Loading...
08 11 2005 C of A Agenda Committee of Adiustment AQenda Thursday AUQust 11 th 2005, 9:30 a.m. 1. Communications and Correspondence 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Hearings: . 9:30 2005-A-17 Janet Lees Plan 546, Lot 1 (Orillia) 5 Bards Beach Road , 9:40 2005-A-31 Tim Russell Conc. 5, East Part Lot 19 (Medonte) 5718 Line 5 N 9:50 2005-B-31 Everton & Darlene Ellis Conc. 4, East Part Lot 22, (Oro) 290 Line 4 S, 10:00 2005-A-32 Myrtle Alderson Conc.12, West Part Lot 22 RP 51 R-4477 Part 1 (Oro) 1709 Ridge Rd. East 10:10 2005-A-33 James and Linda Cooper Conc. 7, Plan 755, Lots 40 & 41 105 Lakeshore Rd. W (Oro) 10:20 2005-B-32 - 2005-B-36 Ted Pickard & Lisa Truax Conc. 8, Plan 51 R-24483 Part 1 East Part Lot 16 (Medonte) 128 Moonstone Rd. East 10:30 2005-B-37 Lawrence Murphy & Michelle Sheridan Plan 51M 746, Block 16 (Oro) 10 Forest Hill Dr. 10:40 2005-B-38 Tang Fen Wong Range 2 ,West Half Lot 2, RP 51 R 3530, Parts 3, 4&2 (Oro) 1131 Range Rd 10:50 2005-A-30 Dave & Bunny Walker Conc. 7, East Part Lot 26 RP 51 R-9881, Part 1 (Oro) 41 Lakeshore Road West 4, Decisions 5, Other business -Adoption of minutes for July 14, 2005 Meeting 6. Adjournment Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 11, 2005 Janet Lees 2005-A-17 5 Bards Beach Road, Plan 546, Lot 1 (Orillia) . THE PROPOSAL , The minor variance application was deferred last month to allow time for the applicant to address concerns relating to the location of the septic system and the potential impacts on the proposed location of the dwelling, The applicant has since then prepared a lot grading and filter bed design and site plan for the construction of the proposed dwelling and are now ready to proceed with the minor variance application. 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 15 m (49,2 ft) 15m (49,2ft) 15 m (49.2 ft) Proposed 12.12 m (39.7 ft) 10.05 m (32,9 It) 8 m (26ft) MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROYALS 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 July 14, 2005 to allow time for the applicant to address concerns relating to the location of the septic system, As the location of the dwelling wiil not change as per the site plan prepared for the filter bed design, the requested relief has not changed, The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 24.3 metres (79,8 feet), a lot depth of approximately 49 metres (161 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 iot area of approximately 971,28 m2 (10,455 ff). The lands currently have a cottage with an area of approximately 83,61 m2 (900 1t2). 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 is proposed to be 153.28 m2 (1650 ff) 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 predom inantly residential area, . To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. The requested variances for the new dwelling and attached deck would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline residential area as the dwelling will be set back further from Bass Lake than the existing cottage, Therefore the variances conform to the general 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 situafion 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, 2 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2005-A-17 subject to the following conditions: 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 surveylreal 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, k~ Ahdy Karaiskakis Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~~~ Director of Planning 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 11 , 2005 Tim & Arlene Russell 2005-A-31 5718 Line 5 North, Concession 5, East Part Lot 19 (Medonte) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting permission from the Committee of Adjustment to permit the construction of a 69,6 m2 (750 ft) detached garage which lies within the Environmental Protection Zone. The proposed garage will be located approximately 100.5 metres (330 feet) from the front property line. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREYIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Agricultural Zoning By-law 97-95 - AgriculturallRural (AlRU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones Previous Applications - None AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Public Works- Building Department- Building Department has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 182,88 metres (600 feet) along Line 5 and a lot depth of approximately 35 hectares (86,9 acres). The property currently contains a 139 m2 (1500 ft) barn with approximately 111 m2 (1200 1t2) of the barn being utilized as living quarters. The applicants are proposing to construct a 69.6 m2 (750 ft2) detached garage which is located within the limits of the Environmental Protection Zone as noted in Zoning By-law 97- 95. As a result, permission is required from the Committee of Adjustment for the construction of the garage, Does the variance conform to the general intent ofthe Official Plan? The property is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan, The primary function of this designation is to protect land suitable for agricultural production from development and land uses unrelated to agricultural and to preserve and promote the agricultural character of the Township and the maintenance of the open countryside, Permitted uses in the Agricultural designation includes single detached dwellings as well as accessory uses, As the proposed location of the detached garage is on lands which does not involve agricultural activity, 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 proposed garage should not detract from the overall character of the lot and surrounding natural features being the mature trees being located to the north and west of the proposed garage. 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, In reviewing Schedule B-Components of the Environmental Protection One & Two Designations, it does not appear that the Environmental Protection located on the lands are part of a Provincially Significant Wetland or other Environmental Features, To this end the application has been circulated to the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority who has not commented on the proposal to date, Based on site inspection, the area appears to be dry and there is no evidence of a watercourse in the area, therefore the proposed garage would therefore conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law subject to NVCA endorsement which will be recommended as a condition of approval. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The proposed variance should provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed variance will provide for the construction of a detached garage and will continue to maintain the agricultural character of the area. On this basis the proposed variance would 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-31 subject to the following conditions: 1, That the size and setbacks of the proposed garage be in conformity with the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; 2, That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation so that a. the garage be no larger than 69.6 m2 (750 ft"); and, b. the garage be located no closer than 100,5 metres (330 feet) from the front property line; 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, if required; and, 4, 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, All of which is respectfully submitted, ~ed: I tLn ~>; ~ppe~i;;- Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 11, 2005 Everton & Darlene Ellis 2005-B-31 290 Line 4 South Concession 4, East Part Lot 22(Oro) 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 lot frontage approximately 2,4 metres (8 feet), a lot depth of approximately 52,4 metres (172 feet) and a lot area of approximately 383.8 m' (4,131.3 ft') from the 39 hectare (98 acre) parcel (290 Line 4 South) to the parcel immediately to the south-east (304 Line 4 South), The resultant lot area of the parcel to be enhanced, 304 Line 4 South, would be approximately 0,45 hectares (1,12 acres), No new building lots will be created as a result of this boundary adjustment. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROYALS Official Plan Designation - Agricultural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) 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 not that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards, Engineering Department- PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The purpose of this application is to convey and add approximately 4,131,3 ft' from the 98 acre parcel (290 Line 4 South) to the parcel immediately to the south-east (304 Line 4 South), to be added to the existing rezidentiallot. The purpose of this boundary adjustment would be to allow the property lines to follow the existing hedge and fence that act as natural property lines. The land to be retained by the applicant would have an area of approximately 98 acres, which contains an existing single detached dwelling and various barns and 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 crealed; and, b) the viability of 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 4,131.3 fe 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 (A/RU) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended, The retained lot would continue to comply with the provisions of the A/RU Zone for agricultural purposes. The land to be enhanced, 304 Line 4 South, is zoned A/RU, therefore a rezoning would not be required, 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 (A/RU) Zone. No new building lots are being created. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2005-B- 31 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 304 Line 4 South and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and, 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. ~ Of. which is respectfully submitted, h <of ,t'Il ~ Karaiskakis Hons, B.A. unior Planner , PP Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 11, 2005 Myrtle Alderson 2005-A-32 1709 Ridge Road East, Concession 12, West Part Lot 22, 51R-4477, Part 1 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95: i. Section 5,1,4 Maximum Heiqht of a detached accessory structure of 4,5 metres (14.7 feet) to a proposed 6,4 metres (21 feet) for the construction of a garage: and, ii. Section 5.1,6 Maximum floor area of a detached accessory structure, in a residential zone, is 70 m 2 (753 sq It) to a proposed 80.3 m 2 (864 sq It) for the proposed garage. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Agricultural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One (R1) Zone Previous Applications - None AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Public Works - Building Department-The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and comment that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The applicants propose to build a detached garage with an area of 80,3 m 2 (864 ff) and a height of approximately 6,4 metres (21 feet) behind an existing dwelling on a residential lot which has a lot area of 0,53 hectares (1,32 acres), The proposed garage would be located approximately 23 metres (75 feet) from the front lot line, approximately 9 metres (30 feet) from the side lot line and 24 metres (80 feet) frcm the rear lot line, The Four Tests of the Minor Yariance Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan. Section D2.1 of the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives for the Agricultural designation, . To maintain and preserve the agricultural resource base of the Township. To protect land suitable for agricultural production from development and land uses unrelated to agriculture; and . . To preserve and promote the agricultural character of the Township and the maintenance of the open countryside, The principle use of land in the Agricultural designation shall be agriculture, Other permitted uses include single detached dwellings and other accessory uses. The applicant's proposal does not appear to offend these principles given that the variances will accommodate development of a detached accessory building accessory to the permitted residential use and would not appear to have a negative impact on the agricultural character of the area. On this basis the proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan. Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? One of the purposes of restricting the height of accessory buildings is to ensure that such structures maintain a sense of scale with residential uses and to prevent buildings from evolving into alternative uses, such as a dwelling unit. On the basis of a review of the applicant's building plans, the proposed structure will accommodate an "open second storey concept" with 8 foot walls for storage purposes, and therefore does not appear to offend the general intent of the Zoning By-law, Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The applicant's lot is a relatively large rural residential property and the proposed building appears generally compatible within a rural residential context. On this basis the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot. Are the variances minor? On the basis that the size of the garage in contrast with the proposed dwelling appears to be reasonable, is well buffered from the front and side lot lines and should not adversely affect the character of the agricultural area, the proposed variances are considered to be minor. CONCLUSIONS The subject application as submitted to permit the construction of a detached garage with an area of 80.3 m ' (864 ff) and a height of approximately 6.4 metres (21 feet) would generally satisfy the four tests of a minor variance, As the proposed garage will be set back a large distance from the property lines, the condition for the Ontario Land Surveyor to provide verification to the Township with compliance of the Committees' decision will not be applied to this application. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Committee grant minor variance 2005-A-32, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permits 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 height of the proposed garage be no greater than 6.4 metres (21 feet); 3. That the size of the proposed garage be no larger than 80.3 m ' (864 ft'); and, 4, That the setbacks be in conform ity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~~ A'ndy Karaiskakis Hons, B,A. Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~*~P Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 11, 2005 James & Linda Cooper 2005-A-33 105 Lakeshore Road West, Cone. 7, Lots 40 & 41, Plan 755 (Ora) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing to construct a 85,3 m2 (280 If) garage 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 interior side yard of 3 metres (9.8 feet) to maintain the existing 2,19 metres (7,21 feet) for the proposed addition, and, The applicants are proposing to construct a 322m 2 (105,6 If) deck addition to be attached at the east side of the existing dwelling and are requesting relief of the following provision from Zoning By-law 97-95: ii. Setback from the minimum shoreline setback from Lake Simcoe of 20 metres (65,6 feet) to a proposed 15,5 metres (51 feet) for the proposed deck, MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROYALS Official Plan Designation -Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - A-22/00 (interior side yard setback reduced to 1.7 metres for addition to dwelling-approved) AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Public Works- Building Department- Fire Department Engineering Department- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 18 metres (60 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 18 metres (60 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.07 hectares (0,18 acres) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling, The applicants wish to construct a 85.3 m2 (280 If) garage addition to be attached at the front of the existing dwelling which currently encroaches into the 3 metres (9,8 feet) required interior side yard setback. The attached garage will maintain the existing 2,19 metres (7.21 feet) set back from the west side lot line, The applicants are also proposing to construct a 32.2m 2 (105.6 If) deck addition to be attached at the east side of the existing dwelling and are requesting that the deck be setback 15.5 metres (51 feet) from the highwater mark of Lake Simcoe. 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 an attached garage and for a proposed deck is considered to conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan, The proposed garage and deck will be well buffered by a mature cedar hedge being situated along the westerly and easterly property lines, therefore the existing character is not being compromised, 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), One of the purposes or goals of maintaining setbacks in residential areas is to maintain a positive built form and visual quality. The mature cedar hedge on both interior side lot lines will provide a form of privacy for the abutting properties for the proposed garage and deck. The proposed garage and deck will not result in a decrease in the existing built form, The site inspection revealed that the proposed attached garage should not adversely impact the residential neighbourhood as the garage will not further encroach into the existing interior setback and the proposed deck will not encroach past the house into the existing setback from Lake Simcoe. 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 attached garage 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 additions 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? On the basis that the proposal 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 the construction of an attached garage and deck on the subject property generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance, 2 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve application 2005-A-33 subject to the following conditions: 1. The west side of the attached garage shall maintain the existing 2,19 metres (7,21 feet) setback from the side lot line; 2. That the proposed deck be located no closer than 15,5 metres (51 feet) from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe; 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 setback for the attached garage be maintained and that the deck be located no closer than 15.5 m (51 ft) from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe; 4, 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, 5. 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, ~",H,"' BA Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~t~(k lr~ Bruce Hoppe~~~;P Director of Planning 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 11, 2005 Ted Pickard & Lisa Truax 2005-B-32 - 2005-B-36 128 Moonstone Road East, Concession 8, East Part Lot 16, 51R-24483, Part 1 (Medonte) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of applications 2005-B-32, 2005-B-33, 200S-B-34, 200S-B-35, 200S-B-36 is to permit the creation of 5 new residential lots, Each lot to be created is proposed to have a lot frontage of approximately 31.7 metres (104 feet), a lot depth of approximately 65 metres (213,25 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.2 hectare (0,5 acres). The land proposed to be retained would have a lot area of approximately 16.2 hectares (40 acres). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural Settlement Area, Rural & Environmental Protection Two Overlay Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) & Environmental Protection (EP) Zones 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. Fire Department Engineering Department-Capacity of Robincrest Water System to be confirmed to allow 5 more lots PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND It is the applicant's intent to create 5 new residential lots fronting on Moonstone Road East. The lands proposed to be severed are currently vacant with a significant amount of tree cover. The retained lands have an existing dwelling. OFFICIAL PLAN The lands subject to the severances are designated Rural Settlement Area in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan, Section D4.3 of the Township's Official Plan provides the following direction to Committee in considering an application for land division in the Rural Settlement Area Designation: Land division by Plan of Subdivision, rather than by consent to sever, shall generally be deemed necessary if: a) the extension of an existing public road or the development of a new public road is required to access the proposed lots; or, b) the extension of a municipal water system is required to service the proposed lots: or, c) the area that is proposed to be developed is not considered to be infilling; or, d) a Plan of Subdivision is required to ensure that the entire land holding or area is developed in an orderly and efficient manner; or, e) more than three new lots are being created. As the policy states that land division by Plan of Subdivision rather than by consent to sever shall generally be deemed necessary if more than three new lots are being created, it is the Planning Departments opinion that the creation of five residential lots can be created through consent rather than by Plan of Subdivision, therefore the proposed application does not meet the criteria noted above. As a result, Committee shall consider the policies contained in Section D4,3,2, land division by consent: The creation of new lots for any permitted use by consent to sever is permitted, provided a Plan of Subdivision is not required in accordance with Section D4.3.1 and provided the proposed lot: a) fronts onto an existing public road that is maintained year round by a the Township, County or Province; b) will not cause a traffic hazard as a result of its location on a curve or a hill; c) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and an appropriate means of sewage disposal: d) complies with the County of Simcoe access policies if the proposed lot is to be accessed by a County road; and, e) is not located on lands designated Rural Settlement Area in the Forest Home or Prices Corners Settlement Areas, If the proposed consent is granted, the severed lot fronts onto a public road that is maintained year round by the County. Comments from the Engineering Department state that the capacity of the Robincrest Water System which services the community of Moonstone will be confirmed to determine whether or not the System can service five more additional lots. At the time the report was written, comments have not been received from the Public Works Department nor from the County of Simcoe regarding criteria (b) and to the County's requirements for access to the proposed lots, Based on the comments above, it is premature to determine whether the proposed application complies with the intent of the Official Plan, ZONING BY-LAW The lands subject to the application are currently zoned AgriculturallRural (A/RU) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended, The proposed severed lots would be required to be rezoned as a condition of consent to reflect its intended usage for residential purposes, The proposed severed lots would meet the minimum requirement of the Residential One (R1) Zone. The retained lot would continue to comply with the provisions of the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) zone. ANALYSIS The proposal does not appear to meet all the lot creation criteria set out in Section D.4.3,1 of the Official Plan. It is the Planning Departments recommendation that the Committee defer the consent applications for the Township to obtain favourable comments from the Public Works Department and from the County of Simcoe to satisfy the criteria noted in Section D.4.3.1 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee defer Applications 2005-B-32 - 2005-B-36 to allow time for the Township to receive favourable comments from the Public Works Department and from the County of Simcoe for the proposed five lots and for confirmation that the lots can be serviced by the Robincrest Water System. All of which is respectfully submitted, A~ Andy Karaiskakis Hons. BA Junior Planner Reviewed by, Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 11, 2005 Lawrence Murphy & Michelle Sheridan 2005-B-37 10 Forest Hill Drive, Plan 51M 746, Block 16 (Ora) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2005-B-37 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot. The land to be severed is proposed to have a lot frontage of approximately 92.92 metres (304.8 feet), a lot depth of approximately 86 metres (282,15 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.4 hectare (1.03 acres), The land proposed to be retained would have a lot area of approximately 0.42 hectares (1.02 acres), MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Desi9nation - Rural Residential Zoning By-law 97-95 -Rural Residential One (RUR1) Zone Previous Applications - None AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Public Works- Building Department-The Township Building Department has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department- PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND It is the applicant's intent to create a new lot fronting on Forest Hill Drive, The lands proposed to be severed and retained are currently vacant with a significant amount of tree cover located at the rear of the lot. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are designated Rural Residential in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. Section D9.3 states that "all development within the Rural Residential designation shall occur by way of Plan of Subdivision," This policy was specifically included within the Official Plan in 1997 to ensure that lands that were designated at the time of Official Plan approval but not yet divided into lots proceeded through the Plan of Subdivision process, A further intent of the policy was to prevent further lot creation within the rural residential developments that existed or were approved when the new Official Plan was prepared, Prior to 1997, the former Township of Oro Official Plan did permit Rural Residential development, and the old Official Plan contained both a Country Residential and an Estate Residential designation to provide for this form of development. The Country Residential designation permitted lots with an area of 0.4 hectares and the Estate Residential designation permitted developments that had an area of 0,8 hectares, The subject property used to be designated Estate Residential, which means that each of the lots were intended to have a minimum lot area of 0,8 hectares, ZONING BY-LAW Given that the current Official Plan does not contemplate new Rural Residential subdivisions, there was a need to ensure that that the character of the existing and approved developments at the time was protected in the implementing zoning by-law. It was on this basis that the implementing zoning by-law contains both a RUR1 and RUR2 Zone. Both zones require minimum lot sizes of 0.4 hectares and minimum lot frontages of 45 metres. The main difference between the two zones is minimum required front, exterior and interior side yard, which is higher in the RUR1 Zone. Given that the lands were designated Estate Residential in the previous Township of Oro Official Plan, the implementing zoning by-law could have included a minimum lot size of 0.8 hectares in the implementing zoning by-law, This was not done because the policy anticipated that all new development in the then new Rural Residential designation would occur by Plan of Subdivision and because only existing approvals and developments were being recognized, However, there was a need to ensure that buildings were located on the two types of lots (country residential and estate residential), in accordance with the intent of the previous planning approvals. It should be noted that the proposed and retained lot would comply with the Zoning By-law provisions for the Rural Residential One (RUR1) Zone, ANALYSIS Notwithstanding the fact that the severed and retained lot would comply with the provisions of the RUR1 Zone, the intent of the Official Plan with respect to character and form of development takes precedence when considering an application for consent. In this case, the current Official Plan recognized a previously approved estate residential development that had lots with a minimum area of 0.8 hectares. In order to ensure that any lot creation in the Rural Residential designation occurred in accordance with the intent of the previous approvals, all new development shall occur by way of Plan of Subdivision, Given that the proposal involves dividing a 0.8 hectare lot into two by way of consent, the application does not conform with the intent of the Official Plan and should be refused, CONCLUSION 1, The application should be refused since it does not conform with Section 09,3 of the Official Plan. RECOMMENDATION 1, It is recommended that the Committee not grant Provisional Consent to application 2005- B-3? as it does not conform with Section 09.3 of the Official Plan All of which is respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, I~~. ".." Ii ,,, " L- !., \I\.r- ! Andy Karaiskakis Hons, BA Junior Planner Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP Partner, Meridian Planning Consultants Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 11, 2005 Tang Fen Wong 2005-8-38 932 Line 15 N., Concession 1, East Part Lot 6 (Orillia) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2005-B-38 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot. The land to be severed is proposed to have a lot frontage of approximately 285 metres (935 feet), a lot depth that varies from approximately 69 metres (226 feet) to 226 metres (741.5 feet) and a lot area of approximately 6 hectare (15 acres), The land proposed to be retained would have a lot area of approximately 0,7 hectares (1,67 acres), MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREYIOUS APPROYALS Official Plan Designation - Rural & Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) & Shoreline Residential (SR) Zones 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 DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND It is the applicant's intent to sever the existing house and accessory buildings, shown as Part 2 on the applicants' sketch, which has an area of approximately 0,7 hectares (1,7 acres) from the heavily wooded area located to the north of Part 2, shown as Part 1, having an area of approximately 6 hectares (14.8 acres). As indicated by the applicant's agent, the private right of way traveling east from Range Road, municipally known as Pemberton Lane, is owned by the applicant. It has also been indicated that on the applicants' deed, Pemberton Lane is a right of way which favours the adjoining lots for road access. Furthermore, Pemberton Lane will be conveyed with the retained lands. OFFICIAL PLAN The portion of the property north of Pem berton Lane is designated Rural while the portion south of Pemberton Lane is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan, The lot to be severed will be located in the Rural designation and the retained lot will be located in the Shoreline designation, Since the lot to be severed is located in the Rural designation, the policies respecting lot creation in the Rural designation apply. Section D3,3.1 of the Official Plan deals with lot creation in the Rural designation: 03.3.1 The creation of new lots for residential purposes In accordance with the intent of this Plan to maintain the rural character of the Township, only a limited number of new lots for residential purposes can be created in the Township, In this regard, only one new lot can be severed from a lot in the Rural designation that has an area of at least 36 hectares or is the whole of an original Township lot provided a lot has not been severed from the parcel after March 26, 1973. In considering the creation of a new lot for residential purposes, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the proposed lot: a) will have a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares: b) is of an appropriate size for residential use, with such a residential use generally not requiring a lot size that exceeds 2,0 hectares; c) fronts onto an existing public road that is maintained year round by the Township or County; d) will not cause a traffic hazard as a result of its location on a curve or a hill; and, e) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and an appropriate means of sewage disposal. As the subject property has a lot area of approximately 7,2 hectares, and it appears that the lot for the former O'Brien house was created since 1973, the application does not conform with the Official Plan, However, if the lot to be severed was located in the Shoreline designation instead, then the policies of the Shoreline designation would apply to the application, The policy below provides the basis for the consideration of new lots be consent in the Shoreline designation: 010.3.7 New residential lots by consent The creation of new lots for a residential use by consent to sever is permitted, provided a Plan of Subdivision is not required in accordance with Section D10.3.5 and provided the proposed lot and the retained lot: a) fronts onto an existing public road that is maintained year round by the Township or County; b) will not cause a traffic hazard as a result of its location on a curve or a hill; and, c) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal. The proposed lot and the lot to be retained appear to meet the policies for the creation of new lots in the Shoreline Designation, In addition, Section D1 0,3.8 states that "new residential development in the Shoreline designation will be limited to small-scale subdivisions on the shoreline or minor infilling by consent." It is our opinion that the new lot conforms with this intent ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is currently zoned A9ricultural/Rural (AlRU) for the portion of land located north of Pemberton Lane and is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) south of Pemberton Lane. The proposed severed lot, which would be located in the A/RU Zone, would comply with the provisions of the A/RU for agricultural uses and the retained lot would continue to comply with the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage requirements. CONCLUSION The application does not conform to Section D3.3.1 of the Official Plan as the subject property has a lot area of approximately 7,2 hectares whereas only one new lot can be severed from a lot in the Rural designation that has an area of at least 36 hectares, However, if the retained and severed lots were reversed, the application would conform with the Official Plan. If the applicant is agreeable to the severed and retained lots being reversed, there should be some further discussions with the applicant regarding the potential to obtain a road widening on the south side of Pemberton Lane to facilitate the improvement of Pemberton lane in the future. However, the dedication of Pemberton lane itself to the Township is not recommended at this time, RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee Defer Consent Application 2005-B-38 to allow time for the applicant to consider which lot should be the severed lot on the application and to initiate discussions with the Public Works Superintendent regarding a potential road widening, All of which is respectfully submitted, !~, HM' 'A Junior Planner Reviewed by, Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP Partner Meridian Planning Consultants Figure 2 - SKETCH Vacant . d _ O\dge p.oa ]1 ..-----:c~p)"-., t.--~"'''~i...\l-C'''c.> _~:;--1-<"-~iGO"F-7 \II ~ -~ '.' .. / "- - . \ / 'I. ' Residen\la 'Brien Hous, __. "- /" .,) '-,' ;;:::;;;; . ;-'. . I ,." ". r........~.....\ 1 , 6ha . PART 1 cJ y.lf!'...:lt" \-\<'",.llf <;If; LoY'l. ~ .. ~ Vacant " 'J' ;j ) " I E :: .--",~-'--' Wooded Area 0::> ~ ('J . , " .. .- ur..--L.....,J,.- '{_.. l~~ 1.-- ;"...k.~"~___ ,- I lorl v-le<.il-l.lcdr-ot' 6m , "0 ro __-- 0 0: -'- ~"'!I!.~ane- --- ;] ~ Residential p.esidential . ~(...\\- 8""7 K......r."1;>~ ," LaKe Simcoe Township of Oro-Medonte W1/2 Lot 2,1131 Range Road Wong Property ISm Proposed Lot raft 2. Retained Lot Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 11, 2005 Dave & Bunny Walker 2005-A-30 41 Lakeshore Road West, Concession 7, East Part Lot 26, 51R-9881, Part 1 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing to construct a swimming pool to be located at the rear of the property and are requestin9 relief of the following provision from Zoning By-law 97-95: i. Section 5.33 Setback from water courses of 30 metres (98,4 feet) to a proposed 17 metres (55.8 feet) for the proposed pool. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROYALS Official Plan Designation -Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) 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- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a road frontage of 27.51 metres (90.26 feet), a lot depth of approximately 69 metres (226 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0,22 hectares (0.56 acres). The lands are currently occupied by a single detached dwelling. The owners are proposing to build a swimming pool behind the dwelling and lying within the 30 metre (98,4 feet) setback of a water course which runs to the east of the dwelling, The proposed swimming pool will be set back 17 metres (55.8 feet) from the top of bank of the creek, Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan, The primary function of the Shoreline designation is to maintain the existing character of the shoreline residential area and to protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate area, Permitted uses in the Shoreline designation primarily include residential uses as well as accessory uses, The proposed swimming pool would appear to maintain the character of the residential area not on the shoreline and 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? One of the purposes of maintaining setbacks from water courses 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, Section 5,33 of the implementing Zoning By-law specifies that all buildings and structures be set back a minimum of 30 metres (98.4 feet) from the top of bank of any water courses. A reduction in the 30 metre setback shall not require an Amendment to Official Plan but will require either an Amendment to the implementing Zoning By-law or a minor variance subject to the comments of the appropriate agencies, Matters to be considered in reviewing an application to reduce the setback include: . the nature of the soils; . the nature of the vegetation and cover: . the slope of the land; . the nature of existing and proposed drainage patterns; . the nature of the fish and wildlife that may be present; and, . the scale of the proposed development. Based on a site inspection of the subject property, it was noted that the area of the lot proposed for the location of the swimming pool is relatively open and free of vegetation. The proposed pool is proposed to be set back 17 metres (55,8 feet) from the top of bank of the creek, therefore should not impact the slope or embankment. The slope of the land is fairly level where the proposed location of the swimming will be, and slowly declines towards the creek. Comments from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority were received stating that part of the subject property is regulated by the LSRCA, however, as the proposed works are situated outside of the regulated area, they do not require a permit. Furthermore, is has been noted by the LSRCA that the applicants must maintain the area between the proposed pool and the creek in a natural, undisturbed condition. Given these factors, the proposal is deemed to conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The nature of development proposed appears modest and will not lead to over development of the lot. The proposed variance should provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding area. On this basis the proposed variance would provide for the appropriate development of the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the variance will permit the construction of a swimming pool in the area approved by the LSRCA, the requested relief is deemed to be minor, CONCLUSIONS The requested variances generally satisfy the 4 tests of a minor variance, 2 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-30, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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 proposed swimming pool be located no closer than 17 metres (55.8 feet) from the top of bank of the creek; 2. That the applicants maintain the area between the proposed pool and the creek in a natural, undisturbed condition as noted by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority letter dated July 20, 2005; 3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch submitted with the application and approved by Committee; and, 4. 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, All of which is respectfully submitted, ~'"';, Hooo. RA. Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~\C€J/'vrx Bruce Hoppe~RPP Director of Planning 3 Committee of Adiustment Minutes Thursday July 14, 2005, 9:30 a.m. In Attendance: Chairman Allan Johnson, Member Dave Edwards, Member Michelle Lynch, Member Garry Potter, Member Lynda Aiken, Secretary- Treasurer Andy Karaiskakis, and Director of Planning Bruce Hoppe 1. Communications and Correspondence Correspondence to be addressed at the time of the specific hearing. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest None declared 3. Hearinqs: 9:30 Dwight & Wendy Holm Concession 8, West Part Lot 11 (Medonte) 164 Mount St. Louis Road East 2005-A-16 In Attendance: Dwight & Wendy Holm, applicants BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Grant Minor Variance Application 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 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~July 14, 2005 Page 1 9:50 Janet Lees Plan 546, Lot 1 (Orillia) 5 Bards Beach Road 2005-A-17 In Attendance: Janet & Dawson Lees, applicants Secretary-Treasurer read letters from T. Kent Dempsey, neighbour, received July 14,2005 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Garry Potter "That the Committee hereby defer Minor Variance 2005-A-17 to allow time for the applicant to address the concerns relating to the location of the proposed septic system which could effect the location of the proposed dwelling. .....Carried," Committee of Adjustment~July 14, 2005 Page 2 10:00 Helen Perry 2005-B-22 Conc. 11, East Part Lot 17, 51 R-9287, Part 1 (Oro) 556 Line 11 North In Attendance: Ms. Helen Perry, applicant, and Morris Shelswell, neighbour Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Holly Spacek, Planning Officer, Simcoe County District School Board, dated July 4, 2005 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Garry Potter "That the Committee hereby 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 the applicant apply for and obtain a re-zoning on the severed land to accurately reflect the industrial 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~July 14, 2005 Page 3 10:10 Beth Power Conc. 9, Plan 875, Lot 16 (Oro) 65 Parks ide Drive 2005-A-25 In Attendance: Mr. Eric Cole, contractor for Ms. Power BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby 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 ft2); 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 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-July 14, 2005 Page 4 10:20 Amy Bond & Kathleen Taylor Cone. 12, Plan 653, Lots 35 & 36 (Oro) 157 Robinson Street 2005-A-26 In Attendance: Mr. Paul Taylor, husband of Kathleen Taylor Secretary-Treasurer read letter from P. Virginia Holmes, neighbour, received July 8, 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 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 after 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 .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-July 14, 2005 Page 5 10:30 Harold & Sue Regan Plan 626, Lot 37, Part Lot 105 (Oro) 8 Simcoeside Ave. 2005-A-27 In Attendance: Sue Regan, applicant Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Marley & Jerry Greenglass, neighbour, dated July 6, 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 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 ft2); 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. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment~July 14, 2005 Page 6 10:40 Nancy & George Boyd 2005-A-28 Concession 1, Part Lot 1, 51 R-28412, Parts 2 & 14 3349 Ridge Road West (Oro) In Attendance: Mr. William Laycock, Essa Home & Contracting BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Dave Edwards "That the Committee hereby grant Minor Variance Application No. 2005-A-28 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the maximum height of the proposed boathouse not exceed 11,9 metres (39 feet) from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe to the peak of the roofline and that the location and shape of the boathouse be in substantial conformity with the site plan submitted with the application; 2, That the applicants plant trees after 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 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.July 14, 2005 Page 7 10:50 Peter & Janet Elaine Nell Conc. 14, Part Lot 22, 51 R-27164, Part 1 (Oro) 707 Line 13 South 2005-B-23 In Attendance: Peter Nell, applicant, Mel Kent, 715 Line 13 South, Ray Richardson, 15 Shoreline Drive BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Garry Potter "That the Committee hereby grant Provisional Consent regarding 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 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. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment.July 14, 2005 Page 8 11 :00 Mel Kent Conc. 14, West Part Lot 22 (Oro) 715 Line 13 South 2005-B-24 In Attendance: Mel Kent, applicant, Peter Nell, 707 Line 13 South, Ray Richardson, 15 Shoreline Drive BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Dave Edwards "That the Committee hereby grant Provisional Consent regarding 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. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment-July 14, 2005 Page 9 11 :10 Douglas Shelswell & Wayne Shelswell Conc. 14, Lot 18 (Oro) 191 Line 13 South 2005-B-25 In Attendance: Doug Shelswell, applicant BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Garry Potter "That the Committee hereby grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2005-B-25 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 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. . "..Carried." Committee of Adjustment.July 14, 2005 Page 10 11 :20 TRY Recycling Inc. Conc. 8, West Part Lot 19 (Oro) 225 Line 7 North 2005-B-26 In Attendance: Andria Leigh, agent representing applicant, Robert Swerdon, neighbour Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Bob Swerdon, neighbour, dated July 8, 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 defer Consent application 2005-8-26 until such time as Council reviews the rezoning application and fully assesses the Official Plan conformity. .....Carried," Committee of Adjustment~July 14, 2005 Page 11 11 :30 Penny Shainline Conc. 7, Plan 755, Lot 16, Lot 17 (Oro) 73 Lakeshore Road West 2005-A-29 In Attendance: Penny Shainline, applicant, Mark Rogers, contractor BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby grant Minor Variance Application No. 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 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 ff); 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 .. ... Carried." Committee of Adjustment-July 14, 2005 Page 12 5. Other Business i. Adoption of minutes for June 16, 2005 Meeting Moved by Garry Potter, Seconded by Dave Edwards "That the minutes for the June 16th 2005 Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated p .Carried." 6. Adiournment Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Garry Potter "We do now adjourn at 2:25 p.m." p, Carried," (NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.) Chairperson, Allan Johnson Secretary-Treasurer, Andy Karaiskakis Committee of Adjustment-July 14, 2005 Page 13