12 16 2010 CofA AgendaTOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
4 MEETING AGENDA
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Township of
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Proud Heritage, Exciting Future 9 :30 a.m.
Page
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
3 -11 a) Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on November 18, 2010.
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
12 -18 a) 2010 -B -34 - Don and Sherry Hubbert
West Part Lot 24, Concession 9, RP 51 R- 15894, Part 1
Permit a lot addition /boundary adjustment.
19 -41 b) 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.
42 -55 c) 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lot 10, Concession 8, North Side of Mount Saint Louis, East of
H ig hway 400
Relief from maximum floor area and timing of construction.
56 -74 d) 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Road, Plan 626, Lot 45
Relief from minimum front yard setback (for deck), minimum front yard setback
(for stairs), minimum interior side yard setback (for new /proposed deck and
stairs) and minimum interior side yard setback (for previously existing deck).
75 -103 e) 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
328 Line 14 North, Part Lot 14, Concession 14
Relief from fence height deemed not to be a structure.
104 -126 f) 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
170 15/16 Sideroad East, Concession 8, Lot 16
Technical severance to create a lot which once existed as a separate parcel of
land.
Page 1 of 139
Page
Committee of Adjustment Agenda - December 16, 2010
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
127 -139 g) 2010 -B -35 - Granite Hill Forestry Inc.
Block B, Plan 1650, and Block C, Plan M29
Permit a lot addition /boundary adjustment.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
None.
7. NEXT MEETING DATE
To be determined.
8. ADJOURNMENT
a) Motion to adjourn.
Page 2 of 139
74 ro
7'ousuJrip aR.�
Prand Hrriragr, Exciting Frradre
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Present: Bruce Chappell, Chair
Roy Hastings
Garry Potter
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment m...
THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
ORO- MEDONTE COMMITTEE OF
ADJUSTMENT
MEETING MINUTES
Council Chambers
Lynda Aiken
Michelle Lynch
9:31 a. m.
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.
Motion No. CA101118 -1
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Hastings
It is recommended that the agenda for the meeting of Thursday, November 18, 2010 be
received and adopted.
Carried.
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
None declared.
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a) Motion to adopt the minutes from Committee of Adjustment meeting held on October 21,
2010.
Motion No. CA101118 -2
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting of
Thursday, October 21, 2010 be adopted as presented.
Carried.
Page 1 of 9
Page 3 of 139
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment m...
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
a) 2010 -A -30 -Horseshoe Valley Lands Limited
Part of Lots 3 and 4, Concession 4
Temporary Construction and Sales (proposal to construct two model homes)
Motion No. CA101118 -3
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Hastings
John Boville, applicant, was present.
Don McKay noted his support.
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves a request for revision to
its Notice of Decision dated September 16, 2010, regarding Variance Application 2010 -
A-30, consisting of the construction of a model home on proposed Lot 1 (formerly
proposed Lot 37), and a change in the proposed lot on which the second model home is
to be constructed, from proposed Lot 56, to proposed Lot 10. Subject to the following
conditions:
1. 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.
2. That all other forms of development associated with the model homes be in
conformity with the applicable Zoning By -Law 97 -95, as amended.
3. That the applicant obtains any permits and /or approvals, if required, from
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.
4. 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.
5. And That the model homes be built on proposed Lots 1 and 10, as per Appendix 5 of
Memorandum dated November 10, 2010, for Variance Application 2010 -A -30, and
SCHEDULE A to this Notice of Decision.
Carried.
Page 2 of 9
Page 4 of 139
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment m...
b) 2010 -A -31 - Georgian Equipment (Catherine Jo -Anne and George Armstrong
Thompson)
21 Patterson Road, Plan 1719, RP 51 R -9538, Part 1 (Former Township of Orillia)
Relief from Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback.
Jason Gullet, agent, was present.
Motion No. CA101118 -4
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Lynch
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves Variance Application
2010 -A -31, to construct a single storey industrial building within the required exterior
side yard setback from the required 11 metres to 5.0 metres on the subject property.
Subject to the following conditions:
1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance
with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing
prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey /real property report so that:
a) That the single storey industrial building be located no closer than approximately 5.0
metres from the west exterior lot line
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application
and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee;
3. That the applicant obtains any permits and /or approvals, if required, from Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, if applicable
4. And That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the
Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as
provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
Carried.
Page 3 of 9
Page 5 of 139
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment m...
c) 2010 -B -32 -Angela McCuaig, Kevin McLean & Donald McLean
1051 Line 3 North, Part Lot 14, Concession 4
Permit a lot addition /boundary adjustment.
Shirley Partridge, agent, was present.
Motion No. CA101118 -5
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Hastings
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional approval of
Consent application 2010 -B -32, to permit a boundary adjustment. Subject to the
following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Registered 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 1071 Line 3 North to the south-
west (enhanced lands, per Schedule B to this Notice of Decision), 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 applicant's solicitor provides 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.
d) 2010-B-33- Fraser Hardy McConney
170 15/16 Sideroad East, Concession 8, Lot 16
Technical severance to create a lot which once existed as a separate parcel of land
Shirley Partridge, agent, was present.
Motion No. CA101118 -6
Moved by Aiken, Seconded Lynch
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment defers Consent application 2010-
6-33, to create a lot which once existed as a separately conveyable parcel of land, for
Planning staff to obtain clarification from the applicant and their agent on the sequence
of events in the merging of properties leading to the present day configuration of the
subject property.
Page 4 of 9
Page 6 of 139
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment m...
Carried.
e) 2010-A-38- Donald Leroux
North Side of Mount Saint Louis, East of Highway 400, Part of Lot 10, Concession 8
Relief from Maximum Floor Area and Timing of Construction.
No one was present on behalf of the applicant.
Lynn Thomson noted concern over the potential use of the agriculture building as a
business occupation in a residential neighbourhood, the clearing of the land that has
occurred and creation of a parking lot on the property.
Dwight Holm reviewed his concerns outlined in correspondences dated November 16,
2010 and November 17, 2010.
Motion No. CA101118 -7
Moved by Hastings, Seconded by Potter
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment defers Variance Application 2010 -
A-38, until proper notice is given in accordance with the Planning Act.
Carried.
Page 5 of 9
Page 7 of 139
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment m...
f) 2010 -A -39 - Meghan Church, Caitlin Hussey, Kathleen Sutherland
53 Eight Mile Point Road, Plan 780, Lot 26 (Former Town of Orillia)
Relief from Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback.
Bryan Hussey, applicant, was present.
Motion No. CA101118 -8
Moved by Lynch, Seconded by Hastings
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves Variance Application
2010 -A -39, to grant reduced interior side yard setback from the required 2.0 metres to
1.1 metres for the construction of an addition onto an existing boathouse on the subject
property. Subject to the following conditions:
1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance
with the Committee's decision in writing that:
a) That the proposed boathouse maintain an interior side yard setback of 1.1 metres
2. That the applicants obtain approval from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act.
3. Nothwithstanding Section 5.6 (a), that the proposed boathouse meets all other
provisions of Section 5.6 of Zoning By -law 97 -95;
4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application
and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee;
5. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the
Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as
provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
Carried.
g) 2010 -A -40 - Taras Sakharevych
61 Eight Mile Point Road, Plan 780, Lot 30 (Former Town of Orillia)
Relief from Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback.
Terry Sakharevych, applicant, was present
Motion No. CA101118 -9
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Lynch
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment denies Variance Application 2010 -
A-40, to construct a boathouse with a minimum interior side yard setback of 0.6 metres,
rather than the required 2 metre setback.
Carried.
Page 6 of 9
Page 8 of 139
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment m...
h) 2010 -A -42 -Cory Venable and Danielle Park
4 Georgina Drive, Lot 8, Plan 1561
Relief from Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback.
Cory Venable, applicant, was present.
Motion No. CA101118 -10
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Hastings
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves Variance Application
2010 -A -42, to permit a single detached dwelling and attached garage to be constructed
as near as 1.234 metres from the interior side lot line to the north. Subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the setback from the interior side lot lines for the dwelling and attached garage
be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and sketches
submitted and approved by the Committee;
2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance
with the Committee's decision by: 1) pinning the footings, and 2) verifying in writing
prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey /real property report that the
distance from the single detached dwelling and attached garage, and the interior
side lot line, be no less than approximately 1.234 metres.
3. That the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals, if required, from Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, if applicable; and
4. And That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the
Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as
provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
Carried.
Page 7 of 9
Page 9 of 139
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment m...
i) 2010 -A -43 -James Rogers
79 Stanley Avenue, Plan 626, Lot 105, (Former Township of Oro)
Minimum Front Yard, Minimum Exterior Side Yard, Sight Lines on a Corner Lot and Setbacks
for Driveways.
John Raimondi, agent, was present.
Joanne Taylor, neighbour, noted concern over the proposed driveway, the house size and
the impact on the property.
Kevin Pembleton, neighbour, noted concern over the sightline.
Motion No. CA101118 -11
Moved by Potter, Seconded by Aiken
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves Variance Application 2010 -
A-43, to permit a single detached dwelling and attached decks to be constructed as near as
2.95 metres from the front lot line, 1.21 metres from the exterior side lot line for a deck and
1.37 metres from the exterior side lot line for a dwelling, and within the sight line, and to
permit a driveway to be located as near as 1.5 metres from an interior lot line. Subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the setbacks from the front and exterior side lot lines for the dwelling and deck(s)
be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and sketches
submitted and approved by the Committee;
2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by: 1) pinning the footings, and 2) verifying in writing prior to
pouring of the foundation by way of survey /real property report that the distances
between the noted building /structure and the respective lot lines be no less than
approximately the following:
i. 2.95 metres from the front lot line, and 1.21 from the exterior side lot line, for the
attached deck; and
ii. 2.95 metres from the front lot line, and 1.37 metres from the exterior side lot line, for the
dwelling.
3. That the applicant obtain an Entrance Permit for the relocation of the driveway for
access to the single detached dwelling on the subject property;
4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by way of survey /real property report that the distance
between the driveway and the rear lot line be no less than 1.5 metres;
5. That the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals, if required, from Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority, if applicable; and
6. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the
Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided
for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
Carried.
Page 8 of 9
Page 10 of 139
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment m...
j) 2010 -A -44 -McDougall Auto Wreckers
328 Line 14 North, Part Lot 14, Concession 14
Relief from Fence Height deemed not to be a Structure
James Doherty, agent, was present.
Motion No. CA101118 -12
Moved by Lynch, Seconded by Potter
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment defers Variance Application 2010 -
A-44 until it is determined whether the use of the subject property is considered a "non-
conforming" use.
Carried.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
A verbal update, re: OMB Hearing date for Consent Application 2010 -1321 and Variance
Application 2010 -A -21 was provided.
Memorandum dated November 17, 2010 from Andria Leigh, Director of Development
Services, re: Coulson Ridge Estates Ltd — Consent Application 2010 -B -06 — OMB
Appeal.
7. NEXT MEETING DATE
Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT
a) Motion to adjourn.
Motion No. CA101118 -13
Moved by Aiken, Seconded by Hastings
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 12:18 p.m.
Carried.
Bruce Chappell, Chair Steven Farquharson, Secretary Treasurer
Page 9 of 9
Page 11 of 139
5a) - 2010 -B -34 - Don and Sherry Hubbert
W...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
Qi��ilTdofa� REPORT
Proud Hrrilage, Eaririuy Funvr
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2010 -B -34
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Meeting Date:
Subject: Consent Application
Motion #
December 16, 2010
Donald and Sherry Hubbert
West Part of Lot 24, Concession 9
RP 51 R- 15894, Part 1
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346 -010- 008 -08502
(Former Township of Oro)
D10 -41057
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's Decision:
1. That three copies of a Registered 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 PCL 25 -1, SEC 51- Oro- 9; PT LT 25, CON 9
ORO PT 2, 51 R -3545; Oro - Medonte 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 to the Township to have the subject lands placed under a Holding
Provision, which is not to be removed until an Environmental Impact Study is submitted as part
of the Site Plan Control application.;
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 purpose of Consent application 2010 -B -34 is for a boundary adjustment. The lands to be
conveyed have a frontage along Ridge Road East of approximately 188 metres and a lot depth of
approximately 184 metres and a lot area of approximately 2.9 hectares. The existing lands to be
enhanced have an area of approximately 0.2 hectares. The proposed lands are to be added to the
lands to the south, and the resulting lot area will be a total area of approximately 3.1 hectares. No
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -13-34 Page 1 of 5
Page 12 of 139
5a) - 2010 -B -34 - Don and Sherry Hubbert
W...
new building lot is proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition. The lands to be retained
would have an area of approximately 1.8 hectares.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of Consent Application 2010 -13-34 is for a boundary adjustment. The Township's Official
Plan contains policies (Section D2.2.2) which permit Planning Staff and the Committee to consider
boundary adjustments.
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Township of Oro- Medonte Official Plan
The subject lands are designated "Rural" and "Environmental Protection Two" by the Official Plan.
Section D2 "Subdivision of Land" 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. The lands that are to be enhanced are currently 0.2 hectares and do not
have frontage on a municipal road. By conveying approximately 2.9 hectares, it would allow for the
subject lands to have frontage on a public road and have a lot area for a single detached dwelling.
The policies found in Section B3 "Environmental Protection Two" of the Township's Official Plan,
states that the subject lands are located with a significant woodland. However, since the applicant is
not proposing to amend to the Official Plan or Zoning By -law and Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is
not required. Staff is recommending that the subject lands be placed under Site Plan Control in order
to ensure that the construction a dwelling will have no negative impact on the environmental feature
of the area. At the time of submission of a Site Plan Application to remove the hold, the applicant will
be required to submit an EIS which will ensure that there is maximum protection of the environmental
feature located on the subject lands. The applicant will be required to enter into a site plan agreement
with the Township to identify the placement of a dwelling, driveway, septic system, amenity space
and other structures on the subject lands.
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.
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -13-34 Page 2 of 5
Page 13 of 139
5a) - 2010 -B -34 - Don and Sherry Hubbert
W...
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 Policv 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
The subject property is zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone in the Township's Zoning By -Law, as
are the lands to be enhanced. The proposed boundary adjustment would result in the enhanced
lands occupying an area of approximately 3.1 hectares, and the retained lands would occupy an area
of approximately 1.8 hectares. Both the enhanced and the retained lands would comply with the
provisions of the Zoning By -Law related to the minimum required lot frontage for single detached
dwellings on lands in the A/RU Zone, of 45 metres, and single detached dwellings on lots in the A/RU
Zone, of 0.4 hectares.
On this basis, the application is considered to comply with the provisions of the Zoning By -law
CONSULTATIONS:
Public Works Department -
Building Department- no concerns
Engineering Department —
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority —
County of Simcoe- See Attached letter Dated December 15, 2010.
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1 — Location Map
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -13-34 Page 3 of 5
Page 14 of 139
5a) - 2010 -B -34 - Don and Sherry Hubbert
W...
CONCLUSION:
It is the opinion of the Planning Department, that Consent application 2010 -113-34, for a boundary
adjustment, would appear to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan 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:
Steven uha on, B. URPL
Intermediate Planner
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -13-34 Page 4 of 5
Page 15 of 139
LANDS TO BE E
El LANDS TO BE C
RETAINED LAN
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -B -34
1AN C ED
�I
5a) - 2010 -B -34 - Don and Sherry Hubbert
W...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -B -34 ( Hubbert)
X, -
4
d
Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Page 5 of 5
Page 16 of 139
fOUNTY OF
IMCO
County of Simcoe
Transportation and
Engineering
1110 Highway 26,
Midhurst, Ontario LOL 1 XO
Steven Farquharson
Secretary- Treasurer
Township of Oro - Medonte
148 Line 7 South
Oro, Ontario
LOL 1 XO
Dear Mr. Farquharson,
5a) - 2010 -B -34 - Don and Sherry Hubbert
W...
Main Line (705) 726 9300
Toll Free 1 866 893 9300 TRANSPORTATION AND
Fax (705) 727 7984 ENGINEERING
Web: simcoe.ca
December 15, 2010
*via: e -mail*
RE: Consent Application 2010 -B -34 (Don & Shirley Hubbert)
West Part of Lot 24, Concession 9,
Former Township of Oro, Now Township of Oro - Medonte, County of Simcoe
The County's Transportation and Engineering Department has reviewed the above noted application
and provides the following comments:
The County of Simcoe's Transportation and Engineering Department does not support the request for
the addition/boundary adjustment of this property. The County notes that the enhanced land lot does
not currently have access to a County or Local Road making it unsuitable as a building lot. Conveying
the additional lands to this lot creates a new building lot that now fronts on the County Road.
The creation of the new lot is contrary to the roads policies of the County Official Plan and the
requirements of the County Entrance By -law. No access to Ridge Road (County Road 20) will be
granted from the created building lot.
The County of Simcoe's Official Plan and the County's Entrance By -law No. 5544 do not support the
creation of new residential lots outside of designated Settlement Area boundaries.
Section 4.8.2.5 of the County of Simcoe's Official Plan states that:
"New entrances to County Roads for individual residential lots created after June 30,
1996, are not permitted except in accordance with the County of Simcoe by -law
regulating access to County Roads and any applicable local municipal official plan ".
The County of Simcoe's Entrance By -law 5544 states in Section 2.5.2 that:
"New entrances shall not be permitted to individual residential lots created on County
Roads following June 30, 1996, except in urban settlement areas designated in
Official Plans ".
Page 17 of 139
5a) - 2010 -B -34 - Don and Sherry Hubbert
W...
Transportation & Engineering Comments - 2
This property is not located within a settlement area boundary as identified in either the County of
Simcoe's or the Township of Oro - Medonte's Official Plan.
As stated previously, the County of Simcoe's Transportation and Engineering Department does not
support the request for the addition/boundary adjustment of this property to create a new lot. No
access to Ridge Road (County Road 20) will be granted from the created building lot.
Please forward a copy of the decision. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
The 90"ration oCounty of Simcoe
ft
Paul Murphy, B.Sc.
Planning /Engineering Technician
1 (705) 726-9300 ext. 1371
I�
C.C. Jim Hunter, County of Simcoe
Christian Meile, County of Simcoe
XACorporate Services \Planning \D - Development & Planning D\D07 to D14 Development Correspondence \Oro- Medonte \010 Severance & D13
Variances\2010 \OM -B -1034 Hubbert CR 20 \T &E Comments OM- B- 1034.doc
Page 18 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
f,f� REPORT
ProuA kfm"k n, &c,;I ng / iienr
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2010 -A -33
Alan Wiebe, Planner
Meeting Date:
Subject: Variance Application
Motion #
December 16, 2010
(Suzanne Caudry)
15 Pemberton Lane
Range 1, East Part Lot 1, Part 7
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346 -010- 007 -08600
(Former Township of Oro)
D13 -40901
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
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), per Schedule 2 to this report.
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 a Site Plan Agreement was entered
into in January, 2010 (By -Law No. 2010 -007). Schedule 5 to this report was submitted to the
Township with the application for a Site Plan Agreement, and was agreed upon between the
Township and the applicant for the construction of the boathouse. This drawing illustrates the
existing boathouse, recently constructed deck, and omits the previously existing deck.
In January and February, 2010, a zoning certificate and, subsequently, a building permit were issued
for the construction of the boathouse on the property. The zoning certificate provided approval for the
proposed work from the context of the Township's Zoning By -Law. The drawings submitted by the
applicant, for both the zoning certificate and building permit applications, illustrated the proposed
location of the proposed boathouse with the new proposed deck. The drawings submitted, however,
did not illustrate the dimensions and /or location of the previously existing deck.
In July and August, 2010, a zoning certificate and a building permit were issued for the repair of the
previously existing deck, as illustrated in Schedule 4 as the only building /structure near Lake Simcoe,
and also illustrated Schedules 2 and 3. Although this previously existing deck was not illustrated in
the site plan drawing submitted with the Site Plan Application noted above, a zoning certificate was
issued for its repair due to: 1) the above noted Site Plan Agreement did not require its removal, and
2) the Township's Zoning By -Law provides for the repair and replacement of non - complying buildings
and structures (Section 5.16.1).
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 1 of 11
Page 19 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
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 recently constructed 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.
ANALYSIS:
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
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES/LEGISLATION:
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
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."
With respect to the objectives of the Shoreline designation noted above, the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority has provided comments on this application by letter dated November 30,
2010, and has advised that it "has no objection to the approval of this application."
Section C5.2 of the Official Plan states that "Permitted uses on lands designated Shoreline ... are
single detached dwellings...", and accessory uses.
On these bases, the proposal is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan.
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -33
Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Page 2 of 11
Page 20 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
Does the variance meet the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
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)."
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.
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 (approximately 147 square metres) and proportion of the
shoreline on the subject property (approximately 34.3 per cent of the width of the lot). 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).
It is noted that, in and of themselves, the boathouse on its own, and the decks on their own,
individually comply with the provisions of the Zoning By -Law in terms of their individual sizes, with the
boathouse occupying less than 30 per cent of the width of the lot at the average high water mark, and
the decks occupying less than 70 square metres of area. Therefore, had the boathouse and the
decks been sought to be constructed as separate structures, they would not have required a
variance.
On the basis of the following, considered either individually or collectively, -the proposed variance is
considered to lead to the overdevelopment of the shoreline on the subject property:
• the increase in the total area proposed to be occupied by the boathouse and attached decks
would lead to their occupying an area that is larger than the area occupied by the main building
on the property.
• the boathouse and decks, as well as associated development and physical alterations on the
property (including landscaping, retaining walls, and architectural features), collectively
contribute to the significant visual prominence of the building and structures on the shoreline.
• the increase in the total area proposed to be occupied by the boathouse and attached decks
represent a 210 per cent increase in the total area permitted to be occupied by such
building /structure under Section 5.7 b) of the Zoning By -Law.
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 3 of 11
Page 21 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
On these bases, the proposal is not 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 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.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services -
Building Department -
Engineering Department —
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation — no objection
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: J.D. Barnes Limited, "SKETCH SHOWING AS -BUILT BOATHOUSE LOCATION ", dated
August 26, 2010
Schedule 3: Floor Plan
Schedule 4: J.D. Barnes "Topographic Survey ", dated October 7, 2009
Schedule 5: John D. Bell Associates Ltd., Site Plan drawing dated October 24, 2009
Schedule 6: Boathouse Elevations
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 4 of 11
Page 22 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
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) on the subject property, does not appear to meet the four tests of
the Planning Act.
If, however, the Committee elects to grant Variance Application 2010 -A -33, to permit the construction
and /or existing of a boathouse and attached decks that occupy a total area of approximately 147
square metres (1,580 square feet) on -the subject property (as identified in Schedule 5 and including
the previously existing deck), on any basis, it is the opinion of the Planning Department that the
following conditions be imposed on the Committee's decision:
1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide confirmation to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by verifying in writing by way of survey /real property report that total area
occupied by the boathouse and attached decks not exceed approximately 147 square metres;
2. That -the owner of 'the property at 15 Pemberton Lane (Range 1, East Part Lot 1, Part 7, roll no.
4346- 010- 007 - 08600) apply, and obtain approval from Council for the Township, for the
appropriate revisions to the Site Plan Agreement passed by By -Law 2010 -007 for the
construction and /or existence of a boathouse and attached decks occupying a total area of
approximately 147 square metres;
3. That the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals, if required, from Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority; and
4. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township only
after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning
Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by:
Alan Wiebe Glenn White, MCI P, RPP
Planner Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 5 of 11
Page 23 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -A -33 (Suzanne Caudry)
A�
i
I,
t� 1
I
1
Of,
w �
Z. I
PEMBERTON LANE-
Lake Simcoe
SUBJECT PROPERTY 0 75 150 300
Meters
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 6 of 11
Page 24 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
SCHEDULE 2: J.D. BARNES LIMITED
"SKETCH SHOWING AS -BUILT BOATHOUSE LOCATION ", DATED AUGUST 26, 2010
2010 -A -33 (Suzanne Caudry)
Ma I z j
J p 9
a2 � I dad ? e8 a
Mi roc
I d€
iL
qj
3 - 'I o I• M
5 0,6 I
! � I
z
2 I I �• x � vl
W I fr ry �
I
_•; �_._J_ .� o N
I/ I I ea
I` tlR
-
� Ise ani �
3 i
Inca: MC ♦.W.[2dt M �:fp N0.0 M,OO.iZr� M ,
I a I
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 7 of 11
Page 25 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
SCHEDULE 3: FLOOR PLAN
2010 -A -33 (Suzanne Caudry)
4
ml
w o
o
-a At
n.a
a
c .r
3�
9
F
Q;
0
y
Oil
yyY�
i
a i
4 �
ce 9
t
j --
z4 z
q1.0 0
L I �
nw.e.e.rl A
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 8 of 11
Page 26 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
SCHEDULE 4: J.D. BARNES "TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ", DATED OCTOBER 7, 2009
2010 -A -33 (Suzanne Caudry)
`1 • "� w..,>'� �` vii ... ��
w .e.••+F. o. an•' S.YY1. ttaYO 3 ��.r•
w !llYrn —
i n✓ 'S ht • �fk'�IS � r� #..r��
IM '
y.AnE SR+GOE
If10Qt•RJ1MlC $UkvEY G/
-- --
PART OF LOT 1
f
RANGE i
w=— t�rytr A 010
7OWNS141P OF ORO•AEOOHTE
'�- �.......
<OAMlY OF SWOE
OrpOR ROER Rrplp OtdO
rax r m
0.0111 RM� �1b� -,n
IX•170YTOt AlD VE CAL XiIE IWO
W1�
l.urEM
tp.+DAMS
ow vvf.. aCl
I l! 1� rni�R.lelF4olJ
p �s.rYaa. (HbIpWM A }I r Z PCML{RION-
IT
1� tl �.Y_.Jy •..,a LANE
.
�..
`1 • "� w..,>'� �` vii ... ��
w .e.••+F. o. an•' S.YY1. ttaYO 3 ��.r•
w !llYrn —
i n✓ 'S ht • �fk'�IS � r� #..r��
IM '
y.AnE SR+GOE
pw, SS Ar: ro1HOJVY
1 y„
MOMS 0=�16i0iE
.r w�.V rn's ^a �r�wnrrr ..•r•. m..•wre
Nip: j. D. 0AP.NE9 -....
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 9 of 11
Page 27 of 139
e�
�!jf
- wiTre
pw, SS Ar: ro1HOJVY
1 y„
MOMS 0=�16i0iE
.r w�.V rn's ^a �r�wnrrr ..•r•. m..•wre
Nip: j. D. 0AP.NE9 -....
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 9 of 11
Page 27 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
SCHEDULE 5: JOHN D. BELL ASSOCIATES LTD.
SITE PLAN DRAWING DATED OCTOBER 24, 2009
2010 -A -33 (Suzanne Caudry)
F e s
r
e4;t� i
; ►��hr�I�fftFtjtjFf E;itg'1 l� F
p►ii�
�!� c }�IT 't9i IFf� t,lrif nt i1aIF�I(F��f�li ,FlFF�!!d 1 �( P 14 � i[
E � �QQii
I II
S
i 11
E� B�
i
IN
-71 77
4j i r�
� 1
f r
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 10 of 11
Page 28 of 139
1`
a
\
�tl
i 11
E� B�
i
IN
-71 77
4j i r�
� 1
f r
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -33 Page 10 of 11
Page 28 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pernber...
SCHEDULE 6: BOATHOUSE ELEVATIONS
2010-A-33 (Suzanne Caudry)
jJ
L-A ..... ....... ......
Ir
A—
VI i
lyL ......
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010-A-33 Page 11 of 11
Page 29 of 139
Lake Simcoe
Region
Conservation
Authority
Sent by email sfarquharson@oro- medonte.ca
November 30, 2010
Mr. Steven Farquharson
Secretary- Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment
Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, ON LOL 2X0
Dear Mr. Farquharson:
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
_k'
Into rnat to n a
Riverfoundalion
Proud Winner
of the 2009
International
Thiess Riverprize
File No.: 2010 -A -33
IMS No.: PVOC731C4
RE: Minor Variance Application — Increase Maximum Total Area of Deck & Boathouse
Suzanne Caudry, Owner
Part of Lot 1, Concession Range 1 (Former Township of Oro)
15 Pemberton Lane, Part 7, Plan 5111-31725
Township of Oro- Medonte, County of Simcoe
Thank you for circulating the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) with the above noted
application for Minor Variance.
We would request that this letter replace our comments dated November 22, 2010.
The LSRCA has reviewed this application for conformity with the Public Health and Safety Policies (Natural
Hazards) of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) under the Planning Act, the Lake Simcoe Protection Act
and Plan, and in accordance with the purpose and intent of Ontario Regulation 179/06 made under the
Conservation Authorities Act and has no objection to the approval of this application.
We would advise that a permit (OP.2009.098) was issued on December 22, 2009 for the construction of a
boathouse and the replacement of a shore patio, and removal of the existing shore patio with restoration
of the site. A second permit (OP.2010.042) was issued on August 6, 2010 for the repair of the existing
deck.
Page 1 of 2
120 Bayview Parkway
Box 282, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1 -- - - -- Tel: 905.895.1281 1.800.465.0337 Fax: 905.853.5881 5 �" 1 r
1: -Mail: intoCa lsrca.on.ca %Xrebsite: www.lsrca.on_ca A ��lateY:Si. e f -/y" LZ t('
Page 30 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
November 30, 2010
File No.: 2010 -A -33
IMS No.: PVOC731C4
Mr. Steven Farquharson
Page 2 of 2
The LSRCA would request that the approval of this application be subject to the following condition:
A restoration plan be submitted, to the satisfaction of Township and LSRCA staff, to renaturalize all
disturbed areas along the shoreline and embankment in order to fulfill policy 6.29 -DP of the Lake
Simcoe Protection Plan. Please note, a planting plan was submitted as part of Site Plan application
2009-SPA-13.
If you have any questions, comments, or require anything further from the LSRCA, please do not hesitate
to contact the undersigned at 905 -895 -1281, extension 287, or by e-mail at i.walker @lsrca.on.ca. Please
reference the above file numbers in future correspondence. Please advise us of your decision in this
matter.
Yours trul
VW_'
Ian Walker, BSc.
Environmental Planner
IW /ph
C. Charles Burgess, Senior Planning Coordinator, LSRCA
Suzanne Caudry, Owner, info @zarum.net
S: \Env Plan \Plan Appls \Planning Letters \Minor Variances\ Oro- Medonte\ 2010 \PVOC731. 2010- A- 33.15PEMBERTONLANE.CAUDRY.IW - 2.docx
Page 31 of 139
Lake Simcoe
40D
Region
Conservation
Authority
November 30, 2010
File No.: 2010 -A -33
IMS No.: PVOC731C4
Mr. Steven Farquharson
Page 2 of 2
The LSRCA would request that the approval of this application be subject to the following condition:
A restoration plan be submitted, to the satisfaction of Township and LSRCA staff, to renaturalize all
disturbed areas along the shoreline and embankment in order to fulfill policy 6.29 -DP of the Lake
Simcoe Protection Plan. Please note, a planting plan was submitted as part of Site Plan application
2009-SPA-13.
If you have any questions, comments, or require anything further from the LSRCA, please do not hesitate
to contact the undersigned at 905 -895 -1281, extension 287, or by e-mail at i.walker @lsrca.on.ca. Please
reference the above file numbers in future correspondence. Please advise us of your decision in this
matter.
Yours trul
VW_'
Ian Walker, BSc.
Environmental Planner
IW /ph
C. Charles Burgess, Senior Planning Coordinator, LSRCA
Suzanne Caudry, Owner, info @zarum.net
S: \Env Plan \Plan Appls \Planning Letters \Minor Variances\ Oro- Medonte\ 2010 \PVOC731. 2010- A- 33.15PEMBERTONLANE.CAUDRY.IW - 2.docx
Page 31 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
Page 32 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
Page 33 of 139
r
•
h
t �
w
+
Page 33 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
Page 34 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
Page 35 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
-,NUN ..;
+j
O
L �
N
U 0
0
M
M
Q m '
.X
LU
O
°o
i
w
Page 36 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
Page 37 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
Page 38 of 139
e;
r \
1
ti � � x..11• ^ '_ � �4
1
F �
- �l .l.
ie � cr
V
\
..
1
-
•1
3me,ti ..
ry
•-f
Page 38 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
1
1 r
•err -
y
u
4�[
i�
r t '
f
Page 39 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
Page 40 of 139
5b) - 2010 -A -33 - Suzanne Caudry
15 Pember...
b4.-, O-CE-N. �P_
Committee of Adjustments, Oro - Medonte Township Dec. 16th, 2010
My name is Christopher Guest. I live at 17 Pemberton Lane, next door to Suzanne
Caudry. I have recently completed construction of a new house and I live in Shanty Bay
with my family year round. I am opposed to this application because, in my opinion, a
combined deck and boathouse of 147 square metres constitutes an unsightly
overdevelopment of the shoreline. The physical alterations to the shoreline, including the
expansive connecting deck, concrete retaining walls, pizza oven and architectural features
are visually prominent from the lake as well as from the second story patio of my home.
I live and pay taxes in Oro - Medonte so that my family can enjoy a natural lakefront
setting. I do not wish to live beside a waterfront pizzeria. Furthermore, the excessive
waterfront decking and boathouse appear to occupy an area greater than the existing
cottage dwelling which is an undesirable feature in terms of property value along this
portion of Kempenfeldt Bay.
It is my understanding that the connecting deck was constructed without a building
permit and brings the total allowable area of boathouse and attached deck to more than
double what is permitted in the Zoning By -Law. I have just completed a 4 year building
project and I have obtained proper building permits for every step of the construction
process of my house and boathouse. I have been honest and transparent with the
township of Oro - Medonte throughout this long process and have complied with all
Zoning By -Laws. This summer, I will be completing the landscaping of my waterfront. 1
do not plan on omitting the location of an existing deck from my submissions to the
township, as my neighbor has done. I do not plan on constructing a sizable deck without
a building permit, as my neighbor has done. I do not plan on using concrete retaining
walls which are harmful to the lake, as my neighbor has done. And finally, I do not plan
on creating a deck and boathouse with a combined area of 1.47 square metres which is
more than double the allowable limit, as my neighbor has done. I will not do these
things, nor will I ask the township for a minor variance if I get caught doing these things
because I like the lake the way it is ... If everyone just ignored Oro- Medonte's Zoning By-
Laws than we'd have a shoreline composed entirely of boardwalks and pizzerias and we
already have a place like that... it's called Atlantic City and I don't want to live there
either.
Thank -you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Christopher Guest
Page 41 of 139
���
'r—aship of
Proud Flcrirgyr, L-xriliuy Fuurrr
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2010 -A -38
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Meeting Date:
Subject: Variance Application
Motion #
December 16, 2010
(Donald Leroux)
Part of Lot 10, Concession 8, North
Side of Mount St. Louis Road, East
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346- 020 - 009 -21605
of Highway 400
D13 -41026
(Medonte)
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to consider a Variance Application 2010 -A -38, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law in relation to the minimum lot size for an agricultural use
on lands that have a lot area of less than 2.0 hectares in the A/RU Zone.
The subject property has a lot frontage of approximately 227 metres on Mount St. Louis Road East, a
depth of approximately 71 metres, and a lot area of 0.9 hectares. The subject property is currently
vacant. The property is located north of Mount St. Louis Road, East of Highway 400. The applicant
has indicated that the floor area of the agricultural building would be approximately 139 square metres
(1496 square feet).
ANALYSIS:
PURPOSE OFAPPLICATION.
The applicant is proposing to construct an Agricultural Building on lands that have a lot area less than
2.0 hectares. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Table B4 Minimum Lot Size for an Agricultural Uses: Required Proposed
2.0 Hectares 0.9 Hectares
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. Section C2.2 of the Plan states that "permitted
uses on lands designated Rural... are agriculture, single detached dwellings, bed and breakfast
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -39
Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Page 1 of 5
Page 42 of 139
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
establishments, home occupations." Therefore, the request for an agricultural use as stated on the
application is considered to be a permitted use.
On this basis the proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property is zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone in Zoning By -law 97 -95. The purpose
for regulating the size of a lot within the A/RU Zone to a minimum of 2.0 hectares for agricultural
uses, is to ensure that the lands be able to sustain an agricultural operation, which include agricultural
uses and hobby farms. The applicant's land area of 0.9 hectares, would limit the permitted use to a
single detached dwelling use as identified in Table B4 in Zoning By -law 97 -95. The applicant has
indicated that the floor area of the agricultural building would be approximately 139 square metres
(1496 square feet) and would be used for personal storage, trailers, parts, tools and pumps. This
agricultural building would be the main building on the subject lands, and the applicant has not
indicated their intent to construct a dwelling.
The Zoning By -law defines agricultural use as "Means the use of land for the growing, producing,
keeping or harvesting of farm products and which may include, as an accessory use, a single
detached dwelling."
The intent of this requirement is to ensure that lands located in the Agricultural /Rural Zone are of
sufficient size in order to sustain agricultural uses. The applicant has indicated that the proposed
agricultural building, will be used for the storage of personal items, which do not meet the definition of
agricultural use. The proposed structure would result in the lands not being used for agricultural
purposes and would affect the future viability of the lot for agricultural uses.
On this basis the proposal is not in keeping with the intent of the lot size for an agricultural use in
Table B4 of Zoning By -law 97 -95.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The proposed use of the lands for an agricultural use, and the construction of an agricultural building
is considered not to be desirable development on the lot. The reason for this is that the only permitted
use on the lands with a lot area of approximately 0.9 hectares is a single detached dwelling. During a
site visit conducted by Planning Staff, it was noted that similar lots in the immediate area are within
the A/RU Zone. As noted on Schedule 2, these lots all do not contain an agricultural building as the
main use on the lot, but rather all have single detached dwellings as the main use and structure on
the lands. The only lot in the area that has an agricultural building as the main building is located
south -west of the subject lands, which has a lot area of approximately 4.1 hectares (10.1 acres).,
which permits agricultural uses and structures. By allowing for an agricultural use on a lot that is less
than 2.0 hectares, and the construction of an agricultural building as the main building on the lot for
non agricultural uses, is not in keeping with character of the area and future viability of the lands for
agricultural uses.
On this basis the proposal is considered not to be desirable for the development of the subject lot.
Development Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -39 Page 2 of 5
Page 43 of 139
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
Is the variance minor?
As this application is deemed to not comply with the intent of the Zoning By -law and is not appropriate
development, the variance is considered to not be minor.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services -
Building Department -
Engineering Department —
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Surrounding Lot Sizes
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance application 2010 -A -38, being to allow an
agricultural use on lands with a lot area of less than 2.0 hectares for the construction of an agricultural
building, does not appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted:
Steve 1=a h?ron, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -39
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Page 3 of 5
Page 44 of 139
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -A -39 (Leroux)
VL
Z f f
17
SUBJECT LANDS
Development Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -39 Page 4 of 5
Page 45 of 139
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
SCHEDULE 1: SURROUNDING LOTS SIZES
2010 -A -39 (Leroux)
f
F 0.8 Hectares
Z
J
0.9 Hectares
0.6 Hectares
0.8 Hectares 0.6 Hectares
w
z
0.9 Hectares J
1.0 Hectares
4.1 Hectares
MSU LANDS LOT AREA 0.9 HECTARES
Development Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -39 Page 5 of 5
Page 46 of 139
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
�P I
a• �� ,1Q z � �� .: V7 W p
s
A
Q
�o
�P I
a• �� ,1Q z � �� .: V7 W p
s
A
�QW
g
i �aYd
1+ Js, N a a+ N 7 /moNir sB
+aF�+
W sny
Ry 2!
r aY
or
2w dl a aN 1N f 1mYa� NI
� 9
sit
in
X39
n
o7••
y - ..
9
C' lVyd
�§
3�9
g
I
\.b$
Ib
LU
oG I.aJ U y °
0 p a+l
LLI r W z J
d r
ZJ
Q
i Q< aW a C` w
Q O O O ti
it Om
I 2 D J�°o LL.
od 9
:D Z Q 0 - Q 3 N S'J(' A
(n Q Z J LL
'0 O CJ Z O
at�/�l -Q'W a �Z Ea a a 40
¢a1 -0.Ld NzzSZ 3 c
Oz 3 = _y e _ _
O_O��¢t —O]
p
Mq
3g a 7
g m
A
�QW
g
p
i yq O O gk�p{O
W sny
Ry 2!
0012
sit
in
X39
n
o7••
y - ..
9
3�9
g
Page 47 of 139
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
Page 48 of 139
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
From: LstarfiMbaol.com
To: Farouharson, Steven
Subject: ReNariance app. #2010 -A -38 Donald Leroux - -Part lot 10, conc8 -Mt. St. Louis Rd
Date: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:54:53 PM
Please scroll down for inquiry text
Survey Response: Contact Form
Oro - Medonte
Response GUID: Occ3flc9- 9a25- 4cOf- baa6- ee6fdd9d86ae
Started: 12/2/2010 12:44:12 PM
Completed: 12/2/2010 12:54:35 PM
Page 1
1) Name
farquharson
F 2
our Name
nn Thomson
3) Phone Number
705 - 835 -5900
4) Your E -mail Address
Lstarfit @aol.com
5) Subject
Re:Variance app. #2010 -A -38 Donald Leroux - -Part lot 10, conc8 -Mt. St. Louis Rd
6) Inquiry
Hi Steve
I attended the first meeting,discussing the building Mr. Leroux intends to build
on this property. My concern being the fact this area is a residential development,
I'm not quite sure this particular building will fit in with the existing homes in the
area. Would like to know if he is intending to run a business from this location, and
what the construction of this building would look like. I guess I'm a little dubious
regarding his intention - -I believe the area is approx. 2.2 acres so a house is not in
the picture. Presently I'm out of the country and will not return until March - -pls
send we an email as to what occurs in the next meeting being held Dec8th - --
appreciate it - -Lynn Thomson
Page 49 of 139
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
November 18, 2010
Steve Farquharson
Intermediate Planner
Township of Oro - Medonte
148 Line 7 South
Oro, Ontario
LOL 2X0
Re. Committee of Adjustment —Agenda Item 2010 -A -38 Donald Leroux
Relief from maximum floor area and timing of construction
I understand that the Township's rural zone permissions do not allow for the construction of an
accessory building prior to the construction of the primary dwelling. If it is Mr. Leroux's
intention to proceed with a house immediately or soon after the accessory building, I would not
object to the timing of construction. Based on the present information this does not appear to
be the case.
I also understand that the Township's bylaw does not allow for the construction of an accessory
building larger than 100 meters square on a lot less than 2 hectares. The owners desire to
construct a building 139 square meters on a lot that is only 0.9 hectares calls into question the
purpose of the building.
Since there is no apparent intention to construct a primary residence on the lot, I would
respectfully ask that if approved; the Committee stipulates that the building may not be used for
commercial or industrial purposes as a condition of approval. If this were the case 1 would not
object.
I respectfully request a copy of the decision of the Committee so that I may consider appeal
options should the committee approve the application.
Respectfully,
fe� &��,
Jody King
169 Mt.St.Louis Road E.
RR #4 Coldwater, ON
LOK 1E0
Page 50 of 139
FROM :DWIGHT & WENDY HOLM
Nov. 16, 2010
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
FAX NO. :705 -835 -3397 Nov. 16 2010 03:17PM P1
Township of Oro — Medonte
Committee of Adjustment and Steven Farquharson
1111 regards to Submission No. 2010 -A -38
North side of Mount Saint Louis Road East.
This road from highway 400 to Highway 12 is very residential except for a few
farms and wood lots. I would life to keep it residential.
The subject property is currently vacant. This is true. Mr. Leroux has constructed
A huge parking lot about half the area of the lot. He has had gravel hauled in to
cover the cleared area. I think he has covered the topsoil with about 2 feet of gravel
Many loads of gravel were dumped to make this into a parking lot.
The lot is vacant because he had the trees removed. The lot was totally covered with
trees identical to the trees in the pictures that Mr. Leroux has provided_
I don't know the By -Laws but I would assume a site plan and water drainage plan
was requested and approved.
Now for the major concern I have. This is a residential area. People live on this
street. There is no desire or plan shown to construct a home on this lot. The large
agriculture building and parking lot do not indicate a home will ever be built here.
This application is to allow Mr. Leroux to run a business on this property. Mr.
Leroux indicated it is required for personal storage of trailers, parts, tools, lift
trailer and pumps. This seems like business use - not personal use.
Where is the bathroom and septic system?
Where does the house septic go?
Is there room on this lot for a house with so much of the area covered by a parking
lot?
No detached accessory building or structure shall be erected on a lot prior to
erection of the main building on the lot. This is a good By -Law and should be
obeyed.
Mr. Leroux must build a home first. Street appeal is important to many of us that
live on Mount Saint Louis Road East. Let us keep it this way.
Dwight Hohn
164 Mount Saint Louis Rd. E.
Coldwater Ont. L0K1E0
705-835-3397
Page 51 of 139
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
Page 52 of 139
`t
yAk {
'
{
_
e
4-j
co
Q
n Ln
CD
CD
Page 52 of 139
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
Page 53 of 139
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
Page 54 of 139
9
'
>
m
Mv-
Asa ►yr
Al
t a„
A
L..
Page 54 of 139
5c) - 2010 -A -38 - Donald Leroux
Part of Lo...
Page 55 of 139
tx�i.�.'INV"},,,�
�F
�
r
n
•
Page 55 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
J� TOWNSH /P OF ORO- MEDONTE
OVI REPORT
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2010 -A -41
Alan Wiebe, Planner
Meeting Date:
Subject: Variance Application
Motion #
December 16, 2010
(Karen Baldock)
Plan 626, Lot 45
33 Owen Road
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346- 010 - 010 -23500
(Former Township of Oro)
D13 -41022
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision, with respect to the
construction of a deck and stairs attached to the existing single detached dwelling on the subject
property:
1. that the setbacks from the front and interior side lot line to the south for the deck and stairs be in
conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and sketches submitted and
approved by the Committee;
2. that an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by way of survey /real property report that the distances between the deck
and stairs, and the respective lot lines be no less than approximately the following:
i. 1.3 metres from the front lot line for the deck;
ii. 1.71 metres from the front lot line for stairs; and
iii. 2.47 metres from the interior side lot line to the south for the stairs.
3. that the Clerk's Office at the Township of Oro - Medonte be consulted with respect to any
proposed work to the existing deck and stairs extending beyond the interior side lot line to the
south;
4. that the applicant obtain any perrriits and /or approvals, if required, from Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority; and
5. that the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township only
after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning
Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -41
Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Pagel of 10
Page 56 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
BACKGROUND:
The subject property occupies an area of approximately 0.0375 hectares, has frontage on Owen
Road of approximately 29.79 metres, and a depth ranging between 8.72 metres and 24.27 metres.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new deck, attached to the existing single detached dwelling on
the subject property. The proposed deck is proposed to be located as near as 1.3 metres from the front
lot line and as near as 2.47 metres from the interior side lot line to the south, and is proposed to be
accessed by stairs located as near as 1.71 metres from the front lot line. The subject property also has
a previously existing deck and stairs, extending beyond the interior side lot line to the south
The purpose of this report is to consider Variance Application 2010 -A -41, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -Law in relation to the:
1. minimum required setback from the front lot line for a deck and stairs attached to a single
detached dwelling, and
2. minimum required setback from the interior side lot line to the south for a deck and stairs
attached to a single detached dwelling.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting the following relief from Table B1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Zone: Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Required
Table B1
1. Minimum front yard 7.5 metres
2. Minimum front yard 7.5 metres
3. Minimum interior side yard 3.0 metres
4. Minimum interior side yard 3.0 metres
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
Proposed
1.3 metres (for deck)
1.71 metres (for stairs)
2.47 metres (for new /proposed deck and stairs)
0 metres (for previously existing deck)
1 POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Shoreline in -the Official Plan. Section C5.2 of the Official Plan
states that "Permitted uses on lands designated Shoreline ... are single detached dwellings...", and
accessory uses.
Therefore, on this basis, the proposal in Variance Application 2010 -A -41 is considered to conform
with the general intent of the Official Plan.
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -41
Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Page 2 of 10
Page 57 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
Do the variances meet the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone in the Township's Zoning By -Law.
Permitted uses in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone include single detached dwellings and
accessory buildings. Due to the effects of the dimensions and size of the subject property on the
opportunity to construct a new single detached dwelling, the relief sought from Zoning By -Law 97 -95
are evaluated in consideration of the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage provisions of the
Zoning By -Law.
Table B1 of the Zoning By -Law requires a minimum lot area in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone of
0.2 hectares, and a minimum lot frontage of 30 metres. The purpose for minimum lot area and
minimum lot frontage provisions in the Zoning By -Law is to regulate the size and visual prominence of
properties within specific zones, to ensure relative consistency in the character of properties on the
basis of the respective zone(s) within which they are located. At approximately 0.0375 hectares in
size, with a frontage on Owen Road of 29.79 metres, the subject property is deficient in the minimum
required lot size and lot frontage for a property in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. With respect
to "Non- complying lots ", section 5.17.1 of the Zoning By -Law states that "A lot in existence prior to the
effective date of this By -law that does not meet the lot area and /or lot frontage requirements of the
applicable Zone, may be used and buildings thereon may be erected, enlarged, repaired or renovated
provided the use conforms with the By -law and the buildings or structures comply with all of the other
provisions of this By- law."
1. Minimum required setback from the front lot line for a deck and stairs
(Variance points 1 and 2, per "Analysis" section)
Table B1 of the Township's Zoning By -Law 97 -95 requires single detached dwellings to be located no
closer than 7.5 metres from the front lot line for properties in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone.
The purpose of the minimum required front yard setback is to ensure that a consistent character will
be maintained within required yards that front on a street and to also ensure that an appropriate
degree of separation will be maintained between the buildings and structures on a property, and
activities taking place on transportation routes.
Section 5.9.1 of the Zoning By -Law, however, states that "Architectural features such as ... stairs and
landings used to access a main building ... may encroach into any required yard a distance of no
more than 1.0 metre (3.2 feetj'. Therefore, with the minimum required front yard being 7.5 metres,
Section 5.9.1 of the Zoning By -Law would permit the construction of stairs and/or landings used to
access the main building as near as 6.5 metres from the front lot line of a property in the Shoreline
Residential (SR) Zone, without requiring a variance.
The proposal in the subject application, however, requests a reduction in the front yard setback to as
near as 1.3. metres for a deck, and 1.71 metres for stairs used to access the deck and the main
building. It is noted that the main building on the property (an existing dwelling and attached garage),
based on a Registered Plan for Lot 45 prepared in 1991, is located as near as 1.73 feet (0.527
metres) from the front lot line. Section 5.16 of the Zoning By -Law considers "Non- Complying
Buildings and Structures ", and provides direction for their "enlargement, repair, replacement or
renovation", provided that such work: "a) does not further encroach into a required yard ... b) does
not increase the amount of floor area or volume in a required yard, c) does not increase in any other
way a situation of non - compliance; and, d) complies with all other applicable provisions of this By-
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -41 Page 3 of 10
Page 58 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
Law." In this case, although the proposed deck and stairs do not further encroach into the required
front yard than the existing dwelling, it is considered to occupy a larger floor area or volume in the
required yard, leading to the subject points in the variance application.
Based on a site inspection, Planning staff notes that the proposed deck and stairs (subject to
variance points 1 and 2) are already constructed, and are significantly obstructed from view from
Owen Road by an existing vegetative buffer consisting of a cedar hedge. Further, as viewed from the
entrances to the subject property and the neighbouring property to the west (31 Owen Road), the
deck and stairs subject to variance points 1 and 2, are largely obstructed from view by the existing
dwelling and attached garage and, therefore, an appropriate degree of separation is considered to be
maintained between the deck and stairs near the front lot line, and uses on adjacent properties.
Therefore, on these bases, the proposed reduction in the minimum required front yard setback, for the
deck(s) and stairs, are considered to meet the general intent of the Zoning By -Law.
2. Minimum required setback from the interior side lot line to south for a deck and stairs
(Variance points 3 and 4, per "Analysis" section)
Table B1 of the Township's Zoning By -Law 97 -95 requires single detached dwellings to be located no
closer than 3.0 metres from the interior side lot line(s) for properties in the Shoreline Residential (SR)
Zone. The purpose of the minimum required interior side yard setback is to ensure that an
appropriate degree of separation and privacy will be maintained between the buildings and structures
on neighbouring properties.
Section 5.7 c) of the Zoning By -Law, however, states that "Decks are permitted to encroach into the
required interior side yard a distance of no more than 1.0 metre (3.2 feet) for one interior side yard
only." Further, Section 5.9.1 of the Zoning By -Law states that "Architectural features such as ... stairs
and landings used to access a main building ... may encroach into any required yard a distance of no
more than 1.0 metre (3.2 feet)". Therefore, with the minimum required interior side yard being 3.0
metres, Sections 5.7 and 5.9.1 of the Zoning By -Law would permit the construction of stairs and/or
landings used to access the main building, and a deck, as near as 2.0 metres from an interior side lot
line of a property in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone, without requiring a variance. .
It is noted that the applicant has indicated in the Application for Minor Variance form that the
previously "existing deck" is as near as 0.0 metres from the interior side lot line to the south, and that
the new deck recently constructed is as near as 2.47 metres from the interior side lot line to the south.
With respect to the previously "existing deck ", it is noted that the location of the main building and
attached deck on the property, pursuant to a Registered Plan for Lot 45 prepared in 1991, the existing
dwelling is located as near as 2.67 feet (0.81 metres) from the interior side lot line to the south, and
the previously existing deck is noted as being located as near as 0.36 feet (0.11 metres) from the
interior side lot line to the south. Further, Planning staff have received comments from the Clerk's
Office, who has advised that the applicant (Karen Baldock) has entered into an agreement with
Council for the Township of Oro - Medonte for the encroachment of the previously existing deck and
stairs into the Lakeshore Promenade area, pursuant to By -Law No. 2009 -148.
With respect to the new deck recently constructed as near as 2.47 metres from "the interior side lot
line to the south, as referenced above Section 5.16 of the Zoning By -Law considers "Non- Complying
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -41 Page 4 of 10
Page 59 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
Buildings and Structures ", and the deck recently constructed as near as 2.47 metres from the interior
side lot line to the south is considered to occupy a larger floor area or volume in the required yard,
leading to the subject point in the variance application. In the case of this point in the subject
variance application, as Section 5.7 c) of the Zoning By -Law contemplates the encroachment of
decks up to one metre within one required interior side yard, and Council has deemed it appropriate
to enter into an agreement for the encroachment of the previously existing deck and stairs (pursuant
to Plan 51 R- 36152), the proposed variance is considered to meet the general intent of the Zoning By-
Law.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Although situations of non - compliance are proposed to be increased through the proposed deck and
stairs on the subject property, due to consideration of the deficient size of the subject property under
Table B1 of the Zoning By -Law, and due to the proposals being considered to conform to the general
intent of the Official Plan, and to be consistent with the general intent of the Zoning By -Law, the
proposed variances are considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot.
Are the variances minor?
As the proposed variances listed in points 1 through 4, above, are considered to conform with the
general intent of the Township's Official Plan, to meet the general intent of the Township's Zoning By-
Law, and are considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot, the proposed variances
are considered to be minor.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services -
Building Department —
Engineering Department —
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority — No objection
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Previously Existing Site Plan
Schedule 3: Proposed Site Plan
Schedule 4: Plan 51 R -36152
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -41
Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Page 5of10
Page 60 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, the proposals in Variance Application 2010 -A -41,
specifically, to permit the construction and/or existence of a deck as near as 1.3 metres from the front
lot line and as near as 2.47 metres from the interior side lot line to the south, and stairs as near as 1.71
metres from the front lot line and 2.47 metres from the interior side lot line to the south, appear to meet
the four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by:
Ian Wiebe Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Planner Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -41 Page 6 of 10
Page 61 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -A -41 (Karen Baldock)
N
w
w
w
O
-ILTL
� U
CJ
'b9
to Rh-�R L
c�
MYRTLE AVENUE
OWN ROgQ
LEA P`I�NV� �n
0
L�
ORE PROMENP�E
LAKE SIMCOE
�AKESN SUBJECT PROPERTY
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -41 Page 7 of 10
Page 62 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
SCHEDULE 2: PREVIOUSLY EXISTING SITE PLAN
2010-A-41 (Karen Baldock)
. ........
�� � � -'sue
ONE
J97/
419
%J
1 -a C.
Uh
75
Development Services
Application No. 2010-A-41
Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Page 8 of 10
Page 63 of 139
S�
L)
it
7—
L9 r'
z
00)
7 .4
Icy
ti
Development Services
Application No. 2010-A-41
Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Page 8 of 10
Page 63 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
SCHEDULE 3: PROPOSED SITE PLAN
2010 -A -41 (Karen Baldock)
Variance 3 -,
- Variance 4
•1 dd
Variance 1 r
L
Variance 2 WWI rX
+M1
tn
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -41
Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Page 9 of 10
Page 64 of 139
Ot
Ly
J.
M)
,P)
j`4.7.TAIR-', f
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
SCHEDULE 4: PLAN 51 R-36152
2010-A-41 (Karen Baldock)
IN
'9
0
C 44
74,0
I If
-i-jor a N�
74 71, P"p)
W 1) LTC,(
'7 -99)
X196 ,r
F L=37
C--- 28
NJLT2
z
NUM 23 Z
-D
�91
La
.47 rx
-.1
+ Nro
IV A
VLW
ED CIO 4
OWE V- 4-c-, U.)
STAIRS
(WIT I
ETE
Development Services
Application No. 2010-A-41
Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Page 10 of 10
Page 65 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
Page 66 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
Page 67 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
Page 68 of 139
i
•
�
it !�
� f- a
;I
tit,
.JNp`+
t
Page 68 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
w
i
• '
Wows
I 5 1`
Y .
1 . ,
• ,ii -
AA
WM KI _
jpjjjj�~'1J
�y
Page 69 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
Page 70 of 139
j r� { r . " � ��•' ,Fig:
a
S + 1
� y
W
O
Page 70 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
Page 71 of 139
aly
y
ti.l�
(. j�,aF � ��� r • r
s'
�
F •1 I
ri■ f
t
AT 4
'�� ;:
+ ,t'
n� _
ter•.
tx
Page 71 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
f + �
4-1
N
a--i
%0000
0 ONE
CD_ ." A ■ ■ ■ ■ 'K t ' fry �-: '
I 1 I I ■ ■ ■ ■ -_ ■ y �� i;
Ll ■ ■ ■ ■�,'r�
�y; \1
�1
Page 72 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
NM ' ' r� � ti ' , r I � F •�f,
t'JN
.4
14V , /
L •h'0. N.[f. �' �
} R
'A y o
620 Af
IN
• v
Page 73 of 139
5d) - 2010 -A -41 - Karen Baldock
33 Owen Ro...
• i� z ,
Page 74 of 139
i4. tea
��
Tr
.�'•. � 4 '1''a` fi���i��er�rt�l,7� ��e-. � to
Page 74 of 139
(Q�i����.tte
,n..... r ........
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2010 -A -44
Alan Wiebe, Planner
Meeting Date:
Subject: Variance Application
Motion #
December 16, 2010
(McDougall Auto Wreckers Ltd)
Concession 14, Part Lot 14
328 Line 14 North
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346- 010 - 005 -42800
(Former Township of Oro)
D13 -41033
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision, with respect to the
construction of fences on the subject property:
1. That the proposed fence be constructed entirely on the subject property, and that no portion of
the proposed fence exceed approximately 2.44 metres in height above grade;
2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township, in writing, of compliance
with the Committee's decision that:
No portion of the proposed fence exceed approximately 2.44 metres in height above
grade, and
The proposed fence is constructed entirely within the lot lines of the subject property.
3. That the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals, if required, from Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority, if applicable; and
4. That any appropriate zoning certificate(s) and building permit(s), if applicable, be obtained from
the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property occupies an area of 12 acres, has frontage on Line 14 North of approximately
178 metres, and a depth of approximately 271 metres. The property has an existing dwelling and
detached garage, as well as a business consisting of a "parts shop and office ". Further, the subject
property has an existing wire fence currently located around a portion of the perimeter of the property.
As stated in the application form and attached submission, the current use of the property is related to
automotive parts and automobile recycling.
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -44
Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Page 1 of 7
Page 75 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
The applicant is proposing to construct a chain link fence with barbed wire, standing 2.43 metres (7.97
feet) above grade, and a sheet metal fence, standing 2.44 metres (8 feet) above grade, surrounding the
subject property. The fence sections are proposed to be located between 2 cm and 50 cm from the
front, interior side, and rear lot lines. The purpose for Variance Application 2010 -A -44, as stated in the
appendix to the application, is to: " 1. Improve the security of [their] inventory. 2. Improve the look of [the]
property and business. 3. Increase safety for [their] customers, and people within [their] community."
The current use of the property, for the sale of "automobile parts" and "auto recycling" (or a "Wrecking
Yard" under By -Law No. 2010 -178) where the automobiles and automobile parts are stored outdoors,
is not considered to conform with the provisions of Table A3 of the Township's Zoning By -Law 97 -95,
"Industrial Zones" "Permitted Uses ". As the application of Section 5.18 of the Township's Zoning By-
Law 97 -95, regarding "non- conforming uses ", was not yet determined at the November 18, 2010
hearing, the Committee of Adjustment deferred this application "until it is determined whether the use
of the subject property is considered a `non- conforming use ". Since the November 18th meeting,
additional information has been provided to the Township to this effect. Based on this additional
information, the Township of satisfied that "such use existed before the date of passing this By -law
and ... has continued and continues to be used for such purpose, and that such use, when
established, was not contrary to a By -law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act... or a
predecessor thereof that was in force at that time ", as provided in Section 5.18 of the Zoning By -Law
97 -95.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting the following relief from Table B1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Section 6.0 — Definition of "Structure" Required Proposed
Fence height deemed not to be a structure 1.8 metres or less 2.44 metres
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 Official Plan.
Section C1.2 of the Official Plan states that "The principle use of land in the Agricultural designation
... shall be agriculture ... [and] All existing commercial and industrial uses are also permitted'.
Section E1.5.1 and E1.5.2 of the Official Plan, "Non- Conforming Uses ", state that:
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -44 Page 2 of 7
Page 76 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
E1.5.1 Introduction
As a general rule, existing uses that do not conform with the policies of this Plan should
gradually be phased out so that the affected land use may change to a use which is in
conformity with the goals of the Official Plan and the intent of the implementing Zoning By -law.
In some instances, it may be necessary and practical to allow the replacement, extension or
enlargement of non - conforming uses through the granting of a minor variance or by placing the
use in an appropriate zone in the implementing Zoning By -law. Council shall, therefore, have
regard for the following principles:
a) The feasibility of acquiring the property for holding, sale, lease or development by the
Township for a more appropriate permitted use; and,
b) The possibility of relocating the non - conforming use to another site.
E1.5.2 Role Of The Committee Of Adjustment
If the property cannot be acquired or relocated, the Committee of Adjustment may, without an
amendment to this Plan, allow extensions to a non - conforming use. Prior to such approval, the
Committee shall consider the following:
a) The size of the extension in relation to the existing operation;
b) Whether the proposed extension is compatible with the character of the surrounding area;
c) The characteristics of the existing use in relation to noise, vibration, fumes, dust, smoke,
odours, lighting and traffic generation and the degree to which any of these factors may be
increased or decreased by the extension;
d) The possibilities of reducing these nuisances through buffering, building setbacks,
landscaping, Site Plan Control and other means to improve the existing situation, as well as
minimize the problems from extension; and,
e) The conformity of the proposal with the applicable by -laws and policies of the County of
Simcoe.
As the proposed variance is for an increase in the height of a fence where it is deemed not to be a
structure, as a means of better containing a "non- conforming use" that meets the requirements of
Section 5.18 of the Township's Zoning By -Law and is therefore permitted to continue, the non-
conforming use is considered to conform to the general intent of the policies reflected in Subsections
E1.5.2 a) through c) of the Official Plan. With respect to Subsection E1.5.2 d), the proposed fence
will provide buffering from uses on neighbouring properties, thereby reducing the nuisance of the
automobile recycling use on the subject property.
Regarding Subsection E1.5.2 e) of the Township's Official Plan, Section 3.3.9 of the County of
Simcoe's Official Plan states that "This Plan is not intended to prevent the continuation, expansion, or
enlargement of legally existing uses which do not conform to the designations of the Plan.
Expansions or enlargements shall include consideration of Section 4 Policy Statements, local official
plans and by-laws...".
Therefore, on this basis, and on the basis of the analysis undertaken in the following section, the
proposed variance is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan.
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -44
Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Page 3 of 7
Page 77 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Does the variance meet the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property is zoned Rural Industrial (IR) Zone in the Township's Zoning By -Law. Permitted
uses in the Rural Industrial (IR) Zone include "Contractor's yards ", "Industrial uses" (dry), "Outdoor
storage uses ", "Recycling establishments ", "Service shops, light ", and "Warehouses ", and do not
include a "Wrecking Yard ". As stated above, however, the use of the subject property for the sale of
"automobile parts" and "auto recycling" (or a "Wrecking Yard" under By -Law No. 2010 -178) is
considered a "non- conforming use" under Section 5.18 of the Township's Zoning By -Law and is,
therefore, permitted to continue.
Section 6.0 of the Township's Zoning By -Law, "Definitions ", specifies the height where a fence is
deemed not to be a "Structure ", which "Means anything that is erected, built or constructed of parts
joined together and attached or fixed permanently to the ground or any other structure. For the
purpose of this By -law, a fence that has a height of 1.8 metres (5.9 feet) or less, a retaining wall
that has a height of 1.0 metre (3.2 feet) or less, a light standard and a sign shall be deemed not to
be structures."
The purpose for regulating permitted uses in specific zones is to ensure the relatively consistent use
and character of properties in the Township, based on the zoning assigned to each property. The
Zoning By -Law excludes a fence with a height of 1.8 metres (5.9 metres) or less from the minimum
required setbacks for accessory buildings or structures. Therefore, fences with a height greater than
1.8 metres are subject to the setback provisions of Section 5.1.3 (and other applicable sections) for
accessory buildings or structures. The purpose for regulating the height of fences is to ensure that, in
relation to the main building and use on a property, the fence is either not of a height suitable to be
considered a "structure" or, where it is a "structure ", to ensure that it will clearly be accessory to the
main building and use on a property, and that its visual prominence will not compromise its accessory
use.
As the proposed variance is for the construction of a fence with a height of up to 2.44 metres (8 feet)
above grade, to contain the use of a property whose current use is considered to meet the "non-
conforming use" provisions of the Zoning By -Law (per Section 5.18), and as the proposed fence will
not encroach into a required sight line on a corner lot (per Section 5.34), the proposed variance 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, and the drawings submitted with the application confirmed, that the subject
property currently has fencing along the approximate location of the front lot line, as well as fencing
that extends from approximately the front lot line, along the interior side lot lines, toward the rear lot
line. Further, this site inspection confirmed the use of outdoor area on the property for the storage of
automobiles.
The variance sought proposes to increase the maximum allowable height for a fence, where a fence
is deemed not to be a structure, in order to permit the construction of a 2.44 metre high fence at
between 2 cm and 5 cm from the front, interior side, and rear lot lines, for the purpose of containing
the use of the property as a "Wrecking Yard ". The proposed variance is considered appropriate for
the desirable development of the lot.
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -44 Page 4 of 7
Page 78 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Is the variance minor?
As the proposed variance is considered to conform with the general intent of the Official Plan, to meet
the general intent of the Zoning By -Law, and is considered appropriate for the desirable development
of the lot, 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
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, the proposal in Variance Application 2010 -A -44,
specifically, to permit the construction of a fence on the subject property standing 2.44 metres above
grade while being deemed not to be a structure, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted:
A v� �/
Ian Wiebe C
Planner
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -44 Page 5 of 7
Page 79 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -A -44 (McDougall Auto Wreckers Ltd.)
w
z
fJ
15f_1'6 Sf IDE��ROAD
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Development Services Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -A -44 Page 6 of 7
Page 80 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
SCHEDULE 2: SITE PLAN
2010 -A -44 (McDougall Auto Wreckers Ltd.)
�n .
r4
!016A
:a,'A'
a�nA
h ti
ti r LPART
AR'EA=a
�a 0"1
ob■ jJ'
�'9Ac
i
Q N:
E
n
AND ORILUA (SOUTH MSION) �rn�F !Y _-, S O 8
�7N
Z cam+
rn
rn Y ~A rn
j Z
4 a
Fr- �
F
' „10�j ^G�• �r
Y2
2
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -44
Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Page 7 of 7
Page 81 of 139
M
�Y
a
3 $
$ �
�
E
n
AND ORILUA (SOUTH MSION) �rn�F !Y _-, S O 8
�7N
Z cam+
rn
rn Y ~A rn
j Z
4 a
Fr- �
F
' „10�j ^G�• �r
Y2
2
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -A -44
Meeting Date December 16, 2010
Page 7 of 7
Page 81 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Application for Minor Variance
Appendix 1
McDougall Auto Wreckers Ltd.
328 Line 14 North
Oro - Medonte, ON
L3V 6H1
(705) 325 -2903
Reasons for variance requested:
We are submitting an Application for Minor Variance to the Committee of Adjustment
for the Township of Oro - Medonte for the purpose of building a full perimeter fence on
our property. Our fence plan includes a 2.13 m tall chain link fence topped with 30 cm of
barb wire along the front (eastern) lot line that faces the road (Line 14 North). On the
north, south, and west sides (the perimeter) our plan includes an 2.44 m tall solid sheet
metal fence. The proposed fences would be detached from the main building
The reasons for our application can be divided into three parts:
1. Improve the security of our inventory.
2. Improve the look of our property and business.
3. Increase safety of our customers, and people within our community.
Full perimeter fencing would greatly improve the security of our inventory at McDougall
Auto Wreckers Ltd. The current fence on the east (Fig. 1A,B), north (Fig. 2), and south
(Fig. 3) edges of our property, at only 1.1 m tall, does not provide much of a barrier to
humans and can be easily crossed. The entire western edge of the property does not have
any fencing and faces an undeveloped woodlot (Fig. 4A,B). The previous owner had
multiple issues with theft. For example, during the winter months thieves on
snowmobiles would access the property, during the night, via the unsecured and isolated
western edge of the property. They would then remove automobile parts such as fenders
and tailgates and escape back up the trail (Fig. 4A). There are also several areas where
the fencing has fallen down or has a missing gate on the east (Fig 5A), south (Fig SB,C),
and north (Fig SD,E).. Together these areas provide unobstructed access to our property
and inventory. A sketch of the current fencing at McDougall Auto Wreckers Ltd. can be
seen in Fig 6. A 2.44 m tall fence, both chain link with barb wire (Fig 7A -C) and sheet
metal (Fig 8A -C) is typical of other recycling facilities within Simcoe County and would
be difficult to climb over. Further, the fence would obscure view of our inventory
thereby preventing thieves from being tempted as they cannot see what we have. Our
objective is to grow McDougall Auto Wreckers Ltd. from its current staff of 3 to more
than 20 full -time employees; however our ability to grow depends on the long -term
security of our inventory. A sketch of the proposed fence can be seen in Fig 9. A full
perimeter fence is an established and proven method within the auto recycling industry of
protecting company inventory.
Page 82 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Full perimeter fencing will improve the look of our property and business. On the east
side of our property, the chain link fence will. allow customers to view our office and
garage building. Customer and delivery access will be orderly and safe through two large
sliding fenced gates facing Line 14 North. The sheet metal fence on the perimeter of our
property will be solid and well constructed. The solid perimeter fence will also block the
view of crushed vehicles and scrap metal; unsightly areas typical of auto recycling
facilities that will be contained behind our perimeter fence.
Full perimeter fencing will improve the safety of our customers, and people within our
community. An auto wrecking yard has numerous sharp materials that can be hazardous
to unsuspecting or unaware people. As we grow our business the activity within our
facility will only increase. A full perimeter fence with controlled access points will
ensure customers and community members are protected from the hazards within our
facility. .
In summary, we are requesting permission from the Committee of Adjustment for the
Township of Oro - Medonte to build the above described fence on our property. The
success of our business depends on a good security fence, and we have based our design
plans on the fences of other well- respected auto recycling facilities both in Simcoe
County, and elsewhere in southern Ontario. Together, our chain link and sheet metal
fences will provide customers and residents of Oro - Medonte with the image that
McDougall Auto Wreckers Ltd. is a professional business that cares about the safety of
its employees and customers, while also respecting and protecting the value of the
inventory upon which our business depends.
Page 83 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
A
Figure 1. Current fence on east side of property facing Line 14 North.
Page 84 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Figure 2. Current fence on north side of property.
•r. -+
Figure 3. Current fence on south side of property.
Page 85 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Figure 4. The western edge of the property does not have any fencing and
faces an undeveloped woodlot.
Page 86 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Figure 5. Examples of fallen fence of missing gates currently at McDougall
Auto Wreckers Ltd. A) East side of property. B) South side of property.
Page 87 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
7
Figure 5. Examples of missing gates currently at McDougall Auto Wreckers
Ltd. C) South side of property. D) North side of property.
Page 88 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
`l r
Figure 5. Examples of fallen fence of missing gates currently at McDougall
Auto Wreckers Ltd. E) North side of property.
Page 89 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Figure 7. Examples of chain link fence with barb wire at another recycling
facility in Simcoe County. The design for our proposed fence would look similar
to this.
Page 90 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Figure 7. Examples of chain link fence with barb wire at
another recycling facility in Simcoe County. The design for our
proposed fence would look similar to this.
Page 91 of 139
A
B
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Figure 8. Examples of a sheet metal fence at another recycling facility in
Simcoe County. The design for our proposed fence would look similar to this.
Page 92 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Figure 8. Examples of a sheet metal fence at another recycling facility in
Simcoe County. The design for our proposed fence would look similar to this.
Page 93 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
� J
J
l� N
f �
O z w
S
y �')
— Z zl
��
Z Q 3 W ,y,
D
O Q , .. _.,_ W
W W
m ) a(r W
UR n
00 OK
1z z 3 z Pv �;a ;^ i ri i iii �C�
z z a M 7
LL
3W— O U Cn >
m NlJoN
n hl �Nt 7 (N IS)AI H OS) bfTll>�0 ONV
pr6 d
�\
°I-
\ s C
m ♦ ° �° a%1
ri�
0
zo Q >von ) m
u
I
X �'1S
` Ct:ti �
Q7 h
1 s
Cti 0 t3 v5 Q
3 Li
U- W Ct C)�v
zo�LL� i
cn
Olt ° m —►, v V, EL
Z
�3 O ZD-C f', M °gal °; 'M.M,ZI°92N
a6 ral
J ?� Z a ' t. z 969 '".0sz— 1., N -
W O Z) u d ". W
(L J LL
ILI
0 V a
Z It
cc c,
w mi4
0
Page 94 of 139
m`a't
1
a
_ 0
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Oz
d: z
c
oor w
W U1
J �L
a
z¢ ei�
09 t7
Z = Z
Y c� 3z
z
0 Jrss m°
zl—? �?
O u 0 H1?/oN
< ui o h! 31V -7 (NO'S'
H;.nOS) I VM180 3 0NV
Upn�7 g AO'OE
oz P °
z [� O f WR\ Q� -.CL- ma
W V NNQ 1 yl K
J t
�W �M
v c Q
LU
UJ 00
Cl7 L.
�d69Zp =d3�/d INC
w V z a
`'- _ -Lb/V t�
V / 1 6•• ze M a91<! m•- M�i):2�'►292 Ni
Z'.....
J ?j L Q J `. Z n btS9 M•OL.— ( °9 —�
O in a W
° O � J u \ v W
o �KIU
W o 11 \0 .v
Z `Iliov'� z° QQ 3 n
Y+ .£9'485 e1,f5,O2 o1£N m
.OZ �
m�
O¢�Y
'gam
Page 95 of 139
3
V
J
�
s
L z M 7
Z
w U^iM�
qz
z W
W
-J
i'
LO a
,Pvr1. IA II
H;.nOS) I VM180 3 0NV
Upn�7 g AO'OE
oz P °
z [� O f WR\ Q� -.CL- ma
W V NNQ 1 yl K
J t
�W �M
v c Q
LU
UJ 00
Cl7 L.
�d69Zp =d3�/d INC
w V z a
`'- _ -Lb/V t�
V / 1 6•• ze M a91<! m•- M�i):2�'►292 Ni
Z'.....
J ?j L Q J `. Z n btS9 M•OL.— ( °9 —�
O in a W
° O � J u \ v W
o �KIU
W o 11 \0 .v
Z `Iliov'� z° QQ 3 n
Y+ .£9'485 e1,f5,O2 o1£N m
.OZ �
m�
O¢�Y
'gam
Page 95 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
0000"%N
nL
_
y
f
4�)
T
i
tq'l
Y;
CO
Ln
p
NMI
t
�
4
U
m
=
�
N
3.
w
x �
x
O
N
Page 96 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Page 97 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Page 98 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Page 99 of 139
Y
Ir
J• a\ �
NCB \,y 66 r�'1 •1l
J Sl # F
ILL
Page 99 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Page 100 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
Page 101 of 139
5e) - 2010 -A -44 - McDougall Auto Wreckers
0000"%N
L
U
O
QL
CO•-
F '
y �
i
LU
W
O
r
O
N
Page 102 of 139
` f
i
s
•
• �
1` rir7
- .,. .10
iG �w S
` f
i
s
•
l.� Ti�wiship q(,
/AlNt C(Cltl�ei
N d He.isayr, Us hi,,g Frnnrc
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2010 -B -33
Alan Wiebe, Planner
Meeting Date:
Subject: Consent Application
Motion #
December 16, 2010
Fraser Hardy McConney
170 15/16 Sideroad East
Concession 8, Lot 16
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346- 010 - 003 -38800
(Former Township of Oro)
D10 -41025
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision:
1. That three copies of a Registered Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed
parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor and submitted to the Secretary- Treasurer of
the Committee of Adjustment;
2. That the applicant pay $2,000 for the lot created as a cash -in -lieu of parkland contribution;
3. That the applicant provide, in the form of sworn or affirmed affidavit, confirmation that the
previously existing parcels composing the existing parcel (identified by roll no. 4346- 010 -003-
38800) were unintentionally merged;
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 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 Registered Reference Plan
to be provided by the Applicant;
6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro- Medonte; and
7. That the conditions of consent irnposed 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 -33 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
249.9 metres (820 feet) of frontage along 15/16 Sideroad East, a lot depth of approximately 191
metres (626.25 feet) along the interior side lot line to the east, and a lot area of approximately 4.65
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -B -33
ng Date: December 16, 2010
Page 1 of 10
Page 104 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
hectares (11.5 acres). The proposed lands to be severed currently contain a detached accessory
building. The lands proposed to be retained would have approximately 268.2 metres (880 feet) of
frontage along 15/16 Sideroad East, a lot area of approximately 32.6 hectares (80.5 acres), and it is
currently vacant.
The applicant has submitted a title search letter dated November 30, 2010, which provides the
chronology for the ownership and merging of the subject property, to its current configuration. A
summary of this chronology is provided below, with references to properties, or parts thereof, relying
on Schedule 3 to this report.
1. In 1880, a portion of the property identified as "INST. No 01086349" was transferred from the
East Half of Lot 16, to a separate owner.
2. In 1915, the property identified as "INST. No 01086349" was brought into its current
configuration.
3. In 1947, the outlined portion of Lot 15, "PART 1 ", with the exception of "PART 3 ", the Road
Allowance Between the East Half of Lots 15 and 16, was merged on title with the outlined
portion of the East Half of Lot 16.
4. In 1993, the Road Allowance Between the East Half of Lots 15 and 16, "PART 3 ", was merged
in title with the parcel which resulted in the merger which occurred in point 3, above.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of Consent application 2010 -113-33 is for a technical severance to create a lot which once
existed as a separate parcel 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:
Township of Oro - Medonte Official Plan
The subject lands are designated Agricultural, Environmental Protection One, and Environmental
Protection Two Overlay in the Township's Official Plan.
In the Township's Official Plan, the objectives of the Environmental Protection One designation (per
Section B2.1), are to "maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system ",
and to "minimize the loss or fragmentation of significant wetlands and the habitats and ecological
functions they provide ". Section B2.3 of the Official Plan, "Permitted Uses ", states that "[nothing] in
this Section is intended to limit the ability of agricultural uses to continue ", and Section B2.4,
"Adjacent Lands" states that "all lands within 120 metres of the boundary of a wetland, within 50
metres of the boundary of an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) ... are considered to be
adjacent lands." Section B2.4 continues to state that "[no] development shall be permitted on these
adjacent lands unless an Environmental Impact Study and a Management Plan are completed...". It
Development Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -33 Page 2 of 10
Page 105 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
is noted that, based on Schedules A and B of the Official Plan, the lot lines sought to be re- created in
the proposed technical severance would not be considered to be located within "Adjacent Lands"
under Section B2.4 of the Official Plan.
Section D2.2.3 of the Official Plan provides a policy which specifically allows the Committee of
Adjustment to consider applications to correct a situation where two or more lots have merged on
-title, provided that the Conrrimittee 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,
Based on the title search letter dated November 30, 2010, the proposed lands to be severed were
acquired by Robert Paisley in 1947, at which time they merged under the same ownership as the
lands proposed to be retained, excluding the Road Allowance Between the East Half of Lots 15 and
16. On this basis, the 11.5 acres (4.65 hectares) of land proposed to be severed were once a
separate conveyable lot 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 subject lands were merged together as a result of the acquisition of:
i. the east half of Lot 16, Concession 8 (11.5 acres), under the same ownership as the subject
Part of Lot 15 (79 acres), Concession 8, in 1947; and
ii. part of the original Road Allowance between the East Half of Lots 15 and 16, Concession 8
(1.5 acres), under -the same ownership as the resulting parcel from point "a)" (90,5 acres), in
2000.
Planning staff will require confirmation of the "unintentional' merging on title of the lands referenced in
point "i. ", above.
c) Is of the same shape and size as the lot which once existed as a separate conveyable lot;
A review of the survey and title search reveals that the proposed lot to be created appears to be of
the same size and shape as the lot that once existed when it was separately conveyable. The
Township will require that an Ontario Land Surveyor confirm, by way of Registered Reference Plan,
the new lot to be created matches the original description.
d) Can be adequately serviced by on -site sewage and water system;
The size of the proposed severed parcel (at 11.5 acres) and of the proposed retained parcel (at 80.5
acres), are considered to be of an adequate size to permit the establishment of private services,
which would be further confirmed prior to the issuance of any building permit(s).
e) Fronts on a public road that is maintained year -round by public authority,
The proposed parcels front onto 15116 Sideroad East, which is maintained year -round by a public
authority.
f) There are no public interest served by maintaining the property as a single conveyable parcel;
The public interest is not considered to 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 below.
Development Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -33 Page 3 of 10
Page 106 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
h) Subject to the access policies of the relevant road authority
Should a building permit be submitted for the development of either parcel, the submission of an
entrance permit would also be required from the Township for access to the relevant parcel(s).
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 parcels front onto 15/16 Sideroad East, which is maintained year -round by a public
authority.
b) Does not have direct access to a Provincial Highway or County Road, unless the Province or
the County supports the request;
Neither the lands proposed to be retained or the lands proposed to be severed will have access to a
Provincial Highway or County Road.
c) Will not cause a traffic hazard;
This application proposes to recreate a lot which once existed as a separately conveyable parcel.
Significant traffic volumes are not anticipated by any additional dwellings) if located on the severed
or retained lands. The applicant will be required to apply for and obtain an entrance permit from the
Township Public Works Department at the time of application for a building permit for a new dwelling.
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 recreate a lot that once existed, which inadvertently merged on title. The
proposed severed lands would have a frontage on 15/16 Sideroad East of approximately 820 feet
(249.9 metres), and a lot area of approximately 11.5 acres (4.65 hectares). The lands to be retained
also have a frontage on 15/16 Sideroad East of approximately 880 feet (268.2 metres), and a lot area
of approximately 80.5 acres (32.6 hectares). The minimum required lot area for a residential use in
the Agriculture /Rural (A/RU) Zone is 0.4 hectares, and the minimum lot frontage is 45 metres.
Further, the minimum required lot area for intensive, and specialized agricultural uses is 2.0 and 4.0
hectares. Therefore, it is noted that the proposed severed lands and the proposed retained lands
would meet the lot area and frontage requirements for properties in the Agricultural/Rural (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 any submission of a 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 Agricultural /Rural
(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 plan
to ensure water runoff has no negative impact on neighbouring properties.
Development Services Meeting Date. December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -33 Page 4 of 10
Page 107 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
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 northern portion of the proposed retained lands are regulated by the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority, who have been circulated on this application for commenting. Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority has advised that, although this property contains a watercourse,
associated floodplain, meanderbelt, and Provincially Significant Wetland, they have no objection to
the proposal. Further, the proposed severed lands are located entirely outside of the regulated area
and, additionally, the majority of the lands proposed to be retained are located outside of the
regulated area. Therefore, any future development proposed for both the proposed retained and the
proposed severed lands may take place entirely outside of the regulated area.
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 that 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.
Countv of Simcoe Official Plan
In analyzing this Consent Application, Township staff reviewed the County of Simcoe Official Plan.
Specifically, Section 3.6 contains Agricultural policies that are required to be considered in assessing
the proposed technical severance application. Section 3.6.6 states that "New lots ... should generally
not be less than 35 hectares or the original survey lot size, whichever is lesser ..."
As stated above, the proposed lands to be severed merged with the majority of the proposed lands to
be retained in 1947 and, prior to that time, the proposed severed lands were separately conveyable
as an 11.5 acre (4.65 hectare) parcel. It is noted that, at 80.5 acres and 11.5 acres, respectively, the
proposed lands to be retained and lands to be severed are both considered to meet the minimum lot
size requirements of Table 134A of the Township's Zoning By -Law for general, specialized, and
intensive agricultural uses, which require up to a minimum of 4.0 hectares of land.
It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the proposed development generally conforms to the
policies of the County Official Plan.
Development Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -13-33 Page 5 of 10
Page 108 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
Provincial Policy Statement
The intent of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 is to build strong and healthy communities, while
promoting efficient land use and development patterns.
Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 contains policies for Agriculture and, specifically,
Section 2.3.4 contains policies for "Lot Creation and Lot Adjustments" states that "[lot] creation in
prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may only be permitted for: a) agricultural uses, provided
that the lots are of a size appropriate for the type of agricultural use(s) common in the area and are
sufficiently large to maintain flexibility for future changes in the type of agricultural operations ". The
Application for Consent proposes to re- create a parcel of land that was once separately conveyable,
through the severance of 11.5 acres (4,65 hectares) from an existing 92 acre (37.2 hectare) parcel,
all of which, based on a site inspection from Planning staff, appears to be used for agricultural
purposes. The Township's comprehensive Zoning By -law requires a minimum lot area of 2.0
hectares for an agricultural use, and 4.0 hectares for a specialized or an intensive agricultural use.
The proposed lot size of -the severed lands would be considered to be able to accommodate 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 proposes the recreation of an 11.5 acre (4.65 hectare) lot
by way of a technical severance, could continue to be used for an agricultural use in accordance with
the Township's Zoning By -Law, and the proposal is considered to be consistent with the Provincial
Policy Statement, 2005.
Places to Grow
Planning staff has reviewed the application for consent in the context of the Places to Grow policies of
the Provincial Government, introduced in 2006. The proposed consent would recreate a lot that
previously existed as a separately conveyable lot, which was merged on title as a result of having
been acquired by the owner of an adjacent property. Policy 2.2.9 of the Places to Grow policies
contain provisions that allow for residential development to occur outside of settlement areas in
accordance with Policy 2.2.2.1 i), which states that "Population and employment growth will be
accommodated by ... directing development to settlement areas, except ... rural land uses that
cannot be located in settlement areas". As stated above, the proposed lot to be re- created by way of
a technical severance appear to be used for agricultural purposes.
As further stated above, the policies in the Official Plan for the Township contemplate technical
severances, provided that their purpose is to recreate a lot which once existed as a separate
conveyable lot.
On this basis, the proposal appears to generally conform with the Places to Grow policies of the
Provincial Government.
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -8 -33
Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Page 6 of 10
Page 109 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
Township of Oro - Medonte 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 80.5 acres of retained
lands and 11.5 acres of proposed severed lands, as separate lots, would both comply with the
minimum lot frontage and minimum lot area provisions of the Zoning By -Law, to permit agricultural
uses on each property.
Therefore, the application is considered to comply with the provisions of the Township's Zoning By-
Law.
CONSULTATIONS:
Public Works Department —
Building Department —
Engineering Department —
County of Simcoe -
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority — No objection
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1 — Location Map
Schedule 2 — Context Map
Schedule 3 — Application Drawing
CONCLUSION:
On the basis of the timeline provided by the applicant, which asserts that the lot to be re- created
previously existed as a separately conveyable parcel of land, it is the opinion of -the Planning Division
that the proposal in Consent application 2010 -B -33 is considered to generally conform with the
Official Plan, and maintain compliance with the provisions of the Zoning By -Law.
Respectfully submitted:
& 0�,k
Alan Wiebe
Planner
Development Services
Application No. 2010 43-33
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Page 7 of 10
Page 110 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2010 -8 -33 (McConney)
OLD BARRIE ROAD 1
E E-
15116 SIDEROAD
w
z
w
z
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Development Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -13-33 Page 8 of 10
Page 111 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
SCHEDULE 2: CONTEXT MAP
2010 -B -33 (McConney)
z
Proposed Severed Lands
Proposed Retained Lands
Development Services
Application No. 2010 -B -33
X-�
Z
S1DERo
Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Page 9 of 10
Page 112 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
SCHEDULE 3: APPLICATION DRAWING
2010-13-33 (McConney)
P A R
L•
IPART
3A
it
PART 4—
S
iPA WT Z...r-
I'Arl—f
j -Ve
Development Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -33 Page 10 of 10
Page 113 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
SHIRLEY PARTRIDGE REGISTRY SERVICES INC.
168 LAKESHORE ROAD WEST
R.R. # 1, ORO STATION, ON LOL 2EO
November 30th, 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:
Re: Fraser Hardy McConney
Application for Technical Severance
Part of East Half Lot 16, Concession 8 Township of Oro - Medonte
Part of PIN 58540- 0015(LT)
Fraser Hardy McConney is the registered owner of the Part of the East Half of
Lot 16 Concession 8, Part of Lot 15 Concession 8, and Part of the original Road
Allowance between Lots 15 and 16 Concession 8 in the former Township of Oro.
The Crown Patent for the East Half of Lot 16, Concession 8 was granted to
Thomas David McConkey on October 24tt', 1872. He conveyed the said East
Half to Dougald McCuaig and Finlay McCuaig later that year. The McCuaig's
conveyed the west part of the East Half (50 acres) to James Morrison on June
19th, 1875. Mr. Morrison transferred a small parcel to the Trustees of School
Section No. 8 in 1880. Mr. Morrison disappears from title in 1882, and Robert
Paisley appears on title in 1887 by virtue of a Mortgage in 1887 to The London
and Canadian Loan & Agency Company Limited. There is an actual break in the
chain of title at this point as there is no evident connection between Morrison and
Paisley.
In 1915, Robert Paisley conveyed an additional portion to School Section No. 8.
The balance of the lands appear to stay in the Paisley name until Robert Hilton
Paisley (son of Robert Paisley) conveys the entire parcel comprised of Part of
Lots 15 and 16, Concession 8 to Joseph and Jean Briggs in 1951. In 1957 when
Mr. and Mrs. Briggs transfer the lands to Francis Neil Briggs, Mr. Paisley
deposited a Declaration on title setting out the details of the unique nature of his
family's tenure on these lands. In the final paragraph of that Declaration he
declares "until recently (1956) 1 was unaware that my late father did not have
registered title to all of the lands...I am now of the firm belief that my late father
failed either by ignorance or inadvertence to register his deed to these lands."
Page 114 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
The same Mortgage by Robert Paisley in 1887 was also registered on part of Lot
15, Concession 8. Lot 15 was patented separately in 1841 to the Canada
Company, and subsequently conveyed to Gilbert Bell. Mr. Bell split part of the
west part and part of the east part off in 1854. The center portion (which part Mr.
McConney currently owns) was conveyed by Bell to Henry Shaw in 1874 who
then quit claimed it back in 3 months. Gilbert Bell then transferred 26 acres of
the center portion to Archibald Currie in 1875, and 53 acres to his son, Gilbert Jr.
in 1876. That 53 acre parcel was subsequently conveyed to James Morrison in
1877 and follows the same fate as Morrison's interest in the east part of Lot 16,
Concession 8; ending up in the name of Robert Paisley. The portion owned by
Currie (26 acres) was conveyed to a son of Robert Paisley (David) in 1904 and
followed through the Paisley family by various registrations culminating with the
deed to Robert Hilton Paisley who then registered his Declaration in 1957
explaining the sequence of his family's ownership of these lands.
The portions of Lot 15 and 16, Concession 8 currently owned by Fraser Hardy
McConney effectively merged in 1947 when Robert Hilton Paisley acquired part
of Lot 15 from his brother John as he had already been in possession of and had
paid the taxes on the entire parcel since 1914.
As referenced earlier, the entire parcel was conveyed to Joseph and Jean Briggs
in 1951, and then by them to Francis Neil Briggs in 1957. 1n 1993, Lloyd and
Maria Squire acquire the said parcel which is then enhanced by the addition of
part of the original Road Allowance between the East Half of Lots 15 and 16,
Concession 8 in 2000. This portion of the road was closed by the Township in
1983. Douglas McDougall purchased all of the lands owned by the Squire's on
the north side of the 15/16 Sideroad in June, 2000. He then conveyed the parcel
to Fraser Hardy McConney on June 11th, 2003.
The spouse of Mr. McConney, Michele Caroline Ethier purchased the original
"school" lands in 1985, and conveyed them to herself and her husband in 1989.
To avoid the merger of title with the acquisition of the much larger portion
surrounding this parcel, the "school" lands were transferred into the name of
Michele Caroline McConney alone in 2003.
Mr. McConney wishes to re- establish the boundary between part of the East Half
of Lot 16 and part of Lot 15 as established by the Crown Patents. The portion of
the Road Allowance between Lots 15 and 16 described as Part 3, Plan 51R-
23810 shall be added to that portion of Lot 15, Concession 8 adjacent to the
north and west. There has been no change in the boundaries of the entire parcel
since Mr. McConney's acquisition.
Y s very tf
irley P rtri�t-;"
Presiders smrley Partridge Registry Services Inc.
Page 115 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
DL^
Ow
..
1 i
,b
6
it ul
b
It
4j'
p
6
!+a
�.
Gi
1es
1
m
G
0004
IAA
. +!?.t:rAl7;Ea�i!3`".r�.F_i: :`•C.:r;"`+. r g �'iG .'G
R�1
``
�s
cS
Ul l'+ � lY\ S -•-
e
1�C•r1�110
to
� \e
E 4i
0003 J I
0005—
�b [
-h•. �
I It 1 e CS:
I
I
rri is e
I
..I,.
c "ham \o'.:p
'G•
Q
�•
Q
u+
6; w
w
0048
,tom
I
DL^
y
• 0045 i"
1 i
,b
6
it ul
b
It
4j'
p
6
!+a
�.
1es
1
m
0004
!i'i''h`'l)
. +!?.t:rAl7;Ea�i!3`".r�.F_i: :`•C.:r;"`+. r g �'iG .'G
R�1
``
�s
cS
e
1�C•r1�110
to
� \e
0005—
�b [
Page 116 of 139
00%��
r
O
O
U
aA
%%.000 z
M0
M
m �
O
O LU
W
N
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
v� �,'. F J� � 41 f L•� ��` �C� ®� \ a� Y 3��ja� ��I� _.. Y�"
• `
sg °bs
N
r-- ,1,2
" ate ter,
Page 117 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
Page 118 of 139
" i
y7: g
%%,.000
N
M
M
m
C)
O
N
I�
d
a
ai.
Page 118 of 139
1
r
L
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
Page 120 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
Page 121 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
Page 122 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
_v r
IX
t
Page 123 of 139
O's
1n
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
Page 125 of 139
Mull 6015
•
Rs ��4rr' i
C.
h9
S.
a
Page 125 of 139
5f) - 2010 -B -33 - Fraser Hardy McConney
17...
{
41
Ln
Cte .164 n� �
M
co
8,
1N ?`
t° �y
Page 126 of 139
5g) - 2010 -13-35 - Granite Hill Forestry In...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
Pro�i,I Hrriiugr, Exdlh, 1,0—
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2010 -13-35
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Meeting Date:
Subject: Consent Application
Motion #
December 16, 2010
(Granite Hill Forestry Inc.)
Block B of Plan 1650
&
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346- 020 - 005 -04050
Block C of Plan M29
D10 -41058
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision:
1. That three copies of a Registered 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 22 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.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing a boundary adjustment to convey approximately 0.15 hectares (0.37
acres) from the subject property to the neighbouring residential lot to the south being 22 Snowshoe
Trail. No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of application 2010 -B -35 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: December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -13-35 Page 1 of 5
Page 127 of 139
5g) - 2010 -13-35 - Granite Hill Forestry In...
approximately 0. 15 hectares. The subject lands are proposed to be added to the adjacent lands to the
south (22 Snowshoe Trail). No new building lot is proposed to be created as a result of the lot
addition.
I FINANCIAL: I
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Township of Oro- Medonte Official Plan?
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 Policv 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 permit conservation uses, forestry uses and golf
courses. None of these uses currently exists on the portion of the property that is proposed to be
Development Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -13-35 Page 2 of 5
Page 128 of 139
5g) - 2010 -13-35 - Granite Hill Forestry In...
conveyed to 22 Snowshoe Trail. The lot to be enhanced, being 22 Snowshoe Trail, is zoned
Residential One (R1) 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 -113-35 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:
Steven cfr'quharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Reviewed
Glenn White
Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -B -35 Page 3 of 5
Page 129 of 139
5g) - 2010 -B -35 - Granite Hill Forestry In
Attachment #1: LOCATION MAP
ILLE, IEW
Lu
Z.
LL)
ZI
EL
w
L)
U3
0
Zo
E] F22 Snowshoe Tr
01 Proposed Retained Lands
F-1
Proposed Lands to be Conveyed to 22 Snowshoe Trail]
Z Z Z Z
Development Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010-13-35 Page 4 of 5
Page 130 of 139
5g) - 2010 -B -35 - Granite Hill Forestry In
Attachment #2- (Lands to be Conveyed)
Development Services Meeting Date: December 16, 2010
Application No. 2010 -13-35 Page 5 of 5
Page 131 of 139
5g) - 2010 -13-35 - Granite Hill Forestry In...
Page 132 of 139
SHEET 7
1
dN
W
REG P
0323
g�
2 03C 033E
' . � t � REO P OSSO W to � 02)9 d .' Offi0
® G.50
0.%i .'PLLY 5/Pn5A
y T R MOONSTONE CRESCENT g,
039 0350
asn g
QS'9 0335 �
a399
"
e
1e
�
a
03K
R 0339 � gyp
ry�
W
OJH
0
0.1 0
P�(4 a �2
bP` 9
?
y <, CA nE6 P /usfi
0318 � Qbd '
s � x
9tLt'� '�` ei }4�9 D_ffi 03d 1l
6 0�5
q�' OIBp
d`
O.YO 0308
fi 6 � NPay \ gf'k+ 0.4BI
•� °"
I
off•. iz....
%
5
F
�
+,�
4
°b9
^ ---- .._'_-_
,`.
aim � _.� --e,.✓ '.�_.i �,,,
p �p Ck
BLtt'X 25 �.N "N 'Pif'
SHEET 5 e
,
v
F
0E
CD CONSUMER AND "" a,ana
O MINISTRY OF�..s
o
N
az"
�.ry aGNO._.._
v COMMERCIAL PROPERTY INDEX MAP
W
_
ONTARIO RELATIONS BLOCK 58523
ew
HIS wOEx MAP SHOWS ALL TOWNSHIP OF
PROPERTIES EXISTING IN xn.imk mwsm. "... wn "w sw no >e.
=
m
BLOCK 58523 - SHEET 8 ORO- MEDONTEw.p
ON JULY 1. 2000.
m
umm�c�aiassawr __________
COUNTY OF SIMCOE -m " " "` ""
w
SCALE (OFFICE 51)„ "„
1500
Page 132 of 139
5g) - 2010 -B -35 - Granite Hill Forestry In
Page 133 of 139
5g) - 2010 -B -35 - Granite Hill Forestry In
Page 134 of 139
IV
T+ _
m 3 x
"'nasz' °as e s'°�!g °.:..
Page 134 of 139
5g) - 2010 -B -35 - Granite Hill Forestry In
Page 135 of 139
+r
— �'!�? — =_ �
_
�` —.. J-s -� �y 1 • � i •.J=
�� .
lei
•
- 'may- ..-
Page 135 of 139
5g) - 2010 -B -35 - Granite Hill Forestry In
It
y O•^ ��� _ _ _ V dye 1
MWAINOW a
• ! .war a�' � �
• � ��;_ `` � � �� - +:sue: , }-
I
Page 136 of 139
5g) - 2010 -B -35 - Granite Hill Forestry In
Page 137 of 139
5g) - 2010 -B -35 - Granite Hill Forestry In
Page 138 of 139
(n
1
•
LL
.
1
4-j
(f)
1-4
0
00
4-j
0
LO
4-j
CY)
(f)
m
uj
1
C)
Page 138 of 139
5g) - 2010 -B -35 - Granite Hill Forestry In...
Page 139 of 139
lad
.11
h
•
1CC_Vr__r .. -
—wr -,ire „ �����luai .��„"�1t+ciRiaar•a.,w. <... µ.,. ,.
_b
Page 139 of 139