Loading...
10 13 2005 C of A Agenda Committee of Adiustment Aqenda Thursday October 13th 2005. 9:30 a.m. 1. Communications and Correspondence 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Hearings: 9:30 2005-A-39 William Lohuaru Plan M-447, Lot 33 (Ora) 16 Valleycrest Drive . 9:40 2005-B-44 Ron & Janet Clarke Cone. 13, Part South-West % Lot 1 (Medonte) 1478 Horseshoe Valley Road East 9:50 2005-B-45 Donald Woodrow Cone. 6, East Part Lot 2 (Medonte) 3624 Line 6 North 10:00 2005-A-41 Dawn Oschefski Plan 993, Lot 29 (Orillia) 1081 Woodland Drive 10:10 2005-A-40 Matt Marshall & Tammy Masse Plan 952, Lot 71 (Oro) 2277 Lakeshore Road East 10:20 2005-A-42 James & Catherine Soule Plan 935, Lot 24 (Oro) 28 Grandview Crescent 10:30 2005-A-43 John & Lisa Markov Cone. 8, Part Lots 26, 27 (Oro) 16 Barbara Avenue , 10:40 2005-A-44 10:50 2005-B-47 Donald Nixon Cone. 1, South Part Lot 1 (Oro) 3025 Ridge Road West Del Coin Holdings Inc. Cone. 1, Part Lot 15, RP 51 R-33232, Part 1 (Orillia) 5315 Highway 11/148 Line 15 South 11:00 2005-A-45 Nick & Cathy Rinaldi Cone. 7, Part Lot 26 (Oro) 11 :10 2005-B-41- 2005-B-43 Lester & Cristina Cook Cone. 3, South Part Lot 7, Plan 920 (Orillia) 18 Moon Point Drive 11:20 A-39/03(Revised) Douglas Shaw Plan 882, Part Lots 22, 23 (Oro) 1079 Lakeshore Road 4. Decisions 5. Other business -Adoption of minutes for September 15, 2005 Meeting 6. Adjournment , Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for October 13, 2005 William Lohuaru 2005-A-39 16 Valleycrest Drive, Plan M-447, Lot 33 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is applying for the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95 for the purpose of constructing a single detached dwelling in the building envelope as shown on the attached sketch: Required PropOsed L Section 5.32 Setback from slope Exceeding 33% or 3 to 1 for the dwelling 23 m (75.4 ft) Om (Oft) MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node - Low Density Residential 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 - No road concerns Building Department - The Township Buildin9 Dept has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department - No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The applicant proposes to build a detached dwelling on what appears to be the only available land on an existing vacant lot on Valleycrest Drive. However, in order to obtain a permit for a building for the subject lot, the applicant requires relief from the minimum setback from slopes, given the presence of a fairly dramatic hill on the iot. '. The Four Tests of the Minor Variance Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Horseshoe Valley Low Density Residential. The primary function of this designation is to recognize a development node, which permits a variety of residential, commercial, and recreational uses. The proposed variance would permit the construction of a single detached dwelling on a currently vacant lot in a registered plan of subdivision, which is a permitted use within the Low Density Residential designation in the Horseshoe Resort Node. On this basis the proposed variance would be in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan 1 Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The intent of maintaining separation from slopes is to ensure the long term stability of slopes. Based on site inspection, the proposed building envelope is situated on a plateau which proves to be the most ideal location for a dwelling. It was also noted that the slope is partially veget<:\ted therefore natural slope stability is present. As a condition of approval, staff will recommend .that the Township engineer review the proposed grading plan to ensure that the stability of the slope will not be compromised as a result of the proposed construction. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Upon site inspection it was evident that many of the homes on Valleycrest Drive are to some degree integrate themselves with the topography of the subdivision. On this basis the proposed variance would appear to provide for the appropriate and desirable development of the lot. Is the variance minor? It is anticipated that a significant percentage of development in the Horseshoe Valley area has in one way or another, integrated itself with the natural landscape in the area. While it may be appropriate to grant relief to provisions of the By-law, it should only be considered in circumstances that absolutely leave no other option. Based upon the site inspection of the subject property it would appear that the proposed building location provides the only suitable option available for construction of a dwelling on the subject property which was the intended use of the property as approved by the plan of subdivision. CONCLUSIONS The requested variances as amended generally satisfy the 4 tests of a minor variance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance application 2005-A-39 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; 2. That the proposed dwelling be located no closer than 0 metres (0 feet) from the slope exceeding 33% or 3 to 1; 3. That the Township engineer provide comments satisfactory to the Secretary-Treasurer that the slope stability will not be compromised as a result of the proposed construction; 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; .- 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. All of which is respectfully submitted, k~iS' Hons. B.A Planner Reviewed by, ~~~P Director of Planning 2 \ /1 -1't.. , ~.. I ;,>P~ I -4' -' ,t- !'-II ' N --< ~' "r ", ~l /' " ~: ,.:~ ! "~ II I ,. , .~ .;~{J;<" -. 'j~,.'~'~, {1~f.' :0" .~ -, ~-... ';~.., ''''\ '-\f -; .f ,~_" ,/ // 'd :~; / / I . , , , I " ! I ( I'. It I i , '<). \ ! l >,' , I \<"\ \ j i .....;",\' I ,I v,~\.\ I~ \" '\ .' ./ ./ / /:>:::~~ ~J " .' :. 1 ~ I -' I 1,'_ -~ ~ -T I!~ I I I I ~ I";) I ' I I ~ 111 I I I '-Qj I Ili--}- f~.u'll' :"'l I "'i:r-,W ft. I I, II' I I ,i A I, I>~" 1;, pl " I I' I' Jl I 1;.'0.1 'i:j' 11 I I INI : I' I I Ii'll . I' III I "II! I, i l-' y I! ;: ;: 1 ~l 1 ill: : I III,;..! ~I Ii!; I' , ! ! 1 'I~' I : 'jl Ftl ua. 'II 1:'1. ,/' , / I, , LOT 33 /1 l-2O.J<f.1n lENCZlN OF 11.E AIltED 10 ACCnhHQMrE ~OP, liOV!IE F1EQ1J1RD.l:NTS /<g ~1' 'Yo';;' ~ ~. j P/L _ 1v __~-",.~~J... - ------~---~--,~-~~".~-~~~------~-- :Ml1 ~ ...,~,___._____~,~__~_._~____~..~..____________~.. .. ~~~~'---~.,~... ..._....._..____~_.._ ............. ..___~"~.._..._..._,.,J._...._ ! '~:~i::~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~~~~_~::~~:=~=_=~Z~ ~-fi~r~g::~~:'2= = :~_;-::;;.~ ~:,;,.:---~..;;>U;:::::=:::::-_:::: J1~._ __,______ ._________ m ...." ~_;~__~_.~~~~___..__~__.__;.._~,_~_.__. m ....::__~~_,,__~P__~....,___~_______~_._._. _;~ -__~~~.__~~~_" SECTION A-A ;; ~ SITE GRADING PLAN VALLEYCREST DRIVE :;;0 LOT 33, PLAN 51M-447 ;' TOWNSHIP Of ORO-MEDONTE:::; COUNTY OF SIMCOE SCM.E t: 000 1_~ !.; ,-, _,~ i.J#",P. _.__._-~.--_._..~ ..,.,,---- ."-...----~ JO-INttH.lllXl,ft.!k. ~l)lAnd~ 21Xfl: -~/.- 1'<:) = = ,:"''n I '''''"",' -, "'!, -\--.. -~/" .), !' j"" .\- ..f-.' -.,/.... (' (, ", _\_:'1~,. /\ '......(" '.'. \.' '. . '." 'J\' 1 ," /f' . ;-----"'.) . / ./_ - \/ '.F.. SUBJECT .{ '-.(\. \....\.. PROPERTY" '. <- \-...-' , . '\ 2.':: o McNEICE HARVEY D'AMICO SURVEYORS LTD. ONTARIO ~D SUIM:\'ORS e2 lAURENllAH ~E 0Il1WA, ONfARlO. LJ\/ 1K1 _ C10S) 3:26-2380 ~ ;~~/ffl l~" I MID rnm '-" = = ~0 "D 1"<> ~. l~' -.,.. - PItOP. PUMP LOT 33 1-20.34rn t.ENOTI- Af)DE:O TO ACCO PROP. HOUSE REOl) ~ / " -- /', " //~< ~~~~ .' /''. ',,- .".~ // ',,, "-, /</..::~:.~ ' /~/ ,".,~ II /~~::::,,",,<~-I / / ".~ '" ~." '" ii I //~~>' / ''-'' ~ '-'" ~ ~ - " " ~- "-, ;1 / / ~"''-" '",- """ l I / / , " . ", '-J /' /,/ ',- -'-. '" " ~/.~/<'~''''''-~ I . " . 1Q '- " I / . " , ". I ~// ~, .~ )/ / "~ -" ""-., ")-~ / // ~ ~ ---- ~--- (/[ ll' "C:::O I I I I I II I I 11 . " . -I- II LJ i I H i! [I , I r-11 I II I 1 1.1 I ii '[ , I, I ,i! I II I I -.J !~____J , , I r- , L- /~,.". /~// '-,~>...... //' ',- " ~/ " " I ~~/,-,/,. I l:7/ "~." . // ,/// "...... : " // // ./// ''-....._~~,'-, '[ /'"/ // ',', 1 , /' // '" "- ~/~ . / ''-' i . // /'// '-~...... i // ~ ,.........;~ l~ >( I' >" ~rr / i ''-J ~ I . . i ! I i r---------'4'' . ....1 I i I l'i -r , 833 _..!.. - mIl mIl I ~ffiE F': I i I I I I I I !':ld:tJ I I D:I:D I I rTIIJ D:I:D (_ __I ~II- --'1 ~, , [ i I~I\ I EHE I ! I I i 1 _ _ _~l - -.,j Eta I EHE 1---~ lEI II EHE I ; I ' Ii EEE3 ! , -ll- i '-: ~ L11=a Ii I I t1Em "" rl II I ! 11_ -l I i I I ~ , ;f, / / / /' I',' \ " /7 ','" ','. I ,',\( ''',,> ".,~ I' I i 'i I! : I i! I! Ii i I Ii : I II [ ! I II II i I Ii , ! i II ~ I , I , . , I 'I I I I[ II ! I liB " Ii ! ! ! ; II , , i I ! ! 'I' , I! I ! !~ , ! ~, \ I '- i , , II II 'I II I, I I '1 I, II , , ! n . I I, I[ I, I! , , II i I i I I I i I I I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for October 13, 2005 Rona & Janet Clarke 2005-8-44 1478 Horseshoe Valley Road East, Concession 13, Part South-West % Lot 1 (Medonte) THE PROPOSAL The applicants have applied for consent for a technical severance to re-create a lot. The lands proposed to be severed would have a lot frontage of approximately 50 metres (165 feet), a lot depth of approximately 80 metres (264 feet) and having a lot area of approximately 0.4 hectares (1 acre), The lands to be retained would have a lot area of approximately 13 hectares (33 acres), MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Agricultural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) Zone Previous Applications - None AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Public Works- No road concerns Building Department- The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and make note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department-No concerns PLANNING DEPARTMENT Background The subject lands presently exist as a single 13.7 hectare (34 acre) parcel with approximately 308 metres (1,013 feet) fronting on Line 12 and approximately 465 metres (1,526 feet) fronting along Horseshoe Valley Road. In 1968, Mr. & Mrs. Phillips claimed title to the 1 acre mor€ or less legally described as Part of the South-West Quarter of Lot 1, Concession 13, Instrument Number 273123 (deeds have been provided to the Committee). In 1969, Mr. & Mrs, Phillips purchased and claimed title to the approximate 33 acres described as Part of the South-West Quarter of Lot 1, Concession 13, Instrument Number 301496 (deeds have also been provided to the Committee). In time, the two lots merged in title, proof of which show on the transfer/deed of land dated May 28, 1992, in which the description of the lands are Part of the South-West Quarter of Lot 1, Concession 13, being the lands in Instrument Number 273123 and 301496. The purpose of this technical severance is to sever the vacant 1 acre parcel. ] OFFICIAL PLAN Section 03.3.7 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider applications to re-divide large parcels of agricultural land which have merged in title. The policy states: The creation of new lots to correct a situation where two or more lots have merged on title may be permitted, provided the Committee of Adjustment is satisfied that the new lot: . was once separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act; . is of the same shape and size as the lot which once existed as a separate conveyable lot; . can be adequately serviced by on-site sewage and water systems; . fronts on a public road that is maintained year-round by a public authority; and . an entrance permit is available for the new driveway accessing the severed lot from the appropriate authority, if required. In order to confirm that the lot to be created was once a conveyable lot, the Committee of Adjustment received registered deeds which indicate that the new lot was once legally conveyable. Based on the site inspection, it was determined that the severed lot, which fronts on an assumed public road, Line 12 North, could be serviced with on-site sewage and water systems. ZONING BY.LAW 97-95 The SUbject properly is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The proposed and retained lots would continue to comply with the provisions of the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) zone. ANALYSIS By reviewing the deeds provided by the applicants, they confirm that the one acre parcel described as Part of the South-West Quarter of Lot 1, Concession 13 was once a separate and conveyable parcel, but it is unclear when the merger between the two parcels occurred. The proposal appears to meet the criteria required by Section D3.3.7 of the Official Plan. CONCLUSION On the basis of the above, the proposed consent generally conforms with the policies of the Official Plan as they pertain to lands which have merged on title. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee Grant Provisional Consent for Application 2005-B-44 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 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. ~ "",,"""y ,"bm;"''' Andy Karaiskakis Hons. BA Planner Reviewed by, b~~k Director of Planning 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for October 13, 2005 Donald James Woodrow 2005-B-45 3624 Line 6 N., Concession 6, East Part Lot 2 (Medonte) THE PROPOSAL The applicant applied for a severance (Consent application 2004-B-35) and was approved by the Committee of Adjustment on August 12, 2004. The consent application subsequently expired and the applicant has now applied for the same objective: to permit the creation of a new residential lot. The land to be severed is proposed to have a lot frontage of approximately 67 metres (220 feet), a lot depth of approximately 100 metres (330 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acre). The land proposed to be retained would have a lot frontage of approximately 630 metres (2070 feet), a lot depth of approximately 630 metres (2070 feet) and a lot area of approximately 40 hectares (99 acres). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) Previous Applications - 2004-B-35 (Creation of new lot-approved by Committee-lapsed) AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County - Public Works- No road concerns Building Department- Engineering Department- No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The request of the applicant is to sever a new residential lot with an area of about 0.6 hectares (1.5 ac~es). The proposed lot would have frontage along Line 6 of about 67 metres (220 feet). The retained parcel would have a lot area of about 40 hectares (99 acres) with a frontage of about 630 metres (2070 feet) along Line 6. Township Of Oro-Medonte Official Plan The Oro-Medonte Official Plan perrnits lot creation for residential purposes in the Rural designation in accordance with the following policies and criteria: ....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 satislied 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. It is noted that the applicant has owned the large parcel for at least 45 years, at which time a lot has not been severed from the parcel. Zoning By-Law 97-95 As part of provisional approval from the consent application which was granted by the Committee last year, the lands subject to the severance have been rezoned to the Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone, which would permit only residential uses on the proposed lot. This rezoning was completed on June 22, 2005 as a condition of the previous approval. CONCLUSIONS The application conforms with the technical criteria for lot creation set out in Section D.3.3.1 of the Township's Official Plan. It should be noted that the applicant has submitted to the Township three copies of the Reference Plan for the severed parcel, paid the fee for cash-in- lieu of a parkland dedication and the Development Charges Fee, and has rezoned the lands. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Provisional Consent for Application 2005-B- 45 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; and 2. 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, Reviewed by, ~ ~~~FA Andy Karaiskakis Hons, B.A Planner Bruce Hoppe MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for October 13, 2005 Dawn Oschefski 2005-A-41 1081 Woodland Drive, Plan 993, Lot 29 (Orillia) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.1.3, Permitted locations for detached accessory buildinqs, to permit the construction of a 20.4 m2 (220 ff) single storey garage and is requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95: Required Proposed Minimum Required Interior Side Yard Setback 1.5 m (4.92 It) 0.66 m (2.16 It) MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROYALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential Exception (SR*2) 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 the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards, Engineering Department: No concerns Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority: PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 19 metres (62 feet), a depth of approximately 67 metres (220 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 19 metres (62 feet) and an area of 0.3 acres and is presently occupied by a cottage, a garden shed and a detached garage. The applicants wish to construct a second detached garage having an area of 20.4 m2 (220 ff) to be located 0,66 metres (2,16 feet) from the easterly property line. The Four Tests of the Minor Variance Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives: . To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. . To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. The requested variance for the addition would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline residential area as the garage is buffered by large trees along the front and side property lines. On this basis, 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? The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential Exception (SR*2), The SR*2 zone establishes a minimum interior side yard of 1.5 metres (4.92 feet). The purpose of the Exception Two is to provide lots that have a narrow lot width a reduction in minimum interior yard setbacks for buildings and structures. As the proposed garage will be set back 0.66 metres (2.16 feet) from a property line that is well buffered by mature trees, it will little or no impact on the overall character of the residential character of the lot or shoreline subdivision. With the proposed detached garage, however the lot coverage of all detached accessory buildings exceeds the required maximum lot coverage of 5%, as the proposed garage will increase the lot coverage to 5.3%. On this basis the variance is deemed to not conform to general intent of the Zoning By- law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed detached garage with a reduced interior side yard setback of 0.66 metres (2.16 feet) 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. The coverage exceedance, however, may not be appropriate and has not been applied for. Are the variances minor? Based on site inspection, the detached garage would not adversely affect the character of the residential area as the garage will be buffered from Woodland Drive and from the lot to the east by mature trees, which would have little if any impact on the streetscape of Woodland Drive. On this basis, the requested relief is deemed to be minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS Based on the above analysis, it is the Planning Departments position that the application does not meet the four test of Section 45 of the Planning Act as follows: 1. The requested variance is in keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan. 2. The requested variance is not in keeping with the intent of the Township's Zoning By- law. 3. The requested variance may not provide for the desirable development of the subject property. 4. The requested variance is minor. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee defer Minor Variance Application No. 2005-A-41 to allow time for the applicant to address the issue of exceeding the maximum lot coverage for all detached accessory buildings. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~ Andy Karaiskakis Hons. B.A. Planner Reviewed by, ~~p~p Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for October 13, 2005 Matt Marshall & Tammy Masse 2277 Lakeshore Road East, Plan 952, Lot 71 (Ora) 2005-A-40 THE PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing to demolish the existing carport to be replaced by living area while making an addition to enlarge the living area. The proposed living area will have an area of approximately 60 m2 (653 If). The proposed additions will maintain the existing setback from the interior side lot line. The following relief is being requested from Zoning By-law 97-95: 1. Setback from the minimum required interior side vard of 3 metres (9.8 feet) to maintain the existing 1.3 metres (4.2 feet) for the proposed additions. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation -Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - None AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Public Works- The interior side yard set back being proposed to 1.3 metres may make it difficult to maintain drainage between properties. Building Department - The Township Building Department has reviewed this application and make note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department- No concems 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 0.12 hectares (0.31 acres) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling. The applicants wish to demolish the existing carport to be replaced by living area having an area of approximately 45.7 m2 (492.7 If) and making an additional addition to be located at the front of the existing dwelling with an area of approximately 14.9 m2 (160.6 If). The proposed living area additions will have an area of approximately 60 m2 (653 If). The existing carport currently encroaches into the 3 metre (9.8 feet) required interior side yard setback. The proposed additions will maintain the existing 1.3 metres (4.2 feet) set back from the west side lot line. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives: . To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. . To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.. The requested variance for living space additions is considered to conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. The proposed additions will be well buffered by a mature cedar hedge being situated along the westerly property line, 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. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). One of the purposes or goals of maintaining setbacks in residential areas is to maintain a positive built form and visual quality. The mature cedar hedge on the interior side lot line will provide a form of privacy for the abutting property for the proposed additions. The proposed living space additions will have little or no impact on the intent of the by-law to provide a low density residential character to the lot or the subdivision. The site inspection revealed that the proposed additions should not adversely impact the residential neighbourhood as the additions will not further encroach into the existing interior setback. Therefore the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the By- law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed additions 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. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS The subject application to permit the construction of living space additions to the existing dwelling on the subject property generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve minor variance application 2005-A-40 subject to the following conditions: 1. The west side of the additions shall maintain the existing 1.3 metres (4.2 feet) setback from the side lot line; 2 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 that the existing setback for the additions be maintained; 3. That the applicants ensure that the existing drainage between the properties be maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department; 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 sketches and plans dated September 15, 2005 from Lucas Drafting submitted with the application. All of which is respectfully submitted, A~ Andy Karaiskakis Hans. BA Planner Reviewed by, ~~~ Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for October 13, 2005 James & Catherine Soule 2005-A-42 28 Grandview Crescent, Plan 935, Lot 24 (Ora) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing to construct a 8.4 m2 (90 ft2) deck addition to be attached at the front of the existing dwelling and are requesting relief of the following provision from Zoning By-law 97-95: i. Setback from the minimum required front vard of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to a proposed 5.5 metres (18 feet) for the proposed deck MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROY ALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential Limited Service Holding (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 the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Engineering Department: No concerns Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority: PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot frontage of 30.48 metres (100 feet), a depth of 30.3 metres (99.4 feet) and an area of 929 m2 (10,000 ft2) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling and a detached garage. The applicants wish to construct a 8.4 m2 (90 ff) deck addition to be attached at the front of the existing dwelling. The Four Tests of the Minor Yariance Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives: . To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. . To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. The requested variance for the deck addition would appear to maintain the character of the residential area as the addition would provide for a means of entrance access to the dwelling. 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 Residential Limited Service with a Holding Provision (RLS(H)). Zoning By-law 97-95 currently zones all lots that have direct frontage on private roads as RLS(H). No development is permitted on these lots until the H is removed. However, Grandview Crescent is an assumed, public and maintained Township Road. In recent years, it has been determined that a number of roads that were considered to be private have either been assumed by the Township or were indeed public roads at the time. On this basis, all lots on roads that are considered to be public and roads that are maintained by the Township will be considered to be rezoned Shoreline Residential at the time a general review of the Zoning By-law is done. The RLS and SR zone establishes a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres (24.6 metres). The intention of the required yard is to create a low density residential neighbourhood where the dwellings are set back from the street and provide a large front yard/outdoor living area between the dwelling and the street and to provide adequate parking. Certain structural features are permitted to encroach into the required yard without impact on the overall objective and intent of the by-law. Unenclosed porches and balconies and other features (chimney breasts, stairs and landings, etc.) may encroach 1.0 metres into the required front yard without an amendment to the By-law The existing dwelling complies with all other setback standards in the by-law. Given that the area of the lot proposed to be developed is relatively open and free of vegetation, the proposed variance for a deck should not adversely impact the character of the residential area. On this basis the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law, Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The proposed deck addition will not change the overall character of the dwelling and would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given that the proposed addition would provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, it would not lead to the over development of the lot. Are the variances minor? On the basis that the size of the deck is reasonable and should not adversely affect the character of the residential area, the proposed variance considered to be minor. CONCLUSIONS The proposed variances generally satisfy the 4 tests of a minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-42 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 deck be no closer than 5.5 metres (18 feet) from the front lot line; 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 deck addition be no closer than 5.5 metres (18 feet) ; and, 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch submitted with the application and approved by the Committee, as submitted. All of which is respectfully submitted, A~ki' Hoo'. B.A. Planner Reviewed by, ~ Bruce H*-R~P Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for October 13, 2005 John & Lisa Markov 2005-A-43 16 Barbara Avenue, Concession 8, Part Lots 26,27 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The aprlicants are proposing to construct a 2 storey garage having a ground floor area of 71.3 m (768 If) and are requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95: Required Proposed Maximum Height 4.5 m (14.7 It-from grade to mean level of ridge and peak) 100 m2 (1 ,076.4 If) 7 m (23 It-total height from grade to ridge) 113 m2(1,216 If) Maximum floor area for lots with an area less than 2 ha (4.9ac) zoned AlRU MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROYALS Official Plan Designation - Rural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) 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 the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department-No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 48 metres (160 feet), a lot depth of approximately 121 metres (400 feet) and a lot area of about 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres). The applicants' lot is presently occupied by a two storey dwelling with an area of about 236 m2 (2,549 fe). It is the applicants' intent to build a detached two car garage with a gross floor area of 113 m2 (1 ,216 fe) and a maximum height from grade to ridge of 7 metres (23 feet). The Four Tests of the Minor Variance Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural in the Township's Official Plan. The intent of the policies in the Rural designation are to preserve and promote the rural character of the Township and the maintenance of the open countryside and to prevent the intrusion of land uses which are incompatible with the rural character of the area. Permitted uses such as a single detached dwelling and accessory uses, such as garages, are generally appropriate and consistent with the character of the rural area. On this basis the application would generally conform with the intent of the Official Plan. Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The applicants are intending to use the proposed building for personal storage of vehicles and equipment. It is also noted that the existing dwelling does not have a basement, therefore storage is limited, In assessing the issue of conformity with the By- law it is noted that the proposal does comply with the lot coverage provision of 5% for storage buildings. On this basis, 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? In determining the desirable development of the lot, it should be noted that the property is zoned Agricultural/Rural and that the structure is proposed to be built beside the dwelling. The proposed location would maintain the character of the residential lot. On this basis, the proposed structure would provide for the appropriate and desirable development of the lot. Are the variances minor? The application is deemed to be minor in nature on the basis that the applicant has complied with the majority of the zoning provisions in the Agricultural/Rural zone for an accessory building and is significantly lower than the maximum height requirement of 11 metres (36 feet) for agricultural buildings permitted in this zone. CONCLUSIONS The proposed application for the detached garage with an increased height and floor area generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance Application 2005-A-43 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the gross floor area of the structure shall not exceed 113 m2 (1,216 ff) and the height of the structure from grade to ridge shall not exceed 7 metres (23 feet); 2. That the proposed structure shall be used in accordance with the permitted uses of the Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) zone based on the minimum lot. area requirements; 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 the Committee, as submitted. . . 4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township. of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report; and, 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. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~~ , Andy Karaiskakis Hons. B.A Planner Reviewed by, ~~ Bruce Hoppe MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for October 13, 2005 Donald Nixon 2005-A-44 3025 Ridge Road West, Concession 1, South Part Lot 1 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief of the following provision from Zoning By-law 97-95: i. Section 5.6 Maximum Heioht of a boathouse of 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to a proposed 7.4 metres (24.3 feet). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline & Rural Zoning By-law 97-95 - AgriculturallRural (AlRU) Zone Previous Applications - none AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Public Works- Building Department - No comments Engineering Department - No concerns Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority - PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 45.72 metres (150 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 45.72 metres (150 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1.3 hectares (3.4 acres). The lands currently have a frame cabin and a detached garage. The owner has submitted building permit applications for the construction of a dwelling and boathouse. The purpose of this minor variance application is to increase the height of the proposed boathouse to 7.4 metres (24.3 feet) above the elevation of the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The portion of the property closest to Ridge Road is designated Rural while the portion abutting Lake Simcoe is designated Shoreline. The primary function of the Shoreline designation is to protect the character of the shoreline residential area. Perm itted uses in the Shoreline designation primarily include residential uses as well as accessory uses. Section D10.7 of the Official Plan directs that the Zoning By-law shall include provisions that restrict the size and location of boathouses on a lot. The O.P. does not contain policies with respect to the design issues or concerns around boathouse heights or respecting accessory residential uses within boathouses. The application therefore would not offend any policy contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? One of the purposes of regulating the location and height of boathouses in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone is to prevent over.development of the shoreline frontage which may lead to the frontage being dominated by boathouse structures and ultimately impacting the character of the shoreline. Section 5.6 ot By-law 97.95 establishes setback, height, percentage of frontage, and use regulations for boathouses. The By-law specifically excludes boathouses from the total lot coverage provisions for accessory structures and does not establish a maximum floor area or ground floor area for boathouses. The proposed boathouse meets the locational (setback) provisions of the by-law and the percentage of water frontage occupied by the structure. The proposed boathouse will exceed the maximum height standard by 2.9 metres. Boathouse height is calculated not from the average finished grade (as it is with all other structures in the Township) but from the average high water mark. The intent ot this provision is to ensure that the boathouse remains secondary to the dwelling on the site, does not dominate the shoreline elevations, and does not negatively impact views from adjacent development. This is particularly so in areas of the Township characterized by small lots and narrow shoreline frontages. Based on a site inspection, it is noted that the subject lot is large and is on a lower grade than Ridge Road. It is also noted that the subject lot appears to form part of a historic and redeveloping "estate" area. Moreover, the significant steep slopes from the waters edge to the "plateau" of the lot create a rather unique building location for the boathouse. The boathouse, proposed to be constructed from the shoreline and into the shoreline bank, will as a result have a lower height than the proposed home. The proposed boathouse will remain, visually, secondary to the dwelling, will not dominate the shoreline, and will not Impact the potential views from adjacent lands. On this basis the variance is deemed to conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Given the size of the lots shoreline frontage in relation to the proposed boathouse and in recognition of the unique location for the boathouse "into the bank" of the shoreline, the proposed boathouse height will not result in the over-development of the subject lot or the shoreline. In addition the proposed boathouse will match the design style of the proposed home and will be generally consistent with the nature of estate style development in this area of the Oro-Medonte shoreline. On this basis the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot. Is the variance minor? As Committee is aware, "minor" is not determined on a mathematical basis. Although the requested relief represents almost doubling of the by-law standard, in recognition of the unique site conditions and configuration, it can be deemed to be minor on this basis. CONCLUSIONS The subject application generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance. It should be noted that at the time the report was written, comments have yet to be received from the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2005-A-44 subject to the following conditions: 2 1. That the maximum height of the proposed boathouse not exceed 7.4 metres (24.3 feet) and that the location of the boathouse be in substantial conformity with the site plan submitted with the application: 2. That the applicant obtain approval, if required, from the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority, if required: 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. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~~ Andy Karaiskakis, Hons. B.A Planner Reviewed by, ~~~ Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for October 13, 2005 Del Coin Holdings lne. 2005-B-47 5315 Highway 11, Cone. 1, Part Lot 15, RP 51R-33232, Part 1 (Orillia) THE PROPOSAL The applicants have applied for consent for the creation of a new lot. The lands proposed to be severed would have a lot frontage along Highway 11 of approximately 227.5 metres (746.41 It), a lot depth of approximately 79.6 metres (261.25 ft) and a lot area of approximately 3.4 hectares (8.5 acres). The lands to be retained would have a lot area of approximately 40.5 hectares (100 acres). The intent of the severance application is to sever off the commercially zoned section of the property fronting on Highway 11 from the remainder of the parcel. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation -Restricted Rural & Commercial Zoning By-law 97-95 - AgriculturallRural (A/RU) Environmental Protection (EP) & General Commercial (GC) Zones Previous Applications - 2004-B-25 (boundary adjustment of 95 acres to Del Coin-granted) AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Public Works- Building Department-The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and make note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department-No concerns PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to create a new commercial lot with a road frontage along Highway 11 of approximately 227.5 metres (746.41 ft), a lot depth of approximately 79.6 metres (261.25 ft) and a lot area of approximately 3.4 hectares (8.5 acres). The retained lands would have an area of approximately 40.5 hectares (100 acres). Last year, Committee approved a boundary adjustment which conveyed approximately 95 acres to the property owned by Del Coin which enhanced the Del Coin property to approximately 110 acres. As noted above, the intent of this application is to sever off the section of property designated and zoned Commercial fronting on Highway 11 from the remainder of the parcel. OFFICIAL PLAN The lands subject io this application are designaied Commercial in the Oro.Medonte Official Plan. The intent of the Commercial policies is io ensure that commercial uses are sited at appropriate locations that take advantage of existing infrastructure and to ensure that the design of new commercial development is sensitive to the rural character of the Township and contributes to the improvement of the appearance of the Highway 11 Corridor. Section D8.3 Form of Development _ indicates that any new commercial use or the expansion of existing commercial uses may be subject to Site Plan Control. New lots for commercial use may be created by consent if the lot(s): a) can be serviced by Township or County Roads or by existing commercial entrances from Highway 11, provided that the approval of the consent will not lead to a major increase in the amount of traffic utilizing the existing commercial entrances on Highway 11; and b) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and an appropriate means of sewage disposal. The subject property has frontage on both Highway 11 and Line 14 South. Vehicular access serving an existing commercial building is via Line 14 South. This access is not proposed to be changed. Any future commercial development will be subject to Site Plan Control, which will include submission of a traffic study which will need to review the access configuration for any new use. Furthermore, a private sewage disposal system will need to be designed to support such use. To this end, the subject application would conform to the Official Plan. ZONING BY-LAW The lands subject to this application is zoned General Commercial (GC) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The proposed lot would comply with the minimum lot frontage and the minimum lot area in the GC Zone. CONCLUSION In reviewing the application for the creation of one new commercial lot, it is the Planning Departments position that the application conforms with the general intent of the Commercial policies of the Official Plan. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Consent application 2005-B-47 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the applicant pay $ 500.00 for the lot created as cash-in-Iieu of a parkland contribution; 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. All of which is respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, ~~, Director of Planning }~~ Andy Karaiskakis, Hons. B.A. Planner . ~ . . "W ORlUlA .. Jll'I " ~ " _.....-.~::::::":::.~.. ~ _ ...._ra-.___~__........ "~",_"",,,"'__GJ_Gf"'__ .NOTB COMPONENTS OF THE ENVIRONl(ENTAL PROTECTION ONE AND TWO DESIGNATIONS ARE SHOWN ON SCHEDULE B 500 0 toOO 2000m h..J I I 1:30,000 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN SCHEDULE All FEBRUARY 1997 LEGEND ZONES Rt - Residential One R2 - Residential Two RURI - Rural Residential One RUM - RUl'al Residential Two SR - Shoreline Residential RLS - Residential Limited Service IR - Rural Industrial U - Local Industrial ED - Economic Development AP Airport WD - Waste Di5possl LC - Local Commercial GC - General Commercial A/RU - Agricultural/Rural EP Environmental Protection os - Open Space PR - Private Recreational FP - Floodplain Overlay MARl - Mineral Aggregate Resource One MAR2 - Mineral Aggregate Resource Two - institutional FD - Future Development I (QRILLIA) @ 12 CITY OF ORlWA KEY PLAN XIV Xt Xll t7 ~~--~~~~~A' I V - 1 ..-., <ORILLIA) t9 ~~)J/t7 ~ XtV 20 ~~~. XlII ~q; XII 21 .... ,0.. Xl 500 0 1000 2000m \.... ..J I I 1 :30,000 TOWNSHIP OF ZONING SCHEDULE ORO-MEDONTE BY - LAW All XIII CIIAID : i.i I ~~.f:- ;==_..."".-.:s...:..~.~==-~~:::.-~.' -----~-S. i~---""-"'" t~~::; _ .' _,,_ __ __ ______________--,,-- j' ,r- ~-:-"I.j;:::-:i ~-.--...---~~~C--:~ - =:: ........-.-.--.~.-~.=-;':":-,....,..:.....J...:::--":'~ .l;<:~?l:~~~;~ '---7:.'--- --- - r'--:tjf--- .. __._~____" -'_:::.:-:,:.::::--::::~::::::ft:~<, :r ~... -11/ ~ €=~;~=E~cc,~~~~ Iii:), ___m___ __ -~-- - ___us; ~h ~v_ -- W - "j' ____~.~~ ._~~-~-~-~- f~ii--=-;:;r~::,~r-t:J'>.r,7::--: ____ ~__ _ _~ _.___~____~.r"_ I'-~;:.f' r' _>~....~,~"'.'ii!""(' ~ ____________ --- - ~ ' fi;-':l~:.f--.;~t_~:r~~' ~~: ___~__~----~ ~ -- c::::::.r~II--~...ry...f1.);i~ ~,"-~:;;.; ~~---~-=--=::.---.::- _~:--- ~ __ : - ~~~jil'~~:f;:~:-y;tti~<:f j'~ I' ....... " .. ._-_-J...r-.'..~l:,f...~.J'f -""./.1".!-" ~_~__~___ ___ ---",-'(' ~:'''''J -'-,;)ooO'''',r'-r . . > ,_~ ~O____ ---;:-:~ _~~<"r-~.{ - - ~- - .-- 3.r---'---.,.- __J,_? , ___...._./ ~ 1"-/f_~,,-iJ-'^r.i~'/"~J',~~'~, _ ...____;;...00-. __----------~.. -'" ~-, -' ~""~-'..~,<,;.r~ GtJanoal:)'I~---::=-.=-'""":"~~' :_~ ...< ::....~-,~;\/"'.-::.-~~ .', 2i10T}0r;1n~-r~~'- ,t'~~___~_~_~__ts: - -~ ~a"co"f:l; ! --.. -~-- . .------- ------ ~-...,.".,....-'"'-......--;;, ~!!!!!!~~~~....c:-~c::'.1 ~l.)tJantJ'n) ::~: ~~' >"~ ~_=__=~____ ~I'-~ IHHHH'H.lV -;"~_ /~ ~';.-- __ lb. . ..-- H ,.~' co"co"c! _ ~ .-" ........ an!Janoc y J , ~~ ,e ~d ___ _ .__. __ {_(j~u~ai'.H'1 :~...- .~--::...< :.r.-_:_y,-..:T.:.,: ';-:;:":"ti';'<::":">_',-:.r.-?i':- r::-:'::-';!"'''' /.. - ii:;1' ~ ~-~,tt._.., ,~_",~_~_.!'~o--~~V:"'~';:;'1>"4 0-- '-7 ,.,.,~'?~ ;1 _~ I ',"" ~,J.:->?-~q/~'" \11 11'1' ~ j \~~7.t"'" :1 i j ) I 13 14 XIV CIIAID 15 'L- I! .. ,"" _~_,.~ - '11 lot.h- .. IL:~::...:-:~.:~-:::~.-::... . " -.-...;../' '-- r , - .""';"'., ...... I;.~ l ' ;./::::"~~'~~~f --r . .d::? .' It:-=~~,/ 1:"::;:3 Ii ,/ .li.--,. .,..~,~,. _.r- '-' 1 I .-:::x.::::: ~. ~. Col' -....:; .--- ~/~ ~ ~ j 0'-- Ilo1 ~ ~ ~__-r------ Note: All the lakes. rl...re and creeks ldentitled on thla schedule ue subject to the poUelllll of SecUon Gl and G4 of thla Plan. \ COMP~~NT~ ~ 13 ~ XIV 14 15 XIII 1.--0\'(, I <DRILLIA) XIV XIII ~' " ~ .., v ?v l!l//#~- 0,1.: /\:".;1 1/,' . _~I ~~. g~\ t::l I co -.l rv N5ll'52'OO' J:i1U U"""O Z::r:Z <r;P-,<r; ;;::<r; 00::0~ ......Clo::""" ......00""" <r;J:i1 d ClIZ.,O:: p 00 <r;J:i1 O::r:(/)::r: O::E-<P-,E-< """:;J """Z::r:O <r;J:i1(/)(/) ZJ:i1Z .....,;;::;;:: SE-<O 0::J:i1E-< om / / ~. / 52.''\ ,,~ ~4' PART 1 ~. <pG' 51 R-5869 ,co'!> Q" (2NDLY) -i'\<-- (lSTLY) 428.32' ::r: E-< ~g rn ~::!; o !:3~ ~ ORIGINAL W - 1 / 2 l~b "T"D -ee - SelltU't> :!: S, 5 o.Gfc:. S V\'fHwt /I YiJ;i / ~~ /~tP~ +,< ~ LI\WQ To o ~ '-h. "- ~61": IN'O '\ ,0 e.~ '" <\ '" '" ~ q,~ '-" .:t IO? (ldt$ o v ~ So> v~_PART 1 5\ 0'6' ^ 0 51R-29496 \5', ."d v OOOci. . "" ft.!) ,~ 1"\\-\ 5'C5\'>5-GG'23\\..\) -- oG' 'iP 'ZQ"~ . " '. L. 0 l' -~ , ....." - ROAD LOT 1 6 '\. 1 5 '" 426) LOT 1 6 N BEARINGS ARE ASTRONOMIC OERIVED FROM THE. Wi BEARING OF N31"38'OO-W AS SHOWN ON PLAN Sf !P) -REFERS TO PlAN 51R-9552 Pll -REFERS TO p~ 51R-18145 P2 -REfERS TO PLAN 51R-27229 P3 -REFERS TO PLAN 187254 (MTD D) -REFERS TO INSf. R071 Ja68 11428) -DENOTES C.T. STRONGMAN OLS 69S} -DENOTES LM. McNEICE OLS OdeS) -DENOTES DEARDEN at STANTON lTD. .~\ UTO) -DENOTES UINISTRY Of TRANSPORTA1 ,,"" N50/40'30"E(I.I) 1'15;'42'00"[(0) ...; Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for October 13, 2005 Nick & Cathy Rinaldi 2005-A-45 Concession 7, Part Lot 26 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting permission from the Committee of Adjustment to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling which lies within the 30 metres (98.4 feet) setback limit from the Environmental Protection Zone. The proposed dwelling will be setback approximately 15 metres (49.2 feet) from the Environmental Protection Zone, as shown on the attached sketch. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural & Environmental Protection Two Overlay Zoning By-law 97.95 - Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Public Works- Entrance location to be determined with application. Drainage ditch on property must be maintained Building Department- No comments Engineering Department- 1 foot reserve will have to be removed at end of Elm Court PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a street frontage of approximately 16 metres (52 feet) on Elm Court, a lot depth of approximately 381 metres (1,250 feet) and a lot area of approximately 15 hectares (38 acres). The property is currently vacant. The applicants are proposing to construct a two storey single detached dwelling with an area of 287 m2 (3091 W). The proposed dwellir.g will be located within the setback 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 dwelling. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural and Environmental Protection Two Overlay in the Official Plan. The primary function of this designation is to preserve and promote the rural character of the Township and the maintenance of the open countryside and to prevent the intrusion of land uses which are incompatible with the rural character of the area. Permitted uses in the Rural designation includes single detached dwellings as well as accessory uses. In reviewing Schedule B-Components of the Environrnental Protection One & Two Designations, it appears that the Environrnental Protection located on the lands are part of a Significant Vegetation, one of the components of the Environmental Protection Two Designation. As the proposed dwelling will maintain the character of the rural community, and would appear to maintain the character of the surrounding area, the proposal appears to conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? In assessing the issue of conformity with the Zoning By-law, the proposed dwelling should not detract from the overall character of the lot and surrounding natural features being the mature trees located on the lot. One of the purposes of regulating structures being built within 30 metres of the 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. The application has been circulated to the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority who has not commented on the proposal to date. Based on site inspection, the proposed location of the dwelling appears to be dry and there is no evidence of a watercourse in the area, therefore the proposed dwelling would therefore conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law subject to LSRCA endorsement which will be recommended as a condition of approval. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The proposed dwelling 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 single detached dwelling and will continue to maintain the rural 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 would not appear to adversely affect the integrity of the Environmental Protection Zone, 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 the Committee approve minor variance 2005-A-45 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed dwelling 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 dwelling be located no closer than 15 metres (49.2 feet) from the Environmental Protection Zone; 3. That the applicants adhere to the comments from the Public Works Department to the satisfaction of the Township, 4. That the appropriate approvals be obtained from the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority, if required; 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. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~s Hons.B.A Planner Reviewed by, ~~- Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for October 13, 2005 Lester & Cristina Cooke 2005-8-41 - 2005-B-43 18 Moon Point Drive, Concession 3, South Part Lot 7, Plan 920 (OrilIia) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of applications 2005-B-41, 2005-B-42, 2005-B-43 is to permit the creation of 3 new residential lots. Each lot to be created is proposed to have a lot frontage of approximately 45.72 metres (150 feet), a lot depth of approximately 134 metres (440 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.6 hectare (1.5 acres). The land proposed to be retained would have a lot area of approximately 3.6 hectares (8.8 acres). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Existing: Restricted Rural Proposed: Shoreline (Proposed Official Plan Amendment 19) Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) 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 create 3 new residential lots fronting on Moon Point Drive. The lands proposed to be severed are currently vacant with a significant amount ot tree cover located at the rear of the lots. The retained lands contain an existing dwelling. On April 6, 2005, Council approved Official Plan Amendment 19 which redesignated the lands subject to the severances from the Restricted Rural to the Shoreline designation. OPA 19 was subsequently approved by the County on May 11, 2005, and has been subsequently appealed and is now subject to an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. OFFICIAL PLAN While the in.force designation is Restricted Rural, these consent applications have been evaluated under the Council and County approved Shoreline designation. Section 010-3.5 Preferred Means of Land ~ivision - indicates that land division by plan of subdivision rather than consent 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/units (Modification #51); or, b) the extension of a municipal water or sewer system is required to service the proposed lotslunits (Modification #51): or, c) the area that is proposed to be developed is not considered to be infilling; or, d) a Plan of Subdivision/Condominium (Modification #51) is required to ensure that the entire land holding or area is developed in an orderly and efficient manner; or, e) more than three new lots/units (Modification #51) are being created. The applicant is proposing the creation of three residential lots, have access on an existing public road, and would be considered infilling between existing residential properties. On this basis, the application would conform with the policies permitting the creation of three new residential lots by consent and not require the development to occur by a plan of subdivision. Section D10.3.7 of the Official Plan deals with lot creation in the Shoreline designation: D1 0.3.7 New residential lots by consent The creation of new lots for a residential use by consent to sever is permitted, provided a Plan 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 lots and the lot fo 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 staff's position that the new lots conform with this intent. ZONING BY-LAW The lands subject to the application are currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The proposed severed lots will 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 Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The retained lot would continue to comply with the provisions of the Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) zone. It should be noted that the applicant has applied for the rezoning of the proposed lots, however, the by-law has not yet been finalized. Therefore, a condition as part of provisional approval for rezoning the severed lots is not required. ANAL YSIS The application as submitted would conform with the Official Plan for the creation of three new residential lots. It is the Planning Departments recommendation that the Committee approve the consent applications as submitted for the creation of three residential lots. Should an appeal be submitted for the consent applications, the OMB can then consider the OPA and the Consent applications simultaneously. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee Grant Provisional Consent for Applications 2005-B-41, 2005-B-42 & 2005-6-43 for the creation of three residential lots 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 applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for each parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That all Municipal taxes be paid to the Municipality; 4. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee in the amount of $4,055.78 (By-law 2004-082) to the Township; 5. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for each iot created as cash-in-Iieu of a parkland contribution; 6. That Official Plan Amendment 19 receive final approval; 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, ~~ Andy Karaiskakis Hons. BA Planner Reviewed by, Bruce Hoppe, CIP, RPP Director of Planning lYH1}J Yl(;W(;! l j'Aap Tools f Search Tools 9 quick search find address i [(; Map Contents . I*' Advanced Tools . CLltKIIEIlE rOlllmu i .II Map Views ] . .. "",It ,,:t \ .~ .. \ C " ~ . ;; I '" ~ Xl '~ .'/ .. .-- .- .-- . ... . ~Iunlnlnll ]": i "J 1:13,412.4 ~ J http://www.maps.discoversimcoe.comlonpointlonpoint?FOR W ARD:::utility?LlNK :::onpointframe 10/6/2005 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for October 13, 2005 Douglas Shaw 1079 Lakeshore Road East, Plan 882, Part Lots 22 and 23 (Ora) A-39/03{Revised) THE PROPOSAL Previously the applicant applied for and was granted the following relief for the construction of a detached garage: i, Front yard setback Required 7.5 m (24.6 It) 2m (6.5ft) Granted December 11, 2003 1.8 m (6 ft) west corner, 4.87 m (16 It) north corner 1 m(3.51t) ii, Interior side yard setback The applicant is now proposing to revise the application by relocated the detached garage to the west side of the lot and is requesting the following relief: iiL Front yard setback Granted December 11 , 2003 1.8 m (6 ft) west corner, 4.87 m (16 ft) north corner Proposed 0.9 m (3 It) to the closest corner of the detached garage iv. Interior side yard setback 1 m(3.51t) 1.5m(51t) MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - A-47/01 (Expansion of dwelling for basement addition-granted) AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Public Works: Drainage between properties is not to be affected with proposed garage being close to property lines. 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 applicant has revised the minor variance application for the relocation of the detached garage. The purpose of the relocation is that the location of the previously approved garage would lie atop of the septic mantle area, which is not permitted. Therefore the applicant has revised the location of the detached garage to the west side of the lot and is requested the above noted relief. The applicant proposes to build a detached garage with an area of 69.6 m2 (750 fr-) in front of an existing dwelling on a shoreline residential lot which has an area of 3,331 m2 (35,855 W). It is understood that the front yard is the only available building area for a detached garage given the location of the driveway and septic system on the lot. The Four Tests of the Minor Variance Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline. The primary function of the Shoreline designation is to identify and permit residential uses which are compatible and in keeping with the character of a shoreline residential community. The proposed variance, which would permit the construction of a detached garage in the front yard is in keeping with the intent of the Official P~. . Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? One of the purposes of maintaining minimum front yards in the Shoreline Residential Zone is to maintain and protect the residential character of a single detached shoreline residential community. It is also the intent of the By-law to permit accessory uses that are reasonable and incidental to a residential use subject to reasonable setbacks. The front yard is established to ensure adequate area exists between the road and garage for adequate on site parking. The side yard setback is also intended to provide appropriate area for access, maintenance and potential drainage between properties. Based on the sketch submitted, staff cannot determine whether on site parking will be adequate, and therefore will be recommending that the application be deferred to ensure that the intent of the Zoning By-law is not compromised. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The subject application has been precipitated to some degree by a narrow lot and the existing location of the septic system and driveway. Although the proposed garage will be located close to the road, it should not detract from the character of the lot or the surrounding neighbourhood. Given that the applicant does not currently have a garage and the lot is somewhat constrained due to its narrowness, the proposed variance is considered to be reasonable. On this basis, the subject variance should provide for the appropriate and desirable development of the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the proposed garage is modest in size relative to the applicant's lot and appears to be a reasonable location for an accessory dwelling, the requested relief is deemed to be minor. CONCLUSIONS To ensure conformity with the Zoning By-law, it is staffs' opinion that the application be deferred at the present time to allow the opportunity for the Townships' Road Superintendent to visit the site and determine whether on site parking will be adequate and to ensure that the intent of the Zoning By-law is not compromised. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee defer application A-39/03 to allow time for the Townships' Road Superintendent to visit the site and determine whether on site parking will be adequate and to ensure that the intent of the Zoning By-law is not compromised. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~YilioOOtv Andy Karaiskakis, Hons.SA Planner Reviewed by, ~~ Director of Planning Committee of Adiustment Minutes Thursdav September 15, 2005, 9:30 a.m. In Attendance: Chairman Allan Johnson, Member Dave Edwards, Member Garry Potter, Member Lynda Aiken, Member Michelle Lynch, Secretary-Treasurer Andy Karaiskakis, and Director of Planning Bruce Hoppe 1. Communications and Correspondence a) Correspondence to be addressed at the time of the specific hearing. b) July 2005 OACA Newsletter Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch That the Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustments Newsletter of July 2005 be received. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest Member Garry Potter declared a conflict of interest regarding application 2005-B-40 as his boat is stored at the marina owned by the applicant. 3. Hearinqs: 9:30 James Swan Plan 742, Lot 2 (Oro) 209 Bay Street 2005-A-34 In Attendance: None BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Garry Potter "That the Committee hereby grant Minor Variance 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 .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment-September 15, 2005 Page 1 9:40 Douglas & Kathleen Speers Cone. 11, Part Lot 14 (Medonte) 5236 Line 11 North 2005-A-35 In Attendance: Doug Speers, applicant BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby grant Minor Variance 2005-A-35 for the construction of a swimming pool which is located within the limits of the Environmental Protection Zone and to recognize the 166 m2 (1791 ft2) addition to the dwelling which was constructed in 2004 and be subject to the following conditions: . 1, That the size and setbacks of the proposed swimming pooi be in conformity with the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; 2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c,P. 13. "...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-September 15, 2005 Page 2 9:50 Bartor Associates Cone. 6, Part Lot 27, RP 51 R-16789 (Oro) 2005-B-40 In Attendance: Frank Pizzatelli, solicitor for applicants, Frank Lepschi, owner of 220 Lakeshore Road West, Edgar Marten, owner of 226 Lakeshore Road West, Ritz Zair on behalf of Edgar Marten, Helme Kaju, owner of 223 Lakeshore Road West. Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Peter Kaju, 223 Lakeshore Road West, received September 14, 2005 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Dave Edwards "That the Committee hereby grant Consent application 2005-8-40 as amended with a lot depth of 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 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 the Lot 39, Plan 807, 220 Lakeshore Road West 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 applicants solicitor 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 this notice; 6. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning on the subject lands to accurately reflect the residential land use; and, 7. If further buildings are proposed to be erected on the subject lands or if the lot grading changes, the existing drainage must remain as is. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment~September 15, 2005 Page 3 10:00 Daniel Cibirka Cone. 7, Part Lot 27 (Oro) 112 Lakeshore Road West 2005-A-36 In Attendance: Dan Cibirka, applicant BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby grant Minor Variance 2005-A-36 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,Q. 1990, c.P. 13; 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. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment-September 15, 2005 Page 4 10:10 Curtis Gray & Christina Bremer Conc. 1, Part Lot 40 (Vespra) 3342 Penetanguishene Road 2005-B-39 In Attendance: Curtis Gray, applicant Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Rachelle Hamelin, Planner II, County of Simcoe, dated September 13, 2005 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Garry Potier "That the Committee hereby defer Consent application 2005-8-39 until such time as the Craighurst Secondary Plan is considered further by Council and a further assessment of the Official Plan conformity can be conducted ..."Carried," Committee of Adjustment-September 15, 2005 Page 5 10:20 Merle & Howard Carr Conc. 5, Lot 13, Plan M593 (Oro) 4 Melville Court 2005-A-38 ' In Attendance: None BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby grant Minor Variance 2005-A-38, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set oLlt 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 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.September 15, 2005 Page 6 10:30 Bob White 2005-A-08(Revised) East Part Lots 111, 112, 113, Plan 589 (Oro) 98 Lakeshore Road East In Attendance: Bob White, applicant BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Dave Edwards "That the Committee hereby grant Minor Variance 2005-A-08 as revised for a second floor balcony to be located at the front of the dwelling and for an .exterior side yard setback of 3.8 metres (12.67 feet) and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set. out in the application and on the sketches submitted with the application dated August 22, 2005 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 the dwelling: . a) be no closer than 16 metres (53 feet) from the front lot line and that the proposed deck be no closer than 14 metres (47 feet) from the front lot line; b) be no closer than 2.4 metres (8 feet) from the interior side lot line; c) be no closer than 5 metres (17 feet) from the rear property line; and, d) be no closer than 3.8 metres (12.67 feet) from the exterior side yard; 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+Seplember 15, 2005 Page 7 10:40 Mary Jane Sarjeant Range 2, Part Lots 1 and 2 (Oro) 2249 Ridge Road West 2005-A-37 ' In Attendance: Matt Pryce, representing applicant, Prycon Custom Building BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby grant Minor Variance 2005-A-37 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; . 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 conformity 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 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 applicant obtain approval for the combined application for Site Plan Control/Removal of the Holding Provision, . "..Carried." Committee of Adjustment-September 15, 2005 Page 8 10:50 Tang Fen Wong 2005-B-38(Revised) 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, , Marshall Green, lawyer representing Woods & Lipson, Robert O'Hara, 6 Pemberton Lane, Peter Maxwell, 1 Pemberton Lane BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Defer Consent Application 2005-8-38 as revised to a special Committee of Adjustment Meeting on Tuesday October 25, 2005 at 7:00 p,m. to allow the applicant to meet with the interested parties for mediation and to consider the potential to revise their application if deemed necessary .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment-September 15, 2005 Page 9 5. Other Business i. Adoption of minutes for August 11, 2005 Meeting Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the minutes for the August 11 th 2005 Meeting be adopted as prinied and circulated C 'd" ... arne . 6. Adiournment Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Michelle Lynch "We do now adjourn at 2:30 p.m." ... Carried." (NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.) Chairperson, Allan Johnson Secretary-Treasurer, Andy Karaiskakis Commit1ee of Adjustment-September 15, 2005 Page 10