Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 03, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000668

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 100020051 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Conditions of approval of draft plan of subdivision

Description: To permit development of 20 resort commercial units

Reference Number: C2023-06

Property Address: Part of Lots 14 & 15, Concession 14

Municipality/UT: Lake of Bays/Muskoka

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000668

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000668

OLT Case Name: 100020051 Ontario Inc. v. Lake of Bays (Town)

Heard: March 13, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
100020051 Ontario Inc.	S. Kagan, P. DeMelo (in absentia)
Lake of Bays (Town)	J. Clow

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DEBOER ON MARCH 13, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal had originally scheduled a two-day (2-day) Hearing to hear the merits of the appeal by 100020051 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”) under s. 51(39) of the Planning Act (“Act”) due to the District of Muskoka’s (“District”) approval of the Appellant’s application with a revised condition for the lands municipally known as 1462 Old Highway No. 117 in the Township of Lake of Bays (“Subject Lands”).

2Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal received correspondence from the Parties that a settlement had been reached on the issue and made a request that the Merit Hearing be converted to a Settlement Hearing.

3In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a Hearing on the terms of the settlement.

4When considering appeals filed pursuant to s. 51(39) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. Decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters must conform to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), to the District of Muskoka Official Plan (“MOP”) and to the Lake of Bay’s Official Plan (“LOBOP”).

5In consideration of the statutory requirements listed above, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Application is in the public interest and represents good land use planning.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

6The Subject Lands have an approximate area of 7.7 hectares. The Subject Lands have an approximate frontage of 259.9 metres (“m”) on Old Highway No. 117 (“Old Highway 117”) to the north, an approximate frontage of 173.7 m on Muskoka Road 117 to the south and an approximate depth of 497 m.

7The Subject Lands have the legal description of Part of Lots 14 and 15, Concession 14, Geographic Township of Ridout, Township of Lake of Bays, described as parts 1 and 2, Plan 35R-22170, in the District of Muskoka.

8In a general context, the surrounding lands are generally comprised of waterfront properties to the north and east, a municipally owned road allowance and Crown land to the west, and Lake of Bays to the north across Old Highway No. 117. Muskoka Road 117 borders the lands to the south. Bigwin Island Golf Club/Condominium Resort is located further to the west, and the Pride of Lake of Bays Marine is located to the northeast.

BACKGROUND OF THE APPLICATION

9The Subject Lands are currently zoned for resort commercial use. This approval occurred via a Development Permit issued on June 23, 2009. The Development Permit was updated and issued on May 12, 2023, and amended on October 2, 2023.

10The issue before the Tribunal is the Draft Plan of Condominium Application (“Application”), and specifically, the conditions that were imposed when the Application was approved.

11The Application was deemed complete on November 27, 2023. The Application proposed a condominium of 20 resort commercial units (“units”) that would be developed in two phases of 10 units each. Details of the Application state that inter alia, the first phase of development would include the 10 units plus common elements such as driveways, parking spaces, a reception unit and a clubhouse with a pool and food services. The second phase would include the last 10 units and the maintenance building. The development would be serviced by private communal water and septic systems. Access to the development would be from Muskoka Road 117.

12The Application was circulated, and formal comments were received on January 30, 2024. Township Planning Staff prepared a staff report which included a condition requiring 10 weeks of a rental program. Two of these weeks were mandated to occur between June 15th and September 15th of any given year. The other eight weeks of rental time could be given at any time through the calendar year.

13A background information report (“Information Report”) was provided to the District of Muskoka Community and Planning Service Committee (“Committee”) on March 21, 2024. The Information Report was presented at the District of Muskoka Council meeting of May 23, 2024. The initial recommended rental period was of ten weeks with two weeks being available between June 15th and September 15th of each calendar year. The Committee recommended the approval of the Application with the provision that the rental program be increased from 10 to 20 weeks with 4 weeks being available between the first Saturday following June 15th and the first Saturday following September 15th of each calendar year. The District of Muskoka council approved the recommendations of the Committee at the same meeting of May 23, 2024.

14The Appellant filed an appeal to the OLT on June 18, 2024.

SUBMISSIONS

15On behalf of the Parties, the Appellant presented Mr. Nick Pileggi, the Appellant’s planner, who had been involved with the Application throughout its process. Mr. Pileggi was affirmed and qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning pertaining to the Application and Settlement before the Tribunal.

16Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal received the following documents and the Tribunal approved said documents as exhibits to the hearing:

Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Nick Pileggi

Exhibit 2: Revised Conditions of Approval

Planning Evidence

17Mr. Pileggi reviewed with the Tribunal the process and background of the Application which has been described above. It was Mr. Pileggi’s opinion that the matter before the Tribunal is the one condition pertaining to the number of rental weeks that will be required with this development, and some further specifics as to when some of the weeks must be made available.

18Mr. Pileggi advised the Tribunal that the Parties are appearing before the Tribunal with an agreement to that particular condition. As such, the Parties are in agreement with the original condition of 10 mandatory rental weeks throughout the year with two of these weeks being available beginning on the Saturday after June 15th and ending the week after the Saturday after September 15th in any calendar year. With this agreement on this condition, the Appellant has agreed to include the following provisions:

(a) The proposed development will be operated by a central management firm with a central reservation office and property manager and with the assurance that the units will be made available to the travelling public;

(b) The property will include a mandatory furniture program and housekeeping services;

(c) Ongoing services will be provided in a commercial setting, which includes the common amenities being provided on the property, including a clubhouse, food and beverage services, and a community swimming pool;

(d) The owner may occupy the unit for a maximum of 42 weeks per year (less than 10 months); the units must not be permanent residences.

19Mr. Pileggi opined that these conditions are appropriate and that the 10-week rental requirement is a minimum and that any unit owner can rent their unit for more than the 10-week requirement.

[Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

20It was Mr. Pileggi’s opinion that the development has previously been approved and has demonstrated appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest. However, pertaining to what is before the Tribunal, it was Mr. Pileggi’s opinion that the condition before the Tribunal has regard to matters of provincial interest as the available weeks of rental pool will provide for the adequate provision of employment opportunities and the protection of the financial and economic well-being of the province, and its municipalities. In his opinion, the proposed rental periods have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”)

21Mr. Pileggi opined that the condition before the Tribunal is consistent with the PPS 2024, in particular Policies 2.5.1 pertaining to Rural Areas in Municipalities and 2.6.1 regarding Rural Lands in Municipalities.

22Policy 2.5.1 of the PPS 2024 states that successful and healthy Rural areas are supported by building upon the rural character by providing opportunities for sustainable and diversified tourism, including leveraging historical, cultural, and natural assets. Mr. Pileggi opined that the condition before the Tribunal allows for the development of resort commercial units that will bring further tourism to the area, thus strengthening the tourism industry.

23Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS 2024 allows for permitted uses on rural lands that include resource-based recreational uses and include recreational dwellings that are not intended for permanent residences. It was Mr. Pileggi’s opinion that the 10-week rental period policy will ensure that these units are not principal units and meets the intent of this policy.

24It was Mr. Pileggi’s opinion that the 10-week rental period condition is consistent with the PPS 2024.

MOP

25Mr. Pileggi gave opinion that the proposed condition conforms to the MOP. In particular, the condition conforms to Policies, inter alia, D1, D2, F1.1, F1.3, F6(c), J4.3(a) and L1.4.

26Mr. Pileggi continued with his opinion that the Subject Lands are designated as Waterfront and Rural as shown on Schedule ‘A’ – Land Use Designations”. Policy D1 pertains to the objectives of the MOP and the proposed condition meets the objectives of the MOP. The objectives of the MOP pertaining to the proposed condition include such items as limiting the amount of year-round residential development in a Rural Area; resource-based recreational and seasonal residential development is the focus of the Waterfront Area.

27Concerning Policy D2, Mr. Pileggi opined that this Policy focuses on growth in a Waterfront area. This policy recognizes that the majority of seasonal growth will occur outside of the settlement areas as resourced-based recreational uses are primarily located in the Waterfront Area designation. It was Mr. Pileggi’s opinion that the proposed condition before the Tribunal conforms to this Policy.

28Policies F1.1 and F1.3 pertain to creating and maintaining a strong economy and a strong tourism sector. It was Mr. Pileggi’s opinion that the proposed condition allows for tourism and recreation to occur, which helps the diversification of the local economy while maintaining the character of the area. As such, the proposed condition conforms to these Policies.

29Policy F6(c) pertains to all forms of tenure in the Waterfront, Rural and Community Area designations. The Policy goes on to state that:

Regardless of the form of tenure, accommodation units within a resort development will be made available to the travelling public, be operated under central management on location for profit, and will provide ongoing services and recreational facilities normally provided in a commercial setting. Documentation, enforceable by the municipalities, including both zoning and appropriate agreements will require commercial use and maintenance of the commercial components of the development.

30It was Mr. Pileggi’s opinion that the proposed condition conforms to this Policy.

31Policy J4.3(a) pertains to Permitted uses within the Waterfront Area and the permissions in the Waterfront Area. These permissions are limited to:

i) Resource-based recreational uses including low density, single unit recreational dwellings;

ii) Limited year-round low density, single unit residential development subject to Section J3.5;

iii) Tourist commercial uses (e.g. resorts, institutional camps and attractions);

iv) Small-scale industrial and commercial uses that are appropriate in and provides services to the Waterfront Area (e.g. contractors yards, boat building, restaurants, art galleries, and conference spaces); and

v) Open space uses and waterfront landing areas.

32Mr. Pileggi opined that the proposed condition conforms to this Policy as it allows tourism to occur, the units themselves are single unit (“single unit”) recreational dwellings, and as it limits the opportunity for year-round use and ensures units are available to the travelling public.

33It was Mr. Pileggi’s opinion that the proposed condition conforms to the applicable policies of the MOP.

Township of Lake of Bays Official Plan (“LOBOP”)

34Mr. Pileggi gave opinion that the LOBOP Policies are similar in nature to the MOP. The Policies speak to the commercial components and restricting permanent residential uses. Mr. Pileggi continued, opining that there is nothing in the LOBOP polices that provides the minimum number of weeks that must be entered into a rental pool, that the proposed 10 weeks of rental availability in a rental pool is consistent with other developments in the District, and the proposed condition of 10 weeks of rental time per unit is adequate and appropriate. The proposed 10 weeks of rental pool establishes that the units will not be permanent residences.

35It was Mr. Pileggi’s opinion that the proposed development with the 10 weeks of rental availability represents a high-quality resort on the Subject Lands which will provide for ample recreational activities and will strengthen the tourism sector and economic base by providing 10 weeks of rental time for the traveling public and should be approved by the Tribunal.

Participant Statements

36There were two participant statements received by the Tribunal concerning the matter before it. The Tribunal approved the received participant statements from Wendy Gibson, President of the Lake of Bays Association, and Paul Gleeson, Vice-President of the Lake of Bays Association.

37Ms. Gibson’s statement did not support the intended rental pool minimums, and Mr. Gleeson’s statement recommended the rental pool minimums stay with the approved 20-week minimum requirement with four of those weeks being in the peak of summertime / with four of those being “peak” summertime weeks.

38It was Mr. Pileggi’s opinion that the applicable Policies do not include a minimum rental period at all, and that the proposed 10 weeks is consistent with other developments in the District. It was Mr. Pileggi’s opinion that changing the rental period to 20 weeks and 4 weeks in the summer period does not increase conformity to the Polices. As such, it was his opinion that the proposed condition before the Tribunal is the preferred amount of rental time and should be approved by the Tribunal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

39The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted testimony and evidence provided by Mr. Pileggi.

40Based on Mr. Pileggi’s oral testimony and the materials submitted, the Tribunal finds that the proposed condition, as presented, has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act.

41The evidence of Mr. Pileggi has demonstrated to the Tribunal that the proposed condition is found to be consistent with the PPS 2024, conforms to the MOP, and conforms to the LOBOP.

42The Tribunal finds that the proposed condition should be approved in the form presented. The proposed condition is appropriate for the Subject Lands and represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.

43The concerns raised by the Participants were reviewed and considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant had addressed the concerns of the Participants, and the District was in agreement of the expert opinion of Mr. Pileggi pertaining to the Participants and their statements.

44The Tribunal acknowledges that the conditions attached to the draft plan of condominium – including the proposed condition before the Tribunal – are to be approved and cleared to the satisfaction of the District and do not require the issuance of a Final Order from the Tribunal. The only Order required by the Tribunal is that approving the proposed condition before it.

ORDER

45THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, and condition 16(iv) in Part B is amended as follows:

That the owners of all 20 resort accommodation units are obligated to place their unit(s) in the mandatory rental resort program for a minimum of 10 cumulative but not necessarily consecutive weeks each and every year, of which a minimum of two (2) weeks shall be in the summer season, defined as the first Saturday following June 15th and ending with the first Saturday following September 15th and all weeks in between.

“S. deBoer”

S. deBOER 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.