Loading...
09 15 2005 C of A Agenda Committee of Adiustment AQenda ~~.~, Thursdav September 15th 2005, 9:30 a.m. 1. Communications and Correspondence July 2005 GACA Newsletter 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Hearings: 9:30 2005-A-34 James Swan Plan 742, Lot 2 (Oro) 209 Bay St 9:40 2005-A-35 Douglas and Kathleen Speers Cone. 11, Part Lot 14, (Medonte) 5236 Line 11 N 9:50 2005-B-40 Bartor Associates Cone. 6, Part of Lot 27, Lot 39 RP 51R 16789 (Oro) 10:00 2005-A-36 Daniel Cibirka Conc,7, Part Lot 27 (Orc) 112 Lakeshore Rd. W 10:10 2005-B-39 Curtis Gray & Christina Bremer Cone. 1, Part Lot 40 (Vespra) 3342 Penetanguishene Road 10:20 2005-A-38 Merle and Howard Carr Cone. 5, Lot 13, plan M593 (Orc) 4 Melvile Crt 10:30 2005-A-08(Rev) Bob White East Part Lots 111, 112, 113, Plan 589 (Oro) 98 Lakeshore Rd. E. 10:40 2005-A-37 Mary Jane Sarjeant Range 2, Part Lots 1 and 2 2249 Ridge Road West (Oro) .. 10:50 2005-B-38(Rev) Tang Fen Wong Range 2, West Half Lot 2, RP 51 R- 3530, Parts 3, 4 & 2 (Oro) 1131 Range Road 4. Decisions 5. Other business -Adoption of minutes for August 11, 2005 Meeting 6. Adjournment Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for September 15, 2005 James Swan 2005-A-34 209 Bay Street, Lot 2, Plan 742, (Ora) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting to replace and enlarge a detached garage which is located in the front yard of the lot. The proposed garage will have an area of 60.8 m (655.2 It'). The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: 1. Section 5.1.4 Maximum Heiqht for the detached garage from the required 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to a proposed 5 metres (16.5 feet). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation -Rural Settlement Area Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Public Works- Building Department - The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Engineering Department- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 62 metres (203 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 61 metres (200 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.34 hectares (0.85 acres) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling, a cottage and a detached garage. The applicant plans to demolish and replace the existing detached garage while making an addition to enlarge the garage. The proposed garage will have an area of approximately 60.8 m' (655.2 It'). The applicant also plans to expand the detached garage by increasing the height to a proposed 5 metres (16.5 feet). The proposed addition would be located approximately 11 metres (37 feet) from the front lot line. "" The Four Tests of the Minor Variance Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural Settlement Area. The primary function of this designation is to maintain the existing character of the residential area and to maintain attractive communities with suitable amenities. Permitted uses in the Rural Settlement Area designation primarily include residential uses as well as accessory uses. The proposed replacement of the detached garage as well as the minor increase in height would appear to maintain the character of the residential area as the garage is buffered by large trees and hedge along the front and side property lines. Therefore, the proposal appears to conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). The proposed replacement of the detached garage will meet the minimum required setbacks from property lines. The site inspection revealed that the replacement of the detached garage should not adversely impact the residential neighbourhood as the new garage will not encroach into the required setbacks and the proposal for the increase in height is considered reasonable and minor in size. Therefore the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the By-law Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the replacement of the detached garage with an increase in height would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given that the proposed structure would provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, it would not lead to the over development of the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance as reviewed above. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-34 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the height of the detached garage not exceed 5 metres (16.5 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 dated August 4, 2005 and approved by the Committee All of which is respectfully subm itted, k~ Andy Karaiskakis Hons. BA Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~,k Director of Planning 2 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for September 15, 2005 Douglas & Kathleen Speers 5236 Line 11 North, Concession 11, Part Lot 14 (Medonte) 2005-A-35 THE PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting permission from the Committee of Adjustment to permit the construction of a swimming pool which lies within the Environmental Protection Zone. The proposed pool will be located approximately 71 metres (235 feet) from the Iront property line, as shown on the attached sketch. The applicants have also requested that this minor variance application recognize the 166 m' (1791 fl') addition to the dwelling which was constructed in 2004. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Agricultural Zoning By-law 97 -95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) 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 Irontage 01 approximately 369.3 metres (1,211.6 leet) along Line 11 and having a lot area 01 approximately 8.3 hectares (20.7 acres). The property currently contair.s " 222 m' (2,400 If) barn, a 46 m' (500 If) detached garage and a 2 storey single detached dwelling with an area of approximately 222 m' (2400 If). The applicants are proposing to construct a swimming pool which is located within the limits 01 the Environmental Protection Zone as noted in Zoning By-law 97-95. As a result, permission is required from the Committee 01 Adjustment lor the construction 01 the pool. This minor variance application is also to recognize a 166 m' (1791 fl') addition to the dwelling which was constructed in 2004, with a permit from the Township Building Department. At that time, it was noted on the permit that the addition be setback 30 metres Irom the Environmental Protection Zone, but apparently was incorrectly constructed. .t, Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Agricultural in the Oflicial Plan. The primary lunction of this designation is to protect land suitable lor agricultural production Irom development and land uses unrelated to agricultural and to preserve and promote the agricultural character 01 the Township and the maintenance 01 the open countryside. Permitted uses in the Agricultural designation includes single detached dwellings as well as accessory uses. As the proposed location 01 the swimming pool is on lands which does not involve agricultural activity, the proposal appears to conlorm with the intent 01 the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? In assessing the issue 01 conlormity with the Zoning By-law, the proposed pool should not detract from the overall character 01 the lot and surrounding natural leatures being the mature trees being located to the north and east 01 the proposed pool. One 01 the purposes 01 regulating structures being built within the limits 01 Environmental Protection Zone is to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system, to ensure that development does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to Ilooding and to ensure that development does not occur on hazardous slopes. In reviewing Schedule B- Components 01 the Environmental Protection One & Two Designations, it does not appear that the Environmental Protection located on the lands are part 01 a Provincially Signilicant 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 high and dry and the location 01 the proposed pool and the existing dwelling is setback approximately 200 feet from the creek, therefore the proposed pool and addition would therelore conlorm with the general intent 01 the Zoning By-law SUbject to NVCA endorsement which will be recommended as a condition 01 approval. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The proposed variance should provide lor a lorm 01 development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed variance will provide for the construction 01 a swimming pool and will continue to maintain the agricultural character 01 the area. On this basis the proposed variance would provide lor the appropriate development 01 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 01 the surrounding area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor. CONCLUSIONS The proposed variance generally satislies the 4 tests 01 a minor variance, subject to NVCA endorsement. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Committee approve minor variance 2005-A-35 lor the construction 01 a swimming pool which is located within the limits of the Environmental Protection Zone and to recognize the 166 m' (1791 fl') addition to the dwelling which was constructed in 2004 and be subject to the lollowing conditions: 1, That the size and setbacks 01 the proposed swimming pool be in conlormity with the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; 2. That the applicant obtain approval from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; and, 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained Irom the Township's Chiel Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided lor within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. AA~"""" "bmi"d Andy Karaiskakis Hons. B.A. Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~Q~- Bruce Hoppe MCIP, RPP Director 01 Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for September 15, 2005 Sartor Associates 2005-S-40 Concession 6, Part Lot 27, RP 51R-16789 Part 1, Less RP 51R-26439 Part 1, Less RP 51R- 27754 Part 2 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The purpose 01 application 2005-B-40 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The land to be severed and conveyed to the adjacent parcel 01 land. Lot 39 on Plan 807, is proposed to have a width 01 approximately 60 metres (196.85 feet). a lot depth of approximately 91 metres (298.55 feet). and a lot area of approximately 0.73 hectare (1.8 acres). The land to be retained would have an area 01 approximately 50.58 hectares (125 acres). No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result 01 the lot addition. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural & Environmental Protection Two Overlay Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) Zone Previous Applications - 2004-B-08 (Similar application-approved by Committee-consent expired) 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 DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The applicants applied lor a boundary adjustment (Consent application 2004-B-08) and was approved by the Committee on April 15, 2004. The consent application subsequently expired and the applicants have now applied lor the same objective: to sever and convey approximately 0.73 hectares (1.8 acres) to Lot 39, 220 Lakeshore Road West. The purpose 01 the proposed lot addition is to create a larger residential lot which will be in keeping with the surrounding properties. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are designated Rural with an Environmental Protection Two Overlay in the Oro- Medonte Official Plan. The intent 01 the Rural policies is to preserve and promote the rural character 01 the Township and maintain the open countryside. The Rural designation is currently silent with respect to lot additions. OPA #17 which was a general Amendment to the Official Plan was adopted by Council in August 2003 and approved by the County of Simcoe on November 10, 2004 and subsequently has been appealed. OPA #17 proposes the lollowing new section for the Committee's relerence: "Boundary Adjustments A consent may be permitted lor the purpose 01 modilying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot is created. In reviewing an application lor such a boundary adjustment, the Committee 01 Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability 01 the use 01 the properties affected as intended by this Plan. In addition, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the agricultural parcels affected." While it is recognized that OPA#17 is not in effect, it does function as a statement of Council policy. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural (A1RU) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The lot addition is proposed to be added to a parcel 01 land that is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). If the application were approved, the new lot would conlorm with the provisions of the Shoreline Residential zone. It is recommended that the lot addition be rezoned to the Shoreline Residential zone to accurately rellect its intended usage lor residential purposes only. ANALYSIS The proposed lot addition would not be consistent with the lot sizes 01 the surrounding residential area as the land area involved would be larger than other lot additions done historically. To this end, staff question conlormity with the Official Plan and the potential for impacts 01 the viability of the retained lands lor agricultural purposes. Furthermore. the proposed lot addition could establish a precedent for additional lot additions to the surrounding properties with further diminishing 01 the larger rural parcel and contrary to the intent 01 the Official Plan. To this end, staff support a reduced lot addition which would be consistent with the abutting lot fabric. This reduced lot addition would conlorm with the general intent of the Official Plan and the provisions 01 the Zoning By-law. CONCLUSION The application generally conforms with the boundary adjustment/lot addition policies of the Official Plan; however the lot addition as proposed would not be consistent with the character of the residential area. The application should be amended to only include the area to a depth of 45 metres with a total lot area of 0.68 acres (2778 square metres) to maintain the provisions previously granted by the Township and not establish a future precedent lor continuous lot additions. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Consent application 2005-B-40 as amended with a lot depth 01 approximately 45 metres (147.6 feet) and a total lot area of 0.68 acres (2778 square metres) subject to the following conditions: 1 . That three copies 01 a Reference Plan 01 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 the Lot 39, Plan 807. 220 Lakeshore Road West and that the provisions 01 Subsection 3 or 5 01 Section 5001 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 applicants solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance lor the parcel severed, lor review by the Municipality; 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fullilled within one year from the date 01 the giving 01 this notice: 6. That the applicant apply lor and obtain a rezoning on the subject lands to accurately reflect the land use: and, 7. II further buildings are proposed to be erected on the subject lands or if the lot grading changes, the existing drainage must remain as is. A;;;:'P",,"'" "Om"'" Andy Karaiskakis. Hons. B.A. Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~~~ Director 01 Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for September 15, 2005 Daniel Cibirka 2005-A-36 112 Lakeshore Road West, Conc. 7, Part Lot 27(Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to demolish 25.7m' (277ft' ) of the existing 157.93m' (170ofl') dwelling and construct a two storey addition to the dwelling having a total area of approximately 160 m' (1,725 ft') with a wrap around porch having an area of approximately 51 m' (548 ft') as shown on the attached sketch. The applicant is requesting the above noted relief as the subject property is zoned Local Industrial (L1) in the Township of Oro-Medonte Zoning By-law 97-95 as amended, with a single detached dwelling not being a permitted use in the LI Zone, therelore permission to expand the non-conforming use (the dwelling) is required. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation -Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Local Industrial (L1) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Public Works- Building Department - The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Engineering Department- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot frontage 01 approximately 45 metres (150 feet), a lot depth of approximately 94 metres (310 leet) and a lot area 01 approximately 0.4 hectares (1 acre) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling, a quonset hut and various frame sheds. The applicant plans to demolish approximately 25.7m' (277ft' ) of the existing 157.93m' (1700ft') dwelling and construct a two storey addition to the dwelling having a total area of approximately 160 m' (1,725 ft') with a wrap around porch having an area of approximately 51 m' (548 ft'). As noted, the existing single detached dwelling is not a permitted use in the LI Zone. As a result, the applicant's dwelling is a legal non-conforming use and permission is required Irom the Committee of Adjustment to expand the use. Section 45 (2) (a) (i) 01 the Planning Act states that Committee may permit the enlargement of any building or structure where the use of the structure was lawfully used for that purpose prohibited by the by-law on the day the by-law was passed. The existing structure predates the passage of the Township's By-law, being November 5, 1997. Applications for expansions of non-conforming uses are guided by the policies set out in Section J2.2 of the Official Plan and not the standard four tests for minor variance applications. Section J2.2 01 the Township's Official Plan sets out the following policies to guide the Committee in considering expansions to legal non-conforming uses: a) The size of the extension in relation to the existing operation; b) Whether the proposed extension is compatible with the character of the surrounding area; c) The characteristics of the existing use in relation to noise, vibration, fumes, dust....and the degree to which any of these factors may be increased or decreased by the extension; and, d) The possibilities of reducing these nuisances through buffering, building setbacks, landscaping, site plan control and other means. The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. The primary function of this designation is to maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area and to protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. Permitted uses in the Shoreline designation include residential uses. As the dwelling on the lot already exists, and the sizes of the additions are comparable with the existing structure, it would satisfy criteria (a). The proposed additions, which are extensions of the existing dwelling, will maintain the character of the dwelling, and are not additions that relate to noise, fumes or any other nuisances would appear to maintain the character of the surrounding area and would therelore conform with criteria (b), (c) and (d). Therefore, the proposal appears to conform with the intent 01 the policies contained in the Official Plan. CONCLUSIONS 1. The requested permission to expand a legal non-conforming use represents a minor expansion that will have little or no impact on the environmental features or functions 01 the area. 2. The requested expansion to a legal non-conforming use is considered to conform with Section J2.2 of the Official Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Committee approve application 2005-A-36 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained Irom 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; 2 2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch submitted with the application dated May 12, 2005 and approved by the Committee, as submitted. All of which is respectfully submitted, )~~, Hoo, SA Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~u~ Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for September 15, 2005 Curtis Gray and Christina Bremer 200S-B-39 3342 Penetanguishene Road, Cone. 1, Part Lot 40 (Vespra) THE PROPOSAL The purpose 01 application 2005-8-39 is to permit the creation 01 a new residential lot. The land to be severed is proposed to have a lot Irontage 01 approximately 44.8 metres (146.98 leet), a lot depth 01 approximately 45.72 metres (140.15 leet) and a lot area 01 approximately 0.2 hectare (0.5 acres). The land proposed to be retained would have a lot area 01 approximately 13 hectares (33 acres). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural Settlement Area & Rural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) & Environmental Protection (EP) Zones Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Public Works- Building Department-The Township BUilding Dept has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department- PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to create a new residential lot with a road Irontage of approximately 44.8 metres (146.9 leet) along Penetanguishene Road, a lot depth 01 approximately 45.72 metres (140.15 feet) and a lot area 01 approximately 0.2 hectare (1.5 acre). The retained lands would have a road Irontage 01 approximately 73.7 metres (241.8 leet) and a lot area 01 approximately 13 hectares (33 acres). OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are designated Rural and Rural Settlement Area in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The property is split between the Rural designation lor the western hall 01 the property adjacent to the CPR tracks and the Rural Settlement Area designation for the eastern hall 01 the property adjacent to Penetanguishene Road. The policies applicable to this application are contained in Section D4 (Rural Settlement Area). The intent 01 the Rural Settlement Area policies is to maintain and create attractive communities with suitable amenities and to ensure that settlement areas are developed in a logical and cost-effective manner. As the subject property is located in the community 01 Craighurst, Section DA.3.5 would apply. D4.3.5 Special development policy for Craighurst The development of any permitted use, other than on an existing lot of record, or the creation of additional lots, is not permitted in the Craighurst Settlement Area until an Official Plan Amendment in the form of a detailed Secondary Plan is adopted by Council. The following matters are to be dealt with by the Secondary Plan: a) the mix, density and phasing of proposed land uses; b) the appropriate form of servicing; c) the location, scale and type of commercial uses; d) the impacts of development on community facilities such as schools; e) the compatibility of proposed uses with adjacent land uses outside of the Special Policy Area; f) the provision of parkland; g) the provision of an appropriate road network within the planning area and the impacts of development on the two County roads in the settlement area; and, h) the impact of development on the Highway 400/HorseshoeValley Road interchange which would be determined through the completion of a traffic-impact study to be reviewed and approved by the Ministry of Transportation. Any highway improvements recommended by the traffic study will be financial responsibility of the proponents. One of the most significant factors to resolve is the form of servicing and the financial implications of both constructing and operating the servicing systems. These issues shall be the subject of a servicing options report, that examines the feasibility of developing communal services, and is to be prepared to the satisfaction of Council and appropriate agencies. The cost of preparing the required servicing, environmental and planning studies needed to support the Secondary Plan will be borne by the landowners who will benefit from the approval of the Secondary Plan. In April 2005, the Committee 01 the Whole recommended a report by the Planning Department to proceed to a public inlormation meeting to provide the residents 01 Craighurst with an update 01 the Secondary Plan process. Such meeting will take place in the next lew months. CONCLUSION In reviewing the application for the creation of one new residential lot, it would appear that the consent application is premature at this time and Planning staff therelore recommend that the application be delerred at this time in order lor the Township to adopt the Craighurst Secondary Plan and assess the Official Plan conlormity as a matter 01 Council policy. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee defer Consent application 2005-B-39 until such time as the Craighurst Secondary Plan is considered lurther by Council and a lurther assessment 01 the Official Plan conlormity can be conducted. All 01 which is respectfully submitted, AV(udL Andy Karaiskakis, Hons. B.A. Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~~f^l~ Bruce Hop~e~:~P: Director 01 Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for September 15, 2005 Merle & Howard Carr 2005-A-38 4 Melville Court, Concession 5, Lot 13, Plan M593 (Ora) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting reliel of the following provision Irom Zoning By-law 97-95: i. Section 5.1.6 Maximum Floor Area of a detached buildino/structure. The applicants are seeking a variance in respect to the expansion 01 a detached garage which currently does not comply with the maximum floor area. Due to an adjustment in the roofline of the existing structure, the floor area 01 the proposed structure will be increased Irom the maximum requirement 01 70 m' (753 ft') to 81.66 m' (879 It'), therelore relief lrom this subsection is required. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation -Rural Settlement Area 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 - Building Dept has reviewed the application and note the proposal appears to meet minimum standards Engineering Department- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot Irontage 01 approximately 194 metres (637 feet), a lot depth of approximately 61 metres (200 leet) and a lot area of approximately 0.54 hectares (1.34 acres) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling and two detached accessory buildings, one 01 which has recently been constructed and, by virtue 01 a canopy over the entry door, exceeds the maximum size permitted. The aRPlicants are seeking permission to increase the size of an existing detached garage from 70 m' (750 ft') to 81.66 m' (879 If) by allowing a canopy over the doorway. With this addition, the garage exceeds the maximum floor area requirement of a detached building of 70 m' (753 It'), therelore requiring a minor variance for reliel for the proposed addition. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural Settlement Area. The primary lunction 01 the Rural Settlement Area designation is to identily and permit residential uses which are compatible and in keeping with the character 01 a residential community. The proposed variance, which would permit the addition to an existing detached garage which is considered accessory to a residential use and therelore is in keeping with the intent 01 the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Residential One (Rl) in Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The existing garage complies with the setback standards in the by-law and has a well developed landscaped Iront yard/outdoor living area. The proposed addition will have little or no impact on the intent 01 the by-law to provide a low density residential character to the lot or the subdivision. On this basis the variance is deemed to conform to general intent 01 the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The proposed addition will not change the overall character 01 the garage or the area and will provide a "weather proof" entrance into the garage. The requested variance is appropriate lor the development of the lands. Is the variance minor? The application is deemed to be minor in nature on the basis that the applicants have complied with the majority of the zoning provisions in the Residential One (Rl) Zone for an accessory building and will meet the maximum height requirement of 4.5 metres (14.7 leet) permitted in this zone. The actual floor area 01 the detached garage would meet the maximum floor area permitted. Therelore the canopy would be considered a minor extension to the structure. CONCLUSIONS The requested variance generally satisfies the 4 tests 01 a minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee Approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-38, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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; and, 2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only alter the Committee's decision becomes linal and binding, as provided lor within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13. A4'"I"'1y "bm"" Andy Karaiskakis Hons. B.A. Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~;-;~ Director of Planning 2 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for September 15, 2005 Bob White 2005-A-08(Revised) 98 Lakeshore Road East, Plan 589, Part Lots 111, 112, 113 (Ora) THE PROPOSAL The purpose 01 this application is to revise the existing minor variance which was granted on April 14,2005 lor the purpose 01 constructing a single detached dwelling. The applicant is proposing to revise the minor variance application by adding a second floor balcony at the front 01 the dwelling and to set back the dwelling lurther Irom the exterior side yard which was approved Irom 2.5 metres (8.2 leet) to a proposed 3.8 metres (12.67 leet), as shown on the applicants sketch. Due to the lact that a second floor balcony is now proposed, reliel is required Irom the minimum exterior side yard requirement 01 7.5 metres (24.6 feet). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation -Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Public Works- Building Department - The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a road lrontage 01 approximately 15.24 metres (50 leet) along Lakeshore Road, a lot depth 01 approximately 28.38 metres (93.13 feet) along Oro Road, and a lot area 01 approximately 557.4 m' (6,000 If). The lands are currently vacant. It is the applicants' intent to construct a single detached dwelling as per the approved minor variance which was granted by the Committee on April 14, 2005. The proposed dwelling will be set back approximately 16 metres (53 leet) Irom Lakeshore Road, approximately 5 metres (17 leet) Irom the rear property line and approximately 3.86 metres (12.67 leet) Irom the exterior lot line (Oro Road). The applicant also proposes to add a second floor balcony at the lront 01 the dwelling (lacing Oro Road). Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section Dl0.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the lollowing objectives: . To maintain the existing character 01 this predominantly residential area. . To protect the natural leatures of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. The requested variances lor the new dwelling and proposed balcony would appear to maintain the character 01 the residential area as the dwelling will be set back lurther Irom Oro Road as was previously granted. Therelore the variances conlorm 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 subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). One 01 the purposes or goals 01 maintaining setbacks in residential areas is to maintain a positive built form and visual quality. Based on site inspection, the proposed balcony should not adversely impact the surrounding residential area and the new dwelling will be setback an additional 4.5 leet from Oro Road as was previously granted by the Committee. Therelore the proposal is considered to conlorm 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 balcony would appear to be appropriate lor the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given that the proposed dwelling and balcony would provide lor a lorm 01 development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, the proposed variance would not lead to the over development 01 the lot. Are the variances minor? On the basis that the size 01 the dwelling and balcony are reasonable and would not adversely affect the character 01 the residential area, the proposed variances are considered to be minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS The subject application to permit a new dwelling and balcony on the SUbject property generally satislies the lour tests 01 the minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2005-A-08 as revised lor a second floor balcony to be located at the front 01 the dwelling and lor an exterior side yard setback 01 3.8 metres (12.67 leet) and subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the setbacks be in conlormity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketches submitted with the application dated August 22, 2005 and approved by the Committee; 2 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verilication to the Township 01 compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the looting and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring 01 the loundation so that the dwelling: i) be no closer than 16 metres (53 leet) Irom the Iront lot line and that the proposed deck be no closer than 14 metres (47 leet) Irom the Iront lot line; ii) be no closer than 204 metres (8 leet) Irom the interior side lot line; iii) be no closer than 5 metres (17 leet) Irom the rear property line; and, iv) be no closer than 3.8 metres (12.67 leet) Irom the exterior side yard; and, 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chiel Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes linal and binding, as provided lor within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13 All 01 which is respectfully submitted, J~~HOMBA Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~0-~ Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director 01 Planning 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for September 15, 2005 Mary Jane Sarjeant 200S-A-37 2249 Ridge Road, Range 2, Part Lots 1 and 2 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief 01 the following provision from Zoning By-law 97-95: i. Section 5.33 Setback from Water Courses for the construction a dwelling and a boathouse within 30 metres (9804 feet) of the top of bank of any watercourse. The single detached dwelling and boathouse is proposed to be located approximately 2 metres (6.5 feet) lor the proposed dwelling from the watercourse as shown on the attached sketch. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural Settlement Area Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential Limited Service with Holding Provision (RLS(H)) 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 note that a site inspection was completed. Comments are that there are no objection to location of dwelling unit and boathouse. Septic system would be required to meet minimum setbacks under Part 8 O.B.C. to water course Engineering Department- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 30 metres (100 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 34 metres (114 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.37 hectares (0.93 acres). The lands currently have a dwelling with an area 01 approximately 127 m2 (1376 It'). The owner is proposing to demolish the existing cottage and build a new single detached dwelling with an attached deck at the lake side of the dwelling. The finished floor area for the new dwelling is proposed to be 227.02 m' (2,443.7 It') and is proposed to be setback a minimum 0120 metres (65.6 feet) from Lake Simcoe. The purpose of the minor variance is to construct the dwelling within the 30 metres (9804 leet) of the watercourse which runs parallel to the easterly property line. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural Settlement Area in the Official Plan. The primary function 01 the Rural Settlement Area designation is to identify and permit residential uses which are compatible and in keeping with the character 01 a residential community. The proposed variance, which would permit the creation 01 a new dwelling would appear to maintain the character 01 the shoreline residential area as the dwelling will be set back lurther lrom Lake Simcoe than the 1 existing dwelling and would have no impact on the watercourse. Therefore the variance conforms to the general intent 01 the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? One 01 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 Ilooding 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 0130 metres (9804 leet) from the top of bank 01 any watercourse. 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 01 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 01 the proposed development. Based on a site inspection 01 the subject property, it was noted that the proposed location of the dwelling is relatively flat with the need of tree cutting in certain areas. The proposed dwelling and boathouse would not appear to impact the intermittent watercourse as it seems, based upon site inspection, the watercourse is seasonal water runoff Irom the Arbourwood Estates Subdivision north of the Ridge Road. The applicant has obtained approval from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for the proposed works, subject to various conditions contain in Permit No. OP.2005.10 (attached). On this basis, staff are 01 the opinion that the above noted conditions are satisfied and therelore the proposal is deemed to conlorm with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The nature 01 development proposed appears reasonable and will not lead to over development of the lot. The proposed variance should provide for a lorm of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding area. On this basis the proposed variance would provide for the appropriate development 01 the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the variance will permit the construction of a dwelling in the area approved by the LSRCA. the requested reliel is deemed to be minor. CONCLUSIONS The subject application to permit a new dwelling and boathouse on the subject property generally satislies the four tests of the minor variance. 2 Note to the Committee: At the time this report was written, the applicant had applied for the combined application for Site Plan Control/Removal 01 the Holding Provision on the subject lands. That application will be brought forward to the Committee 01 the Whole for consideration on September 14, 2005. Approval of these applications will therelore be added as conditions as noted below. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2005-A-37 subject to the following conditions: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township 01 compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring 01 the foundation by way 01 survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 2. That the applicant adhere to Permit No. OP.2005.10 from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority letter dated August 8, 2005; 3. That the setbacks be in conlormity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the plans and sketches submitted with the minor variance application and with the Building Permit dated August 6, 2004 and approved by the Committee; 4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only alter the Committee's decision becomes linal and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990. c.P. 13; and, 5. That the applicant obtain approval lor the combined application for Site Plan Control/Removal of the Holding Provision. N1~~"""Y'"""''"'' Andy Karaiskakis Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~~~ Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning 3 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Auth0rity 120 Bayview Parkway, Box 282, Newmarket,Ont. L3Y 4Xl Telephone: (905) 895~1281 Website: www.lsrca.on.ca Fax: (905) 853.5881 Email: info@lsrca.on.ca PERMIT No. OP.200S.10 Date: Monday, August 08, 2005 i ACCORDANCE WITH ONTARIO REGULATION 153/90 AS AMENDED BY ONTARIO REGULATION 534/91 & NTARIO REGULATION 623/94 ermission has been granted to: wner: MARY JANE SARGEANT 2249 RIDGE ROAD SHANTY BAY, ON LOL 2LO Applicant: MATT PRYCE C/O PRYCON fl.O. BOX 27038 BARRIE, ON L4M 6X4 acatian: LOT I & 2, RANGE 2, TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE 2249 RIDGE ROAD, ORO-MEDONTE ror the: construction of a single family residence with boathouse, relocation of watercourse, and associated lot grading as shown on plans submitted and marked uapproved". m the above property during the period of Monday, August 08, 2005 to Tuesday, August 08, 2006 ,ubject to the following conditions: oj All development subject to provincial, federal and municipal statutes, regulations and by-laws. b) This permit does not confer upon you any right to occupy, devetop or flood lands owned by other persons or agencies. c) The applicant must maintain and comply with the local drainage requirements of the municipality. d) That an agreement be entered into between the owner and the Conservation Authority which includes a letter of credit or a security deposit in the amount of $ 5,000.00 to ensure maintenance of erosion and sediment controlmeasures and re-stabilization of all disturbed areas. e) That all areas of exposed soil be stabilized immediately following consteuction. f) That sediment and erosion controls as shown on the attached plan be installed prior to the commencement of any works onsite. Silt controls are to be inspected after every rainfall event and maintained until at! exposed areas have been stabilized in order to prevent silt from leaving the site or entering a watercourse or waterbody. g) That no grading or placing of fill occur on the lot except what is required for the proposed works as shown on the attached site plan. *NOTE The approved plans submitted with the application for this permit are hereby incorporated into and constitute part of this permit. Any const.-uction. placement of fill or interference with a watercourse or body of water otherwise than in accordance with such plans. constitutes a breach of this permit which may then be revoked at the option of the Authority. In addition, any person respnnsible for such activity is liable to prosecution. 01 Owner -li _ Engineering Dept., By-law Dept. .,. File OP.2005.10 Health Unit, Township ofOro~Medonte .,. Building Dept., .,. MNR, Midhurst, Ref. # DFO, Peterborough, Ref. # Other ~ zt:<r frank Pinto Environmental Planner f----.------. --- ---- ------.--..-~-~ '...""W.Q .fJ"'-~ '6 m Ie;' '-N. '" #'~ ~. t: <, pi , '.. Ji,'43. ~ ~, lS 1f~~~ ~ _ .. 00l_,.J:i '!l ~ *~ ,4'~: ~~.r' ~ 1) ~.c"". W"":,, a.':f ~ : ~.1 .~~~ ~ 11;-' It .: -:',-,,;)".~ ~",.~ ',- ; Page 1 of 7 ,;<i.~, i~~ ;"''''''''-'', ,j} "." '\'. ,r----t,' -", ,1 '!;,' ~.--:.'? ~,~"",,, 1:~?" r: - A Watershed for Life Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for September 15, 2005 Tang Fen Wong 2005-B-38(Revised) 1131 Range Road, Range 2, West Part Lots 1 & 2, RP 51R-3530, Part 3 & 4 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL Consent application 200S-B-38 was delerred by the Committee of Adjustment on August 11, 2005. The applicant has since revised the application and sketch to identily the portion of the property south of Pemberton Lane as the proposed severed lot and the remainder of the property north 01 Pemberton Lane as the retained lot. The land to be severed, identified as Part 2 on the sketch, is proposed to have a lot Irontage 01 approximately 88 metres (288 feet) along Range Road, a lot depth that varies Irom approximately 65 metres (213 feet) to 226 metres (741.5 leet) and a lot area of approximately 0.8 hectares (2 acres). The land proposed to be retained, identilied as Part 1, would have a lot area 01 approximately 6 hectares (15 acres). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural & Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) & Shoreline Residential (SR) Zones Previous Applications - B-15/00 (Severance approved lor n/w corner lot) 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 DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND It is the applicant's intent to sever the vacant wooded area located to the north of Pemberton Lane, shown as Part 1 on the applicant's sketch, which has an area 01 approximately 6 hectares (14.8 acres), lrom the existing house and accessory buildings, including Pemberton Lane. shown as Part 2 on the applicants' sketch, which has an area 01 approximately 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres). As indicated by the applicant's agent, the private right of way traveling east Irom 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 01 way which lavours the adjoining lots for road access. Furthermore, Pemberton Lane is proposed to be conveyed with the severed lands. OFFICIAL PLAN The portion of the property north of Pemberton Lane is designated Rural while the portion south 01 Pemberton Lane is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. The lot to be severed will be located in the Shoreline designation and the retained lot will be located in the Rural designation. Since the lot to be severed is located in the Shoreline designation, the policies respecting lot creation in the Shoreline designation apply. Section D10.3.7 01 the Official Plan deals with lot creation in the Shoreline designation: 010.3.7 New residential lots by consent The creation 01 new lots lor a residential use by consent to sever is permitted, provided a Plan of Subdivision is not required in accordance with Section Dl0.3.5 and provided the proposed lot and the retained lot: a) lronts 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 01 its location on a curve or a hill; and, c) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means 01 sewage disposal. The proposed lot and the lot to be retained appear to meet the policies for the creation 01 new lots in the Shoreline Designation. In addition, Section D10.3.8 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 staff's position that the new lot conforms with this intent. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural/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 SR Zone. would comply with the provisions of the SR for residential uses and the retained lot would continue to comply with the provisions in the AlRU Zone. CONCLUSION The application as submitted would conlorm with the Official Plan for the creation 01 one new residential lot. It shall be recommended that the applicant dedicate to the Township land along the north side to Pemberton Lane for the purpose of widening and improving Pemberton Lane in the luture, if required. The applicant had indicated that due to concerns raised at the August 11, 2005 Committee hearing respecting the removal of trees on the retained parcel, that the applicant is willing to enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the Township to restrict the removal 01 trees on the retained lands beyond a 004 hectare (1 acre) building envelope for the construction 01 a single detached dwelling. septic tile field and driveway. Staff supports the addition of a condition to this effect. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee Grant Provisional Consent lor Application 2005-B-38 as revised 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. and that Pemberton Lane and the land to be dedicated to the Township be identified as two separate and distinct parts; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed. for review by the Municipality: 3. That all Municipal taxes be paid to the Municipality; 4. That the applicant convey a block 01 land along the north side 01 Pemberton Lane to the Township, such that the width 01 Pemberton Lane and the width of the land to be dedicated to the Township to equal 20 metres; 5. That the applicant enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the Township 01 Oro-Medonte and be registered on the title 01 the retained lands. The Site Plan will identify an area 01 004 hectares (1 acre) as the building envelope where the single lamily dwelling, amenity area, septic system, and accessory buildings greater than 9 m' (96.8 ft') will be located. The Agreement shall address the preservation 01 vegetation beyond the 004 hectare (1 acre) building envelope. 6. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash-in-Iieu of a parkland contribution; and, 7. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. All of which is respectfully submitted, Ar~ Andy Karaiskakis Hons. BA Junior Planner Reviewed by. ~a~ Bruce Hoppe. MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursdav Au~ust 11, 2005, 9:30 a.m. In Attendance: Chairrnan Allan Johnson, Member Dave Edwards, Member Garry Potter, Member Lynda Aiken, Secretary-Treasurer Andy Karaiskakis, and Director of Planning Bruce Hoppe Absent Member: Michelle Lynch 1. Communications and Correspondence Correspondence to be addressed at the time of the specific hearing. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniarv Interest None declared 3. HearinQs: 9:30 Janet Lees Plan 546, Lot 1 (Orillia) 5 Bards Beach Road 2005-A-17 In Attendance: Janet & Dawson Lees, owners BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Dave Edwards "That the Committee hereby 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 rnetres (39.76 leet) frorn 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 dirnensions 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; Committee of Adjustment-August 11, 2005 Page 1 6. That the applicant apply for and obtain approval for the combined application for Site Plan Control/Rernoval of the Holding Provision, as Bards Beach Road is an unassurned or private road; 7. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Comrnittee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report; and, 8. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chiel Building Official only after the Comrnittee's decision becornes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-August 11,2005 Page 2 9:40 Tim Russell Cone. 5, East Part Lot 19 (Medonte) 5718 Line 5 North 2005-A-31 In Attendance: Tim Russell, applicant Secretary-Treasurer read letters from Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated August 9, 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 Comrnittee hereby grant Minor Variance 2005-A-31 subject to the lollowing conditions: 1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed garage be in conforrnity with the sketches subrnitted with the application and approved by the Cornrnittee; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Cornmittee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the loundation so that: i) the garage be no larger than 69.6 rn2 (750 ft2); and, ii) the garage be located no closer than 100.5 rnetres (330 feet) from the front property line; 3. That the appropriate building perrnit be obtained Irom the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided lor within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment-August 11, 2005 Page 3 9:50 Everton & Darlene Ellis Conc. 4, East Part Lot 22 (Oro) 290 Line 4 South 2005-B-31 In Attendance: John Wilk & Nancy Davis, 304 Line 4 South & Darlene Ellis, 290 Line 4 South. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Comrnittee hereby grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2005-8-31 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 irnposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-August 11, 2005 Page 4 10:00 Myrtle Alderson 2005-A-32 Cone. 12, West Part Lot 22, RP 51 R-4477, Part 1 (Oro) 1709 Ridge Road East In Attendance: Mike & Debbie Barnett, new owners of property BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Cornmittee hereby grant Minor Variance 2005-A-32, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permits be obtained from the Township's Chiel Building Official only after the Committee's decision becornes 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 2 (864 ff); and, 4. That the setbacks be in conforrnity 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-August 11, 2005 Page 5 10:10 James & Linda Cooper Cone. 7, Plan 755, Lots 40 & 41 (Oro) 105 Lakeshore Road West 2005-A-33 In Attendance: James & Linda Cooper, applicants BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Dave Edwards "That the Comrnittee hereby grant Minor Variance 2005-A-33 subject to the following conditions: 1. The west side 01 the attached garage shall rnaintain 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) frorn the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe; 3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of cornpliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the looting 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 conforrnity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch subrnitted and approved by the Comrnittee .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment.August 11,2005 Page 6 10:20 Ted Pickard & Lisa Truax 2005-B-32 - 2005-B-36 Cone. 8, Plan 51 R-24483, Part 1, East Part Lot 16 (Medonte) 128 Moonstone Road East In Attendance: Ted Pickard & Lisa Truax, applicants BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby defer Applications 2005-8-32 - 2005-8-36 to allow time for the Township to receive lavourable comrnents from the Public Works Department and from the County of Simcoe lor the proposed five lots and for confirrnation that the lots can be serviced by the Robincrest Water System. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-August 11,2005 Page 7 10:30 Lawrence Murphy & Michelle Sheridan Plan 51M-746, Block 16 (Oro) 10 Forest Hill Drive 2005-B-37 . In Attendance: Larry Murphy & Michelle Sheridan Murphy, applicants, Mr. Ellis, owner of Terra Ridge Development, Tadeen Mulders 16 Forest Hill Drive, Warren Mills, 15 Forest Hill Drive, Murrey Atkinson, 19 Forest Hill Drive, Barry Keogh, 18 Forest Hill Drive, Scotty Stewart, 11 Forest Hill Drive, Mr. Barcicki, 17 Forest Hill Drive, Paul Marshall, Councillor BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Garry Potter "That the Comrnittee hereby not grant Provisional Consent to application 2005-8-37 as it does not conform with Section 09.3 of the Official Plan and that the two small lots are inconsistent with the lots that exist and they will disrupt the character of the subdivision. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment-August 11,2005 Page 8 10:40 Tang Fen Wong 2005-B-38 Range 2, West Half Lot 2, 51 R-3530, Parts 3, 4 & 2 (Oro) 1131 Range Road In Attendance: Jill Lewis & Angela Rudy, agents representing applicant, Rudy & Associates, Kim Maxwell, 1 Pemberton Lane, Peter Maxwell, 1 Pemberton Lane, Lennard Roddness, lawyer representing neighbouring properties, Egle Vair, 11 Pemberton Lane, John Connolly & Deborah Woods, 13 Pemberton Lane, Robert O'Hara, 6 Pemberton Lane, Kim Maxwell, 1 Pemberton Lane, Peter Maxwell, 1 Pemberton Lane Secretary-Treasurer read letters from: Lynn Price, Executive Director, The Foundation for People with Special Needs, dated August 9, 2005 Mary Percival Maxwell, 1 Pemberton Lane, dated August 7,2005 Karen White, 15 Pemberton Lane, dated August 11, 2005 Elizabeth Burns, 5 Pemberton Lane, dated August 10,2005 Susan Woods & Fred Beck, 1131 Range Road, dated August 9, 2005 Shirley Bainbridge, 2327 Ridge Road West, dated August 10, 2005 Audrey Reucassel, 3 Pemberton Lane, dated August 10, 2005 Mary Grace Wright, 21 Pemberton Lane, dated August 10, 2005 Frank & Kathy Rolph, 17 Pemberton Lane, received August 11, 2005 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Deler Consent Application 2005-8-38 to allow tirne lor 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. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-August 11, 2005 Page 9 10:50 Dave & Bunny Walker 2005-A-30 Cone. 7, East Part Lot 26, RP 51 R-9881, Part 1 (Ora) 41 Lakeshore Road West In Attendance: Dave & Bunny Walker, applicants BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Garry Potter "That the Cornmittee hereby approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-30, subject to the following conditions: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verilication to the Township of compliance with the Comrnittee's decision 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 conforrnity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch submitted with the application and approved by Comrnittee; and, 4. That the appropriate building perrnit be obtained frorn the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Cornmittee's decision becornes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment-August 11, 2005 Page 10 5. Other Business i. Adoption of minutes for July 14, 2005 Meeting Moved by Lynda Aiken, Seconded by Garry Potter "That the rninutes for the July 14th 2005 Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated .. .Carried." 6. Adiournment Moved by Garry Potter, Seconded by Lynda Aiken "We do now adjourn at 4:10 p.m." ... Carried." (NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.) Chairperson, Allan Johnson Secretary-Treasurer, Andy Karaiskakis Committee of Adjustment-August 11,2005 Page 11