03 16 2006 C of A Agenda
Committee of Adiustment Aaenda
Thursdav March 16. 2006. 9:30 a.m.
1. Communications and Correspondence
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
3. Hearings:
9:30
2006-B-04
Milton James Cook
Cone. 10, South Part Lot 5
(Medonte)
3938 Line 10 North
9:40
2006-B-05
Estate of Norman A. Campbell
ConcA, East Part Lot 20 (Oro)
184 Line 4 North
9:50
2006-B-06
Dallas & Alberta Slessor
Cone. 4, East Part Lot 9 (Oro)
2104 Line 4 North
10:00
2006-A-02
Marcelo Pena
Cone. 1, Plan 780, Lot 41 (Orillia)
83 Eight Mile Point
10:10
2006-A-03
Sondra Passfield
Plan 461, Part Block A, Part Block B,
RP 51 R-23354 Parts 3, 4 (Orillia)
. 79 Healey Beach Road
10:20
2006-A-04
Glenn & Darlene Avery
Plan 940, Part Lot 16 (Orillia)
201 Moon Point Drive
10:30
2006-B-07
Isaac Benitah
Plan 808, Lot B (Oro)
38 Juniper Lane
10:40
2005-B-54
Gail Raikes
Cone. 1, East Part Lot 1 (Oro)
9 Trafalgar Drive
4. Decisions
5. Other business
-Adoption of minutes for February 16, 2006 Meeting
6. Adjournment
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
March 16, 2006
Milton James Cook
2006-8-04
3938 Line 10 North, Concession 10, South Part Lot 5 (Medonte)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2006-B-04 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The
land to be severed and conveyed to the adjacent parcel of land, 3894 Line 10 North, is
proposed to have a lot frontage of approximately 66.4 metres (217.9 feet), a lot depth of
approximately 104.6 metres (343.3 feet) and 89.6 metres (294 feet) for the north and south
property lines respectively and a lot area of approximately 0.6 hectares (1.6 acres). The land
to be retained, 3938 Line 10 North, would have a lot frontage of approximately 249 metres
(817 feet) and an area of approximately 19 hectares (48 acres). No new building lots are
proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Agricultural
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County-
Public Works Department- No future drive allowed (no sight line).
Building Department- The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note
that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey and add approximately 1.6
acres to a neighbouring lot that contains a dwelling at 3894 Line 10 North. The purpose of
the adjustment is to provide a green space buffer between 3938 Line 10 North and 3894 Line
10 North. The intent is so that buildings or structures are not to be built on the lands subject
to the lot addition so not to obstruct the view from the dwelling at 3894 Line 10 North of the
country landscape. The land to be retained by the applicant would have an area of
approximately 48 acres, which is being used for agricultural production.
OFFICIAL PLAN
Section D2.3.4 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider
applications for farm consolidations and boundary adjustments in the Agricultural
designation. The policy states:
Boundary line adjustments or farm consolidations may be considered where the
effect of the boundary adjustment or consolidation is to improve the viability 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 retained lands is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) in the Township's Zoning By-
law 97-95, as amended. The lot to be enhanced and the parcel of land to be conveyed to
3894 Line 10 North are zoned AlRU and would continue to comply with the provisions of the
AlRU Zone. The application would therefore generally conform with the policies of the Zoning
By-law.
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 requirements in the AlRU Zone.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent regarding Application
2006-B-04 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 3894 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 no future driveway be allowed on the lands subject to the lot addition;
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,
AYa~
Andy Karaiskakis, HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
~~~
Director of Building & Planning Services
PRINT:
Page 1 of 1
Map printed on: Thu Mar 09 12:56:182006
Disclaimer: This map is not a legal survey!.
Comments: .
01,7. .0, ",,"IOkm
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
March 16, 2006
Estate of Norman A. Campbell
2006-8-05
184 Line 4 North, Concession 4, East Part Lot 20 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2006-B-05 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The
land to be severed and conveyed to the adjacent parcel of land, 2037 Highway 11, is
proposed to have a width of approximately 100 metres (330 feet), a lot depth of
approximately 30.5 metres (100 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.26 hectares (0.65
acres). The land to be retained, 184 Line 4 North, would have a lot 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
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) & Environmental Protection (EP) Zones
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to rnake notes)
Simcoe County-
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- No concerns
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey and add approximately 0.26
hectares (0.65 acres) to a neighbouring lot that contains a dwelling at 2037 Highway 11. The
purpose of the adjustment is to add mature trees and to create a larger residential lot for
2037 Highway 11. The land to be retained by the applicant would have an area of
approximately 95 acres, which currently contain various outbuildings.
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 retained lands is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) in the Township's Zoning By-
law 97-95, as amended. The retained lot would continue to comply with the provisions of the
AlRU Zone for agricultural purposes. The proposed severed portion to be conveyed to 2037
Highway 11 would be required to be rezoned from the AlRU Zone to the Residential One
(R1) Zone as a condition of consent as the lot to be enhanced, 2037 Highway 11, is zoned
R1 and to reflect its intended usage for residential purposes. 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 and severed lands would comply with the minimum frontage and area requirements
of the AlRU and the lands to be enhanced would comply with the requirements in the R1
Zone. No new building lots are being created.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent regarding Application
2006-B-05 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 2037 Highway 11 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 applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning on the subject lands to accurately
reflect the land use;
6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and,
7. That the conditions of consent-imposeEl-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 HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
~ LQ.) ^Nr:P '
Bruce Hoppe~\;;
Oirector of Building & Planning Services
'"' II
~.~
~ ?
~ v'
"".
\J\
-
~
....
........
\
lI.
;'
"-
....
~
~
~
~
~
.t;
~
~
'S?:v
~~
~~
~ \)
~
~~
~ '\ ~
I ~
~~~
~~~
~~v
'-t.VI
~~ ~
\t-,\..... \;:;I
~.....
"'f. ~
O\L
~
\:J~
~~
~t
t~~
~ ~
. t\
-
-
~
~~
~
t\'\
~><
}*
~ ~
~ ~
Z~
~ "^
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ Il\ ~
~~~
~~~
KKt'
~'\
~'='
~~
~
,~
~
~
'---
~
~ "\
!::l \)
f)~ ~
~~~
~ R\
~
~
'1 H
~ ~
~ ~
::t:>
~
..........
~ ~
~ ttt
~
~
~
~
\I)
~
~~
~~
\II,
~
'"
~
~
03/09/2006 ~9~39
~
416-235-4267
CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PAGE 02/02
Ministry of
Transportation
Mlnlst8l'e dell
TransportS
~ Ontario
Phone:
Fax:
E~mail:
(416) 235-4088
(416) 235-4267
joel.angel@mto.go'l.on.ca
Central Region Operations
Corridor Management Section
7th Floor, Building 0
1201 Wilson Avenue
Downsview. Ontario
M3M 1J8
March a, 2006
Andy Karaiskakis
Secretary - Treasurer
Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South
P.O. B,:>x 100
Ora, ON LOL 2XO
Re: Consent 2006-8-05
Estate of Norman A. C:ampbell
Part of E1/2 Lot 20, Concession 4
Township of Oro
County of Simc.oe - Hiwy 11
Deaf Mr. Karaiskakis.
This Ministry has reviewed thl~ above noted application and has no objection in principle to the
proposed consent.
In general, the owner should be advised that future development of these lands, including new
buildings/proposed accesses. etc. will require Ministry review and approval. Ministry permits are
required for all structures above and below ground, located within 45m from our highway
prope:rty limit or 396m from a Ministry intersection.
Permits must be obtained frcm our office located on the 71h Floor, Atrium Tower, 1201 Wilson
Avenue. Toronto, Ontario M:~M 1J8. The Permit Officer contact for this area is Mrs. Janice
Hendrix and she can be reached at 416-235-5382.
If yOIJ have any questions regarding these cornments please do not hesitate to contact rne.
Plecme notify this office of council's decision.
SinCl~rely.
~~~.
d
....
Joel Angel C.E.T.
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
March 16, 2006
Dallas & Alberta S/essor
2006-8-06
2104 Line 4 North, East Part Lot 9, Concession 4 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2006-B-06 is a technical severance to transpose the location of an
existing vacant lot to a new location about 282 metres (928 feet) north of the existing lot along
Line 4 North and to enlarge the size of the transposed vacant lot. The transposed lot is proposed
to have a lot frontage of approximately 53 metres (175 feet), a lot depth of 76 metres (250 feet)
and a lot area of approximately 0.4 hectare (1 acre). The land proposed to be retained, 2104 Line
4 North, would have a lot frontage of 570 metres (1,872 feet) and a lot area of approximately 40
hectares (99 acres). This application will not result in the creation of a new lot; the applicant has
applied for consent to transpose an existing vacant lot located in Concession 4, East Part Lot 9.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Agricultural
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) Zone
Previous Applications - B-20/87 (Creation of lot-approved)
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County
Public Works Oepartment-
Building Oepartment-The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and note that the
proposal appears to meet the minimum standards.
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Background
This application will not result in the creation of a new lot. The applicant has requested that the
existing vacant lot be "transposed" to a new location about 282 metres (928 feet) north of the
existing lot along Line 4 North.
The "transposed" lot would have an area of approximately 0.4 hectare (1 acre) and a frontage of
approximately 53 metres (175 feet). The retained lands, which would include the bulk of the
agricultural parcel together with the vacant lot created in 1987, would have an area of
approximately 40 hectares (99 acres) and a frontage of 570 metres (1,872 feet).
OFFICIAL PLAN
The Agricultural policies of the Oro-Medonte Official Plan are silent with respect to the issue of lot
transposition, which could also be referred to as a technical severance. In the absence of specific
policies relating to the application, Committee should consider the overall objectives of the
Agricultural designation:
1. To maintain and preserve the agricultural resource base of the Township;
2. To protect land suitable for agricultural production from development and land uses
unrelated to agriculture;
3. To promote the agricultural industry and associated activities and enhance their capacity
to contribute to the economy of the Township; and,
4. To preserve and promote the agricultural character of the Township and the maintenance
of the open countryside.
Zoning By-Law 97-95
Both the proposed and retained lots would comply with the Zoning By-law provisions applicable to
residential uses in the AlRU Zone which requires a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares and a
minimum lot frontage of 45 metres.
There would be no situations of non-compliance created by the proposed technical severance.
By relocating the existing vacant lot to the north corner of the agricultural parcel of land, it will in
effect improve the viability of the existing farm operation.
ANALYSIS
Although there is an absence of specific policies dealing with the proposed consent, it is
suggested that the application conforms with the spirit of the Official Plan for the following
reasons:
. The proposal does not offend the objectives for the Agricultural designation; and,
. The proposal will not result in the creation of a new lot.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The severed and retained lots comply with the minimum lot area and frontage
requirements for the AlRU Zone.
2. The proposed consent will not result in the creation of a new lot and does not offend the
intent of the Official Plan as it relates to the Agricultural designation.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee approve Provisional Consent for application 2006-B-06
subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the new lot, including the 1 square foot land
noted in Condition 3, 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 Township receives a 1 square foot conveyance of land, free and clear of all and
any encumbrances, from the property being enlarged at Concession 4, East Part Lot 9,
former Township of Oro. The applicant shall pay all costs related to this condition,
including any costs for surveying and/or any costs related to the preparation and/ or
registration of any required municipal by-law related to the said conveyance;
4. That the retained agricultural lands be merged in title with the residential lot created in
1987 (Part 1, RP 51R-16648) 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;
5. That the applicant's solicitor provide the Secretary-Treasurer with an undertaking that the
retained lands and the previously created residential lot (Part 1, RP 51R-16648) will
merge in title; and,
6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from
the date of the giving of this notice as noted below.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
A~
Andy Karaiskakis HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
~:~I AriVv .
Bruce Hoppe m~
Director of Building & Planning Services
ep(O"Z>~et
~
,~~,,~
lof
LJ t> tt
\t \DCO.\eO -to
'Y/\,(2.'j' I
S,l1.,II:rb"'li5
'-""
..s
}
LOT e
~--"--j(
LOT 9
CD
I--
\.J
--J
RAIL
.
'\l- 'J\
IB I-N5904l'ISllW
'8
~
~
'",
..
-!II
(,
'"
z
I.
PA RT I
AREA= 0.52 Ac.
0,
~
N 59041' 15"W
FENCE
(~l
, V'j'
()J
15000..T
150.00 $~lt.
1--..
.
....
N 61034' 30. E
66.03meoa
<:
ll,J
ll,J
lz. ~
I h
I ll,J
, I Q:l
LIN... E BETWEEN LOT 9AND 10 SIB tIt ,"
.."*_ -~-4---.._~- .__..----X-~_ ~ N5'3045 34 E
, RAIL FENCE :'t 6600' set
< . 1* - WIRE FENCE
C)
.......
C/)
CI)
~
'---'
'>
.......
C')
(~,
10
ALLOWANCE
CJ
BET WEE N
i
-0 -0
o U)
'"
'" "
o 0
= N
I.
I()
".
C:l
<:
'<:l:
.
-0
0 'I;!-
0
'!!
~
C)
(I)
~
'5
~
G
;l
-0 ~
U) -
'U)
.. -
Ol .
.... 0
'"
I~
I
I
. LOT e
5tSt 1403} LOT lit
~I
CD
I REQUIRE THIS PLAN TO BE
DEPOSITED UNDER THE REGISTRY
ACT.
RECEIVED AND DE p.
(J~
(J)
Sl8 04031
i
"
o
l~
i
I
:~ #;;;;;~. ;':;;,;,~-
'" "
'" 0
'fl .-- -
'" C
N ~
z 1__
1iS;B;O~~~~ - \)
I 51R 2/95 -_I
~--
PLAN
51R -
..,
\--
e)
--J
DATE
__JA-..t.._ r..s;.
DATE :!':~U~~":. '.? l ~9~~ . _
Vb'~/
PAU R KI~ H~
ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR
CANADA LAND SURVEYOR
CAUTION
THIS PLAN IS NOT A PLAN OF
SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE MEANiNG
G1 OF THE PLANNING ACT.
.<02
EPU Y LA1Jt R E
FOR THE RE RY
OF SIMCOE (N Il
PART I - PART OF E i/2 LOT (
- INST. N' 55523
l!)
PLAN AND FIELD NOTES OF SUR\EY
PART OF EI/2LOT91 CON CESS II
lDWNSHIP OF ORO .
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
SCALE I INCH = 50 FEET
PAUL R KITCHEN, OLS,CLS
1988
1-...
e.)
--J
LEGEND
CJ OENOTES MONUMENT PLANTED
III DENOTES MONUMENT FOUND
lB. DENOTES A SQ. IRON BAR
SIB DENOTES A SQ. STANDARD IRON BAR
SSIB DENOTES A SHORT SO STANDARD IRON BAR
OU DENOT ES ORIGIN UNKNOWN
1390 DENOTES PAUL R. KITCHEN,D.L.S.
1403 DENOTES Wm D. SMITH,o.LS.
ll,J
~
~
C)
-..J
-..J
'<:l:
C:l
'<:l:
C)
Cl::
L.,j
Iv
':::>
.......
~)
\...)
BEARINGS ARE ASTRONOMIC,DERIVEO FROM THE WES.
LIMIT OF LOT 10, CONCESSION 5, SHOWN AS N29.59 '2
ON PLAN 51R- 11&42.
,)
----
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I CERTIFY THAT' .
THIS SURVEY ANO PLAN ARE CORRECT IINO IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SURVEYS ACT AND THE
REGISTRY ACT AND THE REGULATIONS MADE
THEREUNDER,
2THC' SURVEY WAS COMPLETED ON THE 2nd DAY OF
DECEMBER, 1967
'.J.A~~~F '!_ J5..1.J~..f!.8_
/i!L / d? "'2(./ /
-PAUL R_ K"ITC4.F-
ONTi~RIO L!\NO SURVEYO R
LOTS 10 AND /I
.
105 COL.L
BARRIE., j
722 -06
PAUL R. KiTCHEN
SURVEYING L TO
ONTARIO LANO SURVEYORS
CANADA LANDS SUR'JEYORS
39 PETE
ORILL IA
325-7'6
.101
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
March 16, 2006
Marcelo Pena
2006-A-02
83 Eight Mile Point, Conc. 1, Lot 41, Plan 41, (Oril/ia)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct a detached garage with an area of 55 m2 (598 off) which is to
be located in the front yard of the lot. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning
By-law 97-95:
1. Section 5.1.4 Maximum HeiQht for the detached garage from the required 4.5 metres (14.7
feet) to a proposed 5.6 metres (18.4 feet).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Oesignation -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 Oepartment - The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note that
the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards.
Engineering Oepartment- No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 30.5 metres (100 feet), a shoreline
frontage of approximately 30.5 metres (100 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.28 hectares
(0.69 acres) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling and a detached garage
which are currently under construction.
The applicant was approved of a building permit for a 55.5 m2 (598 ff) detached garage (BP 605-
05) which was issued on October 25, 2005. The garage was approved by the Building
Department as "no heat, no insulation, no interior finish." Subsequent to the approved building
permit through construction of the detached garage, the applicant has since revised the detached
garage to include a higher roofline at the rear of the garage. In doing this, the proposed garage is
exceeding the maximum height requirement of 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) by 1.1 metres (3.6 feet).
The proposed garage will still meet all other provisions of the Zoning By-law.
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Does the variance conform with 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 increase in height would appear to maintain the character of the
shoreline residential area as the garage as the garage is situated on the road side of the property
which will have no impact on the immediate shoreline. On this basis, the proposal appears to
conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). The proposed detached garage will
meet the minimum required setbacks from property lines.
The site inspection revealed that the detached garage should not adversely impact the residential
neighbourhood as the garage will not encroach into the required setbacks and the proposal for
the increase in height is considered reasonable and minor in size. Therefore the proposal is
considered to conform with the general intent of the By-law
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the detached garage with an increase in height would appear to be
appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding
residential area. It should be noted that there are a few garages on Eight Mile Point that are
similar is size as the proposed. 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 proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance as reviewed above.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2006-A-02 subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the height of the detached garage not exceed 5.6 metres (18.4 feet);
2. 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 higher than 5.6 metres
(18.4 feet);
3. That the detached garage not be used for human habitation and comply with all other
provisions contained in Zoning By-law 997-95;
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; and,
5. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on
the sketches submitted dated February, 2006 and approved by the Committee.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~'(gt~kiS HBA. ACST(A)
Planner
diewed by,
~ tL If\ '"'~ -
Bruce Hoppe~~~
Director of Building & Planning Services
3
~ ~ t..Ir.
.~~ liJ liJ ~/ ~- I ~ liJ
I .... ='"
. ~
r-- - ~ . ~
L.Y =-- ._---".,..Jc..-.a< . ---.
--- /~.' ~
- 0,./ I....AK.E. ":>t1"\C.D.? --=-
"
If
,/I'
..
I
I
I
.' 'P
I "..
1.-_
(i1
c...""'" .
-..
~
L~l-il>>
n ~""flo.ll; ..-...1I>..-J.
,.~ ~_1I>_oJ.
'.4-' ~"""""1tl_~
~
1ft
ICO
~~
i).-J'
...'
.pr
~/ .
/:~ !L......'1'
l ./ ~~ _Lw.J'Gr/
!i:t.'"-:m:t';, ,.-
,-:'\
~~..C)
0_.Jr:.UIU..
. 1 I @ I!
,h..::!t= ==""- -::.. -_-=--::..-::.-=..!:.=-.k
1"RQ.Jr
....
I
I .
I I
I
I
I .. .,
I .'.'\.
,...
~
.! I
!i)._
'\<
-,j,
tJ
~
..
-..
..~
I i @ \ i
~~~~-::..-::..-=-=-=====~=~
I.."pr
r(~ cyra~e.
j2.1W>1f
lil.~lllmrlll!Jaff'
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
March 16,2006
Sondra Passfield
2006-A-03
79 Healey Beach Road, Plan 461, Part Block A, Part Block B, RP 51R-23354, Parts 3,4
(Orillia)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting relief of the following provision from Zoning By-law 97-95:
i. Section 5.1.6 Maximum floor area for detached accessory buildings of 70 m2 (753 ff) to
113.7 m2 (1224 ff) for the construction of a proposed workshop/garage.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential Limited Service Exception with Holding Provision (RLS*2-H)
Previous Applications-
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Deoartment-
Buildinq Deoartment- The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note that the
applicant must verify that the sewage system meets the minimum required setbacks as per Part 8
of the Ontario Building Code
Enqineerinq Deoartment- No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 19 metres (62.3 feet), a lot depth of
approximately 99.6 metres (326.8 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 26.8 metres (88
feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.2 hectares (0.54 acres). The lands currently have a
cottage with an area of approximately 58 m2 (624 fe).
It is the applicants' intent to construct a 267.5 m2 (2,880 ff) one storey dwelling with an attached
two car garage and a 113.7 m2 (1224 ff) detached workshop/garage to be located 9.1m (30 ft)
from the front lot line and 2m (6.5ft) from the interior side lot line. The applicant requested the
above noted relief for the increase in size for the detached garage to accommodate room for
storage of antique vehicles, garden equipment and to accommodate room for a boat.
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section 010.1 of the Township's Official
Plan sets out the following objectives for the Shoreline designation.
To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area.
. To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.
Given the proposed size of the detached accessory building of 1224 fe, the variance would not
be in keeping with the character of development of the shoreline residential area. On this basis,
the proposal would not be in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Residential Limited Service Exception Two Holding Provision
(RLS*2(H)). The Holding provision applies to the property as Healey Beach Road is considered
an unassumed road which does not allow for the construction of new dwellings or structures on
vacant lots or additions to existing dwellings and requires the execution of a Site Plan Agreement
in accordance with Section H1.4.3 of the Official Plan, prior to the removal of the Holding
Provision and the issuance of a building permit for any type of construction.
It is the applicants' intent to use the proposed building for storage of a boat, antique vehicles and
personal workshop.
The intent of the Zoning By-law is to provide regulations which should foster compatibility
amongst land uses and structures. With respect to accessory buildings, zoning regulations
typically try to ensure that such buildings are clearly accessory and incidental to the primary use
of the lot. The primary reason for controlling maximum floor areas on accessory buildings in a
residential area is to ensure that structures are consistent with the character of a community and
do not evolve into other secondary or subsequent land uses, such as an apartment or industrial
uses.
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 5.2%.
Given these factors, the proposal is deemed to not conform with the general intent of the Zoning
By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Detached storage buildings and garages are a common element in all types of residential areas.
However, it is debatable if the proposed structure is consistent with or suits the character of a
residential lot. On this basis, it is difficult to support the application as being appropriate for the
desirable development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
The application is not deemed to be minor on the basis that the applicant's have not complied
with the tests noted above. There is merit that the detached garage will maintain the minimum
setback from the side and front lot lines, as well as the minimum distance from the main dwelling.
CONCLUSIONS
The subject application does not adequately address the 4 tests of the minor variance.
It is staffs opinion the application be amended by reducing the area of the proposed detached
accessory building. The revised size of the detached accessory building of 1,088 ft2 would
maintain the character of the residential area and would therefore generally conform with the
intent of the policies of the Official Plan.
Subject to the approval of the removal of Holding Provision, the proposal as revised for a floor
area of 1,088 ft should not adversely impact the natural features of the shoreline and would be
consistent with the character of the residential community and should not evolve into other
secondary land uses. The reduced floor area will also occupy 4.6% of the total lot coverage of
detached accessory buildings on the lot, therefore complying with the required 5% requirement.
Given these factors, the reduced floor area is deemed to conform with the general intent of the
Zoning By-law.
The minor variance as revised to a maximum floor area of 1,088 fe is now considered to be
consistent with the character of a residential lot and the overall residential area. On this basis, the
application is deemed to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot.
The application is deemed to be minor in nature on the basis that the application meets the four
tests of the minor variance, that an accessory building is a permitted use on a residential
property, that the proposed structure is well setback from the side and front lot lines, will meet the
maximum lot coverage of 5% for all detached accessory buildings on a lot and that the revised
floor area is compatible with the overall residential area for the storage of antique vehicles, boat
and personal workshop.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approved Minor Variance application 2006-A-03 as
revised for a 101 m2 (1,088 ft2) detached workshop/garage to a residential use subject to the
following conditions:
1 . That the size of the proposed detached workshop/garage be no larger than 101 m2
(1,088 ft2);
2. That the applicant verify that the sewage system meets the minimum required setbacks
as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code to the satisfaction of the Building Department;
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 setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on
the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte;
6. That the applicant apply for and obtain approval for the combined application for Site Plan
Control/Removal of the Holding Provision, as Healey Beach Road is an unassumed or
private road; and,
7. 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,
Reviewed by,
~ u.. .uLJII');.::.t .
Bruce Hoppe, ~1F[~
Director of Building & Planning Services
~
Andy Karaiskakis, HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
P;cot.
W/JIHfHPf'1
131-/)1- ~~
/ J~ iJ'
0)6 ~JIt
:0
:D
'"
.,
$I~~' 111~Jf).
~ P!~~
O.
-----1' .
.~. /7/
~ BO,OO' .00' 8USl1
fA.'JlII'!'h
f(trIf7",:--IlIA" ~ A
'3). / ulllJ~ ' ~~ .'Ir~
,1
.'"
~
,~
.~.
~
\1 @rn ~~
.'" IB" ~ .'" ----- .'"
~~.ASHI2'~ ~
@ OAK Fii<<slE!1 G1\OUIIQ ltLEV.114.3!>
TII.
lIoJ
IS"' S
PillE
SOLID HEADEp. ~
IlIV.IOs.20
IS,'
\ I
I I
I ~~ '11
\ .~'\ \ .~'\
\ ~ \ I ~
, r I
\ p~"c. $i.;,:-r
PEp.F, LATEp.ALS,
lLATEP.ALS .1
, '
\cD I ( .g.T
WLLOW \ >- I.
I <t ,
3'r- ~ ~ I
':'" (>' ~ I: "
~ ~O \'
l' <t
I ~ :
,c:. '
I '" I
,0 EIIDS I
'EIIDS CAPPED
'APpED ItlV.-r--- -
IlIV. 110.18 I \ \12" P.E.
107.78 I FOI'.CE~
NOTE:
SHEDS TO BE
IF USE OF SP
AREA IS NEel
'3" pVC.
FOP.CEMMII
\3' 1.,--r!:.r-i
\ 1 \
l\ \ \
(Q~ \ \ \
e:~H\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \' \
lIP. \ \ \ \
~1 0 \ e1 \ \ \
/. /r \ \ \0 ~
PAR T / I I I CLoTHSlfiE
5/R-/83.~3 1000;. \ I \ POLE\. \
,c. SPARE-UP--r---l\
AREA \ \ \ \
\ \ .
\ \ \ tl;'~' .
\ \' \ 1
,1- ~~
fJ'" JI'l.'
o lIP. ~15" ~,.
PIllE
FlN\StlED Gp.OUND E\.EV, 109.25 fh
__ _ ~ v:J
: WELL
g TO~ ~~
~'fI ~~.~ ~r;E ;:r;Arco -
-l(~ p~;r l:zfu ~~ ~.\ ci5~
fA y o~. I 11' ," "". . ----ff:>J, i'
I ~.~ -I - CLUMP '\ ~ . \ \ ~
(J~/jJ'~ilJ CD \ ~~; \ 0) ':..
p,!B-"W . I 10. ,,.,.. 'NY'CO" '" I [ \ \.
/' U C / . "! t-"--- PROPOSED 3 " BEDROOM HOUSE --\ - BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR
t, it.,.~ e~ \ .. r PROPOSED 4 BEDROOM HOUSE - \
" ---I ~,.. \ ~\
I)e ~'I \ .. o~ ,~ " ,0
" /\' \... .... '~__-'\\O" .
\ L ---
-_.___\1 \ --~ __
\'39 . 8 5' ::::.----::--
E \00.00' 5C
N 56" \G' '55-
"Ie ~,~ ,e~e ,e~e ,e.,e
~50' ~ ~ ~ ~
l
/
e~
.~.
~
100 ~/O 5
e1 \
.p"
'I
\
\
__-\_J
((Q
~ \2" 1
t~ CEDAP. ~ ;'
..:
50'
Min.
F\lIISliEC
1&
,9'
~e
,"
EOGE OCT, 24/91
WATERS
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
March 16, 2006
Glenn & Darlene Avery
2006-A-04
201 Moon Point Drive, Plan 940, Part Lot 16 (Oril/ia)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are proposing to demolish the existing cottage and build a one and a half storey
new single detached dwelling with a wrap around porch attached at the lake side of the dwelling.
The gross floor area for the new dwelling would be 105.9 m2 (1140 ft) and is proposed to be
setback approximately 16.76 metres (54 feet) from Lake Simcoe. The attached porch will be
setback approximately 14 metres (46 feet) from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe.
The reason for the minor variance application is that the proposed dwelling will be located within
the 20 metre (65.6 feet) minimum required setback from Lake Simcoe.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Oesignation - Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential Exception Two (SR*2) Zone
Previous Applications - none
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County
Public Works Department-
Building Department - The Township Building Oept. has reviewed this application and note that
the applicant must verify that the sewage system meets the minimum required setbacks as per
Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code and that there are no septic system records on file.
Engineering Department - No concerns with LSRCA approval.
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 19.8 metres (65 feet), a lot depth of
approximately 70.7 metres (232 feet) on the west side of the lot and approximately 73.7 metres
(241 feet) on the east side of the lot, a shoreline frontage of approximately 32 metres (105 feet)
and a lot area of approximately 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres). The lands currently have a cottage with
an area of approximately 135 m2 (1 ,458 fe). The owner is proposing to demolish the existing
cottage and build a one and a half storey new single detached dwelling with a wrap around porch
attached at the lake side of the dwelling. The gross floor area for the new dwelling is proposed to
be 105.9 m2 (1140 ft) and is proposed to be setback approximately 16.76 metres (54 feet) from
Lake Simcoe. The attached porch will be setback a minimum of 14 metres (46 feet) from the
average high water mark of Lake Simcoe. Should the applicant meet the 20 metres (65.6 feet)
from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe, the proposed dwelling would then not meet
the minimum required setbacks to the septic system (5 metres).
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 new dwelling and attached porch would appear to maintain the
character of the shoreline residential area as the dwelling will be set back further from Lake
Simcoe than the existing cottage. Therefore the variances conform to the general 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). 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 application but at the
time of writing of this report, comments have not been received. The site inspection revealed that
the existing cottage is closer to Lake Simcoe than the proposed dwelling and porch, thus
improving the situation of site lines to the Lake for the neighbouring properties.
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.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed new dwelling and deck 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 and attached porch would provide for a form of
development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, the proposal
would not lead to the over development of the lot.
Are the variances minor?
On the basis that the size of the dwelling and porch are 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 a new dwelling and porch on the subject property generally
satisfies the four tests of the minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2006-A-04 subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposed attached porch shall be setback no closer than 13 metres (44 feet) from
the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe;
2. The proposed dwelling shall be setback no closer than 16 metres
average high water mark of Lake Simcoe;
feet) from the
3. Any stairs accessing the proposed porch are permitted to encroach no more than 1 metre
(3.2 feet) into the setback area of Lake Simcoe;
4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as
submitted;
5. That the applicant obtain approval from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, if
required;
6. That the applicants verify that the sewage system meets the minimum required setbacks as
per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code, to the satisfaction of the Building Oepartment;
7. 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 that, and,
8. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~
Andy Karaiskakis, HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
~CJL_I~ ~
Bruce HOPP~~;:
Oirector of Building & Planning Services
3
y \...{. 6<. ( c RoM
~
.7 0 '
5413'7'H.
YhooN (JouVT
'-.,..
...---->
0(2:
>
\n
-&1
o
))
"-l
...
Ttl
I
-....:..-
,
''1ltJl.P
6'l P ,:r{ l..
vJl:-
:" Ti 1'1,~ C i. t l..l, uV
? ~
L_ ""'-'
( -
~~0
'i Ie":; ""i';
~
.u
Q
'i.l
-.
~
...
Lo
l\>> \
pL.A~~4~D
. \ ?,~\
-r; \-) ~ ~~p" 0 ~
'{"&
~'QS'V R\ LLI ~v:~\.. x,eS'
, 'f' u. i\.
(C:;OU",,""ER~ l>\\.l-\~ J\
" \ g, \
. -' . p \
=<1:' . f! ';to? I 1:> '
~. - \ cl. '
Tit f i <:>- \
(; [7:) ~
PfW~ ".4# ,
G~~ '
1.JiYI X.1,~'''11.IO':
f\
;\..ft.v.&e
....
::-~ ! ::. 'r /'.) Co.
cc"Of,i?D
tl6>IlS
q,iJ'l\. ll. U.,a~
k\ .fl) i, L
Ti tf.'
e r..;'g(!
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
March 16,2006
Isaac Benitah
2006-B-07
38 Juniper Lane, Plan 808, Lot B (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2006-B-07 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The land to
be severed and conveyed to the adjacent parcel of land to the east also owned by the applicant,
shown as Part 2 on the attached sketch, is proposed to have a lot width of approximately 5.74
metres (18.83 feet), an irregular lot depth of approximately 18.57 metres (60.92 feet), and a lot
area of approximately 76 m (818 ft). The land to be retained, 38 Juniper Lane, shown as Part 1,
would have a shoreline frontage of approximately 42 metres (137 feet) and an area of
approximately 1.1 hectare (2.7 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- The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note that the
proposal appears to meet the minimum standards
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey and add approximately 76 m2 (818
ft), shown as Part 2 on the attached sketch, to a neighbouring residential lot that contains a
dwelling on the property abutting 38 Juniper Lane directly to the east, shown as Part 3. The
purpose of the adjustment is two fold: to straighten the property line between the two lots and that
a portion of the proposed new dwelling on Part 3 may be located on Part 2. The land to be
retained, 38 Juniper Lane, shown as Part 1 on the sketch, would have an area of approximately
2.7 acres, which currently contains 2 residential dwellings and various storage sheds.
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. The dwelling on Part 1, lands to be
retained, will continue to comply with the minimum required interior side yard setback of 3 metres
(9.8 feet) as the dwelling will be located 3.16 metres (10.36 feet) from the proposed lot line, as
shown on Attachment #2.
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 2006-B-
07 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 Plan 808 Lots W7 & W8 & Lots U K L &
Block Y Part Block Z, RP 51 R-26405 Parts 1, 2 & 3, shown as Part 3 on the applicants
sketch, 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.
A~II of which is respectfully submitted,
~
An y Karaiskakis HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
~" viewed by,
C2..- '
ce Hoppe ,P
Oirector of Build ng & Planning Services
\
\
\
.. \
\
\
"::':,';" ~.('
':."
.~;::...
-
~+-tQG~fNnt i:ll
\
\
\
\ <;.~
\~\.
\\
,,/'
,,/',,/' /\
,,/' .,~. ,,/' \
'.A> . ,,". ,.' ,,/'
,'" ,;.t-.,.,,/'
,,/' \
\
..
. ~ ~
"1' '- ~~
1:. 'q~
~ "
'"
~"*' ~~ 'Y
";i-.
~
~
~
\,
.,
..#,.... ....?,
'i" \\\0 ".l~\' .\'
.~:"
\
\
\
\
\ .,
,- .
)11 y' ~
/ .~:., .
~ ~.
"lZ.
\
\
\
\
\
\
>-
/ ':l
\ /.'l:
/ :;
Yilt.
/
/
~\,;,.
'r..t;-'
.j;~i~'
';':0/
.....
.~:'"
",,;",
.:,'.
..~J \..
If.:
-..
...
..r;'
i:;
.:....
.~;;~~.
,
l
c..'..-
'~Gt,"" '"
.....~
'Q;...:.\~
"S;;;'Q.;..
<$
'"
'"
if..,.
6:.1;.-
------
--
%
.
"
\
~:r--
...c.
e
e
/\'V
A .,"~'
- -
..A:7 -,:.:: '::':'.
"",..-- ~ ..... .........
~ "^-\ ':;:..-
--:"'0 \. -..).. '. .;. ';
(;) r '\. --:~-
~
-p~
coo"""
22240 ~
"t..
], Frome <!"!)_
; Wood 'f:T
. Shed .
()
\,
'"
"
~
\
~
~
\
~
~
~
"
\
" -)
I "
.
"
/' '- 'P
,
/
r
rn
1'" """
'~<<I
4 ,s.,
:C'<, &
j 'Ss Go,/.
<<, .<_ 0;.;
'''0 S) &
0>
co
b ~QS
'It.; .....
()
.t ,...
"\~
It;
C5
)..!1
., -!;~
. 6-&
liit
',t;
0...)
c9
'0
/>
c:9
- <:
d
<<0
'9,)
~
,
0>0
<'04'
<...,,{'
'~^
(j)
o
c \ \. ;:::'-0 D
-:::;)'c. _""- ~
\j."c: 1"3 Y 0
8 ,0 ~'J -.\(;.1\.'/
Iv G..I
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
March 16, 2006
Gail Raikes
200S-B-54(Revised)
9 Trafalgar Drive, Conc. 1, East Part Lot 1 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2005-B-54 is to permit 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 Trafalgar 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).
Consent application 2005-B-54 was deferred by the Committee of Adjustment on February 16,
2006 to allow time for comments to be received from the Township Engineer and the Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority relating to the Addendum to the Slope Stability Review.
The Slope Stability Review Addendum included a Revised Site Drainage Plan showing the
proposed dwelling, relocated pool and septic system and confirmation that the plan as revised at
or beyond the 10 metre Setback Line from Top of Slope is stable.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation -Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 -Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County-
Public Works-Separate Entrances would be preferred- no road concerns
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-Are in concurrence with the Addendum Report and Plan. If the
severance is approved, a Site Plan should be submitted for approval to ensure conformance. The
proposed septic system will have to be designed to provide for the required setback from the
house, top of slope and property line.
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 lots/units (Modification #51); or,
b) the extension of a municipal water or sewer system is required to service the
proposed lots/units (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 010.3.7 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 subject to the application and designated
Shoreline by this Plan shall be placed in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone in the implementing
Zoning By-law.
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). It is
understood that the proposed lot will be serviced with an individual well and septic system.
Comments from the Engineering Department are that the proposed septic system will have to be
designed to provide for the required setback from the house, top of slope and property line. On
the basis of the above, the application for the creation of a new residential shoreline lot appears
to conform with the policies contained in the Official Plan.
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 implementing Zoning By-law. 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. If the
consent application is approved, the applicant will be required to obtain relief from this provision
for both the proposed dwelling and pool. This provision may apply to both the slope abutting
Ridge Road West as well as the slope adjacent to Lake Simcoe.
The applicant obtained the services of Geospec Engineering to provide geotechnical consultation
with regard to the stability of the existing slope on the above subject lands. Subsequent to the
deferral of the application on February 16, 2006, a Slope Stability Review Addendum including a
Revised Site Drainage Plan was completed and submitted to the Township in support of the
severance application. The Revised Site Drainage Plan showed the proposed dwelling, the
relocated pool and septic system setback 10 metres (32.8 feet) from where originally proposed.
The findings from the Addendum report are that a shallow swale will be required near the
property line to direct surface run-off away from and around the front and west sides of the
proposed residences. Furthermore, the currently proposed residence location will provide
sufficient separation to allow construction of the residential development without affecting the
stability of the road embankment. The Addendum concludes by stating that the Revised Site
Drainage Plan has shown the dwelling, pool and septic system at or beyond the 10 metre
Setback Line from Top of Slope which appears to be geotechnically stable under the Natural
Hazards Guideline requirements.
The report has been circulated to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and comment
that Geospec Engineering is satisfied that the slope stability will not be compromised with the re-
location of the pool and septic system and the LSRCA have no further comments with respect to
the siting of the pool and septic. The Township Engineer has stated that he is in general
concurrence with the addendum; however it is recommended that a technical review be
completed as a condition of consent.
It is noted that the rezoning of the lands will be required as a condition of consent. Analysis of
this application including reduction of setback from slopes will need to be completed by the
Township engineer. The deficient lot frontage will also need to be assessed by Council as part of
this process. Based on the comments from both the LSRCA and Township engineer to date, staff
are comfortable recommending approval of the consent at this time, however, should Council
deem that the proposed exceptions are not appropriate, the zoning application will fail and the
condition of the consent approval will not be fulfilled.
CONCLUSION
In reviewing the application for the creation of one new residential lot, a detailed analysis of the
slope was prepared supporting the development of a single detached dwelling, pool and septic
system as shown on the Revised Site Drainage Plan. Satisfactory comments were received from
the Engineering Department and from the LSRCA.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee grant Provisional Consent for application 2005-B-54 for the
creation of a new residential lot subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land
Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the. applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for
the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland
contribution;
4. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee in the amount of $4,055.78 (By-law
2004-082) to the Township;
5. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning on the subject lands to reflect reduced
lot frontage for both the severed and retained lots and the location of the proposed
dwelling and accessory structures from slopes exceeding 3:1;
6. That final comments supporting the proposed dwelling and accessory structures be
received from the Township Engineer; 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 of decision.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
A~' HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
~~~
Director of Building and Planning Services
SHE. DRAINAGE PLAN
PART OF
PART LOT 1
CONCESSION 1 E.P.R.
TOWNSHIP OF ORO, now in the
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
OF SIMCOE
SCALE 1: 500
5 0 5 10 20 30 Metres
. ~
; ,"'I
.._ 1,./
.., 1"
/\1 I.'"
. .
:i :i i () ;v
FINISHED FLOOR=235.48
TOP OF FOUNDATION WALL=235.17
GARAGE FLOOR=235.02
WALKOUT=232.43
EXISTING ELEVATION 234.79
PROPOSED ELEVATION 234.5
PROPOSED SWALE --
nON
ELEVATIONS ARE GEODETIC AND ARE
DERIVED FROM GPS OBSERVATIONS
IN WGS84 NAD 83(CSRS).
DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN METRES AND
CAN BE CONVERTED TO FEET BY DIVIDING BY 0.3048.
..,
I
"
I
I
"
I
I
,..- ,....
,- ~...
a._ . ,
, A' ,,..-
/ ull\'-
&....1 at ,..._
/"/," fa 'i""
1,,, v{) IV I r
f?()A[)
. .
1\/"
, ,v.
,- ,...
,II I
..-....
-
,...
h'
1\ .
SJ,A.Jj(;()[:
-
-
RAIKES SURVEYING
LTD.
o.atarlo LaAd SurNroz'II . BoWJcW:T CauultatB
211 Ilerczy Street. P.o.Boz 11llO. . BarrIe autarlo. 1.411 612
Telephone (705) 72lHIIl8S Fax (705) 728-8llllIl
E-IIaIl J.4c1rea lU1'\'eyaOralkeaurveymg.oom
CHK'D BY: P.TA
pROJECT: ALLRAlKES
MAR. 9. 2006 2: 10PM
LSRCA
NO. 054
P. 1
rei: 905 -895-1281 Sent by Facsimile 1-705-728-8898
1-800-465-0437
p~: 905.853-58& M
e-Mail: i:o.fo(li}1srca.Ol\.ea arch 9) 2006
Web; WW'W.k~all.ca
File No.: Z005-B-54
IMS No.: PLDC468C2
l20 Bayvie\V Parkway
Box 282
Newmarla:t, Ontario
L3Y 4Xl
Mr. Peter Raikes
Raikes Surveying Limited
25 Berczy Street, Box 1150
Barrie, ON L4M 5E2
Dear Mr. Raikes:
RE: Raikes PropertY Slope Stability Review - Addendum. 9 Trafa1ear Drive
The Staff of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) have received your
request to review the Slope Stability Review - Addendum, prepared by Geospec Engineering
Limited on February 15,2006, in support of the proposed severance at 9 Trafalgar Drive in the
T o\Vl1Ship of Oro- Medonte.
55i It appears that Geospec Engineering Limited is satisfied that slope stability will not be
, tj'Var.ersqed compromised with the re-Iocation of the pool and septic as proposed. Accordingly, the LSRCA
onservatlon has no further comment with respect to the siting of the pool and septic.
I trust that this is satisfactory.
Yours truly~
~
Jackie Burkart
Environmental Planner
A
JB/ph
Watershed c.
Bruce Hoppe, Director of Planning Township ofOro-Medonte~ 1-705-487-0133 - Fax
Andy Karaiskakis) Planner, Township ofOro-Medonte, 1-705-487-0133 - Fax
for Life
f
fi~
";I!~SPEC ENGINEERING LTD.
287 Tiffin Street, Unit 10, Barrie, Ontario L4N 7R8
TEL: (705) 722-4638 FAX: (705) 722-4958
February 15,2006
RECEIVEO-
Raikes Surveying Ltd.
P.O. Box 1150
25 Berczy Street
Barrie, Ontario
L4M 5E2
FtI3 1 5 2006
I ORO-MEDONTE;
'- TOWNSH'P
Attn: Mr. P. Raikes
Re:
Slope Stability Review - Addendum
9 Trafah!ar Drive, Township of Oro-Medonte
06-1234
Dear Mr. Raikes,
Further to receipt of the Township of Oro-Medonte, Committee of Adjustment, Planning
Report for February 16,2006 we understand additional comment is required with respect
to the following points:
~ Clarification that the steep slope rising towards Ridge Road will not be negatively
impacted should the proposed residence be relocated further from the Top of
Slope, closer to the base of the slope rising towards Ridge Road.
~ Confirmation that the Revised Site Drainage Plan showing the relocated pool,
septic system and residential dwelling are appropriate.
In this regard, we offer the following comments.
The Revised Site Drainage Plan, dated February 15, 2006 and attached, depicts the
proposed residence at a point 7.2 meters from the closest County of Simcoe property line.
Furthermore, we understand that the main floor of the residence is proposed at 235.48 m
and the basement walkout elevation is proposed at 232.43 m. The proposed front footing
would be located at an approximate elevation of 232 m, approximately 2.4 m below the
existing grade and 3.1 m below the proposed final grade. Consequently, a 2:1 temporary
slope will exist between the residence and the property line at the time of footing
installation, if temporary shoring were not installed. Ultimately, a shallow swale will be
required near the property line to direct surface run-off away from and around the front
and west sides of the proposed residence.
Although the currently proposed location of the residence represents a slightly closer
proximity to Ridge Road slope, the actual Toe of Road Embankment Slope is not
located on the subject property. Moreover, no construction activities are proposed to
extend the subject property. Therefore, we advise the currently proposed
GEOSPEC ENGINEERING LTD. 06-1234 Raikes Response Oro Medonte
?
residence location will provide sufficient separation to allow construction of the
residential development without affecting the stability of the road embankment.
Finally, we advise that the Revised Site Drainage Plan has depicted the Proposed
Residential Dwelling, Pool and Septic at or beyond the 1 0 m Setback Line from Top of
Slope (from Lake Simcoe) which Geospec Engineering Ltd. considers geotechnically
stable under the Natural Hazards Guideline requirements.
We trust the above meets with your approval; however, should you have any questions or
require clarification, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Respectfully,
GEOSPEC ENGINEERING LTD.
K. Malcolm,
Consulting Engineer
GEOSPEC ENGINEERING