Loading...
01 29 2009 C of A AgendaTOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGEND COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3. DISCLOSURE • PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF — IK ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT I a) Minutes of Committee of Adjustment Meeting of November 20, 2008 a) Application: 2008-B-22 Applicant: Ian Johnstone Location: 274 Line 11 South, Part of Lot 22, Concession 10 Proposal: Boundary adjustment to facilitate a proposed lot transposition. b) Application: 2008-A-44 Applicant: Robert and Renee Brennan Location: 763 Line 9 South, Part 1, Part of Block X, Concession 9 Proposal: Relief from setbacks for dwelling and deck. c) Application: 2008-B-47, 2008-B-48 Applicant: Indian Park Association Location: 143 Huron Woods Drive, Block B, Plan M-30 Proposal: Creation of two new residential lots. ,0) Application: 2008-B-52 Applicant: Indian Park Association Location: Adjacent to 80 Huron Woods Drive, Part • Block C, Plan M-9 Proposal: Lot addition/boundary adjustment. e) Application: 2008-B-53 Applicant: Indian Park Association Location: Adjacent to 17 Algonquin Trail, Block D, Plan M-8 Proposal: Lot addition/boundary adjustment. 0=11 - -1 A - - A - -- -- I --- ----------- AA - - - - f) Application: 2008-B-50 Applicant: Janice Weiss and Mark Zarnett Location: 135 Eight Mile Point Drive and 2 McLean Crescent Proposal: Technical severance to recreate a lot which once existed as a separate parcel of land. g) Application: 2008-B-51 Applicant: James and Corine Gray Location: 2815 Line 4 North, Lot 5, Concession 5 Proposal: Creation of a new residential lot. h) Application: 2009-B-01, 2009-B-02, 2009-B-02 Applicant: Weatherwise Aviation Location: 224 Line 7 North, Part of Lot 19, Concession 7, being Parts 2,3,4, and 5 of Plan 51 R-31319 Proposal: Technical severance to recreate lots, which once existed as separate parcels of land. i) Application: 2008-A-50 Applicant: Stephen Crawford and Nora Hoyer Location: 63 Stanley Avenue, Lot 30 and 112, Plan 626 Proposal: Relief from minimum required rear yard setback. j) Application: 2008-A-51 Applicant: Mike Grannon Location: 6 Catherine Street, West Part of Lot 1, Concession 13, Part 1 Proposal: Relief from maximum height for accessory structures and maximum floor area. k) Application: 2008-A-52 Applicant: Mark Stephenson and Laurie Wilson Location: 10 Slalom Drive, Lot 26, Plan 1650 Proposal: Relief from minimum required interior side yard setback. 1) Application: 2009-A-01 (Revision to 2008-A-42) Applicant: Marion Garnett Location: 3 Beach Road, Lot 16, Plan 949 Proposal: Relief from minimum setback to Bass Lake. m) Application: 2009-A-02 Applicant: Margaret Kavanah Location: 20 Parkview Avenue, Lot 26 & 27, Concession 5, Plan 709 Proposal: Relief from minimum required front yard. n) Application: 2009-A-03 Applicant: Powell Location: 2683 Lakeshore Rd. E., Lot 9, Plan 680 Proposal: Relief from Non-Complying Buildings/Structures. a) Minutes from the October 30, 2008 meeting, OMEGA Habitat Working Group, re: Tree Preservation By-law. 7. NEW BUSINESS I= -f A,4i.,,+---+ A­A� - TI--4— 1­­­ 70 0f)nQ 01 Ck) COE j41 - - NO TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE V 2 6 2008 1 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS . r-, t I 1 0 I L L - T Q C OF W1. E: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2008 TIME: 9:30 A.M. Present: Michelle Lynch, Chair Garry Potter - arrived at 9:34 a.m. Lynda Aiken Rick Webster Bruce Chappell Staff present: Steve Farquharson, Secretary Treasurer/intermediate Planner Ryan Vandenburg, Planner Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services Marie Brissette, Deputy Secretary Treasurer/Committee Coordinator 1. OPENING OF MEETING BY THE CHAIR Michelle Lynch assumed the Chair and called the meeting to order. CA081120-01 Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Chappell It is recommended by the Committee of Adjustment that the agenda for the meeting of Thursday, November 20, 2008 be received and adopted as amended to add 7b) December Meeting. Carried. 3. "DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT" None. 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING a) Minutes of Committee of Adjustment Meeting of Thursday, October 16, 2008. CA081120-02 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Webster It is recommended that the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting of Thursday, October 16, 2008 be adopted as presented. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — November 20, 2008 Page 1 4�2111---] [*JTI4;*9UW 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 It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves Minor Variance 2008-A-41 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the maximum height of the proposed boathouse not exceed 5.7 metres; 2. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, C.P. 13.; 3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by pinning the footing and verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation so that the boathouse not exceed a maximum height of 5.7 metres from the average high water mark; 4. That the applicants obtain approval from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act; 5. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — November 20, 2008 Page 2 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 CA081120-04 Moved by Potter, Seconded by Webster It is recommended that the Committee denies Variance Application 2008-A-40 on the basis that: 1. the application does not conform to the general intent of the Township's Official Plan; 9. the application does not conform to the general intent of the Township's Zoning By-law; 3. the request is not considered minor; and 4. the proposal is not considered appropriate development, use of land, building or structure. Defeated. CA081120-05 Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Chappell It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves Variance Application 2008-A-40, to permit the construction of an accessory building located 1.0 metre from the west interior side lot line, subject to the following conditions: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the accessory structure (storage shed) be setback no closer than 1.0 metre from the east side lot 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; 3. That the Applicant meet all requirements set out to them by the Lake Simcoe 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. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — November 20, 2008 Page 3 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 Mr. Andrew Ralph was present. CA081120-06 Moved b, g Aiken, Seconded b)t Ch It is recommended that the Committee approves Minor Variance 2008-A-49, being to grant a reduction for the east interior side yard setback from the required 3 metres to 1.46 metres, for the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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 only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, C.P. 13.; 3. That the Applicant meet all requirements set out to them by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority; 4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the proposed addition does not exceed 1.46 metres to the east interior side lot line. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — November 20, 2008 Page 4 d) Application: 2006 -8 -16 Applicant: John & Dorothy 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 Mr. Tiziano Zaghi, Planner with Jones Consulting, was present on behalf of the applicants. CA081120-07 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Webster It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2006-B-16 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the 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-Medonte, 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. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — November 20, 2008 Page 5 1 ^1 1 e) Application: 2008-B-46 D "L Applicant: Mary Georgina Robertson Location: 1404 Line 12 North, Lot 10, Concession 12 (Formerly the Township of Oro) Proposal: Lot addition/boundary adjustment Mr. Robert Wallace and Mrs. Ann Wallace were present on behalf of the applicant. CA081120-08 Moved by Potter, Seconded by Chapp] It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B-46 to convey a parcel of land having a frontage of 6.10 metres on Old Barrie Road, a depth of approximately 157 metres and an area of approximately 0.51 hectares to the adjacent lands (also owned by the applicant) subject to the following conditions: 1. That the conveyed lands be rezoned to Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone in order to provide a consistent zoning of the enhanced lands; 2. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 3. That the Applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a 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 to be enhanced will merge in title. 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — November 20, 2008 Page 6 f) Application Applicant: Location: Proposal: 2008-13-47, 2008-B-48 Indian Park Association 143 Auron'1,1,00ds Drive, BlocV-B—,Plan M-30 (Formerly Township • Oro-) Creation • two new residential lots Ms. Meghan Keelan, Planner with MHIBC, was present on behalf of the applicant. CA081120-09 Moved by Webster, Seconded by Potter It is recommended that application 2008-13-47 & 48 be deferred until such time as Council has advised this Committee that they are satisfied with the divesting of lands owned by IPA by way of boundary adjustments and lot creation rather than by way of a planning initiative that encompasses the entire lands held by IPA. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — November 20, 2008 Page 7 V-` g) Application: 2008-13-49 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 Mr. Federico Rossi, Mrs. Silva Rossi and Mr. Rocco Rossi (son) were present. CA081120-1 0 Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Chappell It is recommended that the Committee defers Consent Application 2008-13-49, until an EIS is completed. W- 0 Committee of Adjustment Minutes — November 20, 2008 Page 8 - F- 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 Ms. Julie Jackson was present on behalf of the applicant. CA081120-11 Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Webster It is recommended that Committee of Adjustment approves variance applications 2008-A-46 and 2008-A-47, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding; 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. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — November 20, 2008 Page 9 H 7. NEW BUSINESS a) Site Visits CA081120-12 Moved by Webster, Seconded by Aiken r It is recommended that the Memorandum dated November 19, 2008, Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services, re: Site Inspections for Committee of Adjustment Applications, be received. Carried. b) December Meeting CA081120-13 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken It is recommended that the verbal information from Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services, re: December meeting, be received. Carried. mi, 41,11111 CA081120-14 Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Chappell It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 12:29 p.m. until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, January 18, 2008, or at the call of the Chair. Michelle Lynch, Chair Steven Farquharson, Secretary Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Minutes — November 20, 2008 Page 10 Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment January 29, 2009 2008-113-22 - Ian Johnstone 274 Line 9 South, Part of Lot 22, Concession 10, (Former Twp. of Oro) 1. PROPOSAL The purpose of application is to permit a boundary adjustment to facilitate a proposed lot transposition. The applicant's intent is to move or transpose an existing lot which was recently severed at the northwest corner of the farm and establish this lot at the southwest corner of the lands. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of this boundary adjustment. 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Agricultural Zoning By-law 97-95 — Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) 3. AGENCY COMMENTS County of Simcoe - None received Public Works Department — None received Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards Engineering Department — No Concerns Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority- No Concerns (comments attached) 4. BACKGROUND The applicant appeared before the Committee on June 19, 2008, and the application was deferred by the Committee in order to attain comments from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). The application was considered by the Committee at the following meeting on July 17, 2008, where it was deferred at the request of the LSRCA, in order for the applicant to provide to LSRCA a topographic survey was showing the water elevation and required setback from the watercourse. The applicant has since submitted the required survey and LSRCA has indicated that they have no objection to the proposed application. Therefore, it is now appropriate for the application to be considered by the Committee. In 2005, the OMB approved the creation of a bona-fide farm retirement lot at the northwest corner of an existing agricultural parcel (Application 2005-B-12). This application pre-dated the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement that removed the permission regarding farm retirement lots. The existing lot is approximately 0.47 ha (1.15 acres) in area, whereas the proposed new lot is 0.78 ha (1.93 acres). Due to an existing separate residential property, the existence of a watercourse to the rear of the proposed lot, and in order to 'square off' the property, the proposed lot size is slightly larger. Does the consent conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? Section D2.2.2 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider applications for boundary adjustments. The policy states: "A consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot is created ... in addition, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the agricultural parcels affected." It is noted that the proposed location for the new lot is located within a regulated area by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. LSRCA Staff is of the opinion that given the proposed lot size there is ample room on the proposed new lot to ensure adequate separation from the watercourse features. The future builder will be required to obtain a permit at the building permit stage from the LSRCA. The proposed consent application is for a boundary adjustment generally conforms with the policies of the Official Plan. Does the consent conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone in the Township's Zoning By-law. The minimum frontage for a lot in the A/RU Zone is 45 metres; the subject lands will have a frontage approximately 90 metres of frontage, with an area of 0.8 hecters (1.9 acres), the required lot area for a residential use in the A/RU Zone is 0.4 hectares; On the basis of the above, the proposed boundary adjustment generally maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law. 5. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B-22 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the existing lot at the northwest corner be merged in title with 274 Line 9 South and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands including an undertaking from the applicants solicitor to this effect; 4. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. Respectfully submitted, B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by, Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning Services 11: � � - �. r.� r� 11: • s - ..� { ems. 2008 -B -22 (Johnstone) 2008 -B -22 (Johnstone) IN 2008 -B -22 (Johnstone) JAN -05 -2009 17:34 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE 01/05/2009 MON 16:32 FAX Tel: 905 - 895 -1281 Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment 1- 800 -465 -0437 Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte Fax: 905 -853 -5881 E -Mail: iofb(&1srca.on.ca P.O. Box 100 Web: Oro, ON LOL 2X0 120 Bayview Parkway Box 282 Newmarket, Ontario Deal' Mr. Farquharson: UY 4X1 Re: Consent Application - Transposition Of An Existing Lot Tan Johnstone, Owner Part of Lot 22, Concession 10 (Former Township of Oro) E/S Line 9 South, Part 1, Plan 51R -34396 Township of Oro- Medonte (Oro), County of Simcoe P.00ii002 12001 /002 fc�8 File No.: 2008 -B -22 IMS No.: PLDC827C3 The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has reviewed the above noted Consent application in the context of the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (PPS - 2005), and Ontario Regulation 179/06 made under the Conservation Ar,thorities Act. The owner is seeking consent to transpose an existing 0.70 ha severed lot from the northwest corner of 274 Line 9 South to a location immediately south of 303 Line 9 South. The proposed severance is for the transposition of an existing lot, and will not create a new lot. Based on our review of the proposed consent, a site visit conducted on July 9, 2008, and the topographic survey dated November 21, 2008 by P.J. Mansfield, Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS), we provide the following comments: 1. Based on our mapping, the proposed new location of the transposed lot is located partially within the regulated area of this Authority. A coldwater watercourse traverses this property, with associated meanderbelt (erosion allowance), Regional Storm flood plain (FE = 256.89 masl), and a 30 metre minimum naturally vegetated buffer. A coldwater watercourse also traverses the adjacent property to the east, with associated meanderbelt (erosion allowance), Regional Storm floodplain (FE = 256.89 masl), and a Watershed 30 metre minimum naturally vegetated buffer. Life 2. All development on the proposed transposed lot must be outside of the 30 metre buffer for of each tributary of the creek, and outside of the floodplain. To ensure that any proposed development on the proposed transposed property meets all requirements, we require that a Site Plan Control Agreement be required for any proposed development on the proposed transposed lot. Page i of 2 JAN -05 -2009 17:34 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE 01/05/2009 MON 16:32 FAX P.002 /002 2002/002 �Sa) V Based on the above noted information, the LSRCA has no objection to the above noted Land Division Consent application, subject to the following conditions: That the proposed transposed property is to fall under Site Plan Control at the development stage. 2. That the site plan control agreement will include the following: • A detailed site plan which shows the Iocation of the proposed development footprint, access routes and any accessory buildings. Their proximity to the natural heritage feature (watercourse) is to be illustrated and shown to scale; • A sediment and erosion control plan; • A site grading plan. 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, �.WL Ian Walker Environmental Planner I W /ph C. Ian Johnstone, Owner, 274 Line 9 South, Hawkestone, ON, LOL ITO - By Mail W (IAnd Div4siotl )iCro-Mc(ioi11C \2009QO08 -li -22 (Consew - Johnsicive) L -S Litic 9 South - 2, Wpd TOTAL P.002 Township o{On+Mcdonuc - Committee of Adjustment January 29, 2009 2O00-A-44- Robert and Renee Brennan 763 Line 9 South, Part 1 Part of Block X Concession 9 (Former Township The applicant has submitted anahance application as a result of their dwelling being situated within the n*Qu|ahsd Environmental Protection (EP) Zone as well aa within the required distance 10 evvskeroourse. The applicant is also requesting a variance for adetached deck next totheir dwelling which is within the required setbacks to a watercourse and the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. The applicant is seeking the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: 1. Section G.28 —Setbacks from Limits mf Environmental Protection Zone Dwelling: Required Proposed 18.6 metres Ommtre 30 metres 0 metres 2. Section 5.33 —Setbacks from Water Courses Required Proposed 30 metres 19.35 metres 30 metres 16.04 metres 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation —Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 — Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone, Environmental Protection (EP) Zone Previous Applications: - A'27/99: Application for Setback from Environmental Protection Zone for Single Family Dwelling - 2008-A-44: Deferred 3. DEPARTMENVAGENCY COMMENTS PubUnYVorkaDepadmenk — Noconoeme Bui|dingDapurUnerd — Propoaa|appearotnmuetminimumsbandarda Engineering Department —Nncomment LSRCA— No Objection 4. BACKGROUND The subject property which is located on the east side of Line 9.k> the south of Lakeshore Road Eaa, currently contains osingka family dwelling and adetamhmd deck. The subject property contains approximately 78 metres of frontage on Line S. and an area of approximately 0.42 hectares (1.04 acres). The single family dwelling and detached deck does not meet with the required setbacks to the Environmental Protection Zone and setbacks Luawatercourse. The dwelling and deck are both within the Environmental Protection Zone. The dwelling iasetback approximately 1S metres from the watercourse, and the deck in setback approximately 16 metres from the watercourse. The minimum required setback \u both the Environmental Protection Zone and a watercourse ia30metres. :502- At the time of construction of the house, the applicant applied for a minor variance for the dwelling for reduction of the 30 metro setback 1othe Environmental Protection Zone to 18.6 metres and was approved. The applicant previously applied for relief for the setback to the watercourse and the Environmental Protection Zone. The Committee deferred the application until a survey ofthe property was completed. The applicant has removed his previous application for oeunroom.and io now seeking relief for the dwelling and detached deck. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline by the (}Uioim| Plan. The objectives of the designated Shoreline area are to maintain the existing character of the predominately residential arna, and to protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. Section C5.2 of the Plan states that ''permitted uses on lands designated Shoreline ... are single detached dwellings [and accessory structures to such]..." Therefore e single detached dwelling with a detached deck would represent o permitted use. On this baaio, the proposal is considered 1uconform to the intent ofthe Official Plan. Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning Bv`/am/7 The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. Permitted uses in the SR Zone include single detached dwellings and 000euuo/y okuoturea, including a detached deck. The dwelling and deck does not detract from the overall character ofthe lot and surrounding natural features being the watercourse which runs around the north and east side of the property and the mature trees located around the property. One of the purposes of regulating structures being built within the Environmental Protection Zone and the 30 metres setback from a water course is to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system, to ensure that development does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to flooding and to ensure that development does not occur on hazardous slopes. The application has been circulated to the Lake Simooe Region Conservation Authority and stated they have no objections to the minor variance application. As such, the proposed dwelling meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? Based on the site inspoo\ion, it was noted that adjacent properties that are along the watercourse have dwellings and decks that are within the 30 metre setback of the watercourse as well as the Environmental Protection Zone. The single family dwelling and detached deck does not appear to adversely affect the watercourse in any way. &s the variance minor? On the basis that the proposal conforms to the Official P|en, maintains the general intent ofthe Zoning By-law, and is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the lot, the variance ia considered {obeminor. 5. CONCLUSION This app|icotkm, being to reduce the setback limits tothe Environmental Protection Zone and a watercourse for the single family dwelling and deck generally satisfies the tests of a variance. �N It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance 2008-A~44 based on the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permit for the detached deck ba obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes fklo| and bindhlg, as provided for within the 2. That the setbacks of the dwelling and deck be in conformity with the okekdleo submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; 3. That the applicants obtain the necessary permits from the Lake 6imooe Region Conservation Authority, if required All of which is respectfully submitted,,, Planner 3 Reviewed by, Glenn White, MC|P, RPP Manager, Planning Services ON P.O. BOX 100, ORO, ONTARIO, LOL 2X0 (705) 487-2171 NOTICE OF DECISION Application No. A-27199 IN THE MATTER OF Section 45 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-Medonte; and IN THE MATTER OF Comprehensive Zoning By-law 97-95, as it applies to the particular application; and IN THE MATTER OF Application A-27/99 submitted Robert and Renee Brennan, owner of Part Block X, Concession 9, Plan 902 (former Township of Oro); and WHEREAS Relief is requested from Section 5.29 for the minimum setback requirement of 30 metres (98.4 feet) from an Environmental Protection (EP) Zone to 18.6 metres (61 feet) to permit the construction of a new residential dwelling. WHEREAS the subject property is designated "Shoreline" in the Official Plan, and Zoned "Shoreline Residential (SR) and Environmental Protection (EP)" 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 200196, as amended, and having considered all relevant information as presented at the public hearing on the 15' day of July 1999. v_ VON,- PAGE #2 APPLICATION A-27/99 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION Moved by, Ken Robbins seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby GRANT Minor Variance Application A-27/99 as revised to a 21 metre (70 feet) setback and subject to the following conditions: 1. That a sketch of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Township once the construction reached grade level; 2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted; 3. That the Simcoe County District Health Unit approve of the application, in writing; 4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte. .....Carried." Note: The County of Simcoe has a by-law that includes setbacks for structures and buildings from County Roads. Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 County Road 27 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. co PAGE #3 APPLICATION A-27/99 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 4th DAY OF AUGUST 1999. 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: r1471T.04119111 in DATED this 15' day of Julyl 999. Alan Martin Andria Leigh, Hons. B.A., MCIP,RPP Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment of F-� �L Submission No. 3OO8-A-44— Robert and Renee Brennan 7G3 Line S South, Part 1. Block X. Concession Q (Formerly Township ofOro) |N THE MATTER OFthe Planning Act, 1990.as amended, Section 45(1)(2)(8)(9) and (10).and |N THE MATTER OFsn application to the Committee of Adjustment submitted with respect to 2OD8-A,44— Robert and Renee Brennan, 783 Line 0 South, Part 1. Block X. Concession Q. Concession 9 (Formerly Township of Oro) now in the Township of Oro-Medonte. The Committee, in making the decision upon this application have considered whether or not the variance requested was minor and desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained, or in the case of a change in a use of property which is lawfully non-conforming under the By-law as to whether or not this application has met the requirements of Section 45 (2) of the Planning Act. The following is the Decision of the Committee: It is recommended that the Committee defers Variance 2008-A44. Carried ' tz/(- Lynda Aiken Bruce Chappell Rick Webster Garry Pottdr Michelle Lynch, Chair i\ Steven'tarquharson _---sbcretary Treasurer Dated this 16 th day of October, 2008. NOTICE hSHEREBY GIVEN THAT THE LAST DATE FOR APPEALING THE ABOVE DECISION AND/OR CONDITIONS TOTHE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD I8 NOVEMBER 5,2008. 2008-A-44 ( 2008 -A -44 (Brennan) 2008 -A -44 (Brennan) O 2008 -A -44 (Brennan) 2008 -A -44 (Brennan) ui N 2008 -A -44 (Brennan) Ui 2008 -A -44 (Brennan) U 2008 -A -44 (Brennan) V ci\ .2 P MEMBER Dearden and Stanton Limited Ontario Land Surveyors/Consulting Engineers Canada Lands Surveyors ORILLIA, ONTARIO — 89 Coldwater Street East, L3V I W8 (705) 325 -9521, Fax (705) 325-0241 &Mall d.sAencode.com Visit our Website at www.deardenandstanton.com November 4, 2008 File No. 24376 Mr. Robert Brennan 763 Line 9 South, R.R. #2 Hawkestone, Ontario LOL 1TO Re: Plan of Survey of Part of Block X, Registered Plan 902, Township of Oro, now in the Township of Oro - Medonte Dear Mr. Brennan: 9 Consulting Engineers of Ontario As requested we have attended the site and prepared a survey showing the lands contained in PIN 58560- 0142(LT). The ties from the deck are to the centerline of the creek where the extent of ownership is. Note that the creek is 3.3 metres wide. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. JE:dm Encls. J. Chester Stanton, B.Sc., O.L.S., C.L.S., O.L I.P. J. J. Marshall, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Designated Consulting Engineer No. 2851 Yours truly, Jim Even, B.Sc., O.L.S., O.L.I.P. Notes and Records of Cavan and Watson O.L.S., 1877.1949 E.L. Cavan, O.L.S., 19W1961 C.P 0, Dale. 01,S 0* Dale and Pounc Lrd. OCT -02 -2008 17:14 TOWNSHIP OF ORO— MEiONTE 10/02/2008 THU 16:13 FAX TCL 905 -895 -1281 1- 800 -465 -0437 Pax: 905- 853.5881 E -Mail: inf4Kd*Isrca.on.ea Web: w'.VW,h rca.on.ca 120 Bayview Parkway Box 282 Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1 Sent by Facsimile 1- 705- 487 -0133 October 2, 2008 Mr. Steven Farquharson Secretary- Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 South, P.O. Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2X0 Dear Mr. Farquharson: P.001 /002 . .001/002 File No.: 2008 -A -44 IMS No.: PV00516C2 Re: Minor Variance Application - Reduce Watercourse & EP Zone Setbacks Robert & Renee Brennan, Owners Part of Lot 25, Concession 10 (Former Township of Oro) 763 Line 9 South, Part 1, Plan 51R -28369 & Part Block X, Plan 902 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, in accordance with the Federal FisheriesAct as per our Level 3 agreement with the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), and in accordance with Ontario Regulation 179/06 made under the Conservation Authorities Act. This application, if approved, would permit the construction of a sunroom (i.e., enclosure of an existing deck) which is located 6 metres from the Environmental Protection (E-P) Zone and 17 metres from the watercourse. Our mapping indicates that the above noted property is entirely within the Approved Regulation Limit of the LSRCA. A tributary of Burls Creek traverses the northern and eastern portion of this property, with associated meanderbelt (erosion allowance) and Regional Storm floodplain (FE = 228.88 - 223.15 masl). A permit may be required for any future development of the regulated portion of the above noted property. Based on our review, and a site visit on September 18, 2008, we provide the following comments: A 1. Based on our mapping, the existing single family dwelling, proposed sunroom and existing deck are located within the regulated portion of this property. A permit under Ontario Regulation 179/06 is required from the LSRCA for the proposed development. Watershed 2 The existing deck and existing residence were constructed prior to May 6, 2006, the date Ontario Regulation 179/06 came into effect. for Ll, fe 3. While the proposed sunroom is within the meanderbelt of the creek, it is no closer to the creek than the existing deck. 4. As per our Level 3 agreement with DFO, the file has been reviewed by our Senior Fisheries Biologist, Mr. Jeff Andersen, under the Federal Fisheries Act. The site plan, as submitted, illustrates that the new structures are situated away from the creek. As there are no works within the creek, and there is no further encroachment of permanent structures towards the creek, under the Fisheries Act, there are no concerns. Page 1 of 2 OCT-02-2008 17:14 T2 KSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE P.002/002 10/02/2008 THU 16:14 FAX 0 i/ -06 14002/002 N October 2, 2008 File No.: 2008-A-44 IMS No.: PV00516C2 Mr. Steven Farquharson Township of Oro-Medonte Page 2 of 2 5. Please be 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. By copy of this letter to the applicant, we request that they submit the above mentioned fee at this time. Based on the above noted information, the LSRCA has no objection to the Minor Variance application, subject to the following conditions: 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 sunroom. That prior to any site alteration, proper erosion and sediment control measures must be in place. 1 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, lan Walker Environmental Planner IW/ph Robert & Renee Brennan, Owners, 763 Line 9 South, R.R.#2, Hawkestone, ON, LOL ITO - Mail Al (Minor Variance - Brenuan) 763 Une 9 South - I wlul TOTAL P.002 Township of ~ Committee [f Adjustment January 29 2009 2008-B-47 and 2008-B-48 - Indian Park Association 143 Huron Woods Dri-v-e,' 'Block B, Plan M-30 (Former Twp. of Oro) The DV[pOSe Of @pp|ic@h0D 2008-B-47 to 2008-B-40 is to permit the C[e8doO of two new [8SideO1i8| |OtS by way 0fseverance. The lands hJbB severed lands are proposed b] have frontages {f8O.5 metres (2G4feet) and 98.8 0[H[eS (324 feet) along HU[OO VVOOdS Drive, and each lot to have @[eGS Of approximately 0.5 heCt8[8S (1.23 acres). The |@Od 1Q be [8t8iD8d is proposed t0 have 8 lot area Of 8pp[OXi0Gt8|y 2.8 hectares /6.S8C[eS\. The retained lands and severed lands are currently vacant. 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official P|8O Designation — ReSid8UhG| Zoning By-law S7-95— Private Recreational Exception 114/PR°114\ 3. AGENCY COMMENTS County OfSi0cOe—NO Comments received Public Works —No Comments received Building Department — Proposal appears tU meet minimum standards Engineering /k EDviFODOleDt8| Services — K4UOiCip8| water available but not serviced - Applicant would be responsible for installing water services for both |[tS from the water main tOthe p[Op8MY - Entrance permit and installation Of Driveway Sand culverts required- cost to applicant 4. BACKGROUND The application appeared before the Committee Of Adjustment OD November 20'20O8. where itwas deferred iD order tOget direction from Council on how to proceed with consent applications submitted by Indian Park Association. Ai the Council meeting OD Wednesday November 2S.20U8,it was resolved by Council that the Committee was to proceed in accordance with their authority for the consideration of boundary adjustment and lot creation applications for the Indian Park Association. The above noted applications are now before the Committee for their consideration. The subject property is located at 148 Huron Woods O[ivO, south Of HO[S8ShOe V8||8y Road and west of Line 0 North. The lands are designated ReSid8OU8| by the (}ffiCi3| P|8D' and zoned Private R8c[e8ti0D8| ExC8pUOO 144 (PR°144) Zone. The lands p[OpOSgd t0 be S8v8[8d are cU[[8DdV v8CGDL with no w8te[cOV[S8G or vv8[|8DdS on the pr0perty. nor are the subject /8DdG within the regulated area Of the NOtt8vv8G8g8 Valley Conservation Authority. The existing lot currently contains approximately 325.5metres (1088 feet) of frontage on HVnDO VVO0dS Drive, Line M North and S8O8C8 Lane, and 8 |[t area Of 3.8 hectares (9.5 GC[e8). The subject property contains undisturbed tree cover and uDd8[b[VSh along the [O8d frontages and towards the rear Uf the properties. Surrounding lands uses are predominantly residential. Does the consent conform with the general intent of the Official Plan? The subject property is designated ReSid8Db8| by the Official Plan. Permitted |8Dd uSBS within the ReSid8Db8| designation include GiDg|8 detached dwellings, home OCCUD8UOD and private [eC[88tiOOa| facilities. It is the intention of the Official Plan that all new development in the Sugarbush node be serviced by municipal communal water systems and private septic systems. The proposed use 0f the severed lands has been indicated by the applicant t0 he [RSid8OUG|. CODO0eDtS received by the Director of Engineering and EOvi[0ODl8DtG| Services have noted that any new water service will be needed to be /DSta/|gd at the OvVOBrG expense. For the purpose of this 8pp|iC8hOO, it is DO19d that the C[eEkiOD Of new |0tS by vv8y Of S8ver8DC8 is p8nDd18d within the Residential deSiQO@d0D. where the tests Ofseverance listed in Section O2.2.1 Of the Official Plan are met. The proposed severed and [8t8iDRd lots would front OD 8 0UDk:ipG| K)@U, VVoU|d not be located within an environmentally sensitive @[5a. and VVOV|d comply with relevant Zoning provisions Ofthe Private RGC[8@do0a| EXceDhOD 114 (PR°114) ZoVe (discussed h8|Ovv). 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 By4aw? The property is cV[[8nUv zoned Private RHCoB8bDD8| Exception 114 (PA°114) Zone. The pK}DOGed |Oi (2008-B-40 will consist of approximately O.5 hectares /1.2 acres), and will have 80.5 metres (264 feet) of frontage OO Huron VVOOdS Drive. The SeCoUU proposed lot i2008-B-48\ vvOU|d consist Of an area of approximately 8.5 hectares /1.28c[88\. and will have 3 frontage Of08.8 metres (324 feet) OD Huron Woods Drive; the required f0DOtGg8 for 8 lot in the PR ZOO8 is 30 Dl8in8S (98 feet), and the B}qUi[8d DliDi[DUDl |[A area is 0.18 h0Ct8[8S /0.4 8c[8S>. The proposed retained |8Dd8 would COD8iGt Of 2.8 hectares (8.9 OC[8S), and maintain 8 combined frontage O[148 metres (479 feet) 0f frontage 0O Huron Woods Drive and SeD8C8 Lane. Therefore, the proposed |0tS and retained |8DdS vvOU|d meet with all [8qUi[808DL8 of lot area and frontage for the Private HeC[e8UUO@| Zone. It is also noted that the SU[rOUDUiDg [8SideUUa| |[tG are zoned Residential One Exception 113 (R1°113) Zone. If the proposed lots were to receive the same zoning, the lots vv0UW exceed the Z0DiOg standards in terms Of lot frontage and lot 8[e8. Staff is{f the opinion that the rezoning with a holding provision be included as a condition of consent for the p[0pO88d lots. This is due to the Private A0c[e@dOO Exception 114 (PR^114) ZOD8. not permitting residential Uses. The [8zOUiDg of the p[Op0S9d lots will allow for the intended [esiU8Dd8| use. The Holding provision for the p[Qp0SOd is requested SO |Vis can identify building envelope to maintain as 0VCh tree vegetation as possible. On the basis of the above, the application would appear to comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. 5. RECOMMENDATION It is [eSO0M8Dd8d that the Committee grant p[OviSiOD8| 8pprDV8| to Consent Application 2008-13-47' to create 8 new reSiU8D1i8| |0t having 8 f[0Ot8g8 QD Huron VVOOdG Drive Of 80.5 0et[8S' GDU 8 |O[ area Of 0.5 hectares. Also Committee grant provisional approval 1O Consent Application 2OO8-E]-48,t0 create 8new residential |rd having 8 frontage OO Huron VVO0dS Drive of 38.8 Dl8t[e8, and 8 |[t area Of 0.5 hectares; subject tO the following conditions for each application: 1. That three C0pi8S 0f8 R8f8[eOC8 Plan of the subject lands prepared by an []nt8[iQ Land Surveyor be submitted t0 the Committee SeCret3p/-lF[8aGV[8[; 2. That the applicant's 8O|iCitO[ prepare and submit 8 copy Of the proposed CODVey8DC8 for the p8[C8| severed, for review bythe WYUDiCipa|ik/; 3. That the applicant pay $2'O0O.00 for each lot created 88C8Sh-iD-/ieUOf8 parkland contribution; 4. That all municipal taxes b8 paid tO the Township {f(][O-MSdOOƒe; 5. That the applicant apply for and obtain 8 [8-ZODiDg. including 8 Hold p[OViGiOD OD the severed land to accurately reflect the proposed residential land use; G. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. 'even Farquharson, B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by, Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Services J �)y From: Leigh, Andria To: Farauharson, Steven Subject: IPA Applications 2008 -13-47 and 48 Date: December -08 -08 1:46:16 PM THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Council Chambers Wednesday, November 26, 2008 TIME: 7:00 p.m. Steve — Below is the motion adopted by Council at their November 26, 2008 meeting in regards to the request for direction from the Committee of Adjustment: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Evans Be it resolved that the Committee of Adjustment be advised to proceed in accordance with their authority for the consideration of boundary adjustment and lot creation applications for the Indian Park Association lands, Applications 2008 -B -47 and 2008 -B -48. Carried." On this basis, please re= schedule the application for the January Committee meeting date for consideration by the Committee and provide them copies of the resolution. Thanks, Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Twmship of Oro- Medonte � Director of Development Services Building Department ) 487 -2171 x 4737 k4iori aleigh garo- medonte , ca 148 Line 7 B, Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL ZXO www.oro- medonte,ca n 2008-13-47 and 2008-13-48 (IPA) 2008-13-47 and 2008-13-48 (IPA) Township of Oro-Medonte~Committee of Adjustment January 29'2009 2008-B-52 — Indian Park Association Part of Block C, Plan M-9 (Formerly Oro) The purpose of application 2008-B-52iSto permit 8 lot addition/boundary adjustment. The subject land is Part of Block C, Plan M-9, having a frontage of approximately 79.7 metres (2G1 feet) 0DHUnJnwoOdS Drive, and 8n area Df approximately O.2S hectares (O.608Cres). The subject lands are proposed |0Ue added tOthe adjacent lands b} the south being 8O HurOnvvOOdsDhv8. NO new building lot iS proposed k}be created 8S8 result Vf the lot addition 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Residential Zoning By-law 97-9 — Private Recreational Exception 114(PR°114) Zone Previous Applications — 3. AGENCY COMMENTS County of Simcoe - No Comments Received Public Works Department -NV Comments Received Building Department — Pn}pVSG| appears t0 meet minimum standards Engineering Department —NOConcerns 4. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing aboundary adjustment to convey approximately U.26hectares (0.64 GCn3a) from the subject property to the neighbouring residential |{d being 80 Hun]DwOOds Drive. The pn}pOS8d retained |[d, being Part Of Block C. Plan M-M, would consist 0f approximately 0.0S hectares (178crgs), and is currently vacant. N0 new building |Ot3 are pvDp0ge0 to be created 8S8 result Ofthe lot addition. 5. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are designated Residential bv the Official Plan U]P\. Section D2ofthe []P contains policies with respect to subdivision Of |8Dd. Specifically, G8CUVD [)2.2.2 - "Boundary Adjustments", provides the following guidance for C}OnS8[d Applications in "a consent may be permitted for the purpose Of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot is created..the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability 0/ the use Of the properties 80gCtH[1" With respect to the uonic8h0n at hand, no new building lots are proposed and do not affect the viability Vf the current use. AS suck. the proposed boundary adjustment is geD8n3Uy in keeping with the intent Of the /8Sid8nU8[ pVUCi9S stated in the [ffCi3/ Plan, and otherwise conforms with the boundary adjustment policies contained in Section O.2.2.2. At the time Uf writing this report no comments have been received from the County oVSimncoe Planning Department. 6. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is zoned Private Recreational Exception 114/PR°114> Zone bvZoning By-|0w 97-95. as amended. This zone permits 8 wide range of passive and active recreational uses and does not require a minimum lot area or frontage. Lands zoned PR°l14 permit a recreation QeDbS which may include swimming pools, tennis COVdS, change facilities, meeting K}0noS. |OVDggS. Or Si0Qi|8r r8Cve8UOD facilities being DOD COnD[nHrci8| in nature, and storage areas for skis and other recreational equipment and 8 maintenance shop and an storage area for equipment used to maintain the lands and facilities in the private park. None of these uses currently exists on the portion of the property that is proposed to be conveyed to 80 Huronwoods Drive. The lot to be enhanced, being 80 Huronwoods Drive, is zoned Residential One Exception 113 (R1*1 13) Zone. The Lands zoned R1*1 13 address the minimum setbacks for structures from the surrounding property lines and public streets. Pending approval of the application, the lot to be enhanced will still maintain the required lot area, use and as well as comply with the minimum setback requirements for a structure in the R1 *113 Zone. The application would comply with the provisions as prescribed by the Zoning By-law. Staff is of the opinion that that rezoning of the conveyed lands is not necessary at this time but however it should be noted that the no residential structures are permitted on the lands with the Private Recreation Exception 114 (PR*1 14) Zone. 7. CONCLUSION The proposed consent application for a boundary adjustment would appear to conform to the policies of the Official Plan, and maintains the use and setback provisions of the Zoning By- law. 8. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B-52 to convey a strip of land having a frontage of approximately 79.7 metres on Huronwoods Drive and an area of approximately 0.26 hectares to the land adjacent being 80 Huronwoods Drive be subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary- Treasurer; 2. That the severed lands be merged in title with 80 Huronwoods Drive and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 3. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. Respectfully submitted, Steven Farquharson, B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by 1-1-/ Glenn White, MCIP RPP Manager, Planning Services 2008 -13-52 (IPA) W 2008 -13-52 (IPA) U1 2008 -13-52 (IPA) 2008 -13-52 (IPA) 2008 -13-52 (IPA) Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment January 29, 2009 2008-B-53 — Indian Park Association Block D, Plan M-8 (Formerly Oro) 1. PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2008-B-53 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The subject land is Part of Block D, Plan M-8, having a frontage of approximately 22.8 metres (75 feet) on Algonquin Trail, a depth of approximately 73 metres (240 feet) and an area of approximately 0. 16 hectares (0.41 acres). The subject lands are proposed to be added to the adjacent lands to the east being 17 Algonquin Trail. No new building lot is proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition. 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Residential Zoning By-law 97-95 — Private Recreational Exception 114 (PR*1 14) Zone Previous Applications — 3. AGENCY COMMENTS County of Simcoe - No Comments Received Public Works Department - No Comments Received Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards Engineering Department — No Concerns 4. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey approximately 0.16 hectares (0.41 acres) from the subject property to the neighbouring residential lot being 17 Algonquin Trail. Due to the proposed retained lot, being Part of Block D, Plan M-8, would consist of approximately 17.4 hectares (43.01 acres), and is currently vacant. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition. 5. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are designated Residential by the Official Plan (OP). Section D2 of the OP contains policies with respect to subdivision of land. Specifically, Section D2.2.2 - "Boundary Adjustments", provides the following guidance for Consent Applications in general: "a consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot is created... the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the properties affected. " With respect to the application at hand, no new building lots are proposed and do not affect the viability of the current use. As such, the proposed boundary adjustment is generally in keeping with the intent of the residential policies stated in the Official Plan, and otherwise conforms with the boundary adjustment policies contained in Section D.2.2.2. At the time of writing this report no comments have been received from the County of Simcoe Planning Department. 6. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is zoned Private Recreational Exception 114 (PR*1 14) Zone by Zoning By-law 97-95 as amended. This zone permits a wide range of passive and active recreational uses and does not require a minimum lot area or frontage. Lands zoned PR*1 14 permit a recreation centre which may include swimming pools, tennis courts, change facilities, meeting rooms, lounges, or similar recreation facilities being non commercial in nature, and storage areas for skis and other recreational equipment and a maintenance shop and an storage area for equipment used to maintain the lands and facilities in the private park. None of these uses currently exists on the portion of the property that is proposed to be conveyed to 17 Algonquin Trail. The lot to be enhanced, being 17 Algonquin Trail, is zoned Residential One Exception 113 (R1 *113) Zone. The Lands zoned R1 *113 address the minimum setbacks for structures from the surrounding property lines and public streets. Pending approval of the application, the lot to be enhanced will still maintain the required lot area, use and as well as comply with the minimum setback requirements for a structure in the R1 *113 Zone. The application would comply with the provisions as prescribed by the Zoning By-law. Staff is of the opinion that the rezoning of the conveyed lands is not necessary at this time however it should be noted that the no residential structures are permitted on the lands with the Private Recreation Exception 114 (PR*1 14) Zone. 7. CONCLUSION The proposed consent application for a boundary adjustment would appear to conform to the policies of the Official Plan, and maintains the use and setback provisions of the Zoning By- law. 8. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent to Application 2008-B-53 to convey a strip of land having a frontage of approximately 22.8 metres on Algonquin Trail and a depth of approximately 73 metres, and an area of 0.16 hectares to the land adjacent being 17 Algonquin Trail subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary- Treasurer; 2. That the severed lands be merged in title with 17 Algonquin Trail and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 3. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. Respectfully submitted, '_-�4n Farquharson, B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by Glenn White, MCIP RPP Manager, Planning Services 2008 -13-53 (IPA) w 2008 -13-53 (IPA) V� L 2008 -13-53 (IPA) 2008 -6 -53 (IPA) .J 6 2008 -13-53 (IPA) u� 1; Township of Oro- Medonte - Committee of Adjustment January 29, 2009 2008 -B -50 - Janice Weiss and Mark Zarnett 135 Eight Mile Point Drive and 2 McLean Crescent (Former Twp. Of Oro) .1.,T,, 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 would have a lot frontage along McLean Crescent of approximately 36.5 metres (119 feet), a lot depth of approximately 69 metres (226 feet) and a lot area of 0.16 hectares (0.40 acres) and currently contains a boathouse. The lands to be retained would have frontage along Eight Mile Point Drive and McLean Crescent of approximately 47.3 metres (155 feet), a lot depth of approximately 69 metres (226 feet), and a lot area of 0.25 hectares (0.62 acres) and currently contain a dwelling and various outbuildings. 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By -law 97 -95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - None 3. AGENCY COMMENTS County of Simcoe - No Comments Received Public Works Department - No Comments received Building Department - Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code. Engineering Department - No Concerns Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority- Comments Forthcoming 4. BACKGROUND The applicant's solicitor has reviewed the supporting documentation and conducted a search of title and provided a report of his findings with the application, of which has been provided to the Committee for their review. The owners purchased the subject lands as two separate parcels. Ms. Weiss purchased the retained land, with frontage along Eight Mile Point Drive, on October 14, 1994. Mr.Zarnett purchased the proposed severed lands at the same time. Mr. Zarnett had then transferred the MacLean Crescent lands to Ms.Weiss on August 25, 1998. It was upon this transaction that the two subject lands had merged. 5. OFFICIAL PLAN Section D2.2.3 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow the Committee to consider applications to correct a situation where two or more lots have merged on title maybe be permitted, provided the Committee of Adjustment is satisfied that the new lot: a) was once separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act; b) the merging of the lots was unintentional and was not merged as a requirement of a previous planning approval; c) is of the same shape and size as the lot which once existed as a separate conveyable lot; d) can be adequately serviced by on -site sewage and water systems; e) fronts on a public road that is maintained year -round by a public authority, f) there are no public interest served by maintaining the property as a single conveyable parcel; g) conforms with Section D2.2.1 of this Plan; and, h) subject to the access policies of the relevant road authority Section D2.2.1 of the Official Plan contains specific tests for the creation of a new lot by Consent. In particular, this section states "...the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the lot to be retained and lot to be severed: o)Frontsonandwil/be directly accessed byu public road that /s maintained ona year-round bas�� Both the proposed severed and retained lands will have frontage on Eight Mile Point Drive and MacLean Cnasoent, which are public roadway's maintained year-round by the Township of Oro-Medonte. b/ Does no/hewa direct access /Vu Provincial Highway or County Road, un&*aa the Province or the County supports the request, This application does not propose to create a new lot fronting on either a County or Provincial road. o) Will not cause a traffic hazard, This application proposes io recreate alot. Significant traffic volume will not be generated byan additional dwelling fronting onto MacLean Crescent. The applicant will be required to apply for and obtain an entrance permit from the Township Public Works Department. d1 Has adequate size and frontage for the proposed use /n accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and /s compatible with adjacent uses; The application proposes to reon*n1e a lot that once existed, which has inadvuditlybemn merged on title. The lands 10 be retained would have a lot area of approximately 0.16 hectares (0.39 acres), a lot frontage along Eight Mile Point Drive and MacLean Crescent of approximately 3S.G mmhoo (119.7 ft), a lot depth of approximately 69metres (226 ft). The severed lands would have a lot area of approximately 0.25 hectares (0.62 acres) and currently contain edvvo||ing and various outbuildings. The minimum required lot area for a residential use in the SR Zone is 0.2 hectares (0.49 acres), and the minimum required |o1 frontage is 30 metres (98.4 feet). It has been noted that the proposed severed lot does not meet the lot area of the SR Zone. This will be addressed in Section 6 of this report in the Zoning By-law compliance. e) Can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal, The applicant will be required at the time of submission of building permit to meet all requirements for septic system installation and private water supply. The Township Zoning By-law has established a minimum lot area of 0.2 hectares for m residential use in the SR Zone to reflect development on private services. The Building Department has comment the applicant is required to verify that the sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 8of the Ontario Building Code. D Will not have o negative impact on the drainage patterns /n the area; Future residential development will be reviewed by the Township Building Depmrtmeni, where the construction of a new single detached dwelling may be subject in the completion cf a lot grading and drainage plan to ensure water runoff has no negative impact on neighbouring properties. g) Will not restrict the development of the retained lands or other parcels of land, particularly as it relates to the provision o/ access, if they are designated for development bv this Plan; The retained |anda, will meet with the minimum required |o1 frontage and area requirements of the Zoning By-law. No development applications are active adjacent to the subject lands, and aa such no negative impacts with respect io access are anticipated esa result of this consent. h) Will not have anegative impact on the features and functions o/ any ecological feature /nthe area; i) Will not have a negative impact on the quality and quantity of groundwater available for other uses in the area; The application has been submitted to the Lake Sim000 Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) for formal comments. The Township has received nro| comments from L8RCA` indicating that they have no objection to the proposed recreation of the subject lands. The have indicated that the property is regulated and that a permit would be required from their office if any development is to occur on either the retained or severed lands Dn this basis, the application is considered tobe appropriate and generally conforms to the Official Plan. The subject property is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. As earlier noted, the proposed severed lands do not meet the miniumin required lot are in the SRZone. A non-complying lot falls under Section 5.17.1 of the Zoning By-law. |t states that: Alot in existence prior to the effective date of this By-law that does not meet the lot area andlor frontage requirements ofthe applicable Zone, may be used and buildings thereon may �erectred, enlarged, repaired or renovated provided the use conforms with the By-law and the buildings or structures comply with all of the other provisions o/ this By'lavx Ao was noted, the applicants solicitors provided ahistory of the property which showed that the two parcels wmre separate in1Sg4. when the applicants purchasing the property. Due io the lots existing prior to the effective date of this By-law, the lot area of the severed lands is recognized as under Section 5.17.1 of the Zoning By-law. It should also be noted that the severed lands contain a boathouse and thus that would be the only structure onthe proposed recreated lot. It should be noted that the boathouse was constructed when the two properties had merged into one. The boathouse is there for permitted, as a non-complying structure but the boathouse provisions of Section 5.6 will still apply. The proposed and retained lots would continue to comply with the provisions of the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. 7. CONCLUSION By reviewing the background history received from the applicants So|iohor, which confirmed that the subject lands located e12 MacLean Crescent was once a separate and conveyable parcel, before the merging with 135 Eight Mile Point Drive. The proposal oppnem to meet the criteria required by Section D2.23 of the Official Plan. 8. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Consent toApplication 2008-8-50 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies ufa Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared byun Ontario Land Surveyor bm submitted 10 the 8eoretary+Tnaoouner; 2. That the applicants' solicitor prepares and submits ucopy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel uevermd, for review by the Municipality. Furthermore, the legal description of the severed |cd be identical 10 that contained in the original deed —and must be so designated on a Reference Plan to be provided by the 3. Applicant to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks as per Pad 8 of the Ontario Building Code; 4. 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 respectfully submitted, SMexsfFanluhamnn.B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by Glenn White MC|P,RPP Manager, Planning Services WE Schedule "A" Type and Purpose of Transaction -(Severance) Janice Weiss and Mark Eric Zarnett (the "Owners") are the owners as joint tenants of a parcel of land located at 135 Eight Mile Point Drive and 2 Maclean Crescent in Oro-Medonte. The land is legally described as Firstly: Part of Lot I on Registered Plan 1151 (the "Maclean Crescent lands") and Secondly: Part of Lot I on Plan 1151 and Part of Lot 59 on Registered Plan 780 (the Eight Mile Point Lands") (collectively, the "Subject Lands"). The Subject Lands have an aggregate area of approximately 4,124 metres. The Owners acquired the Subject Lands as two separate parcels. The Eight Mile Point lands were purchased by Ms. Weiss from Patricia Graham on October 14, 1994 by a Transfer/Deed of Land registered as Instrument No. 01268063. The Maclean Crescent Lands were purchased by Mr. Zarnett at the same time. Mr. Zarnett then transfer-red the Maclean Crescent Lands to Ms. Weiss on August 25, 1998 by Transfer/Deed of Land registered as Instrument No. 01389437 for estate planning purposes. Subsequent to these transactions, title to both properties was transferred to the Owners as joint tenants, again for estate planning purposes. It was upon ownership of both parcels being in Ms. Weiss' name that the merger of title occurred. That merger continued with the transfer to the Owners as joint tenants. The Eight Mile Point Lands has a frontage of 47.336 metres and a depth of 69 metres. The Maclean Crescent Lands has a frontage of 36.546 metres and a depth of 69 metres. If the severance is granted, this property is to be the retained lands (the "Retained Lands"). The Maclean Crescent Lands has a frontage of 36.546 metres and a depth of 69 metres. This property is to be the severed lands (the "Severed Lands"). After the severance, the Retained Lands and the Severed Lands will have the exact same boundaries as the original two parcels had prior to August 25, 1998. in effect, the Owners are seeking a technical severance to restore to two original separate lots a property which has inadvertently merged in title. This application will have the effect of creating the Eight Mile Point Lands and the Maclean Crescent Lands as separate lots. This application should be granted on the basis that it is nothing more than a technical severance to separate two lots which merged in title into their original configurations. The severance being sought is in accordance with the planning principles of the Township of Oro-Medonte as set out in the Official Plan. 27846.000112388128-2 11: ! - - �° �z 2008 -B -50 (Weiss- Zarnett) 2008 -B -50 (Weiss- Zarnett) 06 2008 -B -50 (Weiss- Zarnett) 2008 -B -50 (Weiss- Zarnett) G 2008 -B -50 (Weiss- Zarnett) �r 2008 -B -50 (Weiss- Zarnett) N Township of Oro-Medonte -Com0Mittee of Adjustment January 29'2009 2008-B-51_James and Corine Gray 2815 Line 4 North, Lot 5, Concession 5 (Formerly Oro) The purpose of Consent Application 2008-B-51 iShu permit the creation ofa new residential lot byway of severance. The land to be severed is proposed to have frontage along Line North Of 75 metres (246 h3eU. 8 depth of 133.3 rn8tr8S (437.3 h3eh. and G |{d area of | hectares (2.48creS). The land h}b8 retained iS proposed tO have a lot area Ofapproximately 5G.7 hectares (1408Cm8S)' and currently contains 8 dwelling and detached garage. Official Plan Designation —Rural Zoning By-law S7-95— Agricultural/Rural (\/RU) Zone and Mineral Aggregate Resource Two (K8AR2) ZOne Previous Applications — 3. AGENCY COMMENTS County of Simcoe - No Comments Received Public Works Department -NO Comments Received Building Department — Proposal appears h3 meet minimum standards Engineering Department —NO Comments Received 4. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to create 8new residential lot byway of severance with 8narea of approximately 1 hectares (24 acres) and frontage 8|ODg Line North of 75 metres (246 feet). The retained l8mjS being 2815 Line 4 NOdh, consist Of 8 dwelling and various accessory structures. It is the intention of the applicant to build 8 new dwelling and 8CC98SOry structure on the proposed vacant lot to be created as a result of this application. 5. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject property is designated Rural by the Official Plan (OP). General objectives for lands designated Rural are listed in Section C2.1: *Topreserve and promote the rural character Of the Township and the maintenance 0f the open countryside. °TO prevent the intrusion 0f land uses which are incompatible with the rural character and/or resource activities Vf the area. More specifically, SeCUOD C2.31 of the {]P prVvkjOS specific cht8d8. and in particular two tests, under which severances may b9permitted: C2.3.1 The creation Of new lots for residential purposes In 8CCOnj8nCH with the intent Of this Plan to [DaiDb]iD the rural character Of the Township, only a limited number of new lots for residential purposes can be created in the Township. In this regard, only one new lot can be severed from a lot in the Rural designation that has: 1\@n area Vfat least 38 hectares OriS the whole Of8n original Township lot provided; 2\a lot has not been severed from the parcel after March 28'1g73. While the subject lands would appear to meet the criteria for having 8 /DiDiOQU[n lot size 0f30 hectares. According to Township records the applicant has not had a previous severance after March 2O.1S73. AS suCh, the proposed creation [f8 new residential lot bv way nfseverance is generally in keeping with the intent Of the residential policies stated in the Official Plan. At the time of writing this report OO comments have been received from the County Of5irncOe P|RDOiDg Department. 6. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural (\/RU) Zone and Mineral Aggregate Resource Two /MAR2\Zone by Zoning By-law S7-958s amended. The A/RUand MAR2 Zones permits 8vNU8 range of uSes, which include single detached dwelling, which is the intended use of the 8pp|iC8DL The minimum lot area required for S/Dg|e d8fGCh8d dwelling in theA/RU and N1AR2Z0n8 is 0.4 hectares (0.98 8Cr8S) and the required frontage 0f45 rn8heS /147f8eU. With the pK}p0S8d lot being 1 h8CC8/e (2.47 acres) and having frontage Of 75 nnOtr8S (246 feet), and GS such the app|iC8bOO appears to no08t the provisions with the Zoning By-law. 7. CONCLUSION The proposed consent application for the creation ofanew residential lot would appear to c0OfOnU to the policies of the Official P|8O' and comply with the provisions Of the Zoning Bv' 8. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Approval to Consent Application 20O8-B-51,hD sever 8 lot with 8n area Of1.0 hectare from 2815 Line 4 North, subject b}the following conditions That three copies Of8 Reference Plan for the subject kaDU indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be Submitted to the Secretary- Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit 8copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review bv the Municipality; 3. That all municipal taxes be paid b} the Township 0fC)n]-k48dont8; 4. That the applicant pay $ 2.000.00 for the lot created as C8Sh-iD-}i0U of parkland contribution; '- 5. That the maximum h}b8| lot area for the new lot be DV greater than 1 hectares; 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. Respectfully F8nquh8rsOn'B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by Glenn White, K4C|PRPP Manager, Planning Services 2008 -B -51 (Gray) U� 2008 -B -51 (Gray) U� L 2008 -B -51 (Gray) Ui 2008 -B -51 (Gray) �I 2008 -B -51 (Gray) 1� cl� 2008 -B -51 (Gray) ckCG Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment January 29, 2009 2009-B-01, 2009-13-02 and 2009-13-03 — Weatherwise Aviation Inc. Part of Lot 19, Concession 7, being Part 2,3,4, and 5 of Plan 51 R-31319 (Formerly Oro) 1. PROPOSAL The purpose of consent applications 2009-B-01, 2009-B-02 and 2009-B-03 is for a technical severance to recreate lots, which once existed as separate parcels of land. The lands proposed to be severed have frontages of 57.2 metres, a lot depth of approximately 72 metres, and a lot area of approximately 0.4 hectares. The lots currently contain buildings used as airport Hangers'. 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation —Airport Zoning By-law 97-95 — Airport Exception 143 (AP* 143) Zone Previous Applications — 2003 -B -15 3. AGENCY COMMENTS County of Simcoe - No Comments Received Public Works Department - No Comments Received Building Department — Proposal appears to meet minimum standards Engineering Department — No Concerns 4. BACKGROUND The applicant's solicitor has provided a transfer/deed showing that Parts 2 and 5 have merged in title with Parts 3 and 4 owned by Weatherwise Aviation Inc (formerly known as UKCAN Investments Inc.). The applicants are wishing to be able to deal with each of the lots separately. Part 2 is currently being used as a JetPort Hanger, Part 3 and 4 are to remain as one lot due to there being a corporate/commercial hanger covering both lots. Part 5 is vacant with the applicant not proposing any buildings at this time. In 2003, Weatherwise Aviation submitted an application to merge Lot 3, which they owned with Lot 4, which was owned by the Township. The applicant was approved and is why there is an Aeroplane hanger that covers both Lots 3 and 4. 5. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject property is designated "Airport" by the Official Plan (OP). General objectives for lands designated "Airport" are listed in Section C10: • To recopni��-e the location of Me Lake Simcoe ReSi'onal Airporl and the role it plays in Me regional nal econo)�Yy I gio This designation has permitted uses that are associated with the airport operations including airport facilities and accessory uses, airport-related manufacturing, assembly, maintenance, processing, fabrication, storage and/or warehousing uses, research establishments, business offices, portable asphalt plants and wholesaling establishments. Section D2.2.3 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow the Committee to consider applications to correct a situation where two or more lots have merged on title may be permitted, provided the Committee of Adjustment is satisfied that the new lot: a) was once separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act; b) the merging of the lots was unintentional and was not merged as a requirement of a previous planning approval; c) is of the same shape and size as the lot which once existed as a separate conveyable lot, d) can be adequately serviced by on-site sewage and water systems; e) fronts on a public road that is maintained year-round by a public authority, f) there are no public interest served by maintaining the property as a single conveyable parcel; g) conforms with Section D2.2.1 of this Plan; and, h) subject to the access policies of the relevant road authority It should be noted that the applicants have indicated through the transfer/deed of land submitted with their applications that there is an easement over Parts 6 & 7 for each of the proposed lots. This easement provides the lots access to a municipal road. 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 zoned Airport Exception 143 (AP*143) by Zoning By-law 97-95 as amended. The AP*143 only permits commercial air services, flight training services, charter flight services, airfreight services and associates storage and aeroplane hangars. The minimum lot area required for these lots in the AP*143 is 0.4 hectares (0.98 acres) and the required frontage of 50 metres (164 feet). With each of the proposed lots being 0.4 hectare (0.98 acres) and having frontage of 57.2 metres (187.6 feet), the lots meet the provisions with the Zoning By-law. 7. CONCLUSION The proposed consent applications for the creation of airport lots would appear to conform to the policies of the Official Plan, and comply with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. 8. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Provisional Approval to Consent Applications 2009-B-01, 2009-B-02 and 2009-B-03 to recreate Parts 2, Part 3 and 4 and Part 5 of Plan 51 R-31319, each having an area of 0.4 hectare, subject to the following conditions That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary- Treasurer; 2. That the 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 —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. Respectfully submitted, __SteVbn Farquharson, B.URPL Intermediate Planner Reviewed by 41 Glenn White, MCIP RPP Manager of Planning Services 2009-13-01 (Weatherwise Aviation Inc' 2009-13-02 ' Aviation VI\ 2009 -13-01 to 2009 -13-03 (Weatherwise Aviation Inc) 2009 -6 -01 to 2009 -13-03 (Weatherwise Aviation Inc) (7� 2009 -B -01 to 2009 -13-03 (Weatherwise Aviation Inc) rp Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment January 29, 2009 2008-A-50 — Stephen Crawford and Nora Hoyer 63 Stanley Avenue, Lot 30 and 112, Plan 626 (Former Township of Oro) l.PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing to construct a 10.13 M2 addition to their dwellings rear deck which would be located within the required rear yard setback. The applicants are requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone: Required Proposed Minimum Required Rear Yard: 6.28 metres 5.91 metres 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 — Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications — A-8192 3. DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department- Building Department- Decks appear to be okay Engineering Department — No Concerns 4. BACKGROUND The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 15.24 metres (50 feet) on Stanley Avenue, a lot depth of 67.06 metres (220 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.10 hectares (0.25 acres). The subject property currently contains a single detached dwelling. The applicants are proposing an addition on their rear deck which would be in the required rear yard. As such, the applicants are requesting relief from the required rear yard to be 5.91 metres. A previous variance application (A-8192) was applied for and granted which allows for the rear deck to be built up to 6.28 metres from the rear property 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 rear deck addition would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline residential area, as decks 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 primary purpose of the rear yard setback is to provide adequate spacing between structures on abutting properties and to ensure that there is ample room for amenities such as recreational and sanitary systems. Upon a site inspection it was revealed that the existing dwelling is situated further back on the property, which allows for a large front yard which meets the amenities for recreational and sanitary systems. In addition, the Promenade and Lake Simcoe abuts the property to the south. Further, the addition to the deck is away from the neighbours to the west and there is a tree line between these two lots so the issue of privacy has been addressed. The proposed expansion of the deck otherwise meets with all other Zoning By-law provisions (such as maximum height and interior side yard setbacks). On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered to comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed addition of a new deck would not appear to adversely affect the distance to the rear lot line, and the proposed variance is considered to be desirable for the development of the lot. Is the variance minor? As this application should not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor. It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2008-A-50 subject to the following conditions: That the size and setbacks of the proposed deck addition be in conformity with the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by by verifying in writing that the attached deck be located no closer than 5.91 metres from the rear lot line; 3. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.; Respectfully submitted, Ryan Vandenburg, B.URPI Planner Reviewed by, Ut_ Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Services 2008-A-50 (Crawford/Hoyer) 2008-A-50 (Crawford/Hoyer) JV 47 u f, F, ? umt AI 2008-A-50 (Crawford/Hoyer) L 0 T N. 772140 v. 1,AKF-. SHORE PROMEWDE ,:� fix_ �:t'��`''� i,�;, t ,� t ' _�...'� - ,�� !° �f �;;� „� � v. ' , �_ -� �: �'� �° � � a � i � t�`t t`�br:.i.� 1....� vl"-"60 / /o('. `)(r. 1616-'k " cy"i W717- pol, Aj, bVIZO l3tiliv, --- . . . ........... . . ... .... ... 2008 -A -50 (Crawford /Royer) Ui 2008 -A -50 (Crawford /Royer) Cd 2008 -A -50 (Crawford /Royer) 2008 -A -50 (Crawford /Royer) N 2008 -A -50 (Crawford /Royer) Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment January 29, 2009 2008-A-51 — Mike Gannon 6 Catherine Street, West Part of Lot 1, Concession 13, Part 1 (Former Township of Medonte) Report will be forwarded to the Committee after discussions with the Applicant regarding a possible amendment to the application. 2008-A-51 (Gannon) '' se", 9 ) UL � s s s � . . ; } � � � � � . ���� � \ � ' � . . _� � {. � � � � : � � : § ƒ >. : . : . . . . .. . � .. . . ..... .. . 2. . ) . .... ..... . � , . � r <� ..9l� � 2 � \� \� y. Z ? . . /�� � .... ... � � _� ... . � \.. � \ � � � \. . � � � � . . { :. }. �� : ���. � � � . � . . . . \. ....... . � «� � «� x Zz .©� .2 7 � � ®�l.. .. � � � � 2008 -A -51 (Gannon) 2008 -A -51 (Gannon) CV, 2'008 -A -51 (Gannon) Ci�i U� 0 2008 -A -51 (Gannon) 2008 -A -51 (Gannon) N 2008 -A -51 (Gannon) w Township of Ono-Medonte - CommNtee of Adjustment January 29, 2009 2008-A-52 — Mark Stephenson & Laurie Wilson 18Slalom The mooic8rt is proposing t0 construct 8D attached garage which vvOU|d connect k}the SiDQ|8 family dwelling \i8 8 p[ODOS8d breezeway onto the front {f the existing dwelling. The applicant is R}qUgshDg the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone: Required Proposed Minimum Required Interior Side Yard Setback 4.5 metres 3.5 metres 2. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation — Rural Residential Zoning By-law 97-S5 —Rural Residential Two (plL]R2) Zone PrgvioUGApp|iCakiOns — Public Works Department- Building D8p@rt08nt-PK}p0S8|@ppe8[Sk)088t0iDi0VOOSt8DdaKJS Engineering Department — The subject property has 8road frontage Ufapproximately 27.07 metres (S0.77 feet) and 8 lot area Df approximately 0.21 hectares (0.51 8C[8s). The property currently has 8 single family dwelling 0Dthe |0t. The Township Zoning By-law [HqUi[eS 8 4.5 metre interior side yard setback in the Rural R9Sid8Dh8| Two /RUR2\ ZOD8 for 8 Uvve|[/Dg. The p[OpOS8d single family dwelling addition is p[OpOS8d to be a diSt8D0B of 3.5 Dl8|[8S from the interior side yard lot line. Does the variance conform to the qeneral intent of the Official Plait? The property iSdesignated Rural ReSWeUd8| by the Official Plan. Section C4.2 which contains the RU[8| Fl8SideOti8| policies in the Township's Official Plan states that "permitted uses OO lands designated Rural Residential on the schedules to this plan are limited &]single detached dwellings, etc." The requested variance for the p[OpOS8d aUddUOD vvOU|d 0OOfOrD to the permitted VGBs in the Flur8| [l8sid8O1i@| designation. Therefore, the v8haDC8 would conform to the gBn8[8| intent Of the DO|iCi8S contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject lot is currently zoned Rural Residential Two (RUR0 Zone. The Rural Residential Two Zone permits single detached dwellings and accessory buildings, such as garages and storage SU8dS. The purpose Of the interior side yard setbacks isk} provide access t0 the rear yard {fthe property, and fO provide for 8 degree Of separation between neighboring dwellings. The site inspection revealed that the proposed addition should not adversely impact access to the rear Ofthe property, as the north interior side lot line is located approximately 5.4 0e1[eS (17.8 feet) bOVODd the south vV8|| of the Uvv8||iDg. Aside from the 8DC[OGChOO8Ot into the south interior side V8[d' the proposed addition will otherwise meet with the required setbacks for the north interior side yard, as well 8S the front and rear yard setbacks. Therefore the proposed addition meets the gSDe[@| intent {f the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based OD the site inspection, the proposed SiDgk3 f8[nik/ dwelling addition vvOUkj 8pDe8[ 1O be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot. The p[8dON0iD8Ue|y fDK)SteK1 lot will provide the abutting dvv8UiDgG with adequate buffering from the pK}DO8ed addition, as well as @ buffer to S|O|ODl 1s the variance minor? On the basis that the addition to the dwelling would not adversely affect the character Ofthe residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor. |tk5 recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance 2O08-A-49. being k} grant Qreduction for the SOU1h interior side yard setback from the [8QUi[Od 4.5 rD8ineO to 3.5 [D8tPeS. for the COnStrV{tiOO of an addition to the existing dwelling, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the setbacks beiD conformity with the dimensions 8s set out ODthe application and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee; 2. That the appropriate ZOOiDg certificate and building permit be OUt8i08d from the Township's Chief Building (lfUCi8| only after the Committee's d8CiSk}D b8C0nleS final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, C.P. 13. 3. That an OOi8d0 Land SUn/eyO[ provide verification to the Township Of CO0p|i8DCe with the Committee's decision hv verifying iD writing that the proposed addition does not exceed 3.5metres to the south interior side |[t line. Reviewed by, Glenn White NlC|P, RPP M8D8g8[` Planning Services 2008 -A -52 (Stephenson /Wilson) 2008 -A -52 (Stephenson /Wilson) 2008 -A -52 (Stephenson /Wilson) 0 ILI 2008 -A -52 (Stephenson /Wilson) �1 2008 -A -52 (Stephenson /Wilson) 2008 -A -52 (Stephenson /Wilson) Ui 2008 -A -52 (Stephenson /Wilson) 2008 -A -52 (Stephenson /Wilson) O Voice: (705) 686 -7208 4 John Street 1- 800-404 -7208 P.O. Box 113 Fax: (705) 686 -7200 Coldwater, Ontario Barrie: (705) 722 -6222 LOK 1 EO W www.survey4u.com E-mail: ail gewQsurvey4u.com GRLBRRITH EPLETT WOROREC SURVEYORS A division of Eplett & Worobec Surveying Ltd. Ontario Land Surveyors _ December 1, 2008 Chief Building Official Township of Oro - Medonte P.O. Box 100 Oro Station, ON LOL 2X0 s Mark Stephenson Lot 26, Registered Plan 1650 Township of Oro - Medonte (Geographic Township Medonte) County of Simcoe Based upon research and fieldwork conducted November 20, 2008, I hereby certify that the Set Backs to the westerly boundary from the proposed garage are as follows: The North End of The Garage 4.31 metres. The South End of The Garage 3.51 metres. The Garage at its closest to Slalom Drive is 11.95 metres Galbraith, Eplett, Worobec Surveyors. b)A�� ' - F. Dale Eplett Ontario Land Surveyor Survey Records:[ Survey Records: J.N.E. Bradbury O.L.S. D.H. Galbraith O.L.S. D.J.Howe O.L.S. �,j�� P.R. Kitchen O.L.S.. C.L.S. W.D. Smith O.LS. S M Vnllick n I S Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment January 29, 2009 2009-A-01 - Marion Garnett 3 Beach Road, Lot 16, Plan 949 (Former Township of Orillia) xg� The applicant is proposing to construct a 167.97 sq. m. (1808 sq. ft) single storey family dwelling with an attached garage and rear deck. The property is zoned Shoreline Residential Exception 103 (SR*103) Zone. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Section 5.31 and 5.7 of Zoning By-law 97-95: Decks: Minimum Setback to Average High Water Mark of Bass Lake: 0 iv, t In, I Required Proposed 15 metres 14.15 metres 15 metres 14.15 metres Official Plan Designation —Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 — Shoreline Residential Exception 103 (SR*1 03) Zone Previous Approval- 2008-A-42 3. DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works Department- Building Department- Proposal Appears to Meet Minimum Standards Engineering Department — No Concerns NVCA- 4. BACKGROUND The subject property has a street frontage of approximately 46.6 metres (153 feet) along Beach Road and a lot area of approximately 0.13 hectares (0.32 acres). The property is currently vacant. The applicants are proposing to construct a 167.97 sq. m. (1808 sq. ft) single storey family dwelling with an attached garage and rear deck. The rear deck of the dwelling is proposed to be located 14.15 metres from the average high water mark of Bass Lake, where the required setback is 15 metres. As a result, a variance is required in order to build. 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 variances 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 Exception 103 (SR*103) Zone. The primary purpose of the setback requirement from Bass Lake is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area in general, and the immediate shoreline of the subject property. In assessing the issue of compliance with the Zoning By-law, the proposed dwelling should not detract from the overall character of the lot and ~�~ ' surrounding natural features being the watercourse which runs along the rear of property. Further. all Other zoning requirements will be o)ed if the application is granted, ExC9DUOn 103 states that "the construction O/8 dwelling unit ona lot that /svacant ../s permitted On the lands denoted bv symbol /&2" Therefore the proposed dwelling and deck meets the general intent Of the Zoning Bv-law. Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site iDSp8ChOD. the pr0pOS8U dwelling and deck will not change the overall character O/the 8/e@. and vv0U|d appear h3 be appropriate for the desirable development for both the lot and the surrounding residential neighbourhood. hg the variance minor? AS this application is deemed to Q}nh3nn to the Official Plan, maintains the intent Ofthe Zoning By-law and constitutes appropriate development, the variance is considered to be minor. It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2009-A-01 subject h3 the following That the size and GHtb8CkS of the proposed dwelling and deck be in QOnfUnDhv with the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification k) the Township 0f compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation so that: 8. The dwelling including the attached deck be located no closer than 14.15 metres from the average high water mark of Bass Lake; 8. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit Ueobtained from the Township Onk/after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R. '(J. 1990. 4. That the applicant meet all requirements set out tO them by the Nottawasaga Valley ConGenu]hOD Authority, if applicable Planner Reviewed by, Glenn White, MC|P'RPP Planning Services 2009-A-01 4� . 0i., 116- 1 sit • y FENCE ENDS ig(ox5) 10 8' WEST , (WK) + a 1�0 k 1, Al Al 1 P `1 SLE DRAINAGE RELEASED 701 DS , ERSED OVERLAND, FLOW 1 — WATER'S EDGE JANUARY 8, VQ + I , WATER SURFACE ELEVATION 251.6 EXISTING t 3 o ` ONE STOREYS 11 1 ALUMINIUM CLADS DWELLING ° ( EP'RC SYSTEM EXISTING Mun. No 3 xry �4 TO BE,DESIGNED BA =TAL SHED t, (REMOVE }4 t` AND INSPECTED + t ' REMCiVE BY OTHERS 1 WATER SUR 1 .� j t , 1y1iri• + ON J f S� 54.20 S tK �. p (wrr) 40 7 ,- --j t 'y.° v,$J• t ' ' 1 \ y,�N fi wes a2'aa 1.1144(P dcSET) 011 Q7 i lip 1 2 0 o1STI(IMA' EXISTING YDRd 1 SERVICE 1.06 SQUARE ( W ' U x H l TOP) W. DA LE 34CImmo vCaNC. DUG WELL. C1 o OfH Of BIRCH x2 OECOMMISSiON AS PER 0 O MOE STANDARDS Q %, -A �..�`JSa- 11 - ""' yr i i �.._ -- 1 %li D1RCH X2 �t 2514.29 i' ��(T �" 2 . Y ++ 1 i C) u y p 1 r ?.55.` 71 `� C , n \ _ WATER'S FD GARAGES °i 'A'ROp�" WATER SURFACE 110 GF _ 24.7 t .�"�. atRv r TFW 255.2Tti 400mrtm Clylt� rn, �gtouse) ,�,�• to .USE_ VARIE MaatL \ N 15 deck} t F P�V1D M(N�ip I M V' 6aam r0` LOT 14' b Its c 1.22m�0VER ,naRtE I �v It ABOVE FOOTING. 5 r� p , 1 q l i - d31�mmb 7� 6C mmm ' 25 .78 1 - E ' a1 LE ExisT LGIQ '_wC` ` all X14.8 (deck) 1, SH 500"o ! (i (REMOVE %d w i j1.22 o f +1 N r� 1 X } S.RCv1 , �wv� , Ly5 t'd ___A 300m, 3t}amm0 f t0 {} -gym �'j` 1 g d 0A B RCx a APCE //' a�0 DEGRADE FOR p� 15.8 {too ck� ', Q PROPOSED DWELLING BASEMENT de c\,) �cJcm m w/ BASEMENT WALKOUT U) WALK OUT + BIRCH ` 2 ASIINECESSARY or FP 67.97m PROPOSED FFA 104.9m' .5� , 14.59(�eck} DRILLED WELL co FFE 1 255.57 TFW 255.27 fn ! 1 L i BF 252.93 Q I Use, z USF :252.68 �x o tC? / , X7.21 t1` decl r ;I y USF {W f 0 }, 251.56 SWALE DRAIN ALL BUILDIN OPENINGS? RELEASED TO LL, Y } =DJ n m WINDO�S T4 BE .r i / `l OVERLAND FL( MAPLE d ABOVE 252.5 m FLOOD p z U7 PROTECTION LEVATION i �`♦ v, 7' ` N 9.45 0� s 7;55 tit -4- ,I ! om�L � G 4 N cs r3 4aamm� S SWALE 0 .1 0 zT 30 a° 254.30 scams 500m�o s �7y �. M -A?! C % BIRCH oo z 6" 100"0 W 255.00 ® � _la; t > OAK ISO l �� �r, ,-� 254.38 t 2009 -A -01 (Garnett) V'I 2009 -A -01 (Garnett) lVi -l� 2009 -A -01 (Garnett) UI 2009 -A -01 (Garnett) U1 2009 -A -01 (Garnett) Ui O Township of Oro-Medonte - Committee of Adjustment January 29, 2009 2009-A-02 — Margaret Kavanagh 20 Parkview Avenue, Lot 26 & 27, Concession 5, Plan 709 (Former Township of Oro) The applicant is proposing to construct a two storey single detached dwelling which would have a main floor living area of 219.62 M2 (2,364 ft2 ) and a second floor area of 60.67 M2 (653 ft2) . The property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Section 4 Table B1 of Zoning By-law 97-95: Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone: Minimum Required Front Yard: Required Proposed 7.5 metres 4.5 metres Official Plan Designation — Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 — Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications — 3. DEPARTIVIENVAGENCY COMMENTS Public Works — Building Department — Proposal Appears to Meet Minimum Standards Engineering Department- No Concerns PM The subject property has a lot frontage on Parkview Avenue of 30.48 metres (100 feet), and a lot depth of 39.69 metres (130 feet), and a lot area of 0.12 hectares (0.30 acres). The lot is presently occupied by an existing one storey cottage, which was constructed in 1930. The current non- complying structure is set back 5.42 metres from the front yard lot line. The Township Zoning By-law requires a 7.5 metres (247 feet) front yard setback in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone for a dwelling. The proposed single family dwelling is to be a distance of 4.5 metres (14'9 feet), from the front lot line. Does the variance maintain 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 maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject lot is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). The mature trees and bushes located in the front, side and rear of the lot will provide a form of privacy for the abutting properties and road frontage. One Of the purposes of nl@Ut8niDg @ 0iOinnurn hVDt yard setback in the Shoreline Residential Zone is to rnaiOt8D and protect the residential character of a shoreline residential Com[OUnib/. and t0 ensure adequate area exists between the road and structures for OnS/teparking. The location of the dwelling and attached garage would allow for adequate area h]rODGite parking On the proposed driveway. Regarding privacy, the current C0M8Q0 and the neighbouring dwelling to the north and south are setback approximately the S8Ul8 distance from the front y8nj |0t line as the 4.5 metres the applicant is proposing, and as such the proposed dwelling vvou|U not likely create 8 visual hindrance or otherwise impact on privacy any more than the dwellings that currently exist on either side of the lot. If the lot (20 Parkview Drive) had been vacant, 8 variance would not be necessary. The Zoning By-law provides that @ vacant lot between two developed lots can have a front yard that is the average of the existing reduced front yards Ofthe abutting developed lots. Further, given the size Ofthe lot and their pn}pOSeU Uvv8||ing, the new dwelling would be appropriate closer to the front lot |iD8 in order for the septic system to be placed in the rear Ofthe |OL Based on the above, the variances would conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? The location {f the proposed dwelling appears k}b8 appropriate, 8S the structure kst0bR located 8t8 distance from the f[OD1 |O{ line similar to the dwellings adjacent to the property. Further, there is substantial foliage U 8��8[O��dth8f[OO[.Gid�'8Od[88[�8[d|O�|iD9G�h81v�p[OvidB@'SigDifiC8ntbUMertO neighboring properties. On the basis of the above, thep reduction of the required front yard setback iG deemed k}[e Is the variance minor? As this application is d8Urn0d to COnfOnn to the Official Plan, maintains the intent Of the Zoning By-law and constitutes appropriate development, the variance is considered to be minor. 5. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance 2009-A-02, being to grant 8 reduction for the front yard setback from the required 7.5 metres to 4.5 m8treG, for the construction Of 8 single family dwelling, subject to the following conditions: That the SStb8CkS be in conformity with the dimensions as set out 0n the application and SkOtCh8S submitted and approved by the Committee; 2. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building pOnnh be obtained from the TUvvOShidS Chief Building {J#�ia/ only 8R8r the Con�nndt88`S decision b8cOnn8S �n8| and binding, as provided � r within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990. C.P. 13. 3, That an Ontario Land Surveyor provides verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in vvdtDg that the pn]pOSOd dvv8UiDg UO8S not exceed 4.5 metres to the front bd Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by Planner K8GD8gH[, Planning Services !!' � 1 ,• �'� .� 2009-A-02 (Kavanagh) n T P I TOR f, k C. 4 KkA'Kl-,'A WfCX (7, L 2 DA IT"D A uws r s, "k W LOT 25 .. . . . . . ... . . mm, , olev(-) 17.1 7 5. 101*1 34,04 P� 1, 7 , ri 77) io �o R "' V, LOr 28 rtm olmn, r) w';q kixf 3MM *W1 T 2009 -A -02 (Kavanagh) IN n z� t U 2009 -A -02 (Kavanagh) (A J 2009 -A -02 (Kavanagh) 2009 -A -02 (Kavanagh) 2009 -A -02 (Kavanagh) 3 2009 -A -02 (Kavanagh) 3` Township of Oro-Medmnte - Cmmmittee of Adjustment January 29.2Q0B 2ODA-A-O3— Allan & Hillary Powell 26Q3 Lakeshore Rd E Lot 9 Plan 68 THE PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a35.19 square metre (378.78 square feet) attached garage and a9.5S square metre (103.23 square feet) front entrance onto the front ofan existing one storey single family dwelling. The applicant is proposing a setback of 1.03 metres from the western interior side yard lot line for the proposed addition. The dwelling iu classified aaa non-complying building aait sits closer to the interior side yard lot line than iarequired. The applicant io requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: Non-Complying Buildings/Structures Section 5.16.1 b) does not increase the amount of floor area or volume in a required yard MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Officia|PbmOeaignation — Ghoro|ine Zoning By-law 97-S5— Shoreline Residential (SR)Zone PneviouaApp|ioatinno — PubUuVVorkaDepaUment- Build|ngDepartmenk—App|icamt to verify that sewage system meets minimum required setbacks aa per Part Oof the Ontario Building Code Engineering Department —NnComments LSRCA' BACKGROUND The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 16.59 metros (54.46 kseU on Lakeshore Road East. a lot depth of approximately 91.44metres (300 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.21 hectares (0.51 oonaa). The applicant is proposing to construct an attached garage and front entrance addition to the front of the single family dwelling. The purpose for the variance )ainpermit the construction of additional floor volume in the required interior side yard. Does the variance conform &o the general intent mf 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 ofthis predominantly residential area. • To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. The requested variance for the proposed dwelling addition would appear to maintain the character cdthe shoreline residential area, as dwellings are ape,mittad 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 comply with the general intent mfthe Zoning By-lam? The subject k8 is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The purpose ofthe 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 further impact access 10 the rear cd the property, oathe proposed addition would not be situated any closer to the west interior side yard lot line than the existing dwelling. Further, the proposed expansion of the dwelling otherwise meets with all other Zoning By-law provisions (such as maximum height, front and rear yard oo\baoko) for single family dwellings in the SR Zone. On the basis of the above, the proposal to increase floor volume ina required yard is deemed to maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed addition would be located at the front of the existing dwelling. It was noted that the adjacent kd has a two storey single family dwelling with attached garage at the front ofthe building that is also located close Lothe interior side yard. Further. there is foliage that would act aua buffer between the adjacent property and the proposed addition. On this basis, the proposed variance is considered to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot. Is the variance minor? As this application in deemed to conform to the Official Plan, maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law and constitutes appropriate development, the variance is considered to be minor. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee Approve Variance application 2009-A-03 subject tothe following conditions: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision bya)pinning the footing and b) verifying in writing that the addition beno closer than 1.O3 metres to the west interior side lot line; 2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee; 3. That the applicant meet all requirements amt out to them by the Lake Simooe Region Conservation Authority 4. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1900, o.P. 13. All ofwhich is respectfully submitted, Reviewed by RyonVondenburg. B.URPL - Glenn While, K4C|P RPP Planner Manager, Planning Services lN I I 2009 -A -03 (Powell) Arowronv LOT 9, REGI) MAN TOh 3iP or- fcq$EEIOKTE wr�s t "CAF SMCM LAKE SIMCOE OF *— ; Q l� 20 -t o ICE/ -C A y All \ > 4 RMSf:1�SfF' STE$ASA 14 'S> ( 21121A rzft) =14 ,. HOUSE a 11 03 (1E7A..'?31R.t) his 23+3 sq,m! 252m- :) 90^T _ N 72 vq- # 2"" nir T07AL = ZZZX, 4Y ffFt.Ph" m11LY9A$ ai:a.Q`TI[h'..KU.[S:r kI.T 'SA�TKfRt 'QG1i n ia4 PL*V -1CVA tk LPIEt *It INTA&S OLVORM k PF%1Ni�C S ADZ" MW•MUK WOOL . €R04T?"AM ACC GVWA4 %07M FWARNA D MOW ($5i'.n 15T.2CO = Is Al" GENERAL Pp„+ m SM YAOi FOOD $'= �j'„�'I� ,. 1:W i 1'15'j... +.7L Eit°A>•'71Ca1t -��' k�7 QF.AFA�.7LC}TE'a ffi1 EMEhit6.;A EE'. t,],T IKc* -.FAST 8f .b K:i..1 IGO-1 S4'9FlQ` *,Wf E 3.4 l� 20 -t o ICE/ -C 2009 -A -03 (Powell) 2009 -A -03 (Powell) U, ..J 2009 -A -03 (Powell) C� 2009 -A -03 (Powell) jl Township of Oro-Medonte 148 Line 7 South 5th January, 2009 Dear Sirs, We are Kim & Doug Campbell of 2679 Lakeshore Road E. We have been approached by our next door neighbors, Hilary & Allan Powell (from 2683) who have shown us the plans for their proposed garage and porch and asked us to support their application for a minor variance. We are pleased to confirm that we do support this application. M , 10 � �'M' / \ Notes from the Tree Preservation BvIaw mee6nje— Oct 3K-88 Workin Groun: staff. Council: Meryl Drake GarvSkekhnu Mel Comanche Kimberly Wand Alan Johnson Doug Sbe|mweU 8cvcdy Smith Draft notes from the meetink: |. of Gary 3kc|ding— Township Law Enforcement Officer 2. Purpose otthe ineeting was to get input on advice on Council oou»hcTree Preservation Bylaw. Council asked the Habitat Working Group of OMEGA to investigate this — after the Committee of Adjustment unanimously urged Council to "consider a Tree Preservation Bylaw uxu means |n ensure that the Official 9|uu iu adhered io." 3. Keypoints froin the discussions: u. Need tohe consistent wkhdhe SimmcCounty Official Plan b. There will be initial difficulties with enforcement — then it would evolve into acceptance and more compliance o. Any "clear-cut" should bcoffset with equivalent planting d. Wc should ^'survcy'' our residents first, before wccmburknnu new bylaw. Note: The report handed out at the meeting has a sample survey which could be used. c. The Bylaw would have to address the issue of existing lots and homes which have never had u tree preservation bylaw / tree cutting restrictions. f. All new developments should have Tree Preservation in the Site Plan Agreements and the Plans ofSubdivision �. Any tree removal should require u'^ncp|ucemcnt^ tree planting b. The Bylaw would have "exceptions" such as: dead trees, unstable trees, trees used by owner (firewood), road construction, Crown wants/needs, Site Plan Agreements, Wood Lot Management, invasive species, official Building Permits, pit orquarry, surveying, etc. i Township should consider an EDUCATION step: (value nf trees, species, tree management principles, dr. j The W4G should evaluate the success / experience with Celedon'mIPD k, The TP8 (Tree Preservation Bylaw) should bc part nf the new (}P |. The TPB should only apply to lots less than | hectare (2.5 acres) because the Simcoc County O9 covers lots above l hectare.