10 12 2006 C of A Agenda
Thursdav October 12, 2006, 9:30 a.m.
1. Communications and Correspondence
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
3. Hearings:
9:30
2006-A-33
David & Rebecca Law
Plan M593, Lot 10 (Oro)
9 Melville Court
9:40
2006-A-34
Brent & Sue Poulton
Cone. 9, Plan 875, Lot 7 (Oro)
139 Parkside Drive
9:50
2006-B-22
Craig McKenney & Krista Maddock
Cone. 7, North Part Lot 3 (Medonte)
116 Mill Pond Road
10:00
2006-A-32
John & Alka Raymond
Plan 780, Lot 24 (Orillia)
49 Eight Mile Point Road
4. Decisions
5. Other business
-Adoption of minutes for September 14, 2006 Meeting
6. Adjournment
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
October 12, 2006
David 8: Rebecca Law
2006-A-3J
9 Melville Court, Plan M593, Lot 10 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are proposing to construct a detached building and are requesting relief of the
following provision from Zoning By-law 97-95:
Section 5.1.6 Maximum floor area for detached accessory buildings of 70 m2 (753 ff) to 111.48
m2 (1200 fe) for the construction of a proposed detached building for storage.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One (R1)
Previous Applications- None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department -
Building Department -
Engineering Department - No concerns
lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority -
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 40.5 metres (133 feet), a lot depth
of 122 metres (400 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.48 hectares (1.2 acresJ- The
lands currently have a one storey dwelling with an area of approximately 111.48 m (1200
fe) and a few storage sheds.
It is the applicants' intent to construct an 111.48 m2 (1200 ft2) detached building to be located
approximately 6 metres (20 feet) from the easterly lot line and approximately 18 metres (60
feet) from the rear lot line. The applicants requested the above noted relief for the increase in
size for the detached building to accommodate room for storage.
Four Tests of the
the intent the
the Rural
size
the character
development of the residential area. On this basis, the proposal would not be in keeping
the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Residential One (R1). It is the appljcants' intent to use the
proposed building for storage.
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. It should be noted for the Committee that the floor area for the detached
storage shed is approximately the same size as the dwelling, making the proposed storage
shed difficult to be accessory to the primary use of the lot, being the dwelling.
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. Furthermore, approval of this application may set a precedent for large
detached accessory buildings in a residential neighbourhood. Committee can recall a minor
variance application for 4 Melville Court (minor variance 2005-A-38) where the applicants
requested permission to increase the size of an existing detached garage from the existing
70 m2 (750 ft2) to 81.66 m2 (879 ft2) by allowing a canopy over the doorway into the detached
garage. This was approved by the Committee on September 15, 2005 subject to various
conditions. It should be noted however, that the floor area of that detached garage remained
70 m2 (750 ft2), by adding the canopy on the outside of the building and an adjustment in the
roofline, the floor area of the detached garage was increased to 81. 66 m2 (879 ft2).
Given the above, the proposal is deemed to not conform with the general intent of the Zoning
By-law.
There is merit that with the proposed detached garage, the lot coverage of all detached
accessory buildings will not exceed the required maximum lot coverage of 5%, as the
proposed detached storage building will occupy 3.2% of lot coverage.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirab!;; development of the lot?
Detached storage buildings and garages are a common element in all types of residential
areas. However, it is debatable if the proposed structure is consistent with or suits the
character of a residential lot. On this basis, it is difficult to support the application as being
appropriate for the desirable development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
The application is not deemed to minor on the basis the applicant has not
with the tests above. does not consider the proposed detached
accessory is merit that detached garage will the
the side rear lot as well as the maximum lot
on a lot.
CONCLUSIONS
The subject application does not adequately address the 4 tests of the minor variance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recoiT,iHmdeo t; !C<l th& CO'1 ..i1ihee deny Minor Variance application 2006-A-33 as it does
not meet the 4 tests of a minor variance as noted above.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Andy Karaiskakis, HBA, ACST(A)
Planner
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
October 12, 2006
Brent & Sue Poulton
20fJti-A-:J4
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are proposing to construct a 6 m2 (64.8 ft2) addition onto an existing deck at the
lakeside of the dwelling. The extended deck (existing and proposed addition) is proposed to
be converted into a screened in porch (sunroom). The proposed sunroom will have an area of
approximately 25 m2 (268 ft2). The proposed sunroom will not encroach further to lake
Simcoe than the existing deck, but as the deck does not meet the required 20 metre (65.6 feet)
set back from Lake Simcoe, relief is being requested.
The applicants are also proposing to construct a detached garage to be located in the front
yard and are requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95:
i. Front yard setback
ii. Section 5.1.6 Maximum floor area
for detached accessory buildings
Required
7.5 m (24.6 ft)
70 m2 (753 ft2)
Proposed
2.5 m (8.4 ft)
75.7 m2 (815.5 ft2)
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)
Public Works Department-
Building Department -
Engineering Department -
lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject has a road of 30 metres 00 a shoreline
frontage approximately 61 metres (200 and a lot area of approximately 0.2 hectares
acres). A and an attached workshop exist on the
deck addition is to located at the rear of
proposed deck is located 12.8 metres
where a 20 metre
It is the intent
be converted into a screened
further to Lake Simcoe than the
The applicants are also proposing to construct a 75.7 m2 (815.5 ft2) detached garage to be
located in the required front yard with a setback of 2.5 metres (8.4 feet) from the front lot line
and 2 metres (6.5 feet) from the westerly side lot line.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The p.0perty is d8si~.l'lated Shoreline in the Official Plan. . Section D10.1 which contains t;:c
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 addition and detached garage would appear
to maintain the character of the shoreline residential area, as the proposed deck addition and
detached garages are common building features found in residential neighbourhoods.
Therefore, the variances would 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 purpose of the
setback requirement from Bass Lake is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area in
general, and the immediate shoreline of the subject property. The mature trees located
beside the deck will provide a form of privacy for the abutting property for the proposed
sunroom. The proposed sunroom will have little or no impact on the intent of the by-law
to provide a low density residential character to the lot or the subdivision.
The site inspection revealed that the proposed sun room should not adversely impact the
residential neighbourhood as the sunroom will not further encroach into the existing lake
setback.
One of the purposes of maintaining minimum front yards in the Shoreline Residential Zone is
to maintain and protect the residential character of a single detached shoreline residential
community. It is also the intent of the By-law to permit accessory uses that are reasonable
and incidental to a residential use subject to reasonable setbacks. The front yard is
established to ensure adequate area exists between the road and garage ru: aJeu.lJ>;:ll~ on
site parking. The location of the detached garage would allow for adequate area for on site
parking on the existing driveway. The subject application has been precipitated to some
degree by the existing location of the house and septic system.
With the proposed detached garage, the lot coverage of all detached accessory buildings will
not exceed the required maximum lot coverage of 5%, as the proposed garage will occupy a
lot coverage of 3.5%. As minor variances are not determined on a mathematical basis, the
proposal is reasonable and should not adversely affect the character of the surrounding
area, as a mature cedar hedge buffer the proposed detached garage from the road and
from the abutting neighbour to the west. It should be noted that a few shoreline residential
lots on Drive have detached accessory located in the
has not been
within the
circulated this
limits
for
from the
Based on the above, the variances would conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed deck addition and detached garage would
appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of thelotand !n keepir'lg vi.-iih ihe
surrounding residential area. Given that the proposal would provide for a form of
development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, it
would not lead to the over development of the lot.
Are the variances minor?
On the basis that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the shoreline
residential area and will not have a negative impact on privacy either the subject or
surrounding properties, 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 the Committee Grant Minor Variance 2006-A-34 subject to the
following conditions:
1. The proposed deck addition shall not extend closer to lake Simcoe than the existing
deck, as shown on the drawings submitted with the application dated September
2006;
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 by way of survey/real property report so that:
a) the detached garage be located no closer than 2.5 metres (8.4 feet) from the
front lot line, and;
b) that the area of the detached garage be no larger than 75.7 m2 (815.5 ft2),
being in substantial conformity with the dimensions shown on drawings
submitted with the application dated September 11 , 2006;
3. That the mature cedar hedge located on the front and interior side lot lines remain;
and,
4. That the appropriate permit be obtained from the Township's Chief
the becomes as
Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is
Planner
.9...: ~....~Q......~. .(:r:>...s....~.... .....
rA-.
( .~I3"~G.~_ .
.-\~ .... -#
~.. <;>0
~o~SJi<:>\J.
-- "---------..
._ ~o .
C-J
\~~
I
.811 6-,';
181
11II z
'"
'"
i-
'" .J
a
-D-za
,..:0,,",
a.:V)~
"'w
. u'"
",a",
~~~
z '" '"
a )t~~
'" wwz
i- Zt=l'"
'"
a 181
"-
..: .J 11II
o..zEi
::0.0 V)
~E~
!~~
~~E
xwz
Wt=l'"
11II
11II
~
<t
8'"
'" "'....
~ ~)-<
=- b ~~
N "'x
",..
~>
~Ln
IC) l.L
z D
':;..--j
~<[
1=l
\D
o ~
" W
"<t I-
_ D
I-_Z
w[J'jVJ
!;rVJ5<[
1=l CIl
>-
>- CQ
CQ 1=l
Z W
~- u
<1:<1; W
e>:U I
1=l U
.811 6-,';
.8/1 6-,';
I-
::J
D
w>-
~ <[
t:: -.J
IC)Z
Z <[
':; -.J
<1:0-
e>:
1=l
1-0
:J ,I
CJ-
>-11
<I:.
-l....
::::;
l-
(/)
D
Q..
o<l
~
U
D
-l
P=I
in
:::
'"
u
W
t=l
::>
~
...
I
;,.
I
U
~ ~
D - "
O-Q is
~~
Z
..J
~
EJ~ ~
Z""" ..J
WI- ~
W~ '"
O:::x iil
UW..
VJ ....
~-,.Z ~
u,..;>D I%l
Ww
~Z
e>:
D-
~w
U...J
W<l:
~!;;l
.......
'"
Jr)
-""
-<r
OJ
""
Z
U
",""
cu-l
00<[
cu:J
n",
"">
D~
trf~
PATH \ \Cadd l\Cod\Custom CADD\Projeds\06-84 - Brent Poulton Gorage\Paulton Garage.Sept lldwg.dwg
LAYOUT A2
LAST UPDATE, Sep 20, 2006 H2pm
,
'"
lD~
a!!l
z
5"
I ~~
i/
L-"--
16'-~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L__-i "
I ::
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
Z
G"lfTl
)>::<:
~N
G"lo
fTl)>
;0
s,
21'-0.
N
'"
"
"',
14'-0.
Z
OfT!
~ 50::<:
( ""Q-A
q 0
;00
-i)>
;0
"
z
~5
~-I
~--.J
....
~
....
.;:j
,.....,--"
CDVl
-<<0
~~-o
....,!!2)>
~Ul;:O
(,1M;";:
N::O(J)
11"1-
900
~iJlTI
.....r-
5~0
:::0
03<
0l1Tl
.......
~
"1
8'-~.
"
"
II
r-
! I
I I
I I
I I
L -.J
,0,; lip'"
[-~r,
I:: ::1
I ~ ~ I
I" III
,!o=="!J
-.,-
06-84
DRAW\NC
F1LE PATH: C:\Custom CADD\Cad\Custom CADD\Projects\06-84 - Brent Poulton Gorage\Poulton Garage.Sept l1dwg.dwg
@
Ul '1
~ I
M 0
;.;. 0
"::::-::::D
0;
I -Or
7 S;:I
q, Z\
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ''1'
I
L_
LAYOUT: A-3
lAST UPDATE, Sep 20, 2006 - 3,'3pm
-,
I
I
I
\
14'-~" I
.'-nl" I
I I
r----------- I
I lJl<C I
I !ii.,.
I " . I
I ~~
I
I l:t I
I o;l1 ~
I I '" , I ~
1 o. I
I "l.:il
I alii I
I
I n'"
I I
I I
h---y-- I
! ~I~ ~~ I
\ ~ ~~ I
I ~ ~ I
: !: ~ I
I
I
-'
,-
I
7- 1
"l. I
I
_J
I
~
I , I
9. I~
I "'x'
g~
+. 00
I '" .
9. I
"'1
,
~
19'-4"
----
::! 0 li;
@ ::!;r:: ~g
;r::CD !Jl~ ~ "
CD!:! J:
:i :8"'~ ~~
'"
~~~lS j;o!jl
.., =ll'" g~Z
~ c" ~~;~ O~~
'" '1 !<l!:!
~ '" z",
::u
0
VI Z
...... --1
VI
":
" fT!
I
-: fT!
I <
q, ~
0
Z
([) "'... "3
0
" ~"
0
." 8'-0"
~ 0 0
Ul OE ~g li;
z "
\: ,,0 !l!!j !l!~ ~ ~~
r
'" ",!<l ~ "'z (I)!S(;')o
g~ "'o~i' ",'"
"'00 j;C j;~~
~ f;;0E~ ..,iil",lS
VI g~~ g" 0%5
": 0", ~~;~ g!l!f;;
fT! z", z z'" ZUl'"
H I
-: fT!
1 <
9. ~
0
Z
NOTES:
@ ~; 8'-0" ~}
~ '1
f!" ::u
'" 0
~Z
'" -l
":
1fT!
I
7fT!
o. <
)>
-l
o
Z
@
Ul '1
~ ::u
0
::! Z
...;r:: '"
~m ...... -l
VI
CD", "',
:i
=ll'" -:
c" I
"'''' q,
"''''
o;r::
"'0
8~
."z
...
"'~g~~ "'o~~
j; ~ .., j;;~ z
go", i' glll~~
o~;!l"'", oui{;l'"
ZJTlC_O Z.
~iilN~ ~
1?1~1i\!~ "'''i'''~
~~~o i;~~i'
z 2"'~R'lS
'" ..,
ui :!I
;:-I
lJlO"'li;
f;iH"
g!l!r;;~
~(I)VI"'"
"
!:l
~~~~
g!:l!.!;1a!
OUlti1iC
z
I 06-84
DRAWING NO
~
1 ,
< '"
1> r
F p
~ ~
Cl "
1> 0
"" t;;j
;:s z
~ G"I
~
""
....
,,'"
---.S-- ~ ~ ----s-
. ~~
to
~
/
[II
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
October 12, 2006
Craig McKenney & Krista Maddock
2006-B-22
116 Mill Pond Road, Concession 7, North Part Lot 3 (Medonte)
PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2006-B-22 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment from
116 Mill Pond Sideroad to 3766 Line 7 North. The land to be severed and conveyed to 3766
Line 7 North is proposed to have a frontage of approximately 30.48 metres (100 feet) along
Line 7 North, a varying lot depth of 236 metres (774 feet) to 330 metres (1,082 feet), and a
lot area of approximately 1.13 hectares (2.81 acres). The lot area of 3766 Line 7 North as a
result of the lot addition will be 1.9 hectares (4.7 acres). The land to be retained by the
applicants, 116 Mill Pond Sideroad, would have a lot area of approximately 14 hectares (36
acres). No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural with Environmental Protection Two Overlay
Zoning By-law 97-95 -Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones
Previous Applications - B-5/91 (lot addition to correct encroachment)
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County-
Public Works-
Building Department-
Engineering Department - No concerns
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The applicant's agent has filed a planning justification report in support of the subject
application dated September 22, 2006. The proposed lot fabric is odd in shape and staff
disagree that the proposed severance would "enhance the rural residential nature" of the
as stated in the planning report. In fact, the proposed lot would create a landholding with
lot also to matters in Section 51 the
Act. Specifically, Section states that regard shall be had to whether the plan
to The lot would not be
consistent Mill Pond Road
consistent lot and lot 51 states that regard shall be
had to the dimensions and shapes of the Staff are of the that
does not meet these tests not the overall
in this
Moreover, it is noted that the applicant's justification report indicates that the lot to be
augmented is seeking a "more rural parcel" with access to the creek area. Staff fail to
understand how such a linear lot addition would contribute to a "more rural" landholding.
Furthermore, the addition of linear strips to permit water access would create an undesirable
precedent as this could result in many applications with small flag shaped parcels throughout
the municipality to obtain direct water frontage.
The applicant also refers to Section D3.3.1 of the Official Plan regarding the lot size
guidelines for lots and concludes that the application would conform to the Official Plan. This
Official Plan section refers to policy framework regarding the creation of new lots for
residential purposes in the Rural designation. This application does not propose a new lot
therefore the applicant's reliance on the general area requirements outlined in this section for
Official Plan conformity is unfounded.
It is also noted that the applicant has discussed with staff the possibility of a natural
severance using the watercourse which traverses the site in a north-south direction as a
natural severance. No update has been provided by the proponent as to this status nor has
it been dealt with in the planning justification report. It is staff's understanding that the
provisions of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act would deal with this situation (see attached
MNR policy dated February 13, 1992).
The MNR policy states that to be navigable in law the watercourse must be navigable in fact.
Navigability in fact is demonstrated if a waterway is used, or is capable of being used, by the
public as an aqueous highway. For a waterway to be navigable in law, it must have real or
potential practical value to the public as a means of travel or transport, generally from one
point of public access to another point of public access.
Staff have conducted a site visit of this watercourse, and observed that the width varied from
2 to 4 metres, and the depth also varied from 5 or 10 centimetres in places to 1 or 1.5 metres
in other "pools". As this site visit represented a single point in time, it is not known whether
the water level rises or falls seasonally. It is also suggested that travel by the public is not
likely.
J, I
Having said this, this "natural severance" issue is a significant point; as the net result from
this boundary adjustment which the proponent states would not result in the creation of a
-:;ew lot, could potentially result in the creation of 2 additional lots which substantia!!,:, altere
the analysis provided in this report.
The principles of the Official Plan discourage scattered rural development in the Township.
While it is recognized that the subject property and immediate area along Mill Pond Road
has been subdivided into several clustered residential lots, this area is not identified as a
Settlement Area nor an area for future growth. The subject application would serve to further
fragment an already fragmented parcel of land and could contribute to further land division
pressure in this area contrary to the Official Plan. This Official Plan policy is especially
if the net result of this "boundary adjustment" is the creation two additional
virtue of the natural severance which may exist due to the watercourse.
With
respect to
while not
the
and can
to land use the
in Rural designation.
has been both the
are to an order which
be relied on as a statement intent.
The proposed new Official Plan contains a general policy which states that consents may be
permitted for modifying lot boundaries provided no new building lot is created. In reviewing
such an application, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the proposed
boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the properties in question.
While is it recognized that indeed no new lot is being created, it could be argued that the
diminished size of the applicant's landholding could result in a diminished viability of this
jJroperty as a rural residential parcel. There may be a reduced potenU?i on. INnkr,
to locate a barn, establish a hobby farm and/or keep animals, as the proposed severance
would effectively separate the only two cleared, higher areas of the property which may be
appropriate for this rural use.
It should also be noted that the proposed new Official Plan contains policies dealing with
rural infilllots. The existing Official Plan permitted infilllots to be considered, however these
policies only dealt with the Agricultural designation. The criteria for consideration of such
infill specified that such lot was located between two existing residences that are situated on
the same side of the road and are not more than 100 metres apart. No lot area requirement
is currently specified. The proposed new Official Plan contains an amended infill clause
which permits infilllots within the Rural designation, provided there is generally no more than
120 metres separating the two non-farm lots. A minimum lot area requirement of 20 ha is
also specified.
While it is recognized that the subject land comprising only 15.5 ha would not qualify, the
proposed lot addition could result in the potential for a future infilllot pressure as there would
be less than 120 metres between the proposed lot and the adjacent property to the north.
While staff recognize this is not currently proposed with the subject application, the applicant
has expressed a desire for such lot creation in recent months therefore Committee should be
aware of this.
lastly, it is noted that the County Official Plan contains policy provisions which permit lots by
consent in the rural area. One of the prerequisites of such permissions includes a maximum
size of approximately one hectare in order to protect the other lands in larger blocks for
agricultural or environmental purposes. The proposed lot size will be almost double this size
comprising 1.9 hectares (4.7 acres) therefore the County Official Plan policies appear to be
offended.
For the reasons outlined above, it is staff's opinion that the subject app!:cat:c:1 does not meet
the tests outlined in the Planning Act. The applicant has also failed to submit a persuasive
planning justification report. It is staff's opinion that the subject application would therefore
not constitute good planning and should be refused.
CONCLUSION
application should not be supported as follows:
2.
3.
4. The
with the Plan is not
with the is
would not meet the tests outlined in the
does not constitute good
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee refuse Provisional Consent regarding application
2006-B-22 for the reasons outlined herein.
All of which is respectfully submitted, .
Bruce Hoppe, M IP, RPP
Director of Building & Planning Services
. ..'
~
Ministry of
Natural
Resources
Subject Policy
Ownership Determination - Beds of Navigable Waters PL 2.02.02
Compiled by - Branch Section Date Issued
Lands & Waters Land Management F ebmarv 11, 1997
Replaces Directive Title Number Dated Page
Determination of Ownership - Beds of LM 7.10.01 Feb. 13, 1992 lof6
Navigable Waters
Ontario
1.0 Background
To exercise its responsibilities to manage Crown land, it is necessary for the Ministry to make
administrative decisions regarding navigability. This is because the ownership of the bed of a waterway
Ontario frequently depends on the question of navigability through the application of the Beds of
Navigable Waters Act (BNWA) and, in some cases, a reservation or exception in a Crown grant. The
Beds of Navigable Waters Act is attached hereto as Appendix A, for informational purposes.
Section 1 of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act states:
"Where land that borders on a navigable body of water or stream, or on which the whole or a part
of a navigable body of water or stream flows, has been heretofore or is hereafter granted by the
Crown, it shall be deemed, in the absence of an express grant of it, that the bed of such body of
water was not intended to pass and did not pass to the grantee."
The term "express grant" mentioned in the Beds of Navigable Waters Act refers to Crown land grants
and includes statements such as "Lot 16, Concession X, together with the bed of Jones River". General
terminology, including the phrase pre-printed on many old patents such as "...together with the woods
and waters therein..." does not constitute an express grant.
To determine the existence of an express grant it is necessary to check
supplementary grants (e.g. waterlot grants).
both adjacent
or
Where it has been established that no express grant has occurred, it is necessary to consider the issue of
navigability, to determine if the bed of a watercourse is under the jurisdiction of the Crown (MNR), by
virtue of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act or a reservation or exception of the bed ofa navigable body
of water contained in the letters patent.
If it is concluded that the watercourse is navigable, and therefore the bed of the watercourse is in Crown
ownership, it is important to note that the Crown's ownership is subject to the paramount right of
navigation of the watercourse, which is administered by the federal government.
Policy No.
PL 2.02.02 Ownership Determination - Beds of Navigable Waters
Page
20f 6
2.0 Determination of Navigability
While the BNW A states that, in the absence of an express grant, the beds of navigable waters are
deemed not to have passed to the patentee (and are thereby Crown), it does not defme the test of
navigability. This policy attempts to interpret the test of navigability as established by the courts.
Navigability is an issue which can only be legally determined by the courts. It is impractical to refer
each case to the courts for a judicial decision. Consequently, the Ministry will continue to make
navigability decisions for its administrative purposes to manage public lands.
3.0 MNR's Role in the Determination of Navigability
The sole purpose ofMNR reaching a decision on navigability is to determine whether or not the bed
of a waterway is Crown land under our administration and control, through reliance on a
reservation/exception of a navigable body of water or application of the Beds of Navigable Waters
Act.
District Managers continue to be responsible for this Ministry's administrative decisions as to
navigability of waterways within their respective districts. These administrative decisions may of
course be challenged in the courts. District Managers should therefore be confident of all the facts
before making an administrative decision on navigability.
The matter of determining navigability on an active or reactive basis is to the discretion
District Managers. Should the District Managers experience difficulty determining navigability,
Legal Services Branch should be consulted for assistance before an opinion is given. necessary,
Legal Services Branch will consult with Crown Land Surveys Section.
Field offices are often asked by private landowners for an opinion as to the navigability of a stream
and thus the ownership of the bed. These requests arise most frequently in situations where a
landowner can take advantage of the fact that if the property is bisected by a watercourse that is
deemed to be navigable, and if a navigability reservation/exception or Section 1 of the BNW A
applies, there is a natural severance, as the property is, in essence, separated into two pieces by a thin
strip of Crown land.
Where potential for a natural severance exists, ownership status of a waterbody becomes very
where zoning might otherwise a severance being granted
approvals process. It is Managers to
our are not to on severance
Policy No.
PL 2.02.02 Ownership Determination - Beds of Navigable Waters
Page
3 of 6
4.0 Considerations When Making Navigability Decisions for Administrative Purposes
The facts relating to the determination of navigability for the purposes of ownership should initially
be considered at the date of inspection. However, for greater certainty, the issue of navigability
should also be considered at the date of the original Crown grant. This is because, the most relevant
case law in Ontario has dealt primarily with the interpretation of a reservation of navigable waters in
the letters patent, rather than relying on the statutory provisions of the Beds of Navigable Waters
Act. Had those cases relied primarily on the Beds of Navigable Waters Act, it is possible that the
issue of navigability would have been considered only in a CllITent perspective.
In order to make a determination of navigability at the date of letters patent, particularly in older
grants, in addition to researching the historical use and physical characteristics of the waterbody,
field staff must research the original patents, original surveys, and field notes before making an
administrative decision on the navigability of a waterbody. Interpretation of survey plans and field
notes should be done in consultation with Crown Land Surveys Section. If, after having considered
the issue of navigability both under the CllITent situation and at the date of patent, different
conclusions of navigability prevail (e.g. because of artificial improvements or impediments to
navigation; or a drying up of a river bed), Legal Services Branch staff should be consulted before
developing a Ministry position. If necessary, Legal Services Branch will review the situation with
Crown Land Surveys Section.
Navigability is both a question of law and of fact. To be navigable in law the watercourse must be
navigable in fact. Navigability in fact is demonstrated if a waterway is used, or is capable of being
used, by the public as an aqueous highway. For a waterway to be navigable in law, it must have real
or potential practical value to the public as a means of travel or transport, generally one point
public access to another point of public access.
In the most recent case of navigability (Canoe Ontario v. Julian Reed) Justice Doherty makes several
statements which will likely be quoted in the future as the test of navigability:
"In essence, the test of navigability developed in Canada is one of public utility. Ifa
waterway has real or potential practical value to the public as a means of travel or transport
from one point of public access to another point of public access, the waterway is considered
navigable...navigability should depend on public utility. If the waterway serves, or is
capable of serving, a legitimate public interest in that it is, or can be, regularly and profitably
used by the public for some socially beneficial activity, then, assuming the waterway runs
one of public access to another point access, it must regarded as
as
seven
state
must
Policy No.
PL 2.02.02 Ownership Determination - Beds of Navigable Waters
Page
40f 6
4.0 Considerations When Making Navigability Decisions for Administrative Purposes (cont'd)
(ii) navigable also means floatable in the sense that the river or stream is used or is capable of
use for floating logs or log rafts or booms;
(iii) a river may be navigable over part of its course and not navigable over other parts;
(iv) to be navigable, a river need not fact be used for navigation so long as it is realistically
capable of being so used;
(v) a river is not necessarily navigable if it is used only for private purposes or if it is used for
purposes which do not require transportation along the river (i.e., fishing);
(vi) navigation need not be continuous, but may fluctuate with the seasons; and
(vii) where a proprietary interest asserted depends on a Crown grant, navigability is initially to
be determined as at the date of the Crown grants (in this case, 1821 and 1822).
Based on the review of the Canoe Ontario ruling, the Ministry of Natural Resources, in addition to
considering the above noted seven conclusions, will be guided by the following key points when
making navigability decisions for administrative purposes:
1. For purposes of determining navigability, the Ministry position will only be finalized after
considering the issue of navigability from the perspective of both the date of inspection and
the date of letters patent. The necessity to consider navigability from both perspectives
arises because the courts have historically considered navigability at the date of the grant, but
it is possible, but not certain that future decisions will reflect only the current situation.
2. Navigability depends on "public utility".
3. Public utility means actual or potential commercial or recreational use, or other "socially
beneficial activity".
4. Generally, the waterway should run from one point of public access to another point of
public access.
5. Seasonal
as
IS some use
Policy No.
PL 2.02.02 Ownership Determination - Beds of Navigable Waters
Page
5 of 6
5.0 Exceptions to the Beds of Navigable Waters Act
The Beds of Navigable Waters Act does not apply to the bed of the river in Lot 8, Concession 6 of
the geographic township of Merritt, in the Town of Espanola, District of Sudbury.
Section 2 of the Act also provides exemptions or limited exemptions to the application of section 1
of the Act.
Policy No.
PL 2.02.02 Ownership Determination - Beds of Navigable Waters
Page
60f 6
APPENDIX A
l'-
! I
'" m N
'" 1i
"" "" I
" " .
'" .. ~
~;! -' '"
"";;; ","" E
"'.... "", c I
" . ~N ~
-... " .
.s- ,,~
'" , '" . .
~:;: "':;: c
0
i
E
is "
. :;: ~
~...;{;
>-
0
Z
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
October 12, 2006
John & Alka Raymond
49 Eight Mile Point Road, Plan 780, Lot 24 (Orillia)
2006-A-32
PROPOSAL
The applicants have constructed a partial boathouse and are requesting relief of the following
provision from Zoning By-law 97-95:
i. Section 5.6 Maximum Heioht of a boathouse from the required 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to
a proposed 5.16 metres (16.9 feet) above the average high water mark of lake
Simcoe.
Boathouse height is calculated not from the average finished grade (as it is with all other
structures) but from the average high water mark.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential Exception (SR*2) Zone
Previous Applications - B-1 0/03 (Easement between Lots 24 & 25 for eave overhang)
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department -
Building Department -
Engineering Department - No concerns
lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority - "Approval given on June 27, 2005 for the
construction of a boathouse and minor regarding above 219.80 masl elevation as shown on
plans submitted and marked approved."
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
subject property has a road frontage of approximately 30 metres (98 feet), a shoreline
frontage of approximately 30 metres (98 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.23 hectares
(0.59 acres). The lands have a one and a half storey dwelling with an area of 90.5
m2 and an old boathouse to be with an area 25
The
which was
was
as
it was
not meet the
above the
a 1 1
3, 2005. The boathouse
as
of lake Simcoe, which is set by the lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority as 219.15
metres. The drawings submitted to the Township for the proposed boathouse indicated the
height of the boathouse was measured at an elevation of 220.01 metres. It should be noted
that the drawings and plans of the boathouse have not changed; however, the measured
height of the boathouse is calculated from the high water mark elevation to the mean level
between the eaves and ridge of the gable roof. The proposed boathouse will still meet all
0~her provisions of the Zoning By-law.
Does the variance 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 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 increased height of the boathouse would appear to maintain
the character of the shoreline area. On this basis, the proposed variance would therefore
conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential Exception (SR*2) in Zoning By-law 97-
95, as amended. The SR*2 zone establishes a minimum interior side yard of 1.5 metres
(4.92 feet). The purpose of the Exception Two is to provide lots that have a narrow lot width
a reduction in minimum interior yard setbacks for buildings and structures. One of the
purposes of regulating the location and height of boathouses in the Shoreline Residential
(SR) Zone is to prevent over-development of the shoreline frontage which may lead to the
frontage being dominated by boathouse structures and ultimately impacting the character of
the shoreline. The proposed boathouse meets the locational (setback) provisions of the by-
law and the percentage of water frontage occupied by the structure. The proposed
boathouse will exceed the maximum height standard by 0.66 metres. Boathouse height is
calculated not from the average finished grade (as it is with all other structures) but from the
average high water mark. It should be noted that the boathouse is setback approximately 5
metres (16.4 feet) from the waters edge.
Zoning By-law 97-95 sets the following definition for the average high water mark:
Means the average of the high water marks made by the action of
water under natural conditions on the shore or bank of a body of water
which action has been so common and usual that it has created a
difference between the character of the vegetation or soil on one side
of the mark and the character of the vegetation and soil on the other
side of the mark.
it has been agreed that the 220.01 metre
the average water will be
process so that there is more
the
between the the
mature trees
Given
around the boathouse and the proposed boathouse will not dominate the shoreline, the
variance is deemed to conform to 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 boathouse height would appear to be appropriate
for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surTOu,',CHllg shoreline area.
Given that the proposed boathouse height will not result in the over-development of the
subject lot or the shoreline, the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable
development of the subject lot.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the proposed boathouse height would not adversely affect the character of
the shoreline residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature.
CONCLUSIONS
The subject application generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2006-A-32 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the maximum height of the proposed boathouse not exceed 5.16 metres (16.9
feet);
2. That an Ontario land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by verifying in writing by way of survey/real property report
that the height of the boathouse not exceed 5.16 metres (16.9 feet);
3. That the boathouse not be used for human habitation and comply with all other
provisions contained in Zoning By-law 97-95; 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 approved by the Committee
All of which is respectfully submitted,
ACST(A)
-----
12
3 1/2 r-=:==
~
~
~
>
'"
ill
x
'"
I:
~
~
l';
'('
(p
,r,;;.;, 1
~ Itlv' ("1 .----- al
_.._____..r
(:;-., I=~ON" eLevATION
\A10J Scale, 3/10".1'-0"
'-
~
T}.fE&E DRAWING5 /"1U5T BE
Cf./cCKED 6Y T\.-IE CUSTCt1ER OR
CONTRACTOR. ANy ERRORS OR
Ct11e5IClN5 t-U5T BE REFORTED
IN WRITING: TO &LAVlSH 5TEENHOf'
6UILI?lfIC:! SERVICES G~F',
t="RIOR TO cc::MMENCE:MENT OF
CQN5TFi5JCTlON.
'\
\
"',
.-,r.
0::
I
~..
I
= T
I '
= ~,
I
=
=1
II n
'I
N6~'24'OO~W
~v..I\~"';' ; ,:"?~,
'~:I '52,,;"~r~---~ . --:~~r:;;: ~. -.. ,sa -- 'fl' ~=:~ -
CEOAA
f-
1l~0\,l)
(...t)
Co
".
:.,~
i
-~//"/.~//1/////// //~'.
.-;~&:C
-: =-C':'"
-..o.;sc
z
(
/
(
c
Cc
Q
~~
'c~:.~~;,:
'-"
::0
-tr:~~,
LOT t ~\~_~l/: s;~~/~
t! ~Ul.l~~r.ct. ~;
~~l.IlJ1~T.;Q.,::!'~
-- &-- ~~I
~__ :N~' ;.s;~.::---- _~.--,! l
:)~
2
:'~C&:''''
2.
....J
<.:;
'"
;c
N~:::;~'0;::--;
,
I
~
l
~-<-.
-c:
Committee of Adjustment Minutes
Thursday September 14, 2006, 9:30 a.m.
In Attendance: Chairperson Lynda Aiken, Member Allan Johnson, Member Garry
Potter, Member Michelle Lynch, Secretary-Treasurer Andy Karaiskakis
Absent: Member Dave Edwards
1. Communications and Correspondence
i. OACA Newsletter, July 2006
Motion No. CA060914-1
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustments Newsletter of
July 2006 be received.
.. ...Carried."
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
declared
3. Hearin~s:
9:30
Norma Wylie
Plan 629, lot 6 (01'0)
11 Nelson Street
2006-A-25
In Attendance: John & Suzanne Smith, representing applicant
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner,
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated September 13, 2006
verbatim the Committee members those present the
1 . proposed attached deck and sumoom shall be setback no closer
12.9 metres (42 feet) the average high water mark of Bass Lake;
2. The proposed attached deck and sumoom shall be setback no closer than
2.4 metres (8 feet) to the easterly interior side property line;
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;
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.
6. 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."
9:40 Ericana Industries
Cone. 5, Part Lot (Oro)
239 Li ne 4 South
In Attendance: David Yeaman, agent representing applicants
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Irena Szczebior, 279 Line 4 South,
dated September 11, 2006 verbatim to the Committee members and those
present in the audience.
Motion No. CA060914-3
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch
the Committee hereby Approve Provisional Consent for application 2006-
8-20 subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the new lot be prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor and be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the applicants solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. the applicant dedicate the Municipality a fee of $500 for each new
created for industrial or commercial purposes as cash-in-lieu of a
parkland contribution pursuant to Section 53(13) of the Planning Act,
1990 c. P. 13.; and,
4. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice of decision.
.. ...Carried."
9:50
Margaret Dynes
Plan 626,
24 Myrtle Ave.
2006-A-26
(Oro)
In Attendance: Pat Fergusson, daughter of applicant
Motion No. CA060914-4
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance 2006-A-26 subject to the
following conditions:
1. The proposed "balcony addition" at the front of the proposed dwelling shall
be setback no closer than 4.52 metres (14.8 feet) from the front property
line, measured from the south-west corner of the "balcony";
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 August
8,2006, 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 writing prior to pouring of foundation by way of survey/real
property report; and,
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's
Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
... ..Carried."
10:00
Heather Shear
Plan 765, Lot 16 (Ora)
31 Greenwood Ave
2006-A-23(Revised)
In Attendance: David Hacker, applicants husband
Secretary-Treasurer read letter fram Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner,
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated August 4, 2006 verbatim
to the Committee members and those present in the audience.
Motion No. CA06091
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance 2006-A-23 (REVISED)
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 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 on the
revised sketches submitted VIA fax August 3, 2006 and approved by the
Committee;
5. That the applicant obtain a permit from the Nottawasaga Valley
Conservation under the Conservation Authorities Act;
8. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's
Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. 13.
.. ...Carried."
1 10
liscombe
Plan 1488, Lot (Oro)
21 Greengables Drive
in Attendance: Kevin liscombe, applicant
Motion No. CA060914-6
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby Approve the revision to Minor Variance Application
A-25/91, subject to the following conditions:
1. That Committee recognize the existing deck, and that any future deck
renovation and/or addition shall be setback no closer than 4.5 metres (15
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, dated August 18, 2006, 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.
.. ...Carried."
1
Jerome & Linda
Plan 535, Lot 11 (Oro)
2 Nevis Ridge Road
2006-A-22(Revised)
In Attendance: Jerry & Linda Cunningham, applicants, Cam Warren, 8
Jermey Lane, Jim & Lois Harnock, 12 Jermey Lane, Marin Roth, 4 Nevis
Ridge and Marilyn Brooks, mother of Ms. Cunningham
Motion No. CA060914-7
IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby Refuse Minor Variance Application 2006-A-22 for
the proposal to allow for a detached garage the front yard on a corner lot as it
would not be in keeping with the Zoning By-law
... Defeated."
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance Application 2006-A-22 as
revised subject to the following conditions:
1.
the
of the detached garage
exceed 5.2 metres (17 feet);
2. That the proposed detached garage be located no closer than 17 metres
(55 feet) from the front lot line, Jermey Lane, in accordance with the sketch
submitted with the application;
3. That the sketch submitted with the application as revised indicating the
proposed landscaping be approved by the Committee;
4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying writing that the
detached garage be no closer than 17 metres (55 feet) from the
and the of garage exceed 5.2 metres (17
, and
10:30
& Dorothy Howard (Estate) 2006-8-16
Cone. 10, East Part Lot 7, West Part Lot 6 (Medonte)
4182 Line 10 North
In Attendance: Allan & Bruce Howard, brothers representing applicants
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Nathan Westendorp, Planner II, County
of Simcoe, dated September 12, 2006 verbatim to the Committee members
and those present in the audience.
Motion No. CA060914-8
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby defer Consent Application 2006-8-16 to allow time
for the applicants to contact the County of Simcoe and discuss the comments
made by the County regarding the proposed application.
.. ...Carried."
1
Ted Pickard & Usa Truax
Cone. 8, East Part Lot 16, Plan
128 Moonstone Road East
2005-B-32 - 2005-B-36
R-24483, Part 1, (Medonte)
In Attendance: Usa Truax and Ted Pickard, applicants
Motion No. CA060914-9
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent for application 2005-B-
32 for the creation of a residential lot subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary-
Treasurer, as shown on Attachment 1 so that each of the residential lots
are contain wholly within the Rural Settlement Area Designation;
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for each parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for each lot created as cash-in-lieu of a
parkland contribution;
4. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee the amount
$4,286.96 (By-law 2004-082) per new lot to the Township;
5. That the applicant pay $9275 per lot for the upgrade to the Robincrest
Municipal Water System;
6. That the Applicant shall transfer to the Corporation of the County of
Simcoe ("County") a fee simple, unencumbered interest in the following:
a. A road widening along the entire frontage of the subject property
adjacent to County Road 19 (Moonstone Road East) to provide a
15.25 metre right-of-way from the existing center line of County
Road 19.
prior to services being rendered. costs associated the land
transfer, including costs relating to surveying, legal fees and
disbursements, agreements, GST, etc. shall be borne by the Applicant. All
documentation is to be prepared and registered by the County's Solicitor
and to be executed where required by the Applicant;
9. The Applicant shall submit entrance permit applications to the County of
Simcoe to permit residential entrances to the five proposed residential lots
in accordance with the requirements of County Entrance By-law 4206, as
amended;
10. The Applicant shall submit conceptual plans for the development of each
of the five residential lots to ensure that all development is accordance
with the requirement of the County Setback By-law 2840;
11. Prior to stamping of the deeds by the Township of Oro-Medonte, the
Applicant shall obtain written clearance from the County for the above
noted conditions;
12. That the applicant apply for and obtain a re-zoning on the severed lands
from the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone to the Residential One (R1) Zone
to accurately reflect the residential land use;
13. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice of decision.
.. ...Carried."
CA06091 0
IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent for application 2005-B-
33 for the creation of a residential lot subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an
Ontario land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary-
Treasurer, as shown on Attachment 1 so each of the residential lots
are Settlement Area
$
as
a
5. the applicant pay $9275 per lot for the upgrade to the Robincrest
Municipal Water System;
6. That the Applicant shall transfer to the Corporation of the County of
Simcoe ("County") a fee simple, unencumbered interest in the following:
a. A road widening along the entire frontage of the subject property
adjacent to County Road 19 (Moonstone Road East) to provide a
15.25 metre right-of-way from the existing center line of County
Road 19.
7. The Applicant shall submit to the satisfaction of the County's
Transportation and Engineering Division a preliminary reference plan (2
copies) which sets out the road widening to be transferred to the County.
Upon approval, the County will instruct the surveyor to deposit the
reference plan in the Land Registry Office for Simcoe County and request
the surveyor to provide the County with 3 copies of the deposited
reference plan;
8. The Applicant shall submit to the County's Solicitor a deposit in the
amount of $1500.00 (Payable to: Graham, Wilson and Green in Trust),
prior to services being rendered. All costs associated with the land
transfer, including costs relating to surveying, legal fees and
disbursements, agreements, GST, etc. shall be borne by the Applicant. All
documentation is to be prepared and registered by the County's Solicitor
and to be executed where required by the Applicant;
9. Applicant shall submit entrance permit applications to the County
Simcoe to permit residential entrances to the five proposed residential lots
in accordance with the requirements of County Entrance By-law 4206, as
amended;
10. The Applicant shall submit conceptual plans for the development of each
of the five residential lots to ensure that all development is in accordance
with the requirement of the County Setback By-law 2840;
11. Prior to stamping of the deeds by the Township of Oro-Medonte, the
Applicant shall obtain written clearance from the County for the above
noted conditions;
1
1
"
CA06091 1
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent for application 2005-B-
34 for the creation of a residential lot subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary-
Treasurer, as shown on Attachment 1 so that each of the residential lots
are contain wholly within the Rural Settlement Area Designation;
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for each parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for each lot created as cash-in-lieu of a
parkland contribution;
4. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee in the amount of
$4,286.96 (By-law 2004-082) per new lot to the Township;
5. That the applicant pay $9275 per lot for the upgrade to the Robincrest
Municipal Water System;
6. the Applicant shall transfer the Corporation of County
Simcoe ("County") a tee simple, unencumbered interest the following:
a. A road widening along the entire frontage of the subject property
adjacent to County Road 19 (Moonstone Road East) to provide a
15.25 metre right-ot-way from the existing center line of County
Road 19.
7. The Applicant shall submit to the satisfaction of the County's
Transportation and Engineering Division a preliminary reference plan (2
copies) which sets out the road widening to be transferred to the County.
Upon approval, the County will instruct the surveyor to deposit the
reference plan the Land Registry Office for Simcoe County and request
the surveyor to provide the County with 3 copies of the deposited
reference
Applicant shall submit entrance applications to the County
Simcoe to permit residential entrances to the five proposed residential lots
accordance with the requirements of County Entrance By-law 4206, as
amended;
10. The Applicant shall submit conceptual plans for the development of each
of the five residential lots to ensure that all development is in accordance
with the requirement of the County Setback By-law 2840;
11. Prior to stamping of the deeds by the Township of Oro-Medonte, the
Applicant shall obtain written clearance from the County for the above
noted conditions;
12. That the applicant apply for and obtain a re-zoning on the severed lands
from the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone to the Residential One (R1) Zone
to accurately reflect the residential land use;
13. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice of decision.
.. ...Carried."
Motion No. CA060914-12
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved Garry
seconded by
the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent application 2005-B-
35 for the creation of a residential lot subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary-
Treasurer, as shown on Attachment 1 so that each of the residential lots
are contain wholly within the Rural Settlement Area Designation;
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for each parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
$
created as
a
a. A road widening along entire frontage of the subject property
adjacent to County Road 19 (Moonstone Road East) to provide a
15.25 metre right-of-way from the existing center line of County
Road 19.
7. The Applicant shall submit to the satisfaction of the County's
Transportation and Engineering Division a preliminary reference plan (2
copies) which sets out the road widening to be transferred to the County.
Upon approval, the County will instruct the surveyor to deposit the
reference plan in the Land Registry Office for Simcoe County and request
the surveyor to provide the County with 3 copies of the deposited
reference plan;
8. The Applicant shall submit to the County's Solicitor a deposit in the
amount of $1500.00 (Payable to: Graham, Wilson and Green in Trust),
prior to services being rendered. All costs associated with the land
transfer, including costs relating to surveying, legal fees and
disbursements, agreements, GST, etc. shall be borne by the Applicant.
documentation is to be prepared and registered by the County's Solicitor
and to be executed where required by the Applicant;
9. The Applicant shall submit entrance permit applications to the County of
Simcoe to permit residential entrances to the five proposed residential lots
in accordance with the requirements of County Entrance By-law 4206, as
amended;
1 Applicant shall conceptual plans for the development of each
of the five residential lots to ensure that development is accordance
the requirement of the County Setback By-law 2840;
11. Prior to stamping of the deeds by the Township of Oro-Medonte, the
Applicant shall obtain written clearance from the County for the above
noted conditions;
12. That the applicant apply for and obtain a re-zoning on the severed lands
from the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone to the Residential One (R1) Zone
to accurately reflect the residential land use;
13. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
one year the the
"
CA06091 3
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent for application 2005-B-
36 for the creation of a residential lot subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary-
Treasurer, as shown on Attachment 1 so that each of the residential lots
are contain wholly within the Rural Settlement Area Designation;
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for each parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for each lot created as cash-in-lieu of a
parkland contribution;
4. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee in the amount of
$4,286.96 (By-law 2004-082) per new lot to the Township;
5. That the applicant pay $9275 per lot for the upgrade to the Robincrest
Municipal Water System;
Applicant shall transfer the Corporation of County
Simcoe ("County") a fee simple, unencumbered interest the following:
a. A road widening along the entire frontage of the subject property
adjacent to County Road 19 (Moonstone Road East) to provide a
15.25 metre right-of-way from the existing center line of County
Road 19.
The Applicant shall submit to the satisfaction of the County's
Transportation and Engineering Division a preliminary reference plan (2
copies) which sets out the road widening to be transferred to the County.
Upon approval, the County will instruct the surveyor to deposit the
reference plan the Land Registry Office for Simcoe County and request
surveyor to provide the County with 3 copies of the deposited
reference
9. Applicant shall submit entrance permit applications the County
Simcoe to permit residential entrances to the five proposed residential lots
in accordance with the requirements of County Entrance By-law 4206, as
amended;
10. The Applicant shall submit conceptual plans for the development of each
of the five residential lots to ensure that all development is in accordance
with the requirement of the County Setback By-law 2840;
11. Prior to stamping of the deeds by the Township of Oro-Medonte, the
Applicant shall obtain written clearance from the County for the above
noted conditions;
12. That the applicant apply for and obtain a re-zoning on the severed lands
from the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone to the Residential One (R1) Zone
to accurately reflect the residential land use;
13. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice of decision.
.. ...Carried."
1
& Karen Moon
Cone. 3, Part lot 16
373 Moon Point Drive
In Attendance: Janet & Mel Shellswell, representing applicants, Paula
Kirsh, 137 Moon Point Drive, Dan Greenburg, 139 Moon Point Drive
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Mr. & Mrs. Kirk, 171 Moon Point Drive,
dated September 7,2006 verbatim to the Committee members and those
present in the audience.
Motion No. CA060914-14
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Michelle lynch
"That the Committee hereby Committee defer Consent application 2006-8-21 as
per the applicant's request.
...Carried."
11
Alfred & Beverley Bard
Cone. 14, South Part lot 2
2006-A-27
In Attendance: Alfred & Beverley Bard, applicants, Robert Marshall,
neighbour
Motion No. CA060914-15
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Michelle lynch
"That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance 2006-A-27 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's
Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
and,
2. That the applicant obtains approval for a Part 8 Sewage Application from
the Township of Oro-Medonte Building Department.
... ..Carried."
11 :10
Kimberley Olynyk
Lot A, Part Lot K, Plan 663 (Oro)
51 Barrie Terrace
2006-A-28
In Attendance: Jeff Dealouit, representing applicant, Carol Norman, 57
Barrie Terrace
Motion No. CA060914-16
RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the Committee hereby Approve minor variance 2006-A-28, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the applicant obtain approval from the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority, if required;
2. That the floor area of the proposed garage be no greater than 115.94
square metres (1248 square feet);
3. That the appropriate building permits 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."
11
Dean Miles
Cone. 5, West Part Lot 22 (Medonte)
6353 line 4 North
2006-A-29
In Attendance: Dean Miles, applicant
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner,
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated September 1,2006
verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience.
Motion No. CA06091 7
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance 2006-A-29 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 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) Deck 1 be located no closer than 10 metres (33 feet) and Deck 2
located no closer than 20 metres (66 feet) from the Environmental
Protection Zone Boundary; and,
3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief
Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and
binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
.. ...Carried."
11
Dianne Smith
Cone. 1, Plan 1, Lots 15 & 16
65 Barrie Terrace
In Attendance: Harold Roe, purchaser of property, Carol Norman,
Terrace
Barrie
Motion No. CA060914-18
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Garry Potter
"That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance 2006-A-30 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's
Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
2. That the applicant satisfy the comments made by the Township Building
Department;
3. That the proposed addition be no closer than 1.9 m (6.2 ft) from the interior
side lot line;
an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2)
verifying writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey! real
property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; and,
5. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out the
application and on the sketches submitted with the application dated August
24,2006 and approved by the Committee.
.. ...Carried."
11
Walter Stapiak
Plan 589, Lots 15 & 16 (Oro)
99 Lakeshore Road East
2006-A-31
In Attendance: Walter Stapiak and Linda Guay, owners, Marcus Kolga, 101
Lakeshore Road East, George Monkman, 103 Lakeshore Road East
Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Jamie Smith, 98 Lakeshore Road East,
dated September 13, 2006 verbatim to the Committee members and those
present in the audience.
Motion No. CA060914-19
BE RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle
"That the Committee hereby Refuse Minor Variance application 2006-A-31, as
the application is not minor in nature, and that the applicant is subject to the 5%
lot coverage provision as stated under Section 5.1.5 of Zoning By-law 97-95.
...Carried."
11 :50
Grant Serra
Cone. 11, North Part 1 (01"0)
883 Horseshoe Valley Road East
2006-A-24
Attendance: Grant Serra, applicant, Troy Morrow, builder
Motion No. CA060914-20
BE RESOL VEO that:
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Garry Potter
"That the Committee hereby Ap~rove Minor Variance application 2006-A-24 as
revised for a 84.5 m2 (910ft) 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 fe);
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 the
application and essentially on the sketches submitted with the application
and approved by the Committee
., ...Carried."
5. Other Business
i. Adoption of minutes for the August 10, 2006 Meeting
CA06091
1
as
"
Adjournment
Motion No. CA060914-22
Moved by Allan Johnson, Seconded by Michelle Lynch
"We do now adjourn at 2:30 p.m."
... Carried."
(NOTE: A digital recording of this meeting is available for review.)
Chairperson,
Lynda Aiken
Secretary-Treasurer,
Andy Karaiskakis, ACST(A)