Loading...
07 14 2005 C of A Agenda Committee of Adiustment AQenda yJ- ~"-. ,~l) v r Thursdav Julv 14th 2005, 9:30 a.m. 1. Communications and Correspondence 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Hearings: 9:30 2005-A-16 Dwight & Wendy Holm Conc. 8, West Part Lot 11 (Medonte) 1 64 Mount St. Louis Road East 9:40 9:50 2005-A-17 Janet Lees Plan 546, Lot 1 (Orillia) 5 Bards Beach Road 10:00 2005-B-22 Helen Perry Conc. 11, East Part Lot 17, 51R- 9287, Part 1 (Ora) 556 Line 11 North 10:10 2005-A-25 Beth Power Conc. 9, Plan 875, Lot 16 (Ora) 65 Parks ide Drive 10:20 2005-A-26 Amy Bond & Kathleen Taylor Conc. 12, Plan 653, Lots 35 & 36 157 Robinson Street (Ora) 10:30 2005-A-27 Harold & Sue Regan Plan 626, Lot 37, Part Lot 105 (Ora) 8 Simcoeside Ave 10:40 2005-A-28 Nancy & George Boyd Conc. 1, Part Lot 1, 51R-28412, Parts 2 & 14 (Ora) 3349 Ridge Road West 10:50 2005-B-23 Peter & Janet Elaine Nell Conc. 14, Part Lot 22, 51R-27164, Part 1 (Ora) 707 Line 13 South 11:00 2005-B-24 Mel Kent Conc. 14, West Part Lot 22 (Ora) 715 Line 13 South 11 :10 2005-B-25 Douglas Shelswell & Wayne Shelswell Conc. 14, Lot 18 (Ora) 191 Line 13 South 11:20 2005-B-26 TRY Recycling Inc. Conc. 8, West Part Lot 19 (Ora) 225 Line 7 North 11:30 2005-A-29 Penny Shainline Conc. 7, Plan 755, Lot 16, Lot 17 73 Lakeshore Road West (Ora) 4. Decisions . 5. Other business -Adoption of minutes for June 16, 2005 Meeting 6. Adjournment . Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for July 14, 2005 Dwight & Wendy Holm 2005-A-16 164 Mount St. Louis Road East, Concession 8, West Part Lot 11 (Medonte) THE PROPOSAL On May 12, 2005, the applicants applied for and were granted 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 1 metre (3.2 feet) from the Environmental Protection Zone Boundary. Subsequently, as a condition of approval, the surveyor determined that the existing dwelling and proposed additions are actually within the Environmental Protection Zone, not within the 30 metres (98.4 feet) setback from the Environmental Protection Zone. To this end, given that residential dwellings are not a permitted use in the Environmental Protection zone, approval from the Committee is required as an expansion to a legal non conforming use. The proposed additions will be setback approximately 12.14 metres (39.8 feet) for the north-east corner of the proposed addition to the Environmental Protection Zone and 13.91 metres (45.6 feet) for the south-east corner of the proposed addition to the Environmental Protection Zone. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) 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 existing sewage system is located on the same side as the proposed addition. The addition would be required to meet the setbacks of Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code Engineering Department- No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 600 metres (1,968.5 feet) along Mount St. Louis Road, a lot depth of approximately 360 metres (1,181 feet) along Highway 400 and a lot area of approximately 27 hectares (67 acres). The property currently contains a 120 m2 (1,300 ft2) single storey dwelling and a detached storage shed located east of the dwelling which will be removed. The applicants are proposing to enlarge the house with a proposed 48.77 m2 (525 u2) one storey with a basement addition and a 90.3 m2 (972 u2) attached garage. As indicated earlier, the applicants applied for and were granted a minor variance for the above noted relief. As a condition of approval, an Ontario Land Surveyor must provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation that the proposed addition be no closer than 1 metre from the Environmental Protection boundary. The surveyor determined that the existing dwelling and proposed additions are actually within the Environmental Protection Zone, not within the 30 metres (98.4 feet) setback from the Environmental Protection Zone, as shown on the Surveyor's Real Property Report dated June 8, 2005. The proposed additions will be setback approximately 12.14 metres (39.8 feet) for the north-east corner of the proposed addition to the Environmental Protection Zone and 13.91 metres (45.6 feet) for the south-east corner of the proposed addition to the Environmental Protection Zone. . Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. The primary function of the Rural designation is to preserve and promote the rural character of the Township and the maintenance of the open countryside and to prevent the intrusion of land uses which are incompatible with the rural character and/or resource activities of the area. As the dwelling on the lot already exists, the additions will maintain the character of the dwelling, and would appear to maintain the character of the surrounding area, the proposal appears to conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? In assessing the issue of conformity with the Zoning By-law, the additions should not detract from the overall character of the lot and surrounding natural features. One of the purposes of regulating structures being built within the 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. Mr. Holm provided to the Township an approval letter from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority for the proposed addition subject to NVCA conditions. Based on site inspection, the area appears to be dry and is a reasonable distance from the watercourse, therefore the proposed additions would therefore conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The proposed variance should provide for a form of development that is suitable for the existing dwelling and consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed variance will provide for an expansion of the dwelling and continue to maintain the rural character. On this basis the proposed variance should provide for the appropriate development of the lot. Is the variance minor? As Committee is aware, "minor" is not determined on a mathematical basis. On the basis that the proposal is reasonable and should not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor. . CONCLUSIONS The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Committee approve minor variance 2005-A-16 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed addition be in conformity with the Surveyor's Real Property Report prepared by Raikes Surveying dated June 8, 2005; 2. That the surveyor provide verification to the Township that the footings were pinned for the proposed addition; 3. That the applicant adhere to Approval # 2005-9034 from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; 4. That the proposed addition be required to meet the setbacks from the existing sewage system as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code; and, 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only alter the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. Allr ~;:"ctf""Y "bm;'" AA~araiSkakis Hans. BA Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~Ll~ ~ . Bruce HOPP: ~I~~- R;P Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for July 14, 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 from the average high water mark of Bass Lake-for south/west corner of proposed dwelling -for stairs accessing proposed deck - for south/west corner of proposed deck Required 15m (49.2lt) 15 m (49.2lt) 15 m (49.2lt) Proposed 12.12 m (39.7lt) 10.05 m (32.9 It) 8m (26lt) 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 - The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department - No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The minor variance application was deferred by the Committee on June 16 to allow proper circulation of the proposal to the public as the applicants made a revision to the proposed deck, which affected the setback to the average high water mark. The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 24.3 metres (79.8 feet), a lot depth of approximately 48.95 metres (160.59 feet) on the east side of the lot and approximately 38.8 metres (127.3 feet) on the west side of the lot, a shoreline frontage of approximately 27.3 metres (89.6 feet) and a lot area of approximately 971.28 m2 (10,455 lt2). The lands currently have a cottage with an area of approximately 83.61 m2 (900 lt2). The owner is proposing to demolish the existing cottage and build a one storey new single detached dwelling with an attached deck at the lake side of the dwelling. The gross floor area for the new dwelling would be 153.28 m2 (1650 1t2) and is proposed to be setback approximately 12.12 metres (39.76 feet) from Bass Lake. The deck will be setback a minimum of 8 metres (26 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass Lake. Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives: . To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. . To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. The requested variances for the dwelling and attached deck would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline residential area and would therefore conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The primary role of setbacks to Bass Lake is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority has commented on the proposal and note that the applicants must obtain a permit from them to regulate the location of development and site alteration on the property and to ensure that adequate elevation of the dwelling above the high lake level and associated hazards of Bass Lake. The site inspection revealed that the existing cottage is closer to Bass Lake than the proposed dwelling and deck, thus improving the situation of site lines to the Lake for the neighbouring properties. The subject property is zoned Residential Limited Service Exception Two Holding Provision (RLS'2(H)). The Holding provision applies to the property as Bards Beach Road is considered an unassumed road which does not allow for the construction of new dwellings on vacant lots or additions to existing dwellings and requires the execution of a Site Plan Agreement in accordance with Section H1.4.3 of the Official Plan, prior to the removal of the Holding Provision and the issuance of a building permit for any type of construction. Subject to the approval of the removal of Holding Provision. the proposal should not adversely impact the natural features of the shoreline and therefore the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the By-law. Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed new dwelling and deck would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given that the proposed dwelling and attached deck would provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood and would not lead to the over development of the lot. Are the variances minor? On the basis that the size of the dwelling and deck are reasonable and would not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area, the proposed variances are considered to be minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS The subject application to permit a new dwelling and deck on the subject property generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2005-A-17 subject to the following conditions: 2 1. The proposed deck shall be setback no closer than 8 metres (26 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass Lake; 2. The proposed dwelling shall be setback no closer than 12.12 metres (39.76 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass Lake: 3. The stairs accessing the proposed deck shall be setback no closer than 10.05 metres (32.97 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass Lake; 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted; 5. That the applicant obtain approval from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act: 6. That the applicant apply for and obtain approval for the combined application for Site Plan Control/Removal of the Holding Provision, as Bards Beach Road is an unassumed or private road; 7. 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: and, 8. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only alter the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of which is respectfully submitted, 1~ Andy Karaiskakis Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~U~~, Bruce HOPP:, M8;, RPP Director of Planning 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for July 14, 2005 Helen Perry 2005-B-22 Concession 11, East Part Lot 17, 51R-9287, Part 1(Oro) 556 Line 11 North THE PROPOSAL The applicant has applied for consent for a boundary adjustmenV lot addition. The purpose of this application is to convey and add a parcel of land having a width of approximately 57 metres (188 feet), a lot depth of approximately 154 metres (507 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.88 hectares (2.1 acres) from the 22.8 hectare (56.5 acres) parcel (556 Line 11 North) to the parcel immediately to the east (544 Line 11 North). The resultant lot area of the parcel to be enhanced, 544 Line 11 North, would be approximately 1.29 hectares (3.1 acres). No new building lots will be created as a result of this boundary adjustment. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Agricultural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) & Environmental Protection (EP) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Municipal Works and Roads- Building Department- Engineering Department-No Concerns PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The purpose of this application is to convey and add approximately 2.1 acres to the lot immediately to the east of the subject property, 544 Line 11 North, to be added to the existing industrial operation. The land to be retained by the applicant would have an area of approximately 56 acres, which contains an existing single detached dwelling and various outbuildings. OFFICIAL PLAN Section D2.3.4 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider applications for farm consolidations and boundary adjustments in the Agricultural designation. The policy states: Boundary line adjustments or farm consolidations may be considered where the effect of the boundary adjustment or consolidation is to improve the viability of the farm operation provided: a) no new lot is created; and, b) the viability 0/ using the lands affected by the application for agricultural uses is not adversely impacted if the application is approved. In reviewing the application, no new building lots will be created, the existing farm operation will continue to exist and given the relatively small amount of land to be conveyed, the viability of the 2.1 acres resulting would not adversely impact the farm operation. On this basis, the application would generally conform to the Official Plan. ZONING BY-LAW . The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) & Environmental Protection (EP) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The retained lot would continue to comply with the provisions of the AlRU Zone for agricultural purposes. The proposed severed portion to be conveyed to 544 Line 11 North, would be required to be rezoned from the AlRU Zone to the Rural Industrial (IR) Zone as a condition of consent to reflect its intended usage for industrial purposes. The application would therefore generally conform with the policies of the Zoning By- law. CONCLUSION The application generally conforms to the policies of the Agricultural designation and the retained lands would comply with the minimum frontage and area requirements of the (AlRU) Zone. The intent of the application is to store equipment which has become unsightly due to growth of the industrial operation. Therefore the screening of the equipment would improve the area and would result in good planning. No new building lots are being created. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2005-B- 22 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 544 Line 11 North 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. All of which is respectfully submitted, JYg~Eks Hons. B.A. Junior Planner dl::bY~~ . ~e Hoppe~-;P Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for July 14, 2005 Beth Power 2005-A-25 556 Line 11 North, Concession 9, Plan 875, Lot 16 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.16 of Zoning By-law 97-95; 'Non-complvinq buildinqs and structures'. The applicant is proposing to add a second storey to the existing one storey dwelling which currently encroaches into the 20 metre (65.6 feet) setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe. The proposed second storey will increase the volume and area of a portion of the dwelling located in the setback requirement of Lake Simcoe. The dwelling will maintain the existing 18.2 metres (59.9 feet) setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - none AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Public Works- Building Department - The Township Building Dept. has reviewed the application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department - No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The sUbject property has a road frontage of approximately 30.5 metres (100 feet), a lot depth of approximately 60.96 metres (200 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 30.5 metres (100 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.2 (0.48 acres). The lands currently have a single detached dwelling with an area of 162.5 m2 (1 ,750 fe). The owner is proposing to add a second storey to the existing one storey dwelling with an area of 162.5 m2 (1 ,750 fe) and will maintain the existing 18.2 metres (59.9 feet) setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives: . To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. . To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. . To ensure that existing development is appropriately serviced with water and sewer services. The requested variance for the addition would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline residential area and the lot is serviced by well and private sewage system. On this basis, the proposed variance would therefore conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The primary role of setbacks to Lake Simcoe is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. As the addition to the dwelling is for a second storey and will not encroach further in a required setback yard, the addition should not adversely impact the natural features of the shoreline. Therefore the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the By-law Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed addition would appear to be appropriate lor the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given that the proposed addition would provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, it would not lead to the over development of the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the addition would not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS The subject application to permit a second storey addition on the subject property generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2005-A-25 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the second storey addition be no larger than 162.5 m2 (1 ,750 Ie); 2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the survey submitted with the application dated July 30, 1997 and approved by the Committee; 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only alter the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of which is respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, j~ Junior Planner ~~~~e: Director of Planning 2 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for July 14, 2005 Amy Bond & Kathleen Taylor 2005-A-26 157 Robinson Street, Concession 12, Plan 653, Lots 35 & 36 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95: i. Section 5.6 Maximum Heiqht of a boathouse of 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to a proposed 5.6 metres (18.3 feet). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - none AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Public Works- Building Department - The Township Building Dept. has reviewed the application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department - No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 40 metres (131 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 45.72 metres (150 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.7 hectares (1.75 acres). The lands currently have a cottage with an area of 111.48 m' (1,200 fe), a detached garage and a boathouse with an area of approximately 26.7 m2 (288 It'). The owners are proposing to demolish the existing boathouse and construct a new boathouse with an area of approximately 44.5 m2 (480 1t2) with a height of 5.6 metres (18.3 feet). Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives: . To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. . To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. . To ensure that existing development is appropriately serviced with water and sewer services. The requested variance for the increased height of the boathouse would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline area. On this basis, the proposed variance would therefore conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) in Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. One of the purposes of regulating the location and height of boathouses in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone is to prevent over-development of the shoreline frontage which may lead to the frontage being dominated by boathouse structures and ultimately impacting the character of the shoreline. The proposed boathouse meets the locational (setback) provisions of the by-law and the percentage of water frontage occupied by the structure. The proposed boathouse will exceed the maximum height standard by 1.1 metres. Boathouse height is calculated not from the average finished grade (as it is with all other structures in the Township) but from the average high water mark. The proposed boathouse will remain, visually, secondary to the dwelling, will not dominate the shoreline, and will not impact the potential views from adjacent lands. On this basis the variance is deemed to conform to the general intent of the Zoning by-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed boathouse height would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding shoreline area. Given that the proposed boathouse height will not result in the over-development of the subject lot or the shoreline, the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the proposed boathouse height would not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS The subject application generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2005-A-26 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the maximum height of the proposed boathouse not exceed 5.6 metres (18.3 feet); 2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only alter the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.: and, 3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee: A~~ Reviewed by, tu<R~ Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning All of which is respectfully submitted, Andy Karaiskakis Junior Planner 2 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for July 14, 2005 Harold & Sue Regan 2005-A-27 8 Simcoeside Ave, Plan 626, Lot 37, Part Lot 105 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing to construct a 33.4 m2 (360 ff) addition to be attached at the front of the existing dwelling and are requesting relief of the following provision from Zoning By-law 97-95: i. Setback from the minimum required front yard of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to a proposed 2.4 metres (8 feet) for the proposed addition. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROV ALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - none 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 proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Engineering Department: No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot frontage of 36.5 metres (120 feet), a depth of 17 metres (55.67 feet) and an area of 0.16 acres and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling and a detached garage. The applicants wish to construct a 33.4 m2 (360 ff) addition to be attached at the front of the existing dwelling. The Four Tests of the Minor Variance Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives: . To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. . To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. . To ensure that existing development is appropriately serviced with water and sewer services. The requested variance for the addition would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline residential area. On this basis, the proposed variance would therefore conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). The SR zone establishes a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres (24.6 metres). The intention of the required yard is to create a low density residential neighbourhood where the dwellings are set back from the street and provide a large front yard/outdoor living area between the dwelling and the street. Certain structural features are permitted to encroach into the required yard without impact on the overall objective and intent of the by-law. Unenclosed porches and balconies and other features (chimney breasts, stairs and landings, etc.) may encroach 1.0 metres into the required front yard without impacting on the intent of the by-law The existing dwelling complies with the setback standards in the by-law and has a well developed landscaped front yard/outdoor living area. The proposed addition 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 variance is deemed to conform to general intent of the Zoning By-law. Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The proposed addition will not change the overall character of the dwelling and would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given that the proposed addition would provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, it would not lead to the over development of the lot. Are the variances minor? Based on site inspection, the addition would not adversely affect the character of the residential area as the addition will be buffered from Simcoeside Avenue by a mature cedar hedge, which would have little if any impact on the streetscape of Simcoeside Avenue. On this basis, the requested relief is deemed to be minor in nature. 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 variance is in keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan. 2. The requested variance is in keeping with the intent of the Township's Zoning By- law. 3. The requested variance will provide for the desirable development of the subject property. 4. The requested variance is minor. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance Application No. 2005-A- 27 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 ground floor area of the addition be no larger than 33.4 m2 (360 ff); 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 that the addition be no closer than 2.4 metres (8 feet) ; 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 and approved by the Committee, as submitted. All of which is respectfully submitted, Ahe Hoo, BA Junior Planner ~.viee1wed bY,. ~4Cz ~CYYIO Bruce Hoppe~~;'; Director of Planning Plan 626, Lot 37 (8 Simcoeside Ave) minor variance 2005-A-27 Page 1 of 1 Karaiskakis From: Jerry Greenglass [jgreenglass@cgdgroup.comJ Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 200512:46 PM To: Andy Karaiskakis Subject: Plan 626, Lot 37 (8 Simcoeside Ave) minor variance 2005-A-27 We have the property adjacent to the Regan's property (ie lot 36) and have no objection to the Township approving the minor variance that has been requested. Marley and Jerry Greenglass Chasson Greenglass & Dessau LLP 1210 Sheppard Avenue East. Suite 212. Toronto Ontario M2K 1E3 Tel: (416) 925-8808' Fax: (416) 925-6797 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whichi! is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended, responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by em all at info@cqdqrouP.com. 7/6/2005 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for July 14, 2005 Nancy & George Boyd 2005.A-28 3349 Ridge Road West, Concession 1, Part Lot 1, 51R-28412, Parts 2 & 14 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95: i. Section 5.6 Maximum Heiqht of a boathouse of4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to a proposed 11.9 metres (39 feet). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential Exception (SR'139) Zone Previous Applications - none AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Public Works- Building Department - The Township Building Dept. has reviewed the application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department - This property is under Site Plan Agreement. The former owner (Britnell) agreed that the required trees along the east side of the property would be planted alter completion of the boathouse. Mr. Boyd will be required to plant these trees. No other concerns. On July 5/05 a site inspection was conducted and note that the trees have been planted long the east side. All other trees have been removed. PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 61 metres (200 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 61 metres (200 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.8 hectares (2 acres). The lands currently have a single detached dwelling with an area of 243.5 m2 (2,621 ll\ and a detached garage with an area of 35.6 m2 (384 ll\ The owners are proposing to submit a building permit application for the boathouse. The boathouse will have a maximum height, calculated from the high water mark, of11.9 metres (39 feet). Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline. The primary function of the Shoreline designation is to protect the character of the shoreline residential area. Permitted uses in the Shoreline designation primarily include residential uses as well as accessory uses. Section 010.7 of the Official Plan directs that the Zoning By-law shall include provisions that restrict the size and location of boathouses on a lot. The O.P. does not contain policies with respect to the design issues or concerns around boathouse heights or respecting accessory residential uses within boathouses. The application therefore would not offend any policy contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? One of the purposes of regulating the location and height of boathouses in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone is to prevent over-development of the shoreline frontage which may lead to the frontage being dominated by boathouse structures and ultimately impacting the character of the shoreline. Section 5.6 of By-law 95-97 establishes setback, height, percentage of frontage, and use regulations for boathouses. The By-law specifically excludes boathouses from the total lot coverage provisions for accessory structures and does not establish a maximum floor area or ground floor area for boathouses. The proposed boathouse meets the locational (setback) provisions of the by-law and the percentage of water frontage occupied by the structure. The proposed boathouse will exceed the maximum height standard by 7.4 metres. Boathouse height is calculated not from the average finished grade (as it is with all other structures in the Township) but from the average high water mark. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the boathouse remains secondary to the dwelling on the site. does not dominate the shoreline elevations, and does not negatively impact views from adjacent development. This is particularly so in areas of the Township characterized by small lots and narrow shoreline frontages. Based on a site inspection, it is noted that the subject lot is large and is on a lower grade than Ridge Road. It is also noted that the subject lot appears to form part of a historic and redeveloping "estate" area. Moreover, the significant steep slopes from the waters edge to the "plateau" of the lot create a rather unique building location for the boathouse. The boathouse, proposed to be constructed from the shoreline and into the shoreline bank, will as a result have a lower height than the proposed home. The proposed boathouse will remain, visually, secondary to the dwelling, will not dominate the shoreline, and will not impact the potential views from adjacent lands. On this basis the variance is deemed to conform to the general intent of the Zoning by-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Given the size of the lots shoreline frontage in relation to the proposed boathouse and in recognition of the unique location for the boathouse "into the bank" of the shoreline, the proposed boathouse height will not result in the over-development of the subject lot or the shoreline. In addition the proposed boathouse will match the design style of the proposed home and will be generally consistent with the nature of estate style development in this area of the Oro-Medonte shoreline. On this basis the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot. Is the variance minor? As Committee is aware, "minor" is not determined on a mathematical basis. Although the requested relief represents more than a doubling of the by-law standard, in recognition of the unique site conditions and configuration, it can deemed to be minor on this basis. CONCLUSIONS The subject application generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2005-A-28 subject to the following conditions: 2 1. That the maximum height of the proposed boathouse not exceed 11.9 metres (39 feet) and that the location of the boathouse be in substantial conformity with the site plan submitted with the application; 2. That the applicants plant trees alter completion of the boathouse as required by the Site Plan Agreement: and, 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only alter the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of which is respectfully submitted, 1~~ Andy Karaiskakis Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~:'~R~' Director of Planning 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for July 14, 2005 Peter & Janet Elaine Nell 2005-B-23 Concession 14, Part Lot 22, 51R-27164, Part 1 (Oro) 707 Line 13 South THE PROPOSAL The applicants have 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 width of approximately 24.3 metres (80 feet), a lot depth of approximately 53.3 metres (175 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.14 hectares (0.347 acres) from the 0.4 hectare (1 acre) parcel (707 Line 13 South) to the parcel immediately to the south (715 Line 13 South). The resultant lot area of the parcel to be enhanced, 715 Line 13 South, would be approximately 1.7 hectares (4.2 acres). The proposed consent would in effect improve the access for the existing parcel for the construction of a single detached dwelling. No new building lots will be created as a result of this boundary adjustment. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Public Works- Building Department- Engineering Department - No Concerns PLANNING DEPARTMENT Background This application involves the proposed conveyance of lands from the applicant to the neighbouring property and is associated with another application (2005-B-24), which includes an additional lot addition between the neighbouring properties. There are currently two parcels of land in separate conveyable ownership; if both applications are approved there will still be a total of two separately conveyable parcels. This specific application would convey approximately 0.347 acres from 707 Line 13 South to be merged with the parcel immediately to the south, 715 Line 13 South. Township Of Oro-Medonte Official Plan The subject lands are designated Shoreline in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The Shoreline designation is currently silent with respect to lot additions. OPA #17 which was a general Amendment to the Official Plan was adopted by Council in August 2003 and approved by the County of Simcoe on November 10, 2004 and subsequently has been appealed. OPA #17 proposes the following new section for the Committee's reference: "Boundarv Adiustments A consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot is created. In reviewing an application for such a boundary adjustment, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the properties affected as intended by this Plan. In addition, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the agricultural parcels affected." While it is recognized that OPA#17 is not in effect, it does function as a statement of Council policy. Zoning By-Law 97-95 If the consent were approved, both the residential parcels would continue to comply with the Zoning By-law provisions applicable to uses in the SR Zone. ANALYSIS The proposed consent application is for a lot addition that does not appear to offend the principles of the Official Plan. The proposed consent would in effect improve the access for the existing parcel for the construction of a single detached dwelling. CONCLUSION 1 . The application does not offend the objectives or policies of the Shoreline designation of the Official Plan and is deemed to generally conform with the severance policies of the Plan. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Committee approve consent application 2005-B-23 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary Treasurer; 2. That the severed lands be merged in title with 715 Line 13 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: 3. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title: 4. That the applicant prepare and subm it a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. A~II of which IS respectfully submitted, ~L<t2a~ An y Karaiskakis, Hons. B.A. Junior Planner de~:~Y^~_ \~ HOp~rRPP Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for July 14, 2005 Mel Kent 2005-B-24 Concession 14, West Part Lot 22 (Oro) 715 Line 13 South 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 of approximately 7.6 metres (25 feet), a lot depth of approximately 160 metres (525 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.06 hectares (0.151 acres) from the 1.5 hectare (3.89 acre) parcel (715 Line 13 South) to the parcel immediately to the north (707 Line 13 South). The resultant lot area of the parcel to be enhanced, 707 Line 13 South, would be approximately 0.47 hectares (1.18 acres). No new building lots will be created as a result of this boundary adjustment. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Public Works- Building Department- Fire Department- Engineering Department - No Concerns PLANNING DEPARTMENT Background This application involves the proposed conveyance of lands from the applicant to the neighbouring property and is associated with another application (2005-B-23), which includes an additional lot addition between the neighbouring properties. There are currently two parcels of land in separate conveyable ownership: if both applications are approved there will still be a total of two separately conveyable parcels. This specific application would convey approximately O. 151 acres from 715 Line 13 South to be merged with the parcel immediately to the north, 707 Line 13 South. Township Of Oro-Medonte Official Plan The subject lands are designated Shoreline in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The Shoreline designation is currently silent with respect to lot additions. OPA #17 which was a general Amendment to the Official Plan was adopted by Council in August 2003 and approved by the County of Simcoe on November 10, 2004 and subsequently has been appealed. OPA #17 proposes the following new section for the Committee's reference: ''Boundarv Adiustments A consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot is created. In reviewing an application for such a boundary adjustment, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the properties affected as intended by this Plan. In addition, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the agricultural parcels affected." While it is recognized that OPA#17 is not in effect, it does function as a statement of Council policy. Zoning By-Law 97-95 If the consent were approved, both the residential parcels would continue to comply with the Zoning By-law provisions applicable to uses in the SR Zone. ANALYSIS The proposed consent application is for a lot addition that does not appear to offend the principles of the Official Plan. The proposed consent would in effect improve the access for the existing parcel for the construction of a single detached dwelling. CONCLUSION 1. The application does not offend the objectives or policies of the Shoreline designation of the Official Plan and is deemed to generally conform with the severance policies of the Plan. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Committee approve consent application 2005-B-24 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary Treasurer; 2. That the severed lands be merged in title with 707 Line 13 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: 3. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title: 4. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. Al ~f :~;~peCtlUIlY submitted, A~~~araiskakis, Hons. BA Junior Planner i;.viewed by, ,(.t. . Br e HOP~f.:PP Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for July 14, 2005 Doug Shelswell & Wayne Shelswell 2005-B-25 191 Line 13 South, Concession 14, Lot 18 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicants have applied for consent for a technical severance to re-create a lot. The lands proposed to be severed would have a lot area of approximately 39.5 hectares (97.73 acres). The lands to be retained would have a lot area of approximately 40.47 hectares (100 acres). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Agricultural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone Previous Applications B-6/03 (Severance of residential lot fronting on Line 14-approved) 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 make note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department-No concerns PLANNING DEPARTMENT Background The subject lands presently exist as a single 80 hectare (197.7 acre) parcel with approximately 609.6 metres (2,000 feet) fronting on Line 13 and approximately 487.68 metres (1,600 feet) fronting along Line 14. In 1856, Mr. James Patten and Mr. Hewitt Bernard claimed title to the 100 acres legally described as the East Half of Lot 18, Concession 14, (deeds and abstract are attached to the application for Committee's reference). In lime, the East Half of Lot 18 and the West Half of Lot 18 merged in title, deeds for which have not been provided. The purpose of this technical severance is to sever the vacant 97.73 acres parcel of the East Hall of Lot 18. OFFICIAL PLAN Section D3.3.7 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider applications to re-divide large parcels of agricultural land which have merged in title. The policy states: The creation of new lots to correct a situation where two or more lots have merged on title may be permitted, provided the Committee of Adjustment is satisfied that the new lot: . was once separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act; . is 0/ the same shape and size as the iot which once existed as a separate conveyable lot; . can be adequately serviced by on-site sewage and water systems; 1 . fronts on a public road that is maintained year-round by a public authority; and . an entrance permit is availabte tor the new driveway accessing the severed lot from the appropriate authority, II required. In order to confirm that the lot to be created was once a conveyable lot, the Committee of Adjustment received registered deeds which indicate that the new lot was once legally conveyable. Based on the site inspection, it was determined that the severed lot, which fronts on an assumed public road, Line 14 South, could be serviced with on-site sewage and water systems. ZONING BY-LAW 97-95 If Committee approves the application, both the severed and retained lots would comply with the minimum area and frontage requirements of Zoning By-law 97-95. PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The Provincial Policy Statement, which came into effect March 1, 2005, provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 2.3.4 of the Statement states: Lot creation in prime agricultura/ areas is discouraged and may onty be permitted for: a) agricultural uses, provided that the lots are of a size appropriate for the type of agricultural use(s) common in the area and are sufficiently large to maintain fiexibility for future changes in the type or size of agricultural operations; b) agriculture-related uses, provided that any new lot will be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the use and appropriate sewage and water services; c) a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation, provided that the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland created by the severance. The approach used to ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted on the remnant parcel may be recommended by the Province, or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objective; and, d) infrastructure, where the facility or corridor cannot be accommodated through the use of easements or rights-of-way. The proposal to re-create two large agricultural parcels would appear to comply with the Provincial Policy Statement for agricultural uses. ANALYSIS By reviewing the deed and abstract provided by the applicants, they confirm that the East Half of Lot 18 was once a separate and conveyable parcel, but it is unclear when the merger between the two 100 acre parcels occurred. The proposal appears to meet the criteria required by Section D3.3.7 of the Official Plan. CONCLUSION On the basis of the above, the proposed consent generally conforms with the policies of the Official Plan as they pertain to lands which have merged on title. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Committee Grant Consent Application 2005-B-25 subject to the following list of conditions: 2 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject lands indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor or a registerable description and be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and, 4. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. AII( which is respectfully submitted, A~~~ Hons. B.A. Junior Planner \i:~~ . ~e Hoppe~~;; Director of Planning 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for July 14, 2005 TRY Recycling Inc. 2004-B.26 225 Line 7 North, Conc. 8, West Part Lot 19 (Ora) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2005-B-26 is to permit the creation of a new industrial lot. The land to be severed is proposed to have a lot frontage of 40 metres (131.23 feet), a lot depth of approximately 686 metres (2250 feet), and a lot area of approximately 17.4 hectare (43 acres). The land proposed to be retained would have a lot frontage of 596 metres (1955feet), a lot depth of approximately 686 metres (2250 feet) and a lot area of approximately 40 hectares (101 acres). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Industrial Zoning By-law 97-95 -Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Municipal Works and Roads- Building Department- The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Fire Department Engineering Department- No concerns PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND It is the applicant's intent to create a new lot fronting on Line 7 North with a frontage of 40 metres (131 feet) and having an area of approximately 17.4 hectares (43 acres). The applicants are proposing a recycling establishment for construction, demolition and industrial materials. As indicated in the Planning Analysis prepared by MHBC Planning, the lot configuration proposed allows for the driveway access to a site that does not require visibility from Line 7 and protects the maximum of frontage on Line 7 for other future industrial uses. The retained lands currently contain an existing dwelling and outbuildings. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject property is designated Industrial in the Township's Official Plan. The main objectives in the Industrial designation are to provide lands for the creation of industrial employment opportunities at locations that maximize the use of existing infrastructure. Section D7.5.2 provides the following direction to Committee in considering an application for consent in the Industrial designation: D7.5.2 Special development policy for the West Half of Lots 18 and 19, Concession VIII (Oro) Prior to the consideration of any Plan of Subdivision on the lands located in the West Half of Lots 18 and 19, Concession VIII, it shall be a policy of this plan to require the landowners to prepare a Comprehensive Development Plan. The Comprehensive Development Plan shall deal with such issues as: b) the means by which sewer and water will be provided in the area with all forms of sewage disposal being considered including higher forms of servicing such as municipal sewage treatment systems or communal systems; the nature, extent and timing of improvements on the 7'h line and the impacts of development on the Highway 11, 7'h Line interchange and the County roads in the area. a) c) the proposed form, scale and density of industrial development d) the means by which the area is to be accessed by roads taking into account the existing locations of entrances to the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport: and, e) the means by which stormwater quality and quantity is to be managed on site. The Township will consult the appropriate agencies prior to the approval of a Comprehensive Development Plan. (Modification #48) The applicant has stated that as this application is not proceeding by Plan of Subdivision, the Comprehensive Development Plan would not be required. While this is technically correct, the planning justification report submitted by the proponent states that "the intent of this policy is to ensure that the entire landholding is assessed comprehensively during the development process and not reviewed on a site by site basis for each development proposal". The proposed use will be serviced through individual (private) services and a traffic analysis is currently being completed to assess the additional truck traffic proposed. Given the traffic analysis has yet to be submitted nor reviewed, staff are not in a position at this time to determine Official Plan conformity. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) in Zoning By-law 97-95 as amended. As stated above, the applicants will be required to rezone the lands to permit the intended industrial use. The retained lands would comply with all other Zoning By-law provisions with the granting of the consent application. ANALYSIS The proposed severance would facilitate development of a single-user on a 40 acres portion of greenfield lands which are designated for industrial purposes. The Official Plan requires a Comprehensive Development Plan which examines a number of broader planning issues for this 200 acre area of the Township. While a single user not proceeding via plan of subdivision would technically not require submission of such a Plan, it is staff's opinion that the intent of this section is to review broader planning objectives, including traffic and servicing issues, and therefore feel that the consent application is premature at this time. CONCLUSION Prior to making a recommendation on the disposition of the consent application, it is prudent for staff to analyze the related rezoning application, including an analysis of the forthcoming traffic study, and assess the Official Plan conformity as a matter of Council policy. RECOMMENDATION 1. It is recommended that the Committee defer Consent application 2005-B-26 until such time as Council reviews the rezoning application and fully assesses the Official Plan conform ity. All of which is respectfully submitted, A~ Andy Karaiskakis Hons. BA Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~H~pk Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for July 14, 2005 Penny Shainline 2005-A-29 73 Lakeshore Road West, Conc. 7, Lots 16 & 17, Plan 755 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95: i. Section 5.16 Non ComplyinQ BuildinQs and Structures. The applicant is seeking to replace an existing detached garage which currently does not comply with the minimum interior side yard and minimum front yard setbacks. Due to an adjustment in the roofline of the proposed structure, the volume of the proposed structure will be increased therefore relief from this subsection is required. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation -Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Public Works- Building Department - The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Fire Department Engineering Department- No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 31 metres (101.95 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 30.5 metres (100 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.17 hectares (0.44 acres) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling, a boathouse and a detached garage. The applicants wish to demolish and replace the existing detached garage. The applicants also plan to expand the detached garage by allowing a 1 metre (3.3 feet) height addition to the garage, which currently encroaches into the 7.5 metre (24.6 feet) front yard and 3.0 metre (9.8 feet) required interior side yard. The garage will maintain the existing 4.9 metre (16.23 feet) and 4.8 metre (16.02) setback from the front lot line for the north-west and north-east corner of the garage respectively and 1.2 metre (4.07 feet) and 1.4 metre (4.72 feet) setback from the west side lot line. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives: . To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. To ensure that existing development is appropriately serviced with water and sewer services. . . The requested variance is for a relatively minor roofline adjustment to an existing non- conforming structure, therefore the existing character is not being compromised. It should be noted that the subject property is being serviced by an artesian well and septic system. On this basis, the proposed variance would therefore conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). One of the purposes or goals of maintaining setbacks in residential areas is to maintain a positive built form and visual quality. The proposed replacement of the detached garage will not result in a decrease in the required setbacks. The site inspection revealed that the replacement of the detached garage should not adversely impact the residential neighbourhood as the new garage will not further encroach into the required setbacks and the proposal is considered reasonable and minor in size. Therefore the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the By-law Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the replacement of the detached garage with an increase in height would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given that the proposed structure would provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, it would not lead to the over development of the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature. . CONCLUSIONS The subject application to permit the replacement of an existing detached garage on the subject property generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve application 2005-A-29 subject to the following conditions: 1. The west side of the detached garage shall maintain the existing 1.2 metre (4.07 feet) and 1.4 metre (4.72 feet) setback from the side lot line for the north-west corner and for 2 the south-west corner of the detached garage respectively; 2. The front yard of the detached garage maintain the existing 4.9 metre (16.23 feet) and 4.8 metre (16.02) setback from the front lot line for the north-west and north-east corner of the garage respectively; 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 that the existing setbacks for the detached garage will be maintained; 4. The ground floor area of the detached garage be no larger than 80.3 m2 (864 u2); 5. That the height of the detached garage be no higher than 5.2 metres (17 feet); 6. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; and, 7. 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 All of which is respectfully submitted, At[UcoM~ Andy Karaiskakis Hons. BA Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~~~~ Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning 3 Committee of Adiustment Minutes Thursdav June 16, 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 -May 2005 OACA Newsletter Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Lynda Aiken That the Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustments Newsletter of May 2005 be received. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest None declared 3. HearinQs: 9:30 Paul Hutchinson & Joyce Fletcher Concession 11, Plan 232, Lot 11 (Oro) 294 Line 11 South 2005-A-15 In Attendance: No one BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Michelle Lynch . "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 fe) 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; Committee of Adjustment-June 16, 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 so that the proposed addition be no closer than 1.08 m (3.54 ft) from the interior side lot line for the northwest corner of the dwelling and no closer than 1.17 m (3.83 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-June 16, 2005 Page 2 9:40 Karl & Anne Locke Conc.14, Plan M205, Lot 7 (Oro) 14 Petherwin Place 2004-A-02 In Attendance: Karl Locke, applicant Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated June 9, 2005 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Dave Edwards "That the Committee hereby approve Minor Variance Application 2004-A-02 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 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 that the new dwelling be 0 metres from 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 satisfaction of the Township and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; 4. That the septic system be installed to required setbacks of Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code, and, 5. 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-June 16, 2005 Page 3 9:S0 Ken & Angelina Bowman Cone. 10, South Part Lot 6 (Medonte) 612 Warminster Sideroad 200S-A-18 In Attendance: Ken & Angelina Bowman, applicants Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated June 14, 200S verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby approve minor variance application 200S-A-18 as follows: 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 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 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 that the proposed addition be no closer than 5.8 metres (19 feet) from the interior side lot line; 3. That the height of the detached garage does not exceed 4.877 metres (16 feet); 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 and approved by the Committee. . .... Carried." Committee of Adjustment-June 16, 2005 Page 4 10:00 Viola Tuck Cone. 1, South Part Lot 16 (Oro) 861 Penetanguishene Road 2005-B-19 In Attendance: Mr. Charles Style, solicitor for the applicant, Ms. Viola Tuck, applicant BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2005-8-19 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 2610 Ski Trails Road 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 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 of Oro-Medonte; and, 7. 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-June 16, 2005 Page 5 10:10 Viola Tuck Cone. 1, South Part Lot 16 (Oro) 861 Penetanguishene Road 2005-B-09 In Attendance: Mr. Charles Style, solicitor for the applicant, Ms. Viola Tuck, applicant Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Gerry Churchill, 2204 Ski Trails Road, dated June 15, 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 Grant Provisional Consent for Application 2005-B- 09 subject to the following list of conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject lands indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicants' solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; 4. That the applicant apply for 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 of $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 of a parkland contribution; and, 7. 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-June 16, 2005 Page 6 10:20 Bruce Maguire Plan 629, Lots 4 & 5 (Oro) 9 Nelson Street 2005-A-19 In Attendance: Mr. Rod Young, architect, and Mr. Bruce Maguire, applicant Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated June 14, 2005 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Dave Edwards "That the Committee hereby 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 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 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 that the proposed addition be no closer than 7.8 metres (25.6 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass Lake; and, 3. 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 4. Applicant to verify that the sewage system meets the minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment~June 16, 2005 Page 7 10:30 Susanne Rickard Cole In Trust Plan 918, Lots 4 & 5 (Oro) 310 Shanty Bay Road 2005-A-20 In Attendance: Mr. Eric Cole, representing applicant BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby 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 M2 (1,200 FT2) DETACHED GARAGE and subject to the following condition: 1. That the stairs located on the garage be removed. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment~June 16, 2005 Page 8 10:40 Shirley Joan Thomas Concession 3, East Part Lot 28,51 R-10726, Part 1 1735 Ridge Road W. (Oro) 2005-B-21 2005-A-21 In Attendance: Mr. Douglas Hill, solicitor for the applicants, Eleanor Lyons, daughter of applicant Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Paul & Jane Walsh, 1753 Ridge Road, dated June 13, 2005 & from Sharon Beattie, Engineering/Planning Technician, County of Simcoe, dated June 15, 2005 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby grant Consent application 2005-6-21 for the creation of a new residential lot and subject to the following conditions: 1.That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That all Municipal taxes be paid to the Municipality; 4. The applicant submits an entrance permit application and fee for the relocation of the residential entrance; 5. The applicant obtains written confirmation from the County of Simcoe to the Township of Oro-Medonte indicating that an entrance permit application has been submitted and the proposed location of the access is acceptable to the County of Simcoe; 6. The applicant shall install a fence at the existing entrance location and permanently close the existing entrance upon fulfilling Condition 5; 7. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution; and, 8. 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-June 16, 2005 Page 9 11 :00 Janet Lees Plan 546, Lot 1 (Orillia) 5 Bards Beach Road 2005-A-17 In Attendance: Mr. Don Brydges, neighbour Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated June 14, 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 defer Minor Variance 2005-A-17 as per the applicants request .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-June 16, 2005 Page 12 11 :10 Laurel View Homes Plan M741, Lots 56,5,64 (Oro) 21 Oakmont Ave, 10 Landscapes Dr, 8 Oakmont 2005-A-22 2005-A-23 2005-A-24 In Attendance: Ms. Kris Menzies, agent representing applicants BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Garry Potter "That the Committee hereby approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-22 granting a variance of 7.2 metres (23.6 feet) for the construction of bow windows from the minimum required rear 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. An Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing or equivalent and 2) verifying in writing 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 conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted. .....Carried." BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-23 granting a variance of 7.2 metres (23.6 feet) for the construction of bow windows from the minimum required rear 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. An Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing or equivalent and 2) 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 conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted. Committee of Adjustment-June 16, 2005 Page 13 . ....Carried." BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-24 granting a variance of 7.2 metres (23.6 feet) for the construction of bow windows from the minimum required rear 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. An Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing or equivalent and 2) verifying in writing 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 conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted. .....Carried." 5. Other Business i. Adoption of minutes for May 12, 2005 Meeting Moved by Michelle Lynch, Seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the minutes for the may 12th 2005 Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated .. .Carried." 6. Adiournment Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Garry Potter "We do now adjourn at 2:45 p.m." ... Carried." (NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.) Chairperson, Allan Johnson Secretary-Treasurer, Andy Karaiskakis Committee of Adjustment-June 16, 2005 Page 14