Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 15, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001223

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Justin and Susan Lepore

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit a Tourist Establishment and Accessory Dwelling.

Reference Number: 2023-14

Property Address: 661 Old Highway 17

Municipality/UT: Papineau-Cameron

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001223

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001223

OLT Case Name: Lepore v. Papineau-Cameron (Township)

Heard: July 25, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Justin and Susan Lepore

Marc Kemerer

Township of Papineau-Cameron

Mandy Ng

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. Dixon ON July 25, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arise from a Hearing of Merits regarding an appeal filed by Justin and Sue Lepore (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), concerning the refusal by the Township of Papineau-Cameron (“Township”) to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) for lands municipally known as 661 Old Highway 17 in the Township (“Subject Lands”).

2The ZBA seeks to change the zoning on a portion of the Subject Lands from the Rural (RU) Zone to a Commercial-Recreation (CR) Special Exception Zone to permit a tourist establishment and accessory dwelling unit. The ZBA would apply to approximately 4.9 hectares of land fronting Old Highway 17, with the rear portion of the Subject Lands (approximately 24.1 hectares) remaining unchanged (i.e., in the Rural (RU) Zone).

3The proposed site-specific provisions of the ZBA would limit the permitted uses in the Commercial-Recreation (CR) Special Exception Zone to only: Accessory Dwelling, Accessory Use, Adventure Game, Camp, Campground Recreational, Campground Tourist, Garage Private, Home Based Business, Office, Parking Area, Public Use, Recreational Commercial Establishment, Tourist Establishment, and Tourist Outfitters Establishment, all as defined in the existing Township Zoning By-law No. 2000-11.

4The ZBA would further permit an “Eco Establishment” and introduce a new definition for same, as follows:

Eco Establishment

Means an establishment used as a place of the relationships between living organisms, including humans, and their physical environment, to understand the vital connections between plants and animals and the world around them, while positively contributing to local communities and/or conservation efforts as environmentally friendly as possible.

SITE CONTEXT

5The Subject Lands are bounded by Old Highway 17 to the south, the Mattawa River to the north, and rural residential lots to the east and west. The surrounding area is largely comprised of a mix of low-density housing types, seasonal dwellings, tourist commercial establishments, and other rural land uses.

6The Subject Lands are predominantly wooded with topography that decreases in elevation from Old Highway 17 towards the Mattawa River at the rear of the Subject Lands. Approximately midway through the Subject Lands is a large unevaluated wetland feature that drains north-west.

SETTLEMENT

7The Parties advised the Tribunal that, notwithstanding Township Council’s refusal of the ZBA, they had reached a settlement of the Appeal whereby both Parties now support the approval of the ZBA in the same form that was initially refused by Council, attached to this Decision and Order as Attachment 1.

8In support of the settlement, the Tribunal was in receipt of the sworn Affidavit of Steve McArthur (Exhibit 1) and a Document Book (Exhibit 2) containing, among other things, two planning justification reports relied upon by Mr. McArthur.

9Mr. McArthur is a Registered Professional Planner and a Senior Planner with Tulloch Engineering Inc. (“Tulloch”). He has been practicing land use planning since 2005 and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in that regard. Tulloch is retained by the Township to provide planning services.

Planning Analysis

10Mr. McArthur directed the Tribunal to s. 2.3.2 of the East Nipissing Official Plan (“TOP”), which states that, “the Highway 17 corridor will be recognized as the commercial ‘main street’ of the Planning Area” and that, “a range of commercial uses shall be permitted that cater to the travelling public.” Included in the list of commercial uses that shall be permitted “beyond the corridor” are commercial uses that, “cater to the tourist or eco-tourism industry such as bed and breakfasts, artisans’ studios, campgrounds, convenience stores, farm produce outlets and tourist outfitters.”

11In Mr. McArthur’s opinion, the ZBA will promote an efficient development and land use pattern in an appropriate location, utilising existing infrastructure, that is well-regulated through the proposed zoning regulations and requirement for site plan control. He proffered that the ZBA and proposed tourist establishment will add to the capacity of the community to accommodate visitors and help generate economic activity in the Township.

12Mr. McArthur further proffered that the ZBA:

a) Has appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act;

b) Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), including Policies 1.1.1 a), 1.1.5.2, and 1.1.5.3;

c) Conforms to the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario, 2011 (“Growth Plan”);

d) Conforms to the TOP, including Sections/Policies 2.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.8.3, 2.9, and 4.0;

e) Will appropriately regulate the proposed uses through the existing Commercial-Recreation (CR) Zone provisions and the application of site plan control; and

f) Represents good planning.

Participant Statement

13At the prior hearing event conducted for these proceedings, heard June 20, 2024, four individuals were granted Participant Status by the Tribunal: Peter Dumont, Theresa Parise, Marty Warkentin, and Nathan Rainville (together, “Participants”).

14The Participants filed a joint Participant Statement with the Tribunal, dated July 15, 2024, in which they state their opposition to the ZBA and detail several areas of concern, primarily – though not exclusively – pertaining to potential environmental impacts of the proposed development. Many of their concerns were summarised by the Tribunal in its Decision and Order issued on July 24, 2024 and need not be repeated here.

15At the request of the Tribunal, Mr. McArthur responded to each of the summarised concerns in the July 24, 2024 Tribunal Order and to each of the concerns listed in the joint Participant Statement.

16In response to the environmental concerns, Mr. McArthur proffered that:

a) The North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority undertook a fulsome review of the application and the Subject Lands and confirmed that they have no objection to the proposed ZBA;

b) The proposed development is outside of any identified animal corridors;

c) The proposed development seeks harmony with the natural environment, evidenced, in part, by the introduction of the new definition for an “Eco Establishment” that speaks to that objective;

d) The proposed tourist establishment will be set back substantially (more than 1.2 kilometres) from the Mattawa River system (Exhibit 4);

e) Activities on the Old Highway 17 frontage should not impact the Mattawa River due to the elevation changes on the Subject Lands (Exhibit 4); and

f) The wetland features on the Subject Lands will not be adversely impacted as the proposed ZBA is limited to the front portion of the Subject Lands and will be subject to site plan control.

17Mr. McArthur further proffered that, should an expansion to the Commercial-Recreation (CR) Special Exception Zone be proposed in the future, an environmental impact study and/or an archaeological assessment for the near shoreline area would be triggered to appropriately address any impacted natural features on the Subject Lands.

18With respect to the potential traffic concerns raised by the Participants, Mr. McArthur proffered that the special provisions of the ZBA explicitly limit higher volume traffic generating uses such as motels, restaurants, and retail stores and further caps the maximum accommodation units to 10 units plus one dwelling.

FINDINGS

19Having heard the professional expert opinion evidence of Mr. McArthur, and having reviewed all of the relevant materials submitted to the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that the ZBA, attached hereto as Attachment 1, has appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan and TOP, represents good planning, and is in the public interest. As required by the Act, the Tribunal has had regard to the decisions of City Council, including their initial refusal of the ZBA.

ORDER

20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and By-law No. 2000-11 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

“S. Dixon”

S. DIXON

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