Ontario Land Tribunal  
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement  
du territoire  
ISSUE DATE: September 12, 2022  
CASE NO(S).:  
OLT-22-002969  
(Formerly) PL180898  
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.  
990, c. P.13, as amended  
1
Applicant and Appellant:  
Subject:  
Langmaid’s Island Corporation  
Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of  
the Township of Lake of Bays to adopt the  
requested amendment  
Existing Designation:  
Proposed Designation:  
Purpose:  
Waterfront (and identified as ‘Muskoka  
Heritage Area’)  
Waterfront (and identified as ‘Muskoka  
Heritage Area’)  
To clarify and refine policy relating to the  
Langmaid’s Island Muskoka Heritage Area, to  
establish site specific policy for the  
development of 36 lots for residential uses  
and to provide for the protection of  
conservation blocks  
Property Address/Description:  
Big Langmaid’s Island & Little Langmaid’s  
Island  
Municipality:  
Approval Authority File No.:  
OLT Case No.:  
Township of Lake of Bays  
OPA 01/18 LOB  
OLT-22-002969  
Legacy Case No.:  
OLT Lead Case No.:  
Legacy Lead Case No.:  
OLT Case Name:  
PL180898  
OLT-22-002969  
PL180898  
Langmaid’s Island Corporation v. Lake of  
Bays (Township)  
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.  
990, c. P.13, as amended  
1
Applicant and Appellant:  
Langmaid’s Island Corporation  
2
OLT-22-002969  
Subject:  
Application to amend Development Permit  
By-law No. 04-180 - Neglect of the Township  
of the Lake of Bays to make a decision  
Waterfront Residential (with ‘Heritage Site’  
overlay)  
Existing Zoning:  
Proposed Zoning:  
Waterfront Residential with an Exception  
(WR-E__), Waterfront Environmental  
Protection with an Exception (WEP) and  
Waterfront Environmental Protection (WEP)  
To establish site specific development  
provisions for the proposed 36 lots for  
residential uses and to provide for the  
protection of conservation blocks  
Big Langmaid’s Island & Little Langmaid’s  
Island  
Purpose:  
Property Address/Description:  
Municipality:  
Municipality File No.:  
OLT Case No.:  
Township of Lake of Bays  
Z 01/18 LOB  
OLT-22-002970  
Legacy Case No.:  
OLT Lead Case No.:  
Legacy Lead Case No.:  
PL180899  
OLT-22-002969  
PL180898  
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.  
990, c. P.13, as amended  
1
Applicant and Appellant:  
Subject:  
Langmaid’s Island Corporation  
Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the  
District of Muskoka to make a decision  
To permit a development of 36 lots for  
residential uses with site specific  
development provisions and to provide for  
the protection of conservation blocks  
Big Langmaid’s Island & Little Langmaid’s  
Island  
Purpose:  
Property Address/Description:  
Municipality:  
Town of Huntsville and Township of Lake of  
Bays  
Municipality File No.:  
OLT Case No.:  
S2018-1  
OLT-22-002976  
Legacy Case No.:  
OLT Lead Case No.:  
Legacy Lead Case No.:  
PL180916  
OLT-22-002969  
PL180898  
3
OLT-22-002969  
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.  
990, c. P.13, as amended  
1
Applicant and Appellant:  
Subject:  
Langmaid’s Island Corporation  
Application to amend Zoning By-law No.  
2
008-66P - Neglect of the Town of Huntsville  
to make a decision  
Shoreline Commercial One  
Site Specific (To be determined)  
To permit a waterfront landing to access  
Langmaid Island  
Existing Zoning:  
Proposed Zoning:  
Purpose:  
Property Address/Description:  
Municipality:  
4215 South Portage Road  
Town of Huntsville  
Municipality File No.:  
OLT Case No.:  
Z/12/2018/HTE  
OLT-22-002974  
Legacy Case No.:  
PL180912  
OLT Lead Case No.:  
Legacy Lead Case No.:  
OLT-22-002969  
PL180898  
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.  
990, c. P.13, as amended  
1
Applicant and Appellant:  
Subject:  
Langmaid’s Island Corporation  
Application to amend Zoning By-law No.  
2
008-66P - Neglect of the Town of Huntsville  
to make a decision  
Residential (R1) Zone  
Site Specific (To be determined)  
To permit a waterfront landing to access  
Langmaid Island  
Existing Zoning:  
Proposed Zoning:  
Purpose:  
Property Address/Description:  
Municipality:  
Municipality File No.:  
OLT Case No.:  
3933 South Portage Road  
Town of Huntsville  
Z/11/2018/HTE  
OLT-22-002972  
Legacy Case No.:  
PL180911  
OLT Lead Case No.:  
Legacy Lead Case No.:  
OLT-22-002969  
PL180898  
Heard:  
February 1 to March 1, 2021 by video hearing  
4
OLT-22-002969  
APPEARANCES:  
Parties  
Counsel  
Langmaid’s Island Corporation  
M. Melling  
A. Margaritis  
G. O’Brien (student-at-law)  
Township of Lake of Bays  
Town of Huntsville  
J. Ewart  
J. Ewart  
The Lake of Bays Association  
H. Elston  
M. Hodgson  
C. Emmett  
The Lake of Bays Heritage Foundation H. Elston  
M. Hodgson  
C. Emmett  
Kelly Zytaruk  
Self-represented  
DECISION DELIVERED BY G.C.P. BISHOP AND PARTIAL ORDER OF THE  
TRIBUNAL  
[
1] The Tribunal convened a Phase 1 hearing of the merits in this matter.  
Langmaid’s Island Corporation (the “Applicant”) has appealed:  
a.  
in the Township of Lake of Bays (“Lake of Bays”) – an Official Plan  
Amendment (“OPA”) pursuant to s. 22 (7), with the District of Muskoka  
(“Muskoka”) as approval authority, and a Development Permit By-law  
Amendment pursuant to s. 34 (11) of the Planning Act (“the Act”);  
b.  
c.  
in the District of Muskoka as approval authority, a draft Plan of Subdivision  
(“PofS”) pursuant to s. 51 (34) of the Act; and  
in the Town of Huntsville (“Town”) – two Zoning By-law Amendments  
pursuant to s. 34 (11) of the Act.  
5
OLT-22-002969  
[
2]  
The proposal would permit the development of a 32-lot draft PofS on Langmaid’s  
Island (the “Island”) in Lake of Bays. The proposed development includes water access;  
four conservation blocks and two water access points from the mainland located in the  
Town at 4215 South Portage Road (the Beauview Cottage Resort property”) and  
3
933 South Portage Road (the “3933 property). The use of the dwellings would be  
seasonal. Muskoka is the approval authority for both the draft PofS and the proposed  
OPA, submitted to Lake of Bays.  
[
3]  
There are six parties of record in this matter, and all are represented in these  
proceedings, with the exception of Kelly Kztaruk, who is self represented. There are a  
number of interested participants who provided participant statements. A  
comprehensive participant statement book is found at Exhibit 63.  
KEY ISSUES  
[
4]  
The Procedural Order had a defined Issues List that was agreed upon by the  
parties. During the five-week hearing, it became evident that the key issues are best  
described as does the proposed development:  
a.  
respect the general intent of the relevant Provincial, Muskoka, Town, and  
Lake of Bays statutory planning documents and are the various  
background reports of sufficient detail to ensure the proposed  
development is appropriate for the Island;  
b.  
c.  
respect and protect the cultural heritage values of interest found on the  
Island is the proposal suitable development for the Island;  
respect the natural heritage features of the Island and appropriate in an  
area that has currently undisturbed natural heritage and hydrological  
features;  
d.  
have sufficient engineering capacity to accommodate a dwelling and  
septic system; respect flood prone lands and steep slopes thereby not  
representing an over development of the Island; and  
6
OLT-22-002969  
e.  
provide sufficient operational requirements in the Town that are  
appropriate to service the seasonal residents.  
THE WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS  
[
5]  
The following witnesses provide witness statement (WS) and provided expert  
evidence during this proceeding. The Tribunal will make reference to both oral and  
written testimony in this decision.  
[
6]  
For the Applicant:  
a.  
Stefan Szczerbak (WS Exhibit 2, Tab 6A and Reply Witness Statement  
RWS”) Tab 6B) regarding land use planning focused on the proposed  
(
Zoning By-law Amendments for the mainland properties, contemplated for  
waterfront landings; and James C Dyment and Debra Walker (Joint WS  
Exhibit 2, Tab 7A and Joint RWS Tab 7B) as a panel with respect to land  
use planning, more focused on the elements of the proposed development  
of the Island;  
b.  
c.  
Dan Currie (WS Exhibit 2, Tab 2A and RWS Tab 2B) with respect to  
cultural heritage and cultural heritage planning;  
Bill Van Ryn with respect to engineering matters relating to municipal  
services for land development focusing on site servicing and water  
systems (WS Exhibit 2, Tab 1A and RWS Tab 1B);  
d.  
e.  
f.  
Gord Nielson (WS Exhibit 2, Tab 3A) with respect to boating impact and  
navigation matters;  
Al Shaw (WS Exhibit 2, Tab 4A and RWS Tab 4B) with respect to ecology  
and aquatic biology; and  
Michael Hannay (WS Exhibit 2, Tab 5A) regarding visual impact.  
[7] For Lake of Bays  Melissa Markham (WS Exhibit 8  a report to Lake of Bays  
Council) with respect to land use planning.  
7
OLT-22-002969  
[
8] For the Town  Kirstin Maxwell (WS Exhibit 7  report to the Town Planning  
Committee) with respect to land use planning.  
[
9] For the Lake of Bays Heritage Foundation (“Foundation”) and the Lake of Bays  
Association (“LOBA”):  
a.  
Stephen Fahner (WS Exhibit 13 and an updated WS Exhibit 57) with  
respect to land use planning and appropriate weight will be given as an  
avid boater in the District;  
b.  
c.  
Derek Coleman (WS Exhibit 9 and RWS Exhibit 11) with respect to  
ecology and environmental planning; and  
two area residents with interest in the proposed development being: Judith  
Mills (WS Exhibit 10) President of the Foundation and Board of Directors  
and Mary Ann Peden (WS Exhibit 12)  President of the LOBA. Both  
provided lay testimony to the Tribunal.  
[
10] For Kelly Zytaruk:  
a.  
b.  
Jennifer Ellard-Alexis (WS, part of Exhibit 15) Sustainable Development  
Specialist; and  
Rick Esselment (WS, part of Exhibit 15) with respect to site servicing.  
[
11] A comprehensive Participant Statement Book was submitted on behalf of the  
Participants by LOBA and the Foundation (Exhibit 63).  
RULING ON JENNIFER ELLARD-ALEXIS’S EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY AS AN  
EXPERT  
[
12] During the course of the hearing and before Ms. Ellard-Alexis testified, the  
Tribunal was informed that Ms. Ellard-Alexis was posting screen shots of the hearing  
8
OLT-22-002969  
event and commenting on the progress and presentation of documents and evidence in  
contravention of Rule 22.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”).  
The Tribunal also found the contents of those Facebook posts problematic. The  
Facebook posts were recorded as Exhibit 60. Paragraphs [13] through [24] of this  
Decision is the oral ruling from the Tribunal finding that Ms. Ellard-Alexis will be limited  
to give advocate evidence on behalf of her client.  
[
13] Shortly after the commencement of this hearing, Ms. Ellard-Alexis posted  
photographs of the hearing event on Facebook with comments included, contrary to  
Rule 22.5 of the Rules. This section of the Rules deals with Photographic, Audio or  
Video Recording of a Tribunal hearing event.  
[
14] While the Tribunal may accept her ignorance of the Rules on the posting of the  
photographs on Facebook, it is the content of those postings that is most disturbing to  
the Tribunal.  
[
15] On November 30, 2020, Ms. Ellard-Alexis signed an Acknowledgement of  
Expert’s Duty, in accordance with Rule 7.5 of the Rules, to provide opinion evidence  
that is fair, objective and non-partisan.  
[
16] On February 4, 2021, on Facebook, Ms. Ellard-Alexis quotes:  
Langmaid's Tribunal continues questions arising about successional  
forests and biodiversity. Praying to god that means my report got some  
traction!! In my opinion Langmaid's a island was appropriately identified  
as a key biodiversity area and should not never become a subdivision.  
Thank God we have some progressive laws and policies on the books –  
now we need to get the system to recognize that.  
[
17] The Tribunal sees this as a statement of both self importance and self promotion  
as evidenced by the number of hashtags added to the statement itself. All in the face of  
a signed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty to this Tribunal to deliver unbiased opinion  
evidence. She is praying that her report has got some traction when she has never  
been in the stand to present her evidence nor has been cross-examined.  
9
OLT-22-002969  
[
[
18] Later the same day, she posts:  
It's a public and opposing party (Lake of Bays Association) has just  
dropped what I think will be a conservation bomb on the proceeding.  
19] This is in reference to the full Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry  
MNRF”) report that was found in the archives of MNRF Office in Peterborough.  
(
[
20] This again shows total lack of self control, judgement and the ability to give  
independent and unbiased opinion evidence to this Tribunal.  
[
21] The Tribunal also received an updated Curriculum Vitae (“CV”) of Ms. Ellard-  
Alexis from her representative with a file date of February 1, 2021. The top of this  
updated CV has Ms. Ellard-Alexis’s name on the top, followed immediately by the words  
Change Maker, Team Player, Capacity Builder and Advocate.  
[
22] The Tribunal does suggest to Ms. Ellard-Alexis the word “Advocate” be removed  
from her CV, as this alone is grounds for dismissal by this Tribunal to allow this witness  
to be elevated to the level of delivering unbiased opinion evidence.  
[
23] The Tribunal will not accept Ms. Ellard-Alexis as an expert in this hearing but as  
an advocate to her client.  
[
24] The Tribunal will allow Ms. Ellard-Alexis to give evidence at this hearing but the  
evidence-in-chief will be limited to the same amount of time set aside in the hearing  
work plan for the lay witnesses, being 1.5 hours in-chief.  
SITE AND AREA CONTEXT  
[
25] The lands subject to this application is found on two islands which are located in  
Lake of Bays. The total area of the two islands is approximately 53.79 hectares (“ha”) in  
1
0
OLT-22-002969  
size and have approximately 6,180 metres (“m”) of waterfront frontage. The Applicant  
owns both islands, the larger island being approximately 50.74 ha and the smaller is  
3
ha in size. It is the Tribunal’s understanding that, by raising the water level of Lake of  
Bays, through the placement of a controlled dam system, flooding has occurred to  
create the artificial water boundary between the two islands. As mentioned earlier, the  
Tribunal will refer to both islands as the “Island” throughout this Decision, being the  
limits of the proposed development. The Applicant also owns a third small island known  
as Seagull Island and is located to the north of the large island, between it and the  
mainland. Seagull Island has no existing structures, nor are proposed in this  
application.  
[
26] The central portion of the Island was previously developed with three cottages, a  
generator building and a boat house. All buildings are in disrepair and have been  
abandoned and heavily vandalized. The Island is predominantly treed with mixed forest  
with a variable thickness of overburden. There are areas of exposed bedrock and a  
ridge with peaks that runs along the middle of the large island with all surface water  
draining to the lake. The main Island has typical Muskoka Landscape with to hills 50 m  
high in the central and eastern portion of the Island with the hill in the western portion  
being approximately 25 m high.  
[
27] Included as part of this proceeding are lands located in the Town. The first is the  
933 property that has historically been used to provide access to the Island and the  
3
Beauview Cottage Resort property has been secured to provide additional boat access  
and parking for the proposed draft PofS.  
[
28] The surrounding land uses include:  
North - within the Town permanent and seasonal waterfront residential  
dwellings and accessory buildings;  
South - within Lake of Bays permanent and seasonal waterfront residential  
dwellings an accessory uses;  
1
1
OLT-22-002969  
East - within the Town and Lake of Bays, the closest property is Roothog  
Island; and  
West - within the Town and Lake of Bays permanent and seasonal  
waterfront dwellings and accessory uses.  
AGREED UPON STATEMENT OF FACTS  
[
29] The expert witnesses did meet as required by the Procedural Order and  
prepared a number of Agreed Upon Statement of Facts (“ASOF”) by discipline in an  
effort to further clarify and scope issues. These ASOF were of assistance to the  
Tribunal and the final versions are as follows:  
a.  
b.  
c.  
of the Land Use Planners (Exhibit 4);  
of the Ecologists (Exhibit 5); and  
of the experts related to servicing of the proposed development.  
(Exhibit 6).  
PLANNING INSTRUMENTS  
[
30] The Planning Instruments before the Tribunal in these proceedings are found in  
Exhibit 73 and are:  
a.  
b.  
an OPA to Lake of Bays Official Plan (“Lake of Bays OP”) that serves to  
correct the Island description, reflect the findings of the Environmental  
Impact Study (“EIS”), provide additional policy, regulatory and character  
guidelines to assist in the development process on the Island;  
an amendment to Lake of Bays Development Permit By-law No. 04-180  
(“Lake of Bays DPBA”) placing the Island lands into a site-specific  
Waterfront Residential (WR) designation and providing for a series of  
specific regulations to implement the proposed development;  
1
2
OLT-22-002969  
c.  
an amendment to the Town’s Zoning By-law No. 2008-66P (“Town ZBA  
1) for the 3933 property placing these lands into a Residential One (SR1)  
#
Zone with a site-specific Exception Number to permit 10 docking slips and  
a restriction of the cumulative width of all shoreline structures and amenity  
areas;  
d.  
e.  
an amendment to the Town’s Zoning By-law No. 2008-66P (“Town ZBA  
#
2) for the Beauview Cottage Resort property placing these lands into a  
Shoreline Commercial One (CS1) Zone with a site-specific Exception  
Number to permit waterfront landing as an additional permitted use; and  
a proposed draft PofS which provides for 32 waterfront residential lots and  
four conservation blocks on the Island and also includes the mainland  
parking blocks in the Town. The proposed draft PofS will be subject to  
Phase 2 of the hearing and Muskoka is the approval authority for PofS.  
The draft PoS will be heard in Phase 2 of the hearing following a decision  
of this Tribunal on the other matters and Planning Instruments now before  
it and considered in this Decision.  
BACKGROUND  
[
31] Suffice it to say this matter has an extensive history. A brief review is as follows:  
a.  
b.  
prior to submitting applications, the planner for the Applicant met with  
Lake of Bays, the Town and the Muskoka staff; consulted with the LOBA,  
the Muskoka Conservatory and held a stakeholders’ workshop with  
interested members of the community. A public open house was held in  
December 2017;  
applications were made to Lake of Bays to amend the Lake of Bays OP  
and the Lake of Bays Development Permit By-law along with an  
application for draft PofS to Muskoka in January 2017. All of these  
applications were deemed complete in February 2018;  
1
3
OLT-22-002969  
c.  
d.  
applications to the Town were submitted in February 2018 and deemed  
complete in March 2018;  
a complete series of background reports were submitted including a  
Planning Justification Report; EIS; Functional Servicing Report; Stage 1 –  
2
Archaeological Assessment; a Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”); and  
a Boating Impact Assessment (“BIA”). The requisite reports including the  
HIA and BIA were peer reviewed;  
e.  
f.  
subsequent to internal and peer reviews of background reports, technical  
reports were updated and resubmitted to Lake of Bays, the Town,  
Muskoka, and the peer reviewers in August 2018;  
further submissions were made to Lake of Bays, the Town and Muskoka  
in October and November 2018 in response to Lake of Bays staff and peer  
reviewers’ comments;  
g.  
as of October 29, 2018, all of the consultants retained by Lake of Bays  
and Muskoka “had completed their peer reviews and indicated that they  
had no objections to the applications proceeding to approval, subject to  
conditions that could be imposed on the Draft Plan approval or by  
Development Permit By-law Amendment regulations”;  
h.  
Town staff recommended that both ZBAsapplications be denied in  
November 20, 2018 and Lake of Bays staff made a similar  
recommendation with respect to the amendment to the Lake of Bays OP  
and Lake of Bays DPBA on November 13, 2018, but dated November 20,  
2
018; and, due to the appeals to the Tribunal, councils for the Town and  
Lake of Bays did not make decisions on their respective applications;  
council for the respective approval authorities failed to make decisions  
within the prescribed timeframes. Appeals on all of the Planning  
Instruments were made to the Tribunal in November of 2018 in three  
separate notices of appeal. On November 13, 2018, the appeal was  
submitted for Lake of Bays OPA and DPBA applications; on November 19,  
i.  
2
018, the appeal was submitted for the Town ZBA applications; and on  
1
4
OLT-22-002969  
November 22, 2018, the appeal was submitted for Muskoka draft PofS  
application.  
LAND USE PLANNING POLICY  
[
32] Many of the issues in the Issues List are related to the statutory planning  
documents of the Province, Muskoka, the Town, and Lake of Bays. All planning  
witnesses provided either oral or written evidence in their review, analysis, and opinion  
in respect of relevant planning documents, proposed Planning Instruments and the  
proposed development. The Tribunal will review this evidence in keeping with the  
Issues in the Issues List and the Key Issues identified earlier in this Decision. Much of  
the land use planning evidence presented on behalf of the Applicant, with respect to  
relevant statutory planning documents is presented as a panel made up of Mr. Dyment  
and Ms. Walker (the “planners”).  
The Planning Act  
[
33] The planners for the Applicant provided a detailed summary of how the proposal  
has appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Act. Opinion evidence noted the relevant  
subsections including: natural features and their functions are identified and the  
necessary mitigation measures incorporated; no features of significant cultural,  
historical, archeological or scientific interest were identified on the Island; there is  
confirmation that private sewage and water services can be appropriately  
accommodated; there are significant and recurring financial and economic benefits that  
accrue to Lake of Bays and Muskoka; all municipal authorities have been involved in a  
complete and iterative planning process; there has been an extensive planning process,  
the proposed development standards go well beyond the standard requirements of the  
Lake of Bays Development Permit By-law and a large portion of the Island will remain  
forested and in a natural state. In conclusion, it is opined that the proposed  
development has appropriate regard for the Act.  
1
5
OLT-22-002969  
[
[
34] Neither Mmes. Markham and Maxwell nor Mr. Fahner spoke to s. 2 of the Act.  
35] The Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of Applicants planners and finds  
the proposed development has appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Act.  
Provincial Policy Statement 2020  
[
36] The planners for the Applicant described how the Provincial Policy Statement  
PPS”) provides overarching policy on land use planning in Ontario, with a general goal  
(
to enhance the quality of life of those living in the Province. Evidence of the planners is  
articulated through a detailed analysis in the WS, where they spoke to all of the relevant  
sections of the PPS. Many of the themes of the PPS follow the direction found in s. 2 of  
the Act. The Tribunal notes that much of the PPS discussion relates to the issues with  
respect to the Island where the majority of the hearing is focused, but many of the  
principles of the analysis can be applied to both the Town ZBAs.  
[
37] The planners (including Messrs. Hanney, Currie, and Szczerbak in respect of  
their discipline) provided evidence to the Tribunal on behalf of the Applicant are of the  
opinion that all of the proposed Planning Instruments are consistent with the PPS.  
Reasons that the proposed seasonal residential lots and waterfront landings and access  
are consistent with the PPS include:  
a.  
are capable of being serviced privately and water access makes use of  
existing municipal infrastructure resulting in minimal servicing cost to the  
municipality. Necessary hydro and communication facilities can be made  
available to the Island;  
b.  
will be located only on lands that are suitable for residential development  
and will not intrude into environmentally sensitive areas and the features  
with the highest ecological value will be maintained. Close to 90% of the  
Island will not be developed and maintained in a natural state. All these  
considerations are identified in a detailed comprehensive EIS (s. 1.1.1);  
1
6
OLT-22-002969  
c.  
an important economic driver in Muskoka is recreational development and  
the economic benefits have been established. An appropriate balance has  
been met between economic growth while ensuring the natural  
environment has been protected; development will make use of existing  
cultural and natural assets to create a desirable seasonal recreational  
development. It represents controlled growth in a waterfront community  
and leverages the recreational assets historically offered in Muskoka and  
the Town (s. 1.1.4);  
d.  
all of subject lands would be considered “Rural Landswithin the context  
of the PPS. In evidence it is demonstrated that this means recreational  
dwelling units is a permitted use. In the ASOF, it is noted both the Island  
and the waterfront landings are “Rural Lands” by definition as they are  
outside of a settlement and prime agricultural areas. Should development  
be deemed appropriate through an analysis of the PPS, new recreational  
dwelling lots and landings are permitted uses in the applicable Waterfront  
designation. The use of ‘promoted’ in the PPS strongly supports all  
proposed uses in a way which is compatible with the landscape that is  
typical for a waterfront community in Lake of Bays and the Town. The  
lotting pattern provides for what exists and is permitted in the Waterfront  
designation to ensure they can be properly serviced and have access to  
the mainland (s. 1.1.5);  
e.  
f.  
the Applicant has taken a coordinated approach to ensure all the various  
jurisdictions involved were informed, comments considered to ensure the  
Planning Instruments are properly integrated into existing documents,  
consistent, and comprehensive (s. 1.2.1);  
much of the evidence heard at the hearing related to natural heritage  
which will be discussed in greater detail later in this Decision. The  
planners did speak to their opinion with respect to consistency as follows.  
Natural heritage features and areasare identified, and appropriate  
mitigation measures are recommended in the EIS to ensure any impact is  
minimized or avoided. Clearance was received from the MNRF on the EIS  
1
7
OLT-22-002969  
recommendations to address species at risk and the peer reviewer  
determined the EIS and subsequent information provide as acceptable.  
The proposed Planning Instruments are designed along with the  
Construction Mitigation Plan to protect fish habitat. The EIS evaluated  
both the Island and adjacent lands concluding no negative impacts on  
natural features and their ecological functions (s. 2.1);  
g.  
the Functional Servicing Report (“FSR”) made recommendations to  
ensure the protection of lake water quality and provides for a  
comprehensive Construction Mitigation Plan. The proposal as  
implemented by the Planning Instruments, has a minimum lot area of  
0
1
.8 ha which is twice the area required in the Township OP on a Category  
lake (s. 2.2);  
h.  
i.  
a HIA and Stage 1 2 Archeological Assessment were completed in  
support of the proposed development. The planners deferred to the  
authors of these studies, but in their review found them to be consistent  
with the PPS (s. 2.6);  
the Applicant has completed a more detailed analysis and evaluation than  
has been previously undertaken for similar applications in an effort to  
demonstrate where development can or cannot occur. The proposed  
Planning Instruments serve to update the Lake of Bays OP with the more  
accurate and current information made available in these detailed studies  
(s. 4.6); and  
j.  
the Lake of Bays OP is more restrictive than the PPS. The Lake of Bays  
OP does contemplate the development of Muskoka Heritage Areas  
(“MHA”). Criteria to be met are established both in a general way and  
specifically to the Island. The Applicant conforms to the Lake of Bays OP  
by completing the requisite impact assessment (s. 4.9).  
[
38] Mr. Fahner on behalf of the Foundation and the LOBA provided evidence with  
respect to the PPS. He took a much more specific analysis of the proposed  
1
8
OLT-22-002969  
development, speaking to s. 1.1.5, s. 2.6 5 and s. 4.6 of the PPS in relationship to  
development in “Rural Areas”.  
[
39] He is of the opinion that the proposed instruments are not consistent with the  
PPS for the following reasons:  
a.  
there is a recognition that in “Rural Areas”, resource-based recreational  
uses are permitted and recreational opportunities should be promoted but  
only in a form “that is compatible with the rural landscape’. His evidence  
questioned the compatibility of the proposed development with the rural  
landscape on and surrounding the Island. One must take into account that  
the extremely low density of development that exists today on this very  
large Island and the Special Heritage Areastatus of the property. He  
maintained the position that Special Heritage Areais part of the rural  
landscape and should be maintained as such;  
b.  
the PPS states that significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be  
conserved subject to an evaluation that demonstrates the heritage  
attributes of the Island will be preserved. He opined that the proposed  
draft PofS and the implementing Planning Instruments do not adequately  
preserve the significant cultural heritage landscape, nor the many of the  
heritage attributes on the Island; and  
c.  
the official plan of a given municipality is the most important vehicle for the  
implementation of the PPS and must be kept up-to-date to reflect current  
Provincial policy. The Lake of Bays OP was updated in 2016 containing  
many polices related to the preservation of heritage areas in general and  
specifically to the Island.  
[
40] Ms. Markham is the planner for Lake of Bays, completed a comprehensive  
review and evaluation of the proposed development with respect to the policy  
framework of the PPS. She is of