Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 13, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001081
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Steven McCaig
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a detached garage on the subject land
Reference Number: Z/2024/04
Property Address: 28 Dean Road
Municipality/UT: Carling/Parry Sound
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001081
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001081
OLT Case Name: McCaig v. Carling (Township)
Heard: June 9, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Steven McCaig | Marc Kemerer |
| Township of Carling | Sylvain Rouleau |
DECISION DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns the settlement of an appeal filed by Steven McCaig (“Appellant”) pursuant to s.34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), regarding the Township of Carling’s (“Township”) refusal of his Zoning By-Law Amendment (“ZBA”) application, to permit the development of a proposed 297.3 square metre (“m2”) detached garage on the property municipally known as 28 Dean Road in the Township (“Subject Property”).
2The 3.4 hectares Subject Property is located at the terminus of Dean Road, with 140 metres (“m”) of frontage on Deep Bay, which has access to the open waters of Georgian Bay through Parry Sound. It is currently developed with a two-storey detached dwelling having 396.77 m2 total floor area, a 134.7 m2 existing garage, a 27.9 m2 carport and a 72.19 m2 storage shed. The storage shed is to be removed to facilitate the proposal.
3The Appellant filed his ZBA application to permit the proposed garage on April 28, 2023. The Township’s planner requested an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) and Planning Report in support of the application, which were provided August 15, 2023 and August 17, 2023, respectively. Township’s Council refused the ZBA application on October 8, 2024. The Appellant appealed Council’s decision on October 25, 2024.
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
4The Tribunal was advised the Parties reached a settlement, for which they now seek approval.
5The proposed settlement would allow the rezoning of the Subject Property from Waterfront Residential 1 Exception 13 (WF1-13) to Waterfront Residential 1 Exception (WF1-x). The change would permit the construction of the detached garage with a footprint of 297.3 m2, greater than permitted in the WF1 Zone and greater than that of the principal use dwelling on the Subject Property. It would also permit a maximum cumulative accessory building floor area equal to 459.9 m2.
6For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal allows the appeal, and approves the ZBA found at Attachment 1 of this decision.
LEGISLATIVE TESTS
7When considering appeals under s. 34(11) of the Act, the Tribunal shall:
a. have regard for matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act;
b. ensure its Decision is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (the “PPS 2024”), as set out in s. 3(5) of the Act;
c. ensure its Decision conforms with the Township’s Official Plan (“Township OP”) and any applicable guidelines.
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS
8Evidence in support of the ZBA was provided by the Appellant’s Planner, John Jackson. Mr. Jackson is a Registered Professional Planner in the Province of Ontario, a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, and has been practising as a land use planner for more than four decades. The Tribunal qualified Mr. Jackson to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of land use planning.
9The Tribunal marked the Appellant’s Document Book as Exhibit 1 and the undated Evidence Outline of John Jackson as Exhibit 2.
10Mr. Jackson gave the following opinion on the land use planning merits of the proposal:
a. It is consistent with the PPS 2024. It reuses and rejuvenates a 20 year old rural dwelling which will help preserve and protect rural lands housing stock. The proposed oversized detached garage will enhance the lands while not introducing any conflicts with the interests of the province. In addition, Policy 2.6 of the PPS 2024 is generally supportive of rural development;
b. It has regard for the only applicable matter of provincial interest, which would be the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions (s2(a) of the Act). The proposal was evaluated by a qualified environmental consultant who concluded in an EIS dated August 15, 2023 there were no impacts on natural heritage features;
c. It conforms with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario;
d. It conforms with the Township OP, in that an accessory building or structure that is ancillary or subordinate to the principal use is permitted; and
e. The garage will remain accessory despite its larger footprint. Determining whether a use is accessory ought not to be an arbitrary numerical counting exercise, but should instead be a case by case assessment of the use.
11Mr. Jackson also addressed points which were raised by the Planning Staff Report dated October 8, 2024 which recommended refusal of the ZBA application. The report stated, among other things, that further evaluation of potential impacts on adjacent fish habitat should be undertaken, and that the proposal was an overdevelopment.
12Regarding further evaluating impacts to fish habitat, a February 24, 2025 addendum to the original EIS was prepared which explained that the detached garage was a minimum of 52 m from the shoreline of Deep Bay. The EIS clarified that fish habitat was not raised in the original report because of the significant distance of the proposal from any fish habitat, and further, that this distance ensured there would be no direct, indirect, or water quality impacts to the fish habitat.
13Mr. Jackson disagreed the oversized garage was an overdevelopment. He explained that the large size of the 3.4 hectares Subject Property could accommodate the larger garage, and its proposed location in the rear yard – not visible from Deep Bay – would not alter the character of the area.
14The Tribunal also notes there was no third party in opposition at the public meeting, council meeting, nor at the merit hearing.
15The Tribunal agrees with the uncontroverted professional opinion of Mr. Jackson and finds that the ZBA has appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS 2024, conforms with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario, conforms with the Township OP, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.
ORDER
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, and Zoning By-law C500-2011 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the Municipal Clerk of the Township of Carling to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.
“F. Lavoie”
F. LAVOIE
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