Loading...
08 16 2007 C of A AgendaCommittee of Adjustment Agenda Thursday August 16, 2007, 9:30 a.m. 1. Communications and Correspondence 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Hearings: 9:30 2007 -B -21 Helen Perry Lot 17, Concession 11 556 Line 11 North (Former Township of Oro) 9:45 2007 -8 -22 Ucci Consolidated Companies 2007 -B -23 Part of Lots 26, 27, 28, Concession 5 2007 -B -24 (Former Township of Oro) 2007 -B -25 2007 -B -26 10:00 2007 -A -18 Mary Spasov Plan 864, Lot 4 245 Shoreline Drive (Former Township of Oro) 10:15 2007 -A -19 Amy & Dylan Briscoe Pt. Lot 24, Concession 9 (Former Township of Oro) 10:30 2007 -A -20 Bill & Helen Stonkus Plan M80, Part of Lots 3 & 4 14 Scottdale Drive (Former Township of Oro) 10:45 2007 -A -21 Hawkestone Yacht Club Part of Lot 23, Concession 12 215 Mill Street (Former Township of Oro) 11:00 2007 -A -22 Brian & Johna Dalrymple Part of Lot 11, Concession 12 (Former Township of Medonte) 11:15 2007 -A -23 Donald Wilson Plan 217, Part of Lots 8 & 9 319 Line 11 South (Former Township of Oro) 11:30 2007 -A -13 Daphne Laird (Revised) 60 Lakeshore Road East Plan 798, Part of Lots 52 & 53 (Former Township of Oro) 4. Other business Adoption of Minutes from July 19, 2007 Committee Meeting 5. Adjournment Township of Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 16, 2007 Helen Perry 2007 -B -21 Concession 11, East Part Lot 17, 51R -9287, Part 1(Oro) 556 Line 11 North THE PROPOSAL The applicant has previously applied for consent for a boundary adjustment /lot addition which subsequently lapsed; as a result, a new application was made. The purpose of this application is to convey and add a parcel of land having a width of approximately 57 metres, a lot depth of approximately 154 metres and a lot area of approximately 0.88 hectares from the 22.8 hectare parcel (556 Line 11 North) to the parcel immediately to the east (544 Line 11 North). The resultant lot area of the parcel to be enhanced, 544 Line 11 North, would be approximately 1.29 hectares. No new building lots will be created as a result of this boundary adjustment. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Agricultural Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Agricultural /Rural (A /RU) & Environmental Protection (EP) Zone Previous Applications — 2005 -13-22 (Lapsed) AGENCY COMMENTS Simcoe County - Municipal Works and Roads - Building Department - Engineering Department- BACKGROUND The purpose of this application is to convey and add approximately 0.88 hectares to the lot immediately to the east of the subject property, 544 Line 11 North, to be added to an existing industrial operation. The land to be retained by the applicant would have an area of approximately 22.8 hectares, which contains an existing single detached dwelling and various outbuildings. OFFICIAL PLAN Section D2.2.2 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider applications fox boundary adjustments in all land use designations. The policy states: A consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifting lot boundaries provided no new building lot is created. In reviewing an application for such a boundary adjustment, the Committee ofAdjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the vnability of the use of the properties affected as intended by this Plan. In addition, the Committee ofAdjustment shall be satisfied that the boundag adjustment will not affect the rnability of the agrzculturalparcels affected." In reviewing the application, no new building lots will be created, and the existing farm operation will not likely be negatively impacted given the relatively small amount of land to be conveyed. On this basis, the application generally conforms to the Official Plan. ZONING BY -LAW The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural /Rural (A /RU) & Environmental Protection (EP) in the Township's Zoning By -law 97 -95. As a result of this application, the retained lot would continue to comply with the provisions of the A /RU Zone for agricultural uses. The proposed severed portion to be conveyed to 544 Line 11 North, would be required to be rezoned from the A /RU Zone to the Rural Industrial (IR) Zone as a condition of consent to reflect its current use as an industrial parcel. The minimum lot size required in the IR Zone is 0.4 hectares; the proposed lot size as a result of the lot addition would be 1.29 hectares. In addition, the portion of lands zoned EP are not proposed on or near the existing lot or lands to be conveyed, and nor will any EP lands proposed as a result of the forthcoming Zoning By -law review be located on the subject lands. As such, the application would generally conform with the policies of the Zoning By -law. CONCLUSION The application generally conforms to the policies of the Official Plan and Zoning By -law. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent for Application 2007 -B -21 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary - Treasurer; 2. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning on the severed lands to accurately reflect the intended land use; I That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 4. That the severed lands be merged in title with 544 Line 11 North and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 5. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro - Medonte; and, 7. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. All of which is respectfully submitted, dam Kozlowski, B.URPL Planner Reviewed by, Glenn White MCIP, RPP Senior Planner ■ r CL U) 0 Cr m 0 sz CL cD CL 0 a Ul Ul M PF 0 Ul al A r j QI QI rn r CD .l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 Ul U1 r CD 1 1 Township of Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 16, 2007 Ucci Consolidated Companies Ltd. 2007 -B -22 — 2007-B-26 Concession 5, Part ofLots 26, 27, 28 (Former Twp. Of Oro) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of applications 2007 -B -22, B -23, B -24, B -25, B -26 is to permit the creation of 5 new residential lots. Each lot to be created is proposed to have a lot frontage of approximately 45.56 to 76.68 metres, a lot depth ranging from 163.13 to 169.76 metres, and a lot area ranging between 0.74 to 1.33 hectares. The land proposed to be retained would have a lot area of approximately 101.31 hectares. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Agricultural /Rural (A /Rq & Environmental Protection (EP) Zones Previous Applications — AGENCY COMMENTS Simcoe County — Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority - Public Works - Building Department - Engineering Department - BACKGROUND It is the applicant's intent to create 5 new residential lots fronting on Windfields Drive. The lands proposed to be severed are currently vacant, where a watercourse flows southerly toward Lake Simcoe at the extreme eastern edge of the portion of the lands to be severed. The land subject to the proposed severances is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. For the consideration of subdivision of land, Section D2 of the Official Plan contains policies that are considered with every application to subdivide land in the Township. Section D2.2.1 contains the following general criteria for the Committee of Adjustment to consider: `Prior to issuing provisional consent far a new lot for any purpose, the Committee ofAdjusiment shall be satisfied that the lot to be retained and the lot to be severed: a) fronts on and will be directly accessed by a public road that is maintained on ayear -round basis; b) does not have direct access to a Provincial Highway or County Road, unless the Province or the County supports the request; c) will not cause a trafic hazard; d) has adequate size and frontage for the proposed use in accordance w th the Comprehensive Zoning By -law and is compatible with adjacent uses; e) can be serviced with an appropriate water SUPPY and means of sewage disposal; f will not have a negative impact on the drainage patterns in the area; will not restrict the development of the retained lands or otherparcels of land, particularly as it relates to the provision of access, if they are designated for development by this Plan; h) will not have a negative impact on the features and functions of any ecological feature in the area; will not have a negative impact on the quality and quantity ofgroundwater available for other uses in the area; and, j) will conform to Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, as amended." For the purpose of this application, Criteria h) is of concern for all five of the proposed lots, and particularly for lot #5, being the easternmost proposed lot that abuts a watercourse. It has been determined that all of the proposed lots are partially contained within the regulated area under the jurisdiction of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority ( LSRCA), where these applications were subsequently circulated. A site meeting was held on August 3 with the applicant's agent, Township and LSRCA staff to discuss issues surrounding the watercourse at the eastern edge of the proposed severed lands. LSRCA staff indicated at this meeting that comments would be forthcoming. At the time of writing this report, comments have not been received. It is therefore appropriate that Committee defer the applications until such time that the LSRCA provides the Township and applicant with comments in order to further evaluate the proposed development. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Committee defer Consent Applications 2007 -B -22, 2007 -B -23, 2007 -13- 24, 2007 -B -25 & 2007 -B -26 until such time that comments are received from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. All of which is respectfully submitted, C ! Adam I ozlowski Planner Reviewed by Glenn White MCIP, RPP Senior Planner SCALE 1:15000 SEVERANCE SKETCH Windfield Drive West PART OF LOTS 26,27 & 28, CONCESSION 5 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE EXISTING LOTS Baywinds ` Adult Lifestyle Community i (Lands to be Retained) 1 o- f LANDS TO BE RETAINED 4 e_ 4 Lot 1 7414.09m2 Lot 2 7560.46m' 7$ 7706.84m' Lot 4 7853.20m2 Lot 5 13370.29m' a EXISTING LOTS s q m w WINDFIELD DR �o W '., --- ---- -- IVE W EXISTING LOTS :ALE 1:3000 LOT AREAS: Lot 1 7414.09m2 Lot 2 7560.46m' Lot 3 7706.84m' Lot 4 7853.20m2 Lot 5 13370.29m' Lands Subject to Severance °I JONES... ■■10111111111" JONES CONSULTING GROUP Lao PLkNNERE, ENGINEERS. 5UftVE1ONE Dear Mr. Kozlowski: Re: Application for Consent - Severance Part of Lots 26, 27 and 28 Concession 5 Our File: Dov -98160 July 27T, 2007 Hand Delivered Mr. Adam Kozlowski Secretary Treasurer Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment 148 Line 7 South Box 100, Oro Ontario, LOL 2X0 We are pleased to submit on behalf of the owners (Ucci Consolidated Companies Inc.); an Application for Consent to create 5 new lots from the southerly portion of the above - noted property. In support of this Consent application, we have enclosed the following documents: • Five (5) completed Township of Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment Applications for Consent; • One (1) cheque in the amount of $4,500,00, made payable to the Township of Oro - Medonte to cover the cost of each application at $900.00 per application; • One (1), 8.5 x 11 inch Consent Sketch - Severance; • One (1) copy of Plan 51 M -187 showing the legal boundaries of the southern portion of the lands subject to the severances; and • One (1) copy of the parcel register. In addition to the above documents, we have prepared the following planning analysis which provides additional information pertaining to the site and the proposed Consent applications. 1.0 The Proposal and Description of Property The applicant seeks consent to create five new residential lots on the most southerly portion of the property which abuts Windfield Drive West, The retained lot will be developed for the Baywinds Adult Life -Style Community project and will be located immediately to the north of the proposed new lots - see attached severance sketch for details. The subject lands of the severance applications do not form part of the recent Official Plan and Zoning By -law amendment settlement, The proposed severances will provide for a rectangular lot consistent with the minutes of the settlement, The entire subject property (including the Baywinds segment) is generally rectangular in shape, however to the southeast, a portion of the property protrudes south between existing residential lots with frontage onto Windfield Drive West. It is this southerly Head Office: Barrie Suite 100 • 300 Lakeshore Drive, Barrie, ON LEIN OB4 705-734-2538 • 705- 734 -1056 fax CoMngwood 243 Ste. Marie Street Colirngwood, ON L9Y 3K6 705- 446 -3230 • 705 -446 -3240 fax w, +moamr ISO 9001:2000 certified ✓wj or .......... n e nam component of the property (which is not part of the Baywinds project) that is proposed for five new residential lots. The lands proposed to be severed and the lands proposed to be retained are presently independent of one another in terms of intended future uses. The severances would simply formalize this scenario and enable the southerly portion of the property to be developed for residential purposes, consistent with the existing surrounding properties. 2,0 Planning Documents 2.1 Simcoe County Official Plan The County of Simcoe Official Plan designates the subject property as Greenland as well as Rural and Agricultural. The portion of the property proposed for the new lots is within the Rural and Agricultural designation. The Rural and Agricultural designation does permit limited residential development as outlined in Section 3.6.2, and also allows lot creation for certain uses, one of which is residential infilling as outlined in Section 3.6.6. Section 3.611 of the County Official Plan also outlines that new residential lots created by consent are appropriate if in conformance with specific guidelines. This proposal is in keeping with these guidelines as described by the following: a) The proposed lots will be smaller than the approximate maximum size of 1 hectare with the exception of Lot 5 which will be approximately 1.3 hectares, Lot 5 at the eastern side of the subject lands is larger that the other four in order to accommodate an identified creek and 20 metre development setback from this environmental feature, a circumstance recognized as acceptable by the County Official Plan. b) The creation of five new residential lots on Windfield Drive West will be in keeping with the development pattern that already exists in this area. The surrounding properties are made up exclusively of residential lots, and this proposal would successfully integrate into this area and would be compatible with adjacent uses. As a result, this proposal will not alter or compromise any rural character in the area. c) The County recognizes that in specific geographic areas lot patterns are dominated by existing non -farm lots on lands designated as Rural and Agricultural. In these specific instances, infill lots or small groups of lots may be appropriate. 2,2 Township of Oro - Medonte Official Plan The Township through their Official Plan, designates the portion of the property proposed for the severances as Shoreline, The Shoreline designations generally relate to lands that have been developed (or in this case could be developed) for seasonal and permanent residential use in close proximity to Lake Simcoe and Bass Lake. Accordingly, one of the permitted uses within this designation includes single- detached residential homes. The purpose of this application for Consent is to create 5 new lots that will be developed for single- detached residential purposes. Given that the Township has designated the southerly portion of this property as Shoreline, there is recognition that the subject site may be appropriate for residential uses. The Township (through the Committee of Adjustment), when considering applications for consent must consider the appropriateness of the application based on specific criteria outlined in the Official Plan under Section D2.2.1. The proposed severances for the subject site do meet these criteria in the following manner: _._ .... m... ..._. _ �.. _, 2 Head Office: Some Suite 100 • 300 Lakeshore Drive, Barrie, ON L4N OB4 705- 734 -2538 • 705 -734 -1056 fox Collingwood 243 Ste. Marie Street Collingwood, ON L9Y 3K6 705- 446 -3230 • 705 - 446 -3240 fox r. m.ra �r ISO 90013000 Certified r w ic s in =.<;orn a) The newly proposed lots will have frontage and access on to Windfield Drive West, which is a public road that is maintained on a year -round basis; b) The lots will not have direct access to a Provincial Highway or County Road; C) The proposed lots will be used for single- detached residential purposes and therefore generate very little new traffic on Windfield Drive West. As a result, traffic impacts are not anticipated; d) Each of the new lots will meet the zoning standards required by the Township of Oro - Medonte zoning By -law, and will be compatible with the adjacent uses, which are also single- detached residential properties. e) The lots will be serviced by private water and septic, in the same manner as the residential lots that surround this property; f) Each lot will be designed to be compatible with existing drainage patterns and will not negatively affect any adjacent land owners; g) The retained portion of the lands has already been designed and approved for development. The proposed severances to do not impact upon the ability of the retained lands or any other surrounding sites to be developed; h) The lot dimensions proposed will allow flexibility for the locations of the future homes on each site. This versatility will enable the development to occur with the least amount of impact on surrounding ecological features within the area. Natural heritage features will be considered and any necessary mitigation measures will be incorporated into to any future approval. The creek to the east of the subject site will be protected by a recognized 20 metre buffer which was identified through the development process for the portion of the property to the north; i) The development of 5 new single- detached homes are not expected to create any negative impact on the quality or quantity of groundwater for other uses in the area; j) The proposal conforms to 51(24) and all other sections of the Planning Act. 2.3 Township of Oro - Medonte Zoning By -law The entire property is zoned Agricultural /Rural (A /RU) by the Township's zoning by -law with the exception of the lands associated with the creek that is zoned Environmental Protecton (EP). The A /RU zone category permits a variety of uses as identified by Table A- 4 of the by -law, one of the permitted uses is single detached dwellings. Since the purpose of the proposed severances is to create five residential building lots for single detached homes, the zone category in place is appropriate based on the permitted uses of this zone and what is being proposed. The zoning by -law also identifies lot standards for properties within the A /RU zone that are used for single detached dwellings, and these standards are identified in Table B4 of the by -law. The minimum lot frontage and area required for properties within the A /RU zone intended for single detached dwellings are 45 metres and 0.4 hectares respectively. Each of the new lots proposed by the applications for consent meet these standards, consequently the current A /RU zoning is appropriate for the proposed new lots. Head Office: Barrie Collingwood .wm ro ea +. Suite 100 • 300 Lakeshore Drive, Barrie, ON L4N OB4 705- 734 -2538 • 705- 734 -1056 fax 243 Ste. Marie Street Collingwood, ON L9V 3K6 705- 446 -3230 • 705- 446 -3240 fax ISO 9001:2000 Certified nr.'onas�on s�l_tin a. com 3.0 Planning Justification To determine the appropriateness and the planning merit of the proposed severance applications, an analysis of municipal planning documents, servicing, access, land use compatibility, and impact on natural heritage features was undertaken, 3.1 Planning Documents The County Official Plan supports lot creation by consent when it occurs in an appropriate location, is compatible with surrounding uses, and the lots created are of an appropriate size. The Township's Official Plan designates the lands subject to the severances as Shoreline, which is a land use category intended to be able to accommodate residential development. The proposed severances also fulfill the guidelines of the Township's Official Plan that are used to evaluate the appropriateness of consent applications. In addition, the existing A /RU zoning permits single detached dwellings and the dimensions of the proposed new lots are also in compliance with the zoning standards, From a planning policy perspective, the applications for consent are supportable. The creation of five new residential lots for single detached dwellings are in conformance with the intent and purpose of the County and Township Official Plan, and comply with the current zoning standards, The proposed severances will not result in any change to the permitted land uses, and will facilitate the appropriate development of land. 3.2 Servicing The subject site is located in an area that does not have municipal sanitary or water services. As a result, the lots will require private well and septic systems, which is a servicing method that is in keeping with the surrounding lots that have previously been developed, The new lots would be created in an area that has established residential properties, and could be serviced simultaneously with the surrounding properties should municipal servicing become available to this area, The creation of five "infill" lots in the proposed location would not generate a requirement for additional extensions to any future services that may be planned for the area. The proposed new lots would be located amongst the existing residential lots rather than adjacent to them, therefore any municipal services planned to treat the existing residential lots could also be accessed by the five new proposed lots as well. 3.3 Access The proposed new lots will have direct access onto Windfield Drive West, a municipal road that is maintained year round, Windfield Drive West runs east off the Fourth Line and ends in a cul de sac. As a result this road is almost exclusively used for the residents that have lots abutting this road, Due to the limited use of Windfield Drive, five new lots will not create unsafe traffic volumes, or traffic hazards. 3.4 Land Use Compatibility 4 Hood Office: Borne Suite 100 . 300 Lakeshore Drive, Barrie, ON -4N OB4 705- 734 -2538 - 705 - 734 -1056 fax Collingwood 243 Ste, Marie Street Collingwood, ON L9Y 3K6 705 -446 -3230 • 705 - 446 -3240 fax Ponn108, 1 ISO 9001:2000 Cerfified )r, r iung � - The surrounding area is primarily developed with single detached dwellings. All of the properties that immediately abut the subject lands on Windfield Drive West are designated Shoreline, and zoned for residential purposes. The lots proposed will generally be smaller than the residential lots on the north side of Windfield Drive West, however, will be very similar in dimension to the lots that are directly across from them. The immediate area is composed of lots that do not have uniform dimensions. Accordingly, the proposed lots do not necessarily need to match specific size parameters in order to remain compatible with the surrounding properties, Overall, the lot sizes and proposed use for each newly proposed lot is in keeping with the area and should be deemed compatible. 3.5 Natural Heritage The proposed lot dimensions recognize and account for the creek feature that exists on the eastern portion of the lands subject to the severances, The proposed lot furthest to the east is directly affected by this creek, and has been designed as large as possible in order to accommodate the 20 meter building buffer that was established by the Baywinds project development process, By making this lot as large as possible, it increases the variety of options for locating the building, and this increased versatility will maximize the protection of the environmental lands associated with the creek. Any other potential environmental features will be assessed and mitigation measures such as appropriate setbacks, defined envelopes, etc, will be proposed to avoid any negative impacts. The larger lot sizes suggested by these application provides flexibility in this regard. 4.0 Conclusion The proposed consent applications creating five new residential lots have been submitted to facilitate the future development of the southern portion of the existing subject lands. The current owner will be developing the northern portion (and majority of the site) for the Baywinds Adult - Lifestyle Community. The Baywinds project excludes the southern component of the property subject to the severance applications. As a result, the owner is pursuing consent to create new lots that can be developed for single detached residential purposes. It is my planning opinion that the requested severance is appropriate and represents "good planning" for the following reasons: The proposed severance is consistent and conforms with the County and Township Official Plans; • The purpose of the severances is to enable the development of single- detached residential homes, which is a permitted use according to the Zoning By -law, In addition, the lot dimensions proposed fully comply with the zone standards of the A /RU zone category on site; • The resultant lots are appropriate for the site in terms of their size, location and configuration, The lot sizes are in keeping with the existing residential lots, and will not compromise the existing character of the area; • The lot sizes have been designed so that the creek lands to the east are given appropriate protection. The lot furthest to the east has been given the largest 5 Head Office: Bartle Suite 100 • 300 Lakeshore Drive, Barrie, ON LAN 084 705- 734 -2538 • 705 - 734 -1056 fox Colingwood 243 Ste. Marie Street Collingwooa, ON L9Y 3K6 705 -446 -3230 • 705 -446 -3240 fax ,,,o , ISO 90012000 Certified �"0 'a ;om possible area to account for the necessary 20 metre building buffer associated with the creek; • The lots would be located on a full municipal right of way that is primarily used to service the residential lots in the area. The traffic on this road is limited as it ends in a cul de sac, and the addition of five new driveways will not negatively affect the existing traffic patterns or create hazardous traffic conditions; Based on the above planning considerations and analysis, I submit that the consent applications represent good planning and warrants favorable consideration, Respectively submitted, THE JONES CONSULTING GROUP LTD. i 1 7 Dan Amodio, B.E,S Planner /Project Manager Head Office: Barrie Collingwood Form to Rev 1 Tim Cane, MCIP, RPP Partner 6 Suite 100 • 300 Lakeshore Drive, Barrie, ON L4N 084 705- 734 -2538 • 705- 734 -1056 fax 243 Ste. Marie Street Collingwooa, ON L9Y 3K6 705 -446 -3230 - 705- 446 -3240 fox 15090012000 Cerlifietl -'?_ iiii Township of Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 16, 2007 Maly Spasov 2007 -A -18 245 Shoreline Drive, Plan 864, Lot 4 (Former Twp. Of Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a deck at the rear of an existing single detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.31 of the Zoning By -law "Setback from average high water mark of Lake Simcoe ": Setback to Lake Simcoe Required Proposed 20 metres 0 metres MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Shoreline Residential Previous Applications — Minor Variance Application 2005 -A -54 (Expansion of non- conforming structure) AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department - Building Department — 16 x 32 deck on west side [of property] already built. No permit [for deck]. Engineer review required. Engineering Department - Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority - BACKGROUND The subject property has approximately 27 metres of frontage along Shoreline Drive, a shoreline frontage of approximately 29.5 metres, and a lot area of approximately 0.17 hectares. The property contains a single detached dwelling. The applicant has previously applied to the Committee of Adjustment (Application 2005 -A- 54) to replace the roofline of the dwelling, and by adding a second storey. As the existing dwelling was located within the 20 metre setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe, the variance was required due to the applicant enlarging a non - conforming structure. Committee should note that the original application for variance did not include the construction of a deck at the rear of the dwelling. Such construction would have required an additional variance to reduce the setback to the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe, pending favourable comments from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. The applicant is now seeking a variance to recognize the 47.5 square metre deck constructed without permit at the rear of the dwelling, and to permit the expansion of this deck by a further 32 square metres. The deck expansion is proposed to overhang the lake surface, with footings proposed in the water itself. It has been determined that both the existing deck and proposed expansion are within the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority regulated area, and as such the application has been circulated for comment to this agency. As of the time of writing this report, comments have not been received. CONCLUSION As the existing deck and proposed deck extension are within the LSRCA regulated area and being proposed to have portions of the foundation within the lake itself, deferral of the application is prudent until such time that comments are received from the LSRCA. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee defer Variance application 2007 -A -1$ until such time that comments are received from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. All of which is respectfully�submitted, f 1 -- am Kozlowski, B.URPL Planner Reviewed by Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Hearing Date: Application #: =I - is Owner: MAS #: Z y� 6, 'e'1rsF, i�riyc r Lot #: 4 Plan #: Conc. #: The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application. ❑ Site inspection required and completed. • Proposal appears to meet minimum standards. • Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code. Comments: 1 sK V � b FrA(— 6t,.j G J S I I `) J) j &4 i L- 7i l 1 / f��)Oljf�f—z Lli Ot t Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal Respe ti Michael Chief Buildingp�fficial l'-7 W Z J W K' O' S O Subject Property 245 Shoreline Drive LAKE SIMCOE SI \\ to I I VA ti Ile. tV Is YQ ter~ t C: cta k.� �Jp I f-il �AYJ RKNO? Li IN I f-il �AYJ RKNO? Li Township of Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 16, 2007 Amy & Dylan Briscoe 2007 -A -19 Concession 9, Lot 24 (Formerly Township of Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a 153 square metre single detached dwelling, containing an attached garage on a vacant parcel. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.28 of the Zoning By -law "Setbacks from limits of Environmental Protection Zone ": Setback to EP Zone Required Proposed 30 metres 18.82 metres MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Agricultural Zoning By-law 97 -95 — Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone Previous Applications — None. AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department - Building Department - Engineering Department — Background The subject property is located just east of the intersection of Ridge Road and Line 9 South, having a road frontage of approximately 60 metres on Ridge Road. The lot has an area of approximately 0.76 hectares. The applicants are proposing to construct a two storey, 153 square metre walk -out style dwelling, also containing an attached garage. The variance application is necessary due to the new dwelling being partially located within the 30 metre setback to the Environmental Protection Zone, as required in Section 5.28 of the Zoning By- law. As a result, permission is required from the Committee of Adjustment for the location of the proposed new construction. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan. Permitted uses in this designation include single detached dwellings, accessory buildings, home occupations, and agricultural uses. As the proposed dwelling and detached garage constitute permitted uses within the Agricultural designation, this application would appear to conform with the intent of the Official Plan. Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. With respect to the Zoning By -law, the primary purpose of controlling development within the limits of the Environmental Protection Zone is to ensure that development does not occur on lands that contain hazardous slopes or are susceptible to flooding. Based on a site inspection, the proposed dwelling will be located well above and away from the edge of the creek to the east. In addition, while the proposed dwelling unit will encroach approximately 11.7 metres into the required 30 metre setback to the EP Zone boundary, the watercourse itself is located an additional 52 metres east of the location of the proposed construction. As a result, the EP Zone and remaining required setback would maintain a 52 metre buffer from the proposed dwelling to the watercourse. This distance also exceeds the general 30 metre setback to watercourses, as prescribed under section 5.33 of the Zoning By -law. In addition, as noted above, while the property is partially covered by the 30 metre setback required to the EP Zone boundary, there is no actual EP Zoning on the subject lands; the east lot line of the property also forms the boundary to the EP Zone proper. On the basis of the above, the proposed dwelling unit and detached garage would therefore comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? The proposed location of the dwelling appears to be appropriate, as the structure will be located at the top of a knoll, where the remainder of the lot slopes to the north and east down toward the existing watercourse that traverses the property. In addition, there would appear to be a good buffer in the form of distance and vegetation between the proposed dwelling and the creek, which lies 52 metres to the east. As well, the location and design of the proposed dwelling will otherwise comply with all setback and general dwelling unit provisions of the RUR2 Zone. On this basis, the application is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the proposed dwelling constitutes a permitted use, and would not appear to adversely affect the integrity of the Environmental Protection Zone, the variance is considered to be minor. CONCLUSION The application generally satisfies the tests of a variance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2007 -A -19 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed addition be in conformity with the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; 2. That the applicant obtain any required permit(s) and /or approval(s) from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for the construction of the dwelling; 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of which is respectfully submitted, i darn Kozlowski, B.URPL Planner Reviewed by, „<P Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner MkqIMW.A WIM Subject Property Township of Oro- Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 16, 2007 Bill & Helen Stonkus 2007 -A -20 14 Scotr&de Drive, Plan M80, Part ofLots 3 & 4 (Former Twp. Of Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a detached accessory building with an area of 148.6 square metres. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95: 1. Section 5.1.6 Maximum floor area for the detached accessory building from the required 70 square metres to a proposed 148.6 square metres. 2. Section 5.1.3 Permitted locations for detached accessory buildings and structures in all zones c) Be set back a minimum distance equal to the required exterior side yard for the main building from the exterior side lot line; be reduced from 15 metres to 8 metres. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Rural Residential Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Rural Residential One (RUR1) Zone Previous Applications — None. AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department- Building Department - Engineering Department- BACKGROUND The subject property has an irregular shape, consisting of a corner lot with a road frontage of 189.6 metres, a lot depth of approximately 110 metres and a lot area of approximately 0.84 hectares. The lands currently contain a 200 square metre dwelling. The applicant is seeking permission to construct a 148.6 square metre detached accessory garage, containing 3 bays, to be located in the south -east corner of the property approximately 8 metres from the exterior side property line, and 9.14 metres from the rear lot line. The applicant is seeking permission to build a proposed garage that exceeds the Zoning By -law maximum floor area of 70 square metres to accommodate the storage of a motor home, snow removal equipment, and recreational vehicles. As well, the garage is proposed to be located approximately 8 metres from the exterior side lot line to Scottdale Drive, where the minimum required setback for the RUR1 Zone is 15 metres. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Of Plan? The property is designated Rural Residential. Section C4.2 of the Official Plan, "Permitted Uses" within this designation includes single detached dwellings [and home occupations to such]. Lots in the Rural Residential designation are characterized by being larger in area, containing generally large single detached dwellings, which otherwise reflects the estate -style development permitted within this designation. As such, the construction of a detached accessory building, being a permitted use, would be in keeping with the intent of policies for the Rural Residential designation as prescribed by the Official Plan. Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential One (RUR1). The applicant has indicated that the reason for the proposed garage to exceed the maximum permitted floor area is to accommodate the storage of a motor home and other items. The maximum size of any one detached accessory, building in the RUR1 Zone is 70 square metres. The applicant has also proposed to construct the garage approximately 8 metres from the exterior side lot line, fronting onto the east side of the property from Scottdale Drive. The proposed garage, aside from exceeding the maximum permitted floor area and exterior side yard otherwise complies with the maximum height and rear lot line setbacks. With respect to accessory buildings, the Zoning By -law policies have been prescribed to ensure that such buildings are clearly secondary to the primary use of the lot. In this case, the issue of the size of the proposed garage in relation to development on the subject lands and character of the surrounding neighbourhood will be discussed below. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? Detached accessory buildings and garages are a common and permitted form of development in residential areas. However, for the application at hand, the proposed size of the garage (being 148.6 square metres) must be considered carefully. The determination of a variance is not based on mathematical considerations, but rather whether the proposed structure will generally maintain the character of development on both the subject lot and for the surrounding area. To determine if the garage, proposed to have 148.6 square metres of floor area (being roughly double the Zoning By -law permitted standard) is appropriate, a survey of the size of accessory buildings on Scottdale Drive was taken. It has been determined that the largest of such buildings, according to Township records, is 75.4 square metres, where the average size of accessory buildings in the immediate area is approximately 46.5 square metres. As such, the proposal to construct a 148.6 square metre detached accessory building is not deemed to be desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lot. As a result of a site inspection, it was noted that the subject lands contained large, mature tree cover, and that the location of the proposed garage was fairly well shielded from view from neighbouring dwellings and Scottdale Drive. In general, the area consists of large estate -style lots, where the dwelling units are generally spaced far apart. The Planning Department is sympathetic to the request of the applicant to construct an accessory building to house recreational vehicles and other equipment, as opposed to leaving such items out in the open and detracting from the tidy appearance of the lot. However, the proposal for the construction of a 148.6 square metre building would not be considered appropriate for the development of the lot, based on the character of the surrounding area, being large estate - style homes with generally small, but otherwise compliant accessory buildings. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant be permitted to construct a detached accessory building equivalent in floor area equal to that of the Agricultural /Rural Zone, being 100 square metres. This floor area would appear to provide ample space to store recreational vehicles and other items. On this basis, the requested variance to construct a 148.6 square metre detached accessory building is not deemed to be desirable for the appropriate development of the lot. With respect to the reduction of the exterior side yard setback from 15 metres to 8 metres, the proposed garage would be located at the top of an embankment, shielded from view from Scottdale Drive by medium and large -sized deciduous trees and hedges. As such, the existing exterior side yard on the subject property is fully grown -out with foliage, where the intent of the exterior side yard setback is to ensure safety on approach to intersections for vehicles and pedestrians. In addition, the portion of the traveled road adjacent to the proposed garage location is straight, and as such permitting the garage to be closer to the road right -of -way will not likely impede sight lines or otherwise create an unsafe situation for vehicular and /or pedestrian traffic. On this basis, the variance to reduce the exterior side yard setback from 15 metres to 8 metres is deemed to be desirable for the appropriate development of the lot. Is the variance "minor "? The application to construct a 148.6 square metre detached accessory building is not deemed to be minor, on the basis that the application has not satisfied all of the tests of variance noted above. However, the application to reduce the exterior side yard setback from 15 metres to 8 metres is deemed to be minor, and otherwise satisfies the tests of variance. CONCLUSION Despite the proposed garage not meeting the tests of variance, staff is sympathetic to the applicant's desire to maintain a tidy lot. While all residential zones permit the construction of a detached accessory building with a maximum floor area of 70 square metres, staff has noted the topography, size, and extensive vegetation contained on the subject property. As such, staff could support an amended application proposing a detached garage with a floor area of no more than 100 square metres; this floor area represents the maximum size of any one detached, non - agricultural accessory building permitted in the Township where a single detached dwelling constitutes the primary use of the property. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approved Variance application 2007 -A -20 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the size of the detached accessory building be no larger than 100 square metres; 2. That the detached accessory building be located no closer than 8 metres from the east exterior side lot line; 3. That the detached accessory building, notwithstanding Section 5.1.3 c) and Section 5.1.6, otherwise meet with all other provisions for detached accessory buildings; 4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the detached garage be located no closer than 8 metres to the east lot line, and that the detached garage be no larger than 100 square metres; 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act K.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; All of which is respectfully submitted, f� f am Kozlowski, B.URPL Planner Reviewed by 1-1�1 Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner 4= 141 Da0 PID SCOTTDALE DRIVE #0� d� O O aQ 7 o _i N 0 q p� 3iOPo 5ED DR! � O• �O � Z W � n 12° {5:6 RE5lDENGE - 3 ,2 MAIM FL. ELeJ• a /03=0. . �- ° —'Iit B ✓' ! -p-iaa A', i lei \ 4Yo �ChtLL�, WM. J. STONKUS 14 SCOTTDALE DRIVE r R. R. # 1; HAWKESTONE �\ 1 ONTARIO LOL 1TO +¢4 t 01 I QV �l li NN 9 S� W 'U' =Ir � on �e Q U) T Z W O <� 0 F = O �OCr T U f- d O T ni S� r 0 M - D o f a � a 444 �l J E Z 0 h JI `J I W W Z Cr F- O� 0 O J Y J 0 N _ - ihOrQ C�0 �- 0 Q CE Township of Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 16, 2007 Hawkestone Yacht Club 2007 -A -21 215Mi11 Street, Plan 93, Lots 23 & 24 (Former Twp. Of Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing to construct a second story on a detached accessory building. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.31 of the Zoning By -law "Setback from average high water mark of Lake Simcoe" for the purpose of adding additional floor volume within a required yard: Setback to Lake Simcoe Required Proposed 20 metres 14.5 metres MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Shoreline Residential Exception 17 (SR *17) Zone Previous Applications — AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department - Building Department - Engineering Department - BACKGROUND The subject property has a street frontage along Mill Street of approximately 243 metres, a shoreline frontage of approximately 81 metres, and a lot area of approximately 3.2 hectares. The lands are used as a marina facility, containing a "clubhouse ", numerous outbuildings, and a harbour facility for the docking of watercraft. The applicant wishes to expand an existing changeroom /washroom facility by adding a second storey. The proposed extension will effectively increase the volume of the existing structure, and will increase the height of the facility. As the existing structure is located within the 20 metre setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe, a minor variance is required for the proposed addition. 1 Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Permitted uses in this designation include single detached dwellings, existing marinas, and accessory buildings to such. The requested variance is for an enlargement to an existing non - conforming structure that constitutes a permitted use. On this basis, the proposed variance would conform with the intent of the Shoreline Designation policies in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent ofthe Zott ng By-law? The subject lot is zoned Shoreline Residential Exception 17 (SR *17). While the subject property is currently contained within a residential zone, the Exception effectively recognizes and permits the marina use, in addition to allowing residential and accessory uses. The structure subject to the addition currently functions as a changeroom /washroom, and has a floor area of approximately 30 square metres. The structure is located approximately 14.7 metres from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe; however, as the building was constructed in 1994, it is considered to be a non - conforming structure. The proposed addition to add a second storey, aside from adding floor volume within the required setback to Lake Simcoe, otherwise is not proposing to further reduce an existing deficient setback. In addition, the structure will otherwise comply with all other setbacks and provisions for buildings accessory to a commercial use as prescribed by the Zoning By -law. As such, the application is deemed to comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? As a result of site inspection, it was noted that the location of the subject building, while encroaching into the setback to the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe, does not in fact front onto Lake Simcoe itself. The Hawkestone Yacht Club contains a moderately -sized harbour that has been artificially constructed for boat storage. In addition, the building and proposed addition would not be adding additional floor volume within the setback to the natural shoreline area, and nor is the building being proposed for human habitation. On this basis, the variance is deemed to be desirable for the appropriate development of the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the proposal will not further encroach into a currently deficient setback to the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe, the variance is considered to be minor. CONCLUSION The subject application to permit the addition of a second floor to an existing accessory building satisfies the tests of variance. 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2007 -A -21 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed addition to the existing structure maintain a setback of 14.5 metres to the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe; 2. That the appropriate approval(s) and /or perinit(s) be obtained from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, if required; 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of which is dam Kozlowski Planner 3 Reviewed by Glenn White, MCIP RPP Senior Planner /ill S% Eat O pps� OF D o y1 � 5 f pb. V it o ;At ST s $ �Fp s 5 AREA :54 ` '60) po P1. 1g. N x .N 7D ° Y 0 �O.z P s� °3 4 10. W \ b cy APPROXIMATE POSfTiON OF LINES 'ooh .. BETWEEN LOT 23 ANO BROKEN LOT 24 1 1 CD °N FEN Iv O ,v ° -7.69 t 329329 9� FD SJA• Id.5.1 A Cs. t b KLO" .to 40',0(po 9 /NOS ° s n r r } 4 rn rn o, u m o °O 6fi 6; LONG. .L SLO 1I f Rl�gNCK� SLO'Q. ENCH. OPENED I 00 "rte. K.tl• 1 s'sj °b °ZS +6ss+6 �t/a 5'SREE� aw° It of Nw•T• � �� ?� (v«7� a \- «� ¥ � ,� � . «»��.. � :G «�� < «» r� �x. .. < Township of Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 16, 2007 Brian & Johna Dalrymple 2007-A-22 Concession 12, Lot 11 (Formerly Township ofMedonte) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a single detached dwelling on a vacant parcel. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.28 of the Zoning By -law "Setbacks from limits of Environmental Protection Zone ": Setback to EP Zone Required Proposed 30 metres 15.1 metres MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Rural, Environmental Protection Two Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Agricultural /Rural (A /RU) Zone, Environmental Protection (EP) Zone Previous Applications — None. AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department - Building Department - Engineering Department — BACKGROUND The subject property is located approximately 0.5km north of the intersection of Mount Saint Louis Road and Line 11 North, having a road frontage on Line 11 North of approximately 305 metres. The lot has an area of approximately 23.4 hectares. The applicants are proposing to construct a 100 square metre single detached dwelling, also containing a 37.5 square metre attached garage. The variance application is necessary due to the new dwelling being partially located within the 30 metre setback to the Environmental Protection Zone, as required in Section 5.28 of the Zoning By -law. As a result, permission is required from the Committee of Adjustment for the location of the proposed new construction. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the 011rcial Plan? The property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. Permitted uses in this designation include single detached dwellings, accessory buildings, home occupations, and agricultural uses. The Environmental Protection Two designation covers the majority of the subject property, and reflects significant woodland and wildlife habitat, as well as features not covered by the Environmental Protection One Designation. Section B3.3 of the Official Plan states that `uses permitted in these areas shall be those permitted by the underlying designation provided the use conforms to the policies of this section ". As the proposed dwelling and attached garage constitute permitted uses within the Rural designation, the application would appear to conform with the intent of the Official Plan. Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law. With respect to the Zoning By -law, the primary purpose of controlling development within the limits of the Environmental Protection Zone is to ensure that development does not occur on lands that contain hazardous slopes or are susceptible to flooding. Based on a site inspection, the proposed dwelling will be located well above and away from the edge of the creek to the south. In addition, while the proposed dwelling unit will encroach approximately 13.2 metres into the required 30 metre setback to the EP Zone boundary, the watercourse itself is located an additional 60 metres southeast of the location of the proposed construction. As a result, the EP Zone and remaining required setback would maintain a 60 metre buffer from the proposed dwelling to the watercourse. This distance also exceeds the general 30 metre setback to watercourses, as prescribed under section 5.33 of the Zoning By -law. On the basis of the above, the proposed dwelling unit and attached garage would therefore comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot. The proposed location of the dwelling appears to be appropriate, as the structure will be located at the top of the embankment that slopes gradually from north to southeast, down toward the existing watercourse that traverses the property. In addition, there would appear to be a good buffer in the form of distance and vegetation between the proposed dwelling and the creek, which lies 60 metres to the south. As well, the location and design of the proposed dwelling will otherwise comply with all setback and general dwelling unit provisions of the A /RU Zone. However, it is also noted that the applicant has received a permit from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) for the construction of the dwelling; however, the permit was issued on the basis of a different house location and structure layout. It is apparent that the proposal at hand is not in the same location as originally approved by the NVCA, specifically the structure layout is not identical, and that setbacks to the front and north side lot lines have been modified. As such, it is appropriate to impose a condition of variance that the applicant secures approval from the NVCA for the modified structure location. On this basis, the application is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the proposed dwelling constitutes a permitted use, and would not appear to adversely affect the integrity of the Environmental Protection Zone, the variance is considered to be minor. CONCLUSION The application generally satisfies the tests of a variance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2007 -A -22 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed dwelling unit be in conformity with the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; 2. That the applicant obtain any required permit(s) and /or approval(s) from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority for the construction of the dwelling; 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of which is respectfully submitted, A m Pozlowski, B.URPL Planner Reviewed by, Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Ai �3 w Q V N� aW W � �INE 11 W Z N R iJ Q 0 CD MAY-31 -2007 10:24 FROM:NVCA 7054242115 70:7053272252 P.1/4 Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Centre for Conservator) John Hix Conservation Administration Centre Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 Concession Lino 8, Utopia, Ontario LOM 1 T Telephone* 705.424.1479 Fax 705.424.2115 Email: admin @nvca.on.ca May 31, 2007 PERMIT #2007 -7719 In accordance with Section 28 (1) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990 and Ontario Regulation 172106, permission has been granted to the applicant, subject to the conditions below. If you do not agree with these conditions, you have a right to a Hearing under the Conservation Authorities Act. Please notify the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) within 30 days of receipt of this permit to exercise your right to a Hearing. Should you fait to notify the NVCA within 30 days of receipt of this permit, you will agree to the conditions as set out below. APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Dalrymple 3680 Hume St., R.R. #2 Orillia, Ontario L3V 6H2 LOCATION: Part Lot 11, Concession 12, Township of Oro - Medonta (former Medonte), County of Simcoe UTM Coordinates: Easting 611024, Northing 4945660 PROPOSAL: for the construction of a new single family dwelling and detached garage and the placement of fill (associated driveway and septic system), at the above noted location as indicated on the attached drawing, subject to the following conditions: This permit is valid from May 31, 2007 to May 31, 2009 SPECIAL PERMIT CONDITIONS 1) That consent is given to NVCA, its employees and other persons as required by NVCA, to access the property for the purpose of inspection, obtaining information, and or monitoring any and all works, activities and or construction pertaining to the property in addition to the works as approved under cover of any permit issued by NVCA. 2) That the works be carried out in accordance with the following submissions: Site plan drawing submitted with NVCA permit application, dated May 31, 2007 3) All materials and equipment used for the purpose of site preparation and project completion shall be operated and stored in a manner that prevents any deleterious substance from entering the water. Vehicular re- fuelling and maintenance should be conducted well away from the water. 4) That nothing herein authorizes any person to carry out any work or undertaking, which may result in harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat or any fishery. 5) Please note that this permit is only valid if approvals, agreements or permits are received from all other agencies having jurisdiction. 6) Please note that this permit is only valid when the applicant becomes the owner of the property. ...l2 MRY -31 -2007 10:24 FROM:NVCR 7054242115 TO:7053272252 P.2/4 Page 2 of 3 STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS 7) That all development and site alteration is subject to all other applicable federal, provincial and municipal statutes, regulations and by -laws, such as the Municipal Act, Zoning and Tree - Cutting By- laws, the Federal Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Act, Public Lands Act, Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, Drainage Act, Environmental Protection Act and the Ontano Water Resources Act. 8) That this permit does not confer upon you any right to occupy, develop or flood lands owned by other persons or agencies. 9) That appropriate erosion and sediment control measures are installed prior to construction and maintained until all disturbed areas are stabilized, to ensure that sediments do not enter any water- course, wetland, lake, pond or sensitive area within the development or adjacent properties. When an erosion and sediment control plan appears to be inadequate, the deficiencies must be addressed and additional measures or practices implemented as needed. It is the responsibility of the owner and the owner's representative (if contracted) to implement, monitor and maintain all erosion /sedimentation control structures and practices until vegetative cover has been successfully established. 10) That dewatering of the site (if any) must occur slowly and the pumped /drained water should be filtered by appropriate erosion control measures prior to entering any watercourse. Permission must be obtained from adjacent landowners prior to discharging overland water to their properties. Pumping shall be monitored and maintained on at least a daily basis. 11) That any excess excavated material must be placed at least 30 metres from any slope, lake, pond, wetland, watercourse, floodplain, fill regulated area or adjacent property. 12) The natural drainage patterns beyond the immediate work site area are to remain in their natural state and existing vegetation shalt not be removed. 13) That any fill material stock piled for longer than 30 days must be stabilized and re- vegetated to prevent erosion. 14) The soils disturbed during construction and access should be stabilized as soon as possible upon completion of work and restored to a pre- disturbed state or better. Disturbed areas should be re- vegetated/seeded when the growing season permits. From September 15t° to April 3&, structural stabilization techniques (e.g. application of erosion control blankets) should be utilized. 15) That the owner provides copies of this permit to any contracting or construction supervisor(s) who must have a copy of the permit available on -site for inspection by an officer when requested and that the owner ensure that all of the contractors and site supervisors are aware of the obligations under this permit including any obligations assigned by the owner to the contractors and supervisors. All contractors and site supervisors must be aware that they may also be held responsible for any violations in relation to the obligations outlined under this permit. Note: It is the responsibility of the applicant to carry out the works in accordance with the above conditions. Failure to due so may result in cancellation of the permit and possible action in accordance with the Conservation Authorities Act. Should you have any questions regarding this permit, please contact Barb Perreault- Environmental Officer at (705) 424 -1479 extension 245. ...13 MAY -31 -2007 10:24 FROM:NVCA Page 3 of 3 7054242115 T0: 7053272252 P.3/4 y G. BootjY. S . — Manager of Planning Policy and Regulaf ns under th on nratian Authorrtres. Act Copy- Township pff Oro Medonte — Building /Planning Department File (1 ) Attachment Conserving Our Healthy Waters www.nvca.on.ca MAY-.31-2007 10:24 FROM;NVCR 7054242115 70:7053272252 P.4/4 z��sv�zw A z TO REAR LOT LINE m g Z 67056m - N60OO'00'E m 01.34 3 100.97 +_ CORNER 0 60.0 1 O1 9qy �o - _ TO CORNER OF �l,Po PROPERTY u pzz T� 30.28m Z z p ay -v }00. 2.15 o roo J o Tl —� DRN AY r. I/ az 0 !pp mmpvm °�> u 31 5 PE "o t -_ 4 CH 'PQi ,o EXISTINGo= 26 OOm a, 1 » GRApE Z�o om o � n b o r`TI� s m e N z 3 O M o \ :X) 0 Z D ° N 70 m °z3 a VoN o+ z y � •• O � my ti^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 X� NZ {�j Am� O ( �y -1r� IICfi4 A D ii ZAfZiZapA I O N °o �y 00 N T 1 SCD ig�ig A� ' nDi =r rm 'O 0y 13 0 zo m C N P II II ocio c Vi .191 x a nD m RG,I M p p $ o o o z mom' o 09ZZ 0 910 N oT °y '°' z� c xo °omai °z ' °z uo y m = m -i u33M° = o m a o m m Q N 9 O N yz z om m m' =+ p z O Z z m z N z Township of Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for August 16, 2007 Donald Wilson 2007 -A -23 319 Line 11 South, Plan 217, Pt. Lots 8 & 9 (Former Twp. Of Oro THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a second storey addition onto an existing dwelling, where the dwelling does not currently meet the required exterior side yard setback. As such, the applicant is proposing to add floor volume in a required yard, and is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95: 5.16.1 Enlargement, Repair of Renovation [of Non - Conforming Structures]: A non - complying building or structure may be enlarged, repaired, replaced or renovated provided that the enlargement, repair, replacement or renovation: b) does not increase the amount of floor area or volume in a required yard MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Hawkestone Residential Area Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Residential One (RI) Zone Previous Applications — AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department - Building Department — Verification (if required) that existing footings are designed to support second storey. Limiting distance, maximum percentage of unprotected openings (for total wall area, including existing). Engineered lot grading approval required. Engineering Department — BACKGROUND The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 23 metres on Line 11 South, approximately 40 metres of exterior side yard flankage on John Street, and a lot area of approximately 0.09 hectares. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing deck and portion of a non - conforming dwelling, and replace with a two- storey addition. The purpose for the variance is to permit the construction of additional floor volume in the required exterior side yard. 1 Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Hawkestone Residential Area by the Official Plan. Permitted uses in this designation include single detached dwellings, accessory buildings, and home occupations. As such, the proposal to renovate and enlarge a structure that constitutes a permitted use would conform to the Official Plan. Does the variance comply to the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The subject property abuts both Line 11 South and John Street, where the dwelling unit is oriented to Line 11 South. The exterior side yard separates the dwelling from John Street by a distance of 0.4 metres; however, as the dwelling was constructed in approximately 1880, it would be considered a non - conforming structure. The purpose of the exterior side yard setback is to ensure that structures do not obstruct sightlines to intersections for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The proposed addition is located at the rear of the dwelling, and is not proposed to further reduce the existing deficient exterior side yard, but only to increase in height and therefore floor volume. Aside from the proposed addition of floor volume within the exterior side yard setback, the application would otherwise meets with all other setback requirements of the Residential One Zone. On the basis of the above, the proposal to increase floor volume in a required yard is deemed to maintain the general intent of the Zoning By -law. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of Me lot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed addition would be located at the rear of the existing dwelling, being setback approximately 20 metres east of the intersection, and therefore is not likely to negate sightlines to the intersection of Line 11 South and John Street. As the proposed addition will also not further reduce an existing deficient exterior side yard, and constitutes an addition to an existing permitted use, the proposal is deemed to be desirable for the appropriate development on the lot Is the variance minor? On the basis that the proposed addition to an existing non - conforming structure otherwise complies with the Zoning By -law and conforms to the Official Plan, the variance is considered to be minor. CONCLUSIONS The proposed application to enlarge an existing non - conforming structure generally satisfies the tests of a variance. 19 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee Approve Variance application 2007 -A -23 subject to the following conditions: That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by a) pinning the footing and b) verifying in writing that the addition be no closer than 0.4 metres to the north exterior side lot line; 2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of which is res ectf y submitted, 1 am Kozlowski Planner Reviewed by Glenn White, MCIP RPP Senior Planner Hearing Dater Application #: Owner: ��� �'✓� MAS #: � i CA L_. --sue � i Lot #: e `Z k cA Plan #: 2 1'-1 Conc. #: XThe Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application. ❑ Site inspection required and completed. ❑ Proposal appears to meet minimum standards. Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal Respectf fly sub to , � rf Michael Diver, CBCO Chief Building Official W6 10i w I vY I Eli m a Qrl: z z o E/2 V) E' w W me 0 rKOFV 5GV -rvVo S"rogr -f 7psi JOHN (REGISTERED 1 212) (50.0• WOO STREET a 1 f-d SURVEYOR'S REAL PR PART PLAN OF LOT 9 AND PART OF LOT (GEOGRAPHIC TOWNS] TOWNSHIP OF OR COUNTY OF E SCALE: 1' =21 C.T. STRONGMAN 2005 Na S00'00 P) CHIMNEY N6 -TTSDO 5'E M)) t '. 9gg 13. "..00'(P35EF) snocc STOREY SIDED ! ALUMI SIDED OwElLINO - - MUM, No. 319 ALUMINUM SHED �Ci�i�(cr i �'f�'4. pEcN; LOT R LOT 9 tom ;ZV4 t? C AAJ-a}rb � P \N 58582 - DD11tLZ} m 3.5'0 CONCRETE .� 7 WELL CASH r 8 a ga E ]GkRAGE! zz W E-» s �: N53'00�i g PAl10 STpNE S10E'NN'rt 132.00'(Dl) Zi Z C!i «p �— 172.21' N NO PENCE 0�)a O V?YT�'JA,1'� U v.v K AGm��j1E0 9A110 µ n W Oy1EU V1 5F HED _2 LOT 8 \ ( I LOT 25 E- � Tl p yri� z R�I� P1N 58562 – OW2\N-7}- 8 n CV¢ ..7 (re+e N9Z59'33'E 132.10'(NJ —{f y � 0 m � S 4 0 Z c cp � 0 = u � � Q m Q m n m pa 3 B 0 m 0 a� 0 m Township of Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for June 21, 2007 Daphne Laird 2007 -A -13 (REVISED) 60 Lakeshore Road East, Plan 798, Pt. Lot 52 & Lot 93 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a deck with an area of 15.6 square metres. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97-95: Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Required Proposed Exterior Side Yard Setback 7.5 metres 4 metres (Revised) 4.6 metres (Approved) MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Shoreline Residential (SR) Previous Applications — AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department - Building Department — Deck not allowed on septic, 1.5m from tank, 5m from file bed. Engineering Department — BACKGROUND The applicant appeared before the Committee of Adjustment at the July 19, 2007 hearing to request a variance to construct a deck approximately 4.6 metres from the exterior side lot line, where the Zoning By -law requires 7.5 metres. Through discussion with the applicant prior to this meeting, it was requested that the variance be amended to a distance of 4 metres, as the applicant was unsure of the exact location of the exterior side lot line. However, the circulation notices were distributed referencing the original 4.6 metre setback request, which Committee subsequently approved. The applicant was required to provide verification to the Township building department of the location of the proposed deck in relation to the exterior side lot line; through survey, it has been determined that the proposed deck would in fact be located 4 metres from the lot line. As such, the applicant has requested that Committee's decision of July 19, 2007 be amended to reflect the distance confirmed through survey. The difference in setback between the original 4.6 metre 0 approval and 4 metre actual measured distance is considered to be minor, and staff has no concerns with the amendment request. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee Approve Variance application 2007 -A -12 subject to the following REVISED conditions: 1. That the proposed deck shall be no closer than 4 metres from the exterior side lot line; 2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; All of which is respectfully s tted Reviewed by t` dam Kozlowski Glenn White, MCIP RPP Planner Senior Planner 2 Lv 1 7U PIN 58559 - 0109 REGISTERED PLAN 798 Fww post V 0.a on 449-47r&., � 5' 1 LOT 51 I LOT 52 I LOT 53 PIN 58559 - 0128 j PIN 58559 -0127 I SEE PLAN OF SURVEY BY R. MAK, OLS (1986) 26.62' O N I 13.10' 18.1 I _N_ 0 60> \ well .� (calcul zl 9 IN FRAME: m j I GARAG 10.22' ���``��� I f N I �I� x� ( w 0 I 6 U ti O M rn .-Y M FA IM N j Steel fence post M at corner t� 0 kn 00 ykn a Ixa 1 �. �,v. 9.W� � Ap°54 I' x 76 _— 146.8' s1B(1546) � 00 � la (OLD I ROAD ORp.798) PIN 58559 -0075 T / SIB (381) p(ZOP05L-D DSGK I TO QG L©C 7-r–D �X�F_tZlo2 S1?2i July 18, 2007 DAPHNE LAIRD 60 LAKESHORE ROAD EAST RR1 ORO STATION, ONTARIO LOL 2E0 RE: Minor Variance Application 2007 -A -12 Please be advised that no appeals have been received pertaining to the above noted application, therefore the decision of the Committee of Adjustment of June 21, 2007 is final and binding. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, ;Adam Kozlowski Secretary- Treasurer Committee of Adjustment. s 0 0 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE 148 LINE 7 SOUTH, P.O. BOX 100, ORO, ONTARIO, LOL 2X0 (705) 487 -2171 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE OF DECISION Application No. 2007 -A -12 IN THE MATTER OF Section 45 of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13 as amended; and IN THE MATTER OF the Official Plan of the Township of Oro - Medonte; and IN THE MATTER OF Comprehensive Zoning By -law 97 -95, as it applies to the particular application; and IN THE MATTER OF Application 2007 -A -12 submitted by Daphne Laird, owner of Lots 52 & 53, Plan 798, 60 Lakeshore Road East (former Township of Oro); and WHEREAS The applicant is proposing to construct a deck with an area of 15.6m2 (167 ft). The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95: Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Required Proposed Exterior Side Yard Setback 7.5 m (24.6 ft) 4.6 m (15 ft) WHEREAS the subject property is designated "Shoreline" in the Official Plan, and Zoned "Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone" under By -law 97 -95; and WHEREAS having had regard to those matters addressed by The Planning Act, in accordance with the rules and procedures prescribed under Ontario Regulation 200/96, as amended, and having considered all relevant information as presented at the public hearing on the 21" day of June, 2007. 0 PAGE #2 APPLICATION 2007 -A -12 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION Motion No. CA070621 - 3 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, Seconded by Rick Webster 0 "Committee Approve Variance application 2007 -A -12 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 2. That the proposed deck shall be no closer than 4.6 m (15 ft) from the exterior side lot line; 3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketches submitted with the application dated May 31, 2007 and approved by the Committee. .....Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro - Medonte Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 0 • PAGE # 3 APPLICATION 2007 -A -12 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, the above decision and/or conditions may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Only individuals, corporations and public bodies may appeal decisions in respect of applications for consent to the Ontario Municipal Board. A notice of appeal may not be filed by an unincorporated association or group. However, a notice of appeal may be filed in the name of an individual who is a member of the association or group. THE LAST DATE FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS WEDNESDAY, THE 111n DAY OF JULY 2007. A "NOTICE OF APPEAL" setting out in writing the supporting reasons for the appeal should be received on or before the last date for "Appeal" accompanied by a certified cheque in the amount of ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS payable to the MINISTRY OF FINANCE. The notice is to be submitted to the Secretary - Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment, PO Box 100, Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0. Members concurring in this decision: Lynda Aiken, Chairperson Michelle LyInc Garry Potter DATED this 2155 day of June 2007 R 1�1&L Rick Webster Secretary- Treasurer Committee of Adjustment W z W Q Q Q P� �i Cl/- ,+ Q Pq 43} m 3AIK 3NDHS3>Id -1 W LO Q aW a a �o "ory �iNimgap Q3AOaddq J J L r t J 3 Z Y 9 L J a i E 0 U Z O °tea mzi Q Q z 0 u w N 73 U lu Qi ✓ I� Y lc4 >✓^ 3o ID-NIIVO'1:4 NO' 3 NOW Oa 15Y33.a 3aOH Nvl O >�aa aaiv-1 a3e�n.a =.ie nmvap LOOL � (yW 3,�,qp ,B /f t „91/f - 31V7S J J L r t J 3 Z Y 9 L J a i E 0 U Z O °tea mzi Q Q z 0 u w N 73 U lu Qi v i �t =Yt ' Ak i s` Ak m s: OX � 8 w a` Pit-Ilk N 6R W {f � a ztIts `° ti tie s` Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday July 19, 2007, 9:30 a.m. In Attendance: Chairperson Lynda Aiken, Member Rick Webster, Member Bruce Chappell, Member Garry Potter, Member Michelle Lynch, Secretary- Treasurer Adam Kozlowski 1. Communications and Correspondence Correspondence to be addressed at the time of the specific hearing. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest None Declared. Committee of Adjustment -JULY 19, 2007 Page 1 3. Hearings: 9:30 2007 -B -10 972580 Ontario Inc. Plan 51R- 27093, Parts 1 & 3 1555 Highway 11 North (Former Township of Oro) In Attendance: Berardo Mascioli, Applicant Secretary- Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence received from Asia Polus, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, dated July 13, 2007 verbatim to the Committee and audience. Motion No. CA070719 -1 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Rick Webster, seconded by Michelle Lynch "Committee defer Application 2007 -13-10 until such time that comments are received and issues resolved from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and Ontario Ministry of Transportation Carried ". Committee of Adjustment -JULY 19, 2007 Page 2 9:45 2007 -B -11 Marisa Mascioli 56 Line 2 South Plan 51R -27093 Part 4 (Former Township of Oro) In Attendance: Berardo Mascioli, Applicant Secretary- Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence received from Asia Polus, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, dated July 13, 2007 verbatim to the Committee and audience. Motion No. CA070719 -2 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Rick Webster, seconded by Michelle Lynch "Committee defer Application 2007 -B -11 until such time that comments are received and issues resolved from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and Ontario Ministry of Transportation Carried ". Committee of Adjustment -JULY 19, 2007 Page 3 10:00 2007 -B -12 972580 Ontario Inc. Plan 51R- 27093, Part 1 1555 Highway 11 North (Former Township of Oro) In Attendance: Berardo Mascioli, Applicant Secretary- Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence received from Asia Polus, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, dated July 13, 2007 verbatim to the Committee and audience. Motion No. CA070719 -3 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Rick Webster, seconded by Michelle Lynch "Committee defer Application 2007 -8 -12 until such time that comments are received and issues resolved from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and Ontario Ministry of Transportation Carried ". Committee of Adjustment -JULY 19, 2007 Page 4 10:15 2007 -B -19 Lester & Rosetta Parry Pt. Lot 8, Concession 3 2072 Line 3 North (Former Township of Oro) In Attendance: Lester Parry, Applicant Motion No. CA070719 -4 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Bruce Chappell "Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2007 -B -19 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary- Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the severed lands be merged in title with 2105 Line 2 North, and that Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning on the subject lands to accurately reflect the proposed use; 6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro - Medonte; and, 7. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. Carried ". Committee of Adjustment -JULY 19, 2007 Page 5 10:30 2007 -13-20 May Family Holdings Pt. Lot 15, Concession 9 590 15/16 Sideroad (Former Township of Oro) In Attendance: Elizabeth May, Applicant Secretary- Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence received from Jackie Burkart, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, dated July 17, 2007 verbatim to the Committee and audience. Motion No. CA070719 -5 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Michelle Lynch "Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2007 -B -20 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary- Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the severed lands be merged in title with 590 15/16 Sideroad and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the maximum total lot area for the new lot be no greater than 1.07 ha; 5. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 6. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning on the subject lands to accurately reflect the intended land use; 7. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. ....Carried." Committee of Adjustment -JULY 19, 2007 Page 6 10:45 2007 -A -14 Tim Breen W. Pt. Lot 7, Con. 5 1156 Ingram Road (Former Township of Medonte) In Attendance: Tim Breen, Applicant Secretary- Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence received from Janice Hendrix, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, dated July 13, 2007 verbatim to the Committee and audience. Motion No. CA070719 -6 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Bruce Chappell "Committee approve Variance application 2007 -A -14 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch dated June 11, 2007 and approved by the Committee; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation so that the addition be no larger than 356.7 m2 (3840 ft2) ; and, 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; Carried ". Committee of Adjustment -JULY 19, 2007 Page 7 11:00 2007 -A -15 Tim & Arlene Russell E' /2 Lot 19, Con. 5 5718 Line 5 North (Former Township of Medonte) In Attendance: Tim Russell, Applicant Secretary- Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence received from Tim Salkeld, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated July 12, 2007 verbatim to the Committee and audience. Motion No. CA070719 -7 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Rick Webster "Committee approve Variance Application 2007 -A -15 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed dwelling be in conformity with the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation so that i) The dwelling including the attached deck be located no closer than 10 metres (32.8 feet) from the top of bank of the water course; 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.; 4. That the applicants obtain any required permit(s) and /or approval(s) as may be required from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; 5. That the applicants enter into the appropriate agreement with the Township to utilize the existing dwelling while construction of the proposed dwelling is taking place. Carried ". Committee of Adjustment -JULY 19, 2007 Page 8 11:15 2007 -A -17 Robert Butler Plan 1, Lot 15 67 Barrie Terrace (Former Township of Oro) In Attendance: Robert Butler, Applicant Secretary- Treasurer read correspondence received from Bernice Whelan (no objection to application) dated July 18, 2007 and; David Seaman (no objection to application) dated July 18, 2007 and; Gerald Norman (no objection to application) dated July 18, 2007 and; Linda Ambrose -Roe (objection to application) dated July 18, 2007 and; Harold Roe (objection to application) dated July 18, 2007. Harold Roe and Linda Ambrose -Roe (objection to application) made presentation to the Committee. Motion No. CA070719 -8 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Rick Webster "Committee deny Variance Application 2007 -A -17, as the variance is not considered to be Minor Carried ". Committee of Adjustment -JULY 19, 2007 Page 9 11:30 2007 -A -16 Resource Exchange Inc. Pt. Lots 27 & 28, Con. 3 12 Brooks Street (Former Township of Oro) In Attendance: Andria Leigh, MHBC Planning, Agent for Applicant Secretary- Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence from Jackie Burkart, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, dated July 17, 2007 verbatim to the Committee and audience. Motion No. CA070719 -9 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Garry Potter "Committee defer Variance Application 2007 -A -16 until such time that the applicant submits an Erosion Hazard Study to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, as required in correspondence received on July 17, 2007; and until such time that the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority reviews and provides comments on the Erosion Hazard Study Carried ". Committee of Adjustment -JULY 19, 2007 Page 10 11:45 2007 -B -18 Resource Exchange Inc. Pt. Lots 27 & 28, Con. 3 12 Brooks Street (Former Township of Oro) In Attendance: Andria Leigh, MHBC Planning, Agent for Applicant Secretary- Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence from Jackie Burkart, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, dated July 17, 2007 and; Greg Marek, County of Simcoe, dated July 16, 2007 and; Catherine Simpson (objection to application), dated July 19, 2007 verbatim to the Committee and audience. Joyce Forrester (objection to application) and; Judy Bolton (objection to application) and; Debbie Little (objection to application) made presentation to Committee. Motion No. CA070719 -10 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Garry Potter "Committee defer Consent Application 2007 -B -18 until such time that the applicant submits an Erosion Hazard Study to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, as required in correspondence received on July 17, 2007; and until such time that the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority reviews and provides comments on the Erosion Hazard Study Carried ". Committee of Adjustment -JULY 19, 2007 Page 11 4. Other Business Adoption of Minutes from June 21, 2007 Committee of Adjustment Hearing Motion No. CA070719 -11 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Rick Webster, Seconded by Bruce Chappell "That the minutes for the June 21, 2007 Committee of Adjustment Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated 5. Adjournment Motion No. CA070719 -12 f7�Y7�Y�7�r1�1i� Moved by Bruce Chappell, Seconded by Rick Webster "We do now adjourn at 2:30pm ...Carried." .. Carried." (NOTE: A digital recording of this meeting is available for review.) Chairperson Secretary- Treasurer Lynda Aiken Adam Kozlowski Committee of Adjustment -JULY 19, 2007 Page 12