Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 18, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002969, OLT-21-001716
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
Appellant: Langmaid's Island Corporation
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: to develop 36 lots for residential uses and to provide for the protection of conservation blocks
Reference Number: OPA 01/18 LOB
Property Address: (Langmaid Island)
Municipality/UT: Lake of Bays/Muskoka
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002969
Legacy Case No: PL180898
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002969
Legacy Lead Case No: PL180898
OLT Case Name: Langmaid’s Island Corporation v. Lake of Bays (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 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: to develop 36 lots for residential uses and to provide for the protection of conservation blocks
Reference Number: Z 01/18 LOB
Property Address: (Langmaid Island)
Municipality/UT: Lake of Bays/Muskoka
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002970
Legacy Case No: PL180899
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002969
Legacy Lead Case No: PL180898
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 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: to develop 36 lots for residential uses and to provide for the protection of conservation blocks
Reference Number: Z/11/2018/HTE
Property Address: 3393 South Portage Road (3393 South Portage Road)
Municipality/UT: Huntsville/Muskoka
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002972
Legacy Case No: PL180911
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002969
Legacy Lead Case No: PL180898
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 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: to develop 36 lots for residential uses and to provide for the protection of conservation blocks
Reference Number: Z/12/2018/HTE
Property Address: 4215 South Portage Road (4215 South Portage Road)
Municipality/UT: Huntsville/Muskoka
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002974
Legacy Case No: PL180912
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002969
Legacy Lead Case No: PL180898
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: to develop 36 lots for residential uses and to provide for the protection of conservation blocks
Reference Number: S2018-1
Property Address: Langmaid Island
Municipality/UT: Huntsville/Muskoka
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002976
Legacy Case No: PL180916
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002969
Legacy Lead Case No: PL180898
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Langmaid's Island Corporation
Appellant: Mitchell Fasken
Subject: Zoning By-law
Description: Community Planning Permit 2021-111
Reference Number: By-Law 2021-111
Property Address: Township of Lake of Bays
Municipality/UT: Lake of Bays
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001716
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001716
OLT Case Name: Fasken v. Lake of Bays (Township)
Heard: April 11, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Langmaid’s Island Corporation
R. Miller
A. Margaritis
Township of Lake of Bays
J. Ewart
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY G.C.P. BISHOP ON APRIL 11, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
1This Video Hearing was convened to deal with two separate appeal streams, but prior to this event, the Tribunal was informed that a full settlement has been reached on all related appeals.
2The first file, OLT-21-001716, is the appeal by Langmaid’s Island Corporation against the passing of a new community-wide By-law by Council for the Township of Lake of Bays (“Township”). This site-specific appeal was separated from the general appeal, by Mitchell Fasken. The Mitchell Fasken appeal has also settled, and an Oral decision, by this Member, was delivered on March 27, 2024.
3The second appeal stream deals with Langmaid’s Island Corporation’s (“Applicant”) outstanding appeal against the District of Muskoka (“District”), as approval authority, of a draft Plan of Subdivision (“POS”). This appeal stream also deals with the implementation of the “approved-in-principle” site-specific amendment to the Development Permit By-law 2004-180 (the “DPBL”), which the Township has repealed and replaced with the Community Planning Permit 2011-111 (the “CPP By-law”), subject to the appeals stated in the first file above. The lead file on these appeals is OLT-22-002969.
4The Tribunal relied on the following documentation to assist in rendering a decision:
- Joint Document book marked as Exhibit 1;
- Visual Evidence marked as Exhibit 2;
- Witness Statement of Debra Walker, planner, marked as Exhibit 3;
- Witness Statement of Bill Van Ryn, Engineer, marked as Exhibit 4;
- Witness Statement of Al Shaw, Ecologist, marked as Exhibit 5;
- Minutes of Settlement marked as Exhibit 6; and
- Proposed Instrument Book marked as Exhibit 7.
PRESENTATION OF THE SETTLEMENT
5Debra Walker was qualified and sworn-in to supply the Tribunal with expert opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning. The Tribunal relied on both Ms. Walker’s Witness Statement and viva voce evidence at this hearing to conclude that the amendment to the CPP By-law, amendment to the proposed DPBL (including the proposed Character Guidelines, not in front of the Tribunal), the proposed redline revisions on the Draft Plan of Subdivision and the proposed revised conditions of Draft approval, should all be approved by the Tribunal.
6The were 10 outstanding issues prior to the full settlement of this matter and the agreed Statement of Facts from the experts, settling all these matters, can be found at Exhibit 1, Tab 14 of the Joint Book of Documents. Ms. Walker’s professional opinion and evidence focused on these issues and the resulting amendments to the various planning instruments that remain on the outstanding appeals listed in paragraphs 2 and 3 above .
7Ms. Walker’s expert opinion concluded the following and are directly copied from her witness statement as follows:
The proposed Island specific exception to the CPP By-law as set out in Attachment “D” to my Witness Statement appropriately and properly integrates the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Decisions, including the revisions proposed currently through the appeal of the CPP By-law and has the effect of resolving Issues 4 to 7.
The proposed Revised DPBLA, enclosed as Attachment “E” to this Witness Statement, implements the OLT approved OPA, is consistent with the PPS, 2020, and conforms with the District OP and the Township OP, as amended in the Phase 1 Decision.
The proposed Revised DPBLA (Attachment “E”), the Proposed Character Guidelines (Attachment “F”) and the Further Red Lines to the Draft Plan as enclosed as Attachment “G” to this Witness Statement, implement the further review and recommendations of the experts involved in this process.
The Further Red Lines to the Draft Plan (Attachment “G”) and proposed revised conditions of Draft Plan approval as enclosed in Attachment “H”, are minor, reasonable, and continue to consider the public interest, protect the environment and natural features, and provide the planning authorities with the control that they need to ensure that the development proceeds as it has been planned.
In my opinion, the Revised DPBLA (text and Schedule), the Further Red Lines to the Draft Plan and Conditions of conditions of approval represent good planning in the public interest.
CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
8The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted professional planning opinion evidence of Ms. Walker and agrees that all of the proposed amendments to the various Planning Instruments, Documents and Conditions, presented in this case, are consistent and conform to the Provincial, District and Township planning regime and represent good planning.
9The resolution of this site-specific appeal of the CPP By-law is the only remaining appeal related to the CPP By-law. For ease of reference for the Township, the Tribunal has further amended the version of the CPP By-law that was approved at the Settlement Hearing on March 27, 2024 by inserting the following modification that formed part of this settlement (italics/emphasis added):
2.23.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this By-law, including Section 2.23.1, the lands described as Island A (Langmaid Island), Geographic Township of McLean, Now in the Township of Lake of Bays, District Municipality of Muskoka, shall continue to be governed by By-law 04-180, as amended by the decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal on OLT Files 22-002969/22-002970/22-002972/22-002974, save and except the following provisions:
i) Maximum building height shall be governed by Section 4.2.1.4.j) of this By-law; and
ii) The definition of “height” shall be governed by the applicable definition in Section 5 of this By-law
10A full copy of this further amended version of the CPP By-law, including the addition of s.2.23.4, is appended to this Decision as Attachment 1.
CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE CPP BY-LAW
11The Tribunal separated the two appeals relating to the CPP By-law but both matters settled in front of this same constituted panel member and before either of the final Orders were issued. The settlement on the general appeal by Mitchell Fasken (file OLT-21-001716) of the CPP By-law was heard on March 27, 2024. The site-specific appeal of the Langmaid’s Island Corporation, on the CPP By-law (file OLT-21-001716), was heard together with their other remaining appeals (file OLT-22-002969 (lead file)) and this full settlement was presented at this hearing event, on April 11, 2024. To avoid any confusion for the reader, the Tribunal has appended to this Decision the complete version of the CPP By-law (as noted in paragraph 10 above) that reflects the result of both settlements and will attach this full and complete version of the CPP By-law when issuing the Decision on the Mitchell Fasken appeal.
12The Tribunal Orders that:
i. the site-specific appeal against Community Planning Permit By-law 2021-111 of the Township of Lake of Bays is allowed, and Community Planning Permit By-law 2021-111 is allowed and is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order;
ii. The appeal against By-law No. 04-180 (known as the Development Permit By-law) of the Township of Lake of Bays, as amended, is allowed in part and approved in principle and is further amended and appended to this Decision as Attachment 2 and that the Township Clerk is authorized to administratively assign a by-law number to it;
iii. the Tribunal approved Draft Plan of Subdivision is further amended to reflect the red line revisions illustrated in Appendix G of Exhibit 3, forming part of Ms. Walker’s Witness statement, and the final version of the Draft Plan of Subdivision is appended to this Decision as Attachment 3.
iv. the Conditions of Draft Approval are further amended to reflect this settlement and appended as Attachment 4.
v. pursuant to s. 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the District Municipality of Muskoka shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the Plan of Subdivision for the purposes of s. 51(58) of the Planning Act.
13In the event there are any issues arising from the implementation of this Order, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
“G.C.P. Bishop”
G.C.P. BISHOP
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.
Attachment 2
ATTACHMENT 3