01 17 2000 PAC Agenda• TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 2000
1. Call to order by Chairman.
2. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General
Nature Thereof - in Accordance with the Act.
3. Adoption of the Minutes of December 14, 1999.
4. Correspondence and Communication
None
5. Deputations
7:00 p.m. Oro-Medonte Golf Ltd. (Hanninen/Dodson) P-83/99
Concession 2, Part of Lots D and 10 (Oro)
Proposed Official Plan Amendment
(Verbal Update by Planning Consultant Only)
7:20 p.m. Robert and Theresa Spears P-98!99
Concession 13, Part of Lots 1 and 2 (Oro)
Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning
(To be Distributed at Meeting)
7:40 p.m. Joseph and Ana Stanesic P-96/99
Concession 4, Part of Lot 6 (Oro)
Proposed Official Plan Amendment
6. Other Business -
;~'~~? -t
7. Adjournment ^~ ° ° ~`: ">rv ~f ` `~=1 - ~ i'
u
. TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADV15ORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES
DECEMBER 14, 1999
PRESENT: Sue Grant, Garry Fell, Peter Wigham, Paul Marshall,
Councillor Ruth Fountain, and Deputy Mayor Don Bell
STAFF PRESENT: Andria Leigh
ABSENT: Mayor Ian Beard
1. Chairman Peter Wigham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. "DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL
NATURE THEREOF - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT."
None Declared.
3. Minutes
• Moved by Deputy Mayor Don Bell, seconded by Paul Marshall
That the minutes of the meeting of the Township of Oro-Medonte
Planning Advisory Committee held on November 16, 1999 be
adopted.
Carried.
4. Correspondence and Communication
None.
5. Deputations
7:00 p.m. Hillway Equipment Ltd. P-75/98
Concession 12, Part of Lots 8 & 9, and
Concession 13, Part of Lot 9 (Oro)
Proposed Rezoning
In Attendance: Glen Stewart, Applicant, and Gary Bell, Applicant's
Consultant
. Ms Leigh explained that Skelton Brumwell had provided an update letter on the
peer reviews and additional information had been provided to the peer review
consultants for further consideration. She indicated that the application could
proceed forward to a public meeting to obtain additional input; but that
consideration by Council of the Zoning By-law Amendment would not occur until
all the comments had been received from the applicable agencies and the peer
review comments had been addressed.
Mr. Gary Bell indicated that the Open House has been confirmed for the Rugby
Hall for Wednesday January 5, 2000 at the Rugby Community Hall from 7-9 p.m
to allow the community to review all the information.
Moved by Susan Grant, seconded by Deputy Mayor Don Bell
"It is recommended that Development Application P-75/98 a
proposed Zoning By-law Amendment proceed to a Public Meeting at
a special date in January for the proposed rezoning. And further that
all agency comments are to be received and all peer review
consultants satisfied prior to Council consideration of the proposed
Zoning By-law Amendment."
...Carried.
6. Other Business
(a) Additional information on Stanesic Application for Residential Subdivision P-
96/99
Ms. Leigh explained that the applicant had provided a proposed plan of
subdivision drawing but that none of the other information requested after the
October PAC meeting had been provided. She indicated that the applicant
was currently attempting to hire a planning consultant to represent the
application and provided additional information. The application continues to
be held until the information from the October 1999 meeting is provided as
requested.
(b) Distribution of Formal Development Application for Hanninen/Dodson Golf
Course Proposal P-83!99
• Ms. Leigh explained that additional studies had been received with the formal
application for the Official Plan Amendment. These studies have been
• circulated to the appropriate consultants for peer reviews in relation to traffic,
environmental, and servicing. The planning and preliminary "marketing"
information will be reviewed in-house. This application will be formally
presented to the Committee at their January 18,2000 meeting.
Ms. Leigh confirmed with the Committee that there is no meeting
scheduled for the Committee on December 21; that this had been
re-scheduled to December 14 instead.
Moved by Councillor Ruth Fountain, seconded by Garry Fell
That this meeting now adjourn at 7:35 p.m.
(c) December 21, 1999 meeting
7. Adjournment
Carried.
Peter Wigham, Chairman
Andria Leigh, Planner
• PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
January 17, 2000
Josip and Ana Stanesic, P-96/99
Pt of Lot 6, Concession 4 (Oro)
Proposal
The subject property is located in Concession 4, Pt of Lot 6 and is located on the
Bass lake Side Road east of Line 3 north. The property is a total of 30 acres in
size. The applicant's have applied for an Official Plan Amendment to permit a
future draft plan of subdivision on the property.
Official Plan Currently -Mineral Aggregate Resource, Rural, and
Environmental Protection Two Overlay
Proposed -Rural Settlement Area
Zoning_By-law Currently -Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) and Mineral Aggregate
Resource Two (MAR2) Zones
Proposed - No Amendment Applied for at this time
Department Head Comments
Roads Superintendent -why would consideration be given to change the
existing designation of mineral aggregate and environmental protection two to
allow for a proposed subdivision, existing designation were placed for a reason.
Fire Chief -
Clerk -Property is remote, not conducive to residential development,
considerable work would be required for Bass Lake Side Road.
Chief Building Official - no objection
Recreation and Economic Development - my understanding of this property is
that it lies between two larger parcels that have an Agricultural zoning I believe
that this would make it difficult to develop the subject property given the
. agricultural zone on both sides. The Aggregate Resource and Environmental
Protection designation would indicate that an Environmental Impact Study
• should be done before any decision could be made with regard to developing the
subject property. The shape of the subject property would limit the design of
development to a possible 40-lot cul-de-sac with only one entranceway in. This
is a concern for emergency access and snow maintenance.
Public Works -what is the surrounding property designated, if it is mineral
aggregate resource, I would not support a subdivision in the middle of it
Planning Deaartment Comments
The property is located on Schedule A12 of the Official Plan and a copy is
attached for reference. The front half of the property is located within the Rural
and Environmental Protection Two Overlay designations and the back half of the
property is located within the Mineral Aggregate Resource and Environmental
Protection Two Overlay designations.
The principles of the Official Plan for the Township clearly indicate that
residential development is to be consolidated in existing settlement areas in
order to protect the character of the rural area. These principles further indicate
that the development of new residential subdivisions in the rural or agricultural
areas us not permitted by the Official Plan in order to protect both the rural
• character of the Township and protect the natural environment. The proposed
plan of subdivision in the rural area would conflict with these objectives and
principles of the Official Plan.
The subject property is located between two other large agricultural and mineral
aggregate resource property and the potential change in use for a residential
plan of subdivision would not be compatible with these designations. The
nearest developed land are in Concession 3 and 4, Lot 5 (former Edgar Centre)
and Concession 4, Lot 2 to 4 (Horseshoe Resort) and the subject lands are not
adjacent to these developed areas.
The applicant did submit a preliminary concept plan of a proposed plan of
subdivision which was previously provided to the Committee; however detailed
studies required in conjunction with the concept plan have not been completed
as required by the Official Plan to determine the appropriateness of the
application.
A review of the various policies applying to the subject property are provided
below:
Section D3 -Rural
Within the Rural designation permitted uses include a single detached dwelling.
Currently the subject property is vacant and would permit the construction of one
2
• should be done before any decision could be made with regard to developing the
subject property. The shape of the subject property would limit the design of
development to a possible 40-lot cul-de-sac with only one entranceway in. This
is a concern for emergency access and snow maintenance.
Public Works -what is the surrounding property designated, if it is mineral
aggregate resource, I would not support a subdivision in the middle of it
Planning Department Comments
The property is located on Schedule A12 of the Official Plan and a copy is
attached for reference. The front half of the property is located within the Rural
and Environmental Protection Two Overlay designations and the back half of the
property is located within the Mineral Aggregate Resource and Environmental
Protection Two Overlay designations.
The principles of the Official Plan for the Township clearly indicate that
residential development is to be consolidated in existing settlement areas in
order to protect the character of the rural area. These principles further indicate
that the development of new residential subdivisions in the rural or agricultural
areas us not permitted by the Official Plan in order to protect both the rural
. character of the Township and protect the natural environment. The proposed
plan of subdivision in the rural area would conflict with these objectives and
principles of the Official Plan.
The subject property is located between two other large agricultural and mineral
aggregate resource property and the potential change in use for a residential
plan of subdivision would not be compatible with these designations. The
nearest developed land are in Concession 3 and 4, Lot 5 (former Edgar Centre)
and Concession 4, Lot 2 to 4 {Horseshoe Resort) and the subject lands are not
adjacent to these developed areas.
The applicant did submit a preliminary concept plan of a proposed plan of
subdivision which was previously provided to the Committee; however detailed
studies required in conjunction with the concept plan have not been completed
as required by the Official Plan to determine the appropriateness of the
application.
A review of the various policies applying to the subject property are provided
below:
Section D3 -Rural
• Within the Rural designation permitted uses include a single detached dwelling.
Currently the subject property is vacant and would permit the construction of one
2
• single detached dwelling. Section D3.3.1 of the Plan indicates the policies,
which relate to the creation of new lots for residential purposes; however these
policies in accordance with the objectives of the Official Plan limit these to the
creation of one lot by consent and not plans of subdivision. This would not
appear to be acceptable to the applicant and in fact the policies require the initial
lot to be a minimum of 36 hectares (90 acres) in order to permit the one
residential consent and therefore the property would not comply with this policy.
There are no other policies in the Rural designation, which would permit a
residential plan of subdivision as the intent to maintain the rural character and
open countryside of the area.
Section F1 -Environmental Protection Two Overlay
The property is wholly within the Environmental Protection Two Overlay
designation in order to recognize the significant vegetation on the subject lands
and the surrounding lands. The objective of these policies is to minimize the loss
or fragmentation of significant woodland features and the habitats and ecological
functions they provide. On this basis, new development on lands within this
designation is generally discouraged. Any proposed development requires the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Management Plan
(MP) to the satisfaction of Council prior to an amendment being adopted by
Council. Section G3 of the Plan establishes the components of an EIS and
would be required to determine the potential impact of development. To date the
applicant has not provided this information or any information, which would assist
in determining the potential impact a proposed subdivision would have on these
environmental features.
Section D5-Mineral Aggregate Resource
The intent of these policies is to protect known mineral aggregate deposits and
areas of high potential for future resource use and further to minimize conflicts
from incompatible land uses. The subject property is within a larger Mineral
Aggregate Resource designation and the development of a residential plan of
subdivision would not be compatible with an aggregate operation. Residential
plans of subdivision are not permitted in this designation due to the
incompatibility issue.
Section D4 -Rural Settlement Areas
The objectives of this designation are to create attractive communities with
suitable amenities and further to ensure that settlement areas are developed in a
logical and cost effective manner. New settlement areas are not contemplated
by the Official Plan and would only be considered on the basis of a
. comprehensive review of the basis and vision of the official plan. This vision
indicates that the County of Simcoe estimates that the Township permanent
3
• population will grow by 8000 to 10,000 over the next twenty years. Currently the
are sufficient lands designated to accommodate this growth and therefore no
additional lands are expected to be designated for residential development.
The Committee must also consider Section J3 -Amendments to the Plan in
their consideration of any OfFcial Plan Amendment application as this section
indicates that the Township will not consider any site specific amendment to the
plan for a period of atleast five years (2002). This section further indicates that
amendments should only occur if the Plan is found not the address an issue or a
site specific issue has been raised which needs to be addressed in a
comprehensive manner. This application for a proposed residential subdivision
would not appear to qualify under Section J3 for a proposed amendment which
could be considered favorably by the Township.
The applicant has provided an additional proposal for the Committee to consider
(letter dated December 19, 1999 attached). As indicated above in the Rural
designation the policies would not permit the creation of two residential Tots by
consent due to the size of the subject property among other matters. The use of
the remainder of the property for seasonable trailer use is not a permitted use in
the Official Plan and would be subject to the requirements of Section D3.3.3
(attached) which have not been satisfied.
The Official Plan establishes criteria to be satisfied prior to favorable
consideration of any proposed amendment. The Municipality is not in the
practice of provided approval for development conditional on the information
being provided as a technical review and analysis of the studies/information is
necessary to determine the appropriateness of any proposal.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Development Application P-94/99 a proposed Official
Plan Amendment be denied as it does not conform with the relevant policies.
n
4
In addition, prior to considering an application to develop a new industrial,
institutional or commercial use, Council shall be satisfied that the proposed
use cannot be reasonably sited in a nearby settlement area or on lands in the
vicinity that are designated Industrial or Commercial.
D3.3.3 New tourist commercial uses
Given the potential impacts of new tourist commercial uses such as private
pazks, trailer or recreational vehicle parks, mobile home parks, rental cabin
establishments and private campgrounds and accessory recreational and
commercial facilities on the rural chazacter of the Township, only existing
tourist commercial uses aze permitted by this Plan. The development of any
new tourist commercial use shall require an Amendment to the Official Plan
and Zoning By-law and shall be subject to Site Plan Control.
Before considering an amendment to the Official Plan to permit a new tourist
commercial use by way of exception in the Rural designation, Council shall be
satisfied that:
a) the proposed use is compatible with the rural chazacter of the azea;
b} the development can be designed and sited to blend in with the rural
surroundings,
c) the proposed use is located where it would have little or no impact on
agricultural operations;
d} the proposed use can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and
means of sewage disposal;
e) appropriate guarantees are in place to ensure that the impacts of the
effluent from a private communal sewage treatment system on the
lands on down gradient water supplies is monitored frequently;
f) sufficient financial securities are available to ensure that downstream
water supplies can be replaced in the event of a problem that is directly
attributable to the operation of the private communal sewage treatment
system on the lands;
g) the proposed use is to be accessed by municipal roads that can
accommodate the increased traffic generated by the proposed use; and,
h) the proposed use can be appropriately buffered from adjacent
residential uses.
49
ORO-MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN -FINAL
Adopted by Council February 5,1997
•
From= Josip and Ana Staneaic -~b~ -
7981 con. 2_ RR3
Stouffville, Ont.
L4A-7X4
(905) 473-9184 ~. `>{'~"
To= Andria Leigh
Planner - Township of Oro-Medonte
Re: Development Application (# P-9b/99), September 27, 1999.
Lot b, Bass Lako Rd „ between concession 3 + 4, East
half _
Second op~.ior~for he Rezonsns of Lot ,~,,~
1_ We ask that Lot 6 be rezoned from rural to residential
as mentioned in the Development Application (P-9bJ99).
2. The second option in rogards to Lot b asks for the
approval of two separate estate one acre lots in -Front
of Bass Lake Road_ (The location of the two estate lots
is shown on the survey sketch) for personal family
living.
. 3_ The rest of the 28 acres, would be for seasonable
trailors use for residential purposes.
4. The environmental Impact Statement, Management Plan, and
the Growth Managment Settlement Strategy will be
completed at a later date when:
a) it is weather permitted and
b) we receive a latter from you on the conditional
approval for the rezoninfl from rural to residential_
5. This second option for Lot 6 goes with the first
Develnpment Application (P-9b/99)_ We would like to
heer your response by January 15, 2000. If a response
is not received by January 15, 2000, than this matter
will ba dealt with the Ontario Municipal Board,
Sincerely,
J 1p Stanesic Ana Stanesic
Data: becember 19, 1999.
Z 'd XCd L2~Z2 66. 6Z'~aQ
=c. 19 '99 22:29 FRx
~~ /
--~,~~"'~`~a e~tn.-~ ,~. ra f .r , r" .~.~ rJr ~/ /7''60 "•~
.c, e.. ~• ~ ~~
A A.4~~~0M1~4
r~
~~
~~
-r~
~~1
~-
~
Q ,
.
~ ~~~
0
~ ~
o
v
~ ti ~
0
~ a
~ ~
d
¢
!
o
cp
~
t ? ~
\a~
v
/
,.0 j rV6n:az~
~~ .f
~ /
~,
.-_ O~ ~
"~ \~
~` ~,
~ f„
"} ti `{,i
~ ~
ti~\ ~
~,
P. 2
i~, ~..Sk`r~cLi of'cS~.~v~-y
S ~' ~ w To n~'i7s`i~ ~ Ciro
4
i ~
N
I
C) ~. D
~,V'I / (-~>~rr~e C~NTRRIO , p~~/ -...r..v rte"
Z4 Oc4' 1°~ 63 /7~'ano ~anc/ ~ urv6~~:
\ P .6.6601
®,/'V~~/~-A2 1r~9S //NF
f~°l',~'~ vz~
~cc'o.c~~.,v<~
~,
~`~ pF ORO•'Fl THE CORPORATION OF THE
=y ~~ _TOW_N/~~SI~IP
PAS-CONSIILTATIO~ ~ SIISM28820N NO. P-
APPLICATION
TO: Oro-Nedonte Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Ozo, Ontario LOL 7X0
(705) 487-2171
1. Nanm(e) of Applicant: ~Or @/~( £ T.f[:2 C-9A .SNC-/n2 S'
2. Nailing Addreee: 317c IJf)SS ~.McL- ~ZG><T~.g.7
P_ L' ~ z.
Cf'Ri.c.,.z:q L 3d 0H 2
3. Telephone Number. 705] 3L5-938(•
4. Name of Authorized Agent rGCN f4.riLS i !'Ltit Sllri~
5. Mailing Addreee: Qua- 207 ZL CN.cecu S~-. -~
/a L[-Z S z~ .J C~'r
L-9.'_ ieS
.~6. Telephone Number: ~7c5~ 4;i -G.L 67
• Thie pre-consultation application (preliminary development) ie for the following:
Application to amend the Official Plan of the Township [i~]~
Application to amentl-the Comprehensive Zoning By-law [ ]
Application to consider a Draft Plan of Subdivision [ ]
A copy of the development application form, attached ae appendix, ie required to be
completed and submitted with the pre-consultation (preliminary development)
application; however, this does not constitute a formal application being made to the
Municipality under the requirements of the Planni/n/g/'A]ct, 1990, as amended.
Date: DL %trryGn /V y /5 i'9 Signature: YC4-f-L ~-~~~-~L-~-~
The penonel informedion on this form is being collected pursuant to the pluming ~ci, 1990, as reerded, end lilt be used in
relation to the process irg vt ihia developmni application. If you have any questions, plesae szk et Me 9re•aedonte lowmhip
OttICl6.
Township ojOro-Medonte, PO Box 100, Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0
Development Application
[~~ Application to amend the Official Plan of the Township
(tt~ Application to amend the Comprehensive ZoningBy-law
[ ] Application fot a Temporary Use By-law
[ ] Application to consider a Draft Plan of Subdivision
[ J Other, please specify
Application No. P-
UWe hereby apply, as specified above, to the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte. It is expressly
understood thaC this application is in regazd only to the (ands as hereinafter described, and is [Wade pursuant to the
provisions of The Planning Act, R.S.O., ] 990. All costs associated with the applicadon shall be paid as per the Taziff
of Fees By-law including all costs associated with an appeal of the appbcation to the Ontario Municipal Boazd.
UWe enclose herewith applicaton and processing fees in the amount of $2450.00 for an amendment to the Official
Plan ($1200.00 is a refundable deposit in accordance with the Taziff of Fees By-law).
UWe enclose herewith application and processing fees in the amount of $2450.00 for an amendment to the
Comprehensive Zoning By-law ($t200.00 is a refundable deposit in accordance with the Tariff of Fees By-law).
UWe enclose herewith application and processing fees m the amount of $2450.00 for a Temporary Use By-law
($1200.00 is a refundable depoeit in accordance with the Tariff of Fees By-law).
Uwe enclose herewith application and processing fees m the amount of
8 5_ 0~ (IOO lots or less);
8 7~ 50.00 (]01 to 1991ots); or
99 00 (200 lots or mote) far a draft Plan of Subdivision ($5500.00 is a refundable deposit in accordance with the
Tariff of Fees By-law).
DATED AT THE '~~~ti' OFA2~w Teow sFret IN TtIE Crou~,.ra OF Sawren 6~
THIS /n/-k DAY OFD 199 °~ .
s
Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent Signature p~~omtttissiwer
(To be witnessed by a Commissioner) r
To be completed by the Analicant or Authorized A ent (Please print or tyge)
Name of Applicant ~,QE.~,- r TrEn,.~se SycofzS
FuIlMailingAddress 3tzu (3nss L.3~.r Srae2.,.~3,~
Telephone Number ~`l r'S ~ 3 z. S - s ? t'L,
2. Name of Applicant's Agent ~, -,: htr +t' e s n ~ )
Full Mailing Address P. o .. s3e,>` Z.%7 22.. c_ct..~2.r a S': . S
FI-L~-s~.-o nr o,o°r.4raL> ~_Y~' /F'S
Telephone Number ~7os) y,? ~ - 6 ~ i~7
h`OTE: Al/ conespandence and communications wit[ be directed Jo the Applicant's Agent
unless otherwise specified
N'
Township of Oro-Medonte, PO Box 100, Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0
U
Development Application
Application No. P-
3. Full legal description of the property which is the subject of this Application including the name
of the former Municipality in which it is located, e.g. Lot I, Concession I, Township of Orillia,
and, if known, the azea of the land covered by the proposed amendment.
T~i~r-' ~-. - r c 2 ~ C>,.-cuss ` .,~ r3 i lc.eo)
1~ ,/ ° r/ r V ~ G/P - /7 c°fJ 7Z ~ ~ -r++`'-'zr O/- J.G/<C ,
To be answered by the Applicant. (Please print or twe
•
4. L1 Are you the registered owner of the subject lands? Yes / No_
1.2 Do you act on behalf of the registered owner? Yes ~ No_
2.1 Do you have an option to purchase the subject lands? Yes_ Nom
2.2 If so, what is the expiry date of the Option? .~
2.3 Have you an offer to Purchase or Agreement of Sale in respect of the subject lands, or any
portion thereof with the Registered Owner? Yes_ No
2.4 What is the expiry date of any Offer or Agreement menfioned in 4.2.3? -'
2.5 Is the above noted Option, Offer or Agreement conditional on the success or failure of this
Application? Yes_No /
5. Present Official Plan designation(s) `~Acr - ...u ~ x ", ~ F,ti.ee-c.r~E 72ES t ~ C /> 2
6. Present Zone classification(s) ° n~,zc,u ~yz.,,,wr " "2.. ;...~ Res . r~ ~c~
7. Present Use of subject lands U 4c;a.u-i eNC~J ` F„sr--~ z~> ~ 96,et~ ...~c~+ Qati,~
8. Proposed use of subject lands 'p r ~• ° t A~e:_e..e r ~s a~ ~e7~cf 4c,
9. Official Plan designation required Fls A~3c. oa t3.._- R~iona.:.l, Son<- c~ !~ S2 ~~
10. Zone Classification required - - ~tZp
11. Applicant's reason, argument and/or justification for requiring the proposed Amendment(s) (attach
a supplementary schedule if necessary).
(2c-,~- 'rz ~ncal.-sue a-," C ~~,e;-.,%6 <...~-z-iz_ o ~ ac ~ ;c j cr Y
u
Township of Oro-Medonte, PO Box l00, Oro, Ontario, LOL ZXO
• Development A~lnlication
Application No. P-
12. Supplementary and supporting material to be submitted by the Applicant:
1. All inforration as required under the Township of Oro-Medonte Development
Guidelines.
2. Survey or sketch prepared by an Ontazio Land Surveyor showing:
[~.Y Applicant's/Owner's total holdings of land in the subject area.
[~ Land which is to be subject of the requested Amendment clearly indicated thereon (in the
case of an amendment, please provide ten (10) 11" X 17" copies of the site plan or
boundary survey).
[~y The location, size and use of all existing buildings or structures on the subject lands and
on immediately adjacent properties. All topographical featwes shall also be shown.
[,.}~ The location, width and names of all road allowance, rights-of--ways, streets or highways
within or abutting the property, indicating whether they are public travelled roads, private
roads, rights-of--way or unopened road allowances.
13. What other Provincial Ministries or other Agencies or individuals have been consulted with prior
to the submission of this Application? (eg. Ministry of Municipal Affairs, School Boards, District
Health Unit, County Engineer, etc.)
C' ~ of S- c -
14. Is the subject land or any land within 120 m (400 R) of the subject land the subject of another
Development Application made by the applicant for approval of an Official Plan amendment, a
Zoning By-law amendment, a Plan of Subdivision, a Minor V ariance, onsen r a Site Plan?
Yes / No
If yes, please state which type of application, if known, the application number, and describe the
lands which aze subject to this application.
[-', 'sr -5 F=mss t3 `r3 ~~+~ ~ Q vv {s~~ yarn .fi us~y9
'Twn 4y~r-ry.~a< Gn~~sc.v- hP/~«-c•4 no.vs i~ i3! Mri.>r~ .
NOTE: Ottly ju[ly completed applications accompanied by the necessary supporting materials
will be processed
The personal information on this farm is being collected pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O., ]990,
c.P.73 and wilt be used in relation to the processing ojthis Development Application. Ijyou have any
questions, please ask at the Ora-Medonte Township Offices.
•
r
. Mi1lsPlan Consulting Services
Box 247, 22 Church Street S.,
AtLISTON, Ontario, L9R t V5
[705} 435-62 b7 Fax: 435-1037
1999
Township of Oro-I*~donte
P. O. Box 100
OR O, Ontario
LOL 2P0
Attention: Andrea Leigh, Township Planner
I}ear Andrea:
Subject: Spears O. P. and Zoning Amendments
MillsPlan acts for Robert and Theresa Spears, owners of Part Lots
1 and 2, Concession 13, Oro, now in the Township of Oro-Medonte.
• As you know, the owners have applied for
three severances, subject to conditions,
balance of the lands which are now coma
Residential" designation be redesignated
The owners have appealed this particular
to all three severances.
and have been granted
one of which is that the
fined in a "Shoreline
back to "Agricultural".
condition, as it relates
The owners do not object to the removal of a portion of the
"Shoreline Residential" designation, and the enclosed application
is being submitted, without prejudice, for that purpose, Two
additional lots are proposed, however, and a second purpose of the
amendment we are proposing is to facilitate and permit two
additional lots to be created by consent, to the west of the three
lots recently created. It is our intention, therefore, that the
land area required for the two additional lots not be removed from
its current designation.
The application is being made in this way, and at this time, so
that, if necessary, it can also be referred to and dealt with by
the OMB at the same hearing as the hearing relating to the
condition on the first three consent applications.
At the appropriate time, we will also submit two additional
consent applications, which will also be referred to the Board, if
necessary. The intention is to have all of the related
. applications dealt with at one time, as part of one consolidated
hearing.
• Having said that, we intend to work closely with the Township to
try to find a solution which will make a hearing before the OMB
unnecessary. As you know, the lands are both designated and zoned
for the proposed development.
The owners are quite prepared to work with the Township to ensure
that appropriate policies and requirements are put in place to
appropriately regulate the development of the five lots.
If the Official Plan amendment we are proposing is approved, and
not appealed, perhaps we can then look at amending the conditions
of consent on the first three severances so that it does not
affect the designation on the area of land required for the other
two lots.
The main concern the Township has would appear to be that
development of more than three lots is generally carried out by
plan of subdivision. However, in this case, a plan of subdivision
is not necessary. The road already exists, and the additional lots
can be serviced, and the development and use of the lands can be
adequately controlled and regulated through the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law amendment, and consent processes.
With regard to the latter, we would suggest that any requirements
the Township may wish to impose can best be addressed through the
• preparation of a development plan and a development agreement
registered against the lands, pursuant to Section 51(2b) of the
Planning Act, as a condition of the two additional severances.
We will want to understand and address the concerns of the
neighbouring residents as best we can, since they too will want to
have their say as to what happens in this area. I am optimistic
that we can come to terms which are satisfactory to all concerned.
The application, for all
designation (similar to
lands. Therefore, I have
report, at this juncture
once the matter has been
you and they require.
intents and purposes, represents a de-
iown-zoning) of a portion of the owners'
not prepared a comprehensive Planner's
. Further information will be provided
dealt with by the Planning Committee, as
Accordingly, we enclose both a Pre-consultation application as
well as a full Development Application and the required fees for
both.
I trust that this is appropriate, and look forward to working with
you on this project.
Yours~ruly
. Ron Mills, MllsPlan
ENCLOSIIRES
c.c: R. and T. Spears
/ f
Mi1lsPlan Consulting Serv s "fb ~ '^ ~~~
_,
Boz 20TH 22 Church Stree ~~ G.° ~ ~~.,,~
~LLISTOR, Ontazio L9R ~ ~ ,~~ ~ `'~'
. ~` ~ ~ ~~~
(705j 435-626? Fag: 435-1037 "f:~,z, ~~~'
December 13, 1999
To: Andrea Leigh, Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
Subject: Speazs O P and Zoning amendments and Severances
Thank you for taking the tune to meet with me last Thursday
concerning the above noted.
I confirm that our application is for both an Official Plan
amendment and a Zoning By-law amendment. Mr. Spears is to deliver
the required fees to you today.
As promised, I am forwarding four dlfferent sketches, showing what
it being proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Spears, as follows:
1. Lands to be re-designated from "Shoreline" to "Agricultural".
2. Lands to be rezoned from "AgriculturaltRural (A/Ruj" to
Shoreline Residential (SR)",
3, Lands to be severed by first subsequent consent application.
4. Lands to be severed by second subsequent consent application.
Each of the proposed additional lots is intended to be 100 ft. $
250 ft. in size, and they are to be located to the immediate west
of the three lots already created.
As discussed, it would seem appropriate to submit these two
applications after our O. P. amendment application has been
processed, and the amendment has been approved by Council.
I trust that this is of assistance to you.
Regards
. Ron Mills, Mi1lsPlan
ENCLOSIIRES c.c. R. and T. Spears
~k
5
4
P
w
4
5
County Road #22
v
ti
4
w
4
O
4
4
'V
~~
B A S S
L A K E
-/ ~
Area to. be re-designated
from "SR" to "Agricultural"
goo So O' wp Zno
(m
~k
County Road #22
5
4
4•
w
Q
5
ti
4
w
2
O
'4-
4
F
0
.`0
.., a
i
jV
,\
'~
i
~~
B A S S
L A K E
Area to. be re-zoned from
"A/Ru" to "Shoreline (SR)
Residential"
goo Sa p iW 2no
\m~
.~k
County Road #22
5
4
Q
w
4
5
4
4
F
~~
ti
4
w
4
O
`V
B A S S
L A K E
To Be Severed (1 of 2)
•
Io0 So O IW lvo
~+'N
2^S^
~k
County Road #22
4
P
4,
4
5
5
4
4
4
O
4
4
F
°~
••, z
/~
i
i
B A S S
L A K E
To Be Severed (2 of 2)
•
~o0 50 o too 2ao
C~
01/12/00 WED 22:51 FA% 705A352628 DARLING.SMITH,McLEAN
Planner's Report
fpr
Robert and Theresa Spears
Part Lots 1 and 2, Concession i3
{form®rly Township of Ora)
naw in the Township of Oro-I~ledonte
For
• Robert and Theresa Spears
3270 Bass Lazo Sideroad
R. R_ R2
ORILLI~, Ontario
L3F 6H2
Prepared by:
IiiilsPlaa Consulting Services
P, O. Boa 207, 22 Church Street S „
aI.LISTOlt, Ontario
L9R lY5
{705) 93S°6267
@too2
• January. 2000
01/12/00 R'ED 22:51 FA% 705Il352628 DARLING,SMITH,McLEAN
~ 003
f.
• PL~11111'ffit' S RBP~tT
1 " p Puree and Scope 9f Renort
This Planner's Report has been prepared in support of applications
to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law of the Township of
Oro-Medonte, to redesignate and re-zone the lands to permit three
lots recently approved by the Township's Committee of Adjustment
to be developed for residential purposes, and to facilitate and
permit the creation of two additional lots by consent, and to
permit residential development of these additional lots as wall.
The application for an Official Plan amendment will, if approved
as proposed, also have the effect of removing the existing
"Shoreline" designation from those portions of the land which are
presently so designated, but which are not part of the area
required for the five lots.
This report addresses the relevant planning considerations in
detail, and provides a summary of related site servicing,
environmental and other technical considerations pertaining to the
redesignation and re-zoning, and the subsequent development and
use of the lands, as proposed.
• 2_O S~~act Lands aad Description
Figure 1 shows the general location of the lands owned by the
proponents in Part Lots 1 and 2, Concession 13 (formerly Township
of Oro), now in the Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe,
Figure 2 shaves the entire property owned by the proponents, in the
context of the immediate surrounding area. The property is a
relatively large tract of land, Consisting of some 51,6 ha. and
extending from Greenwaod Avenue to the south-east, where there is
approximately 508 m. of frontage, to Horseshoe Valley Road to the
north, where there is 267 m, of frontage. There is also Some 164.6
m. of frontage directly on the shore of Bass Lake at the south end
of the parcel. Figure 2 also shows the existing Iot pattern and
land uses in the surrounding area.
The lands presently have an entrance driveway leading to a 12.2 x
32.6 m. storage building. Six stalls have bean built into the
north and of the barn, and the owners currently use this area to
shelter five horses. This building is at approximately the
location shown on Figure 2. Much of the cleared area of the
property is rented out to an area farmer, who uses th® land for
crop production, The lands are, for the most part, not fenced.
• The lands are currently not used for residential purposes, but it
is the intention of the current owners to construct a new
residence at approximately the location shown on Figure 2.
OS/12100 WED 22:52 FAX 7054352628 DARLING,SMITH,McLEAN
C{3j 004
2.
~ tA7Q(~
{~ t
Y Q
~q .
s
•
FIGURE 1: General Location of Subject Propezty.
O1/12i00 WED 22:52 FA% 7054J52628 DARLING,SMITR.McLEAN @1005
3.
• The subject lands (ie. the lands adjacent to Greenwood Avenue
which are currently designated "Shoreline"), drain and slope
generally to the south, toward Bass Lake. Yegetatian varies from a
predominantly tree covered area toward the east to substantially
open, cleared land west of the existing driveway entrance to the
parcel. Near the and of Greenwood Avenue, the subject lands are
lower and wet.
S.O Svrronndina Lands a,at~,__Land IIsa
To the south-east, across Greenwaod Avenue, is an established
shoreline residential development, located along the shore of Bass
Lake. On the same side of Greenwood Avenue further to the east are
three additional, larger residential lots which have or are
intended to be developed for residential purposes.
At the south west end of Greenwood Avenue, there is one
undeveloped shoreline lot and beyond it, an area of undeveloped
shoreline on Bass Lake, which is part of the owners' landholding.
The backshore area is part of a large tract of forested lands and
wetland extending further to the south and west.
To the north-west, north and north-east, to Horseshoe Valley Road,
the lands vary from forested to cleared, with sarr~ areas having
• been used for crop production, as noted above. A hydro
transmission corridor bisects the area and crosses the owners
lands in the vicinity of the border between lots i and 2, 't'here
are a number of established residences along Horseshoe Valley
road, including a small subdivision on the north side.
4 0 The Pro~sal
The owners have applied for, and the Committee of Adjustment for
the Township has approved three severances, subject to conditions.
The location of the three lots is as shown on Figure 2.
Two additional lots are proposed to be created, to the immediate
south-west of the three approved lots, The area involving these
two lots will be subject to special provisions to be incorporated
into the proposed Official Plan amendment.
The five lots must all be re-zoned to the "Shoreline Residential"
zone. The lands which are currently designated "Shoreline" in the
Official plan which are not included with the five lots are
proposed to be re-designated to "Agricultural".
The retained portion 1s to be used by the owners as their
principle place of residence. They are not farrr~ers. They are
interested only in keeping a few horses (up to a maximum of six).
• Some of the land may also be rented out to an area farmer for
cropping, as in the past. Some other areas are intended to be
planted to trees,
01/12/00 WED 22:59 FA% 7054952828 DARLING.SMITH.McLEeiN
I~j006
~,
~k
County Road #22
5
•
P
4-
`>
U
4
w
R
O
4
Q _
Existing building~wr '" r.. ~ ~~I
Forested and
Wetland
LJ
r
N
ti
. ~tr
Kiy
`~ bQ~
O ~,,
~W
.C
~~ ~yti
~ ~~
o°O
gy B A S S
'ry
L A K E
Figure 2: Spears Propert~ and
~~"Subject Lands"
"co 5o O ioV $co
C+++)
01/12/00 R'ED 22:5a FAR 7054x52628 DARLING,SMITH,McLEAN
• ,~,~ Planniaa 2~lications
5i Pr vin_S_ vial Policy
5.1.1 C~neral
This proposal does net offend any of the relevant provincial
policies and requirements.
The lands are, for the most part, contained in an "Agricultural"
designation, and reflect the fact that soils on a portion of the
property are suitable for, and used for cxop production.
The original barn on this parcel was apparently destroyed by fire
in 1949, and the fences have deteriorated or are nonexistent.
Consequently, except for the six stalls in the existing stnrage
building, there is little potential, and no currant intention on
the part of the owners, to use the property for any significant
new agricultural purposes related to the keeping of livestock.
Notwithstanding the fact that there are six Sta115 built into the
existing storage building, this building is not designed for or
• suited for livestock (there is no room for feed storage, it has a
sand floor, etc.), Furthermore, it is a substantial distance from
the approved and proposed Iots. There is, as a result, no Minimum
Distance Separation problem with respect to the limited potential
ar the use which is being made of this structure for the keeping
of livestock (up to 6 horses), given its location of the property
reiativa to the proposed lots.
Because the parcel is quite large, any new livestock facility/use
could be located so as not to be constrained by the existence of
the approved/proposed lots. Tha existence of numerous other non-
farm residences in the same area already present a constraint to
the use of the south-east portion of this property for livestock
purposes.
In any event, the subject lands, adjacent to Greenwood Avenue, are
already designated for development and have been so designated for
a number of years. As SllCh, the intention is to permit soma back-
lot development on the north~saest side of Greenwood Avenue, the
road which serves the existing devalopr~nt along the Bass Lars
shoreline in this area.
The proposed Official Plan Amendment has the effect of
facilitating the creation of dust two additional lots within an
area already designated for development. It has the further
purpose of removing the "Shoreline" designation from the balance
of the lands, and restoring an "Agricultural" designation. Tha
• subject lands which era proposed for development are not suitable
for agricultural purposes.
C~joo7
~.
01/12/00 WED 22:59 FA% 7054852828 DARLING,SMITH,McLEAN
• The subject lands do not contain significant aggregate resources
which should be preserved for future extraction, and they are not
identified as being environmentally significant or sensitive.
Therefore, their developa~nt and use, as proposed, does not offend
any provincial policy or requirement in this regard.
5~2 County Official Plan
The County of Simcoe Official Plan generally permits development
of lands already designated for development in approved local
Official Plans. Hovrever, there are development standards and
servicing policies in the County Plan which must be regarded in
approving any such development.
Generally, development of five or fewer lots can be accommodated,
according to County policy, on private, on-site services, provided
the site conditions are suitable for same. hevelopments of more
than five lots are subject to additional requirements for such
things as servicing feasibility studies, hydrogeological
investigations, detailed stormwater management studies, etc., and
the preferred method of servicing is full municipal or communal
water and sewer services.
The County plan permits development to occur by either plan of
subdivision or by consent. In this situation, the required
• services (ie. the road system] is already in existence, and the
water and sewer services era proposed to be provided on each lot.
The lots are appropriately sized and site conditions are suitable
for the installation of private services. There is, therefore, no
need to proceed by means of a plan of subdivision in this case.
All of the concerns and requirements relating to the developsr~nt
of the lands can be addressed through the re-zoning and severance
approval processes, It is worthy of Hate that the Committee of
Adjustment, in granting consent for the creation of the three lots
already approved, has also required that the lots be subject to
site plan control.
Consequently, the Township has every opportunity and several
effective mechanisms at its disposal to enforce full compliance
with all of its requirements, as well as those of the County and
other agencies, without requiring the development to proceed by
plan of subdivision.
The lands are not part of the Greenlands system identified by the
County of Simcoe Official Plan, No impact assessment 1s therefore
required to address the County's requirements in this regard.
'T'he proposal does not, therefore, offend the County Plan and no
amendment to the County Plan is required.
C~ 008
6.
OL-12/00 WED 22:54 FAR 705452828 DARLING.SMITH.MCLEA.N
,~ Oro-PRedonte Official P1aa
5. 3.I General
The owners' lands have several designations 1n the Township of Oro-
Medonte Official Plan jrefer to Figure 3), with the predominant
designation being "Agricultural", with a "Horseshoe Valley Road
Special Policy Area" overlay designation on that portion contained
within Lot 1, Concession 13.
The southerly portions of the property are designated
"Environmental Protection One" and "Environmental Protection Two"
The subject lands, consisting of a band of land along the north-
west side of Greenwood Avenue are designated "Shoreline".
Section Al of the Official Plan describes the overall vision which
has lead to the creation of the specific policies which are
contained in the Official Plan. This proposal does not offend the
basic principles outlined 1n this section. The subject lands had
previously been designated for residential purposes in the former
Plan, and this intent has been carried forward into the new Plan,
The new Plan indicates that there are sufficient areas of land
designated for residential purposes to last until the Year 2016.
The realization of the potential for the development of about half
of the available land area designated for residential purposes,
• and the removal of the balance of the land so designated does not
offend this provision.
This section of the Plan provides that amendments to the Plan to
permit such further development beyond that specifically
anticipated by the Plan are only to be considered by Council if
the intent of the Amendment is to refine the land use boundaries,
or is the result of a broader policy review. These policies are
restated 1n Section J3, as well,
This proposal seeks to refine the land use boundaries, but in this
sense it is unusual, because it proposes a reduction in the amount
of land area designated for development, whereas most such
amendments would propose either the creation of new, or the
ezcpansion of existing such areas.
In this case, an amendment to the Official Plan is required, as a
result of a specific condition of the provisional consents which
have been approved by the Township for the three lots already
approved by the Committee of Adjustment. The Committee required
that the balance of the lands designated "Shoreline" but not
specifically involved with the three lots, be re-designated to
"Agricultural".
That condition has been appealed by the owners, as they would like
to create two additional lots from the area designated "Shoreline"
• adjacent to the first three. They support the re~lesignation of
the remaining area from "Shoreline" to "Agricultural".
@~ooe
~.
01/12/00 WED 22:54 FAX 7054352628 DARLING, SMITH,McLEAN f~j0I0
~.
•
IAC!UfFICATIC
NO `1 S~
UN4ERSECPION 1'.
THE PLANNING A~
•
ssa sscn~
D2.4.2
t10L'25
XIII XTV
01:12/00 WED 22:54 FA% 7054352828 DARLING,SMITH,McLEAN
County Road #22
~1011
~ ~
r ~ ~y
/f
i.:
~s tipe rr~. .
•141~111YYt ~1Ywq '~i~ .+l l ~~~
~t.
5
4
4~
5
., 7'9L n
~ ~y
p ~- N
V ti~ t
'~
4
Q
Two lots subject to
Special Eolicies
Area to be re-designated
from "Shoreline" to
"Agricultural"
•
100 50 4 tm ) u~v sec
FIGURE 4: Proposed -es~g~ations
01.12!00 4IED 22:54 FAR 7054x52828 DARLING,SMITH.McLEAN C{J012
ro.
• The amendment will also serve to introduce policies which will
allow the two additional lots with no direct frontage on or access
to the shoreline (see Sactian 5.3.2 below), to be created by
consent.
Section A2 sets out several "pillars", or underlying principles
which are reflected throughout the Plan in the policies for the
development and use of land. This proposal does not offend any of
these guiding principles.
Spec if lc ally, there does not appear to be a need for municipal or
communal s®rvices, as the proposed lots are suitable for the
installation of on-site services. Three of the five lots have
already been approved with on-site services,
5.3.2 "Shoreline" Policies
Section D10 of the Plan contains the specific policies affecting
lands designated "Shoreline", The first objective provides that
the existing character of the predominantly residential area is
maintained. This objective is not compromised by this proposal, as
the new lots, and the development on these lots will be similar to
the existing developments across the road, and on existing,
• similarly sized lots further to the east on the same side of the
road,
The lands have long been designated for residential purposes. The
lands along the shoreline itself have long since been developed,
while the back-shore areas on the opposite side of Greenwood
Avenue are dust now being developed. This is a typical situation,
since the lakefront properties are more valued and in demand, and
usually are purchased and developed first.
Where conditions are appropriate, the development of the land on
the opposite side of the road servicing the shoreline development
is usually also permitted, in part to respond to the resulting
subsequent demand far near-shore lots, and in part to ensure that
servicing both existing and new development is efficient and cost-
effective.
The protection of the natural features of the shoreline area is
also an ob~ectlve of the Plan for areas designated "Shoreline".
The three lots already created, as well as the two proposed lots,
lie within a predominantly forested area. While the removal of
trees to permit the siting of a driveway, septic system and
residence will be necessary, the shoreline and the Lake itself
will not be directly impacted, and the removal of trees can and
should be minimized as a condition of site plan approval.
• Single detached dwelling are permitted uses, as provided for in
Section Di0.2 of the Plan,
O1i12/00 RED 22:55 FAR 7054J52628 DARLING,SMITH.%cLEAN @]Ola
~~.
. The subject lands era served by a municipal road, which is of a
standard of construction and is being maintained at a standard
sufficient to serve the two new Zots created as a result of this
proposal, as well as the three lots previously approved.
Section A10.3.5 sets out policies relating to the "preferred means
of land division". It provides that "land division by plan of
subdivision/condominium, rather than by consent, shall generally
be deemed necessary if any one of a list of circumstances applies.
In this case, the extention of an existing public road or the
development of a new public road, is not required, nor is the
extant ion of a municipal water or sewer system.
In this instance, a Plan of subdivision is not required to ensure
that the entire land holding or area is developed in an orderly
and efficient manner. In that the entire area fronting onto
Greenwood Avenue was previously designated "Shoreline" to a depth
approximating the depth of one lot only, the only logical
development pattern is a linear development form with each lot
fronting directly onto and accessing Greenwood Avenue.
This policy also provides that the developu~nt should generally be
considered as in tilling and that developments of more than three
lots should occur by plan of subdivision, In this case, three lots
have already been approved to be created by consent. It is not
necessary, and would not be appropriate to require a plan of
• subdivision far the additional two lots, notwithstanding that the
total number of lots to be created ultimately from this particular
landholding is five.
It is vaorthy of note that there is sufficient land area and
frontage within the area designated "Shoreline" on the owners
lands on the north-west side of Greenwood Avenue to permit the
creation of approximately 12 lots.
Although the creation of the two new lots does not meet the strict
definition of "infilling", the existing, approved lots to the
immediate north-east and the dwelling proposed to be constructed
to the west create a situation which roughly parallels an infilZ
situation. Therefore, it would be unnecessary and therefore
inappropriate to require a plan of subdivision lust because the
proposal is not strictly an "infill" situation, as no particular
purpose would appear to be served by such a requirement.
This s®ction goes on to outline the requirements for developments
by both plan of subdivision and by consent, in Sections D10.3.6
and D10.3.7 respectively, Under the strict interpretation of these
policies, in order to develop of the subject lands by plan of
subdivision, direct frontage on Bass Lake would be required - a
condition which cannot be met in this case, despite the fact that
the lands are already designated "Shoreline", that there is enough
• land with the required services (road frontage) to accommodate a
dozen lots, and that the proponents own a significant area of Bass
Lake shoreline.
01!12/00 WED 22:55 FA% 7054952828 DARLING.SMITR.McLEAN C~j014
ice.
. Any development of the portion of this property which is
designated 'Shoreline" will, as a result, lead to the creation of
lots with no direct frontage on or direct access to the Lake.
There is nothing that can now be done to change this pre-existing
situation (ie. the owners have not used up the lake frontage
available to them, nor can they develop the portion of their
property which fronts onto the lake), and it would be
inappropriate to suggest that the proposed lots cannot be created
because there is no lake frontage.
The policies dealing with consents do not require that the new
lots thus created have frontage on or access to the Lake, and it
is these policies which must therefore apply to the subject lands.
The specific criteria for lot creation by consent require that the
severed and retained lots both front onto an existing public road
that is maintained year-round, that no traffic hazard will result
and that the lots can be adequately serviced with appropriate (in
this case on-site) water supply and sewage disposal systems. All
of these requirements have been mot with respect to the three lots
already approved, and can also be mat for the two additional lots
to be created as a result of this proposal.
This section goes on to require that the lots created must be
placed into a "Shoreline Residential" cone in the implementing
Zoning By-law, if required. In this case, the latter is necessary,
as the lots do not meet the minimum lot size requirements for the
• "Agricultural/Rural (A/Ru)" zone. The required application has
therefore been submitted, with the intention that it be considered
concurrently with the official Plan amendment.
Section D10.3.8 directs such developments and, it is fair to say,
limits such development to areas already designated "Shoreline,
such as the subject lands, and provides that only small scale
subdivisians on the shoreline or minor infilling by consent (such
as is the case in this instance) are permitted, in an effort to
maintain the area's unique character.
It goes on to provide that any amendment to the Plan that has the
affect of permitting additional residential develoj~ent ad acent
to the "Shoreline" designation will only be considered as part of
a review of the appropriateness of the extent and limits of the
entire "Shoreline" designation that is part of an Official Plan
review. This proposal involves lands already designated, and not
lands adjacent to existing shoreline areas not yet designated.
1n effect, the requirement of the Cor~ittee of Adjustment that the
remaining lands be removed from the "Shoreline" designation
represents the reverse of the situation contemplated by this
section, as it will result in the reduction, rather than the
expansion of the "Shoreline" designation in this area. In this
regard, the proposed amendment does serve to implement certain
• other policies as wall as the overall intent of the Plan, by
limiting development, and reducing development potential in
"Shoreline" areas.
01/12!00 WED 22:56 FA% 7051x52628 DARLING,SMITH.McLEAN @]015
i3 .
• The question which arises out of this requirement is whether the
creation of three lots is all that is considered appropriate from
the rather extensive area and frontage designated "Shoreline" in
this case, where the services required to accommodate perhaps as
many as 12 lots are already available. Related to this is the
question of whether it is essential that a fourth and fifth lot
must have lake frontage and direct access in order to be created,
in an area where three lots with neither lake access or frontage
have just been approved,
The proposed Official Plan amendment will serve to address the
question of how much development is appropriate at this location,
whether any additional development can be permitted where there is
no direct frontage and access to Bass Lake and whether it can be
accommodated by consent, as apposed to plan of subdivision,
The processing of this amendment and the related zoning by-law
amendment and consent applications will undoubtedly serve to
identify all of the issues and concerns with regard to the two
additional lots, and how they will be addressed and implemented if
the two lots are to be permitted as a result of the approval of
this O. P. amendment.
It is the opinion of the writer that the creation of two
• additional lots, by consent, neither of which will have frontage
on or direct access to the lake, will not offend the overall
purpose and intent of the t'ownship's Official Plan and is
appropriate, provided that the balance of the Land is removed from
the "Shoreline" designation.
The new lots must be re--zoned to the "Shoreline Residential" zone
and should also be subject to site plan control. The Township may
require as conditions of approval of the site plan and agreement,
among other things, the minimization of tree removal and
stormwater management measuxes to minimize impacts.
5~4 Zanina By--law
The lands are zoned "Agricultural/Rural (A/Ru)" at this time. A
residence is a permitted use in this zone, but the frontage of the
lots already created and those proposed to be created does not
meet the zone standard for this zone.
As indicated above, the Official Plan provides that lots created
in the "Shoreline" designation should be zoned "Shoreline
Residential". Accordingly an application has been sulanitted for
consideration concurrently with the proposed Official Plan
amendment, to re-zone the entire area encompassing the five lots
to the "Shoreline Residential (SRj" zone.
• All of the general requirements of the Zoning By-law, as well as
the pertinent provisions for the "SR" zone can and will be Inst.
01!12/00 WED 22:56 FA% 7054352828 DARLING.SMITII.McLEAN C~j018
r4,
v rrr
c
Figure 5: Existing Zoning
PRICBS
CORNER
1
Z
S
6
•
OlI12i00 WED 22:56 FAX 7054352628 DARLING.SMITE.MCLEAN
+ ,
BAS S
d5.
County Road #22
0
F-
w
4
5
.~I:
ti
4
4~
O
4
'Q ,
L A K E
Figure 6; Proposed Zoning
~ 017
~~
i
/ V
//
Area to be re-zoned from
"A/Ru" to "Shoreline ASR)
Residential"
tuo so Gr iu0 lAo
(m )
01!12/00 WED 22:58 FAA 9054352628 DARLING.SMITH,McLEAN I~jD18
, ~
• 5.4 Consents
Following the approval of the Official Plan and zoning by=law
amendments, two severance applications will be submitted for
consideration by the Township's Committee of Adyustment.
In the event that the official Plan and/or the zoning by-law
amendment 1s referredlappealed to the Dntarlo Municipal Board, it
may be appropriate to submit the two severance applications as
well, to ensure that they too are dealt with in a single
consolidated hearing.
5.5 Site Plan Approval
The two new lots should be required to be subject to site plan
approval, similar to the three lots previously created, to ensure
that the requirements of the Township can be properly enforced,
¢,,_Q 5ervising Considerations
The proposed development can be adequately serviced, and it will
• not place an added burden on the Township.
Site conditions are suitable for the installation of individual
septic systems an each lot, There is every expectation an the part
of the owners that drilled wells wilt yield ample water to supply
each of the lots, in light of their recent experience in drilling
a well for their own use on the retained parcel, where large
quantities of potable water were obtained.
Stormwater will be managed an, and conducted from the subject
lands in accordance with the requirements of the Township, and
their requirements will be enforced through the site plan approval
and agreement processes.
Other services required by the development, such as hydro and
telephone, policing, fire fighting, solid waste disposal services,
etc. already exist and are adequate to serve this development.
,~,,_~ 8nvironnent~l and ot~+~r Considerations
This proposal involves a relatively small area of land which has
not been identified as having any significant biological feature
or environmental function which would indicate that an
environmental impact assessment should be undertaken.
• Nevertheless, the lands are tree covered, and their development,
as proposed, will result in the removal of some of the natural
vegetation.
tG .
01/12/00 WED 22:57 FAR 7054352828 DARLING,SMITR,McLEAN
r ~
• It is recommended that, as part of the site plan agreement
required by the Township, as a condition of approval, that tree
removal be restricted to that which is necessary for the
construction of an entrance driveway, and for a dwelling and
septic system envelope on each lot,
The lands are not situated within an area of high archaeological
significance or potential. No significant cultural or historical
resources will ba impacted as a result of this proposal.
Therefore, no detailed assessment is considered necessary.
88=0 Desaad and head for the Develon~emt
The lands from which the proposed lots are to be severed are part
of the lands designated 1n the Township's Official Plan for this
purpose, and as such, are part of the inventory of land available
from which the projected residential growth is to be derived over
the next 20 years, The creation of dust five lots from this parcel
is significantly fewer than the number possible, and the nwnber
which the Township may have attributed to it as a pre-designated
development site,
The owners of lots on the opposite side of Greenwood Avenue have
. expressed an interest in, and in fact, have entered into
agreements with the proponents, to purchase two of the three
approved lots. At least one other adjacent owner has expressed a
desire to purchase a lot, albeit directly across the road from his
property, and beyond the area presently being propased for
development.
The demand by residents already living in this area is therefore
certainly strong, and there is every reason to expect that the
lots will be absorbed and developed in the vary near future.
g•4 Gonclvsioas
i. The proposal conforms to provincial policy and to the County
of 5lmcoe Official Plan.
2. The proposal conforms to the Township's Official Plan. An
amendment to the Official Flan is xequired.
3. An amendment to the Zoning By-law is also required. All of
the requirements of the Zoning By-law can be met. Special
provisions are propased to be incorporated to appropriately
control and regulate the development.
4. This development will be subject to site plan control.
• 5. All of the concerns and requirements of the Township and the
review agencies can be satisfied.
r~ola
!7
Oli12i00 WED 22:57 FA% 7054352628 DARLING,SMITH.McLEAN C{7j020
t + k
spa .
• 6. The proposal is environmentally sound, and the site 1s wall
suited for the use proposed.
7. This development can be adequately serviced.
g. The proposal represents good and desirable development and
the use is compatible with surrounding uses.'
,1,Q~~ Recomsendations
The fallowing recommendations are respectfully submitted:
1. Shat a date for a public meeting for both amendments
be set, and the public meeting held at Council's
earliest opportnnity_
2_ That amendments to both the Sown's Official Plan and
Zaning Sy-law be approved to acco~odata the proposal.
S. That consent applications for the two additional lots
be approved, and,
• 9. That a detailed site plan and related technical
information be prepared and a site plan agreement be
eaecnted and registered.
Respec-'~~t-f-ully submitted
Gib („~z,~r..-e.r.so ..._._,,~
Ron Mi21s, President
Mi1lsPlan Consulting Services
•