11 10 2005 C of A Agenda
Committee of Adiustment AQenda
Q~..
Thursday November 10 2005. 9:30 a.m.
1. Communications and Correspondence
2. Disclosure 01 Pecuniary Interest
3. Hearings:
9:30
2005-B-46
Ronald Russell
Plan M112, Lot 31 (Medonte)
9:40
2005-A-46
Bob Inman
Plan 952, Lots 64, 65 (Oro)
2265 Lakeshore Road East
9:50
2005-A-47
St. George & St. Rueiss Church
Conc. 8, West Part Lot 25 (Oro)
703 Line 7 South
10:00
2005-A-31
Tim Russell
Conc. 5, East Part Lot 19 (Medonte)
5718 Line 5 North
10:10
2005-B-51
Peter & Margaret Kells
Conc. 11, Part West Y2 Lot 5
(Medonte)
10:20
A-5/75
Susan & Brian Wiese
Lot 27, Plan 702 (Ora)
59 O'Brien Street
4. Decisions
5. Other business
-Adoption 01 minutes lor October 13, 2005 Meeting and October 25, 2005 Special
Meeting
6. Adjournment
.
,
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
November 10, 2005
Ronald Russell
2005-8-46
Concession 4, Plan M-112, Lot 31 (Medonte)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant applied for a boundary adjustment (Consent application 2004-B-27) and was
approved by the Committee of Adjustment on July 15, 2004. The consent application
subsequently expired and the applicant has now applied for the same objective: to permit a
boundary adjustment. The land to be added to the adjacent parcel of land, Lot 32, is proposed to
have a lot depth of approximately 131.9 metres (433 feet), a lot width of approximately 18.2
metres (60 feet) and a lot area of 2,413.5 square metres (25,980 square feet). The land proposed
to be retained, Lot 31, would have a lot frontage of 43.2 metres (142 feet), a lot depth of 131.9
metres (433 feet), and a lot area of 0.7 hectares (1.8 acres). No new building lots will be created
as a result of the boundary adjustment.
.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural Residential
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Rural Residential Two Exception 5 (RUR2*5) Zone
Previous Applications - 2004-B-27 Boundary Adjustment approved - lapsed
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County-
Municipal Works and Roads-
Building Department-
Fire Department-
Engineering Department-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment from a vacant lot that he currently owns to the
neighbouring residential lot that contains a dwelling that is also owned by the applicant. The
purpose of the adjustment is to ensure that the well associated with the dwelling is contained on
the same lot as the dwelling (Lot 32).
.
OFFICIAL PLAN
The subject property is designated Rural Residential in the Official Plan which is intended to
recognize estate residential subdivision areas (existing registered and draft plan approved). The
two lots subject to the proposed boundary adjustment are contained within an existing plan of
subdivision that was registered in 1977. The proposed boundary adjustment would continue to
maintain two existing rural residential lots and would therefore conform with the intent of the
Official Plan policies.
ZONING BY-LAW
Both Lots 31 and 32 in Plan M-112 are zoned Rural Residential Two Exception 5 (RUR2*5) in the
Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The exception reflects special standards for
certain residential developments in the former Township of Medonte and requires larger lot
frontage and lot area requirements. If the boundary adjustment were approved by the
Committee, both lots would continue to comply with the required provisions of exception 5 and
Lot 32 would be required to meet the appropriate setbacks for building also contained within
exception 5 at the time of construction on the property.
CONCLUSION
The application generally conforms with the policies of the Rural Residential Designation in the
Official Plan as there is not new lot being created. The proposed boundary adjustment would
also ensure that both properties affected continue to comply with the required Zoning By-law
provisions and would ensure that the well associated with the existing dwelling is wholly
contained within the same property. It should be noted that the applicant has submitted to the
Township three copies of the Reference Plan for the severed parcel.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee Grant Provisional Consent for Application 2005-B-46 subject
to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant prepare and subm it a copy of the proposed conveyance for each
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 this notice.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
A~
Andy Karaiskakis, Hons. B.A.
Planner
,
Reviewed by,
~:,~
Director of Planning
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
November 10, 2005
Bob Inman
2005-A-46
2265 Lakeshore Road East, Plan 952, Lots 64, 65 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing on constructing a single detached dwelling with a wrap around
playground area to be located to the south and west of the dwelling. The dwelling will meet the
required 20 metres (65.6 feet) setback from the high water mark of Lake Simcoe, but as the
playground area will consist of a concrete slab with retaining walls, it is considered part of the
main structure and will be situated closer to the average high water mark than the required 20
metres (65.6 feet) and from the required interior side yard setback of 2 metres (6.5 feet). The
applicant is requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95:
Setback from the average high water mark Required
of Lake Simcoe-for the playground area, retaining wall (structure) 20 m (65.6 ft)
Interior side yard setback-for playground area, retaining wall
2m (6.5ft)
Proposed
17m (56ft)
1.4 m (4.5 ft)
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-
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority-
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 36 metres (118 feet), a lot depth of
approximately 61 metres (200 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 36 metres (118 feet)
and a lot area of approximately 0.2 hectares (0.57 acres). The lands currently have a one storey
log dwelling with an area of approximately 91 m2 (988 ft2). The owner is proposing to demolish
the existing dwelling and build a one storey new single detached dwelling with an attached
concrete playground area at the lake side of the dwelling. The gross floor area for the new
dwelling would be 596.2 m2 (6418 ft") and is proposed to be setback 20.58 metres (67.6 feet)
from the high water mark of Lake Simcoe. The playground area, which is considered part of the
main structure, will be setback 17 metres (55 feet) from the average high water mark of Lake
Simcoe and 1.4 metres (4.5 feet) from the interior side lot line.
.
1
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the
Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives:
. To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area.
. To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.
The requested variances for the dwelling and attached playground area would appear to maintain
the character of the shoreline residential area and would therefore conform with the intent of the
policies contained in the Official Plan.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The primary role of setbacks to Lake Simcoe is to protect the natural features of the shoreline
area and the immediate shoreline. The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority has been
circulated the minor variance but has yet to comment on the proposal. The site inspection
revealed that the proposed dwelling will be situated closer to Lake Simcoe than the existing
dwelling but will meet the minimum required setback from Lake Simcoe of 20 metres (65.6 feet).
The attached playground area will be located closer to Lake Simcoe than the minimum
requirement. As the playground area should not adversely impact the shoreline, the proposal is
considered to conform with the general intent of the By-law subject to LSRCA endorsement which
will be recommended as a condition of approval.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed new dwelling and playground area would appear to be
appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding shoreline
residential area. Given that the proposed dwelling and attached playground area 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 main dwelling will meet the required 20 metres (65.6 feet) from Lake
Simcoe. and the attached playground area is open and should not lead to the overdevelopment of
the lot, and is considered to be reasonable and would not adversely affect the character of the
shoreline residential area, the proposed variances are considered to be minor in nature.
CONCLUSIONS
The subject application to permit an attached playground area on the subject property closer to
the required setbacks from the high water mark and from the interior lot line generally satisfies the
four tests of the minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2005-A-46 subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposed attached playground area be setback no closer than 17 metres (55 feet)
from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe;
2. The proposed attached playground area be setback no closer than 1.4 metres (4.5 feet)
from the interior side lot line;
2
3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, and on
the sketches submitted with the application;
4. That the applicant obtain approval from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, if
required;
5. 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 surveyJreal property report; and,
6. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
A~
Andy Karaiskakis Hons.BA
Planner
Reviewed by,
~tt~
Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
3
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
November 10, 2005
St. George & St. Rueiss Coptic Orthodox Church
2005-A-47
703 Line 7 South, Cone. 8, West Part Lot 25 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting permission lrom the Committee 01 Adjustment to recognize
an existing addition to the church. The addition, a rain shed, is located closer than the
minimum required lront yard setback. The applicant is requesting relief 01 the lollowing
provisions lrom Zoning By-law 97-95:
Front yard setback-lor the rain shed
Required
7_5 m (24.6 It)
Proposed
2 m (6.5 It)
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREYIOUS APPROV ALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Institutional (I) 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:
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot lrontage of approximately 22.4 metres (73.5Ieet), a depth
01 approximately 40 metres (132Ieet) and an area 01890 rn2 (9,583 If) and is presently
occupied by a one storey church with an area 01 approximately 112 m2 (1,209 If). The
applicant wishes to construct a 1.5 metre (4.9 loot) concrete slab around the entrance 01
the church to protect the existing church loundation. The applicant is requesting
permission Irom the Committee to recognize the existing rain shed addition attached to the
church_
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural Settlement Area in the Ollicial Plan. Section D4.1
which contains the policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the lollowing
Objectives:
. To maintain and create attractive communities with suitable amenities.
. To ensure that settlement areas are developed in a logical and cost-effective
manner.
The requested variance lor the rain shed addition would appear to maintain the
character 01 the residential area as the addition would provide lor a means 01 entrance
access to the church_ On this basis, the proposed variance would therelore conlorrn
with the intent 01 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 Institutional (I) in Zoning By-law 97-95 as amended_
The (I) zone establishes a minimum Iront yard 01 7.5 metres (24.6 metres). The intent 01
the required yard is to provide a large Iront yard/outdoor living area between the main
building and the street and to provide adequate parking.
Given that the area 01 the lot north 01 the rain shed is relatively open and Iree of
vegetation, and has a large parking area, the proposed variance lor rain shed would
conlorm with the general intent 01 the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The rain shed will not change the overall character 01 the church or the area and will
provide a "weather prool" entrance into the church. The requested variance is
appropriate lor the development 01 the church and the lands.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the size of the rain shed is reasonable and should not adversely affect
the character 01 the residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed variance generally satislies the 4 tests 01 a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Cornmittee approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-47
subject to the following conditions:
1, That the appropriate building permit be obtained lrom the Township's Chiel
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;
2. That the existing rain shed be no closer than 2 metres (6.5 leet) from the lront lot
line;
3. That the applicant submit an application lor Site Plan Approval il required; and,
4. That the setbacks be in conlormity 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 01 which is respectfully submitted,
A~
Andy Karaiskakis Hons. B.A.
Planner
Reviewed by,
~~~
Director 01 Planning
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
November 10, 2005
Tim & Arlene Russell
2005-A-31
5718 Line 5 North, Concession 5, East Part Lot 19 (Medonte)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are requesting modifications to a relief which was granted by the Committee
on August 11, 2005. Previously the applicants applied for and were granted to permit the
construction of a 69.6 m2 (750 If) detached garage having a front yard setback 01 100.5
metres (330 feet) which lies within the Environmental Protection Zone.
The applicants are now proposing to revise the Iloor area of the garage to 72.56 m2 (781 If)
based on the surveyors report dated September 28, 2005.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Agricultural
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A1RU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones
Previous Applications - None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works-
Building Department-
Engineering Department-
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frontage 01 approximately 182.88 mefres (600 feet) along Line
5 and a lot depth 01 approximately 35 hectares (86.9 acres). The property currently contains
a 139 m2 (1500 1t2) barn with approximately 111 m2 (1200 ff) 01 the barn being utilized as
living quarters.
The applicants are proposing to construct a 72.56 m2 (781 If) detached garage 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 Irom the Committee of Adjustment lor the
construction of the garage. As noted, the original minor variance proposal was approved lor
a 750 It2 detached garage. As a condition of the minor variance, a surveyor was to provide
verilication by pinning the footing and verifying in writing prior to pouring 01 the loundation
that the garage be no larger than 750 If and that the garage be located no closer than 330
leet from the Iront lot line. Dale Eplett, Ontario Land Surveyor, attended on site and
conlirmed on his letter dated September 28, 2005 that the floor area 01 the garage is 781
square leet and the garage will be located no closer than 370 feet. As a result, the applicant
has revised the approved Iloor area 01 the detached garage to 781 If based on the surveyors
report.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The properly is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan. The primary lunction 01 this
designation is to protect land suitable lor agricultural production lrom 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 detached garage 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 conformity with the Zoning By-law, the proposed garage should not
detract from the overall character of the lot and surrounding natural features being the
mature trees being located to the north and west 01 the proposed garage. One 01 the
purposes 01 regulating structures being built within the limits of Environmental Protection
Zone is to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system, to
ensure that development does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to flooding
and to ensure that development does not occur on hazardous slopes. In reviewing Schedule
B-Components of the Environmental Protection One & Two Designations, it does not appear
that the Environmental Protection located on the lands are part 01 a Provincially Significant
Wetland or other Environmental Features. The application has been circulated to the
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and comment that they have no objection to its
approval. Based on site inspection, the area appears to be dry and there is no evidence of a
watercourse in the area, therefore the proposed garage would therefore conlorm with the
general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The proposed variance should provide for a form 01 development that is suitable and
consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed variance will provide lor the construction
of a detached garage and will continue to maintain the agricultural character of the area. On
this basis the proposed variance would provide for the appropriate development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
As Committee is aware, "minor" is not determined on a mathematical basis. On the basis
that the proposal is reasonable and should not adversely affect the character 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Committee approve minor variance 2005-A-31 as revised lor a floor
area 01 the detached garage to 72.56 m2 (781 ft>) and subject to the following conditions:
1. That the size and setbacks 01 the proposed garage be in conlormity with the
sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; and,
2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained Irom the Township's Chiel 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.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Andy Karaiskakis Hons. B.A.
Planner
i:~
Bruce Hoppe MCIP, RPP
Director 01 Planning
.olee:
:ax:
lanie:
Vebsite:
:~mail:
(705) 686.7208
1-8llO-404-7208
(705) 686-7200
(705) 722-6222
www.survey4u.com
gew@survey4u.com
GALBRAITH EPlETT WOROBEC SURVEYORS
4 John Street
P.O. Box 113
Goldwater, Ontario
LOK 1 EO
VIA FACSIMILE 705-487-0133
R E fllli:lfi
;
Survey Records:
nu n..lh"",ifh ('\1 !::
~
Survey Records:
P.R. Kitchen a.L.s.. C.L.S. W.O. Smith O.L.S. S.M. Vollick O.L.S.
,..,... ....__-'......_. '"' I ~
n.1 HnWA O_LR
A division of Eplett & Worobec Surveying Ltd.
Ontario Land Surveyors
September 28, 2005
Township of Oro-Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro Station, ON
LOL 2XO
stl'J02005
ORO-MEDONTE I
TO_WN~HIP I
Attention:
Andy Karaiskakis
Committee of Adjustment
,
i
f
RE: 2005-A-31
Mr. Tim Russell
Part Lot 19, Concession 5
Township of Oro-Medonte
(Geographic Township Medonte)
County of Simcoe
We attended on site September 16, 2005 and certify the floor area of the garage is 72.56 Sq. m. (781 sq.
ft) and the garage is no closer than 112.9 m (370 ft) from the front property line.
Galbraith, Eplett, Worobec Surveyors.
F. Dale Eplett
Ontario Land Surveyor
cc Mr. Tim Russell
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
November 10, 2005
Peter & Margaret Kells
2005-B-51
Concession 11, Part West v., Lot 5(Medonte)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2005-B-51 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The land to
be severed and conveyed to the adjacent parcel of land. 3999 Line 10 North, is proposed to have
a lot frontage along Line 10 North of approximately 53 metres (175 feet), a lot depth of
approximately 72 metres (239 feet), and a lot area of approximately 0.4 hectare (1 acre). The
land to be retained would have an area of approximately 37 hectares (92 acres). No new building
lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Agricultural
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A1RU) & Environmental Protection (EP) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County-
Municipal Works and Roads-
Building Department-
Engineering Department-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey and add approximately 1 acre to a
neighbouring residential lot that contains a dwelling 3999 Line 10 North. The purpose of the
adjustment is to ensure that the septic system associated with the dwelling is contained
completely within 3999 Line 10 North. The land to be retained by the applicant would have an
area of approximately 92 acres, which contains is currently vacant.
OFFICIAL PLAN
Section D2.3.4 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider
applications for farm consolidations and boundary adjustments in the Agricultural designation.
The policy states:
Boundary line adjustments or farm consolidations may be considered where the
effect of the boundary adjustment or consolidation is to improve the viability 01 the
farm operation provided:
a) no new iot is created; and,
b) the viability 01 using the lands affected by the application for agricultural uses
is not adversely impacted if the application is approved.
In reviewing the application, no new building lots will be created, the existing farm operation will
continue to exist and given the relatively small amount of land to be conveyed, the viability of
using the lands affected by the application would not adversely impact the farm operation. On
this basis, the application would generally conform to the Official Plan.
ZONING BY-LAW
The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (NRU) & Environmental Protection (EP)
in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The retained lot and the lot to be
enhanced, 3999 Line 10 North, would continue to comply with the provisions of the NRU Zone.
The application would therefore generally conform with the policies of the Zoning By-law.
CONCLUSION
The application generally conforms to the policies of the Agricultural designation and the retained
lands and the lands to be enhanced would comply with the minimum frontage and area
requirements of the (NRU) Zone. The intent of the application is to ensure that the septic system
associated with the dwelling is contained completely within 3999 Line 10 North. No new building
lots are being created.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2005-B-
51 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 3999 Line 10 North and that the provisions
of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent
conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands;
4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands
to be enhanced will merge in title;
5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and,
6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from
the date of the giving of the notice.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~
Andy Karaiskakis Hons. BA
Planner
Bru e Hoppe Me' ~..,.."....
Director of Plan~~
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
November 10, 2005
Susan & Brian Wiese
A-5n5(Revised)
59 O'Brien Street, Lot 27, Plan 702 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
Previously the applicants applied for and were granted relief lor the construction of an
attached garage and living space above the garage. The approved addition has a side yard
setback of 1.8 metres (6 feet) lrom the interior side lot line.
The applicants are now proposing to revise the approved minor variance application by
adjusting the roofline which will increase the volume and area 01 the attached garage in the
required side yard setback for a dwelling being 2.5 metres (8.2 feet) under Zoning By-law 97-
95. The new roolline will match up with the existing roolline 01 the main dwelling. The
proposed addition will maintain the existing 1.8 metres (6 feet) from the interior side lot line,
but will increase the volume and area in the required setback area, therelore permission is
being requested from the Committee 01 Adjustment lor the proposed addition.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation -Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential (R1) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works-
Building Department-
Engineering Department-
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot Irontage 01 approximately 39 metres (129 It), a lot depth 01
approximately 44 rnetres (146 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1,749 m2 (18,834lf) and
is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling and attached garage.
The applicants wish to adjust the roolline over the attached garage which will increase the
volume and area of the attached garage in the required side yard setback of 2.5 metres (8.2
feet). The proposed addition will maintain the existing 1.8 metres (6 leet) Irom the interior
side lot line.
1
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 requested variance is lor a
relatively minor roolline adjustment to an existing non-conforming structure, therelore the
existing character is not being compromised. On this basis, the proposed variance would
therelore 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?
The subject property is zoned Residential One (R1) in Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended.
One 01 the purposes or goals of maintaining setbacks in residential areas is to maintain a
positive built lorm and visual quality. The site inspection revealed that the adjustment 01 the
roolline should not adversely impact the residential neighbourhood as the addition will not
lurther encroach into the required setbacks and the proposal is considered reasonable and
minor in size. The proposed addition will have little or no impact on the intent of the by-law to
provide a low density residential character to the lot or the subdivision. On this basis the
variance is deemed to conlorm 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 adjustment 01 the roolline 01 the attached garage with an
increase in height would appear to be appropriate lor the desirable development 01 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 residential
area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature.
CONCLUSIONS
The subject application to permit the adjustment 01 the roolline of an existing attached
garage on the subject property generally satisfies the lour tests of the minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee approve minor variance application A-5175 as revised
subject to the following conditions:
1 . The dwelling maintain the existing 1.8 metres (6 leetl setback Irom the north side lot
line;
2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only alter the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided
for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; and,
3. That the setbacks be in conlormity with the dimensions as set out in the application
and on the sketches submitted and approved by the Committee
2
All 01 which is respectfully submitted,
Ar~
Andy Karaiskakis Hons. BA
Planner
Reviewed by,
~~~
Director of Planning
3
Committee of Adiustment Minutes
Thursdav October 13, 2005, 9:30 a.m.
In Attendance: Chairman Allan Johnson, Member Dave Edwards, Member Garry
Potter, Member Lynda Aiken, Member Michelle Lynch and Secretary-Treasurer
Andy Karaiskakis
1. Communications and Correspondence
a) Correspondence to be addressed at the time of the specific hearing.
2. Disclosure of Pecuniarv Interest
None declared
3. HearinQs:
9:30
William Lohuaru
Plan M-447, Lot 33 (Oro)
16 Valleycrest Drive
2005-A-39
In Attendance: Christine Kahler, lawyer, Cockburn & Smith, representing
applicant, Bill Lohuaru, applicant, Randy Bowman, builder, Mr. Vedtcker,
proposed purchaser
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance 2005-A-39, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verilication 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 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 conforrnity with the dimensions as set out in the
application and on the sketch submitted with the application and approved
by the Cornrnittee;
Committee of Adjustment-October 13, 2005
Page 1
5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief
Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and
binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13.
.....Carried."
Committee of Adjustment~October 13, 2005
Page 2
9:40
Ron & Janet Clarke
Conc. 13, Part South West 'A Lot 1 (Medonte)
1478 Horseshoe Valley Road East
2005-B-44
In Attendance: Ron & Janet Clarke, applicants
Secretary-Treasurer read letters from Robert Follett, neighbour, dated
October 12, October 13,2005 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 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. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That all rnunicipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and,
4. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice.
.. ...Carried."
Committee of Adjustment~October 13, 2005
Page 3
9:50
Donald Woodrow
Conc. 6, East Part Lot 2 (Medonte)
3624 Line 6 North
2005-B-45
In Attendance: Don Woodrow, applicant
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Garry Potter
"That the Committee hereby Grant 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.
.....Carried."
Committee of Adjustment-October 13, 2005
Page 4
10:00
Dawn Oschefski
Plan 993, Lot 29 (Orillia)
1081 Woodland Drive
2005-A-41
In Attendance: Dawn Oschefski, applicant
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Jackie Burkart, Environmental
Planner, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, received October 12,
2005 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the
audience.
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby Defer Minor Variance Application 2005-A-41 to
allow time for the applicant to address the issue of exceeding the maximum lot
coverage for all detached accessory buildings.
.....Carried."
Committee of Adjustment~October 13, 2005
Page 5
10:10
Matt Marshall & Tammy Masse
Plan 952, Lot 24 (Oro)
2277 Lakeshore Road East
2005-A-40
In Attendance: Matt Marshall & Tammy Masse, applicants
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby 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. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2)
verilying in writing prior to pouring 01 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 satislaction of the Public Works
Department;
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's
Chiel 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 Septernber 15, 2005 from
Lucas Drafting subrnitted with the application.
.....Carried."
Committee of Adjustment-October 13,2005
Page 6
10:20
James & Catherine Soule
Lot 24, Plan 935 (Oro)
28 Grandview Crescent
2005-A-42
In Attendance: None
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from James & Patricia Taylor, 31 Grandview
Crescent, received October 7,2005 verbatim to the Committee members
and those present in the audience.
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the Committee hereby approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-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 Cornmittee'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 subrnitted with the application and approved
by the Cornmittee, as submitted.
.....Carried."
Committee of Adjustment.October 13, 2005
Page 7
10:30
John & Lisa Markov
Concession 8, Part Lots 26, 27 (Oro)
16 Barbara Avenue
2005-A-43
In Attendance: John Markov, applicant
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Garry Potter
"That the Committee hereby approve 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 01 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 (NRU) 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 Comrnittee, as subrnitted.
4. 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 of the foundation by way of survey/real
property report; and,
5. That the appropriate building perrnit 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~October 13, 2005
Page 8
10:40
Donald Nixon
Concession 1, South Part Lot 1 (Oro)
3025 Ridge Road West
2005-A-44
In Attendance: Pat Nixon, owner, Steve Cockburn, builder, Carl & Christine
Harrison, 3055 Ridge Road
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Jackie Burkart, Environmental
Planner, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, received October 12,
2005 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the
audience.
BE IT RESOLVED thaI:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken
"That the Comrnittee hereby Approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-44
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the rnaximum height of the proposed boathouse not exceed 7.4
rnetres (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 a perrnit, if required, from the Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority prior to the commencement of any
development or boathouse construction on the lands; and,
3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's
Chief Building Official only after the Cornrnittee's decision becomes final
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.
13.
.....Carried."
Committee of Adjustment~October 13, 2005
Page g
10:50
Del Coin Holdings Inc. 2005-8-47
Concession 1, Part Lot 15, RP 51 R-33232, Part 1 (Orillia)
5315 Highway 11/148 Line 15 South
In Attendance: Tosh Skalosky, representing Del Coin Holdings Inc.
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Garry Potter
"That the Committee hereby Deny Consent Application 2005-B-47 on the basis
that the application does not conform with the conditions imposed by the
Cornmittee on Boundary Adjustrnent Application 2004-B-25 approved last year.
.. ...Carried."
Committee of Adjustment.October 13, 2005
Page 10
11:00
Nick & Cathy Rinaldi
Concession 7, Part Lot 26 (Oro)
2005-A-45
In Attendance: Andrew Mcintyre, designer representing applicants, Bev
Parcells, 38 Howard Drive, Vince Cardarelli, 6 Elm Court
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Jackie Burkart, Environmental
Planner, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, received October 12,
2005 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the
audience.
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Garry Potter
"That the Committee hereby Defer Minor Variance Application 2005-A-45 to
allow time for the applicant to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan to
address the concerns relating to drainage and the possibility of flooding on the
subject lands to the satisfaction of the Township.
.....Carried."
Committee of Adiustment~October 13, 2005
Page 11
11 :10
Lester & Cristina Cooke
Concession 3, South Part Lot 7, Plan 920
18 Moon Point Drive (Orillia)
2005-B-41,
2005-B-42,
2005-B-43
In Attendance: Lester & Cristina Cooke, applicants, Laureen Winterton, 51
Moon Point Drive, Craig Cotton, 466 Woodland Drive, Gary Thiess, 33 Moon
Point Drive
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from James Seligman, 1 & 3 Moon Point
Drive, received October 12, 2005 verbatim to the Committee members and
those present in the audience.
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Garry Potter
"That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent for Application 2005-B-
41 for the creation of one residential lot 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 Developrnent Charges Fee in the arnount of
$4,055.78 (By-law 2004-082) to the Township lor each lot created;
5. That the applicant obtain a re-zoning for the severed lots;
6. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for each lot created as cash-in-lieu of a
parkland contribution;
7. That Official Plan Amendment 19 receive final approval; and,
8. That the conditions of consent irnposed by the Committee be fullilled
within one year lrom the date of the giving of the notice.
_....Defeated."
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the Comrnittee hereby Defer Consent Application 2005-B-41 for the
creation of one residential lot until such time as Official Plan Amendment 19
receives final approval
.....Carried."
Committee of Adjustment.October 13, 2005
Page 12
BE IT RESOLVED that
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the Committee hereby Defer Consent Application 2005-B-42 for the
creation of one residential lot until such time as Official Plan Amendrnent 19
receives final approval
.....Carried."
BE IT RESOLVED that
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the Committee hereby Deler Consent Application 2005-B-43 for the
creation of one residential lot until such time as Official Plan Amendment 19
receives final approval
.. ...Carried."
Committee of Adjustment~October 13, 2005
Page 13
11 :20
Douglas Shaw
Plan 882, Part Lots 22, 23 (Oro)
1079 Lakeshore Road
A-39/03(Revised)
In Attendance: Doug Shaw, applicant
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Garry Potter
"That the Comrnittee hereby deler application A-39/03 as revised as per the
applicants request to allow time for the applicant to revise the location and size
of the proposed garage.
.....Carried."
Committee of Adjustment~October 13, 2005
Page 14
5. Other Business
i. Adoption of minutes for the September 15, 2005 Meeting
Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Lynda Aiken
"That the minutes for the September 15th 2005 Meeting be adopted as
printed and circulated
.. .Carried."
6. Adjournment
Moved by Lynda Aiken, Seconded by Garry Potter
"We do now adjourn at 3:40 p.m."
... Carried."
(NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.)
Chairperson,
Allan Johnson
Secretary-Treasurer,
Andy Karaiskakis
Committee of Adjustment~October 13, 2005
Page 15
Committee of Adjustment Minutes
Thursdav October 25, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
In Attendance: Chairman Allan Johnson, Member Dave Edwards, Member Garry
Potter, Member Lynda Aiken, Member Michelle Lynch and Secretary-Treasurer
Andy Karaiskakis
1. Communications and Correspondence
a) None
2. Disclosure of Pecuniarv Interest
None declared
3. HearinQs:
7:00 Tang Fen Wong 2005-B-38 (Revised)
Range 2, West Half Lot 2, RP 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 Pemberton Rate
Payers, Gerry Jordan, planner representing Pemberton Rate Payers, Robert
O'Hara, 6 Pemberton Lane, Jim Maxwell, 1 Pemberton Lane, Derek Yair, 11
Pemberton Lane, John Connelly, 13 Pemberton Lane
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the Comrnittee hereby Deny Consent Application 2005-B-38.
.... .Defeated."
Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent for 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;
Committee of Adjustment-October 25,2005
Page'
3. That all Municipal taxes be paid to the Municipality;
4. That the applicant convey a block of land along the north side of
Pemberton Lane to the Township, such that the width of 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 of
Oro-Medonte and be registered on the title of the retained lands. The Site
Plan will identify an area of 0.4 hectares (1 acre) as the building envelope
where the single family dwelling, arnenity area, septic system, and
accessory buildings greater than 9 m2 (96.8 ft2) will be located_ The
Agreement shall address the preservation of vegetation beyond the 0.4
hectare (1 acre) building envelope.
6. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash-in-lieu of a
parkland contribution; and,
7. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice.
.. ... Carried."
Committee of Adjustment-October 25, 2005
Page 2
5. Other Business
i. Revision of conditions for 2004-B-55
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION to MODIFY CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL
WHEREAS Committee may modify the conditions of Provisional Consent in
accordance with Section 53 (23) of the Planning Act R.S.O 1990. c.P. 13, as
amended.
WHEREAS Committee deems it necessary to amend the conditions of
Provisional Consent and finds the modifications to be minor and of a
technical nature, and
WHEREAS Committee deems the changes to the conditions to be minor
and therefore, pursuant to Section 53(26) of the Planning Act, no Notice of
the change to conditions is required;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Conditions to Consent Application 2004-B-55 be modified to delete
condition 5 which states:
1. That the applicant enter into a Site Plan Control Agreement with the
Township in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act
... ..Carried."
6. Adiournment
Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Lynda Aiken
"We do now adjourn at 8:35 p.m."
... Carried."
(NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.)
Chairperson,
Allan Johnson
Secretary-Treasurer,
Andy Karaiskakis
Committee of Adjustment~October 25, 2005
Page 3