Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
November 08, 2021
CASE NO(S).:
PL210067
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Roland Rom Colthoff
Subject:
Application amend Zoning By-law No. B2020- 123 - Refusal of Application by the Municipality of Trent Lakes
Existing Zoning:
“Shoreline Residential Private Access"
Proposed Zoning:
"Shoreline Residential-Private Access-95 (SRPA-95)"
Purpose:
To permit the construction of a second-storey addition to a boathouse
Property Address/Description:
91 Fire Route 79A
Municipality:
Municipality of Trent Lakes
Municipality File No.:
ZBA 20-02
OLT Case No.:
PL210067
OLT File No.:
PL210067
OLT Case Name:
Colthoff v. Trent Lakes (Municipality)
Heard:
October 27, 2021, by video conference
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Roland Rom Colthoff
Matthew Lakotos-Hayward
Municipality of Trent Lakes
M. John Ewart
INTERIM DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARYN VINCENT AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1Roland Rom Colthoff (Appellant) has appealed the refusal of a request for a site specific exception to Zoning By-law No. B2014-070, as amended, in order to permit habitable guest accommodation to be erected over the foot print of an existing boat house at a seasonal home located on a 1 hectare shoreline property known as 91 Fire Route on Big Bald Lake.
2The current zoning restrictions governing boathouses, including the height restriction, does not provide for habitable space above a boathouse. The by-law does however permit guest cabins of up to 44.6 sq. m. The proposed addition is 44.6 sq. m., the same as the existing footprint of the boathouse.
3Prior to the commencement of the hearing the Parties arrived at a settlement, which was then proffered for the consideration of the Tribunal.
4On the consent of the Parties, Tribunal heard evidence from a single witness, Gary Bell a land use planner, who was qualified to give opinion evidence, as set out in an affidavit sworn October 26, 2021 filed with the Tribunal, marked as Exhibit 2.
5It was the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Bell that the scale and design of the proposed minor addition to the existing permitted boathouse structure could be executed in the well screened inlet with minimal visual impact. The settlement stipulates that there be no plumbing in the sleeping loft, thereby minimizing the potential of any impact on water quality of the lake, consistent with official plan policies, a conclusion supported by the Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) filed in support of the application.
6It is also Mr. Bell’s opinion that the upward addition is preferrable to creating another footprint on the subject lands and is more respectful of the natural environment and the official plan policies protecting such features including the waterfront.
7Mr. Bell confirmed his opinion that the proposed addition would minimize impacts to natural features and result in reduced conflicts between development and environmental protection, thereby addressing matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Planning Act. Mr. Bell advised the Tribunal that the proposal addresses, and is consistent with, applicable policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan and the Peterborough Official Plan, as demonstrated through the EIS which finds that there will be no negative impacts to natural features or ecological functions.
8In order to secure the restrictions agreed to through the minutes of settlement, the Parties propose to require site plan approval which is provided for by existing official plan policies.
9The Tribunal is satisfied and accepts the uncontested opinion evidence of Mr. Bell that the proposal, as modified, represents good planning and is consistent with or conforms to the applicable policies.
ORDER
10The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed in part, but will withhold its final order amending Zoning By-law No. B2014-070 until advised by the parties that the necessary site plan approval has been granted, and a revised amending by-law in final form has been submitted to the Tribunal for review and approval to permit the issuance of the final order.
11The Panel Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-Law Amendment and the issuance of the final order and may be spoken to concerning matters relating to this Interim contingent Order and the issuance of the final order.
“Sharyn Vincent”
SHARYN VINCENT
VICE-CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.