Tyrolean Village Resorts 2021 Limited v. The Blue Mountains (Town), 2025 CanLII 99227

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 23, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000026

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Tyrolean Village Resorts 2021 Limited

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit the creation of 12 lots with commercial lodges and a future development block

Reference Number: P3084

Property Address: 138 Kandahar Lane

Municipality/UT: The Blue Mountains/County of Grey

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000026

OLT Case Name: Tyrolean Village Resorts 2021 Limited v. The Blue Mountains (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Tyrolean Village Resorts 2021 Limited

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit the creation of 12 lots with commercial lodges and a future development block

Reference Number: P3085 (Lower-tier); 42T-2021-07 (County)

Property Address: 138 Kandahar Lane

Municipality/UT: The Blue Mountains/County of Grey

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000027

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000026

OLT Case Name: Tyrolean Village Resorts 2021 Limited v. The Blue Mountains (Town)

Heard: June 9 – 12, 2025 by Video Hearing, June 29, 2025 Closing Submissions

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Tyrolean Village Resorts 2021 Limited	S. Turney J. Kabuli
Town of The Blue Mountains	D. Baker
County of Grey	E. Treslan

DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link To Order

1The matter before the Tribunal is the Appeal filed by Tyrolean Village Resorts 2021 Limited (“Appellant” / “TVR”) arising from the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains (“Town”) to make a decision on applications to amend a Zoning By-law (“ZBA”) and a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) Applications (“Applications”), pursuant to section 34(11) & 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for the property located at 138 Kandahar Lane (“subject lands / site”) .

2The Appellant is seeking to permit the creation of 12 lots with commercial lodges and a future development block.

3The subject lands are located north of Arlberg Crescent, west of Kandahar Lane and south of Tyrolean Lane and are 3.2 hectares (“ha”) (7.89 acres) in size, and are currently designated ‘Recreational Resort Area’ in the County of Grey (“County”) Official Plan (“COP”) and ‘Resort Commercial’ in the Town Official Plan (“TOP”).

4The site has a 218 metres (“m”) frontage along Tyrolean Lane, 193 m on Kandahar Lane and over 230 m of frontage on Arlberg Crescent. It is currently occupied by a gravel parking lot and recreational amenities, consisting of volleyball courts, baseball diamonds and soccer fields.

5To the immediate north of the subject lands, there are Short Term Accommodation (“STA”) and residential dwellings. Further to the north are the McPherson, Eden Oak and Parkbridge development lands, Highway 26 and eventually Georgian Bay.

6To the west are vacant development lands. Further west are STAs and the slopes/trails of Blue Mountain Resort.

7To the east of the site are STAs.

8To the south are STAs, Grey Road 19 and the Village at Blue.

9There were no Status Requests for this Hearing.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

10At the onset of the Hearing, Mr. Treslan stated that the County’s general policies would not preclude this development. The County takes no position on this Hearing, other than if, after the Hearing, the Tribunal makes a decision on draft conditions, the County will consent to the approval authority to clear those conditions, so it doesn’t have to come back before the Tribunal.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

11The Appellant’s DPS consists of 12 lots, each occupied by an approximately 120 square metre (“m²”) footprint, 450 m² total, and a 2.5 storey commercial lodge with (8) eight bedrooms.

12Eleven lots will have 17.25 m of frontage, with 17.5 m frontage for the remaining lot, and all lots will have access from Tyrolean Lane. On the western boundary of the property, the Appellant is proposing to dedicate a 3 m wide strip of land for a public trail and a 0.3 m reserve along Kandahar Lane and Arlberg Crescent. A 2.27 ha future development block would remain.

13The ZBA will rezone the site from the Development (D) Zone and C4-157 Zone to the Resort Commercial Exception (C3-X-h) Zone, Open Space (OS) Zone and the Development (D) Zone.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

14In making a decision on ZBA and DPS Appeals, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act and must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”). In addition, the proposed Applications must conform with the COP and TOP. The proposed DPS must have regard for the criteria set out in the s. 51(24) of the Act.

HEARING

15Three expert witnesses appeared on behalf of the Appellant:

1. Andrew Pascuzzo – Land Use Planner;
2. Alexander Fleming – Professional Engineer (traffic); and
3. Natalya Garrod – Land Use Planner.

16In addition, Denise Martinek, the President of TVR, provided factual testimony.

17The sole witness for the Town was Adam Farr – Land Use Planner.

18It was brought to the attention of the Tribunal that the Appellant was trying to address the issues raised by Mr. Farr and was hoping to reach an agreement with the Town.

19Mr. Martinek testified that TVR was a family business that was established 50 years ago. In 2007 he become the President after having been intimately involved in the business and operations for over 25 years.

20TVR was the principal developer of the lands in the Tyrolean Village Area and has constructed over 75 commercial accommodation buildings in the area, including lodges to the north, south and east of the subject lands and has continued to do so. In the past six years, TVR has built seven of 7- and 8-bedroom commercial accommodation buildings in the Tyrolean Village. In addition, they currently have Site Plan Approval from the Town for 21 7- and 8-bedroom commercial accommodation buildings on other lands within the area including seven completed and an additional 12 to be constructed on the lands on the south side of Arlberg Crescent and immediately south of the site.

21Mr. Martinek explained that TVR has always followed the licensing regime of the Town when it comes to STA and intends to do so for the proposed development.

Testimony of Mr. Farr

22Mr. Farr proffered that the Appellant is seeking to develop the site in order to construct Commercial Accommodation Lodges (“CAL”). No such use is currently defined in the TOP or Zoning By-law. Further, in his professional opinion, an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) is required, and no such application was submitted.

23Mr. Farr provided that according to an addendum to the Planning Justification Report from November 2021, the proposed use will be residential and will allow unrestricted occupancy ranging from temporary to permanent.

24He stated that the Appellant has provided a revised ZBA which includes a revised definition of the proposed use for consideration by the Tribunal as follows:

1. “A commercial accommodation lodge means a detached building with no more than 8 bedrooms and 1 kitchen, as well as shared amenities, that operates or offers a place of temporary residence, lodging or occupancy.
2. A commercial accommodation lodge shall not be the permanent residence of a person, either alone or jointly with others, where the person ordinarily resides, makes their home, and conducts their daily affairs, including, without limitation, paying bills and receiving documentation.
3. A commercial accommodation lodge shall not mean or include a single detached dwelling, boarding or lodging house, motel, hotel, bed and breakfast establishment, short term accommodation, tourist cabin or cottage, hospital, commercial resort unit, village commercial resort unit or similar commercial or institutional use.”

25Mr. Farr stated that the proposed development does not conform with the COP or TOP, as the proposed use of a commercial accommodation lodge, by its proposed definition, permits both STA and residential uses in a designation that does not permit either use.

26He opined that an OPA and additional modifications to the proposed ZBA would be required to support the requested ZBA and DPS. The proposed use, based on the proposed definition of commercial accommodation lodge, would either permit a STA if the “place of temporary residence” as set out in the proposed definition was for less than 30 days or a residential use if the “place of temporary residence” was for more than 30 days. Neither of which is permitted under the Resort Commercial Area designation.

27He added that the Town has undertaken an extensive exercise to determine where particular forms of lodging are to be located, as well as STA uses. In his opinion, the proposed residential use, is not commercial in nature; it does not deliver built form and site design with appropriate consideration for integration into the surrounding area and is inconsistent with the tourist related economic benefits sought from Resort Commercial designated lands.

28Mr. Farr provided that the effect of the proposed zoning regulations is to permit the creation of more lots through smaller frontages, less buffering and a design to apply standards sourced from STA and single detached dwelling uses where such uses are not permitted. The provisions are not suitable to the proposed use and do not lend themselves to effective implementation or enforcement. The existing concentration of STA on surrounding lands are subject to required licensing and other provisions of the Town’s regulatory framework, the proposed commercial accommodation lodge definition which appears to permit STA that would not be subject to the existing licencing regime intended to regulate STA.

29In Mr. Farr’s opinion, the development proposal does not have adequate regard for ss. 2 f), h) and r) of the Act. Additionally, he is of the opinion that the proposed DPS does not have appropriate regard to the ss. 51(24) of the Act.

30He stated that the ZBA seeks to permit STA or a residential land use; neither of which uses are permitted by the TOP. The function of the proposed commercial accommodation lodge land use has not been adequately defined or integrated with existing policies and regulations intended to regulate temporary lodging.

31It is Mr. Farr’s opinion that an OPA is required to permit the proposed commercial accommodation lodge use as defined in the ZBA.

32He proffered that the subject land and surrounding area does not currently have sanitary services, and it is unknown when those services will become available. The stormwater management requirements have not been addressed at this point.

33Mr. Farr opined that the proposed ZBA seeks permission for what is effectively a STA or residential uses within a new land use “commercial accommodation lodge” which has no occupancy duration limits. It removes the provisions of the base Commercial Resort (C3) Zone and replaces it with modified provisions of the Town’s Resort Residential (RR) Zone and other selectively adopted provisions applicable to a STA and/or single detached dwellings. He noted that the proposed ZBA includes provisions for parking supply and design that are specific to STA and a reduction in driveway width that is specific to single detached dwellings. Both uses are excluded from the proposed use definition.

34In Mr. Farr’s view, the proposed dedication of the trail block is insufficient to meet the Town 6.0 m wide walkway block standards, comprised of 3 m of travel surface and 3 m for drainage. The proposed walkway block is noted in the draft plan conditions as constituting parkland dedication. TOP policies do not allow the dedication of a walkway in order to address parkland requirements.

35Further, he stated that a dedication of daylight triangle lands at the northwest corner of Kandahar Lane and Tyrolean Lane is required. Dedication of a one foot reserve around Block 14 is required as the effect of the DPS would be to create a block in a registered plan of subdivision which could be divided by Part Lot Control.

36Mr. Farr said that the proposed ZBA would remove one of the few consolidated large lot landholdings from the available landholdings in the Town intended to support resort commercial development. Based on everything above, Mr. Farr is of the opinion that the proposed DPS is not in the public interest and should not be approved.

Testimony of Ms. Garrod

37Ms. Garrod explained that she was employed as a Land Use Planner by the Town from 2021 for about one year, and at that time, she had reviewed the proposed ZBA and DPS. Since Ms. Garrod left that position, she has not worked on this file, until she was retained by TVR in 2024.

38Ms. Garrod testified that when she was employed by the Town, the Senior Planner (now the Manager of Community Planning), the Manager of Planning, the Director of Planning and Development and herself, all of whom are Registered Professional Planners, were of the opinion that this application did not require an OPA.

39She proffered that since the original application was submitted, the Appellant has revised its original Applications as follows:

1. The inclusion of a definition of CAL that explicitly prohibits a CAL from being the permanent place of abode of a person or persons;
2. Prohibition of front yard parking;
3. Revision to the minimum lot frontage in response to Kandahar Lane road widening and 7.0 m x 7.0 m sight triangle conveyance at Tyrolean Lane and Kandahar Lane;
4. Repeal of By-law No. 2003-30 which permits, amongst other matters, a lodge on the subject property;
5. Inclusion of Holding ‘H’ Symbol which shall not be removed until the following have been completed:

• Execution and Registration of a Subdivision Agreement;
• The lands are serviced with municipal sanitary and water services to the satisfaction of the Town;
• Municipal water and sanitary sewage capacity have been confirmed as available to service the development to the satisfaction of the Town; and
• Site Plan Approval and the Execution of a Site Plan Agreement, if applicable, for the Lot or Lots, in accordance with Section 41 of the Act.

6. 3.0 m road widening along Tyrolean Lane;
7. 0.3 m reserve along Tyrolean Lane;
8. 7.0 metre x 7.0 metre sight triangle at the southwest corner of Tyrolean Lane and Kandahar Lane;
9. 3.0 metre road widening along Kandahar Lane;
10. Revisions to the Draft Plan Conditions to address proposed road widenings and sight triangle; and
11. Inclusion in the Draft Plan Conditions that the Subdivision Agreement to be entered into between the Town and the Owner may include a warning clause that the Town may amend its STA Licensing By-law to include licensing requirements for other commercial accommodation uses, including a CAL.

40Ms. Garrod provided that the OP Land Use Designation for the site is Resort Commercial Area. The intent of this designation is to identify lands for commercial resort accommodation uses. This land use designation permits commercial accommodation uses including hotels, lodges or inns etc. The proposed use is a commercial accommodation lodge. She noted that the term “Lodge” is not defined within the implementing ZBL or TOP, however it is listed as a permitted use.

41Ms. Garrod opined that one of the benefits of TVR’s Proposal is that it provides a clear definition of a “commercial accommodation lodge”. In order to assess the Proposal against the Town’s policies, the proposed use must be appropriately defined. The definition should be congruent with the Town’s planning documents and good planning practice, including definitions utilized by other municipalities. In addition, the CAL use definition must be different from other terms defined in the ZBA and TOP. Existing similar uses with definitions include a commercial resort unit, hotel, motel, boarding or rooming house and STA.

42The definition uses are as follows:

a) a boarding or rooming house is a dwelling in which lodging with or without meals is supplied for three or more persons other than a lessee, tenant, or owner of the dwelling; b) a commercial resort unit as a room or group of rooms in a building used or designed or intended to be used as a single, independent, and separate housekeeping establishment that has food prep and sanitary facilities that has a private entrance from a common hallway (inside or outside the building), which is part of a rental or lease management program that consists of a minimum of ten commercial resort units in one or more buildings, that is restricted to a max of 120 days per year, that was established to provide accommodation for gain or profit but does not include a residential dwelling unit, etc; c) a commercial resort unit complex is a building or group of buildings containing a minimum of ten commercial resort units that is part of a rental or lease management program; d) a hotel is an establishment that contains one building or two or more connected or adjacent buildings that throughout all or part of a calendar year, caters to needs of the public that throughout all or part of a calendar year, caters to the needs of the public by furnishing guests rooms for a fee, including all such establishments as defined from time to time by the Hotel Registration or Guests Act, but not including any other establishments defined or classified in this by-law. A hotel may or may not supply food, have an on-site management office, include permanent staff accommodation, include convention facilities, include one or more dining rooms, recreational facilities for use by guests, be licensed under the LLBO; e) a motel means an establishment that contains guest rooms with no private cooking facilities that are rented on a temporary basis to the travelling public with each room being accessed from the outside. A motel may include such accessory uses as a restaurant, meeting rooms, swimming pool, recreational facilities for the use of guests, but shall not include any adult entertainment establishment; f) a short-term accommodation means a building or structure or any part thereof that operates or offers a place of temporary residence, lodging or occupancy by way or concession, permit, lease, license, rental agreement or similar commercial arrangement for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days, throughout all or any part of a calendar year. Short term accommodation uses shall not mean or include a motel, hotel, bed and breakfast establishment, tourist cabin or cottage, hospital, commercial resort unit, village commercial resort unit or similar commercial or institutional use.

43The proposed definition of a CAL is distinct from the other land uses described above and defined as:

“A detached building with no more than 8 bedrooms and 1 kitchen, as well as shared amenities that operates or offers a place of temporary residence, lodging or occupation. It shall not be a permanent residence of a person alone or jointly with others. It shall not mean or include a single dwelling unit, motel, hotel, bed and breakfast establishment, short term accommodation, tourist cabin, cottage, hospital, commercial resort unit, village commercial resort unit or similar commercial or institutional use.”

44In Ms. Garrod’s opinion the proposed definition respects the policies of the OP land use designation by limiting the occupants from using it as a residential dwelling and maintaining commercial uses and containing elements similar to other municipalities, like Guelph or Carling.

45She stated that although the proposed definition of a CAL shares some likeness to the definition of STA, a distinguishing feature is that a commercial accommodation lodge is proposed on lands designated Resort Commercial and proposed to be located in a Resort Commercial C3 Zone.

46In her opinion the proposed definition ensures that it differs from other accommodations for travelers, maintains similarities to other municipalities, conforms to the OP land use permissions while also being tailored to suit the resort context in which it is proposed, and is appropriate and desirable for the development of the subject lands.

47Ms. Garrod concluded that, in her professional opinion, the proposed development is considered infill, located on underutilized lands that can be serviced with municipal infrastructure and that the proposed ZBA and DPS conform with the TOP.

Testimony of Mr. Fleming

48Mr. Fleming stated that he is a Partner at C.F. Crozier & Associates Inc. and the Vice President of the Transportation Department. His firm was retained by the TVR in 2021 to provide transportation engineering services with respect to the planning applications for the site.

49The firm prepared a Traffic Opinion Letter dated October 8, 2021, for the development application, consisting of an examination of vehicle trip generation and impacts, access spacing, an assessment of the proposed parking supply, and a review of active transportation opportunities in the area.

50An additional study was prepared by the authors of the original study to respond to Town review comments dated March 25, 2022. The study provided a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of an additional 11 units not associated with the subject development application on the local area traffic operations and has determined that the proposed development continued to be supportable from a transportation perspective with the consideration of the 11 additional units.

51While Mr. Fleming was not the author of those studies, he testified that he was consulted by the authors and has been familiar with the project from its start. After reviewing both letters, he is in agreement with the methodologies used, the analyses undertaken, and the conclusions reached.

52At the Hearing, Mr. Fleming addressed issues raised by the Town regarding parking.

53He stated that the Town ZBL No. 2018-65 (“ZBL”) provides requirements in Table 5.3 “Non-Residential Parking Requirements”. The use “STA Building containing one unit” most closely describes the proposed commercial accommodation lodges and specifies a parking supply rate of 0.5 parking spaces per occupant or 1.0 parking spaces per guest room used for sleeping, whichever is greater.

54Each unit will supply eight parking spaces at the rear of the building in a tandem parking arrangement. Each unit in the proposed development will consist of eight bedrooms and will accommodate 16 people. Both methods of calculation yield a requirement of eight parking spaces. Thus, the proposed parking supply is in keeping with the requirements of the ZBL and will provide adequate parking.

55Mr. Fleming explained that tandem parking spaces are often used to maximize parking efficiency in areas with limited space. Mr. Fleming confirmed that throughout his career, he has found tandem parking to be a more readily used design solution to increase parking supplies.

56Mr. Fleming opined that because the units will be rented to a single person, a related group of people or an entity, meaning that all who stay at the unit will be part of a single group and can easily coordinate amongst themselves should the need arise to move the first vehicle in one of the tandem parking spaces. Based on that, he finds that it is appropriate to have all the parking spaces in a tandem format.

57This arrangement is recognized in the Town ZBL s. 4.32 “Short Term Accommodation Uses”, subsection h.i) and states:

“Tandem Parking shall be permitted for parking spaces permitted on a private driveway for single detached buildings and multiple unit buildings.”

58He said that although the proposed development is for CALs within a commercial zone, the consideration for STA uses noted above is relevant to the subject property when assessing parking and transportation. The dimensions of the tandem parking spaces are in keeping with that specified in the ZBL.

59In conclusion, Mr. Fleming stated that, in his opinion, the proposed development has adequate parking; that the proposed parking design, including tandem parking, is appropriate to ensure an adequate parking supply at the proposed development. It is his opinion that the proposed tandem parking spaces comply with the relevant requirements of the Town’s Comprehensive ZBL. The parking design, including parking space dimensions and aisle widths, is functional and appropriate and is supported by precedents from local area planning approvals.

60The Tribunal noted that the Town did not call any transportation expert evidence to contradict the evidence of Mr. Fleming.

Testimony of Mr. Pascuzzo

61Mr. Pascuzzo stated that the subject property is located in an area designated Resort Commercial by the TOP. A site-specific ZBA is required to support the approval of the proposed DPS to rezone the property from the Development (D) and C4-157 to the Resort Commercial Exception (C3-X-h) Zone, Open Space (OS) Zone and the Development (D) Zone.

62Mr. Pascuzzo proffered that the proposed development has regard for the matters of provincial interest, as set out in s. 2 of the Act, specifically in section 2 (f), (h) and (r), because it will provide for high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant public spaces, utilize adequate provision and efficient use of services, encourage a sense of place, promote built form that is well designed and is consistent with the orderly development of safe and healthy communities.

63Mr. Pascuzzo is of the opinion that the proposed DPS has appropriate regard to the criteria and matters required to be considered pursuant to ss. 51(24) of the Act, because it will have regard for matters of provincial interest, and it will not be premature, because the Proposed Development will be subject to a hold (H) provision to ensure that development occurs after servicing has been constructed. Additionally, it will conform to the OP, will be in the public interest, it can be adequately serviced, the land is suitable for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided and the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate.

64He stated that the proposed development conforms to s. 3.8 of the COP, as it includes a trail and additional undeveloped open space. The proposed lodges serve the public interest by providing a place for travelers to lodge while enjoying the nearby community recreational amenities, similar to restaurants, grocery stores and others. The proposed accommodates existing un-serviced areas with development potential, does not propose expanding the Recreational Resort Settlement Area into Agricultural Areas, nor does it propose single detached dwellings. The TOP permits lodges. In addition, the County during a review process have not indicated that the proposal does not conform to COP.

65The inclusion of the Holding H Symbol will ensure that the development will only occur when the required infrastructure is in place.

66Mr. Pascuzzo expanded on the proposal, stating that it is commercial in nature and located on lands designated Resort Commercial in an area that is predominately used for commercial purposes that are not within a residential neighbourhood. Additionally, the development will provide appropriate intensification, enhance the existing area with new, attractive lodges that will be consistent with the built form and commercial uses of the surrounding area. It will provide for a north-south trail linkage on the westerly portion of the lands which will connect Tyrolean Lane, Arlberg Crescent and ultimately The Village at Blue as well as road widenings to facilitate pedestrian ways should the Town decide to provide these.

67The proposal will provide for enhanced tourism opportunities and the recreational use of the site by providing CALs for the tourists seeking hiking, skiing, tennis, golf, dining and entertainment, and will support the existing and future tourism and recreational uses of land and facilities within the Town.

68The proposed ZBA will provide for lot frontages, lot areas, setbacks, building height and coverage consistent with the regulations associated with the surrounding lands.

69In regard to STA, Mr. Pascuzzo is of the opinion that policies of B2.5 are not applicable to the development proposal because the proposed use is a lodge, which is permitted in the Resort Commercial Area designation.

70Mr. Pascuzzo provided that the development proposal is an infill development representing the "hole in the donut" with the surrounding lands being STA exception lands. According to Policy 3.9 of the TOP, a lodge is a commercial resort accommodation use which is permitted in the Resort Commercial Area and is specifically identified as a permitted use.

71On the issue of does the proposed development intend to permit STA uses, Mr. Pascuzzo explained that the STA uses are set out in the Town's planning documents as dwellings in residentially designated and zoned areas that are utilized for short term rental purposes. STA are not commercial buildings in a commercially designated area. Thus, the proposed development is not an "STA" as that term in understood by the Town's ZBL and OP.

72The proposed use is not a commercial use being proposed in a residential designation, rather it is a commercial use (lodge) being proposed in a commercial designation. The proposed CALs will be operated in a manner similar to an STA and the TVR is willing to have its operations bound by any applicable regulations or licensing requirements passed by the Town in respect of STA uses, if the Town wishes to extend those policies to the proposed CALs.

73In Mr. Pascuzzo’s professional planning opinion, the proposed use is not an STA, and permitting CALs on the commercially designated lands is appropriate and represents good planning. In doing so, it will not be contrary to Town Council's position that they wish to restrict new STA uses to the Town's Exception Area.

74In response to the witness statement of Mr. Farr, Mr. Pascuzzo proffered that the proposed ZBA has been modified to the following:

• To reduce the minimum lot frontage from 17.5 m to 17.25 m in order to increase the public trail width to 3.0 m;
• The maximum occupant load of a commercial accommodation lodge shall be 16 persons with a maximum occupancy of 2 persons per bedroom;
• The occupancy and/or use of the CAL shall be licensed, rented, or by a similar commercial arrangement, to a single person or single entity; and
• The occupancy of a commercial accommodation lodge by any person for one or more periods of time shall not cumulatively exceed a total of 120 days per year or a maximum of 120 continuous days.

75Mr. Pascuzzo disagreed with Mr. Farr’s view on the need for an OPA based on the proposed use, either being a STA use or a residential use or the duration of stay. Mr. Pascuzzo has provided that other commercial accommodation uses such as a motel and hotel, commercial resort unit, and village commercial resort unit that provide accommodations for less than 30 days are not considered STAs. The same commercial establishments can provide for occupancy of more than 30 days and are not considered residential uses. In addition, up to 20% of the village commercial resort units within the Village at Blue are permitted to have occupancies of greater than 120 days.

76Mr. Pascuzzo proffered that the subject property is designated ‘Resort Commercial’ on Schedule A-1 of the TOP. Permitted uses in the Resort Commercial designation includes “lodges”. The proposed use of the site is for CALs. CAL has been defined for the purposes of the subject property within the draft and modified ZBL. The proposed use is being proposed in a commercial designation where lodges are permitted.

77To Mr. Farr’s statement that “the applications seek to create an entire new category of use to usurp the existing regulatory framework”, Mr. Pascuzzo opined that:

a) The proposed use is permitted in the Resort Commercial designation; b) The proposed use is permitted in at least 2 exceptions within the Town’s ZBL; and c) TVR is a long-term commercial accommodation use operator who strongly supports the Town’s Business Licensing Program, specifically STAs. TVR is not opposed to the Town’s licensing of commercial accommodation uses and would not oppose a licensing regime consistent with the Town’s current licensing regime being extended to the proposed use.

78Regarding management of use, Mr. Pascuzzo provide that a site plan approval will be required for each lodge and will address issues related to garbage, lighting, landscaping, parking, fencing, buffering, etc. A site plan agreement will be required for each property occupied by a lodge, and it can address how the proposed buildings and use will be managed. Licensing of the proposed commercial accommodation lodges can be implemented by the Town by way of its current Business Licensing By-law Review, if it is necessary.

79In conclusion, Mr. Pascuzzo stated that, in his professional opinion, the proposed ZBA and SPA should be approved.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

80In making its decision, the Tribunal has the whole picture on how the proposed development will affect the Town. From the evidence presented to the Tribunal it is clear that the Town will not provide the service infrastructure, unless some development occurs on the subject property. On the other hand, no development will begin, unless the Town will provide the sewer infrastructure.

81Throughout the Hearing, it was demonstrated to the Tribunal that TVR was trying to achieve a resolution with the Town that would be satisfactory to both Parties.

82Overall, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Pascuzzo and Ms. Garrod. It was presented in their evidence that lodges are a permitted use in the Resort Commercial designation, are appropriate and conform with the OP. The Tribunal finds that CAL use is similar to uses of other commercial establishments, such as hotels, motels and other tourist accommodations and is not a place of permanent residence.

83The Tribunal finds that the proposed development will have a positive impact on the Town by providing employment and tourism opportunities. If the Town decides to license CAL, the development proposal would contribute to the Town’s budget through licensing fees and taxes.

84The Tribunal accepts and relies on the parking analysis provided by Mr. Fleming. To alleviate potential encroachment on to the adjacent parking lots, the Tribunal recommends implementing blanket easements for pedestrian access, vehicular access and parking.

85The Tribunal finds that a 3.0 m wide dedication of land for the public trail is appropriate. The Tribunal does not agree with the Town that it will be hard to construct or maintain a trail of the proposed width, as many Municipalities maintain sidewalks less than 3.0 m wide throughout the year.

86The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development has regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act and finds it to be consistent with the PPS. Additionally, the development proposal conforms with the COP and TOP. The proposed DPS has regard for the criteria set out in the s. 51(24) of the Act.

ORDER

87THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed, and By-law no. 2018-65 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Town of The Blue Mountains to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.

88THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed, in part, and the draft plan shown on the plan prepared by Pascuzzo Planning Inc. dated May 2025 comprising DWG: 1007-20-DP4, as set out in Attachment 2, is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Schedule A to this Order;

89AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Town of The Blue Mountains shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

“P. Tomilin”

p. tomilin

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.

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Schedule A