BMR GP Inc. v. Blue Mountains (Town), 2025 CanLII 68201

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 11, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001228

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: BMR GP Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit a Village Commercial Resort Unit Complex

Reference Number: A39-2024

Property Address: Plan 1065 Pt Lots 6, 10, 14, 15 1 Village Cres Blue Mountain RP 16R9197, Parts 1 to 3 Parts 4 and 5

Municipality/UT: The Blue Mountains/Grey

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001228

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001228

OLT Case Name: BMR GP Inc. v. Blue Mountains (Town)

Heard: July 4, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

BMR GP Inc. (“Appellant”)

Andrew Jeanrie

Town of Blue Mountain (“Town”)

Raj Kehar Denise Baker (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU ON July 4, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The appeal arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13 (“Act”), as amended, by the Appellant, with respect to the Town’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“CoA”) refusal of the application for minor variances (“Application”) to permit a Village Commercial Resort Unit Complex on the lands located at Plan 1065 Pt Lots 6, 10, 14, 15 1 Village Cres Blue Mountains RP 16R9197, Parts 1 to 3 Parts 4 and 5, known as “Site B” in the Blue Mountain Resort Village (“Subject Lands”).

2The Parties advised the Tribunal in writing that they had reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal to convert the hearing to discuss the instruments of the settlement. The Tribunal granted the request of the Parties.

CONTEXT

3The Subject Lands are located within the broader established Blue Mountain Resort Village. The Subject Lands are comprised of 1.31 hectares (3.24 acres), located to the north of the existing village, abutting the south side of Village Crescent.

4The Subject Lands are currently developed with a surface parking lot, a visitor information centre and pedestrian walking paths. The Subject Lands are accessible via Jozo Weider Boulevard through Village Crescent, which is a private road.

5The Subject Lands are located within “The Blue Mountain Village Resort Area” and are designated “Blue Mountain Village Resort Area Core” in the Town’s Official Plan (“OP”).

6The Subject Lands are not zoned in the Town’s Zoning By-Law No. 18-65 (“ZBL”) but are identified as being subject to the provisions of the former Township of Collingwood By-law No. 83-40 (“Township ZBL”) with respect to the Town ZBL. The Township ZBL zones the Subject Lands as “Village Core General Commercial Exception (C5-67)”.

7The Subject Lands and the broader Blue Mountain Village are subject to a Master Development Agreement (“MDA”), which is a requirement under Town OP providing directions on parking and access rights and easement establishment.

8The Subject Lands are located within the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) area but not subject to development control, which means no permit is required for the development from the Niagara Escarpment Commission. The proposed resort residential development is a permitted use on the Subject Lands under NEP.

9The Appellant sought the approval of the four variances listed in the Appendix “A” on the Subject Lands to facilitate the development of a five-storey Village Commercial Resort Unit Complex on the Subject Lands. The development proposes 196 Village Commercial Resort Units and 1,748 square metres of commercial space across ten commercial units on the first-floor level. The proposal provides connection from the north side of the building to the south side of the building through an open pedestrian passage connecting Village Crescent to a proposed plaza on the south side of the building. The development includes one level of underground parking, which provides 219 parking spaces in addition to nine parking spaces proposed along village crescent and 21 bike parking spaces proposed in the development.

10The Parties agreed on adding the below conditions to approve the Application in accordance with the signed settlement agreement to address the Town’s concerns:

1. A replacement easement be registered on title to permit access to Site B through Village Crescent, and to reflect the limits of Village Crescent.
2. The submission of a comprehensive parking study in accordance with the requirements of the Master Development Agreement which will, among other things, address the impact of the loss of the existing parking on Site B.
3. Site Plan approval for the development of Site B is obtained.
4. An agreement be registered on the title of Site E and F to secure the provision of 29 parking spaces for the benefit of Site B.

STATUS REQUEST

11The Tribunal received no written request for Party or Participant Status nor individuals at the hearing requests for either status at the hearing.

NOTICE OF HEARING

12There is no issue with notice of this hearing.

EXHIBIT

13The Tribunal marked following documents as exhibits during the hearing:

• Affidavit of Jamie Robinson marked as Exhibit “1”;
• Executed Minutes of Settlement marked as Exhibit “2”;
• Applicant’s presentation made at CoA dated November 20, 2024 marked as Exhibit “3”.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

14The Tribunal qualified Mr. Jamie Robinson, a Registered Professional Planner and full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

15Mr. Robinson demonstrated to the Tribunal that the proposed use was permitted under the Town OP and the Township ZBL. Mr. Robison indicated that the development fronting on a private road with an easement to be established would provide suitable access to the Subject Lands from Village Crescent, and Village Crescent was a primary access to various lots as planned in the MDA. Mr. Robinson held the opinion that this variance to permit the development fronting on Village Crescent with a replacement easement maintained the general intent of the Town OP and Township ZBL.

16Mr. Robinson presented to the Tribunal that the Appellant only sought the increase of the lot coverage by 2%, which was a relatively small number, but this increase would help facilitate a compact and pedestrian oriented development with significant and varied open space on the Subject Lands.

17Mr. Robinson indicated that the reduced setbacks in the settlement proposal reflected modern front yards and were similar to the setbacks of the existing building facades to west. Mr. Robinson further stated that there would still be sufficient room for drop-off, landscaping and other development activities after the setbacks were reduced. In Mr. Robinson’s opinion that this variance is minor in nature and reflects the good use of the lands.

18Mr. Robinson expressed his opinion that the proposed underground parking to replace the required surface parking would provide more space for open space and walkway while the same number of parking spaces provided to satisfy the Town’s requirements and MDA. Mr. Robinson further stated that the alternative strategies of parking would improve the compatibility of the development.

19The Tribunal understands that the aforementioned sworn evidence of expert witnesses to support the settlement before the Tribunal and that the settlement was reached through the cooperative efforts of the Parties. The Tribunal finds that the conditions of the approval of the Application in Para.[10] are acceptable.

20The Tribunal accepts the uncontested opinion evidence of the expert witnesses of the Appellant, and finds that the Application:

1. Has regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest found in s.2 of the Act;
2. Is Consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024;
3. Conforms to NEP;
4. Is a good land use planning and reflects public interest;
5. Meets the four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Act:
   • Does this minor variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Town OP?
   • Does this minor variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Town ZBL and Township ZBL?
   • Is this minor variance considered desirable for the use of the lands?
   • Is this minor variance considered minor in nature?

ORDER

21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances, listed in the Appendix A, to the Township of Collingwood By-law No. 83-40 are authorized subject to the conditions as set out in the Attachment 1 to this Order.

“L.P. You”

L.P. YOU 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.

APPENDIX “A”

List of Variances

A. A development on a lot which fronts on a private road. B. An increase of maximum lot coverage from 30% to 32%. C. A reduction to the minimum front yard setback from 15 metres to 7.5 metres. D. A reduction to the required minimum surface parking from 30% to 0%.

ATTACHMENT 1

Conditions of the Approval of Minor Variance

1. A replacement easement be registered on title to permit access to Site B through Village Crescent, and to reflect the limits of Village Crescent.
2. The submission of a comprehensive parking study in accordance with the requirements of the Master Development Agreement which will, among other things, address the impact of the loss of the existing parking on Site B.
3. Site Plan approval for the development of Site B is obtained.
4. An agreement be registered on the title of Site E and F to secure the provision of 29 parking spaces for the benefit of Site B.