Loading...
02 19 2009 C of A AgendaTOWNSHIP • ORO-MEDONTE COMMITTEE • ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGEND COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3. DISCLOSURE • PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF — IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING a) Minutes of Committee of Adjustment Meeting of January 29, 2009 a) Application: 2008-A-51 Applicant: Mike Gannon Location: 6 Catherine Street, West Part of Lot 1, Concession 13 Proposal: Relief from maximum height and maximum floor area for accessory structure. b) Application: 2009-B-04 Applicant: Indian Park Association Location: 143 Huronwoods Drive, Part of Bock B, Plan M-30 Proposal: Boundary adjustment. • None 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. ADJOURNMENT Committee of Adjustment Agenda - Thursday, February 19, 2009 f��1_111T TO kl OT! 0 �1#, FEB 1 1 2009 MEETING-. COUNGILIC4 r_1 C. OF W. L-1 TOWNSHIP • ORO-MEDONTE C 4' U7.E E­4F--ATJY1STMENT f*21EETINIG MIMYTIEZ COUNCIL CHAMBERS TE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 2009 TIME: 9:35 A.M. Present: Michelle Lynch, Chair — left at 1:49 p.m, Garry Potter 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. CA090129-01 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Potter It is recommended by the Committee of Adjustment that the agenda for the meeting of Thursday, January 29, 2009 be received and adopted as amended to add 7a) Appointment of 2009 Chair. Carried. 3. "DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF — IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE Acr, None. 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING a) Minutes of Committee of Adjustment Meeting of Thursday, November 20, 2008. CA090129-02 Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Chappell It is recommended that the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting of Thursday, November 20, 2008 be adopted as presented. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — January 29, 2009 Page 1 S. PUBLIC MEETINGS 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. Mr. Ian Johnstone was present. I Y, = I Me It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional approval to Consent Application 2008-B-22, being to permit a boundary adjustment to facilitate a proposed lot transposition, 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 applicant apply and obtain a Holding Provision be placed on the subject lands as requested by the LSRCA. 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 — January 29, 2009 Page 2 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. Mr. Robert Brennan was present. CA090122:0-4 Moved by Potter, Seconded by Aiken It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves Variance Application 2008-A-44, being to reduce setbacks from the limits of an Environmental Protection Zone and from a watercourse, for a dwelling and a deck to 0 meters, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permit for the detached deck be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. 2. That the setbacks of the dwelling and deck be in conformity with the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; 3. That the applicants obtain the necessary permits from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, if required. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — January 29, 2009 Page 3 I_11L)q 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. Ms. Meghan Keelan, Planner from MHBC, was present on behalf of the applicant. CA020129-05 Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Chappell It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional approval to Consent Application 2008-B-47, being to create a new residential lot having a frontage on Huron Woods Drive of 80.5 metres, and a lot area of 0.5 hectares, and that Committee of Adjustment grant provisional approval to Consent Application 2008-B-48, being to create a new residential lot having a frontage on Huron Woods Drive of 98.8 metres, and a lot area of 0.5 hectares, subject to the following conditions for each application: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for each lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution; 4. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; 5. That the applicant apply for and obtain a re-zoning, including a Hold provision on the severed land to accurately reflect the proposed residential land use; 6. 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 —January 29, 2009 Page 4 ko d) Application: 2008-B-52 Applicant: Indian Park Association Location: Adjacent to 80 Huron Woods Drive, Part of Block C, Plan M-9 Proposal: Lot additiorvboundary adjustment. No one was present to represent the application. CA090129-06 Moved by Potter, Seconded by Webster It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional approval to Consent Application 2008-B-52, being 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. 6. That the applicant apply for a rezoning to R1 Exception 113. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes - January 29, 2009 Page 5 e) Application: 2008-B-53 Applicant: Indian Park Association Location: Adjacent to 17 Algonquin Trail, Block D, Plan M-8 Proposal: Lot additioniboundary adjustment. Ms. Kelly Beauparlant was present on behalf of the applicant. CA090129-07 — as amended bv!;AO90129-01 Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Webster It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional approval to Consent Application 2008-B-53, being 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 applicants 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. 6. That the applicant apply for a rezoning of the property to R1 Exception 113. Carried. CA090129-08 Moved by Potter, Seconded by Webster it is recommended that the motion being considered be amended to include condition 6. That the applicant apply for a rezoning of the property to R1 Exception 113. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes - January 29, 2009 Page 6 f) Application: 2008-B-50 Applicant: Janice Weiss and Mark Zameft 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. Ms. Rebecca Fisch, agent, was present on behalf of the applicants. K111;4T_11K;11 q� U#111 , I I LVA =.- 0 10 0 M =11 , 15 R -TA! "a. nm I • It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional approval to Consent Application 2008-B-50, being a technical severance to recreate a lot which once existed as a separate parcel of land, with the lands proposed to be severed having 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), currently contains a boathouse. Furthermore, the lands to be retained having a 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, 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 —and must be so designated on a Reference Plan to be provided by the Applicant; 3. Applicant to verify that sewage system on the retained lands meets minimum required setbacks as per Part 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. Carried. CA090129-19 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken It is recommended that the motion being considered be amended to include "on the retained lands" after "sewage system" in condition 3. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — January 29, 2009 Page 7 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. Mr. James Gray and Mrs. Corine Gray were present. CA090129-11 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken It is recommended that Committee of Adjustment grant provisional approval to Consent Application 2008-B-51, being to sever a lot with an area of 1.0 hectare from 2815 Line 4 North, 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 all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; 4. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution; 5. That the maximum total lot area for the new lot be no greater than 1 hectare; 6. 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 — January 29, 2009 Page 8 h) Application: 2009-B-01, 2009-B-02, 2009-B-02 Applicant: Weatherwise Aviation Location: 224 Line 7 North, Part of Lot 19, Concession T 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. Ms. Adelit Maidenberg was present on behalf of the applicant. CA090122:12 Moved by Potter, Seconded by Webster It is recommended that Committee of Adjustment grants provisional approval to Consent application 2009-B-01, 2009-B-02 and 2009-B-03 to recreate Parts 2, 3, 4 and Part 5 of Plan 51 R- 31319, each having an area of 0.4 hectare, 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 —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 — January 29, 2009 Page 9 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. Mr. Stephen Crawford was present. CA090129-13 Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Webster It is recommended that Committee of Adjustment approves Variance Application 2008-A-50, being for relief from the Minimum Required Rear Yard setback of 6.28 metres to 5.91 metres construct a 10.13 M2 addition to their dwellings rear deck, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes - January 29, 2009 Page 10 j) Application: 2008-A-51 Applicant: Mike Gannon Location: 6 Catherine Street, West Part of Lot 1, Concession 13, Part I Proposal: Relief from maximum height for accessory structures and maximum floor area. Mr. Mike Gannon was present. Correspondence from Tina Tanzi, was noted as received. Mrs. Theresa Abreau noted the proposal was for commercial rather than residential use and expressed concerns over the potential of the tree buffer being removed. Mr. Rich Foshay noted the request for relief for size was not considered minor, that the proposal would be invasive in a residential neighbourhood, and that the use would be commercial rather than residential. Mr. Doug Brock noted that the proposal would be beneficial as Mr. Gannon's tools and equipment would be kept indoors and out of site. CA0901 29-1 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken It is recommended that Committee of Adjustment approves Variance Application 2008-A-51, being to a request for relief from the Maximum Height for Accessory Structures from the required 4.5 metres to 5.13 metres and relief from Maximum Floor Area 70 sq. m. to the 162.58 sq m. 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 does not exceed 5.13 metres from the average grade to the midpoint of the roof, and the floor area does not exceed 162.58 square metres; 2. Notwithstanding Section 5.1.4 and Section 5.1.6 of Zoning By-law 97-95, that the detached accessory building meet with all other provisions for detached accessory buildings; 3. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding. CA0901 29-15 Moved by Potter, Seconded by Chappell It is recommended that Committee of Adjustment defers Application 2008-A-51 until the applicant provides a detailed site plan and elevation drawings. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — January 29, 2009 Page 11 Michelle Lynch, Chair, left the meeting the meeting at 1:49 p.m. Mr. Rick Webster assumed the Chair. 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. Mr. Mark Stephenson and Ms. Laurie Wilson were present. CA090122:16 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance 2008-A-52, being to grant a reduction for the south interior side yard setback from the required 4.5 metres to 3.5 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 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 3.5 metres to the south interior side lot line. Carded. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — January 29, 2009 Page 12 �f���i3 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. Mr. Brock Wallace was present on behalf of the applicant. CA090129-1 Moved by Potter, Seconded by Chappell It is recommended that the Committee approve Variance Application 2009-A-01 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed dwelling and deck 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 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation so that: The dwelling including the attached deck be located no closer than 14.15 metres from the average high water mark of Bass Lake; 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.; 4. That the applicant meet all requirements set out to them by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, if applicable. Carded. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — January 29, 2009 Page 13 m) Application: 2009-A-02 Applicant: Margaret Kavanah Qb— 1�4 Location: 20 Parkview Avenue, Lot 26 & 27, Concession 5, Plan 709 Proposal: Relief from minimum required front yard. Ms. Margaret Kavanah was present. C&OL01 29-10 Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Chappell It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance 2009•A-02, being to grant a reduction for the front yard setback from the required 7.5 metres to 4.5 metres, for the construction of a single family 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's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. 3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provides verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the proposed dwelling does not exceed 4.5 metres to the front lot line. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — January 29, 2009 Page 14 n) Application: 2009-A-03 Applicant: Powell Location: 2683 Lakeshore Rd. E., Lot 9, Plan 680 Proposal: Relief from Non-Complying Buildings/Structures. Mr. Allan Powell and Mrs. Hilary Powell were present. CA0901 29-19 Moved by Potter, Seconded by Chappell It is recommended that the Committee Approve Variance application 2009-A-03 subject to the following conditions: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by a) pinning the footing and b) verifying in writing that the addition be no closer than 1.03 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 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'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. Carded. Committee of Adjustment Minutes — January 29, 2009 Page 15 !;A090129-20 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken It is recommended that the Minutes from the October 30, 2008 meeting, OMEGA Habitat Working Group, re: Tree Preservation By-law, be received. Carded. 7. NEW BUSINESS a) Appointment of 2009 Chair. CA090129-21 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment appoint Michelle Lynch as Chair for 2009. Carried. CA090129-22 Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Lynch It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment appoint Rick Webster as Co-Chair for 2009. Carded. 14 z k i CA0901 29-23 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 2:32 p.m. until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, February 19, 2009, or at the call of the Chair. Michelle Lynch, Chairj Carried. Secretary Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Minutes — January 29, 2009 Page 16 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE x l ( REPORT 11—d H,n1g,, 5rcetng Future Application No. To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared By: 2008 -A -51 Ryan Vandenburg, Planner Meeting Date: Subject: Variance Application Motion # February 19, 2009 (Mike Gannon) 6 Catherine Street, West Part of Lot 1, Concession 13 Roll #: R.M.S. File #: 4346- 020- 004 -03407 D13 038807 REQUIRED CONDITIONS: The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committees decision: 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 does not exceed 4.96 metres from the average grade to the midpoint of the roof, and the floor area does not exceed 139.4 square metres; 2. Notwithstanding Section 5.1.4 and Section 5.1.6 of Zoning By -law 97 -95, that the detached accessory building meet with all other provisions for detached accessory buildings; 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. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to consider a Variance Application submitted by Mike Gannon. This application was heard at the Committee of Adjustment meeting on January 29th, 2009, and was deferred until the applicant could provide a detailed site plan and elevation drawings. ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to construct a detached accessory structure to an existing single detached dwelling. The garage is proposed to have a ground floor area of 162.58 square metres (1750 square feet). The applicant is requesting the following relief from Section 5.1.4 and Section 5.1.6 of Zoning By- law 97 -95: Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone: Required Proposed Maximum Height for Accessory Structures: 4.5 metres 5.64 metres Maximum Floor Area: 70 sq. m. 139.4 sq m. Development Services Meeting Date February 19, 2009 Application No. 2008 -A -51 Page 1 of 4 FINANCIAL: I V• I ••no [15001 -01150 POLICIES&EGISLATION: Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural Residential in the Official Plan. Section C4.2 which contains the Rural Residential policies state that "permitted uses on lands designated Rural Residential on the schedules to this plan are limited to single detached dwellings, home occupations, bed and breakfast establishments and accessory uses." The requested variance for the proposed accessory structure would conform to the permitted uses in the Rural Residential designation. Therefore, the proposed accessory structure which is associated to the residential use would conform to the general intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Rural Residential Two Exception 5 (RUR2*5) Zone. The Rural Residential Two Zone permits single detached dwellings and accessory buildings, such as garages and storage sheds. The applicant has indicated that they plan to use the proposed garage as a storage building on the lot for the trucks, trailers and tractor used for his cemetery business. Aside from the maximum height and size provision, the proposed garage will otherwise meet with the required interior side and rear yard setbacks and 5 percent lot coverage provisions for accessory structures. The applicant has modified his setbacks from his original application, and as a result his south interior side yard setback is now 30 feet, and his rear yard setback is 20 feet. Therefore, the variance is considered to comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? A site inspection revealed that the proposed location for the garage will be located to the south side of the existing dwelling. Surrounding lands to the north, south, and west consist of large residential parcels. A substantial existing tree line is currently located around the applicants' property, which is currently maintained by the applicant. The location of the proposed garage is open and free of any significant amount of tree vegetation, which allows for the maximum preservation of tree vegetation as possible. Due to the existing tree coverage, the variance for an increase in height and floor area will not have a negative visual or location impact on neighbouring properties. Further, there is a cleared area with a driveway leading to the area where the accessory structure is proposed. On this basis, the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject 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. Development Services Meeting Date February 19, 2009 Application No. 2008-A-51 Page 2 of 4 CONSULTATIONS: rublic',11orkS Building Department- Proposal appears to meet minimum standards Engineering Department — No Concerns ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan (Current and Proposed) 3. Drawings 4. Pictures 5. Additional Comments CONCLUSION: In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance application 2008-A-51, being to grant an increase of height for an accessory building from 4.5 metres to 4.96 metres, and an increase in floor area for an accessory building from 70 square metres to 139.4 square metres, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Respectfully submitted:,-,-,-, Ryan Vandenburg Planner Development Services Application No. 2008-A-51 Reviewed by: Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Director of Development Services Meeting Date February 19, 2009 Page 3 of 4 I HORSESHOE VALLEY ROAD LOCATION OF SUBJECT LA1NDS M I Development Services Meeting Date February 19, 2009 Application No. 2008-A-51 Page 4 of 4 PLOT PLAN i r, ! i | / / | '[___________________/ ---------------_- ---��] FRONT ELEVATION / RIGHT ELEVATION 10 EQU El 00101 L1,00 , ` ' F—'T-------------�—__ | / | / | / | ' | | | / | | L_ | co 130-0" —501-011— 13-0" 7 | | GARAGE ___ -- ------ | | U FLOOR PLAN � | � � | / ) ( � 0 2008 -A -51 (Gannon) N VJ 2008 -A -51 (Gannon) M l'� 2008 -A -51 (Gannon) T 2008 -A -51 (Gannon) 2008 -A -51 (Gannon) 9 i 2008 -A -51 (Gannon) I February 10, 2009 Township of Oro Medonte To Whom it May Concern: I am writing this letter at the request of Mike Gannon. We understand Mr. Gannon is adding a structure to his property to store his equipment in which is used for his business. It is our understanding the purpose of the building is to store his equipment in and prep his equipment for the service work he does in Cemeteries as well as his other service work. We have been doing business with Mr. Gannon for 8 years. Mr. Gannon does work in the local cemeteries for us. It has been my experience that we can have snow on the ground from October to April. There has been many a year, where elderly spouses have had to wait from November to May June of the following year to see their monument placed because weather conditions were not working with us. I have also had instances where the spouse was very elderly and did not survive the winter to see their monument placed. If Mr. Gannon is able to extend his season by 6 to 8 weeks a year because he is able to store his equipment indoors, preventing hydraulic lines and equipment from freezing up, it will would be a great benefit for the families who would like to see their monument up before winter settles in. A monument is a very important part for some in the grieving process. It is one of the last things we can do for a departed loved one, and allows families a sense of closure. I hope the council considers this information as it relates to Mr. Gannons storage facility. Yours very truly, 0anet C. Sanderson Signature Memorials Limited /j s 32 JAINIES STREET E'- 1 0' 7S], ORHUIA, ONTARIC, 1 3� ' W5 -,�5 325-0,�47, FAX: (705) 325-N-271 T01-1-FREE: 1-61-01-�33-1560 TORONTO: (416'F606-0 , '. 'i Al wvi.�i Box 2238, Orillia Fax: (705) 326 -5298 Ontario, L-3v 6s1 SANDERSON MONUMENT Toll Free 1- 800 -461 -0282 www.encode.com /sanderson COMPANY LIMITED sandersonmonument @rogers.com February 9, 2009 Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 South Oro, ON LOL 2X0 Re�4ardinw: Gannon Storage Building Dear Council Members: 1 am writing on behalf of Sanderson Monument Company with regards to the proposed storage building, by Mike Gannon, at 6 Catherine Street, RR2 Coldwater. Our primary business is to produce Cemetery memorials for Families. We have eleven showrooms throughout Central Ontario to serve these Families. Before an upright memorial can be placed, a five foot deep concrete foundation is required. Within the majority of the area that Sanderson Monument operates, we sub - contract Mr. Gannon to excavate and fill these foundation. The proposed storage building will house Mr. Gannon's foundation equipment. With the equipment out of the elements (specifically in the late Fall / early Winter), this will allow Mr. Gannon to work later in the year and thus we will in turn be able to install more memorials. There is an obvious advantage to both Mr. Gannon and Sanderson Monument. We will both be able to get more work completed and increase revenues for the year. There is less obvious, but more important benefit. The grieving Families will have the opportunity to have the memorial for their deceased loved one placed sooner. Due to weather conditions and Cemetery restrictions, typically this would mean the memorial could be placed about 4 -5 months earlier. Thank you for your consideration in the matter. Yours very truly, SANDERSON MONUMENT COMPANY LIMITED N it Sanderson /ns 1812 2008 YEARS 0 • !�! j Dimension changes are from 2400 sqft (40X60) to 1540 sgft (30X50) Height changes are from 18' to 16' 2 l" Set back changes are from the Rear 20', South Side 20' to Rear 20', South Side 30' Name: 67 Address: P Date: ; ° � -�( F Comments: g Q s< j Application # 2008-A-51 Dimension changes are from 2400 sqft (40X60) to 1500 sqft (30X50) Height changes are from 18' to 16' 2 4" Set back changes are from the Rear 20', South Side 20' to Rear 20', South Side 30' Name: Address: Date: Comments: _J ee Ale i"i, 6�j I �\ "?r-\ Height changes are from 18' to 16' 2 %" Set back changes are from the Rear 20', South Side 20' to Rear 20', South Side 30' Name: o Address: jV 2 Z- Date: -31 Comments: Zfl /zoo _ WWII 0=0 9 Dimension changes are from 2400 sqft (40X60) to 1500 sqft (30X50) Height changes are from 18' to 16' 2 %*" Set back changes are from the Rear 20', South Side 20' to Rear 20', South Side 30' Name: tc Address: Date: Comments: Application # 2008-A-51 Dimension changes are from 2400 sqft (40X60) to 1500 sqft (30X50) Height changes are from 18' to 16' 2 W Set back changes are from the Rear 20', South Side 20' to Rear 20', South Side 30' Name: Q c'l- tcf VLA- elt- Address. - Y,) C ��6)4 �L- Date: Comments: C, -f LA Ck 0 -'Q - Q 6�-; 7 W,,lef tn C-" c T 2 A A 7�- j CZ e „� rz Iz ln J Vt p 61 -4 i -"(-" /�- 7 J CZ 74, '1 k OF ,:5j) Z--I-q N jahbor Comments on Revised Plans for Garp-g- A-21?�Iication # 2008-A-51 Dimension changes are from 2400 sqft (40X60) to 15010 sqft (30X,50) Height changes are from 18' to 116' 2 W Set back changes are from the Rear 2(Y, South Side 2(Y to Rear 20% South Side 3W Address:, �M7M Comments: Neiahbour Comments on Revised Plans for Garage Application # 2008-A-51 NAME: Tina Tanzi & Rich Foshay ADDRESS: 4 Catherine St. RR#2, Coldwater, ON, LOK IEO DATE: February 8, 2009 We recognize the changes that Mr. Gannon has made to his proposed structure. It is still well over the bi-law enforced floor space and height allowance. He has limited these changes to what they are so that he is still able to use this facility in the manner intended. The facts are: 0 -Mr. Gannon is still proposing to build a large shop in our neighbourhood. UITWICE the size of the square footage allowed by the Oro-Medonte Residential Zoning bi-law. -This shop is to be located very close to and completely visible from our home. It is also completely visible from our residential neighbourhood street. -Along with the negative visual effect, this shop provides opportunities for who ever owns it to use it in a multitude of ways, many of which disadvantageous to our residential neighbourhood. ALL OF THE CONCERNS OUTLINED IN MY PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED LETTER REMAIN. (I have included this letter again for your convenience.) Mr. Gannon provided us with a survey drawing of his property with the proposed structure drawn in. I've placed an X which is the approximate location of our home which helps put into perspective how much of an influence this shop will have on us. It is interesting when you look at this drawing how much further away Mr. Garmon's home and family will be from the shop activity and noise levels. In summary, our very serious concerns about this proposed structure to be built by Mike Gannon remain. They have not lessened in the least with the revised version as these relatively minimal changes (10 feet less in length and width dimensions, 2 feet less in height) will not result in solutions for the numerous concerns associated with this shop, as outline in my previously submitted letter. I continue to rely on the bi-laws, set in place to protect residential neighbourhoods from just this sort of situation. THIS IS NOT A MINOR VARIANCE! This question can be asked of anyone who is aware of this situation, "if you lived in our neighbourhood, and more importantly in our home, would you want a shop put up basically on your doorstep, and visible to all who drive down our cul-de-sac? Would you not be concerned about the same issues; location, visual effect, effect of noise and activity levels, effect of a 'shop' on property resale value This is a subdivision with estate lots, not unlike many others in Oro-Medonte. Mr. Gannon chose to live in a residential area. If he wishes to construct commercial buildings and undergo activities of a commercial nature, he should find an appropriate site for just this purpose, as is the expectation for other business owners. Thank you for your attention to our concerns in this matter. JAN-27-2009 15:24 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE 05/21/2006 16:26 3268226 lY#eX4. r r Ci 0r Vo l'i al? Q/?4 6/1 ) P.001/004 PAGE 01/04 o- C 'V1 Tc� A 41 0 fl 'e e'o / It6 fiO t, Ct c ;ci //' 41 /1 IV". ,, r as - /z� /C, / ppy // ,se tick rT '-FjnrAT5t)zt' 013.3 JAN-27 -2009 16:24 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE 05/21/2006 16:26 3268226 January 26, 2008 Corporation of the Township of Oro-Mcdonte PO Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO (705)487-2171 Dear Secretary of the Committee: P.002/004 PAGE 02/04 In response to "NOTICE OF HEARING" in the matter of an. application by Mike Gannon, for aminor Variance, Submission No. 2008-A-51 we wish to provide written comments and concerns as follows. We must start by describing the setting in which we live. Our home is located in a residential neighbourhood, on a dead end cul-de-sac, just off of the Horseshoe Valley road. There are six lovely homes on this street, all with approximately 2 plus acres of beautiful and peaceful, wooded lots. The property where the proposed structure is to be built is one of the largest properties (3 plus acres), with our property (2 acres) located directly beside this. The size of this proposed structure presents a serious concern with the location of the proposed Oversized structure being a major factor influencing these concerns. Facts as Tb& ark Understood Si7e of Structure: Location: Height --5.64 meters -- (approx. 1.25 times maximum 4.5 m height allowance.) Floor Area --222.39 sq. m. -- (approximately 3.2 times maximum 70 sq. m. floor area allowance.) Although. the proposed structure does meet the allowed 2 meter side yard setback, its very large size has it looming over our property and dwelling. Drawings are not sufficient and do not do justice to how close and invasive this structure will be to our home. An actual on-site visual would be necessary to show what would then be obvious. When facing it, the front left corner of this proposed structure will be located very close to the right hand rear side of our home with the entrance to this building' directly beside our home. Basically from within our dwelling and. 9 standing to the right or in front of our dwelling, our west to southwest view will be almost completely and suddenly baited by this very large structure. in fact, dais would be true of any building much over the 70 square meter floor area allowance. JAN-27-2009 16:24 05/2112006 16:26 Concerns TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE 3268226 P. 003/004 PAGE 03/04 Visual Impact. The large, size of this proposed structure can only have a negative visual impact on our property. Although. there is a sparse row of deciduous trees between the two properties, in the summer one can easily see through this vegetation, and for the 7 to 8 months where the leaves have fallen, a very clear view will be the outcome. With its location being so close to our dwelling, it will severely limit our view of the natural wooded suiToundings by creating a veritable wall in the woods. This wall, as it is so close, will be too tall to took over or around. It will also be a major focus, and one may say eyesore as one drives onto our scenic property. Noise & Activity Impact: A building of this large size leads to our concerns about this structure's use and related activities. How the building is used and the activity levels associated with its usage will directly affect us. The front main entrance of this structure is basically,'beside our home. This is typically where all the 'action' will take place.. A forge building usually allows for increased options for `large' action, Noise and increased activity are concerns. This structure and its Font entranceway, beside our home, will become the hub of all of this. It will be the central location for storage, parking and other related activities of large machinery and recreational vehicles. All of this is noisy and will affect us greatly. Also, the increase of traffic comings and goings on our quiet street is a concern, hot only being noisy and disruptive but also introducing higher risk to our children who play in the neighbourhood and travel between houses to do so. This increase noise and activity level basically defeats the purpose of choosing an estate lot semi-rural but still residential and expectedly peaceful location. Aesthetic value involving this structure's use is another concern. As already discussed, the building itself presents concern aesthetically. Also, one can visualize that as with many 'shops' Of this size, not only will things be stored. inside the building but valuable Junk' and parked vehicles often accumulate outside, This will be located beside our home and is not pleasant to look at. Resale Value Impact: The above concerns have a definite impact on out personal enjoyment of our property and dwelling living environment. An added and very valid concern is the effect" that a structure of this size and location will have on the resale value of our home. A main selling feature of our home is its beautiful location and natural setting. With resale in mind, the design of our home was largely based on the property setting, knowing and understanding that this beautiful environment would support the value of an estate home. The beauty of the home and the setting in which it is located compliment and balance each other. The proposed structure to be built will largely offset this balance and the resale value of our home will suffer a definite decrease. We should be able to rely on the bi. laws in place that in this case limit the size and prevent this from happening. JAN-27-2009 15:24 05/21/2006 16:26 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE We would like to end this with a few further thoughts' P.004/004 PAGE 04/04 Z he assures will s 6 storage. I s Firstly, in q Mes us that this structure be used for t i a speaking with Mr Gannon, -de-sac, is largely and fact that it) the past and even now, the extra non-local traffic on our dead, end cul mostly due to the related activities Of Mr. Gannon's business dealings. Why would one not expect this to increase once he has a structure of this size (bigger than a typical 70 square meter garage) which can only support his business? We must also keep in mind that the Gannons may at some point and for whatever unexpected reason decide to sell their property. With a structure or 'shop* of this nature and size included on, this property, it is a disconcerted unknown as to what associated businesses or Operations the new owner may bring to our neighbourhood. We strongly feet that we should, be able to rely on the bi-laws that are currently in place to prevent such a situation. These bi-laws were created for good reason, to protect the residents of Oro-Medonte from these concerns, and we in good I faith built our home here believing that these bi-laws would be upheld. Finally, it is not out intent to cotnpletely and callously dismiss the wishes of our neighbours. We value harmony in out neighbourhood. These concerns were compiled with serious thought and process. We have invested everything in our home and its environment. It is part of our lifelong Plan; Our family sanctuary at the end of the day and our security at the end of our career. Thank you for your attention to our concerns in this matter. We are new to such a process, striving to be as realistic and fair as possible, but also looking out for ours and what we feel is the best interest of our lovely neighbourhood. Sincerely, Tina Tanzi Rich Fosbay of 4 Catherine Street Oro-Medonte TOTAL P.004 �y a TOWNSHIP OF ORO— MEDONTE REPORT ProuJ Hrc(mg,, 6s,oi.g F.— Application No: To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared By: 2009 -B -04 Steven Farquharson, Intermediate Planner Meeting Date: Subject: Consent Application Motion # February 19, 2009 (Indian Park Association) 143 Huronwoods Drive, Part of Block B, Plan M -30 Roll #: R.M.S. File #: 4346- 010- 003 -14702 D10 -38937 REQUIRED CONDITIONS: i ne toliowing conaitions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision: 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 29 Seneca Lane 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. BACKGROUND: i ne applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey approximately 0.10 hectares (0.24 acres) from the subject property to the neighbouring residential lot being 29 Seneca Lane. Due to the proposed retained lot, being Part of Block B, Plan M -30, would consist of approximately 4.0 hectares (9.8 acres), and is currently vacant. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition. ANALYSIS: The purpose of application 2009 -B -04 is to permit a lot addition /boundary adjustment. The subject land to be conveyed is Part of Block B, Plan M -30, having a frontage of approximately 9.6 metres Development Services Meeting Date: February 19, 2009 Application No. 2009 -B -04 Page 1 of 4 (31.4 feet) on Seneca Lane, a depth • approximately 95 metres (311 feet) and an area • ?.pproximately 0.10 hectares (0.24 acres). The subject lands are proposed to be added to the .?djacent lands to the west being 29 Seneca Lane. No new building lot is proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition FINANCIAL: 10115610moo M. 01 -0 POLICIES/LEGISLATION: 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 viabilit y of the use of the properties affected." With respect to the application at hand, no new building I viability of the current use. As such, the proposed boundary the intent of the residential policies stated in the Official boundary adjustment policies contained in Section D.2.2.2. )ts are proposed and do not affect the adjustment is generally in keeping with Plan, and otherwise conforms with the 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 29 Seneca Lane. The lot to be enhanced, being 29 Seneca Lane, 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. Development Services Meeting Date: February 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-13-04 Page 2 of 4 CONSULTATIONS: IWIN I "TT 0 INMRIVISINJIM N ral ATTACHMENTS: Schedule #1- Location Map CONCLUSION: IL 15 trie opinion oT ine t-ianning uepartment, mat Consent application 2009-B-04, 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. Respectfully submitted: xmw ____SteVefn Farquharson, B.URPL Intermediate Planner Development Services Meeting Date: February 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-B-04 Page 3 of 4 t4i, A-, 16 C) 0 cz < LU z LLI F777771 Lj 29 SENECA Lk4 E 1 0 20 O 80 120 160 SUBJECT LANDS i Meters I wc3mliM7 Development Services Meeting Date: February 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-13-04 Page 4 of 4 IN 1� 2009-13-04 (IPA) Al"070k, F'O" 2009-13-04 (IPA) nr+ tXr 5 ,Tjj ,p a � o, r ,y n T y�.� a^ bKl'5r 1Yi'Ylb'E'6�'3 `.• � ��� •.s �.o �W i x cj ". N C � � � Z C7 N• �-s teEGE'NQ 2009 -13-04 (IPA) 2009 -13-04 (IPA) 2009 -13-04 (IPA) �h C7 2009 -13-04 (IPA)