09 18 2008 C of A AgendaTOWNSHIP • ORO-MEDONTE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGEND
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1073�M �
i
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
— IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT
4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
a) Minutes of Committee of Adjustment Meeting of August 21, 2008
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS
a) Application: 2008-A-36
Applicant: Mike Vella
Location: 1844 Warminster Side Road, Plan 309, Part of Lot 45 and 46 (Formerly
Township of Medonte)
Proposal: Proposing to construct a new roof on an existing dwelling which would further
encroach into the required exterior side yard setback
b) Application: 2008-A-37, 2008-A-38, 2008-A-39
Applicant: Russell Hill Homes
Location: Diamond Valley Drive, Part of Lot 3, Concession 7 (Formerly Township
of Oro)
Proposal: Construct three single detached dwellings located east of Line 6 North and
South of Monica Court which will be used as model homes for the proposed
Diamond Valley subdivision
c) Application: 2008-A-40
Applicant: Vincent and Maura Caruana
Location: 1065 Lakeshore Rd. E., Plan 882, Lot 15& 16 (Formerly Township of Oro)
Proposal: Construct a one-storey boathouse with a gazebo attached to its roof, as well
as a accessory building
d) Application: 2008-A-41
Applicant: George and Heidi Caufin
Location: 175 Lakeshore Road West, Lot 65, Concession 7 (Formerly Township of
Oro)
Proposal: Construct a single-storey boathouse
e) Application: 2008-A-42
Applicant: Marion Garnett
Location: 3 Beach Road, Plan 949, Lot 16 (Formerly Township of Orillia)
Proposal: Construct a single detached dwelling with an attached garage
M
f) Application: 2008-B-19 Page 2
Applicant: Gavin Wright and Caron Wilson
Location: 14 Cahiague Road, Lot 14, Concession 11 (Formerly Township of Medonte)
Proposal: Creation of a residential lot
g) Application: 2008-13-38
Applicant: George Anderson
Location: 1004 Line 14 North, Pt. Lot 9,West Pt Lot 10, Concession 14 (Formerly
Township of Medonte)
Proposal: Boundary adjustment
h) Application: 2008-B-39
Applicant: Indian Park Association
Location: 15 Algonquin Trail, Plan M-8, Lot 2, Concession 6 (Formerly Township of
Oro)
Proposal: Permit a lot addition
i) Application: 2008-B-40
Applicant: Stuart and Shirley Woodrow
Location: Part of Lot 20, Concession 7 (Formerly Township of Oro)
Proposal: Boundary adjustment
6. STAFF REPORTS
ffem-
7. NEW BUSINESS
a) Application — 2008-A-32 (Bell)
b) OMB Appeal — 2007-A-1 8 (Spasov)
C) Draft 2009 Calendar [to be distributed at the meeting]
K
Township ofOm-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 18, 2008
2008-A-36 - Mike Vella
1844 Warminster Side Road Plan 309, Part of Lot 45 and 46 (Medonte)
The applicant is proposing bJ construct a new roof OO8n existing dwelling. The new
roof vvOuNfU�h8rencroach into the required extehOrskjeyard setback 8sS�ded'bV'he Zoning
Bv-|8xv. The 8ppUc8nti8requ8sdDg the f0UOwingrelief hDO0Zoning By-law 97-85: '
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 — Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law S7'85— Residential One (R1) Zone
Previous Applications —
AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department-
Building DeoodDle[d—Pn}poS8|/\pp9GnSb]K8e8tK8ini0lUmnSt8nd8nUS
Engineering Department —NoConcerns
BACKGROUND
The subject property has @ road frontage of approximately 21 metres /7O feed On
Warminster Side Road, 8 lot depth Of 8ppn}xinn8t8|y 43 metres (142 feet) and `8 lot area Of
approximately 0.1 hectares /0.25 OCr8S>. The applicant iS proposing to r8'/8C8a leaking flat
roof OU8 non-conforming dvveUingvvith8nevv gabled r00[ The purpose 'rthe variance �Sh]
permit the cOnSi/UCh0A of 8UdibOO8/ v0/u[n8 in the required exterior side yard with the
revision h} the proposed roof.
Does the variance conform &m the general intent mfthe Official Plan?
The property iG designated Rural Settlement Area bv the Official Plan /{]P). 8HCb0D(�3.2[f
the (]P states that p8rOli�8duses in this d8Sign8Uo)include (Ovvdensity residential uses. AS
the variance iS proposed for a o3Of replacement Of8n existing residential structure the use
would conform with Section C3.2.
AS the 8pp|iC8UOD is for 8 Non-Complying Building which eDCn3aCh8S into the required
exterior side yard, 8 review 0f Section E1.0(N0n'Comp|yingStruCtUre8\Ofthe Official Plan i8
required. These pD||CieG are similar to the considerations OnS Vnder Section 5.18 Of the zoning
Uy-|8vv in order to confirm that the proposed renovation, repair does not further iDCre8G8 8
situation Of nOD-CV0p|i8nCe. CODlp|iBS with all other 8pp|iC@b!8 provision Of the Plan and
innp|enOSnbDg zoning by-/8vv. will not pose 8 threat to public safety. The proposed variance
would permit n]Of replacement on an existing r8GiU8nU8/ dwelling which vv0u|d conform with
all other provision of the Plan and comply with the other provisions of the implementing
zoning by-law, would not further increase the situation of non-compliance, and would not
appear to pose a threat to public safety based on its current location.
On this basis, the enlarging of the non-complying building with the replacement of the flat
roof is deemed to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan,
Does the variance comply to the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property fronts onto Warminster Side Road in the Warminster Settlement Area.
The dwelling, which was originally constructed in approximately 1959, is considered to be a
non-complying structure. The site inspection revealed that the proposed construction of the
new roof should not adversely impact the distance between the house and the street any
more than it is presently.
On the basis of the above, the proposal to increase volume in a required yard is deemed to
maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed addition of a new roof would be desirable to the
surrounding area and would allow for the repair of an existing leaking roof structure.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed application is to allow the repair of a non-complying structure.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee Approve Variance application 2008-A-36 subject to
the following conditions:
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.
2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the roof does not exceed in height
4.11 metres from the top of the floor to the midpoint of the roof.
3. That the proposed roof be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application and on the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the
Committee;
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Ryan Vandenburg, B,URPL
Planner
N
Reviewed by
Andria Leigh, MCIP RPP
Director of Development Services
Ic
-=%- P..r V-
!5 "t tam LC
jJ
('1
Tx3hicsAltiO��.i
E--1
A -S U n tE.C3
r--k 2- E- v:-- P- (D t-1
"T -HAT -rvl�-Cwr
9-V
cRotsn 0" cc)mc- pu/% - rfzoR m
.24-"
IXZON BAA2
Pt�, srovlC,A CE tit -I- i:— ID
51-%OWtJ 0" D.H,C,.PLAN
O -rA, Q I <D L- A N C) Y C) r�->
CrG21L.l_t A,, Ot-4-rAt2IC, t -JAN 17 19(o
-7.
A
7o-oo�'
PL.
..PL.X
M,
N59'2
Z' CY- E:
---0 1~ 7O C)
AM V-)
G,
es C-
70-C>
Li
Li
cli
4
10
tj
in
0
0
tn
j
in
0
It
Ic
-=%- P..r V-
!5 "t tam LC
jJ
('1
Tx3hicsAltiO��.i
"T -HAT -rvl�-Cwr
9-V
cRotsn 0" cc)mc- pu/% - rfzoR m
51-%OWtJ 0" D.H,C,.PLAN
14
N4 Col. � - Z
7o-oo�'
PL.
..PL.X
M,
N59'2
Z' CY- E:
AM V-)
G,
-JQ-)
X.
��;
�' �.
Sk,~�
Fx r
;1
P°
Severance / Minor Variance Review
Hearing Date:
Application #:
Owner:
MAS #:
Lot #:
Plan #:—. Cone. #:
V 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,
Kim Allen
Chief Building Official
To -,-J7 I -) ship of Oro- Aledonte Fnoineering Department
Inspection ReportlComments for Consent
Minor Variance
Other
File No.
Name of Owner °
Address`
~r
Subject Property
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services .
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Township mfOro+01edonie-Committee of Adjustment
= �
September 18, 2008
2008-A-37,2008-A-38 & 2008-A-39 — Russell Hill Homes
Diamond Valley Drive, Part of Lot 3, Concession_7 (Former Oro)
1. PURPOSE OF APPLICATION
The applicant is proposing to construct three single detached dwellings located east of Line G North and South of
Monica Court which will be used as model homes for the proposed Diamond Valley subdivision. The applicant is
requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95:
Permitted Proposed
Section 5.36 (b) Model Homes 1 3
2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Deaignndon — Reaidentied
Zoning By-law S7'S5 —Residential One Hold (SR-H)Zone
PrnviouaApp|icationa — none
3. DEPARTMENT/AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department — Nocomments received
BuildinDDepertment — Pmposalappeamtomeetminimumatandordo
Engineering Department — Lots 1 and 2 are subject Ln Site Plan Control eo they are within an area which iathe
site of closed canopy forest cover or within Pine reforestation area
- Septic bed Lot 12 not tobe constructed with steep slope limits
- Driveway entrance can not be onto Line S for Lot 1
4. BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes iu build 3detached residential dwellings k>be used aa model homes within the draft
approved subdivision known aa Diamond Valley Estates.
These model homes are being proposed to be built on Lots 1,2 and 12of the Plan of subdivision. kis the
intention of the applicant to use these dwellings as model homes for the proposed subdivision and to then sell
them to potential buyers.
The properties under the previous owners had applied and obtained a variance to place three model homes in
2OU3.Aoa result of the previous application, one model home has been built and the other lots remain vacant.
Homes were proposed h)be built Vn Lots 97, 122 and 127ufthe subdivision which was draft approved in
1SS2 and subsequently revised in 1994. The one model home which has been built has been placed on Lot
127. The new application would have the proposed model homes build on Lots 1,2, and 12. The current model
home that exist on Lot 127. is located on the south side of Diamond Valley Ruad, across the street from the
proposed Lots of1 and 2.
Does the variance conform bmthe general intent mfthe Official Plan?
The subject lands are designated Residential in the Township Official Plan. Single detached dwellings, home
occupation, private recreational and open space uses are permitted in this designation.
The applicant's proposal does not appear to offend these po|ioiea, given that the variance is for the
construction of three single detached dwellings. The proposed model homes will be located nn the lots within
a draft approved plan ofsubdivision. (]n this basis the proposal |o considered bo conform tothe intent of
the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform bmthe general intent ofthe Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Residential One Hold (R1-H) Zone. Based on aahe inopeoUon, the proposed
dwellings would appear to be in a suitable and acceptable location.
The other element to this variance isthat the developer seeks tobuild three homes inaddition to the one that
already exist. Instead of one dwelling that is permitted by Zoning By-law 37'95. Section 5.36 b) (Temporary
Construction and Sales Uses) states: ^
b) Nothing in this By-law shall prevent the use of land for a sales office and/or a model home for the sale of
dwelling units provided the dwelling units to be sold are to be located on lands within the limits of the Township
ofOn-K8edontn.
As the applicant has been previously approved for two additional model homma, which have not been build
but rather are being moved from lots 97and 122tnlots 1 and 2, with an additional one being built on kd 12.
Given that the dwellings are part of a subdivision with 128 lots, it is submitted that three model homes for such
e large subdivision in reasonable and in keeping with the intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development oy the lot?
Given that these homes are typically developed with ahigh degree of detail and landscaping, because histhe
intention of the developer to sell these dwellings as port of the subdivision. Furthermore, r accordance with
nonnu| Township pu|icy, the developer will be required to prepare an engineered |(t grading plan prior hmthe
issuance ofn building permit.
On this basis it is suggested that the proposed variance will provide for the appropriate and desirable
development of the subject lots.
Is the variance minor?
The construction of model homes for sales purposes io common in new plans of subdivision. On this basis and
on the basis that the proposal is to develop only lots for model home purpuneo, it is suggested that the
proposed variance isminor.
Engineering and Environmental Service
Comments received from the Director of Engineering and Environmental Services that Lots 1 and 2 are kzbe
subject to She Plan Control as they appear to within an area which is the site closed canopy forest cover or
within Pine reforestation area. It has also been indicated that the entrance for Lot 1 can not be located off of
Line 6. Also, the septic bed for Lot 12 is not to be constructed within the steep slope limits.
5. RECOMMENDATION
If Committee is satisfied that the application is appropriah*, it is recommended that Committee approve
variance application 20O8-A-37.20O8`A'38 and 2008-A-3S. subject 10 the following conditions:
1. That the appropriate building pmnnk 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.
2. That u Site Plan Agreement be entered into to protect the closed canopy forest cover m within the Pine
Reforestation Area.
3. That the Septic bed for Lot 12 not be constructed with the steep slope limits,
4. 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;
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Steven Farquharson, 8.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
IN
m
m
I
rc�<Al�
W
0 BT5175 i
70
25 0
SU BJ Ef,--'T LAN D S
I I F MMMML---M=�� Meters
HORSESHOE VALLEY
IN
m
m
I
rc�<Al�
W
0 BT5175 i
70
25 0
SU BJ Ef,--'T LAN D S
I I F MMMML---M=�� Meters
I o o
°�
i a`�,,
SITE PLAN
SCALE 1:250
0 5 10 20 40M
)2008 2008
02.85+ I 314.35
1 2008 i 2008
13.60+ +314.65
2
X�2006 1
ail`' clmWal
2006
+318.45
_ _ _ _ _50314.75 _ _ _ _ _ _ 314.60+ @_ -
u L • 105.00
-- '— kr--- -N - 16.53" ' --
314.05 986 °0 ° o z--
_ 0.757 31460 1986
><) `� 314.75 1586
IF. N
+ 1KA0 osvc Otvnox
�.'. -. °°'"° oana.a
g
® o�u •u AAPiE➢
31
6o�ea uloa•a, NN,,..uA
i
1
IJ4= I
I
I
N6KVR ♦'0.K
3113111
..�.. Ob0 oa 6MR/4
8 w4K • IP
l w AW inAnm IA,IVMg1
o smw rwu[
GvuMyr
��'
� s[Y046o w -are
_
f� nvuln uS
10000 AntY(maarw AKA
1O
0 Oo,AR[ cwav,
T mcc
i
I
f
I
S
' Wa OAn
1
2fIT
�
(EMOW GARAGE)
9� TOMMAN
C I -CNi GARAGE
a�.dd
®T.dJ
g.d
89 U
ai
o'Z
6ri IDY 166 AAA ONa Ow Oa•o Lu 101
Q o
8
0)
NI (6p6) 7! 6tT1 F• (400) T.11 61q
1
n.79 x
i
T
-T
PROPOSED ONE"STOREY DWELUNG
RUSSELL HILL HOMES INC.
OESCWFOK
N
PRO1W
(•OVAL• MCGOEL)
iRO1T TA267
150 Y (VV-7-)
9.50 Y (11' -n
LOT N0.
t
�
11
TOWNSHIP OF OR6MEpON1E
j
p
jjjJ�TJ�r
�
I
i
I
450 Y (1A' -9)
3163......
t
31416911
'I'
31391187
0 2 DWAOND VALLEY DRNE
YAA BLDG HDOIT
56.
1100 Y (0)
S.A36 Y (1Y -in
1 : 250
L• 11,00
w[a,
20061 ♦
A -01
0
K•4.00
i '
N
I o o
°�
i a`�,,
SITE PLAN
SCALE 1:250
0 5 10 20 40M
)2008 2008
02.85+ I 314.35
1 2008 i 2008
13.60+ +314.65
2
X�2006 1
ail`' clmWal
2006
+318.45
_ _ _ _ _50314.75 _ _ _ _ _ _ 314.60+ @_ -
u L • 105.00
-- '— kr--- -N - 16.53" ' --
314.05 986 °0 ° o z--
_ 0.757 31460 1986
><) `� 314.75 1586
IF. N
+ 1KA0 osvc Otvnox
�.'. -. °°'"° oana.a
O rwmMn. KAA,P[
•
® o�u •u AAPiE➢
6o�ea uloa•a, NN,,..uA
zo%m
2Z547m
(1095 ARIES
N6KVR ♦'0.K
-^
..�.. Ob0 oa 6MR/4
8 w4K • IP
l w AW inAnm IA,IVMg1
o smw rwu[
GvuMyr
��'
� s[Y046o w -are
_
f� nvuln uS
10000 AntY(maarw AKA
1O
0 Oo,AR[ cwav,
T mcc
®��1 mw +row 4 wa, na
___ y1q � mKwYV
PPYYYY���ff
� R1W06
' Wa OAn
196
2fIT
4R0(R NoRAK>a
LEC& DESCRIP-n
ALL SU- AN0 � KKOiYATgN iAItFM TROY
PLAN OF SUBDIVISION OF
REST H&F OF LOT 3
COWES" 7 (43T- 0.7019)
TOwN9HP Of ORO- YEOOME
FORMERLY TONN96P OF ORO)
Of SWCOE
PREPAREp Yv:
GUIDO PAPA SURVEIMC LTD.
No 216 CNRSLfA RWD. SURE 505
NCOOBRIDGE. ONTABN2, l C 657
TEL (B05) 264 -2727
VALODR QITi W.
No. 216 CHRISLEA ROAD, SLOE 501
•'OOOBRIOGF, dlT . LAC 655
TEL {905j 264 -0054
�� s SHOMM D11 THIS P ARE N NEi[Rs AND
Aft CIN BE CONVEiREo To FEET BY oMONO Hf O.b46
BOUNDARY IHfO TAON SHO— MERE ON 6 DERNEO FRO"
SURVEYOR A CONSULTR6 ENG6E HO EF5 A 6 SUBJECT iO A
LEM SKECH AND FOUL SURVEY.
THIS SKETCH R NOT A, RNA OF sl R ANO S NOT
BE USED EX
EEPT FOR THE PURPOSE YIOGATED N THE
TIRE BLOCK
TH6 SKETCH 6 HOT BE USED FOR HORTO.4E OR
TRAM TX* PURPOSE
LOT N 1
2 OIAYON VNLET OR'E
IgW94P OF ORFYDIpNR
ZONING
M - SWE OETAO[D OKUIIIG
BUILDING USE
PMTOYp )- STOq[Y p1EUSW
•lr�� �a� sQwu� a
SSUEO FOR CLOT WO" 105EPTA7
No. OESC[ttPF10N PATE
REVISIONS
YEWC SGY
Wsfb L SQR
• SITE AREA
zo%m
2Z547m
(1095 ARIES
• BUILDING AREA (GFA)
A OVOIRIO FLOOR
166
7011
B Cu'm pO`FCwB
a
90
MAI, 6A
196
2fIT
4R0(R NoRAK>a
(EMOW GARAGE)
9� TOMMAN
C I -CNi GARAGE
St
549
OCW42MAZA WTS
MoowrowAar�o
IOTK FOOIPWNT
142
2A61
6ri IDY 166 AAA ONa Ow Oa•o Lu 101
• COVERAGE
NI (6p6) 7! 6tT1 F• (400) T.11 61q
n.79 x
• MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS
-T
PROPOSED ONE"STOREY DWELUNG
RUSSELL HILL HOMES INC.
OESCWFOK
Rt0.BeT
PRO1W
(•OVAL• MCGOEL)
iRO1T TA267
150 Y (VV-7-)
9.50 Y (11' -n
LOT N0.
REAR TNO
1.50 Y (24' -n
471 Y (137 -n
TOWNSHIP OF OR6MEpON1E
.TO" SOE TMD
259 Y (6 -2)
in Y (17 -3)
10 SEPT 07 O8�
DID" SIDE 11RD
450 Y (1A' -9)
647 Y (21' -10)
PLAN LOT No. i
0 2 DWAOND VALLEY DRNE
YAA BLDG HDOIT
56.
1100 Y (0)
S.A36 Y (1Y -in
1 : 250
{YEAH HECHT)
w[a,
20061 ♦
A -01
0
BENCHMARK:
TBM ELEV. 291.18
NAIL IN NEST FACE OF HYDRO POLE LOCATED NORTH OF
INTERSECTION OF 6th LINE ROAD AND ASH COURT, EAST
SIDE OF 6th LINE ROAD
CONSULTING GROUP LTD.
PLANNERS, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS
300 LeMYpo DM . Sub top 213 S A SC
BYtle, ON , LlN DU CdkV -1L ON L9Y W
Fes. -7O 7m -1058 F. 7Q51 3240
SCALE: SUBDIVISION: DIAMOND VALLEY ESTATES
1:250 PROJECT NUMBER: RUS -07194
DESIGN JPE CHECKED JK ADDRESS 26 IXAmM VALLEY q
DRANK JP£ DATE AUG 2008 1 LOT NUMBER:
12
��i
u
T ledonte ED0,iDeerJDg, Department
Inspection Report/Comments for Consent,
-Mi Pi -0 —r Varaan
Other
File No. L��
Name of Owner
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Severance / Minor Variance Review
Hearing Date: --�= V \S i C)
Application #:
Owner:
MAS #:
Lot #:a 1. Plan #:
Conc. #:
-Z The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
il Proposal appears to meet minimum standards.
F-I Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks
as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.
❑ Comments:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Allen
Chief Building Official
Township "fOm-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
September 18, 2008
2008-A40— Vincent and KAommsCanuone
1065 Lakeshore Rd E Plan 882 Lot 15fb 16 (Former Township of Oro)
1. THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are proposing bJ construct 8 one-storey 42Usq. ft. boathouse with 8240sq. ft. gazebo
attached to its roof, as well as a 120 sq. ft. accessory building (Storage Shed). The applicant iGrequesting
the hJU0wiDg relief from Zoning Bv'|avv 97-95:
Required Proposed
Maximum Height for aBmmdhpmmw' ------- -------
' 4.5 metres 5.15 metres (Boathouse)
3.9 metres (Gazebo)
Interior Side Yard setback for an Accessory Building: 2.0 metres 1.0 metres
(Storage Shed)
2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Residential
Zoning By-law S7-95— Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Previous Applications —
AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department-
Building DHp8dm8nt—Pn}pO8a|AppeRrSk}yW88tK8inimu0Gb3nU8nJS
Engineering Department —No Concerns
BACKGROUND
The subject property has @road frontage of approximately 35 metres (11G feet) OO Lakeshore Road East,
an GvG:3g8 lot depth of approximately 75 metres U245 feet) and a lot area Of approximately hectares
(0.53 acres). Th8pn}pedvCurreDUyha8Gsing/8d8t8ChGUUvv8UiDgb8ingbui|tOnUleSubi' lands. The
applicant iS proposing h]SOnShu{t8 one-storey 420 sq. ft. boathouse with a 24Usq.�. gazebo 8U8cheUh]
its roof, aS well 8S812O sq. ft. accessory building (Storage Sh8d).
The pn]pOSeU boathouse vvUu|d have 8 'footprint' of 420 square feet which would have a bay for boat
storage. The roof Of the boathouse iS proposed h]have a 24O square foot open gazebo. The boathouse
and the gazebo are proposed b} have 8 maximum height ofS.O7 metres /20`9feet)
Does the variance conform hmthe general intent mfthe Official Plan?
The subject property is designated ''8AOr8|ine" in the Township (]ffiCi@) Plan. 8eCb0O O10.1 sets out the
following objectives for lands iD this designation:
^ TO maintain the existing character Ofthis predominantly r8Si08nUa/ 8r88.
" 7-O protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.
The requested variance for the increased height of the boathouse would appear to maintain the character
of the shoreline area and vvDu|0 be consistent with surrounding area. Further, Lake 8iDlCOe Region
Conservation AVthOdb/ commented that the ShO[8|in8 and its D8tun3| features will be Dl8iOt8iOSd and
protected aS part 0f the proposed development.
The {}ffiCi8| P|8O states that permitted Vs8G within the Shoreline d8SigD8UOn also include .k7w/density
residential uses, small scale commercial uses etc� AS the application pn}poSHS the construction of an
accessory building (storage shed) and boathouse both of which are accessory to the residential dwelling,
they are U88nn8d to generally conform with the intent Ofthe [}#iCia| Plan.
Does the variance comply bzthe general intent of the Zoning Bv~&am/?
The subject property iS zoned Shoreline ReSiU8Dd8| (SR) Zone in Zoning By-law 97'95' as amended.
The SR Zone establishes 8 nnininoVnl interior Side yard Of 2 rnet[8S /6.5 f88d for 8 boathouse and
accessory structure, and the maximum width of the boathouse cannot exceed 30% of the lot width at the
water's edge.
The Zoning By-law regulates the |OC8UUn and height Of boathouses OD |@MdS within the Shoreline
A8SideDb8( (SR) Zone in order to prevent the Dv8odeve|OprDeDt of |@OdS located in shoreline areas.
Specifically, the Township aims h] protect and enhance the natural appearance and features of the shore
Of Lake GimCog,8S opposed tO having waterfront areas dominated by large boathouse structures.
The proposed boathouse meets the side yard setback and 30% maximum lot width provisions of the By-
law. It should be noted that the boathouse will be setback approximately 10 Dletn3S (34f980 from the
average high vvah2r mark. The boathouse does not appear to negatively impact on the character Of the
shoreline due h] the large size Of the lot and water frontage. AUUihVn8||y' there iS8 high, dense hedge
which Gx/StS along the 8aSi SiU8 of the subject property and will provide 8 privacy buffer to the
neighbouring lots.
As the proposed boathouse will not dominate the shoreline and otherwise meets with all other zoning
provisions for boathouses, the variance iS deemed to conform h}the general intent 0fthe Zoning by-law.
With respect to the request for G reduced Side yard setback for the proposed accessory structure (Sh8d),
the proposed shed |0C8hOn will not appear to hinder access to the rear Ofthe Uvv8||ing. Regarding
privacy, there is 8 vv0Vd8U buffer between the adjacent property k}the east, and the shed is not likely to
create @visual hindrance 0rotherwise impact privacy. In addition, aside from the proposed side yard
setback relief, the shed would otherwise COnnp|y with all other provisions for aCSeSSO[y structures as
required in the Zoning By-law.
AS SuCh, the variance to permit reduction in the side yard setback for aO OCC8SSVry building vvOu|d
therefore maintain the general intent Of the Zoning By-law.
/s the variance desirable for the appropriate development oy the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed boathouse height and size would appear to be appropriate for
the d8Sin3b/8 development Ofthe /OL Given that the proposed boathouse will not result iD the over-
development of the subject property, nor have 3UbGblDU@| negative impact on the natural features Ofthe
shoreline, the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot.
Fudher, the proposed detached 8Cn8SSOry structure (ShCU) vvOu|0 appear to be appropriate for the
desirable development Ofthe lot and in keeping with the surrounding /8SiU8nha| Gn88. Given that the
p/OpOS8| vvOu/d provide for form of development that is Suh8b|8 and consistent with the surrounding
neighbourhood and would not lead tO the over development 0f the lot.
2
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis that the proposed 8CC8SGory structure and boathouse will maintain the intent of the {]ffiC@]
P|8O and Zoning By-law and is in keeping with the general character of the SunoUmJiDg residential
neighbourhood, the requested variances are deemed to be minor.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee Approve Variance application 2008-A-40' being for the
construction Of an accessory building located 1.0 metres from the east interior side lot line, and 8
boathouse with an 8#8CheU n}Ofk]p gazebo having G Ov8:3{/ height of 9.07 nl8treG. subject to the
following conditions:
1. That an [)nb3ho Land 8VnxeyO[ provide vehfiC8hOD h3 the Township Of compliance with the
Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the boathouse with attached n}OftDp gazebo does
not exceed in height 9.07 metres above the high water mark 8!0v8hoO of 219.15 metres, and that
the accessory structure (storage shed) be GeU]@Ck no C|OSgr than 1.0 metres from the S@St side |O[
2. Notwithstanding Section 5/6 oi of Zoning By-law 97-95. that the nO8xinnurn height of the proposed
boathouse shall not exceed 5.15 metres /16.9 feet) and the attached rooftop gazebo ShJU not
exceed 9.07 (297 feet), and that the detached 8CC8SSOry building, notwithstanding Se:U0D 5.1.3
a) and d), otherwise meet with all other provisions for detached accessory buildings;
3. That the boathouse setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and
on the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
4. That the applicant meet all requirements set out to them by the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority
5. That the appropriate building pOnnd be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only
after the Committee's decision b8cOnl8s final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act
All Ofwhich is respectfully Submdted.
Ryan VGnd8DbUqg'B.URPL
Planner
3
Reviewed by
AnUh8 Leigh, MC|PHPP
Director of Development Services
>_.
\A! •EI1 LSF.CA
4iED
2
" "- 9ElBACX AO
PS
r' \
40
REAR YARD SITE PLAN LAYOUT
SCALE: 3/18' a 1' -0"
PH�E2tt IINE �/�
%. MOIL FOR ROATNpISE/ S�
7, Q 6A ®0 CEfAtS RFfFR R1
gU'MNG Afi EDR v
E1FV 1IM15 NRI SEc TWS
M.
> -g•
NEk BO�T� LGAICRF@
RAA 4 „A
LOT 14
EMt511NG HEDGE
e�m�en
►IEfr�rROV. A�2�YA1 Wls
�� —u,eA ro rcmc
RAac rm
\h
@SING imCE
NOtE EL,1t GARDEN 9iG
GETAES �rtTm ro oRAtrArc
Af3 FOR q,WS, EtfVAlRJf15
AND SED�GNS M�
`2
How LWFA
coNSIRUCI,oN
R Aye ElEYAiION 110.36 m _
ii NallE LVCm
_ _ _
\ �
\\
� CON5IRUGTpN
\�� ADJU5i GRADES W
\0 O i�Ei PROP. ElEVAT10N3.
vo
v
-AVU ro �saLx
vc
y a
LOT \16 & 18
”
U1,
.. a
37.
z 3
_ _
CL
4,Cb
\
- NoIE UIRR
3,07. vv
HIGH
-0.20
I
���
ELEVATI011•r91 -c -
G W
(AS PER LS.R.GA.) RETAI�0 WALL
LOT 17 n G
M�
Imo
AA No.
s
LOG710N
m: E rExwxrE
m zoos.
AS NOTED
des -„ draft & detail Inc.
41 R Rd Tmedo, Odm. MiH
PROJECT:
PROPOSED REAR YARD
LMUTY RECD RGURATtON
FOR MR. $ R5. VINCE
CARL" AND FAMILY
IO WN W(ESHORE DRNE
OF
TO ORO— EDONTE
COUNTY OF SVMCOE, ONT.
DRAWING TTTLE:
OVERALL REAR YARD SITE
PLAN LAYOUT
a� sGYA
PLDT LUTE SEPT. i1
V p
ME
LOWER FLOOR PLAN
SCALE. 1/4* - I'-o*
Z;7
AM
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
SCALE. 1/4* - V-o"
ROOF PLAN
SCALE- 1/4' - i'-o*
ETAIL
V-0.
a.
... ..... .....
EMCM ---7M=
En
DKM SE 8ER 2W6.
$04L. AS M
design draft & detail
LIUJ
ow-a q WH
---%
PROJECT:
PROPOSED REM YARD
UTILITY RECD FIGURATION
FOR MR. & RS. VANCE
CARU" AND FAMILY
108g5 LAKESH DRIVE TO OF OROMEDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE, ONT.
DRAWING Trf LE:
BOATHGUSE/ACADZEOO PLANS
N I
ELEVATIONS DETAILS
All l
r
cwc
DETAIL 3
Him Moill
R , 8
EMCM ---7M=
En
DKM SE 8ER 2W6.
$04L. AS M
design draft & detail
LIUJ
ow-a q WH
---%
PROJECT:
PROPOSED REM YARD
UTILITY RECD FIGURATION
FOR MR. & RS. VANCE
CARU" AND FAMILY
108g5 LAKESH DRIVE TO OF OROMEDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE, ONT.
DRAWING Trf LE:
BOATHGUSE/ACADZEOO PLANS
N I
ELEVATIONS DETAILS
All l
Sim.
---------- ---
rl-'\ ELEVATION DETAIL
GARDEN SHED FLOOR PLAN t SCALE. 1/2* = 1'-0"
SCALE-- 1/2* - V—o"
ELEVATION DETAIL
SCALE: 1/2' — V-0'
ELEVATION DETAIL
SCALE: 1/2' - 1'-0"
-T - 'W
SEC-nON DETAIL
SCALE. 1* - 1 r -0'
mid
Imo
M
M
2006. WTE
AS NQTm
design draft& detail
PROJECrz
PROPOSED REAR YARD
UTILITY RECOUF1SG.UVRATC1ON
FOR M,. 'k MINCE
JA AND FAMILY
7 4 E S., IR 'R
VE
TOWN OF ORO—
EDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE, ONT.
DRAWING TITLE:
GARDEN SHED PLAN, SECT.
AND ELEVATIONS
6—Moi
'PROJECT N.. 2007-A(, n_
7
E-
Ui
-T - 'W
SEC-nON DETAIL
SCALE. 1* - 1 r -0'
mid
Imo
M
M
2006. WTE
AS NQTm
design draft& detail
PROJECrz
PROPOSED REAR YARD
UTILITY RECOUF1SG.UVRATC1ON
FOR M,. 'k MINCE
JA AND FAMILY
7 4 E S., IR 'R
VE
TOWN OF ORO—
EDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE, ONT.
DRAWING TITLE:
GARDEN SHED PLAN, SECT.
AND ELEVATIONS
6—Moi
'PROJECT N.. 2007-A(, n_
� y .
» �
\�\
�\
��.
;: }\
■
w,
}
c
1i
$ s• w
n
f,P
i
r
T
a
of
� �
F
i
u'
�y
a'
n
w
+
Towjisbi of Oro-Aledople EDogipeeripg Department
Inspection ReporUComments for C-ansea--
'Minor
Yujance-)
Other
File No.
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services.
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
:)e
Severance / Minor Variance Review
Hearing Date:
Application #: C",
Owner:
MAS #: e-4
Lot #: - 1, — Plan #: � .' , Conc. #:
'U 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,
� I
K Jim, Allen
Chief Building Official
Vandenbur2, Ryan
From:
Ian Walker O)Wakmr@broa on.ca1
Sent:
Thuraday, September 11.200812:28PK4
To:
VandenburQ.Rvan
Cc:
Farquharson, Steven
Subject:
Fwd: 2008-A-40 (PV00505) -Caruano
>>> Ian Walker 10/09/2008 4:13 pm x>>
Good afternoon Steven,
I don't fnrsee any issues with the height variance or sideyard setback variance, but will
make it subject to the following:
l. Acquiring a permit from LSRCA prior to the issuance of a building permit;
2. Sed & Erosion controls must be in place prior to any site grading or alterations;
3. That the proposed gazebo not be enclosed;
4. Payment of the outstanding $200 review fee be paid to L6R[4.
I will follow with formal comments,
V Mot
Ian Walker
Environmental Planner
Lake Slmcoe Region Conservation Authority I20 Bayview Parkway Newmarket, Ontario BY 4Xl
Phone: (905) 895-1281
Fax: (985) 853-588I
E-mail:
Web site:
1
SEP -03 -2008 14:08 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
09/03/2008 WED 13:07 FAX
ist�GOii ..
�rxox,n'
Tel:
905.895.1281
1.800.465.0437
Fax:
905.853.5881
&Mall:
info @lsrca.on.ca
Web:
wwwlsrca.on.ca
September 3, 2008
Mr. Vince Caruana
117 Hedgerow Line
Kleinburg, ON LOJ I CO
Dear Mr. Caruana:
( P.001/002
2001/002
Ora - Medonte Pending Permit 2008
IMS No.: RPMA4488C3
Re: Permit Application - Construction Of A Boathouse, Shoredeck & Shed
Vince Caruana, Owner
Part of Lot 25, Concession 10 (Former Township of Oro)
1065 Lakeshore Road East, Plan Lot 15 & 16, Plan 882
Township of Oro - Medonte, County of Simcoe
The above noted application is for a permit to construct a new (replacement) boathouse, a shed,
120 Bayview Parkway and for the construction of a shoredeck at the above noted site. The subject property is located
Box 282 within the jurisdiction of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) and is
Newmarket, Ontario partially within the regulated area of this Authority. As such, the above noted works are subject
L3Y 4x1 to Ontario Regulation 179 /06 and the Watershed Development Policies of this Authority.
We have completed our review of your first submission, received by this office on August 6,
2008, consisting of the following:
• At 0 Overall Rear Yard Site Plan Layout, Revision E, dated June 26, 2008
• Al I Boathouse /Gazebo Plans Elevations and Details, Revision E, dated June 26, 2008
Al2 Garden Shed Plan, Sect. and Elevations, Revision E, dated June 26, 2008
Further to our review, we provide the following comments:
Please note, we require that all boathouses within the erosion hazard of Lake Simcoe are
designed by a structural engineer to withstand the effects of ice action and 100 -year wave
uprush, and that all structural drawings are to be stamped, signed and dated by the
structural engineer. We require written confirmation from the structural engineer that the
above noted plans have been reviewed in the context of withstanding the effects of ice
action and the 100 -year wave uprush.
2. As per Section 12.1 of the LSRCA Watershed Development Policies (2007), the
Authority shall strive to maintain existing shorelines in their natural state by minimizing
site alterations. As such, we require that the proposed design shall limit shoreline access
to be located with the proposed boathouse, and that a naturalized (i.e,, vegetated) buffer
be required adjacent to Lake Simcoe. Please redesign the site such that the shoreline
access (i.e., stairs) are located adjacent to the proposed boathouse, and a minimum 6
metre no- maintenance natural area (i.e., trees, shrubs, native grasses and/or seedmix) be
included for the remainder of the area adjacent to Lake Simcoe. This buffer helps to
prevent the runoff of nutrients and other materials from the developed area of the site.
Phis no- maintenance natural area should be indicated on the drawings (including a
A statement that this area will be a no- maintenance natural area).
3. Please note, concrete is not permitted adjacent to Lake Simcoe. The area under the
proposed marine rail is to remain in a natural state.
4. Please note, the shoredeck as shown on the above noted plans, is not permitted by the
Watershed LSRCA Watershed Development Policies (2007).
5. Plantings within the shoreline area (15 metre buffer) shall be native, non - invasive
species. All other plantings within the regulated area are required to be non - invasive.
6. We require a restoration plan of the area where the existing boathouse is to be removed.
For This restoration plan shall include vegetation which will help stabilize the shoreline and
must be native, non - invasive species. The existing concrete dock shall also be removed
and should be replaced with native substrates to match the existing substrates within the
lake.
Life
Page I of 2
SEP -03 -2008 14:08 TOWNSHIP OF ORO— MEDONTE
09/03/2008 WED 13:07 FAX
P. 002 /002
2002/002
Mr. Vince Caruana
' IMS. No: RPMA4488C3
September 3, 2008
Page 2 of 2
T We require a restoration plan of the area where the existing concrete dock is to be
removed. This restoration plan shall indicate the substrates which are to replace the
concrete (Please note, it is recommended that native substrates which match the existing
substrates adjacent to the concrete, i.e., the undisturbed shoreline, be used). Please
include at least one cross - section drawing.
8. Based on our mappingg, the proposed works are partially below the Average Annual High
Water Mark (AAHWM) contour of Lake Simcoe (219.15 masl). As such, these proposed
works are subject to review under the Federal Fisheries Act, in accordance with our Level
3 agreement with the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Please
provide photographs of the existing site conditions.
9. The proposed works are adjacent to Lake Simcoe. Any such works adjacent to Public
Land or Crown Land may also require a work permit from the Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR). Please contact Cliff Vankoughnett, Lands Technician, MNR
Midhurst District (by telephone: 705- 725 -7524) to determine if work permit is required
from the MNR for the proposed works.
10. Please note, the proposed plans for the boathouse do not include the proposed geodetic
elevations for the top of slab or any other elevations. This proposed boathouse may not
meet the minimum height requirements according to the Township of Oro - Medonte's
Zoning By -law No. 97 -95. In order to proceed with processing your application as
submitted, a minor variance for the proposed boathouse height may be required from the
Township of Oro - Medonte Committee of Adjustment. Please include all elevations on
the site plan drawing, including the AAHWM of 219.15 masl for Lake Simeoe. All
height measurements for the proposed boathouse are taken from this elevation. Please
contact Steven Farquharson, Planner, Township of Ora - Medonte (by telephone: 705 -487-
2171) to determine if a minor variance is required. Please be aware that a commenting
fee of $200.00 will be required by the LSRCA for review of any minor variance
application submitted to the Township of Oro- Medonte Committee of Adjustment, if
required.
Upon receipt of the above noted information we can continue our review of this application. If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 905 -895 -1281,
extension 287.
In order to facilitate our processing of this file, please reference the above noted file numbers in
future correspondence.
Yours truly,
Ian Walker
Environmental Planner
I W /dt
Cliff Vankou hnett, MNR Midhurst, 1- 705 - 725 -7584 - Fax
Steven Farquharson, Township of Oro- Medonte - Fax - 1- 705- 487 -0133
\ \1 f awkeston6sharedVanMCorrespondence \Rcgulalions\I'ennils \Oro- Medontc \2008\ 1065 Lakeshore Road East(Caniana) RPMA4488 - I.vO>d
�
Township pfOro'K0edonte~Committee of Adjustment
September 18, 2008
2008-A-41 — George and Heidi Caufin
175 Lakeshore Road West, Lot 65, Concession 7 (Former Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are proposing b}construct a single-storey boathouse which is proposed b] have 8 total area
of 60 M2 (650 fe). The applicants are requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95:
1. for the boathouse from the required 4.5 metres (147feet) to
proposed 5.7 metres (18.8 feet).
Official Plan Designation —Shoreline
Zoning By-law H7-95— Shoreline Residential (SR)Zone
Previous Applications —
3. ENVAGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department —0OComments received
Building Department — The Township Building Dept. has reviewed the application and note that the
proposal appears ho meet the minimum standards
Engineering Department —N0concerns
Lake GiOlCO8 Region Conservation Authority — Comments Attached
4. BACKGROUND
The subject p[UpOdv has 8 road frontage of 8ppn}xinn8tO|y 30 metres (100 feet), G shoreline frontage of
approximately 42 metres (140 feet) and 8 lot area Of approximately O.2 hectares (0.5 acres). The lands
currently have G single storey dvv8|iiOg with 8 gross floor area Of 135 mc /1.457 *e\. he owner is
proposing hD construct @ boathouse wNchiS proposed h}have a height of5.7| 8tnBS(1�8 feet) above the
average hiQhw8t8r mark of Lake 8inlCOe. The re8SOO for the requested variance is that the proposed
boathouse height will exceed the maximum height Of4.5 metres (14.7 feet) 8S defined by Zoning By-law
97-85.
Does the variance conform 6mthe general intent of the Official Plan?
The property iG designated Shoreline /n the Official Plan. SeCUOD D101 which contains the Shoreline
policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives:
T0 maintain the existing character Ofthis predominantly residential area.
To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline.
The applicant is not requesting an increase in boathouse area or a variance to setbacks just height. The
requested height variance would appear to maintain the character Ofthe shoreline area. On this b8Sks'
the proposed variance would therefore COOfOnD with the intent Of the policies contained in the [}MSiG/
Does the variance conform bothe general intent ofthe Zoning By4am?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline R8Sid8nh8| (SR) in Zoning BV-law 97-95, as amended. One of
the purposes of regulating the location and height Ofboathouses in the Shoreline R8SiU8nU8| (SR) Zone
is to prevent over-development Of the shoreline frontage which may lead to the Sh0r8xOH being
dominated by the boathouse SbVCturHS and ultimately i[np8CUDg the character Ofthe ShOn8|iO8. The
proposed boathouse rnegtS the setback pn}viSi0OS of the By'|8vv and the p8n:8nt@g8 Of water frontage
.
OCcup|8U by the structure. u�t�[g� The boathouse structure dOSg not exceed 4.5, however the pn}pOSQd
boathouse height will exceed the maximum height standard by 1.2 n0HtnBS. Boathouse height is
calculated from the 8v8[8g8 high water mark not just the height Ofthe boathouse structure. It should be
noted that the boathouse is setback approximately 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) from the average highvvat8r
mark. The proposed boathouse will remain, visually, secondary hJthe dwelling, will not dominate the
shoreline, and will not impact the potential views from adjacent lands.
CN this basis the variance is deemed to conform to the general intent of the Zoning by-law.
ks the variance appropriate for the desirable development mf the lot?
Based On the Site inspection, the pn}pOS8d boathouse height would appear to be appropriate for the
desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding shoreline area.
It should be noted that there is nn8tun8 cedar hedge located along the interior property line Of the
proposed boathouse which will provide a visual buffer to the neighboring property.
Given that the proposed boathouse height will not result in the over-development of the subject lot or the
shoreline, the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot.
{o the variance minor?
AS this application is deemed h0 COnfOn0 with the Official Plan, nn8iRt3iD the intent Of the Zoning Bv-|8vv
and is appropriate development, the variance is considered to be minor.
It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2008-A41 subject to the following
1. That the maximum height Uf the proposed boathouse not exceed 57metres;
2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's
decision becomes final and binding, 8S provided for within the Planning Act R.8.C). 1990.C.P. 13.;
and,
3. That an [ht8d0 Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of cOmrdia0Cg with the
Committee's decision by 1\ pinning the footing and 2) verifying in vvhUOg prior to pVUdn0 of the
foundation SOthat:
i. The boathouse not exceed 8 maximum height Of5.7metres
4. That the applicants obtain approval from the Lake S/m[oeRegion Conservation Authority under the
Conservation Authorities Act.
5. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions 8S set out iD the application and Onthe
sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee
Reviewed by,
G&h�vhite, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
M Oil,
it
64
V; I
j i3 9
i
i � I
N
0 ° -
c.
Io
m
U
I
° E
a�
I �
I
PART t, LOT 65
��p,_t2j M12
PLAN 967
175 Lrkoshore D?iVB
3
~
�;,
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
County Sitmoe
•, �i ga5ti
of
pi
to Pl
an1 251)
!
-
r
r
r2l sha ei4fe Sedio _.
N
0 ° -
c.
Io
m
U
I
° E
a�
I �
��
l
I Key
Ky�,lo Te 11
legend .v ram revue vtra ser
Vv
..........
410
q)
,A z
0 75
110"I-
%'SymbMs Lv;-d
A�A
........ .
Design Loads Climatic Data
I Key
Ky�,lo Te 11
legend .v ram revue vtra ser
Vv
..........
410
q)
,A z
0 75
Plan
ry
C?
O
cc
lj-
Qi
JrT
- -- ------------
ry
C?
O
cc
lj-
Qi
R-f
V4,
t.
9.MIN S� .A-A
I ) S-ti"
CL
•
LPL �I
SWhElevelion
71
Al DETAIL - SIDING US CORNER
Iji
DETAIL SIDING CORNICE
0
cu-
CID
C
4= c
C)
L5
it
DETAIL SIDING OtS CORNER
71
Al DETAIL - SIDING US CORNER
Iji
DETAIL SIDING CORNICE
0
cu-
CID
C
4= c
C)
L5
yypiq�j wav S.cfim
2 I'll T,, :llz It I
C\J
2 I'll T,, :llz It I
T
'j, .
v
*,a
��R
,4 ^ V-',"
\`�� ���
<�<�� §�f % \/,
� y ^ :.
��� /�
» °
� \� \�� � \/2\
��
mm
:Z,
Severance / Minor Variance Review
Hearing Date:
Application #:
Owner:
MAS #:
Lot #:
-6 The Township I
Plan #: Conc. #:
Wilding 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,
Kim Allen
Chief Building Official
9
T ledonte Engineering Department
Inspection Report/Comments for Consente
��M.i�ar Var�anc„
Other
File No. ;
Name of Owner CC
-
Address
3
tr
Subject Property
Remarks:..
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services .
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
SEP -11 -2008 17:08 TOWNSHIP OF ORO— MEDONTE
09/11/2008 THU 16:07 FAX
Sent by Facsimile 1 -705- 487 -0133
P.001i002
0001/002
September 11, 2008 File No.: 2008 -A -41
IMS No.: PV00504C2
Mr. Steven Farquharson
" Secretary- Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte
P.O. Box 100,
Oro, ON LOL 2X0
Tel: 905 - 895 -1281
1- 800465 -0437
Fax: 905 - 853 -5881 Dcar Mr. Farquharson:
E -Mail: info(u'lsrca.on.ea
Web: mw\v.lsrca.00.ca
Re: Minor Variance Application - Increase Maximum Height For Boathouse
120 Bayview Parkway George & Heidi Caufin, Owners
Box 282
Newmarket, Ontario Part of Lot 27, Concession 7 (Former Township of Oro)
L3Y 4x1 175 Lakeshore Road West, Plan Lot 65, Plan 967
Township of Oro - Medonte (Oro), Counq 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), and
Ontario Regulation 179/06 made under the Conservation Authorities Act. This application, if
approved, would permit the construction of a new boathouse with a maximum height of 5.7
metres above the Average Annual High Water Mark (AAHWM) of Lake Simcoe (219.15 masl).
Our mapping indicates that the above noted property is partially within the Approved Regulation
Limit of the LSRCA. The western portion of the above noted site is regulated for a watercourse
with associated meanderbelt (erosion allowance) and Regional Storm floodplain (FE = 223.13
masl). The southern portion of the above noted site is regulated for shoreline erosion allowance
and 100 -year wave uprush (FE = 220.14 masl). 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:
1. Based on our mapping, the proposed boathouse 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, the boathouse must be designed to withstand
the effects of ice action and wave uprush, and the drawings are to be stamped, signed and
dated by the structural engineer.
A 2. The proposed boathouse is partially within the area affected by the 100 -year wave
uprush. The LSRCA requires that all electrical outlets, main panel, and permanent
Watershed heating equipment in the proposed boathouse be positioned a minimum of 5 cm above
the 100 -year wave uprush elevation of 220.14 masl.
for Life 3. Please be advised that the LSRCA development fee for this application is $200.00 in
accordance with our Planning and Development Fees Policy. The applicant should be
advised that currently this fee is outstanding and to please forward the above mentioned
fee as soon as possible. By copy of this letter to the applicant, we request that they
submit the above mentioned fee at this time.
Page 1 of 2
SEP -11 -2008 17:08 TOWNSHIP OF ORO— MEDONTE
09/11/2008 THU 16:08 FAX
September 11, 2008
File No.: 2008 -A -41
IMS No.: PV00504C2
Mr. Steven Farquharson
P.002 /002
2002/002
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 new boathouse. Please note,
a permit application (IMS No.: RPMA4473) has been submitted for the proposed
boathouse.
2. That prior to any site alteration, proper erosion and sediment control measures must be
in place.
The LSRCA requests that payment of the outstanding LSRCA review fee of $200.00 be
made a condition of approval of the above noted Minor Variance application.
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,
Ian Walker
Environmental Planner
I W /ph
e. George & Heidi Caufin, Owners, 1- 905- 738 -5770 - Fax
U (Minor Variara.-e - Caufin) 175 Lakeshore Road Wesi - I,�%I)d
TmwnmhipmfOrm-Medmmte - ComnmitteemfAdjustmert
September 18,2Q08
2088-A-42— Marion Garnett
3 Beach Road, Plan 949, Lot 16 (Former Orillia)
1. PURPOSE OF APPLICATION
The applicants are proposing k] construct a Sin(d8 detached dwelling with an attached garage. The
proposed dwelling, excepting the 71.3 M2 (768 ft2 ) attached garage, would have a first storey floor area of
72 nl^ (775 0e). The applicant is MgqV8SUnQ the following relief from SeCbOO 4, Table 131 of Zoning By-law
Shoreline Residential Exception 103 (SR*103) Zone:
Required Proposed
Minimum First Storey Floor Area 90 Sq. m 72 sq.0
2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation —Shoreline
Zoning By-law S7'S5— Shoreline Residential Exception 1O3/SR°1O3\Zone
PreviOUSApp|iC@bOOs — nODe
3. DEPARTMENT/AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department —No comments received
Building Department — No building permit will be issued without approval for septic system
Engineering Department —NVconcerns
4. BACKGROUND
The subject property currently contains a single family dwelling VD the east side Of Beach Road On the
west side Of B8SS Lake. The subject property contains approximately 45 metres of frontage On Beach
F9O8d, and an area 8f approximately 0.12 hectares (0.32 acres). The proposed dwelling dOBS not meet
with the required nnini[OuUl first Sb]r8y floor 8oB8. being 90 square metres. AS Such' the applicant has
applied to the Committee of Adjustment for 8 variance for 8 reduction in the rniOi[Duno first Sb3[8y floor
area from S0square metres bJ72square metres.
Does the variance conform to the general intent ofthe Official Plan?
The pn}p8dv is designated ShOn}|iD8 by the Official Plan. Section C5.2 of the Plan states that "permitted
uses on lands designated Shoreline ... are limited to single detached dwellings [and accessory buildings to
such]...". Therefore single detached dwelling with an attached garage would represent a permitted
use.
[}n this basis the proposal iaconsidered to conform bm the intent mf the Official Plan
Does the variance conform bmthe general intent ofthe Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential Exception 103 (SR103) Zone. Permitted uses in
the 8[lZone include single detached dwellings and accessory buildings, such @G garages and storage
sheds. The exception 103 dO8S not 8ff8Ct this 8pp|iQ]UOn' due to it addressing the CODstrVCbOD of
dwelling OO vacant land that has maintained h}b8 vacant since the passing 0f the 97-95 Zoning By-|aw.
With respect to the pn]pOSeU reduced DOiOirnunl first storey f|O0[ 8r98, it is the intent Of the By-law to
ensure that new residential construction does not take the form of unduly small, S8880nG|, or temporary
dwellings, which may detract from the general character and aesthetics of the local neighbourhood. The
application 81 hand seeks b] construct 8 single storey dwelling containing 8n attached garage, and deck
on the rear Ofthe pn}pOGeU dwelling. According to drawings submitted with the application, the first
storey fk}O[ area, minus the garage, is approximately 72 Gqu@ng metres. The footprint Of the structure
with the garage area, being 71.3 square metres, totals approximately 143 square metres.
Aside from the minimum first storey floor area requirement, the proposed dwelling otherwise meets with
all 000iC8Ne front, side, and rear yard setbacks, 801 CVDlpU8S with setback from the average high-water
mark to Bass Lake as prescribed. As auoh, the proposed dwelling meets the general intent of the
Zoning By-law.
/e the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, it was noted that surrounding dwellings on Beach Road are larger then
what the applicant is proposing. However, it should be noted that the neighboring dvv8|iDg to the south,
is Ginni|8r in size to what the applicant is proposing. It was also DVt80 that many Of the homes, if the
garage area was ignored, appeared to be quite Srn8U. particularly in the single storey examples. A
survey Ofthe gross floor areas Of homes on Beach RO8U in close proximity to the subject lands was
taken, and @CCUnjiDg to Township building r8COnjs' structures iD the area range between 59 square
metres uph]12G square metres. AS such, the average gross floor area for structures 0O Beach Road is
90 square metres, consisting 0f8 mix Of one and two-storey dwellings. As the proposed dwelling would
consist Of8 gross floor area Of 150 Square metres in two storeys, which does not include the garage
area, the proposed structure would be compatible with the character of development in the area. As
such, the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the proposal cOnfOnnS to the Official Plan, maintains the general intent Of the Zoning
By-law, and is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the lot, the variance is considered
to be minor.
It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance 2008-A'42' being to grant a reduction for the
noiOiQQVn8 required first storey floor area from SD Squ8n8 rn968S to 72 square n89treS' subject to the
following conditions:
1. 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.
2. That the existing dwelling on the property be removed prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Steven Farquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Reviewed by,
_v��e4�
Glenn White, MC|P.RPp
Senior Planner
I
0
-0479(LT)
Is$( )
N85*C)2*00'W (Z —
30.00.(Pl &SETY
Iussla(ms)
DIMRSED
(WIT TOP)
SEE DETAIL
rn
0 -0 cn
Q)
BE
35.89'(P I &M)
lao
(ou)
LOT 17
co
-a m
]E >
C)
�n
C�
10'2 VII 610 __ 32 _ 10, 32'
47 210 27 2 2'1 O 4` 91 2' 91 4°
22``f tt 2' -2r5_12' 3' 1 2' 1265 2'13
2 r W 27`4
k+ ll, �;
IT-
.
��.
5 .. .
....
._ .N.
1
9g
o
To edopte Epoipeeripg Department
Inspection Report/Comments for Consent
Other
File No.
Name ofowner
Address
Nil
Subject Properl-
pnx
Remarks: f n %
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Severance / Minor Variance Review
Hearing Date:
Application #: 2-1-C A --� 4 2
Owner: C
MAS #:
Lot #: Plan #:
Cone. #:
�d The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
❑ Proposal appears to meet minimum standards.
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Allen
Chief Building Official
SEP -12 -2000 09:44 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE P.001i001
SEP -12 -2008 08:43 FROM:NUCA 7054242115 TO:17054870133 P.1/1
s� >�s
0
Oti 1�
tf0 N -A��(7
September 12, 2408
Steven Farquharson, Secretary - Treasurer
nit. Blue Mncmttine Re: Application for Minor Variance 2008 -A -42 (Garnett)
Rr dford -"'tKL Gwillimhary Lot 16, Plan 949, 3 Beach Road
C It:uview Township of Oro- Medonte (Formerly Township of Orillia)
( ollingwood The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this
I-=-a application for minor variance and based upon our mandate and policies
Inni =fll under the Conservation Authorities Act, we have no objection to its
Mel.ancthca, approval.
Mono We advise the NVCA has issued a permit under the Conservation
'"'UIMUr _Authorities Act for this proposed development.
Nrw TLLUMItth
Oro -M dontt: Thank you for circulating this application for our review and please forward
GrFy Highland=
a copy of any decision.
Shelbumr- Sincerely,
5pr r rr�w.�ter
r- �
Tim Salkeld
Watershed Resource Planner
Counties
Su [IC oC
I)ufftnn
(,ruy
Member of
C(tnserving our Healthy Waters
NO I fAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION At i 1 t IORM Ccrtitrc tar Con,, rv, tian
Conservation Jahn Hix (,'.onservaUun Adrrnrtuslrution CtnU'e - Tiffin Cnnst-watiun Aura 81911 8th Lin( Utopia ( )n I OM 1 T
0NT,�RI0 Telephone: 70;.424.1479 rax: 705.4242115 Wph: www.nvea.on.La Email- adntlnQ1nvna.crnca
TOTAL P.001
Committee of Adjustment
Member
Township of Oro - Medonte
Municipalities
P.O. Box 100
Adia1a -T(r urond ,
Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0
AmsranlfY
Bear Mr. Farquharson;
HArrlt
nit. Blue Mncmttine Re: Application for Minor Variance 2008 -A -42 (Garnett)
Rr dford -"'tKL Gwillimhary Lot 16, Plan 949, 3 Beach Road
C It:uview Township of Oro- Medonte (Formerly Township of Orillia)
( ollingwood The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this
I-=-a application for minor variance and based upon our mandate and policies
Inni =fll under the Conservation Authorities Act, we have no objection to its
Mel.ancthca, approval.
Mono We advise the NVCA has issued a permit under the Conservation
'"'UIMUr _Authorities Act for this proposed development.
Nrw TLLUMItth
Oro -M dontt: Thank you for circulating this application for our review and please forward
GrFy Highland=
a copy of any decision.
Shelbumr- Sincerely,
5pr r rr�w.�ter
r- �
Tim Salkeld
Watershed Resource Planner
Counties
Su [IC oC
I)ufftnn
(,ruy
Member of
C(tnserving our Healthy Waters
NO I fAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION At i 1 t IORM Ccrtitrc tar Con,, rv, tian
Conservation Jahn Hix (,'.onservaUun Adrrnrtuslrution CtnU'e - Tiffin Cnnst-watiun Aura 81911 8th Lin( Utopia ( )n I OM 1 T
0NT,�RI0 Telephone: 70;.424.1479 rax: 705.4242115 Wph: www.nvea.on.La Email- adntlnQ1nvna.crnca
TOTAL P.001
Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment
September 18, 2008
2008-B-19 Gavin Wright and Caron Wilson
14 Cahiague Road, Lot 14, Concession 11, (Former Twp. Of Medonte)
The purpose of Consent application 2008-B-19iSto permit the creation of a residential lot. The lot to be
severed is proposed to have 45 metres (147 feet) of frontage On Highway 12' and 8lot area of approximately
O.4 hectares (0.98 acres). The proposed retained lot would contain approximately 340 metres (1115feet) of
frontage OO C8hi Ve Road, and 8 kd area Of 36 hectares (89.9 acres). Given that a large portion of the
subject property contains EDvimoDDl8Dt8| Pn]beCtiDD Two Ov8d8y' as set out in the [XffiCi8{ Plan, an
EDviK)DrD8Ot3| Impact Study (BS) was required, which was completed on July 252OO8. The Township has
received favourable comments regarding the E|8. U is now appropriate for Committee to consider this
Official Plan Designation — Rural, Environmental Protection Two
Zoning By-law 97-95— Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone
Previous Applications — None.
3. AGENCY COMMENTS
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority — See attached.
SimcO8 County — Comments forth coming
Public Works —N8 comments received
Building Department
Engineering Department — See attached
4. BACKGROUND
The subject property iG located in the former Township 0fK88UOnt8.@d the northeast corner of the intersection
Vf Highway 12 and C8hi8gu8Road. The lands are designated Rural and Environmental Protection Two inthe
Official Plan, and zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. The EP
zoning exists approximately in the middle Of the pn}p9dy, where a vvat8nCOUrS8 vvhk:h flows to the north. The
EP component {f the property is located on the pn}p0S8d lands h}bRsevered. Both the proposed severed
and retained lands are characterized as having extensive mature tree cover consisting 8 vGheb/ of mixed tree
species. NV buildings or structures exist on the proposed retained |8nds, hVvv8v8r there is an existing
dvv8UiDg. garden Shed and garage |OC8UBd on the pn0pOS8d severed |@DdS which the 8pp|iCGOtS currently
occupies. A cluster 0f single detached dwellings are located along Cahi8gu8 Road and Highway 12.
AS Shgt8d above, 8pp|iC8hDn 2008-B-19 required the SubrDiSSiOO of an EIS given that the subject property
CoDt8iDS lands designated ''EDvin}nrnUnt8| Protection Two", reflecting significant vegetation features. GgCtk]n
B3.4 of the Official P|8D requires an EIS for new development On |8DdS within the Envin)O00eDt]| Protection
Two overlay. AS8 result Ofthe EIS investigation, it was determined that the proposed development on subject
lands would have no negative impacts on the natural Hertiage features or functions of the area. The EIS was
COn0p|Ht8d by J. DObe|| &A8soCiat8G' dated July 25' 2008. and subsequently circulated tOthe N0M8vv8G8Aa
Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) and the County OfSi[Dc08 for comment.
Comments were received from the NVCAnD September 10. 2008, with respect b}the EIS. VVhi|8 the NVCA
agreed with the E|8 stating that they accepts the report's conclusion which indicates the proposed
development will have no negative impacts On the Natural Heritage features and functions [dthe area. The
County has also indicated that they support the recommendation that the NVCA have stated.
5. OFFICIAL PLAN
The Township Official P|@D contains specific policies with vBGp8Ct to permitted land uses within the Rural
designation. With respect to this application, a single detached dwelling (and accessory uses to dwellings) are
pe[rDi#80 On |GOdS designated HuGl|. In addition, the creation of new residential |QtS VO RVxG| lands is
permitted in the Official P|8D under Section C2.3.1:
^C2.3'1 The creation of new lots for residential purposes
... only one new lot can be severed from 8 lot inthe Rural designation that has an area of at least
36 hectares or is the whole of an original Township lot provided a lot has not been severed from
the parcel after March 20,1973"
In considering the creation of a new lot for residential purposes, the Committee of Adjustment shall
be satisfied that the proposed lot:
8) will have a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares;
b> is of an appropriate size for n8siU8DU8| uS8' with such G residential use generally not
requiring 8 lot size that exceeds 2.0hectares;
C\ fronts Onb} an existing public n]8d that is maintained year round by the Township Or
County;
d> will not cause 8tr8ffic hazard RS8 result Of its location oDG curve O[G hill; and,
e\ can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and 8n @ppn}pd8b8 means [dsewage
disposal.
This 8pp|iC8dOO vvOVM appear to CUnfVrnl to the above policies, as the subject property O08etS the [ninirnUnn
size provisions, and has not had 8 severance after 1S73. The proposed lot also meets with all criteria listed iO
SeChOD C2.3.1. With respect tOthe Environmental Pn]t8cUUO Two (Ep2) overlay applying bJthe proposed
severed and /eb}in8U lands, the E|8 completed by the applicant has satisfied the requirements of Section
B3.4, which stipulates that new development proposed on lands with the EP2 designation may require an EIS
prior to approval.
On the basis of the above, the application vvOu|d appear to CVUfOnD to the applicable policies of the Official
6. ZONING BY-LAW
The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone by
Zoning By-law 97-95,8Samended. The proposed lot will consist 8f04 hectare KJ.S8RcKe8\' and will have 45
metres (148 feet) Of frontage on Highway 12; the required frontage for 8 |0t in the A/RU Zone is 45 metres
(148 f80d. and the required minimum lot area for residential use is 0.4 h8Ct8n}G /0.98 8Cn8S\. The lot to be
created does currently contain EP zoning. The proposed retained lands would consist 0f approximately 36
hectares /8H8CK}s\. and maintain 340 metres (1115 feet) {f frontage OnCGhigueRoad. Further, the proposed
lot would also meet with all requirements of lot area and frontage of the /VRU Zone.
On the basis of the above, the application would appear to comply with the Zoning By-law.
7. CONCLUSION
The proposed consent application for the creation of8 residential lot conforms to the policies of the Official
Plan, and complies with the minimum lot provisions of the A/RU Zone, as prescribed by the Zoning By-law.
It is recommended that the Committee grant provisional consent to Aoo|ic3t0O 2008'B-19 subject to the
following conditions:
1.That three copies of8 Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by8DOntario Land Surveyor bH
submitted h]the Committee Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the appropriate permit(s) and any other necessary approval(s) be obtained from the Nottawasaga
Valley Conservation Authority only after the CV[DDnittHH'S decision beCV[DSS final and binding, as
provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1998, C.P. 13.
3. That the 8pp||c8Oys solicitor prepare and submit 8 copy of the proposed conveyance for the p8rC8|
severed, for review bythe Municipality;
4. That the applicant pay $2.O0O.U0 for the lot created 8ScaSh'in'|ieu0fG parkland contribution;
5. That all municipal taxes be paid b} the Township 0f{Jn}-K4edont8;
8. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of
the giving Vf the notice.
All of which espectfully submitted,
Steven Farquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Reviewed by,
Glenn White, MC|P, RPP
Senior Planner
Proposed Lot Creation
V�
I�A
le.
r-
�� ��r,
�..,�,''
��
\/
0�'
0\
�
Wli
\/
0�'
0\
�
T 'ledonte F»OineerinQ Department
inspection Report/comments for Consent`
P Minor Variance
Other
File No.
i
Name of owner
N
A
Address '
.N
Subject Property
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services .
committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Steven Farquharson, Secretary- Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro - Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0
VED
5 �r 1 d 1008
ORO- MEDON4-rE
TOWN`':.,' _,
Member
Municipalities Dear Mr. Farquarson;
Ad I a I a -Toso ro nti o Re: Application for Consent 2008 -B -19 (Wright/Wilson)
Amaranth Part Lot 11, Concession 14
Barrie Township of Oro - Medonte (Formerly Township of Medonte)
The Blue Mountains The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed the
Bradford -West Gwillimbury Environmental Impact Statement prepared in support of this consent
Clearview application. The NVCA accepts the report's conclusion which indicates the
Coliingwood proposed development will have no negative impacts on the Natural
Heritage features and functions of the area. The NVCA therefore has no
Essa objection to the approval of this application.
Innistil
Melancthon Please be advised that a significant part of the property is under the
Mono regulatory jurisdiction of the NVCA whereby permits are required under the
Mu{mur Conservation Authorities Act prior to any development. The NVCA requests
that prior to the issuance of a municipal building permit, clearance be
Newrecumseth obtained from the NVCA. A detailed site plan showing all proposed
Oro - Medonte development in conformity with the Environmental Impact Study will be
Grey Highlands required prior to clearance.
Shelburne
Please forward a copy of any decision.
Springwater
Wasaga Beach Sincerely,
.--
Watershed /Z
Counties Tim Salkeld
Simcoe Resource Planner
Dufferin
Grey
Member of
Conserving our Healthy Waters
NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Centre for Conservation
Conservation John Hix Conservation Administration Centre � Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 8th Line - Utopia, On LOM 1 TO
ONTARIO
Ha«�rcna, p;o „ Telephone: 705.424.1479 - Fax: 705.424.2115 - Web: www.nvca.on.ca Email: admin @nvca.on.ca
The Corporation of the
County ` of
Simcoe
Phone: (705) 726-9300 Fax: (705) 727-7984
Corporate Services Division lll0 Highway 26. Administration Centre
Planning Department Midhvmt, Ontario L8LlXU
Steven Farquharson, B.URPL
Committee of Adjustment
Township ofOo+K4edonte
148 Line 7South
Oro, Ontario LOL2XU
Dear Mr. Farquharson:
RE: Consent Application File No. 2008-B-1 9 (Gavin Wright and Caron Wilson)
Part Lot 11. Concession 14, Township mf0ro-y0mdmobm
Thank you for circulating the County ofSinocoe. The subject property ks designated Greonlanda
according toEJnmcoa County's Official Plan Schedule 5,4. A portion of the pudbnznk Creek Provincially
Significant Welland exists on the subject property. Section 37.6of the County Official Plan identifies
that residential lots created by consent may be permitted in the Greenlands designation conditional on
acceptable results from an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
County planning staff feels that an EIS may yield significant information and mitigation measures for
development on the subject lands.
The County has no objection to the approval of the application provided the following condition is included:
1. The applicant shall submit an EIS 0n the satisfaction ofthe County CfGimnoogwhich
demonstrates that the proposed development will not have a negative impact on the natural
features and associated ecological functions of area.
Enclosed isuTerms of Reference for the completion of an EIS study.
Please forward a copy of the decision. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Greg arek
Planner 11 (705) 726-9300 ext. 1362
cc. Tim Salkeld, NVCA
Attachment: County Environmental Impact Statement Requirements Guide
& Planning Dk.D07 mo`4Development mnev°°"ce &o,u ,y=rigm+wils"
The County of Simcoe Official Plan
Part 6 - Appendices
Appendix I - Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Requirements
A. EIS Requirements
An EIS:
is required for development proposed within the Greenlands Designation;
can be utilized to satisfy the General Subdivision and Development Policy, 3.3.5, that
pen-nits development within identified significant features provided there will be no
negative impact;
is required within an identified wetland area that has not been evaluated and classified
by the Province of Ontario; within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area is
required in accordance with the requirements of that Plan.
B. Purposes
The purpose of an EIS is to determine the suitability of the proposed development at that
location and, if suitable, to determine site design and mitigative measures that can minimize
disturbance to the natural environment.
An EIS is intended to support the policy requiring development to have no negative impact on
the natural features of the area.
C. Content
An EIS shall include the following where appropriate:
• a description of the physical features on the subject land including buildings, structures,
soils, vegetation, wildlife, topography, watercourses/bodies and other relevant features
(what is on the property?);
• a general description of the physical features outlined above of the land around the
subject property (what is around the property?);
• a summary of the development proposal including a detailed drawing of the proposed
development (what is being proposed and where?);
• a description of the potential impacts of the development on the physical features of the
site (what impact will this change have?);
• a review of alternative development options and alternative methods of mitigating the
impacts of the development proposed (why is the development form proposed the most
appropriate and what are the best measures available to protect the features of the
site?);
Page 79
The County of Simcoe Official Plan
• exploration of opportunities for environmental enhancement (how can the environment
be improved?); and
• an implementation and monitoring Plan (how will this development be established
including mitigation measures and enhancements and how will it be ensured that the
environmental characteristics and features will be maintained?),
D. Subject Matter
The scale and subject matter of the EIS required will vary with the scale and type of
development proposed. This shall be determined in pre-consultation with the County and the
local municipalities prior to the EIS proceeding. The following is a list of examples of items
and impacts which may be required in an EIS:
• impact on recharge and discharge (water) functions of the site;
• use and disposal of water - ground water;
• impact on water quality, temperature, conveyance;
• impact on aquatic habitat including spawning grounds;
• impact on waterfowl and mammal habitat;
• impact on size of core area;
• erosion and siltation impacts;
• discharge of substances other than water, e.g. salt;
• noise;
• air emissions;
• odours;
• management of the quality and quantity of stormwater run off,
• loss of vegetation;
• impacts of grading of terrain, especially topsoil; and
• other matters determined appropriate based on the location and characteristics of the
site.
It is anticipated within the polices of the Plan that local municipalities may undertake research
to complement and refine information of the County Natural Heritage Study and Greenlands
Designation, and establish compatible local greenlands systems. Where such research has been
completed to the satisfaction of the County and the local municpality, the environmental data
may be utilized to assist in determining the scale and content of an EIS.
E. EIS Approval Process
Simple proposals will be approved at the Staff level.
Complex projects will be subject to peer review by outside parties, at the applicant's expense.
Very complex projects will be subject to the above, and may also require the approval of
Planning Services Committee.
Page 80
Township • Oro-Medonte - Committee • Adjustment
September 18, 2008
2008-B-38 – George Anderson
1004 Line 14 North, Pt. Lot 9, West Pt Lot 10, Concession 14, (Former Twp. Of Medonte)
---------- —
The purpose of Consent application 2008-B-38 is to convey approximately 10.1 hectares (25 acres) to the
abutting property located at 1265 Line 13 North. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of
this application as the application is looking to increase the farm holding of the property located at 1265 Line
13 North. The resulting retained lands will be approximately 33 hectares (81.5 acres) fronting onto Line 14
North.
2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation – Mineral Aggregate Resources, Agricultural
Zoning By-law 97-95 – Mineral Aggregate Resource One Exception 40 (MAR 1 *40), Mineral Aggregate
Resource Two (MAR2) and Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone
Previous Applications – 2005-OPA-01 & 2004-ZBA-23
3. AGENCY COMMENTS
County of Simcoe - No Comments
Public Works Department – No comments received
Building Department Proposal appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department - No concerns
4. BACKGROUND
The applicants are proposing a boundary adjustment to convey and add approximately 10.1 hectares (25
acres) to the neighbouring lot being 1265 Line 13 North, which is currently being used for agricultural
purposes. The purpose of the adjustment is to provide a larger agricultural and aggregate lot for 1265 Line 13
North, which the applicant is transferring of property that has been inherited. The land to be retained by the
applicant, 1004 Line 14 North Sideroad, would have an area of approximately 33 hectares (81.5 acres) and
currently contains a single detached dwelling and various structures accessory to the aggregate operation on
the property.
5. OFFICIAL PLAN
Section D2.2.2 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider applications for
boundary adjustments. The policy states:
"A consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new
building lot is created ... in addition, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the
boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the agricultural parcels affected."
In reviewing the application, no new building lots will be created, and given the large amount of land to be
conveyed, the viability of the overall existing agricultural operation would not likely experience an adverse
impact. In addition, the County of Simcoe has historically required that residential lots in rural areas generally
not exceed 1 hectare, with the intent of minimizing the fragmentation of farmland.
AS 8 result Of the (}ffid8| P|GD ADn8DdrDenk that the applicant obtained through (}PA#22 in May of 260�, lands
were redesignated from the Mineral Aggregate Resource to Agricultural. The portion that is proposed to be
conveyed over to1265 Line 13 North, remained designated of the Mineral Aggregate Resources.
[)n this basis, the application iS considered h}U8appropriate and generally conforms b} the Official Plan.
The subject property iscurrently zoned Mineral Aggregate Resource One 40 UNAR1*40 &K8ireral
Aggregate Resource Two (MAR2) Zone in the Township's Zoning By-law. The lot to be enhanced, 1265 Line
13 N0dh, iG currently zoned k4iOer8i Aggregate Resource One Exception 40 (K8AR1°40) W1iOR[G| Aggregate
Resource Two ([NAH2) and Agricultural/Rural (A/RU)Zone. The land b]be added b}the enhanced lot isalso
zoned K4AR1°4O\. The subject lands will be added hJ similar zoned lands.
The proposed consent application iS for a lot addition generally conforms with the policies of the C)ffid@| P|8D
and complies with the provisions of the Zoning By-law.
|1iS recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B-38 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That three copies Of@ Reference P|8D for the subject {8OU indicating the severed parcel be prepared
by8n Ontario Land Surveyor besubmitted to the Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the 8po|iC8nyS solicitor prepare and submit a copy Ofthe proposed conveyance for the parcel
Severed. for review by the Municipality;
3. That the severed lands be merged in title with 1265 Line 13 North and that the provisions of
Subsection 3 Or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent C0Ov9y8Oc8 or
transaction involving the subject lands;
4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed |8DdS and the |DOdS to be
enhanced will merge intitle;
5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of
the giving Of the notice.
All of which is respepfully submitted, Reviewed by
Steven Farquharson, B.UHpL Glenn White MC||P'HPP
Intermediate Planner Senior Planner
No m m m i � Nwl,4
/l0 0 t � nt I � A/
4-mr-J E-D LAt'J-'bS
`g /.S, a,: " tn�
A
ZY
BaYn to tj
LAtj.,>S
�0-'f M,
f!i`a
r
`�
ro G`�-� Wes• � t "�:�� `i
/l0 0 t � nt I � A/
4-mr-J E-D LAt'J-'bS
`g /.S, a,: " tn�
A
ZY
BaYn to tj
Farquharson, Steven
From: Marek, Greg
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:40 PM
To: Farquharson, Steven
Subject: RE: Consent Application (2008-13-38)
Thanks for circulating the County Steven. We have no comment.
Greg Marek
Planner 11
Phone: 705-726-9300 x1362
From: Farquharson, Steven
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 12:34 PM
To: Marek, Greg
Subject: Consent Application (2008-13-38)
Hey Greg,
Please find the consent application for the September 18, 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.
I have a couple more I will be sending too.
Regards,
Steven Farquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
Bus: (705) 487-2171 Ext: 4239
Fax: (705) 487-0133
www.oro-medonte.ca
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by VPNetworks(l), and is
believed to be clean.
T 'ledonte Engineering Department
Inspection Report/Comments for Consent
Minor Variance
Other
File No.
Name of Owner
Address
M
Subject Property
Remarks t = - * t
s�
l
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services .
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Severance / Minor Variance Review
Hearing Date:
Application #: � - a - - �-. a
Owner:
MAS #:
Lot #: P' Plan #: '�k , a'i Conc. #: 04
-0 The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
,4 Proposal appears to meet minimum standards.
F-I Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks
as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.
❑ Comments:
Note: This is not approval for any particular development proposal
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Allen
Chief Building Official
Tom/nsh|pmfOro-Medonte - Commmmittee of Adjustment ^
September 18,20Q8
20Q8-B-39— Indian Park Association
15 Algonquin Trail, Plan M-8, Lot 2, Concession 6 (Formerly Oro)
The purpose of application 2000-B-39 is to permit a lot addition. The subject land is Pad of
Block F. P|8O K8'8' having G frontage 0f approximately 9 metres VO Huron Woods [}dve' and
a depth Of approximately 3.5 metres. The subject lands are proposed to be added to the
adjacent lands b] the west (79 Huron Woods Drive). NO new building lot iG proposed tVbg
created as a result Ofthe lot addition.
2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
OffiCadPlanDesignadon — RRsidenUa|
Zoning By-law 07-95— Private Recreational Exception 114(PR°114) Zone
Previous Applications —
3. AGENCY COMMENTS
CVuntvOfGimCOS - No cO0Q8gntS
Public Works Department '
Building Department — Proposal appears tO meet minimum standards
Engineering Department —
N0tt8w8SRg8 Valley Conservation Authority —
4. BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing 8 boundary adjustment to convey approximately U.O83 hectares
(0.008 8C[8s) from the subject property to the neighbouring reSiUeDU8| lot located at 79
HunJnvvOOdSDrivg. The proposed lot addition iG currently utilized 8S the driveway access to
79 Hun]nwODdS Drive and there is CUn9OUy 8 registered easement between Indian P8[h
Association and the owners of 79 Huronwoods Drive (Bolger) for this driveway access. NO
new building lots are proposed to be created as O result Ofthe lot addition.
5. OFFICIAL PLAN
The SVbi8Ct lands are designated Residential by the C]ffiCiR| p|8O ([)P). 8e:bUO D2 of the
OP contains policies with respect to subdivision Of land. Specifically, S8CUOn O2.2.2 '
"Boundary AdiuGtD18DtS"' provides the f0||0vviUg guidance for Consent Applications in
geD8n3|:
^a consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new
building lot is Cr88ted..the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the b04Od8g/
adjustment will not affect the viability Vf the use O/ the properties 8ffech9(1"
With respect to the application at hand, no new building lots are proposed and the proposed
boundary adjustment does not affect the viability Ofthe current use for the existing driveway.
As such, the proposed boundary adjustment iS generally in keeping with the intent ofthe
n3GideDUG| pO|iCi8S SiGt8d in the Official P|8n, and otherwise cVDf0[Q0s 03 the boundary
adjustment policies contained iO Section O.22.2.
6. ZONING BY-LAW
The subject property is zoned Private Recreational Exception 114(PR°114) Zone byZoning
By-law 97'95 as amended. The lot to be 8nh8DC8U. being 79 Hun]nw0OdS DdvR, is zoned
Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone.
The Private Recreational Zone requires 8 frontage Of8 minimum 30 metres ODa public road.
Because the subject land will not [088t this frontage r8qUirHOQeDL B condition vvOU|d be
placed OO the subjects |8DUS requiring the owner Of7S Hun}nw0OdS Drive hJobtain 8 minor
variance to recognize the reduction in the nninirnunn frontage requirements for the existing
driveway which is located on the lands zoned Private Recreational, and to allow for a
driveway to be the primary use of these lands.
7. CONCLUSION
The proposed consent application for a boundary adjustment would appear to conform to the
policies of the Official Plan, and would maintain the intent of the provision of the Zoning By-
law as noted above.
8. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-13-39 to
convey a strip of land having a frontage of approximately 9 metres on Huronwoods Drive, a
depth of approximately 3.5 metres, and an area of 0.15 hectares to the adjacent lands being
79 Huronwoods Drive subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner of 79 Huronwoods Drive apply for a minor variance for the subject
lands, to recognize the existing frontage of the current driveway at 9 metres requiring
relief from the minimum frontage requirements of lands zone Private Recreational,
and to permit the driveway use on the Private Recreational Lands
2. 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.
3. That the severed lands be merged in title with 79 Huronwoods 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;
4. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance
for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
5. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the
lands to be enhanced will merge in title;
6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year
from the date of the giving of the notice.
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Vandenburg, B.URPL
Planner
Reviewed by
Andria Leigh, MCIP RPP
Director of Development Services
-4
1147-
Severance / Minor Variance Review
Hearing Date:
Application #: -2�1---- I- - "I — 7E,111-3)
Owner:
MAS
Lot #: 2- Plan #: Conc. #:
-
Z The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application.
❑ Site inspection required and completed.
Jit 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,
Kim Allen
Chief Building Official
Farquharson,
From: K4arek' Greg [Gr*g.Marek@ahnooe.ca]
Sent: Friday, August 29 20082:24PM
vm« ra'qmuxmv/, Steven
Subject: RE: Consent Application 2008-13-39
Thanks Seven. County has no comment.
Greg Marek
Planner 11
Phone: 705-726-9300 x1 362
From: Farquharson, Steven[maUto:sfanquha
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 12:50 PM
To: Manek,Greg
Subject: Consent Application 2008-13-39
Hey Greg,
Please find the consent applications for the September lO,20O8 Committee of Adjustment hearing. |f you can please
review and provide comments that would be great. if you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Steven Farquharson, B.URPL
intermediate Planner
Township ofDnn-W1edonte
Bus: (7U5)487-2171Exi:4239
Fax: (705) 487-0133
_
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by and is
believed to be clean.
, y -kk
'Tow'7���ip of Oro- I1'lcdonte Erg ,ring -epartm'e%
Inspection FcP0rtJC0Mrncnts for
Minor Variance
Other
File No.
Owner
Name of
Address.
Subject Property
C7 K
Remarks:
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment
September 18, 2008
2008-13-40 — Stuart and Shirley Woodrow
Part of Lot 20, Concession 7 (Formerly the Township of Oro)
Mials]
The purpose of Consent application 2008-B-40 is to permit a boundary
adjustment. The subject lands being part of lot 20, concession 7 is proposing to
convey a strip of land having a frontage of 6.10 metres (20 feet) on Line 7 North,
a depth of 123 metres (403 feet) and an area of 0.08 hectares (0.20 acres) to the
land adjacent to the north (also owned by the applicant). No new building lots are
proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition.
Official Plan Designation — Oro Centre — Office/industrial
Zoning By-law 97-95 — Agricultural/Rural Exception (A/RU*32) Zone
Previous Applications —
3. AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Works Department -
Building Department — Proposal Appears to Meet Minimum Standards
Engineering Department — No Concerns
F's
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to add approximately 0.08
hectares (108 acres) from the subject property to the neighbouring residential lot
to the north, also owned by the applicant. The proposed retained lot, being Lot
20, Concession 7, would consist of 9.97 hectares, and contains no buildings. No
new buildings are proposed to be constructed on the lot addition lands.
5. OFFICIAL PLAN
Subsection D2.2.2 of the Official Plan — 'Boundary Adjustments' contains the
policies to be considered by the Committee for an application for a boundary
adjustment. These policies state that consent may be permitted for the purpose
of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lots are created. It states
further that the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary
adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the properties affected as
intended by Plan.
It is understood that the intent of the boundary adjustment is to add lands to the
existing residential lot to the north which are currently wooded and it is the desire
of the current landowner to protect this wooded area. If new residential
construction was proposed on the boundary adjustment lands in the future a re-
designation would be required as these lands are not currently designated for
residential purposes.
For these reasons, the boundary adjustment is deemed to conform to the genera,
intent of the Official Plan.
The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural Exception (A/RU*32) and the lot
to be enhanced is zoned Rural Residential Two (RUR2) by Zoning By-law 97-95.
Within the Township there are a number of properties which contain split
zonings. As the boundary adjustment lands are intended to ne maintained in
their wooded state, a rezoning of this portion of the property is not proposed.
Should the lands in the future be proposed for residential structures, a rezoning
would be required. The lot to be enhanced as well as the retained lands, would
both conform to the minimum lot area and frontage provisions of the zoning by-
law. 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 RUR2
Zone.
Therefore, the application would comply with the provisions as prescribed by the
Zoning By-law.
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
2008-13-40 to convey a strip of land having a frontage of 6.10 metres on Line 7
North, a depth of approximately 123 metres and an area of 0.08 hectares to the
adjacent lands to the north (also owned by the applicant) 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 applicant's solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands
and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title.
4. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice.
--------------------- _____________ _________________________
N58 °54'00"E 89.09 iT Imo MTe ryL) ��
1
LOT 10 REGISTERED a PLAN 1145 m
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
I �
N. 112 LOT 20
CONCESSION 7 i PIN 58546 - 0043
PIN 58546 -0045 Z LOT 9 , REGISTERED PLAN 1145
wm
zxo�useY „I
070.96)
�— 266,715 -- S
PART 1 '
AREA - " SQ M' N 59.11' OV E 123.055
z e
PIN 58546 - 0039 (LT) z
!m S. 112 LOT 20 CONCESSION 7 i a
zl A
RETAINED AREA - 9.97 Ha 1
L_
LOT 8, R.P.1145
I REQUIRE THIS PLAN TO BE
PLAN 51 R -
DEPOSMED UNDER THE
RECEI VED AND DEPOSITED
[.AND TITLES ACT.
STANDARD IRON BAR
DATE
DATE
OU
LAND REGISTRAR FOR THE
P.1. MANSFIELD, OLS
LAND TITLES O1 VLS10N OF
PL
SII.ICOE. (N0. 51)
SCHEDULE
INST. No. 801093100
PART
CONCESSION
PIN
t
PART OF 20
�
7
PART OF
58746A039 Q.T)
PLAN OF SURVEY OF
PART OF LOT 20
CONCESSION 7
GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF ORO
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
COUNTY OF SPACOE
SCALE: 1:500
6 6.35 ill 25A 383 M -ntEs
NOTES
BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE ASTRONOMIC AND ARE
REFERRED TO THE N 31'0-6'00"W OF THE EASTERLY LIMIT OF
LOT 20 IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGISTERED PLAN 1145.
/
DENOTES FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT
p
SET SURVEY MONUMENT
SIB
STANDARD IRON BAR
TB
IRON BAR
OU
ORIGIN UNKNOWN
MS
MEASURED
PL
REGISTERED PLAN 1145
DI
INST. No. 801093100
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
1 CERTIFY THAT:
1. THIS SURVEY AND PLAN ARE CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE SURVEYS ACT, THE SURVEYORS ACT AND THE LAND
TTTLES ACT AND THE REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THEM;
2. THE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED ON .�-v ,� n° $
DATE 1 16017- 1 S �°° 9
PJ.
ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR
�4ETRIC CONVERSION P. J. MANSFIELD
DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN METRES AND Ontario Land Surveyor
CAN BE CONVERTED TO FEET BY DIVIDING BY 0.3048. 58 CHIEFTAIN CRESCENT
BARBEE ONTARIO L4N 4LS
Job No. 08 -3804 705 - 728 - 8832
k fir°'
Tgn2i }yip of Oro- Aledonte Eno,ineerine Department
Inspection Reporticomments for Conse
~Minor Variance
Other
File No.
Name of Owner
Address
Subject Property
Remarks: t
Keith Mathieson,
Director of Engineering & Environmental Services .
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date:
Severance / Minor Variance Review
Hearing Date: T I
Application #: A C)
Owner:
MAS #:
Lot #: t Plan #: Conc. #:
:41
3j 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,
Kim Allen
Chief Building Official
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
� rwI
TO: Committee of Adjustment
FROM: Andria Leigh
DATE: September 10, 2008
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Decision
John Bell
143 Bay Street
2008 -A -32
4c�) 1
At the Committee's August 21, 2008 meeting, a decision regarding the above noted minor variance
was made as follows:
"It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves Variance 2008 -A -32, being to grant a
front yard setback of 5.7 metres rather then the required 7.5 metres, and to increase the maximum
height from 4.5 metres to 5.4 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 detached garage be located no closer than 5.7 metres from the front lot line;
b) that the area of the detached garage be no larger than 67.6 in , and have a maximum
height of 5.4 metres.
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."
The Minor Variance application that was submitted to the Township for consideration by the
Committee of Adjustment was for the following:
"The applicants are proposing to construct a detached garage with a ground floor area of 67.6 m2 (728
ft2). The applicants are requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Required Proposed
Front yard setback 7.5 in (24.6 ft) 5.7 in (18.8 ft)
Interior Side Yard Setback 2 in (6.5 ft) 1 in (3.3 ft)
Maximum Height 4.5 in (14.9 ft) 5.4 in (17.8 ft)"
The application therefore requested relief from the front and interior side yard setback provisions and
the maximum height provisions. The decision of the Committee only refers to two of the three
requested variances: front yard setback and maximum height. A decision with respect to the relief
requested from the interior side yard setback was not provided.
An amended decision from the Committee is therefore required to address all three of the requested
variances. The options before the Committee would be to either approve or deny the requested
variance for relief from the interior side yard setback. Absence of wording in the current decision
cannot make the assumption that the decision was either approved or denied by the Committee.
There are two potential decisions for the Committee as follows:
1. "It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves in part Variance 2008-A-32,
being to grant a front yard setback of 5.7 metres rather then the required 7.5 metres, and to
increase the maximum height from 4.5 metres to 5.4 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 detached garage be located no closer than 5.7 metres from the front lot line;
2
b) that the area of the detached garage be no larger than 67.6 in , and have a maximum
height of 5.4 metres.
2. That the appropriate building pen-nit 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.
It is further recommended that the Committee deny in part Variance 2008-A-32, being to grant an
interior side yard setback of 1.0 metres rather than the required 2.0 metres for the proposed
detached garage with a ground floor area of 67.6 m2 (728 ft). ,
2. "It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves Variance 2008-A-32, being to
grant a front yard setback of 5.7 metres rather then the required 7.5 metres, to reduce the
interior side yard setback to 1.0 metres rather than the required 2.0 metres, and to increase the
maximum height from 4.5 metres to 5.4 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 detached garage be located no closer than 5.7 metres from the front lot line;
Z:�
b) The detached garage be located no closer than 1.0 metres from the interior side lot
line; and
c) that the area of the detached garage be no larger than 67.6 m2, and have a maximum
height of 5.4 metres.
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."
On the basis of the above, staff recommend to the Committee that an amended decision for Minor
Variance 2008-A-32 which address the requested relief from the front and interior side yard setbacks
and the maximum height be given.
Respectfully submitted,
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Director of Development Services