Loading...
11 16 2006 C of A Agenda Thursdav November 16. 2006, 9:30 a.m. 1. Communications and Correspondence -Appointment of Acting Chairperson for meeting in absence of Ms. Aiken -Appointment of Acting Secretary-Treasurer 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Hearings: 9:30 2006-A-35 Kevin & Kathy Beamish Plan M-9, Lot 153, Part 17, RP 51 R- 33069 (Oro) 17 Huron Woods Drive 9:40 2006-B-23 William Graham Cone. 8, Part Lot 24 (Oro) 167 Ridge Road East 9:50 2006-B-11 Doug Shelswell & Wayne Shelswell Cone. 14, West Part Lot 18 (Oro) 191 Line 13 South 4. Decisions Other business -Adoption of minutes October 12, 2006 Meeting 6. Adjournment Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for November 16, 2006 Kevin & Kathy Beamish 2006-A-35 PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing to construct a detached garage with an area of 58 m2 (624 fe). The applicants are requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97- 95: 1. Section 5.1.3 (a) Permitted locations for detached accessory buildinQs; to allow a detached garage to be located in the front yard of a lot (where the Zoning By-law does not allow a detached garage to be located in the front yard); and 2. Section 5.1.4 Maximum heiQht for the detached garage from the required 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to a proposed 4.57 metres (15 feet). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Residential (Horseshoe Valley Road Special Policy Area) Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One 113 13) 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 Background of the dwelling. Section 5.1.3 (a) of the Township's Zoning By-law states that detached garages are not permitted in the front yard of a lot. The minor variance application is for the construction of a detached garage in the front yard, and for the garage to have an increased height from the required 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to 4.57 metres (15 feet). The Tests of the Minor Variance Does variance conform the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Residential - Horseshoe Valley Road Special Area in the Official Plan. The main objective pertaining to this application with respect to Residential land uses within the Special Policy Area is listed in Section E2: @ To ensure that all new development is sensitive to the natural heritage features and rural character of the area. In addition, Section E2.4 of the Plan states that "permitted uses on lands designated Residential.. .are single detached dwellings [and accessory buildings to such], home occupations, private recreational facilities and open space uses". A detached garage is considered to be a permitted accessory use. A detached garage accessory to the permitted residential use would not appear to have a negative impact on the character of the neighbourhood. On basis the proposal is considered to conform the of the Official Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Residential One Exception 113 (R1 *113). The applicant has proposed to locate the detached garage in the front yard of the subject property, closer to the front lot line than the existing dwelling. However, as the main dwelling unit is setback approximately 54 metres (175 feet) from Huronwoods Drive, and due to the slope of the property and the location of the septic system, the proposed detached garage be setback approximately 12.19 metres (40 feet) of the dwelling, the front yard. The applicant has proposed the garage be located approximately metres (22 feet) side meets Based on the character of the lot and the surrounding residential area, and that the garage will otherwise meet and exceed the required side yard, rear yard and front yard setbacks for the R1 *113 Zone, 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? As discussed above, the variance requested to construct the proposed garage the front yard of the lot, and for an increase height maintains the intent of the both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. A site inspection revealed that the lot is heavily treed, and that neighbouring dwellings would have good separation and buffering from the proposed garage, and that the structure's design is compatible with the character of the surrounding residential area. On basis proposal is considered appropriate development of the subject lot. the desirable Is the variance minor? As this application should not adversely affect the character of the residential area, the proposed variances are considered to be minor. CONCLUSIONS proposed variance generally satisfies prescribed in Act. tests a variance as RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2006- A-35 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the height of the detached garage not exceed 4.75 metres (15 feet); and the proposed detached garage be located no further than 12.19 metres of single detached dwelling measured south-east corner south-east corner on a rear 4. an Ontario Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the detached garage be no further than 12.19 metres (40 feet) in front of the single detached dwelling unit, and that the height of the detached garage not exceed 4.57 metres (15 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. 13. of which is respectfully submitted, Kozlowski, B Planning Technician Reviewed by, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner "2 -.:r:: ~ -0 ;2 -.J ~ o V' -.J "'" o (j1 -.l I o o -> "1J ;t , j Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for November 16, 2006 William Graham 2006-B-23 167 Road Concession Part Lot 24 PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2006-B-23 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The land to be severed and conveyed to the adjacent parcel of land to the east (177 Ridge Road E.) shown as "Severed Lands" on the attached sketch, is proposed to have a depth of approximately 158.4 metres (519.8 feet), and a lot area of approximately 0.97 hectares (2.4 acres). The land to be retained, 167 Ridge Road E., shown as "Retained Lands", would contain an area of approximately 0.94 hectares (2.3 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 Zoning 97 -95 - Agricultural/Rural Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County - Public Works - Building Department - Engineering Department - No concerns BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey approximately 2 acres to a neighbouring residential lot at 1 Ridge Road East. purpose the adjustment is to create a smaller residential 1 Ridge Road East. land 2 acres. are as @ preserve and promote character of the and maintenance of the open countryside; . To prevent the intrusion of land uses which are incompatible with the rural character and/or resource activities of the area With respect to topography and soil, both the subject property and proposed enhanced property slope considerably from Ridge Road East, south to the Oro- Medonte Rail Trail, and contains dense, mature tree cover. In addition, there is no evidence of past or current farming operations on either property, nor does there appear to be any capability for future farming operations (Committee should note that both properties contain Class 5-7 soils, defined by the Canada Land Inventory as having "very severe limitations, up to no capability for cultivation"). As such, this application does not propose to remove active agricultural land from production. As well, this application does not propose to create a new building lot, and as both properties contain dwellings, no further development is proposed. The Rural designation is currently silent with respect to lot additions. OP A #17, being 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 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. reviewing an application for such a boundary adjustment, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment 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 yet in effect, it does function as a statement of Council policy. ZONING BY -LAW The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural Zone by Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The lot to be enhanced, 1 Ridge Road East, is also zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) subject property, at present, consists 2.93 hectares acres), and has an irregular shape. consists 0 hectares also applies the lot to be enhanced, 1 Ridge Road East. In addition, does not comply with the minimum lot size for a "single detached dwelling" use. As a result of the conveyance, the retained lands would consist of 0.94 hectares, and the enhanced lot would consist of 1.28 hectares. The enhanced property would be brought into compliance with the minimum lot size for residential uses within the A/RU Zone, being 0.4 hectares (0.99 acres), and as well the retained lands would also meet the prescribed minimum area for residential uses. CONCLUSION The proposed consent application for a lot addition conforms to the policies of the Official Plan, and complies with the lot area provisions of the A/RU Zone for a residential use, as required by the Zoning By-law. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2006-B-23 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. the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, review 3. That the applicant's solicitor provide an undertaking that and the lands to be enhanced merge in title; severed lands 4. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and, 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. is Reviewed PLAN OF SURVEY OF PARIS OF WES'u [H]bt\[l[f CC>>fF <<: (Q)fr~ <<: [E S S U (Q) It] TOWNSHIP OF ORa COUNTY OF SIMCOE 1972 LCOJlf fffi 24t- 4. <COOWlu')t !R(Q)iAlID W1~ ;Z:<<D ,_,.._~ ~ .C.ONSTRUC.TlON ---- ; INST. -...,.;...." --- ~ ,,"UU))lJ:ij/E - ------.:!!K,'11 ~ BEARINGS HEREON ARE ASTRONOMIC AND ARE REFERRED TO THE MERIDIAN THROUGH THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT II, CONCESSION I, TOWNSHIP OF ORI), , SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HHo/EBY CERTIFY l'HAT I. THIS SURVEY AND PLAN ARE COf/REef AND IN ACCOl'IDANCE WITH THE SURVEYS ACT AND THE REGISTRY ACT AND THE REGULATIONS MADE THEREUNDER 2, THE SURVEY W/lS COMPLETED N Nov. 22, 1972, , J _ /C.~, L ' oN~~No SURVE'rOR "1035" I~.STRUMENN.:/T ~ ? ~- 4S' !" 5Q:-~.'~~ 1 I No, " ___'__.------=--r#1 !lO' 11I60009' 3p"'" olO''3I)"E ~(Q)IA[I)) , 9<;,0<; <; N44 , F ,I ,r o ::' a~" 1I ~ ~ ALU~'NlJM ' ,11f/I12.4rt. ~O. r. ~o '0 ;1 SIOIN<; HOUSE ~t t. " ~ .?: !'!i1f>=1 J2~Ro( Il ~ .! <) o . -.' . ~"'L ~>I .)~j'.. lO; r ~ f.i (,;.Au..""...... ~ A\A.ttAo,.) Q..t.C.41t..;......; . ~IA"- N 547€f) o INST. o. d, I tf) INST. No, 32453 ~ Fd ,18' Fd, 18 -- 1~S.OQ500.E N44 I 217350 4S' 44 <' ~p ~ ~jV>po)~ ~~..l' f'/l,' J(,,""p . oq: :r .. ... ~~ oq: C/) '" o SU R o PlAN OF SURVEY PARiS OF THE 'WEST [HlU\1L1F (Q){F CC ~]<<:[E S S n (Q)[}1I , TOWNSHIP OF 000 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 1972 U_(Q)lf Effi 24J- <I:<OODJNllf~ IR<<:>>AUil lNl'!' (Z(Ii) ._..,_~ ~ ,CONSTRUCTION ---- 43' '" 5Q~~:~ 211350 , INST. --...... 43' -__ ."'Ul1J}IJi)!E - ___ .. {)f(11!6 ~$:., BEARINGS. HEREON ARE ASTRONOMIC AND ARE REFERRED TO THE MERIDIAN THROUGH THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT II, CONCESSION I, IDWNSHIP OF ORO, SuRVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEI'<f.BY CERTIFY rHAT I. THIS SURVEY AND PLAN ARE CORRECT AND IN ACCOl;lDANCE WITH THE SURVEYS ACT AND THE REGISTRY ACT AND THE REGULATIONS MADE THEREUNDER 2, THE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED ,} f' L / - ONS~ND SURVE'rOR INSTRUMENT ~ Pp ~ ~dlPpoS,p ~jv.",,(J ,A- . v{",i).,Ji . 16449 to ~;z <r I- U) w .'l: .... ~ '?-.: ~ I l( I- U) <r 4J u. . 0 o Q) oj iO t) 4J ::- ..J "l' :x: Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for November 16, 2006 Doug & Wayne She/swell 2006-B-11 191 Line 13 South, Concession 14, West Part Lot 18, (Oro) E PROPOSAL Consent Application 2006-B-11 was deferred by the Committee of Adjustment on June 15 2006 to allow time for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food to comment on this application. The purpose of application 2006-B-11 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot surplus to a farming operation. The lot to be severed is proposed to have a lot frontage along Line 13 of approximately 121.9 metres (400 feet), a depth of approximately 164 metres (540 feet) and having a lot area of approximately 2 hectares (4.96 acres) and currently contains a dwelling and a detached garage. The land to be retained is proposed to have a lot area of approximately 38.4 hectares (95 acres) and is currently being used for agricultural production. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Designation - Agricultural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone Previous Applications - 2005-B-25 AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs - See attached County of Simcoe - See attached Public Works Department - No concerns Building Department - Engineering Department - No concerns Application 2005-B-25, initiated by the same proponents, was made to sever the original 197.7 acre Township lot, based on a search of title that revealed that this lot had (in approximately 1863) been conveyed to a second owner, and thus had at one time been "severed". At an unknown time, however, the property had merged back into single title, effectively re-creating the original 197.7 acre lot. Under Section D3.3.7 of the Official Plan, where policies exist to allow for the correction of situation where lots have merged on title, the applicants successfully severed the east half of the lot, and in effect re-created the two parcels that had existed 1863 (the east half fronting Line 14 South consisting of +- 97 acres, and the retained west half, now known as 191 13 South consisting of +-100 acres). To date, the east lot remains vacant, while the west lot, being the subject property for the current application, contains the dwelling unit and detached garage. Both parcels are actively farmed by the Shelswells, while the dwelling has been used as a rental unit. The applicants have applied to dispose of this dwelling unit by way of severance, for the reason that the dwelling consists of a "surplus residence" as a result of farm consolidation. Committee should note that the applicants have five agricultural holdings in the area, and have been identified on the attached map. It should also be noted that three of the five holdings contain single detached dwellings and various accessory and agricultural buildings. Two of the properties are vacant. The Statement provides direction respect to the creation of lots in prime agricultural areas. Specifically, Section 2.3.4 discourages lot creation, however, allows for a lot to be created based on certain circumstances. For the purpose of the application at hand, Subsection 2.3.4.1 states: "2.3.4. 1 Lot creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may only be permitted for: c) a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation, provided that the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of created by the severance. approach used ensure that no are on may or on a a as a "Residence surplus to a farming operation: means an existing farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation (the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation)." The proponents have indicated on their application that the single detached dwelling unit located on the subject property, 191 Line 13 South, has become "surplus" as a result of "farm consolidation". TOWNSHIP The Township Official Plan places high priority on the protection and preservation of farmland and agricultural operations from incompatible land uses. Section D2 of the Plan outlines four overarching objectives for lands within the Agricultural designation: D2.1 OBJECTIVES " To maintain and preserve the agricultural resource base of the Township. " To protect land suitable for agricultural production from development and land uses unrelated to agriculture. " To promote the agricultural industry and associated activities and enhance their capacity to contribute to the economy of the Township. " To preserve and promote the agricultural character of the Township and the maintenance of the open countryside. Application 2006-B-11 seeks to create a new 2 hectare (4.96 acre) residential lot an area of the Township that consists predominantly of large land holdings and active agricultural operations. The majority of surrounding properties would appear to be original Township lots, up to 40 hectares (98 acres) in size or greater. As well, there appear to be relatively few residential lots in the immediate vicinity, reflecting that this portion of the Township has retained its agricultural character. respect to farm consolidations, the Official Plan contains specific policy and criteria increasing size an operation. n Section states: or new b) the viability of using the lands affected by the application for agricultural uses is not adversely impacted if the application is approved. Criteria a) indicates that the creation of a new lot is not permitted as a result of farm consolidation in the agricultural designation. While the PPS indicates that a surplus dwelling may be severed from a land holding as a result of farm consolidation, municipal official plans may also apply more stringent policies to protect prime agricultural areas. DISCUSSION The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) was consulted with respect to this application, in particular to provide technical assistance with respect to situations of farm consolidation and severances in prime agricultural areas. OMAFRA has reiterated that the PPS does provide policy with respect to severances in prime agricultural areas, and in this case dwellings rendered "surplus" may be severed in the event of farm consolidation. OMAFRA has also indicated that municipalities must "ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted upon the remaining [retained] parcels". Further, the comments indicate that the retained lands, being in a "cash crop or livestock area" should consist of a minimum of 38 hectares (94 acres) to be considered viable. County of Simcoe has also been circulated this application for comments. In general, the County observes that the PPS does allow for the severance of surplus dwellings due to farm consolidations, and that municipal decisions must be consistent with the PPS. However, County staff have raised concerns with respect to the applicant's previous severance (2005-B-25) of the original 197.7 acre lot into two parcels, consisting of approximately 100 acres and 97 acres. In addition, the County requests that the proponents demonstrate how the application at hand consists of a "farm consolidation" in light of the 2005 severance. With respect to the Township Official Plan, the only policy direction with respect to farm consolidations is found Section D2.3.4, where boundary adjustments are permitted; however, the Plan explicitly states that no new lot may be and is silent respect to "surplus dwellings". As well, given that the applicants severed original 1 acre parcel it is are applications which have effectively led to the fragmentation of the original +- 200 acre lot: a 2 acre residential severance completed in 2003; a 100 acre agricultural severance in 2005; and the current application, which proposes the creation of a 4.96 acre residential lot due to a "surplus dwelling". Essentially, one large agricultural lot has the potential to become four lots, two of which will not be used for agricultural purposes. CONCLUSION Based on the above, it is unclear at this time how the applicants are intending to achieve a "farm consolidation", given that the original agricultural parcel has been subject to two previous severances. While the comments from OMAFRA regarding the PPS provided direction with respect to the disposal of surplus dwellings due to farm consolidation by way of severance, the comments were not specific enough regarding farm consolidation processes. In addition, the PPS allows the Township Official Plan to contain more stringent criteria for the creation of lots in the Agricultural designation; this criteria is found in Section D2.3.4 and deals specifically with situations of farm consolidation, and does not permit the creation of a new lot. However, the Plan is silent with respect to the disposal of surplus dwellings due to farm consolidation through the severance process. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended Committee defer application 2006-B-11 such that applicants provide more information to Township and County Planning staff respect to how this application meets the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement. All of which is respectfully submitted, The Corporation of the County of Simcoe (705) 735-6901 Fax: (705) 727-4276 Toll Free (800) 263-3199 Email: rachelle.hamelin@county.simcoe.on.ca CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Division 1110 Highway 26 Administration Centre Midhurst, Ontario LOL lXO November 8, 2006 Glenn White Township of Oro-Medonte P.O. Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2XO Dear: Mr. White, RE: Consent Application 2006-8-11 Part of Lot 18, Concession 14, (191 Line 13 South) Township of Oro-Medonte Thank you for circulating the County of Simcoe and your request for comment. The subject property is designated Agricultural in the Local Official Plan, and therefore subject to the Agricultural policies of the County Official Plan. This application is to permit the creation of a new residential 2 hectare lot as surplus to a farming operation. The proposed retained portion of the subject property would be approximately 38.4 hectares. The County Official Plan and Local Official Plan outline specific criteria for lot creation within the Agricultural designation. These policies pre-date and are not entirely consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Section 2.3.4.1 c) of the PPS states that lot creation in prime agricultural areas may only be permitted for a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation, provided that new residential dwellings are prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland retained by the severance and the parcel zoned for no residential dwelling. The Planning Act requires that municipal decisions be consistent with the PPS. The County requests that farm acquisition and consolidation be demonstrated considering the subject lands have recently been granted consent to create two, approximately, 40 hectare parcels. County planning staff therefore request that this application be deferred until these issues are addressed. Please forward a copy of the decision. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 705-726-9300 Ext. 1315. Thank you very much. Andrea/Andy: In light of consent application 2006-8-11 the municipality of Oro- Medonte has requested technical support concerning the severing of a residence due to farm consolidation. The following technical comments are provided in terms of the goals and objectives of this Ministry and the criteria contained in the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). creation a prime agricultural designated area is discouraged and may be permitted for a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation as per Section 2.3.4.1 c) of the PPS. This type of severance applies to where farm consolidation has taken place (where a second farm that includes an additional residence has been purchased or acquired and together the two are to be operated as a single operation). This second existing farm residence is also not to be needed for the farm operation such as for farm help. Any new lot for residential purposes should be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the residence and an appropriate sewage and water system. The local plan authority must also ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted upon the remaining parcels. Concerning the creation of agricultural parcels within a prime agricultural area as per Section 2.3.4.1 a) of the PPS the lot to be severed and the lot to be retained are to be of a size appropriate for the type of agricultural uses common in the area and sufficiently large to maintain flexibility for future changes in the type or size of agricultural operations. Within a cash crop/livestock area it is recommended a minimum lot area for agricultural purposes be approximately 38.0 hectares size. q please Yours Iy, Ray Valaitis Rural Planner Ontario Mnistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Environmental Policy and Programs Branch Agricultural land Use U Brighton, Ontario KOK 1 HO Tel: 613-475-4764 Fax: 613-475-3835 ray. valaitis@omafra.Qov.on.ca <)( (f) C"') ~ (f) ..... Q) +-' Q) ::2: o o o ..- o o l{) o l{) N Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursdav October 12, 2006, 9:30 a.m. In Attendance: Chairperson Lynda Aiken, Member Allan Johnson, Member Garry Potter, Member Michelle Lynch, Member Dave Edwards, Secretary-Treasurer Andy Karaiskakis & Director of Building & Planning Bruce Hoppe 1. Communications and Correspondence Correspondence to be addressed at the time of the specific hearing. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest None declared 3. Hearin~s: 9:30 David & Rebecca Law Plan M593, Lot 10 (Oro) 9 Melville Court 2006-A-33 Attendance: Dave Law, applicant, and Colin Wardley, 7 Melville Court CA061 BE that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby refuse Minor Variance application 2006-A-33 as it does not meet the 4 tests of a minor variance. ...Carried." 2006-A-34 &Sue Conc. 9, Plan 875, 7 139 Parks ide Drive In Attendance: Brent Poulton, applicant Motion No. CA061012-2 BE RESOLVED that: Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Garry Potter "That the Committee hereby Grant Minor Variance 2006-A-34 subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed deck addition shall not extend closer to Lake Simcoe than existing deck, as shown on the drawings submitted with the application dated September 4, 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 line, and; that the area of the detached garage be no larger than 75.7 m2 (815.5 ft2), being substantial conformity with the dimensions shown on drawings submitted with the application dated September 11,2006; 3. That the proposed carport remain open on all three sides, as shown on drawings dated September 11, 2006; 4. That the mature cedar hedge located on the front and interior side lot lines remain; 5. comments made by the Building Department of setbacks to septic system; and, Craig & Krista Maddock Conc. North Part Lot 3 (Medonte) 116 Mill Pond Side Road In Attendance: Andria Leigh, MHBC Planning representing applicants, Sylvia Kunert, 34 Mill Pond Side Road, Marilyn Lockhart, 125 Mill Pond Side Road, and Ivan Strachan, 122 Mill Pond Side Road Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Salkeld, Resource Planner, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated October 11, 2006 and from Rachelle Hamelin, Planner County of Simcoe, dated October 10, 2006 verbatim to the Committee members and those present the audience. Motion No. CA061012-3 BE RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby defer Consent application 2006-B-22 as per the request of the applicants' agent. ... ..Carried." 10 & Raymond Plan 780, Lot 24 (Orillia) 49 Eight Mile Point Road In Attendance: John Raymond, applicant Motion No. CA061012-4 BE IT that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby Refuse Minor Variance Application 2006-A-32 based on the request of an increase in height of a boathouse is not minor. ... ..Carried." 5. Other Business i. Adoption of minutes for the September 14, 2006 Meeting Motion No. CA061012-5 , Seconded Garry "That minutes the September 14th 2006 Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated . ..Carried." 6. Adjournment Motion No. CA061012-6 Moved , Seconded Dave at 1 a.m."