05 11 2006 C of A Agenda
Committee of Adiustment Agenda
Thursday May 11, 2006, 9:30 a.m.
1. Communications and Correspondence
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
3. Hearings:
9:30
2006-A-08
Lorie Emmons
Plan 629, Lot 12 (Oro)
23 Nelson Street
9:40
2006-A-09
Steven Campbell
Plan 1464, Lot 71 (Ora)
16 Mazepa Place
9:50
2006-A-11
Andre Hubel
Plan M112, Lot 5 (Medonte)
57 Amantacha Court
10:00
2006-A-12
Dino & Carla Astri
Cone. 5, South Part Lot 16, RP 51R-
8920, Part 1 (Medonte)
646 Moonstone Road West
10:10
2006-A-13
Marion Tilstra
Plan M30, Lot 15, RP 51R-33067,
Part 19 (Oro)
19 Seneca Lane
10:20
2005-A-27(Rev)
Harold & Sue Regan
Plan 626, Lot 37, Part Lot 105 (Ora)
8 Simcoeside Ave.
10:30
2006-A-14
Robert & Kelly Talaska
Cone. 11, East Part Lot 22 (Ora)
372 Line 11 South
4. Decisions
5. Other business
-Adoption of minutes for
Meeting
13, 2006 Meeting and
18, 2006 Special
6. Adjournment
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 11, 2006
Lorie Emmons
2006-A-08
23 Nelson Street, Plan 629, Lot 12 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant has applied for a variance as a result of an order to comply. The applicant
constructed a deck attached to the side of the existing cottage/boathouse without obtaining a
building permit. The proposed deck is located approximately 5.18 metres (17 ft) from the average
high water mark Bass Lake. The minimum required setback from the average high water mark of
Bass Lake is 15 metre (49.2 ft)
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR)
Previous Applications - none
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County -
Public Works Department -
Building Department -
Engineering Department -
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 7.67 metres (25.17 feet), is irregular in
shape, having an average lot depth of approximately 43.3 metres (142 feet), a shoreline frontage
of approximately 41.76 metres (137 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.119 hectares (0.295
acres). One cottage/boathouse, one cottage and one accessory building currently exist on the
subject property. The owner has increased the size of the original deck without obtaining a
building permit. The newly enlarged deck is located beside and attached to the existing
cottage/boathouse, situated farther from the high water mark than the existing cottage/boathouse.
The proposed deck is located 5.18 metres (17 ft) from the average high water mark Bass Lake,
where a 20 metre (49.2 ft) setback is required.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the
Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives:
To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area.
To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.
The requested variance for the proposed deck would appear to maintain the character of the
shoreline residential area as the proposed deck is situated further from Bass Lake than the
existing cottage/boathouse. Furthermore, the new deck is an extension of the older deck,
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 from
Bass Lake is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.
The Nottawasaga Valley 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 new deck is positioned farther back from Bass Lake's high water mark than the existing
cottage/boathouse. The proposed variance represents a similar situation that is present with
other existing decks on adjacent properties.
On this basis the proposal would conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law and the
application is subject to NVCA 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 deck enlargement will not change the overall
character of the dwelling and would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the
lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given that the proposed addition would
provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding
neighbourhood, it would not lead to the over development of the lot.
Are the variances minor?
On the basis that the size of the deck is reasonable and should not adversely affect the character
of the residential area, the proposed variance could be considered to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed variance generally satisfies the tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2006-A-04 subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposed attached deck shall be setback no closer than 5.18 metres (17 feet) from
the average high water mark of Bass Lake;
2. Any stairs accessing the proposed deck are permitted to encroach no more than 1 metre
(3.2 feet) into the setback area of Bass Lake;
3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as
submitted;
4. That the applicant obtain approval from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, if
required;
2
5. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to
pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Adrian Cammaert BA, CPT
Planning Technician
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
3
t'fVTI IN IHt
-
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
COU~TY OF SIMCOE
~ L~ ~ -J
to (J '5 ' 0 i-l.l' q.o
be
'\
,
\~
o
SS
t,
~C
o
C
/
./
-,.,
1:",;,:.
'\>. \.);
'\x-
tJo'{~~'"_"
- \%
PIN 585.) I-0258(LT}
.(8
,....'
'2-
"\
.~...,
,of>"
i
.i
;
o
\..
.>I!)
.~
"
~(.lIJV~ -
tic:._J
"-~
,,}~ ";-.
.'- -
~t~
NOTB:
li1IC ~ 1'0 lM[ ~y t..MJ OF NEl..5CIt4 STftUT AS ~ OH
~A~CftO~
(P')
/Pal
I",}
MAY-04-2006 10:52 FROM:NUCA
Member
Municipalities
Adjal4i. To>orontio
Arn3rilnth
H,mip.
The Blue Mountains
Bmdford-Wcsl Cwilhmbury
("I~:llvif!W
Collingwood
ESSil
IrU\lsrd
M!!l;.mnhnn
Monn
Mulmur
NI.!wTt!<.urmidh
( }ro-Mf!l1onre
(;rey Hip,hbnds
Shelburne
Spnngwall:l
Wasaga Ikad,
Watershed
Counties
::'irnco,;
I )uifHin
CrHY
Meml)er' of
7054242115
P.1/1
TO: 17054870133
May 4, 2006
Andy Karaiskakis. Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro-Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario, LOl 2XO
Dear Mr. Karaiskakis;
Re: Application for Minor Variance 2006wA-08 (Emmons)
Plan 629, Lot 12, 23 Nelson Street
Township of Oro-Medonte (Formerly Township of Oro)
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority has reviewed this
application for minor variance to recognize an existing deck and based on
our mandate and policies under the Conservation Authorities Act, we have
no objection to its approval.
We note that any further development of the property will require a permit
or approval from the NVCA under the Conservation Authorities Act.
Thank you for circulating this application for our review and please forward
a copy of your decision.
Sincerely,
?:: .J ~
Tim Salkeld
Resource Planner
our
NOTIAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ,. ConlTc for Con~rvation
J()hn Hix Conserv"tion Administri1lion Cemt'C' " Tiffin Cunservation Area '" 8195 8lh Une Ulopi~.. OnlllM
rl!l;;pl1oll;;: 705.'12.4.1479 Fir'!: 705.424.21"5 Web: WWW.IW(.um.!..a[nlail:~lImil\@nv!:n.OI.l.(.il
\
..
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 11, 2006
Steven Campbell
2006-A-09
16 Mazepa Place, Plan 1464, Lot 71 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct a 69.68 m2 (750 ff) detached garage in the rear yard.
As such, the applicant is requesting relief of the following provision from Zoning By-law 97-95:
Section 5.1.5 Maximum Lot Coverage
-for all detached accessory buildings
including proposed garage
Required
5%
Proposed
6.17%
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Hawkestone Residential
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One Holding (R1-H) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department:
Building Department:
Engineering Department:
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject praperty has a lot frontage of 12 metres (40 fee~ and a lot area of 1,635 m2
(17,600 ff). The applicant is praposing to construct a 69.68 m (750 ff) detached garage to
be located in the rear yard approximately 3 metres (10 feet) from property lines as shown on
the applicants sketch. The property currently contains an 89 m2 (960 ff) 1 storey dwelling, 31
m2 (336 ff) detached garage, a wood storage lean-to and various small sheds. It is the
aRPlicants intent to remove the lean-to and small sheds to be replaced by the proposed 69.68
m2 (750 ff) detached garage. The reason for the minor variance application is that the
proposed garage will exceed the maximum lot coverage of all detached accessory buildings on
a lot from the required 5%. The resulting lot coverage of the existing garage and the new
garage will be 6.17%, exceeding the requirement by 1.17%; therefore a variance is being
requested.
Does variance conform with the general intent the Official
The property is designated Hawkestone Residential. The primary objective of the
Hawkestone Village is to improve existing in the area and to provide a location
the development affordable housing in The use of
designation is residential uses. The proposed detached garage in the rear yard is
considered to be an accessory use to a permitted residential use.
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject lot is currently zoned Residential One Holding (R1 (H)). The Holding pravision
applies to the property as Mazepa Place is considered an unassumed raad which does not
allow for the construction of new dwellings on vacant lots 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 addition to an existing
dwelling. The proposed garage will increase the lot coverage to 6.17% which exceeds the
required maximum lot coverage of 5%, The new garage as proposed is reasonable and
should not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area and will meet the setbacks
required in the Zoning By-law.
Subject to the appraval of the removal of Holding Provision, the proposal as submitted would
appear to conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed garage would appear to be apprapriate for the
desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. It
should be noted that the mature trees located along the interior and rear property lines will
provide visual screening of the new garage fram the adjacent neighbour.
Given that the proposed garage will not result in the over-development of the subject lot, the
proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot.
Is the variance minor?
As minor variances are not determined on a mathematical basis, on the basis that the
proposed garage is modest in size relative to the applicant's lot and appears to be a
reasonable location for an accessory structure, the requested relief is deemed to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed variance generally satisfies the tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approve minor variance 2006-A-09 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed garage be in conformity with the
sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
2. That the applicants apply for and obtain approval for the combined application for Site
Plan Control/Removal of the Holding Provision;
3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after Committee's decision becomes as
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;and
4. That the proposed garage be no larger than 69.68 m2 (750 fe).
All of which is respectfully submitted,
HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
'/()/ I Y'
I
o
I
~v,\t
G.1' t; 0, ( ("7'
" ,-Ii 51) (0 ~v U
If'
\
,
,
.' \\ f\\l e
--
/
'#eo~
rt-
~re:' Ga~
'2. v#
~
.",
\
.W'
..........-
\f "
-..t \
i."~
l\;
\1
"I' ~.
-4.
~ ~-".
J.~~
.--
.;
----.
-"""'-
'" -..
METAL
SIDING (TYP.)
PRE. FINISHED
ALUMINUM RW.L
AND GUTTER ON
PRE.FINISHED
FASCIA BOARD AND
VENTED SOFFIT
(TYP.
nIT
I
o
DDDDD
DDDDD
DDDDD
DDDDD
OJ::]eJeJ.bJ
DDDDD
I 36"Xl'l4" MAN DOOR 10'X10' O.H. GARAGE DOOR 8'X7' O.H. GARAGE DOOR :
1_____________________________________________________-------------------------~
FRONT ELEVATION
PEAK_HEIGH} OF _ ~
ROOF
MIQ-POINJ OF !!OOF ~
TQP OF fLATE__
12'
TYP.)
~
TOP OF BLOCK WALL
------
OWN BY:
STEVE
SCALE:
1/4" = 1'-0"
DA lE ISSUED:
OV 02/05
PROJECT
16 MAZEPAPL.
ORO, TWP
ONTARIO
CUENT
CAMPBELL
O'
S.F. 750 S.F.
UNIT
GARAGE
PAGE NO.
1\3
30'-0"
28'-10"
,..
tD
~~
N'"
N
D'M-l BY:
SlrVE
SCALE:
1/4" == 1'-0"
DA TE ISSUE!}:
NOV 02/05
~I ~
lQ ~
GARAGE
750 S.F . (70m2)
~I ~
l::l ::
PROJECT
16 MAZEPA Pl.
ORO, TWP
ONTARIO
CLIENT
,..
tD
CAMPBELL
~ m'xa" I 1J:3/2"xlZ' ll" 312"X10"
J 3'-0" 1 J 10'X10' C.H. ~:;-GE DOOR l ~ S'XS' O.H. G~~E DCDR l
~ ~la " ~
3'-6" J 9'-0" J, 11'-4" J, fI-T
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
S.F. 750 S.F.
UNIT
GARAGE
PAGE NO.
A2
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 11, 2006
Andre Hubel
2006-A-11
57 Amantacha Court, Plan M112, Lot 5 (Medonte)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is seeking a minor variance to facilitate an addition to an existin~ dwellin.9
partially located in the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. The proposed 20 m (216 if)
addition will be located at the rear of the dwelling, and as this portion of the dwelling is located
in the EP Zone, a variance is required to permit the construction of the addition
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Agricultural
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A1RU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department-
Building Department- The Township Building Department has reviewed this application and
note that the applicant must verify that the sewage system meets minimum required
setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code and that a change of use permit is
required for the sewage system
Engineering Department -
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority - The NVCA has no objection to the approval of
this application subject to the applicant obtaining a permit from the NVCA.
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a street frontage of approximately 68 metres (223 feet), a lot depth
of approximately 76 metres (250 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1.13 hectares (2.81
acres). The property currently contains a single detached dwelling with a gross floor area of
260 m2 (2799 ft) and a detached garage. The applicant is proposing to construct a 20 m2
(216 ft) addition at the rear of the dwelling. The reason of the minor variance application is
that part of the dwelling is located within the Environmental Protection Zone as noted on map
A20 in Zoning By-law 97-95. As a result, permission is required from the Committee of
Adjustment the construction of the addition.
Does the variance
to
general intent the Official
The property is designated in the Plan. The function
Agricultural designation is to protect land suitable agricultural production
development and land uses to to preserve and promote
agricultural character the Township and the maintenance
Permitted uses in the Agricultural designation includes single detached dwellings as well as
accessory uses. Map A20 indicates a Groundwater Recharge Area overlay designation on
the subject lands. The Groundwater Recharge Area overlay designation applies to highland
areas where infiltration to the shallow groundwater regime occurs. The uses permitted in
these areas shall be those permitted by the underlaying designation provided the use
conforms to the policies of the Groundwater Recharge section. As the existing dwelling and
the proposed addition are on lands which do not involve agricultural activity, the proposal
appears to conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
In assessing the issue of compliance with the Zoning By-law, the proposed addition should
not detract from the overall character of the lot and surrounding natural features being the
mature trees being located to the south of the dwelling. One of the purposes of regulating
structures being built within the limits of Environmental Protection Zone is to maintain and
enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system, to ensure that development
does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to flooding and to ensure that
development does not occur on hazardous slopes. In reviewing Schedule B-Components of
the Environmental Protection One & Two Designations, it does not appear that the
Environmental Protection located on the lands are part of a Provincially Significant Wetland
or other Environmental Features. To this end the application has been circulated to the
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and comment that the NVCA have no objection
to the approval of this application subject to the applicant obtaining a permit or approval from
the NVCA to regulate the location of development and site alteration on the property and to
ensure that adequate erosion and sediment controls are installed prior to construction to
protect nearby sensitive environmental features. It has been confirmed by the applicant that
the existing deck will be demolished and will not be replaced after the construction of the
addition.
As the proposed variance would permit for the construction of an addition to the existing
dwelling and would comply with all other provisions of the Zoning By-law, the application is
deemed to generally conform with the intent of the Zoning By-law subject to NVCA
endorsement which will be recommended as a condition of approval.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The nature of development proposed appears to be appropriate, as this would permit an
addition to be located at the rear of the dwelling. The granting of this variance would not
lead to the over development of the lot and would be in keeping with the rural residential
subdivision. On this basis, the variance proposed is appropriate for the desirable
development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
As Committee is aware, "minor" is not determined on a mathematical basis. On the basis
that the proposal is reasonable and would not appear to adversely affect the integrity of the
Environmental Protection Zone, the proposed variance is considered to be minor, subject to
NVCA approval.
The proposed
satisfies
4 tests a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee approve minor variance 2006-A-11 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed addition be in conformity with the
sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
2. That the applicant obtain a permit (or approval) from the Nottawasaga Valley
Conservation Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act;
3. That the applicant contact the Township Building Department to satisfy comments
made regarding the proposal;
4. That the proposed addition be no larger than 20 m2 (216 if) as shown on the
sketches submitted with the application dated February 20, 2006; and,
5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Andy Karaiskakis HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
e
.
s
e -f-1'erJ f,' ION
~NV1~~tA..f;.P-(p.-L.
'R'3?'t6(,"'t to tJ ..~9)
. 5' .' . .. .. ..' "!.-O).,)&,
,;z..
\
I
Wl
Il..
0;
....J'
..1
(/)1 j. RSfbj~ '\v.l1.Ll. I-
I. ~E:.f~e... ;.>e:r,e.ll...
i THI c;.. ~e:f;r
"b
r
=1
::>
Wi
0..1
0'
a11
\
I
i
. 197~751
wi
0..,
~T ;:::;,,6Jf"b'1'-I
w
@S
....J
if)
--..-i
~~ .
{9 LOO\
...
197.75 I
L...-_-----I
~_..__..__._--
PE..r:. - C. L>. ~ <::: or-! c...
I '.
t-1"",rlD
0'Y rl S
.
.
D
510. 201
_ .........._____- - -, .-0
sx j S 'P1~:~-' i~-=~~-~"''''''\ '" .~_.
I ' );. ) .---~- . J
A {( . ' C)L. ,'T~.l",\ C1Z-bV lSL.
N~"v B>U L-oINt1 ~ ""--. .' 9'-k1'i t.....~ ~,:..,',. ..,0
~PP'~O>' 2:..SOO.5~fr'~1~-----~t.:t -"91F>1c:, .' k/f ......-:~,.,.j-29i' +-'01.
E',.fPLbr-!<:-f'.. " , :4 f c"- ~:'40 :r- / 26'" dh.. ~< ~?J .::;.'~~ .1t' rJ'()().
o!Zopo:.'>E:D LO~joj""i . :1<("":~.l.:~~ ,lJ.;t ,- ~ .
Of \Y E.L..l- ,,\~1\1. 'f:::J.o..l \, / f
r;.x , ,e, Tit-k, -, "rLE. ~~""f;i · ~ 71
17 ~ F' i 6 1Z..EM C>, IH . , ': ~ .1' If
! lL..-'"-........~ j
. I
i
I
. I !
'.., !
- --J '
__'~''''_~;''K "
.-c'/" -,-; _.
//.- --
/
/ .
I
I
(
N?:l. 7't-.
j
J
i
..f'
/,
(Jj~
SEFf I G. T Do.r-
pJ M P c... H .c,.
~~e:~ HI
"
I
...
~
[j
I _"_ro.~"..: 'I
"- I
Q,B.c. REV1EW: I:
'.'.2.2(1), LESSTHAN3R1SEAS SUNKEN MUSIC ROOM
PERMITTED IN D\l'JELLlNG UNIT. I
0.8.7.1(2): NOHANORAlLREQ'DWI1 I (CATHEDAALCEIUNG)
DWElLlNG UNIT F0Fl2AISEAS. I (NEW FLOOR LEVEl)
iUI.S.1(1): NOGUAROREGOFOR
DROP <23f
~\
~\-
\
EX. KITCHEN
FOR
ANDRE
HUBEL
MAIN FLOOR
ProjectAddroB1l:
57 AMANTACHA COURT
HilLS DALE
COunty of SIMCOE
Notes:
ElEV (j..(f
/
~~J
fi
Pi
P2
P3
P5
P6
P7
ElCV -1'.3"
UP
2R
GIRDER TRUSS
ROOF SlOPE 7112:12
~
8
~
ROOF SlOPE 10:12
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
/
EX. DINING ROOM
Ci S~ 'J;E: ~.'l<5a.ltt;,sSl'll~'5I518 DIA.
C2
\
,
" I'
, ,
- EX. ROOF LINE
Floor ...... =
Garage...... -
\
Fi
F2 3D"X2!.l"XlIj"DtEP
F3
F4
~
LINE OF EXISTING ROOF, TV?
Wi 2--2X6
W2
W53-3<6 we 4.2(B
we 3.2(10 W94.2:>:10
W104.2Xi2
L4
* PSL 2.0E ES
* ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL TO CONFORM TC
PRIMED
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 11, 2006
Dino & Carla Astri
2006-A-12
646 Moonstone Road West, Concession 5, South Part Lot 16, RP 51R-8920, Part 1
(Medonte)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are requesting permission from the Committee of Adjustment to permit the
construction of an in ground swimming pool, deck and two frame sheds which lie within the
Environmental Protection (EP) Zone and the 30 metre setback area from the EP Zone, as
shown on the attached survey. The proposed pool will be located approximately 48 metres
(157 feet) from the front property line, as shown on the attached sketch.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Agricultural & Environmental Protection Two Overlay
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A1RU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones
Previous Applications - None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department-
Building Department-
Engineering Department-
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 121 metres (396 feet) along
Moonstone Road West, a lot depth of approximately 161 metres (528 feet) and having a lot
area of approximately 2 hectares (4.9 acres). The property currently contains a 2 storey
single detached dwelling with a gross floor area of approximately 204 m2 (2,196 ft2), and an
11.13 m2 (120 ft2) frame shed.
The applicants are proposing to construct a swimming pool, deck and two frame sheds which
are located within the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone and the 30 metre setback area from
the EP Zone as noted on map A22 in Zoning By-law 97-95. As a result, permission is
required from the Committee of Adjustment for the construction of the pool and structures.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Agricultural and Environmental Protection Two Overlay in
Plan. The primary of designation is to protect land suitable
agricultural from development and uses unrelated to to
preserve and promote the agricultural character of the Township and the maintenance of the
open countryside. Permitted uses in the Agricultural designation includes single detached
dwellings as well as accessory uses. As the proposed location of the swimming pool and
accessory structures are on lands which does not involve agricultural activity, the proposal
appears to conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
In assessing the issue of conformity with the Zoning By-law, the proposed pool should not
detract from the overall character of the lot and surrounding natural features being the
mature trees being located to the north of the proposed pool. One of the purposes of
regulating structures being built within the limits of Environmental Protection Zone is to
maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system, to ensure that
development does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to flooding and to
ensure that development does not occur on hazardous slopes. In reviewing Schedule B-
Components of the Environmental Protection One & Two Designations, it does not appear
that the Environmental Protection located on the lands are part of a Provincially Significant
Wetland or other Environmental Features. However, the map does indicate the red pine
reforestation as Significant Woodlands. To this end the application has been circulated to
the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority who has not commented on the proposal to
date. Based on site inspection, the area appears to be high and dry and the location of the
proposed pool is setback approximately 4 metres from the slope, however, there is some
concern with the location of the proposed frame storage shed as proposed. The shed is
located very close to the top of slope. It should be considered by the applicant that the
proposed frame storage shed be moved at least 2.5 metres back from its original location.
On the basis of the above, the proposed pool, deck, pump shed and the relocated frame
storage shed would therefore conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law subject to
NVCA endorsement which will be recommended as a condition of approval.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The proposed variances should provide for a form of development that is suitable and
consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed variance will provide for the construction
of a swimming pool, deck and two frame sheds and will continue to maintain the agricultural
character of the area. On this basis the proposed variance would provide for the appropriate
development of the lot.
Are the variances minor?
As Committee is aware, "minor" is not determined on a mathematical basis. On the basis
that the proposal is reasonable and should not adversely affect the character of the
surrounding area, the proposed variances are considered to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed variance generally satisfies the tests of a minor variance, subject to NVCA
endorsement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee approve minor variance 2006-A-12 for the
construction of a swimming pool, deck, a frame pump shed and a frame storage shed with a
revised location being 2.5 metres back from its original location which are located within the
limits of the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone and the 30 metre setback area from the EP
Zone and be subject to the following conditions:
1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed swimming pool be in conformity with the
sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
2. That the frame storage shed be moved back 2.5 metres from its original proposed
location to avoid construction near the slope;
3. That the applicant obtain approval from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Authority, if required; and,
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Andy Karaiskakis HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
~
Glenn White MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
.
VACANT
121.36
\
1 6 \~
~
~<9
"',+ z
V>
0
\\ ~
c5
0
5 ~ ::l.
\
\ A/RU
VACANT
A/RU ""
~
~
"'-
.
"'"
-......
A/RU
""
"'-
"'-
"\
\
'"
"-
"'-
\
RED PINE OF REFORESTATION
z
V>
~ \
c5
o
::l.
A/RU
VACANT
2.19
\ PROPOSED
2.13x2.44 FRAME
PUMP SHED
95.83
E P
\
2.11 ~
~
(Jl
~
\
"-
"'-
---EXTENT ~ RED PINE OF REFORESTATION
"'-
<b
~
~A
~
'1-
~~
~
~
'-....
-
-
~
PART 2
MO~STONE ROAD WEST
ORIGINAL ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN LOTS 15 & 16
SKETCH FOR MINOR VARIANCE - 646 MOONSTONE ROAD WEST
PART OF LOT 16~ CONCESSION 5 (MEDONTE)
PART PLAN 51R-8920
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE SCAlE=
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
DIST ANCES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE METRES
BE CONVERTED TO FEET BY 0.3048.
(Jl
~
...,
e
...,
I
........
'"
1-661 Welham Road, Barrie, Ontario, L4N OB7
Phone: 705-792-6780 Fax: 705-792-4164
www.astlisurveying.com
"
A/RU
""
e
VACANT
121.36
\
1 6 \ct
~
'V<?
-Yo z
V<
"f- a
\~~ !::l
c5
a
5 ~ i
\
\ A/RU
VACANT
A/RU ""
-.........
-.........
"
e
""
-.......
"
'\
\
"
"
"
\
RED PINE OF REFORESTAllON
z
V<
~ \
c5
a
i
A/RU
VACANT
\
\
\
95.83
E P
u.
"'"
~
%-
~
~
q.
~~
%-
~
\ \
"
"
----- EXTENT ~ RED PINE OF REFOREST A llON
"
.............
-
-
~
MO~STONE ROAD WEST
ORIGINAL ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN LOTS 15 & 16
"
..,
~
..,
I
""
'"
SKETCH OF EXISTING FEATURES - 646 MOONSTONE ROAD WEST
PART OF LOT 16t CONCESSION 5 (MEDONTE)
PART PLAN 51R-8920
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE SCAlE=
COUNTY SIMCOE
ARE METRES AND
BY 0.3048.
DIST ANCES SHOWN ON THIS
BE CONVERTED TO FEET BY
1-661 Welham Road, Barrie, Ontario, L4N OB7
Phone: 705-792-6780 Fax: 705-792-4164
www.astrisurveying.com
STORAGE SHED DETAILS
SCALE = 1: 50
REAR
-..- 2,OJm
: J III
III III L- METAl. SEAY fASlDlffi
r 6-)1,6- P.T. COl...UWN
~ g~1II ~. ~~III POST SAOOLE
i II ~ 12- CONCRETE SCWO TUSE
.~ ~ 2~1II
~ ~alll .
~ N. ~~III METAl BEAM FASTtN(R
% Q~III , rho CONCREtE SONO !Uet:
,)-,2x8 BEAM P.T
P III III
~
Z"xti" P.T. fRCtol ONlY R1S6ON JOIST
FRON T
REAR
METAl.. SEMI fASlENER
12" CaiCfi€TE SONO TUBE
DINO & CARLA ASTRI
646 MOONSTONE ROAD WEST
PART OF LOT 16, CONCESSION 5 (MEDONTE)
PART 1, PLAN 51R-8920
/olIN 15 YR ASPtlALT SHINGLES
PLY'M)QO ROOf' SHEETING
2"X"" . 16"0.C, RAfTERS
wooo rASOA
Pl YWOOO SOffl T
WOOl,) f "SOA
PlYWOOO SOfAr
2"XI;I" HEADERS fOR ALL OPENINGS
WOOO BOARD III SA m::N
WOOO SOARD Ii SA TTEN
2"X4" 2: 16"0.C.
2"X4" 2 16"0,C.
./ O.025m Sf'AC(
AnO
J-Z"XS' p, r BEAM
METAl SEAW FAST'ENtR
MIN 1.22m fROST CO~
12" CONCRETE Sl>>IO T\J8E
12" C<>>lCRETE $ONO TUBE
FRONT
e
e
STORAGE SHED ELEVATIONS
SCALE = 1: 50
2~x6g P.T. ot:Cl(
P.T RAIL
RNL MlN 1.22m ABO\'E GRADE
RAIL NO OPENING> O.lom
_1.22111___--
"tlIlm
FRONT VIEW
WIN It> YR ASPHALT Sl1lNGUS
WtXlO SOARD k SA ntH
p_ T OEO< ANO RAIL
RAIL IMN 1.22m ABO~ GRA(lE:
RAIL NO OPENING ;> O,lOm
REAR VIEW
DINO & CARLA ASTRI
646 MOONSTONE ROAD WEST
PART OF l.OT 16, CONCESSION 5 (MEDONTE)
PART 1, PLAN 51R-8920
\\QOO SOFfIT" fASCIA
e
RIGHT SIDE VIEW
wooo SOffl1 41 fASCIA
e
2.404m
LEFT SIDE VIEW
MAY-04-2006 11:23 FRoM:NVCA
7054242115
TO: 17054870133
P.1/1
Member
Municipalities
Arlj"I;\.!osoronllO
Am;lr~nTn
B;lrrif'
The:: Blue MOllnt,)in~
Bradfurd-Wt-st Gwillirnbury
Clmlrlllt:w
((1llin~w()()d
ES5;1
Innisfil
Md<ll'u:.thon
Mtlf)u
Mullllur
N<-!w I'll! IliTlsclh
Oro-M",rlonl"
Gn:y Highl<lnds
Shelburne
Springwillcr
Wa5;1p,J He3cn
Watershed
Counties
~imCOl'.
D~jff"'rin
Grf:Y
Member of
~.~
~
~
May 4, 2006
Andy Karaiskakis, Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro-Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro. Ontario, LOL 2XO
Dear Mr. Karaiskakis;
Re: Application for Minor Variance 2006-A-12 (Astri)
Lot 16, Concession 5. 646 Moonstone Road West
Township of Oro-Medonte (Formerly Township of Medonte)
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this
minor variance application in accordance with regulations made under the
Conservation Authorities Act and our mandate for the conservation,
restoration, development and management of natural resources.
The NVCA has no objection to the approval of this application subject to
the following condition:
. That the applicant obtain a permit (or approval) from the Nottawasaga
Valley Conservation Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act.
The purpose of the permit is to regulate the location of development and
site alteration on the property and ensure adequate erosion and sediment
controls are installed prior to construction to protect the nearby valley
feature.
Thank you for circulating this application and please advise us of your
decision.
Sincerely,
;C S-~
Tim Salkeld
Resource
our
NOTIAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION At.' I'I-IOKII Y .~ (l:n1r(: for ({JIl~crvil.lioil
lohn Hix Conservalion Administralion Centre " Tiffin Con~e,.v;uiofl B195 3lh I in,=, On LOM no
705,424.1479 F,)lC 705.424.2:; Web: WWW.fl'llC?l.on.Cil > [milll: "tlrnin@!lVLiil.Orl.ta
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 12, 2005
Marion rUstra
2006-A-13
19 Seneca Lane, Plan M30, Lot 15, RP 51R-33067, Part 19 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting permission from the Committee of Adjustment to permit the
construction of an attached garage and is requesting relief of the following provisions from
Zoning By-law 97-95:
i. Setback from the minimum required side vard of required 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to a
proposed 2.7 metres (9 feet)
ii. Section 5.32 Setback from Slopes of required 23 metres (75 feet) to a proposed 2.4
metres (8 feet)
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Sugarbush Special policy Area - Residential
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential Type One Exception 113 (R1*113)
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Municipal Works/Roads-
Building Department-
Engineering Department-
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frantage of approximately 19 metres (63 feet) along Seneca
Lane, a lot depth of approximately 100.3 metres (329.1 feet) and a lot area of approximately
0.35 hectare (0.86 acre). The praperty currently contains a 2-storey residential dwelling and
a detached storage shed located east of the residential dwelling. It is proposed that this
storage shed be relocated behind the residential dwelling in order to create room for the
praposed attached garage.
The applicant is proposing to construct an attached 1.5 car garage to the east of the existing
residential dwelling. This attached garage would be located 2.7 metres (9 feet) from the
interior side yard and 2.4 metres (8 feet) from a slope that exceeds 33%. Therefore, this
attached garage does not meet the required 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) side yard or the required
23 metres (75 feet) setback from a slope exceeding 33%. As a result, permission is required
from the Committee of Adjustment for the construction of the attached garage.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Residential-Sugarbush Settlement Area in the Township Official
Plan. The permitted uses on lands designated Residential are single detached dwellings,
home occupations and open space uses. The proposed attached garage is an accessory
use to a permitted residential use.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
In assessing the issue of conformity with the Zoning By-law, the addition should not detract
from the overall character of the lot and surrounding natural features. The main purposes of
maintaining setbacks fram steep slopes is to protect and enhance the ecological integrity of
the natural heritage system and to ensure that development does not occur on lands that are
unstable. Based on site inspection, there is a question whether the proposed attached
garage would be in keeping with these principles. The applicant must demonstrate the
slope's stability to facilitate the construction of the proposed attached garage.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Attached garages are common in all types of residential areas. However, given the proximity
of the proposed attached garage to a steep slope, staff questions whether the praposed
attached garage is desirable development of the lot. The applicant must satisfy staff that the
slope is stable before a formal determination of the proposal's appropriateness and whether
the requested variance is minor in nature.
CONCLUSIONS
Relief from the side yard setback is not problematic as it generally satisfies the 4 tests of a
minor variance. However, as the proposed attached garage is in close proximity to a slope
that exceeds 33%, comment from the Township Engineer is required prior to final
consideration of this application. At the time this report was written, comments have yet to
be received from the Township Engineer. It is noted that the Township Engineer may require
a report from the applicant identifying the slope's stability. It is further noted that it has been
determined that the relocated storage/workshop shed will require an additional setback
variance from the steep slope. The applicant will have to provide staff with the setback of the
shed from the slope.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Committee defer Minor Variance Application 2006-A-13 until
comments have been received from the Township Engineer and the praposed new location
of the storage shed has been identified.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by,
Adrian Cammaert,
Technician
Glenn White,
Planner
.
.f
e
_166.98'-
OUSTING
~
-,-
-----------..--:--
pRt1'ERlY \..1tIE
IUI$TlNG"DCtX
10<1"'''''''''' I
IOISTlHGDI:O(I
r-----------'
1 '
, '
I '
I I
, I
I '
I I
I I
I '
, I
I '
I I
I I
I I
, I
I I
I I
L___________J
APPROX)MAT[ UJCATlCtI or
(XlSlING SE:PTlC
--
~
"J~~
50.93'
ExiSTING
leT SIZE 33229 +-/- SQUARE fEET
PROPOSED VORKSHOP 336 SGlUARE rEET
PROPOSED ADDlTlON 104 SQUARE rEET
PROPOSED GARAGE 387 SQUARE rEET
EXISTING HOUSE 963 SQUARE rEET
PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE or BUILDINGS
IN RELATION TO LOT SIZE SAX
~
~
MARION TlLSTRA
19 SENECA LANE RD 14 COLDIJATER
PLAN NIl. "-30 LOT IS
SCALEl 1132"=1'-0"
------
if
II
f
I
J
~,~
~
~ (xISTING
N
I
.
.
.
.
J
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 11, 2006
Harold & Sue Regan
2005-A-27(Revised)
8 Simcoeside Ave, Plan 626, Lot 37, Part Lot 105 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
On July 14, 2005, the applicants applied for and were granted relief to permit the
construction of an addition to be attached at the frant of the existing dwelling. More
specifically, the Committee of Adjustment approved the addition to be set back no closer
than 2.4 metres (8 feet) from the frant property line.
Subsequently, the applicants intent is to not construct the addition but are praposing to
demolish the existing dwelling and replace it with a new two storey single detached
dwelling with an area of appraximately 148 m2 (1,600 fe) in essentially the same location
of the existing dwelling. The purpose of the revised minor variance application is to
request relief of the following pravisions fram the Zoning By-law for the praposed new
dwelling:
Required
Approved Julv-14-05 Now requestinq
for addition for new dwellinq
Minimum Required
Front Yard Setback
7.5m(24.6ft) 2.4m(8ft)
4.57m( 15ft)-to porch
6.4m(21ft)-to dwelling
Minimum Required
Rear Yard Setback
7.5m(24.6ft)
will not encroach
further into rear yard-
will maintain the
existing setback
(approx. 1.8m(6ft))
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
COMMENTS (space is provided
Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department:
Department:
note the applicant
has reviewed
the sewage system meets
setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code and that a septic change of use
permit is required
Engineering Department: No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frantage of 36.5 metres (120 feet), a depth of 17 metres
(55.67 feet) and an area of 0.16 acres and is presently occupied by a single detached
dwelling and a detached garage. As noted above, the applicants have amended their
original plans and are now praposing to demolish the existing dwelling and replace it
with a new two storey single detached dwelling with an area of appraximately 148 m2
(1,600 fe) and an attached deck at the lakeside of the dweliing in generally the same
location of the existing dwelling.
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The praperty is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains
the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives:
To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area.
. To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.
. To ensure that existing development is apprapriately serviced with water and
sewer services.
The requested variance for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of
a new 2 storey dwelling would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline
residential area. It should be noted however that this praperty is not a waterfront
praperty. On this basis, the proposed variance would therefore conform with the intent of
the policies contained in the Official Plan.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). The SR zone establishes
a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres (24.6 metres). The intention of the required yard is
to create a low density residential neighbourhood where the dwellings are set back fram
the street and pravide a large front yard/outdoor living area between the dwelling and the
street. Certain structural features are permitted to encroach into the required yard
without impact on the overall objective and intent of the by-law. Unenclosed porches
and balconies and other features (chimney breasts, stairs and landings, etc.) may
encroach 1.0 metres into the required frant yard without impacting on the intent of the
by-law
The praposed new dwelling will have little or no impact on the intent of the by-law
pravide a low density residential character the lot or the subdivision as the subject
has a well developed landscaped front yard/outdoor living area and mature cedar
hedges located at the and rear praperty lines. this basis variance is
deemed to conform to general of By-law.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The proposed new dwelling will not change the overall character of the lot and would
appear to be apprapriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the
surraunding residential area. Given that the proposed dwelling would pravide for a form
of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, it
would not lead to the over development of the lot.
Are the variances minor?
Based on site inspection, the new dwelling would not adversely affect the character of
the residential area as the new dwelling will be buffered from Simcoeside Avenue and
fram the abutting westerly lot, Lot 36, by mature cedar hedges, which would have little if
any impact on the streetscape of Simcoeside Avenue and to the abutting neighbour. On
this basis, the requested relief is deemed to be minor in nature.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above analysis, it is the Planning Departments position that the application
meets the four test of Section 45 of the Planning Act as follows:
1. The requested variance is in keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan.
2. The requested variance is in keeping with the intent of the Township's Zoning By-
law.
3. The requested variance will pravide for the desirable development of the subject
praperty.
4. The requested variance is minor.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee apprave Minor Variance Application No. 2005-A-
27 as revised subject to the following conditions:
1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained fram the Township's Chief
Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as
provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
2. That the applicants contact the Township Building Department to satisfy the
comments made for the proposal;
3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an Ontario Land Surveyor provide
verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1)
pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing to pouring of the foundation
the proposed new dwelling:
i) be no closer than 6.4 metres feet) the lot
ii) the porch attached to the dwelling be no closer than 4.5 metres (15
feet) from the front lot line; and,
iii) does not encraach further into the rear yard- will maintain the existing
setback; and,
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 appraved by
the Committee, as submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Andy Karaiskakis HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
~TANU;Y __
DRAINAG,E: Din:.rl-
,NCE
UN Gu;.UPtW III
DW~LIN'r
TO BArI</K IN
::tOo I
8
i
I
0,}
v
";2
,11:
CHA'.,j !-ljJK Ff:~Ja:..
WeE.. . WOO])
PR'VE:w'lY
DE:.CK,
.....
!;''''PTic BED
LOI3(,
LOT S-=r
- - --
S"S: 1,1"
),>
v
LAKc..srtDe.E:.. PR.OM(;.NA bE
UNO f'ENtD COAP
1\1 c:.E:.
5
e
:r
~
4
~
"
<
<l:
'I(
.<:l
1.(\
~
"
~
'.i;
<l(
r.+
~
'::>
('
:t
U
-(
lLl
C!1
)-
..J
""
W
~
Qt
C
~
W
::>
<(
\.i.l
C\
111
W
S
~
III
..
..
.. ...
e
e
IIIlMiliIIY
-
-
-
-
e
e
"
e
.-
--
I' e 30'--40 e -I
, %7--40
I J 12'-100 12'-100 . I
72x6O 72x6O
-
2)(12 . Hlo ole
..... 13'-2io
. .
I BEDROOM I
;", ;",
12'-10"
2)(12 . 160 ole
12'-9f'
-
......
12'-100
BEDROOM
J
(
L .=1 Cfi,"" \ T
"'2. '0- ....:Q IL
BATHROOM ~ \ u
,~r Q 'rt
.
o
1
...
~
~
'----"
~UU
6'-~ 10
~12 . 16" 'pIe CANT. -
.....
I<RtHEN ~ T
. ;===;
I GJ
Ie ~
~~1 G .
Cl>
1
Ie
~ I
0
-~ ~ ~
.- -. - - ~
16' -So
~3'--40~ ~==
POSr
-' --
,
VAUlTED ~-~~: -
GRE"AT ----
~ .
ROOM -:-
.
..
1
~
, -
: i- ~ ~~~~-.'
; a- _ ~--:-- - ~
- -- -- ~
T ",'
! I
[
>
2-2)(6
[Posr r:O:6 72x6O
I -
^ ~
/ "'- - .0
~ ------
__, .0
.- ..
-...,
tl
!
72x6O
_, _0 -, ..
-........
.
..
1
~
11 sm C
/
~ /
/
//
(
:12 i~ \
:m~~!1
--r
'---
-
.....
!:l'
!
.
..
1
~
1/
..
I
...
COVERED
ENJ'R'(
-
-
72x60
( J t
I
a 0 (I"
x
t.I 14'-0-
0
c--- 5'-6-
/N UASTER .
D ...
BEDROOM ... lOW
I
BATHROOM N STORAGE
...
.
0
I
T ;...
1/ ...
(l
11
"'Tl
WAU< -IN , /
"- /
/ ""-
-1 "-
11
L
.
I'-
I
lOFf ;.,
....
.
..,
I
N K7I
N
2-2)(6
IPosr
J 2-2)(6
. POST
e
e
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 11, 2006
Robert and Kelly Talaska
2006-A-14
372 Line 11 South, Concession 11, East Part Lot 22 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are requesting permission from the Committee of Adjustment to permit the
construction of a 77.7 m2 (836 ff) addition to the existing residence. This addition is proposed
to be 1.5 stories in height, providing for an attached garage as well as increased living space.
The addition would extend into the 30 metre setback from lands zoned Environmental
Protection (EP), as well as the 7.5 metre (24.6 foot) required front yard.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Hawkestone Residential Special Policy Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential Type (R 1) and Enviranmental Protection (EP) Zones
Previous Applications - None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works-
Building Department-
Engineering Department-
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject praperty has a lot frontage of approximately 39.6 metres (130 feet) along Line 11
South, a lot depth of approximately 131 metres (430 feet), and an approximate lot area of 0.6
hectares (1.5 acres). The property currently contains a 111.5 m2 (1200 ff) residence, two 8.9
m2 (96 ff) sheds and a 50.2 m2 (540 ff) garage/shop.
The applicants are proposing to construct a 77.7 m2 (836 ft2) addition deck located 27.3
metres (89.6 feet) from the Environmental Protection (EP) boundary, and 6.4 metres (21 feet)
from the front property line. Therefore, this addition does not meet the 30 metre (98.4 feet)
setback limits of the Environmental Protection Zone as well as the 7.5 metre (24.6 foot)
required front yard, as noted in Zoning By-law 97-95. The frant of the proposed addition is
inline the majority the the existing dwelling. It is also noted that approximately
one third of existing dwelling encroaches further into the Environmental Protection
setback than proposed new The is
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Hawkestone Residential Special Policy Area in the Township
Official Plan. The primary function of this designation is to promote variety of mixed-uses that
service both the local population and the general area. Permitted uses in the Hawkestone
Residential designation are residential dwellings, commercial uses, institutional and small-
scale industrial uses. As the proposed residential addition is attached to an existing
dwelling, the proposal appears to conform with the intent of the policies contained in the
Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
In assessing the issue of conformity with the Zoning By-law, the proposed addition should
not detract from the overall residential character of the lot and surrounding streetscape. One
of the purposes of regulating structures being built within the limits of Environmental
Pratection Zone is to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage
system, to ensure that development does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible
to flooding and to ensure that development does not occur on hazardous slopes. In
reviewing Schedule B - Components of the Environmental Protection One & Two
Designations, it does not appear that the Environmental Protection designations located on
the lands are part of a Provincially Significant Wetland or other Environmental Features. To
this end the application has been circulated to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority who has not commented on the praposal to date. Based on site inspection, a
watercourse exists behind the existing dwelling, however, the addition is praposed farther
fram this watercourse that the existing dwelling. The proposed addition appears to meet the
general intent of the Zoning By-law. The application is subject to LSRCA endorsement
which will be recommended as a condition of approval.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The proposed variance should provide for a form of development that is suitable and
consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed variance will permit a residential addition
and will continue to maintain the residential character of the area. On this basis the
proposed variance would provide for the appropriate development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
As Committee is aware, "minor" is not determined on a mathematical basis. On the basis
that the proposal is reasonable and should not adversely affect the character of the
surrounding area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed variance generally satisfies the tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Committee approve minor variance 2006-A-14 subject to the
following conditions:
1 . That the
sketches
setbacks the praposed be
the application and appraved the
with the
2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to
pouring of the foundation so that:
a. the addition be no larger than 77.7 m2 (836 ff);
b. the addition be located no closer than 6.4 metres (21 feet) from the front
property line; and
c. the addition (deck) be located no closer than 27.3 metres (89.6 feet) from the
Environmental Protection (EP) boundary.
3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority, if required; and
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
/"
C
Adrian Cammaert SA, CPT
Planning Technician
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
e
--
\~
"
,
" ,
" "
LO 7',22
,
. "
,
,
,
,
,.
'\
\.
\.'6
\.~
~, ~....
'\. .. .'8..
. \. 'ail
\.
\.
.J
IV
.
1
10
_Ji
'"
e
~
I
o
i
I
I
I
LO
. ,-
"
. . Immnlmmmmnnmm
I
e
>-~ .....--
w-
II! I- .....--
o!!! g <:.C>
I-X
",w i c:::::>>
"'0
ol-W
w%u
"'0%
o-w
lI..!::o
_oOiD
~II!OW
~II..<{II!
~
d
8
@J
%
<{
....
II..
II! ~
0
0
....
11..
% ITS
<i:
J:
cu:5
8
=
[5
=
d
[!!]
ITS
~
'/'
"
~~-
Committee of Adjustment Minutes
Thursdav April 13, 2006, 9:30 a,m,
In Attendance: Chairperson Lynda Aiken, Member Garry Potter, Member Allan
Johnson, Member Michelle Lynch and Secretary-Treasurer Andy Karaiskakis
Absent Member: Dave Edwards
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Allan Johnson
~0r10~~EtmmlT6wNSH'Pl
I
I
1, Communications and Correspondence
i. OACA Newsletter, March 2006
Motion No, CA060413-1
"That the Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustments Newsletter of
March 2006 be received.
.....Carried."
2, Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
Member Lynch declared a conflict of interest on Minor Variance Application
2006-A-05 (Roman) as she is employed by the applicant. Member Lynch left
the room and did not participate in any discussion or vote on this application.
3, HearinQs:
9:30
Alan & Barbara Martin
Cone, 4, West Part Lot 18 (Medonte)
5711 Line 3 North
2006-B-08
In Attendance: John Kirby, representing applicant
Motion No, CA060413-2
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved Allan Johnson, seconded Michelle
the Cornmittee hereby Grant Provisional Consent regarding
subject conditions:
1 . three copies
severed
Committee
2006
Page
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the praposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the severed lands be merged in title with Part 1, RP 51 R-24908 and
that the pravisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act
apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject
lands;
4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands
and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title;
5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and,
6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice.
.. ...Carried."
Committee of
13, 2006
2
9:40
Renata Roman
Plan 1151, lot 17 (Oro)
13 Mclean Cres,
2006-A-05
In Attendance: Peter Nell, contractor acting on behalf of applicant
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Jackie Burkart, Environmental
Planner, lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, dated April 11 , 2006
verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience,
Motion No. CA060413-3
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance Application 2006-A-05
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the maximum height of the praposed boathouse not exceed 7.07
metres (23.2 feet);
2. That the applicant obtain a permit fram the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority;
3. That the apprapriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief
Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and
binding, as pravided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.; and,
4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application and on the sketches subrnitted with the application and
approved by the Committee
.... .Carried."
Commiltee 01
13.2006
3
9:50
James Swan
Plan 742, Lot 2 (Oro)
209 Bay Street
2005.A-34{Rev)
In Attendance: No one
Motion No. CA060413-4
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby grant Minor Variance 2005-A-26 as revised for a
height of 5.4 metres (17.7 feet) above the average finished grade as per the
Surveyors Report dated March 15, 2006 prepared by EpleU & Worobec
Surveying.
.. ...Carried."
Committee of
13,2006
4
10:00
Howard Jacobs
Cone, 5, Part Lot 28 (Oro)
31 Greenwood Forest Road
2006-A-06
In Attendance: Richard Wengle, architect, Barry Jacobs, owners son
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Jackie Burkart, Environmental
Planner, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, dated April 11, 2006
verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience,
Motion No. CA060413-5
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby Grant Minor Variance 2006-A-06 subject to the
following conditions:
1. The proposed dwelling shall be setback no closer than 1.5 metres (4.9
feet) fram the easterly interior property line;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application and on the sketches submitted with the application dated March
22,2006 and approved by the Committee;
3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2)
verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real
praperty report; and I
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's
Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
.. ...Carried."
Committee of
13.2006
5
10:10
Judith Brundage & Kent Martin
Plan 663, Part Lots F & K (Oro)
25 Barrie Terrace
2006-B-09
2006-A-07
In Attendance: No one
Motion No, CA060413-6
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby Defer Consent application 2006-8-09 & Minor
Variance application 2006-A-07 as per the applicant's request.
.. ...Carried."
Committee 01
13,2006
Page 6
10:20
Antonio Mascioli
Cone, 2, East Part Block A (Oro)
1555 Highway 11
2006-A-10
In Attendance: Angelo Ferrelli, representing applicant
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner,
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated April 12, 2006 verbatim
to the Committee mernbers and those present in the audience,
Motion No, CA060413-7
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Garry Potter
"That the Committee hereby Grant Minor Variance 2006-A-10 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the size and setbacks of the praposed coverall building be in
conformity with the sketches submitted with the application and appraved
by the Committee;
2. That the praposed coverall building be no larger than 487.68 m2 (1,600
fe);
3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2)
verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation so that
i) the coverall building be located no closer than 7.5 metres (24.6
feet) fram the Environmental Protection Zone Boundary;
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained fram 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 applicant obtain a permit from the Nottawasaga Valley
Conservation Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act.
.. ...Carried."
Commiltee of
13,2006
Page 7
5. Other Business
i. Adoption of minutes for the March 16, 2006 Meeting
Motion No, CA060413-8
Moved by Allan Johnson, Seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the minutes for the March 16th 2006 Meeting be adopted as printed
and circulated
.. .Carried."
6. Adjournment
Motion No, CA060413-9
Moved by Garry Potter, Seconded by Michelle Lynch
"We do now adjourn at 11 :10 a.m."
... Carried."
(NOTE: A digital recording of this meeting is available for review,)
Chairperson,
Lynda Aiken
Secretary-Treasurer,
Andy Karaiskakis, ACST(A)
Committee 01
13,2006
8
,r
Committee of Adjustment Minutes
Special Meeting
Tuesdav April 18, 2006, 9:30 a.m,
In Attendance: Chairperson Lynda Aiken, Member Garry Potter, Member Allan
Johnson, Member Michelle Lynch and Secretary-Treasurer Andy Karaiskakis
Absent Member: Dave Edwards
1, Communications and Correspondence
3, HearinQs:
None received
2, Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
None declared
9:30
Fred Shellswen
Cone, 7, South Part Lot 2 (Medonte)
3548 Line 7 North
2005~A-56(Rev)
In Attendance: Fred Shellswell, applicant
Motion No, CA060418-1
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby Committee apprave minor variance 2005-A-56 as
revised for a front yard setback of 90.2 metres (295.9 feet) as per the Surveyors
Sketch dated April 7, 2006 prepared by Galbraith, Eplett & Worabec Surveyors
and subject to the conditions approved by the Committee of Adjustment dated
January 12, 2006.
... ..Carried."
Commitiee of
" " d
5, Other Business
None
6, Adiournment
Motion No. CA060418-2
Moved by Michelle Lynch, Seconded by Allan Johnson
"We do now adjourn at 9:45 a.m."
... Carried."
(NOTE: A digital recording of this meeting is available for review,)
Chairperson,
Lynda Aiken
Secretary- Treasurer,
Andy Karaiskakis, ACST(A)
Committee of
18.2006
2