Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 05, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL200344

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Patrick Curtis

Appellant: Marilyn Rodrigues-Wright and Lyle Hamilton

Subject: By-law No. BL 2020-52

Municipality: Municipality of Meaford

OLT Case No.: PL200344

OLT File No.: PL200344

OLT Case Name: Curtis v. Meaford (Municipality)

Heard: May 12, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Municipality of Meaford	C. Emmett and H.G. Elston
Scott and Elizabeth McIntosh	C. Emmett and H.G. Elston
Patrick Curtis	Self-represented

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N.P. ROBINSON ON MAY 12, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

OVERVIEW

1The applicants, Scott and Elizabeth McIntosh (“McIntoshs” or “Applicant”), own and reside on a 25-acre parcel of rural land, located at 145166 16th Sideroad in the Municipality of Meaford (the “Property”). On November 19, 2019, the McIntoshs applied to rezone the property to permit a luxury camping use (“Back Forty Glamping”), consisting of five geodesic domes and seven A-Frame structures, with a communal washroom and kitchen area, parking lot and trails.

2Responding to input from neighbouring property owners, the McIntoshs revised the zoning by-law amendment application to remove the seven A-Frame structures and the communal facilities and, instead, seek permission for eight geodesic domes (the “ZBLA” or the “Application”).

3The ZBLA was passed by Council but appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “LPAT” or “Tribunal”). The issues were resolved between the parties and a settlement was reached in advance of the matter proceeding to a hearing.

4The McIntoshs and the Municipality of Meaford (“Meaford”) ask the LPAT to approve the proposed settlement, allow the appeal in part and approve the ZBLA. The parties submit that the settlement ought to be approved for the following reasons:

1. The ZBLA proposes a private campground, which is a Resource Based Recreational Use, permitted in the Rural designations in both the County of Grey Official Plan (the “County OP”) and the Municipality of Meaford Official Plan (the “Meaford OP”).

2. The Tribunal heard uncontradicted, expert opinion evidence from a qualified land use planner that the ZBLA: has regard for matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the “Planning Act”); is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (the “PPS”); conforms to the County OP and the Meaford OP; and represents good planning.

3. The ZBLA and the settlement were approved by the Council of the Municipality of Meaford. The settlement satisfies all statutory requirements and the public interest and, accordingly, may be approved by the Tribunal. Pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, as amended, if the parties to a proceeding consent, a proceeding may be disposed of by a decision of the LPAT, without a hearing.

BACKGROUND

5The property is situated on the corner of the 16th Sideroad to and the 12th Sideroad. It is buffered by forest along all sides.

6Back Forty Glamping is proposed to be a high-end camping accommodation business, where patrons can enjoy the beauty of nature in luxury and style, while overlooking the woodlands and a pond. The geodesic domes measure 20 feet x 20 feet and will sit on an elevated wooden deck. The domes will contain a queen-sized bed, a seating area, and a small propane stove and kitchenette. Each dome will have a bathroom with a shower and toilet. It is proposed that each deck will have a private hot tub, lounging chairs and a hammock. The camp sites will be serviced by a new well and septic system, independent of the McIntoshs’ home.

7The property is designated “Rural” and “Hazard” in the County OP and “Rural” and “Environmental Protection” in the Meaford OP. It is zoned “Rural (RU)” and “Environmental Protection (EP)” in Meaford Zoning By-law No. 60-2009.

8The County OP and the Meaford OP permit Resort Based Recreational Uses, including private campgrounds, in the Rural designation, but require a zoning amendment to implement the details of the proposal. All surrounding lands are designated rural and agricultural, with vacant forest and farmland to the east and active agricultural lands to the south.

THE PROCEEDINGS

9A public meeting under the Planning Act was held on December 16, 2019. Mr. McIntosh and his planner, Krystin Rennie, presented the Application to Council. Nineteen members of the public spoke against the Application.

10On July 27, 2020, Council passed By-law Number No. 2020-52, approving the ZBLA (the “By-law”). On August 18, 2020, Marilyn Rodrigues-Wright and Lyle Hamilton appealed the By-law, and on August 24, 2020, Patrick Curtis appealed the By-law. On February 18, 2021, Ms. Wright and Mr. Hamilton advised the Tribunal that they wished to “downgrade” their status to that of a Participant.

11On March 25, 2021, Meaford, the McIntoshs and Patrick Curtis settled their differences and entered into Minutes of Settlement, agreeing on a revised version of the By-law (the “Revised By-law”).

THE PLANNING EVIDENCE

12The Tribunal qualified Ms. Rennie to provide expert opinion evidence on land use planning. Ms. Rennie is a qualified land use planner, with over 20 years experience in Southern Georgian Bay, including work in the Municipality of Meaford and Grey County.

13It is respectfully submitted that it was Ms. Rennie’s unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence that the ZBLA has regard to matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the County OP and the Meaford OP, and represents good planning.

The Planning Act

14Referencing section 2 of the Planning Act, Ms. Rennie opined that the ZBLA has regard for the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions; the efficient use of infrastructure; the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; accessibility for persons with disabilities; the appropriate location of growth and development.

The PPS

15It was Ms. Rennie’s expert opinion on the PPS that the Application leverages the rural amenities and assets of the property, promotes rural diversification of the regional economic base and supports the enhancement of the tourism opportunities in the area and the proposal will not negatively impact adjacent farms or the rural landscape.

16According to Ms. Rennie, the application was consistent with PPS Policies 1.1.4.1 a), f) and g), 1.1.5.3, 1.1.5.4, 1.1.5.8, 1.6.6.4, 1.7.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.5 and 2.1.8.

The County OP

17It was Ms. Rennie’s evidence that the ZBLA conforms to the County OP.

18The subject lands are designated “Rural” and “Hazard” on Schedule A, Land Use Designations Map 1 in the County OP, which provides that:

The predominant land use within the Rural designation will be agriculture and forestry. While the designation will continue to protect the existing farming operations and maintain the visual appearance of a rural landscape, the Rural designation will permit the consideration of resource based recreational uses and other appropriate rural land uses so long as they do not negatively impact on agriculture, forestry or natural environment. Outside of settlement areas, the Rural land use type offers flexibility for lot creation (both agricultural and non-agricultural), economic development, tourism, residential, and recreation. A wider range of lot sizes and accommodations are provided in the Rural land use type, than in other countryside land use types.

19Permitted uses within the Rural designation include resource based recreational uses, and recreational or tourist-based rural clusters (e.g., cottages, yurts or a similar form of development under common ownership).

20The definition of Resource Based Recreational Uses in section 9.18 of the County OP is:

Those recreational uses where the prime reason for location by their very nature, require certain natural attributes for their location including the availability of large lots or land areas. Uses permitted may include passive and active recreational facilities and associated commercial and residential uses. Such uses can include water based recreation, campgrounds, lodges/resorts and skiing/snowboarding facilities.

21Section 5.4.2 outlines development criteria policies that permitted uses listed in Rural Designation must satisfy. In each case the Tribunal has stated the sub-section of the County OP which is then followed, in the next paragraph, by the response from Ms. Rennie.

5. The Provincial Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae policies found in section 5.2.2 of this Plan shall also apply to the Rural land use type.

22Minimum Distance Separation (“MDS”)1 calculations were completed by municipal staff and the development proposal is outside of the required MDS setbacks.

8. Innovative forms of Rural development including, residential farm cooperatives, agri-miniums, recreation or tourist-based rural clusters (e.g., cottages, yurts, or a similar form of development under common ownership) on large lots, which meet the Ontario Building Code and servicing requirements, may be considered for approval, subject to the following criteria:

a) A minimum of 60% of the original land holding will remain available for the active primary agricultural or recreational use;

23The proposed development is a resource based recreational use and the siting of the camping units has been taken into consideration on the property using the Conservation Authority regulated area and the natural heritage features on the property.

c) The character of development must be low density and compatible with the surrounding land uses;

24The development is low density as there are only eight units that are proposed, and they are very small in size. The units are tucked to the back of the property and will not impact the rural feel of the area. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses in the area.

d) That a zoning by-law amendment be approved by the local municipality;

25The proposal requires a zoning by-law amendment.

e) Public road access and internal private roads, provide suitable access for users and emergency services,

26The property is accessed from the 16th Sideroad, a road that is a municipal owned road and is well maintained year-round. In addition, the access to the property has been designed to accommodate emergency services.

f) All Building Code requirements can be met,

27All building code requirements can be met for this proposal.

g) Water, septic, and stormwater management facilities can be provided in compliance with applicable regulations.

28A Functional Servicing and Storm Water Report was prepared to support the application and the report demonstrates compliance with the applicable regulations.

29Section 1.4.1 11) – “Tourism & Recreation” - speaks to the opportunities for Grey County as they related to tourism and recreation and states that the County’s tourism goal is to “increase sustainable tourism revenues through managing and marketing Grey County as a tourism destination”. This section also outlines various principles that support tourism and recreational opportunities throughout the County and include:

Municipalities are encouraged to develop positive and creative planning policies to accommodate tourism and recreation-oriented developments, including methods of expediting the approval of tourism and recreation-oriented developments;

Recognize the economic importance of the tourism and recreation industry to the County, and the role these industries play in attracting visitors and new migrants;

Tourism and recreation businesses are encouraged to work together to promote their facilities and the County’s tourism and recreation industry;

The County will promote the development of eco-tourism in natural heritage areas within their carrying capacity;

30Section 3.2 (p. 67-68) discusses Economic Objectives and states that the County shall:

Encourage a diverse economy while recognizing and promoting economic specialization in areas such as tourism, agriculture, manufacturing, retail, etc.

31Section 3.2.5 (p. 70) adds that:

The main employment generator in the rural areas will be resource based industries such as tourism, agriculture, aggregate operations, forestry, and on farm diversified uses (e.g. rural manufacturing)” and that “the Countryside may also contribute employment opportunities through the development of tourism and recreation opportunities.

32Following her review of the applicable policies in the County OP, it was Ms. Rennie’s opinion that the ZBLA conforms with and promotes the goals and objectives of the County OP. It is an appropriate rural land use that will not negatively impact adjacent agricultural uses, the rural landscape or quality or quantity of water on the site or adjacent lands. It helps to expand rural tourism opportunities in the area.

The Meaford OP

33In the Meaford OP, the subject lands are designated “Rural” and “Environmental Protection”.

34The Rural designation applies to those rural lands in the Municipality which are not considered to be prime agricultural land. Permitted uses include agricultural uses, single detached dwellings, passive recreational uses, small scale commercial and industrial uses on farm properties, and accommodation uses such as private campgrounds, rental cabin establishments and trailer parks.

35The intent of Rural designation is to:

Protect the rural character of the Municipality and the maintenance of those elements which contribute to the open space character of the countryside; prevent the intrusion of land uses which are incompatible with the rural character and/or resource activities of the area; provide for the development of recreational uses which are compatible with the rural and agricultural character of the Municipality; and ensure that the scale of development is compatible with the role and function of the rural area.

36One strategic objective of the Rural designation is:

To encourage the development of passive low-intensity recreational and eco-tourism uses in the rural areas of the Municipality provided the use has a minimal impact on the character of the rural area and is properly sited.

37Section B2.3.4.6 of the Meaford OP speaks specifically to “Recreation Uses”, including private campgrounds and rental cabin establishments, and states that the development of new recreational uses shall require an amendment to the Zoning By-law and shall be subject to Site Plan Control. Before considering an amendment to the Zoning By-law, Council shall be satisfied that:

a) the proposed use or expansion is compatible with the rural character of the area;

38The proposed use is compatible with the rural character. It is a small scale private rental cabin establishment that has been designed to blend in with the rural environment.

b) the development can be designed and sited to blend in with surrounding land uses;

39The proposal has been designed to blend with the surrounding land uses; four of the units are tucked in behind the main residential dwelling on the site and the other units have been located to the back of the property, close to the tree line. The entire property is bounded by trees and the units will not be visible from the road.

c) the proposed use or expansion is located where it will not impact existing agricultural operations on adjacent lands;

40There will be no impact on the adjacent agricultural operations. A MDS1 report was prepared, and the siting of the accommodation units is outside of the minimum distance separation area outlined in the report. In addition, the property will be fenced.

d) the proposed use can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal;

41A Functional Servicing Report and Hydrogeological Assessment were prepared and submitted with the initial application. Both note that the property can be serviced.

f) appropriate guarantees are in place to ensure that the impacts of the effluent from a private sewage treatment system on the lands (if required) on adjacent water supplies is monitored frequently;

42The property is large and the proposed location for the private sewage treatment system is not near adjacent water supplies.

h) the proposed use is to be accessed by municipal roads that can accommodate the increased traffic generated by the proposed use;

43A traffic study was prepared in support of the applications and concludes that the proposed development will not cause any operational issues and will not add significant delay or congestion to the local roadway network.

i) the proposed use can be appropriately buffered from adjacent residential uses;

44The entire perimeter of the property is bounded by trees and will provide a significant natural vegetative buffer from adjacent residential uses.

j) an appropriate monitoring program, administered by the landowner and reviewed by the Municipality, which serves to monitor the impact of the use on the quality and quantity of the groundwater, surface waters and the environment in general is developed.

45The hydrogeological evaluation commissioned by the McIntoshs concluded that there is sufficient groundwater to service the proposed campground site without creating adverse effects to neighbouring groundwater supplies.

46A Functional Servicing Report was prepared by Capes Engineering Inc., which indicates that there are opportunities for private services on the property. Based on the findings of that report, it was confirmed that the site can accommodate a sanitary sewage disposal system and that there is sufficient land to accommodate the system. A Hydrogeological Assessment and ground water supply evaluation was also completed by Garman Consultant Inc. and concludes that there should be sufficient supply of ground water for this proposed land use and neighbouring domestic wells are unlikely to be impacted by the taking of ground water for this proposed campground.

47It was Ms. Rennie’s opinion that the ZBLA conforms with the Meaford OP and is permitted and supported by the policies therein. The proposal is small in scale and the use will not negatively impact adjacent agricultural uses in the area.

THE PARTICIPANTS

48Many of the views expressed by the Participants involve matters that are beyond the scope of what the Tribunal is tasked to adjudicate.

49On matters, under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the settlement provides additional mitigation measures to allay the concerns of the neighbours, including Mr. Hamilton and Ms. Wright. It is noteworthy that the settlement has the support of Mr. Curtis, the McIntoshs and, importantly, the Council of the Municipality of Meaford. The Tribunal finds that the settlement represents a compromise as the revised proposal reduces the number of units from 12 to eight.

ORDER

50On the uncontradicted opinion evidence of Ms. Rennie, the Tribunal finds that the Back Forty Glamping proposal satisfies all the requirements of the Planning Act, the PPS, the County and Meaford OPs and represents good planning.

51The Tribunal allows the appeal in part, relating to the amendment of Zoning By-law 60-2009, of the Municipality of Meaford and the Tribunal directs the municipality to amend By-law No. 60-2009 as set out in Attachment 1 to this order. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders the appeal is dismissed.

“N.P. Robinson”

N.P. ROBINSON MEMBER

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.