Loading...
06 19 2008 C of A AgendaTOWNSHIP • ORO-MEDONTE COMMITTEE • ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGEND COUNCIL CHAMBERS DATE: THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008 TIME: 9:30 A.M. 1. OPENING OF MEETING BY THE CHAIR 3. "DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF — IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT" 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS OF COUNCIL: a) Minutes of Committee of Adjustment Meeting of May 15, 2008. a) Application: 2008-B-17to2008-B-18 Applicant: Anne Jassoy Location: Lot 26, Con. 7, 26 Lakeshore Road West (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Sever 2 Lots b) Application: 2008-B-20 Applicant: Glen Oldfield Location: North Part of Lots 2, Concession 1, 8882 Highway 12 (Formerly Township of Orillia) Proposal: Boundary Adjustment c) Application: 2008-B-21 Applicant: Glen Oldfield Location: North Part of Lots 2, Concession 1, 8882 Highway 12 (Formerly Township of Orillia) Proposal: Technical Severance d) Application: 2008 -A -17 Applicant: Glen Oldfield Location: North Part of Lots 2, Concession 1, 8882 Highway 12 (Formerly Township of Orillia) Proposal: Variance - Frontage e) Application: 2008-B-24 to 2008-B-30 Applicant: Paul and Cynthia Crooks Location: Lot 15, Concession 11 (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Sever 7 Lots f) Application: 2008-B-31 to 2008-13-32 Applicant: Paul and Cynthia Crooks Location: East Part Lot 15, Concession 11, 1472 15/16 Sideroad (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Sever 1 Lot and Boundary Adjustment g) Application: 2008-13-22 Applicant: Ian Johnstone Location: Lot 22, Concession 10, 274 Line 9 South (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Boundary Adjustment h) Application: 2008-13-23 Applicant: Indian Park Association Location: Lot 3, Concession 6, RP M-8, Block D, 15 Algonquin Trail (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Creation of New Lot i) Application: 2008-A-06 Applicant: Raymond Dumont Location: Lot 10, Concession 1, 2109 Gore Road (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Variance - Max Floor Area and Setback to EP Zone j) Application: 2008-A-18 Applicant: Brent Laing and Leah Friesen Location: Lot 27, Plan M10, 39 Pine Ridge Trail (Formerly Township of Medonte) Proposal: Variance - Shed Located in Front Yard k) Application: 2008 -A -19 Applicant: Mike and Wendy Guthrie Location: North Part Lot 22, Concession 11, 193 Line 10 South (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Variance - Side Yard Setback for Barn 1) Application: 2008-A-20 Applicant: Joanne Davison and Gordon Kennedy Location: Lot 27, Concession 7, 92 Lakeshore Road West (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Variance - Front Yard Setback m) Application: 2008-A-21 Applicant: Lawrence Crook Location: Lot 9, Plan 104 RP 51 R2540, 1180 Line 2 South (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Expansion of Non-Conforming Use and Accessory Structure in Front yard n) Application: 2008-13-02 (Revised) Applicant: Anthony and Dianne Keene Location: West Half Lot 24, Concession 8, 143 Ridge Road East (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Creation of a New Lot a) Marie Brissette, Deputy Secretary Treasurer Re: Tree cutting by-law update 7. NEW BUSINESS a) Appoint Steven Farquharson as Secretary Treasurer A I Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday May 15, 2008. 9:32 a.m. In Attendance: Member Rick Webster; Chairperson Michelle Lynch; Member Lynda Aiken; Member Bruce Chappell; Member Garry Potter; Secretary-Treasurer Adam Kozlowski Also present: Steven Farquharson, Marie Brissette 1. Communications and Correspondence Correspondence to be read at the time of specific hearing. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest Member Lynda Aiken declared a Pecuniary Interest for b) 2005-B-48 to 2005-B-50 (Jules Goossens), Sever 3 Lots on Part of Lots 25, Concession 10, 38 Poplar Crescent, (Former Township of Oro). Member Aiken left the room and did not participate in any discussion or vote on this item. Committee of Adjustment-May 15, 2008 Page 1 3. Hearings a) 2008-13-07 (Revised) (Raymar Investments) Boundary Adjustment for Pt. Lot 10, Con. 13, 1705 Mount St. Louis Rd. E., (Former Township of Medonte) In Attendance: Jim Even, Agent for Applicant Motion No. CA080515- 1 Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Lynda Aiken BE IT RESOLVED that: Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B-07 (REVISED), being for a conveyance of land having 13.53 metres of frontage on Mount Saint Louis Road, and an area of 0.181 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 Concession 13, East part of Lot 10, known as RP-51R768 Part 15, PIN 74059-0012 (LT), and that the provisions of Subsections (3) or (5) of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. Carried Committee of Adjustment-May 15, 2008 Page 2 b) 2005-B-48 to 2005-13-50 (Jules Goossens) Sever 3 Lots on Part of Lots 25, Concession 10, 38 Poplar Crescent, (Former Township of Oro) Member Lynda Aiken declared a Pecuniary Interest for b) 2005-B-48 to 2005-8 -50 (Jules Goossens), Sever 3 Lots on Part of Lots 25, Concession 10, 38 Poplar Crescent, (Former Township of Oro). Member Aiken left the room and did not participate in any discussion or vote on this item. In Attendance: Tiziano Zaghi, Agent for Applicant. Motion No. CA080515- 2 Moved by Bruce Chappell, seconded by Rick Webster BE IT RESOLVED that: Committee grant provisional consent for Applications 2005-8 -48, 2005-B-49, and 2005- 8-50 subject to the following conditions: 1. That Official Plan Amendment 25 to the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan be approved by Council for the County of Simcoe, and that Notice of Approval and/or Adoption be received from the County of Simcoe prior to the issuance of a Form 2 Certificate of Official for the proposed lots from the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the proposed lots conform to the lot line configuration, frontage and area provisions as depicted on "Schedule A-1" to By-law No. 2008-045, April 9, 2008, being Official Plan Amendment 25, Township of Oro-Medonte, AND as depicted on "Schedule A" to By-law No. 2008-046, April 9, 2008, being Zoning By-law Amendment 2005-ZBA-27, Township of Oro-Medonte; 3. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcels be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary- Treasurer; 4. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcels severed, for review by the Municipality; 5. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for each lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution; 6. That the applicant pay the appropriate Development Charges Fee for each lot created to the Township; 7. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and, 8. 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-May 15, 2008 Page 3 "", _,J c) 2008 -B -11 to B -16 (Tim Crawford) Sever 6 Lots on Lot 26, Concession 9, (Former Township of Oro) . n Attendance: Tim Crawford, Applicant; Bob McGregor, Neighbour, Mr. McGregor made presentation to the Committee Motion No. CA080515- 3 Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Bruce Chappell BE IT RESOLVED that: Committee grant provisional consent for Applications 2008-13-11, 2008-B-12, and 2008- 13, 2008-B-14, 2008-13-15 and 2008-13-16 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed lots conform to the lot line configuration, frontage and area provisions as depicted on "Schedule A-1" to By-law No. 2007-126, November 14, 2007, being Official Plan Amendment 24, Township of Oro-Medonte, AND as depicted on "Schedule A" to By-law No. 2007-127, November 14, 2007, being Zoning By-law Amendment 2004-ZBA-04, Township of Oro-Medonte; 2. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcels be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary- Treasurer; 3. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcels severed, for review by the Municipality; 4. That the applicant dedicates Block 7 as the appropriate contribution for parkland dedication. 5. That the applicant pay the appropriate Development Charges Fee for each lot created to the Township; 6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and, 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-May 15, 2008 Page 4 J, Z __7 d) 2008 -A -15 (Matt Marshall) Variance for Front Yard Setback and Side Yard Setback on Plan 952, Lot 71, 2277 Lakeshore Road (Former Township of Oro) In Attendance: Matt Marshall, Tammy Massey, Applicants. Secretary-Treasurer read e-mail correspondence received from Susan Silma (concerns over reduced side yard setback) verbatim to Committee and the audience. Motion No. CA080515- 4 Moved by Rick Webster, seconded by Lynda Aiken BE IT RESOLVED that: Committee approve Variance Application 2008-A-15, being for the construction of a detached garage having an area of 57.9 square metres, to be located 3.05 metres from the front property line and 0.91 metres from the east interior side lot line, subject to the following conditions: That the detached accessory building, notwithstanding Section 5.1.3 a) and d), otherwise meet with all other provisions for detached accessory buildings; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the detached garage be located no closer than 3.05 metres from the front property line; and that the detached garage be setback no closer than 0.91 metres from the east side lot line; 3. That the applicant obtain any permits and/or approvals, if required, from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority; 4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.P. 13. An amendment to the motion was requested. Deferred Committee of Adjustment-May 15, 2008 Page 5 Motion No. CA080515- 5 Moved • Garry Potter, seconded • Bruce Chappel! it BE IT RESOLVED that: Committee approve Variance Application 2008-A-15, being for the construction of a detached garage having an area of 57.9 square metres, to be located 3.05 metres from the front property line and 1.5 metres from the east interior side lot line, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the detached accessory building, notwithstanding Section 5.1.3 a) and d), otherwise meet with all other provisions for detached accessory buildings; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the detached garage be located no closer than 3.05 metres from the front property line; and that the detached garage be setback no closer than 1.5 metres from the east side lot line; 3. That the applicant obtain any permits and/or approvals, if required, from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority; 4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. Carried Committee of Adjustment-May 15, 2008 Page 6 4. Other Business i. Adoption of Minutes from April 17, 2008 meeting Motion No. CA080515- 6 Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Bruce Chappell BE IT RESOLVED that: That the minutes for the April 17, 2008 Committee of Adjustment Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated. Carried Motion No. CA080515- 7 Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken BE IT RESOLVED that: That Committee hereby appoints Marie Brissette as Deputy Secretary-Treasurer for the Committee of Adjustment. Carried 5. Adjournment Motion No. CA080515- 8 Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Bruce Chappell BE IT RESOLVED that: We do now adjourn at 12:02 pm. Carried Chairperson Michelle Lynch Secretary-Treasurer Adam Kozlowski (NOTE: A digital recording of this meeting is available for review.) Committee of Adjustment-May 15, 2008 Page 7 Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment June 19, 2008 2008-8-17 to 2008 -B -18 — Anne Jassoy 26 Lakeshore Road West, Lot 26, Concession 7 (Former Twp. Of Oro) Imilius The purpose of application 2008-B-17 to 2008-B-18 is to permit the creation of two new residential lot by way of severance. The lands to be severed lands are proposed to have an average depth of 58.8 metres, frontage along Lakeshore Road West having an average frontage of 35.3 metres, and a lot area of 0.2 hectares. The land to be retained is proposed to have a lot area of approximately 0.56 hectares. The retained lands currently have a dwelling and accessory structure, while the proposed severed lands are currently vacant. MKM990�� •� It is recommended that the Committee defers Application 2008-13-17 to 2008 -B -18 - Anne Jassoy 26 Lakeshore Road West, Lot 26, Concession 7 (Former Township of Oro) in order to attain comments from the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority, as per their request dated June 12, 2008. Res 11 ubmitted, n F Frq6harson, B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by, Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner S(:2)1 S c� 3 ! | ! § ! \ �� ; .m \, 7 \�■ \� �2. . : & ~t ■ O t SNOSS304M MUM 3OWMOIW aVOM %NM \ � | � ; § t } � dam■ \ ®.� §|) ,Ole, � $ % , $ ! oili., � | e0 � � ° . � t | _ ! | ! § ! \ �� Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment June 19, 2008 2008-13-20, 2008-13-21, 2008-A-17 - Glenn Oldfield 8882 Highway 12 (former Township of Orillia) The purpose of applications 2008-B-20, 2008-B-21 and 2008-A-17 is to permit a creation of a new residential lot. More specifically, application 2008-B-20 is to re-create a lot that has inadvertently merged in title, application 2008-B-21 would serve as a boundary adjustment to provide for access and frontage, and the minor variance 2008-A-17 proposes to recognize a deficient lot frontage for this lot. 1. Y010114fl* A Official Plan Designation — Rural Settlement Area Zoning By-law 97-95 — Residential (Ri) Zone 3. AGENCY COMMENTS County of Simcoe — None received Public Works Department - None received Building Department - None received Engineering Department - None received 4. BACKGROUND The subject applications seek to re-create a lot which has merged on title. The applicants current property comprises approximately 1.3 ha (3.25 acres), and is a through-lot with frontage on Highway 12 (approx. 35 metres) and Bass Line (approx. 6.7 metres). There is an existing dwelling with driveway access on Highway 12 towards the east portion of the lands. The proposal involves the re- creation of a lot in the middle portion of the property comprising 0.3 ha (0.75 acres) which is currently landlocked. In order to provide frontage, a boundary adjustment is also proposed, which would add a small strip of land fronting on Bass Line comprising 0.89 acres (0.36 ha) area. Does the consent conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? Section D2.2.3 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider applications for technical severances. The policy states: "D2.2.3 Technical Severances : The creation of new lots to correct a situation where two or more lots have merged on title may be permitted, provided the Committee of Adjustment issatisfied that the new lot.. a) was once a separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act, b) the merging of the lots was unintentional and was not merged as a requirement of a previous planning approval, c) is of the same shape and size as the lot which once existed as a separate conveyable lot, d) can be adequately serviced by on-site sewage and water systems; e) fronts on and will be directly accessed by a public road that is maintained year-round by a public authority; f) there is no public interest served by maintaining the property as a single conveyable parcel; g) conforms with Section D2.2.1 of this Plan; and, h) subject to the access policies of the relevant road authority.. 5, b_)(:N:A) In reviewing the application, the applicant has provided a legal opinion that confirms that the lot was once a separately conveyable parcel in accordance with the Planning Act. In terms of item (e), the proposed boundary adjustment would facilitate frontage on a public street. Therefore the application would conform to the general policy. In respect of the proposed variance, the intent of a minimum lot frontage is to ensure an orderly and logical lot size and pattern. Staff recognize that the subject property is an odd-shape, and note that it forms the southerly boundary of the Prices Corners Settlement Area. Many of the existing lots north of the subject land are also of odd shapes and inconstant road frontages. Therefore, staff support the proposed applications given the fragmented development pattern in this area. Does the consent conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The proposed retained parcel would comply with the minimum lot frontage and area requirements of the R1 Zone of 30 metres and 0.2 ha respectively. The proposed new building lot would exceed the minimum lot area, and the proposed lot frontage would be recognized should the variance application be approved. 5. CONCLUSION While the proposed lot geometry is not traditional, the proposed consent and variance applications generally conforms with the policies of the Official Plan and complies with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. 6. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B-20 and 2008 - B-21 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 proposed strip subject of 2008-B-20 be merged in title with the re-created lot subject of 2008-B-21, as evidenced by an undertaking by the applicant's solicitor to this effect; 4. That application for minor variance 2008 -A -17 be approved; 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. Respectfully submitt Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP Director of Development Services sh����3 RETAINED PORTION Z26AC EXIST. HSI- EXIST. R 1 M A /R U E N n TECHNICAL CONSENT APPLICATION 0.75AC 0- z/ 46.97m — 6.71 m CONVEYANCE CONSENT APPLICATION 0.36AC 0 ri n EXIST. HSE. Q 10m BASS LINE 5b>c* Sh�c� d>� PROVISTA GROUP INC. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES The Township of Oro-Medonte P.O. Box 100 Oro Station, Ontario LOL 2XO Attn: Mr. Adam Kozlowski May 7, 2008 Re: Township of Oro-Medonte Consent proposal 8882 Hi2hway 12 Our Proiect no. 007-137 Dear Mr. Kozlowski, Further to our meeting regarding a possible technical consent approval for Mr. Oldfield, we have now had the advice of legal counsel and have enclosed a letter from Mr. Andrew Ain of the law offices of Burgar Rowe. Mr. Ain states in his letter that the subject property was a separate "Conveyable" lot prior to Mr. Oldfield acquiring this land and subsequently merged in title with his current holdings. It is for this reason that we now wish to apply for a severance under Section D2.2.3 of the Official Plan, Technical Severances. We believe that this proposal meets all the policies for a Technical Severance with the exception of item D2.2.3 a). This property does not front onto a road however; we can obtain access to the Bass Line via a conveyance of the driveway property on Mr. Oldfield's property to the subject property by a boundary adjustment. Bass Line is a year round maintained municipal road. This existing 22 foot driveway referred to is currently a hydro easement that contains above ground hydro wires that are offset to the side of the easement and is currently used as an access drive and can continue to do so should this application be approved. Enclosed please find a completed application for a Consent for a "Technical Severance", an application for a Consent for a "Boundary Adjustment" and an application for a Variance since the subject proposed lot has no direct frontage on a road. Also enclosed is a plan and $2,400.00 application fee (2 x $900 plus $600 for a variance) and a $300 fee for the NVCA. We would appreciate your support for the applications made for the subject property and we are available for any questions you may have or additional materials you may need. Yours GHup Inc. Birry H. Peyton, MCIP, RPP cc: Mr. G. Oldfield Box 31 Green River Drive RR I Ph: (705)689-0852 Fax: (705)689-0853 Washago ON LOK 2BO provistagW@—on.aibn.com 1,1) (� "I .S6 )(1) �q BURGAR NM ROWE BARRISTE R5 -SOLICITORS -MEDIATORS - TRADEMARK AGENTS April 17, 2008 BY EMAIL ONLY: PROVISTAGRP @ON.AIBN.COM Pro Vista Group Inc. Box 31 Green River Drive Washago, Ontario LOK 2130 Attn: Barry Peyton Dear Mr. Peyton: RE: GLEN OLDFIELD SEVERANCE PART LOT 2, CONCESSION 1, OROMEDONTE PART 2 5I11-4949 OuR FILE NO. 085OB16 We have now had an opportunity to review the matter and can advise that at one time each portion of Mr. Oldfield's property was once a separate conveyable lot. Part 2 51R -4949 was transferred on August 22nd 1975 from Malcolm McKenzie Stewart to Catherine Anne Martin pursuant to a Consent. Catherine Anne Martin was already the owner of the balance of Mr. Oldfield lands. In 1997, Ms Martin transferred all of the above - reference lands to Mr. Oldfield. In order to satisfy the requirements of Section D2.2.3 (a) — Technical Severance of the Oro Medonte Official Plan, the new lot had to be at one time a separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act. As Part 2 51R -4949 had a Consent to Sever issued on August 28, 1975, in our opinion, it was at that time a separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act. The balance of the lands were also obviously conveyable as Ms. Martin received them via a conveyance from John Nelson in 1968. There are ancillary debatable issues such as if the consent would still be applicable today with respect to the "once a Consent, always a Consent" as the Consent predated the enactment of subsection 50(12) of the Planning Act which was passed on March 31, 1979. The issue is moot as the land is landlocked and without a Consent for an easement who aside from the neighboring property would want it. Please note that in order to complete this opinion much of the title search had to be re- reviewed and analyzed by our conveyancer which led to some of the time delays and some additional costs. We will forward you our account for services rendered in due course. 90 Mulcaster Street Box 758 Barrie Ontario L4M 4Y5 T 705 721 3377 F 705 721 4025 www.burgarrowe.com Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the above opinion, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly, BURGAR ROWE Prcfe�siona! Comaration Per: Andrew Ain acla email: aain@burgamwe.com Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment June 19, 2008 2008-B-24 to 2008-B-30 - Paul and Cynthia Crooks East Part of Lot 15, Concession 11 (Former Township of Oro) ima gel aq;M, The purpose of applications 2008-B-24 to 2008-B-30 is to permit the creation of 7 new residential lots fronting on 15116 Sideroad. The lots are proposed to have a frontage of 30 metres, and lot areas of 0.2 hectares. The land proposed to be retained would have a lot area of approximately 23.5 hectares. It is recommended that the Committee defers Application 2008-B-24 to 2008-13-30 - Paul and Cynthia Crooks East Part of Lot 15, Concession 11 (Former Township of Oro) in order to attain comments from the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority, as per their request dated June 12, 2008. Reviewed by, Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner S��z Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment June 19, 2008 2008-13-31 to 2008-13-32 - Paul and Cynthia Crooks Concession 11, Lot 15, (Former Township of Oro) The purpose of application 2008-13-31 is to permit a lot addition and to be considered in conjunction with Consent Application No. 2008-13-32. The subject land, being Concession 11, Lot 15, is proposing to convey a strip of land having a frontage of 16.5 metres on 15/16 Sideroad, a depth of 51.8 metres, and an area of 0.09 hectares to the land adjacent to the east, being 1472 15/16 Sideroad. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition. It is recommended that the Committee defers Application 2008-B-31 to 2008-B-32 - Paul and Cynthia Crooks, Concession 11, Lot 15 (Former Township of Oro) in order to attain comments from the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority, as per their request dated June 12, 2008. Reviewed by, Ce Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner 511q)-L TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE LOT 15, CONC 11 r-I EAST ORO O Y ASPHALT DRIVE AND PARKING LANDS ALSIO OWNED BY 15/16 ti 16.55m BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT AREA 0.09HA 0 w !EA 0.20HA AREA 0.20HA 3.8m C9 U) ONE STY EZONE STY HOUSE HOUSE 2.5m SHED 39m I 37.88m CROOKS CONSENT PROPOSED CONDITION SHOWING A BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 5�03 W Z J Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment June 19, 2008 2008-13-22 - Ian Johnstone 274 Line 11 South, Part of Lot 22, Concession 10, (Former Twp. of Oro) im:161 The purpose of application is to permit a boundary adjustment to facilitate a proposed lot transposition. The applicant's intent is to move or transpose an existing lot which was recently severed at the northwest corner of the farm and establish this lot at the southwest corner of the lands. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition. "UMMHEMOM It is recommended that the Committee defers Application 2008-B-22 - Ian Johnstone, 274 Line 11 South, Part of Lot 22, Concession 10, (Former Twp. of Oro)in order to attain comments from the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority, as per their request dated June 12, 2008. Reviewed by, -7;- Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner M�v June 19, 2008 2008-B-23 - Indian Park Association 15 Algonquin Trail, Lot 3, Concession 6, Plan M-8 Block D (Former Twp. of Oro) The purpose of application is to permit the creation of a lot by way of severance. The land to be severed is proposed to have 110 metres of frontage along Algonqin Trail, have a depth of approximately 60 metres and a lot area of 0.5 hectares. The land to be retained is proposed to have a lot area of approximately 6.0 hectares and frontage of 163 metres along Algonquin Trail. �All I, I Official Plan Designation— Residential Zoning By-law 97-95 — Private Recreational Exception 144 (PR*144) Zone Previous Applications — None 3. AGENCY COMMENTS Simcoe County — None Public Works — None Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards Engineering & Environmental Services — New water service will need to be installed at owners' expense 4. BACKGROUND The subject property is located in the former Township of Oro, 15 Algonquin Trail, south of Horseshoe Valley Road. The lands are designated Residential by the Official Plan, and zoned Private Recreational Exception 144 (PR-144) Zone. The land proposed to be severed has an existing recreation center with a swimming pool, playground and tennis courts. There are no watercourses or wetlands on the property, nor are the subject lands within the regulated area of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. The existing lot currently contains approximately 274 metres of frontage on Algonquin Trail, and a lot area of 6.54 hectares. Does the consent conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The subject property is designated Residential by the Official Plan. Permitted land uses within the Residential designation include single detached dwellings, home occupation and private recreational facilities. It is the intention of the Official Plan that all new development in the Sugarbush node be serviced by municipal communal water systems and private septic systems. The proposed lands to be severed meet this requirement due to the lands currently having recreational uses including a swimming pool and tennis courts. The retained lands once development is proposed will be required to have these services completed for development. Comments received by the Director of Engineering and Environmental Services have noted that any new water service will be needed to be installed at the owners expense. For the purpose of this application, it is noted that the creation of new lots by way of severance is permitted within the Residential designation, where the tests of severance listed in Section D2.2.1 of the Official Plan are met. The proposed severed and retained lots would front on a municipal road, would not be located within an environmentally sensitive area, and would comply with relevant Zoning provisions of the Private Recreational Exception 114 (PR*1 14) Zone (discussed below). As the proposed severed and retained lands would be 0.5 and 6.0 hectares respectively, the application to create a new lot by way of severance would be in keeping with the general character of the area, and in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan. Does the consent conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Private Recreational Exception 114 (PR*114) Zone. The proposed lot will consist of 0.5 hectares, and will have 110 metres of frontage on Algonquin Trail; the required frontage for a lot in the PR Zone is 30 metres, and the required minimum lot area is 0.18 hectares. The proposed retained lands would consist of approximately 6.0 hectares, and maintain 163 metres of frontage on Algonquin Trail. Therefore, the proposed lot would meet with all requirements of lot area and frontage for the PR Zone. Lands zoned FD*1 14 permit a recreation centre which may include swimming pools, tennis courts, change facilities, meeting rooms, lounges, or similar recreation facilities being non commercial in nature, and storage areas for skis and other recreational equipment and a maintenance shop and an storage area for equipment used to maintain the lands and facilities in the private park. The applicant has indicated that the use for the proposed new lot will not change at this time and will continue to be used as a recreation centre. With respect to severance policies contained in the Official Plan, Section D2.2.1 d) indicates that that the severed and retained lots "[have] adequate size and frontage for the proposed use in accordance with the Zoning By-law...". On the basis of the above, the application would appear to generally comply with the Zoning By-law. 5. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant provisional consent to Application 2008-B-23 for the creation of a new recreational lot, having an area of 0.5 hectares and frontage on Algonquin Trail of 110 metres subject to the following conditions: 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 pay $ 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution; 4. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. Respectfully submitted, Steven Farquharson, B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by, Glenn White MCIP, RPP Senior Planner 47 / 1 t € 2 1715ti13 3 51 146 /4,9 - f �-n�57 ����'� � �i �`• ��f �`'`� ` f � �� � 1 , r''� f 11 y � 1 � , - ' � `' � k� ti , t � , t4 `ti_`$ . r�,'��� ft rf "`' ,�' C � fir t 1'I i 1h 8 ' � 14 FCi 18 /2p �W 13 /22 17 11s4� 61 kL, 73 j f i - �y't I 255 I 7 `, ! 79 f� � ? f t 21 3 15 X32 ' t, F1' 27 y fj 70 29 x:32 _ } 1 C iG 80 ...�. '` I ,k},'t• (} Y- X24' r ' — 81 - - V 10 12 r Y r r ~ 3320 14 I 41 86 ��. �`'t �``.. 37 i - - 6 27L} 88 i L1 �:� E T LAP L1 � � i 3314 a yt y ~� 5 a' � r 17 21 29 - 119 I I I Il f� � i I , r'f �� 4,y k'• I - 6 A �- -- 7- -�_ � t r� 6 19 1 158 1Gl � 17 r 4 \15 , / f \13 / 156 162 € 2 143 1 15 13 �. t R 144 h'I 153 : 4 11 142 . , � �� 147 � 149 �y� t r L . t�'•E��, 2 `�.� yr- � 140 ' #_ `,F` � 6 t 1.38 111 ° 17 15 143 113 133 ' ` 12 � 131 x- 1 14 X115 + 125 f �11J j / F`, f11 r 11119 121 f 127 129 � f' 1$t 16 L,� 27 29 shay ()ale �a `£.1, ' ono V V O V v'o 0ao e o \ y 4 0 wl tPoyntz Street rrie, Ontario C4M 3N6 T: (705) 728.0045 F:(705) 728.2010 ww.mhbcplan.ccm Ian I Nda,N,mghu;n CIA, FCIP, RPP .ernard P_ 1icrmscn BES, MCIP, RPP �l,I R Britt,,, Es, MCIR RPP 1�- Br ent Caarkscw A, MCIP, RPP )anus 1). Parkin BES, MCIP, RPP ol M_lVwbe RES i i Menzies ES, MCIP RPP David A. NI, Kav ES, MCIP RPP riar; A. Zeman BES, MCIP RPP Ih�esin: K�tehener Vaughan London Kingston Barrie ity, Town and Rural Planning 1411-111iopal Plans and Studies and Development ,bait Design / Community Planning ndscape Architecture Natural Resource r W" Id Aggregate Planning xprrt Evidence and Mediation Froject Management PLANNING ANALYSISh� CONSENT APPLICATION SEVERANCE 15 Algonquin Trail Township of Oro- Medonte Mav 2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION MHBC Planning has been retained by the Indian Park Association, the ratepayer association for Phases 1 and 2 of the Sugarbush development (M -8, M -9, M -30, and M -31) in Oro - Medonte. This office has been retained to review the planning merits of a severance to create one lot within the subdivision for the lands which currently contain the recreation centre and associated amenities. Our analysis of the planning documents has found that the proposal represents good planning and should receive favourable consideration from the Committee. 10 PROPOSAL The Indian Park Association was created in order to manage commonly held lands within the Sugarbush development. However, the subdivision has matured and the Association is no longer required and therefore the Association is proceeding forward to divest itself of the commonly held lands in order to dissolve of the Corporation. In order to divest themselves of the lands, a consent to sever is required to create a lot which contains only the recreation centre and associated amenities separate from the balance of the common lands. Specific to this application, the Association is proposing to sell the recreation complex located on Algonquin Trail. Therefore the proposal before the Committee of Adjustment is to create one lot which includes the recreation centre, swimming pool, playground and tennis courts from the 6.54ha (I6.2ac) parcel. The proposal is to create a 0.53ha (1.33ac) lot which contains these existing structures and retain the balance of the lands, 6.01 ha (14.86ac). The severed lot will also contain the existing septic tank and bed, as well as the existing entrance and driveway. No changes to the existing uses or structures are proposed at this time. However, it is the intention of the Association to rezone the severed lands to the appropriate residential zone, which we anticipate being a condition of the consent. A Consent Sketch which illustrates the proposal is attached to this report. AWW' Planning — Coto ,,11 1, Se,t (y lruliult Pio-k A.ssot'intiott. T(m 11Olip of 0J-('Jfi1r1ontc' Alm 200N Z, j 3,0 LOCATION AND SITE CONFIGURATION The site is located at 15 Algonquin Trail, in the Sugarbush residential settloment, The SuillarbLISh Settlement area I,; comprised of approximately 90 hectares (223 acres) of land located SOLIth of County Road 22 (Horseshoe Vallev Road), The Subject lands are lq-'all", described as Part of Lot 3, Concession 6, Plan M-8,' Part of Block D, J former Township o I of Oro, Township of Oro-Medonte. County Of SIIIICOC, The SL1bJCCt lands have a rolling topography and the lot Is Irregularly shaped, It is SUrrOUnded by residential uses, specifically single detached dw"ellinos, The lands to he severed are already developed and no changes are proposed to those E - C� structures at this time: however as rioted above it is the intent of the Association is to sell the lands on which the recreation centre are located and it is anticipated that these lands Will he utilized for residential purposes in the future. The retained lands are vacant and are in their natural ve4etated state, 4.0 OFFICIAL PLAN The site IS subject to the policies of the Official Plan (OP) of the County Of Suncoe, as well as the policies of the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan, The policies of both plans are discussed in further detail below. 4.1 County of Simcoe Official Plan The County Official Plan designates the Sugarblish Subdivision as a "Settlement" and therefore the policies contained in Section 3,5 - Settlements, apply to the subject lands, Other applicable sections include 4,1 Settlement Form & Expansion, 3.3 General Subdivision & Development Policies, and 4.3 General Development Policies & Guidelines, All of these sections have been reviewed and are discussed in more detail below. The Section 3,5 - Settlements policies of the OP generally speak to directing growth to settlement areas, how settlement areas should grow and how municipalities should manage growth in these areas, These policies do not address site specific development but speak generally that settlement area--, Should accommodate a diversity of land uses, includilull, residential and recreation. Section 4. 1, Settlement Form and Expansion. outlines Policies re,tyardjjla how Municipalities Should approach expanding or establishing settlement areas. These policies apply on a municipal -wide basis and not to site specific developments. These policies require settlement form to consider: energy conservation, the introduction of public transit, the intec!ration of path and trails bicycle routes, a compatible and convenient design for walkill,(.Y, the incorporation of natural heritage features, Public safety and preservation Of public acces, to shorelines, to he compatible With the existing intensification and efficient use of land. t_ C01111111.1111Py, and to reflect the promotion of 111IM'Planning �,,m to 11m '00��, 13 „—- 8 z--) k), While ���piic�imN���mc|Ncumm1m�1 all of the cri�riu�gui�do[scU|emcui areas. x doe* mntribute to the Sugarbmh development becoming more compact and vva|buh|e,TheuppiioskiooisuoonpahNcvviLbU)cczis|iogcurornunky.usownco[Lbccds{io” land uses vvilI change, U also reflects intensification and efficient land use as aocw 1o/ being created within a built up area. The County outlines its subdivision polices iu Section I3o[[beOP. These policies state that subdivision of land may Occur by Plan or Consent only if the land use is permitted in the Ucsgc,naik`u or if the intent of the p|oo is maintained. /\y discussed above, mixed use communities are promoted and would include residential and recreation uses within settlement uceum, Tbcrck`ne u severance by consent is permitted, Section 3.I2 [urdbcc $ipu|okes(bu|k`tscunon|ybccrcaicdxbcor\heybuvcucccsxiomudfrou{ugenuapuNic biehvvmy, both the severed and retained |oix will have frontage onupublic street. specifically Algonquin Trail. The retained parcel has frontage oil Algonquin Trail, Oneida Ave, and Huron Woods Drive to provide future access. The severed parcel has an existing driveway access to Algonquin Trail which is intended to he maintained. Section 3.3 addresses other requirements to be considered for development proposals. Specifically developrilent should be located outside of wetlands or habitat areas, encoura(yinc-11 the onuiuicnauce of views and vistas, the need for subdivision uzrcco)cuty bctvvccn developers and the municipality, protection Of County and local green|andxyy�my. 0000p8unccvviUzthe ��iuirnucu]�ie!ouce Scpurudou}orn|u|yfor nearby u�ricuUuraiuses, development within the Niagara E*ouzpcocu( P|uu, protection of prime agricultural aroam_ discouraging development in urcoy of environmental constraints such nu flood plains. the requirement for the production of a Stormovater Management Report to Support all plans of subdivision or industrial areas where |urae impervious areas orcbcnoicu| yiocugc in proposed, the production of a traffic study (where warranted), the preparation of noise, odour and dust y1udicy(vvhccc vvarruotcd), and studies addressing development adjacent to contaminated All of the above criteria have been considered. The proposed development which would m� create a separate parcel of laud for the existing building conforms based nu the foUuvvioc,: there are no wetlands within or xunouodiu� the sub jcct lands; views and vistas will be maintained, o subdivision ugrccoieot is not required for one new imo; there is no (}cecnlaoc yIsLcm identified ocur the xnhiCci lands (although the subdivision is located within the {}ru Moraine, it is not identified as (;cccu)uudaon the County's Schedule A. The Oro Moraine is discussed more fully in Section 4.2 n[dbix )� there are no agricultural operations in the ~� area- the su6icci lands are not vvidbio the Niagara Escarpment. nor are they prime agricultural lands (the lands are identified as Class 5. 6. or 7)- the proposal is not v/iu u fl-_,ixo; u S{omuvatcr Muuugcucnt Report is not required as only one lot proposed. traffic, noise, odor, and dust Studies are not required for the creation of one lot wherein no land use are proposed at this hn7c. It is uo|icioukel that u rezoning, will he sought to the lands from recreational (o residential, That public process nnoyc determine the- requirement for additional Studies. It is expected that the rezoning will Occur 111{D(ylanving Cim,n//^,J''m, j Alm 2(loS I s h> 4' Section 4,3, General Development Policies and Guidelines, Outlines the general development policies of the County Plan, these policies set out the criteria for the deli ,n and la�'OI_It Of developments, These criteria Include: minimizing the rerno--,al of natural vegetation, protecting and maintaining scenic resources-, maintaininc, a scale of development which is compatible with the character of the area, Outdoor fighting which compliments the setting: development clustered at the edges of st-anificant open spaces, road patterns fit the topography of the site, visual impacts of signs reduced, conservation Of Cultural heritage: connectivity of open spaces-, inclusion of mix of housing types, a strong pedestrian orientation-, and the integration of trails and pathways. The remaining policies of Section 4.3 deal with development in rural areas, the Niagara Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine which are not applicable to this application. This application is seeking to create one new lot \vlthOUt changing any of the existing structures uses. Therefore no vegetation is proposed to he removed as a result of this application, no scenic resources are intended to be affected, the creation of one lot would be compatible with the surrounding residential lots. there will be no new outdoor fighting. the 1 Z7 open space will be maintained, no new roads are proposed, no new signs are proposed, there are no cultural heritage resources to be conserved. the open space will remain connected to other spaces, only one new lot is being created, so a mix of housing types cannot he accommodated if/when the lot is converted to a residential use, the Sugarbush subdivision already has a strong pedestrian orientation due to the curvilinear streets and rural area, one new lot will add to this aspect of the settlement-, existing trails and pathways will not be altered by this application. This application is not in a rural area not- is the site part of the Niagara Escarpment or the Oak Ridges Moraine. L_ Based on the analysis above it IS submitted that the proposed consent to create a lot for an ext,,tim,y buildino and use conforms to the County's Official Plan, t� 4.2 Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan The site is designated Residential in the Townships Official Plan. Schedule ­A­ also LI identifies the lands as beino located within the Oro Moraine planning Area boundary, The Z�I land use policies for Sugarbi-Ish subdivision are found in Section C14.2.4. This section states that the residential designation applies to some of the lands within the settlement. The permitted uses include single detached dwellings. home occupations, private recreational Z� dwellings, facilities. bed and breakfast establishments and open spaces uses. Therefore the proposal conforms to these policies as both the existing; (recreational) and proposed (residential) uses are permitted. This policy also requires that all new development in SugarbUsh be serviced by the municipal communal water system and private septic systems, The severed parcel has both of these services already established. The retained lands have the ability to connect to the municipal water systerri and contain sufficient land area to accommodate a private septic system should the need arise. Section A4.2.3, Settlement Area Strategy for Sugarbush, states that some growth call occur in this settlement area on the municipal water system and with the utilization of private septic systems due to the suitability of the soils and hinned scale of development, This AWW'Plaimin- Con wm tf,Scl "1 4 /ndi(Fll Para )(iojI;o­, T(,}i II)NI) (11, 0w Aled"olc colrllllunjtv� is identified as primarily residential, and as the Intent is to rezone the sesered lands and permit then- use for residential purposes the proposed consent would confirm with this 'intent. The Su(_,arbUSh settlement area is further identified as a location for new residential and institutional growth by Section A4,3, Special Policy for Horseshoe Vallev Road, This Section Outlines the requirements to expand the boundaries of this and other settlement areas. These policies are not applicable as this application is proposing the creation of a lot within the Current settlement area houndarv, The policies of Section C 14,3,1 state that road irnprovernents to the intersection of' County, Road 22 and Line 6 North, are necessary prior to any further development approval.,;. This policy specifically speaks to two proposals for the expansion of SugarbUsh, and not single lot creation within the cation. appli is existing Subdivision and is therefore not applicable to this Z I I The policies with respect to the Oro Moraine are outlined in Section BI of the OP. This section outlines policies for two designations within the Oro Moraine. As per Schedule of the Official Plan, the subject lands have not been placed in either one of these designations and therefore these policies would not be applicable to this application, The development policies for the Oro IMoraine are found in Section B 1.6.2: however the policies state that these only apply to "ni'lJor development". Ma - Jor development is defined in Section B 1.6.3. It Is the opinion of this office that the creation of one new lot does not qualify as major development as per the provided definition. Therefore it is our opinion that Section BI.6,2 does not apply. It is also the opinion of this office that the creation of one lot with existing buildings and infrastructure will not have a significant impact on the Moraine, Section D2 of the Townships Official Plan outlines the Township's policies on the subdivision of land which are required to be considered for all applications for Consent. Section D2.2.1 outlines the policies to be considered when creating a new lot by consent. These policies and how the application conforms are discussed in more detail below. The Committee of Adjustment nIUSt he satisfied that the application conforms with the following policies: W That the retained aml severed lets front mi oml will be occessed by a public road that is maint(iined can a vear-round basis. Both the severed and retained lands have access to a public road that is maintained on a year- round basis by the Township. specifically Algonquin Trail. The retained land,,, also have frontac,e on Oil_-Ida Ave and Huron Woods Drive. b) That the retained cared severed lots do riot have direct a•cess to a Provincial [fighwav or Comity Road. Neither the severed nor retained lands will have direct access to a Provincial Hiyfiwa,,, oi- County Road. '1111140 Planning ( ollww to Sc cr a im I, If) V1 11,11ip o/ Oo'_V{ dol I It, hl, 20oS 11 o That the ret4iiiied and lots It'd/ not cause a tra i c hazard. i 'P 11 1 As no ne�,v driveways or access points are proposed at this tulle neither the severed not- retained land,; will cause a traffic hazard. Should the retained lands he developed III the future, the creation of' all appropriate access point will he reviewed at that tulle, (1) That the retrained and severed lots have adequate sil-Ic emd,t'roiilage /(*�r the proposed use in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoiiiii,lo B.14ow and are compatible with tuljelceilt arses. Both the severed and retained lands comply with zone standards set out III the Zoning By- law. This IS discussed in more detail in Section 8.0 of this Report. The proposed severance is compatible with adjacent residential and as discussed the potential use of the site will he for residential Purposes. e) That the remitictit and severed lots •aii be seri,iced with art appropriate water snpplv A and mc(ins of sewage disposal. J As discussed above, the site is serviced by the municipal water system and has all existinc, septic system in operation on the severed lands, the proposal will not alter the function of these services. The retained lands do not currently have a septic systern, however the site is Of Sufficient Size to accommodate one, at the time buildings are proposed to be constructed. Should additional lot creation be applied for on the retained lands, consideration of the ability to service these lots will be contemplated at that time. The retained lands can also access the Municipal water system, should it be required. That the retrained and severed lots will not h(we a iiegtitive impact ()/I tl e ptitterns in the area. The proposed severed lot contains existing buildings and services and therefore the drainage patterns which currently exist oil the site are not anticipated to be altered. This application will not result in site grading which could impact drainage patterns, Should development be considered on the retained lands drainage will he required to he considered as part of any building permit process. g) Plot the retained and severed lots ivill not restrict the development ol'the retained Ell lands or other parcels (Y'lothl, P(Irticidtirl ' N, (is it relates to the provision of access, if then are designed for development Its this Plait. This severance will not create a landlocked parcel or restrict the development of any other parcels. It) That the rettibied and severed 101S Will 1101 have a negative impact oii the features and fillictions of ally ecological.leature in the area. The Suaarbush Subdivision Is located within the Oro Moraine. however as previously stated the creation of one lot with an eXiStillil use IS not anticipated to negatively impact the Moraine, Ll 411MCPkinning Gmwia b'dian Puri 10vi 1;"hiio of 01oA!Cd,M!c A/m ]10a', I V-!j 5 k) I2- I ii 17wt the rettit'ned tint/ severed lots wit'l, not hove (I ne"(1tive imp ac" oil tile qw1lill fuld (Illoillitv of )'roulidw(iter ible - 11 1 twti'h t fi)r other tryes iii, the (irco. The quality and quantity of groundwater will not he I 0 Z:� inipacted by the proposal as 110 new wells or changes to the topography are proposed at this tune, Wells are not required in this Z!, 11::1 1 area as the Subdivision Is serviced by the Municipal water sx,-,tein and the severed lot is currently connected to the municipal water system, J) Thou tile ret(iiiied and severed lots will coii11(*)rm to Sectioti il(24) of the Picumhl,,, Act. The severed and retained lots conform to Section 5 1 (�4) of the Planniniz Act, as described in Section 6,0 of this Report, ti On the basis of the above, the proposed consent to sever conforms with the Township's Official Plan policies, 5.0 THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT Matters of Provincial Interest are outlined In Section 2 of the Planning Act. Section 3 requires the Province to set out a policy statement with regard to these matters, Planning Authorities must ensure all development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) when exercising their approval authority, The PPS covers many issues such as proper infrastructure for development, affordable housing. protection of natural resources, protection of agricultural lands, protection of mineral resources and promotion of economically and environmentally strong C01111411-mities. The PPS directs the majority of growth to settlement areas. This office has undertaken a review of' the PPS and it is the opinion of this office that the proposed severance to create one new residential lot which contains existing buildings and infrastructure is consistent with the PPS as it is located within a settlement area, does not impact any environmental features and can be appropriately serviced. 6.0 THE PLANNING ACT Section 53 of the Planning Act outlines the requirements for consideration of an application U. for Consent and requires, in accordance with Subsection 53(1 -)), I that a municipality have regard to the matters under Subsection 51(24) to determine whether a provisional consent shall he given and therefore is required to he considered with respect to this Consent application for the proposed severance, ki 1111B('Planning Pm A A ve)( iatioll. Ttl s /I 4lip ),,, 01f. A/�W,M!c r W t The conformity of the consent application to these policies i5 discussed hcl�nv: p E` (a) the cif" et t 'the pr( p�>sa' cart inalter.s of'Pro', im-io/ 1171 re)t 1 As stated in Section 5.0 above., the proposed severance does not have an effect on any matters of Provincial Interest (b) whether the subdirision is premature or ill the piihlic interest The proposed lot creation is not premature as the site has already been developed. contains existing infrastructure and buildings, and will not create a financial burden for the municipality as a result of the consent. The consent will also permit the conversion of a private recreation facility into a residential use: the Municipality is currently undertaking design for a public recreation facility within the Su,garbush settlement which will provide the appropriate recreation services for the proposed consent. On this basis the proposed consent is not considered premature and is in the public interest. (c) vvhether the plan conforms to the 01ficial Plait rind tudjacent plaits of stibc1h,isioti, lfcozy . As discussed in Section 4.2 of this Report, the application conforms to both the Countv and Township Official Plans as the lands are within a settlement area, can he appropriately serviced and will not negatively impact any natural feature.,. The subject lands are part of the Sugarbush Subdivision, which consists primarily of single detached dwellings. The proposal conforms to this subdivision as the uses are already established. The creation of a tie" lot with either recreation, or residential uses (should the rezoning be granted) will not adversely impact the surrounding residential uses, (d) The suitabilitY of the Imid for the purposes /or which it is to he SUbdil'ided The land is Suitable for the purpose for which it is being subdivided. The severed lot accommodates the existing uses and associated septic Systeill. It can also accommodate residential use, should this permission be granted in the future, Suitability of the retained lot for further development would have to be assessed for its suitability based on the proposed use at that time. (e) the number, width, loccitioit rind proposed grades ctnd eleiwtions ol* highiva- v.s, aml the tidequticY of thetrt, Lind the hiijhwa-N's linkbig the hid >h�'I'm'.o ill the proposed suhdii,ision frith the esttihlisvhetl high�vt r si,stem in the V'icittit"' rind the tidequac.l of thorn Both the severed and retained lots have access to Algonquin Trail, a publicly maintained municipal road. The severed lands have an existin4- driveway and point of access oil Algonquin Trail. The retained lands have the ability to he accessed hv Oneida Ave or HLIr0I7 Woods Drive. both publicly maintained municipal roads, if required. (f) thc thillensions tied shtipes o0he proposed 1ctty The subject lands are irregular in shape. The dimensions of the proposed severed lot have been chosen in order to ensure all of the existing buildings and infrastructure are contained within the proposed lot and accommodate the appropriate zoning setbacks. The proposed 111IBC 1'tcttttutrti C'r,tt;s77rrt S' hidiall Mud. ;�tt h'? {(!, of', 1Ot'., I1,INt7 e tq new lot will be rectangular in confl(TUration. The retained lands will Continue to he lrre�!ular in shape, (0) the restrictions on the lamis to be subdivided or the builtling� mid structiircs proposed to be erected oil it mid the restrictimis, ifativ. oil adioiiiiiig laird The entire Su-arbush Subdivision. Including the subject lands are subject to two casements, one for water services to the Township and the other for gas services to Consurt-iers* Gas. (h) conseri-ation oftialurol resources mid flood control The creation of this lot will not cause an issue of flood control as there are no nearby water courses and no site alteration is anticipated to occur as a result of this, application cyiven that the structures already exist. While the SugarbUsh Subdivision is located within the Oro UJI L&I Moraine, the proposal to create one lot is not anticipated to cause a negative impact to this natural resource. 1) the ae1equticY of utilities atiel municipal serviCeS The Suaarbush settlement is serviced by municipal water, the severed lands are already access connected to this service for the existing recreation center. The retained lands have the ability to access this system, at the time development is considered on these lands. The severed lands contain an existing septic system and the retained lands are of suitable size to accommodate a sewage system depending on the type of use proposed. The Sugarbush Subdivision is fully serviced in terms Of utilities - gas, cable, phone, etc. (j) the (Idequ(I(w cif school Sites The creation of one lot is not anticipated to cause an impact on the school system. There are existing schools in the area should the rezoning be -ranted and residential uses approved for the site. (k) the area of largo, ifaitY, e.vc hru ive o1'hiI(,,1m'avSI to be coiiveved or dedicated jor V-1 public purposes At this time no land is intended to be dedicated. (1) the ph - ysical la ' o,out of the pkm luwitig regard to energy collservati011, The creation of one lot does not effect the energy consumption of the subdivision, however as this proposal aims to create a lot within an existing subdivision It is considered infillino and intensification which do contribute to energy conservation. Therefore based on the analysis Provided above, it is our opinion that the proposed consent application is in conformity with the Planning Act. Z:� TO PLACES TO GROW — GROWTH PLAN The Places to Grow Act Sets Out the le6slativ,c framework for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), The Growth Plan Sets Out province wide policies for how and where growth should occur, This document directs growth to settlement areas Z7 4n MIM'Planning Con will IoSc; ci Ala\ loos k) 6 and requires settlement areas to be complete communities consisting of a balance of employment and residential uses as well as transit supportive. As the proposed lot creation is intended to create one residential lot within an existing settlement area, does not propose a boundary adjustment to the settlement area, and is appropriately serviced, the proposal conforms with the Growth Plan. 8.0 ZONING BY -LAW Both the severed and retained lands are zoned Private Recreation Exception 114 (PR* 114) on Schedule A16 of the Township's Zoning By -law 97 -95, as amended. The permitted uses for the Private Recreation zone are found in Table A5, however Exception 114 adds additional permitted uses on the subject lands; specifically a recreation center and associated In uses as well as one dwelling unit for a care taker. The provisions for the PR zone are found in Table B5. Exception 114 also lists three additional provisions: minimum first storey floor area, maximum building height and minimum setback from a public street. The existing buildings conform to these provisions. The provisions required by Table B5 and those provided by the severed lands are outlined below: N As the retained lands are proposed to remain vacant there are no zone provisions to apply at this time. The lands are 6.Oha (14.86ac) in size with 163.95m frontage. The minimum lot area and frontage have been met with respect to this lot. It is anticipated that the required setbacks can be accommodated for any future use. Should a new land use be proposed at a later date, that application will be subject to a public process and the suitability of setbacks can be determined at that stage. The Zoning By -law also sets out setbacks from steep slopes in Section 5.32. Although the area has a rolling topography, the slope is not greater than 3:1 and there are no new buildings or entrances proposed which could be affected by the topography of the land. Should another entrance or other uses be proposed in the future, they will be subject to a further public planning process and review. At that time, the appropriateness of any entrances or usage can be determined. 411MC Planning — Coirwitt to S4,1�c ^r 10 Indian Purl AS w, �iwioir, TOVt /I dlip of Oro- hletlontc Alto, 000 'R I I I BI r1i ID 5 r)) i "N 9,0 CONCLUSION Based on the analysis provided above, it is submitted that the proposed severance, "Olich would create one lot for the existing recreation center in the Sugarbush Subdivision. represents good planning. The proposal conforms to both the COL111tV of Simcoe and Township of Oro-Medorite Official Plans, it Is consistent with the 'Provincial Policy Statement. conforms to the Growth Plan, satisfies the requirement's of the Planning Act and complies with the Township's Zonins, By -law. Therefore, on behalf of' the applicant, we respectfully reque.st favourable consideration from the Committee, RespectfUlIk' SLIbIllitted, MHBC Planning Andria Leigh. MCIP RPP Associate cc, Indian Park- Association, Deborah Price - Sherman ,111IBC11anning Coil's c/l/ to Sc 1 4,1 h2d"anPor" i(ai"It, 1'0,,;Ilvhip of Ow Ah"'ImItc Ali, -'Ioo,h` 11 Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment June 19, 2008 2008-A-06 - Raymond Dumont 2109 Gore Road, Concession 1, East Part Lot 10 (Former Oro) W12iUs 9•RM The applicant is proposing to construct a new 178.3 square metre accessory structure. The applicant is requesting relief from the required setback to Environmental Protection (EP) Zone, and to increase the allowable floor area. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97- 95: Zone: A-gricultural/Rural (A/RU) Required Proposed Table B1 Standards for Permitted Uses: Minimum Required Front Yard Setback 8.0 m 6.92 m Non-Complying Buildings/Structures Section 5.16.1 b) does not increase the amount of floor area or volume in a required yard M ;] -:0101"Mi , 1: 4 1 " I • It is recommended that the Committee defers Application 2008-A-06 - 2109 Gore Road, Concession 1, East Part Lot 10 (Former Oro) in order to attain comments from the Lake Simcoe region conservation Authority, as per their request dated June 12, 2008. Respectfully submitted, Steven Farquharson, B.LIRPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by, Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I FENCE .011D 5WE m GORE ROAD" I E ol} ! 7 011, j 1 CULi FT HEAD PARES �wv 50.7 0! -,F'ED 013 w .c o w 0 S 13 I N 5.04 V 2 2. _,01 APPROXIMATE POSITION OF UNWRONMEN1 AL tW r 45 SCALED FROM PHOTOGRAPH SUPPLIED BY RnrMpND DIMONT W--o* 44--7j- PROPOSED ACCESSOR'� v BULDINO' 11 x0l SITE PLAN - PROPOSED SCALE : 1/32* = 1*-0' H+ WA� �I CNLA (M 736) "Em Z) C) Q) 14 (J) c) to O LAJ �,s i� -f) Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment June 19, 2008 zuud-A-i a - Urent Laing and Leah Friesen 39 Pine Ridge Trail, Lot 27, Plan M-10 (Former Twp. of Medonte) 1I.PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a detached accessory building, to have an area of 11.8 square metres. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: 1. Section 5.1.3 Permitted locations for detached accessory buildings and structures in all zones a) Not be located in the front yard, Notwithstanding this provision, a detached private garage is permitted in the front yard of a lot that abuts Lake Simcoe ... provided it is set back a minimum distance equal to the required front yard for the main building from the front lot line (being 7.5 metres in the Residential One Exception 63 (R1 *63) Zone) PROPOSED to be located 14.9 metres from the front lot line. 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Horseshoe Valley- Low Density Residential Zoning By-law 97-95 — Residential One Exception 63 (Ri *63) Previous Applications — None 3. AGENCY COMMENTS Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority - None Public Works - None Building Department - Proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department- None 4. BACKGROUND The subject property is located between Line 3 and Line 4 North, north of Horseshoe Valley Road, having - 25 metres of frontage on Pine Ridge Trail, a lot depth of approximately 92 metres, and a lot area of 0.18 hectares. The applicant is proposing to construct an 11.8 square metre detached accessory structure, proposed to be setback 14.9 metres from the front lot line, and 2.2 metres from the west interior side lot line. The subject property currently contains a single detached dwelling. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated "Horseshoe Valley- Low Density Residential" by the Official Plan. Permitted uses within this designation include single detached dwellings, home occupations, private recreational uses such as golf courses and accessory uses. As the application proposed to construct a detached accessory structure to a residential dwelling, the proposed variance is deemed to conform to the intent of the Official Plan. Does the variance maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law? While the proposed accessory structure would not be located closer to the front lot line then the dwelling and interior side lot line than what is permitted under the provisions for accessory structures. The proposed location in the front yard will still provide an adequate parking area, and distance from the roadway. Regarding privacy, the neighbouring dwelling to the south-west is located on at a higher elevation. It is buffered by a tree line along the property line, and as such the shed would be located ahead and below grade of this dwelling, and not likely create a visual hindrance or otherwise impact on privacy. In addition, aside from the proposed location in the front yard, the shed would otherwise comply with all other provisions for accessory structures as required in the Zoning By-law. Zoning exception 63 (R1 *63) which applies to the property address minimum required exterior side yard. The subject lands is not a corner lot, 2- therefore is not subject to this exception. As such, the variance to permit an accessory structure in the front yard would therefore maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the subject property was noted to contain significant tree cover, which will provide a degree of visual buffering between the neighbouring dwellings, and the proposed shed. The locations on the property for the proposed shed are limited by the topography of land. To the rear and side of the dwelling there is a significant downward slope which prevents the shed from being located on these portions of the property. Therefore, it can be determined that the proposed location of the garage in the front yard is the best location on the property. On this basis the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the proposed shed constitutes a permitted use, and will otherwise maintain the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding residential neighbourhood, the requested variances are deemed to be minor. M It is recommended that Committee approve Variance Application 2008-A-18, to construction of a detached accessory structure having an area of 11.8 square metres, to be located 14.9 metres from the front property line, subject to the following conditions: That the detached accessory building, notwithstanding Section 5.1.3 a), otherwise meet with all other provisions for detached accessory buildings; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the detached shed be located no closer than 14.9 metres from the front property line, in accordance with the sketch submitted with the application; 3. That the applicant obtain any permits and/or approvals, if required, from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; 4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13 Reviewed by Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner SUBJECT L hl d�_. 47 - - _ _r -� 45 41 516 3' 39 54 31 .33 ,�'f 52 29 f 25 48 60 23 f 42,44 46 21 38 40 36 17 34 15 30 32 14 13 12 11 .� 47 10 9 10 6 4 39 41 43 45 ,g 6 +{ 224 12 8 2 ` 51 53 55 59 61 63 4 2 2D 11 _ — 57 1 26 7� ~ �- 2 .� 7 5 3 33 i 24 32 34� 46 t 5 f? 14 .. �'1 4 31 X14 22 � 3g 40 42 44 48 3 t `t 6 24 •, 1 f {! 12 1 t g X. 20 18 50 i 10 4t 10 ' 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 52 3 23 8 5 21 2 4 6 7 9 12 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 { _ HORSESHOE "VALLEY (I 2 I 1 4 ) 3 37 11 9 7 6 5 32 5 � 8 10 9 31 t 3 28 1 -, 32 12 11 2s'y 26 0 40 80 160 '`� X20 - 14 +' 13 27 24 t+tl�tat'S r 25 tti 7 f%.,. zoo•a IVios From l,1, MCRRI� -'ESIGN 261 -74 ti PIN L. fIIDCE iRMt, +���r`�c ""Z'- -•• �u4, l . 1�� 12:41 Fri 1 PQ 4* Y /iJA e► i' • r 'LAN 31l>; ^JJII . j. .'j' ' x89.11 vsa � .�,:qo.�z x 8B.14•;� � � 14 r x � ':4.11 �'•41:St X89.9t w X . 07 E�.•1 � r �,' w • � •r° x81. ?1 W ,i4,3t3 X 91.91 X99.L� " +'• x 90. SL ((( 46.13 t J lam• m � � ', x 9z.r,� ` �J w Q9.s� X ��.�e � x �s.2x . • • I x 93. BS 11 j A( X 97.Co -, X 9t.�9 ` / M ar"GR1.K: AIN± tY & A55OC1A ES LTD, CON=VKC ENC(H!V^ P4ANNUS A2 MORAOW fMR t, pNhltr LtN ova DD K ' �vcta� . I 14.1 - •�.`T� �' is /n. . �' . l � q" 1 � � Sca 1e 7 t 1 Lid' ZOO 'd 4.T,Kf')rlSir.1-03Jn an l T UOOMr T , r ?IN ,l ?tbk TOIL- IL I � d L I�Q J��—Dowr VIES) (FFk)NG- IWO 39 COVE W b6C 5s)(0 �\4 `IPA OP .c1Lj�11� CY ) �iNrr �vT�R S+ Eb. ��cd wt�� � �e S�I�� � �►rc a. S{q�Aj p,,j 4 4-o �e51. OP .c1Lj�11� CY ) �iNrr �vT�R S+ Eb. Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment June 19, 2008 2008-A-19 - Mike and Wendy Guthrie 193 Line 10 South, West Half Lot 22, Concession 11 (Former Twp. of Oro) * U111 The applicant is proposing to construct an agricultural building for hay storage, which is proposed to have a total area of 148M2 (1600 ft). The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: Section 4: Table B4(c) Minimum setback for interior side lot line of an agricultural building The minimum required setback from an interior side lot line is 15.0 metres, where the applicant is proposing a setback of 9 metres. 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Agricultural Zoning By-law 97-95 — Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone Previous Applications — None 3. AGENCY COMMENTS Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority - No comments received. Public Works - No comments received. Building Department- Commented that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Engineering Department- No concerns. 4. BACKGROUND The subject property is located south of Highway 11 on the east side of Line 10 South, municipally known as 193 Line 10 South. The property has 120 metres of frontage on Line 10 South, a lot depth of 333 metres and a lot area of about 4.0 hectares. The applicant's lot is presently occupied by a two storey dwelling, and with various other accessory structures related to the agricultural uses on the subject lands. It is the applicant's intent to build an agricultural building with an area of 148 M2 (1600 ft2 ) and a maximum height from grade to midway between the eaves and peak of 7.5 metres (24.11 feet). Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated "Agricultural" by the Township's Official Plan. The intent of the policies in the Agricultural designation are to maintain and preserve the agricultural base of the Township and to protect land suitable for agricultural production from development and land uses unrelated to agricultural. Permitted uses such as a single detached dwelling and accessory uses, such as storage buildings, are generally appropriate and consistent with the character of the agricultural area. On this basis, the application conforms to the intent of the Official Plan. Does the variance maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The applicant is intending to use the proposed building for agricultural storage of hay and farming equipment. In assessing the issue of compliance with the By-law, it is noted that the proposal does comply with the lot coverage provision of 5% for storage buildings. The applicant is proposing to decrease the required interior side year setback of 15 metres to 8 metres. The purpose of the side yard setback is to provide a degree of buffering between properties for privacy, and to provide access to the rear of both the accessory and primary structures on the property. The interior side yard abuts the V) 2- Trehaven Golf and Country Club, which has large mature trees that provides a visual buffer between the proposed structure and the abutting property. As a result of being located next to the golf course, there are no residential dwellings that will be affected by having the agricultural structure located closer to the interior lot line. Due to the proposed agricultural structure not being used to house livestock, Minimum Distance Separation (MDS), does not apply to this structure. In addition, aside from the proposed side yard setbacks, the agricultural building would otherwise comply with all other provisions for agricultural structures as required by the Zoning By-law. As such, the proposed variance to reduce an interior side yard setback would therefore maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? In determining the desirable development of the lot, it should be noted that the property is zoned Agricultural/Rural and that the proposed structure is a permitted use. The applicant is proposing to locate the structure for easier access for hay storage and maneuvering agricultural equipment. The proposed location would still provide a setback which would maintain the character of the agricultural area. The size of the detached structure is accessory to the existing dwelling. On this basis, the proposed structure would provide for the appropriate and desirable development of the lot. As such, the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the proposed agricultural structure constitutes a permitted use, and will otherwise maintain the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding neighbourhood, the requested variance is considered to be minor. It is recommended that Committee approve Variance Application 2008-A-19, being for the construction of an agricultural structure having an area of 148 square metres, to be located 8 metres from the north interior side lot line, subject to the following conditions: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the agricultural structure be located no closer 8 metres from the north side lot line; 2. That the applicant obtain any permits and/or approvals, if required, from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority; 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13 Reviewed by, Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner S K) 3 300 m Meters Page I P, http: / /www. maps. di scoversimcoe. comJoutputBasemapDMZ_nottawaga3 l l 23 54817971 j... 10/18/2007 F i ` Q 4 .. .. i � p LJ tom.. F 499 39' -0" a R n x x N O QC. o ppd �Q O } , m �mN c�� JH w $ gg �o T I (m 'I ' o 0 ' x b m �- (' 38246 �_,3fLZ48_ - - -- -- - - -- - -- - - -- h1 �T 7J 39' -0" 6 �fp 40' -0" �cnrwx sx-axsw*nx, a,,;,�-�s, ,;, - "'• --• ice, °Ni 4n6roe °X Me 20F{ a'"'w"' FLOOR PLAN eaN 29419 .LUCAS nw� «�nw,a moeawma ca.zs.,aaoec. a«u 3lre' =1' -0" v�a«.x, 66.102 °roji'' NEW STORAGE BUIlOiNG FOR DRAFTING Monique Cr as - - - - - _ - - _____ - -_ d�M d« 16016x. FT. MIKE GUTHRIE came On= 6Y5 F ^a" J. LUCAS 1634 SO. FT. Tel / Faz 705-726 0409 ca ca.« ri- a z M 12 METAL ROOF ALUM, FASCIA, VENTED i SOFFIT, GUTTERS & DOWNPIPES cn z g :.� § § '���; \ \ ! \ \ \ \ % MET<s m © �\ �����\�,�\;\ \�\ � ! it � ;SIC i�\ 0 a FINISHED GRADE 8' BLOCK FOUNDATION WALL - - - - - - - ---------------------- - - - -«, L - - - - - - - - - :3 6"x 20"CONC. FOOTING jr FRONT ELEVATION � \ � / � .f \ \/ \ 43 METAL ROOF ALUM. FASCIA, VENTED SOFFIT, GUTTERS & Lu METAL SIDING FINISHED GRADE 8' BLOCK FOUNDATION WALL 6"x 20"CONC. FOOTING LEFT SIDE ELEVATION Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment June 19, 2008 2008-A-20 - Joanne Davison & Gordon Kennedy 92 Lakeshore Road West, Lots 27, Concession 7(Former Oro) inuftI010011111 The applicant is proposing to construct a balcony with an area of 14.1 square metres (152 square feet), at the front of an existing dwelling coming off the second storey. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Section 4, Table B1 of Zoning By-law 97-95: Required Proposed Minimum Required Front Yard, SR Zone: 6.5 metres 4.7 metres (7.5 metres minus 1.0 metre (Section 5.9. 1) permitted encroachment into any required yard by an unenclosed porches and balconies). 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 — Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications — None 3. AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department - None Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards. Engineering Department — No concerns 4. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the north side of Lakeshore Road West, west of Line 7 South, having approximately 15 metres of frontage on Lakeshore Road West and a lot area of approximately 0.06 hectares. The balcony is proposed to have an area of 14.1 square metres and is to be located in the front yard of the existing single family dwelling. Minor Variance application 2008-A-20 seeks to reduce the front yard setback of the existing dwelling 7.38 metre to 4.7 metres. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline by the Official Plan. A single detached dwelling is a permitted uses in the Shoreline designation. Decks, balconies, etc are common features associated with residential uses. Therefore, the proposal would conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. Permitted uses in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone include single detached dwellings and balconies. With respect to the proposed reduced front yard setback, it is also the intent of the By-law to ensure an adequate distance exists between the traveled portion of the roadway and structures. The current dwelling has a setback of 7.3 metres, thus making it non-compliance with the Zoning By-law. The application at hand seeks to position the proposed balcony 4.7 metres closer to Lakeshore Road West, this recognized the deficiency in front yard setback of the dwelling and bring it into compliance. Under Section 5.9.1 of the Zoning By-law, a unenclosed balcony may encroach 1 metre into any required yard. This would make the required front yard setback 6.5 metres for the balcony. The proposed balcony would still maintain a significant distance from the travel portion of the road and will still allow for adequate parking on the 25_ property. Aside from the front yard setback, the balcony would otherwise comply with interior side yard setbacks as prescribed by the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection the proposed balcony is to be located approximately 4.7m from the front lot line, and is likely not to have a negative effect on the sightlines along Lakeshore Road West. The neighbouring dwelling to the east, has a fence separating the properties, which comes all the way down to the road allowance. This would hinder the any sightlines then the proposed balcony would. It is noted tat the fronts of the abutting dwellings are behind the front of the applicant's dwelling. The applicant is seeking variance 2008-A-20, to utilize a set of doors from the second floor. Directly south of the subject lands is a vacant right of way, which the proposed balcony would over look Lake Simcoe. When a site inspection was completed, it was noted that surrounding properties had accessory structures, which were closer to the front lot line than the applicant's proposal. Dwellings located further west on Lakeshore have similar front balconies on homes. This would show that variance application 2008-A-20, would maintain the character of the area. The applicant has received support from the surrounding seven residents, which have been made aware of the proposed application and have expressed no concerns. The existing dwelling currently has a setback of 7.3 metres, which does not meet the required 7.5 metre in the SR zone. Further reducing the front yard setback to 4.7 metres from 7.3 metres will not effect parking. The applicant is proposing the entrance to the attached garage under the proposed balcony. The applicant is permitted to encroach 1 metres into any required yard as a result of Section 5.9.1 of the Zoning By-law. The proposed balcony would appear to be desirable for the appropriate development on the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the proposal would not adversely affect access on Lakeshore Road West, and will not have a negative impact on privacy for surrounding properties, the proposed variances are considered to be minor. It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance 2008-A-20, being to grant a reduction for the front yard setback from 6.5 metres to 4.7 metres for the construction of a balcony having a floor area of 14.1 square metres, subject to the following conditions: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 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 balcony be located no closer than 4.7 metres from the front lot line 2. That the applicant receive any necessary permits and/or approvals from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, if required; 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. Re_ lly SUbmitted, SLh �Farquharson, B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by,,, Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner 29 / 25 2 14 12 1 6 6 (DRGE-- GE (17 � 15 � 13 11 9 22 26 24 2B �VAF Lc' �N I ILI: E- 0:J 6 4 4 3 7 13 15 78 76 21 29 27 25 23 19 17 88 80 86 84 31 82 90 , O�� - 77� tz ir-s --- 100 98 96 94 106 104 102 79 85 83 87 89 91 93 SUBJECT LAND 95 101 106 103 107 109 111 113 115 117 79 85 83 87 89 91 93 SUBJECT LAND �C �o .� q, co A m V E � § §k )kkk \ \§§k2 ~mod§ -&ao&■ g$| £010 Z E,| � `�Kg2® 6 - �■.. $20? ,# - ® o aa0 p ic , »"a ` §\ j( &, f $, ¥� $ z 0 � d � d NI V/N3d Ol 3&n1Ona1S JNIISIX3 O3O0V 38 Ol 1Ona1S M3N O3SOdOdd uYlC 9-.9 u6-,OZ X " w < O ' z I ' Q I „ �o " ,cow I �� ' w ----------------- -- va va � va v .o J a I N I �Jz I I I �W5 I I I I T w I I I XOO I I • I � l o i NI M38 Ol Ond-LS JNI1S .9-,9 -, wZ-,Z CV 0 0 0 , 0 I , F.I. rrr is I O3O0V 39 Ol aOn2u1S M3N O3SC .L-,8 - „ 0-,8 r , , i w CIO m z J _ 0O LL a� 0 O _ co 5,0S 0 a z O Q 0 Z.. �w O —' Q LL Cl) ------------------ I' NMA Ol I I I I LXZ 'X3 I NIVVY3�101 I w : ZC'a P: w I I n NI M38 Ol Ond-LS JNI1S .9-,9 -, wZ-,Z CV 0 0 0 , 0 I , F.I. rrr is I O3O0V 39 Ol aOn2u1S M3N O3SC .L-,8 - „ 0-,8 r , , i w CIO m z J _ 0O LL a� 0 O _ co 5,0S 0 a z O Q 0 Z.. �w O —' Q LL Cl) ,-,N , Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment June 19,2008 2008-A-21 - Lawrence Crook 1180 Line 2 South, Plan 104, Part Lot 9, RP 51 R2540 Parts B&C, (Former Twp. of Oro) 1. THE PROPOSAL 1. The applicant is requesting permission from the Committee of Adjustment to renovate and expand a non-conforming use by allowing a 44.5M2 detached carport in the front yard and 124.5 M2 of additional living space onto an existing dwelling. The applicants are requesting relief from Section 5.18 of the Zoning By-law 97-95 — "Non-Conforming Uses", as the subject property is zoned Local Commercial (LC) Zone, and a single detached dwelling is not a permitted use in the LC Zone. 2. Section 5.1.3 Permitted locations for detached accessory buildings and structures in all zones: "Not be located in the front yard Notwithstanding this provision, a detached private garage is permitted in the front yard of a lot that abuts Lake Simcoe ... provided it is set back a minimum distance equal to the required front yard for the main building from the front lot line". 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Rural Settlement Area Zoning By-law 97-95 — Local Commercial (LC) Zone Previous Applications — None 3. AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works - None Building Department — None Engineering Department- None 4. BACKGROUND The subject property has a lot frontage on Line 2 of approximately 25.4 metres (83 feet), a lot depth of 93.4 metres (306 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.23 hectares (0.58 acres). The lot is presently occupied by a one and half storey dwelling, with an area of 67 square metres (729 square foot) dwelling. The property also contains an existing shed, which is proposed to be relocated to the rear of the property. The applicant is proposing an addition of 124 square metres (1344 square feet) of living space, family room, kitchen and bedroom at the rear of the first floor. The proposed addition also includes a wrap around covered porch, which will be located around the proposed addition and existing dwelling. The applicant is also proposing to construct a carport 44.5 square metres (480 square feet) in size to be located in the front yard of the existing dwelling. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural Settlement Area by the Official Plan. Permitted uses in the Rural Settlement Area designation consist primarily of residential and accessory uses to such. The designation also permits the construction of single detached dwellings. As such, the existing dwelling unit constitutes a permitted use in the Official Plan. Applications for expansions of non-conforming uses are guided by the policies set out in Section E1.5 of the Official Plan. Section E1.5.2 sets out the following policies to guide the Committee in considering expansions to non-conforming uses: a) The size of the extension in relation to the existing operation or, b) Whether the proposed extension is compatible with the character of the surrounding area; c) The characteristics of the existing use in relation to noise, vibration, fumes, dust ... and the degree to which any of these factors may be increased or decreased by the extension; d) The possibilities of reducing these nuisances through buffering, building setbacks, landscaping, site plan control and other means; e) The conformity of the proposal with the applicable by-laws and policies of the County of Simcoe. With respect to criteria a), the expansion of the existing dwelling by way of adding additional living space and carport would constitute minor and typical additions to single detached dwellings. As a result of a site inspection, lands adjacent to the subject parcel consist of residential lots. As such, the expansion and continued use of the structure for a residential dwelling would satisfy criteria b). With respect to criteria e), the County of Simcoe has been circulated this application, and at the time of writing this report, has not provided comments. The remaining criteria related to nuisances, buffering, and site plan control would not be applicable due to the nature and purpose of this application. As such, the expansion of a non- conforming use in the form of a single detached dwelling would maintain the intent of the Official Plan. As the application to construct a detached accessory structure to a residential dwelling constitutes a permitted use, the proposed variance is deemed to conform to the intent of the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? As the applicant's dwelling was in existence prior to the passing of the current Zoning By-law, being adopted on November 5, 1997, the dwelling and residential use of the subject land would be considered a non-conforming use. However, the subsequent residential use of the property has changed over time, being reflected in the current Local Commercial zoning of the subject lands. The zoning does not recognize the existing dwelling, which is currently being used by the applicant as his main residents. As such, the dwelling unit use does not comply with the provisions of the Local Commercial (LC) Zone. Based on site inspection and review of the survey provided by the applicant, the addition of living space onto the existing dwelling unit will meet the required front, rear, and side yard setbacks for the current Local Commercial Zoning. With the exception of permitted use, the proposed renovated single detached dwelling structure is considered to generally comply with the intent of the Zoning By-law. The application proposes to locate a carport in the front of the dwelling, which will maintain the required front yard setback of 7.5 metre. The purpose of the front yard setback is to ensure that adequate distance exists between the traveled portion of the roadway and structures, and for the purpose of ensuring space for adequate on-site parking. In addition, aside from the proposed front and side yard setbacks, the detached garage would otherwise comply with all other provisions for accessory structures as required in the Zoning By-law. As such, the variance to permit an accessory structure in the front yard would therefore maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law. 5. CONCLUSION The requested permission to expand a structure that constitutes a non-conforming use maintains the intent of the Official Plan, and generally complies with the Zoning By-law. The proposal is also compatible with the character of the immediate area, and with surrounding land uses. It is recommended that Committee approve Application 2008-A-21 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant obtain the necessary permit(s) and approval(s) from the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority, if required; 2. 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. Reviewed by Glenn White, MCIP RPP Senior Planner `> n:� a 51 53 1 55 57 61 1 63 1 16 j I LILai7l_.,) 52 54 56 1 53 60] 62 64 % w 74 Kj 918 1028 7 4 8 L9 —6 7 1044 1 F48 I 10 54 1064 1071 6 8 10 12 14 68 72 80 0. 18 20 22 24 26 23 30 44 34 074 63- 4 MA RT.INIF-.-' 1086 1083 3 16 17 6 r 7 8 7 32 — 49 41 8 1093 2 14 13 16 15 33 14 15 22 21 24 25 17 19 21 23 25 — — 2: 2108 2092 2084 7 -- 13 30 29 30 33 112 3 E-. 2076 2068 2058 7 9 11 Z 37 38 39 - - 2048 34 2022 2306 54 46 44 24 9 - 2316 , N 7 2000 1990 1950 c -- 2045 53 47 41 2335 115 2007 1 — 1 3 5 1164 1160 1157 985 1973 14 1168 1963 1167 1174 29 LL 19 1871 , 7D ls� T N - - ----- —25 11 18 1179 32 CC — 1899 1184 —31 1189 53 42 25 C%4 44 39 1 43 W 1197 61 51 -- 49 45 132 1207 60 195 1224 11 2 12 14 16 1911 171 126 102 84 1- _j2l9 76 - 165 --- 112 22 1227- 70 — 153 1234. 1233 3 143 133 123 11 30 54 22 93 107 99 91 83 71 65- 101 ILAKE SIMCOE 111715 1 1 1 40 80 160 240 320 m I ��Meters ii pia Fla c , %4 ILI tiq pia Fla c , %4 TOP OF WALL TOP OF FIN. FLOOR TOP OF FOUNDATION WALL GRADE 12 2.5 FRAMED CHIMNEY D DES1GN,uAND HAS THE QCWJPCATIONS AND'MEETSrTHE REIYJIREMENTS SULTING & tESMNS CHASE TO HAVE -H QUALIFICATION INFORMATION CULTURE STONE FINISH 3' -MIN. NEW ROOF TO PROPOSED A DORION FOR --4 TIE INTO EXISTING NWE SIGNA BCIN /BCON ASPHALT SHINGLES FALSE WINDOW REGISTRATION INFORMATION NCH, 2007 REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER 2.17.4.1. OF THE BULDING COC INTERIOR CEILING LINE -- BNRD CONSULTING & DESIGNS LTD. 34742 EXISTING 12 12� iCEOAR SHAKE r rr EXISTING 8'f EXISTING ( `� EXISTING f7- ST DOWN STAIRS TO 5' GONG, SUB SUIT GRADE I GRADE FIELDSTONE VENEER EXISTING I EXISTING ] 4' -MIN. SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION EAK OF CEILING OF FIN. FLOOR D DES1GN,uAND HAS THE QCWJPCATIONS AND'MEETSrTHE REIYJIREMENTS SULTING & tESMNS SET OUT IN THE ONTARIO allILDING COOS TO BE A DESIGNER. QUALIFICATION INFORMATION REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT 2.17.5.1. OF THE BUILDING CO[ PROPOSED A DORION FOR LAWRENCE /KIM CROOK DEAN BARD �� 32505 NWE SIGNA BCIN /BCON ELEVATIONS REGISTRATION INFORMATION NCH, 2007 REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER 2.17.4.1. OF THE BULDING COC 4 BNRD CONSULTING & DESIGNS LTD. 34742 Ul 6 STN SUIT TO TIE _ _ _ INTO NEW WEEPERS "�E ELEVATION BACK ELEVATION TOP OF WALL_ OF FIN. FLOOR PEN( OF CEILING TOP OF WALL 18' 8•_ i _TOP QF FIN. FLQ,Q 1J_, REGISTRATION INFORMATION NOV, 2007 REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER 2.17.4.1. OF THE BUtLD4NG CC[ (" Q" BAIRD CONSULTING k DESIGNS LTD. 34742 ' 15 -07 6 FIRM NAME BCIN /BCDN �1 J THE UNDERSIGNED HAS RENEWED AND TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS DESIGN, AND HAS THE QUAJFICATIONS AND MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS & V SET OUT N THE ONTARIO BUILONG CODE TO BE A DESIGNER, EL'nNQ SIGNS QUALIFICATION INFORMATION REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT U 2.57.5.1. OF THE BUILDING COT PROPOSED ADOITION FOR � LAWRENCE /KIM CROOK DEAN BARD 32505 NAME SIGNATURE 9ClN /BCDN ELEVATIONS REGISTRATION INFORMATION NOV, 2007 REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER 2.17.4.1. OF THE BUtLD4NG CC[ (" Q" BAIRD CONSULTING k DESIGNS LTD. 34742 ' 15 -07 6 FIRM NAME BCIN /BCDN �1 J 4 -PLY 2XB" BEAM THE UNDERSIGNED HAS REVIEWED AND TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS DESIGN, AND HAS THE QUALIFICATIONS AND MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS (4AjRD NS ULMNG & SET OUT IN THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE TO BE A DESIGNER. TO TIE INTO WALL QUALIFICATION INFORMATION REQUIRED UNLESS DE111311 IS OF THE BUILDING CO PROPOSED ADDITION FOR NEW ROOF OVERHANG DEAN BARD _LAWRENCE Rtf -2 7' -4" FLOOR PLAN REGISTRATION INFORMATION REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER 2,17.4.1. OF THE BUILDING CO SAIRD CONSULTING & DESIGNS LTD. 34742 NOV, 2007 3' I—' b It FIRM NAME SCIN/SCDN C717e 4-PLY 2X8' BEAM "EN" ro RE 5-1 INro WALL COVERED PORCH 5/4" WOOD DECKING - - 9'-2* MASTER 9' 0 ENSUITE NEW ILL, 2'-B' 2 B EXISTING HOUSE W"'C� W I Cj RIDGE LINE NEW j 0 0 �2 NEW ARCHWAY NEW ARCHWAY NOW 2-2XIO• HEADER .1 GAS INSERT R P.E TO E 3'-6* 1 1. 3'-1 COVERED PORCH C�LTPM`EEESTIESEFIN. 'o 1 061 47' -4. 1 0 1 RAILING EXISTING EXISTING HOUSE FAMII Y,, ROOM NE" 4-PLY 2XS' ON i-� -- 15X!3' WOOD POST COVERED PORCH 31'-1 01" JL 9� 5/4- WOOD DECKING �K VENEER 4-PLY M TIE US* WMJ­ ItITO . 4 -PLY -2xa, 4-PLY. 2X8 BEAM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SITTING I NO ON -9. po 00 00 5X6' WOOD POST EATING 15 -2j' 00 1 Is' 8- ROOF OVERHANGS AREA 1 0 KITCHEN 5' 10 4'- 6 PAN. 11'-6 1�-ll 2.B- BEAM 4. TO 'E ". WALL COVERED PORCH _PLY 'X. CONIC, SLABn NEW ROBE OVERHANGS EXISTING MAIN FLOOR = 729 SQ.FT. PROPOSED ADDITION MAIN FLOOR = 1344 SQ.FT, PROPOSED TOTAL MAIN FLOOR = 2073 SQ.FT. FLOOR PLAN NOTES: -CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND RED LINE ALL CHANGES -ALL MATERIALS AND METHODS USED WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH C.S.A. AND 0.8.C. REGULATIONS -ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS ARE BY OWNER SIZES AND LOCATIONS MAY CHANGE AT THEIR REQUEST -ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FRAMING -ALL SMOKE AND CARB. DETECTORS ARE TO BE HARDWIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH O.B.C. SPECS. -ALL STAIRS TO BE 36" IN WIDTH UNLESS NOTED -HOUSE STAIRS TO BE 14 RISERS 0 7-25/64" -ALL HEADERS ABOVE DOORS AND WINDOWS WILL BE MIN. OF 2-PLY 2X10" SPRUCE -ALL BATHROOM AND STOVE VENTS TO VENT OUTSIDE -ALL CLOSETS TO BE 25" IN DEPTH -ALL INTERIOR PARTITIONS TO BE 2X4" 0 16" O.C. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED -ALL CABINETS, APPLIANCES, AND BATHROOM FIXTURES ARE BY OWNER C)0 THE UNDERSIGNED HAS REVIEWED AND TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS DESIGN, AND HAS THE QUALIFICATIONS AND MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS (4AjRD NS ULMNG & SET OUT IN THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE TO BE A DESIGNER. E E SIGNS QUALIFICATION INFORMATION REQUIRED UNLESS DE111311 IS OF THE BUILDING CO PROPOSED ADDITION FOR /KIM CROOK DEAN BARD _LAWRENCE Rtf NAME SIGNATURE BCIN/BCDN FLOOR PLAN REGISTRATION INFORMATION REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER 2,17.4.1. OF THE BUILDING CO SAIRD CONSULTING & DESIGNS LTD. 34742 NOV, 2007 J)8" =1'-O" I—' b 15-07 FIRM NAME SCIN/SCDN C)0 IL-J 4'— " EC� i ROOM vwa MUSIC ROOM 7_7" 54' 3• S` K e _�• 3, _J BATH O 10' -• UP ' L �a� DBL RING JOIST TO HANG OFF OF DBL SKIRT ANCHORED TO NEW FOUNDATION USING 8 "X7/2" SLEEVE BOLT 12. O.C. mlcl, rcou� ro e� . Fxwm N cM ttzx. �y"At10N1W0 ° -"" 2X8" SKIRT TO BE ANCHORED TO EXISTING USING 6 "X1/2- SLEEVE BOLTS 16' O.C. r1°im�i� u auT EXISTING CRAWL SPACE wi ro srr ox ��xn rwnxc NEW CHASE FOR - EXISTING HEAT SUPPLY COLD STORAGE FAMILY ROOM °— 25' EEL DECK BONE 5' -2" COLD STORAGE 2X6" DECK JOIST BEDROOM WINDOWS To HANG OFF TO COMPLY WITH - SKIRT & DBL WINDOW WELLS 9.7.1.3. O.B.C. eercn rmmx ..�. g t. o� TO COMPLY WITH 9.7.1.4, O.B.C. PROPOSED ADDITION FOR 38' i LAWRENCE /KIM CROOK DEAN EWRD- 32505 DBL RING JOIST TO NAME SIGNATURE "'""" BCIN /BCDN SIT IN SADDLE BOLTED TO FOUNDATION USING 1/2" X 6" SLEEVE BOLTS BEDROOM NOV, REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER 2.17.4.1. OF THE BUILDING COG 1 B" =1BAIRD #_r� CONSULTING & DESIGNS LTD_ 34742 '�"°" i5 - BED OM ,• �' � W.I,C 4, Q � O SHOO BATH W -5i" py IL-J 4'— " EC� i ROOM vwa MUSIC ROOM 7_7" 54' 3• S` K e _�• 3, _J BATH O 10' -• UP ' L �a� DBL RING JOIST TO HANG OFF OF DBL SKIRT ANCHORED TO NEW FOUNDATION USING 8 "X7/2" SLEEVE BOLT 12. O.C. mlcl, rcou� ro e� . Fxwm N cM ttzx. �y"At10N1W0 ° -"" 2X8" SKIRT TO BE ANCHORED TO EXISTING USING 6 "X1/2- SLEEVE BOLTS 16' O.C. r1°im�i� u auT EXISTING CRAWL SPACE wi ro srr ox ��xn rwnxc NEW CHASE FOR - EXISTING HEAT SUPPLY COLD STORAGE FAMILY ROOM °— 25' EEL DECK BONE 5' -2" COLD STORAGE 2X6" DECK JOIST DESIGN AND HAS THE To HANG OFF SEf OUT IN THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE TO BE A DESIGNER, SKIRT & DBL - USING JOIST HANGERS eercn rmmx ..�. g t. o� 15"-6" PROPOSED ADDITION FOR i 2X8" P7,0' T LAWRENCE /KIM CROOK DEAN EWRD- 32505 DBL RING JOIST TO NAME SIGNATURE "'""" BCIN /BCDN SIT IN SADDLE BOLTED TO FOUNDATION USING 1/2" X 6" SLEEVE BOLTS REGISTRATION INFORMATION T �Q 2- PLY2X8" RING JOIST TO BE SLEEVE BOLTED TO FOUNDATION USING 8" X 1/2" 0 12" O.C. FLOOR PLAN NOTES: - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND RED LINE ALL CHANGES -ALL MATERIALS AND METHODS USED WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH C.S.A. AND O.B.C. REGULATIONS -ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS ARE BY OWNER SIZES AND LOCATIONS MAY CHANGE AT THEIR REQUEST -ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FRAMING -ALL SMOKE AND CARIB. DETECTORS ARE TO BE HARDWIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH Q.B.C. SPECS. -ALL STAIRS TO BE 36' IN WIDTH UNLESS NOTED -HOUSE STAIRS TO BE 14 RISERS 0 7- 25/64' FINISH FLOOR TO BE 4" POURED CONC. 25 Mpa an 6" of 3/4" STONE -ALL HEADERS ABOVE DOORS AND WINDOWS WILL BE M(N. OF 2 -PLY 2X10" SPRUCE -ALL BATHROOM AND STOVE VENTS TO VENT OUTSIDE -ALL CLOSETS TO BE 25" IN DEPTH -ALL INTERIOR PARTITIONS TO BE 2X4" 0 16" Q.C. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED -ALL CABINETS, APPLIANCES, AND BATHROOM FIXTURES ARE BY OWNER - EXTERIOR WALLS IN BASEMENT TO BE 1/2" DRYWALL 6 -MIL POLY, R -12 BATT INSULATION, 2X4" STUDS 16" O.C., TYVEK HOUSE WRAP RD DESIGN AND HAS THE X, Z22>T'CT SEf OUT IN THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE TO BE A DESIGNER, 75 O.C. N 15"-6" PROPOSED ADDITION FOR i 2X8" P7,0' T LAWRENCE /KIM CROOK DEAN EWRD- 32505 n£ NAME SIGNATURE "'""" BCIN /BCDN 2- PLY2X8" RING JOIST TO BE SLEEVE BOLTED TO FOUNDATION USING 8" X 1/2" 0 12" O.C. FLOOR PLAN NOTES: - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND RED LINE ALL CHANGES -ALL MATERIALS AND METHODS USED WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH C.S.A. AND O.B.C. REGULATIONS -ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS ARE BY OWNER SIZES AND LOCATIONS MAY CHANGE AT THEIR REQUEST -ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FRAMING -ALL SMOKE AND CARIB. DETECTORS ARE TO BE HARDWIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH Q.B.C. SPECS. -ALL STAIRS TO BE 36' IN WIDTH UNLESS NOTED -HOUSE STAIRS TO BE 14 RISERS 0 7- 25/64' FINISH FLOOR TO BE 4" POURED CONC. 25 Mpa an 6" of 3/4" STONE -ALL HEADERS ABOVE DOORS AND WINDOWS WILL BE M(N. OF 2 -PLY 2X10" SPRUCE -ALL BATHROOM AND STOVE VENTS TO VENT OUTSIDE -ALL CLOSETS TO BE 25" IN DEPTH -ALL INTERIOR PARTITIONS TO BE 2X4" 0 16" Q.C. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED -ALL CABINETS, APPLIANCES, AND BATHROOM FIXTURES ARE BY OWNER - EXTERIOR WALLS IN BASEMENT TO BE 1/2" DRYWALL 6 -MIL POLY, R -12 BATT INSULATION, 2X4" STUDS 16" O.C., TYVEK HOUSE WRAP RD DESIGN AND HAS THE NSU 4'' ETING & & SEf OUT IN THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE TO BE A DESIGNER, ESIONS QUALIFICATION INFORMATION REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER 2.17.5,1, OF THE BUILDING COE PROPOSED ADDITION FOR ` LAWRENCE /KIM CROOK DEAN EWRD- 32505 n£ NAME SIGNATURE "'""" BCIN /BCDN BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN REGISTRATION INFORMATION NOV, REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER 2.17.4.1. OF THE BUILDING COG 1 B" =1BAIRD #_r� CONSULTING & DESIGNS LTD_ 34742 '�"°" i5 - FIRM NAME BCIN / BCDN - 4K Ui 0 Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment June 19, 2008 2008-B-03 (Revised) - Anthony and Dianne Keene Concession 8, West Half Part of Lot 24 (Former Twp. of Oro) The purpose of application 2008-13-03 (Revised) is to permit the creation of a new residential lot by way of severance. The land to be severed is proposed to have 55 metres of frontage along Ridge Road East, have a depth of 60 metres and a lot area of 0.33 hectares. The land to be retained is proposed to have a lot area of approximately 4.9 hectares and frontage of 205 metres along Ridge Road East. Official Plan Designation — Rural Settlement Area, Rural Area and Environmental Protection Two Zoning By-law 97-95 — Residential One (Rl) Zone Previous Applications — 2008-13-03 original application 3. AGENCY COMMENTS Simcoe County — No objection Public Works — No comments received Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards Engineering & Environmental Services — No comments received LSRCA — No objections to the Consent application, subject to conditions (attached) 4. BACKGROUND The subject property is located in the former Township of Oro, east of Line 7 South and on the south side of Ridge Road East. The lands are designated Rural Settlement Area by the Official Plan, and zoned Residential One (111) Zone. The land that is proposed to be severed is currently vacant, and has largely wooded with medium to large mixed trees and foliage. The existing lot currently contains approximately 260 metres of frontage on Ridge Road East, a lot depth of approximately 210 metres, and a lot area of 5.23 hectares. Does the consent conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The subject property is designated Rural Settlement Area by the Official Plan. Permitted land uses within the "Rural Settlement Area" designation include low density residential, small scale commercial. For the purpose of this application, it is noted that the creation of new lots by way of severance is permitted within the "Rural Settlement Area" designation, where the tests of severance listed in Section D2.2.1 of the Official Plan are met. The proposed severed and retained lots would front on a municipal road and would comply with relevant Zoning provisions of the Residential One (Rl) Zone (discussed below). There is no consistent lot size or lot pattern in the surrounding area. It is noted that a portion of the applicant's retained land which are located outside of the "Rural Settlement Area" and designated "Rural" and subject to "Environmental Protection Two" designation. The Environmental Protection Two policies are addressed in the comments from the LSRCA comments and do not affect the lands contained in the proposed lot to be created. As the proposed severed and retained lands would be 0.33hectres and 4.9 hectares respectively, the application to create a new residential lot by way of severance would be in fit the general character of the area, and in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan. Does the consent conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Residential One (R1) Zone. The proposed lot will consist of 0.33 hectares, and will have 55 metres of frontage on Ridge Road East; the required frontage for a lot in the R1 Zone is 30 metres, and the required minimum lot area is 0.2 hectares. The proposed retained lands would consist of approximately 4.9 hectares, and maintain 205 metres of frontage on Ridge Road East. Therefore, the proposed lot would meet with all requirements of lot area and frontage for the R1 Zone. With respect to severance policies contained in the Official Plan, Section D2.2.1 d) indicates that that the severed and retained lots "[have] adequate size and frontage for the proposed use in accordance with the Zoning By-law..." On the basis of the above, the application would appear to generally comply with the Zoning By-law. 5. LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY The Committee originally considered this application on February 21, 2008 and resolved that the application be deferred until such time that the applicant address comments in the letter dated February 15, 2008 form the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. Since that time, the applicant has amended the application is now proposing a lot with 55m of frontage and a lot depth of 60 metres. The applicant has now gain favourable comments from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. In their letter dated May 29, 2008, the LSRCA has no objection to the above noted Consent application (2008-B-03 revised), subject to conditions. One of the conditions is that the severed property is to fall under Site Plan Control at the development stage. LSRCA is also requesting that an EIS is required at the Site Plan Control stage. LSRCA have further commented that the proponent has reconfigured the lot such that the depth of encroachment into the Environmental Protection Two lands is reduced. They have commented, at this stage, an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is not required for the creation of a new. The May 29, 2008 letter from LSRCA is attached for the Committee's review. RU_99_•� It is recommended that the Committee grant provisional consent to Application 2008-B-03 for the creation of a new residential lot, having an area of 0.3 hectares and frontage on Ridge Road East of 38 metres subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. The applicant enters in to a Site Plan Control agreement to address the requested conditions of the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority. 4. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. 5. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution; 6. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee in the amount of $4,749.95 (By-law 2004- 082) to the Township; Reviewed by, Glenn White MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Sc�> � sc)�q I t„ i 432.n, Lui i t 1 J'e`t may,.{ € 270 91 i i 84 8 ri 14 10 9 0 IC3 20 38 12 11 84 14 13 n- ss PRCIPC�SEQ LOT METRES 16 T5-1 4 ao _ __�- - -�� � -�- FRONTAGE 0.32 HECTARES I E 18 17 r E 649 24 4 19 -`'1 63 y 177 � �- w� -'� 31 � 75 � 143 167 _ - -- -- 7 - ---- -" '� � 45 39 21 13 E _fi�rr 15 63 K-9 4 J 7 707 702 688 710 - -— E 15 735 726 i'23 716 € 740 753 - E '~~ 763 71 i 787 848 0 5c 100 200 300 400 Meter 1 �z 30 ��. 94 �p t4 ,& � ,+ m ,± 132 138 ^ m PROPOSED LOT ` y ~ 55 METRES FRONTAGE y 60 METRES DEPTH AR EA $SBHE CTAR ES 177 75 $ ,g lR S � 35 O 20 40 80 120 ]60 Meters I + -L-144v " 0kjlL_LJ11VV Lv%.01w luv UN - s�) 6 PART OF W 1/2 LOT 24,. CONCESS ION 8 TOWNSHIP OF ORO .COUNTY OF SIMCOE. SCALE - 1;2000 PAUL R. KITCHEN,O.L.S., C.L.S. 1%n� 1983 ZJ z R0 AD 140 .7� (` m 4 t � Qi z Me CONC. OWELLiNG �a C011 KTY N60°Qd N 50°41' E 20.050 1 .8 vfJ :71 4 ► "74 AREA= 5.477ho. Fr d' "I e ,2 d5-,, t d f j J f(s- ,� .� S 14 O ypn ✓�Ci 4, ( /7�C RO AD N° 20 (1035) 28.9 63 .10 E 60* 09 MI. E r'1 �3a J � til f N V JZQ GO,q wG ZN O J V O G \ Ir aiuj U.W a w z W ui r- w m z0 R�pGE 1 5.4 tT I *� m j) Q ) m ZJ z R0 AD 140 .7� (` m 4 t � Qi z Me CONC. OWELLiNG �a C011 KTY N60°Qd N 50°41' E 20.050 1 .8 vfJ :71 4 ► "74 AREA= 5.477ho. Fr d' "I e ,2 d5-,, t d f j J f(s- ,� .� S 14 O ypn ✓�Ci 4, ( /7�C RO AD N° 20 (1035) 28.9 63 .10 E 60* 09 MI. E r'1 �3a J � til f N V JZQ GO,q wG ZN O J V O G \ Ir aiuj U.W a w z W ui r- w m z0 05/30/2008 FRI -8: 40 FAX Sent by Facsimile 1 -705- 487 -0133 i M May 29, 2008 Mr. Adam Kozlowski ' Secretary- Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte Tel: 905 - 895 -1281 P.O. BOX 100 1- 800 -465 -0437 Fax: 905 -853 -5881 Oro, ON LOL 2X0 E -Mail: info(d,1krca.on.ca Web: www.1irca.orl.ca Dear Mr. Kozlowski: 120 Bayview Parkway Box 282 Newmarket, Ontario Re: Revised Consent Application - Creation Of A New Lot UY 4x1 Anthony & Dianne Keene, Owner Part of Lot 24, Concession 8 (Former Township of Ora) 143 Ridge Road East Township of Oro- Medonte (Oro), County of Simcoe 0001 /002 File No.: 2008 -B -03 IMS No.: PLDC778C4 The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has reviewed the above noted revised Consent application in the context of the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (PPS - 2005), and Ontario Regulation 179/06 made under the Conservation Authorities Act. The owner is seeking consent to sever a 0.33 ha parcel of land (Parcel "A ") from an existing parcel ( Parcel `B "). The proposed severance is for the creation of a new lot. Based on our review of the revised proposed consent, and a site visit conducted on April 15, 2008, we provide the following comments: Based on our mapping, the proposed severed lot is located outside of the regulated portion of this property. Based on the site visit of April 15, 2008, a portion of the woodland towards the rear part of the property appears to be wetland, or at least moist upland, and consists of American Elm, Red Maple, Black Ash, Red Osier Dogwood, and Spruce. The front portion of the property appears to consist of Poplar, Sumac, and Maple. A 2. The proponent has reconfigured the lot such that the depth of encroachment into the EP2 lands is reduced. An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is not required for the creation Watershed of the new lot. 3. Based on our mapping, there are steep slopes (greater than 3:1) on the proposed severed fDY Llfe lot. A geotechnical report should be prepared to the satisfaction of the Township of Oro - Medonte prior to the issuance of a municipal building permit to ensure that any proposed development will not impact the stability of the slope. Based on the above noted information, the LSRCA has no objection to the above noted Consent application, subject to the following conditions: That the property line of the proposed severed lot is marked by either a cedar rail fence or by a planted vegetative buffer (native, non - invasive vegetation). Pagel of 2 -- - - -- - - - -- -.... 05/30/2008 FRI 8:40 FAX 0002/002 f , May 29, 2008 File No.: 2008 -13-03 IMS No.: PLDC778C4 Mr. Adam Kozlowski Township of Oro - Medonte Page 2 of 2 That the proposed severed property is to fall under Site Plan Control at the development stage. That the site plan control agreement will include the following: • A detailed site plan which shows the location of the proposed development footprint, access routes and any accessory buildings. Their proximity to the natural heritage feature is to be illustrated and shown to scale; • A plant list and tree inventory are required; highlighting rarities, quantifying and listing tree species to be removed. Existing conditions are to be identified by a qualified biologist, documenting swales, potential amphibian breeding habitat, nests, and incidental mammal sightings; • A geotechnical letter to ensure the proposed development will not affect the slope. 4. An EIS is required at the Site Plan Control stage. The EIS report is to document the following: • Existing conditions of the site; • Identify natural heritage features and boundaries; • Identify development constraints; and • To site the development footprint in the least ecologically impacting location. I trust this meets your requirements at this time. In order to facilitate our processing of this file, please reference the above noted file numbers in future correspondence. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 905- 895 -1281, extension 287. Please advise us of your decision in this matter. Yours truly, � , t4t— Ian Walker Environmental Planner IV/ph C. Anthony & Dianne Keene - P.O. Box 11,143 Ridge Rd. E., Oro, ON LOL 2X0 - By Mail Fia+vkestono sbaredllanW CrnYCSpondenccU'Ianoi ++glConsc n (Land UiNrision )10ro- Me(lonte\200812008 -13 -03 (Coment - Keene) 143 Ridge Road [last - 2,M)d TOTAL P.002