12 15 2005 C of A Agenda
M A12-tL-'( AJ
,
Committee of Adiustment AQenda
Thursdav December 15 2005. 9:30 a.m.
1. Communications a nd Correspondence
2. Disclosure of Pecu niary Interest
3. Hearings:
,
9:30 2005-A-46 Bob Inman
Plan 952, Lots 64, 65 (Oro)
2265 Lakeshore Road East
9:40 2005-A-41 Dawn Oschefski
Plan 993, Lot 29 (Orillia)
1081 Woodland Drive
9:50 A-39/03(Revised) Doug Shaw
Plan 882, Part Lots 22 and 23 (Oro)
1079 Lakeshore Road East
10:00 2005-A-49 Horseshoe Valley Resort
Cone. 3, Part Lots 1 & 2 (Oro)
1101 Horseshoe Valley Road
10:10 2005-A-50 Rod Harris
Cone. 1, North Part Lot 40 (Oro)
3215 Penetanguishene Road
10:20 2005-A-51 John Duddy
Cone. 11, East Part Lot 4 (Medonte)
3886 Line 11 North
10:30 2005-A-52 Michele Blundell
Lot 8, Plan M281 (Ora)
7 Beechwood Crescent
10:40 2005-8-53 Mell Mawdsley
Cone. 14, West Y2 Lot 14 (Ora)
531 Line 13 North
10:50 2005-B-54 Gail Raikes
Cone. 1, East Part Lot 1 (Ora)
9 Trafalgar Drive
4. Decisions
5. Other business
-Adoption of ~inutes for November 10, 2005, November 29,2005 and December
1, 2005 Meetil1gs
6. Adjournment
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 15, 2005
Bob Inman
2005-A-46
2265 Lakeshore Road East, Plan 952, Lots 64, 65 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
On November 10, 2005, minor variance application 2005-A-46 was deferred by the Committee to
allow time for the applicant to revise the minor variance application to relocate the retaining wall
on the site plan. The applicant has since then revised the site plan by relocated the retaining wall
to be located along the property line, between the applicants lot, Lot 64, and the neighbouring lot,
Lot 63.
As noted in the previous notice of hearing, 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:
Reauired
Proposed
Setback from the average high
water mark of Lake Simcoe
-for the playground area, retaining wall (structure)
20 m (65.6 It) 17 m (56 It)
Interior side yard setback-for playground area,
retaining wall
2 m (6.5 It) 0 m (0 It)-Iocated along
property line
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 - No concerns
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority - No permit is required
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 m' (988 It'). 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 m' (6418 It') 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 rnetres (55 feet) from the average high water mark of Lake
Simcoe and 1.4 metres (4.5 feet) frorn the interior side lot line.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section 010.1 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 and comment that the subject site is outside of the wave-uprush
elevation of 222.05 metres above sea level, which is currently the limit of their regulated area and
therefore no permit is required from the LSRCA at this time. 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.
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 for the retaining wall to be located on the
interior lot line generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance.
2
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. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, and on
the sketches submitted with the application;
3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to
pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report; and,
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only alter the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~
Andy Karaiskakis Hons.BA
Planner
Reviewed by,
~~~
Director of Planning
3
\J\z
=i:r
my'
llZ
rlO
y.m
z\J\
Cl
rn
Z
(\
m
~I ~
o ~
l> 0
, L
~ ~
o
0-;
'-> I'" z
G 0?
o "
~I 0
l>
-;
~
z
'" I"'
" m
~
'->
"
"
0
0
'"
-
(J)
/\:
I
0
0
I\)
SK~002.d....g
,
~
I 226.60J "8
m
. liB II . I.
5 ] '::; ~ :;;'
1[ c... \1 ~ :>1
cjl~
-;.
,
~
\ .,
\ . \
\ "i
\ ~ \
\ i\
! \i
\ 1\
1 '!
! .:
\ -\
t""l.i
~
"~'I
.
I
l
. ! \
. ' ;
l U/
~" i
~I:~! .
" \
Jtr; .
i~j:i i
...,
"
I'"
it-j"-
, ,
c<i' !
"'1' ,
r'- 'I
.." ,'. "
h , i
;;. /1/ i
-:tt- i
" n!
~ .
ill
.l:i
!'~I
_ ,(':t': I
c;,:;4.
""9. I
G,
~Ilt
0_,;
~ I
]j ..
~ . ~
"0, ~
1Sl'1 0
.00.\ m
1:11 ,
&i ~
.,
, i ~
:1
.",1
1~"0\
\\
.\
~, \
t\i
\\
"
~
<
Ui
<3
z
~
1230
,
.
.0
.. 23.18 110']
;<J
m
<
~
Q
'1J
m
;<J
iji
-l
J>
Z
Z
<J1
L
J>
r
r
HOSE BIB
x
u
.
o
.
E
~
~
12.BI [42']
~I
o
HOSE BIB~
..
..,,'J:
- -, ~ w .----J ONE ST~; PR
\ ~@l( I DENOTED BY DOT.
\~!\\' dLANDSP";'"
I '" AREA
<] I
c (',
". ,",
Bo PR~POSED
i~ RE$IIDENCE
u
o
p
-;
~
EA= 425.83m2
,584 sf)
'->z
00
0<
"'~
"
w
"
>>
'"""l
&to
,..,.>
c+t-<
(1) tj
(j >
C+(fJ
......(fJ
:J >
(j ::0
~
>
R GARA6E
. = 221.81 m
COLOURED coNe;
STEPS (TYP. FdJR
BOTH SIDES 0
PLAYGROUND;
I 226.58 r
PLAYGROUND =t-
FElL /~ .'!r' ".'
7''./ ~,' ',&: - --
) ~"',. "
'\' (SODDED AREA n_n_~ ' ~.~. ,,,::,'1, I ~
~ 1 226.53 J.c' I 225.93 I I ~_ ~ ~
::; T~.. ,.:~I~~~PE_ r224~41[.f~l
RET AININ6 W\LL ~ 'FENCE I 224.021','
-r~ I J ~i .
4.23 " ""
'!2-~r~~,,'~~ ~---^'-
,P" """''''. ~
'....'...,.C"LA...NbS
'. AREA"
.,~,(V
~ l'^
DOT1W'LINE DENOTES i'l
LOCATiON OF NEVoI SEPTIC'PUMP
:[1
'"
~II~I
ii
'1'
i."
NA,8'05'OC"\.')
PR
IRTY liNE
66.081
51!
9.5:+
225.65
,'"
,"-,
'"
{,I
.~-
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 15, 2005
Dawn Oschefski
2005-A-41
1081 Woodland Drive, Plan 993, Lot 29 (Orillia)
THE PROPOSAL
Minor variance application 2005-A-41 was deferred by the Committee on October 13,
2005 to allow time for the applicant to address the issue of exceeding the maximum lot
coverage for all detached accessory buildings on the lot. The applicant, who is proposing
to construct a 20.4 m' (220 It') single storey garage, has since revised the application to
include relief from this section 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)
Section 5.1.5 Maximum Lot Coverage
-for all detached accessory buildings including
proposed garage
5%
5.3%
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
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:
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, the lot coverage of all detached accessory
buildings will exceed the required maximum lot coverage of 5%, as the proposed garage
will increase the lot coverage to 5.3%. As minor variances are not determined on a
mathematical basis, the proposal is reasonable and should not adversely affect the
character of the surrounding area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor.
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.
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
The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee approve minor variance 2005-A-41 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed garage be in conformity with the
sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
2. That 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;
3. That the proposed garage be no larger than 20.4 m2 (220 fl''J;
4. That the proposed garage be no closer than 0.66 metres (2.16 feet) from the interior
side lot line; and,
5. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the garage be no closer than 0.66
metres (2.16 feet) from the interior side lot line.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~
Andy Karaiskakis Hons. B.A.
Planner
Reviewed by,
~~P~RP~
Director of Planning
Lf\ 'l. E ~ \ n--. e-D t:.
^
I
!
I
I
! ~
I ~D~~~
I CV\
I v
i M
,
r-
\,\
-.....
r .:: L [rrY A.t;., t'
I
<fl
rj
'-.-/.-....-\'2.-....
~
c
I
--t
N
I
-
S
<J:.
J
-4:
'>
iL
!~
,...9
I.
k
I p=~~ l~
I I
; \' \. V'
. ,
\ \. .....
"1~ "
. -
.'
'- -
- j1l. ,
~"""'" ,. \
'-=- ..... I
.... <l6-.... .......... '
, e:.' r'
:; "-.., ........,
~:" :'/' rr.
~
4
'""'
c:1.
a:
1, ~
A-'~'
" .... ? L ,/1
... :>,U 1
.. -. "- '\.,
, .... ,,'" ", .
i '" ~ - :
"... .
r . , l
'", ~ -'" i
,... ~ .
~ -~A.N' ~:
. "" :3 -, ~
t _.::... i
I ,Q~/ !
/"~ 1.....
'I
,
i.
f""-
a
-...
-"'1
/
/'t-.
i
I
..
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
~
'"
'l<\
W
f-
v
t
\
~
!
I
I
~
.$,
"I
,I'
()
\"1
\-
CJ
--.1
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 15, 2005
Douglas Shaw
1079 Lakeshore Road East, Plan 882, Part Lots 22 and 23 (Ora)
A-39/03(Revised)
THE PROPOSAL
On October 13, 2005, minor variance application A-39/03 was deferred by the Committee to allow
time for the applicant to revise the location and size of the proposed garage. The applicant has
since modified the size of the detached garage from 69m' (750 It') to an area of 59m' (644 It')
and has set back the garage an additional 2 metres (7 feet) from the front lot line.
The applicant is now requesting the following relief:
Reauired
i. Front yard setback 7.5 m (24.6 It)
ii. Interior side yard setback
2m (6.5 It)
Proposed
3 m (101t) to the
closest corner
of the detached garage
1.8m (6 It)
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:
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 18.4 metres (60.5 feet), a lot depth of
approximately 72.6 metres (238.3 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 10.7 metres (35.3
feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.08 hectares (0.2 acres). The applicant has revised the
minor variance application for the relocation and size of the proposed 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 59m' (644 It') in front of an existing
dwelling on a shoreline residential lot. 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 Plan.
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. The revised location of the detached garage would allow for
adequate area between the road and garage for on site parking.
However, with the proposed detached garage, 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 6.9%. At the time when the first planning report was written for the
detached garage on Decem ber 11, 2003, it was noted in the report that the applicants lot had a
lot area of 3,331m' (35,855 It'), which therefore met the required maximum lot coverage of 5%.
When searchin~ through Townships records, it is shown that the applicants' property has a lot
area of 809.4m (8,712.5 ft'). With the proposed size of the garage, the lot coverage of detached
accessory buildings will be 6.9%, exceed the required maximum lot coverage of 5%.
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?
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 The
coverage exceedance, however, may not be appropriate and has not been applied for.
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
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.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee defer Minor Variance Application No. A-39/03 as revised
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,
~u~-
~ Andy Karaiskakis, Hons.BA
t) Planner
ReViewed by,
~~~
Director of Planning
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 15, 2005
Horseshoe Valley Resort Ltd.
2005-A-49
1101 Horseshoe Valley Road, Conc. 3, Part Lots 1 & 2 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are re~esting permission from the Committee of Adjustment to permit the
construction of a 95 m (1,024 It') detached structure which lies within the Future Development
Exception Sixty-seven (FD'67) Zone. The proposed structure, which will be located approximately
120 metres (393 feet) from Horseshoe Valley Road as shown on the attached sketch, will be
used for a change room and storage of equipment. The FD'67 does not allow for this type of
structure, therefore permission is required from the Committee to permit the structure on the
lands zoned FD'67.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation -Horseshoe Valley Village
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Future Development Exception (FD'67) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County-
Public Works-
Building Department - The Township Building Dept has reviewed the application and note that
the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards.
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The applicants are proposing to allow the use of a 95 m' (1,024 It') detached structure to be used
for the Canadian Association of Disabled Skiers for the use of a change room and storage of
equipment to be located on the western portion of the parking lot, as shown on the attached map,
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Horseshoe Valley Village in the Township's Official Plan. The intent
of this designation are that the main commercial and resort facilities associated with the
Horseshoe Valley Resort be located in this designation. The principle use of land in the
Horseshoe Valley Village designation shall be non residential uses such as retail stores, business
offices, alpine and Nordic ski areas and lodges and recreational facilities and such. The
proposed minor variance, which would permit the use of a detached structure for a change room
and storage of equipment, would be in keeping with the permitted uses contained in the
Horseshoe Valley Village designation.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Future Development Exception (FD*67). Exception 67 states that
notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, only uses that existed on the effective date of
this By-law are permitted on those lands denoted by the symbol *67 on the schedules to this By-
law. Notwithstanding this provision, the following development is permitted:
a) additions to buildings or structures that existed on the effective date of this
By-law provided the size of the addition does not exceed 70 square metres
(753.4 square feet);
b) renovations to buildings and structures that existed on the effective date of
this By- law;
c) decks and patios;
d) buildings and structures with a gross floor area of less than 10 square metres
(107.6 square feet);
e) ski lifts;
f) buildings and structures used for the storage of equipment;
g) buildings and structures used for maintenance purposes; and,
e) swimming pools.
The proposal for a detached structure to be used for a change room and storage of equipment
would generally meet the intent of the permitted uses contained in Exception 67. It is therefore
considered that the minor variance generally conforms with the intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The nature of development proposed appears to be appropriate, as this would permit the use of a
change room and storage of equipment in a detached building on the Resort Lands. The granting
of the variance would not lead to the over development of the property and would be in keeping
with the Ski Resort. On this basis, the variance proposed is considered appropriate for the
desirable development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the variance will permit only the use of a detached building for a change room
and storage of equipment and would meet all other zoning provisions and will maintain the intent
of the Official Plan policies, the variance is deemed to be minor in nature.
CONCLUSIONS
The requested variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee Approve Minor Variance application 2005-A-49, subject to
the following conditions:
1. 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;
2. That the building be used for the sole exclusion for the Canadian Association of Disabled
Skiers for the use of change rooms and storage of equipment; 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.
2
All of which is respectfully submitted,
An y Karaiskakis, Hons.BA
Planner
Reviewed by,
~a~
Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
3
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 15, 2005
Rod Harris
2005-A-50
3215 Penetanguishene Road, Conc. 1, North Part Lot 40 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to replace a 12.5 m2 (135 ft2) deck to be attached at the front of
the existing dwelling and is requesting relief of the following provision from Zoning By-law
97-95:
i. Setback from the minimum required front yard of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to a
proposed 7 metres (23 feet) for the proposed deck; and,
ii. Setback from the minimum required side yard of 2.5 metres (8.2 feet) to a
proposed 0.14 metres (0.46 feet) for the proposed deck.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One (R1) Zone
Previous Applications - none
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works:
Building Department:
Engineering Department: No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 15 metres (49 feet), a depth of
approximately 45 metres (147 feet) and an area of 688 m2 (7,405 ft2) and is presently
occupied by a single detached dwelling. The applicants wish to replace a 12.5 m' (135
1t2) deck addition to be attached at the front of the existing dwelling.
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. The primary function of the Rural
Settlement Area designation is to identify and permit residential uses which are
compatible and in keeping with the character of a residential community. The proposed
variance, which would permit a 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.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject lot is currently zoned Residential One (R1). The R1 zone establishes a
minimum front yard of 7.5 metres (24.6 metres) and minimum interior side yard of 2.5
metres (8.2 feet). The intention of the required yards 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 the minimum front yard requirement, it does not,
however, meet the required interior side yard setback. Given that the area of the lot
proposed to be developed is relatively open and free of vegetation, and that the
proposed deck should not adversely impact the abutting lot to the north, 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.
Is the variance 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-50
subject to the following conditions:
1. 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;
2. That the deck be no closer than 7 metres (23 feet) from the front lot line;
3. That the deck be no closer than 0.14 metres (0.46 feet) from the interior side lot
line;
4. 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 7 metres (23 feet) from the front lot line and
0.14 metres (0.46 feet) from the interior side lot line; and,
5. 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,
~~
Andy Karaiskakis Hons. B.A.
Planner
Reviewed by,
~~I^~
Bruce Hoppe,mr'~;p
Director of Planning
~
I-
ZW
wI-
wZ
~O
I-fl
l::l~
wo
~~
<l 0
~a::
00
~~
ole
<'f:
Oll)
O::z
.J~
<0
i:1-
(!)
it:
o
ORtGlNAl
ROAD ALUlWANCE llf:1'WEEM
TO"SH1PS or 011O . IolID(IN'It
(COUNTY ROAD NO. 22)
t I\. N,'N. <""'"'Eft
I lOT 40, CONC!S~D~ I E..P.R. .l~
-, HO~
I ' If
I . J
jI 11~
· ~l 1 ..
~ d . <'I
2 z . ~' PART 4. 5'iR-9J{J~
:: " "'WIV_' Me. /2'" j~j..;--Ji INS"'lJIIi!Nr... 1.187..1
. I' e
;; lJ <2JUtllllK 9f 1iI H~S1J~'20t: {L1')
Z td r-",un 0.3 'l-lIamt I' (ftlll-.J:f . ~ -1 ~ .
l! I _ I.a . - ,
. ~ 2
, , .
g-
,,"m ..,/ """ 1-
(l101nMl LMJf(1f1fllD. 4~41 (I"',
(ll~a fUCNP,' II'-If. IIlllt'lli (.II . ~ t ..1<001
~n...4IIl'CD) .., IIIIT. If"_1 '" J' P ~1
1/f1,U, 1IlCftIl~ lU' PQI1H !4
IHSfRrJMCNT~, 11f/j~
~ ~$'~'
,
:l
d
z
>-
.
i1j
~
i
'"
NSll1J\Y'2.D"[
r. f- ..'" ,.,~... ,,"
1lII(IW J'
(oMl) 0
N
11
fi~
~N~~~rk~-rA~J4
~ r
. f
P'
~~ i
~C 5
1)2 I
'u
Ill.
--......
......
..
".."
_~l1fIllUEll
o.tiLS1JJ1N
N5a'tl100'l
~..1
wsmlJUENT No. 0'208085
!PART 6J 51R-9J02
tNS17W1oII.tlT J(", 'JtJl1J4
,,~/
t::x:::c.k:- 12e.p IV'".l:::H~
. (lto:1l PA~T 7,5IR.9302
_(tnJ
SURI/EYOR'S REAL PROPERTY REPORT
(PART') REl'ORT SUMMAR"!
l>e:scrllltloM (11 !..aid
PAltl Of LOT "'0, COOCESSlONIE.P.R. fORMERLY
Ik r~t TCWlt~9-iIP a ORO, NOW I,.,. tHE W'II'N'SHIP
or ~o ".moNJt IN l\i[ COONTY or SIlII.OCl(.
"-nltt.'d 'lI"m.,.,t.~RllItI1-C1t-W<l
.DIl'-
g<ui'tmu.t"
tcHCAfl!: RfII'"OllCIO W'U. ENcR. o.zo ~rH
NOn: ROor UNe: fF Sftiill IN I"'ST. No. (lr2~80B5.
l06vn 01' st.1U:cr cwo. fHCJlQAOI UNo., ~Jlt.
nlls R::POfH WAS PIlUAArn F~ OERD< WAl:Y.:fr
UIl0 mE UHOCRSlCNED I,CCE'PYS' NO RfSl'ONS'!J1'tlfY
roR uS'[ 9Y D'fHLR PAAnES.
rl<l\ cv\.;fl..d by thh R.~OO'(,
~~~It'l -- ..- --.
. " (Jr mIlE U." '". """"'~ J
~ ""s-lA'IIl:tS .$)10\\N ON Tl-lIS PUfl
Nfe. IN J.R:fRf$ ANIl CAN 9l
o.:..~'dRrs IV F"u:i D';
!lI.'JIOUlQ 81' D.JDCe.
l' COP'm'IQtl 199~, ~UDY MAl( SURVLY.NG UWllEO
'ILi;ll"lS le!l'er:-~. Docurnl!rll p;::'Nid!tf Itlrcl"9h wY.o'W.lan:l5u~'efleo:lldu:orn
SlJRVEYO:'fS REAL PROPERTY REPC~T
( PARl 1 ) PLAN or PARlor
LOT 40
CONCESSION 1 E.P .R.
fORMERLY IN' THE TOWNSHIP or ORO
NGW IN THE
TOWNSHIP OF' ORO-MEOONTE
IN tHE
COUNlY OF SIMCOE
SCAlt I: 300
.
,.
"
.......
RU~"! UAK SURVE'\1NG L 1lJ.
199'.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICA 110
, CERtlN ikA1:
rHE FIElD SURVEY ,~.fPRESetrm ON W-l!i 1'U.H "'''S
CONPUl(D ON ~c t8l;ll. OAY 0:' .I,I^-\Of, 1"4.
.AlED'#'+-t/K;0.r ~~
omo AmI
001"100 lAND SUR\'[YOR
BEARING NOT[
BEAIlWGS AAE ASTRONOUIC .4.tlD ,I,.<;E RET(RREtI 10 OlE
rASllRl'f UNIT Of Tli( I<ltlG'S HIGHWAY No. 93 AS S)l0WN
ON !"UN 5\R-93D2 AND I[lNO H]l'U'2(J"W.
~
..
..,.
o.
R
(Wll)
-1+-*
(1040.1)
...
EPJI.
0[11I0'1[5 f"OUIHI MYEY WONU""OH
OUlo-n:S PUIiIl!D WFroFt urI'lUI4OfT
(I[t<lOlU Sf.lNOAAO lRm' ~
flUlQT[S Nt IRON BAA
flENons W1ltlESS
t\OiOfES n:HCJ~
MNOTtS OOJ~ S"ifTH. O.L5.
091010 ROUNO VI'OH 8M
OEIfo'TU [An OF PINEr AHGlW'I€NE ROAO
nus Pu'N IS NOJ YAl!D UNll.S!i' EM80ssrn IMIU. A .!lS:-"l.
RUDY MAK
SURVEYING L 10.
ONTAIIlO LANG SUI't~S
64 CEDAR POINT( DRIVE. UNT 1401!1
BARRIE ONTMVO
(705) n2-~
F1lt ~. S-a~
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 15, 2005
John Duddy
2005-A-51
3886 Line 11 North, Conc. 11, East Part Lot 4 (Medonte)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting relief from the Committee to permit a 278.7 m' (3,000 It') detached
agricultural building in the required front yard and is requesting relief of the following provision
from Zoning By-law 97-95:
i. Setback from the minimum required front yard of 30 metres (98,4 feet) to a proposed 17.6
metres (58 feet) based on the surveyors letter dated September 2, 2005; and,
ii. Section 5.32 Setback from slope greater than 33% or 3 to 1 from the required 23 metres
(75 feet) to a proposed 1.5 metres (5 feet).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Agricultural
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone
Previous Applications - None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works -
Building Department-
Engineering Department - No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The applicant obtained a building permit (BP 244-05) for the construction of a detached
agricultural building which was issued on August 11, 2005. As part of the approval process, an
occupancy inspection was conducted by the Township Building Inspector on November 1, 2005,
and noted that the building is not located as shown on the drawings submitted with the building
permit and approved by the Township. As a result, the applicant has applied for the above noted
relief to permit the agricultural building in the required front yard with a distance of 17.6 metres
(58 feet) from the front lot line, as indicated on the surveyors' letter dated September 2, 2005. In
order to complete the building permit, the applicant requires relief from the minimum required
front yard and from the minimum setback from slope, given the presence of a fairly dramatic hill
on the lot behind the building.
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan. Section D2.1 of the Township's
Official Plan sets out the following objectives for the Agricultural designation.
.
To maintain and preserve the agricultural resource base of the Township.
To protect land suitable for agricultural production from development and land uses
unrelated to agriculture; and
To preserve and promote the agricultural character of the Township and the
maintenance of the open countryside.
.
.
The principle use of land in the Agricultural designation shall be agriculture. Other permitted uses
include single detached dwellings and other accessory uses.
The applicant's proposal does not appear to offend these principles given that the variances will
accommodate development of a detached accessory building accessory to the permitted
residential use and would not appear to have a negative impact on the agricultural character of
the area.
On this basis the proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan.
Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The intent of maintaining separation from slopes is to ensure the long term stability of slopes.
Based on site inspection, the proposed building is situated which proves to be the most ideal
location for a building. It was also noted that the slope is partially vegetated therefore natural
slope stability is present. On this basis, the proposal is considered to conform with the general
intent of the By-law.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The applicant's lot is a relatively large rural residential property and the proposed building
appears generally compatible within a rural residential context. On this basis the proposal is
considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot.
Are the variances minor?
On the basis that the size of the garage in contrast with the proposed dwelling appears to be
reasonable, is well buffered from the front and side lot lines and should not adversely affect the
character of the agricultural area, the proposed variances are considered to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
The 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-51 subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the proposed dwelling be located no closer than 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the slope
exceeding 33% or 3 to 1; and,
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on
the sketch submitted with the application and on the surveyors letter dated September 2,
2005 and approved by the Committee.
2
All of which is respectfully submitted,
L-- ~kk;
C7 Planner
Reviewed by,
~~p~
Director of Planning
3
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 15, 2005
Michele Blundell
2005-A-52
7 Beechwood Crescent, Lot 8, Plan M281 (Ora)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct a swimming pool to be located at the rear of the property
and a detached garage to be located at the front of the property and is requesting relief of the
following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95:
I. Section 5.32 Setback from Slopes of 23 metres (75 feet) to a proposed 9 metres (30 feet)
for the proposed garage and to 1.5 metres (5 feet) for the proposed pool; and,
il. Section 5.1.3 Permitted locations for detached buildinas to allow a detached garage in the
front yard with a setback of 10 metres (35 feet) from the front lot line.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural Residential
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Rural Residential One Exception (RUR1'65) Zone
Previous Applications - None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works -
Building Department - The Township Building Department has reviewed this application and note
that the garage and pool would be required to meet minimum setbacks to septic system
Engineering Department - No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 90 metres (296 feet), a lot depth varying
between 60 metres (198 feet) and 50 metres (166 feet) and a lot area of 0.46 hectares (1.14
acres). The application has been submitted by Bari Librock on behalf of the owners who is the
perspective purchaser of the 7 Beechwood Crescent. He is proposing to construct a 46 m' (500
ft') detached garage to be located in the required front yard a distance of 10 metres (35 feet) from
the front lot line and a pool to be located behind the house. The applicant requires relief from the
minimum required front yard and from the minimum setback from slope, given the presence of a
fairly dramatic hill on the lot behind the dwelling.
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural Residential in the Official Plan. The main objective in the Rural
Residential designation is to recognize existing estate and country estate developments in the
Township. Permitted uses in the Rural Residential designation are mainly single detached
dwellings and accessory uses.
The applicant's proposal does not appear to offend these principles given that the variances will
accommodate development of a detached accessory building accessory to the permitted
residential use and would not appear to have a negative impact on the character of the residential
area.
On this basis the proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan.
Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Rural Residential One Exception (RUR1'65). The exception
addresses provisions for lot frontage and floor area for dwellings on lands denoted by exception
65. The intent of maintaining separation from slopes is to ensure the long term stability of slopes.
Based on site inspection, the proposed building is situated which proves to be the most ideal
location for a building. It was also noted that the slope is vegetated therefore natural slope
stability is present. One of the purposes of maintaining minimum front yards in the Rural
Residential One Zone is to maintain and protect the estate residential character of a single
detached residential community. However, It is also the intent of the By-law to permit accessory
uses that are reasonable and incidental to a residential use. Given that the applicant does not
currently have a garage, there will be adequate on site parking and the garage will be setback
approximately 10 metres (35 feet) from the front lot line, the proposed variance is considered to
conform with the spirit and intent of the Zoning By-law.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The applicant's lot is a relatively large rural residential property and the proposed building
appears generally compatible within a rural residential context. On this basis the proposal is
considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot.
Are the variances minor?
On the basis that the size of the garage in contrast with the proposed dwelling appears to be
reasonable, is well buffered from the front and side lot lines and should not adversely affect the
character of the rural residential area, the proposed variances are considered to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
The requested variances generally satisfy the 4 tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance application 2005-A-52 subject to
the following conditions:
1 . That the proposed detached garage be located no closer than 9 metres (30 feet) from the
slope exceeding 33% or 3 to 1 ;
2. That the proposed pool be located no closer than 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the slope
exceeding 33% or 3 to 1;
3. That the proposed detached garage be located no closer than 10 metres (35 feet) from the
front lot line;
2
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;
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 survey/real property report prepared by the Ontario Land
Surveyor; and,
6. 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
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~~~S.B.A
Planner
0r-
Reviewed by,
~~e~
Director of Planning
3
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 15, 2005
Mel Mawdsley
2005-B-53
531 Line 13 North, Concession 14, West % Lot 14 (Ora)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2005-B-53 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The land to
be severed and conveyed to the adjacent parcel of land, 545 Line 13 North, is proposed to have a
lot frontage along Line 13 North of approximately 15 metres (50 feet), a lot depth of approximately
186 metres (610 feet), and a lot area of approximately 0,47 hectare (1.18 acres). The land to be
retained would have an area of approximately 38 hectares (95 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 & Environmental Protection Two
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (AlRU), Environmental Protection (EP) & Mineral
Aggregate Resources Two (MAR2) Zone
Previous Applications - B-9/00 (Severance for retirement lot-granted)
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County-
Public Works-
Building Department-
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey and add approximately 1.18 acres to
a neighbouring residential lot that contains a dwelling at 545 Line 13 North. The purpose of the
adjustment is to include a storage shed which is on the retained 95 acre parcel to be associated
with the residential lot on 545 Line 13 North. The land to be retained by the applicant would have
an area of approximately 95 acres, which is currently vacant.
OFFICIAL PLAN
Section 02.3,4 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider
applications for farm consolidations and boundary adjustments in the Agricultural designation.
The policy states:
Boundary line adjustments or farm consolidations may be considered where the
effect of the boundary adjustment or consolidation is to improve the viability of the
farm operation provided:
a) no new lot is created; and,
b) the viability of using the lands affected by the application for agricultural uses
is not adversely impacted if the application is approved.
In reviewing the application, no new building lots will be created, the existing farm operation will
continue to exist and given the relatively small amount of land to be conveyed, the viability of
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 (A/RU), Environmental Protection (EP)
and Mineral Aggregate Resources Two (MAR2) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as
amended. The retained lot and the lot to be enhanced, 545 Line 13 North, would continue to
comply with the provisions of the A/RU and MAR2 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 A/RU & MAR2 Zone. The intent of the application is to include a storage
shed which is on the retained 95 acre parcel to be associated with the residential lot on 545 Line
13 North. One of the main reasons as to why the south interior lot line and the rear lot line are
not squared off is to provide better mobilization of farm equipment on the workable farm field. No
new building lots are being created.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2005-B-
53 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 545 Line 13 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,
AA~iS Hons. BA
Planner
Reviewed by,
~~p
Director of Planning
<.. 0 '>--
, or...:}'
If
(>1
I>
()
,
~_ __ cO 10/
tf-.... -
ct-
:;>.">-",, ..".....
/~_ _rr I
-'0';;'> _~.....~CA
,r- ~
0- ....., I
C ~ r/;>/
"
....' >/,)"P I
/~ ~!
- ____ I
./
:5
::tl
~
'V
\J\
1"
(1\
~,
D.,
"b
,
" '
-~-
-
~
I..{oo i
-~I
i
c()
<:>
"
r-
z.
~
~
I:)
,.
v..
:t:.
V\ t
1 '0 ~
r-
"l:> ':l> fl',
0 ~
::t. " t..
-
n-. ~ -:c
0 Ii 0
f!\' co "-
J::.
'/-l 0\ V, '"" ><.
~ N fl) g "
"- , \l"-.
..... '"
x ~
\l-> Lv
-..;::, ~
,
,
""L
{"l\
(;
I
V
......
~.
~
()
\\
'v
l-c- -'i' oJ> '~ -
<'0 -
/
/'5/
C. cr--
/
/~-
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 15, 2005
Gail Raikes
2005-B-54
9 Trafalgar Drive, Conc. 1, East Part Lot 1 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2005-B-54 is to perm it the creation of a new residential lot The land
to be severed is proposed to have a road frontage along Trafalgar Road of approximately 6
metres (19.6 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 253 metres (830 feet) and a lot area of
approximately 1.5 hectares (3.6 acres). The land proposed to be retained would have a road
frontage along Trafal9ar Road of approximately 14 metres (46 feet), a shoreline frontage of
apprOXimately 86 metres (282 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.6 hectares (1.4 acres).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation -Shoreline
Zonin9 By-law 97-95 -Agricultural/Rural (NRU) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County-
Public Works-
Building Department-The Township Building Dept has reviewed the application and note that the
applicant must verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the
Ontario Building Code
Engineering Department-20m o/s should be shown from 219.15 (218.66). Is there a requirement
or distance for setback from top of bank to proposed building?
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing to create a new shoreline residential lot with a road frontage of
approximately 6 metres (19.6 feet) along Trafalgar Drive, a shoreline frontage of approximately
253 metres (830 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1.5 hectares (3.6 acres). The retained
lands would have a road frontage of approximately 14 metres (46 feet), a shoreline frontage of
apprOXimately 86 metres (282 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.6 hectare (1.4 acres).
OFFICIAL PLAN
The subject lands are designated Shoreline in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The intent of the
Shoreline policies is to maintain the existing character of this residential area, protect the natural
features of the immediate shoreline, and ensure the development is appropriately serviced with
water and sewer services. Section 010-3.5 Preferred Means of Land Division - 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 lotslunits (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 one residential lot, 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 a new residential lot by
consent and not require the development to occur by a plan of subdivision.
Section D10.3.7 New Residential lots by Consent - contains the policies required to be
considered for any application to create a new residential lot by consent
These policies indicate:
D10.3.7
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 010.3.5
and provided the proposed lot and the retained lot (Modification #53):
a) fronts onto an existing public road that is maintained year round by a 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.
In addition, as a condition of consent to sever. the lands subjeclto the application and designated
Shoreline by this Plan shall be placed in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone in the implementing
Zoning By-law, if required.
The application as proposed fronts onto an existing public road maintained by the Township, will
not cause a traffic hazard as it is not on a curve or a hill, therefore satisfying (a) and (b). Given
the comments received by the building department and the significant topography of the site, staff
require more information in respect to the ability of the site to adequate support a private septic
system prior to conformity with the Official Plan being determined.
ZONING BY-LAW
The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95.
as amended. As a condition of consent to sever, the lands to be severed shall be rezoned to the
Shoreline Residential Zone. Furthermore. the lands to be severed are proposed to have a road
frontage along Trafalgar Road of 6 metres (19.6 feet), where 30 metres ((98.4 feet) is required in
the Shoreline Residential Zone in the Zoning By-law. As the retained lands are zoned AlRU, the
minimum lot frontage required in the Zoning By-law is 45 metres (147.6 feet). It will be a
requirement that the applicant applies for a site-specific rezoning to address the deficient lot
frontage for both the severed and retained parcels.
Section 5.32 of the Zoning By-law states that all buildings and structures shall be setback 23
metres (75 feet) from a slope that exceeds 33% or if the slope is less than 3:1. The applicant
submitted with the severance application a Preliminary Test Pit Investigation prepared by
Jacques Whitford, Engineering Consultants. to support the quality of the soil at the proposed
dwelling location. It should be noted In the report that the slope on the proposed lot is 2:1. Given
that the setback requirement has the potential to affect the developability of the lot, it is suggested
that the applicant carry out a more detailed analysis of the slope and identify what setback from
the slope would be recommended. This review should include both the slope down from the
Ridge Road as well as the slope beyond the proposed building envelope towards Lake Simcoe
including the proposed boathouse. As noted in the report, based on the height and steepness of
the slope, slope stability issues are of concern including potential deep seated failures and
surficial erosion.
CONCLUSION
In reviewing the application for the creation of one new residential lot, a more detailed analysis of
the slope needs to be prepared before the consent should be considered. The analysis should
also determine what improvements to the slope in terms of planting, if any, should be carried out
to ensure that the slope is as stable as possible in the future. The report should also assess the
native soil conditions and assess the ability of the site to support a private septic system.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee defer Consent application 2005-B-54 for the creation of a new
shoreline residential lot to allow time for the applicant to prepare a subsurface investigation and
slope stability analysis to assess the soil conditions and the stability of the embankment and the
potential of the proposed lot to adequately support a private septic system.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~lU~'
l~ndY Karaiskakis, Hons. BA
U Planner
Reviewed by,
~(Qc-rL\o~ .
Bruce HOP~J,: R;P
Director of Planning
---
----
---
~-
y
-
----
~
~"
r;G':~.\J .....-
~:;.1\P .~--~_._---~.
.,,(,',;,I\'l-" .- ...........
1..1 .' ~__C~-~--- -'---
-----
p- "-~-,_/-
-
--~
-----
........... '''''1'''''' .,-' '""I" A 1"\
,-____-_==_ l~\.IU!V I r !~\.I.....l./
.,
1\1.....
"V,
,,~
" .
._~
,':;:;"1"';:"-
\. ,,1..11..7.._
:;:1",,1 '" ~
,,\,.1. .,.,.1/
-----
JI-~ -
-
-
-
--
-
~
------
-----
..:::---.----~
---.... '........
-,
'.
".~
-----
./
!:Ge~J,ce,
,...1:1
PROPOSED SHARED DRI\llrW....Y
27.2' ,.---
- "!17 lIl.\fALGAR
wI RO....O
(MAINTAINED
YEAR ROUND
.BY TlW'.)
./
'"
//
---'-'
PART 1
,.----
/
2004 (ELE,,"TlOM 2.18.60)
~...1tR'S
,
\
,
,
\~
/
OVtELUNG
^.'.'.'"
ll4z!/
LPr'N.\J~\O
\l (' <:i:\.\6ecP. j..,' ,:
::C;...JC.; I """f .....
.-'
,....' ' ('f't.-
:~: ~.~ \.,!\.)....
.
pAi~T I
, .
:~~R~_25B!;O
v"<
10l11Mortr..
RESJDEHTlAL
SKETCH SHOWING PROPOSED SEVERENCE
OF PART OF
EAST PART LOT 1
CONCESSION 1 E.P.R.
TOWNSHIP OF ORO. now in the
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
SCALE 1:1000
Ie.. a 111 2il ~ t.e
ELEVA TlON
[LEVA TlONS ARE GEODETIC IN ORIGIN
AND ARE REFERRED TO THE CTY Of BARRIE DATUM.
METRIC
AREAS
PART 1 14714.8 Sq.m.
PART 2 5842.8 Sq.m.
DISTANCES SHO~ ON THIS PlAN ARE IN MEmES AND
CAN BE CONVERlt:O TO FEET BY DI""OlNG BY 0.3048.
RAIKES SURVEYING L TO.
2005
@
RAIKES
SURVEYING
LTD.
Ila_ 1.a4 ~ . ..,..,.". ClImu/l&allr
2D s.rc., street, P.D.Boz UCIO. 8llrrU Outarto. WI( 012
......... ('/IIlI)"""'" ... ('100)""""-
a-Md .w.sr- ~~Jtq.oom
ISSUED: NOIIFA/BER 15. 2005
DRAWN BY: RJ.H.
CHX'D BY: P.TA
PROJECT: AIJ.IWKES
Committee of Adiustment Minutes
~~-\
Thursdav November 10, 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
None declared
ORO.MEDONTE TOWNSHIP
MOTION# l\tl
NOV 2 3 Z005
MEETING: COUNCILD
C. OF W.
a) None received
2. Disclosure of Pecuniarv Interest
3. HearinQs:
9:30
Ronald Russell
Plan M-112, Lot 31 (Medonte)
2005-8-46
In Attendance: Ronald Russell, applicant
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Lynda Aiken
"That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent for Application 2005-8-
46 subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant prepare and submit 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.
.....Carried."
Committee of Adjustment-November 1 0, 2005
Page 1
~-~
9:40
Bob Inman
Plan 952, Lots 64, 65 (Ora)
2265 Lakeshore Road East
2005-A-46
In Attendance: Bob Inman, applicant, Margaret Phillips, neighbour
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Bob Inman, dated November 1, 2005
verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience.
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby defer Minor Variance 2005-A-46 to allow time for
the applicant to revise the minor variance application to relocate the retaining
wall on the site plan.
.....Carried."
Committee of Adjustment-November 1 0,2005
Page 2
9:50
St. George & St. Rueiss Church
Cone. 8, West Part Lot 25 (Oro)
703 Line 7 South
2005-A-47
1~-3
In Attendance: Atif Morkos & Father Youhanna Youssef, agents
representing church
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Lynda Aiken
"That the Committee hereby grant Minor Variance Application 2005-A-47 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 existing rain shed be no closer than 2 metres (6.5 feet) from the
front lot line;
3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2)
verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real
property report;
4. That the applicant submit an application for Site Plan Approval if required;
and,
5. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application and on the sketch submitted with the application and approved
by the Committee, as submitted.
.. ...Carried."
Committee of Adjustment-November 10, 2005
Page 3
C\C\-y
10:00
Tim Russell
Cone. 5, East Part Lot 19 (Medonte)
5718 Line 5 North
2005-A-31
In Attendance: No-one
BE IT RESOLVED that
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Lynda Aiken
"That the Committee hereby grant Minor Variance 2005-A-31 as revised for a
floor area of the detached garage to 72.56 m2 (781 ft2) and subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed garage be in conformity with
the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the
Committee; 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-November 10, 2005
Page 4
~~-s
10:10
Peter & Margaret Kells
Conc. 11, Part West Y2 Lot 5 (Medonte)
2005-B-51
In Attendance: Michael McGuffin, 3999 Line 10 North, representing
applicants, Milt Cook, 3938 Line 10 North, Bryan Sutton, 919 Warminster
Sideroad.
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent for Application 2005-8-
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.
.....Carried."
Committee of Adjustment.November 10, 2005
Page 5
~C\-lo
10:20
Susan & Brian Wiese
Lot 27, Plan 702 (Oro)
59 O'Brien Street
A-5n5
In Attendance: Brian Wiese, applicant
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the Committee hereby grant Minor Variance A-5/75 as revised subject to
the following conditions:
1. The dwelling maintain the existing 1.8 metres (6 feet) setback from the
north side lot line;
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 and approved by the Committee
.....Carried."
Committee of Adjustment-November 10, 2005
Page 6
5. Other Business
~~-l
i. Adoption of minutes for the October 13, 2005 Meeting
Moved by Garry Potter, Seconded by Lynda Aiken
"That the minutes for the October 13th 2005 Meeting be adopted as
printed and circulated
...Carried."
ii. Adoption of minutes for the October 25, 2005 Special Meeting
Moved by Garry Potter, Seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the minutes for the October 25th 2005 Meeting be adopted as
amended to revise the meeting date from Thursday October 25, 2005 to
Tuesday October 25, 2005
...Carried."
6. Adiournment
Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Michelle Lynch
"We do now adjourn at 11 :30 a.m."
... Carried."
(NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.)
Chairperson,
Allan Johnson
Secretary-Treasurer,
Andy Karaiskakis
Committee of AdjustmentMNovember 10, 2005
Page 7
Committee of Adiustment Minutes
Tuesdav November 29, 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 Pecuniary Interest
None declared
3. Hearinqs:
7:00
Aaron & Karen Ambrose
Plan 798, Lots 33 34 (Oro)
67 Lakeshore Road East
2005-A-48
In Attendance: Aaron Ambrose, applicant
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-48
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 garage be no closer than 7.6 metres (25 feet) from the front lot
line;
3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the
garage be no closer than 7.6 metres (25 feet) from the front lot line; and,
4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application and on the sketch submitted with the application and approved
by the Committee, as submitted.
... ..Carried."
Committee of Adjustment.November 29, 2005
Page 1
5. Other Business
None
6. Adiournment
Moved by Michelle Lynch, Seconded by Dave Edwards
'wo.
"We do now adjourn at 7:25 p.m."
... Carried."
(NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.)
Chairperson,
Allan Johnson
Secretary-Treasurer,
Andy Karaiskakis
Committee of Adjustment~November 29, 2005
Page 2
Committee of Adiustment Minutes
Thursdav December 1. 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:
5:00 Paige Custom Homes 2005-A-02
Cone. 1, Plan 1, Part Lots 14, 15, Part 2 on 51 R-32684 (Oro)
71 Barrie Terrace
In Attendance: David Seaman, owner of Paige Custom Homes
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Lynda Aiken
"That the Committee hereby approve Minor Variance 2005-A-02 as revised
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. The proposed dwelling be no clOser than 11 .38 metres (37 feet) from the
average high water mark of Lake Simcoe;
3. The proposed dwelling be no closer than 6.74 metres (22.1 feet) from the
front lot line;
4. The cantilevering deck shall be no closer than 7.88 metres (25.8 feet) from
the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe;
5. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that
conditions 2, 3 and 4 are met;
Committee of Adjustment~December 1,2005
Page 1
6. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application and on the sketches submitted with the application dated
September 29, 2005 and approved by the Committee.
.. ...Carried."
5. Other Business
None
6. Adiournment
Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Michelle Lynch
"We do now adjourn at 5;35 p.m."
... Carried."
(NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.)
Chairperson,
Allan Johnson
Secretary-Treasurer,
Andy Karaiskakis
Committee of Adjustment-December 1,2005
Page 2