02 11 1999 C of A AgendaCommittee of Adjustment
Planning Report
February 11, 1999
u
Modco
B-36/98 - 8-46/98
Conc. 7, Part of Lot 2 (former Oro)
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing to sever eleven vacant lots to be used for residential purposes and
to retain a vacant parcel of land also to be used for residential purposes. The lots would
front onto Line 6 N and would have the following frontages and lot areas:
Lot 1 64 m (210 ft} of frontage, 8,848 sq. m (2.2 ac) of lot area
Lot 2 118 m (387 ft) of frontage, 8,453 sq. m (2.1 ac) of lot area
Lot 3 31 m (102 ft) of frontage, 2,449 sq. m (0.6 ac) of lot area
Lot 4 31 m (102 ft) of frontage, 2,449 sq. m (0.6 ac) of lot azea
Lot 5 31 m (102 ft) of frontage, 2,449 sq. m (0.6 ac) of lot area
Lot 6 31 m (102 ft) of frontage, 2,449 sq. m (0.6 ac) of lot azea
Lot 7 31 m (102 ft) of frontage, 2,449 sq. m (0.6 ac) of lot area
Lot 8 33 m (108 ft) of frontage, 2,607 sq. m (0.64 ac) of lot area
Lot 9 60 m (200 ft) of frontage, 4,740 sq. m (1.17 ac) of lot area
Lot 10 60 m (200 ft) of frontage, 4,740 sq. m (1.17 ac) of lot azea
Lot 11 49.5 m (162 ft) of frontage, 3,910.5 sq. m (1 ac) of lot azea
Lot 12 76.2 m (250 ft) of frontage, 6,020 sq. m (1.5 ac) of lot azea
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Residential
Residential One (Rl)
Planning Department Comments
Background
The applicant is proposing to sever a total of 11 residential lots with one retained lot for a
total of 12 residential lots.
• Official Plan
The subject property is designated Residential in the Official Plan. The intent of the
residential designation is to promote the consolidation of residential development within
existing development nodes; the Sugarbush settlement area is classed as a development
node where the subject property is located.
Section E2.4 addresses the Sugazbush node and requires that all new development must
be connected to the municipal water system and must be approved for a private septic
system by the Health Unit. Confirmation is still required from the Manager of Public
Works regazding connection to the municipal water system and favourable comments aze
required from the Health Unit regazding the septic system.
Zoning By-law
The subject lands are zoned Residential One (Rl) in By-law 97-95. In accordance with
the appplicant's sketch all lots meet the minimum zone requirements.
Verification is required from the applicant as to the ownership of Block 104. The
Township records indicate this pazcel is owned by the Township and the applicant will
have to provide the Committee with a deed of transfer showing ownership.
• The application also shows the untravelled road allowance (6"') as part of the application.
This road allowance is still currently owned by the Township. The applicant has asked to
purchase this from the Township and this request is currently being processed. In
accordance with the Municipal Act the adjacent landowners are first offered half the road
allowance which abuts their property. Until this final determination of the road allowance
is made the application should be deferred.
Recommendation
That applications B36/98 - B46/98 be deferred until a determination is made on the
amount of road allowance to be purchased by the applicant.
Decision
Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Dave Edwards
" That the Committee hereby DEFER Applications B-36/98 to B-46/98 until a
determination has been made on the sale of the township lands.
.....Carried.
i
2
. APPLICATION B-36!98 - B-46/98
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Ken Robbins seconded by Allan Johnson
" That the Committee hereby DEFER Applications B-36/98 to B-46/98. To receive
clarification on issues raised at the hearing.
.....Carried.
Note: The County of Simcoe has a by-law that includes setbacks for structures and
buildings from County Roads.
Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the
Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 County Road 27 South in Oro
Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m..
•
3
~ ~..
t6 CJ 1~
1
f y~
f3i_J:K ~3~'~ ~4~V,i y~'161
~DOpS
. HJP~N
PI
-, \ s1 e
~ ~
~ ~ i ±~.^
~ i P.9
\ !10I 1
~~ r
lib '. ti,i m
16 r = e
i / / ~L^ N
C 17.8
~ ,.-~,
~7T i~ p
`, c
/\ 126 \ t •.
~(
~¢e~ ~ ~. k
,za ~ ~ 1 ~
FI
al
w
u
W
I- (.n
U! ~°
W
c .~
ee, ~
• i a
r
~~~ ~ ~ ~I'
ea''r~
/~Q~~~[
M' r
' r/ 31_b CK -~ i~
/ - 'R-
h i
/ - °_ 9 ~_
Get c6 +
~, ^ / , ~
/ - ~: ~
., , 1
,~
rL,
_--
- /~ 1
a
~ fi ,~'
/ J ~1 ~ ,t Y
_' -za
__ _ ~\ r~
/y wis S
~` ~ jj `
. .a
01 ~"'~~
:~~~
u.
Vl
W
Ce
Y-[~: ~
7
- PART
\ _7
` ,;
. 3 j---... 96 ~ fiLJ:K
z ° ~ _~ - ~ PAF.T B 1
i ~ I I 6c /
~i~~- i
R , ` 9A
o hI i
63 I 62
'~ I CNEARY TRAIL
m nnnue nu [_~=>~
[.m i.
:~ m ~,
I
' ----
s
_.i 1
[. C ~ ^, Ali ~
's4 m
q ~-_ _
is ~+
5" I
"; ~ I m ~
~ '
~1
f r[ ~ tiu
e rurt ar
u
A Mllf 0[ •
.oz
`fir a ',,. -'
~~ ~ " ~
,
Ua P
~
e ` y ----- ~:
- _ ~
m ,
iA.~_
PAfiT o lie `~ e
\ r e
JT :OIV_ _k ls'
~
_
_-
.V ~ ~, Qr
1- ~ SUGARBUSH~ ~ BROAD
n munem .+ vraui
• ~-: PART !p -
. ,~ (,r ~ _ ?7_'-' -_ ~a ^~o cn[o s ww~isi ["i'u e.c.
xe•
o- - e. .erw.eer : exi
~ ~, 7- PART II -_'
i ~~ r`~'s';'
r /~3' ' '
a ~~ % d
r
^~ i ~~
• SuG,ARQuSi-I /~
~-
.- tis,
r „ -~„
•
,~4s
Q~
~ °~
z
~,~; ~ .!
.~+,
~"~„~ ~ ..,,6
~~ ~~
e. '/
~ ~ '€
P
'^ i
/Sy a 1 '
~ _-.-
----
0 9 ~ l
i ' ~ ;
'~.CKORY LANE
p, ¢i
i ~ a z: ii
t ~
~ 3
1
O
...
9 ,f ... ~/~ r ~~
l r° z
~ ~ ____
j ~ Z q ~
r
i a` ~
. 'TO SE VEft
4 '~' ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ .."° ~ I i LOT S
Q
~ N ~....
t e
d ~ j ~Tj~
d ~ ~ Ii~~~ w SEE MAP
ATTAINED
V `I -' DETAIL
•s a v1 ~ ~ I on.. ~ ~ '.
.,,,.b ~ ~ ~_~
/ ~~
.. ,.
'a /~ , as 4 z e a s
4 ~~ ~.. g a
2v/ 9 ~ ~ 0<
lI
• Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
January 11, 1999
Markus and Sonja Schneider
A-1/99
Conc. 7, Part of Lot 1 (farmer Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the exterior side yard setback requirement of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet)
to 0.89 metres (2.9 feet) at the southeast corner of a frame drive shed and to 0.85 metres
(2.8 feet) at the northeast corner of a frame drive shed in order to recognize this existing
accessory building.
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Rural
Zoning By-law: Agricultural/Rural (A/RU)
Comments
• Roads Superintendent: Future road construction will require the existing 66 foot
right of way to be cleazed and could possibly need road
widening
Health Unit: No Objection
Planning Department Comments
Background
The applicant has requested a variance to the exterior side yazd requirement to recognize a
frame drive shed which was constructed in 1998.
1. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. The general intent of the
policies is to preserve and promote the rural chazacter of the Township and maintain the
open countryside. The variance as proposed does generally conform with the policies of
this Plan.
•
• 2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-taw?
The subject property is zoned AgriculturaURural (A/RU) in By-law 97-95. The intent of
the Zoning By-law is to establish setback requirements in order to maintain the chazacter
of the agriculturallrural area. The frame drive shed was constructed in 1998 without a
building permit first being obtained. Based on the layout of the property the drive shed
abuts the exterior side yard which is intended to have a larger setback due to the adjoining
road. The requested variance is a reduction of 21.6 feet from the 24.6 foot requirement;
this is not considered to conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
Upon site inspection it is evident that the drive shed is an open structure and constructed
on posts. It would appear on this basis that the structure could be moved to more
appropriately comply with the exterior side yard setback requirement. The variance
requested in not considered appropriate for the development of the property.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is not deemed to be minor on the basis that the reduction in the requirement
is significant and will impact on the chazacter of the area.
• February 3 1999 Planning comments
A further site inspection has been completed of the drive shed, its location and the
structural details. The posts supporting the structure would appeaz to be spaced 14 feet
apart. If the roof was removed over the bay closest to Line 7 the structure would be >.15
metres (16.9 feet) instead of the required 7.5 metres (24.6 feet). This proposed setback
would keep the drive shed essentially in line with the existing log gazage.
Recommendation
That application Al/99 be approved only if amended to a more appropriate setback,
keeping in line with the log gazage.
•
2
• Moved by Ken Robbins, seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby GRANT Minor Variance as amended to 4.84 metres (15.9
feet) Application A-1/99 subject to the following conditions:
1. That a sketch of survey/real property report prepazed by an Ontario Land Surveyor be
submitted to the Township once the construction reached grade level;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as
submitted;
3. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the application, in writing;
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte.
....Carried."
•
•
3
-~- r
s! ' o
00-LO"'OLO
~ r c~
z o0
ti g ~
ti
~ ~I ti
SOC80-Ot0
0
t0480"Ot0 p
b
A
0
a
m
a
i
00580-OtO
{7'~'
^`
•
r-~ O
\ rn
I g ~,
g g
S 4
p tlQ
$
N .+
8
O
~_
8
0
v
~n ~
oq 04
r
~z
~~
' ~ Opgpp-OLO O O
8 N
~ ~ O_
~ $
S
O
~ o
G
0 > OOggO-Ot0 r n r C')
D r rte pq D4
D m OD y2
~
c
ti ti
S
w '
~ '~ ~
~;, ''~ o
'a
" ~ o
$ OOLSp.-Ot0 ~ $ g
0
Ot960-O1
OOggp-Ot0
DO QOOOt-Ot0
O O
O_ O ~
Opgdp-Ot0 O
~
0
O
S ~+
O
°o
t-Yt o
Q
4Q
~ Z
^
t0
QO~Tit-
MMII ~I~~I~ ~~
• Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
February 11, 1999
AI and Gail Farrell
A-2/99
Conc. 8, Lots 4 and S (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the front yard setback requirement of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to 2
metres (6.5 feet) to replace the existing cottage with a new single detached dwelling.
Policv
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
• Health Unit:
Shoreline
Shoreline Residential (SR)
No Concern
No Objection
Planning Department Comments
1. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. The general intent of
the policies is to preserve the character of the shoreline residential area and protect the
natural features of the shoreline. The variance as proposed would actually move the
dwelling further away from Lake Simcoe, there by improving the protection of the
shoreline.
2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) in By-law 97-95. The intent of
the Zoning By-law is to establish setback requirements in order to maintain the character
of the shoreline azea. Bazbaza Avenue is considered the front yazd on this property for
zoning purposes and as such requires a lazger setback. As the property is at the end of the
road allowance and the new dwelling will be maintaining the setback of the existing
C
1
• dwelling. The variance is considered to conform with the general intent of the zoning by-
law.
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
Upon site inspection it is evident that the house is being designed and located on the lot in
order to protect a cluster of mature trees. The new dwelling will be larger than the
existing cottage but is only a single storey. The variance is considered appropriate for the
development of the lot.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is deemed to be minor on the basis that the existing structure is also located
at this setback distance from Barbara Avenue.
Recommendation
It is recornmended that application A-2/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions
of approval.
Decision
. Moved by Alan Martin, seconded by Dave Edwards
" That the Committee hereby grant the minor variance application A-2/99 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That a sketch of surveylreal property report by an Ontario Land Surveyor be
submitted to the Township once the construction reached grade level;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application, as submitted;
3. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the application, in
writing;
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief
Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and
binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte.
.....carved"
2
.. -< ~~~
~ ~
-
i ~ ' ~ ~~` ~~a-I-..,
~~ ~ G7 ~'
~ ~'.c~-f
r
~
-j
~ ,
Ps {
~
~
i-
`~
~ ~ J
_ _
_ _ __ 1_~
~.~, KE`/IEW AVE.
i
aoe="'~ OJ
_~~ ~
D
m....~ D
r~~~
~~ i~ rn
3I i~
I
.I
~ ~`~-''
~ ~ ,,° ~
i~
I~
,;
~~~
as-.eom ~ ~+ ~ - -~'' - - ~~ - - - -~i °°g~e
LOT-~Q10nq' e z ~r 3. ~ _ !.
~ °°°'"'°° -~ T ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ I °j I ~ 1, ~ Fes,
~I
~I
~i
a~ c ~ i
4rl ~ 4sl ~ I~ ~ I I ~ $ ~ I~ ~ $ ~~
~r
~ I < I !-'~
m
~~ Kn
I~~ r'f~
~ ~~ I~
I ~ ~I
~' ~
(
s ~~ l a i io
I I n I
~
s: )
J ~~~ ~~pp ~ ~...Jyypp
I g
E I ~ ~ ~~
~~ 8''~;~
I ,~ ,~
Ji
~~ f f.
i
ly U I y4
i~f~4001 p Jll~~~
I! G O
O=:T~ ~
I ~ I L ~_~
L---_
s,
ice';
as-am°° ~a.1
CENTRE
as-saoo ~a,-'
~,
GI
~I S.
I
~KESNpE
~ ~I '! €
~ , _ T, ,~
y J
if ~~
LP,KE
g$~ ~ ~ ~
E
SU[i7ECT PRoPER~Y
-•
Z
D
m
~'
• Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
February 11,1999
Paul and Maryanne Hennig
A-3199
Range 2. Plan M-295, Lot 20 (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the front yard setback requirement of 8.0 metres (26.2feetj to 2.63
metres (8.62 feet) to permit the construction of a two-car garage addition to the existing
dwelling.
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law: Residential Rural One*82 (RUR*82)
Comments
• Roads Superintendent: Drainage easement must be maintained with no obstruction.
Health Unit: No Objection
Planning Department Comments
1. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Rural Settlement Area in the Official Plan. The
general intent of the policies is to ensure the orderly development of the cotnmunities in
the township. The variance as proposed would not maintain the large openness of the
subdivision.
2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Residential One Exception 82 (RUR*82) in By-law 97-95.
The exception relates to the front and rear yard setbacks, the lot area and the minimum
gross floor area. The general intent of this zone is to establish setback requirements that
maintain the country/estate residential character of the area. The proposed variance as
proposed would significantly reduce the side yazd setback and potentially create a
. precedentfor other properties in the future.
1
• 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
As proposed the variance is not considered appropriate for the development of the
property. Upon site inspection it is evident that the property currently has a one and a
half car gazage. It is also evident that this subdivision is relatively wide open with very
little vegetation buffering. To allow the variance as proposed would establish a precedent
for this subdivision of setbacks more keeping with a small hamlet of small lots and
setbacks. This was certainly not the intent with the subdivision in the past.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance as proposed would not be considered minor in nature; however based on a
review of the site conditions it may be appropriate to permit an additional single car
gazage addition to the existing dwelling. This should be explored with the applicant.
Recommendation
It is recommended that application A-3/99 be denied as requested; but the committee
could consider an alternative which would permit a single car addition.
Decision
• Moved by Dave Edwazds, seconded by Ken Robbins
"That the Committee hereby grant as amended to an interior side yard of 3.23 metres
(10.62 feet) the minor variance application A-3199 subject to the following conditions:
1. That a sketch of surveyireal property report prepazed by an Ontario Land Surveyor be
submitted to the Township once the construction reached grade level;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as
submitted;
3. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the application, in writing;
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes fmal and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte.
• .....Carried.,,
2
Oo-+ - 060
~~
is
~ ~ 3
S ~.
CY y
M
£
?3
~e ` ii I I
4 i
i ~
j ~ g ~ g g
P W V
e a
MARTINE CRESCENT
O
' \ ?
G
00)-106pp
~""'-`~
I
o„_,,,~,
007-10lOt
--~_
-1~,
QP
~,,.~i
$ ! I ~ ~
; §
~ I
1 Q
J
007-11000
G~• ANNWOOD COPSE
,!
J ~
007-10000
~,-~~
•
u
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
February 11,1999
Wilmont Lalonde
A-4/99
Concession 1, Part of Lot 16 (farmer Orillia)
The Proposal
Relief is requested to recognize a 35.7 square metre (384 square foot) storage shed to be located in the front
yard The storage shed would be focated with a front yard setback of approximately 34.4 metres (! /3 feet)
and the single detached dwelling has a front yard setback of 40.5 metres (133 feet)
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Planning Department Comments
Restricted Rural
Agrlcuitural/Rural (ABU)
'`Io concern
No objection
1. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Restricted Rural in the official plan. The general
intent of the designation is to preserve the rural character of the area and discourage
scattered residential development. The variance as proposed would maintain the general
intent of the official plan.
3. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is Zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) in Zoning By-Law 97-95. The
intent of the Zoning By-Law is to establish setbacks to maintain the character of the rural
azea. The proposed variance would recognize a storage shed which has been constructed
approximately 20 feet closer to Line 15 South than the house. The property is a total of
25 acres and the shed would still be a minimum of 110 feet from the concession road.
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
Upon site inspection it is evident that the storage shed is well buffered from the
neighbouring property owners by a substantial amount of mature vegetation. The shed is
located over 100 feet from the house but is still visible from the azea of the house. The
variance as proposed is considered appropriate for the development of the lot because of
the large size of the property and the vegetative buffering from neighbouring properties.
•
• 4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the storage shed is still over
100 feet from Line 15 South.
Recommendation
It is recommended that application A-4/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions
of approval.
Decision
Moved by Alan Martin, seconded by Dave Edwards
" That the Committee hereby grant the minor variance application A-4/99 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That a sketch of survey/real property report by an Ontario Land Surveyor be
submitted to the Township once the construction reached grade level;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application, as submitted;
• 3. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the application, in
writing;
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief
Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and
binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte.
.....carried"
•
_~~----- i-1 '
~~
-v4 it -~
w ---
ti
~~~ ~ I
av ~
o12-tseoo
4 ~ o7z-26300
\/ -^'- o12-otsoa
_ .
» -
D12-022
~~
/I I ? it
I, l ~
I
ON _
nor- s
012-26400
0t2-26400
CON s
~Or 6
6 $u4TK'
• /-
,~12-oa5 pR.PfR+.
~ ~ 072-14101
"'- 012-14100
--i g
--
• _, 012-74000
012-13600
', 012-26501
~ 012-59912
~i 072-39902
----~~
012-26900
CCN_:
~,,r:8
012-4oso7
o12-4t15pp
o1z-4o4ao .a
012-40101.
012-40000
i
CON
-::;i: S
Oil-27000
Ott-27100
~~~
Committee of Adjustment
• Planning Repor[
February11,1999
Robert and Lorna Meiszinger
A-5/99
Concession 8. Lot 20 (former Medonte!
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the interior side yard requirements of 2.5 metres (8.2 feet) to 1.49 metres (4.89 feet)
to recognize an existing single detached dwelling.
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Rural Residential
Rural Residential Two (RUR2)
Planning Department Comments
• 1. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Rural Residential in the official plan. The general
intent of the Official Plan is to recognize the existing chalet residential development in
the township. This variance would recognize an addition constructed in 1986.
2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-taw?
The subject property is Zoned Rural Residential Two in By-Law 97-95. The general
intent of the By-Law is to establish the appropriate setback requirements for residential
subdivisions. As this is an existing residence it is deemed to generally comply with the
zoning By-Law.
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
In 1986 a building permit was issued for an accessory building (detached gazage) this is
further confirmed on the health unit approval in 1986 for a detached garage. At some
point after the permit was issued the garage was attached to the house with an addition.
No additional permit was obtained and no revisions was made to the 1986 permit. The
current owner purchased the property in 1995 but an up to date survey was not completed
until this yeaz. The structure as shown on the survey has been in existence for a period of
more than 10 yeazs and there would not appear to be any benefit in removing the
addition.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that this is an existing structure
which is some what buffered from the adjoining neighbour.
Recommendation
That application A-5199 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval.
Decision
Moved by Dave Edwazds, seconded by Ken Robbins
"That the Committee hereby grant as amended to an interior side yard of 3.23 metres
(10.62 feet) the minor variance application A-5/99 subject to the following conditions:
That a sketch of survey/real property report prepazed by an Ontario Land Surveyor be
submitted to the Township once the construction reached grade level;
2. That the setbacks be in confomuty with the dimensions as set out in the application, as
submitted;
• 3. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the application, in writing;
4: That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte.
.....Carried."
n
•,
]ND
4
7YDi
Y37
+i
iJb
..
Q
b ,>
~F
~J
. \
IS
y
~6>
~ %G
/~
<b.
/O~
~~
Y//P~
l1/ ~ v
.A
~'yf
L
. Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
February 11,1999
Paul Sturino
A-6/99
Conn 14, Part of Lot 22 (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the interior side yard requirement of 3.0 metres (9.84 feet) to 2.90
metres (9.50 feet) to permit a 35.67 square metre (384 square foot) addition to an existing
dwelling.
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
. Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Shoreline
Shoreline Residential (SR)
No Concern
No Objection
Planning Department Comments
1. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. The general intent of
the policies is to preserve the character of the shoreline residential azea and protect the
natural features of the shoreline. The variance proposed is to permit the continued
construction of an addition on an existing dwelling on the road side which would not
impact on the shoreline itself.
2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) in By-law 97-95. The intent of
the Zoning By-law is to establish setbacks in order to maintain the chazacter of the
shoreline azea. The proposed variance is for approximately 4 inches and therefore
generally comply with the intent. of the Zoning. By-law.
1
• 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
Upon site inspection it is evident that the proposed addition is well buffered from the
neighbouring progerties by a mature shrub border. The Variance is considered
appropriate for the development due to this buffering which protects the view of the one
storey addition.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance proposed is considered minor in nature on the basis that the request is to
reduce the requirement by 4 inches.
Recommendation
That application A-6199 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval.
Decision
Moved by Alan Martin, seconded by Allan Johnson
" That the Committee hereby grant the minor variance application A-6/99 subject to the
• following conditions:
1. That a sketch of survey/real property report by an Ontario Land Surveyor be
submitted to the Township once the construction reached grade level;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application, as submitted;
3. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the application, in
writing;
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief
Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and
binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13;
5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte.
.....carried"
•
2
~J
O~
1~
Z
O
3
A
g
~.
;w