03 18 2010 C of A AgendaPage
3 -14
15 -33
34 -43
44 -52
64 -73
Tow nship of
Proud Heritage, Exciting Future
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING BY THE CHAIR
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
a) Motion to adopt the agenda.
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING AGENDA
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
DATE: THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010
TIME: 9:30 AM
3. "DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE
THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT"
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a) Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday, January 21,
2010.
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
a) 2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3 North, Pt Lots 1 2, Concession 3 4 (Formerly Township of
Oro);
Variance from permitted use to erect a building for storage purposes.
b) 2010 -A -02, Nancy Rouse;
1109 Woodland Drive, Plan 993, Lot 22 (Former Township of Orillia);
Variance from minimum Front Yard Setback construct an addition to the
existing dwelling.
c) 2010 -A -04, Joseph Balkovec;
25 Stanley Avenue, Plan 626, Lot 13 (Former Township of Oro);
Variance from minimum interior side yard setbackd to demolish the existing
dwelling and construct a new dwelling.
53 -63 d) 2010 -A -05, Dave Best and Violet Watkins;
741 Line 13 North, Concession 14, Part of Lots 13, Plan 51R-20687 (Former
Township of Oro);
Variance from setback from the interior side lot line to construct agricultural
building.
e) 2010 -A -06, Catherine Wright c/o Andrew Wright;
12 Cook Lane, Plan 794, Lot 6 (Former Township of Oro);
Variance for height of a boathouse.
Page 1 of 83
Page
74 -82
83
Committee of Adjustment Thursday, March 18, 2010
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
f) 2010 -B -02, Elizabeth and David Woronka;
East Part of Lot 24, Concession 9, 51R-26601, being Parts 1 and 2, 628
Ridge Road East;
Application for a lot addition /boundary adjustment.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
a) Correspondence dated February 18, 2010, Ontario Municipal Board, re:
Appeal Withdrawn for 2009 -B -35, 389 Horseshoe Valley Road East, Barry
and Alice Cockburn.
7. NEXT MEETING DATE
Thursday, April 15, 2010, 9:30 a.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT
a) Motion to adjourn.
Page 2 of 83
Proud Heritage, Exciting Future
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Present:
Staff Present:
1.
Towtzrhip o�
None declared.
Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday,...
THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING MINUTES
Council Chambers
Michelle Lynch, Chair
Lynda Aiken, Bruce Chappell, Garry Potter
Steven Farquharson, Intermediate
Planner /Secretary Treasurer, Meghan Keelan,
Planner, Marie Brissette, Committee
Coordinator /Deputy Secretary Treasurer
OPENING OF THE MEETING BY THE CHAIR
Michelle Lynch assumed the Chair and called the meeting to order.
3. "DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL
NATURE THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT"
9:37 a.m.
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
a) Motion to adopt agenda.
Motion No. CA100121 -01
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that the agenda for the Committee of Adjustment meeting
of January 21, 2010 be received and adopted as amended to add under 6.
New Business:
d) Appointment of 2010 Chair.
e) Appointment of 2010 Co- Chair.
Carried.
Page 3 of 83
Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday,...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, January 21, 2010
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a) Minutes of the November 19, 2009 meeting.
Motion No. CA100121 -02
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Chappell
It is recommended that the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting
held on November 19, 2009 be adopted as printed and circulated with the
amendment under 7. Next Meeting Date, the time noted as 9:00 a.m. to be
amended to 9:30 a.m.
Carried.
Page 4 of 83
Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday,...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, January 21, 2010
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
a) 2010 -A -03 Christopher Taylor and Carol Rose
247 Lakeshore Road West, Lot 6, Plan 807 and Part 2, 51 R28525, Lot 6
(Former Township of Oro)
Proposal: To construct a single storey accessory building (not a detached
private garage).
Christopher Taylor, Applicant, was present.
Correspondence dated January 19, 2010 and January 20, 2010 from
Domenic and Lauren Natale was distributed to the Committee.
Motion No. CA100121 -03
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Chappell
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves application
2010 -A -03 Christopher Taylor and Carol Rose, 247 Lakeshore Road West,
Lot 6, Plan 807 and Part 2, 51 R28525, Lot 6 (Former Township of Oro), being
to for the construction of a single storey accessory building, not a detached
private garage with an area of approximately 12.2 sq. m. (132 sq. ft) in front of
the existing dwelling, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the
application and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee.
2. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained
from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.
13.
3. That the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals 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 accessory structure be
located no closer than 2.9 metres from the front lot line.
Carried.
Page 5 of 83
Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday,...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, January 21, 2010
b) 2009 -A -28 Terry and Denise Coram
41 Blueberry Marsh Road, Concession 2, Part of Lot 65, RP 51 R -19869
(Former Township of Medonte)
Proposal: To construct a detached accessory building (two car garage).
Terry Coram, Applicant, was present.
Motion No. CA100121 -04
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves application
2009 -A -28 Terry and Denise Coram, 41 Blueberry Marsh Road, Concession
2, Part of Lot 65, RP 51 R -19869 (Former Township of Medonte), being to for
the construction of a detached accessory building (2 car garage), to have an
area of 125 square metres, subject to the following conditions:
1. That notwithstanding Section 5.1.6 of Zoning By -law 97 -95, the structure
shall otherwise comply with all other provisions for detached accessory
buildings, as required under Section 5 of the Zoning By -law.
2. That the floor area of the detached garage not exceed approximately
125 square metres.
3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the
application and on the sketch submitted with the application and
approved by the Committee.
4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of
compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the
floor area of the detached accessory structure not exceed
approximately125 square metres.
5. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained
from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.
13.
Carried.
Page 6 of 83
Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday,...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, January 21, 2010
c) 2009 -A -29 Horseshoe Valley Resort/Clinton Smout
3101 Line 3 North, Concession 3 4, Part of Lots 1 2, pt of Blk 14 Plan
M720 (Former Township of Oro)
Proposal: To construct a detached accessory building (storage).
No one was present on behalf of the application.
Motion No. CA100121 -05
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Potter
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment defers application 2009
A-29 until the applicant provides to the Committee of Adjustment:
1. A copy of a suitable agreement with the owners of the property.
2. The appropriate building drawings to be designed and engineered.
Carried.
Page 7 of 83
Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday,...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, January 21, 2010
d) 2010 -A -01 Martin and Eileen Carl
7 Melissa Crescent, Plan M71, Lot 7 (Former Township of Oro)
Proposal: To construct a single storey addition onto the front of an existing
dwelling.
Martin Carl, Applicant, was present.
Motion No. CA100121 -06
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Chappell
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves application
2010 -A -01 Martin and Eileen Carl, 7 Melissa Crescent, Plan M71, Lot 7
(Former Township of Oro), being to an application to reduce the side yard
setback from 2.5m to 2.1m and the front yard setback from 7.5m to 4.4.m for
an addition onto an existing dwelling, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the
application and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee.
2. That 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 addition be located no
closer than approximately 4.4 metres from the front lot line and
approximately 2.1 metres from the interior side lot line.
3. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained
from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final
and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.
13.
Carried.
Page 8 of 83
Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday,...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, January 21, 2010
e) 2010 -A -02 Nancy Rouse
1109 Woodland Drive, Plan 993, Lot 22 (Former Township of Orillia)
Proposal: To construct an addition to the existing dwelling onto the front of an
existing dwelling.
No one was present on behalf of the application.
Motion No. CA100121 -07
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment defers Variance
Application 2010 -A -02, being an application to reduce the front yard setback
from 7.5m to 5.5.m for an addition onto an existing dwelling, until the proper
Notice of Hearing requirements under the Planning Act are fulfilled.
Carried.
Page 9 of 83
Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday,...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, January 21, 2010
f) 2009 -B -37 Howard and Barbara Rogers
8 Simcoe Avenue, Lots 71 -75, Plan 709 (Former Township of Oro)
Proposal: To permit a boundary adjustment.
Doug Hill, Solicitor for the Applicant, was present.
Andy Tereshyn provided clarification in regards to the two existing dwellings
on one property.
Motion No. CA100121 -08
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional
approval to application 2009 -B -37 Howard and Barbara Rogers, 8 Simcoe
Avenue, Lots 71 -75, Plan 709 (Former Township of Oro), being to permit a
boundary adjustment. The boundary adjustment will cause Lot 73 to be added
to the existing lands (Lot 74 75) to the north resulting in a lot having
approximately a frontage of approximately 45 metres on Simcoe Ave and a lot
area of approximately 1,769sq.m (0.17ha). The proposed retained lot (Lot 71
72) would contain approximately 30.48 metres of frontage on Simcoe Ave
and a lot area of approximately 1,179.8sq.m (0.11 ha), subject to the following
conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the
severed parcel with an area of approximately 589.9sq.m and frontage of
approximately 15.2m be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be
submitted to the Secretary- Treasurer.
2. That the severed lands (Lot 73) be merged in title with Lots 74 75,
Plan 709, former Township of Oro(4346- 010 008 -17100 4346 -010-
008 -170 PIN 5857- 0130)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 10 of 83
Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday,...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, January 21, 2010
g) 2008 -B -49 Federico Rossi and Silva Rossi
5395 Line 8 North, Part of Lot 14, Concession 9 (Former Township of
Medonte)
Purpose: Creation of a new residential lot.
Federico, Silva and Marko Rossi, Applicants, were present.
Motion No. CA100121 -09
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional
approval to application 2008 -B-49 Federico Rossi and Silva Rossi, 5395
Line 8 North, Part of Lot 14, Concession 9 (Former Township of Medonte),
being to permit the creation of a new residential lot by way of severance. The
land to be severed is proposed to have a depth of approximately 76.2 metres,
frontage along Line 8 North of approximately 54.8 metres, and a lot area of
approximately 0.41 hectares. The land to be retained is proposed to have a lot
area of approximately 36.6 hectares, subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary-
Treasurer.
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality.
3. That the applicant pay $2,000.00 for each lot created as cash -in -lieu of a
parkland contribution.
4. That the applicant apply to the Township to have a holding provision
placed on the retained lands, in order to satisfy the recommendations of
the EIS (Dillon Consulting, September 2009) submitted and approved by
the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.
5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro Medonte.
6. That the applicants verify the sewage system meets the minimum
required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.
7. 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 11 of 83
Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday,...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, January 21, 2010
h) 2010 -B -01 Jean Bylow c/o Connie Andersen
9733 Highway 12, Part Lot 5, Concession 14, (Former Township of Medonte)
Purpose: Severance of lands from the portion of the property which is draft
approved for a residential subdivision.
Joshua Morgan, Agent for the Applicants, was present.
Motion No. CA100121 -10
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Potter
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional
approval to application 2010 -B -01 Jean Bylow c/o Connie Andersen, 9733
Highway 12, Part Lot 5, Concession 14, (Former Township of Medonte), being
to permit the severance of lands from the portion of the property which is draft
approved for a residential subdivision (2008- SUB -01). The lands to be
severed have an area of approximately 0.27 hectares, and frontage along
Highway 12 of approximately 56 metres. The retained lands are proposed for
the future development of 22 residential lots, which has a total lot area of
approximately 5.54 hectares, subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary-
Treasurer.
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed
conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality.
3. That the applicant pay $2,000.00 for the lot created as cash -in -lieu of a
parkland contribution.
4. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro Medonte.
5. That By -law 2010 -006 be passed and becomes full force and effect.
6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled
within one year from the date of the giving of the notice.
Carried.
Page 12 of 83
Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday,...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, January 21, 2010
6. NEW BUSINESS:
a) 2004 -B -44 Elizabeth and David Woronka
628 Ridge Road East, Lot 24, Concession 9 (Former Township Of Oro)
Kathryn Whitehead, Agent for the Applicants, was present.
Motion No. CA100121 -11
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment adds the
following condition:
1. That the applicants to prepare and submit for review by the municipality
an easement for a mutual driveway from Ridge Road West (County
Road 20) to access Part 1 and Part 2 of Plan 51 R- 26601, which is to be
registered in title on for both the severed and retained lands.
Carried.
b) 2008 -B -22 Ian Johnstone
274 Line 11 South, Part of Lot 22, Concession 10 (Former Township of Oro)
Motion No. CA100121 -12
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Chappell
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment revises condition 3 to
state:
1. That the existing lot at the north west corner be merged in title with 265
Line 9 South, Concession 10 West Part of Lot 22, (Former Twp. Of Oro)
and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of the Planning Act apply to
any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands
including the undertaking from the applicants solicitor to this effect.
Carried.
c) Ontario Municipal Board Appointment of Hearing, dated December 21, 2009,
re: 2009 -B -35 (Barry, Susan and Alice Cockburn).
The Secretary Treasurer advised the Committee that the Township had
received further correspondence advising that the Appeal had been deferred.
Motion No. CA100121 -13
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Chappell
It is recommended that the correspondence dated December 21, 2009,
Ontario Municipal Board Appointment of Hearing, re: 2009 -B -35 (Barry, Susan
and Alice Cockburn) be received.
Carried.
Page 13 of 83
Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday,...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, January 21, 2010
d) Appointment of 2010 Chair.
Motion No. CA100121 -14
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that Bruce Chappell be appointed as Chair of the
Committee of Adjustment for the remaining meetings within the Committee's
Appointed Term in 2010.
e) Appointment of 2010 Co- Chair.
Motion No. CA100121.15
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that Michelle Lynch be appointed as Co -Chair of the
Committee of Adjustment for the remaining meetings within the Committee's
Appointed Term in 2010.
7. NEXT MEETING DATE
Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT
a) Motion to adjourn.
Motion No. CA100121 -16
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 12:27 p.m.
Steven Farquharson, Secretary Treasurer Michelle Lynch, Chair
Carried.
Carried.
Carried.
Page 14 of 83
r�r�xq.��;
(9;:f
/S.41 Heritage, E icing F..n.e
Application No:
2009 -A -29
Meeting Date:
March 18, 2010
Roll
4346 -010- 002 -03500
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Variance Application
(Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout)
3101 Line 3 N
Pt Lots 1 2, Concession 3 4,
former Township of Oro
Prepared By:
Meghan Keelan, Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D13 -40091
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.
The purpose of this report is to consider Variance Application 2009 -A -29, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law in relation to a permitted use in the Agricultural/Rural
Exception 15 (A/RU*15) Zone. The applicant applied for a permit to erect a building for storage
purposes, accessory to the existing business. The storage building would consist of three storage
containers in a U shape with a steel frame coverall over the center to create a covered area.
According to the drawings submitted by the applicant, the steel frame will be covered by ply -wood.
It was determined that the existing commercial use was not permitted under the zoning. However, a
previous permit had already been granted for a portable for the office portion of the business in 2006,
as such the business has been operating on the site since 2006, despite the prohibitive zoning. In
order to rectify the situation and to permit the applicant to obtain the necessary permits for the
accessory storage structure, a minor variance is required.
As per the letter from the applicant attached, the business is a training school for recreational
vehicles, i.e. snowmobiles, ATVs and other off -road vehicles. This facility trains students from ages 6
to adults.
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2009 -A -29 Page 1 of 5
Page 15 of 83
2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3...
This application came before the Committee on January 21, 2010. At that time the Committee
decided to defer the application in order to receive more information from the applicant. The applicant
has supplied the information. The provision of this information does not alter the planning opinion and
recommendations offered in the original report. That analysis is offered here again for the
Committee's consideration.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant has been running a business on the property since 2006. The minor variance is required
to permit this business to operate as the zoning does not permit any uses which did not exist prior to
the passing of the current Zoning By -law 97 -95. Zoning By -law came into effect November 5, 1997. The
business was not in operation on the subject lands at that time. This report will review the four tests of
the Planning Act to determine if the minor variance is appropriate and supportable from a planning
perspective.
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Horseshoe Valley Resort Facility in the Township's Official Plan.
Section C14.3.5 of the Plan states that "small scale resort- related facilities are permitted A small
business which offers recreational vehicle training to resort guests as well as Oro Medonte residents
is considered to be a small scale resort- related facility. This business is small scale because of its
physical size. It operates out of a single former classroom portable. It also has lease agreements with
the County of Simcoe to operate on the County Forest Trails.
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 land is zoned AgriculturaVRural Exception 15 (A/RU *15). This exception provision is for
lands adjacent to settlement areas. Exception 15 does not permit any use that did not exist at the date
of the passing of the By -law. As previously stated, the By -law came into effect on November 5, 1997, at
which time the use did not exist.
The intent of the exception provision, A/RU *15, is to prevent the un- organized expansion of
settlement areas without a comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan has been undertaken for the
Horseshoe Valley Node and it resulted in the current Official Plan designation of Horseshoe Valley
Resort Facility. As previously discussed the use is permitted in this designation.
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2009 -A -29 Page 2 of 5
Page 16 of 83
Aside from the use, the existing office and proposed accessory storage would otherwise comply with
the other provisions of the Zoning By -law for the A/RU Zone. The variance to permit this commercial
use would maintain the general intent of the Zoning By -law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The use has been operating on the lot since 2006 without issue or complaint, to the Township's
knowledge. As per the attached cover letter from the business owner, there is relatively little noise or
disturbance from the operation of the business. Also the lot is designated for this type of use, a use
ancillary to the operation of the resort. When the comprehensive plan for the Horseshoe Valley Node
was created recreational uses ancillary to the resort were contemplated. The existing recreational
vehicle training center could be interpreted to be an ancillary recreational use.
Based on the above, the application existing commercial business appears to be appropriate for the
desirable development of the lands.
Is the variance minor?
The surrounding uses are maintenance buildings associated with a residential development, large
agricultural properties, and County forests; these uses are not likely to be disturbed by the operating
business. There is a residential development to the south of the subject lands. As described by the
applicant, the business does not appear to infringe or disturb this development.
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 no concerns
Engineering Department—
ATTACHMENTS:
2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3...
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Applicant's letter
Schedule 3: Additional Information supplied by the applicant
a) Engineering Report by Tacoma's dated 16 October 2008 on the storage container base
b) Engineering Report by Austin Engineering dated 18 July 2007 on the coverall
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2009 -A -29 Page 3 of 5
Page 17 of 83
CONCLUSION:
2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3...
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2009 -A -29, being to operate a
commercial business and subsequently construct an accessory storage structure, still appears to
meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted:
x d
Meghan" Keelan, BES
Planner
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2009 -A -29 Page 4 of 5
Page 18 of 83
N
w
z
J
Development Services
Application No. 2009 -A -29
SUBJECT AREA
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2009 -A -29 (Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout)
,HORSESHOE VACLEY-ROA-
11'
0 85 170 340 510 680
Meters
2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3...
c)
111
z
w
•z
w
¢1
z
o.
2
`.0
0
4
Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Page 5 of 5
Page 19 of 83
skyline
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT INC.
March 8, 2010
Mr. Steven Farquharson
Intermediate Planner
Township of Oro Medonte
148 Line 7 South
Oro, Ontario
LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Farquharson,
Re: Horseshoe Riding Adventures
Part Lot 1, Concession 3
Oro Medonte (former Oro)
County of Simcoe
Roll No. 434601000203500
Yours truly,
e International Development Inc.
Gil
Preside
(I have the
ority to bind the corporation)
2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3...
Please accept this letter as authorization for Mr. Clinton Smout, Program Manager, Horseshoe
Riding Adventures, Mr. Rowley Ramey, Executive Vice President of New Business
Development, Skyline International Development Inc., Mr. Martin Kimble, Vice President,
Operations, Horseshoe Resort, and MHBC Planning to represent Skyline International
Development Inc. for the purposes of obtaining a Minor Variance on the above noted lands.
154 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 200
TORONTO, ONTARIO M5H 3Y9
TEL: 416.368.2565 FAX: 416.368.2572
Page 20 of 83
Date:
Project:
Client:
Dist.:
Background:
Tacoma Engineers was asked to perform a review of a new storage structure for the above listed
property by Mr. Clinton Smout. The structure was comprised of three 40'- 0 "x8' -0" shipping
containers that are 8' -6" high and configured in a U shape to produce a 40'-0" x 48' -0" base. Placed
on top of these containers was 26' -0" wide proprietary multi storage shelter that was 48' -0" long as
shown in the photograph below.
A random visual review of the shelter was performed on Thursday, May 22, 2008. The client
expressed that a sheathed stud wall was wanted in the back of the shelter which would be placed over
the overseas container (finishes by others). As shown in Photo 1, the material covering was not
installed over the shelter but the frame was installed. The following are our structural comments:
Comments:
The following loads were used in our analysis:
Live Load (Snow):
Wgt. Of Container
Dead Load (Shelter)
Wind Load, quso
570 Bryne Drive, Unit M
Barrie, Ontario
Canada L4N 9P6
E N G. f N EE.RS
October 16, 2008
New shelter on shipping containers, Oro
Horseshoe Resort Riding Adventures
Clinton Smout, Program Manager
2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3...
STRUCTURAL
REPORT
S -1
No. of Pages: 6
Project. No.: TA- 1372 -08
Permit No.: N/A
Pick up
S 2.7 kPa (Midland) x 0.8 0.4 2.56 kPa (53.5 PSF) accumulation
35.6 kN (8000 lbs)
0.2 kPa (4 PSF)
0.39 kPa (8.2 PSF)
Pio ct ions1En
TEL: 705 735 -1875 x104
FAX: 705 735 -4801
markm @tacomaengineers.com
Page 21 of 83
2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3...
Container Occupancy 4.8 kPa (100 PSF)
Category 3 wind conditions considered for the shelter portion of the structure.
Commercial occupation considered.
Soil Bearing capacity 47.9 kPa (1000 PSF)
Soil assumed to be sand that is not frost susceptible
Shipping Containers conform to ISO standards and are free of deformations
Tacoma Engineers is able to assess the ability of the containers to support the shelter that has been
installed onto them, but, the shelter and its connections to the wood support beam are by others. As per
the specifications provided by the client, the shelter will be a slippery roof and with its shape the
substructure was analyzed with an accumulated snow load sliding snow load starting at 8.4 kPa
(175PSF) and reduces to 6.5 kPa (136PSF) at the edge of the container as shown in Drawings Si
attached. This accumulation is the worst case result of the three snow load cases identified in the
Structural Commentaries of the NBC 2005 for this roof shape. It is important to note that the
specifications for the multi purpose shelter express that the structure is to be heated and that
accumulated snow is to be removed to prevent deformations of the structure. The accumulation listed
on the attached drawings is the result of all of the snow from one side of the shelter applied to the steel
container roof. The effects of the drift on the arched storage shelter are to be considered by others and
are addressed in the manufacturer's specifications. It is also important to note that the wind analysis
determined that the connection to the wood plate bearing beam on top of the container is to resist a
maximum factored uplift load of 7.25 kN (16301bs).
It was observed that a 4x4 SPF #2 continuous beam was installed 12" from the edge of the container. It
was also noted that this wood bearing plate was connected in random location. There are two items of
note for this connection. The wood members are not pressure treated so a gasket must be installed
below the wood member to protect the outside edge and top of the wood from moisture. This gasket or
some other form of treatment must be applied to the wood member to protect it from the elements. It is
advised to use "Blue Skin" adhesive vapour barrier or to replace the 4x4 members with pressure treated
members with the same dimensions. Secondly, it is necessary to provide 5/8" min diameter through
bolts at each shelter frame (place the through bolts 8" away from the arch supports) to insure uplift
requirements are met. Provide 1.5" diameter washers and 2x8 x 10" long member on the underside of
the container roof. Analysis has revealed that the container is capable of supporting the applied loads
of the shelter in the configuration observed with these changes.
It was noted that all of the steel containers were installed directly onto the soil and that the grade is flat
enough to provide full distribution of the loads in and onto the container to the soil below. It appears
that the soil is not susceptible to frost but this is beyond the scope of Tacoma Engineers to confirm, and
may require confirmation by an Ontario Professional Geotechnical Engineer or by an agent from the
local building department. Analysis revealed that the container design requirements outlined by the
ISO standards will be adequate to distribute the gravity loads listed above over the entire floor and this
will be enough area of subsurface for support at above listed capacity.
No connection to the grade was observed to the containers on our review. It was also noted that the
containers were not connected to each other. Wind analysis has revealed that additional tie down
requirements are necessary. Install 2 "Duck Bill" anchors, with a minimum capacity of 5000 lbs when
installed as per the manufacturer's specifications, half way along the 40' length on both sides of each
container (six total duck bills required). Provide a corrosion resistant L 3x3x1/4" x 3" long (steel
angle) connected to the wall of the container 12" above grade with a 5/8 diameter A325 Through bolt.
Connect the tie down anchor to this angle.
To prohibit lateral movement in the supporting containers which would be detrimental to the arch
shelter, two 1000mm long galvanized steel stakes with a minimum diameter of 25mm are to be driven
into the sub grade, through the two out side corner loading pin holes in each of the containers.
2
Page 22 of 83
Per:
Encl.:
2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3...
It is assumed that a fabric front door will be installed on the front of the structure. To enclose the rear
face of the shelter structure, over the containers, a 2x6 wood stud wall will be used as detailed in the
attached drawings.
Limitation:
Tacoma Engineers is responsible for the adequacy of utilizing overseas shipping containers as a
foundation for the above listed structure. All elements from the wood beam installed along the roof of
the containers down to grade and the related connections are by Tacoma Engineers. The proprietary
arched shelter and its connections are by others. In addition, all other structures on the property are by
others.
'Mark Mil e, P.Eng.
Tacoma ngineers Inc.
3 drawings
3
Page 23 of 83
L GUl
VL �E
Eµ p 1NNDR O7NER
SOT rARGMtEG'f URO'1'
f
m
..1-
I 1 1
I 1 i
1 1 1
1 1 I t
1 I 1 I
I 1 1 I
1 I
I 1 4
1 1 f•
I 1 I 1
I 1 pR' 1 N
1 I
�1 1 I
1 1 rx�T I 1 1
I I 1 1 0
I 1 1 1 '—I
1 I 1 1
1 1
o 1 I I 1 1 1
m I 1 I I 1
a' 1 1 1 I
1 I I 1' m
co
1 1 m 1
L m" 6Y
40. "P" 0.4 kPa 69 YPa
8� qq 11166 per) 106 ps4)
FoR LQaT
14C)1' A6-6 4°W 61'
pER
WALL TO 13E 50 E:f 1 OTHERS
AR GµI'fE COVER PRAME BEL��1 4.
PROFILE OF 160
v
9GALE`
HOR5
RED
1 1 riew
I
E
SOUTH ELE H
e
GRADE
0 K' PLYWOOD'
SHEATHING NAILED AT
12' 00 w/ 2' NAILS•
4
PROVIDE 2 -HILTI XDNI
FASTENERS BESIDE
EACH BM COLUMN TO
CONNECT PLATE TO
CONTAINER
END WALL ELEVATION (FRAMINn)
SCALE: I/4" I' -0"
5' -0" L 4' -0* 4•-m• l 4' -0"
130 CONTAINER T
BY OTHERS
40 0
4 x 4 DIAGONAL BRACE BEYOND EACH 3 PLY BUILT UP COLUMN
GENERAL NOTES:
1. ALL LUMBER TO BE SPF No. 2 OR BETTER
2. FASTEN ALL MEMBERS AS PER TABLE 923. OF THE
O$L.
3. ALL LUMBER EXPOSED TO ELEMENTS TO BE
PRESSURE TREATED.
4. ALL FASTENERS IN CONTACT WITH PRESSURE
TREATED LUMBER TO BE GALVANIZED.
5. ARCHED ROOF STRUCTURE AND IT8 ASSOCIATED
TIE DOWNS BY OTHERS.
'SSPIIRAL AT EAST
L END OF DOUBLE TOP
PLATE TO B/U POST
"ROFILE TO COVER ENO
3 -2 x 6 BUILT -UP
COLUMN AT 4' -0' O.G.
2 x 6 AT 24 O.C.
1 -2 x 6 TOP PLATE
ARCHITECTURAL COVER
BY OTHERS
PROVIDE 1 -14ILTI XDNI
I TO CONNECT PLATE
TO CONTAINER
BETWEEN POSTS
2 x 6 BOTTOM PLATE
one* gad
11, any.. reprofuced,a1a Trawl Bludnens
a
„.11— l vomWaieP•cn=ox
I I
TACOMA
ENGINEERS
a Ofi Or n nz
HORSESHOE
RESORT
1104 11.00.17-4X0IIVALLIVI
NEW
Vir
COVER
WARM, ONTARIO
END WALL FRAMING
ELEVATION
S2
N.)
O
O
co
D
N
O
(3
CD
0
N
0
O
5
r�
CD
w0
2 x 6 END W'E'LL
GRADE
END f00' -0'
RAGE
wA L ILO"
ARCHITEC RA COYER
JTT Ere OTHERS. BEYOND
4 x 4 CONTINUOUS DIAGONAL
C RAGS AT 4` -0' O.C.
CONTINUOUS 2 x 6
LATERAL BRACE
CONNECT WITH 3-S+'
SPIRAL NAILS AT EACH
MEMBER MTER SEGTED,
TYP•
1
1 1 1180 CONTAINER
ISO GONTAINER� ,-I ESEYexID BY
$Y OTHERS 1 OTHERS
111
SHEATI4-
HILT( X FASTENER
WIT EMBED
-.—I
WALL BRACE TOo CONNECTION
SCALE: 1" P -0°
ISOc 4A E 7
Err
1 A p1'APA A V
I GENTEREP ON 4 x 4
STZ215 STRAP BY SIMPSCN
I STROI G T1E wI I6 -00 NAILS
1 GT PER SIDE) GENT AROUND
TOP OF STUD
4 x 4 CONTINUOUS DIAGONAL
BRAGS AT 4' -0" O.C.
BUILT -UP 2 x 6 COLUMN
4 x 4 CONTINUOUS DIAGONAL
BRACE AT 4' -0" ac.
I STZ215 STRAP BY SIMPSON
STRONG TIE w! 16 -16d NAILS
1 (214" LONG)
:249 r 8" L0 LAG
C MD ON MEMBER WITH APART
MIN. 4" EMBED TO 6 x 6
6 x 6 CONT.
I
lu
DACE BAS ECT ION
SCALES I" 1' -0
WALL 61zACE CONNECTION AT WALL BASE__
SCA LE: 1" 1' -0
32 DIA THROUGH BOLT .41
I 4' -0" O.G.
„L.ISO CONTAINER BY OTHERS
1 2 x 6 LATERAL BRACE WITH
MTERI E4- INTO
2 x 6 INTERMEDIATE BRACE
GOI.NECT DIAGONAL BRACE
WITH 4- 314" SPIRAL NAILS
Uwe...QIN= inennools ors,. And
9"u9antI+ Wnq"9 m.5
wit.t. expand 1�
�'laa°C"9c' S' l�w°�°°"'FS
I
I 1
TACOMA
590p u N9Nt
1.105.735515 .705 -7UM01
HORSESHOE,
RESORT
5505
NEW
COVER
MNW
FRAMING BRACE,
AND DETAILS.
53
1
Entrance from Line 3
I
N
O
O
O
D
N
CO
0
0)
CD
Cn
0
CD
;U
CD
Cn
O
W 0
O
5
r(
CD 3
w o
c
h
2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3...
Page 28 of 83
Subject Lands
v•
0
0
1
CD
Cn
0
CD
7C1
CD
CD
0
Ck
r
5 C/)
CD 3
0.) 0
C
't
2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3...
Page 30 of 83
2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3...
Rage 31 of 83
2009 -A -29, Horseshoe Resort Skyline /Smout;
3101 Line 3...
Page 32 of 83
N
O
O
(0
D
N
(0
2
O
1
C/)
(D
Cn
0
CD
70
CD
CO
0
CA) Cn
O
5
I
5 CO
(D 3
w0
s=
f lunrhip
Qs fieztonte
Prod Heeir, r, Far Ring nowt
Application No:
2010 -A -02
Meeting Date:
March 18, 2010
Roll
4346- 030 012 -293
ANALYSIS:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Variance Application
(Nancy Rouse)
1109 Woodland Drive, Lot 22,
Plan 993
Prepared By:
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
013 -40107
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
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 addition be located no closer
than approximately 5.5 metres from the front lot line;
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to consider Variance Application 2010 -A -02, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law in relation to the required front yard setbacks for an
addition in the Shoreline Residential Exception 2 (SR *2) Zone. The application appeared before the
Committee on January 21, 2010, but was deferred until the proper notice of hearing requirements
under the Planning Act was fulfilled. The applicant has since met these requirements and the
application can now be heard by the Committee.
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing dwelling with an area of
approximately 88 sq. m. (947 sq. ft), onto the front of an existing dwelling. The property is zoned
Shoreline Residential Exception 2 (SR *2) Zone. The applicant is requesting the following relief from
Table B1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -02 Page 1 of 5
Page 34 of 83
Table B1- Minimum Required Front Yard Setback:
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
Required
7.5 metres
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?
Proposed
5.5 metres
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential Exception 2 (SR *2). The Shoreline Residential
(SR) Zone permits single detached dwellings. The purpose of the front yard is to ensure adequate
area exists between the road and structures for adequate onsite parking. The location of the addition
would provide an adequate area to allow for onsite parking off the travelled portion of the roadway.
The proposed addition of an attach garage with dimensions of 6.7 m x 6.7 m would provide adequate
space to accommodate inside the garage the required two (2) parking spaces for a single detached
dwelling. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing detached garage and replace it will an
attached garage, which is proposed to maintain the existing setback on the east property line. The
dwelling would otherwise meet with all other Zoning By -law provisions (such as maximum height,
interior side yard, rear yard and setback to the Lake).
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?
With the existing dwelling having a floor area of approximately 140.4 sq. metres, and the proposed
addition will add an additional 80.0 sq. metres of floor area, the proposed total floor area of the
dwelling will be approximately 220 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 60 sq.
metres.
A site visit revealed that the existing detached garage is located within the existing required front yard
setback within the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The proposed garage is proposed to bring the
proposed addition into compliance with the By -law for interior side yard setback. The proposed
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -02 Page 2 of 5
Page 35 of 83
attached garage will be moved further away from the front lot, and will not further encroach then the
existing detached accessory building.
Based on the site inspection, the proposed addition 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, this application to construct an addition in the required front yard setback
appears 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:
Transportation and Environmental Services
Building Department- Proposal appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department
Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority- No Objection
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2010 -A -02, to construct an addition
onto the existing dwelling and to have a front yard setback reduced from the required 7.5 metres to
5.5 metres, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted:
Steven rquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -02
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager of Planning Services
Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Page3of5
Page 36 of 83
u
Lei
z
J
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -02
SUBJECT LANDS
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -A -02 (Rouse)
LAKE SIMCOE
fl 25 50 100
150 200
imi. Meters
Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Page 4 of 5
Page 37 of 83
1:4
i
z
a
ig
0 o. hoOfkoF ,N.,
L O T
L 0 T
oLsoarocomo7
UDC :DS
F.FS ssbrIr.
Moen.
X- 75 T 7.
!oF
I- 70 7 T
1 .1 si: 4 3 I
le; ilk
in. ebs 2so
marl.
C
LOT 2 1
L 0 T
24
23
t
r—OFolnett
20
win= va Fr% cc
1- 7 0
%AL
nousop•mol.
WI ....F.
mown=
odosseolo.ssoston
PART 1
PLAN IF I.01 22. REG S PLAN. 993
(GrOCRA0111C 701OWSKIP OF 901). 01711V
TOWNSHIP OF ORO -MEDONTE
COUNTY OF CIRCUS
119 I ORS RON HOGGAI(TH
1 1 9s 1R11)
pot ot.
NOPOSED ACOMOM
NO !MOS ISSIIMOON AD EWE
f oal r A.. c I z
.1 oF WA
osmosnownv•r000r !anon snE PUJI
osuof sios
rooso
Ortroo"nons
1.to Fun 1"-DOL
XISOOliC
OFO I-2
0944
ce)
co
C)
CY)
0 0 CD
C4
03
v- co
X CC
a CL
L.
co
2
co
rel: 905- 895 -1281
1- 800 -465 -0437
905- 853 -5881
-Mail: info®lsrca.on.ca
Web: www.lsrca.on.ca
20 Bayview Parkway
3ox 282
4ewmarket, Ontario
3Y 4X1
A
Watershed
For Life
March 9, 2010
Steven Farquharson
Secretary- Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Ora Medonte
148 Line 7 South, P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Farquharson:
Re:
2010 -A -02 (Rouse)
Application for Minor Variance
1109 Woodland Drive
Township of Oro Medonte. County of Sirncoe
Thank you for providing the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority (LSRCA) with Notice of a Public Hearing regard to the
above noted minor variance application. The LSRCA has reviewed
this minor variance for consistency with the Provincial Policy
Statement and conformity with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.
The subject property is located on the shore lands of Lake Simcoe.
Given that the area proposed for development is regulated by the
LSRCA, a permit is required from this conservation authority. On this
basis, the LSRCA has no objection to the approval of this minor
variance subject to the following conditions:
That a permit be obtained from the LSRCA through Ontario
Regulation 179/06 made under the Conservation Authorities
Act, prior to the issuance of a municipal building permit.
That the minor variance review fee of $200 be paid to the
LSRCA in accordance with the Fees Policy (June 27, 2008).
Please Advise us of your decision on this matter.
Si
Chaff le F. u ens, MCIP,RPP
Senior nnii g Coordinator
Email Copy: McIntyre Design Drafting, Andrew McIntyre
LSRCA Permitting, Ian Wacker
Page 39 of 83
Page40089
Prod Heritage, Earirinp Fuuvt
Application No:
2010 -A -04
Meeting Date:
March 18, 2010
Roll
4346 010 010 -14400
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Consent Application
(Joseph Balkovec)
Plan 626, Lot 13
25 Stanley Avenue
<span style= "font size: 12pt;...
Prepared By:
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D13 -40162
The purpose of this report is to consider a Variance Application 2010 -A -04, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law in relation to reducing the minimum required interior side
yard setback provision in the SR Zone.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling, which is
proposed to be located within the required interior side yard setback. The property is zoned Shoreline
Residential (SR) Zone. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Table B1 of Zoning By -law
97 -95:
Table B1- Minimum Required Interior Side Yard Setback:
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Township of Oro Medonte Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan.
Township of Oro Medonte Comprehensive Zoning By -law 97 -95
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
guired
3.0 metres
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -04 Page 1 of 3
Proposed
1.2 metres
Page 44 of 83
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services
Building Department
Engineering Department
Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority-
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
CONCLUSION:
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by:
StevensB.URPL
Intermediate Planner
<span style "font size: 12pt;...
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2010 -A -04, being to reduce the
minimum interior side yard setback from the required 3 metres to 1.2 metres, be deferred in order for
the applicant to provide a more comprehensive drawing showing how the location of the proposed
dwelling and septic system can be accommodated within the proposed setbacks. Further, the
applicant must clarify his future intentions regarding the existing garage. Then the Planning
Department can fully evaluate the proposed setbacks.
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -04 Page 2 of 3
Page 45 of 83
0
W
z
J
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -04
0NNECRE
SUBJECT LANDS
25 STANLEY AVENUE
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -A -04 (Balkovec)
Aki
EMgRtE.D
LAKE SIMCOE
<span style "font -size: 12pt;...
0 15 30 60 90 120
Meters
Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Page 3 of 3
Page 46 of 83
Ccl: 905 895 -1281
1- 800 -465 -0437
7 as: 905- 853 -5881
Mail: info [t 1srea.on.ca
Web: www.lsrea.on.ca
20 Bayview Parkway
3ox 282
Yewxnarkct, Ontario
3Y 4X1
A
Watershed
For Life
March 9, 2010
Steven Farquharson
Secretary- Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro Medonte
148 Line 7 South, P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario
LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Farquharson:
Re:
Thank you for providing the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority (LSRCA) with Notice of a Public Hearing regard to the
above -noted minor variance application. The LSRCA has reviewed
this minor variance for consistency with the Provincial Policy
Statement and conformity with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.
The subject property is located on the shore lands of Lake Simcoe
and is regulated by the LSRCA under Ontario Regulation 179/06. As a
result, a permit is required from this conservation authority for the
proposed works. On this basis, the LSRCA has no objection to the
approval of this minor variance subject to the following conditions:
Please advise us of your decision on this matter.
Si
Char,
Senic
Application for Minor Variance
25 Stanley Avenue
Township of Oro- Medonte, County of Simcoe
That a permit be obtained from the LSRCA through Ontario
Regulation 179/06 made under the Conservation Authorities
Act, prior to the issuance of a municipal building permit.
That the minor variance review fee of $200 be paid to the
LSRCA in accordance with the Fees Policy (June 27, 2008).
es, MCIP,RPP
Coordinator
Email Copy: LSRCA Permitting, Ian Walker
<span style "font size: 12pt;...
2010 A 04 (Balkovec)
Page 47 of 83
4N
•apan sme,o.size-12pt..
Page 51 of83
RAC-UN
(AV. iylorzte
Mow' Hrnfayr, E.., i,ing Future
Application No:
2010 -A -05
Meeting Date:
March 18, 2010
Roll
4346- 010- 005 -207
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Variance Application
(Dave Best Violet Watkins)
741 Line 13 North
Concession 14, Part of Lot 13,
Plan 51 R -20687 (Oro)
Prepared By:
Steven Farquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D13 -40284
The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision:
1. That notwithstanding the interior side yard setback being reduced to 5.2 metres that the structure
shall otherwise comply with all other provisions for agricultural buildings, as required under Table
B4(c) of the Zoning By -law;
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the
sketch submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
3. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the interior side yard setback of the structure is
no closer than approximately 5.2 metres;
4. That the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals, if required, from Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority, if applicable
5. 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 Variance Application 2010 -A -05, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law in relation to the minimum required interior side yard
setback for an agricultural building in the A/RU Zone.
The subject property has a lot frontage of 91.4 metres on Line 13 North, a depth of 442 metres, and a
lot area of 4.0 hectares. The subject property contains a single detached dwelling, built in
approximately 1971. The property is located east of Line 13 and south of Old Barrie Road East. The
applicant is proposing to construct a 173 square metre agricultural building, to be located on the
northern portion of the property, approximately 33.0 metres behind the existing dwelling. The
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -05 Page 1 of 6
Page 53 of 83
applicant has indicated that the location of the agricultural building is to minimize tree removal and to
utilize the existing driveway. Storage within the building will be to accommodate agricultural equipment,
recreational vehicles as well serve as a workshop.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to construct an agricultural building with an area of 173 square metres (1870
square feet), which will be located within the required interior side yard setback. Specifically, the
applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Req uired Proposed
Table B4(c): Minimum required setback from the interior side lot line: 15 metres 5.21 metres
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Oro Moraine- Natural Core /Corridor Area in the Official Plan. Section
B1.10.1.3 of the Plan states that "permitted uses on lands designated Oro Moraine- Natural
Core /CorridorArea...are single detached dwellings and accessory uses on existing lots, bed and
breakfast establishments, home occupations, existing agricultural uses Therefore, the construction
of an agricultural building 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 Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone, Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone
and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. The purpose for regulating the interior side yard setback
for agricultural buildings is to ensure that such buildings do not have an adverse effect on the
surrounding properties. The proposed building will have minimal visual effect on the neighbouring
dwelling which is located approximately 70 metres away to the west. The neighbouring dwelling to the
north -west is separated by a treed buffer along the rear long line. The lot directly to the north is
separated by a natural berm approximately 1 metre high. Due to the applicant's lot size they are not
limited to the floor area size requirement, but will be subject to a 5% lot coverage for all accessory
buildings. Currently there are three accessory buildings on the property, the applicant has indicated
that they are removing two of the structures and relocating the third. With the proposed agricultural
building and the one accessory building the total lot coverage will be 0.6
Aside from the interior side yard setback provision, the proposed agricultural building will otherwise
meet with the required rear and front yard setbacks, height and will not exceed the maximum 5
percent lot coverage provision. Therefore, the variance is considered to maintain the general intent of
the Zoning By -law.
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -05 Page 2 of 6
Page 54 of 83
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
A site inspection revealed that the proposed agricultural building will be located approximately 116
metres from the front property boundary, and an additional 33 metres in behind the existing dwelling.
As such, the existing dwelling will be well in front of the proposed agricultural building, and thus
remain visually predominant.
The site inspection also revealed that the subject lands are located in an area of the Township, where
surrounding lands consist of mainly large agricultural parcels. It was also noted that there consists a
large vegetative treed buffer along the front lot line which will provide a buffer and the proposed
agricultural building would not cause a visual impact from Line 13 North. The proposed location is
clear of significant tree vegetation, which will allow for the applicant to have minimal tree removal.
The applicant has indicated to staff that they are planning to replant vegetation that is removed as a
result of the proposed agricultural building. The neighbouring dwellings to the north -west is located
approximately 70 metres away, and is separated by a treed buffer along its rear lot line, which would
likely reduce the negative visual or aesthetic impact for the neighbouring residences based on spatial
separation.
Through consultations with the applicant and the Chief Building Official (CBO) for the Township, the
applicant is unable to meet the required 15 metres setback because it would conflict with the location
of the existing septic system. The Ontario Building Code specifies that the no structure can be located
within 5 metres of the septic bed. The proposed location of the agricultural building was reviewed by
the CBO and it was verified that this location would meet the required 5 metres setback under the
Ontario Building Code.
On this basis the proposal is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lot.
Is the variance minor?
As this application is deemed to conform with the Official Plan, maintain the intent of the Zoning By-
law and constitutes appropriate development, the variance is considered to be minor.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services
Building Department- Proposal appears to meet minimum standards
Engineering Department
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority- No Objection
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Site Plan
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -05 Page 3 of 6
Page 55 of 83
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance application 2010 -A -05, to reduce the minimum
required interior side yard setback for an agricultural building from the required 15 metres to 5.2
metres, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by:
Steven rquharson, B.URPL Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Intermediate Planner
Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -05 Page 4 of 6
Page 56 of 83
Development Services
h n
u
SUBJECT LANDS
741 LINE 13 N
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -A -05 (Best Watkins)
OLD BARRIE ROAD
z
0 45 90 180 270 360
Meters
Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -05 Page 5 of 6
Page 57 of 83
1
1
I I TG
L S.v -4104
II
L07
c'P
O9`
C
FOO D
Rr I
FLAN YIP-21687
4060
51)1 AOOFESS
•r,. scssS-3.144
L
0 7 1. 2
PART
54519-010
I
I
I, LOT 115 I
;e
I
4TS.
•4:,...,4.,21__
`w 20(?l
en xs�x -cc
I
I
SCALE 1: 1000
I SITE GRADING PLAN
I 09 PAM 09 LOT 12. COMCPSSOt1 14
1 ANTABMT or OM
j TOWNSHIP OF ORO- NEDONTE
I COUNTY OF SIdIDE
t :SOO
CT. SINON0I104 O.LS.
nag
aw l
Knee
p ,4) 1•TAZ
o A OA=
QYG_4'I'WwFUr4vS_M�rrl:Y. ,!Y SIC'
001 AREA 4.845 m.
,40 AR(A /94 44 44,m
pre,o e0 92.1.1 Alf:,. Z01.10 v�.m.
rcw.�amF.l
ba. :.Aa- .x
M
00
O
l
0 CO
o
1.0
C
Q
0D
f t Q.
o ea
4HT Plat MOTTO SCUM_ 6
Y ±:+O' �lr-4E Ft_ ,114:1 5
4
u r te yanr�s�
1 taP»Q, 4M no Air IN MFRS M
on EIS moans ro rrn or nano or Ong
La ro,Yw S.aN.v4C %111,.4 a 110I:n ac, as 1W E 51..21
7 w.0 x m. 411TilOIN1 0.LS
STRONGMAN SURVTTIWG LTD.
Ontario Lend Btu
ORILLIA ONTARIO
41•,.4 -1.218
0
c 3
L
l0
O
jt
8 el
N p
C
C
O B
a a
0<
Cel: 905 8954281
1 -800- 465 -0437
pax: 905- 853 -5881
Mail: info @Isrca.on.ca
Web: www.lsrca.on.ca
20 Bayview Parkway
3ox 282
Newmarket, Ontario
3Y 4X1
A
Watershed
For Life
March 9, 2010
Steven Farquharson
Secretary Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro Medonte
148 Line 7 South, P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario
LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Farquharson:
Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications
Township of Oro Medonte, County of Simcoe
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has
reviewed the following applications and we have no objection to their
approval:
2010- A05(Best /Watkins)
2010 -B02 (Woronka)
Thank you for circulating these applications for our review.
Si
C a
Seni
1 41
s, MCIP,RPP
oordinator
Page 59 of 83
Pogo 61 of
1'm.J Heritage, Exciting Fiume
Application No:
2010 -A -06
Meeting Date:
March 18, 2010
Roll
4346- 010- 005 -40200
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Variance Application
(Catherine Wright)
12 Cook Lane
Plan 794, Lot 6
2010 A 06, <span style "font
The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision:
Prepared By:
Steven Farquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D13 -40108
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 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:
i. The boathouse not exceed a maximum height of 5.2 metres from the Average
High Water Mark of Bass Lake;
3. Nothwithstanding Section 5.6 (g), that the proposed boathouse meets all other provisions of
Section 5.6 of Zoning By -law 97 -95;
4. 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.
The purpose of this report is to consider Variance Application 2010 -A -06, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law in relation to the maximum height for a boathouse. The
applicant is proposing to construct a boathouse on Bass Lake.
The applicant is proposing to construct a boathouse on the shoreline of Bass Lake. The applicant is
requesting the following relief from Section 5.6.g Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -06 Page 1 of 5
Page 64 of 83
2010 -A -06, <span style "font
Reauired Proposed
Maximum boathouse height from average high water mark of Bass Lake 4.5 metres 5.21 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 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 to setbacks just height.
The requested height 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.
One of the purposes of regulating the location and height of boathouses in the RLS Zone is to prevent
over development of the shoreline frontage which may lead to the shoreline being dominated by the
boathouse structures and ultimately impacting the character of the shoreline. The proposed
boathouse meets the setback provisions of the By -law and the percentage of water frontage occupied
by the structure. The proposed boathouse height will exceed the maximum height standard 4.5
metres by 1.2 metres. Boathouse height is calculated from the average high water mark not just the
height of the boathouse structure. It should be noted that the boathouse is setback approximately 4.5
metres (14.7 feet) from the average highwater mark. The proposed boathouse will remain, visually,
secondary to the dwelling, will not dominate the shoreline, and will not impact the potential views from
adjacent lands.
On this basis, the variance is considered to meet 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 boathouse height 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 a mature cedar hedge located along the interior property line of the
proposed boathouse which will provide a visual buffer to the neighboring property. Given that the
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -06 Page 2 of 5
Page 65 of 83
proposed boathouse height will not result in the over development of the subject lot or the shoreline,
the proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot.
Is the variance minor?
As this application is deemed to conform with the Official Plan, maintains the intent of the Zoning By-
law and is appropriate development, the variance is considered to be minor.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services
Building Department
Engineering Department
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority- No Concerns
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Proposed Site Plan
Schedule 3: Proposed Elevations
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2010 -A -06, being an application to
increase the maximum height of a boathouse from 4.5 metres to 5.2 metres from the average high
water mark of Bass Lake, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act for a variance
application.
Respectfully submitted:
Stevenharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Development Services
2010 -A -06, <span style "font
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, R P
Manager Planning Services
Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -05 Page 3 of 5
Page 66 of 83
SUBJECT LANDS
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -A -06 (Wright)
1
2010 -A -06, <span style "font
BASS LAKE SIDEROAD
0 35 70 140 210 280
mimMeters
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -06 Page 4 of 5
Page 67 of 83
SCHEDULE 2: PRPOSED BOATHOUSE
2010-A-06 (Wright)
2010-A-06, <span style="font-...
Development Services Meeting Date March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010-A-06 Page 5 of 5
Page 68 of 83
Keelan, Meghan
From: Timothy Salkeld [tsalkeld @nvca.on.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:27 AM
To: Keelan, Meghan
Subject: RE: Minor Variance Review 12 Cook Lane 2010 -A -06
Attachments: image001.gif; image002.gif
Hi Meghan.
Regards;
Tim Salkeld
Resource Planner
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
8195 8th Line
Utopia, ON
LOM 1TO
(705) 424 -1479 ext 233
(705) 424 -2115
tsalkeld(5 nvca.on.ca
.01Z,
I
From: Keelan, Meghan [mailto:mkeelan @oro- medonte.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:08 AM
To: Timothy Salkeld
Cc: Farquharson, Steven
Subject: RE: Minor Variance Review 12 Cook Lane 2010 -A -06
Sorry Tim,
Here is the right memo with the application information attached.
Sincerely
Meghan
Meghan Keelan ,B.E.S.
Planner
i
2010 -A -06, <span style "font
The NVCA has no objection to a minor variance application which would affect the height provision for the proposed
boathouse.
This e -mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message
Page 69 of 83
Township of Oro Medonte
Pram Heritagr. Exciting bow
P: (705) 487 -2171
F: (705) 487 -0133
148 Line 7s.. Box 100
Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0
www.oro-medonte.ca
This e -mail may contain PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by e -mail. Further, you should not copy, disclose, or
distribute this e -mail or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful. This e -mail may contain viruses. The Township of
Oro Medonte has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage you may sustain as a result of any
virus in this e -mail. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening the e -mail or attachment. The Township of Oro Medonte
reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e -mail address. Messages sent to or from this e -mail
address may be stored on the Township of Oro-Medonte's e -mail system.
From Keelan, Meghan
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:04 AM
To: Timothy Salkeld'
Cc: Farquharson, Steven
Subject: Minor Variance Review 12 Cook Lane 2010 -A -06
Tim,
Please find attached a minor variance for your review.
Sincerely
Meghan
2
2010 -A -06, <span style "font
Page 70 of 83
"f
441 4
2010-A-96. <span style,tont-.
(r° fi
Proud Heritegr, Eminrvp £olx.e
Application No:
2010 -B -02
Meeting Date:
March 18, 2010
Roll
4346- 010- 009 -084
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Consent Application
David and Elizabeth Woronka
East Part of Lot 24, Concession 9,
51 R- 26601, being Parts 1 and 2
628 Ridge Road East
Prepared By:
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D10 -40308
Development Services Meeting Date: March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -3-02 Page 1 of 4
2010 -B -02,
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 628 Ridge 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. the applicants to prepare and submit for review by the municipality a Reference Plan showing
an easement for a mutual driveway from Ridge Road West (County Road 20), which is to be
registered in title on for both the enhanced and retained lands
4. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the
parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
5. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be
enhanced will merge in title;
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 a boundary adjustment to convey approximately 0.16 hectares (0.4 acres)
from the subject property to the neighbouring lot to the west. The proposed retained lot, would
consist of approximately 2.9 hectares (7.3 acres), and is currently vacant. The applicant has
indicated that the lands to be conveyed would provide a vegetative buffer between the existing
dwelling on the enhanced lot and retained lands. No new building lots are proposed to be created as
a result of the lot addition.
Page 74 of 83
ANALYSIS:
2010 B 02,
The purpose of application 2010 -B -02 is to permit a lot addition /boundary adjustment. The subject
lands to be conveyed would have a frontage of approximately 10.6 metres on Ridge Road East, a
depth of approximately 162 metres and an area of approximately 0.16 hectares. The subject lands
are proposed to be added to the adjacent lands to the west (628 Ridge Road East). No new building
lot is proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition. Due to the applicant obtaining a mutual
driveway access for both the retained and enhanced lot as a result of consent application 2004 -B -44,
a condition is recommended to be included that an easement be placed on title to recognize the
mutual driveway.
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
OFFICIAL PLAN
The subject lands are designated Agricultural by the Official Plan (OP). Section D2 of the OP
contains policies with respect to subdivision of land. Specifically, Section D2.2.2 "Boundary
Adjustments provides the following guidance for Consent Applications in general:
"a consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot
is created... the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not
affect the viability of the use of the properties affected."
With respect to the application at hand, no new building lots are being created and it is not anticipated
that the proposed boundary adjustment would affect the viability of the agricultural parcel. The
subject lands are vacant with a treed vegetative buffer, which it is to be conveyed to the enhanced lot
and would serve has the new lot line location. As such, the proposed boundary adjustment is
generally in keeping with the intent of the policies stated in the Official Plan, and otherwise conforms
with the boundary adjustment policies contained in Section D.2.2.2.
ZONING BY -LAW
The subject property is currently zoned AgriculturaURural (A/RU) Zone in the Township's Zoning By-
law. The lot to be enhanced, 628 Ridge Road East, is also zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone.
The enhanced lot currently contains a single detached dwelling and an accessory building. The
intended use on the enhanced lot is to remain residential. The enhanced lot will have a total area of
approximately 2.5 hectares. The severed and retained lots both exceed 2 hectares, and would
therefore be of sufficient size to allow for agricultural uses such as a hobby farm to occur.
Therefore, the application would comply with the provisions as prescribed by the Zoning By -law.
Development Services Meeting Date: March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -13-02 Page 2 of 4
Page 75 of 83
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services
Building Department-
Enginee ring Department
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority- No Objection
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule #1- Location Map
CONCLUSION:
It is the opinion of the Planning Department, that Consent application 2010 -B -02, for a boundary
adjustment would appear to conform to the policies of the Official Plan, and maintains the use and
setback provisions of the Zoning By -law.
Respectfully submitted:
Reviewed by:
zc�a
Steven rquharson, B.URPL Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Intermediate Planner Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date: March 18, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -02 Page 3 of 4
2010 -B -02,
Page 76 of 83
Application No. 2010 -B -02
Enhanced Lot
Retained Lot
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2009 -B -02 (Woronka)
1
0 30 60 120
1�0
240
Meters
Development Services Meeting Date: March 18, 2010
Page 4 of 4
2010 -B -02,
Page 77 of 83
fel: 905 895 -1281
1- 800- 465 -0437
pax: 905 -853 -5881
-Mail: info@lsrca.on.ca
Web: www.lsrca.on.ca
20 llayview Parkway
lox 282
Newmarket, Ontario
3Y 4X1
A
Watershed
For Life
March 9, 2010
Steven Farquharson
Secretary Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro Medonte
148 Line 7 South, P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario
LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Farquharson:
Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications
Township of Oro- Medonte, County of Simcoe
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has
reviewed the following applications and we have no objection to their
approval:
2010- A05(Best /Watkins)
2010 -B02 (Woronka)
Thank you for circulating these applications for our review.
Si*
C ar es
SeniIA Pla
s, MCIP,RPP
oordinator
2010 -B -02,
Page 78 of 83
.110 41.
,4
PaQD80 of 83
-2010.0Z
Ontario
Municipal
Board
655 Bay St Suite 1500
Toronto, ON M5G 1E5
Tel (416) 326 -6800
Toll Free: 1 -866- 887 -8820
Fax (416) 326 -5370
www.omb.aov.on.ca
February 18, 2010
Steven Farquharson
Secretary- Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro Medonte
148 Line 7 South, Box 100
Oro, ON
L0L 2X0
Yours truly,
1 2wa l
Patrick Hennessy
SECRETARY
C.C.
13.12
Subject:
Correspondence dated February 18, 2010, Ontario Municipal Bo...
Case Number:
File Number:
Municipality:
Municipal Number:
Property Location:
Applicant:
Appellant:
Commission des
affaires municipales
de ('Ontario
655 rue Bay Bureau 1500
Toronto, ON M5G 1 E5
Tel (416) 326 -6800
Sans Frais: 1-866-887-8820
Telec (416) 326 -5370
www.omb.aov.on.ca
R
Subsection 53(29) of the Planning Act provides;
he Clerk, Township of Oro Medonte
The Clerk, County of Simcoe
E. Marshall Green
Douglas Christie
Barry Alice Cockburn
Andria Leigh
Bruce Hoppe
Eli
FEB 2 2 2010
O HO MVIEDONTE
TQWNSHIP
PL091045
PL091045
Oro Medonte
2009 -B35
389 Horseshoe Valley Road East
Barry Alice Cockburn
County of Simcoe
There are no outstanding appeals in this matter, and our file is closed.
VIA: Regular Mail
I am writing to advise that the appeal by the County of Simcoe was withdrawn by letter dated
February 5, 2010.
(29) If all appeals under subsection (19) or (27) are withdrawn and the time for appealing
has expired, the Municipal Board shall notify the council or the Minister, as the case may
be, and subject to subsection (23), the decision of the council or the Minister to give or
refuse to give a provisional consent is final.
Page 83 of 83