11 19 2009 C of A AgendaTorvnsI of
Proud Heritage, Exciting Future
Page
1. OPENING OF THE MEE
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING AGENDA
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday, November 19, 2009
9:30 a.m.
TING BY THE CHAIR
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
a) Motion to adopt agenda.
3. "DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE
THEREOF - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT"
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
3-8 a) Motion to adopt minutes of meeting held on October 15, 2009.
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
9-22 a) 2009-A-23 - Ed Mayhew (Revised)
13 Greenwood Forest Road, Concession 5, Plan 709, Lot 37, (Former
Township of Oro)
Variance from Interior Side Yard Setback and Rear Yard Setback.
23-34 b) 2009-A-26 - Roth
117 Poplar Crescent, Plan 985, Lot 23 and Part of Road Allowance known as
Poplar Crescent (Former Township of Oro)
Relief from maximum height, maximum lot coverage and maximum floor area.
35-46 c) 2009-A-27 - Peter and Liliane Zimmerman
9 Grandview Crescent, Lot 2, Plan 935
Relief from front yard and interior side yard setbacks for an attached garage.
47-60 d) 2009-13-36 - Doug and Ruth Kingsbury
15 Forest Plain Road, Lot 20, Plan 1719
Create a new lot by way of severance.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
61-64 a) OMB Decision dated October 29, 2009, re: 2008-A-51.
Page 1 of 64
Page
6. NEW BUSINESS:
b) Mandatory training, re: Accessibility Standards for Customer Service.
7. NEXT MEETING DATE
Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT
a) Motion to adjourn.
Page 2 of 64
Agenda Item # 4a) - Motion to adopt minutes of meeting held on October 15, 2009.
A"i
THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
!COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MINUTES
~T h Council Chambers
Prond Heritage, Exciting Future
Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:30 a.m.
Present: Michelle Lynch, Chair, Lynda Aiken,
Bruce Chappell, Garry Potter, Rick Webster
Staff Present: Steven Farquharson, Secretary
Treasurer/intermediate Planner; Marie Brissette,
Deputy Secretary Treasurer/Committee Coordinator
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING BY THE CHAIR
Michelle Lynch assumed the Chair and called the meeting to order.
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
a) Motion for Adoption.
Motion No. CA091015-01
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Webster
It is recommended by the Committee of Adjustment that the agenda for the
meeting of Thursday, October 15, 2009 be received and adopted as amended to
include:
6a) Correspondence dated October 13, 2009 from Harold and Linda Roe, re:
Variance Application 2009-A-08.
6b) Cancellation of December 17, 2009 meeting.
Carried.
Page 1 of 6
Page 3 of 64
Agenda Item # 4a) - Motion to adopt minutes of meeting held on October 15, 2009.
Minutes of the October t5, 2009 meeting of Committee of Adjustment.
"DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL
NATURE THEREOF - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT"
None declared.
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a) Minutes of the meeting held on September 17, 2009.
Motion No. CA091015-02
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Potter
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment minutes of the meeting held
on September 17, 2009 be adopted as printed and circulated.
Carried.
Page 2 of 6
Page 4 of 64
Agenda Item # 4a) - Motion to adopt minutes of meeting held on October 15, 2009.
W
Minutes of the October 15, 2009 meeting of Committee of Adjustment.
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
a) 2009-B-34, Wayne Ross
4917 Line 4 North, West Part of Lot 11, Concession 5 (Medonte)
Boundary Adjustment
Gary and Wayne Wilson, applicants, were present.
Motion No. CA091015-03
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional approval
to Consent application 2009-B-34 being to permit a lot addition/boundary
adjustment. The subject land is municipally known as 4917 Line 4 North, and also
has a frontage of approximately 21 metres on Mount St Louis Road West, with a
depth of approximately 85 metres and an area of approximately 0.18 hectares.
The subject lands are proposed to be added to the adjacent lands to the east
(730 Mount St. Louis Road West). No new building lot is proposed to be created
as a result of the lot addition. 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 730 Mount St. Louis Road West
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.
Carried.
Page 3 of 6
Page 5 of 64
Agenda Item # 4a) - Motion to adopt minutes of meeting held on October 15, 2009.
A
Minutes of the October 15, 2009 meeting of Committee of Adjustment.
b) 2009-B-35, Alice, Barry and Susan Cockburn
389 Horseshoe Valley Road East, North Part of Lot 1, Concession 9 (Oro)
Boundary Adjustment.
Alice Cockburn, applicant, was present.
Motion No. CA091015-04
Moved by Webster, Seconded by Chappell
That the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional approval to Consent
application 2009-B-35 being to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The
subject land is municipally known as 389 Horseshoe Valley Road East, having a
frontage of approximately 4.8 metres on Horseshoe Valley Road East, a depth of
approximately 140 metres and an area of approximately 0.05 hectares. The
subject lands are proposed to be added to the adjacent lands to the west (351
Horseshoe Valley Road East). No new building lot is proposed to be created as
a result of the lot addition. 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 351 Horseshoe Valley Road
East 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.
Carried.
Page 4 of 6
Page 6 of 64
Agenda Item # 4a) - Motion to adopt minutes of meeting held on October 15, 2009.
"M
Minutes of the October 15, 2009 meeting of Committee of Adjustment.
c) 2009-A-25, Fercan Developments Inc.
2921 Highway 11, Part Lot 21, Concession 7 (Oro)
Variance for Relief from the Definition of "Custom Workshop".
Ray Duhamel, agent, and Bruce Bateman, pending purchaser, were present.
Don Atkinson, current tenant within the subject building, questioned the
management of fumes.
Motion No. CA091015-05
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Aiken
That the Committee of Adjustment approve Variance application 2009-A-25
for Fercan Development Inc, for relief from the definition of "Custom Workshop"
found in Zoning By-law 97-95, in order to operate the establishment of a
woodworking and furniture manufacturing use. The business also proposes to
have a retail component. Subject to the following condition:
1. 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.
2. And that the manufacturing area be limited to approximately 10,000 square
feet (929 square metres).
Carried.
Page 5of6
Page 7 of 64
Agenda Item # 4a) - Motion to adopt minutes of meeting held on October 15, 2009.
1
Minutes of the October 15, 2009 meeting of Committee of Adjustment.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
a) Correspondence dated October 13, 2009 from Harold and Linda Roe, re:
Variance Application 2009-A-08.
Motion No. CA091015-06
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Webster
It is recommended that the correspondence dated October 13, 2009 from Harold
and Linda Roe, re: Variance Application 2009-A-08 be received.
Carried.
b) Cancellation of December 17, 2009 meeting.
Motion No. CA091015-07
Moved by Webster, Seconded by Chappell
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment cancels the December 17,
2009 meeting.
Carried.
7. NEXT MEETING DATE
November 19, 2009.
8. ADJOURNMENT
a) Motion for Adjournment.
Motion No. CA091015-08
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 11:10 a.m.
Carried.
Steven Farquharson, Secretary Treasurer Michelle Lynch, Chair
Page 6 of 6
Page 8 of 64
Agenda Item # 5a) - 2009-A-23 - Ed Mayhew (Revised) 13 Greenwood Forest Road,
C...
Yra.J HeN E.nk1ng F'w~~rc
Application No:
2009-A-23 (REVISED)
Meeting Date:
November 19, 2009
Roll
4346-010-008-19800
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Variance Application
(Edward Mayhew)
13 Greenwood Forest Road
Concession 5, Plan 709, Lot 37
(Former Township of Oro)
Prepared By:
Meghan Keelan, B.E.S.
Planner
Motion #
R.M.S. File
D13-39610
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 that:
a) the deck be located no closer than approximately 1.7 metres from the side lot line; and
b) the deck be located no closer than approximately 4.9 metres from the zone boundary
acting as the rear lot line.
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.
It is recommended that the previously approved conditions are amended as follows:
1. Condition 1.b is amended such that the deck and stairs be located no closer than approximately
1.0m from the zone boundary acting as the rear lot line.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property, located at 13 Greenwood Forest Road, has road frontage of approximately 15
metres (50 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1.16 hectares (12,200sq.ft). The property currently
has a 128.9sq.m (1,388sq.ft) single detached dwelling, with a basement and a loft. The deck is
proposed to be located on the lake (rear) portion of the dwelling. The applicant is proposing to erect a
35.3sq.m (380.5sq.ft) deck, which would be setback 1.7m (5.5ft) from the east side lot line (previously
granted variance) and approximately 1.0m from (3.2ft) from the boundary between the Shoreline
Residential and Open Space Zones, which acts as a rear lot line. The Township Zoning By-law requires
a 7.5m (24.6ft) rear yard setback in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone for a deck.
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-23 (Revised)
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 1 of 7
Page 9 of 64
Agenda Item # 5a) - 2009-A-23 - Ed Mayhew (Revised) 13 Greenwood Forest Road,
C...
Originally the applicant measured 4.9m from the edge of the proposed deck and the OS zone
boundary. However, when the application for a zoning certificate was made, the design of the
proposed deck was changed and the applicant realized that the original application was based on a
miscalculation. As a result and based on new calculations, for the proposed deck and stairs to be
achieved a reduced setback to approximately 1.0m is required. The deck size has been reduced from
53.2sq.m (573sq.ft) to 35.3sq.m (380.5sq.ft).
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to construct a deck attached to a single detached dwelling with an area of
approximately 35.3sq.m (380.5sq.ft). The applicant is requesting the following relief from Table B1
Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone of Zoning By-law 97-95:
Required Previously Granted Proposed
Rear Yard Setback: 7.5 metres 4.9 metres 1.0 metres
Zoning provision of Section 5.9.1 (permitted encroachments) shall not apply as it relates to the
proposed deck.
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 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.
• To ensure that existing development is appropriately serviced with water and sewer services
The requested variance for the deck would appear to maintain the character of the residential area,
as a deck is accessory to dwellings, which are permitted in the Shoreline designation. The deck
would not infringe on any natural features or the shoreline. Therefore, the variance would conform to
the general intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan.
Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) and Open Space (OS). The Shoreline
Residential (SR) Zone permits single detached dwellings. This property is subject to a split Zoning,
historically the OS zone was applied along the shoreline in this area to ensure that no structures were
placed on those lands that may impede access to the shoreline. The Township's Zoning By-law
states that the prescribed setbacks are measured to lot lines, or in the case of a property with a split
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-23 (Revised)
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 2 of 7
Page 10 of 64
Agenda Item # 5a) - 2009-A-23 - Ed Mayhew (Revised) 13 Greenwood Forest Road,
C...
zoning, the zone boundary acts as a property boundary (Section 5.15). In this instance, the boundary
between the OS and SR Zones acts as the rear property line for the setback to the deck. As such the
Township applies the rear yard setback requirement of 7.5m.
As previously stated, the applicant is requesting a reduction from the previously approved 4.9m to
1.0m from the edge of the proposed deck to the OS zone boundary. As a result of a revised deck
proposal and based on new calculations, for the proposed deck and stairs to be achieved a reduced
setback to approximately 1.0m is required. The purpose of interpreting zone boundaries as lot lines
in the case of properties with split zoning is to ensure the proper separation of uses. However, in this
instance the same use is happening in both zones, it the OS zoned area is amenity space of the
dwelling. Therefore it is Township's staff's opinion that a separation distance is not required. Also, the
purpose of having the shoreline are zoned OS is to preserve access to the lake. The deck will not
infringe or impeded that access as it is wholly contained within the SR zoned area. Therefore even
the reduced setback to 1.0m will conform with the intent of the Zoning By-law.
With the previously approved variance for the side yard setback, the deck otherwise meets all of the
other Zoning By-law provisions such as maximum height and setback to the average high water mark
of Lake Simcoe. On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered to comply with the general
intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Decks are permitted uses in the Shoreline Residential zone as accessory to single detached
dwellings; they are considered appropriate development in this zone. As the deck will be wholly
contained in the area zoned Shoreline Residential and will not impede or infringe on the Open Space
zoned area the variance is considered appropriate.
Is the variance minor?
As this application should not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area, or the intended
use of the subject lands, the proposed variance is considered to be minor.
CONSULTATIONS:
Public Works Department
Building Department- no concerns
Engineering Department - no concerns
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Proposed Site Plan
3. Zone Boundary Location
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-23 (Revised)
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 3 of 7
Page 11 of 64
Agenda Item # 5a) - 2009-A-23 - Ed Mayhew (Revised) 13 Greenwood Forest Road,
C...
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance application 2009-A-23 (Revised), being an
application to amend the previously granted relief from the rear yard setback to a zone boundary for a
deck, appears to satisfy the tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted:
L j',
Meghan Keelan, B.E.S.
Planner
Reviewed by:
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Director of Development Services
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-23 (Revised)
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 4 of 7
Page 12 of 64
Agenda Item # 5a) - 2009-A-23 - Ed Mayhew (Revised) 13 Greenwood Forest Road,
C...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2009-A-23 REVISED (Mayhew)
h
d "
WINDFIELD-DRIVE
- -L KEIIEVI-ROAD---z
I
z
z
W
w
0I~
I
I
g
55
a I I
-GRSENJIV., Y
t~
I~
R
r r P'u
LAKE IMCOE
SUBJECT LANDS
`L-AKESHORE-ROAD-
l ~
BALSAM LANE
0 20 40 80 120 160
lmc~ ~ Meters
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-23 (Revised)
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 5 of 7
Page 13 of 64
Agenda Item # 5a) - 2009-A-23 - Ed Mayhew (Revised) 13 Greenwood Forest Road,
C...
SCHEDULE 2: PROPOSED SITE PLAN
2009-A-23 REVISED (Mayhew)
/
cp A C1
ad z ,Q t
goo ~a~
y '1i ~fc
%6 01b ~j
a w~ O~
+G+ o ~MaGE
s d
%
C7 y
X"
V
%
~i
♦
4C-)
o~,sGr' ~o t ~
lie,
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-23 (Revised)
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 6 of 7
Page 14 of 64
Agenda Item # 5a) - 2009-A-23 - Ed Mayhew (Revised) 13 Greenwood Forest Road,
C...
SCHEDULE 3: ZONE BOUNDARY
2009-A-23 REVISED (Mayhew)
5
GREEI~GOD FoRT.RGA~
® SUBJECT LANDS
❑ OPEN SPACE ZONE
❑ SHORELINE RESIDENTIAL ZONE
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-23 (Revised)
0 3.5 7 14 21 2R
Meters
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 7 of 7
Page 15 of 64
Agenda Item # 5a) - 2009-A-23 - Ecl lviayl `
issfTANW ON EASTERN EDGE OF DWELLING
LOCATION _ - = lolls
w r a
Agenda Item # 5a) - 2009-A-23 - Ed Mayhew (Revised) 13 Greenwood Forest Road,
C...
I
ROPOSED SIDE YARD SETBACK FACING N
Page 17 of 64
jenda Item ft Dad `v
► _ DECK F ACING
R OF PROPOSED ~1
WEST C4RNE
Agenda Item # 5a) - 2009-A-23 - Ed Mayhew (Revised) 13 Greenwood Forest Road,
Page 19 of 64
Agenda Item # 5a) - 2009-A-23 - Ed Mayhew (Revised) 13 Greenwood Forest Road,
C...
Page 20 of 64
Agenda Item # 5a) - 2009-A-23 - Ed Mayhew (Revised) 13 Greenwood Forest Road,
C...
Page 21 of 64
}
t~
t fiy :og9
Y
ti
4
a
Ati
r O E
Agenda Item # 5b) - 2009-A-26 - Roth 117 Poplar Crescent, Plan 985, Lot 23 and
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
ToZ:,,p REPORT
Hera" Eai,"g Fal.-
Application No. To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared By:
2009-A-26 Meghan Keelan, Planner
Meeting Date: Subject: Variance Application Motion #
November 19, 2009 (James Roth & Beverley Dunnett)
117 Poplar Crescent, Plan 985, Lot
Roll 23 and Part of Road Allowance R.M.S. File
4346-010-010-08500 known as Poplar Crescent (Former D13 038807
Township of Oro)
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 that:
a) The height of the accessory building is no more than approximately 5.5m;
b) The floor area of the accessory building is no more than approximately 100sq.m; and
c) The lot coverage of the accessory buildings combined (excluding the main dwelling) be
no more than approximately 7.7% of the lot area.
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.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to consider a Minor Variance Application submitted by James Roth and
Beverly Dunnett. The applicants are proposing an 111sq.m (1194.7sq.ft) accessory building with a
proposed height of 5.5m (18ft). Relief is also being considered from the maximum lot coverage
provision. The subject lands are part of a road allowance known as Poplar Crescent, being Part of
Registered Plan 985 and also include Lot 23 of Registered Plan 985, municipally known as 117
Poplar Crescent, Township of Oro-Medonte. The lands are located north of Lakeshore Road, west of
Line 10 and east of Poplar Crescent.
The subject lands have recently been subject to a rezoning. The rezoning was required as the
applicants purchased a portion of a road allowance which was deemed to be surplus by the
Township. The rezoning placed both parcels in the same zone and allowed for the reduced frontage
of the property. The site specific zone, Shoreline Residential Exception 190 (SR*190) did not address
any variances to the standard provisions for accessory structures (Sections 5.1 of the By-law), and
therefore relief is requested from those provisions as outlined below.
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-26
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 1 of 7
Page 23 of 64
Agenda Item # 5b) - 2009-A-26 - Roth 117 Poplar Crescent, Plan 985, Lot 23 and
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to construct a detached structure accessory to an existing single detached
dwelling. The garage is proposed to have a ground floor area of 111sq.m (1194.7sq.ft). The applicant
is requesting the following relief from the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended:
Accessorv Structures Section:
Rewired
5.1.4 Maximum Height: 4.5 metres
5.1.5 Maximum Lot Coverage: 5%
5.1.6 Maximum Floor Area: 70 sq. m.
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES/LEGISLATION:
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
Proposed
5.5 metres
7.7%
111 sq m.
The subject lands are designated "Shoreline" by the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The
"Shoreline" designation permits single detached dwellings and accessory structures associated with
the residential use. Section C5 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.
• To ensure that existing development is appropriately serviced with water and sewer services
The requested variances for an accessory structure would appear to maintain the character of the
residential area, as it is accessory to a dwelling, which are permitted in the Shoreline designation.
The accessory building would not infringe on any natural features or the shoreline. An accessory
building does not require servicing.
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 property was rezoned to Shoreline Residential Exception 190 (SR*190) by By-law 2009-125 on
September 23`d, 2009. This rezoning placed the newly purchased former road allowance and original
residential parcel in the same zone. The exception permitted the lot with a reduced road frontage
however it did not address the proposed accessory structure provisions requested through this minor
variance. The Accessory Structure Section of the By-law sets out provisions to ensure than any other
Development Services Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Application No. 2009-A-26 Page 2 of 7
Page 24 of 64
Agenda Item # 5b) - 2009-A-26 - Roth 117 Poplar Crescent, Plan 985, Lot 23 and
structures, other than the single detached dwelling, remains a secondary use and accessory to the
main structure/use.
The existing dwelling on the lot is approximately 120sq.m (1,300sq.ft) and is one storey tall, typically
a one storey dwelling is 6m (20ft) high. The proposed accessory structure at 111 sq.m and 5.5m is still
lower and smaller than the main dwelling on the lot; which in principle maintains the intent of
accessory structures as a secondary use on the lot. However, based on the proposed location on the
lot, the size of the lot and the surrounding uses, staff recommends that the maximum size permitted
be 100sq.m (1076.3sq.ft).
The purpose of the maximum height provision is to ensure that the impacts of the structure on the
area is minimized and restricts the uses in the building to accessory uses (i.e. human habitation is not
permitted). It is planning staff's opinion that an extra 1.0m (3.2ft) will not allow for the building to be
used for non-accessory uses; therefore the intent of the By-law is maintained.
The applicant is requesting relief from the maximum lot coverage, the purpose of this provision is to
ensure that the lot drainage is not negatively impacted by the construction of too many or too large a
building. The proposal has exceeded the maximum lot coverage as there is an existing accessory
building on the property. It is planning staff's opinion, that there are stipulations in place as part of the
Building Permit process to ensure the new accessory building does not negatively affect the drainage
on the lot. When the applicant applies for a zoning certificate, prior to obtaining a building permit, a
$2000 deposit will be required to ensure that the drainage is properly dealt with on the lot. This
deposit will be held against improper grading of the property; therefore the intent of the By-law is
maintained.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
An accessory building is permitted by the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan. An oversized
accessory building could be considered desirable development as it will ensure the applicant's
vehicles (i.e. trailer, truck, boat, and camper) are properly stored and not visible to the general public.
There is some vegetation which separates the proposed location from abutting properties, and the
proposal maintains all of the required setbacks.
It is planning staff's opinion that an oversized accessory building is appropriate on the lot as it will not
negatively impact surrounding uses and there are similar buildings in the area.
Is the variance minor?
The applicant has requested three variances to the Zoning By-law, in reviewing each individually,
they are considered minor changes to the By-law provisions. Even when considered in the aggregate,
the potential impact to neighbours could be considered minor. The construction of the accessory
structure would allow for the applicant to keep all of their accessory vehicles in a building, without
disrupting nearby residents. The nearest residence is approximately 22m from the proposed location.
As this application should not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area, the proposed
variance is considered to be minor.
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-26
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 3 of 7
Page 25 of 64
Agenda Item # 5b) - 2009-A-26 - Roth 117 Poplar Crescent, Plan 985, Lot 23 and
CONSULTATIONS:
Public Works Department-
Building Department- request for location of hydro lines
Engineering Department -
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Elevations
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance application 2009-A-26, being to grant an
increase of height for an accessory building from 4.5 metres to 5.5 metres, an increase in floor area
for an accessory building from 70 square metres to 100 square metres, and an increase in the
maximum lot coverage from 5% to 7.7% appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by:
Meghan Keelan Andria Leigh, MCI , rRPP
Planner Director of Development Services
Development Services Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Application No. 2009-A-26 Page 4 of 3-
Page 26 of 64
Agenda Item # 5b) - 2009-A-26 - Roth 117 Poplar Crescent, Plan 985, Lot 23 and
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2009-A-26 (Roth)
Q j
T f
w
J
P_o P_LA F,C RESC ENT
T~`
y
M SUBJECT LANDS
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-26
l
4
.F'
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 5 of 7
Page 27 of 64
Agenda Item # 5b) - 2009-A-26 - Roth 117 Poplar Crescent, Plan 985, Lot 23 and
SCHEDULE 1: SITE PLAN
2009-A-26 (Roth)
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-26
9.W m
fla bafD
3e% 14t;
QA4WW.
xsg
50
5.48 m
iz.IgK 3+<m P,~o~H
IIZ Pot't lm
Rp~ I-LZ 1'%1►41KF-w"N1.
31.b"m
i
ii
~L19
J
za. o
lro?LAR CCeSceNT
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 6 of 7
Page 28 of 64
Agenda Item # 5b) - 2009-A-26 - Roth 117 Poplar Crescent, Plan 985, Lot 23 and
SCHEDULE 3: ELEVATIONS
2009-A-26 (Roth)
11 I y
Y^ir
' f
♦ I~Y1~-ItIAt rM IWO,
NYti9n
s
tM
IMAW
-
p
i
NN ~I~
_ _ ~WfMfiMdiilYllrll~t
W f
l 1
w
}x I iI !I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FRONT ELEVATON
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Development Services page 7 of 7
Application No. 2009-A-26
Page 29 of 64
Agenda Item # 5b) - 2009-A-26 - Roth 117 Poplar Crescent, Plan 985, Lot 23 and
Page 30 of 64
Agenda Item # 5b) - 2009-A-26 - Roth 117 Poplar Crescent, Plan 985, Lot 23 and
Page 31 of 64
tS°Rt'
4 .
4
r
1 mt
Aw~l
Ate' ~ i~
~f<f
Agenda Item # 5b) - 2009-A-26 - Roth 117 Poplar Crescent, Plan 985, Lot 23 and
Page 33 of 64
•r
r
rY
r ~
r ~T.7P
OuR►NG GA
EIGOS
mmalfiMghw-
` A4%4
?k,
1
~
f k f
l
P~A~I,y
d A` 4
4
~ t y
p
p
t~j 1
yy
y
y
P S
y tl~z` n
d ~r
~ ~ - ' . e^ rte.- ,
ur°
d
Agenda Item # 5c) - 2009-A-27 - Peter and Liliane Zimmerman 9 Grandview Cresce...
Proud HMf E.niring Puune
Application No:
2009-A-27
Meeting Date:
November 19, 2009
Roll
4346-010-009-6160
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Variance Application
(Peter and Liliane Zimmerman)
9 Grandview Crescent, Lot 2,
Plan 935
Prepared By:
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Motion #
R.M.S. File
D13-39935
The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision:
1. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and sketches
submitted and approved by the Committee;
2. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township only after
the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O.
1990, c. P. 13.
3. That the applicant obtain any permits and/or approvals, if required, from Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority, if applicable
4. 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 that the proposed attached garage be located no
closer than 2.13 metres from the front lot line and 1.7 metres from the interior side lot line;
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to consider Variance Application 2009-A-27, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By-law in relation to the required front yard and interior side yard
setbacks for an attached garage in the Residential Limited Service Hold (RLS) Zone.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to construct an attached garage with an area of approximately 64.5 sq. m.
(695 sq. fit), onto the front of an existing dwelling. The property is zoned Residential Limited Service
(RLS) Zone.
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-27
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 1 of 5
Page 35 of 64
Agenda Item # 5c) - 2009-A-27 - Peter and Liliane Zimmerman 9 Grandview Cresce...
The applicant is requesting the following relief from Table B1 of Zoning By-law 97-95:
Reauired Proposed
Table 131- Minimum Front Yard Setback: 7.5 metres 2.13 metres
Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback: 3.0 metres 1.7 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 Shoreline... are single detached dwellings [and accessory
buildings to such]". Therefore, the addition to the existing dwelling to attach a proposed garage to the
dwelling would be considered a permitted use.
On 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-law?
The subject property is zoned Residential Limited Service (RLS) Zone. Permitted uses in the RLS
Zone include single detached dwellings and accessory buildings, such as garages and storage
sheds. With respect to the reduced front yard setback, a site inspection revealed that the subject
property does access Grandview Crescent directly. The purpose of the front yard is established to
ensure adequate area exists between the road and structures for adequate onsite parking. The
location of the attached garage would provide an adequate area to allow for onsite parking off of the
travelled portion of the roadway. The proposed garage dimension of 6.31 m x 10.23 m would provide
adequate space to accommodate inside the garage the required two (2) parking spaces for a single
detached dwelling.
With respect to the request for a reduced side yard setback, the proposed garage would not hinder
access to the rear of the dwelling, as the garage is proposed to be located along the east lot line.
Regarding privacy, there is an existing vegetative buffer that will provide a degree of buffer from the
proposed garage and the neighboring residential lot, and not likely create a visual hindrance or
otherwise impact on privacy. The proposed garage setback of 1.7 metres is the same interior side
yard setback of the existing dwelling.
In addition, aside from the proposed front and side yard setbacks, the proposed attached garage
would otherwise comply with all other provisions for dwellings as required in the Zoning By-law. As
such, the variance to permit a reduction in the front and side yard setbacks would therefore maintain
the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
With the existing dwelling having a floor area of approximately 181 sq. metres, and the proposed
attached garage of approximately 64.5 sq. metres, the proposed total floor area of the dwelling will be
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-27
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 2 of 5
Page 36 of 64
Agenda Item # 5c) - 2009-A-27 - Peter and Liliane Zimmerman 9 Grandview Cresce...
approximately 246 sq. metres. The By-law is silent is regards to a lot coverage provision. The
addition is proposed to be smaller than the existing dwelling by approximately 116.5 sq. metres.
A site visit revealed existing vegetation located along the east property line, which in turn would
provide visual buffer for the proposed garage from the neighboring lot. The proposed garage will be
located in the required interior side yard setback, but will not further encroach then the existing
dwelling.
Based on the site inspection, the proposed attached garage would appear to be appropriate for the
desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given that the
proposal would provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding
neighbourhood, it would not lead to the over development of the lot.
Based on the above, the application to construct an attached garage in the required front yard
setback does appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
As this application maintains the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the proposed variance
is considered to be minor.
CONSULTATIONS:
Public Works Department-
Building Department- Proposal appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department -
Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority-
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2009-A-27, being to construct an
attached garage, to have a front yard setback reduced from the required 7.5 metres to 2 .13 metres,
and interior side yard setback reduced from the required 3.0 metres to 1.7 metres, appears to meet
the four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted:
lid,
@Steven4 rquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Reviewed by:
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Director of Development Services
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-27
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 3 of 5
Page 37 of 64
Agenda Item # 5c) - 2009-A-27 - Peter and Liliane Zimmerman 9 Grandview Cresce...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2009-A-27 (Zimmerman)
ol7wl cESI avl
r
- -INDIAN-ROAD -
t
I
I
I
ao
z
~ I
4
Development Services
Application No. 2009-A-27
® SUBJECT LANDS
0 25 50 100 150 200
mnz~ Meters
Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Page 4 of 5
Page 38 of 64
Agenda Item # 5c) - 2009-A-27 - Peter and Liliane Zimmerman 9 Grandview Cresce...
SCHEDULE 2: SITE PLAN
2009-A-27 (Zimmerman)
GRANDVIEW ROACH
~t
6d
e o
2,4f
SG~FStc. ' ' ~ ~
5rlaa le-
rl
go 3
m
t
4`9z p
r
S
~tVj
- -.AtCL .`__?trn e .-N
Development Services Meeting Date November 19, 2009
Application No. 2009-A-27 Page 5 of 5
Page 39 of 64
Agenda Item # 5c) - 2009-A-27 - Peter and Liliane Zimmerman 9 Grandview Cresce...
■
■
off
F~
r 3
4
W p A. ANA' Ta 3 ar
W ~t l~ S
CL
-3
F ~
~ t
F~ty,
S1 ~
~
e
s
1kF ~ -
i a S..
_ Fv! ~ yij~p t
~ t V w.
k~
F
t g
f g v~
per. i ` ~ ~ h ,~n
u.1~4~ 4~13x 1N .1. : ~ ~ ~ 1~ o §
f 1 Y ~ ~y
13'F r 1'S u.
Page 40 of 64
Agenda Item # 5c) - 2009-A-27 - Peter and Liliane Zimmerman 9 Grandview Cresce...
Page 41 of 64
Agenda Item # 50 - 2009-A-27 - Peter at U L-111u
M
?WN
An Fd
"b
r6 .
V
i
ten ~ n ~ ,
4
h
~w
lj~ 7,
v
~t Y
3 C3 i c y
1
■
{
gild
d
~
Al
h0..
~
9
W
Y
r
a a
~y
4 5 ~
III
,a item R;-)%"
114G PROpt:
IGVABOUR
i
~I
I
s
;F
f
i i
~ y 1
a~r
I
t
Zs1,
Agenda Item # 5c) - 2009-A-27 - Peter and Liliane Zimmerman 9 Grandview Cresce...
W
W
a
O
W
CL
Q
J
2
w-F ra- a i a i.
w
lu
yj
u~.._ j'1 i
e✓ R
r
=d
4 R ~ 1
Page 46 of 64
Agenda Item # 5d) - 2009-B-36 - Doug and Ruth Kingsbury 15 Forest Plain Road,
t'rouJ Hmf F..rr;ring Eun,re
Application No:
2009-B-36
Meeting Date:
November 19, 2009
Roll
4346-030-012-26178
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Consent Application
(Doug and Ruth Kingsbury)
Lot 20, Plan 1719
15 Forest Plain Road
Prepared By:
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Motion #
R.M.S. File
D10-39891
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 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 $ 500.00 for the lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution;
5. That the maximum total lot area for the new lot be approximately 1.1 hectares;
6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of
the giving of the notice.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing to create a new lot by way of severance. It is the intention of the applicant to use the
lands for an Economic Development use on the proposed vacant lot to be created as a result of this
application.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of Consent application 2009-B-36 is to permit the creation of an Economic Development lot. The
lot to be severed is proposed to have approximately 91 metres of frontage on Forest Plain Road, and a lot area
of approximately 1.1 hectares. The proposed retained lot would contain approximately 66.2 metres of frontage
on Forest Plain Road and approximately 168 metres of frontage on Paterson Drive, and a lot area of
approximately 1 hectare.
Development Services
Application No. 2009-13-36
Meeting Date: November 19, 2009
Page 1 of 5
Page 47 of 64
Agenda Item # 5d) - 2009-B-36 - Doug and Ruth Kingsbury 15 Forest Plain Road,
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES/LEGISLATION:
Does the Consent conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject lands are designated "Industrial" by the Official Plan. Section C8.4 of the Official Plan
provides a policy to allow the Committee to consider applications for creation of new lots within the
"Industrial" designation. The policy permits the creation of new lots by consent in a Registered Plan
of Subdivision, such as the subject lands provided issues of servicing and access have already been
dealt with when the parcel was originally developed or approved for development. As the lands are
located within an existing registered plan, have year round municipal road access, and satisfy the lot
area requirement necessary to support servicing, the application is deemed to be in conformity with
these policies.
Due to the property being located in the "Industrial" designation and zoned in the Economic
Development (ED) Zone, it will be subject to Site Plan Control, when development is to occur. Section
C8.5.1 outlines policies in which Council shall consider when a Site Plan is submitted, which includes:
a. Adequate parking and loading facilities shall be provided on the site. These facilities,
except for a limited amount of visitor parking, should not be located between the building(s)
and Highway 11.
b. Adequate buffering from adjacent residential uses shall be provided on site
c. Building shall be designed the blend in with their surroundings and with other buildings in
the area.
d. Building or structures on untried sites shall incorporate landscaping to enhance the site and
surrounding area
e. A high standard of landscaping shall be required on the lands adjacent to Highway 11
f. Outdoor storage area shall be substantially screened from view from passing traffic on
Highway 11.
g. Where a proposed use abuts or is in close proximity to an existing residential use, fencing,
landscaping, berming or a combination of these features shall be utilized to ensure that
there is adequate screening between the uses.
Immediately to the east of the subject lands ("adjacent lands"), the property is designated
Environmental Protection One and Environmental Protection Two Overlay. The September 21, 2009
correspondence received from Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has confirmed
they have no objection to the creation of the new lot (generally splitting the existing lot in half) at the
above-noted location since:
• The majority of the lands are located outside the flood plain according to the topographical
information provided;
• The proposal would conform to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) including the existing
use policies.
It should be noted that any proposed development on the subject lands will be subject to the LSPP
whereby there would be further study and setback requirements. Any application for site plan
Development Services
Application No. 2009-B-36
Meeting Date: November 19, 2009
Page 2 of 5
Page 48 of 64
Agenda Item # 5d) - 2009-B-36 - Doug and Ruth Kingsbury 15 Forest Plain Road,
approval or permit approval under the Conservation Authorities Act to allow for any development will
further trigger the Protection Plan requirements.
On the basis of the above, the proposed lot is generally in keeping with the intent of the industrial
policies stated in the Official Plan, and otherwise conforms to the policies contained in Section C8.4.
Does the Consent comply with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The subject property is currently zoned Economic Development (ED) Zone in the Township's Zoning
By-law. The application indicates that the intended use will comply with the permitted uses of the
Economic Development (ED) Zone. The minimum frontage for a lot in the ED Zone is 40 metres; the
subject lands will have a frontage approximately 91 metres of frontage, with an area of approximately
1.1 hectares, the required lot area for a industrial use in the ED Zone is 0.4 hectares;
On the basis of the above, the proposed creation of a new industrial lot generally maintains the intent
of the Zoning By-law.
CONSULTATIONS:
Public Works Department-
Building Department- Proposal appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department -
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority-No objection
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan (Current and Proposed)
CONCLUSION:
It is the opinion of the Planning Department, that Consent application 2009-B-36 for the creation of a
new lot would appear to conform to the policies of the Official Plan, and maintains the use and zone
standards of the Zoning By-law.
Respectfully submitted:
~YStevela Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Development Services
Application No. 2009-B-36
Reviewed by:
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Director, Development Services
Meeting Date: November 19, 2009
Page 3 of 5
Page 49 of 64
Agenda Item # 5d) - 2009-B-36 - Doug and Ruth Kingsbury 15 Forest Plain Road,
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2009-B-36 (Kingsbury)
h
Z
u_
w
z
J
0-
µ
va _
w
JAt~~tES.oN pRN.E-p
I
PATERSQN-DR{. '
Retained Lands
SeveredLands
L~l
Development Services
Application No. 2009-13-36
0 2040 80 120 160
Meters
Meeting Date: November 19, 2009
Page 4 of 5
Page 50 of 64
Agenda Item # 5d) - 2009-B-36 - Doug and Ruth Kingsbury 15 Forest Plain Road,
SCHEDULE 2. CONTEXT MAP
2009-B-36 (Kingsbury)
z
4°,
PATERSON DRIVE
Retained ands
Severed t ands
0 5 10 20 30 40
Meters
Development Services
Application No. 2009-B-36
Meeting Date: November 19, 2009
Page 5 of 5
Page 51 of 64
-
G USES IN p,,REA
EXISTtN A
o
1"
x
, r .
r
4 +1E i
~..t 7 Yl y
I
Agenda Item # 5d) - 2009-B-36 - Doug and Ruth Kingsbury 15 Forest Plain Road,
N
cl
z
Q
J
O
W
Z
Q
W
O
Z
0
to
OC
W
H
i
a
z
W
Q
H
Z
O
W.
LL
Page 53 of 64
Agenda Item # 5d) - 2009-B-36 - Doug and Ruth Kingsbury 15 Forest Plain Road,
z
_
Q
i
a
cn
w
O
LL
z
O
w
O
Q
z
O
w
LL.
Page 54 of 64
Agenda Item # 5d) - 2009-B-36 - Doug and Ruth Kingsbury 15 Forest Plain Road,
z
w
W
W
IM
OTC
Q
D
Z
M
O
M
93
W
U)
O
CL
O
W.
IL
Page 55 of 64
Agenda Item # 5d) - 2009-B-36 - Doug and Ruth Kingsbury 15 Forest Plain Road,
N
D
Z
D
W
Z
Q
F-
W
OC
Z
F-
O
J
Q
W
W.
Page 56 of 64
m
e 6 °
Agenda Item # 5d) - 2009-B-36 - Doug and Ruth Kingsbury 15 Forest Plain Road,
■
U C
F
W
w
Q
LL
Z
U
4
LL
0
Z
Q
J
O
W
Z
Q
W
Ix
Page 58 of 64
CD
sv
D
SEVERED LANDS
Agenda Item # 5d) - 2009-B-36 - Doug and Ruth Kingsbury 15 Forest Plain Road,
Page 60 of 64
Agenda Item # 6a) - OMB Decision dated October 29, 2009, re: 2008-A-51.
ISSUE DATE:
Oct. 29, 2009
PLO90297
Ontario
Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales de I'Ontario
IN THE MATTER OF subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Applicant:
Subject:
Variance from By-law No.:
Property Address/Description:
Municipality:
OMB Case No.:
OMB File No.:
Municipal No.:
Rich Foshay
Mike Gannon
Minor Variance
97-95
6 Catherine Street
Township of Oro-Medonte
PL090297
PL090297
2008-A-51
~ t'-xm i yer
NOV 0 2 2009
T0WINISHIP
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Anent
Municipality of Oro-Medonte S. Farquarson
Mike Gannon
Rick Foshay
DECISION DELIVERED BY J.E. SNIEZEK AND G.C. O'CONNOR AND ORDER
OF THE BOARD
Introduction
Mike Gannon (the Applicant) applied for two variances from the provisions of
Zoning By-law 97-95 increasing the maximum height for an accessory structure from
4.5 metres to 5.64 metres and increasing the maximum floor area from 70 square
metres to 139.4 square metres. The Municipality approved 4.9 metres as the maximum
height and 139.4 square metres maximum floor space. Rick Foshay, (the Appellant), an
abutting neighbour, appealed the decision.
The Board heard evidence from Steve Farquarson, Intermediate Planner for the
Municipality, Rick Foshay, the Appellant and Mike Gannon, the Applicant.
Page 61 of 64
Agenda Item # 6a) - OMB Decision dated October 29, 2009, re: 2008-A-51.
-2- PL090297
Background
The subject lands are located at 6 Catherine Street, RR#2, Coldwater. The lands
are zoned Rural Residential in Zoning By-law 97-95 and designated Rural Residential in
the Official Plan.
The Rural Residential designation applies to existing estate, country estate and
chalet residential developments in the Township (Exhibit 8, p. 85).
The Rural Residential permitted uses are limited to single detached dwellings,
home occupations, bed and breakfast establishments subject to Section C1.3.10 and
accessory uses.
Zoning By-law 97-95 zones the subject lands "Rural Residential" with Special
Exception # 5. The RURZ zone permits single detached dwellings, home occupations
and private home day care (Exhibit 9, p.18). The zone standards are set out in table B1.
Section 5 sets out the provisions for accessory buildings, structures and uses.
An accessory building or structure means a detached building or structure, the
use of which is naturally and normally incidental to, subordinate to or exclusively
devoted to the principal use or main building on the same lot.
Accessory use means a use, customarily and normally subordinate to, incidental
to and exclusively devoted to the principal use and located on the same lot.
Review of the evidence
The Board heard testimony from Mr. Farquarson who stated that the application
satisfies the four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Mr. Farquarson opined that
the accessory uses are permitted in the Rural Residential designation and the proposed
home occupation use is an accessory use. Mr. Farquarson testified that the trees
between Mr. Foshay's property buffered the proposed garage and that this was
desirable. Mr. Farquarson stated that the garage would not be visible from the road and
that the visual impact from the road is minor.
Page 62 of 64
Agenda Item # 6a) - OMB Decision dated October 29, 2009, re: 2008-A-51.
a
-3- PL090297
It was also Mr. Farquarson's testimony that the proposed garage meets the
setbacks of the zoning by-law and is under the 10% coverage limit.
Mr. Foshay testified that the Applicant now repairs small engines in his existing
garage and that these activities would be moved closer to his property with the
proposed location of the garage.
Mr. Foshay indicated that the tree buffer was inadequate.
Mr. Foshay questioned why the Applicant did not locate the proposed garage to
the rear of his home. The proposed garage has a greater impact upon his home than
that of the Applicant.
Mr. Foshay also questioned the application meeting the four tests of Section
45(1) of the Planning Act. The Appellant specifically referenced the Rosedale Golf
Association vs. Freddy and Wendy Degasperis case where Justice Matlow indicated a
variance can be too large to be considered minor and too important to be considered
minor.
The planning report on the application states: "As this application should not
adversely affect the character of the surrounding area, the proposed variance is
considered to be minor."
Mr. Gannon, the Applicant, indicated that he thinks the proposed garage is
preferable to the outdoor storage of his equipment.
Mr. Gannon testified that the proposed garage would extend his construction
season and benefit his customers.
Mr. Gannon stated that the Appellant built on the half of his lot closest to his and
that because of his choice, he should not be restricted in terms of his proposed
development.
Mr. Gannon indicated that the proposed garage would contain his one ton
landscape truck, a 18.5 foot trailer and a Kubota backhoe.
Page 63 of 64
Agenda Item # 6a) - OMB Decision dated October 29, 2009, re: 2008-A-51.
-4- PLO90297
Board findings
The Board finds that the variances are not minor because they are too
large to be considered minor and would result in a development that is out of character
with the neighbouring development that contains no accessory garages.. The evidence
of Mr. Farquarson took a literal interpretation of the planning policies and failed to
consider the existing physical environment in the area. The Board also finds that the
garage of the scale proposed would have adverse impacts on Mr. Forshay's property
because of its visual impact from his property. and the fact that it is of a size and scale
that means it is not accessory to the main use a residence.
The Board Orders that the appeal is allowed and the variances are not
authorized.
"J. E. Sniezek"
J. E. SNIEZEK
MEMBER
"G. C. O'Connor"
G. C. O'CONNOR
MEMBER
Page 64 of 64