07 30 2007 PAC AgendaTOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
Robinson Room
Date: Monday, July 30, 2007 Time: 7:00 p.m.
1. Opening of Meeting by Chair
2. Adoption of Agenda
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in
Accordance with the Act
4. Minutes of Previous Meetings -April 30, 2007
5. Planning Applications
(a) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and
Planning Services, Re: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment for
CRA Development (Tim Crawford}, Concession 9, Part of Lot 26 (Oro),
south side of Springhome Road Applications 2004-OPA-03 and 2004-
ZBA-04 (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the application
subsequent to the review of the report)
(b) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and
Planning Services, Re: Proposed Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning,
James and Kimberley Drury, West Part of Lot 11, Concession 5 (Oro),
Township of Oro-Medonte, 1099 Old Barrie Road West, Applications
2006-SUB-02 and 2006-ZBA-04 (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to
speak to the application subsequent to the review of the report)
6. Correspondence and Communication -None
7. Other Business
(a) Discussion regarding roles of Committee of Adjustment and Planning
Advisory Committee (Councillor Agnew)
(b) Policy review/input from Planning Advisory Committee (Councillors
Coutanche and Allison)
8. Adjournment
~~~
)fir ~:`'~'~~dTETOWNSHIP }~---1
I i
a .~.~..~ j~~jt~ 1v ,c TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
_
_ PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
SAY _ ~ Z~~7 2006-2010 TERM
MEETING: ~~~~~~~ April 30, 2007, 7:03 p.m.
~, ®~ W. ~ Council Chambers
Present: Council Representatives Public Representatives
Mayor H.S. Hughes Linda eabulic
Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Roy Hastings
Councillor Mel Coutanche Tom Kurtz
Councillor Terry Allison Mary O'Farrell-Bowers
Councillor Sandy Agnew Larry Tupling
Councillor John Crawford
Councillor Dwight Evans
Staff Present: Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services; Glenn
White, Senior Planner; Janette Teeter, Clerk's Assistant
Also Present: Hans Meyer
1. Opening of Meeting by Chair.
Mayor H.S. Hughes designated Deputy Mayor Hough as Chair of Planning Advisory
Committee.
2. Adoption of Agenda.
Motion No. PAC070430-1
Moved by Roy Hastings, Seconded by Larry Tupling
It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of
Monday, April 30, 2007 be received and adopted.
Carried.
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in
Accordance with the Act.
Councillor Allison declared a conflict of interest on Item 5a), Report No. 2007-17, Zoning
By-law Amendment for 1500494 Ontario Ltd. {Hans Meyer), Concession 1, South Part
of Lot 1 {Orillia), Township of Oro-Medonte, 8976 Highway i2 as he is a commercial
tenant of the property.
~-2
4. Minutes of Previous Meetings -October 23, 2006. ~'
Motion No. PAC070430-2
Moved by Linda Babulic, Seconded by Roy Hastings
It is recommended that the minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting held
on Ocfober 23, 2006 be received.
Carried.
5. Planning Applications.
a) Planning Report presented by Glenn White, Senior Planner, Re: 1500494
Ontario Ltd. (Hans Meyer) Part of Lot 1, Concession 1 (Orillia), 8976. Highway
12, Township of Oro-Medonte, Application 2006-ZBA-11.
Motion No. PAC070430-3
Moved by Tom Kurtz, Seconded by Mary O'Farrell-Bowers
It is recommended that
1. Report. No. BP 2007-17, presented by Glenn White, Senior Planner and Bruce
Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services, re: Zoning By-iaw Amendment
for 1500494 Ontario Ltd. (Hans Meyer), Concession 1, South Part of Lot 1 (Orillia),
Township of Oro-Medonte, 8976 Highway 12 be received and adopted.
2. That a concept landscape plan be submitted to the Township prior Co scheduling a
statutory Public Meeting.
3. And Further That, following receipt of the concept landscape plan, Zoning By-law
Amendment Application 2006-ZBA-11 (Hans Meyer), South Part of lot 1,
Concession 1 (Orillia), Township of Oro-Medonte, 8976 Highway 12 proceed to a
Public Meeting in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.
Carried.
6. Correspondence and Communication -Update of Planning Applications.
Motion No. PAC070430-4
Moved by Larry Tupling, Seconded by Roy Hastings
It is recommended that the memorandum correspondence dated April 26, 2007
presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services re: Planning
Applications be received.
Carried.
Planning Aetvisory CommMee Meeting
Api9130, 2007, Page 2
~- 3
7. Other Business.
a) PlanningNision Discussion.
Motion No. PAC070430-5
Moved by Linda Babulic, Seconded by Larry Tupling
'~,
it is recommended that the verbal information presented by Linda Babulic re: Planning
Vision be received.
Carried.
b) Next PAC Meeting - To be determined.
8. Adjournment.
Motion No. PAC070430-6
Moved by Linda Babulic, Seconded by Tom Kurtz
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 8:30 p.m.
Carried.
Chair, Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough
Director of Building and Planning
Services, Bruce Hoppe
Plann}ng AWisory Comminee MeetMg
April 30, 2007, Page 3
~Q-I
TOWNSH/P OF ORO-MEDONi'E
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
BP 2007-028 Planning Advisory Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Committee
Subject: Department:
Council Official Plan and Zoning By- Building/Planning
law Amendment for CRA
C. of W. Development (Tim Date:
Crawford), Concession 9, Jul 18, 2007
Motion # fart of Lot 26 (Oro), south R.M. File #: D14 13469
side of Springhome Road Application # 2004-OPA-03,
2004-ZBA-04
Date: Roll #: 010-009-68900
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to analyze applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law
submitted by CRA Development (Tim Crawford), and make recommendations to Planning Advisory
Committee in respect to the disposition of the applications. The application was originally submitted to
the Township on February 27, 2004 (Attachment #1) and has involved extensive consultation,
particularly in regards to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority which will be expanded later in
this report.
The subject land has a total land area of approximately 9.1 hectares (22.7 acres), and is located on the
south side of Springhome Road, abutting Memorial Crescent to the east, and the road allowance
between Concession 8 and 9 to the west. The original proposal was to create seven new residential lots
on a portion of the lands, with a large environmental protection block to be created to the south of the
proposed residential lots. The lot sizes and shapes vary as a result of refinements intended to address
environmental concerns on the lands, which is wooded and contains a stream towards the mid-point of
the property. Further, the proposed number of lots was reduced to six (Attachment #2).
The Statutory Public meeting for this application as required by the Planning Act was held on January
17, 2005. Two written submissions were received from the public, along with comments from the Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) and a "No Comment" response from the County of
Simcoe. The comments from LSRCA and the County will be detailed later in this report.
5a-~
Five verbal comments were raised, as outlined in the attached minutes from the Public Meeting
(Attachment #3). These will be assessed later in this report.
This application was originally submitted to Planning Advisory Committee on June 9, 2004 which
recommended that the applications proceed to a Public Meeting once an Environmental Impact Study
(EIS) and updated hydrogeology report were submitted. These reports have since been received and
circulated to the appropriate commenting agencies. Following the Public Meeting, in recent months the
applicant has been working to satisfy the comments of the LSRCA in regards to the environmental
issues on site.
11 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: ~~
The subject applications would serve to redesignate the site from Rural and Environmental Protection
two Overlay Designations to Shoreline and Environmental Protection Two Overlay Designations, and
rezone the property from AgriculturaURural (A/RU) to Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The intent of the
subject application is to permit the creation of six residential lots, which will be considered by future
severance/consent applications by the Committee of Adjustment.
The proposal includes six lots ranging in area from 0.37 to 0.45 hectares (1.2 to 1.5 acres) and a 4.64
ha (11.4 acre) block encompassing the natural heritage features and required buffers located to the
south of the proposed lots. The proposed Tots front onto Springhome Road. Lot 2 and Lots 4 to 6 are
proposed to have frontage of 47 metres {154 ft.) and Lots 1 and 3 having 89 metre (292 ft.) and 80
metre {262 ft.) frontages respectively. Some of the proposed lots have irregular shaped rear yards to
address environmental constraints to the south. If the applications are approved, the precise limits of
the environmental features will be staked and surveyed in consultation with LSRCA staff as part of the
consent approval process. Lot boundaries will then be established based on the recommended buffers
from the EIS. The southerly 4.64 ha (Block 7) of the site will remain undeveloped. The applicant
proposes that it may be transferred to the Township of Oro-Medonte or be included in Lot 3 subject to a
Restrictive Covenant on title.
The proposed development will be serviced by private on-site sewage disposal (septic) and private
well(s).
11 CIRCULATION COMMENTS: I~
Supporting documentation was submitted in support of the proposed development and circulated to
internal Township Departments and relevant external agencies. Specifically, the following supporting
studies have been submitted and are on file with the Planning Department:
Planning Background Report dated January 2006 from Skelton, Brumwell & Associates Inc.
Update of preliminary Hydrogeologic Evaluation Proposed Residential Lots, Crawford Property dated
January 2007 from Wilson Associates.
Environmental Impact Study Revised dated December 2006 from Skelton Brumwell & Associates Inc.
The subject application and relevant studies were also circulated to external agencies and the following
responses have been received:
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority -After reviewing the Planning Background Report
(Jan./07) and the Revised Environmental Impact Study (Dec./06) and the Preliminary Lot Development
Plan, the following comments were provided. The revised lot configuration (with the exception of Lot 3)
Sa-3
is acceptable from a natural heritage perspective as it respects the constraints identified in the
Environmental Impact Study. The houses should be situated at the front of the lots and vegetation
clearing should be kept to a minimum. Vegetation removal must not occur during breeding bird season.
The LSRCA will require that the proposed Lot 3 and Block 7 be zoned Environmental Protection (EP). In
addition, to ensure the Tong-term protection of the natural features and their functions identified on the
property, a Conservation Easement under the Conservation Lands Act shall be placed over the
environmentally protected portions of the property as a condition of consent.
County of Simcoe -The County of Simcoe Planning Department has commented that the proposed
Official Plan Amendment appears to conform to the intent of the County Official Plan, most notably
Policy 3.6.11. The County of Simcoe has no objection to the proposal provided the no development
occurs on the proposed Lot 3 or Block 7 and that these environmentally sensitive lands are protected
through the appropriate zone and Official Plan designation. Furthermore, while it is the County's
preference that environmentally protected lands be held by a public body, a Conservation Easement
should be placed on the protected portions of the property if no public body or organization is in a
position to take ownership of the lands.
Township Engineering Consultant -There are no servicing or drainage constraints for the
establishment of the proposed six lots contained in this application. One condition was recommended
that a 0.30 metre reserve be established along the easterly portion of lot 6 that abuts Memorial
Crescent, in order to restrict access to the abutting street (being Springhome Road).
No other concerns have been expressed by internal Township Departments.
In respect of the two public comments, one simply requested to be informed of any decisions and staff
have recently contacted this individual (Mr. Costello) who indicated that he has sold property in this area
and therefore has no concerns. The other written submission from Mr. MacGregor enquired about the
possibility of a buffer from his residential property directly abutting the subject land to the east. As a
result of the environmental work, an 80 metre buffer will be provided which adequately addresses this
concern.
In respect of the verbal comments made, there were five individuals who spoke. Staff notes indicate that
there were no significant concerns raised which have not been addressed in the revisions to the plan.
ANALYSIS:
The northern portion of the subject lands are presently designated "Rural" and the remainder is
designated "Rural" with an "Environmental protection Two" overlay designation. The proposed
residential Tots are located in the northerly portion designated "Rural". The "Rural" designation does not
allow the proposed severances because only one new lot can be severed from a lot in the Rural
designation that has an area of least 36 hectares. Therefore, in order to implement the proposed plan,
an amendment to the Official Plan is required. It is noted that lands to the north and east of the subject
(ands are designated "Shoreline".
Section C5.3.4 (Limits of Shoreline development) of the Official Plan provides the following;
"The further expansion of the shoreline development area onto lands that are not
designated Shoreline is not permitted by this Plan. Exceptions may be granted through the
approval of an Official Plan amendment if the expansion is small in scale, and is either
focused on the shoreline or is considered to be infilling. Infilling is defined as
development that abuts a developed area on two sides andlor is located within a parcel of
3
Sa- ~
land that abuts public roads on at least three sides. The creation of strip development
across from existing development on existing roads is not contemplated by this plan."
The proposed lots abut developed residential areas to the east and the north and also abut Memorial
Crescent to the east, Springhome Road to the north and the road allowance between Concession 8 and
9 to the west (extending to Rail Trail Drive). Further the subject land is located within a parcel of land
that abuts public roads on three sides. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that this expansion is small in
scale and could be considered infilling in accordance with the above policy.
The policy also contains criteria for Council's consideration in the consideration of such minor
amendments to the Official Plan to redesignate lands for limited shoreline development. These
conditions are provided below:
a) The lots will have a minimum of 0.6 hectares to a maximum of approximately 1.0 hectare,
except where larger sizes may be suitable because of environmental constraints or design
consideration.
Response: The proposed lots are smaller than 0.6 ha and range from 0.37 ha to 0.45 ha. The lots
sizes are dictated by environmental constraints and to maintain the environmental integrity of Block 7
as much as possible.
b) The majority of the existing tree cover on the proposed lot is retained and protected as
part of the approval process.
Response: The applicant has identified proposed building envelopes and areas for sewage disposal
systems near the front of the lots. The applicant's EIS recommends that tree clearing on the lots be
minimized. Minimizing the clearing of trees and vegetation is stated in comments from the LSRCA
and Township's Consulting Engineer.
c) The development is compatible, in terms of scale, density and character with existing
development.
Response: The proposed lots are considered to be compatible with the existing surrounding
residential development, most notably on the north side of Springhome which exhibit similar large
road frontages and areas to the subject proposal.
d) The proposed lots are not located on the shoreline.
Response: This policy is not applicable as it speaks to water frontages.
e) The lots would conform to the general subdivision and consent policies of this Plan.
Response: It is proposed that the lots by created by consent rather than Plan of Subdivision since
the lots front onto a public road which does not require an extension. The development is
considered to be infilling, and the consent process will ensure that the area will be developed in an
orderly and efficient manner. The proposed Tots are considered to be compatible with the
surrounding residential areas. Given the small scale of the development it is not anticipated that the
proposed lots will create a traffic hazard. It has already been noted that servicing by private wells
and septic systems is appropriate given the small number of Tots being proposed. Drainage patterns
and hydrogeologic issues have been addressed by the applicant's consultant. Finally, an EIS has
been submitted with the application and has been reviewed by the LSRCA with recommendations.
The lot sizes were restricted in size in order to conserve other (ands in the larger Block 7 for
environmental purposes.
,5a - S'
11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY: I~
An Environmental Impact Study prepared by Skelton Brumwell & Associates Inc. has been submitted in
support of the proposed residential development. The main issues identified in the report are the
presence of Significant Woodlands located mainly within Block 7 of the development. In addition, the
report notes the sighting of the Yellow-Breasted Chat on the property which is provincially ranked as
S2S36 and is listed as a species of "Special Concern" by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The
significant woodlands are identified on the schedules of the Township's Official Plan. The study
reviewed and investigated the following areas: flora and vegetation communities, breeding birds and
other wildlife, amphibians, surface, groundwater and aquatic features, significant woodlands, fish habitat
and significant wildlife habitat.
The study made the following recommendations:
1. limiting the disturbance to the Significant woodlands to approximately 0.28 ha (0.71
acres);
2. maintaining a 30m vegetated buffer to all identified watercourses on and adjacent to the
subject property;
3. establishing a 50m buffer between the habitat of the Yellow-Breasted Chat and the area
of development;
4. include lands south of the area of development and buffer areas into Lot 3 with restrictive
covenants or transfer those lands to the Township of Oro-Medonte and zone the lands EP
Environmental Protection; and
5. stake and survey all buffers for future individual site plans.
The applicant's consultant and staff of the LSRCA have worked to revise the EIS over many months of
study including four-season analysis. As outlined above and attached to this report, the LSRCA is
satisfied that aII environmental concerns have been addressed, excluding Lot 3, on which no
development is supported.
CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed residential development is considered to be small in scale and represents infilling
development, and therefore conforms to the policies regarding expansion of the shoreline development
area outlined in the Official Plan. Staff concludes that the subdivision of the lands is appropriate by way
of consent (severance), and that a plan of subdivision is not required. The County of Simcoe has
commented that the proposed Official Plan Amendment appears to conform to the intent of the County
Official Plan.
With respect to the environmental features of the property, the supporting studies have been revised
and supported by the LSRCA to define the boundaries of the proposed lots to protect the natural
heritage features located on the lands. The LSRCA and the County require the proposed Lot 3 and
Block 7 be zoned Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. Therefore, the development proposal will be
revised to contain five (5) residential lots (Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6). Finally, it is recommended that Lot 3
and Block 7 be placed within a Conservation Easement through the consent process.
It will also be recommended that the proposed Tots be subject to individual site plans as provided for in
the Township Official Plan in order to achieve the objectives regarding the extent and timing of individual
site development.
s
,Sa - (o
DATIONS:
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
1. THAT Report No. BP 2007-028 (CRA Development} be received and adopted;
2. THAT Official Plan Amendment (2004-OPA-03) and Zoning By-law Amendment Application
(2004-ZBA-04) be approved for Lots 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, CRA Development (Tim Crawford), that
would designate lands described as Concession 9, Part of Lot 26 (Oro), on Schedule A of the
Official Plan from Rural and Environmental Protection Two Overlay Designations to Shoreline,
and rezone lands on Schedule A5 of the Zoning By-law 97-95 from Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) to
Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone, subject to a Holding (H) Zone, removal of which shall only be
done after an appropriate Site Plan Agreement has been entered into regarding the preservation
of trees and timing of site development;
3. THAT Official Plan Amendment (2004-OPA-03) and Zoning By-law Amendment Application
(2004-ZBA-04) be approved for Lots 3 and Block 7, CRA Development (Tim Crawford), that
would designate lands described as Concession 9, Part of Lot 26 (Oro), on Schedule A of the
Official Plan from Rural and Environmental Protection Two Overlay Designations to
Environmental Protection Two Overlay Designations, and rezone (ands on Schedule A5 of the
Zoning By-law 97-95 from Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) to Environmental Protection (EP) Zone;
4. THAT Township staff work with the LSRCA and the Committee of Adjustment in order to
implement the registration of a Conservation Easement over Lot 3 and Block 7, through
consultation with the applicant and LSRCA as a condition of consent;
5. AND THAT the Clerk bring forward the above noted Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Amendments for Council's approval.
Respectfully submitted,
C.A.O. Comments: Date:
C.A.O. Dept. Head
-~ -~==
SKETCH FOR SE, ONCE
OF PART OF THE
WEST PART OF LOT 26
CONCESSION 9
GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF ORO N
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
SCALE 1:2000
a . a .. v u. sx
RAIKES SURVEYING LTD.
METRIC
DISTgNCES sNOwN GN TNIs
PLAN qRE IN METRES AND
CqN BE CONYcRTED TO
FEET BY DI~)DING BY 9.304
t)RIGI ~1AL
~tPPi.1C~T~ off
~ j LOT 16 ~
T
O 1 T 15 i LOT 14 i LO
T
13 i LOT 12
I
(
® I LOT 19 ~ I ZQT 18 ~
L
T
I
~ ~ I ® 7~
~N
p 1
z ® (. . ~-® I RL
7ER~D P 1642 ~"' 1 I I
~_
I
Q I I I I I I i ~
I t
I m -
~ ___J-
OR1pNAL ____l
ROAD __-_ I--_--!
ALLOWANCE DE7KEEN ___-
L075 !-____-
25 AND
26L{u,o..-A, svrrivwaue Ronaj ---~
i-_ N59'15'S0' E REFEREN CE BERRING
1&00 18.00. 1&00 45.00 50.93 5].00 --~--------
I~ m n I ~
N ~~I
y
I~ ~
N o
lo
N
w
,°e
PART 6
PARJ 7 J J
___~_________
I c MEMORIAL p2ESCS~NNT
13 - o ~
m I
I
I
I
I
I
13
I~
I
I
1
I9
I~
I
I
i~
I2
~~
I
~~
I
~a
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
I
I
I
I
PART 1 (PART 2 I PART 3 I PART ,6
~yt
N5909'00'E
~~~ y.
eau uw a.a9 ar .nscun
PART 5
r...-__
n I ... _
0
5].00 5].00 z W
N59'09'00'E ~
I
~'j' .].^T J' ® 20.13 I-
• I !ND/AN ROAD
r__--______
P.AR7 4 ® I
I
I
I J I
-----------i a I
~~~ 1 ~ I
`~rAR7 5
\
\ ~ ~
^~~ \ ~ LAKESNOR£ ROAD
tia ~ LOT~1/ 42 ~ ~
IeLV~I i i
'-1
I
,~ ,
,~,
~_
I r~PARC A"^w; .qt's: S^~-
I ~ W I. ~fMie er'~~n
~I _ `~
i el
I I
`n
I Y I
~ I z I
I
NOTE 3ULLD WGS I
WE2F ADDED TO ® I T i
I ~ I
I
I
'fl{G 5V 2VE%d R'S _
I
~ I
SKETCH BY ~~' I
I
TIM GRHWTO RD.
NOT- l"-D SGALE. I ~~~~
I
~~ ~' I ~ J{
A
~
*
,
~~~ It 7 ~
Il~f~l~T
RAIKES SURVEYING LTD.
Ontario Land Surveyors & Boundary Consultants
25 Herczy Street, P.O.Hox 1150. Barrie Ontario, L4M SE2
Telephone (705) 728-8883 Fea (705) 728-8698
E-Mail Address surceysOraikessurveyiagcom
DRAWN.HY: R.J.H.
CHK'D BY: P.T.R.
PROJECT 6706SK
5a-8
BUILDING EIVVELOPF
TYPICAL RESID_NCE
(2150 sq.ft)
YPiCA'_ SEJJAGS BED
~ 1: -ooG
~ P/N 1892 ~ SEr' 20C~. ~.
~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~ PROPERTY eooNDA~Y CRAWFORD LOTS
~'-' ~ ORO-MEDONTE
D PROPOSED LOi LID=S FIGURE 2
- ~ PRELIMINARY LOi DE~~OPMENT P~,:a
5a -~
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Re: Proposed Amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law
Application Nos. 2004-OPA-03 & 2004-ZBA-04, Concession 9, Part of Lot 26
(formerly Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte
(CRA Developments)
January 17, 2005 @ 7:07 p.m. at the
Municipal Council Chambers of the Township of Oro-Medonte
Present: Mayor J. Neil Craig
Deputy Mayor Harry Hughes
Councillor Dan Buttineau
Councillor Ralph Hough
Councillor Paul Marshall
Councillor John Crawford
Councillor Ruth Fountain
Staff Present: Andria Leigh, Director of Planning; Jennifer Zieleniewski, Chief
Administrative Officer; Doug Irwin, Records Management Coordinator
Also Present: Bob Barlow, Craig Drury, John Miller, Mel Coutanche, Mark Edwards,
Debbie Lund, Rosemary Sage, Robert & Heather MacGregor, Lester &
Cristina Cooke, Tim & Ilene Crawford, Bengt Schumacher, Stephen Ball,
Horst Ries, Nick Castellani, Brad Wolfenden
Mayor J. Neil Craig called the meeting to order and explained the public meeting is to obtain
public comments on proposed amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law.
Notice of the Public Meeting was mailed to landowners within 120m of the specified site on
December 21, 2004 and posted on a sign on the subject property on December 22, 2004.
The following correspondence was received at the meeting: Colin Costello dated December 29,
2004, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority dated January 12, 2005, The Corporation of
the County of Simcoe dated January 11, 2005.
Andria Leigh, Director of Planning, provided an overview of the proposed amendments to the
Official Plan and Zoning By-Law.
The following persons offered verbal comments with respect to the proposed amendments to
the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law: Mark Edwards, Robert MacGregor, Nick Castellani, Brad
Wolfenden, Debbie Lund.
The Mayor advised that written submission will be received at the Township office until February
15, 2005.
There being no further comments or questions, the meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
A tape of the meeting is available for review at the Township Administration Centre, 148 Line 7
South.
~rr~c~l~~r~3
,~
CCrr.RJ~ ~~0'
G~
December 29, 2004
To Whom It May Concern:
CIZ~ IJtt~J-v-M6~v:
No ~ i c-(, I-9J~- DbUS I a
RE~E~VED
JAN 0,3 2005
ORO-MEDONTE
TOWNSHIP
5a- !®
I wish to be kept informed regarding the decision of the Township of Oro-Medonte in
respect to the proposed Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments, under Sections 17
& 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13. The amendment would redesignate lands
described as Concession 9, Part of Lot 26 from Rural and Environmental Protection Two
Overlay Designation to the Shoreline & Environmental Protection Two Overlay
Designation to allow for the creation of seven new residential lots. Please forward all
correspondence to my residence.
Mr. Colin Costello
RRZ 181 Springhome Road
Hawkestone, ONLOL 1T0
'TUL-26-2007 16:32 Frorn:SKELTON BRUMWELL
Poshit" Fax Note 7671E oa~e ''
~ ~pa°ges
~
~
To ~/' ~tl'.
G - V
~n
^~
from 71 ri= ~rWr~
t ;
Go.IDOPt. ~
Phonon PMOna a ~ _ (f
Fax A Pax K ~'1 ~ O'~ I
-' / .~a°)~
~~'~ `~ R CEIVED
FChi 0 1 2u0S
ORO-MEDONTE
January 28, 2005
Oro Medonte Township
148 Line 7 Soutll
Oro, Ontario
LOL 2X0
Attention: Marilyn 1?ermycook, Clerk
I am writing to expand on my statements at the council meeting of
Monday January 17, 2UU5.
It regards the proposed rezoning of the property adjacent to ours at
14 Memorial Crescent. As I stated at the meeting, it is not my intention
to oppose the development, but I would like to see a buffer area between
the new development and our property. I believe that this would be
beneficial to both us and the new prospective property owners.
When my wife and J purchased our property, we were made aware that
under the present zoning that no development could take place. We value
our privacy so nxueh so that we purchased the building Jot located to the
east of our property and went through the committee of adjustments to sever
the lot with our neighbors.
if there was a fifty foot frontage parcel of land set aside adjacent to our west
property line it would still leave a rota] oCone thousand feet on which the
developer could place his seven lots. 7.'his would only decrease each lot width
by less than ciglrt feet. I would hope that the developer would consider this as
a possibility since this would also make the most undesirable lot more sellable to
his prospective buyer.
As I also stated, I would not be adverse to taking this up directly with the
developer, but: I do not lntow if he will be advised of my comments.
3UL-26-2007 16:32 From:SKELTON BRUMWELL
~ ~ ` Sa-~~
i am aware that there are other hurdles to pass before the re?oning becomes a
reality and T would like to be kept appraised oCthe progress and ifmy
concerns ue going to be addressed. Any information that cut be forwarded
to me would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
'~
Robert MacGregor
R.R. #3, Comp. 15G
14 Memorial Cres.
Oro Station, Ontario
LOL 2E0
(705)487-3104
The Corporation of the
County of
Simcoe
(705)735-6901 Fax: (705) 927-4276
Totl Free (800) 363-3199
Email:NWestendorp @countysinacoe. on.ca
CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION
Planning Department
July 18, 2007
Glenn White
Senior Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
Box 100, 148 Line 7 South
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
1170 Highway 26
Administration Centre
Midhurst. Ontario LOL 1 XO
5a - )3
RE: County Preconsultation Comments
CRA Developments (Crawford)
Proposed Official Plan Amendment & Zoning Bylaw Amendment
Township Files: 2004-OPA-04, 2004-ZBA-03
Dear Mr. White,
Thank you for providing the County of Simcoe with the opportunity to comment on the
above-noted proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA).
County staff have now had an opportunity to review the proposal in the context of
applicable Provincial and County planning policies. The subject (ands are currently
designated Rural in the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan with an Environmental
Protection Two overlay on the southern portion of the property. The land is designated
Rural and Agricultural in the Simcoe County Official Plan (SCOP) with the rural area
policies being applied. The proposed OPA appears to conform to the intent of the
County Official Plan, most notably Policy 3.6.11. These applications were submitted in
2004. In accordance with Ontario Regulation 311/06, amended to O.Reg. 432/06, the
policies of Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe does not apply to these
application.
County staff have also had the benefit of reviewing the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority's (LSRCA) comments on the proposed development. With
respect to the September 2006 Preliminary Lot Development Plan, we note that the
LSRCA will require that the proposed Lot 3 and Block 7 be zoned Environmental
Protection.
sa-irk
The County of Simcoe has no objection to the proposed development provided the no
development occurs on the proposed Lot 3 or Block 7 and that these environmentally
sensitive lands are protected through the appropriate zone and official plan designation.
Furthermore, while it is the County's preference that environmentally protected (ands be
held by a public body, a Conservation Easement should be placed on the protected
portions of the property if no public body or organization is in a position to take
ownership of the (ands.
The above information is intended to be comprehensive and all inclusive, however, over
time circumstances and requirements are subject to change. Additional information,
research or study may be required to be provided. Policy circumstances (Provincial,
County or local), may also change. The applicant will be required to satisfy any such
requirements.
In accordance with Section 4.11 of the County of Simcoe Official Plan, this application is
also subject to all other applicable Provincial, County and local municipal legislation,
policies and by-laws.
If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned at 705-726-9300 Ext. 1360.
Sincerely,
Nathan Westendorp, BES.
Planner II
cc. Trudy Paterson, Skelton Brumwell (Via Email Only)
hS~LD- ~ _~. __ ~.,U4'1-~Jtt~F.
~b_ ' _i L~t51 1-114 t'~t71J Y1U1 C-_. z
~a-/.~
Sent by Facsimile
Apri125, 2007
File No.: 2004-OPA-03
IMS No.: POFCI8SC6
T'el: 965-895-]281 ~. Glenn White, Senior Planner
l.soo-ass-oa3~
Paz: 905-853-5881
TownShlp Of Oro-Medonte
$-Mail: info~lecca.on.ca 14$ Line 7 South
Web= www.krca.on.ca P ~ BOX 100
tzo sayvicw Parkway Oro, ON LOL 2X0
Box 282
Newmarkzr, Ontario
r3Y aXl Dear Mr. White:
Re: C13A Aevelopments (Crawford) Official Plan and "coning By-law Amendments
'l'our files: 2004-OPA-04, 2004-ZBA-03 for Part Lot 26, Concession 9,
Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has completed our review of the
Planning Background Report (January 26, 2007), the Revised Environmental Impact Study
(December 6, 2006) and Figure 2 -Preliminary Lot Development Plan submitted in support of
the above-noted applications to re-designate and re-zone part of Lot 26, Concession 9 in the
former Township of Oro to permit the creation of six new residential lots. We offer the
following comments with respect to the development plan:
The revised lot configuration (with the exception of Lot 3) is acceptable from a natural heritage
perspective as it respects the constraints identified in the.Environmental Impact Study. The
houses should be situated at the front of the lots and vegetation clearing should be kept to a
minimum. Vegetation removal must not occur during the breeding bird season.
The LSRCA will require that the proposed Lot 3 and Block 7 be zoned Environmental Protection
(EP) through this process. In addition, to ensure the long-term protection of the natural features
and their functions identified on the property, we will require that a Conservation Easement
under the Conservation Lands Act be placed over the environmentally protected portions of the
property as a condition of consent.
A I trust this meets your requirements at this time. Please forward a copy of your decision on this
matter. In order to facilitate our processing of this file, please reference the above-noted file
numbers in future correspondence.
Watershed Yours truly,
-~
;:.
~J re Burkart
fOx X.i{e Environmental Planner
.TB/ph
a Gail White, County of Simcoe, 1-705-726-9832 -Fax
S:U2-:.'dic^n~LI.N'NINGAOPA28AiOro-1/itdontt12G97~Crswtord6PAlEA.w~6
1-705-487-0133
Page 1 of 2
~aa-Ib
White, Glenn
From: AI Lees [glees@tsh.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:06 PM
To: White, Glenn
Cc: Hoppe, Bruce
Subject: CRA Developments (Crawford)
We have finally completed our review of the Planning Background Report; Environmental Impact Study Report
and the Preliminary Lot Configuration Plan for the proposed CRA Development Application, and herein provide
our comments.
1. The proposed 6 lots all front onto the existing Springhome Road, which is a local road. We foresee no
concerns with access onto this relatively flat road. There are only six driveway accesses which will be
consistent intensification as the existing lots to the north.
2. The proposed private well and private sewage disposal system for the six lots is consistent with the
servicing of the existing lots to the north. The Preliminary Hydrogeologic Evaluation indicates that the six
proposed lots can be serviced with private wells and septic systems. We therefore have no concern with
the water and sewage servicing.
3. Hydro and telephone utilities are readily available as the lots on the north side of Springhome Road are
serviced.
4. In order to maintain tree cover on these lots, restrictions for clearing of trees should be enforced through
individual site plans of the lots. Tree clearing should be restricted to only the house, septic and driveway
envelopes.
5. There will be no significant changes to the drainage patterns on the proposed lots, other than the front of
the proposed houses could drain north to Springhome Road. Based on the contour information indicated
on Figure 2, the lots would all fall from the front of the lots to the rear. Lots 1, 2, 3 and the west portion of
lot 4 would all drain to the existing watercourses in Block 7. The easterly portion of lot 4 along with lots 5
and 6 would drain to the existing residential lot to the south (#18 Memorial Crescent). A rear yard drainage
Swale should be incorporated to direct the drainage away from the existing lot to the south. A proposed
swale along the rear of lot 5 and 6 would appear to be able to drain to the east to the road side ditch on
Memorial Crescent. The easterly portion of lot 4 appears to have a low area that would drain south through
the rear of the existing lots to the south. This drainage may have to be directed through Block 7.
6. We would recommend that a 0.30 metre Reserve be established along the easterly portion of lot 6 that
abuts Memorial Crescent; in order to restrict access to the abutting street.
Based on our review we of the opinion that there are no servicing or drainage constraints for the establishment of
the proposed six lots in this application. The 0.30 metre Reserve as indicated above should be included.
Allan M. Lees, C.E.T.
Senior Project Manager
Totten Sims Hubicki Associates
10 High Street
Barrie, Ontario, Canada L4N I W 1
(B) 705-721-9222, Ext 238
(F) 705-734-0764
alees~~tsh.ca
This electronic transmission, including any attachments, may contain
personal information whose collection and use is regulated by the
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act S.C. 2000
c. 5 (the "Act"). The use of such personal information except in
'7/1712007
5~- I
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
BP 2007- 029 Planning Advisory Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP
Committee
Subject: Department:
Council Building & Planning
Proposed Plan of Services
C. of W. Subdivision and Rezoning, Date:
James and Kimberley Drury, Jul 25, 2007
Motion # West Part of Lot 11, R.M. File #: 2006-SUB-02,
Concession 5 (Oro), 2006-ZBA-04
Township of Oro-Medonte,
i
R
d W
t
Old B
arr
oa
es
1099
e
Date: Roll #: 010-002-26400
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to review applications for Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning submitted by
MHBC Planning on behalf of the owners, James and Kimberly Drury, and make recommendations to
Planning Advisory Committee as to the disposition of the matter.
The owners total landholding is approximately 39 ha (96 acres) in size, located within the Hamlet of
Edgar at the southeast corner of Line 4 South and Old Barrie Road (County Road 11). The property is
currently farmed and contains a single detached dwelling. The applicant is proposing residential
development on a portion of the lands which fall within the Settlement Area designation.
The original submission involved two vehicular access points (cul-de-sacs) to the site, one from Line 4
which is a Township road, and the other from Old Barrie Road which falls within the jurisdiction of the
County of Simcoe. Four residential lots were proposed on the west side of the site, and eight lots were
located on the east side for a total of 12 residential building Tots. It is noted that the existing farm
dwelling is located within one of the proposed new Tots on the east side of the development area. A
stormwater management block is also proposed, along with an Environmental Protection Block
representing the watercourse and associated valleylands adjacent thereto.
The existing farm dwelling currently has a driveway access to Old Barrie Road in close proximity to the
proposed new road on the east portion of the development area. Proposed lot frontages range from
38.3 metres (125 ft.) to 41.8 metres (137 ft.), with lot areas from 0.31 ha (0.77 acres) to 0.37 ha (0.91
acres).
It is also noted that a tributary of the Willow Creek traverses the lands affected by these applications in a
north-south fashion in approximately the mid-point of the designated lands. To this end, the
5b-d
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority has been involved in the pre-circulation process regarding
any impacts regarding site development in proximity to this watercourse, including a potential crossing
which is outlined below.
OFFICIAL PLAN:
As noted above, the subject property is designated Rural Settlement Area by the Township's Official
Plan. The proposed limits of the development extend approximately 150 metres (approx. 500 ft.} south
of Old Barrie Road, and staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that the integrity of these limits
have been respected. The Settlement Area policies state the following:
"Permitted uses in the Rural Settlement Area designation as shown on the schedules
to this Plan are low density residential uses, small scale commercial uses that serve
the needs of the settlement area and the surrounding rural area, small scale industrial
development in the form of repair garages, warehouses, workshops or manufacturing
and/or fabrication plants, institutional uses such as schools, places of worship,
community centres, libraries and similar uses, bed and breakfast establishments and
home occupations."
The Official Plan also contains interpretation policies with respect to boundaries of land use
designations, and states as follows:
The boundaries between land uses designated on the Schedules to this Plan are
approximate except where they meet with roads, railway lines, rivers, pipeline routes,
transmission lines, lot lines or other clearly defined physical features and in these
cases are not open to flexible interpretation, Where the general intent of the
document is maintained, minor adjustments to boundaries will not require amendment
to this Plan.
As noted above, the property has two primary land use designations, one being the Rural Settlement
Area and the other being Agricultural. Staff have worked with the applicant to ensure that the proposed
development falls substantially within the Rural Settlement Area, recognizing that there is no physical
feature separating the two designations, and to ensure that the general intent of the Official Plan is
maintained. The stormwater management block as well as Street `A' are intended to serve the proposed
Tots on the west side of the watercourse, both fall outside the Settlement Area boundaries. The revised
plan has been altered to remove these encroachments to the satisfaction of Township staff.
ADDITIONAL STUDIES:
In support of the subject applications, the following technical reports and/or studies were submitted:
Planning Report prepared by MHBC Planning
Functional Servicing Report prepared by ConSALtech Engineering Solutions
Development Capability Assessment prepared by Golder Associates Ltd.
These reports were circulated to the appropriate commenting agencies. Selected comments are
appended to this report. While some technical concerns were noted, staff are of the opinion that these
reports can be revised especially in light of the design changes in the plan outlined below.
It is noted that the Natural Hazard Land Study as required by the NVCA has been completed, as well as
a drainage flood Tine analysis identified by the Township Engineer. These technical reports will need to
be revised as appropriate prior to the matter being considered further bye Planning Advisory Committee.
2
sh-3
ANALYSIS:
As noted above, the original applications and proposed subdivision plans contemplated two access
points entering the site from Line 4 in a cul-de-sac, resulting in a total of 12 lots. Early in the process,
the County of Simcoe objected to the access point to Old Barrie Road. The application was revised to
include a single cul-de-sac from Line 4, crossing the watercourse to access the proposed new lots on
the east side.
During these revisions, Township staff also considered the limits of the Official Plan designations,
particularly in Tight of the access concerns of the County. It was concluded that while the Settlement
Area boundary clearly contemplated some residential development on these lands, the primary access
point to the site from Line 4 fell outside the Settlement Area boundary. Furthermore, the entire
stormwater management block was located on lands designated Agricultural. The use of these
"servicing blocks" on (ands designated Agricultural would not comply with the intent of the Official Plan.
Lastly, the introduction of a road crossing the watercourse was not preferred by Township and NVCA
staff.
As a result of these discussions, the application has recently been amended to include a single cul-de-
sac road access to 10 residential Tots from OId Barrie Road on the east side of the watercourse. A
single larger lot has been proposed with only one private driveway access to Line 4, resulting in the
creation of a total of 11 new Tots. The stormwater management block has been relocated substantially
within the Settlement Area boundaries. The revised proposal has also removed the creek crossing
which is preferable from an environmental standpoint. Both the NVCA and the County have indicated
support in principle for the amended plan.
The amendments have also resulted in a minor reduction in the proposed lot sizes, which have been
reduced to a minimum of 30 metres (98 ft.) frontage and a minimum lot area of 0.23 ha (0.57 acres).
To this end, staff are satisfied that enough information has been supplied by the proponent to proceed to
a statutory Public Meeting. If so directed by PAC, a compilation of comments made by the public as well
as more detailed agency comments will be brought back to PAC for analysis and ultimately disposition of
the subject applications. Amore thorough Official Plan analysis will also be included with the
subsequent recommendation report.
RECOMMENDATIO
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
1. THAT Report No. BP 2007-029 (Drury) be received and adopted;
2. THAT Plan of Subdivision application 2006-SUB-02 and Rezoning application 2006-ZBA-04
submitted by James and Kimberley Drury respecting lands described as West Part of Lot 11,
Concession 5 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte proceed to a statutory Public Meeting in
accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted,
~ a
Bruce Hoppe, MCI , RPP
Director of Building and Planning Services
3
~- '~ ~ti -s
t~RIG1t~ .S`t,IB~NSS~ 0~1
PROPOSED DRAFT
PLAN OF
® SUBDIVISION
W iR LOT 1 t CONCESSION 5
' ~ TOWNSHIP OF OR(}MEOONTE
GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF ORO
OWNEP'S CERTIFICATE
9 ` ~ SUR~VEYOR~'8 CEft1FIF CP ~,µYLw
/s$ ~ ct'O,~ ` PDOITIONAL MFORMATION REQUIRED ~.M
/~ ~` ~ UNpER SECTION 5t(1>IOF iXE PIANNING
OP 5 s~ ~~g a „ AcT~R e.o, Yssa P.t9, As aMENOEo
~P~P'\(4R Ov, ' t~ B u`5 ~Jb S'12 ~ I KEY PLAN
O~~ K %i ~ wns
~ ~~
N 4 5``
B~O~ ~ oR w`~ :~
8 / / f
~~ /~ ~ ~~+„ N.
/ ~ AREA SCHEDULE
`~ 4 BLOCK 13 / ' LPNO USE SUMMAPY
2 3 " ysi/.
p ^
+ ~ ~ a RESIDENTIAL LOT SVMMARY
>'° P
~Z ~~
~ /
~ \ , 35®
m ,.
MHIIC ....w.,_w~~
I ~e .v.~a~
t
APPRoX. I..IM t TS OF
SE TTI,.EM Ett T gREA
DEStCTNgT~o~!
_ ~ F
~ ~ ~y d~~~ ~~a
~
'~° d'
O
LL
N i
~
~ ~
qq¢¢
? aWW 5~
p ~
a t
~~ Z~$
~ E
F
/~ Z
J O 004
VIp
E
W W5
Q{d
~ @9
2LL
OOQ E3{~1~
~~M ~
1
~
..a,.f~ A
i 'C
~0
y
pp
S
¢¢
~a
:
¢
i _
"ffi
~E
'
~ a
~ . ~~
~ E8
N
r~r~ WIZ
~/!~\~ Z~Q
O> oO1-
O ~~
U64
W~3L
¢~c LL~
H 3=
w~° (
O":° g
S
K'd EEE9 "d~Y
Ozo ow:.
zOm Y ~
„
; ~x°
~s ~ "
b
W ~
Q
~ O
fl
~
I
i F ~ V cF
O § H' d RdR ~ =~. ~.
~ ~(e9a.~... ~y £o`L
^
-WU W~i
E
E vI '~}[ ~FO1 ~ p m a g3p °mi
~
~
I
JJ
LLL ~ Fd-6'
g
N
g _,
~C~j ZyU 6 ol' U j 4eBe ii~ - ~-
AP A®
YpP @
W
Ra
Y
O m ~Z~
~J~ ~3 €€
wsp
3F~ (
K~ig 3§
oo~~~€~
d'2 J
~ P Z
a Z
R
~
x
d
I?
~-. r
P
~. o xR~rTTx~j
~`o .....:..._ P~~
~
I~
w w
a ~s r
~° q
pzo 2
e w ~ g .
T
6§
~dCn 300 0~3 s a
y e a.
a~a < r a s.
_~
March 3, 2006
Andy Karaiskakis
Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South, Box 100
ORO, Ontario
LOL 2X0
• Sti °?
File # 2006-SUB-02, 2006-ZBA-04
r 4a,
MAF u ~ t90t
Member j tSACS-ME~ti~:`r~:=
Municipalities Dear Mr. Karaiskakis, Tavarvs~s
Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning Applications
-- Community of Edgar, Township of Oro-Medonte
Countv of Simcoe
Thank you for circulating the above-noted draft plan of subdivision and
rezoning applications and associated studies to the Nottawasaga Valley
Conservation Authority (NVCA) for our review.
The NVCA requires the following (in addition to the studies provided) prior
to any draft approval of this residential plan of subdivision:
A Natural Hazard Land Study illustrating the location of the flooding
and erosion hazard limits for the existing watercourse
As you are aware, a tributary of Willow Creek traverses the subject
property. All new development including the creation of new lots must be
directed away from hazardous lands adjacent to streams and
watercourses that are impacted by flooding and erosion hazards. Once
determined, all proposed lot lines must be located outside the greater of
the flooding hazard limit or the erosion hazard limit. In addition, alot-line
setback of 30 metres in generally required from all watercourses.
By copy of this letter, we are advising the developer's planning consultant
Watershed of this requirement. The developer's engineering consultant may wish to
Counties contact the NVCA's Water Resource Engineer, Amy Mayes, P.Eng. in
order to confirm the appropriate terms of reference for this Hazard Land
Study.
i2
- 7 ~~.. ;
~r. ~ f E ,
~~~ ~:.
'~
~~ vOTTAWAS GA`~AL~EI' C.O'vSERVATIO~ ALi7HORl Y Ce tre toi C-ons.. rvation
Conservation Johs Htx Conner ation AdminL oration Centre Tlifin C of ~en~aao! -:ca 819 ~ 9th t ine Gtopla, O L('1. 1 T9
ONTARIO Teleohone-,0~424-149 Fax-7C -~~+2119 ANeb: w~i i~n~ca-or..~ email ndmi<-~nvc<<~r ca
Andy Karaiskakis
March 3, 2006
i 5h-8
Page 2
If you have any questions or comments with regard to this requirement, please contact
MCIP, RPP
(cfb
Copy: MHBC Planning, Ms. A. Leigh, MCIP, RPP
County of Simcoe, Mr. I. Bender, MCIP, RPP
NVCR Member, Councilor R. Fountain
NVCA Member, Councilor R. Hough
S _ _ ~' __ s~ -9
Taw°nship of Oro-A9edonte
P.fl. Box 3tICi April 5. 240b
Om Station. O?a
LflL 2~t)
Attn: Andv Karaiskakis
Planner
Dear }~1r. Y:araiskakis:
Re: t~rurv p}an of Snttdi~=isian C.4neession 5 l~'est Part a{ I,od i 3 3 p49 OId
t ~ ~ {"~'~ Barrie Road West 7bwtship of Orca-}v}edonte_(farmerly Oro)
._
P3sase find attached a reviser} draft p}an drawing as a result ot`a site visit completed
wilt the t\TVCA can March IC, 2flt}6 and the additional flood analpsis work completed
r_ _ to satisty daeir correspondence of?>+4arch 3, 200b_ The draft p}an has been rat=ised to
;tom 4 c .v }.,,„" include all lands within 30 matres of wither side of the watercourse within Block ]4
and to revise the rear lot lines accordingly.
ar:~. ~ x r kir,.~_., ~ aecordanae with the March 3 h~'CiA con~espandence a further assessment of the
er watereonrsas ability to convey= the designs storm within the 3t) metre setback proposed
=.rt i.c,7.;z37` hasbeen cotttp3eted and provide to skau under separate cover. 'his further assessment
i1}ua-trares the location of the flooding and erosion hazard limits {ar the existing
,i;, , t ~ r~r~>> watercourse are contained within B}ook ]9. "ibis assessment was submitted to the
NYGA and a copy of their 3viarch 29 e-mail response stating that the additioaaa] wark
~' = satisfies the requirements Hated in their March 3 Tartar is attached_
nr~ 4 k~.xts,
,;; It is our opinion that the Sot }ina adjustments are relative}'= minor and we wish to
rt s confirm shat the appiicat9an is being scheduled far a deputation at P9atmitag Advisan-
Committee in Apri3.
tt} ti p 4:Pf'
Please fee} free to contact me direetly for further inlarmation or clarification.
Yours Toth ,
,. ;A, -
hIIIB+C Planning
"'" Andria Leigh, A9CSP, RPP
Senior Planner
~.1~4; fsN'$k 2:Sfi tliS1] }'iZi:P.3Y:1
'
' ~` C' Burgess, ?d'1'CA
}x?H3] { 3 ~
+xi& c9(
t[ixii23 S. }.arge, t onSALtech
...:,,a t>~-.-~-in; ;:,~:.. 1. Arun`
E,,:, tk~~~:
ios*.u 5 F ...-:.kr:~:
..~_i ~aT. t.4..i.....
r 'iiit C'Pe C"X:i
'~ ~ ~ -,~
.~~
~~"~'
c?
-'"~ /"rte*'
ti ti
t{~'>~ ,}
A s~~ 4
•~ )"sue < ~ _ „~.. ~.,rf
~~~--
~ ~.~~ _~ _.- ~ ~ rn ~.
~<
_ ~ ,
F ,~
_~
~ r
. ~ ,~~ ~ ~,
.~ ~t~~ ~~ \,~,.
*~ ~ '` ~ ~~
,~ `, ~,,,
.~ f, ''~.
~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~r ~# ~ a ~~
7 -~ p s 'tl ~ Seri h 'h m # i?. y,-.
#q f' y ~ E`I i ~ at ,tea ~ £ c. ~#_~ ~ ~}~ov ~~.7.+{{~~'//L~~7
k S ~ ~ tr ~ E iF~ Ek(xE68i `^ E~p ' i i ~ xc i f- ~' ~ ~ r ~ ~ t `-C i ~~ ~ ~ a ~~ ~ \
+? ~,;. m i z ( ~: ~ .• '~ # ~p¢cc z'~s.~E g#${~A $c~;~(# ~.'T'I X13
.~` 3:.__._ ~ ~' : f
Andria Leig3~ ~ b -
From: Tom Reeve (tfeeve~nvca.on:caJ
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2406 :2:58 PM
To: shayne Large
tic: Andria Leigh; Chartes Burgess
Subject: RE: Derry, Gammunity of Edgar
Shayne,
1 have looked over your email submission Pram March 22 tees below} including attachments. Wa agree wl#h your analysis
which shows tha# the flood lines wlil not extend beyond the 34 m setback. Therefore we will not be requiring a more ds#ai4ed
flood study for this development as long ai the 34 m setback is used.
Let me know if you have any #irriher quasi#ons.
Tom Reeve; M. Fng
f4ottawasaga Valley Conservation Au#hority
Centre for Ganservaton
John Hix Conservation Administra#ion Centre,
Tiffin Conservation Area
$195 Conaesslon Line P
UTt>P#A, C?ntario
L4M 1TCi
Phone: 745-A24-179
Fax:745-424-2115
7h4s e-mail meSSage,taidudCng Hrry attaEMRtenfs, t5 fir tare sole ose pi llie intended +eCiP~ent(S} and niag [Masi canhdentla) and pfrvilegaC inionnei7on. tt you era no!
ttta mtandadres+pietft; you are taareby notified That any dissctmnat+an, dl8tnba3nnn, da5~ssuYe, rorcopying atinis eommunSCatwn. ar any ol3is cements, is stricity
¢rah~iisvi_ Plearz cor~ct the sender and dastroyaw copies of the atgina3 mesaaga. Thank 3'4U,
Fromt Sftayne Large jmailfo:s#arge@rogers•rxtin]
See#; Wednesday, March 22, 2406 12;59 Af"1
To, Torn: Reeve
Gc# Andta Leigh
Subject: Drury, Gammunity of Edgar
Hi Tom,
Further to our discussions on site lasfweekand your sutrsequent a-mail, we have completed an assessment cif the
wa#ercourses atility to rxrnvey the design storm within the 34m setbacks that have bean proposed We have derived a
contnbuting drainage area of approximately 77'!.7 Na {see attached) and used Visfral i3tthymo to derive flow fates #or the
# 04 yf and regional storm, Model parameters and tesul#s have been outlined in the attached calaulatianstsufnmary and a
copy of the. model outpu# has been attached as well.
We have also aftaohed an AutoCAD drawing which #lus#rates the plan of subdivision and con#ours throughout-the
watercourse. From this information, two sections have been evaluated and the maximum potential capacity at each section
has been derived using Manning's #o confirm the abifity to convey the regional storm wi#h the setback limits. You will note that
the worst case scenario occurs at section B-B and that the capaairy at this point exceeds fhe required by 52°ln t 7.3 vs.
17,14ams).
Please review and give me a call if you have any quesfians ar concerns.
Thanks
Shayne Large, GET
Tel: {705j322-5528 Fax: f7`J5}322-552E
3;<24. L{}{tb
2006 9:54RM
HP~SERJET FRX p.2
•
5 ~ ~'
19, 2006
County of Simcoe
1110 Highway 26
Administration Centre
Midhurst, ON
LOL 1X0
Attn: Greg Marek, CPT
Planning/Engineering Technician
T:{705) 72fi.00A5
F: (?OS) 728.2010
www.mhbcplao.com
Dear Mr. Mazek:
Ian F. Ma<Nangnt°° Re- Dra*v Plan of Subdivision, Concession 5, West Part of Lot 11,
MA, FCIP, RPP
1099 Old Barrie Road West, Township of Oro-Medonte (formerly Orol
Bernard P. Hermsen
BES, MC1P, APP
This letter is being sent in response to your correspondence of March 9, 2006
Paul A. Brin°n with respect to the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision
BHS, Mclr, APP for the above noted site. The responses relate to each of the four matters raised
w Brent carl~nn in your letter:
MA, MCIP, RPP
)amen. Parkin 1. Road Access -Given the locafion of the creek running through the
BES, MCIP, APP centre of the property (identified within Block l4 of the plan) single
Carol M. Wiebe access from Line 4 North is not attainable and would also not conform
BHS to the Township's Engineering standazds for development of a new
xrs Me",.+=s subdivision road. The property currently contains an access from
BBS, MCIP APe County Road ll to the existing dwelling which is intended to be
oavia A. M<Kay replaced with Street "B" as identified on the proposed drab plan of
BES, MCrP APP subdivision. On this basis, no new entrance is being proposed onto
Brian n. zeman County Road 11. The proposed entrance cannot be relocated to align
BPS,MCIP APP with the existing entrance to the Edgar Estates subdivision on the north
side of County Road 11 due to the limit of the "Settlement" designation
o~CeS;n: identified in the Township's Official Plan.
• &rchener
•YaugAan
- ~~oa 2. Stormwater Management Block -The revised plan (attached) idenfifies
IGngst°n that the Stormwater Management Block is contained within Block 13.
Barrie
This was also previously identified in Section 8 of the Functional
citxT°w°andx°"IP~a°"'°g Servicing Report prepared by ConSALtech Engineering Solutions
Munidpal Plans aad Studies dated January 2006.
Land Development 3. 0.3 Metre Reserve- It is understood that a draft plan condition is to be
urban Desigr; included for the transfer the 0.3 metre reserve to the County of Simcoe
community elanning along the entire frontage of the proposed development adjacent to
Lanauzpe Ar<nise<t¢re County Road 11 and will be identified as a block on the final draft plan.
Natural Resouece
and Aggregate Planning
Expert Evidence
and Mediation
Project Management
13 Poyntz Street
Hame, Ontario L4M 3N6
19 Rpr 2006 9:54RM HP~SERJET FRX
p.3
~ 5~-r3
4. County of Simcoe Setback By-law No.2840 - It is our recornmendation that in
lieu of a concept plan with limited enforcement, the zoning by-law amendment
be site specific and incorporate a 12.9 metre exterior side yard requirement. We
would suggest the inclusion of a draft- plan condition that the site be
appropriately zoned for residential development and further the zoning provide
fora 12.9 metre exterior side yard setback to ensure conformity to the County
By-law No. 2840. Lots 5 and 9 have ]ot frontages of 40.5 metres which will
permit the 12.9 metre exterior side yard setback a 25 metre building envelope,
and an interior side yazd of 2.5 metres (minimum).
We would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this further with the Planning &
Engineering Departments at your eazliest convenience and will call to establish such a
meeting.
Yours Truly,
MFIBC Planning
-'`Y~/~- ~ 0 -
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
cc. B. Hoppe, Township of Oro-Medonte
S. Lazge, ConSALtech Engineering
J. Drury
19 Rpr 2086 9:54RM HP~RSERJET FRX
~yA ~~ J
~:.\.¢ ~ o
J
\ ~ N ~
~'
oti°~
~ '[
U
~
fs 1P~~a ... ~
~d
jin~3'
o i
~ s
~ C ~
O w
~~ i[i[~6 nz
~1 pao~
l R k~k~
~~p~ p $
~s~ `
1
~
m0'
°oZa CD~
f
w
+3i ° Ck "- 'ki° m H i fi ~ wwg
$
Om 3s3<
R•O ~~~,
W. ~?S W Q
~p
Z
i
ia~a }{ ~
€~F ~~ ~ '6
ifi i f' w ~
F 4
4 s m~~
~ oi-zr~ ~capd vp7
m k m
~I9 O
no-'
QQ
°
~o
"
6
~'~~° d3 ~ n
~
~ -
dd ~' EEee
v~~ !e
y
~ ~~~ ~
y
o
~~m MITI
~P ° ~ a E
LV ~ N
"Y
; Ya,.+ y
~E~~3.D~Z 6C
~
;~
d ~~~ or
~ ~ Q
~ (v
F
&V ~ yc
TN
~~
~ kk o
i ° ~~ • c~
~ End%°~~
~
~~ @~
`4 ~ p
~
g ~
~E m~ ~
Pa ~~
$ n
~ ~ ~
~
' j ~ i
i I
p.4
5b -/}
05/12/?L55 14:20 ENGIt~ING COUNTY OF SIMCOE 3 4870133 ~ N0.050 D02
5b-15'
The Corporation of the Phone; (7pS) 735.6901 Fax: (705) 72'1-1984
Co&nty of B-mail: roads@cnunty.simcce.oaca
Simcoe
Corporate Services Department 1110 Highway 26
Transportation and Engineering Division Administration Centre
Midhrnst, ON LOL 1X0
May I2, 2006
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
MHBC
13 Poyntz Street
Barrie, Ontario L4M 3N6
I)eaz Ms. Leigh:
RE: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application -dames sad Kimberley Drury
West %: Lot 11, Concession 5, former Township of Oro, Township of Oro-Medonte
Thank you for your letter of April 19, 2006. County Transportation and Planning staff has reviewed
the letter and provides the following comments:
1. Road Access -The re-classification of the existing fans entrance to a local mad would
constitute a new entrance based on the change in use. As stated in my March 9, 2006
letter, this entrance does not meet the 450 meter spacing requirement between
intersections as per the Transportation Association of Canada guidelines. The County
acknowledges that the proposed local road cannot be relocated to the east due to the limit
of the settlement azea boundary. As there is ingress to the property from Oro 4`s Line
North, the County's position remains that road access to the development shall be from
the local road in accordance with Section 4.8.3.1 of the County of Simcoe's Official Plan.
The applicant may wish to reconsider the layout of the subdivision to meet County and
Township requirements.
2. Paints 2 to 4 of your letter are acceptable to the County.
The shave information is intended to be comprehensive and all inclusive, however, over time
circumstances and requirements are subject to change. Additional information, research or
study may be required to be provided. Policy circumstances, (Provincial, County or Locat)
may also change. The applicant will be required to sarisfy any such requirements.
In accordance with Section 4.1,1 of the County of Simcoe Official Plan, this application is also
subject to all other applicable Provincial, County and Local policies and by-laws.
...2J
05i12i2006 14:20 EN61~IN6 COUNTY OF SIMCOE -~ 4870133
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Greg Mazek, CPT
PlaaningJEngineering Technician (705) 726-9300 ext. 1362
Cc: Mr. Andy ICaraiskakis, Planner -Township of Oro-Medonte
Mr. Charles Burgess, MCll', RPP - Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
Mr. Shayne Large, CET - ConSALtech Engineering Solutions
5Lj "~~a
NO. bSb WbS
X;\CarpmIIm Scniccs\PtanningU?eveloprtxnt Carrcepandencalpra•Medontt`SubdivieiontDmr~ROada Later- Ihury LNaR Subdivision C21 t Mpy 12
2006.dnc
•
5b-67
"By Fax and Mail"
August 17, 2006
Mr. Bruce Hoppe
Director of Plamring
Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South
Oro, ON
LOL 2X0
Dear Sir:
RE: Engineering Peer Review Comments
Drury (Edgar) Development
TSH Project No. 440-0030293
Totten Sims Hubicki Associates
10 High Stree4
Barrie, Ontario, Canatla L4N tWt
1705) 721-9222 Fax: 1705) 734-0764
E-mail: glees@tsh.ca
We have completed our review of the Functional Servicing Report; Planning Analysis Report; Preliminary
Development Capacity Assessment Report and Drafr Plan submitted in support of the proposed Drury
development in Edgar, and we herein provide the following comments:
General Comments ou Draft Plan
1.1) Label "Old Barrie Road" also as "Simcoe County Road No. 11";
1.2) The Draft Plan should identify all existing lots on the north side of Simcoe County Road No. 11.
1.3) Contours at I metre interval, and spot elevations are to be shown on the Draft Plan to properly
assess the topography. The existing drainage course through the site is to shown and labeled,
complete with the edge of stream and top of banks. The culvert under Simcoe County Road No. 11
is to be shown and labeled with size, inverts and top of road elevation.
1.4) All buildings on the site and on abutting lots are to be shown in order to clarify any conflicts and/or
any future removals of buildings.
1.5) The well and septic system of the existing farm house should be identified for future removal.
1.6) Day lighting triangles are required at both proposed intersections. The Township Engineering
Standards indicate a minimum 15 metres by 15 metres day lighting at al] intersections onto
Township concession Roads and County Roads (Section 3.2(iv)}. This would require that the
intersection on Line 4 having to shift south.
1.7) A 0.30 metre Reserve should be required along the day lightings of both intersections, as well as
the frontage along Simcoe County Road No. 11.
1.8) Label the Block south of Street A. Identify the purpose of Block 13 and the aforementioned Block
as referenced in the FSR and Golder Report.
1.9) In the Additional Information Chart under sub-section H revise "Municipal Water Supply" to
"Individual Wells".
RG ROBINSON
avn Aaaooa&s (Saws) Lm.
ATSHGVl~hVY
Mr. B. Hoppe, Township oT Or~ donte 2 ® ~~ _
August 17, 2006
2. Functional Servicing Report Comments
2.1) Section 3.1 of the Report discusses the road design with two cul-de-sacs to allow for future
development beyond the limits. Street B which extends south from Simcoe County Road No. 11 has
8 lots; while Street A which extends east from Line 4 has 4 lots. These two cul-de-sacs result in
additional winter maintenance costs and create safety concerns for maintenance vehicle turning. The
preferred option in our opinion is to provide a smaller mirrored version of Lauder Road on the
north-east corner of Simcoe County Road No. 11 and Line 4. The connection of the two streets
into a looped road would provide a safer road with less maintenance. We note that Lauder Road
also crosses the same drainage course, complete with a buffer between lots.
2.2) In Section 3.1 of the report, they refer to the asphalt width as 6.5 metre which should be 6.6 metres
in accordance with the referenced Township detail.
2.3) Section 3.2 would require modifications if the road pattern was revised as noted above.
2.4) Section 6 refers to private individual septic systems, and references the Golder report. Comments
on groundwater will be addressed below in comments on the Preliminary Development Capacity
Assessment Report. Groundwater has been witnessed by the undersigned as being very high in the
spring in the westerly portion of the site. Currently there are tall grasses and bull rushes growing in
this westerly area that are associated with high groundwater conditions.
2.5) Section 7 refers to site grading and as noted above due to high groundwater conditions in the
westerly portion of the site, the septic systems and houses will have to be installed at raised grades.
The road structure will also have to be properly addressed.
2.6) Section 8 refers to Storm drainage, and does not address the existing drainage course that flows
through the site. Immediately upstream of this proposed development is the Edgar Estates
development which has a SWM facility. The flows from this development through this proposed
development must be properly analyzed and reviewed to determine the limits of the floodway and
the required setbacks to the residential lots. The sitting of any SWM facilities must provide that any
flooding does not extend onto lots. The modeling of drainage must include all external areas to the
development in the modeling. We note that there is a road cross culvert south of the intersection on
Line 4 which may drain through the properry.vSection 8.3 refers [o two detention storage facilities
however they have not been identified on the Draft Plan and /or in any Figures.
2.7) In general, the Storm drainage analysis is generally lacking in details to sufficiently supporting their
concept.
3. Prelimiuary Development Capacity Assessment Report Comments
3.1) Section 2.3 refers to Site Soils with 4 test-pits being carried out. The location of the test-pits is
shown on Figure A-3 with the Test-pit Logs and Water Levels in Table B-1.The last paragraph of
this Section 2.3 indicates a water level of 2.55 m in TP 1, with no water present in TP 2, TP 3 and
TP 4. The information in Table B-1 appears to have some conflicting and/or erroneous information.
TP 1 has the ground elevation (Grade) as 327.5, with the water level (Water) as 324.95 which
results in the 2.55 metre level noted above. The Grade elevations for TP 2 and TP 3 make no sense
as they are over 70 metre below the Water level. TP 3 is actually located outside the proposed
development limits. TP 4 (TH 4) has a grade inconsistent with TP 1, and provides no water level.
This is the area where high groundwater has been witnessed. We note that Figure A-3 has a broken
dashed line which extends through the site, just below TP 1 and TP 4, and then extends in a
southerly direction. While not labeled this is the 325 metre contour from Simcoe County base
mapping. The 330 metre contour while not shown on Figure A-3 cuts across the north-east comer
RG Roewsm
56-19
Mr. B. Hoppe, Township of Oro-Medonte 3
August 17, 2006
of the site, just north of TP 2. The ground elevations of TP 2 would actually be just less than 330
metres, which differs from that shown in this Report. Both contours should be shown and labeled.
3.2) The basis of this report is based on no groundwater in 3 test-pits and a water level of over 2.5
metres in the other. Section 5 refers to the generally dry soils for the septic systems. The actual
ground elevation and water levels need to be confu•med to properly address the design of
septic systems for the proposed lots.
3.3) In general, the water levels relevant to ground elevations must be further addressed in order to
sufficiently supporting their concept.
4 Planning Report Comments
4.1) Any comments provided above should also be addressed in this Report.
5 SUMMARY
We make the following recommendations:
5.1) Street A and Street B be should be connected to provide a looped road system;
5.2) Contours and drainage course information is to be added to the Draft Plan;
5.3) A drainage flood line analysis is to be completed to properly address the required setback far lots
from the drainage course;
5.4) The Storm drainage analysis for the property is to include all external flows, and is to properly
address the required SWM facilities;
5.5) The current ground water levels must be properly addressed to determine the4 impacts on house,
septic system and road construction.
We trust the above is sufficient, however, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact our
office.
Yours vety truly,
A.M. Lees, CET
AML/ld
K\0030293\0030293 AMLOl.doc
RG Rwmsov ~
"~ 807 15:43 ENGI<~RING COUNTY OF SIMCOE ~ 4870133 ~ N0.466 ~}D02
5b°2®
' '" The Corporation of the Phone: (705) 735-b901 Fax; (705j 727-7984
CoaAry Of E-mail; toads~county.simcoe.onca
Simcoe
Corporate Services Division 1 ] 10 Highway 26 Administration Centre
Transportation and Engineering Department Midhrust, Ontario LOL 1X0
February fi, 2007
Adam Kozlowski, Planner
Township ofOro-Medonte
148 tine 7 South, P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Kozlowski:
R@: Drury Proposed Plan of Subdivision Application
County Road 11, West'/~ Lot 11, Concession 5, Edgar, geographic Township of Oro
Thank you for circulating the above-noted application to the County of Simcoe for review, County staff has
reviewed the following documents:
• Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by MHBC Planning dated November 1, 2006
• Functional Servicing Report prepared by ConSALtech Engineering Solutions dated January 2006,
revised September 2006.
County staff provides the following comments;
In accordance with the County of Simcoe's Official Pian, Section 4.8.3.1 states that, `Mlhere
feasible and where compatible with other Plan policies, road access to a proposed subdivision or
development shell be from an existing local municipal road rather than a County Road or
Provincial Highway". As there is access to the property from the 4'" tine North through lands
owned by the applicant, the County will not support the proposed intersection of Street'A' wim
County Road 11. The Functional Servicing Report has not analyzed the option of accessing the
site from the 4'" Line. If there are valid reasons why accessing the site from the 4'" Line is not
feasible, the applicant may submit to the County for consideration, a report justifying the proposed
County Road 11 entrance location.
The above information is intended to be comprehensive and all inclusive, however, over time
circumstances and requirements are subject to change. Additional information, research or study may be
required to be provided. Poilcy circumstances, (Provincial, County or local) may also change. The
applicant will be required to satisfy any such requirements.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Greg arek, CPT
Planning(Engineering Technician (705) 726-9300 ext. 1362
X\COrporaf• $anlCbsV'ISnnln®10 - Development & Plenninp OlDo7 to 014 Davoiepment Co.roepontlenestOro•Metlonl6\Oi2 SubCNi9ibn PIanS~ruty,ONry
Oreft Plan of gubbivision CR7 t-fee 07 Comments.doc
5b-2f
Township of f)ro-Medo7lte
P.p. E3ok l00
Oro Station, pN
I.4L 2X0
Attn: Adam l~orlowski.
Plamter
Februa]Y 36, 2d)0~
"7 Dear €v`I7'. KazlaavslCi:
,_ Re: L)run-flan of Subdivision. Concession ~. Vr'esS Para of 1.~~Y 1 I, I{?99 01d
~- rrie itn~d G'~'e~-t Toi~'nship oi~ C3ro-ibledontc fformcrly pro}
yUc arc in receipt of a copy of the County's letxer of Pebruaiy 6, 2007 and provide the
~<': i'oIlole ing for your consideration.
,.
_.
~ A$ yon w7}) reL2}} from pPeV10175 711eeUngs lM1`Itl7 "lbwtt Shlp sxaff, t}R0 extenC Of t}ie
?~ ~~. ~: ,. "Aura! Set~tlcment Area" designation in the Township`s C~~ciai Plan along Line ~
:North does not provide staPticient width far a road access to the proposed
1;; ~ „_ ,; r dev=elop7nent. Township sta~lf had advised us that t}1e}~ could not support a road access
in this location and therefore this proposed access to Line 4 was removed and 13te draft
„ plan redesigned accordingly with the sole access tram County Read 17. Staff ax the
~
,> ~ ~ iJottawasaga VaIley Conservation Authority ltas also advised that all development
should be directed away from the Vdillow Creek tributary which traverses the propem~
s t .,i°;'
which would include any proposed road creasing. On this basis, we woexld request
that Township staff advise the Cou7lty that the ou}v available access xo the site is from
County i2oad l1 {OId Barrie Road) due to rile extent of Ute lands designated in The
"Rural Settlement Area",
> Ri'd`
On the basis of the above, it would be apnreeiated ii' the Draft Plan and t-ezaning
3, ~ K ~ applications 1j~hSch were rekises3 and re-submitted na ;November ?046 could fine}lv be
Advisot~~ Committee for consideration of this matter
Iha ilannin
l
d b
f
h
d
g
ore
e
e
sc
e
u
Yours Tn~ly,
itIH13C Planning
Andria Leigh, t~]CtP, ip
Senior S'9anner
~.= v
_st-- ,~
ce. S. Laree, ConSAixech
J. 7?rurv
$h - 2Z
'~ The Corporation of the
County of
` Simcoe
Phone: (705) 735-6901 Fax: (705)727-7984
E-mail: roadsCcountysimcoe.on.ca
Corporate Services Division
Transportation and Engineering Department
1110 Highway 26 Administration Centre
Midhurst, Ontario LOL IXO
July 11, 2007
County File: OM-T-0602
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
MHBC
13 Poyntz Street
Barrie, Ontario L4M 3N6
Dear Ms. Leigh:
** VIA EMAIL **
RE: Drury Proposed Plan of Subdivision Application -Access
County Road 11, West'h Lot 11, Concession 5, Edgar, geographic Township of Oro
Thank you for your letter dated May 5, 2007 regarding access options for the Drury proposed plan of
subdivision in village of Edgar. This morning, I received a voice message from Bruce Hoppe, Oro-
Medonte Director of Planning, confirming that the Township is not in support of access from Line 4 as this
will require an expansion of the settlement area boundary. He also noted that he has been in contact with
Marilyn Eger from the NVCA who has confirmed that all development should be directed away from the
Willow Creek tributary.
County Transportation Department staff has reviewed the information provided and given that access from
the Township road is currently not permissible and crossing the watercourse may not be feasible or
permissible, the County will permit a new intersection with County Road 11 at the location identified on
proposed draft plan of subdivision (attached), subject to submission of satisfactory engineering drawings.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
~~
Greg arek, CPT
Planning/Engineering Technician (705) 726-9300 ext. 1362
Cc: Bruce Hoppe, Township of Oro-Medonte
Marilyn Eger, NVCA
Jim Hunter, County of Simcoe
Attachment: Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision
XaCOrporafe ServiceslPlanning\C -Development 8 Planning 0\D W io Dt4 Development Correspontlence\Oro-Medonta1D12 Subdivision Plans\0602
Drury\Drury -Access to CRt t Letter Julyi t-07.tloc
~a-a
PART II -LOCAL PLANNING ADMINISTRATION '5. 8
Y without the prior written approval of the Minister, which approval may be subject to
y such further conditions as the Minister considers appropriate. 1989, c. 5, s. 5(1), part;
'e 1996, c. 4, s. 5(2).
i,
u (3) Farther delegation of powers.-In addition to the authority of a council to, in r
ie turn,delegateanyauthorityundersubsection(1),wheretheMinisterhasdelegatedtoa
council his or her authority for the giving of consents under section 53, such council
8' may, in turn, by by-law, and subject to such conditions as may have been imposed by
ie
the Minister, delegate the authority for the giving of consents to a committee o
adjustment constituted under section 44. 1983, c. 1, s. 5(2); 1989, a 5, s. 5(2).
d (4) Comlitions~ A delegation made by a council under subsection (I) or (3) may be
a
re subject to such conditions as the council may by by-law provide and as are not m
conflict with any conditions provided by order of the Minister under section 4.
is (5) Withdrawal of delegation of powers.-A council may by by-law withdraw any
delegation made under subsection (t) or (3), whereupon subsection 4{5) applies with
in
necessary modifications. 1983, c. 1, s. 5(3, 4).
6. (1) Definition.-In this section, "ministry" means any ministry or secretariat of
be the Government of Ontario and includes a board, commission or agency of the
Government. 1983, a 1, s. 6(i); 1998, c. I5, Sch. E, s. 2'7(3).
led (2) Consultation.-A ministry, before carrying out or authorizing any undertaking
on that the ministry considers will directly affect any municipality, shall consult with, and
in have regard for, the established planning policies of the municipality. 1983, a 1, s. 6(2).
of
the 7. Grants.-The Minister may, out of the money appropriated therefor by the
ng Legislature, make grants of money to assist in the performing of any duty ar function
nts of a planning nature. 1983, c. 1, s. 7.
uch PART II
LOCAL PLANNING ADMINISTRATION
any
and S. (1) Planning advisory committee.-The council of a municipality may appoint a
y of planning advisory committee composed of such persons as the council may
y to determine.
to a (2) Joint planning by agreement.-The councils of two or more municipalities may
r by enter into agreement to provide for thejoint undertaking of such matters of a planning
s, in nature as may be agreed upon and may appoint a joint planning advisory committee
such composed of such persons as they may determine.
!veto
Dart {3) Remuneration.-Persons appointed to a committee under this aection may be
paidsuch remuneration and expenses as the council or councils may determine, and
where. a joint committee is appointed, the councils may by agreement provide for
tY to apgoztioning to their respective municipalities the costs of the payments. 1983, c. 1, s. 8.
~a-~
PART V -LAiJD USE CON'7-ROL~ A\'D RELATED ADMIVISTRA"ITON S. QQ
(12) PaymenC under protest.-If there is a dispute behveen a municipality and the
owner of land under subsection (10), the owner may pay the amount required by the
municipality under protest and shall make an application to the Municipal Board
under subsection (10) within 30 days of the payment of the amount.
(13) Notice.-If an owner of land makes a payment under protest and an application
to the Municipal Board under subsection (t2), the owner shall give notice of the
application to the municipality within 75 days after the application is made.
(14) Park purposes.-The council of a municipality may include in its estimates an
amount to be used for the acquisition of ]and to be used for park or other public
recreational purposes and may pay into the fund provided for in subsection (15) that
amount, and any person may pay any sum into the same fund.
(15) Special account.-AII money received by the municipality under subsections (6)
and (14) and alt money received on the sale of land under subsection (5), less any
amount spent by the municipality out of its general funds in respect of the land, shall be
paid into a special aceount and spent only for the acquisition of land to be used forpark
or other public recreational purposes, including the erection or repair of buildings and
the acquisition of machinery for park or other public recreatronal purposes. 1994, c. 23,
s. 25, part;
(16) InvesCments.-The money in the special account may be invested in securities in
which the municipality is permitted to invest under the Municipal Act, 2001 or the City
ojToronto Acr, 2006, as the case may be, and the earnings derived from the investment
of the money shall be paid into the special account, and the auditor in the auditor's
annual report sha]] report on the activities and status of the account 1994, a 23, s. 25,
part; 1996, a 32, s. 82(5); 2002, c. 17, Sch.B; s. 15; 2006, c. 32, Sch. C, s. 47 (10).
43. (1) Application of s. 34 (12-34).~ubsections 34(12) to (34) do not apply to a
by-law that amends a by-]aw only to express a word, term or measurement in the by-
law in a unit of measurement set out in Schedule I of the Weights and Measures Act
(Canada) in accordance with the definitions set out in Schedule II of that Act and
that.
(a) does not round any measurement so expressed further than to the next
higher or tower multiple of 0.5 metres or 0.5 square metres, as the case may
be; or
(b) does not vary by more than 5 per cent any measurement so expressed. 1983.
c. 1, s. 42(1); 1993, c. 26, s. 55.
(2) Effect of amendment that conforms with subs. (1).-Any land, building or
structure that otherwise conforms with a by-law passed under section 34 or a
predecessor thereof or an order made by the Minister under section 47 or a predecessor
thereof does not cease to conform with the by-law or order by reason only of an
amendment to the by-law or order that conforms with subsection (1).1983, c. 1, s. 42(2).
44 (I) Establishment of committee of adjustment.-If a municipality has passed a
by-law under section 34 or a predecessor of such section, the council of the
municipality may by by-law constitute and appoint a committee of adjustment for
6
S. 4S PLANNLNG ACT
the municipality composed of such persons, not fewer than three, as the council
considers advisable.
(2) Copy of by-law to Mimater.-Where a by-law is passed under subsection (1), a
certified copy ofthe by-law shalt be sent to the Minister by registered mail by the clerk
of the municipality within thirty days of the passing thereof.
(3) Term of office.-The members of the committee who are not members of a
municipal council shall hold office for the term of the council that appointed them and
the members of the committee who are members of a municipal council shall be
appointed annually.
(4) Idem.-Members of the committee shall hold office until their successors are
appointed, and are eligible for reappointment, and, where a member ceases to be a
member before the expiration of his or her term, the council shall appoint another
eligible person for the unexpired portion of the term.
(5) Quorum.-Where a committee is composed of three members, two members
constitute a quorum, and where a committee is composed of more than three members,
three members constitute a quorum.
(b) Vacancy not to impav powers.-Subject to subsection (5), a vacancy in the
membership or the absence or inability of a member to act does not impair the powers
of the committee or of [he remaining members.
(7) Chair. The members of the committee shall elect one of themselves as chair,
and, when the chair is absent through illness or otherwise, the committee may appoint
another member to act as acting chair.
(8) Secretary-treasurer, employees.-The committee shall appoint a secremry-
treasurer,who may be a member of the committee, and may engage such employees and
consultants as is considered expedient, within the limits of the money appropriated for
the purpose.
(9) Remuneration.-The members of the committee shall bepaid such compensation
as the council may provide. 1983, c. 1, s. 43.
(] 0) Filing of documents, etc.-The secretary-treasurer shall keep on file minutes and
records of all applications and the decisions thereon and of all other official business of
the committee, and section 253 of the Municipa(Act, 2001 or section 199 of the Clty of
Toronto Act, 2006, as the case may be applies with necessary modifications to such
documents. 2002, a 17, Sch. B, s. 16; 2006, a 32, Sch. C, s. 47(11).
(I1) Rules of procedure.-In addition to complying with the requirements of this
Act, the committee shall comply with such rules of procedure as are prescribed. 1983, c.
I , s. 43.
45. (1) Powers of committee; general.-The committee of adjustment, upon the
application of the owner of any land, building or structure affected by any by-law
that is in effect under section 34, or a predecessor of such sections, or any person
authorized in writing by the owner, may, despite any other Act, authorize such minor
variance from the provisions of the by-law, in respect of the land, building or
structure or the use thereof, as in its opinion is desirable for the appropriate
~a
,;
7a -~
PART V -LRA'D USE CO'.A'?ROCS AND RFLA'I'fiD ADMIMSTRATION S. 4S
developmeut cr use of the land, building or stn~eture, tf in the opinion of the
committee the general intent and purpose of the by-law and of the official plan, if
any, are maintained. 2006, c. 23, s. 18(1).
(i.l)Reslriction.-Subsection (])does not allow the committee to authorize a minor
variance from conditions imposed under subsection 34(16) of this Act or under
subsection 1 ] 3(2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 2006, c. 23, s. 18(2).
(2) Special.-In addition to its powers under subsection (1), the committee, upon
any such application,
(a) where any land,building or structure, on the day the by-law was passed, was
]awfully used for a purpose prohibited by the by-law, may permit,
(t) the enlargement or extension of the building or structure, if the use
that was made of the building or structure on the day the by-law was
passed, or a use permitted under subclause (ii) continued until the
date of the application to the committee, but no permission may be
given to enlarge or extend the building or structure beyond the limits
ofthe land owned and used in connection therewith on the day the by-
law was passed, or
(ii) the use of such land, building or structure for a purpose that, in the
opinion of the committee, is similar to the purpose for which it was
used on the day the by-law was passed or is more compatible with the
uses permitted by the by-taw than the purpose for which it was used
on the day the by-law was passed, if the use for a purpose prohibited
by the by-law or another use for a purpose previously permitted by
the committee continued until the date of the application to the
committee; or
(b) where the uses of land, buildings or structures permitted in the by-taw are
defined in general terms, may permit the use of any ]and, building or
structure for any purpose that, in the opinion of the committee, conforms
with the uses permitted in the by-taw.
(3) Power of committee to grant minor variances.-A council that has constituted a
committee of adjustment may by by-law empower the committee of adjustment to
grant minor variances from the provisions of any by-law of the municipality that
implements an official plan, or from such by-laws of the municipality as are specified
and that implzment an official plan, and when a committee of adjustment is so
empowered subsection (I) applies with necessary modifications.
(4) Time for hearing.-The hearing on any application shall be held within thirty
days after the application is received by the secretary-treasurer. 1983, c. 1, s. 44(1-4).
(5) Notice of hearing.-The committee, before hearing an application, shall in the
manner and to the persons and public bodies and containing the information
prescribed, give notice of the application- 1983, c. I; s. 44(5); 1994, c. 23, s. 26(1).
(6) Bearing.-The hearing of every application shall be held in public, and the
committee shall hear the applicant and every other person who desires to be heard in
favour of or against the application, and the committee may adjourn the hearing or
reserve its decision.
57
la -5
S_ Q~ PLANNING ACT
{'1) Oaths.-The chair, or in his or her absence the acting chair, may administer
oaths.
(8) Decision.-No decision of the committee on an application is valid unless it is
concurred in by the majority of the members of the committee that heard the
application; and the decision of the committee; whether granting or refusing an
application, shall be in writing and shalt set out the reasons for the decision, and shall be
signed by the members who concur in the decision.
(9) Condifions in decision.-Any authority or permission granted by the committee
under subsections (I), (2) and (3) may be for such time and subject to such terms and
conditions as the committee considers advisable and as are set out in the decision. 1983,
c. 1, s. 44(6-9),
(9,1) Agreement re terms and conditions.-If the committee imposes terms and
conditions under subsection (9), it may also require the owner of the land to enter into
one or more agreements with the municipality dealing with some or all of the terms and
conditions, and in that case the requirement shall be set out in the decision. 2006, a 23,
s. 18(3).
(9.2) Registration of agreement.-An agreement entered into under subsection (9.1)
may be registered against the land to which it applies and [he municipality is entitled to
enforce the agreement against the owner and, subject to the Registry Act and the Land
Tltdes Act, against any and all subsequent owners of the land. 2006, a 23, s. 1S(3).
(10) Notice of decision.-The secretary-treasurer shall not later than ten days from
the making of the decision send one copy of the decision, certified by him or her,
(a) to the Minister, if the Minister has notified the committee by registered mail
that he or she wishes to receive a copy of all decisions of the committee;
(b) to the applicant; and
{c) to each person who appeared in person or by counsel atthe hearing and who
filed with the secretary-treasurer a written request for notice of the decision,
together with a notice of the last day for appealing to the Municipal Board. 1983, c.
1, s. 44(10); 1989, a 5, s. 20(1).
(11) Additional material.-Where the secretary-treasurer is required to send a copy
of the decision to the Minister under subsection (10), he or she shall also send to the
b4inister such ather infarmation and material as may be prescribed. 1983, c. 1, s. 44(i 1).
(12) Appeal to O.M.B.-The applicant, the Minister or any other person ar public
body who has an interest in the matter may within 20 days of the making of the decision
appeal to the Municipal Board against the decision of the wmmittee by filing with the
secretary-treasurer of the committee a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the
decision and the reasons in support of the objection accompanied by payment to the
secretary-treasurer of the fee prescribed by the Municipal Board under the Ontarao
Municipal Board Act as payable on an appeal from a committee of adjustment to the
Board. 1994, c. 23, s. 26(2).
{13) Idem.-The secretary-treasurer of a committee, upon receipt of a notice of
appeal filed under subsection (12), shall forthwith forward the notice of appeal and the
amount of the fee mentioned in subsection (I2) to the Municipal Board by registered
68
'7a - 6
PART V -LAND USE CONTROLS AND RELATED ADMINISTRATION S. ~{S
mail together with all papers and documents filed with the committee of adjustment
relating to the matter appealed from and such other documents and papers as maybe
required by the Board. 1983, a I, s. 44(13); 1989, a 5, s. 20(3).
(13.1) Exception.-Despite subsection (13), if all appeals under subsection (12) are
withdrawn within I S days after the last day for filing a notice of appeal, the secretary-
treasurer isnot required to forward the materials described under subsection (13) to the
Municipal Board.
(13.2) Decision final If all appeals under subsection (12) are withdrawn within I S
days after the last day For filing a notice ofappeal, the decision of the committee is final
and binding and the secretary-treasurer of the committee shall notify the applicant and
file a certified copy of the decision with the clerk of the municipality. 1999, c. l2, Sch. M,
s. 26.
(14) Where no appeal.-If within such 20 days no notice of appeal is given, the
decision of the committee is final and binding, and the secretary-treasurer shall notify
the applicant and shall file a certified copy of the decision with the clerk of the
municipality. 1983, c. 1, s. 44(14); 1994, c. 23, s. 26(3).
(IS) Where appeals withdrawn.-Where all appeals to the Municipal Board are
withdrawn, the decision of the committee is final and binding and the secretary of the
Board shall notify the secretary-treasurer of the committee who in turn shall notify the
applicant and file a certified copy of the decision with the clerk of the municipality.
1983, c. 1, s. 44(15); 1994, o. 23, s. 26(4).
(16) Hearing.~n an appeal to the Municipal Board, the Board shall, except as
provided in subsections (15) and (17), hold a hearing of which notice shall be given to
the applicant, the appellant, the secretary•treasurer of the committee and to such other
persons or public bodies and in such manner as the Board may determine. 1983, c. 1, s.
44(16);7994, a 23, s. 26(x.
(17) Dismissal without hearing.-Despite the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and
subsection (16), the Municipal Boazd may dismiss all or part of an appeal without
holding a hearing, on its own initiative or on the motion of any party if,
(a) it is of the opinion that,
(i) the reasons se[ out in the notice of appeal do not disclose any
apparent land use planning ground upon which the Board could
allow all or part of the appeal,
(ii) the appeal is not made in good faith or is frivolous or vexatious,
(iii). the appeal is made only for the purpose of delay, or
(iv) the appellant has. persistently and without .reasonable grounds
commenced before the Board proceedings [hat consfitute an abuse
of process;.
(b) the appellant :has not provided written reasons for the appeal;
(c) The appellant has .not paid the Fee prescribed :under the Ontario Municipal
BoardAcrbr.
(d) the appelldnt has not responded to a request by the Mutricipal Board for
furtherinformation within the 5me specified by the Board. 1494, a 23, s.
26(6}, part; 2006, c. 23, s.18(4), (5}.
Y 69
?a-1
pf ORq v~
!!!
2ya ... Foo
~~
~$'
TOWNSh1/P OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Committee of the Whole Prepared By:
BP 2006-047 Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP
Subject: Proposed Department:
Composition for the Planning BuildinglPlanning
Advisory Committee
Council
C. of W. Date: December 11, 2006
Motion # R.M. File #:
Date: Roll #:
In relation to planning matters, the Township has historically used a process by which a Planning
Advisory Committee (PAC) reviews matters and makes recommendations to Council. The purpose
of this report is to review the function and role of this Committee and make recommendations on a
go-forward basis with a view to improving service delivery within the Department.
The Planning department was requested to review the effectiveness of the process, analysis the
efficiencies and the weaknesses and provide recommendations for Council consideration.
In November 2003, in order to conform to both the Planning Act and the Municipal Act requirements,
for the Planning Advisory Committee, a new composition was proposed that included all members of
Council and five members of the public. It was felt that all Council Members then had the opportunity
7~-8
to review planning matters and their rationale, as well as hear the comments and deliberations of the
public members. All recommendations of the Committee are reported to Counci! for ratification,
It was also recommended to eliminate duplication in the voting process #hat Council Members be
non-voting members of the Planning Advisory Committee and to allow Council Members an
opportunity to further consider the application prior to ratifying any recommendation emanating from
the Planning Advisory Committee.
In order to capitalize on efficiencies, in recent years staff have scheduled statutory Public Meetings
followed immediately by PAG as the seven Council members, five PAC members and staff were in
attendance for both meetings. These meetings have generally been held monthly.
To assist Council a chart has been prepared to illustrate the current progression of applications and a
proposed progression that would streamline timelines and allow Council and the public members to
focus on the applications that are not a condition of the Committee of Adjustment (Attachment "A").
As the Committee of Adjustment in a public hearing, have already deliberated the merits of the
application and given that the process involves a full public notice and participation, most if not all
public concerns raised have been addressed or are non-existent. Like PAC, the Committee of
Adjustmen# minutes are also received by Council therefore any concerns on the merits of a particular
decision can be discussed at Council.
If this was affected, Planning Advisory Committee could focus on the broader development
applications and review of more complex types of applications
{t is therefore recommended that the planning procedures be amended to remove planning
applications that would fulfill the conditions of Committee of Adjustment matters from PAC
agendas. In lieu, these applications would be considered by Committee of the Whole or regular
Council meetings, and the statutory Public Meetings could be held during regular evening Council
meetings. Staff estimate that this could reduce the processing time in half for these straightforward
types of files, and contribute positively to a more effective customer service level.
In order to draw on all areas of the Township, it is recommended that one public member be
sought from each of the five wards and be appointed fora 4 year term and that the Chair's
position rotated amongst the public members on an annual basis. This group would take
advantage of different perspectives and contribute through its members to foster positive public input
During the review it was also suggested that the 12 Member PAG plus staff was too large to foster
effective communications. Therefore to give the public members ownership of the process it is
recommended that Council appoint two Members of Council to the Planning Advisory
Committee, for a total of seven members for a two year term. To conform to the legislation it is
further recommended that the Planning Advisory Committee be renamed to Planning Advisory
Technical Group.
-2-
~a-~
`---
Again to streamline the process, to eliminate lengthy timelines and to provide a higher level of service
it is recommended that Council give favourable consideration to authorizing the Planning
Department to schedule Planning Advisory Technical Group as required similar to the Site Plan
Committee's structure. It is anticipated that these meetings will be scheduled in the evening to allow
the opportunity for more of the public to forward their resume for Council consideration and to allow
the general public and the applicant to attend the meetings.
All Members of Council will be provided with copies of the agenda for their information, at the same
time as the Technical Group Members. These are public meetings and are open to the public.
t_astly, public members will be encouraged to attend statutory Public Meetings to be held during the
evening Council meetings to hear public input.
There is recognition that some development proposals can generate larger public interest than
others. In this instance, Planning Advisory Technical Group can discuss and recommend to Council
that these types of applications proceed to a stand-alone statutory Public Meeting.
RECOMM
1. THAT Report No. BP 2006-047 be received and adopted.
2. THAT the planning procedures be amended to remove planning applications that would fulfill the
conditions of Committee of Adjustment matters from PAC agendas.
3. THAT one public member be sought from each of the five wards and be appointed fora 4 year
term and that the Chair's position ro#ated amongst the public members on an annual basis.
4. THAT Council appoints two Members of Council to the Planning Advisory Committee, for a fatal of
seven members far a two year term.
5. THAT the Planning Advisory Committee be renamed to Planning Advisory Technical Group.
6. THAT Council give favourable consideration to authorizing the Planning Department to schedule
Planning Advisory Technical Group meetings as required
7. ANO THAT Staff be authorized to proceed with the advertisement to recruit Public members for
the Planning Advisory Technical Group.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Bruce Hoppe, P, RPP
Director of Building and Planning Services
~~ ~,~~~
~~~ ,
~~~~~~~
-3-
~'a-~~
9. BUILDING, PLANNING AND BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT:
a) Report No. BP 2006-47, Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning
Services re: Proposed Composition for the Planning Advisory Committee.
Motion No. CW061213-31
Moved by Evans, Seconded by Agnew
It is recommended that
1. Report No. BP 2006-47, Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning
Services re: Proposed Composition for the Planning Advisory Committee be
received.
2. That the planning procedures be amended to remove planning applications that
would fulfill the conditions of Committee of Adjustment matters from PAC
agendas.
3. That one public member be sought from each of the five wards and be appointed
for the term of Council.
4. That Council give favourable consideration to authorizing the Planning
Department to schedule Planning Advisory Committee meetings on alternate
Monday evenings as required.
5. And Further That Staff be authorized to proceed with the advertisement to recruit
Public members for the Planning Advisory Committee.
Carried.
10. EMERGENCY SERVICES:
None.
11. RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES:
None.
12.IN-CAMERA:
Motion No, CW061213-32
Moved by Agnew, Seconded by Allison
It is recommended that we do now go In-Camera at 12:09 p.m. to discuss a Legal
Matter.
Carried.
Page 13
Committee of the Whole Meeting -December 13, 2006
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
BY-LAW NO. 2007-004
A By-law to Appoint a Planning Advisory Committee
And to Repeal By-law Nos. 2001-009 and 2004-036
WHEREAS Section 8, subsection 1 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13, as
amended, provides that the Council of a municipality may appoint a Planning Advisory
Committee composed of such persons as the Council may determine;
AND WHEREAS Council deems it expedient to do so;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte hereby enacts as follows:
7. That the mandate of the Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee is:
• To act as an advisory body to Council.
• To make recommendations to Council with respect to planning matters.
• To advise Council with respect to planning policy.
2. That five (5) members of the public shall be appointed as members of the Oro-Medonte
Planning Advisory Committee for the term of the Council that appointed them or until
their successors are appointed. Where a member ceases to be a member before the
expiration of his or her term, Council may appoint another eligible person for the
unexpired portion of the term.
3. That the Mayor and all members of Council shall be non-voting members of the Oro-
Medonte Planning Advisory Committee.
4. That persons appointed to the Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee shall be paid
such remuneration and expenses as Council provides.
5. That By-law Nos. 2001-D09 and 2004-036 are hereby repealed in their entirety.
6. This by-law shall take effect on the final passing thereof.
BY-LAW READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 10'" DAY OF JANUARY, 2007.
BV-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINAI.t.Y PASSED THIS 24~" DAY OF JANUARY,
2007.
THE CO ORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
as or~ s
Y 9~~
'~ /,,
`_'_"
Cie~'c, J. Dough's Irwin
// l
~~'ew_
~~~.
~`}~v~y 3`c?,~~`t _ P i1C,
+'~S` v C~ iVcr ,
~~~~
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE ~~ `j :)
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Advisory Committee
cc: Jennifer Zieleniewski, C.A.O., Department Heads
From: Glenn White, Senior Planner R.M. File #:
Date: April 26, 2007 Roll #:
Subject: Status -Planning Applications
~~1~, 115113 ~ d:,-
~ ~X~ - - -
,~
MSL Properties, D12 Re-zoning from Inactive since 1999, None at this time -await
OM-T-91009 Part
P16/89 Agricultural/Rural to lands are designated technical studies from landowner
,
Conc. 3 (Oro)
of Lot 27 Residential One, Plan in Official Plan, to proceed further
, of Subdivision for 93 Township to
residential lots comment on draft
plan once servicing
issues addressed,
New owner as of July
04, met with twp to
review subdivision
rocess
Ucci, D09 P115/01 Official Plan MMAH Declaration of None at this time.
Part of Lot 27, Conc. 5 Amendment for Adult Provincial Interest.
(Oro) Lifestyle Community Settlement reached;
application approved
by Ontario Municipal
Board for 40 units
and golf course.
Thatcher, D14 P138/02 Re-zoning from Refused by Council, Settlement on Zoning By-law
Part of Lot 15, Conc. 9 Agricultural/Rural OMB Hearing appeal to be presented to OMB
(Medonte) Exception to adjourned until plan after engineering reports
Residential One of sub application complete
Holding Zone (2004-SUB-02) is
rocessed b Tw
~ fi ~
~ ~
~
~; ~ y"
~
~ Y
~r~s
M & S Schneider (Willy's Re-zoning from Approved by Council None at this time. Site Plan
Jeeps), Agricultural/Rural October 2006; application to follow prior to April
D14.02. P134/02 (A/RU) to permit a appealed to OMB by 30, 2008.
Part Lot 1, Conc. 7 (Oro), military jeeps neighbouring
3224 Line 7 North business landowners. OMB
approved April 25,
2007.
1254554 Ontario Limited Re-zoning from Ltr received from Await follow up information to
(Ken Secord), D14 (03) General Commercial applicant's solicitor, satisfy MTO letter prior to
P145/03, to General hired transportation preparation of report to PAC
Part of Lot 15, Conc.1, Commercial consultant to address
51R-2993, Part 1 and Exception to permit MTO letter and
51 R-27229, Part 2 (Orillia) auction sales required approvals
1204600 Ontario Ltd, Official Plan & Zoning Premature until Application to be reviewed at
D09, D14, & D12 P- Amendments to completion of time of completion of Secondary
146/03 & S-1/03, Lots 18- permit 183 residential Craighurst Secondary Plan for Craighurst to determine
36, Plan 91, Part of Lot 41 lot subdivision Plan, On hold, Peer conformity to the Plan
& 42, Conc. 1 (Medonte) Reviews completed
and provided to
applicant
Lester Cooke, Official Plan OPA 19 approved by Complete.
D09 (03) P-159/03 Amendment to Township and
South Part of Lot 17, expand Shoreline County; OMB hearing
Conc. 3 (Orillia) designation to permit held September 18,
creation of three 2006. Applications
residential lots, Re- approved.
zoning to Shoreline
Residential Zone.
Corresponding
severance
a lications.
Georgian North Lands Re-zoning to amend Applicant submitted Applicant advised to submit
Ltd., D14 (04) 2004-ZBA- provisions currently in letter to Council with technical studies to support
02, Part of Lot 2 and 3, the Residential One proposed revised revised plan. No further action
Conc. 9 (Oro) Exception 75 Zone development required at this time.
CRA Developments, Official Plan Application requires Planning report to PAC once
D09 & D14 (04) 2004- Amendment to County decision final LSRCA comments
OPA-03, 2004-ZBA-04 expand Shoreline regarding OPA #17 received/reviewed.
West Part of Lot 26, designation to permit which amends the
Conc. 9 (Oro) creation of 7 current Shoreline
residential lots, re- policies, Public
zoning to Shoreline Meeting Jan 17!05
Residential zone
Blueberry Beach (Robert Official Plan Application circulation None at this time
Lean), D09 & D14 (04) Amendment to complete, comments
2004-OPA-01, 2004-ZBA- expand Shoreline provided to applicant
05 designation to permit for revisions to
East Part of Lot 20, Conc. creation of residential application
1 (Orillia) lots, re-zoning to
Shoreline Residential
zone
-2-
Jules Goossens, 2005- ~ OPA, Rezoning and Application circulation Staff to assess comments
2005-ZBA-27,
OPA-04 consent to facilitate complete, comments received re Environmental
,
Consent 2005-B-48 - the creation of 3 provided to applicant Impact Study. Await direction
'
residential lots s agent on how to
from applicant
2005-6-50, Part of Lot 25, proceed.
Conc. 10 (Oro)
Helen Anderson, D 09 Redesignation from Council approved Complete.
(05) 2005-OPA-01 Mineral Aggregate OPA 22, May 2006.
Conc. 14, E'/z Lot 9 and Resources to OPA approved.
N '/z Lot 10 (Oro) Agricultural
Ian & Lori Webb, D 09 Site Specific Approved by None at this time.
(05) 2005-OPA-02 designation to permit Township; awaiting
Conc. 11, N Pt Lot 3 severance of County approval.
(Medonte), 3808 Line 11 veterinary clinic County OPA
North approved; awaiting
MMAH approval.
638230 Ont. Ltd. (Keyzer) Re-zoning from Awaiting circulation Await comments from NVCA
D 14 (05) 2005-ZBA- 33, Agricultural/Rural to comments prior to a
Part of Lot 5, Conc. 13 Residential One, preliminary report to
(Medonte) Draft Plan of PAC
Subdivision Approved
for 55 residential lots
Kellwat Ltd & Fred Grant Rezoning from A/RU Circulation completed Applicant considering alternate
Square Ltd. D 12 (06), D to R1` Zone, and to department heads designs
14 (06), 2006-SUB-01, Plan of Subdivision and agencies.
2006-ZBA-01, Conc. 4, for 97 lot residential
South Part Lot 4 (Oro) subdivision
James & Kimberley Drury, Rezoning from A/RU Received circulation None at this time -await
D 12 (06), D 14 (06), to R1 Zone, and Plan comments from technical studies from landowner
2006-SUB-02, 2006-ZBA- of Subdivision for 12 department head and to proceed further
04, Conc. 5, West Part lot residential agencies. Await
Lot 11 (Oro) subdivision additional engineering
work from landowner
to proceed further
prior to a preliminary
report to PAC
1533532 Ontario Ltd. Official Plan Statutory public Complete.
(Litz), D09 (06) 2006- Amendment from meeting held May
OPA-01, D14 (06) 2006- Agricultural to 2006, approved by
ZBA-05 Commercial PAC September 18,
West Part Lot 20, Conc. Designation, 2006. Subsequently
10 (Oro) Rezoning from A/RU approved by Council
to GC' zone and County of
Simcoe.
-3-
rv
~~ ~~~~ ~
_
Morley Campbell, D14(06)
Rezoning to facilitate
Statutory Public
Complete.
2006-ZBA-07, 184 Line 4 severance as a Meeting held June,
North condition of consent 2006, approved by
Committee of Whole
August 2006, Council
passed By-law 2006-
077 on August 9,
2006.
Robert Drury D14(06) Rezoning to facilitate Approved by Council Complete.
2006-ZBA-09, 661 severance as a October 2006.
Penetanguishene Road condition of consent
Township of Oro- General Zoning By- Statutory Public None at this time. Report to be
Medonte, 2006-ZBA-O8, law Review update Meeting Held June prepared after CA review
Zoning By-law Review 2006. Draft mapping complete.
nearing completion;
meeting with CA's
scheduled for May 4,
2007.
Meyer, 2006-ZBA-11, Rezoning to permit Application circulated Status/report to PAC April 30,
8976 Highway 12 West, contractor's yard and September 2006, 2007.
Con. 1, South Part Lot 1 storage units. deferred at
(formerly Orillia) applicant's request.
Laurel View Homes, Rezoning to Statutory Public Assess public comments prior to
2006-ZBA-12, Blocks 67, recognize servicing Meeting held reporting back to PAC.
68, 69 and 70 of Plan easements/blocks February 2007.
51 M-741
Township of Oro- Rezoning to facilitate Statutory Public Complete.
Medonte, 2006-ZBA-13, closing/sale of Park Meeting held
Charlotte/Park Drive, Lots Drive Road October, 2006.
344, 345 & 356 of Plan Allowance Application approved
626 (Oro)and the whole of November 2006.
the Park Drive Road
Allowance
Lester Parry, 2006-ZBA- Rezoning to facilitate Statutory Public Awaiting expiration of appeal
14, Part of the west half of proposed severance Meeting held period.
Lot 8, Concession 3, (lot addition) February 2007.
municipally known as 2072 Application approved
Line 2 North by Council April 2007.
Michael Bridge, 2006- Rezoning to permit Statutory Public Report to be prepared following
ZBA-15, Pt. Lots 66, 67, refreshment vehicle Meeting scheduled public meeting.
100, Plan 309 (Medonte) for May 9, 2007.
9850 Highway 12,
Warminster
Doug Shelswell, 2006- Rezoning for Statutory Public Recommendation report to be
ZBA-16, West''/z Lot 18, agricultural use as a Meeting held April 11, prepared.
Concession 14 (Oro), 191 condition of consent 2007.
Line 13 South
Lisa Truax & Ted Pickard, Rezoning as a Statutory Public Recommendation report to be
2007-ZBA-01, East''/z Lot condition of consent Meeting held April 11, prepared.
16, Concession 8 for 5 lots. 2007.
(Medonte)
-4-
~.. X , ~ z_.. w~„ _
~D12 P13/87 Recently Active Report PD 2005-009 adopted by Council on Feb 23/05
J. Johnston Construction added conditions related to 3 year lapsing date for draft
Ltd. plan approval. If not registered by March 7, 2008 and no
Subdivision extension granted draft plan approval will lapse.
OM-T-93003 (Part Lot 1,
Concession 14 Oro
P21/88 Kovacs Property sold, Report PD 2005-009 adopted by Council on Feb 23/05
OM-T-91050 Part of Lot recently active. added conditions related to 3 year lapsing date for draft
11, Concession 2 (Oro) plan approval. If not registered by March 7, 2008 and no
extension ranted draft Ian a royal will la se.
P4/90 Capobianco Active Report PD 2005-009 adopted by Council on Feb 23/05
43T-93022 Part of Lot 1 added conditions related to 3 year lapsing date for draft
Conc. 7 (Oro)
and 2 plan approval. If not registered by March 7, 2008 and no
, extension ranted draft Ian a royal will la se.
P1/91 Houben Recently Active Report PD 2005-009 adopted by Council on Feb 23/05
OM-T-94003 Part of Lot added conditions related to 3 year lapsing date for draft
10, Conc. 10 (Oro) plan approval. If not registered by March 7, 2008 and no
extension ranted draft Ian a royal will la se.
P5/94 Horseshoe Timber Inactive Report PD 2005-009 adopted by Council on Feb 23105
Ridge added conditions related to 3 year lapsing date for draft
Part of Lot 1, Conc. 4 plan approval. If not registered by March 7, 2008 and no
Medonte extension ranted draft Ian a royal will la se.
P77198 638230 Ont. Ltd. Active Report PD 2005-009 adopted by Council on Feb 23105
(Keyzer) added conditions related to 3 year lapsing date for draft
OM-T-90082 Part of Lot plan approval. If not registered by March 7, 2008 and no
5, Conc. 13 (Medonte) extension ranted draft tan a royal will la se.
Homire Inactive Report PD 2005-009 adopted by Council on Feb 23/05
OM-T-90046 Part of Lot added conditions related to 3 year lapsing date for draft
5, Conc. 14 (Medonte) plan approval. If not registered by March 7, 2008 and no
extension ranted draft Ian a royal will la se.
P13/89 Buffalo Springs Active Redline revision received by Township in January 2004,
OM-T-91031 Part of Lots on hold as per applicant's request.
2 and 3, Concession 9
Oro
P52/89 Diamond Valley Active Proceeding towards registration.
Estates
43T-93019 Part of Lot 2
and 3, Conc. 7 Oro
P100/00 HRC Lifestyle Active Parts Registered. Time limit imposed in draft plan
43-OM-20001 Part of Lots approval. One year extension granted by the Township
3 and 4, Conc. 4 (Oro) on December 22, 2004.
-5-
Moon Point Dev. Corp.
D09, D14 & D12 (04)
2004-OPA-02, 2004-ZBA-
09, 2004-SUB-01
Part of Lot 15 & 16, Conc.
3 (Orillia) Active
Official Plan and
Zoning By-law
Amendments
approved by the OMB Applicant working on draft plan of subdivision conditions
-6-