Reynolds v. Georgian Bay (Township), 2026 CanLII 50138

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 19, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000396

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

Applicant/Appellant: William and Cindy Reynolds

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

Description: To permit severance into 3 lots & development of a residential dwelling on each new lot

Reference Number: Z24-17

Property Address: 206 Wild Rice Trail

Municipality/UT: Georgian Bay (Township)

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000396

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000396

OLT Case Name: Reynolds v. Georgian Bay (Township)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: William and Cindy Reynolds

Subject: Consent

Description: To permit severance into 3 lots & development of a residential dwelling on each new lot

Reference Number: B24-08

Property Address: 206 Wild Rice Trail

Municipality/UT: Georgian Bay (Township)

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000601

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000396

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: William Reynolds

Subject: Consent - refused by Approval Authority

Description: Applications propose to sever the Subject Property by creating two new lots

Reference Number: B24-07

Property Address: 206 Wild Rice Trail L0K 1S0

Municipality/UT: Georgian Bay

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000594

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000396

OLT Case Name: Reynolds v. Georgian Bay (Township)

Heard: March 9-13, and March 18, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

William and Cindy Reynolds

Isaac Tang Brett Davis Scott Kennedy (Student of Law)

Township of Georgian Bay

Colin Léger

Ken Otto

Aaron Platt Katryna Vergis-Mayo

DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal held a six day hearing de novo on appeals filed by William and Cindy Reynolds (“Applicants”) against the Township of Georgian Bay’s (“Township”) refusal of the Applicants’ application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Consent application for the lands municipally known as 206 Wild Rice Trail (Subject Property).

2The intent of the applications is to facilitate the creation of two new shoreline residential lots from the Subject Property, resulting in a total of three shoreline residential lots and the development of a residential dwelling with a dock on each of the two new lots. It is intended to retain approximately 125 metres (“m”) of shoreline frontage for the property owners and provide 61 m of frontage for each new lot.

3In order to permit the proposed lot creation and establish permissions for future development of the new lots and retained lands, a ZBA is required to rezone the Subject Property.

4District of Muskoka (“District”) Staff was not opposed to the approval of the applications as long as the Township was satisfied that health and safety, as well as any identified municipal interests could be adequately addressed. Township Staff recommended approval.

5Having considered the evidence presented, the Tribunal is satisfied that the enclosed ZBA and Consent applications represent good land-use planning and in the Provincial interest. The Applications are consistent with the goals, objectives, and applicable policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”), and conforms with the general intent and purpose, and applicable policies of the Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area (“MOP”) and the Township of Georgian Bay Official Plan (“GBOP”). In relation to the Consent Application, the Tribunal has had regard to the matters and criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act (“Act”) and therefore, allows the Appeals subject to conditions for the reasons set out as follows.

BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF THE APPLICATIONS

6The pre-consultation comments were issued by the Township dated December 15, 2023, and identified that a ZBA application would be required to create the site-specific zoning for the two deficient lots, concurrent with the consent applications. The pre consultation identified the items required in support of the applications including:

• A scoped Environmental Impact Study to address the Natural Constraint Area identified abutting the subject lands and identify any sensitive features;

• A Stage 1 Archaeology Study (Stage 1, further Stages if warranted); and

• A Tree Preservation Plan.

7A ZBA application and consent application were submitted to the Township on October 21, 2024.

8A public meeting was held on December 10, 2024. In response to comments and feedback received on the Initial Applications, a revision to the ZBA application was submitted on April 22, 2025.

9The Revised Application reconfigured the lots to meet the minimum lot area of 8,000 square metres as required in the parent SR6 zone. The proposed lot frontage of the New Residential Lots was increased from 60 m in the original proposal to 61 m in the Revised Applications. During the course of consultation with the District and the Township, the Staff advised the Applicants that the Applications would not require an archaeological assessment, or an environmental impact assessment, since the creation of two additional lots is not considered major development.

10The Resolution that the Township Council approve the application for ZBA was defeated by Council at the Planning Council meeting of May 6, 2025. Council denied Application Z24-17 for 206 Wild Rice Trail, at the Planning Council meeting of May 6, 2025. Notice of refusal of the revised ZBA application as revised (Application Z24-17) was issued May 8, 2025.

11The Applicants filed a Notice of Appeal of refusal of the revised ZBA applications with the Township on May 27, 2025.

12The Staff Report prepared for the July 11, 2025, meeting recommended provisional approval of the consent applications, subject to conditions.

13The Committee of Adjustment refused the consent applications on July 11, 2025.

14A Notice of Appeal of the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) decision relating to the Consent Applications B24-07 and B24-08 was filed on behalf of the Applicants on July 31, 2025.

CONSENT

15The purpose and effect of the application is to sever two new residential lots, resulting in the following lot configurations (Exhibit 1B, Tab 24 Concept Plan). The application would proceed for consideration upon the approval of the below noted ZBA application. This is to ensure that the enclosed application will meet the minimum required lot frontage and lot area provisions of the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) and therefore can proceed through the consent approval process.

Concept Plan (February 10, 2025)

TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY ZONING BY-LAW 2014-75

16The Subject Property is zoned ‘Six Mile Lake Residential - Exception Six (SR6-6)’. The site-specific exception requires a Minimum Front Yard for a Detached Dwelling of 30 m; northern setback of 10 m and southern setback of 70 m.

ZBA

17The ZBA requests to rezone the proposed severed lands from the ‘Six Mile Lake Residential - Exception 6 (SR6-6)’ zone to a ‘Six Mile Lake Residential –Exception XX (SR6-XX)’ zone to add the following special zone requirements in addition to, or in replacement of, the parent SR6 Zone provisions:

a) Minimum lot frontage – 61 m

b) A maximum of 1 dock permitted per lot, with a:

• Maximum projection of 3.5 m;

• Maximum length of 10 m; and,

• Maximum width of 3.1 m;

c) Prohibit all buildings and structures within 20 m of the front lot line (shoreline), excluding a pumphouse; and,

d) Proposed sewage system shall be tertiary or other class system as per the recommendation of a licensed septic installer.

18Regarding the textual error, the proposed ZBA modification related to the retained lands seeks to correct a textual error within the existing site specific ‘SR6-6’ zone, that incorrectly applied side yard setbacks of 10 and 70 m to a dwelling, whereas these were intended to only apply to dock structures as confirmed per By-law 1999-116. This would result in the 5 m side yard setback of the SR6 zone to appropriately apply to the retained lands as intended.

APPEALS TO BE HEARD TOGETHER, PARTICIPANT AND PARTY STATUS

19Prior to the hearing, during the Case Management Conference on November 3, 2025, the Tribunal ordered to have the appeals be heard together. In addition, Ken Otto was granted Party status and Brenda Pritchard was granted Participant status

20The Tribunal was in receipt of and considered the contents of Brenda Pritchard’s statement which raised concerns on, allowing further severance on the remaining lands will in effect create a precedent, the applications do not comply with Six Mile Lake District rules or Act in terms of frontage, setback or side yard, safety issue and further dockage on this lot will create an extremely dangerous situation for boaters and etc., who use the narrow channel.

21The concerns raised by the Participant are addressed below as part of the Tribunal’s analysis of the matter.

SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

22The Subject Property is located in the northeast portion of the Six Mile Lake Waterfront Community area and is accessed via Wild Rice Trail (private road) which connects to Berwick Road.

23The Subject Property has approximately 3.68 hectares (“ha”) of lot areaand a frontage of 250 m on a bay of Six Mile Lake in a narrow waterbody known as Wild Rice Bay. A detached dwelling, accessory building and dock occupy the lands which contain a mix of natural vegetation and is densely forested. Granite rock dominates the shoreline.

24The shore to shore width of the portion of Six Mile Lake where the Subject Property is situated is less than 120 m, which defines it as a narrow waterbody under the MOP. Directly in front of the Subject Property, the channel width at its narrowest point is approximately 45 m in width. Narrow waterbodies are common within the Township. Mr. Otto’s property is situated directly across the channel from the Subject Property.

25The surrounding area is typified by shoreline residential lots with varying lot area and frontage values. The majority of properties on Six Mile Lake, and those in close proximity to the Subject Property, are vegetated with varying topography along the shoreline area. Properties within the immediate area of the Subject Property benefit from a variety of shoreline structures (docks, boathouses) along their water frontages.

LEGISLATIVE TEST

26The Applications require sufficient regard for the matters of Provincial interest listed at section 2 of the Act and have regard to the decisions of the Council as required pursuant to section 2.1(1) of the Act, including consistency with the PPS and conformity with the MOP and GBOP.

27Section 51(24) of the Act provides the criteria for which an approval authority must have regard when considering approval of a draft plan of subdivision. When determining whether provisional approval is to be granted for a consent under S. 53 (12) of the Act, the approval authority is to have regard to the matters under subsection 51 (24).

ORDER OF EVIDENCE AND WITNESS

28It was agreed upon by the Parties that the following order of evidence and witnesses would govern the Hearing:

For the Applicant:

1. Derek Witlib, Land Use Planning (summonsed)

2. Gordon Nielsen, Ecology and Boating Impact and Safety

3. Victoria Lemieux, Land Use Planning

For the Township:

4. Jane Graham, Coastal Engineering and Boating Safety

5. Genevieve Scott, Land Use Planning

For Mr. Otto:

6. Jamie Robinson, Land Use Planning

29Evidence in support of the applications was provided by the above noted witnesses. All experts were duly qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in their above noted field.

30The individuals qualified to provide expert opinion evidence adopted their Written Witness Statements and Reply Witness Statements, with such added minor corrections as required and noted during their oral evidence.

31Ms. Graham advised this was her first time appearing before the Tribunal or its predecessors and corrected her original Witness Statement in her Reply Statement and by oral evidence that she has not been previously qualified as an Expert by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in either Coastal Engineering or Boating Safety.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS (“ASF”)

Planning ASF

32There was a consensus between the Land Use Planning experts, Victoria Lemieux (Applicant), Genevieve Scott (Township) and Jamie Robinson (Mr. Otto), in which they provided an “Agreed Statement of Facts” (ASF) on several points including the land designations within the OP’s and ZBL.

33The ASF confirms that the lands are designated ‘Waterfront Area’ in the MOP and are designated ‘Waterfront’, Six Mile Lake Inland Waterfront Community in the GBOP. The lands are zoned ‘Six Mile Lake Exception Six (SR6-6)’, a zone in the Township’s ZBL.

34The ASF identifies the property frontage on a Narrow Waterbody as defined in the GBOP illustrated on Schedule F- Six Mile Lake Inland: Waterfront Community. The land meets the definition of ‘rural areas’ and ‘rural lands’ within the PPS. Residential development, including lot creation, where services, is a permitted use on rural lands. In addition, the proposed lots meet the minimum area requirement of the GBOP and ZBL (minimum 0.8 ha). As a condition of consent for applications (B24-07) and (B24-08) Township staff provided that Site Plan Control is required prior to any site alteration or development.

Marine and Boating Safety ASF

35There was a consensus between the Marine and Boating Safety experts, Mr. Nielson (Applicant) and Ms. Graham (Township & Mr. Otto), in which they provided an ASF on several points including the Subject Property has frontage on a "narrow waterbody" as defined in the GBOP.

36It was agreed that evidence from these two experts is to be focused to boating-related matters, including those relating to boating safety within the channel of a narrow waterbody on which the proposed lots are located, sight lines through the channel, safety of other water-contact recreational uses, new docks and their relationship to the channel, boating and water-contact recreational uses, and boating congestion.

37In addition, except as it may relate to the location and design of the docks, these experts will not be speaking to other environmental or character-related matters, including in relation to the attributes of the proposed lots beyond their shoreline frontages, other aspects of development on the proposed lots, water quality or visual impacts.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

Applicant

38The Applicants assert the proposed applications have been reviewed by the District who were not opposed to the Applications and Township staff’s revised application, which included a recommended approvals subject to conditions. The proposed development maintains the character of Six Mile Lake Waterfront Community and the potential boating safety concerns in relation to the proposed docks can be properly addressed through the location and design of the docks. The proposed applications meet all the legislative requirements, and the Applicants request that the Appeals be allowed subject to conditions.

Township

39In contrast, the Township contends the proposed development is inconsistent with the basic character pattern of waterfront development, and the applications do not conform to the PPS, S. 2 of the Act, MOP or BGOP and S. 51(24)(c) of the Act. The Proposed development would restrict navigable space and create potential safety hazard and conflicts between boaters and contribute to unsafe conditions. The Township and Mr. Otto requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Appeals.

ISSUES AND EVIDENCE

40These opposite findings reflect the respective differing opinions of the Parties’ experts/positions and highlight policies of the GBOP which are in dispute. These provisions constituted the focus of the analysis proffered by the respective Parties’ experts and it is upon these policies that the Tribunal finds this case turns on.

SECTION 2 OF THE PLANNING ACT

41Section 2 of the Act set out the matters of provincial interest for which approval authorities must have regard when making land use planning decisions.

42Ms. Scott and Mr. Robinson contend that the applications do not conform with s. 2 of the Act of policy (o) “the protection of public health and safety.” Ms. Scott and Mr. Robinson testified that the Applications have not demonstrated conformity to subsection (o) as it relates to navigation and boating safety requirements.

43Ms. Lemieux testified that the Development Applications have regard for numerous policies for the applicable matters of Provincial interest as set forth within s. 2 of the Act, such as having regard to the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions. Having regard for the orderly development of safe and healthy communities through consideration of the surrounding immediate area, existing character, and activity on the adjacent waterbody. Having regard for the adequate provision of a full range of housing as they seek to create two additional residential housing opportunities within the Township. The Applications seek to provide this additional housing on an underutilized parcel of land zoned and designated for residential purposes, and that do not require the extension of municipal services.

Finding

44The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Lemieux and finds the ZBA has appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act. The protection of public health and safety is upheld through consideration of the surrounding immediate area, existing character, and activity on the adjacent waterbody. The Applications have regard for the protection of public health and safety by proposing a restricted number and projection of docks, that there will be no impacts to boating congestion or safety which have been reviewed by Mr. Nielsen a qualified professional on matters of boating safety. There are no natural heritage features or Type 1 Fish Habitat on, or abutting, the Subject Property.

45Therefore, based on this evidence, the Tribunal finds the Applications have regard for the applicable matters of Provincial interest as set forth within s. 2 of the Act.

SECTION 2.1(1) OF THE PLANNING ACT

46Section 2.1 (1) of the Act requires that the Tribunal to have regard of the Township’s decision.

47The decision of the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) stated that in consideration of all written and oral submissions made relating to the subject revised ZBA and Consent, the applications are denied.

48Mr. Robinson highlighted the public meeting comments that only two people were in favor of the Applications and 23 individuals opposed. He stated that for a small development it could be viewed as a substantial amount that were opposed.

49Counsel for the Applicant’s provided case Ottawa (City) v. Minto Communities Inc., 2009 CanLII 65802 (ON SCDC) (“Minto”) in reference to the Act which requires that the Tribunal to have regard of the Township’s decision and its public interest mandate.

50In reference to the public interest mandate the Member states in Paragraph 30 found in Minto case;

30…At first instance, that public interest is determined by Municipal Council, but on an appeal the Board has the obligation to exercise its independent judgment on the planning merits of the application and to assess the proposal and the positions of the parties from the perspective of applicable legislation, regulations, provincial plans, the provincial policy statement, official plans and bylaws and even the potential impact on neighbouring municipalities. In doing so, it brings its own expertise to bear.

51The Tribunal agrees that “the decision to be made by the Board transcends the interests of the immediate parties because it is charged with responsibility to determine whether a land planning proposal is in the public interest”. Even though there are 23 community members opposing these applications, the Tribunal is required to consider the broader interest which has been done in this case.

52In reference to have regard to Council decisions the Member states in Minto case paragraph 31 and 33;

31…The legislature used language that suggests minimal deference when choosing the words "have regard to", considering the many other expressions it could have used to signal the level of deference…

33…the Board does not have to find that the Council decision is demonstrably….unreasonable to arrive at an opposite conclusion.

53The Tribunal agrees with the Minto case that “the Board has an obligation to at least scrutinize and carefully consider the Council decision, as well as the information and material that was before Council….the Board also ought to carefully and explicitly consider the specific reasons expressed by Council.” Even though Council’s reasons for denying the applications in this case were nebulous, the Tribunal did consider Councils reasons as well as all the information and material that was before it.

Finding

54The Applicant’s counsel highlighted there was no professional planning opinion provided in objection to Township staff’s recommendation at the Township Council meeting where the revised ZBA and Consent was refused. Even though a professional planning opinion is not always warranted for the COA to make a decision, it may have been prudent in this case since the Township’s planning staff recommended approval of the ZBA and Consent which were subsequently both denied.

55Township Counsel submits:

To suggest that the Tribunal should offer complete deference to staff’s decisions disregards the scope of the Tribunal’s authority and standard practice and its role in the planning law regime. A requirement for such deference would fetter the decision-making authority of Council, the Committee, and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal agrees with this statement and in this case, it has not taken complete deference to Township Staff’s decision. The Applications are the result of careful consideration of comments received throughout the approval process to date from both the Township and the surrounding community. The Tribunal understands that 23 community members opposed these applications, however, the Tribunal makes its decisions on facts, procedural fairness, and a broader public interest mandate “even the potential impact on neighbouring municipalities” and is satisfied that it has done so in this case.

56Therefore, The Tribunal has had regard to the Township’s decision pursuant to s. 2.1 (1) of the Act and has considered of all written and oral submissions, and factual information made including the Participant statement and public comments in the meeting minutes.

SECTION 51 (24) OF THE PLANNING ACT

Medland Plan of Sub-Division (2000)

57Section 51(24) of the Act provides the criteria for which an approval authority must have regard when considering approval of a draft plan of subdivision. When determining whether provisional approval is to be granted for a consent under section 53(12) of the Act, the approval authority is to have regard to the matters under subsection 51(24). Subsection 51(24)(b) of the Act requires Approval Authorities to consider whether an application is premature or in the public interest.

58The parcel comprising the Subject Property was originally created through an application for a plan of subdivision process for the “Medland Subdivision”, which was draft approved in 1994 and a subdivision agreement through the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) mediation was executed between the owner and the Township in March of 2000.

59The Medland Subdivision properties are located on the shores of Six Mile Lake, at the north end of Hungry Bay. The subdivision consists of lands totalling 23.87 ha in the Township and includes the Subject Property.

60An Environmental Evaluation was completed for the Medland Subdivision in May 1992, the evaluation recognized the importance of shoreline vegetation to Fish and Wildlife habitat, as well as to water quality and aesthetics and recommended that a 30 m setback for all primary buildings, structures and facilities including sewage treatment systems be established for the lots and that a shoreline buffer be established within that setback. The report also recommended that the buffer area remained as undisturbed as possible while permitting viewing in shoreline access paths.

61The Township requested that the plan be redlined in order to combine proposed lots 12 and 13 (Subject Property). This was requested in order to increase the size of the lots in this area which have steep slope constraints and front onto a narrow waterbody. Lots 1-6 (north of the Subject Property) have lot frontages of 60 m or larger.

62Ms. Scott testified at the time of draft plan approval for the Medland Subdivision in 1994, the Township identified concerns related to development at the Site’s location given the steep slopes and narrow waterbody impacting this location. The draft plan of subdivision was subsequently redlined to address these planning concerns. Two of the proposed lots were merged into one lot, being the Subject Property, to increase lot area and shoreline frontage at this location.

63Ms. Scott opines, the Applications do not have regard for the matters in S. 51(24) of the Act, specifically the criteria:

(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interests referred to in section 2;

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;

64Ms. Scott and Mr. Robinson, testified, lots in this portion of Six Mile Lake were developed with larger areas, frontages and 30 m front yard setback requirements with the intention to maintain undisturbed shoreline and reduce boating safety impacts in the narrow waterbody. They assert the underlying Medland Subdivision was designed and imposed restrictions to address the topographical and narrow water body constraints on this Site. They testified the creation of the lots in the Medland Subdivision move development away from the shoreline due to the steep slopes and constraint with the narrow waterbody.

65According to Ms. Scott who testified she relied on the evidence of Ms. Graham; the Proposed Development would restrict navigable space and create potential safety hazard and conflicts between boaters. Based on this evidence, with respect to the potential boating safety impacts of the proposed developed on the narrow waterbody, it is Ms. Scott’s opinion that the Applications have not demonstrated conformity to the Medland Subdivision pursuant to subsection 51(24) of the Act.

66In contrast, Mr. Witlib testified that there is nothing precluding lands created by a plan of subdivision to be further subdivided. He advised that the background documentation on the Medland Subdivision had no evidence or study that a Boating Impact Assessment was done specific to the Wild Rice Bay channel. In his opinion, there was some subjective reasoning which led to the OMB to adjust the sizes of the lots to make large lot sizes.

67Ms. Lemieux advised the background studies for the Medland Subdivision did not include that a Boating Impact Assessment was done specific to the Wild Rice Bay. Ms. Lemieux acknowledges there was some subjective reasoning which led the OMB to adjust the sizes, however, there were no background studies that could be found for the reason to enlarge lot sizes and various lot frontages to 250 m, 177 m, and 134 m or that deductions had something to do with narrowness of channel.

68Counsel for the Applicant and Counsel for Mr. Otto both agree that the Medland Subdivision is instructive but not determinative. There are new relevant policies in place such as the narrow waterbody policies which came into effect 2014, after the Medland plan of subdivision.

69Ms. Lemieux testified that the Consent applications seek to create two new shoreline residential lots from an existing lot of record that was created more than 25 years ago through approval of the “Medland Subdivision”. The proposed lot creation has considered the public interest and incorporates proposed measures in respect of that interest, including: restrictions on the number and dimensions of docks; prohibition of buildings and structures within the front yard (except a pumphouse); and enhanced septic review requirements through the proposed ZBA, with shoreline vegetation retention; dwelling and septic locations that are anticipated to minimize blasting, site alteration and tree removal to be evaluated and monitored through the Site Plan Control approval process (included within recommended Consent conditions by Township staff); and, boat congestion and safety.

Finding

70The Tribunal finds there was no explicit language in the creation of the Medland Subdivision, to move development away from the shoreline as suggested by Ms. Scott and Mr. Robinson interpretations. The fact is that the Township combined lots 12 and 13 (Subject Property) and this was requested in order to increase the size of the lots in this area which have steep slope constraints and front onto a narrow waterbody.

71The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Lemieux and Mr. Witlib, the Applications have regard for the protection of public health and safety by proposing a restricted number and projection of docks, which have been reviewed by Mr. Nielsen a qualified professional on matters of boating safety. The Subject Property is not located within, or adjacent to, identified wetlands or type one fish habitat. It is understood that the Subject Property, as is the majority of Six Mile Lake, is identified to be located within Stratum 2 – Deer Wintering Habitat. The Applications conform with the applicable policies of the MOP and GBOP which permits development or site alteration subject to meeting certain criteria. The Applications will still be evaluated and monitored through the Site Plan Control process.

72In any event, the Subdivision agreement has been discharged, as confirmed by Ms. Scott and Mr. Robinson. Any stipulations or regulations that may or may not have stemmed from the Subdivision agreement are not binding on the Subject Property. The Medland Subdivision is instructive but not determinative.

73As opined by Ms. Lemieux, which the Tribunal agrees, while the Medland Subdivision is informative in providing historical context for how the Subject Property was created, it does not prohibit or freeze further development applications that are appropriately evaluated and considered based on current legislation and planning policies and other relevant factors, including the evolution of the character of Six Mile Lake.

74Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the consent application has regard to the matters and criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Act.

PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT 2024 (PPS)

75The PPS “provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development”. Ms. Scott and Mr. Robinson opine the applications are not consistent with the PPS policy “the protection of public health and safety”.

76Mr. Witlib and Ms. Lemieux both contend the creation of two new lots and accompanying residential dwellings proposed by the ZBA is consistent with the direction in Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS, which permits residential development and lot creation where site conditions are suitable for the provision of appropriate sewage and water services.

77Ms. Lemieux testified the Applications have regard for the protection of public health and safety by proposing a restricted number and projection of docks, which have been reviewed by Mr. Nielsen, a qualified professional on matters of boating safety.

78Township Counsel submits, the Applicant’s overall justification for the proposed development is that it satisfies Provincial housing objectives. Similarly, Counsel for Mr. Otto submits that the Applicants reliance on the housing supply policies of the PPS stretches the intent of that policy.

79The Parties argued whether these proposed dwellings are part of intensification under the PPS when there is no evidence that the proposed dwellings will not be a seasonal, recreational, cottage use or provide year-round housing.

Finding

80The Tribunal finds the ZBA is consistent with the PPS. The Subject Property is located on ‘rural lands’, as defined by the PPS, and as such, are lands appropriate for low density residential development. The Tribunal agrees with Township’s and Mr. Otto’s Counsel, that the Applicants reliance on the housing supply policies of the PPS stretches the intent of that policy, however, the Tribunal finds those stretches is reasonable and does not break it. The Applicants are not relying solely on the Province’s broader housing supply issue, even though it has not been determined that the proposed dwellings will be a seasonal, recreational, cottage use or provide year-round housing.

81In addition, preferring the evidence of Mr. Nielsen in reference to boating safety, the Tribunal finds the Applications are consistent with the PPS specifically in relation to “the protection of public health and safety”.

OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE MUSKOKA PLANNING AREA (MOP)

82The Subject Property is designated ‘Waterfront Area’ in the MOP. The Subject Property is identified to be within the ‘Deer Wintering Area Stratum 2’ designation and having Type 2 Fish Habitat along the shoreline. Development and site alteration is permitted within these areas, in accordance with the policies of the MOP and as such, no further studies were required as part of the Applications.

83Section J4.4.2 of the MOP states that;

new residential shoreline lots shall have a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares and a minimum water frontage of 60 metres. Larger lot area and frontages may be required to accommodate the proposed use, address environmental constraints or land use compatibility matters, or in consideration of lake character.

84Ms. Scott and Mr. Robinson both testified that an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) was required for the consent. However, Mr. Witlib and Ms. Lemieux testified that that the Township didn’t request an OPA during the complete application stage.

85In Mr. Witlib’s opinion, the proposal balances the District's objectives of protecting ecological functions/features, visual aesthetics, and the natural appearance of lakes with accommodating single unit residential development. By mirroring the existing pie-shaped lot fabric and aligning with established frontages, the proposal ensures compatibility with the surrounding development. The lot fabrics exceed the District's minimum area requirements.

86Ms. Lemieux testified that the Subject Property is designated ‘Waterfront Area’ within the MOP. Both resource-based recreational uses including low density, single unit recreational dwellings, and limited year-round low density single unit residential development is permitted within this designation.

Finding

87The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Witlib, that the Township staff recommended approval of the ZBA in that it conforms to the narrow waterbody policies and did consider the MOP and GBOP which provides flexibility and the applications conform with those policies.

88Although, there are cases where the Parties submit additional amendments than what is actually required to ensure that the Application conforms to a specific OP or ZBA, this is not the case in this circumstance. There is no ambiguity from the Township in what was required to make a complete application.

89In reference to Counsel of Mr. Otto’s submission, although the Township staff did not require an OPA, the absence of an OPA does not relieve the Applicants of the obligation to demonstrate conformity with the MOP and BGOP. To say a requirement for an OPA would be procedurally unfair does not excuse the requirement that Applications conform with the BGOP.

90The Tribunal finds the evidence of Ms. Lemieux persuasive, who relies on the fact that the examples listed in F.5.9.5.4 of the GBOP are not a closed list to satisfy herself that an OPA is not required in this case as the test in F.5.9.5.4 has been met. The Tribunal agrees with Counsel for the Applicants’ submission that a broad and liberal interpretation with a view to furthering its policy objectives was done by Ms. Lemieux and Mr. Witlib. This reading also acknowledges the goal of the Six Mile Lake waterfront community policies, which permits a limited amount of new development so long as the natural heritage and aesthetic integrity of Six Mile Lake is protected. Gentle intensification of the Subject Property does not warrant an OPA.

91The Tribunal finds there is some degree of a principle of fairness, and agrees with the Applicants Counsel that if an OPA is required, notwithstanding the absence of notice to the Applicants by any municipal or public authority tasked with reviewing the Applications to file an OPA, and notwithstanding the flexibility built into the very provisions of the GBOP at issue, the Applicants would have an “impossibility of success”.

92District staff were not opposed to the Applications, and the District did not seek Party or Participant status to the appeals regarding to the Applications and the Township didn’t request an OPA during the complete application stage.

93Therefore, the Tribunal finds the ZBA and Consent applications conform to the policies and general intent and purpose of the MOP.

TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY OFFICIAL PLAN (GBOP)

Character/ Land Use Compatibility

94The Subject Property is designated “Waterfront – Six Mile Lake Inland Waterfront Community” within the BGOP. This designation permits single family dwellings (recreational dwellings) and accessory structures.

95The BGOP defines ‘Character’ as:

… the collection of built, cultural and natural heritage attributes that define a given area. Such attributes can be historical in nature, can have evolved over time, or can be based on modern built form and land use patterns. Character is not static, but rather evolves over time, adapting to new circumstances and/or new planning policies.

96Mr. Robinson and Ms. Scott describe the Immediate and Neighborhood only to the proximity of Wild Rice Bay and not the more historic lots along Hungry Bay Road, with properties across the channel from the Subject Property (see Exhibit 18 Tab 21 Neighborhood & Immediate context Map);

97Mr. Robinson testified that the broader context or surrounding area was not relevant due to character being defined only to specific policies concerning narrow waterbodies and lot frontages on narrow water bodies.

98Mr. Robinson suggested that a narrow waterbody assessment on frontage includes character and compatibility of lots. In contrast, Mr. Witlib testified that a narrow waterbody doesn’t deal with character and that a narrow waterbody is a technical matter involving navigation safety. Mr. Witlib testified that you cannot look at policies in a vacuum or in isolation.

99Disagreement of the Parties focused on the historical lots of Kings Bay which were relatively smaller lots. Counsel for Mr. Otto highlighted that these existing historical lots were legal non-conforming lots.

100In contrast, Ms. Lemieux advised the Tribunal that she conducted a development analysis review of existing shoreline residential properties within three identified areas as Area A - Immediate Area, Area B - Neighborhood Area, and Area C - Northeast Area. According to Ms. Lemieux this review included measuring and analyzing the lot area, lot frontage, setback from the primary dwelling to the water and projection of existing shoreline structures (docks, boathouses).

101Ms. Lemieux testified that these measurements were taken using the measurement tools embedded within the District of Muskoka Geohub Interactive Mapping Tool and are based on available parcel fabric layers and aerial imagery. The use of this tool is considered the common method for property evaluation by the District and Township staff, when no up to date survey information is readily available.

102Ms. Lemieux’s lot analysis, Immediate area includes properties that are directly adjacent to the Subject Property, as well as those that share the same continuous stretch of shoreline. According to Ms. Lemieux, together, these properties effectively form a defined shoreline area where development on one property is visually and functionally experienced alongside development on the others when viewed from the water. The waterbody within this shoreline area is made up of Wild Rice Bay, King's Bay, and the connecting channel of water along the Subject Property frontage. The properties along the west and east side of Wild Rice Trail form the northern shoreline of this area, and the properties along a portion of Red Hawk Bay, Hungry Bay Island and Hungry Bay Road, representing the remaining shoreline lots. The Immediate Area is represented by a total of 44 shoreline residential properties.

103Mr. Witlib and Ms. Lemieux advised that the historical lots provide context to the surrounding area and character is established by the neighborhood area. Mr. Witlib explained that the lots on the same side or other side of a street comparison and the proposed lots would be indistinguishable from same side of street or bay from Mr. Otto’s lot or adjacent lots to Mr. Otto’s lot.

104Ms. Lemieux testified, the proposed retained lot fabric aims to maintain the bulk of the existing mature vegetation area on the retained lands to avoid fragmentation. This will aid in ensuring that the existing character of the Subject Property and surrounding area is maintained in a primarily natural state, to be regulated through the site plan control process.

105Mr. Witlib testified that from the ‘view from canoe’ looks at the character of property, and the preservation and ecological characteristics inform your view of assessment. In Mr. Witlib’s opinion, the ‘view from the canoe’ shows proposed lots and frontages being very consistent with existing lots on the north side of Wild Rice Bay and very similar size and frontages within Six Mile Lake.

106Counsel for the Township submits that Ms. Lemieux’s concept of what constitutes the relevant surrounding area goes far beyond the standard “city block” analysis typically employed in character assessments.

107Counsel for the Applicant highlighted case Vincent v. Georgian Bay (Township), 2022 CanLII 48580 (ON LT) (“Vincent”). This case references compatibility and surrounding area context and in paragraph 41 and 42:

…60 Beverley Street not only represents a similarly sized cottage on a similarly sized lot, it is also one of the most recent developments, signalling the evolving character of the bay. The Tribunal accepts this opinion and similarly finds that character is not expected to be static or judged solely on the basis of a majority.

[42] The Tribunal further does not accept Mr. Ramsey's overly mathematical approach to assessing character. When it comes to character, the Tribunal finds that size is not everything.

Finding

108The Tribunal finds the evidence of Mr. Witlib and Ms. Lemieux persuasive in reference to character and compatibility. They both conducted site visits to the Subject Property compared to Mr. Robinson who travelled the channel by boat and Ms. Scott who didn’t visit the Subject Property and described her analysis mainly as a tabletop exercise. The Tribunal understands a site visit isn’t always necessary, but in this case in weighing the evidence specifically on character and compatibility, the Tribunal agrees with the Applicant’s Counsel that Mr. Witlib’s and Ms. Lemieux’s evidence was direct, cogent and extensive.

109The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Witlib and Ms. Lemieux who advised the Tribunal that the Subject Property is not unique since the site’s physical characteristics of land with a granite shoreline and mainly mixed tree cover are located throughout Wild Rice Bay. The proposed lots provide for reasonable building and septic envelopes and provide opportunity for significant mature vegetation retention throughout the shoreline area. The Tribunal finds the GBOP policies provide an opportunity, where appropriate, that by way of a ZBA the provided minimum lot area and frontage values may be reduced.

110The proposed lot fabric has been designed to ensure that a significant mature vegetation retention throughout the shoreline area of the Subject Property. The evidence has shown that eight existing lots had comparable or similar lot frontages and lot areas as the proposed new lots. Further, the design of the proposed lot fabric aims to maintain the majority of the existing mature vegetation area on the retained lands to avoid fragmentation, which can be regulated through the site plan control process.

111The Tribunal finds the evidence of Ms. Lemieux comprehensive and persuasive where she completed a comprehensive lot analysis (44 lots in the Immediate area) and reviewed evolving development trends and built form changes on Six Mile Lake. The proposed new lots fall within the median range of lot areas, lot frontages, and front yard setbacks in both her Immediate Area and Neighbourhood Areas. The creation of two new lots that are comparable in size to the immediate area and surrounding area, along with restrictions to such development, are compatible with and fit well within the character of the neighbourhood. The proposed lot fabrics are compatible with existing, as well as achieve compliance with the minimum lot area requirement and have the same (if not similar) lot frontage as other lots on Wild Rice Trail.

112The Tribunal agrees with Counsel for the Applicants, that Mr. Robinson and Ms. Scott selected a restrictive Immediate Area and Neighbourhood Area (six lots and 20 lots, respectively) that excluded existing lots in the area, including those along Hungry Bay Road that were geographically proximate and functionally connected (through the waterway) to the Subject Property.

113As noted by the Township’s Counsel, “Ms. Lemieux’s data led Ms. Lemieux to a full mischaracterization of the lots immediately north of the Subject Property (referring to the colours she applied to the lots north of the Subject Property in her visual evidence)”. Even though Ms. Lemieux’s acknowledged her mistake of the lots immediately north of the Subject Property with corresponding colours, the Tribunal finds this was not detrimental to her overall analysis and this error as suggested, was not fundamental to her entire conclusions on neighbourhood character.

114The Tribunal agrees with the Member in Vincent case, that the appropriate assessment of character “in selecting the area to assess for character, it is preferable to take an area without excluding specific lots” and the Tribunal should not adopt an “overly mathematical approach”; rather, “[w]hen it comes to character […] size is not everything”.

115The Tribunal finds the creation of two new lots that are comparable in size to the immediate area and surrounding area, along with restrictions to such development, are compatible with and fit well within the character of the neighbourhood. Therefore, the Tribunal finds the Applications conform to the policies of the GBOP.

Frontyard Setbacks

116Six Mile Lake Waterfront Community requires an appropriate building setback (minimum of 20 m from the high-water mark) as per policies of Sections D.2.2 and D.3. The proposed ZBA seeks to modify the existing 30 m dwelling setback requirement to 20 m, which is in keeping with these applicable policies and is also in compliance with the SR6 zoning provisions and surrounding built form.

117Mr. Witlib testified that from his site visit, the proposed lot fabric provides building and septic envelopes that reflect those within the SR6 zone and other similar shoreline residential setback requirements, being 20 m (building) and 30 m (septic), within the Township’s ZBL. According to Mr. Witlib he completed a site visit, and the request is based on the existing topographical elements of the Subject Property, which is a substantial rock ridge that traverses the Subject Property parallel to the shoreline area, dropping down (depression) towards where approximately the 30 m setback location would be for these lots, making an ideal septic system location. Mr. Witlib explained that by maintaining the future septic systems at the 30 m setback location (as required by the ZBL), which is in concert with the natural topography of the site, this is anticipated to provide additional naturalized ‘protection’ from drainage and filtration away from the shoreline area.

118Mr. Witlib and Ms. Lemieux have similar opinions from both of their site visits, noting that if a 30 m setback for a building envelope is maintained, this same rock ridge would require significant blasting and site alteration in order to prepare the lands appropriately for a building site. In order to minimize blasting and site alteration, this would require locating the building envelopes closer to the shoreline. This proposal works in concert with the naturalized topography of the site and minimizes conflict that may result in both said site alteration, as well as unnecessary removal of mature vegetation that may impact the visual buffering of built form from the lake.

119Mr. Witlib and Ms. Lemieux testified any concerns regarding removing foliage or any change to front yard setback such as blasting could be controlled at site plan control stage. A site plan agreement will bound the owner to certain landscaping conditions to ensure maintaining the existing setback.

120Ms. Lemieux advised the Township has previously granted relief to a 20 m front yard setback for the lands adjacent to the Subject Property (Parkinson property - north), which is reflective of the standard SR6 zoning permissions.

Finding

121The Tribunal finds that it is reasonable based on the existing topographical elements of the Subject Property, which demonstrated that the proposed 20 m setback from the shore with a prohibition on front yard structures would permit opportunities for vegetative screening and is very similar to Mr. Otto’s property across from the Subject Property.

122Mr. Witlib and Ms. Lemieux had persuasive evidence who both agreed that it is anticipated that the majority of mature vegetation within the shoreline areas of both the proposed severed and retained lands will remain, in accordance with the applicable zoning provisions for shoreline activity areas and that this will further be reviewed and regulated through the Site Plan Control process.

123Township counsel in closing submissions, submitted that more should have been done to demonstrate that there will be no impacts to views. In contrast, Counsel for the Applicants, highlighted in Vincent case in reference to visual impact, which the Member states in Paragraph 49;

[49] The Tribunal notes that Mr. Ramsay opined that that the Applicants have not met the policy F.5.9.7.4 test because, in his opinion, they had to prove that the visual impact of the proposed dwelling will not be significant through a visual impact study. The Township takes the position that, in the absence of such a study, it is not possible to make a determination as to the visual impact of the proposed building.

124The Tribunal finds that arguments from Counsel for the Township is the approach rejected in Vincent case which states in Para 50; “While the visual evidence provided is not perfect and could be better, it is also unreasonable to insist that the Applicants must provide a complex and costly visual impact study report in the present case. To repeat, the Tribunal finds the visual evidence submitted is satisfactory to conform with policy F.5.9.7.4 if it applies.”

125The Tribunal agrees with both Ms. Lemieux and Mr. Witlib, who affirmed that the use of site plan control was appropriate to preserve existing vegetation on the Subject Property and visual aesthetics of Six Mile Lake, as the Township’s ZBL requires preservation of a “natural state shoreline area” where at least 75 percent of the native vegetation within the first 15 m from the shoreline is preserved.

126Therefore, the Tribunal finds the Applications conform to the required development and septic setbacks from the narrow waterbody within both the Waterfront and Six Mile Lake policies. The Tribunal is satisfied there is no visual impacts on views and the use site plan control is appropriate to preserve existing vegetation on the Subject Property.

Lot Frontage

127Section F.3.3.2.1 of the GBOP states that minimum lot requirements, except as further qualified in the GBOP is a minimum lot area of 0.4 ha and a minimum lot frontage of 60 m. Section F.5.9.5 provides the Six Mile Lake Community specific minimum lot requirements for new lot creation which state a minimum lot area of 0.8 ha, and minimum lot frontage shall be 120 m for all new lots. Further, Subsection F.5.9.5.4 states the following:

Circumstances may occur where smaller requirements are appropriate and desirable. Variances to these standards may be considered by a Zoning By-law Amendment or application to the Committee of Adjustment provided the intent of the Official Plan is maintained. Situations in which variances may be considered include:

a) A property with large frontage and a smaller lot area; or if a large lot area exists and the frontage is somewhat less than the requirement. Increased building setbacks and landscaping measures that maintain or enhance the visual integrity of the area may be required as conditions of development in such instances; and…,

128Ms. Lemieux testified, Section F.5.9.5 also specifically recognizes that there are circumstances in which smaller requirements are appropriate and desirable, including when there is a property with a large lot area and a frontage “somewhat less than the requirement”, where landscaping measures can be required as conditions of development. In this case, the proposed new lots would benefit from existing mature trees which would shield the new residential dwellings from the shoreline.

129Ms. Scott and Mr. Robinson testified, the Applications reflect a significant reduction in the frontage requirements (50% reduction) versus a situation where the frontage is “somewhat less” as per the Section F.5.9.5.4. The request to reduce frontage requirements from 120 m to 61 m at this location, in conjunction with a reduced building front yard setback from 30 m to 20 m, does not conform with the policy goals related to softening visual impacts of development along shoreline areas affected by narrow water bodies.

130Section F.5.9.5.4 of the GBOP provides for situations where a variance to the lot area and frontage requirements may be considered, which includes (in part);

if a large lot area exists and the Frontage is somewhat less than the requirement. Increased building setbacks and landscaping measures that maintain or enhance the visual integrity of the area may be required as conditions of development in such instances

131Counsel for the Township submits the objectives of the Township’s Six Mile Lake policies relate to “limited development” and the protection of the “aesthetic integrity” of Six Mile Lake (Policy F.5.9.1.1 of the GBOP).

132Section D.2.3.1 of the GBOP states that “where a Narrow Waterbody exists, an increase in lot water frontage shall be required. The following provisions shall be utilized as guidelines in directing development on Narrow Waterbodies:

a) Lakes – a lot frontage of up to 120 metres (400 feet) may be imposed.”

133In the following section D.2.3.2, the GBOP states that;

in order to determine if the lot frontage should be increase, regard shall be made for the severity of the narrowness of the channel and the impact of development on:

a) Water Quality;

b) Density;

c) Navigation and channel congestion;

d) Views; and,

e) Other matters as deemed appropriate by the Township upon review of a site specific application.

134Ms. Lemieux and Mr. Witlib view policies such as D.2.3 and F.5.9.5 of the GBOP as inherently flexible, as they include several subsections which acknowledge that there may be variations therefrom.

135Counsel for the Applicants highlight paragraph of case Chmiel v. Georgian Bay (Township), PL071204, (page 11) from the Book of Authorities of Counsel for Mr. Otto, in assessing whether the intent of the OP is met, the Tribunal ought to engage in “more than an arithmetical question: it is one that should be focused on perceptible results”, including considering mitigative measures, and whether there is something “substantive on which to find the proposed By-law non-compliant with the OP.”

136Counsel for the Township submits:

To approve the proposed lots – with a 50% reduction in frontage on a channel that is less than a third of the width of what constitutes a narrow waterbody – would be a significant disregard for the Township’s Official Plan and would render those policies effectively meaningless. Mr. Robinson characterized it as “blowing a hole in the Official Plan.”

Finding

137The Tribunal finds the evidence of Ms. Lemieux persuasive that the Six Mile Lake policies allow for reduced lot area and lot frontage standards, provided that the overall intent of the GBOP is maintained (F.5.9.5.4). This policy suggests that the GBOP does not intend to prescribe absolute lot size standards; rather, it anticipates that variations may be considered in appropriate circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal finds a minimum lot frontage of 61 m for the new lots is an appropriate exercise of this policy flexibility.

138The Tribunal agrees with Ms. Lemieux’s interpretation of the narrow water policy that the Township has provided a “baseline” in D.2.3.1 of the GBOP, with a qualifier that an increase in lot frontage up to 120 m may be imposed on narrow water body as a guideline.

139The Tribunal gives the GBOP a broad liberal interpretation with a view to furthering its policy objectives as the Courts have suggested. The Tribunal agrees with Counsel for the Applicants, “assigning the appropriate level of flexibility to the qualifiers in D.2.3.2, D.2.3.4, and F.5.9.5.4 is in keeping with the direction from the courts on interpreting OP policies. Indeed, whether lot frontages need to be increased or not is a matter that ought to be reviewed on a site-specific basis.”

140The Tribunal finds the Applications meet the minimum lot area of 0.8 ha as required in the parent SR6 zone. The proposed lot frontage of the lots was initially increased from 60 m in the original proposal to 61 m in the Revised Applications and the 61 m frontage for each of the new proposed lots conform with policy D.2.3 of the GBOP and the relief sought does not far exceed the intent of those policies.

141The Applications meet the minimum lot area, shoreline frontage and development and servicing (septic) setback requirements of the MOP and GBOP and the Tribunal is satisfied that approved Applications are not “blowing a hole” in either OP or stretches the interpretation of the Township OP policies to the point where they to lose their effective meaning.

NARROW WATERBODY - BOATING SAFETY - DOCKS

142Section D.2.3 of the GBOP provides policies related to ‘Narrow Waterbodies’. The definition of a narrow waterbody within the GBOP is as follows, in part:

‘A waterbody on a lake which has a minimum distance of less than 150 metres from shoreline to shoreline.’

143There was very little dispute between the Boating safety experts that the Wild Rice Bay channel is approximately 360 m long with the width varying between 43 m and 61 m and agree the Wild Rice Bay channel has a minimum distance of less than 150 m from shoreline to shoreline as depicted in the Map below (Exhibit 5 - Appendix D);

144Mr. Nielsen testified, he designed a survey methodology that would allow him to collect boating information on a single day during the peak of the boating season, to help inform of his opinions. He completed that assessment on Sunday, July 20, 2025, which he described as a day with good weather and otherwise good conditions for boating. From his experience, the data collected on July 20, 2025, can be considered to be representative of typical boat traffic during the busy summer period in this area of Six Mile Lake. Mr. Nielsen explained, the size of development determined a single day compared to more days for a larger development such as a marina.

145Mr. Nielsen testified that he observed boating activity within the Channel, as well as within Wild Rice Bay to its north and within the other channel to the west. The boating activity was collected from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., which is typically the peak period of boating activity within the day, following standard methods that his office routinely employs in Boating Impact Studies.

146Mr. Nielsen testified his observations indicate that the Wild Rice Bay Channel is not that busy. According to Mr. Nielsen, the creation of docks which have a short projection from shore and in locations where they can take advantage of indentations in the shoreline, which will keep these docks and boats moored to them outside of areas being used by power boats. Boaters moving through the Channel have good sight lines as they traverse the Channel, as will those egressing these docks, so in his opinion there are no concerns that the use of these docks will lead to potential collisions between power boats.

147Mr. Nielsen testified that the Applicants had set up a trail/wildlife camera that the camera collected data from July 22, 2025, through September 12, 2025. On October 5, 2025, he attended the site to observe where the camera was set up (from both the land and the Wild Rice Bay Channel) and obtained a copy of the raw data files from that camera, which he has subsequently reviewed and assessed. The results of this data showed that over the 47-day observation period, a total of 1,350 power boats and non-motorized watercraft were documented as passing through the Channel between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

148Mr. Nielsen opined, he is satisfied that the potential boating safety concerns in relation to the proposed docks can be properly addressed through the location and design of the docks. It is also his opinion that some of the other concerns adjacent residents have in relation to present boating activity in the Wild Rice Bay Channel can be substantially addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation measures.

149Ms. Lemieux testified that from a planning perspective, she would highlight that the GBOP does not require a Boat Impact Assessment or Marina Impact Assessment for new development such as that which would be facilitated by the Applications.

Docks

150Section 4.1.13.6 of the Township ZBL 2014-75 regulates docks, boathouses and boatports in narrow waterbodies. In accordance with this section, a dock will be subject to the following: maximum projection of 7 m, maximum length of 10 m, and a maximum width of 3.1 m.

151Mr. Witlib testified two docks are permitted on the proposed new lot as of right. He advised it is common to see multiple docks on larger properties as a utility dock and pleasure dock.

152Ms. Lemieux testified that the Subject Property has a shoreline lot frontage of 252.27 m. In this case, even without the new lots that would be created by the Applications, this would mean that the Applicants could erect up to four docks along the shoreline next to the waterbody.

153Ms. Lemieux advised that the ZBA would also limit the proposed lots to only a maximum one dock per lot, the dimensions of the docks (including a modified restriction on dock projection of 3.5 m), and prohibit buildings or structures within the front yard, except for a pumphouse, for the new lots.

154Ms. Graham (expert for the Township and Mr. Otto) provided a diagram of the centre channel that boats would use to traverse the channel described as “Useable area within Channel” (see Exhibit 18 Tab 34).

155Ms. Graham testified, the depth of 1.5 m is the depth boats would normally use in narrow waterbodies. When asked by the Applicants Counsel if the situation of two new proposed docks in the channel creates a concern and would cause impacts despite the facts docks are in shallower waters, she stated, yes. Ms. Graham also elaborated that individuals on docks and normal activity along the shoreline would also create distractions as well.

156Ms. Graham provided a south to north video (see screen shot of video below) taken by Mr. Otto (Exhibit 18 Tab 38), which shows a boat travelling from a south to north direction through the channel with the passing of of two white jugs/buoys to delieneate where docks ends would be placed of the two proposed docks. Ms. Graham acknowledged that she could not verify the distance from the shore since they were placed there by Mr. Otto, but believed they were placed further from the shore than what is planned for the acutal dock end placements.

157Ms Graham asserts that with the addition of the proposed two docks in the channel, the boats would require the need to veer away from the docks and the centre line of the channel.

158Ms. Graham was asked by the Tribunal that the boat in the video didn’t seem to veer away from the proposed docks as depicted in the video and her explanation on this point was somewhat nubulous.

159On re-examination, Counsel for Mr. Otto also asked if two boats were passing at the same time in the channel and had to veer where would the boats go considering the shortest width of the channel with a pennisula (pinch point) protruding out. Ms. Graham testified that they would need to veer into the Mr. Otto’s basin and basically have no where to go because of the pinch point of the pennisula.

160Mr. Nielsen provided a photo from the trail camera with a date stamp of 08/03/2025 (Exhibit 5 - Appendix I), two boats (with one boat towing a person in a tube) passing one another in the channel across from Mr. Otto’s property who has a floating swim platform and dock visible. Mr. Nielsen testified that this photo was to indicated that two boats could pass each other safely in the narrow waterbody even with a proposed dock on the Subject Property.

Finding

161The Tribunal finds the evidence of Mr. Nielsen and Ms. Lemieux persuasive. The experience of Mr. Nielsen with over 36 years as an enviormental consultant including working since the 1970’s, on issues relating to boating impact and congestion as significant evidence. The Tribunal understand Ms. Graham also has extensive experience in coastal engineering and boating safety, however, experience is not always the only factor in assessing experts. Mr. Nielsen and his firm have completed over 50 Boating Impact Assessments and Opinions. Mr. Nielsen was forthright in his testimony and never wavered in his opinion on cross examination, as well as provided compelling and convincing testimony throughout this hearing.

162In contrast, Ms. Graham acknowledged her experience was with larger lakes and developments and completed more of a literature review (table top) exercise and reached conclusions only from a mathematical formula. Ms. Graham tetsified that she visited the Subject Property from a boat for two to three hours and testified that she did not observe a single boat in the narrow water body in front of the Subject Property. The difference of evidence collected and relied upon by the two experts is quite stark.

163The Tribunal discovered that it was also evident that some of the studies that Ms. Graham relied on were questionable to narrow water bodies in relation to the Township or even the Country. Ms. Graham relied on a North Carolina study on Lake Lure and while being cross examined, she acknowldged that she applied guidance for some of this report but not applied use patterns for carrying capacity of boats. Ms. Graham also acknowledged, she has never personally completed a boating impact study or opinion, nor a boating capacity study. Ms. Graham wavered in her evidence while testifying on several occasions and withdrew part of her witness statement (Para 73) in the intensive cross examination from the Applicant’s Counsel.

164In contrast, while Mr. Nielsen noted that the Wild Rice Bay Channel has virtually no boating capacity, he affirmed that this does not render it unsafe for boating. The Channel is used for transiting to and from various portions of the lake. Mr. Nielsen advised the Tribunal that boats adjust their behaviour when traversing locations such as the Channel, and such areas are not inherently unsafe.

165During cross examination, Ms. Graham was asked if she assessed the additional activity of two new docks and the activity that it could be generated and she answered no. Ms. Graham then started to slip into using her own personal experiences and subjective views on a few occassions such as shoreline activity to try and compare that to specific activity to the Wild Rice Bay channel, and testimony in relation that boat owners usually push docks further away from vegetation since it wlll clog their motors.

166The Tribunal finds this was not compelling evidence and more subjective without facts for the Tribunal to consider and for these reasons, amongst others, the Tribunal gave very little weight to her evidence.

167Counsel for the Township suggested that Mr. Nielsen was an ecologist and not an engineer with no experience in transportation engineering and his “anecdotal observations were not technical in nature and his methodology is not unlike what a layman would record about boating”. As noted previously, Mr. Nielsen and his firm have completed over 50 Boating Impact Assessments and Opinions. Mr. Nielsen’s methodology is reasonable and if there was a concern or issue with Mr. Nielsen’s professional background this should have been raised in qualifying Mr. Nielsen to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of Ecology and Boating Impact and Safety, which was not done and qualified on consent by all Parties. With the Tribunals review of Mr. Nielsen’s experience and qualifications as noted, this submission from the Township Counsel holds very little water.

168In contrast, Mr. Robinson acknowledged that Mr. Neilsen had done a “pretty good job” in his assesment of boating safety and never questioned the methodology used. Although, Ms. Graham and Ms. Scott questioned Mr. Nielsen’s methodology on boating safety and during cross examination, the Tribunal finds Mr. Nielsen’s methodology on boating safety as reasonable and applicable to the GBOP policies. Mr. Nielsen conducted his boating impact opinion on a busy weekend day during peak boating season with good boating weather. His observations were supplemented by data from a trail camera.

169Mr. Nielsen acknowledged that it was his firms first time using a trail camera to capture photos and data, even though he never placed or set up the camera himself and relied only on the raw data to come to his conclusions. Mr. Nielsen explained that technology has changed and he and his firm will probably consider the use of these trail cameras in his future Boating Impact Assessments and Studies.

170Cross examination of Mr. Nielsen from both the Township and Mr. Otto’s Counsel was thorough and intensive. Opposing Counsel highlighted the trail camera, and questioned the collection or chain of data, on how Mr. Nielsen collected and used this data. Township counsel highlighted the Instructional manual, which states the photo range of only 27 m and the other side of the channel from the camera being over that distance.

171Mr. Nielsen testified that he didn’t know what that specification means, such as a guarantee or not, “irregardless the camera surely caught things. I cant say what the camera didn’t capture, it seemed to be doing a good job on their side of the channel and well beyond from center of channel.”

172The Tribunal finds the fact that the photos were clear, date stamped and captured boats through the channel including the opposite shoreline which could be clearly seen, made these opposing submissions somewhat mute.

173The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Nielsen, the level of boat traffic congestion in the narrow waterbody is neither considerable nor notable. Mr. Nielsen observed an average of eight boats per hour passing through the Wild Rice bay Channel on a Sunday afternoon from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. This number is far less than the average in most of boating studies that Mr. Nielsen has completed. He advised that the trail camera data confirmed that the average boat count during the time between 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. range for all weekends and long weekends was 7.9 boats per hour.

174The Tribunal finds the addition of two docks will not impact navigability of the Wild Rice Bay Channel or congestion of it. The Channel sight lines are clear which will cause no safety issues and the two docks will not make boats veer or be pushed from one side to the other away from the docks. Mr. Nielsen described having two docks in the Channel, that “it wont make any difference for boats navigating through the channel.” In addition, concerns residents have in relation to present boating activity in the Channel can be substantially addressed through the implementation of mitigation measures.

175Counsel for the Applicants highlighted case, Campion, Re 2011 CarswellOnt 12864 OMB (“Campion”). Paragrapgh 65 states;

…The Board accepts the fact that there is a lot of boat traffic, but it is like living on a heavily travelled street - you notice the traffic and make the appropriate adjustments. Mr. List pointed to a policy in the Official Plan that water activity cannot be controlled by land use regulations.

176In the above case, the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) found the existence of boat traffic to be an insufficient reason to deny the kinds of proposals being sought in the underlying application. The OMB held that the proposed consents and ZBA would not conflict with the relevant narrow waterbody policy, nor pose an unreasonable public safety risk. While noting there was significant boat traffic in the vicinity of the Subject Property, the OMB affirmed this could be managed with appropriate adjustments by boaters. As articulated by the OMB, boat traffic “is like living on a heavily travelled street – you notice the traffic and make the appropriate adjustments.”

177Mr. Nielsen and Ms. Lemieux evidence was persuasive that the Applications would not result in an increase in boat traffic or congestion that would cause boating safety or navigability concerns. According to Ms. Lemieux, this approach is also consistent with the policy framework set out in the GBOP as it relates to studies required to assess boating safety and the Township ZBL that regulates the erection of docks, including docks within a narrow waterbody.

178In addition, the Tribunal finds the docks proposed by the Applications, which are limited by the proposed ZBA to a projection of 3.5 m, even after conservatively accounting for a boat with width of 3.0 m, will be outside the portion of the Wild Rice Channel that is primarily used by boaters and will not cause any boating safety concerns.

Mitigation Measures

179Counsel for the Applicant highlighted Schedule 5 of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations (1st Edition June 2025) (“VORR”), which Municipalities can use to create speed limits and limit power-driven vessels from 30 m within a shoreline.

180Ms. Graham testified that the Township has not restricted the waters channels in Wild Rice Bay and neither of her clients, Mr. Otto or the Township requested an application for a VORR schedule.

181It is Ms. Graham’s opinion; this is not an effective deterrent and that the strongest mitigation measure available would be to restrict further dock creation on the Wild Rice Bay Channel.

182The Tribunal is satisfied with the mitigation measures suggested by Mr. Nielsen that the Township can restrict the speed limit through VORR for the channel in Wild Rice Bay, along with the use of Buoys or signage and the continuing enforcement of the Police Marine units that will contribute for the safety of the Channel. As Mr. Nielsen noted, which the Tribunal agrees, overcapacity situations do not mean that conditions are dangerous for boating, but simply that extra vigilance is warranted. Boaters generally do show additional vigilance as they use such areas. As noted in the Campion case and is relevant to this case, boat traffic “is like living on a heavily travelled street – you notice the traffic and make the appropriate adjustments.”

Private Road Access

183Mr. Robinson advised the Tribunal that the Applicant will be required to submit an application to the Directors of the Wild Rice Trail Association to consider an increase in the number of “eligible lots” (i.e. the two additional lots created by consent) and fulfil the requirements as required in Section 12 of the Wild Rice Trail Association By-law passed November 29, 2010, prior to being approved as “eligible lots” and only there after granted the right to use the “Wild Rice Trail”.

184Ms. Scott asserts, the Applications have not demonstrated that legal access to the new lots can be provided. According to Ms. Scott, it is premature to approve the Applications without written confirmation from the Wild Rice Trail Association that access across Wild Rice Trail is permitted.

185All Parties’ Counsel agreed that the Subject Property has water access even though in wintertime this would be dependent on ice as noted by Mr. Otto’s Counsel.

186Mr. Nielsen and Mr. Robinson had no issue of prematurity of the Applications concerning road access and Ms. Scott advised water access would be tied to water safety if the Tribunal does not prefer the evidence of Mr. Nielsen regarding water safety.

187Ms. Lemieux highlighted that there is also no indication that the Wild Rice Trail Association would not grant access to the new lots, rather, the Trail Association By-law provides opportunity to apply for new membership (Section 12) provided that “each newly created eligible lot shall be no less than 2 acres and 200 ft of frontage and will not materially affect the reasonable enjoyment of other members.”

188In reference to the prematurity argument concerning private road access, the Tribunal finds the Subject Property has water access and meet the lot requirements that would allow the Applicant to apply for membership for the private road association therefore, there is no prematurity issue to approve the Applications without written confirmation from the Wild Rice Trail Association.

CONDITIONS

189The Applicant further confirms that it accepts, in principle, the nine conditions of approval that were recommended by Township staff in response to the Consent Applications, which are noted below:

1. THAT the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment provide written confirmation that conditional approval of Consent Application B24-08 (Lot “B”) is in effect.

2. THAT the Clerk of the Township provide written confirmation that a Zoning By-law Amendment is in force and effect recognizing the lot frontage.

3. THAT the Owner provide a property tax certificate or, correspondence from Township Financial Services, indicating that all property taxes have been paid up-to-date with respect to the properties subject to this Decision.

4. THAT the Owner pay 5% in lieu of parkland dedication for the severed lands in accordance with Section 51.1(3) of the Planning Act to the Township of Georgian Bay. The Township shall retain an appraiser at the applicant’s expense, or the applicant may retain an appraiser with an AACI, CRA or DAR designation, to prepare the appraisal based on the land value of the severed lands as of the day before the day of the approval of the provisional Consent Decision.

5. THAT a draft Reference Plan be completed by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS), and a digital copy (pdf) filed with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.

6. THAT a copy of the deposited Reference Plan (R-Plan) be provided to the Secretary-Treasurer.

7. THAT a draft transfer be prepared by a Solicitor and submitted to the Secretary Treasurer, in preparation for the creation of the Certificate of Official, describing the parcel(s) created by consent.

8. THAT all fees and disbursements (legal, engineering, planning), if any, incurred by the Township with respect to the applications be paid for by the respective owners.

9. THAT the Owner, at their cost, shall enter into a Consent Agreement with the Township regarding and registered upon the Subject Lands for the purpose of ensuring that Site Plan Control is required prior to any site alteration or development.

190Ms. Scott and Mr. Robinson contend, a Boating Safety Impact Assessment, Environmental Report, and Tree Preservation Plan should have formed a complete application requirement of the Applications and that the Applicant now should be responsible for ensuring these or similar assessments should be completed even though the Township didn’t require them for a complete application.

191Ms. Lemieux testified that her review of the policies in the GBOP that require a Boat Impact Assessment or Marina Impact Study, or similar studies, would be required by Township staff as part of a complete application where it is the opinion of staff that the development would be of a commercial nature, or so substantial that it would warrant this level of review to ensure that safety concerns associated with boat traffic and new shoreline structures are adequately addressed to protect the public.

192Ms. Lemieux testified in this case, the Township did not require the completion of a Boat Impact Assessment, a Marina Impact Assessment, or any other related study or plan in order to deem the Original Applications complete in October 2024. At no point throughout the remainder of the development process, including through a review of the Applications, did the Township require any additional studies or plans to be submitted. Township staff recommended approval of the Applications as submitted.

193The Tribunal finds this recommendation to have the Applicants supplement studies which were not required by the Township, patently unreasonable to the Applicants. Without getting into the costs for the Applicants for these additional studies or the reasonableness and other factors, the Tribunal finds Ms. Scott and Mr. Robinson did not make a compelling argument for such a recommendation or condition, therefore, the Tribunal will dismiss their recommendations in their entirety.

194Ms. Scott also submits an archaeological assessment should also be a condition if the applications are approved. Ms. Scott did not make a compelling argument or provide any facts for such a recommendation for a condition, therefore, the Tribunal will also dismiss this recommendation in its entirety.

195The Tribunal agrees with Ms. Lemieux and Mr. Witlib, that Site Plan Control would apply to the new lots prior to any proposed development or site alteration occurring, in accordance with the Township’s ZBL 2024-045 (Site Plan Control By-law) and further to the conditions of approval for the Consent Applications as recommended by staff.

196Ms. Lemieux explained that through this process, the Township will evaluate, monitor, and require a number of technical matters be addressed to its satisfaction, such as: vegetation retention and additional plantings; lot grading and drainage; site alteration; landscaping; specific building and septic locations; pedestrian access to and from the waterbody; phosphorous management and construction mitigation measures; and other matters as permitted under the Act.

197Mr. Witlib testified, Township Staff use site plan control to ensure a natural state of the shoreline is maintained such as existing tree buffer and proposed development control of location, and width of shoreline activity to preserve shoreline characteristics so not to have cleared or manicured lawns.

198As noted in Vincent case, paragraph 50 states:

…While the visual evidence provided is not perfect and could be better, it is also unreasonable to insist that the Applicants must provide a complex and costly visual impact study report in the present case.

199Counsel for the Applicants submits that there is a principle of fairness in how Mr. Robinson and Ms. Scott on their recommendations and conditions is now being questioned by the Applicant in relation to additional studies are not only unfair, but contrary to the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.

200Without delving into specifics, on the face of it, the Applicants were never requested by any municipal authority to file an OPA, provide additional studies, reports, or evaluations to demonstrate how perceived impacts could be addressed.

201The Tribunal is satisfied that the nine conditions of approval (in paragraph [189]) that were recommended by Township staff and accepted by the Applicants are appropriate.

SUMMARY OF DISPOSITION

202In conclusion, the Consent and ZBA Applications are consistent with the PPS, conform to the OP of the District and Township, have appropriate regard for the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act, and represents good planning and has regard for matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act.

203The Tribunal finds the character of the surrounding area has continued to evolve throughout the years. Evidence has shown many properties have been developed, or redeveloped, including the demolition and reconstruction of original cottages, shorelines structures, and conversion of seasonal structures to year-round permanent residences. This has been shown through the evidence of a review of Planning Act applications that were considered by both Township Council and COA from 2020-2025. Planning activity since the historical Medland Subdivision was approved within the Six Mile Lake community, including Planning Act applications and the recent OPA 22 approved by Township’s Council demonstrate that the character of the lake is not stagnant and continues to have physical changes to the area.

204The proposed development will result in the orderly development of the Subject Property in a manner similar in size and function to the surrounding area and will not create a precedent as an outlier in terms of lot size, frontage, or built form. The proposed lot creation is not expected to negatively impact access to, or enjoyment of, the shared water resource for the community. The Tribunal agrees it will not set a “slippery slope” as described by the Applicant’s Counsel for future approvals, especially given the limited number of lots that would be eligible for future severance, and each application ought to be determined on their individual merits.

INTERIM ORDERS

205THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS ON AN INTERIM BASIS THAT subject to the satisfaction of the prerequisite conditions described in paragraph [206] below (“Conditions”):

(a) William and Cindy Reynolds’ (Applicant’s) appeal seeking an amendment of the Town’s Zoning By-law No. 2014-75 to permit the Development on the Subject Property is allowed and the proposed amendment appended as Attachment 1 hereto being Revised Draft Zoning By-law Amendment is approved.

(b) The Applicant’s appeal seeking a Consent in respect of the development proposed for the Subject Property in the Township is allowed and the provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out below in paragraph [206];

206A final Order shall not be issued by the Tribunal in respect of the draft planning instruments described above in paragraph [205] (a) (b), until the Conditions described below are met:

1. THAT the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment provide written confirmation that conditional approval of Consent Application B24-08 (Lot “B”) is in effect.

2. THAT the Clerk of the Township provide written confirmation that a Zoning By-law Amendment is in force and effect recognizing the lot frontage.

3. THAT the Owner provide a property tax certificate or, correspondence from Township Financial Services, indicating that all property taxes have been paid up-to-date with respect to the properties subject to this Decision.

4. THAT the Owner pay 5% in lieu of parkland dedication for the severed lands in accordance with Section 51.1(3) of the Planning Act to the Township of Georgian Bay. The Township shall retain an appraiser at the applicant’s expense, or the applicant may retain an appraiser with an AACI, CRA or DAR designation, to prepare the appraisal based on the land value of the severed lands as of the day before the day of the approval of the provisional Consent Decision.

5. THAT a draft Reference Plan be completed by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS), and a digital copy (pdf) filed with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.

6. THAT a copy of the deposited Reference Plan (R-Plan) be provided to the Secretary-Treasurer.

7. THAT a draft transfer be prepared by a Solicitor and submitted to the Secretary Treasurer, in preparation for the creation of the Certificate of Official, describing the parcel(s) created by consent.

8. THAT all fees and disbursements (legal, engineering, planning), if any, incurred by the Township with respect to the applications be paid for by the respective owners.

9. THAT the Owner, at their cost, shall enter into a Consent Agreement with the Township regarding and registered upon the Subject Lands for the purpose of ensuring that Site Plan Control is required prior to any site alteration or development.

207The Applicant’s shall seek Final Orders from the Tribunal in respect of the matters set out in paragraphs [206] above by on or before December 31, 2026, or failing such, shall provide a detailed status report by that date.

208This Member shall remain seized of this proceeding including all matters arising from the Interim Orders made above.

“Eric S. Crowe”

ERIC S. CROWE

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

THE CORPORATION OF

THE TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY

BY-LAW 2025-0XX

Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 2014-

75, as amended, with respect to lands legally

described as Lot 7 on Plan 35M-673, Part of Lot

15, Concession 14, in the Township of Georgian

Bay, District of Muskoka.

(206 Wild Rice Trail)

WHEREAS the Council of the Township of Georgian Bay enacted Bylaw

No. 2014-75, to regulate the use of land within the Township of

Georgian Bay; and

WHEREAS the Council of the Township of Georgian Bay deems it

expedient and in the public interest to amend By-law No. 2014-75;

and

WHEREAS authority to pass such a by-law is provided by Section 34

of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P. 13 and amendments

thereto;

NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE

TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Schedule ‘A’ (Map No.111) to Zoning By-Law No. 2014-75, as

amended, is hereby further amended by rezoning 16,000 square

metres of the Subject Lands to a Six Mile Lake Residential

Exception Zone (SR6-XX).

2. Table 6.8 in Subsection 6.5 of the comprehensive Zoning By-law

2014-75, as amended, is amended by adding the following new

Six Mile Lake Residential – Exception XX Zone (SR6-XX):

Schedule ‘A’

Lot 7 on Plan 35M-673, Part of Lot 15, Concession 14, in the Township

of Georgian Bay, District of Muskoka (206 Wild Rice Trail)