06 13 2005 PAC Agenda
w
111
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
Robinson Room
Date: Monday June 13, 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 - May 9, 2005
5. Correspondence and Communication
None
6. Planning Applications
(a) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning, Re:
John Walls - Part of Lots 2 and 3, Concession 1 (Oro), Application
2005-ZBA-08 (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the
application subsequent to the review of the report)
(c) Planning Report presented by Nick McDonald, Planning Consultant,
Re: Moon Point - Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concession 3 (Orillia),
Applications 2004-SUB-01, 2004-0PA-02, and 2004-ZBA-09 (Applicant to
be afforded an opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to the
review of the report)
(d) Planning Report presented by Nick McDonald, Planning Consultant,
Re: Horseshoe Resort Corporation - Part of Lot 1, Concession 3
(Medonte), Application 2005-ZBA-15 and 2005-ZBA-16 (Applicant to be
afforded an opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to the review
of the report)
7. Other Business
a. Next PAC Meeting - Monday July 11, 2005
8. Adjournment
4-(
.
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
2003-2006 TERM
May 9, 2005 @ 7:01 p.m.
Robinson Room I Council Chambers
Present:
Council Representatives
Mayor J. Neil Craig
Deputy Mayor Harry Hughes
Councillor Ralph Hough
Councillor Paul Marshall
Councillor John Crawford
Councillor Ruth Fountain
Public Representatives
Terry Allison
Robert Barlow
Mel Coutanche
Craig Drury (arrived 7:03)
John Miller
Regrets:
Councillor Dan Buttineau
Staff Present:
Andria Leigh, Planner; Janette Teeter, Clerk's Assistant
Also Present:
George Arnold, Eric Worms becker, Ian Watson
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 Terry Allison, Seconded by John Miller
It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of
Monday, May 9, 2005 be received and adopted as amended to revise Item 4, Minutes of
the Previous Meetings from "February 21,2005" to "March 14, 2005".
Carried.
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in
Accordance with the Act.
None declared.
.
I-{- 2
.
4. Minutes of Previous Meetings - March 14, 2005.
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 March 14, 2005 be received and adopted.
Carried.
5. Correspondence and Communication.
None.
6. Planning Applications
(a) Planning Report presented by Andria Leigh, Planner, Re: Mike and Colleen
Gartner - Part of Lots 27 and 28, Concession 3 (Oro), Application 2005-ZBA-
04.
Motion No. PAC-3
Moved by John Miller, Seconded by Terry Allison
It is recommended that
1. Report PD 2005-028, Andria Leigh, Planner, re: Mike and Colleen Gartner, Zoning
By-law Amendment Application 2005-ZBA-04, Concession 3, Part of Lots 27 and
28, 51R-33437, Part 1 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte be received and adopted,
as amended to revise (SR*159) to (SR*160);
2. And Further That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that
Zoning By-law Amendment for Mike and Colleen Gartner that would rezone the
lands described as Part of Lots 27 and 28, Concession 3, being Part 1 on 51 R-
33437 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, on Schedule A2 of Zoning By-law 97-95, as
amended from the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone to the Shoreline Residential
Exception (SR*160) Zone be adopted.
Carried.
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
May 9, 2005, Page 2
L - '}_
J
i
.
(b) Planning Report presented by Andria Leigh, Planner, Re: Ian Webb - North
Part of Lot 3, Concession 11 (Oro), Application 2005-0PA-02.
Motion No. PAC-4
Moved by John Miller, Seconded by Terry Allison
It is recommended that
1. Report PD 2005-030, Andria Leigh, Planner re: Ian and Lori Webb, Development
Application 2004-0PA-02, Concession 11, North Part of Lot 3 (Medonte), Township
of Oro-Medonte (Webb) be received and adopted;
2. And Further That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that
Official Plan Amendment No. 20, North Part of Lot 3, Concession 11 (Medonte),
Township of Oro-Medonte submitted by Ian and Lori Webb be considered favorably
for adoption.
Carried.
(c) Planning Report presented by Andria Leigh, Planner, 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.
Motion No. PAC.5
Moved by Robert Barlow, Seconded by Mel Coutanche
It is recommended that
1. Report PO 2005-29, Andria Leigh, Planner re: 1071118 Ontario Limited (Robert
OeRossa), Zoning By-law Amendment Application 2005-ZBA-03, Concession 7,
Part of Lot 21, 51 R-15045, Parts 1-4, Part 5, Parts 8-10 (Ora), Township of Ora-
Medonte, 2921 Highway 11 be received and adopted as amended to revise
(GC*32*160(H)) to (GC*32*161 (H));
2. And Further That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that
Zoning By-law Amendment for 1071118 Ontario Limited (OeRossa) that would
rezone the lands described as Part of Lot 21, Concession 7, being Parts 1-4, Part 5,
and Parts 8-10 on 51 R-15045 (Ora), Township of Oro-Medonte, on Schedule A10 of
Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended from the General Commercial Exception (GC*32)
Zone to the General Commercial Exception Holding (GC*32*161(H)) Zone be
adopted.
Carried.
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
May 9. 2005. Page 3
, 7. Other Business
a) Public Meeting - June 13, 2005 7:00 p.m. - Conditions of Consent (Woodrow, Bell)
b) Next PAC Meeting - June 13,2005
8. Adjournment
Motion No. PAC-6
Moved by Mel Coutanche, Seconded by Robert Barlow
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 7:29 p.m.
Carried.
Chair, Mayor J. Neil Craig
Planner, Andria Leigh
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
May 9, 2005, Page 4
i-t - It
6 Q, - ,\
#~.~)>-"
4t~~"OI ORo~~",
~?~~+':---'----~--'---'~<~\:;':~,
tt kiIJ' ..'..;.:-..~. ;). ".;.".; ~~'.~
~... ~""-- ,\\ 1-'"';;.
r;'!lt '::~~~7l'~'
"" ........_.""c. ~.
~~~~~~~-'
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD 2005-038 Planning Advisory Committee Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP
Subject: Department:
Council John Walls, Zoning By-law Planning
Amendment Application 2005-
C.ofW. ZBA-08, Concession 1, Part of Date:
Lots 2 and 3, RP51R-13186, June 10,2005
Motion # Part 1 (Oro) R.M. File #:
Date: RolI#:
010-006-17400
II BACKGROUND:
,
The subject property is located on the west side of Line 1 South, north of Ridge Road as shown on Attachment
#1. The lands support a farming operation which include several fields, and support buildings in the form of
sheds as well as a large barn. A construction trailer supported by a partial block foundation is also located in
proximity to the barn, and is presently being used for human habitation (refer to Attachment #2).
In February, 2005, the Township issued an Order to Comply respecting the above noted property, as the use
of the trailer for human habitation is contrary to the provisions of the Zoning By-law. The proponent
subsequently filed the subject application requesting that the Township consider a temporary use By-law to
permit the continued use of the trailer for human habitation for a period of three years.
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.
II COMMENTS RECEIVED:
t
On March 21,2005 the application was circulated for inter-departmental and agency comments. The following
comments have been received to date:
1. Simcoe County District School Board - no objection;
2. County of Simcoe - no comment;
3. Roads Department - no concerns with temporary mobile home, however some drainage problems
exist in the area which may be able to be rectified with construction of a permanent home;
I -
(::J 0, - L
4. Clerk's Department - concerns with respect to this use and concerns with method of sewage
disposal;
5, Fire Department - no comment;
6. Municipal Works Department - no concerns; and,
7. Building Department - noting trailer not allowed except in trailer park.
II ANALYSIS:
II
The subject lands are designated Agricultural in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The objectives of the
Agricultural designation include the preservation and promotion of the agricultural character of the Township
and the maintenance of the open countryside. The principle use of land shall be for agriculture. Other
permitted uses include single detached dwellings, bed and breakfast establishments, home occupations,
commercial dog kennels, forestry, resource management uses, farm implement dealers and feed and fertilizer
distribution facilities, storage facilities for agricultural products, greenhouses, agriculturally-related commercial
uses and seasonal home grown produce stands. The use of the property for a mobile trailer for human
habitation is not included among the list of permitted uses in the Agricultural designation therefore the subject
application does not conform with the Official Plan.
In respect of character, it is staff's position that the subject trailer is not an appropriate use for the land. The
agricultural landscape includes farmland, support buildings such as barns, silos, other farm-related accessory
buildings such as sheds, as well as permanent farm residences, The use of the property for a mobile trailer
would not be in keeping with the desired character of the agricultural area as stated in the Official Plan.
Furthermore, as noted from the comments received, trailers for human habitation are only permitted in
organized trailer parks. In these instances, the parks can provide proper sewer and water services, be
organized in respect of parking, driveway access and property amenity areas.
For the Committee's information, it is noted that the Township has in the past granted temporary permissions
respecting large landholdings where new dwellings are being proposed. In these instances, landowners can
obtain permission through an agreement from Township Council to reside in an existing dwelling for a period
up to six months while a new residence is being constructed. The owner would be required to execute an
agreement whereby it is agreed that the existing dwelling will be demolished once the new dwelling is ready for
occupancy. The municipality can require a letter of credit or similar financial security to ensure compliance
with the agreement. In extreme hardship cases, for cases on vacant land, Council can recommend that a
temporary trailer be utilized while a new residence is being built. This latter circumstance would only be
considered in extreme cases, and for a short duration (ie: maximum six months).
The applicant has supplied the Township with a lease of the property, as he is not the registered owner of the
land. Staff are not in receipt of a building permit nor has the applicant indicated that this is the intention at this
time.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is staff's opinion that the subject application does not conform to the
Official Plan. Furthermore, staff are not aware of any formal (ie: proper septic system and/or well)
arrangements to service the trailer. Therefore there may be environmental and/or health concerns due to the
absence of proper servicing. Lastly, it is staff's opinion that the use of a trailer for human habitation should
only be considered in extreme situations when permanent dwellings are being constructed therefore in this
instance the subject use is not appropriate and should not be encouraged.
- 2 -
GCA, -\ 5
II RECOMMENDATION(S):
, II
It is recommended:
1. THAT the Planning Advisory Committee receive Report PD 2005-038 (Walls); and,
2. THAT the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Zoning By-law
Amendment Application 2005-ZBA-08, Part of Lots 2 and 3, Concession 1 (Oro), be refused as it does
not conform with the Official Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
~\(L~r .
Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
-3-
PROP RTY SUBJECT TO THE
TEMP RARY USE BY-LAW
,
I~
-
...J
LAKE SIMCOE
AnAc...NMGrvI
Cf)
..-
a'eQ
~
<"'\0 <v
~:v
~ QU, - )
I
t
6~ .- j I
~TI A c...I\M EN' *'.2. .
hc - f
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Planning Advisory Prepared By:
PD2005-036 Committee Nick McDonald, RPP
Subject: Moon Point Department:
Development Planning
Applications
Council
File No: 2004-Sub-01,
C. of 2004-0PA-02 and Date: June 10, 2005
W. 2004-ZBA-09
Motion R.M. File #:
# D12013640
Date: RolI#:
030-012-42700
INTRODUCTION
The intent of this report is to review the comments made by agencies and members of the public
with respect to the applications for development submitted by the Moon Point Corporation. A
further intent of this report is to provide Planning Advisory Committee and Council with
recommendations on the applications for development.
As Planning Advisory Committee/Council will recall, the Moon Point Corporation is seeking
approval for an Official Plan Amendment which places a portion of the lands in the Shoreline
designation, a Zoning By-law Amendment that places a portion of the lands in the Shoreline
Residential zone, and a Plan of Subdivision application that would allow for the creation of 14
new shoreline lots.
Each of the 14 lots will front on a new public road that extends from Moon Point Drive. Each of
the lots will also have direct water frontage as well. The minimum lot frontage on the road is 21.8
metres (Lot 4) and the highest lot frontage on the road is approximately 50 metres (Lot 1). The
average lot frontage along the road is 27.9 metres. The minimum lot frontage on the water is
47.6 metres (Lot 11). The highest lot frontage along the water is 61 metres (Lot 14). The
average lot frontage along the water is 49 metres. Each of the lots will have a minimum lot area
1
(; c - L
of 0.60 hectares. An 8-1/2 x 11 reduction of the Plan of Subdivision is attached to this report as
Attachment #1 .
Each of the proposed lots will be serviced by private wells and septic systems. A dry hydrant
accessible to pumper trucks will be installed at the end of the Moon Point Road unopened road
allowance, at Lake Simcoe. It is proposed that the dry hydrant be provided as a suitable
substitute to an on-site fire well and fire storage as required by the Township's engineering
standards.
The homes on the lot will be set back a minimum of 20 metres from the average high water mark
as per the requirements of the Township's Zoning By-law. A detailed Concept Plan prepared by
the applicant shows the location of each of the homes, the driveways, the septic systems and
proposed access corridors to Lake Simcoe. These access corridors will be no wider than 12
metres. The proponent has indicated that based on the sizes of the lots and the setbacks
proposed, 60% of each of the lots will remain in forest cover. The detailed Concept Plan is
attached to this report as Attachment #2.
In order to deal with issues respecting building location, septic system location, driveway location
and access corridor siting, each of the lots will be subject to Site Plan Control. It is also proposed
as a condition of draft plan approval that a detailed site plan for the entire subdivision be
prepared. This detailed site plan would provide the basis for the individual Site Plan Agreements
that would be entered into following the registration of the Plan of Subdivision. This was the
same process recently followed for a 13 lot Plan of Subdivision on Highland Drive in the
Horseshoe Resort community.
Adjacent land uses include the Columbus Boys Camp located to the west and south of the
proposed lots. This camp will be retained by the owner (the Moon Point Corporation) and is not
part of the Plan of Subdivision. Lands to the south of the proposed Plan of Subdivision are the
site of a registered Plan of Subdivision (Plan 940) located on the east side of Moon Point Drive.
There are 18 lots within this Plan of Subdivision. The average lot frontage on the street is 34.8
metres. The average lot area is 0.18 hectares. Each of these lots is developed with a home.
The first home in Plan 940 was built in 1 955 (lot 4). The remaining homes were developed slowly
over a period of 45 years.
LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY COMMENTS
The Township of Oro-Medonte relies upon the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
(LSRCA) to provide advice and recommendations on environmental matters. As part of their role,
the LSRCA reviews the majority of applications submitted pursuant to the Planning Act.
In this case, the applications and the supporting documentation were sent to the LSRCA in mid
2004. Prior to the submission of the initial reports, the LSRCA met with the proponents in 2003 to
discuss Environmental Impact Study requirements.
On September 17, 2004, the LSRCA indicated in writing that they required some additional
information from the proponent to complete their review of the applications. Following the
submission of a revised Environmental Impact Statement in October 2004 and a meeting on site
on October 28, 2004, the LSRCA sent an additional letter dated January 12, 2005 requesting
some additional information to complete their review.
2
6c'- ")
Following the submission of a further revised Environmental Impact Statement in May 2005, the
LSRCA provided a commenting letter to the Township of Oro-Medonte dated June 2, 2005. This
LSRCA letter is attached to this report as Attachment #3. Below are a number of quotes from the
June 2, 2005 LSRCA letter:
. "The study meets the intent of our Terms of Reference at that time (2003) as well as our
current Terms of Reference. The field survey program was scoped based on the site
characteristics. The technical information presented in the report is satisfactory".
. "Based on the additional technical information provided, we do not consider this to be a
significant wildlife area based on breeding birds, as such, all potential natural heritage
features have now been addressed through the EIS."
. "We have no concerns with potential impacts from natural hazards."
. "We recommend that the Township require the following aspects to be addressed as part
of the subdivision conditions as the design of the development should be reviewed on a
comprehensive basis for the property rather than through future individual owners.
Measures to preserve the integrity of the shoreline and tree cover are acceptable
provided that the following aspects are included. "
On the basis of the above, the LSRCA is supportive of the approval of the requested Official Plan
Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment. However, they have
made a number of detailed requests regarding each of the documents that will be under
consideration by Council. Specifically, it is requested that
1. The Official Plan Amendment (OPA) contain some policies that provide some direction on
the nature of vegetation removal in the 20 metre shoreline setback area, the need for
further approvals regarding shoreline works and vegetation retention on the property;
2. The Draft Plan Approval contain conditions that deal with grading, drainage, erosion and
siltation, the need for LSRCA approvals, the need to prepare a Tree Preservation Plan
and Shoreline Access Plan, and the need to prepare a Natural Environment Stewardship
Manual;
3. The Subdivision Agreement include requirements in the Notice of Offers of Purchase and
Sale that indicate that water access and views of Lake Simcoe are restricted through the
Zoning By-law, Tree Preservation Plan and Shoreline Access Plan. and that a Natural
Environment Stewardship Manual has been prepared; and,
4. The Township Zoning By-law Amendment applying to the property includes specific
provisions restricting development within 20 metres of the shoreline and which also
restricts the width of the shoreline access area to 12 metres.
One of the more important conditions requires the preparation of a Tree Preservation Plan and
Shoreline Access Plan to the satisfaction of the LSRCA. Such a Plan must have input from a
registered professional forester. It is the intent of such a Plan to identify development envelopes
that alter no more than 40% of each lot, thereby retaining approximately 60% of each lot in a non-
manicured vegetative state.
3
Gc.lJ
It is my opinion that the LSRCA has made every effort to respond to the concerns expressed by
residents regarding the impacts of development on the environment. On the basis of the LSRCA
comments and their recommendations respecting the Official Plan Amendment, the Draft Plan of
Subdivision and the Zoning By.law Amendment, it is my opinion that development can proceed
as proposed. All of the conditions discussed above are reviewed later in this report and have
been included within the Official Plan Amendment, the Draft Plan Conditions and the Zoning By-
law Amendment, as required.
PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
The public meeting was held on March 21, 2005. Approximately 45 members of the public were
in attendance. During the public meeting, and following the public meeting written submissions
were received from:
NAME DATE
Janet Bumstead April 1 , 11 and 15, 2005
Jim Woodford March 30 and 31, 2005
Anna Arnold April 7, 2005
Bob and Dodi Weill Aoril 8, 2005
Donna Gowland April 11, 2005
Kirsten Burlino Aor1l10,2005
Lynne and Lionel Walters April 7, 2005
William Moore April 12, 2005
John and Carolvne Macdonald April 13, 2005
Mark Rosati and Maroaret Burohardt Aori111, 2005
Les and Paula Kirsh April 29, 2005
Teresa Reckret Aori113, 2005
Anne Green Aoril15, 2005
Jessie Alexander March 21, 2005
Sheila Wood April 15, 2005
Francis Bowers and Marv O'Farrell-Bowers Aoril 29, 2005
Brian and Heather Crate April 4, 2005
Gary and Isabelle Thiess Aori114, 2005
Gerry and Pam Murfitt April 29, 2005
Moon Point Resident's Association April 12, 2005
A summary of the main points raised in the submissions and our responses are below:
1. Submission - The Township should consider acquiring the property for public use.
Response - The acquisition of the lands for public use is a Council decision. However,
given the opinion and recommendations of the LSRCA and the current policy framework
respecting shoreline development, it is my opinion that Council should focus more on
acquiring property that is the site of significant natural heritage features, such as lands on
the Oro Moraine.
2. Submission - The proposed development will have a negative impact on the
natural heritage features and functions on the site and beyond.
4
Gc -10)'
Response - The LSRCA has carefully reviewed the proposal in accordance with the
Provincial Policy Statement, the County of Simcoe Official Plan and Ihe Township Official
Plan to determine what impact the proposal will have on the environment. The LSRCA
has concluded that there are no significant features or functions on the site.
On this basis, they have clearly indicated that they have no opposition to the
development of the site, provided a number of detailed conditions are incorporated into
the approvals to ensure that development occurs as planned. Specifically, conditions will
require that a certain percentage of the tree cover on the property be retained during and
after construction and that an access/view corridor to the lake having a maximum width of
12 metres be permitted.
3. Submission - The proponent's environmental impact statement has not complied
with the standards set out by the LSRCA regarding the preparation of such
studies.
Response - In their June 2, 2005 letter, the LSRCA has indicated that the work
completed by the proponents was completed in accordance with their requirements.
4. Submission - The Township does not have the staff or consulting expertise to
carry out an environmental analysis of the property.
Response - The Township relies upon the LSRCA to carry out reviews of Environmental
Impact Studies on behalf of the Township of Oro.Medonte. It is my opinion and the
opinion of the Township that the LSRCA has the staff expertise to properly assess and
consider applications for development on behalf of the Municipality.
In the carrying out of their duties, they typically work with a proponent to determine
exactly what needs to be studied and what their requirements will be prior to making a
final recommendation. Throughout this process, the LSRCA has met with residents, staff
and the proponent on numerous occasions to ensure that it had a complete
understanding of the issues and was able to provide objective advice to the Township
with respect to this application.
5. Submission - The reports prepared by the proponent do not address the fisheries
resources on lake Simcoe. In addition, extremely long docks would be required as
a result of the shallowness of the water and these docks would have a negative
impact on the fisheries.
Response - The final Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the proponents
contains a review of the fisheries resources on this part of Lake Simcoe. It is concluded
that the "nearshore fish community is dominated by forage species, primarily shiners,
minnows and allies, with a seasonal habitat use by yellow perch and smallmouth bass.
This community type is common to Lake Simcoe and to other adjacent waterbodies in
southern Ontario. There is no evidence of coldwater fish community production, for
example lake whitefish, using nearshore habitat in this vicinity for either spawning or
nursery habitat. "
The LSRCA has not indicated that they have a concern with the proponent's submission
in this regard. However, it is recommended that conditions be included within the
5
t' (
.....( --(-I
"-- _.
approvals that would require the approval of the LSRCA, the Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR) andlor the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) for any works
in the shoreline. This is the approach typically followed by the LSRCA for small-scale
developments where individual docking facilities may be proposed. There is no guarantee
that a permit will be issued by the LSRCA for a dock on the site.
6. Submission - The approvals for the proposed development should either be
refused or deferred given that an Assimilative Capacity Study of Lake Simcoe is
currently underway.
Response - The Assimilative Capacity Study currently being undertaken by the Province
and the LSRCA will be completed in 2006. Generally, the LSRCA is concerned about the
amount of phosphorous leaching into the lake from sewage disposal systems, farming
activities and generai runoff from roads. Both the Province and the County have
indicated that planning applications in process need not be delayed until the study has
been completed. In addition, one of the primary focuses of the Assimilative Capacity
Study and the work emanating from that study will be an assessment of sewage
treatment options for large-scale urban development within the Lake Simcoe Watershed.
Given the limited amount of shoreline available in the Township of Oro-Medonte for low-
density residential development on private septic systems, no concern has been
expressed by the LSRCA about the added impact of developing 14 homes on the
property on the lake. However, it is my opinion that it would be appropriate to further
study private sewage disposal options on the property to ensure that only systems that
have minimal to non-existent impacts on the environment in terms of nutrients and
phosphorous are developed. In addition, retaining about 60% of the tree cover on the
property will assist in minimizing the amount of phosphorous that enters into the lake
from the proposed development.
7. Submission - The introduction of 14 property owners will have an impact on the
seasonal birds and other animals that make use of the shoreline.
Response - The proponents have indicated that the breeding birds using the property
are likely to adapt to habitat changes on the site. In addition, it proposed to ensure that
all construction on site take place in accordance with the Migratory Bird Convention Act.
Lastly, the retention of the majority of the trees on the site will ensure that there are
minimal impacts on habitat. It should be noted that the LSRCA has indicated that "we do
not consider this to be a significant wildlife habitat based on breeding birds...."
8. Submission - The lands are unsuitable for development as a result of the depth of
the water table.
Response - It is agreed that the water table is elevated on the lands. As a result, the
proposed leaching beds will have to be raised approximately 1.0 metre above grade and
the homes will be elevated. This is a typical response to elevated water table conditions
and has been considered acceptable in other locations. In addition, the detailed
storm water management report prepared as a condition of draft plan approval will also
address this issue.
6
,6'(
-~)
I
9. Submission - The mitigation measures proposed by the developer will not work (or
are unlikely to work).
Response - A number of conditions are required to be fulfilled as a condition of Draft
Plan Approval. In addition, individual Site Plan Agreements entered into pursuant to the
Planning Act are also required. The Site Plan Agreement will contain a number of
provisions that will require the property owner to ensure that the mitigation measures
recommended by the lSRCA are implemented. However, there is always the possibility
that an individual lot owner will not comply with the agreement. As a result, the Site Plan
Agreement will contain provisions that provide the Township with the ability to order
remedial works andlor carry out the remedial works and bill the individual lot owner. The
Township can also prosecute a breach of the Site Plan Agreement through the courts.
With respect to tree loss, many of the older developments in the Township were not
subject to any specific controls regarding the retention of trees on their properties. As a
result, many of the trees on existing lots on the shorelines of lake Simcoe and Bass lake
have been lost. It is for this reason that the Official Plan requires minimum lot sizes of
0.6 hectares to maximize the amount of trees retained on a property. This minimum lots
size, coupled with subdivision agreements and site plan conditions will go along way to
ensuring that the maximum number of trees are retained on each lot.
10. Submission - The proposed development will not be consistent with the Provincial
Policy Statement (PPS) and will not be in conformity with the Township's Official
Plan.
Response - The PPS (March 2005) states in Section 2.1.3 that development shall not be
permitted in significant habitat of endangered and threatened species, in significant
wetlands and in significant coastal wetlands. These features do not exist on the property,
or within 120 metres of the lands to be subdivided.
Section 2.1.4 of the PPS states that development may be permitted in significant
woodlands, significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat areas and in significant
areas of natural and scientific interest provided it "has been demonstrated that there will
be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions." The lSRCA
has confirmed that none of the above features exist on the lands to be subdivided and
have indicated that they have no objection to the approval of the applications.
With respect to the Township Official Plan, Council did adopt an Amendment to the
Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan that included very specific criteria in the Official
Plan to deal with applications within the shoreline area. These criteria were subsequently
approved by the County of Simcoe in February 2005 with no appeals. These criteria are
considered later in this report, however, it should be noted Ihat the proposed
development will conform with these criteria in every respect.
11. Submission. Construction will have an impact on the flow of ground water in the
area, particularly with respect to flooding.
7
be -6
Response - Shallow groundwater flow on the site is expected to be primarily eastwards
and northwards towards Lake Simcoe. As a result of the elevated water table on the site,
both the homes and the septic systems will be raised, which should minimize impacts.
The construction of the road may also have impacts on the flow of groundwater. The
stormwater management report prepared as a condition of draft plan approval will
address this issue.
12. Submission - The property is one of the last remaining natural areas along the
shoreline and therefore should be preserved.
Response - It is agreed that the subject property is one of the last remaining properties
along the lake Simcoe shoreline in Oro-Medonte that has not been developed.
However, there is no policy framework in place at the provincial, county or local level that
is intended to preclude development from occurring for this reason alone. Instead, the
policies require the careful consideration of the impacts of development and the suitability
of the lands for development. It is on this basis that the lSRCA was asked to review the
site and the supporting studies.
It is also agreed that there is some benefit in retaining these natural areas over the long
term. However, this benefit must also be balanced against the aspirations of a
iandowner. the policies of the Township's Official Plan and the presence/absence of
significant wildlife habitat or other natural heritage features on the lands.
13. Submission - The reduced lot frontage on the road for the majority of the lots is
inappropriate.
Response. It is agreed that some of the lots will have reduced frontages at the road.
However, all of the lots will have larger than required frontages on the water. Given the
lot sizes involved (minimum lot size 0.6 hectares) and the depth of the lots, a reduced lot
frontage at the road is considered to be appropriate. The large minimum lot size of 0.6
hectares is considerably larger than Ihe existing lots that are located to the south of the
subject property along Moon Point Drive. This larger lot area allows for the nesting of the
proposed development in the existing environment.
14. Submission - The proposed development will act as a precedent for future
development in the area.
Response - With respect to precedent, the policies of the Official Plan currently prohibit
the development of new residential lots on the fringe of the City of Orillia. The exception
is along the shoreline where such development can be designed to blend in and be
compatible with existing shoreline development. Given the location of the property and
the policies of the current Official Plan, it is my opinion that the development will not set a
precedent for additional development along Woodland Drive leading to Memorial Road in
the City of Orillia.
15. Submission - The lands are currently environmentally protected and should be
maintained as such.
Response - The lands are not designated Environmental Protection 1 or Environmental
Protection 2 by the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The Environmental
8
6,
C1
i
Protection 1 designation applies to those features that are considered to be significant
according to the Provincial Policy Statement. The Environmental Protection 2
designation is intended to apply to lands which are not considered to be significant, but
which contribute to the integrity of the Township's Natural Heritage system.
Notwithstanding the above there is small area of land on the Moon Point property that is
zoned Environmental Protection. However, this zoning has been deemed to be incorrect
by both the Township and the LSRCA, since it was intended to apply to a watercourse.
Such a watercourse, while appearing on old base maps of the area, does not exist on the
site.
16. Submission - The proposal will have a negative impact on the wetlands in the area.
Response . The development is located further than 120 metres from the closest
wetland. On this basis, the LSRCA does not have any concerns about the impact on the
proposed development on wetlands in the area.
17. Submission - The construction traffic, in addition to the traffic generated from the
new homes, will have an impact on the area.
Response - It is agreed that there will be additional traffic to the site during the
construction. However, local Township roads are designed to accommodate up to 1000
to 2000 vehicles per day. At the present time, Moon Point Drive does not support that
amount of traffic. As a result, the impact of the additional traffic will be minimal to non-
existent.
18. Submission - Locating a cul-de-sac on the property is not good planning.
Response. The plan for a cul-de-sac on the property is the most appropriate solution for
development on the site. Creating a through street on the site would result in more
property being utilized for development and more disturbance and tree loss.
19. Submission - The approvals would create a precedent with respect to the
remainder of the camp property.
Response - With respect to the remainder of the camp property, we are not aware of any
plans on the part of the camp to develop the remainder of their property. These plans
would have to be supported by an additional amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning
By-law and a new Plan of Subdivision application. In addition, Council would have to
consent to the lifting of 0.3 metre reserve that will be placed on the end of the cul-de-sac.
20. Submission - The development will have an impact on the private wells in the area.
Response - It is my opinion that the assessment has clearly established that the principle
of developing 14 lots on the basis of private wells and septic systems is supportable.
However, more detailed work will be completed as part of the draft approvai process and
such work will have to be to the Township's satisfaction before any final approvals are
given.
9
/ ,~
be '" !. V
ANALYSIS
Description and Rationale of Existing Official Plan Policy
In August 2003, Council adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 17. OPA 17 deleted the last
sentence of Section D10.3.8 which states:
"Any amendment to this Plan that has the effect of permitting additional
residential development adjacent to the Shoreline designation will only be
considered as part of a review of the appropriateness of the extent and limits of
the entire Shoreline designation that is carried out and is part of an Official Plan
review. "
OPA 17 replaced the above sentence with the following:
"Amendments to this Plan that have the effect of permitting additional residential
development adjacent to the Shoreline designation will be discouraged. If such
an application is submitted, the appropriateness of the immediate area for
development from an environmental, servicing, character and traffic perspective
shall be assessed. If major development is proposed, a detailed review of the
entire Shoreline Area shall be carried out to determine if the proposed location is
suitable and appropriate from a growth management perspective."
It was my initial recommendation during the Official Plan review that the Shoreline policies be
modified, since there were a limited number of circumstances under which it was felt that
development could occur, under the right conditions. As a result, initial drafts of the proposed
policy change included a number of conditions that would have provided the basis for considering
such requests. These conditions dealt with servicing, traffic, location, size of lots and
environmental impact. However, the criteria were not incorporated in the final draft of OPA 17
adopted by Council and instead, the policy only referenced the issues that needed to be
considered by Council in a review and an application in the future.
In order to provide some time to review the wording of this Section, Council requested the County
of Simcoe to not make a decision on the modification to Section D10.3.8. The intent of the
request was to ensure that the original intent of Council as articulated in the adopted version of
OPA 17 was more clearly articulated. The result was the preparation of a more detailed policy to
provide and appropriate basis for the consideration of applications for development in the
Shoreline Area in the future. This revised policy, as modified by the County of Simcoe, is below.
"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 either 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 parcel of land that abuts 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 redesignate
lands for such limited shoreline development, provided Council is satisfied that:
10
,b'c' n
a) The lots will have a minimum area of 0.6 hectares to a maximum area of
approximately 1.0 hectare, except where larger sizes may be suitable
because of environmental constraints or design considerations;
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 s 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/his 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. "
Conformity of Proposal with the Township Official Plan
The subject lands are designated Restricted Rural in the Oro-Medonle Official Plan. II is
proposed that the lands be designated Shoreline.
The vision of the Official Pian recognizes that the Township's open, relatively natural and rural
character is the quality that residents value most about their community. Section A2.3 of the
Official Plan states that one of the primary principles of the Plan is to consolidate rural
development in existing Settlement Areas to protect the character of rural areas. In addition, it
adds "to ensure that there is a clear spatial delineation between the Barrie and Orillia urban areas
and the rural and agricultural area of Oro-Medonte, new development adjacent to either City shall
be restricted to agricultural and agricultural-related uses".
Although the proposed residential development is located close to the Oro-MedontelCity of Orillia
border, the two areas would most likely never be joined by residential development. To the
northeast of the property are low swampy lands that are unsuited for development and which are
part of the Bluffs Creek wetland, which is considered to be a Provincially Significant Wetland.
The presence of these lowlands within the City of Orillia and in Oro-Medonte will ensure that a
clear spatial delineation is maintained between the built form of Orillia and Oro-Medonte.
With respect to Section 010.3.8, as modified, below is my opinion on how the proposed
development conforms with the criteria set out in that Section.
1. The policy indicates that "exceptions may be granted through the approval of an Official
Plan Amendment if the expansion is small in scale, and is either focused on the shoreline
or is considered to be infilling". Given that the 14 lots proposed are focused on the
shoreline, the consideration of an Official Plan Amendment by Council is permitted by the
policy.
11
)
6e- II.
The policy requires that lots have a minimum area of 0.6 hectares and a maximum area
of 1 hectare. All of the lots will have a minimum lot area of 0.6 hectares.
The policy requires that the "majority of the existing tree cover on the proposed lots is
retained and protected as part of the approvals process". The proponent has indicated
that 60% of the vegetation on each lot will be retained. This percentage will be
incorporated within the Subdivision Agreement and the Site Plan Agreements that will be
registered on title. As a result, this policy has been satisfied.
The policy requires that the development be "compatible, in terms of scale, density and
character, with existing development". The proposed shoreline residential lots will have
lot areas that are much larger than the majority of existing lots along the shoreline. The
larger lot size will provide opportunities for the retention of the majority of vegetation on
each lot. In addition, given the location of the lots and the limited amount of land
available for shoreline development around Lake Simcoe, it is anticipated that the homes
will be relatively upscale in nature and well maintained. Lastly, each of the 14 lots will be
accessed by a new public road that intersects with Moon Point Road at an appropriate
location. It is not anticipated that the traffic generated from the 14 lots will have a
measurable impact on the character of the area.
The policy requires that each of the proposed lots with water frontage have a water
frontage of no less than 45 metres. Each of the lots will conform with this policy.
The policy also requires that the proposal conform with the general subdivision and
consent policies of the Official Plan. On the basis of a review of those policies contained
in the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 17 (Section 02.3), and on the basis of a review
of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, as amended, it is my opinion that the proposed
development conforms with those policies in every respect.
It is on the basis of the above that it is recommended that Planning Advisory CommitteelCouncil
adopt the Official Plan Amendment, grant Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval and pass the
Implementing Zoning By-law with a Holding provision.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DOCUMENTATION
The applicant has applied to amend the Official Plan, the Zoning By-law and to obtain approval
for a draft Plan of Subdivision. Given that this report recommends that the applications be
approved, below is a brief discussion on the form of each of the documents that will provide for
the development.
Official Plan
It is proposed to include site-specific policies in the Shoreline Section of the Official Plan that
would provide very clear guidance on how development on the property is to proceed.
Specifically, the policies will require that detailed site plans be prepared for each lot prior to final
approval and that each lot be the subject of Site Plan Control following final approval of the Plan
of Subdivision. In addition, the policies clearly articulate the intent of the Township with respect to
maintaining forest cover on each of the lots through the site planning process. The proposed
OPA is attached to this report as Attachment #4.
Zoning By-law
It is proposed to place the property in the Shoreline Residential zone. The only exception
required to the zone standards is for the minimum lot frontage. However, it is also appropriate to
12
,
G'c - Is'
include a restriction on the number of lots to be developed as well. As a result, the exception will
limit the number of lots permitted on the property to 14 and will provide for a minimum lot frontage
of 22 metres. The Zoning By-law will include a Holding provision that shall not be lifted until Site
Plan agreements have been entered into between the Township of Oro-Medonte and individual
lot owners. The draft Zoning By-law is attached to this report as Attachment #5.
Plan of Subdivision
A comprehensive review of all of the supporting reports and the agency comments has been
undertaken as part of the process of developing a series of draft plan conditions that would apply
to the property. While many of the draft plan conditions are standard conditions that would apply
to any subdivision in the Township, there are a number of unique conditions that are intended to
ensure that the specific recommendations of the LSRCA are implemented. A brief description of
these unique conditions is below.
1. Condition 6 requires the preparation of detailed plans showing:
a) stormwater management measures;
b) general lot grading including existing and proposed elevations:
c) building envelopes:
d) septic system locations;
e) driveway locations;
f) erosion control measures;
g) site servicing including water, hydro, telephone, cable tv and gas services, as
well as main line utilities and appurtenances in the road allowance; and,
h) areas where existing vegetation is to be retained.
2. Condition 12 requires that the Subdivision Agreement contain provisions notifying
prospective purchasers that a Site Plan Agreement between individual lot owners and the
Township will be required before building permits can be issued.
3. Condition 1 g requires that a common drainage swale system be designed at the rear of
the septic systems and primarily along the 20 metre shoreline setback limit to ensure that
there is some level of water flow to the ponding area locations adjacent to the berm.
4. Condition 20 indicates that the Subdivision Agreement will include provisions that notify
prospective purchasers that specific approvals will be required for any dock construction
on the property.
5. Condition 29 requires that a Tree Preservation and Shoreline Access Plan be prepared.
It is within this Plan that 60% of each lot will be shown as being retained in a non-
manicured vegetative state.
6. Condition 30 requires that a Natural Environment Stewardship manual be prepared. This
manual is intended to educate lot owners on the value of the woodlands and ephemeral
pools on the property.
The suggested draft plan conditions are attached to this report as Attachment #6. It should be
noted that the conditions require either a 5% land dedication for parkland or cash-in-lieu of
parkland. The draft plan does not show a parkland block. It is my opinion that it would be more
appropriate for the Township to collect cash-in-lieu of parkland in this case since the siting of a
13
be - I Lf
park for public use on the lands to be subdivided is not necessary or in the public interest, since
the potential public use may have an impact on the character of the area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
1. THAT Planning Department Report No. PD2005-036 be received;
2. THAT Official Plan Amendment No. 21 as set out in Attachment #4 to this report be adopted:
3. THAT Zoning By-law attached to this report as Attachment #5 to this report be passed:
4. THAT Draft Plan Approval to the lands proposed to be subdivided by the Moon Point
Corporation and apply the draft plan conditions set out in Attachment #6 to this report be
granted; and,
5. THAT cash-in-lieu of parkland as part of the subdivision approval process be accepted.
Respectfully submitted,
~Ce~
E...D Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP
UD-V' Planning Consultant
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
f:I.PLANN!NG\D-Dl"vl"\opment & Planning\D12 Subdivision Plans\2004-SUB-01, 2004-ZBA.09, 2004-0PA-02 Moon POint CorporatiOn\Report PD 2005.036 Moon Point
recommendation to PAC.doc
14
':*'
I
!r
;.i
'"
i
::w~~" ,?-,
~'~u
,
,
,
P/jRT 2 5!P~23!#i4
.,
1$
II II
I
~~1
I
~
-
II'
I
..
'"
$
..
.''''
J
/' l
....
-,-
be-15
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
ANnl'ARTOfTHE
C-'0ClOSH! BY TOWNSHIP OF ORIU.lA
BY..LA W NO 1:284, !NST NO NS(JJ47%,
CONHRMH) UY CDUr.Ti OF SIMCOE
R{plR<;Mi1~'ij!j{<1j~~)(j2(~02~jr8b,~.~J?)
jlTY 31), '19F !NSf NO NSOH7&J)
t;J.iOGRAPHJC TOWNSHIPO!
INTHl'
L THE UNDERSIGNED, BUNG THE IWGbTERED OWNER or THF
SUBjECr rANl)';i H(REBY AUTHORIZE HW fONi'5CON5Ui.TIM';
CROUP un, TO PREPARE Tfjj5 DI""rT PLAN Of SUBDIVISION AND
1'0 SUBMiT SAME IO THE TOWN<;I-iI!'O!' ORO,MUJONTE FOR ,\!1'ROVA\
DAn
MOON I~)I[\'T (X)R!URAnON
\ UCRTlfY..-;M r n-IE HOUND_A RIb OF THE LANDSTO BE
SUBl'!lViDED -"NLl H-IEIR RFlATIONSHlP TO ADj.,^CENT I..ANI)S
"RFACCURAfELY.-\NDCORJ1lTfLYSHOIVN
i.HTE
j.D.ANN,\IJLL O-LS
ARO-lI!!AIJJ.GRAY & Md<A'i i.TD
ONTARIO tANDSURITYORS
FHHORS.iJ}..i'i.2i
"'_"K~",O""'LAt-'
;,'''.,.,M",Ut-iP'-AN
'NL'Jf;',m__,",""."';;.'",D"lJ"'."';[-',
jS,'""""TCR_wa.'-Y.'AN,w,nM"
,C.;;'-"""'RC",l.i",nAYWAM
j)"''-WN'-~''AN
"''on'"
'i ",,;oem-Nn,\(
,-,".P."NUN,.',.AN
,)".E(>wNor;,"...",
;,-,HOWNUr;'"..'N
SINGtf.E5T,\TFRESHXNT!AI
~~9~
141""
D.JmRf,'iERVEiHUXKS15&I6j
RUADS
U-O'I8k)
{J]6!",
SUBTOTAl
RETA!NEI'! lANDS UWNED IW APPUCAN1
TOTAl
9.1'-;)0;.,
HI"",
15.35ho
25.(Hh"
I~ I,,",
ARCH!IIAlD,(;RAY&).kKAYLTiJ
GNT ,\R!O !ANI'! SURVEYOR5
msrANCESSHOWN ON TH!SH...';,N ,';,RE IN MErRr,SAND
CAN BE CONVERTED TO FEET 5Y D1VIDING RYD_}{)48
SCAli ,'J2'>()
_ J~~~~""ID
........~ . ."~ "..eID..~.'.~"..'~~....
...=~"."""'--OC'P,,,._.,,,,,,,,_;-"'.'''';
"",=",""=>i.-.''''.''''--'''''=
"'8'''_'~='
/Z/'/ON L_ ~M / "" /
c~
FIGURE 6
..
/# ,P
,"!tiP' _dP""'"
/'~ ,""
I
I
o 20 40
Scale 1: 1000 (Ai)
MOQ-03174 . Vegeiatilffl-Cover _ LSRCApnntonty_cdr
60
80
100 METRES
Moon Point Concept Plan
Proposed Vegetation Retention
@
Notes:
Siting of building enveiopes are conceptual anctwill be finalized during t he Site Plan
Control Process with the Township of Oro-Medonte. Proce.S$ will inducte the approval of a
tree relenlion/replacementplan as prepared by a Registered Profession alForester,
/l#achcmM! IJ Z.
.....'A JONES
.........
.....~ . CONSULTING GROUP lTD.
.... PLANNERS, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS
, 300 La~,,"hor~ Dc;'''. Suite iDO, Barrie, O~taf'Q l4N OB~
. :~;;:~~,,~g~~:;s3uili~;J~O:ax {105)714-i056
"'I"
J ~,i ,~.
2. 2005
".
Tel: 90S ~S9S~1281
1-800..465.0437
Fax: 9OS~~5J..sSSl
E~Mail: infQaulsrc~.(!n.CA
We.b: u"\I,."'U'.l;rca..ol1...t;;\\
120 B3.Y"'icn' P2r'lcw,lY
Box 1$2
N~::\rk~t, Ontario
UY 4X1
A
Watcuhed
fOf Life
..",/!f?TC<L:/7~!7 f
4:35PM
(;
7
LSRCA
NO. bO
"
Sent by Facsimile 1-705-487-0133
June 2, 2005
File Nos.: 2004-SUB-Ol, 2004-0P A-02 & 2004-ZBA-09
IMS Nos.: PSDC114C24, POFC234, PZOC465
Mr Broce Hoppe, Director of Planning
Township of Oro-Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, ON LOL 2XO
Dear MI Hoppe:
RE: Proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments
Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision
Columbus Club of Toronto
Part Lots 15 and 16, Concession 3
Townshi\,!of 010 Medonte
The staff of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) have reviewed the
Environmental Impact Statement & SWM and Natural Hazard Study Final Study Report
(GreenJand Consulting Engineers and Watershed Management Ecology, May 2005) prepared to
address OUI comments May 3,2005. Please note that only the main document has been revised.
The two appendices remain the same.
In preparing the Environmental Impact Study, the consultants contacted the LSRCA at the start
of the projectin 2003 and we re,iewed the t=.s of reference for this project. The Study meets
the imen( of our TCTmS of Reference Dt thattirne, as well as our curren! Terms of Reference. The
field survey program WM scoped based on the site characteristics. The technical information
presented in the report is satisfactory.
We note that the concept plan illustrates woodland cover remaining on the lots in relatively large
contig1lous blocks across the .6:ont ofthe lot. Twelve metre wide access points to the water are
illustrated on the plan and located to retDin as naturally appearing shor~liJl" as possible. The
report indicates that 62% vegetation coverage ",':iJlremain. We recognize that the concept plan
is illustrative and wi!] be refined through detail design through the subdh':ision conditions and
site plan approval.
Based on the additional technical information provided., we do not consider this to be a
significant wildlife area based on breeding birds, M such, all potential natural heritage features
have noW been addressed through the EIS. As wel!, the concept plan illustrates development
outside the flood plain and ero.ion prone areas. Therefore. we have no concerns with potential
impacts from natural hazards. The illustTated vegetation coverage wiII assist in providing the
anticipated $tonnwater quality control.
A number of the consultant's recommendations propose further work at the site plan control
stage. We recommend that the Township require the following aspects to be addressed as part
of subdivision conditions as the design of the devdopmcnt should to be reviewed on a
comprehensive basis for the property rather than through future individual owners. Measures
to preserve the integrity ofthe shoreline and tree cover are acceptable provided that the following
aspects are included.
Page J Of4
SRU
6c-10'
.
22005 435PM
p 2; d
NO. 60 i
June 2, 2005
File Nos.: 2004~SUB-Ol, 2004.0PA-02 & 2004-ZBA-09
IMS Nos.: PSDCl14C24, POFC234, PZOC465
Mr Bruce Hoppe, Director o{Planning
TO~Y11ship ofOro-Medonte
Page 2 of 4
1, A tree preservation plan and shoreline access plan be prepared by the developer, This
will ensure that development envelopes are located to n1aximize the woodlot coverage
in large contiguous blocks, while accoUJlting for engineering requirements "dth lot
grading, water well and tile bed locations. Further, the location of suitable access points
will take intoconstderatton shoreJtne vegetation as wen as the location o[tlle ephemeral
pools. 1'11epfepax<!tion of these plans will require the expertise of a registered
professional forester (RPF) to identifY significant tiees on the site worthy ofprotection.
Prior to preparation of these plans, the applicant should consult with LSRCA sraff to
establish the criteria for identifying significant and specimen trees. We believe it is more
appropriate to recognize these species at the beginning of detail design.
2. We would not recommend clearing of the water access areas by the developer, although
the geh"",,,1 trito>ri" {or wateT access needs to be defined by the developer. The future lot
owner should be given the opport1J11ity to leave the shoreline vegetation intact. Limited
shared access should be considered and is recommended by the LSRCA.
3. We would recommend that if the replacement tile bed location is required in the future,
that anequiva.1ent area be replanted with woody vegetation.
4. We also recommend that a Natural Environment Stewardship Manual (refered to as
Homeowl1er's Manual in the EIS) be prepared 3i5 a condition of draft plan approval and
be made available to prospective lot purch3i5er's, This manual will need to be prq>ar<,d
by a qualified landscape architect.
We have no objection to the Official Plan a.."1lend1nent provided that it includes the following:
1. Vegetation removal \vithin the 20 metre water setback area shall be limited to provide
for viewing, access to the shoreline and any shoreline structureS. Removal of a minimum
numbcroftreesto provide views of the water wjJJ be encouraged along with other less
inVllBive measmes such :as pruning_
2. Shoreline works may require a permit ITom the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority, Mil'jstry of Natural ReOOUIces, aT the Department of Fisheries ahd Oceans.
3. Every effort will be made to retain tree cover with this development. Measures such as
maximizirigthecontlguous area oftreecoVCT =d retaining .horelinevegetation, except
to provide water access or views, in the siting of development envelopes will be used.
Generally the site will be designed such that approximately 60% non-manicured
vegetative cover will be retained,
lSRCA
be i1
'.
2.2005 4:35PM
L
ND. 601
June 2, 2005
File Nos.: 2004-SlJB-01, 2004-0PA-02 & 2004-ZBA-09
IMS Nos.: PSDC114C24, POFC234, PZOC465
M.r Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning
Township ofOro-Medonte
Page 3 of 4
We have no objection to draft plan approval with the following conditions:
1. T11at this approval relates to a draft plan of subdivision prepared by Jones Consulting,
dated Aptil 5, 2004.
2. Prior to final approval and to any grading tak111g plac.e on the site, a Stoffi1water
Management Report incorporating Enhanced Protection (MOE, 2003) be prepared to tho
satisfaction ofthe Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. Provision must be made
to locate detention facilities above the elevation of the 1:100 year storm floodline jf
applicable.
3. That a lot grading and drainage plan be prepared to the satisfaction ofthe Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority.
4. That a report be prepared to the satisfaction of the Authority detailing the means whereby
erosion and siltation wiIJ be minimized and contained on the site both during and
subsequent to the construction period.
5. That the OViner agree in the subdivision agreement to maintain an erosion and siltation
control devices in good repair during the construction period in a manner satisfactory to
lheLake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.
6, That the owo.er obtain all necessary Authority pennits.
7. That the owner prepare a tree preservation pLm and shoreline access plan to the
satisfaction of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. The preparation of
these plans must include the expertise of a registered professional forester (REF).
Development envelope limits, including building, septic system, driveway access,
shoreline access. and outdoor living space, wilJ be defined. Development envelopes will
alter approximately 40% of each lot, retaining approximately 60% in a non-manicured
vegetated state. Vegetation removal within the 20 metre water setback area will be a
maximum of 12 metres of shoreline length for each lot.
8. That the owner prepare a Natural Environment Stewardship Manual for prospective
purchasers that....>ill educate the lando.....'1ler on the value of the woodlondt and ephemeral
pools as part ofthe Lake Simcoe watershed, as wen as suggestions to maintain the health
of the ecosystem. This would cover such aspects, but not be limited to, the value of
native vegetation, control of nuisance plant and anima! specics, identify appropriate
species for restoration or enhancement planti11g's suitable to the area, and limiting
pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer use. The manual will be prepared to the satisfaction
of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.
.
,
2.2005 4:35PM
~2.o
LSR(J
NO. 60 i
~ 4 4
June 2, 2005
File Nos.: 2004-SUB-Ol, 2004-0PA-02 & 2004-ZBA-09
lMS Nos.: PSDCJ 14C24, POFC234, PZOC465
Mr Bmce Hoppe. Director of Planning
Township ofOro-Medonte
Page 4 of4
9. That the 5ubdi\~sion agreement include requirements in the Notice of Offers of Purchase
and Sale for prospective purchasers to the satisfaction of the Lake SiIDcoe Region
Conservation Authority:
water access and views ofLaj(e Simcoe are restricted through the Zocing By-law,
tree preservation plan, arid shoreline access pl3J1.
b) a Natural Environment Stewardship Manual as prepared under condition 8 will
be provided to the prospective purchaser.
c) that permits may be required from the Lake Simcoe Regiol1 Conservation
Authority. MicistryofNatural Resow'ces or Depanment of Fisheries and Oceans
for shoreline works.
We hll"e no objection to approval of the zoning by-Jaw amendment with the following
provisions induded:
1. 111" Township Zomng By-law retain a minimum development setbackof20 metres from
the shoreline. This would include buildings and structures including septic systems, but
excluding docks, boathouses and other shoreline related structures.
2. A maximum of 12 metres may be used for shoreline related structures and access.
Please contact me if you have any questions. Please reference the above file numbers ill future
correspondence.
Yours truly,
~::i,RPP
Semor Plo.nner
JW/ph
c. Kevin Anderson, The Tay Jak Group, 1-905-665-2031 - Fax
Em Hartman, Greenland International Consulting Ltd., 1-705-444-5482 - Fax
Geza Ga..opardy, Watershed Managem<:nt. Ecology - 1-416-850-5181 - Fa.x
S :\)3.nd'lV\L:tb:~'I'i:l.&ub~MtI1'nt'donte>nw.on point 4. \\'Pd
Prepared by
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21
(MOON POINT CORPORATION)
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Township Application # 2004-0PA-02
MERIDIAN
~fI>IOCQt4I;j~INC,
Township Planning Consultants
June 6, 2005
~clin1t"n1"# ?f
Gc ~ 2.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT
PART I:
THE INTRODUCTION
1.0 PURPOSE
2.0 LOCATION
3.0 BASIS
PART II
THE AMENDMENT
PART III
THE APPENDICES
Appendix 1:
Planning Report prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants
(Township Planning consultant)
G 22.
2
3
3
3
3
5
6
6 c.2)
BY-LAW
The Corporation of the
Township of Oro-Medonte
Being a By-law to Adopt
Amendment No. 21 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 21 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 June, 2005
Read a third time and finally passed this _ day of June, 2005
Mayor
Clerk
Official Plan Amendment 21
(Moon Point Corporation Application)
Township of Oro-Medonte
Prepared by
MERIDIAN
~MCQNIiJLJ>Oo<nilol':.
Page 1
June 6, 2005
6c ~2 4
CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT
Part I: The Introduction, provides general information regarding the general policy
update. Part I: The Introduction does not constitute an operative part of
Amendment No. 21 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. 21 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. 21 to the
Official Plan.
Official Plan Amendment 21
(Moon Point Corporation Application)
Township of Oro-Medonte
Prepared by
MERIDIAN
I!UHNI'fDCOO4IJ~I;C
Page 2
June 6, 2005
(, 25
PART I: THE INTRODUCTION
(this is not an operative part of Official Plan Amendment No. 21)
1.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Amendment is to change the land use designation applying to a parcel of
land along the Lake Simcoe shoreline to provide for the development of a 14 lot Plan of
Subdivision.
2.0 LOCATION
The Amendment applies to lands within Part of Lots 15 and 16 in Concession 3 of the former
Township of Orillia, now in the Township of Oro.Medonte, as shown on Schedule 'A', which is
attached to this Amendment.
3.0 BASIS
A Comprehensive Planning Report with attachments is attached to this Amendment as Appendix
'A'. The Planning Report reviews the application in detail and its conformity with the Township of
Oro-Medonte Official Plan.
Section D10.3.8 of the in effect Official Plan contains a policy that is intended to be considered
when applications for shoreline development are submitted. This policy is reproduced below:
'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
either 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 parcel
of land that abuts 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 redesignate lands
for such limited shoreline development, provided Council is satisfied that:
a) The lots will have a minimum area of 0.6 hectares to a maximum area of
approximately 1.0 hectare, except where larger sizes may be suitable because of
environmental constraints or design considerations;
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 s compatible, in terms of scale, density and character, with
existing development;
Official Plan Amendment 21
(Moon Point Corporation Application)
Township of Oro-Medonte
Prepared by
MERIDIAN
_MCO>iIIi;.IWoJoI'hl!<C;
Page 3
June 6, 2005
bt~2b
d) The proposed lots, if localed on the shoreline, have a waler 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 shatl be created, atl 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 devetopment is proposed (which is defined as development that does not meet
the above criteria), a detailed review of the entire shoreline area shatl be carried out to
determine if the proposed location is suitable and appropriate from a growth management
perspective. "
The Amendment to the Official Plan will conform to the policy set out in Section D10.3.8 in every
respect. Specifically:
. Each of the proposed lots will have an area of 0.6 hectares or greater;
. The majority of the existing tree cover on the proposed lots will be retained and
provisions will be included in both the Subdivision Agreement and the individual Site Plan
Agreements applying to each lot to ensure that the majority of forest cover is maintained;
. The proposed development, as a result of its location and large lot sizes, is compatible in
terms of scale, density and character with existing development;
. Each of the proposed lots will have a water frontage of no less than 45 metres: and,
. The general criteria in the Official Plan respecting subdivisions are met.
Council has also had careful regard to the environmental impact of the proposed development.
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, who is responsible for providing objective
advice to the Township on environmental planning matters, has confirmed that the site does not
support significant natural features and has recommended that development can proceed
provided certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions will be included in the implementing
documents. The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority letter is attached to the Planning
Report in Appendix 'A'.
Official Plan Amendment 21
(Moon Point Corporation Application)
Township of Oro-Medonte
Prepared by
MERIDIAN
JUl'tNr.ooCONN~INO::..
Page 4
June 6, 2005
/'
I;, 27
PART II: THE AMENDMENT
(ThiS is the operative part of Official Plan Amendment No. 21)
ITEM # 1
Section D10 of the Official Plan is amended by adding in a new Section D1 0.9 as set out below:
"D10.9
EXCEPTIONS
D10.9.1
Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concession 3 (Orillia)
Notwithstanding any other policy in this Plan, the following policies apply to the
lands shown as being subject to this Section on Schedule '_' to this Plan:
a) No more than 14 lots by way of Plan of Subdivision shall be developed.
b) The Subdivision Agreement shall contain provisions that require the
preparation of detailed site plans for each lot. The intent of the site plans
is to insure that the majority of the tree cover within the 20 metre setback
area from Lake Simcoe and on the remainder of each lot is maintained
as development occurs. These site plans are to be approved by the
Township and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority as part of
the approval process.
c) In order to ensure that individual lot owners and future lot owners are
aware of the site planning process, each of the 14 lots shall be subject to
Site Plan Control pursuant to the Planning Act. These Site Plan
Agreements shall include appropriate provisions that provide for
maximum tree retention on the property.
Official Plan Amendment 21
(Moon Point Corporation Application)
Township of Oro-Medonte
Prepared by
MERIDIAN
~IIUOCOI.;U._ft;!C.
Page 5
June 6, 2005
, . .
PART III: THE APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Planning Report prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants (Township Planning
Consultant)
Official Plan Amendment 21
(Moon Point Corporation Application)
Township of Oro-Medonte
Prepared by
MERIDIAN
""",,"1I>iCCQMJ;JlJ:*WnilC.
Page 6
June 6, 2005
6 -29
r
4/1ac Afl1<t1/l~ ;H J
~
-
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
BY-LAW NO. 2005-
Being a By-law to amend By-law 97-95 to change the zoning of lands owned
by the Moon Point Corporation in Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concession 3
(Orillia)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient by Council to amend By-law 97-95 to implement Official Plan
Amendment No. 21 to permit a 14 lot Plan of Subdivision.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro.Medonte enacts as
follows:
1. Schedule 'A8' is hereby amended as set out on Schedule 'A-1' to this By-law.
2. Section 7.0 (Exceptions) is hereby amended by adding the following sub-section:
"7.162 Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, the following provisions apply
to the lands denoted by the symbol '162 on the schedules to this By-law:
a) A maximum of 14 lots are permitted.
b) The minimum lot frontage is 21.8 metres.
c) The maximum width of an access/view corridor extending from the
shoreline to the 20 metre setback line from the average high water mark
is 12 metres.
3. The Holding provision shall only be lifted once a Site Plan Agreement has been entered
into.
Read a First and Second time on
Read a Third and Final time on
Mayor
Clerk
/-11/1((' /1 j/J/ffl n 1 - t/;
.
,
,.
-10
Applicant: Moon Point Corporation
File No.: 2004-Sub-0]
Municipality: Township of Oro-Medonte
Subject Lands: Concession 3, Part of Lots ]5 & ]6 (Orillia)
Date of Decision: June 22, 2005
Date of Notice: --- --, 2005
Last Date of Appeal: --- --, 2005
The Township's conditions and amendments to final plan approval for registration of this
subdivision are as follows:
No. Conditions
I. That this draft plan approval applies to the draft plan prepared by Jones Consulting dated April 2,
2005, showing 14 lots in Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concession 3 in the former City of Orillia, now the
Township ofOro-Medontc.
2. That 0.3 metre reserves be included on the final Plan of Subdivision along Street 'A', which shall be
conveyed to the Township of Oro-Medontc without monetary consideration and free of all
encumbrances.
3. That the Owner agrees that the road allowance shown as Street 'A' on the draft plan shall be built,
dedicated as a public highway and named to the satisfaction of the Township ofOro-Medonte.
4. That the Owner enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the municipality, agreeing to satisfy all
conditions, financial and otherwise, of the Township ofOro-Medonte.
5. That the Owner agree to either dedicate to the Township at least 5% of the land to be subdivided as
public parkland or pay eash-in-lieu of parkland to the satisfaction of Council.
6. That prior to any site alteration or final approval, a plan or plans shall be prepared to the satisfaction
of the Township Engineer and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority showing:
a. stormwater management measures;
b. general lot grading including existing and proposed elevations;
c. building envelopes;
d. septic system locations;
e. driveway locations;
f. erosion control measures;
g. site servicing including water, hydro, telephone, cable TV, and gas services; as well as mainline
utilities and appurtenances in the road allowance; and,
h. areas where existing vegetation is to be retained.
These approved plan(s) will form part of the Subdivision Agreement with the Township ofOro-
Medonte.
7. That the Owner prepare site plans for each lot depicting the information prescribed in Condition 6
as required.
8. That the Owner undertake soil suitability testing on lands proposed for private septic systems to the
satisfaction of the Township ofOro-Medonte.
..
f..c
0_
"'I
/,
Applicant: Moon Point Corporation
File No.: 2004-Snb-01
Mnnicipality: Township ofOro-Medonte
Subject Lands: Concession 3, Part of Lots 15 & 16 (Orillia)
Date of Decision: June 22, 2005
Date of Notice: --- ", 2005
Last Date of Appeal: --- --, 2005
9. That prior to final approval, the appropriate zoning shall be in effect for this subdivision, in
accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13. Such zoning shall
include a holding provision that shall not be lifted by Council until an appropriate Site Plan
Agreement pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act has been entered into between the Township
of Oro-Medonte and the owner ofthe lot for which a building pennit is requested.
10. That such easements as may be required for utility or drainage purposes shall be granted to the
appropriate authority.
II. That the Subdivision Agreement contain a clause to the effect that individual lot owners will be
required to obtain the services of a professional engineer registered with the Association of
Professional Engineers of Ontario experienced in private sewage system design to prepare a detailed
site development plan for approval by the Township Engineer prior to the issuance of a Sewage
System Pennit. This site plan will be in confonnity with the plan or plans described above, and will
contain the following:
a) The location of all buildings and structures existing or proposed on the lot.
b) The location, size and header invert elevation of the sewage system including existing and
proposed finished grades.
e) Drainage control measures.
12. That the Subdivision Agreement contain a clausc to the effect that individual lot owners will be
required to enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the Township of Oro-Medonte pursuant to Section
41 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 c.P.13 before a building permit can be issued. The Site Plan
Agreement shall deal with the items listed in Conditions 6, 19,24,29 and 30.
13. That the Subdivision Agreement contain the following clause:
"The Owner shall include in all offers of Purchase and Sale a clause advising perspective
purchasers that a Site Plan Agreement between individual lot owners and the Township of 01'0-
Medonte pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.P 13 is required before a
building permit can be issued for the lot. ..
14. That the Owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement, in wording acceptable to the Township
Engineer, to ensure that all stonn water management facilities and sediment and erosion control
measures will be in place prior to any site alteration.
15. That the Owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement to engage a qualified professional to
certify in writing that the works referred to in Item 14 were constructed in accordance with the
plans, reports and specifications, as approved by the Township Engineer.
16. That the Subdivision Agreement contain the following clause to the satisfaction of the Simcoe
Muskoka Catholic District School Board:
,
bc- ":,
Applicant: Moon Point Corporation
File No.: 2004-Sub-01
Municipality: Township of Oro-Medonte
Subject Lands: Concession 3, Part of Lots 15 & 16 (Orillia)
Date of Decision: June 22, 2005
Date of Notice: --- --, 2005
Last Date of Appeal: --- --, 2005
"The owner shall include in all offers of purchase and sale a clause advising prospective
purchasers that pupils from this development attending educational facilities operated
by the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board may, be transported
to/accommodated in temporaryfacilities out of the neighbourhood school's area."
17. That the Subdivision Agreement contain the foJlowing clause to the satisfaction of the Simcoe
County District School Board:
"Purchasers, renters, lessees are warned that there are no schools planned within this
subdivision. or within walking distance of it and that pupils may be accommodated in
temporaryfacilities and or be directed to facilities outside of the area. "
18. That the Owner agree in the Subdivision Agreement to make satisfactory arrangements for the
construction of a mail facility, if required, to the satisfaction of the Township of Oro-Medonte with
confirmation received from Canada Post.
19. That the Owner ensure in the final grading plan that a common drainage swale system is designed at
the lakeside of the septic systems and primarily along the 20 metre shoreline setback limit. To
minimize impacts on the moisture regime, pervious connections from the drainage swale along the
20 metre setback at the ponding area locations will be required to ensure some level of waterflow to
these areas.
20. That the Owner agree to include provisions within the Subdivision Agreement which states the
following:
"Purchasers are notified that there were no permissions at the time this subdivision plan was
registeredlor the construction of docks on the property. All works along the shoreline require the
approval of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and/or the Ministry of Natural
Resources and/or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. "
21. That the Owner secure appropriate authorization from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority or other agency as appropriate pursuant to the Fisheries Act for the outfaJl design and
construction to eliminate or mitigate Hannful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat.
22. That the Owner agree in the Subdivision Agreement that construction activities on the site are to be
carried out in accordance with the Migratory Bird Convention Act.
23. That the Owner agree in the Subdivision Agreement to satisfy the Township of Oro-Medonte with
respect to Jot numbering and to display the lot number and corresponding municipal address in a
prominent location on each Jot.
24. That the Owner agree in the Subdivision Agreement to pcnnanently stake the limits ofthe 20 metre
setback from Lake Simcoe to the satisfaction of the Township ofOro-Medonte.
~
,
~
.
Applicant: Moon Point Corporation
File No.: 2004-Sub-0]
Muuicipality: Township of Oro-Medonte
Subject Lands: Concession 3, Part of Lots]5 & ]6 (Orillia)
Date of Decision: June 22, 2005
Date of Notice: --- --, 2005
Last Date of Appeal: --- --, 2005
25. Prior to final approval and to any grading taking place on the site, a stonnwater management report
incorporating enhanced protection (MOE 2003) be prepared to the satisfaction of the Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority. Provision must be made to locate detention facilities above the
elevation of the 1: I 00 year stonn floodline if applicable and if required.
26. That a report be prepared to the satisfaction of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
detailing the means whereby erosion and siltation will be minimized and contained on the site both
during and subsequent to the construction period.
27. That the Owner agree in the Subdivision Agreement to maintain all erosion and siltation control
devices in good repair in a manner satisfactory to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.
28. That the Owner agree in the Subdivision Agreement to obtain all necessary Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority pennits.
29. That the Owner prepare a Tree Preservation and Shoreline Access Plan to the satisfaction of the
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the Township of Oro-Medonte. The preparation
of these plans must inelude the expertise of a registered professional forester. Development
envelope limits, including, septic system, driveway access, shoreline access and outdoor living
space will be defined and assessed. Development envelopes wi11 alter approximately 40% of each
lot, retaining approximately 60% in a non-manicured vegetated state. Vegetation removal within
the 20 metre setback area from the shoreline will be a maximum of 12 metres of shoreline width for
each lot.
30. That the Owner prepare a Natural Environment Stewardship Manual for prospective purchasers that
will educate the landowner on the value of the woodlands and ephemeral pools as part of the Lake
Simcoe watershed as well as suggestions to maintain the health of the eco-system. This would
cover such aspects, but not be limited to, the value of native vegetation, control of nuisance plant
and animal species, the identification of appropriate species for restoration or enhancement
plantings suitable to the area, and limiting pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer use. The manual will
be prepared to the satisfaction of both the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the
Township of Oro-Medonte.
3 1. That the Owner agree in the Subdivision Agreement to include requirements in the Notice of Offers
of Purchase and Sale for prospective purchasers to the satisfaction of the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority and the Township ofOro-Medonte that indicate that:
a. Water access and views of Lake Simcoe are restricted through the Zoning By-law, Tree
Preservation Plan and Shoreline Access Plan;
b. A Natural Heritage Stewardship Manual as prepared under Condition 30 wi11 be provided to the
perspective purchaser; and,
e. That permits will be required from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Ministry
of Natural Resources and/or Department of Fisheries and Oceans for shoreline works.
.
~
bc1LJ
.
Applicant: Moon Point Corporation
File No.: 2004-Snb-0]
Municipality: Township of Oro-Medonte
Subject Lands: Con cess inn 3, Part of Lots ]5 & ]6 (Orillia)
Date of Decision: June 22, 2005
Date of Notice: --- --, 2005
Last Date of Appeal: --- --, 2005
32. That an appropriate number of test we]]s be dri]]ed on the site to demonstrate the quality and
quantity of water available to the proposed lots.
33. That an evaluation of individual private sewage disposal options be carried out to the satisfaction of
the Township ofOro-Medonte. The intent of the review would be to identify which private sewage
disposal option is the most appropriate in terms of:
. Land area required;
. Ability to treat nitrate; and
. Ability to reduce the amount of phosphorous produced.
34. That the Owner carries out an appropriate archaeological assessment to the satisfaction of the
Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.
35. That the Owner prepare a sample site plan and agreement for each lot to the satisfaction of the
Township ofOro-Medonte.
36. That prior to the final approval of this plan, the Township is advised in writing by the Simcoe
Muskoka Catholic Separate School Board how Condition 16 has been satisfied.
37. That prior to the final approval of this plan, the Township is advised in writing by the Simcoe
County District School Board how Condition 17 has been satisfied.
38. That prior to the final approval of this plan, the Township is advised in writing by the Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority how Conditions 6, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 have been
satisfied.
39. That prior to the final approval of this plan, the Township is advised in writing by the Ministry of
Citizenship, Culture and Recreation how Condition 34 has been satisfied.
NOTES TO DRAFT APPROVAL
I. It is the applicant's responsibility to fulfil the conditions of Council's approval and to ensure that the
required clearance letters are forwarded by the appropriate agencies to the Township of Oro-
Medonte, Planning Department, Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South, Box 100, Oro, ON LOL
2XO, quoting Township file number 2004-sub-01.
2. The Land Titles Act requires a]] new plans be registered in a Land Titles system if the land is
situated in a land titles division and there are certain exceptions.
3. The Township of Oro-Medonte uses a 0.3 metre reserve to notify the public that access to the
Municipal highway wi]] not be granted across the reserve. It should be shown as a block on the
final plan outside the road a]]owanee. Deeds in triplicate conveying this reserve to the Corporation
of the Township of Oro-Medonte together with the proposed final plan should be sent to the
municipal Clerk.
'.
,
,
be s5
.
Applicant: Moon Point Corporation
File No.: 2004-Sub-01
Municipality: Townsbip ofOro-Medonte
Subject Lands: Concession 3. Part of Lots 15& 16 (Orillia)
Date of Decision: June 22, 2005
Date of Notice: --- .., 2005
Last Date of Appeal: --- --, 2005
4. Inauguration, or extension of a piped water supply, or a storm drainage system, is subjeet to the
approval of the Ministry of Environment under seetions 23 and 24 of the Ontario Water Resourees
Aet, R.S.O. 1980.
5. Hydro One wishes to advise the developer of the following:
(a) the eosts of any reloeations or revisions to Hydro One faeilities whieh are neeessary to
aeeommodate this subdivision will be borne by the developer
(b) any easement rights of Hydro One are to be respeeted
(c) the developer should contaet the loeal Hydro One Area Offiee to verify if any low voltage
distribution lines may be affected by the proposal
6. The final plan approved by the Township must be registered within 30 days or the Township may
withdraw the approval under Section 51(59) of the Planning Aet, R.S.O. 1990
7. All measurements in the subdivision final plan must be presented in metrie units.
8. Clearanees are required from the following agencies:
Corporation of the Township ofOro-Medonte
Box 100
Oro Station, Ontario
LOL 2XO
Simcoe County District School Board
1170 Highway 26
Midhurst,ON
LOL lXO
Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board
46 Alliance Blvd.
Barrie,ON
L4M 5K3
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
120 Bayview Parkway
Box 282
Newmarket, Ontario
L3Y 4XI
Ministry of Culture
400 University Ave. 4th Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2R9
'.
.
,
I '3.0
bC
.
Applicant: Moon Point Corporation
File No.: 2004-Sub-0]
Municipality: Township of Oro-Medonte
Subject Lands: Concession 3, Part of Lots]5 & ]6 (Orillia)
Date of Decision: June 22, 2005
Date of Notice: --- --, 2005
Last Date of Appeal: --- --, 2005
If the agency conditions concern conditions in the Subdivision Agreement, a copy of the relevant
section of the agreement should be sent to them. This will expedite clearance of the final plan.
9. If final approval is not given to this plan within three years of the draft approval date, and no
extensions have been granted, draft approval shall lapse under subsection 51 (32) of the Planning
Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended. If the Owner wishes to request and extension to draft approval. a
written explanation, must be reeeived by the Township ofOro-Medonte Prior to the lapsing date.
Please note that an updated review of the plan, and revisions to the conditions of approval, may be
necessary if an extension is to be granted.
10. When the Zoning By-law is being prepared, reference to this subdivision application OM-file
number should be included in the explanatory note. This will expedite the Township's and other
agencies' consideration of the by-law.
, I,. .
.
.
6d -1
~"""'''n
. '"otORO~~_
~~,.~.~=~:::~~~~;\
~,-- b! 'to",
\' 0: 4 ;tf:
.. .. "..
'1/- .,-'- "$.'11':;'
"-,__,.~~,,:"'''!t'
~J;:''f3j!''PE.-''.''''C'
':'i<~_':'
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Planning Advisory Prepared By:
PD 2005-037 Committee Nick McDonald RPP
Subject: Department:
Planning
Application for
Rezoning - Horseshoe
Resort Corporation,
Parts 1, 17 and 41, Plan
51 R-32830 (Medonte)
Council Planning File #
2005-ZBA-15/16
C.ofW. Date: June 8, 2005
Motion R..M. File #:
#
D1422847
Date: Roll #: 010-002-03502
INTRODUCTION
The intent of this report is to provide Council with a brief description of an application for rezoning
submitted by the Horseshoe Resort Corporation and to make a recommendation respecting the
holding of a public meeting under Section 34 of the Planning Act.
DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION
Kris Menzies of MHBC Planning Limited submitted an application for rezoning to the Township of
Oro-Medonte on June 6, 2005. The intent of the rezoning request is to extend the R2-158 Zone
to the Heights of Horseshoe Townhouse projects Phases 2 and 3. Phase 1 of the Heights of
Horseshoe Townhouse Project is already constructed and is proceeding to registration of the
Plan of Condominium. The subject iands are located on the north side of Horseshoe Valley Road
1
l/; J ':fl..
.
on High Vista Drive which IS a private road. Phase 2 of the project will be located to the east of
Phase 1 and Phase 3 of the project will be located to the west of Phase 1. It is proposed to
develop 13 townhouse condominium units on Phase 2 and 15 units on Phase 3. Mapping
showing the configuration of the townhouses is attached to this report. The condominiums will be
comprised of two-storey townhouses located in buildings housing between four to five units per
building. The townhouse units will be serviced by the zone 1 water system. However, at some
point in the future, the lands will be serviced by the zone 2 water system. The townhouses will
also be serviced by existing sequential batch reactor (SBR) and it has been confirmed by
American Water Services Canada Corp that there is capacity to service the additional
townhouses. American Water also notes that the additional development beyond the proposed
townhouses will require further assessment.
The R2-158 Zone contains provisions that only permit the 24 townhouses in Phase 1. The
exception also permits buildings to be located within 1.5 metres of lot lines and decks to be within
1.2 metres of lot lines. No changes to these standards are proposed.
ANALYSIS
The subject lands are included within the Horseshoe Valley Village designation. Permitted uses
in this designation include medium density residential housing such as townhouses. The policies
of the Official Plan require the preparation of a Comprehensive Development Plan (COP) as well
as detailed traffic analysis. Such a comprehensive development plan was prepared in 2003 and
approved by Council at that time. The COP identified the locations for all proposed uses in the
Horseshoe Valley Village designation. The COP did identify the subject lands as being the site of
townhouse development. As a result the proposal conforms with the COP.
On August 12, 2004, the Committee of Adjustment granted provisional consent to create the first
lot that is subject of the zoning request (Consent application 2004-B-55). On December 14,
2004, the Committee of Adjustment granted provisional consent for the second lot (2004-B-55). It
should be noted that both an application for site plan approval and condominium approval will be
submitted in the short term and will be further assessed by the Township at that time.
In terms of the By-law Amendment no changes to the R2-158 Zone are required, except that the
number of units permitted on the lands subject to this exception Zone will be 52, instead of 24.
All other by-law requirements will be met on the property.
In terms of supporting materials, a Planning Analysis prepared by MHBC Planning Limited, a
Functional Servicing Report prepared by URS Canada Inc, a Geotechnical Report prepared by
T erraprobe Limited has been submitted. These reports are now being circulated to agencies and
various departments. However, it is expected that no major issues will arise as a result of this
circulation.
SHOULD A PUBLIC MEETING BE HELD?
It is my opinion that enough information has been submitted to support the zoning application to
enable the public to generally understand the nature of the proposal at a public meeting. This is
essentially a requirement of the Planning Act. On this basis, it is recommended that a public
meeting under the Planning Act be held.
2
.~
..
fr-
.
~
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended:
1. THAT the Planning Advisory Committee receive Report PO 2005-037 (Horseshoe Resort
Corporation): and,
2. THAT the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Zoning By-law
Amendment Application 2005-ZBA-15116 (Horshshoe), Parts 1, 17 and 41, Plan 51 R-
32830 (Medonte), proceed to a Public Meeting in accordance with the provisions of the
Planning Act.
~eCtfUIIY ~ubmitted,
'~Q~-
Nick Mcoo~a~~;:r6p, RPP
Township Planning Consultant
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
3
bd- 3
PART 1
6d- L{ . .
, '--!'
Mrr 41
CONCESSION
C
BEn.EEN--Tors--,
2
------------
------------------
--------
EAST
PAR T
!'MfU
LO 1
~
P LAN
PARCEL 1-3
.,...
8-\ A <;E '3
PMASE ct
~
"",~..
....,.,
dJ:iI
I
A
"Mflt
PLAN 51R-22624
....".;
"m"'
.,...
~ PART t,
~ PARCEL
!'Mfl
51R-27515
... '_ ...,SECTION 51-UED-3
.! IN83"3ft~1'I1
: 5.111 (a."'''')
I
I
I
I
I I
1.-___________..1
GEOGRAPHIC
OF" IIEDONTE
TO WNSHIP
PLAN
51R-32830
NOT TO SCALE
<l(
~
DINO ASTRI
SURVEYING LTD.
THIS IS TO CONFIRM THAT THIS IS A TRUE COpy
OF A PORTION OF PLAN 51R-32830.
1-<<1111 WaIhem Roood, fIen1o, OnWIo, L4N M1
~:10$-1tQ-8180Fax:70S-m,,",164
_.~.<XWT\
tAA'w'N BY; M.
O'EO<ED 8'r. OF&.
""""'" ....
l~ ..f't(2&.) 9IUOt
\~
.
I
j
\
I
I
I!
!H
~t
I!I
\~)
.
'" "-
"
,Jij
"-_:'~'~>:~.","~~-~2,~:::;:::.:-':::,~~~~'~-__
,
KEY PLAN
t,'OO.OOO
LEGEND
:~
t
* =:.::=..-
--<:----
...:~=:.:.:":.:-
,%.l
~~=::.-
A"
.,'
--.-- ----
--....--
~-,-~."-~~_.._.,-.....
._~~u ___~,..,
~OI!-~tNEI!AL "'01'($
SEt s'rt $(~"'C''''G "I.'"
45.49
.... .. -_.
o
~;;;
~"
Z
A
r._~
~~
---
REZONING APPUCA TION
FOR
HEIGHTS of HORSESHOE
TOWNHOUSES
lOT 1
CONCESSION 3
TOWNSHIP OF QRQ-MEOONTE
CDUN TY OF SIMCOE
N40"J6'JO"W
,".."'"
132.59
L....h
,,~.."
--.
CONCEPT PLAN
PHASE TWO
,,~. ...,........
',"
",."",
(TOWNHOUSES)
SCALE: 1: 250
I;
Dlf'lO 1'1.5. Amr
ONTARIO LANDSUllVEYOll
"'I/l'ICPr....."''''mG
Pt.ANNINOANOIiESOUIlCEOEVaOrMENT
URSCM<ADAINC
f.Nor!'lEERINGCOI'ISULTANTS
TI1F.IAN1:'!P!..ANCOI.lAIIORATIVElro
LA..OSCAPEARCHffECTS
"~o~t' 'O'-!I(IJ~
o,,",c_z
.oJ"I: ~OO~
~
~
I
IJ1
,
1
I
I
!
II
J~
!II
.'
;,
Iiil
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
'I ;
, :
, '
, :
1:1 :
t;ll:
1;1 II
:1: ,i
1:1 Ii
1:llr
:: I': I: i
I/t II
1:1 I;
1;1 ,;
1)1 ,;
'1,lt
1111;
11'1' :i
il'i
'I I.
iI! 1111
1.: II I;
,~ " I.
.......,
-.!~~
-'---'-'-'
~I ~.I ~I.. ."-11 =1. """"I .,;.,,1 """'I """"11"""".1"""" 1"""".1"""'1""""
,.. I ~. ~. III'~ '... '........ ~ . ~.. ,,,to ,~ "'. "'.. ,"", ,~..
lIt.iT 'III'.fI' 1!1".;? 1;:':,. .....j, "'_.., 10':;; !It:.. "'_" lit.':>" .;c" ~~ _ "."
-1_-
.
.
. '
,_ - 8:- .!..,,:~,_
~
-
-
-
KEYPlJlN
I.J':.(;lli!2
!
. ----
~=:=----
...:----
____ w___
.#====-
. -....-
.f',t
'" --.--
,~,.
-,--- --..--
-
REZONING APPUCA TrON
FOR
HEIGHTS of HORSESHOE
TOWNHOUSES
LOT 1
CONCESSION 3
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONT[
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
CONCEPT PLAN
PH ASE THREE
(TOWNHOtlSES)
SCALE: 1: 250
D~OIl.S,"':>n!!
Of"TARIO I..ANtlSURVEY01l.
Mf1I1C PlANNING UMITED
PLANN!NQANDRESOUIICEOEVELOI'MfJ"T
URSC"'MOAINC.
ENG1Nt':f:RINGCONSIlI.TAm"S
TIrE LANDrLAN COLl...OORATIVE l TV
I..ANDSCAPEAIICHITEC'tS
~
~
a:
1
~\
,,,
c