertaining to a property known municipally as 2052 York Road (“Subject Property”).
2The Tribunal canvassed Counsel, who confirmed that there were no issues with the Tribunal-served Notice of Hearing.
3On January 9, 2026, the Applicant and the Town advised the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement agreement between them, which they wished to present to the Tribunal at the Hearing. Of note, a Party status request had been received by the Tribunal, which the Parties were unaware of. The Tribunal informed them of same. The Parties advised the Tribunal that they both opposed this request. The Tribunal directed that the Party status would be considered at the event on January 30, 2026. If granted, a Case Management Conference would take place instead of a Hearing. If Party status was not granted, then a Hearing to consider the settlement would take place.
PARTY STATUS REQUEST
4Nicholas Colaneri requested Party status on the basis that he believed this matter should proceed by way of a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and not a consent / minor variance application. He stated in his status request form that he wanted to demonstrate that “the magnitude of relief sought, particularly the substantial reductions in lot frontage and area, constituted a rezoning-level change, not a minor variance”. He wished to be involved in the appeal to provide the Tribunal with submissions on “the procedural and jurisdictional issue of whether the applications were brought through the correct statutory mechanism”. He further stated, “I am not opposing the principle of severance or development on the site. My participation is solely to assist the Tribunal in determining whether the appropriate Planning Act process was followed…”
5At the Hearing, the Tribunal clarified the difference between a Party and Participant to Mr. Colaneri, specifically explaining the requirements of being a Party and the potential exposure to costs liability. Mr. Colaneri maintained that he sought Party status. He repeated that he did not oppose the application but simply wanted to have the chance to explain to the Tribunal that this matter should proceed as a ZBA and not a consent / minor variance. He did not plan to bring any planning evidence (as he did not believe this to be a planning issue) or rely on any witnesses.
6The Applicant and the Town opposed the Party status request. Their position was that this request did not meet the requirement under Rule 8.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) to become a Party. Namely, for Party status to be granted, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the prospective Party’s presence is necessary to adjudicate effectively, with the onus being on the person seeking status to show that their presence is necessary. In this instance, Mr. Colaneri had not demonstrated this. He had explained his involvement to be that he wanted to raise a procedural issue and not a planning one. However, whether the application should be a ZBA or a consent / minor variance application is indeed a planning issue. The Tribunal will have to determine whether the variance is minor in nature, and to do so, it must rely on land use planning evidence. Mr. Colaneri said that he did not intend to provide that evidence. Thus, his presence would not be necessary to this appeal. Moreover, the Town made the decision to not oppose this application but to resolve it instead. Thus, Town Council already considered the question of whether this should have been a ZBA and decided that it did not need to be. The Applicant’s Counsel added that Mr. Colaneri lives more than 7 kilometres away from the Subject Property. Thus, it is questionable whether he has direct interest in this appeal since the application is site-specific and Mr. Colaneri is not an immediate neighbour and likely not impacted by the proposal. For these reasons, Mr. Colaneri should not be granted Party status.
7The Tribunal agreed with the Town’s and the Applicant’s Counsels. The Tribunal was persuaded that Mr. Colaneri’s participation would not be necessary to assist the Tribunal in making a decision on this appeal, and therefore would not meet the requirement of Rule 8.2 of the Rules. The question of whether this application should be a minor variance or a ZBA is inherent to a minor variance appeal. In other words, when the Tribunal is making a determination on whether variances are minor, it is implicitly deciding the question of whether a ZBA should have been sought instead. If the Tribunal decides that the variances are not minor, the only recourse (apart from appealing the Tribunal’s decision) available to an Applicant would be to proceed by way of a ZBA. This is the case in every minor variance appeal. Moreover, contrary to Mr. Colaneri’s statement, this is indeed a planning issue. The Tribunal does have to look at planning policies in determining whether variances sought are minor. In short, in this case, the Tribunal found that Mr. Colaneri’s participation as a Party was not necessary and would not meaningfully contribute to a fair, just, expeditious, and cost-effective hearing, as a means to assist the Tribunal in making a properly informed decision. In addition, the Tribunal found that it was not clear that Mr. Colaneri had direct interest in this appeal, considering its site-specific nature and his lack of direct proximity to the Subject Property.
8The Tribunal granted Participant status, without objection, to Mr. Colaneri instead. The Tribunal accepted Mr. Colaneri’s Party status request form as his Participant Statement. Moreover, the Tribunal provided Mr. Colaneri with time to orally add any information that he wished to add at the Hearing. While Participants usually only participate in proceedings by way of written submissions, considering the Parties wished to present their settlement agreement to the Tribunal that day, the Tribunal relied on Rule 1.6 of the Rules and used its discretion to allow Mr. Colaneri to make oral submissions in order to avoid further delays to this proceeding. The Tribunal asked the planner who had attended in support of the settlement to be present to listen to Mr. Colaneri’s additional submissions. However, Mr. Colaneri indicated that he had no further submissions to make orally at the Hearing.
HEARING
The Consent and Minor Variances Sought
9The Consent application is to create one new lot on the Subject Property (“Part 1”) for a new single-detached dwelling, with the existing dwelling retained on a separate lot (“Part 2”). A portion of the Subject Property is designated Significant Woodland area. That part, along with a 10-metre (“m”) buffer, will be contained wholly on Part 1. Town Planning Staff recommended Conditions of Approval to the Consent application.
10Relief from the Town’s Zoning By-law, sought to facilitate the proposed lot creation and construction of a new single-detached dwelling, are as follows:
a. Minor variances for the new lot (Part 1) and proposed dwelling:
| Provision | Requirement | Proposed |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum building face of lot frontage [ss. 8.2.2(i)] | 50% | 67% |
| Minimum lot frontage [ss. 8.2.2(a)(ii)] | 30 m | 18.29 m |
b. Minor variances for retained lot (Part 2) and existing dwelling:
| Provision | Requirement | Proposed |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum building face of lot frontage [ss. 8.2.2(i)] | 50% | 67% |
| Minimum lot frontage [ss. 8.2.2(a)(ii)] | 30 m | 18.29 m |
| Minimum lot area [ss. 8.2.2(b)(ii)] | 1,350 m2 | 818 m2 |
Evidence
11In support of the settlement agreement, the Parties presented written and oral testimony from Aaron Butler. The Curriculum Vitae and signed Acknowledgement of Expert Duty form for Mr. Butler were provided, confirming his expertise in the area of Land Use Planning. Mr. Butler was qualified by the Tribunal, without objection, to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of Land Use Planning.
Subject Property
12The Subject Property is approximately 0.25 hectares in size and rectangular in shape with a frontage of 36.58 m and a depth of 68.66 m. The Subject Property contains one existing single-detached dwelling with various residential accessory buildings and structures. The Subject Property slopes down from York Road (south to north) with a woodlot at the north designated as Significant Woodland.
13The Subject Property is located in the community of Queenston which is one of five settlement areas in the Town. The settlement area boundary of Queenston is located along the north (rear) property line, with flat agricultural lands to the north. To the south, east, and west are single-detached residential uses within the settlement area. The Niagara Escarpment is located south of single-detached dwellings on the south side of York Road. The Subject Property is served by municipal water and sanitary services.
14The Subject Property is within a Settlement Area under the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area under the Greenbelt Plan. Under the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Subject Property is within a Minor Urban Centre (Queenston) and designated Escarpment Protection Area. The Subject Property is located within a Delineated Built-up Area, identified as an Urban Area under the Niagara Official Plan (“NOP”). The Town’s Official Plan identifies the Subject Property as being within the Built-up Area and within the Low Density Residential designation of the Queenston Secondary Plan. The far north portion of the Subject Property is also designated in the NOP as Significant Woodland. The Subject Property is zoned Established Residential 2 (ER2) under the Town's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 4316-09 (“Zoning By-law”).
Settlement Agreement
15The planning documents affecting this matter include:
a. The Act; b. The PPS; c. The Greenbelt Plan, 2017; d. The Niagara Escarpment Plan, 2017 (“NEP”); e. The NOP; f. The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake Official Plan, 1994 (“Town’s OP”); and g. The Town’s Zoning By-law.
16Citing numerous policies in his Affidavit and Planning Justification Report, as well as through his oral testimony, Mr. Butler opined as follows:
a. The proposal has regard for matters of provincial interest as identified in section 2 of the Act and more particularly the following matters of provincial interest: 2(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; 2(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; and 2(p) the appropriate location of growth and development. b. The proposed consent has regard for the requirements of section 51(24) of the Act. c. The proposal is consistent with the policies and direction of the PPS, in that policies regarding intensification, housing, growth, natural heritage, and infrastructure are upheld. d. The proposal conforms to the Greenbelt Plan, the NEP, the NOP, and the Town’s OP, including the Queenston Secondary Plan. e. The proposed minor variances meet the test outlined in section 45(12) of the Act, in that they maintained the intent and purpose of the Town’s OP and Zoning By-law, are desirable, and are minor.
17Mr. Butler further testified that the applications, and the proposed development they facilitate, are appropriate for the Subject Property as it is within the Urban Area and the Built-up Area of the Town. The proposal is appropriate for infill development and conforms to the Town’s OP policies relating to growth and lot creation. Moreover, the proposal conforms to the NEP including the policies for growth in a Minor Urban Centre, which support minor development relative to the size and capacity of the settlement to absorb new growth, so that community character is maintained. The addition of one new residential lot is compatible with the surrounding streetscape and existing lot fabric and can be accommodated on existing municipal services. Furthermore, no development is proposed within the Significant Woodland feature on the Subject Property or its buffer.
18Mr. Butler specifically addressed the concerns raised by the Participant, Mr. Colaneri. He explained that he had assessed this matter at the start and determined that a consent / minor variance application was the appropriate way to proceed, and not a ZBA. He had looked at the test for minor variances and, using his planning expertise, determined that the variances requested were minor. Namely, the variances would not cause adverse impacts on surrounding properties or the streetscape. Thus, this application was appropriate and a ZBA application was not necessary.
19Mr. Butler also went through the Conditions that Town Staff had proposed, which are attached to this Decision as Schedule 1. He reviewed them and explained that they are appropriate and should be attached to the Consent as Conditions of Approval.
20He concluded that the proposed settlement was good planning and met all applicable statutory tests. He recommended that the Tribunal approve the proposed consent and minor variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval, which Town Staff had proposed and the Applicant agreed with.
TRIBUNAL’S FINDINGS
21The Tribunal was satisfied by the uncontested written and oral evidence provided by Mr. Butler. The Tribunal found that the consent application, along with the proposed Conditions, has regard to matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms with the Greenbelt Plan, the NEP, the NOP and the Town’s OP. The Tribunal further found that the minor variance application meets the four tests under section 45(12) of the Act. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the consent and minor variance applications represent good land use planning and warrant approval.
22An oral ruling to this effect was made at the Hearing.
ORDER
23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
a. The appeal by Christopher Adams pursuant to section 53(19) of the Planning Act is allowed and provisional consent is to be given subject to the Conditions set out in Schedule 1 to this Order.
b. The appeal by Christopher Adams pursuant to section 45(12) of the Planning Act is allowed and the minor variances to the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 4316-09, as set out in Schedule 2 to this Order, are authorized.
24THE 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 January 30, 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.
Schedule 1
SCHEDULE 2