11 15 2007 C of A AgendaCommittee of Adjustment Agenda
Thursday November 15, 2007, 9:30 a.m.
1. Communications and Correspondence
i. Letter from Doug Irwin, Clerk, re: Tree Preservation By -law Request
ii. Letter from Doug Irwin, Clerk, re: Request by Committee of Adjustment to waive fees for
Consent Application 2007 -8 -30
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
3. Hearings:
9:30 2007 -A -34 Philip & Carole Hall
Plan 51 M -726, Lot 47
10 Mapleridge Road
(Former Township of Oro)
9:45 2007 -A -30 Brian Hendry
Plan 51 M -447, Lot 22
7 Dale Court
(Former Township of Oro)
10:00 2007 -B -32 Rosemary Mairs
Part of Lot 22, Concession 8
6328 Line 8 North
(Former Township of Medonte)
10:15 2007 -A -32 Lazeron Homes Inc.
Plan 51 M -174, Lot 7
14 Snowshoe Trail
(Former Township of Medonte)
10:30 2007 -A -35 Ian Johnson
Plan 1, Lot 13
3 Penetanguishene Road
(Former Township of Oro)
10:45 2007 -A -31 Gus & Kim McGrath
Plan 702, Lot 9
1197 Line 2 South
(Former Township of Oro)
11:00 2007 -B -17 Ron McCowan
Part of Lots 1 & 2, Range 2
2243 Ridge Road West
(Former Township of Oro)
4. Other business
Adoption of Minutes from October 18, 2007 meeting
5. Adjournment
October 29, 2007
Committee of Adjustment Members
c/o Adam Kozlowski
Secretary- Treasury, Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro - Medonte
Re: Lynda Aiken, Bruce Chappell, Michelle Lynch, Garry Potter, Rick
Webster, correspondence dated October 8, 2007, Tree Preservation
By -Law Request
Dear Committee of Adjustment Members:
Your correspondence, with respect to the above -noted matter, was formally
received by the Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte at the regular Council
meeting of October 24, 2007 with the following motion:
"Be it resolved that
1. The correspondence dated October 8, 2007 from Lynda Aiken,
Bruce Chappell, Michelle Lynch, Garry Potter and Rick Webster,
re: Tree Preservation By -Law Request be received.
2. That the applicant's request be referred to the Oro - Medonte
Environmental Group Advisors (OMEGA) for investigation.
3. That OMEGA report back to Council on this matter.
4. And Further That the applicants be advised of Council's
decision."
If you require further information, please contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
cc: Councillors Coutanche and Agnew, Co- Chairs, OMEGA
Members of Council
n
r'
a
c
_
3
5
Committee of Adjustment Members
c/o Adam Kozlowski
Secretary- Treasury, Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro - Medonte
Re: Lynda Aiken, Bruce Chappell, Michelle Lynch, Garry Potter, Rick
Webster, correspondence dated October 8, 2007, Tree Preservation
By -Law Request
Dear Committee of Adjustment Members:
Your correspondence, with respect to the above -noted matter, was formally
received by the Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte at the regular Council
meeting of October 24, 2007 with the following motion:
"Be it resolved that
1. The correspondence dated October 8, 2007 from Lynda Aiken,
Bruce Chappell, Michelle Lynch, Garry Potter and Rick Webster,
re: Tree Preservation By -Law Request be received.
2. That the applicant's request be referred to the Oro - Medonte
Environmental Group Advisors (OMEGA) for investigation.
3. That OMEGA report back to Council on this matter.
4. And Further That the applicants be advised of Council's
decision."
If you require further information, please contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
cc: Councillors Coutanche and Agnew, Co- Chairs, OMEGA
Members of Council
October 29, 2007
James and Corine Gray
2815 Line 4 North, R.R. #1
Shanty Bay, ON LOL 2L0
i }n I :oe ' " i�?x t0'1
VO
v w.0 ec iie ,_,
ommittee of Adjustment
c/o Adam Kozlowski
Secretary- Treasury, Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro - Medonte
Re: Committee of Adjustment minutes, meeting held on October 18, 2007
Motion CA071018 -3, 2007 -B -30, James Gray, W. Pt of Lot 5, Con. 5,
2815 Line 4 North (Conveyance to 1058 Bass Lake Sideroad, West Oro
Cemetery Board)
Dear Mr. and Ms. Gray and Committee of Adjustment Members:
Your correspondence, with respect to the above -noted matter, was formally
received by the Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte at the regular Council
meeting of October 24, 2007 with the following motion:
"Be it resolved that
1. The request from the Committee of Adjustment as outlined in
Motion CA071018 -3 re: 2007 -B -30, James Gray, W. Pt of Lot 5,
Con. 5, 2815 Line 4 North (Conveyance to 1058 Bass Lake
Sideroad, West Oro Cemetery Board) be received.
2. That Council confirms its decision of October 17, 2007 (Motion No.
CW071017-3) to deny waiving the development fee of $900.00 with
respect to the application for 1058 Bass Lake Sideroad West.
3. That the request from the Committee of Adjustment to waive the
rezoning fee of $600.00 for Rezoning Application 2007 -B -30 be
denied.
4. And Further That the applicants and the Committee of Adjustment
be advised of Council's decision."
If you require further information, please contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
Doug Iruv
Clerk
/jt
cc: Members of Council
Township of Oro- Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
November 15, 2007
Phillip and Carole Hall
2007 -A -34
10 Maple Ridge Road. Plan 51M -746, Lot 47 (Former Twp. Of Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition onto the side of an existing single detached
dwelling. The addition is proposed to have a total floor area of 72 square metres (775 square
feet). The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Zone: Rural Residential One (RUR1) Required
Table B1 Standards for Permitted Uses:
Minimum Required Interior Side Yard Setback 8.0 m (26.2 ft)
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Rural Residential
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Rural Residential One (RUR1) Zone
Previous Applications — none
DEPARTMENT /AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department — No concerns
Building Department —
Engineering Department — No concerns
Background
Proposed
4.5 m (14.7 ft)
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 56 metres (183 feet), a lot depth
of approximately 158 metres (518 feet), and a lot area of approximately .88 hectares (2.18
acres). The property currently has a single storey dwelling and attached garage with an area
of approximately 620 square metres (6673 square feet). The Township Zoning By-law-
requires an 8 metre (26.2 feet) interior side yard setback in the Rural Residential One (RURl)
Zone. The proposed addition to the single family dwelling is to be built a distance of 4.5
metres (14.7 feet) from the west side lot line.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural Residential in the Official Plan. Section C4 of the Plan
states that the primary permitted use of lands within this designation shall be single detached
dwellings and home occupations. Therefore, the addition onto the existing dwelling unit
would constitute a permitted use in the Rural Residential designation. On this basis the
proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By -law.
The subject lot is zoned Rural Residential One (RUR1) Zone. The site inspection revealed
that the addition to the dwelling should not adversely impact access to the rear of the
property, as the east interior side lot line is located over 9.28 metres (30 feet) beyond the east
wall of the dwelling. The proposed side yard of 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) will still provide
adequate access to the rear yard. In addition, the proposed expansion of the dwelling
otherwise meets with all other Zoning By -law provisions (such as maximum height, front
and rear yard setbacks) for dwelling units in the RUR1 Zone.
On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered to comply with the general intent of
the Zoning By -law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed addition would appear to be appropriate for the
desirable development of the lot. Existing trees will provide the abutting dwelling with
adequate buffering from the proposed addition. The location of the proposed addition in
the east side yard is hindered by the location of the garage in this yard. The proposed
addition in relation to the large lot will still maintain the character of the neighborhood.
Is the variance minor.
On the basis that the addition to the dwelling would not adversely affect the character of the
rural residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor.
CONCLUSION
The application to reduce the required interior side yard setback, recognizes that the
proposed addition to the dwelling satisfies the tests of a variance.
04
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance 2007 -A -34, being to grant a
reduction for the west interior side yard setback from 8 metres (26.2 feet) to 4.5 metres (14.7
feet), for the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling, subject to the following
conditions:
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 by way of survey real property report so that::
a) the addition be located no closer than 4.5 metres from the west interior lot
line
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application
and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee;
3. That the appropriate building pennit 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 w i hj,,x pectfully submitted,
Steven Farquharson, B.LRPL
Junior Planner
3
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Hearing Date:
Application #:
THE CORPORATION OF THE
T0WNcS HlF
6/ V-0-1 � ea � � �
Minor Variance Review
Owner:
4,����
MAS #:
Lot #: 9 j Plan #: _ Cone. #:
148 Line 7 5., Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
Phone (705) 487 -2171
Fax (705) 487 -0133
w .oro- nnedontexa
.�sU The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
,,Q� 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:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Diver, CBCO
(— ZaXhief Building Official
O� Z�
n� e
1� oxss) ` mi
i LOT 46 �f
PIN 581
/<DA 19 (154- P1)
o ON W N Q
LO v' 0255) 154.81 (M) o �Z
r. N31-56'40 "W mAR) c
N Nt
S p 6 y
0 so
<¢ m O4 I
° LOT 47 1
° PIN 56535 -0150
W cASPxc 01 ton WAY I 1
OONEPETE sem N57'50'35E
IY] N Eme..do ` C =40.82
8t3s motHe A_4118
Erz
v, In W ca+sm cnau 55.x8 R =90.00
Q
Y °
O O w P
ke
Y m
sa (¢) 7 '
N31'S]'DO "N' (Pi &M) 158.67 It
srse
Q�P\ LOT 48
N85 '30'20 "E
C =4523
LEGEND R =940:00
PIN 58535 -0151
ks,
■ DENOTES FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT /
OF DENOTES STANDARD IRON BAR
IB DENOTES IRON BAR 1
M DENOTES MEASURED
S DENOTES SET f p
-K— - DENOTES FENCING
P1 DENOTES PLAN SIM -726 1. W
(1255) DENOTES RAIHES SURVEYING LTC. LOT 48 0355) ^�O L,
h
SURVEYORS REAL PROPERTY REPORT
( PART 1 ) PLAN OF ALL OF
LOT 47
PLAN 51M -726
GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF ORO
NOW IN THE
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
10 0 10 20 30 40 50 50m
SCALE = 1:750
DINO R.S. ASTRI, O.L.S.
,) nn;
SURVEYOR'S REAL PROPERTY REPORT
(PART 2) REPORT SUMMARY
Descnption 0Land
ALL OF LOT 47, PLAN 51M 726, GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF
ORO. NOW IN TOWNSHIP OF ORO MEDONTE COUNTY OF
SIMCOE
- DESCRIBED AS PIN 58535 -0159
Registered easements ands Right -of -Ways
- SUBJECT TO EASEMENT l RIGHT OF WAY AS
DESCRIBED IN SC106704
Compliance with Alumni Zoning 8y4Lawe not cedified by this report
Additional Remarks
- PLEASE NOTE REMAINS OF POST AND WIRE
FENCE ALONG NORTH LIMIT
LOT 49 ry^ THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR KENMORE CUSTOM
SOLDERS AND THE UNDERSIGNED ACCEPTS NO
1
RESPONSIBILITY FOR USE BY OTHER PARTIES.
ALL HOUSE TES ARE TO CONCRETE FOUNDA71Ory (D COPYRIGHT 2003
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
BEARING NOTE
° " "r' °" °E ° "r "n'°
ANU suevcroes
°N rosy
s1477954
.■■.■„
I CERTIFY THAT.
BEARINGS ARE ASTRONOMIC AND ARE REFERRED TO
14Missla"
.■.■'. DINO R.S. R �����
1) THIS SURVEY AND PLAN ARE CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SURVEYS
THE NORTH LIMIT OF MAPLE RIDGE ROAD HAVING A
BEARING OF N44'44'OS "E AS SHOWN ON FLAN 51M -J26
. ®�� .. ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR
ACT, THE SURVEYORS ACT AND THE REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THEM,
2) THE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED ON THE 7th DAY OF JULY 200].
300 Lakeshore Drive, Suite tOq Barrie, 05- 734-10 6 084
�.■■.® Phone: 705 -134 -2530 Fax JOS ➢34 -1056
wrmlonescansulting . com
n
- -3
METRIC
DISTANCES SHOWN ON MI5 PLAN ARE IN METRES AND
o
5 IT Is AN £Meo55Eo
or to
DRAWN BT'. PIN
CHECKED BT"�j (,.1
PROJECT No
DATE DINO R.S. ASTRI
CAN BE CONVERTED TO FEET BY DIVIDING BY 0.3048.
°awwnl. "Opy
Issued eY THE suevcY°e
ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR
.PIT
e..o'
a ran
L03128_LOT -47
Copyright 402004 Land Survey Records Inc All nghA mservotl Document provided thr0e9h w^^"A' lantlsurveyrecords com
Township of Oro - Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
November 15, 2007
Brian Hendry
7 Dale Court Lot 22 Plan 51M -447 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
2007 -A -30
The applicants are proposing to construct a detached garage with an area of 37.2 m2 (400 ft2)
which is to be located in the front yard of the lot. The applicants are requesting the following
relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
1. Section 5.1 .3 (a) Permitted locations for detached accessory buildings and
structures in all zones;
(a) Not to be located in the front yard, to be located 1.5 metres in front of the
southwest corner of the dwelling currently under construction.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Horseshoe Valley- Low Density Residential
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Residential One (R1) Zone
Previous Applications — None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department -
Building Department —
Engineering Department- No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 25 metres (82 feet) along Dale
Court, a depth of approximately 60 metres (196 feet) and a lot area of approximately
0.14 hectares (.37 acres) and is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling
currently under construction.
The applicants are proposing to construct a 37.2 m2 (400 ft2) detached garage to be located
in the front yard a distance of 12.9 metres (42 feet) from the front lot line, abutting Dale Court.
Section 5.1.3 (a) of the Township's Zoning By -law states that detached garages are not
permitted in the front yard; the variance application is for the construction of a detached
garage to be located in the front yard.
The Tests of Variance
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Horseshoe Valley- Low Density Residential in the Official Plan.
Single detached dwellings and their accessory structures are permitted in this designation.
The applicant's proposal does not appear to offend these policies, given that the variance is
for the construction of a detached garage, being a permitted accessory use to a single
detached dwelling. This structure would not appear to have a negative impact on the
character of the residential area. On this basis the proposal is considered to conform to the
intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property is zoned Residential One (R1). Based on a site inspection, the
proposed garage would appear to be in a suitable and acceptable location.
The location of the proposed garage would appear to meet the required front, rear and
interior side yard setbacks, along with the prescribed building height and floor area
provisions. In addition, the setback from the garage to other structures on the property,
including the dwelling, will be maintained. Further, the garage is not proposed to be situated
in an area that will not hinder access to the rear or side yards of the property, including
access to components of the septic system. The proposed variance is considered to comply
with the general intent of the Zoning By -law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The applicant's lot is a relatively large residential property, and the proposed garage would
appear to be compatible with the character of the lot, as the garage location is in keeping
with the overall orientation of the dwelling unit under construction. As well, because the
garage meets all other detached accessory building provisions, particularly height and floor
area, the structure will clearly be secondary to the primary function of the property, being for
a dwelling unit.
Based on the site inspection, the subject property was noted to contain significant tree cover,
which will provide a degree of visual buffering between the neighbouring dwellings, and the
proposed garage. The locations on the property for the proposed garage are limited by the
slope of the property. To the rear of the dwelling currently under construction there is a
significant upward slope which prevents the garage from being located in the rear yard and a
downward slope in the side yards of the dwelling. Therefore, it can be determined that the
proposed location of the garage in the front yard is the best location on the property. On this
basis the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the garage otherwise complies with the Official Plan and all other
standards for detached accessory buildings, the proposed variance is considered to be
minor.
Is
CONCLUSION
Application 2007 -A -30 generally satisfies the tests for variance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2007 -A -30
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the proposed detached garage be located no closer than 12.97 metres from
the front lot line, Dale Court, in accordance with the sketch submitted with the
application;
2. 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 no closer than 12.97 metres from the front lot line;
3. That the proposed detached garage comply with all other provisions for
Detached Accessory Buildings, as listed in Section 5.1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95;
4. 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, Reviewed by,
Steven arquharson, B.URPL Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Junior Planner Senior Planner
3
Hearing Date:
Minor Variance Review
\'-� I /0
Application #:r ,
,AD
Owner: `r-�- �,' ! `-
MAS #:
Lot #: Plan #: ° i_` Conc. #:
148 Line 7 5., Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
Phone (705) 487 -2171
Fax (705) 487 -0133
w .oro- nnedonte.ca
-d The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
,J 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:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Diver, CBCO
( Chief Building Official
QC�-, 2q
l0i Aj1EA: 319598m
��
Im-_ \
\ \\\••••
\ W \
SURVEY NOTES: wl N
. OR11
•4L pCSONC Al fl.. OF PLAN DO A1) 0G PART OF LOT 1.
AT OF 9px A Al MOS Di CND. Ol.-- l X-0 PRA TOWSHIP
OF Q40) CWxtt pF IF 0,
2 9H EuCPGENti yu6EP.
HOUSE ELIVXRONS
F, fLOpi N{A6
SW ENp. - 3a43e
�/
�=T^
3
/�—Y"
p> � I \ \\
\
+.9, �_ I I� li
77
I .1 1 ' /
\
} M , RHE xi Ox GE OFEA 9T
4 GIRN 981E IpPLCLAHGEi DC P.N_ im OiG SE PHOPERIY
ELEV.= 344.379
ELE
BASE ROW N1.9B
�
I
I
I//
. 3419!
/
/
e. ep\ ! L
!
NOTES:
W GE
TOP MORE - Kiei
5 3 -
—
'A4 1 I
-
�1
I. Wp IA[RM uiuu[TERSHUxIWfss s . Eo o $EC SE.T FPE wAUCRNs
u/5 rrc. . Ja.50
I
z Ar, . .' 9E w ACCO ..I aRxE oxx pC wry sPL
i
1A;
s. opP VEWWA . IGCATIO Mw, I sm IN. voE .1 IINCS ANp U" tt
T FOOTINGS TOM A MINIMUM W
1.22m BELOW i1N15HE0 Lfl0.NE
4.0 (% .���
I 5
4 iiuxOAROs
Au d. ON NITER X 10 BE RNY IN lE➢ 10 MflR pOIN..N
AS 6* lxE i0 TH CHO-MEOl
EIEVATWS.
�
`i(1�
\
.1 WN HIDN
5. WpSEO pPAWA4E NF LOT SHKL xpi VMY VAW ixE OELpx AS SMVM.
gPNOOXl . AOF
P
Al
I 'WI. S
w -.
LEGEND:
x.21409 E%ISTNO SPOT ELEVATION
100.00+ PROPOSED SPOT HLfVAT10N
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
2%
SURFACE DRAINAGE GRADE
_._ E%IST. TER SEE
FF FINISHEO FLUOR ELEV ATION
3t
MATCH
SLWE i0
EX. WAGE
\
PROP HIXISE
B o P�
10.62m 4R $g�Y
\
\
\ \
TFW TOP OF FOUNDATION WALL
i/S TOP OF SLAB
U/F UNDERSIDE OF FOOTING
�n+y
- 4 O{
► ENTRYWAY
n
IN N0. OF RISERS
p�{
� 1
1\
J
Ls .lY UGHT STANDMO
J
FH FIRE HYDRANT
B\
3.Jx J1191
M
PROP + �` ' o \
GARAGE0SJOm¢
/ 11 SLOPE TO
MATCH E%. WADE
PEN 1Lf OWIMENT AUWSi ,XI OP
W
I, iWSt yJBM154W AUGUST 31 pP
N0. OESCbPPW CAE BTPPR'D
—
L W
u.a Br � 36 I
43u V
� ' �
SCHEDULE OF REVISIONS
TLS:
al
A
LOT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
31 3,66
PRO.EC241E LOT 22, PLAN5IM -447
"
SUZ NONDE
1 Ilk IADROSS
n i
z CROS FAu
wr (TTP�
7 DALE COURT
TOMNSHN W WO- MEOONTE. CWNn OF 4MCW
SLOP
cp
/
WENT. GERRY HENDRY
MATCH EX, WADE
P AWATE IT jNl
\ \
WOHURST, SIMCCE COUNTY
d n
i
E I" X /a ;
n
RfCHARDS N F ER LTD.
EA CULVERT
\ TEMPORAR SENGH "�,RN I
- n u ] +111 TOO NUT EL V: 344.19 I I
\
CMONSUI ® «NOpErt NGINEEfS M
I °I1H' Puuc 1
aa n ii
5
we <A])Nx -OYYI 1AP <lml m- me -e - zzo-z «I
EX. HOUSE
�-1. Om \\
,�
i
PROJECT.
rn FuBo TON: 1 :300
n
CNNXri 1583
34335` -A'" \'t
�E
D.
L i m i t e d L i c e n s e e RR'
SOOT,
/
N.: MICHAELPETEROSBORNE
1 \ i I 3T
�ry N
I
m er
Nub I0D11SM9
DRAWING
/I
I
AYM: DR,
I.itNINUiP.s
K CEN1[RDHE flOAO A
ELEV. IAi CENTER OF���
CUL -OESAC = J43 BV
A —
H —�
TMS Ycepm @subfpF110 b9 GII19W059S d9�10d
pP ple CMEficNW O
pswia �FdtlsiGN9 ERA d Onfaio ESIGN: p ?- SSG-1
DA
EZOURT
a9�s�07 NEED: M -p.
12
6
l -7,
MJ
------ L-J
ti
12
6
L�J
FL2 rL-- �31 � L%rJ
8-XTGARAGE
GARAGE
DOOR By OTHERS DOOR By OTHERS
F
T.O. TRUSS HEEL
C? T.O. TOP PLATE
TO P.T. SILL PLATT
ELEVATION "Ell
-SCALE : 1/4" = V-G"
T.O. TRUSS HEED
T.O. TOP PLATE =�
TO. P T SILL PLATE
CVol, -
T.O. TRl
T.O. Tt
O. P.T.S
ELEVATION "F"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Township of Oro- Medome
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
November 15, 2007
Rosemary Mairs
2007 -B -32
6328 Line Eight North, Part Lot 22, Concession 8
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant has previously applied for consent to perform a boundary adjustment in 2003,
with the purpose of relocating and reducing the size of an existing vacant rural lot.
According to Township records the lot was created in 1992. Application B -21/03
subsequently lapsed as the applicant did not fulfill the conditions of provisional consent.
In order to facilitate the boundary adjustment for the vacant lot, it is proposed that the
existing vacant lot will be merged in title with the surrounding acreage, and Committee will
then re- establish a "need' lot in the area requested by the applicant, which would then
contain an existing single detached dwelling.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation
Zoning By -law 97 -95
Previous Applications
AGENCY COMMENTS
Rural and Environmental Protection One
Agricultural /Rural (A /RU) Zone
Environmental Protection (EP) Zone
B9/92 (Consent to create subject lands)
B-21/03 (Lot Transposition — lapsed)
Simcoe County — No objection.
Public Works —
Engineering -
Building Department -
BACKGROUND
This application will not result in the creation of a new lot. The applicant has requested that
the existing vacant lot be "transposed ", through a boundary adjustment, and simultaneously
reduced in size from 4.04 hectares to 2.02 hectares, and be re- located north to encompass an
existing dwelling. The reason for the request is the applicant wishes to have the existing
home located on a smaller property, and wishes to potentially sell the larger, vacant parcel.
The "transposed" lot would have an area of 2.02 hectares, and a frontage of 91.4 metres.
The retained lands would have an area of 38.4 hectares and a frontage of 224 metres.
OFFICIAL PLAN
Section D2.2.2 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider
applications for boundary adjustments in all land use designations. The policy states:
`A consent ma_y be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries provided no new
building lot is created... in addition, the Committee of Adjue'tvaent shall be satisfied that
the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the agricultural parcels affected."
In reviewing the application, no new building lots will be created. With respect to the
viability of agriculture, the subject property does not exhibit evidence of past farming
operations; in fact, over half of the subject lands are contained within the Provincially -
significant Copeland - Craighurst- Guthrie Wetland Complex. However, for the purpose of
this application, none of the proposed lot lines will be located within or on lands adjacent to
the wetland complex. With respect to the Rural land use designation policies, the subject
lands will not be eligible for additional severance(s) in future, as the lot to be transposed was
created in 1992. Section C2.3.1 of the OP states `only one new lot can be severed from a lot in the
Rural designation that has an area of at least 36 hectares or is the whole of an original Township lot
provded alot has not been severed from the parcel after March 26, 1973" In addition, a single
detached dwelling is a permitted use in the Rural designation, where this application would
not preclude the development of such a use on the retained parcel. On this basis, the
application is considered to conform to the Official Plan.
ZONING BY -LAW
Both the proposed and retained lots would comply with the Zoning By -law provisions
applicable to residential and agricultural uses in the A /RU Zone, where the minimum lot
area required for a residential use is 0.4 hectares, and the minimum lot frontage is 45 metres.
The minimum lot area required for an agricultural use, such as a hobby farm, is 2.0 hectares.
Given that the surrounding area consists mainly of large rural parcels, generally over 20
hectares, and where surrounding rural residential lots to the north and south have an average
area between 0.75 to 1.5 hectares, the request to reduce an existing 4 hectare residential ot
to approximately 2 hectares is deemed appropriate, and would generally be in keeping with
the lot fabric in the area. In addition, the County has indicated no objection to this
application.
CONCLUSION
The proposed consent application for a boundary adjustment will generally conform to the
policies of the Official Plan and comply with the provisions of the Zoning By -law.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2007 -B -32,
where an existing vacant lot having an area of 4.04 hectares, known as 51R -23482 Parts 1 &
2, shall be reduced in size to 2.02 hectares and "transposed" to encompass the existing single
detached dwelling located at 6328 Line 8 North, subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the
"transposed" 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 "transposed" lands be merged in title with 6328 Line 8 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;
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 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 sibmitted, Reviewed By
e
am Kozlowski B.URPL Glenn White, MCIP RPP
31nnner Senior Planner
Township of Oro - Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
November 15, 2007
Lazeron Homes Inc.
2007 -A -32
14 Snowshoe Trail, Plan 51M -174, Lot 7 (Former Medonte)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are proposing to construct a two- storey dwelling with an attached garage and
covered front porch. The proposed dwelling, excepting the 42.24 square metre attached
garage and covered porch, would have a first storey floor area of 75.06 mz. The applicants
are requesting the following relief from Section 4, Table Bl of Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Residential One (R1) Zone
Minimum First Storey Floor Area
Required Proposed
90 sq. in 75.06 sq. in
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Rural Residential
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Residential One (Rl) Zone
Previous Applications — none
AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department — No concerns
Building Department — No concerns
Engineering Department — No concerns
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a vacant lot located within a 22 lot rural residential subdivision, and
is located approximately 2 km south of Moonstone Road on the east side of Line 7 North.
The subject property contains 30.4 metres of frontage on Snowshoe Trail, a depth of 67
metres, and an area of 0.2 hectares. The applicant has submitted a building permit to the
Township, and during planning review it has been determined that the proposed dwelling
does not meet with the required tninimum first storey floor area, being 90 square metres. As
such, the applicant has applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a variance for a
reduction in the minimum first storey floor area from 90 square metres to 75.06 square
metres.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural Residential by the Official Plan. Section C5.2 of the Plan
states that "permitted uses on lands designated Dural Residential ...are limited to single
detached dwellings [and accessory buildings to such]... ". Therefore a single detached
dwelling with an attached garage and covered front porch constitutes a permitted use.
On this basis, the proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Residential One (R1) Zone. Permitted uses in the R1 Zone
include single detached dwellings and accessory buildings, such as garages and storage sheds.
With respect to the proposed reduced minimum first storey floor area, it is the intent of the
By -law to ensure that new residential construction does not take the form of unduly small,
seasonal, or temporary dwellings, which may detract from the general character and
aesthetics of the local neighbourhood. The application at hand seeks to construct a 2 storey
dwelling containing an attached garage, and covered front porch. according to drawings
submitted with the application, the first storey floor area, minus the garage, is approximately
75.06 square metres. The footprint of the structure with the garage area, being 42.24 square
metres, totals approximately 117.3 square metres. When considering the gross floor area of
the house, including both storeys but minus the garage area, the actual living area of the
home totals just over 150 square metres.
Aside from the minimum first storey floor area requirement, the proposed dwelling
otherwise meets with all applicable front, side, and rear yard setbacks, and complies with
height requirements as prescribed. As such, the proposed dwelling meets the general intent
of the Zoning By -law.
Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, it was noted that surrounding dwellings on Snowshoe Trail
consisted of an equal portion of single and two- storey dwellings, typically setback quite deep
into the lot, having access from long, relatively narrow driveways. It was also noted that
many of the homes, if the garage area was ignored, appeared to be quite small, particularly in
the single storey examples. A survey of the gross floor areas of homes on Snowshoe Trail
was taken, and according to Township building records, structures in the area range between
110 square metres up to 181 square metres. As such, the average gross floor area for
structures on Snowshoe 'frail is 144 square metres, consisting of a mix of one and two -
storey dwellings. As the proposed dwelling would consist of a gross floor area of 150 square
metres in two storeys, which does not include the garage area, the proposed structure would
be compatible with the character of development in the area. As such, the variance is
desirable for the appropriate development of the lot.
2
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the proposal conforms to the Official Plan, maintains the general intent of
the Zoning By -law, and is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the lot,
the variance is considered to be minor.
CONCLUSION
This application, being to reduce the minimum first storey floor area for the construction of
a two -storey single detached dwelling, generally satisfies the tests of a variance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance 2007 -A -32, being to grant a
reduction for the minimum required first storey floor area from 90 square metre's to 75.06
square metres, 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.
All of which is respectfully, submitted, Reviewed by,
r
am KWwsB.tU_TRPL Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Planner Senior Planner
3
o`��s, I �' ,--! oar
r WOOD -,o� �I�� /, 1009
a
CLAD
� ti 67.056
;N79'59'4OrW r.SHED L
/ 107.92 10 SWALE DRAINAGE .RELEASED m I 1 K
TO DISPERSED OVERLAND FLOW x � o� y,
i 06 c'
as
T— — — 30 max. � � — T 103.00
_ SW LEO 12.5%_ I----
,06.50 / C,CE of su_ ��,,�,,�,�, 100 4
R YARD/ z6.6z o' SWALE O 12.0X,'r� m17 A. ��' ""TLIS�T°TO �rioaosv. � I � 8.0%
3:1 MAX. F 33. GRknES AND, SLOPES p�iv/ ;�l
i�LOPE 6! 0 6.706 P P Elb �
RfV A �`— 0
r
LU g 999
° 17/.0% e
—0' O 8 8. % r 105.37
,SH 75
,06. y�
j ._ SZ �4 / � 30.48
EEO
' 109.20 1 6.53 1.219 1 10-S $
01 w =
s o �E;a000 w ; ;o LOT 7
0 ° 00 a I r '•p a N N CI In 1'1. -% 0 s[/ 1 PROPOSED FILTER g8iEpO' 'I '
or 0 NZ a'10 OOO.I ¢ a w DESIGN AND INSPECTION
BY OTHERS
n I K — I o
I. z
I � � /` � w'V' NI �
REAR "YARD
a 1 3:1 MAX. i 7.925
3
> 540PE
106. 106.44 106.7 p� 1 b r� J I
NK� _ _ _ y TEST PITS SWALE DRAINAGE RELEASED
N T DISPERSED C1VERLAND FLOW
lit M�a DIS
SWALE O 12.58 102.50 100.7 9'
WA LE O 13.9f `
1 �,^ AN H I
1 N79'59'40 "W sa � !
r
0 v I, GRMEC DRNEl4AY
0;
O r 1
L
00, _� I q1b
0 0 '
o '0-01 �s�R
I p
o I
I
°
woo0 cLw I
•
0 C7-allm
ILT P MY
.1
11iiii.
eee�
�i
ewx�e�s�
i eereu oo *wu wwn+u¢m' can na
crux eow� ax rW.r on
wie� -aoa� a
n• euuwow:a �.w au�w, wo m rom u
een��a�o w wwr' nwnnwu cane cwa uwau
ronouµ ecw eau
wei ecm. s.n
ono nwc u�wu
[A
•
MH9
------- ---
-----------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
---------- ---------------------------
LWr ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION
Township of Oro - Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
November 15, 2007
Ian Johnson
2007-A-39
3 Penetanguishene Road, Plan 1, Lot 13 (Former Twp. of Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to renovate and expand an existing detached accessory building (2
car garage), to have an area of 61.3 square metres and a height of 4.9 metres. The applicant is
requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
1. Section 5.1.3 Permitted locations for detached accessory buildings and structures in
all zones
b) Be set back a minimum distance of 2.0 metres from the rear lot line, be
reduced from the required 2 metres to 0 metres.
2. Section 5.1.4 Maximum Height
The maximum height of any detached accessory building or structure is 4.5 metres,
be increased from the required 4.5 metres to 4.9 metres.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Shoreline
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Residential One (R1) Zone
Previous Applications — None
AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department - No Concerns
Building Department — Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required
setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code
Engineering Department- No Concerns
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a corner lot, having frontage of approximately 18.28 metres on
Shanty'- Bay Road, an exterior side yard of 76 metres along Penetanguishene Road, and a lot
area of approximately 0.14 hectares. The subject property contains two dwellings; a 1.5
storey dwelling is located at the north end of the lot, and the second single storey dwelling is
located approximately in the middle of the lot. A frame garage is located in the northwest
corner of the lot, and is utilized by the dwelling at the north end of the lot. Both dwellings
are oriented to Penetanguishene Road, and have driveway access from same. The two bay
accessory garage that is the subject of this application is located at the extreme southern end
of the subject lands, and currently has a floor area of 37 square metres.
The applicant is proposing to expand the existing garage by adding a third vehicle bay, to be
built on an existing concrete pad, and to increase the height of the garage to create a loft
storage area. The proposed addition will bring the floor area of the garage to 61.3 square
metres, and the height to 4.9 metres. The purpose of the application is to permit the garage
to be built on the existing concrete pad, which extends from the southern wall of the
existing structure to the rear lot line; as such, the applicant is seeking to extend the garage to
the lot line, proposing "zero setback ". The second part of the variance is to increase the
height of the garage from 4.5 metres to 4.9 metres, to increase the loft storage area.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline by the Official Plan (OP). Section C5.2 of the OP
states 'peimitled uses on lands de gnated Shoreline on the schedules to this Plan are sin le detached
dwellings [and accessory buildings,,, exislina marinas, small scale commercial uses... etc ".
As the application is to renovate and expand a permitted accessory use, the variance is
considered to conform to the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
The subject property is zoned Residential One (R1). Permitted uses in the R1 Zone include
single detached dwellings and accessory buildings to residential use, such as vehicle garages
and storage sheds. For this application, the garage as it currently exists complies with all
provisions applicable to accessory structures, as listed in Section 5 of the Zoning By -law.
However, the proposed renovation will require a reduction in the rear yard setback, where
the south wall of the garage will be located on the lot line, and the height is proposed to
increase from 4.5 metres to 4.9 metres, measured from the average finished grade to the mid
point of the roof.
The location of the proposed garage, aside from the height and rear yard setback, would
otherwise meet the required front, interior and exterior side yard setbacks, along with the
prescribed floor area provisions. In addition, the setback from the garage to other structures
on the property, including the dwellings, will be maintained. The purpose for regulating the
size, height, and setbacks of accessory buildings is to ensure that such structures remain
clearly accessory, or secondary to, the primary residential use of the lot. In this case, the
garage expansion is not proposed to be situated where it will hinder access to the rear or side
yards of the property, including access to components of the septic system. In fact, the
existing garage, while being located on the lands known as #3 Penetanguishene Road, is in
fact separated from the two dwelling units at this location by a board -on -board privacy
fence, and actually serves as an accessory structure for the residential dwelling located at #1
Penetanguishene Road, and is discussed in more detail below.
The renovation and expansion of an existing detached accessory structure, aside from
maximum height and rear yard setback, will remain clearly secondary to the primary
2
permitted use of the lot, and will otherwise meet with all other provisions of the Zoning By-
law.
Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
The applicant currently owns both #3 Penetanguishene Road (the subject lands), and #1
Penetanguishene Road. The subject land, as discussed earlier, constitutes a unique situation,
as it contains two dwelling units, and two detached accessory buildings, consisting of
garages. However, the garage subject to this application, notwithstanding its location, in fact
serves the dwelling unit located at #1 Penetanguishene Road, and is accessed from a gated
entrance and circular driveway. As a result of a site visit, visually, the subject rear lot line
appeared to be at the board -on -board fence separating the dwellings at #3 from the subject
garage. As such, the rear lot line of the subject lands has been "overlapped" by the
construction of the board -on -board fence, where the development of the garage and
driveway serving #1 Penetanguishene has in fact encroached on #3. Therefore, the variance
to reduce the rear yard setback from 2 metres to 0 metres is deemed appropriate, as the rear
lot line of the subject property has been overlapped by the site development of #1
Penetanguishene Road, and is buffered from the neighbouring dwelling to the north by a
privacy fence. In addition, the applicant has indicated that a boundary adjustment to bring
the subject garage wholly upon the property it rightfully serves, #1 Penetanguishene Road,
will be sought early in 2008.
Based on the site inspection, the subject and surrounding properties were noted to slope
from north to south, down toward Lake Simcoe, contain modest sized single detached
dwellings, and a variety of sizes of detached accessory buildings. With respect to the height
variance, it was noted that the "building line" along Shanty Bay Road for neighbouring
residential dwellings to the east is oriented to the front of the lots, on a higher elevation
close to the road; properties in general in the area tend to have narrow frontages and depths
averaging up to 100 metres. As such, neighbouring dwellings are buffered from the
proposed garage by distance and elevation, where the increased height of the garage would
not cause a visual hindrance or negatively affect privacy for adjacent residences.
On this basis the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the
lot.
Is the variance minor.
On the basis that the garage otherwise complies with the Official Plan and all other
standards for detached accessory buildings, the proposed variance is considered to be minor.
CONCLUSION
Application 2007 -A -35 generally satisfies the tests for variance.
3
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2007 -A -35, being to,
reduce the rear yard setback from 2 metres to 0 metres and increase the maximum height from
4.5 metres to 4.9 metres for the renovation and expansion of a detached accessory structure
having an area of 61.3 square metres, subject to the following conditions:
1. 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 no
closer than 0 metres from the rear lot line, and no higher than 4.9 metres, measured
from the established grade to the mean level between eaves and ridge;
2. That the proposed detached garage comply with all other provisions for Detached
Accessory Buildings, as listed in Section 5.1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95;
3. That the applicant obtain all necessary approvals and /or permits, if or as required,
from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority;
4. 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 reSP'VctfPUv submitted,
WK,am ozlowski, B.URPI,
Planner
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, M RPP
Senior Planner
SHArJTI" Bbl' RCAD wa OJ5 — '18551 (FC113t ✓��'RI 1 O"W '- - -- f5Z�_ °52'5 r NB __ le2P 6 51 .(610, CONCRETE (NOT S
DNB A$ / ON WELL 0]2 SOUTH
WESL 5111-VIT01 o_ NORTH WEST CORNER LV2 z.a
LOT 13, SOUTH SIDE OF
.')AVIS STREET. R.P I `? vrr 0wG
m 6Y. IXNiAMENTGL
STONE 'S
� �ONC. Ftlu
•20
a
LOTS 13
o-
I X350 Nn 1
T �n
SOUTI SIDE CAP DAVIS S
FIELD-
STONE
l5
STONE Z
a ,FO ¢ V
J CONC fO'X, -- Q pj
W
I N
LL
J W L7
0 p w
L O
LINE BETWEEN lDT6 SOUTH OF \ r N
I� 2 DAVIS S, .EET 25i i0 AND LOTS FRONTING ON
U 1 � KE
I
UL I GAFAGE f X ►sew b 6 AIG�.
4WM /S
2 = caNCFL. T
:19
< 6LB ,,>, L'ra 4E EKPANOED
�ma
,: /arJ / +ulnra I�w IN 1`�EI(�!f'r
rJ /�TI(IPJAI_ in�R
RAILWAY INST.
I�
i «e
II
---- ss__
SET G. BURIED
18.
IAR -nip BSETI) LOT ° - 339 —°,) N l�f
P pVEAMANo
OVERG
F-6 5-T HAN jE FRONTING ON II«r
\ ° 221_11 L _-- GGSCG
/o � WATERS 1`�G��1C•L�-� /�G
025- 7 _'�,IT.f" L. I µ,0}
STESL f1.ATE X 0.801 „ACC
QREef}+T RETAINING w'ALL - `�)
EGENO 695 DENOTES L.M.M<NEICE, O.L.S. ACD'N. DENOTES ADDITION
DEIS DENOTES DEARDEN 8 STANTON LTD.,O.L.S. ALUM. DENOTES ALUMINUM
DENOTES FOUND MEAS. DENOTES MEASURED BLK. DENOTES BLOCK.
PROP. DENOTES PROPORTIONED BR. DENOTES BRICK
DENOTES PLANTED CALC, DENOTES CALCULATED CONC. DENOTES CONCRETE
B DENOTES STANDARD IRON BAR PROD. DENOTES PRODUCTION - DWG. DENOTES DWELLING;
;J8 DENOTES SHORT STANDARD IRON BAR R. P. DENOTES REGISTERED PLAN FD'N. DENOTES FOUNDAT161
DENOTES IRON BAR INST. DENOTES INSTRUMENT NUMBER FR. -DENOTES ;FRAME
DENOTES IRON PIPE PB WF DENOTES POST Sk WIRE FENCE GAR. DENOTES GARAGE:
DENOTES CUT CROSS C.L.F. DENOTES CHAIN LINK FENCE R/W DENOTES RETAINING V
DENOTES ROUND S.R.F. DENOTES SNAKE RAIL FENCE STY. DENOTES STOREY
T, DENOTES WITNESS R. F. DENOTES RAIL FENCE /S DENOTES SIDING
1, DENOTES ORIGIN UNKNOWN B. F. DENOTES BOARD FENCE VIN. DENOTES. VINYL
DENOTES J.H,DIAM 0, O,LS. U/C DENOTES UNDER CONSTP'.'-TION FL. .DENOTES FLOOR
15 DENOTES RC.RAIKES, O.LS
►. 10 00 1 Q� - <Vz)C - �1Ct
CORPORATION OF
of 040-, THE 6 or—
Minor Variance Review
ss
sA
- �tflll�� fi
Hearing Date:
Application #:
Owner: u
MAS #:
Lot #: _.
Plan #: Conc. #:
5a The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
A Proposal appears to meet minimum standards.
148 Line 7 5., Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
Phone (705) 487 -2171
Fax (705) 487 -0133
www.oro- medonte.ca
• Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks
as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.
• Comments:
gat Ds�c2 Q i�ss S�ra�1> Stiaa4
is �—
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
L-1
0
11
cco
i
/ STUCCO IzEll�
FRONT ELEVATION
I ( i
1]
rl
� �'� �r�r•�rrr�rj�o��l�■IAI�
■rl�rr■rsr����r■■����rr!ii�r�:
r.���e.ir
�ti���r��r ■�i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilillilljllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiI
(�■r�lnrr♦
r•I��rrn�r■eii
�
r.
�
■r�
r.
rr
��rrr�
�
■�
i�rr
r�r•��
rrrir• r
cco
i
/ STUCCO IzEll�
FRONT ELEVATION
I ( i
1]
rl
Township of Oro- Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
November 15, 2007
Gus & Kim McGrath
2007 -A -31
1197 Line 2 South, Plan 702, Lot 9 (Former Twp. of Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct a detached accessory building (3 car garage), to have
an area of 86.95 square metres, and to be located in front of a dwelling currently under
construction. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
1. Section 5.1.3 Permitted locations for detached accessory buildings and structures in
all zones
a) Not be located in the front yard, to be located 4.87 metres in front of the
dwelling currently under construction.
2. Section 5.1.6 Maximum Floor Area
The maximum floor area of any one detached accessory building or structure is 70
square metres, be increased from the required 70 square metres to 86.95 square
metres.
3. Section 5.1.5 Maximum lot coverage
The maximum lot coverage of all detached accessory buildings and structures on a
lot is 5 percent, be increased from the required 5% to 7%
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Residential One (Rl) Zone
Previous Applications —
AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works and Roads - No road concerns
Building Department-The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and
comment that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards.
Engineering Department - No concerns
Fire Department
11�4x{7"l_i01
The subject property is located within the Shanty Bay settlement area, having 32.6 metres of
frontage on Line 2 South, a depth of 57 metres, and a lot area of 0.18 hectares. The
applicant is currently building a 183.4 square metre single detached dwelling on the subject
lands. A 39 square metre detached accessory building is located in the southeast corner of
the subject property.
The applicant is proposing to build a detached 3 car garage with an area of 86.95 square
metres, to be located 4.87 metres in front of the dwelling that is currently under
construction. The application involves 3 variances; the first being to permit the construction
of a garage that exceeds the maximum size for accessory buildings, the second to permit the
garage to be located in the front yard, and the third permitting the applicant to exceed the
maximum 5% lot coverage for accessory buildings.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural Settlement Area. Permitted uses within this land use
designation are listed in Section C3.2 of the Official Plan: `Permitted uses in the Rural Settlement
Area designation... are low den.zty residential uses, small scale commercial uses etc ". As the application
to construct a detached garage accessory to a residential dwelling constitutes a permitted use,
the proposed variance is deemed to conform to the intent of the Official Plan.
Do the variances comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
With respect to the request to locate the garage in front of the dwelling, the intent of the
Zoning By -law to prohibit accessory structures from being located in front of the dwelling
unit is to ensure that the dwelling unit remains predominant. For the application at hand,
while the proposed garage will be located 4.87 metres in front of the dwelling that is
currently under construction, the garage will otherwise meet the required 7.5 metre front
yard setback of the R1 Zone. The purpose of the front yard setback is to ensure that
adequate distance exists between the traveled portion of the roadway and structures, and for
the purpose of ensuring space for adequate on -site parking. As such, the variance to permit
the garage to be located in front of the dwelling unit complies with the general intent of the
By -law.
With respect to the requested variance to increase the floor area of the proposed garage
from the required 70 square metres to 86.95 square metres, the intent of the Zoning By -law
to regulate maximum floor area for accessory structures is to ensure that such structures
remain secondary in size to the primary use of the property. For this application, while the
proposed garage has a floor area 86.95 square metres, the dwelling currently under
construction will have a total floor area of 183.4 square metres. As such, the proposed
garage is less than half the size of the dwelling, and therefore will remain clearly secondary to
the primary permitted use of the property, in accordance with the intent of the Zoning By-
law.
The final variance request is to increase the lot coverage for accessory structures from the
permitted 5% to approximately 7 %. The intent of the Zoning By -law in limiting the lot
coverage of all accessory structures on a lot is to ensure that residential lands are not over-
developed, and essentially "cluttered" with structures, which would ultimately detract from
the orderly, low - densitv character of the neighbourhood. For this application, the subject
lands currently contain a 39 square metre detached accessory structure, where this building's
footprint amounts to approximately 2% lot coverage. The proposed 3 car garage, being
86.95 square metres, amounts to coverage of approximately 4.8% of the overall 0.18 hectare
property. As such, while the two accessory structures taken together slightly exceed the
maximum permitted lot coverage provision, the proposed garage itself does not exceed the
prescribed maximum. The requested variance to exceed the maximum lot coverage for all
accessory structures from 5% to 7'o is therefore deemed to maintain the general intent of
the Zoning By -law.
Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
The subject property is a relatively small residential lot, in comparison to neighbouring
properties. The character of this section of the Shanty Bay settlement area is predominantly
residential, compact, and contains modest and large homes. As a result of the site
inspection, it was noted that most surrounding accessory structures were located at the side
of or behind the dwelling unit. For this application, however, the location of the garage is
suitable, as the size and shape of the lot, location of the septic system, as well as the size of
the dwelling under construction will limit the placement of the garage. In addition, the
applicant intends to utilize the front yard area for driveway access and vehicle parking, and
as such the location of the garage is ideal. A buffer of trees exists between the neighbouring
residence to the south and the rear wall of the garage, and as such there will not likely be a
negative impact on privacy or concerns over aesthetics.
The proposed variances to permit additional lot coverage, the garage to be located in front
of the dwelling, and for increased floor area are deemed to be appropriate, as the proposed
garage will remain, visually, secondary, to the primary residential use of the lot. In addition,
the garage is in an ideal location with respect to vehicle parking and the orientation of the
driveway. The garage location will also not obstruct access to the rear of the property, nor
require removal of the existing tree cover that provides buffering between the subject and
neighbouring properties. As such, the variances are desirable for the appropriate
development of the lot.
Are the variances minor?
On the basis that the proposed garage constitutes a permitted use, will otherwise maintain
the required front and side yard setbacks and setback to the dwelling, the requested variances
are deemed to be minor.
CONCLUSION
The proposed variances generally satisfy the tests of variance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee approve Variance Application 2007 -A -31, for the
construction of a detached garage having an area of 86.95 square metres, to be located 4.87
metres in front of the dwelling, subject to the following conditions:
That the size of the detached accessory building be no larger than 86.95 square
metres;
2. That the maximum lot coverage for all detached accessory structures on the lot not
exceed 7 %;
3. That the detached accessory building be located no further than 4.87 metres in front
of the dwelling unit, measured from the northeast corner of the garage;
4. That the detached accessory building, notwithstanding Section 5.1.3 a), 5.1.5 and
Section 5.1.6, otherwise meet with all other provisions for detached accessory
buildings;
5. 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 further than 4.87 metres in front of the dwelling unit, measured from the
northeast comer of the garage, and that the garage be no larger than 86.95 square
metres,
6. 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,
Reviewed by
m Kozlowski, B.URPL
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
lancer
Senior Planner
u
0 P.01
74a
0 #1
Ag
MEME
Hearing Date:
Application #:
Owner:
MAS #:
THE CORPORATION OF THE
148 Line 7 5., Box 100
O Oro, Ontario 87 ZXO
Phone (705)487 -21717
1
Fax (705) 487 -0133
F
/ CJ // www.oro- medonte.ca
Minor Variance Review
_ i
Lot #: Plan #: Cone. #:
A 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:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Diver, CBCO
rru Building Official
i
I i I
^g I I I I
•x NORTH ELEVATION
s� A -t BONE :I/B• . ,'-G'
C
TOP
's
K
I I
LL— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
e SOUTH ELEVATION
fi
OWN
ASPIW SHINGLES PER
a
PASCN• SOF£If, GUTIER3 8
DOWNSPO0T5 PER OWNER'S
SEECnON
ALL TRIM i ACGEHIS
PER OWNER'S SE(ECTX#i
S EIES PER OWNERS
I I I
EAST ELEVATIONL-,�________________L�
WT SHINGLES PER
MIS SETECTm
TRIM h ACCENTS
OWNER'S SELEGRON
Ras
4 T SHINGLES PER
ER'S SELECTON
TRNI R ACCENTS
OWNER'S SELECTION
VENEER PER
SELECTION
CAEiE
PAE
W
PuTE
i
i
W
"AWN
W<
a WEST ELEVATION
eROOF PLAN
A-� BGNL : yu' -I'o•
SHINGLES PER
SELECRO!! m
I
AFFlT. COTtFRS .. �
TRIM @ ACCE
OWNER'S SELECTION
PER OWNER'S
CTION
cccw���
S
NIRY VENEER PER
Ua
'W
M'S SELECTON
y H
6 d'
s
qq
o
2
?je EJ mow
Township of Oro - Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
November 15, 2007
Ron McCowan
2007 -B -17
2243 Ridge Road West, Range 2, Lots 1 & 2 (Former Twp. of Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2007 -B -17 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot by way of
severance. At the Committee of Adjustment hearing of June 21, 2007, Committee adopted the following
resolution:
`Be it resolved that... Committee defer Application 2007 -B -17 until such time that the applicant provides
further information with respect to environmental and drainage concerns, and until such time that comments are
received from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority ivith respect to the proposed severance':
The applicant has subsequently submitted materials with the intent of addressing the above concerns of
Committee.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Rural, Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Residential Limited Service - Hold (RLS[H]) Zone
Previous Applications —
AGENCY COMMENTS
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority — No objection to severance
Simcoe County — No objection to severance
Public Works — Road has to be brought up to Township Standards by property owner
Building Department— Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per
Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code
Engineering & Environmental Services — No Concerns
Fire Department — No Concerns
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located in Shanty Bay, and has two vehicular access points, one being directly from
Ridge Road West via a lengthy driveway that runs over private property to the north, and a secondary
driveway through a laneway that follows the unopened portion of the Municipally -owned Bay Street road
allowance to the east. It is staffs understanding that the lengthy driveway has been historically used to
access the applicant's dwelling. This driveway is shared with two other dwellings located west of the
subject land, fronting on Lake Simcoe.
As outlined in the staff report dated June 21, 2007, the Planning Department recommended approval of
the consent based on, but not limited to, a condition that Bay Street be extended from its existing terminus
to effectively create frontage on a municipal road for the severed and retained lots. Since the June 21,
2007 deferral by Committee, the Township has received numerous letters of concern with respect, to the
potential for loss of trees that may occur if Bay Street is extended; the agent for the applicant has met with
residents and Township staff with the intent of working toward a favourable solution with respect to
access for both the proposed retained and severed lands. The applicant has subsequently submitted a
"Tree Survey and Impact Assessment Report ", the findings of which are discussed below.
With respect to the reasons for deferral, namely "environmental and drainage concerns... and... that
comments are received from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority with respect to the
proposed severance ", the Township is in receipt of the following correspondence from the Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority:
• LSRCA to Adam Kozlowski, Dated June 15, 2007 — No Objection to severance
• LSRCA to Ron McCowan, "Creation of a Pond" — [Pond] does not require permit
As such, the issue of the creation of the pond on the proposed severed lands did not require a permit from
the LSRCA. As well, the same agency had no objections to the creation of a new residential lot.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, the applicant has submitted a "Tree Survey and Impact Assessment Report ", completed
by Davide Carnevale, Registered Arborist, and dated October 26, 2007. The report set out three
objectives, based on the two access options discussed between the Township, applicant, and residents:
"assessment area #1 ", being a roadway extending southerly from Ridge Road West to provide frontage for
the proposed severed and retained lands, or, "assessment area #2 ", being the extension of Bay Street east
and then northerly. The report objectives were to:
1. Survey all trees 20 cm or greater in diameter within the proposed 7 metre wide road located in tree
assessment areas #1 and #2
2. Provide a report analyzing the impact the proposed roadway will have on trees within assessment
areas #1 and #2
3. Determine which site is best suited to construct the proposed roadway given the impact it will have
on the trees
The report found that extending Ridge Road southerly a distance of 226 metres would require the removal
of "72 trees ", while the extension of Bay Street 187 metres, as originally proposed, and would require the
removal of "30 to 35 trees ". The report concludes that "the proposed roadway should be constructed
within assessment area #2 for the following reasons: A. This area requires fewer trees to be removed; B.
The area contains an existing dirt driveway and has been predisposed to construction disturbance and is
not considered a natural wooded area like assessment area #1; C. Significant trees are located along the
perimeter of the site and are clear of the existing dirt driveway and are less apt to be disturbed ". Site visits
by Township staff would concur with the observations and conclusions of the arborist's report
With respect to the Official Plan, the subject property is partially contained within two land use
designations: the proposed retained parcel is wholly designated Rural, while the proposed severed lot is
partially designated Rural, and partially designated Rural Settlement Area. However, as the proposed
severed lot and subsequent development of a residential dwelling will occur within the portion of lands
having the Rural Settlement Area designation, where severances are permitted, it is on this land use policy
that the application is being considered. The proposed future residential development, in the form of a
single detached dwelling, would take place within the Rural Settlement Area designation, and therefore
would constitute a permitted use in accordance with the Official Plan.
The Township Planning Department report of June 21, 2007 supported the proposal based on the
extension of Bay Street, to municipal standards, as a condition of consent to provide frontage for both the
severed and retained lands in accordance with the Official Plan. It is noted that a second option does exist
with respect to road frontage for the severed and retained lands, being the construction of a municipal
road southerly from Ridge Road. As discussed above, this option would require a longer road be
constructed to provide frontage for the lot, and thus the removal of more trees than the Bay Street
extension option. Township staff are of the opinion that the extension of Bay Street remains the best
option for the purpose of providing access to the subject lands, and is the preferred option with respect to
tree preservation.
The proposed consent application for the creation of a new residential lot continues to conform to the
policies of the Official Plan, and would comply with the minimum lot provisions of the Shoreline
Residential (SR) Zone upon completion of a Zoning By -law Amendment, to be included as a condition of
Consent.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee grant provisional consent to Application 2007 -B -17 for the
creation of a residential lot, having an area of 0.97 hectares and a frontage of 43.5 metres on Bay Street,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the parcel severed be prepared by an Ontario Land
Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary - Treasurer;
2. That the applicant construct a municipal road up to Municipal Standards for the severed and
retained lands, to the satisfaction of the Township Public Works Department;
3. That the applicant apply for and obtain a Driveway Entrance Permit from the Township Public
Works Department for the land to be severed;
4. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel
severed, for review by the Municipality;
5. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning, from the Residential Limited Service *Hold
RLS[H] Zone, to the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone to accurately reflect the intended land use;
6. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash -in -lieu of a parkland contribution;
7. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee in the amount of 54,749.95 (By -law 2004 -082)
to the Township;
8. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro -Medonte;
9. 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,
Ada Kozlowski, B.URPL
anner
Reviewed by,
C�������- `
Bruce Hoppe MCIP; RPP
Director of Building & Planning Services
13 Poyntz Street
Barrie, Ontario L4M 3N6
October 25, 2007
Adam Kozlowski, BURN
Secretary Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro- Medonte i b
148 Line O 7 South
Oro, ON 000
LOL 2X0
T: (705) 728.0045
Dear Mr. Kozlowski,
E: (705) 728.2010
w .mhbcplamcom
Re: Consent Application 2007 -B -17
Ian P. MacNaughmn
2243 Ridge Road West
MA, PCIP, REP -
_
Be* -ara P. Hermsen
BES, MCIP, RPP
This application for severance was originally submitted in May 2007 and was the
Paul R_ proton
subject of a hearing before the Committee of Adjustment on June 21, 2007.
BES, MCIP, RPP
W. Brent Clarkson
At that meeting, the Committee deferred Application 2007 -B -17 until such time
MA, MCIP, RPP
as the applicant provided further information with respect to environmental and
James D. Parkin
drainage concerns, and until such time as comments were received from the Lake
BES, MCIP, RPP
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority with respect to the proposed severance.
Carol M. Wiebe
BES
In accordance with that decision, please find enclosed a copy of a letter from Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) dated June 15, 2007 stating that
Eris Menzies
BES, MCIP RPP
the LSRCA has no objection to the proposed consent application.
David A. McKay
BES, MCIP RPP
Ms. Burkart further advised that the LSRCA has no objection to the proposed
severance of a new residential lot. Ms. Burkart did offer additional comments
Brian A. Zeman
BES, MCIP RPP
that the subject property is partially located within the regulation limits of the
LSRCA which include the shoreline floodplain of Lake Simcoe and the erosion
Offices in
hazard (steep slope) and that permits would be required from the LSRCA in these
Kitchener
regulated areas to building permits being considered by the Township. The
Vaughan
• London
prior
proposed single detached dwelling is proposed to be constructed in accordance
Kingston
with the Township zoning by -law standards for the Shoreline Residential zone
Barrie
and will therefore be located a minimum of 20 metres (66 feet) from Lake
City, Town and Rural Planning
Simcoe. On this basis, in accordance with the LSRCA letter, no development will
be occurring within the erosion hazard limit. It is anticipated however that the
Municipal Plans and Studies
dwelling will be located within the area regulated by the LSRCA and therefore
Land Development
once building permit plans are prepared the appropriate permit applications will
be submitted to the LSRCA for their review and consideration.
Urban Design r
Community Planning
Landscape Architecture
Natural Resource
and Aggregate Planning
Expert Evidence
and Mediation
Project Management
Also attached is a copy of the correspondence received from the LSRCA regarding the
pond which has been constructed on the subject property. As noted the pond which has
been constructed is located outside of the regulated area on the site. Site visits have
occurred with Ms. Burkart and the appropriate sediment control measures were
implemented as requested.
The lands subject to the Consent application are designated Rural Settlement Area and
Rural and do not designate any of the lands Environmental Protection in the Township's
Official Plan. On this basis, there is no legislative authority to request the completion of
any environmental studies in conjunction with the proposed consent application. As part
of the building permit process for the proposed single detached dwelling
engineering/grading plans will be required to be submitted and approved by the Township.
Also at the meeting, the Committee members encouraged discussion between the applicant
and the neighbours in an effort to resolve comments made at the time of the hearing.
Several meetings and a site visit have occurred between members of Council, neighbours,
Township staff, and the applicant's consultant. Discussions between the neighbours and
the applicant were proceeding towards a resolution which would have required Council to
consider the sale of the Bay Street lands, construction of a joint laneway on these lands
with the lands being jointly owner by a number of the neighbours. This matter has not
proceeded forward as we have not been able to resolve matters between all of the parties.
On this basis we are proceeding back to the Committee of Adjustment with two proposed
Options for consideration.
Option 91 proposes a roadway extension to Bay Street that would provide access to both
the severed and retained lands with a total road length of 187 metres. This is intended to
be constructed over the location of the current dirt driveway shown on the survey prepared
by Eplett & Worobec dated September 27, 2007. Option #2 proposes a roadway extending
from Ridge Road West that would again provide access to both the severed and retained
lands with a total road length of 226 metres.
The Tree Specialists Inc., on behalf of the applicant, have prepared a Tree Survey and
Assessment Report which reviews both of these options and is being provided to the
Township under separate cover for their consideration.
On the basis of the above, we would respectfully request that our application be circulated
for the November 15, 2007 hearing of the Committee.
We look forward to reviewing this application further with the Committee members at that
time.
Respectfully submitted,
MHBC Planning
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Associate
cc. Ron McCowan
0612S/2001 MON 12:10 FAX
Pt: rruor4yx co
17�yr`'rto;v nu��e�
Tel: 905.895 -1281
1. 800465 -0417
Pax; 905- 851.5881
E.Mail; info(ttltarca.nn.ca
Web: nm yl.rca.on.ca
120 Dayview Parkway
Box 282
Newmarket, Ontario
UY 4X1
Sent by Facsimile 1 -705- 487 -0133
June 15, 2007
Mr Adam Kozlowski
Secretary- Treasurer
Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte
P.O. Box 100,
Oro, ON LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Kozlowski:
wjuuir uui
File No.: 2007 -B -17
IMS No.: PLDC689C2
Re: Consent Application 2007 -B -17
2243 Ridge Road West (MeCowan)
Lots I and 2, Concession RA
Township of Oro - Medonte (Former Township of Oro) County of Simcoe
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has reviewed the above -noted
application for severance in the context of Ontario Regulation 179/06 made under the
Conservation Authorities Act. This application, if approved, would permit the creation of anew
residential lot. The LSRCA has no objection to the proposed severance. We offer the following
comments:
The subject property is partially located within the regulation limits of the LSRCA. The
regulation components consist of shoreline floodplain of Lake Simcoe and erosion hazard (steep
slopes). Permits will be required by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority prior to
commencement of any development or construction on the lands within the regulated areas. No
development will be permitted within the erosion hazard limit of Lake Simcoe.
Please be advised that in accordance with the Conservation Authority's Resolution 28- 07 -BOD
which provides for the collection of fees for the review of planning submissions, a Preliminary
Analysis Fee of $300.00 is required. Currently this fee is outstanding. By copy of this letter to
the applicant, we request that he submit the above - mentioned fee at this time.
1 trust this meets your information requirements. Please advise us of your decision. In order to
facilitate our processing of this file, please reference the above -noted file numbers in future
A correspondence.
Yours truly,
Watershed r'
for Life Jackie Burkart
Environmental Planner
JB /ph
C. Ron McCowan - P.O. Box 279,42 Delawana Road, Honey Harbour, POE IEO - Mail
\Viawke toiieWiaredUackiea\ PLANNING\SBVLRANCPS1Ol 0W007\20070I7,McCowan.wpd
rel: 9055 - 895-12181
1- 800 -465-0437
=.i.: 905- 853 -55881
-Mail: info(a I.rca.00.c
Xeb: nm-w.Lrc..aa.ca
120 Bavvicw Parkway
Box 282
Newmarket, Ontario
43Y 4X1
FAX. 705 - 756 -0290
To: Ron McCowan
Delawanna In
36 Delawana Road , P.O. Box 279
Honey Harbour, ON P0E 1 E0
Subject: Creation of a Pond
2243 Ridge Road West
Township of Oro- Medonte
(Ron McCowan)
File No.: OMS .2007.002
RSCC797
The above noted file has been reviewed by this office. Please be advised of the
following:
(X) Part of the subject property is regulated by this Authority, however, as
the proposed works shown on the attached plan are situated outside of
the regulated area, they do not require a permit from this Authority.
{ } The type of work shown on the attached plan does not require a permit
from the Conservation Authority.
{ The subject property appears not to be currently regulated by the
Conservation Authority. Therefore, a permit is not required from this
Authority to further develop the property at this time.
A
Watershed Frank Pinto Pinto .._. Jackie Burkan Tammy Chung Ian Walker Kyle Munro
Environmental Planner Environmental Planner Environmental Planner Environmental Planner Environmental Planner
for Life
Tel: (905) 469 -1717
The Tree Specialists, Inc. Fax:(905) 469 -9614
Providing professional tree care & consulting services # 16 -2172 Wyecroft Rd
Oakville, ON L6L 5V6
October 26, 2007
MHBC Planning
13 Poyntz Street
Barrie, ON
L4M 3N6
ATTENTION: Ms. Andria Leigh
RE: Tree Survey and Impact Assessment Report for 2243 Ridge Road West.
I have been retained by Ms. Andria Leigh, of MHBC Planning, to provide an arborist consulting
report concerning the above subject site. The purpose of this report is to determine the number
of trees that are directly involved with two proposed roadway locations and subsequently assess
the impact each location will have on such trees.
History and Definition of Assignment:
I have been advised by Ms. Leigh, that the above subject site is subject to an application for
development, which includes the construction of a new proposed 7.0 metre wide roadway within
either Assessment Area #1 (Bay Street) or Assessment Area #2, as per attached aerial photo in
Appendix A.
My assignment is as follows:
I. Survey all trees 20 -cm or greater in diameter within proposed 7.0m wide road located in
Tree Assessment Area #1 and #2, determine species, DBH, and condition.
1 Provide a report analyzing the impact the proposed roadway will have on trees within
Assessment Areas #1 and #2.
1 Determine which site is best suited to construct the proposed roadway given the impact it
will have on the trees.
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions:
See Appendix C:
MHBC Planning
2243 Ridge Road West
Tree Survey:
Assessment Area #1(Bay Street): Current undisturbed lands south of Ridge Road.
Species
DBH (em)
20 -40
DBH (cm)
40+
Acer saccharum (sugar maple)
40
14
Fraxinus americana (white ash )
14
0
Pinus s lvestris (Scots pine)
0
1
Betula spp. (birch)
1
0
Fa us gramAtbolia (American beech )
2
0
Subtotal 57 15
Total 72
Assessment Area #2: Extension off Bay Street with existing dirt driveway.
Species
DBH (cm)
20 -40
DBH (cm)
40+
Acer saccharum (sugar maple)
18
3
Fraxinus americana (white ash )
28
6
Pinus s lvestris (Scots pine)
6
4
Betula spp. (birch)
9
10
Fa us grandi olia American beech)
4
0
Tilia americana (basswood)
4
8
Thuja occidentalis (eastern white cedar)
18
4
Tsu a canadensis (eastern hemlock)
1
2
Picea glauca (white spruce)
12
6
Subtotal 100 43
Total 143
Site Notes and Comments:
Page 2
As listed above, seventy -two (72) trees were surveyed that are located in Assessment
Area #1. This area primarily consists of sugar maple (75 %) with white ash (20 %), Scots
pine, birch and American beech (5 %) scattered throughout. Eighty (80 %) percent of the
trees in this area are 40cm or less in diameter with fifteen (15) trees larger then 40cm.
All surveyed trees are healthy, in fair -good condition and are growing in a natural
undisturbed wooded area with corresponding tall /slim form. The areas surrounding the
proposed roadway primarily consist of sugar maples with similar species composition
and are in fair -good condition. The existing grade is generally even throughout and
sugar maples are hardy, native trees that are tolerant to disturbance. With the above in
mind, there are seventy -two (72) trees that require removal as they are in direct conflict
with the proposed roadway.
The Tree Specialists, Inc.
Davide P. Carnevale - Consulting Arborist October 26, 2007
MHBC Planning
2243 Ridge Road West
Page 3
2. Similarly, as listed above, one hundred and forty three (143) trees were surveyed that are
located in Assessment Area #2. This area consists of a mixture of white ash (24 %),
eastern white cedar (15 %), sugar maple (15 %), birch (13 %) and white spruce (12 %) with
Scots pine, American beech, basswood and eastern hemlock (21 %) scattered throughout.
Seventy (70 %) percent of the trees in this area are 40cm or less in diameter with forty -
three (43) trees larger then 40em. All surveyed trees are healthy, in fair -good condition
and are growing in a wooded area that has been previously disturbed to construct an
existing interior dirt driveway traversing along the entire length of the site — see site plan
survey in Appendix B for details . Approximately 60 -70% of the trees surveyed are
located along the outer perimeter of the assessed area and are well clear of the existing
dirt driveway. In the event that the proposed roadway is constructed in the same location
as the existing dirt driveway, approximately 30 -35 trees would require removal to
facilitate construction.
3. With the above in mind, it is my professional opinion that the proposed roadway should
be constructed within Assessment Area #2 for the following reasons:
A. This area requires fewer trees to be removed.
B. The area contains an existing dirt driveway and has been predisposed to
construction disturbance and is not considered a natural wooded area like
Assessment Area # 1.
C. Significant trees are located along the perimeter of the site and are clear of the
existing dirt driveway and are less apt to be disturbed.
I trust this report meets your needs. If you have any questions or require further information,
please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 905- 469 -1717.
Yours truly,
1
D vide P. vale
President / ASCA Registered Arborist #370
The Tree Specialists, /nc.
Davide P. Carnevale - Consulting Arborist October 26, 2007
d,
n`
a `7
'l7 N
C'2 hL'
v !o
m
o �
y
C
O
Uc
OF
O
ti
y
N
0
N
Q\
N
O
O
J
J
b
b
n9.
G
k
a
m'
b
O'
O
O
S
O
R
y
N
a
h
a
a
N
N
N
n
UQ �%
C
o s
n, s'
b
N
tr0
N
�a
MHBC Planning
2243 Ridge Road West
Appendix B: Site Plan of Assessment Area #2.
Page 5
d'
s`
I
i
I
Hl•
F} �1:
-'f�
J S
t
fi
`J
1
f
\
%'
l `�•
F V
-
d'
s`
I
i
The Tree Specialists, Inc.
Davide P. Carnevale - Consulting Arborist
'yea
n3 Q �j
v �tl
z
r'4
e
eld.
rc
4N•V
October 26, 2007
i
t
fi
f�.
The Tree Specialists, Inc.
Davide P. Carnevale - Consulting Arborist
'yea
n3 Q �j
v �tl
z
r'4
e
eld.
rc
4N•V
October 26, 2007
MHBCPlanning Page 6
2243 Ridge Road West
Appendix C:
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. Care as been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been
verified insofar as possible; however The Tree Specialists, Inc. can neither guarantee nor
be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
2. Unless otherwise required by law, possession of this report or a copy thereof does not
imply right of publication or use for any purpose in whole or in part by any other than
the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressly written or verbal consent
of the author or his company.
3. Excerpts or alterations to the report, without the authorization of the author or his
company invalidates its intent and/or implied conclusions. This report may not be used
for any expressed purpose other then its intended purpose and alteration of any part of
this report invalidates the report.
4. Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only
those items that were examined and reflect the condition of those items at the time
of inspection; and 2) the inspection was made using accepted arboricultural
techniques and is limited to visual examination of accessible items without climbing,
dissection, probing or coring and detailed root examination involving excavation.
While reasonable efforts have been made to assess trees outlined in this report,
there is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or
deficiencies with the tree(s) or any part(s) of them may not arise in the future. All
trees should be inspected and re- assessed periodically.
5. The determination of ownership of any subject tree(s) is the responsibility of the owner
and any civil or common -law issues, which may exist between property owners with
respect to trees, must be resolved by the owner. A recommendation to remove or
maintain trees) does not grant authority to encroach in any manner onto adjacent private
properties.
The Tree Specialists, Inc,
Davide P. Carnevale - Consulting Arborist October 26, 2007
0 6
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 -B -17
IN THE MATTER OF Section 53 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 -B -16 submitted by Ron McCowan, owner of 2243
Ridge Road West, Lots 1 & 2, Range 2 (Formerly Township of Oro); and
WHEREAS The purpose of application 2007 -B -17 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot
by way of severance. The land to be severed has an irregular shape, and is proposed to have a depth
of 140.7 metres (461 feet), frontage along Bay Street of 49.7 metres (163 feet), frontage along Lake
Simcoe of 35 metres (114.8 feet), and a lot area of 0.98 hectares (2.42 acres). The land to be
retained is proposed to have a lot area of approximately 1.44 hectares (3.56 acres).
WHEREAS the subject property is designated "Rural and Rural Settlement Area" in the Official
Plan, and Zoned "Residential Limited Service [HOLD] (RLS[H]) 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 197/96, as amended, and
having considered all relevant information as presented at the public hearing on the 21" day of
June 2007.
F7
PAGE # 2
APPLICATION 2007 -B -17
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION
Motion No. CA070621- 8
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch
0
"Committee defer Application 2007 -B -17 until such time that the applicant provides further
information with respect to environmental and drainage concerns, and until such time that
comments are received from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority with respect
to the proposed severance.
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.
6 0
PAGE # 3
APPLICATION 2007 -B -17
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION
TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 53(19) 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 111h
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, 148 Line 7 South, PO Box 100, Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0.
Members concurring in this decision:
Lynda Aiken (Chairperson)
i
Michelle Lynch
Garry Potter
DATED this 2151 day of JUNE 2007.
Bruce Chappell
Rick Webster
Committee of Adjustment
• M
Township of Oro - Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
June 21, 2007
Ron McCowan
2007 -B -17
2243 Ridge Road West, Range 2, Lots 1 & 2 (Former Twp. of Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2007 -B -17 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot by way of
severance. The land to be severed has an irregular shape, and is proposed to have a depth of 140.7 metres
(461 feet), frontage along Bay Street of 49.7 metres (163 feet), frontage along Lake Simcoe of 35 metres
(114.8 feet), and a lot area of 0.98 hectares (2.42 acres). The land to be retained is proposed to have a lot
area of approximately 1.44 hectares (3.56 acres).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Rural, Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Residential Limited Service - Hold (RLS[H]) Zone
Previous Applications —
AGENCY COMMENTS
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Simcoe County —
Public Works —
Building Department —
Engineering & Environmental Services —
Fire Department -
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located in Shanty Bay, and has access directly from Ridge Road West via a lengthy
driveway that runs over private property via an easement to the north, and through a laneway that follows
the unopened portion of the Municipally -owned Bay Street road allowance to the east. The property
slopes gradually from north to south, where the bank drops off steeply to the surface of Lake Simcoe.
While the surrounding area is heavily vegetated, consisting of mature deciduous woods and underbrush,
the subject lands have been largely cleared of tree cover. The property currently contains a two storey
dwelling with a gross floor area of 3441 square feet, a detached garage with a floor area of 603 square feet,
and several other small structures that would remain with the proposed retained parcel. The proposed
parcel to be severed would effectively be vacant of any buildings or structures, with the intention of the
future construction of a single detached dwelling.
OFFICIAL PLAN
The subject property is partially contained within two land use designations: the proposed retained parcel
is wholly designated Rural, while the proposed severed lot is partially designated Rural, and partially
designated Rural Settlement Area (see attached sketch). For the purpose of this application, staff have
discussed the issue of the partial land use designation for the proposed severed lot, as the Rural
designation would not permit a severance due to insufficient lot size, where the minimum lot area for a
severance is 36 hectares. However, as the proposed severed lot and subsequent development of a
residential dwelling will occur largely within the Rural Settlement Area designation, where severances are
permitted, it is on this land use policy that the application is being considered. With respect to land use
designation boundary interpretation, the Official Plan provides for some flexibility when considering
development applications:
E1.8— Interpretation ofland use designation boundaries
The boundaries between land uses desgnated on the schedules of [the? plan are approximate except where
they meet with roads, railways ... lot lines or other clearly defznedphysical features' and in these cases are not
open to flexible interpretation. There the general intent of the document is maintained, minor adjustments
to boundaries will not require amendment to this plan... where a lot is within more than one
designation... each portion of the lot shall be used in accordance with the applicable policies of that
de ignation.
The proposed residential development, in the form of a single detached dwelling, will take place on lands
within the Rural Settlement Area designation, and constitutes a permitted and desirable use in accordance
with the Official Plan.
Section D2.2.1 of the Official Plan contains policies with respect to the creation of new lots by way of
consent. In particular, the Committee shall be satisfied that the proposed lot:
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 Provinc al Highway or County Road, unless the Province or the County
supports the request;
c) will not cause a traffic hazard;
d) has adequate s'itie and frontage for the proposed use in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning By -law
and is compatible will) adjacent uses;
e) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal;
will not have a negative impact on the drainage patterns in the area;
g) will not restrict the development of the retained lands or other parcels of land, particularly as it relates to
the prov ion 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;
i) will not have a negative impact on the quality and quantity of groundwater available far other uses in the
area
Criteria a), b), and c) deal specifically with property access requirements and traffic. The applicant has
indicated that Bay Street, which at the present time exists as a road allowance only and is owned by the
Township, will be built on the allowance to municipal standard, up to the approximate mud point of the
proposed retained lot. This work will be at the applicant's expense, and it should be noted that the new
road extension will not continue to nor connect in any way with Ridge Road. As such, Bay Street would
i •
provide road access for two additional single detached dwellings, while remaining a "dead end" street
owned and maintained as a public road by the Township. Therefore, road access requirements for the
creation of a new lot will be maintained, and nor will excessive traffic likely arise as a result of this
application.
Criteria e), 0 and i) deal mainly with the future development of a residential use. The criteria relating to
sewage, water supply, and drainage would be addressed at the time of building permit, and said permit
issued only when the requirements of the Building Code and any other applicable are met to the
satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. Criteria d) and h) will be discussed below.
ZONING BY -LAW
The subject property is zoned Residential Limited Service - Hold (RLS[H]) Zone, which reflects that the
subject lands do not front on a municipal road. The proposed lot will consist of 0.98 hectares, and will
have 49.7 metres of frontage on Bay Street; the required frontage for a lot in the RLS Zone is 30 metres,
and the required minimum lot area for a residential use is 0.2 hectares (0.49 acres). The lot to be created
does not currently contain any EP zoning, and is not shown to contain any proposed EP Zoning as a
result of the Zoning By -law update. The proposed retained lands would consist of 1.44 hectares, and
maintain approximately 96 metres of frontage on Bay Street. Permitted uses in the RLS Zone include
single detached dwellings and accessory structures, both of which either exist currently or are being
proposed by this application.
On the basis of the above, the application would appear to comply with the requirements of the Zoning
By -law.
CONCLUSION
The proposed consent application for the creation of a new residential lot conforms to the policies of the
Official Plan, and complies with the minimum lot provisions of the RLS Zone, as prescribed by the
Zoning By -law.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee grant provisional consent to Application 2007 -B -17 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor
be submitted to the Committee Secretary Treasurer;
2. That the appropriate permit(s) and any other necessary approval(s) be obtained from the Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority;
3. That the applicant bring Bay Street up to Municipal Standards to the satisfaction of the Township
Public Works Department;
4. That the applicant apply for and obtain a Driveway Entrance Permit from the Public Works
Department for the land to be severed;
5. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel
severed, for review by the Municipality;
0
6. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning on the subject lands to accurately reflect the
intended land use; :5K —
7. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash -in -lieu of a parkland contribution;
S. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee in the amount of $4,749.95 (By -law 2004 -082)
to the Township;
9. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro - Medonte;
10. 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,
am Kozlowski, B.URPL
Planner
Reviewed by,
Glenn White MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
C7
Township of Oro - Medonte Public Works Department
Inspection Report for Consent
Minor Variance
Other
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date J V ti E 7 t /0
File No. ;k"7 — & � 17
Name of Owner +� M�`j►C�.w aN
Address
Subject Property Rq N col lR r U'r
I
Date of Inspection I/ Zd 7
Name of Road
Surface of Road
1. Site Lines, Township Road
2. Site Lines, Subject Property
Drive
3. Drainage
4. Future Road Widening Required
Poor Good_
Excellent_
Poor Good_
Excellent
Poor Good_
Excellent
Yes
No
If yes, Amount
5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes No
6. Future Drive to be located
Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent
0
r
ORO- MEDONTE TOWNSHIP
MOTION#
JUL 1 8 2001
MEETING: COUNCILD
C. OFW.ID
10 Brule Terrace � � t�Vc>V °�
Toronto, Ontario
N16S 1
M6S 1M3 Y02
June 26. 2007
The Council of The Corporation of the Township I 1 GIVE)
of Oro - Medonte /
Township dministration Centre
p JU" 1DDP
148 Line 7 South O�O QED 11
Boa 100. Oro. Ontario
LCL2 X0 H}p�
Care of Bruce Hoppe. Director of Building and Planning
Dear Sirs:
Re: 2243 Ridge Road West, Ron McCowan
Committee of Adjustment Application No. 2007 -113-17
We are opposed to the application for severance noted above for the following
reasons:
the severance and road construction are in conflict with the wishes of the
residents of Shanty Bay and the Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte,
who have shown by their unprecedented support of their purchase of The
Church Woods that they wish to preserve the environment in its natural
state where possible.
the construction of a road to the severed and retained lots will result in the
destruction of hundreds of trees which are contiguous to The Church
Woods. The permanent loss of these trees will result in loss of wildlife
habitat and will threaten the wildlife corridor extending from Barrie to
Orillia.
the residents of Shanty Bay do not want Bay Street extended.
the approval of this severance application and the extension of Bay Street
will be precedent setting; the door will open to further applications for
severance on both sides of the extended Bav Street.
1-6,2007
• this application has such serious consequences that it should not be the
decided by the Committee of Adjustment: it should have been referred by
staff to the Planning Advisory Committee of the Township of Oro -
Medonte to be considered at that level.
Yours truly.
C j w t IVrA r�---
Catherine Nixon
221 and 227 Bay Street, Shanty Bay
'} v't -j
Richard Nixon
Mailine Address: 10 Brule Terrace, Toronto. Ontario M6S 1M3
:,MOTION _.g' `1
OCT 2 4 2001
Committee of Adjustment Minutes `7 1
MEETING: COUNCIL }
K C. OF ❑ Thursday October 18.2007.9:30 a.m.
In Attendance: Member Michelle Lynch, Member Rick Webster, Member
Bruce Chappell, Member Garry Potter, Secretary- Treasurer Adam Kozlowski
Absent: Chairperson Lynda Aiken
1. Communications and Correspondence
i. Correspondence to be addressed at the time of the specific hearing.
ii. Appointment of Acting Chair for October 18, 2007 Committee of
Adjustment Hearing
Motion No. CA071018 -1
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Bruce Chappell
Michelle Lynch be appointed as Acting Chair for the October 18, 2007 Committee of
Adjustment Hearing.
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
None declared.
Carried ".
Committee of Adjustment - October 18, 2007
Page 1
3. Hearings:
9:30 2007 -B -30 James Gray
W. Pt. of Lot 5, Con. 5
2815 Line 4 North
(Former Township of Oro)
In Attendance: Corine Gray, Applicant
Secretary - Treasurer Adam Kozlowski received correspondence from James & Corine Gray,
dated October 1, 2007, with a request that said letter be forwarded to Council.
Motion No. CA071018 -2
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Bruce Chappell
"Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2007 -B -30, where a block of land having an
area of 0.04 hectares shall be conveyed from 2815 Line 4 North to 1058 Bass Lake Sideroad,
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 1058 Bass Lake 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 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, where the parcel
to be conveyed from 2815 Line 4 North to 1058 Bass Lake Sideroad be rezoned from the
(MAR2) Zone to the (I) Zone to accurately reflect the intended land use;
6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from
the date of the giving of the notice.
Carried ".
Motion No. CA071018 -3
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Bruce Chappell
"The Committee of Adjustment request that Council waive the $900 fee for the Consent
Application, and the $600 fee for the Rezoning Application (as a condition of consent) for 2007 -6-
30
...Carried."
Committee of Adjustment - October 18. 2007
Page 2
9:45 2007 -B -29 Roger & Patricia Weisman
Lot 1, Cone. 1
3348 Ridge Road W.
(Former Township of Oro)
In Attendance: Roger Weisman, Applicant
Motion No. CA071018 -4
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Rick Webster
"Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2007 -B -29, where a strip of land
having an area of 0.069 hectares shall be conveyed from 3348 Ridge Road West to
3266 Ridge Road West, 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 3266 Ridge Road West, 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 applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and
the lands to be enhanced will merge in title;
5. 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 - October 18, 2007
Page 3
10:00 2007 -A -27 Blanche & Gary Johnston
i,2 - {
Plan 798, Lots 7 & 8
13 O'Connell Lane
(Former Township of Oro)
In Attendance: Gary Johnston, Applicant
Motion No. CA071018 -5
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Bruce Chappell
"Committee approve Minor Variance 2007 -A -27, being to grant a reduction for the
interior side yard setback from 2 metres to 1 metre, and to reduce the front yard setback
from 7.5 metres to 6.73 metres for the construction of a detached accessory building
having a floor area of 61.3 square metres, subject to the following conditions:
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 by way of survey /real
property report so that::
a) the detached garage be located no closer than 6.73 metres from the front
lot line
b) the detached garage be no closer than 1 metre to the east interior side lot
line
2. That the applicant enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the Township, including
removal of the Holding Provision;
3. That the applicant receive any necessary permits and /or approvals from the Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, if required;
4. 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.
5. That the applicant removes the existing shed located at the front of the subject
property within one year of the date of this decision.
Carried ".
Committee of Adjustment- October 18, 2007
Page 4
l3�_5
10:15 2007 -A -28 Jason & Crystal Cooke
Plan M367, Blocks 82 & 83
3358 Line 6 North
(Former Township of Oro)
In Attendance: Jason Cooke, Applicant
Motion No. CA071018 -6
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Bruce Chappell
"Committee approve Variance Application 2007 -A -28, where the rear yard setback of
the subject lands shall be reduced from 7.5 metres to 6 metres to accommodate an
existing 23.7 square metre deck, subject to the following conditions:
1. That Committee recognize the existing deck, and that said deck shall be setback
no closer than 6 metres from the rear lot line;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application
and on the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the
Committee;
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- October 18, 2007
Page 5
10:30 2007 -A -29 Jo -Ellen Robinson
Lot 12, Conc. 2
144 Line 2 North
(Former Township of Oro)
In Attendance: Jo -Ellen Robinson
Motion No. CA071018 -7
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Rick Webster, seconded by Bruce Chappell
"Committee grant Minor Variance 2007 -A -29, being a minor variance to reduce the front
yard setback from 8 metres to 3.84 metres for an enclose entrance subject to the
following conditions:
1. The proposed "enclosed entrance" at the front of the proposed dwelling shall be
setback no closer than 3.84 metres from the front property line, and that a
Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
Committee's decision;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions asset out in the application
and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee.
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 - October 18, 2007
Page 6
4. Other Business
i. Adoption of Minutes from September 20, 2007 Committee of Adjustment
Hearing
Motion No. CA071018 -8
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Rick Webster, seconded by Garry Potter
"That the minutes for the September 20, 2007 Committee of Adjustment Meeting be
adopted as printed and circulated
...Carried."
5. Adiournment
Motion No. CA071018 -9
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Garry Potter
"We do now adjourn at 10:50 am
... Carried."
(NOTE: A digital recording of this meeting is available for review.)
Acting Chairperson
Michelle Lynch
Secretary- Treasurer
Adam Kozlowski
Committee of Adjustment- October 18, 2007
Page 7
2815 Line 4 North,
RR # 1, Shanty Bay, ON
LOL 2L0
October 1, 2007
Dear John and June,
We are writing to officially confirm our intent to donate a small parcel of land from our
property at 2815 Line 4 North to the West Oro Baptist Church Cemetery Board at 1058
Bass Lake Sideroad. The Board had asked to purchase this small area of .04 hectares in
order to square off their lot. We are happy to donate this designated area in the North
West corner of the cemetery to be used by the board for future development of the
cemetery. We are not requesting any financial compensation for this land.
The Cemetery Board has agreed to assume all costs that are involved regarding the
transfer of this property. Any costs from the Township of Oro - Medonte or any other
costs that are required in order to make this block of land part of the cemetery property
are to be paid by the Cemetery Board.
We sincerely hope that this donation will benefit our community both now and in the
future.
Sincerely,
James and Corine Gray /�