Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

October 26, 2022

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-22-002059

(Formerly PL210249)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant

2394735 Ontario Inc.

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description:

DPS for the development of 16 building lots

Reference Number:

15T-16004

Property Address:

(Part of Lot 17 18 Concession 14)

Municipality/UT:

Trent Lakes/Peterborough

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-002059

Legacy Case No.:

PL210249

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-002059

Legacy Lead Case No.:

PL210249

OLT Case Name:

EcoVue Consulting Services Inc. v. Trent Lakes (Mun.)

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

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description:

ZBA for the development of 16 building lots

Reference Number:

17-05

Property Address:

(Part of Lot 17 18 Concession 14)

Municipality/UT:

Trent Lakes/Peterborough

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-002060

Legacy Case No.:

PL210321

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-002059

Legacy Lead Case No.:

PL210249

Heard:

February 17-18, 2022 by video hearing; and April 27, 2022 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

2394735 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”)

Christine Carter

Municipality of Trent Lakes and County of Peterborough

John Ewart

DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR AND ERIC S. Crowe AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was a hearing conducted with respect to the Appeals from 2394735 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 51(34) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) against the Municipality of Trent Lakes’ (“Municipality”) failure to make a decision within the statutory time frames regarding the Appellant’s proposed Plan of Subdivision (“POS”), Plan of Condominium and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”).

2The lands are located on the north shore of Pigeon Lake, in an area known as Buffalo Bay and form part of a larger holding. The legal description is Part of Lot 17 and 18, Concession 14, Geographic Township of Harvey, in the Municipality of Trent Lakes (“Subject Lands” / “Subject Property”).

3The Subject Lands proposed for subdivision and rezoning have a total lot area of approximately 59 acres with a shoreline frontage of approximately 2,300 feet.

4The development proposes to create 16 separate lots for the purposes of developing residential seasonal dwellings. A private road is proposed to provide vehicular access to the lots. The open space lands are proposed to include wildlife crossing areas, wetland areas, shoreline buffer areas and is contemplated to consist of one block.

WITNESSES

5The Appellant called two witnesses. Both witnesses were affirmed/sworn per their preference and provided confirmation of acknowledgement of their expert’s duty obligations. These were:

a. Ryan Guetter was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning; and

b. Chris Ellingwood was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of terrestrial and wetland biology.

6The County of Peterborough (“County”) and the Municipality jointly called two witnesses. Both witnesses were affirmed/sworn per their preference and provided confirmation of acknowledgement of their expert’s duty obligations. These were:

a. Iain Mudd, a Manager at the County of Peterborough was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning; and

b. Chris Jones was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning on behalf of the Municipality.

EXHIBITS

7The following is a list of exhibits that formed a basis of the evidence examined and presented at the hearing:

Exhibit 1: Ryan Guetter witness statement

Exhibit 2: Chris Ellingwood witness statement

Exhibit 3: Chris Ellingwood curriculum vitae

Exhibit 4: Book of Documents: Appellant

Exhibit 5: Visual Aids: Appellant

Exhibit 6: Joint agreed statement of facts

Exhibit 7: Witness Statement of Iain Mudd

Exhibit 8: Witness Statement of Chris Jones

Exhibit 9: Document Book: County and Municipality

Exhibit 10: Storm Water Management Planning and Design Manual: March 2019

EVIDENCE

PIVOTAL ISSUE

8In leading up to individual oral evidence, during their testimony, as well as submission by counsel for the parties, it was stated that the key issue of determination is the following:

a. Does the proposal represent infill development as referred to in policy direction of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019, as amended (“Growth Plan”)?

9The following guiding policy references as excerpted from the Growth Plan were identified with respect to the above issue:

4.2.4 Lands Adjacent to Key Hydrologic Features and Key Natural Heritage Features

5. Outside of settlement areas, in developed shoreline areas of inland lakes that are designated or zoned for concentrations of development as of July 1, 2017, infill development, redevelopment and resort development is permitted, subject to municipal and agency planning and regulatory requirements, if the development will:

a) be integrated with existing or proposed parks and trails, and will not constrain ongoing or planned stewardship and remediation efforts;

b) restore, to the maximum extent possible, the ecological features and functions in developed shoreline areas; and

7. Definition

Intensification

The development of a property, site or area at a higher density than currently exists through:

a) redevelopment, including the reuse of brownfield sites;

b) the development of vacant and/or underutilized lots within previously developed areas;

c) infill development; and d) the expansion or conversion of existing buildings. (PPS, 2020)

10It was further confirmed by all witnesses qualified to provide expert land use planning evidence that in their opinion the instruments submitted have due regard for the provincial interest; are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS 2020”), conform with the County of Peterborough Official Plan (“COP”), the Municipality of Trent Lakes Official Plan (“TOP”) as well as meet the necessary statutory test for the requested ZBA, POS and meet all statutory tests as set out in the Act.

SITE CONTEXT

11Mr. Guetter provided a context for the site. He stated that the Subject Lands are located on the north shore of Pigeon Lake (Buffalo Bay) in the Municipality of Trent Lakes, which is within the County of Peterborough.

12There was no dispute regarding the site description and identification. The following visual was used as a guide to illustrate the location of the Subject Lands.

13Mr. Guetter added that North of the Subject Lands, the area is covered more by forested lands, with single detached homes located off of Nichols Cove Road. He stated that South of the Subject Lands is Pigeon Lake (Buffalo Bay). Buffalo Bay is a small, protected bay, extended northward approximately 300 metres (“m”) from the main basin of Pigeon Lake. The entrance to the bay is approximately 60 m wide.

14In reviewing the east and west context Mr. Guetter stated that to the East of the Subject Lands are more forested lands, with several single detached homes located along the shoreline and to the West of the Subject Lands are more forested lands, with several single detached homes located along the shoreline.

LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF SUBJECT LANDS

15Mr. Guetter summarized the Subject Lands designations in the land use planning top-down hierarchy as follows:

1. According to the PPS 2020, the Subject Lands are considered as “Rural” lands.

2. According to the Growth Plan the Subject Lands would be considered as “Rural” Lands.

3. According to the COP the Subject Lands are designated as “Shoreland Areas” for the lands extending inland 150 m from the shoreline, and “Rural and Cultural Landscape” for the remainder of the Subject Lands. The portion of the Subject Lands proposed for development is designated “Shoreline Areas”.

4. According to the TOP the Subject Lands are designated “Recreational Dwelling Area” and “Rural”. Permitted uses include single unit permanent dwellings and single unit recreational dwellings at low density. The portion of the Subject Lands proposed for development is designated “Recreational Dwelling Area”; and

5. According to the Trent Lakes Zoning By-Law 2014-070, the Subject Lands are zoned as “Shoreline Residential – Private Access (SR-PA) Zone” “Rural (RU)” and “Rural Residential” (RR). Permitted uses for both zones include single detached dwellings and seasonal dwellings.

16Mr. Guetter opined that based on a review of the hierarchy of planning policies, the land use policies permit residential development in the form of single detached dwellings on the Subject Lands.

17The other experts agreed that as long as the Tribunal determines that the proposal represents infill development; the opinion and interpretation of Mr. Guetter is correct.

terrestrial and wetland biology

18Mr. Ellingwood referred to section 4.2.4 of the Growth Plan which relates to lands adjacent to hydrologic features and key natural heritage features. It is subsection 4.2.4.5 within this section that drives the pivotal issue.

19Mr. Ellingwood opined that given the proposed development as described by Mr. Guetter, the plan of sub-division does not include or bisect any key hydrologic features within the 16 proposed subdivision lots.

20Mr. Ellingwood continued and further opined that all wetlands and recommended setbacks/buffers will be zoned as Environmental Protection and additional protection will be achieved through various mechanisms. He affirmed that whereas the then Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Peterborough District in 2017 visited the site and identified wetland pockets, these are no longer included in any lot developments or parts thereof. He confirmed that this protects the hydrologic functions and water resources.

21Mr. Ellingwood concluded that policies of section 4.2.4 of the Growth Plan have been duly considered for the protection of adjacent lands to key hydrological and natural heritage features. Mr. Ellingwood added that the Subject Lands have been assessed and buffers applied per policies in section 4.2.4 of the Growth Plan. He continued (Exhibit 2) as follows in his testimony:

As noted above, section 4.2.5 requires that the development “be integrated with existing or proposed parks and trails”, and will not constrain ongoing or planned stewardship and remediation efforts; and that it restores, to the maximum extent possible, the ecological features and functions in developed shoreline areas. In my opinion, the proposed Development Concept will not constrain ongoing or planned stewardship and remediation efforts and does protect the ecological features and functions in the developed shoreline areas. As such, compliance with section 4.2.4.5 is also achieved.

For the shoreline a 30 m VPZ has been established that will be part of the Plan of Condominium common elements, zoned EP and be completely outside of the lots.

22He opined that policy 4.2.4.5 applies, which requires that the development “be integrated with existing or proposed parks and trails” and will not constrain ongoing or planned stewardship. He opined and concluded that the proposed development is located outside of any key hydrologic features and through measures in consideration of natural heritage policies will ensure conformity with section 4.2.3 of the Growth Plan.

INFILL DEVELOPMENT

23It was opined by all experts that the proposed development does not fall in the categories of “Redevelopment”, or “resort development” as stipulated in the Growth Plan policy 4.2.4.5. The witnesses also agreed to the fact that “infill” is an undefined term in the Growth Plan.

24It is in this context that the land use planning evidence of the different witnesses was presented and differed as to whether the proposal represents “infill development”.

25Mr. Guetter referred to Exhibit 5 (Air photo 1) and opined that the development is infill to existing shoreline lots to the east and west.

26Mr. Guetter added that the concept plan has evolved, and recommendations of Mr. Ellingwood have been incorporated such that key hydrologic and key natural features are well protected as required in the Growth Plan policy 4.2.4. In this regard he added that he fully adopts the assessment and conclusions made by Mr. Ellingwood.

27Mr. Guetter further elaborated regarding how infill should be taken for its normal usage meaning as is done for all in the Growth Plan that is otherwise not specifically defined. Mr. Guetter referred to the Merriam-Webster dictionary for such a definition of infill which he cited in part of as “new buildings constructed in the space available between existing structures.”

28Mr. Guetter followed his witness statement (Exhibit 1) and covered it as excerpted below:

104. There are single detached dwellings located along the shoreline, located to the east and west of the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision. Evidence of this condition is provided in previous planning analysis prepared by EcoVue and I will outline this in the Hearing through the use of visual exhibits.

105. Given the context of low-density shoreline development, the Proposed Development constitutes infill as the Subject Lands clearly represent a gap in the established pattern of shoreline development and “fills in” the gap.

106. Section 4.2.4.5 permits types of development that range considerably in the level of density subject to the specific criteria of subsections a) and b), as resort, redevelopment and infill development is permitted. The purposive intent of this policy recognizes varying degrees of development intensity vis a vis the number lots or units that are permitted within vegetation protection zones. This purposive intent is further established by the absence of a specific definition of infill and by there being no prescribed number of lots or units or density.

107. Based on Sections 4.2.4.3 and 4.2.4.5, large scale resort development would be permitted in areas of developed inland lakes that were designated or zoned for concentrations of development as of July 1, 2017 and would be permitted within vegetation protection zones. As such, it is my opinion that the intent of the Growth Plan and specifically policy 4.2.4.5 is not to prevent the development of residential dwellings or lot creation in areas designated or zoned for development as of July 1, 2017 by any specific number of units, lots or density. The entirety of the proposed development area was designated or zoned for the purposes of residential dwelling lots, which is illustrated in the manner set out in the Development Concept.

108. Based on the above, it is my opinion that the Development Concept conforms to the Growth Plan Section 4.2.4.1. 4.2.4.3 and 4.2.4.5.

109. The Proposed Development, as illustrated by the Development Concept, is considered infill by the common application of the term due to the existing context of surrounding shoreline development.

110. Infill is not limited to a number of units or dwellings under the normal definition. According to the dictionary definition, infill can constitute more than one building and is not confined by a specific number of lots or dwellings. Infill, in common land use planning application, can include a wide range of lots or units and is not geographically or spatially constrained or controlled.

111. The authors of the Growth Plan intentionally did not provide a definition of infill, in my opinion to permit infill development to be evaluated based on context and general principle as opposed to a specific unit number or density. Further evidence of this purposive intent is based on the fact that the Growth Plan does contain a definition of “new multiple lots or units for residential development”, which was chosen not to be used in this policy. Accordingly, infill could be considered more than three lots or less than three lots and both would be permitted.

112. It is clear that the purposive intent of Section 4.2.4.5 is not to prescribe the number of dwellings, lots or density permitted. Purposive intent of the policy was intentionally not prescriptive as evidenced by the permission for redevelopment, resort development and infill, which have wide ranges of permissions in relation to number of units or type of application process.

113. Furthermore, the principle of infill is not confined by the type of development application type (i.e. plan of subdivision, consent or site plan).

114. If the purpose of Section 4.2.4.5 was to limit the number of units or type of application the section would have included this language or provided further precision in the policy.

115. In addition, Section 4.2.4.5 uses the specific language of “concentrations of development” which denotes permissions for development that would not be confined in number or specifically limited.

29Mr. Guetter also addressed the assertion of Mr. Mudd with respect to how infill is referred to in the COP. Mr. Guetter opined that the COP does not address directions per the Growth Plan and specifically application to shoreline in scale or context.

30Mr. Guetter also reviewed the witness statement of Mr. Jones. Mr. Guetter stated that the definitions in local instruments are context specific and do not align with policy 4.2.4.5 which requires that for shoreline purposes ordinary meaning of the word shall be used in consideration of infill development.

31Mr. Guetter also addressed Mr. Jones’ assertion that there is a requirement for a 30 m setback from wetlands. Mr. Guetter opined that policy 4.2.4.5 of the Growth Plan allows variance from it if the necessary remedial or other mitigation measures are employed and he added that the recommendations of Mr. Ellingwood in this regard allow for full conformance with the Growth Plan policies.

32In conclusion Mr. Guetter opined that the proposal fully conforms with policy 4.2.4 as a whole as applicable and does so in detailed assessment direction in policy 4.2.4.5 of the Growth Plan and is infill development.

33Mr. Mud stated that the COP applies to the Subject Lands as follows:

a) Section 4.4 of the COP states that lands within 150 metres of the ordinary high water mark of any lake river or waterway are identified as Shoreland Area and the Waterfront. It goes on to state that lands and land uses that are more than 150 metres from shore, but which physically and functionally relate to Shoreland A are considered part of the Shoreland Areas. Since the lands subject to these applications meet this intent, they fall under this policy section.

b) Section 4.4.3 states the character of Shoreland Areas is linked to the natural and built form associated with the lakes and rivers in the County.

34Mr. Mudd further informed the Tribunal that the surrounding shoreline has developed approximately around the year 2003 timeframe. Mr. Mudd testified that a number of building permits in the area go back to 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

35Mr. Mudd and Mr. Jones reviewed the policies in the Growth Plan, the COP and the TOP.

36Mr. Mudd referred to the COP section 8.2 which has reference to infill as follows:

The development of vacant land between existing development where the purpose is to integrate the surrounding existing development and the vacant land into one contiguous development area. For the purposes of this Plan the existing development must be on the same side of a public road and side lots lines not separated by more than 100 metres.

37Mr. Mudd also opined that the Subject Lands being outside of settlement areas are also considered Rural Lands per section 7 of the Growth Plan.

38Mr. Jones also referred to section 6.2.1.20 of the MOP which has the following direction in terms of infill:

For the purposes of this Plan, infilling shall mean a development of land which is located between existing developed properties on the same side of the road or street and are separated by not more than 150 metres where the proposal will result in the completion or rounding out of the development in the immediate or neighbourhood.

39Mr. Jones added that the separation distance is used as a tool to indirectly manage the scope and extent of possible infill developments.

40During cross-examination Mr. Mudd was asked about his familiarity with a Province of Ontario document (Exhibit 10) that addresses Storm Water Management (“SWM”) planning and design aspects for infill developments including as follows:

5.2 Infill development SWM approaches

Infilling is most common in the following land use categories:

• commercial (normally processed under a site plan approval);

• industrial (normally processed under a site plan approval); and

• small residential (usually less than 6 lots - processed under a plan of subdivision application).

41Mr. Mudd affirmed that Exhibit 10 informs from the aspects of SWM how different scenarios for land use development can occur.

42Mr. Mudd and Mr. Jones based on the designation of non-settlement areas as rural lands opined that the respective COP and TOP policies direct infill to be considered only within the specific contexts defined in the policies of the COP and MOP. They concluded that the development of Subject Lands would not conform with the COP and TP direction and policies.

43However, both Mr. Mudd and Mr. Jones confirmed that there is no reference to infill development in the context of shoreline developments either in the COP or the TOP. In this context both experts opined that the key issue of opposing opinions between Mr. Guetter and them remains as to whether the “infill development” as identified in the Growth Plan policy 4.2.4.5 is appropriate for this proposal.

44Mr. Jones additionally opined that the creation of lots is not in conformity with the Growth Plan when read as a whole. He opines as follows (Exhibit 8) where he abbreviates the Growth Plan as “GPGGH”:

18. The GPGGH defines “New Multiple Lots or Units for Residential Development” as:

“The creation of more than three units or lots through either a plan of subdivision, consent or plan of condominium.”

19. The term “New Multiple Lots or Units for Residential Development” has been a defined term in the GPGGH since 2006.

20. In creating the exemption provided in Section 4.2.4.3 and 4.2.4.5, and specify the types of development authorized by the exemption, the Province chose not to include “New Multiple Lots or Units for Residential Development” as a permissible form of development, despite it being a long-standing form of development defined by the Plan.

21. In my opinion, the proposed development constitutes “New Multiple Lots or Units for Residential Development” as defined by the GPGGH. In my opinion, if the GPGGH intended for plans of subdivision and condominium to be permitted to encroach into the adjacent lands of key hydrologic features, the policy would simply have included this long-standing defined term. Instead this term was precluded from the exemption provided under Section 4.2.4.5.

22. In my view the exclusion of this term was intended to create more discretion and a limitation over proposals for development and site alteration that have the potential to compromise areas of environmental importance. On this basis I am of the opinion that “infill development” was intended to address development applications which are limited in size and scale.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: INFILL DEVELOPMENT

45In order to decide upon the appeals, the Tribunal must make a finding on the following before the specific planning instruments and requests can be addressed:

a. Does the proposed development of the shoreline Subject Lands represent “Infill Development”?

46The Tribunal takes repeated notice of the following policy 4.2.4.5 of the Growth Plan which is the directive in this matter:

Outside of settlement areas, in developed shoreline areas of inland lakes that are designated or zoned for concentrations of development as of July 1, 2017, infill development, redevelopment and resort development is permitted, subject to municipal and agency planning and regulatory requirements….

47Based on the evidence the Tribunal notes as follows:

a. The Subject Lands are shoreline;

b. The shoreline on either side has been developed for an extended period of time on either side of the Subject Lands;

c. The Subject Lands with proposed development do not constitute redevelopment or resort development in the context of the Growth Plan;

d. There is no direct reference to “shoreline infill development” in either the COP or the TOP;

e. In the TOP as “Shoreline Residential – Private Access (SR-PA) Zone” “Rural (RU)” and “Rural Residential” (RR). Permitted uses for both zones include single detached dwellings and seasonal dwellings; and

f. “Infill” is an undefined term in the Growth Plan and while considering the Growth Plan as a whole, the consideration of “infill” is to be formulated using the common usage definition in regard to the Growth Plan policies.

48Mr. Ellingwood’s testimony was not contested that the proposal as designed supports all the requirements set out in the Growth Plan policy 4.2.4 “Lands Adjacent to Key Hydrologic Features and Key Natural Heritage Features” should the property be otherwise so recognized as infill development in planning considerations.

49Mr. Guetter’s evidence implores that taking the common usage meaning of the word “infill”, as required, provides for no prohibition or regulation of the proposed development as infill development in the COP or the TOP. Mr. Guetter emphasized that the only references to infill in the COP and the TOP relate to non-shoreline like scenarios. He concluded such references are related to an example considered important for specification in the COP and TOP as and when these came into force and are not determinative to the proposal before the Tribunal.

50Mr. Mudd and Mr. Jones on the other hand opined that infill as envisaged in the COP and the TOP is guiding. They stated that while the infill policies in the COP and the TOP do not provide prescriptive guidance for possible shoreline development served with private road access, the principles of the policies are still applicable which include level of development which is indirectly controlled through separation distance from existing development of 100 m to 150 m in the COP and the TOP.

51Mr. Jones further in his testimony emphasized that the Growth Plan does not envisage the level of development in the form of 16 new lots in the context of possible infill development and if the Growth Plan were to so envisage it would have been so elaborated in the associated policy including policy 4.2.4.

52The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Guetter which is further underpinned by the testimony of Mr. Ellingwood in the area of key hydraulic and natural heritage features and the due accommodation to so satisfy the requirements in the Growth Plan.

53The Tribunal finds that “infill development” and the associated parameters for possible development as proposed for the Subject Lands, satisfy the requirements in the Growth Plan. In finding so the Tribunal uses the common meaning and context of the word “infill” as it is used in the Growth Plan. The Growth Plan uses “infill” to allow for diverse scenarios and ensures that there are no policy voids in addressing a possible development which may neither be “Redevelopment” nor “Resort development” in shoreline areas.

54The Tribunal further finds that the term “infill” and its usage in the Growth Plan is neither restrictive nor prescriptive in terms of where infill occurs nor what the scope of possible infill is.

55In conclusion, the Tribunal finds the proposed development is infill development in conformity with the Growth Plan and it does not offend the COP or the TOP which are silent in the context of infill development in shoreline areas.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON INFILL DEVELOPMENT

56During this Hearing there were references made by counsel that the concept of “Infill development” (“Infill”) is not much informed by case law or past Tribunal decisions. Noting that this proceeding was anchored around the concept of Infill and with wholesome evidence and submissions received at this Hearing, the Tribunal notes some salient learnings if these can assist in similar matters.

57It was agreed that the Growth Plan as well as other material at the provincial level, such as the Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (Exhibit 10) refer to Infill in the common usage and meaning of the word Infill. Reference was also made to the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of the word Infill. The Tribunal notes from the online definitions related to this from Merriam Webster as follows:

Definition of infill

1: material that fills in something (such as a hole or the spaces between a building's structural members) volcanic infill fiberglass infill The artificial turf being used contains infill that is made from recycled tires …— Greg Fitzpatrick It's framed with hand-hewn cypress posts and beams, though instead of … brick infill … the walls are formed from … a mixture of mud, moss, and animal hair that was once used by native Americans living in the area. — Amy R. Hughes

2: new buildings constructed in the space available between existing structures Urban infill, a big theme these days in city planning, is essentially the opposite of "urban sprawl." As cities grow, planners are looking for ways to pack more people into places that are already developed. — Franklyn Cater —often used before another noun St. Louis must be the infill capital of the nation. Liberally scattered over the city, especially in the older parts, you see clumps and blocks of new apartments, condominia and row houses tucked in among centenarian neighbors. — E. F. Porter infill housing

[Emphasis added]

58The Tribunal also notes that important elements in these definitions also include the words “building” and “structure” that are impacting. These words are defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary as follows:

Definition of building

1 : a usually roofed and walled structure built for permanent use (as for a dwelling)

2 : the art or business of assembling materials into a structure

Definition of structure

1 : the action of building : construction

2a: something (such as a building) that is constructed

2b: something arranged in a definite pattern of organization a rigid totalitarian structure— J. L. Hess leaves and other plant structures

3 : manner of construction : makeup Gothic in structure

[Emphasis Added]

59The Tribunal notes that Infill is very importantly identified as something that “fills in” and as so filling in can be any of the following forms:

a. A material filling in as per its possible use in the SWM Manual;

b. A building filling in between adjacent building(s); and

c. A building filling in between adjacent building(s) and a structure where structure can for example be a road, a water stream, other types of structures; i.e. infill is not restricted to being only between buildings.

60The Tribunal notes that as a follow through on the common usage definition of “Infill development” any policies that provide quantitative limitations on proximity; e.g. no more than 100 m or 150 m away from adjacent lot lines; or that there may be no more than an “x” number of units controlled through such policies directly or indirectly; are likely to offend the Growth Plan.

61However, it is always to be recognized that land use planning depends upon and is driven by the fact that it must represent good land use planning among other applicable policy considerations.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS: ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT

62Mr. Guetter, Mr. Mudd and Mr. Jones all agreed that should the Tribunal determine that the proposed development is “infill development” with reference to policy 4.2.4.5 of the Growth Plan then the following flows from it:

a. Mr. Ellingwood’s assessment and plans to ensure due and appropriate mitigation as necessary to protect the hydrologic and key natural heritage features is appropriate and sufficient from a land use planning policy basis; and

b. Mr. Mudd and Mr. Jones do not contest the land use planning opinions of Mr. Guetter for the requested ZBA and POS in terms of having due regard for the provincial interest, consistency with the PPS 2020, the COP and the TOP.

63As authorized at the Hearing and consented to by all parties, an Affidavit of Mr. Guetter sworn on April 8, 2022 (Marked as Applicant/Appellant closing submission, Tab F) was received by the Tribunal as an addendum to his witness statement (Exhibit 1).

PROVINCIAL INTEREST

64Mr. Guetter opined that the proposal has due regard for the provincial interest as in s. 2 of the Act. He adds the proposal has been developed to protect ecological functions and natural areas by planned measures like wildlife crossing areas, a 30 m setback from the shoreline and avoiding wetlands and water courses. He states that the proposal would also enable recreational opportunities related to the shoreline as espoused in the applicable official plan policies.

PPS 2020

65Mr. Guetter assessed the PPS 2020 (paragraph 24-45 of Tab F in sworn affidavit of Mr. Guetter) as follows:

24. Section 1.1.1 of the PPS addresses healthy, liveable, and safe communities. The Proposed Development promotes efficient land use patterns, as the Proposed Development continues the development pattern of low-density, shoreline development along the north shore of Pigeon Lake. (1.1.1 a)

25. The Proposed Development supports an appropriate range and mix of housing for the Subject Lands (1.1.1 b)

26. The Proposed Development and related Plan of Subdivision have been planned to avoid development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns through the implementation of wildlife crossings, buffer areas, and implementation of recommendations detailed throughout the supporting technical reports prepared in support of the application. (1.1.1 c)

27. The Proposed Development does not prevent efficient expansion of settlement areas. (1.1.1d)

28. The necessary servicing will be implemented for the Proposed Development. (1.1.1.g)

29. The Proposed Development and land use pattern have been designed to conserve biodiversity through the implementation of wildlife crossings and other mitigation strategies identified through the technical supporting documents. (1.1.1 h)

30. The PPS (Section 1.1.5) provides policies that address rural lands in municipalities.

31. In accordance with Section 1.1.5.2 the Proposed Development provides for residential development, including lot creation that is locally appropriate; management or use of resources and resource-based recreational uses (including recreational dwellings).

32. The Proposed Development provides for seasonal residential dwelling opportunities based on its proximity to Pigeon Lake. (1.1.5.3).

33. The Proposed Development is compatible with the rural landscape and can be sustained by rural service levels. (1.1.5.4)

34. The Proposed Development will rely upon private servicing and will not create unjustified or uneconomical expansion or infrastructure. (1.1.5.5)

35. The Proposed Development has minimized negative impacts on protected areas in accordance with the PPS. (1.5.1 d)

36. The Proposed Development will provide for individual on-site sewage services and communal water services in accordance with the PPS. (1.6.6.3 and 1.6.6.4)

37. The Proposed Development will be developed in accordance with the PPS as it related to stormwater management. (1.6.6.7)

38. In accordance with the PPS, the proposed private road is designed to be safe and facilitate the movement of people and goods, and is appropriate to address projected needs related to the proposed Plan of Subdivision. (1.6.7.1)

39. In accordance with the PPS, the Proposed Development does not propose site alteration or development within wetlands. These areas shall be protected for the long term. (2.1.1)

40. The diversity and connectivity of natural features, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, will be maintained, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features. (2.1.2)

41. Development and site alteration is not proposed in significant wetlands, or wetlands of any type. (2.1.4)

42. Development is not proposed in any fish habitat. (2.1.6)

43. In accordance with Section 2.1.8, development or site alteration is not permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features identified in policies 2.14, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. This has been addressed through the analysis and expertise of Mr. Ellingwood.

66Mr. Guetter concluded and opined that the proposal thus is consistent with PPS 2020.

GROWTH PLAN

67Mr. Guetter reviewed the core policies in the Growth Plan as part of establishing that the proposed development represents “Infill development”. Mr. Guetter adopted the expert testimony of Mr. Ellingwood in the assessment of key hydrologic features and key natural heritage features which establishes and guides proposal design as well as specific measures adopted in the proposal based on Mr. Ellingwood’s recommendations. Mr. Guetter opined that having considered the totality of the Growth Plan and applicable policies therein, the proposal conforms with the Growth Plan.

COP

68Mr. Guetter provided detailed analysis of the COP and assessed the proposal against applicable policies. Mr. Guetter’s analysis comprises of the following:

50. The Subject Lands are designated "Shoreland Areas and the Waterfront" for the lands that extend inland approximately 150 metres from the shoreline.

51. The remainder of the Subject Lands are designated and "Rural and Cultural Landscape."

52. Section 2.6.1 of the County Plan outlines Subdivision Approvals and Agreements and states that applicant(s) shall enter into appropriate agreements with the local municipality for the registration of plans of subdivisions subject to specific conditions being met. A Plan of Subdivision is required when more than 3 lots and/or a road are being created from a land holding.

53. Section 4.3 of the County Plan outlines the "Rural and Cultural Landscape" land use designation and states that the "Rural and Cultural Landscape" land use designation permits an amount and type of development in the rural area that is consistent with maintaining the rural and cultural landscape.

54. The "Rural and Cultural Landscape" designation permits new land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding land use facilities.

55. Section 4.4 of the County Plan outlines policies for "Shoreland Areas and the Waterfront" land use designations and states that shoreland development that allows for limited growth of existing and new tourist developments, new lots, and residential developments are permitted.

56. Section 4.4 of the County Plan states that where cluster development occurs, use of common elements condominiums is permitted, subject to any policies in local plans and unless a local plan directs otherwise.

57. According to the County Plan, the Subject Lands contain no lands designated Environmental Protection.

58. Section 5.1.1 of the County Plan states that a range of housing types and densities shall be built throughout the County.

59. Section 5.1.3.3 of the County Plan states that Shoreland areas outside settlement areas are recognized to consist of a constantly changing mix of dwellings suitable for seasonal and for year-round use, and of summer, extended seasonal and permanent residency.

60. In accordance with Section 7.13 of the County Plan the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision conforms to the criteria for assessing Plans of Subdivision, as follows:

61. The proposed development is compatible with the existing scale of development in the area.

The Proposed Development, facilitated by way of a plan of subdivision, continues the development pattern found along the north shore of Pigeon Lake. The Proposed Development lots are intended for single, detached dwelling units, similar to the built form found within the existing lots to the east and west.

2. The proposed development is compatible with the Conservation Authority's regulations.

The Proposed Development is not located within the jurisdiction of a Conservation Authority. However, all in-water and shorelines works will require an approved work permit from the Trent-Severn Waterway Office of Parks Canada before work can commence. All proposed in-water and shoreline works must adhere to Parks Canada's Policies for In-Water and Shoreline Works and Related Activities, as noted within Condition 5 of draft Plan of Subdivision and Condition 11 of the draft Plan of Condominium.

3. Access roads have the capability to support the additional traffic loads anticipated from the proposal and will be constructed to standards determined by the Township. Where upgrading and additional maintenance may be required, the Township shall assess the financial impact of these additional expenditures and may levy fees to offset these costs.

In accordance with the Traffic Study that was prepared by TranPlan, dated September 2015, in support of the application, the proposed private road will have the ability to support the traffic generated by the Proposed Development and there will be no negative impacts on Nichols Cove Road. Conditions related to the draft Plan of Subdivision ensure that the private road will be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the municipality and that maintenance and snow removal will be addressed by the private condominium (Plan of Condominium Conditions 4, 5 and 15). The Conditions related to the draft Plan of Subdivision ensure that the road will be named, designed, constructed to the satisfaction of the Municipality and that maintenance and snow removal will be addressed by the private condominium. {Plan of Subdivision Conditions 2, 15).

4. If an investigation of seNicing options as outlined in Section 7.4 indicates that neither municipal nor communal seNicing is feasible, Jots shall have sufficient area so that a private well for water supply can be located without danger of contamination by the sewage system, and so that a serious draw down of groundwater levels beyond the boundaries of the Jot itself can be avoided.

A Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report was prepared by Engage Engineering, dated May 2018 which demonstrates that the Proposed Development will be provided water servicing by well, subject to the necessary approvals (Plan of Subdivision Condition 13, 14; Plan of Condominium Condition 15).

5. Where full municipal services are not available, the Township shall require the submission of a detailed hydrogeological report as per Section 7.4.6 which addresses the ability of the site to sustain residential development on the basis of private services. Minimum lot area standards will be established in the implementing Zoning By-law.

A Hydrogeological Report was prepared by Cambrium Inc., dated April 2016, in support of the development applications, as required by the municipality (Plan of Subdivision Condition 12). In accordance with the above, Plan of Subdivision Condition 16 provides for implementation of the recommendations outlined in the technical environmental studies prepared, in support of the applications. Similarly, Condition 16 of the Plan of Condominium conditions of approval provides for implementation of the recommendations outlined in the technical environmental studies prepared, in support of the applications.

The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment provides for lot areas with a minimum of 0.30 hectares each. As noted in the Plan of Subdivision Condition 7, the lots and blocks will be compliant with the applicable Zoning By-law, as amended. Also, Condition 13 of the Plan of Condominium conditions of approval state that the lots will be compliant with the applicable Zoning By-law, as amended.

6. All lots should have frontage on an interior road, developed to municipal standards. Lots having direct access onto arterial roads shall generally not be permitted.

The proposed lots have been configured to have frontage on the public road and/or a public road. None of the proposed lots have direct access to an arterial road.

7. As many trees as possible shall be preserved, particularly mature and healthy stands of trees, and reforestation shall take place where necessary.

Various buffer, wildlife crossing, and open areas are provided within the draft Plan of Subdivision, which will have no site alteration or development permitted, except in accordance with environmental protection strategies as noted within the Zoning By-law Amendment, conditions of approval for the draft Plan of Subdivision and Condominium and as outlined in the environmental reports and studies. (Plan of Condominium Condition 11, 15; Plan of Subdivision Condition 5)

8. Where the existing topography and/or vegetation provides little or no protection to arterial roads, a buffer strip, according to the requirements of the implementing Zoning By-law, shall be provided in order to screen dwellings from passing traffic and to create as much privacy and enclosure as possible.

The proposed lots are located outside of a settlement area and are not located adjacent to an arterial road, as such, the future single, detached dwellings will not be subject to passing traffic that require screening.

9. Any proposed plan of subdivision or condominium must not landlock any other parcel of land, and should be designed to allow for the integration of future residential development in the area.

The proposed Plan of Subdivision does not land lock any parcel of land. The proposed plan represents infill development that will connect the developed shoreline areas to the east and west through contiguous and appropriate lot creation.

10. The proposal shall be adequately served by existing levels of municipal services such as fire protection, police protection, garbage collection and school facilities. Any proposal requiring substantial upgrading to existing services beyond the present financial capability should generally not be permitted.

The Proposed Development will be serviced by private wells and septic systems, and municipal hydro, subject to final technical review. Expansion of municipal services is not required. Police and fire protection jurisdiction will not be expanded, as noted through Condition 15 of the draft Plan of Subdivision and Condition 15 of the draft Plan of Condominium that address requirements of the Fire Chief of the Municipality of Trent Lakes.

11. Residential subdivision or condominium developments shall be encouraged to locate in designated growth centres as identified on the Land Use Schedules however it is recognized that shore/and areas may also be suitable for limited development of this nature. Where possible, but especially for development on full services, mixed-use developments, naffowing of streets, reducing parking requirements, incorporation of pedestrian walkways/linkages, open spaces, variations of lot sizes, unit types, and a mix of storefront retail and residential zoning are encouraged in order to ensure more complete and livable neighborhoods for residents. Smaller driveways, wider sidewalks, curbside parking and narrower streets are also encouraged.

In accordance with the above, the proposed Plan of Subdivision is located along a shoreline area and is suitable based on the context of existing developed shoreline to the east and west.

12. The Township shall enter into a development agreement with each developer as a condition of the approval of a plan of subdivision or condominium. This agreement will set out the internal and external services which the Township will require the developer to provide.

The conditions of approval prepared as part of the planning instruments reference a required Subdivision Agreement and Condominium Agreement, to be entered into by the developer/owner and the respective municipal approval authority.

13. The developer may be required to provide background information to the Township showing that there is a need for the development in its proposed location.

This has been demonstrated through supporting materials, including the Planning Justification Report, that have been provided in support of the development applications.

14. The Township shall have regard for high potential aggregate resource areas and existing aggregate operations and the compatibility of the proposed development with these areas in accordance with Section 6.2.13 of the Plan.

The proposed draft Plan of Subdivision is not located within an aggregate resource area, according to Schedule C of the Official Plan.

15. The Township shall have regard for the compatibility of the proposed development with designated environmental areas.

The proposed draft Plan of Subdivision has been configured to avoid lot boundaries or lots being within wetlands, and no wetlands are located within any lots (Plan of Subdivision Condition 5, 6, 7, 16; Plan of Condominium Conditions 11, 15, 16). The Official Plan does not designate the lands as being within an environmental area.

16. In the Seasonal Residential and Lakeshore Residential designations where backlot development is permitted by plan of subdivision or vacant land condominium, the following shall apply: There shall be a maximum of 15 backlots per development and that a minimum common shoreline frontage be held in one continuous parcel of 45 metres or 10 metres for every lot not fronting on the water whichever is the greater. In addition, communal recreational facilities such as a dock for use by the subdivision/vacant land condominium residents on common shoreline frontage shall be provided where appropriate and approved by the authority having jurisdiction for such docking facilities. Developments requiring a variation from the number of lots or from the common water frontage requirement will require an amendment to this plan.

The Subject Lands are not designated Seasonal Residential or Lakeshore Residential, and as such, the above is not applicable to the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision.

17. Development applications within identified vulnerable areas shall be accompanied by a Notice under Section 59(2) of the Clean Water Act, 2006, as amended, and must conform to the policies of Section 5. 7 where applicable

There is no indication that the Subject Lands are located within an identified vulnerable area.

61. According to the County Plan, the Subject Lands were designated prior to June 16, 2006 to permit single detached dwellings.

69Mr. Guetter, based on his analysis thus opined and concluded that the proposal conforms with the COP.

TOP

70Mr. Guetter reviewed the TOP and noted that an Environmental Review Report was provided as required under section 5.1.2.7 of the TOP. He also noted in this review that conditions in the POS reflect recommendations originating from this Environmental Review Report.

71Mr. Guetter noted that the Subject Lands are designated “Rural” and as such the TOP (subsection 5.2.2) discourages urban development. He opined that the proposal is not an urban development and thus conforms with subsection 5.2.2 of the TOP. He stated that the proposal is also in conformity with policies in section 5.4 which allow for seasonal and permanent residential dwellings in close proximity to the shoreline. Mr. Guetter noted that there are no parts in the Subject Lands which are designated Environmental Protection. He re-iterated that the proposal simply is an infill development and is very similar to what exists to the east and west of the Subject Lands along the shoreline.

72Mr. Gutter thus opined and concluded that the proposal conforms with the TOP.

ZONING By-LAW AND ZBA

73Mr. Guetter stated that Trent Lakes Zoning By-Law 2014-070 ("Zoning By-law") applies to the Subject Lands and that at present no portion of the Subject Lands is zoned Environmental Protection (“EP”). He stated that the ZBA would create EP zones in parts of the Subject Property except for the provision of accesses to the Subject Property proposed lots.

74Mr. Guetter informed that the ZBA seeks the following:

A Zoning By-law Amendment has been prepared in order to zone the 16 lots intended for single detached dwellings to Shoreline Residential - Private Access {SR-PA-109), and to zone the common element blocks Environmental Protection 4 (EP-4) and Environmental Protection 5 (EP-5).

The SR-PA-109 zone includes site specific exceptions that permit a private road, specify location of front lot line and minimum lot frontages, minimum side and rear setbacks, and minimum setbacks from wetlands. The SR-PA-109 Zone is subject to a Holding (H) provision.

The Environmental Protection (EP - 4) Zone permits a private road, alterations and/or installations required in conjunction with an Overall Benefit Permit and/or to mitigate impacts of development and site alteration on Species at Risk.

The Environmental Protection (EP - 5) Zone permits a docking facility, subject to required approvals. The EP-5 Zone is subject to a Holding (H) provision.

75Mr. Guetter opined that the ZBA appropriately implements the COP and the TOP, is consistent with the PPS 2020, conforms with the Growth Plan and represents good planning.

FINDING ZBA

76Based on a determination that the proposed development is “infill development” within the context of the Growth Plan’s applicable policies, the unopposed evidence of Mr. Ellingwood and the unopposed planning evidence additionally provided in support of the ZBA as well as having due regard of all the material on file, the Tribunal finds that the ZBA (Attachment 1) has due regard for the provincial interest, is consistent with PPS 2020, conforms with the Growth Plan, conforms with the COP and the TOP and represents good land use planning.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS: PLAN OF SUBDIVISION (“POS”)

77Mr. Guetter provided uncontested testimony with regard to the requested POS as follows:

22. The Planning Act contains criteria under Section 51(24) that must be considered for draft Plans of Subdivision to determine the suitability and appropriateness of such development. The following provides details regarding how the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision is in conformity with Section 51 (24). I have also considered that the Plan of Condominium has appropriate regard for these criteria as well.

Criteria

(24) In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,

(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;

Please refer to above paragraph which describes how the planning instruments, including the Plan of Subdivision, have regard to Section 2 of the Planning Act.

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

It is my opinion that the proposed Plan of Subdivision is not premature and is in the public interest as it provides for low density residential development in accordance with the permitted uses of the County Plan and Official Plan.

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;

The Subject Lands are designated "Shoreland Areas" for the lands extending inland approximately 150 metres from the shoreline, and "Rural and Cultural Landscape" for the remainder of the Subject Lands according to the County Plan. These land use designations permit single-detached dwellings. The Subject Lands are designated "Recreational Dwelling Area" and 0Rural" according to the Official Plan. The Recreational Dwelling Area land use designation permits single-unit permanent dwellings and single-unit recreational dwellings. Therefore, it is my opinion that the Proposed Development conforms to both official plans. Please refer to Appendix B of my Witness Statement for analysis as to conformity.

(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

The hierarchy of applicable land use policies permit residential development in the form of single detached dwellings. The proposed subdivision provides for residential lots, open space, wildlife crossing areas, wetland areas and shoreline buffer areas. Therefore, the Subject Lands are well suited for the Proposed Development, as demonstrated by the planning instruments and through technical studies in support of the development.

(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;

Affordable housing units are not being proposed for this development; therefore, this regulation is not applicable.

(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

The Proposed Development provides a private road to be constructed adjacent to and connected to a public road, which demonstrates appropriate regard for this criterion.

(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;

The Development Proposal consists of 16 separate lots that each have a minimum lot area of 0.3 hectares which complies with the applicable zoning standards. The lot boundaries have been configured in a manner that does not contain any wetlands and each lot has appropriate frontage, width and depth to house the intended uses.

(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;

No restrictions exist on the Subject Lands or any adjoining land to the Plan of Subdivision.

(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;

The Plan of Subdivision has been configured to ensure that no lot contains or traverses a wetland or watercourse or shoreline buffer area. Technical supporting documents have been provided to support the development, including a Stormwater Management Report which has been peer reviewed and accepted based on Section 8 of my Witness Statement. Conditions of approval for the draft Plan of Condominium and draft Plan of Subdivision address implementation of these matters, including Condition 15.

No parties have identified any environmental issues in this matter.

(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

The Subject Lands have no municipal servicing infrastructure but are traversed by a hydro transmission line. Proposed Conditions 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 address the requirements to provide private services.

(j) the adequacy of school sites;

The Proposed Development is not anticipated to have any impacts to schools, given no concerns expressed by the School Board through the circulation process and the fact that there are relatively limited number of units, and they are seasonal in nature. Accordingly, it is my opinion that this criterion has been fulfilled.

(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;

No area of land within the draft Plan of Subdivision is planned for dedication or conveyance for public purposes. The proposed road will be a private road and a common element within the condominium. Restrictions in the zoning bylaw ensure that natural areas are protected.

(l) the extent to which the plan's design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and

Subject to technical review, the proposed Plan of Subdivision will make use of existing hydro infrastructure and will continue the pattern of low-rise residential development along the Pigeon Lake shoreline and will support contemporary building construction and new private services technology, where appropriate.

(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, C. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, C. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).

The Subject Lands are not subject to site plan control, and as such, the above criterion is not applicable.

FINDINGS: POS AND PLAN OF COMMON ELEMENT CONDOMINIUM

78The Tribunal having reviewed and having due regard for all material before it and the unopposed and uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Guetter finds that the requested POS (Attachment 2) has regard for the provincial interest and has regard for criteria set out in subsection 51(24) of the Act and that the conditions are also reasonable, having regard to the nature of the development proposed for the subdivision, and are appropriate in consideration of the criteria set out in subsection 51(25) of the Act.

ORDER

79THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and By-law No. B2014-070 of the Municipality of Trent Lakes is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Municipality of Trent Lakes to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.

80THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, and the draft plan shown on the plan prepared by Gerald G. Hickson dated April 4, 2022 (comprising of Draft Plan of Subdivision Part of Lot 17, Concession 14 Geographic Township of Harvey Municipality of Trent Lakes County of Peterborough (Attachment 2) and Draft Plan of Common Element Condominium Part of Lot 17, Concession 14 Geographic Township of Harvey Municipality of Trent Lakes County of Peterborough (Attachment 3)) is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 respectively to this Order;

81AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the County of Peterborough shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approvals set out in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 and to administer final approval of the plans of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Planning Act. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

“Jatinder Bhullar”

jatinder bhullar

MEMBER

“Eric S. Crowe”

ERIC S. CROWE

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3