07 18 2005 PAC Agenda
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
Robinson Room
Date: Monday July 18, 2005
Time: Immediately following
Public Meetings scheduled for
7:00 p.m.
1. Opening of Meeting by Chair
2. Adoption of Agenda
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in
Accordance with the Act.
4. Minutes of Previous Meetings - June 13, 2005
5. Correspondence and Communication
None
6. Planning Applications
(a) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning,
Re: TRY Recycling Inc. - Part of Lot 19, Concession 8 (Oro),
Township of Oro-Medonte, Application 2005-ZBA-22 (Applicant to be
afforded an opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to the
review of the report)
(b) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning,
Re: William Peacock - Lot 20 and West Part of Lot 21, Plan 798
(Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, 37 O'Connell Lane, Application
2005-ZBA-20 (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the
application subsequent to the review of the report)
(c) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning,
Re: Bachly Investments Inc. - Blocks 65 to 69 inclusive, Registered
Plan 51M-679 (Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte, Application
2005-ZBA-19 (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the
application subsequent to the review of the report)
(d) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning,
Re: John Evans - Part of Lot 10, Concession 5 (Medonte), Township
of Oro-Medonte, 611 Mount St. Louis Road, Application 2005-ZBA-17
(Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the application
subsequent to the review of the report)
(e) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning,
Re: AI and Janet Panting - Part of Lot 26, Concession 2 (Oro),
Township of Oro-Medonte, 2018 Old Barrie Road West, Application
2005-ZBA-21 (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the
application subsequent to the review of the report)
7. Other Business
a. Next PAC Meeting - Monday September 12, 2005
8. Adjournment
Jf-I
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
2003-2006 TERM
June 13, 2005 @ 7:14 p.m.
Robinson Room I Council Chambers
Present:
Council Representatives
Mayor J. Neil Craig
Deputy Mayor Harry Hughes
Councillor Dan Buttineau
Councillor Ralph Hough
Councillor Paul Marshall
Councillor John Crawford
Councillor Ruth Fountain
Public Representatives
Terry Allison
Robert Barlow
Mel Coutanche
John Miller
Regrets:
Craig Drury
Staff Present:
Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO; Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning;
Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd.; Andria Leigh,
Planning Consultant; Janette Teeter, Clerk's Assistant
Also Present:
Jim Hartman; Kevin Anderson; Bryan Whitehead; Brandi Clement;
Geza Gaspardy; Gary Hatt; John Miller, Terry Allison, Mel
Coutanche, Robert Barlow; John Walls, Mary O'Farrell-Bowers;
Francis Bowers; Donna Gowland; Pat Woodford, Jim Woodford;
Isabelle Thiess; Gary Thiess; Janet Bumstead; Heather Squires;
Michael Squires; John Trezapelli, Kris Menzies; Martin Kimble;
Gerry Murfitt; Pam Murfitt; Anne Green
1. Opening of Meeting by Chair.
Mayor J. Neil Craig assumed the chair and called the meeting to order.
2. Adoption of Agenda.
Motion No. PAC-1
Moved by Mel Coutanche, Seconded by Terry Allison
It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of
Monday, June 13,2005 be received and adopted.
Carried.
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in Lf" z..
Accordance with the Act.
None declared.
4. Minutes of Previous Meetings - May 9, 2005
Motion No. PAC-2
Moved by Terry Allison, Seconded by Mel Coutanche
It is recommended that the minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting held
on May 9, 2005 be received and adopted.
Carried.
5. Correspondence and Communication.
None.
6. Planning Applications
(a) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning, Re: John
Walls - Part of Lots 2 and 3, Concession 1 (Oro), Application 2005-ZBA-OS.
Motion No. PAC-3
Moved by Mel Coutanche, Seconded by Robert Barlow
It is recommended that
1. Report PD 2005-38, Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning re: John Walls, Zoning By-
law Amendment Application 2005-ZBA-08, Concession 1, Part of Lots 2 and 3,
RP51 R-13186, Part 1 (Oro), Township of Ora-Medonte be received and adopted;
and that the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council
2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application 2005-ZBA-08, Part of Lots 2 and 3,
Concession 1 (Ora) Township of Oro-Medonte submitted by John Walls be refused
as it does not conform with the Official Plan.
3. And Further That Mr. Walls be advised to adhere to the "Order to Comply".
Carried.
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
June 13, 2005, Page 2
(b) Planning Report presented by Nick McDonald, Planning Consultant, Re: q. 3
Moon Point - Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concession 3 (Orillia), Applications
2004-SUB-01, 2004-0PA-02, and 2004-ZBA-09.
Motion No. PAC-4
Moved by Terry Allison, Seconded by Robert Barlow
It is recommended that
1. Report No. PD 2005-036, Nick McDonald, Planning Consultant, re: Moon Point
Development Application, Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concession 3 (Orillia),
Township of Oro-Medonte, File No's: 2004-Sub-01, 2004-0PA-02 and 2004-
ZBA-09 be received and adopted; and that the Planning Advisory Committee
recommends to Council
2. That Official Plan Amendment No. 21 as set out in Attachment #4 to Report No.
PD 2005-036 be adopted;
3. That Zoning By-Law as set out in Attachment #5 to Report No. PD 2005-036 be
passed;
4. That Draft Plan Approval to the lands proposed to be subdivided by the Moon
Point Corporation and application of the draft plan conditions as set out in
Attachment #6 to Report No. PD 2005-036 be granted;
5. And Further That cash-in-lieu of parkland as part of the subdivision approval
process be accepted.
Lost.
(c) Planning Report presented by Nick McDonald, Planning Consultant, Re:
Horseshoe Resort Corporation - Part of Lot 1, Concession 3 (Medonte),
Application 2005-ZBA-15 and 2005-ZBA-16.
Motion No. PAC-5
Moved by John Miller, Seconded by Robert Barlow
It is recommended that
1. Report No. PD 2005-037, Nick McDonald, Planning Consultant, re: Application
for Rezoning - Horseshoe Resort Corporation, Parts 1, 17 and 41, Plan 51 R-
32830 (Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte be received and adopted;
2. And Further That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that
Zoning By-law Amendment Application 2005-ZBA-15/16, Horseshoe Resort
Corporation, Parts 1, 17 and 41, Plan 51 R-32830 (Medonte ), Township of Oro-
Medonte proceed to a Public Meeting in accordance with the provisions of the
Planning Act.
Carried.
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
June 13, 2005, Page 3
7. Other Business
t/.,q
a) Next PAC Meeting - July 11,2005
8. Adjournment
Motion No. PAC-6
Moved by John Miller, Seconded by Mel Coutanche
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 9:25 p.m.
Carried.
Director of Planning, Bruce Hoppe
Chair, Mayor J. Neil Craig
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
June 13, 2005, Page 4
'(4ll) - I
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD 2005-048 Planning Advisory Committee Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP
Subject: Department:
Council Application for Rezoning, TRY Planning
Recycling Inc. - 2005-ZBA-22
C.ofW. Date:
July 14, 2005
Motion # R.M. File #:
Date: Roll #: 010-003-32900
IIINTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
II
TRY Recycling Inc. has submitted an application to rezone a portion of Lot 19, Concession 8 on the Line 7
North. The lands are directly located across from the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport. The applicant, who has
an option to purchase the portion of the property to be used for a proposed recycling operation, has also
submitted an application for consent (severance) to create a new lot to the Committee of Adjustment, which is
illustrated on Attachment #1. The lands subject of this rezoning (and consent) applications would have an
area of 17.4 hectares (43 acres) and would have a lot frontage of 40 metres (131 feet) on the Line 7 North.
The new lot is proposed to be sited to the rear of a 40 hectare (100 acre) parcel fronting on Line 7 North. On
July 14, 2005, on the advice of planning staff, the Committee of Adjustment deferred consideration of the
proposed new lot creation, the rationale for which is explained further this report.
As noted above, it is proposed to establish a recycling business on the property. The property is currently
zoned Agricultural/Rural (A1RU) by Comprehensive Zoning By-law 97-95. A rezoning to a site-specific
industrial zoning category has therefore been submitted by the proponent. The intent of the recycling
operation is to have non-hazardous materials such as construction materials and other debris brought to the
site, sorted on site and then shipped to other users of the product. It is staff's understanding through
discussions with the applicant and a deputation to Council on June 22, 2005, that trucks would dump material
onto a large mobile conveyor belt where workers would physically separate and sort different items into
stockpiles of like materials such as wood, concrete, asphalt shingles, drywall and other items. The stockpiles
would be loaded on other trucks and shipped off-site to other sites for processing and re-use. No permanent
building is proposed with the operation. The proposed use will require a Certificate of Approval from the
Ministry of the Environment in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act, consideration of which
requires municipal approval first.
The intent of this report is to provide Planning Advisory Committee an overview on the subject application.
II OFFICIAL PLAN
6Q-2
II
The whole of the 40 hectare (100 acre) landholding from which the applicant proposes to sever 17.4 hectares
(43 acres) is currently designated Industrial by the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. This 40 hectare (100 acre)
parcel (owned by Mr. Richard Van Gastel) and a second 40 hectare (100 acre) parcel of land located
immediately to the north (owned by Mr. Bob Swerdon) were designated Industrial by the 1996 Official Plan. A
property ownership map is appended to this report for Committee's information as Attachment #2. The intent
at that time was to provide for the development of primarily dry industrial uses in proximity to the airport and on
one of the main north-south transportation corridors in the Township. The designation of this land was also in
response to a 1994 OMB decision that refused the designation of multiple properties along Highway 11 for
industrial purposes, since they were not located in proximity to the then new airport.
Section 07.1 of the Official Plan permits manufacturing, assembly, processing, fabrication, storage and/or
warehousing uses, research establishments, wholesaling establishments, portable asphalt plants and similar
uses on lands within the Industrial designation.
Given the size of the lands designated for Industrial use (80 hectares or 200 acres), a special policy was
included within the Official Plan that was intended to provide the basis for the consideration of development
applications on the lands. Section 07.5.2 reproduced below is the operative policy.
"07.5.2 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/his plan to require the landowners to prepare a
Comprehensive Development Plan. The Comprehensive Development Plan shall deal with such
issues as:
a)
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;
b)
the nature, extent and timing of improvements on the 1" line and the impacts of
development on the Highway 11, 1" Line interchange and the County roads in the area.
the proposed form, scale and density of industrial development
c)
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 storm water 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. "
It is recognized that the policy requires the consideration of a number of planning issues prior to the
processing of a Plan of Subdivision application in the form of a Comprehensive Development Plan (COP).
The basis for this requirement refers to the policies of the Industrial designation that require that all new
development to occur by Plan of Subdivision (Section 07.4). It for this reason that staff are not supportive of
the granting of a consent to provide for the creation of a new lot on the subject lands, as this process in the
absence of a COP would result in fragmentation of the larger industrial landholding and development in an ad-
hoc, unplanned basis. The proposed lot fabric as currently proposed would also bisect the two properties and
result in a physical constraint for future development of the resultant properties.
The intent of Section 07.5.2 is to ensure that all matters relating to the comprehensive planning for the two 40
hectare (100 acre) parcels are considered before individual applications are processed and uses established.
hQ..3
Comprehensive planning will ensure that the lot pattern in particular provides a degree of flexibility with respect
to the development of new uses. It will also ensure that issues such as road access, servicing and stormwater
management are dealt with on a comprehensive rather than a piecemeal basis.
II ANALYSIS:
II
The proposed use on the property is a permitted use in the Industrial designation. The use is considered
processing and storage, both of which are permitted in the Industrial designation. On this basis, the principle
of establishing a recycling operation as outlined herein on the subject lands has been established by the
Official Plan.
Notwithstanding the above, the Official Plan also requires the preparation of a COP to provide the basis for
any development on the 80 hectares (200 acres) of land. On this basis, a Plan of Subdivision application will
need to be submitted, which will deal primarily with such issues as road access, conceptual lot fabric and
stormwater management.
With respect to road access, all industrial users on the 80 hectares (200 acres) should be accessed by an
internal road system that is designed to Township standards. In designing the road system, the applicant
needs to consider the existing access points to the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport. With respect to stormwater
management, provisions should be made within the Plan to accommodate flows on each of the 40 hectare
(100 acre) parcels, since the north parcel appears to drain to the north and east and the south parcel drains to
the south. It is staff's understanding that a traffic study has been commissioned, and that preliminary civil
engineering work has also started.
It is recognized that only one use is proposed at this time. On this basis, the Plan of Subdivision could be
registered in phases or alternatively, a series of blocks could be created that would provide for further lot
creation later as the needs of additional users become known. Issues relating to the nature and timing of the
required road construction and stormwater management ponds could be dealt with as part of the subdivision
agreement process. Given the existence of a Greenlands system on the south portion of the northerly 40
hectare (100 acre) parcel, the natural independent overland flows of the two properties, and the split
ownership of these parcels, staff are prepared to consider a plan of subdivision for the southerly portion at this
time only, with the understanding that a conceptual road connection be planned should it be prudent to
connect to the northerly lands at a future date.
Once the plan of subdivision application has been submitted, supported by the requisite traffic and civil
engineering reports, a further report will be brought back for consideration by the Planning Advisory
Committee with respect to further disposition of this matter.
II RECOMMENDATION:
~
On the basis of the above, it is recommended:
1. THAT Report No. PO 2005-048 be received and adopted; and,
2. THAT the applicant submit a plan of subdivision application with supporting documentation to
properly address the policies of the Official Plan.
;l:'"""Y ,"'millo'
~At~ ~f<
Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP
~~
\~
~
""
'?~'\
o~\-
., .y..~
/\\ \l'l
c!)\\\.~. \~.
o. t? "\~
o ~\.l:\ \.... . i'~
'<?,' '. ';,
~~\\
, .... '.. \"
\ ~, 'p
\ ~./ ''ft,
e..''''''
~' "'. " '\
.~\ /,......, \.
,\ ~/ ~ \
\,\ '\
. \~
\, \. ..;.,. \:0
\ ~ ~ ~
~\". l:J \~
-;;,\..;, J" \~
'0\ \
:;.\\
~\ .0" ,,/ .
. ~\..v .' ,::fr~rSt.q,,,
..;,. ~/ /~~~~t.
",> , //
.~..
6' . ,
~,..'"
::;.<r~:::;:'('"1..
7.';":....\..\)"'"'"
-om
~ :J
co 0 :s.
o,ma
OQ.:::J
)>CD3
" Q. CD
en >::J
(/) CD gr
" -
'<
.....
--i ::u
;:0 m
-< N
;:0 0
m Z
o -
-< Z
o G)
r
- l)
z ::u
Gl 0
l)
o
en
)>
r
(')....> g-o
gq~ "'~
~ ~ ~ ~
i2 Q, g:
3 0 CD.'"
~ ~
~
g
.
,
,
,,,,,"-
i~ ~
."
~H
!"
~S~
Iii
oli
",
l'o
.'1
"" II!li!l
}~~ mil
<~~ ---
H~ l~ ,,/ ~g
~~ !l5
m
o
! I g
, ' !
g ~ ~
, , <
, I '
~ r ~
~ ~ i
~ ~
, l
> 0
~ l5
S ~
,
,
.Iii'*"!!
q~;+
II!
'I
! I
II "ii~
1'16!i
II ~iil
il !'I'
I.
~ J.~W\-P\1JJ.\f
I
II
'1
l
~
.!iI'I'
ill I
6Q-S'
TRY Recycling Application
2005-ZBA-22/ 2005-B-26
Lake Simcoe Regional Airport
Limits of Industrial Designation
Attachment 2
REZONING PROPOSAL
WITH AERIAL PHOTO
TRY RECYCLING
Part of Lot 19,
Concession 8
Township of Oro-Medonte
C~~nty of Simcoe
KEY PLAN
IllllllllllllI SUBJECT
lllllllllllllI LANDS
J+
~~o
250 me:ce,
NOTES: 1) ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
2) ALL LOT FRONTAGES AND DEPTHS SHOWN TO NEAREST METRE.
3) SURVEY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY RUDY MAK SURVEYING L TO.
LEGEND
~ ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTED AREA
LEGAL SURVEY LINE
~
m
MHBC
SCALE 1 :5000
DWN BY: T.F.
JULY 05/05
JUNE 29/05
JUNE 20105
DWG DATE: JUNE 17/05
MHBC Planning Limited
REGIONAL "I'URBAN ~~ au::: :'BVELOPIIBNT
~-=I~IO
FILE NO.-Y599 A -TRY-ORO-SIMC'REZONING PROPOSAL'
DWG NO: M\2005\JUL Y\REZONING PROPOSAL JUL Y05.DWG
'\PO) :\Hv)
~~~
\\"'W.fY) or",,,, 0 ,\'>Ie)
\)lrj
C I
ffi <:-_.;:,...:
-4
Z
o
:':l
:r:
:)Ni H:Ji:!V 3dV:)$NVl SAOnO>1 NOel AS Q3t:iVd3tio
o ~ :
N\fld 311S
1\fn1d38N08
.
'~_""'~'~~N'=~"__~' __, "- '
I
I
I
,
,
,i3~~n8 3dV::JSONVl
8Nil:)A:)3C1
\
\
I
\
.
----~~-.".
-~-------
38i1tJOiS i::JnOOCld
I
\ \
.,
I
\
\
\
I
\
\
\
I
I
..
---
-------
t:J3:::une 3dV:)SONVl
Mlnl."y
of the
Environment
Mlnla"".
de
l'Envlronnemenl
~
Ontario
Office 01 Ihe Mlnleter
Bureau du miniatll
135 SI. elelt Ave. We.t
'21h Floot
Toronto ON M4V 1P5
rei (416) 314.6790
Fe. 14'6) 314.6746
135, I~nu. St. Clair oue.t
IZ' 61.ge .
ToronloON M4V IPS
rei (416) 3,4.67g0
T6"c (416) 314.6746
ENV1283MC-2005-l08l
APR , 8 2005
Mr. Jim Graham
President
Try Recycling Inc.
341 Talb.ot Street, Suite 230
Landon ON N6A 2RS
Dear Mr. Graham:
1 want t.o take this oppartunity to thank y.ou far bringing yaur activities ta my attention.
I very much e~ayed my t.our.of the Try Recycling Inc. facility in L.ond.on.
As yau knaw, my ministry is w.orking cl.osely with .our municipal and business partners to
achieve a 60 percent waste diversi.on gaal far the province. 1 am always pleased to hear
abaut innavative recycling and campasting .operations. I was delighted t.o have the
appartunity to visit your great plant and learn more about yaur activities. The spirit,
facus and initiative demanstrated by yaur team is m.ost impressive, and I c.ongratulate y.ou
an your effarts. Please keep up the great wark.
Once again, thank yau far arranging my tour, and please accept my best wishes.
Sincerely,
~ J;:J~)e.,-
Leana Dambrawsky
Minister .of the Enviranment
(f)
016101<0'0'1
'OO'A~Ctl!OI",Ff", N1&aei'l~1\Ide.
300 Dufferin Avenue
P.O. Box 5035
London, ON
N6A 4L9
London
CANADA
May 12, 2005
Statement Regarding Try Recycling Inc. - City of London Contract
In March 2003, Try Recycling was awarded a 7-year contract for the City of London's Yard Materials
Management Program. In 2004, 15,000 tonnes of yard material was managed under this contract. Try
Recycling receives and processes yard materials and they manage two City Depots. Prior to this
contract, Try Recycling had a 5-year contract to receive and process all City fall leaves and depot
materials. Over that contract, Try Recycling received 25,000 tonnes of materials.
During both contracts Try Recycling has demonstrated that it has the financial capabilities, qualified
staff resources and enthusiasm to deliver comprehensive yard material services and to market a variety
of materials from the process (e.g., compost, wood chips, etc.), Try Recycling continues to meet all
terms and conditions of the contract. Try Recycling staff exceed the City's expectations with respect to
customer service. As a result, contact issues or resident complaints are few to none.
Try Recycling staff exhibit creativity and innovation and a desire to work with the City to make system
improvements. As part of their bid package on the City contract Try Recycling submitted a number of
'value added' proposals offered at no charge to the City. These included: depot expansion to include
other recyclables, a third 'City' depot at the Try Recycling facility, development of a new community
garden, and assistance with advertising and promotion of waste diversion initiatives.
As a community partner and corporate citizen, Try Recycling has set a very high standard in the
London environmental business community. Try Recycling is well known for their tradition of working
with local government, business and non-profit groups on a range of environmental and community
initiatives. A few of the current high profile partnership projects that involve Try Recycling, City staff
and community partners include:
. Co-chair of London Composts, a multi-partner compost awareness and promotion partnership
. The annual Compost Value Day - raising compost awareness and money for non-profits
. The annual London Cares. Curbside Food Drive - non-perishables for the food bank are collected
along with the blue box recyclables
. Government of Canada's One Tonne Challenge - naturalized landscape promotion, composting
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any further information about the nature of Try
Recycling's work for the City of London.
~~~s~, ^
~nford, ~;.\.P.A., Division Manager
Environmental rograms & Customer Relations
The Corporation of the City of London
Office 519-661-2500, ex! 5411
Fax 519-661-2354
jstanfor@iondon.ca
www.london.ca
y:\shared\solwaste\lon051205.doc
OJ OJ
~:::1CL ):>
D... D... ro ,...-+
(") __ < --I
o3~'-+='O
3~.g ~-<
-0 0 -- -- ='0
o < :J 3 ro
(J) -- lQ n
,-r::J -0'-<
__ lQ :::i 0 t1
t5oro;:::+=-=
<:: OJ ~
-oc<:::JlC
~~...,..-..:
o ...... ~ (") c:::::
(") ro 0 ro <
ro (") CL 0 ro
~~ c----h^
In -('"1 ::J
([) __ ,...-+ 0
Vl ::1 l.n <::
· lC <
-I
~
::0
OJ ro
:::J tl
0...."<
n
ro =-::
::::J :::J
La to
=:5- -.
ro ::J
ro <
~ ro
_. l/)
:::J r-+
LO LIi
. -.
:::J
cL
ro
OJ
l/')
r+
l/1-
:::r-
o
~
-I
~
l/)
...-T
OJ
'-<
LIi
OJ
::::J
ro
ru
0-
--
:::i
CL _
C (J r+
l/) 0 l/1-
r+ :::J
l/') -t . Vl =r-
o CD r+ 0
--t<
=-tC<
~. run ~ -I
o - - :::x:J
::)~ 0-<
V'l - ~
r-+ ::J' ~ 0....
OlQ rD ro
;=j.: OJ ::::s < .
l/) :::i ::.1 ro
() CL 0 ~
- _. L/)
-. () r+
ro 0 -. r+
:::J 0 =r-
Vi 3 :::i ro
--Oruo-
o :::J ro
~. D... ~
::>
LO
r-+
L/)-
::::J
o
~
o --I
c ::'0
~ ~
ro n
::::J 0
<. :::J
~ r-+
o -.
::J ::J
:3 ~
ro l/)
::::i r-+
:+ 0
3
"'0
~
o
<
ro
r-r()
~ OJ
::) ==
"-< C
~ 0 Vi
~ C OJ
'--< ~ :::i
() ~ Cl..
--OJ _
::5 VI ro
LOr-t-r-+
l/) ro --I
o -0 ::::0
c (3 -<
!:::! - 0- :::0
o - ro
::1 ro ()
(/)3,<
· l/) f'\
-- --
::1 ::J
t-+lC)
o
~
~~
~ In
. ~
q-"",
'< ~
..... +=::-
~ In
'< '-J
n I
- ~
--
::J In
lC 0)
n 0)
o
3
N r-
:::0 ~ 0
:::0 ~ -.:
Z =+t: Ol .-I
,--... wD...
~ ~ 0
~ )> () ::J
~ ~ OJ
< "'\
() OJ "^"" ."
o - ro OJ
o ::::0 n
Z 0 =.:
ill --
O-,r-+
'-<
2:?......."'.;..~,........;.
._~~>:"7-~ ~~ _ ro. "':":',':- ...
'~'o"'W --
~.....~'iQ"
(C\!
~~
p~
~. .....~<. .
~
~
qq
~
n
~...........,<.'.,;;...
(l~ffi
~~
~
~........:..:..L
~
,..~
y-~
::J
n
"'"
'!i
':!l
..f
~
. . . . . .. . . .
r-+ D- ,.-t- -:'t L/'l""O :::J n < ---. ::r- ~ ...... ~ ---. < ---. :::J ---,
a - . ---. CD <...... ::J. 0 < (D - "...... ro ,-.... CD - 0 CD =.. (D
::J < en::::. 0 OJ ro n La 0 n ...~ n ~ n OJ (1
::J ro n '-< =:J 0.... ,.......;- 3 t.O - '-< ::r D- 0 0 '-< <..g _ '"< ,.-t- '-<
ro;::+ 7':"n ::J. c ~-o ::;(1 ~ c < on ::J n ~ n
L/'l CD :3 ro :3 n ~. 0 ,-+ ro OJ n (D 0 CD ~ (D cu" (D
-h D- -. 0.... S. (D ~;q. - 0.... '-< CD ro 0.... 0 0.... _ D-
0:3 ~ CD La 0.... ~ (D 0- CD ~ 0- CL :::r QJ ro ([) Vl:'
=:J 0 ---.::J (D 0 0... ::J (3 CD ro 0 L/'l L/'l ::J 0.... ro
:::J...... Y1 0 -O::J ---. ~ ~ 0 ::J::J:3 u ~ 0 ~ c
o ro c: 0 0 (1) . ro C :3 0 0 ro::J c -. VI
r-+ LQOc<NnLOr-c V)QJ 1O<(D
@::::r- ::r Y"l La ~ 0 ,-+ ::::r- 0 La ~ 0 r-t :::r ~ D...
- OJ n ::r '-<""0 OJ n ::J::r::r ---. <::: (D OJ
OJ::J 0 <:""0 0 lJJ 0 (l --t 0 < 0..::J
:::J r-+ ::J <: ro c o::J 0 ::r:J:3 S, 0 r-+ D...
a.... ::r n 0 U)::J ~::J -< (D Vl 0 0 ---..
-h ro ro 0 0 (l ~ ---. r-+ rl- ::r CL 0.... ro
= CD r-t o....::J l/) a C 0 U OJ - . r-+ ro 0....
Y1 Iron _. 0 ...... p. <: ~ r+ ::J 0""0 G1-
....D r-t ::r...... -h .!E -. <:::: ro 0 La VI 0 rl-
C -0 -J - -- 0 _. r-+ ---.
OJ ~ ~ ~~ o-::J ~8 0- [;; ~ Y1rr
;:4 -. r-+ C2. ~ ~0:3 Vl 0- ~. =r CD ~
~ 1O 0 0.... OJ CL OJ ~ C 0.... 0 ---:. ro
Vl ... --h -::J -. r-+ =:. 3 Ul 0...
o 0 =roD...::J~wo....~ 0 ~
--h 0 ---:. ~ '-< ~ ruO = OJ N OJ co
OJ 0 _w x ~ ..=:: g:..,.......;- lJ1 q-;;;.f2.
=:3 n <::) n 0.... 0- n. ~ 0 ro 0
=..:. ro <::) 0 '-< 7':"0 n VI 0
~:3 C -~QJ D-h
o ro o:J . OJ ---. ~ OJ
::J::J rl- ::J Y"l ==
r-+ '-:< CD
.
.1",
,.. e..
. ...............................:.'. ..... . .. ................. ... ..... .... ..... ........'......... ...
',.:- .
".'."".
Ill::....
,.:.
If- t-
~,,--.;. .1.....
." I-
. . ~
r.- ·
:'t'. ~
'.' ~":~
mL ~'::.'c.
itf ~"
Ij' c.- ..... ·
~
if
f
i
~ ro u ro CT ~ -I n.. <:: CL OJ OJ -1--'"
rn ill ~ < C ill ~ ro < ro ~ ~ ~ O~
_ . 0.... ~ ro ~. trl -< =:h - . ~ 0.... 0.... ~
0- ([) ::J V1 ::J ([j ~. Q.. 0 -. -< c
ro ~ ~ CT ~ ~ ~ ro ~ ~ 3
:::J ::J'""" VI CD Vl ~ n LO c:!". CD ~ ::::0 n
,....... -. n. < '-< no=> ro OJ
V1 -0 ~ ~ --I CD n ;ti ro ::J ---. ro n
~ OJ ro ~ :::c Vi ==: -< ~ OJ ro 9: ~ ~__
ro::J ro -< - 0 ~ V'l ... ,........ ~ (] ill (] ,........
~ D- < V1 0 1.O --i""\ 0... ~ r-+ =-:
< ...0 r-+ ~ Vl -. n CD :=J
o ~ ~ c OJ ~ 0.... ro n S. =: ~ to c-
:::J :::) - OJ ::J => ~ <: OJ 0.... ::J _ . ro
-I ~ OJ ri-' ~ ~ ~ n. rti ~ to :3 0 OJ
;cJ ro ~ '< ---. -:I 0 ~ q- ""'0 -0 -0 ,........
~ OJ::::i 0.... 0""'0 0 - . ----.. ---. 1'"1"'\
~ ,....... ---. ~ Vl 0.... OJ OJ 0 0 \~ ro
.... ....-.-- ro ru trl l/'l Vl ---f-'l - <::J X
V\ --I A'" ro ~ n ro
rl OJ 0 ro >< 0- ~ CD )> ~ ro D... ro-c
O:::J ~V1 ~ ([) 0 n-o ~ ~ CL",
~ ~ n ----.. '< ro n ,~
~ OJ ([) ro OJ A'" n -0 ro 0 -. ~
=> ~ ~ 0.... C OJ ==-= ~ ~- V'l :3 Vi -.
u ~ .. VI ::::i Ln 0- ::J 0 OJ ~ ro
o ~. V'l ro 63 ro ro LO < Y1 0 -g 1O ::::J
V'I _ ----.. --I ~;:::::;.. OJ OJ -I ----.. Ln QJ n
~. ==: 0 AJ 0.... -. ~ 6- - ::0 n c:!". .-i- ('[)
=> 0 ro -< OJ Ln 0.... -. -< 0 ::::J ro ·
lO => _ . fJ') ... (b --I 8 l/'l Vi'" ::J 1O V\
V'I 0 ~ ~ CL :::0 ~ 3 -is u ~ Lf) -.
ro _ . _ 0 -< ~ --.. ----.. r-+ ::J
~ :::J ~ C ::J ~ 0 ~ ro 0 c OJ
< 0.... ~ 0.... ---. 0 n < ~ ~
-. 51 c: n. cOo.. ~ 3 -. ~ D...
@ "-\ Vl -. V'l Z OJ -. n ::::5 -. ru 1O
_ . r-+ ""'0 r-+ CT::J n 0 ----.. lO
V1 0 ----.. ru ---. r-: - LD - . ::J D...
. '"< - '< =-< ([) . ::J ro - VI ---::..
~....~
fD~
~~
~"~
~.
~
qq
:J
n
~ V'l ~ r-+ ~ r-+ ru -:I OJ ~ ~ -I
ro -:I ro ::::J :::s :::r ::J "< ::J ro :::r ::0
:?: 0 n ro ~. ro CL CL (l ill ~ -<
r-+ ~ '< ~. =:') 3 ro 0 r-+ :3 CD "'D
ro n Cl.. La to ::::g~::J'""" trl ... X ----..
n OJ _.::::r 0 n" Ln ro n 0
::r trl ~ r-+ ill v:; . - . - . c ro 0....
~ ~lO ~ 6-2 ~ ~8 6-~~
- ~ < ----.. ~ ~ ----.. ([)
o ;:.0 -0 - 0 r-+ ([) -0 OJ ([) -..... l/l ro
1O -< :=: . -.....:::r ----.. r-+ ~ trl _ 0 Vl
'"< ...oOCDnDruCr+::Jru
. V'l ---.::J 0 CL -, OJ 0....
-. :3 OJ c ro ::J c: ....0
8 ~ ~ ~ n r+ :3 0.... Ln C
~ ro ro !::!". ::J'""" 0 S. r-+ OJ
:3 ill ~ :::J ::J 0 ro :::J LO ....:;,:: =-=-
:3 ::J -+, c:!. _r-+ ? 7" ;:=+: 0 Vl ~
::=r D... 0 0 r-+ l./1 ([) ~ ~ r-+ ...
:::s ----.. ~ :::r - . "< - . r-+ OJ ~
~ ~ n r-+ :3 ([) ~ ::r ~ c:
ro ::r 0 0 ro -0 ro LO ro 0.... r-+
::J ro::::J r+ - ::J OJ ~ .
r-+ :=l 0.... CD '"< ~ 0 :3 -, ro
8 r- u ro :::s -0 ro ~ -0 0.... ~
o 0 r+ => c: :::J 0 n ~ r-+
C ::J V'l OJ ""'0 r-+ r-+ ~ ----..
"'D D... C:!. :=.: ro __ _ Vl ~ . 8- r-+ n.
La 0 ~ Y" OJ r-+... :::J. CL -. -. :::r
CJ =:s lD r-+ Vl r+ ~ OJ l/'l
-. () c: OJ :::r -. r-+n
CL -+t Vl ----.. ----.. == ro 0 -0 ::r 0
~ ~ OJ ~ ~ OJ n ::J 0 ro ~
OJ =..: --t !::T. ~ g CD OJ ~ -f-g
::J rl ~ ::J ::::J c: OJ ~ trl ~ l/l
D... ~ -< to ro r-+ ~ 0.... Ln -< r-+
o
~
~
~~:
~ n"
c 1
SO,
~
o
~
~~
~
~
TRY RECYCLING IS AN ONTARIO MADE COMPANY: PROVIDING
SOLUTIONS FOR ONTARIO RECYCLING CHALLENGES.
TRY Recycling cares about the environment and it shows.
Every year TRY Recycling finds new ways to expand product lines and to engineer better products
from construction, demolition and yard waste.
Our clients understand our goal is to work with them to improve the environment.
And we achieve results because we are experienced and well versed in the needs, opportunities and
goals of our industry.
_.'m~n~~ n~t~~~@r'1f~~._ ~~ ~~:
~~~@[JJwr~c ~~OO ~~~[M~~l ilOO~~. :~.
.
The TRY Recycling team understands that composting and recycling are no longer options, they are
the only choice. Environmental cleanup and responsibility is pushing its way to the front lines of
public awareness. Citizens realize landfills are no longer dumps and burying waste that could have
been recycled is a "real waste" of limited resources. The public wants to see a reduction in the numbers
going to landfills and governments are listening. TRY Recycling leads the way in the implementation
of the industry's options and products. The TRY Recycling
team works and produces at a higher standard than required
by government and industry guidelines.
Following 'his tour of TRY Recycljnjg~s London facility,
Gotd tyTi(/ef, Orrtarlo'sEf1virohm,:~htal C;OinmissiQner ta/I>s
to mf;i;nbers of the TRY Team.
LOOKING FOR NUMBERS?
WE'VE GOT THEM.
WE WEIGH IT. WE MEASURE IT. WE COUNT IT.
AND IT ALL ADDS UP TO TONNES.
IN FACT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TONNES.
in 2003, TRY Recycling processed and reclaimed over 1 00,000 tonnes of material.
Since the company swung open the gates in 1991, it has diverted in excess of three quarters of a million
tonnes of waste from Ontario landfills.
One hundred percent of the resulting recycled or composted products were returned to the marketplace.
The days when JJshuffle and burylJ were acceptable as waste disposal, are long since past and TRY
Recycling not only keeps material from plugging landfills it generates new products and it creates jobs.
.. ...- -' .... ... -. -.-' ',---. -.
c...... .........c....:...c<.........y#<OOW:... .....~.d; ..........::.. ~......>~-i. ............~-:.: d..' ::..d~.:.<.- .,
..... - ': ' ... ;" *" . . .. a'H' . - '-'. l-":-... .. :,..c.' -. " :..." .1-":,. . 1':-:- . ~
............ -. ....... ..~. ., ,!\ ............ -" ........ '. ~..;. .. 'i....'.. ...., t... . ~/~1f.i).; 9"~"i' t'i"'~ ........ ,
FOUNDRY SAND 15.28%
~~ 1.630/0 MSW - IN
., "'-.~::~ 1.66% DRYWALL
" -'" 1.72% ASPHALT
, 2.43% CLEAN WOOD
G~SS IN 9.08% ~ li~~i " . J:::~8F2:TB:~:: DEPOTS
ROOFING 7.790/0 ~". ", ',' 'I
.,~~~
-\ 4.39% CLEAN FILL
DEMOLITION 7.02%
~21.07% MIXED
YARD WASTE 12'97%~
4.85% CURBSIDE YARD MATERIALS
-- - -- -
'.. . . ._ . .. www.tryr~cyc.ling.GQm ". . ,. , .
TRY RECYCLING IS DOING IT RIGHT!
TRY'S CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL CLEARLY DEFINES
RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING AS TRY'S ONLY OPTION.
TRY Recycling1s business is recycl!!19..
TRY RECYCLING IS SETTING THE STANDARD
Municipalities looking for top-level, cost-effective waste management and
composting solutions are looking to TRY Recycling.
I TRY Recycling has developed an unequaled knowledge base and a superior level
of client service through years of experience with municipalities and industries.
I
Hard work, solid research and practical applications are good teachers,
I TRY Recycling can show you the numbers, the products and the benefits of
I recycling and composting.
IT ALL ADDS UP.
The TRY Recycl ing operation proves everyday that recycling is possible,
practical and affordable"
SEE FOR YOURSELF
Co,me ~and s,e,e our Lon€i0n' facility.
Get a first hand I Gok,. at the ~ecyclln~ anal GOlYfpostihg 'prG'('esses t'hat have bef~n de.velop,ed ,by
TRY Recycling.
Tours ~re availaQle t~rouaghout the year qnd can ,be arranged by (-ailing (51:9) 4~7-15"€i6.
- - - - "
:- _"- ". .www.tryrecytHng.com " " ., "..
· recycledl reused and redistributed 980/0 of all materials delivered to depots.
· recycled enough wood to save 150 acres of virgin forest.
· recycled asphalt roof shingles from 401000 homes.
· recovered enough metal to build 51250 cars.
e produced enough TRY Pave to build a two-lane highway from London to Windsor (3 II thick).
· recycled enough construction material (by weight) to erect a 30 storey building.
· composted 120 pounds of leaf and yard material for every person in Middlesex County.
· produced enough wood chips to fill 13/000 swimming pools.
· recycled enough concrete to fill 91000 cement truck mixers.
· diverted more than three-quarters of a million tonnes from local landfills.
_ The ECOP~:~~~~!~~red with
~ recycled landscape woodchlps. The chips
are made frorn discarded clean wood and screened to
make a uniform product. The resulting multi-purpose
material is engineered to keep weed growth down
and is routinely used in gardens. When used for
pathways it provides a soft, quick to dry, footing. More
than 2000 yards of woodchips were used on the
EcoPark paths. The volufTle is equal to the amount of
woodchips required to fill a line of pIckup trucks over
4 krns long.
ign9 give visitors recycling facts and figures.
TRY RECYCLING IS AN ESTABLISHED AND EXPERIENCED
COMPOSTING FACILITY.
TRY knowledge produces a quality, nutrient rich compost product that exceeds industry standards. 1t's the
TRY Team/s understanding of the microbial process and careful monitoring of oxidation and hydrolysis that
are the key elements in making the compost production as efficient and clean as possible. Simply put it's all
about the moisture content, the temperaturel the timing and the attention to details.
Creating the right environment for composting is a TRY Recycling priority and
a newly constructed windrow area showcases the TRY commitment to upgrades
and new technology.
TRY's focus is to create and engineer an environment enhancing
finished product, it is not simply disposal for compostables.
And TRY is successful, as its quality control processes deliver a
product that exceeds MOE requirements and the standards
set by the Composting Council of Canada. TRY compost is
engineered to be the best prepared natural soil amendment for
commercial use.
ITIS ALL ABOUT MAKING THINGS HAPPEN.
AND AT TRY RECYCLING WE KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF
DEVELOPING NEW PRODUCTS AND IMPROVING OUR
RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING PROCESSES.
TRY Recycling invests in ideas and engineering.
It's how TRY stays ahead.
It's how TRY delivers the best recycling and composting solutions to its clients.
It's how TRY continues to improve our environment.
The results of TRY Recycling's R&D commitment"can be found all acrd~ss Ontario.
Take 9 ride on th~ TRY Pave path 'in the Pinery Provincjall~ark. Desjgn'ed and engioeered as a.oh affordable
alternative for driveways, paths or parking lots, TRY Pave is made
II from a com'binati6nof recycled sh'ingles, '(yes, just like tho5i>e ,on
the roof of your hp'me)/ ~n9 discarded roadw~y a,sphalt. The
specially engineered mix of mater"ials prodLJc~s a solid, safe
surface. In the Park 'it prQvides the perfect surface for hikers,
cyclists and wheelchair access.
Composting processes and products have continually been upgraded and far exceed industry or
government standards. TRY works closely with A&L Labs and all TRY Landscaping Products from
compost to mulch to the Premiere Topsoil are engineered to exact standards. Nutrient levels and
product material composition are strictly monitored.
- - ~ -
, . . . ." ". www.tryrecycling.co~. ~.
The Gail Graham EcoPark is a 10- hectare nature and recreational park located 20 minutes from downtown
London. Donated by William Graham and TRY Recycling, the EcoPark is for the use and enjoyment of
disadvantaged area youth.
Built on a reclaimed gravel pit, the park incorporates open grass areas, natural wetlands, ponds, a nature
study zone, sports fields, rain shelters and connecting pathways. In June 2004, the designated
Environmental Study Area was unveiled by Gord Miller, Ontario's Environmental Commissioner. He met
with the TRY Team and applauded their work and their committment to the environment.
Park Rangers
The Boys and Girls Club of London is the principle user of the park. The EcoPark provides the space and
facilities for summer camps and special programs. The Club has also taken on the role of facility
management and is the contact point for other organizations wishing to use the park. The Boys and Girls
Club was active in developing the park's potential and plans and the summer of 2004 marked the first
season of daily use by the club's members. Community support for the park continues to grow. In June,
the City of London approved the use and installation of an outdoor pool.
Get the Community Excited and Suddenly There's a Playground
Local businesses have also seen the tremendous community value offered at the EcoPark and in October
more than 200 volunteers arrived at the site to lend hands and hammers for a special project.
A mega playground, sponsored by Home Depot and valued at $100,000 was assembled. The London
Community Foundation provided the seed funds for the playground. Remarkably, construction of the
play area was completed in one day. The Gail Graham EcoPark has taken off and the opportunities it
gives inner city children to play and explore nature is unparalleled.
And Of Course It's All Recycled
TRY Recycling designed and built the park using many of the recycled materials produced at the London
facility. Materials used include recycled utility poles for decks and docks, composted yard material provided
top quality compost for grass areas, clean wood for landscape woodchips for pathwaysJ and recycled and
engineered sand for the volleyball courts. Even what appears to be traditional pavement in the parking
area is actually a mixture of recycled roof shingles from area homes combined with discarded and recycled
asphalt from roadways to make a dry surface material called TRY Pave. Signs within the park help visitors
identify and understand how the recycled materials have been used.
_" , ' , .' www.tryr-ecyclihg~GOm.. ", H- " :. " "
TRY RECYCLING LIKES BEING PART OF A COMMUNITY.
IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
Being a responsible employer and corporate citizen means being active in the community. But at
TRY Recycling giving back to the community isn't just a management initiative. The entire TRY team
gets involved and whether it/s taking to the volleyball court for a Youth Opportunities Unlimited fundraiser
or working on the development of the Gail Graham EcoPark, the TRY team does its best.
Some TRY Friends
Gail Graham EcoPark
Habitat Re-Use
YOU
Compost London
Londonts Curbside Food Drive
Compost Day
Friends of the Coves
Growa Row Program
St. Leonard's Society
London Boys & Girls Club
AND THE CO:~MMUNITY G"IVE'S B,ACK TO TRY RECY:CLING
2003 Winner oJ the LQndlJ"n Chamber of ColtHlletce Business~A~hieverrie'ht Awards, Envifonment Award;
The award r:ecogni~es one IGcal company for 'outsta'nding achieve'ment and leqdersbip in pro,Qlams
designed to nl'cfi"fltain and protect a healthy environment.
2001 Ethics in Action 200'1 Socially Respo'ns'ible De~lsio~h-Ma'king Awarq
1999 Finalist in the Recycling Counc'il of Canqdcts Ontario'Wqste Mrin}mization ~Aw,aro
~ " ,,' : v.vww.tryrecycli~g.com ':. , '
'''-I
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD 2005-047 Planning Advisory Committee Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP
Subject: Department:
Council Application for Rezoning - Planning
Peacock, 37 O'Connell Lane,
C.ofW. Oro Station Date:
July 15, 2005
Motion # R.M. File #: 23579
Application # 2005-ZBA-20
Date: Roll #: 010-009-5100
I BACKGROUND
II
An application for rezoning was submitted to the Township of Oro-Medonte by Mr. William Peacock on July 5,
2005. The intent of the application is to rezone lands on the south side of O'Connell Lane from the Residential
Limited Service (Hold) RLS(H) Zone to the Shoreline Residential SR Zone, to enable the construction of a new
single detached dwelling. The subject lands are currently the site of an older cottage.
Mr. Peacock bought lots 20, 21, 22 and 23 of Plan 798 on the assumption that the bisecting lands (O'Connell
Lane - part of Block F of Plan 798) were part of the property. The septic system and the well are located to
the north of O'Connell Lane to service the dwelling. On the basis of a title search, it was determined that the
lane was in Township ownership. Subsequently, Mr. Peacock requested that he purchase this land and in
February 2005, Council approved the sale of the lane to Mr. Peacock. A general location plan is enclosed as
Attachment #1.
The lands are currently zoned RLS(H) because when the Comprehensive Zoning By-law was prepared in
1997 the lands only had frontage on O'Connell Lane which was a private road With the sale of the lane, the
two lots owned by Mr. Peacock to the north of the lane have now merged in title with the lands to the south of
the former lane. Given that the lands now front on Lakeshore Drive, the lands now have frontage on a public
road that is opened and maintained year round, meaning that there is no need for there to be any restrictions
with respect to the use of the lands for residential purposes.
II OFFICIAL PLAN
I
Section H1.4 of the in effect and approved Official Plan states that the construction of a dwelling unit "on a lot
that is accessed only by a private road or individual right-of-way is not permitted until the road is brought up to
municipal standards and assumed by the municipality and maintained on a year round basis". It is on this
" ", - t...
basis that the implementing Zoning By-law placed the subject lands south of O'Connell Lane within a zone
that:
"prohibits any enlargement, renovation or addition to a dwelling unit on the date this Plan was adopted by
Council requiring a permit under the Building Code Act until the occupants satisfy the requirements of Section
H1.4.3."
The above policies are no longer applicable to the subject lands since the lands now have direct frontage and
access to Lakeshore Road.
~ RECOMMENDATIONS
II
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
1. THAT Report No. PD 2005-047 be received and adopted; and,
2. THAT the application for rezoning submitted by William Peacock respecting 37 O'Connell Lane (Oro),
Township of Oro-Medonte be scheduled for a Public Meeting pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning
Act.
Respectfully Submitted:
~,~~ Ifl/}(){-
..~ HOPP~~PP
Director of Planning
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
Peacock Application 2005-ZBA-20 , b - 3
Attachment 1
Peacock property boundary
~ Lands subject to rezoning
'c-I
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Planning Advisory Prepared By:
PD 2005-044 Committee Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP
Rezoning File No.
2005-ZBA-19
Subject: Rezoning Department:
Application - Bachly Planning
Investments Inc., Blocks 65-
69, Plan 51 M-679, Moonstone
Council
C.ofW. Date: July 12, 2005
Motion # R.M. File #:
Date: Roll Nos:
020-005-04418
020-005-04442
020-005-04432
020-005-04476
020-005-04486
INTRODUCTION
The subject property comprises five separate blocks within the Bachly subdivision in the community of
Moonstone, located at the southeast corner of Moonstone Road (County Road 19) and Line 7 North (refer to
Attachment #1). The Zoning By-law currently requires a minimum lot area of 2000 square metres, whereas the
subject application proposes a reduction to a minimum of 1860 square metres. Furthermore, the applicant has
requested a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.5 metres (4.92 feet) on one side, and 3.5 metres (11.48
feet) on the other whereas the By-law currently requires 2.5 metres (8.20 feet) on both sides. The rezoning will
permit the re-subdivision of the blocks into 40 lots for single detached residential dwellings by way of part lot
control.
BACKGROUND
The subject lands are described as Blocks 65 to 69 inclusive, Registered Plan 51M-679 and have access and
frontage on Brechin Crescent, Jennett Drive, and Bachly Avenue within the existing "Heights of Moonstone"
subdivision. The five blocks have a total area of 9.09 hectares (22.5 acres).
bC.-2..
The subdivision was registered in the spring of 2000 and has been under development since that time. A total
of 59 lots were created in Phase 1 for single detached dwellings, approximately half of which have since been
developed and sold. The existing Phase 1 lots have frontages of approximately 30 metres (98 feet) and areas
of approximately 1860 square metres (0.46 acres) on average. A similar reduction in lot area from 2000
square metres (0.49 acres) to 1860 square metres (0.46 acres) was previously approved and rezoned by the
Township. The subdivision roads in Phase 1 have all been constructed, providing an internal loop road system
and two external connections to Line 7 North (Bachly Avenue) and to County Road 19 (Jennett Drive). The
Township has not yet assumed the roads. The Heights of Moonstone subdivision is serviced by municipal
water and private sewage disposal systems. The subdivision also included five blocks that were not
subdivided into separate lots at that time.
Blocks 65 to 69, Registered Plan 51M-679 are proposed to be subdivided into 40 lots. The proposed lots have
frontages that range from 30 metres (98 feet) to 40 metres (131 feet) and areas that range from approximately
1862 square metres (0.46 acres) to over 3000 square metres (0.74 acres).
Application No. S-2/03 for a plan of subdivision was submitted to the Township in 2003. Committee of the
Whole considered Planning Report No. 2003-23 at its meeting on December 10th, 2003 and approved the
recommendations regarding the further consideration and processing of the application. The
recommendations of the report included the use of part lot control for the further processing of the application
pursuant to the Planning Act. Further, the Owner was required to prepare updated reports concerning the
MOE reasonable use guidelines for development on private sewage systems and with respect to stormwater
management issues.
As set out in Planning Report No. 2003-23, two main concerns were identified with the proposed second phase
development. First, there were concerns with respect to the number of lots proposed and the size of the lots in
relation to the current by-law standards. The technical studies submitted with the application had not been
updated since 1989 and had not been updated based on current MOE guidelines. Second, the existing report
for stormwater management from 1993 did not address the flows from the proposed development and did not
address the need for a new stormwater management facility nor an expansion to the existing facility. Council
directed that these items had to be updated and addressed prior to moving forward with the application.
II OFFICIAL PLAN
II
The subject lands fall within the "Rural Settlement Area" in the Township Official Plan. Low density single
detached residential lots are permitted use in this designation. Development by plan of subdivision is preferred
where more than 3 lots are being created and where the extension of municipal water is required.
Section B2.2 of the Plan states that the preferred method of servicing within the Moonstone comrnunity is by
private sewage treatment systems and municipal water. The section also states that Council shall be satisfied
that an adequate water supply is available and that if more than 5 lots are proposed, a hydrogeological
assessment be prepared addressing development capacity for private sewage disposal systems.
Section G2.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORTS requires that all new residential development be
supported by a stormwater management report prepared in accordance with the latest MOE design manual.
The Official Plan supports the proposed plan of subdivision and the proposed rezoning.
II ZONING BY-LAW
II
The subject lands are zoned Residential One Holding "R1(H)" by Zoning By-law No. 97-95. The R1 standards
require a minimum lot frontage of 30 metres (98 feet) and a minimum lot area of 0.2 hectares or 2000 square
metres. While the proponent is proposing to maintain the minimum lot frontage requirements, due to the
'C .. 3
configuration of the existing road pattern, a reduction in the minimum lot area to 1860 square metres is
proposed.
Furthermore, the required side yard setback in the R 1 Zone is 2.5 metres. The applicant has also requested
that this provision be amended for these lands to a minimum of 1.5 metres on one side, and 3.5 metres on the
other. The proponent has indicated that vehicular access to the rear yard for maintenance purposes is difficult
within the current 2.5 metre requirement, therefore consideration of a aggregate setback has been requested.
It is proposed to evaluate this portion of the application as part of the preparation for the public meeting.
It is also noted that the lands are zoned with the holding symbol (H). The holding symbol is generally not
removed until such time as the subdivision agreement is executed. The holding symbol would also be
removed concurrently with the passage of a Part Lot Control By-law, consideration of which will be brought
forward for the consideration of Planning Advisory Committee at an appropriate future date.
The subject lands are designated and zoned for low-density residential development and are intended to form
part of the larger Moonstone settlement area as a minor planned community. The principle of the development
of these lands has been established and is supported by the Township's Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
The five blocks on Registered Plan 51 M-679, which are the subject of this application, all front on dedicated
roads and the municipal services constructed as part of the first phase of the subdivision. No changes to the
road pattern are proposed or anticipated in respect of the proposed subdivision of the 5 Blocks. The reduction
in lot area would result in the ability of the blocks to support 40 lots, whereas the current requirements would
permit 38 lots.
A revised stormwater management report dated April 2005, has been submitted to the Township for review
and consideration. The Township's engineer, Totten Sims Hubicki Ltd., have found the report to be generally
complete. The report concluded that a new stormwater management facility (pond) was required to
accommodate surface water flows from the proposed Phase 2 development in order to meet the Provincial
guidelines for stormwater quality and quantity. The existing stormwater pond serving Phase 1 of the
development was found to be too small to accommodate the required flows from the new phase. The final
design details on the stormwater management ponds size and location are currently being reviewed.
The Township requested an updated hydrogeology report to support the reduced lot sizes and to demonstrate
that the proposed number of lots on private sewage systems would have no impact on ground water quality.
The Township also required that the reports be the subject of a peer review by Azimuth Environmental
Consulting Limited (AECL), consulting hydrogeologists for the municipality.
Through a series of reports, peer reviews, as well as a number of meetings, a final evaluation was provided by
the consultant for the proponent, Morrison Environmental Limited (Morrison) dated June 3, 2005 to support the
proposed development and the recommended lot sizes. Azimuth Environmental Consulting concluded, in its
report dated June 14th, 2005, that the additional information provided by Morrison" supports their conclusions
regarding the minimum lot sizes" and AECL concurred with their conclusions. The Morrison report concludes,
on page 4, that the "potential nitrate impacts from the proposed 41 (sic) new Bachly development lots will be
less than the OOWS values of 10 mg/I (as N) and also the Reasonable Use Maximum Concentration em of
5.72 mg/L (as N)." The Morrison Environmental Limited report and the AECL final review are attached to this
report as Attachments #2 and 3 respectively.
The reports and the peer review support the use of a minimum lot size of 1860 square metres within the
second phase of the Bachly subdivision.
/'c,-Lf
LUSIONS
The proposed rezoning of Blocks 65 to 69 to permit a minimum lot size of 1860 square metres is generally
consistent with the established pattern of development within the entire subdivision and will meet the
requirements of the Province with respect to the protection ground water quality and stormwater management.
The development is a logical and orderly expansion to the existing development in the area.
It is therefore staff's position that sufficient information has been submitted to understand the application and
that a Public Meeting under the Planning Act should be scheduled to consider the proposed rezoning from the
Residential One Holding "R1(H)" zone to a Residential One Holding "R1*(H)" Exception zone.
II RECOMMENDATIONS:
~
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
1. THAT Report No. PD 2005-044 be received and adopted; and,
2. THAT the application for rezoning submitted by Bachly Investments Inc. respecting Blocks 65-69,
Registered Plan 51 M-679 (Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte be scheduled for a Public Meeting
pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act.
Respectfully Submitted;
<."( ~ J.J\-~1
B~u e Hoppe, ~~;;'
Director of Planning
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
Bachly Application 2005-ZBA-19
6:> c -S"
D
II Lands subject to the rezoning.
~,{ . E' IL' 'de..'
mornson nVlronmenta lmTte
Groundwater Consultants
CD
Project No. 12-041
ATTkMM6Nl Ill-
June 3, 2005
W.R. Hodgson and Associates
1151 Denison Street
Unit 15
Markham ON LJR JY4
Re: Response to Peer Review Commeut Letter dated April 27, 2005
Hydrogeological Evaluation - Reasonable Use Guidelines
Phase 2 - Bachly Residential Suhdivision
Township File no. SD-05
Township of Oro - Medoute. County of Simcoe
Dear Sir:
This letter responds to the May 9, 2005 fax from Mr. Wesley Crown of'Meridian Planning Consultants
which attached a copy of the April 27, 2005 Azimuth Environmental peer review comments. A
conference telephone call with Mr. Mike Jones of Azimuth Environmental on May JO, 2005 clarified the
scope, background setting and rationales used in our evaluation of nitrate loadings from the private septic
systems on the municipal water supply aquifer. Thc following sections discuss items raised in the above-
mentioned correspondence and the conference call.
Request for Evaluation Usin!! Reasonable Use Guidelines
In Mr. Crown's letter of November 22, 2004 and further indicated in the first paragraph of the May 9,
2005 correspondence, we were specifically requested to provide "... an updated report regarding the
MOE Reasonable Use Guideline for the development on private services ....". Consequently, our
original evaluation (letter of December 22, 2004) and our follow-up correspondence (letter of March JO,
2005) were undertaken using the requested specific Reasonable Use Guideline.
Grain Size Distribution Curves. Permeability and Percolation Time
In regard to the percolation rates for the grain size distribution curves appended to our March JOth report,
the attached type curve for SM.type materials (silty sands, sand silt mixtures) is depicted as the circled
SM symbol. This particular curve best reflects the five soil samples within the proposed additional
development areas. The accompanying table in Appendix A entitled "Approximate Relationship of Soil
Types to Permeability and Percolation Time" indicates for an SM material, representative of a medium to
low permeability, would exhibit a percolation time - T of8 to 20 min/cm. The reference material, which
has been and is currently in use as an accepted estimation method of T time estimation, was extracted
from the MOE publication "Manual of Policy, Procedures and Guidelines for Onsite Sewage Systems-
May 1982".
1087 Meyerside Drive, Unit L Mississnugn. Ontario. Canada, L5T IM5
Telephone (90S) 564-8944 Facsimile (905) 564-8952 !C-mail: info@morrison-l!nvironmenlal.com
Septic System impact Assessmcm
Township a/Ora ~.MedonJe, County a/Simcoe
foc-7
Nitrate Impact Concentration Limits
We concur with the Azimuth Environmental peer reviewer comments that the MOE reference to a
boundary condition of 10 mglL for nitrates as contained in Sections 5.6, 5.7 and Appendix C3 of the
Hydrogeological Technical Information Requirements for developments serviced by both individual
private water wells and septic systems. Under nonnal assessments, the 10 mglL nitrate concentration is
the boundary condition limit. This development is not classified as a Large Subsurface Sewage Oisposal
System. Although the nonnal groundwater impact assessments are perfonned using the 10 mglL nitrate
limit, we were specifically requested to perform the evaluation using the Reasonable Use Guideline.
Groundwater Flow- Throu!!h and Nitrate Loadin!! Evaluation
The existing Bachly development, along with the proposed additional development lots, is serviced by a
municipal water supply system (provided by the Robincrest wells) and by individual private septic
systems. The document entitled" MOEE Hydrogeological Technical Infonnation Requirements for Land
Development Applications," dated April 1995, provides technical guidelines for developments using
individual water supply wells and individual septic disposal systems. As the Bachly development is
provided with a munieipal water supply rather than on private individual wells, the methodology of
disallowing groundwater underflow for nitrate dilution calculations is not appropriate. Our approach,
which follows previous MOE review practiee, looks at the broad hydrogeologieal environment of the
potential contaminant source and the potential receptor, the municipal water supply aquifer.
Backl!round HvdrOfleolol!u:aJ Conditions
Mr. Bill Morrison has supervised the design, installation and testing of the original municipal
wells on both the Robincrest and Medonte Hills developments. From the Renis Van Den Boom
and Allan Wright water well drilling records, the clay till aquitard confines the sandy, bouldery
medium gravel municipal aquifer in the down-gradient Robincrest subdivision. This aquitard,
which extends to about 53 m (172 ft) below grade, is extensive in areal extent. This aquitard
thiekness reduces potential impacts to the municipal aquifer from surficial sources. During the
test drilling and municipal well construction at both sites, aquifer perfonnance pumping tests
have been undertaken to determine the municipal aquifer hydraulic characteristics.
Consequently, for example, transmissivity and coefficient of'storage values have been derived for
this site.
Historic Nurate Water Quality in the Municipal Aquifer
Although the Robincrest and Medonte Hills munieipal wells were first eompleted in the late
1970's, the first nitrate sample test results available to us for the Robincrest PW I well was
reported at 0.72 mglL (as N), based on the August 10, 1990 pumping test sampte. The next
available test results from the January 6, 1998 aquifer perfonnance pumping test of the then
newly completed Robincrest PW2 well reported nitrate values of 4.94 and 5.11 mglL (as N) for
samples obtained after 50 and 1440 minutes, respectively. Although these values were somewhat
elevated, they were less than the MOE Maximum Aeceptable Concentration (MAC) of 10 mgIL
(asN).
File: 12-041
2.
Septic System Impact Assessment
Township of Oro - Medonte, County of Simcoe
b(:--i
As part of the August 2004 South Simcoe Groundwater Study, groundwater-based municipal
water supply systems were evaluated which included sample testing from the Robincrest supply.
The report indicated that a sample collected in November 2002 had a nitrate result of 4.3 mglL
(as N).
The Township of Oro-Medonte completed, by March 31, 2005, Annual Compliance Reports
(available on the intemet at www.oro-medonte.ca/whatsnew-details.cfm) for 12 municipally
owned and operated water systems, which reported the 2004 water quality testing results.
Analytical results are available for both the Robincrest and Medonte Hills residential
developments. The most recent Annual Compliance Report for Robincrest, dated March 31, 2005
reports nitrate values during 2004 ranging from 4.07 to 4.50 mglL (as N). The compliance report
also indicated that the Robincrest Well PW-I was not used during 2004. Consequently, Well
PW-2 was the supply source during that period. The nitrate values currently hover between 4 and
5 mglL (as N) and are lower than the 1998 reported values.
The Medonte Hills water quality from the August 2004 South Simcoe Groundwater Study
indicated nitrates detected at low concentrations of approximately 1.1 mglL (as N) with
concentrations relatively consistent from 1993 to 2002. The 2004 Annual Compliance Report
indicated nitrate values ranging from 1.17 to 1.4 mglL (as N),
Nitrate Loadine Eva/uation
As indicated above, this is a different case from the typical evaluations undertaken on the basis of
the MOEE Hydrogeological Technical Infomation Requirements for Land Development
Application guidelines as thc development uses a municipal water supply system. In this
instance, use of groundwater flow-through is appropriate in calculating potential nitrate impacts
on the municipal aquifer.
Consequently, from the latest (2004) published water quality results, our evaluation used an
averaged background nitrate concentration of 4.29 mglL (as N). Given the revised drinking water
aquifer background nitrate level of 4.29 mglL (as N), the Cm or Maximum Allowable
concentration for Reasonable Use is 5.72 mglL (as N). The derivation of the c", value is
described in detail in Calculation D in Appendix B. Therefore, under the B-7 Reasonable Use
guideline, nitrate concentration at the property boundary could not exceed 5.72 mglL (as N).
Appendix B provides a detailed description of the assumptions used in the evaluation along with
the mass balance equations that incorporate the Reasonable Use Procedure B-7-1. From the
parameters discussed above and laid out in detail within Appendix B, the calculated resultant
nitrate concentration in the municipal drinking water aquifer down-gradient of the property
boundary amounts to 4.86 mglL (as N) which is less than the Ontario Drinking Water Standard
(ODWS) of 10 mgIL (as N). In addition, it is less than the Reasonable Use Maximum
Concentration Cm of 5.72 mglL (as N).
Downl!radient Private Shallow Wells
The main drinking water source exists in the deep overburden municipal aquifer. No private individual
watcrwells are constructed into shallow surficial aquifer downgradient of the proposed development.
File: 12-041
3.
Sepli<: System impact Assessment
Township of Ora - Meaonte, County of Simcoe
l,c.. .. q
SUMMARY
The Moonstone residents are serviced by a munieipal groundwater-sourced supply system from wells
completed into a regionally extensive confined aquifer with significant groundwater underflow. Potential
nitrate impacts from the proposed 41 new Bachly development lots will be less than the ODWS value of
10 mg/L (as N) and also the Reasonable Use Maximum Concentration c", of 5.72 mg/L (as N).
Yours very truly,
MORRISON ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED
~ W. Jaf
Andrew W. Taylor, P.Geo. (QC, ON)
Hydrogeologist (Contract)
W.D. Morrison, P.Eng.
President
cc: Dave Bachly
File: 12-/J41
4.
Septic Systenr1mpactAssessmem
Township of 070 -Medonte~Ci:mllty of Simcoe
6c. -10
APPENDIX A
File: /2-041
APPROXIMATE RELATIONSHIP OF SOIL TYPES
TO PERMEABILITY AND PERCOLATION TIME
SOl L TYPE
(unified soil classification)
COARSE GRAINED - MORE THAN 5DX
LARGER THAN noo
G.W. - Well graded gravels,
gravel-sand mixtures, little
or fines.
G.P. - Poorly graded gravels,
gravel-sand mixtures, little
or no fines.
G.M. - Silty gravels, gravel
sand-si It mixtures.
G.C. - Clayey gravels, gravel-
sand-clay mixtures
S.W. - Well graded sands,
gravelly sands little or
no fines
S.P. - Poorly graded sands
gravelly sand, little or no
fines
~ - Silty sands, sand-
M mixtures
S.C. - Clayey sands, sand-
clay mixtures
Coeffi ci ent of
Permeability
k - em/sec.
Percolation
Time - T
mins/cm.
10-1
<1
10-1
<1
10-2 _ 10-4
4 - 12
10-4 _ 10-6
12 - 50
10-1 _ 10-4
2 - 12
10-1 - 10-3 2 - 8
10-3 - 10-5 EJ
10-4 - 10-6 12 - 50
.
'c-II
Comment
very permeable
unacceptable
very permeable
unacceptab 1 e
Permeable to
medium perme-
able depend-
ing on amount
of silt.
Important to
est. amount
of si It and
clay.
medium perme-
abil i ty
medi urn perme-
ab i1 ity
medium to low
permeabi 1 ity
medium to low
permeabil ity
(depends on
amount of clay)
0
'-
'.,.
..
. ..
.
0 '"
"
u
'- I
.
> .
0 ;> i
'"
-
'"
.~ -
'" ;>
.
.
.
:;
::lI .3
w .
I- ~
<J)
>-
<J) E !
"
Z ,; ~
0 .
." ::I
l- e ~
"
<<t fI)
l) ~
LL.
<J) S
<J) S
<<t
..J E
l) 0
'" .
..J 0
0 .
<J) 0
0
0 -
W ~
-
LL.
Z
:::>
-
u;
<D
...
"
;::;
~ e 0
-
I ! I
, i i I
! , I
i
I !! !
i : i i
1 i I !
, I I I i
1\ I ! ill
~11111
I, ! \
i 1 i Lli
1\ "",- i I
"-
i"..
~~ : ~
r 1'\ ,
'i .",
I ! i I "{
i I I
~:1
, B;!)T
1--
6.3.19
,;I).tY.lIl. ...:l3_J"
o
.
o
~
~
:
.
.s
^py. v ~ J ~ ...
p. 7 of 1"
o
.
g
P
II
~
~
~
i ~
I
I g
I
!
I
I -
.
-
-
!
I
0
, -
-
I -
0
+-~
"1 I
. I
II
, ,
1---'
. T
_ _l-
I
I
I
!
j
,
I
1
.
9
0
,
, I
o
, '"
:
'\.
1
, I \I
I I I I !\
, I
,
. \
. I .
I ,
, ,
I , ,
, !
I I . ..L
; !
, I I !
, I
0 ~ ~ ~
0 ~ .
OIlU"'. ,l1It))_."
z
!!
~
.
z
..
;;
w
"
"
>
~
~
!
!
i
,
i I ! I
0 ~ 0
0
~ .
.
, .
i ,
: i
, :
I I
I ,
Ii
, i ;
i : ;
. ! !
: ,
! i
, ,
,
r
'"
"
"-
! ~:
"lj
:1"--
,~
I
-.....
'"
I i
I
I
I .
I I I
,
,
,
I
I
. .
I
I I
I .
I I
~! I
"
\.
K" I-...
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
i
.
u
...
'"
..c
u
>.
g~ ~
0> <= u
(u...,. (1)....-1
~r-.cJ..J
:)o..u U)
u' '"
.!jo:Ci.
B;;~ c
u..c 0
...."'~
..M OIV
tIl l-t h, c:
t 0,1-.....
.,,<= .-<
".... x
ro "'-'i 11):'
0> '0'"
~ e=
-N ....
0>.... :>
." .... 0
caw......
(Q to..... Q.I
O').c tJ .0
"'....
.... '" 0>
UG,ltOI..i
.-4~qSO
"I"'IQl'"'irot
(I))::D..p,.
I I I I
::c
tIl
'c-r~.
.00
"00.
100
'.0
'0'
0 N
<e
n
~
.
.
.
.
..
..
..
'0
'0'
Septic System Impact Assessment
Township.()rOro~MedQnJe/ Cbunty:o(Simcoe
, ~.. '3
APPENDIXB
File: 12-1141
{;>c.-'''I
NITRATE IMPACT CALCULATIONS TO DRINKING WATER AQUIFER
INCORPORATING REASONABLE USE PROCEDURE B-7-1
PLUS THE 2004 AVERAGED ROBIN CREST NITRATE CONCENTRATION
ASSUMPTlONS;-
Infiltration:-
For entire site
Area of site
minus road allowance
33 ha
4.8 ha
28.2 ha
originally 68 lots - developed
plus new 41 lots - total of 109 lots
- with 1000 fe driveway & 2000 ft2 roof
[3000 ft2 or 278.7 m2J
278.7 m2 x 109 lots = 30378.3 m2
= 3.03 ha
minus Open space
4.4ha
23.8 ha
minus roof and driveways
Resultant infiltration area
3.03 ha
20.77 ha - a conservative value
Note that from the soil suitability study, a silty sand was encountered in the shallow test
pits over the entire site. Therefore for infiltration, a rate of I 50 mmlyr as per Table 3
Typical Groundwater Recharge Rates from MOE April 1995 manual pg 4-63.
Using ISO mm/yr infiltration
= 0.150 mlyr x 20.77 ha x 10,000 m2/ha = 31,155 m3/yr = 85.36 m3/day.
Sewage jlow:-
The septic systems discharge into the surficial silty sand.
Ontario Building Code is used for design of septic beds and dimensions and not for
groundwater impact assessments. The OBC indicates that a three off our bedroom
dwelling is to use a design flow (effiuent) of 1600 and 2000 I/day respectively, as in
Table 8.2.1.3.A.
However, for groundwater impact assessment, the MOE Hydrogeological Information
Requirements (April 1995) document states, "The volume of sewage effiuent, if used as
dilution water in mass balance calculations, should not exceed 1000 l/dayllot." [Section
v) on pg 4-551;
6~ -15
Effluent nitrate concentration:-
The nitrate concentration of sewage effluent as applied to the leaching beds is 40 mg/l (as
N).
The following calculation incorporates the proposed 41 new lots into the existing 68 lots
for a total of 109 lots.
Calculation A - Infiltrating precipitation with sewage effluent
(ConCeffx Qeff) + (Concinfx Qinf) = Conc, x Q,
where eff = septic effluent
inr = infiltrating precipitation
, = resulting percolation
Conc = concentration
Q = volume
(40 mgll x 109,000 Ud) + (0.05 mg/l x 85,360 Ud) = Xx (109,000 + 85,360 Ud)
Note: Conc,n{ofO.05 mg/I based on parameter detection limit of <0.05 mg/I (as N).
Qeff = 1000 lid/lot x 1 09 lots = 109,000 lid
Qinr = 85.36 m3/d = 85,360 lid
Q, = Qeff+ Qinf= 109,000 + 85,360
(4,360,000 mgld + 4268 mgld) = X x (194,360 lid)
4,364,268 mgld = 194,360 X lId
X = 4,364,268 1194,360 = 22.45 mgll (as N).
Calculation B - Concentration in shallow silty sand (Till) with shallow lateral flow
Conc, x Q, = (Concdeff x Qdeff) + (Concft x Qft)
where deff = diluted septic effluent
ft = lateral flow
, = resultant
Conc = concentration
Q = volume
Qdeff= 194,350 Ud
Qft= 67,000 lid
Q, = Qdeff+ Qft = 261,350 lId
Conc, x 261,350 Ud = (22.45 mgll x 194,350 Ud) + (0.05 mgll x 67,000 lid)
. be""
Conc, = ((194,350 x 22.45) + (0,05 x 67,000)) 1261,350
= (4,363,157.5 + 3,350) 1261,350
= 16.7 mgll (as N) => resulting nitrate concentration in shallow till
Infiltration occurs through aquitard to deep drinking water aquifer of about 43 m3/d with
nitrate concentration of 16.7 mgll (as N).
Lateral flow within the deep drinking water aquifcr of901 m3/d (based on aquifer
transmissivity {T}of 106 m2/d [from aquifer testing of PW-2], gradient {i}ofO.OI and
subdivision width {L} of 850 m inputted into the modified Darcy equation Q = TiL), An
averaged background nitrate concentration of 4.29 mg/I (as N) based on the 2004 Annual
Report for the Robincrest Water Distribution System Schedule 2 - Certificates of
Analysis - Final Report water quality analysis. As the Annual Report indicated that Well
PW-I was not used in 2004, all V>'lIter was provided from the PW-2 source.
Consequently, this analysis applies the most recent data.
Calculation C - Concentration in deep drinking water aquifer with deep lateral flow
Concr! x Q'I = (Conclnfil x Qlnfil) + (Concdlr x Qdlf) where Inm = aquitard infiltration
dlf = decp lateral flow
rI = resultant
Conc = concentration
Q = volume
Qlnfil = 43,000 lid
Qdlr= 901,000 lid
Q, = Qdeff + Qft = 944,000 lid
Conc,l x 944,000 lid = (16.7 mg/I x 43,000 lid) + (4.29 mgll x 901,000 lid)
Conc,! = ((16.7 x 43,000)+(4.29 x 901,000)) 1944,000
= (718100 + 3,865,300) 1944,000
= 4,583,400 1944,000
= 4.855 mg/I (as N) => resultant nitrate concentration in deep drinking water
aquifer downgradient at the property boundary.
Calculation D - Maximum Allowable Reasonable Use Concentration
Reasonable Use Procedure B-7-}
The main parameter of concern that applies to septic system water quality impacts to
drinking water aquifers is the health related nitrate. The Ontario Drinking Water
Standard maximum acceptable concentration for nitrate is 10 mg/I (as N).
(,c"'7
.
To determine the Maximum Concentration Cm that would be acceptable at the
downgradient property boundary uses the following equation for the drinking water
aquifer.
Cm = Cb + !V(C, - Cb)
Where:- Cm = Maximum Allowable concentration [in this case, nitrate]
Cb = background nitrate concentration in drinking water aquifer 4.29 mgll
Xi'" 0.25 for the health related parameter
C, = Maximum concentration as per ODWS (10 mgll)
Cm = 4.29 mgll + 0.25 (lO mg/l- 4.29 mgll)
= 4.29 mgll + 0.25 (5.71 mg/l)
= 4.29 mgll + 1.43 mgll
= 5.72 mg/l (as N)
The calculated maximum allowable nitrate concentration at the property boundary (Cm)
amounts to 5.72 mg/l (as N) whereas the resulting nitrate concentration in the deep
drinking water aquifer (Conc,l) is 4.855 mg/l (as N). Consequently, water quality impact
to the drinking water aquifer will be less than the Reasonable Use maximum acceptable
concentration for nitrate.
Revision date May 18, 2005
'C -I'
~UTH ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING, INC.
Environmental Assessments & Approvals
A'TAQ.f~ *-3
June 14,2005
AEC 05-046
Meridian Planning
113 Collier Street,
Barrie, Ont.
L4M IH2
Attention:
Mr. Wes Crown, MCIP, RPP
Associate
Re: Final Review of Morrison Response, Bachly Proposed Subdivision
Dear Mr. Crown:
Following our last discussion, I spoke with Morrison Beatty (MB) regarding the Baddy
subdivision regarding the approach utilized to evaluate the potential for impacts to the
ground water regime as a result of the proposed servicing for this subdivision. MB
forwarded a letter dated June 3, 2005, that provided additional information that supports
their conclusions regarding the minimum tot sizes and I concur with their conclusions.
The additional information that was provided supports their interpretation that the deep
aquifer utilized for potable water and the shallow system that will be the receiver of
septic effiuent are hydmulically separate and that the water quality in the deep aquifer has
been consistent over time. This distinction allows the use of aquifer underflow to be
utilized in the Reasonable Use Policy evaluation.
Yours truly,
AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.
Mike Jones, M.Sc., P.Geo.
President
229 Mapfeview Drive East. Unit l,Barrie. Ontario L4N OW5
telephone: (705) 721--8451; fax: (70S) 121..e926 tnfo@azimuthenvironmentaLcom
&;A.. I
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD 2005-045 Planning Advisory Committee Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP
Subject: Department:
Council Application for Rezoning - Planning
John Evans, Part of Lot 10,
C.ofW. Concession 5 (Medonte), Date:
Township of Oro-Medonte, July 15, 2005
Motion # 611 Mount St. Louis Road R.M. File #: 22853
Application # 2005-ZBA-17
Date: Roll #: 02000208600
II BACKGROUND:
~
On June 16, 2005, Mr. John Evans submitted an application for rezoning to the Township of Oro-Medonte.
The intent of the application was to rezone the subject lands within Part of Lot 10, Concession 5 from the
AgriculturallRural Exception 96 (A/RU*96) Zone to the AgriculturallRural (A1RU) Zone to permit the
development of a single detached dwelling. At the present time, exception 96 does not permit the
development of a home on the property.
The subject property has a frontage of 30 metres (98 feet) and an area of 2,400 square metres (0.59 acres)
and is currently vacant. Tthe property is located on the south side of Mount St. Louis Road and is currently
treed (refer to Attachment #1 for general location plan).
I OFFICIAL PLAN
II
The subject lands are located approximately 120 metres (394 feet) to the west of the former waste disposal
site for the Township of Medonte. As a result the lands under application are subject to Section H8 (Waste
Disposal Sites) of the in effect and approved Official Plan for the Township of Oro-Medonte. Section H8
indicates that an assessment is required to support development on lands within 500 metres (1640 feet) of the
fill area of a closed site. The assessment is intended to review the:
a) Impact of any methane gas migration within 150 metres (492 feet) of the property boundary of the
waste disposal site;
bd..2r
b) Whether the proposed use will be adversely effected by noise, odour, dust or other nuisance factors
from the waste disposal site:
c) Potential traffic impacts;
d) Whether the proposed use will be adversely effected by ground and surface water contamination by
leachate migrating from the waste disposal site; and
e) The impact of the proposed use on leachate migration from the landfill site.
Any assessment is required to be carried out in accordance with the Province's Guideline 0-4, dated April
1994.
The intent of the above policy is to ensure that the any development within a certain distance of a closed
waste disposal site will not be impacted by the closed waste disposal site in any way. It is for this reason that
the implementing Zoning By-law currently prohibits the development of single detached dwellings on existing
vacant lots within the assessment area.
II ANALYSIS
~
At the request of the applicant, Rubicon Environmental Inc. prepared a report on June 7, 2005 to address the
policies of the Official Plan. In a letter dated June 15, 2005 from Jagger Hims Limited, peer review
consultants to the County of Simcoe, it is indicated that "the revised report prepared by Rubicon
Environmentallnc complies with Ministry Guideline 0-4. Based on the report and our knowledge of the closed
landfill site, there are no technical environmental constraints related to the landfill sites for which the County
should withhold approval for the proposed development of the subject property. "
On June 28, 2005, the County of Simcoe submitted comments to the Township that the comments of Jagger
Hims are supported, and that the County has no objections to approval of this application (Attachment #2). In
addition, the County indicates that the following conditions will be required to be completed to the satisfaction
of the County.
1. The property title for the subject property notes proximity to the landfill and that there is a potential for
nuisance effects from this proximity.
2. There is a process by which any recommendations made in the report by Rubicon Environmental and
further By Jagger Hims Limited be implemented.
3. That it be noted on title that subsequent development of the property will require a separate 04 Study.
Given that the subject lot is an existing lot of record, no planning approvals pursuant to Section 50.1
(Subdivisions) or 50.3 (Consents) of the Planning Act are required. In addition the lands are not subject to site
plan control pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act. It is typically under the authority of these sections of
the Planning Act that agreements with the Municipality are registered on title. It has been our experience that
the registry office is not supportive of registering any information on title that is not prescribed by statute. As a
result, the Township does not have the means to require that the title for the property note the proximity of the
closed landfill site or that any subsequent development on the site be the subject of a separate 04 study.
Further discussions with the County are required to address the logistics of their requirements. These
discussions can occur before the date of the Public Meeting.
~d.3
I RECOMMENDATION(S):
II
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
1. THAT Report No. PD 2005-045 be received and adopted; and,
2. THAT the application for rezoning submitted by John Evans respecting 611 Mount St. Louis Road be
scheduled for a Public Meeting pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act.
Respectfully Submitted;
~~ It~
Bruce HOPP~):PP
Director of Planning
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
Evans 2005-ZBA-17
U--'i
Attachment 1
.:;:::-.:;:::-=========-
~v
~?"v
-7-97
~~
/7
~
A?
/'
~
/if'
/
/
/
;/
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1/
/I
/I
/I
II
II
II
\1
II
II
II
II
II
"
"
"
,
,
"
,
. s <(-0-
ov."\
'0' \,)
1-J.~'
~o
"~
~
~~':::""",=,"--
~~~~~~~~~~=====-
500m former waste disposal radius . Lands subject to rezoning
.
CORPORATE SERI/ICES'" Fax:70S-726-9832
.
.JlJn 29 2005
12: 15
P'd-S
ATi~~aJf ft:Z
(705) 726-9300 Ex\. 360
(705) 727-4276 . Fax
Corporale Services, Planning Division
AdminislTation Cen...
1110 Highway 26
Midhurst, Ontario
LOL1XO
Fax
To:
Ali Chappelle
From: l\Iath~ YVestendorp
Rubicon Environmental Inc.
F.""'."",i'..(.',
Fax: 705-487-0133
Pages: 4 (inet. cover)
519-986-4087
Phone:
Date: 6/29/2005
Re:
Zoning Bylaw Amendment (Evans)
cc:
2005-ZBA-17
County D4 Peer Review & final comments
o Urgent
o For.Review
o Please Comment 0 Pleas.. Reply
o Please R..cycl..
. Comments:
Please find endosed the County's comments with respect to the D4 Report submitted in support of the
above-noted application. Subject to the completion and clearance of the 3 conditions ouUined by the
Environmental Services Division, the County of Simcoe has no objection to 1116 approval of this
development application.
Sincerely.
~~
Nathan Westendorp, B.E.S.
Planner II
,
CORPO~ATE SERVICES'
F8X,705~726-9832
Jun 29 2005 12:15
I
i
I
(705) 735-690) Fo:<: (705) 726-9832
1eeton Area: 729-2294
TOr Free 1-800-263-3199
P. O~J....'
~~~
~.~
co"....... ..,,.00'"
.
The Carporation of the
County of
Simcoe
County of Simcoe
1110 Highway 26W
Midhurst, Ontllrio
LOL lXO
Attention: Nathan Westendorp
I' Administration Centre
11 10 Hwy. 26
Midrrst' Ontario LOL IXO
.
I
i
CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DfflSJQN
June 28, 2005
Dear Nathan:
Re: 617 Mount St. Louis Road (John Evans) Property
Revised Environmental hnpact Assessment Peer Review I
Please find attached peer review comments from the County's consultant Jagg+ Rims with
respect to the D4 study conducted on the above noted property. The consultant concludes that
based on the report and their lmowledge of the closed landfill site, there are no ~chnical
em~ronmental constraints related to the landfill site for which the County should withhold
approval fo)" the proposed development of the subject property. I
In addition, the followfug conditions will be required to be completed to the satisfaction of the
Co~:: The property tit. Ie for the subject property notes proximity to the landfill and that there is
a potential for nuisance effects from this proximity.
2. There is a process by which any recommendations made in the report oy Rubicon
Environmental and further by Jagger Rims Limited be implemented. I'
3. 'That it be noted on title that subsequent development of the property 111 require a
separate D4 study. i
i
I
Please circulate the attached peer ,,:view comments to the applicant, the municlpality and
Rubicon Environmental. .
If you require further information please contact me at your convenience.
~
Technical Compliance Supervisor
CORPORATE SERVICES
,
Fax:JU,-ILb-~~jL
,j un L'.:lLUU:l
I L: I :J
I'".I).J
June 15, 2005
. 'tI-7
. I
I=IJAGGER HIMS
_ LIMITED
R ECE I V E D Envi,onrenrol Cons"lring Enginurs
11091 Gorham Street. Su~e 301
JUN 2 · 2ntC NGWTMri:et Ontono
, uu:J Canada l3Y 6X7
I
I
Tel 905 853-3303
600 263-7419
Fox 905 853- T759
r
Ms. Kimberley Pickett
Technical Compliance Supervisor
County of Simcoe
Environmental Services Division
Adni.inistration Centre
1110 Highway 26
Midhurst, Ontario
LOL lXO
COUNTY OF SIMCO"
CORPORAT" S,E:RVIC"S DEPARTM"NT
Dear Ms. Pickett:
Re: 617 Mount St. Loui~~oad (John Evans) Property
Revised Environme'ntal Impact Assessment Peer Review
File 021494_06
Further to your request we are pleased to provide oUr comments on the June 7, 2005 revised
report prepared by Rubicon Environmental Inc. The report was w~tten in response to
comments made in our June 1, 2005 peer review letter, based on Ru~icon Environmental
Inc.'s May 27, 2005 Environmental Impact Assessmentn"port. The opginal report, which
;;li~~::~~r t~ ;~~:e::~.~~~S~4;:i~fd~::I;:~i:~::ne~t p;,:~:;~nl~c~t~t :~t~a:S~:: ~o L:
10, ConcessiOJ) 5, TO\VIlsh.ip ofMedonte, County of Simcoe (617 Mdunt St. Louis Road)
excluded surface runoff, ~ound' settlemen~, and .soiI contamination and ~azardous waste.
During the review of the revised report the following issues were noted. I
~ In Sections Lo.~d 3.0, the report states that the Mount S1. Lbuis Landfill Site is
located west qf the subject property. The landfill is east of the su~ject property.
~ Iii Section 3.0,the '.se~oiid para~aph indicates that the Origina~ eleven monitoring
"i"""" " . ' , I
wells that were iIlstalledpy Gartner Le.e Limited in 1981 were installed to the depth of
the water table. These monitors. were all screened above the watev table and were dry.
..,....... . . I
(,'"'Cf-.
n;,J
tJv
6!JSI2005 9:01 AM'H~\J'Mj\D2\14l?4\(J6\Wp\JCBA-L~isof~.~:,doe
CORPO~ATE SERVICES
Fax:705-726-9832
Jun 29 2005 12:15
P.04
'd.<l
151
}>- In Section 5.2,' "" .",,"" "o~d cl~.tio" ,bould bo 'onol' ed by mASL (metres
above sea level). ,,'
}>- Section 5.5 states' that Jagger Bims Limited tested soils at the landfill site. Jagger
Bims Limited h'as visually logged soils while drilling boreholks, but has never had
soils tested for contamination. I
,
Everi with the above, noted' issues, it is our opinion that the reviS~d report prepared by
Rubicon Environmental Inc. complies with lvIinistry Guideline D-4. Brsed on the rei>ort and -
;=at~:O:I~;~~~~~~s~~;s~~;U~::\~~tec:~:; :;::~: ~~~~l~ :;;~~~~;::a~:;:~~~~
development ofth!e~J:1hiect property.. !
Since the Minisll;Y.(:3wAe)iI}e.p:4 assessment .is technically accep~ahle, as per normal
::~::::~::S~~~:~;li;i~tviews, the County and the, approval' thOrity should i>ursue
. I
1. The Evans' property title notes proximity to the landfil1 aud that there is a i>otential for
nuisance effects from this proximity. . . !
I
,
2. There is a proe~s$ by wl1ieh any recommendations made in tfe report by Rubieon
EnvironmentalI~9. ~4 further by Jagger Rims Limited be imPlrented... .
3. That it be notel! Ol1htle 1hatsllbse~lUent development of the property Wlll reqUlre a
separate MinistIy pfthe ~llViron1llentG1Jide1ine D~4 study. I
I .
. I '.
If th~re are any questions,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
~
Page 2
County of Simcoe
June 15, 2005
We trust that this information is adequate[oT your purposes.
please contact us.
Yours truly,
JAGGER BWS LWITED
R
-
Kelvin ~. Antoniuk, B,Sc., P.GeO.
Professional Geoscielltist
KBA:nah
i
fl!1}/~9:01 AM .H:\I'rI;lj>02\J.494\06.>,~.L~~~.doc
'e-I
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD 2005-046 Planning Advisory Committee Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP
Subject: Department:
Council Application for Rezoning - Planning
Panting, 2018 Old Barrie Road
C.ofW. West Date:
July 14, 2005
Motion # R.M. File #: 23581
Application # 2005-ZBA-21
Date: Roll #: 010-001-2050
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
II BACKGROUND
I
On July 4, 2005, AI and Janet Panting submitted an application to permit an establishment of a garden suite
on the subject property, located within Part of Lot 26, Concession 2 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte. A
general location map and conceptual site plan are enclosed as Attachments #1 and 2 respectively.
The subject lands are located at 2018 Old Barrie Road West. The lands have an area of 0.394 hectares (0.97
acres) and a lot frontage of approximately 50 metres (164 feet) on the north side of County Road 11.
II APPLICABLE LEGISLATION
I
Section 39 of the Planning Act provides Council with the ability to authorize the temporary use of lands,
buildings or structures for any purpose that is otherwise prohibited by the Zoning By-law. Section 39.1 of the
Planning Act permits Council to authorize the temporary use for up to ten years for a garden suite. A garden
suite is defined as a "one unit detached residential structure containing bathroom and kitchen facilities that is
ancillary to an existing residential structure and that is designed to be portable." Section 39.1 of the Planning
Act also permits Council to enter into an agreement with the landowner to deal with issues such as:
. The installation, maintenance and removal of the garden suite;
. The period of occupancy of the garden suite by any of the persons named in the agreement; and,
. The monetary or other form of security that Council may require for actual or potential costs to the
municipality related to the garden suite.
II TOWNSHIP POLICY
'e..,
II
In 1997 the Township incorporated a policy that dealt specifically with garden suites in the Township of Oro-
Medonte. This policy requires that:
. The garden suite not be a mobile home;
. The garden suite utilizes existing services on the property;
. No new accesses from a public road be created for the garden suite;
. The garden suite has a minimum floor area of 50 square metres (538 square feet) and a maximum
floor area of 85 square metres (915 square feet);
. Approval for the increased usage of the septic system be obtained;
. An agreement be registered on title providing for the use of the lands;
. The garden suite not be transferable to another owner; and,
. Appropriate securities are deposited with the Township to ensure that the agreement can be
implemented.
These requirements have been reviewed with the applicant and no concerns have been expressed in terms of
compliance with same.
II RECOMMENDATIONS
II
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
1. THAT Report No. PD 2005-046 be received and adopted; and,
2. THAT the application for rezoning submitted by AI and Janet Panting respecting 2018 Old Barrie Road
West be scheduled for a Public Meeting pursuant to Section 39 of the Planning Act.
~::,~
.~ Hoppe, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
be~3
Panting Application 2005-ZBA-21
Attachment 1
. Lands subject to rezoning
1/ II
/4 =:9:'
"e-;
A TTJ\Ct-I"'t:: fIl, .f4
.2
r w cONCESSION
u
~
(\J
IB N 590 2:f 30"[
) 1
45.720
--..,.
J AR . 1.9.
I- !t' r
0 EA=O.394ha.
..:J ~ ~
11I UJT 26
d} c' '2 ~
N ........ , I ...:
lit "- l1I
v 0: (' C\-Y\-t () 'I n
( lle..(\~
CAO{=YS) /
3
...
fIJ
li?
.....J
p{1.oPoSE: D
~N
S\Jlfe
2
~
J
f 0.. e Ct V\-\-
"'\, \' 0
~\ E..",\ CJ\ Z
(c )<1:
~ xo~'):s
J:>
,
....
.:
...
,
.ti
~
CJ1
0/1
N
10
IV
7/
,
,9
....
.
, ,~. ~ ;)../,,'-t
"~ I STY. OR ' J /j,' 2.~.u-. . .
a FR. DtvG' .)2-.10
~ 1 ~
try ~,/ 1.ij /"
_ 10.'. _> L , ~",. lL....L -, 2:;7
,,\rid! :;l:J "0" ~5"/~'" J2~
/" '
/ /
&,;{'t:,1I
.. 10.94 ....
r1...f,t'.)
N
w
__ ell
._..~.-
. _.
Z
l1J
W
~
W
W ~
:~ ON~~!llQ.
~_____ _I~~ O_1l0
/,///-----;
c:<>/' //
/
/'
P /
//7
?'l
., POLE
,
'-
l1I
In
N
~
v OJ.'- o...v\-+ .
-?- (e\dl
(crops)
. "".! .
'"
~
Wl
ttl
in ~)\\'S+lho
b drlv'~~
ttl 'j
:z:
.. lINE
.....