Loading...
02 15 2000 PAC Agendas t TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 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 January 17, 2000. 4. Correspondence and Communication None • 5. Deputations 7:00 p.rn. Gold Mountain Springs P-93/99 Concession 10, Part of Lot 3 (Oro) Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning 7:30 p.m. Oro-Medonte Golf Ltd. (Hanninen/Dodson) P-83/99 Concession 2, Part of Lots D and 10 (Oro) Proposed Official Plan Amendment 8:00 p.m. Horseshoe Resort Corporation P- 100 Concession 4, Part of Lot 4 (Oro) Proposed Rezoning & Comprehensive Development Plan 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment l_.I • TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 17, 2000 PRESENT: Sue Grant, Peter Wigham, Paul Marshall, Councillor Ruth Fountain and Mayor Ian Beard STAFF PRESENT: Andria Leigh ABSENT: Deputy Mayor Don Bell, Member Garry Fell 1. Chairman Peter Wigham called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. "DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT." None Declared. 3. Minutes Moved by Susan Grant, seconded by Mayor Ian Beard That the minutes of the meeting of the Township of Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee held on December 14, 1999 be adopted. Carried. 4. Correspondence and Communication None. 5. Deputations 7:00 p.m. Oro-Medonte Golf Ltd. (HanninenlDodson) P-83/99 Concession 2, Part of Lots D and 10 (Oro) Proposed Official Plan Amendment (Verbal Update by Planning Consultant Only) In Attendance: Ron Mills, Planning Consultant for Applicant • Mr. Mills provided a brief update on the status of the application indicating Y • that five background technical studies had been completed and provided to the Township for review. He indicated that he had received preliminary peer review comments from Azimuth Environmental and R.G. Robinson; however that a site plan had not been provided for the final comments to be made on the peer reviews. It is anticipated that the site plan will be completed within the next 10 days and provided to the Township's consultants for further review in an effort to have those comments in time for the February meeting. 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 In Attendance: Robert Spears, Applicant, and Ron Mills, Planning Consultant for the Applicant Ms. Leigh provided a brief overview of the history of the application with respect to the three consent applications which had been previously granted conditionally by the Committee of Adjustment and had been appealed by the applicant on one of the conditions. She explained that the intent of the Official Plan policies was to prohibit additional "back lot" development and therefore the area was inappropriately designated. Mr. Mills provided additional information on behalf of the applicant in regards to his intent with the purchase of the property to create nine residential lots even though there was additional land designated. He indicated that the applicant had agreed to only request two additional lots and would redesignate the remainder of the lands if these two lots were approved. There was discussion by the Committee in regards to the policies of the Official Plan and their concern about the impact of this application and the non- conformity with the intent of the Official Plan policies. Moved by Susan Grant, seconded by Councillor Ruth Fountain "It is recommended that Development Application P-97/99 a proposed Official Plan Amendment not proceed as proposed by the applicant. It is recommended that the application proceed to a Public Meeting in accordance with the Planning Act for the rezoning of the three residential lots conditionally granted by consent and for the redesignation of the remainder of the Shoreline designated lands." • ...Carried. 7:40 p.m. Joseph and Ana Stanesic P-96!99 Concession 4, Part of Lot 6 (Oro) Proposed Official Plan Amendment In Attendance: Joseph and Ana Stanesic and son, Applicants Ms. Leigh provided an update of this application indicating that the applicant had provided a second proposal for the Committee to consider in a letter dated December 21, 1999. The second proposal would be for two rural residential lots along the Bass Lake Side Road each being 1 acre in size and the remaining 28 acres would be utilized for seasonal trailer use. Ms. Leigh indicated that the second proposal does not conform with the intent of the Official Plan policies and that additional justification would have been required to consider such an application for the seasonal trailers. The two proposed residential lots would also not comply with the policies for development by consent in the Rural designation. Mr. Stanesic provided additional background information to the Committee indicating that he had appealed the Official Plan Amendment #5 (Edgar Occupational Centre) because it was allowing development on a neighbouring ® property but would not allow development on his property. He indicated that all services would be available to the site and that he had people asking him to be able to build homes on the property. He indicated that there were no additional lots in Horseshoe Valley and there was a demand for additional homes in the area. The Committee clarified that in fact the applicant was talking about servicing the property by either by communal well or would look to extend the Horseshoe Valley water system. It was further determined that the applicant was indicating that the gas pipeline from the Horse Valley area would be extended to service these lots. Moved by Paul Marshall, seconded by Susan Grant "It is recommended that Development Application P-96/99 a proposed Official Plan Amendment be denied as it does not conform with the relevant policies." ...Carried. 6. Other Business Next meeting is Tuesday February 15, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. tentatively scheduled on the agenda to date are: (a) Oro-Medonte Golf Ltd. (Hanninenl Dodson) P-83/99 (b) Gold Mountain Springs P-93/99 7. Adjournment Moved by Mayor Ian Beard, seconded by Susan Grant That this meeting now adjourn at 8:45 p.m. Carried. • Peter Wigham, Chairman Andria Leigh, Planner 17857343585 02~10~90 19 31 $ 1 705 734 3565 MILLBPLRN u P.01 E'ROM: ?iillsPlan Consulting 5exviaes, ALLISTON //~~ ~'ax ~: {705) 435-1037 ( ) ( ) _ ( ) - ( ) - Date • File or Pra~ect: Number of pages: Comments: ~Ca f!J"L ~pG "T _ pages [ ) Originals will be mailed ['`j Originals w111 not be mailed Mi1lsPlan Consulting Services $ox 207, 22 Church Street 5., ALLISTON, Ontario. L9R 1V5 ~/ c-~-- I Phone (705) 935.62b7 C 02~10~00 19:31 $ 1 705 734 3585 MI LLSPLRN lR1119Pian Consulting Services Roz X07, 22 Ghurch Street S. 1~LLISK'ON. Ontario L9R IY5 (705) 435-6267 flax: 935-1037 P.02 February 10, 2000 • • To; Attdrla Leigh, Planner Township of Oro--Madonta S1>b~®ct: ~ This is to confirm that it is not acceptable to mY clients !that their proposal be put over to a future meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee. They would like it dealt with next Tuesday evening, As you know, I will be in attendance at that meetl;ng on other business, so I will be in attendance to speak to it, I am happy to limit my dl.scusslon of the matter to the two questions at hand, as follows: i. Is a Plan of Subdivision necessar~i'? 1 was pleased to hear your answer to this question, as posed by the mayor during my presentation to Committee of the Whole on Wednesday. T agree with you. when the off-site services required to accommodate development are already in place, as they are in this instance, a plan of subdivision is not required. 1 indicated further that any reasonable condition or requirement which could be Imposed as a condition of approval of a plan o! subdivision can, in this instance, also just as appropriately a»d effectively be imposed as a condition of a severance. The Committee of Ad~ustmont has already required a number of reasonable conditions relating to the first three consents; which can also be applied to the two additional lots we would propose to create. In this circumstance, our request for relief from the thre$ lot maximum outlined 1n the "Shorelin©" policies of the pfficl8~l P~~In is reasonable and appropriate. No particular purpose is sezwed by requiring us to proceed by way of a plan of subdivision Por the two additional lots. ~ 02i10i00 19:32 $ 1 705 734 3585 MILLSPLRN P.03 • You have also advised me that the Township has, on some previousi occasions, allowed more than three lots to be created by severance. You indicated that, in those cases, the add itlonal lots represented the extent or limit. to which development could bccu~ on thane properties. In this instance, the requirement to undesignate the balance of the lands puts us in exactly th© same position. 2, Can front,~8~__RllL~~~s _to_.the _shar_@l1 The Township chose to designate these lands "Shorellrle", despit6 the fact the designated lands are not on the shoreline. Apparently, the designation was removed, than restored through a Ministez's modification. The Township would have had to agree t4 putting it back in place. The designation of the land, and the policies of the Plan ~Phieh deal with its development are somewhat inconsistent, in that there 1s enough road frontage and land area here for some 12 lots, but no frontage on the shoreline, despite a policy requiring that lots developed by plan of subdi.vlsion must have botYi access to and frontage on the shoreline. Such a requirement could not, in this particular case, be mst for • spy of the lands designated "Shoreline". To designate lands far development, then create and than try to apply a policy which cannot possibly be satisfied does not seam to us to be appropriate, Can a policy that clearly cannot be satisfied and which does not apply in this situation now be used by the Township to preYent the reasonable development of lands the Township itself designated for development? Ts it reasonable to suggest that to create three such lots alonc,~ Greenwood Avenue is appropriate, but to create any more would hot be appropriate, given the large area and substantial frontage designated "Shoreline" and the lot size and frontage requlTeRlehts of the "Shoreline Residantlal" zone. Our request far relief from a policy of the Official Plan that has na application to this particular land is not unreasonable; My clients have directed me to request that you review the files pertaining to the planning history of this property as well as the background to the Official P1arI, and consult with the planning consultant who prepared the Plan to determine if 1t was 1n~ended that the Township retain the "Shoreline" designation but prevent the reasonable development of the lands, or whether this wds, in • fact, "a mistake". 02~10~00 19:33 $ 1 705 734 3585 MI LLSPIRN P. 04 • We believe that a plan of subdivision is not necessary to c sate,, five lots at this location. The lots can be created by cons~ht, grzbjeot to appropriate conditions. The policy requiring sac lot'' to have access to and frontage on the lake has no application t6 the subject lands, and it cannot be applied to prevent the further development of the lands by consent. The only purposes of the Official Platt amendment we have applied for (aside from the removal. of the "Shoreline" designation from the balance of the lands}, is to seek relief from these two requirements, so that gust two more lots can be approved, Regar'ds~ G%' c~.~, Ron Mills, MillsFlan c.c. R, and T. Spears u • A y p 5 Z y O ~ ~ a A a a ~ S A S 5 m a c~n~ K A. O S as y Oq ... "CY O N .~D, a ~' N O M OQ N F Z .~ M ~' ~9 ' O - ~ ~ ~' vJ ~\ v ~ N U.. G~ JJ D W Rl ;0 ~ , N o ~ ~ d y ~~~~~~~~ ~~ n~~ ro~ ~'~ a~ M O O O O O O b O O O R inn rn O O cp M H3 N m M O O D fOi O A 5" n N n W p p n `y R N A .~.+ O ~ p O O O `< fA Q. R ~ m 'J O O rn O ~ ;~ y p~ p w N ~'. ~ O to N M ~" ,7 O ~ 5S m N ti ° 5' m ro 's7 ~ o ~ 0 4 ~ ~ o ~ M Q ~ 'o ~ ~e - "' ~S ~+' ~' fD ~' a ~ w '~~++ y V o v v", b ~ w ~~ 5 w a5c .'roams 1 .°, o ~. g ate, E w p, ~. ° a a "~ P O °' o o v,, o' .Q ~ ~, qy m' a KiPw' ~ 5' ° N o o y rn ~ w C ,. '~ P. ~ ~ OO y .~'.. P. a O ~ oC w j .0., m n cOO w~ O y ~~ O ~° ~ ~ y d 5' ~a~~ a ~ ~~' ~~. ~ ~ ~~ ~-n ~ ~ o n I O _ $ O1 ~. rn w E~ w y o y 5, 0.y 5' to w iii, ~ "' coo y H '-~ ... ° ~ 'y~' S.~ ~~ w aa-~ Co ~ ~ ro O ""' w C n 0 "' ro~ O m ~} ~~F'fn y M ~ y N p. ~ ~ S vA O `G ° G b ~'U R ~ ~ M ~ a O w n ~ ° O vo Oo'~ ~' c ^ ^3° ~ ~.~a0 0 m w ~ ry w O ~', P. "~' ... H M ~ ~ ~a'~'c 5 b°n ~ ~ ~C. b ~ °c ~, p ~ rn ~ .. y mam ~o p, ~ d m 2i i-r o C `~~ ° o~~~; `D fD E K `~° a ~s a x E td O ° ro rr' `~ v ~ ~ H o coo m E ~' :j. ~ ~ ~e u u u ~f~. O "c3 w m '~ n M K5 O 0 n w d ro 0 M a' P. ~. h7a w .`1 O ti W N 'O 0 C3 0 a 0 b ,"i. O Oq F • ~~ u '~ ~~ 0 0. O ro O M EO acs' a J I w #. „~) P ` o `~~ ro 1: s> 0 ~' O O O N O O h ti 0 O O ~O Q O h h '~ 0 ~,; 5 d 1 ".t ~1~ t S' ~ ~bpg tiP :: f'\_ ji x P .-~ ~ oo ~ rn cn t~ (y w !-' 0 0 ~ ',D N O b b b b '~ N N 'C N N N '... .-~ 5 O qty ~ b COS '.:M'i .~ vOi v0, ti b in A .°~ W tJ ~--' N "' ~ a r~*, G n n ?~. ~ ~ ti ~ w m O y vMi O O Gr co M O cD O r^J ~ pmyt '~'i ~ tD O cC c~ "~ ~ .. O O ]" O' p~ O .T' O ~ O N N K CD °-+-. to ~ P= O N M~ 'M. C ^ N N any n O (y~y-p. m C ~ii nC O N ~ ~ m N O ,.y ~ ~ ~ r~,~. CD lC ~„~ O (9 M O CG m• n• ry C3 ~ o' ~,' ~ a. o ~. _ ~' :; ~ ~ o ~ can „~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, F 3 ., ~ rn ° a 3 ~ ry9 •~ ~y o. ~ o ~c ~ o o- `(gyp H R J '-CT' ~ ^ ~ ~ y' in• ~-h ~ N .`3 ~, J ~ b ~ N ~ ~ ~ c~D O A. ~ p N .~ ~ r o~ ~ a '~ 1 0 C ~ \ p ~ N .v y ['" N O, O. \V\_? ~, N' yl 2. ~ vOi ~ N m ~ y vOi vOi ~ ~ ~ GK. s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~~a '~ ~ ~ :P O ° ~ ~o c`~o 3 o rn N Z '-n Z Z Z ~" o• ~' a. -~ ~ J o~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~, y ~ ~ ° ~. o. B ~ ~ ~ y~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ O ~ M ~ w M o ~ ~ ° ~' ~ ~ ~ b 0 ~u U O 5 x b' `~ O 0 A. O O k ti 0 0 0 O Q s~ h h 0 ,_>,, ~~ . ;,:~ . . ~: n u ~y S ~: b ~{ a';. :, ~'~ 1~ P L ~i GC 5. ~~ ', hrt`t. „ tl~F,- x"- ~. 'fix iz 1 C ~ }~ $'.3 ~' F E Y k. 2. -. ~a~ ;,~,. ~,-~. 1. w ~ b~ O A W N ~ y o' `'`' m ~ 'a ~ a ° ~ a < x w ~ ~ •o ec ~ A. ~ ~' ~' o ° ~' rn ~' 'L3 ~ a ~:, ~ p ~':'° ry by "° ~. !C!yy o- ~- o E '~ ° '~ a ~ C y cCn 4~ a ~ e1r" ~ ~ ~ ~1.' ~` w ~" ~_ ~ ° F. ~ .y w ~ (D ~. CD C y ~ 'LS ~-{ ~ "' 'a' 5 ~ fp ~~ ~' tC ° w '~ n ti ~ t3. ~ O O p, O a 'S3 N ~ .. i A ~ ~ fi ~ y ~ v ~ O ~ ~ oho' ~ ~ ~ ~ m a~ ~. ~ -Oi rn o ~j ^':.~T' g'^ O "~3' N ° 'r7 OQ N rte. ~' ~ p,; w N• fD p O R '.T' "a "'LSCS ... ~ w ~ "6 ~ .''~ ~ N 'O ~. ~G ~ ~ P • ~ '~ '.3a (moo vii ~ y ._~ a o i b ~ ~, w w~ :°, '° o rn wo c°o a m e g 'c ~ ~ S' ~ 'o ~ ° b ~ a co w y• ~ ~ °' N ° `~°~ w c~'u rn ~ 5 y p4 S ~ Q, w N ~ ~N,i R. ~. M O• N ,~ ~ U~ O ~ O" Oo~ ~ ~; ~•O~ ~00co anti a^. Sc ~' ~. `~~° ,.. ~ a ~ ~, w 'ts 5~ o co m a' o .-. ~ w ro ~ m~ ~~ F n' ~ a '~ ~ o° a rn o w w o o ao ~ ° ~ ~. w ° ,.i ~ n ~ b R R d~ 'O ~Z` P, r. O A b y ,~, ~~ O ~, 2y <~ y d C b A rn ~' '~.. ~. w ~+ y w M ~ ~ Fn h p. ~ ~ a b o' 0 0 b 0 5 ~~ 0 0 0 b O 0 k ti 0 O O O 0 h h 0 ' °o w I N Oi O o° w 1 O O r c~ C~ ~c ti ti ti 0 w i w S 0 A I °w m °o J o w :: ~ ° ` w o i -~ I i .. N A i ~__.. a l~ 00 ~ W O ~~+' W I O~ ~ O p p ( O 0~ 0 u ° i w A O o ~ ° ~ w w A O O O ~ ~ rn ~~ u y< $ ~ ~ w as c ° ~ w ~" '~ °o ti ~~ ~, ~.y °o w ° o L/wt~ $ o° A I w 0 0 i I 0 tOS80-Ot0 ,~ ~~ I OOS80-O10 I ~ I ~~~ 00554` ° ° OOLBO- w c°.~ °o o w w i' ~ ° I i°,, o 0 0° o A 00880-Ot0 ° H ~ w o °w o A o ° O J p ~ N ({~ O ° ~ O r n r~ ? r 00980-Ot0 r 11~ 00 ~ OD ~~ R1 c ~• ~ o° c ti, ti w 'IU ti ti w ~ ~, ~, o O o o ~ 0 0 0 0 w g I I OOL60-Oto o a o rn u `°° `o° oN o o ~ g w w otsso-oto g o ° 0 ~ ~ U 00960-O10 N p O 0 °+~ 00 40-400 OOOOL-Ot0 A ° ° 00 tr0-tr0 0_ O ° ° 00660-010 i 40-40 OOLZt-Ot0 ~~ o ---- - - ° ~~ 7~~ X35 3~Sv - ~ 7os 83~ 33`J ! `,?~ 7z f3 +r - a~z .y rr v xw ® n.1 »af W6 ~C \ i -mrA ' r~6~i Q""~ wur 1 1 ~ d ~ i I ~ N A(lya x~yY¢ 17611# O Ml • ~ _ i4fCi f U '1 „. rIIfY^6I.` I ~ W~ F o I 1 ~tR ~a~ 6 ~r 1~ PKCMR 11!~~tA.~-1 1.. Wrt ~y 1{r w1l ~1~~" iH~ i Ys wwe Y10w II /a %4! Hl8 ~~ nas-is :1K.1Mr v ~~~ _. b, lal8, ~,y ~1y,1 ~1~ . 1~.'/0.,.a. l3..0.. ware .wr.+rwawvn.•ce6vw r.wmw.wll.cwc>.11>.uarvl6ow f "---"T ~ .It~uuauAlwu- ~i:N ioeMtS ` OtolM +T•t~m .~.vC (vQtS gu~Ci i.tJ ~llSF/<.,at^,%,C ` itott ~.w-S ,`•~.• Mppp~ 1785'7343585 02~i0%r~0 19:31 $ 1705 734 35A5 MILLSPLRN P.01 FROM: IiillsPltzn Consulting Services, ALLISTON ,/ Fax ~-: (705) 435--1037 ( } ( ) _ _-_ - ( ) - ( ) Date . File or Pro7act: Number a~ pages: Comments: CJ /O "L [_p G /' ~~-zC...a.--s -o f( _ pages [ ) Originals will be mailed (~j Originals will not be mailed MilisPinn Consulting Services box 207, 22 Church Street 5., ALLZSTON, Ontario, L9R 1V5 L/ l--dam'-- ' ', Phone [705) 935-6267 6219%90 19:31 S 1 795 734 3585 MILLBPLgN • MillaPlan Consulting Services Box '.~09, 22 Church Street S. ALLTS70N. Ontario L9R 1V5 (705) 435-62b7 Fax: 935-1037 P.02 February i0, 2000 To: Andria Leigh, Planner Township of Oro-Medante Sub~act: ,,R This is to confirm that it is not acceptable to mY clients ''that their prapasal be put over to a future meeting of the Planning Advisary Committee. They would like it dealt with next Tuesday ovening. As you know, Z will be in attendance at that [Heating on other business, so I will be in attendance to speak to it. I am happy to limit my discussian of the matter to the two questions at hand, as follows: • 1. Is a Plan of Subdivision necessary?') I was pleased to hear your answer to this question, as posed by the mayor during my presentation to Committee of the Whole on Wednesday. Z agree with you. When the off-site services required to accommodate development are already in place, as they are in this instance, a plan of subdivision is not required. I indicated further that any reasonable condition or requirement which could be imposed as a condition of approval of a plats of subdivision can, in this instance, also just as appropr1at81y acid effectively ba imposed as a condition of a severance, The Cottmlttee of Ad~ustmant has already required a number of reasonable conditions relating to the first three consents; which can also be applied to the two additional lots we would pr©pose to create, In this cixcumstance, our request for ral.iaf from the thre6 lot maximum outlined in the "Shoralin©" policies of the pffici~l Plan is reasonable and appropriate. No particular purpose is sewed by requiring us to proceed by way of a plan of subdivision Par the . two additional lots, F3 "L~10 ~4~6 19:32 $ 1 7a5 '34 3585 MIlLSPLRN P.03 • Yau have also advised me that tt7e Township has, on some previous! occasions, allowed more than three lots to be created by severance. You indicated that, in those cases, the additiociaa 10'ts represented the extent or limit. to which development could occur on these properties. In this instance, the requirement to undesignate the balance of the lands puts us 1n exactly th© same position, 2. Can front~gfl_ QC1Lac~~s to_the _shozal~ The Township chose to designate these lands "Shoreline", despite the fact the designated lands are not ors the shoreline. Apparently, the designation was rerraved, than restored through a Minister's modification. The Township would have had to agree to putting it back in place. The designation of the land, and the policies of the Plan iPhich deal with its development are somewhat inconsistent, in that there 1s enough road frontage a.nd land area bare for some 12 lotii, but no frontage on the shoreline, despite a policy requiring that lots developed by plan of subdivision must have bath access to and frontage on the shoreline. • Such a requirement could not, in this particular case, be mgt for ~y of the lands designated "Shoreline". To designate lands for development, then create and th®n try to apply a policy which cannot possibly be satisfied does not seam to us to be appropriate. C'.an a policy that clearly cannot be satisfied and which does not apply in this situation now be used by the Township to prevent the reasonable development of lands the Township itself designated for development? Xs it reasonable to suggest that to create three such lots along Greenwood Avenue is appropriate, but to create any more would not ba appropriate, given the large area and substantial frontage designated "Shoreline" and the lot size and frontage requirements of the "Shoreiine Resldontial" zone. Our request for relief from a policy of the Official Plan that has no application to this particular land is not unreasonable: My clients have directed me to request that you review the files pertaining to the planning history of this property as well as the background to the Official Plari, and consult with the planning consultant who prepared the Plan to determine if it was intended that the Township retain the "Shoreline" designation but prevent the roasonable development of the lands, or whether this was, 1n fact, "a mistake". 0"L-10-'00 19:33 S 1 705 734 3sgs MI LLSPLPN P.04 • We believe that a plan of subdivision is not necessary to cfeate five lots at this location. Tha lots can be created by Cons9ht, subject to appropriate conditions. The policy requiring each lot to have access to and frontage on the lake has no application to. the subject lands, and it cannot be applied to prevent the further development of the lands by consent. The only purposes of the Official Plan amendr~nt we have applied for (aside from the removal. of the "5horalina" designation from the balance of the lands), is to seek relief from these two requirements, so that just two more lots can be approved, Regards Ron Mills, MillsPlan c.c. R. and T. Spears