6
9
OLT-22-002969
[
168] The Tribunal does not see the necessity of a special zone. This restriction can be
inserted in the proposed amendment to the Development Permit By-law under the
Development Permit Area Provisions” where the “Standard” will include the 10 m rear
“
yard of the proposed lots with the removal of trees is for safety reasons, subject to the
recommendations of a qualified ecologist. The Tribunal recognizes the need for the
potential removal of specific trees for both the safety and security of buildings and their
inhabitants.
[
169] Lastly, Dr. Coleman criticized Mr. Hannay’s modelling when considering the
potential of clearing and setback that may be required in relation to the FireSmart
guidelines. His peer review of the tree inventory and conclusions of Mr. Shaw was, for
the Tribunal, shocking. The Tribunal could not reconcile the massive difference in
opinion when dealing with Dr. Colman’s application of FireSmart guidelines. In short, the
Tribunal concludes that a visit to the Island may have put this in better perspective. The
Tribunal relies on Mr. Shaw’s evaluation, conclusions and recommendations and the
peer reviewer that attended on site and commented on the study.
[
170] With respect to Mr. Fahner, the Tribunal found that his position was shaken in
cross-examination. The Tribunal found that he was flustered at times and his position on
the subject matter was not consistent and his objectivity, as an expert in his field,
sometimes came into question. Many times, Mr. Fahner used other cases as examples
to bolster his opinion on this appeal, but none of those examples were brought into
evidence to be tested by the parties and the Tribunal. As an example, during his cross-
examination of the subject property located at 3933 South Portage Road, he changed
his opinion a number of times. He also opined that the parking requirement for a water
access property needs to be greater than the three parking spaces and required visitor
spaces, as contemplated in Lake of Bays comprehensive zoning by-law. It is his opinion
that even the most restrictive by-law, for parking requirements is insufficient.
[
171] Although the Tribunal agrees with the Applicant’s experts, with respect to the
proposed zoning by-law amendments on the two waterfront landings, the evidence and