Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
June 5, 2026
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-25-000370
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
Lynn Proska
Subject:
Application to Amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
Description:
To permit floating dock addition
Reference Number:
Z 04-25 LOB
Property Address:
1067 Wolf Bay Road
Municipality/UT:
Lake of Bays/Muskoka
OLT Case No:
OLT-25-000370
OLT Leads Case No:
OLT-25-000370
OLT Case Name:
Proska v Lake of Bays (Township)
Heard:
November 13, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Lynn Proska
I. Donnell S. Sands
Township of Lake of Bays
Did not appear
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE ON NOVEMBER 13, 2025, AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal was the Merit Hearing for the appeal of Zoning By-law Amendment pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), by Lynn Proska (” Applicant”) to amend Township of Lake of Bays (“Township”) Zoning By-law 2021-111 (”ZBL”).
2Lynn Proska (“Applicant”) seeks a site-specific amendment to the Zoning By-law for 1067 Wolf Bay Road (“Subject Site”), in the Township. The proposed amendment is intended to:
4.2.1.4. i) – To permit a lot coverage of 15.1% (247.1 sq. m.), where the maximum permitted is 10% and the existing is 13.2%.
4.2.1.4.l) – To permit a Shoreline Activity Area coverage of 70.8% (79.6 sq. m.), where the maximum permitted is 40%.
3At the outset of the hearing, the Applicants counsel informed the Tribunal that they had received correspondence from the Township that they would not be appearing before the Tribunal.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
4Peter Hungerford, a Registered Professional Planner and Member of the Canadian Institute of Planner, provided his signed Acknowledgement of Expert Duties and was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in land use planning.
5Mr. Hungerford stated that the Township denied the application based on staff opinion that the Zoning By-law application does not maintain the intent of the Township’s Official Plan regarding shoreline development policies, specifically the massing of built form within 20 metres of the shoreline. Staff concluded that the proposal would increase built form and massing within this area due to the proposed increase in shoreline activity area coverage and lot coverage.
6In the testimony of Mr. Hungerford, the Subject Site has an existing as-built dock that was previously approved with an area footprint of 34.5 square metres (“m²”). The proposed ZBL application would maintain what is currently on the Subject Site.
7Mr. Hungerford stated that with regard to Section 2 of the Act, it states that a local board shall have regard to (a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions; (o) the protection of public health and safety; and (r) the promotion of built form that, (i) is well-designed, and (ii) encourages a sense of place.
8Mr. Hungerford provided evidence that the proposed amendment will not adversely affect the ecological system or public health and safety. The proposed dock addition will reinforce the built form and sense of place and is compatible with the existing shoreline residential area.
9Mr. Hungerford informed the Tribunal that the changes to the built form and massing are minor and compatible and appropriate for the Subject Site and surrounding properties.
10Mr. Hungerford stated that the development will have minimal or no impact on natural heritage features, including fish habitats, and the existing docks that are floating. The proposed use will maintain the character of the waterfront designation and will not dominate the natural environment.
11He further stated that the proposed and existing developments are appropriate in coverage and size, and that the proposed coverage represents a minor increase over the existing coverage on the property.
12The proposed dock is limited in scale and mass and will be located at the ordinary water level. There will be no negative impact on the visual character of the Subject Site or neighbouring properties, and the built form will not dominate the natural landscape.
13Mr. Hungerford’s expert opinion is that the ZBL application is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, the District of Muskoka Official Plan, and the Township Official Plan. He further stated that the application represents good planning.
14The Tribunal accepts Mr. Hungerford’s uncontroverted expert opinion and is satisfied that the ZBL application is appropriate for approval.
ORDER
15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the Township of Lake of Bays Community Planning Permit By-law 2021-111, Waterfront Residential with an Exception (WR-E006) for the property of 1067 Wolf Bay Road is amended as follows, and as set out to this Order:
4.2.1.4.i) – To permit a lot coverage of 15.1% (247.1 sq. m.), where the maximum permitted is 10% and the existing is 13.2%.
4.2.1.4.l) – To permit a Shoreline Activity Area coverage of 70.8% (79.6 sq. m.), where the maximum permitted is 40%.
16The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Township of Lake of Bays to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.
“Steven Cooke”
STEVEN COOKE
VICE-CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.