Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 19, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000636

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

Applicant and Appellant: The Summit GP Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit short-term rentals as a permitted use within 70% of units throughout the subject property.

Reference Number: CPPA/19/2025/HTE

Property Address: 119 and 195 Town Line Road East

Municipality/UT: Huntsville/ Muskoka

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000636

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000636

OLT Case Name: The Summit GP Inc. v. Huntsville (Town)

Heard: January 15, 2026, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
The Summit GP Inc.	S. Watt
Town of Huntsville	R. Clark*, K. Maxwell*
De Novo Treatment Centre	D. Neligan, A. Lu

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON JANUARY 15, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

1The matter before the Tribunal is the appeal filed by The Summit GP Inc. (“Appellant”) arising from the failure of the Town of Huntsville (“Town”) to make a decision on an application to amend a Zoning By-law (“ZBA”), pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for the properties located at 119 and 195 Townline Road East (“subject property / site”).

2The Appellant is seeking to amend the ZBA in order to permit Short-Term Rentals (“STR”) within 70% of units throughout the subject property.

3Prior to the Hearing, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had resolved all of their issues in dispute.

4Stefan Szczerbak, a Registered Professional Planner and a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, provided a Sworn Affidavit (Exhibit 1), and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide land use planning opinion evidence in relation to the matter under appeal. Mr. Szczerbak, the Principal at Planscape Inc. (“Planscape”), delivered a detailed, contextual, land use planning rationale in support of the settlement.

PARTY STATUS REQUEST

5Prior to the Hearing, the Tribunal received one Party status request from De Novo Treatment Centre (“De Novo TC”). De Novo TC is located immediately adjacent to the site.

6De Novo TC is a residential addiction treatment centre providing care and recovery to Ontario’s unionized construction workers, employees and families. It is also providing aftercare services, family programming and youth addiction treatment.

7De Novo TC is concerned with the introduction of the STR as a permitted use on the subject property, due to potential noise and security concerns.

8The Tribunal granted Party status to De Novo TC.

9David Neligan informed the Tribunal that, after having productive discussions with the Appellant, they have entered into a private agreement, and the issues have been resolved. However, Mr. Neligan expressed his interest in maintaining De Novo TC’s Party status.

SITE CONTEXT AND THE APPLICATION PROCESS

10The site is 6.85 hectares in size with approximately 65 metres of straight-line frontage on Fairy Lake.

11The subject property is the result of several consolidated parcels and is legally described as Part Lot 16, Concession 1, and Part of the Original Road Allowance between Lots 15 and 16, Concession 1 Chaffey; designated Parts 1 to 4 on Plan 35R27276 and Parts 1 & 2 on Plan 35R26628, in the former Township of Chaffey, now in the Town.

12The site is currently developed with three multiple residential buildings and is proposed to be further developed with additional multiple residential buildings in future phases.

13Mr. Szczerbak proffered that the subject property was subject to previous planning approvals in 1995. Those applications proceeded to the former Ontario Municipal Board, where a settlement was reached that established the current development rights through site-specific zoning, among other planning approvals.

14In December of 2019, Planscape applied for a phased Site Plan Approval (“SPA 2023”) and to remove a “Holding” Zone to permit the development of 175 multiple residential units, subject to a future plan of condominium. The SPA 2023 was approved and the “Holding” Zone was lifted in May of 2021, for the initial phase of development.

15In October of 2024, an application for a phased condominium was submitted pursuant to s. 51(37) of the Act. It was approved by the District Municipality of Muskoka (”Muskoka”) in February of 2025.

16In June of 2025, Planscape, on behalf of the Appellant, applied for a Community Planning Permit System (“CPPS”) By-law Amendment to permit the STR as a permitted accessory use within the “R3 (Urban Residential – High Density)” Precinct (Zone) for a maximum of 120 of the proposed 175 total units, or 70% of the entire development.

17The CPPS By-law Amendment to permit the STR as a permitted accessory use in went before the Planning Council of the Town and was denied in July of 2025.

18In August of 2025, the Appellant, through Planscape, filed the appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Act.

PLANNING RATIONALE

19The planning policy documents related to the proposed development are the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), Key District Municipality of Muskoka Official Plan (“DMMOP”) and Town Official Plan (“TOP”) (collectively “Plans”), and CPPS By-law.

20Mr. Szczerbak clarified that, as part of the settlement agreement, the STR are only pertinent to Phase 1 of the proposed development, which consists of 58 units. Out of 58 units, the STR are limited to roughly 35% of the units, for a total of 20 units.

21Mr. Szczerbak stated that the site is located within the Settlement Area with full municipal servicing. The Northern Growth Plan and any other Provincial Plans are not applicable to the proposed development.

22Sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.3 of the PPS state that Settlement Areas shall be the focus of growth and planning authorities shall support intensification to support a range and mix of housing options. It is Mr. Szczerbak’s professional opinion that the STR will contribute to the mix of housing options.

23Furthermore sections 2.1.6 and 2.2.1 support appropriate housing options and densities to meet the needs of current and future residents of the area.

24In Mr. Szczerbak’s view, the proposal to permit limited accessory STR uses is consistent with the PPS.

25Mr. Szczerbak provided that the subject property is designated by the DMMOP and TOP as an Urban Centre or Urban Settlement Area and permit a mix of housing densities, such as medium density or townhouse units. Additionally, the TOP designates the site as “Residential – Lookout”.

26Mr. Szczerbak asserts that s. E2a) of the DMMOP is applicable, as it encourages the provision of a wide array of housing opportunities, including housing that is attainable to a full range of income and demographic groups in Muskoka.

27In addition, part C:3.1 of the TOP, identifies the Huntsville Urban Settlement Area as a complete community in which people live, work, learn and play. Due to full servicing this area is expected to be the focus of year-round residential and employment growth and will accommodate most urban forms of development.

28Mr. Szczerbak noted that both, the DMMOP and TOP, contain several objectives to meet current and future housing needs. Permitting STR in this location provides an alternative housing option that is in close proximity to the downtown and other local tourism-related venues. Additionally, both Plans support the local economy and tourism sector by encouraging opportunities to enhance these sectors.

29Mr. Szczerbak pointed out that there is very little policy direction related to STR in either of the Plans. Permitting limited STR within the urban designation conforms to the overall policies of the Plans.

30Mr. Szczerbak proffered that the site is designated R3 – High Density Precinct. In the R3 zone, dwellings (multiple, townhouse block, and townhouse street) are permitted uses. However, STR accommodations are not permitted as accessory uses in the R3 Precinct. The only area where such accommodations are permitted is in the Urban Residential Shoreline, Urban Residential Low, Community Residential and Mixed-Use Precincts.

31Mr. Szczerbak opined that by permitting a reduced number of STR (from the originally requested 120 units to 20 units) will provide an alternative housing option that will assist with supporting the local economy and the tourism sector. The main residential use will prevail.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

32Having reviewed the uncontested planning evidence of Mr. Szczerbak, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development has regard for matters of provincial interest, as it would provide a range and mix of housing options, is consistent with the PPS by supporting intensification, has regard to the policies and guidelines of the DMMOP and TOP by contributing to the current and future housing needs, represents good planning, and is in the public interest, as it will support the tourism and local economy.

ORDER

33THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, and Zoning By-law No. 2022-97 is amended, as indicated in the Attachment 1.

“P. Tomilin”

P. tomilin

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