03 14 2005 PAC Agenda
,
,
.
.
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
Robinson Room
Date: Monday March 14, 2005 Time: 7:00 p.m.
1. Opening of Meeting by Chair
2. Adoption of Agenda
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in
Accordance with the Act.
4. Minutes of Previous Meetings - February 21, 2005
5. Correspondence and Communication
None
6. Planning Applications
(a) Planning Report presented by Andria Leigh, Director of Planning, Re:
Helen Anderson - Part of Lot 9, Concession 14 (Oro), Application 2005-
OPA-01 (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the application
subsequent to the review of the report)
(b) Planning Report presented by Andria Leigh, Director of Planning, Re:
Lester Cooke - South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 (Orillia), Application
P-159/03 (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the application
subsequent to the review of the report)
(c) Planning Report presented by Andria Leigh, Director of Planning, Re:
1071118 Ontario Limited (Robert DeRosa) - East Part of Lot 21,
Concession 7, RP 51R-15045, Parts 1 to 4 pt Part 5 Parts 8 to 10 (Oro),
Application 2005-ZBA-03 (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak
to the application subsequent to the review of the report)
7. Other Business
a. Public Meeting - March 21,2005 7:05 p.m. - Moon Point Corporation
b. Next PAC Meeting. Monday April 11 ,2005
8. Adjournment
4-
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
2003-2006 TERM
February 21, 2005 @ 7:20 p.m.
Robinson Room I Council Chambers
Present: Council Representatives Public Representatives
Mayor J. Neil Craig Terry Allison
Deputy Mayor Harry Hughes Robert Barlow
Councillor Dan Buttineau Mel Coutanche
Councillor Ralph Hough John Miller
Councillor John Crawford
Regrets: Councillor Paul Marshall Craig Drury
Councillor Ruth Fountain
Staff Present: Andria Leigh, Director of Planning; Doug Irwin, Records
Management Coordinator
Also Present: Aubrey Ford, Jerry Jorden, Mike Gartner
1. Opening of Meeting by Chair
Mayor J. Neil Craig assumed the chair and called the meeting to order.
2. Adoption of Agenda
Motion No. PAC-1
Moved by John Miller, Seconded by Terry Allison
It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of
Monday, February 21, 2005 be received and adopted.
Carried.
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in
Accordance with the Act.
None declared.
Y.-l
.
.
. 4. Minutes of Previous Meetings - December 13, 2004
Motion No. PAC-2
Moved by Terry Allison, Seconded by John Miller
It is recommended that the minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting held
on December 13, 2004 be received and adopted.
Carried.
5. Correspondence and Communication
a) Memorandum from Andria Leigh, Director of Planning re: Status - Planning
Applications for 2005 dated January 31, 2005 .
Motion No. PAC-3
Moved by Robert Barlow, Seconded by Terry Allison
It is recommended that the memorandum dated January 31, 2005 from Andria Leigh,
Director of Planning, re: Status - Planning Applications for 2005 be received.
Carried.
6. Planning Applications
a) Planning Report presented by Andria Leigh, Director of Planning, Re: Mike and
Colleen Gartner - Part of Lots 27 and 28, Concession 3 (Oro), Township of Orc-
Medonte, Application 2005-ZBA-04.
Motion No. PAC-4
Moved by Terry Allison, Seconded by Robert Barlow
It is recommended that
1. Report PD 2005-007, Andria Leigh, Director of Planning, re: Mike and Colleen
Gartner, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 2005-ZBA-04, Part of Lots 27 and
28, Concession 3(Oro), Part 1, 51R-25104, be received and adopted; and
2. That it be recommended to Council that Zoning By-law Amendment Application
2005-ZBA-04 for Mike and Colleen Gartner, Part of Lot 27 and 28, Concession 3
(Oro), Part 1,51 R-251 04, Township of Oro-Medonte, proceed to a Public Meeting in
accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.
Carried.
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
February 21 ,2005, Page 2
lJ-
b) Planning Report presented by Andria Leigh, Director of Planning, Re: Ian Webb -
North Part of Lot 3, Concession 11 (Oro), Application 2005-0PA-02.
Motion No. P AC-5
Moved by Mel Coutanche, Seconded by Robert Barlow
It is recommended that
1. Report PO 2005-008, Andria Leigh, Director of Planning, re: Ian and Lori Webb,
Official Plan Amendment Application 2005-0PA-02, North Part of Lot 3, Concession
11 (Medonte), be received and adopted; and
2. That it be recommended to Council that Official Plan Amendment Application 2005-
OPA-02 for Ian and Lori Webb, North Part of Lot 3, Concession 11 (Medonte),
Township of Oro-Medonte, prcceed to a Public Meeting in accordance with the
provisions of the Planning Act.
Carried.
7. Other Business
a) Public Meeting - February 21, 2005 Council members only - Condition of Consent
applications - Van Winden and Plante
b) Next PAC Meeting - Monday March 14,2005
c) Public Meeting - Moon Point - March 21, 2005
8. Adjournment
Motion No. P AC-6
Moved by Mel Coutanche, Seconded by John Miller
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 8:00 p.m.
Carried.
Chair, Mayor J. Neil Craig Director of Planning, Andria Leigh
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
February 21,2005, Page 3
. 6~-1
.
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD2005-015 Planning Advisory Andria Leigh, RPP
Committee
Subject: Department:
Council Planning
Helen Anderson,
C.ofW. Development Application Date: March 8, 2005
2005-0PA-01
Motion # Concession 14, Part of R.M. File #:
East Half of Lot 9 (Oro) D09014379
Date: RolI#:
010-005-42000-0000
, BACKGROUND: I
In January 2005 an application for an Official Plan Amendment was submitted by Helen Anderson,
owner of Part of the East Half of Lot 9, Concession 14 (Oro). The purpose of the application is to re-
designate a portion of the property from the Mineral Aggregate Resources designation to the
Agricultural designation and permit the severance of the existing single detached dwelling located on
the property. The applicant has also submitted the Consent application to be reviewed before the
Committee of Adjustment, which will be deferred until the consideration of the Official Plan
Amendment.
The purpose of this report is to review and summarize the application, determine if any additional
information is necessary, and provide Planning Advisory Committee with a recommendation on how
to proceed with the application.
t DETAILS OF APPLICATION: t
The subject property is a total of 50 ha (125 acres) of which approximately 8 ha (19.76 acres) is the
subject of this application and currently contains the following buildings:
1. A single detached dwelling;
2. A barn;
3. A detached garage;
4. An implement shed; and
5. A pump house
b~-2... "
A detailed plan has been submitted by the applicant that identifies the area of land subject to the
application and also the location of the existing structure identified above. A copy of this plan is -
attached for the Committee's reference. .
The remainder of the subject property is currently under license through the Ministry of Natural
Resources by Hillway Equipment Ltd.
The lands to the west and north-west are also under currently licensed for extraction. The lands to
the north and east are agricultural and the lands to the south are designated for aggregate but are
not currently under license with the Ministry.
A technical letter from Geological Investigations dated November 18, 2004 was prepared as the
technical support for the re-designation of the property and is attached for the Committee's review.
This has been forwarded to the Ministry of Natural Resources as the technical authority on the re-
designation for their review and comment.
~ COMMENTS RECEIVED: ,
The application has been circulated for inter-departmental and agency comments. At the time of
writing this report no comments had been received. A verbal update will be provided at the time of
the meeting in this regard.
I ANALYSIS: t
The subject property is currently designated Mineral Aggregate Resources and Agricultural in the
Township's Official Plan and is subject to the policies contained in Section 05.
The portion of the property designated Agricultural would include the existing house but not the
additional accessory building and is identified in yellow on the attached plan.
This area however through modification to OPA #16 was to be re-designated to Mineral Aggregate
Resource - Potential given the other potential and licensed properties in this area. However, these
policies are under appeal to the OMB and are therefore not in force or effect. The applicant is
therefore looking at the current policies which indicate a portion of Agricultural designation on the
property that they are wishing to retain and also expand to include the 8 hectares identified in this
application.
Section D5 establishes the objectives of this designation as follows:
. To protect mineral aggregate operations, known mineral deposits and areas of high
potential mineral aggregate resources for future resource use.
. To ensure that extractive activities are carried out with minimal environmental and social
cost.
. To minimize conflicts among incompatible land uses.
Permitted uses in this designation include: aggregate extraction activities, agriculture, passive
recreation, forestry, and existing uses including residential.
The development policies contained within these policies only provide for the creation of new lots for
utility purposes and do not provide for the creation of new residential lots.
- 2-
. b~-3
.
The policies also indicate that other land uses should be discouraged until either the resource is
. substantially depleted or it is shown to Council's satisfaction that the resource is not feasible to
extract. The policies indicate that in these circumstances, an amendment to the Plan that has the
effect of re-designating the lands to the Agricultural or Rural designation is required. Based on the
location of the subject property and the surrounding land use designations, the appropriate
designation for this property, if the amendment is approved, would be the Agricultural designation.
As indicated above, comments have been requested from the Ministry of Natural Resources in
regards to the support material received as justification of the re-designation of these lands. This is
required in order to confirm that the request amendment would conform with the current policies
established by the Official Plan.
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that the application not proceed to a public meeting
until such time as favorable comments have been received from the Ministry of Natural Resources
that no additional information is required.
II RECOMMENDATIONS: ~
It is recommended:
1. THAT Report PD 2005-015 (Anderson) be received and adopted; and
2. That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Official Plan Amendment
Application 2005-0PA-01, Part of the East Half of Lot 9, Concession 14 (Oro), not proceed to
a Public Meeting until such time as favorable comments are received from the Ministry of
Natural Resources that sufficient technical basis is available for the proposal.
Respectfully Submitted,
--1~~
Andria Leigh, M IP, RPP
Director of Planning
C.A.O. Comments: Date:
C.A.O. Dept. Head
.
- 3 -
---~
Oiu - r::::-~2..o 612.,-
,/ .
3EOLOGICAL Box #122, 38 Alpine Drive
Moonstone, Ontario LOK 1 NO
INVESTIGATIONS Bus/Fax (705) 8::35-5636
E-mail: geologicalinvestigations@sympatico.ca
Township of Oro-Medonte November 18, 2004
Box 100,Oro Ontario fRECElVED
LOL 2XO
\ tiOV 19 2nn~
Attn: Andria Leigh
Planner QRO-MEDONTE
TOWNSHIP
Subject: Part E % Lot 9, Concession 14, Township of Oro-Medonte (Oro),
County of Simcoe
Dear Andria
Mrs. Helen M. Anderson has applied to severe a portion of her property,
approximately 8 hectares, consisting of a farm residence and several buildings
including a barn. The remainder of the property is presently licensed under the
Aggregate Resources Act to Hillway Equipment Limited.
Mrs. Anderson has retained Geological Investigations to review and submit an
opinion on the effect of her severance application on the potential aggregate in
the area.
On November 12, 2004 Geological Investigations met on site with Mr. Craig
Laing of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to discuss this application.
The Hillway pit was inspected along with the subject property and the immediate
surrounding area. Mr Laing felt that continued residential use of the farm house,
if severed, would be fine, but higher density residential use would conflict with the
Hillway Pit.
Geological Investigations has also discussed this application with Andria Leigh,
the Township Planner.
be., - 5
. Geological Investigations has extensive experience with aggregate applications
and the factors which must be taken into consideration when deciding to apply
for approval to operate a pit. The extraction of aggregate from this property is not
economical for the following reasons:
The site is small and does not contain a large amount of aggregate
Required setbacks from the Trans Canada Pipeline and
Oro-Medonte Concession Road 14 will further reduce the aggregate
available
The site would require re-zoning
An application under the Aggregate Resources Act would be required
The close proximity of the Fergus Hill Estates mobile home community
would require expensive mitigation
The house, barn and accessory buildings on site would have to be
removed at great expensive.
The lands to the east of the subject site are designated aggregate potential in the
Township Official Plan. The approval of this application will have no effect of the
future extraction of aggregate since the farm residence already exists. The
Fergus Hill Estates community will have a much more dynamic effect on any
future aggregate use of these lands than the proposed severance
The existing Hillway pit has operated for many years and the continued use of
the farm residence will have no effect on its continued operation. We agree with
MNR that if the land use were changed to higher density residential that the pit
would be adversely affected. We suggest that if the severance is approved
that only the existing land use be permitted.
In conclusion the proposed severance will have no adverse effect on the existing
or future aggregate resources in the area. The residential land use already exists
and there is no proposal to change this land use.
If you have any questions please give me a call at 705-835-5636.
(
Your~. ,_ ~ . ~ <,?
~~~~#;;~ . ./~
William D. Fitzge~sc., P: eo.
/
G~ .,
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD2005-014 Planning Advisory Andria Leigh, RPP
Committee
Subject: Department:
Council Planning
Lester and Cristina Cooke,
C.ofW. Development Application Date: March 8, 2005
P-159/03
Motion # Concession 3, South Part R.M. File #:
of Lot 17 (Orillia) D09013294
Date: RolI#:
030-012-43100-0000
II BACKGROUND: ~
The purpose of this report is to review this application subsequent to the Public Meeting held on
January 15, 2005 and provide a recommendation on the Official Plan Amendment applying to lands
within the South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 (Orillia) owned by Mr. And Mrs. Cooke. A planning
report was presented to the Planning Advisory Committee in September 2004 which recommended
proceeding to the public meeting on the basis that the technical information required with the
application (EIS) had been received and reviewed internally.
At the present time, the lands are designated Restricted Rural in accordance with the Official Plan
and zoned Agricultural/Rural (AIRU) by Zoning By-law 97-95. The policies of the Restricted Rural
designation do not permit the creation of new lots by severance on the property and as a result, a
change to the Official Plan designation is required. The intent of the Zoning By-law change is to
implement the changes to be made to the Official Plan and to implement the recommendations of the
EIS and comments contained in the January 12, 2005 LSRCA correspondence.
II POLICY CONTEXT: I
In December 2004, Council adopted an amendment to Section 010 - Shoreline designation that
proposed to replace the current pOlicies that restricted expansion of the shoreline area and implement
criteria for evaluating the OPA required in the policies to permit such an expansion. This amendment
was approved by the County on February 9, 2005, no appeals have been received. and this
amendment is now in force and effect. The revised policies are as follows:
G~-z.
"The further expansion of the shoreline development area onto lands that are not designated Shoreline
is not permitted by this Plan. Exceptions may be granted through the approval of an Official Plan
. Amendment if the expansion is small in scale and is focused on the shoreline or is considered to be
infilling. Infilling is defined as development that abuts a developed area on two sides and/or is located
within a block of land that is surrounded by public roads on at least three sides. The creation of strip
development across from existing development on existing public roads is not contemplated by this
Plan.
Council may consider such minor amendments to the Official Plan to re-designate lands' for such limited
shoreline development, provided Council is satisfied that:
a) The lots will have an area of 0.6 hectares or greater;
b) The majority of the existing tree cover on the proposed lots is retained and protected as part of the
approvals process;
c) The development is compatible, in terms of scale, density and character, with existing development;
d) The proposed lots, if located on the shoreline, have a water frontage of no less than 45 metres; and,
e) The lots would conform to the general subdivision and consent policies of this Plan.
For Plans of Subdivision that involve the creation of lots with water frontage, only a single tier of lots
shall be created, all with water frontage, as set out in Section 010.3.6 of this Plan. In addition, no new
lots with direct access to County Roads are permitted.
If major development is proposed (which is defined as development that does not meet the above
criteria), 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."
The policy does indicate that a number of issues have to be reviewed to determine the suitability of
an amendment including: environmental suitability, servicing feasibility, impact on character and
traffic impacts.
With respect to (a) and (c) above, the three lots proposed all satisfy this requirement being 0.6
hectares (1.5 acres) in lot area and are larger than the existing developed area along Moon Point
Drive and their location would be compatible with the scale and density of the existing development,
particularly as Moon Point Drive is a fully developed shoreline residential area.
In terms of (b) above, the area of the three lots is limited in terms of existing tree cover. The area
surrounding the watercourse does contain tree cover that will be protected with the implementation of
an Environmental Protection (EP) zone. A by-law that would establish this property as an area
subject to Site Plan Control is attached for the Committee's reference and it is recommended that this
by-law be given favorable consideration by Council in order to ensure that the recommendations of
the EIS are implemented though the Zoning By-law and the Site Plan Control process. The
applicants have applied for the Zoning By-law Amendment that would implement the development
proposal; however it is the Township's practice not to approve such an amendment until the
corresponding OPA has a decision from the County of Simcoe. The zoning by-law amendment will
be required to identify an Environmental Protection area that incorporates the 30 metre buffer of the
water course identified in the Azimuth report and required by the LSRCA in their January 28, 2005
letter.
The proposed lots are not located on the shoreline and therefore subsection (d) of the policies is not
applicable.
The three proposed lots would confirm with the general consent policies as the lots have frontage on
a year round road maintained by a public authority, are not located in an area that will cause a traffic
hazard, can be appropriately services with individual well and septic systems and would therefore
- 2 -
G~- 3
confirm with subsection (e) identified above. The applicants will have to apply to the Committee of
Adjustment for the creation of the three lots once the Official Plan Amendment is approved by the
County of Simcoe.
.
On the basis of the comments above, it is my opinion that the proposed development is in conformity
with the above criteria.
II SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS: I
A Public Meeting occurred on January 17, 2005 at that time written comments were received from:
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, J.V. & L.E. Winterton, Clair Jazbec, Simcoe County
District School Board, County of Simcoe, J.W. Davies, Greg Stewart, Ralph & Kelly Dominelli,
Salvatore Dominelli, Craig Cotton, Randy Kitchen, Tom Kovacs, and Jim Skentos.
Subsequent to the Public Meeting written comments have been received from: James Seligman, Jay
Harris, and A. Steinberg.
Copies of the correspondence requiring discussion in this report are attached for the Committee's
review. All the other correspondence received indicated that they were in support of the application
as submitted.
The four letters that require discussion include:
1. Claire Jazbec
- indicated her concern that the home of the abundant animal species on the site would be lost
with a continued decrease in natural vegetation
- ecological impact on the watercourse that runs through the property and into Lake Simcoe
The Township had requested the completion of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the
subject property even though the watercourse located on the property is not currently within an
Environmental Protection zone. The EIS was also required since a portion of the property was
wooded and the impact of development on this vegetation area needed to be determined.
This study was prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc on behalf of the applicant and
submitted to the Township on August 24, 2004 and an addendum was received on January 12,
2005 tnat addressed previous correspondence from Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.
A site visit of the subject property was conducted on June 21, 2004 to identify the features and
functions of the natural environment on the site. The EIS identifies two current conditions on-site
(i) an open area void of treed vegetation in the southern western portion of the property and (ii) a
forested area located in both the east and northern portion of the property which also contains the
watercourse. The study indicates that all development activities on the site related to the
development of residential lots have the potential to affect the natural environment on the site. On
this basis the report recommends that there be special zoning by-law provisions to restrict the
building envelope on the site to the southern portion of the property consistent with the extent of
the existing cleared lands, and no disturbance should occur beyond the recommended 38 metre
from the south creek bank in order to permit the maintenance of the watercourse and associated
swamp. The study also recommends the implementation of appropriate protection measures
related to the site construction re: erosion and runoff. The recommendations of the EIS will be
implemented through a site specific zoning by-law amendment and the Site Plan Control process
as identified above.
- 3 -
(,~-y
2. James Seliqman
,
- was originally agricultural area with wetland area - amendment already given to allow one home on
subject property now another amendment being requested for three more homes
- filling of subject property - benefiting from creation of lots in filled area
- no water access for lots created - concern about trespass on private property
- drainage - potential for impact on neighbouring properties
- property values and taxes
The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) in Zoning By-law 97-95 and has
been since November 5.1997. The lot was previously zoned Urban Fringe in the former Township of
Orillia Zoning By-law 1993-50. Both of these zoning provisions allowed for the single detached
dwelling that was constructed on the lot in 2001 with a building permit. No Official Plan or Zoning By-
law Amendment was required for the issuance of the building permit. Also as indicated previously,
there is currently no portion of the property that is zoned environmentally protected and none was
previously zoned in the former Township of Orillia by-law either. The applicant has now applied for an
amendment in accordance with the policies as reviewed above.
There has been fill placed on the subject property. The Township does not have a by-law that restrict
fill in agricultural/rural areas and therefore the placement of the fill would not contravene a municipal
by-law. However the applicant's consultant was required to review the filled area to determine any
issues related to the development of the three residences with associated services in this area. The
Azimuth report indicates that the existing fill is comprised of clay mixed with some gravel and has not
resulted in any significant erosion from the property. The existing slope is considered stable
indicating that the fill type and slope are suitable for the development on the property. The study did
recommend the implementation of appropriate protection measures related to the site construction re:
erosion and runoff which will be implemented through the site plan control process and have been
supported by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority who will be consulted through the Site
Plan process.
The Official Plan policy discourages development in the shoreline area where residents will not have
access to the Lake; but does not preclude development from occurring. It should be noted that there
are currently road allowances to the lake that would offer the three new residential lots access to
Lake Simcoe.
Lot grading and drainage during and after construction would be reviewed through the site plan
control process and subsequently implemented through the building permit process. A property
owner is required to maintain existing drainage conditions from pre-development after
development/construction is completed. On this basis the impact on neighbouring properties would
be addressed.
The proposal is for three additional residential lots in an area that already contains residential
dwellings. The lot areas maintain the character of the existing residential community and therefore
would not appear to affect property values.
3. Jav Harris
- was originally agricultural with wetland area - amendment to allow one home now another
amendment for three more homes
- filling of subject property - benefiting from creation of lots in filled area
- no water access - illegal access across private property
- drainage - impact on neighbouring properties
- 4 -
bt,- s .
.
The comments noted above for Mr. Seligman would also apply to the similar comments raised by Mr.
Harris.
.
4. A. Steinbera
- was originally agricultural with wetland area - amendment to allow one home now another
amendment for three more homes
- filling of subject property - benefiting from creation of lots in filled area
- no water access - illegal access across private property
- drainage - impact on neighbouring properties
- property values and taxes
The comments noted above fOr Mr. Seligman would also apply to the similar comments raised by
Ms. Steinberg.
, OPTIONS: I
On the basis of the above, Planning Advisory Committee has two options:
Option 1 - Adopt Offi(:ial Plan Amendment
If this option was selected, the Official Plan Amendment document would be presented to Council for
consideration of adoptions.
Option 2 - Refuse the Application
If this option was selected, the application would be refused and the applicant would then have the
ability to appeal that refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
II CONCLUSIONS: I
It is my opinion that the proposal is small in scale and generally satisfies the intent of the Shoreline
policies contained in the Official Plan. The Environmental Impact Study has been completed and
supports the proposed form of development on the site and the limited number of residential lots to
be developed with private wells and sewage systems and has been supported, in writing, by the Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. On this basis, it is recommended that Option 1 be selected
and that it be recommended to Council that favorable consideration be given to Official Plan
Amendment #19 for Lester and Cristina Cooke on lands described as Concession 3, South Part of
Lot 17 (Orillia). And further, it be recommended that the By-law to designate these lands as an area
subject to Site Plan Control area be given favorable consideration by Council.
- 5 -
6~-b
. II. RECOMMENDATIONS: i
It is recommended: ~J\JL..' ' - n I C""IJ{k, <;f V.;1J "7
S ?v ~\'I\ ~,
1. THAT Report PD 2005-014 (Cooke) be received and adopted; and
2. That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Official Plan Amendment
No. 19, Part of the E:ilit j,.jalf sf Let 0, C61"168Sli:ion14 (Oro), submitted by Lester and Cristina
Cooke be considered favorably for adoption; and
3. That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council the favorable consideration of a
by-law to designate Concession 3, South Part of Lot 17 (Orillia), as an Area of the Township
subject to Site Plan Control.
Respectfully Submitted,
--4~-t~
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
C.A.O. Comments: Date:
C.A.O. Dept. Head
- 6-
i -
.IAN 1 0 2~O5
,
January 5, 2005 ORO-MEDONTE
TOWNSHIP
Township ofOro-Medonte
]48 Line 7 South
P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario
LOL 2XO
Attention: Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk
Subject: Notice ofPubJic Meeting - on January] 7,2005 at 7:] Sp.m.
Zoning By-Law and Official Plan, under Section 34 of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. ]990 c.P. J3
(Reference p.] 59/03)
As a property owner at 65 Moonpoint, R.R. ], Orillia, I, Claire Jazbec, am unable to
attend this meeting and am making a written representation of my opposition to the
proposed Amendment. (The Amendment intends to rezone the lands described in
Concession 3, South Part of Lot 17 rrom AgriculturallRural (AlRU) to a Shoreline
Residential (SR) Zone.)
The 'block' ofland where this rezoning proposal sits has been and continues to be the
home to a number of abundant animal species in their natural habitant. These animals
would be forced out of their habitant as it continues to shrink of natural vegetation and
space. In addition, there is a creek that runs through the area which would very Jikely be
impacted by such a change. It is not dear to me what ecological changes this would have
to the creek itself and its flow into Lake Simcoe.
Please notify me of the decisions made regarding this proposal at the folJowing address:
47 SeacJiffBlvd. Weston, Ontario, M9L 2G7.
62/14/2665 11: 23 416-246-'3415 DR J SELIGMAt~ PAGE
1:1111:)"
.
I ' <t5
V\.-.) - .
Attn: Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk
Township of Oro- Medonte
148 Line 7 South
P.O. Box 100. Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO
Re: Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment
Concession 3, South Part of Lot 17
(formerly within the Township of Orillia)
Key Map File P-159/03
I would like to speak against this change, as strong as possible, for a number of reasons.
We have two properties directly across the street, and thus arc the closest to the change.
J) The property was originally Agricultural with an area of Wet land on it. When it
was purchased this was known. An Amendment \vas made to allow one home to
be buih on the property. This was done. Now another Amendment is requested
for another three properties. This is no longer for the o'-'-oe1' to live on his
property as what was originally requested, but to make money on the property, by
getting an amendment and subdividing it.
2) Since the home was built. the o\Vner has been bringing in illegal waste and fiUs to
the property. Tn this ",ray, he has filled it in. to be able to level off and elevate the
three proposed lots. Witnesses have seen septic waste from septic systems being
dug up, dumped on the lots. This waste has gone into the flat areas as weB as into
the Wet lands. I would hate to see the owner profit from illegal activity.
3) The extra three properties off the water have no water access, and sbould not be
built without this available. I do not want them. going over my property for
access. They are not farm. properties. but residential, close to the water, but with
no access.
4) With the slope of the land, there is not adequate drainage. The water run off from
the driveways will flood onto my properties. There is serious concern about the
affect on our water weU as well. Properties down the road have had significant
trouble with their we11s following the building of the first home.
S) The property values will be adversely affected. The multiple homes across the
street "'111 lower them. This is not fair, as the land was never zoned to be bui1t on.
Our homes do not have a sub-division feel and v.i11 after the construction. Will
our taxes go dO\'v1J??
Thank you, James Seligman (lft I <{ (oS--
I and 3 Moon Point Drive.
~05 13:08 FAX 905 764 3825 HARRIS PARTNERS ~002
CG. A. L. G~-q ,
'"
p
.
Ms. Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk
Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South
P.O. Box 100, Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
Re: Proposed zoning by-law Amendment, Concession 3, South Part of Lot 17 cm f(b
(Formerly within the Township of Orillia), Key Map File P-159/03
With respect to the above property, I have the following comments, We own 5 Moonpoint Road,
which is across the street from the subject property.
The above property was originally Agricultural with an area of Wet land on it. As such, there was
never any intention of any housing to be built on it. When the present owner purchased it, he was
fully aware of its status. In spite of this he applied and received the right to build one house on it.
The neighbouring residents felt that it was going to be used for personal purposes. Thus their
objections were limiled. Now, the.owner is trying to profit from land that is not zoned for housing. No
doubt, this is not for personalpsE!.
I have owned our property since 1994 and built our house in 1996. We have watched the activity of
the lot, as it was continue to be used for dumping. Many times when homes were built on the
surrounding street, the dump trucks would illegally dump fili on the vacanlland. There has been
other sitting's of dumping as well. I would question the township as to whether they have requested
soil test and water test from and within this property. This type of dumping could and may very well
upset the waler table and effect most everyone's drinking water as we are all on wells. This needs to
be stopped.
Water access has always been the concern of the town and it is of us. For these three lots, there is
none designated. Lets not befooled, anyone buying property close to the lake is going to want to
enjoy it. How is this possible withoul infringing on the neighbours.
After speaking with our neighbours up the road, we have grave concerns about the large slope of the
land, as there is not adequate drainage. We understand that when the other house was built, the
water table was upset and this created a huge run off of water unto their properties. Certainly, this
could cause us property damage and if the town is aware of ii, il is incumbent upon you to deal with it
to avoid potentialliabilily
Should ou require any further information, please contact me at the address below.
Yours ~ Iy,
\ .
JayT. ris CA.CIRP
30 Wertheim Court. Suite 20, Richmond I.lill. OOl.rio lAB 1139
~al1knmTC\. H )rO!1 t t1..l~QI~ E-mai I: .i.!l:irrism~bankrl\Pt(~'l~\I:l1nto...'o In
tel: 905.764. ] 026. fax: 905.764.3825
, '.';.F ~e. A . L- .
' ~,~'f; ,
'i~ ,.ti,!?'~~!"l)'", Pcnnyeook, Ctcrk
'. .\f:i~~: ownrNp (If Oro.Medol1te
:'148 Lme 7 Sotlth \~',
P,Q. P'v1: I')'), Om. O"!A-i'J U12XO :~.'
.~.
~. ~ tEvlL~ \. ','
R:: FrcV\,!,j~~u Z(,'~dTJ!! 3:f~J. :r',',' Arr'~I'\dmt~t ' ).
Conc::::.sL"l~ 31 :;t."',)t!~ ~'i\Jt efL')~ 1.7 :~~ '
(formtd) '~::hl:'j th... TJ,,,..,<t.;~ ;>f.,OrHJia) ,
Key Map File P.I:;WC.3
'~ '-.'1::
,- 1 '. ;""id Ilk" Iv sp.'" agLii\U: \;',i5 change, as ~trong as PQssible, for a I1urnber of reasons.
, Wr .'lave lWO propcnic! directly aCIO~' the street, and thus Me the closest to the change.
;~::
.~. 'I) The plcpelty wa~ CrigiORHy A.gd~U:tUIal w:th,,~ arc:! ofWtt bl1d on it. When.it
was purchased thi, was known. An Amendment wa~ made to eJ!ow one home to
be t ",j~ r: '~e~I'(':-'-;' '1i.f ....e'S "O~":.' ,-I.,... o_'I1'h"r'"()c,,dn:1~ " is rCG-Je~led ..-,
'.
:~:., . ~,
'1. ':'j; ~...uo',.n;:[ d;~(~ ..\.n.1",r:ltlt:-...\ ;l,i......;}I.' lthl~er :>)1 ~h.... t..".:....'.u t ~ ~I'\.. \.t~ :li:: ','fe,
',"
~:. property as what waa origjnalJy requesled, but to makeffioney on the pwperty, by ",-'
:'1;,: IICI!ir.~ a" r.1I'~n;jmcnt and subdividing it.
it .."..
......,
It 2) Since the home Wllf uuiit, the owner hllsbem bringing in illegal waSle I\fld f1n~ to
,'>
:~( .., the pt'c'p<r'.}', In thi. "''ny, he has filled it in, to be able to level off and clevatt: ille
::';f' .r__: tJ",oe proposed 10($. WiOJes3cB bave seel) soptic waste fton. septic syotems b~iha
dug up, dumpc,d 011 the lots, This waste ba., gone into the flat Sle8S Ol!' well as into
the Wet Janda. 1 would hate to see the owner profit from ilIega! activity.
..~ '"
"
~: 3) The extT" thref plOpcnies off the water have no Water access, and should not be
built without this availabk. 1 de not went theID going OVer my property for
;'t." aCCeSS. They "rc nOl farm properties, bllt re.sidential, cIose to the water, bUt with
'~. '
f? no DCeess.
,.:','
. ~ "~" . 4) With ule slope of the lund, tnere is not adequate drainage. The water run off from
the driveways will flood onto my propl:Tties. There is ser,iouB concern about the
Rtf"ct on oW' water well Ii, weJL Properties down the road bave had signjficant ,.".
,.; trouble with their wells following the build!ng of the ,firslllC1l'ne.
.'
5) The property velllc;. will be.dv~rsdy affC'Oted. The multiple he>mes across the
.Iree! wjJ! I(.wer them. This is not fair, ~ the land was Dover z,mcd to be. huiJt on.
Ow )'.:JOlf;S <;10 110! have a Jub..djvid\Jn f"oI:l I\J1p will ,,1'kr the CvDstructiQl'I. W111 ,
....,- our l!LXes go dov,'!)?? , ,', ..J./
.~~,..' ".~' , ~~~,.. .....'~:!....
.:*,1~? '-'
, ,',
f ,~~. ,
LDT ?f ", .
. ' .>.. ~t:..
'I --#7 m(;otiJfl!) fYI! ~
~~ ~ .
. "
".(
i,":f ;..:. ()-sm IIJB-etf
:<;"-f:t.':',.:
.
.
C4P ' .:'j. ....,
. ,.):."
,:~i~. ,
(~.
"J'-', 'c,-
-~"H
;', :"):t(r ."
~~ ;,,)oj 'f:. '~:'.'
!'ff 'i' , '''..;:
i\!J'j;;. ,-~'.' .~\~~): '
~, .;t" ",:-"
T" -,,..'.... , ":11 Tc:_nu . .'.:''';.
Tgf;PlUf:B5 BZ:f:T SI3I3Ut>TlZe
6~ -I)
-
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF (),RO-MEDONTE
BY -LAW NO. 200S- .
Being a By-law to Amend By-law 98-97 a By-law to Designate
Areas of the Township as Sile Plan Control Areas
WHEREAS the Official Plan of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte was
approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on August 15, 1997;
AND WHEREAS Council for the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte established
Site Plan Control policies in the Official Plan for the Township;
AND WHEREAS Section 41(2) and 41(3) of The Planning Act. R.S.O 1990c. P. 13. as
amended provides that where in an Official Plan an area is shown or described as a proposed
Site Plan Control area, the Council of the local Municipality may designate the whole or any
part of such area as a Site Plan Control area and further that Site Plan Control areas may be
designated on the basis of their zone category in the Township's Zoning By-law;
AND WHEREAS Council deems it advisable to provide for Site Plan Control areas in order
to provide for the orderly development of commercial. industrial and other special areas
within the Township;
NOW THEREFORE the Council for the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
hereby enacts as follows:
1. That Section 2 of By-law 98-97 is hereby amended with the addition
of the following subsection:
"2.6 The following propeny is designated as a Site Plan Control area in
accordance with Section 41 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as
amended:
Concession 3. South Pan of Lot 17 (Orillia), Roll Number 43-46-030-012-
43100-0000."
BY -LA W READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS DA Y OF MARCH, 2005.
BY-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF
MARCH, 2005.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF
ORO-MEDONTE
Mayor - J. Neil Craig
Clerk - Marilyn Pennycook
. 0~-!2..
.
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 19
(COOKE APPLICATION)
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Township Application # P159/03
MARCH 8, 2005
G~-\5 .
TABLE OF CONTENTS .
CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT 2
PART I: THE INTRODUCTION 3
1.0 BACKGROUND 3
2.0 LOCATION 3
3.0 BASIS FOR THE AMENDMENT 3
3.1 Description of Proposal
3.2 Official Plan Context
3.3 Planning Issues 3-4
3.4 Conclusion 4
PART II THE AMENDMENT 5
P ART III THE APPENDICES
Appendix A: Planning Report PO 2005-014 dated March 8, 2005
Appendix B: Environmental Impact Study prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc,
dated August 2004
Appendix C: Addendum Report prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc. dated
January 12, 2005
Appendix D: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority correspondence
dated January 28, 2005.
Appendix E: County of Simcoe correspondence dated January 11, 2005
- b~- Pt
.
BY-LAW 2005-
The Corporation of the
Township of Oro-Medonte
Being a By-law to Adopt
Amendment No. 19 to the Official Plan
WHEREAS The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is empowered to Amend 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 it is resolved that
1. Amendment number 19 to the Official Plan, attached hereto, is hereby adopted
and;
2. This by-law shall come into force and take effect as specified in the Planning Act
R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13
Read a first and second time on the _day of March 2005
Read a third time and finally passed this _ day of March 2005
J. Neil Craig, Mayor Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk
Official Plan Amendment 19
(Cooke Application) Page 1
Township of Oro-Medonte March 8, 2005
b~-IS .
CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT
Part I: The Introduction, provides general information regarding the general policy
update. Part I: The Infroduction does not constitute an operative part of
Amendment No. 19 to the Official Plan.
Part II: The Amendment, provides the details of the Official Plan Amendment. Part
II: The Amendment, including Schedule A constitute the operative part of
Amendment No. 19 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. 19 to the
Official Plan.
Official Plan Amendment 19
(Cooke Application) Page 2
Township of Oro-Medonte March 8, 2005
- G~ - if,
.
PART I: THE INTRODUCTION
(this is not an operative part of Official Plan Amendment No. 19)
1.0 BACKGROUND
The intent of this Amendment is to place certain lands in South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3
(Orillia) in a Shoreline designation to permit the creation of three residential lots by consent.
2.0 LOCATION
This Amendment affects 1.82 hectares (ha) of land in the South Part of Lot 17, in Concession 3
(Orillia).
3.0 BASIS
A comprehensive Planning Report on the application to amend the Official Plan is contained
within Appendix 1 to this Amendment.
3.1 Description of Proposal
This amendment would re-designate a portion of the South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 (Orillia)
from the Restricted Rural designation to the Shoreline designation. Once re-designated this
would allow for the consideration of applications to create three residential lots each having 45.72
metres (150 Feet) of lot frontage, 134.11 m (440 It) of lot depth and 0.6 ha (1.5 acres) of lot area
with driveway access available from Moon Point Road.
3.2 Official Plan Context
The Township Official Plan designates the subject lands as Restricted Rural. The applicant
wishes to re-designate these lands in accordance with the policies in Section D10.3.8 by
expanding the limits of the shoreline development area.
3.3 Planning Issues
Section D1 0.3.8 of the Official Plan contains policies that. allow for the expansion of the shoreline
development area onto lands not designated Shoreline through the consideration of an Official
Plan Amendment. The expansion is required to be small in scale and is considered to be infilling.
Infilling being defined as development that abuts a developed area on two sides and/or is located
within a block of land that is surrounded by public roads on at least three sides. The proposed
expansion must also satisfy the following criteria:
a) The lots will have an area of 0.6 hectares or greater;
b) The majority of the existing tree cover on the proposed lots is retained and protected as part
of the approvals process;
Official Plan Amendment 19
(Cooke Application) Page 3
Township of Oro-Medonte March 8, 2005
b~-If .
c) The development is compatible, in terms of scale, density and character, with existing
development;
d) The proposed lots, if located on the shoreline, have a water frontage of no less than 45
metres: and,
e) The lots would conform to the general subdivision and consent policies of this Plan.
An analysis of these policies as they apply to the application is contained within Appendix 1 to
this Amendment.
3.4 Conclusions
It is Council's opinion that the applicants have supplied enough supporting information to allow for
a fairly complete assessment of whether establishing the principle of development for the creation
of three residential lots is appropriate.
Official Plan Amendment 19
(Cooke Application) Page 4
Township of Oro-Medonte March 8, 2005
- /1 Ice?
- lJ ~-
PART II: THE AMENDMENT
(This is the operative part of Official Plan Amendment No. 19)
ITEM # 1
Schedule A8 is amended by re-designating the lands shown on Schedule A-1 attached from the
Restricted Rural designation to the Shoreline designation.
Official Plan Amendment 19
(Cooke Application) Page 5
Township of Oro-Medonte March 8, 2005
blo.-\~ .
Schedule 'A.11
Official Plan Amendment 19
Township of Oro-Medonte
t
Lake Simcoe
100 0 100 Meters
1,.,.1 ,
Legend
. Lands to be Re-Designated from Restricted Rural
To Shoreline
- bb~2o
.
PART III: THE APPENDICES
Appendix A: Planning Report PD 2005-014 dated March 8, 2005
Appendix B: Environmental Impact Study prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc,
dated August 2004
Appendix C: Addendum Report prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc. dated
January 12, 2005
Appendix D: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority correspondence
dated January 28, 2005.
Appendix E: County of Simcoe correspondence dated January 11, 2005
Official Plan Amendment 19
(Cooke Application) Page 6
Township of Oro-Medonte March 8, 2005
G~-1J -
.
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD2005-014 Planning Advisory Andria Leigh, RPP
Committee
Subject: Department:
Council Planning
Lester and Cristina Cooke,
C.ofW. Development Application Date: March 8, 2005
P-159/03
Motion # Concession 3, South Part R.M. File #:
of Lot 17 (Orillia) D09 013294
Date: RolI#:
030-012-43100-0000
I BACKGROUND: I
The purpose of this report is to review this application subsequent to the Public Meeting held on
January 15, 2005 and provide a recommendation on the Official Plan Amendment applying to lands
within the South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 (Orillia) owned by Mr. And Mrs. Cooke. A planning
report was presented to the Planning Advisory Committee in September 2004 which recommended
proceeding to the public meeting on the basis that the technical information required with the
application (EIS) had been received and reviewed internally.
At the present time, the lands are designated Restricted Rural in accordance with the Official Plan
and zoned Agricultural/Rural (AIRU) by Zoning By-law 97-95. The policies of the Restricted Rural
designation do not permit the creation of new lots by severance on the property and as a result, a
change to the Official Plan designation is required. The intent of the Zoning By-law change is to
implement the changes to be made to the Official Plan and to implement the recommendations of the
EIS and comments contained in the January 12, 2005 LSRCA correspondence.
II POLICY CONTEXT: I
In December 2004, Council adopted an amendment to Section 010 - Shoreline designation that
proposed to replace the current policies that restricted expansion of the shoreline area and implement
criteria for evaluating the OPA required in the policies to permit such an expansion. This amendment
was approved by the County on February 9, 2005, no appeals have been received, and this
amendment is now in force and effect. The revised policies are as follows:
. b1:,-22.
.
"The further expansion of the shoreline development area onto lands that are not designated Shoreline
is not permitted by this Plan. Exceptions may be granted through the approval of an Official Plan
Amendment if the expansion is small in scale and is focused on the shoreline or is considered to be
infilling. Infilling is defined as development that abuts a developed area on two sides and/or is located
within a block of land that is surrounded by public roads on at least three sides. The creation of strip
development across from existing development on existing public roads is not contemplated by this
Plan.
Council may consider such minor amendments to the Official Plan to re-designate lands' for such limited
shoreline development, provided Council is satisfied that:
a) The lots will have an area of 0.6 hectares or greater;
b) The majority of the existing tree cover on the proposed lots is retained and protected as part of the
approvals process;
c} The development is compatible, in terms of scale, density and character, with existing development;
d) The proposed lots, if located on the shoreline, have a water frontage of no less than 45 metres; and,
e} The lots would conform to the general subdivision and consent policies of this Plan.
For Plans of Subdivision that involve the creation of lots with water frontage, only a single tier of lots
shall be created, all with water frontage, as set out in Section D10.3.6 of this Plan. In addition, no new
lots with direct access to County Roads are permitted.
If major development is proposed (which is defined as development that does not meet the above
criteria), 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."
The policy does indicate that a number of issues have to be reviewed to determine the suitability of
an amendment including: environmental suitability, servicing feasibility, impact on character and
traffic impacts.
With respect to (a) and (c) above, the three lots proposed all satisfy this requirement being 0.6
hectares (1.5 acres) in lot area and are larger than the existing developed area along Moon Point
Drive and their location would be compatible with the scale and density of the existing development,
particularly as Moon Point Drive is a fully developed shoreline residential area.
In terms of (b) above, the area of the three lots is limited in terms of existing tree cover. The area
surrounding the watercourse does contain tree cover that will be protected with the implementation of
an Environmental Protection (EP) zone. A by-law that would establish this property as an area
subject to Site Plan Control is attached for the Committee's reference and it is recommended that this
by-law be given favorable consideration by Council in order to ensure that the recommendations of
the EIS are implemented though the Zoning By-law and the Site Plan Contrpl process. The
applicants have applied for the Zoning By-law Amendment that would implement the development
proposal; however it is the Township's practice not to approve such an amendment until the
corresponding OPA has a decision from the County of Simcoe. The zoning by-law amendment will
be required to identify an Environmental Protection area that incorporates the 30 metre buffer of the
water course identified in the Azimuth report and required by the LSRCA in their January 28, 2005
letter.
The proposed lots are not located on the shoreline and therefore subsection (d) of the policies is not
applicable.
The three proposed lots would confirm with the general consent policies as the lots have frontage on
a year round road maintained by a public authority, are not located in an area that will cause a traffic
hazard, can be appropriately services with individual well and septic systems and would therefore
- 2-
6~ -:2) .
confirm with subsection (e) identified above. The applicants will have to apply to the Committee of .
Adjustment for the creation of the three lots once the Official Plan Amendment is approved by the
County of Simcoe.
On the basis of the comments above, it is my opinion that the proposed development is in conformity
with the above criteria.
II SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS: ,
A Public Meeting occurred on January 17, 2005 at that time written comments were received from:
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, J.V. & L.E. Winterton, Clair Jazbec, Simcoe County
District School Board, County of Simcoe, J.W. Davies, Greg Stewart, Ralph & Kelly Dominelli,
Salvatore Dominelli, Craig Cotton, Randy Kitchen, Tom Kovacs, and Jim Skentos.
Subsequent to the Public Meeting written comments have been received from: James Seligman, Jay
Harris, and A. Steinberg.
Copies of the correspondence requiring discussion in this report are attached for the Committee's
review. All the other correspondence received indicated that they were in support of the application
as submitted.
The four letters that require discussion include:
1. Claire Jazbec
- indicated her concern that the home of the abundant animal species on the site would be lost
with a continued decrease in natural vegetation
- ecological impact on the watercourse that runs through the property and into Lake Simcoe
The Township had requested the completion of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the
subject property even though the watercourse located on the property is not currently within an
Environmental Protection zone. The EIS was also required since a portion of the property was
wooded and the impact of development on this vegetation area needed to be determined.
This study was prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc on behalf of the applicant and
submitted to the Township on August 24, 2004 and an addendum was received on January 12,
2005 that addressed previous correspondence from Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.
A site visit of the subject property was conducted on June 21, 2004 to identify the features and
functions of the natural environment on the site. The EIS identifies two current conditions on-site
(i) an open area void of treed vegetation in the southern western portion of the property and (ii) a
forested area located in both the east and northern portion of the property which also contains the
watercourse. The study indicates that all development activities on the site related to the
development of residential lots have the potential to affect the natural environment on the site. On
this basis the report recommends that there be special zoning by-law provisions to restrict the
building envelope on the site to the southern portion of the property consistent with the extent of
the existing cleared lands, and no disturbance should occur beyond the recommended 38 metre
from the south creek bank in order to permit the maintenance of the watercourse and associated
swamp. The study also recommends the implementation of appropriate protection measures
related to the site construction re: erosion and runoff. The recommendations of the EIS will be
implemented through a site specific zoning by-law amendment and the Site Plan Control process
as identified above.
- 3 -
b~-24-
2. James Selia man
- was originally agricultural area with wetfand area - amendment already given to allow one home on
subject property now another amendment being requested for three more homes
- filling of subject property - benefiting from creation of lots in filled area
- no water access for lots created - concern about trespass on private property
- drainage - potential for impact on neighbouring properties
- property values and taxes
The subject property is currentfy zoned Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) in Zoning By-law 97-95 and has
been since November 5, 1997. The lot was previously zoned Urban Fringe in the former Township of
Orillia Zoning By-law 1993-50. Both of these zoning provisions allowed for the single detached
dwelling that was constructed on the lot in 2001 with a building permit. No Official Plan or Zoning By-
law Amendment was required for the issuance of the building permit. Also as indicated previously,
there is currently no portion of the property that is zoned environmentally protected and none was
previously zoned in the former Township of Orillia by-law either. The applicant has now applied for an
amendment in accordance with the policies as reViewed above.
There has been fill placed on the subject property. The Township does not have a by"law that restrict
fill in agricultural/rural areas and therefore the placement of the fill would not contravene a municipal
by-law. However the applicant's consultant was required to review the filled area to determine any
issues related to the development of the three residences with associated services in this area. The
Azimuth report indicates that the existing fill is comprised of clay mixed with some gravel and has not
resulted in any significant erosion from the property. The existing slope is considered stable
indicating that the fill type and slope are suitable for the development on the property. The study did
recommend the implementation of appropriate protection measures related to the site construction re:
erosion and runoff which will be implemented through the site plan control process and have been
supported by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority who will be consulted through the Site
Plan process.
The Official Plan policy discourages development in the shoreline area where residents will not have
access to the Lake; but does not preclude development from occurring. It should be noted that there
are currently road allowances to the lake that would offer the three new residential lots access to
Lake Simcoe.
Lot grading and drainage during and after construction would be reviewed through the site plan
control process and subsequently implemented through the building permit process. A property
owner is required to maintain existing drainage conditions from pre-development after
development/construction is completed. On this basis the impact on neighbouring properties would
be addressed.
The proposal is for three additional residential lots in an area that already contains residential
dwellings. The lot areas maintain the character of the existing residential community and therefore
would not appear to affect property values.
3. Jav Harris
- was originally agricultural with wetland area - amendment to allow one home now another
amendment for three more homes
- filling of subject property - benefiting from creation of lots in filled area
- no water access - illegal access across private property
- drainage - impact on neighbouring properties
- 4-
b~-1.s .
The comments noted above for Mr. Seligman would also apply to the similar comments raised by Mr.
Harris.
4. A. SteinberQ
- was originally agricultural with wetland area - amendment to allow one .home now another
amendment for three more homes
- filling of subject property - benefiting from creation of lots in tilled area
- no water access - illegal access across private property
- drainage - impact on neighbouring properties
- property values and taxes
The comments noted above for Mr. Seligman would also apply to the similar comments raised by
Ms. Steinberg.
II OPTIONS: I
On the basis of the above, Planning Advisory Committee has two options:
Option 1 - Adopt Official Plan Amendment
If this option was selected, the Official Plan Amendment document would be presented to Council for
consideration of adoptions.
Option 2 - Refuse the Application
If this option was selected, the application would be refused and the applicant would then have the
ability to appeal that refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
II CONCLUSIONS: I
It is my opinion that the proposal is small in scale and generally satisfies the intent of the Shoreline
policies contained in the Official Plan. The Environmental Impact Study has been completed and
supports the proposed form of development on the site and the limited number of residential lots to
be developed with private wells and sewage systems and has been supported, in writing, by the Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. On this basis, it is recommended that Option 1 be selected
and that it be recommended to Council that favorable consideration be given to Official Plan
Amendment #19 for Lester and Cristina Cooke on lands described as Concession 3, South Part of
Lot 17 (Orillia). And further, it be recommended that the By-law to designate these lands as an area
subject to Site Plan Control area be given favorable consideration by Council.
- 5 -
b~ - 2b
II RECOMMENDATIONS: I
It is recommended:
1. THAT Report PO 2005-014 (Cooke) be received and adopted; and
2. That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Official Plan Amendment
No. 19, Part of the East Half of Lot 9, Concession 14 (Oro), submitted by Lester and Cristina
Cooke be considered favorably for adoption; and
3. That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council the favorable consideration of a
by-law to designate Concession 3, South Part of Lot 17 (OriJlia), as an Area of the Township
subject to Site Plan Control.
Respectfully Submitted,
---1~ -t~
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
C.A.O. Comments: Date:
C.A.O. Dept. Head .
- 6 -
1"'
(;)~ - 2b
",/
~-
/,
Cooke EIS
South Part Lot 17. Concession 3
Township of Oro-MeiJonte
Prepared For:
L.R. Cooke Construction
Prepared By:
Azimuth EnvironmentaJ
Consulting, Inc.
August 2004
ABC 04-124
! RECEIVED \
\ AuGlII 200~ I
I OAO-MEDONTE I
! . TOWNSHIP !
GL::,_27
, I /'
-'(AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL
/ \' CONSULTING, INC.
Environmental Assessments & Approvals
August 23, 2004 AEC 04-124
L. R. Cooke Construction
c/o
Lester Cooke
18 Moon Point Dr
Orillia, ON L3V 6Hl
Attention: Mr. L. Cooke
Re: Environmental Impact Study
Development Application, Concession 3, South Part of Lot 17 (Orillia)
Dear Mr. Cooke;
Azimuth is pleased to provide our Environmental Impact Study for the abovementioned
property to assist in the acqillsition of a Development Application for Official Plan and
Zoning By-law Amendments. As requested, three copies of the report are enclosed such
that two may be forwarded to the Townslrip for review.
-- Should you wish to discuss the material provided or require additional infonnation,
please don't hesitate to contact us.
Yours truly,
AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC.
~.. \{-('~
Sara Mmphy, RSc.,
Aquatic Biologist
SMM:
111 Saunders Road, Unit 2, Barrie, Ontario L4M GE7
telephone: (705) 721-8451; fax: (705) 721-8926 info@azimuthenvironmentai.com
bL,-2~
, ' ,/ Cooke EIS, Town ofOrilIia
Township of Oro-Medonte
-@
/, TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of transmittal page
1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1
2.0 .STUDY APPROACH ................................................................................................_.1
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 2
3.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................. 2
3.1.1 On-Site Land Use.............................................................................................. 2
3.1.2 Adjacent Land Use............................................................................................3
3.2 Soils and Topography .............................................................................................. 3
3.3 W atercourses............................................................................................................ 3
3.4 Fisheries.............................................................. .......... ...... ..................................... 4
3.5 V egetation ................................................................................................................. 5
3.6 Wildlife ........................................ ............................................................................ 7
4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOP:MENT ....................:.......................................................... 8
5.0 IMPACT ASSESS:MENT .......................................................................................... 8
5.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................. 8
5.1.1 On-Site Land Use.............................................................................................. 8
5.1.2 Adjacent Land .Use........................................................................................... 9
5.2 Soils and topography................................................................................................ 9
5.3 Watercourse .............................................................................................................9
5.4 Fisheries.. ....................... ........... ..... .......... .......... ................. .....m...... ........ ............. 10
5.5 V egetation .............................................................................................................. 11
5.6 Wildlife ............................................ .._.......................................... ............ .... ..... .... 11
6.0 MITIGATION.......................................................................................................... 11
7.0 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 12
8.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 14
List Of Fi!!ures
Figure 1: Study Area
Figure 2: Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan Schedule A8
Figure 3: Property Features Mapping
Pboto!!rapbs
Photographs 1-4
.
6~- 2<\
,,/ Cooke EIS, Town ofOriJ1ia
Township of Oro-Medonte
-@-
/" 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Azimuth Environmental Consulting (Azimuth) was retained by L.R. Cooke Construction
to undertake an Environmental hnpact Study (EIS) for three 1.5 acre parcels of land
located at South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 in the Town of Orillia, Township ofOro-
Medonte. The property is comprised of three lots that front onto Moon Point Drive to the
south, and Woodland Drive to the west. The location of the study area is shown on
Figure I.
The three lots are currently designated Restricted Rural in the Township ofOro-
Medonte's Official Plan (OP) (February, 2001), and zoned AgriculturallRural in Zoning
By-law 97-95 adjacent to lands designated Shoreline (Figure 2). Policies for the
Restricted Rural designation do not pennit the creation of new lots adjacent to Shoreline
Area's, therefore, an Amendment to the OP or to the Zoning By-law is required to permit
the proposed development. The Township has requested that an EIS be completed for
this property to address the requirement for an Amendment, and to address the
Township's criteria for new development proposals adjacent to the designated developed
Shoreline.
The purpose of the EIS is to identifY the existing natural environmental features on the
property and the potential impacts that may be associated with the development. A
watercourse that traverses the rear of the property is considered an environmentally
significant feature (Section F1.2, OP, 2001) however it not designated within the
Environmental Protection Two designation. This feature wi]] be addressed in the EIS.
The EIS wiU focus on aU aspects of a natural environment within the lands proposed for
development including topography, aquatic resources, vegetation communities, potential
habitat for wildlife, and associated features and functions on the property. The EIS will
recommend an appropriate environmental mitigation strategy to ensure that the areas of
the property identified as significant are preserved in the final development plan.
2.0 STUDY APPROACH
Azimuth completed a field investigation of the property on June 21, 2004 to identifY the
features and functions of a natural environment that could potentially be impacted by the
proposed development of the three lots. Azimuth completed the following activities to
fulfill objectives of this study:
. Conducted a background infonnation search and review of existing relevant
documents that address lands within the study area and the portion of the
property proposed for development;
I
Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia b~ - )0 I.
,,/
Township ofOro-Medonte
-@- . Requested background information from the Ministry of Natural Resources I.
/' ' ,
(MNR) and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) relating to
the watercourse on the property; I
. Investigated and assessed the existing environmental features within and
adjacent to the lands proposed for development, including the watercourse,
fisheries, vegetation and wildlife; 1
. Assessed the potential impacts of the proposed conceptual development plan
on sensitive or significant environmental features as described above; I
. Developed an appropriate avoidance/mitigation/restoration strategy to address
the potential environmental impacts; and I
. Prepared one draft and one final report documenting the abovementioned
activities for review and comment.
I
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Land Use I
3.1.1 On-Site Land Use I
The three lots are currently designated Restricted Rural in the Township's Official Plan
(OP Schedule A8, 1997, appended), and zoned Agricultural/Rural in Zoning By-law 97- I
95, therefore an Amendment to the OP or to the Zoning By-law is required to permit the
proposed residential development. The property is also immediately adjacent to the area
designated Shoreline, requiring that the development satisfy the requirements for a new I
plans of subdivision under Section D 10.3.6 of the OP.
As shown on Figure 3, the proposed lots will each have a frontage of 45. 7m (150') and I
depth of 133m (440'). The land is currently comprised of an open area void of treed
vegetation located in the southern western (frontage) portion of the property (photograph I
1), and a forested area located in both the east, and northern portions of the property.
The proposed westerly lot that fronts Moon Point Drive has been historically cleared of I
vegetation and filled to elevate the property to that of the adjacent roadway. It is
estimated, based on site conditions, that clearing occurred approximately five years ago I
(not confirmed) and is currently comprised of a mix of exposed soils and herbaceous
vegetation. The clearing extends approximately 81m (266') from Moon Point Drive
northerly (Figure 3). L.R. Cooke Construction is proposing that the footprint of the 1
proposed residences be located at the southerly portion of the property, which for Lot 1
and part of Lot 2, is within this cleared area.
,
!
:2
.
G~-l\
Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia
Township of Oro-Medonte.
An unnamed watercourse traverses the rear of the property, flowing from west to east
discharging to Lake Simcoe on the east side of Moon Point Drive (Figure 2 and 3,
Photograph 2). The channel banks are low such that the surrounding flat topography
functions to provide flood relief.
The property is not located within the area of the Township of Oro-Medonte identified as
Environmental Protection Two (Township OP, 2001), and is not within the Greenlands
Designated Area for County of Simcoe (Gartner Lee, 1996).
3.1.2 Adiacent Land Use
The lands to the north of the property are treed to John Moon Road (Figures 1 and 3).
Lands to the north of John Moon Road, and west of Moon Point Drive are used for
agricultural purposes. South and east of the property are currently developed as seasonal
and permanent residences within the Shoreline Land Use Designation Area adjacent to
Lake Simcoe.
3.2 Soils and Topography
Orillia is located within the Simcoe Lowlands physiographic region that borders
Georgian Bay and Lake Simcoe, with the western shores of Lake Simcoe included in the
Lake Simcoe basin (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The southern part of the Township of
Ori1Jia lies within a flat clay plain interrupted by limestone outcrops, glacial hills and
patches of sand and gravel (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). During the development of the
existing house on the adjacent property to the east hardpai"J day was encountered
indicating that the soils comprise a low permeability stable layer at depth.
The topography of the three lots slopes northward to the watercourse, with the highest
point of elevation located at the intersection ofW oodland Drive and Moon Point Drive
(Figure 3). The existing residence to the east is also at a higher elevation and slopes in a
general north west direction to the watercourse. The topography at the watercourse and
floodplain in the approximate northern third of the property is flat.
3.3 Watercourses
I There is one unnamed watercourse on the property that originates approximately Han
west of Moon Point Drive. The creek traverses the northern portion of the property,
I flowing from westto east and discharges to Lake Simcoe through a small corrugated steel
pipe culvert under the roadway (Figure 3, Photographs 2 and 3). Upstream to the west of
I W oodJand Drive, the creek traverses active agricultural land with cattle access and
discharges to an online pond immediately adjacent to the roadway (Photograph 4).
I
"
-
I
GL:,- 12-
Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia I
, ' ,/ Township ofOro-Medonte
/~- On the property, the channel is artificially straightened likely to accommodate historical I
agricultural use. Consequently, the channel morphologically lacks diversity however it
does provide moderately diverse aquatic habitat conditions. The creek is approximately I
5-6m wide with a wetted depth of approximately 30cm (at the time of the field
investigation). Aquatic plants were present albeit sparse including floating arrowhead
(Sagittaria cuneata) and water lettuce (Ludwigia spp.). The aquatic plants combined with I
the contributions of woody and organic debris in the channel would provide habitat for a
variety of aquatic organisms.
The banks of the channel and surrounding topography are low allowing for flooding of I
the surrounding forest during small scale storm events. Much of the forest adjacent to the I
creek was wet at the time of the field investigation, creating pockets of saturated soils
indicative of a wetland. There are numerous tree stumps in the northerly portion of the
property that appear to have been historically cut. These stumps are located throughout I
the wetted areas, that combined with the fallen trees are functioning to retard the rate of
overland flow to the channel. Consequently, the area adjacent to the creek functions to ,I
provide ephemeral wetted conditions likely attributable to this anthropogenic influence.
It is possible that the wetted nature of the floodplain is attributable to near to surface
ground water conditions given that the creek is approximating lake level, however such I
contributions would not be permanent since the property dries considerably during the
summer months (confirmed through communication with adjacent landowner to the east).
Based on discussions with the LSRCA the creek is not within the up-wash zone of Lake I
Simcoe is not considered flood prone. Therefore, the creek on the property does not
flood in response to fluctuations in water levels in Lake Simcoe (LSRCA, telephone 1
conversation). The LSRCA does not have flood and fill line mapping for this drainage
area. 1
3.4 Fisheries J
There is no background fisheries information available from the LSRCA or MNR for the
unnamed watercourse. The outlet of the system is directly connected to Lake Simcoe
therefore it is assumed that species from Lake Simcoe would have access to the property. J
Additionally, it is expected that fish would be present in the pond located immediately
upstream the property (on the west side of Woodland Drive) and would have access to
the creek on the property. I
The system lacks morphological diversity however the treed vegetation provides good
shading of the watercourse (70%-90% cover). The marginal aquatic and wet-adapted
plant species combined with the woody debris in the channel would provide good habitat
for a variety of fish species. Given the proximity to the lake and low flow characteristics
it is expected that the watercourse may provide seasonal habitat for Northern pike (Esox
4
.
. Glo- T>
Cooke EIS, Town of Orillia
Township ofOro-Medonte
lucius). Other species that may use the channel would include centrarchids (sunfish,
largemouth bass, rock bass, black crappie), catfish, carp, and a variety of minnow species
common to the littoral zone of Lake Simcoe, however no fish were observed during the
field investigation.
Water temperature measured at the pond upstream the property (Figure 3) was 17.9OC,
decreasing to IS.30C in the channel midway through the property. Temperatures then
increased to 160C at Moon Point Drive, indicating that the tree cover on the property
provides shading of the watercourse to minimize solar radiation and ameliorate water
temperatures in the creek.
3.5 Vegetation
The southern portion of the property is void of tree cover as a result of land clearing and
has been filled to elevate the property to the desired grade at Moon Point Drive. The
northern and eastern portions of the property are naturalized, comprised of treed
vegetation.
The cleared area at the south western limits of the property is comprised primarily of
weedy annuals and perennials with some shrub species (including staghorn sumac),
typical of old field succession communities. Such species are typically considered
opportunistic colonizers of disturbed areas and are frequently non-native species.
Consequently, there are no vegetation species that are considered to be ecologically
significant within this area.
The northerly treed portion of the property is predominantly associated with the perennial
wet areas adjacent to the watercourse. The canopy closure was estimated at 60-80%,
limiting sunlight penetration to the forest floor. Common understory species include
sensitive fern, eastern white cedar, and poison ivy with grasses, sedges and other ferns
comprising the dominant vegetation at the watercourse. A summary of the species
documented on the property are shown on Table I below.
Table 1. Vegetation Documented on the Subject Property
Tree Dominant
Layer: Species Eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), sugar maple (Acer
saccharum), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), red maple
(acer rubrum)
Other ironwood (Ostyra virginiana), white birch (Betula
Species papyrifera), trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), eastern
hernlock (Tsuga canadensis), yellow birch (Betula
alleghaniensis), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), black
cherry (Prunus seratina), white spruce (Picea glauca),
-
-if Cooke EIS, Town of Orillia b~- ~Y ..
Township ofOro-Medonte
white elm (Ulmus americana), mountain ash (Sorbus I
/, ' decora), green ash (Fraxinum pennsyZvanica), speckled
alder (Alnus incana), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), I
white pine (Pinus strobus)
Shrub Dominant eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), poison ivy I
Layer Species (Toxicodendron radicans), ground hemlock (Taxus canadensis)
Other virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), wild red I
Species raspberry (Rubus idaeus), dwarf raspberry (Rubus
pubescens), grape (Vitis spp.), grape woodbine
(Parthenocissus inserta), fly honeysuckle (Lonicera I
canadensis), alder-leaved buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia),
round leaved dogwood (Comus rugosa) .
Herb Species awl-fruited sedge (Carex stipata) I
Layer: black snakeroot (Sanicula marilandica) I
blue cohosh ((Caulophyllum thalictroides)
common burdock (Arctium minus)
common speedwell (Veronica officinalis) I
drooping wood sedge (Carex arctata)
false solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa)
fueweed (Epilobium angustifolium) I
grapevine (Vitis sp.)
herb Robert (Geranium robertianum) I
moss (Campyliom stellatum)
orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum)
ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris) I
red baneberry (lIctea rubra)
sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis)
sedge (Carex arctata) I
sensitive fern (OnocZea sensibilis)
smooth bedstraw (Galium spp.) I
spinulose woodfem (Dryopteris carthusiana)
tril1ium (Trillium grandifolium)
woodland horsetail (Equisetum sylvaticum) t
wormseed (Erysimum cheiranthoides)
yellow avens (Geum aleppicum)
In accordance with the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario, (1998), the 1
vegetation associated with the watercourse and ephemeral wet areas is classified as a 1
White Cedar Mineral Mixed Swamp Ecosite (code SWM I), characterized by the
presence of cedar, white and yellow birch, with ash, trembling aspen, red maple and elm.
6
. b~-15
,t
Cooke EIS, Town ofOriIlia
Township ofOro-Medonte
MNR and LSRCA have no records of rare, threatened or endangered species associated
with this property (telephone conversations with MNR and LSRCA staft). Our field
reconnaissance did not identify rare, threatened or endangered species on the property.
The property is not located within the County Greenlandsarea (Gartner Lee Ltd., 1996),
and is not identified by the MNR as a designated wetland, Area of Natural and Scientific
Interest (ANSI), or Environmentally Significant Area (ESA).
3.6 Wildlife
The property is located adjacent to a fu]]y developed shoreline residential area, and is
bordered to the north ofJohn Moon Road and to the west of Woodland Drive by
developed agricultural lands. Consequently use of the property by wildlife would be
consistent with semi-urban landscapes. Species that may utilize the property include
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginian us), red fox (Vulpes Vulpes), groundhog
(Marmota monax) (noted by the adjacent landowner), skunk (Mephitis mephitis) as wen
as small manunals such as mice, voles, rabbits, raccoon and skunk. Racoon (Procyon
IOlor) tracks were observed on the property at the watercourse.
An active den site, comprised of three entrance holes was found on the topographic slope
between the east proposed lot and the adjacent existing residence. Groundhogs have been
observed in the area by the adjacent landowner however no tracks were observed at the
den site to confirm the species using the site. The size of the entrance holes and their
location within woodland cover suggests that they were likely dug originally by
groundhogs as a winter den site but have been used over the years as by other animals
common to the area like red foxes and striped skunks.
Bird vocalization activity was high at the time of the field investigation. Species
observed at the site include black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), and American
robin (Turdus migratorius). The property is encircled by developed land (both
agricultural and residential).
The downed woody debris, ephemeral pools and understory vegetation within the
floodplain of the channel would provide good habitat for amphibians and reptiles.
No vulnerable, threatened or endangered fauna were observed or documented to occur on
the property.
I
I
I
-
I
6~'5b .
I-
,,/ Cooke EIS, Town of Orillia
Township ofOro-Medonte
/~; 4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I.
The proposed development includes the creation of three lots for residential use !Tonting 1
Moon Point Drive, each with a lot !Tontage of45.72m (ISO'), and a lot area ofO.61ha
(1.51 acres), (Figure 3). The currently cleared area at the southern portion of the property
includes Lot I and part of Lot 2. The footprint for the proposed residences on these lots 1
will be located within the currently cleared area, and is not proposed beyond the existing
toe of the fill slope. Due to the small scale of the development and large lot size, suitable
servicing of the three lots is by private wells and septic systems. 1
The back slope !Tom the existing fill within the proposed development area on Lots 1 and I
half of Lot 2 to the tree line is approximately 4:1. This slope grade win remain in the
final development plan. Development of the easterly portion of Lot 2 and Lot 3 will
require the removal of vegetation as well as additional grading to achieve the 4:1 back I
slope on the building envelope on these two lots.
The proposed development plan does not include the removal of vegetation north of the I
existing toe of the fill. The watercourse and associated riparian within the swamp ecosite
will be fully retained in the final development plan. I
5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT I
5.1 Land Use
5.1.1 On-Site Land Use I
The on-site land use will be changed to residential with large !Tontages to Moon Point
Drive. This land use is not consistent with the OP for Oro-Medonte therefore an I
Amendment to the OP or to the Zoning By-law is required to permit the proposed
development. I
Although the watercourse is not contained within the Environmental Protection Two land
use area, it is considered by the Town to be an environmentally significant feature that I
requires protection. The OP and the Zoning By-law stipulates "no building or structure
shall be located within 30m of the top of bank of any watercourse", (Section 5.33 of the
Zoning By-law). The buildings or structures are proposed within the southerly portion of I
the lots and win remain outside the SWMI ecosite that includes the riparian zone and
30m setback of the watercourse. Therefore the proposed development conforms to this I
development criteria.
The implementation of the development plan would be expected to result in an increase I
in passive recreational land use within the riparian corridor of the watercourse, although
access to the feature currently exists given the surrounding shoreline residential
I
8
J
. bb~ 17
. Cooke BIS, Town of Orillia
Township ofOro-Medonte
development and parkland immediately to the east of the property. Use of this type of
corridor by humans and pets cannot usuaJJy be mitigated or avoided, and is not expected
to harmfuJJy alter the onsite land use.
5.1.2 Adiacent Land Use
Since the adj acent land use to the south and east of the site is residential shoreline
development, development of the subject property for residential use wiJJ not result in
adverse land use impacts to already developed areas. The development area is relatively
smaJJ (only three lots) therefore there wiJJ be negligible increase in traffic volume to the
area.
5.2 Soils and topography
Half of the proposed development area has been historicaJJy cleared of vegetation (Lot 1
and half of Lot 2) and is currently stable. The rear of the property slopes to the north at a
slope of approximately 4:1 and wiJJ remain at a 4:1 in the final development plan. The
existing fiJJ is comprised of clay mixed with some gravel and exhibits small guJJy's
fonned from surface runoff however these areas are minor and are not resulting in
significant erosion on the property. The 4: I slope is considered stable indicating that the
fiJJ type and slope are suitable for the development. The LSRCA should be consulted
prior to development to ensure that the 4: 1 site grading slopes are acceptable given the
proximity to the northerly watercourse.
The development of the easterly portion of Lot 2, and Lot 3 wiJJ require the removal of
trees and the addition of fiJJ to achieve the required grade. The topography towards the
eastern portion of the development area slopes north westerly and includes the building
envelope of Lot 3. Consequently the architectural design for Lots 2 and 3 should
confonn to the landscape, and may require the development of a walkout basement type
residence. The existing residence to the east was constructed atop the hiJJ slope and
required the removal of hardpan clay to construct the concrete footings. The clay
foundation provides a completely stable foundation for the home, and is expected to
similarly provide a stable foundation for the easterly lot.
5.3 Watercourse
The proposed lot depth for the three lots is 133m (440') from Moon Point Drive northerly
(Figure 3). The south bank of the watercourse is located 129m (428') from Moon Point
Drive indicating that the lot line is located approximately at the north bank of the creek.
I The banks of the creek are very low aJJowing for the dispersal of flows foJJowing small
increases in water levels. The wetted condition is primarily attributable to the inability
I
.
I
b\"'-~&
Cooke EIS, Town of Orillia I
" ' / Township of Oro-Medonte
/~; for surface drainage to reach the watercourse as a result of disruption of overland flow I
due to faUen woody debris. At the time of the field investigation, wetted conditions in
the swamp ecosite extended approximately 38m from the creek bank southerly. The toe I
of the existing fiU line extends 81m (266') from Moon Point Drive, with the remaining
52m located within the treed area (Figure 3). Therefore it is recommended that the
development not intrude into the 38m zone adjacent to the creek, such that based on the I
current toe of the embankment, it is recommended that development be pennitted
northerly to a maximum of 14m from the existing toe of fiU. t
The retention of the buffer area in its natural state is considered an appropriate setback
from the development area to ensure that the identified natural areas are protected. The I
LSRCA indicated through telephone discussions that the preservation of a minimwn 30m
buffer would be appropriate for this project. Nonetheless, the LSRCA is the ultimate
authority responsible for the designation of flood and fiU regulated areas, and should be I
consulted prior to project implementation to ensure that the proposed development limits
are in accordance with the provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act. I
The development plan includes the placement of structures or buildings within the
southern portion of the property towards Moon Point Drive in order to retain the I
northerly natural features on the property. This will minimize the requirement for tree
removal and effectively minimize potential disturbance to the watercourse to satisfy the
Township's criteria for the consideration of new residential plans of subdivision. I
Additional fill within the developable area should be graded to no less than a 4: 1 back
slope, and the toe of the additional fiU should not extend beyond the limits of the existing 1
toe of slope. Additionally, any proposal to place the building envelope towards the rear
of the proposed development area adjacent to the undisturbed forested should evaluate
plans for a walk out basement or comparable design to accommodate the topography of I
the property and minimize the requirement for additional fiU placement.
Sedimentation of a watercourse adversely impacts fish habitat conditions and is J
prohibited under the Federal Fisheries Act in the absence of the appropriate approval
granting such authority. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that silt controls be J
properly installed and maintained throughout the development phase to ensure that fill
does not enter the creek or associated floodplain.
5.4 Fisheries
The proposed conceptual development plan does not involve any watercourse crossings
or alterations to the charmel and associated floodplain therefore the proposal is not
expected to adversely impact fish habitat conditions. The plan includes the retention of
the treed buffer to the watercourse to maintain the shading and water temperature
regulating feature on the property, as weU as to protect the quality of fish habitat. To
'0
lu
..'" 6 ~ - '3'1
Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia
Township ofOro-Medonte
ensure that exposed soils do not migrate to the watercourse during conslruction, the
development plan should include a sediment and erosion control strategy for onsite soil
management.
5.5 Vegetation
The development plan includes the retention of the existing treed area in the northerly
third of the property but does require the removal of treed vegetation in the south easterly
portion of Lot 2 and southerly portion of Lot 3 to prepare the building envelope. The
removal of trees to the recommended 38m protection zone is not expected to adversely
impact natural features or ecological functions on the property.
Tree removal will be required to prepare the building envelope on Lots 2 and 3 however
such clearing will not result in the loss of documented rare, threatened or endangered
species, or wetland vegetation.
5.6 Wildlife
The small size of the deveJopment will result in minimal noise and disturbance impacts to
wildlife resulting fTom human activity. There will be no loss of vegetation in the swamp
ecosite and no alteration of the downed woody debris, understory or ephemeral pools.
Therefore it is expected that hezpetile habitat wil1 not be disturbed as a result of the lot
development.
The east west movement of wildlife across the northern boundary of the property and
adjacent lands to the north to John Moon Drive will not be affected as a result of
development.
The development of the easterly portion of Lot 2 and 3 will result in the loss of a wildlife
den site located on the existing hill slope. The den site is active and is composed of three
entrance holes that appear to be used at times by various species of wildlife (i.e.
groundhog, striped skunk and possibly red fox). All these species utilize multiple den
sites within their home ranges and tend to vary their use of den sites both within and
between years. Consequently, these dens don't represent the only dens used by wildlife
in the area and loss of this on.e den site will not affect the survival or reproduction oflocal
wildlife populations.
6.0 MITIGATION
The following mitigation strategy is recommended to ensure that potential impacts of the
development of the three lots is minimized:
) ,
>>
G~ Gr. .
'0 --V I
/ Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia
, Township of Oro-Medonte
;~-. Prevent the migration of erodable soils to the watercourse and associated floodplain I
within the swamp ecosite through the use of properly installed and maintained
sediment controls. Sediment and erosion controls should be installed along I
Woodland Drive, the northem boundary of the existing toe of the fill slope, and along
the eastern boundary of the development area returning to Woodland Drive to enclose
the area of disturbance. Sediment controls will also function to prevent the accidental I
intrusion of machinery equipment into the recommended protected areas;
. The boundary of the sediment controls should function to delineate the area of
disturbance, An fin and debris should be contained within the area enclosed by I
sediment fencing to prevent the accidental disturbance of natural areas;
. Due to the low creek banks, the top of bank is at the creek with the surrounding I
riparian and associated swamp extending to the south by approximately 38m. This
area should be avoided and should remain in its natural state requiring that it be
protected during construction. All construction equipment should remain outside the I
drip line of trees associated with the top of bank vegetation, and appropriate set-
backs should be confinned in consultation with the LSRCA. Preliminary discussions I
with the LSRCA indicate that the retention of a minimum 30m buffer is appropriate
for this project. We recommend a temporary barrier be erected during construction to
protect the area ftom disturbance during construction; I
. Fill has been placed on Lot 1 and part of Lot 2, however additional fill is expected to
be required to elevate the development area on Lots 2 and 3. Therefore, extensive use
of silt fencing is required prior to commencing any construction activities to protect I
adjacent lands ftom sedimentation and washout;
. The design of the septic systems and wells must comply with the Ontario Building
Code and the Ministry of the Environment regulations and guidelines. We I
recommend that the building envelope for the septic and well be placed within the
existing and proposed cleared lands in the southern portion of the property; and, 1
. Slopes on rear lots towards the area recoriunended for protection should be graded to
the satisfaction of the LSRCA. Slopes of 4:1 (to 5;1) are recommended to minimize
the potential for erodable slopes adjacent to the natural corridor to the creek. The 1
soils are comprised predominantly of clay therefore the recommended slopes are
considered appropriate to ensure slope protection on the property. 1
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
The results of our study indicate that the developable lands on the proposed three lots
should be confined to the southerly portion of the property consistent with the extent of
the existing cleared lands. Development should not encroach on the recommended set
back from the watercourse, and there should be no disturbance beyond the recommended
38m from the south creek bank to pennit the maintenance of the watercourse, and
associated swamp. Development within this specified area would not negatively impact
the natural features and functions on the property.
<~
lL
, G ~ -l{!
Cooke EIS, Town of Orillia
Township ofOro-Medonte
The development will result in the Joss of edge forest cover on the southerly part of Lot 2
and Lot 3, and wi]] impose minimal disturbance to soils and topography. Development of
these lots wi]] also likely result in the loss of a wildlife den site on the property. The loss
of forest cover loss is not considered significant from a biological perspective, and the
loss of the den site is not expected to have an impact on local wildlife populations Since
development ofthe property is located in previously cleared and fi]]ed lands outside the
swamp habitat associated with the watercourse wildlife habitat on the property win
remain relatively unaltered.
Development must have regard for protecting the watercourse and associated swamp
through the diJigent application and maintenance of sediment controls.
I
..
I
/', .
,,/ Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia 0~-L.fLI
Township ofOro-Medonte
-@- I
,/ , ' 8.0 REFERENCES
Brockman, C. F., 1968. Trees of North America, Western Publishing Company, Inc. .
Chambers, B.C., K. Legasy, and C.V.Bentley 1996. Forest Plants of Central Ontario, I
Lone Pine Publishing.
Chapman, L. J. and Putnam, D. F., 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario; Ontario I
Geological Survey, Special Volume 2, 27Op.
Gartner Lee Ltd. 1996. Development of a Natural Heritage System for the County of I
Simcoe, GLL 94-281. I
Lee, RT., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhig and S. McMurray.
1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. First Approximation and I
its application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Southcentral Science Section.
Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.
Newcomb, L., 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little Brown and Company. I
Township ofOro-Medonte Official Plan, February, 2001. Consolidated Version with I
Modifications & Amendments.
I
I
J
1
1
.
I
14
.
~-4>
,
.:4- c-.,f!:< A
;:'''' ' 3f';j,.'
!fAc
, /~ ~", ish
Q (<' .:
"
-, (' LAKE SIMCOE
(/
, .
.~/ SUBJECT PROPERTY
-, Cedarmont
L.eg:end:
,""II'
.( AziMJ./TH E
-- /'.,._' Nl/lRCX'JMENTAl.O:JNstJ..
__.m.m __""'..." T/NG,/NC.
_..---
--- ",___. ........m.._+..__...
SITE LOCATION
--
-~~:~~=~~=,:~~" ' COOKE Agu'eNo.
as 1
t \. ..... "
'~.:J "1
\O:?\
~ IOgo\
. "'.
o . ~r'
"', ';D
\Ii",,, ..: \\\ ~ .. M
"Mif!, to) " Q
~,*j!i. ';::) ';D 0 'it
'iif1';!~ t; ;. 'it ,:-. ~
"'C!\?;< ';!. S:'CZ
~'" Q <;. .. ;5 0
~~ t'1 ~ e.-
(to to ~
~~ ~ ~
.....,r;.. ~ ~
~e. '"""
o ~ .'"
1n tn ;~
.
'&
';~
() \1.~
sii
""t\ 'i}
6 ,
"'-
S ~?;
e..
(J) ''01
tv e..;
....
M
%~
~.
.
~s
..-
~'A.
e..i
i~
:;; 0; :!!'/.
;i.
~
-
~
'L
r_
"
~
1!1. <:f1
~ ~.
.. -a;
~
-0
-
.g
<a
::z
~~
---.
t
'"
s ,
;, ~.
/,
t.....i Lc:.
u'",,'wl
I I /
AGRICULTURAL j' { /
I I <i !
I JOHN MOON ROAD f I ~ ~ ~(
I ! .......Jz
I 1 ~W~
AGRICULTURAL I FOREST AREA I 8!fJl lAKE
I' Iii SIMCOE
I I I
L I! \
l ( /
/
UN / /
,/_______, I NAMED / /
~ -":OND "----- ::<>VA TE~OUR~,- .__~" .. ~
lei:: ~_._-,.1c!<{91;;)i/S ;~');.;;0:;-I-.Jii=-,-.-"- " "
<XI 1 ,#"}/,'1; ;8,:;-;-I;;'X~< '-.
I ~~}~ff~%i~!~~~~~~~ ' '
w
2: 1 ~331'1
eI::
""
"" _ 8 1'1 EXISTING
:;a; _,I Lot 1 Lo 2 ot 3 RESIDENTIAL
...J..00--.4S-
~; !
QI~' ,
QIU
- ~I
I I
I' 1 i
I -
I I
~RICUl TURAl i ; I
I I S'i-1'::;r\.~~S
I I S~G~S~~l~
: I ~SSl\J<-
- I
I ,
! j
1 i
i i
I I r' <:.I\'I(,\:lS
J-Y 1."If-."- -'
,.,;
Area of' RecoMMended Setback .~ EIMRONMENTAL CONSU/..T1NG, fNC..
/.
f11 Photos
~. Toe of Existing FlU COOKE EIS
Proper-ty J)o,w Is-oo JUNE 200.4
Cr-eo:ted By. L.B. South of Part Lot 17 ~ Figure No.
Pl"oject No, G4-re<l Concession 3. Town of Orllli 3
F'k Ncuw' r _~
~l,,-'"t
-~UTH ENVIRONMENTAL AEC Project No.
04-124
" , CONSULTING, INC.
Environmental Assessments & Approvals
ite Location:
Cooke EIS, Concession 3, south part Lot 17, Orillia
'hoto No. Date:
1 June 21, 2004
)escriDtion:
-iistorically cleared area at
:he comer of Woodland
)rive and Moon Point
)rive at proposed lots 1-3,
looking north easterly.
Photo No. Date:
2 June 21, 2004
Desc nDtion:
Unnamed watercourse
along the rear of the
proposed lots, looking
upstream (westerly).
G1 -'-if
~UTH ENVIRONMENTAL AEC Project No.
04-124
;", CONSULTING, INC.
Environmental Assessments & Approva1$
Site Location:
Cooke EIS, Concession 3, south part Lot 17, Orillia
Photo No. Date:
3 June 21, 2004
DescriDtion:
Downstream reach of the
i unnamed watercourse on
the east side of Moon
Point Drive where the
channel outlets to Lake
Simcoe.
Photo No. Date:
4 June 21, 2004
DescriD1;ion:
Online pond located at
immediately upstream of
the property on the west
side of Woodland Drive.
,
,
I
I
I
. ,"\ Li'6
f~\.r ~;
'1.../ j ",
-~UTH ENVIRONMENTAL
;' \.... CONSULTING, INC. .
Environmental Assessments & Approvals
January 12,2005 ABC 04-124
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
120 Bayview Parkway
Newmarket, Ontario
L3Y 4Xl
Attention: Craig Cooper, Environmental Planner
Re: Application for Zoning By-Law & Official Plan Amendment
Lot 7, Concession 3, Township of Oro-Medonte
LSRCA FiJe No. P-159-04 & 2004-0P-04
Dear Mr. Cooper;
Azimuth has reviewed the comments provided by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority (LSRCA) to Mr. Lester Cooke, (dated November 22,2004) in response to our
Environmental Impact Study report (dated August, 23,2004). To assist in finalizing
LSRCA's review of Mr. Cooke's submission, the following information is provided.
The development of Lots 2 and 3 will require cJearing of vegetation in the southern
portion of the lot to the existing toe of fill on Lot 1 and the western portion of Lot 2. The
area of vegetation that will be removed is approximately 0.4 hectares.
The vegetation community in the OAha parcel is comprised of predominantly deciduous
tree species within a vegetative community designated as a Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple
Deciduous Forest Ecosite (FODS), (Ecological Lands Classifications for Southern
Ontario (ELC), 1998). This community is characterized by sugar maple, silver maple,
ironwood, white birch, beech, and black cherry, located on upper or middle slopes with
suitable drainage features.
As requested by LSRCA, the species of vegetation documented to occur on the property
was evaluated in conjunction with the Distribution and Status of Vascular Plants of
. Central Region (Riley, 1989). Mountain ash (Sorbus decora) was observed on the
229 Mapleview Drive East, Unit 1, Barrie, Ontario L4N OW5
telephone: (705) 721-8451: fax: (705) 721-8926 info@azimuthenvironmental.com
'-.
- 1\ w.Q
(;i\"'-'-'- ,
J . l
--""/
-@-
-/ ,-...
property and is a species categorized by Riley (1989) as a rare (R-5) native plant in
Simcoe County. Soper and Heimburger (1994, Shrubs of Ontario, Royal Ontario
Museum, Toronto, ON) indicate that Sorbus decora is common on the Bruce Peninsula
and Manitoulin Island and Lake Huron to the north shore of Lake Superior, but less
abundant south of the Canadian Shield and rare south of 450 N. The Natural Heritage
Information Centre (2004) however indicates that Sorbus decora is globally common, to
very common (GRANK G4, G5, rank dated September, ]984), and provincially is also
very common, and demonstrably secure in Ontario (SRANK, S5, rank dated March 3],
2000, Ontario General Status is SECURE). Soper and Heimburger (1994) indicate that
Sorbus decora is very similar in appearance to the non-native European mountain-ash
(Sorbus aucuparia) that has been widely planted in Ontario and occurs as a component of
natural plant communities having been dispersed as seed by birds. Therefore, the
possibility exists that the identified Sorbus decora is in fact its European relative.
Although the species has been noted as regionally rare, the R-5 designation indicates that
this species has been documented at 5 stations. In Riley's approach to assigning regional
rarity, documented presence at 5 or fewer sampling locations is often used as a cutoff
point. Therefore, Sorbus decora is at the highest end of the rare classification scale. An
additional occurrence in of this species in Riley's database for Simcoe County may have
lead to it being designated "not rare".
There were no other species recorded to occur on the property that are designated using
the 'Riley' classification system.
We trust that the infonnation provided wiJ] be sufficient to address your request for
additional information. Should you 'have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact
me.
. Yours truly,
AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INe.
::;;; C ( .
\. ~
-.\ \
J..._-, _'_.
r--- \ .~ ~ '-~\
Sara Murphy, B.Sc.,
Aquatic Biologist
SMM:
c.c. Lester Cooke
2
JAN. 28. 2005 4:35PM LSRCA NO. 906 P. 1 ~ ~ - C) C> .'
905 .895.1281 Sent by Facsimile 1-705-487-0133
1.800.465-0.137
905.853.5681 January 28, 2005 File No.: P-159-04 & 2004-0P-04
i1: iQfo(ii)l~t'~.Qn.cQ.
'tV'\'\~'Js,c~.on.ca IMS File No.:PZOC376C2 & POFC198
aY'--iC"o" Patlca"aY Ms. Andrea Leigh, Senior Planner
182 Township ofOro-Medonte
msrket, OntArio P.O. Box 100
4X1
Oro, ON LOL 2XO
Dear Ms. Leigh:
Re: Application For Zoning By-Law & Official Plan Amendment
Lot 7, Concession 3
Township ofOro-Medonte
(Lester Cooke)
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) staff have reviewed submission dated
January 12, 2005 prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc., in regard to the above
noted file and advise we have no objection to the approval of this application. We provide the
fonowing additional infonnation:
The BIS by Azimuth Environmental recommends that there be a 38 Metre buffer adjacent to the
watercourse. LSRCA staff recommend that the buffer area be zoned open space or environmental
protection to restlict further development within this area.
I trust this meets your requirements at this time. In order to facilitate our processing of this file,
please reference the above noted file numbers in future correspondence.
lfyou have any questions, please contact the \ll1dersigned at 905-895-1281, ext. 288.
Yours truly,
rJ~~~.
A Craig Cooper
Enviromnental Planner
Watershed CC/ph
for Life c. Lester Cooke, Owner, By Mail
Sara Murphy, Azimuth Envirorunental Consulting Inc., 1-705-72 1 -8926 - Fa.x
S:\Cr.Us.OZoM-Byl~wg\Ortl Mcdcmt~\O 1-24.;.OS-CoDke-ORO-ZON&OP -"'Pd
. . ~ \)~\, c w.-\.\: 'db\.;)-7 }
.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEEfIIoIG t~~ <\~
r- .~. :~ ..,' {"'" ,:::::j G" .
FOR PROPOSIW AMENDMENTS ' . '''",\'';~MI' . ED ~
TO TIre OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING !lY -LAW c::,: 2 3 200/1
OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE c. TV nr." r
P.l59t6' -' ~IM~OE
.C',r1r~G~~\TE. :;I:j l'IIr;f:S OSPAlHMENi
. TA~ NOTICE that the Council of the CorporntiOD of the Township of Oro-Medonte win hold a Public Meeting on
Moodoy, J.o"""'117;2005.,' 7:15 p.m. in the Municipal Council O\ambcts. The purpose of the public meeting is
to obtain 'public ~~nts on proposed amendments to the. Zoning By-law 31'1d Official Pian. w:'der Section 34 of the
Planning Act. R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13.
'I1IE PROPOSED Official Plan Amendment would rodesigrute the lands described 3S Concessioo 3. South Part of
Lol 17 (formerly within the Township of Grima). The subject blJ1ds are proposed to be redesignated from the
Re:...tricted Ruml Dc-c:.ignation lO a Shoreline Designation. The purpo~ of the amend1T'lef1t would he to anow for the.
c:aalion of three new resid~tiallots.
-.---. -'~'.'-' ... .~ .- ... -.... -~.---.. - --." - .~_.-..
TIJE PROPOSED Zonil\g By~law Amendment would rerone the lands described as Concession 3. South Part of Lot
17 (Connedy within the Township of OriUia). The subject lands are proposed to be rezoned from the
AgriculturallRuraJ (AlRU) Zone 10 the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone.
A KEY MAP for File 1'-159/03 is provided below.
ANY PERSON may attend the public mecting arid/or make wr1ltcn or vcrbaJ representation cither in support of or in
opposition to the proposed Amendments. If a person or pubUc body that files an appeal of a dec:i~ion of the Township
of Oro-Mcdonte in rc.t;pect of toe proposed Amcndmcnt~ does nor m.1ke ora! submission at the public meeting or make
v.rritten submissions to the Township oofore the proposed Amendment!\ are adopted. the Onurio Munidpal Board may
dismiss ~1 nr pan of the appeal.
If you wish 10 t>e notified of the decision of the TOWDshjp of Oro.Medonte in respect to tbe proposed OfficiaJ Plan &
Zoning By~law Amendments. you must make a written request to the: address below.
cOIJ"tv(l!Sim~otP',J"nlng Oivit;t1"
WRJJTEN SUBMISSIONS should be directed to: Adnlitli::\f~.ilJn C"illtn~
1110 IiIQIIWI., 21)
\4irth"r~t.I)N lOt n:o
Township ofOro~Mcdonte NO COMMENT
'tf'li$ 311;\lIr..,lion is sutJi~( 1.0 ~II ~ppnl~'-d
148 Line. 7 South P'oVlnC;~I. C.wFlly. ~n!1l(}r.:\1 Ml1nir.ip~1
P.O. Bo' 100. Oro. Ontario toI. 2XO (I!;1f'1n,nQ ~:)lifnn~I". P('lI1(!~S ~n(! Q~I~W~
O~I>!~t..LA.r. fb~_<:~
Attn: Marilyn Pennycook.. Clerk ...............r......I!-.-"'............r........'''':,jIA/~.
._. -"-"--' ----. "- ' ...--_.. .- ...... "_.-. -- . ,'.- - - h
ADOmONAL INFORMATION rel3Ling to the. propo$ed Amendments is available for in~on between 8:30
3.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the TO\VTIship of Qro..Medonte Administration Building. For further infoI7Tl.1rion,contact the
Planning Depal1ment 3t 705-487.21.71.
DATED at me Township of O1:-o-Mooonte th,s 2tQ day of December 2004.
~~ruo~~
t
~.-
_..--- ,. . ~-
~
..
NOV. 23. 2004 6:00PM LSRCA NO. 564 P. 1/1 1..: ,....., .
. \;>",..,-....,-
Sellt by Facsimile 1-705-487-0133
November 22,2004 File No.: P-159-04 & ZOO4-0P-04
IMS File No,;PZOC376Cl & POFC198
Ms. Andrea Leigh, Senior Planner
Township ofOro-Medonte
P.O, Box 100
90S -895.1281 Oro, ON LOL 2XO
1-800.465-0437
905-85~5SS1
I: info(o.UsrC':t.on.ra Dear Ms. Leigh:
WW'\VJs"C'~.on..a.
I}-vi~ Pac1..""\\"'J.Y Re: Application ForZoning By-law & Official Plan Amendment
52 Lot 7, Concession 3
1.<\dce't. Ontario To~'nship of Oro-Medonte
Xl
(Lester Cooke)
We have reviewed the supporting Envirorunental Impact Study prepared by Azimuth
Environmental Consulting Inc., dated August, 2004 in regard to the above noted file and offer
the following comments in this regard:
1. Section 5.5 states that the clearing for Lots 2 and 3 will not result in the loss ofrare,
threatened and endangered species. However, the report does not provide an assessment
of regiomlly rare "s"ecies and therefore we cannot confinn whether this conclusion is
correct. The EIS should be revised to include the area (ha) and description of the
vegetative community that will be removed for L<lts 2 and 3 and provide an assessment
of regionally rare species using the Riley hst (1989) and include mitigation measures if
required.
2. The 38 metre watercourse buffer is acceptable to Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority staff. However, it is recommended that the buffer area be zoned to an
appropriate zoning that protects it from future incompatible uses. (Ie. envirorunental
protection or open space).
Once this infonnation has been submitted for review, we will be able to further assess our
position on this matter. I trust this meets your requirements at this time. In order to facilitate our
processing of this file, please reference the above noted file numbers in future correspondence.
Leaders In If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 905-895-1281, ext. 288.
Y~I:, .,"
Watershed
craig~r
Environmental Planner
Health CC/ph
c. Lester Cooke, Owner, By Mail
Sara Murphy, Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc., 1-705-721-8926 - Fax
S:\CraigC\2.0ne-By1a\\'$\Oro !\1edorne\I j.02..Q4..coolce..ORO-ZON&OP, "''PD
Gc-I
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Planning Advisory Prepared By:
PD2005-016 Committee Nick McDonald, RPP
Subject: Application Department:
2005-ZBA-03 Planning
1071118 Ontario
Limited (DeRosa)
Council
Concession 7, Part of
C. of Lot 21, 51R-15045, Date: March 9, 2005
W. Parts 1-4, Part 5, Parts
8-10 (Oro)
Motion A.M. File #:
# D14014192
Date: RolI#:
010-009-01700-0000
INTRODUCTION
An application has been submitted by 1071118 Ontario Limited (Robert DeRosa) to rezone lands
within the Oro Centre Secondary Plan Area. The lands are legally described as Part of Lots 21,
Concession 7, PR51R-15045, Parts 1 to 4, Part 5 and Parts 8 to 10. The subject lands are
located on the south side of Highway 11, to the west of the 7th Line.
The intent of the application is to permit the use of a part of the Oro Centre building for a micro-
brewery. It is proposed to develop the micro-brewery in two phases. A test phase where 2,000
Htres per week of beer is to be produced is initially proposed. If it is determined that the test
phase is successful, it is then proposed to go to full production, which is estimated to be 10 times
the volume produced in the test phase. This means that up to 20,000 litres per week may be
produced at the facility when full production commences.
Water will be brought to the site from another source. All bottle washing would also be done off.
site, however, the final rinsing of bottles on-site is proposed. While beer will be produced on-site
and shipped to customers from the property, it is expected that there will also be a retail
1
Gc-2
component to the use as well. A similar type of micro-brewery was recently established on
Dunlop Street in Barrie (Robert Simpson Brewing). However, the scale of the proposed operation
in the Oro Centre building is much less than the scale of the Robert Simpson operation.
OFFICIAL PLAN
The subject lands are included within the Oro Centre Secondary Plan Area. A Secondary Plan
for the Oro Centre Area was prepared by the Township and approved by the County of Simcoe in
2004. The Oro Centre building has a floor area of about 4,184 square metres (45,037 square
feet). Approximately two-thirds of the building is located within the Oro Centre - Limited Service
Industrial designation. The remaining one-third of the building is located within the Highway 11
Special Policy Area designation.
Permitted uses within the Oro Centre Limited Service Industrial designation are limited to outdoor
storage uses, trucking terminals, and similar uses. It is further stated in the Secondary Plan that
"it is intended that the lands in this designation be primarily used for land extensive uses". Given
the location of these lands and the servicing constraints in the area, it is not intended that lands
within this designation be serviced by municipal or communal waterlsewer services.
The Highway 11 Special Policy Area designation applies to lands that may be required by the
Ministry of Transportation in the future as Highway 11 is expanded. The policies of the
Secondary Plan recognize that a number of existing uses were located in the Highway 11 Special
Policy Area on the date that the Secondary Plan was approved. All of these uses are recognized
as legal non-conforming uses by the Township.
The portion of the building in which the micro-brewery is proposed is located within the Oro
Centre Limited Service Industrial designation.
.
ZONING BY-LAW
The lands on which the building is situated are zoned General Commercial Exception 32
(GC'32). Below is a list of the uses permitted in the General Commercial zone:
. Art galleries
. Banquet halls
. Building supply outlets
. Business offices
. Commercial fitness centres
. Commercial greenhouses
. Commercial schools
. Convenience retail stores
. Custom workshops
. Dry cleaning distribution depots
. Farm implement dealers
. Financial institutions
. Hotels
. Marine sales and service establishments
. Motels
. Motor vehicle sales establishments
. Motor vehicle service stations
. Museums
2
.
. 6c-3
. Parking lots
. Personal service shops
. Private clubs
. Recreational uses
. Repair shops
. Restaurants
. Restaurants, Drive-through
. Retail stores
. Service shops, light
. Trailer or mobile home sales establishments
. Veterinary clinics
Section 7.32 01 Ihe By-law states that "the development of new buildings or the construction of
additions to buildings that existed on the effective date of this By-law are not permitted on those
lands denoted by the Symbol '32 on the schedules to this By-law". This means that the existing
building can be used by any use listed in the General Commercial zone, provided the building is
not expanded.
On the basis 01 a review 01 the Zoning By-law, the proposed micro-brewery use would be
considered an industrial use as delined by By-law 97-95, which states that an industrial use is a
premises "used for the manufacturing, processing, finishing, treating, ornamenting, altering,
fabricating or assembly of raw materials or recycled malerials or the adapting for sale of any
good, substance, article or thing". An industrial use is not a permitted use within the General
Commercial zone.
SEWAGE AND WATER SERVICES
Given that the micro-brewery will be using water lor the making 01 beer and discharging water as
part 01 the processing, the landowner was requested to provide inlormation on how the proposed
use would be serviced by water and sewer services. In a report dated March 5, 2005, Eco Werks
Technologies Corporation provided some additional inlormation in support 01 the application.
It is noted in the report that the existing leaching beds on the property (there are 2) can
accommodate allow 01 16,390 litres per day. It is estimated that the current tenants in the
building discharge a total 01 5,000 litres per day, meaning that there is about 11,000 litres per day
01 capacity in the system at the present time. However, it is noted that the Oro Centre building is
primarily vacant and that il it was lully occupied, the total amount 01 effluent that would be
discharged (without the micro-brewery) would be about 13,870 litres per day.
It is lurther noted in the Eco Werks report that the lirst phase is considered the test phase and
within this phase, a maximum 01 20 hllweek 01 beer is to be produced. Assuming a ratio 01 5:1 01
wastewater to beer produced, the production 01 this amount 01 beer would result in an additional
1 ,428 lit res per day 01 ellluent. The report suggests that the existing leaching beds could easily
accommodate this additional ellluent. In the second phase (lull production) it is estimated that
that 200 hi/week would be produced, which translates into about 14,285 Htres per day 01 effluent.
In order to accommodate this amount, a new tertiary treatment system and leaching bed will be
required to handle the ellluent lrom the micro-brewery. It is noted that MaE approval will be
required, since the amount 01 effluent to be generated exceeds what can be approved by the
Township under the Ontario Building Code (maximum 10,000 I/day).
3
bL-L( .
The report lurther indicates that the property, because 01 its size, can easily accommodate an
additional leaching bed. It is lurther indicated in the report Ihat the amount 01 sewage generated
and the nitrate concentration 01 the shallow groundwater at the property boundary will meet MOE
regulations and guidelines. It is further noted in the report that the proposed wetland bio-filter
system can be expanded as needed and that the property could accommodate additional
leaching beds il required.
With respect to water supply, water will only be required lor the use 01 employees. The applicant
has indicated that there is an adequate supply 01 potable water on the site lor this purpose.
ANALYSIS
The Oro Centre building has existed at this location lor a considerable period 01 time. An
extensive range of commercial uses are permitted within the building, provided the building is not
expanded. The proposed use is industrial in nature and therefore different Irom the range of
commercial uses already permitted in the building. However, the micro-brewery use will have a
retail component, since it is proposed to sell beer from this location. As a result the use could be
considered a mixed industrial/commercial development.
The policies 01 the Official Plan, as amended by the Oro Centre Secondary Plan, permit outdoor
storage uses, trucking terminals and similar uses. The proposed use is not an outdoor storage
use, nor is it a trucking terminal. The policies go on to further state that the lands in this
designation "be primarily used for land extensive uses and that the development of buildings will
be discouraged". However, the policies do not specifically address or somehow deal with the
existing Oro Centre building which is a significant building and one of the largest buildings on
Highway 11, in terms 01 size.
The proposed use is very similar to the uses currently permitted with the Oro Centre building. As
a result, the issue to resolve in the context of reviewing this application is whether the permission
for a micro-brewery would be in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan and specifically the
Oro Centre Secondary Plan. Clearly, if the proposed use required a new building or an
expansion to the Oro Centre building, it would not be permitted in accordance with the Official
Plan. However, the new use is both commercial and industrial in nature and is proposed in a
largely vacant building and will at least initially, be serviced with existing infrastructure. As a
result, it is my opinion that the proposed use does not contradict the intent of the Official Plan.
Section C17.3 (h) of the Official Plan indicates that "it is the intent of this Secondary Plan that
uses in the Oro Centre Limited Service Industrial Designation generate a minimal amount of
effluent, On this basis, any application for development in this area must be supported by a
hydrogeological assessment which confirms that a minimal amount of water and effluent will be
generated. The assessment must also identify the impacts of the proposed use on the ability of
the uses within the Ora Centre Commercial and Oro Centre Office/Commercial designation to be
serviced by full communal water and sewer sewer services".
On the basis of the background studies prepared in support of the Oro Centre Secondary Plan, it
was recommended that uses in the Secondary Plan area should not generate more than 380
cubic metres of sewage per day. This translates into 380,000 litres per day. Once the proposed
micro-brewery is in lull production, it is estimated that 14,285 litres per day 01 wastewater would
be produced. This translates into 3.7% 01 the maximum that is theoretically permitted.
4
. bc~5
.
On the basis of the above, it is my opinion that the amount of effluent to be generated from the
proposed use in full production is not in conflict with the general intent of the Official Plan, which
is to ensure that only a minimal amount of effluent is generated within the Ora Centre Limited
Service Industrial designation.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended:
1. THAT Report PO 2005-016 (DeRosa) be received and adopted; and
2. That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Zoning By-law
Amendment Application 2005-ZBA-03, Concession 7, Part of Lot 21, 51R-15045,
Parts 1-4, Part 5, Parts 8-10 (Oro), proceed to a Public Meeting in accordance with
the requirements of Section 34 of the Planning Act A.s.a. 1990 c.P. 13.
Respectfully submitted,
---1~ -t:y1
Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP
Partner, Meridian Planning
C.A.O. Comments: Date: tVIIL 10 iv:;
Go."..; c.. '^- P- ~t1J) Rt:f>r>1>::
..-1-L
C_A.O. Dept. Head
HD:Current Work - GE:2795 - ORO - DEROSA REZONNG:2795_PAC Report-Jan28.doc
5
J
%
.0
'"
'e
,.;
'-c;
:\,:' .,---1 ~'l":-->~ ~
c ~ < /C.-/ . ~~A '" . _'_'
1."1' ~, J,~l':':,'xl"m~:m,;:.,-:- ..".':) ~&'"
~ 12 ' L_ (( 1111 \-'0 / ) h ~. ... La: -,.-
.) __ I' 1'\l\i, J//r/;.-: , " ,/ '. ~ ' __"
t." 1: /i't!;#;.' .' //'7'..~) I. \\\\.."" ~ /. '/ /. ' I _ ~-
8i '-';~ . i:J/i; ;;t",?f,. \:,\ ".. I .~ F--.. ,/r' I) = .r.....
. "" I '( . ..,. \ ~ /( ~~ '. y;. I .r
~. ::-- -K IA . i~'.' "NO:~ Q ~ ,,\ ' ~~() fIfI .. .,iodP'
'-' m ~ 'I I" :. .\ ""I- 2 \ \. O--:-,--1r" ~ R "'" '
Q - I~ ;. '0"'" 0 \ If' /' ' <r-. - -
,> Q 'J --0 --1" r0/. Y.i. '" ~~. ~ ~1l1I~0 ~ 0 0\ i-d . 3 _ NV ".'.1':~ V 0 ~, ~t i.; '::-1- ,
f'( C --- :n<IV.A .. '" ,,,-,,'!:;i . . . .:;~
, 'J,~ :;.~ 0 -I": _~\( , . .. _ :. " ",' " . "."='-= __ ' _
""~ ~.r -- """'" ......c:: ._ . .. .--- - _ ,- . ..\-.
J.. ex. r'i '-.2.J "I3F=-:Eiif:;'''(~~ ~ .': . '" . I . ~ I.f'.: j'
~ {) x --0 j - ,..,..--, ~" .. 1< j i.- J , t-.... ) ~ y-r
::; (', 'v'l . ~ v ~ ' ~\ r"" r '0' fI' ~" j .'3;[1. 1! oSI ';. i.r.i., f\~.1 '
" x <'i --c >- -.I.'" '-J -:----~ ~ o' "'o.t. 1-"1'" IV.:/'~;
'" \I) \i 1- _/r- . OJ: 2", . ~ ';::-"I-'Ir ,,~2 . "
&:~O'J 'I -'- '"- 't /~~." _,N, III 0 , _2 IJ "'" ....;) ! ,,~ ~~ ~,~ \
-y ......0, s:: 0 0 _ 8 i "'... 0 - . n , .". , l
- 'j} :;;; ?-)-.. ;;! " ,i -"('I.~. I /_'='~'~~/, '.
, , ~~" ~ .s. , no' ~( ( ~. . ,!. .' 0 ~ ~ . , .
~ V) I1J '1 o::f I.....M.: ....JI. / r- ~ . ,,;'
,j <: ~ -- -", '" '; '5 0 \ . ~ '~':. . . I-;!: '\ ~ '.
vi J- "- ~ "- >:. " \ Q~ S ' . i " '3 ~_ ~ .
;5 t.) E J :i () ~ N () ',;;:;:11 I ! '! - ~ T ".
,'\~'''' - -D, u~ \3\~ '" ~ .' ~ 1(\. ~J '. - Wg:t .)ff(( /(:::::
" .;-, ~ ~f ~Nih'::',t V',<_ I/)q /1(',
'~'----- f II. -......:: < ,.....-, '.-< ~~1J gt_ IQQQQoo I,t"."- x I: .~\
v "~~ ~ ~ ~'~ ,. ,~sf) '\M'....Q\ j' : ~.(.:.. i Ji.':-
~ r--..' , '&5_., [',J, ' I r:::.~ ., / ,(\
,,",x' ~ - ,,,-" ~ .......~,,~', ~ """ ~ ,!.J. w 1/.' ;-
f 1 ~ , I\~ -~' ,"~A. .~. ",'", w: n'if;r:i ....~ ":',\
. ^' . I' ~ ~."A", I,. ';;0" ' :T ./ '
I l '~,: ~ 1. .'d~ . /":.J.'/I '11- " : /i '<~- /: I~~ \
: ,~ t .',,". I~' , ; ~ ^ . ,///' ''.
'0 "-.. /_,1, '~\.... "/.' ~ "
........ (.i~"~ x-x:., -p- "" -/, I ..'.{ < ~'y._' ......6 ,,~"~;I~b(..-:., 1\
~~, ( I '" .\( - / ",r /. ~ (,[lIB 'f Iff ~~;:\,' 1.!1! ~":'. : . '\1
~i l~~ ~~: ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~,g I '" I ~ : ~E~. \t?~. ~'~'.::':::":.",.".'.'~-. ;.i: '/;"'. ili - . 2~~~'.. 1\1:'. XII .'\.
N \: ~~.; Q13 ~ -; 5 15 091 .'. 'u,_......,-~C. 'e',""" "'fl'.. Ii ::J ~ ~ "
'0. iP' l'5 l~' 0 () r7\~, cfD ,(1" ,,8,)., ;1\;:). . ~~" is_/,, . .~;
I 't> I <4: I CJ f~ '" ...."' 8it .'i:;~:: ~~ " z.? ,,_ '" ~,
)'~ ',,',.' w.i.'0 "w ,j,,,..,,,,,.. "'," ! ",.-t~ f "'::..,... . C7') ". . ,g.' ,i, .'" . '- '.'m' "",",.L.."".."~""",,
1 I ( , / '-/ '~i:-.". c. ];':/ -it\. ,,>'111,1';. '" , . "
i ....... .;:, D ""::"-:"':. ,: ~.~;.' 0:0(.......... "'-. ,.\
" \ \ '-')" .. J~ ,\ r'-' '0. ,.
P \\ \' ..r--. (J/, 'J'.. .." ~~,.j
~ 11/ IX) \ \' ~\..) ') i\ L~ ; r~ 1/;\\ \ ~\\ ~/ '\ .... \\' J, "~"" ...:,' ~:::',.. .
.' - I ,l : 0 \ fJ, .. . . r<w,<', \ \ \ n ~~. '.
" ~ '31 W I~ ." ' n.' ,\ '.' \ ...'
\ ~~g;! "" ~ R ,\ 2') \.;Q lit!) J I l ~ ~''''':;\ ,&~ 1 :~\., . ',' . ..y~.. ,
~ Z w,.; \ " y~ U . / i 1.. ) ; .....:.../
\ N 0 Z"'~ \ .::1 \{(~ ::./ I 1 ~\. \. '.'
:. ..... '1j, .N \.\\1., )
',. ~ i > , . ,~ ,V \, " .,..",
. ---- . L,,--'~ J ' 1 ~_...;
r;--- ~, 0 h, 11..' \' --"-1,;""" ~ .. ,. r
· "'1' : \ ...:. \....... / / -.. \"". ',", ' ': \ ~ 0 SII. Z )
'" ;, <,' ~~i~ T ' - , . ~ , l3 t- ~I I ,
\.,' t'J '........'(, ~ ~ 1(\'10;" il//f. . ,,/,.' I\. if rf;;;IT7TJ
1 "-0 .'~ ' : \~\ ' \ :\ ~ w'" \'--. ", ~ o1C~;I"x: ~ "': ". /It.._-x\~~Y /
(~0'~ ~//~> b: "i ~,\\!~ ~:::::"J ::..j~': '\.:' i \\'\\.1/--
~:---. . I \ i( ~ ;... ,m )// : '.~\ ",~ J :' ,. ./<~ }-./
'- ., ,. 1 ' - ' I I ) ),
, , I :(/ ~ 0 '~,.: ;; "",.. I I ~
. . . .. 'I I '- ~ I ~~' .:!~ ~: ~ C .. . /' / x ~
. I \ '~ . ..0 '. 1>1 "'" Ji / - /
~ . i \ ' f ~~"I\.. . '. ~~ ~" .;. .
. , _, I..::: :...r- ~~~ \ :':' ' , . g I' \ ^ >-
, .~t:A,i. \, - "-, .,' ~!! .'... "c.t JI . ~~{"
'\ .' -"_.51 i" -- ......{ , ~ ' ~ ~\""" .... '. 1'\ \ C
~' :..,,:s x (i/ .' <, ~~., 1-0'" 07..," ,,~----
f'I ' -. <(... \ ~ - - 0"';'" ..... ...J ::'"
'. '.-;" I: i A(-~ 0 ~~ I <=::i " :. (f. '" . 5 " '~ ... "'!~ ;~oz a~~~. //. \
, 1 I !! i W 0 x .f N ~ ,~ - ~~(J.......... I .............:; " I' ~
! i., f ~~~~r \i~ W! 1 0) ~ >" 'Gs-/~ ~ 1J-;~~~i":() i: 4'/ ('" "........
( " ~, ! ..~( .( I 1:1 x. W ~-iI Ir-::-::::-' Y:" I' , /
", . ~ .~ I J ( ')~ ~ I /,' ','
: ",'. -l-... ~ . c' /, I .. /. , 'I ,. ; ;
: .:\, . ._'~ _' (', /1. Ii ~.
, " ' I / , Q,.K it. if . '... ",>", , ' ~
'~\.\\\\:~':"..\" cO" rl) .~Jt ~/) U, ./;~~~>J'- / ;/,." ,@\.
;) : \ ,.. ./ B/IWI/ If .----r'''' i , ..
1I1. ' f ~~mY L . //. rJ]! 11"\ '
.' $\ \ ~\{ \ (I ,-V \..../' /, / "'-'''- I I i\?"J / ij11~1~ ~ " /T!\
,
l . 9L"" _
.
~ 11M ~ ..-_.....--~ .~ it) :moo
_ DIMIII ... M"OO.so.u:" JIO ~ y 0M\0\VH -.oe~-ant U110II :nw '..I :aMI .....,..:JIIl G.I. ~ IDI'IIII .. 'filii 1JIOdJII ~
--TTO~~= -= ~=~'t~,(J.~~ IOOIU"" ....... 'JQWOIH1IKMI.III~~~tIIII;
~~~=o::. O.I.aNI1m3tltONW'OII'IOHI*I.$'W7W___ _...,,a__MIC~_~_"l. -..-
1OOI'I>>IJIIIf'fM'G.I.\IQaItIIGCI - - 'IGI1I1DaNf\JIMt...........H..,MlttI\W.~ ~1____] ICI&I~_ tGLYIIIII1XI
Tro.",..,..w.A3IiWII;//)IMItDUlOO +01 JIIL'Jt1t~3111.'J:1t&\WIIWJlLLII,Ua _-IU(jIIX)'WJ ua~RLl::8 .:IWft
=::~= t ~IIGlftWlllOO1IWWldIM~IIIl'1 mlWl-JIIWI~::IfUll'l-HIt'CIu:aul3IMttl
....,~~.......... " ........., Z9VL6n.. -"1111_
M ...:=::=: --: 31Wl:1WOO S.~()).3A.lIns --.. an ~~ns :>3Bm1OM :f JJ31d3
IMIIGIDIOIOO II __
J/OIVIIIOftCliUMolS3IDIGCI (I
>>GI'II'ItOIII fM'W -'. .
. 1IOCII"'GrI 0IM10WII 03IICII0M . J.I3'W:i .1HaIIIAoID3.
IIHIC"O'" CINIWoIQJJlJDI 01. CWIIWIOCI3I1ft':1
ClfWGlU:MN""'WW-.c!.ICIIIMOIII'11Iii
r---~ J. HOISS3OHOO 'n'101 J ~ 12'''Il''''~MJ
r.'>1'11' - - - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - ---r--
I~~I . ~--------~ I I
I~""I 311'WJ.~"l:J01JO'
:!IfI: 2 _L__~Lay~!!!iJ I ,
~J ~II ~~
I ~I I I
~f :~.:
~'
'II' .J---------r I
I~I I I
~III I I
i;I~1 gM91;1i~t.JV7d I I
~~ I I
~~________~ I
~ I~OO~-1i19 NV7d t
~ lliVd
[ '='t- - - - - - - - - ~ 'It 1 I
~ I~ 0 ~ I
~ (1.1) tuj(J-Qfif,W NJd ~
R ~ I~OO~-1i19 NV7d ~ 191
~ ~ . .,. ~i I llJ'1d '; '\ ~ ~!
~ ~ 0 J
Id F ~o\~ > I
'" it s:> I Ii. it
~ ~ - ~~.
t\,)~ . (~"w) 111:11 u."u . 2 ,
" !:!..at 110M,) J,.OO.IIUQIt
g- i' .
10 ~ 'i 8
, ~. ~
; ~ ~ (n) OfIltH1Wit1 NIJ 2! ! s
0, ~II IitOgl-1i19 /'IV7d 'g llJ'1d I
'" f 1
- 1 I
~! ~'It
rHl--"L,. StOIU-tiJiHnd -';-;wt/- - - - - -
L.~.J - - - - - - --!.'f!l9~sr.lIGmS~1ii"""IIIO'g- - - !T'__
- -r' ----- !iW910ll0f<<SVJ./GI'OS'fI3'
:i --
. ...
I ~I i~ II
~ - J
is
t~ ,
I !~ "
I
~-~-~- .~
II ~--- ~ ~
c.)_ (~. w> UII". ~.oLOlH i
:\ tn) ot1lo-omJt1 HId ~
r;Mgl-lilg NV7d 'r lliVd .. ~ ~
I I 158 " ~
I --. ?
I I -..... """ ,,~ -- - '"
~ "...! -~
I I (J.1)9iOO-os;t;f!l NIJ 1 r\
I ! ~I ~-=--.::&~ L~_
I ~ I r ..._J/ --
; ....:~li = I
"J -
f ?
~ - '"
-~ -
. lC.tX:;;'jg-NWI ~H/lfi-NY7.J~ .
fI- ~- 1 J.NVti , J.WcI .
'OUfH'GKII))a)l;/'l1H1.>>Ci: I L_____!J L_____ \ E m
~OMBIBXI\'~n...,~ _ _ _ _ _
~1DIMQI:Id"'~$H1 {J.-R/.l-cl} Jl.gwlDWJW'/d C-wdt,WI.;2..: .., (~.w) . *'" 'II' . - .ri14 lOW
- - - - - 4- - - - . (WIft) 1.1IO,l.1.eRN -~-
- - - - - - - - - -==- -==- -==- -=--- ~- -==--==-
~ (1.1) lOOO-(IH;fS NIcI
_.... JJ 'ON .AYMH!)IH
1-IO'iOV'M~~""
......._____ JZ puO 0& S~01 1JHN,~9S 9:)UOMO/lV pOOH
~~jO~~--
J4\1O~~"~OII"UMU.
_I ~
U"CIN~jO~pewpfA""".-oN 'GEl -- - .. .......
IIIiIOtIOlDON_"1~o..p(HMA~
1IMII1-'11\II1iDW
,,~-(OIIIIOIlO_ltog1~IIIIII~qns - . . ......
_.._____ OOO~ : 1 3'N:)S
..... "'....... 30:J~IS jO AlNnO:J
(0W3AO<ItGHfW.~) (OYOJOdlHSNMOJ.::JIHo:MIOO3O)
"_,~ 31N003~-0!J0 jO dlHSNMOl
..,., '" ..... L NOISS3:JNO:J
_._ ~l 101 ~O 11:l\fd
_=l';:~ 30 Iffid
. ....
IliA j"" "II" ,..", ..... . "...........