Loading...
2003-091 To adopt Amendment No. 17 to the Official Plan, as amended THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE BY-LAW NO. 2003-091 Being a By-Law to Adopt Amendment No. 17 to the Official Plan, As Amended WHEREAS The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is empowered to update its Official Plan as required; AND WHEREAS the process for considering such an Amendment was in accordance with Section 17 and 21 ofthe Planning Act, R.s.O. 1990 c.P 13. AND WHEREAS the amendments to the Official Plan are deemed to be appropriate and in the public interest: NOW THEREFORE the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte enacts as follows: 1. THAT Amendment Number 17 to the Official Plan, attached hereto, is hereby adopted and; 2. THAT this by-law shall come into force and take effect as specified in the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. By-law read a first and second time this 21st day of August, 2003. By-law read a third time and finally passed this 21st day of August, 2003. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE ~!Lf~ I MAY, J. NEIL CRAIG ; d) Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc., re: Report dated August 5, 2003, Official Plan Review, Official Plan Amendment (OPA #17). Motion No.8 Moved by Hughes, Seconded by Fountain Be it resolved that the report from Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc., dated August 5,2003, Official Plan Review, Official Plan Amendment (OPA #17) with the exception of Item 7 of OPA #17 pertaining to Section 02.3.3 of the Official Plan be received and adopted; and that the Clerk be authorized to bring forward the appropriate by-law to adopt OPA #17 to the Oro-Medonte Official Plan for Council's consideration. Carried. Recorded Vote Requested by Councillor Hough Councillor Hough Nay Councillor Hughes Yea Councillor Marshall Yea Councillor Bell Yea Deputy Mayor Dickie Yea Councillor Fountain Yea Mayor Craig Yea Mayor Craig declared a conflict of interest regarding Item 5d), OP A Review #17, Section D2.3.3 - Item 7 re: "Conditions under which new residential lots may be permitted", due to his property having two dwellings. Mayor Craig left the room and did not participate in any discussion or vote on this item. Deputy Mayor Dickie assumed the Chair and the vote was taken. Motion No.9 Moved by Bell, Seconded by Marshall Be it resolved that Item 7 of OP A #17 pertaining to Section D2.3.3 of the Official Plan, as included in the draft OPA appended to Nick McDonald's report dated August 5, 2003, be received and adopted. Carried. Mayor Craig assumed the Chair. Page 5 Special Council Meeting Minutes-August 21, 2003 OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 17 GENERAL UPDATE TO OFFICIAL PLAN TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE August 2003 MERIDIAN fiAN!N1NG t:ON~\JL:r.o.t.mi INt:. This Official Plan Amendment was adopted by The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte by By-law Numbers 2003-091 in accordance with Sections 17 and 21 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 c.P. 13, on August 21,2003. , II II II II ii Ii . Ii THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE BY-LAW NO. 2003-091 Being a By-Law to Adopt Amendment No. 17 to the Official Plan, As Amended WHEREAS The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is empowered to update its Official Plan as required; AND WHEREAS the process for considering such an Amendment was in accordance with Section 17 and 21 of the Planning Act, R.s.O. 1990 c.P 13. AND WHEREAS the amendments to the Official Plan are deemed to be appropriate and in the public interest: NOW THEREFORE the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte enacts as follows: 1. THAT Amendment Number 17 to the Official Plan, attached hereto, is hereby adopted and; 2. THAT this by-law shall come into force and take effect as specified in the Planning Act R.s.O. 1990, c.P. 13. By-law read a first and second time this 21st day of August, 2003. By-law read a third time and finally passed this 21st day of August, 2003. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE ~!Lf~ MAY , ~. NEIL CRAIG '1J TABLE OF CONTENTS CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT PART 1: THE INTRODUCTION ii 1.0 BACKGROUND 2.0 LOCATION 3.0 BASIS ii ii ii 3.1 Home Industries 3.2 Severances in the Agricultural and Rural Designations 3.3 Infilling Lots 3.4 Severance of Lots with Two Dwellings 3.5 Additional Permissions in the Agricultural and Rural Designations 3.6 Seasonal Produce Stands 3.7 Industrial Uses in the Rural Designation 3.8 Water Taking 3.9 Development on Private Roads 3.10 Adult Lifestyle Community 3.11 Shoreline Development 3.12 Residential Care Facilities 3.13 Public Parkland 3.14 Housekeeping Changes 3.15 Mapping iii iii iv iv iv iv v vi vii vii viii viii ix ix ix PART II: THE AMENDMENT PART III: THE APPENDICES 21 Appendix 1: Planning Report prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants dated August 5, 2003 Appendix 2: Letters received from the public on the Official Plan update immediately before and after the public meeting on June 24, 2003. Appendix 3: Letters sent by Meridian to those providing written comments in Appendix 2. CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT Part I: The Introduction, provides general information regarding the general policy update. Part 1: The Introduction does not constitute an operative part of Amendment No. 17 to the Official Plan. Part II: The Amendment, provides the details of the Official Plan Amendment. Part II: The Amendment, including Schedules A and B constitute the operative part of Amendment No. 17 to the Official Plan. Part III: The Appendices, provide more specific information regarding the Amendment and the background work that led to the preparation of the Amendment. Part III: The Appendices do not constitute an operative part of Amendment No. 17 to the Official Plan. Part 1: The Introduction Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants August 5, 2003 PART I: THE INTRODUCTION (this is not an operative part of Official Plan Amendment No. 17) 1.0 BACKGROUND This update contains policies that deal with the following issues/land uses: . home industries; . the creation of infilling lots in the rural area; . permissions for the severance of a second dwelling in the rural area; . industrial uses in the Rural designation; . water taking; . development on private roads; . adult lifestyle communities; . private roads; . shoreline development; . residential care facilities; and, . public parkland In addition to the above, a number of minor housekeeping changes that improve the readability and interpretation of certain policies are contained within this Amendment. 2.0 LOCATION This Amendment applies to all lands in the Township of Oro-Medonte. 3.0 BASIS The following sections describe the rationale for the changes to the Official Plan. Part 1: The Introduction Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants ii August 5, 2003 3.1 HOME INDUSTRIES When the Official Plan was prepared in 1995, policies were included to permit home industries on parcels of land in the Agricultural and Rural designations. The intent of the policies was to allow farmers and other rural residents to realize other opportunities on their properties, provided these opportunities did not have a significant impact on adjacent land uses. A key component of the policies, as originally written, was that any home industry had to be accessory to an agricultural use and located on the same lot. This meant that the home industry was not intended to be the principle use of the property but only incidental to the principle use, which was intended to be agriculture. The implementing Zoning By-law further refined this policy by indicating that home industries were required to be accessory to an agricultural use on the same lot or accessory to a single detached dwelling on the same lot. The Zoning By-law also required that home industries be sited on lots that have a minimum lot area of 4.0 hectares. A number of concerns have been raised about the absence of any criteria in the Official Plan to provide some guidance to Council and staff on what exactly is a home industry. Given the Township's proximity to the City of Barrie, there are also concerns about those buying relatively inexpensive agricultural or rural land (as compared to industrial land in Barrie) and developing industrial uses that have no relation to the agricultural area or even to the Township. It is the view of Council that retaining permissions in the Official Plan for home industries is appropriate since home industries create jobs for Oro-Medonte residents and allow farmers particularly to continue farming their land. However, there is a need for clear guidance in the Official Plan on how home industries should be considered. On this basis, the policies respecting home industries have been considerably expanded. In addition, the policies no longer permit home industries as-of-right. They will now only be permitted subject to rezoning and the fulfillment of a number of detailed criteria. 3.2 SEVERANCES IN DESIGNATIONS THE AGRICUL TURAL AND RURAL The consent and subdivision policies in the 1995 Official Plan are contained in a number of different sections. This Amendment consolidates all of these policies in a new section for easy reference. Part 1: The Introduction Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants iii August 5, 2003 3.3 INFILLING LOTS The 1995 Official Plan permitted new infilling lots within the Agricultural designation, pursuant to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). A new infilling lot is only permitted in this type of circumstance if the proposed home was located on a lot that is between two homes on the same side of the road and which are not more than 100 metres apart. A key component of the PPS definition is that the home on either side has to be on lots of similar size. The 1995 Official Plan definition of infilling in the Agricultural designation is not consistent with the PPS definition and therefore needs to be updated. In addition, given the lot pattern in the Agricultural designation, no infilling lots have been approved since 1995. This is primarily because of the 1995 requirement that at least 35 hectares was required before an infilling lot could be considered and because of the requirement that no other lot was created from the parcel since 1973. This Amendment reduces the 36 hectare requirement to 20 hectares and deletes the 1973 requirement. This change will permit the consideration of infilling applications in the Agricultural designation consistent with the PPS. The permission for infilling lots is also extended to the Rural designation, where such a permission did not exist in the 1995 Official Plan. 3.4 SEVERANCE OF LOTS WITH TWO DWELLINGS The 1995 Official Plan permits the severance of second dwellings from properties in the Agricultural and Rural designations. This permission was intended to be time-sensitive and most property owners in this situation have since obtained severances. On this basis, this OPA deletes the permission. 3.5 ADDITIONAL PERMISSIONS IN THE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DESIGNATIONS Many municipalities are now considering how to both highlight the importance of agriculture within their communities and to improve the livelihood of area farmers. In this regard, many are now including additional permissions within their Official Plans to achieve this objective. On this basis, this OPA includes agricultural research and training establishments and farm-related tourism establishments as permitted uses, subject to criteria, in the Agricultural and Rural designations. 3.6 SEASONAL PRODUCE STANDS There have long been concerns about these types of uses and how they should be controlled, if at all. The 1995 Official Plan permits seasonal produce stands in both the Agricultural and Rural designations, but there is no policy to assess them. As a result they have been classified as commercial uses on farm properties and are permitted subject to criteria. Part 1: The Introduction Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants iv August 5, 2003 3.7 INDUSTRIAL USES IN THE RURAL DESIGNATION The 1995 Official Plan permitted the establishment of industrial uses in the Rural designation subject to zoning. The 1995 Plan stated that Council shall be satisfied that such use: a) is compatible with the rural character of the area; b) can be designed and sited to blend in with the rural surroundings; c) is located where it would have little or no impact on agricultural operations; d) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal; e) is to be accessed by municipal roads that can accommodate the increased traffic generated by the proposed use; f) will not cause a traffic hazard as a result of its location on a curve or a hill; and, g) can be appropriately buffered from adjacent residential uses. In addition, prior to considering an application to develop a new industrial, institutional or commercial use, Council shall be satisfied that the proposed use cannot be reasonably sited in a nearby settlement area or on lands in the vicinity that are designated Industrial or Commercial. Since the Oro-Medonte Official Plan was prepared, the County of Simcoe Official Plan was prepared and it requires that all single industrial uses in rural areas be permitted only if an Official Plan Amendment to the local Plan is approved. The County Plan indicates that "consideration of such proposals will require local Official Plan Amendments and must meet one of the following criteria: . the use is for the primary processing of land related resources found on the site or in close proximity of the site; . the use is incompatible in the proximity of other industrial uses; . the use has large land requirements that cannot be satisfied in settlements, business parks, or Special Development Area designations either though existing infill opportunities or expansion. " . In addition, the County Plan indicates that the "proposed use must: . generate minimal truck traffic or be in the proximity of an arterial road; Part 1: The Introduction Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants v August 5, 2003 . have sewer and water service needs suitable for individual services; . have a small number of employees; . not be located in the proximity of residential or other incompatible uses in accordance with applicable guidelines for industrial use and distance separation; and . except for agriculturally related industries and secondary uses, not be located in prime agricultural areas. " On the basis of the above, rural industrial uses can no longer be permitted as-of- right in the Rural designation and the use is deleted as a permitted use in the Official Plan by this OPA. In addition, a new section setting out relevant criteria is added to the Official Plan. 3.8 WATER TAKING There have long been concerns about commercial water taking on the Oro Moraine and in the Township of Oro-Medonte. At the present time, any application that proposes the extraction of more than 50,000 litres of surface or groundwater per day requires a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) from the Ministry of Environment. Applications are typically posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) website for a period of time so that municipalities and residents may comment on the application. There is currently no direct notification given to landowners surrounding proposed high capacity wells. A number of deficiencies in the PTTW process have been identified in the past, particularly through the Walkerton hearing. During those hearings, the Environmental Commissioner's Office (ECO) submitted a comprehensive report assessing a number PTTW applications in the Province. As a result of their review, they determined that many were not supported by adequate information and that many had conditions that were not acceptable, in their view. The Province has strived to improve the PTTW process since that time, but there continues to be concerns about the process and the lack of any assessment of cumulative impact by the MOE as part of the review process. Municipalities currently have a very limited ability to control landowners who wish to extract more than 50,000 litres water per day on average from a well on their property. In January 2002, Council accepted the recommendations in a report Meridian Planning Consultants prepared on the issue and indicated that they would support the institution of some type of public process that requires the input of neighbours and stakeholders when a PTTW application is submitted. This report and corresponding resolution was then sent to most of the rural municipalities in Ontario, with most supporting the approach set out by the Township of Oro-Medonte. Part 1: The Introduction Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants vi August 5, 2003 The Township is historically has taken the position that the extraction of water from the ground is not a land use pursuant to the Planning Act. This means that the Township cannot control water taking, as long as this interpretation is in place. However, the extraction of water from the ground is certainly a land use issue, as the OMB hearing on Gold Mountain Springs clearly indicated. Since that hearing, there has been another OMB hearing in the County of Grey, where a spring water loading facility was proposed. The Township of Artemesia (now in Grey Highlands) refused the application and it was heard by the OMB. At that hearing, the OMB ruled that water taking was not a use of land and approved the application. The Grey Association for Better Planning appealed the OMB decision to Divisional Court and on November 21, 2002, the Divisional Court ruled that the taking of water was a use of land and directed the OMB to hold another hearing on the matter. This decision has now been appealed to the Court of Appeal. On the basis of the above, this OPA includes policies in the Official Plan that indicate that water taking is a use of land. This means that a Zoning By-law Amendment would be required for certain water takings. However, the policy would only come into effect if the courts ruled that water taking was a use of land. 3.9 DEVELOPMENT ON PRIVATE ROADS Section H 1 of the 1995 Official Plan contains policies that deal with development that is not located on public roads that are maintained on a year-round basis. The intent of the policy is to preclude the creation of new lots on such roads and to not permit the development of new homes on these roads, unless these roads are brought up to municipal standards. There continues to be numerous requests to allow development on such roads. However, the 1995 policy needs to be updated to ensure that the intent of the policy is clear. 3.10 ADULT LIFESTYLE COMMUNITY A considerable amount of concern has been expressed about the continuing rationale behind permitting such communities to be established in Oro-Medonte. Much of the concern on the part of the residents stems from the 'non-adult lifestyle' community nature of the newer portions of the Horseshoe Valley Resort development. It is the Township's opinion that any adult lifestyle community developed in close proximity to the City of Barrie will have the potential to be occupied by residents on a full-time basis and by residents with children. This means that there will eventually be a demand for services such as parks and schools for the new residents. On this basis, the Township believes that it should consider the development of such communities in the same manner as any other form of Part 1: The Introduction Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants vii August 5, 2003 residential development. Given that residential development is generally directed to settlements, the Township is of the view that the permission to allow adult lifestyle communities in a rural settling is no longer appropriate. On this basis, the entire section dealing with adult lifestyle communities is deleted from the Official Plan by this OPA. 3.11 SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT A number of requests have been made to permit the creation of lots on existing year-round roads that serve as the boundary of the Shoreline designation. Landowners in these areas believe that such development will not result in an increase in municipal services, since the road is already there. It continues to be Council's opinion that additional development in the shoreline area should be limited as a result of concerns about: the environmental impact of new development; the lack of public access to the shoreline; the existing density of development; drainage issues in certain areas; and, the impacts of new development on water supply and quality. The existing Official Plan prohibits additional inland extensions of the shoreline designation unless they are reviewed as part of an Official Plan Review. This policy is modified by this Amendment by deleting the requirement for an Official Plan Review. 3.12 RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES The 1995 Oro-Medonte Official Plan does not contain any policy on residential care facilities. It has consistently been the position of the Province of Ontario that residential care facilities should be a permitted use as of right in any land use designation that permits residential uses. In addition, since the Planning Act (Section 35) prohibits municipalities from controlling occupancy through zoning and/or restricting the type of individual who resides in a dwelling, it is now impossible to restrict the establishment of different living arrangements in residential dwellings. It is on this basis that many municipalities are now crafting residential car facilities policies in their Official Plan which are intended to provide some direction to Council on where residential care facilities should be permitted in the Township and under what conditions. In addition, municipalities are now requiring licenses for the establishment of residential care facilities in accordance with the Municipal Act. Part 1: The Introduction Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants viii August 5, 2003 In addition to the above it is the Township's opinion that there is a need to distinguish between residential care facilities that are designed to be occupied by those who have mental or societal issues between those residential care facilities that are designed to be correctional in nature such as a correctional group home. It is the Township's opinion that correctional residential care facilities should not be permitted as of right in any area of the Township, but that it should proceed through some type of planning process instead. On the basis of the above a new section on residential care facilities is included within the Oro-Medonte Official Plan by this OPA. 3.13 PUBLIC PARKLAND The 1995 Official Plan does not contain any specific policies on parkland planning. Given the importance of parkland to the residents of the Township, detailed policies are included in the Official Plan by this OPA. 3.14 HOUSEKEEPING CHANGES A number of minor additions and housekeeping changes are also included within the OPA. The intent of these changes is to ensure that the Official Plan can be easily interpreted and used. 3.15 MAPPING Both Schedules A and B are replaced by new schedules which correctly identify the location of all wetlands in the Township. Schedule A also replaces Schedules A 1 to A24, so that all information is now on one map. Part 1: The Introduction Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants ix August 5, 2003 PART II: THE AMENDMENT (This is the operative part of Official Plan Amendment No. 17) ITEM # 1 Home industries are added as a permitted use in Section D2.2 following home occupations. The third paragraph in Section D2.2 is deleted and Sections D2.3.5, D3.3.5 and D11.3.3 are deleted and replaced with new sections as set out below: Home industries are small-scale industrial uses that are accessory to agricultural operations or single detached dwellings on large rural lots. These uses should not detract from the primary use of the property for agricultural or residential purposes. Home industries may include welding, carpentry or machine shops, or agriculturally related uses that involve the processing of regionally produced agricultural crops or other products. The accessory retail sales of products produced in the home industry is also permitted. The repair, storage or sale of motor vehicles is not considered to be a home industry. Home industries may be permitted, subject to re-zoning, provided Council is satisfied that: a) the building housing the home industry is located within the existing farm-building cluster, if located on a farm property; b) the home industry has a floor area that is consistent with the scale of uses on the property; c) the home industry and any activity area associated with the home industry is set back from all lot lines by at least 30 metres; d) the noise, dust and odour that could potentially emanate from the use will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties; e) the type and level of traffic generated by the use is compatible with the character of the area and the function of adjacent roads; f) the operator of the home industry resides on the property; g) all machinery and equipment, with the exception of motor vehicles, required for the home industry is located within enclosed buildings; h) any open storage associated with the home industry is screened from view and located within a fenced compound; Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 1 August 5, 2003 i) the home industry has a limited number of employees; and, j) any retail component of the home industry is clearly accessory to the home industry and does not detract from the primary use of the property. The development of a new home industry shall be subject to Site Plan Control. In addition, such a use may require a license in accordance with the Municipal Act". ITEM # 2 Section H2 is deleted and replaced with a new Section H2. "H2 SUBDIVISION OF LAND This section is intended to contain policies that are to be considered with every application to subdivide land in the Township. Regard shall also be had to the specific policies dealing with lot creation in each land use designation in addition to other policies in the Plan. H2.1 PREFERRED MEANS OF LAND DIVISION Land division by Plan of Subdivision, rather than by consent, shall generally be required if: a) the extension of an existing public road or the development of a new public road is required to access the proposed lots; or, b) the area that is proposed to be developed is not considered to be infilling; or, c) a Plan of Subdivision is required to ensure that the entire land holding or area is developed in an orderly and efficient manner; or, d) more than four lots including the retained lands are being created and/or the owner is retaining sufficient lands for the development of additional lots. H2.2 NEW LOTS BY CONSENT H2.2.1 General Criteria Prior to issuing provisional consent for a new lot for any purpose, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the lot to be retained and the lot to be severed: Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 2 August 5, 2003 a) fronts on and will be directly accessed by a public road that is maintained on a year-round basis; b) does not front on a Provincial Highway or County Road, unless the Province or the County supports the request; c) will not cause a traffic hazard; d) has adequate size and frontage for the proposed use in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and is compatible with adjacent uses; e) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal; f) will not have a negative impact on the drainage patterns in the area; g) will not restrict the development of the retained lands or other parcels of land, particularly as it relates to the provision of access, if they are designated for development by this Plan; h) will not have a negative impact on the features and functions of any ecological feature in the area; i) will not have an impact on the quality and quantity of groundwater available for other uses in the area; and, j) will conform to Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, as amended. Provisional consent may be granted subject to appropriate conditions of approval for the severed and/or retained lot. H2.2.2 Boundary Adjustments A consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot is created. In reviewing an application for such a boundary adjustment, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the properties affected as intended by this Plan. In addition, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the agricultural parcels affected. H2.2.3 Technical Severances The creation of new lots to correct a situation where two or more lots have merged on title may be permitted, provided the Committee of Adjustment is satisfied that the new lot: Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 3 August 5, 2003 a) was once a separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act; b) the merging of the lots was unintentional and was not merged as a requirement of a previous planning approval; c) is of the same shape and size as the lot which once existed as a separate conveyable lot; d) can be adequately serviced by on-site sewage and water systems; e) fronts on and will be directly accessed by a public road that is maintained year-round by a public authority; f) there is no public interest served by maintaining the property as a single conveyable parcel; and, g) conforms with Section H2.2.1 of this Plan. H2.2.4 Lots for Utilities The creation of new lots for public utilities, communication utilities and water and sewer infrastructure may be permitted provided: a) the area of the proposed lot is minimized and reflects what is required for the use; and, b) the implementing zoning by-law, as a condition of Provisional Consent, only permits uses that are related to the utility on the lot. H2.3 SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT POLICIES This section is intended to contain general Plan of Subdivision policies that are to be considered with every application for Plan of Subdivision. Regard should also be had to the specific policies dealing with lot creation in each land use designation. Prior to the consideration of an application for Plan of Subdivision, Council shall be satisfied that: a) the approval of the development is not premature and is in the public interest; b) the lands will be appropriately serviced with infrastructure, schools, parkland and open space, community facilities and other amenities; c) the density of the development is appropriate for the area; Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 4 August 5, 2003 d) the subdivision, when developed, will be easily integrated with other development in the area; e) the subdivision conforms with the environmental protection and management policies of this Plan; and, f) the proposal conforms to Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, as amended. Prior to the registration of any Plan of Subdivision, a Subdivision Agreement between the landowner and the Township will be required." ITEM # 3 Sections D2.3.4, 02.3.9, D2.3.10, D3.3.6, D3.3.7, D4.3.1, D4.3.2, D5.3.3, D10.3.5, D10.3.7 and D11.3.2 are deleted and the remaining sections are re-numbered accordingly. ITEM # 4 The first and third paragraphs of Section D2.3.2 are deleted. ITEM # 5 Section D2.3.2.1 is amended by changing the heading to 'Retirement Lots for Bona Fide Farmers'. The following paragraph is also included after the first paragraph: "The creation of a new lot for a retiring bona fide farmer may be permitted, provided: a) the lot from which the new lot is proposed to be created has an area of at least 36 hectares or is the whole of an original Township lot; b) a lot has not been severed from the parcel since March 26, 1973; c) the severed lot is to be located where it would have the least impact on existing and future agricultural operations; d) the proposed lot is no smaller than 0.4 hectares and generally no larger than 1.0 hectare; e) the proposed lot complies with the Minimum Separation Distance formula; and, f) the proposed lot will conform with the general consent policies of this Plan. Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 5 August 5, 2003 ITEM # 6 The Section heading of Section D2.3.2.2 is deleted and replaced with 'Infilling Lots'. The remainder of the Section is deleted and replaced with the following: "The creation of a new infilling lot in the Agricultural designation may be permitted, provided: a) the lot is located between two existing non-farm residences which are on separate lots of a similar size and which are situated on the same side of the road and are generally not more than 100 metres apart; b) no more than one infilling lot is created from a lot that existed on the date of approval of this policy; c) the proposed lot will conform to the Minimum Distance Separation One Formula and will not affect the ability of neighbouring farmers to expand their operations in the future; d) the lot from which the infilling lot is to be created has an area of at least 20 hectares; and, e) the proposed lot will conform with the general consent policies of this Plan." ITEM # 7 Section D2.3.3 is deleted. ITEM # 8 'Agricultural research and training establishments' and 'farm related tourism establishments' are added as permitted uses in Section D2.2 following 'greenhouses'. A new Section D2.3.11 and a new Section D2.3.12 are added as follows: "D2.3.11 Agricultural Research and Training Establishments The development of agricultural research and training establishments is encouraged in the Township. Such uses may be permitted subject to re-zoning, provided Council is satisfied that: a) the use is related to and will benefit the agricultural industry; b) the use will assist in the furthering of knowledge in the agricultural sector of the economy; and, Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 6 August 5, 2003 c) the use will assist local farmers through training and the identification of improved farming methods and procedures. D2.3.12 Farm Related Tourism Establishments Given the proximity of the Township to growing urban areas, Council supports the development of uses that highlight the importance and value of the agricultural way of life in the area. On this basis, permanent uses such as art galleries, artist studios, farm machinery and equipment exhibitions, farm tours, holiday-related exhibitions and small-scale educational establishments that focus on farming instruction are permitted in the Agricultural and Rural designations subject to rezoning. Prior to considering such an application, Council shall be satisfied that: a) the use is clearly associated with agriculture; b) the use will highlight the importance of agriculture to the economy; c) traffic generated by the use can be safely accommodated on area roads; and, d) all other municipal requirements, such as a license under the Municipal Act, are complied with. All such uses may be subject to Site Plan Control, depending on the scale of the use. In addition, such uses shall be encouraged to locate in existing farm buildings wherever possible." ITEM # 9 A new Section D3.3.11 is included in the Official Plan "D3.3.11 Commercial Uses on Farm Properties The development of accessory commercial uses on farm properties is permitted, provided: a) the use is clearly associated with and located on a farm property; b) the retail component has a floor area of no more than 200 square metres; and, c) the majority of the products offered for sale, in terms of monetary value, are produced or manufactured on the farm property. The development of a new commercial use on a farm property shall be subject to Site Plan Control." Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 7 August 5, 2003 ITEM # 10 Industrial uses are deleted as a permitted use in Section D3.2 of the Official Plan. The term 'industrial' is also deleted from Section D3.3.2. In addition, a new Section D3.3.8 is added as below: "D3.3.8 Industrial Uses Single industrial uses in the Rural designation may be permitted, subject to the approval of an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment. Prior to granting these approvals, Council shall be satisfied that the proposed use: a) satisfies at least one of the following locational criteria: i) the use is for the primary processing of land related resources found on the site or in close proximity of the site; or, ii) the use is not compatible with industrial uses in existing business parks or employment areas; or, iii) the use has large land requirements that cannot be satisfied in settlements, business parks either though existing infill opportunities or expansion. b) is compatible with the rural character of the area; c) can be designed and sited to blend in with the rural surroundings; d) is located where it would have little or no impact on agricultural operations; e) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal; f) is to be accessed by municipal roads that can accommodate the increased traffic generated by the proposed use; g) will not cause a traffic hazard as a result of its location on a curve or a hill; and, h) can be appropriately buffered from adjacent residential uses." ITEM # 11 The third paragraph of Section D3.3.1 beginning with 'notwithstanding...' is deleted. Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 8 August 5, 2003 ITEM # 12 A new Section D3.3.2 is added as follows: "D3.3.2 Infilling Lots The creation of a new infilling lot in the Rural designation may be permitted, provided: a) there is no more than generally 120 metres separating the two non-farm lots; c) no more than one infilling lot is created from a lot that existed on the date of approval of this policy; d) the proposed lot will conform to the Minimum Distance Separation One Formula and will not affect the ability of neighbouring farmers to expand their operation in the future; e) the lot from which the infilling lot is to be created has an area of at least 20 hectares; and, f) the proposed lot will conform with the general consent policies of this Plan." ITEM # 13 'Agricultural research and training establishments subject to Section D2.3.11' and 'farm related tourism establishments subject to Section D2.3.12' are added as permitted uses in Section D3.2. ITEM # 14 The last paragraph of Section D4.3.5 is deleted. ITEM # 15 The second paragraph of Section D6.2 deleted. Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 9 August 5, 2003 ITEM # 16 The following sentences are added at the end of the first paragraph of Section D7 .5.1 : "Expansions of less than 25% may also be subject to Site Plan Control. No expansions that would have the effect of increasing the floor area of a building that existed on July 1, 2003 by more than 25% will be permitted unless an appropriate site plan agreement is entered into." ITEM # 17 Section D9.4 is deleted. ITEM # 18 Section D10.3.1 is deleted ITEM # 19 Section D10.3.8 is amended by deleting the last sentence and replacing it with the following: "Amendments to this Plan that have the effect of permitting additional residential development adjacent to the Shoreline designation will be discouraged. If such an application is submitted, the appropriateness of the immediate area for development from an environmental, servicing, character and traffic perspective shall be assessed. If major development is proposed, a detailed review of the entire shoreline area shall be carried out to determine if the proposed location is suitable and appropriate from a growth management perspective." ITEM # 20 The entirety of Section E1 is moved to a new Section D4.3.6. Section E1.5 and E1.7 are also deleted. ITEM # 21 Sections E2.2.3, E.2.2.4 and E2.2.5 are deleted. Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 10 August 5, 2003 ITEM # 22 Section H4 (Adult Lifestyle Communities) is deleted and a new Section H4 is added as below: "H4 WATER TAKING "It has long been Council's goal to be more involved in the process of approving and considering applications that involve the extraction of more than 50,000 litres of ground or surface water per day, on average. It is also Council's goal to ensure that a process is established whereby landowners in the vicinity of a proposed water taking are informed of a proposed water taking and given an opportunity to comment on the proposal. It is recognized that, at the time of the adoption of this Plan, the approval of all applications for water taking rests with the Ministry of Environment, in accordance with the Ontario Water Resources Act, as amended. However, appeals through the court system at the time this Plan was adopted may lead to the establishment of water taking as a land use in accordance with the Planning Act. If this decision is made, and is not appealed, it is a policy of this Plan that the taking of more than 50,000 litres of ground or surface water per day is deemed to be a land use in accordance with the Planning Act. The implementation of this policy can only occur if it is implemented in the Township's Zoning By-law. On this basis, a comprehensive amendment to the zoning by-law to include water taking as a land use will be required, but only after it has been determined that water taking is a land use in accordance with the Planning Act. In considering such an Amendment, Council shall determine which type of water taking will require a rezoning and under what conditions such a zoning change could be granted. If a water taking does require a rezoning, Council shall be satisfied that at a minimum: a) the quality of groundwater and surface water in the area will be maintained and, where possible, improved or restored; and, b) the quantity of water available for other uses in the area and as base flow for rivers and streams in the sub-watershed will not be affected. As a condition of approval, Council may also require the proponent to enter into a monitoring agreement to ensure that Council has the ability to ensure that neighbouring drinking water supplies are not affected by the extraction. If it is deemed that the extraction is having a negative impact on the quality and/or overall quantity of water available in the area, Council will have the ability, pursuant to the monitoring agreement, to require the water extraction to cease." Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 11 August 5, 2003 ITEM # 23 The term 'Highway 93' in the heading of Section H 1.2.2 is changed to 'County Road 93'. ITEM # 24 The term 'County Road 27' is deleted from the heading of Section H1.2.3. ITEM # 25 Section H1.2.4 is deleted ITEM # 26 Section H 1.4 of the Official Plan is deleted and replaced with the following: "H1.4 OTHER TYPES OF ROADS H1.4.1 Intent of the Township The other types of roads in the Township include: a) private roads which cross private property to access a lot; b) unopened road allowances; c) unassumed roads; and, d) roads that are owned and maintained by a public authority for only a part of the year. The creation of new lots on roads set out in a), b), c) and d) above is not permitted. All lots that front on these roads shall be subject to Site Plan Control and be subject to a Holding Provision in the implementing Zoning By-law that prohibits any enlargement, renovation or addition to a dwelling unit that existed on the date the implementing Zoning By-law is passed by Council until the occupant satisfies the requirements of Section H1.4.2. Once these requirements are satisfied, the Holding Provision shall be lifted by the Township. The development of new homes or any building containing a non-residential use on existing lots on these roads is not permitted until the road is brought up to municipal standards and maintained on a year-round basis. The cost of bringing such a road up to municipal standards shall be borne by the landowners that will benefit from the upgrading of the road. Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 12 August 5, 2003 The construction or development of new private roads or extensions to existing private roads shall not be permitted unless the private road is in a Plan of Condominium. New rights-of-way, in the form of private driveways, may be granted by the Committee of Adjustment for access only to parcels that are presently land locked and which are the site of a residential use on the date the implementing by-law is passed. All proposed rights-of-way for existing land locked parcels must be developed from an existing public road that is maintained year round and is of a standard acceptable to the Township. Exceptions may be considered in areas where development is proposed by way of Plan of Condominium where multiple accesses over condominium blocks or other private lands is required to access other condominium blocks. In such case, the Township shall ensure, through agreements, that access for emergency vehicles is continuously available and that the accesses are appropriately designed for their intended and future use. H1.4.2 Conditions under which Holding Provision will be removed The following criteria have to be satisfied before Council will remove a Holding Provision applying to lots that are subject to Section H 1.4.1: a) The use on the lot must be permitted by the implementing Zoning By- law. b) The lot and all buildings and structures on the lot shall comply with the implementing Zoning By-law. c) The appropriate approvals are obtained for sewage disposal and a potable water supply is available. d) The property owner, at his expense, enters into a Site Plan Agreement with the Township that indicates that: i) the owner acknowledges and agrees that the lot in question does not front on an improved public road; ii) the owner acknowledges and agrees that the Township does not or is not required to maintain or snowplow the said road or street; iii) the owner acknowledges and agrees that the Township will not take over or assume an unopened, unassumed or private road or street as a Township public road or street unless it has been built according to the Township standards then in force; Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 13 August 5, 2003 iv) the owner acknowledges and agrees that the Township is not liable for any injuries, losses or damages as a consequence of the Township issuing a building permit; and, v) the Site Plan Agreement shall, at the expense of the owner, be registered against the lands." ITEM # 27 A new Section H9 is added as below: "H9 RESIDENTIAL CARE HOMES a) Residential care homes are defined as residential facilities that accommodate residents who have a range of emotional, psychiatric, physical, developmental, or social disadvantages or problems who receive both room and board and assistance with daily living. For the purposes of this policy, respite care homes are considered to be a residential care home. b) The Township supports the provIsion of an adequate supply of residential care homes. On this basis, residential care homes are permitted in any land use designation that permits residential uses. Such uses may also be subject to Site Plan Control to ensure that the facility is properly licensed by the Provincial government and complies with the Ontario Building and Fire Codes. In addition, the implementing by-law shall not permit the use of such a home by more than 10 residents, plus the owner and staff. c) Crisis care facilities, treatment centres, correctional residential care facilities and hostels for the homeless or transients are not to be permitted as of right in the implementing zoning by-law, and shall be subject to rezoning. A zoning by-law amendment will be subject to an evaluation of the following criteria: i) the intensity of use relative to the area of the property; ii) the compatibility of the use with surrounding land uses; iii) the suitability of the location with respect to the needs of clients and availability of necessary services; iv) the potential impact on existing community services; v) proximity to other residential care homes and facilities; and, Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 14 August 5, 2003 vi) size and type of dwelling as well as lot size. d) In order to prevent an undue concentration of residential care homes, the implementing Zoning By-laws shall specify a minimum distance separation between such homes, as well as regulations regarding performance standards such as dwelling type, and minimum floor space. Registration of residential care homes with the Township may be required. ITEM # 28 A new Section H 1 0 is added "H10 AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS The following policies apply to agricultural operations and non-agricultural operations near such uses in the Township: a) In order to provide farmers with the ability to carry out normal farm practices, all new development, excluding residential development on existing lots of record, shall be set back from agricultural operations in accordance with the Minimum Distance Separation One formula. Development on lands within Shoreline, Commercial, Industrial, and any Residential and Horseshoe Resort designation is exempt from this policy. b) New and/or expanded livestock facilities shall be set back from existing non-agricultural operations in accordance with the Minimum Distance Separation Two formula, as amended. c) The Minimum Distance Separation One and Two formulas shall be included within the implementing Zoning By-law. An amendment to this Plan shall not be required to vary the setbacks required by the formulas, provided the variation is minor and will not affect the viability of agricultural operations in the area. d) Nothing in this Plan shall limit the ability of farmers to carry out normal and reasonable farm practices in accordance with the Farm Practices Act." Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 15 August 5, 2003 ITEM # 29 A new Section J2.4 is added to the Plan: "J2.4 NON COMPLYING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES OR LOTS A non-complying building, structure or lot is such that it does not comply with the regulations of the implementing zoning by-law. A non-complying building or structure may be enlarged, repaired or renovated provided that the enlargement, repair or renovation: a) does not further increase a situation of non-compliance; b) complies with all other applicable provisions of this Plan and the implementing zoning by-law; c) does not increase the amount of floor area in a required yard or setback area; and, d) will not pose a threat to public health or safety. A non-complying lot in existence prior to the effective date of the implementing zoning by-law that does not meet the lot area and/or lot frontage requirements contained within the implementing zoning by-law, may be used and buildings thereon may be erected, enlarged, repaired or renovated provided the use conforms with the applicable policies of this Plan and the implementing zoning by-law, and the buildings or structures comply with all of the other provisions of the implementing zoning by-law." ITEM # 30 A Section J3 is replaced with a new Section J3 as below: "J3 AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN It is the intent of this Plan to serve as the basis for managing change in the Township for the next 20 years. As a result, this Plan identifies enough land for residential, commercial and industrial uses to last until the year 2022. It is the intent of this Plan that this Plan should only be amended when the policies of this Plan have been found not to address issues or alternatively, issues have been raised with respect to site-specific proposals that must be addressed in a comprehensive manner. However, where Amendments are contemplated by this Plan, they shall be considered by Council. Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 16 August 5, 2003 Council may eliminate notice to the public and a public meeting for a minor Official Plan Amendment which does the following: . Changes the numbers of sections or the order of sections in the Plan, but does not add or delete sections; . Consolidates previously approved Official Plan Amendments in a new document without altering any approved policies or maps; . Corrects grammatical or typographical errors in the Plan which do not affect the intent or affect the policies or maps; . Rewords policies or re-illustrates mapping to clarify the intent and purpose of the Plan or make it easier to understand without affecting the intent or purpose of the policies or maps; and, . Translates measurements to different units of measure or changes reference to legislation or changes to legislation where the legislation has changed. In all other instances, notification to the residents of the Township of public meetings held by Council shall be given in accordance with the procedures of The Planning Act." ITEM # 31 A new Section J6 is replaced with a new Section J6 as below: "J6 OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW The assumptions, objectives and policies of this Plan shall be reviewed at least once every five years at a meeting of Council, which shall be advertised in accordance with the Planning Act, as amended. The five-year review shall consist of an assessment of: a) the effectiveness of the Plan in protecting water quality, heritage resources, natural resources and habitat and the general environment within the Township; b) the continuing relevance of the vision that forms the basis of all policies found in this Plan; c) the degree to which the objectives of this Plan have been met; d) the amount and location of lands available for urban development; Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 17 August 5, 2003 e) whether the Township has realized a desirable balance of commercial and industrial assessment in relation to residential assessment; f) the Township's role within the Region and its relationship with other municipalities; g) development trends in the Region and their effect on development in Oro-Medonte; and, h) the nature of any Province - wide planning initiatives and their implications on Oro-Medonte." ITEM # 32 A new Section H9 is added: "H9 PUBLIC PARKLAND H9.1 OBJECTIVES It is the objective of this Plan to: a) establish and maintain a system of public open space and parkland areas that meets the needs of present and future residents; b) enhance existing parkland areas wherever possible to respond to changing public needs and preferences; c) ensure that appropriate amounts and types of parkland are acquired by the Township through the development process; d) encourage the dedication and donation of environmentally sensitive lands into public ownership to ensure their continued protection; and, e) manage the public open space and parkland areas in a manner that is consistent with the 'environment-first' objectives of this Official Plan. H9.2 GENERAL POLICIES APPLYING TO ALL PUBLIC PARKLAND H9.2.1 Recreation Master Plan It is the intent of this Plan that a Recreation Master Plan be prepared by Council. The Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide for the development of parks and recreation facilities and services. The policies of this Plan are intended to complement the Recreation Master Plan. The Recreation Master Plan shall be updated, as required, to respond to changing needs and circumstances Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 18 August 5, 2003 H9.2.2 Integration of Other Public Uses with the Public Parkland System Where a public parkland area is to be integrated with an educational or major recreational facility, it is the intent of this Plan that the two uses complement each other by ensuring that there are no physical barriers between the uses. H9.2.3 Dedication of Land through the Development Process Council will require the dedication of five percent of the land within a residential Plan of Subdivision to be dedicated to the Township as parkland. Two percent of the land within a non-residential development shall be dedicated as parkland. In lieu of the above requirements, Council may require cash-in-lieu of parkland instead, as deemed appropriate. All lands dedicated to the Township shall be conveyed in a physical condition satisfactory to the Township. Lands within the Environmental Protection One designation and/or which have been identified as hazard lands shall not be considered as part of the required minimum dedication of parkland pursuant to this section of the Plan. H9.2.4 Parkland Dedication By-law Council shall enact a Parkland Dedication By-law that establishes: a) the lands to which the by-law is applicable; b) the rate of parkland dedication in accordance with Section H9.2.1 of this Plan; c) the development applications which are subject to parkland dedication requirements; and, d) land uses which are exempt from parkland dedication requirements. H9.3 PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES It is the intent of this Plan that all public parkland: a) have as much street frontage as possible and be open to view on as many sides as possible for safety purposes; b) be appropriately lit for safety purposes; c) have direct and safe pedestrian access from adjacent residential areas; Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 19 August 5, 2003 d) be designed to minimize any potential negative impacts on adjacent residential areas through the use of such measures as planting, fencing and the provision of appropriate access and parking; e) incorporate natural heritage features wherever possible into the design of the parkland; f) be integrated into the fabric of the adjacent neighbourhood; and, g) be connected, wherever possible, to trail systems, cycling routes and natural heritage corridors." ITEM # 33 A new Section H10 is added: "H10 TECHNICAL STUDIES AND PEER REVIEWS Where a policy in this Plan requires the submission of technical studies, such as an Environmental Impact Study, such studies must be prepared at the applicant's expense by a qualified professional. When technical studies are submitted to the Township, Council may authorize a qualified professional to peer review such studies and provide advice to Council at the applicant's expense." ITEM # 34 Section D6 is modified as follows: 1. The first bullet of Section D6.1 is deleted 2. The two bullets below are added at the end: ensure that new uses are properly planned and located and serviced with an appropriate supply of water and sewage services; and, ensure that new recreational uses will not have an impact on the environmental, hydrogeological and agricultural resources of the Township. 3. The words "cross-country ski facilities, mountain bike facilities" are added after golf courses in Section D6.2. Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 20 August 5, 2003 4. The following sentence is added at the end of the first paragraph of Section D6.2: "accessory accommodation facilities may also be permitted, along with complementary corporate meeting facilities and corporate retreats." ITEM # 35 Schedules A 1 to A24 are deleted and replaced with a new Schedule A. ITEM # 36 Schedule B is deleted and replaced by a new Schedule B. Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 21 August 5, 2003 LEGEND D Agrtcultural 1'1 Rural I11III RuralSettlementArea III Rural Re8k1enUaI p,jj}Ji@@I Re8trlctedRural BllndustriBl _ Commerdal 1:>'1 Shoreline I N/AI RecreatIonal _S'"'" l1li Environmental ProtectIon One U Environmental ProI8cI:ion Two ~~~ggl MlneralAggregs.te Resources - Uoenced BAlrport _ MlSlLoulsMoonslone t':':~':':'1 Hawkstone Expansion Area _ Hawkstone ResldenUalArea 1--------1 ElghlhLlneSpecIBIPclIcyAr8l!l BOroMcrainePlanningArea (j]j; Cbued Waste DilJPQSal SiIIiI Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan Schedule A land Use La" SilTlCDB "MERIDIAN ,-:z/;--"""- 500 0 1000 2000 3000m i'...~ b. Aiq.8:21,20D3 . Township of Oro-Medonte - - - ~ Schedule B Natural Features LEGEND III ProvinciaIIySignificantWellands{EP1) _ other Wetlands (EP1) .. ProvInclaIIySlgnmcantANSI's(EP1) l1li Other ANSI's (EP2) .:I Con;lDeerWi1teringArge E3 Publicly Owned Lands Significant Woodlands BEnvircnmElntalPrDlBctiDn2 La" SilTlCDB . ~/~, ,)i . ,MERIDIAN \ >!;--"""- >/ Aiq.8:21,20D3 500 0 1000 2000 3000m ~ ~ I b. ! ,.....",.. """"'" "".....,.",....., I I I Township of Oro-Medonte Oro-Centre Secondary Plan Area Schedule D ....:::.,,'..':.,:::',.'::::...,',':::,.. .........."., f", '.".' "::>:"'::. : '(. ~' . .. " ' I \'~ > ~. '" . -1.'"','"- 11<->>:-:--" ."",..."",.... ...""....., HIC3IiWA.YJU1' r""(';;:" -. -- ----,.--'---.., -', -- - ,--- - '. - -- , - --- --- ---- -. - ---- --- ---- - .""...."",..."",...." .' ','-.'l_, Legend ~ Ora Centre - Commercial I >--------------1 Ora Centre - Office/Industrial 1::';:::::><:::<1 Ora Centre - Limited Service Indusbial I:::::::::j Environmental Protection I I Highway 11 Special Policy Area _ Commercial I I Agricultural ~I.I.I~ Secondary Plan Boundary . ~ERIDWI .' (/---- --,,/ AuguIII21,200S PART III: THE APPENDICES (This is not an operative part of Official Plan Amendment No. 17) Appendix 1: Planning Report prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants dated August 5, 2003 Appendix 2: Letters received from the public on the Official Plan update immediately before and after the public meeting on June 24, 2003. Appendix 3: Letters sent by Meridian to those providing written comments in Appendix 2. Part II: The Amendment Update to Official Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Page 22 August 5, 2003 MERIDIAN PLANNING CONSULTANTS INC. Page 1 of 4 From: Oro-Medonte Council Nick McDonald August 5, 2003 To: Date: Subject: Official Plan Review Job Number: 2360 BACKGROUND Attached to this report is a revised Official Plan Amendment that changes some of the general land use policies in the Township. A draft Amendment was prepared for Council and public consideration at a public meeting under the Planning Act on June 24,2003. In the period leading up to and following the public meeting, a number of written submissions on the proposed policies were received. In addition, a number of individuals made presentations at the public meeting. As a result of these submissions and further consideration of the draft policies by Planning Advisory Committee on July 15, 2003 a number of minor changes to the Amendment presented at the public meeting are proposed. A table identifying and summarizing the submissions made by the public is attached to this report as Appendix A. The table also includes our response to these submissions. Both the original written submission and our written response to that submission are attached as Appendices to the recommended Official Plan Amendment. A brief description of the changes that were made to the Amendment following the public meeting is described below. 1. The Amendment will be known as OPA # 17 (the Oro Moraine/Aggregate OPA will be known as OPA # 16). 2. Subsection d) of the policy on Home Industries is amended by adding the words "dust and odour" after noise. 3. The policy on Home Industries is also amended by adding the words "and the function of adjacent roads" to the end of e). Page 1 113 Collier Street, Barrie, Ontario L4M 1 H2 Phone: (705) 737-4512 Fax: (705) 737-5078 4. The General Criteria for considering new lots by consent in Section H2.2.1 is modified by adding in a new subsection j) which states "will conform to Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, as amended". 5. The policy on boundary adjustments in Section H2.2.2 is amended by deleting the words "correcting conveyances, enlarging existing lots or through acquisition by a public body." and replacing those words by "modifying lot boundaries. " 6. Section D2.3.2.1 is modified by adding the word "retirement" to the title and "retiring" in the body of the policy dealing with lots for retiring bona fide farmers. 7. Section D2.3.2.2 is modified by adding in the words "in the agricultural designation" in the introductory section. This section is also modified by changing subsection b) from "an original Township lot upon" to "that existed on". The intent of this change is allow for no more than one infilling lot from any 20 hectare parcel which existed on the date the Plan comes into effect in the Agricultural designation. 8. Section 2.3.12, which deals with farm related tourism establishments is modified by adding the words "permanent" in the second sentences. 9. Section D3.3.2, which deals with infilling lots in the Rural designation is modified by adding the words "in the Rural designation" in the first sentence. In addition, subsection a) is deleted and the word "that" in subsection b) is replaced with "than generally". Lastly, subsection c) is modified by deleting the words "an original Township lot upon" and replacing those words with "a lot that existed on". The intent of this policy is also to allow for the creation of no more than one infilling lot from any 20 hectare parcel of land that existed when the new Official Plan policies come into effect. 10. Section D10.3.8 is substantially modified by deleting all of the text that was in the draft OPA that was presented to the public at the public meeting on June 24, 2003. Instead, it is proposed to delete the last sentence and replace that sentence with the following words. "Amendments to this Plan that have the effect of permitting additional residential development adjacent to the Shoreline designation will be discouraged. If such an application is submitted, the appropriateness of the immediate area for development from an environmental, servicing, character and traffic perspective shall be assessed. If major development is proposed, a detailed review of the entire shoreline area shall be carried out to determine if the proposed location is suitable and appropriate from a growth management perspective." 11. Section E4, which deals with the Edgar Special Policy Area, was proposed to be deleted as part of this Amendment presented on June 24,2004. Instead, it is now proposed that the deletion of the Special Policy Area designation be dealt with separately in the context of a future OPA. 12. The water taking section has been significantly modified to ensure that the policy will only come into effect once the courts have ruled that water taking is a use of land in accordance with the Planning Act. The policy will also state that if the courts rule that the use is a land use, a By-law review process shall be undertaken and all issues with respect to water taking shall be addressed at that time. Page 2 113 Collier Street, Barrie, Ontario L4M 1 H2 Phone: (705) 737-4512 Fax: (705) 737-5078 13. Section H1.4.1 is to be clarified by including policies which would permit the creation of new blocks of land that are accessed by other private lands or by easements or right-of- ways over condominium blocks, provided there are agreements in place that provides for emergency access and which ensure the accesses are appropriately designed for their intended and future use. 14. Section H9, which deals with Residential Care Facilities, has been substantially changed by: Deleting any references to "24 hours" and "room and board" from sub-section 'a'. Deleting all of sub-section 'b'. Re-numbering 'c'to 'b' and deleting all words after 'facilities' in the first sentence. Including a new 'c', which shall read as follows: c) Crisis care facilities, treatment centres, correctional residential care facilities and hostels for the homeless or transients are not to be permitted as of right in the implementing zoning by-law, and shall be subject to re-zoning. Such a zoning by-law amendment will be subject to an evaluation of the following criteria: i) the intensity of use relative to the area of the property; ii) the compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses; iii) the suitability of the location with respect to the needs of clients and availability of necessary services; iv) the potential impact on existing community services; v) proximity to other residential care facilities; and, vi) size and type of dwelling as well as lot size. Changing 'shall be mandatory' to 'may be required in last sentence of sub- section 'd'. Deleting sub-section 'e'." 15. Section D6 is modified by adding two new objectives to the Recreational designation which state: ensure that new uses are properly planned and located and serviced with an appropriate supply of water and sewage services; and, Page 3 113 Collier Street, Barrie, Ontario L4M 1 H2 Phone: (705) 737-4512 Fax: (705) 737-5078 ensure that new recreational uses will not have an impact on the environmental, hydrogeological and agricultural resources of the Township. In addition accessory accommodation facilities have been added as a permitted use. RECOMMENDATION On the basis of the above, it is my opinion that the attached Amendment should be adopted by Council. Following its adoption, it will be provided to the County of Simcoe who will then circulate the Amendment to the appropriate agencies. It should be noted that the County has already reviewed the Amendment and has very few and minor concerns about the document, all of which I believe have been addressed. I look forward to speaking with Council about the Amendment on August 21,2003. On the basis of the work completed to date and the assessment of the public comments, it is recommended that Council: Receive this report; and, Pass a By-law that will adopt Official Plan Amendment # 17. Yours truly, Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP NM/jrw Encl - Table a Page 4 113 Collier Street, Barrie, Ontario L4M 1 H2 Phone: (705) 737-4512 Fax: (705) 737-5078 1 Fred Rumford May 29, 2003 Lot 11, Con 12 Lot Severance Policv Severances more desirable than subdivisions because larger lots, greater distances between do not compromise water table to same degree. Septic impacts lessened as well. Many rural lots not agriculturally suitable, but ideal for building. More building lots would increase tax rolls. Requests more liberal severance policy in rural areas. 2 Home Occupation Issue of home for sale on corner of Penetanguishene Road. Prospective buyer is a lawn care business interested on condition of selling their own home. Their intent to build storage shed and willingness to challenge rulings in court shows inclination to circumvent restrictions. Potential $30,000 loss of resale value hurts people who strive to make area a nice place to live. Jim Reisch June 2,2003 Baycrest Drive Reminds Township of previous OMB hearing rejecting a City of Barrie attempt to annex the Shanty Bay area. Rational was that area was rural and not "urban," a decision fought hard for by ratepayer group attendance at hearing and lobbying at Queen's Park. Ruling also stated that OMB would not grant relief in the future if the area developed heavily. Annexation would have cost Township 17% of its tax base. He passed that decision around at a previous public meeting on an application, which most of Council should remember. Requests amendment or elimination of home occupations in the Shanty Bay area to keep residential character. Should also be revised across Township to ensure similar unfair practices cannot occur. TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW Prepared by ~~~'I=Ii1=; "E RI DIIAN Consent policies will not be modified in any substantive way. New policies to be included to provide for creation of infilling lots in Rural designation subject to conditions. These policies should allow some severance activity in rural area. Township's strong intent to direct most development to settlements. Home industries will no longer be permitted as of right in implementing Zoning By-law; rezoning required. Appears from letter that use is not a home occupation. Municipal By-law Enforcement should be called if this is the case. Generally, home occupations are to occur entirely within a dwelling, not in an out building. Page TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW Prepared by 3 Mary Rose, Mary M. Rose Consultants, Inc. (Dr. Tibor Harmathy) June 13, 2003 Part Lot 13, Con 14 4 Armstrong Harrison Associates (Cougar Hills Developments Ltd.) June 15, 2003 Part Lot 1, Con 5 Oro 5 Richard Haalboom, a.c. (Christian Horizons) June 17, 2003 Ora Moraine Boundarv/Severance Further to letter of April 10, 2003. Understands curved area of moraine is difficult to administer, but inclusion of these lands is onerous and can be excluded while still providing a recognizable boundary. Owner wishes to sever an 0.8-acre lot which accommodates his personal residence. Currently owner does not want to undertake any extractive activities on site, but proposed OP designations would extinguish existing development rights. Requests Oro Moraine boundary be adjusted to exclude this site from policy area. Map attached. Property Specific/Estate Residential Unique circumstances surrounding site could allow lands to be placed as an Exception to Rural Policies. Many current uses significantly more intensive than small-scale Country Estate development. Country Estates in keeping with character of immediate area. Community facilities are readily available and site would support perhaps 10-12 lots. Request consideration for applications, which may be made in the near future, to develop site for small-scale country estate lots. Proposed Section H9 - Residential Care Facilities Appreciate recognition of group homes "permitted as of right" in residential areas. Supervision in a group home may not always be 24--7. Not correct to cite tenants as "receiv[ing] both room and board." Residents of a group home are not boarders, but have legal rights as tenants who live together as a common housekeeping unit. "E RI DIIAN ~~~'I=Ii1=; Current policies do not permit severances on subject property. Oro Moraine Enhancement Area designation would permit severances under Rural designation policies. Appears there is sufficient frontage, adjacent residential lots and original parcel size to provide an opportunity for creation of an infilling lot on property under proposed Rural lot creation policies. OP will continue to direct development to existing development nodes in Horseshoe Valley Corridor - confirmed by OMB in 1994. Every effort should be made to avoid continuous thread of development along Horseshoe Valley Road. Other permitted uses for Rural designation more compatible with rural areas than subdivisions. Number of changes proposed to reflect some concerns raised. All references to '24 hours' and 'room and board' deleted from Subsection A. Subsection B deleted. Renumber C to B and delete all words after 'facilities' in the first sentence. Add new Subsection C which mentions the need for a Zoning By-law Amendment that addresses intensity of use relative to lot area; compatibility with surrounding land uses; suitability of locations with respect to service availability and client needs; potential impact on community Page 2 services; proximity to other care facilities; and size and "Facility" has institutional connotations which is what type of dwelling. Change 'shall be mandatory' to 'may Provincial policy is working towards: "de- be required' in Subsection D. Subsection E deleted. institutiona lization." Specific definitions to be implemented in ZBL: is this an indirect attempt to segregate group homes, contrary to Provincial policy and law? Who measures what performance standards? It is up to the owner to decide what kind of residential dwelling is used; what the minimum floor space is. The only determinant can be the general rules applicable to all residents such as by the Building Code. Registration of homes may be required. Adequacy of supply depends on circumstances over time and is not determinable by a local official or By- law. Who decides what is appropriate senior government funding, or adequate community services for clients? What is meant by proper siting? You cannot indirectly segregate what is not allowed directly. That continues to be my basic concern in these comments. Does not know how Site Plan Control has any connection to proper licensing, unless licensing is an attempt to segregate. Even though client is not against a limit (usually has fewer than 6 residents), does not know where authority for limits on number of residents. Client is not against concept of Minimum Distance Separation since it prevents "ghettoization," and group TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW Prepared by ~~~'I=Ii1=; "E RI DIIAN Intent of Township is not to restrict Residential Care Facility Establishment in any single detached dwelling, but to ensure certain types of facilities from being established anywhere in Municipality without a proper planning process. Only unique performance standard is distance between facilities. Some municipalities have 1000 metre distance, which is one option Township is considering. Other performance standards relates to performance standards contained within Zoning By-law that apply to any residential use. To other residential uses, only unique standard would be for parking, where higher amounts could be required. Before residential care facility is permitted, Township would like to enter into Site Plan Agreement that deals with issues unique to the property (landscaping, parking). Site Plan Control is also used to regulate bed and breakfast establishments, home industries and other uses normally associated with a dwelling. Term 'Residential Care Facilities' chosen because it is used in many other municipalities and does not carry same connotations as "group home." Appreciates concern and is open to suggestions on how to identify the use. Page 3 homes appear to be in favour of this. Does not think there is any jurisdiction for municipality to rule on MDS. Objects to requirement of ZBL Amendment to permit group homes in Rural locations. Does not understand what is meant by Rural locations. ZBL cannot determine intensity of use relative to area of property to be any different than for any other person anywhere in Township. What is compatibility with surrounding land uses? Who determines compatibility? Is this another form of indirect discrimination? Legislating group homes out of one section of the municipality is discriminatory. Suitability is determined by caregiver and is not determinable by municipality, subject to MDS and other generally applicable requirements. Needs and service availability is determined by residents and caregivers, not municipality. Does not understand meaning of "potential impact on existing community services." If size and type of dwelling and lot are sufficient for a family home, client's viewpoint is it is also sufficient for a group home and cannot be separately determined by a By-law. It appears Township is intending to use rules indirectly to segregate and discriminate what is not allowed to be done directly in accordance with statutory law (including Planning Act) and Provincial policy. Not attempting to be unduly critical of proposed amendments, but no group home should be encapsulated into a special zoning category separate from general residential uses. Perhaps not what is intended, but that is his impression at this time. TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW Prepared by "E RI DIIAN Page 4 ~~~'I=Ii1=; 6 Ray Kelso (Reinders Southpark) June 18, 2003 Part Lot 3, Range 2 Oro (Oro Glen Estates) 7 Albert Schwartz (Schwartz and Company) June 18, 2003 East Part Lots 19 & 20, Plan 51R-16339, Con 1 Oro (Jelmak Management Services) Expansion of Shanty Bay Settlement Area Follow up to June 17, 2003 meeting. Is an ideal property for development for a number of reasons. Part B policies of OP should be amended as it relates to Settlement Areas and Servicing Strategies. Modification wanted in order for site to be considered. Township of opinion that no justification provided to support a change to Settlement Area expansion policy. If expansion was to be contemplated in the future, a Secondary Plan must be completed for entire settlement. No need to amend servicing policy at this time as Recommend inclusion of site within Shanty Bay Shanty Bay expansion policy will not change. Settlement Area as good candidate site for residential development. Property Specific - Development Desired Would like to speak at June 24, 2003 meeting. Have several suggestions for property development. 1. Limited large lot development on public roads across from existing shoreline development (letter attached suggesting 20 lots on Line 12 and 12 on Lakeshore Road, all 100' x 400') with land donated for a park with trails and parking; 2. Golf course integrated with adult community lifestyle homes on large lots; and, 3. Private/Public golf course with trails. Some land could be donated for a park. Lots and course would have little, no impact on agriculture. Distance from Barrie likelier to attract people interested in quieter Oro-Medonte lifestyle, not families. No increase in municipal services as all development proposed on public roads with other services (phone, cable, garbage) already in place. Lot size in character with existing Maplewood, Lakeshore, Line 14 homes. Close to public loading dock and parks. Golf course in keeping with small settlement amenities already in place (including convenience store). "E RI DIIAN ~~~'I=Ii1=; TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW Prepared by Planning Advisory Committee does not support a policy that would permit new lots on public roads across from the Shoreline designation. In reviewing all requests of property owners together, appear policies would provide for considerable additional development in shoreline area. The draft policy will not be carried forward into final OPA. Encouraged to review Section D6 to determine if his lands meet its criteria. Adult lifestyle communities in Rural designation recommended to be deleted. Occupancy and servicing issues can arise. Page 5 8 Tanya Pallopson (Rudy & Associates Ltd.) June 19, 2003 Lot 5 Con 14 (Jane Teskey) 9 Betty Veitch June 20,2003 RR#1 Barrie 10 (Jack) John Jermey June 23,2003 1012 Ridge Road RR#2 Hawkestone Property Specific Severances Propose severing 3 lots from the Teskey property for infill development. Surrounding land uses (all residential) on municipally maintained road, with the Teskey property currently encompassing 55 ha (138 a). Allowing only one infilling lot should be overlooked as good planning would fill in the empty lots along Townline with residential lots and not leaving two existing empty spaces fronting Townline. Home Industry Appreciated greatly the reply to May 28, 2003 letter. Interesting that Mr. Styles maintains to Andrea Leigh that building on lot adjacent to hers is for storing a motor home. Is most happy that consideration is to be given to impact on adjacent land uses by home industries, and that neighbours will be given notice prior to any such construction. Thank you. Severance Policy (New Lot Size) Have lived, farmed in Oro-Medonte for entire lives. Wish to build a house south of Ridge Road on less desirable agricultural land to build bungalow that is near family and friends. Site meets their needs and OP objectives to preserve good agricultural land. Township has arbitrarily designated their farm into two separately deeded, 50 acre lots. This does not comply with OP, where D2.3.3d states proposed lot should generally be not larger than one hectare. The split of their property by Ridge Road requires building lot to be 50 acres in size rather than the one hectare. Not the same for other bona fide farmers. Lot creation in Agricultural designation not proposed to be amended, except for infilling policies to remove date restriction and original lot size. Policies of Provincial Policy Statement and County Official Plan further restricts severance in prime agricultural land. Severance could be allowed if lands were designated Rural, but no justification provided to support change. Confirmed at July 15, 2003 meeting of Planning Advisory Committee that more restrictive policies on home industries needed, requiring new home industries to undertake a rezoning process to be permitted. All matters relating to proposed industry then must be considered in an open public forum. While Planning Advisory Committee is very sympathetic to request, concerns exist over amending policies to permit additional lot creation in circumstances like this one. Policy requiring retained lot to be at least 36 hectares in size is intended to ensure new residential development is largely directed to settlement areas. Owner has ability to apply for an Official Plan Amendment to enable Council to consider request on a site specific basis. Situation may not be that unique in Township. A OP oversight results in unique circumstance for this number of highways, roads, utility corridors and rail property. Roadway stipulation forcing the 50 acre lines bisect Township. "E RI DIIAN ~~~'I=Ii1=; TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW Prepared by Page 6 TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW Prepared by 11 Simcoe County Respite Home June 24,2003 12 Barry Peyton (Provista Group Inc.) June 24,2003 (Eric Bowes and Dawn Braden) 13 Ralph and Wendy Hough June 24,2003 4965 Line 11 North severance is contrary to OP intent. Do not want a severance creating a third lot, but that protection of agricultural land supercede the arbitrary severance by the roadway. Understand that options are to appear before Committee of Adjustment to treat this as a special circumstance, or to rectify during five-year review. Ask that their age and circumstances be considered in length of time to decide. Document brief on benefits of Respite Homes and the need for a care facility in Simcoe County. Outline benefits and general specifications for their proposed Rural property including building size, general location (15 minutes from major services), facility operation. Home Industries Written account of June 24, 2003 presentation. With recent OMB decision recognizing their Pallets North property has a Home Industry, how (or if) will proposed OPA affect their business, now recognized as a home industry? Also ask that site be exempted from any restrictive provisions in amendments. Present Minutes of Settlement and their confidential nature may lead to incorrect inference by future purchasers that proposed amendments apply to these lands. If no exemption possible, request pallet recycling by recognized as a home industry as per Settlement. Severance Policies Not in best interest of Township or residents to maintain freeze on Rural severance while permitting severances in other areas (Shoreline Residential). Large subdivisions should not occur in overdeveloped areas, as experienced in Cumberland Beach. We may "E RI DIIAN ~~~'I=Ii1=; Respite home to be added as permitted use wherever a residential care facility is permitted. Official Plan should be much more restrictive with respect to home industries. This direction results from establishment of uses considered by landowners to be home industries, which do not meet intent of OP or Zoning By-law. Pallets North business is such a business, which is why Township is proceeding to Ontario Municipal Board regarding the property. Township considers this an illegal use of the property and it will continue to be illegal with adoption of new Official Plan and implementing Zoning By-law. Unless OMB decides in the interim that the use is permitted, would not be recommended to Council to recognize this situation in Official Plan Lot creation policies as they apply to rural areas would not be changed, but infilling lot creation policy is proposed for Rural designation. Basis of OP adoption in 1995 was to restrict ru ral development to protect rural character of the Township. Shoreline and Settlement Area lot creation opportunities are very Page 7 14 Kris Menzies (PK Menzies Planning) June 26,2003 15 Kris Menzies (PK Menzies Planning) June 27,2003 (Horseshoe Resort) not be so lucky to receive Federal and Provincial limited. funding when the same happens on our lakeshore. Well thought out rural severances on marginal lands not farmed in years (which we know where they are) better than throwing open Township to severances or compacting many septic systems near communal water sources. Contradictory to protect water quality and environment by permitting septic systems in highly developed areas, but not in spread out rural areas. Mayor Craig is the only Council member not living on a severed lot. Without severances, we wouldn't be here. Lot Boundarv Adiustment (H2.2.2) Representing a client preparing to apply for a Boundary Adjustment. Requesting clarification or written confirmation from Township: if one lot is to be made larger, the lot which the land is being conveyed from to make to receiving lot larger is acknowledged to be smaller AND notwithstanding that one lot will be smaller, the boundary adjustment will still be given favourable consideration. Such occurs in every boundary adjustment application. Object to removal of uses (golf courses) from "Rural" designation (E2.2.4h) Resort does not believe taking of water is a land use. Required rezoning could affect current operation, in which permits have been issued, should Council not approve or renew applications to take water. "E RI DIIAN ~~~'I=Ii1=; TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW Prepared by Intent of this policy has always been to accommodate adjustments with one lot becoming larger and the other smaller (as would typically happen in consideration of a Boundary Adjustment Application). Does not see need to amend policy since this rationale provides Committee of Adjustment with ability to consider all Boundary Adjustment Applications. Appropriate to remove to ensure consistent policy on golf courses across Township. Amendment to permit golf course in rural area would be in keeping with Section D8 and proposed Ora Moraine policies. Policy will be substantially modified before presentation to Council to indicate policy is dependent on courts determining water taking is a land use under Planning Act. If water taking becomes a land use, policy will require comprehensive review of issues to support a Zoning By-law amendment. Issues on controls and permissions would be determined at that time. Page 8 TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW Prepared by 16 Tanya Pallopson (Rudy & Associates Ltd) July 4, 2003 NW Part Lot 26, Con 3 (Mark Rodgers) Request amendment to permit lot development by Resort on private roads. Configuration of Resort and Condominium Act encourage condo roads to access interior lots. Resort wishes to develop lands fronting existing and proposed expansion of driveway. Some Resort parcels front a private road; no issues thus far. Appropriate development policies should remain in place to develop an Adult Lifestyle Community. Most landholdings proposed on site are still owned by Resort and is their intent to develop such a community. No comment on schedules as they are unavailable. Would like to discuss concerns in detail with staff. Request notice of any additional changes to OP Sections subject to June 24 meeting. Property Specific (Severance Options) Having interesting experience with Township in obtaining severance. Originally met with Andrea Leigh in December 2000 to discuss severance options. Was told it would be best to wait until review of Shanty Bay settlement area expansion to lobby to include subject lands in study. As of May 31, 2001, informed review would go to Council June 13, 2001 but would be put on hold until February 2002 and should wait until then. After waiting, made deputation to Planning Committee with request for inclusion October 10, 2002. Submitted a requested nitrate concentration report on March 10, 2003. Understood that completion would warrant consideration for expansion area. "E RI DIIAN ~~~'I=Ii1=; Sees no issue with permitting development in this manner on site, provided appropriate agreements ensure emergency access guaranteed to any block without any problems. Road design will have to conform with relevant municipal emergency access specifications. Section dealing with private roads to be clarified to ensure clarity of Municipal intent. Intent of deletion is to remove principle of establishing communities in Rural designation. Future proposed communities would require an Official Plan Amendment. Wide range of building forms, development permitted within Horseshoe Valley node. At present, no justification for expanding Shanty Bay settlement area. It would be premature to consider any expansion without a comprehensive Secondary Plan for the entire community that would be very much dependent on justification provided to develop additional residences. On process, has always been Mr. McDonald's understanding that this review was on general policy issues, not site specific requests, and Council has ultimately decided this. If strong feelings exist about the development proposed on client's lands, an Official Plan Amendment application may be filed for consideration of Council. Application would have to contain appropriate justification and address all existing policies dealing with Shanty Bay. Page 9 TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW Prepared by 17 Ian Rowe (Burgar Rowe LLP) July 7,2003 (Ontario Realty Corporation) 18 Ray Duhamel (Jones Consulting Group) June 24,2003 (Jules Goossens) Received letter from Meridian March 14, 2003 stating request would be reviewed for Planning Advisory Committee in April or May 2003. On May 26, 2003, another letter received that on May 8, 2002, Council clearly indicated OP review was not to change site- specific requests. Several others made comments on misinformation at June 24, 2003 meeting. Two years of waiting for "appropriate time" and provided requested information. Too much time wasted because Andrea Leigh and Meridian Planning Consultants had different notions of what OP Review entailed. Want complaint noted with Mayor and Council, proposal to remedy this situation and for subject property to be considered for inclusion in Shanty Bay settlement area. OPA #5: Edqar Centre SPA OP Review proposes severe restriction of development potential for subject property. Objectives, uses and development policies of OPA #5 remain appropriate for future development of site. Object to any OPA more restrictive than policies pursuant to OPA #5 and any ZBL implementing such OPA. Request Notice of Plan Adoption and dialogue initiated to discuss concerns before and action is taken. Property Specific (Shoreline Desiqnation Expansion) Site is designated rural, immediately outside of Shoreline designation. Surrounded to the north, west and south by existing rural residential and shoreline residential properties. Understand that considerable planning justification and many applications are needed to expand Shoreline area. Support policies permitting minor Shoreline expansion without OP Amendment if certain criteria are met. If "E RI DIIAN ~~~'I=Ii1=; Noted. Planning Advisory Committee does not support a policy that would permit new lots on public roads across from the Shoreline designation. In reviewing all requests of property owners together, appear policies would provide for considerable additional development in shoreline area. The draft policy will not be carried forward into final OPA. Page 10 this is not agreeable, request less intensive reviews and justification as what would otherwise be required. Request Notice of any draft policies affecting Rural and Shoreline designations, further meetings and adoption. 19 Bengt Schumacher June 30,2003 RR#2 Oro Station Shoreline desiqnation development Very much in favour of limited development on existing public roads across from existing Shoreline designation development. Limitations proposed strike a good balance for Township. Water Takinq Agrees with general intent of these amendments, but would be wise to wait for province to settle current disputes. Unclear as to if water taking is a land use. Tourism Supports official recognition of importance of tourism to future of the Township. 20 Stronq Obiection to Several Proposed Amendments Document appears restrictive in developing a tax base. Businesses unable to handle additional fees and license issue was dealt with last year. Business owners are trimming budgets and Township leaders should follow this example by streamlining existing By- laws and reducing staff operating costs. Don Haney (Burl's Creek Event Park) July 4, 2003 Family Taking of water is over-controlled. Strongly objects to any intrusion by proposed Section. Only 5-10% of household water use is for human consumption. The rest is washing (dishes, clothes, cars), bathing and toilets. New homes should contain cisterns to collect water for non-potable uses. TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW Prepared by ~~~'I=Ii1=; "E RI DIIAN Draft policy on development across from Shoreline designation will not be carried forward. Policies, as drafted, would be contrary to intent of OP to limit additional development. Policy will be substantially modified before presentation to Council and indicate policy is dependent on courts determining water taking is a land use under Planning Act. If water taking becomes a land use, policy will require comprehensive review of issues to support a Zoning By-law amendment. Issues on controls and permissions would be determined at that time. Strategic objectives on tourism now added in Section A2.7 of the OPA. Amendment provides additional land use permissions in certain designations, plus opportunities for rural severances. Most growth continued to be aimed at settlement areas. Water taking policy will be substantially modified before presentation to Council and indicate policy is dependent on courts determining water taking is a land use under Planning Act. If water taking becomes a land use, policy will require comprehensive review of issues to support a Zoning By-law amendment. Issues on controls and permissions would be determined at that time. Page 11 TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW Prepared by 21 Dino and Yula Sardelis July 8, 2003 SW Corner of Bass Lake Road and Fourth Line 22 Kris Menzies, PK Menzies Planning & Development (Horseshoe Resort) July 25, 2003 Ludicrous to exclude senior citizen facilities. Fastest growing segment of society is the over-55 generation. Property Specific (Ora Moraine) Wish to record a site specific OP Amendment for site. 1. Land scored 0-30 in Council defined environmental sensitivity range. Marginal lands are essentially a poor quality aggregate deposit. 2. 70 acre size is not enough to sustain a full time agricultural operation. Verified at public meeting. 3. Cannot extract gravel since trucking prohibited on road not designated haul route. They accept this. 4. Parcel adjacent to Horseshoe Valley development and is a natural extension of it. Some Council and public deputations conceptually support strategic developments from Township revenue perspective, quality their property fits. 5. Electric, Gas, Cable, Water services exist already and road system provides excellent access. Purchased site for residential development in mind. Don't want to fund technical study without some indication that serious consideration of subdivision would be given. Ask for indication that we should move forward in support of potential residents and improved tax base and their severance application would garner fair review. Private Roads (on Resort Lands) Resort Comprehensive Development Plan now being processed prefers internal, "non-public" roads. Frontage onto County Road likely to be safety hazard with undesirable lots. Internal road design is hoped to be compact and may not been Township design requirements, while maintenance demands by resort may not be amendable to the Township. "E RI DIIAN ~~~'I=Ii1=; Senior citizen facilities permitted within a settlement provided it can be appropriately serviced. Creation of new lots in proposed Oro Moraine Enhancement Area (OPA designation of property) to be guided by Rural designation policies. These policies, as amended, will not permit a severance on the lands. Intent is to direct most residential development to settlements and maintain rural area as primarily open space. Number of policies to protect rural character, deemed by many in Township as a main contributor to their quality of life. See1D#15 Page 12 Predetermination of roads on site needed to approve Common Element Condominium. Emergency Access needs can be met through easement and review under any future applications. Existing timeshare and hotel facilities currently front private driveway. Ask Township to provide Resort with policy means to implement their Plan on private roads. Would be pleased to discuss in more detail. 23 Tannis Hamilton Settlement Area Boundaries (Moonstone) County and Township Official Plans require justification 5628 8th Line North Asks Council to consider including her lands within Lot that additional lands are required for development, and Box 148 16, Concession 8 within Moonstone Settlement Area. that technical studies indicate development is feasible Moonstone on lands. No justification provided, therefore Township July 9, 2003 not in position to favourably consider request. TABLE A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OP REVIEW Prepared by "E RI DIIAN Page 13 ~~~'I=Ii1=; I I TAB I 1, 2, I 3, I 4, 5. I 6. 7. I 8, I 9, 10. I 11. 12, I 13, 14, I 15, I 16. 17, I I I I I I I DATE May 29, 2003 June 2, 2003 June 13, 2003 June 15, 2003 June 17, 2003 June 18, 2003 June 18, 2003 June 19, 2003 June 20, 2003 June 23, 2003 June 24, 2003 June 24, 2003 June 24, 2003 June 26, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 4, 2003 July 7, 2003 INDEX NAME Fred Rumford Jim Reisch Mary M, Rose Armstrong Harrison Associates Richard Haalboom QC Reinders Southpark Schwartz and Company Rudy & Associates Betty Veitch (Jack) John Jermey Simcoe County Respite Home Provista Group - BarrY Peyton Ralph and Wendy Hough Kris Menzies PK Menzies Tanya Pallopson - RUdy & Associates Ian Rowe - Burgar Rowe I May-29-0B I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 09:16am From- 1-243 P.OOI/OOl f-69B €. ~ _ "J - rJ,;>.. ~ '23~ 28 Robinson Street North, Unit 104 Grimsby, ON L3M 3C9 905-945-8559 May 29, 2003 /' The Corporalion of the Township ofOro-Medonte Box 100 Oro, Ontario L9L 2XO BY FAX: 705-487-0133 Dear SirIMadam: Re: Lot Severance Policv and Official Plan I am a property owner of Part Lot 11, Concession 12, Oro- Medonte and have owned this property fOT approximately forty years. With regard to the Township's Lot Severance Policy and Official Plan, I would respectfully request that the plan be amended to allow for a more liberal policy for lot severance in rural zoning areas. My reasons for requesting an amendment are as follows: a) Severanccs fOT rural lots are more desirable than subdivision lots because they arc usually larger lots and therefore not as close together as in a subdivision. As a result of their larger size, th.ey do not compromise the water table to the same degree as a subdivision lot, which lessens the impact of septic systems; b) Many roraI lots are. nGt suitable fOT fanning, etc. but would however be ideally suitable for building lots. Moreover, building lots would increase the taX roll. I would appreciate you giving the above infonnationconsideration when discussing changes to the Official Plan. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the write. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 'iG2spOV\~ ?~ &\(t~b ~~~~~ ~ ~~U ae.n"",,' -r '" ~cIQckd #0()11A.. C~ 10 ~ '!1\~\\'j fUllce5- Yours very t:niIy, ~f d, Fred Rumford lay I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,.....>.,,>> Q'\'-.Ij RECElV8Ji :tUff 07 '. ( , TO: Members of council and administrative office. i,cDONTE \ "'~I-f'P , My name is Jim Reisch and I live on Baycrest Drive in the southwest comer of the township. I have been advised that discussion and planning is now going on in relation to the new 5 year plan for the township. I wish to address that portion kiiow as the HOME OCCUPATION section. My comments will be in the form of two separate problems. 1, I live in the second house from the comer ofPenetanguishine Rd. My neighbor to the west lives on the comer, and has placed his house up for sale. A fertilizer and lawn care business has put in a conditional bid on it , conditional on selling their present house. They have been given a list of restrictions as outlined in the present HOME OCCUPATION section. At least half of the restrictions will be violated immediately upon their moving in. For instance, fertilizer will be sold as part of their lawn care business and sold separately. While it is of the non-manure type, it requires a separate building for storage since they buy in large quantities. They intend to build a large separate building and use it to store the fertilizer and other items. Just this issue violates tWo of the restrictions In spite of all of the other restrictions, the prospective buyer is inclined to think that they can circumnavigate the restrictions and ones that they can't, would be willing to challenge in court if challanged. Another litigation for the township. In the meantime our rural neighborhood is being completely compromised by an4 ongoing business which will move from Barrie to our community. We have been told that the neighbors wiIllose up to $30,000 of resale value if this" business" were allowed to operate with all it's bnsiness disruptions to the neighborhood. Both actions and visible! a ,/J.(ky>' .;fA, ($- ~. 'l-~ foO The above problem is one of a personal nature for the neighbors. While it doesn't affect the rest of the township per se., It certainly hurts the people who have lived here longtime and have strived to pride in making this area a nice place to live. ~)~~: I. 'i\iI) -I/) ~ eM fer ce~ I S'>,ve . 1l.Q. l-t~ ,~d<Js~ rvf)VI.S'lOv!5 t.1t(l~s~~ k{~tIM _.on I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , . , If the above information is not enough, the second problem as outlined below should really be addressed forthwith and with a timely priority. ) 2. Several years ago, during the previous council, 2 local developers submitted a plan for a housing project along the Penetanguishine Rd, Just inside the township border. The proposal had advanced to the public meeting stage wdith at least 2 councillors for it , maybe more. / As then president of the Shanty Bay Ratepayers Assn., I was delegated to give address to all the negative aspects of the plan. During the address I distributed to the council members and administrative staffa copy of the O.M.B. decision regarding a previous annexation attempt by the City of Barrie to annex up to the fourth line of our township The annexation request was rejected by the O.M.B, largely because of our ratepayers disertations and attendance / presentations at the hearings and our actual lobbying in th;e halls and offices of Queen's Park. We won on the premise that we wanted to prevent "urban sprawl" trom eminating trom Barrie to Orillia; that a rural atmosphere was need to prevent a metropolis just as what was happening to the outskirts of Toronto. ) The O.M.B. ruling was very short and to the point. In effect it said that as long as the township kept it's border with Barrie rural and did no;t permit development of any kind, it could stay as is and not be subject to annexation. However if development were pennitted, "Don't come to us for relief if annexation was to be put forth by Barrie". The word DEVELOPMENT meant both housing and i!L(OW business. The township at the time promised that they would not"any business in the area and that they were developing special rules for special business areas. Both council members and administrative stalfwere unaware of thtis O.M.B. decision. Obviously we were not, since we had struggled so hard to get this decision. After I distributed the copies, and before the evening was over, and after advice ftom administration, council voted not to allow the plan. I am sure that several present council members can recall that meeting. It was partially ftom that meeting with the O.M,B. decision in mind that formed a basis for the special designation now in place for this area between the city of Barrie and ) I, 1 I: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f') :'1 the first line of the township or what the residents of this area call "the green belt" I can guarantee that the developers previously mentioned, and who are still in the area, find out that a "business' is allowed to run right smack next to the Barrie border, they will consider it a "niche in the armour" for their development plans. They did not appeal the original O.M.B. decision. They had the money {tons of it} but they did not have a case. If the situation occurs as outlined in Problem # 1, I believe that this exactly what they; need to go to the O.M.B. Ifthey can present to them that the township did not keep to the " spirit" of the decision, the township stands ready to lose. [At the time of the meeting, up to 17% of the tax base would have been lost. The rest of the township taxpayers would have had to pick this up]. I am sure that I don't have to state the fact that the city of Barrie is in desperate need ofland for expansion. Local newspapers have articles or quotes at least twice a week. IN the case of the developers now using this "niche", the $100,000 + spent [and well spent] in the water bottling plant issue would be "peanuts"! Every developer along the Penetanguishine Rd would jump in, The problem as outlined in problem #1 is not the case of a farmer trying to earn some extra revenue during the off season or of a clean enterprise being operated in the home. 1, and my neighbors request and implore you to change, adjust, alter, diseminate or completely eliminate the present HOME OCCUPATION of the official plan, whereas this area should be completely and 100% residential. It should also be revised as it applies to the rest of the township, so that similar unfair practices cannot be committed on it's rural neighbors. Respectfully, Jim Reisch (Gzs pC\l\9-e- ; 2. 1UL ~ (Vtf.i.v ~ Aflko-vt'i1 be 4 5~~' W~ OCCUPct~ !v'! -tt...d. ~ 6'~ vt0f- ~ a-.-t rS~cR. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MARY M. ROSE CONSULTANTS INC. --\ ('~,. ':.L3~6 ~ W~~ Ge N\~ Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2XO RECEIVED JUN 132003 Attention: Ms. Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk Dear Ms, Pennycook: RE: AUendance at .Pnblic Meetillg on proposed changes to tbe Official Plan tbat will incorporate new policies on tbe Oro Moraine and aggregate resources in the Townsbip. Further to tnyletter ofApriljO, 2003 toMr, Nick McDonald and niy presentation to Mayor and Council. on June 3, 2003, I am writing to fonnatly requestthat the landholdings of Dr. Tibor' Harmathy (see attached survey sketch) be excluded fi'om the Oro Moraine Plaj1ning Area, It is noted that the subject lands are not withiQ the Oro Moraine, I recognize that the proposed Official. Plan changes justil)< the OroMorainePl.anning Area boundary asprovidirig "an appropriate boundary for pl.anning purposes," From th~planning presentation at the publ.ic meeting onJuneJ, 2003, I understand that the irregular curved boundary line pfthe actual OroMoraine (as initially established by the Ministry ()fN()rthern DevelopnientandMmes) may be difficult to administer from a land ,use planning perspective, However, as shown on the attached "Proposed Modificatio~ to the Oro Moraine planning Area' Boundary" and presentlXl to Mayor and Council; my proposed realignment of the bounda.ry is rectilinear and equally easy to. define IIIJ.d administer ill planning tenus, , . As stated at the public meeting, I feel the inclusion of Dr. Hartnathy's lands within the Oro Moraine planning Area is very onerous. The subject lands are currently designatyd in the . Official Pl.an as: ' Mineral Aggregate ResQurces (approx. 50%) Agriculture (approx, 40%) El1viro[tl1l~l)tal. Protection One (approx,IO%) The proposed laM use desigl1atiQns are: , . Oro M()raine Core/CorridMArea(apprQx,75%) Agricultural Area (approx,I5%) Oro Moraine Enhancement Area (apprQx.I 0%) tMJLING ADD1UI55: P.O, BOX 2536,ORILUA ONrARIO,L3V7A3 1'I:!L: 1-705-32&6721 . QVJCADOlU!$: 137CREIGfffO!Ii snumr A'l'HBRLHY, ONTARIO FAX: 1-705-32&6721 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I As you aware, Dr. Harmathy wishes to sever onelot (approx.8 hectares) from his fatIlily propertywhich:accommodates his Personal residence: In myopnrlon, presently only a minor site , specific change is required te the Official PI!Il1 !Il1d.no zoning ch!ll1ge is required. However, under the proposed Official PI!ll1 ch!ll1ges aJ;ld subsequent implementing zoningby.law, I feel the increased planning restrictions C9uld prove prohibitive, . Also, at the present time !Il1d in the foreseeable future, Dr. Hiumathy is not proposing to \lndertake any extractive activities on his property but the removal of the Mineral Aggregate Re&otJrces designation and the imposition of the Oro Moraine Core/Corridor Area designation clearly removes existing development rights !Il1d is very limiting vis a vis permitted uses. In closing, I.once again request that increased restrictions not be imposed on the lands proposed to be severed from Dr. Hannathy!s property. , Yours tnily, . ...~~~. /' Mary M..RoJe FCIP,RPP. . . Consulting Planner . ~ Mr. Nick McDonald cc, Dr. Tibor Harmathy ~J&)tM. . "V"J€.. , . f. (J'nrrv\~~ ~rt~~ loou~ "0 . '.M-.@ (/)0 v>11"f- f~ I11t:XIQl(1(4 bO!l~j~ q~J~1~0, .N~c~~ I;J?WJ~. ." . ... ."tIr'\ 2. 5.e4~~CUf{~t!1 M-~Itlcd ~"~..()M' .~I~ ~~ 1> 0.' \tM.( ~ 011> ~.I~ orlt.~ . ~V\\it,~R,\h1 ~ce . ------------------- \ :;; \ [SKETCH POR PROPOSED REZONING / //' ~r' Opf. , p~ ~~tI-_ p~(<i'I PART OF LOT 13 CONCESSION 14 TOWNSHIP OF ORa COUNTY OF SIMCOE W. DOUG~AS SMITH O.~.S. (1403) I~ SCALE [... 300 1991 ,'" " / /// , ZDt-JING: ,'; ./ f) I \ \, \ '" A A/i<'-\, , " """"''''-''''1V\I-h-/~ e\,." ..,"""VI",,"'M~~N M/>:f1-'2-,.,M("'~~ , ~LJ!'Ce 'TWo ~ Wl7ti W. DOUG~AS SMITH ~TD ONTARIO LAND 5URV~YCRS !3e COLLf~R ST., BARRIE ONT. 722~6222 Reierenee H- . OS~O!"7 ~ .- l <60(>"" ++,-, 1'> ~G1'" ~~f /If ~.~ " ~ <>f O{!..-t,...... ~ ~ f'}'f'} ",. ~ (..>#>"'20<><). .,ed; _.~ - !<<(f?~,16,,~ t-\"'\V: ~O~' V"'"""" ~ ~. \~ (~ (~Ml.'( * w( t I ~~{ b(~ ~ . \~~Ji: f~'~.,x;, ,..,-\ ~~ " ~ (....,...... ".M< ..... -" ~, zu 'f/><f'(' ~~\)\A? ~-f. . ~~qj4- ~\~~~ (..-" """ ,...e< ..... ..,- """,,,,, - , , , ~ ~ ?\,-D~ '^"" \ 'f\ ""1'; -p {;f/.b TJ\bf../'<\~ \'V":::- ~ ~bvt--\9~ - . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o 6 ArmstronJl Harrison Associates Division of Georgian Woods ltd. Land Development Consulting SeNlces - Project Management Municipal and Administrative Representation 12 Trillium Trail - Horseshoe Valley R, R. tJ 4 Coldwater Ontario LOK 1 EO Phooo 705-835-6456 Toll Free 866-544-2744 Fax 705-835-3136 I;-mall aSkronta!look,ca .-;;: ~-~. (C@IPY Z3fd) June 15 2003 Township of Oro-Medonte 148 Line 7 South Ora, ON lOl 2XO Re: Township of Oro-Medonw Official Plan R.view 2Gq3 Coua,r t.II!I!..Develomnents bUt: Part Ic9.f 1 Con 6 9~. Mayor Craig and Members of Council, you recall that I appeared at the Public Meeting representing Mr. Armando Pompeo, 'A410 has a seasonal residence in Cathedral Pines, and who owns a 19 8CRI parcel of land located just East of the 4th, on the South side of HV Road, immediately South of Cathedral Pines and between the Firehall, Community Centre QPP Police detachment, and the Oro Hills Estate development You recall I stated my opinion that because it is completely surrounded by residential or community uses, the "Rural" designation is inappropriate. We understand and appreciate that tha proposed changes to the O.P. and the Oro Moraine policies will be good for the municipality, and we support and agree with the thrust of the Township's efforts to preserve its unique qualities. However, in certain circumstances, the characteristics of a particular site in relation to its surroundings call for special consideration, . In order to eliminate the opportunities that remain within the existing "Rural" designation for an inappropriate . form of development on this site, and to accommodate those 'A410 would prefer larger lots than are usually found in the settlement areas or in areas such as Sugarbush, we request consideiation for applications which may be made in the near future to develop this site for small-scale Country Estate lots. Due to the unique circumstances that surround this particular site, a Country Estat,e development could be allowed as an "exception" to the general "Rural" policies of the Q.P., without creating a precedent leading to creation of similar developments in other areas, It appears that this is the most convenient method to allow the property to be developed in character with Its neighbourhOOd, and to eliminate the possibility of inappropriate development in this essentially residential area. The following ...sons justify such applications: (1) Many uses currently permitted In the current "Rural. designation are significantly more intensive than a small-scale Country Estate development. (2) Countly Estate development is in keeping with the established character of the immacrlate a.... (3). Community facilities are readily available. (4). Tha proposal wiD be small in scale, comprising parhaps 10 -12 lots. (5) . COncurrently with the applications we will submit sufficient c:Iocumentatlon to establish and demonstrate that there are no significant environmental features on the site. (6) Such a development v.ouId fill a need for larger lots than are currently available or planned for areas such as Craighurst and Sugarbush. (1) Availability of these larger lots will assist to prevent fragmentation and mis-use of agricultural lands. We request Council to take the appropriate steps to designate this site to recognize its unique characteristics, and to consider applications to develop it in keeping with the residential charecter of the neighboulhood. ~~: . ?e..,~I~ S...c\.A. ~+i"'-t I OCQ~ I,JO(J~ ~ Oqn 10' N~~.J!ul CCI/(.e.f- of. cr,p{) 'RtJ ...1...1. :" to dll&+ ~.wm.-I Yours truly ~ Armstrong Harrison AssoCiates Per: R St. C. Armstrong I.- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JUN-17-2e03 14:18 , ' R. HAALBOOM. Q. C. :'1~ :,'(b \:14'(1 1"'.\:1, ec.- /II!III':~:.> ~<;. .R. Haalboom, Q.C. 11. P Barrister Solicitor Notary Ricbard ltijk Baalboom, Q.c., B.A., ".D. phone (519) 579-2910 (ax (519) 576-0471 rijk@rhaalboomqc.ca VIA FAX: 1-705-487-0133 (5 pages) 17 June 2003 Ms. Marilyn pennycook Clerk, Township ofOro-Medonte P.O. Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO Dear madam: Re: Christian HorizoDS Township of Oro-Medonte OfficiatPlan Review For your information, I transmit: - copy of my letter dated today, faxed to your planners, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc. (4 pages) In ordiruuy terms, on behalf of my client, Christian Horizons, I have a concern that yom Township does not attempt to ., box in " group homes for the care of developmentally handicapped persons contraty to applicable law. I sincerely hope that your Official Plan Review process will result in a plan which reflects an enlightened littitude towards developmentally handicapped persons within the jurisdiction of yom 'municipal coIporation. EncI. 7 Duke Street West, Suite 304 Kitcbener, Ontario, N2H 6N7 ... . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . J~4-17-2003 14:18 . R.HAALBOOM. Q.C, 519 576 0471 P.02 R Haalboom, Q.C. Barritter Solic:itor Notary Kicbaro Ki,jk Haalboom, Q.c., B.A., J.D, phone (519) 579-2920 fn (519) 576-0471 rijk@rbaalboomqc.ca VIA FAX: 1-705-737-5078 (4 pages) 17 June 2003 Mr. Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP Meridian Planning Consultants Inc. 113 Collier Street Banie, Ontario lAM 1H2 Re: Christian Horizons Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan Review Your file No. 2360 I understand that you are the planning consultants for the Township of Oro-Medonte. I have before me: para. 3,13 of Part 1: The Introduction dated 9 June 2003 and Item #28: Proposed Section H9 - Residential Care Facilities. On behalf of my client. Christian Horizons, I appreciate your recognition of group homes as a residential use" ... permitted as of right ... "upon residentially designated and zoned lands and that special control of such residential occupancy, as you indicate, is prohibited unless authorized by provincial statute. My comments upon: H9 a) The supervision in a group home may not always be 24 hours per day; 7 days per week. This depends on circumstances. In my opinion, it is also not correct to refer to "... receive both room and board ... ". IRoom and board has a special connotation. The residents of Ii group home are not boarders. As a minimum, these residents have the legal right of tenants who live together in their home as a common housekeeping unit. I am also reticent to accept your use of the term - Residential Care Facilities. It is a home; a home where persons live in a single housekeeping unit together with supervision. The word - facility - has institutional connotations which is what provincial policy has been working against - i.e" to de-institutionalize. ~>p~ Q} lkc.de. 24 ... 2 \ f I _.J I k(}(;6~ roOM. ~ j?OU-M ~ 7 Duke Street West, Suite 304 Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 6N7 JUN-1'(-<<I::IW 14: 1\;\ K.HRHL!:IUUf1. \,!,\.. 51'3 570 0471 P. 03 .., . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . -2- VIA FAX: 1-705-737-5078 (4 pages) 17 June 2003 Mr. Nick McDonald. MCIP, RPP Meridian Planning Consultants Inc. ~) (>0\11.~ ~ ') [. N~, 2. 'Pe.--fb.-~ >~.s ~pa"k'4/ ~~~ e,k. Re: Christian Horizons Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan Review Your File No. 2360 H9 b) 1>\1>110 3 You speak of "specific definitions for these residential care facilities ... " to be implemented in the zoning by-law. c) Questions: 1) Is this an indirect attempt to eventually segregate group homes contrary to provincial policy and law? 2) You add" ... as well as performance standards." What does this mean? Who measures the performance - of whom; of what ? You speak about" ... an adequate supply... ". Provincial policy states that a group home is a residential use just like any other use. Adequacy of the supply will depend on circumstances from we to time and is not detpminable by a local official or a by-law. '~5 po.1~ A-'f A(U( Who decides what is appropriate funding from senior government agencies? That is not an issue within the jurisdiction of the municipality. . Who decides what is adequate comm11Dity services for clients? fbJ ~: Who is a client person? The persons living in a group home are residents; they are not clients of anyone. ~ What is meant by proper siting? ~tUlr-Wf ~ A group home can be any home in any residential area. ~ rr+ J901 ~ce.- You cannot indirectly segregate what is not allowed directly. That continues to be my basic concern in these comments. I don't know how site plan control has any connection with proper licensing ~ , _. n unless the licensing is an attempt to segregate the group home. - 51.t.e ~ VI t.o ~ I don't know where the authority for a limited number of resid~'~ fr~; ~ - even though my client is not against a limit. My client usually has fewer than 6 residents in a home. ~p~: 1k~ B ~ (0 v., CO\M~' . ~I~~IO R. Haalboom. Q.C. Banister Solicitor Notary JUN-17-2003 14:1~ K,HHHL~UUM, ~.C. -=>l':::t ::ffb \::14'{1 t"". \;j4 I ' . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -3- VIA FAX: 1-705-737-5078 (4 pages) 17 June 2003 ~. \oP~ Mr. Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP Meridian Planning Consultants Inc. Re: Christian Homons Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan Review Your File No. 2360 ~)P~ < fi(s~<LLo~ . ~~W\7$L. 89 d) 89 e) ...... 4 My client is not against the concept of minimum distance separation between group homes or among group homes because it prevents ghettoizatioD. Nevertheless, I don't think there is any jurisdiction for a municipality to rule on minimum distance separation. In practice, however, group homes appear to be in favour of this regardless of any special requirement. I am concerned about "regulations regarding performance standards", It is up to the owner of the home to decide what kind of residential dwelling it should be; not the municipality. It is up to the owner to decide what is the nrinimum floor space; not the municipality, Mmimum floor space for a residential home for any other occupant of a home cannot be detennined other than in very general rules applicable to eveI}' resident such as by the Ontario Building Code. Registration of group homes may be required subject to provincial authorization. I don't know what is meant by certain facilities being pennitted in the rural locations of the Township subject to a zoning by-law amendment. If the property is in a rural area, whether it is agricultural or not and if there is a home on the property that can be occupied by a family; it can also be occupied by developmentally handicapped person(s), for example as a group home. /?P:?~ On behalf of my client I object to your requirement of the zoning by-law 2..$ l 0>11:.1 amendment. I don't know what is meant by "rorallocations". ~cJ~ Pe>r' CUYVe.e.~ ~'IOUP~ A zoning by-law cannot determine intensity of use relative to area of the property 0,.- to be any different than intensity of use for any other person who wants to live 'Tt-eJtr ~ somewhere in the township. <P.,1w.t.r I don't know what is meant by" compatibility with surrounding land uses n. ~r:f::: Who determines compatibility? What is compatibility? ~ , ~ Is this is another form of indirect discrimination? You cannot legislate group homes out of one section of the municipality. This is discrinrinatOIY. R. Haalboom. Q.C. BalTister Solicitor Notary I.' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JUN-17-2003 14:19 R.HAALBOOM. Q.C. 519 576 0471 P.05 -4- VIA FAX: 1-705-737-5078 (4 pages) 17 June 2003 Mr. Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP Meridian PI"nn;1\g Consultants Inc. Re: Christian Horizons Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan Review Your FiJe No. 1360 The suitability of a residential location is detemrined by the caregiver and is not determinable by the municipality; subject to any authorized minimUm distance separation requirement and other generally applicable by-law requirements. The needs of a person living in a home is determined by the person and by the caregiver; not by the municipality. The availability of necessary setvices is detemrined by the resident of the home and the caregiver; not by the municipality. I don't know what is meant by .. potential impact on existing community services". The proximity to other residential care facilities, i.e., group homes, I assume means a minimum distance separation requirement. If the size and type of dwelling and lot size is sufficient for a family home; then at least from my client's viewpoint, it is also sufficient for its uSe as a group home and cannot be independently and separately detemrined by way of a by-law. Again, it appears that your Township is intending to use rules indirectly to segregate and discriminate what is not allowed to be done directly in accordance with provincial statutory law such as the Planning Act and applicable Provincial Policy. I am not attempting to be ~duly critical regarding your proposed amendments to the Official Plan; but on behalf of Christian Horizons I express my concerns as set out in this letter based on the wOJIDation before me at this time. No group bome should become encapsulated into a special zoning category somehow separated from general residential use. Perhaps that is not what you are planning to do; but that is my impression at this time. May I please have your comments? c. - Clerk, Via Fax: onte ( 4 pages) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JJN-20-2003(FRI) 00: 21 RElt-lJERS SOJTH PARK (FAX)705 726 9445 P. 0021004 ---'-'-'-~.'~ - \~~ .-...... ~.._-"_.. .. ~. .._'w.__ Planners . Design build . Project managers . Genera] contractors June 18, 2003 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MBJONTE II/~.~ Post Office Box 100 z ~~dJJ6~~ .{oq:( Administration Centre . . <'A_' "'_ _I . Oro, Ontario '''I .....-TVI ~ LOL2XO '., SIIO(p.W. VIA FACSIMlUi & POST { ATTENTION: COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF ORO-MEDONTE c/o Mr. Gary Smith, B.E.S., Municipal Planner 0_~ A':V povt~ ~ DearMember$ofCouncil and Mr. Smith: f. 'lU. dV CCX~ Qr<<uql.co RE: OFFICIAL PLAN UPDATE & REView ~~ Lo ~ G'IQ ~-t expansion ofth. Shanty Bay Settlement Area J! (:M OPt?, No ]tJrl.fl.iAktw-. ~::;:~~~~~~~~~~=.:~ ~ ~s<.bMlIkd !.o Svppo.t 511cIA. 4\ cLlAIIAR.. V(PUJ . Further and pursuant to our recent meeting of June 17, 2003 with yourself, Mr. Nick McDonald and representatives of Oro Glen Estates including Dr. Barry GoldUst and Mr. Sam Grossman, this correspondence is being forwarded on behalf of Oro Glen Estates, owners of the above noted property. As discussed during our meeting, the owners of Oro Glen Estates are Interested in proving up the development potential of the above noted site and In the above noted property being considered as a candidate for Inclusion In the Community of Shanty Bay Settlement Area. We also take this opportunity to notify you, on behalf of Oro Glen Estates, that we Intend to appear as a deputation before the upcoming Public Meeting concerning submissions relating to the updating and five year review of the Offtclal Plan for the Township of Ora-Madonte. We believe that the above noted property Is a good candidate for residential development for a wide variety of reasons and an application for development should be considered once the background Information for a complete application is assembled by Oro Glen Estates. We are of the opinion that the policies of Part B of the Offtcial Plan as It relates to Settlement Area and Servicing strategies In the Shanty Bay settlement area should be modified in order to permit this to occur. The policies only antlclpete one property being developed and are overiy specific in that they stata that a communal sewage trea1ment system will only be permitted on one property and that development will be restricted to lands already approved for development. We request that the policies be modified to allow the property to be considered for the location of a communal sewage treatment system and for possible Inclusion In the Settlement Area If the background studies and planning Justification studies show that the subject site Is suitable and appropriate for residential development. 19 Mary StI-.:ct, Barrie Ontmio UN IT2 (705) 726-6722 Fax: (705) 726-9445 www.rcind""".outhpari<,CQm . cnquirics@rd.lldcrssouthparlu;om I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -JjN-20-2003(FRI) 00:21 REII'ffRS SOJTH PARK (FAX)70S 726 9M5 P. 003/004 w. trust the above is self-explanatory and satisfactory. If you have any questions or comments concerning' the contents of this correspondence or the enclosed study please do not hesitate to oontact the undersigned at (705) 726-6722. REIN PARK AND ASSOCIATES LTD. ~~~&~& sen~~~I~ner C.c. Mr. Nick McDonald, TOWfI8hlp Plannnlng Consull.ent, Meridian Consultants Dr. Bany Goldli&t, 010 Glen Assodates Mr. Sam Grossman, 010 Glen Assadates RK CD (\j r-- U.iMO ~ " "" <$) <$) 0.: 'w""'" "- CD " ~ M.,..... -"",*,""'" ....." 'D '0 ~ >< '"' U- ~ 'N~WetI;wl6cWtl!:af'j eapprcriMtolan.d1-.u -,-"'" greurdlfut~ed by LG!.. -= '" a:: <C CI- ::r: >- SJ ...Wft.IQrd"Qf\Jd$\:;rili;::al"ll vo~IUeIr~lr, it!.dtc:i'al~n El7WcnIn6fdP~ O<<:sJgN:t:on..S640"d:'~ e:Q1a."'I'~, (j) a:: 15 z >- w a:: Flgul>> 3: WeIland and ~mI Sol Bock I!otwIary N ~ ~ >- a:: u... ~ &3 ~ , ~ ~ I.t. 200 400 , metres ... _. ....,:n:IW .., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O~/18/03 11:28 -aU6 787 3664 SCHWARTZ" CO, I(!J UU~/UUti , ::tCHW ARTZ AND COMPANY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT 23~O 85 Scarsdale Road, Suile 202, Toronto, Ontario M3B 2R2 Tel: (416) 181.1236 fax: (416) 181.3664 <.mail: nuil@sch"ianzco.ca Township ofOro-Medonte Box 100 Ora, Oniario LOL2XO ~~: /. ~..th ~~AAkJ U(~jr,~ ( ~r~~~) -YVJ {oJ-CtePt~ pt.!lVtt tkd, -W~lt.lt ~ ~ '/ Attention: Ms. Marilyn Pcnnycook ~5 M. (oc::tkd ~M.(Jcdtl4\~~ . Clerk, Township ofOro-Medonte fOJlM. Orc/lut . Dear Ms. Pennycook, z.. <001 e CPur5.e. f."VoJ.d.. ~UwJL opA 3. m(t'\\maQ1\h,,:QIAA\'~~~tMe-..k We would like to speak at the public meeting to discuss the comprehenslveam~l!iI1ent to l'I"IOI.... ~ the Oro-Medonte official plan on June 24. 2003. Please advise if this is possible. We l I ^ would like this letter to be submitted at this time. C2f(Jf'OPfioty<- . We have several suggestions for the property owned by Jelmak Management Services Limited, Concession 14, East Part of Lot 19 & 20 (146 acres), S. ofCNR, RP51R-16339, Part I (Oro), Roll /iOIO-012-335. DEVELOPMENT POSSmlLITIES: 1. Limited large lot development on the existing public roads across from existing shoreline development (Item 3.12), See letter attached suggesting 20 lots on Oro- Medonte townJine and 12 lots on Lakeshore Road (l00 feet by 400 feet), land for parking, trails and park donated. 2, Golf course integrated with adult comml1nity lifestyle homes on large lots. 3, Private/public golf course with nature and snowmobile trails. Some of the land could be donated for a park. Points to discuss: I, Proposed lots and/or golf Course would have little or no impact on agricultural operations (Item 3.7, c). 2. Land is situated at most northern part of Oro-Medonte, approximately 30 miles from Barne (Item 3.1) Because land is not near the city ofBarne the proposed lots are more likely not to attract families with children but will attract people interested in the quieter lifestyle of Oro-Medonte (hem 3.11). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 06/16/03 11: 26 U'U6 767 3664 SCHWARTZ " co, I€IUU;J/UUti 3. The subject property is accessible by municipal roads that can accommodate any increased traffic generated by the proposed uses. Any development would be away trom the roads ofOro 14 and Lakeshore Road East (Item 3.7, e), M stated in Item 3.12 and item 19, this proposal would not result in an increase in municipal seI\ices since the roads are already there, Services such as telephone, cable, garbage disposal, etc, are already in place, 4. This property is adjacent to shoreline designation properties. Council may agree that minor j)11Iendments to the officinl plnn may penn it development on an existing public road that is across nom existing development in a shoreline designation (Official Plan Amendment), Any proposed development on this land could consist oflots with an area of at least 0.6 hectares. This is compatible with the character and scale oftbe existing developments on Maplewood, Lakewood and homes on Lakeshore and Line 14. 5, This unique property has easy access to the ramp, dock and public beach on Carthew Bny. It is adjacent to the Lake Country Rail Trail for biking, cross-country skiing, walking and snowmobiling. 6. The proposed lots and/or golf course with parking lot would complement the small settlement amenities already in place in the area, Homeowners enjoy the benefits of a convenience store at the COmer of Lake shore Road and Line 14, as well as the famous Shaw's Maple Syrup store and restaurant We look forward to hearing nom you shortly, Respectfully submitted by Jelmak Management Services Limited, June 17, 2003 Sincerely, Albert Schwartz 0~/1S/03 11:28 '6'418 787 3864 SCHWARTZ" CO. I4J 0041008 I" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ALBERT SCHWARTZ -CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT- zoo~ Bathurst Stre.t, Toronto, Ontario MSP JL 1 Tel: (116) 787.1236 fa.. H 16) 7B7.J66f ..mail: .,.a@p2thcom.com August 4, 1999 Township ofOro-Medonte Box JOO Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO A TIENTlON: Andrea Leigh, H.BA Development Co-Ordinator Dear Madam: }\E: Development of Lands Lakeshore Road & Oro-Medonte Town Line (Connerlv OrD Line 14) Mayor Ian Beard has asked me to write to you regarding possible development of the above lands which are owned by my client Jelmak Management Services Limited. I bave also discussed this matter with Mr. Bob Birnie of Lakeshore Road. My client would be willing io donate land to be used as a parking lOt for approximately 20 cars and 20 trailers as well as a trail (60 ft. wide) to go from the CN tracks to the parking lot, In exchange, Council would approve lots (lOO ft x 400 Ii - I acre) as indicated on the enclosed plan i.e. 20 lots on the Oro Medonte Town line plus 12 lots on the Lakeshore Road side. In the future, it might be possible to use the balance of the land for some recreational purpose such as a 9 hole Public Golf Course, If you would like to discuss this matter futtl\er, please call. Thank you fot YOUt attention to this matter. Yours ttllly, Albert Schwartz. AS/gl Albe" Schwa,.., C,I.P. Pri.ncipals: 'Eric C. Kaa($bc:rg Donald R. Adam. 'Uil"h~,.1 , "...II~.' Mienael ^' Stead Alf",d S,y, Ch3n ,OQ/18/03 I . I I I I I \ I I : .. I ;\ .1 ., :i I ~ .~\ i\. 'to . w-\ w~ .- 4, ~ I ~., I'; l't hi I ".1 I I I : I . i . -, " I , , ! I ~ ...". ~.."" JII.:-.i'l I :t .~,,~ 1AI't;-. .. ....':ft.\~r1.~ .::~:..-:.:).1'_4:":. t :t...,cJ~F':1~'1';.r~IJt:i~:1'~&L fJ.",', . c.t~ "I ' ....LOW.HU/ IU'<<fEIt LOTS. 20 - A_a 21 11: 27 ti'416 ..1.~7 3664 SCI!WARTZ I< CO. ._- ~-' : !:I - . r. ,.. .. ... 10';'- .IitIO' ... :-w;ii..... . . . , ' I I \ ~I.i' .. X '':- I..:,"; t..-:.-: ~~Q Q C~ t.Q ~I)kf .. ,.,n './ .. IU'l - ., .- ~ '/do .. 'J>. 1:,:': . (,., .,.. - %- ...", '} -': 1."- \ CQIi\~~ t: PART" \ " '~(~r ....~ .... l\ '" I.. ~Q'" '::: .\ ')" I> Q I \)..\.--Q-(> f{ ;;:; ......., ....... J ....- .. ''''I (":''':-4_ . . .'\,. ..-')":~.I'~_ ._"'u,,, pt T-''---'. "'f'. .r -:"" , I. .:. to ...., _..._.__~ .,"\" ':'1'" -: ..... \~.. ~:'!...i.!tU 1\ ,.....~;~ ilfl. :,',." ,.; lI:t~ 10 ..ou ,,,,.,,Ath" o. ..! lit 0' &.OT I'. (('if. X tv i!o THf,;,t"JGH 'Kt. '!.t.II\)1)i ",",10WN$HIf" OF 0110. , . ~I" ss.,. I' ..., II o 'PAS' LEGEIc 0 t.<t~1n ,'UtlOAftO .hO'4 .." ot'N01U SHORT STANO A RD IAOH eAR OUII)'TU ,qoM lUll D(N(.1U \iIn'l'IfFSS OU40TU J40IlUIIHNi VOUNP ot..nlf:t Mo;lIUJdNf ...... ,,'I' ! 0 D(M(.fil. pc..fIOtN. "TANTON ~,..n"'lI'<< ,.-' i . 11 ') . .. . . .10 i : ~! 'q ',. 0; .- .' - .. ~ - ::: . 'Z : ~I 141 1105'1100 -' .- Wi Ie ::; .- . :. ., ." . !:.... ~ .. . . .. . , .. , , . - . -' , :: .: 1 ~ "" ~ f'( " ~~ ...l c- O r< ~ 0 ~ r<!' ~ \I /1 -::0 -g- --..J) '- .,...,)...... ... ,...",.\0." .' I "I:" ..-- ::;11.14;., E ~\ t ~ ~ . . . . . :. : .) s....!no~.s CEIITlflCAU ..tl l. vn "'JIG ,.1...... AII\If.{.chlt.ttt &alp IN 4C",""DAHC( ....'1, tHE IIII(CtUUV AC"I~~HO t'HE RtGULAT-'OH$ N.4.D( 'IiE"t 1 .C'f""1$co......l,.nlrolft~t Z6tit,. o.il. tlI'GC'OtlF" . ~ . . . . ~ ,). - :: .:;.......... a.::;:. . = ~ ~. 0 . " .. " . !; . .. .. . .. . 0 ,- .. .. . -..r..~U- D Agrieullurnl ~RUI1lI mmmn Rural Residential Ulli.llliB ~Shol"l!line OVERLAY DESIGNATIONS ~. "Envlronmenlal ~ Prolection T"o MQDlFICATIOM NO...5}O UNDER SECTION 17t'ivlOf THE PlANNING ACT, - - - - - - - - - oi - - 19 Z11 . MOOI ~ t10~FIc!I1oN XIV IIND~ Tilt Pl.4~~c;:,ON Ilb.. '" G AC1~ vt lAD SUlCOE 23 XIII /.~"o qo: *IIO'!E COIlI'OllEIITS or THE !I'I'IIROIIIltNTAL PII01ICfIOll OIIB AMI 'J1IO DISlCIIATJIIIIS AIU! SJJ01I1I 011 SCIIE!JVIl 8 500 0 ~ ,..J 1:20,000 Narc: AIIlbe 1aJce~ rivers and creeks identified on lhis schedule are subj!cIIO III! policies of SCl:hon G I and G4 of too Plan, 1000lIl I THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP FEBRUARY 1m - -1-1 , ~ '1\1 .~: ;~!. . ~-,,'-". " ,. "., -;..;:~: ;'~' 'KEY PLAN TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN SCHEDULE A7 , ICHW ARTZ AND C01\:ANY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT 5 Scarsdale Road, Suite 202, Toronto, Ontario M3B 2R2 ~~. ~f/b lo:.:5ftY 4.~~ Tel: (416) 787-1236 Fax: (416) 787-3664 e-mail: mail@schwartzcn,ca ~.\0,t1, ~.s , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I z3ft,o Township ofOro-Medonte Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL2XO Attention: Ms. Marilyn Pennycook Clerk, Township ofOro-Medonte Dear Ms, Pennycook, We would like to speak at the public meeting to discuss the comprehensive amendment to the Oro-Medonte official plan on June 24, 2003, Please advise if this is possible, We would like this letter to be submitted at this time. We have several suggestions for the property owned by Jelmak Management Services . Limited, Concession 14, East Part of Lot 19 & 20 (146 acres), S, ofCNR, RP5IR-16339, Part I (Oro), Roll #010-012-335. DEVELOPMENT POSSmILITffiS: 1, Limited large lot development on the existing public roads across from existing shoreline development (Item 3.12), See letter attached suggesting 20 lots on Oro- Medonte townline and 12 lots on Lakeshore Road (100 feet by 400 feet), land for parking, trails and park donated. 2, Golf course integrated with adult community lifestyle homes on large lots. 3. Private/public golf course with nature and snowmobile trails, Some of the land could be donated for a park. Points to discuss: 1. Proposed lots and/or golf course would have little or no impact on agricultural operations (Item 3,1, c). 2. Land is situated at most northern part ofOro-Medonte, approximately 30 miles from Barrie (Item 3.1) Because land is not near the city of Barrie the proposed lots are more likely not to attract families with children but will attract people interested in the quieter lifestyle of Oro-Medonte (Item 3,11), I, 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I . , , . . ,. 3, The subject property is accessible by municipal roads that can accommodate any increased traffic generated by the proposed uses, Any development would be away ITom the roads of Oro 14 and Lakeshore Road East (Item 3.7 , e). As stated in Item 3,12 and item 19, this proposal would not result in an increase in municipal services since the roads are already there, Services such as telephone, cable, garbage disposal, etc. are already in place, '0- %.' 4. This property is adjacent to shoreline designation properties. Council may agree that minor amendments to the official plan may pennit development on an existing public road that is across from existing development in a shoreline designation (Official Plan Amendment). Any proposed development on this land could consist oflots with an area of at least 0.6 hectares. This is compatible with the character and scale of the existing developments on Maplewood, Lakewood and homes on Lakeshore and Line 14. 5, This unique property has easy access to the ramp, dock and public beach on Carthew Bay. It is adjacent to the Lake Country Rail Trail for biking, cross-country skiing, walking and snowmobiling. 6, The proposed lots and/or golf course with parking lot would complement the small settlement amenities already in place in the area, Homeowners enjoy the benefits of a convenience store at the comer of Lake shore Road and Line 14, as well as the famous Shaw's Maple Syrup store and restaurant. ) We look forward to hearing from you shortly, Respectfully submitted by Jelmak Management Services Limited, June 17,2003 Sincerely, Albert Schwartz ) ....LBERT SCHwARTZ --==CHARTERED ACCOUNT ANT- (004 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario M5P 3L1 Tel: (416) 787-1236 Fax: (416) 787-3664 e.mail: asca@pathcom.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I August 4, 1999 Township ofOro-Medonte Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO ATIENTION: Andrea Leigh, H.B_A, Development Co-Ordinator Dear Madam: RE: Development of Lands Lakeshore Road & Oro-Medonte Town Line (fonnerly Oro Line 14) Mayor Ian Beard has asked me to write to you regarding possible development of the above lands which are owned by my client Ielmak Management SelVices Limited. I have also discussed this matter with Mr. Bob Birnie of Lakeshore Road, My client would be willing to donate land to be used as a parking lot for approximately 20 cars and 20 trailers as well as a trail (60 ft, \\~de) to go from the CN tracks to the parking lot. In exchange, Council would approve lots (100 ft x 400 ft - I acre) as indicated on the enclosed plan i.e. 20 lots on the Oro Medonte Town line plus 12 lots on the Lakeshore Road side, In the future, it might be possible to use the balance of the land for some recreational purpose such as a 9 hole Public Golf Course, If you would like to discuss this matter further, please call, Thank you for your attention to this matter, Yours truly, Albert Schwartz. AS/gl Albert Schwartz, C,I.P. Principals: Eric C. Kaarsberg Donald R, Adams Michael j, Kelly' Michael A. Stead Alfred S.Y. Chan I I . I I I I I I I I 0 " ~. ~i .1 ., .1 :\ '" . . "\ ", .- ". ~ ",., ,:\ -\ i = I 0' . 'j ~ ' ;. I . ,. ~ I.". :.~ L~~'7 ~~ " ,., PART' t ::--;~"r ....p ... " ..~... '*10 ~ .~b t. i\ 'I ""'\ I.. ~O'" l). c> 0 \]- \-Q-( j ff :: :;r r",,;i-,. .. 11.1..' ~. f..' ~"'. s' j . 1.;,:- . .....'il.1 ....n r~ T,;c4'~:~I':i'-'-.r..... T.Rl'~ ... :---.,. -:,.--:.__.,:",~' - .~ ,.~ .... \-.. _. ......, \ II\hl;:$\\1.t~r:\\-P.~."," ~~ rv.I'~ :~f!",1( t, i u.;:t~ ,"0,", , ~. ", .. .~.',o.[ " t if 0&6 :' .:11. .." . ~'ji"l':-'"'-;";''':'''''-' TI:.I:I;(l~~:'I-b;:~'~AL fJ:, 1\16.. 'I I ALLOWAHU/ aitW{Ut lOTS 20 . AND 2:1 :.tI~: _ '''(III ::f.Y.ti..vAih': ('I~ TW~ 1/1 Of lOT 19. ('(1140 )( IV I THf,:(.ltGH THE 'SouTti XIV,TOwt.!$HIP Of aRG, . . ~It. S$18 , . ,,,' II o ID$.S) HM;,.tE~ DENOTES DENOTES pr"r-TES OE NOn s DENOff S oEN('".r&:s LEGEI-tO 'ioUI(OARO ,fot,C!lt bA" SHORt STAJIIOARD IROfol BAR tRoN ,AR wItNESS MO\'lUIU:fn FOUMO NoiUUfNT P~ANTfD OEAItOEN. STANTON, STONES AND ~_","...n.'.U&.N n. '" . ~ . : . ,... '.. " ~ ~-"' .J'~ L ,.,. II: r.'_ - '- (,,\ -to' .~ a :s:J. . .. .. X ~ ~ f" J: ~::: . "" .. l' ':t ~( ~ Ii' ..', ! :\,.~. .~; :-', ' "4" ....{..'.T7..... ~-4', . .;;3~.-1-_ .... n~ ~~'I"""" . "'IIO'UI.. I . __..., r~II~;n'''o~ II> ., - ;; '" . .; ; . 2 ! ! ~ I. \ h 1 " .: .. K.,: >: ", \ ~ '.:.: . .. >: I- ) I ~, ,) \ or. " It.., // '.. .11'1 z ..t--" 1 ..," \ 1. . . . .- !~ ..n' It.'!'. \ \ I:~ ri . 2 :. . , -4; : . ...: , ...: ' ",I 'J t .. ') . . ~ ~ . . . I . . - . ') .. . 1 t) ~ "" ~ ('( /I ~ '..1.. c I) c<: ~ 0 ~ r<!' ""'-.<. ~ II Is ~ -g '-..1) ) '-- . o I~ I: I, $.11.1-:,:' E Sll~~,!E YOI1'S CEATIF ICATE .ltoT vn AHO P\.AN ""'f.t.cORRECT AND I~ ACCOI\ THE R[OISTkY &.(:l~i\H1) ntE JUGULAilONS OAt.tCf "", . .~ M40( UtERi . E'1 'fIIoS tOMPLE'tIE:O " TH( 26 Ih.D AY 0' ~ OCtoa~ h /I ~, ""-"',,, LEGEND I I I I I ~ Shoreline C I . OVERLAY DESIGNATIONS I I I I I ,rr""- ~-(. I I I I I [==:J Agricultural ~~ Rural I1TI11TTI11 Rural Residential l.I.lli1ill1J """=''''''E' tl b?:~:*:;:i;:i:;:;flH nVJronmen a ~:;tR)'lD Protection Two MODifiCATION NO Cf c) UNDER SECTION 171i'/l Of THE PLANNING ACT, ~ -. -,~ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN SCHEDULE A7 *NOTE COMPONENTS OF THE ENVlRONMENTAL PROTECTION ONE AND TIIO DESIGNATIONS ARE SHOWN ON SCHEDULE B 500 o . - ..-- .. 19 20 22 '", MOD/FICA, ,. <:I NO~'fON XIV UNDER THE PLA.~~CTION 17/3 'NG ACT, 11 OF LAKE SIMCOE 23 Xli! fA"''> '10 '. Note: All the lakes, rivers and creeks identified on this schedule are subject to the policies of Section Gland G4 of thi~ Plan. - 1000m ~ THE PLANNING -.TJ_. .'~.~iIIIIP_ _ _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RUDY 0' ASSOCIATES LTD. Planning for Peopl.. Pi..... and the Fut.... June 19, 2003 Sent by fax Original to be hand-delivered at public meeting Mr. Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP Meridian Planning 113 Collier Street Barrie, Ontario L4M 1H2 0)~: I. ~l'1Jpos.e.J pohcj 0 Mct-e.h~. 2... P.ev~ Q dcu(.()tJhI e{J#&.~ lof IV/tv fwo ~t(CcJl~ W C(JtJ/J. ~ CPvI~~, 3. ~(Oytt~ ~ c~ RE: Teskey Property Lot 5, Concession 14 Township of Oro-Medonte Project Number 164 Dear Mr. McDonald We are writing this letter to request that Item #6 of Part II: the Amendment Update to the Official Plan be reviewed as it relates to the T eskey property, a copy of this section is attached for your reference. The proposed revisions to Section 02,3,2.2 "Infilling Lots" states that "The creation of a new,infilling lot may be permitted, provided: (b) no more than one infilling lot is created from an original Township lot upon the date of approval of this policy...". We are proposing that 3 lots be severed from the T eskey property as infilling lots. The property is designated Agriculture and zoned AgriculturelRural (AlRu) Zone and is approximately 55 hectares (138 acres) in size. The surrounding land uses are all residential and the municipally maintained road T own line in which the 3 proposed lots would front, have existing residential on both sides of the road. We have attached Appendix 1 indicating the location of the T eskey property, the proposed 3 lots and the existing 12 residential lots along Townline. There are also 20 existing residential lots along Warminster Road. In reviewing the proposed Amendments to the Official Plan policies relating to Agriculture and Infilling Lots (Item #6), it is our opinion that we can satisfy all requirements of the policy. We are requesting that in this situation the policy relating to 02,3.2,2 (b) allowing only 1 infilling lot be overlooked as it represents good land use planning to fill in the empty lots along T ownline with residential lots, If only one infilling lot is permitted to be severed from this property there will be two existing empty spaces fronting T ownline in amongst residential homes, P.O, BOX 834, ORlLUA, ONTARIO L3V 6K8 TEL: (705) 327-2070 FAX: (705) 327-2434 1 Problem solving througb Mediation .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We will be present at the Public Meeting on June 24th if there are any questions regarding this request. Also, we remain available to provide any more information if required. Thank you, RUDY & Associates LId, l~J~' Tanya Pallopson, SA Hons, Planner Cc: Gary Smith, Township of Oro-Medonte Planning Department Jane T eskey 2 , I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I AGRlCUL-TURAL ITEM '# 6 The Section heading of Section 02,~,2.2 is deleted and replaced with 'Infilling Lots', The remainder of the Section is deleted and replaced with the following: "The creation of a new infilling lot may be pennitted, provided: a) the lot is located be~een two existing non-farm residences which are on separate lots of a simitar size and which are situated on the same side of the road and are generally not more than 100 metres apart; b) no more than one infilling lot is created from an original Township lot upon the date of approval of this policy; c) the proposed lot will confonn to the Minimum Distance Separation One Fonnula and will not affect the ability of neighbouring fanners to expand their operations in the future; d) the lot from which the infilling lot is to be created has an area of at least 20 hectares; and, e) the proposed lot will confonn with the general consent policies of this Plan.. ITEM '# 7 Section 02.3.3 is deleted, ITEM'# 8 'Agricultural research and training establishments' and 'fann related tourism establishments' are added as pennitled uses in Section 02,2 following 'greanhouses'. A new Section 02.3,11 and a new Section 02,3,12 are added as follows: "02.3.11 Agricultural Research and Training establishments The development of agriCl!lturel research and training establishments is encouraged in the Township. Such uses may be pennitled sUbject to re-zoning, provided Council is satisfied that a) the use is related to and will benefit the agricultural industry; b) the use will assist in the furthering of knowledge in the agricuttural sector of the economy; and, ....,'. , Part II: The Amandment Update to OffIcial Plan Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultente Page 6 June 6, 2003 - - o o o 0- o o o o o . . ' [ -/ '\ ff()NJ N.J.01iN/f:E st:r'fff" Lilrs' 5 AND 6 ' , , " ,..~____________ ' : : " \ " . R I I '. _ -----------..--..-________________J ..-__.___J.\f__._-1~3Jtd.:: t I .. . ..--- 1._--------"\ .~- ~ \ ~.. It ' RON) N.L!1f4\rt, . BfTfi[EH Lars 5 ~ '~ . " ' '. ~ ',,-_u__n_.':..h___n__ PuN FrO-5$l ". ;: j" ---------------..:-.-1:;-: "'t. o o " .. o " 1,' r>>I4: tn~, , , 1'1".... :'" ,- ~:.::i . .,,~~~~ ~~==J: F'UH 5111-23091 - - ... - - .' ".. I.' '.: SHEET '17 .' I .' ' ':"?.. ',' Q25' '- PUN ~iH J:!J8 <It;; w :r: '" ~~.... '., 'sf ~")"OO _ ..,..' "f'!.Il/ 5Ift/9656 t:; ...,/ }~; .'i?; Q:8J ~.:'i , ".1 ~.:: ..~- <5 (.)PUH 5IJN!lJfJ?4 ..<m5 '" .... . PI.NI 5IfH!821JtJ _ aI6l t... '" -.J _ ..../ "~. ,/It1IU - - II!II - - TE.51CE.'t PROPE~~'t . LOT:;. CON CE.$S ION 14 TOWN~I1IP of o.~Q-M.EOONTE. Appt:. N nix .:L , , 5 - - - - - - - " y '" " " " " " :: Oft PI,"'5I1I-2J5~ " " " " " " : '.~, :.. ~ :. ~ .; ~ : ~ , , , , , , , , " , 20 <::I<istif\'" rcsldc:rdl...i' 0.101\,\ Wo.rllt'il\&kr Rd I'LNI 511118.... (l//J io, ::j.. . l' C l tl,c'l s U 8J"'Ii:C. T $1 T'e, , '" " . "'" . ------------... :;.~: , ' i~:;' r< ..11 c',,' ~ ~) ~ ~ .' 0f10 r IhpCGaI Lot 1. " ., ~ ., '" '" PrQPo~<:<:I L~ ,2 PUll 5'/H Pr-opotul Lei 3 " C;;~- , ~) .... ~ 0I!lH J~ iJ : ' x':, rc.prc,c"t -j OlD' 12. CJtI&tif\q !~ 5IR--"'~idt1lt~1 .!' ,dDr\8 jbwnli 1'1t. 10I!I:I5 ~ PUN snH7:!!1J . 'II!I:IIS {fl.M 5IIHWI2 , . , , , . . , , I . . ~... : ,'l~ I ",f' : JUNE.-1-00~. , 0IJt ot!fJ ~~IS..iQ';lt9ns . (::'; .' \..' ", I' .. .... ' " , ,t.....:.,.. .,',."............u........ ,I . . " 1 ....'......:....,:........,........,........:.....-t:;.. :~~). - 't:; ...,/ SHEET '17 4 . ' 1" OI!!T ..,' " "..... PL4V 5I1H;,.,2'/( , 01!14 <89 .' #.' t.. 3-:5~v;4.. , /t:-I(/lI, 4~,y- "",..1''''- ~ p,o~;UN73- ~o\':' ~ mAl ~ ?n,f~ lid"? .<'//., II:J~~) II ~ _ "H- t.<I-# I fb ~ '#W .",,,~' ~<f -fr;"f" ,ff,~" ~ f~r~~A/~~-ff , ~~~ /R_4~~~~. ~ J"ti."# ~...;.P-'I ~ ~~ ~ , ,..-_ tf; d/ ~ ~_ :JC-p'~" ~ ~ HV _~ ~ ~r/P~ , 11IH ,~ "( :.d"/ ;c -J' ~fij _cd. ~ ~ ~ ~ L; ~ ~.a<'" - pf.z,tu , ;f~~~:; f;~~ '/JJdj~~ ,_ ~r~ - , (lv' ~/ ~ /P ~~~ :;: . j~~ IA #P ~../. Lb~~ ,. ~$ ~~ ___- . /~r- ,~. ~ ~1', v-5 #'~ ,_,."v /# -t .. ~.-' r:.. "-' ~,~b .J~ ~ 1""" J ~ .t-v ----: y ~" : ~ d/ ~~ -p,...P,t ~, , ~, I'i"'" ~~I>; ~ 1/~ , \",,,,,_ vJI9. ,~..... <;', \v<<"-OV\ . ft''' . "'= ~ -2-3&.= ^ ~=( of(' ~J c>,c-C".:J _ ~...Qs:~ ~" Rtc~NE.O }Ut-l 1 \) 1\)\\'1 . 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I June 23, 2003 ~(\d.@ \\JW> ? '\ (c:f) 23106 -- c . to "" ,'- I, '--' fj.. c; . , ~,C~ V\.Y( 'd . ~VlO\)'" \,\r Planning Advisory Committee Nick MacDonald Planning Department Corporation of the Township ofOro-Medonte Box 100 Oro Station, ON LOL 2EO ~~f!.-.-C ;I ~'1tr~ ::.."CJ .'.iri~F>'- I JII, 2 3 2003 ORO-MEOON ----lQ~SH'P Te ----- Dear Mr, MacDonald and Committee Members: RE: Request for a Retirement Lot. This letter is a follow-up to my letter of May .4, 2002 and a recent telephone conversation with Mr, MacDonald, Official Plan policies for Agricultural designation permit the creation of new lots for residential purposes is intended for use by a retiring bona fide farmer. Our request to be permitted to sever a lot is in full compliance with the intent and objectives of the Official Plan, Background Information . My wife and I are both in our late seventies and have lived in Oro Township all our lives, . The 100-acre farm where we reside is a farm that has been in my wife Inez's family for generations, She has lived on this farm since the age ofthree years, . The large two-story house where we now reside is becoming more difficult for us to handle the stairs, Our driveway exits onto the Ridge Road with increased traffic and extra demands in the winter for clearing snow. . It is our desire to build a house on the portion of our farm south of the ridge road, A bungalow design and living close to family and mends would enable our continued independence and permit us to continue living in the community where we have spent our lives, . Building the house south of the ridge road where the land is less suitable for agriculture would meet our needs and the objectives of the official plan. This would preserve the agriculture resource base, protect agriculture land ITom development and land uses unrelated to agriculture, preserves the agricultural character ofthe Township and maintain the open countryside. Official Plan has Overlooked Unique Circumstances . Our lOO-acre farm is on both sides of the Ridge Road, The Township arbitrarily designated it into two separately deeded lots of approximately 50 acres each, . This arbitrary designation does not comply with the objectives and the intent of the Official Plan, Section D2.3.3 (d)(page 47) specifies that the proposed lot should be generally not larger than 1.0 hectare, This limited size complies with the intent and objectives of the Official Plan with respect to agricultural lands. In this instance it is the role of having a roadway dictate severance's that is contrary to the objectives and intent of the Official Plan, 1k>~ I (p,.4J J:aV1f4 of I?~ ~ aA- &~. . . 'fk~ 3b hed4t\1.O (lr ~~CfL.,I\V) ~otD.( tCfflW afU.ejS k ~V\M<:f- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . ~.;>- s 'Nls'1-Y! ~~ tY l]U ~ *" \. ",!' / cPR ~ -- eYJ d',/ . This arbitrary designation requires that the lot where I can build a house is so acres in size rather than the maximum 1.0-hectare size specified in the Official Plan. . This ultimately forces the separation of a 100-acre farm into two parcels that are not large enough for a viable farm operation, The intent ofthe Official Plan is to maintain suitable acreage for farms. . An oversight in the Official Plan has created circumstances that prevents us from having the same opportunity to sever a 1,0 hectare retirement lot afforded to all other bona fide farmers while being contrary to the intent of preserving agricultural lands, ~> ( wYiIII {" '~- Summary . The writers of the Official Plan and those elected officials who voted to pass it did so with the intent of preserving agricultural lands and the agricultural/rural character of the Township, In this unique circumstance there is a conflict between this intent and the stipulation of a roadway arbitrarily forcing a severance, In this case, the SO-acre size as opposed to the 1,0 hector size is contrary to what was intended, . We are not asking for a severance that would create a third lot . We are asking that the intent of the Official Plan to protect agricultural land be recognized over the arbitrary severance by a roadway, . We are asking that we be treated the same as all other bona fided farmers who own a farm of 100 or more acres in Oro-Medonte, . We are asking that our age and the reasons for our request be taken into consideration for the decision and the length oftime in rendering a decision It is our understanding that there are two options available, One is to have the Committee of Adjustment treat this situation as a special circumstance and permit the desired retirement lot. The other is to rectifY the problem during the Official Plan review. The goal of any document is to best ensure that the intent and objectives that it was designed to achieve are carried out, We trust that the Committee of Adjustment will take steps to enable us to sever the desired retirement lot, We welcome any questions that you may have and look forward to hearing back concerning a decision under the existing Official Plan or as a result of provisions from the Official Plan review, (Jac ) John Jenney 487-3835 1012 RIDGE Rd RR#2 Hawkestone, ON LOL ITO I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~),cX+/blo31tf ~"~ .._] 23bC t:~I'\~ \~\ vC. ' f\), M< D- ..-e-. <J . Picture a family with a medically fragile, technologically dependent child with multiple disabilities. Imagine the parents taking care of the child at home day after day, night after night. Picture the family having to perhaps face the death of their child. The strain on the family usually ends in burnout; for even the strongest family, it can be too much. Children need parents who are enthusiastic, caring and excited about their child rearing responsibilities, not parents who are fatigued because they have not slept in weeks, irritable because they cannot complete any tasks, and anxious because they do not know INhat tomorroIN may bring. Respite gives families an opportunity to catch their breath, take some time f1AN8'J from the situation at hand and momentar~1y think of their life circumstances differently. Out of Home, respite care is a family support servica that promotes active IMng and provides temporary relief from the physical and emotional demands involved in caring for a child or young adult with disabilities including those who are medically fragile, technologically dependent, developmentally disabled and/or multi-disabled. Respite care creates greater opportunities for family members to live actively and participate in the community and activities and allows parents/guardians times for themselves. The demand for Out of Home Respite sentices has far exceeded the availability. Respite care will prevent families from bum out and will delay referrals to parmanent placements. We are offering to provide care whare children with multiple disabilities and their families can feel that they have a .home eMIBl'J from ,home.. Parents need a place to put their child into vA\ere they feel the child's best interests and comforts are paramount. Simcoe County Rural Respite home will provide respite care, vA\ich includes social interaction in a wann, loving, secure environment with superior standards c:I care in a oountry home like setting. Respite Care in the Simcoe County is very much needed. The timing is right as an opportunity presents itself. Simcoe County Is one c:I the fastest growing areas. Rural respite is unique and ultimately more effective both financially and medically. Medical facilities are close by and a child could be at one c:I many hospitals within 15 minutes. The.home fINI8y from home- in the country setting will provide a superior standard c:I respite care in a wann, loving, secure environment Rural respite will be able to not only meet all the government standards c:I respite care but also exceed those expectations due to its rural nature. -1- I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Why do we need more respite care services? The high need medically fragile children are living longer. The children's parents or caregivers are assuming greater pressures and responsibilities and respite are warranted for these families. Years ago the govemment took care of these children in institutions across the province. The govemment wanted out of this business and has placed the onus on the parents without providing the necessary support systems in place. . . , .' ) Simcoe County Respite Home will be family orientated and be ethnically Inclusive. It will provide respite care that will be accessed accordingly to the individual family's needs - on either an hourly, daily, weekly or weekend basis. Simcoe County - Rural Respite Home will: . Promote quality of life, growth and development through special features of the home including: o Snoezelen Stimulation Room: Snoez.elen is a system of soothing lights, soft sounds and tactile textures that stimulate each of the senses In an effortless and absorbing manner. o Bridge to tha Pond: The path will be accessible by wheelchair to a pond situated in the center of the woodlands, This trail will provide easy access to the natural environment that enfolds the home. o In-<Ioor and outdoor gardens. o State of the art in design and will have all up-to-date equipment. . Provide anon-institutional, home-like environment with professional staff to meet the needs of medically complex children. . . Offer life-affirming activities regardless of a child's limitations . Provide physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual support services to the child. .. Offer support sessions to promote intellectual, physical, emotional and spiritual wall being for the parents caring for these children at home. . Staffing on a 24-hour basis using a three shift model. There will be at least two people on per shift. A supervisor is responsible for the management of the home, with health care consultation provided by the Program Manager. . Recruit staff from areas such as Developmental Service Workers, Early Childhood Education, Social Service Work. Social Work, Registered Practicing Nurse and Recreation and Leisure, The primary objective in recruiting staff is their willingness to work with children who have multiple disabilities and complex medical needs. Staff will receive extensive training in areas such as epilepsy, G-tubefeeding, suctioning, and developmental delay. . Use volunteers extensively to assist the children!youth to participate in all aspects of their daily living. Student placement opportunities will be available in areas such as DSW, SSW, SocIal Work, Nursing, Recreation and Leisure. ) -2- ;. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Simcoe County Rural Respite Home will be located on a parcel of land approximately 4 acres adjoining to another 40 acres of trails and ponds which will be IM1eelchair accessible for the children. It will be a 3,500 square foot bungalow with a wrap around porch surrounding the entire home and will be completely IM1eelchair accessible. It will be able to accommodete 4-5 children at any given time. One bedroom will always remain open for emergencies for families and may be accessed by the Children's Aid Society for specialized care in emergency cases. The home will be equipped with auctioning and oxygen in a specialized care-adjoining bedroom. The home will include a large living area. large country style kitchen. Snoezelen room. indoor solarium. large bathroom with appropriate bathing equipment, meeting room. offICe. staff washroom and four bedrooms. The fourth bedroom will be equipped with Oxygen and Suctioning equipment and will accommodate up to 2 children at a time. A sliding glass door will divide the room. This room will be available for medically fragile and technologically dependent children requiring more 1 on 1 supervision during sleep and rest periods. Benefits to the IndMd,..al and Famll!( The family is provided with short-term respite/support that is essential in terms of maintaining the family unit. Respite will help the family to continue caring for the child at home. This short-term respite enables the family to have personal quality time while knowing their child is well cared for. . In order to be eligible for the 'use of Simcoe County Rural Respite Home. chil~ren must meet the following criteria: .. The child must require constant supervision and/or monitoring such as ongoing support for the activities of daily living (i.e. Feeding, self-care, tolleting, communication. mobility; .. Medical decision making or Judgment is required such as PRN auctioning ventilation; .. Specialized skills are required in order to meet the needs of the child. Benefi. to the CommunItY .. Job Creation .. Community Relations .. Potential of more contribution of productive members of society -3- .' . . . . . I I I . . . . . . . . . . , . ... . . Respite not only benefits families, it benefits the community. It will alk7tN us to bring many new friends and opportunities to the community, as well as sustaining our many current valuable relationships we have with other organizations in our community. . Close relationship with the college and becoma hands on learning for many courses offered through the local college . Volunteer opportunities . Community awareness i) penetlw to $he Government . Enable parents to live more fulfilled family lives deferring the permanent placement into group homeS . Less strain on the Health Care System . Eases up on Children's Aid SocIety as parents are better able to cope with their children's needs . Shortens waitlist for permanent placements 11s~~ ~ CW I'@p,k (fUQ.. r~ OLJ tC type o.P fW:J~it~ UJe-~\!bI ;,.. JI.u (~J ~ . r:)- ?~ a9\ !'( lei ) ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-/c..\'0.\\. ~.')- PROVISTA GROUP INC. ~I di/fc'#3, ~ .~dJ! 23iPo PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Township of Oro-Medonte P.O.Box 100 Oro Station, Ontario LOL 2X0 ~~: tfc:w-e. (wWr~ f\'Wf~ 10 he. ~ fwjWt::too- M)l/I+~ rM ?alleb N~ J'I~ ~ O~. AUn: Ms.Jennifer Zieleniewski, C.A.O.lTreasurer, Re: Township of Oro-Medonte Pallets North, OMB Case No. PL020715 SfW Corner of Lot 8, Concession 4 Owners: Mr. Eric Bowes & Dawn Braden June 24, 2003 Dear Ms. Zieleniewski, Please accept this letter as a written account of our presentation for the Township of Oro- Medonte's public meeting scheduled for 7:00PM on June 24,2003 at the Township Offices. We understand that the Townsbip is planning to adopt an Official Plan Amendment to generally update the Official Plan and addressing a variety of issues, one ofwbich being the "Home Industry" section. We represent Mr. Eric Bowes and Dawn Braden as their planners and as you are aware have recently been before the Ontario Municipal Board to acbieve a settlement in regard to the Pallets North property, During the course of the hearing, it was decided that an opportunity for mediation was apparent and our clients chose to proceed on to Mediation at the Ontario Municipal Board office in Toronto, This Mediation Hearing resulted in a written settlement that was prepared by Mr, Christopher Wdliams the Townsbip's solicitor. This settlement is acceptable to Pallets North and their solicitor Ted Yao and will be signed shortly by solicitors representing both parties, J We are asking for clorifiCJllion on how or if this proposed 0jJiciaI Plan Amendment will affect the Pallets North business, since the business is now recognized as (l Home Industry. We are also asking for (l subject site exemption from IIIIY restrictive provisions in the proposed IIIIIeIIdments. The present Mmutes of Settlement rel.Juire thm Pallets North's Clment appeal under section 34(11) of the Planning Act be dismissed and I am concerned thm this dismissal, together with the confidential ntlture of the Mmutes of Settlement, win ked future purchasers of the property to the incorrect inference thm your proposed amendments should apply to the Pallets North lands. Box 31 GreenRiverDrive,RRl Wasbago, On, LOK-2BO Email: provi~on.aibn.com Ph: (705)689-0852 Fax: (705)689-0853 Branch Office - Bramplon, On, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . 2 ) If an exemption cannot be given, then we respectfully request that consideration be given to some explicit recogll,ition of the right to" pnIJet recycling home industry that has been acquired through the Minutes of Settlement Yours truly, Provista Group IDe. Barry B. PeytoD, MCIP, RPP Pres. cc: Eric Bowes, Owner cc: Ted Yao, solicitor ) Box 31 Green River Drive,RR1 Washago, On, LOK-2BO Email: PI.OVista@on.aibn.com Ph: (705)689-0852 Fax: (705)689-0853 Branch Office - Brampton, On, i ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -'-'\'-.\'\"1'-, ~"5, ~'JI " it'f/b/d?; '2-3bo Rali\ ~y Hough cLJ ~ 6<- 4965 Line 11 North, s; uJ) ^^,' S~.' c>->... I:i: R.R.#3'C~~:~:;A:J:' C(C"MJ ;Vfc/1)VLQ Lf ~~~O June 24, 2003 Mayor Craig and Members of Council. RE: OFFICIAl. PLAN REVf.JE - I.OT SEVERANCE'S My submission concerning lot severance's is of a general nature and does not cover any site specific property. In view of this I will keep my comments brief. Way back in 1990 I sent in a submission to the former Township ofMedonte supporting rural severance's for residential purposes, Since becoming a member of Oro- Medonte Council some five and a haJf years ago I have received a number of complaints from residents in our Township concerning the current virtual 'freeze' on lot severance's. In order to remain financially stable we have to permit some development and I have always CM-d,'!tt stated that I support appropriate development within our Township. J ~ I Id C 'I 'th 1. . . 'I ' ' th ~"IO. wou urge OunCi to reView e current po ICles pertannng to ot severance s m e ~ official plan. I fecI that the current policy of not pennitting severance's in the Rural ;~ t if while allowing severance's in other areas, especially some shoreline residential areas, is ~ ~ not in the best interest of the Township orits residents. We sbouldnot be putting large ~ J subdivisions in areas that are, in some instances, already over developed, I fully '\t~v~ appreciate that Nick McDonalds response will be that our current policy is consistent with ~ ca..s Provincial and County Policy statements, My major concem is the serious impact large scale development in already built up areas has on the environment. The Provincial policy statement is fine if full municipal services are available. In our Township they are not. Even with full municipal services our water is still very susceptible. We only have to look at the Walkerton tragedy. We also need look no further than our neighbours in Severn Township to see the disastrous consequences of encouraging high density development on the lakeshore. By us continuing to allow severance's in the shoreline residential areas, such as Oro Station, where we have approved lots as small as one quarter of an acre, it is only a matter of time till we have the same problems as Severn Township are having in the Cumberland Beach area. This situation has become a very expensive ($24 million doUar) political nightmare. Sevem are lucky in that the Federal and Provincial governments are funding 2/3 of the cost of the construction of a sewage treatment plant in the area. Maybe when the same problems surface along our lakeshore and around our existing settlement areas, which it will, we will not be so lucky and there will be no funding for the construction of sewage treatment plants. There has been no funding available for many years for this type of work. I believe that well thought out rural severance's in the poor to marginal agricultural areas of our township are far more environmentally friendly than sub divisions on septic systems, I am sure that in the long run such high concentration of septic systems will have a serious negative impact on our communal water systems. faj~: ru.eo't~ a ~ pkdt3/,d()kr;Vj -r(,..~1I;! ~ ~ qtk-pb k. f>(.()ktt ru.cJ2.. ~k.r aNi t!4 +- a{(OAJ ~ ~tI ~v~V\(:~". I ' , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ralph and Wendy Hough 4965 Line 11 North R.R. #3, Coldwater, Ontario. LOK lEO -2- CCC) ". ",..> I am not for one moment advocating throwing the whole township wide open for severance's. We must obviously protect our forest, wetlands, agricultural lands and the Moraine but there is a lot of marginal to poor agricultural land in our township that has not been farmed for many, many years, Indeed, some of these lands may never have been farmed. We have certainly done enough studies over the years to know the areas that could be opened up for single family dwellings, including estate type lots, and those which should not. Under the current Section B2,2 - Preferred means of servicing in Settlement areas: the O.P allows for municipal water and private septic systems in the settlement areas of Warminster, where a large subdivision has draft approval, Sugarbush, which is still being developed, Moonstone, which is currently being developed, Oro Station, where we permit . small lot severance's and Shanty Bay, where there is extensive development. If we are truly concerned about water quality and protecting our environment it seems contradictory that septic systems are O.K. in highly developed areas with communal water, but not O.K. in spread out rural areas. I appreciate that Mr McDonald has proposed some changes concerning 'Infilling lots' and I will be discussing this issue with him and commenting further in the near future. ) In conclusion I would add that I have had many discussion with our late Mayor, Ian Beard about lot severance's and he was generally not supportive of permitting severance's. However, 1 pointed out to him on more than one occasion that if all the previous Councils in the area had adopted our current O.P. neither of us would be on Council as we both lived on lots that have be severed, In fact, I believe there is only Mayor Craig-sitting I I I I I. I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I JUN-26-2003 THO 09:52 AM FR~'~ENZIES PLANNING AND DEV FAX:705 4'-0608 PAGE 2'L-1J\QO PK Menzies Planning & DeveJ.op1,rient Jlme 26, 2003 , Mayor Craig a.d Membel'lJ ofCounc:ll Township ofOro-Medonte 80xlOO Oro, Ontario 10L 2XD By Fax 1 Page 487-0133 Dear Mayor Craig. Be: Towaahlp OffIcial Plan :RevIew GoDeraJ Update to OfficiAl Plan Boundary AdJutlDeatB ' I represent 8. Client who is preparing to make application to the Township CommittQe of Acijustment for a Boundary AcUustment. In ligbt of this, [ have roVIewed your proposed amendment to tho Township Official PIUI Spccifocally "Item 4#2" Sootien "2.2.2 whioh was .. subJeet to a public meeting on June 24th, 2003. In effect. the section states that consents (for boundary adjustments) 'may bo permitted tbr enlarging Oklsting lots, among other re&sol\8. In tho application in questio~ one lot is proposed to lit enlarged and by vinue of lI\ls enlargement, the ablltting lot will be Ttduced. This will occur in overy boundar)' acUlISttIIeI1t application all 'lyploally, land is 1aken from one lot to ""other mus making one existing lot lCl1'ger and one existing lot &1IUIllr and me pllrpose of BI1 application may in flot be to maIce one lot larger l1li1:1 one lot smaller. I would request either oJarlflC8tlon of the polley or wrItton confonnatlon from the Thwnsltip that die policy will be Interpreted such that thoro Is IIOknowledpment hm the 'Ibwnshlp dtat if ono lot is to be made laraor, tho lot whloh the lend Is bem, conveyed.from to make tho roooiving lot latger Is acknowledged to be smaller and notwlthstandm, that ono lot wltl be smaller, that the boundary adjustment will still be slven favoutable consideration by the Committee. , . I thlU\k you In advance for your CORIlderation ofthls matter. Your& truly, PIC Menzies Plannil\8 &; DcvelopmMt IRe. ~~ !{ria Menzies' .. 'J - . ..., .~ President Co Nick McDonald ~~ ~ I-+ '" C{ :/11AiM-lLd- . ~ 5'1'2(. ~ I?IJ... Let , tvlAy,k r.ru).AJwJ If ~'VJ .(M~~. <:Jt", /IIdl~ ~/1.f&J. p1Annlng . de\'Olopment . project matUlgi>IDellt 115 Posbidt 1>11.. IU\2 flow",",... 0nIatI0 UJI. nil (7QSI487.0549 &. 4fI7.Q6011 t:maII; k-"~I'tM!p ftnm I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , 23/00 A/1#1::, ~ ~ PK Menzies Planning & Development June 27, 2003 JUl D 2 ~OM Mayor Crai!: and Members of Council Township of Oro-Medonte Box 100 01'0, Ontario LOL 2XO O(.",-",-,,,0iji<1; TCWN~HIP ---Oellvered by Hand . Dear Mayor Craig, Re: Horsl$hoe Resort Township Officia.l Plan Revicw General Update to O:fficial Plan The undersigned represents Horseshoe Resort in Planning Matters and we would like to provide you with the following comments, or: behalf of the Resort, to the Township's proposed General Update to your Oflicial Plan scheduled for a public meeting on June 24,2003: Item # 21 We object to the removal of various of the uses currently pennitted in the "Rural" designation in the Horseshoe Valley Road Special Policy Area specifically "golf courses" identified in Section E2.2,4 (h). ,&,: (iOtf Covv>e.s (rJW Nl.J6~ oPt)- 10 Me Water Taking Item # 23 ifo f\.Iltl..d. flx- J'~u:Jl po Il~ <JI/I.y I~ ~ OlD WICI"I\i\t OP 4\ The Resort objects to this policy. It does not agree that the taking of water is a land use and further, this required rezoning could serious effect the Resort's current operation, in which pennits have been issued, should Council not ~prove a rezoning for an application, cr renewal of an ~pplication, to take water. f'(15:? 611 ~ w!l~ ~ c!q(.P.u.J I ktt Development on Private Roads # 27 \"It/I ~!t1 . The Resort would like to request that Council amend this section to permit the Resort to develop lots on Private Roads. Due to the unique nature of the Gonfiguration of the Resort planning . development . project management ~'>'_ a(~~ clPd(f~ ' 115 Parks ide Drive RR2 Hawkstone. Ontario LOt 1 TO (705) 487-0569 fax 487-0608 email: kmenzies@ibigroul..com .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I as well as complications witl: the Condominium Act ill tryillg to develop COlldominium roads to access "interior lots", the Resort would like to be abJ.e to develop lands on lots which front on to the existing, and proposed expansion, of th~ existing "driveway" into the Resort. The Resort is prepared to undertake specific policy criteria, similar to the development of a public road and/or condo road, in order to {:rovide Council assurances that the road ,~onstruction and maintenance wm be up to municipal standard. As Council i:; aware, there are a few parcels of land at the R/:sort which currently front onto a private driveway today and, to our knowledge, there haye been no issues witb tbis approvaL We would be pleased to discuss this with Coundl and/or Staff in more detaiL Adult Lifestyle Communities # 32 The Resort currently hosts an Adult Lifestyle community. It has been questioned that the current builder is not constructing an Adult Lifestyle project however, most of the landholding proposed for this use is still owned by tbe Re~;ort and it is the Resort's intention to develop an Adult Lifestyle Community on the remainder of its lands. It is the Resort's opinion that appropriate policies should remain in place, on this parcel of land, I in order for this development ::0 proceed, 'filr;J ~ 5Uk>~+ 10 CD'? Q..N;J.. S:hedules IflL ?ohctN> d.iJ ~~~~. We could not comment on the schedules as they were not provided with tile document for public review. We thank Council in advance for our opportunity to comment on the proposed changes and look forward to discussing these matters in Council in detai1. We would request that we be notified of any additional propo!:ed changes to the sections of the OP which are subject 10 the June 24th public meeting and we reserve our right to comment on any additional changes, Yours truly, PK Menzies Planning & Development Inc. ~A113M Kris Menzies, MCIP RPP President Cc Martin Kimble - Horseshoe Resort Jeffrey Server - Shell V,tcations LLC Nick McDonald MCIP RPP - Meridian Planning Gary Smith - Town>hip Planning Department I' I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I Jut 07 03 03:17p Ru" L Associates 41Gf '.5727 p.l RUDY&~~~~ ~ July 4, 2003 Sent by fax and mail Mayor and Members of Council The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte 148 line 7 South, Box 100 Oro, Ontario lOL 2XO &~" No J05he~~ecr 6{~N.tI~~~' RE: Rodgers Property Northwest Part of Lot 26, Concession 3 Township of Oro.Medonte Project No. 141 Dear Mayor and Members of Council RUDY & Associates Ltd. has been retained since November 2000 by Mr, Mark Rodgers to represenl him regarding planning matters for his property located adjacent to Shanty Bay. We attended the Public Meeting on June 24th and are wn'ting this letter 10 submit in writing the experience we have had with the planning process regarding Mr. Rodger's property, We first met with Andria Leigh to discuss severance options in December of 2000. We were told thaI the Township would not support an application for severance at this time, but thaI the Township would be reviewing the need to expand the settlement area of Shanty Bay next year (approximately the fall of 2001), We were Infonned that Mr. Rodger's property could be reviewed with the pU/pose of being included into the expanded settlement area and that it would be besllo walt until this time instead of submitting a severance application. January 12, 2001 a letter was sent to Andria leigh, Mayor and Members of Council indicating our desire to wait for the review of the setUement area and the possibility of being included in these additional lands. Severalletlers throughout the year of 2001 were sent to Andria Leigh regarding our request to be informed of timing for the review process and evenl1laOy a copy of the planning report that would be going to Council. As of May 31, 2001 we were informed thatlhe selllemenl review would be going to Council June 13, 2001 but would be put on hold until February 2002 and to wait until this lime. With much back and forth regarding the date of when the settlement reviewlOfficial Plan Review would be completed, we waited through this whole process with !he expectation that Mr. Rodger's request of being included in the settlement area of Shanty Bay would be reviewed. On October 10, 2002 we presented a deputation to !he Planning Committee with our request Following our deputation we were asked to provide a nitrate concentratiOn report. which was submitted on March 10, 2003 and answered all questions regarding concentrations in the area. "was our understanding from the Planning Report by Andria Leigh that upon completing the request of a nitrate concentration report the subject property would be considered for expansion of !he Shanty Bay seUlement area. P.O.BOX814,ORlWA.ONTAlUO UV6K& TEL:(10S)121.2010 FAX:(1OS)321.24:14 1 Problem solving through Media/Ion I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jul 07 03 03:18p RU & Associates 416~ ~~ ~\5727 p.2 On March 14, 2003 we received a letter from Meridian Planning indicating thai they would be responsible for completing the review of the new Official Plan and that our request would be reviewed for the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting in Apnl or May 2003. On May 26, 2003 we received a letter from Meridian Planning stating thai on May 8, 2002 Council clearly indicated that the intent of the Official Plan review was 10 determine whether any policies applying to the lands should be updated - nol site-specific requests to change the policies or designations applying to a particular property. II was our understanding, as shown above, that this was exacUy the time and place in which site- specific requests to change policies and designations would be reviewed, From attending the Public Meeting on June 24, 2003 we heard several other people commenl about the misinfonnation received about reviewing site-specific requests. This whole process has taken over two years to get 10 this point We have been wailing for the 'appropriate' time 10 discuss our reques~ and in the meantime have provided any infonnation requested by the Planning Department Too much time has been wasted simply because Andria Leigh from the Township Planning Department and Meridian Planning had different notions of what the Official Plan Review would entail. We have wasted valuable time and money on this project and would like our complainl to be noted with the Mayor and Counci1. We would like to hear from Council regarding how they propose to remedy the situation that has been caused by lack of continuity between departments. Also, we would like our reques~ to be included in the Shanty Bay selUement area, to be reviewed. I have included some background infonnalion in this package with a map indicating the property location for your review. We look forward 10 hearing from you regarding next steps and our specific request If you require any more information pleasecaU me at 416-651-5428. Thank you, RUDY & Associates lid. 1~~ T al:ya Pallopson, B.A Hons, Planner Cc: Meridian Planning Mark Rodgers 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I tilt Bur&r, Rowe LLP Ba"isters, Solicitors & Trade Mark Agents <!.L. /J .rl.J>. <;;.'3. ' Z3bO Marilyn Pennycook Clerk The Coiporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte 148 Line 7 S Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO ECEIVEO fJUrD 7 '2003 OROoMEDONTE TOWNSt{IP__ I July 07, 2003 BY FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERED: 487 0133 ~pol\~" No clut~ (I2/2f>v'I\~ Per ~fN)C>AJ ~ ~~. Dear Ms. Pennycook: RE: ONTARIO REALTY V. ORo-MEDONTE AND COUNTY OF SIMCOE EDGAR OCCUPATIONAL CENTRE FILE NO. 987Y13 The writer is the solicitor for Ontario Realty COiporation with respect to the above noted matter. My client is advised that the Township is considering a review of their Official Plan and zoning by-law which would severely restrict the developmen~ potential of the subject property. My client remains of the view that the objectives, permitted uses and development policies set out in Official Plan Amendment No. 5 with respect to the creation of the Edgar Centre Special Policy Area remain appropriate for the future development of the site. Therefore, my client objects to any Official Plan Amendment which would limit the development of the site pursuant to Official Plan Amendment No. 5. Any proposed zoning by-law intended to implement such a proposed Official Plan Amendment would be objected to on the same basis. Please accept this correspondence as our request of notification of the Plan's adoption pursuant to Subsection 17(23)(b) of the Planning Act. Please accept this correspondence as our written submissions to Conncil before passage of the zoning by-law objecting to same. Ninety Mulcaster Street, P,O. Box 758, Barrie, Ontario, L4M 4Y5 Ph: 705 721 3377 Fax: 705 721 4025 Burgar, Rowe LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registued in Ontado continuing since 1867 www.burgarrowe.com Page10f2 I I I I the I' I~ , the 'n t: rt I I It: of I I I I .t ,rk ~,*~~ ~,~~ lD\, - \ @ ~~<::' .....rJ ....,..... ..~:..... .~.... ~..... ...... JONES CONSlllTINGGROUfIUl). June 24. 2003 Ms, Marilyn PennYGook Clerk Township of Oro-Medonte Box 100. Oro. LOl2XO P1ANHSU. ENGtNEEI\$, SUltVEYOI\S Dear Ms, Pennycook: Re: Public Meeling June 24'" - Official Plan 5-Year Review Comments on behalf of landowner Jules Goossens - 38 Popular Crescent Our File: P-03177 We are writing on behalf of Jules Goossens. a property owner in the Township to provide comments pertaining to the five-year review of the Townshlp's Official Plan. We understand a public meeting Is scheduled for June 24'" at the Council chambers. Mr. Goossens owns a 25,8 hectare parcel of land located at lot 25. Concession 10. In the Township of Oro-Medonte. On behalf of Mr. Goossens and at the request of his representative. Mr, Hubert Schaefers. we have reviewed the current Official Plan as It relates to Mr. ",oossens land holdings, We notice that his property Is designated Rural. and is located immediately outside of the Shoreline designation. and fronts onto both the Ni,nth Une and Popular Crescent, Mr. Goossens property along the Ninth Une frontage is surrounded to the north. west and south by existing rural residential and shoreline residential development. There would appear to be merits In considering some relatively minor Infilling development on his lands: however. in speaking with Mr. Nick McDonald. we understand that a significant level of supporting planning Justification. and a number of applications would be required to obtain even a minor expansion of the shoreline designation. Mr. GOossens supports the inclusion of poticles In the Official Plan. which would permit minor expansions to the Shoreline designation boundaries If certain criteria were met (I.e. infilling or squaring off the boundaries) without amendment to the Official Plan. If this flexibility of language is not agreeable. then we request that a less Intensive review and Justification be required for such a Shoreline expansion. as would otherwise be required through a more significant Official Pian Amendment process (I.e, addressing growth management issues), Thank-you for your consideration. and on behalf of Mr. Goossens. we request to be kept Informed of any draft policies affecting the Rural or Shorelines designation. gnd any further meetings or adoption of same. Sincerely. Ray ome!. CPo MClP, RPP Director of Ope ations & Senior Planner C. Hubert Schaefers Sulta 100" 300 LakeShore Drive. Borrle. Ontario l4N 084 705~734-253B" 705-734-1056 fox", www.JonesconsulUng.com let 10 mor!lyn pennycook fl!! G05se.s propef1y.dQc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~^..'..'C (~L.: (ffj ~.)) ~.s ( r cUtP ~. 23bo June 30, 2003 Bengt Schumacher RR#2 Oro Station, ON LOL 2EO 705 835-2000 'JGL 0 7 2003, ORo-MEDQHTE TOWNSHIR. - ----~ RE: PROPOSED ADMENDMENTS TO ORO-MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN Dear: Mayor, Members of Council and Meridian Planning Consultants I attended the meeting held June 24, and want to commend you on many good proposed amendments to the Official Plan. In particular I am very much in favour of the new amendment for limited development on an existing public road that is across from existing development in the Shoreline designation. This will allow for efficient utilization of existing services without impacting the character of the area. Despite concerns expressed at the meeting, there are sufficient restrictions planned to ensure that the proposed lot sizes will limit density, encourage quality, and minimize environmental impact. I think this is good planning and strikes a good balance for the township or Oro- Medonte. Water Taking While I agree with the general intent of the water taking amendments to the Official Plan, I think it would be prudent for Oro-Medonte to minimize Official Plan amendments on water taking until the province settles the current disputes. It is not clear at this time if water taking is going to be considered a land use or not. Tourism As mentioned at the June meeting by one of the presenters (Mr. Haney?), I also support some official recognition of the importance of tourism to the future of Oro-Medonte. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Bengt Schumacher ....... -- ...........-..--..- ........... .- .;;;:, -.. ~-=...... IJ..~. ..... .................-.---- -~~ I I July 4.2003 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I . ~ 'DON UANft/{; V _ "Home of the Barrie Automotive Fka Market" I Burl's Creek Family Event Park P.O. Box 210 Oro. Ontario LOL 2XO Phone: (705) 487"3663 Web site: www.burlscreekcom Email: budscreekpark@burlscreekcom ttf!ff/!F ~ ~ iMP ~ J'b. Z3& 0 Mayor Neil Craig & Councilors and Staff P.O. Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2XO VIA FACSIMILE:487-0133 & Hand Delivered Dear Mr. Mayor, Council & Staff: RE: Strom! Obiection to the Official Plan Realil!l1l11ent & Additions A forward thinking, open vision plan for development or improvement of commerce (tax base) in Oro-Medonte is imparitive. The proposed document appears to be a very restrictive. There aPpears to be an exclusion of senior citizen facilities or new development of same, this is ludicruise, the fastest growing segment of our society is those over 55. ' The business license issue was dealt with in previoQs year and the result was to include the fee wi~n the commercial tax base rate. Businesses in generBt, are not able to withstand anymore additional fees such as . licensing. Within the last two years the cost of operating a business has increased dramatically. (Insurance- . vehicle, property, liability ctc.) Volume of trade is down due to the many situations in the world, (war, disease) business owneJ:S are trimming their budgets where ever possible. Township leaders should follow the example of many of the area businesses by streamlining our existing control bylaws and reduce our Oro-Medonte staff operationg costs. The reference to the taking of water, by the planning consultant is a traverse action in an effort to control water bottling. Water is a natural resource, and a growing industry that is currently governed by several government agencies. These actions may come back to haunt you. I strongly object to any intrusion by this proposed section of the Official Plan. The taking of water is already over controlled. Only 5-10"/0 of household water use is for human consumption, the balance is contaminated by washing cars, clothes, bathing, and of course toilet facilities. Every new home being built should contain a cistern to collect water for non pottable uses. The references contained in this document indicating the decision is to be finalized by council leads back to the 'Good ole Boy' system and bureaucrat manipulation.. , Please no.tify me of progress and meeting pertaining to the Official Plan realignment. (~t Fax: (705) 487-6280 IJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Neil Craig Mayor, Oro-Medonte Township ORO, ONTARIO .. 6$ ~ I Dear Mr. Craig: Re: Public Meeting held June 24th, 2003-06-25 At the above mentioned meeting, you encouraged all landowners in Oro-Medonte to register their interests in addressing the township's official plan amendments cUlTently being considered. We own the property fronting the intersection of Bass Lake Road and the Fourth Line, specifically the South-West comer. This property has been owned since the late 1980's and it was purchased with residential housing development in mind. However, since this property is situated squarely in the Oro moraine, we have since become concerned with the restrictions now being contemplated by Council. You will be aware of previous correspondence with your planning department and Mr. Nick MacDonald also. We wish to record our desire to have a site specific adjustment to the officiaJ plan for several reasons as outlined below: i) Notwithstanding Council's desire to aggressively protect the Oro Moraine from and environmental point of view, our particular property is environmentally rated in the 0 - 30 rating category and therefore presents no significant environmental sensitivity, as defined by Council. Moreover, this land is marginal land and has a shallow overburden of topsoil but it is essentially a deposit of poor quality aggregate. ii) The size of the parcel ofland (approx. 70 acres) is not sufficient to sustain a full time agricultural entity. This was re-verified last night at the public meeting iii) We cannot extract aggregate since the road system prohibits trucking on a non CUlTent existing haulage route. This we accept. iv) Our land parcel is adjacent to the existing Horseshoe VaJley development complex and is a natural extension of Horseshoe according the most recent environmentally protected map areas. Some Members of Council, along with several other deputations heard during the public meeting, conceptually support strategic developments from a township revenue perspective, and our property would fall into this category. v) All utilities (electrical, gas, cable, water) already service this area and further, the road system provides excellent access to this potential development off of both Line 4 and Bass Lake road. We have sent our site plan to our engineering resource for design and of course we will comply with Council's directive to have minimum 1.5 acre lots in the event of a I" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I successful severance. We are presuming that we would need to complete an application for severance but at the same time, we cannot be funding an entire technical study in the absence of some indication that we could receive serious consideration of our -sub- division. We are therefore asking you for an indication that we should move forward not only in support of the many potential residents of Oro-Medonte and therefore an improved tax and revenue base, but also that our application for severance would receive fair and supportive review. -J.-c ~ '1)\ ~~ '1"'\11-. f\ It: S{LrJ,.~ \:.$ .5 o-r 0\"'- .~ h\tr.Gl,,.~ I..l:l-llr ~od t.:( ':)",...t.. ~\o.J I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MERIDIAN PLANNING CONSUlTAN~ INC June 4, 2003 Mr. Dino Sardelis RR#2 Thornton, ON lOl 2NO Re: Ora-Medonte Official Plan Review Our File Number 2360 Dear Mr. Sardelis: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Oro-Medonte to indicate that the Township has confirmed a key decision made in early 2002 on how to proceed with the Official Plan Review, As you may be aware, the Township is in receipt of a number of submissions regarding the Official Plan Review, About one third of these submissions relate to general policy issues with the remaining submissions relating specifically to site-specific development requests, When the public meeting on the Official Plan Review was held on May 8, 2002,' Council clearly indicated that the intent of the review was to determine whether any of the policies applying to all lands in the Township should be updated. It was not the intent of Council that the OffICial Plan Review would serve as a vehicle for the consideration of site-specific requests to change the policies and/or designation,applying to a particular property, unless the intent of the change was to <:errect an error, In your case, you have requested that Council give some consideration to creating a new par<:el of land from an existing parcel within the East Half of lot 6, Concession 4 (Oro). These lands are located at the south-west comer of the aass lake 'Side' Road end the 4th line. These lands are currently, designated Rural, with an Environmental Protection IWo overlay, These lands are also located within the proposed Oro Moraine Planning Area. Section D2 of the Official Plan contains the policies respecting lot creation in the Rural designation. You will note that the policies are fairly restrictive since it is the intent of the municipality to direct the majority of new residential development to the existing settlements, At this point, you have two options, The first option is to request that the policies referenced above be modified in a manner that provides other landowners in your situation with the same opportunity, Justification for such a change would be required. The second option is to submit an application to amend the Official Plan to obtain the specific permission you are seeking. Such an application would have to be supported by the appropriate technical reports, Following the submission of all required technical reports, a public meeting under the Planning Act can 113 Collier Street, Barrie, ON Canada L4M 1 H2 . Tel: 705.737.4512 . Fax: 705.737.5078 . Website: www.meridianplan.c6 Bay Wellington Tower. Box 792,1'81 Bay Street, Suite 2310, Toronto, ON M5J 213 . Tel: 416.977.7511 . fax: 416.977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard, Suite #102. Mississauga, ON L5N 652 . Tel: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.819.2994 , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 then be held, Submitting an application in this manner will ensure that all matters related to your specific request are considered in an open public forum. If you require further information on either of the options discussed above, please contact me. Please note that the public mee ' on the Official Plan Review will be held on June 24, 2003. YOuftUIY, NJ J~ld, MCI Partner NMljIW C, Ora-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee Ora-Medonte Council ... ~ I f' July 24, 2003 Mr. Fred Rumford 28 Robinson Street North, Unit 104 Grimsby, ON L3M 3C9 Re: Offlclal"'~ :!!;.."Iew Township of Ore-Me':""'.',' '" Our File Number 2360 Dear Mr, Rumford: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Oro-Medonte to respond to your Ir,Uer dated May 29, 2003 respecling I"~ Ufficial Plan Review, In your leiter, you request that the Township give some ""'",:""rallon to liberalizing the consent policies to provide for the creation of mQre lots in the n,'''Coi area, Your letter was considered by the Planning Advisory Committee at their ,,,eat.ing on July 15.2003, At this meeting, it was agreed that the consent policies in the Official Plan 1/I,.)uld not be modified in any subslanlive way Ihrough Ihe Official Plan Review process, However, il is proposed to include new policies in the Official Plan thai would provide for the creation infilling lots ill the Rural designation, subject to the fulfillment of a number of criteria, The proposed infilling policies ale attached to this letter. It is fell Ihal Ihese polices will allow for a limited amounl of additional severan~ activity in Ihe rural area, However, it should be noted that il is the Township's strong intent to direct ",.;)st forms of development to Ihe settlemenls in accordance wilh bolh Ihe County Simcoe Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. If you have any queslions aboul Ihe above, please give me a call. Please note Ihal Council will be considering Ihe proposed Official Plan Amendment on Augusl 21, 2003, NMlce cc Mayor and Membp',. ...r Council PlannlngArI":,;",y Committee -.' 'ell , 13 Collier Street. Barrie. ON Canada l4M 1 H2 .. Tel: 705.737.4512 .. Fax: 705.737.5078 ? Website: www.meridianplan.ca 2, Bay Wellington Tower. Box 792, 181 Bay Street, Suite 2310, Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 .. Tel: 415.977.7511 . Fax: 416.977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard. Suite #102. Mississauga. ON l5N 652 .. Tel: 905.819.2993 .. Fax: 905.819.2994 I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i ,r'l!it that the above addresses the concerns expressed in your letter. Please note tha, Council will be co""klering the Official Plan Amendment on August 21,2003. If you have any questions, please give me a call, Y71tru,y, /) I f fJ.A till J ~(d\. Nick MCDon~d~;; ~~l]er" NM/ce . A Mayor and Members of Gc>uncil ;>!anning Advisory Committee I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I @) July 24, 2003 Ms, Mary M. Rose, Consulting Planner PO Box 2536 Orillia,ON L3V 7 A3 Re: Official Plan Review Township of Oro-Medonte Our File Number 2360 Dear Ms, Rose: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Oro-Medonte to respond to YO,Jr letter, which was received by the Township on June 13, 2003. In your letter, you request that the Oro Moraine Planning Area b~ modified to exclude your client's lands from the Oro Moraine policies, I" addition, you request that sor-:e consideration be given to permitting the creation of a new lot on the property. It is my understanding that your client (Dr, Harmathy) has been interested in obtaining a severance ::-n his property within Lot 13, Concession 14 in the former Township of Oro for a considerable number of years, At the present time, as you are aware, the lands are designated Agricultural by the Official Plan, The creation of new lots within the Agricultural designation is permitted, but only if the lot is for a reti,ing bona fide farmer or if the lot is considered to be an infilling lot. In both circumstances, the severance can only be considered if the lot from which the severance is to be taken from has an area of at least 36 hectares, or is the whole of an original Township lot. As your client's property has an area of 32 hootares, the current policies do not permit severances on the parcel. It is my understanding that a lot is proposed to be created at the northwest corner e;f your client's property, between a previously severed lot to the south and a residential lot to the north, On the basis of mapping supplied with your correspondence, it appears as if there is 91 metres between the' two residential lot lines, The homes on both of the residential lots appear to be between 100 and 120 metres apart, The Oro Moraine OPA proposes to include the majority of the property within the 14atural Core/Corridor Area designation, A small portion of the property will be included within the Oro iJloraine Enhancement Area designation. The proposed lot is located in the proposed Enhancement Area designation, The policies of the draft Oro Moraine OPA indicate that severances may be permitter: within the Enhancement Area designation, subject to the policies of the Rural designation in the parent Official Plan. At the present time, these rural policies do not provide for the consideration of a severance on the property, primarily because the property does not have an area of at least 36 hectares, 113 Collier Street, Barrie, ON Canada L4M 1H2 . Tel: 705.737.4512 . Fax: 705.737.5078 . Website: www.meridianplan.ca Bay Wellington Tower. Box 792,181 Bay Street, Suite 2310. Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 . Tel: 416.977.7511 . Fax: 416,977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard. Suite #102. Mississauga. ON L5N 682 . Te!: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.819.2994 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I As part of the Official Plan Review process, the consent policies of the Rural designation are proposed to be amended to provide for the creation of infilling lots on rural properties that have an area of at least 20 hectares, The proposed infilling polioy is attached to this letter. It would appear that these policies may provide your client with the ability to create an infilling loi on the property, It should be noted that your letter was considered by the Planmrog Advisory Committee at their meeting on July 15, 2003 and that they concur with the sentiments expressed in this jetter. I trust that the above answers your questions regarding the Official Plan process, Please note that Council is expected to make a decision on the Official Plan Amendment on August 21, 2003, If you have any further que!ltions, please do not hesitate to contact me, Yours truly, Nick McDonald, MCI Partner NMlce cc Mayor and Members of Council Planning Advisory Committee I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I July 24, 2003 Mr. ,..., "t}ng Armstrong Hamson Associates 12 Trillium Trail Horseshoe Valley RR#4 Coldwater, ON LOK 1 EO 'P.9: OffIcial Plan Review Township of Oro-Medonte Our File Number 2360 Dear Mr A5mstrong: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Oro-Medonte to respond to your latter dated June 15, 2003, In your letter, you have requested that the Township give some consideration in principle to allowing for the development of between 10 and 12 lots within Lot 1, Concession 5 (Oru) , The lands in ql!estion are located directly to the west of the Oro Hills subdivision and to the east of the Township Fire Station on the 4th Line. Your letter has been reviewed by the Planning Advisory Committee at their meeting on July 15, 2003, At this meeting, it was confirmed that the Official Plan would continue to include policies that directed development to existing development nodes in the Horseshoe Valley Road Corridor, This polic:, was originally developed in 1992 by the former Township of Oro and confirmed by the Ontario Municipal Board in a decision issued in 1994, The basis for the policy is that every effort should be made 10 avoid the establishment of a continuous thread of development along the Horseshoe Valley Road Corridor. Instead, in order to protect rural character, it was felt that development in the corridor should be directed, to nodes that are separated by rural areas, It is recognized that a number of other uses are permitted within the Rur~: <lesignation that epplies to your client's property. These other uses are deemed more comF",dole with the rural area than the establishment of a new subdivision. It is on the basis the abC''.< !Oat no changes are contemplated to the Official Plan to respond to your client's request. ...-....- 113 Collier Street. P.c.ii'rie, ON Canada l4M 1H2 . Tel: 705.737.4512 . Fax: 705.737.5078 . Website: www.merididnplan.ca Bay Wellington T:~wer, Box 792.181 Bay Street, Suite 2310. Toronto. ON M5J 2T3 . Tel: 416.977.7511 . Fax: 416.977.9850 2408 Meadowpine BouleVBf'd. Suite #102. MississBuga, ON L5N 652 . Tel: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.819.2994 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I If you have allY qUE-stions, please give me <II <:at! Please note that Council will be making a decfsion on. the proposed Amen.Jm&1l on August 21, 2003, . '1\,,,, 'f ~ ". Y!C'w trAMJ NicK MrDonakl, MCIP, RPP Partner f~M(ce cc Mayor aoo.Members of Council Planning Advisory Committee I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I " U t:1LRl!!!A~ @ July 29,2003 Mr, Richard Haalboom 7 Duke Street West, Suite 304 Kitchener, ON N2H 6N7 Re: Official Plan Review Township of Oro-Medonte Our File Number 2360 Dear Mr. Haalboom: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Oro-Medonte to respond to your letter dated June 17, 2003, In your letter, which you are writing on behalf of Christian Horizons, you raise a number of concerns respecting the proposed policy on Residential Care Facilities in the Township of Oro-Medonte, Planning Advisory Committee reviewed your letter on July 15,2003. I am pleased to report that a number of changes are proposed to the policies to reflect some of the concerns you have raised, Specifically, we are proposing to: 1, Delete any references to "24 hours" and "room and board" from sub-section 'a', 2, Delete all of sub-section 'b', 3. Re-number 'c' to 'b' and delete all words after 'facilities' in the first sentence. 4, Include a new 'c', which shall need as follows: c) Crisis care facilities, treatment centres, correctional residential care facilities and hostels for the homeless or transients are not to be permitted as of right in the implementing zoning by-law, and shall be subject to re-zoning, Such a zoning by-law amendment will be subject to an evaluation of the following criteria: i) the intensity of use relative to the area of the property; ii) the compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses; 113 Collier Street. Barrie. ON Canada L4M 1H2 . Tel: 705.737-4512 . Fax: 705.737.5078 . Website: www.meridianplan.ca Bay Wellington Tower, Box 792.181 Bay Street, Suite 2310. Toronto. ON M5J 2T3 . Tel: 416.977.7511 It Fax; 416.977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard. Suite #102. MississaugB, ON L5N 682 . Tel: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.819.2994 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I iii) the suitability of the location with respect to the needs of clients and availability of , ' necessary services; ". iv) the potential impact on existing community services; v) proximity to other residential care facilities; and, vi) size and type of dwelling as well as lot size, 5. Change 'shall be mandatory' to 'may be required in last sentence of sub-section 'd', 6, Delete sub-section 'e', In response to your general concerns, I can report that it is not the intention of the Municipality to restrict the establishment of Residential Care Facilities in any single detached dwelling in the Township of Ore- Medonte, Rather, it is the intent of the Municipality to ensure that certain types of Residential Care Facilities, such as those which are characterized as crisis care facilities, treatment centres or which involve the supervision of those who are in the Corrections Canada or Provincial Corrections system, from being established anywhere in the municipality without there being a proper planning process followed, The only performance standard which would be unique to Residential Care Facilities would be a requirement that such facilities be separated by a distance set out in the implementing Zoning By-law from each other. Some municipalities have set this distance at 1,000 metres and this is a distance currently under consideration by the Township, With respect to other performance standards, the reference in the policy merely relates to the performance standards contained within the implementing Zoning By-law which apply to any residential use, The only standard that would be unique would be parking, where a higher amount could be required, You should note that a Residential Care Facility will be permitted as of right in any zone in implementing Zoning By-law that permits residential uses, However, before such a facility can be operated, the Township would like to enter into a site plan agreement with the proponent that will deal with such issues as parking, landscaping and any other site issues that are unique to the property in question, The Township also uses site planning control to regulate bed and breakfast establishments, home industries and other types of uses which are normally associated with a residential dwelling, With respect to the title of the section in the Official Plan Amendment, I chose the term Residential Care Facilities because it is used already in a number of other municipalities and because it is does not have the same negative connotations as the term "group home" has, However, I appreciate your concern about the use of the term "facility". and I am open to any suggestion on your part in terms of how this use can be identified. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I trust that the above addresses the comments and concerns made in you letter. You should note that Council will be considering ttie adoption of the new policies at a special meeting with Council to be held on August 21,2003, "I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss your concerns further if you so desire. NM/ce cc Orc-Medonte Council Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee I I I I I I I I I I I MERIDIAN ;c. ,\NNING CONSULTANTS INC, " July 24, 2003 Mr. Ray Kelso, Senior Planner Reinders Southpark and Associates LId, 49 Mary Street ;:,o'''''''c ON L4N H2 Re: OffIcial Plan Review Township of Oro-Medonte Our File Number 2360 Dear Mr. Kelso: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Oro-Medonta to respond to your letter dated June 16, 2003. In your letter, you request that some consideration be given to modifying the policies in the Official Plan to provide your client with the ability to make an application to expand the bounda\y of the Shanty' Bay Settlement Area in the future, I I I I I I I I Your letter was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Committee at their mEleting on July 15, 2003, At the present time, the Official Plan indicates that the expansion of the Shanty Bay Settlement Area would only be considered as part of an Official Plan Review, At this point, the Township is of the opinion that no justification has been provided that would support a change to this policy, As a result, the policy will remain unchanged, Your client has also requested that the pOlicy restric.ting the establishment of a communal sewage system to one property be modified, However, given that the policy regarding the. expansion of Shanty Bay is not proposed to be amended, there is no need at this time to amend the servicing policy at this time. In essence, the Township is of the view thl'! the Shanty Bay Settlement Area should not be expandec: beyond its current limits at this time. It ~!1vuld be noted if expansion was ever contemplated in the future, the only way such an expansion r~."id be considered is if a detailed Secondary Plan was completed For the entire settlement. - 113 Collier Street, Barrie. ON Canada L4M 1H2 . Tel: 705.737.4512 ., Fp:.-; 705.737.5078 . We"bsite: www.meridianplan.ca Bay Wellington Tower. Box 792.181 Bay Street, Suite 2310, Toronto, ON f\/~!)J 2T3 . Tel: 416.977.7511 . Fax: 416.977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard, Suite #102. Missi558uga, ON L5N 682 . Tel: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.819.2994 I I I I I I I I I I I trust the above ad~resses your Corn!tlents. If you have any questions, .p!ease give me a call, note that Council will be making a decls,O'\ on the proposed Amendment on August 21, 2003, 1,.J.~4r.Donald, MCIP, RPP Partner NM/ce cc Mayor and Members of Council Planning Advisory Committee I I I I I I I I I Please I I I '-,c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I July 24, 2003 Mr. Albert Schwartz Schwartz and Company 85 Scarsdale Road, Suite 202 Toronto, ON M3B 2R2 Re: Otl'i..iai pean Review Township of Oro-Med_te Our File Number 2360 Dear Mr, Schwartz: I am writing to respond to your letter faxed te the Township of Oro-Medonte on June 18, 2003, In your letter, you request that the Township give some consideration to permitting limited large lot development on both Lakeshore Road and the 14'" Line, a golf course integrated with adult lifestyle homes on large lots and/or a private public golf course with nature and snowmobile trails, ' Your letter was considered by the Planning Advisory Committee at their meeting on July 15, 2003, It should be noted at the outset that the Planning Advisory Committee does not support a policy that was included within the draft Official Plan Amendment that would provide for the creation of lots on public roads across from the Shoreline designation, The policy was included within the draft Official Plan Amendment in response to a number of submissions from property owners in such a circumstance requesting the consideration of severances. However, in reviewing all of the requests together, it is clear that the policies would, as drafted, pwvide for a considerable amount of additional development in the shoreline area, It is my opinion that thi~ would be contrary to the intent of the Official Plan, which is to limit additional development in the shorelii.e area as a result of conCerns ab()ut lack of public access, the existing density of development, drainage problems in certain arp:;", the environmental impacts from additional development and possible impacts. on the water supP',. and quality. On this basis, the draft policy will not be carried forwarded ir,to the final Official Plan A,,'endment that will be recommended to Council for adoption on August 21, 2003 ' Wi'~ ,espect to the golf course idea, the Official Plan currently requires the submission of 1'<<1 (",.":Ial Plan dmendment to designate lands major recreation in accordance with Section D6 of the ('W.ial Plan, You are encouraged to review this policy in detail to determine whether the criteria set ,~, 10 the policy could be met on your property. I would be happy to met with you at your conveni,,>~ to discuss this particular aspect of your proposal. 113 Col~ier Street, Barrie, ON Canada l4M 1H2 . Tel: 70B ,'37.4512 . Fax: 705.737.5078 . Website: www.meridianplan.ca BayWelhngton Tower, Box 792,181 Bay Street, Suite 23~O. Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 . Tel: 416.977.7511 . Fax: 416.977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard, Suite #102, Mim:ilssauga, ON L5N 682 . Tel: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.819.2994 I I I I I I I I I I I I I La~>>',"c with respect to adult lifestyle communities, ithas been my rec9mmendation that the permis<;.ons,in the curr<:,,\ OffIcial Plan that allow for the Consideration of.$Uch communities in the Rural designation ;;< deleted, This re"':Hl1mendation is being made as a result of COl'looms about the occupancy of dwellings in these types of commurilJe5.tn the future and their impact on services. I trust that the above addresses !i,~' "'''nments made in your letter. If you hav. 3ny questions, please give me a call, Yours truly, ~JjL Nick MCLJ()"""';: MCI Partner NM/ce cc Mayor and Members of Council Planning Advisory Committee I I I I I I I I I I July 24, 2003 I I I I I I I I I t./Is, -~'1va Pallopson, Planner Rudy & A..:!"~r,,tes Limited PO Box 834 Orillia, ON L3V 6K8 Re: Official Plan Review Township of Oro-Medonte Our File Number 2360 Dear Ms. PaUcp$Qn: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Oru-Medonte to respond to ymJr letter dated June 19, 2003 regarding the Teskey property r,., Lot 5, Concession 14 (Medonte), It is my understanding that you are seeking the Township's consideration for the creation of up to 3 infilling lots from a 138 acre parcel of land, A Cf'I!'"iJerable number of additional lots appear to have been sever-3d from this parcel in the past. The Planning Advisory Committee reviewed your letter at their meeting on July 15, 2003. ItsholJlr: be noted that the subject lands are designated Agricultural by the Official Plan, The lot creation polic'r;s in the current Official Plan only permit new residential lots for retiring bona fide farmers or if the lot is considered to be infilling in the Agricultural designation, Such an infilling lot can only'be create:, if the homes on two separate residential lots on either side are no further than 100 metres apart, I The policies regarding lot creation in the Agricultural designation are not proposed to be amer. Jed, The only exception is with the infilling policies, where it is proposed to remove the requirement (hat no lot could be severed if a lot was already severed since 1973 and by changing the requirement for the size of the original lot from 36 hectares to 20 hectares, In addition, we are proposing to slightly amend the definition of infilling to allow for the creation of lots between homes that are generally 10n metres apart. However, none of these changes would appear to provide your client with the abilitj to obtaifl any sewnmces on the property, I I I I I It should be noted that even if the Municipality was supportive of additional severer;<,s on the property, the policies of both the Provincial Policy Statement and the County Official Pier '"auld restrict any further severances, as the lands are designated Agricultural and considered tl" \:d prime agricultural lands in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement. The policies regar-;:,',\llot creatic" in prime agricultural areas are very clear and concise and have been reflected in the fownship's cupent Official Plan, The only way lot creation could be considered on the lal1'L ;" if they were desi9nated Rural instead of Agricultural. At this point, no justification has bee" sUDmitted which would sur.port the redesignation of the lands from Agricultural to Rural, In any {",em, such justification would have to be made in the context 113 Collier Street. Barrie, ON C;:::idda L4M 1H2 . Tel: 705.737.4512 . Fax: 705.737.5078 . Website: www.meridianplan.cB Bay Wellington Tower. Box 78::,181 Bay Street, Suite 2310. Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 . Tel: 416.977.7511 . Fax: 416.977.98f'G 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard, Suite #102. Mississauga, ON L5N 652 . Tel: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.81R2994 I I I I of an application to amend the Oiiirial Plan and would also have to review whether the designation of other properties in the area continue to \1e appropriate as well. I trust the above addresses the comments malk. i. 'four letter. Please note that Council is expected to make a decision on the proposed Amendment bnAugLkJi 21, 2003. If you have any questions, please give me a call. I I I I I I You~r.'", .. f... . itA II/J II, -- vv.-tJ(/J. ~ ck McDonald, MCIP,~ Partner NMlce cc Mayor and Members of Council Planning Advisory Committee I I I I I I I I I I I I I July 28, 2003 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms, Betty Veitch 3362 Penetanguishene Road N, R. R. #1 Barrie, ON L4M 4Y8 Re: OffIcial Plan Review Township of Ore-Medonte Our File Number 2360 Dear Ms. Veitch: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Oro-Medonte to respond to your letter dated June 20, 2003, In your letter, you indicate that you support the Township's efforts with respect to the regulation of home industries in the future in the Township of Oro-Medonte. Your letter was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Committee at its meeting on July 15, 2003. At this meeting, it was confirmed that the Official Plan should contain more restrictive policies on home industries and require that any new home industry be permitted only after a rezoning process has been completed, This will ensure that all matters relating to the home industry are considered in an open public forum, Your support for this policy is welcomed, You should note that Council will be considering the adoption of the new policies at a special meeting of Council to be held on August 21, 2003, If you have any questions, please give me a call, V1G Nick McDonald, MCI Partner NM/ce cc Oro-Medonte Council Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee I 113 Collier Street, Barrie, ON Canada l4M 1 H2 .. Tel: 705.737.4512 . Fax: 705.737.5078 .. Website: www.meridianplan.ca Bay Wetlington Tower. Box 792,181 Bay Street. Suite 2310, Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 . Tel; 416.977.7511 . Fax: 416.977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard. Suite #102, Mississauga, ON l5N 682 . Tel: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.819.2994 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MERIDIAN PlANNING CONSUIJi/INTS INC July 29, 2003 Mr. John Jermey 1012 Ridge Road R. R. #2 Hawkestone, ON LOL no Re: Official Plan Review Township of Oro-Medonte Our File Number 2360 Dear Mr. Jenney: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Oro-Medonte to respond to your letter dated June 23, 2003, In your letter, you request that the Township give special consideration to the creation of a lot from a 50 acre parcel located on the south side of Ridge Road, It is my understanding that the 50 acre parcel is used in conjunction with a 50 acre parcel on the north side Ridge Road as a farm, The lands on the north side of Ridge Road are designated Agricultural and the lands on the south side of Ridge Road are designated Rural. Your letter was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Committee at its meeting on July 15, 2003, While the Planning Advisory Committee is very sympathetic to your request, they had some concerns about amending the policies in the Official Plan to provide for additional lot creation in circumstances such as yours, The Township's policies have always been to regulate the number of severances granted by requiring the retained lot to be at least 36 hectares in size, in both the Agricultural and Rural areas of the municipality, This policy has been included in the Official Plan for some time to ensure that the majority of new residential development is directed to existing settlements and other development areas. It should be noted that your situation may not be that unique in the Township, given that the Township is bisected by a number of highways, roads, utility corridors and rail lines, On the basis of the above, the Official Plan is not proposed to be amended to provide you with the ability to create a lot from your 50 acre parcel on the south side of Ridge Road, However, you do have the ability, as always, to submit an application for an Official Plan Amendment to enable Council to consider your request on a site specific basis, If you wish to proceed in this manner, please contact Gary Smith at the Township office to obtain the appropriate forms. 113 Collier- Street, Barrie, ON Canada L4M 1H2 . Tel: 705.737.4512 . Fax: 705.737.5078 . Website: www.meridianplan.ca Bay Wellington Tower. Box 792.181 Bay Street, Suite 2310. Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 . Tel: 416.977.7511 \II Fax: 416.977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard, Suite #102. Mississauga, ON l5N 682 . Tel: 905.819,2993 . Fax: 905.819.2994 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I You should note that Council will be considering the adoption of the new policies at a special meeting with Council to be held on August :b, 2003, If you have any questions. please give me a call, or Yours ruly, N~"Do~uA Partner NMlce cc Ora-Madonte Council Ora-Madonte Planning Advisory Committee I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MERIDIAN PlANNING CONSU!iJt"NTS INC. July 29, 2003 Mr. Barry H, Peyton Provista Group Inc, Planning and Development Services Box 31, Green River Drive R. R. #1 Washago, ON LOK 2BO Re: Official Plan Review Township of Oro-Medonte Our File Number 2360 Dear Mr. Peyton: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Orc-Medonte to respond to your letter dated June 24, 2003, In your letter, you request that the Township give some consideration to exempt the Pallets North business from the new policies in the Official Plan, Your letter was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Committee on July 15, 2003, At this meeting, it was confirmed that the Township's Official Plan should be much more restrictive with respect to home industries than it is at present. Specifically, in the future, a home industry can only be established after a rezoning process has been completed, This is to ensure that all new home industries are considered in an open public forum where residents are given an opportunity to provide comments to Council before a decision is made. To a very large extent, the direction on home industries is a response to the establishment of uses which are considered by landowners to be home industries. but which do not meet the intent of either the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, In my opinion. as you know very well. the Pallets North business is not a home industry in accordance with the Official Plan or Zoning By-law and certainly does not meet the intent of either document. It is for this reason that the Township is proceeding to the Ontario Municipal Board, With respect to your grandfathering request. it is the Township's position that the current use of the property is not in conformity with the Township's Zoning By-law (By-law 97.95). As a result, the use is considered to be an illegal use of the property, Once the new Official Plan is adopted and approved and a new implementing Zoning By-law adopted and approved. the use will continue to be an illegal use, unless the Ontario Municipal Board decides in the interim that the use is permitted. However. it would not be my recommendation to Council at this time that any effort be made to recognize the existing situation in the new Official Plan. 113 Collier- Street, Barrie, ON Canada L4M 1H2 . Tel: 705.737.4512 . Fax: 705.737.5078 . Website: www.meridianplan.ca Bay Wellington Towef'. Box 792,181 Bay Street, Suite 2310. Toronto. ON M5J 2T3 . Tel: 416.977.7511 . Fax: 416.977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard. Suite #102. Mississauga. ON L5N 682 . Tel: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.819.2994 I I I I I I I I I I You should note that Council will be making a decision on the new Official Plan policies at a special meeting of Council to be held on August 21, 2003, If you have any questions, please give me a call. .. Yours truly, ~~~ Partner NM/ce cc Ora-Madonte Council Ora-Madonte Planning Advisory Committee Chris Williams, Aird & Benis I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MERIDIAN PlANNING CONSUIJil'NTS INC. July 29, 2003 Mr. Ralph and Wendy Hough 4965 Line 11 North R. R. #3 Coldwater, ON LOK 1 EO Re: Official Plan Review Township of Oro-Medonte Our File Number 2360 Dear Mr. and Mrs, Hough: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Ora-Medonte to respond to your letter dated June 24, 2003, In your letter, you request that some consideration be given to liberalizing the consent policies in the Official Plan to provide for additional rural development in the Township, The rationale behind your request is that it would be much more appropriate to allow for additional development on larger lots in the rural area than to permit development on smaller lots, on the basis of private services, in locations such as the shoreline, Your letter was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Committee at their meeting on July 15, 2003, At this meeting, it was confirmed that the policies in the Official Plan respecting lot creation would not be substantially changed as they apply to the rural area, However, it is proposed to introduce an infilling pOlicy in the Rural designation to provide for additional lot creation in certain circumstances and to liberalize the infilling policy in the Agricultural designation to permit some limited additional lot creation, However, the basis of the Official Plan was, when it was conceived in 1995, to restrict development in the rural area to protect the Township's rural character and open space qualities. This basic premise is not proposed to be changed in the context of the new OffICial Plan, You should also note that lot creation opportunities in the Shoreline area and in the Settlement Area are fairly limited, as a result of their existing built-up nature. However, your concerns about lot creation in these more densely developed areas are noted, 113 Collier Street, Barrie. ON Canada L4M 1H2 .. Tel: 705.737.4512 .. Fax: 705.737.5078 .. Website: www.meridianplan.ca Bay Wellington Tower. Box 792.181 Bay Street. Suite 2310. Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 .. Tel: 416.977.7511 " Fax: 416.977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard. Suite #102, Mississauga, ON L5N 852 .. Tel: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.819.2994 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I trust that the above adequately responds to the submissions made in your letter. You should note that , Council is considerin!j..the adoption of the new Official Plan policies at a special meeting of Council to be held on August21, 2003. If you have any questions, please give me a call, 7J;" Nick McDonald, Partner NMlce cc Ora-Medonte Council Ora-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MERIDIAN PLANNING t:ONSUI.itoNTS INC. July 29, 2003 Ms, Kris Menzies PK Menzies Planning and Development 115 Parkside Drive R. R. #2 Hawkstone, ON LOL no Re: Official Plan Review Township of Oro-Medonte Our File Number 2360 Dear Ms, Menzies: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Oro-Medonte to respond to your letter dated June 26, 2003, In your letter, you indicate that your client would like to ensure that the policies on lot creation in the Township do not preclude boundary adjustments that would lead to one lot being made larger and one lot being made smaller, Your letter was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Committee at their meeting on July 15, 2003, At this meeting, it was confirmed that the intent of this policy has always been to provide for boundary adjustments which may result in one lot being larger and one being made smaller. This is typically what occurs when a boundary adjustment application is made and considered, On this basis, I do not see any need for the policy to be amended for this reason since it clearly provides the Committee of Adjustment with the ability to consider all types of boundary adjustment applications, I trust that the above adequately responds to you letter. You should note that Council will be considering the adoption of the new policies at a special meeting of Council to be held on August 21, 2003. In the interim, if you have any questions, please give me a call, Jr' Nic~onald' Partner NM/ce cc Oro-Medonte Council Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee 113 Collier Street. Barrie, ON Canada L4M 1H2 . Tel: 705.737.4512 . Fax: 705.737.5078 . Website: www.meridianplan.ca Bay Wellington Tower, Box 792.181 Bay Street. Suite 2310, Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 . Tel: 416.977.7511 . Fax: 416.977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard. Suite #102. Mississauga. ON l5N 652 . Tel: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.819,.2994 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MERIDIAN PlANNING CONSUW<NTS INC, July 29, 2003 Ms, Kris Menzies PK Menzies Planning and Development 115 Parkside Drive R. R. #2 Hawkstone, ON LOL 1 TO Re: Official Plan Review Township of Oro-Medonte Our File Number 2360 Dear Ms. Menzies: I am writing"on behalf of the Township of Oro-Medonte to respond to your letter dated June 27, 2003, In your letter, which was written on behalf of Horseshoe Resort Corporation, you make a number of requests regarding the proposed Official Plan policies, Your letter was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Committee on July 15, 2003, Our comments on the items raised are below: 1. Item #21 It is requested by Horseshoe that permissions for golf courses be retained in the Rural designation in the Horseshoe Valley Road corridor, When the current Official Plan was written, golf courses were introduced as a permitted use in the Rural designation subject to zoning. In 2001, Official Plan Amendment #8 deleted golf courses as a permitted use in Rural designation and required Official Plan Amendments to permit them in the future, As part of the Amendment, golf courses should of have also been removed as a permitted use within the Horseshoe Valley Road special policy area, II is my opinion that it would be appropriate to delete golf courses as permitted use, if only to ensure that there is a consistent policy on golf courses in the Township, If a golf course is proposed anywhere in Rural designation, an Official Plan Amendment would be required, and would be considered in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan, particularly Section D8 and the proposed Oro Moraine policies, 113 Collier Street. Barrie, ON Canada L4M lH2 . Tei: 705.737.4512 . Fax: 705.737.5078 . Website: www.meridianplan.ca Bay Wellington Tower, Box 792,181 Bay Street. Suite 2310, Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 . Tel; 416.977.7511 . Fax: 416.977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard. Suite #102, Mississauga, ON L5N 652 . Tei: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.81.9.2994 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Water Taking (Item #23) In your letter,'You request some clarification on how the proposed water taking policy would apply 10 the Horseshoe Resort. I can report that the policy will be substantially modified to ensure that it only comes into effect when and if the courts rule that water taking is a use of land in accordance with the Pianning Act. If such a decision is made, the policy will then require that a comprehensive amendment to the Zoning By-law be prepared, During the process leading up to the preparation of the By-law amendment, issues such as which uses would be subject to zoning and under what conditions would be dealt with, However, at this time, your concerns are noted, 3. Development on Private Roads (Item #27) It is my understanding that the Resort wishes to develop a number of condominium blocks on private roads, particularly within the Horseshoe Valley Village designation, Agreements would be entered inlo for each of the blocks that would guarantee access over these private roads to a public road, Given the unique nature of the Horseshoe Resort development, I see no issue with respect to permitting development in this manner, provided there are appropriate agreements in place that ensure that emergency services can access any block accessed by a private road without any problems, In addition, the design of the private road and the entrances from the private road into each condo block will have to conform with relevant municipal specifications regarding emergency access, On this basis, it is proposed to clarify the section dealing with private roads to ensure that the intent of the municipality is clear in this regard, 4. Adult lifestyle Communities (Item #32) In your letter, you request that the permissions for Adult lifestyle communities remain in the Official Plan, The intent of deleting the permission is to delete the principle of establishing Adult lifestyle communities in the Rural designation, Instead, if any such community is every proposed in the future in the rural area, an Official Plan Amendment would be required, Within the Horseshoe Valley Resort node, a wide range of building forms and development is permitted, I trust that the above addresses the comments in your letter, You should note that Council will be dealing with the OffICial Plan policies on August 21, 2003, In the interim. if you have any questions, please give me a call, ick McDonald, MCIP, RPP Partner NM/ce cc Oro-Medonte Council Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MERIDIAN PLANNING CONSUW>NTS INC, July 29, 2003 Ms, Tanya Paflopson Rudy & Associates Limited P,O, Box 834 Orillia, ON L3V 6K8 Re: Official Plan Review Township of Oro-Medonte Our File Number 2360 Dear Ms, Paflopson: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Oro-Medonte to respond to your letter dated July 4, 2003, In your letter, you request that Council gives some consideration to expanding the Shanty Bay settlement area to provide for limited development on the Roger's property, located in Part of Lot 26, Concession 3. Your letter was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Committee on July 15, 2003. It is the position of the Township at this time that there is no justification for expanding the Shanty Bay settlement area, When the Official Plan prepared in 1995/1996, there was a conscientious decision by Council to provide some surety to the residents of Shanty Bay that the settlement area could only be expanded as part of an Official Plan Review, This Official Plan Review is almost complete, It is my opinion that it would be premature at this time to consider any expansion to the Shanty Bay settlement area unless a comprehensive Secondary Plan was completed for the entire community, The consideration of such a Secondary Plan by Council would be very much dependant on the justification provided to develop additional residential uses in the Shanty Bay settlement. No such justification has been submitted to date, With respect to process, it has always been my understanding that the intent of the Township with respect to Official Plan Review was to review general policy issues and not to deal with site specific requests for land use designations or permissions, It is recognized that your client has made a number of submissions to the Township on this matter. However, in the end, Council has ultimately decided that the Official Plan Review is intended only to deal with general policy issues, If you feel strongly about the development proposed on your client's lands, you can submit an Official Plan Amendment application for Council's consideration, Please note that the Official Plan Amendment application would have to be supported by appropriate justification and will have to address all of the existing policies in the Official Plan dealing with Shanty Bay, 113 Collier Street, Bar-ria, ON Canada L4M 1 H2 . Tel: 705.737.4512 . Fax: 705.737.5078 . Website: www.meddiaoplan.ca Bay Wellington Tower, Box 792.181 Bay Street, Suite 2310. Toronto. ON M5J 2T3 ,. Tel: 416.977.7511 . Fax: 416-977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard, Suite #102, Mississauga, ON L5N 6S2 . Tel: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.819.2994 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I trust that the above addresses the comments made in your letter, You should note that Council will be dealing with a new Official Plan policies on August 21,2003. In the interim, if you have any questions, please give me a call,~ n::' Nick McDonald, M Partner NM/ce cc Ora-Medonte Council Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a t11!\l!UAN July 29, 2003 Mr, Ian J, Rowe Burgar, Rowe Limited 90 Mulcaster Street P,O, Box 756 Barrie, ON l4M 4Y5 Re: Official Plan Review Township of Oro-Medonte Our File Number 2360 Dear Mr, Rowe: I am writing on behalf of the Township of Oro-Medonte to respond to your letter dated July 7, 2003, Your letter was reviewed by the Planning Advisory Committee on July 15, 2003, No changes to the proposed Official Plan Amendment are being considered at this time. However, the deletion of the Edgar Special Policy Area will be the only item to be contained in a separate Amendment (Amendment #16), By virtue of your letter, you will be notified of the adoption of Official Plan Amendment #16 in accordance with Subsection 17 of the Planning Act, You should note that Council will be dealing with the new Official Plan policies on August 21, 2003. If you have any questions, please give me a call, NM/ce cc Oro-Medonte Council Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee 113 Collier Street, Barrie, ON Canada L4M 1H2 . Tel: 705.737.4512 it Fax: 705.737.5078 . Website: www.meridianplan.ca Bay Wellington Tower. BOK 792,181 Bay Street, Suite 2310. Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 . Tel: 416.977.7511 . Fax: 416.977.9850 2400 Meadowpine Boulevard. Suite #102. Mississauga, ON L5N 682 . Tel: 905.819.2993 . Fax: 905.819.2994