The URL can be used to link to this page

02 21 2008 C of A AgendaCommittee of Adjustment Agenda Thursday February 21, 2008, 9:30 a.m. 1. Communications and Correspondence 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Hearings: 9:30 ., m 10:15 W 11:15 11:30 ii: �� • • •• Concession 12, Lot 4 3857 Line 11 North (Former Township of Medonte) 2008 -B -05 Robert Mason Plan 819, Lot 35 8 Brambel Road (Former Township of Oro) 2008 -A -05 Robert Mason Plan 819, Lot 35 8 Brambel Road (Former Township of Oro) 2008 -A -02 Ian Johnson Plan 1, Lot 13 3 Penetanguisene Road (Former Township of Oro) 2008 -8 -02 Ian Johnson Plan 1, Lot 13 3 Penetanguisene Road (Former Township of Oro) 2008 -A -03 Barry Gardhouse Plan 626, Lot 28 104 Lakeshore Promenade (Former Township of Oro) 2008 -A -01 Susan Fleet Concession 7, East 1/2 Lot 3 108 Millpond Road (Former Township of Medonte) 2008 -A -04 Randy Sheldrake Concession 1, Lot 32 2309 Penetanguisene Road (Former Township of Oro) 2008 -A -06 Raymond Dumont Concession 1, East Part of Lot 10 2109 Gore Road (Former Township of Oro) 11:45 2008-13-03 Anthony Keene Concession 8, West 1/2 Lot 24 143 Ridge Road East (Former Township of Oro) 12:00 2006-A-36 Cynthia Lee & Randy Ostojic (Revised) Plan M-780, Lot 92 197 Eight Mile Point Road (Former Township of Oro) 12:15 2007-B-32 Rosemarie Mairs (Revised) Concession 8, Part of Lot 22 6328 Line 8 North (Former Township of Medonte) 12:30 2008-A-08 Lorrie Emmons Plan 629, Lot 12 23 Nelson Street (Former Township of Oro) 4. Other business Adoption of Minutes from January 17, 2008 meeting 5. Adjournment Township of Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for February 21, 2008 Candas Osborne 3857.L1ne 11 North, Lot 4, Concession 12, (Former Twp. OfMedonte) The purpose of application 2008 -B -04 is to permit a boundary adjustment to facilitate a proposed use of a hobby farm. The applicant is proposing to convey 2.2 hectares (5.5 acres) to the adjacent property, being 3833 Line 11 North. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Agricultural Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Agricultural/ Rural (A /RLT) AGENCY COMMENTS County of Simcoe - No Comments Received Public Works Department - Building Department - Engineering Department - No concerns Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority- No Concerns BACKGROUND The applicants are proposing a boundary adjustment to convey and add approximately 2.2 hectares to the neighboring lot, being 3833 Line 11 North, which contains a single detached dwelling. The purpose of the adjustment is to provide a larger lot for 3833 Line 11 North. The land to be retained by the applicant, 3857 Line 11 North, would have an area of approximately 36 hectares and currently contains a single detached dwelling and various structures accessory to the agricultural operation on the property. Section D2.2.2 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider applications for boundary adjustments. The policy states: A consent may be pey�aitted for the purpo e of mod�ing lot boundaries provided no new building lot is created ... in addition, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the bounda�y adjustment will not affect the Friability of the agricultural parcele affected. " In reviewing the application, no new building lots will be created, and given the relatively <� giv small amount of land to be conveyed, the viability of the overall agricultural operation would not likely experience an adverse impact. On this basis, the application is considered to be appropriate and generally conforms to the Official Plan. • The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone in the Township's Zoning By-law. The lot to be enhanced, 3833 Line 11 North, is also zoned Agricultural Rural (A/RtT) Zone. The intended use on the enhanced lot is to be a "hobby farm", which requires a minimum area of 2 hectares in the A /Rtj Zone. The enhanced lot will have a total area of 2.9 hectares. Therefore, the application would comply with the provisions as prescribed by the Zoning By-law. CONCLUSION The proposed consent application is for a boundary adjustment generally conforms with the policies of the Official Plan and complies with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B-03 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary- Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the -Municipality; 3. That the severed lands be merged in title with 3833 Line 11 North and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the maximum total area for the enhanced lot be no greater than 2.9 ha; 5. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in tit,],-,- 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the t)-ivmv of the notice. 1 giving All of which is-mQspectfullv submitted, Steven Farquharson, B.URPL Junior Planner Reviewed by Glenn White -MCIP, RPP Senior Planner ROAD ALLILVRICE RETWEEN LOTS 5 AND 6 ------°---------------------------------- - - - - - --- --------------- .. . ......... PLO 51+1519N pbW 54ff-2yw5 — HOAD ,'lL(.VFAAlCk 1301VEEN LL? -r I ',WD 6 iL ------------- ------------------ ---------- PLAN 51hN96J9 o" 0006 om tS 0 0014 PLAY 51+7994 41 ai zt C om f'LA-V 51+,& 64 PL =v 51R-T91.3 coo V oan ow - I . . I I " ow BLOCK 58530 - SHEET I ON JULY 1, 2000. SCALE L--:- IN PROPERTY INDEX MAP BLOCK 58530 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COUNTY OF SIMCOE (OFFICE 51) LAST IDENTIFIER UpSaw ow, LEGEND FREEMMU PROPERly BOUNDARY LEASE"" PROPERTY BOUPIDAlly - - - - - - - NATURAL RESOURCE PROPERTY BOUNDARY FREEHOLD PROPERTY NUlftfl ow LEASEmmU PROPERTY NUMBER 014f NATURAL RESOURCE PROPERTY NUhftR 0/47 TOWNWW FABRIC - - - - - - - - STREAMS, RIVERS UNDERLING F"WEASENENT -------------- 4,q'DDW N DIV GIN ROCK DNA AOJOMM MAP NUMBER TDF UMUE VEMTF*R FOR MY PROPER" *.G.002% - 0141) IN COMPOSED OF THE MAP BLOCK NUMBER N)OM AM THE I%* DOT NUMBER (OKI) WHICH APPEARS 0 EACH ACTIVATED PROPERTY NOTES NORTH AMERICAN DATUM Y"3 LKAVERSM, TRANSVERSE NERCATOR PRUA:Ct= LOW it CENTRAL MCROAN NB I " I 1 11 00 1 A I L A 4 0 1 S U A . . . THIS NO WAS COMPILED FROM PLANS AM DOCUMENTS, RECORDED 0 THE LAW REGISTRY AM SYSTFAND HAS KIM PWPAM,D FOR PROPERTY MK*-xm PWIPOSES ONLY IM —PHOOMS OF PHOPEPIT BOUNDARIES SEE RECORDED PLANS AM QOQJWNIS I *�* om ow BLOCK 58530 - SHEET I ON JULY 1, 2000. SCALE L--:- IN PROPERTY INDEX MAP BLOCK 58530 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COUNTY OF SIMCOE (OFFICE 51) LAST IDENTIFIER UpSaw ow, LEGEND FREEMMU PROPERly BOUNDARY LEASE"" PROPERTY BOUPIDAlly - - - - - - - NATURAL RESOURCE PROPERTY BOUNDARY FREEHOLD PROPERTY NUlftfl ow LEASEmmU PROPERTY NUMBER 014f NATURAL RESOURCE PROPERTY NUhftR 0/47 TOWNWW FABRIC - - - - - - - - STREAMS, RIVERS UNDERLING F"WEASENENT -------------- 4,q'DDW N DIV GIN ROCK DNA AOJOMM MAP NUMBER TDF UMUE VEMTF*R FOR MY PROPER" *.G.002% - 0141) IN COMPOSED OF THE MAP BLOCK NUMBER N)OM AM THE I%* DOT NUMBER (OKI) WHICH APPEARS 0 EACH ACTIVATED PROPERTY NOTES NORTH AMERICAN DATUM Y"3 LKAVERSM, TRANSVERSE NERCATOR PRUA:Ct= LOW it CENTRAL MCROAN NB I " I 1 11 00 1 A I L A 4 0 1 S U A . . . THIS NO WAS COMPILED FROM PLANS AM DOCUMENTS, RECORDED 0 THE LAW REGISTRY AM SYSTFAND HAS KIM PWPAM,D FOR PROPERTY MK*-xm PWIPOSES ONLY IM —PHOOMS OF PHOPEPIT BOUNDARIES SEE RECORDED PLANS AM QOQJWNIS I *�* THE CORPORATION OF THE 148 Line 7 5., Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0 TOWN(� � � � Phone (705) 487 -2171 \ Fax (705) 487 -0133 www.oro- medonte.ca Severance Review Hearing Dater Application #:� "`� Owner: MAS #: �� r- I 1 Lot #: Plan #: Conc. #: 1-2, The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application. ❑ Site inspection required and completed. Ja Proposal appears to meet minimum standards. ❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code. ❑ Comments: Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal Respectfully submitted, 1 513 LA I 'n � Township of Oro - Medonte Public Works Department Inspection Report for =onsenfi ariance Other Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date Y File No. Name of Owner-6 °r Xy i Address Subject Property If yes, Amount 5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes No 6. Future Drive to be located Remarks: x) A c 4 5 a I I c :terry Ball, P tic Works Superintendent Date of Inspection _% Name of Road 1 lwa (4_ Surface of Road 1. Site Lines, Township Road Poor Good Excellent 2. Site Lines, Subject Property Poor Good Excellent Drive 3. Drainage Poor Good Excellent 4. Future Road Widening Required Yes No e.'''' If yes, Amount 5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes No 6. Future Drive to be located Remarks: x) A c 4 5 a I I c :terry Ball, P tic Works Superintendent c6ld____�pSAGA `' Member Municipalities Adjala- Tosorontio Amaranth Barrie The Blue Mountains Bradford -West Gwillimbury Clearviev, Col I ingwood Elsa lnnisfil Melancthon Mono Mulmur New Tecumseth Cho - Medonte Grey Highlands Shelburne Springwater Wasaga Beach Watershed Counties Sim<oe Dufferi n Grey Member of .7� C�Ak*_' Conservation ONTARIO Namr3r Ch—p—, February 11, 2008 Adam Kozlowski, Secretary- Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Township of Oro - Medonte P.O. Box 100 Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0 Dear Mr. Kozlowski; Re: Application for Consent 2008 -13-04 (Osborne) 3857 Line 11 North, Part Lot 4, Concession 12 Township of Oro - Medonte (Formerly Township of Medonte) The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this application for consent and based upon our mandate and policies under the Conservation Authorities Act, we have no objection to its approval. Thank you for circulating this application for our review and please forward a copy of any decision. Sincerely, Tim Salkeld Resource Planner EEC NEE Conserving our Healthy Waters NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY -= Centre for Conservation John Hix Conservation Administration Centre = Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 8th Line Utopia, On LOM 1T0 Telephone: 705.424.1479 Fax: 705.424.2115 , Web: www.nvca.on.ca Email: admin @nvca.on.ca Township of Oro- Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for February 21, 2008 Robert Mason 2008 -B -05 8 Brambel Road, Plan 819, Lot 35 (Former Twp. of Oro) The purpose of application 2008 -B -05 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot by way of severance. The lot is proposed to have a frontage on Line 4 South of 38.37 metres, a depth of 60.94 metres, and an area of 0.233 hectares. The retained lands would also front on Line 4 South, having a frontage of 38.37 metres, and an area of 0.233 hectares. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Residential Limited Service *Hold (RLS *H) Zone Previous Application(s) — 2008 -A -05 Variance for construction of detached accessory building AGENCY COMMENTS County of Simcoe — No objection Public Works — No concerns Building Department — No concerns Engineering & Environmental Services — No concerns BACKGROUND The subject property is a corner lot, having lot frontage on Brambel Road of 61 metres, frontage on Line 4 South of 77 metres, a lot depth of 60 metres, and a lot area of approximately 0.48 hectares. The lot is presently occupied by a 66.7 square metre detached garage, but is otherwise vacant of dwellings. The applicant owns both the subject land and 9 Brambel Road, being the property immediately south across the road right -of -way; the existing garage is in fact utilized as an accessory structure serving 9 Brambel Road for the storage of boats, passenger vehicles, and other personal items. The subject property contains undisturbed tree cover and underbrush. Surrounding lands uses are predominantly residential, consisting of moderate to large residential lots, containing large single detached dwellings. OFFICIAL PLAN Section C5: "Shoreline" of the Township Official Plan contains specific policies with respect to objectives for development within the Shoreline designation. Specifically, Section C5.2 states `j ermitted uses on lands designated Shoreline include single detached dwellingr ... etc ". As such, the proposed severance of the subject lands for future residential development would constitute a use permitted by the Official Plan. Section D2.2.1 of the Official Plan contains specific tests for the creation of a new lot by Consent. In particular, this section states "...the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the lot to be retained and lot to be severed: a) Fronts on and will be directly accessed by a public road that is maintained on ayear -round basis; Both the proposed severed and retained lands will have frontage on Dine 4 South, which is a public roadway maintained year -round by the Township of Oro- Medonte. b) Does not bare direct access to a Provincial 11ighbway or County -Road unless the Province or the County supports the request; This application does not propose to create a new lot fronting on either a Count= or Provincial road. o Eill not cause a tr-crJfic ho ard; This application proposes to create one new residential lot. Significant traffic volume will not be generated by an additional dwelling fronting onto Line 4 South. The applicant will be required to apply for and obtain an entrance permit from the Township Public Works Department. d) Has adequate side and frontage for the proposed use in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning I y -lazy and is compatible with adacent uses; The application proposes to create a new lot having an area of 0.233 hectares, and a frontage of 38.37 metres, and where the retained lands will have identical dimensions. A condition of Consent will be that the applicant rezone the property from the RLS *H Zone to the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The minimum required lot area for a residential use in the SR Zone is 0.2 hectares, and the minimum required lot frontage is 30 metres. Properties in the immediate area around the subject lands range in size from 0.2 hectares, up to 0.4 hectares. As such, the creation of a new lot having an area of 0.23 hectares, and the retained parcel consisting of 0.23 hectares, will be in generally keeping with the lot fabric of the surrounding neighbourhood. e) Can be serrneed with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal; The applicant will be required at the time of submission of building permit to meet all requirements for septic system installation and private water supply. The Township Zoning By -law has established a minimum lot area of 0.2 hectares for a residential use in the SR Zone to reflect development on private services. f) 1Pill not have a negative impact on the drainage patterns in the area; Future residential development will be reviewed by the Township Building Department, where the construction of a new single detached dwelling may be subject to the completion of a lot grading and drainage plan to ensure water runoff has no negative impact on neighbouring properties. 0 if "ill not restrict Me developftrent of the retained lands or other parrelr of land, partieularly as it relates to lbe provision of access; zf they are designated for development by this Plan; Both the severed and retained lands, upon rezoning, will meet with the minimum required lot frontage and area requirements of the Zoning By -law. No development applications are active adjacent to the subject lands, and as such no negative impacts with respect to access are anticipated as a result of this consent. h) iL`ill not have a negative impact on the features and functions of any ecological feature in the area; The subject lands are located at the bottom of Line 4 South, in a predominantly low density residential area. Lands to the north, from approximately Ridge Road south to just north of the subject lands are identified in the Official Plan as being within the "Environmental Protection Two" overlay, representing significant woodlands and potential wildlife habitat. However, the Official Plan does not identify any such features on the subject lands, nor does any part of the lands fall within the regulated area of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, or contain Environmental Protection (EP) Zoning. i) Vill not bare a negative impact on the quality and quantity ofgroundwater available for other uses in the area; The application at hand proposes to create a new lot by way of severance, for the future development of one additional single detached dwelling. The dwellings on the severed and retained lands will be serviced by a private water supply, namely a drilled well. The application does not propose a use that involves commercial or other large -scale water- taking operations, or any other use that involves the use of large amounts of ground water for regular operation. Therefore, the application to create a new residential lot through severance maintains the general intent of the Official Plan. ZONING BY -LAW The subject property is currently zoned Residential Limited Service *Hold (RI.S *H) Zone. The proposed lot will consist of 6.233 hectares, and will have 38.37 metres of frontage on Line 4 South; the required frontage for a lot in the RI,S Zone is 30 metres, and the required minimum lot area for a residential use is 0.2 hectares. The proposed retained lands would consist of 0.233 hectares, and maintain 38.37 metres of frontage on Line 4 North. Therefore, the proposed lot would meet with all requirements of lot area and frontage for the both the current Rl-S Zone, and as anticipated as a condition of Consent, the proposed Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. On the basis of the above, the application would appear to comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law. CONCLUSION The proposed consent application for the creation of a residential lot by way of severance maintains the intent of the policies of the Official Plan, and complies with the minimum lot provisions as required by the Zoning By -law. It is recommended that the Committee grant provisional approval to Consent Application 2008 -8 -05, being to create a new residential by way of severance having a frontage on Line 4 South of 38.37 metres, and a lot area of 0.233 hectares, subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary- Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the applicant apply for and obtain a Zoning By -law Amendment for the retained and severed lands, to be rezoned from the Residential Limited Service *Hold (RLS *H) Zone to the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone, to accurately, reflect the proposed residential land use; 4. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash -in -lieu of a parkland contribution; 5. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee in the amount of $4,749.95 (By -law 2004 -082) to the Township; 6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro - Medonte; 7. 'That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. All of which is respectfully submitted, -edam Kozlowski, B.URPL Planner Reviewed by, Glenn White MCIP, RPP Senior Planner wnTER.S AKE "I. Q� Q) {l\ LLj LQ cl� Lt, C) -T A r) N - c �HE AVAI AT -LA NC THIS T,-IE jTHf PA THEE 1) WE ; OVEF THE "o - Mf BY -, ME DIST, G()"V ASSOCIAT ON OF 1( LAND SURVE 1153? A V) sr z N59* 319' 25"E 60.94 mx r N1 AREA z ue.-ewt- Z, i3 rr 0 [=636.48'3 A� 4.0 81 Wit o.) 4.081 9* W30"E CL4D 1 2- g5 'mo RAGE 4-- -T N52 47'20''=— N"*) 26.94 12 - ------- 0A ✓ OA D 4 20 N69.44 WE (M 041 30-N5214T w .48 ko o .1 VE 1, ? 11 (o M—d M OJE o 1 41. 44PAoc ;t4 1446 -2 o aE ELD sTo"t 0H2d2 iN Is og pp 9z QN o J o Vo O T Is o is ? ov F m ki IF p wnTER.S AKE "I. Q� Q) {l\ LLj LQ cl� Lt, C) -T A r) N - c �HE AVAI AT -LA NC THIS T,-IE jTHf PA THEE 1) WE ; OVEF THE "o - Mf BY -, ME DIST, G()"V ASSOCIAT ON OF 1( LAND SURVE 1153? A N ORO-MEDONT E TOWNSHIP - February 4, 2008 Re: MASON, Robert Barnes Application for Consent No. 2008-B-05 Application for Minor Variance No. 2008-A-05 Dear Sirs: My name is/Our names are -andl/we Z reside at= C which abuts Dr. Mason's 4,711 P / � /,/C�! - property immediately to the west. I/We write this letter in support of his applications before you. I/We have reviewed Dr. Mason's Application for Consent to severe Lot 35 into two lots as well as his Application relating to the demolition of the existing garage which fronts on Brambel Road to be replaced by a new garage having an area of 122.63 square meters. I/We have also reviewed the drawings of the new garage and feel that it is in keeping with the residential character of this neighbourhood and will be an improvement to the property. I/We are not concerned about the size of the garage In that it will allow Dr. Mason to store all his vehicles/trailers /boats in one enclosed space. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me/us at Yours very truly, Name: Orr)! 61 rf ef Name: v February 4, 2008 Re: MASON, Robert Barnes Application for Consent No. 2008 -B -05 Application for Minor Variance No. 2008 -A-05 Dear Sirs: My name is/Our names are, Y1 jZ I CJ'��rl and 1/we reside at 4— LAL. - ' is -h . which abuts r. Mason's property Immediately to the north. 1/We write this letter in support of his applications before you. I/We have reviewed Dr. Mason's Application for Consent to severe Lot 35 into two lots as well as his Application relating to the demolition of the existing garage which fronts on Brambel Road to be replaced by a new garage having an area of 122.63 square meters. I We have also reviewed the drawings of the new garage and feel that It is In keeping with the residential character of this neighbourhood and will be an Improvement to the property. 1/We are not concerned about the size of the garage in that it will allow Dr. Mason to store all his vehiclesitrallers /boats in one enclosed space. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me /us at 71 €_ Yours very truly, l `Name: Name: OV-1 Robert Barnes February 4, 2008 Application for Consent No. 2008-B-05 Application for Minor Variance No. 2008-A-05 My name is/Our names reside at / / X714 Concessions 4 and 5, to the east of Dr. support of his applications before you. and 1 /we which Is between property. I/We write this letter In I/We have reviewed Dr. Mason's Application for Consent to severe Lot 35 into two lots as well as his Application relating to the demolition of the existing garage which fronts on Brambel Road to be replaced by a new garage having an area of 122.63 square meters. I/We have also reviewed the drawings of the new garage and feel that it is In keeping with the residential character of this neighbourhood and will be an improvement to the property. I/We are not concerned about the size of the garage in that It will allow Dr. Mason to store all his vehicles/trailers/boats in one enclosed space. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me/us at Yours very truly, Name- Name: Hearing Date Application #: Owner: MAS #: - -t/ r06 Se Minor Variance Review i...-° Lot #: J Plan #: Conc. #: X The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application. ❑ Site inspection required and completed. Proposal appears to meet minimum standards. ❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code. ❑ Comments: Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal Respectfully submitted, s: .* Kim Allen Deputy Chief Building Official 9 1G2 Sherri Moore Acting Chief Building Official TownshiD of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department Address Subject Property Good Excellent Good Excellent Good Excellent Yes No If yes, Amount 5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes No 6. Future Drive to be located MOST Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent Township of Oro- Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for February 21, 2008 Robert Mason 2008 -A -05 8 Brambel Road, Plan 819, Lot 35, (Former Twp. of Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 66.7 square metre detached accessory garage, and replace with a new 122.6 square metre garage. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.16.1 of the Zoning By -law 97 -95 — "Enlargement, Repair or Renovation [of non - complying buildings and structures] ", as the garage subject to this application has been constructed prior to the primary permitted use of the property, being a single detached dwelling. The applicant is also seeking relief from Section 5.1.6 "Maximum Floor Area [of accessory structures] ", from the required 70 square metres to a proposed 122.6 square metres. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Residential Limited Service *Hold (RLS *H) Zone Previous Applications — AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works - Building Department — Engineering Department- The subject property is a corner lot, having lot frontage on Brambel Road of 61 metres, frontage on Line 4 South of 77 metres, a lot depth of 60 metres, and a lot area of approximately 0.48 hectares. The lot is presently occupied by a 66.7 square metre detached garage, but is otherwise vacant of dwellings. The applicant owns both the subject land and 9 Brambel Road, being the property immediately south across the road right -of -way; the garage subject to this application is in fact utilized as an accessory structure serving 9 Brambel Road for the storage of boats, passenger vehicles, and other personal items. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing garage, and replace same with a larger structure, while relocating the new larger garage further north and west into the subject lands. As such, the applicant requires permission from the Committee to expand a non- complying structure, as the original garage was constructed prior to the primary permitted use on the subject lands, and for variance to increase the floor area of the proposed garage beyond that which the Zoning By -law permits. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline by the Official Plan. Permitted uses in the Shoreline designation include single detached dwellings and accessory buildings, marinas, and small scale commercial uses. As such, the construction of a garage accessory to a single detached dwelling constitutes a permitted use in the Official Plan. Policies with respect to applications for expansion of non - complying buildings and structures are guided by the policies set out in Section E1.6 of the Official Plan. This section states "A non complying building; or slrl'clure may be enlat ed, repaired or renovated protrided that the enlarr)emenl... : a) Does not frther increase a situation of non - compliance; b) ("o>azplies will) all olher applicable provisions o_ f the Plan and implemenlht g Zoning 13y -late; c) Does not increase the amounl of floor area in a required yard or setback area; d) I ill not pose a lhreal to public health or safety; e) Complies with the applicable by -lazes of the County of Simcoe Criteria a, b, and c will be discussed below, as these tests pertain to the general intent of the Zoning By -law. With respect to criteria b, d, and e, the proposed relocation and construction of a new garage constitutes a permitted use in the Shoreline Designation, will be located away from the traveled portion of local roadways and will not hinder traffic, and is not located on lands containing policies prescribed by the County of Simcoe that would preclude the proposed use. On this basis the application to expand a non - complying structure and variance to permit an increase in floor area from 70 square metres to 122.6 square metres is deemed to maintain the intent of the Official Plan. Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Residential Limited Service *Hold (RL S *H) Zone, to reflect that the subject lands front onto a private, non - municipally serviced road. Permitted uses in the RLS *H Zone include single detached dwellings, detached accessory structures, and boathouses for lands fronting onto Lake Simcoe or Bass Lake. With respect to accessory buildings, Section 5.1.1 to 5.1.6 outlines specific criteria for the timing, size, and location for structures accessory to a residential use. For the application at hand, the location of the proposed new garage would comply with all required front, side, and rear yard setbacks. The proposed garage is also in compliance with maximum height provisions, along with the maximum lot coverage requirement. 2 With respect to floor area, the intent of the Zoning By-law in limiting the size of any one accessory structure floor area at 70 square metres is to ensure that the buildine, remains clearly secondary to the primary permitted use of the lot. In this case, the subject lands do not contain a dwelling, and as such the policy to maintain a visually - secondary status for the garage would not apply. However, as the proposed new 122.6 square metre garage serves as accessory to the dwelling unit located at 9 Brambel, it should be noted that this dwelling has, according to Township building records, a gross floor area of 373.65 square metres. Therefore, the proposed new garage, while being located on an adjacent property also owned by the applicant, will continue to be secondary to the dwelling unit it serves as accessory to. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The proposed new garage, at 122.6 square metres, would be nearly double the floor area permitted by Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning By-law. To determine whether the variance is appropriate, a survey of surrounding primary permitted uses, being dwellings, was taken. The purpose for this survey is to ensure that a 122.6 square metre detached accessory structure would not only remain clearly secondary to the primary use of the lot, but also would remain secondary within the context of the surrounding neighbourhood. A survey of 8 surrounding dwellings found that homes on Brambel Road and Line 4 South have an average gross floor area of 253.6 square metres. In addition, a detached accessory structure located directly across Line 4 South from the subject property is shown to have a floor area of 121.8 square metres. As such, the variance to permit a new garage with a floor area of 121216 square metres is appropriate, as the structure will remain clearly secondary to the applicant's dwelling on 9 Brambel, and secondary within the context of surrounding dwelling units. With respect to the RLS*H Zoning of the subject lands, a typical condition of variance is that the applicant be required to enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the Township prior to the issuance of building permit, in order to remove the *Hold provision. It is staffs understanding that the applicant is also concurrently applying- for a severance to subdivide the subjects lands into two separate parcels. A condition of this consent, upon approval by Committee, would be that the applicant be required to rezone the subject lands from the RLS*H Zone to the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The subsequent SR Zone would then not require a Site Plan Agreement for the construction of the proposed new 122.6 square metre garage. As such, it is appropriate that Committee impose a condition to this variance application that a building permit shall not be issued until such time that the Secretary - Treasurer issues a Form 2 Certificate of Official pertaining to a consent for the lands subject to this variance application. Is the variance minor? As the variance to permit the enlargement of a non-complying structure and increase the maximum floor area for the proposed new garage otherwise conform to the Official Plan and maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law, the variance is deemed to be minor. 3 CONCLUSION The requested permission to expand a non - complying structure and grant variance for increase floor area maintains the intent of the Official Plan, and generally complies with the Zoning By -law. The proposal is also compatible with the character of the surrounding residential area, and will remain clearly secondary in comparison with surrounding structures. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Committee approve Application 2008 -A -05, being to enlarge a non- complying structure, and to increase the floor area of the same structure from the maximum 70 square metres to 122.6 square metres, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant apply for and obtain a Consent from the Township of Oro- Medonte Committee of Adjustment pertaining to Plan 819, Lot 35, known municipally as 8 Brambel Road, and that the applicant must fulfill all conditions of Consent and receive from the Secretary- Treasurer a Form 2 "Certificate of Official ", indicating that all conditions of said Consent have been fulfilled, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 122.6 square metre detached accessory structure subject of Variance Application 2008-A-05; 2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and sketches, as submitted and approved by Committee; 3. 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 detached garage be no larger than 122.6 square metres, and that the garage be located on the subject lands in conformity with the site plan prepared by "The Design House ", Drawing ALO, dated 10/11/2007; 4. That notwithstanding Section 5.1.6 of Zoning By -law 97 -95, the detached accessory structure will otherwise comply with all other applicable provisions for such structures as prescribed by Zoning By -law 97 -95; 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of which is respectfully submitted, Reviewed by Isozlowski, B.URPL Bruce ' oppe, MCIP, RPP r Director of Building & Planning Services 91 a Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department Inspection Report for Consent Minor Variance Other ... . .... . Address Subject Prope rt 1. Site Lines, Township Road 2. Site Lines, Subject Property Drive 3. Drainage 4. Future Road Widening Required Poor Good Excellent Poor Good Excellent Poor Good Excellent Yes No 5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected 6. Future Drive to be located Remarks: If yes, Amount Yes No CN-J-10 Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent cn A, m CJ !m �x m % SCALE: Uk".. TITLE CLIENT PR..CT W As Pwls?s SHMN SITE PLAN ROB MASON Lm 35 BRIMOU RD. CHKTI BY ORO a GATE: PROJECT NAME MEDOWE ow� 48�sw WWZIA MASON GARAGE 1136?354114 DRAM BY. swo 00 LAMS" 6.M.0 IN11,07 SIXINTFORPERMIt �Koqo(*RSC� C�C, At F WE 'La po w d C) o p c c s -1 9,l�.. t3 w' tD,� C7 Iz I° I 1 Ile I m I I I m I�I Z I >°p ee ry S1nip i 1 i na$iGopw m� yP p A y b t, m gzoc'i'� ia`apo. IrE m �S+ ggp 41 °A m"' �' . . itt�+ttcy', ^"8�ri 1 M 7`ynZa ro1,9 A -m { S %. � mS= P��2n I..e In i UN m. ' s g n I I� I o 1 Yppp41i zA Y m�n x € •NOFSo � P^ n Na Otr7i €�j Lz, �O ti' -]w o y z,p,m = n a ��.. —,7A—LE ORA'hSNG iiTtE I GIFE�� 7ROffCT NO: Bnorm SECTIONS ROB MASON W iQT Si BRAMBEL RO. CHK46Y rw as +oupsOSncs k".. �: —.CT NAME OR6 MEGCNTE. G.MD. TIM 0lsgnibuw �a.w.wn vr.rwa.�.w°°a ¢ATE OW-10 1l- 0Ba4.Wm ��aomca+wannv MASON GARAGE IW7asetta ORAV*ry of Bm..ae. t4MSKt ,ma. wr..�+ c.u.o DATE St/BUfTFIPT10. iT ut 11/i0'Jtl �. 745,77 .t.�wFw..�'e.v.w.ra.rwwwi+ E pAFE bESCRiPT10N Mrt:ANRR®ROE`ERS.IX7u G.G. Far. T]SiMS Township of Oro- Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for February 21, 2008 Ian Johnson 3 Penetanguishene Road, Lot 13, Plan 1(Former Tup. of Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey a block of land having an area of 0.02 hectares to the neighbouring property to the south, being 1 Penetanguishene Road. This application is being heard concurrent to Minor Variance Application 2008 -A -02, being a variance to seek relief from Section 4, Table B1 "R1 Minimum Lot Area" for the subject lands, being 3 Penetanguishene, to be fasrther reduced .liom the present lot area of 0.14 hectares to a proposed 0.12 bectares, where the minimum area for a lot in the R1 Zone is 0.2 hectares. No new building lots are proposed as a result of this application. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Residential One (RI) Zone Previous Applications — 2007 -A -35 (Variance for accessory structure height and setback) AGENCY COMMENTS County of Simcoe - Public Works Department- No Concerns Building Department — Engineering Department- No Concerns The subject property is a corner lot, having frontage of approximately 18.28 metres on Shanty Bay Road, an exterior side yard of 76 metres along Penetanguishene Road, and a lot area of approximately 0.14 hectares. The subject property contains two dwellings; a 1.5 storey dwelling is located at the north end of the lot, and the second single storey dwelling is located approximately in the middle of the lot. Three detached accessory buildings of varying size are also located on the subject lands. Both dwellings are oriented to Penetanguishene Road, and have direct driveway access from same. The property known as 1 Penetanguishene, being the lot to be enhanced, contains a 1 storey dwelling and boathouse. The southern -most accessory building on 3 Penetanguishene, being a garage for vehicle parking, is in fact utilized by 1 Penetanguishene, and is separated by a board-on- board privacy fence. The purpose of this application is for a boundary adjustment, where a small block of land containing the vehicle garage is proposed to be conveyed from 3 Penetanguishene Road to I Penetanguishene Road, where the latter property is for all intents and purposes utilizing the garage. A variance application is being heard concurrently to permit the subject lands to be reduced in size that in otherwise not permitted by the Zonmg By -law. It should be noted that both the subject property and lands to be enhanced are historically deficient in lot area, having been created long before current zoning provisions for minimum lot areas in the R1 Zone. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? Both the subject property and lot to be enhanced are designated Shoreline by the Official Plan (OP). Section C5.2 of the OP states 'perlvilled uses on lands designated gnaled Sborefine on the schedules to MIS Plan are single detached dwellings [and accessot y buildinAl, existin g marinas, small scale coillwernial uses—etc". The lands subject to the consent and variance application have both been developed, and contain single detached dwellings and detached accessory structures, all being permitted uses in the Shoreline Designation. With respect to the boundary adjustment, policies with respect to the subdivision of land are contained in Section D2 of the OP. Specifically, Section D22.2 - "Boundary Adjustments", provides the following guidance: "a consent Iliqy be permitted for the purpose q1' modifying /of boundaries, provided no new building lot is created... " As such, the boundary adjustment to convey a small block of land is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan, as no new building lot is proposed. Does the variance maintain the general intent of the ZoningBy4aw? Both properties are zoned Residential One (Rl). Permitted uses in the Rl Zone include single detached dwellings and accessory buildings to residential use, such as vehicle garages and storage sheds. The minimum lot size for a single detached dwelling in the R1 Zone is 0.2 hectares; the purpose for this minimum is to ensure that properties contained within this Zone classification can accommodate a moderate-sized home, and have sufficient area for the requisite septic system components, while ensuring all required minimum yard setbacks are maintained in order to preserve the low-density character of the neighbourhood. For the variance application at hand, it is important to note that both the subject lands and lands to be enhanced are non - conforming lots; 1 Penetanguishene Road consists of 0.059 hectares, and 3 Penetanguishene Road consists of 0.14 hectares. As a result of the boundary adjustment, a parcel of land having an area of 0.021 hectares is proposed to be conveyed from the subject lands to 1 Penetanguishene Road; the resulting retained area for the subject property will consist of 0.12 hectares, where the enhanced lot will increase in size to 0.09 hectares. The variance is required to recognize the reduced lot area of the subject lands, being 0.12 hectares, where the R1 Zone requirement is 0.2 hectares. As discussed above, both properties have been previously developed with single detached dwellings and various accessory structures, and are serviced by existing private septic sewage disposal systems. As N such, the proposed variance to slightly reduce an existing non - conforming lot is deemed to maintain the general intent of the Zoning By -law. With respect to the boundary adjustment, the land to be severed and conveyed from 3 to 1 Penetanguishene is a small block of land containing a vehicle parking garage. As well, the location of the proposed property boundaries would continue to maintain all required setbacks for the primary_ use of the lands, setbacks to accessory structures, and in particular the garage proposed to be relocated through boundary adjustment from 3 to 1 Penetanguishene Road, and setbacks to components of the existing septic systems as required by the Ontario Building Code. Therefore, the proposed boundary adjustment is deemed to maintain the general intent of the Zoning By -law. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? The applicant currently owns both 3 Penetanguishene Road, being the subject lands, and 1 Penetanguishene Road, the lot to be enhanced. The subject land, as discussed earlier, constitutes a unique situation, as it contains two dwelling units, and two detached accessory buildings, consisting of garages. However, the detached garage that necessitated this application in fact serves the dwelling unit located at 1 Penetanguishene Road, and is accessed from a gated entrance and circular driveway. As a result of a site visit, visually, the subject property rear lot line appeared to he at the board -on -board fence separating the dwellings at 3 Penetanguishene Road from the subject garage. As a result of the consent application and concurrent variance application, the garage serving the lot to be enhanced would be transferred to the lot that is utilizing the structure. In addition, the garage would continue to be buffered from the neighbouring dwellings to the north by the existing privacy fence, and as a result of the boundary adjustment would continue to comply with all required setbacks as required by the Zoning By -law. With respect to the character of surrounding properties, the average lot area in the immediate area around the subject lands is approximately 0.17 hectares. The proposed lands would consist of 0.12 hectares as a result of this application, while the proposed enhanced lands would be increased in area to 0.09 hectares. Residential properties to the west across Penetanguishene Road within the City of Barrie contain much smaller lot areas, reflecting the provision of municipal sewer and water services. As such, the retained lot at 3 Penetanguishene Road would be in generally keeping with the average lot size for the area, while the enhanced lot would be increase slightly, but would maintain its non - conforming status, as residential lots in the R1 Zone require a minimum of 0.2 hectares. Is the variance minor.? On the basis that the boundary adjustment and accompanying variance for a reduced lot size would maintain the intent of the Township Official Plan and Zoning By -law, the variance is considered to be minor. 3 CONCLUSION Variance Application 2008-A-02 generally satisfies the tests for variance. Consent Application 2008-B-02 is deemed to be acceptable, as no new development is proposed, and no new building lots will be created. Both applications are deemed to maintain the intent of Township land use planning policies. RECOMMENDATION It is -recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2008-A-02, being to reduce the required minimum lot area for the subject lands, being 3 Penetangulshene Road, from the present area of 0.14 hectares to 0.12 hectares; and that Committee approve Consent Application 2008-B-02, being to convey a block of land having an area of 0.0208 hectares from 3 Penctangwshene Road to I Pcnetanguishene Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the severed lands be merged in title with Plan 1, Part of Lot 13, known municipally, as 1 Penetan gui ishene Road, and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; C, j 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the givin i g of the Notice of Decision. All of which is respectfully submitted, /7 =Adam Kozlowski, B.URPL Planner 4 Reviewed by, Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner 'M.09,Z9,t9N 10 Q0'Z o 40 tK 4030 vl VW cs -rx—x—x LJ 'D C-1 � 1�0 3nvw -30 0T Zl'OZ T 2— 10 di z M.00 L5;.6LN 99 c) 90'0 L 99 T 6 (z) En MLM-d 09*91 O=V M.90,SO.28N L L.L in I.L i C5 N v ill y '7 r r fl- --LX' - — - — - — --- irl ?�Fk 014 M.90, oxgN C) •h Hearing Date: Application #: Owner: THE CORPORATION OF THE TO WNeSH I P St`veran / Minor Variance Review I MAS #: Lot #: ! Plan #: f Conc. #: �V The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application. ❑ Site inspection required and completed. Proposal appears to meet minimum standards. 148 Line 7 5., Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0 Phone (705) 487 -2171 Fax (705) 487 -0133 www.oro- medonte.ca ❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code. ❑ Comments: Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal Respectfully submitted, Kim Allen Deputy Chief Building Official l6, Sherri Moore Acting Chief Building Official �� J7 Township of Oro - Medonte Public Works Department Inspection Report for Consent Minor Variance Other Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date File No. r Name of Owner Address _ Subject Property Date of Inspection Name of Road Surface of Road 1. Site Lines, Township Road Poor 2. Site Lines, Subject Property Poor Drive 3. Drainage Poor 4. Future Road Widening Required 5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected 6. Future Drive to be located Good Excellent Good Excellent Good Excellent Yes No If yes, Amount Yes No Jerry Bali, Public Works Superintendent Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department Inspection Report for Consent - Minor Variance Other Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date File No. Date of Inspection Name of Road Surface of Road 1. Site Lines, Township Road Poor 2. Site Lines, Subject Property Poor Drive 3. Drainage Poor 4. Future Road Widening Required Good Excellent Good Excellent Good Excellent Yes No If yes, Amount 5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes No 6. Future Drive to be located C"-40dL-91- '1017 Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent Township of Oro- Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for February 21, 2008 Barry and Nancy Gardhouse 2008 -A -03 104 Lakeshore Promenade, Plan 626, Lots 28, Concession 10(Former Oro) The applicant is proposing to construct a deck with an area of 26 square metres, at the front of an existing duelling. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Section 4, Table B1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95: Required Proposed Minimum Required Front Yard, RLS(H) Zone: 7.5 metres 4.07 metres MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Residential Limited Service [Hold] (RLS *H) Zone Previous Applications — none AGENCY COMMENTS Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority - Public Forks Department - Building Department — Engineering Department — BACKGROUND The subject property is located on a private road, south of Stanley Avenue and east of Blackman Boulevard, having approximately 13 metres of frontage on Lakeshore Promenade and a lot area of approximately 0.04 hectares. The deck is proposed to have an area of 26 square metres and is to be located in the front yard of the existing single family dwelling. Minor Variance application 2008 -A -03 seeks to reduce the front yard setback from the required 7.5 metres to 4.07 metres. Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline by the Official Plan. A single detached dwelling is a permitted uses in the Shoreline designation. Decks, balconies, etc are common features associated with residential uses. Therefore, the proposal would conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. 1 Do the variances comply with the general Intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Residential 1,11TH'tcd Servicc*Hold (Rl-,S*-H) Zone. Permitted uses in the RI,S*H Zone include single detached dwellings and decks. The proper", is zoned "limited service" to reflect that access is provided by Lakeshore promenade, being an un- assumed or private road. The *Hold provision ensures that further development on such properties will require a Site plan Agreement, to be approved by the Township and registered on title. For the application at hand, it is appropriate that site plan approval be imposed as a condition of variance. With respect to the proposed reduced front yard setback, it is also the intent of the By-la-vv to ensure an adequate distance exists between the traveled portion of the roadway and structures. The application at hand seeks to position the proposed deck 4.07 metres closer to Lakeshore promenade. Aside from the front yard setback, the deck would otherwise comply with interior side yard setbacks _iacks as prescribed by the Zoning By-law. Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection the proposed deck is to be located approximately 4.07m from the front lot Eric, and is likely not to have a negative effect on the sightlines along Lakeshore Promenade. This is due to Lakeshore promenade being a Pedestrian through way, it exist to provide access to Lake Simcoc for the abutting property owners. Due to there being no vehicular traffic, Lakeshore Promenade is still considered to be the front yard, which maintains a setback of 7.5m for the dwelling. The proposed deck would appear to be desirable for the appropriate development on the lot. Are the variances minor? On the basis that the proposal would not adversely affect access on Lakeshore Promenade, and will not have a negative impact on privacy for surrounding properties, the proposed variances are considered to be minor. CONCLUSION The application to reduce the required front yard setback, to permit construct a deck generally satisfies the tests of a variance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance 2008-A-03, being to grant a reduction for the front vard setback from 7.5 metres to 4.07 metres for the construction of a deck having a floor area of 26 square metres, subject to the following conditions: K 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 wav of survey/real proper", report so that:: a) the deck be located no closer than 4.07 metres from the front lot line 2. That the applicant enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the Township, including removal of the Holding Provision; 3. That the applicant receive any necessary permits and/or approvals from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, if required; 4. That the appropriate permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building 11. 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. 3 Reviewed by, Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department Inspection Report for Consent Minor Variance Other rl�? V Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date ti '7 File No. 7 Name of Owner Address Subject Property Date of Inspection Name of Road Surface of Road 1. Site Lines, Township Road 2. Site Lines, Subject Property Drive 3. Drainage 4. Future Road Widening Required Poor Poor Poor 5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected 6. Future Drive to be located Good Excellent Good Excellent Good Excellent Yes No If yes, Amount Yes No t — Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent Hearing Date:` Application #: Owner: Lot #: / 0 Plan #: Conc. #: The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application. ❑ Site inspection required and completed. �r Proposal appears to meet minimum standards. ❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code. ❑ Comments: Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal Respectfully submitted, MR (-D.? 0 16'Y JAN *29 -2008 U :08AM FROM -Rona Cashway Sehomb®ta 931990 +9059997485 T -992 P.003/004 �w hf h• / -. 1 e �•- if P. 1 r ,, i ! 1•• t♦ i �1 1 V- ! t �.•. Lam'' r 1 ♦. I'- \1 ! 4I A•, ♦r 1 Zia 1 N32' 32'E (RP) (RP ! M) N32' 8' 0" E 14.02 , �. x _ f r•. . r. p �� a►ry �_: U Id a ,- ��- 4.94 !0 �, t'G �. /' , • S << gill✓ ~'ate t i S70rtE ,.. f t R �£t L t NQ � 71- NL i t 91fD 01w1NE WILL s � 15.24 RP) .� W •J 13.00 f M�.._. t MN. RP SJ 14P I'll) 10.34 3.00 rfuCE 0.2 H .-- i N32 32' 00"E 13.2♦ - -- - - - . (RP e��) 'N39'09'2S'w j SSt (1390) (RP 4t M) N35.54',' 79 (184A ! 5) N39' .2 j p\ OiED , fS E is (16,66) pp �4 cw'r .t09 11 f 1 x i Z i ♦ 1 / P , 1 �\ 1 r- -, f 1 I, r♦ r• R\ I\ /, \ • r ♦ 11 r\ 1� ' y 1 1 ►/ ►- Y� ♦r ( it \�1► i\ Yo1 1 f r- 5t `3Sy96 , .... _ j" �o r „� Township of Ora - Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for February 21, 2008 Susan Fleet 2008 -A -01 108 Mill Pond Sideroad, East 112 Lot 3, Concession 7 ( Medonte) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief from the required interior side yard setback for an existing single detached dwelling, and for the recognizance of a dwelling within the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95: Section 3 Table A5 — Permitted uses in the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone, notzvitlrsZandin, t1 >ul a sztzgle delat -hed dwelling is n «I a j�eimitled ure in tl�e E P Zone to redo ni e an eruling Tingle delwhed dmvllug. Zone: Environmental Protection (EP) Required Proposed Table B5 Standards for Permitted Uses: Minimum Required Interior Side Yard Setback 7.5 in 4.29 m MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Rural, Environmental Protection Two Overlay Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Environmental Protection (EP) Zone Previous Applications — AGENCY COMMENTS Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority — See attached Public Works - Building Department — Engineering Department- BACKGROUND The subject property has a lot frontage on Mill Pond Sideroad of approximately 53 metres, a lot depth of 66 metres, and a lot area of 0.33 hectares. The lot is presently occupied by a 110 square metre single storey bungalow -style dwelling, which was constructed in 2002. In addition to the request that Committee recognize the existing dwelling in the EP Zone, the applicant is also applying for a reduction for the interior side yard setback from the required 7.5 metres for the Ell Zone, to 4.29 metres from the west side lot line to the existing dwelling. Does the variance maintain the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. Permitted uses in this designation include single detached dwellings, accessory buildings, home occupations, and agricultural uses. The Environmental Protection Two designation covers the majority of the subject property, and reflects significant woodland and wildlife habitat, as well as features not covered by the Environmental Protection One Designation. Section B3.3 of the Official Plan states that "uses permitted in these areas shall be those peimilled by the underlying designation provided the use coriforfiys to the po&-ies o/'//VS seclion". As the existing dwelling constitutes a permitted uses within the Rural designation, the application would therefore maintain the intent of the Official plan. Does the variance maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law? With respect to the Zoning By-law, the primary purpose of controlling development within the limits of the Environmental Protection Zone is to ensure that development does not occur on lands that contain hazardous slopes or are susceptible to flooding. Based on a site inspection, the existing dwelling is located well above and away from the watercourse the flows to the north. In addition, while the existing dwelling unit is located completely within the EP Zone boundary, the watercourse is located approximately 60 metres north of the location of the existing dwelling. As a result, a 60 metre buffer currently exists between the existing dwelling and the watercourse. This distance exceeds the general 30 metre setback to watercourses, as prescribed under section 5.33 of the Zoning By-law. On the basis of the above, the existing dwelling would therefore maintain the general intent of the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone, as prescribed by the Zoning By -law. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? The location of the dwelling appears to be appropriate, as the structure is located at the top of an embankment that slopes from south to northeast, down toward the existing watercourse that traverses the neighbouring property. In addition, there would appear to be a good buffer in the form of distance and vegetation between the proposed dwelling and the watercourse, which lies 60 metres to the north. As well, the applicant had submitted in 2002 as part of building permit review a "Slope Stability Analysis ", which concluded that the location of the dwelling as constructed to be the optimal site for a residential use. The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) was circulated this application for comment, particular to address the location of the dwelling in relation to watercourse and slope features on the property. The NVCA has indicated that there are no objections with respect to recognizance of the existing dwelling, or with a reduction in the side yard setback. In addition, while the subject lands are within the "Regulated Area", the NVCA has 2 indicated that a permit for the existing dwelling is not required; however, future construction on the subject lands will require a permit. With respect to the requested reduction of the side yard setback from the required 7.5 inarcs to 4.29 metres, the purpose of maintaining side yards is to ensure buffering between dwellings for privacy and access to the rear of the dwelling. In this case, the closest neighbouring dwelling is approximately 130 metres to the east, separated by a visual buffer of mature tree growth. The nearest neighbouring dwelling to the west, where side yard setback -)ack is proposed to be reduced, is located 165 metres to the northwest, separated by rolling terrain and mature tree growth. On the basis of the above, the recognizance of the existing dwelling and proposed reduction of the required side yard setback is deemed to be appropriate. Is the variance minor? As the proposed variance maintains the general intent of the Zoning, By -law and Official Plan, and has not raised objection from the NVCA, the variance is deemed to be minor. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Committee approve Variance Application 2008-A-01, being to recognize an existing dwelling, having a minimum setback of 4.29 metres from the structure to the west side lot fine. 3 February 11, 2008 Adam Kozlowski, Secretary Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Township of Oro - Medonte P.O. Box 100 Member Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0 Municipalities D ear Mr. Kozlowski; Adjala- Tosorontio Amaranth Re: Application for Minor Variance 2008 -A -01 (Fleet) Barrie Part Lot 3, Concession 7 The Blue Mountains Township of Oro - Medonte (Formerly Township of Medonte) Bradford -West Gwlllimbury The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this Clearview application for minor variance to recognize the location of an existing Collingwood dwelling. Based upon our mandate and policies under the Conservation Essa Authorities Act, we have no objection to its approval. We understand a slope stability analysis was completed to determine the appropriate natural Innisfil hazard setback from the nearby Coldwater River tributary. Melancthon Mono Please be advised that the property is under the regulatory jurisdiction of Mulmur the NVCA whereby permits are required under the Conservation Authorities Act prior to any further development. New 7ecumseth Oro- Medonte Thank you for circulating this application for our review and please forward Grey Highlands a copy of any decision. Shelburne Sincerely, Springwater Wasaga Beach ` d1HSNM �b0 Watershed Tim Salkeld 3 JNp(19� Counties Resource Planner t t t 631 Simcoe Dufferin p i Grev Member of Conserving our Hea /thy Waters NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY = Centre for Conservation Conservation ONTARIO John Hix Conservation Administration Centre = Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 8th Line Utopia, On LOM 1T0 N'— h „p Telephone: 705.424.1479 Fax: 705.424.2115 Web: ww),v.nvca.on.ca Email: admin @nvca.on.ca Hearing Date: Application #: Owner: THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN cSH I P OI{ Severance / Anor Vari ce Review �Z 3 2- MAS #: � 0 Ly L -L? 1J'2 Lot #: 3 Plan #: Conc. #: 7 54 The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application. ❑ Site inspection required and completed. Proposal appears to meet minimum standards. 148 Line 7 S., Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0 Phone (705) 487 -2171 Fax (705) 487 -0133 www.oro - medonte.ca ❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code. ❑ Comments: Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal Respectfully submitted, Kim Allen Deputy Chief Building Official 7, Sherri Moore Acting Chief Building Official 0 nOMMMN O TY cl, ul CA :> lot CL 19 <4 74 A 82 lia. Q d ca ti gEon ILY ;yn fog M HS sob S �!z I'D all LIM -mat 111 �—tz I �r- LA 0 w O w(n to) lia. Q d ca ti gEon ILY ;yn fog M HS sob S �!z I'D all LIM -mat 111 �—tz I O o Of NK5z z 'a 1 Is lia. Q d ca ti gEon ILY ;yn fog M HS sob S �!z I'D all LIM -mat 111 �—tz I I Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department Inspection Report for Consent Minor Variance Other Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date Date of Inspection Et-b S?z Name of Road Surface of Road t-fo(zo Top. 1. Site Lines, Township Road 2. Site Lines, Subject Property Drive 3. Drainage 4. Future Road Widening Required Poor Good Excellent Poor Good Excellent Poor Good Excellent Yes No 5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected 6. Future Drive to be located If yes, Amount Yes No --- Remarks: W CIA 0 -Jrkir- - (20,1 or CL le Jerry Ball, Pubic Works Superintendent Township of Oro- Mcdonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for February 21, 2008 Randy Sheldrake & Bonnie Jean Yeatcs 2008 -A -04 2309 Penetanguishene Road, Lot 32, Concession 1 (Former Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a detached accessory% building for vehicle parking, which is proposed to have a total area of 297m2 (3200 ft2) and a height of 7.3m (24ft). The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95: 5.1.6 Maximum floor area The maximum floor area of any one detached accessory building or structure, excluding boathouses, is 70 square metres (753.5 square feet). 5.1.4 Maximum height The maximum height of any detached accesson,, building or structure, except boathouses, is 4.5 metres (14.7 feet). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Oro Moraine Core /Corridor Area; Rural Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Agricultural/ Rural (-.,7k/RU) Zone; Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone Previous Applications — None AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department — Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards. Engineering Department - Background The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 79 metres (260 feet) on Penetanguishene Road, a depth of approximately 537 metres (1764 feet), and a lot area of approximately 5 hectares (12.5 acres). The subject property contains a single detached dwelling and an existing agricultural building. The property is surrounded on the north, south, and east sides by large agricultural parcels, containing various underbrush and medium -sized trees. 1 The applicants are proposing to construct a 297 M 2 (3200 ft) detached garage to be located in the northern portion of the property, over 70 metres (229 feet) behind the main dwelling. The proposed garage is to have a height of 7.3 metres (24 feet). As such, the applicant is requesting relief from the comprehensive zoning By -law to increase the maximum allowable height and floor area. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Oro Moraine Core /Corridor Area and Rural in the Official Plan. The proposed garage is located in the Oro - Moraine Core /Corridor Area designation, which states in Section B1.10.1.3 of the Official Plan that "permitted uses in the Oro Moraine — Nalural Core /Corridor Are derzgnation are limned to t& following.. single detached dwelling and accessory uses existing on the lot. Section C2.2 of the Plan states that "permitted uses on lands designated Rilral...are single detached dwellings [and accessory buildings to such] ". Therefore a detached garage constitutes a permitted use. On this basis the proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By lama The subject proper", is zoned Agricultural /Rural (A /RU) and Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone. The proposed garage is located in the Rural Residential Two Zone which permitted uses include single detached dwellings and accessory buildings, such as garages and storage sheds. Aside from the maximum height provision and maximum floor area, the proposed garage will otherwise meet with the required interior side and rear yard setbacks and 5 percent lot coverage. The applicant has indicated that they plan of demolish the existing accessot-v buildings and use the proposed garage as the only storage building on the lot. Therefore, the variance is considered to comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? A site inspection revealed that the proposed location for the garage will be located over 100 metres (330 feet) from the front property line, which will allow it to be out of sight from Penetanguishene Road. Surrounding lands to the north, south, and east consist of large, residential parcels. Mature tree cover is located in the eastern portions of the property, which is proposed to be maintained by the applicant. The location of the proposed garage is open are free of any significant amount of tree vegetation, which allows for the maximum preservation of tree vegetation as possible. Due to the existing tree coverage, the variance for an increase in both height and floor area will not likely have a negative visual or location impact on neighbouring properties. On this basis the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot. 2 Is the Vqrianceminor? As this application should not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area, the proposed variance is considered to be rumor. CONCLUSION The proposed variance generally satisfies the tests of a Variance as prescribed in the Planning Act. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2008-A-04 subject to the following conditions: g 1. That the licip-1-it of the detached garage not exceed 7.3 metres; 11 2. That the floor area of the detached garage not exceed 297m 2 3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; 4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the height of the detached garage not exceed 7.3 metres and the floor area not exceed 297m"; 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. provided 1 in., 3 Reviewed by, ire Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner TownshiD of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department Inspection Report for Consent Minor Variance Other Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date File No. Name of Owner = v f Address Subject Property Date of Inspection Name of Road Surface of Road 1. Site Lines, Township Road 2. Site Lines, Subject Property Drive 3. Drainage 4. Future Road Widening Required Poor Poor. Poor 5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected 6. Future Drive to be located Remarks: A � 4x-tll 41) Good Excellent Good Excellent Good Excellent Yes No If yes, Amount Yes No Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent Hearing Date: Application #: Owner: 4 MAS #: Lot #: Plan #: Conc. #: i 148 Line 7 S., Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0 Phone (705) 487 -2171 Fax (705) 487 -0133 www.oro- medonte.ca The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application. ❑ Site inspection required and completed. ":R) Proposal appears to meet minimum standards. ❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code. ❑ Comments: Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal Respectfully submitted, is a Chi of R aiiQii (lC t )- 16`43 I in Township of Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for February 21, 2008 Raymond Dumont �►�11: :EiTa� 2109 Gore Road, East Part of Lot 10, Concession 1 (Former Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 69.5 square metre single storey dwelling and replace with a new 2- storey, 236.2 square metre dwelling. The applicant is requesting relief from the required front yard setback, and to increase floor volume in a required yard, as the proposed dwelling would be partially located in the Environmental Protection Zone that bisects the subject property. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95: Zone: Agricultural/ Rural (A /RU) Required Proposed Table B4 (B) Standards for Single Detached Dwellings: Minimum Required Front Yard Setback 8.0 in 6.92 in Non - Complying Buildings and Structures Section 5.16.1 b) does not increase the amount of floor area or volume in a required yard, to consirnct a neav single detac hed dzavllin�g having a larger fioor area and additional storey. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Agricultural Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Previous Applications — AGENCY COMMENTS Agricultural /Rural (A /RU) Zone Environmental Protection (EP) Zone Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority - Public Works Department — No concerns Building Department - Engineering Department — BACKGROUND This application proposes to demolish an existing small, single storey bungalow style dwelling, and replace with a new 2 storey dwelling that would have approximately three times the floor area of the existing structure. According to Township ZoniM,), By-law Schedule A9, the subject property is located within a flood plain, where a watercourse flows through the property approximately 9.34 metres south of the location of the proposed new dwelling. In addition, the existing dwelling is Located partially within lands identified as Environmental Protection (EP) Zone, where the Zoning By-law prohibits development within the boundaries of the EP Zone. Further, the Zoning By-law prohibits development within 30 metres from the top-of-bank of a watercourse, regardless of whether the watercourse is contained within the EP Zone. The existing dwelling on the subject lands was constructed in approximately 1935, and as such prc-dates current provisions of Zoning By-law 97-95. DISCUSSION The lands subject to the variance application contains two zone classifications, being Agricultural /Rural (-,-k/RU) Zone along the front of the property to a depth of 10 metres, where the majority of the subject property is zoned Environmental Protection. As discussed above, it was determined that the subject property and surrounding lands are contained 'within the "Floodplain Overlay" as identified in the Zoning By -law; this overlay encompasses lands that have been identified to be within either the flood plain or flood fringe of a river drainage system. Section 2.5.2 of Zoning By-law 97-95 identifies such lands as containing a "Floodplain-HOLD (FP-H)" provision, and as such would apply to the lands subject to this application. Specific policies and guidance with respect to development within a floodplain are listed in the Township Official Plan. Section B5.1.3 of the Official Plan contains Policies with respect to floodplam management, and would apply as the subject lands and surrounding area have been identified in the Zoning By -law as being contained within a floodplain. In particular, Section B5.1.3.1 states: "il is the intent q1'this Plan that no development or site alteration be permitted ivilhin lhefloodwqy q1'a aver rer or sli-raul system. The following ze. polit' �-shall apply to development proposed on lands susceptible to flooding under regional nalslo conditions; my a) Development will generally be directed to areas outside qfhatiqi-dous lands adjacent to a river or stream !yslein that 1S impacted by flooding lkzards; b) Development and site alteration will not be permitted within 1hefiloodwqy q1'a firer or stream system; t) Development and site alteration may be permitted within the flood fringe q1'a river or stream system where flood depths and velocities would be less severe than those eApetienced within lhefloodwqy. " Further to the above, the Official Plan policies with respect to floodplain management are implemented through the Zoning By -law, where lands identified to be within a floodplain contain the following implementation guidelines with respect to development: B5.1.3.2 Imple-m en to tion In order to implement the objectives of this Plan, all lands within an identiliedfiloodplain shall be subject to a Holding Provision in the implementing I ,g Zoning Bylaw... no new development is pemlilled on lands subject to the Holdiii Provision Pro ' n unlil the Nollawasa ,ga Valley Conservation Authority approves the development. Once the Nottawasaga Galley Conservation Authority approval it given, the Holding Provision shall be removed by the Township. At the time of writing this report, comments have not been received from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. However, through preliminary conversation with NVCA staff, it is apparent that there may be concerns with respect to the proposed enlargement of a residential stricture, particularly in that a new home is being proposed within a floodplain, and that portions of land subject to this application may be at risk to flooding. Without expert comments from the NVCA, it is difficult to assess whether the application is appropriate. As such, the application should be deferred until such time that comments are received from NVCA. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee defer Variance Application 2008 -A -06 until such time that comments are received from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. All of which is respectfully submitted, Adam Kozlotivski, B.URPL, Planner Reviewed by, Bruce Hoppe, NICIP, RPP Director of Building & Planning Services ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN LOTS 10 AND "D" POSTED AS " GORE ROAD" P.LN. 58551 - 0020(LT) 1,7 OVAL I ICULVERT . WE WAY L NDt'761V - P 1613) OVER HEAD WRES V. �- N8235'15'w 50.75 � LLi FENCE / ^'�j ^ 0.27 W. PR ANk /:- _/ ti ((�n173&6) 0 T ` 4 ' • -7 r� SEPTIC TANK (7 SOM) n a < ELEV. TOP a 237.190 0�i1k ,� t m 1D2• -ba• 24._e. � 2 O MPROIONATE POSITKN OF � % v7 ENMRONUENTAI LIMIT AS SCALEO.� -au y (+3 ij FROM PHOTOGRAPH SUPPLIED BY I STAKE • U y RAYMOND DUMONT N n I Oi '•T 2 �. CONCaETE U 2 N ,!• STW0o0 laot 21. 235.04 �X CULVERT J 1 6 �I. W'tE WOOD OF ER 22. 1007 Z ` STAKEm i00 I EDGE K WA G �µ (iJ FENCE J I •\' ..i it� S Q 2 0.22 W. E04' �• m O 4 n I (n U Qom. P.I.N. 58552 — 0021(L T) Q 0 3 pp 0.!, W P •O s N O M ' z�` ,� J Z r z I INV. \ C APPROXIMATE POSITION OF . 276.62 cr FIELIMIT AS SCALED G n `L FROM PHOTOGRAPH SUPPUED BY v RAYMOND DUMONT 0.4 0 I'v FENCE WAYS I'CULVER EN ( ON Un 0.2N _ _ POST AND N1RE FENCE INV. -X—X— "!_ X N82'03'15'W (Nexoa'O" - P/s 1161- 3+-- 5zla)��52..16 7 znsss (736) (136) PART 3, l� PLAN 51R - 223)1 P.I.N. 58552 - 0023(L T) J V 8 0d N 0� G SITE PLAN - PROPOSED A-0 SCALE : 1/32' - 1' -0' q121 REF. DD.A CHECK AND WITH THE W I nr �' ■{ / )` ®m» ® ' a@7 : : [ § « \ LLI \- !, � )) � \> � ji � M Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department Inspection Report for Consent Minor Variance Other Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date - Z- 1/1 267 Date of Inspection t; �� 1,-2 - Name of Road ;4 Surface of Road ---Jaz- e-- 1. Site Lines, Township Road Poor, 2. Site Lines, Subject Property Poor. Drive 3. Drainage Poor. 4. Future Road Widening Required 5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected 6. Future Drive to be located Zi 1L Remarks: Good Excellent Good Excellent Good— Excellent Yes No If yes, Amount Yes- No Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent Township of Oro- Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for February 21, 2008 Anthony and Dianne Keene 11. i Concession 8, West Half Part of Lot 24 (Former Twp. of Oro) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2008 -B -03 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot by way of severance. The land to be severed is proposed to have 38 metres of frontage along Ridge Road East, have a depth of 100 metres and a lot area of 0.3 hectares. The land to be retained is proposed to have a lot area of approximately 5.1 hectares and frontage of 102 metres along Ridge Road East. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Rural Settlement Area Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Residential One (Rl) Zone Previous Applications — None. AGENCY COMMENTS Simcoe County — No objection Public Works — Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards Engineering & Environmental Services — I :: t!j : (!7 7! 1 � j ► � i The subject property is located in the former Township of Oro, east of Line 7 South and on the south side of Ridge Road East. The lands are designated Rural Settlement Area by the Official Plan, and zoned Residential One (R1) Zone. The land that is proposed to be severed is currently vacant, and has largely wooded with medium to large mixed trees and foliage. There are no watercourses or wetlands on the property, nor are the subject lands within the regulated area of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. The existing lot currently contains approximately 245 metres of frontage on Ridge Road East, a lot depth of approximately 217 metres, and a lot area of 5.4 hectares. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject property is designated Rural Settlement Area by the Official Plan. Permitted land uses within the Rural Settlement Area Designation include low density residential, small scale commercial. For the purpose of this application, it is noted that the creation of new lots by way of severance is permitted within the Rural Settlement Area designation, where the tests of severance listed in Section D2.2.1 of the Official Plan are met. The proposed severed and retained lots would front on a municipal road, would not be located within an environmentally sensitive area, and would comply with relevant Zoning provisions of the Residential One (R1) Zone (discussed below). As the proposed severed and retained Lands would be 0.3 and 5.1 hectares respectively, the application to create a new residential lot by way of severance would be in keeping with the general character of the area, and in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan. The subject property is zoned Residential One (R1) Zone. The proposed lot will consist of 0.3 hectares, and will have 38 metres of frontage on Ridge Road Bast; the required frontage for a lot in the R1 Zone is 30 metres, and the required minitnum lot area is 0.2 hectares. The proposed retained lands would consist of approximately 5.1 hectares, and maintain 207 metres of frontage on Ridge Road East. Therefore, the proposed lot would meet with all requirements of lot area and frontage for the R1 Zone. With respect to severance policies contained in the Official Plan, Section D2.2.1 d) indicates that that the severed and retained lots "[have] adequate size and frontage for the proposed use in accordance with the Zoning By- law..." On the basis of the above, the application would appear to generally comply with the Zoning By -law. CONCLUSION The proposed consent application for the creation of a residential lot generally conforms to the policies of the Official Plan and Zoning By -lain. RECOMMENDA'T'ION It is recommended that the Committee grant provisional consent to Application 2008 -B -03 for the creation of a new residential lot, having an area of 03 hectares and frontage on Ridge Road East of 38 metres subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary- Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. 4. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash -in -lieu of a parkland contribution; 5. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee in the amount of $4,749.95 (By -law 2004 -082) to the Township; All of which is respect ally submitted, Jy Steven Farquharson, B.URPL junior Planner Reviewed by, Glenn White MCIP, RPP Senior Planner The Corporation of the Phone: (705)726-930O Fax: (7O5)727-7984 County of E-mail: grcg.omrek @,mimcoo.cu Shncoe Corporate Services Division lllO Highway 26, Administration Centre Transportation and Engineering Department Midbumt, Ontario L0LlXO February 11, 2008 Adam Kozlowski, Secretary-Treasurer Committee 0fAdjustment Township OfOn}K0edOnte P.O. Box 100 {}no. Ontario LOL2}<O Dear Mr. Kozlowski: RE: Consent Application File No. 2008-B-03 (Anthony and Dianne Keene) 143 Ridge Road East (County Road 20), Part of Lot 24, Concession 8 Thank you for circulating the above-noted 3ppUC8tOO to the County Of8innc0e for neviexw. The County of Simcoe has no objection to the approval of the application. The applicant or future property owner will be required b)obtain an entrance permit from the County of 8irncoa for the construction of new residential entrance to provide access to the property. Entrance Permit Application Forms are available on the County website at Please forward 8 copy of the decision. If you have any questions, Dhe8SH do not hesitate to Contact A� � 4 1 Greg Marek, CPT Planning/Engineering Technician (705) 726-9300 ext. 1362 Cu: Racha||e Hamelin, County OfSinlcoe D\D07 toowDevelopment maovemnce&om Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department Inspection Report for (,Consen Minor Variance Other Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date L File No. Name of Owner Address Subject Property A 2. Site Lines, Subject Property Drive 3. Drainage 4. Future Road Widening Required Poor Good Excellent Poor Good Excellent 5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected 6. Future Drive to be located Remarks: Yes No. If yes, Amount _ Yes No Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent x Hearing Date: 1-6 ,�, ` ( ,� Application #: 2o)( N -- *3- D Owner: VIIIiIIIE K(-&!r MAS #: `R( f Y2?l Lot #: `� Plan #: Conc. #: The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application. ❑ Site inspection required and completed. co Proposal appears to meet minimum standards. ❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code. ❑ Comments: Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal Respectfully submitted, ichael Diver, 1 8 Im COUNTY Nso'4, E 20,050 122,6 p ! €N Cl LEGEND �. HEREBY ANOtRL ittGty � {F t €pE4>,'c:.a i `"t Y;,. k:..Y 'ti. es, __ ` 2, r4 il St E .�:T.. ,ry si i98-3, T' r -EAnINIGS ARE C)ERIVED e$t'J Ts: s E 3tDGE WOAD fie" -—, z. a 3 i r Im COUNTY Nso'4, E 20,050 122,6 p ! €N Cl LEGEND �. HEREBY ANOtRL ittGty � {F t €pE4>,'c:.a i `"t Y;,. k:..Y 'ti. es, __ ` 2, r4 il St E .�:T.. ,ry si i98-3, T' r -EAnINIGS ARE C)ERIVED e$t'J Ts: s E 3tDGE WOAD fie" -—, 4 8 6 11 10 -v 12 / y 270 591 177 \�-8 120 32` 0 \ l.` 167 66 7(. 50 .` 75 85 f , \40� 63 �. ,< 32' /,�24 l� 31. 632 649 ' ` , �t 53 f 14 X30 ' l 15 �. 17 7 \ V�1s� 19 �. 707 735 87» 685 >� 20 i 13 697 84 \21 f� 33 45 A 67 � 55 � '�. 710 668 i �i 716 i 137 7 848 7531,,' 763 787 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE TO: Committee of Adjustment FROM: Bruce Hoppe DATE: February 15, 2007 SUBJECT: Proposed Minor Variance Lee /Ostojic 197 Eight Mile Point Road 2006 -A -36 Background As the Committee is aware, the subject application was deferred at the December 2007 hearing at the applicant's request, in order to provide the opportunity to review opportunities to adjust the building construction in relation to height. Since that meeting, several discussions have taken place, and submissions have been forwarded to the Township for consideration. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide Committee with an update, and make recommendations as to the disposition of the matter. Proposed Structure Alterations The applicant through input of his architect has reviewed in detail many options to adjust the roof pitch and make structural alterations to the partially built structure. The conclusion of this analysis is that any such alteration due to the height of the windows, the construction materials used, and the definition of height as it relates to the position of eaves relative to the ground, any alteration would be cost prohibitive and would also likely still require some relief to the zoning by -law. Staff have reviewed these proposals in detail and concur with the conclusions. Copies of these submissions are attached for the Committee's information. Proposed Minor Variance One significant piece of new information that the applicant has provided, is a detailed comparison of other shoreline structures in the immediate vicinity for staffs consideration. As the Committee is well aware, the character of the shoreline is a significant issue when addressing applications relating to the maximum height provisions. The applicant has provided many examples of other structures in the immediate area of Eight Mile Point as well as on the mainland shoreline of Lake Simcoe where similarly sized structures are located. These examples are appended to this memorandum for Committee's information. While the precise height of these examples are not known, the comparison structures provide an important perspective. The other factor which staff have revisited relates to the topography in this area. Both the west shoreline of Eight Mile Point on which the subject property is located, as well as the mainland shoreline of Lake Simcoe directly across the bay from the subject lands, exhibits a moderate to high raise in the land. This factor reduces the relative visual impact on the shoreline of C� higher structures. Conclusion While the numerical variance requested would appear to be high, it is staffs position after careful examination of the new information provided that the proposed boathouse is appropriate for the subject land. The screening and vegetation on the surrounding properties coupled with the support of ricighbouring Z17 property owners also supports this position. For these reasons, staff recommend to the Committee that favourable consideration for the minor variance being sought be given. Respectfully submitted, Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Building and Planning Services J8N-23-2008 11'24 T0W888lP OF ORO-MBDO0TE P.001/001 01/23/2008 WED u11'26 FAX 4m 6 259 m3414 WING'S |VKL�K8 QAAt/001 Cynthia Lee 336Ru�y(-U Hill Road Toronto On, M4V M January 8, 2008 Township ofOn+Mm1ontc 148Une7 South, Box 1DO Oro Ontario LOL2XO ' , Attention: Adam Kozlowsk! Re: Minor Variance Application NoZ0OO,A-36 Revised for Compliance of Height Variance 197 Eight Mile Point Ox+Medonte Dear Committee of Adjustment Members, Ne are requesting the opportunity tn provide additional information with respect to options available for alteration tn the boathouse structure at the committee nf adjustment hearing on Thursday February 21, 2008. The current decision hy the committee istodefer application Z00$4-16(rev|sed). VVe are requesting consideration for relief f 6mconditkon#1of\hopn:viovslyQranTedno|no'heiOhtvahavce referred toabove. VVe Would greatly appreciate your support |n resolving this mattar thank you |n advance for your consideration. Please feel free tocontact maut416'259'%G62nxt222(wwrNo/416-440f0535(home),should You have any questions o/ require additional information. Yours Truly Cynthia Lee TOTAL P.001 Cynthia Lee and Randy Ostojic 336 Russell Hill Road Toronto On, M4V 2T8 January 29, 2008 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, Response to Staff Report December 20, 2007 Dear Committee of Adjustment Members, We were before the Committee in December to review the request for an increase in the original height relief provided for our boathouse. This matter was deferred to permit us to provide additional information to the Committee with respect to options available for alterations to the boathouse structure. We have discussed this matter further with our architect and builder and provide the following for the Committee's consideration: Minor Variance Application No. 2006 -A -36 Boathouse Height Variance ARCHITECTURAL OPTIONS TO REDUCE ROOF HEIGHTS As directed by Committee of Adjustments we have reviewed the following options to reduce the variance height relief requested in the above noted variance application as follows; we have reviewed three option as listed below. Image #1 Actual Boathouse Roof Construction 3:12 1:71111f i 01,117T.111: M ON •i'. .0% The original plans issued for building permit in 2007 shows a 6/12 pitch roof slope and building height of approximately 7.3 m (24 feet ). The permit was issued by Oro Medonte Township for this drawings set. The actual roof construction was actually built as a 3/12 pitch, which actually reduced the roof height. The roof height is listed as 7.08m (23.2'), based on report dated November 21, 2007 from John D'Amico, Ontario Land Surveyor. (As shown in image #1). We have no reason why the roof was constructed as a 3/12 pitch, other than the contractor made a site decision. The as- constructed roof is greater than the permitted height of 5.63m (18.5 feet), and is currently 7.08m (23.2 feet) Option #1: Flat Roof The first option as shown on elevation SK -1 was to remove the existing sloped roof framing and construct a flat roof in its place. This option does not solve the roof height variance. An overall reduction in height of 1.1684 m (3' -10 ") would be accomplished. The building height from the high water mark to top of roof would be 6.2m (20.4'feet.) The flat roof option is not aesthetically pleasing, and is a much heavier visual construction. The neighbours prefer the existing low slope roof over the flat roof as it is more in keeping with the neighbouring architecture. From a construction perspective there are additional loads that come in to play with a flat roof (additional loading requirements). Flat roofs are normally used to provide an additional deck space above the boathouse, which in this case is not the intent. The installation of a flat roof structure is not a preferred option for our climate, our neighbours and ourselves. Option #2: Reduce Height of Second Floor Walls The second option shown on sketch SK -2 would require the cutting of the upper concrete wall and its structure to lower the entire roof assembly. This option would be very costly and difficult to perform. The existing building roof structure would be required to be disconnected from the concrete walls and raised as a whole and temporarily shored at best. It may not be possible to raise the conventional framed roof structure as a whole, this section may need to be dismantled and disposed of leaving only the trussed section of roof to be raised and shored, while the walls and affected structure (posts, lintels, etc.) are cut. The concrete walls are heavily reinforced with steel rebar as shown on Image 2 below and would very difficult to cut through. This option does not solve the roof height variance. With an overall reduction of 0.3048 M (12 ") in building height, the result would be 6.77m (22.2 feet) above high water mark. This option may not be financially viable. Image #2 View of Top Steel in Insulated Concrete Forms Image #2: This image shows the large amount of top steel ( 3 -15m rebar horizontal bars with 10m stirrups & vertical steel in the background) in the concrete form walls on the upper level. The concrete and steel would need to be cut with high performance diamond cutting blades. This procedure would be very costly & very difficult. Image #3. An additional concern is the height of the exiting windows. There is a lack of clearance above the windows to cut the concrete & steel wall. The windows have already been ordered & delivered for the noted openings. Image #3 View of Header Height Above the Window Typical (Second Floor) Option #3: Extend Roof Rafter and Truss Tails There is an option to extend the tails of the roof structure in effort to lower the soffit height which is he datum used for measuring average roof height. For every 0.3048 M (12 ") the roof tails are extended, it only gains the 0.038608 (1 -1/2 ") in roof height. Refer to drawing SK -3 for overall look of the exterior face. As shown in SK -3 the roof tails can be extended practically only to (1.9144M) 36 ". Extending By extending the tails the roof begins to feel out of proportion & stretched. This option does not solve the roof height variance. The overall building height would then be 6.71 m (22' feet) above the high water mark. \Ne have also had the opportunity tm further review the staff report and provide the following additional information, which is new and very pertinent to this case, for the Committee's consideration: 1. As noted in the report, the proposed boathouse complies with all zone provisions related to area (size) and location ofboathouse on property; 2. The boathouse with proposed artist's studio was approved by Committee and Building & Planning Department fora building permit; 3. The boathouse was considered an accessory structure with the artist's studio and boathouse provisions when original permission for relief to height requirement was granted; 4. Boathouse was considered a subordinate structure at the height of 5.63 metres (18.5 feet) when the variance was granted; 5. A number of other boathouses in the community are consistent with our propose request for a revised minor variance in height (see attached comparison chart email under separate cover) which is contrary to the statements in the report date December ZO07; 6. Report speaks to exceeding the definition of a boathouse in scope and scale yet the previous height relief was granted without this being efactor; 7. Boathouse is buffered from the neighbouring properties by trees and natural buffers, additional grading and vegetation will be completed on site which will enhance this further. 8. Boathouse use continues to be for boathouse and artist's studio as originally approved which was considered subordinate and accessory. We would greatly appreciate your support in resolving this matter, thank you in advance for your consideration. Please feel free to contact meat416-259-2663ext2Z2(wo/k)or416-440-O535(honoe), should you have any questions or require additional information. Yours Truly Cynthia Lee and Randy Ostojic - 1 - Boathouse Comparison # Eight Point and Surrounding Area Address Building Height & Building Age Images Notes Visual - • !• • 9, 195 Eight Mile Point 6.4m (21'-0") 25 Storey 40 Years Rd 10, 211 Eight Mile Point 7.Om (23' -0") 2 Storey 20 Years Rd 11. 225 Eight Mile Point 7.Om (23' -0") 2 Storey 20 Years , Rd 12, 245 Eight Mile Point Rd 13. 2675 Lakeshore Rd. 7.Om (23' -0") 2 Storey E 14, 13 McLean 7.07m (23.1 ') "' 1 -1 /2 2 Years Crescent Store 15. 16 McLean 6.1 m (20' -0") 2 Storey 15 Years Crescent 16, 23 McLean 6.1 m (20' -0") 2 Storey 40 Years Crescent 17, 25 McLean 6.4m (21'-0") 2 Storey 35 Years Crescent 18, 111 Shoreline Drive 9.1 m (30' -0") '2 Store + boathouse 19, 157 Shoreline Drive 6,7m 22' -0" 2 Storey 35 Years 20. 223 Shoreline Drive 7,6m (25' -0") 2.5 10 Years Store 21. 233 Shoreline Drive 7,Om 23' -0" 2 Storey 5 Years 22. 237 Shoreline Drive 7.Om 23' -0" 2 Storey 25 Years 23. 245 Shoreline Drive 9.1 m (30' -0 ") 2 Years '2 Store y+ boathouse * ** - Height confirmation provided by Oro - Medonte Planning Department 191 Eight Mile RR # 1, Orillia, Ontario L3V 6H February I3, Township of Oro- Medonte 148 Line 7 South, Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0 Attention: Adam Kozlowski Dear Committee of Adjustment Members- RE: Minor Variance Application No. 2006 -A -36 Revised for Compliance of Height Variance — 19? Eight Mile Point Oro- Medonte We are owners of 191 right Mile Point in the Township ofOro- Medonte. a purchased this property back in 1983 as a permanent residence and as a result, we are long- Rtanding members of the Oro- Medonte community. We understand that the boathouse built by our neighbours on 197 Eight Afic Point has exceeded the height variance for the township — through no direct intention from our r eighbours. This letter is to inform your Committee that we have seen the structure built and have absolutely no objections to the proposed revised height variance application by our neighbours, Cynthia Lee and Randy Ostojic. If you require any more information from, or have any questions, we can be reached at (705) 325 -0201. Yo . in ereiy, r o Peter and Elaine Nell p i Kozlowski, Adam From: Eugene Cholkan [ec@c-s.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 7:45 PM To: Ostojic, Randy Cc: Kozlowski, Adam Subject: Re: 197 Eight Mile Point Road variance application, Randy - I am emailing this to you hoping that you may still be able to use this tomorrow. I just came back from New Jersey, am checking my email from home and realized that I forgot to reply to You. I am cc-ing a copy to the general email address at planning for Oro-Medonte so they can verify that it came from me. 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 I am a joint owner of 195 Eight Mile Point Road, an immediate neighbour to the subject property. At this point in time, I have no objection to our neighbours Cynthia ' Lee and Randy Ostojic completing their boathouse with the minimum additional height requiredito do so as a result of errors made by their previous contractor that have caused the structure in progress to be about 4 feet higher than in the original plan. Other that this height issue, we assume that there are no other, changes contemplated in the current application for variance. If you have any questions about this email, you may contact me during business hours at 1-800-363-9500 ext 22. Sincerely, Eugene Cholkan 1 19 Dec 07 10:18a Susan T. Sheridan 203 Eight Mile Point Road Orillia,, ON L3V 6HI December 17, 2007 Township of Oro-Medonte 148 Line 7 South, Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0 Attention Adam Kozlowski p.2 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, I am the owners of Lot 95, Registered Plan 780, in the Township of Oro-Medonte, I have no objections to revised height variance application for the boathouse built by our neighbors Cynthia Lee and Randy Ostojic on their property located at Lot 92 which is one adjacent to my property. I understand that the boat house is higher than the originally approved. 1 1, If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at' (?05)326 -7666 Sincerely Yours, --e - Susan Sheridan 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, I am the owners of Lot 95, Registered Plan 780, in the Township of Oro-Medonte, I have no objections to revised height variance application for the boathouse built by our neighbors Cynthia Lee and Randy Ostojic on their property located at Lot 92 which is one adjacent to my property. I understand that the boat house is higher than the originally approved. 1 1, If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at' (?05)326 -7666 Sincerely Yours, --e - Susan Sheridan Township of Oro-Medonte 148 Line 7 South, Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO Attention: Adam Kozlowski Dear Committee of Adjustment Members: 1132 Bay Street Suite 1002 Toronto, Ontario M5S 2Z4 December 10, 2007 1 iVED EGE , OR.0 -TE RE: Minor Variance Application No. 2006-A-36 Revised for Compliance of Height Variance — 197 Eight Mile Point Oro-Medonte We are owners of Lots 93/94, Registered Plan 780, in the Township of Oro-Medonte. As background, we purchased this property back in 1970 — taking possession on July 1St of that year. Previously, we owned a cottage on the other side of Eight Mile Point for four years. As a result, we are long-standing members of the Oro-Medonte community, enjoy living at our cottage during the Summer months and have seen a lot of building (property improvement) on Eight Mile Point. We understand that the boathouse built by our immediate neighbours to the south of us have exceeded the height variance for the township — through no direct intention from our neighbours. As their boathouse is on our side of their property, we are, likely, the most affected than any one. This letter is to inform your Committee that we have absolute no objections to the proposed revised height variance application by our neighbours, Cynthia Lee and Randy Ostojic. If you require any more information from me, or have any questions, I can be reached at my business (416-947-4079) or at home (416-925-9696). Yours sincerely, J.J. Woolverton 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 (Revised) 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 (Revised) 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 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: 1. Section 5.6 g) Maximum height for the boathouse from the required 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to a proposed 5.63 metres (18.5 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: 1. Section 5.6 g) Maximum height for the boathouse from the required 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to a proposed 5.63 metres (18.5 feet) AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED, to a REVISED height of 7.08 metres. 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, AND on the 20`h day of December 2007. PAGE # 2 APPLICATION 2006 -A -36 (Revised) COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION Motion No. CA071220 - 7 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Rick Webster "Committee refuse Variance Application 2006 -A -36 (Revised), on the basis that the variance is not considered to be Minor. ...Defeated." Motion No. CA071220 - 8 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Michelle Lynch "Committee defer application 2006 -A -36 (Revised) until such time that the applicant provides additional information with respect to options available for alterations to the boathouse structure 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. it 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 (Revised) 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 9th DAY OF JANUARY 2008. 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: p Lynda Aiken, Chairperson r P ti �] Michelle Lynch , Garry Potter DATED this 20`h day of December 2007 �r. Bruce Chappell Rick Webster Adam Kozlowski Secretary - Treasurer Committee of Adjustment fix. r ��t '�k.y"� ��'�`�� `` (y Ha .._,...,.. _._._. ._.... . . , .. L ._.a,..T Z ... _.... � ., :'i... ...., y ,�'.. ,- i __ - � �- - _ _ _ .. ,.> � COPY 5 M ,co P ' uNn•str.ts � cN . LOT 91 ,lOw 1.%e I I Th'I s REGISTERED >,+ PIN 58565 - 0183(LT 2 H004 Qie aE.R .� 2q EEVEI. 0.09 OVER EA�6 0.'I2 OVfR 1�4• ti9 �6' s -- i C, 41 (XmmdH 6OAMOUSE NEW rOAWODU IARAUn / aPR)"m" Uw YARD Av1N 7a A"4W VARIANCE A:LW WEQ • (r NCAW THAT UIE fr.lAW OE 14 -d ,b 1 j Z w la a 1�9• 1 LOT 92 a ,v ` PIN 58565 - 0184 T) 3 gec AN b �Ur,kToBe � / I ONCEFfF t - 9.74 1 STOREY AtYAI/RSA.SpW� '� No. i17 5.96 N� lY�w 1,J�11 PIN 51 S� GARAGE ' I O ?� Q N11- 16'00"E °� 30.18 &WAS I g „ o`.•k RDe+tIwC7 EEARe+c� � _ - - ?2�l4 EtLGt — KNOWN AS EIGHT MILE POINT ROAD CAHIAGUE DRIVE (BY REGISTERED PLAN 780) PIN 58565 - 0156(LT) 0 0 w. -0 -r1.jqa4j*- �OAT-,yoCCS �r 2!,, D /�EGTGSf WC-;205S CA;2T915Ad' 7-75A� OAT fdaCl.S�� ON �THE(� 73.4/ I" I -77 . .,«... ., is o 7r*v&sF r4 T wze V.40v. xi� 0 Township of Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for February 21, 2008 Rosemary Mairs 2007 -B -32 (Revised) 6328 Line Eight North, Part Lot 22, Concession 8 THE PROPOSAL The applicant has previously applied for consent to perform a boundary adjustment in 2003, with the purpose of relocating and reducing the size of an existing vacant rural lot. According to Township records the lot was created in 1992. Application B-21/03 subsequently lapsed as the applicant did not fulfill the conditions of provisional consent. The Committee of Adjustment, at its regular Hearing of November 15, 2007, deferred the application "until such time that the applicant submits an amended application depicting revised boundaries ". The application at hand depicts a revised lot fabric configuration, in accordance with Committee's request. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation Zoning By -law 97 -95 Previous Applications AGENCY COMMENTS Rural and Environmental Protection One Agricultural /Rural (A /RU) Zone Environmental Protection (EP) Zone B9/92 (Consent to create subject lands) B-21/03 (Lot Transposition — lapsed) Simcoe County — No objection. Public Works — No concerns Engineering - No concerns Building Department — No concerns BACKGROUND The applicant had originally requested that the existing 4.04 hectare vacant lot be "transposed" and reduced in size to 2.02 hectares through a boundary adjustment, and to be re- located north to encompass an existing dwelling. The reason for the request is the applicant wishes to have the existing home located on a smaller property, and wishes to potentially sell the larger, vacant parcel. The Committee of Adjustment subsequently deferred the application so that the applicant could revise the location of the lot lines, and in particular avoid a lot that is "floating ", or located in the middle of a larger land holding. The applicant has subsequently revised the application depicting a "transposed" lot having a modified frontage and depth, where the rear lot line will now meet perpendicular to the side lot line of 6328 Line 8 North. The transposed lot would continue to have an approximately identical area to the existing lot configuration, being 4.04 hectares, a revised frontage of 220 metres, and a revised depth of 182 metres. The retained lands would have an area of 38.4 hectares. OFFICIAL PLAN The lands subject to this application are designated Rural by the Official Plan. Permitted uses in the Rural designation include single detached dwellings, hobby farms, and agricultural operations. Although the existing lot is vacant, the proposed transposed lot lines will incorporate a single detached dwelling, being a permitted use. The proposed retained lands would then therefore become vacant; however this application would not preclude the development of future residential and /or agricultural uses on the retained parcel. Section D2.2.2 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider applications for boundary adjustments in all land use designations. The policy states: A consent Pigy be permitted for the purpose lot boundaries, provided no new building lot is created... in addition, the C'onw1ittee of Adjustment shall be sati# ed that the boundary adjustment will not affec -t the viability of the agriculturalareels afjected " In reviewing the application, no new building lots will be created. With respect to the viability, of agriculture, the subject property does not exhibit evidence of past farming operations; in fact, over half of the subject lands are contained within the Provincially - significant Copeland- Craighurst- Guthrie Wetland Complex. However, for the purpose of this application, none of the proposed lot lines will be located within or on lands adjacent to the wetland complex. In addition, the lot transposition will not result in the lands increasing in size; the application in fact seeks a very minor reduction in the lot size. The County of Simcoe was circulated this application, and has no objection to the lot transposition. On this basis, the application is considered to conform to the Official Plan. Both the proposed and retained lots would comply with the Zoning By -law provisions applicable to residential and agricultural uses in the AJRU Zone, where the minimum lot area required for a residential use is 0.4 hectares, and the minimum lot frontage is 45 metres. The minimum lot area required for an agricultural use, such as a hobby farm, is 2.0 hectares. Given that the surrounding area consists mainly of large rural parcels, generally over 20 hectares, the request to transpose and slightly reduce the area of an existing 4.04 hectare residential lot is deemed appropriate, as the lot size an frontage would comply with the minimum requirements for both a residential use, and in addition potential future agricultural uses such as a hobby farm. CONCLUSION The proposed consent application for a boundary adjustment will generally conform to the policies of the Official Plan and comply with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2007-13-32 (Revised), where an existing vacant lot having an area of 4 hectares, known as 51R-23482 Parts 1 & 2, shall be "transposed" to encompass the existing single detached dwelling located at 6328 Line 8 North, subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the new lot, including the I square foot land noted in Condition 3, be prepared by an Ontario Land Survevor be submitted to the Secretary - Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the Township receives a 1 square foot conveyance of land, free and clear of all and any encumbrances, from the property being transposed at Concession 8, part of Lot 22, former Township of Medonte. The applicant shall pay all costs related to this condition, including any costs for surveying and/or any costs related to the preparation and/ or registration of any required municipal by -law related to the said conveyance; 4. That the retained agricultural lands be merged in title with the residential lot created in 1992 (Parts I & 2, RP 51R-23482) and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 5. That the applicant's solicitor provide the Secretarv-Treasurer with an undertaking that the retained lands, Concession 8, Part of Lot 22 and the previously created residential lot (Parts 1 & 2, RP 51R-23482) will merge in title; 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. All of which is respectfully submitted, Adam Kozlowski B.URPL Planner Page l of Sent Friday, 08.20082i09 PM To: Kozlowski, Adam Subject: RE: Mairs Consent 2007-13-32 (Revised) As this application is seeking to transpose an existing lot and there are no County intereots(kr. County Road. Waste Disposal area, Greenlands or County Forest) impacted by the proposal, the County has no comment. kuchelleDumcin Planner 11 The Corporation of the County uf3imcor \||0 Highway 26 Administration Centre K4idhuot.ONL0L|X0 (705) 726-9300. ext. 1315 please note new email address rachelle.hamelin@simcoe.-c-a Fromm: Kozlowski, Adam [ma i Ito: a .cal Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 2:05 PM To: Hanxelin,Rache||e Subject: Mairs Consent 2007-13-32 (Revised) HiRachele Could you please send n1ea quick reply if there are no concerns on behalf ofthe County for Rosemarie Mao/ revised consent/lot transposition. |n particular, do you have any concerns that the proposed lot would now bo 4.00 hectares instead of 4.04 hectares? Thanking you inadvance, Adam Kozlowski Planner Township of()zn-K]uloocu 148 Line 7 South, Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOl.2X0 P: 705-487-2171 ext. 4240 F: 705-487-0133 E ukoulox/ski6Boro-rucdoorc.cu _ This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content hw and is believed to be clean. 2/8/2OO8 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE 148 LINE 7 SOUTH, P.O. BOX 100, ORO, ONTARIO, LOL 2X0 (705) 487-2171 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE OF DECISION Application No. 2007-B-32 IN THE MATTER OF Section 53 of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13 as amended; and IN THE MATTER OF the Official Plan of the Township of Oro-Medonte; and IN THE MATTER OF Comprehensive Zoning By-law 97-95, as it applies to the particular application; and IN THE MATTER OF Application 2007-B-32 submitted by Rosemarie Mairs, owner of 6328 Line Eight North, Part Lot 22, Concession 8 (Formerly Township of Medonte); and WHEREAS The purpose of application 2007-B-32 is to facilitate a boundary adjustment for a vacant lot, where it is proposed that the existing vacant lot will be merged in title with the surrounding acreage, and Committee will then re-establish a "new" lot in the area requested by the applicant, which would then contain an existing single detached dwelling. WHEREAS the subject property is designated "Rural and Environmental Protection One" in the Official Plan, and Zoned "Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone and Environmental Protection (EP) 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 197196, as amended, and having considered all relevant information as presented at the public hearing on the 15`h day of November 2007. # 6 0 PAGE #2 APPLICATION 2007-B-32 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION 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". 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. I V 0 0 PAGE #3 APPLICATION 2007-B-32 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, the above decision and/or conditions may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Only individuals, corporations and public bodies may appeal decisions in respect of applications for consent to the Ontario Municipal Board. A notice of appeal may not be filed by an unincorporated association or group. However, a notice of appeal may be filed in the name of an individual who is a member of the association or group. THE LAST DATE FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2007. A "NOTICE OF APPEAL" setting out in writing the supporting reasons for the appeal should be received on or before the last date for "Appeal" accompanied by a certified cheque in the amount of ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS payable to the MINISTRY OF FINANCE. The notice is to be submitted to the Secretary -Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment, 148 Line 7 South, PO Box 100, Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0. Members concurring in this decision: Lynda Aiken (Chairperson) Garry Potter DATED this 15th day of November 2007. Bruce Chappell Rick Webster Adam Kozlowski, Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE Ss TO: Committee of Adjustment FROM: Adam Kozlowski DATE: February 15, 2007 SUBJECT: Revised Minor Variance Emmons 23 Nelson Street 2008 -A -08 Background As the Committee is aware, the subject application was refused at the December 2007 hearing, as there was extensive discussion of whether the proposed addition was in fact an "addition ", or the construction of a new dwelling. The applicant has subsequently re- submitted a new sketch depicting an attached addition onto an existing dwelling with boathouse on the lower level. Aside from the revised sketch, the request for variance for a reduction in the setback to Bass Lake, and for a reduction in the side yard setback has not changed. Staff remains of the opinion that the application is appropriate, and continue to recommend to the Committee that favourable consideration for the minor variance be given. A copy of the original staff report and other materials is attached. Respectfully submit d Xcr dam Kozlo ski etary- Treasurer SITE PLAN 23 NELSON STREET BASS LAKE ' JAN. 30 2008 06 -107 SK -916 l AO H. YOUNG \ ARCHITECT � NAM., r EmY px,pt�90ekMd / Site Statistics 23 NELSON STREET Township of Oro- Medonte (Bass Lake) EMMONS RESIDENCE i Lot Area 1,203.29 sq.m. Building Areas Area % of Lot DQ EXISTING Boathouse / Cottage 56.82 sq.m. 4.7% fc;' Middle Cotage tro &-w n 69.09 sq.m. 5.7% Boathouse tent 22.53 sq.m. 1.9% iN 5853 og5e(�T} a PROPOSED Boathouse t Cottage 56.82 sq.m. 4.7% . Addition 168.09sq.m. 5.7% (r w.kdnGPomhordeck) - i Boathouse tmt 22.53 sq.m. 1.9% rfopeatGt} 58J'f - ( LP �l it r! `:It i r�rylt+lti . mom" L � � "BrniCS % LaKF. L 9A55 148 LINE 7 SOUTH, P.O. BOX 100, ORO, ONTARIO, LOL 2XG (705) 487-2171 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT Application No. 2007-A-38 IN THE MATTER OF Section 45 of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13 as amended; and IN THE MATTER OF the Official Plan of the Township of Oro-Medonte; and IN THE MATTER OF Comprehensive Zoning By-law 97-95, as it applies to the particular application; and IN THE MATTER OF Application 2007-A-38 submitted by Lorrie Emmons, owner of 23 Nelson Street, Plan 629, Lot 12 (Former Township of Oro); and WHEREAS The applicant is proposing to construct a two-storey addition and deck onto an existing cottage. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: 1) Section 4, Table III, 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-Conforming Structuresl: 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 Lake Simcoe and 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. 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 200196, as amended, and having considered all relevant information as presented at the public hearing on the 20'h day of December, 2007. PAGE #2 APPLICATION 2007-A-38 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION Motion No. CA071220 - 4 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Rick Webster Committee refuse Application 2007-A-38 as it appears that the applicant has applied for an "addition" when in reality that are building a new dwelling/structure. The concern is that the existing waterfront boathouse/cottage will become bedrooms for the new "addition" without concern for high water setbacks and boundary adjustments. The Committee recommends a re- application for construction of a new dwelling on the lot, rather than an addition ...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 2007-A-38 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 9th DAY OF JANUARY 2008. 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: E::L4 4-1, Lynda Aiken, Chairperson DATED this 20'h day of December 2007 tq11 Bruce Chappell y/1 Rick Webster /-1 Adam Kozlowski Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment FEB-01 -2008 r 01- Feb -2008 03: 15:08 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE OOpm From- fraser milner casarain Ilp_45 FMC, P.002i014 416 863 4592 T-713 P- 002/014 F -038 FRASER MIL.NER CASGRAYN LLP ANDREW L. JEANRIE Direct Linz: 416 -863 -4793 andrew.jeanrie ra iinc- law.corn File #215228 -6 February 1, 2008 DELIVERED BY FAX Mr. Adam Kozlowski, Planner Township of Oro- Medonte 148 Line 7 South P.O. Box 10 ORO, Ontario LOL 2X0 Dear Mr. Kozlowski: Re: 23 NELSON STREET Township of Oro - Medonte (Bass Lake) Lot 12, Registered Plan 629 EMMONS RESIDENCE Committee of Adjustment Revised Application for Minor Variance We act for Lorie Emmons, the owner of the property referred to above. Based on recent conversations between Mr. Emmons and Bruce Hoppe, we are pleased to submit a revised application to the Committee of Adjustment for two variances to the Zoning By -law. As you are aware, this application was previously considered by the Committee of December 20, 2007 and refused. The application was refused, not because of any concern on the pert of the members of the Committee about the variances, but rather about a concern whether or not the new construction was indeed an addition to the existing boat house /cottage. In order to address this concern, Mrs. Emmons' architect, Rod Young, has redesigned the addition so that there is a fixed link connecting the addition to the existing boat he wwkottage. We trust that this will address the Committee's concerns with the application, and permit the Committee to approve the variances. We are enclosing the signed application form, along with a copy of the original letter Ml•. Young submitted in support of the initial application, which explains the rationale for supporting and approving the variances. 5244246_1,DQC IFEB-01-2008 15:08 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE P.003/014 01-Feb-2008 03:00pm From - Fraser milner casarain HP-45 416 863 4592 T-713 P-003/014 F-038 2. As discussed with Mr. Hoppe, Rod Young will be arran&g for the plans in support of the application to be delivered to the Township offices by mid next week. We understand the fee for a re-submission is $250.00. On behalf of our client, we are requesting that such fee be waived. If the fee is not to be waived, please contact the undersigned 'and we will deliver the appropriate amount. We trust that this is satisfactory. Yours truly, FRASER MILNER CASGRAIN LLP Andrew L. Jeanrie ALJ/jr Enclosures cc: Lorie Emmons, Owner Rod Young, Architect Maitin Emmons 5244246_13300 Hearing Date: Application #:% Owner: C7 I r C 148 Line 7 5., Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0 Phone (705) 487 -2171 Fax (705) 487 -0133 www.oro- medonte.ca Lot #: l c Plan #: e-/- L' i`` Conc. #: 1A The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application. ❑ Site inspection required and completed. ❑ Proposal appears to meet minimum standards. ❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code. ❑ Comments: 'ii�r�5 �P A�2 i� 2 �P ea -rte �o t,�r G Was SPcjc -, 7 , L. ,L-L., Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal Respectfully submitted, Michael Diver, CBCO Chief Building Official 16tc'- L\ �� 0 a Township of Oro-Mcdonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for December 20, 2007 Loric Emmons li 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 131, 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 budding, 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 - 0 0 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 proper",. For the application at hand, the existing µ 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. I 0 0 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 Is 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 fallowing 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 Ily submitted, ',Y y dam Kozlowski Planner M Reviewed by Glenn White, MCIP RPP Senior Planner Watershed Counties Simcoe Dufferin Grey Member of C-�`%' Conservation OaNTARIO Sincerely, Tim Salkeld Resource Planner Conserving our Healthy Waters NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Centre for Conservation John Hix Conservation Administration Centre Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 8th Line Utopia, On LOM 1 T Telephone: 705.424.1479 = Fax: 705.424.2115 = Web: www.nvca.on.ca Email: admin @nvca.on.ca Adam Kozlowski, Secretary Treasurer DEC 17 2007 Committee of Adjustment MEpONTE Township of Oro - Medonte ORO TOWNSHIP P.O. Box 100 Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0 Member Municipalities Dear Mr. Kozlowski; Ad'aIa- T °s°rontio Re: Application for Minor Variance 2007 -A -38 (Emmons) Amaranth Plan 629, Lot 12, 23 Nelson Street Barrie Township of Oro - Medonte (Formerly Township of Oro) The Blue Mountains The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this Bradford-West Gwillimbury minor variance application in accordance with regulations made under the aearview Conservation Authorities Act and our mandate for the conservation, Collingwood restoration, development and management of natural resources. Essa The NVCA has no objection to the approval of this application subject to Innisfil the following condition: Melancthon Mono That the applicant obtain a permit from the Nottawasaga Valley Mulmur Conservation Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act. New Tecumseth The purpose of the permit is to ensure adequate floodproofing elevations and ensure erosion and sediment controls are installed prior to Grey Highland Grey Highlands construction to protect Bass Lake and associated environmental features Shelburne and functions. Springwater Thank you for circulating this application and please advise us of any Wasaga Beach decision. Watershed Counties Simcoe Dufferin Grey Member of C-�`%' Conservation OaNTARIO Sincerely, Tim Salkeld Resource Planner Conserving our Healthy Waters NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Centre for Conservation John Hix Conservation Administration Centre Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 8th Line Utopia, On LOM 1 T Telephone: 705.424.1479 = Fax: 705.424.2115 = Web: www.nvca.on.ca Email: admin @nvca.on.ca TE TQWNbHV I Miff._ FEB 2008 A E G G -1 '00 UN C I L 0 .OF W, In Attendance: Member Garry Potter; Member Rick Webster; Member Michelle Lynch; Member Lynda Aiken; Member Bruce Chappell; Secretary-Treasurer Adam Kozlowski 1. Communications and Correspondence n.4ftAff *1011M Moved by Lynda Aiken, Seconded by Bruce Chappell Michelle Lynch be appointed as Chair for the Committee of Adjustment for the 2008 term. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest None declared. Carried..." Committee of Adjustment-January 17, 2008 Page 1 9:30 2008-B-01 Mark Huismans Plan 51 M-807, Lot 9 21 Hemlock Cres. (Former Township of Oro) In Attendance: Dino Astri, Agent for Applicant I OT, 1161 go "I Z BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Garry Potter Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B-01, being to convey a strip of land from 21 Hemlock Crescent to 19 Hemlock Crescent, having an area of 0.029 hectares, subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the severed lands be merged in title with Plan 51M-807, Lot 8, known municipally as 19 Hemlock Crescent, and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the Notice of Decision. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-January 17, 2008 Page 2 4. Other Business i. Adoption of Minutes from December 20, 2007 meeting Motion No. CA080117 - 3 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Rick Webster, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the minutes for the December 20, 2007 Committee of Adjustment Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated 5. Adjournment Motion No. CA080117 - 4 Moved by Rick Webster, seconded by Lynda Aiken "We do now adjourn at 1015 am ore-00.0% (NOTE: A digital recording of this meeting is available for review.) Chairperson Michelle Lynch Secretary-Treasurer Adam Kozlowski Committee of Adjustment-January 17, 2008 Page 3