Loading...
2000-060 To adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 7 to the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan 1.1 , ~ e :> I '. * ~ THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE BY-LAW NO. 2000- 60 BEING A BY-LAW TO ADOPT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.7 TO THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN The Council of the Corporation of the Township ofOro-Medonte, in accordance with the provision of the Planning Act, hereby enacts as follows: 1. The attached explanatory text which constitutes Amendment No. 7 to the Official Plan of the Township ofOro-Medonte, is hereby adopted. 2. The Planner is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the County of Simcoe for approval of Amendment No.7 to the Official Plan of the Township ofOro-Medonte. 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing thereof. BY -LAW READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME, THIS4th DAY OF July ,2000. BY-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4th DAY OF July, 2000. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE ~p J~_L . Acting Clerk - Vicki Robertson , , I " . AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE June 28, 2000 ,. .., AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE The attached explanatory text constituting Amendment No.7 to the Official Plan for the Township ofOro-Medonte was prepared and adopted by the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte by By-law No. 2000- in accordance with the provisions of Sections 17 and 21 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13 on the day of 2000. . \ , I .' AMENDMENT NO.7 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE INDEX The Constitutional Statement PART A-THE PREAMBLE Purpose Location Basis PART B - THE AMENDMENT Introduction Details of the Amendment PART C - APPENDICES 1. Applicant's Planner's Report 2. Township Planner's Report 3. Minutes of Public Meeting held April 5, 2000 PAGE 1 2 2 2 2-3 4 4 4 \ ' THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT The fol1owing Amendment to the Official Plan for the Township ofOro-Medonte consists of three parts. P ART A - THE PREAMBLE - consists of the purpose, location and basis for the Amendment and does not constitute part of the actual Amendment . PART B - THE AMENDMENT - which sets out the actual Amendment and consists of the text, constitutes Amendment No.7 to the Official Plan of the Township of Oro-Medonte. PART C - THE APENDICES- consists of information pertinent to this Amendment in the fonn of background information. This section does not constitute part of the actual Amendment. '( P ART A - THE PREAMBLE 1.0 Purpose of the Amendment The purposes of this Amendment is: . i) To redesignate a small parcel ofland from "Shoreline" to "Shoreline Special Policy Area No.1", to facilitate and permit the creation oftwo new residential building lots, by consent. ii) To redesignate lands not required for shoreline residential purposes from the "Shoreline" designation to the "Agricultural" designation. 2.0 Location of Land Affected This amendment applies to lands located in Part Lot 2, Concession 13, (fonnerly Township ofOro), now in the Township ofOro-Medonte. 3.0 Basis of the Amendment This amendment has been put forward in response to an application by the owners of the land to re-designate a small portion of their property from "Shoreline" to Shoreline - Special Provision" and to re-designate an area now included within the "Shoreline" designation which is not required for shoreline residential purposes, to the "Agricultural" designation. The latter purpose of the Amendment was a requirement imposed as a condition of three consent applications. That condition, in fact, required that all of the lands currently designated "Shoreline" which were not required for the three lots approved by the Committee of Adjustment, were to be re-designated back to "Agricultural". That particular condition of consent relating to each of the three applications has been appealed by the owners to the Ontario Municipal Board. The primary reason for the appeals is that, if all of the remaining land is re-designated back to "Agriculture", the severance of two additional lots under the "Shoreline" designation will not be possible. The owners are quite prepared to remove the "Shoreline" designation from the balance of the lands, which represent more than half of the total area now designated for shoreline residential development. ) , An additional purpose of the amendment is to incorporate special provisions which will clarify two issues: 1. Whether it is appropriate to allow two additional lots (bringing the total to 5 lots) to be created by consent at this location. 2. Whether it is appropriate to exempt the two lots from the requirement of having to have frontage on and direct access to the shoreline of Bass Lake, . Council is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. All of the required services, in particular the road fronting the subject lands (Greenwood Avenue) is already in existence and is of a reasonable standard of construction and is currently being maintained in a manner which easily will accommodate the traffic from the additional lots. Council is also satisfied that appropriate regulations and control over the development and use of the lands can be administered through the imposition of conditions of consent, through rezoning, and through the imposition of site plan control, all of which are required as conditions of consent on the first three lots, and will be required as conditions of consent on the remaining two lots, yet to be obtained by the owners following approval of this Amendment. Council has noted that two other proposal of more than three lots, one with frontage on/access to the shoreline of Lake Simcoe, and another backshore development with no direct access to the lake, have been approved by consent without the need for an Official Plan Amendment. Council is also of the view that the requirements of the Official Plan relating to the creation of lots only where there is frontage on and direct access to Bass Lake is not applicable in this instance, as none of the lands currently within the "Shoreline" designation at this location are actually on the Lake. It is, therefore, a requirement of the Official Plan which, in this case, cannot be met, and therefore it cannot reasonably be applied. Council is therefore satisfied that, given the existing designation of the lands for shoreline residential development, and given that the owners are willing to re-designate more than half of the lands designated "Shoreline" so that it cannot be further developed, and given that adequate controls are available to regulate the development and use of that portion being developed, this Amendment is considered appropriate, and its approval will lead to the appropriate, timely and desirable development of the subject lands. PART B - THE AMENDMENT 1.0 Introduction . All of this part of the Amendment entitled Part B - The Amendment, which consists of the following text and Schedule "A", constitutes Amendment No.7 to the Official Plan of the Township of Oro-Medonte. 2.0 Details of the Amendment The Official Plan for the Township of Oro-Medonte is hereby amended as follows: 1. Schedule A 18 to the Official Plan is hereby amended by redesignating lands described as Part of Lots 1 and 2, Concession XIII (fonner Township ofOro) and identified on Schedule "A" attached hereto and fonning part ofthis Amendment, from "Shoreline" to "Agricultural" and "Shoreline Exception". 2. Section DlO - Shoreline, is amended by the addition of the following new subsection "D 1 0.9 - Exceptions" 3. Section D1 0.9, Exceptions, of the Official Plan is hereby amended by adding a new subsection D10.9.1 as fol1ows: " DI0.9 - EXCEPTIONS DI0.9.1 Part of Lots 1 and 2, Concession XIII (Oro) Notwithstanding the policies contained in Sections D10.3.5 and D10.3.6, the creation of two additional lots with no frontage on or direct access to Bass Lake, by consent, is pennitted on the lands shown to be subject to this Section on Schedule A18 to this Plan." * NOTE COMPONENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ONE AND TWO DESIGNATIONS ARE SHOWN ON SCHEDULE B 500 0 ~_.....J LEGEND R+m+11 Environmental IIIIlIHI Protection One c=J Agricultural ~ Rural Settlement IS2:S62S21 A re a flT!iliIill Rural Residential w..uw.w ~ Shoreline ~ Restricted Rural OVERLAY DESIGNATIONS r -, Environmental L _ .-J Protection Two Special Policy Area I - -I Horseshoe Valley Rd. Special Policy Area SEE SECTION D2.4.2 1 :20,000 XIII XIV \.--------- 1 PRICES CORNERS 2 LANDS SUBJECT TO SECTION DIO.9.1 3 LANDS TO BE REDESIGNATED FROM SHORELINE TO AGRICULTURAL BASS LAKE 4 5 BASS LAKE SIDE ROAD E. KEY PLAN ........ ..Uoetall..............._kl~.Uf\O>oI........._..... ...............wu..~...SH"'"GI.....c..,UWO""'... !OOOm I THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE OFFICIAL PLAN SCHEDULE A18 FEBRUARY 1997 , 1oIii;' . " .\ PART C - APPENDICES Planner.s Report :tor Rober~ and Theresa Spears Par~ Lots 1 and 2, Concessiob 13 (~ormerly Township of Oro) now J.n the Township of oro-Medon~e For Rober~ and Theresa spears 3110 Bass Lake Sideroad R. R. .2 ORXLLIA, On'tario L3Y 682 Prepared by: ~118Plan ConsultJ.ng SerTlces P. O. Box 207, 22 Church Stree't S., ALLXSTOR, Ontar.1o L9R 1Y5 (705) 435-6267 Janua.ry, 2000 I&J V'U" APPENDIX #1 r. O!/f2/00 : WED 22:51 FAX 7054352628 " DARLING, SMITH. McLEAN ~003 t. PLABRKR"S RRPORT t' .:LJl Purpqse aDd Scoptt or Report This Planner's Report has been prepared in support of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law of the Township of Oro-Medonte, to redesignate and re-zone the lands to permit three lots recently approved by the Township's Committee of Adjustment to be developed tor residential purposes, and to facilitate and per.mit the creation of two additional lots by consent, and to permit residential development of these additional lots as well. The app11cation for an Official Plan amendment will, if approved as proposed, also have the effect of removing the existing "Shoreline" designation froIIl those portions of the land Which are presently so designated, but which are not part of the area required for the five lots. This report addresses the relevant planning considerations in detail, and provides a summary of related site servicing, environmental and other technical considerations pertaining to the redesignation and re-zoning, and the subsequent development and use of the lands, as proposed. 2 - 0 S'Ubject Lands and Descripti.on Figure 1 shows the general location of the lands owned by the proponents in Part Lots 1 and 2, Concession 13 (formerly Township of Oro), now in the Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe, Figure Z shows the entire property owned by the proponents, in the context of the immediate s'Urrounding area. The property is a relatively large tract of land, consisting of some 51.6 ha. and extending from Greenwood Avenue to the south-east, where there is approx~tely 508 m. of frontage, to Horseshoe Valley Road to the north, where there is 267 m. of frontage. There 1s also some 164.6 m. of frontage directly on the shore of Bass Lake at the south end of the parcel. Fig~e 2 also shows the existing lot pattern and land uses in the surrounding area. The lands presently have an entrance driveway leading to a 12.2 x 32.6 m, storage building. Six stalls have been built into the north end of the barn, and the owneTs cur~ently Use this area to shelter five horses. This building is at approximately the location shown on Fig~re 2. Much of the cleared area of the property is rented out to an area farmer, who 'Uses the landfor crop production. The lands are, for the most part, not fenced. The lands are currently not used for residential purposes, but it is the intention of the current owners to constr~t a new residence at approximately the location shown on Figure 2. Ul.ll."/UU I'YtV "":::>,, tAA(U::>IlJ::>"U"~ VAKLl.Nli, ~J\UT.ti, JUCLtAN I{!J 004~ " . 2 .. FIGURE 1: General Location of Subject Property. 01/12/00' : WED 22: 52 FAX 7054352628 DARLING,SMITH,McLEAN !4J 005 '!o, .' The subject lands (ie. the lands adjacent to GTeenwood AVen~ which are c\U:Tently designated" Shoreline" ), drain and :slope geneTally to the south, towa.Td Bass Lake. Vegetation varies from a predominently tree covered area towaTd the east to substantially open, cleared land west of the existing driveway entrance to the paTcel, Near the end of Greenwood Aven~, the subject lands are lower and wet. ~ Surrounding Lands ~d Land USO~ To the south-east, across Greenwood Avenue, is an established shoreline residential development, located along the shore of BaS5 Lake. On the same side of GTeenwood Aven-ua f\lI'ther to the east are three additional, larger residential lots which have or are intended to be developed for residential p~poses. At the south-west end of Greenwood Avenue, there is one undeveloped shoreline lot and beyond it, an area of undeveloped shoreline on Bass Lake, which is part of the owners' landholding. The backshore area is part of a large tract of forested lands and wetland extending further to the south and west. To the north-west, north and north-east, to Horseshoe Valley Road, the lands vary from forested to cleared, with some areas having been used for crop production, as noted above, A hydro transmission corridor bisects the area and crosses the owners lands in the vicinity of the border between lots 1 and 2. There are a number of established residences along Horseshoe Valley road, incl~ing a small subdivision on the north side. 4.0 The Proposal The owners have applied for, and the Committee of Adjustment for the Township has approved three severances, gubject to conditions. The location of the three lots is as shown on Figure 2. Two additional lots are proposed to be created, to the immediate south-west of the three approved lots. The area involving these two lots will be s~ject to special provisions to be incorporated into the proposed Official Plan amendment. The five lots :must all be re-zoned to the "Shoreline Residential" zone. The lands which are c'UTrently designated "Shoreline" in the Official Plan which are not incl~ed with the five lots are proposed to be re-designated to .. Agricult-ural" . The retained portion 1s to be uged by the owners as their principle place of residence. They are not farmers. They are interested only in keeping a few horses (Up to a max~uw of six). Some 0 f the land may also be rented out to an area farmer for cropping, as 1n the past. Some other areas are intended to be planted to trees, 01/12/00 WED 22:53 FAX 7054352628 DARLING.SMITH.McLEAN l4I 006' , ' ~: r. ~.: Y1 I I _I ' ..,. .J~ (~ County Road #22 . C;, ~ ~ ~ ~ C;, II Existing BAS S L A K E Forested and Figure ,2: Spears Propertr, and . a5"SUbjec.t Lands t ~ ~ \90 '\iQ 0 I~ i!<oo l~) 1)'.1/12/00" WED 22:53 FAX 7054352628 DARLING, SMITH, McLEAN l4J 007 -s-. ~ Planning IDPl~cations 5.1 PrQvincial Po~icy 5.1.1 General , This proposal does not offend any of the relevant provincial policies and requirements. The lands are, for the most part, contained in an .. Agr icci t-ural" designation, and reflect the fact that s011s on a portion of the property are suitable for, and used for crop production. The original barn on this parcel was apparently destroyed by fire in 1949, and the fences have deteriorated or are non-existent. Consequently, except for the six stalls in the existing storage building, there is little potential, and no current intention on the part of the owners, to use the property for any significant new agricult~al purposes related to the keeping of livestock. Notwithstanding the fact that there are six stalls built into the existing storage bUilding, this building is not designed for or suited for livestock (there is no room for feed storage, it has a sand floor, etc.). F-urthermore, it is a ~stantial distance from the approved and proposed lots. There is, as a res~t, no Minimum Distance Separation problem with respect to the limited potential or the use which is being made of this str~ture for the keeping of livestock (up to 6 horses), given its location of the property relative to the proposed lots. Because the parcel is quite large, any new livestock facility/~e could be loc~ted 50 as not to be constrained by the existence of the approved/proposed lots. The existence of numerous other non- farm residences in the s~e area already present a constraint to the use of the south-east portion of this property for livestock purposes. In any event, the subject lands, adjacent to Greenwood Aven~, are already designated for development and have been so designated fo~ a number of years. As such, the intention is to permit some back- lot development on the north~est side of Greenwood Avenue, the road which serves the existing development along the Bass Lake shoreline in this area. The proposed Official Plan Amendment has the effect of facilitating the creation of just two additional lots within an area already designated for development. It has the further purpose ot removing the "Shoreline" designation trom the balance of the la.nds, and restoring an "Agricult\lral" designation. The subject lands which are proposed for development are not suitable for agricultural purposes. 01/12/00 WED 22:53 FAX 7054352628 DARLING, SMITH, McLEAN Il!JUUI; " c;. The ffUbject lands do not contain significant aggregate reso~ces which should be pre5erved for future extraction, and they are not identified as being environmentally significant or sensitive. Therefore, their development and use, as proposed, does not offend any provincial policy or requirement in this regard. 5.2 County Officia~ Plan The County of Simcoe Official Plan generally permits development of lands already designated for development in approved local Official Plans. However, there are development standards and servicing policies in the County Plan which must be regarded in approving any such development. , Generally, development of five or fewer lots can be accommodated, according to County policy, on private, on-site services, provided the site conditions are suitable for same. Developments of more than five lots are subject to additional requirements for such things as servicing feasibility st~ies, hydrogeological investigations, detailed stormwater management studies, etc., and the preferred method of servicing is f~ll municipal or communal water and sewer services. The County plan permits development to occur by either plan of subdivision or by consent. In this sit~tion, the required 5ervices (1e. the road system) is already in existence, and the water and sewer services are proposed to be provided on each lot. The lots are appropriately sized and site conditions are s~table for the installation of private services. There is, therefore, no need to proceed by means of a plan o~ subdivision in this case. All of the concerns and requirements relating to the develo'Pl16nt of the lands can be addressed thro~h the re-zoning and severance approval processes. It is worthy of note that the COmmittee of Adjustment, in granting consent for the creation of the three lots already approved, has also required that the lots be subject to site plan control. Consequently, the Township has every opportunity and several effective mechanisms at its disposal to enforce full compliance with all of its requirements, as well as those of the County and other agencies, without requiring the development to proceed by plan of subdivision. The lands are not part of the Greenlands system identified by the County of Simcoe Official Plan. No impact assessment 1s therefore required to address the Co~tyts requirements in this regard. The proposal does not; therefore, offend the County Plan and no amendment to the County Plan is required. '0<1/12/00' WED 22: 54 FAX 7054352628 DARLING,SMITH,McLEAN I4J 009 7. ~ Oro-Medonte Official Pl~ ~ General , The owners' lands have several designations in the Township of Oro- Medonte Official Plan (refer to Figure 3), with the predominant designation being "Agricw.tural"" with a "Horseshoe Valley Road Special Policy Area" overlay designation on that portion contained within Lot 1, Concession 13. The southerly portions of the property are designated "Environmental Protection One" and "Environmental Protection Two". The subject lands, consisting of a band of land along the north- west side of Greenwood Avenue are designated "Shoreline". Section Ai of the Official Plan describes the overall vision which has lead to the creation of the specific policies which are contained in the Official Plan. This proposal does not offend the basic principles outlined in this section. The subject lands had previously been designated for residential p~poges in the former Plan, and this intent has been carried forward into the new Plan. The new Plan indicates that there are suffic ient areas of land designated for residential p~poses to last until the Year 2016. The realizatiQn of the potential for the development of about half of the available land area designated for residential purposes, and the removal of the balance of the land so designated does not offend this provision. This section of the Plan provides that amendments to the Plan to permit s'UCh further development beyond that specifically anticipated by the Plan are only to be considered by Council if the intent of the Amendment is to refine the land 'Use boundaries, or is the re~lt of a broader policy review. These policies are restated in Section J3, as well. This proposal seeks to refine the land use boundaries, but in this sense it is unus-ual, because it proposes a reduction in the amount of land area designated for development, whereas most such amendments would propose either the creation of new, or the expansion of existing such areas. In this case, an amendment to the Official Plan is req~red, as a result of a specific condition of the provisional consents which have been approved by the Township for the three lots already approved by the Committee of Adj~tment. The Committee required that the balance of the lands designated "Shoreline" but not specifically involved with the three lots, be re-designated to " Agr icul tural" . That condition has been appealed by the owners, as they would like to create two additional lots from the area designated "Shoreline" adjacent to the first three. They support the re-des1gnation of the remaininq area from "Shoreline" to "Aqricultural". 01/12/00 WED 22:54 FAX 7054352628 DARLING,SMITH,McLEAN ~010 "I 8. XIII ..- I-- XIV ~_.; \ ~ .. . - ~--~"''''''''---L Ir:illf!!r: ~ I It;"; I I I HORSESHOE VALLEY ROAD E. -- .1 t"RICES conNERS , 1 MODifiCATION (' 'Q NO .{ ~. - UNDERSeOION 17(3,)OF tHE PLANNING ACr. 2 ~,...y -::--- -_-:~ ''" =~ .~ ~ ~I~V Subject _ Property ~ ..:~.~ ~ \:~ ~~ IILI I~~ 3 BASS .. .. LAKE 4- .. . .' SEE SEmON N_U~, 6 '" . - A/ ..r~ho ,II ~ ......... Ll::' ~. I .. k ...../.," 1"- _ _ I ~-- -:< I I I --0- --:..='- ~ 7 >!!!7 IIII ~ IIIIIIIIIIII~- I t I I I I I I I ;:;ii""" ~ I I I I I I I --- "\ 5 ~ -- . ~ ~.itlI; BASS LAKE SIDE ROAD E..... .~ .A /11 . "1..1.1: I , . - . FIGURE 3: Existing Official Plan Designations . '0-1/12/00 "WED 22: 54 FAX 7054352628 DARLING.SMITH.McLEAN t: . Y} \ L .........' -- O.:!IT - :wi -- ...,-. .- " County Road #22 , <? ~ ~ ~ -<t ~ 0.\ <<;. ~ ~ .q" () ~ .q,,' II l4JOll q. .JL IV' II Two lots subject to Spec.ial P.olicies .~ Area to be re-designated from "Shorelineu to "Agric.ultural" ..... '00 "oiQ O' (~) \CO FIGURE 4: Proposed De~~g~ations ""g 01/12/00 WED 22:54 FAX 7054352628 DARLING,SMITH,McLEAN 19] 0 1 2" (() : The amendment will also serve to introduce policies which will allow the two additional lots with no direct frontage on or access to the shoreline (see Section 5.3.2 below), to be created by consent. Section A2 sets out several "pillars", or 1.Jnderlying prine iples which are reflected throughout the Plan in the policies for the development and ~e of land. This proposal does not o~fend any of , these guiding principles. Specifically, there does not appear to be a need for m~icipal or. comm1.Jnal services, as the proposed lots are suitable for the installation of on-site services. Three of the five lots have already been approved with on-site services, 5.3.2 "Shoreline" Policies Section DiD of the Plan contains the specific policies affecting lands designated "Shoreline", The first objective provides that the existing character of the predominently residential area is maintained. This objective is not compromdsed by this proposal, as the new lots, and the development on these lots will be similar to the existing developments across the road, and on existing, . similarly sized lots f~ther to the east on the same side of the road. The lands have long been designated for residential purposes. The lands along the shoreline itself have long since been developed, while the back-shore areas on the opposite side of Greenwood Aven~ are just now being developed. This is a typical situation, since the lakefront properties are more valued and in demand, and usually are p~chased and developed first. Where conditions are appropriate, the development of the land on the opposite side of the road servicing the shoreline development is ~gually also permitted, in part to respond to the res~tin9 subsequent demand for near-shore lots, and in part to ensure that servicing both existing and new development is efficient and cost- effective. The protection of the natural feat~es of the shoreline area is also an objective of the Plan for areas designated "Shoreline". The three lots already created, as well as the two proposed lots, lie within a predominently forested area. While the removal of trees to permdt the siting of a driveway, septic system and residence will be necessary, the shoreline and the Lake itself will not be directly impacted, and the removal of trees can and should be minimized as a condition of site plan approval. Single detached dwelling are permitted uses, as provided for in Section D10.2 of the Plan. ~ 01/12/00" WED 22: 55 FAX 7054352628 DARLING,SMITH,McLEAN 141013 It. , The subject lands are served by a municipal road, which is of a standard of construction and is being maintained at a standard sufficient to serve the two new lots created as a result of this proposal, as well as the three lots previously approved. Section Dl0.3.5 sets out policies relating to the "preferred means of land division". It provides that "land division by plan of subdivision/condominium, rather than by consent, shall generally be deemed necessary if anyone of a list of circumstances applies. In this case, the extention of an existing public road or the development of a new public road, is not required, nor 1s the extention of a municipal water or sewer ~stem. In this instance, a Plan of subdivision is not required to ensure that the entire land holding or area is developed in an orderly and efficient manner. In that the entire area fronting onto Greenwood Avemw was previously designated .. Shoreline" to a depth approximating the depth of one lot only, the only logical development pattern is a linear development form with each lot fronting directly onto and accessing Greenwood AVen~e. This policy also provides that the developmant should generally be considered as infilling and that developments of more than three lots should occur by plan of subdivision. In this case, three lots have already been approved to be created by consent. It is not necessary, and would not be appropriate to require a plan of subdivision ror the additional two lots, notwithstanding that the total number of lots to be created ultimately from this particular landholding is f1ve. It is worthy of note that there is sufficient land area and frontage within the area designated "Shoreline" on the owners lands on the north--west side of Greenwood Avenue to permit the creation of approximately 12 lots. Although the creation of the two new lots does not meet the strict definition of .. infilling", the existing, approved lotB to the immediate north-east and the dwelling prQPosed to be constructed to the west create a situation which roughly parallels an infill situation. Therefore, it would be unnecessary and therefore inappropriate to require a plan of sl.Jbdlvislon just because the proposal is not strictly an "infill" situation, as no particular purpose would appear to be served by such a requirement. This section goes on to outline the requirements for developments by both plan of subdivision and by consent, in Sections D10.3.6 and D10.3.7 respectively. Under the strict 1nterpretat1on of these policies, in order to develop ~ of the subject lands by plan of gubdivision, direct frontage on Bass Lake would be required - a condition which cannot be met in this case, despite the fact that the lands are already designated "Shoreline", that there is enough land with the required services (road frontage) to accommodate a dozen lots, and that the proponents own a significant area of Bass Lake shore line. 01/12/00 WED 22:55 FAX 7054352628 VAHLlN<.:i. ~MIT.ti, MCLhAN Any development of the portion of this property which is designated "Shoreline" will, as a result, lead to the creation of lots with no direct frontage on or direct access to the Lake. There is nothing that can now be done to change this pre-existing situation (ie. the owners have not ~sed up the lake frontage available to them, nor can they develop the portion of their property which fronts onto the lake), and it would be inappropriate to suggest that the proposed lots cannot be created beca:1J.se there is no lake frontage. The policies dealing with consents do not require that the new lots thus created have frontage on or access to the Lake, and it is these policies which must therefore apply to the subject lands, The specific criteria for lot creation by consent require that the severed and retained lots both front onto an existing public road that is maintained year-ro~d, that no traffic hazard will result and that the lots can be adequately serviced with appropriate (in this case on-site) water supply and sewage disposal systems. All of these requirenents ha.ve been met with respect to the three lots already approved, and can also be met for the two additional lots to be created as a res~t of this proposal. This section goes on to requ1re that the lots created must be placed into a "Shoreline Residential" zone in the implementing Zoning By-law, if required. In this case, the latter is necessary, as the lots do not meet the minimum lot size requirements for the "Agric1.1lturaI/Rural (A/Ru) "zone. The required application has therefore been s~mitted, with the intention that it be considered conc~rently with the Orr1cial Plan amendment. Section Dl0.3.8 directs such developments and, it is fair to say, limits such development to areas already designated "Shoreline, such as the ~bject land5, and provides that only small scale subdivisions on the shoreline or minor infilling by consent (5uch as is the case in this instance) are permitted, in an effort to maintain the area's unique character. It goes on to provide that any amendment to the Plan that has the effect of permitting additional residential development adjacent to the o'Shoreline" designation will only be considered as part of a review of the appropriateness of the extent and 11m1 ts of the entire "Shoreline" designation that is part of an Officia.l Plan review. This proposal involves lands already designated, and not lands adjacent to existing shoreline areas not yet designated. In effect, the req~irement of the Committee of Adjustment that the remaining lands be removed from the "Shoreline" designation represents the reverse of the situation contemplated by this section, as it will result in the reduct1on, rather than. the expansion of the "Shoreline" designation in this area, In this regard, the proposed amendment does serve to implement certain other policies as ~ll as the overall intent of the Plan, by limiting development, and reducing development potential in "Shoreline" areas, le;J U14- .' f2.-. t . '01-/12/00 . WED 22: 56 FAX 7054352628 DARLING. SMITH ,McLEAN @015 t ~ . e The question which arises out of this requirement is whether the creation of three lots is all that is considered appropriate from the rather extensive area and frontage designated "Shoreline" in this casa, where the services required to accommodate perhaps as many as 12 lots are already available. Related to this is the question of whether it is essential that a fourth and fifth lot must have lake frontage and direct access in order to be created, in an area where three lots with neither lake access or frontage have just been approved. The proposed Official Plan amendment will serve to address the question of how much development is appropriate at this location, whether any additional development can be permitted where there is no direct frontage and access to Bass Lake and whether it can be accommodated by consent, as opposed to plan of subdivision. The processing of this amendment and the related zoning by-law amendment and consent applications will ~doubtedly serve to identify all of the issues and concerns with regard to the two additional lots, and how they will be addressed and ~plemented if the two lots are to be permitted as a result of the approval of this O. P. amendment. It is the opinion of the writer that the creation of two additional lots, by consent, neither of which will have frontage on or direct access to the lake, will not offend the overall purpose and intent of the Township's Official Plan and is appropriate, provided that the balance of the land is removed from the .. Shoreline" designation. The new lots must be re-zoned to the .. Shoreline Residential" zone and should also be subject to site plan control. The Township may require as conditions of approval of the site plan and agreement, among other things, the minimization of tree removal and stormwater management roeas\lres to minimize impacts. 5.4 Zoning By-law The lands are zoned "Agricultural/Rural (AlRu)" at this time. A res1dence is a permitted use in this zone, but the frontage of the lots already created and those proposed to be created does not meet the zone standard for this zone. As indicated above, the Official Plan provides that lots created in the "Shoreline" designation should be zoned "Shoreline Residential", Accordingly an applica.tion has been su:tm.itted for consideration concurrently with the proposed Official Plan ~endment, to re-zone the entire area encompassing the five lots to the "Shoreline Residential (SR)" zone, All of the general requirements of the Zoning By-law, as well as the pertinent provi5ions for the "SR" zone can and will be met. 01/12/00 WED 22:56 FAX 7054352626 VAKL.lN\:I. ;::'M.lTl1. MCLbAl" ~ V.LQ - ,,"'. t,,/ . XIII ~ 1 :i 1 t 2 3 BASS LAKE 4 6 . 5 5 6 Figure 5: Existing Zoning 'In/121M' WED 22:56 FAX 7054352628 DARLING,SMITH,McLEAN ~O17 1'5 . r Y1 - , ~J . f t<I 'A~ County Road #22 ",,'W. ~ ~ ~ ~ oQ,. C:> lv' 4,. <<\. ~ ~ oQ,. C) ~ oQ,.' , i / I / I BAS S LAKE ~ Area to be re-zoned from "A/Ru" to "Shoreline (SR) Residential" --- - ,,-"-"-"-- ~ --AI Figure 6; Proposed Zoning 1(>0 'So 0 loQ .z,.o ~) -.-- 01/12/00 WED 22:56 FAX 7054352628 DARLING,SMITH,McLEAN If!d Ul~ " . . 5.4 Consents Following the approval of the Official Plan and zoning by-law amendments, two severance applications will be s~mitted for consideration by the Township's Committee of Adjustment. In the event that the Official Plan and/or the zoning by-law amendment is referred/appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it , may be appropr iate to submit the two severance applications as well, to ens-ure that they too are dealt with in a single consolidated hearing. 5.5 Site Plan Approval The two new lots should be required to be subject to site plan approval, similar to the three lots previously created, to ensure that the requirements of the Township can be properly enforced, ~ Servicing Cons~derations The proposed development can be adequately serviced, and it will not place an added burden on the Township. Site conditions are suitable for the installation of individual septic systems on each lot. There is every expectation on the part of the owners that drilled wells will yield ~ple water to supply each of the lots, in light of their recent experience in drilling a well for their own use on the retained parcel, where large quantities of potable water were obtained. Stormwater will be managed on, and conducted from the subject lands in accordance with the requirements of the Township, and their requirements will be enforced through the site plan approval and agreement processes. Other services required by the development, such as hydro and telephone, policing, fire fighting, solid waste disposal services, etc. already exist and are adequate to serve this develof(Dent. ~ EnY1ronmuqt~1 an~Qt~~r CoDs~derations This proposal involves a relatively small area of land which has not been identified as having any significant biological feature or environmental function which would indicate that an environmental Lmpact assessment should be undertaken. Nevertheless, the lands are tree covered, and their development, as proposed, will result in the removal of some of the natural vegetation. M112l00 WED 22: 57 FAX 7054352628 DARLING,SMITH,McLEAN !41 019 '7 ----~.."".----_.~--_. ..~.._-_._-- . It is recomwended that, as part of the site plan agreement required by the Township, as a condition of approval, that tree removal be restricted to that which is necessary for the construction of an entrance driveway, and for a dwelling and septic s~tem envelope on each lot. The lands are not situated within an area of high archaeological significance or potential. No significant cult~al or historical reso~ces will be impacted as a regult of this proposal. Therefore, no detailed assessment is considered necessary. 8 . 0 DelllaDd and Beed for the Deve 1oPJI'I'J!1t The lands from which the proposed lots are to be severed are part of the lands designated in the Township's Official Plan tor this purpose, and as such, are part of the invehtory of land available from which the projected residential growth is to be derived over the next 20 years. The creation of j~t five lots from this parcel 1s significantly fewer than the number possible, and the n~r which the Township may have attributed to it as a pre-designated development site. . The owners of lots on the opposite side of. Greenwood Avenue have expressed an interest in, and in fact, have entered into agreements with the proponents, to p~chase two of the three approved lots. At least one other adjacent owner has expressed a desire to purchase a lot, albeit directly across the road from his property, and beyond the area presently being proposed for developnent. The demand by residents already living in this area is therefore certainly strong, and there is every reason to expect that the lots will be absorbed and develo-ped in the very near f\lb.Ire. .LJl Conclusions 1. The proposal conforms to provincial policy and to the Co\1nty of. S~coe Official Plan. 2, The proposal conforms to the Tawnship's Official Plan. An amendment to the Official Plan is required. 3. An amsndmant to the Zoning By-law is also required. All of the requirements of the Zonlt'lg By-law can be met. Spec 1al provisions are proposed to be incorporated to appropriately control and regulate the development. 4. This development will be subject to site plan control. 5. All of the concerns and requirements of the Township and the review agencies can be satisfi~d. UI/IZ/UU W~V ZZ:D7 ~AX 7UD4JDZUZ~ VAKLINI", ~l\11ni,l\1CL.t:;AN 6. The proposal is environmentally so~d, and the site is well ~ited for the use proposed. 7. This development can be adequately serviced. 8. The proposal represents good and desirable development and the use is compatible with surroUhding uses. . 10.0Recommendat~ons The following recommendations are respectfully submitted: 1. That a date for a pub1.C meet~ng for both amendments be set, and t:.he p-qb1ic moe'ting be1d a.t:. COUDci1"s e.rl~est opportunity. 2. Tbat aaendaents to both the Town" 5 O:f:f~c~a1 P1an and Zoning By-law be approyed to a.cco..odat:.e the proposal. S. That consent app1icat:.i.ons for the two add1t~ona1 10ts be appro'Yed, and, 4. That a detailed site p1an and re1ated technica1 informati.on be prepared and a site plan agreement be executed and reg~stered. Respectfully submitted ~~-'-~ Ron ~lls, President NlillsPlan Consulting Services ~UZU- . . . If!,. . .- .. , APPENDIX #2 PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 20, 2000 . Robert and Theresa Spears Part of Lots 1 and 2, Concession 13, (Oro) County Road 22 and Greenwood Avenue P-98/99 Proposal The subject property is located in Concession 13, Part of Lots 1 and 2 and has frontage on both County Road 22 (Horseshoe Valley Road) and Greenwood Avenue. The property is a total of 131.42 acres in lot area. The applicant's have applied for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to redesignate a portion of the property from Shoreline to Agricultural and to rezone a portion of the property from Agricultural/Rural (NRU) to Shoreline Residential (SR). The property was the subject of three consent applications, which were conditionally approved, but had one of the conditions appealed by the. applicant. Official Plan Currently - Agricultural, Horseshoe Valley Road Special Policy Area, Environmental Protection Two Overlay, Environmental Protection One, and Shoreline Proposed - Same as above provisions to allow additional two residential lots by consent Zoning By-law Currently - Agricultural/Rural (NRU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone Proposed - General Commercial (GC) and Agricultural/Rural (NRU) Zones Department Head Comments Roads Superintendent - No Concerns Manager of Public Works - No Concerns Fire Chief - Clerk - Chief Building Official - Recreation and Economic Development - 1 , . Planning Department Comments This application proceeded to a Public Meeting on April 5, 2000 and a copy of the meeting minutes is attached for the Committee's review. At that meeting correspondence was received and public comments were raised in regards to a number of technical issues including: Official Plan policies, stormwater management, drainage, erosion, tree retention, water supply and quality, traffic, noise, impact on character of area. . , In regards to a number of the technical matters the applicant has submitted a site plan application and drawings which are currently being review by the township staff and engineering consultant and will proceed through that process. The site plan is a condition of the consent being granted and therefore is required to be adopted by Council prior to final approval of the consents. If the matter continues to be decided by the Ontario Municipal Board then this matter may be resolved at that level as well. A copy of the applicant's response to the public meeting comments was forwarded with the agenda package. Recommendation It is recommended that Development Application P-97/99 a proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, be presented to Council for favorable consideration of the Official Plan Amendment and that the Zoning By- law Amendment proceed subject to the final approval of the Official Plan Amendment. 2 , " ,r j nillsPlan Consulting Services Box 207, 22 Church street S. ALLISTON, Ontario L9R lV5 (705) 435-6267 Fax: 435-1037 June 7, 2000 . To: l1a1'or and Council, Township of Oro-tledonte Subject: SUIaar~ of/Resp-onse to Concerns Raised (Sp'earsl As promised, I have prepared a summary of the major comments and concerns expressed at the public meeting for the Spears Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments. It has taken us some time to respond because we thought it appropriate to have a report and a site development plan prepared by a firm of qualified engineers, to address the more tech11ical aspects of the proposal. The engineer's report and site plan, which are intended to accompany this report, are to be delivered to you under separate cover on June 8, 2000, directly from the offices of C. C. Tatham and Associates, consulting engineers of Orillia. The following is a summary of the concerns and our response and recommendations. Official Plan There were a number of objections raised by neighbouring land owne r s to It an amendment to the 0 f f i c ia 1 Plan 1;vhi ch would all 01;'1 further residential de,,\'elopment at this location". Clearly, this is not the purpose of the proposed amendment to the Official Plan. Conversely, the amendment will remove the existing "Shoreline" designation from the bulk of the lands, and in so doing, it will have the effect of reducing the existing development potential of these lands from approxima t.el1' 12 lots " down to five lots, This amendment is being requested strictly to satisfy a condition of approve.l of the first three severances, These se"lrerances were approved by the Township, and the decisions to approve them were not appealed by any of the appro,~l authorities or the landoi~ers of this area. The additional provisions in the proposed amendm.ent relati1~ to re~lirements for frontage on/access to the lake and regarding the I ~,' I necessity of a plan of subdivision are not essential to achieve general conformity with the Official Plan, with respect to either the original proposal for the creation of three lots, nor for the current proposal for the creation of the two additional lots. These provisions were being proposed by the proponents for clarification only. We felt that, becausewe were being required to go through the process of having to amend the Official Plan anyway, we wanted there to be no doubt, when the Committee of Adjustment deals with our two subsequent consent applications, . that the two additional lots need not have frontage on/access to the lake and that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. By including provisions in the proposed amendment to this effect, there would then be no question of interpretation or conformity with the Plan. In this way, we can also be assured that we will only t~ve to endure this process once, and it will enable us to consolidate all of the related matters into a single Ontario tlunicipal Board hearing, should that still be necessary. The approach we are taking here is entirely consistent with that taken by the Township on at least two other occasions where more than three lots were allowed to be created by consent without an amendment to the Official Plan waiving the requirement of a plan of subdi ,"'ision. The Planning Act is quite clear - a plan of subdivision is only to be required when it is deemed necessary. If it is not necessary, the consent process is appropria t.e and the appro'val authority', in this case, the Township, has all the same powers to regulate and control the development as are available to it under the plan of subdivision process. As tor the frontage on/access to the lake requirement, these lands were designated "Shorelinell despite there not being any direct shoreline frontage available. This does not then preclude the development of these lands, as this particular policy cannot reasonably be applied or met. No Official Plan amer~ment would have been necessary to address this requirement, in this instance. I believe that the TOT,mship may have obtained ad"irise from the plannil1g consultants who authored the Official Plan to this et teet. It iifould be ,"'er)'" helpful if this inf orma tion could be made available to both the proponents and the neighhours. This amendment will remove existing development opportunities - it will not grant any additional or new development opportunities which are not already available to the OIDlers. One would think that such an amendment, to eliminate the possibility of more lots being created to the west of the Spears' entrance driveway, would be whole-heartedly endorsed, in light of the concerns raised over development in this area. t,: . Drainage and Stormwater tlanagement It is acknowledged that there are some pre-existing drainage problems in this area. This development will not result in the current situation being made significantly worse. It is not the responsibility of the proponents to rectify the current problems. However, there are alternatives a'reilable to address the current situation, which involve improvements within the road allo"~nce of Greenwood Avenue and to the outlets. The To"~ship has scheduled certain improvements to Greenwood Avenue in this area, including replacement of existing culverts and ditching which will serve to reduce to some extent the existing problems. Although it is acknowledged that Development Charges from this de"i7elopment cannot be specifically directed to this project, additional tunds will be made available as a result of this development for capital works required in the TOT~ship, which may also accelerate the timing of the required work on Greenwood Avenue. If necessary, the development of the two additional lots could be tied to the improvements required to be made to Greenwood Avenue in this area, bJ7 means of a "Holding 1\ provision in the zoning by- law as it relates to these two lots. Erosion and Sedimentation tleasures which would normally be required as a condition of site plan appr01rel to control erosion and sedimentation should be employed to prevent problems from occuring during the construction phase of the de"i7elopment of the lots, and tUltil "i7egeta tion CO"i7er has been re-established, as a condition of buildil~ permit approval and occupancy of each dwelling. Tree removal It is true that trees will be removed, both from within the road allowance and from the building and septic envelopes on the. proposed lots, to accommodate the development. The remo"i~l of trees from within the road allowance, which would have the greatest im.pact relati're to the neighbouring properties on the opposite side of Greenwood Avenue, will only be necessary to the extent that improvements to the drainage s17stem (ditches) on the west side of Greenwood Avenue are required. Since this work will be done by the Township at some point in the near future anyway, the necessity for the cutting of trees within the road allowance cannot be tied to the development of the subj ect lands. This area has not been identified as being environmentally significant and no environmental issues or concerns, other that the ph17sical remo,~l of the trees, have been identif ied. ~.. The removal of the trees from the building and septic envelopes al~ from area required for the driveways, will therefore result in a change in appearance from a natural forest to a country residential settil~, admittedly different from wrat exists, but nevertheless compatible and appropriate for the area. Imp'act on water sup.p.ly. Water Quality. The septic systems on each of the proposed lots will be fully raised sand filter beds, as described in more detail in the El~ineer's report. Such engineered, fully raised systems will function effectively and reliabl~r at treating septic 1~stes. There is no reason to expect or suggest that properly designed and installed systems will result in the contamination of local surface or groundwater resources. . The septic systems must be designed to meet all of the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and will be installed in accordance with all relev~nt stal~ards and requirements. Distance separation requirements from THatercourses and from neighbouring wells can and will be met. Quantity. of Water The owners have recently drilled a well on their property, with the result being a large capacity well with good quality water. It is suggested that the site plan agreement between the owners and the To"mship require that the wells on each of the proposed lots be drilled wells. Judging by the experience of the owners with their own well, the acquifer in this area is capable of yielding considerably more water then is required to supply the proposed five new homes. Traffic and Noise A typical, permanent residential dwelling unit, on average, results in approximately eight vehicle movements per day. This development would therefore generate some additional 40 ,rehicle movements per day, on average. The road is certainly capable of accommodating the current traffic, and although some of the neighbouring landowners would wish it to be further improved, the addition of 40 vehicle movements per day does not irerrant any improvements or increase the requirement for maintenance. The proposed entrances will all be good safe entrances which meet the design requirements of the Toymship. The Township has plans to resurface this road in the very near future, in any event, which should help to address the existing concerns with the road. J ".- t .. . . . . Size of lots The lots exceed the requirements for the "Shoreline Residential" zone. The engineer's report and plans clearly demonstarte that the lots are sufficianly sized to accommodate their reasonable development. The lots are considerably larger than most of the existing lots in this area. Comp'atibility. of Develop.ment The development on the proposed lots will be single family homes with individual services,' which will be entirely consitent and compa tibIe ilTi th the existing de,"eIopment in this area. Lake Access There are two public access points nearby which are available to the residents of these proposed lot to safely and legally access Bass Lake. I trust that this is appropriate and I look forTHard to meeting with you and the Committee of the Whole next week. R~ Ron tlills, tlillsPlan c.c. R. and T. Spears Present: Mayor Beard Deputy Mayor Bell Councillor Lillian McConnell Councillor Ralph Hough Councillor Neil Craig Councillor Ron Sommers (left at 8:45 p.m.) Councillor Ruth Fountain f' ' .. . -. " l SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING UNDER THE PLANNING ACT Proposed Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law - P-98/99 Cone. 13, Part of Lots 1 and 2 (formerly with the Township of Oro) April 5, 2000 @ 8:20 p.m. . Staff Present: Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO; Andria Leigh, Township Planner Also Present: Robert Spears, Ron Mills, S.T. Sharpe, Martin Kimble, John Boville, Kris Menzies, Owen Scott, C. Hewitt, J. Hewitt, L. Hewitt, B. Boydell, S. Boydell, Sheldon Dyment, Dawn McGinnis, Janet Dryden, Ernie Dryden, Murray McGinnis, Joan Bell, John Bell, Don Shepard, Carlton Waddling, Jean Buckingham, Bruce Buckingham, Kathy Lewis, Garry Lewis, Isabel Shepard, Greg Evans Jr., Greg Evans Sr., Paul Davis, Carolyn Davis, Jeff Maize, D. G. Brown, John Vandermarel, Ingrid Vandermarel, Ron Raphael, Jim O'Doherty, Linda Gilbert, Joe Gilbert, Liz Pearce, Jack Pearce, Gord and Fran Martyn, Richard Patton, John Hare, Bob Campbell, Paul Marshall, D. Hoet, Marilyn Hoet, Sylvia Telford, Theresa Spears, Barbara Campbell, Ben Mudry, Bob Shultz, Brian Goodreed, Jack Haggarty, Shelly Dyment, Jim Grey, Leonard Martin, John Hipwell (plus one illegible signature on the sign-in sheet). Mayor Beard called the meeting to order and advised that all persons present would be afforded the opportunity of asking questions in respect to the proposed rezoning. It was indicated that correspondence has been received with respect to this application from Ben Mudry, Randy Hewitt and Lynne Sutcliffe, Mr. and Mrs. C. Hewitt, Arthur and Janice Chopty, Rodney J. Morrell, Ron Armstrong, Sheldon Dyment, Robert Greenbaum, and Brian Hands. Ms. Andria Leigh gave on overview of the purpose and effect of this proposal, which would redesignate a portion of the property from the Shoreline designation to an Agricultural designation, as well as from the Shoreline designation on another portion of the property to a Site Specific Shoreline designation. The rezoning of the property for another portion of the property is to change from an Agricultural Rural zone to a Shoreline Residential zone. Mr. Ron Mills, Planner, provided background information about this property and spoke about this proposal on behalf of his client and new owner of this site, Mr. Spears. Mr. Mills indicated that a report would be forthcoming to the Township with respect to this application, which in turn could be provided to residents who have presented concerns. j ,; Mr. Shelly Dyment, Greenwood Avenue, expressed concern about having two additional homes being built if this proposal proceeds. He is concerned about the loss of trees and the effect this would have on the lake and bacterial levels. Concern was expressed about the water level and quality, the area wells, the buffer provided by the trees against the snow in the winter, as well as the increased traffic. He is worried that the original approved three homes, now being considered for another two, would it just keep on growing until there is a subdivision development on this property? .. Mr. Greg Evans, resident, spoke about flooding problems from the subject property and run off into the lake. He also expressed concern about increased traffic and the change of character to the area. Mr. Stan Boydell, Greenwood Avenue, voiced his concern about the access to Bass Lake for the residents of the homes being proposed with this application. "All the right-of-ways to the lake have been sold off by the Municipality", leaving no alternative but to walk all the way down to the other end of the road, or trespass on other properties. Mr. Jim Grey, Greenwood Avenue, supported Mr. Boydell's concern about people trespassing on his property. He is a seasonal resident, and what will happen to his property when he is not there. He is also concerned about the run off into the lake and flooding. Mr. John Hare, resident, asked for clarification about the lot sizes and the requirements for septic systems, etc. He thought each lot should be at least an acre to allow the required two septic systems per lot. Mr. Mills indicated that the septic regulations have recently changed, eliminating the need for the second system on a single lot. They require septic systems to be engineered based on soil, drainage, load conditions on a particular lot, and if necessary, raised, which ensures that the system will be more efficient than in the past. Mr. Greg Evans, Sr., resident, expressed his concern about property values as a result of this application. He felt that values would go down, which is not what people want. Mr. Mills spoke about the Official Plan allowing for twelve lots on this site, and the fact that the land has already been designated. He indicated that two of the three lots already permitted have been purchased by residents directly across the road from the site. As for lake access, Mr. Mills was optimistic that people would have enough respect for the law not to trespass across people's property to get to the lake. Mr. Leonard Martin, Greenwood Avenue, supported the concern about the number of houses climbing to the allowed twelve on this site. Mr. John Hipwell, Greenwood Avenue, indicated that the size of the lots was his main concern, saying that the lots should be bigger considering the type of ground and the installation of wells and septic systems. Moved by Hough, Seconded by McConnell Be it resolved that this Public Meeting of Council re: Proposed Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, File P-98/99, Cone. 13, Part of Lots 1 and 2 (formerly within the Township of Oro), now be adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Carried.