A proposed five-storey development in Virgil is raising pointed questions from councillors and nearby residents, who warn the project could set a troubling precedent and say key land ownership issues remain unresolved.
The concerns surfaced Tuesday during a public meeting before Niagara-on-the-Lake council on an official plan amendment application for 1544–1546 Four Mile Creek Rd., which seeks to redesignate the site to allow a mixed-use development with 241 surface and underground parking spaces, a two-storey commercial building and a five-storey residential building containing 31 units and rooftop amenity space.
Town planner Victoria Nikoltcheva told council the meeting dealt only with the official plan amendment because the zoning bylaw amendment tied to the project has already been appealed for non-decision and is now before the Ontario Land Tribunal.
Even so, councillors pressed staff on several aspects of the proposal, repeatedly returning to one central question: how and when the ownership of the Line 2 Road allowance tied to the property will be confirmed and resolved.
The proposal incorporates the road allowance into the development layout, including several proposed parking spaces, prompting councillors to question whether the developer is relying on land the town believes it owns.
Residents who spoke at the meeting warned the proposal could reshape how planning policies are applied in the area.
The owner is Stephen Aghaei of Times Group Corp., who did not attend the meeting to present the proposal. Coun. Gary Burroughs noted he would have preferred the applicant be there to answer questions directly.
Nicholas Colaneri told council the application represents a “full re-framework.”
“Height is not cosmetic,” he said, adding planning decisions “do not exist in isolation” and that “policies are not decorative.”
Colaneri said planning policies in the official plan and zoning bylaws are meant to work together, warning that site-specific exceptions can weaken that framework.
Neighbour Lloyd Redekopp, who lives south of the proposed development, urged council to reject the application, arguing it raises unresolved land ownership and height concerns.
He said residents have long treated the Line 2 Road allowance as town-owned and warned the project could eliminate existing access points.
“There’s daily use of these conservation lands,” he said. “We ourselves have two driveways that we use on the north side of our property onto this road allowance — the proposed plan eliminates these access points.”
Redekopp also objected to the building height, saying the proposed 21.28-metre residential structure — “almost 70 feet” — is “twice the normal height limit.”
“Some cell towers are only 20 metres tall,” he said.
“This sets a bad precedent for future developments in our town.”
The concerns were also reflected in questions from councillors.
Burroughs pressed staff on the Line 2 Road allowance issue, asking how the dispute will be settled before the process moves much further.
“How does that get resolved before we drag this thing on too far?” he said.
Town staff said it cannot pause the planning process while the ownership issue is examined.
“There’s no ability for us to pause the timing on any of these applications,” said Aimee Alderman, director of planning, building and development services.
“The clock does continue” under Planning Act timelines, she added.
Coun. Erwin Wiens also questioned how the application can proceed while the ownership question remains unsettled.
“We have a whole plan that’s subject on something that’s critical — the ownership of who owns the land,” he said. “How does that work, that we go through this process, not knowing who owns what?”
Wiens also raised concerns about irrigation infrastructure and access tied to the road allowance.
“We’re aware that there’s irrigation lines, you mentioned that,” he said. “We own it, so we want to make sure that we have access to it.”
“But what happens if we get further down the line and they want to put pavement over top of irrigation lines?”
Coun. Wendy Cheropita raised concerns about the proposed building height and its location beside nearby homes.
“Right next to a residential area?” she questioned.
“Is that precedent-setting?”
Staff said the proposal will be assessed on its own merits, noting the five-storey building is taller than what is typically built in Virgil and will receive closer scrutiny.
“I don’t want to say that it’s a precedent-setting situation, but it’s definitely something that we’re looking at more closely,” Nikoltcheva said.
Coun. Sandra O’Connor questioned how the application could move forward if land ownership tied to the proposal remains unclear.
“Do we not have to ensure that the land that developers are proposing to develop are owned by that developer?” she asked.
Staff said the application was deemed complete under Planning Act requirements and the town is reviewing it within those parameters.
Coun. Adriana Vizzari also raised questions about consultation with local school boards, asking whether the Catholic school board had been contacted. Staff said it would follow up.
