Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 13, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004480
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: J. Neinstein Holdings Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To demolish existing cabin and boathouse and construct new two-storey cabin and boathouse
Property Address: 1153 Roberts Bay Road
Municipality/UT: Muskoka Lakes/Muskoka
Municipal File No.: A-23/22
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004480
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT 22-004480
OLT Case Name: J. Neinstein Holdings Inc. v. Muskoka Lakes (Township)
Heard: February 2, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
J. Neinstein Holdings Inc.
Matthew Lakatos-Hayward
("Applicant/Appellant")
Township of Muskoka Lakes
Edward Veldboom
("Township")
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE ON FEBRUARY 2, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by J. Neinstein Holdings Inc. (the “Applicant/Appellant”) against the decision of the Township of Muskoka Lakes (the “Township”) Committee of Adjustment’s (the “CoA”) decision on August 8 2022, in relation to the refusal of part of an application for a minor variance to the zoning provisions established by Zoning By-law No. 2014-14, as amended (the “ZBL”) concerning 1153 Roberts Bay Road (the “Subject Property”).
2The proposal seeks to demolish the South Cabin and Existing Boathouse and construct a new two-storey cabin and two-storey boathouse.
3The Proposed Cabin and Boathouse are both within similar building envelopes as the existing South Cabin and Existing Boathouse. The Applicant has obtained building permits from the Township to construct the as-of-right portions of the Proposed Cabin and Boathouses.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCES
4The Applicant sought three variances from ZBL 2014-14:
5On August 8, 2022, the Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) followed the recommendation of the Planning Staff and denied the first variance Maximum Floor Area for a Sleeping Cabin (A) but allowed the Minimum Front yard setback (B) and Minimum Side yard setback for a Boathouse with a Rooftop Sundeck (C).
BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF THE APPLICATION
6The Subject Property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR4) under the Township's Zoning By-law (“ZBL”), subject to minor variances obtained by a previous owner. Two past minor variances have been approved on the Subject Property. Minor variance application A-11/98 was approved in April 1998, to permit a 710-square foot dwelling to be converted into a sleeping cabin and a new dwelling to be constructed at a height of 35 feet.
7Minor Variance A-24/04 was approved in May 2004, to permit the replacement of an existing sleeping cabin with a floor area of 830 square feet. It was noted, at that time, that while A-11/98 recognized the cabin with a floor area of 710 square feet a screened porch was not included in the floor area although it was present.
8After 2004, further additions were constructed which has resulted in the existing sleeping cabin having 1,214 square feet of floor area. These additions were constructed without the benefit of a building permit. The Applicant/Appellant now wishes to rebuild and expand the sleeping cabin to have a floor area of 1,624 square feet.
9The Applicant/Appellant purchased the Subject Property in April 2021. On the property, at the time of purchase, were all existing structures that are present on the Subject Property today, with the exception of the new boathouse that is under construction, which replaced the previously existing boathouse.
10Prior to the purchase, a Municipal Records Search was signed off by the Township, confirming that there were no outstanding Orders or Notices of Violation with respect to the Subject Property. Furthermore, a Certificate of Inspection and Occupancy for the existing sleeping cabin was issued by the Township on April 22, 2021.
11In 2022, the Applicant submitted building permit applications to reconstruct the existing sleeping cabin and boathouse generally utilizing the existing building footprints. A building permit was issued for the reconstruction of the existing boathouse.
12The Township refused the building permit for the sleeping cabin on the basis that while the proposed sleeping cabin sought to match the floor area of the existing sleeping cabin, the Township determined the existing sleeping cabin contained additions constructed by the previous landowner that illegally expanded the floor area beyond that which was approved through minor variance A-25/04.
13A revised building permit was submitted for a smaller sleeping cabin that complied with minor variance A-25/04 and a building permit was issued by the Township for that structure.
14The Applicant/Appellant filed a minor variance application (A-23/22) with the Township in March 2022. The minor variance application sought a reduction to the side yard setback to permit the reconstruction of the existing two storey boathouse, a reduction to the front yard setback to permit the reconstruction of the existing sleeping cabin, as well as a variance to increase the permitted floor area of the sleeping cabin to rectify the zoning compliance issue. The requested total floor area for the proposed structure was 1,624 square feet.
15On August 8, 2022, the CoA approved the minor variances for setback reductions but denied the variance to increase the maximum permitted floor area for the reconstruction of the sleeping cabin.
HEARING
16Upon the commencement of the hearing, Matthew Lakatos-Hayward, counsel for the Applicant/Appellant, advised of a settlement reached between the Applicant/Appellant and the Township.
17J. Neinstein Holdings Inc. and the Township (collectively, the “Parties”) have agreed to a comprehensive resolution of the Appeal and wish to reflect their agreement in Minutes of Settlement and Revised Plans (see Schedule B attached) and agree to place the proposed settlement herein before the Tribunal for an issuance of approval.
DESCRIPTION OF SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
18The Parties agreed to a revised proposal, that was subject to the following terms:
a. Permitting a proposed cabin with a floor area of 1,235 square feet, which matches the existing sleeping cabin's floor area and allowing for some design flexibility. The reduction of floor area was accomplished by removing portions of the second storey that contribute to the floor area of the building.
b. A condition to enter into an agreement to secure certain conditions that regulate the uses for the second-floor boathouse and proposed cabin.
c. The removal of the existing shed and covered deck on the Subject Property.
19The minor variances have been proposed that require relief for the following items:
i. relief from s. 4.1.6 ii. of the ZBL (as modified by Minor Variance A-25/04), in order to permit a maximum floor area of 1,235 square feet for a sleeping cabin, where a maximum of 830 square feet is permitted, a variance of 384 square feet;
ii. relief from s. 4.1.3.5 of the ZBL, in order to permit a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet for the reconstruction of a sleeping cabin, where 50 feet is required, a variance of 20 feet, and;
iii. relief from s. 4.1.7 and s. 4.1.7.11 of the ZBL, in order to permit a minimum side yard setback of 35 feet for the addition of a sundeck to a reconstructed boathouse, where 40.5 feet is required, a variance of 5.5 feet.
20As variances ii. and iii. were approved by the CoA, the appeal by the Applicant/Appellant focuses on variance i., being the maximum permitted floor area of the sleeping cabin.
21Since the appeal, a Settlement has been reached and revisions have been made to the design of the sleeping cabin. The revised minor variance would reduce the permitted floor area of the sleeping cabin to 1,235 square feet.
WITNESS
22Evidence in support of the proposed minor variance application was provided by the Applicant/Appellant’s witness, Savas Varadas, who was qualified on consent by the Tribunal to give opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning.
23The Tribunal received and marked the following new documents as Exhibits to the Hearing:
- Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Savas Varadas
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
24The Subject Property is located on a peninsula and has two separate frontages onto Lake Joseph. A private road known as 1153 Roberts Bay Road transverses the property. The northern side of the property contains a two-storey dwelling, a volleyball court and a stone dock/patio. The southern side of the property contains a sleeping cabin, a dock, and a two-storey boathouse (under construction) that will replace a former two-storey boathouse established in 2005. The property is well vegetated including the shoreline (see figure 1 on page 7).
25The Subject Property is designated Waterfront Area by the Muskoka Official Plan (“MOP”) and are designated Waterfront, in the Township Official Plan (“OP”).
LEGISLATIVE TESTS
26It must be noted that an appeal to this Tribunal pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act (“Act”) is a hearing de novo and the onus of establishing that the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act are met is on the Applicant. In addition, in making a decision under the Act, with respect to a minor variance, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 and to the decision of the approval authority under s. 2.1. The decision must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) under s. 3(5) and conform with any provincial plans that are in effect.
27Applications for minor variance must satisfy all four tests set out under s. 45(1) of the Act, namely that the requested variances:
i. maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP,
ii. maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL,
iii. are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure, and,
iv. are minor in nature.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
The Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS” 2020)
28The Subject Property is deemed to be ‘Rural Lands’ within the policy framework of the PPS. Mr. Varadas highlighted several sections of the PPS.
29In reference to s. 1.1.5.2 b, the PPS permits resource-based recreational uses on rural lands. Mr. Varadas submits this matches the description of the existing land use of the Subject Property.
30Mr. Varadas contends s. 1.1.5.3 of the PPS, recreational tourism and other economic opportunities on rural lands, is consistent with the sector that recreational residential development such as this proposal supports.
31With regard to s. 1.6.6.4 on municipal sewage and water, Mr. Varadas submits that the Subject Property is not serviced by municipal sewer and water. The Subject Property is serviced by private individual water and sewage systems, as are all surrounding properties in the area, which is common for the non-urban waterfront areas of Muskoka. According to Mr. Varadas, there is no expected negative impact to the sustainability of the existing services of the Subject Property in the long-term.
32Section 1.7.1 g of the PPS outlines long term economic prosperity should be supported by providing opportunities for sustainable tourism development. Mr. Varadas contends the proposal is consistent with this section since the cottage industry in Muskoka is its greatest economic driver and the usage of the waterfront area for residential development is sustainable for the long-term.
33In Mr. Varadas’s opinion, which the Tribunal agrees, the proposed development is consistent with the PPS.
Muskoka Official Plan (“MOP”)
34Mr. Varadas advised Schedule ‘A’ of the MOP designates the Subject Property to be within the Waterfront Area land use designation.
35Mr. Varadas informed the Tribunal while there are no policies in the MOP that directly relate to sleeping cabins on waterfront properties or accessory uses, there are general development policies and objectives that can be examined.
36Mr. Varadas highlighted several sections of the MOP in regard to the objectives of the waterfront area. Mr. Varadas submits the proposed development is accessory to the existing and continued use of the lands for recreational residential purposes in the form of a single-detached dwelling, which is permitted in the Waterfront Area designation and is the expected form of development in the Waterfront Area.
37Mr. Varadas advised the redevelopment of the sleeping cabin structure with a building of similar height, shape, and in the same location as the existing sleeping cabin on the Subject Property would not require the significant alteration of the property to construct, would not require significant tree-removal, and generally, would be well buffered from view from the lake given the extensive tree-cover of the shoreline area of the Subject Property.
38According to Mr. Varadas, this would result in development that is aesthetically pleasing, protects the natural appearance of the Subject Property and conserves the natural landscape, while supporting the redevelopment of an accessory use to a recreational dwelling, all of which are objectives of the Waterfront Area in the MOP.
39Mr. Varadas submits as the floor area of the proposed sleeping cabin matches the floor area of the existing sleeping cabin and is proposed to continue to be an accessory structure to the principal dwelling on the Subject Property, the use of the property remains similar and therefore is compatible with the existing residential uses surrounding the Subject Property.
40Mr. Varadas highlighted the two distinct shoreline frontages of the property, which the existing/proposed sleeping cabin is located on a separate side of the property from the dwelling and thus, its visual impacts are only experienced in isolation from the dwelling on the opposite side. According to Mr. Varadas, this lessens the visual impacts of the proposed development for viewers of the property from Lake Joseph, who would likely expect that they are seeing a small dwelling which is in physical character with its surroundings.
41Mr. Varadas advised while the proposed sleeping cabin is located within the normally required shoreline yard setback of the Subject Property, the tree cover in front of and surrounding the sleeping cabin will ensure that the visual appearance of the property when viewed from Lake Joseph is predominantly natural.
42It is Mr. Varadas’s opinion, which the Tribunal agrees, that the proposed development meets the general intent and purpose of the MOP.
Township’s Official Plan (“OP”)
43The Subject Property is within the Waterfront land use designation of the Township’s OP. Mr. Varadas advised the Waterfront designation of the OP also permits single-detached residential dwelling units but specifically designates the permission for accessory structures and buildings to the residential land use as well, thus clearly permitting the existing/proposed sleeping cabin use.
44Mr. Varadas submits the OP makes no mention of or gives any direction as to how maximum floor area provisions are to be determined for sleeping cabins. Being the core issue for the proposal, this makes the actual maximum floor area determination for a sleeping cabin more subjective and determinant on the general intent and purpose of policies relating to waterfront development as a whole.
45Mr. Varadas highlighted several sections of the OP and maintaining Waterfront character is important to the Township as it is mentioned in the OP on several occasions. Mr. Varadas contends that only one sleeping cabin be permitted in conjunction with a dwelling on a lot in the Waterfront designation, which is maintained by the proposal. The permission for only one dwelling per lot contributes to Waterfront character as well. According to Mr. Varadas, the rationale behind limiting the size of a sleeping cabin appears to be to not give the appearance of a second dwelling on waterfront properties. Mr. Varadas contends while the proposed sleeping cabin is larger than the normally permitted maximum floor area of a sleeping cabin, it is still much smaller than the commonly constructed dwelling sizes found on Lake Joseph.
46Section B10.7 of the OP states that “the maximum gross floor area of a dwelling shall be 696 square metres (7,500 square feet).” According to Mr. Varadas with a proposed maximum floor area of 1,235 square feet, the proposed sleeping cabin is well under the maximum permitted gross floor area envisioned for dwellings in the Waterfront designation. The combined sleeping cabin floor area and dwelling gross floor area falls under the 7,500 square foot maximum, calculated at approximately 4,200 square feet combined.
47According to Mr. Varadas, development has been increasing in size on Lake Joseph and new dwellings are being constructed well over the proposed maximum of 1,235 square feet in gross floor area, making the sleeping cabin small in comparison to such structures. Therefore, a sleeping cabin with a maximum floor area of 1,235 square feet in an area and on a lake that exhibits even larger dwellings should not give the appearance of a second dwelling on the Subject Property. Mr. Varadas submits consideration should also be given to the fact that the sleeping cabin is located on the southern side of the property and the dwelling is located on the northern side of the property, separated by approximately 300 feet and sloped terrain. Due to those circumstances, the dwelling and sleeping cabin will not be visible from Lake Joseph at the same time when viewed from either direction. Therefore, due to the unique nature of the property, the appearance of two dwellings on the property is not possible if the structures cannot be viewed from the lake at the same time.
48In regard to visual aesthetics that contributes to waterfront character, Mr. Varadas submits the property, despite the existing built form being at reduced shoreline setbacks, remains natural in appearance and is comprised of well vegetated shorelines and allows the property to remain natural in appearance and not appear overdeveloped.
49In regard to dimension and size objectives of the OP, Mr. Varadas contends the proposed development does not exceed the maximum lot coverage set by the ZBL for the Subject Property, thus coverage within 60 metres is met by the proposal and the envisioned balance of built form and natural form is maintained. According to Mr. Varadas, the property appears suitably sized to accommodate the proposed sleeping cabin, particularly as it is of the same shape and size as the existing sleeping cabin, and there appears to be ample area available to accommodate the private individual sewage system to service the sleeping cabin.
50In regard to compatibility, Mr. Varadas submits the Subject Property is located centrally between the Subject Property side lot lines, beyond minimum setback requirements and maximizing its distance to neighbouring properties and is well screened from view from each of its sides. In Mr. Varadas’s opinion, there is nothing that would demonstrate that the proposed development would be incompatible with the surrounding land uses.
51In regard to s. F1.6.6 and s. F18.2 of the OP regarding compliance with the ZBL, Mr. Varadas contends notwithstanding the existing/proposed maximum floor area of the sleeping cabin, the structure meets all other requirements of the ZBL or approved varied regulations and the floor area of the proposed sleeping cabin has been reduced to match the floor area of the existing sleeping cabin, being 1,214 square feet.
52In Mr. Varadas’s opinion, which the Tribunal agrees, the proposed minor variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Township’s OP.
Township’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law
53The Subject Property is presently zoned Waterfront Residential Four (WR4) by the Township of Muskoka Lakes ZBL No. 2014-14, subject to minor variances approved by a previous owner.
54These minor variances, approved by the Township in 1998 and 2004, permitted a sleeping cabin to have a floor area of 830 square feet, including a screened porch.
55Mr. Varadas explained the existing development along with the proposed sleeping cabin either meet all provisions of Table 4.1.2, are legal non-complying, or have been legalized through a minor variance.
56Mr. Varadas highlighted s. 4.1.6 of the ZBL which contains regulations for “SLEEPING CABINS”, with s. 4.1.6 ii. stating that “the maximum floor area is 60.4 m² (650 ft.²)”.
57Mr. Varadas submits through minor variances approved by the Township in 1998 and 2004 (Files A-11/98 and A-25/04), the sleeping cabin on the Subject Property is permitted to have a floor area of 830 square feet including a screened porch.
58Mr. Varadas highlighted s. 11.163 which defines a “Sleeping Cabin” as “a building not attached to the main residential building for the accommodation of persons, but not containing a kitchen.” According to Mr. Varadas, the existing sleeping cabin that is proposed to be replaced by the new sleeping cabin has a floor area of 1,214 square feet, which exceeds those variances by 384 square feet and has been deemed illegal by the Township.
59Mr. Varadas submits the proposed minor variance seeks to legalize the floor area for a sleeping cabin on the Subject Property, with a cabin contained in the same building envelope and containing a similar maximum permitted floor area.
60Mr. Varadas advised while the OP does not give specific policy direction as to how the ZBL is supposed to establish a maximum floor area for a sleeping cabin, according to Mr. Varadas, it appears that the ZBL sets a maximum floor area to prevent the appearance of two dwellings on the property to maintain existing waterfront character. The present maximum floor area permission of 650 square feet was established in 1987, approximately 35 years ago, with the passage of the Township’s Comprehensive ZBL No. 87-87.
61According to Mr. Varadas while the proposed sleeping cabin, with a maximum permitted floor area of 1,235 square feet exceeds the regular requirements of the ZBL, given the nature and size of existing residential development and the continued evolution of residential development form on Lake Joseph, it is his opinion that the proposed sleeping cabin will still appear small when compared to dwellings commonly found on the lake. The sleeping cabin will continue to be prohibited to contain a full kitchen, and thus, will only consist of habitable living area and therefore, not function as a dwelling, as intended by the ZBL.
62Mr. Varadas advised the proposed sleeping cabin meets the minimum interior side yard setback requirements of the WR4 zone, along with the maximum lot coverage and maximum height regulations. Furthermore, the sleeping cabin matches the existing sleeping cabin’s legal shoreline setback and also meets the minimum shoreline setback as approved by the CoA as part of this minor variance application.
63According to Mr. Varadas, the massing of the proposed sleeping cabin will not appear oversized or out of place as an accessory structure when viewed on the Subject Property. At a proposed maximum floor area of 1,235 square feet, the proposed sleeping cabin is still incidental to and clearly an accessory to the principal dwelling, which is approximately 3,000 square feet in floor area.
64In Mr. Varadas’s opinion, which the Tribunal agrees, the proposed development meets the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.
Is the variance desirable for the appropriate use or development of the Property?
65Mr. Varadas advised sleeping cabins are commonly found on waterfront residential properties, either on the mainland or above boathouses, so the presence of this type of structure is not out of character or unexpected.
66Mr. Varadas submits the size of the sleeping cabin, while larger in floor area than regularly permitted, is still in compliance with maximum height and lot coverage regulations and is comparable in massing and size to other permitted accessory structures on waterfront residential properties. Therefore, the proposed built form is not out of character with the Waterfront designation.
67Mr. Varadas noted the Subject Property has two shoreline frontages, which is unique in the Township. While the proposed sleeping cabin is larger in floor area than permitted, the topography of the property limits the ability of the sleeping cabin and the dwelling to be viewed at the same time. Boaters on Lake Joseph viewing the sleeping cabin will not have the ability to believe they are seeing two “dwellings” on one property. Therefore, the appearance of the Subject Property will be typical and expected when viewed from either side.
68Mr. Varadas contends the ZBL permits a maximum gross floor area for a principal dwelling of 7,500 square feet and a maximum lot coverage of 10%. With an existing gross floor area of approximately 3,000 square feet and a proposed maximum lot coverage of under 6%, there is the ability to use the Subject Property, as-of-right, more intensely than it currently is or proposed to be used through the expansion of the existing dwelling. To combine the above with the fact that the Subject Property has already accommodated a sleeping cabin with a 1,214 square foot floor area for likely nearly 20 years without issue, therefore, in Mr. Varadas’ opinion, the approval of the proposed sleeping cabin will not cause an increase in the intensity of use beyond what is expected, desirable, or appropriate for the Subject Property.
69As noted previously, Mr. Varadas advised the increase in proposed floor area of the sleeping cabin does not result in the need for significant tree removal around the building or in front of the structure, thus allowing for the retention of the existing mature shoreline vegetative buffer which will result in the Subject Property continuing to remain primarily natural in appearance and not over-developed.
70Mr. Varadas advised the redevelopment of the Subject Property is encouraged and supported by the MOP and the Township OP and contends while variances are required to implement the proposal, the variances appear justified and appropriate given the existing development on the Subject Property.
71According to Mr. Varadas, shoreline properties are a main contributor to the local economy of the Township and reinvestment is encouraged in order to sustain these land uses into the future. The improvements that are to be made to this property will encourage further reinvestment by neighbouring properties and thus, have a compounding improvement to the local economy.
72In Mr. Varadas’s opinion, which the Tribunal agrees, the development is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.
Minor in Nature
73Mr. Varadas submits the proposed variance to the maximum floor area of a sleeping cabin will not result in a change in the nature of the existing land use of the Subject Property. The additional floor area proposed, particularly when combined with the existing gross floor area of the dwelling, is well within the expected and permitted amount of total habitable space for a property of this size. The increased floor area of the proposed sleeping cabin would not result in the property being used more intensely than expected. Therefore, the proposed sleeping cabin is not expected to create a negative impact to the surrounding landowners.
74According to Mr. Varadas, the proposed sleeping cabin will be located centrally between the side lot lines of the Subject Property and will be well screened from view from all sides by natural vegetation. This will limit the potential for the structure to have any impact on surrounding properties.
75Mr. Varadas contends the proposed sleeping cabin is of the same floor area as the existing sleeping cabin. While the existing/proposed sleeping cabin exceeds the amount of floor area permitted by way of the existing minor variance approval on the lands, its impacts nevertheless can be described as existing and already established on the property.
76Mr. Varadas testified the height of the proposed sleeping cabin meets the regular maximum height permissions of the ZBL and the structure is not proposed to be located in such a manner that will impact the views, privacy, or enjoyment of the adjacent properties in any manner further than regularly expected or already established impacts.
77In Mr. Varadas’s opinion, which the Tribunal agrees, the impact of the proposed development is minor to neighbouring landowners and therefore, is minor in nature.
FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION
78In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontroverted planning evidence and expert opinion provided by Mr. Varadas. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes good land use planning and is in the public interest and is satisfied that the application conforms to the OP and is consistent with the PPS.
79The application consists of permitting a proposed cabin with a floor area of 1,235 square feet, additionally, the two non-contentious setback variances specifically, to permit a minimum side yard setback of 35 feet for the addition of a sundeck and a minimum front yard setback to 30 feet for the reconstructed boathouse.
80The Tribunal also acknowledges the cooperation between the Parties to reach a Settlement in these proceedings.
ORDER
81THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed in part, and the variances to Zoning By-law No. 2014-14, permitting a proposed cabin with a floor area of 1,235 square feet, to permit a minimum side yard setback of 35 feet for the addition of a sundeck and a minimum front yard setback to 30 feet for the reconstructed boathouse, are authorized subject to the conditions set out in Schedule A to this Order.
“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.
SCHEDULE A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Applicant shall construct the Proposed Cabin and Boathouse substantially in accordance with the Master Site Plan Al-3, the Proposed Boathouse Plans A2-1 and A2- 3, and the Proposed Cabin Plans A2-2 and A2-3 prepared by Foreshew Design Associates, which are appended as Schedule "C" to the Minutes of Settlement;
The Owner shall enter into an agreement, pursuant to Section 45(9.1) of the Planning Act, that may be registered on title, pursuant to Section 45(9.2) of the Planning Act, to secure the following two conditions:
(a) the Applicant agrees that the second storey of the Proposed Boathouse shall not be used as habitable area; and
(b) the Parties acknowledge and agree that for the purposes of By-law 2014-14, as amended, the Proposed Cabin shall be deemed to be a "Sleeping Cabin", and that as long as there is another "Dwelling" on the Property, the Proposed Cabin shall not contain a kitchen facility or stovetop.
- The Revised Plans shall show the removal of the existing shed and covered deck on the southern portion of the property, and the Applicant shall remove those structures.
SCHEDULE B
REVISED PLANS