Both Lord Mayor Gary Zalepa and a strong majority of the Town Council are opposed to the development. Pictured: Niagara-on-the-Lake Council. Photo Credit: Niagara-on-the-Lake.
The contentious battle over the proposed construction of a three-storey, 17-unit apartment building on the northwest side of King Street appears to have concluded, with the Ontario Land Tribunal rejecting an appeal by the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, allowing the project to go forward. The controversial decision by the tribunal marks the latest chapter in a longstanding struggle between business entities advocating the prudence of their interests for the community, and residents seeking to preserve the traditional experience of a historic town.
Both Lord Mayor Gary Zalepa and a strong majority of the Town Council are opposed to the development, having voted against the project 5-2 in January. The overarching opinion of the council was that the plans of the developer, which wants 53 units per hectare of land, are not reconcilable with the thirty units per hectare model that is included in the official plan of the town. Moreover, it was also a firmly held opinion that the three-story, 17-unit building is not appropriate for the two-story single-family home design of the broader neighbourhood in which King Street is located.
The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake appealed an April 2024 ruling of Kurtis Andrews, a member of the Ontario Land Tribunal. The Town claimed that the tribunal “erred in law” by inaccurately utilizing a new legal test in deciding that the zoning by-law was consistent with the Planning Act, while also not considering expert evidence provided by the Town. According to Andrews, the tribunal favoured the opinion of Aaron Butler, who was retained by Butler’s Garden, as well as Town Planner Aimee Alderman, who had been subpoenaed by the developer, rather than that of Mark Dorfman, a land use expert who was retained by the Town.
Michael Kraljevic, who serves as the Chair of the Ontario Land Tribunal, contended that following an extensive review of the appeal, found that the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake had failed to present a persuasive argument that the developer violated a requirement that justified his intervention. Kraljevic also upheld the April decision of Andrews, who when ruling on an appeal by Butler’s Garden Development that objected to the Town’s non-decision on the matter, concluded that the development would play an important role in advancing municipal and provincial housing initiatives.
Concerning the expert evidence of Dorfman, which the Town objected to being dismissed, Kraljevic stood by Andrews, stating that it was the purview of the tribunal to determine whether or not to align its conclusions with a specific expert. The Town argued that the decision of the Tribunal to not incorporate this information, while simultaneously admitting the views of others, reflected a lack of compliance with Canada’s law of evidence. Kraljevic responded that to the contrary, tribunals are designed to serve as an efficient alternative to the court system, and are not bound to the same evidentiary rules.
The specific implications of the tribunal’s decision may not yet be immediately known or fully understood. In general, however, it is all but guaranteed that the rapid increase of development projects throughout Niagara-on-the-Lake will continue to be a matter of immense debate in the months and years to come.
Nick Redekop completed his Honours Bachelor of Arts Degree in Labour Studies at Brock University. He has previously served in municipal and federal politics. In his free time, Nick enjoys following sports, taking part in outdoor activities, and reading biographies. Nick resides in Niagara Falls
