Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 25, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003763 (Formerly PL170795)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: William Boyer and Barbara Boyer Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 2016-160 – Refusal of Application by Township of Muskoka Lakes Description: To recognize the two parcels as one lot for planning purposes, and will prohibit Public Beach as a permitted use on the waterfront lot, will only permit a dock, one-storey boathouse, sundeck, stairs, ramps and landings on the waterfront lot, and will also prohibit a dwelling and sleeping cabin on the waterfront lot Reference Number: 2016-160 Property Address: Part of Lots 9 and 10, Concession 5 Municipality/UT: Township of Muskoka Lakes OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003763 Legacy Case No.: PL170795 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003763 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL170795 OLT Case Name: Boyer v Muskoka Lakes (Township)
Heard: September 16, 2024 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| William and Barbara Boyer (the “Appellants”) | M. Kemerer |
| Township of Muskoka Lakes (“Town”) | J. Ewart, K. O’Dwyer |
| Gordon and Susan Dorrett (“Dorrett”) | E. Veldboom |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SAUVE ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This was the third Hearing that has been convened since Vice Chair Gregory Bishop (“VC Bishop”) rendered his Merit Hearing Decision which was issued on December 15, 2021 (“Decision”). In that Decision VC Bishop gave directions to the Parties to complete certain tasks. However, the Tribunal did not set timelines for certain deliverables and the first post-hearing event, a telephone conference call, was organized to clarify certain parts of the Decision and discuss the expectations of the Tribunal.
2It should be noted that the Appellants hired new counsel prior to the first post-hearing event and, again, hired new counsel prior to the second post-hearing event.
3The present issue that the Parties are asking the Tribunal to help clarify concerns parking. The Decision, in short, stated that relief from the Zoning By-law No. 2014-14 (“ZBL”) regarding parking is granted if the Appellants could show that the property had a cleared site available no closer than 50 feet from the lake and that the proposed parking area must also adhere to the other relevant sections of the ZBL. The relief from the ZBL that was granted by the Tribunal was to allow parking on the property 50 feet from the lake. Paragraph [64] of the Decision clearly states that; “If parking is not possible on this site, given the above noted relief, this appeal will be dismissed”.
4At the second post-hearing event the Tribunal found that what had been provided by the Appellant to demonstrate that the proposed parking area is in compliance with the ZBL was not adequate and made the following Order in paragraph [5]:
The Appellants will provide a new survey to the Parties and Tribunal that will demonstrate that the proposed parking area is in compliance with the ZBL apart from the granted relief noted above.
5At this third post-hearing event the survey provided by the Appellant is again not adequate. The ‘survey’ provided by the Appellant showed the proposed parking area provided but it was overlayed on top of a professional survey from several years ago. The Tribunal was informed that the person who placed the markings on the survey was a draftsman. There was no information provided regarding the identity of the individual or their methodology.
6The Appellant put forward that they believed what they provided was in keeping with the spirit of the Order. The Tribunal found that what had been provided was not in accordance with what had been Ordered.
7The Town and the Dorrett asked the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the Appellant has not been able to demonstrate that parking is possible on the site as per VC Bishop’s Order.
8The Tribunal believes that the Appellant shall have a last opportunity to demonstrate, with the use of a professional survey, that parking is possible on this site that conforms with the ZBL apart from the narrow relief granted by VC Bishop. The Tribunal believes it is possible that the Appellant misunderstood the instructions due to the turnover of Counsel. However, the Tribunal believes that for this issue to continue much longer would prejudice the Dorrett and the Town as they have an expectation for this matter to be resolved fairly and efficiently for all of the Parties not just the Appellants.
9The Tribunal informed the Appellants that a professional survey is expected showing that the proposed parking area is in accordance with the regulations in the ZBL, where possible, apart from the relief previously granted.
10Counsel for the Appellant informed the Tribunal that a draft survey by a professional surveyor could be obtained within a few weeks.
11The Parties agreed to the following time line:
a. October 18, 2024 - Counsel for the Appellant is to inform the Parties regarding the status of the draft survey to ensure it is being completed in a timely manner.
b. November 1, 2024 – A draft survey by a professional surveyor is to be provided to all of the Parties by the Appellant. If a draft survey is not provided by the Appellant to the other Parties by this date the Parties will likely bring a written Motion to dismiss the Appeal as proposed by the Tribunal.
c. November 15, 2024 – Parties to provide written comments to the Appellant regarding the draft survey that had been provided.
12It is expected that the surveyor will be in contact with the Town to ensure the proposed parking is in compliance with the ZBL and its regulations.
ORDER
13THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT directives set out above are so Ordered.
14This Member is not seized.
“A. Sauve”
A. SAUVE 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.