09 16 1999 C of A Agenda
Committee of Adjustment Agenda
Thursday September 16th 1999. 9:00 a.m.
1. Communications and Correspondence
None
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
3. Hearings:
9:00 A-35/99
9:10
9:20
9:30
9:40
9:50
10:00
10:10
A-36/99
A-37199
A-38199
A-39(99
A-40199
A-41 /99
8-32199
Hennig
103 Lakeshore Road West
Con. 7, Plan 755, Lot 39&40
(Oro)
McLean
242 Lakeshore Road West
Plan 807, Lot 46 (Oro)
Wheeler/Dunlevy
1038 Lakeshore Road East
Con. 10,Pt. Lot 25 (Oro)
Shelswell
Line 15 South
Con. 2,PIan 1719, Lot 35 (Oro)
Gee
Hawthorn Place
Con. 2, Plan 1676, Lot 19 (Orilla)
Marchildon
4819 Line 11 North
Con. 12, Pt. Lot 11 (Medonte}
Weekes
241 Eight Mile Point Road
Con. 14, Lot 116 Plan 780 (Oro)
Garrett Development
County Road 93
Con. 1, Pt. Lot 40 (Oro)
~J
10:20 B-7/99 Rugby Farms Ltd.
Old Barrie Road
Con. 13, Lot 11 (Oro)
10:30 B-31/99 Luscombe
Line 6 South
Con. 6, Lot 25 (Oro)
10:40 B-34/99 Kreis
Brambel Road
Con. 4, Pt. Lot 28 (Oro)
10:50 8-35!99 Meier
Ridge Road West
Con. 4, Pt. Lot 27, 28 (Oro)
11:00 A-42/99 Harris
3300 County Road 93
Con. 1, Lot 39 (Oro)
5. Decisions
6. Minutes of August 12, 1999
7. Other business
8. Adjournment
. 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: No Objection
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 area. 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 constmction of a detached garage in the defined front yard provided it
is 7.5 metres (24.6 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 gazage can be
moved firrther 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 gazage 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.
Decision
• Moved by, Ken Robbins seconded by, Dave Edwazds
"That the Committee hereby DEFER Minor Variance Application A-35/99 to allow the
applicant an opportunity to satisfy the Committee that there is sufficient driveway access
between the existing the bed and proposed garage.
September 8,1999 Comments
The application has been revised to reflect a front yard setback of 4.26 metres (14 feet).
A further site inspection has been conducted to determine if sufficient area is available to
construct the proposed garage and driveway access away from the existing septic bed.
Upon measurement of the 20 by 30-foot wide garage, there would not be sufficient access
into the third bay (closet to house) without widening the driveway, which would encroach
onto the the bed. Upon measuring it would appear that a 20 by 25-foot garage would
permit sufficient driveway access.
Recommendation
It is recommended that application A-35/99 be approved as amended to a front yard
setback of 4.26 metres (14 feet), a side yard setback of 0.9 metres (3 feet) and a size of 20
by 25 feet.
lJ
.....Carried."
2
•
LJ
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
September 8,1999
Peter and Patricia McLean
A-36/99
Con. 6, Plan 807, Lot 46, (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the minimum interior side yard setback from 3 metres (9.8 feet) to
2.438 metres (8 feet) on the North East comer to recognize an existing house that was built
in 1974.
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Shoreline
Shoreline Residential
Planning Department Comments
i. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official P-an?
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
variance would recognize a deficiency in a side yard setback to a dwelling, which has
existed for 25 years and as such, would 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 Shoreline Residential (SR) in Zoning By-law 97-95. The By-
law requires a side yard setback of 3 metres (9.84 feet) but the existing dwelling only has
a side yard of 2.438 metres (8 feet). The dwelling has existed for a substantial number of
years in this location and is also buffered by a mature cedar hedge. On this basis the
variance is deemed to generally conform with the provisions of the Zoning By-law.
1
• 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
The variance is considered desirable for the development of the lot as the house has
existed for a number of years.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that it would recognize a long
standing structure, which is buffered by a cedar hedge.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Application A-36199 be approved subject to the standard
conditions of approval.
LJ
•
2
•
•
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
September 8, 1999
Sandra Yi'heeler-Dunlevy and Dan Dunlevy
A-37/99
Con. IQ Plan SIR-17011, Pt. Lot 25, (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the minimum reaz yazd setback from 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to 0
metres (0 feet) to Che property line to allow for the construction of a sun deck and swimming
pool.
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Shoreline
Shoreline Residential
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 protect the character of the shoreline residential area. The proposed
variances would permit the construction of a deck and pool with a zero lot line setback to
the rear property line.
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 requires a setback of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to the rear lot line for anything attached to
the detached dwelling.
1
• 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
The subject property is unique in its layout, as the property is 144 feet wide and 100 feet
deep. Variances have been granted previously for the rear yazd setback for the house and
framed shed also for the detached garage to be located in the front yard as defined by the
Zoning By-law. To permit the deck and pool as requested would require a variance from
the existing setback of 23.6 feet to 0 feet. Upon site inspection it would appeaz the shed
would be removed if the variances were granted for the deck and pool.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance would permit a deck, which would be approximately 4 feet off the ground
and would require the removal of a number of mature trees, which currently act as a
buffer to the neighbouring properties. The proposed 23 feet variance would not appear to
be minor in nature and the Committee should discuss with the applicant other options for
reducing the amount of the variance.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Application A-37/99 not be approved as requested.
rJ
2
J
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
September 8,1999
David and Melissa Shelswell
A-38/99
Con. 2, Plan 1719, Lot 35, (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested to extend a legal non-conforming use by permitting a 126 squaze metres
(1360 squaze ft) addition of an accessory apartment with kitchen facilities.
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Industrial
Economic Development (ED)
Planning Department Comments
1. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Industrial in the Official Plan. The general intent of
these policies is to recognize industrial areas of the Township for development. The
proposed variance would permit an addition to an existing residential dwelling, which
would comply with all required setbacks but would exceed the maximum size of an
accessory apartment.
2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Economic Development (ED) in Zoning By-law 97-95. The
provisions in the By-law limit the size of an accessory apartment to 70 square metres (753
square feet) and permit one accessory apartment in conjunction with a residential
dwelling. The applicant is proposing a 1360 square foot addition to the existing dwelling,
which would contain the second kitchen facility.
1
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
The property is of sufficient size that the addition complies with all setback requirements.
The applicant has also received approval from the Health Unit for the proposed addition
and kitchen facilities.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the addition could be
constructed without a variance if there were no additional kitchen facilities and that the
size of the property is sufficient to sustain an addition.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Application A-38/99 be approved subject to the standard
conditions of approval.
LJ
•
2
• Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
September 8,1999
I~alerie Jean Gee
A-39/99
Con. 2, Plan 1676, Lot 19 (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the following provisions for a detached gazage:
1. Maximum floor area from 70 square metres (753.5 squaze feet) to 783 square metres
(842.8 squaze feet);
2. Maximum height from 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to 5.2 metres (17.3 feet); and
3. To permit the proposed garage to be located in the front yard with a setback of 54.86
metres (180 feet) from the front lot line.
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
• Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Estate Residential
Rural Residential One Exception 3 (RURl *3)
Planning Department Comments
1. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Estate Residential in the Official Plan. The intent of
these policies is to recognize existing Estate Residential Subdivisions. The proposed
variances would permit the construction of a detached garage, which would exceed the
maximum floor area and height. Due to the topography of the property and the distance
of the existing house, the garage would have to be in the front yard.
2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-lacy?
The subject property is zoned Rural Residential One Exception Three (RURI*3) which
recognizes particular lot area of this subdivision. The topography of the lot would mean
that the maximum height would not be exceeded on one side but would on the other side.
. The Zoning By-law defines height as the average grade of all sides of the structure.
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
• The proposed gazage would not appeaz to impact on the neighbouring properties due to
ro erties and the topography of the property and is therefore considered
the size of the p p
appropriate for the development of the property.
4. Is the variance minor in nature? act on the
The variance is considered minor in nature lied for. basis of the minimal imp
neighbourhood and the limited variances app
It is recommended that Application A-39/99 be approved subject to the standard
conditions of approval.
•
• 2
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
September 8,1999
•
Jeffery and Katerina Marchildon
A-40/99
Con. 12, Plan SIR-19627 Pt. 2, Lot 11, (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the interior side yard setback. Relief is requested from the 3 metres
(9.8 feet) setback to 2.37 metres (7.77 feet) to recognize an existing dwelling.
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Rural
Agricultural/Rural (A/RU)
Planning Department Comments
1. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. The general intent of these
policies is to protect the character of the rural area and maintain the open countryside.
The proposed variance would recognize an existing dwelling which was constructed over
the property line and was subsequently subject to a lot addition which did not add
sufficient lands to comply with the Zoning By-law requirements.
2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
variance would generally comply with the provisions of the Zoning By-law.
The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Bural (A/RU) in Zoning By-law 97-95. The side
yard setback provisions in this zone for a dwelling are 3 metres (9.84 feet) and the side
yard to be recognized would be 2.37 metres (7.8 feet); A reduction of approximately 2
feet for a house which was constructed in 1989 with a building permit. The proposed
•
• 3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
The subject property is well buffered from the neighbouring property owners and the
small reduction in the side yard setback would not appear to impact on the neighbouring
properties. As such the variance is considered appropriate for the property.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is considered minor in nature, as it would recognize an existing dwelling on
a property with a 2-foot deficiency to the side yard.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Application A-40/99 be approved subject to the standazd
conditions of approval.
2
. Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
September 8,1999
Marilyn and .Tames Weekes
A-41/99
Con. 14, Plan 780, Lot 116, (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the minimum reaz yazd setback to the average high water mark
from 20 metres (66 feet) to 16.3 metres (53.5 feet) to allow for the construction of a sun
deck.
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Shoreline
Zoning By-law: Shoreline Residential
Comments
• Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Planning Department Comments
1. Does the variance conform with the genera- intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. The intent of these
policies is to preserve the natural features of the shoreline area. The proposed variance
would permit the construction of a deck on the lake side of a dwelling constructed in
1998.
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 requires that all primary structures be a minimum of 20 metres (65.6 feet) from the
average high water mark as determined by a surveyor. The proposed variance would
reduce this setback by approximately 13 feet to permit a deck off the existing sliding door
on the upper level of the house.
1
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
The variance would permit a deck off the existing sliding door of a dwelling constructed
in 1998. It would appear that either a deck was not considered at the time of construction
or it was not determined until later that insufficient depth was available to maintain the 20
metre setback to construct a deck once the house was constructed. Upon site inspection it
is evident that the proposed deck would not appear to impact neighbouring properties due
to the location of the dwelling in relation to the neighbours.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that the construction would be for
a deck only, not an enclosed structure and would only reduce the setback by 13 feet.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Application A-41199 be approved subject to the standard
conditions of approval.
2
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
September 8, 1999
Rodney Harris
A-42/99
Con. 1, Plan 495097, Lot 39, (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from Section 5.1.1.1 of Zoning By-law 97-95 to permit human habitation
for a separate dwelling unit in a detached gazage. Relief is also requested from the
following:
a) maximum floor area from 70 square metres (753.5 squaze feet) to 83.6 square metres
(900 square feet) and;
b) maximum building height from 4.5 metres (14.76 feet) to 5.5 metres (18 feet) with a
peak of the roof to be 6.7 metres (22 feet).
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Rural and Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law: AgriculturaURura1 (AlRU) & Environmental Protection
(EP) & AgriculturalBural Exception 15 (A/RU* 15)
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Planning Department Comments
1. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the OfScial Plan?
The subject property is designated Rural and Rural Settlement Area in the Official Plan.
The intent of these policies is to protect the character of the rural area and maintain the
open countryside. Permitted uses contemplated by the designation include single
detached dwellings, bed and breakfast establishments, and home occupations, all of which
are permitted in the dwelling on the property. Accessory dwellings units are not
contemplated other than in the dwelling on the property and as such the application would
not 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 Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) & Environmental Protection (EP) &
Agricultural/Rural Exception IS (A/RU*15) in Zoning By-law 97-95. Permitted uses within
the AgriculturaURura1 zone include a single detached dwelling and a bed and breakfast
establishment. The bed and breakfast establishment permits up to three rooms in the
single detached dwelling being provided to the travelling public. Further to this Section
5.1.1.1 of the By-law specifically indicates that no detached accessory building shall be
used for human habitation.
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
Upon site inspection it is evident that the property is well buffered from the surrounding
properties, the proposed variances for the maximum size and height to allow the
accessory building to mirror the architecture of the dwelling may be appropriate; however
the Committee should determine if the height variance could be reduced to be more in
conformity with the By-law.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance to permit human habitation in the accessory dwelling would not conform
with the Official Plan and would set a precedent for other properties and therefore is not
considered minor in nature.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee not approve the variance to permit human
habitation in the detached garage. It is further recommended that the Committee consider
favourably the variance from the maximum floor area and discuss the maximum height
variance with the applicant.
2
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
September 8, 1999
Rugby Farms Ltd.
B-7/99
Cones 13, East Part of Lot 11 (former Oro)
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing a conveyance to create a new lot. The land to be conveyed has
a lot frontage of 32 metres (105 feet), a lot depth of 32 metres (105 feet), and a lot area of
1024 square metres (11,023 square feet). Proposed use would be used for utility purposes
for TransCanada Pipelines.
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Agricultural
Zoning By-law: AgriculturaURural (A/RU)
• Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Planning Department Comments
Official Plan
The subject property is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan. The intent of these
policies is to protect and preserve lands for agriculture from incompatible development.
The proposed consent is for a new lot for utility purposes and is therefore subject to the
policies of Section D2.3.9 of the Official Plan.
a) Subsection A indicates that the size of the lot should be minimized and according to
the drawings provided by the applicant this would be satisfied.
b) Subsection B is not applicable on the basis that there is an existing metering station
adjacent to the proposed lot and the lot must be created on the pipeline itself, which
runs through the agricultural designation.
c) Subsection C is satisfied as the proposed lot is being taken adjacent to an existing
severed lot.
• d) The proposed lot fronts on County Road 11 thereby satisfying Subsection D.
1
• e) Favourable comments are required from the County of Simcoe to satisfy Subsection
E.
f) The proposed lot would be subject to a rezoning as a condition of Provisional Consent
(see comments below).
Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned AgriculturaURural (A/RL)) in Zoning By-law 97-95. The
permitted uses in the By-law recognize that utilities aze considered a public use and aze
therefore permitted in any zone provided they comply with the setback provisions of the
particular zone. In reviewing the applicant's drawing it would appear that no structures
exceeding 10 square metres will be constructed on the property.
In accordance with the Official Plan, the subject property is required to be rezoned to
prohibit the use of the property for residential purposes. This should be a condition of the
application being considered favourably.
Recommendation
It is recommended that application B-7/99 be approved subject to the standazd conditions
of approval, favourable comments from the Roads Superintendent, and a Rezoning to
prohibit Residential use of the property.
•
•
2
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
September 8,1999
•
Patricia Luscombe
B-31/99
Conc b, Pt. Lot 25, Plan SIR-2b260 Pt. 2 (former Oro)
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing to convey a new residential lot. The land to be conveyed has a
lot frontage of 188.2 metres (617.5 feet), a lot depth of 246 metres (807.2 feet) and a lot area
of 4.5 hectazes (11 acres). The land to be retained would have a lot area of approximately
25.9 hectazes (64 acres).
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zoning By-law:
Agricultural
Agricultural/Rural
(EP)
(A,~RU) & Environmental Protection
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Planning Department Comments
Official Ptan
The subject property is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan. The general intent of
the policies is to protect lands suitable for agricultural purposes from incompatible
development. The proposed application is for the creation of a new residential lot and is
as such is subject to the policies of Section D2.3.2 of the Official Plan.
A review of compliance with these policies is provided below for the Committee. The
policies of Section D2.3.3 permit two forms of creating new residential lots; a lot for a
retiring bona fide farmer or an infilling lot. The proposed lot is not located between two
existing residences which are less than 100 metres apart and therefore the application is
not for an infilling lot. The application is therefore being considered on the basis of being
a lot for a bona fide farmer. The definition of a bona fide farmer requires the applicant to
be a full time farmer retiring from active working life and who has owned and operated
the farm operation for at least ten years with the farm operation being in existence on
1
January 1, 1994. The applicant indicated she has owned the property for only three years
on her application; The committee should satisfy themselves that the remainder of the
definition is satisfied or not.
a) Subsection A requires the original lot to be a minimum of 36 hectazes (89 acres). The
subject property is 29 hectares (74 acres) which would not satisfy this requirement.
b) Subsection B requires that there has not been a severance since March 26, 1973. A lot
addition was completed in 1994 to the Church property, but it would not appear a lot
has been severed.
c) Subsection C requires the severed lot to be in an area which would least impact on the
agricultural operation. Upon site inspection it would appear that some of the lands
proposed to be severed are currently being farmed and would be taken out of
production for residential purposes.
d) Subsection D establishes minimum and maximum lot area requirements for the
proposed lot. The proposed lot would be 4.5 hectares (11 acres) in size and would
exceed the 1.0 hectare maximum size.
e) Upon site inspection it would appear that the minimum separation distance between
the neighbouring barns and the proposed lot can be satisfied.
f) The proposed lot fronts on Line 6 South, a Township Road which is maintained yeaz
round and would therefore satisfy Subsection F.
g) Favourable comments are required from the Roads Superintendent to satisfy
Subsection G.
h) Favourable comments are required from the Simcoe County District Health Unit to
• satisfy Subsection H.
The application based on the comments above would not conform to the policies of the
Official Plan.
Zoning By-law
The subject lands are zoned AgriculturaURural (A/RU) and Environmental Protection
(EP) in Zoning By-Law 97-95. Both the severed and retained lots exceed the minimum
lot frontage and lot area requirements of the AgriculturaURural Zone. The Environmental
Protection (EP) Zone recognizes the Creek and significant woodland area, which is
located around the existing Church property.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Application B-31/99 be denied as it does not comply with the
provisions of Section D2.3.2 and D2.3.3 of the Official Plan specifically Sections
D2.3.2.1 and D2.3.3 a, c, and d.
2
. Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
September 8,1999
Garrett Developments
B-32&33/99
Conc 1, Lot 4Q (former Oro)
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing to convey two lots as shown on the attached plan:
1. Proposed lot 2 would have a lot frontage of 6lmetres (200 feet), a lot depth of
approximately 160 metres (524 feet), and a lot azea of 0.79 hectares (1.95 acres).
2. Proposed lot 3 would have a lot frontage of 583 metres (1912.7 feet), a lot depth of 198
metres (650 feet), and a lot azea of 11.56 hectares (28.56 acres).
The retained lands (lot 1 on plan) would have a lot frontage of 251 metres (823 feet), a lot
depth of 199 metres (653 feet), and a lot area of 6.57 hectazes (16.2 acres).
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Rural Settlement Area and Envirommental Protection Two
• Overlay
Zoning By-law: AgriculturaURura1 Exception 15 (A/RU815) &
Environmental Protection (EP) & AgriculturaURural
(A/RU)
Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Planning Department Comments
Official Plan
The subject property is designated Rural Settlement Area, Rural, and Environmental
Protection Two Overlay and is within the Horseshoe Valley Road Special Policy Area in
the Official Plan.
Section E2.2.4 of the Plan relates to lands within the rural designation and in the
Horseshoe Valley Road Special Policy Area and specifies the permitted uses which would
apply to proposed lot 3 and would not permit a single detached dwelling as the lot did not
• exist on the date the plan was adopted.
• Section D4.3.5. indicates the special development policies for Craighurst and states that
the creation of additional lots is not permitted in the Craighurst Settlement Area until an
Official Plan Amendment in the form of a Secondary Plan is adopted by Council.
Proposed lot 2 would be located within this designation and would therefore not comply
with the policies of the Official Plan.
Zoning By-taw
The subject lands are zoned Agricultural/Rural Exception 15 (A/RU*15), Environmental
Protection (EP) and AgriculturaURura1(A/RU) in Zoning By-Law 97-95.
The exception 15 relates to lands adjacent to settlement areas and permits only uses that
existed on the date the By-law was adopted. Proposed lot 2 and retained lot 1 are within
this zoning and would be limited to the single detached dwelling (on proposed lot 2) and
vacant lands (on retained lot 1). Retained lot 1 has had an application submitted and
processed for a plan of subdivision but has not received draft plan approval.
Proposed lot 3 is zoned Environmental Protection (EP) and AgriculturaURura1 (A/RU).
As the Official Plan indicates that a single detached dwelling is not permitted on a lot
which did not exist at the time the plan was adopted, a rezoning to prohibit this use
should be a condition on granting this consent.
• Conclusion
Proposed lot 2 is located within the Rural Settlement Area of Craighurst and would not
comply with the policies of Section D4.3.5 as the secondary plan contemplated by these
policies has just been initiated and the application would therefore be premature.
Proposed lot 3 would be the division between the Rural Settlement area and the Rural
designations but would not permit the use of the property for a single detached dwelling
and therefore would require rezoning to prohibit this use.
Recommendation
It is recommended that proposed lot 2 be denied, as the application is premature and
would nat comply with the policies of the Official Plan. It is further recommended that
the Committee attempt to determine the use of proposed lot 3 in light of the prohibition of
a single detached dwelling.
•
2
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
September S, 1999
Erhart and Evelyn Kreis
B-34/99
Conc. 4, Pt. Lot 2$ (former Oro)
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing to have an addition to a IoY. The land to be added has a lot depth
of 45.7 metres (150 feet), and a lot area of 1393.5 squaze metres (15000 squaze feet) and
will be added to Plan 819, Lot 26 (114 Brambel Road). The land to be retained would have
a lot azea of 20 hectazes (51.33 acres).
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. The general intent of these
policies is to preserve the rural character of the area. The proposed application is for a lot
addition, which would add 100 by 150 feet to an existing residential lot on Brambel Road
(Private Road).
The proposed addition would enlarge the lot on Brambel Road to allow flexibility in the
Location of the proposed house and septic system on the lot.
As the proposed consent would permit a lot addition and no new lot is being created, the
application is deemed to generally conform with the policies of the Official Plan.
1
• Zoning By-law
The proposed lot addition is zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RL~ in Zoning By-taw 97-95
and the existing lot receiving the lot addition is zoned Residential Limited Service (12LS)
to recognize the lot fronts on a private road.
Both the lot addition and retained lands comply with the minimum lot frontage and lot
area provisions of the Zoning By-law; therefore the application is deemed to generally
conform with the provisions of the Zoning By-law.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Application B-34/99 be approved subject to the standard
conditions of approval.
•
2
• Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
September 8, 1999
Helen Meier
B-35/99
Conc. A, Pt. Lot 27&28, (former Oro)
The Proposal
The applicant is proposing to have an addition to a lot. The ]and to be added has a lot
frontage of 440 metre (1443.6 feet), and a lot depth of 486 metres (5594.5 feet), and a lot
azea of 18.62 hectazes (46 acres) and would be added to Concession 4, part Lot 28 (Oro).
The land to be retained would have a lot frontage of 30 metres (98.4 feet), a lot depth of 573
metres (1879.9 feet), and a lot azea of 4.446 hectazes (10.99 acres).
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Rural
Zoning By-law: AgriculturaURura1 (A/RU)
. Comments
Roads Superintendent:
Health Unit:
Planning Department Comments
Official Plan
The subject property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. The general intent of these
policies is to preserve the rural character of the azea and to maintain the open countryside.
The proposed consent is for a lot addition which would merge a 46 acre property with a S
acre property both of which are currently vacant and to retain a parcel of approximately
11 acres in size with a detached dwelling.
As no additional lots aze being created the application is deemed to generally comply with
the provisions of the Official Plan.
Zoning By-law
The subject property is AgriculturaURural (A/RU) in Zoning By-law 97-95. Both the
• "Lot Addition" lands and the retained lot comply with the minimum lot frontage and lot
1
. area requirements of the By-law and as such are deemed to generally conform with the
provisions of Zoning By-law 97-95.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Application B-35/99 be approved subject to the standard
conditions of approval.
n
U
2