Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 29, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000614

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Stan Dunford Subject: Zoning By-Law 2022-168 Description: Zoning By-Law Amendment to provide exemptions from zoning requirements needed to facilitate the creation of a new lot Reference Number: ZBA-48/22 Property Address: 1111 Shennamere Rd., Unit 2 Municipality/Upper Tier: Muskoka Lakes/Muskoka OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000614 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000614 OLT Case Name: Dunford v. Muskoka Lakes (Township)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Stan Dunford Subject: Consent Description: To create one new waterfront residential lot Reference Number: B/43/22/ML Property Address: 1111 Shennamere Rd., Unit 2 Municipality/UT: Muskoka Lakes/Muskoka OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000615 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000614

Heard: April 19, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Stan Dunford	Leo Longo
Township of Muskoka Lakes	Edward B. Veldboom

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JENNIFER GOLD ON APRIL 19, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference that was converted to a Settlement Hearing with respect to Appeals pursuant to ss. 34(19) and 53(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Stan Dunford (“Applicant”). The Applicant made Applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”), and a consent to sever (‘Severance”) his property municipally described as 1111 Shennamere Road, Unit 2 (“Subject Property”) in the Township of Muskoka Lakes (“Township”). The Township approved the Applications but imposed an “H” – hold in the ZBLA and imposed a certain condition to its approval of the Severance. The Applicant filed his Appeals to the Tribunal respecting the ZBLA Application and the Severance condition on June 12, 2023. The Parties have agreed to settle the Appeals in accordance with Minutes of Settlement.

2The Minutes of Settlement provide that the Parties agree to request that the Tribunal allow the Appeals, in part, and order that:

i. The ZBLA be approved as attached hereto as Schedule A; and

ii. The Severance be approved, with conditions, as attached hereto as Schedule B.

The parties also settled the issue of costs in that they agreed that no costs shall be sought or paid by the Parties in relation to the Appeals.

3The Tribunal received an Affidavit of Service sworn March 11, 2024, confirming that notice had been given. The Affidavit of Service was marked as Exhibit 1.

4In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal received requests for Party status from D’Arcy Bird, Beatrice Chafee, Mark Nashman, and Neil Skelding, who were represented by Peter Gross, who was in attendance. Mr. Gross had an opportunity to review the Minutes of Settlement and advised that the requests for Party status were withdrawn.

5The Tribunal received the Minutes of Settlement signed by the Parties. In support of the Settlement, the Tribunal received the Witness Statement of Rian Allen, a Registered Professional Planner, that was marked as Exhibit 2, and a Document Book marked as Exhibit 3.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

6The Subject Property is located on Lake Rosseau and is accessible by a private road known as 1111 Shennamere Road, and by water. Existing structures located on the Subject Property include a two-storey dwelling, two-storey boathouse with sleeping cabin and associated dock, detached garage, water tower, swimming pool, swim dock, and multiple storage sheds. The Subject Property is used for year-round residential and recreational purposes and located in an area characterized by similar waterfront residential and recreational uses. The Subject Property is located in the “Waterfront” Designation in the Township Official Plan (“Township OP”), and the “Waterfront Area” Designation in the District Official Plan (“District OP”). The Subject Property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR5) and is subject to By-law exemption no. 87-1211 in the Township Zoning By-law.

BACKGROUND

7The Applicant submitted the Severance and ZBLA Applications on September 9, 2022. After receiving recommendations from the Township’s Planning staff and canvassing concerns from neighbours, the Severance and ZBLA Applications were returned to the Township Planning Committee on February 16, 2023 for further consideration. A revised Severance plan was provided with a slightly adjusted side lot line to address the comments received from the Township Septic Inspector. The Township Planning Committee recommended denial of the Severance and ZBLA to Township Council. The Applicant provided two severance options to Township Council and Township Council referred the Severance and ZBLA back to the Township Planning Committee for further consideration of the revised severance options.

8Amended Severance and ZBLA Application forms were submitted with a revised lot configuration and changes to the proposed zoning exemptions. The Amended Severance Application adjusted the configuration of the proposed new lot line and the location of the right-of-way. In addition to adjusting the lot configuration for the septic system for the revised proposal, the lot frontages were changed. The Severed Lot is 0.83 hectares (“ha”) (2.1 acres (“ac”)) in area, with 76.3 metres (“m”) (250.3 feet (“ft”)) of frontage. The Retained and Severed Lots contained the same existing buildings as in the original and revised proposal.

9The Amended ZBLA Application reflected the details of the amended Severance plan and proposed: 1) To permit reduced lot frontage for the Severed Lot; 2) To permit the existing cumulative dock and boathouse widths, and the existing boathouse covered area on the reduced lot frontage of the Retained Lot; 3) To prohibit shoreline structures on a portion of the shoreline of the Severed Lot; and 4) To prohibit a two-storey boathouse on the Severed Lot.

10The Amended ZBLA Application specifically proposed to:

(a) Permit the Severed Lot to have 75.6 m (248 ft) of lot frontage;

(b) Permit a first storey boathouse width of 19.5 m (64 ft) on the Retained Lot;

(c) Permit a second storey boathouse width of 16 m (52.5 ft) on the Retained Lot;

(d) Permit 58.7 square metres (“sq m”) (632 square feet (“sq ft”)) of covered area on the two-storey boathouse on the Retained Lot;

(e) Prohibit shoreline structures on a portion of the Retained Lot; and

(f) Prohibit a two-storey boathouse on the Severed Lot.

11The Township Planning Committee recommended approval of the Severance with the conditions listed in the Staff Report (“Report”), and added an additional condition for a consent agreement. The added condition for a consent agreement includes the following:

That a Consent agreement be entered into pursuant to Section 51(26) of the Planning Act and registered on title to the Subject Property, and which is to include the following provisions:

• Requirement of a detailed site sketch. The site sketch shall include vegetative buffers and a clear depiction of where pathways and patios are permitted;

• All trees and/or vegetation removed as a result of the Applications are to be restored;

• A covenant pointing out that development of the lot is subject to the Township’s Tree Preservation By-law and Site Alteration By-law.

• Slip(s) are required in the proposed single-storey boathouse to ensure it is used as a boathouse;

• The Covered area of the existing boathouse on the retained lot is limited to 623 square feet and shall not be enclosed.

• The proposed boathouse width on the severed lot shall be limited to 16% of the lot frontage and no more than 15 metres from the high water mark with no floors permitted; and

• There shall be no habitable or dwelling space permitted in the proposed boathouse, and the boathouse should be used for the berthing and storage of boats and marine related equipment only.

12The Township Planning Committee recommended approval of the ZBLA as recommended in the Report prepared by the Township Planning staff but added a Holding (-H) symbol to the proposed zone. The holding provision included the following:

• That a holding symbol pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, be placed on the Severed Lot until such time that a Septic and Pool Water Discharge Plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the Township.

13The Township Council approved the Severance and ZBLA as recommended by the Township Planning Committee. The Applicant filed Appeals to the approved Severance and ZBLA to the Tribunal on June 12, 2023. The Appeals were filed due to the Township’s decision to require a consent agreement and the related requirements as a condition of the Severance approval, and to include a Holding symbol in the ZBLA.

ISSUES

14In making a decision with respect to the ZBLA, the Tribunal must determine whether the ZBLA is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), whether it conforms with or conflicts with the District OP and the Township OP, and has regard to matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act.

15Regarding the Severance, the Tribunal must address the threshold question in accordance with s. 53(1) of the Act and be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proposed and orderly development of the Township and can proceed by way of application for consent. In this Appeal, this issue does not apply given that only a single consent to sever is sought.

16The Tribunal must then determine whether the Severance, with the conditions as set out in the Minutes of Settlement, generally meet the requirements and criteria set out in the applicable framework of provincial planning legislation, specifically s. 51(24) of the Act and represents good planning. The Tribunal must also have regard for matters of provincial interest and consider the original decision made by the Township and its basis.

EVIDENCE

17The Witness Statement of Rian Allen provided his comprehensive planning analysis and opinion. It is his opinion that the proposed Severance and ZBLA have regard to relevant matters of provincial interest as defined in s. 2 of the Act, including:

(a) The protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and function;

(h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; and

(r) The promotion of built form that: (i) is well-designed, (ii) encourages a “sense of place”.

18Mr. Allen opined that the Severance and ZBLA Applications are consistent with the applicable policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conform with the District OP, and the Township OP. The Tribunal accepts his uncontroverted planning opinion in this regard.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

19The Subject Property is located outside of a Settlement Area and is considered to be on “Rural Lands” within “Rural Area”, as defined by the PPS. Section 1.1.4 of the PPS describes the importance of Rural Areas in municipalities, and states:

1.1.4.1 Healthy, integrated and viable rural areas should be supported by:

(a) building upon rural character, and leveraging rural amenities, and assets;

(e) using rural infrastructure and public service facilities efficiently; [and]

(g) conserving biodiversity and considering the ecological benefits provided by nature.

20The proposed development will support and build upon the existing rural character with a new lot that is similar in size and to be developed with structures typical on neighbouring properties on Lake Rousseau. The Subject Property is developed with an existing residential dwelling and accessory structures. New lot creation is permitted on “Rural Lands” according to Section 1.1.5.2 of the PPS. The severed lot is to be developed with a residential dwelling, which is in keeping with the permitted uses on Rural Land. The Township confirmed that the proposed development can be adequately serviced with individual private sewage service, and the existing road network can support traffic associated with an additional lot. A building permit for a septic system was issued by the Township on January 31, 2024, for a new system to service the existing dwelling on the future retained lot.

District of Muskoka Office Plan, June 2019

21The Subject Property is designated “Waterfront Area” on Schedule A: Land Use, of the District OP. The waterbody (Lake Rosseau) abutting the Subject Property is designated “Lake Trout Lake” and “Cold Water Lake” on Schedule D: Water Resources, of the District OP. The objectives of the District OP for the Waterfront Area are contained in policy J4.2. These objectives aim to protect the ecology of lakes and rivers, protect visual shoreline aesthetics, conserve tree cover and vegetation, protect shorelines and water quality, protect fish habitat, and ensure new development is compatible with existing development, and to support economic development.

22According to Mr. Allen, the proposed Severance and ZBLA meet the objectives of the District OP because:

(a) The proposed lot sizes exceed the minimum requirements and can be adequately serviced;

(b) The appearance of the naturally forested shoreline and visual aesthetics of the waterfront will be protected by preserving the 15 m shoreline buffer, avoiding tree removal beyond development areas, and the proposed lot sizes are in keeping with neighbouring lots on Lake Rosseau; and

(c) The construction and redevelopment of shoreline structures enhance economic development in the Waterfront Area by supporting local business that cater to waterfront building and development.

23Policy C1.4.5(g)(ii) applies to onshore setbacks and encourages a target setback of 30 m from cold water lakes, with a reduction of 20 m where the development is part of a historical development pattern. The WR5 zone requires a minimum of 20 m setback. The existing development on the retained lot is generally setback beyond the 30 m setback. Future development on the severed lot will require a minimum of 20 m setback.

24Mr. Allen confirmed that the Severance and ZBLA conform with the foregoing and other applicable policies of the District OP.

Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan, April 2013

25The Subject Property is located within the “Waterfront” designation of the Township OP. The Subject Property abuts Lake Rousseau which is classified as a “Category 1 Large Lake” on Schedule J: Lake Character Classification of Lake and Rivers and a “Moderate Sensitivity” on Schedule J2: Lake Classification by Phosphorous Sensitivity.

26The Township OP includes numerous goals, objectives and policies throughout the “Waterfront” designation related to preserving lake character, limiting the appearance of built form, preserving natural shorelines, providing a shoreline buffer, the visual appearance of development, maintaining scenic and aesthetic qualities, and limited development concentration.

27The Subject Property, including the shoreline area, is well-forested and naturally vegetated, which provides good visual screening of the existing dwelling on the retained lot from lake views. No tree removal is proposed on the retained lot. A suitable building area is located on the severed lot that is located beyond the 15 m shore buffer line that is targeted by Policy B.5.5.1 of the Township OP. The existing 15 m buffer will be retained. The development will have an appearance that is similar to other waterfront residential lots on Lake Rosseau.

28The Subject Property has the same “Waterfront Residential” zoning as the surrounding properties on Lake Rosseau and permitted uses. New lot creation is permitted in the “Waterfront” designation. On Category 1 lakes, docks and boathouses are permitted on Waterfront Residential zoned lots, including two-storey boathouses on lots with more than 90 m (300 ft) of frontage, such as the Retained Lot that will contain the existing two-storey boathouse. According to Mr. Allen, amendments to permit increased boathouse widths are not uncommon requests, particularly for severance application that reduce lot frontage. Mr. Allen had no concerns about the cumulative impact of the proposed development because the goals and objectives of the Township OP have been met, which primarily include providing large lot areas and frontages, limiting the appearance of development through buffering and setbacks, preserving shoreline vegetation in a natural state, limiting width and location of shoreline structures, limiting density, protecting the environment, protecting neighbouring views, protecting navigation, and providing access to the waterfront.

29Mr. Allen opined that the Severance and ZBLA are acceptable because the proposed lot size is in keeping with the character of Lake Rosseau, the proposed setbacks and building locations do not impact the use and privacy of neighbouring properties, the lots can be adequately serviced, and the shoreline buffer will be preserved. The Tribunal accepts this uncontroverted expert planning opinion.

Township of Muskoka Lakes Zoning By-law 2014-14, December 2017

30The Subject Property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR5) on Schedule 22 of Zoning By-law 2014-14 (“ZBL 2014-14”) and is subject to a special exemption applied through Zoning By-law 2005-018 (exemption no. 87-1211) in Section 12 of the ZBL 2014-14 that permits increased dock and boathouse lengths for the existing two-storey boathouse.

31The proposed ZBLA includes a special exemption to the Waterfront Residential (WR5) zoning of the Subject Property that:

1. Permits the Severed Lot to have 75.6 m (248 ft) of lot frontage;

2. Permits a first storey boathouse width of 19.5 m (64 ft) on the Retained Lot;

3. Permits a second storey boathouse width of 16 m (52.5 ft) on the Retained Lot;

4. Permits the existing second storey boathouse size on the Retained Lot;

5. Prohibits shoreline structures on a portion of the Retained Lot; and

6. Prohibits a two-storey boathouse on the Severed Lot.

Permitted Uses

32Section 4.1.1 of ZBL 2014-14 permits ‘Residential’ as the main permitted use in the Waterfront Residential Zones and Section 4.1.5 further states that the main building permitted as a residential use is limited to one dwelling unit per lot. Section 4.1.2 permits accessory uses, which includes shoreline structures such as docks and boathouses.

33The Retained Lot contains an existing residential dwelling use and accessory uses. The Severed Lot is to be developed with future residential and accessory uses. The use of the proposed lots complies with ZBL 2014-14.

Lot Size

34Section 4.1.3 requires a minimum lot area of 0.6 ha (1.5 ac) and a minimum lot frontage of 91.4 m (300 ft) for Waterfront Residential (WR5) zoned lots. Section 11.93 defines lot frontage to mean a straight-line frontage measurement between the side lot lines, and Section 11.96 defines the front lot line of a through lot to be the lot line with a longest frontage.

35The Retained Lot has 114.6 m (376.1 ft) of frontage and 0.88 ha (2.17 ac) of lot area. The Severed Lot has 76.3 m (250.3 ft) of frontage and 0.83 ha (2.07 ac) of area. The Severed Lot does not comply with the minimum lot frontage requirement and an exemption is required to permit a new lot with reduced lot frontage. The actual shoreline frontage of the Severed Lot is 85.9 m (281.8 ft) and excluding the small part of the neighbouring lot (Unit #1) that interrupts the frontage of the Severed Lot, the uninterrupted frontage is 97.9 m (321.3 ft).

Lot Coverage

36Sections 4.1.3, 4.1.3.6, and 4.1.3.7 permit a maximum lot coverage of 10%, and 10% of the area located within 61 m (200 ft) from the shoreline for lots abutting Category 1 lakes, such as Lake Rosseau. Section 11.91 defines lot coverage to be the building area (footprint) of roofed buildings, and includes buildings located in overwater.

37The lot coverage of the Retained Lot is 7.8% over the total lot area and 8.4% of the area within 61 m (200 ft) from the shoreline. Two existing sheds on the Severed Lot will be removed and one shed will be retained. Proposed lot coverage of the Severed Lot is 0.1%. The proposed lot coverages comply with ZBL 2014-14. The low-density development character of the Subject Property will continue.

Setbacks

38Different setbacks apply to different structures and structures located onshore versus overwater. Section 4.1.3 applies to onshore setbacks and generally requires a minimum 20.1 m (66 ft) setback from the shoreline/high water mark (front lot line).

39Due to a lack of property boundaries in the lake the setbacks for docks and boathouses are measured from an extension of the side lot lines into the lake. Section 4.1.7 includes the setback requirements for accessory shoreline structures located in a waterbody. Sections 4.1.7.1 and 4.1.7.4 require the minimum setback of shoreline structures (docks and boathouses) to be measured perpendicular from a 30 m (100 ft) projection/extension of the side lot line from the high water mark into the lake. Setbacks are measured perpendicular to the lot line projection.

40The existing development on the Retained Lot complies with the minimum setbacks from the existing and new lot line. Future development on the Severed Lot is expected to comply with the minimum setback requirements.

41Two portions of the shoreline on the Retained Lot are to be prohibited from docks and boathouses. The intent of this restriction is to help limit the potential appearance of shoreline structures from the neighbouring lots and to provide increased separation distance that exceeds the minimum requirements of ZBL 2014-14. When viewed from the neighbouring lot at Unit #1 to the east, the permitted dock and boathouse location is located “around the corner” of an approximately 90-degree bend in the shoreline and beyond the minimum setbacks. The neighboring boathouse at Unit #1 is located more than 80 m (262 ft) from the permitted dock and boathouse location on the Severed Lot.

Docks and Boathouses

42Waterfront Residential zoned (WR1, WR3, WR4, WR5, WR6) lots on Lake Rosseau permit docks and boathouses, including two-storey boathouses where sufficient frontage exists. Section 4.1.7 requires a minimum 91.4 m (300 ft) of frontage for a two-storey boathouse.

43The Retained Lot has more than 91.4 m (300 ft) of frontage and will contain the existing two-storey boathouse and dock. The Severed Lot has less than 91.4 m (300 ft) of frontage, and only docks and one-storey boathouses will be permitted. The proposed ZBLA includes a prohibition of a two-storey boathouse on the Severed Lot to ensure no future two-storey boathouse will be permitted. Dock and boathouse locations are also restricted on the part of the Severed Lot closest to the neighbouring lot, Unit #1.

Second Storey Boathouse Size

44Section 4.1.7.7 limits the second storey boathouse size based on the amount of lot coverage. Lots with more than 122 m (400 ft) of frontage are permitted a maximum combination of 60.4 sq m (650 sq ft) of sleeping cabin floor area and/or covered area and 23.2 sq m (250 sq ft) of additional covered area. Lots with less than 91.4 m (300 ft) of frontage are permitted a maximum combination of 60.4 sq m (650 sq ft) of sleeping cabin floor area and/or covered area.

45The second storey size of the existing two-storey boathouse is 119.1 sq m (1,282 sq ft) and was constructed prior to the maximum second storey size limitations, and at the time the Subject Property had 182.6 m (599 ft) of frontage. The existing second storey size (sleeping cabin and covered area) is considered to be legal non-complying. The Township required an exemption in the proposed By-law to permit the existing second storey boathouse size on a lot with reduced frontage.

Dock and Boathouse Widths

46The width of docks and boathouses is controlled based on a percentage of the straight-line lot frontage. Section 11.93 defines ‘Lot Frontage’ to mean “the straight-line distance between the two points where the side lot lines intersect the high water mark”. Section 4.1.7 limits the maximum cumulative dock width on Category 1 lakes to 22.9 m (75 ft), limits the maximum first storey boathouse width to 16% of the frontage, up to a maximum of 22.9 m (75 ft), and limits the maximum second storey boathouse width to 13% of the frontage, up to a maximum of 22.9 m (75 ft).

47The Severed Lot is vacant, and construction of future shoreline structures are expected to comply with ZBL 2014-14. The Retained Lot contains a two-storey boathouse with associated dock and a separate swim dock. The existing cumulative dock width on the Retained Lot will comply. The existing first and second storey widths of the boathouse on the Retained Lot will exceed the maximum percentages on the reduced lot frontage, and an exemption is included in the proposed ZBLA.

48The first and second storey boathouse widths on the Retained Lot are 19.5 m (64 feet) or 17% of the frontage and 16 m (52.5 ft), or 14% of the frontage, respectively. The boathouse widths slightly exceed the 16% and 13% permitted maximums on the reduced frontage. The existing boathouse widths comply with the actual shoreline frontage of the Retained Lot.

THE APPEALS

49The Severance was approved to create a new lot as proposed by the Amended Severance and ZBLA Applications, however, the Applicant objects to one of the conditions of consent approval that requires a consent agreement along with the required provisions. The ZBLA Application was approved as proposed by the Amended ZBLA Application, however the Applicant objects to the inclusion of the Holding (-H) symbol.

50According to Mr. Allen, including the Holding (-H) provision with the ZLBA is problematic and unnecessary. Firstly, the requirement for “A Septic and Pool Water Discharge Plan”, suggests the Township wants a plan for the discharge of sewage effluent from a septic system, which cannot be the case because it would harm water quality and the environment. Secondly, it is unclear which lot(s) this requirement applies to, and thirdly, the Township has sufficient control through conditions of consent and the Ontario Building Code to ensure the appropriate services are installed to service development.

51According to Mr. Allen’s Witness Statement, the Township septic inspector has confirmed that sufficient area is available to adequately service the existing development on the Retained Lot and future development on the Severed Lot. A building permit for a new septic system on the Retained Lot has recently been approved by the Township. The Chief Building Official has provided comments of no objection for the Applications. A building permit for a new septic system will be required on the Severed Lot before the construction of any buildings is permitted. The Ontario Building Code has sufficient authority and control to ensure that the required permits and approvals are obtained.

52Based on the evidence of Mr. Allen, the Holding (-H) provision will be applied to both the Severed Lot and Retained Lot, but it is unclear if the requirements apply to both lots or only one lot. The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Allen that holding provisions must be clear and unambiguous and that the provisions included in the approved ZBLA are not clear, redundant, and do not represent good planning.

53According to Mr. Allen, requiring a consent agreement as a condition of severance that includes the following requirements is also problematic and inappropriate:

• Requirement of a detailed site sketch. The site sketch shall include vegetative buffers and a clear depiction of where pathways and patios are permitted;

• All trees and/or vegetation removed as a result of the Applications are to be restored;

• A covenant pointing out that development of the lot is subject to the Township's Tree Preservation By-law and Site Alteration By-law.

• Slip(s) are required in the proposed single-storey boathouse to ensure it is used as a boathouse;

• The Covered area of the existing boathouse on the retained lot is limited to 623 square feet and shall not be enclosed.

• The proposed boathouse width on the severed lot shall be limited to 16% of the lot frontage and no more than 15 metres from the high water mark with no floors permitted; and

• There shall be no habitable or dwelling space permitted in the proposed boathouse, and the boathouse should be used for the berthing and storage of boats and marine related equipment only.

54Mr. Allen opines that the consent agreement provisions are redundant and unnecessary because they include provisions that are addressed through other Township By-laws, such as ZBL 2014-14, Site Plan Control By-law, and the Township’s Site Alteration, and Tree Conservation By-laws. Duplicating by-law requirements in a consent agreement does not provide the Township any greater amount of protection or control, and instead will complicate matters when by-law requirements are updated or changed. There is also an issue with including building requirements in a consent agreement that are not consistent with the requirements in ZBL 2014-14, as is the case with the required provisions. A consent agreement should be used to require owners to fulfil certain technical development obligations, such as implementing recommendations of a supporting traffic or environmental study. The provisions included in the required consent agreement do not represent good planning.

55According to Mr. Allen, the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding properties. The low-density character and visual appeal of the waterfront will be maintained, the shoreline vegetative buffer, and vegetation beyond building areas will be preserved. The environment will be protected, development will not be concentrated on the shoreline, economic opportunities will be created, and the privacy and use of neighbouring properties will not be adversely impacted. The proposed development conforms with the goals and objectives of the Township OP and District OP.

56The approved ZBLA includes added restrictions that were proposed to help limit potential impacts of new development on the neighboring properties located to the east and back of the bay, such as prohibiting docks and boathouses on certain parts of the Severed Lot closest to the neighbours and prohibiting a two-storey boathouse on the Severed Lot. These restrictions exceed the minimum requirements of ZBL 2014-14 and are solely to the neighbours’ benefit.

57The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted, expert planning evidence of Mr. Allen and finds that the proposed ZBLA and Severance meet all of the necessary legislative tests and represent good planning.

ORDER

58THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The Appeals are allowed in part, and that the Township of Muskoka Lakes By-Law 2022-168 – being a By-law to amend Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2014-14, as amended, found at Schedule A, is approved. The Tribunal authorizes the Municipal Clerk to format, as may be necessary, and assign a number to this instrument for record keeping purposes.

2. Provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out in Schedule B to this Order.

3. The Tribunal may be spoken to should any issue arise respecting the implementation of this Order.

“Jennifer Gold”

JENNIFER GOLD 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.