Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
January 26, 2023
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002390
(Formerly PL200170)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Earls Road Developments Limited
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision -Failure of the District Municipality of Muskoka to make a decision
Purpose:
To permit the development of a plan of subdivision consisting of 287 single detached residential lots and nine (9) multiple residential blocks, each to contain a maximum number of 72 units, for a total of 935 residential units
Property Address/Description:
174 Earls Road/ Part of Lot 17, Concession 3, being Part 1 on Plan 35R-6151, Geographic Township of Chaffey, Town of Huntsville, District Municipality of Muskoka
Municipality:
Town of Huntsville
Municipality File No.:
S2019-8
OLT Case No:
OLT-22-002390
Legacy Case No:
PL200170
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-22-002390
Legacy Lead Case No:
PL200170
OLT Case Name:
Earls Road Developments Limited v. Muskoka (District Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Earls Road Developments Limited
Subject:
Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 2008-66P -Neglect of the Town of Huntsville to make a decision
Existing Zoning:
“Rural One”, “Residential Four (R4)” and “Residential Four –Holding (R4-H)”
Proposed Zoning:
To be determined
Purpose:
To permit the development of a plan of subdivision consisting of 287 single detached residential lots and nine (9) multiple residential blocks, each to contain a maximum number of 72 units, for a total of 935 residential units
Property Address/Description:
174 Earls Road/ Part of Lot 17, Concession 3, being Part 1 on Plan 35R-6151, Geographic Township of Chaffey, Town of Huntsville, District Municipality of Muskoka
Municipality:
Town of Huntsville
Municipality File No.:
Z/11/2020/THE
OLT Case No:
OLT-22-002391
Legacy Case No:
PL210218
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-22-002390
Legacy Lead Case No:
PL200170
Heard:
August 24, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Earls Road Developments Limited
E. Blanchard
L. Robinson
Town of Huntsville
J. Ewart
District Municipality of Muskoka
J. Ewart
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE ON AUGUST 24, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matter before the Tribunal is a settlement hearing for the appeals of a Draft Plan of Subdivision under s. 51(34) of the Planning Act, in the District Municipality of Muskoka (“District”), and an application to amend a Zoning By-law (“ZBLA”) under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, in the Town of Huntsville (“Town”) submitted by Earls Road Development Limited (“ERDL”) for the property municipally known as 174 Earls Road (“Subject Property”).
EXHIBITS
2The Affidavit of Jamie Robinson in support of the settlement was marked as Exhibit 1.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
3Jamie Robinson was qualified, without objections, to provide expert opinion and land use planning evidence to the Tribunal.
4Mr. Robinson described the Subject Property comprising of 99 acres of vacant lands, that are located with a 317-metre frontage onto the municipally maintained Earls Road. The adjacent properties to the Subject Property consist of a mixture of rural, institutional, and residential properties, including a residential subdivision that is currently under construction.
5Mr. Robinson informed the Tribunal that the proposed settlement has been revised to address many of the District and Town concerns. The revised proposal would permit a total of 782 residential dwelling units. These dwelling units would comprise of 276 single detached lots, two townhouse blocks, five multiple storey residential buildings, and one 5-storey mixed-use building.
6The Subject Property is designated as part of the “Huntsville Urban Centre” in the District of Muskoka Official Plan (“MOP”) and designated “Residential” in the Town of Huntsville Official Plan (“HOP”). Mr. Robinson stated that both the MOP and the HOP anticipate and direct residential intensification and development within these designated areas.
7The Tribunal was informed by Mr. Robinson that ERDL had commissioned a number of studies or technical reports to address the concerns of the original application by the District and the Town. This included:
a. a revised Traffic Impact Study and second submission comments by JD Northcote Engineering Inc. dated July 15, 2022;
b. the Second Addendum to the Environmental Impact Study by Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited dated July 15, 2022;
c. a revised Functional Servicing Report by Tulloch Engineering dated July 15, 2022; and,
d. A Visual Impact Study by Henry Kortekaas and Associates Inc. dated August 11, 2022.
8Mr. Robinson explained that these studies had been used to develop the agreed upon Conditions of Draft Plan approval, and ZBLA.
9Throughout the subdivision, the Tribunal was informed by Mr. Robinson, that the proposed development contains a road design that provides traffic calming measures in a manner that promotes a safe and efficient road network pattern for vehicle traffic movement and pedestrians. Rear laneways have been added to the townhouse development design to minimize the number of driveways with direct driveway access to collector roads and will help provide adequate on-street parking.
10In addition, the proposed development promotes healthy and active communities by ensuring that active transportation routes like trails, sidewalks and multi-use pathways are designed throughout the development. The publicly accessible park retained wetland features and stormwater management block will all have trails connecting to each other and around their perimeters. The proposed development would also connect these features to the greater Huntsville active trail network as encouraged by both the MOP and HOP.
11Mr. Robinson testified the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) and conforms to the MOPs and HOPs natural heritage policies. In June 2019, an Environmental Impact Study (the “EIS”) was conducted with further addendums in July 2020. While the Subject Property does contain some wetlands and woodland, the EIS identified no significant natural heritage features. Mr. Robinson explained that the proposed developed intends to protect these wetlands with a 15 metre (“m”) buffer. As part of the conditions, an ecologist is required to certify that proposed development on the lands zoned Conservation Exception, will not impact how the wetland and woodland currently function.
12The proposed development provides a wide range in variety of housing options, styles, and lot dimensions. The proposed subdivision will be designed to provide road connection to the adjacent Woodstream Development. As such, it is the expert opinion of Mr. Robinson, that the draft plan of subdivision for the proposed development gives regard to the provincial interests outlined in s. 2 and meets the criteria s. 51(24) of the Planning Act. He further gave the opinion that the draft plan of subdivisions conforms to the directives found in the MOP, 2006 HOP, and 2019 HOP.
FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL
13In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontested land use planning evidence and expert opinions provided Mr. Robinson. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes efficient development of land, accommodates a range of appropriate mixed uses, intensifies uses within the settlement area, and contributes to the range of housing options, that is supported by existing municipal infrastructure.
14The Tribunal is satisfied that the ZBLA adequately contemplates how the proposed development will establish throughout the site-specific by-law, areas that will be used as open spaces, park areas, connect with the Huntsville active trail network, while protecting wetlands and zoned woodlands.
15In consideration of a draft plan of subdivision, the Tribunal must have regard to s. 51(24) of the Planning Act. The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, and as maintained by the 2006 & 2019 HOP and the MOP. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest. More significantly, the proposal furthers the goals and objectives of the Provincial planning regime to increase density opportunities within a settlement area.
ORDER
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, and the Town of Huntsville’s Zoning By-law No. 2008-66P, as amended, is approved in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto, and the Town of Huntsville is hereby directed to amend Zoning By-law No. 2008-66P accordingly.
17THAT the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, on behalf of Earls Road Developments Limited is approved in accordance with Schedule 2 hereto, and subject to the Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval attached as Schedule 3 hereto.
18THAT pursuant to section 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the final approval of the proposed Plan of Subdivision for the purposes of section 51(58) is to be given by the District Municipality of Muskoka.
19Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal.
20Pursuant to Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Order shall be, and was, effective as of the date of the hearing of this Appeal, and the delivery of the Oral Decision and Order of the Tribunal, on August 24, 2022.
21The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event that any issues should arise in connection with the implementation of this Order.
“Steven Cooke”
STEVEN COOKE
VICE-CHAIR
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 2