Loading...
03 11 1999 C of A Agenda Committee of Adjustment Agenda • Thursday March 11th 1999. 10:00 a.m. 1. Communications and Correspondence 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Hearings: 10:00 B-1/99 Peet Con 7, Pt Lot 8(Oro) 10:10 B-2199 Schumacher Con 9, Pt Lots 2 and 3 (Oro) 10:20 B-1/97 Leigh Con 14, Pt Lot 16 and 17 (Orillia) 10:30 B-1/98 Viney • Con 6, Pt Lot 9 (Oro) 10:40 B-3/99 West Oro Baptist Church Con 5, Pt Lot 10 (Oro) 10:50 A-7199 Valleau Con 6, Plan 807,Lot 27 (Oro) 11:00 A-8/99 Cooksley Con 8, Plan 589, Lots 120 and 121 (Oro} 11:10 A-9/99 McCarty Con 14, Pt Lot 2 (Medonte) 11:20 B-36/98 to Modco B-46198 Con 7, Pt Lot 2 (Oro) . 11:30 A-10/99 James and Karla Scott Con 9, Pt Lot 26 (Oro) 5. Decisions • 6. Minutes of February 11, 1999 7. Other business 8. Adjournment LJ • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report March 4,1999 Lennard and Kathryn Helen Peet B-1/99 Conc. 7, Part of Lot 8 (former Medonte) The Proposal As a technical severance and a right of way/easement, the applicants are proposing a conveyance having a lot frontage of 123.44 metres (405 feet) and a lot depth of 32.9 metres (108 feet). Policy Official Plan Designation: Rural Zoning By-law: AgriculturaURural (A/RU) Comments • Roads Superintendent: Health Unit: Planning Department Comments Background The application is for a technical severance for a right of way to a well which is located on the neighbouring property. There is currently a right of way registered on title for this well however when the survey was completed it was determined that the well location was not within the existing registered right of way. Official Plan The subject property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. The intent of this designation is to preserve the character of the rural area. As this application would be adjusting the existing right of way the application is deemed to generally comply with the intent of the Official Plan. 1 • Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) in Zoning By-law 97-95. As no new lot is being proposed the application is deemed to generally conform with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. The Committee should determine why the measurements on the application and the reference plan do not appeaz to be consistent and should ascertain from the applicant which measurements aze correct. Recommendation That application B-1/99 be approved subject to clarification of the exact measurements of the right of way and the standard conditions of approval. Decision Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Alan Martin "That the Committee hereby DEFER Application B-1/99 as per the applicant's request." • .....Carried. • 2 ~~ ~`~ ~~ ~~. i~ ~:~ • • >.. s,,~, a ,~...., _ _ _. .'I~cZia: Y ~o• ~ v_OZO< r- ~ m ~~^-~ -o ' I, ~ ~Oz 1. i m 1 q~" i ~oAn <uoweHCe aerwrere carccs~oks - avo _ • • • • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report March 4, 1999 Estate ofEngelbert Schumacher B-2/99 Conc. 9, Part of Lots 2 and 3 (former Oro) The Proposal The applicant is proposing to create a new lot for residential purposes. The land proposed to be conveyed has a frontage of 161 metres (528 feet), a depth of 280 metres (780 feet), and an area of 4 hectares (9.8 acres). Policy Official Plan Designation: Residential, Environmental Protection One, and Rural Zoning By-law: OS2, EP*78, Rl*75(H), EP*79, EP*76,OS*78 Comments • Roads Superintendent: Health Unit: Planning Department Comments Background The applicant is proposing to sever a 9.8 acre (3.97 ha) residential lot from the remainder of the property which is the subject of a Draft Plan Approved Subdivision. Official Plan The subject property is designated Rural, Environmental Protection One and Residential in the Official Plan. The property is known as the Buffalo Springs Settlement Node within the Horseshoe Valley Road Special Policy area. The proposed severed lot is located within the Rural designation of the Official Plan in accordance with Section E2. The subject property was involved in an Ontario Municipal Board hearing in 1993 at which time the Plan of Subdivision was approved subject to a number of conditions and an Environmental Monitoring process. When the Draft Plan gets registered the proposed 1 • severed lot is automatically created as a separate entity. This application would create this parcel prior to the Draft Plan being registered. It has been the practice of the Municipality to permit the severance of the existing dwelling prior to the registration of the Draft Plan on the basis that the lot would be severed upon registration in any case. Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned Open Space Exception Seventy-Eight (OS*78) in Zoning By-law 97-95. If the severance is considered favourably by the Committee the property will be required to be rezoned to a Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone which requires a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectazes (0.98 acres). The proposed severance exceeds both the minimum lot frontage and lot area requirements; however to reduce the size of the lot would affect the Draft Plan Approval. Recommendation That application B-2/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval and the subject property being rezoned to the appropriate Residential Zone. • Decision Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Ken Robbins "That the Committee hereby GRANT Application B-2/99 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the application, in writing. 2. That the applicant pay to the Municipality the sum of $500 for each lot to be created as "cash-in-lieu of parkland" pursuant to The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13. 3. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary 4. That three copies of deeds be submitted to the Committee Secretary to be stamped using Form 2 as prescribed in the Planning Act. 5. That all Municipal taxes be paid to the Municipality. 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of this notice. 7. That the applicant apply For and obtain a rezoning to the appropriate residential zone." .....Carried. 2 ~ ` i ~~ ~~ .% ii `.; • ~~~/ / ~' TC1~ ''. Q' ,\ ~' ~ crQ, ~ p i~ ~~ ~'. A ~ ~~0 , O O J O 0 ~~\ ` o w ~ o \ ~. ~ • ~ . / / / / / / ~ ~~Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~~O ~~'~`, i ~~ `,~ c3`~ ~ ,-: ~~. ~~ o ~ ,. < ~A ,~ ~~~ \ J " \', ~~ O ~ ~~~ O` ~~ `~ i /r N . ~ .. /~ ~~ ~- T ~A1 r~ ~~ i \ ~+ W ~" ~ ;~A ~ ~ ~ ~ fa ~ - ~~.p c wp o ~ O °o ~. A O ~ ~ A > i o W ~~ ~ ~ O , 0 ~ .~ O < O o 0 ~~ ~ ' W O OAA '1"~ 0 `~ ~ `~ '~ .. 4S ~ .A\ ~ l_~~ ~~~ A A ~~~~ ~~J ~~~ o , O ~~ Op0 , \ O ~\\ O ~ \ ~O ~OO ~ ~ ' .P W ~/ ~ i=; O ~ \ /,l s ' O / / \ A /% ~ l , ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ o O ~ ~ o ; rn o o O ~, ~ ~ , " o ~- o O N ,~ ~` 228 r 21T a.zez~ - e.zau ~ '~± i ,~ , ~ ~ _ _ A BLOCK_ 245 230 229 ° i° 216 ~ A $ £ • .~.. ea~m % fS O _ a.-. n °` i~ ' ~ ~, ;, ~ ~°~ 215 ~ w ~ F ~~~ 6]8]J / -_..~--... ~_ ,~-.a-~ _ _ 19.93 X600 r ^` V1 ~ ~ ~ Z 13 i- BLOCK 244 " :.: „x 2 14 ~; I w~rFy,N-: i _ sae /% /`"~ ^y _ ~ °'8£Y ~ ~~~ / BLOCK 231 t. ~ v~ ! i /~i -. a yC ~_T.G1; ~ ~/ P / ~ ~~~ t_ ._ ' w Z-' ,..-~. t / /~ ~ ~ T( / E - f"NOT -"PAW ~~OF APP ICATION° -_- ~ - N '~ ~ ~ 1 1~ t ~ ~- j~' 1 ~ ~ t' • _ ` i~ ~ W --.-._;-- Q 199 ~ ~~----": 21 esz9z - ~ ~ ~,. ;~ ~ .~ i~--u.::: - -- tp Z _ __r.~' _ LL ~ ~ -_ J~~ ST c - zes ~, t ~ i ~ ~~ ~ ~. a„R FT ro. M 11 ~ ~ i 1 l~ ~~`i'i_ ~~~J ~ I 1 ~ / S 1 _ _ ?3c. I ~`_' ~~ ,/ ~ ~ ~ 2~ ~ 20 1 - 1~~ ~ ae a es>ze ' ~ ~ 2765 :-, 20: 111 1 ~ _ ~ i ~ ~ A a- ~, +' ' ~- ~ ~, _. . l\;~~ _. • _ _~ ~ } ~ ~ BLOCK • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report March 4,1999 Trustees of the Congregation of the West Baptist Church B-3/99 Conc. 5, West Half Part of Lot 10 (Dormer Oro) The Proposal The applicant is proposing to sever residential premises from church premise. Existing use of land being conveyed is parsonage, intended proposed use is residential-single family dwelling. The proposed severed lot would have a minimum lot frontage of 35 metres (115 feet), a lot depth of 60.96 metres (200 feet), and a lot area of 0.21 hectares (0.52 acres). Policy Official Plan Designation: Rural Settlement Area Zoning By-law: Institutional (I) Comments • Roads Superintendent: Health Unit: Planning Department Comments Background The applicants are proposing to sever a parcel of land containing an existing dwelling and will retain a parcel of land containing the church premises. Official Plan The subject property is designated Rural Settlement Area in the Official Plan. The intent of this designation is to ensure the orderly development of the community. The proposed severance would create a new lot within the existing community and as such is deemed to generally conform with the intent of the Official Plan. Section D4.3 indicates the development polices within the Rural Settlement Area. 1 • Section D4.3.1 indicates generally when a Plan of Subdivision is required. As this lot does not extend any services, does not require an extension to a public road and does develop the entire property, is it the opinion of this office that a Plan of Subdivision is not required. On this basis, the Committee is required to review Section D4.3.2. when assessing this application. The subject property fronts onto Line 4 North which is a year round maintained Township road. Favourable comments from the Roads Superintendent are required to ensure subsection B is satisfied. Favourable comments are also required from the Simcoe County Health Unit to satisfy Subsection C, Subsection D and E are not applicable to this application. Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned Institutional (I) in Zoning By-law 97-95. As the applicants are proposing to sever the church residence off the property, a rezoning to Residential One (Rl) will be required as a condition of consent. The proposed residential lot complies with the provisions of the Residential One (Rl) Zone and the church premises comply with the provisions of the Institutional (I) Zone. Recommendation • That application B-3/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval and the residential lot being rezoned to a Residential One (Rl) Zone. Decision Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Ken Robbins "That the Committee hereby GRANT Application B-3/99 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the application, in writing. 2. That the applicant pay to the Municipality the sum of $500 for each lot to be created as "cash-in-lieu of pazkland" pursuant to The Planning Act, R.S.O. 199Q c.P.13. 3. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary 4. That three copies of deeds be submitted to the Committee Secretary to be • stamped using Form 2 as prescribed in the Planning Act. 5. That all Municipal taxes be paid to the Municipality. 2 • 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of this notice. 7. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning from the proposed residential lot." .....Carried. • ~t Cr Ci cry 'II c' PLAN OF SU R~'-Y OF PART OF W.i/2 LOT 10, CONCESSION TOWNSHIP OF ORO COUNTY OF SIMCOE SCALE-i INCH BD FEET PAUL R KITCHEN,OIS.,GL.S. 1984 66.00" ~~) ~ im9°°~ N59°37 EI~MEA5I BI 20000 In Z Q Z (n rn w v z O v Z W w H w m ~~I U (_) z Q (5 J a a O 80.99 ~ O f ~ P_ ~ 1~ U~NOER. ~~Yr 1- BO.SB' CON4Q aa:rr ~I I w ~,:aI,T ~~ i~:1.~.TL Si: AE? ;'35937 AREA = /.936 Acs: I V ., . ~~ q SFi e]zo' ~, (HURON ~i:$ IR!P ~~ 83L2 8 :;15.: IV' 4SG343 Ls. U]90) n \~! t i~ rFJ (~ t r, L 1 MS t3~ /'~ E:~~"G~SI Ef4 O~^Ey IS / '~ ~{Jp~~GAi!'Ir~E~I ,~CLZ'T .vF51"i[IZL~ OI ? ~.. I.s. ~ v]el (TE ~~ ~~ \\~ r ~ ~ ~^J ~ t,~ V 3 ~ LS -V Ls. V039 EEMCE •f+ S.W. CORNER I --LOT IOC CON.3 35.i.B IT3B1 ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN LOTS IO AND II COUNTRY ROAD N° I I LEGEND Le------oENOTT3 • ve-TO. vqx eAq z' L°NC. 4.LB'---OEMOTES A 1"50. 4TLNOAgO IPON BAP A'tOM4. 54.18----DENOTES A ~ 30. YtAMOAPO IPp! BAP 2~ LOM4. • OCMOt E4 YONVNCMT [WMO. BEMI44S APE ASTPO40YIC~OEq rvEO CPOY TMf wE3 tEPLT LIMIT Oi lOi IO~COKE441OM 4 SNOWN A9 ME9'49'20"P ON iLtM SIP-11312. $tk2V EYOR~S CERTIFICATE I C[PT ICY iNAT: 1. TNIS TYgVET PNO IUN AqE COq gEGT A.VO IN ACTOgANOC iNC P[4Ul Atb MS VE OC CTNE PEVNOE ggE413TIfI (, MC SUMET wP5 <OY Pt CTCO OM THE 90ID OAY Of NOY deER ~ 19 BP. DEGEMB ER P_13 B{.- ____L~^''" PAVI 0. N L<XEM ONUg10 L.ENO SJgVETOB GLMAO• tA409 SVPVETOq ~ _~_ _-_ 105 COI t rCR Sr l BSRR.E ~ CI+LLRIO ~. PAUL. R. KITCHEN I t~5->zz o~bl ~~I SURVEYING LTD. R,,,~E I,,L~ pNrnRiO lLNO SCE'+Tr^cS If n~trSt OL+E Cr+i CAN006 lLNpS cURJEY^nG ~ '115 4BI~STOT __ _ _~ _ SCALE ~OAtC pBt O,NiN~nPVI u• I -~ 1 IMCN. PO CCCT NOV<YB[P E1. ~N4 l^ 0-3-10 • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report March 4, 1999 • Modco Conc. 7, Part of Lot 2 (former Oro) B-36/98 - B-46/98 The Proposal The applicant is proposing to sever eleven vacant lots to be used for residential purposes and to retain a vacant pazcel 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 35 m (114.8 ft) of frontage, 6652.48 sq. m (1.64 ac) of lot area Lot 2 107.213 m (351.75 ft) of frontage, 5428.69 sq. m (1.34 ac) of lot area Lot 3 33.5 m (109.9 ft) of frontage, 2012.22 sq. m {0.497 ac) of lot azea Lot 4 33.5 m (109.9 ft) of frontage, 2014.04 sq. m (0.498 ac) of lot azea Lot 5 33.5 m (109.9 ft) of frontage, 2015.$5 sq_ m (0.498 ac) of lot azea Lot 6 33.5 m (109.9 ft) of frontage, 2017.67 sq. m (0.499 ac) of lot area Lot 7 33.5 m (109.9 ft) of frontage, 2019.49 sq. m (0.50 ac) of lot azea Lot 8 34 m (111.55 ft) of frontage, 2051.67 sq. m (0.507 ac) of lot area Lot 9 55 m (180.45 ft) of frontage, 3541.09 sq. m (0.875 ac) of lot azea Lot 10 42.496 m (139.42 ft) of frontage, 3655.76 sq. m (0.90 ac) of lot azea Lot 11 49.904 m (163.72 ft) of frontage, 2736.13 sq. m (0.68 ac) of lot area Policy Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: Comments Residential Residential One (RI) Roads Superintendent: Existing drainage easement must remain Health Unit: No Objection Manager of Public Works: Anew 250 mm (10") watermain will have to be constructed along the 6"' line and hooked into the existing watermain at Cherry Trail and at Sugazbush Road. - Hydrant and valves will have to be installed on the proposed watermain per Township standards. - All Ministry of Environment and Energy approvals and changes to the existing • Certificate of Approval will be the responsibility of the developer. If the Ministry of Environment and Energy require contact time for chlorine between the well and the I~` lot any upgrades will be the responsibility of the developer. - There should be no problem with the addition of the eleven lots to the existing system as far as capacity is concerned. Planning Department Comments (December 10, 1998) 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 Sugarbush 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 regarding the septic system. Zoning By-law The subject lands are zoned Residential One (Rl) in By-law 97-95. In accordance with the applicant'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 parcel 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`h) 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 2 • 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. February 11. 1999 Comments The applicant has confirmed his intent to purchase half of the road allowance and has indicated that all twelve lots can be developed without the need for the entire road allowance. Confirmation by other adjoining landowners regarding purchase of the remainder of the road allowance is required in writing to the Clerk by February 12, 1999. Favorable comments have been received by the Health Unit and conditional approval has been received from the Manager of Public Works related to water connection. The applicant has provided a copy of the title search which shows the transfer of Block 104. A copy of that transfer is required to be provided to the Committee. The Committee should satisfy itself that the proposed design and layout of the properties is acceptable and should discuss this with the applicant. If the application is considered favorably conditions should be included in the decision . regarding: site plan approval, engineered lot grading approval, and all conditions required by the Manager of Public Works and the Roads Superintendent. Until the final status of the entire road allowance is determined the application should continue to be deferred or the Committee should require a revised plan showing only half the road allowance. March 4. 1999 Comments The application was deferred at the February meeting to resolve a number of issued. It has been determined that the applicant will only be purchasing half the road allowance and the applicant has revised his application and sketch accordingly. The legal opinion requested by the Committee has been received and indicates what conditions the Committee has the authority to impose on a Consent application. The proposed lots comply with the minimum lot frontage and area calculations of the Residential One (Rl) Zone. The Committee should satisfy itself as to the proposed design and layout of the proposed lots. The application can be considered favorably subject to conditions indicated in the . February comments including site plan approval, engineered lot grading, connection to the water system, and maintenance of the existing drainage easement. 3 Recommendation That Applications B-36!98 to B-46/98 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval and all other conditions mentioned above. Decision Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Ken Robbins " That the Committee hereby GRANT Applications B-36!98 to B-46/98 subject to the standard conditions of approval 1. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the site, in writing, for installation of asub-surface sewage disposal system; 2. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 3. That a Development Charges Fee be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte in the amount determined by Council as of the date the fee is received by the Township; 4. That the applicant dedicate to the Municipality 5% as a parkland contribution or pay $ 500.00 for each lot to be created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution pursuant to subsection 53(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13; • 5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of this notice as noted below; 7. Submissions of deeds in triplicate for the parcel(s) severed, one copy to be retained by the Municipality; 8. That the deeds be stamped utilizing Form 2, under Section 53(42) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13, without qualification; 9. Approval shall lapse where the conditions have not been fulfilled within one year of being imposed and two years from the date of the certificate if the transaction has not been finalized; 10. That the applicant submit a lot grading drainage plan for the proposed lots which meets with the approval of the Township's Engineer. 11. That the applicant enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the Township of Oro- Medonte to formalize the location of driveways, lot grading and tree retention. 12. That the applicant enter into an agreement with the Municipality which specifies that all costs associated with the retainer of professionals to review studies completed to satisfy conditions of Provisional Consent will be paid by the applicant. 13. That the existing drainage easement be maintained. 14. That all Ministry of Environment and Energy approvals and changes to the existing Certificate of Approval for the water connection are the responsibility of the applicant. And further that any upgrades to the contact time for chlorine between the • existing well and the proposed lots are the responsibility of the applicant. 4 • 15. That all works required for connection to the existing water system be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager of Public Works and to the Township standards. .....Carried. 5 • • ~o~, 3 r, ~~ ago a~ , ~ '~w~ any ~~ --~ ~, o ''°a<~ Imo' ~ i ' z ~= zc 3 ~ , i } ' J,;~ '1 ~ >3 3 ow ~ Y f `~° tip i ~~ i ' m :~ i 'a ~ Z W 1 ~ ~~FZHO¢v'D~nO o i~'~ F ~i{l~i ~ts a~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ i w = ~w i-rr~~-3a- ~ ~ ~ `i~ ~1 ~~iti~t~~zt 3 ~ ~ m w¢¢z¢r-¢ ~ am ° ~ ~ j~ > , inaa Oama=~~~vi °-'a > .4 i12?ve iii:r {~a :~ / ~~ ~~ ! (I r i ? \ ~ L r9 i 5 Ji _ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; J ~ ~~~~%_~~ 'a~•~~: ' d ~+ f ~' :-1 ~ i ~ ~ `- ~ _ ~' °I i r ~ § 4~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~.~ ~_~ ~ ~ ~`- - ~ ~ w~ ° r I ~ x. l @t _~~SI f6 w a' B ~° e, x~ F °Q6J $j ~'~ _ ? ~_;~ s g .~~ w' .o J "`~ `~ _ ~ ~~ ,., ~ ~ ~~, SI g i s ~ ~ > - Z-;~ '~~ r _ = '1 - __ V PJ i °ea i _ ~ a~ ~~a / _ C •{' f FI ", '.. • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report March 4, 1999 Dave Viney B-1/98 Conc. 6, Lot 9 (former Oro) The Proposal The applicant is proposing to sever a portion of land having approx. 179.52 metres (589 ft) of frontage, 152 metres (499 ft) of depth, and 1.531 hectares (3.78 ac) of lot area and to retain a portion of land having approx. 42.5 hectares (105 ac) of lot area. Policy Official Plan Designation: Mineral Aggregate Resource Zoning By-law (Oro): Rural Aggregate (RUl) Zone Zoning By-law (Oro-Medonte): Private Recreational Exception Ninety-Six (PR*96) and Mineral Aggregate Resource Two Exception Ninety- Six (MAR2*96) • The new Zoning By-law is not in effect as a result of outstanding OMB appeals. However, pursuant to an Order issued by the OMB, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, the new Zoning By-law will be deemed to be in effect retroactive to November 5, 1997. Comments Public Works: No concerns Health Unit: No objection Planning Department Comments (Feb 12/98 and March 12/98) Background The applicant has established a lease arrangement with Mr. Kelly Best of Telequip Communications that allows Telequip to use the lands .proposed to be severed as a location for a communications tower. Telequip would like to sever the subject lands to ensure that Telequip maintains long term control of the site. u • Official Plan The new Official Plan designates the property Mineral Aggregate Resources. The purpose of the designation is to preserve such lands for aggregate extraction in the future. Generally, these lands must be preserved for future extraction activities in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement. Section D.5.2 of the new Official Plan states in part, In the Mineral Aggregate Resources designation uses may include agriculture, forestry, passive recreational uses and other similar uses. All other uses of land shall be discouraged until such time as the resource is either substantially depleted or it is shown that it is not feasible to extract. In such cases, an amendment to this Plan to the Agricultural or Rural designation shall be required. The above policy means that incompatible land uses should not be pemutted. The proposed use of the severed lands is not deemed to incompatible with extraction activities. However, the fragmentation of lands within the Mineral Aggregate Resource designation is not recommended since this fragmentation may impact the potential extraction of the resource. In addition, if the use of the property as a telecommunication tower ceases, the lands may be used for residential purposes, which could lead to • compatibility problems in the future. As a result, it is our opinion that the proposed consent would not conform with the Provincial Policy Statement or the Official Plan. Zoning By-law The subject lands are zoned Mineral Aggregate Resource Exception Ninety-Six (MAR2*96) in the Township's new Zoning By-law, anticipated to come into force retroactive to November 5, 1998 by Order of the OMB. The MAR2*96 Zone permits agricultural and rural uses but recognizes lands with aggregate extraction potential. The exception to the zone (*96) prevents the construction of residential dwellings due to the existence of a former landfill in the vicinity ofthe subject lands. Communications towers are subject to Federal regulations which transcend the authority of the Oro-Medonte By-law. Effectively, this means towers and communications infrastructure may locate in any zone, provided the location complies with Federal standards. Other Issues The Township of Oro-Medonte has become a preferred location for several • communications towers serving both private and public sector needs. However, the Township has not permitted the creation of new lots for other towers in the past. It is • submitted that if Telequip wishes to ensure the use of the land for a period of time that the lease be registered on title. Conclusions Applications BI/98 does not conform with the Mineral Aggregate Resource policies or the general severance policies of the Official Plan. Communications towers are subject to Federal jurisdiction. Recommendation That Committee hereby denies application B1/98 as the application does not conform with the policies of the Mineral Aggregate Resource policies or the severance policies of the Official Plan. March 4.1999 In Mazch of 1998 this application for consent was deferred at the applicant's request in order for an Official Plan Amendment to be applied for which would seek to place polices in the Official Plan to permit the creation of new lots for utility purposes. Official Plan Amendment number one was considered favourably by both Council and • the Province and as such a new section D5.3.3 has been added to the Official Plan, A copy of which is attached for the Committee's review with this application. One of the conditions of this application being considered favourably is that a condition be placed in the decision that the property be rezoned to prohibit the use of the property for residential purposes. As the intent of this severance is for the long term use of the subject property by Telequip the prohibition of residential use of the property should not be an issue for the applicant. In reviewing the applicant's sketch it would appear that the size of the lot is minimized to only include the tower itself and the guide cables which would satisfy Subsection A. As this is an existing tower Subsection B is not a relevant factor for consideration. The remainder of the property is utilized by Hazdwood Hills for their cross country ski and mountain bike trails and would not be impacted by this proposed application and would satisfy subsection C. The proposed lot fronts onto Line 6 North which is a year round maintained Township road and the Roads Superintendent has indicated he has no objection to the application. On this basis all the criteria of Section D5.3.3 have been satisfied and the application can • be considered favourably. • Recommendation That application B-1/98 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval and the proposed lot being rezoned to prohibit residential use. Decision Moved by Ken Robbins, seconded by Alan Martin "That the Committee hereby Grant application B-1/98 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the application, in writing. 2. That the applicant pay to the Municipality the sum of $500 for each lot to be created as "cash-in-lieu of parkland" pursuant to The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990,c.P.13. 3. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary 4. That three copies of deeds be submitted to the Committee Secretary to be stamped using Form 2 as prescribed in the Planning Act. • 5. That all Municipal taxes be paid to the Municipality. 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of this notice. 7. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning to prohibit residential use of the proposed lot." .....Carried. U -„R _>c_..'~-RPCSE°_ CF BART CF d _OT 9 CONCESSION 6 --_,=~GRA?F::r 'CWNSFiIP CF CRO ~ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COUNTY OF SIMCOE 1a G9 ~W ~a0 MORES =„^Y VAK S.;RVEY!NG LTD_ .?7 s z z ~~ 2 \i \1 ?ART 1. ALAN 91R-!8Z~6 ~LCi -QLf r T ~ Segal ~ N.E. CCRNER J I ~ _OT 9. ~ m CONCESSION 6 m u a 1 ~ ~ N n N 2 cD Z ,~ /V^I VI W U O ., e. V Z W W I- W m W U Z Q 3 O J J Q Q _.,: Q 3 J O Q Z 2 O S E CCRNER ^, 9. CCNCESSICN 6 ~:9 ',']901 L _JT ~~ --_tCE6 =-~_wN CN '"S R'_AN ARE 'N uETRES ANO CAN I:rau~,~c~ show~~~g ~o~,zr tiCCCS~ipt~ I Ln {~fC~ZC~t{ Wig ~.Q'~pin~ nnAt~(c1~O~' FOin-~ . ~+G~ ~ 3u,~,nc~ pZ'tM. ~ ~ iq2/q~- RUDY MAK SURVEYING LTD. ONTARIO L4ND SURVEYORS ~a Cc_aR =CINTE ;.R!Vc. -~,' a-=E ?ARBI E. ~~TARiC _-.v ~F,7 ;,CGi 'ZZ-x.°.45 PART I, PCAN SIR-iQ2T6 • ~ EAST HALF L07 8 i x/ c0 NE CORNER ~ LOT 9. N e CONCESSION 6 n o ~ g °i N69'O9'SO"E h zo.ao 1 W ~ U ~ ti ~ U ~ 2 A~ 0 Z ^" W a ».T1 . n W Ai 33~E ~ Ql w3y - ~ 3 ~ PART ~ Z 3 O Af,?.u ,J Q a ~ m 'v G ~ ~ °' EC '~ W = • s $ ~ ~ ~ ~ o N~9~ ~ o~ ~ W `` ~ _' Z O ~ r _ N LEGEND ^ DENOTES FDUND SURVEY YONWEN7 ~~p~~~ p~.puxi ^ DENOTES PLANTED SURVEY YONtR1E)tT SE CORNER BEARINGS 99 DEMOTES STANDARD ROM BAR LOT 9. ~~~ 6 'rtSTERLY BERaEEw L M DENOTES IRON 8AR y~ dF SURVEY 5518 DENOTES SIiORT STANDARD IROM 8AR (1]w/ DECEMBER (WT) DENOTES M{iME58. • ~f'-N- pEN0TE5 FENClIG LOT 10 (7390} DENOTES PR. KITCHEN O.LS. N TRI . p/N 7390) pENOTES PLAN Oi SURVEY 8Y P.R. KITCItE)1 615. OISTA~ ~ ~~ DATED DECEMBER -t9. 7973- Committee of Adjustment Planning Report March 4, 1999 Leigh B-1/97 Con. 14, Part Lots 16 & 17 (former Oro) The Proposal The applicant is proposing to sever a parcel of land having approx. 357.4 m (1172.5 ft) of frontage, 251.5 m (825 ft) of depth, and 9 ha (22.21 ac) of lot area currently used for residential purposes and a maple syrup operation, and to retain a parcel of land having approx. 365.8 m (1200 ft) of frontage, 670.6 m (2200 ft) of depth, and 36 ha (89 ac) of lot area currently used for residential purposes as well as agricultural. Existing Policy Official Plan Designation: Agriculture and Environmental Protection Zoning By-law: Agricultural (A) Zone and Inherent Hazard Lands (OS2) Zone Comments Public Works: No concerns Health Unit: No objection Planning Department Comments Feb. 13, 1997: The applicants are proposing to sever a parcel of land having 8.9 hectares (22.21 ac) containing a maple syrup operation and to retain a parcel of land having 36 hectares (91.3 ac) for a traditional agricultural operation. The subject property is designated Agricultural and Environmental Protection in the former Township of Oro Official Plan and therefore it is necessary to review the policies of Section 5.9.5 in reviewing the application. Section 5.9.5 (a) refers to the criteria regarding the original lot and according to the application it would appear that subsections (i) to (iii) are satisfied. 2 Section 5.9.5 (b) refers to the criteria regarding the severed lot and it would appear that • subsections (i) to (iv) are satisfied as the Health Unit has provided a verbal approval based on the size of the proposed lot. Section 6.9.5 (b)(v) indicates that generally severances shall not exceed 1 hectare (2.47 ac) and not be smaller than 1850 square metres (0.46 ac). The Committee in past has considered these size requirements relatively consistently when granting severances. Typically the Committee has been granting severances for residential purposes only and not for agricultural purposes. The Committee should however satisfy itself with respect to the size of the parcel proposed to be severed. Section 5.9.5 (b)(vi) indicates that the severed lot shall be for a bona fide farmer who is retiring from active working life. As the application indicates the rivo parcels aze both intended to be used for agricultural/residential purposes, it is therefore evident that the applicant is not currently retiring from active working life. The Committee should however satisfy itself with regazd to the issue of a bona fide farmer. The application complies with the majority of the requirements in the Official Plan; as indicated above, the Committee should satisfy itself with respect to Section 5.9.5 (b), subsections (v) and (vi). Based on the application presently before the Committee and its proposed size, this office recommends denial of the application. Sept. 11, 1997: This application will be subject to a new Official Plan policy presently being considered by Council. This policy will be reviewed by the Committee of the Whole on Wednesday September 10, 1997 and will not be ratified until the following week at Council. As such, the Leigh's have been advised that their application will be recommended for deferral until this policy is ratified by Council. A copy of the report to Council is attached for the Committee's review. Nov. 13, 1997: Further to the Sept. 11, 1997 meeting Council did consider adding a draft Official Plan policy to the new Official Plan which would have permitted severances of approximately 8 properties across the Township which currently have two dwellings on the property. It was determined by Council, however, that to consider an amendment to the Oro-Medonte Official Plan would be precedent setting as the amendment was being proposed from a practical standpoint and did not have appropriate planning justification. As this amendment is not proceeding forward to permit two dwelling severances, the • comments of the Planning Department of Feb. 13, 1997 are still appropriate. • Decision Moved by Ken Robbins, seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby DEFER application B-1/97 at the request of the applicant. " .....Carried. March 4, 1999 This application was deferred in November of 1997 at the applicant's request to determine any other options which may resolve their request for a severance. In the interim a policy was developed and adopted by Council and the Province which would permit the creation of new lots which currently have two single detached dwellings. A copy of this policy which is now in force and effect is attached for the Committee's review in relation to this application. The applicant's are proposing to split the agricultural operation such that the entire maple bush and one dwelling (22acres) would be on one property and the remainder of the workable land and the other dwelling (89 acres) would remain with the other property. The properties are both of sufficient size that the agricultural operations would not appeaz • to be affected and therefore Subsection A would be satisfied. Due to the location of the existing barn on the maple symp portion of the property there do not appear to be any issues relating to Minimum Distance Sepazation calculations relating to incompatible land uses with agriculture. The proposed and retained lots both front on Line 14 South which is a year round Township maintained road and each property currently has an existing driveway which would satisfy Subsections C and D. Subsection E is satisfied by the favourable comments received by the Roads Superintendent. The Simcoe County District Health Unit has indicated that they have no objection to the application but the Committee should satisfy itself that each lot has its own individual services (well and septic). The Committee should also ascertain the status of the property related to water supply in order to satisfy subsection G. Subsection H iridicates that only the amount of land required for the house, sewage system and water supply should be severed and that the new lot must comply with the Zoning By-law. Zoning By-law 97-95 requires an agricultural use to have a minimum of • 2.0 hectares (4.9 acres} in Table B4. The proposed and retained lots would satisfy this requirement. The Committee should be satisfied that the sizes proposed are appropriate. 4 . Recommendation That application B-1/97 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval and subject to review of the parcel sizes proposed. Decision Moved by Dave Edwards ,seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby GRANT Application B-1/97 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the application, in writing. 2. That the applicant pay to the Municipality the sum of SS00 for each lot to be created as "cash-in-lieu of parkland" pursuant to The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.l3. 3. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary 4. That three copies of deeds be submitted to the Committee Secretary to be stamped using Form 2 as prescribed in the Planning Act. 5. That all Municipal Caxes be paid to the Municipality. 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of this notice." .....Carried. • Concession 14 ~7 ~J ,, %~/ ~~ , ;~ ,~ \ ~ 1~i~ / ~~~/~- ;~ ~~ `~' ~ / ~~ / ct Property Line 14 S N i ~c~ . 't i ---~ y,}~P~ ~U i Its ~ - _y_ ~` / ~~JC ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ oy xPi~~Av~s,~~N~ it.l-rnr/ ~~ ~' 7 :.~. :r.., .. .. _ _ o ~, ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ '~ .~ ° ~, ~ it,osn~ )oo~ rtAP~ ,_ 5 ilQ~Je` ty J aR ~~l E t s 1 ~ t ~~ j t t i `:~~~ (~ .. ~ t ';;.`~'. 200 t ;li ~' :; o i s ! , ~ ~_ I ;: :~ ` F 'f I~ '1 ` ~ ~ ' 3, ~~~~ , ~ ~ !i1, i~ ?~ .~ bt ii l i i ~ : i • i ~ i Z - ~;I ~i S ° '; lfi!I s 1 __._,_._ __ _ i ~ _ dog 18 • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report March a, 1999 Wanda and Ted Yalleau A-7/99 Conc. 6, Plan 807 Lot 27 (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from the minimum setback requirement from Lake Simcoe of ZO metres (65.6 feet to 17.1 metres (56 feet) in order to add a bay window addition to the existing dwelling. Policy Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: Comments • Roads Superintendent: Health Unit: Shoreline Shoreline Residential (SR) 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 this designation is to protect the character of the Shoreline Residential area. The proposed variance would permit the addition of a bay window to increase the applicant's view of Lake Simcoe. The variance as proposed would maintain the general intent of the Official Plan. 2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) in the Zoning By-law 97-95. The intent of the Zoning By-law is to establish setbacks to maintain the character of the shoreline area. The proposed variance would allow a bay window extension of 6 feet into the setback from Lake Simcoe. The variance as proposed would generally conform with the Zoning By-law. • 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? Upon site inspection it is evident that the single storey bay window addition will not have a significant impact on the neighbouring properties. The variance as proposed is considered appropriate for the development of the lot. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? The variance would reduce the setback to Lake Simcoe by approximately 9 feet (2.74metres) for a bay window (single storey) extension. On this basis the variance is considered minor in nature. Recommendation It is recommended that the application A-7199 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval. Decision • Moved by Dave Edwazds , seconded by Alan Martin "That the Committee hereby GRANT Minor Variance Application A-7/99 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." lJ .. ~ c Q- F • ~_I `~~ 4C:., .'C', a .~ ,GKN ~ III 1 ' ' a,ua. cr) IQJ 008 Y::;t->._• .. _......~._..._~.~. SCHEDULE ,rC" .~.__ -.__, . ~ r r..._..-. ---- i,~;?~ OF SURVEY OF ~` y}; it p.~D~ P;.RT. 0~~ I E(K~~LOT~ ~~J~ _{ING W FFnNT OF TOWNSHIP O. OHV COUN fY OF SIMCGE p~rOPp~~(lDpg R®!A® (~~~ hR'~®~) 197:• IsBSB' ~ /.- NA6°0510"E .__~i i8 ~ ~ . , r of 27, Pian M w ~ ~" '' ~ ~ ~ °' Lot 27 ~ ~~ ~ Lot 26 t. _- .~•sr ;•o ;~~3z ~,,~ ,.._ ,. ~ ~; :N d °~ ~ ~ ~ " e~ ~; b ~ ; ;, ~ ~ \ R 't a\ \~ z i+ a ~ NasO ?~ I$..E F . s1e -~s.'>' - naaacN. o~S I N : ~ wATCR GOT OESI.NATED W 27 ON P_AN 84T (A[S NOT FORM PART ~l~ E6YF pr iK: o-GV pR 6 vGRT O w~_TER ~ - ul ST 2S CNYN G>r:p5 iyRVCY ' .p °r F • • ~--• ' ' v1ePi ~: ~ 1 ~ ~ I SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE o I HEREBY 'CERTIFY THAT ~. L TMIB SURVEY AND RAN ARE 1~ i r~l CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE I ~ µITM TtIC $URV[Y.'i ACT ANO Trii ~ 1 ~ °i REGISTRY ACT 4N0 THE REGGt+Ta~• 1 _ °~ MnnE THEREUNDER __1 41 2 THE SURVEY N'45 COMPG Et ED UN ',,. r~ JULY I4, 19TI. '. bt GRiaGS HERLOH ARC ' asTRONOM~[ anD GRE O=~rvED - j FROM 025ERlaTwNS CN THE I $UN GNO REFERRED TO '>~ ~ ~ f / MERIDIGN THROUGH THE NORTH 2`O N' EAST CCFNER Of LOT 27, ~ ~ ~~-. . .~~.~ FIST ERE^ PLAN BOY. ~ `y. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ e. --- I No ne .and Svr re Y01' ..5" 2 ~9s v. _ ~PS~EL ~~ o . • n cH2°A• • ROGEt~ R. W ELSfv1AN ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR l/(/~.,~~ BOX 231, b'ARRIEr ONT::RIO`~~'I'~ GATE :ULY 20, 19Ti i FOfl u J QRFTC R6P. G 807-0 ~ GUrtV~T JIIGY ' 19TI ~pw GE 1 INCH • FO FEET -~ O::GI':N '.t D PI PKIN$ 1 i Committee of Adjustment Planning Report March 4,1999 Robert Anthony and Edith May Cookslev A-8/99 Conc. 8, Plan 589 Lots 120, 121 (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from the minimum interior side yard setback requirement for accessory of 2 metres (6.5 feet) to 0.14 metres (.45 feet) on the north side and to 0.21 metres (0.69 feet) at the rear in order to recognize an existing garage built to replace a previously existing gazage which fell dotivn. Policy Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: Comments . Roads Superintendent: Health Unit: Shoreline Shoreline Residential (SR) Planning Department Comments i. 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 this designation is to protect the character of the shoreline area. The variance as proposed would recognize an existing detached garage and as such is deemed to generally conform with the Official Plan. 2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential {SR) in Zoning By-law 97-95. The intent of the Zoning By-law is to establish setbacks to maintain the character of the shoreline area. The proposed variance would recognize an existing garage, which replaced a previous structure that also did not comply with the By-law. • 1 • 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? The garage is an existing structure, which has existed for a number of yeazs and was reconstructed in 1991 with a building permit. The variance has arisen due to the sale of the property in order to legalize the structure. The variance is considered appropriate for the development of the lot on this basis. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? The variance on the surface would not appeaz to be minor due to the reduction from 2 metres (6.56 feet) to 0.14 metres (0.46 feet) at the side yard and from 2 metres (6.56 feet) to 0.21 metres (0.69 ft) at the rear yard; however as the garage has existed for 8 years and replaced a previously existed structure it is deemed to be minor in nature. Recommendation That application A-8/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval. Decision Moved by Ken Robbins, seconded by Allan Johnson • "That the Committee hereby GRANT Minor Variance Application A-8/99 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted; 2. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit advise in writing that they are satisfied that the gazage is not located in the the bed; 3. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte. .....Carried.,, 2 ~2$ ~ \ / yJ / ~ ~ A0g cv ' Ao0 ~ 92 / / / ~e00 ~ 09.5 j B1 131 / / ~ ~ ~ 5~ / .000' ' % / / X00 99 130 / / ~' 91 0 O AojO / / ~~ 7.50 9~~ \ 129 / ~. ~ ~OOa ~ 100 90 .00 .o~~ / / 128 / ~ ~`L6~0 ~.~ / ~ "J fOf ~ 127 / ~ ~ .OOg \ / ~~ ~ X00 ~ A~00 126 / s- 5~ ~\~ `' ~,~ 125 / ° /~ \ 102 ~ d„00 B2 •o \~ s~ 12% / ~ ~J~ .009 °9 ~ \ 113// //103 ~ ~o p\ / / 09 `o ~ 122 ~` / / X00 84 ~~" ~ / ~ 121 / ~`~'~ ~^i~/ .000 ~ °c \ ~ ~ ~ v /Oa ~ " ~' ~ ~' ~~~ / / ~,,'°~ k ~ 120 ~ ~ ~ 86 ~ X54 _ ~ ~ ~~~ x'353 ~ ` ~ ~. ~ 119: ~ „0 ~ -~ B~- ~ ~ ~'~ .~ '7A i ~ ~ / ~~/ ~ ~ A ~ ~ / 117 ~~~ `~ o,, ' '~~ ~ 5? ~ X29 ~ / 7t t 1~ ~ ~..~ ~ ` ~ ~°~ s~~ / / 50000 ~ / Og /7~ / ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~o~ ~6p / . ~/ 0°'~ / 69 0 / 114 ~i i ~s 1~ 73 ~%~ `- _ `/ 67V "~ ~3 _^ `- ~/~ ~ ~ 1 X13 // 74 ~ ._~ ~- ~~~~ x72/ "_ °/ / 66 / / s ~ V~~ ~ af. - 1 / ~~ ~ 75 ~/ ~~ \ °~ ~ - ~ 15 14 ;~. /~ ~'. ~ A~ ,. ~ ,r ~~' ~ ~ _ , ~ ~ ~~ ~ 2 _ f07~ ~,~ :_ t06 ~ i 1 ., 74 V ~~ __ ,~ .. I PART J l0T t24 --- _ I 999 I Iw}5) 1 ~ o r ~ 123 ~ ~ i _ _ .~ R A + Z 1 ~ ~ +~ O _ ~ _ V ~ 4 m •~ ~~~ W 61'1 ,1 ~ ~ ~nN ~. '~J. ~ ~ s . ' t t N 5 i ~ Q N o o B 6 2 5! ' ` v' LOT a 122 ;. 1~ ..a ou lwra N gao9e acmes IB ~i ..1 0-2fi awm (30.91 PEG'D PLNa 5e9) 0 011 ~~~ N58'aT00"E JO89 ni Q Pt M1R SIP-SS]S Z n no IMCe . 36 O a q geraps <amr ~I{ Ire .ny .1ea ea o.14 em f ~ 9eW^ 03 9 .~ 1 ~.J . ~ n n ~ r i L z P lc.nvM:u) DS SOT ~ 121 R~ ,.~ o . Z ~_ ~ a ~ N a,a a e]. 3a ~ 3 ~v - -' - C w - < ezo o~ s r . ,1e.] anR 6 _ o < Cv 3 ~ 4 yew a.w~.y ~ ~ ~ ~.s~ as^ tNS i. /18 NO 11 t690! y z,~ ~ ^za a-^' N _'= LOT eek 120 g ,, _ ~Me / / E~e -.~ O 1 ,~,n,r«h., . e: J o ~ N58'4T00"E 30.68 _ (30.]Z REG'D PtAR 5e91 SSre (10.1.5) t N 5 i N o 9 0 8 6 7 1 nor 119 a, THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR RICK BRANDY ' AND THE UNDERSIGNED ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY M€L1C: DfSTANCES SHOYM ON TH6 PLAN ARE FOR USE BY OTHER PARnES. IN METRES ANO CAN BE CONVERTED TO FEET BY DIVIDING BY 0.048. '~~"~ p COPYRIGHT 1998. RUDY MAK SURVEYING LIMITED ~~ SURVEYOR'S REAL PROPERTY REPORT (PART 2) REPORT SUMMARY Descri lion of Land ncroachmen is NGTE LOCATION OF CEDAR HEDGE AND LpTS 720 de (i ZI. REGISTERED PLAN 589. GEOGRAPHIC BOARD FENCE ANO GARAGE EAVES TONHSHIP OFt ORO. TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE. COUNTY OF SIMCOE. n tow, I ? ' Re lstered easements and or Ri ht-of-WO ~~ - th M NONE Not certified by this Report. Additional Remarks NONE • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report March 4, 1999 Kenneth and Rita McCarty A-9/99 Conc. 14, Plan S1 R-18061 Part 2, Part 27 (former Medonte) The Proposal Relief is requested from the maximum height requirement of 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to 5.5 metres (18 feet) in order to allow for the clearance for a tractor. Policy Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: Comments Roads Superintendent: • Health Unit: Agricultural Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Planning Department Comments 1. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan? The subject property is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan. The general intent of the Agricultural designation is to protect the agricultural character of the area. As the proposed variance is for a drive shed it is deemed to generally comply with the intent of the Official Plan. 2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned AgriculturaURural (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 permit an accessory building, which would exceed the maximum height requirement. The applicant's intent is to construct a building with oversize doors for a tractor. 1 ,h • 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? The Committee should satisfy itself that the additional height is necessary and that there is no other option available regarding construction of the drive shed. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that only one additional metre is being requested and that the properties in this area aze large rural residential lots. Recommendation That application A-9199 only be approved if the Committee is satisfied that the additional metre in height is necessary. Decision Moved by Alan Martin, seconded by Ken Robbins "That the Committee hereby GRANT Minor Variance Application A-9/99 subject to the following conditions: 1. That a sketch of survey/real property report prepared 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." f~ 2 ~~ W V ~ l7 . Z 2 a 2 ~ ~- W O ~ - y~ J ~ q 2 J C r O 6 ~ u 6 W O O O u 1 10 ~ Z 101 z oon xzz <~o u~^ W W 7 ~' ¢NU 6 V u~a 4 ,w: W u'1 >t r [St ~ N~<O O 2 O; Z ~, r : r W UN¢ ~`, i:px ~ n „ a i a ¢ w u m~Wa :i:i 'm x i 0 W • O O ~ ~, , \ ~'~ J Z W O X x Q ~ ~~~ V~ N¢_ LL W ~ \ i ~ 3 i ~ !' ~ r n~ W ~ O~ ~ i a W 3o a'. o i. u '' m F- u V~ Y 1. ,' t- d . W• x i~%L 2 / ~ H m r 3 I 0 J J t Q ~ 3 O ' o p ~ N~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ m ~n ~ N33M13B 3Nn ~ f X y 2 ~„ ~ W W ~ m ,. h N Z ~ ~ W V O ~ - N ~J ~,' V) W :~Gn N W ° lL ~ !L o j W ~ T N ~, Q. 7 W ~. ,~ • • 1 W C n , ~ V ~~ ,,~ o.T ei ~/ o~ 3 p N D n C ~1 J ~ n e~ v~ G 1' ~ _ ~ ~- ' ,2 S ~ J -~ ~~~ ;_ J ~ /d • \. v 3 v ~~': o~ ;z P 4 ~ A. n ~ c~ OJ ~' Vy V ~ 3~, .~-ry, ~~ 3~ ' -~ ~ ~s / r ~ _., .. ?YYi--r.J>tir_u ~LJn ~ r H •w . Committee of Adjustment Planning Report March 4,1999 James and Karla Scott A-10/99 Conc. 9, Plan 1291, West Half Lot 26 (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from Section 5.1.2, "Provisions for detached accessory buildings" of the Zoning By-law for the Township of Oro-Medonte in order to construct an addition onto an existing garage. More specifically relief is required in the following areas; a) Relief is requested to recognize and add onto an existing garage located in the front yard of the subject property. b) Relief is requested from the minimum interior side yard setback requirement of 2 metres (6.56 feet) to 1.28 metres (4.2 feet) on the east side of the subject property. c) Relief is required from the maximum size restriction of 70 squaze metres (753 square feet) to 76 square metres (818 square feet). • d) Relief is requested from the maximum height restriction of 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to 5.5 metres (18 feet). Policv Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: Comments Roads Superintendent: Health Unit: Shoreline Shoreline Residential (SR) 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 designation is to protect the character of the shoreline residential azea. The variances proposed do not entirely maintain the residential character of this area due to the lazge size proposed for the detached. building. • 2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is Zoned Shoreline Residential (SR} in Zoning By-law 97-95. The intent of the Zoning By-law is to establish setbacks to maintain the character of the shoreline azea. The proposed variances would permit the construction of a new accessory building with a home office. The new accessory building would be located in the same location as the existing garage but would be both lazger in area and increased in height. 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? The property appears to be buffered from the residential neighbour most directly affected by the proposed new structure; however the structure would be visible from the road side. Due to the layout of the property on two streets permitting the building in the front yard is considered appropriate as is permitting the structure at the same setbacks as the existing structure. The committee should however be satisfied as to the need for the height and the additional floor area recognizing that this is a residential community. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the new structure would be • replacing an existing structure. Recommendation It is recommended that application A-10/99 only be approved once the Committee satisfies itself with the need for the additional height and floor area. Decision Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Alan Martin "That the Committee hereby GRANT Minor Variance Application A-10/99 subject to the following conditions: 1. That a sketch of survey/real property report prepared 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 l-Iealth Unit approve of the application, in writing; 2 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." • // 1. • /~ 1~ I\ J ryy_ o'' • ~b pa. w ~` \ ~~` /1 C ~~ ~ 1 ,009 1y50'~ App. ~ ~ ; ~',~~ k ~ J ~~~o>'~~ ~~~ ~ i w C~\~~ 10°'OJ ~f Ap9 ~\^ G \v v~ \O\ OBOO w ~ ~/ .~00 a~ Ap9 ' • o, \ r9. SAO, Op lF 9 ~~ A Op~.F9`60 a \~ OOf£9-60 ~T~ ~~~ M ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~' OOS£9~50 o` c~ n U ~ °c ~.~~~~" \l L /'~ / ~ ~"~ s<n A09-63~G0 ~/ °< ~o~ ~~ soo ej h O soo Z Apo ~ ~ $ V ~ A09-63g0 jpp00 0 Ap9 ~ orn ~ ~ " P p p ~ 1~~~ °R ~ .op~~ 0 Ap9 ~~ ~ Y \ ~ O \~ \ ~~ fir/ ~ ~~ : ~ ~:~ i 9p60 ~ -oti°p ~ ~"~\ BOO, ~ B / ~ ~ / .. ~ os ~ ~ ~3° i ~o c AU', ~`. ~ ~,7pO 8\ % ~ pc9 ~ Ap9 ~~ po °o ~` ~ ~~ yap ~~ // ,`app _ ~ pg~ \ s A09 ~ o ~l>- ~ App ~ A ~~ oq ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ 5jO ~\ ~~ ~~~~~1 .~ ~ .cJ ~ /.~V i- -~ ~/ ~~ ~~ Aq~ ~_:~ / \ ~ ; ~~~ ? ~~ SURVEYOR'S REAL PROPERTY REPOR OF PART OF t.OT 26, CONCESSION TJC s~^r s TOWNSHIP OF ORO ~~~~ COUNTY OP SIMCOE SCALE I"• 40' -- J. A.STANTON O.L.S. -a 1s~r-,. '-''dCI-~~.~ 1986 /J„ F .. ~ ... `' Is »1• /vm ~~ (9111 N59.10'E 70'2! J a ..:y' I / ~ L Few /i ~,:~ a / I I- f o ~ I ~ ~~ ~ 4 ~ `~ ~ro ~ n .~; y e ~ .~ _ni~ . w 7 p:.l~ r" u~ i. _ r I _ 'In ~ ~ m W ~ V ° _ y ~ ~ ° = V -.. ~.~~~ I _! .x~ 4, C ~t - ~._ F- m ~~ N _, J C -'~ O ' (/~ n fza N ~ ° s~•4•!<~ z I ~'a I THIS REPORT C n•^• n - -~ ~ ~~.~~ I AND ALL OTH `_( `i- THE UNDERSIC USE BY OTHEf ~ ~. ~ ~ n\ ~~r' ~ iram• N FY 4oro • ~ ~_ I O '` ~ ~ V !i `q R Irl c~ ~ ~ l~ ""~i `'~. S ~J <~ ~.,_ r •' ^ s O ao <~ " 7 r.l a ;J~ ~ r~ ~ OF • ~ ~oPnl~h Y' / SE ~0 ~~ `A~ 9` m ~_ / ,Or, `01 Q~ Q ~.