05 13 1999 C of A Agenda
Committee of Adjustment Agenda
Thursday May 13th 1999, 10:00 a.m.
1. Communications and Correspondence
None
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
3. Hearings:
10:00 A-12/99
Colin McDonald
Con 10, Plan M-219, Lot 3(Oro)
10:10 A-14/99 Robert Marchessault &
Teresa Cullen
Con 5, Lot 16 (Oro)
10:20 A-16/99 James Fidley
Con 8, Plan 589, Lot 134 (Oro)
10:30 B-13/99 William Howard&
Gertrude Teskey
Con 3, Plan 461, Pt Lot 1 (Orillia)
10:40 8-11/99 Peter McArthur
Con 1, Pt Lot 7
(Oro)
10:50 B-9/99 Horseshoe Resort Corporation
Con 4, Pt Lot 2, Plan
51 R-9977(Oro)
11:00 B-10/99 Horseshoe Resort Corporation
Con 4, Pt Lot 2 (Oro)
11:10 8-52198 Albert and Catherine Pautsch
Con 12, Pt Lot 16 (Oro)
11:20 B-12/99 Reford Sedore
A-15/99 Con 1, Plan M-340, Lot 1
(Orillia)
11:30 A-13/99 Gail Bishop
Con 5, Pt Lot 18(Oro)
B-8/99 Pearl & Len Cumming
Conc. 5, Lot 18 (Oro)
11:40 A-19/99 Ralph Law
Con 9, Pt Lot 20 (Oro)
11:50 A-17199 John Strimas
Con 8, Pt Lots 12 & 13 (Medonte)
5. Decisions
6. Minutes of April 15, 1999
7. Other business
8. Adjournment
Committee of Adjustment Minutes
• Thursday May 13th 1999, 10:00 a.m.
In Attendance: Chairman Roy Campbell, Member Ken Robbins, Member Allan
Johnson, Member Dave Edwards, Planner Andria Leigh
Absent: Member Alan Martin
1. Communications and Correspondence.....
None Received.
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest.....None declared.
3. Hearings:
10:00 A-12/99 Colin McDonald
. Con 10, Plan M-219, Lot 3 (Oro}
In Attendance: Colin McDonald, Applicant
10:10 A-14/99 Marchessault & Cullen
Con 5, Pt Lot 16 (Oro)
In Attendance: Robert Marchessault and Teresa Cullen, Applicants
10:20 A-16/99 James Fildey
Con 8, Plan 798, Lot 134 {Oro)
In Attendance: James Fildey, Applicant
10:30 B-13/99 William Howard & Gertrude
Teskey
Con 3, Plan 461, Pt Lot 1
• (Orillia)
In Attendance: Michael McBride, Applicant's Solicitor
10:40 8-11/99 Peter McArthur
• Con 1, Pt Lot 7 (Oro)
In Attendance: Jim Myers, Applicant's Solicitor, Peter McArthur, Applicant
10:50 B-9/99 Horseshoe Resort Corporation
Con 4, Pt Lot 2, 51 R-9977 (Oro)
In Attendance: Martin Kimble, Applicant, John Bell, Neighbour, Karen and
Tom Close, Neighbours, Andrew Goode, Neighbour
11:00
8-10/99
Horseshoe Resort Corporation
Con 4, Pt Lot 2 (Oro)
In Attendance: Martin Kimble, Applicant
11:10
8-52/98
Albert and Catherine Pautsch
Con 12, Pt Lot 16 (Oro)
In Attendance: Albert Pautsch, Applicant
• 11:20 8-12/99 Reford Sedore
A-15/99 Con 1, Plan M-340, Lot 1 (Orillia)
In Attendance: Reford Sedore, Applicant
11:30 A-13/99 Gail Bishop
B-8199 Pearl and Len Cumming
Con 5, Pt Lot 18 (Oro)
In Attendance: Gail Bishop, Applicant
11:40 A-19/99 Ralph Law
Con 9, Pt Lot 20 (Oro)
In Attendance: No One Present
11:50 A-17/99 John Strimas
Con 8, Pt Lots 12 and 13
(Medonte)
z
In Attendance: Brian Shelswell, Applicant's Agent
• 4. Decisions...(see attached)
5. Minutes of April 15, 1999
THAT the minutes of the Committee meeting held Thursday April 15, 1999 be
deferred.
6. Adjournment.
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Ken Robbins
THAT the Committee adjourn the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
f, J
3
•
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
May 6,1999
Colin McDonald
A-12/99
Conc. 10, Plan M-219, Lot 3 (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the maximum height requirement of 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to 5.2
metres (17.06 feet), and relief is also requested to permit the construction of a detached
garage in the front yard. Relief is also requested for the minimum setback from an
Environmental Protection Zone from 30 metres (98.4 feet).
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Shoreline
Shoreline (SR) and Environmental Protection (EP)
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 Area. The
proposed variance would permit a detached garage in the front yard, which is well
buffered from the neighbouring property.
Z. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) and Environmental Protection
(EP) 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 and to protect Environmentally Sensitive
Areas from incompatible development. The proposed variances would permit a detached
garage in the front yard, which would be the furthest point from the Environmental
Protection Area. The Environmental Protection Zone is required on the property to
identify the creek area and its potential flooding area.
1
• 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
The property is well buffered from the neighbour to the north by a group of mature trees
and the neighbour to the south currently has a garage in the front yard. The proposed
garage would be a single storey and would blend in with the character of the area. With
respect to the creek, it is apparent on site inspection that there is a defined top of bank and
the proposed garage would then be over 30 metres (98.4 feet) from the top of the bank
with the existing dwelling between the two.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the proposed garage
maintains the character of the shoreline area and its location in the front yard would have
the least impact on the creek area.
Recommendation
That application A-12/99 only be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval.
Decision
Moved by, Dave Edwards seconded by, Ken Robbins
• "That the Committee hereby GRANT Minor Variance Application A-12199 subject to
the following conditions:
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 a$er 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."
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
May 6,1999
Robert Marchessault and Teresa Cullen
A-14/99
Conc. S, Lot 16 (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested to extend the roof overhang to 3.048 metres (10 feet) on West Side of
shop. Maximum overhang allowed is currently 1 metre (3.2 feet). This would increase the
total area of the building to 97.5 metre square (1050 squared feet) instead of the required
maximum of 70 square metres (753 squared feet).
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Agricultural
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 Agricultural in the Official Plan The intent of this
designation is to protect the Agricultural character of the Township and maintain the open
countryside. The subject property is a residential lot, which has been severed off a farm
property.
2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is Zoned Rural Residential Two (RUR2) in Zoning By-law 97-95.
The intent of the Zoning By-law is to establish setbacks and maximum building sizes to
maintain the open countryside. The proposed variance would permit the construction of
an accessory building which complies with the By-law but which proposes a covered
porch patio which would increase the overall building size to 1050 square feet.
•
• 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
The property appears to be buffered from the neighbour to the west by mature vegetation
and is a fair distance from the home to the east. The proposed shop would be a single
storey and it should be clear that the intent of the variance is that the patio area would not
be enclosed in the future.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the additional square footage
is for an unenclosed patio area with a roof overhang.
Recommendation
That application A-14/99 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-14/99 As amended
to reflect the 84.5 square metres (910 square feet) of enclosed structure and 20 metres
• squared (215 square feet) of unenclosed porch, and to the following conditions:
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."
2
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
May 6,1999
James Fildey
A-16/99
Conc. 8, Lot 134, Plan 589 (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to 4.6
metres (1 S feet) in order to permit the construction of a new deck
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Shoreline
Zoning By-law: Shoreline Residential (SR)
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
• Health Unit:
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 variance
as proposed would permit a deck structure which would maintain the intent of the
Shoreline designation.
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 allow a 2.4 metre (8-foot) wide deck on the
front of the existing dwelling and would reduce the front yard setback to 4.7 metre (15
feet).
u
1
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
Upon site inspection it is evident the property is well buffered on both side lot lines by
mature cedar hedges. It is also evident that the front deck would connect to the existing
side deck and would enhance the property. As the encroachment into the front lot line is
for an unenclosed deck the variance is considered desirable for the development of the lot.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the proposed addition is for
an unenclosed deck, which would be well screened from the neighbours.
Recommendation
That application A-16/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval.
Decision
Moved by, Allan Johnson seconded by, Ken Robbins
"That the Committee hereby GRANT Minor Variance Application A-16!99 subject to
• the following conditions:
1. That a sketch of surveylreal 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, aP. 13;
5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte.
.....Carried."
2
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
May 6, 1999
William Howard and Gertrude Teskey
B-13/99
Conc. 3, Part of Lot 1 Plan 461 Pt. Blks. A & B, Parts 1,2,3, & 4 (former Orillia)
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing a correction of title. The land to be conveyed has a lot frontage
of 23.25 metres (76.27 feet), a Zot depth of 71.9 metres (236 feet) and the other lot would
have a lot frontage of 17 metres (56 feet), and a lot depth of 61.8 metres (203 feet). Two
tots merged when owners exchanged them.
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Shoreline
Zoning By-law: Residential Limited Service Holding Exception Two
(RLS*2(H))
Comments
• Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Planning Department Comments
Background
The application is for a correction of title of two lots that merged when they were
transferred.
Official Plan
The subject property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. The intent of the
designation is to preserve the character of the Shoreline Area. As this is an application to
correct title of two previously existing lots, it is deemed to generally conform with the
intent of the Official Pian.
•
1
Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned Residential Limited Service Holding Exception Two (RLS
(H)*2) in Zoning By-law 97-95. This Zoning recognizes the property is on a private road
which requires submission of a site plan for any new construction; it also recognizes the
reduced side yard setback for all lots in the former Township of Orillia in the Shoreline
Area. As the lots are being re-created the application is deemed to generally conform
with the provisions of the Zoning By-law.
Recommendation
That Application B-13/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval.
Decision
Moved by, Ken Robbins seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby GRANT Application B-13/99 subject to the following
conditions:
L That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the application, in
writing.
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 three copies of deeds be submitted to the Committee Secretary to be
stamped using Form 2 as prescribed in the Planning Act.
4. That all Municipal taxes be paid to the Municipality.
5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within
one year from the date of the giving of this notice."
2
. Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
May 6,1999
Peter McArthur
B-11/99
Conc. 1, Part of Lot 7 (former Oro)
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment. The land to be adjusted has a lot
frontage of 152.4 metres (S00 feet), a Zot depth of 304.8 metres (1000 feet), and a lot area of
4.86 hectares (12 acres). Proposed use would be the re-organization of an existing
approved building Zot to better conform to the topography of the subject lands.
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Agricultural
Zoning By-law: Agricultural/Rural (A1RU)
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Planning Department Comments
Background
The application is for a boundary adjustment, which would change the dimensions of an
existing residential lot, created in the 1970's.
Official Plan
The subject property is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan. The intent of the
designation is to preserve the character of the Agricultural area and maintain the open
countryside. The application for a boundary adjustment would not create a new lot,
however the Committee should ensure that the viability of the lands remaining for
agricultural use are not impacted by the boundary adjustment in accordance with Section
D2.3.4 of the Official Plan.
1
. Zoning BV-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 Zoning
By-law.
Recommendation
That Application B-11/99 be approved only after the Committee has determined
compliance with Section D2.3.4 of the Official Plan.
Decision
Moved by, Allan Johnson seconded by Dave Edwards
"That the Committee hereby GRANT Application B-11/99 subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the application, in
writing.
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 three copies of deeds be submitted to the Committee Secretary to be
stamped using Form 2 as prescribed in the Planning Act.
Q. That all Municipal taxes be paid to the Municipality.
5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within
one year from the date of the giving of this notice."
.....Carried.
2
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
May 7,1999
Horseshoe Resort
Conc. 4, Part of Lot 2, SIR-9977 Parts 18 & 20 (former Oro) B-9/99
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment, which would incorporate parts 18 & 20
with part 16 on the attached plan. The new lot area would be 12.9 hectares (31.92 acres).
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Horseshoe Valley Medium Density Residential
Agricultural/Rural Exception 15 (A/RU*15)
Planning Department Comments (May 7/99)
Background
The applicant's are proposing a consent for the creation of a new lot which encompasses
parts 16,18, and 20 on the drab reference plan and is a total of 12.89 hectares (31.86
acres).
Official Plan
The subject property is designated Horseshoe Valley Medium Density Residential in the
Official Plan. Any proposed development of the subject property would require to satisfy
the requirements of Section E2.5.8 of the Official Plan. If the applicants are proposing to
develop a timeshare on the subject property Section E2.5.2 of the Official Plan must be
satisfied including entering into a development agreement. As this development
agreement is required as a condition of severance, subdivision or condominium the
Committee should determine the applicant's intent for the property.
• Zonin~By-law
The subject property is Zoned Agricultural/Rural Exception FiBeen (A/RU* 15) in Zoning
By-law 97-95. The exception indicates that only existing uses are permitted on these
lands, and these lands are currently vacant. Any development of the property would
therefore require a Rezoning application to be submitted to the Township.
In reviewing the Township records it would appear that the lands proposed to be severed
are currently a separate parcel of land and has been confirmed by the applicant part l6
currently exists separately but requires parts 18 and 20 to be added.
Recommendation
That Application B-9/99 be deferred to re-circulate the application in its correct form as a
lot addition ofparts 18 and 20 to part 16.
Decision
Moved by, Dave Edwards seconded by Ken Robbins
"That the Committee hereby DEFER Application B-9/99 to re-circulate the application in
its correct form as a boundary adjustment of parts 18 and 20 to part 16.
• .....Carried.
•
2
Committee of Adjustment
• Planning Report
May 7,1999
Horseshoe Resort
8-10/99
Conc. 4, Part of Lot 2, Plan SIR-17976 Parts 22 and 23 (former Oro)
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment, which would incorporate parts 10, 11,
and 12 with parts 22 and 23. The new lot area that would be added to parts 22, and 23
would be .76 hectares (1.9 acres),
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Horseshoe Valley Resort Facility and Horseshoe Valley
Medium Density Residential
Zoning By-law: Agricultural/Rural Exception Fifteen (A/RU* 15)
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Planning Department Comments (May 7/99)
Background
The applicant's are proposing to create a new lot, which is composed of Parts 22, and 23
and the retained lands would be parts 10, 11, and 12.
Official Plan
The subject property is designated Horseshoe Valley Resort Facility and Horseshoe
Valley Medium Density Residential in the Official Plan. Any proposed development of
the subject property is required to comply with the policies of Section E2.5 of the Official
Plan.
Zoning By law
The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural Exception Fifteen (A/RU*15) in Zoning
• By-law 97-95. The exception indicates that only existing uses are permitted on these
lands, and the lands are currently vacant. Any development of the subject property would
• therefore require a Rezoning Application to be submitted to the Township.
This office had concerns with the application to create parts 10, 11, and 12 as a separate
parcel of land and called the applicant to discuss the rationale for this application. It was
determined that in fact parts 10, 11, and l2 were to be added to parts 22 and 23 which are
already a separate parcel.
Recommendation
That application B-10/99 be deferred to re-circulate the application in its correct form as a
lot addition ofparts 10, 11, and 12 to parts 22 and 23.
Decision
Moved by, Dave Edwards seconded by Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby DEFER Application B-9199 to re-circulate the application in
its correct form as a boundary adjustment of parts 10, 11, and 12 to parts 22 and 23."
.....Carried.
•
lJ
2
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
January 7,1999
Albert and Catherine Pautsch
B-52/98
Conc. 12, Pt Lot 16 (former Oro)
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing to sever a vacant parcel of land having approximately 105.34
metres (346 ft) of frontage on Line 12 N, 74.27 metres (244 ft) of depth, and 0.78 hectares
(1.9 ac) of lot area, as shown on the attached sketch, and to retain an agricultural parcel of
land having approximately 39.1 hectares (96.53 acres) of lot area.
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Agricultural
Zoning By-law: Agricultural/Rural (A/RU)
Comments
• Roads Superintendent: No concerns
Health Unit: No Objection
Planning Department Comments
Background
The applicants are proposing a lot addition to an existing residential lot (195 feet by 558
feet) which was created in 1988 (Application B-19/88).
Official Plan
The subject property is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan. The intent of this
designation is to protect and promote the agricultural character of the Township. The
proposed lot addition would enlarge an existing residential parcel. The Official Plan
states that for the creation of new residential lots that the lot shall not be smaller than 0.4
hectares (1.0 acres) and shall generally not be larger than 1.0 hectares (2.47 acres). The
residential lot is currently 1.0 hectare (2.47 acres) in size and is proposed to be enlarged
to 1.781 hectares (4.4 acres). The Committee should satisfy itself as to the need for the
enlargement of the parcel.
•
. Zoning By-law
The existing residential lot to which the lot addition is proposed is zoned Rural
Residential Two (RUR2) and the lands where the property is be taken from are zoned
Agricultural/Rural (A/RU). Both the residential lot and the agricultural property exceed
the minimum lot frontage and area requirements of the Zoning By-law.
Recommendation
That the Committee should satisfy itself as to the need for the lot addition prior to giving
favorable consideration to application B52/98.
Decision
Moved by Alan Martin, seconded by Dave Edwards
" That the Committee hereby DEFER Application B-52/98 to allow for a further site
inspection of the property once weather permits."
.....Carried.
May 6, 1999
• A further site inspection of the subject property was completed to review the existing lot
and the proposed lot addition. It was evident that the existing residential lot has been
terraced to various elevations, which are man made. The existing residential lot is
buffered on all sides by rows of cedar trees, which are mature. The proposed lot addition
would be approximately a 10-20 foot drop from the back of the existing residential lot
and does not appear to be physically connected to the existing lot. The proposed lot
addition would increase the total lot size to 1.78 hectares (4.4 acres) which is beyond the
maximum size for a residential lot.
The previous comments remain and the committee should determine the need for such a
large parcel given that the lot is to be used for residential purposes.
Decision
Moved by, Allan Johnson seconded by Ken Robbins
" That the Committee hereby DEFER Application B-52/98 to allow the applicant an
opportunity to revise his application to a right of way from Line 12 along the boundary
between the cemetery and retained lands."
• .....Carried.
2
• Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
May 6,1999
Reford Sedore
B-12/99
Conc. 1, Part Lot 1, Plan m-340 (former Orillia)
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing a conveyance to create a new lot. The land to be conveyed has a
lot frontage of 52 metres (170.6 feet), and a lot area of 0.54 hectares (1.358 acres).
Proposed use would be used for residential purposes. The retained lands would have a lot
frontage of 67.72 metres (222.18 feet) and a lot area of 0.40 hectares (1.003 acres).
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Rural Residential
Zoning By-law: Rural Residential One Exception Three (RUR*3)
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Planning Department Comments
Background
The applicants are proposed to sever a residential lot on Sunset Crescent. This
application is being submitted in conjunction with application A-15/99 a minor variance
to reduce the minimum lot area requirement of both the severed and retained lots
Official Plan
The subject property is designated Rural Residential in the Official Plan. The intent of
this designation is to recognize existing Estate Residential Areas of the Township. The
Official Pian indicates that all new development in this designation shall occur by way of
a Plan of Subdivision; however given that the applicants are proposing one additional lot
within an existing subdivision and further subdivision is not possible a Plan of
Subdivision is not required.
•
1
• Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned Rural Residential One Exception Three (RUR*3) in Zoning
By-law 97-95. The Exception indicates the minimum lot area required in this subdivision
is 0.6 hectares (1.48 acres) and the application as proposed does not meet this
requirement. The applicants have therefore applied for a minor variance to reduce the
minimum lot area requirement to 0.54 hectares (1.35 acres) and 0.4 hectares (1.0 acres)
for the severed and retained lots. By-law 97-95 in all other Estate Residential Areas
requires a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares (1.0 acres).
Recommendation
That Application B-12J99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval,
favourable comments from the Roads Superintendent, and Application A-15/99 being
considered favourably.
Decision
Moved by, Dave Edwards seconded by Allan Johnson.
"That the Committee hereby GRANT Application B-12!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 application A-15/99 be approved.
8. That the frame garage and shed be removed.
9. That an entrance permit be approved to the satisfaction of the Roads
Superintendent."
. .....Carried.
2
Committee of Adjustment
• Planning Report
May 6, 1999
Reford Sedore
A-15/99
Conc. 1, Lot 1, Plan M-340 (former Orillia)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the minimum lot area requirement of 0.6 hectares (1.48 acres) to
0.54 hectares (1.35 acres) for the severed lot and 0.40 hectares (1.003 acres) for the
retained lot.
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Rural Residential
Rural Residential One Exception Three (RURl*3)
Planning Department Comments
Background
The applicants are applying for a variance to the minimum lot area requirement in
conjunction with consent application B-12/99.
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 policies is to recognize existing Estate Residential areas of the Township.
The variance as proposed does generally conform with the policies of the plan.
2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Rural Residential One Exception Three (RTJRl*3) in
Zoning By-law 97-95. The exception indicates the minimum lot area requirement should
be 0,6 hectares (1.48 acres).
1
The Rural Residential One (RURl) Zone however permits the minimum lot area to be 0.4
• hectares (0.98 acres). The applicants proposed variance to the minimum lot area
requirement would still comply with the minimum requirement for the Rural Residential
One (RURl) Zone.
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
Upon site inspection there appears to be a substantial slope at the one end of the property
towards Sunset Crescent. Favourable comments are required from the Roads
Superintendent to ensure access is available to the new lot.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the lot would still maintain
the standards established in the By-law for other Estate Residential lots.
Recommendation
It is recommended That Application A-15/99 be approved subject to favourable comments
from the Health Unit and the Roads Superintendent and Application B-12/99 being
approved.
Decision
Moved by, Ken Robbins seconded by, Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby GRANT Minor Variance Application A-15/99 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.
6. That application B-12/99 be completed.
7. That the new house be setback a minimum of 52 metres (170.6 feet) from Sunset
Crescent.
.....Carried."
2
• Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
May 6,1999
Gail Bishop
A-13/99
Conc. 5, Lot 18 (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested to expand a legal non-conforming kennel by the addition of a training
room/reception/storage area which would be 3 metres (10 feet) to existing side lot line and
18.3 metres (60 feet) to proposed lot line.
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Agricultural
Zoning By-law: AgriculturaURura1(ABU)
Comments
• Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
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 designation is to preserve the agricultural character and maintain the open
countryside. As the kennel has existed since the early 1970's and predates Township
policies it is deemed to generally comply.
2. 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
Agricultural area. The kennel operation predates the Zoning By-law and is therefore
considered a legal non-conforming use. The applicant is wishing to expand the kennel
through an addition, which would contain a training room, reception area, and storage
area; this therefore requires permission to expand the legal non-conforming use. The
proposed addition would be 3.05 metres (10 feet) to the existing property line. Zoning
• By-law 97-95 requires that new kennels be setback a minimum of 100 metres (328 feet)
1
• from all property lines and requires a minimum lot area of 10 hectares (25 acres). In
conjunction with this variance the applicant is wishing to obtain a lot addition
(Application-8/99) which would increase both the lot size and the setback to the side yard
setback.
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
Upon site inspection it is evident that the existing kennel operation is crowded and would
limit the number of animals. The proposed addition would improve this situation
however the Committee should determine if this building expansion necessitates the lot
addition or if there are additional reasons the applicants has including the new driveway.
And a determination if the proposed new entranceway would be acceptable.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance to expand the legal non-conforming use is considered minor in nature as the
operation has been in existence for a substantial number of years. The committee should
determine if the 15.24 metres (50 feet) lot addition from the corner of the neighbouring
farm to bring to lot further into compliance with the Zoning By-law outweighs the
Agricultural capability of that acre.
Recommendation
• That application A-13/99 only be approved conditional on Application B-8/99.
Decision
Moved by, Ken Robbins seconded by, Allan Johnson
"That the Committee hereby DEFER Minor Variance Application A-13/99 to review
other options.
.....Carried."
2
• Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
May 6,1999
Pearl and Len Cumming
B-8/99
Conc. S, Lot 18 (former Oro)
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing an addition to a lot. The land to be added has a Zot frontage of
15.24 metres (SO feet), a lot depth of 274 metres (900 feet), and a lot area of 0.42 hectares
(1 acre). The area of land proposed is to be used for an addition to a kennel.
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Agricultural
Zoning By-law: Agricultural/Rural (A/RU)
Comments
Roads Superintendent: If driveway was moved to the north it would improve sight
• line visibility.
Health Unit:
Planning Department Comments
Background
The applicant is applying for a lot addition of 15.24 metres (50 feet) in width and 274.3
metres (900 feet) in depth to be added to a neighbouring property currently used for a
kennel operation.
Official Plan
The subject property is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan. The intent of the
designation is to preserve the Agricultural resource base of the Township. Upon
inspection of the property it is evident that the proposed lot addition is currently being
farmed and would be taken out of agricultural production for the kennel operation.
1
Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned Agricultural/12ura1(A/Ril) in Zoning By-law 97-95. As the
application is for a lot addition it is deemed to generally comply with the Zoning By-law.
This lot addition application is being considered in conjunction with minor variance
application A-13/99 which would permit an expansion to a legal non-conforming kennel
with a new site yard setback of 18.3 metres (60 feet) (If the lot addition is considered
favourably). Zoning By-law 97-95 requires new kennels to be setback a minimum of 100
metres (328 feet) from airy property line and the lot addition would allow the property to
be brought further towards compliance with the By-law.
Recommendation
That Application B-8/99 be approved only after the Committee reviews the width of the
lot addition.
Decision
Moved by, Dave Edwards seconded by Ken Robbins
"That the Committee hereby DEFER Application B-8/99 to allow the Committee to
review other options for the driveway, the lot addition, and kennel addition design."
•
2
• Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
May 6,1999
Ralph Law
A-19/99
Conc. 9, Lot 2Q (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested to recognize an existing garage that is located in the front yard. With a
setback of 9.74 metres (31.97 feet) on the south west corner and 9.56 metres (31.37 feet) on the
south east corner.
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Shoreline
Zoning By-law: Shoreline Residential (SR)
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
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 intent of the
designation is to maintain the character of the Shoreline Residential Area. The proposed
variance would recognize an existing garage that was constructed in 1989 in the front
yard.
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
By-law is intended to establish appropriate setbacks to maintain the character of the
Shoreline Residential Area. The proposed variance would recognize a garage which was
constructed in 1989 and is therefore deemed to generally comply with the Zoning By-law.
u
1
• 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
The proposed variance would recognize a detached garage, which is, constructed
approximately 2.4 metres (8 feet) in front of the residence. The garage was constructed in
1989 with a building permit issued by the Township. As the building has existed for 10
years it is therefore considered appropriate for the development of the lot.
4. Isthe variance minor in nature?
The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the garage is still 9.45 metres
(31 feet) from Grandview Road and has been established since 1989.
Recommendation
That application A-19/99 be approved.
Decision
Moved by, Dave Edwards seconded by, Allan Johnson
• "That the Committee hereby GRANT Minor Variance Application A-19/99".
...carved.
•
2
. Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
May 6, 1999
.john Strimas
A-17/99
Conc. 8, Lot 12&13, (former Medonte)
The Proposal
To permit the construction of a two storey addition including a sun room within an
Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. The proposed addition would be approximately 36.57
metres (120 feet) from the Coldwater River.
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
•
Health Unit:
Rural and Environmental Protection Two
Environmental Protection (EP)
Planning Department Comments
1. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Rural and Environmental Protection Two in the
Official Plan. The general intent of the Rural Policies is to preserve the rural character of
the area. The Environmental Protection Two Designation is required to recognize the
significant woodlot on the property. The proposed variance would permit a sunroom
addition on an existing home which is located in a clearing.
2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Environmental Protection (EP) in Zoning By-law 97-95.
The Environmental Protection Zone not only recognizes the significant wooded azea on
the property but also recognizes the tributary of the Coldwater River, which runs through
the property. The proposed sunroom addition would be occurring in an area, which is
already cleared, and therefore additional impact on the woodland is not an issue. The
stream area and the defined top of the bank would be over 36 metres (120 feet) from the
proposed sunroom addition.
1
• 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
The subject property is well buffered from the neighbouring properties by the significant
woodlot, which surrounds the property. Upon site inspection it is evident that the
sunroom would be well setback from the top of the bank of the stream. The proposed
variance would permit an addition onto an existing dwelling which is located in the
Environmental Protection (EP) Zone.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the proposed addition would
extend an additiona14.27 metres (14 feet) and still be over 36 metres (120 feet) from the
actual top of the bank.
Recommendation
That application A-17/99 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-17/99 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."
2