Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 15, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL170795

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: William Boyer and Barbara Boyer

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 2016-160 – Refusal of Application by Township of Muskoka Lakes

Proposed Zoning: Waterfront Residential (WR6) and Waterfront Residential – Restricted Waterbody (WR6-R) with exemptions

Purpose: To recognize the two parcels as one lot for planning purposes, and will prohibit Public Beach as a permitted use on the waterfront lot, will only permit a dock, one-storey boathouse, sundeck, stairs, ramps and landings on the waterfront lot, and will also prohibit a dwelling and sleeping cabin on the waterfront lot

Property Address/Description: Part of Lots 9 and 10, Concession 5

Municipality: Township of Muskoka Lakes

Municipal File No.: 2016-160

OLT Case No.: PL170795

OLT File No.: PL170795

OLT Case Name: Boyer v. Muskoka Lakes (Township)

Heard: December 14, 2020 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
William Boyer and Barbara Boyer	Russell D. Cheeseman
Township of Muskoka Lakes	John Ewart
Gordon Dorrett and Susan Dorrett	Edward Veldboom

DECISION DELIVERED BY G.C.P BISHOP

INTRODUCTION

1On December 3, 2020, a motion was brought by counsel for the Boyers. The Motion, amongst other items, was mainly for the purpose of excluding Darryl Tighe, a Registered Professional Planner, from giving evidence at this scheduled hearing event. On December 4, 2020, counsel for the Township responded to the motion.

2The Motion is for:

1. Relief from rule 10.5 the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal’s in order to bring this Motion on abbreviated notice.
2. An Order of the Tribunal to exclude Darryl Tighe from giving evidence on behalf of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, at the Hearing that is scheduled to commence on Monday, December 14, 2020 via video conference.
3. An Order of the Tribunal to exclude the Witness Statement, Curriculum Vitae, and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty from Hearing that is scheduled to commence on Monday, December 14, 2020 via video conference.
4. Cost of this Motion on a full indemnity basis, payable by the Township of Muskoka Lakes to the Applicants.
5. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and the Tribunal may permit.

The Tribunal accepted the abbreviated timeline for the motion and directed counsel to proceed with the motion at the commencement of the hearing.

3By way of background, the Procedural Order (“PO”) was issued on August 6, 2020, setting a hearing date to commence on November 16, 2020, to proceed in person. The PO had specific dates for the exchange of expert witness statements. The exchange of the expert witness statements was set for October 2, 2020. On October 2, 2020 counsel for the Township of Muskoka Lakes (the “Township”) filed with the parties and the Tribunal, the staff report authored by Rian Allen, dated March 31, 2017. This is the report that was presented to Council on their meeting of April 13, 2017.

4A status hearing was also scheduled for October 16, 2020 to determine whether the hearing could proceed as an in-person or required the conversion to a video hearing. Mr. Cheeseman expressed the wish to keep the hearing in-person. The Tribunal was concerned about maintaining the open court principle as only ten (10) people would be allowed to attend. Counsel for the Township expressed a willingness to look into the timing around the installation of high-speed internet in Community Centre, so that the hearing could be broadcasted over the internet.

5The written decision from this status hearing was delayed while the Tribunal waited for feedback from the Township, but the conclusion was that the Community Centre was not ready for an in-person hearing. On October 27, 2020, the Tribunal issued its decision converting the hearing to the video hearing format. This was the only change to the PO and the only remaining item in the PO was November 6, 2020 for parties to supply their visual evidence. The Tribunal notes that new dates were canvassed with the parties and the Tribunal schedule, but no dates were available in either January or February of 2021. The only reason for this exercise was the insistence on maintaining an in-person hearing.

6As a result of the issuance of the October 27, 2020 decision, the parties requested a Telephone Conference Call (“TCC”) to express their concern over the ability to prepare for the commencement of the hearing on November 16, 2020, in such a short timeline. This was a surprise to the Tribunal as there was no indication that the parties were not in line with the directives set out in the PO.

7The Tribunal held a TCC on October 29, 2020 and due to a cancellation of a hearing event, the Tribunal was able to secure the commencement of the hearing for December 14, 2020 by way of video.

8On Monday November 30, 2020, two weeks before the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Township filed a Witness Statement, Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty of Mr. Tighe, without prior notice to the other parties.

9According to Counsel for the Township, Mr. Allen had left the employ of the Township and was not available for this hearing event. Counsel for the Township submitted that the delivery of the witness statement from Mr. Tighe occurred as soon as possible and was not an attempt to ambush the Appellants in this case.

10Counsel for the Appellants took the position that the original witness statement from Mr. Allen supported the approval of the ZBA, whereas Mr. Tighe’s position is against Mr. Allen's position. Counsel questioned why another planner could not have been available to attend the hearing as opposed to the Township sourcing a private firm. All of which is prejudicial to his client.

11The Tribunal found that although the advice may have been different, the Township’s position has not changed since the beginning of this appeal. The Township denied the application to Amend the Zoning By-law.

12The Tribunal will allow the witness statement of Mr. Tighe to be entered into evidence and monitor Mr. Tighe’s evidence closely in relation to the Issues List. The Tribunal is not pleased about the conduct of the Township and will reserve the right of the Appellant for the Tribunal to consider costs. Given this ruling Tribunal asked whether the Appellant required additional time to prepare or whether the Appellant wished to proceed, with the possibility of needing time to reply after the evidence of Mr. Tighe is heard. Counsel for the Appellant wished to proceed with the hearing.

13In making this ruling, the Tribunal considered a number of factors. As noted above the Tribunal found that the Township's position has not changed since the beginning of this appeal. The Township has the right to bring whatever case it wishes to defend its position. The real issue is the timing around this new information given that it is only 14 days before the commencement of the hearing. The Tribunal also weighed this against the fact that a third party was added to this hearing, who was also bringing a full case against the proposed ZBA, with expert planning evidence.

14The Tribunal was satisfied that the full evidence from the Appellants’ planner and the Dorretts' planner, combined with monitoring of evidence from the Township's witness will suffice to fully flush out all of the issues and concerns of the parties.

15Although the Tribunal reserved the Appellant’s right with respect to costs relating to the motion, the Tribunal will deal with the cost issue in this decision. The Tribunal dismisses the claim for costs against the Township. This matter could have been completed prior to Mr. Allen's departure from the Township by way of video hearing. Counsel for the Appellant argued that his client should not be delayed any longer, given the age of the this file but it was the continued unwillingness of counsel for the Appellant, throughout the process, to convert from an in-person hearing to a video hearing that also caused delay.

THE HEARING

16William and Barbara Boyer (the “Appellants” or the “Boyers”) are the owners of two separate parcels of land located in the Geographic Township of Wood, now in the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

17The main parcel, including the dwelling, is located on a 76 acre lot with roughly 1200 feet of frontage on Muskoka Road 169, being Part of Lots 9 and 10, Concession 5 in the Geographic Township of Wood, with a municipal address of 2266 Muskoka Road 169. This main parcel is somewhat triangular in shape generally bounded by Muskoka Road 169 along the southwest, McKenzie Road along the northeast and the unopened sideroad between Lots 10 and 11 along the western limit.

18McKenzie Road services a series of lakefront lots that are fronting on Lake Muskoka which run in a general line, along the lake, in a southeast to northwest direction ultimately wrapping around the end of a very narrow bay. These lots are illustrated on a plan of subdivision deposited as Plan M-119 in April of 1949. The Tribunal understands that the lands comprising of Plan M-119 would have been removed from the original holdings with the balance of lands now being the main parcel, which is part of the lands subject to this hearing.

19The second parcel is located generally at the end of the narrow bay. It is part of Plan M-119 and is labelled “Public Beach”. This second parcel has approximately 140 feet of frontage to the south, on Lake Muskoka; approximately 66 feet in depth; approximately 125 feet of frontage, to the east, on Block “B”; approximately 58 feet of frontage to the west, abutting Lot 31; approximately 165 feet of frontage to the north, abutting a part of Lot 35; and an approximate area of 0.22 Acres. All of these dimensions have been collected by scaling off of Plan M-119 as none of the measurements nor the area are illustrated on the original survey, nor has there been any updated legal survey to verify the size and shape of the lakefront property. These dimensions are derived from a sketch the was prepared, for planning purposes, at page 45 of Exhibit 3, with the notation stating that they were scaled from the original Plan M-119, which was deposited in the Land Titles Office for the District of Muskoka on April 11, 1949.

20Moving further north and east, on the opposite side of Block “B”, There are a series of internal lots with no frontage on Muskoka Lake. These include the other part of Lot 35 and all of Lots 34, 36, 37 and 38 inclusive. Further north, with frontage on Lake Muskoka, Lots 32 and 33 on Plan M-119 was further divided with the deposit of Plan M-135, all of which have direct access to the lake. This leaves the internal lots on Plan M-119 mentioned above, in the vicinity of this “Public Beach” as landlocked from Muskoka Lake.

21The Blocks on this subdivision represent the 66 feet wide roads that were laid out during the course of the survey. Although there is no dedication of the Blocks to a public authority on the face of this plan, the Blocks are in the ownership of the Township of Muskoka Lakes (the “Township”) by virtue of a transfer of Blocks “A”, “B” and “C” on March 14, 1991. Unlike the Blocks and Lots on Plan M-119, the second parcel is labeled “Public Beach” on the face of the plan and in the description on Land Titles Parcel Identifier Number 48033-0005 (LT) but is clearly in the ownership of the Boyers.

22The waterfront lot is designated Waterfront by the Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan (“MLOP”) and is zoned Waterfront Residential – Narrow Waterbody (WR6), and Waterfront Residential – Narrow Waterbody – Restricted Waterbody (WR6-R). The main parcel where the dwelling is located is designated Waterfront, Rural (Area 2 Low Density) and Scenic Corridor by the LBOP and is zoned Rural – Area 2 (RU2), Rural – Area 2 – Scenic Corridor (RU2-S), and Waterfront Residential – Backlot (WR2).

23The Township’s comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2014-14 (the “Township By-law”) requires a Waterfront Residential zoned lot to have a minimum lot area of 0.34 acres (15000 sq. ft.) and a minimum frontage of 100 feet to meet the lot of record criteria to be considered a building lot. Although the minimum frontage qualifies the lot is considerably undersized in area. Consequently, there is currently no development potential on the waterfront lot.

24It is also worth noting that the Waterfront Landing (WL) zone requires a minimum frontage of 75 feet and a minimum lot area of 0.25 acres. The WL zone permits a single storey garage or storage shed, a boathouse and a dock. The WL zone is intended to provide island land owners a mainland access without the need to utilize a marina or municipal dock. But is also worth noting that the waterfront landings are generally not permitted to locate in an area of use limitation such as a narrow water body or bay, as is the case in this circumstance.

25The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) is to achieve the following:

1. To recognize the two parcels of land as one for planning purposes.
2. To allow a dock, one-storey boathouse, sundeck, ramps, stairs and landings.
3. To prohibit a dwelling and sleeping cabin.
4. To prohibit a public beach as a permitted use.

26The Township denied the application for the ZBA and thus the appeal to the Tribunal. Neighbours along the south side of the narrow bay, Gordon and Susan Dorrett (the “Dorretts”), were added as a party to this matter and where present, in opposition to the ZBA.

27The Tribunal finds that the central issue in this case relates to what is a reasonable intensity of use on the lakefront portion of the Appellants’ lands. This is a conflict between the Appellants’ private use and enjoyment of the lakefront portion of their property, versus the Township’s duty for overall safety and the protection of the environment. This brings into play the potential requirement for on-site parking and an individual septic system.

28Much of the evidence proffered by the planners related to whether the proposed boat house and accessory structures would fit into the natural environment and whether the built form will be compatible with the surrounding area.

29Three planners were qualified to give expert opinion evidence. Expert evidence was submitted by Savas Varadas, Wayne Simpson and in a limited capacity, Darryl Tighe, for the Appellants, Dorretts and the Township respectively.

30To ultimately reach a conclusion in this matter the Tribunal must first assess whether the lakefront portion of the property should be recognized as being joined to the parent parcel and treated as one for planning purposes. This is the key issue has a direct impact on the other parts of the proposed ZBA and the amount and type of intensification that should be allowed on the lakefront parcel.

TO RECOGNIZE THE TWO PARCELS OF LAND AS ONE

31All planners agreed that in order to travel from the existing residence to the lakefront parcel by car would require a travel distance of approximately 1.5 kilometers (“km”). The straight-line distance from the existing dwelling and the lakefront parcel ranges from approximately 500 to 580 metres (“m”), being the difference between the planners’ evidence. The straight-line distance between the two parcels is approximately 80 m.

32There are two definitions from the Township’s By-law that assist in assessing the outcome.

1. Accessory Structure: Shall mean building or structure, the use of which is incidental, subordinate, and exclusively devoted to the principal use and located on the same lot.
2. Accessory Use: Shall mean a use naturally and normally incidental to, subordinate to, or exclusively devoted to a principal use and located on the same lot.

33The Tribunal finds that both of these definitions have greater relevance in determining whether the two parcels should be tied together for planning purposes. The principal use already exists on the larger backlot and, from the evidence presented, only the accessory structures are available on the lakefront property. The Tribunal recognizes that principal uses would not be allowed but from the evidence submitted. The lakefront lot does not have the depth to accommodate a principal use. The Tribunal also recognizes that the proposed development would become the principle use on the lakefront property if not tied to the back land.

34Mr. Varadas’s opinion that the joining of the two lots for planning purposes meets all the requirements of the various planning instruments, but it is only one of two options available to allow this development to take place. The other option is to place site specific zone on the lakefront property to recognize the proposed development.

35The Tribunal found that a wholesome look at the lakefront property was not considered by Mr. Varadas. As one of the counsel stated in final argument, his evidence took a linear view of the development. When Mr. Varadas was asked about how the Boyers accessed the lakefront property, he explained that it was by all terrain vehicles but admitted this information came from his own counsel. His evidence was focused on the compatibility of the proposed development along the water with no consideration of how the rest of the lot would function.

36When the Tribunal queried Mr. Varadas as to his location on the lot in his own photos, he could not answer with certainty where he was standing in relation to the subject property. The aerial photographs supplied by Mr. Varadas, in Tab 21 of Exhibit 3, were also of little assistance because the lot structure that was superimposed onto the photographs in the “Muskoka GeoHub” photographs were also clearly out of step. Many of the superimposed side lines of the various lakefront lots ran through the cottages and the existing platform on the lakefront property is also straddling a sideline. The majority of the frontage of the bay on the lakefront property protrudes onto land a considerable distance from the water.

37Mr. Simpson, in his evidence, took the Tribunal through a series of previously adopted, site specific by-laws between 2000 and 2019. All of these adopted by-laws relate to the joining a back lands to waterfront parcels or variations therefrom. This exercise gave the Tribunal good insight into how the Township has dealt with these types of situations over the past number of years.

38Although the two properties may be physically located within 80 m of each other, this is not how the relationship between the two properties functions. The key element is the fact that one must drive a motorized vehicle to access the lakefront property. Although it may be a shorter distance by all terrain vehicle, in order to access the lakefront property by the use of the public road system functionally separates these properties by 1.5 km.

39The Tribunal finds that the construction of any accessory buildings and structures on the lakefront property is not incidental or subordinate to the principal use and therefore denies any exemption to By-law No. 2014-14 that would recognize the two parcels as one lot for planning purposes.

TO PROHIBIT A PUBLIC BEACH AS A PERMITTED USE

40Very little evidence on this request was offered at the hearing. Under the existing zoning for the subject property, a public beach is not a permitted use and is not a use contemplated at all in the Township By-law. Rian Allen, Planner for the Township, stated, in his Planning report the following:

The applicant is requesting that a Public Beach be explicitly prohibited on the waterfront lot. The applicant's agent has indicated that “….the owner continually experiences issues when dealing with the municipality, where staff express misperceptions about the ownership of the property when they interact with the owners. In addition, because of the outdated mapping indicating the property is a ‘Public Beach’, members of the public trespass and continue use the property as a public beach.”

41The Tribunal is being asked to accept that the mapping on the original plan of subdivision is outdated by the simple fact that the lakefront portion of the property is privately owned. The Tribunal is then asked to create an exemption in this ZBA to a use that doesn’t exist at all as a defined term in the Township’s parent by-law.

42The Tribunal finds this not a planning matter but strictly a legal matter that will be left to the Appellant. The words ‘Public Beach” on the face of the original Plan of Subdivision does not relate to ownership, but to the intent of the original owner of the land that subdivided it. These are two very distinct propositions, one of which is not tied to the other. The reference to “Public Beach” on both the face of Plan M-119, and on the Deed of Land and the Parcel Register, needs to be legally removed from the these documents, through the proper forum, if the Appellants wish to avoid any confusion from either the general public or Township staff. The Tribunal denies the prohibition of the Public Beach as a use to be included in the proposed ZBA.

TO PROHIBIT A DWELLING AND SLEEPING CABIN

43If the two lots are considered as one, where a lot consists of two or more parcels of land, the zoning requirements apply to each of the parcel as if they were separate lots for the purpose of erecting buildings and structures. The lakefront portion of the property is currently in a zone that allows both a dwelling and sleeping cabin as two of the intended uses. The problem in this situation is that setbacks from the water cannot be achieved to realize either of these types of uses and are therefore explicitly removed. The Tribunal does not see the necessity for this inclusion, and it will become clear in the decision that it is not required.

TO ALLOW A DOCK, BOATHOUSE, SUNDECK, RAMPS, STAIRS AND LANDINGS

44From both the evidence and cross examination of the witnesses there is no doubt that a functional relationship between the two properties has developed. The Tribunal can't just look at the functional relationship used by the current owners but by any owner, irrelevant of where they live, as long as the lakefront parcel remains as a separate conveyable entity.

45Whether the owner of the property drives 1.5 km or 150 km to access the property, the approach to the planning considerations do not change.

46The lakefront property is not being considered as a waterfront landing. The reference to the waterfront landing was simply to illustrate the comparable zoning permissions. Under the waterfront landing zone, a single storey private garage or storage shed, and a boathouse or dock are allowed, but with an associated parking area. The lot size and frontage are smaller as well, compared to the other waterfront zones. When considering a stand alone, site specific by-law, any proposed buildings or structures are no longer accessory to the principle use but become the principle use.

47The Tribunal finds that by accepting any form of buildings or structures on the property automatically triggers the necessity for parking and must also consider if it triggers the consideration for the necessity of an on-site septic system. Although Mr. Varadas repeatedly noted that parking is not a requirement on the lakefront portion of the property, this is only the case when the lots are considered as one because the proposed development is accessory to the primary use. With the Tribunal’s ruling to not allow the joining of the two lots for planning purposes, parking and an on-site septic need the Tribunal’s attention. Any proposed development is no longer accessory to a primary use.

48Mr. Cheeseman argued that there is no need for parking, as one could just pull off and use the shoulder of the existing laneway. The Tribunal dismisses this approach as representing any kind of reasonable planning rationale. Parking will not be left to the Township as a policing issue when the lane is blocked, and complaints to the Township arrive.

49A stated above, the Tribunal found that Mr. Savaras took a linear approach in his evidence. When Mr. Simpson was cross examined specifically on this linear view of the shoreline, with a proposed dock, sundeck and boathouse, he did agree that the proposed development is compatible to the surrounding neighbourhood and would conform/comply with the various planning instruments.

50But the Tribunal preferred Mr. Simpson’s evidence over that of Mr. Varadas when considering the lakefront property as a whole. The lakefront lot must be assessed on how it will function if the buildings and structures are allowed as principle uses.

51Section 3.5 of the Township By-law restricts the construction of an Accessory Building or Structure prior to the establishment of the main building, structure or use with the exception of the following:

a. A dock, single storey boathouse and inclinator on a lot accessible only by water; and b. a tool shed not exceeding 10 sq. m (108 sq ft) in total floor area;

52A site specific exception to s. 3.5 of the Township By-law is required and there are a number of sections of the MLOP that the Tribunal reviewed in consideration of this possibility.

53The sections of the MLOP the Tribunal considered are as follows:

1. One of the goals in s. B.3.3 states – “To ensure that development is suited to its site and that appropriate access and services are provided.”
2. One of the General Development Policies under the sub heading of General Development Standards, specifically s. B.5.8 states – “Waterfront lots should be of sufficient dimension and size to accommodate the use proposed, related structures, and services within acceptable standards. As such, a variety of lot sizes, water frontages, setbacks, and structural limitations are expected in recognition of the natural and built influences in the Waterfront.”
3. Under Servicing s B.5.35 states – “Where development is permitted on private services, lots shall have sufficient and suitable area to adequately accommodate such services, and shall satisfy the authority having jurisdiction with respect to the approval of private water supply or private sewage facilities……”
4. Under Visual, Scenic and Aesthetic Qualities s. B.5.51 states – “The retention of trees and native vegetation shall be encouraged through site plan control to uphold the visual and environmental integrity of the Waterfront. Where development is proposed, a natural undisturbed buffer is required at the water’s edge to generally meet a target of 15 metres (50 feet) in depth from the high-water mark. Where little or no natural buffer exists, renaturalizing will be required, where possible. Minor accessory structures and an access pathway to the shoreline are permitted.”
5. Under the Shoreline Structures section of the MLOP s. B.13.6 states – “The primary use of docks is for the docking and berthing of boats as well as access to the lake for swimming. Large docks, used as decks over the water, shall be discouraged.”

54Given the existing use by the current owners and the intended use through the proposed ZBA the waterfront lot cannot be recognized as a waterfront landing. Access to the waterfront lot is by motorized vehicle and the waterfront lot is not being used as a jumping off point for a water access only property. The existing and intended use are in conflict with the sections of the MLOP as listed in paragraph 52 above.

55The lakefront lot is not suitable to be developed as a stand-alone property. The Tribunal must determine whether any development should take place at all on the lakefront property, given the guidance in the MLOP with respect to the servicing of the lot.

56As stated by Mr. Simpson, a waterfront landing has a limited purpose which is much different than using the lakefront lot as a permanent activity area for a mainland property that is removed from the waterfront area. Mr. Simpson questioned whether an official plan amendment may even be required. These concerns are also reflected in the original planning report and in re-iterated in the testimony of Mr. Tighe.

57The Tribunal must also determine that the addition of any buildings or structures will require the necessity of a proper septic system on site. From the evidence supplied by the witnesses, including the written record, it is not a possible to meet setbacks for a on-site septic system.

58With the inability to supply an area for an on-site septic system, the Tribunal finds that the lakefront lot must respond, from a use perspective, as close to the type of intensity as would be experienced on a waterfront landing. The site must be managed to entice the owner of the lakefront property to use it as access to the lake to enjoy boating, the visiting of restaurants and other recreational activities. This requires a strict limitation on the types of structures. There must be control, through a site plan process to specifically locate the parking and structures and at the same time a plan to naturalize the remaining areas not required to park and access the water.

59With the exception of a dock, all other buildings and structures will not be permitted. The Tribunal considers the installation of a dock as a suitable means of protecting the owner’s personal watercraft, and also supplies a point on which to embark from the shore to enjoy the lake. Only on this basis, does the Tribunal find that a septic system is not required. In order to access the dock, on-site parking is required, and a pathway of reasonable width will lead from the parking area, including stairs and landings, if necessary.

60The joining of the lakefront property to back lands is more suited to be attached to one of the numbers of Lots, either the Lot that is directly connected to the lakefront parcel or any of the vacant lakefront lots directly across the road within walking distance.

FINDINGS

61The Tribunal, having heard the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, the submissions by counsel, and the review the written record, find that the installation of a dock, together with stairs and landings to access same is appropriate to allow reasonable access to the Appellants to enjoy boating on Lake of Bays. No septic system is required, but proper parking, on site and in accordance with the regulations in Zoning By-law No. 2014-14, is required.

62Without an up to date survey, it is not possible to determine whether parking on site is a possibility. An up to date survey will accompany an application for site plan control approval so that the location of the proposed development is controlled and the dock, stairs and landings are placed in the area that has been disturbed and the 50 feet buffer of vegetation that exists along the remainder of the shoreline is protected, preserved and allowed to regenerate. The Tribunal finds it reasonable to allow the parking area to be positioned within 50 feet of the lake, without the need for a minor variance as long as the area designated for parking is also located within the existing cleared area and controlled through the site plan process.

63The Township and Appellant will work together to formulate a By-law that allows a dock, stairs and landings as the principle use. Parking to within 50 feet of the lake will also be an exception to the by-law. The necessity for site plan control will be included to ensure that only the disturbed area of the lakefront parcel is used to accommodate the above and protect and enhance the lakefront 50 feet buffer. Once the proposed by-law has been drafted, it will also be circulated to the Dorretts’ counsel for review. Once complete, the Tribunal will review the proposed by-law for consistency with this decision and accept or amend, as required, prior to the issuance of the Tribunal’s order.

64If parking is not possible on site, given the above noted relief, this appeal will be dismissed.

65The Tribunal may be spoken to, through the case coordinator, if any issues arise from this decision.

“G.C.P. Bishop”

G.C.P. BISHOP 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.