The Ontario Land Tribunal has denied an appeal by the developer behind plans for a subdivision on the Rand Estate.
In October 2024, the tribunal concluded Solmar needs to re-evaluate its plans for a 172-unit subdivision on the historic estate as they “do not represent good planning in the public interest.”
Solmar quickly filed an appeal, asking the tribunal to review its decision.
During a lengthy trial in 2024, the developer went up against the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, resident group Save Our Rand Estate and neighbours to the development, Blair and Brenda McArthur, looking for the tribunal to approve alteration and demolition permits allowing the company to build its subdivision on the estate’s two properties, 200 John St. E. and 588 Charlotte St.
The tribunal ruled that the site could be developed to add housing to NOTL, but highlighted issues with the state of Solmar’s subdivision plan, advising the developer to revisit the draft and make changes so the plan could be approved.
Solmar filed a request for the tribunal to review four points where the company argues the tribunal made key errors — however, in his Jan. 28 decision on the appeal, Michael Kraljevic, chair of the Ontario Land Tribunal, explained how he disagrees with each point, ultimately dismissing all of the appeal’s core arguments.
“Any intervention arising from a request for review is a rare and extraordinary remedy,” writes Michael Kraljevic, chair of the Ontario Land Tribunal, in his written decision on the appeal dated Jan. 28.
“I have concluded that this is not an instance in which the request establishes a convincing and compelling case that there is an error of law that warrants the exercise of my review powers.”
Save Our Rand Estate called this latest decision “another complete victory” for the town, the group and its residents, naming prominent developer Benny Marotta, who owns Solmar.
“It was always clear to us that the (tribunal) review request had no merit and was simply a delay tactic by Mr. Marotta,” SORE’s online statement read.
SORE urged Marotta to accept the tribunal’s decision, “stop fighting the town and SORE at every turn” and start working with them to implement the recommendations from October’s ruling.
“Sadly, we are not optimistic,” SORE said in its statement.
Solmar argued the tribunal made errors in its application of the legal principles underlying cultural heritage conservation, its endorsement of an expert’s recommendation that the company should install a reflecting pool where the estate’s old pool exists, its rejection of where Solmar proposed putting a vehicle access point on the property and for denying the removal and relocation of the site’s wetlands, acting outside its jurisdiction.
The tribunal ruled that if Solmar decides to move forward with the Rand Estate subdivision, it must do so in consultation with the town, SORE and the McArthurs and make the revisions to the design as per the tribunal’s findings on cultural heritage, vehicular access, tree protection and natural heritage.
Representatives for Solmar did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication.
