Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 17, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000258
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
Appellant: Adam Paul
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description: To permit the construction of a new dock and boathouse
Reference Number: Z 03-25 LOB (Paul)
Property Address: 2 - 1008 Ravenhill Road
Municipality/UT: Lake of Bays/Muskoka
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000258
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000258
OLT Case Name: Paul v. Lake of Bays (Township)
Heard: June 12, 2025, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Adam Paul | Leo F. Longo |
| Township of Lake of Bays | did not participate |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY Kurtis Smith ON June 12, 2025 AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1Adam Paul (“Appellant”), owner of 1008 Ravenhill Road, Unit 2 (“Property”), in the Township of Lake of Bays (“Township”), applied for an amendment (“ZBA”) to Zoning By-law No. 2021-111 (“ZBL”) to permit the construction of a combined dock and overwater boathouse along the shoreline of the Property, replacing the existing dock and dryland boathouse.
2The ZBA sought will delete the current site-specific exception for the Property, carry forward the site-specific restriction for a minimum lot area of 1.6 hectares, and add the following exceptions:
a. Permit a combined Shoreline Activity Area Frontage of 118.69 metres, where 134.2 metres is existing and 23 metres is the maximum permitted.
b. Permit a Shoreline Activity Area Coverage of 52.32%, where 13.25% is existing and 40% is the maximum permitted.
3Township planning staff recommend refusal of the ZBA, sighting the proposed boathouse “would result in an increase in visual impact and massing of built form on the shoreline of the subject property over what exists.” Township Council denied the ZBA and the Appellant appealed their decision on April 4, 2025.
4The hearing schedule was expedited. Notice was waived as only the Appellant and his spouse provided public comment at the Township Council meeting, and no other individuals were to be notified of the Hearing.
5Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal was in receipt of communication from Mr. John Ewart, counsel for the Township, that the Township was not contesting or participating in the Hearing.
6To support the ZBA, the Tribunal, based on Melissa Markham’s Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty, qualified Ms. Markham to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. Ms. Markham is a Registered Professional Planner, a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, previously held the position of Director of Planning Services in the Township, and is currently the Principal and Planner of Melissa Markham Planning & Associates.
EVIDENCE
7Ms. Markham provided the Tribunal with oral, and well described written evidence (Exhibit 1) to support her findings that the ZBA has regard for s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”), is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), conforms with the District of Muskoka Official Plan (“DOP”) and the Township Official Plan (“TOP”), represents good planning, and as such, should be approved.
8The above-mentioned planning documents effecting the ZBA have several common themes and are implemented by the applications, including:
a. Protecting ecological and natural features;
b. Preservation of the visual aesthetics and overall natural appearance of the waterfront area;
c. Maintaining the design principles of the waterfront area by retaining natural vegetation, and using natural colours, materials, and low-profile designs on built structures; and
d. Maintains a high standard of recreational water quality.
9Found as Attachment 1 (site layout), and as described by Ms. Markham, the Property has a steep topographical terrain, resulting in a lengthy laneway on the lower lands closer to the shoreline leading from the northerly limits of the Property, along the existing garage, and leading to the existing cottage. The existing dock and dryland boathouse that are found closer to the cottage are to be demolished, and the combined dock and overwater boathouse are proposed to be built just south of the existing dock. As shown in the site photos in Exhibit 1 (pages 37-46), and as described by Ms. Markham, the entire Property and shoreline has considerable tree cover and vegetation.
10Ms. Markham communicated that, with the removal of the current dock, boathouse, and small treehouse, and the construction of the new combined dock and overwater boathouse location, the overall Shoreline Activity Area, as defined in Exhibit 3, is reduced by 15.51 metres. However, the proposed overwater boathouse will increase the Shoreline Activity Area Coverage, as defined in Exhibit 3, from 13.28% to 52.4% due to the larger size of the proposed overwater boathouse. She added that the proposed overwater boathouse location provides the greatest water depth.
11Ms. Markham opined that the proposed redevelopments will preserve the visual aesthetics and the natural appearance of the waterfront will be maintained. The combined dock and overwater boathouse have been designed and located to protect the ecological features of the Property, as well as the overall natural characteristics and features of the Property. Ms. Markham communicated that the combined dock and overwater boathouse are permitted on the Property. She communicated that the proposed mass and coverage is in keeping with the size and frontage of the Property, noting that the Property is almost three times the size required for a new lot.
FINDINGS
12The Tribunal finds that the unique topography and size of the Property warrants the approval of the ZBA to permit the redevelopment of the existing dock and dryland boathouse with the combined dock and overwater boathouse as the current laneway increases the Shoreline Activity Area Frontage. Relating to Shoreline Activity Area Coverage, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms. Markham that the redevelopment is in keeping with the character of shoreline development as it will not dominate or disturb the natural landscape.
13Therefore, the Tribunal accepts the uncontested opinion evidence of Ms. Markham that the ZBA has due regard for s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the DOP and the TOP, and overall represents good planning.
ORDER
14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS:
a. The appeal is allowed and Zoning By-law No. 2021-111 is hereby amended, as set out in Attachment 2;
b. The municipal clerk is directed to assign an appropriate number to the by-law and insert the appropriate site-specific exception number; and
c. The Tribunal may be spoken to if any implementation issues arise respecting this Order.
“Kurtis Smith”
Kurtis Smith
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
ATTACHMENT 2
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF LAKE OF BAYS
BY-LAW 2025-XXX
BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW 2021-111 KNOWN AS THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PERMIT BY-LAW (Paul)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 2021-111.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Lake of Bays enacts as follows:
Schedule “A” to By-law 2021-111 is hereby amended by redesignating Part of Lot 18, Concession 7, Franklin Ward, now in the Township of Lake of Bays from the Waterfront Residential (“WR”) Planning Permit Area to the Waterfront Residential with an Exception (“WR-EXXX”) Planning Permit Area, as shown on Schedule “B” attached.
By-law 2021-111 is hereby amended by the addition of the following:
“WR-EXXX
On lands designated “WR-EXXX”, no person shall use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure except in accordance with the Waterfront Residential (“WR”) Planning Permit Area except for the following:
a) Notwithstanding any provision within the Community Planning Permit By-law 2021- 111, a Planning Permit must be received prior to any development, vegetation removal, site alteration or issuance of a Building Permit on the subject lands to ensure natural vegetation on the property is maintained.
b) Substituted Community Planning Permit By-law Provisions:
i. Notwithstanding Section 4.2.1.4.k) the Maximum Shoreline Activity Area Frontage shall be 118.69m (58.1%)
ii. Notwithstanding Section 4.2.1.4.l) the Maximum Shoreline Activity Area Coverage shall be 52.32%.
Schedules “A” and “B” hereby form part of this By-law.
All other provisions of By-law 2021-111, as amended, shall apply.
Approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal, File OLT-25-000258
June 12, 2025