Loading...
03 19 2009 C of A AgendaTOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA COUNCIL. CHAMBERS DATE: THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2009 TIME: 9:30 A.M. 1. OPENING OF MEETING BY THE CHAIR 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA 3. DISC<_OSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL. NATURE THEREOF - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING a) Minutes of Committee of Adjustment Meeting of February 19, 2009. 5. PUBLIG MEETINGS a} Application: 2009-B-05 Applicant: Indian Park Association Location: Adjacent to 19 Algonquin Trail Proposal: Boundary adjustment. b} Application: 2009-A-04 Applicant: Linda Clipsham and Carol Craig Location: 67 Eight Mile Point Road Proposal: Relief from required setback from the Average High Water Mark of Lake Simcoe. c} Application: 2009-A-05 Applicant: Ian and Mimi Eng Location: 33 Gass Road Proposal: Relief from the required interior side yard setback provision for boathouses. d} Application: 2009-A-07 Applicant: Jason Brearley and Janis Nevison Location: 25 Huronwoods Proposal: Relief from the required interior side yard setback. e} Application: 2009-A-06 Applicant: Harold Roe and Linda Ambrose Location: 65 Barrie Terrace Proposal: Relief from required front yard setback. 6. STAFF REPORTS None ?. NEW BUSINESS None $. NEXT MEETING DATE 9. ADJOURNMENT TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES 4 ~ ~~- ~ I COUNCIL. CHAMBERS DATE: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2009 TIME: 9:301 A.M. Present: Michelle Lynch, Chair Lynda Aiken Bruce Chappell Staff present: Steve Farquharson, Secretary Treasurer/Intermediate Planner Marie Brissette, Deputy Secretary Treasurer/Committee Coordinator Ryan Vandenburg, Planner Regrets: Rick Webster Garry Patter Also present: Mike Gannon Theresa and Jahn Abreau Rich Foshay Dr. Allan l.ossing Albert Dykxhoorn Matt Birse I 1, OPENING OF MEETING BY THE CHAIR .-, _~ Michelle Lynch assumed the Chair and called the meeting to order. _ ___ _-~ 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA CA09©219-01 Maned by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken It is recommended by the Committee of Adjustment that the agenda far the meeting of Thursday, February 19, 2009 be received and adapted as amended to add 7a} 2007-A-18 OMB Decision - Spasov. 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, January 29, 2009. CA0902i 9-02 Maned by Aiken, Seconded by Chappell It is recommended that the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting of Thursday, January 29, 2009 be adapted as presented. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes -February 19, 2009 Page 1 5. PUBLIC MEETINGS ~ ,.,~, - `~ 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. Mr, Mike Gannon was present. Mrs. Theresa and Mr. Jahn Abreau expressed concerns aver the use of the proposed accessory structure as commercial rather than residential, noted excessive speed and traffic on the road due to Mr. Cannon's current use of the property, and stated concern over the visual impact of the proposed structure in a residential area. Mr. Rich Foshay noted his objection aver the proposal being approximately three times the size aAowed under the current by-law and reiterated Mr. and Mrs. Abreau's concerns regarding the visual impact. Dr. Allan Losing also expressed concerns over the size and visual impact of the commercial type building in a residential area. CAQ90219-03 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 5.64 metres and relief from Maximum Floor Area 70 sq. rn. to the 139.4 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 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 accessary 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. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes - February t 9, 2009 Page 2 s- b) Application: 2009-8-04 -~ ., ~ ~~, Applicant: Indian Park Association Location: 143 Nuronwoods Drive, Part of Block B, Plan M-30 Proposal: Boundary adjustment. Mr. Albert Dykxhoorn and Mr. Matt Birse were present on behalf of the applicant, CA090219-04 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional approval to Consent Application 2009-B-04, being to permit 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, subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan far the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an C?ntario 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 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 Gammittee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. Carried. Committee of Adjustment Minutes -February 19, 2009 Page 3 6. STAFF REPt)RTS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS a) X107-A-18 ©MB Decision - Spasov. CA090219-05 Moved by Chappell, Secanded by Aiken It is recommended that (JMB Decision - 2(}07-A-18 Spasov, be received. ~} Carried. 8. ADJC3URNMENT GA090219-06 Moved by Chappell, Secanded by Aiken It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 11:03 a.m. Carried. Michelle Lynch, Chair Steven Farquharson, Secre#ary Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Minutes -February 19, 2009 Page 4 _,,: ~~, Tvu~nahiy of (9i<«~1.I~~~Tnte PrnvJ HrrBoge, 6"xciting Nwa.rc TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT S~~l Application No: To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared By: 2009-B-05 Ryan Vandenburg, Planner Meeting Date: Subject: Consent Application Motion # March 19, 2009 (Indian Park Association) Roll #: Part of Block A, Plan M-31 R.M.S. File #: 4346-010-003-14800 D10-039000 REQUIRED CONDITIONS: The following conditions 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 19 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. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey approximately 0.15 hectares (0.37 acres) from the subject property to the neighbouring residential lot being 19 Algonquin Trail. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition. ANALYSIS: The purpose of application 2009-8-05 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The subject land to be conveyed is Part of Block A, Plan M-31, having a depth of approximately 91 metres (298.6 feet) and an area of approximately 0.15 hectares (0.37 acres). The subject lands are proposed to be Development Services Meeting Date: March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-8-05 Page 1 of 4 added to the adjacent lands to the north being 19 Algonquin Trail. No new building lot is proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition FINANCIAL: Not applicable. PUL.ICIES/EEGISLATItJN: Does the Consent conform to the general intent of the ©fficial Plan? The subject lands are designated Residential by the Official Plan. Section D2 of the Official Plan captains policies with respect to subdivision of land. Specifically, Section D2.2.2 -"Boundary Adjustments", provides the following guidance far Consent Applications in general: "a consent maybe permitted far 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 does 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 to the boundary adjustment policies contained in Section D.2.2.2. Does the consent comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Private Recreational Exception 114 (PR'~114) 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*114 permit a recreation centre which may include swimming pools, tennis courts, change facilities, etc. None of these uses currently exists on the portion of the property that is proposed to be conveyed to 19 Algonquin Trail. The lot to be enhanced, being 19 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 lat area, and will comply with the minimum setback requirements for a structure in the R1 *113 Zone. 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*114) Zone. CONSULTATIONS: Public Works Department- No Concerns Building Department- Proposal Appears to Meet Minimum Standards Engineering Department - No Comments Development Services Meeting Date: March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-8-05 Page 2 of 4 .~, ..~ ATTACHMENTS: 1. ~ocatian Map 2. Site Plan (Current and Proposed) 3. Drawings 4. Pictures 5. Additional Comments G4NC~USI4N: It is the opinion of the Planning Department, that Consent application 2009-B-05 for a boundary adjustment would appear to conform to the policies of the C}fficial Plan, and maintains the use and setback provisions of the Zoning By-law. Respectfully submitted: Ryan Vandenburg,~ ~ ~ ~ Planner Development Services Application No. 2009-8-05 Reviewed by: Glenn White Manager, Planning Services Meeting Date: March 19, 2009 Page3of4 SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP 2009-8-05 (Indian Park Association) shy ~~ '' ~ ~~~ ~. __,. `,,, ,~ ,~ '! ,} ~ ~-~ .~ '~, ~~~ ~~, J ~~. -~~ ~f !I ''s tl i ~ ~j I ~ f, /j ~ ll r i__^-~ !_ frI .s .---` ,~--- ~, / tANDSTO BE ~t~IEYED r~~ ~. i 19 ALG©N{~!IJIN TRAft -~ Development Services Meeting Date: March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-B-05 Page 4 of 4 0 i i ~ I .. r' 9 )~ a O m Dl O O N <_ <4~ _,.....<ry1 2009-B-05 (IPA) ~. i ~ ~ ~~ r A ..... k .. ~ - ,~. ~ "' ~ ..~ ~„ 1 2009-B-05 (IPA) ;~ a, ~ %'~ '` ~ ~ ~ j:= ~ ' _ ~~ v-~ ~,. `r= . ~ ,t ~ .r~ ~ .. r : j G"~ ~ ~ " 9~~~Y ~ .~ f ~~.~~! L £ y~. yc;~ ]]~~~~ .y ~ ' ~~ ~ ~~` ~~. a. ~.. ... ~ ~u~ ,~ ~' , ~.~.~ ~~~ ,, ~ ~- -- ..~. :, s . px. .. r ~„ .. ~_. ~ ~ a _ ~ ~ ~ AA,, s y x~ w ~ '~ 2' .Q Fw ;~ s c ' 4 x.. ~Nf „d. .e v~ '= L Mgt. .~ ~ ^. ...~. s y~ i 3 ~ )..,..' ! cr T' t i ~ ~n ~ `F~ ~+ Ik;Y .. ` ,. ~~ ~_~ ~~ - '~ fit' .;:.~ ~ .~~~ n ~ocatio ~-~ zr L ~ t y i 1. t~ ~ ~~S ~t j s fir :j ~ ~ ;~~ ~ , ~ .. ..~ '; , ~.~ ~'~ 2009-B-OS (I PAS ~~~fi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~' 3 ~~ S < A 7* f .} S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ^ V Y i~ S' I;} ^ r~ Y». '~: ~'' a r «~ f ~~:. <~ ~_ ~~, -a r ,c Y~ 1 •~ iI„~ .w4 ./....if..~ il to ,: t~ ~: ~} ~ ~i t F'~ # ~ ~: s ~ ' ~~ ~~~ ~~ 2009-B-05 (IPA) ~. LV4QL11J11 VI I~QIIL7J Iq\,.II1~ 1J I'11~VIIt~l.~i11 IIQ/1 ,~~ s#`i~~'r {~~ ~ f ~;,,~ 7~ _ ~ F ~ ~F ~ t s 1 ~~ A,' ~ ~ . i~ ~~ 'v e fi,; t t "' k ..~~ ~~~ 7, .u"sAt ". >~ ,n ~ ! 3 '~ ^ r" i _~ d '~ ! { ~,~ Viz... " > .. . i6 -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~1.., ''sz .,.} ,.' u t r. ~ .. ,,. i .~ : ~. jr i r. 5 1 ~, fi ~ 3.S >£ ~ ~~ 4f r.:. x ~' d ~ 1..~ ~ ~ ~ .fir ! 1 ~ ) ; ~yy r ~ {~`~ z.. ~~ : ~ G ~ ~ r: , t:~ y ti ~ ~ ~f~~ ~ ~~~ ~pp : ~ ~, :'fir ' ~ :~ ~ -~ K i t r ~ ~ t ~ ~, t i ~ r .y. i r~ 3~~ n ~ ~ Sv~ ~ .. 7 <. y~a «A ~ ;«$ ~ 3 ~': .~ ~ tip' ~ ~ ' ~ .~ ii ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ x ~., r~ . ~.~ ~ .~ ~ r ~ § s ~ i }~ ~ 3' ~y `` ,. -a r .~ ~~ . ~ », r ~ ~ rr ~}} ~. ...r 1C. y x o ~ ,~~ 5~<< ~~( •r{ y~ k ~ ~~~ 1 +u i ~/ ~ l ^ y / / ~~ ~V 3 , .. O ~ m _~ / • ~/ O ~ ~.I O O ~ ~~. •~ ~ Y~~ ~ 0 ~ ~.. r ~lr ~ ~ (iM ~ ;. '~~~ .L ~. l A ~ ~ ~t w~lN~ Fi { ~Y.. . b , •• • ~~ ~ ~ `, T ~ /^~ ~V 11 V ~~ '~: ~a ~~`T jl~' ~ ~k ~ `` . +r~~vvnyt...~ t.l J .r ' ~ c. //~~ V O J ~.~, ~~~,~ ~_;_zp t~ t ~ ~~s~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~w~ ~ S ~ ~~- "~'.irNea.r . .~±Biw.»&o~ ~t r 4 f Fp~y'..g dam;,-~ bea ~ ~~ # t, 3 u at" m= gy y~ ~~-~ .«.. A ~ k 5Hr ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~,~~ z .. ~. ~~ _ .. ~ ~R x. w ..~ t .. w moo......., '„'~HS~ .~+-' ~.~ C~:Y%~'~~~~n/r~~te (rot.J H.nlaXc, F;x~UinR 1-uAi~x TO WNSH/ P OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT ~b~l Application No. To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared By: 2009-A-04 Ryan Vandenburg, Planner Meeting Date: Subject: Variance Application Motion # March 19, 2009 (Linda Clipsham & Carol Craig) 67 Eight Mile Point Road Plan 780 Roll #: , , Lot 33 R.M.S. File #: 4346-030-012-09300 D13 038979 REGIUIRED CONDITIONS: The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committees decision: 1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed addition 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: a. The addition including the attached deck be located no closer than 14.8 metres from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe; 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 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, if applicable BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to consider Variance Application 2009-A-04 submitted by Linda Clipsham and Carol Craig for relief from the Township's Comprehensive Zoning By-law in relation to the required setback from the Average High Water Mark of Lake Simcoe. ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to construct a 34.0 sq. m. (365 sq. ft) deck and a 23.3 sq.m. (250 sq. ft) enclosed porch onto the rear of an existing dwelling. The property is zoned Shoreline Residential Exception 2 (SR~2) Zone. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Section 5.16.1(a)(b)(c) and 5.31 of Zoning By-law 97-95: Development Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-A-04 Page 1 of 5 5.16.1 -Enlargement, Repair or Renovation of aNan-Complying Building (a} does not further encroach into the setback area from the average high water mark of 20 metres from Lake Simcoe (b} does pat increase the amount of floor area or volume in a required yard (c} does not in any other way increase a situation of non-compliance Required Proposed 5.31-Minimum Setback to Lake Simcoe: 20 metres 14.$ metres FINANCIAL: Not applicable. POL.ICIE51LEG15L.ATION: 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 captains the Shareline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the fallowing 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 addition and deck would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline residential area, as dwellings and decks are permitted uses in the shoreline designation. Therefore, the variances 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 Shoreline Residential Exception 2 (SR*2} Zone. The Shoreline Residential Zone permits single detached dwellings as well as attached decks. The dwelling that is currently located on the applicants' property is situated 18.5 metres from the average high water mark which is closer than the required 20 metres, making the dwelling non-conforming. The primary purpose of the setback requirement from Lake Simcoe 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 Lake Simcoe as the proposed structures are to be located in the same area as the existing rear deck. The proposed deck would be setback 16.7 metres while the proposed addition would be setback 14.8 metres from the average high water mark. Exception Two of the Zoning By-law states that the required interior side yard is 1.5 metres on those lands denoted by the symbol *2. The current dwelling as well as the proposed addition and deck would meet this setback. Therefore, the variance is considered to comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Development Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-A-04 Page 2 of 5 is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the tot? A site inspection revealed that the proposed location for the addition and deck will be located at the rear of the existing dwelling. A thin tree line is currently located on either side of the applicants' property. The location of the proposed addition and deck is open and free of any tree vegetation, which allows for the maximum preservation of tree vegetation. An existing deck on the rear of the dwelling which is to be demolished is located closer to the average high water mark than the deck that is being proposed. Further, the dwellings septic bed is located in the front yard of the property making it difficult for an addition to be placed at the front of the dwelling. On this basis, the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot. is the variance minor? As this application is 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. CONSULTATIONS: Public Works Department- No Comments Building Department- Proposal appears to meet minimum standards Engineering Department - No Concerns LSRCA - 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 2009-A-04, being to grant a setback of 14.8 metres from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by: -_ s~'Ryan Vandenburg, Glenn White Planner Manager, Planning Services Development Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-A-04 Page 3 of 5 SCHEDU~.E 1: ~OCATI4N MAP 2009-A-04 (Clipsham & Craig) y_~~ ~ ~~. ~' ~'s~ ~~~,,~ `~ ,/ r ~. ~~ `fit ~~~r ~4~t ! ~~ ~ ~~ !/ 1. ~`ti \. y1~' / i'~ ~ ~~` 1 ,~ ~-`/r'r~ ~~~4 %%% 4 ;~ f `t, ~ ~i 1 ~ ~f ~~ ~~~ J~ r r ~ ~ ~,, {~ . -~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~'ti LAKE ~1~~~Gt~E }; J ``~. ,%. \ `~.. ~.. ~`~.~ ~~. ~``~.,~ o ~© ~o ~zo ~aa Sao Development Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-A-04 Page 4 of 4 ~~~ w oc~h- 1i/~1t~~-- 2~g. 4 5`. ~..-.. ~. ~.~ -~~[ood Co~~our 5 P 0.5vt~ a.~ c~W~[ toq ~ a a_ t ~,~.. w e c3te.- p obt. c Y o ac~ 1~=t . t5 ~oFti,-~ N e ~ ~ pia Qo~~ (on Pi e~: _ _~ scre~K'~ ~at^ci~ ~.--; t ~~'.-i pro~cs2c1 nt? L~ de c~ c» ~ i ~d-5 _! i = Z. ~ 5 rn. t_ci1~c~ S ~,r. cow I ,.~~ , . . _ ; _ ~ ~~ Y s ,\ \ , ' ,~' \ O ~~' ~ i -i- ~~. ,_._ _. ~ ~Zt ~t ~~± ~ ~ 111 ~ +-+W ~^~~t-~-r~j/l~ ~ ~~ .______..~__~..__.__.._.~.~...;,~.~~. _.._.__ ~a ~ ,~ /+-// c ~ ~~~~ , ~~ __._._T___ i r~roo~me~~'a ~~ ~~~~ ~lT7O~ Q _I GL.~PS GF,A~IC~* i2~S, 8 M,tt~s 5 ~ ~~ ` }~~} ~G~~1~T~ ~ ~ .~.~_T._~._._,__r_. _,..~ ~~....y.....~.~_....... 2009-A-04 (Clipsham/Craig) ~n :~~ _ ~ ~ `~. ~~ 67 Eight Mile Point ~. - , ~. ~ ~ - t -~ 4 ,_ ~~ ~. ~ ,, ~, x ~ oe 3 H ; - , ~? . N~ .Y 3 a f, ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ 'r ~ '~ ? •~} `~41 ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ i ` .s. :, .. . `~ V f .~. ~ ~.rf . S 2009-A-04 (Clipsham/Craig) Qy $ ~~ ~} e' ~ fi~ S ,;, s #" ~. ria. ~~§ ~~ j ~ ~~ ~~ ~ Y ~ ~ 7.t ~ ~ _. Mkt ,w.ww-~~. ~:. ~. ~~ [ f ~ ~rY ~JJ i,,r c r~~~ ~~ ~ °. . r } , V F u `.,~~ ~ " ~ ~ yL ^ { w, l~ ~~ iT` D 2449-A-04 (Clipsham/Craig) ,.~,. ~. :.~ur~ ...<... . r~ _,.~ ,~°. ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ Eta ; ~ = ~ ~Y ;w,~ , _ _ . ~ ..F~~ ~v~'1" _ ~~./ .i'- ~-- 2009-A-04 (Clipsham/Craig] N -. 2009-A-04 (Clipsham/Craig) «~~ ~ -. ~, ~ ~ , ~ . _ . e ~_ ___~_ ., __ v __ ~.~, ~. ,~~ ~. ~ ~ Eby °~ e _ ~ ~~ ~, ~ _~ ~e f ~ ~ s t ~~ ,;~ y ' ~~ ,, ,, r ti .~'~'~ ~`~'r ~~~ _~ s~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ms.. .. , `~~,. ~~ 'ors ~: A .~. ~.' ~... ~ ~. sR F .. ,~ ~ ~ _. 5 " ., ((( ~' ~,l ``~ C~i~ct. //~~~rr~ir~c' >,. TC1VIlNEH1P QF QRC?-MEDt?NTE REPORT Application No: To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared By: 2009-A-05 Steven Farquharson, Intermediate Planner Meeting Date: Subject: Consent Application Motion # March 19, 2009 (lan and Mimi Eng) 33 Gass Road Roll #: Lot 16,17 and 18, Plan 791 R.M.S. File #: 4346-030-010-14400 (Former Township of Orillia) D13-39022 REQUIRED CONDITIONS: ["he following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision in writing that: - That the proposed boathouse maintain an interior side yard setback of 0.61 metres 2. That the applicants obtain approval from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act. 3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee; 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. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to consider a Variance Application 2009-A-05, far relief from the Township's Comprehensive Zoning By-law in relation to the required interior side yard setback provision far boathouses. ANALYSIS: The applicants are proposing to construct asingle-storey boathouse on Bass Lake, which is proposed to have a total area of 31.2 m2 (336 ftz). The applicants are requesting the following relief from Zoning By-law 97-95: 1. Section 5.6 a) Minimum interior side yard setback for a boathouse from the required 2 metres (6.5 feet) to a proposed 0.61 metres (2.0 feet). Development Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-A-05 Page 1 of 4 FINANCIAL: Not applicable. PQLICIESILEGISLATION: Does the variance conform to the genera! intent of the Uft'iciat Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the 4ffieial Plan. Section D10.1 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 applicant is not requesting an increase in boathouse area or a variance for height just for the interior side yard setback. The requested interior side yard setback variance would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline area. On this basis, the proposed variance would therefore conform with the 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 Residential Limited Service Exception 2 (RLS*2) in Zoning By-law 97- 95, as amended, due to the fact that Goss Road is a private road that is unassumed by the Township. The intent of the By-law is to establish setback requirements, which assist in preserving the natural shoreline and maintaining the residential character. The purpose of the By-law for regulating the location and height of boathouses is to prevent over-development shoreline which would ultimately impact the character of the shoreline. The proposed boathouse meets the height provisions of the By- law and the percentage of water frontage occupied by the structure. The applicant has indicated the purpose of requesting a 0.61 metre setback from the interior side yard setback is to have minimal impact on the existing shoreline. Due to the topography of the shoreline the boat rails were located on an angle preserve as much of the shoreline as possible. This would explain why the corner of the boathouse located on the lake side is proposed to be 4.61 metres and the other corner is propsed to be 1.83 metres. Therefore, the proposed variance would appear to maintain the intent of the Zoning- By-law provisions On this basis the variance is deemed to conform to the general intent of the Zoning by-law. is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the tot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed interior side yard setback for the boathouse would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding shoreline area. It should be noted that there is mature cedar hedge located along the interior side property line of the proposed boathouse which will provide a visual buffer to the neighboring property. The area in which the applicant is proposing to build the boathouse is free and any significant tree coverage, which will Development Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-A-05 Page 2 of 4 allow far there to be maximum tree preservation on the property. When a site inspection was completed by staff, it was Hated that the neighbouring boathouses at 37, 43 and 45 Gass Road, all have similar style of baathauses with approximate interior side yard setbacks of equal or less then what the applicant is proposing. Given that the proposed boathouse's reduced interior side yard setback, it will not result in the aver-development of the subject lot or the shoreline, the proposal is considered appropriate far the desirable development of the subject lat. is fhe variance minor? As this application should not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor. CONSULTATIONS: Public Works Department- No Gamments Building Department- Boathouse cannot be built on any part of septic system. Engineering Department - No Concerns Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority- No abjection ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map CONCLUSION: !, In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance application 2009-A-05, being to grant reduced interior side yard setback from the required 2.0 metres to 0.67 metres for the construction of a boathouse, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Respectfully ~bmitted: ,~' , Steven Farquharson Intermediate Planner Reviewed by: Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Services Development Services Application No. 2009-A-05 Meeting Qate March 19, 2009 Page 3 of 4 SCHEDULE 1: LC}GATIUN MAP 2009-A-05 (Eng) ~~, `, ~~ a..1 ~ t ,,, 1- t ~~. .~ ., ``~- TJV~fPJSN1P CAF SEVEF2F~ ,~ , .. ``-- F~'Y w ~ ~~f~` `~ ,~` 1 ~``-~---._ < ~~ ,, r' ~~, gin. . ~;~ ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 1 , ~~ ~ ~l . t~, '~~ ~ ~, 4 ~ / ~; -- ..._ "'~- _ ` __,...__ ~~.,. _ t~ 1 ~ 3{7 D ~Cl 12(} FJ1elers Development Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-A-05 Page 4 of 4 MAR-12-2009 09:59 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE MAR-12-2849 08:55 FROM:NVCA 7054242115 ~~ ,~ pSA Cq `~~ Pr' E ° z o ~ ~ ~~~1'ATIO ~ ,~o N A~~~ Member Municipalities nrllala-Tus~rontin nm~rritll7 Karrir Tho B1UF Mriirnta:n~ F3radfurd-~V~t C,~willimbury Gearview CullatRwrxtcl ~55~ Inns..=.hl M?h+nr than M6nn Mulmur Ni,tiv 7i wrnseth (kn-Mr tiJun1C ~~ray Ffihhl:anJ Shelh~imF Springtvatgr was,ig,~ Drach Watershed Counties ',ime uc t)ul& nn C grey Member of ~-", Cunxrvation ONTARIO March 12, 2009 Steven Farquharson, Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Township of Oro-Medante P.Q. box 100 fro, Ontario LOL 2X0 bear Mr. Farquharson; T0:1785487C~133 Re: Application far Minor Variance 2009-A-05 (Eng} Lot 16, 17 & 18, Plan 791, 33 Goss Road Township of Qro-Medonte (Formerly Township of Orillia) P.OOli001 P.1~1 1~~~ The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA} has reviewed this application for minor variance and based upon our mandate and policies under the Conservation Authorities Rct, we have no objection to its approval. We advise the construction of the proposed boathouse will require a permit under the Conservation Authorities Act prior to development. Thank you for circulating this application for our review and please forward a copy of any decision. Sincerely, Tim Salkeld Resource Planner C'unserving our Hea/thy Waters Nt )'I InwnSA~A VALLEY CC)n5FRVnT1t )N AUTHORITY [antrr fnr Canes=.rvahon lOIL1 Hix Cpnservatirm AdrnutislriYtlOn CE-titre Tiffin f unscrv:lliult Area tf195 $th LinF Ulupia On I OtvV I lf) TclelahnnP: 705.4d~.14J9 Fax iQS A?M1.'J.l I > Wu~ wNw nvid.pn.c~a ~ EmirL ld~ttinui'nvca nn.r,v TOTAL P.001 2009-A-05 (Eng) Proposed site plan .~ .~. -......._._.T - __-~.. arc---v~•°+.~ ._ ,~ ~ ~3 ~- i -; ~ _ s ~~Y``y,.~-~' '3YT'{R ~ ~ ~~ ~..~ ~ `~ __ ' ' ~_.. ,~ ~- w. sx v w~4~»~~re.~Na.Y ~~ ~ '{• ~:? "~PrC.'Mt~ ~. ~ ~ ~~~' ~ .~~~m_.~ _. ~;._~ ~:~~"~. ~~_ ~.- ~`~*• -`'~ ~ t ~- ~~~ ~~~ ~~ r4 -cr.+~P w~..V......c 44 t !J•y7+n .__t . __. ~ dF.tk wa R .r .= sF~ r _,... .~.~r -- k a * ~. ^Y 5~ Ti+M ~i ,t, ~ '~` ~` 5~.-~AAeR~ AIM +4~+C.~Nt~`3'wMG~i f~ItT,+A r4~'s'M~R/Af~ Mr~~~C i/'.~^f.~w,FS-*t +4~aM's~tCA7't~:+~,,.t 4~ota4~-'*61-sa7~" CYO " ~ ~ ~-c~ ,~ V x~~ w O Q 01 N ~~ .,~ ~~ ~~ J ~~ t ~~~ v ~t N Q 0 ~~ r C t~ ~~,~ rte' i ~~ ~ ~~ .i. ,. __ = I ~~~ ~-=~-`~ S.Lh- ~~+r ~~`~'~' r~ , ~• R ~; ~~ '~ k ~j ~ ~ d ~~ e r ~~~ ti"",,,~w. ~ ~~.~. GYM ~~ ~' '~~ ~ ~ ~i ~~ ~ (+~ ~; ~ ~a ~. ~ ~~, ~« '~ ~ ~ ~'` ~ ~ ~~~~~~.1n~~ s ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ti~ ~ i ;1 ~i~ ~• w ~,~ .~ ~z~ u~ 0. U ~. ,. 20{J9-A-05 (Eng~ ,~ ~~..~ { t '~...~ r ~r, ,. ,,, t_ !t'~, ~ ~, rw.' r ~ .L-. ,:=i6 c.-.>. Cn4 f- ~~ ~ -~ ,~~ri ,'....''~ ~~ - 1 ~, " ~ ~~~ ~. ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~, ;~ ~a .T G , ~ .-•-i c r ~r. ~ ~ e. ~"~`R ' ~ ; __ r. _ ~ .,, u ,~~. __ _ .,. Mfr - 1. ~ ~a . f-~t' . C-+~~ M. ,. -" .. ~-' 1/~ ~ _ _ ~, .. ..c:. ~ f.f~ .. ---~ _~._ ,-y--~ ~... r ", -_ ;~ ~+_i ~ '~ ~ Efa w .._. d r~' ,. o ~ ~°~ o ~, 1-.: •r t, + j .,,.-. ~. _ _.__~~ __ ~ E ~_ ____ ~ j) a !-~--~ ~ .~. r t ~ ~~~ ~~ ~,<<t~ .r ~' I u 4 )~ji r!5 ~ ~ ~~ N ~~ ~ r' ~~ R ~~ ,4 ~'~ ~` M~ °~ ~.•~! r} ~~ - tf ~ ~`~~ ~ ;~~' ~ -~ ~.l ii f ~~~ I `-J `,-> ~. ~$ <:A s~} }. < 4( <~ ~~ :~ j ~3i .~ E.. i t(~ 3 1Y-~ ~] I 1~~~ ~~ 2009-A-05 (Eng) ~1 x)il 2009-A-OS (Eng) ~ ~°~ r s ~~~,~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ '~ 'tom' " tM ~. r. View from Bass fake ~ ~ ~ ' ~ '" =~ ~ ~~ ._ .. ~ .~ w '. 5 ~ if ~ .~ ~~ »" J~ "~,r.' ~ r x ="" r ~ ~, ~y ~ .; f r' „ 24i~ ~~,' ta' ~ ~ ~ ~' .r +~~'i p l~ ~ r ~ ~. ry,, ~ ,~c;~ a .~ ~'' 1 y'~_~_ ~ i~ 1w» ~ ~ o ~ . ~ ~~,, ~ i ~.~- ~ , sw .. .~~~ p.. ~^. ~ ~~ ~'~. tom. I. `~ ~o~'W r ~ ~ ,y ',$ "~ rE ~ «~ tx ~ r T ` T,t ~~ H . ~. ~~+w ~ ' is "~ ~~yl ' Y~r7~ G . { f~r ~ '~1, c fj k~~'~ z f ;r ~:. r '~ $'~ its ~~~~ ~ ~~: ,F iy~~'a ~~~ ~~~~~~f r:.':' k ~ ~} T a .~ 3jJ' ~ MA", ~ 'r ~"~ ,"f .... ... 4 rF' ~ 4. ,~M~ " c r~,y ~i' m ~ ... .~ ~f ~i. ~ a ~~ ~ F ' ~ ~ ~vR~d " ~ ~'~ a~ ;~'' y~ s '~ , .. w '~+'~ ~ Y ~~~ . S ~Y7: . r ~ ~_ x + ,~ i f ai § ff ~. ~~ 4 ~, ,: . ~ ~ r y n~~ t.< s :L `~ g 4~. ~ : 3; i ~ F k h , 3 :~ i ' "1' ' T -. kn ~ . C ~:(~ w i f~ `~~ Sc~~3 ~ ~~ ~_ ~. ;~ ~ ~~ . ` ` 4 ,,F~: ~ :~ ~' ~ y~ -; .~~ '~. ~, ..b y,L.~k `.v", ~~~gx `,~~ ~~ F u_p r'S n ~ r x.E`iRrr~ 1 ~~~«{ s,,, , ~ r»~„"~ ,~ ~, a x, fs ~ ..r > '. ~ xt °F ~ ~ ~. .F ~ _ ~~~ ~~^^ -~` F ~ ~ ` ~ ` ~~4 ` - ; ~~ ~~ e~ W ~ ~;~ ~`, ~ ~~~ ~~:. ~; ~.: ~ ;~, ~' ,_ , w O ~ t ~ ,~ ~ '~ i .k w ~„ f6 Vf , ~ ~~'F ~~s ids-' 1' ~; E 1 a~ ..,, V/ Q ~~ ~ ` ~ L i . ,~'~' t~ ~ ~. ,,~, ~ ~ r~~~ t .ice ~ ~ ~~ ~V ~~ ~~ fLf ~' ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~>~ f x ~; ~t. x ,- _ ~, 1~9 ~~ s. ~~ ~~t /1 ~~1~/ W ,~1 y l O Q O O N ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. M ~ s ~t i~ H •"t ` ~y~ ' _ ¢ s~~ a r; r 9 ~ ~ ~~F ~ .'~ pFp( C .. ~'T K r"'~ 1 i ! 7 ~~" 1... ~. 2009-A-OS (Eng) s" ~xa / ~ ~s Sq r « LL - _ '~~ ~~ µ ~~ ,~, y __ r `~ ~, _-- } ~" ~p~~ ~~ , ~..,. ~„ w~» . Z ~~ _. hxni~;' 2009-A-05 (Eng) ,. . _ - "a~ x i~ r . i. ~K ~ ..~.;' . ..~ _ •,~,. { > L %~ +~ i ~ ry ...fir g P .~ Boathouse at 43 and 45 doss Road ~~..~!" ~'~ ~' "~ ,, t. T r 5' y~ t.LS a> .~. i' .; 1 iRF ~ y t ~~pp ;wan . ~' =K .M. ~ '~' •~rn~. t~ '~'~ ~~ ~^'~-r~r+m-~.._., 4 f~ Vi .AF ~ x ~ =1 ~~t!:: [ ~ r S L s~ n. w: ~# p ~ ~ t in ~ ":.. ~ Y ` ~. 1 i~~ ' ~+7n~ ..,,~ ~: f. n .~ _ » `~W f h ''«~ ~.M~~ ~« }1,~ ~ j :fit r u' ...._....~.~.,..~,~,..,~ , v` ~ Y "~' ~,` _~ f ~ , l.k _ a t .4r A ~~ • ^ .w .> _ ... ,~k~- ii y r v.ruww. ,~.. _. td~t.. ~ r N~ ~ jet-!~_.~4~.~[ ~ t r. ~. '.Y-r^ ......~_._..,..,._...r.-.....,..~._ ~._., ___., ...~ w.rw..»... v r x.w. ~p r. .i ~ y~ ~ ~~1 ~n `e .: .~ V .... ,. rx ,. •r .~~ _ 2009-A-05 (Eng} ~1 /°~~,f 11~~c~~~rttc~ I+rowd Hrrifrtgr, ISr~Ging 1>uenre TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT ~Di Application No: To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared By: 2009-A-07 Steven Farquharson, Intermediate Planner Meeting Date: Subject: Consent Application Motion # March 19, 2009 (Jason Brearley and Janis Nevison) 25 Huronwoods Drive Lot 99 Plan Roll #: , , M_g R.M.S. File #: 4346-010-003-14702 D13-3899$ REQUIRED CONDITIONS: The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report so that:: a) the addition be located no closer than 3.0 metres from the west interior 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 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. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to consider a Variance Application 2009-A-07, for relief from the Township's Comprehensive Zoning By-law in relation to the required interior side yard setback provision. ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to construct a 53.3 sq. m. (573.3 sq. ft) addition onto an existing dwelling, with a 18.0 sq..m (194.1 sq. ft) deck on the rear on the proposed addition. The property is zoned Residential One Exception 113 (R1 *113) Zone. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Table B1, as amended by exception 113 of Zoning By-law 97-95: Required Proposed Minimum required interior side yard setback: 4.5 metres 3.0 metres FINANCIAL: Not applicable. Development Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-A-07 Page 1 of 4 PO~ICIESILEGISLATION: Does the variance conform to the ,general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Residential in the Official Plan. Section C14.2.4 which contains the policies far the Sugarbush and Buffalo Springs Nodes. It states that the "permitted uses on lands designated Residential an the schedules to this plan are single detached dwellings, home occupations, private recreational facilities." Therefore, the prapased addition with an attached deck to an existing dwelling would be considered a permitted use in the Residential designation. On this basis the proposal is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan. Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Residential One Exception 113 {R1 *113) Zone. The Residential One Zane permits single detached dwellings and accessory buildings. Within exception 113, the minimum required interior side yard setback is 4.5 metres, with the applicant proposing a setback of 3.0 metres, it was determined as a result of a site inspection, that the proposed addition and deck, should not adversely impact access to the rear of the property. The reason far a request of 3.0 metres is to incorporate into the addition living space and garage area. The intent of having an interior side yard setback is to ensure that there is a degree of buffering between neighboring dwellings. The subject application is prapased to maintain a separation of approximately 7.0 metres from the proposed addition and neighbaring dwelling. It is Hated that the normal minimum interior side yard setbacks in a R1 Zane is 2.5 metres. In addition, the prapased expansion of the dwelling and deck would otherwise meets with all other Zoning By-law provisions (such as maximum height, front and rear yard setbacks) for dwelling units in the R1 Zone. 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? Based on the site inspection, the proposed addition and deck would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot, and would be in keeping with the general characteristics of the surrounding residential area. Further, there is a cleared area with a driveway leading to the area where the addition 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. CONSULTATIONS: Public Works Department- No Comments Building Department- Proposal appears to meet minimum standards Engineering Department - No Concerns Development Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-A-07 Page 2 of 4 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map CUNGLUSION: In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance application 2009-R-07, being to grant an addition and deck onto an existing dwelling have a reduced interior side yard setback from the required 4.5 metres to 3.0 metres, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Rct. Respectfully submitted: t Steven Farquharson Intermediate Planner Reviewed by: Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Services Development Services Application No. 2009-A-07 Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Page 3 of 4 SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP 2009-A-07 (Brearley and Nevison} 3 -~ . ~ ~r~~ 666 i I i j,~ /f f ~6 ~ 1{ `~. ~~; !~ I !~ /'~;~ ~~"`~ ~ ~~ s t` ,'' f r', ~ ~~ jj' /` ,t ~ ,•' ~~`~, 1~~`~. ~ -~.., ~, ~ ~ ~, ;~ ~ -w ~.~~ ~ ~ ~ r-r-_-- ~~-- ~~ ,, ~ ~~ ~~ ~i 4} ~ '~~ ~: t ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ 4 ,', ~ ~~ _,.~ ~~~ ~ I ~tl ~/ J,,' t? 25 (} 9 50 `, Meters Development Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-A-07 Page 4 of 4 ~)s C O .~ v Z _v L L m ~i 1 a 0 0 N #:. Vii: "i° ~~x ~f`y ,.' z; ~~~ :x~~ .X. ;~L. .r°: ~:~+! . ~~" ~ F•~ ~~ dn;' ~,~~. ... yd. :~...y O ~ L.. ....,. ~xk xi 3 _ ~ : ,., Z '~ ~"~ ~ m ~ ~ ,~,.~..,.~' ~ ¢ «;. .. ~ r ~ ». .. w ...,y -^-~p1~ S ~~' .. , ~ "`~e,.. .... ~ ~;aklli~:,i'ttal~t+~At.4Wrw ....~_ _. ... ,cc.:nn.~ ..,~.. 3., .. s,`t" S ..._ .... ... t:.:~t..,,;. dzn a ate. weu......_ i .a1Y -f x>~ ~~ O ~° • ^/, ~, i~ W Z lW nL L, ~~I W ^! x O s a` o, ~; ... o i._ 0 N 4 z r ~' +.~. ..T~w~ .. ~~ K .~A `.y Yi ; . w « 1tM'«. r W ~BwIDlri _~...t,. .. ~i ~~: _iw ~~. old:»Y ~^4F+t ~ ~7f ° 3~ T`t`ir L^W'w.wr 4'~ ~f~b:?~'isfk~f' SG~ ~~ ,:~ t~: _: ~;.: 2009-A-07 (Brearley/Nevisonj xi)`i r., "'fi ~,. ~~ r ~ 11 1 '~~ i ~, s ;~ ^ } +^ ', h Orr also.. n ~~.,~yr(~ aa~ ~ ~ I> ~ ~ I~ . ~~; . • m rY-, rq'. hs~ . ,.~ r Y ~ i1f ' I . ~ y ~, G ~~ -a ~' `~` ~d' ' ~ , i+klr' fiN 1a ~ , x H ~l ~~~~„~' ~ _~y ~r 3 ~I~ ~ } Zt 'G.. ~ y y "'Cy ~ ` ~~ "P~Y~~ ~ f ~ 1 { ~ Q' yy ~y.. ~ :~':. . u' fm ~~e" r v L a ~ 'f~ ~4 y~8~ ~Br.. .,. tt ~. ~. _: ~ ~ I ~ 4. O kr ~ 1 ~i ) ~~~* ~~~ i -. [ ...tit •~+~ci'"~~' `~-~'t ~. i s4 .. ::. x s ~ K ~ ~ _ :r .~ ~f.. ~~ ~ ~ I ur .~:"...t ..rm v~pq.n¢ ~# ' j H..x 5 ~~ ~ ~ L .. n .. ~~ .. ~x. h..~ . ; ~ ~~ f ~14sY Y ~ ~ ~ ~irL~r3,».': un~~nr.. 'nnFF~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~~io T 0 .; v Z v L m v I Q N _~ -, TlJWNSNIP C7F QR4"-MEDONTE REPtJRT Application No: To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared By: 2009-A-06 Steven Farquharson, Intermediate Planner Meeting Date: Subject: Consent Application Motion # March 19, 2009 {Harold Roe and Linda Ambrose) 65 Barrie Terrace Lot 15 and 16 Roll #: , , Plan 1 R.M.S. File #: 4346-010-006-00900 D13-38999 REQUIRED CONDITIONS: BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to consider a Variance Application 2009-A-07, for relief from the Township's Comprehensive Zoning By-law in relation to an expansion of anon-conforming structure and the required front yard and west interior side yard setback provision in the RLS Zone. The applicant has previously applied for and was granted a variance for a reduced in east interior side yard setback of 1.9 metres ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to construct a two storey 150 sq. m. (1616 sq. ft) addition, onto the front of an existing dwelling. The property is zoned for residential use. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Section 5.16.1 (b)(c) and Table B1 of Zoning By-law 97-95: 5.16.1 -Enlargement, Repair or Renovation of aNon-Complying Building (b) Does not increase the amount of floor area or volume in a required yard (c) Does not in any other way increase a situation of non-compliance Required Proposed Table B1-Minimum Front Yard Setback: 7.5 metres 4.5 metres - Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback: 3.0 metres 1.0 metres FINANCIAL: Not applicable. POLICIES/LEGISLATION: Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section C5.2 of the Plan states that "permitted uses on lands designated Shoreiine...are single detached dwellings [and accessory buildings to such]". Therefore, the addition to the existing dwelling to attach the existing detached garage to the dwelling would be considered a permitted use. Development Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-A-06 Page 1 of 4 do this basis the proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan. Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-!aw? The subject property is zoned Residential Limited Service*Hold {RLS*H) Zone. Permitted uses in the RLS*H Zone include single detached dwellings and accessory buildings, such as garages and storage sheds. The property is zoned "limited service" to reflect that access is provided by Barrie Terrace, being an unassumed or private road. The purpose of the interior side yard setback is to provide access to the rear yard of the property, and to provide for a degree of separation between neighbouring dwellings. It is noted that there is existing tree coverage along the west lot line which appears have to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed addition. A site inspection revealed that the proposed addition would be situated closer to the west interior side yard lot line than the existing dwelling. The proposed interior side yard setback is 1.0 metre and the existing dwelling's side yard is approximately 4.5 metres. The Hold provision ensures that further development on such properties will require a Site Plan Agreement, to be approved by the Township and registered an title. Far the application at hand, it is appropriate that site plan approval be impose~J as a condition cf the variance. With respect to the request for variances to expand a non conforming structure and to reduce the side and front yard setback, the applicant has provided a survey indicating that the detached garage does not comply with current zoning provisions for accessory structures in the RLS Zone; however, as the detached structure was built in approximately 1976, it would be considered anon-conforming structure. The proposed two storey addition, including a garage would further reduce the existing side yard setback and add additional floor volume in a required yard setback. With respect to the reduced front yard setback, a site inspection revealed that the subject property does not access Barrie Terrace directly; according to the site plan provided by the applicant, a 4.5 metre wide easement exists along the entire frontage of the property, and serves as a laneway to provide access for the subject and neighbouring properties to Colbourne Street. While the Zoning By- law does not have a setback requirement to the easement boundary, the Public Works Department has indicated that structures are not permitted on this right-of-way, as it currently serves as an access route for properties along Barrie Terrace. The applicant could not park a vehicle in front of the proposed addition without obstructing the easement. The proposed addition to be attached to the existing garage and the proposed second floor does not comply with the side yard setback requirement of the RLS Zone. The application is proposing to further reduce a deficient side yard setback. In addition, the property to the west of the subject lands is currently approximately 4.8 metres from the subject lands with windows facing the proposed addition, and as such privacy issues for neighbouring dwelling are anticipated. The total length of the proposed addition and existing garage with a 1.0 metre interior side yard is approximately 18.3 metres. Therefore, the variance is considered to not comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Development Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-A-06 Page 2 of 4 is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the tot? °- With the existing dwelling having a floor area of approximately 77.9 sq. metres, and the proposed addition of 117 sq. metres (including the existing garage), the propased total Haar area of the dwelling will be approximately 195 sq. metres. The By-law is silent is regards to a lot coverage provision. The resulting dwelling will cover 19 percent of the lot. The addition is proposed to be larger then the existing dwelling by approximately 39.1 sq. metres. Based on the above, the application to further encroach and add floor volume into the required interior side yard and to reduce the front yard setback does not appear to be appropriate far the desirable development of the lot. is the variance minor? As this application is anticipated to have an adverse affect on the character of the surrounding residential area, and the neighboring dwellings, the propased variance is not considered to be minor. CONSULTATIONS: Public Works Department- Structures not permitted an Right of Way Building Department- Proposal appears to meet minimum standards Engineering Department - No Concerns fake Simcoe Conservation Authority- ATTACHMENTS: Schedule 1: Location Map CONCLUSION: In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2009-A-06, being to expand a non- conforming structure and to have a front yard setback reduced from the required 7.5 metres to 4.5 metres, appears to not meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Respectfully submitted: S-ri Far uharsan q Intermediate Planner Development Services Application No. 2009-A-06 Reviewed by: Glenn White, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Page 3 of 4 SCNEDU~E 1: L©CATIQN MAP 2Q49-A-46 (Roe and Ambrose) f ~ ,~ r f \ ~ 4' +` .f~\ 4~ j~l i ~' ~„ ~ .,'`~ ~` r'` ~` ~i, ~\ r~'' / ~~. ''~ `~ ~~ ~f f ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ r~~ / `~ r' ~~ fry ~~f ~`~-~ f ~f ~` ~` ~ f . / f/' ~' fib ~,. ,~'~`'~ ,/ '' ~f / ~ f fr ~`~` `. , ~~}~ / ~.~~ ``', f F i / ' ~~I ,. r ~~~~'Rr~ ~. -- .~ ~.,_ C -, _.v f ~ ,~ r , __ ~` r ~ ~ I 1 ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. +, ~ ~~ ~. r ~~~,r LAKE SIh~COE 4 24 4tl 84 124 1 ~i0 tvteters Development Services Meeting Date March 19, 2009 Application No. 2009-A-06 Page 4 of 4 2009-A-06 (Row/Ambrose~ 5~~~ ~-. QJ N L Q 3 0 oc 0 a 0 0 N 2009-A-06 (Row/Ambrose) ~.~. ,~ :~ x~r r err ~.:,.. y say ::.,.. ~„ Existing dwelling and garage t ~~~ .~...,~ ~~_r k., ;, r r ~; A ~z~ 2009-A-06 (Row/Ambrose) .~. ,. ~- -..,, ..w~,.. ~. ~, ~. _. Current side yard setback `/t ~~ 2009-A-06 (Row/Ambrose) G 2009-A-06 (Row/Ambrosej 2009-A-06 (Row/Ambrose) 1s '~ k ,. ~ - ~ ~ ; ~ ~ r ~ ,dam ~ ~ i' ~° r r ~,~ t ~.~ -~- Neighbouring dwelling ~'~`~ .~ . ~ ~ ~ ,. s .. ~~ ~~ , ~~ ~ .r r ~.~ -___J ~-- 2009-A-06 (Row/Ambrose) ~ - :~~ ~ a _ ,.. ,~ , x~ ~~ View of neighbour's dwelling _ . ~-~ ; - iit ~ * i 4 ~ +, ~ t 4~ ; 3 ~. ,~. - . ,r > '° °~ „ h. ~ 4 ~~ a,- ~ ,~ ~ }' V, . t 3 8 ~ ~ t -~: . ~,1 ~ ~ a~ r~ ,. _ _ ~, , , ~a, .: _, ~,~r~ ~ a~ PY l.J ~