07 21 2011 CofA Agendai
Township of
Proud Heritage, Exciting Future
Page
THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING AGENDA
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday, July 21, 2011
10:00 A.M.
1. OPENING OF MEETING:
2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA:
a) Motion to Adopt the Agenda.
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST:
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
3 -9 a) Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday, June 16,
2011.
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
10 -27 a) 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babiy
54 and 56 Stanley Avenue, Plan 626, Lots 227, 228 and 229
Permit the creation of a new residential lot by way of severance in conjunction
with Variance Applications 2011 -A -08 and 2011 -A -09.
2011 -A -08 (Revised) and 2011 -A -09 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison,
Joanne Babiy
54 and 56 Stanley Avenue, Plan 626, Lots 227, 228 and 229
Relief from the minimum lot area and lot frontage requirements for the creation
of a new residential lot and the retained lands in conjunction with Consent
Application 2011 -B -06.
28 -39 b) 2011 -A -19 - Christopher Frank
67 Lakeshore Road East, Plan 798, Lots 33 & 34
Relief from Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone, Table B1 - Minimum Rear Yard
Setback (Proposed Deck)
40 -49 c) 2011 -A -21 - Lori Femdley
1 Crawford Street, Plan 807, North Part of Lot 14
Relief from Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone, Minimum Exterior Side Yard
Setback (Addition and Deck).
50 -67 d) 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot 2, RP 51 R- 31848, Part 1 RP 51 R33292, Parts 3 & 4
Relief from Agricultural /Rural Exception 142 (A /RU *142) Zone, Setbacks for
Structures from the Average High Water Mark of Lake Simcoe, Maximum
Height of Boathouses (Swimming Pool).
Page 1 of 127
Page
Committee of Adjustment Meeting Agenda - July 21, 2011.
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
68 -100 e) 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road East, Plan 655, Lot 10
Relief from Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone, Maximum Height, Maximum Lot
Coverage, Maximum Floor Area (Detached Accessory Building).
101 -113 f) 2011 -A -16 - Doug Austgarden and Michelle Cellucci
191 Lakeshore Road West, Plan 807, Lot 27 (Former Township of Oro)
Relief from Non - Complying Buildings /Structures and Relief from Shoreline
Residential (SR) Zone (Boathouse).
114 -127 g) 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East Part of Lot 28, Concession 3, RP 51 R28760,
Parts 5 & 6, (Oro)
Relief from Section 5.6g), Maximum Height (Two- Storey Boathouse).
6. NEW BUSINESS:
7. NOTICE OF MOTION:
None.
8. NEXT MEETING DATE:
Friday, August 19, 2011.
9. ADJOURNMENT:
a) Motion to Adjourn.
Page 2 of 127
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thu...
�� l
7'ou� h j
1 rraud Heritage, Exciting Framer
Thursday, June 16, 2011
THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING MINUTES
Council Chambers
Time: 10:07 a.m.
Moved by Hastings, Seconded by Macpherso
It is recom the agenda for the Committee of Adjustment meeting of Thursday,
June 16, 1 be rec d and ted.
Carried.
a) Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday, May 19, 2011.
Motion No. CA110616 -2
Moved by Johnson, Seconded by Macpherson
It is recommended that the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting of Thursday,
May 19, 2011 be adopted as printed and circulated.
Carried.
Page 1 of 7
Page 3 of 127
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thu...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes — June 16, 2011
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS:
a) 2010 -A -18 - Robert E. Drury
170 Line 1 North, Part East ' /z Lot 12, Concession 1, Plan 51 R- 27532, Part 1 (Former
Township of Oro)
Request to recognize an existing dwelling being within the required rear yard setback in
the Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone.
Robert Drury, applicant, was present.
Motion No. CA110616 -3
Moved by Macpherson, Seconded by Johnson
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves Variance Application 2010 -
A-18, being to recognize an existing dwelling which is located within the required 30 metre
setback to the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone, be reduced to 0 metres, and a rear year
setback reduced from the required 8.0 metres to 7.7 metres. Subject to the following
conditions:
1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provides verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the existing dwelling does not
exceed 7.7 metres to the rear lot line.
2. And That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application
and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee.
Carried.
Page 2 of 7
Page 4 of 127
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thu...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes — June 16, 2011
b) 2011-A-14- Sandra and Tibor Harmathy
641 Line 13 North, Concession 14, West Part Lot 13
Request for relief from maximum height, increase in situation of non - compliance and
building or structure within 30 metres of Environmental Protection (EP) Zone.
Rod Young, agent, was present.
Motion No. CA110616 -4
Moved by Macpherson, Seconded by Johnson
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves Variance Application 2011 -
A-14, specifically, to permit the reduction in the minimum required setback from the limit of
the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone, from thirty (30) metres to zero (0) metres for
buildings and structures on the subject property, subject to the following conditions:
1. That, notwithstanding Table B5, and Sections 5.16.1 c), and Section 5.28 of Zoning By-
law 97 -95, the single detached dwelling on the subject property shall comply with all
other applicable provisions of Zoning By -law 97 -95.
2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision:
a. 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 footprint of the dwelling will not exceed
approximately 210.12 square metres; and
b. verifying in writing by real property report, that the height of the dwelling will not
exceed approximately 11.0 metres.
3. That the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals, if required, from Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority.
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 7
Page 5 of 127
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thu...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes — June 16, 2011
c) 2011 -A -15 - Harold Huber
21 Lakeshore Road East, Plan 627, Lot 9 (Former Township of Oro)
Request for relief from accessory structures and uses permitted locations (setback
distance equal to front yard), maximum lot coverage and setback of approximately 12.0
metres from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe.
Andrew McIntyre, agent, was present. He advised that the new property owner, Randy
Bosse, had provided authorization to continue with the application.
Garry Potter, neighbour, requested that the conditions imposed by the Committee include
the requirement for a privacy screen at the end of the deck, that the new deck be required to
be no higher than the existing deck, that the setback be reduced to 13 metres and that the
depth of the proposed deck be no greater than 3.6 metres.
Motion No. CA110616 -5
Moved by Hastings, Seconded by Macpherson
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approves Variance Application 2011 -
A -15, specifically, being to reduce the required setback to the average high water mark of
Lake Simcoe from 20 metres to 13.0 metres for a the construction of a deck and for an
addition onto the existing private garage, which is proposed reduce the required front yard
setback from 7.5 metres to 5.5 metres and increase the lot coverage to 6% for accessory
buildings in the SR Zone, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the size and setbacks of the proposed deck be in conformity with the sketches
submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with
the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to
pouring of the foundation so that:
i. The deck be located no closer than 13.0 metres from the average high water mark of
Lake Simcoe;
ii. The proposed private garage be located no closer than 5.5 metres from the front lot
line;
3. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the
Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for
within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
4. That the applicant submits to the satisfaction of Township and the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority a tree planting plan.
5. And That the applicant obtain approvals, if required, from the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority.
Carried.
Page 4 of 7
Page 6 of 127
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thu...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes — June 16, 2011
d) 2011 -B -10 -Stephen and Marsha Sperling
364 Shanty Bay Road, Part of Lots 22, 23 and 24, North Side of Monk Street, Plan
1(Former Township of Oro)
Request to permit an easement for an existing buried Bell Canada cable.
Tania Batchuarova, agent, was present.
The Committee received correspondence dated June 15, 2011 from Marion Elliott, Dean
and Kurt Stauffer.
Motion No. CA110616 -6
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Macpherson it
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional approval to Consent
Application 2011 -B -10, being to permit an easement having an area of approximately 0.012
hectares for a buried Bell Canada cable.
Subject to the following conditions: X Am
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for
the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. And That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year
from the date of the giving of the notice.
Carried.
Page 5 of 7
Page 7 of 127
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thu...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes — June 16, 2011
e) 2011 -B -11 -Terrace Hill Homes Inc.
Part of Lots 22, 23 and 24, North Side of Monk Street, Plan 1(Former Township of Oro)
Request to permit an easement for an existing buried Bell Canada cable.
Tania Batchuarova, agent, was present.
Motion No. C110616 -7
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Hastings
It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional approval to Consent
Application 2011 -B -10, being to permit an easement having an area of approximately 0.012
hectares for a buried Bell Canada cable.
Subject to the following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Registered Reference Plan indicating the lands subject to the
easement be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary -
Treasurer;
2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for
the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. And That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year
from the date of the giving of the notice.
Carried.
Page 6 of 7
Page 8 of 127
4a) - Minutes of Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thu...
Committee of Adjustment Minutes — June 16, 2011
6. NEW BUSINESS:
a) OMB Appeal - 2011 -B -09, William and Loretta Crawford, 432 Line 7 South, Technical
Severance.
Motion No. C110616 -8
Moved by Macpherson, Seconded by Johnson
It is recommended that the verbal information presented by Steven Farquharson, Secretary
Treasurer, re: OMB Appeal - 2011 -B -09, William and Loretta Crawford, 432 Line 7 South,
Technical Severance be received.
7. NOTICE OF MOTION:
8. NEXT MEETING DATE:
Thursday, July 21, 2011 at 10:00 a.m'
9. ADJOURNMENT:
a) Motion to Adjourn
Motion No. C110616 -9
Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Macpherson
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 11 47 a.m.
Larry Tupling, Chair
Carried.
Carried.
Steven Farquharson, Secretary Treasurer
Page 7 of 7
Page 9 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
Y.oed Floimge, G.enti�� Furwn•
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2011 -B -06
Steven Farquharson,
2011 -A -08
Intermediate Planner
2011 -A -09
Meeting Date:
Subject: Consent and Variance
Motion #
July 21, 2011
Applications
(Alexander and Ronald Mollison
and Joanne Babiy)
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346- 010 - 010 -2070
Plan 626, Lots 227, 228 and 229
D10 -41467
54 and 56 Stanley Avenue
D13 -41469
(Former Township of Oro)
D13 -41468
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of Consent Application 2011 -B -06 is to create a new residential lot fronting Stanley
Avenue. The land to be severed would have approximately 20.3 metres of frontage on Stanley
Avenue, a lot depth of approximately 36 metres and an area of 0.08 hectares. The proposed retained
lands would have a lot frontage of approximately 27.9 metres and a lot area of approximately 0.1
hectares. Consent Application 2011 -B -06 is to be considered in conjunction with Minor Variance
Applications 2011 -A -08 and 2011 -A -09, which are proposing to recognize the deficiency in lot
frontage and area for the severed lands in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The applicants are
also proposing a variance to the severed lot for the minimum first storey floor area for single detached
dwellings from the required 90 square metres to a proposed 80 square metres.
The application appeared before the Committee of Adjustment at the April 21, 2011 meeting, however
was deferred in order for the applicant to provide additional information to the Chief Building Official
regarding how the septic system would be accommodated on the lands. The applicant has provided
this material to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and therefore it is appropriate for the
applications to come before the Committee for their consideration.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of application 2011 -13-06 is to permit the creation of a new residential lot fronting onto
Stanley Avenue. The severed lot is proposed to have a frontage of 20.3 metres, and lot area 0.08
hectares. The land proposed to be retained would have a lot frontage of 27.9 metres and a lot area of
approximately 0.1 hectares. The purpose of Application 2011 -A -08 is to facilitate the creation of a lot
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -B -06
2011 -A -08
2011 -A -09 Page 1 of 10
Page 10 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
with a lot area and lot frontage deficiency of the minimum requirement for the SR Zone and first storey
floor area of a single detached dwelling. Variance Application 2011 -A -09, is to recognize the deficiency
in the lot frontage and area of the proposed retained lands of Consent Application 2011 -B -06.
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES/LEGISLATION:
Does the Consent conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated "Shoreline" by the Official Plan. The permitted uses within the
"Shoreline" designation include single detached dwellings, home occupations, and Bed and Breakfast
establishments. For the consideration of subdivision of land, Section D2 of the Official Plan contains
policies that are considered with every application to subdivide land in the Township. Section D2.2.1
contains the following general criteria for the Committee of Adjustment to consider:
"Prior to issuing provisional consent for a new lot for any purpose, 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 on a year -round
basis;
b) does not have direct access to a Provincial Highway or County Road, unless the Province or
the County supports the request;
c) will not cause a traffic hazard;
d) has adequate size and frontage for the proposed use in accordance with the Comprehensive
Zoning By -law and is compatible with adjacent uses;
e) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and means of sewage disposal;
f) will not have a negative impact on the drainage patterns in the area;
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;
h) will not have a negative impact on the features and functions of any ecological feature in the
area;
i) will not have a negative impact on the quality and quantity of groundwater available for other
uses in the area; and,
j) will conform to Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, as amended."
Staff, have reviewed these policies and have found that the proposed consent does not conform with
subsection (d), which is outlined below.
The proposed severed and retained lands are both within the SR Zone, which require 30 metres
of frontage and 0.2 hectares. The proposed retained lands and severed do not satisfy these
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -13-06
2011 -A-08
2011 -A -09 Page 2 of 10
Page 11 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
requirements, which is the reasoning for variance application 2011 -A -08 and 2011 -A -09. The
proposed retained lands are proposed to have a lot frontage of 27.9 metres, with a lot area of 0.10
hectares. The severed lands are proposed to have a frontage of 20.3 metres, with a lot area of
0.08 hectares.
It is acknowledged that there are similar lots in the area of the simular lot frontage and lot area, and
dwelling size to that of which the applicants are proposing, however these are considered non-
complying lots and structures. Section E1.6 of the Official Plan, allows for non - complying uses and
structures to continue to exist. Many of the surrounding lots in the area if they wanted to place an
addition or replace the existing dwelling would require the approval of the Committee of Adjustment.
Section E1.5.1 states "As a 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 be changed to a use which is in
conformity with the goals of the Official Plan and the intent of the implementing Zoning By -law. It is for
this reason that Council adopted By -law 97 -91, deeming Plan 626 no longer a registered plan of
subdivision which will be discussed in the Deeming By -law portion of this report. Therefore, the
creation of two non- conforming residential lots is not in keeping with the policies of the Official Plan.
It is staff's opinion that Consent Application 2011 -B -06 not satisfying Section D2.2.1 (d) and E1.5.1.
The applicants are proposing to create lots which will result in the proposed lots being deficient in lot
frontage and lot area.
Does the Consent comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The proposed lot is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone by Zoning By -law 97 -95. The proposed lot
size that the applicant has submitted is deficient in lot frontage and lot area requirements of the
Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The applicant is proposing a lot area of 0.08 hectares and lot
frontage of 20.3 metres for the severed lot, and a lot area of 0.10 hectares and a lot frontage of 27.9
metres for the retailed lands. The By -law requirement for minimum lot area is 0.2 hectares and the
minimum lot frontage requirement is 30 metres. The purpose of establishing a minimum lot area of
0.2 hectares in the SR Zone is to ensure that there is sufficient space for a single detached dwelling,
amenity space and septic system can be placed on the property. The applicant has indicated that
there is adequate land for the placement of a septic system, however the construction of a single
detached dwelling in compliance with the minimum first storey floor area requirement cannot be
achieved.
Section 5.17.1 of the Zoning By -law allows for lots that existed prior to the effective of the By -law 97-
95, that do not meet the lot area and /or lot frontage requirements to be permitted. However, the intent
of the Zoning By -law for establishing a standard for lot area and /or lot frontage is to ensure that
structures are able to be located on the property with sufficient distance away from lot lines, and
leaves the opportunity for further development on the lot for such structures as accessory building,
and additions onto existing dwellings. By allowing for the proposed applications, there would be the
creation of two deficient lots, which do not meet the intent of the Zoning By -law.
With respect to the proposed reduced minimum first storey floor area, it is the intent of the By -law to
ensure that new residential construction does not take the form of unduly small, seasonal, or
temporary dwellings, which may detract from the general character and aesthetics of the local
Development Services
Application No. 2011 -B -06
2011 -A -08
2011 -A -09
Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Page 3 of 10
Page 12 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
neighbourhood. The application at hand seeks to construct a 2 storey dwelling containing an
attached garage, and covered front porch. According to drawings submitted with the applications, the
first storey floor area, minus the garage and covered porch, is approximately 80.0 square metres.
This proposed dwelling size of approximately 80 square metres does not maintain the intent of the
Zoning By -law, if the applicants created a dwelling unit in compliance with the 90 square metre
requirement, additional variances would be required for encroachments into required yard setbacks.
As such, the proposed severance and variance requests do not meet the minimum standards of the
By -law and therefore does not meet the intent of the Zoning By -law.
Deeming By -law 97 -91
In 1997, The Township of Oro - Medonte passed deeming By -law 97 -91 for Registered Plan 626,
deeming it no longer a Plan of Subdivision. As a result of By -law 97 -91, Lots 227 and 228, merged
into one lot due to the lots being in the same ownership. The Deeming By -law was adopted by
Council, because the existing lots did not satisfy the current zoning standards. The intent of the
Deeming By -law was to facilitate the merging of lots thus creating larger lots which would meet the
requirement of the Zoning By -law in terms of lot frontage and area. These larger lots would also
provide the opportunity to build a new or expand existing dwellings which would meet or replace the
zoning standards for minimum first storey floor area and setbacks. The Deeming By -law supported
the goals of Section E1.5.1 of the Official Plan that non - conforming situations would generally be
phased out and change to being in conformity with the goals of the Official and the intent of the
implementing Zoning By -law. The proposed Consent and Variance applications are proposing to
create lots and an dwelling that would not meet the minimum provisions of the Zoning By -law.
County of Simcoe Official Plan
Section 3.4.1 states that where policies of local municipal Official Plan are considered more restrictive
to development than the policies of the County Official Plan, the more restrictive policies shall apply.
Due to the Township's Official Plan policies being more restrictive for lot creation, the Township's
policies apply.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services —
Building Department
Engineering Department
County of Simcoe-
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Schedule 1- Location Map
2. Schedule 2- Site Plan 2011 -A -08
3. Schedule 3- Proposed Dwelling 2011 -A -09
4. Schedule 4- Site Plan 2011 -A -09
5. Schedule 5- Proposed Dwelling 2011 -A -09
Development Services
Application No. 2011 -B -06
2011 -A -08
2011 -A -09
ng Date July 21, 2011
Page 4 of 10
Page 13 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
CONCLUSION:
Council passed Deeming By -law 97 -91 which deemed Registered Plan 626 to no longer be a plan of
subdivision. The intent was for the small deficient lots to merge over time into larger lots which would
meet the requirements of the Zoning By -law. The applicants lands did merge and now they are
proposing to create the subject and retained lands (lots) which do not meet the minimum standards of
the Zoning By -law in terms of lot frontage, lot area and proposing a new dwelling which does not
comply with the minimum first storey floor area provisions. It is acknowledged that there are other
existing lots in the area which are of similar size to the proposed lots resulting from these
applications. However, as stated above, it is the intent of the Official Plan that non - conforming lots
gradually be phased out. In the opinion of the Planning Department, Consent Application 2011 -B -06
does not meet the general intent of the Township Official Plan and therefore Variance Applications
2011 -A -08 and 2011 -A -09 do not satisfy the test of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted:
Steven Fa rs& B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Development Services
Application No. 2011 -B -06
2011 -A -08
2011 -A -09
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Page 5 of 10
Page 14 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2011 -B -06 and 2011 -A -08 and 2011 -A -09 ( Mollison and Babiy)
LAKE SIMCOE
Legend
®
VARIANCE APPUCATION 2011 -A-08 (SEVERED LANDS)
VARIANCEAPPUCATION 2011 -A -09 (RETAINED LANDS)
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -B -06
2011 -A -08
2011 -A -09 Page 6 of 10
Page 15 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
OL ;o L abed
L LOZ `LZ AInf ajea fu1isew
n
w
�W
_1
�I
III
los a
�an�e rvbw���a
39 Ql�nF7
uyy T
S 0A W110 L !tl 9) VLSI
1 (7Af4'tl) SKi9'¢ !'UGl9L) w7,6'L C S
I
I
I
� � I
puL' uos1110n) 80 -H- L LOz
NV-1d 311S z Din(13HOS
60-V-LLOU
80-v- L LOZ
90-9-1LOZ'ON uopeollddd
saolmag juawdolana❑
�I
I
w
w
N
w
J
Z
N
Sn
- --
Page 16 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
Page 17 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
OL ;o 6 abed
LLOZ `LZ Apr 9je(3 6ullseW
60-V-LLOZ
MY- L LOZ
90-9-L LOZ 'ON uoi;eoilddb
saoinaaS ;uauadojanaa
'an1e Hti
Z 2 ` {NaIJOryB
o �„r
oW �� 1 w m
WO1 j— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — -
w w
— m I
t�es� m.mm,:;unsra_ _ j
I - L
(iJ6�11J- 'JIBE£ � CUO9LJ wZ6'L
1
II
II
I'
i
�•.���.
`r— -- -- - - - - -- --�
(WING) urOm
Q�
1 I
i/w
I I I
I I
\
lit
I I
1
I y I
I
it
H
yy
1
J
ts
Z
1
—
4
--------- . -
I�
- -J=
I
(SbLBWJ WE4
1
NI
I
W m Q
.
U fl
I
Lv
I
I - L
(iJ6�11J- 'JIBE£ � CUO9LJ wZ6'L
1
II
II
I'
i
�•.���.
`r— -- -- - - - - -- --�
Q�
1 I
i/w
\
lit
I I
II
I
it
H
yy
1
J
(w9L'6LJ .9L•8 1
Z
1
y
--------- . -
I�
- -J=
I
(SbLBWJ WE4
9 I
1
w. (UBIJ WBY9
I
(Ape8 pue u061II0A) 60 -d- G We
NV-1d DES :6 3-ifla3HOS
Page 18 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
SCHEDULE 4: PROPOSED DWELLING
2011 -A -09 ( Mollison and Babiy)
VT
I
1
1
I -
1
y� }1
w�
�I
1
' a
da �
g �
N
70
M
1
;
l
i
;
;
I
;
I
; I
1
I
I
1 i '
1 1
1
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -B -06
2011 -A -08
2011 -A -09 Page 10 of 10
Page 19 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
Page 20 of 127
•
I 1 A
, :° 5t '�'� 1, ix�
4 f
1
�tt
Ir
� 1
S
x
IWO
• .
Kn
Page 20 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
Page 21 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
Page 22 of 127
M
h 1
t 1
r�
Y �
7
T
r
Page 22 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
Page 23 of 127
PIP
r
AW
' Y
1 f
I� i
N
r• r
` r
Page 23 of 127
f6
m
CO
O
0
Tom/
C I
O
CO
00
O
Q
O
N
CO
(.0
MO
W
I
l
O
N
W
L
0
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
Page 24 of 127
y
}
{
t
x�
Page 24 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
Page 25 of 127
F
CO
d
s-
iw
V
O
CO
W
O
O
A �K q�
'!
N
3 , in
♦ G� 7� kh N'4 i f*
t
CO�
{41n. t
L
W
I
,
k
O
4
N
Page 25 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
Page 26 of 127
5a) - 2011 -B -06 - Alexander and Ronald Mollison, Joanne Babi...
Page 27 of 127
R
Y
it
N.
Page 27 of 127
07 P qfllea/o�rt�
Proud Hcriruyns Lxciring Fnrrve
5b) - 2011 -A -19 - Christopher Frank
67 Lakeshore Road East, P...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2011 -A -19
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Meeting Date:
Subject: Variance Application
Motion #
July 21, 2011
(Christopher Frank)
Plan 798, Lots 33 & 34
67 Lakeshore Road East
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346- 010- 009 -4920
REQUIRED 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 the deck be located no closer than
approximately 4.8 metres from the rear lot line.
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and
sketches submitted and approved by the Committee;
3. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township only
after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning
Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to consider a Variance Application 2011 -A -19, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law in relation to reducing the minimum required rear yard
setback provision in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to construct a deck to the rear of the existing dwelling on the subject
property. The proposed deck is to be located approximately 4.8 metres from the rear lot line to the
south.
The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Required Proposed
Table B1 — Minimum Rear Yard Setback 7.5 metres 4.8 metres
FINANCIAL:
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2010
Application No. 2011 -A -19 Page 1 of 5
Page 28 of 127
5b) - 2011 -A -19 - Christopher Frank
67 Lakeshore Road East, P...
Not applicable.
I POLICIESILEGISLATION: I
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section C5.2 of the Plan states that
"permitted uses on lands designated Shoreline... are single detached dwellings [and accessory
buildings to such] ". Therefore, the addition of a deck to the rear of the existing dwelling would be
considered a permitted use.
On this basis the proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The Shoreline Residential Zone
permits single detached dwellings with either attached or stand alone decks. The purpose of the rear
yard setback is to provide a degree of separation between dwellings. The minimum required rear yard
setback in the SR Zone is 7.5 metres, with the applicant proposing a setback of 4.8 metres, it was
determined as a result of a site inspection, that the proposed deck, should not adversely impact the
separation between neighbouring dwellings to the rear of the property. In addition, the proposed deck
would otherwise meets with all other Zoning By -law provisions (such as maximum height, interior
setbacks) for dwelling units in the SR Zone.
Therefore, the variance is considered to comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed deck would appear to be appropriate for the desirable
development of the lot, and would be in keeping with the general characteristics of the surrounding
residential area. Further, the proposed deck not being located in an area which would require the
removal of any additional vegetation. It is also noted that the rear of the subject lands abuts O'Connell
Lane not another residential property. On this basis, the proposal is considered appropriate for the
desirable development of the subject lot.
Is the variance minor?
As this application is not anticipated to have an adverse affect on the character of the surrounding
residential area, and the neighboring dwellings, the proposed variance is considered to be minor.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services -
Building Department -
Engineering Department-
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2010
Application No. 2011 -A -19 Page 2 of 5
Page 29 of 127
5b) - 2011 -A -19 - Christopher Frank
67 Lakeshore Road East, P...
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Site Plan
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2011 -A -19, to construct a deck onto
the rear of the existing dwelling and to have the rear yard setback reduced from the required 7.5
metres to 4.8 metres, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted:
Steve �quKars'on, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Development Services
Application No. 2011 -A -19
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Meeting Date July 21, 2010
Page 3 of 5
Page 30 of 127
5b) - 2011 -A -19 - Christopher Frank
67 Lakeshore Road East, P...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2011 -A -19 (Frank)
SUBJECT LANDS- 67 Lakeshore Road East
W
Q
W
}
z
¢ z
m :D
W
m
Lie ARE
�r
i
LAKE SIMCOE
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2010
Application No. 2011 -A -19 Page 4 of 5
Page 31 of 127
5b) - 2011 -A -19 - Christopher Frank
67 Lakeshore Road East, P...
Page 32 of 127
SCHEDULE 2: SITE PLAN
2011 -A -19 (Frank)
100.
O//
ayj'
(1p
u►oy,
4
O
ro
tD
_
N
•0v�o iv
w
r
o
LEER
w..
•,rI
Cn
46
�
r
s
P%
a !
0
tD
too 'ar
a.
M
B
Development Services
Meeting Date July 21, 2010
Application No. 2011 -A -19
Page 5 of 5
Page 32 of 127
5b) - 2011 -A -19 - Christopher Frank
67 Lakeshore Road East, P...
Page 33 of 127
5b) - 2011 -A -19 - Christopher Frank
67 Lakeshore Road East, P...
Page 34 of 127
T
LFt
"•r, ��� ate
,w
•
I•
t
G tp�
L
f
fi3L
t�C
K
L
Page 34 of 127
5b) - 2011 -A -19 - Christopher Frank
67 Lakeshore Road East, P...
Page 35 of 127
t e
16 i
� � T
f -
� t
Page 35 of 127
5b) - 2011 -A -19 - Christopher Frank
67 Lakeshore Road East, P...
Page 36 of 127
5b) - 2011 -A -19 - Christopher Frank
67 Lakeshore Road East, P...
Page 37 of 127
grRYVF•'
a .. Sd ,.y � N X'J 1 ... �
f
tAX
r,
A
F �t
Page 37 of 127
5b) - 2011 -A -19 - Christopher Frank
67 Lakeshore Road East, P...
Page 38 of 127
5b) - 2011 -A -19 - Christopher Frank
67 Lakeshore Road East, P...
Page 39 of 127
Tm Wdp f
Proud Ftcrirnyr, E—i1mg Fiuerrc
5c) - 2011 -A -21 - Lori Femdley
Crawford Street, Plan 807, N...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2011 -A -21
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Meeting Date:
Subject: Variance Application
Motion #
July 21, 2011
(Lori Femdley)
1 Crawford Street
Plan 807, Lot 105
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346- 010- 008 -24700
(Oro)
D13 -41853
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision:
1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by verifying in writing that:
a. That the addition (including deck) to the single detached dwelling not be any closer than
approximately 6.47 metres from the exterior side lot line abutting Crawford Street
2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the
sketch submitted with the application and approved by the Committee;
3. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township only
after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning
Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to consider Variance Application 2011 -A -21, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law in relation to the minimum required exterior side yard
setback for a proposed addition onto an existing dwelling in the SR Zone. The subject property has a
road frontage of approximately 30 metres (98 feet) along Lakeshore Road West, and 35 metres on
Crawford Street, a lot depth of approximately 38 metres (124 feet), and a lot area of approximately
0.11 hectares (0.28 acres). The proposed addition is to have a floor area of 48.3 square metres,
which is to be constructed on the rear of the existing dwelling. The Township Zoning By -law requires
a 7.5 metre (24.6 feet), exterior side yard setback in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The
proposed addition to the single family dwelling is to be built a distance of 6.47 metres (21.2 feet), from
the exterior property line. The Zoning By -law specifies that when a lot has frontage on two public
roads the shorter of the two will be considered the front lot line. Due to Lakeshore Road having the
shortest frontage on public road, it is considered the front lot line, while Crawford Street is considered
the exterior lot line.
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -21 Page 1 of 5
Page 40 of 127
5c) - 2011 -A -21 - Lori Femdley
Crawford Street, Plan 807, N...
ANALYSIS:
PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition and deck to the existing dwelling. The proposed
addition is to be located approximately 6.47 metres from the exterior side lot line to the west.
The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Required Proposed
Table 131 — Minimum Exterior Side Yard 7.5 metres 6.47 metres
Setback
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section C5 which contains the Shoreline
policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives:
• To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area
The requested variance for an addition and deck onto an existing dwelling would appear to maintain
the character of the residential area. Therefore, the variance would conform to the general intent of
the policies contained in the Official Plan.
Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. The primary purpose of the exterior
yard setback is to provide adequate spacing between structures and the travelled portion of the road.
Upon a site inspection it was revealed that the existing dwelling is within the required setback,
however the addition is proposed to be further from the exterior lot line. The proposed addition and
deck meets with all other Zoning By -law provisions (such as maximum height, rear and interior side
yard setbacks) for dwelling units in the SR Zone.
Therefore, based on the above the variance is considered to maintain 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 proposed addition will be located approximately 11.23 metres from
the rear lot line, while the attached deck will be located approximately 8.72 metres. The site
inspection also revealed that the proposed addition and deck are not located on the travelled portion
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -21 Page 2 of 5
Page 41 of 127
5c) - 2011 -A -21 - Lori Femdley
Crawford Street, Plan 807, N...
of the road and that it is not within the required daylight triangle for a corner lot. The proposed
addition is not visible from Crawford Street due to the large cedar hedge along the exterior lot line.
The proposed addition and deck would be in keeping with character of the area. The proposed
location is clear of any tree vegetation, which will allow for the applicant to have no need for tree
removal.
On this basis, the proposal is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lot.
Is the variance minor?
As this application is deemed to conform with the Official Plan, maintain the intent of the Zoning By-
law and constitutes appropriate development, the variance is considered to be minor.
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services -
Building Department -
Engineering Department —
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Site Plan
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance application 2011 -A -21, being to reduce the
required exterior side yard from 7.5 metres to 6.47 metres for the construction on an addition and
deck to an existing dwelling, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted:
Steven Farquharson, 'B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -21 Page 3 of 5
Page 42 of 127
5c) - 2011 -A -21 - Lori Femdley
Crawford Street, Plan 807, N...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2011 -A -21 (Femdley)
SUBJECT LANDS- 1 CRAWFORD STR EET
Ll
r ~
a
Q
d�
U�
LAKE SI MC OE
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -21 Page 4 of 5
Page 43 of 127
5c) - 2011 -A -21 - Lori Femdley
1 Crawford Street, Plan 807, N...
SCHEDULE 2: SITE PLAN
2011 -A -21 (Femdley)
p� '0 AU WEST.
ti `FSB O p - T "AIMED ftD AQ)
(20. 12
2412
;0 C)
N
N
_O T
C �1
EU 0
OMPRBW
rr
cn �
D
OM ' 1 470%0.05N
O M
v q WNW)
Development Services
Application No. 2011 -A -21
s 97
E)M"NG t sly.
RWA & SIDES
OWIL NG
J
—1
p W.1
S
i � G.L.:
PR�OS771 1 57Y. L can J
S ADDI M
to
f
BAD G)
PRM1O® Dmx
N l
� m iJOS 9 �
MUM MItl*WAY m
9.33
9.75
• ° - 72.25 SIB(75�
rf
Z 3425
o �
? "-V
Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Page 5 of 5
Page 44 of 127
5c) - 2011 -A -21 - Lori Femd ley
1 Crawford Street, Plan 807, N...
Page 45 of 127
r
t �
•�A,���.
Jt k�fi f�mr� - q ,
•
•
I
XI
Page 45 of 127
5c) - 2011 -A -21 - Lori Femd ley
1 Crawford Street, Plan 807, N...
Page 46 of 127
5c) - 2011 -A -21 - Lori Femd ley
1 Crawford Street, Plan 807, N...
Page 47 of 127
q
a is r I ,� � '�) • . /
,
� 'a 'f,��., ','J:� �a a .. ►� � ..
d
y�
ILL
N
u
d
4 6
e
Page 47 of 127
5c) - 2011 -A -21 - Lori Femd ley
1 Crawford Street, Plan 807, N...
Page 48 of 127
fir. �� . �Y�• tt ��
bl
1
All
Page 48 of 127
5c) - 2011 -A -21 - Lori Femd ley
1 Crawford Street, Plan 807, N...
� 1
i
F.
•
11 A
c
..
c
s
u
r r Pty
Page 49 of 127
(�i�o%.i�en/
Proud kTo*,T,. F-IINg 1"'."
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2011 -A -20
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Meeting Date:
Subject: Variance Application
Motion #
July 21, 2011
(Greg and Nadia Bell)
Concession 2, Part of Lot 2, RP
51 R -31848 Part 1, 51 R -33292
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346-
Parts 3 &4
D13 -40654
Former Township of Oro
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision:
That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the
Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the
foundation by way of survey /real property report that:
a) only the proposed swimming pool be located no closer than approximately 53.2 metres
from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe;
b) That the height of the proposed boathouse not exceed 5.4 metres from the average
high water mark of Lake Simcoe
2. That the setback for the proposed swimming pool and boathouse be in conformity with the
dimensions as set out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the
Committee;
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 by the Planning Act
R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to consider a Variance Application 2011 -A -20, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law in relation to reducing the minimum required setback from
the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe for a swimming pool, and the maximum height for a
boathouse.
Development Services
Application No. 2011 -A -20
Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Page 1 of 7
Page 50 of 127
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to construct a swimming pool in the rear yard of a two - storey dwelling. The
applicant is requesting relief from By -law 2004 -118, which specifies that no structures including
swimming pools be located within 65 metres of the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe. The
applicant is also proposing to construct a single storey boathouse with a proposed height of 5.4 metres.
The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Zone: Agricultural /Rural Exception 142 (A/RU *142) Zone Required Proposed
Setbacks for Structures (including swimming pools) from the
Average High Water Mark of Lake Simcoe 65 m 53.2 m
Section 5.6(e) Maximum Height of Boathouses 4.5 m 5.4 m
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline, Rural and Environmental Protection Two overlay in the Official
Plan. The proposed swimming pool and boathouse are to be located in the Shoreline designation.
Section C5.2 of the Official Plan states that "permitted uses on lands designated Shoreline ... are
single detached dwellings ". Therefore, the construction of a swimming pool and boathouse would be
considered accessory permitted uses.
On this basis, the proposal is considered to confirm to the general intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -law?
The subject property is located in the Agricultural /Rural Exception 142 (A/RU *142). Permitted uses in
the A/RU *142 Zone include single detached dwellings. The zoning of the property to the A/RU *142
was put in place as a result of By -law 2004 -118, which required that all buildings and structures
including pools to be located a minimum of 65 metres from the average high water mark of Lake
Simcoe. The intent By -law 2004 -118, was to ensure there was consistency setback of structures
along the shoreline in this area. The proposed swimming pool will be located approximately 53.2
metres from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe. The purpose of the required setback from
the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe is to:
• protect the natural features of the shoreline within the general area, and of the shoreline on
the subject property;
• maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system;
• ensure that development does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to flooding;
and
• ensure that development does not occur on hazardous slopes.
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -20 Page 2 of 7
Page 51 of 127
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
Based on the drawings submitted with the application, the proposed swimming pool would be setback
53.2 metres from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe, which will maintain the general intent
of ensuring that structures (include swimming pools) are consistently located further away from the
shoreline.
One of the purposes of regulating the location and height of boathouses along Lake Simcoe is to
prevent over - development of the shoreline frontage which may lead to the shoreline being dominated
by the boathouse structures and ultimately impacting the character of the shoreline. The proposed
boathouse meets the setback provisions of the By -law and the percentage of water frontage occupied
by the structure. The boathouse structure does exceed 4.5 metres, however the proposed boathouse
height will exceed the maximum height standard by 0.9 metres. Boathouse height is calculated from
the average high water mark not just the height of the boathouse structure. The proposed single
storey boathouse with a roof top deck will remain, visually, secondary to the proposed dwelling, will
not dominate the shoreline, and will not impact the potential views from adjacent lands.
On this basis the variance is deemed to conform to the general intent of the Zoning by -law
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has advised that it has no objection to the
application, subject to the applicant obtaining a permit from the LSRCA prior to the issuance of a
building permit, and that proper erosion and sediment control measures must be in place prior to any
site alteration.
On this basis, the proposal is considered to comply with the general intent of the Zoning By -Law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the above, the application to reduce the required setback from Lake Simcoe to permit the
construction of a swimming pool appears to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot,
as proposed swimming pool, will be placed in a location on the property which maintained the
character of the area with the surrounding structures on neighbouring lots.
Based on the site inspection, the proposed boathouse height would appear to be appropriate for the
desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding shoreline area. It should be
noted that there are mature trees located along both interior property lines of the proposed boathouse
which will provide a visual buffer to the neighboring property.
Given that the proposed boathouse height will not result in the over - development of the subject lot,
and that the swimming pool will ensure a consistent setback of structures along the shoreline, the
proposal is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot.
Is the variance minor?
As this application is not anticipated to have an adverse affect on the character of the surrounding
shoreline residential area, the proposed variances is considered to be minor.
Development Services
Application No. 2011 -A -20
Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Page 3 of 7
Page 52 of 127
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services -
Building Department —
Engineering Department —
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) — No objection Comments Attached
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Site Plan
Schedule 3: Boathouse
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2011 -A -20, to reduce the required
setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe, from 65 metres to 53.2 metres for a
swimming pool, and the construction of a boathouse with a height of 5.4 metres appears to meet the
four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted:
Steven Farquharson, B.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Development Services
Application No. 2011 -A -20
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Page 4of7
Page 53 of 127
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2011 -A -21 (Greg and Nadia Bell)
ff SUBJECT LANDS
LAKE SI MCOE
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -20 Page 5 of 7
Page 54 of 127
L 10 g abed
L LOZ `LZ Apr a ;ea 6uj;eeW
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
OZ-V -MZ *ON uoi;eoijddd
Saoin.aaS }uawdojanaa
--.��. a, _ rF rg.z— ptyrNV7d Z 121Yd '" T t R lit
tt
lk
�1 u
y 66
e-
__,
g i i elf 1 Tn � c� � •'`°. 2 � < < 0� ff8.��� � eo
$ f � If' p o • _3 ct
g
r
t "r ''� `• � , •°� ter, } •' . �"� � �.R 1
.1
kkll-
Sat
lk
LU 9i
la
+ �k+ 'r � �'41. 1 o°e tinn°Eo�o � .�') i ° { g � • I': � (li
_ is rl � < e`a ice, •�•)Jr a �a t`r.�3 � �'� _�
yt,! ro
__ , � � �0 4 � � Wt• x�ya>� �d a3saao�d ., r7- �r-;
� � '� _ an [9�M�Y613S�ft0�d Q35DdDl�"
a
aw '"d 13N 3115
(1108 72IPeN Puu 60J9) 2 -`d-I IN
NV1d 311S :z 3,lf1a3HOS
Page 55 of 127
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
L ;0 L abed
OZ-W -L LOZ 'ON u011e3ijddy
LLOZ `LZ Apr etua 6uneew
sa01naag;uawd0lanaa
4
u
I
I
I
I
O
d N o
t1
i
I
0
I! I
l
$
p
gq9
3
z
o
N
C
z
o
(1198 UIPUN pue 69aO) [Z-d-L [OZ
3snOHiVOB :S 31n(13HOS
Page 56 of 127
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
Lake Simcoe
Region
jConservation
Authority
Sent by email sfarquharson @oro- medonte.ca
July 13, 2011
File No.: 2011 -A -20
IMS No.: PVOC831C2
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:
RE: Minor Variance Application -- Reduce Setback from Lake Simcoe for Accessory Structures, Increase
Maximum Boathouse Height Above Lake Simcoe
Greg & Nadia Bell, Owners
Part of Lots 1 & 2, Concession 2 E.P.R. (Former Township of Oro)
S/S Ridge Road West, Part 2, Plan 5111-33292
Township of Oro- Medonte, County of Simcoe
Thank you for conferring with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) with regard to the
above noted Minor Variance application. It is our understanding that the purpose and effect of this
application will allow for the construction of a new single family dwelling with associated pool, retaining walls
and arbors, and a boathouse with an increased maximum height on an existing lot of record. We have
reviewed this application for consistency with the Public Health and Safety Policies (Natural Hazards) of the
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), conformity with the Labe Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP), and in accordance
with Ontario Regulation 179/06 made under the Conservation Authorities Act.
As you are aware, the subject property is located within the jurisdiction of the LSRCA, and is partially located
within an area regulated under this Authority's Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to
Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulation 179/06) made under the Conservation
Authorities Act. This property is regulated for shoreline erosion allowance with associated 100 -year wave
uprush (FE = 220.64 masl) and steep slopes. A permit will be required for any future development within the
regulated portions of the above noted property, prior to issuance of a municipal building permit. A permit
will be required for the proposed boathouse, but the residence will be located outside of the regulated area.
Page 1 of 3
120 Bayview Parkway '_
Box 282, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1 s - 44.,9,,J-20?1
Tel:905.895.1281 1.800.465.0437 Fax:905.853.5881
E -Mail: info @lsrca.on.ca Web: www.lsrca.on.ca Proud Past • Focused Future
Page 57 of 127
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
Lake Simcoe
Region
Conservation
Authority
July 13, 2011
File No.: 2011 -A -20
IMS No.: PVOC831C2
Mr. Steven Farquharson
Secretary- Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment
Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte
Page 2 of 3
Policy 6.45 -DP of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) permits development in relation to existing uses, as
long as it does not expand into a key natural heritage feature, key hydrologic feature and any Minimum
Vegetation Protection Zone (MVPZ) associated with a feature or the Lake Simcoe shoreline. The Plan will
permit this development within the MVPZ if there is no alternative to the alteration, in which case the use
shall be directed away from the feature to the maximum extent possible and limited in scope. Based on the
site plan drawing, the proposed residence and associated features are located outside the shoreline MVPZ,
and the proposed boathouse is within the MVPZ, but is permitted as there is no alternative to locate it
outside of the feature.
Policy 6.27 -13P of the LSPP requires the establishment of natural self - sustaining vegetation for new
development within the above noted MVPZ. Policy 6.29 -13P of the LSPP requires that the natural self
sustaining vegetation shall be re- established to the extent feasible following completion of the activity. A re-
vegetation plan will be required for the disturbed areas to stabilize the site after the construction of the
boathouse.
Section 3.1.1b. of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) requires that development shall generally be directed
to areas outside of hazardous lands adjacent to rivers /streams which are impacted by flooding hazards
and /or erosion hazards. The proposed boathouse will be located within the 100 -year shoreline erosion
allowance, and within the 100 -year wave uprush. As the proposed boathouse does not contain a second
storey it is not considered habitable space, therefore this proposal would be consistent with the PPS.
Please advise the applicant that in accordance with the LSRCA's Planning and Development Fees Policy (April
23, 2010), the total fee for this application is $200.00. The applicant should be advised that currently this fee
is outstanding and to please forward the above mentioned fee to the LSRCA as soon as possible.
Should the Committee approve this Minor Variance application, we request that it be subject to the
following conditions:
1. That a permit be obtained under Ontario Regulation 179/06 from the LSRCA, prior to the issuance of a
municipal building permit for the construction of the proposed boathouse, and any proposed
development or site grading within the regulated portion of the above noted property.
2. That prior to any site alteration, proper erosion and sediment control measures must be in place.
3. That all development fees ($200.00) be paid to the LSRCA in accordance with the Planning and
Development Fees Policy (April 23, 2010)
Page 58 of 127
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
Lake Simcoe
Region
`j Conservation
Authority
July 13, 2011
File No.: 2011 -A -20
IMS No.: PVOC831C2
Mr. Steven Farquharson
Secretary- Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment
Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte
Page 3 of 3
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. I trust this meets your requirements at this time.
Please advise us of your decision in this matter.
Yours truly,
44L
Ian Walker, BSc.
Environmental Planner
IW /cn
C. Greg & Nadia Bell, Owners, ebell L(tjeiproducts.com
Charles Burgess, Senior Planning Coordinator, LSRCA
5: \Env Plan \Plan Appls \Planning Letters \Minor Variances\ Ora- Medonte\ 2011 \PVOC831. 2011 -A- 20.5 -5 Ridge RoadWest. Bell. IW - Ldocx
Page 59 of 127
ic; F
Jov.,
ik
oc
FK iF
'Pot
0
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
Page 62 of 127
fqg
IVAI
J
w j .
WI
Page 62 of 127
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
Page 63 of 127
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
Page 64 of 127
� ��4 f -. � A - ; ,. .
� {. _. �b
a1 � ��. � � ':�i � y
In:. ,,SIN .'., ^4 .`'� . ^ i\n'r �"' .g _ �`
N �
`� r � v
+f' A'
� �
k :� �"
��, ^� � � �
r�N + "k � �
i. r i-
�� -,��� " � ���,` . ,.i
l "�� � j I
'�• : "mow- ��
r �. i
gip. � �_ � �:�
" , �� .�1
��. ���
yl {`�. �
" �- ;x .:
i
:::
( s
� "
;: a.'. ..
- ��::,.-
i
`'�I
�' �"
�?
ri� " ".�.
;� . _ ::
:�, i
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
Page 66 of 127
5d) - 2011 -A -20 - Greg and Nadia Bell
Concession 2, Part Lot ...
Page 67 of 127
. 7Ju+rrhiP of
C9ivr� ✓�dont�
P—d Henn, , li.a-d7ir{q Icuenrr
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2011 -A -17
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Meeting Date:
Subject: Variance Application
Motion #
July 21, 2011
(Garry and Marie Potter)
18 Lakeshore Road East
Plan 655, Lot 10
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346 - 010 - 009 -44600
(Former Township of Oro)
D13 -41851
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
The subject property occupies an area of approximately 0.14 hectares, has frontage along Lakeshore
Road East of approximately 30 metres, and a lot depth of approximately 46 metres. The subject
property has an existing dwelling with a floor area of approximately 83.6 square metres.
The applicants are proposing to construct a detached accessory building on the subject property with
a floor area of 113 square metres and a height of 5.1 metres above grade. The applicants are also
proposing to increase the maximum lot coverage to 8% for accessory buildings.
The applicant has indicated that the proposed detached accessory building is to be used for the
storage of motor vehicles.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to construct a detached accessory building occupying a floor area of 113
square metres and standing 5.1 metres high and increase the lot coverage to 8% on the above noted
property. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
Zone: Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
1. Section 5.1.4 — Maximum height
2. Section 5.1.5 — Maximum lot coverage
Section 5.1.6 — Maximum floor area
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
Required
4.5 metres
5%
70 square metres
Proposed
5.1 metres
8%
113 square metres
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -17 Page 1 of 7
Page 68 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Shoreline in the Township's Official Plan.
Section C5.1 of the Official Plan states that the objective of the Shoreline designation is:
• "To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area"
• "To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline"
The requested variance for an accessory building would appear to maintain the character of the
residential area, as the use of the subject lands is not proposed to be changed. Based on the above,
the variance would conform to the general intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan
Does the variance 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 97-
95. The purpose for regulating the size, height and lot coverage of accessory buildings is to ensure
that such buildings clearly remain secondary to the primary use on the lot, in this case residential.
Provisions for the maximum floor area for a private garage in the SR Zone are limited to a floor area
of 70 square metres. The applicant has indicated that the need for an accessory building with a floor
area of 113 square metres, is for the storage of motor vehicles.
Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning By -Law states that "the maximum floor area of any one detached
accessory building or structure, excluding boathouses, is 70 square metres ". The purpose for
regulated the maximum floor area for detached accessory buildings, based on lot size, is to ensure
that no one detached accessory building will compromise the main use and /or visual prominence of
the main building on a lot, being a residential use or a single detached dwelling.
Section 5.1.5 of the Zoning By -law states that "the maximum lot coverage of all detached accessory
buildings and structures on a lot, excluding boathouses, is 5 percent ". The purpose for regulating the
maximum lot coverage for accessory buildings is to ensure that the rural character of the area is
maintained and that the lot is not over - developed, and that the residential building remains the
primary use of the lot.
The construction of a detached accessory building with a floor area 113 square metres, would result
in an accessory building on the property with a floor area greater than the existing dwelling of 83.6
square metres. Further, the proposed accessory building is anticipated to be the visual prominence
as the main use of the lot, which is not the intent of the Zoning By -law.
Section 5.1.4 of the Zoning By -Law states that "[the] maximum height of any detached accessory
building ... is 4.5 metres". The purpose of a maximum height for detached accessory buildings is to
restrict the visual impact of accessory buildings and to ensure that their visual prominence will remain
clearly secondary to the main use and /or main building on the lot. The proposed detached accessory
building's height would be similar to that of the existing dwelling, however the overall floor area of the
building will give the perception that the accessory building's height is greater than that the existing
dwelling.
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -17 Page 2 of 7
Page 69 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
On the basis of the above, the proposed variances from the maximum floor area, maximum lot
coverage and maximum height provisions, are 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 very minimal vegetative buffer presently exists between the proposed
location of the proposed detached accessory building, and the neighbouring lot to the west. This site
inspection also revealed that accessory buildings on nearby properties do not compromise the visual
prominence of single detached dwellings on these lots.
With respect to the proposed variances from the maximum floor area and lot coverage provisions,
Planning staff concluded during the site visit that the majority of the properties in the area, either do
not have detached accessory buildings or that they do not exceed the maximum 70 square metre
floor area. The proposed accessory building having a floor area of 113 square metres is anticipated to
have a visual impact on the main use of the lot being residential. The existing dwelling is a non-
conforming structure as it has a floor area 83.6 square metres, which does not meet the requirements
under Zoning By -law 97 -95 of 90 square metres and is located approximately 2.5 metres from the
east interior lot line, where the requirement is 3 metres for a single detached dwelling in the SR Zone.
The subject lands are also deficient in terms of the lot area requirements in the SR Zone, which
require a lot size of 0.2 hectares, and the subject lands has a lot area of 0.14 hectares. By allowing
for the applicant to construct a 113 square metre accessory building on a deficient lot and increasing
the lot coverage to 8% is considered not to be appropriate.
With respect to the proposed variance from the maximum height for the proposed detached
accessory building, the proposed increase in the height permitted for a detached accessory building,
from 4.5 metres to 5.1 metres. With the cumulative effect of all requested variances, it is anticipated
there will be a visual prominence over the existing dwelling, and is anticipated to compromise the
main use of the lot.
As a result of the comments received from the Chief Building Official, the applicant is required to
verify the existing septic system size and location. This will ensure that access to and location of the
proposed accessory building will not be impeded by the existing septic location.
On this basis, the proposed variances from the maximum floor area, maximum lot coverage and
maximum height provisions, are not considered to be appropriate for the desirable development of
the lot.
Is the variance minor?
The proposed variances from the maximum floor area, lot coverage and maximum height, would
appear to have a cumulative effect which would result in the proposed 113 square metre accessory
building occupying a larger area on the lot than the existing dwelling. Therefore, the combined
variances from the maximum floor area, lot coverage and maximum height for a detached accessory
building are not considered to be minor.
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -17 Page 3 of 7
Page 70 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services -
Building Department- No records of sewage system on file. Applicant to verify size and location of
existing system
Engineering Department —
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Site Plan
Schedule 3: Exterior Elevation
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of the Planning Department, Variance Application 2011 -A -17, specifically, to permit the
construction of a detached accessory building occupying a total floor area of approximately 113
square metres on the subject property, having a height of approximately 5.1 metres and to have
approximately 8% percent lot coverage, that the cumulative effect of all proposed variances together
does not appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Respectfully submitted:
Steven uhrson. B. URPL
Intermediate Planner
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -17 Page 4 of 7
Page 71 of 127
Development Services
Application No. 2011 -A -17
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2011 -A -17 (Garry and Marie Potter)
SUBJECT LANDS 18 Lakeshore Road East
CJ�I
LAKE SI MCOE
Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Page 5 of 7
Page 72 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
SCHEDULE 2: SITE PLAN
2011 -A -17 (Garry and Marie Potter)
LOT 27 CONCESSION 8
£x PIN 58559 - 0377
- M (1403)
X10034 — V � -
_
A89-0308, 40" W
S
3
CQ �5�0"�
�'�
SID (154yj
Mii� mum
St�bS K
PROPOS�p
�)
op�GAj2FlG E
WELL 1+133'
REGISTERE a Irn
�€ 035f•M
PLN
LOT 9
PIN 58559 F9
`^
LO
O
655
-0"2
58559 -0043
LOT 11
PIN 58559 - 0044
324'
71.4'
0
8,
Septic locatio n'.
�
0
zz
0.05 � o
13/2 3ToRHY
AGg
'^ z
x
.I
�
3
SM (1403)
R- 291.001
•``�' 019.78' A�Ip028' m 8iB(1346)
x
v
LAKESHORE ROAD
(ORVALE DRIVE HY R.P. 655) p� s8S5 EAST
Development Services
Application No. 2011 -A -17
Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Page 6 of 7
Page 73 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
L 1 L abed L L-V -L LOZ 'oN uopeollddd
LLOZ `LZ Ainr awa Bupow saolnaag juauwdolanaa
TIT I
• rt
o `
fV 1
j
W
E
E
d�y
Ll-j ,zt
D0 W
W =
Lu
W
C) d
= °o
�g a
(1e110d eueW PUB AAJe0) L I-V- I lOz
NOUVAT I HOIH31X3 :E TMODHOS
Page 74 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Page 75 of 127
MA
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Page 77 of 127
11 �•.' -
�6
n
t
I
� 1
�j
1111
X
1
1
Y
� y
•
✓
rCr
Y E
4
Page 77 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Page 78 of 127
All
I
t
r
i
Page 78 of 127
tier i �
{ ¢;
9� 1�
A '
h 1�
I
Y } °
t /1 _ 1� y 9• �A1 �'r C I S r..
r'
N
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Page 80 of 127
^I
r
S+
V -x :l
vli
`f°,1 _
•/ Fri
r�.
\\
z_
2 1
Ilk
•
-
�
i.._ �. fit,
t
a
F,..
g .
ui
♦
�
4
Page 80 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Page 81 of 127
to
•
�
i�' � ? _ « 3�I �W a G.. .�" �� � � � ,
I
l�
Page 81 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
BYLAW'�
INITI r REVISED
VARIANCE iVARIANCE
- _ �_ # Q ST iAEQ
QUEST'_
SIZE 70sm 113sm 1.
1 (753sf) (1216sf)
% 5.0%, 8.0 %® 6.6 %®
5
flIGH. 4.5m .1m 4.9m
(14.7ft)' (16.7ft) (16.1 ft)
RECEIVED
JUL 2 0 2011
ORO-MEDONTE
TOWNSHIP
Page 82 of 127
- \.S,
a9
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
1
i, O
j
IJ
V\
Uc'
t1
1'
Page 83 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Re: Minor variances
Application 2011 -A -17
18 Lakeshore Road E; Oro Station, LOL2EO
I have spoken with Garry Potter and reviewed the
drawings for the proposed garage at 18 Lakeshore Road E.
We discussed the proposed variances for the new garage
and I have no objection to this application.
Name: ljZI- Z��o (,JCa2�
Signature:
Address: 7 L.AILt�E;S �
Date: ::gv r3 ia 2� 2� d
HECEI E
JUL 2 a bbl
ORO- MEDONTE
TOWNSHIP
Page 84 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Re: Minor variances
Application 2011 -A -17
18 Lakeshore Road E; Oro Station, LOL2EO
I have spoken with Garry Potter and reviewed the
drawings for the proposed garage at 18 Lakeshore Road E.
We discussed the proposed variances for the new garage
and I have no objection to this application.
Name:
Signature:
Address: v
Date:
ECNk- 0
JUL 2 0 2091
Page 85 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Re: Minor variances
10* = I
18 Lakeshore Road E; Oro Station, LOL2EO
I have spoken with Garry Potter and reviewed the
drawings for the proposed garage at 18 Lakeshore Road E.
We discussed the proposed variances for the new garage
and I have no objection to this application.
Name:v
Signature:
RECEIVED
JUL 2U1511
®RO- MED®NTE
TOWNSHIP
Page 86 of 127
-
.-
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
I have spoken with Garry Potter and reviewed the
drawings for the proposed garage at 18 Lakeshore Road E.
We discussed the proposed variances for the new garage
and I have no objection to this application.
Signature.
Address: ern ,
®etas
c�
Page 87 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Re: minor variances
-,' -
18 Lakeshore Road E; Oro Station, L®L2E®
I have spoken with Garry Potter and reviewed the
drawings for the proposed garage at 18 Lakeshore Road E.
We discussed the proposed variances for the new garage
and I have no objection to this application.
Name:
Address: �_
Date: -Is �a --:>
HECEIVED
JUL 2D101"
ORO-MEDONTE
Page 88 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Re: Minor variances
Application 2011 -A -17
18 Lakeshore Road E; Oro Station, LOL2EO
I have spoken with Garry Potter and reviewed the
drawings for the proposed garage at 18 Lakeshore Road E.
We discussed the proposed variances for the new garage
and I have no objection to this application.
Name:g
Signature:
Address:
Date:
JUL 2 Q 20
TOWNSH1.
Page 89 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Re. Minor variances
Application 2011-A-17
18 Lakeshore Road E; Oro Station, LOL2EO
I have spoken with Garry Potter and reviewed the
drawings for the proposed garage at 18 Lakeshore Road E.
We discussed the proposed variances for the new garage
and I have no objection to this application.
Name: 4AJ-1V [C) P*" ()4'e 1 F—a"o
Signature:
A
Address:
Date:
7 -1
JUL J 6 MI
ORO-PijEDONTe
—10—WINSHm
Page 90 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Re- Minor variances
Application 2011-A-17
18 Lakeshore Road E; Oro Station, LOL2EO
I have spoken with Garry Potter and reviewed the
drawings for the proposed garage at 18 Lakeshore Road E.
We discussed the proposed variances for the new garage
and I have no objection to this application.
Name: Ve
Signature:
Address:
Date: —Ja Z-/ Z4 //!
JUL ). 0 Jull
ORO-MEDONTE
Page 91 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Re: Minor variances
18 Lakeshore Road E; Oro Station, LOL2EO
I have spoken with Garry Potter and reviewed the
drawings for the proposed garage at 18 Lakeshore Road E.
We discussed the proposed variances for the new garage
and I have no objection to this application.
Name :✓J,jp��/��ti/yf4`�cc.9�11L�
Signatures.
Address: /2 `r �o
Date: 2 7`/1
RECEIVED
JUL � 6 gait
ORo- MEDONTE
Page 92 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
Re: Minor variances
Application 2011 -A -17
18 Lakeshore Road E; Oro Station, L®L2E®
I have spoken with Garry Potter and reviewed the
drawings for the proposed garage at 18 Lakeshore Road E.
We discussed the proposed variances for the new garage
and I have no objection to this application.
Name: xc_ A/ Ck''09RFoe D
Signature:
Address: - 7 o rre,5
Date: J i-I L
Xa� _-1-41
74-C! la- /
JUL 2 p ZUII
ORO- fEDONT'E
Page 93 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 -Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
13 Lakeshore Road Last
Oro Station, Ontario
LOL .LEO RECEIVED-1
JUL 2 0 2011
Delivered ORO -MEDON E I
TOWNSHIP
Wednesday July 20, 2011
Committee of Adjustments
Oro - Medonte Township Municipality Building
7th Line
Oro - Medonte, Ontario
Dear Sirs;
Re: Application for Minor Variance
Submission No. 2011 -A -17
By Garry and Marie Potter
Date of Hearin a: July 21 2011
Please be advised that Julie Parna and I oppose the above noted Application for
Minor Variance. I am enclosing five copies of our Objection.
I would be grateful if a copy could be provided to each member of the Committee
of Adjustments prior to the hearing commencing on July 21, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.
Thank you for your consideration.
�Yvurs-ve��;uly,
R. Clive Algi
Days: (905) 836 -5922
Fax: (905) 836 -1176
Page 94 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
IN THE FATTER OF Section 45 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P.13
NEVIrIlE
AND IN THE MATTER of an application for a minor variance, Submission No. 2011 -A -17
Being an application made by Garry and Marie Potter for a variance of the by -laws to
permit the construction of a detached accessory building exceeding the by -law limits on
the real property legally described as Plan 655, Lot 10 and municipally described as 18
Lakeshore Road East, Oro Station;
With such application to be heard at the Oro Medonte Municipal Township Municipal
Building on July 21, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.
RECIFIVU
NOTICE OF OBJECTION
of Clive Algie and Julie Parna
Jul. ) 8 N11
13 Lakeshore Road East, Oro Station
ORO- Yllli=DON TE
Take notice that the within objectors, Clive Algie and Julie Parna herebypgive ni
their objection to the said application for the variance on the following grounds:
1. The proposed structure does not appear to fit into the overall nature and
appearance of the neighbourhood. The proposed variance is not desirable for
the appropriate development or use of the property.
The neighbourhood consists of a quiet unlit residential street that follows the
shoreline of Lake Simcoe. The homes on the lane are both seasonal cottages and
modest homes on both the lakeside of the road and the hinterland side of the road.
Without exception, the accessory buildings (garages) along the street "fit in" with
the home constructed on each lot. It is reasonable to assume that homeowners
when constructing new homes or accessory buildings on their lots have
endeavoured to maintain the "look" of the neighbourhood by constructing garages
that are "appropriate" to the home on the lot. Smaller cottages have modest
garages (if any at all), and larger homes have larger garages that mirror the home.
Photos of several immediate neighbouring homes are attached as Schedule "A ". It
is respectfully submitted that the placement of a gigantic garage that literally
dwarfs the existing cottage on the lot will change the look of the neighbourhood.
It appears from the sketch forming part of the application that the proposed garage
will have over twice the floor area than the floor area of the existing cottage on
the lot. Photos of the existing cottage are attached as Schedule `B ". The existing
cottage appears to be approximately twenty feet in height. The proposed garage
would be over twice the size in area than the existing cottage, and taller than the
existing cottage. (The actual high point on the proposed roof appears to be 21.5
feet which is 6.5 metres.) The sketch discloses that the cottage measures twenty
feet on the front, which is less than two thirds of the length of the front of the
garage.
/2
Page 95 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
-2-
It is respectfully submitted that enormity of the proposed structure does not fit
within the general appearance of the homes in the neighbourhood and if
constructed the structure will give the appearance of a fire hall or municipal
building within the residential community.
Furthermore, In the event that the applicant sells the subject lot, the value in the
property over and above the land value, would be the value of the garage. The
cottage would in all likelihood have to be torn down and a new residence
constructed at great cost. Accordingly, it is likely that a prospective purchaser
would be interested in the lot for the same reason that the applicants purchased
it... for storage and for working on vehicles. It is respectfully submitted that the
disparity between the size and quality of the proposed all season, heated and
winterized garage and the existing small "l % storey frame [seasonal] cottage" is
not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the property.
2. The proposed structure is not a "minor variance" contemplated by the By
Laws and Section 45 of the Planning Act
The proposed floor area is some 43 square metres larger than the permitted 70
square metres. That is over 462 square feet larger than the by -law permits. The
proposed floor area is over sixty percent larger than that permitted by the by -law.
It is respectfully submitted that in area alone, the proposed structure can in no
way be considered a "minor" variance under any reasonable definition of the
term.
Similarly, the by -law permits a detached accessory building to cover a maximum
of 5% of the lot. The proposed, 8% coverage is sixty percent more than is
permitted by the by -law. Again, it is respectfully submitted that a building
covering sixty percent more of the lot than that permitted by the by -law is
massive... and is not a "minor" variance.
Although the proposed height of the building is only approximately 14% higher
than the by -law permits (the proposed 5.1 metres being approximately 14% higher
than the permitted 4.5 metres), the measurement is deceiving. Although the
proposal seeks to have a structure height of .6 metres (about two feet) higher than
that permitted, as a result of the definition of "height" being measured only as the
"mean level between the eaves and ridge" (By Law 97 -95 Section 6 —
Defmitions), the reality is that the actual height is 1.2 metres (four feet) higher
than the permitted 4.5 metres. In fact the entire roof of the structure is situated
above the permitted 4.5 metres. (It is assumed that the sketch of the front of the
garage submitted is inaccurate and not drawn to proportion, given that the. sketch
depicts a roof that is equal in height from eaves to peak to the height from ground
to eaves, which would be a 9 metre (or twenty four foot) high building).
...3
Page 96 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
-3-
Furthermore, it is extremely significant that given that the floor area of the
proposed building is a whopping 113 square metres (371 square feet), the fact that
the entire roof of the structure is situated higher than the permitted height, (and at
its peak, 1.2 metres higher than the permitted height), takes this application out of
the "minor variance" definition. It is respectfully submitted that in order for such
a large structure to be permitted to have its entire roof located above the height
limit an amendment to the by law would be required.
3. The Proposed Structure is Contrary to the General Intent and Purpose of the
Zoning By -Law
The By -Law relating to the construction of an accessory building specifically
contemplates the accessory building being "subordinate to" or "incidental to" the
main building on the lot. An Accessory Building is defined as "A detached
building or structure the use of which is naturally and normally incidental to,
subordinate to, or exclusively devoted to the principal use or main use or main
building on the same lot." It is common knowledge that the intent of the
applicants is to use the proposed structure for the storage, maintenance and repair
of antique automobiles. Such proposed use is also apparent from the disparity
between the size and quality of the cottage and the proposed structure. Even if the
proposed use were not relevant, the very physical appearance of the lot if the
accessory building were to be permitted to be constructed, would be that the
residence is incidental to, or subordinate to the garage.
A similar concept can be found at Section 5.1.1.2 of the By -Law that requires that
the residence be constructed before any accessory building be constructed. Again,
it is respectfully submitted that the purpose of the by -law is to maintain the
residential appearance of properties that are zoned Shoreline Residential, and it
would be contrary to the general intent and purpose of the By -Law to permit the
construction of such a massive garage on a modest size lot adjacent to a tiny
cottage.
4. The Proposed Structure is Contrary to the General Intent and Purpose of the
Official Plan
The "Vision Statement" of the Official Plan notes that... "According to the people
of Oro- Medonte, the excellent quality of life is what makes the Township a
desirable place to live. This quality of life is created, in large part, by the rural
character of the community... Rather than being dominated by man -made
structures and landscaped yards, the Township has an open, relatively natural
and rural character. These are the qualities that, taken together, contribute to the
identity of the community that is of the greatest importance to the residents. "
... /4
Page 97 of 127
5e) - 2011 -A -17 - Garry and Marie Potter
18 Lakeshore Road Ea...
-4-
It is respectfully submitted that the proposed structure does not fit in with the
intent and purpose of the Official Plan for Oro Medonte. If constructed, the
accessory building would dominate the lot. The proposed structure is intended to
cover eight percent (or virtually one twelfth) of the entire property, and stand at
its peak 1.2 metres (almost four feet) above the permitted height. It is respectfully
submitted that such a structure would "dominate" the landscape, contrary to the
vision of the Official Plan.
One of the objectives of the "Shoreline" designation contained in the Official Plan
(Part C5.1) is "To maintain the existing character of this predominantly
residential area ". The proposed garage does absolutely nothing to maintain the
existing character of the area, and in fact, will contribute to the destruction of the
area as a predominantly residential area.
Summary
For the reasons expressed above, it is respectfully submitted that the Application
for a "minor variance" be denied or otherwise dismissed.
All of which is respectfully submitted by the within objectors, Clive Algie and
Julie Parna this 19 day of July, 2011.
Clive Algie a
13 Lakeshore oad East 1 ore Ro ad East
Oro Station, Ontario Oro Station, Ontario
LOL 2EO LOL 2E0
(705) 487 -0501
(705) 487 -0501
Page 98 of 127
!� F
fie.. �� .� , ,t i$•
� tit
�1
Now
Aw
.64
ran
wuJup of
01T T����crate�
Proi+d HeriMyny Ex�ifivy luu +rr
5f) - 2011 -A -16 - Doug Austgarden and Michelle Cellucci
191 ...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2011 -A -16
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Meeting Date:
Subject: Variance Application
Motion #
July 21, 2011
(Doug Austgarden & Michelle Cellucci)
Plan 807, Lot 27
191 Lakeshore Road West
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346 - 010- 008 -2640
D13 -41848
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to consider a Variance Application 2011 -A -16, to construct a boathouse
with a proposed height of 6.98 metre from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe. The existing
boathouse has a height of 5.29 metres, which does not comply with the Zoning By -law, therefore it is
considered to be a non - conforming building. The applicants are also proposing an attached deck to the
boathouse, which is proposed to have a total area of 114 square metres.
ANALYSIS:
PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97-
95:
Non - Complying Buildings /Structures
Section 5.16.1 c) does not in any other way increase a situation of non - compliance (Height of
Boathouse)
Zone: Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Required Proposed
Section 5.7 b) — Maximum total area of deck and boathouse 70 square metres 147 square
metres
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Township of Oro - Medonte Official Plan
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan.
Township of Oro - Medonte Comprehensive Zoning By -law 97 -95
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -16 Page 1 of 5
Page 101 of 127
5f) - 2011 -A -16 - Doug Austgarden and Michelle Cellucci
191 ...
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services -
Building Department -
Engineering Department -
Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority- Request Deferral
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map -
Schedule 2: Boathouse Height Elevation
Schedule 3: Elevation
CONCLUSION:
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority has requested that the application be deferred in order to
accommodate additional time to review the proposed application.
Planning Staff has completed a preliminary review of the application and have concerns with the current
proposal. It is suggested that the applicants have discussions with Planning staff regarding the proposed
variance application and staff's concerns. The application will be brought forward to a future meeting once the
Township has received comments from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by:
c�
Steven F arson, B.URPL Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Intermediate Planner Manager, Planning Services
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -16 Page 2 of 5
Page 102 of 127
5f) - 2011 -A -16 - Doug Austgarden and Michelle Cellucci
191 ...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2011 -A -16 (Austgarden & Cellued)
N O
LOT 27
e
REGISTERED PLAN „ 807 L Y
�1
7m
EXISTING BOATHOUSE IS
.c
av �e
HEIGHT O .3 BE INCREASED IN
g ai s
=V=" T y n' FOUND T ION AND THE SAME
TO BE UTI ZXFMN WOTPRINT ARE
TO BE UTILIZED.
ps
i
ACOVERED BOAT SLIP'S
s G A1° Q PROPOSED IN FRONT OF THE
yqE RENOVATEDBOATHOUSE,
INCREASING THE FLOOR
M AREA OF THE BOATHOUSE TO
111s¢m_(11835g1t). THE
EXISTING CONCRETE DOCK IS
TO BE UTILIZED.
m
WATER mx LOT 59523 o C.L.S.
LAKE SIMCOE
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -16 Page 3 of 5
Page 103 of 127
5)- 2O]] -& -]8 -Doug &umgamen and Michelle Cdbc|
191 ...
9Pt, aed
LLOz`e An ma Bune em
Ed§
§
l
60
! y |{
■;, .. { ;�
�� - - -- - - -- ' .
� I �
Ui
c0 / CL
■° ; o
[ ) E3 2 ■
!
i §
( { \
-
� '
/
§2
�B
. - - - +q
@/
(po mRg § ua@vF) pnd 9L- -LLOZ
NO |Iva]]] IHS |]H ]SAOHIVOG :z]]AO]HOS
gwdLmVQNu!le@MdV
s oima WmdJOA a
Page 104 of 127
5f) - 2011 -A -16 - Doug Austgarden and Michelle Cellucci
191 ...
SCHEDULE 3: ELEVATION
2011 -A -16 (Austgarden & Cellucci)
ss
�m
� 9
n
s
0
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -16 Page 5 of 5
Page 105 of 127
5f) - 2011 -A -16 - Doug Austgarden and Michelle Cellucci
191 ...
From: Ian Walker
To: Farquharson, Steven
Subject: 2011 -A -16 - Minor Variance
Date: Wednesday, July 13, 20114:27:23 PM
Good afternoon Steven,
LSRCA is requesting deferral of the proposed application, in order to accommodate time to review
and provide comments on this application.
Ian
Ian Walker, B.Sc.
Environmental Planner
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
120 Bayview Parkway, Box 282, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1
Proud Pail-I'v wdFuture 905.895.1281 x287 11.800.465.0437 1 i.walker Isrca.on.ca I www.lsrca.on.ca
Page 106 of 127
5f) - 2011-A-16- Doug Austgarden and Michelle Cell ucci
191 ...
Page 107 of 127
•
,�
,� ,fin
long
fk,
L
L JL d
�
Page 107 of 127
5f) - 2011-A-16- Doug Austgarden and Michelle Cell ucci
191 ...
7/
46 }
Page 108 of 127
5f) - 2011-A-16- Doug Austgarden and Michelle Cell ucci
191 ...
Page 109 of 127
T
I
o
G
/ jrY� lrF '•
w��
a
•
� �
"lid
; i�IL.
�
��. �
Page 109 of 127
5f) - 2011-A-16- Doug Austgarden and Michelle Cell ucci
191 ...
Page 110 of 127
•
'h Y
•
u
LU
P
•
Page 110 of 127
5f) - 2011-A-16- Doug Austgarden and Michelle Cell ucci
191 ...
Page 111 of 127
' X45 �•
N
Nk
•
�i_ fir. �
r ����. � y✓
`. -.
'
r
a
4j0
A
ARM
1� a_
•
..
•Y�3
•
`' �, 1'
1 ~
�.
Ill
Page 111 of 127
4 f
\ \� I
INS
5f) - 2011-A-16- Doug Austgarden and Michelle Cell ucci
191 ...
Page 113 of 127
�
ry
,
•
1
r
4
F4
Page 113 of 127
ore
(9 r'�1�e�ite
Pn.ud Elniingc, Excising Fnnrrr
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE
REPORT
Application No:
To: Committee of Adjustment
Prepared By:
2011 -A -18
Steven Farquharson,
Intermediate Planner
Meeting Date:
Subject: Variance Application
Motion #
July 21, 2011
(Zahra Assadian Biouckzadeh)
East Part of Lot 28, Concession 3, 51 R-
28760, Parts 5 & 6
Roll #:
R.M.S. File #:
4346- 010 - 007 -2140
1753 Ridge Road
D13 -41850
REQUIRED CONDITIONS:
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to consider a Variance Application 2011 -A -18, for relief from the
Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law in relation to the maximum height provision for
boathouses.
ANALYSIS:
PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: The applicants are proposing to construct a two- storey boathouse
which is proposed to have a total area of 67 m2 (724 ft2).
The applicants are requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95:
1. Section 5.6 a) Maximum height for the boathouse from the required 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) to a
proposed 8.4 metres (27.7 feet).
FINANCIAL:
Not applicable.
POLICIES /LEGISLATION:
Township of Oro - Medonte Official Plan
The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan.
Township of Oro - Medonte Comprehensive Zoning By -law 97 -95
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -18 Page 1 of 5
Page 114 of 127
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
CONSULTATIONS:
Transportation and Environmental Services -
Building Department -
Engineering Department -
Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority- Request Deferral
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule 1: Location Map
Schedule 2: Site Plan
Schedule 3: Elevations
CONCLUSION:
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority has requested that the application be deferred in order to
accommodate additional time to review the proposed application.
Planning Staff have completed a preliminary review of the application and have concerns with the current
proposal. It is suggested that the applicant has discussions with Planning staff regarding the proposed
variance application and staff's concerns. The application will be brought forward to a future meeting once the
Township has received comments from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.
Respectfully submitted:
A;Far4 arson,t3.URPL
Intermediate Planner
Development Services
Application No. 2011 -A -18
Reviewed by:
Glenn White, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning Services
Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Page 2 of 5
Page 115 of 127
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP
2011 -A -18 (Z. Assadian Biouckzadeh)
SUBJECT LANDS- 1753 Ridge Road West �I
M
lu
z
RIDGE�
LAKE 51 MCOE
Development Services Meeting Date July 21, 2011
Application No. 2011 -A -18 Page 3 of 5
Page 116 of 127
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
g 10 b abed 8 L-b-L LOZ 'ON uopmilddd
LLOZ `LZ Ainp a ;ea Bupaw saoinaaS Iuawdolanad
m, I
y3
rl
1. I
11
� nMl m
L J
s
z t
�a
cu mam n2'Vo mn@
E�
�3>
Wn
(u9pezjonol8 ueipessy -Z) 8 L-b- L lOZ
NVId 9116:Z 3-if143HOS
$E
c F�
S
Jt� �
t Nn N�
yayw�a
qGi
0 0
w �
M j �
C
Lu
lie
k
A
9mveese
Page 117 of 127
H
S c o.
� o A
,vu (aWj
F
m, I
y3
rl
1. I
11
� nMl m
L J
s
z t
�a
cu mam n2'Vo mn@
E�
�3>
Wn
(u9pezjonol8 ueipessy -Z) 8 L-b- L lOZ
NVId 9116:Z 3-if143HOS
$E
c F�
S
Jt� �
t Nn N�
yayw�a
qGi
0 0
w �
M j �
C
Lu
lie
k
A
9mveese
Page 117 of 127
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
9 10 S a013d
8 VV-L LOZ 'ON uopeoijddb
LLoz `LZ Apr area 6uilaaw
s831naag }uawdoIanaa
sE NIE E'IE 2oE 3IE SE
m�
6 IUr
�ry ��
'�' E
Em.
�_`�
51�'
x n`t
�Iiv
ilia
Nan
i
5
EsE gE
�f
Aj'n: E E
mE ®mE
`mIE�
zl
I
I I
I I I
I
0
W
e6q_yP oy
cn _
999'8
(ppszpnolg uelpessy 'Z) 8 G-`d- l [OZ
SNOliVA919 :g 3in(13HOS
Page 118 of 127
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
From: Ian Walker
To: Farquharson, Steven
Subject: 2011 -A -18 - Minor Variance
Date: Wednesday, July 13, 20114:27:37 PM
Good afternoon Steven,
LSRCA is requesting deferral of the proposed application, in order to accommodate time to review
and provide comments on this application.
Ian
Ian Walker, B.Sc.
Environmental Planner
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
120 Bayview Parkway, Box 282, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1
Proud Pail-I'v wdFuture 905.895.1281 x287 11.800.465.0437 1 i.walker Isrca.on.ca I www.lsrca.on.ca
Page 119 of 127
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
Page 120 of 127
.4o
•'k:' %^fie
•
•
i
� /
M
r
•
µI
l
I�
Page 120 of 127
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
Page 121 of 127
0 ;.
a-
N �
� m
V �
0 N {.
m w
0
00
o
Q N
o
O N
N
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
Page 122 of 127
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
Page 123 of 127
�� t ,��- _ -,� -. .r �'�.•�:.:.v. •yam ME
4 t
,
arar;
•
4�
�� `ly '• •R j t`
•
•
:"; -
•
.. •
.�
�I
AI
• �,yY .r.� ' •fit ��f2 , � �•;" . '
Page 123 of 127
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
Page 124 of 127
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
i
Yl
Ali► . - � -` �y, � " , . � ,\ .''
•
1
frs;
Page 125 of 127
d
pw
•.: `�
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
Page 126 of 127
O
0
V o
O
W
%%NM/ O
W
a.., -,-
Ln
IAI
5g) - 2011 -A -18 - Zahra Assadian
1753 Ridge Road West, East P...
Page 127 of 127