Loading...
03 20 2008 C of A AgendaCommittee of Adiustment Aqenda Thursday March 20, 2008, 9:30 a.m. 1 Communications and Correspondence 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Hearings: 9:30 2007-A-81 hAr,('_.rn+h (Revised) Plan 702, Lot 9 1197 Line 2 South (Former Township of Oro) 9:45 2008-A-07 Dale McEachern Plan 104, Lot 8 41 Church Street (Former 'r,,-.,,wnship of Oro) 10*000 2008-A- 10 Keith Kitchen Concession 13, East Part of Lot 4 3890 Line 13 North (Former Township of Medonte) 10:15 2008-A-1 1 Lynn Taylor Plan 486, Lots 2 & 3 17 Bay Street (Former Township of Oro) 10:30 2008-A-09 Cameron & Katherine Gausby Concession 3, Lot 23 475 Line 2 South (Former Township of Oro) 10:45 2008-B-06 Peter & Jean Hoffman Concession 3, Lot 9 4641 Line 2 North (Former Township of Medonte) 11.*00 2008-B-07 Raymar Investments Ltd. Concession 13, Lot 10 (Former Township of Medonte) 11:15 2008-A-06 Raymond Dumont Concession 1, East Pt. Lot 10 2109 Gore Road (Former Township of Oro) 4. Other business i. Adoption of Minutes from February 21, 2008 meeting 5. Adjournment Variance - Garage floor area & locate in front yard Variance - reduce front yard setback Variance - Garage floor area Variance - boat house height Variance - home business # of employees Boundary Adjustment Boundary Adjustment Variance - increase floor volume in yard Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for March 20, 2008 ................... ..................... ......... ..... .... . . Gus & Kim McGrath 2007-A-31 (REVISED) 1197 Line 2 South, Plan 7021, Lot 9 (Former Txvp. of Oro) ........ ... . . . ...... . . ........ . .. . "I'he applicant had originally appeared before the Committee of Adjustment on November 17, 0011, seeking to construct a detached accessory structure (being a 3 car garage), havm'g a floor area of 86.95 square metres, and to be located in front of the dwelling currently under construction. The applicant required variance for increased floor area increased lot coverage, and perrm'sslon for the garage to be located M' the front vard. Committee subsequently deferred the application, requesting the applicant to revise the garage plans. . As a result, the applicant has reduced the site of the Proposed structure, and is now proposing to construct a detached accessory building (2 car garage), to have an area of 58 square metres and be located in front of the dwelling currently under construct-Ion. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: 1. Section 5. .3 Permitted locations for detached accessory buildings and structures in all zones a) Not be located in the front vard, to be located in front of the dwelling currently under construction. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS, Official Plan Designation — Rural Settlement Area Zoning By-law 97-95 — Residential One (R1) Zone Previous Applications — AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works and Roads- No road concerns Building Department-The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and comment that the proposal appears to meet the mi'nu*num standards. Engineering Department- No concerns "fhe subject property is located within the Shanty- Bay settlement area, haying 32.6 metres of W -W e and a lot area of 0. 18 hectares. The frontage on 1,1ne '41. South,, a depth of 57 metres, applicant is currently building a 183.4 square metre su1gle detached dwelling on the subject lands. A 39 square metre detached accessory building is located in the southeast corner of the subject property. Me applicant is proposing to build a detached 2 car garage with an area of 58 square metres, and proposed to be located 7.5 metres from the front lot line, which is in front of the dwelling currently under construction. The application 'involves variance to permit the construction of a garage in the front yard of the propertv. Wr Does tie variance conform to tie general intent of the 01 Ncial Plan? The propert ' y is designated Rural Settlement Area. Permitted uses within this land use designation are listed in Section C3.2 of the Official Plan: "Pemlitted uses in Me Rural Settlement -,-/I tra de s� gnafion. . . air low dens ply trs idea fial uses, Small scale commertial uses ele 7 7 . -As the application to construct a detached garage accessory to a residential dwelling constitutes a permitted use, the proposed variance is deemed to con'form to the intent of the Official Plan. Does Me V & 0 Vartan cc main ta-in the general in ten t of M e Zoning By4a w? With respect to the request to locate the garage 'in front of the dwelling, the intent of the Zoning Bv-law to prohibit accessory structures from being located in the front yard is to .i ensure that the residence remains predominant. For the application at hand, while the proposed garage will be located in front of the dwelling that is currently under construction _01 the garage will otherwise meet the re aired. ed 7.5 metre front vard setback for the RI Zone. _110D The purpose of the front yard setback WF is to ensure that adequate distance exists between the traveled portion of the roadway and structures, and for the purpose of ensuring space for adequate on-site parking. In addition, the applicant has reduced the size of the garage from the original 86.95 square metres down to 58 square tnetres; the maximum size of any one detached accessory building in the RI Zone is 70 square metres * In addition, the reduced garage size would also now comply with the 5% overall lot coverage provision for accessory structures. As such, the variance to permit the garage to be located in front of the residence under construction would therefore maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the var iance desirable for Me appropriate development of Me lot? The subject property is a relatively small residential lot in compar' ison to neighbouring properties. The character of this section of the Shanty Bay settlement area is predominantly residential, compact, and contains modest and larg"e homes. As a result of the site inspection, it was noted that most surrounding accessory structures were located at the side of ' or behind the dwelling unit. For this application, however, the location of the garage is suitable, as the size and shape of the lot, location of the septic system, as well as the size of the dwelling under construction will limit the placement of the garage. In addition, the applicant intends to utilize the front vard area for driveway access and vehicle parking, and as such the location of the garage is id. eal. A buffer of trees exists between the neighbouring residence to the south and the rear wall of the proposed garage, and as such there will not likely be a negative impact on privacy or concerns over aesthetics. In addition, the applicant has signi'ficantly scaled-down the site of the proposed garage, modifying the plans to depict a 2. car garage, and decreasing the overall floor area from 86.95 square metres to 58 square metres, bringing the structure into compliance with the maxn'num floor area provision, in front of the dwelling is- deemed The proposed variance to permit the garage to be located * . dential use to be appropriate, as the garage will remain, visually, secondary-! to the primary rest ki of the lot. In addition, the garage is in an ideal location with respect to vehicle paring and the orientation of the driveway. The garage location will also not obstruct access to the rear of the propertv, nor require removal of existing tree cover that provides buffering between the subject and neighboun'ng property. As such, the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot. Is the valance minor? On the basis that the proposed garage constitutes a permitted use, will otherwise maintain the required front and side yard setbacks and setback to the dwelling, along with mxi amum fl oor area and lot coverage provisions, tA!--e re-n-lested v.-:-*,*iance is ,Aeemed to be ram' or. I CONCLUSION The proposed variance generally satisfies the tests of variance. RECOMMENDATION 1vWIN - 17 a w -31 for the It is recommended that Committee approve Revised Variance Application 1007-A located 7.5 metres from construction of a detached garage having an area of 58 square mares, to be the front property line, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the size of the detached accessory building be no larger than 58 square metres; 0 2. That the detached accesso r building be located no closer than 7.5 metres from the front propertN,- line; 3. That the detached accessory building, notwithstanding Section 5.1.3 a), othenvise meet with all other provisions for detached accessory buildings; 4. That an Ontario Land Sur-vre yor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by veni�-ing in writing that the detached garage be located no closer than 7.5 metres from the front property fine; and that the detached garage be no larger than 58 square metres; 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, All of x4dch is remect y s mitted, Reviewed by • -0 Glenn White, MCIP, RPP 1,kd�m 0 ws Senior Planner /Planner N w z BINGE t 1! SUBJECT LANDS 1197 LINE 2 SOUTH LAKE Za"m I IVI (; tj t: UNE 2 SOUTH 24.53 32-61 *4j so Z. J3, 2,24 S3 2,73 cl 152 LA 31.29 9-m aj ■ a 4 0 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-ME DONTE 1.48 LINE 7 SOUTH, P.O. BOX 1. 00, ORO, ONTARIO, LOL 2XO (705)487-2171. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE OF DECISION NNA Application No. 2007-A-31 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 'redo 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-31 submitted by Gus & Kim McGrath, owners of 1197 Line 2 South, Plan 702, Lot 9 (Former Tw ); . of Oro and P I WHEREAS The applicants are proposing to construct a detached accessory building (3 car garage), to have an area of 86.95 square metres, and to be located in front of a dwelling currently under construction. The applicants are requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: 1. Section 5.1.3 Permitted locations for detached accessory buil ructures in all zones a) Not be located in the front yard, to be located 4.87 metres in front of the dwelling currently under construction. 2. Section 5.1.6 Maximum Floor Area The maximum floor area of any one detached accessory building or structure is 70 square metres, be increased from the required 70 square metres to 86.95 square metres. 3. Section 5.1.5 Maximum lot cover The maximum lot coverage of all detached accessory buildings and structures on a lot is 5 percent, be increased from the required 5 % to 7 % WHEREAS the subject property is designated "Rural Settlement Area" in the Official Plan, and Zoned "Residential One (R I) Zones under By-law 97-95; and Is 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 15 th day of November, 2.007. w PAGE # 2 APPLICATION 2007-A-31 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION Motion No. CA071-115-8 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Rick Webster 4'*Committee refuse Variance Application 2007-A-3 L as the application is not deemed to be minor 11 Defeated . Motion No. CA071115-9 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Bruce Chappell '14Committee defer Variance Application 2007-A-31 until such time that the applicant submits a 6 eallso revised application 010 I Caffied7. ■ E PAGE # 3 APPLICATION 2007-A-31 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 45(1.',.)) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 1.3, 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 a eal may not be file y 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 5 1h DAY OF DECEMBER 2007, A"NOTICE OF APPEAL 1 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 2XO. Members concurring in this decision- Lynda Aiken, Chairperson DATED this 1.5" day of November 2007 ............. Bruce Chappell Rick Webster Adam ]Kozlowski S ecretary- Treasurer Committee of Adjustment FLE PAN : \\"W\CA ' . . .. ..... ....... ....... . .......... ums A-2 LAP UPWI Oct 12. W .. .. ...... I..- soft OROXCT P40. SCALE, PROJXT RAW- hm P@Wmwimd OW Uhm 08W ow omm go maw am so on 1/4:pul*—T GM mcGRATH GMAM 07-96 onow pwmft coft w I* a Owdrm OATE: 10.11.07 Pmqmbod WiM deals am"WC 140. USN m 3 CJL AXAMOM -2 CADD A cvo^frw"oo 4MOVIC" ftmoad oftm *won is omw =ON tZ A.i. d r NridMq CNECKM W. atm. "K"Oe CHUNSWO '&uTocj%j* cualtm""O" PL is% MrommVemooft Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for Match 201, 2008 Dale McEachern 41 Church Street, Plan 104, Lot 8 (Former Tvkrp. Of oro 2008-A-07 THE PROPOSAL 1"he applicant is proposing to dernolish an existing 83.6 square metre 1.5 storev dwelling and replace with a 171 square metre 1.5 storey dwelling, also containing a deck and covered porch. 'I"he applicant is requestiig the f(,)11(,)Wlngrch(,,'f from Section 4 Table BI of X g BNT-law 97- onin 95: W Minimum J."ront Yard Setback R1 Zone: Rs� ui�red PrQpQsed 1 7.5 metres, 3.65 metres MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Rural Settlement Area Zoiiing By-law 97-95 — Residential One (1) one Previous Ykppfications, — None AGENCY COMMENTS public Works Department Building Department - l:: ngineering Department The subject property is located in the southern portion of the Shanty Bav Settlement Area., having direct driveway access from Church Street. T'he subject lot has a frontage of approximately 44.2 metres, on Church Street, 39.6 metres of flankage on Bell Lane,, a depth of approximately 39.6 metres and a lot area of approximately 0.18 hectares. The subject property contains a single detached dwelling and a 66.8 square metre detached accessory structure. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 171 square metre, 1.5 storey single detached dwelling,,, also containing a deck and covered porch. The existing 83.6 square metre 1.5 storey dwelling is currendy setback approximately 1.63 metres from the front lot line; however,, the iv. dwelling was constructed in 1933, and as such pre-dates applicable zoning provisions, The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 7.5 metres to 3.65 metres to accommodate the new dwelhng, which is proposed 'in approximately the same location. as the existing dwelling. Does the vart*ance conform to the general am tent of the Official Plan The property is designated Rural Settlement Area in the Official. Plan. Section C3.2 of the Plan states that "periTn'tted uses... are low density, residential uses"', such as single detached dwellings. Therefore the demolition and replacement of a single detached dwelling on the subject lands, and subsequent variance application to reduce the required front yard setback for a permitted use is considered to conform to the intent of the Official Plan. Does the variance compIv with the general intent oft e Zoning .may haw? The subject property, is zoned Residential One (R1) Zone. Permitted uses in the R1 Zone include single detached dwellings and accessory, buildings, such as garages and storage sheds. With respect to front vard setbacks, the ptimary purpose for maintaining a minimum distance from roadways is to ensure that adequate buffering exists between structures and from the traveled portion of the road. As well, the front yard setback also ensures that adequate vehicle parking exists for the dwelling, and in some cases provides for lot area for components of septic systems. For the application at hand, the existing dwelling to be demolished is noted to be located 1.63 metres at its closest point from the front property line. 'Ilse proposed new dwelling will not further reduce an existing deficient front yard; in fact, the new dwelling is proposed to be located deeper into the lot, the closest point to the front property line being 3.65 metres-, measure from the northeast corner of the proposed dwelling. With respect to parking, an existing driveway and parking area . is located in the easterly portion of the properrv, and will not be adversely affected or require relocation as a result of this variance application. The existing septic system is located toward, the rear of property, and as well is not proposed to be relocated. .Aside from the reduced front yard setback, the proposed dwelling would otherwise comply with height,, floor area, and all other setback requirements. As such,, the variance is deemed to comply with the general intent of the Zoning By, -law. a Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? The subj ect propemr is located on Church Street, approximately 130 metres west off of Line South. Church Street is Considered a "dead end" road, where Bell Lane, being a private lanewav, provides litTlited vehicle and pedestrian. access south to Bav Street. However, for the purpose of this application, the required exterior side yard setbacks would not apply to this application, as the subject lands abut one Municipal road, and therefore is n . ot considered to be a corner lot. The site inspection revealed that Church Street is a quiet residential street, and provides road access to 5 dwellings. As a result, Church Street is not considered to be a thoroughfare, and is hrm*ted to minimal local vehicular and pedestrian traffic. For the purpose of this application, as discussed above, the purpose of the front yard setback is to maintain separation between the traveled portion of the roadway residential 0 4 stnictures, and to allow for vehicle parking. The application to reduce the required 7.5 metre setback to 3.65 metres is appropriate in this case, as ("Ahurch Street generates minimal traffic and is- not considered a thoroughfare. The existing driveway and vehicle parking space on the subject lands will also not be affected by the nature of this application, as the proposed dwelling would be located in approx.imatelv the same location as the i ' g dwelling, albeit existin setback further into the lot. In addition, while the existing dwelling is located 1.6 metres from the front property line, the applicant is proposing to relocate the new dwelling further back into the lot, which in effect will n(,--)t further increase a situation of non-compliance; in fact, the application seeks to improve the setback deficiency� However, the proposed new dwelling could not be located any further back from the front property line due to requi-red setbacks to existing septic system components. For these reasons the application is deemed desirable for the appropriate development of the lot. Is the variance minor? -As this application maimt"iins the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the proposed variance is considered to be tninor, CONCLUSION ` 1'he application to reduce the front vard setback satisfies the tests of a va * nance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance wkpplication 2008-A-07, being for the construction of a new 1 1 1 square tnetre, 1.5 storey single detached dwelling containing a covered porch and deck, and for the front yard setback to be reduced from the required 713 metres to 3.89 metres, measured from the north-west corner of the proposed dwelling to the front property line, and 3.65 metres, measured from the northeast corner of the proposed dwelling to the front property, line, subject to the following conditions: 1. 11-iat the setbacks be U'i conforrruity With the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch and construction drawings subiTuitted With the application and approved by the Committee; W 'I'll-at an Ontario 1,and Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Con-imittee's decision by verifying in writing that the new dwelling be setback no closer than 3.89 inetre'S, censured from the northwest corner of the proposed dwelling to the front property, line, and e 3.65) metres, Meel'Sured from the northeast corner of the proposed dwelling to the front property. line; I 1'hat the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Townships Chief Bluilding Official onl'v after the C'ommittee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the planning ­Xct R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. AR of whu:h is resvectfuI4 submitted, "'J ci J� X Vol m Jov Koz. ki, ner 3 Reviewed by, 10 Glenn kWhite, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner SUBJECT 41 CHURCH STREET � 1 AV CyVRCH gAY_ LAKE SIMCOE uj z P I 100E 0 Mc Eachem - Wylie Residence 1 -112 Storey Single Family DwellingN.� C Part of trot 981,,.' Registered Plan 104 a Township of Oro N I I .3 E i ,i I t 'iii 'ti I I;�,fR � j• . _- — {f i Z �......... ii II Nr i i I j. } i Ili lil I ii I i i Ii ; iLsl ....y t ; R I x err a� � i ill I i i Mc Eachem - Wylie Residence 1 -112 Storey Single Family DwellingN.� C Part of trot 981,,.' Registered Plan 104 a Township of Oro N ■ UYVERED PoRcH .1.4* ......... .. . . ....... ... . T-r -Nd MIX -4 .. ........ . ....... .................... ..... ......... . ..... .. ... .... ..... .. ........... . .... ..... .. .. ...... ... . rra a —4t —.99b" CffOcf," above . . ......... .... ...... .......... .... ..... . . . s. ............ 4? ....... . .... ... ri.... .. ..... .... . ..... .. ........... k4 x 8M- ABOVE . . ...... ...... F 2. ...... . .... ...... 9M. A 4- .... ....... ......... . rn . ... ....... .......... ........ ...... .. . > NEW WYLIE-MCEACHERN RESIDENCE r 3 It a Q PART of LOT # 8 REGISTERED PLAN 104 loxi`. All, 0- IF CHURCH STREET TOWNSHIP of CRS Z; Act C) 0 4 C)OI 0 LIJ :z U. 0 CO 0 cn cu 0 CLowmwmm LLJ w N 13d 52' 25" W 38,426 m (126 OT) cnr --------------------------- I Fro, E 0 tu > E cr) t U- co CO 0 0 z C) x L------------------------- w >= ca w z 0 0 z Z LL C14 X LLI 5R uj U- 0 3ON301S I N J 3SMO'd W JO)QM3A 0 (ewg,St) 13 bS tK:Y3W HO�80d 0'383AOO HObOd CM43300 10 V3WV wx ui �--, I I F 7 00 X I �x zi -ii I �. Ir (D U- LU w z A w low U-WW ;Z, FWA i� U- WXr uj ��a� toi I IAZ>I§W- � x a C, at Z U� w c w z see 10 1 -.s f I-?- - A ��� u ) 7— W IW iA-3-N- Fgig=L tT. i: t9 Nr ',r i sne, Ii- - 9NI �X, 4! it Yj.'> N 15d I ..... � , - 39.624 m (130.00') AVM :10 I H!D'I*lj COO) Lu 60'9 � . Township of Oro.-Mcdonte Comm* A 'N � MCC Of Ad ustment Planning Report for Match 20, 2008 Keith Kitchen 3890 Line 13 North, Concession 13, East Pt. Lot 4 2008-A-10 _(Former Medonte) . . ........ . "I"he applicant is proposing to construct a detached accessory garage, proposed to have a floor area of 124.9 square metres. 'Fhe applicant is requesting the followmg relief from Zom'ng By- law 97-95: Section 5.1. Maximum tjloor,­= re,, 1 The maximum floor area of any one detached accessory building or structure 'n the A/R LT 41 Zone is 100 square metres, be any from the required 100 square metres to 124.9 square metres. MUNICIPAL POLICY ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS I Official Plan Dcsignation — Agricultural - emb #__ Z 1 T) on'ng By-law 97-95 — Agricultural/Rural (ck /RLI; Zone Previous Applications — AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department — No concerns Building Department l gineenn, 9 Department — No concerns BACKGROUND The subject propert-v has a lot frontage of 54.8 metres on Line 13 North a depth of 73 metres, and a lot area o f t .4 hectares. The subject propertv contains a single detached dwelling, built approximatelv 5 vears ago. The property located ' 41 just south of the Warminster settlement area,, and is bounded on all sides by large agricultural parcels. The applicant is proposing to construct a 1424.9 square metre detached garage, to be located in the southwest corner of the proper"r, approximately 215 metres behind the eXisting dwelling. J"he applicant has indicated that the increased garage floor area is needed to accommodate parking for passenger vehicles, and as well serve as a workshop. 1 f F Does the "riance eon ors to the general intent o tie Of icial Plan? 4"he propertv is designated Agricultural by the Official Plan. Section C 1.2. of the I)Ian states- that "Permitted uses on lands designated ,jgticuliural. . are single detached dwellings land accessory buildings to such]". J'herefore a detached garage accessory, to a dwelling constitutes a permitted use. On this basis) the proposal conforms to the intent of the Official Plan. Does the trarian cc mein tain the general in test of the Zoning Bv4a w? 11he subject property is zoned Agricultural/ Rural A/RU) Zone. "I'he purpose for regulating the size, height and location of detached accessory structures is to ensure that such buildings remain clearly secondary to the primary use of the lot, in this case being residential. Pr isions for the max mum o flor area for accessory structures in the A/RU Zone are ov i slightiv larger; while in residential zones the maximum floor area is `1 square metres, the -_ccessory R U.T maximum is 100 square metres. This difference in floor areas reflects that structures in the rural areas of the 'I-ownship may be geared more to the storage of A s well the purpose for recreational, agricultural, and other large vehicles and machinery restricting the floor area of accessory structures is to ensure that such structures remain clearly secondan7 to the primary permitted use of the subject lands. In tl-iis case, while the garage is proposed to have an area of 1 .1.4.9 square metres, the existing dwelling has a floor area of 165.9 square metres. As such the garage will remain secondary to the dwelling. W ,Ml I .Aside from the maximum floor area provision, the proposed garage will otherwise meet with the re sired hei ht, interior side and rear yard setbacks, setback to the dwelling, and will not qg excccd the maximum 5 percent lot coverage provision. Therefore, the variance is considered to maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance desirlable for the approphate development of the lot? .A site inspection revealed that the proposed garage will be located over 50 metres from the front propertv, boundary, and an additional '25 metres behind the existing dwelling in the extreme southwest corner of the lot. As such, the existing dwelling will be well in front of the garage, and thus .remain visually predominant. The site inspection also revealed that the subject lands are located in a fairly remote part of the Township, where surrounding lands consist of large agricultural parcels. It was also noted that the closest neighbouring dwelling is located 40 metres to the south of the boundary of the subject property, where another dwelling lies 100 metres to the north. Aside from these two dwellings, there are no other immediate residential structures in prom xiity to the subject lands. As such, the variance for an increase in floor area will not 9 ing residences based likely have a negative visual or aesthetic impact for the few neighbouring ' our ' on spatial separation. On this basis the proposal is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lot. 2 Is the vari'ance t111*D0r? As this application is deetned to conform with the Official Plan, Maintain the intent of the 7. .0. onin r Bv-1aw and const' -,s appropriate development, the -vrariance is considered to be g itutc minor. CONCLUSION 1"he application generally satisfies the tests of variance. RECOMMENDATION it is recommended that the Committee approve Variance `�pphcation ',2008-A-10,1 being for the construction of a 14'24.9 square metre detached accesson,- I)u*].d* i ing, subject to the following conditions: That notwithstanding Section 5.1.6 of Zoning By-law 97-95., the structure shall ()therwlse coMplv with all other provisio ns for c etaclzecl accessory buildings, as required under Section 5 of the Zoning.Bv-law; That the floor area of the detached garage not exceed 1124.9 square metres; 3. "Fhat the setbacks be in conformity with. the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch submitted with th'�e application and approved by the Committec; 4. 'Fhat an Ontario 1,and Sumeyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the (._'omrffl'ttee"s decision by veli ft -in g in writing that the floor area of the detached accessory structure not ex ceed 124.9 square metres'; 5. I'hat the appropriate building permit be obtained from ' ownship's Chief Building Official only after the C(m 'ttee's decision becomes final and binding,, as mi provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13. All of which is respectfulIvsubi-nitted 5 ■ 3 Reviewed bv, "I Glenn White,, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner (►� "if,� �,, a ■ IMP 1 ' 54AM 1 1 � L 1 4 A 1' 1 1 � F F � F APO Q0 's cn 0, 121 A & 1 + C7 P ■F 1�• t ` ` 8. + Y cn � • i f r x r .w.rf ■ Y 1 j 1 � .... � 1 • • ' � i 1 � i 'Ti � � f 1 l d• � L r � 1 1 EXISTING DWELLING MNLY CLAD 1 r 3890 UNE 13 WWM DOOR SRI MiD ' � 1 1 � i F 1 1 1 1 ' SUN 1 1 1 1 . ` ► S 1 ' • � tiiri 1 ` Ix x � 1 l 1 ` IL,rI . • • r. w1 iom � arm MM OF PN&T _ MM OF A3PHW ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSIONS 13 AND 14 0 cn Y L.A 00 Mern 54A" ...,..rte 9 w V --.� ri C a a Wet nesdayi, February 20., 2008 To Whom It May Concern: This is a letter to express there is no opposition to the building in question on Keith Kitchen's property. If you have any questions or concerns free please feel to contact me at (705) 325-371941 Sincerely, Patricia Robbins Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for March 20, 2008 ......... . .......... .. ............. ........... Lynn Taylor 200XA-11 Plan 486 (Formed . . . . .. ... .... ,, Lot 2 and 3 y Oro) . . . ......... 17 Ea v Street,* THE PROPOSAL -store' boathouse with a dec, where the The applicants are proposmg to construct a tw o-s, r kM2 "Ibe applicants are boathouse is proposed to have a total footprint area of 104 (1115 ft/. )wing relief from Zoning By -law 97-95: requesting the foll( * �i Section 5.1.4 Maximum h for the boathouse from the requited 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to a proposed 7.18 metres (23'x" feet). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS Official Plan Designation — Rural Settlement Area 10 1 911 Zoning By -law 97-95 — Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications — None AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works - Building Department — Engineering Department — Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority — BACKGROUND The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 46 metres (150 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 47 metres (154 feet), and average depth of 76 metres (249 feet) and a storev lot area of approximately 0.38 hectares (0.94 acres). The property currently contains a ��© W dwelling and two accessory structures. A smaller boathouse currently exists where the proposed boathouse is to be constructed. The boathouse is proposed to have a "footprint" area of 104 square metres (11 .2.5 square feet), where the lower level is proposed to have a bay for boat storage. The upper level is proposed to consist of a "storage room", accessed by double doors from the east side of the structure. The boathouse is proposed to have a maximum height of 7.18 metres (237' feet), calculated from the average high water mark of Lake Sn'ncoe to the mean of the eves and peak of the roof. to 1 Does the variance conform to Me general intent of the of ,r1cial plan? _1_'he property is designated Rural Settlement Area by the Official Plan. The ptimary function of the Rural Settlement Area designation is to maintain and create attractive cotnrn�unities with suitable amenities. Perm-itted uses in the Rural Residential Area designation primarilv consist of low density residential uses and accessory uses to such. The application therefore constitutes a permitted use in the Rural Residential area designation, and as such conforms to the Official Plan. Does the variance Cop tv witb the gen er d in ten t of th e Zoning By4a rte. Township Zoning By-law regulates the location and height of boathouses to prevent such structures from being constructed and located ire that may lead to the over-development of properties that front on water bodies'. and ultimately contribute to the degradation of the natural character and features of the shoreline as a whole. Section 5.6 of By-law 97-95 establishes specific setback, height, percentage of lakefront lot width, and use regulations for boathouses. 'Fhe ' proposed boathouse meets, aside from the maximum height proviso in, all other requirements of Section 5.6 of the Zoning By-law. Boathouse height is calculated not from the average finished grade as it is with all other detached accessory structures in the Township), but from the "average high water mark". The intent of this provision is to ensure that a boathouse will, remain clearly a secondary use to the dwelling unit, does not dominate the development of the subject property, and does not negatively impact the natural characteristics of the shoreline for the subject or neighbourig properties. Due to the topography of the site, consisting of a gradual slope from Bav Street to Lake Simcoe, this knots where the applicant can locate the proposed boathouse on the shoreline. The slope ends very briefly forn-u'ng a plateau, which is where the proposed boathouse wffl be constructed. As a result of this topography, the proposed boathouse cannot be bat at the high water mark, thus requiring the applicant to seek -a va4n'ance for 'increase height of a boathouse; A wrap around deck is also proposed on the boathouse, which will pro)ect a further 4..'2. metres (14 feet) into Lake Simcoel, and will be located approXiMately 3.65 metres above the surface of the lake. Due to the width. of the subject property, the boathouse will not "dominate" the character of the W Mi shoreline. In addition, the proposed structure meets with all other provisions for boathouses, as listed in Section 5.6 of Zoning By-law 97-95. As a result of a site inspection, F it was determined that the boathouse on neighbouring east lot, appears to be approximately 7.6 tnetres (25 feet) which exceeds the 4.5 metre (14.7 foot) maxi um height provision. It can therefore be deterrm'ned that the proposed boathouse wifl blend in with other boathouses along the shoreline. Additionally, a high, dense cedar hedge exists on the east side of the subject property, and will provide a good privacy buffer for neighbouring lots. On this basis the variance is deemed to comply with the general intent of the Zo nin ing By-law. Is Me variance desirable for Me appropriate development of the lot? Based on the site 'inspection, the proposed boathouse height and size of the attached deck would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot', and is M keeping with the character of the surrounding shoreline area. 2 On this basis the variance for height is considered appropriate for the development of the lot. • Is the trariqnce nunor? On the basis that the proposed boathouse height would not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area., with the neighboring boathouse exceeding the maximum 4.5 metres height limit. IkIthough the requested relief represents close to a doubling of the Zoning By-law ,standard in recognition of the unique site topography and character of the shoreline in this ' section of the lakefront, the variance deem ed appr opriate and therefore tenor. CONCLUSION I Minor Variance Application 2008-.A-1 I generally satisfies the test for a minor variance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2008-A.- 11 subject to the following conchtions: 1. Nomvithstanding Section 5.6 0 of Zoning By-law 97-95, that the maximum height of the proposed boathouse shall not exceed 7.18'metres above the average high water mark elevation of .2.19.15 metres for 11,ake Sim-coe; and that the location of the boathouse be in conformity with the site plan subnutted with the application and approved by Committee; 2. 'Fhat an Ontario I_,and Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the (".omn-n'ttee's decision by verif�,7ing in writing by way of survey/real property report that the height of the boathouse not exceed 7.18 metres; 3. 'I'hat the boathouse not be used for human habitation, and comply with all other boathouse provisions as contffined in Section 5.6 of Zoning Bv-law 97-95; 4. Jhat the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. 5. That the appropriate permit(s) and any other necessary approval(s) be obtained from the 1-,ake Simcoe Region C'onservationAuthotity, as required. IVI of which 1-s, respectfully subinitted, Steven Farquharson, B.URPL junior Planner 3 Reviewed by, ruce ppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Building IN LAKE SIMCG� z 0 t�E '? _j L.LJ • L.Li PIP z 0 LLJ I 7- T jj z 0 L-LJ V) z 0 F- L-Li I 0 0 / r At I I L L C4 "z vz goi 3icdn iw f -V lfwvl Hlvd T" OMENS 'I'd row too= OaV3 "Olmlo oftorso"Aft or momr"wCafmo alwumLmv NV -W HWU N" %&M 73, koiv"vowo koivwLwm (3 a Ulm ]ROW-40 64wlq �F*" NOWN 3snoH lym 06 WAUM#VtM 04 MMU *X*WW* "A MN Irate Sp jN AWWMdM Mo� PUO "MWAIIJ MW PWAMAPUM Vu is-31ON I ON 1:)JrOgd 3NDS - z 0 t�E '? _j L.LJ • L.Li PIP z 0 LLJ I 7- T jj z 0 L-LJ V) z 0 F- L-Li I 0 0 / r At I I L L C4 "z vz goi 3icdn iw f -V lfwvl Hlvd T" OMENS Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for Match 20, 2008 . . . . . .... ....... . . . . .. ............. Cameron and Katherine Gausby 2008-A-09 475 Line 2 South, Lot 23, Concession 3 ( 'Oro)__ . . . ....... . . .... . .......... . ... . . ....... .. .. - NNNWWWxWANWMW*M THE PROPOSAL I"he applicants are proposing to operate a home occupation business in an e%Xisting detached a total area f 1 "). The applicants are requestinccessory building having o67 m 180 (1 -a the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: � 1 Seco� �. Shall Qyee wh o is not a ore than one emv! ' resident of a dweUi umt, I MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS P. official Plan Designation — Agricultural Zoning By-law 97-95 — Agricultural/ Rural (A/RU) Zone Previous Applications — AGENCY COMMENTS Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority — No Objections Public Works - Building Department — No objections Engineering Department- BACKGROUND The subject property has a lot frontage on Line 2 South of approx.1mately 142 metres, a lot depth of 142metres, and a lot area of 2.0 hectares. The lot is presently occupied by a single M70 stor e y dwelling, which was constructed 'in 1890. The applicants are renovating the el.Nasting accessory bw'Iding, in which the home occupation is proposed to be located. The applicant has indicated that the company is an International Search Firm specializm'g in In the 1-.,ife Sciences, lab services, recruiting professionals from around the world, who work and mining. With the medical devices� mobile communications, imaging technology d applicant's hiring two additional employees for the home occupation a variance is require for relief from Section 5.12(g). 1 Does the variance main twin the general ��tent of the 0fricial Plan? The propert y is designated agricultural in the Official Plan. Ise , matted uses in this designation include single detached dwellings, accessor 7 buildings, home occupations, and home industries. Home e occupations are permitted uses within the p cultural designation, the application. would therefore maintain the intent of the Official Flan. ..woes the Variance maintain the generaf intent of the Zoom B -ja ►? With respect to the Zoning By -law, the rima � purpose of restricting p �' p � cts. ' ng the number of employees of a home occupation is to ensure that the residential use remains the primary use and that the commercial use remains as a secondary use and that it will not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighbours. Lased can a site inspection, the proposed business will be located in an accessary building that will be located behind the existing dwelling. Due to the nature of the business as described, business will be conducted exclusively through . � � the Internet and. telecommunications. The applicant has indicated that there will be no si gnage, no customers con ng on site and no deliveries of merchandise, goods or equipment. Therefor e, given these factors, and given that the property is located in a rural area there vau� . ld be no impact on the enjoyment of any adjacent residential. properties. On the basis of the above, the proposed variance would therefore maintain the general intent of the Agricultural / Rural (A/RU) Zone, as prescribed by the Zoning By-law � g � air with respect to home occupation use. Is the variance desirable - or the to development of Me lot? LT Ton a site inspection the location of the accessary- building ars to be � a pp appropriate. The structure is located to the rear of the dwelling, which is hidden from view along one 2 South. In addition, there would appear to be a and buffer between een structure and surrounding neighbour's. In this case, the closest neighbouring dwelling i approximately g we g s a pp imately 2 l 0 metres to the north, visually separated by a buffer of mature tree rowth and g an upward slope. Due to the applicant being an international, company d th p � an e type of business, no clients are anticipated to be coming on site. `'here will be adequate ade parking � p g space for the two additional staff. The Nottawasaga Vallev Conservation Authori ty VC was circulated this application for comment, particular to address the location of the existing dwelling nd accesses bail on the property. "�`l1e �%� g � dig p p CA has indicated that there are no objections with respect to recognizance of the existing dwelling or accesses b p . g g � ��g to be used as a home occupation. The purpose of having no more then one employee who is not a resident of the dwelling is to ensure that the home occupation remains a secondary e to the main dwelling. elling. The applicant has also included four letters of support from the surrounding neighbours that support the application and have no objections to a house occupation operating p p t..ng one the property with a total of three employees who are not resident's of the dwelling. O g n the basis f the existing dwelling and accesson7 building is deemed to of the above, the recogn-Wance o be appropriate for the lot. Is the'vafiance minor. s the general 'intent of the Zoning By -law and Official .A s the proposed. variance maintain Plan, and has not raised ob)ection from the NVCA. and due to the home occupation remaining secondary use to the dwelling; the proposed van'ance is deemed to be minor in nature. RECOMMENDATION ed that Committee approve Variance.A.pplication 2008-A-09, being to allow It is recommend building, which will have two a home occupation business to operate out of an accessory. additional employees who are not residents of the dwelling un-it. All of which is respectfully subrm'tted, Steven Farquharson, B.'URIIL junior Planner K Reviewed by Bruce Hoppe, MC II', RPP Director of Planning and Building Subject Lands 475 Line 2 South North of Shanty Bay E E I I I I I j [ [ E E 4 [ !r [ 1 ` S. V m [ [ } [ [ [ [ [ i [ m C f l i 1 [ [ l i [ d [ [ s i I I I I x N _-4 Z -y� V r� tj I Awl 24 Momm I JAI I AIM� �� 5 A r �� ON - ti} tnN 7n v m _ � MOO dR . 29 y -4rn 3 r� tj I Awl 24 Momm I JAI I AIM� �� 5 A r �� ON - 0 0 LIB �p - 1 4 a �� CA pill X - n v g s � 9 1 fix x 1 X #i VI . ■ 4 a n v' p f �z `1t L l ` Y V � -r I - AR N 9W4 � R rya 1a III �A � � ir Co -4 In ON NI A93 RA '41 1 -9 1 - 'k IAN Ir t ■ I T% ;FK t06K S2 0 ON NI A93 RA '41 1 -9 1 - 'k IAN Ir t ■ Im 0 "IN CIN095 w dl;l Z An A INN"; oA lit u gig 451 C., M r-A rig �r �� �7Z .................... G5 _ f ---------- --- gig CIN095 w dl;l Z An A INN"; lit u gig 451 C., M rig �r �� �7Z .................... G5 _ f ---------- --- gig CIN095 w dl;l Z An A INN"; lit u gig 451 Page I of I I[] From: Katherine Gausby Sent. Friday, February 29, 2008 6:08 PM To: Farquharson, Steven Subject: Description and background of KNG Technical Inc ----- Original Message r.- " .. Dear Mr. Kozlowskil My name is Cameron Gausby and I got your contact from my wife Katherine Gausby who indicated that you may need a description of our business as well as a background and I would be happy to provide both. Our company is an International Search Firm specializing in recruiting professionals from around the world who work the sectors of Life Sciences, lab services, medical device, mobile communications, imaging technology and mining. Most of our Recruitment specializes in engineering which is prominent in all of these sectors. Our company which we founded in 2002, identifies, recruits, and interviews Candidates for various positions and companies through out the world. Because our work is International, absolutely all of our work is done by the phone and the internet so we never meet our Candidate's or clients. Currently our projects are in Massachusetts, Peru, Madagascar, Ottawa, Waterloo, California, Chicago, Alberta, and British Columbia. Our business started from 35 Woodfield Rd in the beaches area of Toronto where I ran the company from our basement of our home. We started a family and my wife being from the country (Arnprior Ontario) felt that Barrie would bring a good mix of winter and summer sport, community, and still maintain proximity to an airport. Because our business was and is exclusive to the internet and phone, we really could move anywhere. In fact, Kingston was a close second. Since our move KNG has grown to employ 3 people in Barrie. They are Mark Smith Natalie Ikhmid. and Nick Wootton. Mark hxc- hppn with 11c: qinre 04. Natalie since 05,.and - k Nic-just 7 , months. I 1 1. Our website can be viewed at www.kngtechnical.com If you have any questions whatsoever please do not hesitate to call. Best Regards, Cameron Gausby ' KNG Technical is a member-owner of NPA, The Worldwide Recruiting Network,, your connection to premier independent recruiting firms located throughout Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa and the Americas ■ Dear Chief Building Inspector, Oro -Medonte Township. It has been brought to our attention by the Gausby family that they will be running their home business from 475 Line 2 South RR, #? in Shanty Bay., LOL 2LO. We are aware of the fact that they have 3 employees (2- more than allowed by the by law under residential/commercial) but do not see any way that their home business done entirely by phone and internet, having any negative impact on our residence. or the town. We are aware of the renovations to the outbuilding and understand that the changes are reflecting the needs of the home business and will not create any unwanted sounds,, sights, odors'. etc. Kind Regards, X. Name (printed): Mailing Address: Al Home Phone # Dear Chief Building Inspector, Oro-Medonte Township. It has been brought to our attention by the Gausby family that they will be running their home business from 475 Line 2 South RR 42 in Shanty Bay, LOO Lo. We are aware of the fact that they have 3 employees (2 more than allowed by the by law under residential/commercial) but do not see any way that their home business done entirely by phone and Internet, having any negative impact on our residence, or the town. We are aware of the renovations to the outbuilding and understand that the changes are reflecting the needs of the home business and will not create any unwanted sounds, sights, odors, etc. Kind Regards, X. Name (printed): 'el Mailing Address: el. Home Phone # 2 j 7,2 Im 2-11 Dear Chief Building Inspector, Oro-Medonte Township. It has been brought to our attention by the Gausby farm that they will be running their home business from 475 Line 2 South RR #2 in Shanty "Bay, LOL 2LO. We are aware of the East that they have 3 employees (2 more than allowed bv .. the by law under residential /commercial) but do not see any way that their ho- me business done entirely by phone and intemet, having anv negative * We impact on our resider ce. or the town. We are aware of the renovations to the outbuilding and understand that the changes are reflecting the needs of the home business and will not create any unwanted sounds, sights, odors, etc. Kind Regards, X. Name (printed): �� �i(� t�--tfi (lti.a� Mailing Address.- 44- S Home Phone # ■ 3��t Dear Chief Building Inspector,, Oro-M. edonte Township. It has been brouvht to our attention by the Gausby family that they wIll be running their home business from 475) Line 2 South RR #2 *in Shanty Bay., LOL 2LO. We are aware of the fact that they have 3 employees (2 more than. allowed by the by law under residential/comm.ercial) but do not see any wav that their home business done entirely by phone and internet, having any negative impact on our residence,, or the town. We are aware of the renovations to the outbuilding and understand that the changes are reflecting the needs of the home business and will not create any unwanted sounds, sights, odors, etc. Kind Regards, X. ffi Name (.printed): Mailing Address: Home Phone # (0L �l.G ■ • MAR-- 1 0 --2008 12:20 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-- MEIONTE MAR-10-2008 12022 FROM : NUCA 7054242115 TO : 1 7054870133 P.1/1 °l EES 1 y 0 If March 10, 2008 Adam Kozlowski, Secretary- Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Township of Oro-Medonte Member P. �. Box � �� h ut�'cipalI ies Oro, Ontario, LOL 2 O Adi:113 Tcpirrfisrfi[io deer Mr. Ko,Zlowski; Arrurinch 0ITir- Re: Application for Minor Variance 200 8-A.09 (Gausby) Tlr� HlLIC7 M0U01Afr7 475 Line 2 South, Part Lot 23o Concess "o n 3 I)r;Idtnrd W64 Cwillimbury Township f Oro- Medonte (PorMerly TC In iii of Oro) C�. {rvlovv �.4 }iilr'1g'W1j�r.1t� The Nott�was� e v . g alley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has r t t�' lI4�Qtio! I for ������`� t��� minor variance Esau and based upon our m under the Conserve . l mandate end trees tt�n Authorities Act, we have ON Ir7r�r�fil no objection approval. � to its irv'lt-4.incffit7t1 Mow) Thank you for circulating this application for our review ev�ew and Tease forwer� a copy of any decision. Mullutir Efskw I� umit.th Sincerely, (err }- Medomitc ('ray Hi8ltividl: i Sl is 11 In imp Tim Salkeld �phnpvato Resource Planner �•1�1�a B��c � Watershed Countle� S lni cx_ C;ruv M omber of ' n, e rvl'ng otlr Healtfl q ter-, �40TTAWASA zA, VALLEY [: �� rfi ►r� �fi r N5CkvAT► ON AUTI 1(* i �hn Hix Crar)5fary � ti n At�n' �i�t���[irr � C �ntr TY pntre. for Cun ti�rvation fN T � 1( Tiffin Cn:rakon hw"q o E 195 iih lnP e- cponp: 705.424.1479 Fax: i 05 424, r 115 UtTia, ()n 1 O.M I TO VtL: WWWrnvca.on.r-.3 Email: adminPavc amn.r,,a Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment_ Planning Report for March 20, 2008 . . . . ................ . .... .......... ........ . . ......... . .. ............... ...... . ........... Peter andjean Hoffman 2008-B-06 4641 Line 2 North Conces Sion 3. Lot 9 (Former Mcdonte) .......... ............ . ............ THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2008-B-06 is to pertm't a boundarv, adjustment. "fhc subject land being 4641 Idne .2 North is proposing to conve-v a strip of land having a frontage of 3.6 1 metres 11.8 feet) on 1,11ne 3 North a depth of 179 metres (587 feet) and an area of 0.48 hectares (1. 18 acres) to the land adjacent to the east (owned by the applicant's son). 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 — Zoning By-law 97-95 — Previous Applications — AGENCY COMMENTS Agn'cultural Agricultural /Rural GTVRU) Zone County of Sirncoe - 0 Public Works Department - Building Department — No Concerns Engineering Department - No Concerns The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to add approximately 0.48 hectares from the subject properq-, to the neighbouring residential lot to the cast, owned by the applicant's son. 'Fhe proposed retained lot, being 4641 Dine .2., North, would consist of 79.8 hectares, and contains an existing single detached dwelling. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are designated Agricultural by the Official Plan (OP). Section D2 of the OP contains policies with respect to subdivision of land. Specifically, Section D2.2.2 - "Boundary Adjustments", provides the following guidance for Consent Applications 'in general: 0 0 a (*onsent Nn!y be petwilled fi)r the P111POSe �)flzyo(�iljlh lot boundatie.,; proi�ided 110 neiv buildi�g lot 71led 0 IS CIV the lywilillee �)/'-,A �1��v.mvienl shall be falif ied e boundar -i( " / y OvRveni will nol typet lbe ii�ibil�ly ql'Ibe il.fe e p )pe ie With respect to the application at hand, no new building lots are proposed. -Zks such, the proposed boundary adjustment is gcnerally in keeping with the inter of the agricultural policies stated in the Official Plan, and otherwise c(l.)nf(-)rms with the boundary adjustment policies cont:,rilned in Section D,2..2—.2. ZONING BY-1AW The subject propemr is zoned A.gri 'cultur-al/ Rural RU) Zone by Zoning By-law 97-95. 1 h lot to be ec hanced. to the east of 4641 1,1,.lnc e.2. North is Zoned A 'cult-ural/Rural gri Zone. Pcnding approval of the application, the lot to be enhanced as well as the retained lands,, would both conform to the Minimum lot area use and frontage provis'ons of LT 1 1 the A/R " Zone. 1"he enhanced lot will have a total area of 0.68 hectares and resulting frontage of 40 metres o�)n IA'ne 3 North. Therefore, the application would comply with the proxAsions as prescribed b-v the Zoning By-law. `Flierefore, the application would comply with the provisions as presc 'bed bv the Zoning liv-1-aw. 171 I Cill"offil 0- CONCLUSION ME N 0- The proposed consent application for a boundary adjustment would appear to conform to the policies of the Official Plan, and maintains the use and setback provisions of the Zoning By -law. Given that the surrounding area consists ma.lnlv of large agricultural parcels, generally over 42-0 hectares,, the request to reduce an e ' .; xisting 80 he rural lot to approximatelv 79 hectares is deemed appropriate, d riate, and would generally be in keeping with the lot fabric in the area. RECOMMENDATION is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B-06 to convey strip of land having a frontage of 3.6 metres (11.8 feet) on 111ne 3 North a depth of 179 metres (587 feet) and an area of 0.48 hectares (1.18 acres) to the land adjacent to the north (also:) owned by the applicant) and subject to the foflow* ing conditio ns: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario 1,and Surveyor be submitted to the Secretarv- Treasurer; i 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and subrm't a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. J'hat the severed lands be merged in title with 4608 I.ine 3 N(�)rth and that the I . provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of "I'he Planning Act apply to any sUbs'equcnt conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the maximum total area for the enhanced lot be no greater than 0.68 ha; 5. J"hat the -tipplicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in titic; I illed within one 6. I'hat the conditions of consent imposed by the Comm'ttee be fu year from the date of the giving of the notice. .All of whit res ectfully submitted., Steven 1,,( quharson, B.URPL I unior Planner Reviewed by Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Building 611 Township of Oro-Mcdonte Committee of AdJustment Planning Report for March 20, 2008 ... . .... ................... . ............... ----------------- . . ......... Rayrna,r investments Ltd. 2008-B-07 .705 .amount Saint Louis Road onc. 13, Lot 10 (Former MedOnte) C .............. THE PROPOSAL B-07 is to convey a block of land from the subject The purpose of Consent application 2008- 0 lands, being 1705 Mount Saint Louis Road, to the neighbouring vacant residential property to the immediate east. The block to be conveyed consists of 0.085 hectares, ha�7-ing a depth of 75 metres, and 11.59 metres of frontage on Mount Saint Louis Road. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of this application. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural, Environmental Protection Two ONrerlay Zoning By-law 97-95 — -Agricultural/ Rural (4A./RU) Previous Applications — AGENCY COMMENTS County of Simcoe - Public Works Department - Building Department - Engineering Department - No concerns The applicants are proposing a boundary, adjustment to convey approximately 0.085 hectares of land from a large vacant rural property to a neighbouring vacant residential lot. The purpose of the adjustment is to provide more land area for the existing vacant residential lot. .As a result of this application, the proposed retained lands would consist of 35 hectares, A_ while the lands to be & enhanced would be enlarged slightly from the exis tin,,, 0 - .2) hectares to 0.3 hectares. OFFICIAL PLAN Section D2.2.2 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider applications for boundary adjustments. The policy states: con.venl t)vqy be petwiilled for Me putpose �)Ovod Ali ng /01 boundan'es, pm tided no new buil(#I g loo IS ctr ell ed. in addilion, Me CMmillee _1�vslmenl shall be sali.jwed Mal Me boundaty arljuslllleni will nol q1 �l e titibilio, ql'llje gmliuralparjelc affdyl a eel. In reviewing the application no new buildimy, lots wi1l be created. ,F_� A site inspection revealed that the retained lands are heavilv, treed'. and display no evidence of past or current agricultural operations, nor are the" lands likely viable for future far�ing activities. In addition'.. the CountY of Simcoe has commented that staff has no objection to the application. The subject lands are designated Rural by the Official Plan. Section Cl,',2.2 of the Official Plan states "permitted. uses... are agriculture, single detached dwellings, home occupations... " etc. The proposed retained and enhanced lands are currently vacant, however, approval of this application would not preclude future permitted uses' from being developed on either properties. With respect to the F ' 4nvi-ronmental Protection Two overlav, Section B3.3 of the Official Plan states "the uses permitted in these areas shall be tho"se permitted by the underlying desi n,iation provided the use conforms to the policies of this section". As discussed above the underlying designation is Rural, where the proposed boundary adjustment would not hinder or impede future uses as permitted in this ddi designation. In ation, as the lands to be enhanced constitute an existing lot of record, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required for a boundary adjustment. The application was circulated to the Nottawasaga. Valley Conservation Authority and County of Sin coe for comment. The NVCA indicated that the proposed boundanT adjustment does not fall within the "Regulated Area", and as such the NVCA had no concerns with the application. County staff in that there are no objections to the boundary adjustment. On the basis of the above, the application is considered to be appropriate, and generally conforms to the Official Plan. ZONING BY-LAW "Ile subject Property and lands to be enhanced are both zoned AgrIcultutal/Rural (A/Rq Zone. The minimum frontage for a lot 'in the A/RU Zone is 45 metres; the lands to be enhanced currently contain 31.5 metres of frontage. As a result of this application, the frontage for the enhanced lot would increase from 31.5 metres to 43.1 metresl and thus bring the lands closer to conformity with the minimum requirements. In addition the minimum lot area for a residential use in the A/RU Zone is 0.4 hectares; • while the lands to be enhanced currently consist of 0.22 hectares, the apphcation for boundary, adjustment would in effect increase the property to just over 0.3 hectares, and therefore provide more room for the future construction of a single detached dwelling and septic system components. The lands to be retained would decrease slightly, from the current .34.98 hectares to 34.89 hectares. The M1*nn'num lot area for an agricultural use is 2 hectares. On the basis of the above, the proposed boundary adjustment generaflv maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law. W CONCLUSION Th i e lication for lot addition generaUv conforms with the policies of the Official Plan and appi t* maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to AV ' plication 2008-B-071, being for a con evince of land having 11 .59 metres of frontage on Mount Saint Louis Road, W and an area of 0.085 hectares, subject to the following conditions: That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Survevor be submitted to the Secretarv- Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Mum*cipalitv; 3. That the severed lands be merged in title with Concession 13, East part of Lot 101, known as RP-518768 Part 15, PIN 74059-0012 JJ), and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to anv subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the �. lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one gear from the date of the giving of the notice. W All of which is res e ull submitted, A am Ko ow kil U RP1, J fanner Reviewed by I-twl Lot to be Enhanced (Vacant land) North of Warminster 91 N 0 W ri1'to N 1640 MOUNT SAINT LOUIS rF-T 17 1641 1645 1657 i 1697 9 1700 1706 Land to be conveyed from 1744 1705 Mount Saint Louis to Vacant Lot 11.5 metres frontage 1713 � `4 /�� \ 1718 0.085 Hectares 1725 wM 1733 1751 1728 1781 d 4 V " N5749'30"W 41.882 -- (-n 30.498 — 11.384 � TF- (b -tea � � N3 4 c Sx 4 7,3 ziW r - z C� (4 � rq -� y I � > a (b ❑ � -� co -t tij ❑ Q o C7' � OD Ant. LOU, �TIQq ,4c)lll Q&D A 1?0,4n "I OS6, Raw &LOWANCE eErWEEN CON 12 AND 13 0 ' U �l C) o C) of m -� 0 IWO z°3w L 0 0 0 CD °J s c� 0 r) 0 t=J a 0 M � Coo rn 0 � � z W 0 Ln Z Z 3 HIGHWAY No. 12 mamma „ low 1J,� ° Z C i � 2� Ul ir y t� cc 0 Page 1. of I H Kozlowski, Adam 9, From: Timothy Salkeld [tsalkeld@nvca.on.ca] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:50 PM To: Kozlowski, Adam Subject: RE: Consent application Hi Adam. Looks straight forward. The NVCA doesn't need to see this one. Thanks for pre-consulting. Tim Salkeld Resource Planner Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority 8195 8th Line Utopia, ON LOM 1 TO (705) 424-1479 ext 233 (705) 424-2115 .on.ca ar II; This e-mail message, including any attachments. is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use. disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message _____Original Message----- From: KoZlowski, Adam [mailto:akoziowSki@oro-medonte.ca] Sent: March 5, 2008 1:21 PM TO: Timothy Salkeld Subject: Consent application Hi Tim — enclosed is an application for boundary adjustment. The property does not have any EP zoning, but the proposed adjustment takes place pretty close to the reg area limits (but does not appear to be within the reg area). Please let me know if you have any concerns. Adam Kozlowski Planner Township of Oro -Meg onte 148 Line 7 South, Box 100 Oro, Ontan'o LOL 2XO P: 705-487-2171 ext. 4240 F: 705-487-0133 E: akozlowski@oro-medonte.ca Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for March 20, 2008 . ... .. .. ... Raymond Dumont 2109 Gore Road, East Part of Lot 10, Concession 1 (Former Oro) 2008-A-06 . . .. .......... The applicant had originally appeared at the February '71 - `�008 Committee of.Ad)ustment, requesting relief from the required front yard setback and t ' 0 increase floor volume in a required vard, as the proposed new dwelling would be partially located in the Environmental Protection Zone that bisects the subject property. The application was deferred until such time that Not-tawasaga. Valley Conservation Authority had provided comment on the application, as the subject lands are located m' 'a floodplain. The Township received comments from the NV VC-A on 1-tebruary '11, 2008, indicating no objection to the application. The applicant is requesting the following relief 'from Zoning By-law 97- 95: Zone: ALrr1cu1 turn 1/Rural.(AZ. RTC ) Required Pro osed Table B4 (B) Standards for Single Detached Dwellings.-, V11 Required Front Yard Setback 8.0 in 6.92- Non-Co in Buil dip gs and Structures Section 5. 16.1 b) does not increase the amount of floor area or volume in a required yard, lo Construct a new fi 1��le detacl)ed dwelli�g 1)ailin ,g rjloor atva and 2 adc lional s s. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Zoning By-law 97-95 - Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS Agricultural ,Agricultural /Rural (zk /R T) Zone Environmental Protection (FT) Zone Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority - No objection (see attached) Public Works Department - No concerns Building Department - No concerns Engineering Department - No concerns 0: Tbis application proposes to demolish an ex's -stvle dwelling and i,ting 69.5 square metre bungalow , replace with a new 3-storev, .1-36.2 square metre dwelling. According to Township Zoning By-law V I through Schedule A9, the subject property is located within a flood . plain, where a watercourse flows mately 9.34 metres south of the location of the existing dwelling. In addition, the propert-N7 approxi W I art'alIN7 within lands identified as Environmental Protection (EP) the existing dwelling is located p 1 .1 Zone,, where the Zoning Bv-law prohibits development within the boundaries of the EP Zone. However,, the existing dwelling was constructed in approximately 1935, and as such pre-dates f Zoning Bv-law 97-95. The application was deferred until such time that expert current provisions o comment was received from the NVCA, particularly with respect to the concern over the proposed new dwelling being located on lands subject to the risk of flooding. .rhe NVCA indicated that there 1 ng dwelling, subject to the applicant applying for and is no objection to the replacement of an ex'sti 'this application. obtaining a development permit from the NVCA. It is now appropriate to consider ion. Do the v,,-arjances conform vvith the general intent of the Official Plan? The propert-v is designated A�zricultural by the Official Plan. Section Cl.? of the Plan states that the in this designation "shall be agriculture"', and in addition, '-'other primary, permitted use of lands with' ed dwellings, home occupations.--�� etc. Therefore, the pern-a'tted uses include single detach tu demolition of an existing dwelling unit and replacement with residential structure having greater mi 1 Agricultural floor volume would constitute the renovation and expansion of a per *tted use 'n the Agr cu designation. On this basis, the proposal is considered to conform to the intent of the Official Plan Do the variances maintain the generalin tent of the Zoning BY�'Iaw? With respect to the Zoning By-law, the intent of controlling development within the limits of the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone is to ensure that development does not occur on lands that contain hazardous I slopes, natural features that are sensitive or incompatible with more intensive land uses', or are susceptible to flooding. Based on a site inspection, the proposed dwelling would be located above and awav from the edge of the top of bank for the creek to the south. In addition, unit will not encroach further than the existing dwelling into the while the proposed new dwelling EP Zone, the watcrcourse itself is located 9.43 metres from the south face of the new dwelling. Therefore, the EP 's is currently providing a buffer of 9.43 metres between the existing dwelling and watercourse. As such, the historically deficient setback from the existing and proposed new residence to the watercourse will be maintained. With respect to the request for reduction in the front yard setback from the required 8 metres in the A/RU Zone to a proposed 6.92 metres, the purpose of the front yard setback is to ensure that adequate distance exists between the traveled portion of the roadway and structures, . and for the purpose of ensuring adequate space for on-site parking. In this case, vehicle parking onsite wiH be in the same location as existing, being at the front and west side of the proposed new dwelling. Aside e from the front yard setback and setback to the EP Zone, the proposed dwelling will otherwise comply with the required interior, rear, and exterior side yard setbacks, along with the maximum ' 1) height and minimum floor area provisions for residential uses. Are the variances desl*Table for the �Ippropriate development of the lot? "I'be lands subject to the variance application contains t%vo zone classifications', being Agricultural /Rural A/RL) one along the front of the prop pertv to a depth of 10 metres, where the majorl"Y of the subject propertv, is zoned Environmental Protcct'on. Specific policies and guidance with respect to development within a floodplain are listed in the 'Fownship Offic'al Plan, and are I I implemented through the Zoning By-law: B5. L 3.2 Implen i en ta * tion -(ill lands nllilhin yin iden1#ied.11oodp letin f/ .�all be slll �Iea lo a Prt)risioll in II)e itllp- let Nenlit�g Z oni'n law... . no new de1)e1op1,;vjen1 is pervii'lled on land.f sll��Iea to II)e 14oldint Proi ' ' n unfil lbe ,g '7S10 JN`1o11auiasqga F'all�y (,onsen)alion 11juibo n�y approres II)e deivlopmenl... Comments were received from the NVGA on Februarv, 2-11 42008, indicating that the Authority has nog objection to d of an existing -residence and c()nstruction of a new larger dwelling. The NVCA has also indicated that a condition of approval _11 for ' this variance be that the applicant apply for and obtain a development pert-nit from the NV( -/k, in order that the Authoritv, can ensure adequate flood-proofing measures for the proposed dwelling are implemented. With respect to the reduced front yard setback, the proposed dwelling will not hinder or irnpede sight lines for the intersection of Gore Road and Line 1 South,, nor hinder on-site parking. In addition, notwithstanding a reduced front yard setback and increased floor volume in the EP Zone, the proposed dwelling would otherwise meet with all other provisions for the development of a residential use in the A/RU Zone. Ilased on comments from the NVCA, and that the proposed dwelling comprises of redevelopment of an existing, non-complving structure that constitutes a permitted use by the Official Plan and maintains the intent of the Zoning'By-law, the variance is deemed to be appropriate. ATc the varlqnces minor? As the proposed variances to reduce the front yard setback and increase floor volume in a required yard Maintains the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning Bv-law, the variance is deemed to be rmnor. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Apphcation 2008-A-061 being for a reduction of the front yard setback from the required 8 metres to 6.92 metres and for the construction of a 3 storey, 2.36.,2_5 square metre single detached dwelling, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed dwelling unit be in confor='q- Xvith the sketches subrm*tted w i th the application and approved by the Committee, ? The an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification of Com!T'ttee's decision by certi ring in writing that the proposed dwelling be no closer than 6.91 metres from the front lot line; and that the proposed dwelling be no closer than 9.43 me -trey ftom the watercourse to the south of the Proposed dwelling; 3. That the applicant obtain any required perrm't(s) and/or approval(s) from the Nottawasaga Valley (",onservation.Authorit-v for the construction of the dwCAling; W *t be obtained from the Township's Chief Buildin g 4. 1"hat the appropriate building perrm ded for Official only after the Committee's decision becom-es final and binding'. as pro vi within. the PlanninIg INct R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of whi iltteu,, Reviewed b-v, V MCIPI) RPP Bruce Ho el Director of Building & Planning Services Adam Kozlowski, Secretary Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Township of Oro- Medonte P.O. Box 100 Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0 .ember Dear Mr. Kozlowski; I uniclpalfties J y } Re: Application for Minor Variance 2008 -A-08 (Dumont) Part Lot 10, Concession 1 Township of Oro- Medonte (Fon-nerly Township of Oro) IIw4 H,ltit, Mr The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this minor variance application in accordance with regulations made under the Conservation Authorities Act. The NVCA has no objection to the approval of this ho application subject to Pp � the following condition: That the applicant obtain a permit from the Nottawa saga Valley Conservation Authority nder the • • y Conservation Authorities Act. The purpose of the permit (among other things) is to ensure adequate flood room elevations q p g vations for the proposed structure and ensure erosion and sediment controls are installed prior to construction to • protect the 1JV�Ilow Creek tributary and associated environmental features and functions. VV application has e advise the a pp s been submitted to our office however further house design details are still required before a permit can be issued. 1q.n 10 11114%.k. ICIT Thank you for circulating this application and lease ad Yr � p p vise us of any decision. Watershed Sincerely, Counties #E ►�{ Tim Salkeld Resource Planner A444mbor (.4 NOTUAWASkGA VALLEY CONSERVATION � n � .t o rt Cahn {ix Con : �afiran Adr i istratio€t C# AU i H ORI Y Centre for Conservation Tff n Consration Are a 8� a .ct�O N A R I o L-ine Utopfa, On LOAM J T() Telephone: 705.424.1479 Fax: 705.424.2115 Web-, wvrw.nvca.on.ca Email: admingnvca.on.ca Subject Lands 2109 Gore Road HA ML (038) FENCE 0.27 W. Ad • r� � L.. d. 1 J ' W WOOD $T'AXES 2 All Z.4 �. f WOOD STAKEM Cf DOER 22, 2007. FENCE C- CID 0.22 W. COG, n i p v- y A. W • P. �• �} r N. 8552 ~ 0021(L 1 T V./ p t�, co z ? �� •=r. r� r I •! < ,- ;= APPROXIMATE POSITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LIMIT AS SCALED FROM PHOTOGRAPH SUPPLIED BY �µ•� RAYL40ND ovuflrvT FEN C • ON LINE FENCE 0.2 N. _x POST x AND VIVRE x x FENCE x+-- -- & N820OZ '15 "W (NIM12 -050-W — P/S 1613 — ►2.12) 52.16 PART IT T Jo PLAN 51R 22 )1 P.I.N. 5855,E -- 0023(L T) 1.7 OVAL iCULVERT v. WAL - Q: 1613) L� j I LI (730) 0m] 1c, AN i� �UG Sr' rto w�CC � s� ❑�c- D D 1 ■ D �a CONCRETE INV. BOX CULVERT 235.04 �•. f h Lo C14 LAJ CA: w .-. LQ D Q, OW � D •� v z �.e !N V. 236.62 ORIVE ^A IL jd-�rltj � a W J U t REF. CHEC WITH Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursg.ay February 21,,2008,.9:-30 am. in Attendance- Member Garry Potter- Chairperson Michelle Lynch- Member Lynda Aiken; Member Bruce Chappell; Secretary-Treasurer Adam Kozlowski Regrets: Member Rick Webster J., Communications and Correspondence None. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary -interest None declared. ..... ..... . . ..... . . ... .... .......... . ........ . . ...... . . . ....... ............ ... . . ..... P U" 0 N, # MEETING: C C. OF W " Committee of Adjustment-February 21, 2008 Page 1 (%b-- ■ 3. H ar -ings: 9:30 2008-B-04 Carlos Osborne Concession 12, Lot 4 3857 Line 11 North (Former Township of Medonte) In Attendance: Klaus Jacoby, Agent for Applicant. Secretary-Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence received from Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated February 11 1 2008 indicating no objection to application, Motion No. CA080221 - 1 BE IT RESOLVED that.- Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Bruce Chappell 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 Municipalsty-, 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 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. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment - February 21, 2008 Page 2 9 -Ar% 2008-B-05 Robert Mason 'W%0 Plan 819, Lot 35 8 Brambel Road (Former Township of Oro) In Attendance: Klaus Jacoby, Agent for Applicant. Secretary-Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence received fro Eric & Amanda Rominger and; Jen Knelsen and; Mitch O'Reilly and; Henry & Christine Prusinowskil (no objection to application). Brian Davidson made presentation to Committee. Motion No. CA 80221- 2 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Garry Potter "'Committee deter Consent Application 2008-B-05 until such time that comments are received from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority ...Carried" Motion No. CA080221- 3 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Lynda Aiken "Committee reconsider deferral of Consent Application 2008-B-05 ...Carried" rva Motion No. CA080221- 4 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Garry Potter "Committee grant provisional approval to Consent Applitation 2008-B-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. ...Carried" Committee of Adjustment - February 21, 2008 Page 3 10:00 2008-A-05 Robert Mason 07 Plan 819, Lot 35 8 Bran be Road (Former Township of Oro) In Attendance: Klaus Jacoby, Agent for Applicant, Secretary-Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence received from Eric & Amanda Rominger and; Jen Knelsen and; Mitch OReilly and; Henry & Christine Prusinowski (no objection to application). Motion No. CA080221- 5 BE IT RESOLVED that.- Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Lynda Aiken "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; I 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 blouse ", Drawing Al .01 dated 10/1112007; 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 no outside storage of licensed or unlicensed vehicles, or building materials be permitted on the subject lands; 6. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 19901 C.P. 13. , ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment- February 21, 2008 Page 4 10:15 2008-A-02 Ian Johnson Plan 1, Lot 13 3 Penetanguisene Road (Former Township of Oro) In Attendance-. Wayne Seaman, David Seaman, Agents for Applicant Secretary-Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence from Ian Walker, Environmental Planner, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority dated February 19, 2008 indicating no objection to application. Motion Na. CA080221- 6 BET RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Bruce Chappell &tCommittee approve Variance Application 2008-A-02, being to reduce the required minimum lot area for the subject lands, being 3 Penetanguishene Road, from the present area of 0.14 hectares to 0.12 hectares ...Carried." 0 Committee of Adjustment- February 21, 2008 Page 5 10:30 2008-B-02 Ian Johnson Plan 1, Lot 13 3 Penetanguisene Road (Former Township of Oro) In attendance: Wayne Seaman, David Seaman, Agents for Applicant Motion No. CA080221- 7 BE IT RESOLVED that-, Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Bruce Chappell "Committee approve Consent Application 2008-B-02, being to convey a block of land having an area of 0.0208 hectares from 3 Penetanguishene Road to 1 Penetanguishene Road, and that Committee concurrently approve Variance Application 2008-A-02, being to reduce the required minimum lot area for the subject lands, being 3 Penetanguishene Road, from the present area of 0.14 hectares to 0.12 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 1, Part of Lot 13 known municipally as 1 Penetanguishene 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; 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-February 21, 2008 Page 6 10:45 2008-A-03 Barry Gardhouse Plan 626, Lot 28 104 Lakeshore Promena (Former Township of Oro) In attendance: Barry & Nancy Gardhouse, Applicants. Secretary -Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence from Ian Walker, Environmental Planner, Lake Simcoe Region nservation Co Authority, dated February 19, 2008 indicating no objection to application. Motion No. CA080221- 8 BE IT RESOLVED that*. Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken ,,Committee approve Minor Variance 2008-A-03, being to grant a reduction for the front yard 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** That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of , 12 compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report so that*.*. a) the 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, it required, 4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. ...Carried" Committee of Adjustment - February 21, 2008 Page 7 41 11:00 2008-A-01 Susan Fleet Concession 7, East 1/2 Lot 3 108 Millpond Road (Former Township of Medonte) In attendance: Susan Fleet, Applicant 1* Secretary-Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence from Tim • Salkeld, Resource Planner, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated February 11 1 2008 indicating no objection to application. Motion N. CA080221. 9 BE IT RESOLVED that.-, Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Bruce Chappell "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 line. ...Carried" Committee of Adjustment - February 21, 2008 Page 8 GE m 11:15 2008-A-04 Randy Sheldrake Concession 1, Lot 32 2309 Penetanguisene Roalt (Former Township of Oro) In attendance: Randy she drake, Applicant Secretary-Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence from Tim Salkeld, Resource Planner, Nottawasag► Valley Conservation Authority, dated February 20, 2008 indicating no objection to application. Motion No. CA080221- 10 BE IT RESOLVED that'. Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Bruce Chappell ,,Committee approve Variance Application 2008-A-04 subject to the following conditions'. 1. That the height of the detached garage not exceed 7.3 metres, measured from the finished grade to the midpoint of the roof; 2. That the floor area of the detached garage not exceed 297 square metres; 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 297 square metres; 5. That the existing "tarp coverall", "barn and "storage trailer" on the subject lands be removed, 6. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment- February 21, 2008 Page 9 11:30 2008-A-06 Raymond Dumont Concession 1, East Part of Lot 10 2109 Gore Road (Former Township of Oro) In attendance: Raymond Dumont, Applicant, Motion No, CA080221- 11 BE IT RESOLVED that.- Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken "Committee defer Variance Application 2008-A-06 until such time that comments are received from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority - . Carried." Committee of Adjustment-February 21, 2008 Page 10 1\ 0 11:45 2008-B-03 Anthony Keene Concession 8, West 1/2 Lot 24 a am 143 Ridge Roan Last (Former Township of Oro) in attendance: Anthony Keene, Applicant* Secretary-Treasurer Adam Kozlowski read correspondence from Ian Walker, Environmental Planner, Lake Simms Region Conservation Authority, dated February 15t 2008 requesting deferral of application pending completion of "Slope Stability" and "Environmental Impact Statement"* Motion No. CA080221- 12 BE IT RESOLVED that*. Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Garry Potter ,,Committee defer Consent Application 2008-B-03 until such time that the applicant addresses comments in letter dated February 15, 2007 from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Carried ". ■ Committee of Adjustment- February 21, 2008 page 11 C, 12:00 2006-A-36 Cynthia Lee & Randy Ostolic (Revised) Plan M-780, Lot 92 197 Eight Mile Point Road (Former Township of Oro) In attendance: Cynthia Lee & Randy Ostoi1c, Applicants. Jack Steenhot, Agent for Applicants. Motion No. CA080221 - 13 BE IT RESOLVED that.- Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Lynda Aiken Notwithstanding Section 5.6 g) of Zoning By-law 97-95, that the maximum height of the boathouse shall not exceed 7.08 metres - - -Carried" Committee of Adjustment-February 21, 2008 Page 12 12:15 2007-B-32 Rosemarie Mairs (Revised) Concession 8, Part of Lot 22 6328 Line 8 North (Former Township of Medonte) in attendance: Beth Marrs, Agent for Applicant* Motion No. CA080221- 14 BET RESOLVED that-. Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Lynda Aiken ,,Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2007-B-32 (Revised), where an existing vacant lot having an area of 4 hectares, known as 51 R-23482 Parts 1 & 2, shall be "transposed" to encompass the existinq 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 1 square foot land noted in Condition 3, 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 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 1 & 21 RP 51 8-23482) 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 Secretary-Treasurer with an undertaking that the retained lands, Concession 8, Part of Lot 22 and the previously created residential lot (Parts 1& 21 RP 51 R-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. Carried ". Committee of Adjustment- February 21., 2008 Page 13 C 12:30 2008-A-08 Lorrie Emmons Plan 629, Lot 12 23 Nelson Street (Former Township of Oro) In attendance: Marty & Lorrie Emmons, Applicants, Rod Young, Agent for Applicants, Motion No. CA080221- 15 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Lynda Aiken "Commi I ttee approve Variance Application 2008-A-08, being for the construction of a 161.65 square metre addition with deck onto an existing dwelling, to be setback 1.5 metres from the north interior side lot line, and for the addition to be located 6.5 metres and deck to be located 5 metres from the average high water mark of Bass Lake, subject to the following conditions*. 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, and that the addition be setback no closer than 1.5 metres to the north interior side lot line, 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.0, 1990, c.P. 13. ... Carried," Committee of Adjustment- February 21, 2008 Page 14 C 4. Other Business i. Adoption of Minutes from January 17, 2008 meeting BE IT RESOLVED that*. Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Bruce Chappell "That the minutes for the January 17, 2008 Committee of Adjustment Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated 5. Adjournment Motion No. CA080221 - 17 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Bruce Chappell "'We do now adjourn at 1:40 pm .. Carried." ■ ■ . Carried." (NOTE: A diqital recording of this meeting is available for review.) Chairperson Michelle Lynch .............. Secretary-Treasurer Adam Kozlowski Committee of Adjustment - February 21, 2008 Page 1 5