08 21 2008 C of A AgendaTOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGEND
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
DATE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008 TIME: 9:30 A.M.
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 July 17, 2008.
a) Application: 2007-A-18
Applicant: Mary T. Spasov
Location: 245 Shoreline Drive, Plan 864, Lot 4 (Formerly Township of Oro)
Proposal: Setback for deck being within high water mark setback
b) Application: 2008-B-35
Applicant: Indian Park Association
Location: 123 Huronwoods Drive, Plan M30, Lot 32 (Formerly Township of Oro)
Proposal: Lot addition
c) Application: 2008-B-36
Applicant: Michael Winacott and Sherri Belair
Location: 374 Woodland Drive, Con. 2 East, Part Lot 15 (Formerly Township of Orillia)
Proposal: Increase existing property size
d) Application: 2008-B-37
Applicant: Michael Winacott
Location: 400 Woodland Drive, Con
Proposal: Boundary adjustment
2 East, Part Lot 15 (Formerly Township of Orillia)
e) Application: 2008-A-13
Applicant: Norman and Debra Pirtovshek
Location: 89 Lakeshore Road West, Plan 755, Lots 27 and 28, (Formerly
Township of Oro)
Proposal: Construct an attached garage, deck and laundry room
1•.•-
Committee of Adjustment Aqenda - Thursday. August 21 2nnR
imm"i,
f) Application:
2008-A-24
Applicant:
John Esteireiro
Location:
2713 Lakeshore Road East, Con. 14, Part Lots 20 and 21, (Formerly
Township of Oro)
Proposal:
Construct a one and half storey single family
g) Application:
2008-A-31
Applicant:
James and Darlene Connick
Location:
9 Richelieu Road, Plan M92, Lot 4 (Formerly Township of Medonte)
Proposal:
Reduce interior side yard
h) Application: 2008-A-32
Applicant: John Bell
Location: 143 Bay Street, Plan 636, West Part Block B (Formerly Township of Oro)
Proposal: Reduce interior and front yard setback, and increase maximum height
i) Application: 2008-A-33
Applicant: Gaylene Hallyburton
Location: 195 Scarlett Line, Con. 2, Lot 57, (Formerly Township of Medonte)
Proposal: Construct a detached accessory structure
j) Application: 2008-A-34
Applicant: Joseph and Nelly Lane
Location: 85 Moon Point Drive, Plan 920, Lot 25 (Formerly Township of Orillia)
Proposal: Front yard setback
k) Application: 2008-A-35
Applicant: Warren and Barbara Ryckman
Location: 298 Line 11 South, Con. 11, Lot 5 (Formerly Township of Oro)
Proposal: Increase floor area in a required yard
6. STAFF REPORTS
None
7. NEW BUSINESS
2=2
Committee of Adjustment Agenda - Thursday. August 21 2nnR
t-4
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES
COUNCIL CHAMBERS I
DATE: THURSDAY, JULY 17, 2008 TIME: 9:33 A.M.
Present: Michelle Lynch, Chair
Garry Potter
Lynda Aiken
Rick Webster
Bruce Chappell
Staff present: Steve Farquharson, Secretary Treasurer
Marie Brissette, Deputy Secretary Treasurer
1. OPENING OF MEETING BY THE CHAIR
Michelle Lynch assumed the Chair and called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m.
CA080717-01
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Chappell
It is recommended that the agenda for the Committee of Adjustment meeting of Thursday,
July 17th, 2008 be received.
Carried.
3. "DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE
THEREOF — IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT"
None,
4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
a) Minutes of Committee of Adjustment Meeting of June 19, 2008.
CA080717-02
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Webster
It is recommended by the Committee of Adjustment that the minutes of the Committee of
Adjustment meeting of Thursday, June 19th, 2008 be received and adopted as amended to
delete "Agenda" after Committee of Adjustment Meeting in the Header.
Carried.
Committee of Adjustment - July 17, 2008
Page 1
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS
a) Application: 2007-A-10
Applicant: Richard Wainman
Location: Penetanguishene Road, Con. 1, Lot 18, (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Extension of timeline
CA080717-03
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Chappell
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves the request from Richard
Waiman, Application 2007-A-10, for an extension on condition #4 of motion CA070517-1,
being "That all work be completed according to Ontario Building Code Requirements on or
before May 17, 2008." until October 1st, 2008.
Carried.
Committee of Adjustment — July 17, 2008
Page 2
b) Application: 2008-B-17to2008-B-18
Applicant: Anne Jassoy
Location: Lot 26, Con. 7, 26 Lakeshore Road West, (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Sever 2 lots
Patrick and Anne Jassoy, Applicants, were present.
CA080717-04
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Potter
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grant provisional approval to Consent
Application 2008-B-17, to create a new residential lot having a frontage on Lakeshore Road
West of 33 metres, and a lot area of 0,20 hectares. Also Committee grant provisional approval
to Consent Application 2008-B-18, to create a new residential lot having a frontage on
Lakeshore Road West of 36 metres, and a lot area of 0.2 hectares; subject to the following
conditions for each application:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land
Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the
parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for each lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland
contribution;
4. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte;
5. That the applicant verify the sewage system meets the minimum required setbacks as per
Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.
Carried.
Committee of Adjustment — July 17, 2008
Page 3
Applications c) d) and e) (Oldfield) were heard jointly.
c) Application: 2008-B-20
Applicant: Glen Oldfield
Location: North Part of Lots 2, Concession 1, 8882 Highway 12, (Orillia), Township of
Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Technical severance
d) Application: 2008-B-21
Applicant: Glen Oldfield
Location: North Part of Lots 2, Concession 1, 8882 Highway 12, (Orillia), Township of
Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Boundary adjustment
e) Application: 2008-A-17
Applicant: Glen Oldfield
Location: North Part of Lots 2, Concession 1, 8882 Highway 12, (Orillia), Township of
Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Variance - frontage
Glen Oldfield, Applicant, and Barry Payten, Planner, were present.
Michael Sim expressed concern over noise, snow removal and emergency access.
John Bard requested a copy of the survey from the Applicant.
CA080717-05
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Potter
It is recommended by the Committee of Adjustment that Application 2008 -A -17 be denied.
Carried.
CA080717-06
Moved by Webster, Seconded by Chappell
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment deny 2008-B-20 and 2008-B-21 due to
Application 2008-A-17 being denied.
Carried.
Committee of Adjustment — July 17, 2008
Page 4
Ck
f) Application: 2008-B-24 to 2008-13-30
Applicant: Paul and Cynthia Crooks
Location: Lot 15, Concession 11, (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Sever 7 lots
Paul Crooks, Applicant, and Barry Payten, Planner were present.
Robert Ward noted his concerns regarding the additional septics, wells, drainage systems,
culverts and driveways that would be required if the proposed lots are developed.
Greg May stated that the area was a combination of swamp and bush and outlined a creek in
the area.
Linda Roe noted the Official Plan has designated the area as a settlement area and added that
the local school could handle the potential increase of new students.
Dayle CoDyre commented on the additional traffic this type of development would create.
CA080717-07
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that the Committee grant provisional consent for Applications 2008-B-24,
2008-B-25, 2008-B-26, 2008-B-27, 2008-B-28, 2008-B-29 and 2008-13-30 subject to the
following conditions:
1. 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;
2. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for each lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland
contribution;
3. That the applicant apply for and obtain a re-zoning with a Hold Provision, of the severed
land to accurately reflect the proposed residential land use and that the Hold Provision
be included in order that future construction on the lands will require a Site Plan
Agreement;
4. That the applicant submit a hydrogeological assessment of the proposed lots to the
satisfaction of the Municipality;
5. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for
the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Meclonte; 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 — July 17, 2008
Page 5
g) Application: 2008-B-31 to 2008-B-32
Applicant: Paul and Cynthia Crooks
Location: East Part Lot 15, Concession 11, 1472 15/16 Sideroad, (Oro), Township of
Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Sever 1 lot and boundary adjustment
Paul Crooks, Applicant, and Barry Payten, Planner were present.
Greg May questioned whether the approval of this application would set a precedent.
Tim Crooks noted his support of the application.
CA080717-08
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B-31 and
2008-B-32 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 1472 15/16 Sideroad and that the
provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any
subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands;
4. That the maximum total area for the enhanced lot be no greater than 0.2 ha;
5. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands
to be enhanced will merge in title;
6. That the applicant apply and obtain a rezoning on the lands conveyed to 1472 15/16
Sideroad to accurately reflect the residential land use;
7. That the Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as
per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code
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 — July 17, 2008
Page 6
hr,
s
h) Application: 2008-B-22
Applicant: Ian Johnstone
Location: Lot 22, Concession 10, 274 Line 9 South, (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Boundary adjustment
_0:0 0•
Moved by Webster, Seconded by Chappell
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) until the applicant provide a
topographic survey showing flood elevation (FE= 258.74 masl), watercourse and 30 metre
buffer required for watercourse, as per the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority's
request.
Carried.
Committee of Adjustment — July 17, 2008
Page 7
i) Application: 2008-A-16
Applicant: Raymond Dumont
Location: Lot 10, Concession 1, 2109 Gore Road, (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Variance - max floor area and setback to EP Zone
Raymond Dumont, Applicant, was present.
CA080717-10
Moved • Aiken, Seconded by Chappell
It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2008 -A -16 (revised),
being for a reduction of the exterior side yard setback from the required 7.5 metres to 4.4
metres, and the required 30 metre setback to EP be reduced to 0 metres, and for the
construction of an attached garage, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed attached garage be in conformity with the
sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
2. The an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification of Committee's decision by certifying
in writing that the proposed attached garage be no closer than 7.5 metres from the front
lot line on Gore Road; and that the proposed attached garage be no closer than 4.4
metres from the exterior side lot line on Line 1 South;
3. That the applicant obtain any required permit(s) and/or approval(s) from the
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority for the construction of the attached garage;
4. That the applicant remove the existing wood sided shed to thereby increasing the
environmental buffer adjacent to the Willow Creek tributary;
5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
Carried.
Committee of Adjustment - July 17, 2008
Page 8
j) Application: 2008-B-33
Applicant: Dennis and Susan Tascona
Location: 1 Trafalgar Drive, Lot 1 Concession 1, RP 51R 29810, (Oro), Township of
Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Permit boundary adjustment
Dennis Tascona, Applicant, was present.
CA080717-11
Moved by Chaguell, Seconded b)� Webste-i
It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B-33 to
convey a strip of land having a frontage of 15.2 metres (50 feet) on Trafalgar Drive a depth of
84 metres (275 feet) and an area of 0.12 hectares (0.29 acres) to the land adjacent to the
west, 3 Trafalgar Drive and 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 severed lands be merged in title with 3 Trafalgar Drive and that the provisions
of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent
conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands;
3. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for
the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
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 maximum total area for the enhanced lot be no greater than 0.39 ha;
6. That the Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as
per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code;
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 - July 17, 2008
Page 9
k) Application: A-23-2008
Applicant: Lawrence Houben
Location: 1642 Line 10 North, Lot 7, Concession 10, (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Relief from front yard setback
Lawrence Houben, Applicant, was present.
CA080717-12
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Webster
It is recommended that Committee approves Variance Application 2008-A-23, being to
recognize an existing dwelling, having a minimum front yard setback of 13.1 metres. Carried.
Committee of Adjustment — July 17, 2008
Page 10
Application: A-30-2008
Applicant: Jeffery Scott Orr
Location: 48 Shoreline Drive. Plan 640A, Lot 28, (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Construct an attached garage
Jeffery Orr, Applicant, was present.
CA080717-13
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Chappell
It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance 2008-A-30, being to grant a
reduction for the east interior side yard setback from 3 metres to 2.1 metres, for the
construction of an attached two car garage to the existing dwelling, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of
the foundation by way of survey/real property report so that:
a) the attached garage be located no closer than 2.1 metres from the east interior lot line
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and
sketches submitted and approved by the Committee;
3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official
only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the
Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
Committee of Adjustment — July 17, 2008
Page 11
m) Application: A-27-2008
Applicant: Ron McCowan
Location: 2243 Ridge Road West, Lot 2, Range 2, RP 51 R-4441 Part 3, (Oro),
Township of Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Construct a two-storey boathouse with a deck
Andria Leigh, Planner, was present.
Mary Jane Sarjeant, Ted Boeleu, Stan Glazer and Tim Crooks expressed concerns over the
impact the size of the boathouse would create esthetically and environmentally.
Correspondence was received from Fred Beck and Susan Woods, Catherine Nixon, Mary Jane
Sarjeant and Susan Benjafield, Stanley and Brenda Glazer, Victoria and Paul Hand, Peter
Lamprey, Suzanne Robillard, Dr. Ron Golden on behalf of the West Oro Ratepayers
Association, and Eggert Boelau,
CA080717-14
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Webster
It is recommended that the Committee defers Application 2008-A-27 — Ron McCowan, 2243
Ridge Road West, Lot 2, Range 2, RP 51 R-4441 (Former Twp. of Oro) as per the request of
the Applicant and for the Application to come back to the August 21st, 2008, meeting.
Carried.
Committee of Adjustment — July 17, 2008
Page 12
n) Application: A-26-2008
Applicant: Jaxx Trust
Location: 37 Brambel Road, Township of Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Maintain existing use of bunkie
The Applicant withdrew the application prior to the meeting.
Committee of Adjustment — July 17, 2008
Page 13
JI
o) Application: A-24-2008
Applicant: John Esteireiro
Location: 2713 Lakeshore Road East, Reg'd Plan 51 R- 16475, Part Lot 20 and 21,
Con 14, (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Construct a one and half storey single family
Nicholas Popovich, Planner, was present.
Doug and Diane Duff expressed concern over the septic and proposed size of the dwelling.
They also noted a creek in the near vicinity which could be affected during construction.
CA080717-15
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Webster
That application 2008-A-24 be deferred in order to obtain comments directly from the MNR and
Oceans and Fisheries.
Carried.
Committee of Adjustment — July 17, 2008
Page 14
J
P) Application: A-28-2008
Applicant: Michael and Liz Shaughnessy
Location: 51 Ward Avenue. Plan 979, Lot 44, (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte
Proposal: Construct an attached garage
Michael Shaughnessy, Applicant, was present.
CA080717-16
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Chappell
It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance 2008-A-28, being to grant a
reduction for the south east interior side yard setback from 3 metres to 0.5 metres, for the
construction of an attached garage to the existing dwelling, subject to the following conditions:
1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of
the foundation by way of survey/real property report so that the attached garage be located
no closer than 0.5 metres from the south east interior lot line;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and
sketches submitted and approved by the Committee;
3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official
only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the
Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
4. That the applicant obtain any required permit(s) and or approval(s) from the Nottawasaga
Valley Conservation authority for the construction of the attached garage.
Carried.
Committee of Adjustment — July 17, 2008
Page 15
q) Application: A-22-2008
Applicant: Donald and Susan Nick
Location: 12 Conder Road, Lot 28, Concession 13,
Medonte
Proposal: Construct a detached accessory building
CA080717-17
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Webster
RP 51 R-624, Township of Oro-
It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2008-A-22 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the floor area of the detached garage not exceed 83M2;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and
on the sketch submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the floor area not exceed 83M2;
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 — July 17, 2008
Page 16
r) Application
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Lynn Burgess & Dean Blain
73 Eight Mile Point Road, Lot 36, Plan 780, (Orillia), Township of Oro-
Medonte
Addition to front and rear of existing single detached dwelling
Lynn Burgess and Dean Blain, Applicants, were present.
CA080717-18
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Chappell
It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2008-A-29 subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposed addition to the rear of the existing dwelling shall be setback no closer
than 14.6 metres from the average high water mark of Lake Simcce;
2. The proposed addition on the front of the existing dwelling shall be setback no closer
than 1.2 metres to the south interior side property line;
3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as
submitted;
4. That the applicant obtain (if required) any required permit(s) and/or approval(s) from the
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority;
5. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to
pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report.
6. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building
Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding.
Carried.
Committee of Adjustment — July 17, 2008
Page 17
—ACA
a) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, re: In Township Office schedule,
Verbal information received.
CA080717-19
Moved by Aiken
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 3:49 p.m. until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, August 21 St,
2008 or at the call of the Chair.
Committee of Adjustment — July 17, 2008
Page 18
Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment
August 21, 2008
2007-A-18 — Mary Spasov
245 Shoreline Drive, Lot 44, Plan 979 (Former Township of Oro)
iffiall
The applicant is proposing to construct a deck at the rear of an existing single detached dwelling. The
applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.31 of the Zoning By-law "Setback from average high water
mark of Lake Simcoe":
Setback to Lake Simcoe Required Proposed
20 metres 0 metres
2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 — Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Previous Applications — 2005-A-54
3. DEPARTMENT/AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department — No comments received
Building Department — No septic location identified
Engineering Department — No comments received
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority- No Concerns (see attached)
4. BACKGROUND
The subject property has approximately 27 metres of frontage along Shoreline Drive, a shoreline
frontage of approximately 29.5 metres, and a lot area of approximately 0. 17 hectares. The property
contains a single detached dwelling.
The applicant has previously appeared before the Committee of Adjustment on August 16, 2007, but
the Committee deferred the application until comments from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority could be attained. Since that time the applicant has obtained comments (see attached).
The applicant also applied to the Committee of Adjustment (Application 2005-A-54) to replace the
roofline of the dwelling and the addition of a second storey. As the existing dwelling was located
within the 20 metre setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe, the variance was
required due to the applicant enlarging a non-conforming structure. Committee should note that the
original application for variance did not include the construction of a deck at the rear of the dwelling.
Such construction would have required an additional variance to reduce the setback to the average
high water mark of Lake Simcoe, pending favourable comments from the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority.
The applicant is now seeking a variance to recognize the 47.5 square metre (511.3 square foot)
deck constructed without permit at the rear of the dwelling, and to permit the expansion of this deck
by a further 32 square metres (21.5 square feet). The deck expansion is proposed to overhang the
lake surface, with footings proposed in the water itself. It has been determined that both the existing
deck and proposed expansion are within the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority regulated
area, and as such the application has been circulated for comment to this agency.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? CIL
The property is designated Shoreline by the Official Plan. Section C5.2 of the Plan states "Permitted
uses on lands designated Shoreline are single detached dwellings [and accessory uses, such as
boathouses], existing marinas, small scale commercial uses, etc". The proposed 47.5 square metre
(511 square feet) deck attached to an existing dwelling unit with boathouse would therefore
constitute an expansion to a permitted use within the Shoreline Designation. Section 5.6 Setbacks
from Lake Simcoe of the Official Plan states that "the retention of tree cover on the shoreline is
important to the maintenance of the integrity of the shoreline. The implementing Zoning By-law shall
include a setback from the high water mark for all new development including addition, renovations
and new construction along the Lake Simcoe shoreline." As discussed further below, the Zoning By-
law does contain setback requirements for development, such as the proposed deck addition to
ensure the protection of the shoreline area in accordance with the Official Plan policies, On the
basis that a deck is considered accessory to the residential use permitted by the Official
plan, the proposal is considered to generally conform to the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). The primary purpose of the setback
requirement from Lake Simcoe is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area in general, and
the immediate shoreline of the subject property in accordance with the policies contained in the
Township's Official Plan referenced above (Section 5.6). The application was previously deferred by
the Committee to obtain comments for the LSRCA. The concerns have been addressed by the CA
and they have advised that they have no objection to the proposed application. In reviewing the
policies of the Official Plan and the intent of the required 20 metre setback from Lake Simcoe, the
intent is to protect the shoreline area and to ensure the stability of the shoreline and the preservation
of the vegetation. It is evident from the site visit, that the portion of the deck located immediately in
front of the dwelling has the ability to generally maintain this intent ad there is additional grassed
area beyond the deck to the high water mark. The proposed addition to the deck locate din front of
the boathouse area as identified on the Steenhof deck plan Drawing S-1 dated July 11, 2008 would
not however maintain this intent and would not be considered to comply with the general intent of
the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on a site inspection, the portion of the deck already constructed without the required building
permit and providing access for the existing doors would be considered to be desirable for the
development of the lot; the proposed deck expansion, which has not been constructed to date,
would not be considered desirable for further development of the lot.
Is the Variance Minor?
On the basis of the above the proposed deck is a common feature in residential neighborhoods and
more specifically for waterfront properties; on this basis Staff could support permission being given
for the portion of the deck already constructed and identified as existing deck on the Steenhof Deck
plan Drawing S-1 but cannot support the propose deck further identified on the same referenced
drawing.
|tiG recommended that the Committee approved iD part Minor Variance 2OO7-A-18. being k}grant a
reduction for the setback to the Average high water mark from the required 20 metres to D metres
for the deck to a maximum width of 10 metres (33 feet) subject to the following conditions:
1. That the maximum width of the deck shall not exceed 10metres;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the
sketch submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior topouhngofthe
foundation bv way of survey/real property report eothat:
m. the proposed deck be located no closer than U metres from the average high water mark
of Lake Sim000e.
4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only
after the Committee's decision beoonnoa final and bindinU, as provided for within the Planning Act
Reviewed by,
/\ndh8 Leigh, MC|P.RPP
Director of Development Services
Is
6'x6" P.T. R
2-2'X10' PT
10 "0 CONCF
EXISTING
TO BE REI
4,—PROVIDE
@ 24- OC
—EXISTIN(
RI
L / TO BE
LANDING
DISCLAIMER:
1. DECK FOUNDATION IS DESIGNED TO RESIST ICE PILING BY
TRANSFERING HORIZONTAL FORCES INTO NEW AND EXISTING
CONCRETE SLABS,
2 DUE TO USE OF EXISTING DECK FOUNDATIONS AND
FOOTINGS WHICH DO NOT HAVE MINIMUM FROST PROTECTION
AND CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE WATER TABLE, SEASONAL
MOVEMENT OF THE DECK MAY OCCUR.
3. ALL RANGER FASTENING TO BE COMPLETED WITH APPROVED
RANGER MANUFACTURER FASTENERS,
4, MINIMUM ALLOWABLE CAPACITY OF 4500 PSF IS REQUIRED
TO SUPPORT 12'0 CONCRETE PIERS.
PROPOSED 6' CONCRETE SLAB (30MPa) W1 5-7% AIR
E-71 ENTRAINMENT & 6x6-616 W W-M (SLAB MAY BE SLOPED
TO CONTOUR OF ORIGINAL GROUND)
EXISTING 6' CONCRETE SLAB (30MPa)
2-2"x8' P.T. BIU LEDGER BOARD
DESIGN LOADS & CLIMATIC DATA
LOCATION: ORO-MEDONTE
GROUND SNOW LOAD (Ss)
2.40
RAIN LOAD (Sr)
0,40
BASIC SNOW LOAD ROOF FACTOR(Cb)
0,55
SPECIFIED DESIGN SNOW LOAD(S)
1,72
WIND PRESSURE (q Y.)
035
JIL DiTEENHOF
44217503
OF
PROVIDE SIMPSON LUS28
JOIST HANGERS Wl
MANUFACTURER SPECIFIED
STING POST. REPLACE Wl
L2
x
x . x
c
ST BETWEEN EXISTING
PROVIDE Y-0 LAG BOLTS
x PTo
EXISTING RIMBOARD @ I C/C
04
co
,x, x
x x � x x
x
0
BEAMS & PROVIDE
STAGGERED
0 o
z
>
.20 aj
3
?
=TE PIER
x x x x x
DR(
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
2 "xg" PS. LEDGER BOARD W Li
x x x x x x
x x x x
0
8
x X x
x D
x x BOLTS @ 16- C/C STAGGERED
x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
V
x
x x x x x x x x x
0
—
x x x x
I x x x x x x
x x x x . x . x x
wt(
x
x x x x x x x x x x x
w
x x x x x
PROPOSED 2"x8" P.T. DECK
'x4 P.T. POST x x x
x x x
x x x x x x
x
NOTE: GUARD TO OBC 9,8 8 8 SB-7
0
x JOISTS @ 16- C/C 2x
OVED
x
x
m
I x
10 BE PROV�IDEq AROUND ENTIRE DECK x x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x
I x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x x
"xa"
x
0
Y' x
x x x x � x � x x x x x
x >�
6 "x6" P.T. POST BEARING ON
BLOCKING x x x
x x x x x x x
EXISTING CONCRETE
x x x x x x
x x . x x x x x x
N
r< x
x x x x x x x x x x x X
x a'�
RETAINING WALL
x x x 0, x x x x x x x x x I x x x x x P 1 'lU BEAM'
X, EXISTING 12-0 CONCRETE PIER
4'x4�� P.�, POST x 'Zwl,��JE, STIN1,32-2".8-WiTHNEW P.T. � X X
x x � x W/6"x6" OSTTYP,OF(4) — — —
MOVED /.—CONTIN US 2-'2"x8' P.T. BEAM x xV F 176-
S3
DECK PLAN
SCALE 4 1T
-- l-T
L
+
wo
m 0
'Da
2.2*xlWl* P.T. BtU BE!��
x
L —_-I-
x
EXISTING 30"x30*44—
_
FOOTING W/ PROPOSED
6'W P.T. & ABU66 POST
CL
U
uJ uJ z
2 In
0
04
Z
F8
c
<
04
co
F�o�
0
0 o
>
.20 aj
3
?
tin
Ao
a
Q)
8
3:
Z
0
<
cn
CL
U
uJ uJ z
2 In
0
Z
F8
c
z
of
z <
zj<
a
0
0�
1-4
Q)
8
Q)
.2
cn
9
o
tz2
a w>
ow V
<
3
r�O
0
E
z <
zj<
a
0
1-4
Q)
8
Q)
>
cn
EXISTING DECK
TO OBC 9,8,8 & SB-7
--------_-1-.r.----------
- - — — — — — —
L I L J L J L J
-' DECK FRONT ELEVATION
-G'
-J
DECK RIGHT ELEVATION
2 1- ---l-
\�_)' SCALE 1/4" = V-0'
NEW SLAB
-
(SEE NOTE)
L J 4-
DECK LEFT ELEVATION
3 S -
CALE, 114-
O
W --
ul <
>
uj z
uj
o
lip,
0'
2
0
ZT
L)
//\
N
<
r= -
c y
CN
co
0-
S3 1
U0
1
0
0
`2
uj
\\
\
0
ZT
L)
//\
03
'Ina
\\
\ \~
.
2K
<
<
03
'Ina
EXISTING 2 -2 "x10" P.T. BJU
BEAM TYP. OF (2)
84" P.T. POST
(NOTCHED TO FIT
BETWEEN BEAMS)
GENERAL NOTES:
1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST
REQUIREMENTS IN THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE AND TO ANY
PERTINENT LOCAL BY -LAWS
2. SAWN LUMBER MATERIAL SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED
SPRUCE- PINE -FIR N0.2 OR BETTER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
3, CROSS BRIDGING FOR CONVENTIONALLY FRAMED JOISTS MUST BE
INSTALLED BY THE CARPENTER AT MAXIMUM INTERVALS OF T -0"
FOUNDATIONS_
1. ALL CONCRETE EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM
_ 28 DAY DESIGN STRENGTH OF 32 MPa AND SHALL HAVE 5 -8" AIR
-R ENTRAINMENT. CONCRETE WHICH IS PROTECTED SHALL HAVE A
\ MINIMUM 28 DAY DESIGN STRENGTH OF 20 MPa,
2. ALL FOOTINGS TO BE POURED ON UNDISTURBED SOIL CAPABLE OF
2 -1� "0 THRU SOUS SUSTAINING A BEARING PRESSURE OF AT LEAST 2.OKSF UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS,
1 ALL FOOTINGS TO HAVE A MINIMUM FROST PROTECTION OF 4' -0.
CONNECTION DETAIL
SCALE: 1 = 1'.O°
2� KNEE BRACE DETAIL
r SCALE: 1 = 1' -0"
BOLT
(. B/U BEAM
T
)LT
O
i�EtUHO` v
b2175fl3
0
w w
d 0 O
�y
N
co
0
(N
d Z
N O
�!
W
o
z
0 0
d
�
0
g
N
J
H W
~
H
Q
y
=
oO
Y Z
m
Lu
- 3
W 13:
<
d
a
o
V
E
Qn �Z
am N O
VO w
P
y
o
Z O
_
iw � QV
BOO W
as
�a
�
=
E
a
0
x
E
B
o w
�
z �I
N 1
y���♦
1
N c
�
oozv�
Y
� 5
m
S
C/)
Hearing Date:
THE CORPORATION OF THE
148 Line 7 S., Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
/� H I Phone (705) 487 -2171
TOW N v ID Fax (705) 487 -0133
-- Q1 www.oro- medonte.ca
Minor Variance Review
Application #: 2 -
Owner:
MAS #:
Lot #: Plan #: e(Zl Conc. #: 4
}$ The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
❑ Proposal appears to meet minimum standards.
❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks
as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.
❑ Comments:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
enni'll.ho-
�Ajaba44hver, CBCO
Chief Building Official
TO-kJ7JJSJJjP of Oro-Aledonte Ejigineerinp, Department
Inspection ReportlComments for Consent
Other
File No.
., I
oft
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services.
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department
Inspection Report for
Consent
1AV6
Other
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date
File No. L-, - '1Z1,4
Name of Owner " "
Address -, !1L( ...
Subject Property
Date of Inspection
Good
Excellent,
2. Site Lines, Subject Property Poor
Good
Excellent.
Name of Road
Surface of Road
3. Drainage Poor
Good
1. Site Lines, Township Road Poor
Good
Excellent,
2. Site Lines, Subject Property Poor
Good
Excellent.
Drive
3. Drainage Poor
Good
Excellent
4. Future Road Widening Required
Yes—
No
If yes, Amount
S. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes- No
6. Future Drive to be located A,-/r
Remarks:
e
Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent
AUG -06 -2008 15:24 TOWNSHIP OF ORO— MEDONTE
08/06/2008 WED 14:24 FAX
Y
P.001 /002
12001/002
Sent by Facsimile 1 -705 -487 -0133
IWO— ` 6 2008 File No.: 2007 -A -18
August ,
IMS No.: PVOC396C3
' Mr. Steven Farquharson
Secretary - Treasurer
905 - 895 -1281 Committee of Adjustment
1 -800- 465 -0437
Fax: 905 -853 -5881 Corporation of the Township of Ora - Medonte
E -Mail: itlfo 41-C -011.9 P.O. Box 100
Web: „%vw.lsrca.o °'Ca Oro, ON LOL 2X0
120 $ayview Parkway
Box 282 Dear Mr. Farquharson:
Newmarket, Ontario
I.3Y 4X1
Re: Minor Variance Application - Permit Accessory Structures Closer To Lake Simcoe
Mary Spasov, Owner
Part of Lot 21, Concession 14 (Former Township of Oro)
245 Shoreline Drive, Lot 4, Plan 864
Township of Oro Medonte (Oro), County of Simcoe
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has reviewed the above noted Minor
Variance application in the context of the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (PPS - 2005), the
Federal Fisheries Act, and Ontario Regulation 179/06 made under the Conservation Authorities
Act. This application, if approved, would permit the construction of a deck closer to Lake
Simcoe than the main building.
Our mapping indicates that the above noted property is entirely within the Approved Regulation
Limit of the LSRCA. The above noted site is regulated for shoreline erosion allowance and 100 -
year wave uprush floodplain (FE = 220.61 mast). A permit may be required for any future
development of the above noted property.
Based on our review, we provide the following comments:
A 1. Based on our mapping, the proposed deck is located within the regulated portion of this
property. A permit under Ontario Regulation 179/06 is required from the LSRCA for the
proposed development. Please note, application RPMA4037 has been submitted for the
Watershed proposed development.
2. The drawings have been stamped, signed and dated by a structural engineer.
for Life
concerns.
it of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the
15 masl), under the Fisheries Act, there are no
Page 1 of 2
AUG -06 -2008 15:24 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
08/06/2008 WED 14:24 FAX
1 M0-14 n1
P.002 /002
10002/002
� C�' -1 -+
Based on the above noted information, the LSRCA has no objection to the Minor Variance
application, subject to the following conditions:
That a permit under Ontario Regulation 179/06 be obtained from the LSRCA, prior to
the issuance of a municipal building permit for the proposed dwelling (Please note,
application RPMA4037 has been submitted for the proposed deck).
1 That prior to any site alteration, proper erosion and sediment control measures must be
in place.
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,
00'a\1
Ian Walker
Environmental Planner
IW /ph
c. Mary Spasov, Owner, 1- 905 -851 -8225 - Fax
Mike Spasov, Agent, I- 905 -761 -9370 - Fax
\tl lawkesio xlshare<I 1anW Concspondencc \PlanninglVarianecsl0ro Medoutet?00812007•A•I S (Minor Variance . Spasov) 245 Shoreline Drive - 2.wlA
Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment
August 21, 2008
2008-B-35 — Indian Park Association
123 Huronwoods-Drive, Lot 32, RP 51 R 33068 (Formerly Oro)
1. PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2008-B-35 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The
subject land is Part of Block B, Plan M-30, having a frontage of approximately 15 metres on
Huron Woods Drive, and a depth of approximately 100 metres. The subject lands are
proposed to be added to the adjacent lands to the west (123 Huron Woods Drive). No new
building lot is proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition.
2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
I Q
Official Plan Designation — Residential
Zoning By-law 97-95 — Residential one Exception 113 (R1 *113) Zone and Private
Recreational Exception 114 (PR*1 14) Zone
Previous Applications —
3. AGENCY COMMENTS
County of Simcoe - No comments received
Public Works Department - No comments received
Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department — No Concerns
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority-
4. BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey approximately 0.15 hectares
(0.37 acres) from the subject property to the neighbouring residential lot 123 Huronwoods
Drive. The proposed retained lot, being Part of Block 6, Plan M-30, would consist of 3.9
hectares (9.7 acres), and is currently vacant. No new building lots are proposed to be
created as a result of the lot addition.
5. OFFICIAL PLAN
The subject lands are designated Residential by the official Plan (OP). Section D2 of the
OP contains policies with respect to subdivision of land. Specifically, Section D2.2.2 -
"Boundary Adjustments", provides the following guidance for Consent Applications in
general:
"a consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new
building lot is created... the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary
adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the properties affected."
With respect to the application at hand, no new building lots are proposed and does not
affect the viability of the current use. As such, the proposed boundary adjustment is
generally in keeping with the intent of the residential policies stated in the Official Plan, and
otherwise conforms with the boundary adjustment policies contained in Section D.2.2.2. At
the time of writing this report no comments have been from the County of Simcoe Planning
Department to the boundary adjustment as proposed.
6. ZONING BY-LAW
The subject property is zoned Private Recreational Exception 114 (PR*1 14) Zone by Zoning
By-law 97-95 as amended. This zone permits a wide range of passive and active
recreational uses and does not require a minimum lot area or frontage. Lands zoned PR*1 14
permit 8 recreation centre which may include smin0[niDg pools, tennis CUUrtS' change
facilities, DO88dOg r0OnlS, |OUnQ8s` or similar [8CreabOO facilities being M0D 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. None Dfthese uses currently exists OD the portion 0f the property that iG proposed b}b8
conveyed tO123Hun3nvvo0dDrive.
The lot to be enhanced, being 123 HU0nwoods Dhve, is zoned Residential One Exception
113(R1°113) The address the rDininou[Dsetbacks for structures
fro the SUr' uOdiOg property lines and public streets. Pending approval of the application,
the lot to be 8Oh8OCDd will ShU maintain the required lot are, use and frontage as well as
COnnp|y with the nnininounO S883@Ck r84Viv8m0enbS for G structure in the R1°113 Zone.
ThCr8h}rg. the @pp|iC8h0D would comply with the provisions as prescribed by the Zoning By-
law.
Staff is of the opinion that that rezoning of the conveyed lands is not necessary at this time
but however it should be noted that the OQ residential structures are permitted OD the lands
with the Private Recreation Exception 114(PR~114) Zone.
7. CONCLUSION
The tO�n�nnhn�e
policies ' �'0f the Official Plan, � � and maintains the use and setback prVvSkJDS of the Zoning By-
law.
8. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B-3 to
convey 8 strip Vf land having 8 frontage Qf approximately 15metres onHUronvvVUdS Drive R
depth of approximately 1O0 metres, and 8D area OfO.15 hectares tO the land adjacent being
123Hun]nvvnodS Drive subject t0 the following conditions:
That three copies of Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed
parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be Submitted to the Secretary-
2. That the severed lands be merged in title with 123 Hur0DwOOds Drive and that the
provisions Of Subsection 3 Or 5 Of S8SdOn 50 of The Planning Act apply to any
subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands;
3. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit 8 copy Of the proposed conveyance
for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
4. That the 8po(\C8ntS solicitor provide 8O 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.
Reviewed by
AOdh8 Leigh, N1QPRPP
Director of Development Services
P
x
7
BU
K
air, ; �'� �,► r�
4�
h8yo
.. . N N ,.
:56 CID
AOL
rc
:
�.
;
N 5 9 04 �'0 "_.
MLES HISTORY AND MAP
SALES HISTORY AND SUL33ECT PROPERTY MAP REPORT
Wed inn 06 21:40:24 EDT 2007
AOLI
{ Page 1 0t z
Subject qty Pin
Parnel
Roads
Ra*w"s 0 091EN 10 M. "
map rras oompied UMV Puns and daanrw retarded m the Land Re y W E r WadJer I baits SY$iwn and has been arOMW tar Mop" i<rdmV pt a m*r Ttm is dot a Ptah of
Eaaserrrerrt lla,fts actual dimensions rx property bw Wanes, see recorded plates and
otry mayor eassffwft are shown.
Subject Property Point
Neigbbourhood Sables Points
hft4 - /lr..� .s, nnr.:. >n.,e.l..�.,cn �4CIriM /MOHA/s1Y/1T{TL1M11IS1�P irs�r/ nrnrwrfcr— fRri »rIRVS7Rrrt>tfecti'At;0 6/60007
LRO
51
740570151
434601000308200
LT
AMVE
ORO
123 HURON WOODS DR
3307 m2
269 m
PIN
ASSESSMM ROLL. NUMBER
REGISTRATION TYPE
LAND REGISTRY STATUS
MUNICIPALM
ADDRESS
AREA
PERIMETER
hft4 - /lr..� .s, nnr.:. >n.,e.l..�.,cn �4CIriM /MOHA/s1Y/1T{TL1M11IS1�P irs�r/ nrnrwrfcr— fRri »rIRVS7Rrrt>tfecti'At;0 6/60007
SALES t#IIST=RY AM SMIECT PWXgMy MAP WORT
Sun Mar 16 IW'Wn ®T 20 11 1
P'n c I f -
�; � Stbka Pmvertr PW""
M
.' ROatfs
0 luijj�100M. _
Raft nys This map. .Viad usug p� and do —w— --led �. lind R 11 a l� Of � E
waW UMWS System avid Ass Mean prepared tot dW Pens
Survey. For actual dbnensffl of proPartY araf g
Easemeet Lk" is d ONY M80r sre shown.
Swbjed PAY Pob*
v Neighbourhood Saks Painls
ct
LRO
51
740570525
434601000304800
LT
ACTIVE
N/A
NIA
40098 m2
4365 m
PIN
ASSESSMENT ROLL NUMBER
REGISTRATION TYPE
LAND REGISTRY STATUS
MUNICIPALITY
ADDRESS
AREA
PERIMETER
httn- / /unxnu r�Pn�x arrfiin»eP a%:ns1 /manT?c>nnrtTvmrlatP ; c.+? r. rn. w. t<.�1�Qr;r.�:PV= /1JPi..u.:�Mo4; 2 /1 /'i(111R
Far uharson, Steven
From: K4aoKeU.Bryon
Sent Thursday, 12:13 PM
To: Farquharson, Steven
Subject: RE: Consent Application
Steve:
I've reviewed the file and there doesn't appear to be any County concerns with the application.
Regards
Bryan
Bryan K4acKeU.MCUP.RPP
Director of Planning and Economic Development
County nfSimcoeAdminatraUiomCentre
1118 Highway 2G
Midhurst.0N LUL1XO
phone 705-726-9300.Ex11004
fax 705'726-4276
omU 705-700-2899
From: Farquharson, Steven [nnaUto:sfarquharson ]
Sent: Thursday, August 14,2OO812:O9PM
To: MacKeU, Bryan
Subject: Consent Application
Hey Bryan,
| have emailed Greg, Nathan and Bruce but all I guess are out the office and I have not received any comments on the
above noted Consent Application. / was wondering if you please could review the application or send it off tosomeone
who can provide comments on it. I am just putting the final touches on the report to have it placed on the agenda for
the Committee meeting next week. Any formal comments for this application would be greatly appreciated.
Steven Farquharson, 8.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Township ofDro-Medonte
Bus: (7U5)487-2I71Ext:4239
Fax: (705) 487-0133
_
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by and is
believed to be clean.
June 30,2008
The Township of Oro — Medonte
148 Line 7 South, Box loo
Oro, ON
LoL2XO
Attention: J. Douglas Irwin
Director of Corporate Services/Clerk
Dear Douglas:
This letter is formal notice by the Board of Directors of the Indian Park
Association, 15 Algonquin Trail, R.R. #4 Coldwater, ON giving Graham Valentine
owner of Lot 32 Plan 51M -30 located at 123 Huronwoods Drive, R.R.. #4
Coldwater, ON permission to act as our agent in the purchase of IPA owned land
beside and behind his existing property.
If You have any ftnther questions please feel free to contact me at the office
Monday, Tuesday and Thursday lo:oo — 4:30 Pm.
Respectfully,
51JYMI)r;
Deborah L. Price Sherman
Administrator for
the Board of Directors and Equity Members
Indian Park Association
cc Graham Valentine
123 Huronwoods Drive
R.R. #4
Coldwater, ON
LoK 1Eo
,1NM4NPARKASS0CL4T10-?V
Township of Oro — Me-donte
P.O. Box ioo
Oro, ON
WL 2Xo
Re: Ind` Park Associatioq_jAnd
This letter is adv4sement Lo the Township and Council thet the Indian Park
Association is in the process of selling approximately ioo acres of ]are,- owned by
the Equity Members of the Association.
It is the intent of the Association to offer land in BLOCK B, Pin #74057-0183 (L TO
to residents df the Sugafbush who have expressed an interest in the conymon
lands that may be behind and or abut their properdes.
2111�� I rw��� III I R111 I I � I I OR 1 1 =
Respectfully,
r 'k-o
Deborah L. Price Sherman
Administrator for
the Board of Directors and Equip
ylMembers
Indian Park Association
Hearing Date: - 1, 2rric�
Application #: 2nbS 7�e - 5
Lot #: '?,2— Plan #:
Conc. #:
r
� The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
4 Proposal appears to meet minimum standards.
❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks
as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.
❑ Comments:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
ME
r ":,,4aei _':,,or, CBCO
Chief Building Official
J r �.
To�wn�hi�a of (Jro- RJedonte ED0JDeerinp, Department
Inspection ReportJComments for
Minor Variance
Other
File No.
Name of
Owner
Address V-112"'ii
f b
.N
�f
Subject Propert y
Remarks:
i
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services .
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment
August 21, 2008
2008-B-36 — Mike Winacott and Sherri Belair
Lot 15 Concession 2, (Formerly Orillia)
70110TIUM
The purpose of Consent application 2008-B-36 is to convey residential lands from 400
Woodland Drive to 374 Woodland Drive. The land to be conveyed from 400 Woodland
Drive to 374 Woodland Drive consists of approximately two-thirds of an acre, having a
frontage of approximately 36.5 metres, and a depth of approximately 60 metres. No new
building lots are proposed to be created as a result of this application. The enhanced lot
area for 374 Woodland Drive will be approximately 1 acre.
2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Restricted Rural and Environmental Protection One
Zoning By-law 97-95 — Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone and Environmental Protection
(EP) Zone
Previous Applications —
3. AGENCY COMMENTS
County of Simcoe - No objection (see attached)
Public Works Department - No comments received
Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department — No comments recieved
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority- Formal comments forthcoming
4. BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey approximately 0.27
hectares (0.66 acres) from the subject property to the neighbouring residential lot being
374 Woodland Drive. The proposed retained lot, being 400 Woodland Drive, would
consist of 47.7 hectares (118 acres), which is currently vacant. No new building lots are
proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition.
5. OFFICIAL PLAN
The subject lands are designated Restricted Rural and Environmental Protection One by
the Official Plan (OP). Section D2 of the OP contains policies with respect to subdivision
of land. Specifically, Section D2.2.2 -"Boundary Adjustments", provides the following
guidance for Consent Applications in general:
"a consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no
new building lot is created... the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the
boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the properties affected."
With respect to the application at hand, no new building lots are proposed. As such, the
proposed boundary adjustment is generally in keeping with the intent of the Restricted
Rural and Environmental Protection One policies stated in the Official Plan, and
otherwise conforms with the boundary adjustment policies contained in Section D.2.2.2.
The County of Simcoe Planning Department has no comment or objection to the
boundary adjustment as proposed.
6. ZONING BY-LAW
The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone and Environmental
Protection (EP) Zone by Zoning By-law 97-95. The lot to be enhanced, 374 Woodland
Drive, is zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone. Pending approval of the application, the
lot to be enhanced as well as the retained lands, would both conform to the minimum lot
area, use and frontage provisions of the A/RU Zone. In addition, the existing dwelling on
the enhanced lands would also comply with the minimum lot area and setback
requirements for a structure in the A/RU Zone. The existing dwelling on the enhanced
lot would still meet the required setback from the EP Zone boundary. Therefore, the
application would comply with the provisions as prescribed by the Zoning By-law.
NK!L#J,1 •
The proposed consent application for a boundary adjustment would appear to conform
to the policies of the Official Plan, and maintains the use and setback provisions of the
Zoning By-law.
It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008 -13-
36 to convey a strip of land having a frontage of 36.5 metres on Woodland Drive, and a
depth of approximately 60 metres and an area of 0.27 hectares to the land adjacent
being 374 Woodland Drive and 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 severed lands be merged in title with 374 Woodland Drive and that the
provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any
subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands;
3. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
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 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority have no objection to
the proposed boundary adjustment;
6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one
year from the date of the giving of the notice.
374 Woodland Drive
0 35 70 140 210 280
Meters
R U S H
V A C A N T
SKETCH
L 0 T
1 4 OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT
OF PART OF LOT 15, CONCESSION 2
(GEOGRAPHIC TOVNSHIP OF SOUTH ORaIIA)
TOWNSHIP
L 0 T
OF ORO—MEDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
A)�
40
sa
4p,
TOTAL NEW LOT AREA 0,31 ho.
L O T
sae.
1
15MIAL ROAD ALIDWAWE BVrM= 140TS E5 AND la (NOT OPM mm wwr I
MOON POINT URr4j 20m WME
OR GINAL ROAD ALLOWANCE
20M WME
L 0 T I
A 0 R I C U L T U R A L
A G R I C U L T U R A L
From:
Westendorp, Nathan
Sent
�
-
Tuesday, 9:20 AM
To:
Vandenburg,-R K�arek.Greg
Ryan;
Cc:
Subject:
RE: Consent Applications
The County has no objection tu consent applications 2OO8'B'3G and 2O08-B-37(VVinaooM). Greg k8aneh will bmproviding
Nathan 'M[|/PRPP
Planner 11
County of Simcoe
From: Vandenburg, Ryan [mailto:rvandenburg@oro-medonte.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:26 PM
To: Marek, Greg; Westendorp, Nathan
Cc: Farquharson, Steven
Consent Applications
Hey Nathan and Greg,
Please find the consent applications for the August 21, 2008 Committee of Adjustment hearinQ.Ifyoucanphease review
and provide comments that would be great. If you have any questions please /heetocontactnne.
Two of the applications (Winacott files) Steve already talked to Nathan about but feel free to provide formal comments.
Thanks a lot,
Planner
Township of[)ro-Mcdonte
(705) 487-2171
_
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by and is
believed to be clean.
THE CORPORATION OF THE
148 Line 7 S., Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
TO WNeS H I D Phone (705) 487 -2171
Fax (705) 487 -0133
www.oro- medonte.ca
Severance Review
Hearing Date:��� 2 ► . 2ef t
Application #: ZooB --S - 4
Owner: Mike t k)yc\;�' -A r te= F'CA A iC
MAS #:
Lot #: Plan #:
Conc. #:
E9 The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
,0 Proposal appears to meet minimum standards.
❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks
as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.
❑ Comments:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
�-�irvtsr, CBCO
Chief Building Official
Toy 7l"S P of Oro-
Inspection Report/Comments for
File No. `
edox�te Fn�ineerin De
onset
Minor Variance
Other
Name of Owner g
Address r
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering &Environmental Services .
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
8
Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department
Inspection Report for C6 s "
Minor Variance
Other
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date
Date of Inspection
Name of Road
Surface of Road
1. Site Lines, Township Road Poor
Good
Excellent
2. Site Lines, Subject Property Poor
Good
Excellent
Drive
3. Drainage Poor
Good
Excellent
4. Future Road Widening Required
Yes
No
If yes, Amount
5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes
6. Future Drive to be located
5
Remarks: AV'-1 0 11
Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent
Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment
iJ.
August 21, 2008
2008-13-37 — Mike Winacott and Sherri Belair
Lot 15 Concession 2, (Formerly Orillia)
The purpose of Consent application 2008-B-37 is to convey approximately 108
acres to the existing 15.2 metre by 30.5 metre lot fronting onto Woodland Drive.
The land to be conveyed has a depth of approximately 665 metres to the
midpoint of the property, and a frontage of approximately 472 metres onto
Woodland Drive. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of
this application. The resulting retained lands will be approximately 10 acres
containing an existing dwelling fronting onto Woodland Drive.
MM
Official Plan Designation — Restricted Rural and Environmental Protection One
Zoning By-law 97-95 — Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone and Environmental
Protection (EP) Zone
Previous Applications —
3. AGENCY COMMENTS
County of Simcoe - No objection (see attached)
Public Works Department - No comments received
Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department — No comments received
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority- Formal comments forthcoming
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey approximately 43
hectares (108 acres) from the subject property to the neighbouring residential lot
being East Part of Lot 15, Concession 2 on Woodland Drive. The proposed
retained lot, being 400 Woodland Drive, would consist of approximately 4
hectares (10 acres), which currently contains a single family dwelling. No new
building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition.
5. OFFICIAL PLAN
The subject lands are designated Restricted Rural and Environmental Protection
One by the Official Plan (OP). Section D2 of the OP contains policies with
respect to subdivision of land. Specifically, Section D2.2.2 -"Boundary
Adjustments", provides the following guidance for Consent Applications in
general:
"a consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries,
provided no new building lot is created... the Committee of Adjustment shall be
satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the
properties affected.
The general objectives for lands within the Restricted Rural designation are listed
in Section C6.1:
• To discourage development of scattered residential, commercial and
industrial uses in the area surrounding Barrie and Orillia;
• To maintain and preserve the rural character of the area by clearly
defining the urban boundary of the Cities of Barrie and Orillia
• To protect the lands adjacent to the two urban municipalities from
incompatible development to ensure that the expansion of their urban
service area in the future is cost-effective and efficient.
With respect to the application at hand, no new building lots are proposed. As
such, the proposed boundary adjustment is generally in keeping with the intent of
the Restricted Rural and Environmental Protection One policies stated in the
Official Plan, and otherwise conforms with the boundary adjustment policies
contained in Section D.2.2.2.
The County of Simcoe Planning Department has been circulated and is satisfied
that the proposal meets their Agricultural restriction policies and has no objection
to the boundary adjustment as proposed.
6. ZONING BY-LAW
The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone and Environmental
Protection (EP) Zone by Zoning By-law 97-95. The lot to be enhanced, is zoned
Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone. Currently the enhanced lands do not meet the
zoning provisions in the A/RU Zone. Pending approval of the application, the lot
to be enhanced as well as the retained lands, would both conform to the
minimum lot area, use and frontage provisions of the A/RU Zone. In addition, the
existing dwelling on the retained lands would also comply with the minimum lot
area and setback requirements for a structure in the A/RU Zone. Therefore, the
application would comply with the provisions as prescribed by the Zoning By-law.
7. CONCLUSION,
The proposed consent application for a boundary adjustment would appear to
conform to the policies of the Official Plan, and maintains the use and setback
provisions of the Zoning By-law.
8. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application
2008-B-37 to convey a strip of land having a frontage of 472 metres on
Woodland Drive, and a depth of approximately 665 metres to the midpoint of the
property, an area of 43 hectares to the land adjacent land to the east having
frontage on Woodland Drive and subject to the following conditions:
That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the
severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to
the Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the severed lands from 400 Woodland Drive be merged in title with
enhanced lot and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of
The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction
involving the subject lands;
3. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
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 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority have no objection to
the proposed boundary adjustment;
6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice.
Reviewed by,
Andria Leigh, MCIP RPP
Director of Development Services
A G R I C U L T U R A L A G R I C U L T U R A L TOTAL NEW LOT AREA — 35.56 ha.
C.T. STRONGMAN SURVEYING LTD
Ontario Land Surveyors
4145 Burnside Una
R.R. No. 4, Orillio, LN-61,14
Telephone (705) 329-0765
Fax (705) 329-0424
email— strongmen0orifliopronet.com
ORILLIA ONTARIO
AC FILE: 6949 D D-1 t 57
Farquharson, Steve
From: Westenclorp, Nathan
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 3:09 PM
To: Farquharson, Steven
Cc: Murek G Hoppe, Bruce
Subject: RE: Boundry Adjustment request
Hi Steve,
From the looks of h. the 50x1O0 parcel is increasing (oepprox. 108 acres. This size of parcel appears tofit within the
intent of our 1 km AG restriction policy and it maintains a parcel that is of sufficient size in the AG area. True, there isa1
hectare max for residential |ndo, but one could argue that if the lot is 108 acres, it's primarily AG and not residential. | also
acknowledge the lot boundary adjustment around Mr. Winnacott's existing house (10 acres), but I believe with the ultimate
creation ofasmall residential lot, one 108 acres lot and his 10 acre lot fits with the intent of the 1km AG restriction more
than his original proposal of two 10 acre parcels, 1 small residential lot, and one larger parcel. At the end uf the day, we'll
leave this one nfupto the Township. Based on the application you forwarded, | don't have enobjection.
Hopefully that clarifies things for you.
Have agreat weekend.
Nathan VVeetendorp.K8QPHPP
Planner 11
County of Simcoe
From: Farquharson, Steven [nssUto:sfarquharyon .ca]
Sent: Friday, August O1,2OO82:45PM
To: VVestendorp Nathan
Subject: RE: Boundry Adjustment request
Hey Nathan,
Here is the application that Mike has submitted to the Township for C of A. He said that you had preferred to have the
parcel maintained as large parcel. Can you please review the application and provide comments for me. I'm just a little
confused on of the increase from 10 acres to a much larger parcel and how this does not meet the 1 hectare max. Can
you please provide noecomments.
Steven Farquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Township ofOro-KAedon1e
Bus: (7O5)487-2I71Ext:4239
Fax: (1705) 487-0133
Farquharson, Steven
From:
Westenclorp, Nathan [
Sent:
Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:20 AM
To:
Vandenburg, Ryan; Marek, Greg
Cc:
Farquharson, Steven
Subject:
RE: Consent Applications
Hi Ryan,
The County has no objection to consent applications 2008-13-36 and 2008-13-37 (Winacott). Greg Marek will be providing
comments, if any, on 2008-13-35.
Nathan Westenclorp, MCIP RPP
Planner 11
County of Simcoe
From: Vandenburg, Ryan [mailto:rvandenburg@oro-medonte.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:26 PM
To: Marek, Greg; Westenclorp, Nathan
Cc: Farquharson, Steven
Subject: Consent Applications
Hey Nathan and Greg,
Please find the consent applications for the August 21, 2008 Committee of Adjustment hearing. If you can please review
and provide comments that would be great. if you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Two of the applications (Winacott files) Steve already talked to Nathan about but feel free to provide formal comments.
Thanks a lot,
Ryan Vandenburg B.URPL
Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
(705) 487-2171
rvandenburg(&oro-medonte.ca
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by VPNetworks(2), and is
believed to be clean.
Hearing Date:
THE CORPORATION OF THE
14$ Line 7 5., Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
Phone (705) 487 -2171
TOWN(SHIP Fax (705) 487 -0133
—' — O1 www.oro- medonte.ca 5�K6-Q6�
Severance Review '� J- -%
Application #: "cQ'E� ?,-22
MAS #:
Lot #: i5 Plan #:
Conc. #: 7
Z The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
q Proposal appears to meet minimum standards.
❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks
as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.
❑ Comments:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
CBCO
Chief Building Official
4"r r
To -,17nship of Oro- Aledonte Enoineerinp, Department
Inspection ReporUComments for tcn
Minor Variance
Other
File No. _ - 2 .
Name of Owner
Address
�r
Subject Property.
Remarks:
nib
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering &Environmental Services .
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department
Inspection Report forConser
Minor Variance
Other
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date
File No.
Name ofOwner
Address 4 C)c !:LL
Subject Property
Date of Inspection
Name of Road
Surface of Road
1. Site Lines, Township Road Poor Good Excellent
2. Site Lines, Subject Property Poor Good. Excellent
Drive
3. Drainage Poor Good. Excellent
4. Future Road Widening Required Yes No
If yes, Amount
5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes No
6. Future Drive to be located
Remarks:
Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent
Township of Oro-Modonte - Committee of i
August 21, 2008
'-^
2008-A-1 3 — Norman and Debra Pirtovshek
89 Lakeshore Road W. Plan 755, Lots 27 + 28 (Former Twp. Of Oro)
The applicant is proposing to construct an attached garage, deck, and laundry room addition, having a total
floor area of 89.9 square metres (967.7 ft. Sq).onto aO existing 103 square metre (1108.7ft. Sq)simle
detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting the k}||OwiDg relief from Zoning By-law 97-95:
Minimum Required Interior Side Yard Setback
Official Plan Designation —Shoreline
Zoning By-law S7-95— Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Previous Applications — none
3. DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS
Required Proposed
3.0 metres 1.95 metres
Public Works No Comments received
Building Department- Proposal no8etS [DininnUnn standards
Engineering Department —Nn comments received
Lake Si0cVe Region Conservation Authority —NO Objection (see attached)
The subject property has a road frontage Of approximately 18.8 metres (61 feet). 4 kd depth of
approximately 53metres (173 feet), G shoreline frontage Ofapproximately 18.7 metres (62 feet) and lot
area 0f approximately 0.1U hectares (0.25 acres). The lands currently have 8 single-storey dwelling with
an area Ofapproximately 106.9 square metres (1151 square feet). The applicant is proposing to build an
888CUed g8n]O9 and an addition for laundry n30m and deck to the existing Uvv9/|inA. The ground floor
area of the attached garage is pn]p0s8U b3 be 89 nlu (742 *u). the addition for the laundry n}00 10.4 0V2
/11�*u\ and �Rv�@8n@r98Qf�0 M2 (71 �2} briD i the b]tG| i of dwelling unit to 192
square metres (2076 square feet).
` '', � ` .^'' gnQ 8 G�9V � w8 ng�n
Due t0 the placement of the 8dddk]D' the applicant proposes to 8Oc[VaCh into the east interior side yard
Setb8Ck, to be located approximately 1.95 metres (0.3 feet ) from the |0t line. The Township Zoning By-law
,8qUio8G U 3 nnEdrB (9.8 h}oh interior SiU9 y8n1 setback for the dwelling in the Shoreline RRSidHnb8| (SR)
Zone.
Does the variance conform tmthe general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. GeCd0D D10.1 which DODtUinS the Shoreline
policies in the Township's Official Plan sets Out the permitted uses which include single detached
dwellings. Therefore, the variance would appear to C0DfOnn to the general intent Vfthe {]ffiCi8| Plan as the
variance would permit an addition to the existing single detached dwelling.
Does the variance conform bmthe general intent of the Zonina By-law?
The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). The primary purpose for maintaining side
yard setbacks in residential areas is to ensure that privacy between properties is maintained, and to allow
emergency access around the dwelling. As noted earlier, the existing hedge on the west property line will
provide 3 form Of buffering tO ensure privacy for the subject and neighbouring lands.
The site inspection revealed that the proposed dwelling should not adversely impact the residential
neighbourhood, 88 the @dUihOO to the dwelling unit is set back quite far from the front property line, but
otherwise will maintain the "building line" for this p@rbCu|8[ SeCtOD Of Lakeshore Road. AS vv8U, the
renovation will not encroach into the required 20 metre (O5.G foot) setback from Lake S|0008. and will also
comply with the required 7.5 metre front yard setback and 3 metre side yard setback oDthe east property
line, where the rU8/nieOaDce of the side yard S8tUGCk is prescribed to provide access to the rear Ofthe
property for emergency vehicles and personnel. Further, the addition design meets all other Zoning By-
law provisions (such as Ol@x|nOurn height) for dwelling units in the Gh8n8iin8 Residential Zone.
On the basis of the 8bOve, the proposal is COOGide[8d to comply with the general intent [f the Zoning By-
law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development mfthe lot?
Based On the Site inspection, the proposed addition vv0U|d appear to be appropriate for the desirable
U8v8|Oprn9nt Of the lot, and would be in keeping with the general Ch8[8Ct8risd:s of the GUrn}UndnO
residential area. Further, the proposed addition constitutes a form of development that is permitted within
the Shoreline Residential Zone.
is the variance minor?
On the basis that the addition to the dwelling would not adversely affect the character of the Shoreline
Residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor.
5. RECOMMENDATION
his recommended that the Committee grant Variance Application 2008-A-13 subject to the following
1. The proposed addition shall be setback nO closer than 1.95metres from the west interior side lot
UD8;
2. That the setbacks b8inconformity with the dimensions aG set out 0nthe application and sketches
submitted and approved bvthe Committee;
3. That the applicant obtain any required permit(s) from the Lake GinoCOe Region Conservation
Authority
4. That an Ontario L8DU Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
{|0n0rnitt8S'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;
5. That lot grading and drainage p|8O be pv8panBd, for review and 8ppn]v@| to the S8dgt8CtiOn of the
Township;
6. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township only after the CorD[Did88'G
decision becomes final and binding, G8 provided for within the Planning Act R.S.C).1SSO,c.P.13.
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan V8DdeObVrg'B.URP|
Planner
Reviewed by,
-4- Jil
AOdha Leigh, K8QP'RPP
Director of Development Services
(i. CEVIEW BOULEVARD BY R-P. 755) PIN
58558 -0088
�o
--------- - - - - -- cA = - - -_ -- ---
°
ti
- - -
- -- --------- - -A-S'T
- --
DnrH
_.x
___-------------------
19 (1613)
,fey")•
1 .62 (MS?
18.90(Dl&calc.}
(nom. _
2.86 27.47 � .=
is (
TIN 2.92
a
j
j
REGISTERED
PLAN
-� -
F- --LOT 29
LOT
s 5S
28
PIN 58558 -0068
PIN 58558-0067
I;OT ��— -- --_f
PIN 58558 -0066
SEMC
LID
`M^
I STORHY
O
BRICK HOUSE I
(No. $9)
First Floor - 224.44 °
4.36
Beio w ground level}
WOOD DECK'J
4:31
4.33
+, x
4.50
x z
z
o of Bol' I STAKE
1B (1613) e' T¢ _
- �,x
t
�
M
X'
18.78 I
of 219.24 6levad n
1
r-
I
I
I
PROPOSED ROAD SIDE M-EVATION
11
F }
n
Or "-
$
as
n i
` r �
a,
3�
YA
t
s
z
t
1� - (�L
Hearing Date:
Application #: 9t)T> �
Owner:
ss �
Lot #: -At& 2b Plan #: Conc. #: 2Z3
:t4 The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
AX Proposal appears to meet minimum standards.
❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks
as per Part S of the Ontario Building Code.
❑ Comments:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
1v it cRntll-iver, CBCO
Chief Building Official
T ring Department
Inspection ReportiComments for Consent
`irCr Variadce
Other
File No.
Name of Owner
r
Address
�s•
Subject Property
Remarks:°
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services .
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department
Inspection Report for
Consent
Other
Name of Owner__I�j
Address
Subject Property
Date of Inspection /Z e, 4
Name of Road
Subject Property
Date of Inspection /Z e, 4
Name of Road
Surface of Road
1. Site Lines, Township Road
Poor
Good
Excellent
2. Site Lines, Subject Property
Poor
Good
Excellent
Drive
3. Drainage
Poor
Good
Excellent
4. Future Road Widening Required
Yes
No
If yes, Amount
5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes
6. Future Drive to be located
"9
Remarks:
Milt
Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent
. \
Township of Oro-Medonte - Comnnmittmecf Adjustment
August 21, 2008
20@8-A~24~John Esteireiro
2713 Lakeshore Road East, Part of Lot 20 and 21, Plan 51 R-1 6475, Con
The applicant is proposing to construct a 497.9 M2 (5360 ft2) one and half storey single family 0m replace the
existing dwelling. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.33 "Setback from water courses" as well as
Section 5.31 "Setback from the average high water mark of Lake 8imcme':
Required Proposed
Setback to Lake Simcoe 20 metres 17.5 metres
Setback to a Water Course 30 metres 7.5 metres
2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation —Shoreline
Zoning By-law S7-S5— Shoreline Residential (GR) Zone
Previous Approval- the applicant has obtained a permit from LSRCA based on the drawing submitted with this
application.
3. DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS
Pub|icVVorksDepadment- NoCommontareceimad
Building Department- Proposal meets minimum standards
EngineeringDepartmant — Noconoerna
LSRCA-No Objection (See attached letter)
W1NH-No Objection (See attached letter)
4. BACKGROUND
The subject property has a street frontage of approximately 30.6 metres (100 feet) along Lakeshore Road East
and a |cd area of approximately 0.4 hectares (0.08 acres). The property currently has e single storey dwelling.
The applicants are proposing to construct a 497 .9 mu (5380 *2) single detached dwelling with an attached deck
being located at both the rear and front cdthe proposed dwelling.
The application had appeared before the Committee onJuly 19. 2008, but was deferred until comments were
received from the Department of Fisheries and C}oeona (OF[)) and Ministry of Natural Fleoouncna (K4NR). Since
the July 1 9t meeting, comments have been received from the Senior Fisheries Biologist for the Lake 8imooe
Region Conservation Authority who through an agreement with DFO has indicated that they have no concerns
with the proposed application. The application was also circulated to the MNR and they have indicated that they
have no objections to the proposed application.
The proposed dwelling will be located 7.5 metres from a water course on the east aide of the pnnperty, the
required setback from a vveder course is 30 metres (98.4 feet). The rear part of the proposed dwelling is
proposed tobe located 17.5 metres from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe' where the required
setback is 20 metres. As a result, permission is required from the Committee of Adjustment for the construction
of the dwelling.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the [)Mioie| Plan. Section C5.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in
the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives:
" To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area.
` To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.
The requested variance for the proposed dwelling would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline
residential area, as dwellings are a permitted use in the shoreline designation. Therefore, the variances would
conform to the general intent mfthe pol|oVmm contained in the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform Amthe general intent of the -
The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). The primary purpose of the setback requirement
from Lake Simcoe is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area in general, and the immediate shoreline
of the subject property. In assessing the issue of conformity with the Zoning By-law, the proposed dwelling
should not detract from the overall character of the |ck and surrounding natural features being the watercourse
which runs through the property and the mature trees located in the front and side yard yard. One ofthe
purposes of regulating e1ruotunoa from being built within the 30 metres setback from a watercourse is to
maintain and enhance the ecological integrity ufthe natural heritage system, ho ensure that development does
not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to flooding and to ensure that development does not occur
on hazardous slopes. The applicant has been in contact with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority,
and has obtained apermit approval for the construction of the proposed dwelling. When aake inspection was
done by Planning staff, it was revealed there were mature trees along the interior property line and towards the
front of the property. This tree vegetation would provide an adequate buffer between the proposed dwelling and
the neighbouring dwellings. Therefore the proposed dwelling and deck meets the general intent ofthe Zoning
By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development ofthe lot?
The proposed dwelling should provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the
surrounding area. The proposed variance will provide for the construction of adweUing and will continue to
maintain the shoreline character of the area. Due to the location of the watercourse and the shape of the
property, the applicant is limited to possible area on where to develop. The proposed dwelling will be located
over the existing building foot print and the new deck will be in the same |noekion as the existing deck. It is
therefore determined that the proposed dwelling iaappropriate for the development on the lot.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the proposal is reasonable and would not appear to adversely affect to the surrounding
propertieu, and that this type ofdevelopment is a common feature in the shoreline area and will not have a
negative impact on privacy or access for either the subject or surrounding ppopertiea, the proposed variance is
considered iobeminor.
It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application ��A-24subject to the following
1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed dwelling be in conformity with the sketches submitted with the
application and approved by the Committee;
2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification ho 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 so that:
i) The dwelling including the attached deck be located no closer than 17.5 metres (57.4 feet) from the
average high water mark of Lake Simcoe;
ii) The dwelling including the attached deck be located no closer than 7.5 metres (24.Sfeet) from the top of
bank of the water course;
3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision
becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning AotR.S1]. |SSU.o.P. 13.;
4. That the applicants obtain approval from the Lake 8immm Region Conservation Authority under the
Conservation Authorities Act.
Reviewed by,
AndhaLeigh.
Director of Development Services
f
t
i
i
F
i
E
t
l
4
t
E
gE
4
i
k
5
_F
xa `�
i
i
s
i
IAKFSHORF
LAKE SIMCOE
�f
SUBJECT LANDS 0 30 60 120 180 240
Meters
9-9
SKE 3
Of PARTS i, 2 AND D 3, . SIR-16475
(OWGRLPM TOWS" OF ORO
oWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE ti
COUNTY OF SIMCOE w HEMS
KNOWN AS
T :300 LAKMHORE ROAD
C.T. STRONGMAN O.LS.
2008 (TRESPASS ROAD)
LOT ` 20
i Ir`t0 T ,'' 1 \\ ��� \ �, 2 1
to
co
It \
1 \
� � r
r
oais�o . X ' I \
y �p�ppppd � /'IVid�
i C
C.T. STRONGMAN g�G LTD.
.,10 •.we. u..
DLSTAIiCES s on TtMS Pw+ ARE � r AND nAT ONTARIO
c=w eE corn�Rrm TO mr err DNVWO Er o 3o+e. ORIEm"
,c ,,,� c —sue
f RONT ELEVATION-rev3
0�
-----------
LFfT ELEVATION -rev3
12- .... . ..... ........ .
-T;7-
REAR
ELEVATION-rev3
RIGHT ELEVATION -rev3
�i
06
as
es
_axe nt
300*a qV101
Ministry of Natural
Rosourcos
Midhurst District
2284 Nursery Road
Whurst, ON LOL 1X0
Tel: 705-725-7500
Fax: 705-725-7584
July 17, 2008
Rick McCann
1034 Cowbell Lane
Severn, Bridge, Ontario
POE 1NO
Ontario
SUBJECT: John Esteritire Parts 1,2, and 3 Plan SIR-16475, Township of Oro
Dear Mrs. McCann
We have reviewed your plan received August 8, 2008 for the minor variance to private land in
the township of Oro Medonte, According to the plan which you submitted it is our
understanding that no work is proposed within the bed lake simcoe. If the work is completed
according to the submitted plan a work permit from this office is not required.
While a Ministry of Natural Resources work permit is not required based on current conditions,
it does not release you from the responsibility to ensure that the work you are doing does not
harmfully alter, disrupt or destroy fish habitat. It also does not release you from requirements or
permits of other Federal, Provincial or Municipal legislation. It is your responsibility to control
any siltation that may result from the construction and to ensure that the work is completed
directly in front of your property and does not interfere with the neighbours' use and enjoyment
of their properties. I
If you have any questions or concerns please give me a call at 705.725.7524,
Yours truly,
Cliff VanKoughnett
Lands Technician
Midhurst District
ZO/ZO 39VJ isanHGIW dNW V89LSZLSOL ez:9T 8002 /CT/80
?nn /Inn, t q.T.Nn(T4W-C)?T(-j A0 4TT4qKM0.L 2P:LT B009-P T 441V
AUG -06 -2008 15:22 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
08/06/2008 WED 14:22 FAX
n
Tel: 905 - 895 -1281
1- 800 -465 -0437
Pax: 905- 853 -5881
E -Mail: infix i Isrca.an.ri
Web: \v\\nv.lsrca.on.ca
120 Dayview Parkway
Box 282
Newmarket, Ontario
13Y 4x1
Watershed
for Life
Sent by Facsimile 1 -705- 487 -0133
August 6, 2008
Mr, Steven Farquharson
Secretary - Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, ON LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Farquharson:
P.001 /002
0001/002
File No.: 2008 -A -24
IMS No.: PVOC483C3
Re: Minor Variance Application - Reduce Watercourse Setback & Lake Setback
John Esteireiro, Owner
Part of Lot 20 & 21, Concession 14 (Former Township of Oro)
2713 Lakeshore Road East, Parts 1 -3, Plan 51R -16475
Township of Oro - Medonte (Oro), County of Simeoe
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has reviewed the above noted Minor
Variance application in the context of the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (PPS - 2005), the
Federal Fisheries Act, and Ontario Regulation 179/06 made under the Conservation Authorities
Act. This application, if approved, would permit the construction of a replacement dwelling with
associated septic system.
Our mapping indicates that the above noted property is partially within the Approved Regulation
Limit of the LSRCA. The eastern portion of the above noted site is regulated for a watercourse
with associated meanderbelt (erosion allowance) and floodplain (FE = 225.13 - 219.65 masl).
The southern portion of the above noted site is regulated for shoreline erosion allowance and
100 -year wave uprush (FE = 219.87 mash. A permit may be required for any future
development of the regulated portion of the above noted property.
Based on our review, we provide the following comments:
Based on our mapping, the proposed detached house is located within the regulated
portion of this property. A permit under Ontario Regulation 179/06 is required from the
LSRCA for the proposed development. Please note, permit OP.2008.023 has been issued
for the proposed development.
2. The proposed new dwelling is no closer to the creek or to the shoreline than the existing
dwelling which is to be demolished.
3. As per our Level 3 agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the
file has been reviewed by our Senior Fisheries Biologist, Mr. Jeff Andersen, under the
Federal Fisheries Act. The site plan, as submitted, illustrates that the new structures are
situated away from the creek. As the septic system footprint is being reduced, and is
being designed to meet or exceed contemporary standards, under the Fisheries Act, there
are no concerns.
Page I of 2
AUG -06 -2008 15:22 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
08/06/2008 WED 14:22 FAX
P.002 /002
®002/002
� -- 15
Based on the above noted information, the LSRCA has no objection to the Minor Variance
application, subject to the following conditions:
That a permit under Ontario Regulation 179/06 be obtained from the LSRCA, prior to
the issuance of a municipal building permit for the proposed dwelling (condition has
been fulfilled).
2. That prior to any site alteration, proper erosion and sediment control measures must be
in place.
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,
n ,
Ian Walker
Environmental Planner
I W /ph
C. Rick McCann, Agent, 1034 Cowbell Lane, Severn Bridge, ON, POE 1NO - Mail
Cliff Vankoughnett, MNR Midhurst District, 1 -705 -725 -7584 - Fax
U (Minor Variance - Esteireiro) 2713 Lakeshom Road East - 2.wpd
TOTAL P.002
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
120 Bayview Parkway, Box 282, Newmarket, Ont. UY 4X1
Telephone: (905) 895 -1281 Website: www.lsrca.on.ca
Fax: (905) 853 -5881 Email: info @lsrca.on.ca
PERMIT No. OP.2008.023 Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ONTARIO REGULATION 179/06.
Permission has been granted to:
Owner: JOHN ESTEIREIRO
209 OLD FOREST HILL ROAD
TORONTO, ON M6C 2H1
Applicant: RICK MCCANN
1034 COWBELL LANE
SEVERN BRIDGE, ON POE 1NO
Location: LOT 20/21, CONCESSION 014 (FORMER TOWNSHIP OF ORO), PLAN LOT PARTS 1 -3, PLAN 51R- 16475,
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
2713 LAKESHORE ROAD EAST, ORO- MEDONTE
For the: demolition of the existing cottage; construction of a new single family dwelling with associated septic system as shown
on plans submitted and marked "approved ".
on the above property during the period of Wednesday, June 18, 2008 to Friday, June 18, 2010
subject to the following conditions:
a) All development subject to provincial, federal and municipal statutes, regulations and by -laws.
b) This permit does not confer upon you any right to occupy, develop or flood lands owned by other persons or agencies.
c) The applicant must maintain and comply with the local drainage requirements of the municipality.
d) That all areas of exposed soil be stabilized immediately following construction.
e) That no grading or placing of fill occur on the lot except what is required for the proposed works as shown on the attached site plan.
f) That sediment and erosion controls be installed prior to the commencement of any works onsite. Silt controls are to be inspected after
every rainfall event and maintained until all exposed areas have been stabilized in order to prevent silt from leaving the site or entering a
watercourse or water body.
g) That all swales be constructed entirely within the boundaries of the subject property.
h) That no development or alteration of grading take place within 15 metres of the annual high watermark of Lake Simcoe (219.15metres
A.S.L.).
*NOTE The approved plans submitted with the application for this permit are hereby incorporated into and constitute part of this permit. Any
construction, placement of fill or interference with a watercourse or body of water otherwise than in accordance with such plans, constitutes a
breach of this permit which may then be revoked at the option of the Authority. In addition, any person responsible for such activity is liable to
prosecution.
Owner Health Unit, Township of Oro - Medonte ��
Applicant - Building Dept., _
Engineering Dept., MNR, Midhurst, Ref. # Ian Walker
By -law Dept. DFO, Peterborough, Ref. # Environmental Planner
File OP.2008.023 Other -
Page 1 of 2
A Watershed for Life
~
Township of - Committee of Adjustment � J
�\
August 21^2808 '
' 2Q08-A-31—Darlene Connick
� Richelieu Of
The applicant isproposing to construct @Oattached garage onto the north side of8n existing single detached
dwelling. The attached garage iS proposed k} have a ground floor area 0f48.9 square metres. The
applicant is requesting the h]UOvving relief from Section 4, Table 131 of Zoning By-law S7-S5:
Minimum Required Interior Side Yard Setback
Official Plan Designation — Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 97'95 —Residential One (R1) Zone
Prev|VVSApp|iCatVnS — nODe
3' DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department- NO Comments received
Building Department- Proposal meets minimum standards
Engineering Department — No comments recieved
4. BACKGROUND
Required Proposed
2.5 metres 1.46 metres
The subject property has aroad frontage Of approximately 28 metres K93feyet\.8 lot depth 0f approximately
85.5 metres (215feet), and a lot area of approximately 0.28 hectares (0.46 aces). The property currently
has 8 one storey single t8Dli|y dwelling as well as an 8CCeSS0ry building in the rear yard. The Township
Zoning By'|8vv requires 82.5 08t,g (8.2 feet), interior side yard setback in the Fl8SideOU8| One (R1) Z0O9
for dvv8||iDA. The proposed garage b]the existing dvv8||iDg is pn]pVSeU to be GUist8nCe Of 1.46 metres
(4.9 feet), from the interior side yard lot line.
Does the variance conform hothe general intent mfthe Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural Settlement Area in the Official Plan. Section C3.2 Of the Official Plan
states that the primary permitted use of lands within this designation shall be low density residential uses
and home occupations. Therefore, the construction Of the attached garage onto the existing dwelling unit
vvVU|d constitute a permitted use in the HUr8| Settlement Area designation. On the basis of the 8b0v8, the
pnDpOS8| is considered to conform to the intent ofthe Official Plan.
Does the variance conform bmthe general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Residential One (R1} Zone. The primary purpose Ofthe interior side yard
setbacks is to provide access to the rear yard of the p%}pedv. and to provide for 8 degree Ofseparation
between neighboring dvv8UiDgS. When 8 site inspection was complete by the staff it revealed that the
proposed attached garage would not adversely impact access to the rear Ofthe property, as the SOuU)8rn
interior side lot line is located approximately 8 metres (26 f88A beyond the south vv8|| Of the dvv8||iDU. In
8ddiUOD, the p[Op0S8d attached garage would O[h9mviS8 meets with all other Zoning By-|8w provisions
(such as nnOxirnunn h9ight, front and rear yard setbacks) for dwelling units in the 8R Zone.
On the basis 0fthe abOv9, the proposal iS considered bJ comply with the general intent Of the Zoning By-
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed attached garage would appear to be appropriate for the
desirable development of the lot. Existing trees at the front of the property would provide as an adequate
buffer for the proposed garage to Richelieu Road. Further, an abutting fence would provide a buffer
between the adjacent property to where the attached garage is proposed. The proposed garage, in
relation to the large lot will still maintain the character of the neighbourhood.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the addition to the dwelling would not adversely affect the character of the residential
area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor.
5. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance 2008-A-31, being to grant a reduction for
the north interior side yard setback from the required 2.5 metres to 1.46 metres, for the construction of an
attached garage to the existing dwelling, subject to the following conditions:
That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and sketches
submitted and approved by the Committee;
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.
3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's
decision by verifying in writing that the proposed garage does not exceed 1.95 metres to the north
interior side lot line.
Reviewed by,
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Director of Development Services
I
w
w
:r
V
lf-o
-A
P L A N OF ' S U R V E Y
OF LOT 4 REG. PLAN M-92
TOWNSHIP OF MEDONTE
C 0 U N T Y OF S I M C 0 E
SCALE; I"= 40'
1 9 -7
v
NDTF
"I 1 -1 -11 - t 5 , UkR[VED FROM' T HE
E A S T E k T . MIT OF AtCHELiEJ RJAD ..ic.
4S', ).ED TO of N 3t, 52,30" S-o— ON
REG PLZIN M - 9 ,
0
> t S C i R T f
L Q 7 I-CCkr,—CL
rQ I., kt�1111.1:C),.S —f,f
0 L I T E 1 0 - S 1 1 1 tBfhll— vi AJGuS T 1 9 1 7
Uj
kiL L to UN TAR 10 C T TRCN(,&,-,N
A l l I S T 25, 1 9 7 7 Al A,, ',,k . t , ,
S d
O
O
DEARDEN &
STANTON
0NTAR10 LAND
SURVI:YORS
CONSULTING
Orillia
Onta'10
P�r
C T STA•NGmaq, 0.1-5
Data A , G j S T , 5 . 1 9 7 7 A-2039
IZ zt, Z
sy
)dl
—So
14
.1 vyl
Cl
ry 1-3
cc ID
co
W
0
Qd
ca a
> M
E.
a ca
tv
O
O
O
ca
H 6 L- lcG, kld
pri ttJ -S TZ--X2 0 fJ 7 -
M it
OD
o ca
O
ca M
C4
ca
C4
C4
M it
o ca
Hearing Date:
THE CORPORATION OF THE
148 Line 7 S., Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
TOW
N(SHIP Phone (705) 487 -2171
Fax (705) 487 -0133
www.oro - medonte.ca
Minor Variance Review
Application #: 26c>N—A - 3 l
Owner: %.�i�ii��',�� ele�l//G,��
MAS #: � 171 Ft /,
Lot #: Plan #: /I- Z Z Conc. #:
)i( The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
, k Proposal appears to meet minimum standards.
❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks
as per Part S of the Ontario Building Code.
❑ Comments:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
ztrjeH4iN,a, CB C O
Chief Building Official
P,(;, Iz t')l
T ledoDle EnOiDeeripg Department
Inspection Report/Comments for Consent
Minor Variance,,,-
Other
File No.
Name of Owner
Address,
Subject Property
Remarks:
.V I
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmenut] Services
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment
August 21, 2008
The applicants are proposing to construct a detached garage with a ground floor area of 67.6 M2 (728 ft).
The applicants are requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95:
Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Front Yard Setback
Interior Side Yard Setback
Maximum Height
Required
Proposed
7.5 m
5.7 m
2m
1m
4.5 m
5.4 m
Official Plan Designation — Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 — Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Previous Applications — none
3. DEPARTMENT/AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department — No comments received
Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department — No concerns
4. BACKGROUND
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 28.3 metres (92.8 feet), and a lot area of
approximately 0.19 hectares (0.47 acres). There is a single family dwelling that is currently being
constructed by the applicant. The purpose of Variance application 2008-A-32 is for the construction of a
67.6 M2 (728 fe) detached garage to be located in the required front yard setback of 7.5 metres (24 feet)
and the required interior side yard setback of 2.0 metres and will exceed the maximum height of 4.5 metres.
The proposed front yard setback is 5.7 metres and the proposed interior side yard setback is 1.0 metres
and will have a height of 5.4 metres.
Before the existing deck was built, a former 1.5 metre (5 ft) by 3.9 metre (13 ft) deck existed, with the stairs
coming off the side rather than the front of the deck.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural Settlement Area in the Official Plan. Section C3.1 which contains the
Rural Settlement Area policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives:
To maintain and create attractive communities with suitable amenities
To ensure that settlement areas are developed in a logical and cost-effective manner.
The requested variance for the proposed detached garage would appear to maintain the character of the
rural settlement area, as the proposed detached garage are common building features found in
residential neighbourhoods. Therefore, the variance would conform to the general intent of the policies
contained in the Official Plan. On this basis the proposal is considered to conform to the intent of the
Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). The mature trees located in the front and
side portions of the lot, will provide a form of privacy for the abutting properties and road frontage.
One of the purposes Of maintaining ,niniD)Vnn front yards in the Shoreline Residential Zone is to maintain
and protect the residential character 0f8 SinQi8 detached shoreline residential C0DlnlUDhv. It is also the
intent Ofthe By-law pBnDi�8CC8SSVry US8�th8t�n3 n88�OD8b|� �n0 i�C|d�DtG| h}8 r�Gid8OU�| VS�/�/ =`
�' _)�����
subject to reasonable setbacks. The front yard is established t0 ensure adequate area exists between
the n}8d and structures for adequate on Site p@/king and 8ppn]ph8t8 buffer to the property lines. The
location of the detached garage vv0u|d @UOw for adequate area for on site parking OD the existing
driveway. With respect to the request for 8 reduced side yard setback, the proposed A8[ag8 vvOu|d not
hinder access k} the rear Of the proposed dwelling, 8s the garage iS proposed b}be located well ahead Of
the existing home in the front portion Of the lot. Regarding privacy, the neighbouring dwelling h]the east
iS setback approximately 25 metres from the front lot line, and 8S such the garage would b8 located well
ahead of this dwelling, and not likely create a visual hindrance or otherwise impact on privacy.
The pn}pOSa| is reasonable and should not adversely affect the character [fthe SUrn}UDdiOg a[HG. as
mature buffer of trees exists between the proposed detached garage from the road and from the abutting
neighbour to the east.
On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered to comply with the general intent of the
Zoning .
he the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based On the site inspection, the proposed detached garage would appear to be appropriate for the
desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Mature tree cover
is located in the e8Gt8n) pOdjOnS of the pn}pOdy' which is proposed to be maintained by the applicant.
The location of the proposed garage is open and free of any significant amount of tree vegetation, which
@UOvvS for the nl8xi0uO0 pR)G8n/@hUn of tree vegetation as possible. Due to the existing tree COver8g8,
the variance for 8n increase in both height and floor area will not likely have @ negative visual g[location
impact VD neighbouring properties.
Is the variance minor?
AS this application is deemed to C0UfOnU with the Official Plan, maintain the intent Of the Zoning Bv'|8vv
and constitutes appropriate development, the variance is considered to be minor.
5. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance 2008-A-32which grants an interior side yard
S8UJ8Ck of 1.0 metres rather than the required 2.0 OlEdr9S an a front yard setback Of 5.7 metres rather
then the required 7.5 nnEtr8S and to increase the maximum height from 4.5 metres to 5.4 metres further
be subject tO the following conditions:
That an C)Mt8hO Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of C00p|i8DC8 with the
Committee's decision by 1\ pinning the fOOU0y and 2) verifying in vvhtDg prior to pouring of the
foundation by way of survey/real property report so that:
a) the detached garage belocated no closer than 5.7 metres from the front lot line, and be no
closer than 1.Ometres tD the interior lot line and;
b\ that the area of the detached garage be DO larger than 07.8 nn2. and have 8 rn8xinourn
height 0f5.4 no8trGS.
2. That the appropriate building permit beobtained from the Township only after the Committee's
decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All Vf which is respectfully SubmittUd,
Gtev8D GKluh8rSOn.B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Reviewed by,
�
�
4,k -�i~_�
AOUdG Leigh, MC|P.RPP
Director of Development Services
Z"
r
A
STREET l� J
PLM a.»
, &KG
ri
cNv
C,
- �Vlflx
--Ir-c-to
lAem -*
61
cr
Z.4 �L
cy-
CL
Cl U)
ua to
cr U)
M
1-- to
m
Z U3
C,
- �Vlflx
--Ir-c-to
lAem -*
LUT kVAI*4
I A
lyt-oriLMN&
REAR aIMMN
U/S OF CULAR IIE
%QLT&9xa2L
la
ov
rx W
r RAW
4' ftM CO C. 2M
0M0 4' OWAM $NO
rx e %M-fAw
etv XUWKN tw A-
EIDI
EM9
lQe
IT-4
4' ftM CO C. 2M
0M0 4' OWAM $NO
rx e %M-fAw
etv XUWKN tw A-
EIDI
EM9
lQe
28'-0'
x W-r f va x a'-T
12'-Cr
281-cr
I T"k
FIRST FLOOR PLAN FOUNDATION PLAN
PULL DOW
Eft wm mw (ON) -------- I
. . . . . . . . . . .
;t;;.; Sir
Ra va ma(m)
*m LKmtm)
x W-r f va x a'-T
12'-Cr
281-cr
I T"k
FIRST FLOOR PLAN FOUNDATION PLAN
S t ui fix *�AN WN
AMW
v w
ro
4
h�
h
�
f
a
�9
vow
v
AW +�riwNYlYh
S t ui fix *�AN WN
AMW
v w
ro
Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department
Inspection Report for
Consent
Minor Variance---'
Other
Address
Subject Property
Date of Inspection
Name of Road
Surface of Road
1. Site Lines, Township Road Poor Good— Excellent
2. Site Lines, Subject Property Poor— Good Excellent.
Drive
3. Drainage Poor Good Excellent
4. Future Road Widening Required Yes No
If yes, Amount
5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes.
6. Future Drive to be located
[►e
Remarks: SZ ... L J-u -LIC/7,4261,6" LL z -r r �
Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent
Hearing Date
Application #:
16Z zi /zl 8
Owner:
MAS #:
Lot #:
Plan #:
3j, Conc. #:
�W The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
X Proposal appears to meet minimum standards.
❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks
as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.
❑ Comments:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
Michaci- )i CBCO
Chief Building Official
To�hip of Ciro Ajedonte Fn„ineerinp, Department
Inspection peport/Comments for Consent
Minor Variance
Other
N' I
o
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services .
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Township ofOrm-Medmnke - Committee mfA6 Adjustment
�� / � )
August 21, 2008
D008-A-33- Gaylene HmUnbmrtom
195 Scarlett Line, Concession 2, Part 57 (Medonte)
The applicant is proposing to construct a detached accessory building for boat and trailer parking, which is
pO], 8e-h}h8veGb}ba|a[ea0f148M2(1UOO*) RndHhgight0fG.2mOC2Ofd. The applicant isrequesting
the following relief from Zoning By-law S7-S5:
Rec
wired Proposed
Maximum Heinh 4.5 metres 6-24 metres
2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
[}ffiCiO| Plan Designation —Rural; EnvinDDnlgOb3| Protection One
Zoning By-law S7-95— Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone; Environment Protection (EP) Zone
Previous Applications —None
3. DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department- NO Comments received
Building Department- Proposal meets minimum standards
Engineering Department —NOconcerns
N0ttaw8S@g8 Valley Conservation Authority — Permit #2008-7S28 approved for proposed garage
4. BACKGROUND
The subject property has 8 lot frontage of approximately 118 metres /387 feet) VD8cad8ft Line, 8 depth Vf
approximately 860 08t[eS (2821 feet), and 8 lot area of approximately 10.1 hectares (25.0 acres). The
subject property currently contains 8 single detached dwelling. The property iS surrounded byresidential
dxvSUiOgS.
The applicants are proposing t0 construct 8 148 M2 (1600 ft) detached garage to be located 12.8 metres
/42 feet) from the south eastern interior side lot line. The proposed garage iGho have 8 height 0f8.2metres
(20 feet). As such, the applicant is requesting relief from the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to increase the
maximum allowable height for accessory structures.
Does the variance conform tmthe general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural and Environmental Protection One in the Official Plan. The proposed
garage is located in the RUx8| d8G|AO8bOn. which states in Section C2.2 of the Official Plan that "permitted
uses nO lands designated Rural ... are single detached dwellings [and accessory buildings tOSuCh]'
Therefore the detached garage would constitute 8 permitted use.
On this basis the prOpOS8| is considered to conform to the intent 0fthe (]ffid8| Plan.
Does the variance conform bm the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property iS zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) and Envin]Drn8nt8| Pn}t8SbVD (EP) Zone. The
pn}pO88d garage is located in the Agricultural/Rural Zone which permits single detached dwellings and
accessory buildings, such as garages and storage sheds. Aside from the maximum height provision, the
pnUpO8Rd garage will otherwise meet with the required interior side GDU rear yard setbacks and 5 percent
lot coverage provisions for accessory structures. The applicant has indicated that they p|8D to use the
proposed garage 8S8storage building on the lot. Therefore, the variance is considered to comply with the
general intent Ofthe Zoning By-law.
/m the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
A site inspection revealed that the proposed location for the garage will be located to the rear of the
existing dwelling. Surrounding lands b}the wOdh' South' and east consist 0flarge residential parcels. An
existing tree line is currently located on the southern and eastern portion of the applicants' property, which
i8 currently 08iDtGiD8d by the applicant. The |Oc8hOO of the proposed garage is open and free of any
significant amount of tree vegetation, which 8||Ovvs for the maximum preSew8UOO of tree vegetation as
possible. Due to the existing bee coverage, the variance for an increase in height will not likely have 8
negative visual Or location impact OO neighbouring properties.
|t was also noted On the site inspection that there are two accessory structures OD neighboring lots that are
larger than what the by-law permits for height 8faO accessory structure. These types 0f structures are
similar k} those that the applicant isproposing.
(]n this basis the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject k}i
Is the variance minor?
AS this 8po|ic8b0D Sk0J|d not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area, the proposed
variance is considered to be minor.
5. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2008-A-33 subject to the following
1. That the height of the detached garage not exceed 6.2 metres;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and OO the
sketch submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
3. That an {]Dt8do Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the height 0fthe detached garage not exceed 7.9
nn8tr���
.
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
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan V8nd8nbu/g.B.URP|
Planner
Reviewed by,
Andda Leigh, MC|P.RPP
Director of Development Services
LEFT ELEVATION SCALE V4'=l'0'
Staanhoy
PLOT PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
. �
/ /
RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE 114"=I'O"
m z
Staanhoy
PLOT PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
. �
/ /
RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE 114"=I'O"
CLIMATIC DATA
GROUND SNOW LOAD ~2,mmw
PAIN LOAD ~0A"Pa
,^w HOUR WIND PRESSURE ~u�swn
�
MIN ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING ~osxm
ROOF DESIGN LOAD = 2,0 RES
� -L —__—_______—____— L _ _
_
________________________________________________________
. /
/ /
REAR ELEVATION SCALE 114"=1'0'
8teanhof
.~.^.~.-~..'..
...
BON # 27939
PROPO ED GARAGE, FOR
MR & AIRS HALLYSURTON
co
ELEVATIONS
PVV
mftft
FOR REVIEW
co
~_.
�
8teanhof
.~.^.~.-~..'..
...
BON # 27939
PROPO ED GARAGE, FOR
MR & AIRS HALLYSURTON
1,% SCARLETT LINE
ELEVATIONS
PVV
FOR REVIEW
~_.
�
O
0
5' -0"
— 32' -0"
19' -0" --
81 -01t
—
------------ T ------- r --- —r7
W
3
M
FLOOR PLANS
t� L- 150X19pm0 \ 1
; i 1 STEEL LINTEL \ 1
I
P
any
r �
j c erw
n
2PLY &5 /
SELECTFM
� /
T ROOD
s ev
�zm irssF ER eu�:
/^"wft
M` i
Re"'a�ks Ram
FOR REVIEW 080508
,W'
p X
CL LL
� 1 i
RETE
m z
z p
i
d O 111
° .._ PLY P
' 20£QVEH
r�
I
ED
t I
2
J
Lo Q
UNFINISHED
'
GARAGE
\
�
\
c2-- i
—CE raTOP Of
G8FE0
\
�.111,T
2RDO R
I I i
/N-\
II v
d/
I
1,uo
I
F-
\/�
Nutlfl Wl3 i
I J
I
WL3I 01
1 1
_._... 10' -0" — 14'-0 -..... __ 8' -0" _. f
—
-- ..32' -0" —
MAIN FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1f4 " =1'0”
WINDOW SCHEDULE
NUMBER QTY I DIMENSIONS DESCRIPTION (REMARKS
W41 3 148' %24" AWNING .1
NC1TE
LEASE USE THIS LSTAS AN ORDEROV OE ONLY.
PLEASE CONSULT£ NK W _ AND ODOR ORDER
E-I-DT RS OS.
DQOR SCHEDULE
NU MAR
M6ER 10 Y LM �UF, C ' N
t DI I126X120 GA AGE I
; D02 1 38 %86 %1 14 E%T
D6)� —+ 1 144X120" GARAGE -- - -�
0
t(1 mNCOW AND POOR HEADER
(I.INTFL)SGHEPtJ{E
1 STORE/ 2STOREY
22"SPE lAll 2 5 -1 N
PAN
w. L•
'•S mt2
22xe05PF I Ax SSEA. I 2 -Z%`2 SPF MAX —SPAN A4AX I9 "SPAN Wt<
i
Steenhof
7111,11,11- 7�1
BCIN # 27939
FLOOR PLANS
I
„oY
co o9
P
any
r �
j c erw
n
R
W
/^"wft
M` i
Re"'a�ks Ram
FOR REVIEW 080508
,W'
p X
CL LL
m z
z p
2
J
Lo Q
co O
Steenhof
7111,11,11- 7�1
BCIN # 27939
FLOOR PLANS
I
„oY
P.W.saP 1a „O-
P
any
j c erw
S a1«
R
� No
Re"'a�ks Ram
FOR REVIEW 080508
l
i
I
FOR PERMIT 1
�
1
C) b)
Lo —
32'-0"
T-4" 3'-4" 25*-4"
'7
co
UNEXCAVAT
ED
111TINE
aI
'FROS—L
32'-0"
FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE 114"=I'0'
UD
UD
-.1
0)
Rzcsss
II—S Cnanve
l—W'FETE/
oouRiNc
rru A—.
T
REt
Ll
co
UNEXCAVAT
ED
111TINE
aI
'FROS—L
32'-0"
FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE 114"=I'0'
UD
UD
-.1
Steenhof
.... ... .....
BCIN# 27939
FL OOR PLANS
PW
P,W,
FOS I.W.
FOR PERMIT
0)
"t co
(o C?
Cj Lo
Cj C14
%oft
Lu
C/)
z
i
uj
C)
0- LL
>ft
CO z
Z 0
Z
to
M o
Steenhof
.... ... .....
BCIN# 27939
FL OOR PLANS
PW
P,W,
FOS I.W.
FOR PERMIT
CONTRACTORS NOTES
1. DIMENSIONS
A: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS - USE ONLY
NOTED DIMENSIONS.
B: CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK
DIMENSIONS ON PLANS AND ON SITE PRIOR
TO COMMENCING ANY WORK AND REPORT
ANY DISCREPENCIES TO THE DESIGNER.
C: DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS ARE
NOMINAL ONLY AND SHALL BE ADJUSTED
TO SUIT ON SITE CONDITIONS.
2. ONTARIO BUILDING CODE
A: ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE
LATEST REVISED EDITION OF THE ONTARIO
BUIL
TOP OF
I
Steenhof
F— BCIN # 27939
I
i
Address
SECTION AND
DETAILS
w P.W,
P. W r
sww w. J.S.
em J.S
R-
oR REVIEw oaosoa
'li FOR PERMFT
1
�
v
c) CD
V
CD
ui
[�/
z
Z
♦1
uia
o
LL
J
/-
H
m
Z
Z O
Y Q I f
J j
J
c) O
I
Steenhof
F— BCIN # 27939
I
i
Address
SECTION AND
DETAILS
w P.W,
P. W r
sww w. J.S.
em J.S
R-
oR REVIEw oaosoa
'li FOR PERMFT
,����
�` x
}� { /I�,�
&RUin�
AUG -07 -2008 09:29 FROM:NVCA
7054242115 TO:17054670133
P.1
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Augu stt 6, 2008
Centre for Conservation John Hix Conservation Administration Centre PERMIT
Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 Concession Line 8, Utopia, Ontario LOM 1 T #�0$_ %�2$
Teiephone: 705.424.1479 Fax: 705.424.2115 Email: admin @nvea.on.cs
In accordance with Section 28 (1) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 19901 and Ontario
Regulation 172/06, permission has been granted to the applicant, subject to the conditions below. If
you do not agree with these conditions, you have a right to a Hearing under the Conservation
Authorities Act. Please notify the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) within 30 days
of receipt of this permit to exercise your right to a Hearing. Should you fail to notify the NVCA within
30 days of receipt of this permit, you will agree to the conditions as set out below.
APPLICANT: Ron Gaylene Hallyburton
195 Scarlett Line
Hillsdale, Ontario, LOL 1 VO
LOCA71ON: Part Lot 57, Concession 2,195 Scarlett Line
Township of Oro - Medonte (former Geographic Township of Medonte), County of Simcoe
Property Assessment Roll #: 434602000120350
UTM Coordinates: Easting 599324, Northing 4938626
PROPOSAL: for the construction of a new structure (detached garage) and the placement of fill (associated
grading to facilitate the garage construction), at the above noted location as indicated on the
attached or noted drawing(s), subject to the following conditions:
r 1 i aili��Ir'r'.I
SPECIAL PERMIT CONDITIONS
1) That consent is given to NVCA, its employees and other persons as required by NVCA, to access the
property for the purpose of inspection, obtaining information, and or monitoring any and all works,
activities and or construction pertaining to the property in addition to the works as approved under
cover of any permit issued by NVCA.
2) That the works be carried out in accordance with the following submissions:
• Elevations drawing prepared by "By Design'; dated May 8, 2008 (on file)
• Plot Plan drawing submitted with permit application
3) All materials and equipment used for the purpose of site preparation and project completion shall be
operated and stored in a manner that prevents any deleterious substance from entering the water.
Vehicular re- fuelling and maintenance should be conducted well away from the water.
4) That nothing herein authorizes any person to carry out any work or undertaking, which may result in
harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat or any fishery.
5) Please note that this permit is only valid if approvals, agreements or permits are received from all
other agencies having jurisdiction.
6) That this permit does not confer upon you any right to occupy, develop or flood lands owned by other
persons or agencies.
...12
AUG-07-2ooe 09:29 FROM:NVCA 7054242115 T0: 17054e70133 P.2
Page 2 of 2
STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS
7) That all development and site alteration is subject to ail other applicable federal, provincial and
municipal statutes, regulations and by-laws, such as the Municipal Act, Zoning and Tree-Cutting By-
Laws, the Federal Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Act, Public Lands Act, Lakes and Rivers
Improvement Act, Drainage Act, Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.
8) That appropriate erosion and sediment control measures are installed prior to construction and
maintained until all disturbed areas are stabilized, to ensure that sediments do not enter any water-
course, wetland, lake, pond or sensitive area within the development or adjacent properties. When an
erosion and sediment control plan appears to be inadequate, the deficiencies must be addressed and
additional measures or practices implemented as needed. It is the responsibility of the owner and the
owner's representative (if contracted) to implement, monitor and maintain all erosion/sedimentation
control structures and practices until vegetative cover has been successfully established.
9) That any excess excavated material must be placed at least 30 metres from any slope, lake, pond,
wetland, watercourse, floodplain, fill regulated area or adjacent property. That any fill material stock
piled for longer than 30 days must be stabilized and re-vegetated to prevent erosion.
10) The natural drainage patterns beyond the immediate work site area are to remain in their natural
state and existing vegetation shall not be removed.
11) The soils disturbed during construction and access should be stabilized as soon as possible upon
completion of work and restored to a pro-disturbed state or better. Disturbed areas should be re-
vegetated/seeded when the growing season permits. From September 15th to April 30th, structural
stabilization techniques (e.g, application of erosion control blankets) should be utilized.
12) That the owner provides copies of this permit to any contracting or construction supervisor(s) who
must have a copy of the permit available on-site for inspection by an officer when requested and that
the owner ensure that all of the contractors and site supervisors are aware of the obligations under
this permit including any obligations assigned by the owner to the contractors and supervisors. All
contractors and site supervisors must be aware that they may also be held responsible for any
violations in relation to the obligations outlined under this permit.
Note: It is the responsibility of the applicant to carry out the works in accordance with the above conditions.
Failure to due so may result in cancellation of the permit and possible action in accordance with the
Conservation Authorities Act
Should you have any questions regarding this permit, please contact Barb Perreault-Environmental
Officer at (705) 424-1479 extension 245.
Pc
C � "t)�/ P.P. hris ibber R. P. — cting Director of Planning
Barb Perreault, C.E.T., MLEO(C)
Officer under the Conservation Authorities Act
Copy: Township — Building/Planning Department
File (1)
O
O
O
r.
I I't ;-I Ft
7
j,
-77
--rr
PLOT PLAN a
NOT TO SCALE
T ledonte EDoineerilap Department
Inspection ReportlComments for Consent
Minor Variance
Other
File No.
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services .
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Hearing Date:
THE CORPORATION OF THE
148 Line 7 S., Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
TOWN6HIP Phone (705) 487 -2171
Fax (705) 487 -0133
_ — 01 www.oro- medonte.ca :7 &��
Minor Variance Review
Application #:
Owner:
MAS #: z 7,5- f
Lot #: Plan #:
Conc. #:
2
Ad The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
'12L Proposal appears to meet minimum standards.
❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks
as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.
❑ Comments:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
elm ALL rid
CBCO
Chief Building Official
QoOv ��
Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment
A
August 21, 2008
2008-A-34 — Joseph and Nelly Lane
85 Moon Point Drive, Lot 25, Plan 920 (Orillia)
1. PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting relief from the required front yard setback for an existing single detached
dwelling. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95:
Zone: Shoreline Residential Exception 2 (SR*2) Zone:
Required Proposed
Table B1 Standards for Permitted Uses:
Minimum Required Front Side Yard Setback 7.5 rn 5.9 m
2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 — Shoreline Residential One Exception 2 (SR*2) Zone
Previous Applications —
3. DEPARTIVIENVAGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works — No Comments received
Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department- No Comments received
4. BACKGROUND
The subject property has a lot frontage on Line 10 North of approximately 44 metres (144 feet), and a
lot depth of approximately 50 metres (164 feet), and a lot area of 0.17 hectares (0.43 acres). The lot
is presently occupied by an existing two storey dwelling, which was constructed in 1972. The
applicant is applying to the Committee to recognize that the proposed stairs leading into the existing
dwelling were constructed with the required 7.5 metre setback from the front property line.
Does the variance maintain the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Permitted uses in this designation include
single detached dwellings, existing marina's, small scale commercial uses such as convenience
stores, public parks and bed and breakfast. As the existing dwelling constitutes a permitted use
within the Shoreline designation, the application would therefore maintain the intent of the Official
Plan.
Does the variance maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential Exception 2 (SR*2) Zone. Permitted uses in the
SR Zone include single detached dwellings and accessory buildings, such as garages and storage
sheds.
With respect to front yard setbacks, the primary purpose for maintaining a minimum distance from
roadways is to ensure that adequate buffering exists between structures and the traveled portion of
the road. As well, the front yard setback also ensures that adequate vehicle parking exists for the
dwelling, and in some cases provides for lot area for components of septic systems. For the
application at hand, the existing dwelling with a covered porch, is located 9.6 metres (31.6 feet) at its
closest point from the front property line.
The zoning exception 2, which is placed on the property address minimum interior side yard setback
for a structure. Aside from the reduced front yard setback, the proposed dwelling would otherwise
comply with height, floor area, and all other setback requirements. Section 5.9.1 states:
Architectural features such as sills, belt courses, cornices, eaves or gutters, chimney breasts,
pilasters, roof overhangs, stairs and landings used to access a main building, cantilevered window
bays, unenclosed porches and balconies may encroach into any required yard a distance of no more
than 1.0 metre (3.2 feet).
This would allow the front porch to encroach 6.5 metres (21.3 feet), to the front property line, which
would mean the applicant is only seeking recognition of 0.5 metres (1.9 feet) front yard setback
deficiency.
On the basis of the above, the existing dwelling would therefore maintain the general intent of the
Zoning By-law.
Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
The location of the existing dwelling appears to be appropriate, as the structure is located at a
significant distance from the travelled portion of Moon Point Road. The purpose of the front yard
setback is to maintain separation between the traveled portion of the roadway and residential
structures, and to allow for vehicle parking. The existing driveway and vehicle parking space on the
subject lands will also not be affected by the nature of this application, the existing dwelling, albeit
setback further into the lot.
On the basis of the above, the recognizance of the existing dwelling and proposed reduction of the
required side yard setback is deemed to be appropriate.
Is the variance minor?
As this application is deemed to conform with the Official Plan, maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law
and constitutes appropriate development, the variance is considered to be minor.
5. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee approves Variance Application 2008-A-34, being to recognize the
stairs used to access the existing dwelling, having a minimum front yard setback of 5.9 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 stairs be located no closer than 5.9 metres from the front lot line
2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township 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
,A
Andria Leigh, MCIP RPP
Director of Development Services
Acv r+
T j— e." 7
LJ wELL
SEfT'.L .r•
i
Siteplan
® EXISTING BUILDING
611,
1 I
i • STkr,Es
epiacement of Existing Deck
65 Moon Point Dr.
R o�eee
9—t Fide, Siteplan 1
AO i
(a.. ,IAvp ;mac_ Joe Lane V
0
T
-Wff n,w'z..e>-j ,
Druz -UAJ
sa
:
t
b
S,zr or Bumolmr. bG`zS�`(l9Q$s�i) '
(
SIZE of max 4dx mv'n lSc'x tba`
—#L
NL AR6, -0
r
• 1—o-r I—
PATiQ ADf7Jf
1
1 I
i • STkr,Es
epiacement of Existing Deck
65 Moon Point Dr.
R o�eee
9—t Fide, Siteplan 1
AO i
(a.. ,IAvp ;mac_ Joe Lane V
0
T
r.
U.S. BEAMS
----------
3 C BLACK IRON ----
R005 HANDRAIL
'E'ARATED 41TN
(_0ARI7RA,L
FIIV GRADE
7
ni IC
BOTTOM OF PIERS
I
A-2 FRONT ELEVATION - SECTION
SCALE 1/4 " " =1' -0
ARClif 7,
ELOC -K h4C
4X?' 1 r F'015T
RF PEAK
3F 'NL; U.S. BEAMS
ti A L 'V_
'
,�F
51
4 "LATE
;4s
5,_A5
tN rtf REE3AR IN
P0
"7N ETIE PtER5
GRADE
--------------------------
E E F CA -iNO
°OR _ANP'SGA�F
T El
BOTTOM OF PIERS
F1
tr 0' 1
�'� \* 141
EXISTING BUILDING
6 3--A(,K RCN
RO
RAN
Ex A ON �,E_��AF_,-
J0 14 P 5--
AND 4 .1
A-1 SIDE ELEVATION-SECTION
SCALE I14""=I'-0
Replacement of Existing Deck
85 Moon Point Dr.
Elevations - Sections with Plan dimensions:
0--lAo, Joe Lane
02
1/4:=I'-O"
"T
.z,,
�<
Y
F ��
� >,t �r,t ,����
�''
�,
i%
1
`^`
v k Vii.,
�e
`5
i%
1
`^`
`N1
Referenco.- trge00000068a
N-1r. Joe Lj-Tie
Lane Contracting
1660 Enterprise Road, Unit No, I
-Mi3sissaugga, Ontario
TA W 4L4
Dear'lMr. Lane:
Edward Wong & Associates Inc.
34 Marcolline Crescent
Toronto, Ontario
M2K 1V7
elephone: (416) 903-4286
Facsirnlle� (416) 221 -0795
June 27. 2008
Via F3.x-
905 - 696 -71 24
Ed-",axd Wong & As5ociates Inc. was retained by Lane Contracting- for a soil bearing
capacity- evaluation. The work is rcquired Lo deternihie if the subsoil is capable of
supporting the newly,,-onstructed porch for the house in the abcic captioned properry,
Site Descriptions
The subject propetv is located o1i the west shore of Lake Simco.-. It is currentivxcupled
in part by a single storey wood. (ranted house with a basement and a parking garage built
below the main floor, a boat storage shed, an asphattlL pzved drivekvay anti landscaped
areas. Thc main floor Of tile h0usc is at about 2.5 rn above tb.e street level of"Moon P-tint
Drive. The floor slab of the oasemerit and parking garage is at about the street level. With
the exception of the garage door opening, the lower I m of tl�e basement walls -was
covemd with soil, The house is about M years old.
Soil Bearing Capacity Evaluation
We lisited the .site ran June 26, 008. Renovations are being ca7,jed oui in the house.
Stucco is being applied 1t.), the -xtcriOT face-, of the house. A porch 'rus been constrjcted
at rite frot'T entrance on the west side Of the house.
The porch consists of a suspended and reinforced concrete slab supported on TNve (3)
rows of three, (..3) drilled piers. .the first and SeeCilld r0vs of pier are located at about. 0,6
and 1.3 m off the basement walls. The pier is about 250 mm in diameter. The piers are
spaced at about 2.0 to 2.3 in center to center. Lane Contracting reported that pier bases
are at about 1.2 m below existing grade. The concrete slab is not structurally connected to
the house.
Auger cuttings were noted in the area of the drilled piers. The auger cutting generally
consists of gravelly sand with pmk-eu of gravelly clay.
At the time of our site visit, a test pit was hand dug in the area off the northwest con-ter of
the porch- The excavation was terminated at about 0.6 in below grade in the gravelly
sand underlying the topsoil fill. The gravelly sand exists in a dense state.
Manual Probing in the immediate area of the piers indicates the presence of competent
soils at about 1.0 n-i and 0,6 m below grade in the first and second rows of the drilled
piers.
Based ,m our field assessments, the drilled piers were founded on competent C IS
native ,moils
i
(den, x gravelly sand/ very stiff gravelly clay) capable of supporting the newly
constructed porch.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, Please do not hesitate to contact this
Office.
O"tj Wong & A70clates Inc.
Edward 13,14. Wong, N4. Dig., p. Eng.
T 'ledonte Engineering Department
Inspection Rcport/Comments for Consent
Minor Variance ,
Other
File No.�
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services .
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department
Inspection Report for
Consent
Minor Variance.---"
Other
Subject Property
Date of Inspection
Name of Road
Al
Surface of Road L-
1.
Site Lines, Township Road Poor
Good
Excellent,
2.
Site Lines, Subject Property Poor
Good
Excellent.
Drive
3.
Drainage Poor
Good—
Excellent
4.
Future Road Widening Required
Yes
No
If yes, Amount
5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes.
6. Future Drive to be located
Remarks:
No
Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent
Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment
August 21, 2008
2008-A-35 - Warren and Barbara Ryckman
Line 11 South, Plan 232, Pt. Lot 10, Concession 11 (Former Twp. Of Oro)
1. PURPOSE OF APPLICATION
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition and deck onto the rear of an existing church
building which has been converted into a single detached dwelling. The addition is proposed to
increase in height from the existing 3.35 metres (10.9 feet) to a proposed 6.7 metres (22 feet), this
would further encroach into the required interior side yard setback as stated in the Zoning By-law.
The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95:
Non-Complying Buildin-galStructures
Section 5.16.1 b) does not increase the amount of floor area or volume in a required yard
2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Hawkestone Residential Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 — Residential One (R1) Zone
Previous Applications —
3. DEPARTMENVAGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department — No comments received
Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department — No comments reviewed
4. BACKGROUND
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 15 metres (50 feet) on Line 11 South,
and a lot depth of approximately 50 metres (165 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.07
hectares (0.18 acres). The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing rear portion of the
non-conforming single storey dwelling, and replace it with a single storey addition and a deck.
The purpose for the variance is to permit the construction of additional floor volume in the
required exterior side yard.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Hawkestone Residential Area by the Official Plan. Permitted uses in
this designation include single detached dwellings, accessory buildings, and home occupations.
As such, the proposal to renovate and enlarge a residential structure that constitutes a
permitted use would conform to the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property fronts onto Line 11 South in the Hawkestone Settlement Area. The interior
side yard separates the dwelling from the neighbouring lot line to the north by 1.3 metres (4.5
feet); however, as the dwelling, which was originally the United Church in Hawkestone was
constructed in approximately 1913, it would be considered a non-conforming structure. The
purpose of the interior side yard setbacks is to provide access to the rear yard of the property,
and to provide for a degree of separation between neighboring dwellings. The site inspection
revealed that the proposed addition and deck should not adversely impact access to the rear of
the property, as the south interior side lot line is located approximately 5.4 metres (17.8 feet)
beyond the south wall of the dwelling. The proposed addition is located at the rear of the
dwelling, and is not proposed to further reduce the existing deficient interior side yard, but only
to increase in height and therefore floor volume. Aside from the proposed addition of floor
volume within the interior side yard setback, the application would otherwise meets with all other
setback requirements of the Residential One Zone.
On the basis of the above, the proposal to increase floor volume in a required yard is deemed to
maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed addition would be located at the rear of the existing
dwelling. It was also noted that there is existing tree coverage along the north interior side lot
line that provides additional buffering from the abutting residential lot. As the proposed addition
will also not further reduce an existing deficient interior side yard, and constitutes an addition to
an existing permitted use, the proposal is deemed to be desirable for the appropriate
development on the lot.
Is the variance minor?
As this application is deemed to conform with the Official Plan, maintain the intent of the Zoning By-
law and constitutes appropriate development, the variance is considered to be minor.
5. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee Approve Variance application 2008-A-35 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by a) pinning the footing and b) verifying in writing that the addition
and deck be no closer than 1.3 metres to the north interior side lot line;
2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township only after the
Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act
R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Steven Farquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Reviewed by
4
Andria Leigh, MCIP RPP
Director of Development Services
PIN 58561 - 0.220
N 3 P 57'40" W
- �t
1770-0;z FEN(
REGISTERED PLAN
LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT I
PIN 58561 - 0019 -PIN 58561 -
z
IN
N E 31'49'30E" A RW
Ly (REFRENCE BIN
G)
LINE 11
ORIGINAL ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN
66 (PI)
L31'
LOT I I
PIN 58561
Z.Y z
LA
4.S V
Cri
+w
bwe
Dan
ON
I.80'
xam
Z-
184
SOUTH
CONCESSIONS 11 AND 12
PART 3,51R4798
m
Mw
bam
00
base
70.0'(P2)
76.21' 6920a)
'Ell)—L
N E 31'49'30E" A RW
Ly (REFRENCE BIN
G)
LINE 11
ORIGINAL ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN
66 (PI)
L31'
LOT I I
PIN 58561
Z.Y z
LA
4.S V
Cri
+w
bwe
Dan
ON
I.80'
xam
Z-
184
SOUTH
CONCESSIONS 11 AND 12
I if
5:k 3,15f 'H
I
e's , 3, ci3 rn
I t) 6, ,? m
h'D'D 1-Fr o/V
Hearing Date:
Application #:
� `z/A6
Owner: �A76,zl -�✓ iViZJ� 112
MAS #: '9' � q // f
Lot #: /(*' `� Plan #. Conc. #:
1I
148 Line 7 5., Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
Phone (705) 487 -2171
Fax (705) 487 -0133
www.oro - medonte.ca
0 The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
Proposal appears to meet minimum standards.
❑ Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks
as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.
❑ Comments:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
f� L
r, CBCO
Chief Building Official
141�
" rz'(04
Tow�� ship of Oro- Medonte Em)iDeeriDg Department
Inspection Report./Comments for Consent
Minor Variance
Other
File No.
Name of Owner r
Address
N
Zf
Subject Property
Remarks:
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
i it at
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services .
Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department
Inspection Report for
Consent
Minor Variance
Other
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date
File No. A 3 -S-
Name of Owner
Address I- !-W C4-Avrc...
Subject Property
Date of Inspection
Name of Road 0
Surface of Road
A ( --z '
1. Site Lines, Township Road Poor
Good
Excellent
2. Site Lines, Subject Property Poor
Good
Excellent
Drive
3. Drainage Poor
Good
Excellent
4. Future Road Widening Required
Yes
No
If yes, Amount
5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes No
6. Future Drive to be located
Remarks:
Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent