Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 01, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000999
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: 2722809 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Description: To permit the construction of a 3-storey, 3-unit motel building
Reference Number: A23 - 2025
Property Address: 495970 Grey Road 2 (Plan 114, Part of lots 1 2)
Municipality/UT: The Blue Mountains/Grey
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000999
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000999
OLT Case Name: 2722809 Ontario Inc. v. The Blue Mountains (Town)
Heard: March 5, 2026 by Video-Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
2722809 Ontario Inc.
Mark Vernon
Town of The Blue Mountains
Chantal Conroy
Denise Backer (in absentia)
DECISION DELIVERED BY YASNA FAGHANI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 (“Act”), by 2722809 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”), against the decision of the Town of The Blue Mountain (“Town”) refusing the Minor Variances Application (“Application”) relating to the development of a three storey, three-unit motel.
2In order to facilitate the development, the following variances from the Town Zoning By-law 2018-65 are requested:
a. To vary the requirement of Section 4.27.1a) Planting Strip Location where “a Commercial Zone abuts an interior side yard lot line in any Residential Zone a 3.0 metre-wide planting strip adjacent to the full length of the lot shall be required” to a proposed “portion of a landscape area along the residential lot line will be provided and to be 1.8 metre-wide.”
b. To vary the requirement of Section 5.1.6 a) Width of a Parking Aisle “where for a two-way aisle, the minimum aisle width must be 6.0 metres,” to a proposed “portion of the aisle being 4m” and the rest is 6m and conforms.
3In advance of the Hearing, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement. The Parties advised that it was their intent to present a settlement proposal at the Hearing.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND STATUS REQUESTS
4The Tribunal confirmed with the Parties that there were no issues with service of Notice of Hearing and, as such, no further notice is required. The Notice of Hearing was marked as Exhibit 1.
5The Tribunal did not receive any requests for Party or Participant status. In response to the Tribunal’s inquiry, there were no other individuals or entities present at the Hearing requesting for Party or Participant status.
6Having addressed all the preliminary matters, the Tribunal decided to consider the Settlement.
DECISION
7The Tribunal confirms that it received, reviewed and considered the uncontested opinion evidence of Krystin Rennie, as tendered orally as well as contained in the comprehensive affidavit, sworn March 2, 2026, (marked as Exhibit 2 with all exhibits attached thereto) and her Supplementary Affidavit sworn on March 5, 2026 (marked as Exhibit 3). She was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
8The Tribunal heard the history of the proposed development as well as a description of the proposed variances as referenced on the site plan of the property. Ms. Rennie outlined each variance and how it met the legislative test out in s. 45 of the Act.
CONDITIONS
9Ms. Rennie testified that the Town staff was supportive of the application subject to the following conditions as discussed in the Staff Report dated November 19, 2025:
That the site development be constructed in a manner substantially in accordance with the submitted site plan.
That the owner submit and obtain approval of a Site Plan Control Application prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; and
That this variance to the Zoning By-law is for the purpose of obtaining a building permit and is only valid for a period of two years from the date of decision. Should a building permit not be issued by the Town within two years, the variance shall expire on November 19, 2027.
10Ms. Rennie advised that she reviewed the proposed conditions and agreed with said conditions. Counsel for the Town confirmed that the Town was supportive of the Minor Variances subject to the conditions above.
FINDING
11The Tribunal, having accepted the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Ms. Rennie as presented, finds that the Application represents good land use planning, and is satisfied that the criteria for the Minor Variances requested individually and collectively meet the prescribed test as set out in s. 45 of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the policies under the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, as well as matters of Provincial Interest.
ORDER
12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal by 2722809 Ontario Inc. pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act is allowed, and the Minor Variances to the Town of Blue Mountain Zoning By-law 2018-65, are authorized subject to the following conditions:
That the site development be constructed in a manner substantially in accordance with the submitted site plan; Attached as Attachment 1 of this decision
That the owner submit and obtain approval of a Site Plan Control Application prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; and
That this variance to the Zoning By-law is for the purpose of obtaining a building permit and is only valid for a period of two years from the date of decision. Should a building permit not be issued by the Town within two years, the variance shall expire on November 19, 2027.
“Yasna Faghani”
Yasna Faghani
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