10 21 2010 C of A AgendaPage
3 -9
10 -23
24 -44
45 -57
58 -79
80 -92
93 -107
108 -126 g)
Township of
Proud Heritage, Exciting Future
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING BY THE CHAIR
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
a) Motion to adopt the agenda.
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING AGENDA
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday, October 21, 2010
9:30 a.m.
a) Minutes of meeting held on Thursday, September 16, 2010.
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
a) 2010 -B -26 UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc.
Lot 27, Plan M -187 Lot 23, Concession 5)
Boundary adjustment.
b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Ltd
Concession 7, Lot 3 (Former Township of Oro)
Technical severance to create a lot which once existed as a separate parcel of
land.
c) 2010 -B -15 Robert Drury
661 Penetanguishene Road, Lot 12, Concession 1 (Former Township of Oro)
Boundary adjustment.
d) 2010 -B -29 Douglas and Catherine Mary Shelswell
2278 15/16 Sideroad East, Concession 14, West Part of Lot 15
Technical severance to create a lot which once existed as a separate parcel of
land.
e) 2010 -B -30 Granite Hill Forestry Inc.
Block B, Plan 1650, and Block C, Plan M29
Lot addition /boundary adjustment.
f) 2010 -B -31 Adrian and Tanya McKendry
1202 Bass Lake Sideroad, Part of Lot 5, Concession 4, RP 51R-17464 Part 1
Create a residential lot by way of severance.
2010 -A -33 Suzanne Caudry
15 Pemberton Lane, Range 1, East Part Lot 1, Part 7
Relief from maximum total area of deck and boathouse.
Page 1 of 204
Page
127 -139
140 -176
177 -191
Committee of Adjustment Agenda Thursday, October 21, 2010
j)
192 -204 k)
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson Street, Plan 615, West Part Lot B
Relief from permitted locations for detached accessory buildings and
maximum floor area.
i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Crescent, Plan M469, Part Lot 24
Relief from maximum floor area.
2010 -A -36 Thomas Edward and Penny Lee Shainline
73 Lakeshore Road West, Lot 16 and 17, Plan 755
Relief from width of a boathouse.
2010 -A -37 Michael Johnson and Mary Jane Parent
4065 Line 8 North, Concession 9, West Part Lot 6, 51R656, Part 14
Relief from minimum lot size for an equestrian facility (3 or more horses).
6. NEW BUSINESS:
None.
7. NEXT MEETING DATE
Thursday, November 18, 2010
8. ADJOURNMENT
a) Motion to adjourn.
Page 2 of 204
7 e ari e.
I') ourd ffarar1I,e, i ;.$1erivi, ilrruare
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Present:
Bruce Chappell, Chair
Roy Hastings
Garry Potter
THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING MINUTES
Council Chambers
Lynda Aiken
Michelle Lynch
Staff present: Steven Farquharson, Secretary Treasurer /Intermediate Planner
Alan Wiebe, Planner
Marie Brissette, Deputy Secretary Treasurer /Committee Coordinator
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING BY THE CHAIR
Bruce Chappell assumed the Chair and called the meeting to order.
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
a)
Motion to Adopt the Agenda
4a) Minutes of meeting held on Thursday,...
Motion No. CA100916 -1
Moved by Hastings, Seconded by Potter
It is recommended that the agenda for the meeting of Thursday, September 16, 2010 be
received and adopted.
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
None declared.
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a) Motion to Adopt Minutes
Motion No. CA100916 -2
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Lynch
It is recommended that the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting of
Thursday, August 19, 2010 be adopted as presented.
9:34 a.m.
Carried.
Carried.
Page 1 of 7
Page 3 of 204
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, September 16, 2010
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
John Raimondi, agent, was present.
4a) Minutes of meeting held on Thursday,...
a) 2010 -A -32 James Rogers
79 Stanley Avenue, Plan 626, Lot 105
Relief from minimum front yard, minimum exterior side yard, sight lines on a corner lot
and setbacks for driveways.
The Committee received correspondence from Joanne Taylor dated September 15,
2010 and correspondence from Jim Stewart dated September 14, 2010.
Joanne and Kevin Pembleton noted that the proposed driveway would create road
hazards and difficulties in accessing their driveway with their work and recreational
vehicles, noted potential loss of sunlight to their front yard due to the height of the
proposed structure, the proposed decks would give the property owner a direct view into
their master bedroom, noted potential additional strain on ditches due to snow removal
from an additional driveway and that the proposal was intrusive on the corner of the two
roads.
Brenda Prosser noted that the proposal is not in character with the neighbourhood and
that an additional driveway on Simcoeside could not be supported.
Peter Svensson noted ditching concerns which would cause his property to flood, the
proposal would obstruct his view and questioned where the septic would be in
comparison to his well.
Motion No. CA100916 -3
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Hastings
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment defeats Variance Application
2010 -A -32 as it is not in keeping with the neighbourhood nor is the application
considered minor.
Carried.
Page 2 of 7
Page 4 of 204
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, September 16, 2010
4a) Minutes of meeting held on Thursday,...
b) 2010 -A -31 Catherine Jo -Anne and George Armstrong Thompson
21 Patterson Road, Plan 1719, RP 51R-9538, Part 1
Relief from minimum interior side yard setback.
No one was present on behalf of the application.
Motion No. CA100916 -4
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Lynch
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment defers Variance Application 2010
A-31 at the request of the applicant.
Carried.
Page 3 of 7
Page 5 of 204
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, September 16, 2010
c) 2010 -A -30 Horseshoe Valley Lands Limited
Part of Lots 3 and 4, Concession 4
Relief from temporary construction and sales.
John Boville, agent, was present.
Catherine Fortune, Helen MacRae, Donald McKay and U.B. Surmann questioned which
streets the model homes would face and how the developer would address potential
increased traffic, streetlighting, dumping, destruction of landscape and the potential
road deterioration.
Motion No. CA100916 -5
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Lynch
4a) Minutes of meeting held on Thursday,...
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approve Variance Application
2010 -A -30, to provide relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95, with respect to the construction
of two model homes on the subject lots. Subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant apply for, and obtain, the removal of the Holding (H) Provision
which currently applies to the lands in which Lot 56 is located prior to the use of this
lot for the construction of a model home;
2. That the setbacks for the model homes be in conformity with the Residential One
Zone with Exception 140 (R1 *140), in Zoning By -Law 97 -95, as amended;
3. That all other forms of development associated with the model homes be in
conformity with the applicable Zoning By -Law 97 -95, as amended;
4. That the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals, if required, from Nottawasaga
Valley Conservation Authority;
5. That the appropriate zoning certificate(s) and building permit(s) 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.;
6. And That the second model home be built on Lot 56, as per Schedule 2 of the report
for Variance Application 2010 -A -30.
Carried.
Page 4 of 7
Page 6 of 204
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, September 16, 2010
4a) Minutes of meeting held on Thursday,...
d) 2010 -B -28 Gordon Arnaut
2600 Townline East Part of Lot 12, Concession 14, RP 51R-36312 Part 1
Boundary adjustment.
Gordon Arnaut, was present.
Motion No. CA100916 -6
Moved by Hastings, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approve Consent Application
2010 -B -28, being to permit a boundary adjustment. The subject land being 2600
Townline, to convey land having an area of approximately 19 hectares (46 acres) to be
added to the adjacent land to the north also owned by the applicant. 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 the 2508 Townline Road to the north
(enhanced lands, per Schedule #2), 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. And 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 5 of 7
Page 7 of 204
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, September 16, 2010
e) 2010 -B -27 Harvie Peter Johnstone, Douglas Hardy Johnstone, Edna Eileen Ayers,
Margaret Eileen Ayers, Norma Irene Harvie
451/421 Line 14 North, Concession 1, Part of Lot 12, Parts 1, 2, and 3, Registered Plan
51 R20203
Boundary adjustment.
Douglas Downey, agent, was present.
Motion No. CA100916 -7
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Hastings
4a) Minutes of meeting held on Thursday,...
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approve Consent Application
2010 -B -27, being to permit a boundary adjustment. The subject land being Part of Lot
12, Concession 1, Parts 1, 2, and 3, and it presently occupies an area of approximately
41.6 hectares (102.83 acres), has frontage on Line 14 North of approximately 465.6
metres (1,527.5 feet), and a depth of approximately 679.3 metres (2,228.6 feet). The
lands proposed to be conveyed have frontage on Line 14 North of approximately 108.7
metres (356.6 feet), occupy an area of approximately 7.13 hectares (17.61 acres), and
do not presently contain any buildings or structures. The lands to be retained would
have frontage on Line 14 North of approximately 356.9 metres (1,170.9 feet), occupy an
area of approximately 34.5 hectares (85.22 acres), and presently contain a dwelling and
a barn. 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 the 100 acre lot to the south, known as
Part 7, West Half Lot 13, Concession 1, 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. And 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 6 of 7
Page 8 of 204
Committee of Adjustment Minutes Thursday, September 16, 2010
f) 2010 -B -26 UCCI Consolidation Companies Inc.
Lot 27, Plan M -187, Lot 23, Concession 5
Boundary adjustment.
Bryan Davidson, agent, was present.
Motion No. CA100916 -8
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Potter
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment defer Application 2010 -B -26, in
order for Planning Staff to make further comments and to request additional information
from the applicant.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
None.
7. NEXT MEETING DATE
Thursday, October 21, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT
a) Motion to Adjourn
Motion No. CA100916 -9
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Lynch
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 12:42 p.m.
4a) Minutes of meeting held on Thursday,...
Carried.
Carried.
Bruce Chappell, Chair Steven Farquharson, Secretary Treasurer
Page 7 of 7
Page 9 of 204
Pmna Hervgge, Exciring Fminr
Application No:
2010 -B -26
Meeting Date:
October 21, 2010
Roll
4346- 010- 008 -09434
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
5a) 2010 -B -26 UCCI Consolidated Compan...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Consent Application
UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc.
Lot 27, Plan M -187
(Lot 23 Concession 5)
Winfield Drive West
(Former Township of Oro)
Prepared By:
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D10 40839
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 CON 5 PT LOTS 26 -28 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 applicant apply for an entrance permit with the Township of Oro Medonte;
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 0.10 hectares (0.24
acres) from the subject property 42 Winfield Drive West, to the neighbouring lot to the north. The
proposed retained lot, would consist of approximately 1.0 hectares (2.6 acres), and currently vacant.
No new building Tots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition.
The application appeared before the Committee of Adjustment at the September 16, 2010 meeting
however was deferred in order for the applicant to clarify what the final intent of the access is for. The
applicant has submitted a revised sketch which is now before the Committee for their consideration.
Development Services Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -26 Page 1 of 7
Page 10 of 204
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of application 2010 -B -26 is to permit a boundary adjustment. The subject land being 42
Winfield Drive West, to convey land having an area of approximately 0.10 hectares (0.24 acres) to be
added to the adjacent land to the north also owned by the applicant. The boundary adjustment will
provide a 6 metre wide access to the abutting lands to the north from Winfield Drive. No new building
lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition. The applicant has indicated that they
lands proposed to be conveyed will be used as part of the water irrigation system for the proposed
golf course on the enhanced lands, which proposes to draw its water supply from Lake Simcoe. The
applicant has indicated there will be no vehicular traffic on these lands, but will only be used for the
maintenance of the irrigation system.
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Official Plan
The subject lands are designated Shoreline by the Official Plan (OP). Section D2 of the OP contains
policies with respect to subdivision of land. Specifically, Section D2.2.2 "Boundary Adjustments
provides the following guidance for Consent Applications in general:
"a consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot
is created... the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not
affect the viability of the use of the properties affected."
With respect to the application at hand, no new building lots are proposed and it is not anticipated that
the proposed boundary adjustment would affect the viability of the use of the property. The subject
lands currently vacant. The proposed land that is to be conveyed is to provide access to the
enhanced lands from Winfield Drive. 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
5a) 2010 -B -26 UCCI Consolidated Compan...
The subject property is currently zoned Rural Residential One Exception 84 (RUR1 "84) Zone in the
Township's Zoning By -law. Currently the subject lands and the lands to be enhanced are vacant. The
lot to be enhanced, is zoned Private Recreational Exception 174 Hold) (PR *174(H)), Residential One
Exception 173 Hold (R1 *173(H)), and Environmental Protection Exception 172 Hold (PR*172(H))
Zones. The enhanced lands have been approved for a maximum of 40 single detached dwelling, with
an associated golf course. With the lands to be conveyed to the enhanced lot, the retained lands
would remain in compliance with the minimum required frontage and lot area requirements of the
RUR1*84 of the Zoning By -law.
Therefore, the application would comply with the provisions as prescribed by the Zoning By -law.
Development Services Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -26 Page 2 of 7
Page 11 of 204
Policy Conformity
5a) 2010 -B -26 UCCI Consolidated Compan...
The intent of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is to build strong and healthy communities while
at the same time promoting efficient land use and development patterns.
Policy 1.1.1 a) contains policy that states that promoting efficient development and land use patterns
which sustain the financial well being of the Province and municipalities over the long term. Also
found in subsection (b) states that accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential,
employment (including industrial, commercial and industrial uses), recreational and open space uses
to meet long term needs. The proposed severance is located outside of a settlement area, however
meets Section 1.1 and is considered to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
The application has been reviewed with reference to the Place to Grow policies that have been in
place since 2006. In Policy 2.2.2- Managing Growth (h) encourages cities and towns to develop as
complete communities with a diverse mix of land uses, a range and mix of employment and housing
types, high quality public open space and easy access to local stores and services. Also found in
Policy 2.2.3 General Intensification Section 6(f), which states that all municipalities will develop and
implement through their Official Plans a strategy and policies to phase in and achieve intensification.
Subsection (i) states that the municipalities will plan for a range and mix of housing. In Policy 2.2.9
Rural Areas, there are provisions that allow for residential development to occur outside of settlement
areas in site specific locations with approved designations. This applies to the abutting lands to the
north (the enhanced lands).
The Township's Official Plan currently contains policies which permit staff and the Committee to
consider application for consent in the Shoreline Designation provided that the proposed lot meeting
the policies of D2.2.2. Due to the application meeting the required policies of the Township Official
Plan for boundary adjustments, the application is considered to meet this policy.
Based on the above, the Consent application would generally be in conformity with the different
policies referenced above.
County of Simcoe Official Plan
In analyzing this Consent application, Township staff reviewed the County of Simcoe Official Plan.
The County of Simcoe has commented that they have no objection to the proposed boundary
adjustment. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the proposed consent conforms to the
policies of the County of Simcoe Official Plan
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services- Culvert at entrance off of Winfield Drive does not meet
Township standard of 3 metres either side of property lines.
Building Department
Engineering Department
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority-
Development Services Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -26 Page 3 of 7
Page 12 of 204
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule #1- Location Map
Schedule #2- Context Map
Schedule #3- Irrigation System Layout
CONCLUSION:
It is the opinion of the Planning Department, that Consent application 2010 -B -26 for a boundary
adjustment, would appear to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By -law.
Respectfully submitted:
Steven uharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
5a) 2010 -B -26 UCCI Consolidated Compan...
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager of Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -26 Page 4 of 7
Page 13 of 204
w
Z
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -B -26
SUBJECT LANDS
5a) 2010 -B -26 UCCI Consolidated Compan...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -B -26 (UCCI)
I BiANCED LANDS
L
w
2
J
RIDGE ROAD
WINDFIELD DRIVE
LAKEVIEW ROAD
1—
0 55 110 220 330 440
Meters
Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Page 5 of 7
Page 14 of 204
EI-IANCED LANDS
tt
RETAINED
LANDS
VillfVop
LANDS TO BE CON VEYED
4
D 'D RIVE
6b* 2010-B-26 UCCI Consolidated Compan...
SCHEDULE 2: CONTEXT MAP
2010-B-26 (UCCI)
125 50 75 10(
Meters
Development Services Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010-B-26 Page 6 of 7
Page 15 of 204
iR 511, t1
441-
4
tg o
-d Proposed Irrigation System
z
kk
I cn
0
LOT
CONCESSION
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -B -26
SCHEDULE 3: IRRIGATION SYSTEM LAYOUT
2010 -B -26 (UCCI)
'6
5a) 2010 -B -26 UCCI Consolidated Compan...
N
G`
spim 45Y0S..i arr 6
Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Page 7 of 7
-LOT
CONCE§SII W
Page 16 of 204
Ct
1
5a) 2010 -B -26 UCCI Consolidated Compan...
6
try
8
Page 17 of 204
2. 2.
tA.C.C.%
UttotIS
a3
_______1_41
I
1
Li E
I 1
1
1 16 Pt w ig
I
I
52' en
s:0
OF LOT 27 L-ND 6ROKEN LOT 28, CONCESSO\I
TONS:61? OF OO
R
COUNTY OF SIViCOE.
1
1 24
t
czassFs-ex=ezeama== 1 6412M iM•
a
V r"
-a-
a
C
.7 2
t:M "Et CZ .rOaTO.f
r t
L-OC
1:0C.
L 1 1
9 .99
c:g
2-'
0.9L
8'
0
0'
cw)36V
,14 r 2
7 2
01083 8-31:0\ r
BC
L-0
96-0 6Z
0 t V
L6-0 LZ
01'1 9Z
01 GZ
VI*1 VZ
90'■
604 ZZ
001 IZ
16.0
4 .3 1 '4
)s.
30.21115
V S
1V•Ils 1,11■1(100
i0 cill•ASION01.
N3)40139 ONV 22 101 30 18,48
z.z
9 9/
9 c.
O6
e,- 1-6
Z'
tr
L'GC-
0-117
43 Z
I 1 G
0
9 9
A7 t7
g
9t
13 9.4 0408- 4
_?....Y V 7
agar
1 s 140**Amt aws ■sis or
1 1/2
V t, 1
4 .,1,
j.
96-0
LS-0 9%
4J60 17t
470
g 6
Z%
6z-0
ir II
9Q .O v()
•0
it 6
Q9 0
ar
09
r 9
0 r G
19' i7
9 g• 0
6G'°
2
99
r I
91
-1
'coLI)
5
O i- 6 P
bd I. 9 •.g j7 1
.*'21
0 0 we 1 a I tinZe lel i ita I mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm WE
2.. Gc b
3,
1
i lk I;f ----"/1---7---------- \1- .,,..,-'n
u tt ZZ
Z li
'IMMO
AM MAO 1
3
Page 20of24
U
o
U w
i 0
a�
o
N 4-)
co
N
0_
N CL
5a) 2010 -B -26 UCCI Consolidated Compan...
Page 21 of 204
Page 22 of 20
5a) 2010 -B -26 UCCI Consolidated Compan...
Page 23 of 204
TuwurGep of
Prowl Heritage, Exciting Rune
Application No:
2010 -B -06
Meeting Date:
October 21, 2010
Roll
4346- 010 -003 -2850
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
Subject: Consent Application
Coulson Ridge Estates Ltd
Concession 7, Lot 3
(Former Township of Oro),
Prepared By:
Steven Farquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D10 -40423
The purpose of the consent application is for a technical severance to re- create a lot which once
existed as a separate parcel of land. The lands proposed to be severed would have a lot frontage
along Line 7 North of approximately 145 metres (475 feet), with a lot depth of approximately 294
metres (964 feet) and a lot area of approximately 4 hectares (10 acres) and are vacant. The lands to
be retained would have a lot area of approximately 80 hectares (200 acres) and are currently vacant.
The application appeared before the Committee of Adjustment at the May 20, 2010 meeting however
was deferred in order for the applicant to complete an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) as
requested by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and the County of Simcoe. The
applicant has not submitted an EIS for review, but has requested that the application come before the
Committee for their consideration.
The applicant has submitted a historical timeline of the property, which has been attached for the
Committee's reference. The lots were separate conveyable lots until 1949, when they merged in title.
The summary of the deeds which support this timeline are attached to this report.
The purpose of consent application 2010 -B -06 is for a technical severance to re- create lots which
previously existed as separate conveyable parcels of land. The Township's Official Plan contains
policies (Section D2.2.3) which permit Planning Staff and the Committee to consider technical
severances.
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -13-06 Page 1 of 7
Page 24 of 204
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
OFFICIAL PLAN
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
The subject lands are designated Oro Moraine Core /Corridor Area in the Township's Official Plan.
Section D2.2.3 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow the Committee to consider
applications to correct a situation where two or more lots have merged on title maybe be permitted,
provided that the Committee of Adjustment is satisfied that the following criteria have been met.
Planning Staff's opinion of how the criteria have been met are outlined below.
a) Was once separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act;
As per the attached deed, in 1949 the second of the two parcels was acquired by Joseph Walker,
thereby creating the merger of the title for both lots. On the basis of the registry information, the
proposed lots were considered to be once separately conveyable lots in accordance with the
Planning Act.
b) The merging of the lots was unintentional and was not merged as a requirement of a previous
planning approval;
The parcels were merged together as a result of Joseph Walker having acquired ownership of both
parcels.
c) Is of the same shape and size as the lot which once existed as a separate conveyable lot;
A review of the deeds has determined that the proposed severed and retained parcels are the same
size and shape that existed at the time they were separate lot. The Township will require that a
surveyor confirm the new lots match the original description.
d) Can be adequately serviced by on -site sewage and water system;
The parcels should be of an adequate size to permit the establishment of private services, this would
be further confirmed prior to the issuance of any building permits.
e) Fronts on a public road that is maintained year -round by public authority;
The parcels front onto Line 7 North, and is maintained year -round by a public authority.
f) There are no public interest served by maintaining the property as a single conveyable parcel;
It is the opinion of the Planning Department that it would be in the public's interest to maintain the
parcel as one which does not fragment the environmental feature (Oro Moriane Core Area). This
would need to be confirmed by the NVCA through an EIS.
g) Conforms with Section D2.2.1 of this Plan; and,
Section D2.2.1 of the Plan is discussed further below.
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -06 Page 2 of 7
Page 25 of 204
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
h) Subject to the access policies of the relevant road authority
At the time a building permit is applied for an entrance permit would also be required to be considered
and approved from the Township Transportation Department in order for access for the severed lands
from Line 7 North to be obtained.
Section D2.2.1 of the Official Plan contains test for the creation of a new lot by way of Consent. In
particular, this section states the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the lot to be
retained and the lot to be severed:
a) Fronts on and will be directly accessed by a public road that is maintained year round basis:
The proposed severed lands and retained lands would have frontage on Line 7 North, which is a
public roadway maintained year -round by the Township of Oro Medonte.
b) Does not have direct access to a Provincial Highway or County Road, unless the Province or
the County supports the request;
The properties will not have direct access to a Provincial Highway or County Road.
c) Will not cause a traffic hazard;
This application proposes to re- create a lot. Significant traffic volume will not be generated by any
additional dwellings if located on the proposed lots. The applicant will be required to apply for and
obtain an entrance permit from the Township Public Works Department.
d) Has adequate size and frontage for the proposed use in accordance with the Comprehensive
Zoning By -law and is compatible with adjacent uses;
The application proposes to re- create a lot that once existed, which has inadvertently been merged
on title. The purpose of the consent application is for a technical severance to re- create a lot which
once existed as a separate parcel of land. The lands proposed to be severed would have a lot
frontage along Line 7 North of approximately 145 metres (475 feet), with a lot depth of approximately
294 metres (964 feet) and a lot area of approximately 4 hectares (10 acres). The lands to be retained
would have a lot area of approximately 80 hectares (200 acres) and currently vacant. The minimum
required lot area for a residential use in the A/RU Zone is 0.4 hectares, and the minimum lot frontage
is 45 metres. It has been noted that the proposed severed lot does meet the lot area and frontage of
the A/RU Zone.
e) Can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal;
The applicant will be required at the time of submission of building permit to meet all requirements for
septic system installation and private water supply. The Township Zoning By -law has established a
minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares for a residential use in the A/RU Zone to reflect development on
private services.
f) Will not have a negative impact on the drainage patterns in the area;
Any future residential development will be reviewed by the Township Building Department, where the
construction of a new single detached dwelling may be subject to the completion of a lot grading and
drainage plan to ensure water runoff has no negative impact on neighbouring properties.
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -8 -06 Page 3 of 7
Page 26 of 204
g) Will not restrict the development of the retained lands or other parcels of land, particularly as it
relates to the provision of access, if they are designated for development by this Plan;
The retained lands, will meet with the minimum required lot frontage and area requirements of the
Zoning By -law. No development applications are active adjacent to the subject lands, and as such no
negative impacts with respect to access are anticipated as a result of this consent.
h) Will not have a negative impact on the features and functions of any ecological feature in the
area;
The severed land is regulated by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, which have stated
that an EIS is required to demonstrate there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or
ecological functions of the area. Planning Staff are of the opinion that favorable comments from the
NVCA are required before the application can proceed.
i) Will not have a negative impact on the quality and quantity of groundwater available for other
uses in the area;
Any future development would require appropriate approvals for a well, which would ensure it would
not negatively impact the quality and quantity of groundwater.
Section B1.10.1.4 of the Official Plan sets out the development policies of the Oro Moraine- Natural
Core /Corridor Area. The Official Plan states that the objective of the policies in this designation are to
protect and maintain significant natural heritage features and the rural character of the Oro Moraine.
The policies do not allow for the creation of a new lot for residential purposes. Both the lands to be
severed and retained are identified on Schedule B of the Official Plan as having a Provincially
Significant Wetland (PSW). Due to this natural feature being located on the lands to be severed, the
recreation of a new lot, will not be in keeping with the intent of policies found within the Official Plan.
On this basis, the application is considered not to be appropriate and does not generally conform with
the policies noted above from the Official Plan.
County Official Plan
In analyzing this Consent Application, Township staff reviewed the County Official Plan. The subject
property is designated in the County of Simcoe Official Plan as Greenland. Specifically, Section 3.7
contains the Greenland policies which require an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to be completed
prior to development occurring on the lot. Section 3.7.5 states that development is not permitted
within provincially significant wetlands. The proposed technical severance would not be consistent
with the Greenland policies without the submission of an EIS, which is to be reviewed and approved
by the County of Simcoe and NVCA. It is our opinion that the proposed development does not
generally conform to the policies of the County Official Plan.
Provincial Policy Statement
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
The intent of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is to build strong and healthy communities while
at the same time promoting efficient land use and development patterns.
Policy 2.1.4 contains the policies in Natural Heritage Areas in municipalities which does not permit
development in significant wetlands, unless there has been a demonstration that there is no negative
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -06 Page 4 of 7
Page 27 of 204
impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. The requirement of an EIS would be
required in order for the proposed severance to be permitted.
The proposed Consent application which provides for the technical severance to re- create a lot which
was separately conveyable and based on the lot area of 4 hectares (10 acres). Township staff
considered the application to be premature until an EIS has been received and reviewed by the
NVCA are received to determine if the EIS is considered to be consistent with the Provincial Policy
Statement.
Places to Grow
The application has been reviewed with reference to the Place to Grow policies that have been in
place since 2006. In Policy 2.2.9 Rural Areas there are provisions that allow for residential
development to occur outside of settlement areas in site specific locations with approved
designations. The subject lands are designated Oro Moraine Core /Corridor Area within the Township
Official Plan, which requires the submission an EIS to ensure that the development of the lands will
not have a negative effect on the environmental features. Once the ESI has been reviewed by the
Township, County of Simcoe and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, it can then be
determined if the proposed recreation of a lot would conform with the Place to Grow legislation. With
the absence of an EIS the proposed applications does not conform to the Places to Grow legislation.
ZONING BY -LAW
The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) and Environmental Protection (EP)
Zone in the Township's Zoning By -law 97 -95, as amended. The proposed severed and retained lots
would continue to comply with the provisions of the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone, as the minimum
lot area and frontage have been met.
Therefore, the application would comply with the provisions as prescribed by the Zoning By -law.
CONSULTATIONS:
Public Works Department
Building Department
Engineering Department
County of Simcoe See Attached
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority- See Attached
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule #1- Location Map
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -06 Page 5 of 7
Page 28 of 204
CONCLUSION:
By reviewing the timeline provided by the applicant, it confirms that these parcels did previously exist
as separate conveyable parcels. However, it is determined that the proposal does not appear to meet
the criteria required by Section D2.2.3 of the Official Plan, which requires the submission of an EIS for
review and approval by the Township, County of Simcoe and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Authority. It is the opinion of the Planning Department, that Consent application 2010 -B -06 for a
technical severance is not appropriate without a supporting EIS.
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by:
Steven arson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
Glenn White, MCIP RPP
Manager of Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -06 Page 6 of 7
Page 29 of 204
HIGK
Development Services
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010-B-06 (Coulson Ridge Estates Ltd)
44 "•70
,444,4
41
4444 4•4*
Proposed Severed Lands
Proposed Retained Lands
BASS LAKE SIDEROAD
5b) 2010-B-06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
w
z
260 39G 520
Meters
Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010-B-06 Page 7 of 7
Page 30 of 204
eterS
14 1 15
16 11 17 1
18 I 19
Ju20 .i I 21
1 22 23
36W 1 24 25
_1, 26 27
478
BASS LAKE SIDEROA
387 2401
173
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
Lvrc "r eb
2940
2376
2916
2888
/OAC,
w
z
037.95 150 225 300
Meters
3193 h
2943
00000
Page 32 of 204
r a rig PURSER
iN DOOLEY
COCKBURN
SMITH LLP.
January 14, 2010
Coulson Ridge Estate Ltd.
14 Scottdale Drive
R.R. #1
Hawkestone, ON LOL 1 TO
Attention: William Stonkus
Dear Bill:
MEMORANDUM
Re: Lot 3, Concession 7, Township of Oro Medonte
Our File No.: 29848
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
COpr
You have asked us to determine whether the small portion of Lot 3,
Concession 7, Township of Oro Medonte which you identify as the scut-east
ten (10) acres was ever historically in separate ownership from the abutting
lands.
Shirley Partridge has completed her search and we have reviewed it and
conclude that the ten (10) acre parcel has never, since the Patent of the east
half of Lot 3 in 1842, been in separate ownership from abutting lands.
The said ten (10) acre parcel was split off the balance of the east half of
Lot 3 by the covenyance registered on June 3, 1949 in favour of Joseph
Walker who in that same conveyance unfortunately acquired the east half of
Lot 4 being the abutting lands to the south. That was the first Deed to
separate the ten (10) acre parcel from the remainder of the east half of Lot 3.
Good News
The east half of Lot 4 was separated in title from the west half of Lot 4
from June 25, 1873 until 1949.
151 Ferris Lane, Suite 300 Barrie, ON L4M 6C1
Tel: 705.792.6910 Fax: 705.792.6911
www.pdcslaw.com
Page 33 of 204
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
2
On June 25, 1873, one Alexander McLean acquired the east half of Lot 4,
Concession 7 and the east half was transferred through a number of owners,
none of whom owned the west half of the Lot until 1949 when the east half
was conveyed to Joseph Walker who had previously acquired the west half of
the Lot in 1936.
West half of Lot 4. Concession 7
The west half of Lot 4, Concession 7 was acquired by James Durham on
July 9, 1874 (and west half continued through a chain of title through a series
of owners who did not own the abutting east half until Joseph Walker
acquired the west half on November 6, 1936).
It is my understanding that the Township of Oro Medonte policy is to
permit the revival of a severance of two (2) properties which have been
historically owned separately but have merged inadvertently under the
provisions of The Planning Act.
In accordance with that policy you should be successful in separating the
east half of Lot 4 from the west half of Lot 4.
Deviation Road
Deviation Road which connects the Road allowance between
Concessions 6 and 7 across the south -west corner of your Lot 4 was deeded
to the Township in 1911 thus creating a severed parcel of Lot 4 at the
south -west corner. This deviated parcel is shown on the Teranet report that
Paul Miller acquired and attached. For your reference we are attaching:
1. A copy of the chain of title prepared by Shirley Partridge, our title searcher
a) East half of Lot 3; and
b) Lot 4, Concession 7.
2. Block map; and
3. Copies of the reports provided by Paul Miller.
Yours very truly,
PUR R OOLEY OCKBURN SMITH LLP
Per: J. R. Cockburn, Q.C.
JRC:bg
Encls.
Page 34 of 204
County of Simcoe Main Line (705) 726 -9300
NTYOF Planning ToII Free 1- 866 893 -9300
S1 1110 Highway 26, Fax (705) 727 -4276
Midhurst, Ontario LOL 1X0 simcoe.ca
PLD- 003 -001
September 30, 2010
Township of Oro Medonte
148 Line 7 South
P.O. Box 100
Oro Station, ON LOL 2X0
Mr. Farquharson,
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
RE: Consent Application No. 2010 -B -06 (Coulson Ridge Estates Ltd.)
Lot 3, Concession 7,
Former Township of Oro, now Township of Oro Medonte
Thank you for re- circulating the consent application to the County of Simcoe. The subject property is
designated Rural in the Local Official Plan and partially designated Greenlands in the County Official
Plan, therefore is subject to the General, Rural and Greenlands policies of the County of Simcoe
Official Plan. The applicant is requesting consent to create a 4 hectare (10 acre) lot. The proposed
retained portion of the subject property would be approximately 80 hectares (200 acres).
The subject lands are within an area identified as the Oro Moraine (0M2) Copeland Forest unit of the
County Greenlands designation. The Copeland Forest is a large swamp forest that has been classified
as a provincially significant wetland. It is owned and managed by the OMNR. The area immediately to
the south of the forest forms part of the Oro Moraine proper, which is typified by undulating topography
and very sandy soils. Ground water recharge occurs throughout the moraine, a portion of which
subsequently makes its way to the deep regional aquifer, while some discharges into wetland
(bottomland) forests situated at the base of the moraine, which in turn provide baseflow to the
Coldwater and Sturgeon Rivers. Three provincially significant wetlands occur within this unit: the
Copeland Swamp Complex and the Coulson East and West Wetlands. Baseflow contributions to the
headwaters of these systems promote cold water fisheries.
Section 3.7.6 of the County Official Plan states that residential lots created by consent may be
permitted in the Greenland designation, conditional on acceptable results from an Environmental
Impact Statement (E.I.S.). In addition, County of Simcoe Official Plan policy 3.3.5 states that;
"Development or site alteration shall not be permitted within Class 1, 2, or 3 Wetlands (Schedule 5.2.2),
the habitat of threatened or endangered species, or hazardous lands. Development or site alteration
may be permitted within 120 metres of these features where such development is otherwise permitted
by this Plan and local municipal Plans and where an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) can
demonstrate that there will be no negative impact on the natural features or on the ecological functions,
including water resources, for which the area is identified." This land use policy is supported by the
Provincial Policy Statement (Policy 2.1.3 b) which states that "Development and site alteration shall not
be permitted in significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E or 7E Followed by Policy 2.1.4 which states
"Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage
features and areas identified in policy 2.1.3 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has
been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural
Page 35 of 204
features or on their ecological functions The subject property is within the 6E Ecoregion of the Ministry
of Natural Resources' Ecological Land Classification.
County of Simcoe Official Plan policy 3.6.11 also states that residential lots in the Rural designation
should be restricted in size in order to conserve other lands in larger blocks for agricultural or
environmental purposes. Consent lots should be developed to an approximate maximum size of one
hectare, except where larger sizes may be suitable because of environmental constraints or design
considerations. The environmental constraint consideration is to provide for variation of the 1 hectare
lot size.
Therefore, the County of Simcoe does not object to the proposed lot creation, provided an EIS
demonstrates that the proposed development will not have a negative impact on the natural features
and associated ecological functions of area.
Please forward a copy of the decision. If you require additional information, do not hesitate to call, 726-
9300, ext.1315.
Sincerely,
The Corpora
achelle Hamelin
Planner II
cc. Tim Salkeld, NVCA
n of the County of Simcoe.
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
Page 36 of 204
Member
Municipalities
Adjala- Tosorontio
Amaranth
Barrie
The Blue Mountains
Bradford -West Gwillimbury
Clearview
Collingwood
Essa
Grey Highlands
Innisfil
Melancthon
Mono
Mulmur
New Tecumseth
Oro-Medonte
Shelburne
Spri ngwater
Wasaga Beach
Watershed
Counties
Dufferin
Grey
Simcoe
Member of
Conservation
ONTARIO
'mural cdamwons
May 14, 2010
Steven Farquharson, Secretary Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Farquharson;
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
Re: Application for Consent 2010 -B -06 (Coulson Ridge Estates)
Part Lot 3, Concession 7
Township of Oro Medonte (Formerly Township of Oro)
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this
application for consent in accordance with Natural Heritage and Natural
Hazard policies established under the Provincial Policy Statement and
environmental policies of the Oro- Medonte Official Plan.
The property contains several environmental features such as part of the
West Coulson Provincially Significant Wetland, a headwater tributary of the
Coldwater River, valleylands and significant woodland. The property is
located within the Oro Moraine Core /Corridor Area and partially within the
County of Simcoe Official Plan Greenland designation. Given the sloping
nature of the property and the environmental features, a developable
envelope which avoids all Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard features is
not apparent.
The NVCA therefore recommends any approval of the application be
deferred until the following technical study has been prepared:
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by a professional
ecologist to the satisfaction of the Township of Oro Medonte, the County
of Simcoe and the NVCA, demonstrating the proposed lot and
subsequent land use will have no negative impacts on the natural
features or ecological functions of the area.
The EIS should be prepared with reference to the Province of Ontario
Ecological Land Classification System and among other things, should
demonstrate the location of driveway access and the building envelope with
appropriate setbacks to ensure protection of environmental features. Prior
to commencement of the study, we recommend NVCA ecologist Dave
Featherstone be consulted for input on the scale and scope of the study.
Celebrating 50 Years in Conservation 1960 2010
...12
NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Centre for Conservation
John Hix Conservation Administration Centre Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 8th Line Utopia, On LOM 1TO
Telephone: 705.424.1479 Fax: 705.424.2115 Web: www.nvca.on.ca Email: adminOnvca.on.ca
Page 37 of 204
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
Aoolication for Consent 2010-B-06. Oro-Medonte continued Paae 2
Depending on the location of proposed development, the NVCA may require a Natural
Hazards Assessment using guidelines established under the Provincial Policy Statement
demonstrating all development will occur outside of floodplain and erosion hazard areas
of the Coldwater River tributary.
Please note our comments reflect Section 2.1 (Natural Heritage) and Section 3.1 (Natural
Hazards) of the Provincial Policy Statement.
Please be advised that a significant part of the property is under the regulatory
jurisdiction of the NVCA whereby permits are required under the Conservation Authorities
Act prior to any development.
Thank you for circulating this application for our review and please forward a copy of any
decision.
Sincerely,
Tim Salkeld
Resource Planner
Page 38 of 204
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
Page 39 of 204
5b) 2010 -B -0b 1,oury
Page 40 of 204
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
Page 41 of 204
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
Page 42 of 204
ti
Z u
to
e
la 6o 2
Member
Municipalities
Adjala- Tosorontio
Amaranth
Barrie
The Blue Mountains
Bradford -West Gwillimbury
Clearview
Co I I i ngwood
Essa
Grey Highlands
Innisfil
Melancthon
Mono
Mulmur
New Tecumseth
Oro Medonte
Shelburne
Springwater
Wasaga Beach
Watershed
Counties
Dufferin
Grey
Simcoe
Member of
Conservation
ON TARIO
�T
4
October 19, 2010
Steven Farquharson, Secretary- Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Farquharson;
5b) 2010 B 06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
Re: Application for Consent 2010 06 (Revised Comments)
Part Lot 3, Concession 7
Township of Oro Medonte (Formerly Township of Oro)
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this
application for consent in accordance with Natural Heritage and Natural
Hazard policies established under the Provincial Policy Statement and
environmental policies of the Oro Medonte Official Plan.
The property contains several environmental features such as part of the
West Coulson Provincially Significant Wetland, valleylands and significant
woodland. The property is located within the Oro Moraine Core /Corridor Area
and partially within the County of Simcoe Official Plan Greenland
designation. The proposed severed lot is bisected by a distinct ravine feature
which could convey significant flood flows during the Regional Storm event.
Given the sloping nature of the property and the environmental features, a
developable envelope which avoids all Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard
features is not apparent.
The NVCA therefore recommends any approval of the application be
deferred until the following technical study has been prepared:
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by a professional
ecologist to the satisfaction of the Township of Oro Medonte, the County
of Simcoe and the NVCA, demonstrating the proposed lot and
subsequent land use will have no negative impacts on the natural
features or ecological functions of the area.
The EIS should be prepared with reference to the Province of Ontario
Ecological Land Classification System and among other things, should
demonstrate the location of driveway access and the building envelope with
appropriate setbacks to ensure protection of environmental features. As
recommended in previous correspondence, NVCA Ecologist Dave
Featherstone was contacted by an environmental consultant for input on their
proposed study.
Celebrating 50 Years in Conservation 1960 -2010
NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Centre for Conservation
John Hix Conservation Administration Centre Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 8th Line Utopia, On LOM 1 TO
Telephone: 705.424.1479 Fax: 705.424.21 Web: www.nvca.on.ca Email: admin @nvca.on.ca
Page 43 of 204
5b) 2010 -B -06 Coulson Ridge Estates Lt...
Aoolication for Consent 2010-B-06. Oro-Medonte continued Paae 2
Depending on the location of proposed development, the NVCA may require a Natural
Hazards Assessment using guidelines established under the Provincial Policy Statement
demonstrating all development will occur outside of potential floodplain and erosion
hazard areas.
Please note our comments reflect Section 2.1 (Natural Heritage) and Section 3.1 (Natural
Hazards) of the Provincial Policy Statement.
Please be advised that a significant part of the property is under the regulatory
jurisdiction of the NVCA whereby permits are required under the Conservation Authorities
Act prior to any development.
Thank you for circulating this application for our review and please forward a copy of any
decision.
Sincerely,
4
Tim Salkeld
Resource Planner
Page 44 of 204
Proud Heritage, Exciting F: t
Application No:
2010 -B -15
Meeting Date:
October 21, 2010
Roll
4346 010 -001 -005
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Consent Application
(Robert Drury)
Concession 1, Lot 12
661 Penetanguishene Road
5c) 2010 -B -15 Robert Drury
661 Penetan...
Prepared By:
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D13 -40439
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 170 Line 1 North 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 applicant apply for and obtain a minor variance in order to recognize the existing
dwelling as being within the required 30 metre setback from the Environmental Protection (EP)
Zone.
6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the
date of the giving of the notice.
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey approximately 0.06 hectares (0.15
acres) from the subject property to the neighbouring residential lot being 170 Line 1 North. The
proposed retained lot, would consist of approximately 51 hectares (126 acres), and is currently
contains a residential dwelling. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot
addition.
The purpose of application 2010 -B -15 is to permit a boundary adjustment. The subject lands being
661 Penetanguishene Road, to convey an area of approximately 0.06 hectares (0.15 acres) to be
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -15 Page 1 of 4
Page 45 of 204
added to the adjacent lands being 170 Line 1 North. The retained lands would maintain an area of
approximately 51 hectares (126 acres). No new building lot is proposed to be created as a result of
this application.
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Township of Oro Medonte Official Plan
The subject lands are designated "Agricultural" and "Environmental Protection One" by the Official
Plan. Section D2 of the Official Plan contains policies with respect to subdivision of land.
Specifically, Section D2.2.2 -"Boundary Adjustments provides the following guidance for Consent
Applications in general:
"a consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot
is created... the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not
affect the viability of the use of the properties affected."
With respect to the application at hand, no new building lots are proposed and does not affect the
viability of the current use. As such, the proposed boundary adjustment is generally in keeping with
the intent of the residential policies stated in the Official Plan, and otherwise conforms to the
boundary adjustment policies contained in Section D.2.2.2.
County Official Plan
The subject lands are designated Greenland designation in the County of Simcoe's Official Plan.
Section 3.3.4 of the County's Official Plan, "General Subdivision and Development Policies states
that "Consents for the purpose of boundary adjustments and consolidation of land holdings are
permitted but shall not be for the purpose of creating new lots except as otherwise permitted in this
Plan. All lots created shall conform to all applicable municipal policies and bylaws."
On this basis, the proposed consent appears to generally conform to the policies of the County of
Simcoe's Official Plan.
Provincial Policy Statement
The Provincial Policy Statement does not contain policies directly related to Lot adjustments
(boundary adjustments) in the "Rural Areas" or "Nature Heritage" areas. The policies are related to
the creation of a new lot or development, which are not proposed by this application.
Township of Oro Medonte Comprehensive Zoning By -law 97 -95
5c) 2010 -B -15 Robert Drury
661 Penetan...
The subject property is zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone and Environmental Protection (EP)
Zone. The lands subject to the boundary adjustment are zoned Environmental Protection (EP), given
that the Township's Zoning By -law also contains a general provision (Section 5.28) which requires
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -15 Page 2 of 4
Page 46 of 204
buildings to be setback a minimum of 30 metres from an Environmental Protection (EP) boundary.
The applicant will be required as a condition of approval to obtain a minor variance in order for the
existing dwelling to be recognized as being within the EP Zone setback. The retained would remain in
compliance with the Zoning By -law in terms of lot area and lot frontage for the Agricultural /Rural
Zone. The lands to be enhanced are zoned Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone and would remain in
compliance with the minimum required frontage and lot area.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services
Building Department
Engineering Department
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority- Comments Attached
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Consent Application 2010 -B -15, being to convey
approximately 0.06 hectares (0.15 acres) from the subject property to the neighbouring residential lot
being 170 Line 1 North, be approved subject to the applicant obtaining a minor variance to recognize
the existing dwelling being within the EP Zone boundary.
Respectfully submitted:
Steven F: arson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
5c) 2010 -B -15 Robert Drury
661 Penetan...
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager of Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -15 Page 3 of 4
Page 47 of 204
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -B -15 (Drury)
Proposed Lands to be conveyed
I
Proposed Retained Lands
5c) 2010 -B -15 Robert Drury
661 Penetan...
0 15 3) 50 90 120
J I Meters
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -15 Page 4 of 4
Page 48 of 204
0 t`
0
12
LTD.
6£ CONY ERT ED.
URVEY
RtK 25 5ERCZ1 STREET725-066J
BARRIE,ONT 010
BOX 1150 T N9' S ?96
EDW■
aT010 LAND
p
OF OF
PAR1 OF
12 P
SOT N E, T
T ON6E SSIO ORO� r O R n the
pW� SH1P OF S
COUNTY OF
S cAI£ 10p00
1KES yEYtNG L T0,
199
4V Y R,
From: Timothy Salkeld
To: Wiehe. Alan
Cc: Farnuharson. Steven
Subject: FW: 2010 -B -15, Drury
Date: Thursday, October 07, 2010 2:40:55 PM
Attachments: D00017.PDF
Hi Alan.
I attached our comments for the Drury application which we previously supplied for the
Committee's consideration. While we prefer the existing configuration, we would not appeal a
decision supporting the boundary adjustment.
If you have questions, please call.
Tim Salkeld
Resource Planner
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
8195 8th Line
Utopia, ON
LOM 1TO
(705) 424 -1479 ext 233
(705) 424 -2115
tsalkeld(rhnvca on.ca
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
From: Timothy Salkeld
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:15 AM
To: 'Farquharson, Steven'
Subject: 2010 -B -15, Drury
Hi Steve.
5c) 2010 -B -15 Robert Drury
661 Penetan...
I just had a conversation with Bob Drury about his boundary adjustment application. I'm not sure if
any action is required on my part but I thought I would let you know that our comments previously
supplied are still applicable. Bob had mentioned that an EP zone may apply to the boundary
adjustment lands. While we support the maintenance of the existing configuration, I don't believe
we would be appealing an approval of the application.
Page 50 of 204
If you would like to discuss, please call.
Tim Salkeld
Resource Planner
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
8195 8th Line
Utopia, ON
LOM 1TO
(705) 424 -1479 ext 233
(705) 424-2115
tsalkeld(Tnvcann.ca
5c) 2010 -B -15 Robert Drury
661 Penetan...
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 51 of 204
Watershed
Counties
Dufferi n
Grey
Simcoe
Member of
Conservation
O N R 1 O
Member
Municipalities
Adja la- Tosorontio
Amaranth
Barrie
The Blue Mountains
Bradford -West Gwillimbury
Clearview
Coll ingwood
Essa
Grey Highlands
Innisfil
Melancthon
Mono
Mulmur
New Tecumseth
Oro- Medonte
Shelburne
Springwater
Wasaga Beach
May 18, 2010
Steven Farquharson, Secretary- Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Farquharson;
Re:
Application for Consent 2010 -B -15 (Drury)
Part Lot 12, Concession 1, 661 Penatanguishene Road
Township of Oro Medonte (Formerly Township of Oro)
5c) 2010 -B -15 Robert Drury
661 Penetan...
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this
application for consent in accordance with policies established under the
Provincial Policy Statement and our mandate for the conservation,
restoration, development and management of natural resources. The NVCA
offers the following for consideration by the Committee of Adjustment.
As you may be aware, the NVCA where possible, discourages lot lines which
encroach into natural heritage features such as watercourses, floodplains
and wetlands. In this particular case, the boundary adjustment would appear
to result in further encroachment of a lot into the Provincially Significant
Dalston Wetland and adjacent lands. The NVCA believes the wetland is
better protected under the current lot configuration as the boundary
adjustment could potentially increase the risk of further development in or
adjacent to the wetland. The NVCA supports an approach whereby a minor
variance could be applied for which would bring the lot into compliance with
the Township of Oro Medonte Zoning By -law.
We advise the property is partially within an area affected by Ontario
Regulation 172/06 whereby a permit is required from the NVCA under the
Conservation Authorities Act prior to development.
Thank you for circulating this application and please forward a copy of any
decision.
Sincerely;
Tim Salkeld
Resource Planner
Celebrating 50 Years in Conservation 1960-2010
NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Centre for Conservation
John Hix Conservation Administration Centre Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 8th Line Utopia, On LOM 1 TO
Telephone: 705.424.1479 Fax: 705.424.2115 Web: www.nvca.on.ca Email: admin @nvca.on.ca
Page 52 of 204
2010-B-15 Drury)
Existing dwelling on lands to be retained
pr
urY�
d
r etaine
2010-B-1.5 be lands
building n lan
agricultural b
Existing
I
1
1
n�ra
o s S u1 P��na I'�a
as a q o� spu�eI u
a ui�e� �Z
JUNG
i
LO
10
c
c
1
1
1
s u�e� pas d
a
u� aaanas q °l
o� spin\ p p
�u'� aq 51,-S- �Z
ana4
i
1
I
5c) 2010 -B -15 Robert Drury
661 Penetan...
Page 57 of 204
Proud Iftrilgtlr, Extiii,g Fururte
Application No:
2010 -B -29
Meeting Date:
October 21, 2010
Roll
4346- 010- 005 -203
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
5d) 2010 -B -29 Douglas and Catherine Ma...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Consent Application
Doug Shelswell and
Catherine Harrigan- Shelswell
Concession 14, West Half Lot 15
(Former Township of Oro),
2278 1 5/1 6 Sideroad
Prepared By:
Steven Farquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D10 -40918
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 and 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; Furthermore, the legal description and the
parcel description of the recreated parcels be identical to that contained in the original deed
and must be so designated on a Reference Plan to be provided by the Applicant;
3. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the
date of the giving of the notice.
The purpose of Consent application 2010 -B -29 is for a technical severance to create a lot which once
existed as a separate parcel of land. The lands proposed to be severed would have approximately
423 metres of frontage along 15/16 Sideroad East, with a lot depth of approximately 617 metres and
a lot area of approximately 25 hectares and contains a dwelling and various outbuildings.
The lands to be retained would have frontage along 15/16 Sideroad West of 326 metres, a lot depth
of approximately 617 metres, and a lot area of approximately 20 hectares. The retained parcel
currently is vacant.
The applicant has submitted a historical timeline of the property, which has been attached for the
Committee's reference. The lots were separate conveyable lots until 1868, when they merged in title
under Edward Mawdlsey. The summary of the deeds which support this timeline are attached to this
report.
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 201 0 -B -29 Page 1 of 7
Page 58 of 204
ANALYSIS:
5d) 2010 -B -29 Douglas and Catherine Ma...
The purpose of consent application 2010 -B -29 is for a technical severance to re- create lots which
previously existed as separate conveyable parcels of land. The Township's Official Plan contains
policies (Section D2.2.3) which permit Planning Staff and the Committee to consider technical
severances.
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
OFFICIAL PLAN
The subject lands are designated Agricultural in the Township's Official Plan.
Section D2.2.3 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow the Committee to consider
applications to correct a situation where two or more lots have merged on title maybe be permitted,
provided that the Committee of Adjustment is satisfied that the following criteria have been met.
Planning Staff's opinion of how the criteria have been met are outlined below.
a) Was once separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act;
As per the attached deed, in 1868 Edward Mawdlsey had ownership of the west part of Lot 15 and on
February 4 1868, acquired the East part of the West part of Lot 15, therefore the two were
conveyable in accordance with the Planning Act.
b) The merging of the lots was unintentional and was not merged as a requirement of a previous
planning approval;
The parcels were merged together as a result of Edward Mawdlsey having acquired ownership of
both parcels in 1868.
c) Is of the same shape and size as the lot which once existed as a separate conveyable lot;
A review of the deeds determined that the proposed parcels are the same size and shape that existed
at the time they were separate lots. The Township will require that a surveyor confirm the new lots
match the original description.
d) Can be adequately serviced by on -site sewage and water system;
The parcels should be of an adequate size to permit the establishment of private services, this would
be further confirmed prior to the issuance of any building permits.
e) Fronts on a public road that is maintained year -round by public authority;
The parcels front onto 15/16 Sideroad East and Line 13 North respectively, both of which are
maintained year -round by a public authority (Township).
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -29 Page 2 of 7
Page 59 of 204
f) There are no public interest served by maintaining the property as a single conveyable parcel;
The public interest would not be affected by this proposal.
g) Conforms with Section D2.2.1 of this Plan; and,
Section D2.2.1 of the Plan is discussed further below.
5d) 2010 -B -29 Douglas and Catherine Ma...
h) Subject to the access policies of the relevant road authority
At the time a building permit is applied for an entrance permit would also be required from the
Township for access for the retained lands from the 15/16 Sideroad East. The severed lands currently
have a dwelling and various outbuildings and have an existing entrance from 15
Section D2.2.1 of the Official Plan contains tests to be considered for the creation of a new lot by way
of Consent. In particular, this section states the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that
the lot to be retained and the lot to be severed:
a) Fronts on and will be directly accessed by a public road that is maintained year round basis:
The proposed severed lands would have frontage on the 15/16 Sideroad East and Line 13 North and
the retained land will have frontage on the 15/16 Sideroad East, which are public roadways
maintained year -round by the Township of Oro Medonte.
b) Does not have direct access to a Provincial Highway or County Road, unless the Province or
the County supports the request;
The properties will not have access to a Provincial Highway or County Road.
c) Will not cause a traffic hazard;
This application proposes to re- create a lot. Significant traffic volume will not be generated by any
additional dwellings if located on the proposed retained lands. The applicant will be required to apply
for and obtain an entrance permit from the Township Public Works Department.
d) Has adequate size and frontage for the proposed use in accordance with the Comprehensive
Zoning By -law and is compatible with adjacent uses;
The application proposes to re- create a lot that once existed, which has inadvertently been merged
on title. The lands proposed to be severed would have a frontage along 15/16 Sideroad East of
approximately 423 metres, and a lot area of approximately 25 hectares. The lands to be retained
would have frontage along 15/16 Sideroad East of approximately 326 metres, and a lot area of
approximately 20 hectares. The severed parcel currently has an existing dwelling with various
agricultural building. The minimum required lot area for a residential use in the A/RU Zone is 0.4
hectares, and the minimum lot frontage is 45 metres. It has been noted that the proposed severed
and retained lands would meet the lot area and frontage of the A/RU Zone.
e) Can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal;
The applicant will be required at the time of submission of building permit to meet all requirements for
septic system installation and private water supply. The Township Zoning By -law has established a
minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares for a residential use in the A /RU Zone to reflect development on
private services.
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -29 Page 3 of 7
Page 60 of 204
f) Will not have a negative impact on the drainage patterns in the area;
Any future residential development will be reviewed by the Township Building Department, where the
construction of a new single detached dwelling may be subject to the completion of a lot grading and
drainage plan to ensure water runoff has no negative impact on neighbouring properties.
g) Will not restrict the development of the retained lands or other parcels of land, particularly as it
relates to the provision of access, if they are designated for development by this Plan;
The retained lands, will meet with the minimum required lot frontage and area requirements of the
Zoning By -law. No development applications are active adjacent to the subject lands, and as such no
negative impacts with respect to access are anticipated as a result of this consent.
h) Will not have a negative impact on the features and functions of any ecological feature in the
area;
Both the severed and retained lands are sufficiently outside of the regulated area of the Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority and no environmental feature is identified on Schedule B of the
Official Plan.
i) Will not have a negative impact on the quality and quantity of groundwater available for other
uses in the area;
Any future development would require appropriate approvals for a well, which would ensure it would
not negatively impact the quality and quantity of groundwater.
On this basis, the application is considered to be appropriate and generally conforms to the Official
Plan.
County Official Plan
In analyzing this Consent application, Township staff reviewed both the County Official Plan currently
in effect as well as the Official Plan adopted by County Council in November 2008. Specifically,
Section 3.6 contains the Agricultural policies which are required to be considered in assessing the
proposed technical severance application. Section 3.6.6 states that new Tots should be not less than
35 hectares, or the original survey lot size, whichever is the lesser. As stated above, these two lots
merged in 1868 and prior to that time were separate as a 20 hectare and 25 hectare parcel and
therefore it is considered appropriate to re- create these parcels at the land size previously in
existence. The proposed technical severance would be consistent with the surrounding land uses,
would continue to allow for agricultural uses, and has been determined that it conforms to the policies
of the County Plan. The adopted County Plan continues to include the policies discussed above and
therefore, it is our opinion that the proposed development generally conforms to the policies of both
County Official Plans (approved and adopted).
Provincial Policy Statement
5d) 2010 -B -29 Douglas and Catherine Ma...
The intent of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is to build strong and healthy communities while
at the same time promoting efficient land use and development patterns.
Policy 2.3.4 contains the policies in Agricultural Areas in municipalities which permits lot creation in
prime agricultural area's provided that that the lots are of size appropriate for the type of agricultural
use common in the area and are of sufficiently large to maintain flexibility for future changes in the
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -29 Page 4 of 7
Page 61 of 204
type of agricultural operations. The proposed Consent is intended to re- create a parcel of land which
was previously separately conveyable and contains 25 hectares of land provide for a use that was
intended on an existing lot. The proposed use is consistent with other lots of record in the
surrounding area. The Township's comprehensive Zoning By -law requires a minimum lot area of 2.0
hectares for agricultural use and 4.0 hectares for a specialized agricultural use. The proposed lot size
of the severed lands would be able to accommodate both of these types of agricultural uses.
In Policy 1.6, "Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities addresses issues such as the use of
existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized, wherever feasible, before
consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities. The lot would be
serviced by an individual well and private septic system at the time that any buildings were proposed
to be constructed.
The proposed Consent application which provides for the technical severance to re- create a lot which
was separately conveyable and based on the lot area of 25 hectares could be utilized for agricultural
use and is considered to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
Places to Grow
ZONING BY -LAW
5d) 2010 -B -29 Douglas and Catherine Ma...
The application has been reviewed with reference to the Place to Grow policies that have been in
place since 2006. In Policy 2.2.9 Rural Areas there are provisions that allow for residential
development to occur outside of settlement areas in site specific locations with approved
designations. The proposed consent as stated above would re- create a lot which was previously
separately conveyable and merged on title when acquired in the same ownership. As stated above,
the Township's Official Plan currently contains policies which permit staff and the Committee to
consider these technical severances in accordance with the existing policies provided for within the
Official Plan, on this basis the consent for the technical severance to re- create the original lot would
therefore conform to this policy.
The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone in the Township's Zoning By-
law 97 -95, as amended. The proposed severed and retained lots would continue to comply with the
provisions of the Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone, as the minimum lot area and frontage have been
met.
Therefore, the application would comply with the provisions as prescribed by the Zoning By -law.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services
Building Department
Engineering Department
County of Simcoe Comments Forthcoming
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule #1- Location Map
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -29 Page 5 of 7
Page 62 of 204
CONCLUSION:
By reviewing the timeline provided by the applicant, which confirms that these parcels previously
existed as separate parcels, determining that the proposal appears to meet the criteria required by
Section D2.2.3 of the Official Plan, and that these parcels would maintain the use and setback
provisions of the Zoning By -law, it is the opinion of the Planning Department, that Consent application
2010 -B -29 for a technical severance is appropriate.
Respectfully submitted:
Steven rquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
5d) 2010 -B -29 Douglas and Catherine Ma...
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP RPP
Manager of Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -29 Page 6 of 7
Page 63 of 204
Development Services
Application No. 2010-B-29
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010-B-29(Shelswell)
5d) 2010-B-29 Douglas and Catherine Ma...
Proposed Severed Lands
co
Proposed Retained Lands I 0 55 /110
220
330
Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Page 7 of 7
440
'Aet ,rs
Page 64 of 204
SHIRLEY PARTRIDGE REGISTRY SERVICES INC.
168 LAKESHORE ROAD WEST
R.R. 1, ORO STATION, ON LOL 2E0
September 17 2010
The Corporation of The Township of Oro Medonte
148 Line 7 S, Box 100
Oro, ON LOL 2X0
Attention: Committee of Adjustment
Dear Members:
5d) 2010 -B -29 Douglas and Catherine Ma...
Re: Douglas Ian Shelswell and Catherine Mary Harrigan Shelswell
Application for Technical Severance
West Half of Lot 15, Concession 14, Township of Oro Medonte
PIN 58539- 0092(LT)
Douglas Ian Shelswell and Catherine Mary Harrigan Shelswell are the registered
owners of the West Half of Lot 15, Concession 14 in the former Township of Oro.
Lot 15, Concession 14 was patented as "All of Lot" in 1832 to the Canada
Company. The entire lot was then conveyed to Henry Creswicke in April, 1849.
Mr. Creswicke commenced to split the said lot 15 into four parts:
i) south -east part Fifty Acres to John McColman on March 29 1848;
ii) north -east part Fifty Acres to John McPhee on March 15 1855;
iii) east part of west part Fifty Acres to Archibald McPhee also on March
15 1855;
iv) west part Sixty -four Acres to Edward Mawdsley on July 23` 1855.
An old sketch illustrating the division of the lot was affixed to a copy of the
original abstract page many years ago.
Archibald McPhee proceeded to convey his portion being the east part of the
west part (50 acres) to Edward Mawdlsey on February 4 1868. Therefore the
west part (64 acres) already under the ownership of Edward Mawdsley merged
with the said east part of the west part (50 acres) acquired by him at this time.
The two portions comprising all of the west half of Lot 15, Concession 14 passed
through the Mawdsley family until April 15 2003 at which time Mr. and Mrs.
Shelswell purchased the lands. The Shelswell's wish to re- establish the west
Page 65 of 204
5d) 2010 -B -29 Douglas and Catherine Ma...
half of Lot 15, Concession 14 into the two separate parcels that existed in 1855,
namely the east part of the west part (50 acres), and the west part (64 acres).
You very truly,
irley Partri..e e e !dent
Shirley Partri.ge Registry Services Inc.
Page 66 of 204
1 t)0 oito cl m
Ltaarvyari aJI4DropV )''Q
v 1, 5
w
I
h
LA S
CS
d \4
-E- J4
).0 -1.?! siAn!5N AQJ
k l 71.417 A)) P'J X
5d) 2010 -B -29 Douglas and Catherine Ma...
n A n Chn1 ut oarv?I-
amon'1o)) b9 ry
o
1 1 svt Ai srcxp1,A
upam*: Jur orvini 1t1 poo3
Page 67 of 204
381 301114077v (N OY..
1
4
&gap
5d) 2010 -B -29 Douglas and Catherine Ma...
a
Page 68 of 204
Sl�7Ya r,r ca0
S i.1
�a.
/f7 Z 3
y v (5 i /f7
e''
07. 1 if......144..)zcz... y ,,a,, ci'a.d ao e eti 6 K.
/176• p' 7 �..f 4t
,7214 014.4
e 44
ct1 ttY tom -/1k c rOP1 fk
ri2-
J
>4'�aa.� -v .i 2-0,0
71; .f' 3/27444/ al e2 a JfPa G <_f rkw 4>�., .14 [`sue d. s
rGaG+io.• m -t A
Gf� G. y..✓/
2O1O She
Existing Dwelling and Agricultural Buildings on Sever ed lands
a)
to z
CU m
w
tf,
ion
01 0
N co
tan
0 1 CO
3
o
LL-
0
N
5d) 2010 -B -29 Douglas and Catherine ivia...
Page 71 of 204
2010 -B-29 She swe
Frontage along 15/16 Sideroad
5d) 2010 -B -29 Douglas and Catherine Ma...
Page 73 of 204
1
i
1
S puel pap `S P
(ii51a5 61-0tOZ
1
0
2010 -8 -29 (She Swe l
Surroundi
and uses to the South-
west
2010 -B -29 She swe
Surrounding Land Uses to the West
2OiOB a nds
SbeSWe
W esterly Limits of the Severe L
(9 �nea/orte
Application No:
2010 -B -30
Meeting Date:
October 21, 2010
Roll
Proud Heritage, Earring Fsrrure
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Consent Application
(Granite Hill Forestry Inc.)
Block B of Plan 1650
4346- 020 005 -04050 Block C of Plan M29
5e) 2010 -B -30 Granite Hill Forestry In...
Prepared By:
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D10 -40922
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 20 Snowshoe Trail and that the provisions of
Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or
transaction involving the subject lands;
3. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the
parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be
enhanced will merge in title;
5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the
date of the giving of the notice.
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey approximately 0.15 hectares (0.37
acres) from the subject property to the neighbouring residential lot to the south being 20 Snowshoe
Trail. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition.
The purpose of application 2010 -B -30 is to permit a lot addition /boundary adjustment. The subject
land is Part of Block B, Plan 1650, having a depth of approximately 18 metres and an area of
Development Services Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -30 Page 1 of 5
Page 80 of 204
approximately 0.15 hectares. The subject lands are proposed to be added to the adjacent lands to the
south (Snowshoe Trail). No new building lot is proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition.
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Township of Oro Medonte Official Plan?
5e) 2010 -B -30 Granite Hill Forestry In...
The subject lands are designated "Rural" and "Environmental Protection Two" by the Official Plan.
Section D2 of the Official Plan contains policies with respect to subdivision of land. Specifically,
Section D2.2.2 "Boundary Adjustments provides the following guidance for Consent Applications in
general:
"a consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot
is created... the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not
affect the viability of the use of the properties affected."
With respect to the application at hand, no new building lots are proposed and does not affect the
viability of the current use. As such, the proposed boundary adjustment is generally in keeping with
the intent of the residential policies stated in the Official Plan, and otherwise conforms to the
boundary adjustment policies contained in Section D.2.2.2.
County Official Plan
The subject lands are designated Rural designation in the County of Simcoe's Official Plan. Section
3.3.4 of the County's Official Plan, "General Subdivision and Development Policies states that
"Consents for the purpose of boundary adjustments and consolidation of land holdings are permitted
but shall not be for the purpose of creating new lots except as otherwise permitted in this Plan. All lots
created shall conform to all applicable municipal policies and bylaws."
On this basis, the proposed consent appears to generally conform to the policies of the County of
Simcoe's Official Plan.
Provincial Policy Statement
The Provincial Policy Statement does not contain policies directly related to Lot adjustments
(boundary adjustments) in the "Rural Areas" or "Nature Heritage" areas. The policies are related to
the creation of a new lot or development, which are not proposed by this application.
Does the Consent comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property is zoned Private Recreational (PR) Zone by Zoning By -law 97 -95 as amended.
This zone permits a wide range of passive and active recreational uses and does not require a
minimum lot area or frontage. Lands zoned PR conservation uses, forestry uses and golf courses.
None of these uses currently exists on the portion of the property that is proposed to be conveyed to
20 Snowshoe Trail. The lot to be enhanced, being 20 Snowshoe Trail, is zoned Residential One (R1)
Development Services Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -30 Page 2 of 5
Page 81 of 204
Zone. Pending approval of the application, the lot to be enhanced will still maintain the required lot
area, and will comply with the minimum setback requirements for a structure in the R1 Zone.
Staff is of the opinion that the rezoning of the conveyed lands is not necessary at this time however it
should be noted that the no residential structures are permitted on the lands with the Private
Recreation (PR) Zone.
CONSULTATIONS:
Public Works Department
Building Department
Engineering Department
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Proposed Lands to be Conveyed
CONCLUSION:
It is the opinion of the Planning Department, that Consent application 2010 -B -30 for a boundary
adjustment, would appear to conform to the general intent of the Official Plans of the Township and
the County of Simcoe, as well as the Provincial Policy Statement, and maintains the use and setback
provisions of the Zoning By -law.
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by:
Steven ha on, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
5e) 2010 -B -30 Granite Hill Forestry In...
Glenn White
Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -30 Page 3 of 5
Page 82 of 204
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -B -30
txtt +ii
f t r t r ty r
i s K
a} f rf
I <i isy *s
i tt r'ttt
I wttt xy f t }xi
rts� *i�� M iY�'Y jrrs'sK Kss� fi
liir *�f'�i *��}awwMti}yj *r� *yi+y�x
qt r 1 s. a s iit *t
i
W
a�tf ftyl}
Attiiint
r *s r tY +f
IJ iti
.tit t e r s e
i ce *r aty*tur
r a} }r
sw a t A/ o ?t
n/ I a
s r }s:Yi`ri"
}at�Ytett
f *i��ri�r�fyii
d f t fptt *sett i
}'*i `ii *"s,
—rti si
f *i +e•tY}
wtetti Ytr
I cif *r ttrY
i *t tt ii wR�yi +ia
r+rt �r t Y tiftr w
t a t taY a ra rx
tY ar t rt
etiw six
�s.�" s R tit
tz/ offs. ^a et i e t t
si i'r r *tit
i a t t i f t tttt tt
rt t f tr ri }rt *t' t t i
e ft} Y ft tt
'srt };iit Yti te ti� }a
lffti tit Yt Y Ml' tia 7 Y K f f i M
rtM r} r fttr fe at
}t a ft t tif e e t i Y x sx ri' r Yr+f i ft f`
:i`* yxw is fi
.tt Mftit }af aft *ri1 *ti *�i>•ri*ttfi +r
rxh. er e a xrtartf
Attachment #1: LOCATION MAP
VALLEYVEE
W
r
20 Snowshoe Trail
11‘
Proposed Retained Lands
II
Proposed Lands to be Conveyed to 20 Snowshoe Trail
5e) 2010 -B -30 Granite Hill Forestry In...
J
Q'
0 75 150
s—
Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Page 4 of 5
Page 83 of 204
t t �t��
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -B -30
Attachment #2- (Lands to be Conveyed)
Proposed Lands to be Conveyed to 20 Snowshoe Trail
f
5e) 2010 -B -30 Granite Hill Forestry In...
:i*
tttttt
00
i� i*
r *f
.�r y O 0 .sti 1 **r
yr s *r
w ir As.** 13:00,1t 1% 131104'
1
1 *ri*rfs *i*000.11ri %M*i%s .....1
f r000" X06., 0K ±�w
w1 *..r. r 1.0.0hOtt *0 o *1**
w **wM *.'+'r'r *s....
*rF *.f 1M r 0.0 r+l.*rt*1%{r0y0°000i.{.Y*
�.i p
*i`r O ttri�'isF0
i +*w *rry {K�* "w *i ii; *i i�i*� Ott: 01100
06 .iil' +irsriri *r *r**..
iy*
1 r* d* r** r*%,* 0 0 4 %1.0.1%.*** "*i**
*i+1'i *r *r
Y *'r**r4.40 1 .fr ri ∎10. 'i'* iM
1W0.4 *rifr.r %0 .'{f *r* *0K *r *Yr*****
20 Snowshoe Trail
I I
Proposed Retained Lands 0 20 40 80 120 160
Meters
Meeting Date: October 21, 2010
Page 5 of 5
Page 84 of 204
.1
N. 1n1
1 v REG A 8.47650 VG 1 1 OW i 4.. 14
I II 2 8 I-7 WIE 80
OW 8 1 L r °,1 1 ei
a MOONSTONE CRESCENT
G P 0
a
56' I C'3
W
G.
085
1
I 8
PLAN 5,81953
(12) MNMTRY OF
CONSUMER AND
COMMERCIAL
ONTARIO RELATIONS
THIS INDEX MAP SHOWS ALL
PROPERTIES EXISTING N
BLOCK 58523 SHEET 8
ON JULY 4 2000.
SCALE
0091
0295
0296
Pfl I WO
PROPERTY INDEX MAP
BLOCK 58523
TOWNSHIP OF
ORO—MEDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
(OFFICE 51)
5e) 2010 Granite Hill Forestry In...
18
3800
PLAN 518-6502
SHEET 5
8
8
LEGEND
on.po
tp.seno PPM. N.. CAP
141411. nmuns mops", elm CVO
01.75.60.0
fl....004917
8088
PEG PLAN IWO
PE 40111.... ran MOPE. 11.7002.1 0147,
PM.. OP I7E .1.17. MEER EOM AND PP R.
OUT „0.1■001„..„ MTVAS UCII4CTIregb „WEPT,
Page 85 of 204
060
LAIL 51847597
4.
NOTES
Nom Ametm un,
OEM. OUNSvo. NE.. PRO..
SONO II certn. 4.4
WS NAP FAS COWLI„ P. PLANS
.4. N LANO 110.7114
PM, EPS .11 POP NEMIP
nen. ow.
POP InipPENS Of PPM. M.N.
ONLY la AJe. E•SEI. I EX I'
ralt=417
CO
0
co
1500
0
1
4
0,
1;
2,
F--
0 I
_J
17.0
Nobert Clarke INC., I490
we.lir,
77.73
FoRZ5,,,c
r STOREY
0")
77.30
LOT 10
PLAN M--174
z
CftA.O.S1
N$9 '06
Pat
ILA/
.wE•
SNOWSHOE
N50 4..17 PEES
(2a12m. itiOe oattavEct BY PLAN Ai--/7•)
u UK .8% REGISTERED P! 16
Ns9 mco 3E
TRAIL
HO PERS>: NAT COPY. REPRODUCE. OISTRIROE OR Au INS PLAN IN %ROLE OR IN PART WITHOUT TNE WRITTEN PECIUMION OF ROBERT N. cLARKe 044,
NOTE
LEGEND
scRVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I DENOTEs suRver mCINUMENT FOLINO I cr7TIPY THAT:
sE ARE AS1ROMOIRC AND ARE RRea 0
SURVEY NONulAENT "''T THE AEU SURWEY REPRESENTED
TO IRE ttoRTHERLY UNIT OF LOT 70
SS STANDARD IRON ISAR ON THIS PLAN
AS SKEAN CA PLAN P-174 NAvING A REARN0
[RON BAR
n.e Acse.-43,,,
IP
55.89 PAN
R.2.7_96
C=.25.04
A.20.50
N2618E
PAS
ROL3FPT
r".6 I
N I -or
IT
41- 52.35
IC.25.04
.125..50
NZ6 WE
!PAS
Member
Municipalities
Adjala- Tosorontio
Amaranth
Barrie
The Blue Mountains
Bradford -West Gwillimbury
Clearview
Collingwood
Essa
Grey Highlands
Innisfil
Melancthon
Mono
Mulmur
New Tecumseth
Oro- Medonte
Shelburne
Springwater
Wasaga Beach
Watershed
Counties
Dufferin
Grey
Simcoe
Member of
Conservation
ONTARIO
October 7, 2010
Steven Farquharson, Secretary- Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario
LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Farquharson;
5e) 2010 -B -30 Granite Hill Forestry In...
Re: Application for Consent 2010 -B -30 (Granite Hill Forestry Inc.)
Block B, Plan 1650, and Block C, Plan M29
Township of Oro Medonte (Formerly Township of Medonte)
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this
application for consent to facilitate a boundary adjustment and based upon
our mandate and policies, we have no objection to its approval.
Thank you for circulating this application for our review and please forward
a copy of any decision.
Sincerely,
Tim Salkeld
Resource Planner
Celebrating 50 Years in Conservation 1960 -2010
NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Centre for Conservation
John Hix Conservation Administration Centre Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 8th Line Utopia, On LOM 1TO
Telephone: 705.424.1479 Fax: 705.424.2115 Web: www.nvca.on.ca Email: admin @nvca.on.ca
Page 87 of 204
L
V)
CU
L
0
LL
5e) 2010 -B -30 Granite Hill Forestry In...
Page 88 of 204
L
CD
L
0
LL -o
w
w
0
U
W -o
0
C (r)
co
L. co
J
a)
0
0
L
M
CL
O
1
0
N
5e) 2010 -B -30 Granite Hill Forestry In...
Page 90 of 204
L
CU
L
0
LL -0
w
c
ca
a
cc
sp
-I--J O
.4 I
C N
ro co
S. J
N
0
O 2
L
M
m
O
1
0
N
5e) 2010 -B -30 Granite Hill Forestry In...
Page 91 of 204
Hi-- FO ceStry
(Granite Enhanced
be En e
Proposed to
Propo.b,;�
2010-B-30 ands
on
Existing
(9; /ieclo ite�
Pr,vd Heritage, Ereff lag Future
Application No:
2010 -B -31
Meeting Date:
October 21, 2010
Roll
4346 -010- 002 -1640
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
5f) 2010 -B -31 Adrian and Tanya McKendr...
Subject: Consent Application
Adrian and Tanya McKendry
Part of Lot 5, Concession 4,
RP 51R-17464 Part 1
1202 Bass Lake Sideroad
(Former Township of Oro)
Prepared By:
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D10-
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 maximum total lot area for the severed lot be no greater than approximately 1.97
hectares;
3. That the applicant and the NVCA establish a conservation agreement with an associated
Conservation Easement and Restrictive Covenants to be registered on title to ensure long term
protection of remaining natural heritage features on the property.
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 applicant pay 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash -in -lieu of a parkland contribution;
6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro Medonte;
7. 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 purpose of Consent application 2010 -B -31 is to create a residential lot by way of severance
would have a frontage of approximately 121 metres on Bass Lake Sideroad, a depth of approximately
161 metres and an area of approximately 1.97 hectares.
Development Services Meeting Date: October 21. 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -31 Page 1 of 6
Page 93 of 204
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of Consent application 2010 -B -31 is to create a residential lot by way of severance
would have a frontage of approximately 121 metres on Bass Lake Sideroad, a depth of approximately
161 metres and an area of approximately 1.97 hectares. The propose retained lands would have
approximately 219 metres of frontage along Bass Lake Sideroad and a lot area of approximately 19.4
hectares. The applicant has completed as part of the consent process an Environmental Impact
Study, to show that the creation of a new residential lot in the Oro Moraine Core /Corridor Area will
have no negative effects. The applicant is required (discussed below) to enter into an conservation
easement with dedication of lands to a public authority or non profit group.
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Official Plan
5f) 2010 -B -31 Adrian and Tanya McKendr...
The subject lands are designated Oro Moraine- Natural Core /Corridor Area within the Official Plan.
The applicant's lands are characterized as having extensive mature tree coverage, with a steady
incline to the north, however the preferred location in which the applicant would like to place a
dwelling is clear of any significant tree coverage and is relatively flat. Due to the property being
located within the Oro Moraine- Natural Core /Corridor Area, the applicant was required to complete
an EIS to ensure that the development of the lands will not have a negative effect on the
environmental features.
Section B1.10 of the Official Plan requires an EIS for new development on lands within the Oro
Moraine- Natural Core /Corridor designation. As a result of the EIS investigation, it was determined
that the proposed development on subject lands would have no negative impacts on the natural
Hertiage features or functions of the area. The EIS was completed by Dillon Consulting, dated
September 2010, and subsequently circulated to the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
(NVCA) for comment. Comments were received from the NVCA on October 8, 2010, with respect to
the EIS. The NVCA accepts the conclusion from the EIS that the creation of a lot and future
development will not have a negative impact of natural heritage features and functions of the area.
More specifically, Section B1.10.1.4 of the OP provides specific criteria, and which development may
occur. Subsection d) allows for the creation of one new residential lot per 20 hectare parcel maybe be
considered if the result of the application is the dedication of lands to a public authority or non profit
group. In addition, new residential lots maybe considered if the remnant parcel will be subject to a
long term (over 20 years) conservation easement. The applicant has indicated that an conservation
easement will be entered into with the NVCA, upon approval of the consent application.
County Official Plan
Development Services Meeting Date: October 21. 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -31 Page 2 of 6
Page 94 of 204
In analyzing Consent application, Township staff reviewed both the County Official Plan currently in
effect as well as the Official Plan adopted by County Council in November 2008. The County of
Simcoe has commented stating that they have no objection to the proposed consent application.
Section 3.4.1 states that where policies of local municipal Official Plan are considered more restrictive
to development than the policies of the County Official Plan, the more restrictive policies shall apply.
Due to the Township's Official Plan policies being more restrictive for lot creation in the Oro Moraine
Core /Corridor designation, the Township's policies apply. The Township Official Plan required the
applicant to completed an EIS demonstrating that there would be negative effects on the natural
heritage system (Oro Moraine). The applicant has completed this study which has confirmed that the
creation of a new lot would not have any negative effects on the natural heritage system. The NVCA
has reviewed the study and have agreed with this conclusion.
Provincial Policy Statement
The intent of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is to build strong and healthy communities while
at the same time promoting efficient land use and development patterns.
Policy 2.1 of the PPS contains policies that discourage development in Natural Heritage areas unless
it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their
ecological functions. The applicant has completed an EIS, which concluded that there will be no
negative effects on the environmental feature (Oro Moraine).
On this basis, the proposal appears to be consistent with the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement.
Places to Grow
Zoning By -law
5f) 2010 -B -31 Adrian and Tanya McKendr...
Planning staff has reviewed the application for consent in the context of the Places to Grow policies of
the Provincial Government, introduced in 2006. As stated above, the policies in the Official Plans for
the Township and the County of Simcoe permit severances within the Oro Moraine Core /Corridor
Area, provided that and EIS is completed to demonstrate that there will be no negative effects on the
environmental features.
On this basis, the proposal appears to generally conform with the Places to Grow policies of the
Provincial Government.
The subject property is zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone by Zoning By -law 97 -95 as amended.
The area in which that is proposed to be severed has a zoning of Agricultural /Rural Zone. With
consultation with the NVCA, it was determined that the proposed lot will not have any negative impact
on the environmental features (Oro Moraine). The minimum lot area required for a single detached
dwelling is 0.4 hectares and the required frontage of 45 metres. With the creation of a residential lot
by way of severance would have a frontage of approximately 121 metres on Bass Lake Sideroad, a
depth of approximately 161 metres and an area of approximately 1.97 hectares., and as such the
application appears to meet the provisions with the Zoning By -law.
Development Services Meeting Date: October 21. 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -31 Page 3 of 6
Page 95 of 204
CONSULTATIONS:
Public Works Department
Building Department
Engineering Department
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority- Comments attached
County of Simcoe- No Objection
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule #1- Location Map
Schedule #2- Proposed lot location
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Consent applications 2010 -B -31, to create a residential lot
by way of severance, conforms to the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By -law.
Respecttully submitted:
Steven arquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
5f) 2010 -B -31 Adrian and Tanya McKendr...
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date: October 21. 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -31 Page 4 of 6
Page 96 of 204
ca fi ST
NORDI__�te. ert
r
z
m
Proposed Retained Lands
Proposed Severed Lands
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010- B- 31(McKendry)
L
BAS
5f) 2010 -B -31 Adrian and Tanya McKendr...
tr
w
z
J
0 1: 5 275 550
T1
Development Services Meeting Date: October 21. 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -31 Page 5 of 6
1,100
Mete •s
Page 97 of 204
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -B -31
Proposed Retained Lands
Proposed Severed Lands I
5f) 2010 -B -31 Adrian and Tanya McKendr...
SCHEDULE 2: Proposed Lot Location
2010 -B -31 (McKendry)
0 45 S,0
180
270
360
Mete s
Meeting Date: October 21. 2010
Page 6 of 6
Page 98 of 204
Garage
1126.21'
1202 Bass Lake Side Rd. W.
Existing area 5188 acres
Zoning A /RU
Small Mar 2
Retained: 48 acres
Pool 1' Existing House
1 Septic
720.67'
5f) 2010 -B -31 Adrian and Tanya McKendr...
Severed Area
4.88 acres
n
66
Bass Lake Side Rd. W.
293.5'
Page 99 of 204
ttrri (rAputt i r Ataitii Izrtt
INSTALLER APPLICATION NO.
Ewart Ball DATE July 16 19 82 F 82 0 29
WORK AUTHORIZED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL HAS BEEN SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED AND INCLUDES:
a) Septic tank /holding tank of working capacity of 800 Imp. Gals. constructed of steel concrete 25 fibreglass on site
or prefabricated to serve 3 (no. of bedrooms or units). new single family dwelling
b) Leaching bed of total 250' lineal feet of 3 inch diameter distribution pipe 01 Gravenhurs Muskoka P .V. C.
(type and product description e.g. Canon CSA Approved PVC) laid in 5 runs and fed by
gravity (gravity, siphon, pump).
c) Proprietary Aerobic System. (Manufacturer) (Model)
d) Other details 1) trench bed at 6' centres with split header
2) drilled well
a) System components installed as shown on application suppo rting Certificate of Approval
b) If located other than in (a) use space below for sketch and dimensions from permanent points of reference sufficient to facilitate future location
of tank and leaching bed including orientation of pipe runs. P,. t p 0'5.4 Ty
0
c
A
T
1 1 1 1 1 1 1.. I 1
lI
I I I
1 I
I 1 11
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 .4- 1_ n 1 J
r z0
r/ AC'-'m
THE FOLLOWING WORK REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED.
5f) 2010 -B -31 Adrian and Tanya McKendr...
1
'Backfill System and Complete 2i-finish Grading to Shed Run -off and Divert Water Around Leaching Bed
&I all Sloped Surfaces Other
Any Use Permit issued hereunder may be revoked if this work is not completed promptly to health unit standards.
U Under Section 59a of The Environmental Protection Act, 1971 and subject to the provisions of The Act and Regulations a Permit is hereby issued to
S (Owner) Mr. Philip Graydon for the use and operation of the Class IV sewage p g system constructed/
5
installed/ er'riaw.,4 1.4..,.ed,'eltel:ed pursuant to the Certificate of Approval issued above application number in accordance with the application
P and Certificate of Approval with any changes indicated above and located on Lot gt Concession 4 1W d,4ownship /Ma '.;.f.t,; Oro
E __R.giona ist0OSLCounty Simcoe Plan No. h 2
R Sub -Lot No. 11}}EEgq4 provides that no change can be made t ny building s) iT INSPECTED MM PE f DIRECTOR DATE
'7
f j f j
N Section 5 of The Act
O operation effec tiveness
of the sewage system will or is likely t be affected by the change, unless a new Certificate of Approv is obtained. Section 78
T of The Act provides that art applicant may appeal the imposition of terms and conditions by a Director on issuing a permit. Written notice of appeal must
E be forwarded to the Director and to the Environmental Appeal Board, 365 Bay Street, Suite 900, Toronto, Ont., M5H 2V3 within 15 days of receipt of the permit.
OWNER'S COPY
USE PcRMIT
FOR CLASS 4, 5, 6 SEWAGE SYSTEMS
Page 100 of 204
Member
Municipalities Re:
Adjala- Tosorontio
Amaranth
Barrie
The Blue Mountains
Bradford -West Gwillimbury
Clearview
Co I I i ngwood
Essa
Grey Highlands
Innisfil
Melancthor
Mono
Mulmur
New Tecumseth
Oro Medonte
Shelburne
Spri ngwater
Wasaga Beach
Watershed
Counties
Dufferin
Grey
Simcoe
Member of
Conservation
ONTARIO
October 8, 2010
Steven Farquharson, Secretary- Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario
LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Farquharson;
5f) 2010 B 31 Adrian and Tanya McKendr...
Application for Consent 2010 -B -31 (McKendry)
Part Lot 5, Concession 4, 1202 Bass Lake Sideroad West
Township of Oro- Medonte (Formerly Township of Oro)
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this
application for consent in accordance with Natural Heritage policies
established under the Provincial Policy Statement and within the Oro
Medonte Official Plan.
The NVCA has reviewed the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) dated
September 2010 prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited. The NVCA accepts
the conclusion that the creation of the lot and future development will not
have a negative impact on natural heritage features and functions of the
area. On this basis, the NVCA has no objection to the approval of this
application subject to the following condition:
That the applicant and the NVCA establish a Conservation Agreement
with an associated Conservation Easement and Restrictive Covenants
to be registered on title to ensure the long term protection of remaining
natural heritage features on the property.
Our request for the establishment of a Conservation Agreement Easement
and Restrictive Covenants is in concert with the Conservation Land Act, the
Conservation Authorities Act and the NVCA Conservation Land Protection
and Acquisition Policy.
We advise the property is not under the regulatory jurisdiction of the NVCA
and a permit is not required under the Conservation Authorities Act for future
development. Notwithstanding this, the NVCA recommends that the
mitigation measures recommended in Section 5.1 of the EIS be implemented
during the remainder of the planning and construction process.
Celebrating 50 Years in Conservation 1960 2010
..J2
NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Centre for Conservation
John Hix Conservation Administration Centre Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 8th Line Utopia, On LOM 1TO
Telephone: 705.424.1479 Fax: 705.424.2115 Web: www.nvca.on.ca Email: admin@nvca.on.ca
Page 101 of 204
5f) 2010 -B -31 Adrian and Tanya McKendr...
Application for Consent 2010- B- 31.Oro- Medonte
Thank you for circulating this application and please advise us of any decision.
Sincerely;
Tim Salkeld
Resource Planner
Copy: Adrian McKendry, applicant
Paae 2
Page 102 of 204
2010 -B -31 Vc<endry
1202 Bass Lake Sideroad West
Figure 1: Project Location and
Natural Features
Legend
e Preterree Lecanun 01 N.. Mira Re9bental Barg
Sin Corrtt7VIB
I 1202 133!-S Lie 9demaa West
Ppproxlmate Locatlan If &.BBMe Lxd Sevelarlue
0eenllae scheme 5.1 Land
Use Ceggra1o!s)
CVR_d: Rual Property'
FOCM5-1: E Fr0Sh sugar Maple Dentdiapts Face51
FC410:2 -2: Dfl FRah Sugar Ma1N e0'Tlte Pt*
Mixed Fet10
TAGM1: CArine0m00 nantaetn
7HMM1 -1: Nallve M1eee 9ege1EC32 JI i11[SC1
15,030
6
ILO 20J 3N
cleated &q:
C a 00
mha.4 DR
0 a adirla :0 10
ca 0d 110OAetl:0019111
L3] f 00 Pafh: I.'[ 0110114
110150 LCmhcm m0 03Wn1 Features. 1010
0
4J
5f) 2010 -B -31 Adrian and Tanya McKendr...
Page 104 of 204
5f) 2010 -B -31 Adrian and Tanya McKendr...
Page 105 of 204
2010 -B -31 ;Vc<endry)
Proposed Severed Lands
5f) 2010 -B -31 Adrian and Tanya McKendr...
Page 107 of 204
78um sLip of
.edonte
P+w.d Heritage, Fixating Mawr
Application No:
2010 -A -33
Meeting Date:
October 21, 2010
Roll
4346- 010- 007 -08600
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Variance Application
(Suzanne Caudry)
15 Pemberton Lane
Range 1, East Part Lot 1, Part 7
(Former Township of Oro)
5g) 2010 -A -33 Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
Prepared By:
Alan Wiebe, Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D13 -40901
The subject property occupies an area of approximately 0.4 hectares, has frontages along Pemberton
Lane and along Lake Simcoe of approximately 79 metres, and a depth of approximately 51 metres.
The subject property has an existing dwelling constructed between 1950 and 1970, and a previously
existing deck along the lake, constructed around 1985, that occupies an area of approximately 36
square metres (387 square feet).
In 2009, an application for a Site Plan Agreement was submitted for the construction of a boathouse
of approximately 78.15 square metres (841.25 square feet), as this property is zoned Residential
Limited Service (RLS) Zone and subject to Site Plan Control, and the boathouse was constructed in
2010. Schedule 5 to this report was submitted to the Township with the subject Application for Minor
Variance, and was also submitted with Site Plan Application 2009 SPA -13, for the construction of the
boathouse, also showing the recently constructed deck, and omitting the previously existing deck.
The previously existing deck and the boathouse were approximately 5.3 metres (17.5 feet) apart, per
Schedule 3, until the construction of a deck occupying an area of approximately 33 square metres
(357 square feet) joined the previously existing deck with the existing boathouse, occupying a total
area of approximately 147 square metres (1,580 square feet). This connecting deck was constructed
without a building permit, and brought the combination of the boathouse and attached decks into non-
compliance with the Zoning By -Law.
The purpose of this report is to consider Minor Variance Application 2010 -A -33, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law in relation to the total area occupied by a boathouse with
attached decks.
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 1 of 10
Page 108 of 204
ANALYSIS:
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
Does the variance meet the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
5g) 2010 -A -33 Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
The applicant is requesting the following relief from Table B1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Zone: Residential Limited Service (RLS) Zone Required Proposed
Section 5.7 b) Maximum total area of deck and 70 square metres 147 square metres
boathouse
The subject property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section C5.1 of the Official Plan
states that the objectives of the Shoreline designation are:
"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 services with water and sewer services."
Section C5.2 of the Official Plan states that "Permitted uses on lands designated Shoreline are
single detached dwellings and accessory uses.
On this basis, the proposal is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan.
The subject property is zoned Residential Limited Service (RLS) Zone, and permitted uses in the RLS
Zone include single detached dwellings.
Section 5.6 of the Township's Zoning By -Law contains provisions for the construction of boathouses
within the Township. Section 5.6 does not regulate the area occupied by a boathouse, however, this
section does regulate their location relative to a property's lot lines, their width relative to the width of
a lot, their height above the average high water mark, and uses prohibited to take place within them.
Section 5.6 c) states that "Boathouses are permitted on a lot provided The width of the boathouse
does not exceed 30 percent of the width of the lot at the average high water mark"
Section 5.7 of the Zoning By -Law contains provisions for the construction of decks, and distinguishes
between decks which are attached to a house, stand alone, or attached to a boathouse. Section 5.7
b) states that "Decks which are either attached to a boathouse or are stand alone are permitted to be
located at the water's edge provided the total area of the deck and the boathouse does not exceed 70
square metres (753 square feet)."
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 2 of 10
Page 109 of 204
The purpose of these provisions is to regulate the visual prominence of buildings and structures along
the shoreline, to prevent the overdevelopment of the shoreline, and to limit their effects on the
shoreline area.
5g) 2010 -A -33 Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
Based on the width of the lot (per Schedule 2) at 79.08 metres (259.45 feet), and the width of the
boathouse, existing deck, and proposed deck (per Schedule 3) at 27.15 metres (89.08 feet), their
cumulative dimensions occupy approximately 34.3 per cent of the width of the lot. Although Section
5.6 c) of the Zoning By -Law does not include reference to decks attached to boathouses in the
calculation of a boathouse's width relative to the width of a lot, the general intent of this provision and
of Section 5.7, is to limit the visual prominence of any one building or structure along the shoreline,
and to prevent its overdevelopment.
A site inspection revealed that the existing boathouse also has a deck area on its roof, occupying the
entire footprint of the existing boathouse (approximately 78.15 square metres, or 841.25 square feet),
and that the existing boathouse and approximate 69 square metres (744 square feet) of attached
deck area occupies a significant area and proportion of the shoreline on the subject property.
Further, the site inspection revealed that the subject property has an existing 1- storey dwelling which,
based on Schedule 4 to this report, occupies an area of approximately 110 square metres (1,184
square feet). Therefore, as the application proposes to permit the increase in the total area of the
boathouse and attached decks to occupy an area larger than the main building on the property, the
proposal is considered to compromise the main building's visual prominence and use as the main
building or structure on the property. Further, as the application proposes to increase the total area
occupied by a boathouse and attached decks to 210 per cent of the total area permitted (of 70 square
metres), the proposal is considered to lead to the overdevelopment of the shoreline.
Therefore, on the basis of the above, the proposal is not considered to comply with the general intent
of the Zoning By -Law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
A site inspection revealed that the deck connecting the previously existing deck and boathouse has
already been constructed. As previously noted, this connecting deck was constructed without a
permit and brought the existing boathouse and deck into a situation of non compliance, where,
individually, each was previously in compliance. As this connecting deck has lead to the increased
development of the lot in a manner that is not considered to meet the general intent of the Zoning By-
Law, the proposal is not considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
Although the proposal is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan, and is
considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot, under these circumstances, as the
application proposes to increase the allowable total area for a boathouse and attached decks on this
property to more than twice the maximum permitted in the Zoning By -Law, and as the area occupied
by the boathouse and attached decks occupies a greater area than the existing dwelling on the
property, the proposed variance is not considered minor.
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 3 of 10
Page 110 of 204
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services
Building Department
Engineering Department
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Site Plan
Schedule 3: Floor Plan
Schedule 4: Topographic Survey
Schedule 5: Site Plan (October 2009)
Schedule 6: Boathouse Elevations
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2010 -A -33, to permit the construction
and /or existence of a boathouse and attached decks that occupy a total area of approximately 147
square metres (1,580 square feet), does not appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by:
7
Alan Wiebe
Planner
5g) 2010 -A -33 Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 4 of 10
Page 111 of 204
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -33
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -A -33 (Suzanne Caudry)
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Lake Simcoe
PEMBERTON LANE-
5g) 2010 -A -33 Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
RIDGE ROAD
0 75 150
Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Page 5 of 10
L
300
Meters
Page 112 of 204
N
5
v
m
0
0
m
0 N
O n N
0
00
PART 4
As se l FLAN 512.31725 ,s.r.r
gyjano.±_,
PART 5
1.---- PLAN 6R -31725
/NN 58554.0103
es-sreeaex cartow L. e alie!
RI 1
aala c0010U1 LNL—
(KNOWN AS)
01371£30.3. Kuno.
IN
0r/o000 111.$1
nermen
x ..70•.01 1
eV( Kr'iMb
s rN
PW 58554-0,103
03 wwuu n.3 lnmele
11.0310101e3A
axle ew4ri
am0 7 03l anon
la w xl o
PART 7
PLAN SIR -31725
w ���'1vwG� V4LL
PART 6 Rd57.
PLAN 51R 31725
wO IVNL 11
»m -1
1.1 maul
PEMBERTON
MIL 33 Weal
0 01 'z
m E
X63
I
�zru3 ca+TOUR Ewe
1
0001
ma
flJt'7
u i. C114T
ihzlo
ergai 7' 2c q SPA t3
LAKE SIMCOE
PIN 5Q 0399
PART I
PLAN 51R -3530
PIN 58554 -0097
006027-'
LANE
PART I
PLAN 516
P1 N 58554 -0704
C N30 0 LKIC ROU
f�ve0K3mTE iM m PICK! SMpaLa[
901 f MTwTR L16
N
O (J)
On
m
w 0
C
cn
N
7 Cr)
<D m
1
r
QD
Z
1.1
A J 1
I
NMI 11 1.. 1
lllllllll 111001
11111 lllll /111111
l I llll 1111111i111111
1111 llllllllll 111411
11111111111115 lllll
1 1111111E1111111111
.t ilium llllllll II
1111111111111111111111
/411111111111111111i
1111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111,141.1;li.111111 I.
I ijiiiniji
inEilh111111111 1111 11
11 lllll IM11111 lllll II
111111 llll
liIrr 111.11 1 1111111111
1111111M
111111in
1111111111
.itourim
1111
11111E1111111
sammultuti
1111111111111
11111111131
IuIuIIuIuI
llllll
M1111111111
IlIlI
11111 lllll 111 I
.M111111111
lin1111111ti
1111111M1111
lllll It
.0
r11111 lllll II CM=
-4›
SCHEDULE 3: FLOOR PLAN
2010-A-33 (Suzanne Caudry)
of* .ti
5g) 2010-A-33 Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
z
di
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010-A-33 Page 7 of 10
Page 114 of 204
41.10 PO 7
.1•11 Pl..SfiS
PMT i ...AV..
au a. P. WO:Ma 2 /4 —laatt.■• Is PEMBERTON
w o 1,4,...o- e.
ow. ....0...d....-
..?„7:
WM. V I'
Milef 3
11.r1 50;47:3
_rf !GAN&
SCHEDULE 4: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
2010-A-33 (Suzanne Caudry)
0 ,0•0 04•3*
flTL VIFTC AL SCAti t 301
71
.„1
rix----
1
7
ig,
IrI.ax
II I
i-
AKE At.tErxE
•A'
NALL
0.06
WraM111:1PreldIS111"
5g) 2010-A-33 Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
N1330 on
104.0H,, upour
PART OF LOT
RANGE 1
rx or.c 0 op
70tiVTISHIP Cf ORO• *DOH' E
COACT f SMCCE
0 *€S L04110
oywww.
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010-A-33 Page 8 of 10
*2 TES
rA•nrr.....f.r.:=4.;va="
unror
&AV( Mx; OtIrTIIA.IfE
amaau.
e:
Page 115 of 204
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -33
SCHEDULE 5: SITE PLAN (OCTOBER 2009)
2010 -A -33 (Suzanne Caudry)
A
5g) 2010 -A -33 Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
1
Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Page 9 of 10
r
Page 116 of 204
SCHEDULE 6: BOATHOUSE ELEVATIONS
2010 -A -33 (Suzanne Caudry)
5g) 2010 -A -33 Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 10 of 10
Page 117 of 204
2010-A-33 x-Caudry`.
Existing Dwelling on Subject Property
-A-33 (CaudtV`
2O10 o n Subject Property
Existing Boathouse
1
1
eo8 �u!'�S!x3
u }ooil asnou}
l.�aadoad ��a(gn5 uO SApaa p OZ
MP neD) -‘•C
N
c
C
c
Page 121 of 2
2010 -A-33 (CaudtV`
Boathouse on Subject Property
Roof of Existing
5g) 2010 -A -33 Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
Page 123 of 204
rr
124
2010 -A -33 Caudry
Existing Dwelling, Decks, and Boathouse on Subject Property
P 126 of 204
(9iv%.L
Pi ovd ihvirnyv, 6scHlyg V./ IC
Application No:
2010 -A -34
Meeting Date:
October 21, 2010
Roll
4346-010-011-27100
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Variance Application
(Phil Tuck)
33 Robinson Street
Plan 615, West Part Lot B
(Former Township of Oro)
5h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson St...
Prepared By:
Alan Wiebe, Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D13 -40934
The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision, with respect to the
construction of a detached accessory building on the subject property:
a. that notwithstanding Section 5.1.3 a) and 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 5.1 of the Zoning By -law;
b. that the setbacks from the front and interior side lot lines for the detached accessory building
be in conformity with Table B1 (minimum required front yard for single detached dwelling), and
Section 5.1.3 b) through f), of the Township's Zoning By -Law 97 -95;
c. that the floor area for the detached accessory building, measured as the "total area of all floors
in a building, measured between the exterior faces of the exterior walls of the building at each
floor level" not exceed approximately 92.2 square metres (992 square feet);
i. that an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by: 1) pinning the footings, and 2) verifying in writing prior to the
issuance of an occupancy permit that the floor area of the detached accessory building
not exceed approximately 92.2 square metres (992 square feet);
d. that the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals, if required, from Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority, if applicable; and
e. 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.
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -34 Page 1 of 7
Page 127 of 204
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
5h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson St...
The subject property occupies an area of approximately 0.17 hectares (0.42 acres), has a frontage
along Robinson Street of approximately 18 metres (60 feet), a depth of approximately 93 metres (306
feet), and currently contains a single detached dwelling.
The applicant is proposing to construct a detached garage in the front yard of the property, with a
main floor of approximately 69.9 square metres (752 square feet), and a storage area on a second
floor with an area of approximately 22.3 square metres (240 square feet), located beyond the
minimum required front yard for a single detached dwelling and beyond the minimum required interior
side yard for a detached accessory building.
The purpose of this report is to consider Minor Variance Application 2010 -A -34, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law in relation to the permitted locations for detached
accessory buildings, and in relation to the floor area of a detached accessory building.
The applicant is requesting the following relief from Table B1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Zone: Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Required Proposed
1. Section 5.1.3 a) Permitted locations for detached Not in front yard In front yard
accessory buildings
2. Section 5.1.6 Maximum floor area 70 square metres 92.2 square metres
FINANCIAL:
The subject property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section C5.1 of the Official Plan
states that the objectives of the Shoreline designation are:
"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 services with water and sewer services."
Section C5.2 of the Official Plan states that "Permitted uses on lands designated Shoreline are
single detached dwellings The proposed accessory building is associated with the permitted
single detached dwelling.
On this basis, the proposal is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan.
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -34 Page 2 of 7
Page 128 of 204
Do the variances comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
1. Permitted locations for detached accessory buildings
5h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson St...
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. Permitted uses in the Shoreline
Residential (SR) Zone include single detached dwellings and accessory buildings, such as detached
garages.
Section 5.1.3 a) of the Township's Zoning By -Law prohibits detached accessory buildings from being
located in a front yard, however, this provision continues to state that "Notwithstanding this provision,
a detached private garage is permitted in the front yard of a lot that abuts Lake Simcoe provided it
is set back a minimum distance equal to the required front yard for the main building from the front lot
line." The purpose for this provision is to reduce the visual prominence and impact of detached
accessory buildings on properties, so as to not compromise the prominence of the main building on
the property, by locating detached accessory buildings in interior side or rear yards, except where it is
impractical to do so, such as in the case of a property that abuts Lake Simcoe.
A site inspection revealed that the property to the east of the subject property has a detached
accessory building within the front yard, between the existing dwelling and Robinson Street, and that
that property to the east also does not abut Lake Simcoe, and that the property between these two
properties and Lake Simcoe is accessed by an entrance to the east of both properties.
As the Zoning By -Law permits detached accessory buildings to be located in the front yard for
properties that abut Lake Simcoe, and as the subject property is located between Lake Simcoe and
Robinson Street, with no streets separating this property from Lake Simcoe, the proposed variance to
permit a detached accessory building to be located in the front yard is considered appropriate in
regards to the general intent of the Zoning By -Law.
2. Maximum floor area
Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning By -Law regulates the maximum floor area for detached accessory
buildings at 70 square metres (753.5 square feet). The purpose for regulating the size of detached
accessory buildings and structures is to ensure that such buildings remain clearly secondary to the
primary use of the lot. In this case, the primary use of the property is residential, with a one storey
single detached dwelling which, based on Schedule 2, occupies an area of approximately 85.5
square metres (920 square feet).
In this case, although the proposed detached accessory building is proposed to stand at one and a
half storeys high, and have a floor area of approximately 92.2 square metres (992 square feet), with
the existing dwelling standing one storey high, with a floor area of approximately 85.5 square metres
(920 square feet), and separated by approximately 37 metres (120 feet), the proposed location of the
proposed detached accessory building would not be anticipated to compromise the main building as
the primary use on the lot.
Therefore, on this basis, the proposed variance from the maximum floor area for a detached
accessory building is considered to maintain the general intent of the Zoning By -Law.
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -34 Page 3 of 7
Page 129 of 204
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
A site inspection and observations of detached accessory buildings on nearby properties revealed
that the proposed detached accessory building would appear to be in keeping with the character of
the surrounding residential area and, therefore, would be considered appropriate for the desirable
development of the lot. The abutting property to the east has a detached accessory building in the
front yard.
Are the variances minor?
As this application is considered to conform with the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-
Law, is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot, and is not anticipated to have
an adverse affect on the character of the surrounding residential area, the proposed variance is
considered to be minor.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services
Building Department
Engineering Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Site Plan
Schedule 3: Floor Plan
CONCLUSION:
5h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson St...
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2010 -A -34, to permit the construction
of a detached accessory building in the front yard of the subject property with a floor area of
approximately 92.2 square metres (992 square feet), appears to meet the four tests of the Planning
Act.
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by:
G.J �YXJ`'f
Alan Wiebe Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Planner Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -34 Page 4 of 7
Page 130 of 204
Development Services
SUBJECT PROPERTY
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -A -34 (Phil Tuck)
Lake Simcoe
5h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson St...
ROBINSON STREET
0 50 100 200
Meters
Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -34 Page 5 of 7
Page 131 of 204
5024
23343)
0
R O B I N S O N
G
Development Services
216.23'(4
217.00'(P,01.&02)
4 Ml Tj
SCHEDULE 2: SITE PLAN
2010 -A -34 (Phil Tuck)
145727'00'E
14!0.1
PART 1 51R-25343
(REGISTERED PLAN 93, 50.00' WIDE)
od
FE RENCE LINE)
60.61 %MbP) 60.601PROP)
60.00' (02) 1 d 60.00•(01)
121.21' (Y)
"120.00' (01 402)
W
rel
T
a
NELL CASINO
sa
t
1
874.05'
A 4
cCT 3 l
p JA
ma 12.a' W
I. Y
a P L u
24fa.!
a' U3 n H
c sorcraarlarep '2 z
z
�JJ z
(N0 FENCE)
5h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson St...
St
1--
NEOCE 2.071
60.00'(D2) 1° 60.00'(D1)
145754'10'E 22 .6911)
N5727'00 E 120.001D1&02) 4181
12e
r
Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -34 Page 6 of 7
Page 132 of 204
I
I
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -34
4.
s
SCHEDULE 3: FLOOR PLAN
2010 -A -34 (Phil Tuck)
L
7 sa
I�at
L.
5h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson St...
Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Page 7 of 7
I
II
II
II
Page 133 of 204
V
I D
00
M
Q
O
1
0
N
5h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson St...
Page 134 of 204
V
D
1
5h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson St...
Page 135 of 204
00
M
Q
O
1
0
N
5h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson St...
Page 136 of 204
00
5h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson St...
Page 137 of 204
V
I D
00
M
Q
O
1
0
N
5h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson St...
Page 138 of 204
V
D
1
5h) 2010 -A -34 Phil Tuck
33 Robinson St...
Page 139 of 204
ru�,.�n�� n 1
9/'o- f.1donte
Prwid Ftnirnye, C..xirer{q Fnwer
Application No:
2010 -A -35
Meeting Date:
October 21, 2010
Roll
4346- 030 010 -28688
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
ANALYSIS:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
Subject: Variance Application
(K. Koprowicz)
1 Sunset Crescent
Plan M469, Part Lot 24
(Former Township of Orillia)
Zone: Rural Residential One Exception 3 (RUR1 *31 Zone Required
Section 5.1.6 Maximum floor area 70 square
metres
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
Prepared By:
Alan Wiebe, Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
The subject property occupies an area of approximately 1.8 hectares, and has frontage along Sunset
Crescent of approximately 20 metres (65.6 feet) and along Highway 12 of approximately 223 metres
(731.6 feet). The subject property currently contains a single detached dwelling (one storey
bungalow) with a floor area of approximately 250 square metres (2,690 square feet), and a detached
accessory building of approximately 94 square metres (1,012 square feet).
The applicant is proposing to construct a detached accessory building, proposed to occupy a footprint
of 129 square metres (1,389 square feet), at approximately 95 metres from the exterior side lot line of
the property (on Highway 12), approximately 31 metres (102 feet) from the rear lot line, and as near as
23 metres (75 feet) from an interior side lot line. As stated in the application, the proposed detached
accessory building is proposed to be used for "hobby uses", and "required wheelchair design
necessitates larger dimensions". As of the writing of this report, floor plan drawings have not been
submitted that reflect the intended use of the proposed detached accessory building, as stated in the
application.
The purpose of this report is to consider Minor Variance Application 2010 -A -35, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -Law in relation to the maximum floor area for a detached
accessory building.
The applicant is requesting the following relief from Table B1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -35 Page 1 of 5
Proposed
129 square
metres
Page 140 of 204
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
The subject property is designated Rural Residential in the Township's Official Plan.
Section C4.1 of the Official Plan states that the objective of the Rural Residential designation is:
"To recognize existing estate, country estate and chalet residential developments in the
Township."
Section C4.2 of the Official Plan states that "Permitted uses on lands designated Rural Residential
are limited to single detached dwellings and accessory uses."
On this basis, the proposal is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property is zoned Rural Residential One with Exception 3 (RUR1 *3) Zone. The primary
use of the property is residential, and the property currently contains a single detached dwelling of
approximately 250 square metres (2,690 square feet) and a detached accessory building of
approximately 94 square metres (1,012 square feet). The purpose for regulating the size, height, and
location of detached accessory buildings and structures is to ensure that such buildings remain
clearly secondary to the primary use of the lot.
The application proposes a minor variance for the construction of a second detached accessory
building with a floor area of approximately 129 square metres (1,389 square feet), in addition to the
existing detached accessory building that is larger than the Zoning By -Law presently permits. With
the construction of the proposed detached accessory building, the area occupied by detached
accessory buildings on the property would equal to approximately 223 square metres (2,400 square
feet). The applicant has also stated in the application form of their intent to build an addition to the
existing dwelling on the property, proposed to occupy an additional 98.5 square metres (1,060 square
feet), bringing the existing dwelling to approximately 348.5 square metres (3,751 square feet).
Although the floor area proposed to be occupied by detached accessory buildings on the property
would be less than the floor area occupied by the existing dwelling, and less than the total floor area
of the dwelling with the proposed addition, as the proposed detached accessory building would be
anticipated to compromise the visual prominence and purpose for the main building on the lot, in
addition to being highly visible from other lots in the immediate area, the proposed variance is not
considered to meet the general intent of the Zoning By -Law.
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -35 Page 2 of 5
Page 141 of 204
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
A site inspection revealed that majority of properties in the area with dwellings either do not have
detached accessory buildings, or do not have detached accessory buildings that are near or
exceeding the 70 square metre (753.5 square feet) maximum floor area. One property near the
subject property, however, has two detached accessory buildings which appear to comply with the
maximum floor area provision, and are relatively hidden from view of adjacent properties by a
vegetative buffer. The proposed detached accessory building on the subject property, however,
would be anticipated to be highly visible from other nearby properties, as well as from Sunset
Crescent and Orsi Drive.
Therefore, as the proposed detached accessory building would be anticipated to have an adverse
effect on the character of the surrounding area, and would not be considered to meet the general
intent of the Zoning By -Law, the proposed variance is not considered appropriate for the desirable
development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
As stated above, as the proposed variance is not considered appropriate for the desirable
development of the lot, and is not considered to meet the general intent of the Zoning By -Law, the
proposed variance is not considered to be minor.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services
Building Department
Engineering Department
Ministry of Transportation
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Site Plan
CONCLUSION:
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2010 -A -35, to permit the construction
of a detached accessory building occupying a floor area of approximately 129 square metres, does
not appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted:
24 i
Alan Wiebe
Planner
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -35 Page 3 of 5
Page 142 of 204
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -A -35 (K. Koprowicz)
I
DEVIITTTtSTREET
A
BARR=AVE E
GANTONI ROAD
w
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -35
w;y
0
Q
O
—co ti
o
o
BASS LAKE
MI SUBJECT PROPERTY
0 125 250 50Meters
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
Township of Severn
I�
4 44 -f at
qe s
0 _I
ORSI DRIVE
n
City of Orillia
Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Page 4 of 5
Page 143 of 204
Development Services
Qft
(dporta4
13e
SCHEDULE 2: SITE PLAN
2010 -A -35 (K. Koprowicz)
lR
4
PAR 2
j _D-r Z1-
(S uk
24 P 44q
l2o 410
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
4 °m
t
AAA
Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -35 Page 5 of 5
Page 144 of 204
2010 -A -35 Koprowicz
Existing Dwelling on Subject Property
2010-A-35 o rove i
o erty
Existing Accessory Building on Subject Prop
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
Page 147 of 204
Page 148 of 2
2010 -A -35 (Koprowicz)
Proposed Location of Accessory Building
2010 -A -35 :<oprowicz,
Proposed Location and Area of Accessory Building
0
0
r r
2010 -A -35 :<oprowicz,
Proposed Location and Area of Accessory Building
M.JacloJd luaoefpv uo 2umanncl
:1
231 nAo d o)i` SE-V
1
1
oS Sa��d �u!�
oad �uaDefpd uo Z
l� aad
o� l 5 z01 N\Osid
2O10 A on Adjacent Property
Existing Accessory Building
Wiebe, Alan
From: Hendrix, Janice (MTO) [Janice.Hendrix@ontario.ca]
Sent: October -19 -10 10:44 AM
To: Farquharson, Steven; Wiebe, Alan
Subject: Minor Variance 2010 -A -35, K. Koprowicz, Part Lot 24, Plan M -469 1 Sunset Crescent,
Highway 12, Township of Oro Medonte
Hello Steven and Alan;
We had now had an opportunity to review the above -noted minor variance and have no concerns with it. A MTO Building
Permit is not required for the accessory building.
Regards,
Janice Hendrix
Permits Officer Simcoe
Corridor Management Section
Ministry of Transportation
1201 Wilson Avenue
7th Floor, Building D
Downsview, Ontario
M3M 1J8
Tel. (416) 235 -5382
Fax.(416) 235 -4267
Website: www.mto.aov.on.ca
1
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
Page 157 of 204
TO: THE CORPORATON OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMEN T
RE: APPLICATION FOR A MINOR VARIANCE.SUBMISSION 2010 -A -35
As owners of #5 Orsi Drive located within the township of Oro- Medonte my husband William (Bill)
HILES and myself Ica HILES are granting permission to Mr. Rick FRARACCI to represent our interest at
the above noted hearing. Mr. FRARACCI will read a letter approved and signed by us and is free to ask
any questions and provide a rebuttal.
Currently our circumstances are as follows.
I am 80 years of age and my husband is 86. Ten years ago Bill suffered a stroke which left him partially
paralyzed with mobility very slow and difficult. Because of these circumstances our presence at this
hearing would be very difficult as Bill requires my entire attention.
Mr. FRARACCI is a neighbor and close friend of both Bill and myself as we trust his judgment in many
of our affairs.
Respectfully
William and Ica HILES October 17, 201
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
kiaa3Luo 6-9
zoo
Page 158 of 204
TO: THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTECOMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT.
RE: APPLICATION FOR A MINOR VARIANCE. SUBMISSION 2010 -A -35
When my husband William (Bill) HILES and I moved from Parry Sound several years ago we decided to
settle at 5 Orsi drive in Oro Medonte for several reasons.
Our attraction to the property and the proximity to the City of Orillia for Bill's medical demands were
paramount. The property size and panoramic views from all sides of our lot which include a pond to the
North, gentle rolling landscaped lawns which blend with neighbours to the South and East and a long
view of Bass Lake to the West. All of the above factors provide a sense of comfort, security and
tranquility for me and especially Bill who can often be found inspecting the grounds on his electric
scooter. Since my cancer operation last May my appreciation for our property has grown even stronger.
Photographs introduced will depict how we maintain, enjoy and appreciate our property
As property owners w e have several concerns as the East side of our property backs onto 1 Sunset
Crst.
1) The view from the entire East side of our property will now be interrupted with a proposed
berm and a building protruding 13' from the top of this man made landscape.
2) I have had conversations with the occupant of# 1 Sunset Crst. Mr. Alexander March who
explained to me that the service building he intends to construct will be a hobby building for a
relative. Bill and I question why an additional building must be constructed when his property
already has a double car attached garage and a separate building equivalent to a 3 car garage. Is
there a hidden agenda for a commercial business taking place here?
3) As a member of the Military Services who served in World War Two and later worked in a
furniture factory Bill survives on government pensions as we have no other income from the
private sector. Our home is the only equity we have and we must preserve our interests in the
event Bill requires extended medical assistance which is not covered by OHIP.
In closing it is obvious that Bill and I are opposed to this amendent as we clearly see a devaluation of
our property value and potential funds we may require to survive in with in the future.
Our wishes are to maintain a neighbourly relationship with all occupants of 1 Sunset Crst. Please
respect our wishes.
Respectfully
Bill and Ica HILES
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
October 17, 2010
Page 159 of 204
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
Hello neighbour,
As the owners of #1 Sunset :Kinga, Adam, Buzz and myself wish to inform you that we are applying to the
township of ORO- Medonte for a 'Minor Variance' so that we can begin the renovations of our new home. This
is very important to us as we work to improve our property and lifestyle.
We want to reassure you that our activities will not adversely affect you and request your support with our
projects. If you have any questions complaints or concerns please feel free to call me (AT ANY TIME) for an
explanation. (usually I am available at 705. 689 3301 or 1 800 663 4786 or you can leave a message,
alternately you may use my private line:705 345 7496
believe that we have paid fees so that the township will inform you 'officially' and so you should expect a
notice and an invitation to comment on our project
The Details:
We will be adding an addition on the south side of the house and an accessory building.
The minor variance is required because the accessory building is to be larger than 750 square feet.
Our accessory building will be approx 20 feet North -S) by 70 feet East —W)
The highest point will be approx. 13' 4" tall.
will stake out the lawn where the building is to be located, please feel free to walk over and see where it will be, and I
attach some diagrams to assist you.
Mike Linda will only see part of the rear of the building from their house as the trees block much of the
view, the south wall will be approximately 80 feet from the property Tine (25M)
It is unlikely that Bill Itza will see much through the trees that are between their rear yard and our septic
field. They will be closest to the SW corner of the building at about 75 feet from the property line (23n4)
Rob Carol Beer might be able to see the side view from across the pond.
The side of the building will be 265 feet away from the property line. (82M)
Kathleen will not be able to see it as the trees block her view as will our existing house.
The addition and accessory building are located on the south side of the existing building and are invisible to
hwy #12 which is over 300 feet away (95M)
Thank you in advance for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Alexander
1699 Kirkfield Road, Kirkfield, ON KOM 2B0
Page 160 of 204
i&Ag- thew
Pe /1 K. 7:::::::::::.----77.7.;_. ___---77::::-....._—__ .2
1 ii i E T 1 1 1 ir j i 1 L 1
...............1
C 1 1
/V 4 o 77?..
1 1 ,1 --T---
l i
I
1
/e- rf-7 6 ,x;
1
Peit 7o I
21,50A Z--o 6 Al
0 0
0
pow NEN ACGE5 i,"Y g.uttDCAIG
AjDrrI oN
1
t\4Dr Scj
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
k
Page 162 of 204
Apr z.
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
Page 163 of 204
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
Page 164 of 204
October 19 2010
To: The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
From: Michael Goudie, 7 Orsi Drive, Oro Medonte
Re: Application for a Minor Variance, Submission
#2010 -A -35
I, Michael Goudie, grant permission for Mr. Rick Fraracci to
represent my interest and make submissions on my behalf in
the above -noted matter. I am unable to attend the hearing
October 21 2010, as I will be out of the country attending
a business conference.
Sincerely,
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
Michael Goudie
Page 165 of 204
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
October 19 2010
To: The Corporation of the Township of Oro Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
From: Michael Goudie, 7 Orsi Drive, Oro- Medonte
Re: Application for a Minor Variance, Submission
#2010 -A -35
List of Concerns
The following is a list of concerns with respect to the
above -noted application.
1. Size of proposed outbuilding. According to my
calculation based on the drawing provided, it is
132.225 meters, not 129 as indicated, and is almost
twice the maximum floor area of 70 square meters. This
will be a very large building and its presence will not
be blocked by the trees that border our properties.
2. The height of the berm is not indicated in the drawing.
There is concern about water run -off and flooding, i.e.
rainwater run -off from the roof, and how that may
possibly impact our septic system.
3. I feel this outbuilding will have the biggest impact
on my property as far as future property values are
concerned because the back will be visible from our
backyard.
4. I have concern regarding how long this project will take
to complete.
Page 166 of 204
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
Page 167 of 204
'I JUi IJGL ....1..•
Page 168 of 204
1
October 20, 2010
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
YSLC'
yy}} Cam, cue za
ode b- I' 2
TO: The Mayor and Members of Council and Corporation of Committee of Adjustments
of Oro Medonte
Re: APPLICATON FORA MINOR VARIANCE; SUBMISSION #2010 -A -35
My wife Muriel, myself and my family moved to this subdivision in October of 1997. We
made a significant investment by purchasing our home located at 8 Orsi Drive.
We chose to make our home here because of the quality of homes and properties, and
the care that the people here take in them. The residents take a great deal of pride in
the maintenance of their home and property. Outside the front door of our house has
always been picturesque, well manicured lawns and homes and behind us we have a
beautiful view of Bass Lake. These views were the deciding factor in choosing our
home. Our daughter and her husband, Marla and Christian Vandenberg and
granddaughter chose to move here also for the same reasons and reside at 2 Orsi
Drive.
To our utter dismay, over the past couple of months, my wife Muriel and I have several
MAJOR concerns that have arisen in regards to activities at #1 Sunset Crescent in our
subdivision.
The construction of a large berm by the highway. 1 Sunset Drive has become a
dumping station for dump trucks operating all hours of the night and day dumping
construction materials such as concrete, bricks, large pieces of asphalt
pavement, rebar and wires into the soil. This is covered up, UNSUPERVISED by
the township, by an ever present bulldozed that operates during the weekends.
No one is supervising what is being dumped by these large trucks that enter and
exit this residential subdivision daily at will. All of our homes are on wells and we
are Legitimately concerned about the contaminants being buried that can seep
into our water table and affect our wells.
This subdivision was specifically engineered to drain water via its' slope. These
berms that are being constructed have already noticeably altered the drainage
and will continue to do so putting our homes at risk of flooding.
The construction of an extension of an existing additional storage building
changes the aesthetics of the sudivision and the view from my home. I can
clearly see from my front door the stakes that have been erected marking out
where this large building will stand. Such a large industrial sized building is an
inappropriate addition to a residential area and the harmonious makeup of our
subdivision. It will greatly affect our view from the front of our home. We are
strongly opposed to this sort of alteration. We feel it will definitely devalue the
sizeable investment we have in our home and our property. Please see attached
photos of our home and the view of across the street.
Page 170 of 204
Sincerely,
C.E. Ted Burton and Muriel Burton
8 Orsi Drive
Orillia, ON
L3V 7Z7
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
We are genuinely concerned that this building will be used for commercial
purposes by the applicant. The applicant already has a large additional
unattached three bay garage on his property as well as an attached
double car garage. This should be more than adequate for a residential
property.
My wife and I strongly oppose the variance to the Zoning By -law 97 -95. Council has a
legislative obligation to be transparent and ACCOUNTABLE to the public. I strongly
urge Council and this Committee to abide by the existing bylaw and deny the request
from K. Koprowicz to exceed the maximum floor area allowed and indeed to build
another storage facility on his property.
In addition, we feel that the building of the berm and subsequent dumping and burial of
construction materials contravenes the bylaw 98 -134 in numerous ways and would like
an investigation by the township into this matter.
Please be advised that we wish to receive any and all information regarding the
consideration of this application and the contravention of bylaw 98 -134 to be forwarded
to us in writing
Page 171 of 204
D.
5i) 2010-A-35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
OLIZ Th
t_r Lc; u Po
F
1,3 r OLA-R- 1-10,01
o,R
Page 172 of 204
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
Page 173 of 204
October 20, 2010
Sincerely
Chris Marla Vandenberg
2 Orsi Drive Orillia, ON L3V 7Z6
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
To: The Mayor, Members of Council and Corporation of Oro- Medonte Committee of
Adjustments
Re: Application for a Minor Variance; Submission #2010 -A -35
My wife Marla, our 5 year old daughter Alaina and I moved to 2 Orsi Drive several years
ago. In doing so, we have made a sizable financial investment. We did this with the
understanding that we had like- minded neighbours that take a great amount of pride in
their home and property and who are collectively proud of their subdivision.
Several months ago, there began to be some activity at 1 Sunset Drive as trucks started
dumping materials unsupervised on the North side of the property near the highway.
This has served as a tremendous eyesore for the residents here and has tracked a
tremendous amount of dirt onto our roads as we enter the subdivision.
I have several significant concerns, both for my home and more importantly, my family:
l have a young daughter. There have been large trucks entering and exiting our
subdivision seemingly at will. This has increased traffic immensely.
The work here continues to be an eyesore that could devalue our home.
The change to drainage will directly affect my house as I am located directly
across the road.
Pavement with tar, rebar, old wires and bricks have been dumped an
subsequently covered by the applicant who seemingly has an absolute disregard
for the health of the residents. My wife recently fought through Stage 3
Endometrial Cancer and 6 rounds of chemotherapy. I am extremely worried that
these materials will leech into our drinking water since we are all on wells.
Trust. I have a difficult time trusting that his intent for this variance is not for a
commercial purpose. This area is deemed as rural residential. This does not fit
into the zoning of our subdivision..
My wife and I strongly oppose the variance to the Zoning By -law 97 -95. Council has a
legislative obligation to be transparent and ACCOUNTABLE to the public. We strongly
urge Council and this Committee to abide by the existing bylaw and deny the request
from K. Koprozicz to exceed the maximum floor area allowed and indeed to build
another storage facility on his property.
We feel that the building of the berm and subsequent dumping and burial of
construction materials contravenes the bylaw 98 -134 in numerous ways and would like
an investigation by the township into this matter.
Please be advised that we wish to receive any and all information regarding the
consideration of this application and the contravention of bylaw 98 -134 to be forwarded
to us in writing.
Page 174 of 204
J U11JGL
Page 175 of 204
Re: Hearing in the matter of Section 45 of the Plarming Act, R.S.O. 1990c.P.13 cocerning the
application by K. Koprowics for the property located at 1 Sunset Crescent, Plan M469,
Part Lot 24.
We live at 3Hepinstall Place, a single dwelling, in the same development as the property in question.
It seems very apparent that the structure planned for this lot is for business /manufacturing use. Not
only would the structure be unsightly, if permitted, the construction of the proposed building would
affect the property value of the residential homes in the area. The creation of the berms already
underway, using recycled concrete and other materials changes the topography of the area and could
effect our water supplies since all of the properties are dependent on wells for our water supply.
Surely the welfare of the majority, should outweigh this request from one family who at the moment
do not even live in the area.
Respectfully,
Corinne Walter Bremner
5i) 2010 -A -35 K. Koprowicz
1 Sunset Cr...
Page 176 of 204
_mot
iYr%✓f�e c t onte
Ynvd Nn;rayr, Exriling Fvmrr
Application No:
2010 -A -36
Meeting Date:
October 21, 2010
Roll
4346 -010- 009 -38100
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
5j) 2010 -A -36 Thomas Edward and Penny
Subject: Variance Application
(Penny Shainline)
73 Lakeshore Road West
Lot 16 and 17, Plan 755
(Former Township of Oro)
Prepared By:
Alan Wiebe, Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
D13 -40935
The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision, with respect to the
construction of a single detached dwelling on the subject property:
a. that the width of the boathouse, as "measured from the interior faces of the walls of the
boathouse does not exceed approximately 32 percent "of the width of the lot at the average
high water mark' for Lake Simcoe;
i. that an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by: 1) pinning the footings, and 2) verifying in writing prior to
pouring of the foundation by way of survey /real property report that the boathouse does
not exceed approximately 32 percent of the width of the lot at the average high water mark;
b. that notwithstanding Section 5.6 c) of Zoning By -law 97 -95, the boathouse shall otherwise
comply with all other provisions of the Zoning By -law;
c. that the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals, if required, from Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority, if applicable; and
d. 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 subject property occupies an area of approximately 0.16 hectares (0.39 acres), has a frontage
along Lakeshore Road West of approximately 30.5 metres (100 feet), and depth of approximately
51.5 metres (169 feet). The subject property has an existing dwelling, constructed prior to 1986, and
an existing boathouse with depth of 7.3 metres (24 feet), a width of 3 metres (9.8 feet), and occupies
an area of approximately 22 square metres (236 square feet). Further, the existing boathouse is
presently surrounded by an existing concrete retaining wall with an interior width of approximately
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -36 Page 1 of 9
Page 177 of 204
ANALYSIS:
Zone: Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Section 5.6 c) BOATHOUSES Width of a
boathouse
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
5j) 2010 -A -36 Thomas Edward and Penny
9.86 metres (32.3 feet), and exterior dimensions of approximately 10.46 metres (34.3 feet) and 10.6
metres (34.8 feet).
The applicant is proposing to construct a new boathouse, proposed to be located approximately 3.9
metres (12 feet 8 inches) from an interior side lot line, occupying an area of 111.1 square metres (1,196
square feet), and width equating to approximately 32 per cent the width of the lot at the average high
water mark. The proposed boathouse is proposed to use the existing concrete retaining wall
surrounding the existing boathouse as the walls supporting the proposed boathouse.
The purpose of this report is to consider Minor Variance Application 2010 -A -36, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law in relation to the maximum width of a boathouse.
The applicant is requesting the following relief from Table B1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
Reauired Proposed
30 per cent 32 per cent
The subject property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section C5.1 of the Official Plan
states that the objectives of the Shoreline designation are:
"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 services with water and sewer services."
Section C5.2 of the Official Plan states that "Permitted uses on lands designated Shoreline are
single detached dwellings and accessory uses.
On this basis, the proposal is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance meet the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone, and permitted uses in the Shoreline
Residential (SR) Zone include single detached dwellings, and accessory uses, such as boathouses.
Section 5.6 of the Township's Zoning By -Law contains provisions for the construction of boathouses
within the Township. Section 5.6 c) states that "Boathouses are permitted on a lot provided The
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -36 Page 2 of 9
Page 178 of 204
5j) 2010 -A -36 Thomas Edward and Penny
width of the boathouse does not exceed 30 percent of the width of the lot at the average high
water mark."
The purpose of these provisions is to regulate the visual prominence of buildings and structures along
the shoreline, and to limit their effects on the shoreline area.
Based on: a) the existence of concrete retaining wall surrounding the existing boathouse; b) its having
existed since prior to the passing of the Zoning By -Law, in November of 1997; and c) the anticipation
that the existing two storey dwelling will continue to maintain its visual prominence in relation to the
proposed boathouse; the proposal is considered to meet the general intent of the Zoning By -Law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
As site inspection revealed that the existing boathouse lying within the existing concrete retaining wall
is largely surrounded by areas along the shoreline where the natural vegetation has been retained. It
was also observed that other properties in the area presently have boathouses of similar
characteristics with similar proportions of the shoreline appearing to have retained their natural
vegetation.
On this basis, and as the proposal is considered to meet the general intent of the Zoning By -Law, the
proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
As the proposal is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan, to meet the general
intent of the Zoning By -Law, is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot, and
proposes to exceed the maximum width of a boathouse by approximately 2 percent, from 30 percent
to 32 percent, the proposed variance is considered to be minor.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services
Building Department
Engineering Department
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Site Plan
Schedule 3: Floor Plan and Elevation
Schedule 4: Plan of Survey
Schedule 5: Existing Boathouse
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -36 Page 3 of 9
Page 179 of 204
CONCLUSION:
Respectfully submitted:
441J
Alan Wiebe
Planner
5j) 2010 -A -36 Thomas Edward and Penny
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2010 -A -36, to permit the construction
of a boathouse that occupies approximately 32 per cent of the width of the lot at the average high
water mark, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -36 Page 4 of 9
Page 180 of 204
HOWARD R /1tE
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -36
SUBJECT PROPERTY
0 50 100
5j) 2010 -A -36 Thomas Edward and Penny
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -A -36 (Penny Shainline)
200
Meters
N
Lake Simcoe
Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Page 5 of 9
Page 181 of 204
raM1 evsJ 550crr(Pbne 1 co. 00'
5'
rt
Development Services
z
NEW GRANITE
BOULDERS
i i
—q r2°
't17hip
Ger 0.
:e 02'
5j) 2010 -A -36 Thomas Edward and Penny
SCHEDULE 2: SITE PLAN
2010 -A -36 (Penny Shainline)
LAKESHORE ROAD
d
j 40.32'
PI an;
Iv
f rame
`n yf ,r 8
it -1 wide
Vn ler.
decry
ROPOSED NEW
ROOF
LAKE SIMCOE
Ed; is u1" ory I5,1 96C
,gal'
EXISTING CONCRETE A
Iwo
OIL
ON
g
4 2
A
Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -36 Page 6 of 9
Page 182 of 204
SCHEDULE 3: FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATION
2010 -A -36 (Penny Shainline)
5j) 2010 -A -36 Thomas Edward and Penny
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -36 Page 7 of 9
Page 183 of 204
8
e9
9 D
s
TE AL C�n,
III"` 1 ,P
a
PLAN OF SURVEY
OF
LOTS 16 and 17
REGISTERED PLAN 755
TOWNSHIP OF ORO
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
SCALE 1 30'
W. DOUGLAS SMITH O.L.S. U4031
N 1986
NOTES
BEARINGS ARE 48ERONONIC AND ARE REFERRED TOME NORTIIEPI.Y
LIMIT OF LOTS 14 THRU 32, AS SHOWN ON MOISTENED PUN 'P6,
RAVING E HEARING DF or 00' OD'!.
vs DENOTES II a 4' 34009 IRON 660. FOUND.
0ANOTE9 4)01 a b9'a 2' WAG IRON BAR, FOUND.
O O0 DENOTES Sera S 5,a S9' 2' LOUD I 1 RO! DM, PUNTED
ME*S. DENOTES MEASURED.
0.14 DENOTES DRI51M 10090414.
ALAN- OFNOTES REGISTERED PLAN '50
WIT DENOTES FATNESS.
T30 DENOTES 0100WRICK,0L5.
0 M. DOUGLAS SMITH OL.S. 110091
NO PERSON MAY 4! NOVAE ow REPRODUCE PARf.WIT1O
TN! *SETTEE PERMISSION CF W, DOUGlA95MITHALS.
aTON. hli.E$ or,,,Kg E ANOT#D. THE CONCRETE]
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT
THE FIELD SURI,EY REPRESENTED W TICE RAN
WAS COMPLETED ON JANUARY 20, *BS
OARR10, oNTAR10
325040) 01, 1966
WDS
DOUGLAS SMITH (14031
ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR
W. DOUGLAS SMITH LTD
ONTARIO LAND SURVEYORS
138 COWER SE.. BARRIE ONT.
722 -8222
N
O
M
oC7
D
o
T T
V 0
CD r
D
Z
00
C
5 Ti
m
BOATHO
SCHEDULE 53 (Penny y SBainline)
2p10 A
Develop ment
At o. 201
_;;�wn
p14
Meet pate OctobPage 9 o f 9
n.Ine 1 BE
2010 -A -36 Shain ine:
Existing Dwelling on Subject Property
5j) 2010 -A -36 Thomas Edward and Penny
Page 187 of 204
,,,riA '18
AlJadoad pafgns uo IIeM 2u!u!elaH aIaJDuoJ 2u!ls!x3
:au! uieyS, 9E-V-OIOZ
1
1
R uo
��aad
l�evlS 9-`c1-01,0Z
t�u!lu-
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in
Acrobat 9 or Adobe Reader 9, or later.
s
D
D
i
Al r u�t e
rietio Zte
Proud Heritage, E.ittb Future
Application No:
2010 -A -37
Meeting Date:
October 21, 2010
Roll
4346 020 003 -01403
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
b.
BACKGROUND:
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
To: Committee of Adjustment
5k) 2010 -A -37 Michael Johnson and Mary...
Subject: Variance Application
(Michael Johnson and Mary Jane
Parent)
4065 Line 8 North
Concession 9, West Part Lot 6,
51R656, Part 14
(Former Township of Medonte)
Prepared By:
Alan Wiebe, Planner
Motion
R.M.S. File
The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision, with respect to
permitting an equestrian facility (having 3 or more horses) on the subject property:
a. that the applicant provide to the Township documentation confirming the size of the property as
being no less than approximately 3.55 hectares;
that the subject property be used for the keeping of no more than four (4) horses;
c. that, notwithstanding the minimum lot size for an equestrian facility, per Table B4 A of Zoning
By -law 97 -95, the use of the subject property shall otherwise comply with all other provisions of
the Zoning By -law;
d. that the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals, if required, from Nottawasaga Valley
Conservation Authority, if applicable; and
e. that any appropriate zoning certificate(s) and building permit(s) 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 subject property occupies an area of approximately 3.55 hectares (8.77 acres), has a frontage on
Line 8 of approximately 61 metres (200 feet), and has a depth of approximately 583 metres (1912
feet). The property has an existing dwelling, constructed in the year 2000, and does not currently
contain any detached accessory buildings or structures.
The applicant is proposing to have four (4) horses on the subject property, and the purpose of this
report is to consider Minor Variance Application 2010 -A -37, for relief from the Township's
Comprehensive Zoning By -Law in relation to the minimum lot size for an equestrian facility, in having
three (3) or more horses on a property.
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -37 Page 1 of 5
Page 192 of 204
ANALYSIS:
5k) 2010 -A -37 Michael Johnson and Mary...
The applicant is requesting the following relief from Table B1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Zone: Aaricultural /Rural (A/RU1 Zone
Table B4 Minimum lot size for an equestrian facility
(3 or more horses)
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Agricultural in the Township's Official Plan.
Reauired Proposed
4.0 hectares 3.55 hectares
Section C1.1 of the Official Plan states that the objectives of the Agricultural designation are:
"To maintain and preserve the agricultural resource base of the Township.
To protect land suitable for agricultural production from development and land uses unrelated
to agriculture.
To promote the agricultural industry and associated activities and enhance their capacity to
contribute to the economy of the Township.
To preserve and promote the agricultural character of the Township and the maintenance of
the open countryside."
Section C1.2 of the Official Plan states that "The principle use of land in the Agricultural designation
shall be agriculture [other] permitted uses include single detached dwellings".
On this basis, the proposal is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The majority of the subject property is zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone, and portions of the
property are zoned Environmental Protection (EP) Zone in the Township's Zoning By -Law. Permitted
uses in the Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone include single detached dwellings, hobby farms, and
equestrian facilities, with minimum lot sizes applying to each specific use. The minimum lot size for
single detached dwellings is 0.4 hectares, for hobby farms is 2.0 hectares, and for equestrian
facilities, as noted above, is 4.0 hectares. Provisions of the Zoning By -Law that distinguish between
the terms "Hobby Farm" and "Equestrian Facility" are found in Section 6.0 of the Zoning By -Law,
"Definitions which state as follows:
"Hobby Farm
Means the keeping of no more than two horses for personal use and enjoyment on the same
lot as a single detached dweNing
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -37 Page 2 of 5
Page 193 of 204
"Equestrian Facility
Means an area of land where three or more horses are boarded and taken out to be ridden by
their owners or rented to others and where riding lessons may be given."
The purpose for these provisions is to regulate the use of properties for specific purposes based on
the appropriateness of their lot size in carrying out such a use.
On the basis that the applicant proposes a variance from the minimum lot size required for having
more than two horses on a lot, where having four horses on the lot is being sought, intended for
personal use and enjoyment, the proposal is considered to meet the general intent of the Zoning By-
Law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
A site inspection revealed that few uses related to agriculture presently exist in the area surrounding
the subject property. However, as the present zoning and size of the property presently permit "the
keeping of [up to] two horses" on the property, and as the proposal is considered to conform to the
general intent of the Official Plan, and to meet the general intent of the Zoning By -Law, the proposal
is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
As the proposal is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan, to meet the general
intent of the Zoning By -Law, is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot, and
as the proposal sought is for a reduction of approximately ten percent in the minimum lot size
required for more than two horses to be kept, from 4.0 hectares to 3.55 hectares, the proposal is
considered to be minor.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services
Building Department
Engineering Department
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority No objection
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Aerial Image
CONCLUSION:
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by:
4-rjf
Alan Wiebe
5k) 2010 -A -37 Michael Johnson and Mary...
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2010 -A -37, to keep up to four (4)
horses on a property with an area of approximately 3.55 hectares, appears to meet the four tests of
the Planning Act.
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Planner Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -37 Page 3 of 5
Page 194 of 204
5k) 2010 -A -37 Michael Johnson and Mary...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -A -37 (Michael Johnson and Mary Jane Parent)
r'
t�
i
WA RMIINST E R SIDEROAD
e rr
y iN�i r ii�i= ii� i �p i �ye ir r zi� ir =i ;N C��
V.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
0 125 250 500
Meters
Development Services Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -37 Page 4 of 5
Page 195 of 204
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -37
5k) 2010 -A -37 Michael Johnson and Mary...
SCHEDULE 2: AERIAL IMAGE
2010 -A -37 (Michael Johnson and Mary Jane Parent)
Meeting Date October 21, 2010
Page 5 of 5
Page 196 of 204
SAGA
A
Oo
,ZU
cl to
X60- -20
Member
Municipalities
Adjala Tosorontio
Amaranth
Barrie
The Blue Mountains
Bradford -West Gwillimbury
Clearview
Collingwood
Essa
Grey Highlands
Innisfil
Melancthon
Mono
Mulmur
New Tecumseth
Oro Medonte
Shelburne
Springwater
Wasaga Beach
Watershed
Counties
Dufferin
Grey
Simcoe
Member of
Conservation
ONTARIO
Natural Ch, rap ons
October 7, 2010
Steven Farquharson, Secretary- Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
Township of Oro- Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, Ontario
LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Farquharson;
5k) 2010 A 37 Michael Johnson and Mary...
Re: Application for Minor Variance 2010 -A -37 (Johnson)
Pt. Lot 6, Concession 9, 4065 Line 8 North
Township of Oro Medonte (Formerly Township of Medonte)
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed this
application for minor variance and based upon our mandate and policies
under the Conservation Authorities Act, we have no objection to its
approval.
Thank you for circulating this application for our review and please forward
a copy of any decision.
Sincerely,
Tim Salkeld
Resource Planner
Celebrating 50 Years in Conservation 1960 -2010
NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Centre for Conservation
John Hix Conservation Administration Centre Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 8th Line Utopia, On LOM 1TO
Telephone: 705.424.1479 Fax: 705.424.2115 Web: www.nvca.on.ca Email: admin @nvca.on.ca
Page 198 of 204
2010 -A -37 :..ohnson-Parent:
Existing Dwelling on Subject Property
3
a
D
N
201p -A -37 Ohnson-Parel,,
Open Area on Subject Property
1
(`ohnSO parent
2 010-A-37 Building on Adjacent Property
Existing AccessorY
2010 -A -37 :..ohnson-Parent:
Existing Dwelling on Adjacent Property
2010A37 (OhnsonParent.
Existing Accessory
Building on Adjacent Property
NOTICE TO THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
5k) 2010-A-37 Michael Johnson and Mary...
"ai•16 e6 CD_k 2J Zu
Ccl
From: John and Pattilynne Clayton Con 9 W pt lot 6 RP 51R656 Part 15 1
We are the neighbours to the south of the applicant Michael Johnson and Mary
lance PATAnt.
With rAgArrk tn relief from 7 oning Ry-I AW Q7 7 r 1 nr hnVP
no objections providing the following concerns are addressed and adhered to:
1. That a reasonable limit be placed on the number of horses that can be kept
on the property.
2. That proper management and disposal of waste material, ie manure be
followed in order to preserve neighhnuring wellc (ours is ctill a ring well)
3. That proper fencing be used to restrict the horses, that it be both humane
And sturdy. No harb wire or split rail And that the fens he well
maintained with adequate top rail
4. That proper fly and pest control be used during summer months.
5. That the relief from Zoning apply only to horses and not other farm stock
curb ac rattle cheep rr pigc.
Thank you for addressing our concerns
John and Pattilynne Clayton
Page 204 of 204