The URL can be used to link to this page

11 20 2008 C of A AgendaTOWNSHIP • ORO-MEDONTE COMMITTEE • ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS 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 October 16, 2008 5. PUBLIC MEETINGS a) Application: 2008-A-41 Applicant: George and Heidi Caufin Location: 175 Lakeshore Road West, Lot 65, Concession 7 (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Relief from Maximum height for a Boathouse b) Application: 2008-A-40 Applicant: Vincent and Maura Caruana Location: 1065 Lakeshore Rd. E., Lots 15& 16, Plan 882 (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Relief from Interior Side Yard Setback for an Accessory Building c) Application: 2008-A-49 Applicant: Gray Car Development Corporation/Andrew Ralph Location: 1045 Lakeshore Rd. E., Lot 4, Plan 882 (Formerly Township Of Oro) Proposal: Relief from Minimum Required Interior Side Yard Setback for Addition to Dwelling d) Application: 2006-B-16 Applicant: John & Dorothy Howard Howard Location: 4182 Line 10 N, Concession 10, East Part Lot 7, West Part Lot 6 (Formerly Township of Medonte) Proposal: Technical severance to create a new lot, which once existed as a separate parcel of land I...- e) Application: 2008-B-46 Applicant: Mary Georgina Robertson Location: 1404 Line 12 North, Lot 10, Concession 12 (Formerly the Township of Oro) Proposal: Lot addition/boundary adjustment f) Application: 2008-B-47, 2008-B-48 Applicant- Indian Park Association Location: 143 Huron Woods Drive, Block B, Plan M-30 (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Creation of two new residential lots g) Application: 2008-B-49 Applicant: Federico and Silva Rossi Location: 5395 Line 8 North, Part of Lot 14, Concession 9 (Former Twp. of Medonte) Proposal: Creation of a new residential lot h) Application: 2008-A-46, 2008-A-47 Applicant: Moss Developments Location: 95 Line 1 North, Part of Lot 3, Concession 7 (Formerly Township of Oro) Proposal: Relief from Model Homes permitted for two Model Homes 6. STAFF REPORTS 7. NEW BUSINESS a) Site Visits of A,4;—+-^-+ A---.4- -rt-..-- . -. . K I - .- - 1.__ -^ nnnn Township mfOro-YNedonte~Committee of Ad|ustnlemt � y4overnber20,2O08 � 2008-A-41— George and HeidiCoufin 175 Lakeshore Road West, Lot 65, Concession 7 (Former Oro) 1. PURPOSE OF APPLICATION THE PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing to construct a single-storey boathouse which is proposed to have a total area 0{GUMf(65Ofe). The applicants are requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: l. for the bO8th0VS8 from the required 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to @ proposed 5.7 metres /18.8f8eU. Official Plan Designation —Shoreline Zoning By-law 87'S5—Shoreline Residential (8R) Zone Previous Applications — 3. ENlJAGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department —NDComments received Building Department — The Township Building Dept. has reviewed the application and note that the proposal appears b) meet the minimum standards Engineering Department —NOconcerns Lake SimCUe Region Conservation Authority — Comments Attached 4. BACKGROUND The subject property has a road frontage Of approximately 3O rneheS (100 feet), a shoreline frontage Of approximately 42 rn8tr8S /140 feet) and 8 lot area of approximately O.2 h8Ct@rSS (0.5 GCn3S). The lands currently have a single storey Uw8||inA with 8 QrOSS floor area of 135 Dlu /1'457 *u>. The owner is proposing t0 construct a boathouse vvhiChiS proposed tohave a height 0f5.7 metres (1�H feet) above the average highw8ter mark 0f Lake SirDC08. The prOpOS8U boathouse height will exceed the 08ximUOl height Of4.5 metres (14.7 feet) as defined by Zoning By-law 97-95. Does the variance conform bn the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the C}#ici8| Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's {Jffid8| P!@D sets out the following Obi8Chv8S: ° To maintain the existing character Ofthis predominantly residential area. ° T0 protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the i0nn8di8t8 shoreline. The applicant iG not requesting an increase iD boathouse area 0rGvariance to setbacks just height. The requested height variance would appear to nl8int8jD the character of the shoreline 8rG@ On this basis, the proposed v8d8nCg vvOu|d therefore S0nfOrDl with the intent of the pU|iCi8S contained in the Official Does the variance conform bothe general intent ofthe Zoning Bo^&mm/? The subject property iS zoned ShOvB|iD8 R8Sk1enh8/ (SR) in Zoning By-law 97-9H5. as amended. One of the purposes of regulating the location and height Ofboathouses in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone is to prevent over-development of the shoreline fnOnt3Q8 which may |88U t0 the shoreline being U0noin8ied by the boathouse structures and ultimately impacting the character ofthe shoreline. The pn}pOS8d boathouse meets the setback provisions Of the By-law and the percentage of water frontage occupied by the structure. The boathouse structure dO8S not 8xS88U 4.5, however the pn}p0S8d boathouse height will exceed the nnaxinnunl height standard by 1.2 metres. Boathouse height is calculated from the average high water mark not just the height of Ule bO80lOus8 structure. It should be noted that the boathouse is setback approximately 4.5 metres (14.7 /egh from the average hiUhvv8ter mark. The proposed b0aUl0oSe will nSnn3iD, viSU8||y, secondary k]the dwelling, will not dominate the shoreline, and will not impact the potential views from adjacent lands. On this basis the variance is deemed to conform to the general intent Of the Zoning b*law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development efthe lot? Based UO the site inSpeCtiOD, the proposed 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 mature cedar hedge located along the interior property of the proposed boathouse xvkiChvxiUprovide 8 visual buMert0 the neighboring pn]p8dY. ' Given that the proposed boathouse height will not result in the over-development Of the SVbi8ctlot Orthe shoreline, the proposal iS considered appropriate for the desirable d8ve|OpwngDtOf the subject subject Is the variance minor? As this OVoic8d0n is deemed h3 conform with the Official P|8D' maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law and is appropriate development, the variance is considered to be minor. It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 200-A-41 subject Nthe following 1. That the maximum height 0fthe proposed boathouse not exceed 57metres; 2. That the appropriate building permit b8 obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding; and, 3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide Committee's decision in vvhbng 0l8t i The boathouse not exceed vehUC8b0n to the Township of DODlo|ianlce with the a maximum height of 5.7 metres 4. That the applicants obtain approval from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act. All Of which is respectfully SubmkteU' Steven Farquharson. B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by, Glenn White, MC|P' RPP Manager, Planning Services U� I ,3UBJECT LANDS-' T'.`. S"OkE- LAKE SIMCOE 20 40 80 120 160 Meters Iii pPaT25111.12512 if � II Lo _Zon" Schedule 64 PART 1, LOT 65 PLAN 96T 175 Lakeshore Drive PINTO TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE County of Sirncoe FT -11 c U) C) Z, 0 _c C. 0 00 c 4", Front. RiAF�t S+de View rfV ee —Fjg!—KS� Vww -- 0 Fn sr S t e e n h o f „� ° Caufin Boathouse A101 a -� t , , . .. a ., � o �. ,, 75 L. I'u,�= CA e ✓`asi, �r�`OA LAN - Plans 5-8224 , J 114 - !'.C" o� o :D v u Q /3 c d cu yJ 4-4% w S , J 114 - !'.C" o� o :D v u Q /3 c d cu yJ 4-4% �-V- -\ South Elevation._ NG O7S CORNER A *r" (:� DETAIL SIDING VS CORNER q� fl�nnq - 1-1 I -T 18� 11 DETAIL SIDING CORNICE -IT N 04 C) in O z c: 0 2 > L 0 V 4— 0 E�Ivt skle E*vw*T, . »� :. <» \�� \ \. < \� {�� /\ \\ ��\ \, ....... .... .. � � ! .� "At, � «\ + * f y . I � � � \� � \« � \��/ ��. < \ §� `( .� � : . y� � � j . » x a �� \ � «j 2� � \� \� : 6 \ »� ®\ ,�m..� .� y�y < /�. » 2� :� % S a �«� .� w� Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department Inspection Report for Consent .,Minor mart e Other 7e—r — Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date File No. L--, LLB� Name of Owner Address Subject Property Date of Inspection 16 Name of Road_2 Surface of Road z 1. Site Lines, Township Road Poor Good Excellent. 2. Site Lines, Subject Property Poor Good Excellent. Drive 3. Drainage Poor Good Excellent 4. Future Road Widening Required Yes No If yes, Amount 5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes No 6. Future Drive to be located /in I Remarks: 1,41 ri,4,4A t1 A Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent Severance / Minor Variance Review Hearing Date: L Application #: —41 Owner: MAS #: Lot #: Plan #: Conc. #: -6 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 I T ledonte EDoineerinp, Department Inspection Report/Comments for Consent =for Varianc ` °, Other y File No. �� Name of Owner Address` N 1a Subject Property Remarks: A 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 * 1; - w� Tel: 905 - 895 -1281 1- 800465 -0437 Fax: 905- 853 -5881 E -Mail: in&ktAlsrca.0n.ca Webt �wwwJs rca.on, ca 120 Bayview Parkway Box 282 Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1 A Watershed Sent by Facsimile 1- 705 - 487 -0133 September 11, 2008 Mr. Steven Farquharson Secretary- Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte P.O. Box 100, Oro, ON LOL 2X0 Dear Mr. Farquharson: P. 001 /002 12001/002 7�A l-4- File No.: 2008 -A -41 IMS No.: PV00504C2 Re: Minor Variance Application - Increase Maximum Height For Boathouse George & Heidi Caufln, Owners Part of Lot 27, Concession 7 (Former Township of Oro) 175 Lakeshore Road West, Plan Lot 65, Plan 967 Township of Oro- Medonte (Oro), Countxof 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 mast). 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: 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. 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 heating equipment in the proposed boathouse be positioned a minimum of 5 cm above the I00 -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 0002/002 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. 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, p Ian Walker Environmental Planner I W /ph George & I-leidi Caufin, Owners, 1 -905- 738 -5770 - Fax W lawkesionclsharcd \ianllf�CorrespondcnceV'lnnning\ Variances \Oro- Mc&nte\200812008 -A-41 (Minor Variance - CauGn) 175 Lakeshore Road West - I,wpd TOTAL P.002 Committee of Adjustment September 26, 2008 Objection to the Application RE: 2008-A-41 — George and Heidi Caufin 175 Lakeshore Road West, Lot 65, Concession 7 (Former Oro) Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? Our boathouse is 3.8 metres (12.5 feet) above the high water mark. The boathouses along this shoreline are below the 4.5 metres (14.7 feet), Zoning By-law height. The proposed 5.7 metres (18.7 feet) would be an over-development, in that the height will dominate the shoreline and adversely impact the character of the shoreline. While the boathouse will remain, visually, secondary to the dwelling, by being 1.9 metres (6.2 feet) taller than the adjacent boathouse, it will dominate the shoreline. Obviously, a height differential of 1.9 metres (6.2 feet) WILL impact the potential views from the adjacent land. On this basis the variance does not conform to the general intent of the Zoning by-law Is the variance appropriate? The proposed boathouse height would not be in keeping with the surrounding shoreline area. It should be noted that the (not so mature) cedar hedge located at the proposed boathouse, does NOT provide a visual buffer to our neighbouring property. (Photos attached) The fact that a visual buffer is even mentioned, indicates that the 1 metre (4 feet) variance will obviously be a visual problem. The proposed height variance of 1 metre (4 feet) will absolutely adversely impact the views from our property and negatively affect the enjoyment of our property. The proposed boathouse height will result in the over-development of the shoreline as intended by the Zoning by-law. There has not been a case made for the necessity of a height requirement beyond 4.5 metres as allowed in the By-law. The extra height is simply cosmetic and of a design that will detract from the character of the shoreline. The applicants have not mentioned or discussed the proposed boathouse with us, their immediate neighbours. They knew that the requested height variance was not appropriate and proceeded accordingly. There is no support for this variance from any of the other neighbours. We ask that the Committee not grant the requested minor varian Peggy and Peter Bahry 173 Lakeshore Road West ECEIVED ORO-MEDONTE 'TOWNSHIP tD O O d O cti n I� Township of Oro-Medonte - Cmmmittee of Adjustment November 20, 2008 2008-A-4Q— Vincent and K0aunaCarumnm 1005 Lakeshore Rd E Lot 15&18 Plan 882 (Former Township of Oro) 1. THE PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing h] construct 812Usq. ft. accessory building (Storage Gh8d). The applicant iS requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: Required Proposed 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 Zoning By-law 97-95— Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications —2008-A-40(d8ferr8|) 3. DEPARTMENT/AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department- Building D8p@dnn8nt—PrOpOS8|AppH8rSh}K4e8tK4ininnunnStand8nJS Engineering Department —NOConcerns 4. BACKGROUND The subject property has Groad frontage Of approximately 35 metres (11O feet) on Lakeshore Road East, 8D average lot depth Of approximately 75 metres (245 feet) and a lot area Cd approximately 0.2hectares (0.53 acres), The property currently has a single detached dwelling being built on the subject lands. The applicant is proposing to construct 8 120 Sq. #. accessory building /GtOr@g8 Shed). The applicant previously applied for relief for the side yard setback for an 8000SSOry building, as well as relief for the height of boathouse. The Committee deferred the application until 3tr8e vegetation and replacement plan was completed, the placement of the existing well be placed on the site plan, and that the applicant meet all Of the Lake SimCO8 Region Conservation Authority requirements. The applicant has changed his plans for the boathouse to meet with the Comprehensive Zoning By'|8vv 97-95 requirements, and is now seeking relief for the accessory building (storage Shed). Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The subject property is designated "Shoreline" in the Township Official Plan. The Official Plan states that permitted uses vvNlin the Shoreline designation include ".../ow density /6SkJenti8/ uS8S accessory b ..." AS the epp|}C8hOO proposes the construction Of an accessory building (storage shed) which is accessory to the single family dwelling, it is deemed to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan. Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone in Zoning By-law 97'95' as amended. The 8R Zone establishes 8 minimum interior side yard setback of 2 metres (6.5 feet) for an 8CCeSS0ry structure. The purpose O[the interior side yard setback is to provide access t0the rear yard of the property, and to provide for a degree of separation between neighbouring dwellings. After completing 8 site inspection, the proposed shed location does not appear h} hinder access hJ the rear [f the dwelling. Regarding priv@Cy, there is @ wooded buffer between the adjacent property k}the 8aGt, and the Shed is not likely to CrS@t8 8 visual hindrance 0rotherwise i0p@C1 privacy. In addition, aside from the p[0p0S8d side yard setback re|i8f, the shed vv0u|U otherwise COrnp|y with all other provisions for accessory structures as required iO the Zoning By-!8w. AS SVCh' the variance to permit reduction in the side yard setback for 8n accessory building would therefore maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development mfthe6ot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed d8baCh8U accessory structure (shed) vvOu|d appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given that the pn]pO38| would provide for 8 f0nn of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood and vvOu|U not lead tOthe over development of the |Ot' nor have SubBt8nU8| negative impact on the natural features of the ShOr8|in9, the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development Of the subject lot. CONCLUSIONS On the b85k5 that the proposed 800esS0q/ structure will maintain the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is in keeping with the general character ofthe surrounding residential neighbourhood, the requested variances are deemed k}b8minor. ImilliLefflih K is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2008,4-40, to permit the ConStnuChVO of an accessory building located 1.0 noEdr8S from the vv8S1 interior SiUH |[d line, subject to the following conditions: 1. That an On1GhD Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of COmcdiGDCg with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the accessory structure (StOr8A8 shed) be setback no closer than 1.0 metres from the east side /Cd line; 2 Notwithstanding Section 5.1.3 /d\ of Zoning By-law 97-95, that the detached accessory building meet with all other provisions for detached accessory buildings; @. That the applicant meet all requirements set Out to them by the Lake [imCoe Region Conservation Authority 4. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding All of which is respectfully submitted, RV8AV@ndenbu Planner --- 4 Reviewed by Glenn White, MC|P RPp Manager, Planning Services _ 2 ue�eoae —�� ilvM 9N�Nro1� 8 . � 3aN4 oz %t' o� ,, t�l NOw y�p�y� �� i 33ai 31S QWk WTI TdU H-ULL ONL4&V2[Q cb3 cb lbov 0E� •auI I!elap v gs,tp; a tsap inoAV'I NV'Id MIS Q2IVA xv3H repo 0 It 2VAM �r U3noYddv - __ ® A-A ! tl1'iM 313HONM --L—. � 07, 0 ' e] � NATION DETAIL GARDEN SHED FLOOR PLAN _ � �' Vk :S" SCALE: LE` 1/2• - 1' -0* SCALE' 1/2- - 1'-0' ELEVATION DETAIL \ I SCALE 1/2' - 1' -0' Q ELEVATION DETAIL SCALE 1/2- - 1'-0- una, - T. -IU 9[AA fY D, eAwiE � Mv" • ,e' o/c I� IYeLL iw/vroue Ntne01 6 INTEPoOR lElpiT - 11 1/1' 1eT BAP$ • 12" D/. EMI AT��lpppbppp�ppe--- VB��IIP. E � i f LI 4 SECTION DETAIL SCALE: 1- - V-0- Mm 14-- NpNE�i��(M S -- 8Yt FERI; E OA7E SEPti.. �� ?008, SOME AS ! U! TED desiun'' draft & detail Inc. PPRROJECT: ��¢ �D F. Y ��. DRAWING TITLE: DR MID � T,N LAN. SECT. N.2007 PIDT DAIE: SFPfb /OB REAR YARD SITE PLAN'[A/YOL All , �-- //j , - , / LOr 44 LOT 17 El-11 stm A"" SEP -03 -2008 14:08 AEON OF ORO- MEDONTE 09/03/2008 WED 13:07 FAX gtLct�o Tel: 905. 895.1281 1.800.465.0437 Fag: 905.853.5881 &Mall: info @lsrca.on.ca Web: www.lsrca.on.ca September 3, 2008 Mr. Vince Caruana 117 Hedgerow Line Kleinburg, ON LOJ 1 CO Dear Mr, Caruana: Oro - 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, • A10 Overall Rear Yard Site Plan Layout, Revision E, dated June 26, 2008 • Al 1 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. This 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. For We require a restoration plan of the area where the existing boathouse is to be removed. 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 1 of 2 SEP -03 -2008 14:08 Aft NSHIP OF ORO— MEDONTE P.002i002 09/03/2008 WED 13:07 FAX FAnn7/nn7 Mr. Vince Caruana ' IMS. No: RPMA4488C3 September 3, 2008 Page 2 of 2 d 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 mapping, 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 bevel 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 a 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 Oro - 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, kl� Ian Walker Environmental Planner IW /dt Cliff Vankoughnett, MNR Midhurst, 1 -705- 725 -7584 - Fax Steven Farquharson, Township of Oro- Medonte - Fax - 1 -705- 487 -0133 \\ I-I awkestoneWiare( ManMCorresnondence \Rcgulations\Permits \Oro - Medonte\ 2008\ 1065 Lakeshore Road East (Caniana)RPMA4488 -1 M)d W/F Vandenburg, Ryan From: Ian Walker @ oa] Semi Thursday, September 11.20O812:28PM To: Vandanburg.Rvan Cc: Farquharson, Steven >>> Ian Walker I0/09/2008 4:13 pm >>> Good afternoon Steven, I don't forsee any issues with the height variance or sideyard setback variance, but will make it subject to the following: 1. Acquiring a permit from LSR[4 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 LSR[4. I will follow with formal comments. Ian Ian Walker Environmental Planner Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket, Ontario BY 4XI Phone: (905) 895-1281 Fax: (905) 853-5881 E-mail: Web site: 1 SEP -12 -2008 10:32 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE P.001 /002 09/12/2008 FRI 9:32 FAX 0001 /002 Sent by Facsimile 1- 705 - 487 -0133 September 11, 2008 File No.: 2008 -A -40 IMS No.: PV00505C2 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- 800 -465 -0437 Fax: 905 -853 -5881 Dear Mr. Farquharson: B -Mail: info0 1srca.on.ca Web: vk-Am.lsrca.on.ca Re: Minor Variance Application - Increase Maximum Height For Boathouse & Reduce 120 Bayview Parkway Side Yard Setback Box 282 Newmarket, Ontario Vincent & Maura Caruana, Owners UY 4x1 Part of Lot 25, Concession 10 (Former Township of Oro) 1065 Lakeshore Road Fast, Plan Lots 15 & 16, Plan 882 Township of Oro - Medonte (Oro), County of Simcoe The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has reviewed the above noted Minor Variance application in the context of the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (PPS - 2005), 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 7.9 metres above the Average Annual High Water Mark (AAHWM) of Lake Simcoe (219.15 masl), and the construction of a storage shed 1.0 metres from the property line. Our mapping indicates that the above noted property is partially within the Approved Regulation Limit of the LSRCA. The southern portion of the above noted site is regulated for shoreline erosion allowance and 100 -year wave uprush (FE = 222.58 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 222.58 mast. 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 -12 -2008 10:32 T KINSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE 09/12/2008 FRI 9:32 FAX September 11, 2008 File No.: 2008 -A -40 IMS No.: PV00505C2 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 and storage shed. Please note, a permit application (IMS No.: RPMA4488) has been submitted for the proposed boathouse and storage shed. 2. That prior to any site alteration, proper erosion and sediment control measures must be in place. 3. That the proposed gazebo not be enclosed. 4. 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, � 4 /L Ian Walker Environmental Planner IW /ph C, Vincent & Maura Caruana, Owners, 117 Hedgerow Lane, Kleinburg, ON, LOJ 1 CO - Mail \\ Hawkestone \ahared\IatiMCorresponclence\ Planning \VarianceslOro•Medoff » e\2008\.2008 -A-40 (Minor Variance - Caruana) 1065 Lakeshore Road Bast - I.wpd TOTAL P.002 OCT -06 -2008 15:56 TOWNSHIP OF ORO— MEDONTE 10/06/2008 MON 14:55 FAX 'rel: 905 - 895 -1281 1- 800 - 465 -0437 1as: 905- 853 -5881 .-Mail: iilrt fl, lSYla,011.C'.a Web: �%uJsrca.on.ca 120 Bayview Parkway Box 282 Newmarket, Ontario UY 4X1 Sent by Facsimile 1- 705 - 487 -0133 October 6, 2008 Mr. Steven Farquharson Secretary - Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte P.O. Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2X0 llear Mr. Farquharson: P.001i002 0001/002 File No.: 2008 -A -40 IMS No.: PV00505C3 Re: Revised Minor Variance Application - Reduce Side Yard Setback Vincent & Maura Caruana, Owners Part of Lot 25, Concession 10 (Fortner Township of Oro) 1065 Lakeshore Road East, Plan Lots 15 & 16, Plan 882 Township of Oro - Medonte (Oro), County of Simcoe The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has reviewed the above noted Minor Variance application in the context of the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (PPS - 2005) under the Planning Act, and in accordance with Ontario Regulation 179/06 made under the Conservation Authorities Act. This application, if approved, would permit the construction of a new storage shed 1.0 metres from the property line. Our mapping indicates that the above noted property is partially within the Approved Regulation Limit of the LSRCA. The southern portion of the above noted site is regulated for shoreline erosion allowance and I00 -year wave uprush (FE = 222.58 masl). A permit will be required for any future development of the regulated portion of the above noted property. Based on our review, we provide the following comments: Based on our mapping, the proposed shed 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. 2. The proposed shed is outside of the 151netre naturally vegetated buffer of Lake Simcoe. A Based on the above noted information, the LSRCA has no objection to the Minor Variance application, subject to the following conditions: Watershed 1. 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 storage shed. Please for Life note, a permit application (IMS No.: RPMA4488) has been submitted for the proposed storage shed. 2. That prior to any site alteration, proper erosion and sediment control measures must be in place. Page 1 of 2 OCT -06 -2008 15:66 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE 10/06/2008 HON 14:55 FAX October 6, 2008 File No.: 2008 -A -40 IMS No.: PV00505C3 Mr, Steven Farquharson Township of Oro- Medonte Page 2 of 2 P.002/002 0002/002 By copy of this letter, the applicant is advised that in accordance with the LSRCA's Planning and Development Fees Policy (June 27, 2008), the total fee for this application is $200.00. The applicant should be advised that currently this fee is outstanding and to please forward the above mentioned fee as soon as possible. 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 IW /ph Vincent & Maura Caruana, Owners, 117 1- Iedgerow Lane, Kleinburg, ON, LOJ I CO - Mail � i I (Minor Varinnec • Caruana) 1065 Lakeshore Road East - 2.ivpd TOTAL P. nn2 Township of Oro-Medonte Public Works Department Inspection Report for Consent Minor Vaf-iance Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date File No. 0 Name of Owner Address Subject Property Date of Inspection _�J/�� Name of Road_/ 42 /� r � �-'J K--" Surface of Road' -- 1. Site Lines, Township Road Poor Good Excellent. 2. Site Lines, Subject Property Poor Good Excellent. Drive 3. Drainage Poor Good Excellent. 4. Future Road Widening Required Yes No If yes, Amount 5. Will Road Surface be adversely affected Yes No 6. Future Drive to be located AJ(1- Remarks: sys- L4 Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent IN T ledonte EpOineering, Department Inspection Report/Comments for Consent _.__--- Mi or V ars e--) Other File No.` Name of Owner Address 4 Subject Property s Remarks: Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering & Environmental Services Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date: Severance / Minor Variance Review Hearim-, Date: Application #: z - 'L, —! °� 0 Owner: MAS #: IE Lot #: Plan #: Conc. #: ,Z 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, Allen I ,n KKim Allen Chief Building Official ' rm -01 lfflemlfilll�* -IM! 2m• =6 - Vincent Caruana located at 1065 Lakeshore Road East is interested in building a gazebo above his boat house and a shed. I have seen the plans for what he proposes to build and I certainly have no objections. He has done a great job in a tasteful way, I think what he is doing is a benefit to all property owners in the area. I own two properties on the lake, 1057 and 1059 Lakeshore Road East. I look forward to seeing the finished product. Sincerely, Reimar katnik s Attn. Mr S. Farquharson Committee of Adjustment K Township of Oro - Medonte 1068 Lakeshore Road East I awkestc ne, RR2 " ` o " - ' " 1 Ontario, LOL 1 TO T �h t t Re: Submission No. 2008 -A -40 September 17, 2008 Dear. Mr. Farquharson, I am unable to attend this notice of hearing. Perhaps it would have been beneficial to hold the hearing in the evening when most residents have returned from work (I understand that council meetings are held in the evening) I am opposed to the construction of the structure. Oro - Medonte has by -laws for a reason. When the Township is approached by a resident who wishes to build a structure that is totally contrary to the by -laws, why does the township ask the neighbours to object to the request? The township of Oro - Medonte should have denied this application since it does not conform to the bylaw. Possibly the applicant could apply for a permit for a structure that meets the guidelines as other boathouses have been constructed in this area to code. I am also disappointed that this application creates animosity in my neighbourhood. You should not have to ask the residents to voice their opinions to prevent the township from enforcing a by -law that they created. These are my views about this application. All the residents living in this community need to respect our shoreline and habit. Anyone living here will tell you that this is paradise and we need to keep it that way. To build a structure which blocks the view of the lake for many is simply wrong. Please inform me of the decision. Yours, Ms. Dale Martin s � " , "`°"rte'"" a w� s 'L 1 l j r. r ALL. (s^ s I f Attention: Mr. Steven Farquharson Secretary-Treasurer -Committee of Adjustment Township of Oro-Medonte PO Box 100, Oro, ON LOL 2XO September 12, 2008 RE: An application by Vincent and Maura Caruana Plan 882, Lot 15 & 16 (former Township of Oro) 1065 Lakeshore Road E. Dear Mr. Steven Farquharson Please notify us of the decision of the Township of Oro-Medonte in respect of this application Sincerely, 1, LIZ Dr. Stephen Springle and Ms. Anne Hall Springle zn A 1063 Lakeshore Road East Hawkestone RR2 ON. LOL ITO 705-487-6906 _—V Attention. i Mr. Steven Farquharson Secretary - Treasurer - Committee of Adjustment Township of Oro - Medonte R Co E. E PO Box 100, Oro, ON SEP 1,01- 2X0 1 ' C sfarquharson(rx oro- medonte.ca i ORO-NIEDONTE September 12, 2008 RE: Submission No. 2008 -A -40 An application by Vincent and Maura Caruana Plan 882, Lot 15 & 16 (former Township of Oro) 1065 Lakeshore Road E. Dear Mr. Farquharson; In response to the notice of hearing in the matter of an application for a minor variance, Submission No. 2008 -A -40, we strongly object to the height of the proposed structure. Existing Oro- Medonte by -laws expressly prohibit the construction of waterfront structures greater than 4.5 metres above the average high water mark. This structure exceeds the permissible height by more than double. The proposed structure is in very close proximity to our lot line (two metres). The height of the proposed structure would tower above the existing vegetation and natural privacy barriers between our two lots. The effect would be that the structure would dominate our view to the east, from any vantage point in our backyard. The proposed structure would impinge on our personal privacy in our backyard. It should be noted that an 8000 sq. ft building has recently been constructed on the same 100 foot wide lot and this has eliminated our personal privacy at the front of the house. The proposed structure would also create noise and light pollution in a community where there is a dense population. Of wider importance to all residents of Oro Medonte and specifically, the users of Lake Simcoe, the restriction on the height of boathouses along the lakefront is one that supports the aesthetic appeal of the lake and is vital in maintaining its natural appearance. To make an exception in this case would be to set a precedent for excessively high boat houses to be built along the lakefront, to the detriment of the entire community. We request that the council uphold its mandate and responsibility to its residents by upholding the existing by -laws that prevent intrusive development by denying this variance application. Respectfully submitted, 7 Dr. Stephen Spangle and Ms. Anne Hall Spangle t,,> 1063 Lakeshore Road East, RR2 Hawkestone ON. LOL 1 TO. 705 -487 -6906 Farquharson, Steven From: Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 7:02 PM To: Farquharson, Steven Subject: Re application for a variance Mr. Steven Farquharson Secretary-Treasurer -Committee of Adjustment Township of Oro-Medonte PO Box 100, Oro, ON LOL 2XO sfarquharson@oro-medonte.ca From: Mr. Johannes and Mrs Aino Lott 1061 Lakeshore Road East RR2 Hawkestone Ontario LOL ITO 705-487-3115 416-778-6650 September 14, 2008 RE: An application for a minor variance Submission No. 2008-A-40 Plan 882, Lot 15 and 16 (Formerly Township of Oro) 1065 Lakeshore Road E Dear Mr. Farquharson:sf We are unable to attend the hearing on September 18th at 9.30am re: Submission No 2008-A-40. However, we would like you to know that we are strongly opposed to the committee approving this variance. We believe that this tall boathouse structure would detract from our community and would disrupt the natural beauty of the shoreline and surrounding area. It would affect our view to the east from our waterfront and our home. We understand that there is a by-law to prevent this type of structure from being built and we ask the committee to enforce it. Please notify us when the decision is made. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs Lott ®r Rolf Lefuel RR2 Hawkeston, On LOL ITO Tel: 705 487 1715 To the Secretary of the Committee The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medont* PO Box 100,, Oro, ON, LoL 2XO � 0 97.9 -NIN Ref : Application by Vincent and Maura Caruana Plan 882 Lot 15 & 16 (Former Township of Oro) 1065 Lakeshore Road E. Rolf Lefuel f, A L11 Ll I L rr 09 +&410-7D J,— /d 433 ME —Co EAl E D I Srr- p 1 8 2goo C—F�-3,NAEDONTE fy \fJ1 J d,� ...�.... �'. r x Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment November 20, 2008 2008-A-49 — Gray Car Development Corporation/Andrew Ralph 1045 Lakeshore Rd. E., Lot 4, Plan 882 (Former Twp. Of Oro) l.PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct an addition onto the north side of an existing single detached dwelling. The proposed addition will have a ground floor area of 170.7 m2. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Section 4, Table B1 of Zoning By-law 97-95: Required Proposed Minimum Required Interior Side Yard Setback 3 metres 1.46 metres Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 —Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications — none 3. DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department- Building Department- Proposal meets minimum standards Engineering Department — No comments 4. BACKGROUND The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 15.2 metres (50 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.128 hectares (0.31 acres). The property currently has a one storey single family dwelling as well as a boathouse in the rear yard. The Township Zoning By-law requires a 3 metres (9.5 feet), interior side yard setback in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone for a dwelling. The proposed single family dwelling addition to the existing dwelling is proposed to be a distance of 1.46 metres (4.9 feet), from the interior side yard lot line. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section C5.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives: • To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. • To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. The requested variance for the proposed dwelling would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline residential area, as dwellings are a permitted use in the shoreline designation. Therefore, the variance would conform to the general intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The purpose of the interior side yard setback is to provide access to the rear yard of the property, and to provide for a degree of separation between neighbouring dwellings. The site inspection revealed that the proposed single family dwelling addition should not adversely impact access to the rear of the property, as the west interior side lot line is located approximately 4.9 metres (161 feet) beyond the west wall of the existing dwelling and proposed addition. Further, the proposed expansion of the dwelling otherwise meets with all other Zoning By-law provisions (such as rnaximurn height, front and rear yard setbacks) for single family dwellings in the SR Zone. On the basis of the above, the proposal i8 considered k} comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based On the site inspection, the proposed single f@Dlik/ dwelling @ddhkJO VvoVkd 8pD88r to be appropriate for the dRGindb|8 development Ofthe lot. A large existing hedge will provide the abutting dwelling to the east with @d8QU@i8 buffering from the pn]DOS8d addition. The |0C8tk]O of the applicants' driveway is situated OD the vvO5t side of the property due iVthe |OC81inO of the G8[tiC bed being |0C81ed north of the proposed addition and C8D1raUY |OcBU8d in the front yard. The applicant is proposing 8 wider side yard (4.9 metres) OD the vv8Si side in order to be able to D8[k his VehiC|OS and have adequate space iO back iD and out LU the proposed garage addition. The applicant has chosen 8 hOUS8 design where the g8n3g8 doors face the west side lot line and not the front lot line. On this basis, the proposed variance iS considered tObe appropriate for the desirable development of the lot. Is the variance minor? On the U88s that the addition to the dwelling would not adversely affect the character Lfthe residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor. K is v8COmnn8nded that the Committee approve Minor Variance 2008-A+49' being to grant reduction for the east interior side yard setback from the required 3metres to1.48 metres, for the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling, subject to the following conditions: That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out On the application and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee; 2. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building {}ffid3| only after the Committee's decision beCOnn8S final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.{}. 1990.C.P. 13. 3. That the applicant meet all requirements set out h}them by the Lake Simcoe R8Qk]n Conservation Authority 4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compilance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the proposed addition d088 not exceed 1.40 metres to the 88St interior side lot line. Respectfully submitted, HvanV8nUenburg. B.URFq P|8DDe[ ---~ Reviewed by, Glenn White K4C|P'RPP Manager, Planning Services \� / Subject Lands LAKE &UCOE ) 30 6e 120 ISO 240 .9 «#s To?&-o IRT 2 S PLAN MUST St READ IN JUNCTION NITH- THE SURVEY )RT DATED SEPTUAW—R Z5,. I"! .1; ,q,q �, J SURVEYOR'S REAL PROPERTY REPORT} PART I PLAN OF LOT 4 REGISTERED PLAN 882 SEPTEMBER 2�, 139t LARD SVRVEYDR TOWNSHIP OF ORO m COUNTY OF SIMCOE W. DOUGLAS 51441 TH 0, L. S. ( 1403) m SCALE 11 - 401 NOTES 4 EARIMAS AMC ASTQ0s#Osj#C ANO ARE REFLARED TO PART or THE SOUTHERLY L(UtT OF LANE ROAD AS SHO001 ON REGISTERED PLAN 8821 WAVING A REARINC NAT' 11100111f. q;4 DENOTES I- DIAMETER IRON BAR, FOUND N • 516 DENOTES I* K I* v 41 LONG 1404 SAR"FoUsio. Is DENOTES S,,• , S/8' x t- LONG IRON BAR, FOUND. D C E 4. LONG IRON AAA, PLANTED 51, DENOTES, 1�., ,q,q �, J SURVEYOR'S REAL PROPERTY REPORT} PART I PLAN OF LOT 4 REGISTERED PLAN 882 SEPTEMBER 2�, 139t LARD SVRVEYDR TOWNSHIP OF ORO m COUNTY OF SIMCOE W. DOUGLAS 51441 TH 0, L. S. ( 1403) m SCALE 11 - 401 NOTES 4 EARIMAS AMC ASTQ0s#Osj#C ANO ARE REFLARED TO PART or THE SOUTHERLY L(UtT OF LANE ROAD AS SHO001 ON REGISTERED PLAN 8821 WAVING A REARINC NAT' 11100111f. q;4 DENOTES I- DIAMETER IRON BAR, FOUND • 516 DENOTES I* K I* v 41 LONG 1404 SAR"FoUsio. Is DENOTES S,,• , S/8' x t- LONG IRON BAR, FOUND. D C E 4. LONG IRON AAA, PLANTED 51, DENOTES, 1�., 91""'. a V LONG I RON BAR, PLANTED O I. DENOTES . - 01 O.U. DENOTES cAlatm UNKNO" ME&$, DENOTES )AEUVRED PLAN DENOTES REGISTERED PLAN 682 cr, 10415 DENOTES A.A. WELSUAN, 0.4-3. CD In tJf howA are otrogAdtcutat fr6m in* lifspirty flack QfhvrWI2s Aal**. COPYRIGHT W. DOUGLAS SMITH, O.L.S. 111111) Tft• it p,*4ucti*^ alte,aflatt a, use al, tmis REPORT In .!joie at I In 9411, W110O4t in* 40feSt piffnJISIOM Of W.D"LAS SMITH LM _jS SrAICTLf MA*41W90. —, This $KPOPT .01 j'to4##* tat the 104,10%* Its- SWAIN SON 0SO by Z P,CCOCX 6.d *ft. etc*ptj *4 lot of by Tall nipcor ton tit "44144 by -fall 411144. movevqr No ADOItIOWAL PRINTS Of inif, ClAt4INAL REPORT will be I tQ , 4, %too , 440*At to the DATE -6!_CCATI1rI1tAtI0N_ SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT, THE rJELD SUAVEY REPRESENTED IN TH, S REPORT 17.4 J� I RAS COMPLETED ON SEPrE149ER 23, IS!" n 134 COLVIER ST., SARRIE ON T. FU Fill, Well, 1110111MG Atfgr,$A,:t N. W. D. S. SEPTEMBER 2�, 139t LARD SVRVEYDR �"ONTAR Iff. DOUG LkS____S U-1 TH LTDj 11"i/ r7 10 LAND SURVEYORS m 134 COLVIER ST., SARRIE ON T. FU Fill, Well, 1110111MG Atfgr,$A,:t N. W. D. S. 1� , ro V) LAKESHOftE /L 11. CENTER GE RO>f03.56m � v\ d / SEX TAM(. \ \ \ \ OEPfM.Im\ �G \ \�♦ ,. \. . M3RJ m ♦ \ ,I wf rem \ \ \ o °'' �� 1>ttorosEG GARAGE \\a 101 tZm\ F_1p8., ♦ ' �S ,5 100 K0m \ t00.1d m `\ � PROPOSEp AON}1p1 .XIOT,NG F,i \�, 4,'t000an� .. .eR.lom \ .AOZem \ a N0.00m EK+6?BIG GRADE \ . W 12 m :06.50 m 100.60n PRON9ED GRALIE \ 3 \ FF FAA911EO ROM ELEVATgOt \� � \ 1W iA WALL ELEVATbN \ B861m \ BS BISEIENT 9lM ELEVATM>W � G3 6M)ff SLAB EIEVATtCH \ o \* lff LL3 FOOfMG F1EVATgN \ v90.50m ` / WAlE1iRE \ ♦ LAKE SWCOE i �Oenm WATER LE.¢L: RVwm Dlocation Plan r-- Zoning Schedule ZGNWG RART ND. PLAfI NO 6beigR�N.1 Rritlul AAt OESCRMfpN ALLQYABLE OY ZOMNO EROttG� ln1 Mr 01 W 81,538 eR. A.1 �6N. 0136 W (13,T068A A.1 ta1EmMOn i 5un (Be£1 Wi t61Mn I5oo1 lel 00m3 (OF9 5. tl YN. 380n3 (30864 A) I�IOpwr WA WA t1 am Ise -i'1 3.Obn 13ea'1 YBN 7 .6m RC -n 36atm laT� amp.e1a N'A 1TB.rS on Etllrp SMd SY0) 5m w"n 1.emnite -t1�� R�rYSA >.6m R1'' 31 EIm (/t'9� -^x-11 30n (bet')MN. J165m (tOR-0'1 1045 LAKESHORE RD. EAST ORO- METONTE, ONTARIO PART 1, LOT 4, PLAN 882 EJOSTMG Bb,THp)SE TIO BpAtH0U5E � W.15rn C? ^L W yy W w (CL � N i q 7 J �a 1 mea ra r- o�al.,f oc+3am 3 nwee ar ramn oc+nm � 3 RevbM 1 I1ov }00 a s 9 — 1 W N 8 3 ( i ■ i� 'a7- r��Y,mmr� - -- - - - -- - - — - — - — - —' - - - — /1 west Bewtbn ,r,, Nort 8evalb� � 7 M U C W Q � C 4 Y � y z�s gYi B 0 Q a c N a _CD Z-,!! SchedUle MOO-M (1) 1 u (D > -6 041 U L a 0 -C U) etl r ^ Zy� 7 ©, - r �� . .� � 7 \ r l� q 3 \ gm, l� ;b �r*. i ��' �'' 4 "' ..,.3 �� Severance / Minor Variance Review Hearing Date: Aloiv Application #: Owner: MA S #: Lot #: — L/ — Plan #: S�SF - Conc. #: V' 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 Towjiship of Oro- J1ledonte T'n9ineering Department Inspection Report/Comments for Consent Minor Variance x Other File No. � L Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering & Environmental Services . Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date: Township of Oro- Medonte - Committee of Adjustment November 20, 2008 2006 -B -16 — John and Dorothy Howard 4182 Line 10 North, East Pt. Lot 7 and West Pt. Lot 6, Concession 10, (Former Twp. Of Medonte) 1. PROPOSAL The purpose of the consent application is for a technical severance to recreate a lot which once existed as a separate parcel of land. The lands proposed to be severed, which are currently vacant, would have a lot frontage along Line 10 North of approximately 307 metres (1,010 ft), a lot depth of approximately 658 metres (2,160 ft) and a lot area of approximately 20.2 hectares (50 acres). The lands to be retained would have a lot area of approximately 32 hectares (80 acres) and currently contain a dwelling and various outbuildings. 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Agricultural, Environmental Protection Two Overlay, Zoning By -law 97 -95 — Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone Previous Applications — None 3. AGENCY COMMENTS County of Simcoe — No Objection (See attached) Public Works Department — No Comments received Building Department — Proposal appears to meet the minimum standards Engineering Department — No comment Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority- Comments Forthcoming 4. BACKGROUND On July 13, 2006, consent application 2006 -8 -16 was deferred by the Committee of Adjustment to allowed time for a review of the supporting documentation by the Township solicitor. The Township's solicitor reviewed the documentation submitted by the applicant and conducted a search of title and provided a report of his findings dated July 25, 2006, of which was provided to the Committee for their review. He concludes that the northeast quarter of Lot 7, Concession 10 was a separate conveyable lot from the period of February 28, 1929 to April 15, 1937 owned by Lewis Wesley Duddy when it became merged with the Southeast quarter of Lot 7, also owned by Lewis Wesley Duddy. At this point, there is a merger of title with Lewis Wesley Duddy owning the entire East Half of Lot 7. The application was once more deferred by the Committee of Adjustment on September 14, 2006 in order for the applicant to contact and discuss with the County of Simcoe the concerns that were expressed in the comments received on September 12, 2006. The County had indicated that they were not in support of the application because it does not meet the agricultural severance policies of the County Official Plan. As a result of consultations with the County of Simcoe the applicant completed an Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) study, which has been reviewed by the County and they indicated that they have no objections to the proposed application as a result of the AIA. 5. OFFICIAL PLAN Section D2.2.3 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow the Committee to consider applications to redivide large parcels of agricultural land which have merged on title. The policy states: The creation of new lots to correct 8 situation where two or more lots have merged on title may be permitted, provided the Committee Of Adjustment /s satisfied that the new lot. a) was once separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act, b} the merging O/ the lots was unintentional and was not merged as requirement 0/8previous planning approval, c) iSOf the same shape and size ag the lot which once existed @Sa separate conveyable lot; c0 can be adequately serviced bv on-site sewage and water systems; e) fronts on a public road that /s maintained year-round bv8 public authority, 8 there are 0D public interest served hx maintaining the property as asingle conveyable parcel; cd conforms with Section D2.2.1Of this Plan; and, h) subject &2the access policies Df the relevant road authority Section [2.2.1 of the Official Plan contains specific tests for the creation Of 8 new lot by Consent. In particular, this SeCik}D states "...the Committee Of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the lot to be retained and lot k}b8severed: a) Fronts OO and will be directly accessed bv8 public road that /s maintained 0n@ year-round basis; Both the proposed severed and retained lands will have frontage on Line 10 NQrth, which are public roadway's Dl8iD\8iD8d year-round by the Township Of Oro-MedODte. b) Does not have direct access to a Provincial Highway or County Road, unless the Province or the County supports the request; This application does not propose \O create 8 new lot fronting 0D either 8 County Or Provincial road. c) Will not cause 8 traffic hazard; This application proposes to recreate a lot. Significant traffic volume will not be g0O8n]\ed by an additional dwelling fronting oDiO Line 10 North. The applicant will be required to apply for and obtain an entrance permit from the Township Public Works Department. d) Has adequate size and frontage for the proposed use in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and /s compatible with adjacent uses; The application proposes tO recreate 8 lot having 8D area Of approximately 2O.2 hectares /508C[eS\'8lot frontage O|ODg Line 10 North of approximately 307 rDO1r8s (1'010 ft), 8 lot depth of 8pprOXiOO@t8|y 858 [n5ir8S (2,160 ft). The lands to be retained vvOU|d have a |0t area Of approximately 32 hectares (80 acres) and currently contain 8 dvvG!|iDg and various outbuildings. The 0liOinnUDl required |0t area for 8 [HSidGDti8| use in the A/FqU Zone is 0.4 hectares (0.98 8C[8G)' and the [DiniDlUrO required lot frontage is 45 metres (147 feet). e) Can be serviced with @n appropriate water supply and means Of sewage disposal, The applicant will be required at the time Of submission Of building permit to Dl881 all re0Ui[eDl8D1G for septic system iD81a||81iOn and private vvO1e[ supply. The Township ZODiDQ By-law has established @ nniDiDlUDl lot area of 0.4 hectares for 8 residential use in the A/RU Zone to reflect development 0D private services. The Building Department has comment the Gpp|iCGDi is required 1O verify that the Sevv8g8 system meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code. 0 Will not have a negative impact on the drainage patterns in the area; Future residential deve|OD[DeO1 will be reviewed by the Township Building Department, where the construction of 8 new single detached dwelling may be 8Uh{eCt to the CODlp|G1i0D of @ |O1 grading and drainage plan tO ensure water runoff has DDnegative impact on neighbouring properties. g) Will not restrict the development of the retained lands or other parcels of land, particularly as it relates &7 the provision D/access, J they are designated h7[deVeloorDeOt b« this Plan; Both the G8v8/8d and retained lands, will nO881 with the nniDiDlU[D required lot frontage and area [eqUir8rD8DtG of the Zoning By-law. NO U8v8|0pDleOt app|iC8UQDS are OC1iV8 adjacent t0 the subject lands, and as such no negative impacts with respect to access are anticipated as a result of this consent. h) Will not have 8 negative impact OD the features and functions Of any ecological feature /O the area; 8N/ill not have a negative impact on the quality and quantity of groundwater available for other uses /n the area; The applicant at the request Ofthe County of Si0coe completed GD Agricultural Impact Assessment A\|AJ, which addressed issues that pertained to U8nnG h\ and U. The County has reviewed the A|Aand has concluded that there has no objection to the proposed application. A portion of the retained lands are located within the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, whose comments are forthcoming. In order to confirm that the lot to be created was once 8 CODv8VOh|8 |01' the Townships' SO|iCik}[ reviewed the registered deeds and CODC|Ud8d that the new lot was ODC8 legally conveyable. Based on the site iDSp8chOD` it was determined that the severed |[t, which fronts OO an 888VDlVd public n]8d. Line 10 North, could be serviced with on-site sewage and water systems, subject 10 the Building Dept. approval. On this basis, the application is considered to be appropriate and generally conforms to the Official Plan. 6. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The proposed and retained lots would continue to comply with the provisions of the Agricultural/Rural /A/RU\Zone. 7. CONCLUSION As 8 part Ofthe Agricultural |Dlp8[t Assessment that was prepared and SUUnniM9d byAgP/8D LiDlh8d, they cUDC|Ud8d that ''the p[OpOS8d severed and r818iO8d {[t8 are SUMiCi8nUy large to [D8iDt8iD flexibility for future changes iD the type O[ size 0f agricultural Oper8UoD" By reviewing the comments received from the Township Solicitor, which confirmed that the 50 acre parcel described as Northeast Quarter Of Lot 7, COnC8SSiOO 10 was once separate and conveyable parcel, before the merging with the Southeast Quarter 0f Lot 7. Also the C0n85pOndeDCH received from the County of SirDCO9 dated {)CtObe[ 9. 2008, which S181eG that they wish to withdraw their Obi8C1iDD t0 the gDp!iC8tiOR and are now in support of the application. The prOpO58| appears to meet the criteria [gQUio9d bV Section 023.1OCd the Official Plan. 8. RECOMMENDATION |tis recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent |O Application 2OO5-B'10 subject iOthe following conditions: 1. That three C0pi8S of a Flfden8nc8 P|BD for the SUbieC1 |GDd indicating the severed p8nCe| be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicants' solicitor prepares and submits a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality. Furthermore, the legal description of the severed lot be identical to that contained in the original deed — "The Northeast Quarter, Lot 7, Concession 10 (formerly Township of Medonte), now Township of Oro-Meclonte, containing fifty (50) acres" and must be so designated on a Reference Plan to be provided by the Applicant; 3. 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 respectfwl_�y submitted, Reviewed by Steven Farquharson, B.URPL Glenn White MCIP, RPP Intermediate Planner Manager, Planning Services THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE P.O. BOX 100, ORO, ONTARIO, LOL 2X0 (705) 487-2171 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE OF DECISION Application No. 2006-B-16 IN THE MATTER OF Section 53 of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13 as amended; and IN THE MATTER OF the Official Plan of the Township of Oro-Mgdome; -and IN THE MATTER OF Comprehensive Zoning By-law 97-95, as it applies to the particular application; and IN THE MATTER OF Application 2006-B-16 submitted by Allan Howard, representing the Estate of John & Dorothy Howard of Concession 10, East Part Lot 7, West Part Lot 6 (former Township of Medonte); and WHEREAS On July 13, 2006, consent application 2006-B-16 was deferred by the Committee of Adjustment which would permit the creation of a 50 acre lot. The proponent submitted a series of lengthy and complex legal descriptions and land conveyance history regarding this property. The deferral allowed time for a review of the supporting documentation by the Township solicitor. The purpose of the consent application is for a technical severance to create a new lot which once existed as a separate parcel of land. The lands proposed to be severed would have a lot frontage along Line 10 of approximately 307 metres (1,010 ft), a lot depth of approximately 658 metres (2,160 ft) and a lot area of approximately 20.2 hectares (50 acres). The lands to be retained would have a lot area of approximately 32 hectares (80 acres) and currently contain a dwelling and various outbuildings. WHEREAS the subject property is designated "Agricultural, Environmental Protection Two Overlay, Ground Water Recharge Area Overlay" in the Official Plan, and Zoned "Agricultural/Rural (A/RU)" under By-law 97-95; and WHEREAS having had regard to those matters addressed by The Planning Act, in accordance with the rules and procedures prescribed under Ontario Regulation 200/96, as amended, and having considered all relevant information as presented at the public hearing on the 13th day of July, 2006, and again on the 14th day of September, 2006. PAGE#2 APPLICATION 2006-B-16 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION Motion No. CA060914-8 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby defer Consent Application 2006-13-16 to allow time for the applicants to contact the County of Simcoe and discuss the comments made by the County regarding the proposed application. .....Carried." PAGE #3 APPLICATION 2006-B-16 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, the above decision and/or conditions may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Only individuals, corporations and public bodies may appeal decisions in respect of applications for consent to the Ontario Municipal Board. A notice of appeal may not be filed by an unincorporated association or group. However, a notice of appeal may be filed in the name of an individual who is a member of the association or group. THE LAST DATE FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS WEDNESDAY, THE 4`" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2006. A "NOTICE OF APPEAL" setting out in writing the supporting reasons for the appeal should be received on or before the last date for "Appeal" accompanied by a cheque in the amount of ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS payable to the MINISTRY OF FINANCE. The notice is to be submitted to the Secretary -Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment, PO Box 100, Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0. Members concurring in this decision: Lynda Aiken (Chairperson) Dave Edward,,. DATED this 14th day of September 2006. Andy Karaiskakis, ACST(A) Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment 14 June 2006. Township of Oro- Medonte, Committee of Adjustment. My brother and I have been left the farm jointly. We wish to have a legal division of the property between us. My brother wants to build a house on the north end of the property overlooking the valley, and possibly in future using it in a B &B retirement project. I will continue cropping on the rest of the property as a whole. Enclosed with the application and the map, are my backup materials: The 200 acre lot 7 was a crown grant given to James G. Chewett in 21 Nov 1820, By 4 Mar 1853, Thomas Duddy had purchased the east half of lot 7, 100 acres. 5 Aug 1879, John Duddy purchased SE 1 /41ot 7, 50 acres, from William Duddy who got it from Thomas 23 Aug 1873. By 1895 John Duddy purchases part of the W half of the E half of lot 6. As per letter dated February 9h 1956, the NE Y4 of lot 7, 50, was conveyed from the estate of George H Duddy to Lewis W Duddy 28 Feb 1929 acres (this is the acreage we wish to sever, and the house on the property was moved down to Creighton and is now known as the Owl Pen). 3I Mar 1937, Lewis W Duddy receives from the estate of John Duddy his 100 acres, to bring the 150 acres together for the first time. The land is sold to the Scales family in 1945, who in turn sell it to my parents John & Dorothy Howard in 1956. In 1981 John and Joyce Long, purchase part of the lot 6 holding for horse riding, leaving us with approximately 130 acres. Today the 130 acres is not viable as a stand alone working farm, so the severance will have minimal impact on the land as a farming entity, and will be used as one for years to come. • J Allan Howard Y4, e #' ��< a 11 co I 0 C6 ,W � cz C= 52 ro cn 4d C= ILO 4d 83 o. X ca 5 40 ff-liff= mu ■ toll cz ILO 16. C4 .j O. in 4u Cb cc C36 Co �4S -A—'i Zz- M 107 m C07 K---3 B-0 E 17 U- M2 C-3 C3 ,W � cz C= 52 ro cn 4d C= ILO 4d 83 o. X ca 5 40 ff-liff= mu ■ toll cz ILO 16. C4 .j O. in 4u Cb cc C36 Co �4S -A—'i Zz- M 107 m C07 K---3 B-0 E 17 U- UURFORAIL SLHVIULS Fax:705-726-9832 The Corporation of the County of Simcoe CORPORATE SERUM DEPARTMENT Planning Division September 12, 2006 Andy Karaiskakis Township of Oro-Medonte P.O. Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2X0 Dear: Mr. Karaiskakis, Set) 12 2006 16:21 P.01 (705) 735-6901 Fax; (705) 717-42 ! 76 roll Free (800) 263-3199 Email: rhamelin@county-simcoe-on.e'a i 0 r RECEWE SS-EP 1 -31 ""01016 V RE: REVISED Consent Application B16-06 (Estate of John & Dorothy Part of Lot 7, Concession 10, former Township of Medc Now In the Township of Oro-Medonte 111O Highway 26 Administration Centre turst, Ontario LOL 1X0 Thank you for circulating the County of Simcoe. The subject property is d signated Agricultural in the Local Official Plan, and therefore subject to the Agricultural policies of the County Official Plan. The applicant is requesting consent to create two parcels, 20.2 hec, ares and 32'hectares: for agricultural purposes. County of Simcoe Official Plan policy 3.6.6 statt S that new lots for agricultural uses should generally not be less than 35 hectares or the ori 91 a[ survey lot size, or 4 hectares on organic soils used for specialty crops. The lot proposed to be created is for agricultural purposes, but does not eet the abme lot area requirements. Alternatively, the reduced lot Size would have to be justifie as specialty crop land. The County therefore objects to the approval of the lot proposed to "le created. Please forward a copy of the decision. If you require additional i call, 726= 9.300, ext.1315. Sincerely, Rachelle Hamelin Planner 11 do not hesitate to The Corporation of the County ' 01 Simcoe ar CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Division ". 0 11: Mr. Steven Farquharson Committee of Adjustment Township of Oro-Medonte P.O. Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2X0 Dear Mr. Farquharson: (705) 735-6901 Fax: (705) 727-4276 Toll Free (800) 263-3199 W REF: PROPOSED SEVERANCE ESTATE OF JOHN AND DOROTHY HOWARD PART OF LOT 7, CONCESSION 10 (MEDONTE) 4182 LINE 10 NORTH 111O Highway 26 Administration Centre Midhurst, Ontario LOL IXO FM Lai OCI 1 4 10 oiDONTE ORO-1 F Further to correspondence on this matter from our office dated September 12, 2006, we are in receipt of an Agricultural Impact Assessment dated September 2008 in support of the proposed severance. Based on a review of this report, the County supports the proposed severance as an agricultural severance and therefore wishes to withdraw our objection to this application. We trust you will find this self-explanatory. Please contact the writer should you have any questions. Yy rs truly, B uce =e,IP, RPP Mika a& c.c. — Tiziano Zaghi, Jones Consulting Michael Hoffman, AgPlan Limited (I�iveranc!L/ Minor Variance Review Hearing Date: -AZL!-1-16'6e 2"f Application #: Owner: 041 ZC 7-,,�k MAS #: 4,12-2 0 Lot #: C FT 1 f- OPT L� Plan #: Conc. #: ,Z The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application. ❑ Site inspection required and completed. Z 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 r TowTnship of Qro- I�'ledonte EDOiDeeriDP, Department Inspection Repon/Comrnents for Consent' Minor Variance Other File No. Name of Owner r . E Address N Subject Property_ Remarks: t �, f > A Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering & Environmental Services Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date: N.0d Township of Oro-Medmnte - CommMtee of Adjustment ~ November 20, 2008 2008-13-46 - Mary Georgina Robertson 1404 Line 12 North, Lot 10, Concession 12 (Formerly the Township of Oro) The purpose 0fapplication 2088-B-46 is to permit lot addition/boundary adjustment. The retained lands are located at 1404 Line 12 North' having approximate frontages Of 535 Dl8t[8S on {l|d B8[[i8 RO8d, and 800 OlC1/gs UOS 12 North, with a depth Of approximately 725 metres and an 8[880f approximately 39.4 hectares. The lands to be conveyed have 8 frontage Of6.1U metres 0D [}|d B8[[i8 RO8d, 8 depth Cdapproximately 157 metres and an area OfO.51 heCi8,8S. The 8Dh8DC8d /{t is along (]|d Barrie FlOad' Yxhh:h will have G new total area of 1 hectare. NO new building lot i6 proposed to be created @Sa result Of the lot addition. 2. MUNICIPAL POL1,CY ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation —Agricultural Zoning By-law S7-85— Agricultural/Rural AA/RU\Zone Previous Applications —B-43/88 3. AGENCY COMMENTS County OfSi0008—NO Comments Received Public Works Department —NO Comments Received Building Department — Proposal Appears tOMeet Minimum Standards Engineering Department —NOComments 4. BACKGROUND The applicant i8 proposing @ lot addition/boundary adjustment tO add approximately 0.51 hectares (1.27 acres) from the subject property to the neighbouring residential lot to the south vv8St, also owned by the applicant. The p/OpOG8d retained |Ot' being 1404 Line 12 North, Lot 1O' Concession 12, would consist Of3S.4hectares. The enhanced lot iGalong {}|d E38r[/8 F{0GU, which vvOU|d have 8 new |0t frontage Of approximately 64.39 metres (211.27 feet) 8 new total area Of 1 hectare. NO new building |OtS are to be created by the boundary adjustment. Does the consent conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? SUbS8CbOD []2.2.2 of the Official Plan — 'Boundary Adjustments' contains the policies to be considered by the Committee for an application for @ boundary adjustment. These policies state that consent may b8 permitted for the purpose Of modifying lot boundaries, provided OO new building lots are created. It states further that the CO00iM8e Of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability Of the use of the properties affected GS intended by the Official Plan. In reviewing the app|iC81iOD' DO new building |OtS will be C/S818d' and given the relatively GDl8U amount of land to be conveyed, the viability Ofthe Ov8[8|| agricultural operation vv0U|d not likely experience 8Dadverse iolp8C1. In addition, the County Of SinnCO8 has hiStOhC8||V required that r8Sid8O|i8| |O1S in rural areas generally not exceed 1 h8Ct8,0, with the intent of minimizing the h8grDeD18ii0n Of farmland. For these r88snDS, the boundary adV51Dle[t i8 deemed to CODf0[D} to the general intent of the Official Plan. Does the consencomform|o the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property iS zoned Agricultural/Rural AA/1R[]\ Zone and the lot k}beenhanced is o3O8d FlVra| Residential Two (F<UR2) by Zoning Bv'|@vv 97-95. As the proposed conveyed lands are intended to be used for residential pUrDO88S, a rezoning of these lands vvOU|d be required. The eDhGOCgd lot aSwell as the retained lands would both comply \othe DliOiDluO0 |O1 area and frontage provisions of the Zoning By-law. Therefore, the 8pD|ic8\iOD vvOUW comply with the provisions as D[9sC[d}9d by the Zoning The proposed consent application for boundary adjustment would appear to conform to the policies of the Official Plan, and meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. 5. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B- 46 to convey strip of |GDd having a frontage Of 6.10 0ftK}S on {)|d Barrie Road, 8 depth Of approximately 157 08t[8S and an area of 0.51 hectares k] the adjacent lands (also owned Uy the applicant) subject 10 the following conditions: That the conveyed lands berezoned to Rural Residential Two (RUR0 Zone iD order to provide a consistent zoning of the enhanced lands; 2. That three copies Of8 Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed p@nC8| be prepared by an [)Dh2riO Land Surveyor be submitted k}the Secretary- Treasurer; 3. That the 8pp|iCGDyS 5O|iChDr prepare and sVbDlh 8 copy Of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 4. That the applicant's solicitor provides an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands 1Obe enhanced will merge iDtitle. 5. That the CODdhiODS of consent iDlpOSSd by the C0DlDlhhee be fulfilled vvdhiO one year from the date of the giving of the notice. Respectfully submitted Intermediate Planner Reviewed by Glenn White MC)P, RPP Manager, Planning Services SALES HISTORY AND MAP '�HR'Eb A-fiFAS page I 'f SALES HISTORY AND SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP REPORT Fri Jul 27 09:54:05 EDT 2007 fi .,� F a` ® Subject Property Polygon ❑ Parcel Polygons M Roads! d Railways 0 ® 100 M. N: Water Limits This map was compiled using plans and documents recorded in the land Registry System and has been prepared for property Indexing purposes only. This is not a Plan of Easement Limits docume to actual major eaions of Property boundaries, see recorded plans and �y major easements are shown. Subject Property Point $ • Neighbourhood Sales Points r SUBJECT PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION LRO 51 PIN 585380052 ASSESSMENT ROLL NUMBER 434501000507900 REGISTRATION TYPE LT LAND REGISTRY STATUS ACTNE MUNICIPALITY ORO �. ADDRESS 404 LINE I2_N_ ., AREA 542525 m2 3 tf c.S PERIMETER 4184 nr— http:// www. geowarehouse.ca/Ipp /mapReportTem late js ?roe s F 1 F F rh'=0 &index = 0 &registrati... 7/27/2007 F� 14 METRIC . I . .,f U 0 0 :2,317 a A t, e �r� �, � 4L �`I "' tit J � .'S 1 ��. � �� ^_ j J ��,,, 4+ y, <� �, ��' �:�` T 1edonte TnoineeriDg Department Inspection Report/Comments for Consent Minor Variance Other File No..__ Name of Owner i Address Subject Property` Remarks: Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering & Environmental Services . Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date: Ala' everance / Minor Variance Review Hearing Date: Iqlelt-lVec7e zo'lo'�" Application #: ZO - 6- `' Owner: 1-447A'� Y MAS #:ffi 61Y"t- I'Z Lot #: C? Plan #: Cone. #: �6 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 Oyo-Medonte-Committee of Adjustment November 20, 2008 2008-B-47 and 2008-B-48 - Indian Park Association 143 Huron Woods Drive, Block B, Plan M-30"(Former Twp. of Oro) The purpose of application 2008-B-470o2000B-4 is to permit the creation of two new residential lots bv way Ofseverance. The lands to be severed lands are proposed 10 have frontages Of80.5 metres (264feet) and 98.8 metres (324 feet) 8|VDg HU[OO VVOOdS Drive, and each lot to have 8[e8S Of approximately 0.5 hectares /1.238C[8G\. The land t0beretained iS proposed h3have a lot area Uf approximately 2.8hectares /6.98C[8S\. The retained lands and severed lands are currently vacant. 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official P|8D Designation - Residential Zoning By-law 97-95- Private Recreational Exception 114(PR°114) 3. AGENCY COMMENTS County OfSiDlc0e-NO Comments received Public Works -NO Comments received Building Department - Proposal appears tO meet minimum standards Engineering & EDvi[OODleOt8/ ServiCeS- Municipal water available but not serviced - Applicant would be responsible for iD8t8||iDg water services for both |OtS from the water main tOthe property ' Entrance permit and installation Of Driveway 8 and culverts required- cost to applicant 4. BACKGROUND The SUbiS(t property is located at 143 Huron Woods D[iVe, south Of Horseshoe V8|!HV Road and west of Line 6 North. The |@DdS are designated Residential by the (]UiCi8! P|GD. and ZOD8d Private ReC[ead0O@| Exception 144 /PR^144\ Zone. The /GDdS p[OpOS8d 10 be severed are CU[o8OdV V8C@Ot with OO vv81g[COUrS8s or vv8U8DdG on the p[Op8Uy. nor are the SUbi8{t |@OdS within the regulated area Of the NVU8VvaS8g8 Valley Conservation Authority. The -existing lot currently contains approximately 325.5metres (1068 feet) of frontage OO Huron Woods Drive, Line 8 North and Seneca Lane, and a lot area Of 3.8 hectares (9.5 8Cr8G). The SUbi8Ct property contains undisturbed t[HH cover and underbrush 8|OOg the [O8d frontages and towards the rear [f the properties. Surrounding lands uses are predominantly residential. Does the consent co/Vfmmmmiththe general intent xxfthe Official Plan? The subject property is designated Residential by the Official Plan. Permitted }8Od u88S within the R8GideDh8| d9SigO8hOD include SiDg[8 detached Uwe||iOgG. hO08 OcCUp8dQn and private [ec[8@UOD2| facilities. |tiS the intention Of the Official Plan that all new development iOthe SUg8[bUSh node b8serviced by municipal communal water systems and private septic systems. The proposed use of the severed lands has been indicated by the applicant t0 be residential. [|OrDOlentS [CC9iv8d by the Director of Engineering and EDVi[OD08nt8| Services have noted that any new water service will be needed 10 be /OSt8||ed at the OvYDe[8 expense. For the purpose Ofthis 8pp|iC8|i0O, it is noted that the CrS8hVD of new lots by way {f S8vSr@DCe is permitted within the Residential designation, where the tests Of severance listed in SeCdOD D2.2.1 Of the Official P|8O are 08t The proposed S8Ve[8d and retained |0tS vvoU|d front on 8 0UOiCip8| road, would not be located within an environmentally sensitive area, and would comply with relevant Zoning D[OviGiODG of the Private Rec[e8UOOG| Exception 114 /PR^114\ Zone (UiSCuSSeU below). Based on these factors, the application to create two new residential lots through severance maintains the general intent of the Official Plan. ~� Does the consent conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The property is CU[renUv zoned Private R8Cn88tiOD3| EXC8D1iOD 114 /PR°114\ Zone. The D[OpOSed lot (20X]8-B-47) will Consist of appK)XiDl@ie|V 0.5 hectares M.2 @cre3\, and will have 80.5 rD81reS C264 feet) of fn}D18ge on HUn]D VV0OdS Drive. The second proposed |[t /2008-13-48\ vv0u|d consist Of an area of approximately U.5 hectares /1.28CreS\' and will have 8 frontage Cd98.8 metres (324 feet) oO Huron VVOOdG Drive; the required frontage for @ |O1 in the PR Zone is 30 metres (98 feet), and the required 0iDiDlUOO /{t area is 0.18 hectares /0.4 acres). The proposed retained lands would consist of 2.8 h8Ct@[8G /6.9 acres), and 0OiOt8iD a combined frontage Of 146 [D8t[eG (479 feet) of frontage OD Huron Woods Drive and Seneca Lane. 7'h8[8|0[e' the proposed |OtS and retained lands would Ol88t with all [8QUi[8DlgDts of lot area and f[VD1Gge for the Private Recreational Zone. It is also noted that the surrounding residential lots are zoned Residential One Exception 113 /R1~118\ Zone. If the proposed |OtS were t0 [SC8iVe the same ZODiOg' the lots would exceed the zoning standards in terms of lot frontage and lot area. Staff is of the opinion that that rezoning of the proposed created lots should be placed asO condition of consent Gl this time rezoned the lands to permit the proposed o8SiU8nti8/ zOne, due to no r8SkJenU8/ structures being permitted On the lands with the Private Recreation Exception 114(PR°114) Zone. On the basis of the above, the application would appear tocomply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. It is recommended that the Committee grant provisional approval to Consent Application 2008-B-47, to C[88ie 8 new n8Sid8Dti@| lot having 8 frontage On Huron VV0OdS Ohv8 of 80.5 0etR3S' and 8 lot area Of 0.5 hectares. Also Committee grant provisional approval to Consent Application 2008'B-48. to create @ new [eSid8nh3| lot having 8fn}n1@ge OD Huron Woods Drive of 98.8 n0etr8S. and a lot area 0fO.5 hectares; 8Vhie{t tO the following conditions for each application: That three copies ofG Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared bv8D Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's SO|ich0[ prepare and SUb0d 8 copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review bv the Municipality; 3. That the applicant pay $2,OU0.00 for each lot created 8SCosh-in|i8UOf8parkland contribution; 4. That all municipal taxes be paid 1O the Township {f{][O'M9dODt8; 5. That the applicant @DD|y for and obtain 8 re-zoning, including 8 Hold provision OD the severed land to 8CcVrGt8|V reflect the proposed residential |8Dd use; O. That the conditions Of consent imposed bV the Committee b8 fulfilled within one year from the date 0fthe giving of the notice. R8Vi8vv0d by, Glenn White, K8C|P.RPP Manager, Planning Services t� HICKORY J ` F cv, W ol1, p SUMAC --� L of =M uj P �Z a� SEVERED SIDS 0 55 110 220 330 4d0 RETAINED LANDS Meters 13 Poyntz Street rrie, Ontario L4M 3N6 (705) 728.0045 F_ (705) 728.2010 ww.mhhcplan.com Ian F. MacNaughton A, FCIP, RPP rnard P. Hermsen BES, MCIP, RPP t l R. Britton , MCIP, RPP W. Brent Clarkson JA,MCIF, RPP mes D. Parkin 171 BES MCIP, RPP M. Wiche i '' is Menzies S, MCIP RPP David A. McKay BES, MCIP RPP ian A. Zeman S, MCIP APP Hies in: "tchener Vaughan I's-ondon ingston arrie ty, Town and Rural Planning unicipal Plans and Studies I nd Development ban Design / Community Planning andscape Architecture Natural Resource d Aggregate Planning pert Evidence and Mediation oject Management PLANNING ANALYSIS CONSENT APPLICATION SEVERANCE 143 Huron Woods Drive Township of Oro- NIedonte October '1008 1.0 INTRODUCTION Indian Park Association, the ratepayer association for Phases 1 and 2 of the Sugarbush development (M -8, M -9, M -30, and M -31) in Oro - Medonte has hired MHBC Planning to review the planning merits of a severance to create two lots and two remnant parcels within the M -30 subdivision. The analysis provided herein of the planning merits of the application has found that the proposal represents good planning. 2.0 PROPOSAL As the Committee is aware, the Indian Park Association is divesting its commonly held lands. The Association was created in order to manage commonly held lands within the Sugarbush development when the subdivision was first developed. The Association and its membership no longer require the commonly held lands and they are proceeding forward to divest the commonly held lands in order to dissolve of the Corporation. Prior to divesting themselves of the lands, the Association has an interest in providing for more lots within the community from the commonly held lands. This application specifically relates to 143 Huron Woods Drive, an open space block at the south end of the settlement. The proposal before the Committee of Adjustment is to sever two residential lots from 143 Huron Woods Drive. This will create two residential parcels and two remnant parcels. The proposal is to create two lots of 0.49ha (1.23ac) each, identified as Parcel C and Parcel D on the attached Consent Plan. There will be two remnant parcels created being Parcel A of 2.74ha (6.77ae) in area and Parcel B of 0.272ha (0.67ae) in area. The lands are currently vacant. However, it is the intention of the Association to rezone the severed lands to the appropriate residential zone; which we anticipate being a condition of the consent. At this time the remnant parcels will remain vacant and in the ownership of the Association as open space areas. A Consent Plan which illustrates the proposal is attached to this report. AMBC Planning — Consent to Seger Indian Park.Asyoczation, TemnshipofOro- Medonte October 2008 I 3.0 LOCATION AND SITE CONFIGURATION The site is located at 143 Huron Woods Drive, in the Sugarbush residential settlement. The Sugarbush settlement area is comprised of approximately 90 hectares (223 acres) of land located south of County Road 22 (Horseshoe Valley Road). The subject lands are legally described as Part of Lot 3, Concession 6, Plan M -30, Part of Block B, former Township of Oro, Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe. The Sugarbush subdivision has a rolling topography. However, the northern portion of the proposed severed lots are generally flat, the south portion of the lands begin to slope up toward an incline. The existing lot is irregularly shaped, the proposed severed and retained lands are also irregular. The two severed lots are of a similar size and shape to the surrounding residential lots. The subject lands are sparsely vegetated with some trees. As noted above it is the intent of the Association is to sell the proposed lots; it is proposed that these lands will be utilized for residential purposes in the future. The retained lands are vacant, are in their natural vegetated state and will remain as such. 4.0 THE PLANNING ACT Section 53 of the Planning Act outlines the requirements for consideration of an application for Consent and requires, in accordance with Subsection 53(12), that a municipality have regard to the matters under Subsection 51(24) to determine whether a provisional consent shall be given and therefore is required to be considered with respect to this Consent application for the proposed severance. The conformity of the consent application to these policies is discussed below: (a) the effect of the proposal on matters of Provincial Interest; The proposed severances do not have any negative effect on any matters of Provincial Interest as stated in Section 6.0 of this report, (b) whether the subdivision is premature or in the public interest: As this proposal constitutes rounding out of a settlement area, is infilling within an existing 13-1 subdivision, and the site can be appropriately serviced. On this basis the proposed consents are not considered premature and are in the public interest. I I (c) whether the plan conforms to the Official Plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any; As outlined in Section 7.0 of this report, the application conforms to both the County and Township Official Plans as the lands are within a settlement area, can be appropriately serviced and will not negatively impact any natural features. The subject lands are part of the Sugarbush Subdivision, which consists primarily of single detached dwellings. The proposal conforms to this subdivision as the uses are already established. The creation of new lots will not adversely impact the surrounding residential uses. I si (d) The suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided: The land is suitable for the purpose for which it is being subdivided. All of the proposed parcels conform to the zoning by-law, as demonstrated in Section 8.0 of this report and there is sufficient table land to provide for the location of a house and septic system. The two severed lots can also accommodate residential uses, should this permission be granted in the future. The retained lots also conform to the zoning by-law and are suited for the existing uses to continue. (e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of'therm, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacyt?f them: Both of the severed lots and the retained parcel A have access to Huron Woods Drive, a publicly maintained municipal road. Parcel A can also be accessed by Line 6t' North. Parcel B has frontage on and could be accessed from Seneca Lane, if required. Both are publicly maintained municipal roads, Huron Woods Drive is generally flat and there is sufficient road frontage to accommodate driveways. Should entrances or other uses be proposed in the future, they will be subject to a further public planning process and review. At that time, the appropriate location of entrances can be determined (f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; The subject lands are irregular in shape. The dimensions of the proposed severed lots have been chosen in order to ensure the appropriate zoning setbacks can be accommodated and are generally regular in shape. The retained lands will continue to be irregular in shape. Z� (g) the restrictions on the lands to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if tiny, on adjoining land; The entire Sugarbush settlement, including the subject lands are subject to two easements; one for water services to the Township and the other for gas services to Consumers' Gas. (h) conservation of natural resources and flood control; The creation of these lots will not cause an issue of flood control as there are no nearby water courses and no site alteration is anticipated to occur as a result of this application given that no new uses are proposed at this time. While the Sugarbush settlement is located within the Oro Moraine, the consent proposal is not anticipated to cause a negative impact to this natural resource. (i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services: The Sugarbush settlement is serviced by municipal water, the severed lands will be able to access this service. The retained parcels could also access this system, if required although it is not the intention for these lands. The severed lands are of a suitable size to accommodate a sewage iw system depending on the type of use proposed. The Sugarbush settlement is fully serviced in terms of utilities - gas, cable, phone. etc. I f I B A i i a if P_ P-4, I j, IM- 11 tit 0) the adequacy of'school sites; The creation of two lots is not anticipated to cause an adverse impact on the school system. There are existing schools in the area should the rezoning be granted and residential uses approved for the site. The subdivision is currently serviced by existing school bus routes. (k) the area of land, if any, exclusive of highways, to he conveyed or dedicated for public purposes; The Association is pursuing the option of dedicating the retained lands from this application or the existing trail system to the Township during the process of divesting its commonly owned lands. (1) The extent to which the plan's design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and The creation of two lots will not greatly increase the energy consumption of the subdivision, however as this proposal aims to create two lots within an existing subdivision it is considered infilling and intensification which do contribute to energy conservation as it is development on existing services. (in) The interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan (?f subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated tinder subsection 41(2) of the Planning Act or subsection 114(2) of the City of Toronto Act. This is not applicable in this instance. Therefore based on the analysis provided above, it is our opinion that the proposed consent application conforms to the requirements of the Planning Act. 5.0 PLACES TO GROW — GROWTH PLAN The Growth Plan sets out Province wide policies for how and where growth should occur. This document directs growth to settlement areas and requires settlement areas to be complete communities consisting of a balance of employment and residential uses as well as transit supportive. As the proposed lot creation is intended to create two lots and two remnant parcels within an existing settlement area and constitutes an intensification proposal within an existing plan of subdivision which is appropriately serviced, the proposal conforms with the Growth Plan. 6.0 THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) was issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act and it is intended to provide policy direction for land use matters which are of Provincial interest. Planning Authorities are to have regard to the Policy Statement when exercising any authority. Z:I The PPS covers many issues such asproper infrastructure for development, affordable housing, protection of natural nsourccm, protection of agricultural lands, protection of mineral resources and promotion ofeconomically and environmentally strong communities. The PPS directs the majority of growth to m*idccocot umcux. This office has undertaken u ncvicvv of the PPS and it is the opinion of this office that the proposed severance to create two new |oio and two rcmuuoi parcels with appropriate ucocxm and services is consistent with the PPS as it is located within u settlement area, and does not impact any environmental features. The Sugarbush settlement is subject to partial ser-vices (municipal water and private septic systems). Policy 1.6.4.5 of the PPS permits development on partial services in certain obcunaoiuuucw. One circumstance is when the development is within settlement areas where it is infilling and rounding out of existing development. This proposal constitutes rounding out of the 8ugudbuyh subdivision. The 9P8 requires that there is reserve water oyatenu capacity and site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services. The Township's Official Plan identifies that limited development is permitted in the mcUlco\cot on the municipal water and with private septic systems; this is discussed in further detail in Section 7.2 of this Report. Based on the analysis provided abovo, it is the opinion of this nfficc that the proposal is consistent with the policies of the PPS. 7.0 OFFICIAL PLAN Both the policies of the County u[3kncoe Official Plan and the Township of N� ()fficbd <1uu apply to the m--' J�cct |mody. The policies of both p|uoy are discussed in further detail N� 7.1 County of Simcoe Official Plan The 8uyarbushsubdivision is designated asu^Settlement'`in the County Official Plan 0M, This office has reviewed the OP; the applicable policy sections and how the proposal conforms ia outlined bozeb). The applicable sections include Section 3.5 SoUlczoco1o, 8cc1k)o 4.1 - Settlement Form & Expansion, Section 3.3 - General Subdivision 6k Development Policies, and Section 4.3 ' Gcoccui lJcvcioprncut Policies /b Guidelines. The |oou| (}9 identifies the subject land as u "Sand and 6cuve| Rcxourcc" no Schedule 5.2.1; therefore Section 4.4 Aggregate Development of the ()P has also been reviewed. Section 3.5, Settlements, generally yoeoku to directing to xctdouzcot areas, bow acttkenzcoi areas should grmwmd how municipalities should manage growth in these areas. These policies do not address site specific dcvc}opnmczU but generally state that settlement areas should accommodate u diversity ofland uscs, including residential and recreation. This proposal cu000\ meet all of the criteria for settlements as only two lots are being created. However a review of the section has determined that the proposal cnn[oouu as this application is seeking to create rccrcckiooui and potential ncmidcndu1 lots. ]/BB[/Yuwm�' I I The County's subdivision policies are described in Section 3.3 of the OP. These policies permit Plans of Subdivisions or Consents if the land use is permitted in the designation or if the intent of the plan's goals and objectives are maintained. The subject lands are designated Settlement in C� the County OP, which permits residential uses and development. The site is also designated for residential uses and development in the local OP. The goals and objectives of the Plan have been reviewed and in the opinion of this office, their intent is maintained by the proposal. Section 3.3.2 further stipulates that lots can only be created where they have access to and frontage on a public highway; all parcels have access and frontage on a publically maintained road. The severed lots both have access from Huron Woods Drive. Remnant parcel A can be accessed from Huron Woods Drive and Line 6 North. Remnant parcel B can be accessed from Seneca Lane. Other requirements to be considered for development proposals are addressed in Section 3.3. Specifically development should be located outside of wetlands or habitat areas; the maintenance of views and vistas is encouraged; there may be a need for subdivision agreements between developers and the municipality; protection of County and local greentand systems is required; compliance with the Minimum Distance Separation Formula for nearby agricultural uses is required; there are policies for development within the Niagara Escarpment Plan; protection of prime agricultural areas is required; development in areas of environmental constraints such as flood plains is discouraged; a Stormwater Management Report to support all plans of subdivision or industrial areas where large impervious areas or chemical storage is proposed is required; a traffic study could be required; a noise, odour and dust studies could be required; and studies addressing development adjacent to contaminated sites could be required. This office has reviewed the above criteria with regard to the proposal. The proposed development to create two residential lots conforms to the County's subdivision policies based on the following: wetlands are not located within or surrounding the subject lands; any existing views and vistas can be maintained; the creation of two lots does not require a subdivision agreement; the County does not identify any of the Greenland system on or near the subject lands); there are no agricultural operations in the area; the subject lands are not within the Niagara Escarpment, the lands are identified as Class 5, 6, or 7 therefore they are not prime agricultural lands; the proposal is not within a floodplain; a Stormwater Management Report is not required as only two lots are proposed; traffic, noise, odor, and dust studies are not, in the opinion of this office, required for the creation of two lots The general development policies of the County Plan are outlined in Section 4.3, General Development Policies and Guidelines. The criteria for the design and layout of developments are detailed in this section and include: minimizing the removal of natural vegetation; protecting and maintaining scenic resources; maintaining a scale of development which is compatible with the character of the area; outdoor lighting which compliments the setting-, development clustered at the edges of significant open spaces; road patterns should fit the topography of the site; reduction of visual impacts of signs; conservation of cultural heritage; connectivity of open spaces; inclusion of a mix of housing types; a strong pedestrian orientation; and the integration of traits I 1 and pathways. The remaining policies of Section 4.3 deal with development in rural areas, the Niagara Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine which are not applicable to this application. This application is seeking to create two new lots and two remnant parcels with the potential that the severed lots will be used for residential purposes. Minimizing the removal of vegetation will be considered; no scenic resources are intended to be affected; the creation of two lots would be compatible with the surrounding residential lots as they are roughly the same shape and size; there will be no new outdoor lighting; the retained parcels will remain as open space; no new roads are proposed; nor are any new signs are proposed, there is no cultural heritage to be conserved; the open space will remain connected to other spaces; only two new lots are being created, therefore a mix of housing types could not be accommodated-, the Sugarbush subdivision has a strong pedestrian orientation due to the curvilinear streets and rural area, new lots can add to this aspect of the settlement; existing trails and pathways will not be altered by this application. It is the intention of the Association to maintain the existing trail system and potentially dedicate the trail system to the Township during the planning processes required for dissolving the Association. This application is not in a rural area nor is the site part of the Niagara Escarpment or the Oak Ridges Moraine. Section 4.4 Aggregate Developments sets out the County's policies on aggregate resources. Specifically this section speaks to the location of mineral aggregate operations; development in areas identified as high potential; and other policies relating to the establishment and operation of mineral aggregate facilities. The majority of these policies do not apply to this application as it does not relate to the location or operation of mineral aggregate facilities. However, Section 4.42 outlines policies with regards to development for uses other than aggregate operations located in areas of high potential. The Sugarbush settlement is located within an area identified for potential resources. Section 4.4.2 states that development for alternate land uses may be permitted where it would not preclude or hinder establishment of new operations or their access to resources; utilization is not feasible because of natural or man-made constraints-, or the proposal serves a greater long term public interest; and provided any issues of public health, safely and environmental impact are addressed. The Sugarbush settlement predates the establishment of the County OP. It is an existing subdivision which prevents the extraction of any resources and therefore the development of two new lots will not further impede or hinder the establishments of new operations or their access to resources. The proposal conforms to this policy section. Based on the analysis above it is submitted that the proposed consent conforms to the County's Official Plan. 7.2 Township of Oro-Mcdonte Official Plan The Township's Official Plan designates the Sugarbush settlement, including the subject lands, as "Residential". Schedule "A" also identifies the lands as being located within the Oro Moraine Planning Area boundary. I Section C. 14.2.4 sets out the land use policies for Sugarbush subdivision. This section states that the residential designation applies to some of the lands within the settlement, including the subject lands. The permitted uses include single detached dwellings, home occupations, private recreational facilities, bed and breakfast establishments and open spaces uses. Therefore the proposal conforms to these policies as both the existing (recreational) and proposed (residential) uses are permitted. This policy also requires that all new development in Sugarbush be serviced by the municipal communal water system and private septic systems. The severed parcels will have the ability to connect to the municipal water system and contain sufficient land area to accommodate a private septic system should the need arise. The retained lands will remain vacant and used as open spaces and will not require connection to the water services or septic systems. Section A4.2.3 of the OP identifies the Sugarbush community as primarily residential, and as the intent is to rezone the severed lands and permit their use for residential purposes the proposed consent would confirm with this intent. Some growth can occur in this settlement area on the municipal water system and with the utilization of private septic systems due to the suitability of the soils and the anticipated limited scale of development (S.A4.2.3). The proposal will only create two lots and two remnant parcels, of which only the two lots maybe developed in the future; thus the proposal constitutes limited development. SA.4.3, Special Policy for Horseshoe Valley Road identifies the Sugarbush settlement area as a location for new residential and institutional growth. The requirements to expand the boundaries of this and other settlement areas are outlined in this section. These policies are not applicable as this application is proposing the creation of lots within the current settlement area boundary. Section B I outlines the policies with respect to the Oro Moraine. There arc two designations within the Oro Moraine, Oro Moraine — Natural Core/Corridor Area" and Oro Moraine — Enhancement Area. Neither of these designations apply as Schedule "A of the Official Plan, does not identify either designation on the subject lands. Therefore these policies are not applicable to this application. The Township's policies on the subdivision of land are outline in Section D.2.2. These policies are to be considered for all applications for Consent. Section D2.2.1, General Criteria, outlines the policies to be considered when creating new lots by consent. This section requires that the Committee of Adjustment be satisfied that the application conforms with the following policies: a) That the retained and severed lots front on and will be accessed by a public road that is maintained on a year-round basis. Both the severed and retained lands have access to Huron Woods Drive, a public road that is maintained on a year-round basis by the Township. The retained lands also have frontage on Seneca Lane and Line 6 North. I b.) That the retained and severed lots do not have direct access to a Provincial Highway or Countv Road. Neither the severed nor retained lands will have direct access to a Provincial Highway or County Road. c) That the retained and severed lots will not cause a traffic hazard. Huron Woods Drive does not curve sharply in this area and is relatively flat. Each proposed lots have sufficient frontage to accommodate driveways. Therefore the neither proposed lots or the retained parcels will cause a traffic hazard. Should the severed lots be developed in the future, the creation of an appropriate access point will be reviewed at that time. EJ d) That the retained and severed lots have adequate size and frontage for the proposed use in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and are compatible with adjacent uses As outlined in Section 8.0 of this report both the severed and retained lands comply with zone standards set out in the Zoning By-law. The proposed lots are compatible with adjacent residential uses as they are similar in size and shape. The existing uses are currently compatible and will remain compatible. Should a rezoning be sought for residential uses, the proposal is still compatible with the adjacent residential uses. e) That the retained and severed lots can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal. The site is serviced by the municipal water system and the severed lots (parcels C & D) are generally of sufficient size to accommodate septic systems. No future development uses requiring services are contemplated for the retained parcels, therefore appropriate servicing is not applicable. f) That the retained and severed lots will not have a negative impact on the drainage patterns in the area. This application will not result in site grading which could adversely impact drainage patterns. Once the homes are constructed on the severed parcels, drainage will be required to be considered as part of any building permit process. g) That the retained and severed lots will not restrict the development of the retained lands or other parcels of land, particularly as it relates to the provision of access, if they are designed for development by this Plan. This severance will not create a landlocked parcel or restrict the development of any other parcels. h) That the retained and severed lots will not have a negative impact on the features and ,functions of any ecological feature in the area. The Sugarbush Subdivision is located within the Oro Moraine; however as previously stated the creation of two lots as a rounding out of development is not anticipated to negatively impact the Moraine. rf I i) That the retained and severed lots will not have a negative impact on the quality and quantity of'groundwater available for other uses in the area. The quality and quantity of groundwater is not anticipated to be impacted by the proposal as development of two residential lots which are properly served in an area of similarly serviced lands. Wells are not required in this area as the Subdivision is serviced by the municipal water system. A proper septic system will be required to be designed at the time of building permit issuance. That the retained and severed lots will conform to Section 51(24) of the Planning Act. The severed and retained lots conform to Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, as described in Section 4.0 of this Report. The remaining Section of D2.2 outlines policies for boundary adjustments, technical severances and lots for utilities: which are not applicable to this proposal. The subject lands are identified as "Secondary Aggregate Resources" on Appendix I of the OP. The OP sets objectives to protect resources identified on Appendix 1. Section C12.4.7 permits other uses to be developed in areas identified on Appendix I in certain circumstances. Those circumstances and how the proposal meets these criteria are outlined below: a) resource use would not be feasible — no extraction could take place in the Sugarbush settlement due to the existing residences. b) the proposed use serves a greater long term public interest — it is in the public interest to continue the roundino, out of the development over using the lands for mineral aggregate extraction. c) issues of public health and safety, are addressed — the proposal can be adequately serviced, does not cause a traffic hazard and is compatible with the surrounding uses; therefore issues of public health and safety have been addressed. It is therefore submitted that the proposal conforms to this policy requirement. On the basis of the above, the proposed consent to sever conforms to the Township's Official Plan policies. 8.0 ZONING BY-LAW Both the severed and retained lands are zoned Private Recreation Exception 114 (PR*114) on Schedule A16 of the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The permitted uses for the Private Recreation zone are found in Table A5, and include bed and breakfast establishments, conservation uses, private clubs, and a variety of recreational facilities (skiing, mountain biking 5 and golf courses). Exception 114 adds additional permitted uses on the subject lands; specifically a recreation center and associated uses as well as one dwelling unit for a care taker. The provisions for the PR zone are found in Table B5. Exception 114 also lists three additional provisions: minimum first storey floor area, maximum building height and minimum setback from a public street. _31 u Vi �J G E i It is anticipated that a rezoning to a residential zone will be required as a condition of consent of Parcel A and Parcel B; it is proposed that the remnant parcels remain in the PR* 114 zone. It is anticipated that a rezoning for residential uses may be required on the severed lands (Parcel C & D). It is the opinion of this office that the Residential 1 Exception 113 zone (R1 *113) is the best zone for the severed lots as the balance of the residential lots in the subdivision are zoned R 1 * 113 We have ensured that these lots can meet the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage required by the R 1* 113 zone as follows: The Zoning By -law also sets out setbacks from steep slopes in Section 5.32. Although the area has a rolling topography, there are no new buildings or entrances proposed which could be affected by the topography of the land at this time. Should additional entrances or other uses be proposed in the future, they will be subject to a further public planning process and review. At that time, the appropriateness of any entrances or usage can be determined. 9.0 CONCLUSION Based on the analysis provided above, it is submitted that the proposed severance, which would create two salable lots for the dissolution of the Association, represents good planning. The proposal conforms to both the County of Simcoe and Township of Oro - Medonte Official Plans, it is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, satisfies the requirements of the Planning Act and complies with the Township's Zoning By -law. Therefore, on behalf of the applicant, we respectfully request favourable consideration from the Committee. Respectfully Submitted, NMC Planning Meghan Keelan, BES Planner cc. Indian Park Association, Deborah Price - Sherman M11C Planning - ( on.cenl to Sei cr 111diall Park AI Y,), iutioil. Tfm17.ckipoton'llecMnte o, toper 000 11 CONSENT PLAN 143 Huron Woods Drive Part of Block B, Registered Plan M-30 Geographic Township of Oro Township of Oro-Medonte County of Simcoe KEY MAP N.T.S. SUBJECT ..s AREA SCHEDULE —Ania— —Frontage Description Parcel L..d. to be retained 2788 m9m -- Description to be savered "C" - - - - 12 4 2iPl 4 805% D' 123 0498 3243 98.968 a Wt. 949 , 2 l—La.ds 3 LEGEND Lands proposed to be severed Lands proposed to be retained SWEDE C T ST RI1NGMAN SURVEYING LTD wt )TO I 101z 1- 'W, 72,1_'1n1 A Severances Minor Variance Review Hearing Date: Application #: Owner: MAS#: L '? S ot #: Plan # Conc. #: 6 The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application. ❑ Site inspection required and completed. 12' 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 ✓°P To�'+7nship of Oro- I\ledonte En ,oineer)DP Department Inspection Report/Comrnents for Cc)nsent„ Minor Variance Other File No. Name of Owner Address - 1 ,-&- t Subject Property '°.1 ZeIT 31 K : Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering & Environmental Services . Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date: Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment November 20, 2008 2008-13-49— Federico and Silva Rossi 5395 Line 8 North, Part of Lot 14, Concession 9 (Former Twp. Of Medonte) i N a go] The purpose of Consent Application 2008-13-49 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot by way of severance. The land to be severed is proposed to have a depth of 76.2 metres, frontage along Line 8 North of 54.8 metres, and a lot area of 0.41 hectares. The land to be retained is proposed to have a lot area of approximately 36.6 hectares. It is recommended that the Committee defers Application 2008-B-49 — Frederico and Silva Rossi 5395 Line 8 North, Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, (Former Township of Medonte) in order to obtain comments from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. Respectf ully submitted, Steven Farquharson, B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by, Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Services rage i https:// maps .simcoe.ca /output/DS_General_60 nottawaga3808856122189.JPG 10/30/2008 5395 Line 8 North �P } 41 14, "ZIP La �I VQ Ile' rn rot. LAO.. Severance / Minor Variance Review Hearing Date: / Application #: 'ZOO-Z45- ZY -'Y7 Owner: MAS #: r, Lot #: -f- Plan #: Conc. #: 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 Tovvlisbip Of Oro- Medonte FnoineerinQ Department Inspection Reporucom"ents for Consent Minor Variance Other File Na ._.,Z..,o. Name of Owner - L - - t C V , y Address Subject Property Remarks:. t° CI —rlly H Keith Mathieson, " Director of Engineering & Environmental Services. committee of Adjustment Meeting Date: Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment November 20, 2008 2008-A-46 and 2008-A-47 — Moss Developments 95 Line 1 North, Part of Lot 3, Concession 7 (Former Oro) 1. PURPOSE OF APPLICATION The applicant is proposing to construct two single detached dwellings located east of Line 1 North, which will be used as model homes for the proposed Country Lane Estates subdivision. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: Permitted Proposed Section 5.36 (b) Model Homes 1 2 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation— Rural Residential Zoning By-law 97-95 — Rural Residential One (RUR1) Zone and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone Previous Applications — none 3. DEPARTMENVAGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department — No comments received Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards Engineering Department — No Concerns 4. BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to build 2 detached residential dwellings to be used as model homes within the draft approved subdivision known as Country Lane Estates. These model homes are being proposed to be built on Lots 9 and 12 of the Plan of subdivision. It is the intention of the applicant to use these dwellings as model homes for the proposed subdivision and to then sell them to potential buyers. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The subject lands are designated Rural Residential in the Township Official Plan. Single detached dwellings, home occupation are permitted in this designation. The applicant's proposal does not appear to offend these policies, given that the variance is for the construction of two single detached dwellings. The proposed model homes will be located on the lots within a draft approved plan of subdivision. On this basis the proposal is considered to conform to the intent of the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Rural Residential One (RUR1) Zone and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. Based on a site inspection, the proposed dwellings would appear to be in a suitable and acceptable location. The other element to this variance is that the developer seeks to build two homes in addition to the one that is currently being constructed. Instead of one dwelling that is permitted by Zoning By-law 97-95. 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 of Oro-Medonte. Given that the dwellings are part of a subdivision with 20 residential lots, it is submitted that two model homes for such a subdivision is reasonable and in keeping with the intent of the Zoning By- law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Given that these homes are typically developed with a high degree of detail and landscaping, because it is the intention of the developer to sell these dwellings as part of the subdivision. Furthermore, in accordance with normal Township policy, the developer will be required to prepare an engineered lot grading plan prior to the issuance of a 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 is common in new plans of subdivision. On this basis and on the basis that the proposal is to develop only 2 lots for model home purposes, it is suggested that the proposed variance is minor. OW190UHUEMM If Committee is satisfied that the application is appropriate, it is recommended that Committee approve variance application 2008-A-46 and 2008-A-47, subject to the following conditions: That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding; 2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketch submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; All of which is respectfully submitted, Steven Farquharson, B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by, Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Services 1, ---> FINAL APPROVAL STAMP MNc 5IM- CONCESS) ON 2 EPR_ PART OF THE ORIGINAL ROAD ALLOWANCE 463 W RETN LOTS It AND *A" CONCES" 2 -' A, xi CALM W AV 20 y 19 'a 17 is is 13 25 PLO" 21 w. ALM 2� 'w, az MOSS STREET C.IRM OAD ��CE K� LOT 11 AND IQ RL" 76 RL0CR 24 L AX SURVEYOR VE 'YA rac a. 168& ARE GEODETIC, SITE BENCHMARK IS TOP OF SIB ST CORNER OF PROPERTY, SHOWN AS 241.75M. Qm ARE GEODETIC AND ARE REFERRED TO MONUMENT BASED UPON THE APPRI OVERALL LOT GRADING I TOWNSHIP STANDARDS A SEASONAL WATERTABLE ILLUSTRATED ON THE AF LOT GRADING PLAN. Z SHOULD SITE CONDI*nt TIME OF CONSTRUCTI( FROM THOSE ILLUSTR. THIS PLAN OR THE 0 GRADING PLAN, THE I SHALL BE CONSULTEC PROCEEDING WITH COI I ALL DISTURBED AREAS RECEIVE MINIMUM lOOrr TOPSOIL AND SOD. 4. THE BUILDER IS RESP% TO ADJUST THE UNDER' FOOTING ELEVATION IN TO ENSURE FROST CO' OF 1.22m MIN. MEASUi FROM FINISHED GRADE LEGEND 291.19 EXISTING ELEVAT 291.14 PROPOSED ELEV, 2.0% FLOW DtRECT*N A SURFACE DRAIN, 40 PROPOSED STOR 4 (9) PROPOSED CATCH Can PROPOSED CATC ED BELL PEDESTAL CABLE PEDESTAI WELL n& TRANSFORMER (D STREETLIGHT POVA OLS LIGHT STANDARC SMB G9 SUPER MAILBOX a DOOR LOCATION NO. REIASIONS DESIGN GRADE F.F. T.S. U/ T.F. (FRONT) T.F. (REAR) GARAGE FLOOR II/F' ((,AF?Ar.0 -Fr ---------- - -- -------- xsyyT All - - --------------- LA; 1� 7' it cyl. D 9 g 4, REAR ELEVATION F. oxv. t . i'.A +APPROVAL STAMP *a ay.0 4 «,5 .:C ai etcwa,n """' BOSS S1RE£iY' wna�v ,.«ua ,., n ». x ... ..r «. .. ., •"•`•"'•' ii0i � t1 m � • � Low L' t 5 S , a n f LOT °n E _ 2 E P.F. nw 6� Sm s3. 1 ,, •, PART OF THE ORi MAL ROAD ALLOWANCE -- .. w BfiYkfN LOTS 4t AND "A' CONC'ESSipi 2 • r ,« '«i*S YowsW' u oko- uEatxtl[ E �' y +. ! cawrTM or swan 4 5 Q n ✓:.:/' J 0] ) 0 r 7 ' U8 9 to a t ' 2 2 CALDWELL + 20 b t6 58 17 18 15 to • �. «, a.,ww._... .. «..... _..... n.. tJ • 26 � BkOtlC 27 iJ HIOCK 24 k ' j v+ c - «,., xo tack toa �01�3 t s LOT ' BLOCK 24 s uoss siRLei M-Ni'41 :._ 2a § BLOCK - BLOCK M u., • mw wu. ww. `. Opt 1 '. Ail LA1VI1 SL RU£YORSmc a xn .� e,.uas r-,wm. afYGlNK waAB ALLPMFNCF. fA,'1WKi'M .IA. i,� /FMp A � ' --.. ___ unw• b= W i tM C-a. a.a x�.:... uG. =.i.. to& ARE GEODETIC, SITE BENCHMARK IS TOP OF SIB :ST CORNER OF PROPERTY. SHOWN AS 241.75M. mm ARE GEODETIC AND ARE REFERRED TO MONUMENT BASED UPON THE APPR( OVERALL LOT GRADING I k-i --7 TOWNSHIP STANDARDS A SEASONAL WERTABLE ILLUSTRATED ON THE AF LOT GRADING PLAN. 2. SHOULD SITE CONDIT)f TIME OF CONSTRUCTII( FROM THOSE ILLUSTR, THIS PLAN OR THE 0 GRADING PLAN, THE I SHALL BE CONSULTEC PROCEEDING WITH COI 3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS RECEIVE MINIMUM 100tr TOPSOIL AND SOD. 4. THE BUILDER IS RESPOf TO ADJUST THE UNDER' FOOTING ELEVATION IN TO ENSURE FROST Ca OF 1,22m MIN. MEASUI FROM FINISHED GRADE LEGEND 291.19 EXISTING ELEVAI 291.14 PROPOSED ELEV, 2.OX FLOW DIRECTION A SURFACE DRAft 40 PROPOSED $MR 4 (9) PROPOSED CATCH ab PROPOSED CATC 0 EMU PEDESTAL 19 CAME PEDESTAL WELL TRANSFORMER maTuGHT Pow OLS LIGHT STANDARC SMS Gg SUPER MAILBOX & DOOR LOCATION NO, REIASIONS DESIGN GRADE F.F. T.S. t MOM J REAR ELEVATION MOIE J REAR ELEVATION 11ER J REAR ELEVATION �r-- J/� 11 To: Steven Farquharson cc: Glenn White From: Keith Mathieson ifikow Subject: Moss Development Proud Heritage, Exciting Future R.M. File #: The Moss Development consisting of twenty (20) lots was draft plan approved in June/93., previously known as the Kovacs Subdivision. The Engineering Drawings for the development were approved by the Township Engineers, TSH July/08. Prior to approval by the Township the Engineering Drawings were circulated to and approved by the NVCA, MOE & MTO. July/08 the Developer entered into a Pre-Servicing Agreement with the Township allowing them to construct the required municipal services prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, this work is presently ongoing. Prior to start of any site work clearance letters were received from the NVCA and MTO. September/08 bylaw 2008-106 was passed by Council approving entering into a Subdivision Agreement with the Township of Oro-Medonte and Moss Development Ltd. upon the Township receiving the required securities to insure the completion of the municipal services. To date the securities have not been posted, there fore the Subdivision Agreement has not been registered. Until the plan has been registered the Developer is not permitted to sell lots. Once r stereo and lots are sold individual lot owners may apply for building permits at which time indivi Jot geading plans must also be submitted for approval by the Township Engineers. ialll Ke D c ortson e f , i ctor f -ngineering and Environmental Services I To: Committee of Adjustment Members cc: Robin Dunn, CAO From: Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services Date: November 19, 2008 Proud Heritage, Exciting Future R.M. File #: Subject: Site Inspections for Committee of Adjustment Applications An evaluation of the current procedures for review of Committee of Adjustment applications, site inspections, and hearings has been conducted to ensure compliance with the Planning Act, the Township's Planning First philosophy approved for the Development Services Department in 2008 and Council's mandate with regard to customer service excellence. Currently the Committee of Adjustment, with the Secretary-Treasurer, completes site inspections as a whole. Given this practice, the site inspection would constitute a meeting and the applicant/agent, and all persons notified of the hearing should also be notified of the timing for the site inspection and provided the opportunity to attend as well. Any discussions which occur during the site visit should be documented in the application file for the public, record in the event of an appeal to the application. A review of surrounding municipalities and their site inspection procedures has been completed and is summarized in the table below. Of the surrounding municipalities, only one currently conducts collective Committee site visits. The consistent comment from all municipalities was the confirmation that the Committee of Adjustment members should not meet collectively on any of the sites subject to applications, nor discuss the applications collectively prior to the hearing. Any such discussions could potentially be the subject of debate at an OMB hearing. Site Visit Municipality Completed Other Notes: Township of Springwater No Paid mileage for individual site visits Planner attends site and posts required signage City of Orillia No Not paid for individual site visits Township of Severn No Not paid for individual site visits Staff conduct site visit ...continued on next page Site Visit Municipality Completed Other Notes: Township of Tay No Paid mileage for individual site visits Staff conduct site visit Town of Midland No Not paid for individual site visits S-T visits each site Township of Tiny Yes Not paid for individual site visits Township of Ramara No Paid mileage for individual site visits City of Barrie No Not paid for individual site visits S-T attends site and posts signage In order to minimize the Township's potential exposure at an OMB hearing, ensure a consistent approach is adhered to for Council and its committees/technical support groups, and to operate in a cost effective manner, the Committee of Adjustment collective site inspections will be discontinued effective January 2009. Individually, Committee members will continue to have the opportunity to view the site on their own prior to any hearing. Each member will be required to identify themselves through their photo identification card provided by the Township. The applicant will also be advised that site visits by the Planning Staff and Committee members may occur prior to the hearing date. Staff will be obtaining additional site photos to be appended to staff reports and included in the hearing presentation to provide a complete overview of the site to Committee members prior to their consideration of the application. Committee members who choose to attend sites will do so on their own accord and will not be paid for such attendance. The Secretary-Treasurer/Planning Division staff will attend all sites and post the required signage related to the Planning Act application. The above procedures regarding site visits will ensure consistency with Council and its appointed committees/technical support groups. Members of Council and members of the Planning Advisory Committee have the ability to attend sites, but are not paid for such attendance. The Committee of Adjustment Schedule for 2009 has been amended accordingly and is attached for the Committee's reference. Committee of Adjustment Schedule — 2009 Last Day for Applications Reports Delivered to Committee Hearing January ;5 January 16 January 22 January 30 February 13 February 19 February 27 March 13 March 19 March 27 April 10 April 16 May 1 May 15 May 21 May 29 June 12 June 18 June 26 July 10 July 16 July 31 August 14 August 20 August 28 September 11 September 17 September 25 October 9 October, 15 October 30 November 13 November 19 November 27 December 11 December 17