Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 17, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003850
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: PME Investments Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description: To increase minimum lot area and lot frontage in order to allow constructing a seasonal single detached dwelling on a vacant lot.
Reference Number: ZA-36-21
Property Address: 27 Luke Lane
Municipality/UT: North Kawartha/Peterborough
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003850
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003850
OLT Case Name: PME Investments Inc. v. North Kawartha (Township)
Heard: November 3, 2022, by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| PME Investments Inc. | Kathleen Kinch, Jenna Khoury-Hanna |
| Township of North Kawartha | John Ewart |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BRYAN W. TUCKEY ON NOVEMBER 3, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing in the matter of the appeal by PME Investments Inc. (“Applicant”) against the Township of North Kawartha (“Township”) for the refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment (‘ZBA’) application. these proceedings are commenced under s. 34 (11) of the Planning Act and relate to a development proposal for the property known municipally as 27 Luke Lane in the Township (“subject property”) and being Part Lot 25, Concession 9 in the Geographic Area of Chandos in the County of Peterborough.
2The appeal relates to a ZBA application to amend the Township’s By-law No.26-2013, as amended, and specifically amended by By-law 2016-059 (‘Township By-laws”) to permit the construction of a recreational dwelling use within the southwest portion of the subject property.
3The subject property is a remnant parcel from previous development initiatives along Luke Lane and Fitch Lane. It is presently vacant, has considerable waterfront frontage on Lake Chandos and is generally larger than the majority of waterfront properties found in the area. There exists a large environmentally sensitive area in the south and middle portion of the subject property which will continue to be zoned and preserved as Environmental Constraint lands.
4The Affidavit of Service sworn August 31, 2022, is Exhibit 1 to this proceeding and it is found that there is appropriate notice.
5There are no further Parties or Participants registered with respect of this matter. All Parties are represented by Counsel as illustrated in the appearances.
6The Tribunal has the benefit of testimony from two witnesses. Kevin Duguay is qualified to give expert evidence in the discipline of Land Use Planning (Witness Statement is marked as Exhibit 3). Christopher Ellingwood answered questions from the Tribunal and is qualified to give expert evidence in the disciplines of biology/ecology/environmental planning (Witness Statement Is marked as Exhibit 5).
PLANNING INSTRUMENT
7The subject property is zoned Rural Exception No. 66 (RU-66) Zone and Environmental Constraint (EC) in the Township By-laws. The Applicant is seeking a site-specific rezoning to an appropriate Shoreline Residential – SR Zone for a portion of the subject property outside of the EC Zone as refined by the proposal. The Tribunal has the benefit of a proposed ZBA (marked as Exhibit 2) before it for consideration. It was noted by Mr. Duguay that there is an error found on Schedule A and the Subject property is being rezoned to “Shoreline Residential” not as written “Seasonal Residential”. This error was corrected during the course of the hearing and the proper ZBA is illustrated as Attachment 1 to this Decision.
8The effect of the ZBA is to clarify the interior portions of the properties ‘Environmental Constraint EC Zone in keeping with the results of the scoped Environmental Impact Assessment report prepared in support of the application. It also serves to provide a series of by-law regulations to the ‘Shoreline Residential’ including:
a. Minimum Lot Area - 17.5 hectares.
b. Minimum Lot Frontage – 265. metres (“m”).
c. Minimum Setback from an ‘Environmental Constraint EC Zone’ on the same lot – 4.5 m.
d. Minimum Setback from the high-water mark of Chandos Lake (except for the dock) - 30 m. A 1.5 m path/walkway is permitted in this 30 m area