Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 31, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000247
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: North Pacific Investments Inc.
Subject: By-law No. 2014-75
Description: Appeal of conditions on zoning approval
Reference Number: Z22-15
Property Address: 1300 Honey Harbour Road
Municipality/UT: Georgian Bay/Muskoka
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000247
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000247
OLT Case Name: North Pacific Investments Inc. v. Georgian Bay (Township)
Heard: August 3, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| North Pacific Investments Inc. | Frank Abela |
| Township of Georgian Bay | Colin Leger |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY G.A. CROSER ON AUGUST 3, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal came about as the result of a mapping error made during the preparation of the Township of Georgian Bay (“Township”) Zoning By-law No. 2014-75 (“ZBL”). Through an inadvertent administrative error, North Pacific Investments Inc.’s (the “Appellant”) property, municipally known as 1300 Honey Harbour Road (the “Subject Property”), was rezoned from Rural (“RU”) to Open Space 1 (“OS1”) and Environmental Protection – Wetland (“EP-W”).
2Several years passed before this error was discovered. A by-law amendment application was filed with the Township in 2022 to change the zoning designation back to RU. This was done; however, the amending by-law adopted by Council, By-law No. 2023-19 (“Amending ZBL”), included additional restrictions with respect to uses of the Subject Property.
3The Appellant filed an appeal with the Tribunal under subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act to address these new restrictions on RU use that had previously been permitted on site. A settlement was later reached with the Township and the Parties entered into Minutes of Settlement. Consequentially, today’s hearing was converted to a hearing of the proposed settlement. A draft Order was submitted by the Parties in advance of the hearing, which provided the proposed zoning by-law amendment and schedule (the “Draft Instrument”). The Appellant’s planner, Mr. Steve Edwards was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. His evidence was uncontroverted and uncontested at the hearing event.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
4The Subject Property is approximately 74 hectares and includes areas of wetlands, generally within the northeast area of the site. These areas of wetlands were not mapped in the earlier version of the Township’s Zoning By-law. The Parties confirmed that the site does not fall under the jurisdiction of a Conservation Authority and is not subject to the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan.
5The lands were previously zoned RU, in line with neighbouring properties and as zoned prior to the ZBL. There is a detached dwelling on the site and the remainder of the lands are generally forested.
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
6The Draft Instrument would add further standard uses of the RU zone that were permitted prior to the mapping error, including: detached dwelling, secondary dwelling unit, agriculture, bed and breakfast establishment, home industry, home occupation, and portable sawmill. It would also prohibit the use of riding schools, boarding stables, wayside pits and quarries, while permitting all other uses within the standard RU zone.
7The wetlands located within the Subject Property will be maintained as EP-W, and the Draft Instrument will also retain the ‘H’ holding provision for those lands in proximity to wetlands. This holding provision will cover the setbacks to the wetland areas and no development can occur adjacent to the wetlands without the completion of an Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”).
PLANNING EVIDENCE
8Mr. Edwards stated that the Subject Property is designated ‘Rural’ on Schedule A Land Use Designation of the District of Muskoka Official Plan (“DOP”). This designation permits, amongst others, agricultural, home industry, and limited year-round residential development. The Planner opined that the restoration of the RU to the Subject Property conforms with and implements the DOP.
9With respect to the Township OP (“TOP”), lands that are not directly identified as subject to any other designation are identified as ‘Rural’ in accordance with s. G.1.1 of the TOP. Permitted uses include agricultural uses, limited single-detached residential development, and natural heritage conservation. The residential uses are limited to single detached dwellings, accessory uses and structures, home occupations, and small-scale home businesses. In Mr. Edward’s opinion, the Draft Instrument permits uses that are appropriate for the Subject Property, are consistent with surrounding land uses, and conforms with the TOP.
10Mr. Edwards opined that the retention of the ‘H’ holding provision on certain areas of the Subject Property was appropriate as both the DOP and TOP identify wetlands on or near the site. Therefore, the Planner was of the view that the holding provision conformed with the applicable official plans. In addition, the Planner noted that this requirement also implemented the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) directives with respect to development adjacent to wetlands.
11In closing, Mr. Edwards submitted that the Draft Instrument implements the PPS, conforms with the DOP and TOP, is appropriate for the use of the Subject Property, and therefore, constitutes good land use planning.
FINDINGS
12Based on the uncontroverted and unopposed opinion evidence provided by Mr. Edwards, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Draft Instrument has appropriate regard for matters of Provincial Interest, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the DOP and TOP, and otherwise represents good land use planning.
13The Tribunal finds that the Draft Instrument rectifies the earlier administrative error and restores the Subject Property to its original RU status. Furthermore, the Draft Instrument updates the zoning by recognizing the areas of wetlands located within the Subject Property, which will be zoned EP-W and the requirement for an EIS in certain circumstances. This aligns with policy documents and protects the areas of wetland on the Subject Property.
ORDER
14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and directs the Township of Georgian Bay to amend Zoning By-law No. 2014-75 as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Township of Georgian Bay to assign a number to this by-law for record-keeping purposes.
“G.A. Croser”
G.A. CROSER
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