Loading...
07 15 1999 C of A Agenda 10:00 A-22/99 Newton Committee of Adjustment Agenda Thursday July 15th 1999, 10:00 a.m. 1. Communications and Correspondence None 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Hearings: Con 8, Plan 798, Pt Blk A(Oro) 10:10 A-23/99 Jennifer McLean Con 1, S Pt Lot 7 (Oro) 10:20 A-25/99 Michael Higgins Con 5, Plan M-187, Lots 9,10,11 and Pt Block 37 (Oro) 10:30 A-26/99 Robert and Sandra Keto Con 1, Plan 1689, Lot 14 (Oro) 10:40 A-28/99 Allan and Victoria Palmer Con 10, Plan 863, E Pt Lot 4 (Oro) 10:50 A-27/99 Robert and Renee Brennan Con 10, Plan 902, Pt Blk X(Oro) 11:00 B-22/99 William Drury Con 1, Pt Lot 14 (Oro) 11:10 B-23/99 Ernest Booth Con 6, E Half Lot 5 (Oro) 11:20 B-24/99 Shanty Bay Woodlands 8-25/99 Con 1 & 2, Lots 1 & 2 • (Oro) 11:30 B-21/99 The Schiele Housing Trust Con 3, Pt E Half Lot 28(Oro) 11:40 A-29/99 Fred and Sandra Reynolds Con 2, Pt Lot 10 (Oro) 11:50 B-26/99 Gary and Karen Phillips Con 6, W Pt Lot 8 (Oro) 5. Decisions 6. Minutes of June 10, 1999 7. Other business . 8. Adjournment Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday June 10th 1999. 10:00 a.m. In Attendance: Chairman Roy Campbell, Member Ken Robbins, Member Allan Johnson, Member Alan Martin, Planner Andria Leigh Absent: Member Dave Edwards 1. Communications and Correspondence..... None Received. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest.....None declared. 3. Hearings 10:00 10:10 10:20 10:30 10:40 A-18/99 Norm & Pat Cryderman Con 14, Lot 1(Oro) In Attendance: Norm Cryderman, Applicant A-20/99 Glen & Shirley Bell Con 7, Lot 8 (Medonte) In Attendance: John Bell, Applicant's Agent A-21/99 Robert & Marilyn Brinkworth Con 6, Plan 807, Lot 2 (Oro) In Attendance: No one A-13/99 Gail Bishop Con 5, Lot 18 {Oro) B-8/99 Pearl & Len Cumming Con 5, Lot 18 (Oro) In Attendance: Gail Bishop, Applicant B-14/98 Margaret & Kenneth Sauve Con 12, Lot 11 (Medonte) In Attendance: No One 1 10:50 8-17/99 Herbert & Annette Grenier Con 3, Lot 11 (Medonte) • In Attendance: Herbert Grenier and Margaret Grenier, Applicant's 11:00 8-18/99 C.R.A. Developments Con 9, Plan 51 R28195 Lot 26 (Oro) In Attendance: Tim and Ilene Crawford, Applicants 11.10 B-19/99 Archibald Brown Conc. 1, Lot 1 (Oro) In Attendance: Archibald Brown, Applicant, Corby Adams, Agent for purchaser, Robert Williams, Neighbour, Ted Bertram, Neighbour 11:20 B-20/99 Melissa & David Shelswell Con 1, Lot 7, Plan 1719 (Orillia) In Attendance: David Shelswell, Applicant 11:30 B-21/99 Schiele Housing Trust Conc. 3, Lot 28 (Oro) In Attendance: Doug Hill, Applicant's Solicitor, Irmagard Schiele, Applicant, Monica and Brian Valleau, Applicant's Agent, Paul Walsh, Neighbour 11:40 B-52/98 Albert & Catherine Pautsch Con 12, Lot 16 (Oro) In Attendance: Albert Pautsch, Applicant 11:50 B-10/99 Horseshoe Valley Resort Conc. 4, Lot 2, Plan 51 R17976 In Attendance: Martin Kimble, Applicant's Agent, John Bell, Spokeperson for Neighbouring Property Owners, Ernie Dryden, Neighbouring Property Owner 12.00 B-9/99 Horseshoe Valley Resort Conc. 4, Lot 2, Plan 51 R9977 Part of Lot 11 & 12 In Attendance: Martin Kimble, Applicant's Agent z 12:10 B-15/99 Horseshoe Valley Resort (Carriage Hills Resort II Corp.) • Conc. 4, Lot 2, Plan 51 R9977 Part 5 and Part 6 In Attendance: Martin Kimble, Applicant's Agent 12.20 8-16/99 Horseshoe Valley Resort Conc. 3, Lot 2, Plan 51 R21322 In Attendance: Martin Kimble, Applicant's Agent 5. Decisions 6. Minutes of April 15, 1999 and May 13, 1999 Minutes of April 15. 1999 Moved by Ken Robbins, seconded by Allan Johnson That the Minutes of the April 15, 1999 meeting be received and adopted. ... Carried. Minutes of May 13, 1999 Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Ken Robbins That the Minutes of the May 13, 1999 meeting be received and adopted. ... Carried. 7. Other business -George Smith -Rural Community Sustainability Subject (1 hour deputation) 8. Adjournment Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Ken Robbins "That the meeting be adjourned at 4:15 p.m." ... Carried. (NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.) 3 . Committee of Adjustment Planning Report July 8,1999 Robert Newton A-22 /99 Con 8, Plan 798, Part BZockA (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from the maximum height requirement for a boathouse and relief from the minimum required interior side yard setback. Relief is needed from 4.5 metres (1 Q.7 feet) to 5.97 metres (19.6 feet) for the height, and from 2 metres (6.5 feet) to 1.98 metres (5.35 feet) for the required side yard setback. 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 the shoreline policies is to maintain the character of the shoreline residential area and to protect the natural features of the shoreline area. The proposed variance would permit a loft on top of an existing boathouse to permit a studio. The intent of the Official Plan is to not permit these accessory buildings to be used for human habitation. 2. 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) zoning By-law 97-95. The proposed variance for the side yard would be to recognize the loft area with respect to increased height and the existing legal non- conforming boathouse side yard. The applicant has indicated his intent to revise the plans for the studio to remove the proposed windows on the north-east side. • • 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? Upon site inspection it is evident that the property has substantive vegetation growth next to the neighbour directly affected by the proposed variance. The Committee should be satisfied that the additional height is suitable or whether there is some flexibility. Past precedent has shown height variances of up to 6.25 metres (20.5 feet) on lakefront properties; however each property has its own unique characteristics. 4 Is the variance minor in nature? The variance to the side yard is considered minor in nature as the existing boathouse at this setback has existed for a substantial number of years. The proposed variance for the additional height is considered minor in nature on the basis that is well buffered from neighbouring properties and is only for a partial area of the building. Recommendation It is recommended that Application A-22/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval. 2 • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report July 8,1999 Jennifer McLean A-23 /99 Con 1, South Part Lot 7, (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from the minimum required side yard setback from 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to 2 metres (6.5 feet) to allow construction of an addition to an existing house. Policy Official Plan Designation: Restricted Rural Zoning By-law: Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) 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 Restricted Rural in the Official Plan. The general intent of these policies is to discourage scattered development in the area surrounding Barrie and to maintain the rural character of the Township. The proposed variance for an addition to an existing dwelling is deemed to generally conform with the policies 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 proposed variance would permit an addition on the side of an existing dwelling with a proposed side yard setback of 2 metres (6.5 feet). The addition being necessary for the relocation of basement facilities (i.e. laundry room) 1 • 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? Upon site inspection it is evident that the proposed location of the addition on the south side is in the most suitable location due to the right of way on the north side of the property. The south side of the property abuts an open field and another residential lot. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? The proposed side yard reduction is considered minor in nature on the basis that the addition would be on a raised bungalow, which does not impact any other properties directly. Recommendation It is recommended that Application A-23/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval. • 2 • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report July 8,1999 Michael Higgins A-25 /99 Con. S, Plan M-187, Lots 9,10,11 and Part of Block 37 (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from the maximum floor area for a boathouse from 70 square metres (753.5 square feet) to 83.6 square metres (900 square feet). Relief is also requested to permit a tennis court in the front yard at a setback of 4, 9 metres (16.1 feet). Policy Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: Comments Roads Superintendent: • Health Unit: Shoreline Rural Residential One Exception 84 (RURl*84) 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 shoreline policies is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area and to maintain the shoreline residential area. The proposed variance would permit a tennis court to be located in the front yard at the furthest point from the shoreline and is therefore deemed to generally comply with the policies of the Official Plan. 2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Rural residential One exception 84 (RURl*84) in Zoning By-law 97-95. Exception 84 relates to the lot frontage and lot area requirements. The proposed location of the tennis court at a setback of 4.9 metres (16.1 feet) from the front property line would allow the existing vegetation to remain on the property. Due to the proposed location of the house and septic bed, the only potential location for the tennis court is in the front yard. • 1 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? • Upon site inspection it would appear that the proposed location of the tennis court in the front yard is appropriate for the development of the subject property and would ensure that all existing vegetation can be preserved. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the request is for a tennis court and not a fully enclosed structure. Recommendation It is recommended that Application A-25/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval. • 2 Committee of Adjustment • Planning Report July 8,1999 Robert & Sandra Keto A-26 /99 Con. 1, Lot 1Q, Plan 1689, (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested to recognize existing garage that is located in the front yard at a setback of 15,2 metres (49.9 feet). The garage was built in 1975. Policy Official Plan Designation: Residential Zoning By-law: Residential One (Rl) Comments Roads Superintendent: • Health Unit: Planning Department Comments On July 6/99 a facsimile was received requesting the application be deferred until the applicant's solicitor can attend a hearing. In discussion with the solicitor the earliest available date is the September 16"' hearing. Recommendation It is recommended that Application A-26/99 be deferred until the September 16`" 1999 hearing at the applicant's solicitor request. • 1 Committee of Adjustment • Planning Report July 8,1999 AZZan & Victoria Palmer A-28 /99 Con. 10, Plan 863, East Part Lot A (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from the minimum side yard setback requirement of 3 metres (9.8A feet) to 2.53 metres (8.29 feet) to recognize an existing dwelling with deck. Policy Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: Comments Roads Superintendent: Health Unit: Shoreline Residential Limited Service (RLS) 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 shoreline policies is to maintain the shoreline residential area and protect the natural features of the shoreline. The proposed variance would recognize a new dwelling, which is being constructed to replace a cottage that did not comply with the side yard setback. 2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Residential Limited service (RLS) in Zoning By-law 97-95, which recognizes the property fronts on a private road. The previous cottage did not comply with the zoning provisions and the By-law permits the replacement of the structure on the same footprint. However the South-East corner of the new dwelling extends beyond the original footprint and was required to meet the current zoning standard of 3 metres (9.84 feet). At the time the new dwelling reached grade level, a sketch of survey was required to verify the 3 metre (9.84 feet) side yazd. Once received the survey indicates that the actual structure is only 2.53 metres (8.3 feet) to the property line. 1 i 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? The proposed variance would reduce the side yard by 0.46 metres (1.5 feet), Upon site inspection it is evident that the dwelling is buffered on the property line by mature cedar vegetation to act as a buffer to the neighbouring property. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? The proposed variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the reduction is for 0.46 metres (1.5 feet) and is buffered for the neighbouring properties. Recommendation It is recommended that Application A-28/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval. • u Committee of Adjustment • Planning Report July 8,1999 Robert & Renee Brennan A-27 /99 Con. 9, Plan 902, Part BZockX (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from Section 5.29 for the minimum requirement of 30 metres (9.84 feet) from an Environmental Protection (EP) Zone to 18.6 metres (6I feet) to permit construction of a new residential dwelling. Policy Official Plan Designation: Shoreline Zoning By-law: Shoreline Residential (SR) & Environmental Protection (EP) 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 the shoreline policies is to maintain the shoreline residential area. The proposed variance would permit the construction of a dwelling on a lot created by consent in 1998 and is therefore deemed to generally comply 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) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zoning By-law 97-95. The proposed variance would reduce the setback from the Environmental Protection Zone boundary to the proposed dwelling from the required 30 metre (98.4 feet) to 18.6 metres (61 feet). 1 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? Upon site inspection it is evident that the proposed dwelling is well setback from the creek and the top of bank with the exception that the northern comer should be moved further away from the top of bank. The Committee should determine if a 21 metre (70 foot) setback would be satisfactory to the applicant and would still permit sufficient room for the septic system. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the dwelling would be substantially setback from the creek and top of the bank. Recommendation It is recommended that Application A-27/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval. • 2 Committee of Adjustment • Planning Report June 8,1999 William Drury 8-22/99 Conc. 1, Lot 14, (former Oro) The Proposal The applicant is proposing to extend an existing right of way and an addition to a Zot. The land to be added as the lot addition has a lot frontage of 48.8 metres (160 feet), a lot depth of 54.9 metres (180 feet), and the Zand to be retained would have a Zot depth of 1342 metres (4400 feet) and an area of 59.9 hectares (148 acres) as shown on the attached sketch. Policy Official Plan Designation: Agricultural Zoning By-law: AgriculturallRural (A/RU) Comments • Roads Superintendent: No Concerns Health Unit: Planning Department Comments Official Plan The subject property is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan. Within Section D2.3. Agricultural Policies there are policies related to boundary adjustments and farm consolidation in Section D2.3.4; there are not however separate policies for lot additions. The intent of the Agricultural Policies is to preserve lands for agricultural purposes. The proposed lot addition would add an additional 0.27 hectares (0.66 acres) to an existing residential lot, which is 0.34 hectares (0.84 acres in size) for a total parcel size of 0.61 hectares (1.5 acres). The application would also extend an existing 9 metres (30 feet) wide right of way by an additional depth of 55 metres (180 feet) to the reaz of the proposed lot addition. Upon site inspection it is evident that the area of the lot addition is wooded and is suitable for agricultural purposes. The proposed lot addition would not appeaz to impact on the abutting agricultural operation and the new lot area would not exceed the maximum of 1.0 hectare (2.5 acres) size of new lots in accordance with Section D2.3.3. The application as proposed is deemed to comply with the policies of the Official Plan. 1 Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned AgriculturalBural (A/Ril) and Environmental Protection (EP) in Zoning By-law 97-95. The proposed lot would comply with the minimum lot area requirement of the By-law and is therefore deemed to comply with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. Recommendation It is recommended that Application B-22!99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval and the rezoning of the subject property. • 2 • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report June 8,1999 Shanty Bay Woodlands Ltd. B-24/99 Conc. 1 &2, Lots 1 &2, (former Oro) The Proposal The applicant is proposing to sever two residential lots and two easements for driveway access. The lots to be conveyed are: Part 2- 196.16 metres (643.5 feet) frontage, 9.0 hectares (22 acres) area, and an existing dwelling. Part 3- 45.72 metres (150 feet) frontage, 1.7 hectares (4.2 acres) area, and the land is vacant. The retained lands have an existing dwelling and are: Part 1- 365 metres (1197.5 feet) frontage, 9.3 hectares (23 acres) area. The two easements are Parts 4 and 5, in favour of Part 2 on the attached sketch. Policy Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: Comments Roads Superintendent: Health Unit: Rural & Shoreline Agricultural/Rural (EP) Planning Department Comments Official Plan (A/RU) & Environmental Protection The subject property is designated Rural and Shoreline in the Official Plan. The property is also subject to the Environmental Protection Two overlay Designation. The Shoreline Designation is intended to recognize the residential areas, which are suitable for development. The intent of the Rural Designation is to prevent incompatible development that affects the rural character of the area. The Environmental Protection Two designation is an overlay, which is intended to identify natural features, which require protection and assessment. • 1 • Section D.10.3.7 of the Official Plan addresses the policies for new residential lots by consent. The proposed application is for the creation of two residential lots that do not require the extension of municipal services and the proposed application is deemed to generally conform with the policies of the Plan in the Shoreline Designation. The policies of the Environment Protection Two Overlay Designation require applicants to complete an E.LS. (Environment Impact Study) relating to the impact on development on the natural features. A copy of the applicant's assessment is attached for the Committee's reference. As there are existing dwellings on two of the three properties the Environment Impact Statement report focuses on the proposed lotto be developed. Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned AgriculturalBural (A/RLI) and Environmental Protection (EP) in Zoning By-law 97-95. Section D.10.3.7 of the Official Plan requires that lands subject to the application shall be rezoned to comply with the policies of the Official plan, if required. A rezoning is deemed to be necessary with this application to restrict the use of land to residential purposes and to recognize the substantial lot frontage and lot area requirements of the proposed lots. Recommendation • It is recommended that Application B-24199 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval and the rezoning of the subject property. • • ?tiF SS GS E s n~e.FCCE ao'~iii$ agsnnsg ~~~i#i@ ~ gc;~~ *. ~~~ ; ~.i~ ~ . ~ fy .. ~,, \ ,~ -~..7`- ~ ~ it ~i ~~ I ao~G ~""" g' ~ q ~l f i .. am ~ ~ N a \~ H. ~ ' ~.~ k ~~ i ~ a~ a ~a I ~~ gt s R ~~ ~ V..~ ~./ k ~ ~.~~~ ~' s A ~ tl ~~„ri '~i . ~~'e ~.H, ~' ~ ~~\ ~ ~ 1 \ v ,;'mot}. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ i'y;~ tl ' v '~~ i 6@ ~: ~ pk ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ \ \ ~_ - i / ~~ ~~ ' ~ i\ ! ~ ~ / I ~~ n I ~~' ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ \ ~ ~~ ~ y w ~ / ~ \~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ .~ ~6 • ~~~ ~, T~ :' ~ `'~~ \ Fri' `~`,, f J,. (' 4I ;I fI / sl ~ I~'f I i f~ X DLA CONSULTING 7234 Sandhurst Drive Mississauga, ON ~5N 7G9 Tei: (905} 824-6304 Fax:{905)824-3800 Email: nodoubt@totai.net July 6, 1999 Ms. Andria Leigh Planner Township of Oro-Medonte Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0 Dear Ms. Leigh: Re: Proposed Consent to Sever and Rezoning 2981 Shanty Bay Road, Township of dro Please find enclosed an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) in relation to the above-noted proposal. Since the proposal only contemplates one new residential dwelling, the environmental impact is anticipated to be minimal. The enclosed EIS provides a general summary addressing the matters as required by the Offlcial Plan. • We would be pleased to discuss this report further should you have any questions or require additional information. You_ tru ~l ~ ~i Da Anderson, M.A., M.C.LP., R.P.P. cc: R.B. Matthews u Environmental Impact Study • proposed consent to sever and rezoning 2981 Shanty Bay Road (Ridge Road), Township of Oro-Medonte Part of Lot 1, Concession 1 Township of Oro-Medonte Prepared by: DLA Consulting For: Shanty Bay Woodlands Ltd. July &, 1999 Property Description and the Proposed Undertaking Shanty Bay Woodlands are the owners of a 20 ha property located at 2981 Shanty Bay Road (Ridge Road) in the Township of Oro-Medonte. The property contains approximately 2,207 feet of shoreline along Kempenfelt Bay. There are two existing dwellings on the property, There is a large, estate residence on the west side of the property with access from a driveway from Ridge Road. There is also a small cottage on the property located at the southwestern portion which also has access from a gravel driveway from Ridge Road. Both dwellings are supported by existing private services twell and septic system). A stream traverses the property from the north to the south with outflow into the lake. The owner is proposing to sever the property to create a total of three lots, two of which will contain the existing dwellings, respectively. The third lot (Part 3) will be similar in size and configuration as the abutting lot to the west and will provide for a new residential dwelling. The retained lots will continue to be provided with access from the existing roadway with no new access points being added. The conveyed lot (Part 3) wlli obtain access by an easement over the • existing entrances and be serviced with private servicing. 2. Existing Natural Features and Ecological Functions of the Area The site is relatively flat in topography with some sloping towards the stream channel as well as some steeper sloping m some shoreline areas towards the centre of the property. The soil is generally a mix of sandy loams. The majority of the site is forested with a mix of hazdwood trees. The forested areas are continuous into neighbouring properties along the shoreline. Based on previous assessments of the site and recent field inspections, there is no evidence of any significant environmental areas or features. The existing stream channel provides natural drainage towazds the lake, Based on previous information and recent field inspections there does not appear to be any evidence of fish habitat within the stream and it was confirmed to be a warm water channel. 3. Impacts of the Proposed Development The proposed new development resulting from the severances will be for only one new residential dwelling. All of the other built features on the property will remain with no alterations. The new dwelling is proposed to be constructed with minimal impacts to the surrounding environment. Measures wiA be taken to ensure construction is sensitive to the natural features of the property and surrounding area. The new dwelling will also be constructed with minimal tree removal. The existing forest on the property will continue to be preserved which in turn will ensure protection of the natural species, both plant and animal, within the forested area. The natural linkages and inter-relationships of the forest azeas wID be preserved. • -a- There will be no changes to the existing stream channel and it will be maintained in one ownership. This single ownership will ensure controlled stewardship and maintenance to preserve the natural condition and maintain bank stability. The stream will also continue to be protected by the existing 15 m riparian buffer and setback. There are no proposed changes to the shoreline on the property. This will eliminate any impacts on fish habitat and any changes to the waterfront morphology. The existing setbacks from the lake will be maintained. The well records for the area illustrate sufficient water quality and quantity to provide for a new dwelling. The proposed new well, due to the size of the proposed lot and its significant distance from surrounding wells, should present no well interference. The water supply from the shallow aquifer will also be maintained .There are no significant impacts anticipated by the addition of one residential well. The addition of the one dwelling should also create no significant impact on groundwater recharge in the area. Additional surface runoff resulting from the new dwelling will be minimal and as such the existing surface water infiltration capabilities of the property, which are sufficient, will be maintained. 4. Conclusions The proposed severances and new development will result in the creation of three new lots with one new dwelling created.. As a result of the limited new development, the changes to the property's natural and ecological features are minimal, protection of existing features is maximized and the preservation of the forest corridor, shoreline, fisheries habitat and stream channel are stabilized. The proposal does encompass a rezoning to the Shoreline Residential zone and this process can ensure that appropriate measures are in place to secure an appropriate building envelope for the new dwelling on Part 3. The proposal represents a minor infilling opportunity which conforms with the Official Plan. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development and will have minimal impact on the surrounding properties. The new development will enhance the property and is desirable for the appropriate development of the area. • • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report June 3,1999 The Schiele Housing Trust 8-21/99 Conc. 3, Part East Half Broken Lot 28, (former Oro) The Proposal The applicant is proposing the conveyance of a new lot. The land to be conveyed has a lot frontage of bb metres (21 b.5 feet), a lot depth of 100 metres (328.08 feet), and the land to be retained would be the balance of Part 1, Plan SIR-1072b. Policy Official Plan Designation: Rural & Shoreline Zoning By-law: Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) & Shoreline Residential (SR) Comments Roads Superintendent: • Health Unit: Planning Department Comments Background The proposed application is for a new residential lot, which would abut the Ridge Road. The proposed lot has an existing dwelling and would have a lot area of 0.6 hectares (1.6 acres) Official Plan The subject property is designated Rural and Shoreline in the Official Plan. Within the shoreline policies in Section D10.3.7 there is a provision which would permit a consent for a new residential lot even if the entire property was not in the shoreline designation; however this policy does require the dwelling units to be located in the shoreline designation. With the application proposed the retained lands and dwelling would be within the shoreline designation but the severed lands and dwelling would be within the rural designation, which does not permit severances of this nature. On this basis the application would not comply with the policies of the Official Plan, • • Zonine By-law The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RI)) and Shoreline Residential (SR) in Zoning By-law 97-95. The proposed lot would comply with the minimum lot frontage and lot area requirements of the By-law. The retained lands would not comply with the minimum lot frontage requirement of 30 metres (98.4 feet) but would comply with the minimum lot area requirement. The application shows a proposed relocation of the existing entrance and this would require approval from the County of Simcoe. Recommendation It is recommended that Application B-21 /99 be denied as it does not comply with the provisions of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. JULY 7/99 Comments This application for consent was deferred at the June 10, 1999 hearing in order for the Committee to obtain additional information related to the County of Simcoe and the proposed driveway relocation. The application was also deferred to review the background on the existing two dwellings on the property. • A review of the Township records indicates that a rezoning was completed in 1984 by By-law number 1368/84 which permitted a second residential dwelling on the property as an accessory use for the housing of a groundskeeper. There were two such exceptions granted in the former Township of Oro By-law for the subject property and the Birshtein property (formerly Borins property). The intent with these dwelling units is that they were to be accessory to the main residential dwelling on the property. The Official Plan policies for Oro Township at the time this zoning was adopted are attached for the Committee's reference and indicate that this residence was not to be severed by either the applicant or subsequent owners. This type of policy for accessory dwellings is similar to the provision in place for agricultural properties where there was a need for full time farm help. As the Committee is aware the Official Plan no longer permits two dwellings on any property due to the problems of consent applications which arise at future dates. There was however a policy recently placed in the Official Plan for Oro-Medonte which permitted the consent of one of the two dwellings on these parcels provided the second dwelling was legally created in accordance with the Official Plan policies previously in effect. After reviewing the background of this property it appears that the second dwelling was legally created in accordance with the Oro Official Plan policies and therefore can be considered under this • policy. 2 • As two thirds of the subject property is designated Rural, Section D.3.3.1 of the Official Plan would apply. In reviewing these policies the two criteria which are not satisfied relate to compliance with the Zoning By-law related to the mnrimum lot frontage and the County of Simcoe entrance permit for the relocation of the driveway. Discussions have occurred with the County of Simcoe and comments should be forthcoming for the hearing. The applicant's should apply for the minor variance to reduce the lot frontage so that the Committee can review the entire application as one package. RECOMMENDATI01~ That Application B-21 /99 be deferred to review the minor variance application once submitted and to receive the County of Simcoe comments on the relocation of the driveway. • 3 • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report July 8,1999 Fred & Chandra Reynolds A-29 /99 • • Con. 2, Lot 10, (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from Section 5.29 for the minimum required setback from an Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. Relief is requested from 30 metres (98.4 feet) to 26.5 metres (86.9 feet) to recognize existing house of 10 years. Policy Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: Agricultural Rural Residential Protection (EP) Two (RUR2) & Environmental Comments Roads Superintendent: Health Unit: No Concerns 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 these policies is to preserve lands for future use. The subject property was created by consent in 1988 for residential purposes in accordance with the policies and is therefore deemed to generally comply with the Official Plan. 2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Rural Residential Two (RUR2) and Environmental Protection (EP) in Zoning By-law 97-95. The proposed variance would recognize an existing dwelling, which does not comply with Section 5.29, the minimum required setback from the Environmental Protection Zone boundary. Relief is also requested to permit a deck to be constructed at the rear of the dwelling. 1 • 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? Upon site inspection it is evident that the proposed dwelling is setback from the top of bank. Approval was obtained from the N.V.C.A in a letter dated February 6/99 (attached) for the construction of the dwelling subject to conditions. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? The application is considered minor in nature on the basis that the building has received approval from the appropriate conservation authority related to the floodplain area. A sketch of survey (attached) was received on July 8, 1999 showing the location of the dwelling and the proposed deck based on the survey measurement a revised notice of hearing is required for the deck at a 22.5 metres (73.8 feet) setback. Recommendation It is recommended that Application A-29/99 be deferred to allow for re-circulation of the application with the measurements as shown on the survey. • 2 ~'~± Ey: 6A(~P~c, OD;, 'G~ 722 ~81~5, ~~~_:-u-8~+ ~ Lti r 'rr~' l 1 ~(iaas} ~, RQAd ALLOWANCE BETWEEN LUTS iQ do 'd' rxsr xo. ar.*rsJ7e (sECOxvtr; r (ct OSED BY Br"-CAW xo- 6J3) {iws) N89`13'3d'W 95.44 ` ` - ~ r t+, w catH~ ~ ~{ u:t r0. Q. ~. N Q U ^~ V ~6~ }9.6T 54.23 ~, r~ N8T13' ~.~ _\f 1, t'i%_~~_ ~~,r" x w 91.44 ..,• ?"[_. ', ~ . . , _' lei ~.i:~ ~ i~ i PART 7 PL4N 5 ~' R- 7 9534 `r,~ry Pale 1 ~ „ 231',' i ,~. r ,la. ~ ~ SAf~ ~V JV 4i£J n n m YLST WCE ~: .~ ~~ ~1 . , ~i, r . A~ I 11 r~l /. (1255) ~r p~ li N C.~ ~ , ~;~ Nottawasaga Valley ~ Conservation .Ahorlty - 26G Mill Street, Highway 90, R.R. #1, Angus, ~C~Fr;T;,UM 180, TEL p05) 424-14i9, FAX (i05) 424 2113-0. e-mail address: nvca(abconnex.nat Est. 1960 Ron $irnpson, Chair Don Bell, Vice-Chair Wayne Wilson, CA.O. Our Member Municipalifies Adjala-Tosorontio Township Amaranth Township City of Barrie Town of Bradford - West Gwillirnbury Town o(Colling.vood Town of the Bluc Mountains Cleatview Township F Township of Innisfil !delancthon Township ,Mono Township Mulmur Township Town o(New Tecumseth Oro-Medonte Tov:nship Gsprey Townshi p Town p(Shelburne iprngwater Township Town of Wasaga Beach Watershed Col:nties County cf Sinicoe County of Du(ferin County o(Grey ~~4~~Ttorv a~ •;~ ifw~ ' ~~ ~ ,'^,, ~:~-.:~ r 'F nG nVS.A c\ ~'~:a: . \ ~.y~i4~~~ ,. DATE Febn~ 6 1999 PERIVIIT NO-•~ORP-99-O1 In accordance whit Ontario Regulation 164, R.R.O. 1990, as amended, permission bas been granted to: APPLICANT: Fred Reynolds 2536 George)o(vuton Rd., blinesing ON LOL lI0 LOCATION: Lot 10, Concession 1, Township of Oro-:~ledonte PROPOSAL: Eor the construction of a new stntcmre and placement of 61I (single funny dwelling :utd septic system), as indicated on die attached drawing(s), on d:e above property during the period of Februnr~(, 1999 to Febmarv 6, 200, subject to dle following conditions: 1) that all development is subject to provincial, federal and nwnicip:d sruures, regulations ;mtl by-laws. 2) That this permit does not confer upon you any right to occupc, develop or flood lands owned by other persons or agencies. 3) That appropeiate erosion control medtods are inst;il(ed for ro corisavction and maintained until all disturbed areas are stabilized, to ensure drat sedime.nrs tlo not QnCCi at1V WflCBCCOUCSe. 4) that dlere shal be no straightening, changing, diversion or interference, in ;ur: wae, with :lll esisung channel, river, creek, stream or watercourse odler than as shown in dte attached drawirg(s). 5) 'That :ul Filled or disnrbed areas and exposed slopes shall, iuunccharely following consutilction, he covered wid: topsoil vul revegetated to minimize erosion. 6) 111at dte mininwm opening elecadon of die proposed suucmre be ;tr least 11.15 metres (6 inches) above die Regiou;il Storm Flood elevation of 238.'1 mcu~es Canadi;ut geodetic d~aca, which s appro::im;ttely U.% :Herres :.S°E Ecet) above centreline of the bridge on Concession Road 2. ?) That nod:istg herein authorizes wry person, io carry' out worl: or undecrild::g, ^,'1.'c?~ may result in harmful alteration, disntounn or des~~acuou of fish Imbir~at or ;tny tishery. ../? Buildirzg Parbterships With Our Corfur.urlit f~c~r a He~lthtJ Wtttershe Help us achieee our goals by becoming a member of the NVCA Permit: ORI'- 9-Ol P"°e Z • 8) That any excess excavated material should be placed at least 15 metres (50 feet) from atiy slope, wetland or watercourse and outside tJte tloodptain area. 9) That tree remova on subject Ivtds should be maiimized and limited to oily those required to necessitate the construction of the proposed stmcture. Li additiat, that die applicant should replace removed trees d~rough the replanting oEnative species to achieve no net loss in Eorest cover. ~' `l.~i~--~ Chris Hibberd, H.B.Sc., Regulations Officer f;nh~nccring Dcpt. copy: iv.V.C.:1. Chair; Building Inspector; Healdt Unit acid, File (1) • • ~n C} ~/~1~ et~baG~a ~ ~. • Q- c? ~~~ . Lr d.Cat~~ 5~3~1 etc ~a~!a'~-L~ ~~ 1~ A. ~ ~. FEB-D4-99 THU ©5:41 P. ;jED REYNOLD % ~\ ' `\\ \, r, \~~ ._~ `~ - _ ! ' ~~~ `~, ~ ~ . ~ . T-~.~`~_ -- ~ ,~f I ~ ~ 1 i ~ ~ f { ~ 1 ~~ `f ~ ~~~~~ ~, ~~ ~ ~t ;- __ _ -.. ~__. 1 QB-1Sc~ 705 9 8497 f _. ~--"'_ _ ~ ~ _. ~. i J _'~_ ~ i l~•• 1 ~ -~_~- ` ~ lam/ ~. .._~. ~ .___.y C__...__... _..___....._ _` t7- ~~ w ZQ ~~~J ~~ -`_ n> ~S ~~~s~ ,,,.. ~~:\, ~ _ __i ~ rac}Q f \~ ~„ Q`~~ ,~r __ - ~_ ~ ~ J ~ -.. _ ~ `~ ~ *_ ~~ A ~ ~ `1 ~ ~ ~ \ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ P.O1 -' ~~~' i ~~ f --~-'' _~.~ ~ , , ~ ~ .~, j , ., /~ ~ r ~' ~ . J ///J `~' _~i J }___ .._ • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report June 8,1999 Gary & Karen Phillips B-26/99 Conc. 6, West Part of Lot 8, (former Oro) The Proposal The applicant is proposing to sever a residential lot having 91.44 metres (300 feet) of lot frontage, 83.82 metres (275 feet) of lot depth, and 0.76 hectares (1.89 acres) of lot area as shown on the attached sketch. Policy Official Plan Designation: Rural Zoning By-law: Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Comments Roads Superintendent: Health Unit: Planning Department Comments Official Plan The subject property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. Section D 3.3.1 must therefore be considered for an application for the creation of a new lot for residential purposes. The subject property is 40 hectares (98.8 acres) in size and has not had a lot severed since March 26, 1973 and therefore complies with that portion of the Official Plan. The proposed residential lot would be 0.76 hectares (1.89 acres) which would satisfy subsections A and B. The property fronts on Line 5 North, which is a year, round Township maintained road, which would satisfy subject C. With respect to subsection D comments are required from the Roads Superintendent; upon site inspection it would appeaz that a new entrance could only be located at the north end of the proposed lot in order to improve the sight lines to the hill to the south. Favourable comments are also required from the Simcoe County District Health Unit to ensure the proposed lot can be appropriately serviced and to satisfy subsection E. The application can only be deemed to • comply with the Official Plan once subsection D and E are satisfied. 1 • Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned AgriculturaURura1 (A/RU) in Zoning By-law 97-95. The proposed lot would have 91.44 metres (300 feet) of lot frontage and 0.76 hectares (1.89 acres) in lot area and would comply with the provisions of Table BS of Zoning By-law 97-95. Recommendation It is recommended that Application B-22/99 be approved only if favourable comments are received from the Roads Superintendent and the Simcoe County District Health Unit. If the application should be subject to the standard conditions of approval and any required by the appropriate authorities. •