10 14 2004 C of A Agenda
Committee of Adjustment AQenda
Thursdav October 14th 2004. 9:30 a.m.
1. Communications and Correspondence
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
3. Hearings:
9:30
2004-A-37
Colin McFadyen
Conc. 4, Lot 46, Plan M-10
(Medonte)
18 Pine Ridge Trail
9:40
2004-A-38
Angelo & Sandra Iocca
Plan 742, Lot 1 (Oro)
195 Bay Street
9:50
2004-A-20(Rev)
Martin Kichuk
Plan 798, Lot 66 (Ora)
88 Lakeshore Road E.
10:00
2004-A-39
John & Tassia Bell
Conc. 3, Plan 702, Lot 8
1207 Line 2 S.
10:10
2004-B-50
4037847 Canada Inc
Conc. 6, East Part Lot 8
(Oro)
2024 Line 6 N.
10:20
2004-A-40
Dan Parle & Grasyna Romaniuk
Conc. 5, Plan 807, Lot 20
209 Lakeshore Road W.
5. Decisions
6. Other business
-Adoption of minutes for September 16, 2004 Meeting
7. Adjournment
~
"
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
October 14, 2004
Colin McFadyen
2004-A-37
18 Pine Ridge Trail, Concession 4, Plan M-10, Lot 46 (Medonte)
THE PROPOSAL
TI1e applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.1.3, Permitted locations for detached
accessory buildings, to permit a 53.5 m2 (576 ft2) detached garage to be located in the front
yard at approximately 15.24 metres (50 feet) from the front lot line. It is the applicant's intent to
construct a proposed unenclosed deck between the detached dwelling and detached garage.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Horseshoe Valley Low Density Residential
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One Exception (R1 *63) Zone
Previous Applications - A-49/01 (OMB denied request for detached garage in front yard)
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works and Roads- No road concerns
Building Department-The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and
comment that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards.
Engineering Department- No concerns
Fire Department
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The applicant proposes to build a detached garage with an area of 53.5 m2 (576 if) in front of
an existing dwelling on a residential lot which has a lot area of 0.18 hectares (0.46 acres).
The proposed garage would be located approximately 15.24 metres (50 feet) from the front
lot line and approximately 3 metres (10 feet) from the side lot line. Due to the location and
orientation of the existing dwelling and the grading of the lot, the front yard is the only
available building area for the detached garage.
In December 2001 , an application was brought forth to the Committee for a detached garage
to be located in the front yard with a setback of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) from the front lot line.
The application was denied by the Ontario Municipal Board as the proposed location of the
detached garage was not consistent with the dwellings and accessory buildings on either side
of the subject property in regards to setback from the front lot line and did not maintain the
character of development on Pine Ridge Trail.
1
~
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Horseshoe Valley Low Density Residential. The primary function
of this designation is to recognize a development node, which permits a variety of residential,
commercial, and recreational uses.
Tile proposed variances would permit the construction of a detached garage on a lot with a
dwelling that currently does not have a garage in a registered plan of subdivision, which is a
pl3rmitted use within the Low Density Residential designation in the Horseshoe Resort Node.
On this basis the proposed variance would be in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
One of the purposes of maintaining minimum front yards in a residential zone is to maintain
and protect the residential character of a single detached residential community. However, it
is also the intent of the By-law to permit accessory uses that are reasonable and incidental to
a residential use. Given that the applicant does not currently have a garage and the
proposed location of the garage will preserve the tree covered area in behind the house, the
proposed variance is considered to conform with the spirit and intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The subject application has been precipitated to some degree by the existing location and
orientation of the house and the topography of the lot. Upon site inspection, the proposed
location for the garage should not detract from the character of the lot or the surrounding
neighbourhood and will be setback a minimum of 15 metres (50 feet) from the front lot line.
On this basis, the subject variance should provide for the appropriate and desirable
development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the proposed garage will occupy only 2.8% of the applicant's lot and is
setback more than 15 metres (50 feet) from the front lot line and has a maximum height of
4.5 metres (14.7 feet) which conforms with the Zoning By-law provisions, the requested relief
is deemed to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2004-A-37 subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application
and on the sketch as submitted and approved by the Committee;
2
.
2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance
with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing
prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor.
3. That the maximum height of the detached garage be no more than 4.5 metres (14.7
feet);
4. That the floor area of the detached garage be no larger than 53.5 m2 (576 ff);
5. That the detached garage be located no closer than 15 metres (50 feet) from the front
lot line; and,
6. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
!~
Andy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
~~ -f-ot
Andria Leigh MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
3
\
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
October 14, 2004
Angelo & Sandra Iocca
2004-A-38
195 Bay Street, Lot 1, Plan 742, (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are requesting to replace and enlarge a legal non-complying structure which
currently encroaches into the 7.5 metre (24.6 feet) front yard setback and 3 metre (9.8 feet~
interior side yard setback. The proposed new garage, which will replace the existing 47.4 m
(510.2 ft2) detached frame garage, will have a proposed ground floor area of 53.5 m2 (575.88
ft2) and the height to be increased from the existing 3.1 metres (10.17 feet) to a proposed 5.0
metres (16.4 feet). The proposed new garage will maintain the existing 1.45 metres (4.75 feet)
setback from the front lot line and 1.03 metres (3.37 feet) setback from the west side lot line.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation -Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works- No Road Concerns
Building Department - The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note
that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards.
Fire Department
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 45.5 metres (149.2 feet), a shoreline
frontage of approximately 68.4 metres (224.4 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.3
hectares (0.78 acres) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling, a cottage and
a detached garage.
The applicants wish to demolish and replace the existing detached garage while making
additions to 'square off' the garage. The applicants also plan to expand the detached garage
by allowing a 1.89 metre (6.23 feet) height addition to the garage, which currently encroaches
into the 7.5 metre (24.6 feet) front yard and 3.0 metre (9.8 feet) required interior side yard. The
garage will maintain the existing 1.45 metres (4.75 feet) setback from the front lot line and 1.03
metres (3.37 feet) setback from the west side lot line.
As noted, the existing detached garage is located within the 7.5 metre (24.6 feet) front yard
and 3.0 metre (9.8 feet) required interior side yard setbacks. As a result, the applicant's
1
garage is a legal non-complying use and permission is required from the Committee of
Adjustment to expand the use.
Section 45 (2) (a) (i) of the Planning Act states that Committee may permit the enlargement
of any building or structure where the use of the structure was lawfully used for that purpose
prohibited by the by-law on the day the by-law was passed. The existing structure predates
the passage of the Township's By-law, being November 5, 1997. Applications for
expansions of non-conforming uses are guided by the policies set out in Section J2.2 of the
Official Plan and not the standard four tests for minor variance applications.
Section J2.2 of the Township's Official Plan sets out the following policies to guide the
Committee in considering expansions to legal non-conforming uses:
a) The size of the extension in relation to the existing operation;
b) Whether the proposed extension is compatible with the character of
the surrounding area;
c) The characteristics of the existing use in relation to noise, vibration,
fumes, dust....and the degree to which any of these factors may be
increased or decreased by the extension; and,
d) The possibilities of reducing these nuisances through buffering,
building setbacks, landscaping, site plan control and other means.
The property is designated Rural Settlement Area in the Official Plan. The primary function of
this designation is to maintain the existing character of the residential area and to maintain
attractive communities with suitable amenities. Permitted uses in the Rural Settlement Area
designation primarily include residential uses as well as accessory uses. The proposed
replacement of the detached garage, which is accessory to a residential use, would satisfy
criteria (a) as the new garage would be a replacement of the existing structure with a minor
enlargement to 'square off' the garage and for a minor increase in height. The proposed
garage, which is buffered by large trees and a fence along the property line, would appear to
maintain the character of the residential area and would therefore conform with criteria (b),
(c) and (d). Therefore, the proposal appears to conform with the intent of the policies
contained in the Official Plan.
The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). One of the purposes or goals
of maintaining setbacks in residential areas is to maintain a positive built form and visual
quality. The proposed replacement of the detached garage will not result in a decrease in
the required setbacks.
The site inspection revealed that the replacement of the detached garage should not
adversely impact surrounding environmental features because the new garage will not
further encroach into the required setbacks and the proposal is considered reasonable and
minor in size. Therefore the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the
By-law
CONCLUSIONS
1. The requested permission to expand a legal non-conforming use represents a minor
expansion that will have little or no impact on the environmental features or functions of
the area.
2
2. The requested expansion to a legal non-conforming use is considered to conform with
Section J2.2 of the Official Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Committee approve application 2004-A-38 as follows:
THAT PERMISSION TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-COMPLYING STRUCTURE IS
GRANTED FOR 195 BAY STREET FOR A REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING
DETACHED GARAGE
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The west side of the detached garage shall maintain the existing 1.03 metres (3.37
feet) setback from the side lot line;
2. The front yard of the detached garage maintain the existing 1.45 metres (4.75 feet)
setback from the front lot line;
3. The ground floor area of the detached garage be no larger than 53.5 m2 (575.88 ft2)
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided
for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
5. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application
and on the sketch submitted and approved by the Committee; and,
6. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to
pouring of the foundation.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
A.~
Andy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
.-AJ- 4
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
3
,
..
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
October 14, 2004
Martin Kichuk
88 Lakeshore Road East, Plan 798, Lot 66 (Oro)
2004-A-20(Revised)
THE PROPOSAL
Pi"eviously the applicant applied for and was granted the following relief for the construction of a
single detached dwelling:
Required
Minimum required exterior side yard setback (Symond Ave)
-For proposed dwelling 7.5 m (24.6 ft)
-For proposed landing 7.5 m (24.6 ft)
Section 5.20.2.4 Location of driveway on a corner lot 15 m (49.2 ft)
Granted June 10.2004
4.5 m (15 ft)
3.5 m (11.5ft)
3.048 m (10 ft)
The applicant is now proposing to revise the application to include a 44.59 m2 (480 ft2) detached
garage/shop and has requested the following relief:
Required Proposed
Minimum required exterior side yard setback (Symond Ave)
-For proposed garage 7.5 m (24.6 ft) 5.79 m (19 ft)
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation -Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works-No access from Symond Ave.
Building Department - The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and note that
the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards
Fire Department-
Engineering Department-No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 15.24 metres (50 feet), a lot depth of
approximately 60.96 metres (200 feet), and a lot area of approximately 929 m2 (10000 ft2). The
applicant is currently constructing a 2-storey single detached dwelling with a first storey floor area
of 972 ft2.
On June 10, 2004, the applicant was granted from the Committee a minor variance for the
dwelling to be located approximately 4.5 metres (15 feet) from the exterior side lot line and for a
proposed landing to be located no closer than 3.5 m (11.5 ft) from the exterior side lot line. The
applicant is now proposing to revise the application to include a 44.59 m2 (480 ft2) detached
1
garage/shop to be located 5.79 m (19 ft) from the exterior lot line while maintaining the required 2
metres (6.5 feet) from the rear and interior side lot lines.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. The intent of the Shoreline policies is to
maintain the character of the residential area and to protect the natural features of the shoreline.
The proposed minor variance, which would permit the construction of a detached garage on a lot
not adjacent to Lake Simcoe, is in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
Tile subject property is a corner lot located at the intersection of Lakeshore Road East and
Symond Ave. with 15.24 metres of frontage on Lakeshore Road and 60.96 metres of depth on
Symond Ave. Should the applicant meet the exterior, rear and interior side yard setbacks, there
would be insufficient area for the applicant to build a detached garage. As the lot would comply
with all other provisions of the Zoning By-law and only requires a reduction in the exterior side
yard setback, the application is deemed to generally conform with the intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The nature of development proposed appears to be appropriate, as this would permit a detached
garage accessory to a residential use on the subject property which will be consistent with the
surrounding residential uses. The granting of this variance would not lead to the over
development of the lot and would be in keeping with the residential subdivision. On this basis,
the variance proposed is appropriate for the desirable development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the variance will permit the construction of a 44.59 m2 (480 ft2) detached
garage/shop on a residential lot that would satisfy all other zoning provisions and will maintain the
intent of the Official Plan policies, the variance is deemed to be minor in nature.
CONCLUSIONS
The requested variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee Approve Minor Variance application 2004-A-20 as revised
to include a 44.59 m2 (480 fe) detached garage/shop, subject to the following conditions:
1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of
the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor;
2. That the proposed detached garage be located no closer than 5.79 m (19 ft) from the
exterior lot line;
3. That the ground floor area of the proposed detached garage be no larger than 44.59 m2
(480 ft2);
4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on
the sketch submitted, received September 20, 2004 and approved by the Committee;
2
5. That the applicant satisfies the conditions of the minor variance granted June 10, 2004;
and,
6. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official
only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the
Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~~
Andy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
A~~~
Andria Leigh, MCIP, ~P~
Senior Planner
3
..
,
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
October 14, 2004
John & Tassia Bell
2004-A-39
1207 Line 2 S., Plan 702, Concession 3, Lot 8 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are requesting relief from Section 5.1.3, Permitted locations for detached accessory
buildinqs, to permit a garage to be located in the front yard with a setback of 16.15 m (53 feet) from
the front lot line and are requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95:
Required Proposed
Maximum Floor Area
For detached buildings
70 m2 (753 ft2)
87.69 m2 (944 ft2)
Maximum Height
For detached buildings
4.5 m (14.7 ft)
4.57 m (15 ft)
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One (R1) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works and Roads- No road concerns
Building Department-The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and comment
that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards.
Engineering Department- No concerns
Fire Department
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The applicant proposes to build a detached garage with an area of 87.69 m2 (944 ft2) in front of an
existing dwelling on a residential lot which has a lot area of 0.27 hectares (0.67 acres). The
proposed garage would be located approximately 16 metres (53 feet) from the front lot line and
10.6 metres (35 feet) from the side lot line. Due to the location of the existing dwelling being
positioned at the rear of the lot and a heavily tree covered area adjacent to the pool, the front
yard is the only available building area for the detached garage.
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural Settlement Area. The primary function of the Rural Settlement
Area designation is to identify and permit residential uses which are compatible and in keeping
with the character of a residential community. The proposed variance, which would permit the
construction of a detached garage which is considered accessory to a residential use and
therefore is in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
One of the purposes of maintaining minimum front yards in the Residential One Zone is to
maintain and protect the residential character of a single detached residential community.
However, it is also the intent of the By-law to permit accessory uses that are reasonable and
incidental to a residential use. Given that the applicant does not currently have a garage and the
proposed location of the garage will preserve the tree covered area, the proposed variance is
considered to conform with the spirit and intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The subject application has been precipitated to some degree by the existing location of the
house, pool and the treed area. Based on a site inspection of the proposed garage location, it
should not detract from the character of the lot or the surrounding neighbourhood. On this basis,
the subject variance should provide for the appropriate and desirable development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the proposed garage will occupy only 3.2% of the applicant's lot and is setback
more than 50 feet from the front lot line, the requested relief is deemed to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2004-A-39 subject to the
following conditions:
1 . That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on
the sketch, received September 22, 2004, as submitted;
2. That the mean level between the eaves and ridge of the detached garage be no more
than 4.57 metres (15 feet);
3. That the total area of the proposed garage be no larger than 87.69 m2 (944 ft2);
4. That the applicant maintain a minimum front yard setback of 16 metres (53 feet) and interior
side yard setback of 10.6 metres (35 feet) for the detached garage; and,
5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official
only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the
Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by,
A~
Andy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
-A.J- ~ol-
Andria Leigh MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
October 14, 2004
4037847 Canada Inc.
2004-B-50
2024 Line 6 N., Concession 6, East Part Lot 8 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2004-B-50 is to permit a boundary adjustment/lot addition. The land
to be conveyed and added to the lot immediately to the north, 2104 Line 6 N., would have a lot
width of approximately 59.43 metres (195 feet), a lot depth of approximately 40 metres (131.2
feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.23 hectares (0.58 acres). The land proposed to be
retained, 2024 Line 6 N., would have a lot area of approximately 39.23 hectares (96.95 acres).
No new building lots will be created as a result of this boundary adjustment.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural and Mineral Aggregate Resource
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) & Mineral Aggregate Resource Two (MAR2)
Zones
Previous Applications-
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County-No comments
Public Works-No road concerns
Building Department-The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note that the
proposal appears to meet the minimum standards.
Fire Department-
Engineering Department-No concerns
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Background
This application involves the proposed conveyance of lands from the applicant to the
neighbouring property, 2104 Line 6 N. If the application is approved, 2104 Line 6 N. would be
increased to approximately 3.
Township Of Oro-Medonte Official Plan
The north half of the property is designated Rural and the south half is designated Mineral
Aggregate Resource in the Official Plan. As the proposed lot addition is located in the Rural
portion of the subject property, Committee shall consider the policies contained within Section D3
of the Official Plan.
There is no specific policy in the Rural designation for Committee to consider applications for
boundary adjustments. When considering these types of applications, Committee must be
satisfied that no new lot is being created and that the effect of the boundary adjustment will not
adversely impact the surrounding area.
In reviewing the application, no new building lots will be created, and the retained parcel will
continue to be maintained as a large rural lot. In considering the creation of a new lot for
residential purposes, the Rural policies state that the proposed lot is of an appropriate size for
residential use, with such a use not requiring a lot size that exceeds 2 hectares (4.9 acres). The
resultant lot area of the land to be enhanced. 2104 Line 6 N. including the lot addition would be
approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres). On this basis, the application would generally conform to
the Official Plan.
Zoning By-Law 97-95
If the consent were approved, both the rural and residential parcels would continue to comply with
the Zoning By-law provisions applicable to uses in the AlRU Zone. There would be no situations
of non-compliance created by the proposed lot addition.
ANALYSIS
The proposed consent application is for a lot addition that does not appear to offend the principles
of the Official Plan or the provisions of the Zoning By-law.
CONCLUSION
The application generally conforms to the policies of the Rural designation and the retained land
and the land to be enhanced would comply with the minimum frontage and area requirements of
the (A/RU) zone. No new building lots are being created as a result of the lot addition.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee Approve Consent Application 2004-B-50 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land
Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary;
2. That the severed lands be merged in title with the residential lot located at 2104 Line 6 N.
and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to
any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands;
3. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands
to be enhanced will merge in title;
4. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel
severed, for review by the Municipality;
5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from
the date of the giving of the notice.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by,
)~
~-L ~c!
Andy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
October 14, 2004
Dan Parle & Grasyna Romaniuk
2004-A-40
Concession 5, Part Lot 20, Plan 807, (Oro), 209 Lakeshore Road W.
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are requesting relief from Section 5.16 of Zoning By-law 97-95; 'Non-
complving buildinqs and structures'. The applicants are proposing to replace and enlarge a
roofline at the rear portion of the dwelling which is currently encroaches into the 20 metre (65.6
feet) setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe. The proposed new roofline
will increase the volume of a portion of the dwelling located in the setback requirement of Lake
Simcoe with an increased height of approximately 4.05 m2 (43.63 ft2). The dwelling will
maintain the existing 15 metres (49 feet) and 16.76 metres (55 feet) for the south-east and
south-west corners of the dwelling respectively setback from the average high water mark of
Lake Simcoe.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation -Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works- No road concerns
Building Department - The Township Building Oept has reviewed this application and note
that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards.
Fire Department
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frontage of 13.4 metres (44 feet), a shoreline frontage of
approximately 46 metres (150 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.35 hectares (0.88
acres) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling and a boathouse.
The applicants wish to replace an existing roofline at the rear portion of the dwelling on the
second floor which will match the existing roofline of the dwelling. The proposed new roofline
will increase the volume of the existing room in the dwelling with the addition of a proposed
cathedral ceiling. This new ceiling will increase the height of the room by approximately 4.05
m2 (43.63 ft2). The existing deck will remain as is.
1
As noted, a portion of the existing 2 storey dwelling is located within the 20 metre (65.6 feet)
setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe. As a result, the applicant's
dwelling is a legal non-complying use and permission is required from the Committee of
Adjustment to expand the uses.
Section 45 (2) (a) (i) of the Planning Act states that Committee may permit the enlargement
of any building or structure where the use of the structure was lawfully used for that purpose
prohibited by the by-law on the day the by-law was passed. The existing structure predates
the passage of the Township's By-law, being November 5, 1997. Applications for
expansions of non-conforming uses are guided by the policies set out in Section J2.2 of the
Cfficial Plan and not the standard four tests for minor variance applications.
Section J2.2 of the Township's Official Plan sets out the following policies to guide the
Committee in considering expansions to legal non-conforming uses:
a) The size of the extension in relation to the existing operation;
b) Whether the proposed extension is compatible with the character of
the surrounding area;
c) The characteristics of the existing use in relation to noise, vibration,
fumes, dust....and the degree to which any of these factors may be
increased or decreased by the extension; and,
d) The possibilities of reducing these nuisances through buffering,
building setbacks, landscaping, site plan control and other means.
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. The primary function of the
Shoreline designation is to maintain the existing character of the shoreline residential area
and to protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate area. Permitted
uses in the Shoreline designation primarily include residential uses as well as accessory
uses. The proposed new roofline to the dwelling would appear to be minor in size and would
maintain the character of the shoreline residential area and would therefore satisfy criteria (a)
and (b). The portion of the dwelling in which the roofline will be replaced, is setback quite
distant from the high water mark and from the adjacent neighbouring dwellings, and will
therefore satisfy criteria (c) and (d). The proposal would therefore conform with the intent of
the policies contained in the Official Plan.
The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). One of the purposes or goals
of maintaining setbacks in residential areas is to maintain a positive built form and visual
quality. The proposed new roofline to the dwelling will not result in a decrease in the
required setbacks. As the variance will be for a minor increase in height for an existing room
in the dwelling, the expansion will not adversely impact the surrounding neighbours.
The primary role of setbacks to Lake Simcoe is to protect the natural features of the
shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. The site inspection revealed that the existing
dwelling and the proposed new roofline should not adversely impact surrounding
environmental features because the proposal is considered reasonable and minor in size.
Therefore the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the By-law
2
CONCLUSIONS
1. The requested permission to expand a legal non-conforming use represents a minor
expansion that will have little or no impact on the environmental features or functions of
the area.
2. The requested expansion to a legal non-conforming use is considered to conform with
Section J2.2 of the Official Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Committee approve application 2004-A-40 as follows:
THAT PERMISSION TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-COMPLYING STRUCTURE IS
GRANTED FOR 209 LAKESHORE ROAD WEST FOR A NEW ROOFLlNE TO THE
EXISTING DWELLING
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The dwelling maintain the existing 15 metres (49 feet) and 16.76 metres (55 feet) for
the south-east and south-west corners of the dwelling respectively setback from the
average high water mark of Lake Simcoe.
2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided
for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application
and on the sketch received by the Township on September 8,2004 and approved by
the Committee; and,
All of which is respectfully submitted,
A~
Andy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
.---1-L ~
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
3
Page 1 ofl
file://F: \PLANNING\D- Development%20&%20Planning\D 13 %20V ariances\2004-A -40%20Parle\IM0003 79 .jpg
lO/6/2004
Page 1 0(1
""
I
"
.,
+
~
file:/ /C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\karaiskakis\Local%20Settings\ T emporary%20Intemet%20F iles\O LK 14 \IM0003 78.JPG 10/6/2004