Loading...
06 16 2005 C of A Agenda g~.J L Committee of Adiustment Aqenda Thursdav June 16th 2005. 9:30 a.m. 1. Communications and Correspondence - May 2005 OACA Newsletter 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Hearings: , 9:30 2005-A-15 Paul Hutchinson & Joyce Fletcher Cone. 11, Plan 232, Lot 11 (Oro) 294 Line 11 South 9:40 2004-A-02 Karl & Anne Locke Cone. 14, Plan M205, Lot 7 (Oro) 14 Petherwin Place 9:50 2005-A-18 Ken & Angelina Bowman Cone. 10, South Part Lot 6 612 Warminster Side road (Medonte) 10:00 2005-B-19 Viola Tuck Cone. 1, South Part Lot 16 (Oro) 861 Penetanguishene Road 10:10 2005-B-09 Viola Tuck Cone. 1, South Part Lot 16 (Oro) 861 Penetanguishene Road 10:20 2005-A-19 Bruce Maguire Plan 629, Lots 4 and 5 (Oro) 9 Nelson Street 10:30 2005-A-20 Susanne Rickard Cole In Trust Plan 918, Lots 4 & 5 (Oro) 310 Shanty Bay Road 10:40 2005-B-21 2005-A-21 Shirley Joan Thomas Conc.3, East Part Lot 28, RP 51 R-10726, Part 1 (Oro) 1735 Ridge Road W. 10:50 2005-B-20 Constance McDermot Cone. 1, Part Lots 20, 21 (Orillia) 57 Maplewood Parkway 11 :00 2005-A-17 Janet Lees Plan 546, Lot 1 (Orillia) 5 Bards Beach Road 11 :10 2005-A-22 2005-A-23 2005-A-24 Laurel View Homes Plan M741 , Lots 56, 5, 64 21 Oakmont Ave, 10 Landscapes Dr, 8 Oakmont Ave. (Oro) 4. Decisions 5. Other business -Adoption of minutes for May 12, 2005 Meeting . 6. Adjournment . , .. , Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for June 16, 2005 Paul Hutchinson & Joyce Fletcher 2005-A-15 294 Line 11 South, Concession 11, Plan 232, Lot 11, Lot 12 (Oro) . THE PROPOSAL On May 12, 2005, the applicants applied lor and were granted the lollowing reliel Irom the Committee of Adjustment lor a hall storey addition onto an existing dwelling and lor a new verandah deck to be located behind the existing dwelling: Required Granted Minimum Required Interior Side Yard Setback 2.5 m (8.2 It) 1.31 m (4.3 It) - for the northwest corner of the dwelling 1.49 m (4.9 ft) - for the northeast corner 01 the dwelling Due to a survey error, the setbacks which were granted must now be amended to reflect the correct distances from the property line to the existing dwelling. Granted Amended Setback Distance Minimum Required Interior Side Yard Setback 1.31 m (4.3 It) - for the 1.08 m (3.54 It) northwest corner 01 the dwelling 1.49 m (4.9 ft) - for the 1.17 m (3.83 It) northeast corner 01 the dwelling MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation -Hawkestone Residential Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One (R1) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Public Works- Building Department - Building Dept has reviewed the application and note that the proposal appears to meets the minimum standards Fire Department- Engineering Department- No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot Irontage of approximately 20.17 metres (66.17 leet), a lot depth 01 approximately 50.48 metres (165.6 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1,019 m2 (10,968 If) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling. The applicants wish to expand the existing dwelling to 173 m2 (1,862 1t2) by allowing a 23 m2 (247.5 If) half storey second floor addition and a 11.2 m2 (120 1t2) verandahldeck addition to be located at the rear of the dwelling. It is the applicants intent to recreate Lot 11 and Lot 12, which were two separate lots on Plan 232. In order to confirm that the two lots were once conveyable lots, the Committee of Adjustment received registered deeds which indicate that the lots were once legally conveyable. (Copies 01 those are attached lor the Committee's reference). The existing dwelling which is located on Lot 11, would then not comply with the minimum required interior side setback of 2.5 metres (8.2 feet) as it is setback approximately 1.08 m (3.54 ft) from the northwest corner of the dwelling and 1.17 m (3.83 It) Irom the northeast corner of the dwelling. As the applicant's dwelling is a legal non-complying use, permission is required from the Committee 01 Adjustment to expand the use. . Section 45 (2) (a) (i) 01 the Planning Act states that the Committee may permit the enlargement of any building or structure where the use of the structure was lawfully used for that purpose prohibited by the by-law on the day the by-law was passed. The original zoning by. law applying to lands in the lormer Township 01 Oro was By-law 1031 which was adopted on February 13, 1974 and subsequent to the construction of the dwelling in 1900. The existing structure predates the passage of the Township's current Zoning By-law, being November 5, 1997 and also the original By.law 1031. Applications lor expansions of non-conlorming uses are guided by the policies set out in Section J2.2 01 the Official Plan and not the standard lour tests for minor variance applications. Section J2.2 01 the Township's Official Plan sets out the following policies to guide the Committee in considering expansions to legal non-conforming uses: a) The Size of the extension IfI relation to the existing operation; b) Whether the proposed exfension IS compatible with the character of the surrounding area; c) The characteristics of the existing use in relation to noise, vibration, fumes, dust....and the degree to which any at fhese factors may be increased or decreased by the exlension; and, d) The possibilities of reducing these nuisances through buffering, building sefbacks, landscaping, sife plan confrol and of her means. , The property is designated Hawkestone Residential in the Official Plan. The primary use of this designation is residential uses. As the dwelling on the lot already exists, and the size of the additions are minor in size, it would satisly criteria (a). The proposed additions, which are an expansion of the existing dwelling, will maintain the character 01 the dwelling, and is not an addition that relates to noise, fumes or any other nuisances would appear to maintain the character of the surrounding area and would therelore conform with criteria (b), (c) and (d). Therefore, the proposal appears to conform with the intent 01 the policies contained in the OHicial Plan. The subject lot is currently zoned Residential One (R1). Based on site inspection, the additions should not adversely impact surrounding features as the additions are considered reasonable in size and will be located at the rear of the dwelling, not being visible from the road. 2 The proposal as submitted would appear to conlorm with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. CONCLUSIONS 1. The requested permission to expand a legal non-conforming use represents a minor expansion that will have little or no im pact on the residential character 01 the area. 2. The requested expansion to a legal non-conlorming use is considered to conlorm with Section J2.2 of the Official Plan. , RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Committee approve minor variance application 2005-A-15 as follows: THAT PERMISSION TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-COMPLYING STRUCTURE IS GRANTED FOR 294 LINE 11 SOUTH FOR A 23 M2 (247.5 FT') HALF STOREY SECOND FLOOR ADDITION ONTO AN EXISTING DWELLING AND FOR A 11.2 m2 (120 ff) VERANDAH/DECK TO BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE DWELLING and subject to the lollowing conditions: 1. That the setbacks be in conlormity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch submitted and approved by the Committee; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verilication to the Township 01 compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verilying in writing prior to pouring 01 the loundation by way 01 survey/real property report so that the proposed addition be no closer than 1.08 m (3.54 It) from the interior side lot line lor the northwest corner 01 the dwelling and no closer than 1.17 m (3.83 ft) for the northeast corner 01 the dwelling: and, 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained Irom the Township's Chiel Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All 01 which is respectfully submitted, l~ Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~U(Q~ Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for June 16, 2005 Karl & Anne Locke 2004-A-02 14 Petherwin Place, Concession 14, Lot 7, Plan M205 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting relief lrom the following provision Irom Zoning By-law 97-95: Section 7.50 (Exception 50) the minimum setback for buildings, structures and septic system tile lields Irom the Environmental Protection Zone boundary 01 7.5 metres (26.2 feet) to a proposed 0 metres (0 leet) for the construction 01 a new dwelling. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline & Agricultural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Rural Residential One Exception Fifty (RUR1'50) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones Previous Applications - none AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Public Works- No road concerns Building Department - The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and note the septic system must be installed to required setbacks of Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code Engineering Department- There has been a great deal 01 work carried out in the EP lands by the lot owner I.e. cutting of trees, digging 01 a pond, re-routing 01 the stream and work along the shoreline without approvals. Some 01 this work was being investigated by the Department 01 Oceans and Fisheries Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority- see attached letter Department 01 Oceans and Fisheries- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a road frontage 01 approximately 28 metres (92 leet), shoreline Irontage 01 approximately 121.92 metres (400 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1.7 hectares (4.21 acres). The lands are currently vacant. The owners are proposing to build a single storey house with an area approximately 278.7 m2 (3000 If) with a four car attached garage having an area approximately 125.4 m2 (1350 ft2). Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline & Agricultural in the Official Plan. As the proposed development is to be constructed on the Shoreline designated portion 01 the subject property, Committee should review Section D10.1 01 the Township's Official Plan which sets out the following objectives lor the Shoreline designation. . To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. . To protect the natural features 01 the shoreline area and 'the immediate shoreline. . To ensure that existing development is appropriately serviced with water and sewer services. The applicant's proposal does not appear to o!fend these principles given that the variance will accommodate development in a manner that is generally consistent with the shoreline character. Committee shall also review Section G1 of the Township's O!ficial Plan, which sets out the lollowing objectives when considering applications near rivers or streams. . To recognize and protect all signilicant rivers and streams in the Township from development that may have an impact on their lunction as an important component of the natural heritage system. . To ensure that development does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to Ilooding. . To ensure that development does not occur on hazardous slopes. It is the intent of this Plan to protect all rivers and streams Irom incompatible development to minimize the impacts of such development on their function. In this regard, no development is permitted below the top of bank of any river or stream or within 30 metres 01 the top 01 bank. In order to implement the objectives 01 this Plan, the implementing Zoning By-law shall place all lands below the top 01 bank of any river or stream in a specilic Environmental Protection Zone. Uses in this Environmental Protection Zone shall be limited to agricultural uses that existed on the date the By-law is passed by Council and public or private recreational uses. No buildings or structures, with the exception of structural works required lor Hood and/or erosion or sediment control, will be permitted in this Zone. On this basis the proposal is considered not to conform with the intent of the Official Plan. Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? One of the purposes of maintaining setbacks lrom limits 01 Environmental Protection Zone is to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system, to ensure that development does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to Ilooding and to ensure that development does not occur on hazardous slopes. Section 5.28 of the implementing Zoning By-law specilies that all buildings and structures be set back a minimum of 30 metres {98.4 feet) from the boundaries of the Environmental Protection Zone. A reduction in the 30 metre setback shall not require an Amendment to Official Plan but will require either an Amendment to the implementing Zoning By-law or a minor variance subject to the comments 01 the appropriate agencies. The subject land is zoned RUR1'50, where the '50 reduces the 30 metre setback to 7.5 metres. Matters to be considered in reviewing an application to reduce the setback include: . the nature 01 the soils; . the nature of the vegetation and cover; . the slope of the land; . the nature of existing and proposed drainage patterns; 2 . the nature 01 the fish and wildlife that may be present; and, . the scale of the proposed development. Based on a site inspection 01 the subject property, it was noted that a signilicant part 01 the property including the lands to be zoned Environmental Protection appear to have been previously disturbed (I.e. site grading, fill placement, tree removal, lakeside retaining wall) and that environmental enhancement or restoration would be appropriate in certain areas 01 the property. It is the Planning Departments recommendation that the applicant enter into a Site Plan Control which will address issues such as appropriate enhancement or restoration works are completed to the satislaction 01 the Township and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority given the tree removal and site alteration occurred within the Environmental Protection Zone. Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The nature 01 development proposed, the construction of a single detached dwelling, appears modest and will not lead to over development of the lot. The proposed variance should provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding area. Are the variances minor? On the basis that the variance will permit the construction 01 the dwelling within the setback limits 01 the Environmental Protection zone, the requested relief is deemed to be minor as the structure will be 24.4 metres (80 leet) Irom the pond. However, it will be recommended that the applicant enter into a Site Plan Control with the Township so that the appropriate enhancement Or restoration works are completed and that other issues such as location of septic system and sediment and erosion control are addressed. On this basis, the proposed variance is deemed to be minor. CONCLUSIONS The requested variances generally satisly the lour tests of a minor variance as noted above RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2004-A-02 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained Irom the Township's Chief Building O!!icial only alter the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13: 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verilication to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verilying in writing prior to pouring 01 the foundation by way 01 survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor that the new dwelling be 0 metres Irom the Environmental Protection Boundary Zone; , 3. That the applicant enter into a Site Plan Control with the Township to ensure that the appropriate enhancement or restoration works are completed to the satislaction 01 the Township and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; 4. That the septic system be installed to required setbacks of Part 8 01 the Ontario Building Code, and, 3 5. That the setbacks be in conlormity with the dimensions as set out in the application and by the sketch submitted with the application and approved by the Committee. All of which is respectfully submitted, A~ Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~~~ Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director 01 Planning 4 JUtH,9-2005 13: 10 FROf1: HVCA 7054242115 TO:l 7054870133 P.l/l Member Municipalities Ad):).I) To:.ol('1I1{iO AJlh1l,),l1th (;M:I(. ThF Hili.. M{I!Jnl;~!I\,' BJ,')dJord. \V"'~t (c'wi!llmhllry Ck,)I\lie.'I,' (uJI;"1!'w'JOd (:::;.;; JI)!!Iyfil I\..'\d..H1[lhoJ\ \'\(U'H; MulmJ!l NI:\v T'({j!1l:5~rh OnJ-Mi.;d(!!\I;.: Cn, IIi;.;hbl1d~ "h",\h!Jff1F ')rril~Fw:nt~r \.V,)j-JP..; Kfl,"It""h Watershed Counties :,ill1(Of' Dun~lin (irF.'\' MemUf:fUr ~ ~ Con5erv..~ti()n ONTARIO ..."""""I",;,,,.,,,i,-r-. June 9, 2005 Andy Karaiskakis, Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Township of Oro-Medonte P.O. Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO *Amended Letter Dear Mr. Karaiskakis; Re: Application for Minor Variance 2004-A-02 (Locke) Lot 7, Plan M205, 14 Petherwin Place Township of Oro-Mectonte The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this application for minor variance and based on our mandate and policies under the Conservation Authorities Act, we have no objection to its approval. The NVCA understands that the development of the property will be subject to Site Plan Control under the Planning Act. Notwithstanding our approval of this minor variance application, the NVCA believes a tree planting/restoration plan to the satisfaction of the Township of Oro- Medonte and the NVCA is appropriate for a part of the property given the tree removal and site alteration occurred within an area zoned Environmental Protection. The NVCA recommends the site plan establish a minimum 30 metre wide tree planting plan for the west side of the stream and any areas on the east side of the stream where trees may have been removed. This and other issues (i.e. location of the septic system, sediment and erosion control) can be addressed through the Site Plan Control process. Thank you for circulating this application for our review and please forward a copy of your decision. Sincerely, ::e: J ~ Tim Salkeld Resource Planner Conserving our Healthy Waters NOTTAWA~ACA VA1.lfY CONSERVATION AUTHOR!!), C,;ntrc for COIUC:I\li."tliun lohl'l Hi::.:. (Qf1~I:'TV;}[inn Ar!mini$tr,nion ('1;nue liml) COIl$CrhlJiOn Alf;,) :n II" I,-rh j in~ U!upii! 01} LO/v! no r...leflhone" 705 <12,1.1.1.79 ,J\ F"IX 7054241i 15 vV(b: wwv.,nV'.J.Oil (,) Ern,j.il Jdr1I1n~n"(d.tlIU':J Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for June 16, 2005 Ken & Angelina Bowman 2005-A-18 612 Warminster Sideroad, Concession 10, South Part Lot 6 (Medonte) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting permission from the Committee of Adjustment to permit an enlargement of the existing non-complying dwelling to construct a 27.871 m2 (300 ff) one storey addition with a basement within the 30 metres (98.4 feet) setback to the Environmental Protection Zone as well as increasing the height 01 the existing detached garage beyond the maximum permitted height of 4.5 metres (14.7 leet) which is located in the Environmental Protection Zone. More specifically, the applicants are requesting the following: . Relief from Section 5.28 Setback from Limits of Environmental Protection Zone to permit the enlargement of the existing legal non-complying dwelling to be setback approximately 20 metres (65.6 feet) Irom the Environmental Protection Zone Boundary; . Relief from Section 5.1.4 Maximum Heioht for Detached Accessory Buildinos or Structures to permit the enlargement of the detached garage from the existing 3.277 metres (10.75 feet) to a proposed 4.877 metres (16 feet) MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Agricultural & Environmental Protection Two Overlay Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Municipal Works/Roads- Building Department- Building Department has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department- No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot Irontage 01 approximately 42.06 metres (138 feet), a lot depth of approximately 214 metres (702 feet) and a lot area 01 approximately 2.2 hectares {55 acres). The property currently contains a 89.185 m2 (960 It ) single storey dwelling and a detached garage located southwest of the dwelling. The applicants are proposing to enlarge the house with a proposed 27.871 m2 (300 ff) one storey with a basement addition and to increase the height of the garage from the existing 3.277 metres (10.75 feet) to a proposed 4.877 metres (16 feet). The existing dwelling and garage is located within the limits of the Environmental Protection Zone as noted in Zoning By-law 97-95. As a result, the applicant's dwelling and garage are non-complying structures and permission is required trom the Committee of Adjustment lor expansion to such structures. Section 45 (2) (a) (i) of the Planning Act states that Committee may permit the enlargement 01 any building or structure where the use of the structure was lawfully used for that purpose prohibited by the by-law on the day the by-law was passed. The existing structures predate the passage 01 the Township's By-law, being November 5,1997, as the dwelling and garage were constructed in 1974. Applications for expansions of non-conforming structures are guided by the policies set out in Section J2.2 of the Olficial Plan and not the standard four tests lor minor variance applications. Section J2.2 01 the Township's Official Plan sets out the lollowing policies to guide the Committee in considering expansions to non-conlorming structures: a) The size of the exfension in relation to fhe existing operation; b) Whether the proposed extension is compatible with the character of the surrounding area; c) The characferistics of fhe existing use in relation to noise, vibration, fumes, dust.. ..and fhe degree fa which any of these factors may be increased or decreased by the extension; and, d) The possibilifies of reducing these nuisances through buffering, building setbacks, landscaping, site plan control and other means. The property is designated Rural and Environmental Protection Two Overlay in the Official Plan. The primary use 01 the Rural designation is residential uses. As the dwelling on the lot already exists, and the size of the addition is small in scale, it would satisfy criteria (a). The proposed additions, which are extensions of the existing dwelling and an increase in height lor the detached garage, will maintain the character of the rural community, and are not additions that relate to noise, fumes or any other nuisances would appear to maintain the character 01 the surrounding area and would therefore conlorm with criteria (b), (c) and (d). Therelore, the proposal appears to conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. In assessing the issue 01 conlormity with the Zoning By-law, the additions should not detract lrom the overall character of the lot and surrounding natural features. One of the purposes of maintaining setbacks from limits of Environmental Protection Zone is to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system, to ensure that development does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to flooding and to ensure that development does not occur on hazardous slopes. Based on site inspection, the proposed additions would not offend these principles and would therefore conform with the general intent 01 the Zoning By-law. CONCLUSIONS 1. The requested permission to expand two non-conforming structures represents a minor expansion that will have little or no impact on the environmental leatures or functions 01 the area. 2. The requested expansion to two non.conforming structures is considered to conform with Section J2.2 01 the Official Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS ft is recommended that the Committee approve minor variance application 2005-A-18 as lollows: THAT PERMISSION TO EXPAND TWO NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES IS GRANTED FOR 612 WARMINSTER SIDEROAD FOR A 27.871 M2 (300 FT2) ONE STOREY BASEMENT ADDITION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING DWELLING AND FOR AN INCREASED HEIGHT FOR THE DETACHED GARAGE TO 4.877 M(16 FT) and subject to the lollowing conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided lor within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 2. That the applicant obtains approval and a building permit, il required, Irom the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; 3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way 01 survey/real property report that the proposed addition be no closer than 5.8 metres (19 leet) from the interior side lot line; 4. That the height 01 the detached garage does not exceed 4.877 metres (16 feet); and, 5. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the site plan submitted with the application and approved by the Committee. All of which is respectfully submitted, b Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~~~(ck Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director 01 Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for June 16, 2005 Viola Tuck 2005-8-19 861 Penetanguishene Road, Concession 1, South Part of Lot 16 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant has applied for consent for a boundary adjustment! lot addition. The purpose of this application is to convey and add a parcel of land having a lot frontage 01 approximately 3.79 metres (12.45 feet), a lot depth of approximately 51.2 metres (168.Q1 leet) and a lot area of approximately 194.87 m2 (2,091.72 ft2) Irom the 38.3 hectare (94.6 acres) parcel (861 Penetanguishene Road) to the parcel immediately to the west (2610 Ski Trails Road). The resultant lot area of the parcel to be enhanced, 2610 Ski Trails Road, would be approximately 2,380.25 m2 (25,621.63 It\ No new building lots will be created as a result 01 this boundary adjustment. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Omcial Plan Designation - Agricultural Zoning By-law 97.95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone Previous Applications - 2005-B-09 (creation 01 new lot-no decision) AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Municipal Works and Roads- Building Department- Fire Department- Engineering Department- PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The purpose of this application is to convey and add approximately 194.87 m2 (2,091.72 1t2) to the lot immediately to the west 01 the lands subject to the creation of the new lot (Consent application 2005-B-09) which is currently being heard at this months Committee hearing lor consideration. The land to be retained by the applicant would have an area 01 approximately 38.3 hectares (94.6 acres), which contains an existing single detached dwelling. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject property is designated Agricultural in the Township's Omcial Plan. The intent of this designation is to preserve the agricultural resource base 01 the Township and to maintain the open countryside. Section D2.3.4 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow the Committee to consider applications lor farm consolidations and boundary adjustments in the Agricultural designation. The policy states: Boundary line adjustmenfs or farm consolidations may be considered where the effect of the boundary adjustment or consolidafion is to improve fhe viability of fhe farm operation provided: a) no new lof is created; and, b) the viability of using the lands affecfed by the application for agricultural uses is not adversely impacted if fhe application is approved. In reviewing the application, no new building lots will be created, and the existing larm operation will continue to exist. The land to be conveyed will improve the viability 01 the larm operation and will not adversely impact the agricultural use. On this basis, the application would generally conform to the Official Plan. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (NRU) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The retained lot would continue to comply with the provisions 01 the NRU Zone for agricultural purposes. The proposed severed portion to be conveyed to 2610 Ski Trails Road would be required to be rezoned Irom the NRU Zone to the Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone as a condition 01 consent to rellect its intended usage lor residential purposes. The application would therelore generally conlorm with the policies 01 the Zoning By-law. CONCLUSION The application generally conforms to the policies of the Agricultural designation and the severed and retained lands would comply with the minimum Irontage and area requirements 01 the NRU and RUR2 Zone. No new building lots are being created. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2005-B- 1 g subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies 01 a Relerence Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance lor the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the severed lands be merged in title with 2610 Ski Trails Road and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 01 Section 50 01 The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed iands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That the applicant apply for and obtain a re-zoning on the severed land to accurately reflect the residential land use; 6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township 01 Orc-Madonte: and, 7. That the conditions 01 consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year Irom the date of the giving 01 the notice. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~etOOw Andy Karaiskakis Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~LLCL~ Bruce Hoppe MCIP, RPP Director 01 Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for June 16, 2005 Viola Tuck 2005.8.09 861 Penetanguishene Road. Concession 1, South Part Lot 16 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The purpose 01 application 2005.8-09 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot. The land to be severed is proposed to have a lot frontage of approximately 45.72 metres (150 feet), a lot depth 01 approximately 91.44 metres (300 leet) and a lot area 01 approximately 0.41 hectare (1.03 acre). The land proposed to be retained would have a lot area of approximately 38.3 hectares (94.6 acres). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS O!ficial Plan Designation - Agricultural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricul1uraVRural (A/RU) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space Is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Public Works- Existing field entrance is not acceptable lor new residential driveway. New field entrance may have to be applied for, because 01 new lot creation. Building Department- The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and make note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Fire Department- Engineering Department-No concerns PLANNING DEPARTMENT Background The request 01 the applicant is to sever a new residential lot with a lot Irontage of approximately 45.72 metres (150 feet) along the 15/16 Sideroad and having a lot area of about 0.41 hectares (1.03 acres). The retained parcel would have a lot area of about 38.3 hectares (94.6 acres). OFFICIAL PLAN The subject property is designated Agricultural in the O!ficial Plan. There are policies contained within Section D2.3.2 and D2.3.3 which should be considered by the Committee in relation to the subject application. As the intent of the Plan is to protect lands suitable lor agriculture the creation of new lots lor residential purposes is only permitted lor use by a retiring bona lide farmer or is considered an Infilling lot. Section 2.3.2.1 delines a bona fide farmer as "a full time farmer who is retiring from activ.e working life and who has owned and operated a farm operation on the lot Irom which the severance is proposed lor at least 1{) years with such larm operation being in existence on January 1, 1994". The Committee should be satisfied that that applicant meets this delinition; the application does indicate that Ms. Tuck has owned the property for the past 47 y~ars. Section D2.3.3 identifies the conditions under which new residential may be permitted: a) the lot Irom which the new lot is proposed to be created has an area 01 at least 36 hectares or is the whole 01 an original Township lot; b) a lot has not been severed Irom the parcel since March 26,1973; c) the severed lot is to be located where it would have the least impact on existing and luture agricultural operations; d) the proposed lot is no smaller than 0.4 hectares and generally no larger than 1.0 hectare; e) no portion 01 the severed lot is to be located closer than 200 metres to a barn or feedlot, regardless of whether it is being used lor agricultural uses at the time the application is submitted, or the minimum distance required by the Minimum Separation Distance I and II, whichever is the greater; I) the proposed lot Ironts onto an existing public road that is maintained year round by the Township, County or Province; g) the proposed lot will not cause a traffic hazard as a result of its location on a curve or a hill: and, h) the proposed lot can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and an appropriate means 01 sewage disposal. In reviewing the application submitted the property currently contains a lot area of 39 hectares which would satisfy subsection (a). There is no documentation at the Township office that indicates a severance lrom the subject property since 1973, thereby satisfying criteria (b). The Township records indicated that the six existing residential lots were severed prior to 1973. The severed lot is situated in a location which will continue the residential development 01 the existing lour lots along the 15/16 Sideroad and will allow lor the continued use 01 the remainder 01 the property lor agricultural purposes. The proposed lot would have a lot area 01 approximately 0.41 hectares, meeting the minimum 0.4 hectare lot area requirement which would satisfy subsections (c) and (d). Based on site inspection, the proposed lot will not be closer than 200 metres to a barn or leedlot, satisfying criteria (e). Comments from the Roads Superintendent indicate that the existing field entrance is not acceptable for a new driveway. An upgraded entrance will be required to satisfy subsections (f) and (g) and will be recommended as a condition. Comments from the Building Department state that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards, which would satisfy subsection (h). Should the Committee feel satislied that the applicant meets the delinition of a bona fide farmer, the application would be deemed to generally conform with the policies of the Official Plan. ZONING BY-LAW 97-95 The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (NRU) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The proposed severed lot would be required to be rezoned as a condition of consent to reflect its intended usage for residential purposes. The proposed severed lot would meet the minimum requirement of the Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone. The retained lot would continue to comply with the provisions of the Agricultural/Rural (NRU) zone lor agricultural purposes CONCLUSION The application generally conlorms with the policies 01 the Agricultural designation subject to the Committee being satisfied that the applicant meets the definition 01 a bona fide larmer in Section D2.3.2.1. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Committee Grant Provisional Consent for Application 2005-B-09 subject to the lollowing list of conditions: 1. That three copies of a Relerence Plan lor the subject lands indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary.Treasurer: 2. Thaf the applicants' solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance lor the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township 01 Oro-Medonte; 4. That the applicant apply lor and obtain a re-zoning on the severed land to accurately reflect the residential land use; 5. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee in the amount 01 $4,055.78 (By-law 2004-082) to the Township; 6. That the applicant pay $ 2000.00 for the lot created as cash-in-lieu 01 a parkland contribution; and, 7. That the conditions 01 consent imposed by the Committee be lultilled within one year from the date of the giving 01 the notice. All 01 which is respectlully submitted, \~~ An~y Karaiskakis Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~c~l~ Bruce Hoppe,d'f;;p Director 01 Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for June 16, 2005 Bruce Maguire 2005-A-19 9 Nelson Street, Plan 629, Lots 40 & 5 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting permission from the Committee of Adjustment to permit an enlargement 01 the existing non-complying dwelling to include an addition within the 15 metre (49.2 feet) setback to the average high water mark of Bass Lake. More specifically, the applicant is requesting the following: . Reliel from Section 5.16.1(a) to permit the enlargement of the existing legal non-complying dwelling by adding a 52.5 m2 (565 Ie) one storey addition with a setback of 7.8 metres (25.6 feet) lrom the average high water mark 01 Bass Lake MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation -Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Public Works- Building Department - The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note that the applicant must verily that the sewage system meets the minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code Engineering Department- No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 30.5 metres (100.7 feet), a shoreline Irontage of approximately 36.6 metres (120 feet), a lot depth 01 approximately 44.5 metres (146 leet) and a lot area 01 approximately 1,446.5 m2 (15,570 1t2). The lands currently have a one- storey dwelling having an area 01 approximately 75.8 m2 (816 1t2) with an attached deck at the rear 01 the cottage. The applicant is proposing to enlarge the dwelling with a proposed 95.5 m2 (1028 ft2) one storey addition on the west side 01 the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling is located within the 15 metre (49.2 feet) setback to the average high water mark of Bass Lake. As a result, the applicant's dwelling is non-conforming and permission is required from the Committee of Adjustment for expansions to such structures and buildings. Section 45 (2) (a) (i) 01 the Planning Act states that Committee may permit the enlargement of any building or structure where the use 01 the structure was lawlully used lor that purpose prohibited by the by-law on the day the by-law was passed. The existing structure predates the passage of the Township's By-law, being November 5, 1997. Applications for expansions of non- conlorming structures are guided by the policies set out in Section J2.2 of the O!!icial Plan and not the standard four tests for minor variance applications. Section J2.2 of the Township's Official Plan sets out the following pOlicies to guide the Committee in considering expansions to non-conlorming structures: a) The size of the extension in relafion fa fhe exisfing operation; b) Whether the proposed extension is compalibJe with fhe characfer of the surrounding area; c) The characteristics of the existing use in relafion fo noise, vibrafion, fumes, dust....and fhe degree to which any of these factors may be increased or decreased by fhe extension; and, d) The possibilifies of reducing these nuisances through buffering, building setbacks, landscaping, sife plan control and other means. The property is designated Shoreline in the O!!icial Plan. The primary use of this designation is residential uses. As the dwelling on the lot already exists, and the size of the addition is minor in size, it would satisly criteria (a). The proposed addition, which is an expansion 01 the existing dwelling, will maintain the character of the dwelling, and is not an addition that relates to noise, lumes or any other nuisances would appear to maintain the character of the surrounding area and would therefore conform with criteria (b), (c) and (d). Therefore, the proposal appears to conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. The primary role of setbacks to Bass Lake is to protect the natural leatures 01 the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. The site inspection revealed that the existing dwelling and proposed addition should not adversely impact surrounding environmental leatures, will be located closer to the lake than the existing dwelling, and therefore the proposal is considered to conlorm with the general intent of the By'law. CONCLUSIONS 1. The requested perm ission to expand a non-conforming structure represents a minor expansion that will have little or no impact on the environmental leatures or tunctions 01 the area. 2. The requested expansion to a non-contorming structure is considered to conform with Section J2.2 01 the Official Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve minor variance application 2005-A-19 as follows: THAT PERMISSION TO EXPAND A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IS GRANTED FOR 9 NELSON STREET FOR A 52.5 M2 (565 FT2) ONE STOREY ADDITION ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING DWELLING and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained Irom the Township's Chief Building O!!icial only after the Committee's decision becomes linal and binding, as provided lor within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 2 2. That the applicant obtains approval and a building permit, If required, from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; 3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to'the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way 01 survey/real property report that the proposed addition be no closer than 7.8 metres (25.6 leet) from the average high water mark of Sass Lake; and, 4. That the setbacks be In conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the site plan submitted with the application approved by the Committee All of which is respectfully submitted, 1~ Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~::,~. Director 01 Planning 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for June 16, 2005 Susanne Rickard Cole In Trust 2005-A-20 310 Shanty Bay Road, Plan 918, Lots 4, 5 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is ;equesting permission from the Committee of Adjustment to recognize a legal non- compliant setback. If approved, the variance would recognize a detached accessory building with an existing setback which currently does not meet the minimum required 2 metres (6.5 feet) from the interior side lot line. The applicant is requesting the above noted reliel as the existing garage currently does not meet the loll owing minimum requirements: Required Existina Minimum Required Interior Side Yard Setback 2.0 m (6.5 ft) 0.51 m (1.67 ft) - lor the northeast comer 01 the garage 1.76 m (5.77 ft) - lor the southeast corner of the garage MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One (R1) Zone Previous Applications - A-48101max height req't for detached garage Irom 4.5 m(14.7 It) to 6.3 m(20.7 ft) and max Iloor area lor a detached garage Irom 70 sq m (753.5 sq ft) to 111.48 sq m (1200 sq ft)- Granted AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Public Works and Roads- Building Department - Engineering Department- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The applicant has applied for a minor variance to recognize existing encroachments into the required interior side yard setback lor the detached garage located at the rear of the lot. It is the applicants' intent to recreate Lot 4 and Lot 5, which were two separate lots on Plan 918. In order to conlirm that the two lots were once conveyable lots, the Committee of Adjustment received registered deeds which indicate that the lots were once legally conveyable. (Copies 01 those are attached lor the Committee's reference). The existing garage which is located on Lot 4,310 Shanty Bay Road, would then not comply with the minimum required interior side setback of 2 metres (6.5 feet) as it is setback approximately 0.51 m (1.67 It) Irom the northeast corner of the garage and 1.76 m (5.77 ft) Irom the southeast corner 01 the garage. As the applicant's garage is a non-complying structure, permission is required Irom the Committee of Adjustment to recognize the reduced setbacks. Applications lor non.conforming uses are guided by the policies set out in Section J2.2 of the Official Plan and not the standard four tests for minor variance applications. Section J2.2 01 the Township's Official Plan sets out the following policies to guide the Committee in considering expansions and recognizing legal non-conlorming structures: a) The size of the exfension in relafion to the exisfing operation; b) Whefher the proposed exfension is compafible wifh the character of the surrounding area; c:) The charac:teristics of the existing use in relation to noise, vibration, fumes, dust.. ..and the degree fo which any of fhese factors may be increased or decreased by the extension; and, d) The possibilities of reducing these nuisances through buffering, building sefbacks, landscaping, site plan control and other means. ThiS minor variance application is a request to consider existing encroachments beyond the required 2 metre (6.5 feet) interior side yard setback to recognize the detached garage which has been constructed. As detached accessory structures and buildings are a permitted use the proposal generally conforms with the intent 01 the policies in the Official Plan. The subject property is zoned Residential One (R1) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The intent 01 the By-law is to establish setbacks from neighbouring properties and to establish the residential character of this neighbourhood. One of the purposes of maintaining the minimum required yards in this residential zone is to maintain and protect the residential character of this area. As the detached garage is existing, and the intent of the minor variance application is to recognize the existing encroachments, the application would generally conlorm with the intent of the Zoning By-law. The proposal as submitted would appear to conlorm with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. CONCLUSIONS 1. The requested permission to recognize a legal non-conlorming structure will have little or no impact on the residential character of the area. 2. The requested recognition of a legal non-conforming structure is considered to conform with Section J2.2 of the Official Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Committee approve minor variance application 2005-A.20 as follows: THAT PERMISSION TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK IS GRANTED FOR 310 SHANTY BAY ROAD FOR A 111.48 M' (1,200 FT2) DETACHED GARAGE and subject to the following condition: 1. That the stairs iocated on the garage be removed. A~OI which is respectfully submitted, ."~ A Y Karaiskakis Junior Planner ~:,::'J^,,~ Bruce Hoppe, ~1;;;" Director 01 Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for June 16, 2005 Shirley Joan Thomas 2005-8-21 2005-A-21 1735 Ridge Road West, Cone. 3, East Part Lot 28, 51R-10726, Part 1 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The purpose 01 application 2005-B-21 is to permit the creation 01 a new residential lot. The land to be severed is proposed to have a lot lrontage 01 approximately 66 metres (216.5 leet), a lot depth 01 approximately 100 metres (328 leet) and a lot area 01 approximately 0.66 hectare (1.63 acre). The land proposed to be retained would have a lot frontage 01 approximately 21 metres (68.8 feet), a shoreline Irontage of approximately 72 metres (236 feet) and a lot area 01 approximately 2.47 hectares (6.12 acres). Minor variance application 2005-A-21 is proceeding concurrent with severance application 2005-B- 21 that will be heard at the same meeting. The applicant is requesting reliel Irom the minimum lot Irontage requirement 01 30 metres (98.4 feet) to a proposed 21 metres (68.8 loot) for the construction 01 a new driveway access for the retained parcel. The requested variance would be a condition to be lullilled il application 2005-B-21 is approved. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Of Ii cia I Plan Designation - Rural & Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (NRU) & Shoreline Residential (SR) Zones Previous Applications - B.21/99 (application for severance was granted, deeds were stamped but lot was not registered) AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Municipal Works and Roads- Building Department- Fire Department- Engineering Department- PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to create a new residential lot with a road lrontage 01 approximately 66 metres (216.53 leet), a lot depth 01 approximately 100 metres (328 leet) and a lot area of approximately 0.66 hectare (1.63 acre). The retained lands would have a road lrontage 01 approximately 21 metres (68.8 feet), a shoreline frontage 01 approximately 72 metres (236 feet) and a lot area of approximately 2.47 hectares (6.12 acres). A review 01 the Township records indicates that a rezoning was completed in 1984 by By-law number 1368/84 which perm itted a second residential dwelling on the property as an accessory use lor the housing of a grounds keeper. There were two such exceptions granted in the former Township of Oro By-law for the subject property and the Birshtein property (formerly Borins property). The intent with these dwelling units is that they were to be accessory to the main residential dwelling on the property. The Of!icial Plan policies tor Oro Township at the time this zoning was adopted indicate that this residence was not to be severed by either the applicant or subsequent owners. This type 01 policy lor accessory dwellings is similar to the provision in place lor agricultural properties where there was a need for lull time larm help. As the Committee is aware the Official Plan no longer permits two dwellings on any property due to the problems of consent applications which arise at future dates. There was however a policy recently placed in the Of!icial Plan for Oro-Medonte which permitted the consent ot one 01 the two dwellings on these parcels provided the second dwelling was legally created in accordance with the Of Ii cia I Plan policies previously in ellect. Alter reviewing the background 01 this property it appears that the second dwelling was legally created in accordance with the Ora Of!icial Plan policies and therefore can be considered under this policy. As two thirds of the subject property is designated Rural, Section D3.3.1 01 the Of!icial Plan would apply. The creation of a new lot for residential purposes from a property which currently has two single detached dwellings is permitted provided: a) the size of the lot will not affect the viability of the agricultural operation and may be required to be verified through an agricultural viability report prepared by a qualified agrologist; no portion of the severed lot is to be located closer than 200 metres to a barn or feedlot, regardless of whether it is being used for agricultural uses at the time the application is submitted, or the minimum distance required by the Minimum Distance Separation I and II, whichever is greater. the proposed lot fronts onto an existing public road that is maintained year round by the Township, County, or Province; an entrance permit is available for a new driveway accessing the severed lot from the appropriate authority; the driveway accessing the proposed new lot will not cause a traffic hazard as a result of its location on a curve or hill; the proposed lot is serviced with its own septic system approved by the appropriate authority; the proposed lot is serviced with an appropriate water supply, which may be an individual well or a well shared with a neighbouring lot, provided an agreement has been entered into with a neighbouring owner; the proposed lot area includes only the amount of land required for the existing residential dwelling, water supply, and sewage disposal system and will comply with the implementing Zoning By-law. (Official Plan Amendment #3) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) In reviewing the above policies, the proposed applications generally satisly all the criteria. The minor variance application, which would recognize the reduced lot fronlage of the retained lot has been received and circulated for this meeting. Upon site inspection, it was noted that the subject property currently has 4 existing driveways, one accessing the retained lot and 3 for the severed lot. At the time this report was written, comments have not been received Irom the County of Simcoe with respect to the driveway entrances off Ridge Road. CONCLUSION In reviewing the application for the creation of one new residential lot, it would appear that the application conforms with the general intent 01 the Shoreline and Rural policies 01 the Official Plan and with the provisions of the Zoning By-law and would maintain the character of this residential area. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Consent application 2005-B-21 for the creation 01 a new residential lot and Minor Variance application 2005-A-21 for a reduced lot Irontage 01 20.979 metres (68.82 feet) and subject to the loll owing conditions: 1 . That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary: 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance lor the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That all Municipal taxes be paid to the Municipality; 4. That the applicant contact the County 01 Simcoe Roads and Engineering Department so that satislactory access arrangements to both the retained and severed parcels are made and to obtain an entrance permit, if required; 5. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 lor the lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution: and, 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be lulfilled within one year from the date of the giving 01 the notice. All of which is respectfully submitted, l~~,,^ Junior Planner Reviewed by, \~~, Director 01 Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for June 16, 2005 Constance McOermot Conc. 1, Part Lots 20,21 (Orillia) 20054-8-20 THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2005-B-20 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot. The land to be severed is proposed to have a road frontage of approximately 30.5 metres (100 feet), a shoreline lrontage 01 approximately 45.72 metres (150 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres). The land proposed to be retained would have a road frontage of approximately 30.5 metres (100 leet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 82.3 metres (270 leet) and a lot area of approximately 1 hectare (2.64 acres). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation -Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 -Shoreline Residential Exceptions (SW2, SW99) Zones Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Municipal Works and Roads. Building Department- Fire Department- Engineering Department- PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to create a new residential lot with a road Irontage of approximately 30.5 metres (100 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 45.72 metres (150 leet) and a lot area of approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres). The retained lands would have a road frontage 01 approximately 30.5 metres (100 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 82.3 metres (270 feet) and a lot area 01 approximately 1 hectare (2.64 acres). OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are designated Shoreline in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The intent 01 the Shoreline policies is to maintain the existing character 01 this residential area, protect the natural features 01 the immediate shoreline, and ensure the development is appropriately serviced with water and sewer services. Section D10-3.5 Prelerred Means 01 Land Division - indicates that land division by plan 01 subdivision rather than consent shall generally be deemed necessary il: a) the extension of an existing public road or the development of a new public road is required to access the proposed lots/units (Modification #51); or, b) the extension of a municipal water or sewer system is required to service the proposed lots/units (Modilication #51); or, c) the area that is propcsed to be developed is not considered to be infilling: or, d) a Plan of Subdivision/Condominium (Modification #51) is required to ensure that the entire land holding or area is developed in an orderly and efficient manner; or, e) more than three new lots/units (Modification #51) are being created. The applicant is proposing the creation 01 one residential lot, have access on an existing public road, and would be considered inlilling between existing residential properties. On this basis, the application would conform with the policies permitting the creation 01 a new residential lot by consent and not require the development to occur by a plan 01 subdivision. Section D10.3.7 New Residential lots by Consent - contains the policies required to be considered lor any application to create a new residential lot by consent. These policies indicate: D1 0.3.7 New residential lots by consent The creation of new lots for a residential use by consent to sever is permitted, provided a Plan 01 Subdivision is not required in accordance with Section D10.3.5 and provided the proposed lot and the retained lot (Modilication #53): a) fronts onto an existing public road that is maintained year round by a the Township or County; b) will not cause a traffic hazard as a result 01 its location on a curve or a hill; and, c) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means 01 sewage disposal. In addition, as a condition of consent to sever, the lands subject to the application and designated Shoreline by this Plan shall be placed in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone in the implementing Zoning By-law, il required. . The application as proposed lronts onto an existing public road maintained by the Township, will not cause a traffic hazard as it is not on a curve or a hill, and can be serviced with onsite water and sewage disposal. On the basis 01 the comments noted above, this application is deemed to generally conlorm with the intent and policies 01 the Official Plan. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential Exceptions (SR'2, SR'99) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. Exception Two ('2) deals with a reduced side yard setback lor a single detached dwelling from the minimum required 3 metres to 1.5 metres. Exception Ninety nine ('99) requires that the minimum gross Iloor area for single detached dwellings must be 111 m2 (1,194.8 m2). The proposed and retained lots would comply with the minimum lot frontage and the minimum lot area in the SR Zone. On this basis, the application is deemed to generally conform with the intent and policies 01 the Zoning By-law. CONCLUSION In reviewing the application for the creation 01 one new residential lot, it would appear that the application conforms with the general intent 01 the Shoreline policies of the Official Plan and with the provisions 01 the Zoning By-law and would maintain the <:haracter 01 this residential area. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Committee grant Consent application 2005-B-20 lor the creation of a new residential lot subject to the lollowing <:onditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary: 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy 01 the proposed conveyance lor the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality: 3. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution: 4. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee in the amount 01 $4,055.78 (By-law 2004- 082) to the Township: 5. That the applicants apply lor and obtain a Driveway Entrance Permit Irom the Roads Department lor the land to be severed: and 6. That the conditions 01 consent imposed by the Committee be lultilled within one year from the date 01 the giving 01 the notice. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~ Andy Karaiskakis, Hons. BA Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~~ ,(\"IV)- Bruce HOPP~P Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for June 16, 2005 Janet Lees 2005-A-17 5 Bards Beach Road, Plan 546, Lot 1 (Or/Ilia) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95: Setback lrom the average high water mark of Bass Lake-lor south/west corner of proposed dwelling -lor stairs accessing proposed deck - for south/west corner of proposed deck Required 15 m (49.2 It) 15 m (49.2 It) 15 m (49.2 ft) Proposed 12.12m(39.76 It) 10.05m(32.97 It) 11.72m(38.45 It) MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential Limited Service Exception Two Holding Provision (RLS'2(H)) Zone Previous Applications - none AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Public Works- Building Department - PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The applicant has requested that the application be delerred until next month to allow time lor the applicant to revise the site plan and for the application to be re-circulated. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee deler Minor Variance 2005-A-17 as per the applicants request A~OI which is respectfully submitted, . c;Cill."--"I....-- PIn y Karaiskakis Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~U~ Jty~ Bruce Hoppe,~1;~ Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for June 16, 2005 Laurel View Homes 2005-A-22, 2005-A-23, 2005-A-24 Plan M741, Lots 56,5,64,21 Oakmont Ave, 10 Landscapes Dr, 8 Oakmont Ave (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting relief from the minimum required rear yard setback of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to a proposed 7.2 metres (23.6 feet) for the construction of bow windows to be located at the rear of each dwelling on the above noted Lots. The proposed application would allow for two bow windows on Lot 56 and Lot 5 and for one bow window on Lot 64 MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Horseshoe Valley Low Density Residential Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One Exception (R1*140) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County: Public Works: Building Department: The Township Building Dept has reviewed the applications and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Fire Department: Engineering Department: No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The applicant's have applied lor 3 separate minor variances to allow lor an increase in the encroachment into the required rear yard setback lor the construction 01 bow windows. The requested variances would permit the bow windows to be located a minimum 017.2 metres (23.6 leet) from the rear lot line. The Four Tests of the Minor Variance Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The subject properties are designated Horseshoe Valley Low Density Residential in the Township's Official Plan and is subject to Section E2.5.4.2 Permitted uses in an Adult Lilestvle Communitv In accordance with the policies of the Official Plan these lands designated Horseshoe Valley Low Density Residential at the southern end of the Horseshoe Valley Resort Node were approved lor development as a low density adult lilestyle community that meets the special requirements and diverse preferences 01 retirement age residents. Permitted uses within the adult lifestyle community include all lorms of low density housing, such as single detached and semi-detached dwellings, a limited amount of medium density housing such as townhouses and multiple dwellings and small scale personal service and convenience commercial uses servicing the day to day needs of residents of the community. Other permitted uses include community centres, sports facilities, open space uses. Institutional uses in the form 01 nursing home andlor retirement home or such like uses may also be permitted. Mobile homes are not permitted. The minor variance applications are to consider an encroachment beyond the permitted 7.5 metre minimum required rear yard setback to permit the construction of bow windows to be located at the rear of each dwelling. As a single detached dwelling is a permitted use the proposal generally conforms with the intent 01 the policies in the Official Plan Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Residential One Exception 140 (R1'140) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The intent 01 the By-law is to establish setbacks Irom neighbouring properties and to establish the residential character of this neighbourhood. One 01 the purposes 01 maintaining the minimum required yards in this residential zone is to maintain and protect the residential character 01 this specilic type 01 adult community. The existing dwellings comply with the setback standards in the by-law and have a well developed landscaped front yardloutdoor living area. The proposed bow window encroachments will have little or no impact on the intent of the by-law to provide a low density residential character to the lot or the subdivision. On this basis the variances are deemed to conlorm to general intent of the Zoning By-law. Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The proposed bow window encroachments will not change the overall character of the dwellings or the area and will not have a negative impact on the neighbouring properties. The requested variances are appropriate for the development of the dwellings and the lands. Are the variances minor? The requested relief is deemed to be minor on the basis that the bow windows represent a very small encroachment into the required rear yard and will hav.e little if any impact on the residential community of Laurel View. CONCLUSIONS Based on the above analysis, it is the Planning Departments position that the application meets the four test of Section 45 of the Planning Act as follows: 1. The requested variances are in keeping with the general intent of th.e Official Plan. 2. The requested variances are in keeping with the intent of the Township's Zoning By- law. 3. The requested variances will provide for the desirable development of the subject property. 4. The requested variances are minor. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Committee approve Minor Variance Applications 2005-A-22, 2005-A-23, and 2005-A-24, granting variances of 7.2 metres (23.6 leet) for the construction of bow windows from the minimum required front yard of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation that the bow windows be located no closer than 7.2 metres (23.6 feet) from the rear lot line; and, 3. That the setbacks be in conlormity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~ Andy Karaiskakis Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~UC( . i A",^,~ . Bruce HOPP~~PP Director of Planning Committee of Adiustment Minutes Thursdav Mav 12, 2005. 9:30 a.m. In Attendance: Chairman Allan Johnson, Member Dave Edwards, Member Michelle Lynch, Member Garry Potter, Member Lynda Aiken and Secretary- Treasurer Andy Karaiskakis. 1. Communications and Correspondence -April 2005 OACA Newsletter Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch That the Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustments Newsletter of April 2005 be received. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniarv Interest None declared 3. HearinQs: 9:30 The Harrison Family Cottage Plan 1284, Lot 2, Part Block A (Oro) 3055 Ridge Road West 2005-A-10 In Attendance: Mr. Matt Pryce, Prycon Custom Building, representing applicants Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Dr. Don Nixon, neighbour, dated May 10, 2005 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-10 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; Committee of AdjustmentvMay 12, 2005 Page 1 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 3. That the applicant obtains approval and a permit, if required, from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority; and, 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and by the sketch submitted with the application and approved by the Committee. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-May 12, 2005 Page 2 9:40 Patti Jane Crawford Conc.8, West Part Lot 26 (Oro) 985 Line 7 South 2005-B-18 In Attendance: Ken Crawford, representing applicant, Ms. Bonnie McDougall, 12 Lakeshore Road E. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2005-8-18 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the severed lands be merged in title with 983 Line 7 South and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and, 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment~May 12, 2005 Page 3 9:50 Ian Johnstone Cone. 10, West Par! Lot 22 (Oro) 2005-B-12 In Attendance: Mr. Ian Johnstone, applicant, and Mr. Bill Moore, representing Ms. Jill Hawken, neighbour BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby Deny Consent Application 2005-8-12 on the basis that the applicant does not comply with the policies of Section 2.3.2.1 of the Official Plan .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment*May 12, 2005 Page 4 10:00 DTR Drywall Conc. 1, East Part Lot 4 (Orillia) 1176 Line 15 North 2005-A-12 In Attendance: Mr. Dan Reichert, applicant BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby defer Minor Variance Application 2005-A-12 to allow the applicant time to revise the application and address the comments made by the building department with respect to the setback from the sewage system. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment.May 12, 2005 Page 5 10:10 Henrietta & Frank Houston Conc.1, Part Lot 39 (Vespra) 3276 Penetanguishene Road 2005-A-13 In Attendance: Henny Houston, applicant BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Dave Edwards "That the Committee hereby approve minor variance 2005-A-13 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the size of the proposed apartment dwelling unit be no larger than 80.26 m2 (807.3 ff); and, 2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment-May 12, 2005 Page 6 10:20 Sharon Van Noort Plan 791, Lot 39 (Orillia) 8 Goss Road 2005-A-14 In Attendance: Mr. Dave Wilson, contractor representing applicant BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Garry Potter "That the Committee hereby approve application 2005-A-14 as follows: THAT PERMISSION TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE IS GRANTED FOR 8 GOSS ROAD FOR A 77.3 M2 (832 FT2) BASEMENT ADDITION UNDER THE EXISTING COTTAGE and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 2. That the applicant apply for and obtain approval for the combined application for Site Plan Control/Removal of the Holding Provision, as Goss Road is an unassumed or private road; 3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; and, 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch submitted with the application dated April 20, 2005 and approved by the Committee. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment~May 12,2005 Page 7 10:30 Muriel & Bradley Chestnut Concession 6, East Part Lot 21 (Oro) 118 Line 6 South 2005-B-10 In Attendance: Ms. Muriel Chestnut, applicant BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2005-8-10 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the severed lands be merged in title with Part 1 and Part 2 on RP 51 R-30525 and with Part 4 on 51 R-33477 and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and, 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment~May 12, 2005 Page 8 10:40 Paul Hutchinson & Joyce Fletcher Concession 11, Plan 232, Lot 11 (Oro) 294 Line 11 South 2005-A-15 In Attendance: Mr. Paul Hutchinson and Ms. Joyce Fletcher, applicants BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Garry Potter "That the Committee hereby approve minor variance application 2005-A-15 as follows: THAT PERMISSION TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-COMPLYING STRUCTURE IS GRANTED FOR 294 LINE 11 SOUTH FOR A 23 M2 (247.5 FT2) HALF STOREY SECOND FLOOR ADDITION ONTO AN EXISTING DWELLING AND FOR A 11.2 m2 (120 ff) VERANDAH/DECK TO BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE DWELLING and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch submitted and approved by the Committee; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report so that the proposed addition be no closer than 1.31 metres (4.3 feet) from the interior side lot line for the northwest corner of the dwelling and no closer than 1.49 m (4.9 ft) for the northeast corner of the dwelling; and, 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment~May 12, 2005 Page 9 10:50 Dwight & Wendy Holm Conc. 8, West Part Lot 11 (Medonte) 164 Mount St. Louis Road East 2005-A-16 In Attendance: Dwight & Wendy Holm, applicants Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated May 6, 2005 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Grant Minor Variance Application 2005-A-16, subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 2. That the proposed additions be no closer than 1 metre (3.2 feet) from the Environmental Protection boundary; 3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch submitted with the application and approved by Committee; 4. That a permit or approval be obtained from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act; and, 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment~May 12, 2005 Page 10 6. Other Business i. Adoption of minutes for April 14, 2005 Meeting Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Garry Potter "That the minutes for the April 14th 2005 Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated .. .Carried." 7. Adiournment Moved by Michelle Lynch, Seconded by Garry Potter "We do now adjourn at 1 :45 p.m." ... Carried." (NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.) Chairperson, Allan Johnson Secretary-Treasurer, Andy Karaiskakis Committee of Adjustment.May 12, 2005 Page 11