Loading...
01 12 2006 C of A Agenda Committee of Adiustment Aqenda Jat4-- ~ Thursdav Januarv 12. 2006. 9:30 a.m. 1. Communications and Correspondence 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Hearings: . 9:30 A-39/03(Revised) Doug Shaw Plan 882, Part Lots 22 and 23 (Oro) 1079 Lakeshore Road East 9:40 2005-A-53 Marion Homer Conc. 9, South Part Lot 22 (Medonte) 6331 Line 8 North 9:50 2005-A-54 Mary Spasov Lot 4, Plan 864 (Oro) 245 Shoreline Drive 10:00 2005-B-56 2005-A-55 David & Shelley Fell Lot 110, Plan M29 (Medonte) 10:10 2005-B-57 Judith Lauder Part Lots 1 & 2, Plan 860 (Ora) 2653 Lakeshore Road East 10:20 2005-A-57 Angus & Marjorie Ferguson North Part Lot 12, Plan 640A (Oro) 2 Wilson Street 10:30 2005-A-56 Fred Shellswell Conc. 7, South Part Lot 2 (Medonte) 3548 Line 7 North 10:40 2005-B-55 CNR Contracting Plan 798, Lots 73, 74, 75, 77, 78 11 Sunnyside Ave. (Ora) 10:50 A-1/03 (Rev) Steve Meyer Conc. 9, West Part Lot 7 (Medonte) 370 Warminster Sideroad 4. Decisions 5. Other business -Adoption of minutes for December 15, 2005 Meeting 6. Adjournment Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for January 12, 2006 Douglas Shaw A-39/03(Revised) 1079 Lakeshore Road East, Plan 882, Part Lots 22 and 23 (Ora) . THE PROPOSAL On December 15, 2005, minor variance application A-39/03 was deferred 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 59m2 (644 ft2) detached 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: i. Front yard setback Required 7.5 m (24.6 ft) Proposed 3 m (10 ft) to the closest corner of the detached garage 1.8m (6ft) 6.9% ii. Interior side yard setback i1i. Section 5.1.5 Maximum Lot Coverage -for all detached accessory buildings including proposed garage 2m (6.5ft) 5% 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 Department: Building Department: Engineering Department: 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 as well as addressing the issue of exceeding the maximum lot coverage for all detached accessory buildings. 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 59m2 (644 ft2) 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 Do the variances 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. Do the variances 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. 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 6.9%. 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. Are the variances 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. Are the variances 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 The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance. . RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve minor variance A-39/03 as revised 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 after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, cP. 13; 3. That the proposed garage be no larger than 59m2 (644 tt\ 4. That the proposed garage be no closer than 1.8 metres (6 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 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~~ Andy Karaiskakis, Hons.BA Planner ~ewed by, ~~~> Director of Building & Planning Services . Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for January 12, 2006 Marion Homer 2005-A-53 6331 Line 8 North, Conc. g, South Part Lot 22 (Medonte) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief from Table B4 c) from Zoning By-law 97-95; Provisions for Buildinas, Except Sinale Detached Dwellinas. The applicant is proposing to construct a 58 m2 (624 ff) kennel that is to be attached to the existing dwelling by a breezeway and is requesting relief from the minimum setback from the front lot line of 100 metres (328 feet) to a proposed 80 metres (262 feet) to the front corner of the dwelling. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural and Environmental Protection Two Overlay 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: 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 -\ii, The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 311 metres (1,023 feet) and an area of 21 hectares (52 acres) and is presently occupied by a one and a half storey dwelling with an area of approximately 100 m2 (1,076 W). The applicant wishes to construct a 58 m2 (624 ff) kennel to be located behind the dwelling and to be attached to the dwelling by a breezeway. At their October 19, 2005 Council Meeting, Council approved a kennel licence for the applicant and on November 25, 2005 was issued a building permit (442-05) for the kennel building. During the footings inspection, it was noted that the front corner of the kennel was 94.99 metres from the front lot line, whereas 100 metres is required under Zoning By-law 97-95. The applicant submitted the minor variance application on December 7, 2005. On November 16, 2005, Council approved Interim Control By-law 2005-122 prohibiting the use of kennels in any zone within the Township. As the applicant was approved of the kennel licence before the Interim Control By-law was passed, the use of the kennel is permitted. The Four Tests of the Minor Variance Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural and Environmental Protection Two Overlay in the Official Plan. The primary function of the Rural designation is to preserve and promote the rural character of the Township and the maintenance of the open countryside and to prevent the intrusion of land uses which are incompatible with the rural character and/or resource activities of the area. The proposed kennel would appear to maintain the character of the rural area and would therefore conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? One of the purposes of maintaining minimum front yards in the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone is to provide adequate buffer for agricultural buildings, including kennels, from neighbouring lots to reduce noise or an obnoxious use as a result of the proposed building. Given that the proposed variance is for a reduced setback in the front yard and will be attached to the dwelling by a breezeway, and that the main dwelling will meet the standards of the A/RU zone, it is suggested that the proposed variance is considered to comply with the spirit and intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? In determining the desirable development of the lot, it should be noted that the property is zoned Agricultural/Rural and that the structure is proposed to be built behind the dwelling. The proposed location would maintain the character of this agricultural area and even though the kennel will be attached to the existing dwelling by a breezeway, the kennel is considered an accessory use to the dwelling. On this basis, the proposed structure would provide for the appropriate and desirable development of the lot. Is the variance minor? The application is deemed to be minor in nature on the basis that the applicant has complied with the majority of the zoning provisions in the Agricultural/Rural zone for a kennel and is significantly lower than the maximum height requirement of 11 metres (36 feet) permitted in this zone. CONCLUSIONS The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance. "i_, RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2005-A-47 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the front yard for the proposed kennel shall be no closer than 94.99 m (311.6 It), as shown on the Site Plan prepared by Galbraith, Eplett, Worobec Surveyors dated September 15, 2005; 2. That the proposed structure shall be used in accordance with the permitted uses of the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) zone; 3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the Site Plan dated September 15, 2005 submitted with the application and approved by the Committee. 4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report; and, 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of which is respectfully submitted, A~akis Hons. B.A. Planner Reviewed by, ~~p~ Director of Building & Planning Services Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for January 12, 2006 Mary Spasov 2005-A-54 245 Shoreline Drive, Lot 4, Plan 864 (Ora) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.16 of Zoning By-law 97-95; 'Non-complvinq buildinqs and structures'. The applicant is proposing to replace and enlarge a roofline at the rear portion of the dwelling which is currently encroaches into the 20 metre (65.6 feet) setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe. The proposed new roofline will increase the volume and area of a portion of the dwelling located in the setback requirement of Lake Simcoe with an increased height of approximately 11 metres (36 feet). The dwelling will maintain the existing 4 metres (12.9 feet) and 7.5 metres (24.8 feet) for the north-west and north-east corners of the dwelling respectively setback from the interior side lot lines. 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 Department- Building Department - The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department- L.S.R.C.A. approval required PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a street frontage along Shoreline Drive of approximately 27 metres (89 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 29.5 metres (97 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.17 hectares (0.44 acres) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling. The applicant wishes to replace an existing roofline of the dwelling by adding a second storey. The proposed extension will increase the volume of the existing dwelling with the addition of the second storey. This new addition will increase the height of the dwelling to approximately 11 metres (36 feet). The dwelling will maintain the existing 4 metres (12.9 feet) and 7.5 metres (24.8 feet) for the north-west and north-east corners of the dwelling respectively setback from the interior side lot lines. As noted above, the existing dwelling is located within the 20 metre (65.6 feet) setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe, therefore a minor variance is required for the proposed addition. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? 1 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. . To ensure that existing development is appropriately serviced with water and sewer services. The requested variance is for a relatively minor roofline adjustment to an existing non-conforming structure, therefore the existing character is not being compromised. It should be noted that the subject property is being serviced by a well and septic system. On this basis, the proposed variance would therefore conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). One of the purposes or goals of maintaining setbacks in residential areas is to maintain a positive built form and visual quality. The site inspection revealed that the proposed new roofline and addition to the dwelling will not result in a decrease in the required setbacks and should not adversely impact the residential neighbourhood as the addition will not further encroach into the required setbacks and the proposal is considered reasonable and minor in size. The application has been circulated to the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority who has not commented on the proposal to date. The proposal would conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law subject to LSRCA endorsement which will be recommended as a condition of approval. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the addition with an increase in height 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 structure would provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, it would not lead to the over development of the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS The subject application to permit the addition of a second floor and new roofline to the existing dwelling on the subject property generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve minor variance application 2005-A-54 subject to the following conditions: 1. The dwelling maintain the existing 4 metres (12.9 feet) and 7.5 metres (24.8 feet) for the north-west and north-east corners of the dwelling respectively setback from the interior side lot lines; 2. That the height of the new roofline be no higher than 11 metres (36 feet); 2 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; 4. That the appropriate approvals be obtained from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, if required; and, 5. 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. All of which is respectfully submitted, A~ Andy Karaiskakis Hons. B.A. Planner Reviewed by, ~~.~ Director of Building & Planning Services 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for January 12, 2006 David & Shelley Fell Lot 110, Plan M29 (Medonte) 2005-B-56 2005-A-55 THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2005-B-56 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The land to be severed and conveyed to the adjacent parcel of land, 37 Alpine Drive (Lot 111), is proposed to have a lot frontage along Alpine Drive of approximately 7.6 metres (25 feet), a lot depth of approximately 72.5 metres (238 feet), and a lot area of approximately 552 m2 (5,950 fe). The land to be retained, Lot 110 would have a lot frontage of approximately 38 metres (125 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.18 hectares (0.46 acres). The purpose of this boundary adjustment is to ensure that the dwelling on Lot 111 is contained on Lot 111 in its entirety as it is currently encroaching over the property line onto Lot 110. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition. Minor Variance application 2005-A-55 is proceeding concurrent with consent application 2005-B-56 that will be heard at the same meeting. The applicants are requesting relief from the minimum lot frontage requirement of 45 metres (147.6 feet) to a proposed 38 metres (125 feet) and from the minimum required lot area of 0.4 hectares (0.98 acres) to a proposed 0.18 hectares (0.46 acres) for the proposed boundary adjustment to 37 Alpine Drive (Lot 111). The requested variance would be a condition to be fulfilled if application 2005-B-56 is approved. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural Residential Zoning By-law 97-95 - Rural Residential Two Exception (RUR2*119) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Public Works Department- Building Department- Engineering Department- PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey and add approximately 552 m2 (5,950 fe) to a neighbouring residential lot that contains a dwelling at 37 Alpine Drive (Lot 111). The purpose of the adjustment is to ensure that the dwelling on 37 Alpine Drive is contained on fully on the lot, as part of the garage encroaches over the property line onto Lot 110. The land to be retained by the applicant would have an area of approximately 0.18 hectares (0.46 acres), which is currently vacant. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are designated Rural Residential in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The Rural Residential designation is currently silent with respect to lot additions. OP A #17 which was a general Amendment to the Official Plan was adopted by Council in August 2003 and approved by the County of Simcoe on November 10, 2004 and subsequently has been appealed. OPA #17 proposes the following new section for the Committee's reference: "Boundary Adjustments A consent may be permitted for the purpose of m'odifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot is created. In reviewing an application for such a boundary adjustment, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the properties affected as intended by this Plan. In addition, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the agricultural parcels affected." While it is recognized that OPA#17 is not in effect, it does function as a statement of Council policy. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is currently zoned Rural Residential Two Exception (RUR2*119) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. If approved Lot 110 would be deficient in lot frontage and lot area as the resultant frontage of the approved boundary adjustment would be 38 metres (125 feet) and the area of the lot would be 0.18 hectares (0.46 acres). The requested variance would be a condition to be fulfilled if application 2005-B-56 is approved. CONCLUSION The proposed consent application is for a lot addition that complies with the Official Plan and the retained lands and the lands to be enhanced would comply with the minimum frontage and area requirements in the Rural Residential Zone. The intent of the application is to ensure that the dwelling on 37 Alpine Drive is contained on fully on the lot, as part of the garage encroaches over the property line onto Lot 110. The result of the boundary adjustment will still leave sufficient area for a new dwelling to be constructed on Lot 110. No new building lots are being created. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2005-B- 56 and approve minor variance application 2005-A-55 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 37 Alpine Drive and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That the shed be removed or relocated in compliance with the Zoning By-law; 6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and, 7. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. All of which is respectfully submitted, A~~ Andy Karaiskakis Hons. BA Planner Reviewed by, ~ce~ Bruce Hoppe MCIP, RPP Director of Building & Planning Services Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for January 12, 2006 Judith Lauder 2005-B-57 2653 Lakeshore Road East, Part Lots 1 & 2, Plan 860 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2005-B-57 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The land to be severed and conveyed to the adjacent parcel of land, 467 Shoreline Drive, is proposed to have a lot width of approximately 30 metres (100 feet), a lot depth of approximately 20 metres (66 feet), and a lot area of approximately 613 m2 (6,600 fe). The land to be retained, 2653 Lakeshore Road East, would have an area of approximately 0.2 hectares (0.54 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 - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Public Works- Building Department- Engineering Department- PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey and add approximately 613 m2 (6,600 fe) to a neighbouring residential lot that contains a dwelling at 467 Shoreline Drive. The purpose of the adjustment is to include mature trees and green space to be associated with the shoreline residential lot on 467 Shoreline Drive. The land to be retained, 2653 Lakeshore Road East, would have an area of approximately 0.54 acres, which currently contains a single detached dwelling. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are designated Shoreline in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The Shoreline designation is currently silent with respect to lot additions. OPA #17 which was a general Amendment to the Official Plan was adopted by Council in August 2003 and approved by the County of Simcoe on November 10, 2004 and subsequently has been appealed. OPA #17 proposes the following new section for the Committee's reference: "Boundary Adjustments A consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot is created. In reviewing an application for such a boundary adjustment, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the properties affected as intended by this Plan. In addition, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the agricultural parcels affected." While it is recognized that OPA#17 is not in effect, it does function as a statement of Council policy. ZONING BY-LAW If the consent were approved, both the residential parcels would continue to comply with the Zoning By-law provisions applicable to uses in the SR Zone. CONCLUSION The proposed consent application is for a lot addition that does not appear to offend the principles of the Official Plan and the retained lands and the lands to be enhanced would comply with the minimum frontage and area requirements in the SR Zone. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2005-B- 57 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 467 Shoreline Drive 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, A~ Andy Karaiskakis Hons. BA Planner Reviewed by, ~~~. Director of Building & Planning Services Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for January 12, 2006 Angus & Marjorie Ferguson 2005-A-57 2 Wilson Street, North Part Lot 12, Plan 640A (Ora) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing to demolish the existing cottage to be replaced by a 195 m2 (2100 te) 2 storey dwelling as shown on the attached sketch. The applicants are requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95: i. Setback from the minimum reauired front vard and rear vard of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to a proposed 3 metres (10 feet) for the proposed dwelling 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 applicant would be required to obtain septic approval prior to issuance of building permit Engineering Department- No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 52 metres (173 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 15 metres (49 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1 ,541 m2 (16,591 te) and is presently occupied by a 74 m2 (800 W) cottage and a storage shed. The applicants wish to demolish the existing structures and construct a 195 m2 (2,100 te) 2 storey dwelling and to be setback 3 metres (10 feet) from the front and rear property lines and approximately 39 metres (130 feet) from Lake Simcoe. Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives: . To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. . To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. The requested variances for a new dwelling is considered to conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. The proposed dwelling will be well buffered by a large trees along Wilson Street and will be approximately 9 metres (30 feet) set back from the neighbouring dwelling at 4 Wilson Street, therefore the existing character is not being compromised. On this basis, the proposed variance would therefore conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). One of the purposes or goals of maintaining setbacks in residential areas is to maintain a positive built form and visual quality. The large trees along Wilson Street will provide a form of privacy for the property across the street and will be set back approximately 9 metres (30 feet) from the neighbouring dwelling to the south. Therefore the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the By-law. Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed dwelling would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given that the proposed dwelling would provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, it would not lead to the over development of the lot. Are the variances minor? On the basis that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area, the proposed variances are considered to be minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS The subject application to permit the construction of a new dwelling on the subject property generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve application 2005-A-57 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed dwelling be located no closer than 3 metres (10 feet) from the front and rear property lines; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation that the dwelling be located no closer than 3 metres (10 feet) from the front and rear lot lines; 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; and, 2 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 All of which is respectfully submitted, ~ Andy Karaiskakis Hons. B.A. Planner Reviewed by, ~~~[U Bruce Hoppe. MCIP, RPP Director of Building & Planning Services 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for January 12, 2006 Fred Shells well 2005-A-56 3548 Line 7 North, Concession 7, South Part Lot 2 (Medonte) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting permission from the Committee of Adjustment to permit the construction of a 213 m2 (2300 W) two storey dwelling and detached garage within the Environmental Protection Zone. The proposed dwelling will be located approximately 91.4 metres (300 feet) from the front property line. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural & Environmental Protection Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones 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 PL,ANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a street frontage of approximately 286 metres (940 feet) on Line 7 North, a lot depth of approximately 721 metres (2,365 feet) and a lot area of approximately 20 hectares (49.75 acres). The property currently contains a 111 m2 (1200 W) single storey dwelling. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing the dwelling and construct a two storey single detached dwelling with an area of 213 m2 (2300 W). The proposed dwelling will be located in the Environmental Protection Zone as noted in Zoning By-law 97-95. As a result, permission is required from the Committee of Adjustment for the construction of the dwelling. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural and Environmental Protection in the Official Plan. The primary function of this designation is to preserve and promote the rural character of the Township and the maintenance of the open countryside and to prevent the intrusion of land uses which are incompatible with the rural character of the area. Permitted uses in the Rural designation includes single detached dwellings as well as accessory uses. In reviewing Schedule B-Components of the Environmental Protection One & Two Designations, it appears that the Environmental Protection located on the lands are part of a Class 1, 2 & 3 Wetlands and Provincially Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), one of the components of the Environmental Protection One Designation. As the proposed dwelling will maintain the character of the rural community, and would appear to maintain the character of the surrounding area, and is to be located on an area which is on a high elevation, the proposal appears to conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? In assessing the issue of conformity with the Zoning By-law, the proposed dwelling should not detract from the overall character of the lot and surrounding natural features being the mature trees located on the lot. One of the purposes of regulating structures being built in the Environmental Protection Zone is to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system, to ensure that development does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to flooding and to ensure that development does not occur on hazardous slopes. The application has been circulated to the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and expresses no objection to the proposal. Based on site inspection, the proposed location of the dwelling appears to be high and there is no evidence of a watercourse in the immediate area, therefore the proposed dwelling would therefore conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The proposed dwelling should provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed variance will provide for the construction of a single detached dwelling and will continue to maintain the rural character of the area. On this basis the proposed variance would provide for the appropriate development of the lot. Is the variance minor? As Committee is aware, "minor" is not determined on a mathematical basis. On the basis that the proposal is reasonable and would not appear to adversely affect the integrity of the Environmental Protection Zone, the proposed variance is considered to be minor. CONCLUSIONS The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve minor variance 2005-A-56 subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the size and setbacks of the proposed dwelling be in conformity with the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation so that i) the dwelling be located no closer than 91.4 metres (300 feet) from the front property line, and; 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of which is respectfully submitted, AY~ Andy Karaiskakis Hons.B.A Planner Reviewed by, ~CR-~ Bruce Hoppe. MCIP, RPP Director of Building & Planning Services Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for January 12, 2006 CNR Contracting 2005-B-55 11 Sunnyside A ve., Plan 798, Lots 73, 74, 75, 77, 78 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2005-B-55 is to perm it the creation of a new residential lot. The land to be severed is proposed to have a road frontage along Symond Ave of approximately 43.81 metres (143.7 feet), a lot depth of approximately 45.8 metres (150.2 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres). The land proposed to be retained would have a road frontage along Sunnyside Ave of approximately 30.39 metres (99.7 feet), a lot depth of approximately 45.72 metres (150 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.1 hectares (0.34 acres). 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) 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 DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to create a new residential lot with a road frontage along Symond Avenue of approximately 43.81 metres (143.7 feet), a lot depth of approximately 45.8 metres (150.2 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres). The retained lands would have a road frontage along Sunnyside Ave of approximately 30.39 metres (99.7 feet), a lot depth of approximately 45.72 metres (150 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.1 hectares (0.34 acres). DISCUSSION Upon reviewing the application for the creation of a new residential lot, the proposed retained lands would not comply with the minimum required lot area in the Shoreline Residential Zone being 0.5 acres, as the retained lot is proposed to have a lot area of 0.34 acres. It is prudent that the application be deferred at this time to allow the opportunity for staff to discuss with the applicant the options to address the deficient lot area for the retained lands as a result of the severance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee Defer Consent application 2005-B-55 for the creation of a new residential lot to allow the opportunity for staff to discuss with the applicant the options to address the deficient lot area for the retained lands as a result of the severance. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~(~ Andy Karaiskakis, Hons. BA Planner Reviewed by, ~~~. Director of Building and Planning Services Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for January 12, 2006 Steve Meyer A-1/03(Rev) 370 Warminster Sideroad, Concession g, West Part Lot 7 (Medonte) THE PROPOSAL On February 13, 2003, minor variance application A-1/03 was granted the following relief by the Committee of Adjustment for the construction of a new dwelling: i. Section 5.32 from the minimum setback of a slope or embankment that exceeds 33% from 23 metres (75 feet) to 14.0 metres (45.9 feet) to permit a single detached dwelling ii. Section 5.28 Setbacks from Limits of Environmental Protection Zone from 30.0 metres (98.4 feet) to 27.5 metres (90.2 feet) for the proposed house and 14.0 metres (45.9 feet) for the proposed attached garage As the proposed dwelling will meet the setback from slope, as approved by the Committee, the proposed dwelling, however, cannot meet the setbacks from the Environmental Protection Zone. By meeting the approved setback from slope, the proposed dwelling will be setback approximately 5 metres (16.4 feet) from the Environmental Protection Boundary Line. The purpose of the revised minor variance application is to reflect the correct distance from the Environmental Protection Boundary Line to the proposed dwelling. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Agricultural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones 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 proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Engineering Department- No concerns PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a street frontage along Warminster Sideroad of approximately 83 metres (272 feet), a lot depth of approximately 120 metres (393 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1 hectares (2.4 acres). The property is currently vacant. The applicants are proposing to construct a single detached dwelling. The proposed dwelling will be located within the setback limits of the Environmental Protection Zone as noted in Zoning By-law 97- 95. As a result, permission is required from the Committee of Adjustment for the construction of the dwelling. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The subject property is designated Agricultural in the Township's Official Plan. The general intent of the Agricultural designation is to preserve and promote the agricultural character of the Township and the maintenance of the open countryside. A single detached dwelling is a permitted use within the Agricultural designation. As the proposed dwelling will maintain the character of the agricultural community, and would appear to maintain the character of the surrounding area, the proposal appears to conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? In assessing the issue of conformity with the Zoning By-law, the proposed dwelling should not detract from the overall character of the lot and surrounding natural features being the mature trees located on the lot. One of the purposes of regulating structures being built within 30 metres of the Environmental Protection Zone is to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system, to ensure that development does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to flooding and to ensure that development does not occur on hazardous slopes. The application has been circulated to the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and expresses no objection to the proposal. Based on site inspection, the proposed location of the dwelling appears to be dry and there is no evidence of a watercourse in the area, therefore the proposed dwelling would therefore conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The proposed dwelling should provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed variance will provide for the construction of a single detached dwelling and will continue to maintain the 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 would not appear to adversely affect the integrity of the Environmental Protection Zone, the proposed variance is considered to be minor. CONCLUSIONS The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve minor variance A-1/03 as revised subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the size and setbacks of the proposed dwelling be in conformity with the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Commit1ee; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation so that a. the dwelling be located no closer than 5 metres (16.4 feet) from the Environmental Protection Zone; b. the dwelling be located no closer than 14 metres (45.9 feet) from the slope that exceeds 33%, and; 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990. c.P. 13. All of which is respectfully submitted, k~ Andy Karaiskakis Hons.B.A Planner Reviewed by, ~~~ Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Building & Planning Services Committee of Adiustment Minutes Thursdav December 15. 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 Pecuniary Interest None declared 3. Hearinas: 9:30 Bob Inman Plan 952, Lots 64, 65 (Oro) 2265 Lakeshore Road East 2005-A-46 In Attendance: Bob Inman, applicant BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby 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 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~December 15, 2005 Page 1 9:40 Dawn Oschefski Plan 993, Lot 29 (Orillia) 1081 Woodland Drive 2005-A-41 (Rev) In Attendance: No one BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Dave Edwards "That the Committee hereby approve minor variance 2005-A-41 as revised 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 after 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 tr); 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. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment~December 15, 2005 Page 2 9:50 Doug Shaw Plan 882, Part Lots 22 and 23 (Oro) 1079 Lakeshore Road East A-39/03(Rev) In Attendance: No one BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby defer application A-39/03 as per the applicants request. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment-December 15, 2005 Page 3 10:00 Horseshoe Valley Resort Conc. 3, Part Lots 1 and 2 (Oro) 1101 Horseshoe Valley Road 2005-A-49 In Attendance: Martin Kimble, representing Horseshoe Valley Resort, David O'Brian, volunteer with Canadian Disabled Skiers Association. BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby 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. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment~December 15, 2005 Page 4 10:10 Rod Harris Conc. 1, North Part Lot 40 (Oro) 3215 Penetanguishene Road 2005-A-50 In Attendance: Rod Harris, applicant Secretary-Treasurer read letters from Chris Doherty, Engineering Tech II, County of Simcoe, received December 14, 2005 and from Mary Elizabeth Veitch, 3362 Penetanguishene Road, received December 8, 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 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 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 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. .. ...Carried." Committee of AdjustmentMDecember 15, 2005 Page 5 10:20 John Duddy Cone. 11, East Part Lot 4 (Medonte) 3886 Line 11 North 2005-A-51 In Attendance: John Duddy, applicant BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby 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. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment-December 15, 2005 Page 6 10:30 Michele Blundell Lot 8, Plan M281 (Oro) 7 Beechwood Crescent 2005-A-52 In Attendance: Bari Librock, purchaser of 7 Beechwood Crescent, Wayne & Shirley Busch, 4 Beechwood Crescent, Hill Bailey, 2 Beechwood Crescent and Lawrence Houben, 1642 Line 10 North. Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Shirley & Wayne Busch, 4 Beechwood Crescent, dated December 14, 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 Deny Minor Variance application 2005-A-52 as the variances would not appear to be minor .....Defeated." Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Defer Minor Variance application 2005-A-52 to allow time for the applicant to provide additional information to the Committee with respect to the driveway leading to the detached garage and the proximity of the garage to the septic system tile bed. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-December 15, 2005 Page 7 10:40 Mel Mawdsley Conc. 14, West 1f2 Lot 14 (Oro) 531 Line 13 North 2005-B-53 In Attendance: Mel Mawdsley, applicant BE IT RESOLVED that: "That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent for Application 2005-8- 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. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment~December 15, 2005 Page 8 10:50 Gail Raikes Cone. 1, East Part Lot 1 (Oro) 9 Trafalgar Drive 2005-B-54 In Attendance: Peter & Anita Raikes, representing applicant , Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Joan Marycz, 7 Trafalgar Drive, dated December 5, 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 Consent application 2005-8-54 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. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-December 15, 2005 Page 9 5. Other Business i. Adoption of minutes for the November 10, 2005 Meeting Moved by Lynda Aiken, Seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the minutes for the November 10th 2005 Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated .. .Carried." . ii. Adoption of minutes for the November 29, 2005 Special Meeting Moved by Michelle Lynch, Seconded by Garry Potter "That the minutes for the November 29th 2005 Special Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated .. .Carried." ili. Adoption of minutes for the December 1, 2005 Special Meeting Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the minutes for the December 1st 2005 Meeting be adopted as amended to revise the meeting time from 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. . ..Carried." iv. Nomination and Election of Chairperson The Secretary-Treasurer opened the floor for nominations for the position of Chairperson for the year 2006 Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Dave Edwards That Lynda Aiken be nominated for the position of Chairperson. Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Michelle Lynch That the nominations for the position of chairman be closed. The Secretary-Treasurer asked Ms. Aiken if she would stand for the position of Chairperson and Ms. Aiken accepted. Committee of Adjustment~December 15, 2005 Page 10 6. Adiournment Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Lynda Aiken "We do now adjourn at 12:25 p.m." ... Carried." (NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.) Chairperson, Allan Johnson Secretary-Treasurer, Andy Karaiskakis Committee of Adjustment~December 15, 2005 Page 11 .