01 30 2006 PAC Agenda
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
Robinson Room
Date: Monday, January 30, 2006
Time: Immediately following
Public Meetings scheduled for
7:00 p.m.
.
1. Opening of Meeting by Chair
2. Adoption of Agenda
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in
Accordance with the Act.
4. Minutes of Previous Meetings - November 28, 2005
5. Correspondence and Communication
(a) Correspondence received January 20,2006 from M. Fife re: TRY
Recycling
6. Planning Applications
(a) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and
Planning, Re: Ian Sponagle, Concession 11, West Part of Lot 17
(Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, Application 2006-ZBA-02 (Applicant
to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to
the review of the report)
(b) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning,
Re: Jeffrey Gooch, East Part of Lot 10, Concession 5 (Medonte)
Township of Oro-Medonte, Application 2005-ZBA-23 (Applicant to be
afforded an opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to the
review of the report)
(c) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning,
Re: Laurelview Homes, Part Lots 3 and 4, Concession 4, Plan M-
741. (Oro) Township of Oro-Medonte, Application 2005-ZBA-28
(Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the application
subsequent to the review of the report)
7. Other Business
a. Next PAC Meeting - Monday, February 27, 2006
8. Adjournment
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
2003-2006 TERM
q-I
November 28, 2005 @ 9:19 p.m.
Robinson Room I Council Chambers
Present:
Council Representatives
Mayor J. Neil Craig
Deputy Mayor Harry Hughes
Councillor Dan Buttineau
Councillor Ralph Hough
Councillor Paul Marshall
Councillor John Crawford
Councillor Ruth Fountain
Public Representatives
Terry Allison
Robert Barlow
Craig Drury
John Miller
Regrets:
Mel Coutanche
Staff Present:
Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning; Janette Teeter, Clerk's Assistant
Also Present:
Marni Fife, Frank Lepschi, Bob Hodgson
1. Opening of Meeting by Chair.
Mayor J. Neil Craig assumed the chair and called the meeting to order.
2. Adoption of Agenda.
Motion No. PAC-1
Moved by Terry Allison, Seconded by Robert Barlow
It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of
Monday, November 28,2005 be received and adopted, as amended to revise Item 6b)
from 229 Lakeshore Road West to 220 Lakeshore Road West.
Carried.
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in
Accordance with the Act.
None declared.
4. Minutes of Previous Meetings - October 24, 2005.
1-/-2,
Motion No. PAC-2
Moved by Robert Barlow, Seconded by Terry Allison
It is recommended that the minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting held on
October 24, 2005 be received and adopted.
Carried.
5. Correspondence and Communication.
(a) Memorandum from Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning re: Status - Planning
Applications dated November 23, 2005.
Motion No. PAC-3
Moved by Terry Allison, Seconded by Robert Barlow
It is recommended that the memorandum dated November 23, 2005 from Bruce Hoppe,
Director of Planning re: Status - Planning Applications be received.
Carried.
6. Planning Applications.
a) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning, Re: Bachly
Investments Inc., Blocks 65-69, Registered Plan 51M-679 (Medonte), Township of
Oro-Medonte, Application 2005-ZBA-19.
Motion No. PAC-4
Moved by John Miller, Seconded by Craig Drury
It is recommended that
1. Report No. PD 2005-064, presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning, Re: Bachly
Investments Inc., Rezoning Application 2005-ZBA-19 ,Blocks 65-69, Registered Plan
51 M-679 (Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte, be received and adopted.
2. That it is recommended to Council that the application for rezoning submitted by Bachly
Investments Inc. respecting Blocks 65-69, Registered Plan 51 M-679 (Medonte),
Township of Oro-Medonte from Residential One Holding R1(H) to a site specific
Residential One Holding Exception R1 (H)*165 Zone to establish a 1,860 square metre
minimum lot area for Phase 2 of the development be approved; That the request for
amendments to the minimum sideyard setback not be supported; And Further That the
Clerk bring forward the implementing By-law for approval.
Carried.
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
November 28, 2005, Page 2
If'''3
,
b) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning, Re: Frank
Lepschi Concession G, Part Lot 27, RP 51R-16789 Part 1, 229 Lakeshore Road
West (Oro) Township of Oro-Medonte, Application 2005-ZBA-30.
Motion No. P AC-5
Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by John Miller
It is recommended that
1. Report No. PD 2005-065, presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning, Re:
Frank Lepschi, Rezoning Application 2005-ZBA-30, Concession 6, Part Lot 27, RP
51 R-16789 Part 1, 220 Lakeshore Road West (Oro) Township of Oro-Medonte, be
received and adopted.
2. And Further That it is recommended to Council the application for rezoning submitted
by Frank Lepschi respecting Concession 6, Part Lot 27, RP 51 R-16789 Part 1, 220
Lakeshore Road West (Oro) Township of Oro-Medonte be scheduled for a Public
Meeting pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act.
Carried.
7. Other Business.
a) Next PAC Meeting - Monday, January 30,2006
8. Adjournment.
Motion No. P AC-G
Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by John Miller
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 9:51 p.m.
Carried.
Chair, Mayor J. Neil Craig
Director of Planning, Bruce Hoppe
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
November 28. 2005, Page 3
November 28, 4005
'-
ATTENTION: Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk
Neil Craig - Mayor - Township Oro-Medonte
Harry Hughes - Deputy Mayor - Oro-Medonte
REFERENCE:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FOR PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING BY-LAW AND
PROPOSED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION IN THE
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE... 2005-ZBA-22 &
2005-SUB-Ol
Ladies and Gentlemen;
I own the lOO-acre property that abuts the back border of the
proposed land, referenced above. This proposal, to subdivide the
land adjacent to mine, specifically for building a recycling and
composting plant owned and operated by Try Recycling, is a cause
of grave concern to me, as a next door neighbourand as a
ratepayer.
This letter serves as mv official notice of opposition to the
wblect proposal for this land to be rezoned from
A2ricuJtural/Rural to Economic Development to a))ow the
conseauent subdivision of this land for use as a recvclin2 plant.
1
"',,'?"/,:'''"'
_-C'=<'_="';?,"=,;c,,,,,"''''''_~~~'::='''''''':.''-''''':~-''''''_';:'''''--''-.'.._~'-"-~'-~,,",:~iY';;",'E
,"-. .-, :._-" ~};~t,*:S~'"~,%b'q~:"2;J'f;Yft1i?2ii;;;~~t?:S'{';~>';-'~:~~:,~~:cr:.:,. _
',:.:.,.;:<:__;.::~ "''',_""_'',,,' " _",.'. __, '.',~ :;);'i.:~,;);.:;)>'),:,~
-,.."--<<;:y..:,:",,Ol"-:".~
'--'''-'~--;'<ij:;r~
.. .--... "....-................
5"a-Z-' ['
My property boiders thecntire b~ck boUndary of the proposed
recycling and composting plant: I a11l directly affected by the use
of this land zoned for Economic Development.
.
The following is an initial listing of my objections, concerns and
observations regarding the proposed future use of this land
abutting my property. This list is not complete and further study of
the proposed plan will no doubt provide additional concerns:
OUTSTANDING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN
THE ORo-MEDONTE "PEER REpORT" THAT I WANT TO SEE
ADDRESSED:
Incomplete information:
Confirmed and supported by the town's own 'Peer Report',
submitted by R.J. Burnside & Associates Ltd., in October of this
year;
"Insufficient information has been provided by Try
Recycling, and the town, to enable any presentation of
professional opinion requested by the town regarding the
proposed use of this land. "
Traffic review is inaccurate.
See R.J.Burnside report re: traffic and access review report
comments:
"The study provided by Try Recycling contains deficiencies
that compromise our ability to reach conclusions on the
proper methods to mitigate the impact of the proposed
development... without correct analysis; it is not possible to
reach conclusions on the appropriate traffic mitigation
measures. "
On a more personal note, I have concerns regarding:
Wind direction: - I am located directly downwind from the
proposed recycling/compost site raising issues of, and not
restricted to:
2
.,"
poisoning of the. environmentally sensitive
re-forested area of thousands of trees that I
have planted directly along the back border
of the. proposed site. This pollution will
render my plantation lumber as worthless.
- My 40 acres currently under sweet corn,
will also be affected by air borne particulate
as it is grown for human consumption.
- Asthmatic family members will also be
seriously compromised by air borne
concrete and drywall dust, polluting the
environment.
Noise pollution:- The noise of back-up alarms on trucks and
backhoes for12 hours a day, 6 days a week,
month in/month out will result in a total loss
of enjoyment of my property
- The decibel level of the open air industrial
grinders, as they process concrete and
drywall, are of great concern to me. The
possibility of the enjoyment of a peaceful
summer evening next door to this plant,
seems improbable.
Visual pollution: The height and continuous grinding noise of the
30' conveyer belt proposed, with airborne dust spewing from the
top is of great concern.
Ground water pollution: My property is the source of several
creeks that run throughout Oro-Medonte. The creation of berm
3
barriers for noise and the plant's existence itself, will distmb the '5 q .. If
water table. Try Recycling states they will do frequent testing of
ground water. Ifbuilt, I will be doing weekly testing of ground
water as well. My results, be they the same or different from Try
Recycling's, will be forwarded immediately to the Ministry of the
Environment. My reports with the possibility of different values
will halt the plant operation on an ongoing basis, resulting in a
stockpiling of debris awaiting processing causing environmental
and visual eyesores. (See http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-I-70-566-
2895-20/that was then/disasters tragedies/hagersville)
Revenue Loss: - My re-forested trees (tens of thousands) will be
rendered as valueless for resale once covered with the white
powder from this recycling operation. (See attached photo and
Silverculturist report.)
The future use of my property as a revenue generating 'Corporate
Retreat', well into in the start-up stages, is now halted and in
serious jeopardy of continuing thereby eliminating future revenues
currently planned.
Timing: - We are now in December's busy vacation and holiday
season. An initial request on my part for professional assistance at
this time is met with offices closed into January. The timing of
this matter awaiting the Town's decision does not afford the
necessary time for residents to properly assess the proposed
amendment, prior to the cutoff date imposed by the Municipal
Board.
Quality and Enjoyment of Living: -.The affect on my enjoyment
of my property and quality of living are in serious doubt once the
noise and pollution and traffic for this plant are underway
General Comments:
As agreed by the neighbours, my property is a breathtakingly
beautiful piece ofland that abuts this proposed recycling site. (See
photo). With its series of ponds, Maple stand and re-forested
4
~ ;.
1 d. . . . d' ., th 5 Q - 5"
acreage, my an ill Its current pnstme con ItlOn, IS an asset to e
Township of Oro-Medonte. I have been diligent in maintaining
my land over the last 25 years and as a result, it is currently
enjoyed by both owners and neighbours alike, winter and summer.
Local residents make use of the hiking trails for skiing or walking,
the ponds for skating in winter and swimming in Slimmer and all
enjoy the observation of the abundant wild life created and
supported by the network of ponds I have created and roadways I
have constructed.
I have been a conscientious neighbour and landowner for the last
25 years and have actively managed the land including the great
expense of an Aquaculture (fish fanning) start-up operation,
engineering of roads and ponds and active re-forestation and crop
management. (See Woodlands Improvement Award attached
signed by the Ministry of the Environment).
In addition to my official objection to this subdivision and
proposed recycling plant, I would also request that the deadline
for other 'Submissions of objection and/or appeal" be moved
and/or delayed into March of 2006.
My understanding that the date for a 'statement of objection' of the
27th of January by the Ontario Municipal Board does not give
interested rate payers the time necessary to properly assess their
position.
7 months ago, the Town ofOro-Medonte was made aware of Try
Recycling's interest in locating their second plant in Oro-Medonte.
As the landowner most directly affected by this development, I
was only made aware of the proposed site a week ago as of this
writing. I feel it is only fair to request the same amount oftime (7
months) is made available to the ratepayers to thoroughly access.
the impact of the existence of a plant managed by Try Recycling.
I do not feel these concerns and requests are unreasonable, given
that the entire plant backs onto my land.
5
5a-~.
I believe it would be in the best interest of the Town ofOro-
Medonte to pause and take a more studied approach in order to
assess the impact ofthis proposed development. This would be
prudent for the future developmental possibilities and use of this
l3I1d.
As "Fathers of the Town" you are making decisions for the well
being of all residents of ORO. You must ask yourselves, "Is a
recycling plant entrance, landscaped or not, really the first thing we
want potential investors in Oro- Medonte to see as they step off
their plane? (see 'Evaluation Grid' attached, offered by Try
Recycling as proof of maintenance... .NOTE: their lowest score
was on "Landscaped Areas" and "Floral Displays".)
Summary:
Re: the Planning analysis for Rezoning Application, filed with the
town in July 2005, it states: (Page 3 - section 4.2 County of
Simcoe Official Plan, Paragraph 4):
"The policy also requires various development standards to
be met. These standards and the proposal's compliance to
them are asfollows... the proposed use is not located in the
vicinitv ofincompatible surroundinJ! land uses. "
I believe the proposal for this plant recycling operation
contravenes the town's own guideline stated above, that were put
into the planning analysis in order to prevent this exact same type
of conflict situation.
I request at this time that any decisions or activity concerning this
proposal be copied to me. This would include and is not limited to
any decisions made by the town in this regard.
6
..'
SQ-7
A recycle plant in my backyard will reduce the value of my
property to nil (as per F. Schafer Real Estate). My retirement is
severely and negatively affected by the creation of this plant in my
backyard.
Of -all the township residents, I alone will take the fIrst and greatest
fmancial hit.
I thank you for your attention to this matter, upcoming election
notwithstanding.
Yours truly,
. BJ-rfY
M. M. Fife
E % Lot to, Oro Line 8
905-827 -9010
Cc:
Stacey & Jim Graham, Try Recycling
Mr. Graham Sr. of Try Recycling
Oro-Medonte Rate Payers Group
Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning, Oro-Medonte
Graham Wilson & Green Solicitors
Nancy Fletcher (nee)
Oro Township web site
Encls.
Documents/OrO
7
Recycle plant location at bottom of picture, not visible in this shot
This property borders the back of the proposed site.The shot is about 10 years old. Refores'
fjerY-O?~ ~ v., ~~ ~
--::::-. "-~ '\\~t!:-~ \\\\~~'\\~ "\\"~ ~N/U ~4'...., _.:-~.n -'
~-<:-.
.' WIA NO. 11-'9. 7]-])56 ~ r:JV~W
~~
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
WOODlANDS
IMPRO
AWARD
Presented to:
MARGARET M, (MARNIEl FIFE
!
,
In recognition of your participation in the Woodlands Improvement
Act Agreement program on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary.
of the Woodlands Improvement Agreement Act (1966-1991).
~ Ministry of
'CfJ Natural
... V.. Resources
Ontario
MINISTER
illl' ,
oa - I
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
BP 2006-003 Planning Advisory Andy Karaiskakis, Planner
Committee
Subject: Department:
Council Zoning By-law Amendment Planning
for Ian Sponagle,
C.ofW. Concession 11, West Part of Date:
Lot 17 (Oro), 563 Line 10 Januarv 26, 2006
Motion # North R.M. File #: D1425664
Application # 2006-ZBA-02
Date: Roll #: 010-004-15700
I'
II BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to consider a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted by
Ian Sponagle. It has been brought to the Township's attention that the mapping of a wetland
(Hawkestone Swamp Class 3) in the 1995 Official Plan is incorrect. The boundaries of the wetland in the
1995 Official Plan were translated into the Zoning By-law. A map showing the location of the wetland
and the location of the Environmental Protection Zone in By-law 97-95 is shown on Attachment #1. It
appears as if the wetland that shows up on the Township base map has been incorrectly shown on both
the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law Schedules. The result is that the Environmental Protection Zone
in the Zoning By-law precludes development of structures and buildings in the north half of Concession
11, West Part of Lot 17.
Official Plan Amendment #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. The policies of OPA #17, although not in effect, do provide a
statement of Council's intent and are therefore considered within this report It should be noted that OPA
#17 has correctly identified the Hawkestone Swamp on the above noted property, refer to Attachment
#2.
Given that the Environmental Protection One designation was implemented by the placing of an EP
Zone on the property, building permits for new buildings and structures cannot be issued in the EP Zone
and within 30 metres (98.4 feet) of the limits of the EP Zone Boundary by the Township of Oro-Medonte.
At the present time, the Township is in receipt of a building permit application for a covered porch on the
ba ... 2-
subject land. Unless the designation and zoning is corrected on the property, the Township will not be in
a position to issue the building permit.
In order to correct this problem, Mr. Sponagle has applied for the amendment to develop his property as
proposed.
I DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND ADJACENT USES:
The subject land has an area of approximately 42 hectares (104 acres) and fronts on Line 10 North.
The property is located in a predominantly agricultural area. Land uses in the surrounding area include
single detached dwellings, farm land (north & west) and wood lot (south). On the basis of a site visit with
representatives of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, it has been confirmed that the
location of the Hawkestone Swamp is indeed in error.
II ANALYSIS:
,
The Ministry of Natural Resources has provided the municipality with mapping showing the location of
the wetlands in areas of the Township. On the basis of a review of that mapping, it is clear that the 1995
Official Plan and 1997 Zoning By-law is in error. Through the OPA #17 processes, the location of this
wetland has been corrected, therefore it is prudent to consider the implementing Zoning By-law at this
time.
On the basis of the above, the correspondence from the Ministry of Natural Resources and a site
inspection, it is staff's position that the proposed amendment conforms to the intent and policies of
Official Plan Amendment #17 and that enough information has been submitted by the applicant for the
public to generally understand the nature of the proposal at a public meeting under the Planning Act.
-
II RECOMMENDATION (S):
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
1. THAT this report be received and adopted; and
2. That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Zoning By-law
Amendment Application 2006-ZBA-02, West Part of Lot 17, Concession 11 (Oro), proceed to a
Public Meeting in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted,
A~'ACST(A)
Planner
C$^WV- /
~U2-~;
Q&v1 2-1 !~& "
6Q...3
ATTACHMENT f= I
~\
ALLINGHAM
CREEK
BLUFFS
CREEK
~~ COMPLEX
\S'~
'<" C9~
MJ,~ C'~
:r
HAWKSTONE
SWAMP
A TfACMMtNT Jt 2..
"d-
'1,-1
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
BP 2006-002 Planning Advisory Committee Andy Karaiskakis, ACST(A)
Subject: Department:
Council Application for Rezoning - Planning
Jeffery Gooch
C.ofW. East Part of Lot 10, Date:
Concession 5 (Medonte), 545 Januarv 13, 2006
Motion # Mount St. Louis Road R.M. File #: 23784
Application # 2005-ZBA-23
Date: Roll #: 020-002-09400
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
II BACKGROUND:
II
On August 9,2005, Mr. Jeffery Gooch submitted an application for rezoning to the Township of Oro-Medonte.
The intent of the application was to rezone the subject lands within the East Part of Lot 10, Concession 5 from
the Agricultural Rural Exception 96 Zone to the Agricultural/Rural zone to permit the development of a single
detached dwelling. At the present time, exception 96 does not permit the development of a home on the
property.
The subject property has a frontage of 30 metres and an area of 2,428 square metres and is currently vacant.
The property is located on the south side of Mount St. Louis Road and is currently treed.
A statutory Public Meeting pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 on the application was
held on November 28, 2005. There were no members of the public who commented at the public meeting.
The purpose of this report is to review the application and make recommendations to Planning Advisory
Committee as to the disposition of the matter.
.11 OFFICIAL PLAN
I
The subject lands are located adjacent to the east of the former waste disposal site for the Township of
Medonte. As a result, the lands under application are subject to Section H8 (Waste Disposal Sites) of the
Official Plan for the Township of Oro-Medonte. Section H8 indicates that an assessment is required to
support development on lands within 500 metres of the fill area of a closed site. The assessment is intended
to review the:
'\:'-2.-
a) impact of any methane gas migration within 150 metres of the property boundary of the waste disposal
site;
b) whether the proposed use will be adversely effected by noise, odour, dust or other nuisance factors
from the waste disposal site;
c) potential traffic impacts;
d) whether the proposed use will be adversely effected by ground and surface water contamination by
leachate migrating from the waste disposal site; and
e) the impact of the proposed use on leachate migration from the landfill site.
Any assessment is required to be carried out in accordance with the Province's Guideline 0-4, dated April
1994.
The intent of the above policy is to ensure that the any development within a certain distance of a closed
waste disposal site will not be impacted by the closed waste disposal site in any way. It is for this reason that
the comprehensive Zoning By-law prohibits the development of single detached dwellings on existing vacant
lots within the assessment area.
I ANALYSIS
I
Rubicon Environmental Inc. prepared a report on August 5, 2005 to address the policies of the Official Plan.
In a letter dated August 19, 2005 from Jagger Hims Limited to the County of Simcoe, it is indicated that "it is
our opinion that the report prepared by Rubicon Environmental Inc complies with Ministry Guideline 0-4.
Based on the report and our knowledge of the closed landfill site, there are no technical environmental
constraints related to the landfill sites for which the County should withhold approval for the proposed
development of the subject property."
On August 23, 2005, Ms. Kimberley Pickett of the County of Simcoe indicated in a letter to Mr. Paul Rew of
Rubicon Environmental Inc. that the comments of Jagger Hims are supported. In addition, the County
indicates that the following conditions will be required to be completed to the satisfaction of the County.
1. The property title for the subject property notes proximity to the landfill and that there is a potential for
nuisance effects from this proximity.
2. There is a process by which any recommendations made in the report by Rubicon Environmental and
further By Jagger Hims Limited are implemented.
3. That it be noted on title that subsequent development of the property will require a separate D4 Study.
The County has been satisfied with the use of a development agreement which will be registered on title and
therefore carry with the land for the benefit of future owners. It will be recommended that the implementing
By-law not be passed until such agreement has been duly executed by the parties and registered on title.
With respect to the recommendations made by Rubicon Environmental it is noted that there are no such
recommendations made in their report. The only recommendations made by Jagger Hims are those
referenced in the County letter, which is discussed above. As a result, there are no other recommendations to
consider.
In addition to the written comments from the County, the only other written comments received respecting this
application are: a letter of no objection received from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority dated
October 6, 2005; and a letter of no objection received from the Simcoe County District School Board dated
November 21, 2005.
- 2 -
II RECOMMENDATION(S):
~ft,-.;
~
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
1. THAT Report No. BP 2006-002 be received and adopted; and,
2. THAT the application for rezoning submitted by Jeffery Gooch. file 2005-ZBA-23, to rezone lands
described as East Part of Lot 10, Concession 5 (Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte, to a site-specific
AlRU Zone permitting residential and accessory uses only, be supported; and,
3. THAT the Clerk bring forward the appropriate by-law for Council's consideration after such time as the
development agreement has been duly executed by the applicant and the County and registered on
title.
Respectfully submitted,
l~~iS' ACST(A)
Planner
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
~OJ/\UCL:J d-( /O~ '
~ U)1r v"
C.A.O.
Dept. Head ~U2.~
- 3-
be-'
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Planning Advisory Prepared By:
BP 200S-00S Committee Chris Jones, MCIP,
RPP
Subject: Laurel View Department:
Homes Inc. Application Planning
for Rezoning for lands
located in Part Lots 3
and 4, Concession 4,
Plan M-741.
Council
C. of Date: January 20, 2006
W.
Motion R.M. File #: 200S-ZBA-
# 28
Date: Registered Plan M-741
INTRODUCTION
On December 22, 2005 an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment was submitted by Laurel
View Homes Inc. for an approved Plan of Subdivision known as Plan M-741 located in Part Lots 3
and 4, Concession 4 (Oro). The purpose of the application is to obtain site-specific exceptions to
the section of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 97-95 which allows encroachments in required
yards for architectural features related to a building or structure. The application was submitted by
Ms. Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP, Planning Consultant for the applicant.
The purpose of this report is to review and summarize the application and provide PAC with a
recommendation on how to proceed with the application.
1
BACKGROUND
be. .,.. 2".
Section 5.9.1 of the Zoning By-law is a general provision that permits minor encroachments into
required yards for buildings or structures. The current provision reads as follows:
Architectural features such as sills, belt courses, cornices, eaves or gutters,
chimney breasts, pilasters, roof overhangs, stairs and landings used to access a
main building, cantilevered window bays, unenclosed porches and balconies may
encroach into any required yard a distance of no more than 1.0 metre (3.2 feet).
While this provision has worked well and provided some flexibility for minor encroachments into
front, side and rear yards, the builders of the Laurel View subdivision at Horseshoe Valley have
encountered a number of problems with building encroachments which Section 5.9.1 does not
address.
The applicable yard requirements and regulations for a detached dwelling in Laurel View is as
follows:
1. Minimum lot area 0.045 hectares (0.11 acre)
2. Minimum lot frontage 15 metres (49.2 feet)
3. Minimum required front yard to the dwelling unit 4.5 metres (14.8 feet)
4. Minimum required front yard to the garage 6.0 metres (19.7 feet)
5. Minimum required rear yard 7.5 metres (24.6 feet)
6. Minimum required interior side yard
. one side
. alternate side
7. Minimum required exterior side yard
8. Maximum building height
9. Minimum landscape open space
10. Maximum building coverage
11. Minimum required rear yard for a deck is:
. for those lots abutting a golf course
or recreational trail
. for all other lots
1.5 metres (4.9 feet)
0.75 metres (2.5 feet)
3.0 metres (9.8 feet)
11 metres (36.1 feet)
25%
50%
4.5 metres (14.7 feet)
5.0 metres (16.4 feet)
In order to address encroachment issues which have arisen, Laurel View andlor new
homeowners have submitted a number of minor variance applications. A summary of these
applications indicating the purpose of the application and relief granted is summarized in Table 1.
It is noted that only one such application has been refused by the Committee of Adjustment.
2
"c."3
Table 1 - Summa of Laurel View Minor Variance A plications
A Iication No. Pur ose Relief
2004-A-29 Ste s in front ard 0.7 m
2005-A-03 Porch encroachment 0.29 to 0.94 m'
2005-A-03 Ste s in front ard 0.5 m
2005-A-22 Sa window in rear ard 0.30 m
2005-A-22 Sa window in rear ard 0.30 m
2005-A-22 Sa window in rear ard 0.30 m
. Application applied to 8 different lots.
Decision
Not A roved
A roved
A roved
A roved
A roved
A roved
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The purpose of the Laurel View zoning amendment is to modify Section 5.9.1 in a site-specific
manner for the Laurel View subdivision. The primary objectives of the amendment are:
1. To modify the existing provision by reducing the encroachment in the side yard from 1
metre to 0.5 metre. In addition, all stairs would be deleted from the list of features
permitted to encroach into a side yard;
2. To modify the existing provision by allowing the 1 metre encroachment for architectural
features only in the front and rear yards;
3. To establish that stairs which are "attached to or form part of the building foundation"
(and requires a building permit) are bound by the 1 metre encroachment provision: and,
4. To establish that "landscaping treatments such as stairs and landings constructed of
interlock materials" (and which do not require a building permit) are not bound by any
setback requirement.
The distinction between stairs and landscaping treatments as indicated above is illustrated in
Figure 1 and 2.
Figure 1 - Stairs Attached to or Forming Part of the Building Foundation
Photo Borrowed from Wyevale Precast Website
3
'c:..-1I
Figure 2 - Stairs Incorporated in a Landscaping Treatment
Photo Borrowed from Atlas Block Webstle
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
It is recognized that a problem exists and it is in the interest of both parties to resolve it as this
issue has taken up time and resources of the Township and the developer. It is also recognized
that as a result of small lot sizes, the available building envelops in the Laurel View subdivision
are smaller and more "urban" than other development in Horseshoe Valley which is characterized
by larger lots capable of accommodating a dwelling and accessory features such as stairs within
the building envelope.
The solution outlined by the proponent is reasonable from a planning perspective and on this
basis it is recommended that this application proceed to a public meeting to allow for public
comment.
In proceeding to a public meeting, PAC should consider and discuss a number of issues to
ensure this rezoning produces an effective zoning amendment. These issues include:
. From a character or urban design perspective is there a difference between structural
pre-fabricated stairs and stairs made from landscaping materials?
. Should there be a limit upon the extent of landscaping features in the front yard?
4
'be-S
. Are there any issues of public safety that need to be addressed in the design of
landscaping stairs?
These issues will be reviewed by planning staff, the Chief Building Official, the Township planning
consultant and the proponent and will be ana lysed in greater detail in the final report on this
application.
RECOMMENDATION
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee recommend to
Council:
1. THAT this Report No. BP 2006-005 be received and adopted; and
2. THAT the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Zoning By-law
Amendment Application 2005-ZBA-28, Rezoning for lands located in Part Lots 3 and 4,
Concession 4, Plan M-741 (Oro), proceed to a Public Meeting in accordance with the
provisions of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
a~ Senior Planner
U ~ Meridian Planning Consultants
C.A.O. Comments:
Date: G6--r\vCCS d-Co /oG,.
~Wv ../'
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
5