Loading...
08 12 1999 C of A Agendak Committee of Adjustment Agenda Thursday August 12th 1999, 9:00 a.m. 1. Communications and Correspondence None 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Hearings: 9:00 9:10 9:20 A-30/99 Steve Tooze 1012 Lakeshore Road East Con 10, Plan 985, Lot 5(Oro) A-31199 Mary and Robert Wolstenholme 157 Lakeshore Road West Con 7, Plan 967, Lot 56 (Oro) 8-27/99 Robert and Sylvia Beard 1008 Bass Lake Side Road East Con 10, Pt Lot 6 (Oro) 9:30 9:40 9:50 B-23/99 Ernest Booth 460 Bass Lake Side Road West Con 6, E Half Lot 5 (Oro) 8-21/99 The Schiele Housing Trust A-33/99 1735 Ridge Road West Con 3, Pt E Half Lot 28(Oro) 8-24/99 Shanty Bay Woodlands Con 1 & 2, Lots 1 & 2 (Oro) 10:00 A-29199 Fred and Sandra Reynolds Con 2, Pt Lot 10 (Oro) t 10:10 B-28/99 10:20 B-29/99 10:30 A-34/99 10:40 A-35/99 10:50 B-30/99 5. Decisions 6. Minutes of July 15, 1999 7. Other business 8. Adjournment Horseshoe Resort Corporation Con 4, South Half of Lot 3 (Oro) Horseshoe Resort Corporation Conc 4, Pt Lot 1 (Oro) Donaghey Conc. 13 Pt Lot 28 (Oro) Henning Conc.7, PIan755,Lot 39&40 (Oro) Janes Conc. 7, Plan 655, Lot 16 (Oro) Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday July 15th 1999, 10:00 a.m. In Attendance: Chairman Roy Campbell, Member Ken Robbins, Member Dave Edwards, Member Allan Johnson, Member Alan Martin, Planner Andria Leigh 1. Communications and Correspondence..... None Received. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest.....None declared. 3. Hearings: 10:00 A-22/99 Newton Con 8, Plan 798, Pt Block A(Oro) In Attendance: Robert Newton, Applicant, Randy and Kathryn Bowman, Neighbouring Property Owners 10:10 A-23/99 Jennifer McLean Con 1, Pt Lot 7 (Oro) In Attendance: Jennifer McLean, Applicant 10:20 A-25/99 Michael Higgins Con 5, Plan M-187, Lots 9, 10, 11 & Block 37 (Oro) In Attendance: Richard Blundell, Applicant's Solicitor 10:30 A-26/99 Robert and Sandra Keto Con 1, Plan 1689, Lot 14 (Oro) In Attendance: No One (Deferral Letter Received) i 11:50 B-26!99 Gary and Karen Phillips Conc. 6, W Pt Lot 8 (Oro) In Attendance: Gary and Karen Phillips, Applicant's 5. Decisions 6. Minutes of June 10, 1999 Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Alan Martin That the Minutes of the June 10, 1999 meeting be received and adopted. ... Carried. 7. Other business -Hearing will begin in future at 9 a.m. for all future meetings - Planning Reports will be delivered on Monday August 9 to all members 8. Adjournment Moved by AIIan Johnson, seconded by Dave Edwards • "That the meeting be adjourned at 3:45 p.m." ... Carried. (NOTE: A tape of this meeting is available for review.) 3 • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report August 9,1999 • Steve Tooze A-30 /99 Con. 1 Q Plan 985, Lot S (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from the interior side yard setback from 3 metres (9.8 feet) to 1.82 metres (5.97 feet) on the North East corner and 1.92 metres (6.3 feet) on the South East corner to allow for the construction of a new 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 the shoreline policies is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area and maintain the shoreline residential area. The proposed variance would recognize a side yard deficiency, which arose when the new home was being constructed. 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, which requires a minimum side yard setback of 3 metres (9.84 feet). When the survey was completed after the foundation was in place it was determined that the side yard was deficient by just over 3 feet. The house is well setback from the road and other property lines. 1 • 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? The proposed variance would recognize a new dwelling being constructed on the subject property and would not appear to impact on the neighbouring properties. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? The proposed variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that it would recognize the existing dwelling. Recommendation It is recommended that Application A-30/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval. • 2 • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report August 9,1999 Mary & Robert Wolstenholme A-31/99 Con. 7, Ptan 967, Lot 39, 56 (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from the minimum interior side yard setback from 3 metres (9.8 feet) to 1.82 metres (6 feet) to allow for a sun deck. Relief is also requested from the minimum rear yard setback of 20 metres (66 feet) to 15.24 metres (50 feet) at the South East corner of proposed deck, and 9.45 metres (31 feet) at the South West comer of the proposed deck. 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 protect the natural features of the shoreline area and maintain the shoreline residential area. The proposed variance would permit a deck on the lake side of a waterfront property and permit a landing on the East side of the house and therefore deemed to generally comply with 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 proposed variances would grant relief to the side yard setback of 1.1 metres (3.8 feet) to allow a landing and stairs on the East side of the house. The second variance would permit a 16x25-foot deck on the lakeside of the property with a setback to the water's edge of 14.3 metres (47 feet) at the closest point to the lake. This is a correction from the notice of hearing which indicating 9.4 metres (31 feet) to Lake Simcoe. 1 • 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? The proposed variance would improve the existing dwelling by allowing a proper entrance at the side of the house. The By-law currently permits encroachments of up to 1 metre (3.28 feet) into the required 3 metre (9.84 feet) setback for unenclosed porches. The proposed variance would encroach an additional 0.18 metres (0.6 feet) and therefore deemed appropriate. The variance to the water's edge is considered appropriate on the basis that it is for a deck only not an enclosed structure and would not appear to impact on the natural features of the shoreline. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? The proposed variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that there would not appear to be an impact on neighbouring properties and the shoreline would not appear to be impacted. Recommendation It is recommended that Application A-31/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval. 2 • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report August 12, 1999 Beard B-27/99 Con. 1 Q Part Lot 6 (former Oro) The Proposal The applicant is proposing to sever a parcel of land having approx. 60 metres (198 feet) of lot frontage, 155.45 metres (510 ft) of lot depth, and 0.94 hectares (2.32 acres) of lot area currently used for residential purposes, and to retain a parcel of land having approximately 522 metres (1715 feet) of lot frontage and 33.4 hectares (82.55 acres) of lot area currently used for residential and agricultural purposes. Existing Policy Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: Comments Public Works: Health Unit: Agricultural Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone Planning Department Comments The applicants are proposing to sever a parcel of land having 0.93 hectares (2.32 ac) containing a residence and shed and to retain a parcel of land having 33.4 hectares (82.55 ac) for an agricultural operation and residential use. This property currently has two dwellings on the property which were permitted by the former Township of Oro Official Plan for full time farm help. Subsection D2.3.3 related to properties which currently have two dwellings should be considered for reviewing this application. The applicant's are proposing to sever only the amount of land necessary for the existing residence and as shown on the applicant's sketch this would not impact on the agricultural operation and therefore Subsection A would be satisfied. Due to the location of the existing barns and the proposed severed residential lot there do not appear to be any issues relating to Minimum Distance Separation calculations relating to incompatible land uses with agriculture and therefore Subsection B is satisfied. • The proposed lot fronts on Bass Lake Side Road and the retained lot fronts on both the Bass Lake Side Road and Line 10 North which are both year round Township maintained road and each property currently has an existing driveway which would satisfy Subsections C and D. Subsection E would be satisfied if favorable comments are received by the Roads Superintendent. The Simcoe County District Health Unit us required to provide confirmation that Subsection F can be satisfied. The Committee should also confirm that each lot has its own well to satisfy Subsection G. Subsection H indicates 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 a residential lot to have a minimum of 0.4 hectares (0.98acres) in Table B4. The proposed lot would satisfy this requirement. Recommendation It is recommended that Application B-27/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval after favorable comments are received from the Roads Superintendent and Simcoe County District Health Unit. • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report August 12,1999 Ernest A. Booth B-23/99 Conn 6, East Half Lot S, (former Oro) The Proposal The applicant is proposing a conveyance for a new residential lot. The land to be conveyed has a lot frontage of 137 metres (450 feet), a lot depth of 244 metres (800 feet), and a Zot area of 3.3 hectares (8.25 acres). The land to be retained would have a lot area 37 hectares (91.25 acres). Policy Official Plan Designation: Rural Zoning By-law: Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Comments • Roads Superintendent: No Concerns Health Unit: No Objection Planning Department Comments July 15 Meeting Official Plan The subject properCy is designated Rural in the Official Plan and as the application is for the creation of a new residential lot Section D 3.3.1 of the Official Plan must be satisfied. The subject property is 40.3 hectares (100 acres) in lot size and has not had a severance since March 26, 1973, which would satisfy the initial policies of section D 3.3.1. The proposed residential lot would be 3.3 hectares (8.25 acres) in size, which would satisfy subsection A. Subsection B requires that the lot be of an appropriate size for residential purposes and generally not require a lot size that exceeds 2 hectares (4.94 acres). The proposed residential lot would be 3.3 hectares (8.25 acres) in size. Upon review of the draft survey provided with the application this incorporates all the existing • structures, the driveway, hydro, water and sewage facilities. The large parcel size is due 1 • to, rivo factors: the location of the driveway and the large distance of the dwelling back from the Bass Lake Side Road. 1t would appear that the only way to reduce the lot size would be to not incorporate the driveway into the proposed lot and grant an easement for the driveway over the retained lands. Upon site inspection it is evident that the driveway cannot be relocated to a different location on the property due to topography constraints. Although the Official Plan would not permit additional consent applications for new lots; if the Committee is concerned that this is an issue the consent could be subject to a rezoning which would recognize the large frontage and area and further discourage proposals for severance. Subsection C requires the proposed lot to front on an existing public road maintained by the Township which the Bass Lake Side Road is and therefore this requirement is satisfied. There is an existing driveway into the proposed residential lot and upon site inspection it is apparent that subsection D is satisfied and there is no traffic hazard. Confirmation from the Simcoe County District Health Unit is required in order to determine if subsection E can be satisfied. Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned AgriculturalBural (ABU) in Zoning By-law 97-95. The • proposed lot exceeds the minimum lot frontage and lot area requirements of Table B4 of the By-law and is therefore deemed to generally conform with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. Recommendation It is recommended that Application B-23/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval only after favourable comments are received from the Simcoe County District Health Unit. Decision That the Committee hereby DEFER Application B-23/99 at the applicant's request. August 12, 1999 Comments At the July 15 meeting the Committee indicated that other options should be reviewed by the applicant. Subsequent to that meeting discussions occurred between the applicant, the surveyor, and the Township Planner and two options are being brought forward to the Committee for consideration. • Three maps are attached to this report: the original proposal, Option 1 and Option 2. 2 • Option 1 would create an L shaped parcel which would have a lot frontage of 150 feet and an overall lot depth of 800 feet with a total parcel size of 4.81 acres. This proposal would remove an area 300 feet by 500 feet in front of the existing house and maintain this with the retained lands and would require a Hydro Easement. Option 2 would reduce the lot frontage to 375 feet and the lot depth to 680 feet for a lot area of 5.85 acres. This option would require an easement for the driveway as this is within the area to be removed from the proposed parcel. Both options have been discussed with the applicant and he is reviewing these to determine what would be satisfactory for his purposes. Mr. Booth will advise the Committee at the meeting of his wishes. In review of Section D 3.3.1 the policies indicate that the proposed lot will have a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares (0.98 acres), is of an appropriate size for residential use, with such a residential use generally not requiring a lot size that exceeds 2.0 hectares (4.94 acres). The topography of the subject lands and the location of the existing dwelling, septic system, and driveway create a unique situation on this property. The original application maintains all the existing amenities within one parcel of land and would not require any further easements to be created. • Recommendation It is recommended that Application B-23/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval. lJ 3 S • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report June 3,1999 The Schiele Housing Trust 8-21/99 Conc. 3, Part East Ha~Broken Lot 28, (/ormer Oro) The Proposal The applicant is proposing the conveyance of a new lot. The land to be conveyed has a lot frontage of 66 metres (216.5 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-10726. Policy Official Plan Designation: Rural & Shoreline Zoning By-law: AgriculturaURura1(A/RL1) & 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. 1 • Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned Agricultural{Rural (A/RL1) 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. JITLY 9199 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 minimum 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. RECOMMENDATION 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. Decision That the Committee hereby DEFER Application B-21 /99 to allow the applicant to apply for a minor variance for the reduced front yard. • August 8199 Comments The minor variance application, which would recognize the reduced lot frontage of the retained lot has been received and circulated for this meeting. Discussions have occurred with the County of Simcoe and there does not appear to be a problem with the relocation of the driveway however the issuance of the entrance permit should be a condition of the provisional consent. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Application B-21!99 be approved subject to Application A-33/99 being approved and the entrance permit being issued by the County of Simcoe. • 3 • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report August 9,1999 The Schiele Housing Trust A-33/99 Con 3, Part East Half Broken Lot 28, (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from the minimum lot frontage of the AgriculturaURura1 (A/RIJ) Zone from 30 metres (98.0 feet) to 20.979 metres (68.8 feet) to allow for the construction of a new entrance. This application is proceeding concurrent with severance application B- 21/99 that will be heard at the same meeting. The requested variance would be a condition to be fulfilled if application B-21199 is approved. Policy Official Plan Designation: Shoreline & Agricultural Zoning By-law: Shoreline Residential (SR) & 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 Shoreline and Agricultural/Rural in the Official Plan. The general intent is to protect the shoreline area and maintain the rural character of the area. The proposed variance would recognize a reduction in the minimum lot frontage for a new lot with an existing dwelling and is therefore 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/RL1) and Shoreline Residential (SR) in Zoning By-law 97-95. The area fronting on the Ridge Road is zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RT~ and requires a lot frontage of 30 metres (98.4 feet) minimum. In order to accommodate the existing driveway, house and septic system on the proposed lot. The reduced lot frontage is necessary on the retained lands. • 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? Upon site inspection the two existing dwellings would appear to be physically separate and the reduced frontage only impacts the proposed driveway location which the County of Simcoe has indicated is acceptable. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? The proposed variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that there is still sufficient area for the driveway. Recommendation It is recommended that Application A-33/99 be approved subject to Application B-21/99 being approved and the standard conditions of approval. 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 far 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 (ISO 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 (]197.5 feet) frontage, 93 hectares (23 acres) area. The two easements are Parts 4 arul 5, in favour of Part 2 on the attached sketch. Policy Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: Comments Roads Superintendent: Health Unit: Rural & Shoreline AgriculturalBural (EP) Planning Department Comments Official Plan (ABU) & 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 applicants 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 Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) 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-24/99 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval and the rezoning of the subject property. Decision That the Committee hereby DEFER Application 8-24/99 and B-25/99. August 8/99 Comments This application was re-circulated on July 29, 1999 with the revised measurements and revised easements. The three lots to be created are: 1. Part 1 2. Parts 2 and 5 3. Parts 3,4, and 6 On the draft Reference Plan. The two access easements are: 1. Parts 5 for access to Part 1 and 2. Part 4 for access to Part 2. • 2 . RECOMMENDATION The comments above are still relevant in relation to this application and rezoning of the property should be a condition of provisional consent. • • 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. S metres (86.9 feet) to recognize existing house of IO years. Policy Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: Comments . Roads Superintendent: Health Unit: Agricultural Rural Residential Protection (EP) No Concerns Planning Department Comments Two (RURZ) & Environmental 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. Decision That the Committee hereby DEFER Minor Variance Application A-29/99 to allow re- circulation of the application for the relief for the existing dwelling and the proposed deck. August 8199 Comments A revised notice of hearing was sent out on July 29/99 indicating the proposed variances for both the existing house and the proposed deck. As indicated at the July meeting NVCA approval was received for the construction of the house; however a revised approval is required for the construction of the deck. To date that approval either verbal or in writing has not been received; contact with Chris Hibbard at the NVCA will be made prior to the meeting. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Application A-29/99 be deferred until favourable comments are received from the NVCA. • 2 • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report August 12,1999 Horseshoe Resort Corporation 8-28/99 Con. 4, Part Lot 1, SIR-10977, Part 4 (former Oro) The Proposal The appticant is proposing a technical severance for Part 4 on Plan SIR-10977. The subject property, the site of the Horseshoe Resort Lodges Timeshare building is to remain in the name of Horseshoe Resort Corporation, while the remaining lands is to remain in the Horseshoe Palley Resort Limited. Existing Policy Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: • Comments Public Works: Health Unit: Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node -Horseshoe Valley Village Future Development Exception 68 (FD*68) Zone Planning Department Comments Official Plan The subject property is within the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node Boundary and is designated Horseshoe Valley Village in the Official Plan. The proposed consent for the timeshare development would therefore be subject to the policies of Section E2 and more specifically the policies of Subsection E2.5.3. In reviewing the application the applicant has not indicated the details related to the proposed severed and retained lands in relation to use and any buildings on the property. It is understood that the proposed severed lot would be Part 7 on the draft reference plan which is the existing timeshare buildings; but how many buildings are in existence. It is the intent of this designation that the main commercial and resort facilities associated with Horseshoe Valley Resort would be located in the Village designation. Some Medium density residential uses may be permitted provided they support the function of the village. The timeshare buildings are existing structures, which pre-date the new Official Plan adoption. The timeshare structures are only accessed by a private road and it is the Township policy to restrict new development on private roads unless the road is in a Plan of Condominium, which this property is not. In order to ensure continued access to the timeshare lodges, an easement (Part 5) would also be required from County Road 22 to the timeshare lodges (Part 7). On this basis the application should be amended to incorporate an easement over Part 5 and recirculated for County of Simcoe comments. Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned Future Development Exception 68 (FD*68) in Zoning By- law 97-95. The exception restricts the types of new buildings/structures permitted on the property and also restricts any additions to existing buildings. A copy of the exception is attached for the Committee's reference. Recommendation It is recommended that Application B-28/99 be re-circulated as amended to incorporate an easement over Part 5 for the purpose of access to Part 7. • Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, the minimum lot frontage is 25 metres (82 feet) and the minimum first storey floor area of the dwelling unit is 90 square metres (968.7 square feet) on those lands denoted by the symbol '65 on the schedules to this By-law. 7.66 '66 -PART OF LOT 10, CONCESSION 10, REFERENCE PLAN S1R-12027, PART 1 (FORMER ORO) Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, a bed and breakfast establishment is permitted on the lands denoted by the symbol '66 on the schedules to this By-law. 7.67 '67 -HORSESHOE VALLEY VILLAGE Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, only the following new buildings and structures or additions to existing buildings or structures are permitted on those lands denoted by the symbol '67 on the schedules to this By-law: a) additions to buildings or structures that existed on the effective date of this By-law provided the size of the addition does not exceed 70 square metres (753.4 square feet); b) renovations to buildings and structures that existed on the effective • date of this By-law; b) decks and patios; c) buildings and structures with a gross floor area of less than 10 square metres (107.6 square feet); d) ski lifts; e) buildings and structures used for the storage of equipment; f) buildings and structures used for maintenance purposes; and, g) swimming pools. In addition, required parking is permitted in adjacent Zones provided the parking is on the same lot as the use that requires the parking. 7.68 '68 -PART OF THE WEST HALF OF LOT 1, CONCESSION 4 (FORMER ORO) Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, only the following new buildings and structures or additions to existing buildings or structures are permitted on those lands denoted by the symbol *68 on the schedules to this By-law: 82 a) additions to buildings or structures that existed on the effective date of this By-law provided the size of the addition does not exceed 70 square metres (753.4 square feet); b) renovations to buildings and structures that existed on the effective date of this By-law; b) decks and patios; c) buildings and structures with a gross floor area of less than 10 square metres (107.6 square feet); d) buildings and structures used for the storage of equipment; e) buildings and structures used for maintenance purposes; and, f) swimming pools. In addition, the maximum height is 20 metres (65.6 feet) and required parking is permitted in adjacent Zones provided the parking is on the same lot as the use that requires the parking. 7.69 •69 -PART OF LOT 1, CONCESSION 4 (FORMER ORO) • Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, only the following new buildings and structures or additions to existing buildings or structures are permitted on those lands denoted by the symbol "69 on the schedules to this By-law: a) additions to buildings or structures that existed on the effective date of this By-law provided the size of the addition does not exceed 70 square metres {753.4 square feet); b) renovations to buildings and structures that existed on the effective date of this By-law; b) decks and patios; c) buildings and structures with a gross floor area of less than 10 square metres (107.6 square feet); d) buildings and structures used for the storage of equipment; e) buildings and structures used for maintenance purposes; and, f) swimming pools. 83 Committee of Adjustment Planning Report August 12,1999 Horseshoe Resort Corporation B-29/99 Con. 4, South Part Lot 3, Sl R-28744, Portion of Part 1 (former Oro) The Proposal The applicant is proposing a technical severance for a portion of Part 1 on Reference Plan SIR- 28744. The subject property has a frontage of approximately 52 metres (170.6 feet) on Nordic Trail, and has a lot area of approximately 3.4 hectares (8.4 acres) and contains the existing golf course fairways for holes 7 and 8. Existing Policy Official Plan Designation: Zoning By-law: Comments Public Works: Health Unit: Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node -Horseshoe Valley Low Density Residential Private Recreational (PR) Zone Planning Department Comments Official Plan The subject property is within the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Node Boundary and is designated Horseshoe Valley Low Density Residential in the Official Plan. The proposed consent for the two golf fairways would therefore be subject to the policies of Section E2 and more specifically the policies of Subsection E2.5.4. In reviewing the application the applicant has not indicated the details related to the proposed severed and retained lands in relation to use and any buildings on the property. It is understood that the proposed severed lot would be a portion of Part 1 on the reference plan which is the fairways for Holes 7 and 8. Currently this is part of a larger parcel of land which is subject to a draft plan of • subdivision (43T-89054) which received draft plan approval from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on December 6, 1990. In order to sever this parcel from • the remainder of the draft plan approved lands; a redline revision is required which would removed these lands from the approved lands. The draft plan is for a total of 297 single detached dwellings and the additional 9 hole for the golf course. The area proposed to be severed is the only area on this draft plan which is already developed and it would be appropriate to remove this area from future development plans. Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned Private Recreational (PR) in Zoning By-law 97-95. The permitted uses in this zone include golf courses and associated accessory uses. The proposed consent for the golf fairways would comply with the Zoning provisions for the minimum lot frontage and lot area requirements for this zone and is therefore deemed to generally comply with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. Recommendation It is recommended that Application B-28/99 be deferred until such time as the draft plan conditions and plan for Phase 4B are amended by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to exclude Block E (the proposed severed lot). • • u Committee of Adjustment Planning Report August 9, 1999 Shaun Donaghey A-34/99 Con. 13, Plan 765, Lot 39, 9 (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from the minimum interior side yard setback required for a detached dwelling, from 3 metres (9.8 feet) to 1.5 metres (5 feet) to allow for the construction of a new 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 the shoreline policies is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area and maintain the shoreline residential area. The proposed variance would permit the replacement of an existing cottage with a new dwelling, It is assumed the new building is larger than the existing cottage located on the property line however this should be confirmed with the applicant. The applicant should also provide a sketch of all existing buildings and dimensions for the record and to determine if a variance is required to the water's edge of Bass Lake for the new dwelling which requires 15 metres. 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 proposed variance would reduce the interior side yard setback by 50% from 3 metres (9.84 feet} to 1.5 metres (4.9 feet). The existing cottage is currently located on the 1 • property line and the 1.5 metre (4.9 feet) setback would be an improvement to neighbouring property owners. 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? The proposed variance would permit the improvement of the location of the existing dwelling and would allow the existing vegetation to remain and is therefore considered appropriate for the development of the property. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? The proposed variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the setback would improve the existing setback situation and remove the small accessory sheds. Recommendation It is recommended that Application A-34/99 be approved only after it is determined that a variance is not required to the setback from Bass Lake. And subject to the standard conditions of approval. • 2 • Committee of Adjustment Planning Report August 9, 1999 Mr. and Mrs. Henning A-35/99 Con. 7, Plan 755, Lot 39,Part Lot 40 (former Oro) The Proposal Relief is requested from the minimum interior side yard setback for a detached garage, from 2 metres (6.5 feet) to 0.9 metres (3 feet). The applicant also requests relief from the minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to 3.05 metres (10 feet), to allow for construction of the same detached accessory building. 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 these policies is to preserve the character of the shoreline residential azea. The proposed variances would permit the construction of a single storey three bay garage in the front yard of a lake front property. The size of the proposed garage will have an impact on the residential area and therefore the variances should be minimized. 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 permits the construction of a detached garage in the defined front yard provided it is 7.5 metres (2A.6 feet) from the front lot line and 2 metres (6.5 feet) from the interior side lot line. Due to the location of the proposed garage the existing shed should be removed. The existing driveway begins 24 feet from the western property line and • therefore limits the placement of the proposed garage and side yard setback to western lot 1 • line. The Committee should determine from the applicant if the proposed garage can be moved further back from Lakeshore Road to come more into conformity with the 7.5 metre (24.6 feet) setback. 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? The proposed garage will maintain the same detail of construction as the existing dwelling; however it should be moved back further from Lakeshore Road to reduce the impact on the neighbouring properties. 4. Is the variance minor in nature? Subject to revisions to the front yard setback the variance is considered minor in nature. Recommendation It is recommended that Application A-35/99 be approved only after the proposed variance to the front yard setback is reduced. LJ 2