Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

Menu

Recreational Development

  1. Bayou Cable Park v. Township of Amaranth and Amaranth Alliance for Rural Preservation Inc.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Recreational Development, Severances, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The matter before the Board is an appeal by Bayou Cable Park Inc. and the owner Brennan Grange from the refusal by the Township of Amaranth of his request for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a consent to sever for the purposes of establishing a wakeboard facility on his property on 20 sideroad. The appeal also includes the failure to make a decision on the site plan application. The proposal is to sever and rezone the western portion of the property that contains a lake from Rural to Recreational to permit the commercial wakeboarding operation and to retain the eastern portion of the property where the Appellant has his home, a single detached residential dwelling and accessory building. Issues raised included the interpretation of minimum distance separation (MDS) policies, noise levels, and general compatibility in the rural area.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the day to day activities and special events is not a passive recreational activity, as there are 300 people expected to attend and where there will be a PA system. An active recreational use is not compatible with the surrounding rural and agricultural uses, and as such, is not consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement and does not conform to the Growth Plan or the Official Plan. The Board also finds that the proposed use exceeds the scale and intensity intended by the Official Plan for a passive recreational use. Further, the proposed consent does not conform to the Township Official Plan due to the incompatibility of use on the retained and severed lands with respect to noise; it is not good planning to approve a consent and use that will lead to future incompatibility; and finally, the consent is premature and not in the public interest.


    Document(s):



  2. Still’s Bay Landing Corporation v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Recreational Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Still’s Bay Landing Corporation applied to amend the Township of Muskoka Lakes Zoning By-law 87-87 in order to increase the size of the marina from 38 to 50 slips. The council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes denied the request. Still’s Bay Landing Corporation appealed its denial to the Board. The subject lands are designated “Waterfront” in both the Regional Municipality of Muskoka Official Plan and the Township Official Plan. The property in question is zoned Waterfront Commercial (WC2) in the Township of Muskoka Lakes Zoning By-law 87-87. The By-law limits the dock length to 80 feet and the width to 25% of the lot frontage. The Appellant/Applicant originally applied for a dock length of 150 feet and width of 75.6% and a side lot setback of two feet where the By-law requires 30 feet.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board accepts that there are problems with the existing use of the marina. It also accepts that marina operations such as this are necessary to the development of recreational tourism and cottage development. The Provincial Policy Statement, and both Official Plans provide for recreational and cottage development that is a major component of the local economy. The Board finds that the zoning amendment presented before the board is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plans and represents good planning.


    Document(s):



  3. Township of Muskoka Lakes Heritage Designation

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Heritage Conservation, Recreational Development, Renewable Energy, Shoreline Development


    Court:

    Conservation Review Board


    Application/issue:

    Intention to designate three properties known as Township Dock at Lake Muskoka; Portage Landing at Moon River; and Shield Parking Lot, in the Town of Bala under the Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter O.18, amended to 2009.


    Held:

    Properties designated


    Reasons:

    The Board found that under s. 29 of the Act, the Township had conducted a reasonable and fair process and the properties hold cultural heritage value and interest to the community. The Board finds that the Township met the requirement of s. 29(3) and s. 29(4); and finds that Swift River Energy’s argument is redundant. Since the Township is not in violation of the Act and the properties are identified as holding cultural heritage value, the Board finds that the Township can proceed with designating the three properties.


    Document(s):



  4. St. John’s Evangelical Latvian Lutheran Church v. Township of Essa

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Recreational Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    St. John’s appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing provisional consent to sever one new lot of approximately 7 hectare from a total land parcel of approximately 28 ha at the subject property.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed with conditions


    Reasons:

    The Board found that the application conforms to the County Official Plan and the OP, and complies with all applicable provisions of the ZBL. The Board also stated that the Provincial Policy Statement clearly outlined that severance of the lots comprises development and therefore, provisional consent is possible, but only if the conditions proposed by the NVCA and Township are met.


    Document(s):



  5. Leonard v. Town of Bracebridge

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Recreational Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    An appeal against the Town of Bracebridge Committee of Adjustment’s decision to refuse an application for a minor variance, to permit a hunt camp on a 39.97 hectare parcel of land. By-law 2006-120 requires a hunt camp in a rural area to have a minimum lot area of 40 hectares.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the variance meets all four of the statutory tests of subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and it is the Board’s view that this proposal will be compatible with the immediate area and will not adversely impact the neighbourhood and surrounding properties.


    Document(s):



  6. Town of Bracebridge By-law No. 2006-120 (Re)

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Recreational Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The matter before the Board is the only remaining appeal against the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2006-120 of the Town of Bracebridge. The remaining appeals of N. Montanaro, J.R. Ward, L. Power are site specific appeals dealing with the zoning proposed for the subject property known as Little Europe Resort. The Resort property is an established tourist camp of 56.33 acres with extensive frontage on the Muskoka River. A Superior Court of Justice Decision respecting the Resort site ordered that; The use as a tourist camp of the lands is a legal non-conforming use within the meaning of Section 34(9)(2) of the Planning Act. The lands are subject to the By-laws of the Town of Bracebridge. The appellants articulated their concerns effectively. Their concerns include impediment to the enjoyment of their properties, trespassing, smoke, continuous expansion, public safety with respect to use of boats and the boat ramp, defined swimming area and environmental issues as they relate to septic systems.


    Held:

    Board orders that Zoning Amendment come into full force and effect.


    Reasons:

    The Board accepts the testimony of the Town Planner and finds that the proposed zoning provisions are in the public interest, set standards of operations, regulations and permitted uses and zone provisions respecting the naturalized buffer areas, and provide for a scale of development that is appropriate for the Resort site.


    Document(s):



  7. City of Cambridge v. Flag Raiders Inc.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Recreational Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    A request to amend Zoning By-law 150-85 in the form of a Temporary Use By-law to permit the continued use of the site for the purpose of operating commercial/recreational establishment (outdoor paintball) for a period of three years. The application was denied by the Council of the City of Cambridge and the applicant/appellant appealed Council’s decision.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board accepts that the use for the site is not in accordance with either the Official Plan or the Regional Planning Policies. However, the Board concludes that the extension of the current Temporary Use By-law is only for three months and the Board has no desire to close down Flag Raiders Inc. immediately when there is a possibility of it relocating in the near future.


    Document(s):



  8. Mitchell v. Township of Seguin

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Recreational Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    This hearing concerned a rezoning to permit the demolition of most of Rocky Crest Resort at the North end of Lake Joseph in the Township of Seguin. The appellants have appealed to the Board under subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, against Zoning By-law Z272-2005 of the Township of Seguin.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board does not find any undue adverse impact and will therefore amend the by-law as set out by the Board.


    Document(s):



  9. 1358872 Ontario Ltd. v. Neebing (Municipality)

    Location:

    Northern Ontario


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Official Plan Amendments, Recreational Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The appeals related to a proposal to construct a Seasonal Trailer Park adjacent to the river-bank of the Cloud River at Cloud Bay, in the Municipality of Neebing. The proposed trailer park is located on a narrow band of land owned by Eagle Mountain Resort. Amendments to the Municipality’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law are required to implement the proposal. Official Plan Amendment No. 10 would redesignate one-third of the subject lands as “Recreational” with the balance redesignated as “Environmental Protection.” The Zoning By-law amendment would rezone the lands to Tourist Park Commercial Exception One Zone and various Use Limitation Exception One Zones.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed


    Reasons:

    While the Board took into consideration that fact that the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and the Development Agreement could be edited and corrected to be more in line with the Municipality’s documents, they did not find this argument persuasive enough. They did, however, find more persuasive the fact that the proposal was not compatible with what was acknowledged as a pristine environment. An environment that is unique on the north shores of Lake Superior, which must be protected from harm rather than be put at risk.


    Document(s):