08 10 2006 C of A Agenda
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
August 10, 2006
Julia M. Poore
2004-A-14 (Revised)
THE PROPOSAL
On May 13, 2004, the applicant applied for and was granted relief from the Committee of
Adjustment for a one storey addition onto an existing dwelling which is within the required 15
metre (49.2 feet) setback to the average high water mark of Bass Lake.
The applicant is now proposing to revise the application to recognize two existing decks which
are located on the lake side of the existing dwelling on the main and second floors.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation -Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR)
Previous Applications - 2004-A-14:
II To enlarge the detached dwelling with a proposed 66.8 m2 (720 fe) one storey addition.
II The north east corner of the proposed addition shall be no closer than 11 metres (36 feet)
from the high water mark;
" The south east corner of the existing dwelling shall be no closer than 12 metres (39.3 feet)
from the high water mark;
II The south east corner of the dwelling shall be no closer than 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) from the
interior side lot line;
" The south west corner of the dwelling shall be no closer than 1.8 metres (5.9 feet) from the
interior side lot line; and,
II The proposed 8.9 m2 (96 ft2) entry way shall be no closer than 2 metres (6.56 feet) from the
interior side lot line.
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works-
Building Department -
Engineering Department - No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 14.8 metres (49 feet), a shoreline
frontage of approximately 15 metres (49.2 feet), a lot of approximately 40.7 metres (133.5
feet) and a lot area of approximately 600 m2 (6,458 The lands have a 2 storey
with a gross floor area of 133.8 (1440 fe). The application also
recognized an existing deck onto Bass Lake that into the shoreline
setback of 15 metres The has a deck on the upper
level of the and has the lower deck to the edge of the unit on
the south side.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Township Official Plan. A single detached dwelling
with a deck is a permitted use on lands designated Shoreline.
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 deck addition on the lower level
and the construction of a new deck on the upper level should not detract from the overall
character of the lot and surrounding neighbourhood. As well, the side yard setback has been
established to ensure privacy for both the subject property and neighbouring dwellings. A site
inspection of the property revealed that several large trees and shrubs exist at the south side of
the subject property, and as well, that the rear of the dwelling neighbouring the south of the
subject property is setback approximately 6 metres (20 feet) closer to the front lot line. Due to
this setback and the existence of a tree buffer, privacy for the property to the south would appear
to be maintained.
The primary role of setbacks to Bass Lake is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area
and the immediate shoreline. The site inspection revealed that the existing deck addition on the
lower level and deck constructed on the upper level should not adversely impact surrounding
environmental features. Therefore, the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent
of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Decks are common architectural features for residential dwellings, and this application does not
propose to alter or have a negative impact on the residential character of either the subject property
or neighbourhood. Therefore, this application represents appropriate development for the property.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the deck would not adversely affect the character of the Shoreline Residential
area or have a negative impact on privacy for neighbours, the proposed variance is considered to
be minor in nature.
CONCLUSIONS
Recognizance of the existing decks would not appear to have a negative impact on surrounding
properties, as this application generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Committee approve the revision to Minor Variance Application 2004-A-14,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the existing decks on the lower and upper level shall be no closer than 8.7 metres
(28 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass Lake;
2. That the existing decks shall not encroach any further into the existing setback from the
south interior side lot line;
with the dimensions as set out in the
and the
and on
3. That the setbacks be in
the sketches with the
4. That the
obtains
and a
if
from the
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,
Adam Kozlowski
Planning Technician
Reviewed by,
ruce Hoppe, MCI RPP
Director of Building & Planning Services
t::fI:.X- (1.00'"' \ 0"';
.~
~
~
~~
....\,'
~ ~
~'4:!..
~
Qntario Land Surveyor provide verificalion
10 \he Township of compliance with zoning
selbaCl<s by 1) pinning \he footing and
2) verifying in writing prior 10 pouring 01 \he
loundalion by way of survey I real property
report prepared by an Onlario Land Surveyor.
N
I-
.0
-'
,
,
:r-
~
""",0
...
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
August10,2006
Kevin
A-25/91 (Revised)
21 Greengables Drive, Plan 1488, Lot 72 (Om)
THE PROPOSAL
Previously, a minor variance application was applied for and was granted relief for the
construction of an addition to the existing dwelling and an attached deck. The approved addition
and deck was for a reduced rear yard setback of 6.15 metres (20 feet) from the rear property line.
The applicant is now proposing to revise the approved minor variance application by recognizing
an existing deck that was constructed by the applicant which will reduce the setback distance
from the previously-approved 6.15 metres (20 feet) to 5.1 metres (17 feet). As the existing deck
is closer to the rear property line than previously approved, permission is being requested from
the Committee of Adjustment to revise the setback distance from the rear lot property line to 5.1
metres (17 feet).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
A-25/91 _ Committee of Adjustment approved the construction of a deck, where a reduction in the
required rear yard setback of 7.5 metres to 6.15 metres was granted.
Official Plan Designation - Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR)
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Municipal Works/Roads-
Building Department-
Engineering Department - No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 30 metres (98.4 feet) along Greengables
Drive, a lot depth of approximately 50 metres (164 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.14
hectares (0.36 acres). The property currently contains a single storey residential dwelling.
The applicant has recently constructed a new deck, at the rear of the The new
deck is subsequently located 5.1 metres (17 feet) from the rear property line. Therefore, this new
deck does not meet the previously-approved 6.15 metre (20 feet) rear yard setback. As a
permission is required from the Committee of Adjustment to the setback
'<<
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Township Official Plan. A single detached dwelling
with a deck is a permitted use on lands designated Shoreline.
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 deck addition should not detract
from the overall character of the lot and surrounding neighbourhood. As well, the rear yard
setback has been established to ensure privacy for both the subject property and neighbouring
dwellings. A site inspection of the property revealed that several large trees and shrubs exist at
the rear of the subject property, and as well, that the dwelling neighbouring the rear of the subject
property is setback approximately 25 metres (80 feet) from the property line. Due to this setback
and the existence of a tree buffer, privacy for neighbouring properties would appear to be
maintained. Therefore, the application conforms to the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Decks are common architectural features for residential dwellings, and this application does not
propose to alter or have a negative impact on the residential character of either the subject
property or neighbourhood. Therefore, this application represents appropriate development for
the property.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the deck would not adversely affect the character of the Shoreline Residential
area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature.
CONCLUSIONS
Relief from the previously-approved reduced rear yard setback would not appear to have a
negative impact on surrounding properties, as this application generally satisfies the 4 tests of a
minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Committee approve the revision to Minor Variance Application A-25/91,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The existing deck shall be setback no closer than 5.1 metres (17 feet) from the rear lot
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 and approved by the Committee;
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.
Reviewed
Technician
Services
Adam
:
-6:--
D-ee-l(
-"
/
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
August 10,2006
Jerome & Linda
2006-A-22
2 Nevis Ridge Road, Lot 11, Plan 535 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are proposing to construct a detached garage with an area of 62.4 m2 (672 ft2) which
is to be located in the front yard of the lot. The applicants are requesting the following relief from
Zoning By-law 97-95:
1. Section 5.1.3 (a) Permitted locations for detached accessorv buildinqs; to allow a detached
garage to be located in the front yard; and,
1. Section 5.1.4 Maximum Heiqht for the detached garage from the required 4.5 metres (14.7
feet) to a proposed 5.2 metres (17 feet).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation -Rural Residential
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Rural Residential One (RUR1) Zone
Previous Applications - None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department-
Building Department-
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 64 metres (210 feet) along Jermey Lane,
a depth of approximately 69 metres (226 feet) along Nevis Ridge Drive and a lot area of
approximately 0.44 hectares (1.1 acres) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling
and an attached garage. The Township's Zoning By-law provides the following definition in
determining yards for a corner lot:
LINE, FRONT
Means the line
the lot
the
street,
In
case of:
a)
a corner the shortest of the lot lines that
to be lot
the lot from the
street
be
As the line
the of
front lot line and the lot line
line.
Lane is shorter than the side Nevis Ridge
the lot line Lane would be
Nevis Drive would be as the
for
as the
side lot
The applicants are proposing to construct a 62.4 m2 (672 ft2) detached garage to be located in the
required front yard a distance of 12 metres (39 feet) from the front lot line, Jermey Lane. Section
5.1.3 (a) of the Township's Zoning By-law states that detached garages are not allowed in the front
yard. The minor variance application is for the construction of a detached garage to be located in
the front yard and also for an increase in height from the required 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to 5.2
metres (17 feet).
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural Residential in the Official Plan. The main objective in the Rural
Residential designation is to recognize existing estate and country estate developments in the
Township. Permitted uses in the Rural Residential designation are mainly single detached
dwellings and accessory uses.
The applicant's proposal does not appear to offend these principles given that the variances will
accommodate development of a detached accessory building accessory to the permitted
residential use and would not appear to have a negative impact on the character of the residential
area.
On this basis the proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Rural Residential One (RUR1). Based on site inspection, the
proposed building is situated which proves to be the most ideal location for a building. One of the
purposes of maintaining minimum front yards in the Rural Residential One Zone is to maintain
and protect the estate residential character of a single detached residential community. However,
it is also the intent of the By-law to permit accessory uses that are reasonable and incidental to a
residential use. Given that there will be adequate on site parking and the garage will be setback
approximately 12 metres (39 feet) from the front lot line, Jermey Lane and approximately 40 metres
(131 feet) from Nevis Ridge Drive, and the proposal for the increase in height is considered
reasonable and minor in size, the proposed variance is considered to conform with the general
intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The applicant's lot is a relatively large rural residential property and the proposed building
appears generally compatible within a rural residential context. 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. On this basis the
proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the size of the garage in contrast with the proposed dwelling appears to be
reasonable, is set back from the front and exterior side lot lines and should not adversely affect
the character of the rural residential area, the proposed variances are considered to be minor.
The
variance
the 4 tests of a minor variance as
above.
It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2006-A-22 subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the height of the detached garage not exceed 5.2 metres (17 feet);
2. That the proposed detached garage be located no closer than 12 metres (39 feet) from the
front lot line, Jermey Lane;
3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on
the sketch submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the detached garage be no closer than 12
metres (39 feet) from the front lot line and that the height of the detached garage not
exceed 5.2 metres (17 feet); 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; and,
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Andy Karaiskakis HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
Bruce Hoppe, MCI PP
Director of Building & Planning Services
,~
.~
\1)
..~.
~
.~.
r..::
~
l
I
i
!
I
'f
~
~
t
I
'1/
r.>~l 1
1~\ i
j~ cf\ I
. ..:> i
I
J I
01
~
I
~i
'TI
~I
~
~\
:;-i
~I
Nl
I
i
\
l
t
~
I":
".>
~
f
tI)
\--.('6
..,.,
~
r--:
\
r--
, ,
Q
N
~
~1
)
.' \"
")
,n
ill
.0
"
"
"iJJ
D
z 0
. 7
I ,- Will (l '.
o . it ro!:: u, I
~ Z o . iF
::1~ G " GZ 3
'" Z ~O G '" <l
Ill"" 6 UJu w
(l ~~lY ~ ~ ~~
""u (3 'u Ol D
"''5 Z ,.j:?;:UI '" \'18 ;~
-~ ~ r: (l LZ Z
.'" G (l3 ...r
~r: (l II ",G \') q (1) 7:
~G G '" 1;;>- (l ~ r: ~
ttf: G 0 " iLO ,il
[\ DOl iL {:: [ (l
u_
-9
J)
'"
~
I
'"
"
7
~
W
~
iL
<{
II
iL
iY
D
611
>=Ii
<ll'
~I\
WI
1-1'
6,1
[Ii
ill I :]1
i=
(l i'" 'i'" <{, ",
<! <! 3' i'-
J " ei ~l
j iL 81~ (l ,n
G '" j j I~
\l Z ~ ~l[
...'J QI
Q iiZ ~;8 0 "
<! 81 \l z Q,W
ill W a iiZ ~I~
D III "'iD UI
<J) u' <!
a LLil!.- ,n ill ~~8
(l G,G O. D III
ill
n g lL,1L ill "' a a n
3 818 G' ll] G
;-1 [\ IL IL iL
5 8 8 0
, '
"V,ll-,L 111-,9 n'1U-,L
Hl-,'d 1l1-:8
" ~ ~! " I
z ,0 w ~
~ 25 z
" ~
W <0 " D
C, Z 1110 C 7 ~
1: " 5 ~ Wi m I ~ "
" " " is ~ Ii ,-c
\l Wr:Z ~~ ~ ~
G DIY3 Z c ~ " WUl
(j <till\) 0 00( U~ m"
L'i 0 I~ III )- (]' ~c illZ 2 ill
~1 0 ill q 2~ 09 ~6
fL IU ~ "
:rfL III
<ill ~S! 7 III 0
1Jr: [1 " 5~~
fLO 3
t=[ tiJO r:z
"ill ill ~6
fL:!: is
wl-
om
,"
~:
"
z
I
ill
Z"
OH
~\I
~I\
izll
Oli
lr!1
"
3
6
~
"
D
z'
~!
IL-l
o.
iL
2
w
"
"
~
o
\l
"
'"
D
Ji
"
III
D
5
,,1-,'01
,,'11.01-.'01
;<
L;J
,,'1\II-,L
,,'l1.01-,'o1
,,1-,'01
,,1-,9
jl
,,'
~I
0,
~,
01
8!
u,
2:
"
'"
Z
'3
()
l-
"
"
Z
~
(]'
q
fL
<l)
Z
o
t=
.q
>
ill
..J
UJ
QI'
.q
ill
QI'
~
[)
"l
)L
\l
III
"1:
U
I-
Z
o
QI'
LL
't
N
x
(1)
N
ill
\'j
.q
QI'
.q
\'j
l-
LL
o
..J
lli l lli
,..!_ ill
'- iJJ [
2 0 2
~
,0
[IJ U
U
[IJ
"
ill z
I
> '"
'" ~
al
<{ \L
" <{
z u
(j iL
~ tv
[)
u
a
"
'"
w
;=
'"
~
a
\J
"-
a
UJ
Q
ill
'"
UJ
Q
'i
I
o~
HI ~.{
~9
J ,-
-<{d)
Ill:
fLa
~9:
[)
7
<(
~
~
~
D
'"
:r
'"
Z
~
W
'"
fL
4.'
z
Q
;=
iL
~
ill
z
'"
Q
\J
'"
Q
'9
Iw
I~
i ~:~
"
z 'l1"J
~ ~,~
W ::.'JIG
ro ~1~
QI"
fL'
2'
/
,,%.OI~,'6
,,';'ill-,L
1l1-,'d
111-,'6
w
~C)
U
LlJ y
:;w
l:)~~
'i~()
iYWI
~l Q ill
"
3
lli
7
3
()
ill
"
z
;S
~
.,
l
z
()
i=
'1
>
W
I
W
1-
T
(l
il
:iJ
;=
"
j
o
\J
"-
('>
w
[)
~
'"
ill
[)
5
IIZ7Iil-,L
,,1-,1'1
,~ -
Cl;
r:1C
~
Will I
111J5 Q~ wUJ
f~ lll<{
> ~ rot:-
~9 IL <D
D Oz
'" ~r '2 r{)
;L <till '" ~@a!
~~ ~r HI
IL{) 7 ....l.6111
(:~ '" ~&~
~ tii; ()
G \l
~l a 01 <D <{~
;:' 0 fKlUr- <l)
I..') 0 [Q Z
()
t=
<( ill
>
W
..J
W
I-
U-
W
..J
..
I-
::t
\'J
(l'
-'t
0'
X
z -(\)
Cl ~II '"
l~
., W
> \'J
UI >,
I ~II <(
III
e- (l'
I <(
,~
it ..J. \'J
I-
U-
()
..J \ffi
~ ~
....li ~ ~ 1:
<[, It '" < '" ~)
:]! j S '3 0
m -' z ill 0 2
IL '" IL 0 [ u
z 0 0 ~ Z
::.3 0 " ~ UJ '3
() Z ~ D 0
ii' z
ill ;:\ "' 0 ~ (I)
'" (I) " D "
~ z \\ z
() ~ 'ii
IL' It It '"
2 ., 2 'I
It IL
.'6 "z;.;II-,L "I-,q '" IL
w
ill HI
~ ill
.01-,2 "I-,q ,,%,01-,'6 5
z
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
August 10,2006
Heather Shear
2006-A-23
31 Greenwood Ave. Plan M765, Lot 16 (Om)
PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing seasonal dwelling and construct a new
dwelling with an area of 197.72 m2 (2128 te). The applicant is requesting the following relief
from Zoning By-law 97-95:
1) That the minimum required interior side yard setback be reduced from 3.0 metres (9.8 feet)
to 1.5 metres (5 feet) on the south interior side yard and;
2) That the minimum required interior side yard setback be reduced from 3.0 metres (9.8 feet)
to 2.45 metres (8 feet) on the north interior side yard and;
3) That the minimum required front yard setback be reduced from 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to 2.7
metres (8.9 feet)
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Previous Applications - none
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department - No concerns
Building Department-
Engineering Department - No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 15.2 metres (49.8 feet), a
depth of approximately 50 metres (164 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 15 metres
feet) a lot area of approximately 0.07 hectares 18 acres). The lands
have a one-storey dwelling with an area of approximately 107.36 m2 (1155.6 The
applicant is proposing to demolish the existing seasonal dwelling and a new one-storey
single detached dwelling with additional space. The floor area for new
is proposed to be 197.72 m2 (2128.24 and will meet 15 metre
from the water Bass
is due to the
to be 2.7 metres
property line with the dwelling unit to be located 3.85 metres (12.6 feet) from the front
property line. The dwelling is also proposed to encroach into the interior side yard setbacks,
to be located 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the south interior side lot line, and 2.45 metres (8 feet)
from the north interior side lot line. The Township Zoning By-law requires a 7.5 metre (24.6
foot) front yard setback and a 3 metre (9.5 foot) interior side yard setback for the main
dwelling unit in the Shoreline Residential Zone.
Does the variance 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 variance for the new dwelling would appear to maintain the character of the
shoreline residential area as the dwelling will meet the minimum required setback from Bass
Lake. As well, the side yards of the property contain cedar hedges and several large, mature
trees which will serve as a buffer between the proposed dwelling and neighbouring
properties to the north and south. Therefore the variance would appear to conform to the
general intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). The primary purpose for
maintaining side yard setbacks in residential areas is to ensure that privacy between
properties is maintained. As noted earlier, the existing hedges and mature trees on both the
north and south property lines will provide a form of buffering to ensure privacy for the
subject and neighbouring lands.
Initially, the applicant had requested a variance for the north and south interior side yard
setbacks of 1.85 metres (6 feet). Staff noted concerns with this reduced side yard setback,
in that access to the rear of the property would be hindered. Through discussion with the
applicant, it was agreed that increasing one of the side yard setbacks would be more
appropriate for access to the rear of the property. Accordingly, the applicant has submitted a
revised site plan depicting a north interior side yard setback of 2.45 metres (8 feet). The
proposed 2.45 metre (8 foot) north interior side yard setback is considered adequate to
provide access for emergency, maintenance, and construction vehicles. As well, being that
the proposed septic system is located in the rear yard, the additional side yard setback will
provide additional room for septic maintenance equipment.
With respect to the reduced front yard setback, the proposed location of the dwelling is in
keeping with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood, as many existing residential
structures in the area have been constructed closer to the front property line than permitted
under current Zoning By-law setback provisions. As such, the proposed dwelling would
appear to generally maintain the "building on this particular section Greenwood
Avenue.
has
removed. A site inspection revealed that despite the reduced front yard setback, adequate
parking space for passenger vehicles will exist at the front of the proposed dwelling, and that
parking in this location will not likely impede or hinder road maintenance vehicles (such as
snow ploughs) on Greenwood Drive.
On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of
the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed new dwelling would appear to be appropriate for
the desirable development of the lot, and would be in keeping with the general
characteristics of the surrounding residential area. Further, the proposed dwelling
constitutes a form of development that is permitted within the Shoreline Residential Zone,
and is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the dwelling would not adversely affect the character of the Shoreline
Residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature.
CONCLUSIONS
The application to permit a new dwelling on the subject property generally satisfies the four
tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2006-A-23 subject to the
following conditions:
1. The proposed "wood deck" at the front of the proposed dwelling shall be setback no
closer than 2.7 metres (8.9 feet) from the front property line, measured from the
north-west corner of the "wood deck", and shall be setback no closer than 1.5 metres
(5 feet) from the south interior side lot line and 2.45 metres (8 feet) from the north
interior side lot line;
2. The proposed dwelling shall be setback no closer than 3.8 metres (12.6 feet) from
the front property line;
3. The proposed dwelling shall be setback no closer than 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the
south interior side lot line and 2.45 (8 feet) from the north interior side lot line;
4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application
and on the revised sketches submitted with the application dated July 20, 2006
(revised sketches VIA fax August 3,2006) approved the
5. That the applicant
if
the Nottawasaga
6.
7. 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 RS.O. 1990, c.P.13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Adam Kozlowski, B.URPL
Planning Technician
Reviewed by,
Bruce Hoppe, MC ,RPP
Director of Building & Planning Services
f
~l
V"\('"
~
\I'IJ(I;)~~'t. -
_ \fI'\'~~~~::-.,r------
~_"--'~.' .i1.
- - - ,~,' &
~' ~
;
,
,
\
\
,
\
,
I
,-
()
-4
1'-
a
-,
~
""
,
,
,
I
,
I
\
,
,
,
I
I
,
,
\
s~ II ~
~L.. !
~ij~q
~ I a Q
~ " g
~8~"
of I ~i~~; fA
led~~ ~~ ~~~~
\ I ~~~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
;\m~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ "
jjijig ~ ~ ' ~ ~
;\I~~~~
\1 Ii ~8
I II
I
GREENWOOD AV~NU'
(1~.11 1m Wll)~. flIt.GIl:HtHLU l"l.AIi "b~)
~ __ _ _ _ ~1~ _N:,~ ~~~31-00.1l (L T)
../;..r;;.:.... '-"
,,' "-.
(~ ......,_1. "",
(":)
S-
~
~.
('l
*
~
...(.
~
:i
,
I
I
"
I
,
__;':.N..0A5.!'~!!Y
I -------:-:'
,
1
~
10,1'10-
- --.. -,.,...,...." ""::;,~ .. ..,---.. ---
\ -------
\
-I
\
1
\
I
I
,
\
~\~
~\~
\ )
\"'"~
\ -
...'......0
'... ">'1-
....... O<?
"!! "'t-... )~~,
iz. O.~, o1f 4.11'"
'::'..-\ ........ ../
'? .........~~.....
~
~ 1
~
\
\
I
\
,
I
I
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
\
\
\
,
\
.1.
I
,
,
.,
,
,
I
"
',f, \~
<~ \,~
",.\ \:;.
f\~: ,,~ S
1 I'{;-\
..~~
'0
-,
S
:;,
';'=-' L'l"I
;:)
,
I
I ~
I I-
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
\
,
I
,
\
\
,
\
,
I
\
\
\
I
\
,
I
\
,
\
,
I
\
I
,
\
I
I
,
,
\
,
\
\
I
~
'" .."J
'~~
\
\
,
I
I
I
,
-..",
;\'it,
,,,',J
~~,
'J~:'
't ~";,
'~,i,
I
I
\
1
I
I
m
li~
U~
I
~
~ -
IPPI
~I ~d~
~. Ii ~I
~ t Ii
iph; ~
~& . ~
, ; ~
I ~ ~
i ~ I
.
I
9
~~~l ~s~ ~I il i m I~
~ P~dJ~ h~6 ~
a M ~e f e Ii
I ill] W~II e
~ d ~~~~~
~ ~ ~ I! I~ ~
i~1 nijl! I
i I ~ ~ ~!
~ ~
i
i;: W19~
nH8~
~-hd
"Bq
~ ~ i
~ ~
~
;; '\ 61
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
August 10, 2006
Neil McNiven
2006-8-18
Concession 8, Part Lot 3, RP 51R-1821O, Part 1 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2006-B-18 is a technical severance to transpose the location of an
existing vacant lot to a new location at the East Part of Lot 3 which will front along Line 8 North,
as shown on the attached map. The transposed lot is proposed to have a lot frontage of 60
metres (195 feet), a lot depth of 165 metres (540 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1 hectare
(2.4 acres). This application will not result in the creation of a new lot; the applicants have
applied for consent to transpose an existing vacant lot located in Concession 4, West Part Lot 3.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural & Environmental Protection One
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Existinq lot: Rural Residential Two (RUR2) & Environmental Protection
(EP) Zones Location of new lot: Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) Zone
Previous Application - B-8/88 (Creation of lot-approved)
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County
Public Works Department-
Building Department-
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 at the East Part of Lot 3 which will front on
Line 8 North.
The "transposed" lot would have an area of approximately 1 hectare (2.4 acres) and a frontage of
approximately 60 metres (195 feet). The retained lands, which would include the bulk of the
agricultural parcel together with the vacant lot created in 1988, would have an area of
approximately 39 hectares (97 acres) and a frontage of 320 metres (1,050 feet) along Line 7
North and approximately 242 metres (794 feet) along Line 8 North.
PLAN
The Rural policies of the Oro-Medonte Official Plan are silent with respect to the issue of lot
which could also be referred to as a severance. In the absence of
to the Committee should consider the overall of the Rural
1. To preserve and promote the rural character of the Township and the maintenance of the
open countryside; and,
2. To prevent the intrusion of land uses which are incompatible with the rural character and
resources activities of the area.
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 Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) 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.
As the existing vacant residential lot is zoned Rural Residential Two (RUR2) and Environmental
Protection (EP) in the Township's Zoning By-law Schedule A17, it is recommended as a condition
of consent that the lands zoned RUR2 be rezoned to A/RU to be consistent with the zoning fabric
of the area. Furthermore, it is also recommended that the proposed location of the transposed lot
be rezoned from the A/RU to the RUR2 to accurately reflect the intended land use.
ANAL YSIS
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 Rural designation; and,
. The proposal will not result in the creation of a new lot.
CONCLUSIONS
1 . The transposed lot will comply with the minimum lot area and frontage requirements for
the RUR2 Zone once rezoned.
2. The retained agricultural lot will comply with the minimum lot area and frontage
requirements for the A/RU Zone.
3. 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 Rural designation.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee approve Provisional Consent for application 2006-8-18
subject to the following conditions:
1 . That three copies of a Reference Plan of the new the 1 square foot land
noted in Condition 3, be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be to the
Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and
the for review the
a copy of the
for
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 8, North Part Lot 3,
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
1988 (Part 1, RP 51R-18210) 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, Concession 8, North Part Lot 3 and the previously created residential lot
(Part 1, RP 51R-18210) will merge in title;
6. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning on the existing vacant residential lot
from the RUR2 to the AlRU Zone of consent that the lands zoned RUR2 be rezoned to
AlRU to be consistent with the zoning fabric of the area and that the proposed location of
the transposed lot be rezoned from the A/RU to the RUR2 to accurately reflect the
intended land use; and,
7. 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,
Andy Karaiskakis HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
PROPOSED LOCATION
OF NEW LOT
~'.... ~
~~
1lQ~
00
=~
'"
~~
=>
I
(1J
(")
v
If)
(")
~ ?oJ "to.!
L_ -Ll~ ~ p") 1\ .~
f~~~~ ~I~" '\\~ ~
~ _~ ~ '\ ~ I
\-1 " u n-:.~, (/J1d~ \, - J(' I ~\
Ie 4"~ 4" 'I I f( ..,,~ 1
~ ~ \ ~
X
~ tr;~ \
~~ r7 I F. I
~~~I ~ n \ !
~ ~
I \ Y I
I>~ ="~ ,= )......~ ..' = y
'N 6 aNn I- I[~ 1;1 -, , f \
€ ~ 'f'~r;;<J!,~ #
N" -1 #:'10(1 +0' .A \ (J ~
~. .:r: fiC~ [J.,;!t ..? ....11: ~
~'" l J IE;: ~~ ~'t\;j(; ,~
, ,~~~'g:~ :i ~-,
f ~rt~ 'n! -~b.1 ~ _
I Jf~ ' If $ ~ 'v -i S
~"~a:n,t?:. ~bt n A
- j\ - 1 M I"
~
~
x
~
x
I
pi
1J ~
I
x
1._-
I
x
......
~
~
~
>
(")
If)
('U
"
" ~
'f "
'" .., :::I
'" " 01 '" ~ "
~ r. '" - 2 - ..,
0 :::I "" a .. " .. ~
- ~ $ p.. :3 '13 01 ... ~ ~ 2 2 '"
.. .. '" ~ ... ... "" " El
'" " :::I :;:l :s 'a 01 01 " '" " :;:l ... .. .. p..
I:i f. ] '" 01 ... a l>: 3 .. '" ... ...
~ ~ '" ;:l E I> '" '" I> '" '" ~~ ~
00 0 '" " '" '" '" a a ::::,. ... 0 t,~ " '"
"'" :s :s l>: '" '" "" " " .. ~ " " I>
" 01 " " " p.. a '" " '" ~ .:!'''' .:!'" ~ "
z '" '" " "" "" " '" '-' 3 ~ .. P: "
:;:l :;:l '" '" ::;l " ':;1 ""
I:i .E! .E! 's os p.. ::;l
0 I:i I:i l>: l>: ~ <.) " en -a - " -"
:::l t: ';l 2 .. ... ~~ .1l "
N '" " " " " ... " "" ... " ...
~ ~ <iI "il ... :s <iI Oil I:i " 2 Oil " " ... I:i .. " " "" :;:l .1l
.~ > "
... ... " '" ... " " !:' '" " ~ .;:: '" .;:: " I:i '" .S II '"
" " " ~ .<:I " " oS " :;;! .. oS " .:!' I:i p.. r;: Sl~ .E! .e
"" p:; p:; tf.l p:; p:; 1>1 Ii' " !>1 0 "" :l1Ip:;
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
;;! '" ::> ~ '"
~ ~ l>: ~
C2 '" ::> l>: := ::; fa ~ ;; ::l <.) -..... ...... en p:; €:: f;:
P:; p:; en " ..: !>1 0 ""
(:;l;:l
~
z
o
o l'-
(:;l;:l~....,
1:f~
01
~>-<
Oo:l
~~(:;l;:l
Oz....:l
-~
P-4Z0
- i:;t:l
::J::O:=
if.)NU
z if.)
~
o
~
x
~
o
~
IlQ
e
'"
~
S
<::>
<::>
<::>
C\l
<::>
<::>
<::>
..;
<::>
<::>
<::>
o
<:l
..;
<::>
<::>
<::>
""
;'...}
DEPOSITED UNDER THE
REGISTRY ACT
t'LAN Oln-n;;",YE-
RECEIVED AND DEPOSITED
DATE
~!,j)/i
DATE
~
.;;,Ak
G.? STONES
ONT ARlO LAND SURVEyOR
Land Registrar lor the
Registry Division
of Simcoe '51'
CAUTION
THIS PLAN IS NOT A PLAN OF SUBD!VISION
WITHIN THE MEANING. OF THE PLANNING ACT
SCHEDULE OF PARTS
PART
LOCATION
REGISTRA T fON
2.428ao;,
Port of Lol J, COllc"uioll VIII
Port INST. 131':16
~r~~O'}">"t
\~ ~~
\~ ,~
I
~:
'"
;~
~)
'. (f~
'"
,-,,\ l'J
C,
'"
",
;;:~
e, C,
" 'r,
'" ts
~'-'
, " ~:
;;:: ~:
:) ~,
~,
N-W on9'"
Lo' J, Con Vlll
PLAN OF SURVEY
OF PART OF LOT 3, CONCESSION VIII
TOWNSH I P OF ORO
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
SCALE""=IOO'
G P. STONES OLS.
1988
,<
;:
"
.', "
C) 'r,
- 'r,
I"
',-~
;~
~)
-'
N56."S'50"E
540,16'
----' "
1
PART
I ~ ) :': 1
C,
NOTE:
8EARINGS ARE ASTRONOMIC REFERRED TO THE EASTERLT LIMIT OF
LDT 2, CONCESSION 1111 HAilING A SEARING OF N320Z4'50"W AS SHOWN
ON REGISTERED PLAN ':I1M-Z24
lnGI -OENOTES RC. KIRKPATRICK O.L.S
01371 -OENOTES R_G. McKISaON O_L.S
(13901 -DENOTES PR, KITCHEN O,LS
LEGEND
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
AND
ONTARIO LAND SURVEYORS
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SIB DENOIES STANDARD IRON BAR
ssm DENOIES SHORT STANDARD IRON BAR
18 _DE-NOlES IRON BAR
180 _OENOIES mON BAR ROUI40-
RP "DENOTES ROCK POST
It ._DENOTE$lRON lUBE
IilII _ DENOIES MONUMENl FOUND
_DENOTES MONUMENT PlAN1ED
1, t"'l$ suRVEY I\ND PLAN ARE CORAfCT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SURvns ALl
AND THE REGISTRY ACl ANt) hiE REGlILA1ION~; MADE !HEREUNOH,
IHf ~,URVfV WAS COMPlE lED ON THF
'.0111... /'.. .~ D... ....G.."..'..'. ,198..'.
... . !//ZZ/,.,iJb- .......
G_ P STONES
ON1ARlO LAND SURVEYOR
89 COLOWATER ST E. L3V lWe
11051525-9521
OCTOBER 13111,19BB
ORILLlA, ONTARIO
ORILUA -
C-1580
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
August 10,2006
Sharon Bennett
2006-B-19
1700 Mount St. Louis Road East, Cone. 13, East Part Lot 10, RP 51R-18711, Part 1
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2006-B-19 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot. The
land to be severed is proposed to have a lot frontage of 70 metres (228.8 feet) along
Medonte Sideroad 2, a lot depth of approximately 77 metres (255 feet) and a lot area of
approximately 0.5 hectare (1.2 acres). The land proposed to be retained would have a lot
frontage along Mount St. Louis Road East of 55 metres (180 feet) and a lot area of
approximately 0.4 hectare (1 acre).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural Residential
Zoning By-law 97-95 -Rural Residential Two Exception (RUR2*5) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is
for the
to make notes)
Simcoe County
Public Works-
Building Department-
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
It is the applicant's intent to create a new lot fronting on Medonte Sideroad 2, shown on
Attachment 1. The lands proposed to be severed and retained are currently vacant with a
significant amount of tree cover located at on the lot.
The are designated in the Plan. Section
09.3 states "all development within the Rural Residential designation shall occur way
Subdivision." This policy was specifically included within the Official Plan in 1
to ensure lands that were designated at time of Plan approval but not
into lots proceeded the Plan process. A intent the
was to within the
or were new was
Prior to 1997, the former Township of Medonte Official Plan dated December 14, 1978
showed the lands subject to this application and the surrounding area in a Rural District
designation with an area of approximately 98 acres. The main objective of this designation is
to prevent the urbanization of the area and to maintain its rural nature. The November 1988
Official Plan for the Township of Medonte included an amendment which redesignated
approximately 10 acres of land fronting on Mount St. Louis Road from the Rural District
designation to the Rural Residential District, approved on August 25, 1987. On October 20th
1992, Plan 51 M-493 was approved for 32 Rural Estate lots. The old Medonte Official Plan
contained both a Rural Residential District and an Estate Rural Residential District
designation to provide for this form of development. The Rural Residential District
designation permitted lots with an area of 0.4 hectares (1 acre) and the Estate Rural
Residential District designation permitted developments that had an area of 0.8 hectares (2
acres). The subject property, Part 1 on Plan 51R-17177 as shown on Attachment 2 taken
from the Medonte Official Plan date November 1988, shows the land use designation as
Rural District. The six lots on Reference Plan 51 R-16294 fronting on Road Allowance
Between Lots 10 and 11, also known as Mount St. Louis Road, abutting directly west of the
subject lands, used to be designated Rural Residential District, which means that each of the
lots were intended to have a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares.
The Rural Residential land use designation clearly intends to recognize 'existing' estate
residential developments within the Township. This form of housing is no longer encouraged
nor supported in the existing Official Plan, nor the recently adopted OPA 16/17 review.
Estate residential development within the rural areas should not be encouraged.
ZONING BY-LAW
Given that the current Official Plan does not contemplate new Rural Residential subdivisions,
there was a need to ensure that that the character of the existing and approved
developments at the time was protected in the implementing zoning by-law. It was on this
basis that the implementing zoning by-law contains both a RUR1 and RUR2 Zone. Both
zones require minimum lot sizes of 0.4 hectares and minimum lot frontages of 45 metres.
The main difference between the two zones is minimum required front, exterior and interior
side yard, which is higher in the RUR1 Zone.
Given that the subject lands appear to be designated Rural District in the previous Township
of Medonte Official Plan, the implementing zoning by-law could have included a minimum lot
size of 0.4 hectares in the implementing zoning by-law. This was not done because the
policy anticipated that all new development in the then new Rural Residential designation
would occur by Plan of Subdivision and because only existing approvals and developments
were being recognized. However, there was a need to ensure that buildings were located on
the two types of lots (country residential and estate residential), in accordance with the intent
of the previous planning approvals.
It should be noted that the proposed and retained lot would comply with the Zoning By-law
provisions for the Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone.
fact that the severed
intent the
when
a
0.4 hectares. In
lot
the Rural Residential designation occurred in accordance with the intent of the previous
approvals, all new development shall occur by way of Plan of Subdivision. Given that the
proposal involves dividing a 0.4 hectare lot into two by way of consent, the application does
not conform with the intent of the Official Plan and should be refused.
Moreover, regardless of the methodology for land division, a review of the lot fabric in the
adjacent area reveals that the majority of properties are in the 0.8 ha (2 acre) range or larger.
The proposed lot division would therefore be inconsistent with the character of the area and
established land use pattern. Although only one new lot is being proposed, the extension of
an estate residential subdivision would not be in keeping with the existing Official Plan nor
the policy directives recently approved by Council in the OPA 16/17 review process and
therefore would not constitute good planning.
CONCLUSION
The application should not be supported as follows:
1. Conformity with Section 09.3 of the Official Plan is not achieved;
2. The proposed new lot would not be in keeping with the established lot fabric in this
area of the Township;
3. The application would constitute an extension of an estate residential plan of
subdivision which is not in keeping with the existing nor the adopted Official Plan;
and,
4. The proposal does not constitute good planning.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee not grant Provisional Consent to application 2006-B-
19 for the reasons outlined herein.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Andy Karaiskakis HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
Bruce Hoppe, MCI
Director of Building &
Services
...
~ w
~ ~~
r0 a: 00
-I 8~ "-
<l 0
~ - '" 01- ,.
z !l! 3' <lo <l
Z ~ I-Z z<l 0
o ". ~~ .c
)-1 Qw 0: I-~~ ;;;
G35! '"
<:(:1 5 ;3 ~ ti-~ W 1-5 w
fl ~ (,\'.l.l :I:
(/)1- 0 ~ :i ~~~ wo: I-
W ~~~ Z
, u.. (/) Z W en !flz filii ~ 0
I Woz 0
5:5 ~ ~ g 0:1:"- o 0
I OWOOI-...i ~~~ LL w~5 w
"- 0.. '" :i I-
i= 0: W w
Iii I- rUOU~u t- I- Z ~ o"z <l 0: .0
I- 0: Z ffi ~ ~ 0::: ~t;~ 0..
., WZW~u...; ~ ~ - ~.;~ ~
<l: 0.. ii! ii1 d g en W .o<l. 0
0 >O~U)o...j ol-W o.."w 0 1
0" <l ~~Q) U ~~~ "
a:: ~o ~ ::>>E ct <( en <l I
::> U u.. u.. " ::i::; rJ~f3~~ ~a..4 .,>~ 3: I
1f\5~ >-~ff) ,.ai ,
t- t- I- 0 0 Wd)5 w'" "'I
en "00 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi ~ I- _ 0::: ,; ~~~ >0> :'
~'ii ., 0:-
~} ~ - Zu lIJ ~ ~ 00 ::c ~:e -,
u..- r=1;;: o I ~ : ~:J ~ ....... l- on ..J w~ ,.;'
<!l ~~ ~E~ -.
z o L- e:: I- ,.0 '" all I! I I ",.~ ,. ::c<l ,
"-z Z.l:; : I " .0 "- 1-3:0: 1-" ,.'
;::
<.")~ , ::r:L-'OC w I ~ I I t ~ffi~ 0: .,1 (
z~ ZO(/)::>;3-' C) 1 i : I ~ a:t-, w ":
~<~ ~~~ 0 oj ,
"" jw . j...JzoCJ'>~ 1.LJ I I I CD en
"" 1-", Cl-:r:1- lL. 3: U -I III 0 ~ in fJ) ('
0>1 ~ ~u ;L
-, "'0 <l::.e:<l: a..O~
";1 .Z I-:i:<!l
<!l<l: Ol-;?;
-, ~~r
, f~~ I-
,.1
", . a:
", <l: o ZQ(L 0:::
I- i= j!'2 w
, Z ~
W 0 a..~::I:
::> ",OI-
l- <t _m,,-
<l: i=~o
0
APPROXIMATE
~
---
-
j1
'\"
~
-<
If) ~
--
-)
"
v)
(/)
l...)
<
()
<..)
-\
\_~
()
--
1--
,
--
~~II
II
Land
Use
I
I
I
\
,
........
Legend
*
.:.:.:.
....
.
em
s
~
111
D
~....
. ;eN':-
~. ~
m
.<<1
13 =E
o
'0
12-
1
a.
~
C
II ~
F
o Rural
i strict
.,....." .
( I Refer to Subsection 6.8.2tc)
......
---
.........'--
10
Minor Community A rea
Estate ural Residential
Rural Residential ist ct
Resort Residential District
Chalet Residential istri
Highway Commercial Distric
Mineral Aggregate District
Waste Disposal District
Copeland Forest District
Ski Resort Oistri
Distri
To be read in conjunction with Schedule
r
<III
I
-<3
XIV
Schedule
Future
Land Use
00
14
legend
~ Minor Community Areas
E::::::::~ Estate RllI'lll Residential District
11III Ski Resort District
rnnn Seasonal Chalet Residential District
~ Highway Commercial District
III InciJstriai District
V:i<l Special Study A_
D RllI'llI District
[[!]JIll]]} Permanent Chalet Residential
District
r-~~ .
17
I
L_
16
FQXYEAO
15
-~---
,m
13 :c
o
12
'15
0-
J::
(/)
c:
1l 3:
~
==~===
10
~
~
To be Read in Coojtmction
with Schedule B
XI
xu
t<)
<J'
'<t'
I
:::;;
lC)
z
<(
....J
Cl.
! !
~ !
o ~ ~
1I!J ~!
"I~"i
~ ~. ! ~~!
. ,i! Fi'
~ h ,,; ~
~ ~ ~ ,~
: ; g ~ l!
:~H :
In:
!!
~5i
~~
~;
~g
~6
U
i~
t;~
..~~
U~
Jz
II
':
.,
r<'> ~ ~
z w ~ g
0 Z I-
en 0 z
Cii 0 w
0 0
> en w <>
W ::i ::i .,
0 <> Cii
CD Z "-
::J 0 0
en <> "-
"- 0
"- i
0 \3 - >- ~,
~ - en l- e
Z ~ Z z
<t ~ I- ::J w
-' ~ 0 0 ~; c
"- \3 -' I- <> w
~
w
-'
o
e
w
~
u
,m
~
w
z
~ g-
o ::::0
~
1$',
~:1 i,:
~~. :1,'
<() " '
I' n
I;;
I;;",
~
w
"
~
~~/
l~
v
"
~
~
-.
:IJ
~ .'"-
~ ~~
.~~
~ 5. ~~
~I H - i'3:'>(l5
2~ ; ,..o"e.,'Z''''''
: :;; ~
CHlfl""24
:: "
. ., ~
': "I
(11\
z
v
".
'"
v
v
z
WI<)
W-
'$:0
I--z
~<t
W~
<.)
Z
<t(j)
~ '$: t5
0-
.J(j)
-..: -l (f)
0::-_ oCt UJ
J~~
I
if
Ii
,I
~/
/
/
//
C ONCESS:ON
~ 1
V)~~
}, ~ ~ ~ ~
1.1: ~; 01 ~
"' <
O. ~ ~
~\ l:...:
V)
~
ALLOWANCE
/_ 0 ;.-
LOT
, ,
"
:3
<Z:c._
'"
n~9Cli
~t-,,,,
0:..;-
""':>
o
<S
PART I
AREA ~ 2.244 Ac
S/'<A,.;E
~5'5 :l3 IMEASl
',','~~'BETWEEN
LOTS 10
o
C () IV C := S S / () IV
I REQU!RE THIS PLAN TO BE
DEPOSITED UNDER THE REGISTRY
ACT
PLAN 51R- ./2112'-.
RECEIVED AND DEPOSITED
DATE: MA:: _~:,_1:r:8_ __ _ ___
DATE,_ __ TO.dY-Lt,JJ/l'f-
---1l/JJ /h-7t
C. G. SMITH
ONTARIO ~_ANO SURVEYOR
,"",
CAUTION
"
H ~:<o,
Iii
\~
~
(') If
0,\
- ~I'~
:;J>~
-" 4. I
. rnl~\
I~I
I. !
i; \
I! \
, .I~
~ ~ ~~~ 1J
III ~ ...00
"''l>
i~ 0 I,
~ .i~ 'I
~:, _ \\ "o.\<:>E"I"\
lc!'OST9W~RE
F1!NCr
s,g rfJ' ,\
~<-Jl.S\ \'
~ L--
\........-....N1~4~rE
IMEAS)
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
THIS PLAN IS NOT A PLAN OF
SUBDIVISION WITHIN I-HE MEANING
OF THE PLANNING ACi.
PLAN OF SURVEY OF
PART OF LOT II, CONCESSION
TOWNSHIP OF MEDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
SCALE: I INCH =100 FEET
PAUL R. KITCH,EN, OLS, C.L,S
1988
LEGEND
8--------- DENOTES MONUMENT FoUND
0--- ---.-- DENOTES MONUMENT PLANTED
IB--- u.u_ DENOTES A sa. IRON BAR
SIB ________DENOTES A SO. STANDARD IRON BAR
S$lB .------OENOTESA' SHORT SQ, STANDARD RON BAR
BEARINGS ARE ASTRONOMIC AND ARE REFERRED TO THE.
tA$TERL'( LIMIT OF PART 6, AS SHOWN 00 PLAN
5IR-16294, HAVING A BEARING OF N30"4!5'20~W
AND
II
I CERTifY THAT,
THIS 5lmVEY AND PLAN ARE CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE SURVEYS ACT AND THE. REGISTRY ACT AND THE
REGULATIONS MADE THEREUNDER.
THE SURVEY WAS COMPLEiED ON THE zglh PAY OF
MARCH. 198e
/3
~!J1;~-
D. G. SMITH
ONTARIO LAND SURVE. YCR
n~~'(_ :..~~ ~~_~~
105 COLLIER S T
6ARfllE, ONTARIO
705~ 722-0~61
39 PETER ST. N.
ORlLlJA, ONTARIO
705_325_7665
(PLAN 64,5641
54.857
f4~
...: q,
,., .I.'\J te(5IR-16Z94! LB
(SHI - IElZ94)
N59014'40"E
N
54.890
(PLAN - 54.564)
54.827
(HAN * 54.864)
S.lS{5IA*162941
,
...,
N59013' IS"E
(N59014'40.E -PI.AN)
54,853
(PLAN 54.864)
< '" '" ,. ro, <t: '"
~~- '" <t: <, ,;- <,
'" ~, " "
g' ;; '" 10 L I, h, ,. "' 5 I H '"
;;: . .' '" ,- ,- "
,., ?~~ 1- '" '" '" "
I~ I- I-
I'- o. ' n:: ". ". c,- "
,.,. -:! -:! -:! -:!
z~ ,- ,e "
,e 0 <0 0 <" <0
<" " "
"
S.1.6.
~IR*16294)
--I fENCE 1.64 S . I'-
13ETWf::f::N ~ LOTS Ie,
I" 1- 1-1 I~ I~ I) ,Sf;
,.,
'"
'"
(~;~_.16~:~}A~74~;"o~20 \5iR5* IU94)
NO
54.880 27.158
(PLAN - 54,5S4) ( PLAN
if,
'"
N
'"
----I S.LB,(511'1-16Z94)
39.535
_27.700
54.$64l
NS90 14' 20 "E
IN59014'E PLAN)
FENCE
75.000
'"
rr, " lO 1'/,1"
'" 16294
<0
" "' II, - 17177
" PL I)" l':
1- " I-
n:: c,-
-:! ,e -:! INSi. (11191454
"- "
A I": IJ II
0.301
l i~ \
:~~~f.{e\
(WIT)
\
114'~:N:EJ
ON LINE
\
---- ----I
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
August 10, 2006
Grant Serra
2006-A-24
883 Horseshoe Valley Road East, Cone. 11, North Part Lot 1 (Ora)
PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct a detached coverall building with an area of 123.93 m2
(1334 ft2). The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95:
1. Section 5.1.5 Maximum lot coveraqe for detached accessory buildinqs; to allow a
detached coverall building to be constructed that will result in the total cumulative lot
coverage for all detached accessory structures on the property to be 9.5% (where the
Zoning By-law prescribes a maximum cumulative coverage of 5%).
2. Section 5.1.6 Maximum floor area for the detached coverall building from the required
70 square metres (753.5 square feet) to a proposed 123.93 square metres (1334
square feet).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One (R1)
Previous Applications-
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is
for the Committee to
notes)
Public Works Department-
Building Department-
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of 46 metres (153 feet), a lot depth of 51 metres
(168 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.25 hectares (0.6 acres). The lands currently
have an old school house which has been converted to a residence, a detached garage with
an area of approximately 69 m2 (744 ft2) and a storage shed having an area of 40 m2 (432
ft2)
It is the applicants' intent to construct a 124 m2 (1,334 detached coverall to be
located 11.5m (38ft) from the front lot line and 2m (6.5 from easterly lot line.
applicant requested the above noted relief for the increase in size the to
accommodate room for storage an
The Four Tests the
Do
the
the
The property is designated Rural Settlement Area. The primary function of the Rural
Settlement Area designation is to identify and permit residential uses which are compatible
and in keeping with the character of a residential community. Given the proposed size of the
coverall building of 1,334 fe, the variance would not be in keeping with the character of
development of the residential area. On this basis, the proposal would not be in keeping with
the intent of the Official Plan.
Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Residential One (R1). It is the applicants' intent to use the
proposed building for storage of an RV.
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 coverall building will
increase the lot coverage to 9.5%.
Given these factors, the proposal is deemed to not conform with the general intent of the
Zoning By-law.
Are the variances 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.
Are the variances minor?
The application is not deemed to be minor on the basis that the applicant has 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
accessory building.
CONCLUSIONS
The subject application does not adequately address the 4 tests of the minor variance.
Staff have contacted the applicant to express concerns for the proposed size of the coverall
building. The applicant has amended the application by reducing the area of the proposed
detached coverall building. A revised size of the detached coverall building of 910 ft2
the character the residential area and therefore generally
intent of the policies the Official Plan.
The proposal as revised for a floor area
on the line and
The floor area also 7.8%
uses.
buildings on the lot, a 1.7% reduction from the original proposal. 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 910 ft2 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 front lot line and is buffered
from the easterly property line by mature trees and that the revised floor area is compatible
with the overall residential area for the storage of an RV.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approved Minor Variance application 2006-A-24 as
revised for a 84.5 m2 (910 ft2) detached coverall building accessory to a residential use
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the size of the proposed detached coverall building be no larger than 84.5 m2
(910 ft2);
2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided
for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; and,
3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application
and on the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Andy Karaiskakis, HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
Bruce Hoppe, M , RPP
Director of Building & Planning Services
.4f1'13N714 1?A#'i1'!)
~
---?>:
"""""""""_IVI
~'?f'VI"'.1X;f
~
~,
l~jJ---'il'>
(~-
~
",.ii.I~!
- "".....--
.-----
,~-_I
ftD1,/vIs
(e<L/e/S'
I
'>~'I
i
\OWJI
_o.ll':,,)
\tf ",;ror ",,' ..
I
t-~~
.'" .c
<:r'
-I
~
1:'
I
*
~'
1
~
""'~-
7111:,G
q;sNC~d
.;;Is-.
--~ .~'11
-i I ~.. rd:1
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
: I I I I I i I I I
I I I I ::5 I I I ~
I I I I '?/W.J~ I I ~
I I I I I I I a
I I I I J I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I J _,.---1-_1. I I t--;co:1>z
I
I
~
f
Cf?
:::r=::
o
%1
0 r-
- -
0:::: r
1
() r -
,
-.-' I" i.-T-r 1--1--1 -1--,--r
I I I !
, ,,-, '-1--1--1--1-
1 I I I I I I
-I - 'l -j- r - r- 1- 1
I I I
--I-I---:-i
I ,
- - --
T - r - r- - 1- -,
------
, I ' .
_ .!.. _ L _ _ ,_ .-:
I I
_ 1 _ L _ ~ _ I-
I I I
_.l_L_L_ -.1
I I I
.,--
\
-1_.1
I I 1 I I
_ L L _I _I _ -1 _ J.
I I I I I I
_ t- -i- \--1 _i_ -l ~
I I I I 1 I
1- 1- -, - -I -\ - -t - + -;- r- !-
I I 1 I
I - r - 1- j- -I -: - ! - I
! I I I I
T - T - r - 1- 1- -i- -1- ., - '1 T - I - i- -1- -:
I 1 I I I I
- T - I \- -! - -j - -! - 1 - 1 - T - i - I-
I I I I I I
-------------- --------
I I I I ! I I I I
1 L 1_ _ 1_ _ _ _, _ -' .1 _ 1 _ L _ L - '- -'
I I I I I I
_ l _ L _ 1_ _1_ _I _1_ -1 _ J. _ l L _ L _I_
I I I I 1 I I
~ -f- _ -4-- _. t- _f- _ l- I -4 -.4 J.- f- i- i_
I I I I 1 I I I
-+-- \_ -i-I - -+---+ - .,.---+- - f----i- -1-..,- -\
I I I I I I I I I I
-r-y-r-r-j--t--\ I -t T r---r-I-~
I I I I I I!
, -, 1-1- -1- -I I 1- T - ,-,-
I I I I I I
I - T - I" - j- -j - "I i
1 ! i j I
-----
I I 1 I I
1 _ L _ ,_ _ 1_ _ _ _I _ J _ .1 _ _ L _
I I I
l L _ _1_ _'_ _1_ -1 _ J.
I 1 I I
I- 1_ _,_ _,_ _I
I
I
_1_ _I_
I I I
L _I_..J
x
- O~
,
.,--
D
i-
--I
+- _ I- -1- -i
,-,
\-1
-g
,
I
T
-----
i . (
I
I
J.
-g
,
_1- _
I
_ L _ _ 1_ .-J
I ,
~ _ J. ~ L _ L -I-
I I I I
-i _ -! - -+ - + - ,- - r- i--1
I I
-j
-i- -1
r- -!-
!- -,
, ,
, I '-'-1 r-
I I I I
- I - T - ,- - r - 1- -,
I I' I I I
-j - 'I - 1 - - - I I - --I
,I I
7-1-1-- -I
I I
-----
I
- 0 ~ '" '"
, e;
~ z ~
<X) U')
0 N
CD ~ ~
<(
I
r -, - , -
1 I
1 - -\ I
I
I
I
I
L___I_-1_
I
L. _' _ _, _ .J
I
I
I
I
.1_l_L_I_
..l_L_L
I
L
L- _1 _ _I _ -l
L
LO
o
~
~
,0
(/)
l-
(/)
0 ---l
CL W
W
lL- I-
0 (/)
lL-
W 0
0
(/) I-
Z :::>
0
0 0
l- I-
W I-
0 :::>
-
(/) 0
Z
::
1.O
~ ~ ~O
n ~ n
::
OJ
I
m-
N ~
n
~
Q
Q:
W
Cl
Q:
0
0: Q
w ,:.: I-
0: :::; Q 0
::l 0 w w
.... ..., (3
~ U1 0
::> Q: Q:
Cl (.) 0.. ll..
t-
Z
=>
o
L
II
!115 -1
...;;; ell
iii~l~
:i1",lI~~~
:~~~!ii~
;;~:>Iilj~
z ., 5 .
'i~:i1 v~., ..
~~~ ~d
~~~h~i
t-
en
o
CL
en
OJ
---1
w
-'
G:
o
0::
c-
o
Ii'
'"
::;;
0-
o
,.,
N
~
c:
u
~
..J
~
0
>-
Vl
0
c- o
0 w
w ~
Vl
i5 ;:j
0:: 0::
N ~
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
August 10, 2006
Catharine, Michael, Richard and Ian Woods
2006-B-17
2006-A-21
2773 Ridge Road West, Conc. 2, Part Lot 2 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2006-B-17 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The land to
be severed and conveyed to the adjacent parcel of land to the west, shown as "Severed Lands"
on the attached sketch, is proposed to have a lot frontage of approximately 27.13 metres (89
feet), a depth of approximately 238.89 metres (783 feet), and a lot area of approximately 0.6
hectares (1.5 acres). The land to be retained, 2773 Ridge Road W., shown as "Retained Lands",
would have a frontage of approximately 41.45 metres (136 feet) and an area of approximately
0.89 hectares (2.2 acres). No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot
addition.
Minor variance application 2006-A-21 is proceeding concurrent with severance application 2006-B-
17 that will be heard at the same meeting. The applicants are requesting relief from the minimum
lot frontage requirement of 45 metres (147.6 feet) to a proposed 41.45 metres (135.9 feet), and
from the required interior side yard setback of 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to 3.05 metres (10 feet) for the
retained parcel as a result of the boundary adjustment. The requested variance would be a
condition to be fulfilled if application 2006-B-17 is approved.
MUNICIPAL
AND PREVIOUS
Official Plan Designation - Rural & Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU)) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County-
Public Works-
Building Department-
Engineering Department- No concerns
The applicants are proposing to convey a parcel of land to the adjacent land to the west, 2793
Ridge Road West, a road frontage of approximately 27.13 metres (89 feet) and a lot area
of approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres). The retained lands, 2773 Ridge Road would
have a road frontage of 41.45 metres (136 a shoreline of
39 metres (128 feet) and a lot area of 0.89 hectares
should be noted that the lands would continue to of 2
located 42 metres 37 from Road and the other
Lake Simcoe. The lands to be conveyed to 2793 Ridge Road are vacant with large mature trees
occupying the lands.
OFFICIAL PLAN
The subject lands are split between the Rural designation for the portion of lands closest to the
Ridge Road and Shoreline for the lands abutting Lake Simcoe as noted in the Oro-Medonte
Official Plan. The Rural and Shoreline designations are 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, the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced, 2793 Ridge Road
West would continue to comply with the Zoning By-law provisions applicable to uses in the AlRU
Zone. The retained lands, 2773 Ridge Road West would be deficient in lot frontage by 3.55
metres (11.6 feet). It is staff's opinion that the boundary adjustment/lot addition can be achieved
while also complying with the minimum lot frontage required for the AlRU Zone and maintaining
the intent of the Township's Zoning By-law to regulate the minimum frontage, depth and area of a
parcel of land and to not create parcels of land as a result of a lot addition/boundary adjustment
or from the creation of a new lot which do not comply with the Zoning By-law. It is noted that the
subject lot is large and is completely buffered from Ridge Road due to the depth and wooded
nature of the lot. It is also noted that the subject lot appears to form part of a historic and
redeveloping "estate" area and it is suggested that the proposed minor variance for a reduced lot
frontage would not be in keeping with the estate residential character of that area.
CONCLUSION
In reviewing the application for a lot addition, it would appear that the application conforms with
the general intent of the Shoreline and Rural policies of the Official Plan. As outlined above, the
minor variance application for a reduced lot frontage would not be in keeping with the provisions
of the Zoning By-law.
At the time of writing this report, comments were received from the County of Simcoe
Transportation and and comment that have no objection to the
approval of the application and provide the following condition be added should the Committee
decide in favour of the submitted applications:
The applicant shall obtain an entrance
a new entrance to the
and for the closure of the existing
be added to 2793 Road. The
entrance shall be
from the of Simcoe to
lands from Road 20
entrance on the severed lands to
at the location of the
to its condition. All costs
associated with the entrance permit application process, including entrance
construction materials and labour shall be borne by the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee Grant Consent application 2006-B-17 for a lot
addition/boundary adjustment from 2773 Ridge Road West to 2793 Ridge Road West and Deny
Minor Variance application 2006-A-21 for a reduced lot frontage of 41.45 metres (136 feet) for the
retained lands, 2773 Ridge Road West as the reduced lot frontage would not be in keeping with the
intent of the Zoning By-law and subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands showing a revised lot frontage
prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary;
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's solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands
to be enhanced will merge in title;
4. That the severed lands be merged in title with 467 Shoreline Drive and that the provisions
of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent
conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands;
5. That the retained lands, 2773 Ridge Road West maintain a minimum lot frontage of 45
metres (147.6 feet) required in Zoning By-law 97-95;
6. The applicant shall obtain an entrance permit from the County of Simcoe to permit a new
residential entrance to the retained lands from County Road 20 and for the closure of the
existing residential entrance on the severed lands to be added to 2793 Ridge Road. The
boulevard at the location of the closed residential entrance shall be restored to its original
condition. All costs associated with the entrance permit application process, including
entrance construction materials and labour shall be borne by the applicant; 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,
Karaiskakis HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
Services
Land to be added from
2773 Ridge Road to
2793 Ridge Road
2793 Ridge Road
Waldie
2773 Rid e Road
Woods
-------
,
H""'"
POLE
(,':t-
\j ,J
~0
t /
'"
'"
...
'"
~~.~
~, ~
~~)
"!
~
~
;;;
,
~
~
..,~~
1="':'
-'
'-..-
C')
'"
<:>
<:}
rl:
'<~~
~l_
(---."\'\
~:\,), ~
_I s;
~
Ii
,
COUNT}'
/<':'\/0 iif\"
."~,~ 1r.~'.JG';'-
S8SS.? - OOo4{Z ~
)
P.I.N.
,
,
,
,
,
,
~ ~
: ~
: g
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
!( air )
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
\""
-.,............
...--.....,
r' ...'..........
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
, ,
\ \~/'
, ,
, ,
, ,
\ ~ I'
\ ,
, ,
, "
0'"~V,\,\
Lav4S '\,>..
! \
/ \,
,
I
-(
(' \
,,)
c)
;;;
It)
~
ll')
Se\/ML-~
LC\JS
H'IORO
POLE
ROAD
"20 HmoO
:;:.....} "'") ,POlE If
''''r ~:~~kg"t
! ,H~~
R~8LZ3
A~11.74
CH~IL13
--21.71"34'15"< ...... ("'OJ)
-(SoV.N.)
:1:) (!;'1,)
N
;-
""""
,
,
,
"
;!:
,-:
'"
lI<TAL
e """"'"
l'
~
in
~
z
lRJ.a (tlO.03)
~)(ONU
>-~
I:j
i!?
~ ~
:J '"
".
1:;
N
~ Z
P-.e- +Qr k~~
( }
/...-Ltvi ,-
/.....
/ .... ""'-
I
/ GvVl1.IIJ0/
/ /
/ I
/, I
',,'
-') A "V€-5
J-..L....
-1-/_
I-~
<;
n:
, ,
\ '
, ,
, ,
f\ \r_1
ll&o"1,h.t""
, ,
, ,
'... '\
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
\ '''>-0
,,~ 1\
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, \
;I>" tI;t-. ~.>"
I J"\ I
I J I t
/ " 1 \
I ,J \ I
I I I 1
,',' \\ ~
I, I I
" \ I
'I I I
J/ .f..-./ ~ ~
f $.; I eI>< ,
,'if/, ~ ~
/>ii~ J ':
:--- I I I I
:~.; / / f!;j':> /.,~;"a,.
" ,: J: ,:4./
(1: fJ ~ ,
: 4{>b //
~>" \'... " ~;'
\. ...."""fYI (. 4.:J/
" ...*'~
".,l<\>-----
'"
'"
.;
"
~:::::.
~J:
"J
Lt V\:(.\ $
Po,tk~1)
V
R.lB.. (lIO.OS)
4$.V.N.)
~e-~Q\"'e.,~
L-o.",Js
I:j
i!?
3'
o
N
~ ~
'"
N
Z
~
~
~
CO-ffU.92
'K.e. 'iI' JeM .h{) I
18/02/2006 12:25
OF 5
-1-
NU.ll::l.,j l.P'1OJ.
FAX COVER SHE
County of Simcoe
Transportation and Engineering Division
Administration Centre
1110 Highway 26
Midhurst. Ontario
Telephone: (7OS1726-9300
fox: (705)727-7984
TO: Andy Karalskakis
Secretary- Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro-Medonte
Fax: (70S) 487-0133
FROM: Greg Marek, Planning/Engineering Technician
DATE: August 2, 2006
SUBJECT: Consent Application rUe No. 2006-8-11 and MInor Variance 2006-A..21 (Woods)
No. of pages Oncluding cover): 3
Comments:
Dear Mr. Karoiskakis.
Please see attached comment letter.
If
have
questions. please do not hesita1e to call.
08/02/2006
12:25
ENGINEERING COUNTY OF SIMCOE ~ 4870133
NO. 183
Gl02
The Corporation ofthe
County of
Simcoe
Phone: (70S) 726-9300 Fax: (70S) 727.7984
E-m.ai1: loads@eounty.simc:oc.on.ca
,
"
-
-, III rill! I: t11 -L
1110 Highway 26, AdmiDisttation Centre
Midhurst, ON LOL tXO
Coiporate Services Depamnent
TranspomtiCl!l. aM Engineering Division
August l J006
** BY FAX ONLY ~~
Andy Karaiekakis, Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro-Medonte
P.O. Box 100
01'0, Ontario LOL 2XO
Dear Mr. Karaiskakis:
RE: Consent Application FOe No. 2006--B.17 aad Minor Variance Submis8ion ZOO6-A..
21 (Catherin~ Michae19 Riehard and Ian Woods)
1773 Ridge Road WestlCOl:mtyRoad 20, Part 01 Lot 2, Concession 2, former
TOWllSbip of Oro
Thank you for circulating the above-noted applications to the County of Simcoe for review. The
County of Simcoe has no objection to the a.pproval ofthe applications, provided the following
condition is included:
1. The Applicant sha.n obtain an entrance permit from the County of Simcoe to permit a
new residential entrance to the retained lands from County Road 20 and for the
closure ofthe existing residential entrance on the severed lands to be added to 2793
Ridge Road. at closed residential entrance shall
restored to its costs associated entrance
on
a
entrance
08/02/2006
12:25
COUNTY OF SIMCOE 7 4870133
NO.i83
1#03
Page 2
The above information is intended to be comprehensive and aU inclusive, however. over time
circumstances and requirements are subject to change. Additional information, research or study
may be required to be provided. Policy cirCl.unstances. (provincial, County Of Local) may also
change. The applicant will be required to satisfy any such requirements.
In accordance with Section 4.11 of the County of Simcoe Official Plan, this application is also subject
to all other applicable Provincial, County and local municipal legislation, policies and by~laws.
Please forward a copy of the decision.. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely.
:t::
PlanninfY'Engineering Technician (705) 726~~nOO ext. 1362
,
,
I
..
X:\C(\l'!,lll~,t<l
&. A21-06 Woods Orll-Moollll.te ClUO.doc
i.
Committee of Adjustment Minutes
Thursdav Julv 13,2006,9:30 a.m.
In Attendance: Chairperson Lynda Aiken, Member Allan Johnson, Member Dave
Edwards, Member Garry Potter, Member Michelle Lynch, Secretary-Treasurer
Andy Karaiskakis
1. Communications and Correspondence
Correspondence to be addressed at the time of the specific hearing.
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
None declared
3. HearinQs:
9:30
Rosetta & Lester Parry
Cone. 3, Part Lot 8 (Oro)
2072 Line 3 North
2006-8-14
In Attendance: Rosetta & Lester Parry, applicants, Allan Storey, 2191 Line 2
North
Motion No. CA06071
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent regarding Application
2006-8-14 as revised with a maximum total lot area for the new lot being no
greater than 2 hectares (5 acres) and 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;
That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, review the Municipality;
the severed lands be merged 21 2
provisions Subsection 3 or 5 Section 50
or
lands;
6. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning on the subject lands to
accurately reflect the intended land use; 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.
... ..Defeated."
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent regarding Application
2006-8-14 as stated in the Planning Report with a maximum total lot area for the
new lot being no greater than 1 hectare (2.5 acres) and 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 2105 Line 2 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 maximum total lot area for the new lot be no greater than 1.0 ha
(2.5 acres);
5. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands
and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title;
6. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning on the subject lands to
accurately reflect the intended land use; and,
That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice.
... ..Carried."
9:40
Margaret Phillips
Cone. 12, Plan 952, Lot 63 (Oro)
2261 Lakeshore Road East
2006-A-20
In Attendance: Margaret Phillips, applicant
Motion No. CA060713-2
BE IT RESOL VEO that:
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Garry Potter
"That the Committee hereby Approve minor variance application 2006-A-20
subject to the following conditions:
1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2)
verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation that the existing setback
for the sunroom be maintained;
2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's
Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
and,
3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in
application and on the sketches and plans submitted with the application.
... ..Carried."
3,
9:50 John & Dorothy Howard (Estate) 2006-B-16
Cone. 10, East Part Lot West Part Lot 6 (Medonte)
4182 Line 10 North
In Attendance: Allan Howard, applicant, Bruce Howard, brother
Motion No. CA060713-3
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Defer Application 2006-8-16 to allow for a review of
the supporting documentation by the Township solicitor.
.,. ..Carried."
2006
10:00 Stephen St. Onge & Pauline Normand St. Onge 2006-A-19
Cone. 2, Part lots 42 & 43 (Medonte)
3523 line 1 North
In Attendance: Steve St. Onge, owner
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner,
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated July 6,2006 verbatim to
the Committee members and those present in the audience.
Motion No. CA0607134
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby Approve minor variance 2006-A-19 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed addition and covered porch
be in conformity with the sketches submitted with the application and
approved by the Committee; and,
2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's
Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
.., ..Carried."
5. Other Business
I. Adoption of minutes for the June 15, 2006 Meeting
No. CA060713-5
Moved Dave
Seconded
1
as
ii. Adoption of minutes for the June 27, 2006 Special Meeting
Motion No. CA060713-6
Moved by Allan Johnson, Seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the minutes for the June 2ih 2006 Special Meeting be adopted as
printed and circulated
.. .Carried."
Adoption of minutes for the July 7, 2006 Special Meeting
Motion No. CA060713-7
Moved by Garry Potter, Seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the minutes for the
printed and circulated
ih 2006 Special Meeting be adopted as
. ..Carried."
6. Adjournment
Motion No. CA060713-8
Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Michelle
"We do now adjourn at 11 :05 a.m."
... Carried."
(NOTE: A digital recording of this meeting is available for review.)
Chairperson,
Lynda Aiken
Secretary-Treasurer,
Andy Karaiskakis, ACST(A)
2006