12 20 2007 C of A AgendaCommittee of Adiustment Agenda
Thursday December 20, 2007, 9:30 a.m.
1. Communications and Correspondence
i. Letter from Doug Irwin, Clerk, re: Severance Application 2007 -13-17
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
3. Hearings:
9:30 2007 -A -36 Sandra Chevrier
Plan 765, Lot 10
19 Greenwood Avenue
(Former Township of Oro)
9:45 2007 -A -37 Wayne Lintack
Part of Lot 24, Concession 8
50 Ridge Road East
(Former Township of Oro)
10:00 2007 -A -38 Lorrie Emmons
Plan 629, Lot 12
23 Nelson Street
(Former Township of Oro)
10:15 2007 -A -39 Steve and Maureen White
Plan 51 M -219, Lot 4
967 Lakeshore Road East
(Former Township of Oro)
10:30 2007 -A -40 Dave and Sadie Stevens
Plan 1650, Lot 44
44 Slalom Drive
(Former Township of Medonte)
10:45 2006 -A -36 Cynthia Lee and Randy Ostojic
(Revised) Plan 780, Lot 92
197 Eight Mile Point Road
(Former Township of Oro)
4. Other business
i. Adoption of Minutes from November 15, 2007 meeting
ii. Committee Christmas Luncheon
5. Adjournment
December 4, 2007
Committee of Adjustment Members
c/o Adam Kozlowski
Secretary- Treasury, Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro - Medonte
Re: Severance Application 2007 -B -17
Dear Committee of Adjustment Members:
Your correspondence dated November 16, 2007, 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 November 28, 2007.
If you require further information, please contact the undersigned.
Township of Oro - Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 20, 2006
Sandra M. Chevrier
2007 -A -36
19 Greenwood Avenue. Plan 765 Lot 10 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct a deck at the rear of an existing single detached
dwelling. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.31 "Setback from average high
water mark of Bass Lake' as well as Table B1 "Interior Side yard setback ":
Required Proposed
Setback to Bass Lake 15 metres 14.9 metres
Minimum Required Interior Side Yard 3 metres 1.6 metres
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Shoreline
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Shoreline Residential (SR)
Previous Applications — none
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department -
Building Department - Proposal appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department - No concerns
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority -
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 15.2 metres having a lot depth of
approximately 44 metres, and a lot area of approximately 0.06 hectares. A single detached
dwelling and one boathouse currently exist on the subject property. The proposed deck is to be
located at the rear of the dwelling facing onto Bass Lake. The proposed deck is located 1.6
metres from the east interior side lot line, where a 3 metre setback is required, and 14.9 metres
from the water's edge, where a 15 metre setback from the average high water mark is required.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section C5.1 which contains the
Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives:
To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area.
To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.
The requested variance for the proposed deck would appear to maintain the character of the
shoreline residential area, as the proposed deck is a common architectural feature found in
residential neighbourhoods. Therefore, the variances would conform to the general intent of the
policies contained in the Official Plan.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). The primary purpose of the
setback requirement from Bass Lake is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area in
general, and the immediate shoreline of the subject property. The interior side yard setback has
been established to provide access to the rear of the property, along with preserving privacy from
and for neighbouring properties. A site inspection revealed there were mature trees along the
interior property line.
Therefore, given that the applicant is seeking a reduction for the side yard setback and that the
proposed deck will be constructed in line with the exterior walls on the north -east portions of the
existing dwelling, coupled with the existence of a natural treed buffer, privacy for neighbouring
properties would not appear to be negatively impacted.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection; the proposed deck will not change the overall character of the
dwelling, and would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development for the lot and fit with
the character of the surrounding residential area.
Are the variances minor?
On the basis that the proposed deck is a common feature in residential neighbourhoods, and will
not have a negative impact on privacy or access for either the subject or surrounding properties,
the proposed variance is considered to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed variance generally satisfies the tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2007 -A -36 subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposed attached deck shall be setback no closer than 14.9 metres from the
average high water mark of Bass Lake;
2. The proposed attached deck shall be setback no closer than 1.6 metres to the north
easterly interior side property line;
3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as
submitted;
4. That the applicant obtain (if required) any required permit(s) and /or approval(s) from the
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, for the construction of the deck;
5. 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.
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,
Steve Farquharson, B.URPI
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
LOCATION MAP -�v
MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION
2007 -A -36
M
r
W
Z
J
HORSESHOE - VALLEY
I
M
r
i
W
Z
J
I
g�FzON
O�
BASS LAKE
SUBJECT PROPERTY
19 GREENWOOD AVENUE
1
51�
14,
' tz�
q6' SrN��E FAm��y
D������
W +TN
� �A-SEIh�N i `ice
A-r WA-r rkct1T
9' 4,
6
SASS LAKE ,��'
4
w
u
2
�RprJT \l(ep) FKOM :5TkeeE -r
Ll-f /+flm���Tion�
T
i
SIDE
I �k
5�o
Township of Oro - Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 20, 2007
Wayne Lintack
2007 -A -37
50 Ridge Road East. Concession 8, West Part Lot 24 (Former Twp. Of Oro)
Ci:Z�a��Y�J
PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:
The lands are located in Oro Station, on the north side of Ridge Road east of Line 7 S.
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition onto the west side of an existing single
detached dwelling. The addition is proposed to have a ground floor area of 43 square metres.
The applicant is requesting the following relief from Section 4, Table B1 of Zoning By -law 97-
95:
Zone: Residential One (RI) Required
Minimum Required Rear Yard Setback 7.5 m (24.6 ft)
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Residential One (R1) Zone
Previous Applications — none
DEPARTMENT /AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department —
Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department — No concerns
Background
Proposed
5.79 m (18.9 ft)
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 56 metres (183 feet), a lot depth
of approximately 49 metres (160 feet), and a lot area of approximately 0.28 hectares (0.69
acres). The property currently has a one and half storey dwelling and a detached accessory
building. The Township Zoning By -law requires a 7.5 metre (24.6 feet), rear yard setback in
the Residential One (R1) Zone. The proposed addition to the single family dwelling is to be
built a distance of 5.79 metres (18.9 feet), from the rear property line.
Does the variance conform to thegeneralmtent of the OilicialPlan?
The property is designated Rural Settlement Area in the Official Plan. Section C3 of the
Plan states that the primary permitted use of lands within this designation shall be low
density residential uses and home occupations. Therefore, the addition onto the existing
dwelling unit would constitute a permitted use in the Rural Settlement Area designation. On
this basis the proposal is considered to conform to the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By -law.
The subject lot is zoned Residential One (R1) Zone. The primary purpose of the rear yard
setback is to provide adequate spacing between structures on abutting properties and to
ensure that there is ample room for amenities such as recreational and sanitary systems.
Upon a site inspection it was revealed that the existing dwelling is situated further back on
the property, which allows for a large front yard which can meet the amenities for
recreational and sanitary systems. In addition, there are no structures or buildings
immediately abutting the property to the north and therefore the issue of privacy is not an
issue at the present time. The proposed expansion of the dwelling otherwise meets with all
other Zoning By -law provisions (such as maximum height, front and interior side yard
setbacks) for dwelling units in the Rl 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 dwellings with
adequate buffering from the proposed addition. The property that surrounds the rear lot
line is currently used for agricultural purposes and therefore this addition would not have
any negative effects on its operations. The proposed addition in relation to the large lot will
still maintain the character of the neighbourhood.
Is the variance minor.
On the basis that the addition to the dwelling would not adversely affect the character of the
residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor.
CONCLUSION
The application to reduce the required rear yard setback, recognizes that the proposed
addition to the dwelling satisfies the tests of a variance.
2
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance 2007 -A -37, being to grant a
reduction for the north -west rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 5.79 metres, for the
construction of an addition to the existing dwelling, subject to the following conditions:
1. 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 5.79 metres from the north -west rear
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 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,
Steven Farquharson, B.URPL
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
*Bruce , MCIP, RPP
Director of Building and Planning
LOCATION MAP
MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION
2007 -A -37
I
I
W
W W
z
I
i
I
I
SUBJECT PROPERTY
50 RIDGE ROAD EAST
ZONED AGRICULTURAL
194A8' S9.lsm
MrtgnMMe re.WM Uq,rtn Maw
EXISTING
swdaaw�saa Mxy�n. ®=v,�m a..caze+e,M°oc.
U�=ffi^�,
...�
n9emx. imation
TORAGE
'"'" "`•• ""'
-
O
SHED
aaa�srnnTOx ixFawnncx
J fxm "
�g
ew�Ma om.rea.s•ia..���e. a..caza., a,M °ec.
�
-
_ W SETbACN LINE— -
-
Fleu _ _ - -ecw
11/2 STOREY
39.03'
ADDITION
1.
EXISTING
1 1/2 STOREY
o
�
--
RESIDENCE
4
Y
QQw
r
Septic lank -
AF
U
wZ
z
8Fi9er bed __i
h Q
�58
w
e
F- ----
,
'-----r
e k
2w�
Eta
p
g
U
p
w
�rnN
�
`-- ---
- -- - -y
Etlserg
°"" "'"
ELI
STATISTICS
C,
w
amw
z
p
LOT AREA 30,769.4 SQ. FT.
Z
TOTAL BUILDING AREA 1546.89 SQ. FT.
"
o
LOT COVER 5.03%
N
F
Y
PART OF
W. 1/2 LOT 24, CONCESSION 8
TOWNSHIP OF ORO MEDONTE
186.74' A.92m
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
e
b
SITE PLAN
RIDGE
ROAD
COUNTY ROAD
No 20
" °'°
Fexetl tDpios must be
eMargedl2l %lo .
C
Stale 1' =2G.0-
atlaln designated style
y
FRONT ELEVATION
r'eNw Nswe�wi..ma°:a `m'sw "`$�e'.o-sN:NUw°.n
ma axaro aaexq cma m a+w m:.wx mam m w
anaraeam...m..
owuE¢nTroo wEwwTwn
PpiAreE wlme MAgn YaremMatlu OM C315.idtlro O.B C.
JNn W[r
W. 61GNI.TNPE B tN
A i
MUM W
61a
etl.0
e
rn Z $,
a�sS�6
U LL s "o
�Qlom
JO°��
0
a
a
r
Y Z
� U
O 1Q z
� oZp
0p
LL Q�W
K
6� W
g OU
-
E
4
-
a
a
C$
@
b
Township of Oro- Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 20, 2007
Lorie Emmons
2007 -A -38
23 Nelson Street, Plan 629, Lot 12 (Former Township of Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct a 161.65 square metre two- storey addition and deck
onto an existing 56.82 square metre cottage that also serves as a boathouse. The applicant is
requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
1) Section 4 Table Bl SR Zone: Minimum Required interior side yard be reduced from
the required 3 metres to 1.5 metres
2) Section 5 16 1 Enlargement Repair of Renovation [of Non - Complying Structures]
A non - complying building or structure may be enlarged, repaired, replaced or renovated
provided that the enlargement, repair, replacement or renovation:
b) does not increase the amount of floor area or volume in a required yard
3) Section 5.31 Setback from Average High Water Mark of Bass Lake:
no building, or structure... shall be located within 15 metres from the average high water
mark of Bass Lake; proposed to be reduced from 15 metres to 6.5 metres for the
proposed addition, and 5 metres for the proposed deck.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Shoreline
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Shoreline Residential (SR)
Previous Applications — 2006 -A -08 (Minor Variance for deck expansion)
AGENCY COMMENTS
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority — See attached
Public Works Department -
Building Department -
Engineering Department -
BACKGROUND
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 7.67 metres and is irregular in,
shape, having an average lot depth of approximately 43.3 metres, a shoreline frontage of
approximately 41.76 metres and a lot area of approximately 0.119 hectares. One 56.82
square metre two- storey cottage (having a boat storage garage on the lower level at the
water's edge), one single - storey cottage, and one detached accessory building currently exist
on the property. The applicant is proposing to remove the single - storey cottage, and
subsequently construct a 161.65 two- storey addition with a deck on the existing two- storey
cottage. The applicant requires a variance for the reduction of the interior side yard from 3
metres to 1.5 metres; a reduction in the setback to Bass Lake from 15 metres to 5 metres for
the deck and 6.5 metres for the addition; and a variance to increase the amount of floor
volume in a required }yard, as the cottage subject to the addition is non - complying, hating
been built in approximately 1935.
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline by the Official Plan. Section C5.2 of the Plan states
"Permitted uses on lands designated Shoreline are single detached dwellings [and accessory
uses, such as boathouses], existing marinas, small scale commercial uses, etc ". The proposed
161.65 square metre addition to an existing dwelling unit with boathouse would therefore
constitute an expansion to a permitted use within the Shoreline Designation. As such, the
application is deemed to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan.
Do the variances maintain the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
With respect to the reduction in the side yard setback from 3 metres to 1.5 metres, the intent
of maintaining side yards is to provide a degree of buffering between residential structures
for privacy and access to the rear of the property. For the application at hand, the existing
cottage subject to the addition is located 0.66 metres from the northwest interior side lot
line. As such, the proposed addition will not further reduce an already deficient side yard,
nor encroach any closer to the lot line than the existing cottage. A site inspection revealed
that the neighbouring dwelling to the northwest is located approximately 22 metres north of
the existing cottage, where a mix of large coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs
provides for a suitable buffer between the neighbouring dwelling and site of the proposed
addition. Therefore, the proposed reduction in the side yard setback from the required 3
metres to 1.5 metres is deemed to maintain the intent of the Zoning By -law.
Regarding the increase in floor volume variance, the site inspection and plans submitted by
the applicant indicate that the existing cottage with boathouse and existing single storey
dwelling were constructed within the 15 metre setback to Bass Lake. In fact, the cottage
with lower level boathouse is located on the water's edge, with an overhanging deck. The
applicant has applied to demolish the existing single storey dwelling, where the proposed
addition to the cottage will be setback from Bass Lake a distance equal to the existing
dwelling, being 6.5 metres. However, the proposed new deck will in fact encroach 10 metres
into the required 15 metre setback.
2
The purpose for maintaining a setback from Bass Lake is to ensure that development does
not occur on unstable soils, away from steep slopes, and outside of any flood prone areas.
In addition, the setback also ensures that the natural character of the immediate shoreline
area is protected from development. For the application at hand, the proposed cottage
addition, excluding the deck, does not propose new development that will further encroach
into the shoreline setback of Bass Lake. Discussion of the setback variance for the attached
deck is discussed below.
On the basis of the above, the proposed 161.65 square metre addition onto an existing
cottage with lower level boathouse maintains the general intent of the Zoning By -law.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The subject lands and surrounding properties consist of typical lakefront low density
residential development; modest sized dwellings and accessory structures, typically found
closer to the water's edge than the current Zoning provisions allow. It should be noted that
many of the structures along this portion of the Bass Lake shoreline predate the current
Zoning By -law, and as a result most dwellings and accessory structures encroach into
required setbacks, particularly the 15 metre setback to Bass Lake.
With respect to the appropriateness for the proposed setback of 5 metres to the deck and
6.5 metres to the dwelling addition, a survey of setbacks for neighbouring dwellings and
accessory buildings from the water's edge was taken. On average, structures were found to
be approximately 7 metres from the shoreline of Bass Lake, where several large single
detached dwellings located further south were noted to be as close as 4 metres to the water's
edge. Therefore, the proposed setbacks of 5 metres for the deck and 6.5 metres for the
addition to the existing cottage would be keeping with the average setback for structures in
the immediate area, and thus would maintain the general character of this particular stretch
of the Bass Lake shoreline.
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority was circulated the application for
comments with respect to the reduction in setbacks to the shoreline of Bass Lake. The
NVCA commented that proposal was acceptable, as the proposed dwelling will not be
located within the regional flood limit, and thus development will not occur on lands
susceptible to natural hazards due to flooding.
On the basis of the above, the proposed reduction in setbacks to Bass Lake, reduction in the
side yard setback, and increased volume in a required yard is deemed to be desirable for the
appropriate development of the lot.
Are the variances minor?
Based on the above, the proposed variances for the reduced setbacks for side yard and Bass
Lake, and for increased volume in a required yard are deemed to be minor.
3
CONCLUSION
Application 2007 -A -38 generally satisfies the tests of variance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2007 -A -38, being for
the construction of a 161.65 addition with deck onto an existing cottage, to be setback 1.5
metres from the north interior side lot line, and for the addition to be located 6.5 metres and
deck to be located 5 metres from the average high water mark of Bass Lake, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The proposed attached deck shall be setback no closer than 5 metres from'the
average high water mark of Bass Lake;
2. The proposed addition to the existing cottage shall be setback no closer than 6.5
metres from the average high water mark of Bass Lake;
3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application
and on sketches provided to and approved by Committee, as submitted;
4. That the applicant obtain any necessary approval(s) and /or permit(s) from the
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority;
5. 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 that the
addition to the existing cottage be setback no closer than 6.5 metres to the average
high water mark of Bass Lake, and that the deck be setback no closer than 5 metres
to the average high water mark of Bass Lake;
6. That notwithstanding the variance(s) granted from the section(s) of Zoning By -law
97 -95 as applied for in this application, that the addition and deck otherwise comply
with all other provisions for single detached dwellings in the Shoreline Residential
(SR) Zone, as prescribed by Zoning By -law 97 -95;
7. 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 respec lly submitted,
/,damzlowski
Planner
4
Reviewed by
Glenn White, MCIP RPP
Senior Planner
SUBJECT PROPERTY
23 NELSON STREET
BASS LAKE
IIII all
y
�9�
X
DEC -11 -2007 16:54
DEC -11 -2007 16:48 FROM:NUCR
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
7054242115
December 11, 2007
P.001i001
TO:17054870133 P.1/1
Watershed
Counties
Sirn " "'
Dufferin
Gn:y
Member of
OA
(".nn.Prvatinn
ONTARIO
Sincerely,
Tim Salkeld
Resource Planner
Conserving our Healthy Waters
NOTTAWASAGA VAI I FY ('ONtiFKVATION AUTHORITY Centre for Cuuu•rvation
John Hix Conmrrvalion Administration Centre � Iiffin Conservation Ate. 11195 8th line Utupia; On LOM I TO
rvh+phone: 705.424.1479 . Fax 705424..2115 , Wnb: www.nvca.on ea - Finail: adrmnglivca.on.ca
TOTAL P.001
Adam Kozlowski, Secretary Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro - Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0
Member
Municipalities
Dear Mr, Kozlowski,
Adiih- toxoni Chu
Re: Application for Minor Variance 2007 -A -38 (Emmons)
Amaranth
Plan 629, Lot 12, 23 Nelson Street
Balrie
Township of pro - Medonte (Formerly Township of Oro)
Ihi BWL MULIM.lni
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this
M,idf " ` t "i Gwi°""h0ry
minor variance application in accordance with regulations made under the
clr'Wiew
Conservation Authorities Act and our mandate for the conservation,
Coflmgwood
restoration, development and management of natural resources.
Cs�a
The NVCA has no objection to the approval of this application subject to
Innl =rd
the following condition:
Melancthnn
Mono
That the applicant obtain a permit from the Nottawasaga Valley
Molmur
Conservation Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act.
New It wmxlh
The purpose of the permit is to ensure adequate floodproofing elevations
Oro Mednntt
and ensure erosion and sediment controls are installed prior to
G(cy Highland:
construction to protect Bass Lake and associated environmental features
1ht lburne
and functions.
Springwalta
Thank you for circulating this application and please advise us of any
w a."Ig' " " "f'
decision.
Watershed
Counties
Sirn " "'
Dufferin
Gn:y
Member of
OA
(".nn.Prvatinn
ONTARIO
Sincerely,
Tim Salkeld
Resource Planner
Conserving our Healthy Waters
NOTTAWASAGA VAI I FY ('ONtiFKVATION AUTHORITY Centre for Cuuu•rvation
John Hix Conmrrvalion Administration Centre � Iiffin Conservation Ate. 11195 8th line Utupia; On LOM I TO
rvh+phone: 705.424.1479 . Fax 705424..2115 , Wnb: www.nvca.on ea - Finail: adrmnglivca.on.ca
TOTAL P.001
2 N E:-
\ 4
(-
no ZO07
G
- (j O �YSi / 4155'
RODERICK H. YOUNG V -
ARCHITECT
P.O. Box 10 ms'µ
102 Laclie Sheet
Orillia, Ontario
L3Y 6H9
Phone (705) 325 -0761
Fax (70S)327-5114 /
14 58531,0 -
X,
( P „� 56531 .ICI
WF l i
x ° l i.�s.. t � � ,may -_ —41/
I(ci�y(or/' S9. M
a
V') NSa'n'05Y10
5 CO
Av'tl'WI:�
a _
WATERS Q
coNCRE Wnw
Wm
on
_ I�
ar.
A)
�Dasl
H 6ER 1. 20D1. - Fllt
LAKE
55
5.0
I
i
s�
EM
I -w reoM
owed M� pvv i� l
RODERICK H. YOUNG
ARCHITECT
O. Box 10
D2 Laclie street
irillia, Ontario
3V 6H9
hone (705) $25 -0761
ox (705) 327 -5114
i RODERICK H. YOUNG BES, B. Arch., OAA, MRAIC
Mr. Adam Kozlowski, Planner
Township of Oro - Medonte
148 Line 7 South
PO Box 10
ORO, Ontario
LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Kozlowski:
T E C T
RE: 23 NELSON STREET
Township of Oro- Medonte (Bass Lake)
Lot 12, Registered Plan 629
EMMONS RESIDENCE
P.O. Box 10
(102 Lache Street)
ORILLIA, Ontario
L3V 6H9
Ph. (705) 325-0761
Fax(705)327 -5114
young. rya @beilnet. ca
30 November 2007
Committee of Adjustment Application for Minor Variance
We are the architects for Lorie Emmons, the owner of the property, and are writing further to
our meeting with Mr. Hoppe, Director of Planning, and yourself, on November 16, 2007 where
we reviewed the proposed construction on this site, and we are now making an application to
the Committee of Adjustment for two variances to the Zoning Bylaw.
Application to Allow Expansion to Existing Cottage:
The application is to allow new construction on site to expand one of the two existing cottages,
while eliminating the other. The addition will be attached to the existing cottage at the western
most side of the lot. The cottage to be demolished is the existing cottage in the centre of the
property.
The need for the variances arises as a result of two features: the desire to retain the existing
cottage at the western most side of the lot, and the physical constraints of the property. With
respect to the physical constraints of the property, these arise in part as a result of the
combination of the triangular shape of the lot, the location of the existing septic disposal
system, and the location of the existing cottage. In this regard is should also be noted that the
septic system is a recently replaced system.
Together these physical conditions result in the location of the expansion.
Page 1 of 3
Mr. Adam Kozlowski, Planner 30 November 2006
Township of Oro - Medonte Page 2 of 3
Just Two Minor Variances to the Zoning Bylaw Required:
As a result, the application requests two variances from the Township Zoning Bylaw. They are:
A. Interior Side Yard: a reduction to 1.5 metres for the interior side yard on the northwest
side of lot. The Zoning Bylaw requires 3.0 metres. Although the setback is less than the
setback required by the Zoning Bylaw, it is an improvement on the existing condition.
In addition, there is heavy foliage on this side of the property that effectively buffers any
impacts.
B. Setback from Bass Lake: a reduction to 5.0 metres to the deck and 6.5 metres to the
residence from the average high watermark of the Lake. Although the Zoning Bylaw
requires 15.0 metres from the Lake, both of these variances match the existing condition
on site for the cottage to be demolished and are an improvement on the existing
condition from the western most cottage.
It should be noted that the Committee has previously authorized (under Application No. 2006 -
A-08) a reduction in the setback to the existing deck to 5.18 metres from the Lake. Also there is
an open Building Permit covering structural upgrading of the existing. This work is currently
on hold as the existing deck will be replaced as part of the work of the proposed new cottage.
The Proposal to Eliminate a Significant Historical Legal Non - Conforming Condition:
The Property is actually a merger of what was once two smaller properties. Some time ago a
previous owner bought both properties, and the two properties merged on title in accordance
with the provisions of the Planning Act. As a result, the property now includes three buildings:
a cottage and a boathouse / garage that was part of one of the previous properties, as well as
another cottage that was part of the other property.
The proposal will eliminate one of the two dwellings presently located on the lot, and replace it
with an extension on the other cottage. This will eliminate the historical legal non - conforming
condition that resulted in two dwellings on one lot, and bring the use of the property within the
requirements of the Zoning Bylaw with regard to the number of dwellings on a lot.
Owner has Meet with Neighbours:
The owner has meet with her neighbours on both sides and discussed the proposed development
with them. We are pleased to confirm that both neighbours were happy with the proposal.
Application Material Attached:
.1 Application Form "Application for Minor Variance ", completed and signed.
.2 Cheque in favour of the Township of Oro - Medonte in the amount of $ 600.00.
.3 Site Plan SK -914.
.4 Existing Topographic Plan E -1753.
.5 Survey Plan of Lot 12, Registered Plan 629, dated November 4, 2004.
Mr. Adam Kozlowski, Planner 30 November 2006
Township of Oro- Medonte Page 3 of 3
We would appreciate having the application heard by the Committee at its meeting scheduled
for December 20, 2007.
Thank you for your previous comments on this Application. If you require further information
or have any questions on the information provided, please do not hesitate to call.
Yours very truly,
R. H. Young
Registered Architect
F: \06- 107 \Kozlowski.01
Copy: Mrs. L. Emmons, Owner
Enclosures.
RODERICK H. YOUNG BES, B. Arch., OAA, MRAIC
A R C H I T E C T
Site Statistics
23 NELSON STREET
Township of Oro- Medonte (Bass Lake)
EMMONS RESIDENCE
P.O. Box 10
(102 Laclie Street)
ORILLIA, Ontario
L3V 6H9
Ph. (705) 325-0761
Fax(705)327 -5114
young.rya @bellnet.ca
Lot Area
1,203.29 sm
Building Areas
Boathouse / Cottage
Area
56.82 sm
% of Lot
4.7%
EXISTING
Middle Cottage (to be demolished)
69.09 sm
5.7%
Boathouse (dry)
22.53 sm
1.9%
PROPOSED
Boathouse / Cottage
56.82 sm
4.7%
Addition
162.00 sm
13.5%
(not including porch or deck)
Boat house (dry)
22.53 sm
1.9%
w
Township of Oro - Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 20, 2007
Steve and Maureen White
2007-A-39
967Lakeshore Road East, Plan 5141219, Lot 4 (Former Twp. Of Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are requesting permission to permit the construction of an addition (23.5 m)
to the single family dwelling and a balcony, to be located in the rear, within the required yard.
As such, the applicant is proposing to add floor volume in a required yard, and is requesting
the following relief from zoning By -law 97 -95.
5 16 1 Enlaigement, Repair or Renovation (Non- Conforming Buildings)
A non - complying building or structure may be enlarged, repaired, replaced or renovated
provided that the enlargement, repair, replacement or renovation:
b) does not increase the amount of floor area or volume in a required yard;
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Residential
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone, Environmental Protection (EP)
Zone
Previous Applications —
AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department -
Building Department — Appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department — No Concerns
BACKGROUND
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 50 metres on Line 9 South,
approximately 89 metres of exterior side yard flankage on Lakeshore Road East, and a lot
area of approximately 0.18 hectares. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing
balcony and replace it with a smaller one and add an addition to the rear of the existing
dwelling underneath the proposed balcony. The dwelling is considered to be a non-
complying building as stated in the zoning by -law. This permits the enlargement, repaired,
replace or renovation, as long as it does not increase the amount of floor area or volume in a
required yard. Thus the purpose for the variance is to permit a 23.5 m2 addition to the rear of
the dwelling, which is proposing to increase floor area in a required yard.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline by the Official Plan. Permitted uses in this designation
include single detached dwellings, accessory buildings, and home occupations. As such, the
proposal to renovate and enlarge a structure that constitutes a permitted use would conform
to the Official Plan.
Does the variance comply to the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property abuts both Line 9 South and Lakeshore Road East, but frontage is
considered to be on Line 9 South. The dwelling was constructed in 1987, and predated the
existing by -law and therefore would be considered a non - complying structure. The purpose
of Provision 5.16.1 is to ensure that there is no further encroachment into a required yard as
a result of increased floor area or volume in a required yard. The proposed addition is to be
located at 18.8 metres from the rear lot line, where as the existing is 17.3 metres from the
rear lot line.
Due to the existing balcony being larger then what is being proposed, the application does
not proposed to further reduce the setback but only to increase in floor volume in the
required yard. Aside from the proposed addition of increased floor volume within required
yard, the application would otherwise meets with all other setback requirements of the
Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone.
On the basis of the above, the proposal to increase floor volume in a required yard is
deemed to maintain the general intent of the Zoning By -law.
Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed addition would be located at the rear of the
existing dwelling. As the proposed addition will also not further reduce the setback to the
environmental features, and an addition to an existing use is a permitted use, the proposal is
deemed to be desirable for the appropriate development on the lot.
Is the variance minor.
On the basis that the proposed addition to an existing non - conforming structure otherwise
complies with the Zoning By -law and conforms to the Official Plan, the variance is
considered to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed application to enlarge an existing non - conforming structure generally satisfies
the tests of a variance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee Approve Variance application 2007 -A -39, being a
variance requesting relief from Section 5.16.1 to construct an addition on an existing
dwelling, by adding 23.5 m2 of floor volume and providing a setback of 18.8 metres from the
rear lot line, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed addition be in conformity with the
sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
2. That the applicant obtain (if required) any required permit(s) and /or approval(s)
from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for the construction of the
addition and balcony;
3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief
Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as
provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
ss
Ste rquharson
junior Planner
kcl
Reviewed by G
Glenn White, MCIP RPP
Senior Planner
LOCATION MAP
MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION
2007 -A -39
W
Z
J �
<,9fr
F
G�
�P
Q
LAKESHORE
I
PARKg1DE
' SUBJECT PROPERTY
967 LAKESHORE ROAD EAST
lot 25 concession 10
lakeshore mad east
P1 ��
O
'�� 9 \� WOCkyercelStee[L fit /
219
0
lot Parcel 4-1 section 51m
/ I
i
.ngaoametael. �
goPOaeO nbx plon �� �
31
h
8W2
� ane nartnd m..mip
i_6002-
1 4 B (1
tlflletl
P.,.J neweEENbn,wmoom
m
w
pee of block repINNW plan
02
anvewar
m
N
___. - -2z o3s - —
�
E
jc
i
—33215 ..._.._._...___ _.�
c
M
I
�
16'
oyo ?qc� -
Township of Oro - Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 20, 2007
Dave & Sadie Stevens
2007 -A -40
44 Slalom Drive, Plan 1650, Lot 44 (Former Twp. of Medonte)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct a detached garage, to have an area of 32.7 square
metres, which to be located in front of an existing dwelling. 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 11.5 metres from the front lot
line, being 2 metres closer to the front lot line than the existing dwelling.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Rural Residential
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone
Previous Applications — None.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department - No 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
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located just south of the Moonstone settlement area, having 30.5
metres of frontage on Slalom Drive, a depth of 60 metres, and a lot area of 0.18 hectares.
The subject property currently contains a 130 square metre single detached dwelling.
The applicant is proposing to build a detached garage having an area of 32.7 square metres,
and is proposed to be setback approximately 11.5 metres from the front property line, which
is subsequently approximately 2 metres in front of the existing dwelling. The Zoning By -law
does not permit accessory structures to be located in front of the main dwelling on the
property.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural Residential. 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 density 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.
Does the variance 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 in this location is to ensue that the dwelling
unit remains predominant. For the application at hand, while the proposed garage will be
located 2 metres in front of the dwelling, the garage will otherwise meet the required 8 metre
front yard and 2 metre side yard setback of the RUR2 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 ensuing space for adequate on -site parking.
In addition, the proposed garage otherwise meets the required height, area, and coverage
provisions, along with all other required setbacks as prescribed. As the existing dwelling has
a footprint of 130 square metres, and the proposed garage will have a floor area of 32.7
square metres, the garage will remain clearly secondary to the primary use of the lot, despite
being located slightly in front of the dwelling. As such, the variance to permit the garage to
be located in front of the dwelling unit complies with the general intent of the Zoning By-
law.
Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
As a result of site inspection, the main dwelling unit is oriented to the north -east, as opposed
to being directly perpendicular to Slalom Drive. In fact, the majority of homes in the area
are not perpendicular to the roadway; most are offset on an angle to the front property line.
As a result of the site inspection, it was noted that vehicle parking on the subject property is
located on the northwest side of the dwelling (being the proposed location of the garage),
and directly in front of the dwelling. For this application, however, the proposed garage
would be located in -line with the north face of the dwelling; if the garage was to be setback
any further into the lot, there will be insufficient space for the structure due to the
orientation of the southwest corner of the dwelling to the side lot line. As the location of
the garage is only proposed to be slightly in front of the dwelling, and will utilize an area of
the property already used as a driveway and for vehicle parking, the variance is deemed to be
desirable for the appropriate development of the lot.
Is the variance minor.
On the basis that the proposed garage constitutes a permitted use, will otherwise maintain all
other requirements for detached accessory structures, the requested variance is deemed to be
minor.
CONCLUSION
Application 2007 -A -40 generally satisfies the tests of variance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee approve Variance Application 2007 -A -40, for the
construction of a detached garage having an area of 32.7 square metres, to be located 11.5
metres from the front lot line measured from the northwest corner of the structure, subject
to the following conditions:
1. That the detached accessory building be located no closer than 11.5 metres from the
front property line, measured from the northwest corner of the structure;
2. That the detached accessory building, notwithstanding Section 5.1.3 a), otherwise
meet with all other provisions for detached accessory buildings;
3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance
with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the detached garage be
located no closer than 11.5 metres from the front lot line, measured from the
northwest corner of the garage;
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 respe tfull bmitted, Reviewed by
fazlowski RPL Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
200'
Site plan for Garage on 44 Slalom
22' lot line to edge
of roadway
o
c
O
I
1 It27IQ7
To the Corporation of the Township of Oro- Medonte:
LJre 1 t
F.1 � t { (" V _t t fl 1 II'- l +k i � 1 1•{ { � 1 1:1 It � 4 k�f 11�
ltll 1 -' ` t e 4 r t•: - F.F s e .YI t F F g 4 e 4' t'r- a+ bJ. 1 if +I!: t'
1 i 4 ti
w'J: f '
f !J
i stevem
:Y4 In
Bwfingim ON
UP +
905-3304650
Township of Oro - Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 20, 2007
Cynthia Lee & Randy Ostojic
2006 -A -36
(Revised)
197 Eight Mile Point Road, Plan 780, Lot 92 (Formerly Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants received approval from the Committee of Adjustment on December 14, 2006
for the construction of a two- storey boathouse. The applicants received relief from the
following section of Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Section 5.6 g) Maximum height for the boathouse from the required 4.5 metres
(14.7 feet) to a proposed 5.63 metres (18.4 feet).
The applicants were required to verify the height of the boathouse through an Ontario Land
Surveyor to ensure compliance with Committee's Decision. It was determined that the
boathouse was subsequently constructed higher than originally permitted, and as such the
applicants are requesting the following revision to Committee's Decision of December 14,
2006:
Section 5.6 g) Maximum height for the boathouse from the required 4.5 metres
(14.7 feet) to a proposed 5.63 metres (18.4 feet) AS ORIGINALLY
APPROVED, to a REVISED height of 7.08 metres (23.2 feet).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Shoreline
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Previous Applications — 2006 -A -36 (Previous approval for increase in height — see above)
AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department —
Building Department —
Engineering Department —
BACKGROUND
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 30 metres (98.4 feet), a shoreline,
frontage of approximately 41 metres (134.5 feet), an average depth of 87 metres (285.4 feet),
and a lot area of approximately 0.27 hectares (0.66 acres). The property currently contains a
two storey back -split style dwelling with a floor area of approximately 162.58 m2 (1750
square feet).
The already- constructed boathouse consists of two levels, where the bottom level serves as
storage area for boats and other marine equipment, while the upper level consists of an
"artists' studio ". An attached deck with staircase provides access to the upper level, and
overhangs the surface of Lake Simcoe to a small degree. According to the original
construction drawings, the boathouse has a ground floor area of 110 square metres (5184
square feet), and the attached overhanging deck has an area of 60.4 square metres (650
square feet).
A condition of the Committee's original approval was that the applicant would be required
to verify that the height of the boathouse not exceed 5.63 metres (18.4 feet), measured from
the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe to the mid point of the roof. The Township
received correspondence from John D'Amico, Ontario Land Surveyor, dated November 21,
2007, indicating that the boathouse had in fact be built to a height of 7.08 metres (23.3 feet).
As a result, the applicant is required to seek a revision for the Committee's decision of
December 14, 2006, where a variance was granted for an increase in height for the
boathouse from 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to 5.63 metres (18.4 feet). The application at hand
seeks to again increase the height of the already - constructed boathouse an additional 1.45
metres (4.75 feet), from 5.63 metres (18.4 feet) to 7.08 metres (23.3 feet).
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated "Shoreline" in the Township Official Plan. Section C5.2
states "Permitted uses on lands designated Shoreline on the schedules to this Plan are single
detached dwellings [including accessory buildings to such, including boathouses], existing
marinas, small scale commercial uses such as convenience stores... etc ". As such, the
existing boathouse on the subject lands constitutes a permitted use in accordance with the
Official Plan. In addition, Section C5.6 sets out policies with respect to maintaining setbacks
to the shorelines of Lake Simcoe and Bass Lake. In particular, this section states "the
implementing Zoning By -law shall contain provisions that restrict the size and location of
boathouses on a lot ". Discussion of the intent of the Zoning By -law is discussed later in this
report.
On this basis, the proposed variance would constitute a renovation to a permitted use, and
therefore conform to the intent of the Official Plan.
2
Does the variance maintain the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The Zoning By -law contains
specific policies with respect to the regulation of the construction of boathouses, listed in
Section 5.6. In particular, boathouses are permitted provided that.
a) They are set back a minimum of 2.0 metres (6.56 feet) from the interior side lot
line...;
c) The width of the boathouse, which is measured from the interior faces of the
walls of the boathouse, does not exceed 30 percent of the width of the lot at the
average higb water mark;
d) They are not used for human habitation and no kitchen or sanitary facilities
exist;
g) The mean level between eaves and ridge of boathouse with a gabled, hip or
gambrel roof or other type of pitched roof is no more than 4.5 metres (14.7 feet)
above the elevation of the average High watermark.
With the exception of g) above, the boathouse as originally proposed and as constructed
otherwise meets with applicable setback, maximum width and other applicable policies, as
was outlined in the staff report of December 14, 2006.
With respect to the variance to further increase the height of the existing structure, it is
important to consider the general intent of the Zoning By -law in regulating boathouses in all
zones. Boathouses are defined by Zoning By -law 97 -95 as `an accessory building used for the
storage of private boats and accessory equipment ". Further, an "accessory building" is
defined as being a "detached building or structure, the use of which is naturally and normally
incidental to, subordinate [emphasis added] to, or exclusively devoted to, the prineipal use or
main building on the same lot': According to these definitions, boathouses are to be
principally used for the storage of watercraft and marine equipment, while serving as a
structure that must remain secondary to the primary permitted use of the subject lands, in
this case being for a residential dwelling. The previous approval granted by Committee was
based on the understanding that the proposed (at the time) structure would in fact be used in
accordance with the intent of the Zoning By -law, and, with the additional height serving to
accommodate "artists' studio" space on the upper level for use by the residents of the
subject property. This was to be accommodated in the boathouse height of 5.63 metres
(18.4 feet).
On the basis of the above, staff are of the opinion that the revised variance to recognize the
increased boathouse height, being 7.08 metres (23.3 feet), does not maintain the intent of the
Zoning By -law with respect to such structures.
3
Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
The boathouse, as constructed, is now considerably higher than Committee originally,
approved. Numerous site inspections revealed that while neighbouring boathouses, and
even those within the general area of Carthew Bay tend to be high, (typically consisting of
two storeys and usually having some form of habitation i.e. sitting areas, upper level decks,
sunrooms, etc.), there are very few examples available of boathouses that are comparable to
the structure subject to this application. Committee's original decision was granted with the
understanding that the increased height from the required 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to 5.63
metres (18.4 feet) would provide for generous additional space on the second level for an
artists' studio, with boat storage on the lower level; however, the site inspections performed
by staff and Committee find that the boathouse as constructed has exceeded the definition
of a boathouse as an accessory structure in both scope and scale. The height of the existing
boathouse appears, visually, to dominate the subject lands, is clearly visible from
neighbouring properties despite trees and other natural buffers, and is clearly not
subordinate to the principle use of the lot. The topography of the site slopes moderately
from Eight Mile Point Road down to the shoreline; looking north into the subject lands
from Eight Mile Point Road, the boathouse, despite being at a lower elevation at the
shoreline, would appear to have a roofline that is on the same plane as that of the dwelling
unit.
Based on several site inspections, it is staff's opinion that the existing boathouse does not
maintain the intent of the Zoning By -law, in that such structures are permitted provided that
boathouses remain clearly subordinate to and secondary to the primary permitted use of the lot, in this
case being for a single detached dwelling. As such, the application for an increased
boathouse height would not appear to be desirable for the appropriate development of the
lot.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the height of the existing boathouse does not maintain the intent of the
Zoning By -law for such structures and is not desirable for the appropriate development of
the lot, the variance cannot be supported.
CONCLUSION
Application 2006 -A -36 (Revised) fails to meet the tests for a variance.
RECOMMENDATION
Iris recommended that Committee refuse Variance Application 2006 -A -36 (Revised).
All of w tc is respect ully submitted, Reviewed by
dam Kozlowski Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Planner Senior Planner
4
Cynthia Lee
336 Russell Hill Road
Toronto On, M4V 2T8
November 27, 2007
Township of Oro - Medonte
148 Line 7 South, Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
Attention: Adam Kozlowski
Re: Minor Variance Application No 2006 -A -36 Revised for Compliance of Height Variance
197 Eight Mile Point Oro - Medonte
Dear Committee of Adjustment Members,
We are requesting relief from condition #1 of the previously granted minor height variance referred to above.
We have terminated our contract with Shealex Group /Lorenzo Wallace, our previous contractor.
Shealex Group /Lorenzo Wallace built, without our knowledge or permission, a boathouse that exceeded the current
minor height variances.
Mr. Wallace assured us that as a design and build company (see web site shealex.com) he had a wealth of experience in
all types of large commercial and residential construction, including waterfront. In fact we thought that our boathouse
was too small a project for him given his experience. At the time that we hired Mr. Wallace, he lived two houses away
and convinced us that because of the close proximity to his residence, he would take on our boathouse as a project.
We have since learned that Mr. Wallace had never called for any inspections by the building department prior to a stop
work order issued on September 21, 2007. He never informed us of the stop work order when it was received. It was
not until October 7, 2007 almost 3 weeks after the issuance of the stop work order, when we inquired why he had
removed the building permit, he admitted that there was a stop work order. It was not until we read the stop work
order did we realize that Mr. Wallace did not build the structure according to the variance granted.
During our conversations with Mr. Wallace he continued to mislead to us regarding the status of the boathouse and
what had been done. When we asked if there were any issues or problems he would always say no, or he would shift
the blame to the incompetence of the sub - trades and promise that he would have the project back on track in the next
ten days.
We were very unfortunate to have hired a contractor such as Shealex Group /Mr. Wallace and to have trusted that he
would erect the boathouse according to the building code, the allowable variances, and that he would follow the
procedures for proper building inspections. We had advanced Mr. Wallace significant sums of money on this project and
are financially exposed in addition to being very disappointed by the delays multitudes of other issues we are left with.
We would greatly appreciate your support in resolving this matter, thank you in advance for your consideration. Please
feel free to contact me at 416- 259 -2662 ext 222 (work) or 416- 440 -0535 (home), should you have any questions or
require additional information.
Yours Truly
,..,..f
Cynthia Lee
2007 -11 -22 15:48 MHD SURVEYORS 7053261788 >> 416 259 3414 P 2/2
McNEICE HARVEY D'AMICO SURVEYORS LTD.
Ontario Land Surveyors
52 Laurentian Lanc
Orillin, Ontario. L3V 7N7
Tcicphonc(705)326.2360 Fax: (705)326 -1796
Email: LuLve�ors'ri!roe�vs.cum
CERTIFICATE
LOT 92, REGISTERED PLAN 780
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
197 EIGHT MILE POINT ROAD
LEE PROPERTY
I hereby certify that the height of the newly constructed boathouse on said Lot 92 is 7.41
metres (24 feet 3 m" inches) from the high water mark elevation of 219.15 metres to the
mid point of rafter of the highest peak (lake side) of the boathouse. The absolute
elevation of the mid point of rafter of the highest peak is 226.56 metres. The height of
the newly constructed boathouse on said Lot 92 is 7.08 metres (23 feet 2 w1 inches)
from the high water mark elevation of 219.15 metres to the mid point of rafter of the
lowest peak (road side) of the boathouse. The absolute elevation of the mid point of
rafter of the lowest peak is 226.23 metres.
Yours very
B.Sc., OLS, OLIP
Dated: November 21, 2007
Survcy Rccords of Chades U Fitton OLS, John E. Scars OLS, l.00nard M. McNeim OLS, John M. t lamcy OLS (Orillia Only
D.H. Cmlhtaith OLS (ONIlia Only), 1. Patten OLS (Orillia Only), John MJ. D'Amico BSc OLS
r
KE s0
LOT 91
Rio �, %ell �h'15
REGISTERED �}
PIN 58565 - 0183(LT)
ieSINOP: 0.28 IXFee y
anlevu 0.09
"M 22 wfR 1 °•
e
LOT 92
PIN 58565 01E
(Hr.SOtW.fSflIxG
b.»roU[f
/ NfW FOA11Nyg eARµlg
IDfgPKry ENE
sroE +urowx ra'
Wtdf VANAx[E
KtOwfO e.ff MGed
»Inl »p RIIAwpF i.'y
,E t, J i ro lae-
�l9 r
1U.,kToBi f
..RRfP i--d
9.7.
J� )
) a )
b
) I
KNOWN AS EIGHT MILE POINT ROAD
CAHIAGUE DRIVE
(BY REGISTERED PLAN 780)
PIN 58565 - 0156(LT)
,� ivaw
PIN 51
--� N
i1>,aRR
�Et
AIYMMLLN y)EV('i
4'e
(Hr.SOtW.fSflIxG
b.»roU[f
/ NfW FOA11Nyg eARµlg
IDfgPKry ENE
sroE +urowx ra'
Wtdf VANAx[E
KtOwfO e.ff MGed
»Inl »p RIIAwpF i.'y
,E t, J i ro lae-
�l9 r
1U.,kToBi f
..RRfP i--d
9.7.
J� )
) a )
b
) I
KNOWN AS EIGHT MILE POINT ROAD
CAHIAGUE DRIVE
(BY REGISTERED PLAN 780)
PIN 58565 - 0156(LT)
,� ivaw
PIN 51
--� N
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. 2006 -A -36
IN THE MATTER OF Section 45 of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13 as amended; and
IN THE MATTER OF the Official Plan of the Township of Oro - Medonte; and
IN THE MATTER OF Comprehensive Zoning By -law 97 -95, as it applies to the particular
application; and
IN THE MATTER OF Application 2006 -A -36 submitted by Cynthia Lee & Randy Ostojic,
owners of Lot 92, Plan M -780, 197 Eight Mile Point Road (former Township of Oro); and
WHEREAS The applicants are proposing to construct a two- storey boathouse with a deck, where
the boathouse is proposed to have a total area of 110 m (1185 ft). The applicants are requesting
the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
1. Section 5.6 Maximum height for the boathouse from the required 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to a
proposed 5.63 metres (18.5 feet).
2. Section 5.7 b) Decks on boathouses where the deck is either attached or stand - alone, is
permitted to be at the water's edge provided the total area of the deck and boathouse does
not exceed 70 square metres (753 square feet)
WHEREAS the subject property is designated "Shoreline" in the Official Plan, and Zoned
Shoreline Residential (SR)" Zone under By -law 97 -95; and
WHEREAS having had regard to those matters addressed by The Planning Act, in accordance
with the rules and procedures prescribed under Ontario Regulation 200/96, as amended, and
having considered all relevant information as presented at the public hearing on the 14`h day of
December, 2006.
PAGE # 2
APPLICATION 2006 -A -36
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION
Motion No. CA061214 -1
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Allan Johnson
"It is recommended that Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2006 -A -36 subject to
the following conditions:
L 1Notwithstanding Section 5.6 g) of Zoning By -law 97 -95, that the maximum height of the
proposed boathouse shall not exceed 5.63 metres (18.5 feet) above the high water mark
elevation of 219.15 metres;
2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by verifying in writing by way of survey /real property report that the
height of the boathouse not exceed 5.63 metres (18.5 feet);
3. Notwithstanding Section 5.7 b) of Zoning By -law 97 -95, that the maximum size of the
attached deck be no larger than 60.4 square metres (650 square feet);
4. That the boathouse not be used for human habitation, and comply with all other boathouse
provisions as contained in Section 5.6 of Zoning By -law 97 -95;
5. 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;
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.
7. That the appropriate permit(s) and any other necessary approval(s) be obtained from the
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority 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."
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.
PAGE # 3
APPLICATION 2006 -A -36
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION
TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as
amended, the above decision and/or conditions may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Only individuals, corporations and public bodies may appeal decisions in respect of applications
for consent to the Ontario Municipal Board. A notice of appeal may not be filed by an
unincorporated association or group. However, a notice of appeal may be filed in the name of an
individual who is a member of the association or group.
THE LAST DATE FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS WEDNESDAY, THE 3ra
DAY OF JANUARY 2007.
A "NOTICE OF APPEAL" setting out in writing the supporting reasons for the appeal should be
received on or before the last date for "Appeal" accompanied by a certified cheque in the amount
of ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS payable to the MINISTRY OF
FINANCE. The notice is to be submitted to the Secretary - Treasurer of the Committee of
Adjustment, PO Box 100, Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0.
Members concurring in this decision:
Lynda Aiken, Aiken, Chairperson ave Edwards
'BPAO5i�51>"
Michelle Lynch Allan John
Garry Potter
DATED this 14`h day of December 2006 _
Glenn White
Secretary- Treasurer (Acting)
Committee of Adjustment
C
Eugene and Ola Cholkan
6 Courtsfield Cr
Toronto, ON M9A 4S9
October 23, 2006
To Whom It May Concern,
We are the owners of Lot 91, Registered Plan 780, in the Township of Oro -
Medonte,
We have no objections to the new structure to be built by our neighbor, Ms
C. Lee and Mr. R. Ostojic on their property located at Lot 92 which is
adjacent to our property.
We believe the new structure will be an improvement over the existing
structure and fit in well within the community.
If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at (416) 247 -4477.
x «,
0 •
Township of Oro - Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
December 14, 2006
Cynthia Lee & Randy Ostojic
2006 -A -36
197 Eight Mile Point Road, Plan 780, Lot 92 (Formerly Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are proposing to construct a boathouse and are requesting relief of
the following provision from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
i. Section 5.6 Maximum Height of a boathouse from the required 4.5 metres
(14.7 feet) to a proposed 5.63 metres (18.5 feet) above the average high
water mark of Lake Simcoe.
ii. Section 5.7 b) Decks on boathouses where the deck is either attached or
stand - alone, is permitted to be at the water's edge provided the total area of
the deck and boathouse does not exceed 70 square metres (753 square
feet).
Note: the height of a boathouse is calculated from the average high water mark
of Lake Simcoe (or Bass Lake), not from the average finished grade as is the
policy for detached accessory buildings that are not located on either of the
above water bodies. The average high water mark elevation of Lake Simcoe, as
determined by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, is 219.15
metres.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Shoreline
Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Previous Applications — None
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Public Works Department —
Building Department — The Township Building Dept. has reviewed the application
and notes the following: construction within 8 metres of a lot line requires an
engineer or surveyor grading plan; Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
approval is required; the type of construction is to be verified upon building permit
review process.
0
0 0
Engineering Department — No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 30 metres (98 feet), a
shoreline frontage of approximately 41 metres (134.5 feet), and average depth of
87 metres (285 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.27 hectares (0.67 acres).
The property currently contains a two store back -split style dwelling with a
ground floor area of approximately 162.58 m (1750 ft). A smaller boathouse
and "bunkie" type sleeping cabin were located roughly in the same area where
the proposed boathouse is to be constructed, however both structures have
subsequently been demolished.
The proposed boathouse consists of two levels, with a deck attached to the
upper level. The boathouse has a ground floor area of 110 square metres (1185
square feet), and the attached deck will have an area of 60.4 square metres (650
square feet).
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated "Shoreline" in the Township Official Plan.
Section D10.1 sets out the following objectives for lands in this designation:
• To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area.
• To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate
shoreline.
The requested variance for the increased height of the boathouse would appear
to maintain the character of the shoreline area. Further, as the subject property
contains an existing concrete retaining wall at the water's edge, the construction
of the boathouse and attached deck will not have a further negative impact on
natural features of the property or the immediate shoreline. On this basis, the
proposed variance would therefore conform with the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone in Zoning By -law
97 -95, as amended. The SR Zone establishes a minimum interior side yard of 2
metres (6.6 feet) for a boathouse, as well as the maximum width of the
boathouse not to exceed 30% of the lot width at the water's edge. In addition,
Section 5.7 b) of the Zoning By -law allows a deck to be constructed on a
boathouse at the water's edge, provided that the deck and the boathouse do not
exceed 70 square metres (753 square feet).
E
The Zoning By -law regulates the location and height of boathouses on lands
within the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone in order to prevent the
overdevelopment of lands located in shoreline areas. Specifically, the Township
aims to protect and enhance the natural appearance and features of the shore of
Lake Simcoe, as opposed to having waterfront areas dominated by large
boathouse structures.
The proposed boathouse meets the side yard setback and 30% maximum lot
width provisions of the By -law. It should be noted that the boathouse will be
setback approximately 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) from the waters edge. In addition,
the attached deck will be located approximately at the water's edge, and while
the deck and boathouse will exceed the 70 square metre (753 square foot)
maximum area provision found in Section 5.7 b), the boathouse and deck will not
negatively impact on the character of the shoreline due to the large size of the lot
and ample water frontage.
As a result of a site inspection, it was determined that boathouses on
neighbouring and nearby lots appeared to exceed the 4.5 metre (14.7 foot)
maximum height provision. Additionally, a high, dense cedar hedge exists on the
east side of the subject property, and will provide a good privacy buffer for
neighbouring lots.
As the proposed boathouse will not dominate the shoreline and otherwise meets
with all other zoning provisions for boathouses, the variance is deemed to
conform to 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 boathouse height and size of the
attached deck would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of
the lot, and is in keeping with the character of the surrounding shoreline area.
Given that the proposed boathouse will not result in the over - development of the
subject property, nor have a negative impact on natural features, the proposal is
considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the proposed boathouse height and attached deck would not
adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area, the proposed
variance is considered to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
The subject application generally satisfies the tests for a minor variance.
3
0 •
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2006 -A-
36 subject to the following conditions:
1. Notwithstanding Section 5.6 g) of Zoning By -law 97 -95, that the maximum
height of the proposed boathouse shall not exceed 5.63 metres (18.5 feet)
above the high water mark elevation of 219.15 metres;
2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing by way of
survey /real property report that the height of the boathouse not exceed 5.63
metres (18.5 feet);
3. Notwithstanding Section 5.7 b) of Zoning By -law 97 -95, that the maximum
size of the attached deck be no larger than 60.4 square metres (650 square
feet);
4. That the boathouse not be used for human habitation, and comply with all
other boathouse provisions as contained in Section 5.6 of Zoning By -law
97 -95;
5. 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;
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.
7. That the appropriate permit(s) and any other necessary approval(s) be
obtained from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority 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,
Adam Kozlowski, B.URPI
Planning Technician
n
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
OR ".'ICUON I L TUWNSHP I
MOT 10N - -� - --
I
i
NOV 2 8 2007
MEETING: COUNCIL,,'1
C.OFWEl
Committee of Adjustment Minutes
Thursday November 15, 2007, 9:30 a.m.
,r
In Attendance: Chairperson Lynda Aiken, Member Michelle Lynch, Member Rick
Webster, Member Bruce Chappell, Member Garry Potter, Secretary- Treasurer
Adam Kozlowski
1. Communications and Correspondence
Letter from Doug Irwin, Clerk, re: Tree Preservation By -law Request.
Motion No. CA071115 -1
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Rick Webster, seconded by Michelle Lynch
Committee receive letter from Doug Irwin, Clerk, re: Tree Preservation By -law.
ii. Letter from Doug Irwin, Clerk, re: Request by Committee of
Adjustment to waive fees for Consent Application 2007 -B -30.
Motion No. CA071115 -2
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Rick Webster, seconded by Michelle Lynch
Committee receive letter from Doug Irwin, Clerk, re: Request by Committee of
Adjustment to waive fees for Consent Application 2007 -B -30
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
None declared.
Committee of Adjustment- November 15, 2007
Page 1
3. Hearings:
9:30 2007 -A -34 Philip & Carole Hall
Plan 51 M -726, Lot 47
10 Mapleridge Road
(Former Township of Oro)
In Attendance: Philip Hall, applicant
Robert Carr (objection to application) made presentation to Committee.
Motion No. CA071115 -3
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Bruce Chappell
"Committee approve Variance Application 2007 -A -34, being to grant a reduction
for the west interior side yard setback from 8 metres to 4.5 metres, for the
construction of an addition to the existing dwelling, subject to the following
conditions:
1. 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 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- November 15, 2007
Page 2
9:45 2007 -A -30 Brian Hendry
Plan 51 M -447, Lot 22
7 Dale Court
(Former Township of Oro)
In Attendance: Jerry Hendry, agent for applicant.
Motion No. CA071115 -4
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"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.
Carried ".
Committee of Adjustment- November 15, 2007
Page 3
10:00 2007 -B -32 Rosemary Mairs
Part of Lot 22, Concession 8
6328 Line 8 North
(Former Township of Medonte)
In Attendance: Beth Mairs, agent for applicant.
Motion No. CA071115 -5
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Bruce Chappell
"Committee defer Application 2007 -B -32 until such time that the applicant
submits an amended application depicting revised boundaries
Carried ".
Committee of Adjustment- November 15, 2007
Page 4
10:15 2007 -A -32 Lazeron Homes Inc.
Plan 51 M -174, Lot 7
14 Snowshoe Trail
(Former Township of Medonte)
In Attendance: John Lazeron, applicant.
Motion No. CA071115 -6
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Rick Webster
"Committee approve Variance 2007 -A -32, being to grant a reduction for the
minimum required first storey floor area from 90 square metres 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.
Carried ".
Committee of Adjustment - November 15, 2007
Page 5
10:30 2007 -A -35 Ian Johnson
Plan 1, Lot 13
3 Penetanguishene Road
(Former Township of Oro)
In Attendance: David Seaman, Wayne Seaman, agents for applicant.
Motion No. CA071115 -7
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Garry Potter
"Committee defer Variance Application 2007 -A -35 until such time that the
applicant provides further information with respect to property boundaries, and
provides additional information with respect to the dimensions of ,existing
structures on the subject lands
Carried ".
Committee of Adjustment- November 15, 2007
Page 6
10:45 2007 -A -31 Gus & Kim McGrath
Plan 702, Lot 9
1197 Line 2 South
(Former Township of Oro)
In Attendance: Gus McGrath and Kim McGrath, applicants.
Secretary- Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read letters from Tassia & John Bell
(objection to application) and; Sjaak & Yvonne Breg (objection to
application) verbatim to Committee and the audience.
Tassia Bell made presentation to the Committee objecting to the
application.
Motion No. CA071115 -8
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Rick Webster
"Committee refuse Variance Application 2007 -A -31, as the application is not
deemed to be minor
Defeated".
Motion No. CA071115 -9
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Bruce Chappell
"Committee defer Variance Application 2007 -A -31 until such time that the
applicant submits a revised application
Carried ".
Committee of Adjustment - November 15, 2007
Page 7
11 :00 2007 -B -17 Ron McCowan
Part of Lots 1 & 2, Range 2 - r
2243 Ridge Road West
(Former Township of Oro)
In Attendance: Andria Leigh, MHBC Planning, agent for applicant.
Catherine Nixon (objection to extension of existing Bay Street) made presentation to the
Committee, and submitted petition signed by Tassia Bell, Lynette Eisen, Mitch Eisen, T.
Bigelow, E. Bigelow, Betty Tse, Brian Wiles, Kathleen Wiles, Janet Read - Hockin, Joe Hockin,
Catherine Nixon, Tim Crooks, Bruce Owen, Fred Beck, Susan Woods, Paul Marshall, Brenda
Glazer, Stan Glazer, Sandi locca, Angelo locca, Judy Thompson, Paul Thompson, John Bell,
Jim Robinson, Karen Robinson, Bryn Pressnaii, Leslie Pressnail, Lynn Taylor, Judi Bolton,
Cam Taylor, Kettle MacKichan, Jacqueline Winter, R.J. Winter, Randy White, Cindy White,
Jim Swan, Carolyn Swan, Lori Dillon, Sue Benjafield, F.B. Smith, J. Younger, Peter Lamprey,
Robert O'Hara, Miriam Oben, Suzanne Robillard, Marty Lancaster, Lindsay Morgan, Margaret
Montgomery, Gillian Montgomery, Allison Montgomery, Graeme Montgomery, John Tennant,
Richard Nixon, John Nixon, Mary Jane Sargeant, Janice Avard, L. Nixon.
Suzanne Robillard made presentation to Committee.
Tim Crooks made presentation to Committee.
Motion No. CA071115 -10
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Bruce Chappell
"Committee grant provisional consent to Application 2007 -13-17 for the creation of a residential lot,
having an area of 0.97 hectares, 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 $4,749.95 (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.
Carried ".
Committee of Adjustment- November 15, 2007
Page 8
4. Other Business `
Adoption of Minutes from October 18, 2007 meeting
Motion No. CA071115 -11
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch
"That the minutes for the October 18, 2007 Committee of Adjustment Meeting be
adopted as printed and circulated
5. Adiournment
Motion No. CA071 1 1 5 -1 2
BE IT RESOLVED that:
Moved by Rick Webster, seconded by Bruce Chappell
"We do now adjourn at 1:30 pm
...Carried."
... Carried."
(NOTE: A digital recording of this meeting is available for review.)
Chairperson
Lynda Aiken
Secretary- Treasurer
Adam Kozlowski
Committee of Adjustment- November 15, 2007
Page 9