Loading...
01 28 2008 PAC AgendaTOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Council Chambers Date Monday January 28 2008 Time: 7:00 p.m. 1. Opening of Meeting by Chair 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in Accordance with the Act 4. Minutes of Previous Meetings -November 26, 2007 5. Deputation -Brent Clarkson of MHBC Planning Consultants regarding Buffalo Springs (Gargano Development Inc.) Subdivision, 43T-01031 6. Planning Applications a) Planning Report presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services, Re: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment for Jules Goossens, Concession 10, Part of Lot 25 (Oro), east side of Line 9 South, Applications 2005-OPA-04 and 2005-ZBA-27 7. Correspondence and Communication (a) Email dated January 14, 2008 from Councillor Sandy Agnew to Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services regarding Simcoe County Health Unit. (b) Correspondence dated January 6, 2008 from Uli Surmann, Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association regarding housing style recommendations. 8. Other Business/Education (a) Topic Item -General severance policies (b) General list of topics for future discussion 9. Adjournment g-l u~0-~Y;r~ONTE TOh~'NSHIP .~,1CTIC~N~ '~ -. DEC 1 2 2007 rJI~~TING: COUNCIL C. OF W. TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES 2006-2010 TERM November 26, 2007, 7:40 p.m. Council Chambers Present: Council Representatives Public Representatives Mayor H.S. Hughes Roy Hastings Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Tom Kurtz Councillor Mel Coutanche Mary O'Farrell-Bowers Councillor Terry Allison (arrived C~ 8:05 p.m.) Councillor Sandy Agnew Larry Tupling Councillor John Crawford Councillor Dwight Evans Regrets: Linda Babulic Staff Present: Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services; Glenn White, Senior Planner; Janette Teeter, Deputy Clerk Also Present: Jerry Young; Hubert and Carol Schaefers; Bernd Schaefers; Lynda Aiken; Dennis Aiken; Tiziano Zaghi, Jones Consulting Group Ltd.; Jamie Nairn, Michalski, Nielsen Associates Ltd 1. Opening of Meeting by Chair. Deputy Mayor Hough assumed the chair and called the meeting to order. 2. Adoption of Agenda. Motion No. PAC071126-1 Moved by Roy Hastings, Seconded by Tom Kurtz It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of Monday, November 26, 2007 be received and adopted. Carried. 3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in Accordance with the Act. Nnne rie~larc?~i. ~~ 4. Minutes of Previous Meetings -October 22, 2007 Motion No. PAC071126-2 Moved by Larry Tupling, Seconded by Roy Hastings It is recommended that the minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting held on October 22, 2007 be received and adopted. Carried. 5. Correspondence and Communication. a) Correspondence dated November 16, 2007 from Jeremy Young et al regarding Craighurst Secondary Plan Motion No. PAC071126-3 Moved by Larry Tupling, Seconded by Roy Hastings It is recommended that the correspondence dated November 16, 2007 from Jeremy Young et al re: Craighurst Secondary Plan -Community Concerns be received. Carried. b) Status of Development applications list -November 23, 2007 Motion No. PAC071126-4 Moved by Larry Tupling, Seconded by Roy Hastings It is recommended that the memorandum correspondence dated November 23, 2007 presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services re: Status - Planning Applications be received. Carried. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting November 26, 2007, Page 2 4- 3 c) Growth Management presented by Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services Motion No. PAC071126-5 Moved by Tom Kurtz, Seconded by Larry Tupling It is recommended that the verbal information and correspondence dated August, 2007 presented by Mayor H.S. Hughes and Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services re: Hemson Consulting Ltd., Directions Report, Developing a Growth Management Strategy for the Simcoe County Area be received. Carried. 6. Planning Applications. None. 7. Other Business. a) Committee process discussion, Tom Kurtz. Motion No. PAC071126-6 Moved by Tom Kurtz, Seconded by Larry Tupling It is recommended that the verbal information presented by Tom Kurtz re: Committee Process be received. Carried. b) Next PAC Meeting -Monday, January 28, 2008. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting November 26, 2007, Page 3 ~" 1 8. Adjournment. Motion No. PAC071126-7 Moved by Roy Hastings, Seconded by Tom Kurtz It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 9:50 p.m. Carried. Chair, Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Director of Building and Planning Services, Bruce Hoppe Planning Advisory Committee Meeting November 28, 2007, Page 4 ~'.' T: (905) 761.5588 P: (905) 761.5589 Tol] Free: 1 (800) 813.9209 www.mhbcplan.com MA, FCIP, RPP BES, MC1P, RPP BES, MClI; RPP MA, MCIP, RPP BES, MCIP, RPP i.,..7 ~,1, iA''r,~:x' BES BES, MCIP, RPP BES, MC1P, RPP BES, MCIP, RPP City, Town and Rural Planning Municipal Plans and Studies Land Development Urban Design / Community Planning Landscape Architecture Natural Resource and Aggregate Planning Expert Evidenu and Mediation Project Management 14 January 2008 Mr. Bruce Hoppe Director of Building and Planning Services Township of Oro-Medonte P. O. Box 100 148 Line 7 South ORO, Ontario LOL 2X0 Dear Mr. Hoppe: RE: BUFFALO SPRINGS SUBDIVISION, GARGANO DEVELOPMENT INC., YOUR FILE 43T-01031, OUR FILE Y327A Further to our meeting Friday, please register me as a delegation to appear at the January 28, 2008 Planning Advisory Committee Meeting. The purpose of our presentation is to provide Committee with an update on the registration of the OMB approved draft plan of subdivision. Thank you. Yours truly, MIiBC PLANiVIIVG W. Brent Clarkson, MA, MCIP, RPP Copy: Colin McGregor, Will Young, Dan Pettella, David Bunston 7050 Weston Road, Suitc #230 Woodbridge, Ontario L9L 8G7 \ . ` - ~ ~ REZONE AND REDLINE -BUFFALO SPRINGS SOME COMMENTS TO ORO-MEDONTE COUNCIL 2l April 20Q~ Jim t~oodford Member, Coulson Area Environmental Committee Friend of the Coulson Swamps Georgian North Lands Ltd. has applied to Council for a By-]aw amendment to allow a 11'7 lot residential Plan of subdivision on the Buffalo Springs site. Georgian North has also applied directly= to the Ontario Municipal Board to "Red-line" the draft approved plan of subdivision. The Ontario Municipal Board has taken the position that it will not process the application fora "Red-line" revision until the Township of Oro-Medonte provides formal comments on both the re-zoning application and the ``Red-line" request. I highly commend Council for embracing an "Environment First' policy. At Monday's Planning Advisory Committee meeting Nick MacDonald offered three options re Buffalo Springs. I am suggesting two more that will allow Council an opportunity to put the "Environment First" policy to the test. I should like to bring to Couneil two main areas of concern about the proposed development at Buffalo Springs. 1 - ALTERA7['ION OF EXISITNG ENVIRC?NMENT On July 2~, 1996, M, Stagg, RPF {acting for Oro-Medonte Township), Graham Findlay, MNR Biologist (then chair of the Coulson Area Environmental Committee) and two local residents visited the Buffala Springs site, after a report that construction related activities were occurring on the property. Mr. Stagg, a Registered Professional Forester, in a letter to Mr. Findlay (copies to Benjt Schumacher (owner of Buffalo Springs) and Mr. Kolbe, (Dir, Of O-M Planning) [copy of Stagg letter is attached] observed: "Recent logging in the westerly part of Lot 3 and stock piling, mostly maple, some spruce. In a couple of instances the removal of severallarger trees in one location had created small open areas." "It would appear that the trees that have been logged and those which have been marked, have been specifically selected to optimize production of raw logs, a practice sometimes known in the lumbering industry as `high yielding`. This could be viewed as something different to a general woodland improvement operation...." Mr. Sta~~~ also notedo "If operations were to alter or remove a larger or significant part of the refc«n~:~d existing natural environment then it would become increasingly difficult to implement the conditions of the OMB approval of the proposed residential subdivision." "It would also be recognized that the existing forest and woodland characteristic was a significant factor contributing to the rationale of creating the proposed country residential estate development and hence its approval." In a letter dated Sep. 3, 1996, Graham Findlay, MNR Biologist advised Mr. Schumacher as follocus: "The removal of a number of trees and the disturbance created by heavy machinery required to remove the cut trees may impact on some of the sensitive areas or resource values." (Copy of letter attached} John Hare, who lives across the road from Buffalo Springs and accompanied Mr.Stagg and Mr. Findlay on the inspection, estimates about 500 trees were removed. Ed Hall, who lives next to the site, says some trues were cut down close to the Provincially Significant Wetlands. Mr. Benjt Schumacher refused permission to the Couchiehing Conservancy to survey Buffalo Springs as part of their Oro Moraine Ecological Study. A provision of the 1994 OMB Order that the Crown Tree Canopy not be altered appears to have been violated. This could mean changes in the early spring flora that grows under the trees before the canopy closes over. OMB Chair J. Mills was quite specific in his concerns about the environment. In Section Ix of the OMB Order it prescribes the content of the Zoning By-law amendment in Section 4 by adding subsections. The following is a sample: "ll.~.2.2 buffalo Springs, Part dot 2 and Lot 3, Conc, 9 a) 1'V©t withstanding the provisions of Section 11.2.1 ©f this By-larv, those Zands comprised of Pant Lot 2 and scat 3, Conc. 9 as zoned in Sejiedule, f, Mai 2 as OS?-2 s{aatl not be used for the erection of any building or rcCteration of the existing environment. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the activities detailed above probably caused same "alteration of the existing environment". In spite of the above Stantec Consulting Ltd., who did the 1994 Environmental Assessment and should be familiar with. the Buffalo Springs environment did. not notice that 500 trees had been removed. 2 Stantec no~P environmental consultants far the present owners, Georgian. North Lands, visited the site once in flecember and claimed, "No significant changes in ecological conditions have occurred on site." No scientific data was provided to validate this claim. Azimuth Consulting Ltd. was asked by Council to review the Stantec Report. They did not challenge the claim of "no significant changes in ecological conditions". Nor did they mention the removal of SOa trees. Both seemed unaware of Chairman Mills's specific order that there was to be na "alteration of the existing environment" at Buffalo Springs. Therefore I respectfully suggest that Oro-Medonte Council undertake the fallowing: 1-Request Georgian North Lands Ltd. to conduct a 3-season environmental assessment of Buffalo Springs [Part lot 2 and Lot 3, Conc. 9]. A mult%disciplinary team of highly qualified scientists - including a botanist, forester, ornithologist, ichthyologist and entomologist -should do this. The purpose of this assessment is to determine if "any alteration of the existing environmenf4 has occurred. I would further suggest that Stantec and Azimuth should be disqualified from doing this assessment. 2 -Inform the OMB that Council will not comment on the re-zoning application and the "Red-line" request until after the above is completed and the Council has a Report. 3 - I suggest that Council appoint an Ecological Advisory Committee to assist and advise Council. An Ecological Advisory Committee would give Council expert advice on the ecology and natural history of the Taw~nship. It would give invaluable advice on the assessment and verification of Environmental Impact Statements. Some of the best naturalists in Ontario live in or near Oro-Medonte. The Committee I envisage would operate in a similar manner to the Planning Advisory Committee and would be a model for all Ontario. 2 - PRQVINCIAL WETLANDS POLICY In 1992 the Ontario Government enacted a Policy Statement on Wetlands under Section 3 of the Planning Act 1983. "It is the policy of the Government of Ontario that: 3 1.1. "AII planning jurisdictions, planning boards and resource management bodies within the Province s?gall protect Provincially Significant Wetlands. 2. Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Region 2.1 Development shall not be permitted within Provincially Significant Wetlands. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines within as inside. Map 7 in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Ecological Services for Planning for the 1.994 OMB Hearing clearly shows that one group of houses is on au "island" completely surrounded by the Provincially Significant Wetlands. {The revised plan shows 1 S houses on this "island".) [Copy of map attached} Two other "peninsulas" are largely within the Provincially Significant Wetlands and contain 30 houses. Sec. 2.2 reads "On Adjacent Lands, Development may be permitted only if it does not result in any of the following: a) Loss of Wetland Functions. b} Loss of contiguous Wetland Area." Once again Map 7 shows roads across the Coulson creek (a Coldwater trout stream) and across the wetlands, virtually dividing them into three sections. This has a high potential to disrupt wetland functions and certainly destroys a contiguous wetland area. The Revised Plan maintains the basic configuration of houses as shown on Map 7, but fewer are planned. A wide path will replace one branch road and a short section of road has been eliminated. The wide path will still be across wetlands and built to accommodate fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. [A copy of the Provincial Wetlands Policy is attached] Council should seek clarification of the Chairman Mills Order with respect to Provincial Wetlands Policy. Summing Up - If the Environmental Assessment described on page 2 finds that the lagging "operations were tv alter or rem©ve a larger or significant part of the referenced exzsting natural environment" then some "alteration of the existing environment" occurred and the conditions of the 1994 OllrlB Order would have been violated and it would no longer apply to development at Buffalo Springs. 4 Council should ask Georgian North Lands Ltd. to submit a new plan that would be considered under current by-laws and relevant legislation. This v~°auld incinde a 120-metre buffer around EP-1 lands, such as the East Coulson Provincially Significant Wetlands. It would prohibit building any houses or roads within these wetlands. Who knows if this is delayed tong enough even OPA #16 might be law! Mr. Massie and partners there is a simple solution to this. Donate the East Caulsan Provincially Significant Wetlands to the Couchiching Conservancy. This would make economic sense -you would receive a tax receipt for the assessed value of the donated lands; it would make emotional sense -you would receive an enormous amount of goodwill and praise in the community; and finally it would make environmental sense -one of the most important natural areas in Qro- Medantewould be preserved. 5 Co GZ -- 1 ~H'`- `~-.__, M.`~`, TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE ~ ~ ~~ _, REPORT ~: w,. ~:; ~`~: Report No. BP 2008-003 To: Planning Advisory Committee Prepared By: Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services Meeting Date: Subject: Official Plan and Motion # 2008 28 Januar Zoning By-law Amendments y , 2005-OPA-04 & 2005-ZBA-27 Roll #: (Jules Goossens) R.M.S. File #: D14 37482 4346-010-003-35310 part of Lot 25, Concession 10 (Oro) 38 Po lar Crescent RECOMMENDATION(S): Requires Action For Information Only It is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council: 1. THAT Report BP 2008-003 Re: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications 2005-OPA-04 and 2005-ZBA-27 for Jules Goossens, Part of Lot 25, Concession 10, (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, be received and adopted. 2. THAT Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications 2005-OPA-04 and 2005-ZBA-27, Part of Lot 25, Concession 10, (Oro), Township of Oro- Medonte that would serve to redesignate the subject lands from "Rural" and "Environmental Protection Two Overlay" to "Shoreline" on Schedule A of the Official Plan, and rezone lands from Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) to Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone on Schedule A5 of Zoning By-law 97-95, be approved. 3. THAT the Zoning By-law be subject to a Holding (H) Zone, removal of which shall only be done after an appropriate Site Plan Agreement has been entered into regarding the preservation of trees, natural features and timing of site development. 4. AND THAT the Clerk bring forward the necessary Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law for Council's consideration. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to consider proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications submitted by Jones Consulting Group on behalf of the above noted property owner, and make recommendations to Planning Advisory Committee as to the disposition of the matter. BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date: January 28, 2008 Report No. 2008-003 Page 1 of 5 ~Q (.Z. - L ANALYSIS: As noted in Attachment #1, the applicant's total landholdings consist of approximately 70 acres with frontage along Poplar Crescent and Line 9 South. An existing single detached dwelling is located at 38 Poplar Crescent towards the east side of the property. The applicant's intention is to create three new residential lots on the west side of the property with frontage directly on Line 9 South. Lot creation in this current designation is not permitted, therefore applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have been proposed. The subject applications would serve to redesignate the lands from "Rural" and "Environmental Protection Two Overlay" to "Shoreline" and rezone the property from Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) to Shoreline Residential Zone. The intent of the applications is to redesignate and rezone the lands to facilitate the creation of three residential lots by way of severance. The proposed development will be supported by private on-site sewage disposal (septic) and private well(s). A conceptual site plan, affixed to this report as Attachment #2, shows the proposed lots with 400 sq m conceptual building envelopes with associated driveway and septic locations. The lot areas and frontages for the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 has a lot frontage of 107 metres (351 feet) and lot area of 1.03 hectares (2.5 acres), Lot 2 has a lot frontage of 71 metres (233 feet) and lot area of 0.72 hectares (1.8 acres) and Lot 3 has a lot frontage of 105 metres (344 feet) and lot area of 1.09 hectares (2.7 acres). A statutory public meeting was held on November 26, 2007 regarding the proposed development. No verbal comments were received at the public meeting. No written comments have been received by staff since the public meeting. FINANCIAL: N/A POLICIES/LEGISLATION: The subject lands are presently designated "Rural" and are proposed to be redesignated to "Shoreline". The Official Plan has policies which deals with further expansion of the shoreline development area onto lands that are not designated Shoreline. Exceptions may be granted through the approval of an Official Plan Amendment if the expansion is small in scale, and is either focused on the shoreline or is considered to be infilling. Infilling is defined as development that abuts a development area on two sides and/or is located within a parcel of land that abuts public roads on at least three sides. Section C5.3.4 (Limits of Shoreline development) of the Official Plan provides the following; `The further expansion of the shoreline development area onto lands that are not designated Shoreline is not permitted by this Plan. Exceptions may be granted through the approval of an Official Plan amendment if the expansion is small in scale, and is either focused on the shoreline or is considered to be infilling. Infilling is defined as development that abuts a developed area on two sides and/or is located within a parcel of land that abuts public roads on at least three BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date: January 28, 2008 Report No. 2008-003 Page 2 of 5 ~v u. - .~ sides. The creation of strip development across from existing development on existing roads is not contemplated by this plan." The proposed development abuts residential development to the north and the south and also abuts Line 9 South to the west and Lakeshore Road East to the south and Poplar Crescent to the southeast. There are a small cluster of dwellings on both sides of Line 9 South in the vicinity of the subject property. Furthermore, there are two vacant lots which have recently been severed immediately to the south of the subject property which will support two new future dwellings. Given these factors, staff is of the opinion that this expansion complies with the intent of the Official Plan in this regard. The policy also contains criteria for Council's consideration in the consideration of such minor amendments to the Official Plan to redesignate lands for limited shoreline development. These conditions are provided below: a) The lots will have a minimum of 0.6 hectares to a maximum of approximately 1.0 hectare, except where larger sizes may be suitable because of environmental constraints or design consideration. Response: The proposed lots areas range from 0.72 ha to 1.09ha. Two of the proposed lots meet the maximum lot area in order to address and protect the environmental features on site. b) The majority of the existing tree cover on the proposed lot is retained and protected as part of the approval process. Response: The applicant has identified proposed building envelopes and areas for sewage disposal systems near the front of the lots. The applicant's EIS recommends that tree clearing on the lots be minimized. A Site Plan will be required prior the issuance of a building permit for each of the proposed lots in order to implement these measures. c) The development is compatible, in terms of scale, density and character with existing development. Response: The proposed lots are considered to be compatible with the existing surrounding residential development, most notably on the west side of Line 9 South which generally exhibit similar large road frontages and areas to the subject proposal. d) The proposed lots are not located on the shoreline. Response: This policy is not applicable as it speaks to water frontages. e) The lots would conform to the general subdivision and consent policies of this Plan. Response: It is proposed that the lots by created by consent rather than Plan of Subdivision since the lots front onto a public road which does not require an extension. The development is considered to be infilling, and the consent process will ensure that the area will be developed in an orderly and efficient manner. The proposed lots are considered to be compatible with the surrounding residential areas. Given the small scale of the development it is not anticipated that the proposed lots will create a traffic hazard. It has already been noted that servicing by private wells and septic systems is appropriate given the small number of lots being proposed. Finally, an EIS has been submitted with the BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date: January 28, 2008 Report No. 2008-003 Page 3 of 5 COQ - '7" application and has been reviewed by the LSRCA with recommendations and the site plan process will allow the Township to work with future owners to maximum tree cover and protect the environmental feature contain on each proposed lot. The minimum lot area in a "Shoreline Residential" is 0.2 ha and the minimum lot frontage requirement is 30 metres. The proposed lot frontage and areas exceeds the minimum standard of the "Shoreline Residential" zone contained in the Zoning By-law. It is noted that the four adjacent lots on the west side of Line 9 (672, 682, 698, & 714 Line 9 South) generally have 60m frontages and lot areas of 0.8 ha with the exception of 714 Line 9 South which has half the lot area. As noted above, there are a number of environmental features contained on the lands such a cedar swamp, intermittent watercourse, vegetation communities and butternut trees. The environmental features have been thoroughly evaluated and assessed for the possible impact of the proposed development. The applicant's agent through input from the environmental consultants has worked with both with the LSRCA and MNR to address a number of environmental issues. The enclosed correspondence from the agencies indicates their general support of the proposed development and proposed buffers to protect the identified environmental features. CONSULTATIONS: Supporting documentation was submitted in support of the proposed development and circulated to internal Township Departments and relevant external agencies. Specifically, the following supporting studies have been submitted and are on file with the Planning Department. Planning Analysis Report from Jones Consulting Group Ltd. Goossens Property Site Evaluation Report, revised September 2006 and additional information submitted on August, 2007 from Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited Report regarding Butternut Issues on the Goossens Property, April 2007 from Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited The subject applications were originally submitted in August of 2005, and given the environmental features on or close to the proposed development area, several revisions and updated technical reports have been provided to both the LSRCA and the MNR. The following written responses have been received: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority - In final review, the LSRCA found the proposed plan to be acceptable subject to five issues reviewed in their letter of August 22, 2007. (Letter enclosed as Attachment No. 2). Ministry of Natural Resources -June 22, 2007. The letter agrees with the consultant report that the property contains two healthy young butternut Trees (identified as Tree #1 in the Michalski Nielsen associates Limited report) which meets the guidelines for retention and that adequate buffer is being proposed. Simcoe County District School Board -Elementary students residing in this area may attend east Oro Public School and secondary students will be bussed to Orillia Park Street Collegiate. BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date: January 28, 2008 Report No. 2008-003 Page 4 of 5 LO QC, ", ~ County of Simcoe - No objection to the application. Concern with future development on the remainder of the property given the environmental features contained thereon. Recommend site plan approval be implemented on the proposed lots. No other concerns have been expressed by internal Township Departments or members of the public. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment #1 -Location map Attachment #2 -Proposed Site Plan CONCLUSION: I The proposed residential development is considered to be small in scale and represents infilling development, and therefore conforms to the policies regarding expansion of the shoreline development area outlined in the Official Plan. Staff concludes that the subdivision of the lands is appropriate by way of consent (severance), and that a plan of subdivision is not required. With respect to the environmental features of the property, the supporting studies have been revised and supported by the LSRCA to define the boundaries of the proposed lots to protect the natural heritage features located on the lands. It will also be recommended that the proposed lots be subject to individual site plans as provided for in the Township Official Plan in order to achieve the objectives regarding the extent and timing of individual site development and the preservation of natural features. Respectfully submitted: ~.l Bruce Hoppe Director of Building & Planning Services C.A.O. Comments: C.A.O. Approval: Date: BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT Meeting Date: January 28, 2008 Report No. 2008-003 Page 5 of 5 c~ a - cp Rw` PAL RP%/ Lu z_ J ............................. POPLAR ~/ -~ ~ ~R~. ESj PAS LAKE SIMCOE PROPOSED LANDS TO BE ZONED TO SHORELINE RESIDENTIAL (SR) ZONE AND DESIGNATED SHORELINE TO CREATE THREE LOTS OTHER LANDS OWNED BY APPLICANT ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~ - ~.-. ~ c A on ~~ E E E E w.. ~+ z' z_ a Z~ O 9 ~ m ~+ ~y, M ~o y .E ~ ~ .. .. .. p ayi o o ~ b .O ~' ~ a m 6 .a nc ~ °o ~ a' a a '~-- ~ a~ O 3 a e a x c' ~ N O ~ ~ .9 °° '~ ' ° ~ b b b d o y ~ E ° ~~ ~ ~" ~ '~ o y ~,~-~ m ° m E fi E E o0 0°0 0 ~ O ~ ~ .fir ~ I I 1 '~''. I 1 m° € m f ~I ~M b~~ I a` U N rv y. x' '- - ~, !f~'' .~^ _~ ~ - vF,` °4~ ~a ' . ~'~ ~' ~ it'i .rye °N A,,. ,yT eqo ~' ~ _yr: Id~+ w ~y~}t ~' .~ . ~.`- >' e *~~ ~ °~ ~a *^~ , H '- ~~ n ~ A ~ Y \~~~~ fx~. ~ 1 ,' ~: ~ ~,~ ~~ v ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~_ a ~:. A ~~ ~ 7 ~ ~ a r,, a~ ~. ~ r~ ;: ~ ~ *~ _~ _ _ ~ _., ;,;. ,, a ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~ t _.. _ _ :- - __ _ - -- _ ~_- 1 ~a- 8 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES (Proposed Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law) 2005-OPA-04 and 2005-ZBA-27, Part of Lot 25, Concession 10, Line 9, (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, (J. Goossens) ________ November 26, 2007 ~ 7:07 p.m. Municipal Council Chambers r4~oT~o~~!-4 !! DEC 1 Z 2007 Present: Mayor H.S. Hughes Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough (arrived 7:09 p.m.) Councillor Mel Coutanche Councillor Terry Allison Councillor Sandy Agnew Councillor John Crawford Councillor Dwight Evans N1EE i f ~~C: CO~r~1C(L C. OFW.^ Staff Present: Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services; Glenn White, Senior Planner; Janette Teeter, Deputy Clerk Also Present: Jerry Young; Hubert and Carol Schaefers; Bernd Schaefers; Lynda Aiken; Dennis Aiken; Tiziano Zaghi, Jones Consulting Group Ltd.; Jamie Nairn, Michalski, Nielsen Associates Ltd.; Roy Hastings; Larry Tupling; Tom Kurtz Mayor H.S. Hughes called the meeting to order and explained the public meeting has been called under the authority of the Planning Act, Section 17 and 34, R.S.O. 1990 c.P.13, to obtain public comment with respect to a proposed Amendment to the Official Plan, Application 2005-OPA-04 and proposed Amendment to the Zoning By-law, Application 2005-ZBA-27 (J. Goossens), Part of Lot 25, Concession 10, (formerly within the Township of Oro), East side of Line 9 South, North of Lakeshore Road East, Township of Oro- Medonte. Notice of the Public Meeting was mailed to landowners within 120m (400 feet) of the specified site on November 5, 2007 and posted on a sign on the subject property on November 5, 2007. The following correspondence was received at the meeting: Simcoe County District School Board dated November 21, 2007; Ministry of Natural Resources dated June 22, 2007, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority dated August 22, 2007. Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services, provided an overview of the purpose and effect of the proposed Amendments. Tiziano Zaghi, Jones Consulting Group Ltd. on behalf of applicant, provided an overview of the proposed Amendments. Coloured map correspondence was distributed to members of Council and staff. ~o Q.. " -2- The following public persons offered verbal comments with respect to the proposed Amendment: None. Mayor Hughes advised that written submissions will be received at the Township office until December 10, 2007 and that no additional deputations to Council will be permitted with respect to the proposed amendment. A digital recording of the meeting is available for review at the Township Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South. There being no further comments or questions, the meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Page 2 Planning Public Meeting November 26, 2007 2005-OPA-04 and 2005-ZBA-27 J. Goossens Co Q - l6 0,8/22/2007 WGD 14:11 FAX ., ~~, , . j `i~, 'I'cl: 905 -895-1281 1-500-4G5-0437 I'a:c: 905-853-5881 L'-Mail: i~ifo(i~)lsrca_oa.r.~ WcU: l~m•~.•.lsrca.orl.ca 120 Bayvicw Parkway B~~a 2s2 Nclvnlarkct, O~uario G3Y 4X1 Sent by Facsimile ] -705-734-1056 fdlool/002 August 22, 2007 File 1\Tos.: 2005-OPA-04, 2005-Z13A-27, 2005-I3-48-50 JMS Nos.: POrC277C9, YZOC60G, PLllC460 Mr. Tiziano Zaghi, MC1P, RPP Jones Consulting Group Limited 300 Lalcesllore Drive, Suite 100 Barrie, ON L4N OB4 Dear Mr. Zaghi: Re: Proposed OfficialPlan Amendlnent,Proposed Zoning By-La'cv Amendment and Severance Applications for Goossens Property (Your File: 4304) fart Lot 2S, Concession l0, Townchip of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has completed our review of the supporting documentation (Goossens Property Site Evaluation Report Revised September 2006, and additional information submitted on August 3, 2007) pro~~ided by Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited in support of the subject applications. We offer the following comments; each issue is numbered as in }your letter: Two small butternut trees (identified as Tlee #~1}have been identified as worthy of retention and these findings have been confirmed by the Ministry of Natural Resources. These tl•ees are located within the proposed buffel• to the watcl•eourse and, as such, are within the protected portion of the woodlot. A 30-metre buffer to the cedar swamp (SWCI-1) leas been provided as 1•equested. 3. Based on the information provided and the illustrations in Figure 1, the proposed building envelopes (dwellings, driveways and alter beds) are located outside of the A buffel• areas. Please note that cieal•ing for yal•ds and amenity spaces should be minimized. Wa ters.l~ed 4. We are satisf ed with the proposed ] 5 metre Duffer for the intermittent watercourse on proposed Lot 3. for Life Page 1 of 2 0,8/2z/z007 w>;D la:ll FAx ~looa/oo2 August 22, 2007 rile Nos.: 2405-O1'A-04, 2005-ZBA-27, 2005-B-48-50 ~:. ~• 1MS Nos.: POFC277C9, PZOC606, PLDC460 Mr. 'I'iziano Zaghi, MC1P, RPP . •' ~ Jones Consulting Group Limited Page 2 of 2 To ensure the long-term protection of the natural features and their functions identified on the property, we ~~~ill require a Conselation Easement under the Conservation Lands Act be placed over the environmentally protected portions ofthe property through the conditions of consent, and appropriate zoning of the features. ~~4~e have received the $300.00 fee for the review of these applications. Based on the above, we #ind the proposed plan to be acceptable. }?ormal comments on these planning application will be p1•ovided to the Township ofOro-Medonte. I trust this meets your requirements at this time. In order to facilitate ourprocessing of this file, please reference the above-noted file numbel•s in future correspondence. Yours truly, y..:. :~'~ Jackie Burkari Environmental Planner JB/ph Township ofOro-Medonte, Bruce Hoppe, 1-705-487-0133 -Fax Ministry of Natural Resources - Midhurst Dist., Kevin Reese, 1-705-725-7500-Fax Micl~aiski Nielsen Associates Limited, James Nairn, 705-645-1904 -Fax 111~1fl~~~kcslonc\sharcdUaCk ic13\R IiGU LA'1'1 oNS\PLANN 1NG\OPA% 13AlOro-Mcdonlc12009U U 1.L'SCioOSS1:NS.~rpd ~ a - ~Z Ministry of Natural Resources Ministere des Richesses naturelles OO Ontario Midhurst District 2284 Nursery Road Midhurst, Ontario LOL1X0 Telephone: (705) 725-7500 Facsimile: (705) 725-7584 June 22, 2007 MEMORANDUM T0: James Nairn Terrestrial Ecologist Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited 104 Kimberley Avenue, Unit 1 Bracebridge, Ontario, P1 L 1 Z8 Subject: Goossen Property, Part Lot 25, Concession 10, Geographic Township of Oro, Township of Oro-Medonte The Ministry of Natural Resources has reviewed the information submitted in your letter dated April 18, 2007, including the revised "Summary of Conditions of Butternut on the Goossens Property" and Figure A. "Revised Development Plan over Natural Heritage Features" and provide the following comments: , Under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), butternut is defined as an endangered species. Policy 2.1.3 a) of the PPS states that "Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a) significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species". Furthermore, the impact of development on adjacent lands to this habitat must also be evaluated. For the purposes of the PPS, only healthy butternut trees should be considered. Determination of tree health can be carried out by examining the proportion of live tree crown and the area of main stem and root flares affected by cankers. The information submitted follows the recommended approach from the USDA Technical Report NC-165 "Butternut -Strategies for Managing a Threatened Tree". The information submitted indicates that two young butternut identified as 'Tree # 1" meet the above guidelines for retention. The information indicates that the trees are located "28m away from the edge of any proposed disturbance" on site and that an existing 15m buffer for an intermittent drainage will provide a minimum buffer for the two trees. It is also noted that these trees are located within the protected portion of the woodlot within proposed "Lot 3" indicated on Figure A. This Ministry confirms that the assessment carried out on the Goossen property to determine tree health is appropriate and in keeping with the USDA Technical Report. Furthermore, we concur with the findings of the assessment with respect to the identification of the two small Ga - l3 (2) butternut trees identified as `Tree # 1" as being healthy as well the protection of an intact portion of the woodland which will continue to provide the growing requirements for these trees. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact the undersigned at (705) 725-7553 or at kevin.reese@ontario.ca. Yours truly, Original signed by: Kevin Reese, R.P.F. District Forester MNR, Midhurst District c.c. Kathy Woeller, MNR, Midhurst Jackie Burkart, Lake 5imcoe Region Conservation Authority Tiziano Zaghi, Jones Consulting Group Ltd. Bruce Hoppe, Township of Oro-Medonte Gail White, County of Simcoe Page ] of ] 7a-1 White, Glenn From: Sandy Agnew [sandy.agnew@oro-medonte.ca] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:57 PM To: Hoppe, Bruce Cc: TomKurtz; RoyHastings; MaryOfarrell-Bowers; LindaBabulic; LarryTupling; Allison, Terry; Hough, Ralph; Coutanche, Mel; Crawford, John; Hughes, Harry; Evans, Dwight; Dunn, Robin; White, Glenn Subject: PAC agenda Hi Bruce Last fall Glenn and I attended a workshop on Healthy Communities in Orillia put on by the Health Unit and the Ontario Professional Planners Association. Both agencies made excellent presentations on designing healthy communities. The Health Unit is willing to make a similar presentation to the PAC. Could we add a discussion about inviting the HU to present to a future PAC meeting to the agenda on the 28th? Also I have included below (with another slight rearrangement of my own priorities), the list of topics you circulated last August. Can you also add a discussion of how/when PAC will deal with these to the agenda? Thanks, Sandy 1. Character of the Township of Oro-Medonte/Official Plan Interpretation & need for review 2. Township population growth forecasts/Places to Grow Act, Ministry of Public Infrastructure and Renewal 3. Craighurst Secondary Plan 4. General severance policies 5. Natural Heritage policy 6. Shoreline development/ Role of the Conservation Authority(ies) 7. Mineral Aggregate Resources 8. Clean Water Act (municipal wellhead protection) 9. Home Occupations 10. Tourism 11. Transportation corridor planning 12. Servicing Strategy 1 /18/2008 I V r iSfIOG' V'81f~}' ENOj tlWrtt39'S3 9S'3~8b0~1 71D3 h~orses~hae vafiey ro,'xi, cxxry~rnnerrt 51, rr~'1. Liarrie, on., LAM 4YS RECEIVED To The Corporation of The Township of Oro Medonte 148 Line 7 South, Box 100 Oro, ON, LOL-2X0 ORO-MEDONTE TOWNSHIP Dear Oro Medonte Officials and Councillors, JAN 0 7 2008 January 6, 2008 Re: Resort -Style of Housing for Future HV Developments It is a concern of many Horseshoe Valley residents that for any future residential construction in the Valley as well as in the Highlands, there may not be sufficient stipulation or control as to the "resort-style" of housing, which should be built and which has made this area so very desirable. This is in particular true for the next phases of the Landscapes Development, for which Horseshoe Resort is looking for a large builder, who could handle the entire development. Typically, large builders will aim at only a few styles of houses with minor variations, since this "cookie -cutter" type of construction would be cheaper. We all have seen the disastrous results in areas of Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughn, etc. and would not like to have that repeated in Horseshoe Valley. As well, more flexible lot sizes, providing a healthy mik of larger and smaller properties are believed to enhance the appearance as well as the interest and thus sales of housing in the development. We would like to urge the Township and Horseshoe Resort, to work together on a plan and architectural parameters to be adhered to, possibly following the example of Landscapes -Phase 1, to ensure that Horseshoe Valley remains as beautiful as it is now. HVPOA would strongly support such an effort by the above mentioned parties involved. Respectfully, Uli Surmann, HVPOA Municipal Affairs CC: Mayor Hughes Mel Coutanche, Councillor, Ward 1 Horseshoe Resort, Mr. R. Andrews Horseshoe Resort, Mr. J. Boville H'VPOA Presiuent Judy Sutherla^d ~a. " l D2 SUBDIVISION OF LAND This section is intended to contain policies that are to be considered with every application to subdivide land in the Township. Regard shall also be had to the specific policies dealing with lot creation in each land use designation in addition to other policies in the Plan. D2.1 PREFERRED MEANS OF LAND DIVISION Land division by Plan of Subdivision, rather than by consent, shall generally be required if: a) the extension of an existing public road or the development of a new public road is required to access the proposed lots; or, b) the area that is proposed to be developed is not considered to be infilling; or, c) a Plan of Subdivision is required to ensure that the entire land holding or area is developed in an orderly and efficient manner; or, d) more than four lots including the retained lands are being created and/or the owner is retaining sufficient lands for the development of additional lots. D2.2 NEW LOTS BY CONSENT D2.2.1 General Criteria Prior to issuing provisional consent for a new lot for any purpose, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the lot to be retained and the lot to be severed: a) fronts on and will be directly accessed by a public road that is maintained on a year-round basis; b) does not have direct access to a Provincial Highway or County Road, unless the Province or the County supports the request; c) will not cause a traffic hazard; d) has adequate size and frontage for the proposed use in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and is compatible with adjacent uses; Page 163 ORO MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN NOTE: THIS IS A CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN and includes all Amendments that have been approved by the County of Simcoe or the Ontario Municipal Hoard as oT January 24, 2007 Printed March 16, 2007 Sa-z e) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal; f) 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 provision of access, if they are designated for development by this Plan; h) will not have a negative impact on the features and functions of any ecological feature in the area; i) will not have a negative impact on the quality and quantity of groundwater available for other uses in the area; and, j) will conform to Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, as amended. Provisional consent may be granted subject to appropriate conditions of approval for the severed and/or retained lot. D2.2.2 Boundary Adjustments A consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot is created. In reviewing an application for such a boundary adjustment, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the properties affected as intended by this Plan. In addition, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the agricultural parcels affected. D2.2.3 Technical Severances The creation of new lots to correct a situation where two or more lots have merged on title may be permitted, provided the Committee of Adjustment is satisfied that the new lot: a) was once a separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act; b) the merging of the lots was unintentional and was not merged as a requirement of a previous planning approval; c) is of the same shape and size as the lot which once existed as a separate conveyable lot; d) can be adequately serviced by on-site sewage and water systems; Page 164 ORO MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN NOTE: THIS IS A CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN and includes all ~mnr3rimontg that h~Ve been annroved by the County of Simcoe or the Ontario Municipal Board as of January 24, 2007 Printed March 16, 2007 Sa. - 3 e) fronts on and will be directly accessed by a public road that is maintained year-round by a public authority; f) there is no public interest served by maintaining the property as a single conveyable parcel; g) conforms with Section D2.2.1 of this Plan; and, h) subject to the access policies of the relevant road authority. D2.2.4 Lots for Utilities The creation of new lots for public utilities, communication utilities and water and sewer infrastructure may be permitted provided: a) the area of the proposed lot is minimized and reflects what is required for the use; and, b) the implementing zoning by-law, as a condition of Provisional Consent, only permits uses that are related to the utility on the lot. D2.3 SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT POLICIES This section is intended to contain general Plan of Subdivision policies that are to be considered with every application for Plan of Subdivision. Regard should also be had to the specific policies dealing with lot creation in each land use designation. Prior to the consideration of an application for Plan of Subdivision, Council shall be satisfied that: a) the approval of the development is not premature and is in the public interest; b) the lands will be appropriately serviced with infrastructure, schools, parkland and open space, community facilities and other amenities; c) the density of the development is appropriate for the area; d) the subdivision, when developed, will be easily integrated with other development in the area; e) the subdivision conforms with the environmental protection and management policies of this Plan; and, Page 165 ORO MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN NOTE: THIS IS A CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN and includes all AmendmQn#s that have been approved by the County of Simcoe or the Ontario Municipal Board as of January 24, ZUO7 Printed March 16, 2007 ~0. - ~' ~~ f) the proposal conforms to Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, as amended. Prior to the registration of any Plan of Subdivision, a Subdivision Agreement between the landowner and the Township will be required. Page 166 ORO MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN NOTE: THIS IS A CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN and includes all Amendments that have been approved by the County of Simcoe or the Ontario Municipal ward as vi .ianuaiy 2~, 2L'07 Printed March 16, 2007 ~Q-5 " AGQKULTURAI:' If the Committee of Adjustment is satisfied that the above criteria have been met, the Committee shall include a condition of consent that states that the new lot be placed in site-specific zone in the implementing Zoning By-law that prohibits the development of residential uses. The re-zoning of the property to permit a residential use is strongly discouraged by this Plan since the development of a residence would have an impact on either the rural character of the area and/or the viability of agricultural operations in the area. C1.3.2 The Creation Of New Lots For Non-Agricultural Purposes In accordance with the intent of this Plan to protect land suitable for agriculture and to maintain the rural character of the Township, the creation of new lots in the Agricultural designation for non-agricultural purposes is not permitted. C1.3.3 Home Industries Home industries are small-scale industrial uses that are accessory to agricultural operations or single detached dwellings on large rural lots. These uses should not detract from the primary use of the property for agricultural or residential purposes. Home industries may include welding, carpentry or machine shops, or agriculturally related uses that involve the processing of regionally produced agricultural crops or other products. The accessory retail sales of products produced in the home industry is also permitted. The repair, storage or sale of motor vehicles is not considered to be a home industry. Home industries may be permitted, subject to re-zoning, provided Council is satisfied that: a) the building housing the home industry is located within the existing farm-building cluster, if located on a farm property; b) the home industry has a floor area that is consistent with the scale of uses on the property; c) the home industry and any activity area associated with the home industry is set back from all lot lines by at least 30 metres; d) the noise, dust and odour that could potentially emanate from the use will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties; e) the type and level of traffic generated by the use is compatible with the character of the area and the function of adjacent roads; f) the operator of the home industry resides on the property; Page 68 ORO MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN NOTE: THIS IS A CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN and includes all Amendments that have been approved by the County of Simcoe or the Ontario Municipal Board as of January 24, 20x7 Printed March 16, 2007 ~Q - ~ SECTION C2 -RURAL C2.1 OBJECTIVES To preserve and promote the rural character of the Township and the maintenance of the open countryside. • To prevent the intrusion of land uses which are incompatible with the rural character and/or resource activities of the area. C2.2 PERMITTED USES Permitted uses on lands in the Rural designation as shown on the schedules to this Plan are agriculture, single detached dwellings, bed and breakfast establishments subject to Section C1.3.10, home occupations, home industries subject to Section C1.3.3, forestry, commercial dog kennels subject to Section C1.3.5, resource management uses, agricultural research and training establishments subject to Section C1.3.7, farm related tourism establishments subject to Section C1.3.8 and commercial uses on farm properties subject to Section C1.3.9. Institutional uses such as schools, places of worship, community centres are also permitted. Farm implement dealers, feed and fertilizer distribution facilities, greenhouses, seasonal home grown produce stands, wayside pits and quarries, portable asphalt plants, and existing waste disposal sites are also permitted. In addition, small-scale corporate meeting facilities or corporate retreats, and accessory uses such as accommodation facilities may be permitted. In both cases, the number of accessory accommodation units shall generally be limited to 25, as a result of the impact of such a use on the rural character of the area. The designation also permits existing tourist commercial uses such as private parks, trailer or recreational vehicle parks, mobile home parks, rental cabin establishments and private campgrounds and accessory recreational and commercial facilities C2.3 DEVELOPMENT POLICIES C2.3.1 The creation of new lots for residential purposes In accordance with the intent of this Plan to maintain the rural character of the Township, only a limited number of new lots for residential purposes can be Page 74 ORO MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN NOTE: THIS IS A CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN and includes all Amendments that have been approved by the County of Simcoe or the Ontario Municipal board as of January 2~, 2007 Printed March 16, 2007 Scc - 7 created in the Township. In this regard, 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 provided a lot has not been severed from the parcel after March 26, 1973. In considering the creation of a new lot for residential purposes, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the proposed lot: a) will have a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares; b) is of an appropriate size for residential use, with such a residential use generally not requiring a lot size that exceeds 1.0 hectare; c) fronts onto an existing public road that is maintained year round by the Township or County; d) will not cause a traffic hazard as a result of its location on a curve or a hill; and, e) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and an appropriate means of sewage disposal. Notwithstanding the above, a larger lot size may be considered for environmental or topographical reasons. C2.3.2 Infilling Lots The creation of a new infilling lot in the Rural designation may be permitted, provided: a) there is no more than generally 120 metres separating the two non-farm lots; b) no more than one infilling lot is created from a lot that existed on the date of approval of this policy; d) the proposed lot will conform to the Minimum Distance Separation One Formula and will not affect the ability of neighbouring farmers to expand their operation in the future; e) the lot from which the infilling lot is to be created has an area of at least 20 hectares; and, f) the proposed lot will conform with the general consent policies of this Plan. Page 75 ORO MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN NOTE: THIS IS A CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN and includes all Amendments that have been approved by the County of Simcoe or the Ontario Municipal ~oarcl as of January 24, 2007 Printed March 16, 2007