Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 28, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000465

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

Applicant/Appellant: JTJAF Holdings Inc. (Jim Forsyth)

Subject: Consent

Description: To allow for the creation of two new lots on the Subject Lands.

Reference Number: B35/2024(C)

Property Address: 34 Calow Road

Municipality/UT: Carling/Carling

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000465

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000465

OLT Case Name: JTJAF Holdings Inc. v. Parry Sound Area Planning Board

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(27) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Township of Carling

Subject: Consent

Description: To allow for the creation of two new lots on the Subject Lands.

Reference Number: B35/2024(C)

Property Address: 34 Calow Road

Municipality/UT: Carling/Carling

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000674

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000465

Heard: October 7, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties: Counsel

JTJAF Holdings Inc.: Marc Kemerer

Township of Carling: Jennifer Biggar

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SNOWDON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1The first matter (Tribunal File No. OLT-25-000465) before the Tribunal concerns an appeal filed pursuant to s. 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), by JTJAF Holdings Inc. (“Appellant”), regarding the decision of the Parry Sound Area Planning Board (“PSAPB”) which approved a consent application with conditions (“Application”) for the property municipally known as 34 Calow Road (“Site”) in the Township of Carling. The second matter (Tribunal File No. OLT-25-000674) before the Tribunal concerns an appeal filed pursuant to s. 53(27) of the Act by The Township of Carling (“Township”) regarding an amendment of the conditions to the consent.

2The Site is located on a private road connected to Calow Road. The Site is approximately 59,000 square metres (“m²”) (5.9 hectares), with a 422 metre (“m”) frontage along Deep Bay. A single-detached dwelling is currently built on the Site. It is designated Waterfront in the Township’s Official Plan (“OP”).

3On December 10, 2024, the Appellant requested that the PSAPB approve a consent to sever the Site into 3 lots (together, “Lots”) as follows:

1. Retained lot

• Area: 40,000 m² (4 hectares)
• Waterfront frontage: 222 m

2. Severed Lot 1

• Area: 10,000 m² (1 hectare)
• Waterfront frontage: 100 m

3. Severed Lot 2

• Area: 9,000 m² (0.9 hectares)
• Waterfront frontage: 100 m

4On May 26, 2025, the PSAPB gave provisional consent to the Application with the following conditions:

Planning Board Requirements

1. That the applicant provides the Secretary-Treasurer with:

From Lawyer

a. the original executed transfer (deed), a duplicate original and one photocopy;

b. a schedule describing the severed parcel and naming the grantor and grantee attached to the transfer for approval purposes;

From Surveyor

c. a copy of the survey plan deposited in the Land Registry office.

Municipal Compliance Letter Requirements

1. That the North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority confirm that they are capable of issuing building permits for sewage disposal systems on Severed Lot 1 and Severed Lot 2 in the locations identified in the Lakeshore Capacity/Water Quality Impact Assessment prepared by Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited.

2. That Severed Lot 1 and Severed Lot 2 be rezoned from the Waterfront Residential 1 (WF1) Zone to a Waterfront Residential 1 Exception (WF1-x) Zone to require the following:

a. Increased front yard for sewage systems on both Severed Lot 1 and Severed Lot 2 as follows:

i. Severed Lot 1: Minimum Front Yard: 55 metres

ii. Severed Lot 2: Minimum Front Yard: 75 metres

b. A natural buffer, 20 metres in width, to be maintained across the shoreline, with an allowance for a reduction to as little as 17 metres with opportunities for pathways up to 2 metres width and a shoreline amenity area no greater than 40 m2 located in proximity of the shoreline structure

c. Docks shall consist of a gangway no more than 1.3 metres in width and shall extend to a distance of at least 10 metres offshore, to a floating dock. The gangway shall be pole supported and/or suspended and shall be located at least 0.5 metres above the water. Docks shall be no more than 20 metres in length. Floating dock portions of the dock shall sit no more than 0.5 metres above the water line. covered dock slips are not permitted.

3. That the Owner provide the Township of Carling and the Parry Sound Area Planning Board with confirmation from an Ontario Land Surveyor that the existing dock belonging to the proposed Retained Lot complies with required setbacks to side lot line projections as established in the Township of Carling's Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Alternatively, the dock be relocated to a location that complies with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law or the Owner apply for and obtain a Zoning By-law Amendment which establishes a lesser required setback to the projection of side lot lines.

4. That the Owner enter into a development agreement with the Township of Carling. Such Agreement shall detail and require the following:

a. Implement the recommendations contained in the Environmental Impact Study, Fisheries Assessment, Lakeshore Capacity/Water Quality Impact Assessment and Boating Impact/Recreational Carrying Capacity Assessment prepared by Michalski Nielsen Associated Limited.

b. Require the Owner to upgrade the entirety of the private road(s) providing access to the subject lands, including Calow Road and other private access roads, to the Fire Apparatus Access Road standards outlined in the International Wildland-Urban Interface code 2012 (IWUIC 2012). A copy of the relevant standards have been attached as Appendix 4.

c. Require that the owner provide the Township of carling and the Parry Sound Area Planning Board with a letter from a licensed Professional Engineer indicating that the access has been upgraded/constructed to the required standard.

d. That any surface waters used for human consumption be disinfected and/or treated to meet Ontario Drinking Water Standards and any other applicable legislation establishing standards for water quality for human consumption.

e. Include a provision indemnifying the Township and all other public bodies of all responsibility for any maintenance of the road and any liability of the road and alleged failure to provide emergency services or any other Public services.

5. That the Owner provide a draft Reference Plan prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor which illustrates the Retained Lot, Severed Lot 1 and Severed Lot 2 each comply with minimum lot area, lot frontage and lot depth requirements as established and applicable in the Township of Carling's Official Plan and Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

6. That the Owner provide a letter from his Solicitor confirming both the Retained Lot, Severed Lot 2, and Severed Lot 3 will have legal registered right-of-way over the private road access beginning at Highway 559.

7. Providing the Township of Carling with parkland dedication, or alternatively, cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication to the satisfaction of the Township of Carling.

8. Receiving confirmation from Hydro One, Bell Canada, and Canada Post that each of the proposed lots can be serviced by their respective agency.

9. That any easement, as may be required from Hydro One, Bell Canada, or Canada post be described on the final Reference Plan and be legally transferred to the respective agency.

10. That civic addresses be assigned for Severed Lot 1 and Severed Lot 2.

11. Payment of any other applicable planning fees.

5On June 10, 2025, the Appellant appealed the PSAPB decision requesting removal of conditions 4b, 4c, and 4e, describing them as arbitrary, unfair, impossible to meet, and outside the jurisdiction of the PSAPB.

6In a letter from the Appellant, dated June 18, 2025, the Appellant stated that the PSAPB and the Township had stated they would “not be defending the Conditions” and, as such, the Appellant requested that the PSAPB reissue the original PSAPB decision rescinding the three appealed conditions.

7On July 28, 2025, the PSAPB removed conditions 4b and 4c from their previous decision.

8Following this, the Township filed an appeal of the amended decision.

Parties

9The Tribunal received one Party Status request prior to the hearing, however, it was withdrawn prior to the hearing.

10The Tribunal received no Participant Status requests prior to or during the hearing.

SUBMISSIONS

11The Appellant filed an 86-page Book of Documents, which was marked as Exhibit 1 and a 186-page Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”), which was marked as Exhibit 2.

12John Jackson, a Registered Professional Planner and Planning Consultant at John Jackson, Planner Inc., testified with respect to the evidence set out in their Planning Report included in Exhibit 1. Mr. Jackson was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning matters.

13The Township attended the hearing but did not submit any evidence or witnesses.

14The PSAPB did not attend the hearing.

EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS, AND FINDINGS

Legislative Tests

15The Tribunal, under s. 2.1 of the Act, must have regard for the decision and materials used by the original Approval Authority. In this case, the Tribunal will have regard for the conditional approval of the consent application by the PSAPB.

16When considering a consent application, the Tribunal must:

1. have regard for matters of Provincial Interest;

2. determine whether the proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”);

3. determine whether the proposed consent conforms to the Growth Plan of Northern Ontario (“GPNO”);

4. determine whether the proposed consent conforms to the OP;

5. have regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act; and

6. determine whether the proposed consent represents good planning and is in the public interest.

Matters of Provincial Interest

17Mr. Jackson spoke to matters of provincial interest stating that the proposed consent will protect ecological systems and align with the province’s need for housing.

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024

18Mr. Jackson testified that the severing of two lots from the Site would result in increased housing opportunities.

19According to the PPS, the Site is considered Rural Lands. Mr. Jackson stated, in his planning report, that the Rural Land Policy supports new recreational lots.

20Mr. Jackson indicated that the Lots are large enough to be serviced by private services.

21Mr. Jackson testified that the EIS completed by Michalski Nelson Associates Limited was used when making some of his professional opinions for the Site. Mr. Jackson stated that the EIS found no negative impacts to deer wintering habitats, to Species at Risk habitats, and if a shoreline structure is installed and used.

22Mr. Jackson stated that it is his professional opinion that the proposed consent is consistent with the PPS

Growth Plan For Northern Ontario

23Mr. Jackson stated that the GPNO encourages new growth provided that the growth does not negatively impact the environment or culture of First Nations.

24He stated that the proposed consent conforms with the GPNO.

Township’s Official Plan

25Mr. Jackson explained that the Site is designated as Waterfront in the OP with the nearshore area of the Site classified as Environmentally Sensitive. He stated that the proposed consent is to allow for residential lots which are permitted uses in the Waterfront designation.

26According to the OP, the minimum frontage is 100 m and the minimum area is 8,000 m² (0.8 hectares) for a residential lot in the Waterfront designation. Mr. Jackson stated that the proposed lots will conform to these requirements.

27Mr. Jackson stated that the proposed consent will be compliant with all planning instruments and environmental legislation so that any impact on Deep Bay will be minimized. Mr. Jackson pointed to s. 27 of the OP which allows for “infilling lots created by consent and in accordance with the policies of this Plan…on Deep Bay.”

28Section 6.15 of the OP states that “the preservation of the low-density character and ability of the land and adjacent waterbodies to accept new development should be key factors for determining the location and density of development.” Mr. Jackson stated that the proposed lots conform to this section of the OP.

29Mr. Jackson further stated that the proposed consent conforms to the goals and objectives of the OP “to preserve the high quality of the natural and physical environments that generate a high level of appeal for residents and visitors to the Township.” He explained that this is further supported by the EIS which describes the best practices to ensure water quality and protection of heritage features.

[Section 51(24)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

30Mr. Jackson testified that the proposed consent has regard for the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act by:

1. increasing the housing supply within the Province;

2. conforming to the OP;

3. using suitable lands for residential development;

4. severing lots that are appropriate sizes and dimensions; and

5. not adversely impacting natural resources.

Good Planning/ Public Interest

31It is Mr. Jackson’s professional opinion that the proposed consent represents good planning and is in the public interest.

CONDITIONS

32The PSAPB placed 12 conditions on the approval of the Application. Following the appeal by the Appellant to condition numbers 4b, 4c, and 4e, the PSAPB and the Township indicated that they would not be defending the conditions, and the Appellant requested that the PSAPB remove the conditions.

33The PSAPB removed the conditions in an amendment to their decision, which prompted the Township to file an appeal of the amended decision.

34Since then, the Township and the Appellant have come to an agreement on the conditions of the Application.

35The agreed-upon conditions are as follows:

1. No change to Planning Board Requirements condition number 1;

2. No change to Municipal Compliance Letter Requirements condition numbers 1-3, 4a, 4d, 4e, and 5-11; and

3. Municipal Compliance Letter Requirements condition number 4b replaced with:

• Require the Owner to construct upgrades to the private road(s) as set out in Schedule A-1 attached hereto, to the satisfaction of the Township of Carling acting reasonably.

4. Municipal Compliance Letter Requirements condition number 4c replaced with:

• Require the Owner to install signage at the intersection of Calow Road and Highway 559, and at the intersection of Calow Road and Deer Lake Road, to advise that drivers must “yield to emergency vehicles” or such other wording as may be satisfactory to the Township of Carling.

36The Application conditions, as agreed upon by the Appellant and the Township, can be found in Attachment 1 of this decision.

37The unmodified conditions relate primarily to servicing, lot size, and protection of the natural environment which are all criteria found in s. 51(24) of the Act. These are reasonable conditions under s. 51(25) of the Act.

38The amended conditions relate to modifications of the roads leading to the proposed consent to ensure emergency vehicle access. The adequacy, grading, elevation, and width of roads is a criterion under s. 51(24) of the Act. These are reasonable conditions under s. 51(25) of the Act.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

39The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Appellant in this de novo hearing.

Consent

40The Tribunal finds that the proposed consent application:

1. meets the criteria found in s. 51(24) of the Act by using suitable lands with appropriate lot dimensions to increase the housing supply within the Province,

2. conforms to the OP and GPNO by encouraging growth on appropriately sized lots without negatively impacting the environment,

3. is consistent with the PPS by increasing housing without negatively impacting the environment, and

4. represents good planning.

Conditions

41The Tribunal finds that the amended conditions as agreed to by the Appellant and the Township are reasonable.

ORDER

42THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT both appeals are allowed in part and provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

"A. Snowdon"

A. SNOWDON

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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 - Conditions

Planning Board Requirements

1. That the applicant provides the Secretary-Treasurer with:

From Lawyer

a. the original executed transfer (deed), a duplicate original and one photocopy;

b. a schedule describing the severed parcel and naming the grantor and grantee attached to the transfer for approval purposes

From Surveyor

c. a copy of the survey plan deposited in the Land Registry office

Municipal Compliance Letter Requirements

1. That the North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority confirm that they are capable of issuing building permits for sewage disposal systems on Severed Lot 1 and Severed Lot 2 in the locations identified in the Lakeshore Capacity/Water Quality Impact Assessment prepared by Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited.

2. That Severed Lot 1 and Severed Lot 2 be rezoned from the Waterfront Residential 1 (WF1) Zone to a Waterfront Residential 1 Exception (WF1-x) Zone to require the following:

a. Increased front yard for sewage systems on both Severed Lot 1 and Severed Lot 2 as follows:

i. Severed Lot 1: Minimum Front Yard: 55 metres

ii. Severed Lot 2: Minimum Front Yard: 75 metres

b. A natural buffer, 20 metres in width, to be maintained across the shoreline, with an allowance for a reduction to as little as 17 metres with opportunities for pathways up to 2 metres width and a shoreline amenity area no greater than 40 m2 located in proximity of the shoreline structure

c. Docks shall consist of a gangway no more than 1.3 metres in width and shall extend to a distance of at least 10 metres offshore, to a floating dock. The gangway shall be pole supported and/or suspended and shall be located at least 0.5 metres above the water. Docks shall be no more than 20 metres in length. Floating dock portions of the dock shall sit no more than 0.5 metres above the water line. covered dock slips are not permitted.

3. That the Owner provide the Township of Carling and the Parry Sound Area Planning Board with confirmation from an Ontario Land Surveyor that the existing dock belonging to the proposed Retained Lot complies with required setbacks to side lot line projections as established in the Township of Carling's Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Alternatively, the dock be relocated to a location that complies with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law or the Owner apply for and obtain a Zoning By-law Amendment which establishes a lesser required setback to the projection of side lot lines.

4. That the Owner enter into a development agreement with the Township of Carling. Such Agreement shall detail and require the following:

a. Implement the recommendations contained in the Environmental Impact Study, Fisheries Assessment, Lakeshore Capacity/Water Quality Impact Assessment and Boating Impact/Recreational Carrying Capacity Assessment prepared by Michalski Nielsen Associated Limited.

b. Require the Owner to construct upgrades to the private road(s) as set out in Schedule “A-1" attached hereto, to the satisfaction of the Township of Carling acting reasonably.

c. Require the Owner to install signage at the intersection of Calow Road and Highway 559, and at the intersection of Calow Road and Deer Lake Road, to advise that drivers must “yield to emergency vehicles” or such other wording as may be satisfactory to the Township of Carling.

d. That any surface waters used for human consumption be disinfected and/or treated to meet Ontario Drinking Water Standards and any other applicable legislation establishing standards for water quality for human consumption.

e. Include a provision indemnifying the Township and all other public bodies of all responsibility for any maintenance of the road and any liability of the road and alleged failure to provide emergency services or any other Public services.

5. That the Owner provide a draft Reference Plan prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor which illustrates the Retained Lot, Severed Lot 1 and Severed Lot 2 each comply with minimum lot area, lot frontage and lot depth requirements as established and applicable in the Township of Carling's Official Plan and Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

6. That the Owner provide a letter from his Solicitor confirming both the Retained Lot, Severed Lot 2, and Severed Lot 3 will have legal registered right-of-way over the private road access beginning at Highway 559.

7. Providing the Township of Carling with parkland dedication, or alternatively, cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication to the satisfaction of the Township of Carling.

8. Receiving confirmation from Hydro One, Bell Canada, and Canada Post that each of the proposed lots can be serviced by their respective agency.

9. That any easement, as may be required from Hydro One, Bell Canada, or Canada post be described on the final Reference Plan and be legally transferred to the respective agency.

10. That civic addresses be assigned for Severed Lot 1 and Severed Lot 2.

11. Payment of any other applicable planning fees.

SCHEDULE A-1

Private Road Upgrades

Calow Road (Private Road)

• Entrance at HWY559 in +/- 25m widening to allow for safe entry and exit of traffic from HWY559

• Bump out at 80m+/- on right side

• Bump out at 130m+/- on left side

• Bump out at 225m+/- on left side

• Pit entrance Bump out at 310m+/-

• Pit Upper Entrance cut in at 375m+/-

• Bump out at 450m+/- on left side

• Bump out at 575m+/- on right side

• Bump out at 680m+/- on left side

• Tree at 750m+/- on right side of Bend to be removed

• Widen road at 750m+/- on bend where tree to be removed

• Bump out at 820m+/- on left side

• Bump out at 900m+/- on right side

• Bump out at 970m+/- on left side

Private Road from Calow Road to Subject Lands (Proposed Private Road Name: Deer Lake Road)

• Entrance from Calow Road 30m+/- widening to allow for turning of vehicles on and off road with another vehicle waiting

• Bump out at 135m+/- on left side

• Remove 2 trees at 135m+/- on right side of road and make right side a little wider

• Bump out at 200m+/- on left side

• At end of road before driveway entrance of the 2 lots that were created through previous consent process – removal of trees to allow for turnaround.

Bump outs are to be sufficient width and length to allow the passing of large emergency vehicles with other large heavy vehicles (ex. Dump Truck) to an approximate size of +/- 2 m wide by +/- 18 m length, subject to satisfaction of the Township of Carling, with a solid gravel base capable of supporting vehicles (including large heavy vehicles such as dump trucks).

Right/left directions are from the perspective of vehicles travelling from Highway 559 to the subject lands.