Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 09, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000238
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Robert Butcher & Joan Delaney
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit a new single detached dwelling within 500m of Disposal Industrial land
Reference Number: ZBA-17-2024
Property Address: 73 Indian Lake Road
Municipality/UT: Rideau Lake/United Counties of Leeds and Grenville
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000238
Heard: September 25, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Robert Butcher and Joan Delaney | Roberto Aburto, Conor McCarthy |
| Township of Rideau Lakes | Spencer Putnam |
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal by Robert Butcher and Joan Delaney (together the “Appellant”) of a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) application to the Township of Rideau Lakes (“Township”) for which no decision was provided within the required timeframe for the property municipally known as 73 Indian Lake Road (“Subject Property”).
2The Tribunal was advised prior to the Hearing that the Township would not make submissions or call evidence at the Hearing; however, Counsel for the Township would be in attendance.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
3In making a decision on the ZBA before it, the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”), and that it conforms to the applicable official plans.
4The Tribunal must also have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”) and, in general, regard for the decision of the municipality and the information it considered in the course of making its decision, in accordance with s. 2.1 of the Act.
5Lastly, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed ZBA represents good planning and is in the public interest.
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION
6The Subject Property is approximately 6 hectares (“ha”) in area and is located on the east side of Indian Lake Road. It is accessed by a maintained municipal road, will be serviced by private well and septic, and is located less than 500 metre (“m”) from land zoned Disposal Industrial, known as the Opinicon Waste Disposal Site (“Waste Disposal Site”).
7The Subject Property is:
a. Designated as ‘Rural Lands’ in the Official Plan of the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville (“County OP”);
b. Designated as ‘Rural’ in the Township’s Official Plan (“Township OP”); and,
c. Zoned ‘RU – Rural Zone’ which permits detached dwellings.
8The Subject Property was the subject of a consent application, approved on November 6, 2024, which resulted in:
a. retained lands (outlined in blue below), which are approximately 4.85 ha in area and contain a dwelling and accessory structure, and
b. severed lands (outlined in yellow below), which are approximately 1.12 ha in area and are currently vacant.
9The approval of the consent was subject to various conditions, including that planning approval be obtained for the proposed severed lands to permit a reduction in the 500 m minimum distance required from land zoned Disposal Industrial to a new sensitive land use.
10On November 28, 2024, the Appellant applied to the Township for a ZBA to permit a new single detached dwelling within 500 m of lands zoned Disposal Industrial. The ZBA would change a portion of the Subject Property from Rural (RU) to Rural Special Exception (RU-X) to permit a new sensitive land use (dwelling) on the lands within the 500 m setback from lands zoned Disposal Industrial. This change in zoning would apply only to the proposed severed lands, while excluding the retained lands.
11After consultation with Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks (“MECP”) as well as receipt of a Plan of Survey, Township Staff prepared a Report to the Planning Advisory and Committee of Adjustment (“PACA”) dated January 2, 2025 (“First Staff Report”), which recommended approval of the application.
12On January 8, 2025, the PACA met to consider and make a decision on the application; however, the application was deferred to provide staff with additional time to: a) discuss water testing and liability with the Applicants; and, b) to obtain a legal opinion with regard to the release of the Township’s liability of future approval.
13On February 5, 2025, another Report to the PACA (“Second Staff Report”) was prepared, which also recommended approval of the application. That Report addressed the January deferral; it stated that:
a. the Township could not require a liability release letter as a condition of a ZBA application; and,
b. the MECP had no objection to the proposed severance and future development of the Subject Property and that contaminants from the waste site would not pose any risk to the Subject Property.
14On February 12, 2025, the PACA met to consider and make a decision on the application. The PACA voted to recommend to Council that the application be approved as submitted.
15On March 3, 2025, the Township's Council met and deferred the application.
16On March 20, 2025, the Appellant filed the appeal to the Tribunal.
HEARING
17In support of the proposal, the Appellant called Dayna Edwards, a Partner, Senior Planner and Urban Designer with Q9 Planning and Design. The Appellant also summoned Foster Elliott, an Associate Planner with the Township, and Shawn Trimper, a Hydrogeologist with the MECP. Upon review of their respective Curricula Vitae and signed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty forms, and with no objections raised by the Township, the Tribunal qualified each witness to provide opinion evidence in the following disciplines:
| Name | Discipline |
|---|---|
| Dayna Edwards | Land Use Planning |
| Foster Elliott | Land Use Planning |
| Shawn Trimper | Groundwater Monitoring and Contamination |
18For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA satisfies the legislative requirements and warrants approval.
EVIDENCE
Dayna Edwards
19It was Ms. Edward’s overall opinion that the proposed ZBA met the legislative requirements and she recommended that the Tribunal approve the proposed instrument. She stated that the proposal has regard to the matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms to the policies of the County and Township OPs. She concluded that the proposed ZBA “which enables the proposed development as a condition of the approved severance application is considered good land use planning.”
20Through her written and oral evidence, Ms. Edwards provided the Tribunal with a thorough review of the relevant planning policies. Common themes in her evidence included that:
a. The proposal allows for limited residential development which is compatible with the rural character and landscape, and which can be sustained by rural service levels;
b. The proposal is in an appropriate location for a detached rural use and will contribute to housing options in a rural area;
c. The proposed new lot complies with the lot frontage and area requirements of the Zoning By-law for new rural development; and,
d. The severance and ZBA applications were circulated to the MECP, who raised no objections and noted that any contaminants from the waste site, soil, groundwater or surface water do not pose any risk to the Subject Property.
Foster Elliott
21Mr. Elliott’s evidence was in alignment with that of Ms. Edwards in that the proposed ZBA meets the legislative requirements and should be approved by the Tribunal. He highlighted that during the review of the ZBA application, MECP raised no concerns regarding the risk of contamination of the Subject Property from the Waste Disposal Site. As a result, Township Staff determined that there were no anticipated impacts to the Subject Property and that the proposed ZBA conformed with both the County and Township OPs.
Shawn Trimper
22Mr. Trimper outlined the history of the Waste Disposal Site, which was used for the disposal of waste from the Opinicon Lodge until 2001 and for the disposal of leaf and yard waste until 2012; he also confirmed that it is not required for waste disposal in the future.
23Mr. Trimper stated that the groundwater on the Waste Disposal Site flows in a southerly direction and that the Subject Property is located to the north of that site. He opined that as the Subject Property is located upgradient and 500 m away from the Waste Disposal Site, there is no risk from contaminants, and that the amount of waste at the Waste Disposal Site is minimal. He concluded that there was no risk posed from either contaminant migration or groundwater migration and it was his opinion that there were no concerns with the ZBA application.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
24The Tribunal was presented with the detailed and uncontroverted opinion evidence of Ms. Edwards, Mr. Elliott, and Mr. Trimper. The Tribunal accepts their combined evidence in support of the proposal, and finds that the proposed ZBA has regard for the matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS and conforms to both the County and the Township OPs.
25The Tribunal finds that the proposed instrument will permit a new dwelling in an appropriate location which will be supported by existing services and infrastructure, is compatible with the rural character and landscape, and will contribute to housing options in a rural area. The Tribunal is satisfied, based on the evidence provided, specifically the MECP comments and Mr. Trimper’s evidence, that there is no risk to the Subject Property from the Waste Disposal Site, and that it is appropriate to allow this sensitive land use (dwelling) within the 500 m separation distance from lands zoned Disposal Industrial.
26The Tribunal has had regard for the decision of the Township and the information it considered in the course of making its decision.
27Based on the totality of the uncontroverted evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed ZBA represents good planning, is in the public interest, and warrants approval.
ORDER
28THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and By-law No. 2023-50, as amended, is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Township of Rideau Lakes to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.
“S. Bobka”
S. BOBKA 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
BY-LAW NO. 2025-36
ZBA-17-2024
THE CORPORATION OF
THE TOWNSHIP OF RIDEAU LAKES
BUTCHER, BOB & DELANEY, JOAN
SOUTH CROSBY CON 8 PT LOT 18;RP 28R10461 PT PART 5
Civic Address: 73 Indian Lake Rd
Ward of South Crosby, Township of Rideau Lakes Roll Number: 0831-836-046-47201
CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF RIDEAU LAKES BY-LAW NO. 2025-36
BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW NO. 2023-50, AS AMENDED
BUTCHER, BOB & DELANEY, JOAN
SOUTH CROSBY CON 8 PT LOT 18;RP 28R10461 PT PART 5
Civic Address: 73 Indian Lake Rd
Ward of South Crosby, Township of Rideau Lakes Roll Number: 0831-836-046-47201
WHEREAS Section 34(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, Chapter P.13, authorizes Council to pass by-laws to regulate the use of lands and the character, location and use of buildings and structures within the Township of Rideau Lakes;
AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Township of Rideau Lakes deems it advisable to amend Zoning By-law No. 2023-50, as amended, as hereinafter set forth;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Township of Rideau Lakes enacts as follows:
The lands affected by this By-law are highlighted on Schedule, “A” which is attached hereto and forms part of this By-law.
That By-Law 2023-50 is hereby amended by changing a portion of the property from Rural (RU) to Rural Special Exception (RU-44) to permit a new sensitive land use (dwelling) within the 500m separation distance from lands zoned Disposal Industrial which is required as per Section 3.21 of the Zoning By-law
Read a first and second time this day of , 2025.
Arie Hoogenboom Mary Ellen Truelove
Mayor Clerk
Read a third time and finally passed this day of , 2025.
Arie Hoogenboom Mary Ellen Truelove
Mayor Clerk
CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF RIDEAU LAKES EXPLANATORY NOTE
The Purpose and Effect of By-law No. 2025-36
The request is to change the zoning classification on a portion of the subject property from Rural (RU) to Rural Special Exception (RU-44) to permit a new sensitive land use (dwelling) on the land within the 500m separation distance from lands zoned Disposal Industrial. This is related to draft approved consent application B-60-24 and applies to the proposed severed lands, while excluding the retained lands.
Key Map
For the purposes of this explanatory note, Schedule “A” to the by-law (attached) will serve as the Key Map which shows the general location of the subject lands in relation to the surrounding lands.
Tom Fehr
Manager of Development Services
Schedule A