Loading...
09 19 2013 Committee of Adjustment AgendaPage Township of Proud Heritage, Exciting Future 1. OPENING OF MEETING: THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:00 a.m. 2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: a) Motion to Adopt the Agenda. 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST: 4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 3 - 11 a) Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday, August 15, 2013. 12 - 14 b) Minutes of the Special Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Friday, September 6, 2013. 5. PUBLIC MEETINGS: 15 - 23 a) 2013 -B -17 (1500494 Ontario Inc.), 8980 Highway 12, Application to obtain easements for drainage and access. 24 - 38 b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin), 125 Old Barrie Road West, Application for relief from Setback from EP Zone Boundary. 39 - 54 c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.), 445 Line 4 South, Application for relief from Non - Conforming Uses. 55 - 72 d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation), 3009 Line 8 North, Application for relief from Temporary Construction & Sales Uses. 73 - 87 e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville), Property located at the east side of Line 4 North (south of Horseshoe Valley Road West), Application for relief from Minimum Front Yard. 88 - 103 f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville), Property located at the west side of Line 3 North (south of Horseshoe Valley Road West), Application for relief from Minimum Front Yard. Page 1 of 103 6. NEW BUSINESS: a) Group discussion on the impact of a recent OMB decision. 7. NOTICE OF MOTION: None. 8. NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, October 17, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT: a) Motion to Adjourn. Page 2 of 103 4.a) Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on ... i'o�r•rts�rep of Proud Heritage, Exciting Figure THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES Council Chambers Thursday, August 15, 2013 TIME: 10:12 a.m. Present: Scott Macpherson, Chair Bruce Chappell Roy Hastings Allan Johnson Larry Tupling Staff present: Derek Witlib, Manager of Planning; Marie Brissette, Committee Coordinator 1. OPENING OF MEETING: Scott Macpherson assumed the Chair and called the meeting to order. 2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: a) Motion to Adopt the A ends. Motion No. CA130815 -1 Moved by Tupling, Seconded by Hastin It is recommended that the agenda for the Committee of Adjustment meeting of Thursday, August 15, 2013 be received and adopted. Carried. 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST: None declared. 4. ADOPTION OF MINU a) Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on Thursday, July 18, 2013. Motion No. CA130815 -2 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Johnson It is recommended that the draft minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting of Thursday, July 18, 2013 be adopted as printed and circulated. Carried. Page 1 of 9 Page 3 of 103 4.a) Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on ... Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes — August 15, 2013. 5. PUBLIC MEETINGS: a) 2013 -B -16 (May Family Holdings Ltd.), 696 15/16 Side Road East, Requesting a boundary adjustment /lot addition to an adjacent residential lot (592 15/16 Side Road East). Laurie Smith, agent for the applicant, was present. Motion No. CA130815 -3 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Johnson It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment grants provisional consent to Application 2013 -B -16, for a boundary adjustment /lot addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. That one copy of a Registered Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary - Treasurer; 2. That the severed lands, with an area of approximately 0.57 hectares (1.4 acres), be merged in title with the abutting lands to the south known as 592 15/16 Side Road East, and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject land; 3. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 4. That the applicant's solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That the applicant apply for, and obtain, an amendment to rezone to a Rural Residential Two (RUR2) that portion of the merged lands that is presently zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone; and 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. Carried. Page 2 of 9 Page 4 of 103 4.a) Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on ... Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes — August 15, 2013. b) 2013 -A -33 (Terrance and Gwendolyn Scorns), 12 Goss Road, Requesting for relief from Minimum Rear Yard. Terrance and Gwendolyn Scorns, applicants, were present. Motion No. CA130815 -4 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Hastings It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approve Variance Application 2013 -A- 33, specifically to permit a minimum rear yard of 0.7 metres for a single detached dwelling, subject to the following conditions: 1. That, notwithstanding Table B1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95, as amended, the single detached dwelling shall otherwise comply with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning By -law; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey /real property report that the single detached dwelling be located no closer than 0.7 metres from the rear (north) property line; 3. That the location and size of the proposed single detached dwelling be substantially in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee; 4. That the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals required, from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; and 5. That the appropriate Site Plan Approval, 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. Carried. Page 3 of 9 Page 5 of 103 4.a) Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on ... Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes — August 15, 2013. c) 2013 -A -34 (Brian and Cynthis Hands), Property located at the south end of Greenwood Avenue (Part of Lot 2, Concession 13 (Oro), Township of Oro - Medonte), Requesting relief from Minimum Rear Yard and Setback from EC Zone Boundary. Jim Lewis, agent, was present on behalf of the applicants. Motion No. CA130815 -5 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Hastings It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approve Variance Application 2013 -A- 34, specifically to permit a minimum rear yard of 4.0 metres and a minimum setback of 0 metres from an EP Zone Boundary, for a single detached dwelling with an attached deck, subject to the following conditions: 1. That, notwithstanding Table B1 (Minimum Rear Yard) and Section 5.28 (Setbacks from Limits of Environmental Protection Zone) of Zoning By -law 97 -95, the proposed single detached dwelling with an attached deck shall otherwise comply with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning By -Law; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey /real property report that the dwelling and deck be located no closer than 4.0 metres from the rear lot line); 3. That the buildings and structures on the property be generally in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee; 4. That the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals required, from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; and 5. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. Carried. Page 4 of 9 Page 6 of 103 4.a) Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on ... Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes — August 15, 2013. d) 2013 -A -35 (Claudio and Milena Del Duca), 2285 Lakeshore Road East, Requesting relief from Minimum Interior Side Yard. Claudio Del Duca, applicant, was present. Motion No. CA130815 -6 Moved by Tupling, Seconded by Johnson It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approve Variance Application 2013 -A- 35, specifically to permit a minimum interior side yard of 1.5 metres for a single detached dwelling, subject to the following conditions: 1. That, notwithstanding Table B1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95, as amended, the single family dwelling shall otherwise comply with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning By -law; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey /real property report that the single family dwelling /attached garage be located no closer than approximately 1.5 metres from the south /westerly interior side lot line; 3. That the location and size of the proposed single family dwelling be in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee; 4. That the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals required, from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority; and 5. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided by the Planning Act R.S.I. 1990, c.P. 13. Carried. Page 5 of 9 Page 7 of 103 4.a) Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on ... Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes — August 15, 2013. e) 2013 -A -36 (John Wigle and Aimee Bowles), 13 Grandview Crescent, Requesting relief from Minimum Front Yard and Setback from Average High Water Mark of Lake Simcoe. John Wigle, applicant, was present. Margaret Williams, George and Dianne Hibrant, neighbours, noted their support of the application. Robert Morin questioned the required setbacks from Lake Simcoe. Motion No. CA130815 -7 Moved by Hastings, Seconded by Chappell It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approve Variance Application 2013 -A- 36, specifically to permit a minimum front yard of 0 metres and a minimum setback from Lake Simcoe of 15 metres, for a single detached dwelling, subject to the following conditions: 1. That, notwithstanding Table B1 (Minimum Front Yard) and Section 5.31 (Setback from Lake Simcoe) of Zoning By -law 97 -95, the proposed single detached dwelling shall otherwise comply with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning By -Law; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey /real property report that the single family dwelling /attached garage be located no closer than approximately 0 metres from the front lot line and no closer than 15 metres from the High Water Mark of Lake Simcoe (219.15 m.a.s.I.); 3. That the buildings and structures on the property be generally in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee; 4. That the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals required, from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority; 5. That the plans approved by the Committee only include west - facing (side) garage doors and only include a westerly driveway entrance, to achieve additional parking entirely on the private property; and 6. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. Carried. Page 6 of 9 Page 8 of 103 4.a) Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on ... Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes — August 15, 2013. f) 2013 -A -37 (Robert and Lisa Bickle), 811 Line 9 South, Requesting relief from Minimum Front Yard and Minimum Side Yard (Lake Simcoe). Lisa Bickle, applicant, and Peter Head, builder, were present. Motion No. CA130815 -8 Moved by Tupling, Seconded by Johnson It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approve Variance Application 2013 -A- 37, specifically to permit a minimum front yard of 1.0 metres and a minimum side yard from Lake Simcoe of 1.4 metres, for a boathouse, subject to the following conditions: 1. That, notwithstanding Table B1 (Minimum Front Yard and Minimum Side Yard) of Zoning By -law 97 -95, the proposed boathouse shall otherwise comply with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning By -Law; 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey /real property report that the boathouse be located no closer than 1.0 metres from the front lot line and no closer than 1.4 metres from interior side lot line (Lake Simcoe); 3. That the buildings and structures on the property be generally in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee; 4. That the applicant obtain any permits and /or approvals required, from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority; and 5. That the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. Carried. Page 7 of 9 Page 9 of 103 4.a) Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on ... Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes — August 15, 2013. 6. NEW BUSINESS: a) Appointment of Deputy Secretary Treasurer. Motion No. CA130815 -9 Moved by Tupling, Seconded by Johnson It is recommended by the Committee of Adjustment that Derek Witlib be appointed as Deputy Secretary Treasurer for the Committee of Adjustment b) 2013 Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustment and Consent Authorities Seminar, September 19 -20, 2013, Horseshoe Valley Resort. Motion No. CA1 3081 5 -1 0 Moved by Johnson, Seconded by Tupling It is recommended Carried. 1. That the 2013 Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustment and Consent Authorities Seminar, September 19 -20, 2013, Horseshoe Valley Resort be received. 2. And That the Committee of Adjustment recommends to Council that Scott Macpherson, Roy Hastings, Allan Johnson and Larry Tupling be authorized to attend. Carried. Page 8 of 9 Page 10 of 103 4.a) Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on ... Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes — August 15, 2013. 7. NOTICE OF MOTION: None. 8. NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT: a) Motion to Adjourn. Motion No. CA1 3081 5 -1 1 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Hastings It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 12:50 p.m. Carried. Scott Macpherson, Chair Derek Witlib, Deputy Secretary Treasurer Page 9 of 9 Page 11 of 103 4.b) Minutes of the Special Committee of Adjustment meeting ... 7'otr•rtslrip of Prized Heritage, Exciting Fnriirc THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES Council Chambers Friday, September 6, 2013 TIME: 10:00 a.m. Present: Scott Macpherson, Chair Bruce Chappell Roy Hastings Allan Johnson Larry Tupling Staff present: Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services; Derek Witlib, Manager of Planning Services; Marie Brissette, Committee Coordinator 1. OPENING OF MEETING: Scott Macpherson assumed the Chair and called the meetin to order. 2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: a) Motion to Adopt the Agenda Motion No. SCA130906 -1 Moved by Tupling, Seconded by Chappell It is recommended that the agenda for the Special Committee of Adjustment meeting of Friday, September 6, 2013 be received and adopted. Carried. 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST: None declared. Page 1 of 3 Page 12 of 103 4.b) Minutes of the Special Committee of Adjustment meeting ... Special Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes — September 6, 2013. 4. PUBLIC MEETINGS: a) 2013 -A -39 (Democrat Maplewood Ltd), Emerald Terrace, (51M-957 Lots 100 -2, 104, 107 -8, 112, 116), Request for relief from Model home for the sale of dwelling units located on lands within the limits of the Township. Enzo Palumbo, applicant, was present. Marion Lerman, potential home owner, questioned the different process used to develop Phase 1 versus Phase 2 and noted that any delays would add difficulty in securing trades to complete the build of the homes. Mr. Lerman noted that their model is being built to the suit accessibility needs of their family and they have an agreement with Democrat Homes to allow their home to be viewed by potential clients requiring accommodation. Pete Merrifield, potential home owner, noted the delays created by the developer rather than builder, and expressed the complications that a deferral of a decision by the Committee onto the purchasers and their families. Bill Stonkus, provided a brief historical overview of changes within that area in regards to zoning and development changes, and added his support for the application. Heidi Fischer, potential home owner, reiterated Mr. Merrifield's comments and noted her support for the application. Motion No. SCA130906 -2 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Johnson It is recommended that the Committee of Adjustment approve Variance Application 2013 -A- 39, specifically to permit the building of 8 model homes, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the eight model homes be built on Lots 100 -102, 104, 107, 108, 112 & 116; 2. That the setbacks for the model homes be in conformity with the Residential One (R1) Zone in Zoning By -Law 97 -95, as amended; 3. And That prior to the issuance of any building permit(s) for the construction the model homes on the subject lands, the applicant apply for and obtain from the Township the appropriate zoning certificates, 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 2 of 3 Page 13 of 103 4.b) Minutes of the Special Committee of Adjustment meeting ... Special Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes — September 6, 2013. 5. NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. 6. ADJOURNMENT: a) Motion to Adjourn. Motion No. SCA130906 -3 Moved by Chappell, Seconded by Tupling It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 11:30 a.m. Scott Macpherson, Carried. Derek Witlib, Deputy Secretary Treasurer Page 3 of 3 Page 14 of 103 5.a) 2013 -B -17 (1500494 Ontario Inc.),8980 Highway 12, Appli... TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE REPORT Prowl Xmpµgo. £x<iilwg Funorc Application No: 2013 -B -17 To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared By: Derek Witlib, Manager, Planning Services Meeting Date: September 19, 2013 Subject: Consent Application 2013 -B -17 (1500494 Ontario Inc.) 8980 Highway 12 Part of South Half of Lot 1, Concession 1 (Former Township of Orillia) Motion # Roll #: 4346- 030 - 010 -00802 R.M.S. File #: D10 -46153 REQUIRED CONDITIONS: The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision on Consent Application 2013 -B -17: 1. That one copy of a Registered Reference Plan indicating the subject parcel be submitted to the Secretary- Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed Certificate of Validation for the subject parcel, for review by the Municipality; and 3. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to consider Consent application 2013 -B -17 which proposes Validation of Title over lands described Part 1 on Reference Plan 51 R- 12429, being a portion the property located at 8980 Highway 12 and occupied by a business known as DCM Self Storage. Validation of Title is a mechanism that is provided in Section 57 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. The granting of Validation of Title has the effect of "fixing" any prior contraventions to the Planning Act that make the validity of the title questionable for an otherwise existing parcel of land. It does not result in the creation of a new lot and there is no right to appeal a Validation of Title decision. The lands that are subject to the proposed Validation of Title application possess a frontage of approximately 102.4 metres (336 feet) along Highway 12 and comprise an area of approximately 0.58 hectares (1.4 acres). ANALYSIS: According to the applicant's Solicitor, the lands that are subject to this Validation of Title application are also the subject to registered easements for drainage and access purposes in favour of the Development Services Application No. 2013 -B -17 Meeting Date: September 19, 2013 Page 1 of 5 Page 15 of 103 5.a) 2013 -B -17 (1500494 Ontario Inc.),8980 Highway 12, Appli... Page 16 of 103 adjacent property to the south, located at 8976 Highway 12 and occupied by a business known as CC Underground. The CC Underground property relies on the DCM Self Storage property for access and drainage purposes and the easements were required as a condition of a Site Plan Approval that was granted to the CC Underground property in 2009. The applicant's Solicitor has advised that the need for the Validation of Title arises from a corporate name change that took place with respect to the subject lands and which may have resulted in the lands having been incorrectly transferred. Pursuant to Section 57(6) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, and application for Validation of Title must be considered having regard to the prescribed criteria set out in O. Reg. 144/95. These criteria are: conformity with the Official Plan, the Zoning By -law and any Minister's Zoning Order. FINAlisMAL Not applicable. Townshu •-) ®ffucual flan The subject lands are designated Rural Settlement Area (Prices Corners) in the Township's Official Plan and support an existing commercial use, being a self - storage establishment. Commercial uses, including a self - storage establishment, are permitted in the Rural Settlement Area designation. Planning Staff is of the opinion that this application conforms to the Official Plan. Towr0elil� vuroccB -1EW The subject lands are zoned General Commercial Exception One Hundred Sixty -six (GC *166)(H) Zone. This is a site - specific zone which permits a commercial self- storage establishment. Planning Staff is of the opinion that this application conforms to the Zoning By -law. COM of Simcoe Offic6ai Plan Not applicable. Pro hncial Pol"ocoea Not applicable. CONSULTATMS& Environmental Services Division — No concerns. Transportation Division — No concerns. Building Division — No concerns. County of Simcoe — Ministry of Transportation — No objection. Existing entrance must be maintained. DeveiopmerRt Services Meeting Date: September 1952013 Application Flo. 2013 -B -17 Page 2 off 5 Page 16 of 103 5.a) 2013 -B -17 (1500494 Ontario Inc.),8980 Highway 12, Appli... ATTACHMENTS: Schedule # 1 — Location Map Schedule # 2 — Applicant's Sketch CONCLUSION: Planning Staff recommends that Consent Application 2013 -B -17, BE APPROVED, subject to the recommended conditions of consent, for the reasons that the application generally conforms to Section 57(6) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 and conforms the Township's Official Plan and Zoning By -law. Respectfully submitted: Derek Witlib, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Services Development Services Meeting Date: September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -B -17 Page 3 of 5 Page 17 of 103 5.a) 2013 -B -17 (1500494 Ontario Inc.),8980 Highway 12, Appli... SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP & AERIAL PHOTO 2013 -B -17 (1500494 Ontario Inc.) ALBERTA VENUE SUBJECT PROPERTY (8980 Highway 12) Development Services Application No. 2013 -B -17 Meeting Date: September 19, 2013 Page 4 of 5 Page 18 of 103 5.a) 2013 -B -17 (1500494 Ontario Inc.),8980 Highway 12, Appli... 3ONVM0111/ OVOU SCHEDULE 2: APPLICANT'S SKETCH 2013 -B -17 (1500494 Ontario Inc.) r 34ISY1E. F ur PART OF S1/2 LOT I , CONCESS ION I TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ORILLIA COUNTY OF SIMCOE SCALE, 1 INCH c 100 FEET PAUL R. KITCHEN SURVEYING LTD. 1839 OSP Rey o 4ive ecllerrpiif PrcPenLY L- .Q.V(C( 1-610D5 ` osern nCS O • PART 1«.. 546- 12429 Ay rr .' T1 A356AD. IwN PART 2 AREA = 66 7110. .o 0 r SS .96:3 L C/T ys 63[ oc. 110 6 NS- 543 72048 2 I REQUIRE THIS PLAN TO EIE DEPOSITED UNDER 114E REGISTRY AOT. DATE; JULY 12 , 1489 PAUL R. KIDNEN ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR CAUTION THIS PLAN IS NOT A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PLANNING ACT PLAN 51R —/937 RECEIVED AND DEPOSITED DATE: J17LY 7Q /9F4 DEPUTY LANDt FOR THE REGISTRY DIVISION OF SIYCOE (N0. 51) PARR 1 AND 2 -PART OF 903 LOT I. CONCESSION I - sT NF 10197ED LEGENQ ■---- DENOTES MONUMENT FOUND D ---- 001111TE5 MONUMENT PLANTED - -- 0810TES A 50. IRON SAN ISO-- DENOTES A ROUND 55054 BAR SIR OEN 6 A SO. . SHORT STM00A 9115 BAR IP -- DENOTES IRON PIPE ON DU - -- DENOTES ORIDIN KNOWN W 5051.7 M11%117 (00071, (0010.5 NG 100 ro 240 3NONN ON PLW 01R- 12{49, HAVING 4 BEMNN0 OF 954 29P30' W. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 0ERTIFY THAT 1. TRS SURVEY ANC PLAN ARE GOMM ANC IN 0000500I100 MIN REDOUTd6 ADEA11 R[41STRi 001 000 TM 2. 1710 5YWEA WAS 5001E1E3 ON THE 2710 OAT OF Development Services Meeting Date: September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -B -17 Page 5 of 5 Page 19 of 103 5.a) 2013 -B -17 (1500494 Ontario Inc.),8980 Highway 12, Appli... Page 20 of 103 5.a) 2013 -B -17 (1500494 Ontario Inc.),8980 Highway 12, Appli... Page 21 of 103 5.a) 2013 -B -17 (1500494 Ontario Inc.),8980 Highway 12, Appli... Page 22 of 103 5.a) 2013 -B -17 (1500494 Ontario Inc.),8980 Highway 12, Appli... Page 23 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... C4r"o �yeclo it Prowl Heritage, Eerrities Hauer TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE REPORT Application No: 2013 -A -38 To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared By: Adrianna Spinosa Planner Meeting Date: September 19, 2013 Subject: Variance Application (M. & R. Irwin) 125 Old Barrie Road Concession 7 East Part Lot 12 (Former Township of Oro) Motion # Roll #: 4346- 010 - 003 -30000 R.M.S. File #: D13 46470 REQUIRED CONDITIONS: The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision: 1. That, notwithstanding Section 5.28 of Zoning By -law 97 -95, the proposed agricultural building shall otherwise comply with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning By -Law; 2. That the buildings and structures on the property be substantially in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the Committee; and 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 property currently contains an agricultural building. The applicant is now proposing to construct a second agricultural building /drive shed. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning Zone: Environmental Protection (EP) Zone Section 5.28 — Setbacks from Limits of Environmental Protection (EP) Zone By -law 97 -95: Required 30.0 metres Proposed 10.0 metres FINANCIAL: Potential financial and legal implications should the decision of the Committee be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and council chooses to defend the Committee's decision. Development Services Application No. 2013 -A -38 Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Page 1 of 6 Page 24 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... Page 25 of 103 PO UCIIES/LEGOSLATlOR9 e Does the variance conform to the gerineral intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural and Oro - Moraine Core - Corridor Area in the Official Plan. The proposed development is within the Rural designation of the property. Permitted uses in this designation include agriculture. Therefore, the proposed agricultural building conforms to the general intent of the Official Plan. Does the variance meet the general intent of the Zonnincj / y4aw, and is the variance pipropriate for the desirable development of the Dot? Approximately half of the subject property, including the location of the existing dwelling and the proposed addition, is zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU). The other half, the back portion, of the property is zoned Environmental Protection (EP). The Zoning By -law prohibits development within an Environmental Protection (EP) Zone or within 30 metres of an Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. The intent of the Zoning By -law is protect people and property from natural hazards or to protect natural heritage features from development. According to the applicant, the location of the building was chosen on the property to preserve natural features and trees /bush. Although there is space on the property to meet the 30 metre setback, it would require trees and bush to be cleared. The relief from this setback will allow for the building to be hidden from the street by placing it behind the bush and avoiding any clearing of trees. Planning Staff is also of the opinion that the variance, if approved, would not have any negative impact on surrounding land uses or the character of the surrounding area. For the reasons outlined above, the proposed variance would be considered to meet the general intent of the Zoning By -law, and would be considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot. Since the lands are subject to regulation by the LSRCA, the Committee should have regard to any comments that may be received from the LSRCA. Is the variance minor? As the proposed variance related to the agricultural building is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan, to meet the general intent of the Zoning By -Law, is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot, and is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on the character of the surrounding area, it is considered to be minor. CONSMLTAT(101\tS: Environmental Services Division — no concerns Transportation Division — no concerns Building Division — no concerns Fire & Emergency Services Department — no concerns County of Simcoe — Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority — Development Services Villeeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -38 Page 2 of 6 Page 25 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... ATTACHMENTS: Schedule 1: Location Map Schedule 2: Zoning Schedule Schedule 3: Site Plan Schedule 4: Floor Plan Schedule 5: Elevations CONCLUSION: Planning staff recommends that Variance Application 2013 -A -38 be approved, specifically, to permit the construction of an agricultural building, since the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Respectfully submitted: Adrianna Planner p nosa Reviewed by: )42A4A1A Derek Witlib, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Services Development Services Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -38 Page 3 of 6 Page 26 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 OId Barrie Ro... SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP 2013 -A -38 (Irwin) SUBJECT PROPERTY (125 OId Barrie Road West) SCHEDULE 2: ZONING SCHEDULE 2013 -A -38 Irwin Development Services Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -38 Page 4 of 6 Page 27 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... SCHEDULE 3: SITE PLAN 2013 -A -38 (Irwin) 13 a. a at !1116 } 01-4. 5 e. -. Development Services Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -38 Page 5 of 6 Page 28 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... SCHEDULE 4: FLOOR PLAN 2013 -A -38 (Irwin) - 11. {yN'A tla 13. Dri"•"1 54 ed -6ann 1 rhis area. snsaca,r.-41 Rie nr...tte R Lie c4.1,-41 4_ M, -ti eely vaiirt.ti.f,itt' steel cie.dinq T L_1_____ re 2,., 1V-----§v— t r — - ill:—,4e— to q�. - (---- 14=--- i( -- - - -- e,:— fit' q _ SCHEDULE 5: ELEVATIONS 2013 -A -38 (Irwin) Po I W MI.-01..a, Lk' OV6r Wee 3 p 4 croIan, tb'1.L14 ovA PLS tySiG M {0.M i1,•ua o -i• • N64.dd.oa• Fro nl- ssde. r L -!r a s -u FT. Front z- 2, X 10 14en e1- s tio,usrs .:,„A aw troi. wi ndau• 48 L St'e U' l Aaa Fi 1 2k4 sub F&Sfi'• k�u.a0*f* So.Fiiftr 2x't S7L•4 -iep n9 s.r4e1 r Paure.O retotewTio” sr2so- ',ticq RRW sr.dlP.nq 57ae4 RooF --------7 22,4` $TraeP' 'i sree -L sMin7 aL:K Si4e• z2 -2x6 ur�.d rii Wind.° 54.0,1e P,' Rear L4 ,/; „a<W Z. Ls PT 5i:Ae Side 1 3' Man aces r< s' Powned co�v u roan ,#,.t .w abT0gg Development Services Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -38 Page 6 of 6 Page 29 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... Page 30 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... Page 31 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... Page 32 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... Page 33 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... Page 34 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... Page 35 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... Page 36 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... Lake Simcoe Region conservation authority Wednesday, September 18, 2013 Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Secretary- Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Township of Oro - Medonte Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0 Dear Ms. Leigh, Re: Application for Minor Variance File 2013 -A -38 (Irwin) 125 Old Barrie Road Township of Oro - Medonte, County of Simcoe A Vvatershed for Life *By email only* Thank you for circulating this application for minor variance to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) for our review. We understand that the purpose of this application is to reduce the setback provision (30 metres) from an "EP" Zone to 10 metres in order to allow for the development of an agricultural building. Based on our review, we recommend that any approval of this minor variance be deferred until the following has been achieved: Demonstration that the minor variance and location of the proposed building will be in conformity with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. As you know, the property contains a provincially significant wetland and an associated significant woodland based on existing mapping. This wetland and woodland area is considered a key natural heritage and hydrologic feature in accordance with 6.21 -DP and 6.22 -DP of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Designated Policy 6.45c) further states that accessory structures may be permitted on existing lots provided the use does not expand into a key natural heritage or hydrologic feature and their minimum vegetation protection zone (MVPZ). The MVPZ for these features is 30 metres in accordance with Policy 6,24. On this basis, the applicant should demonstrate that the proposed agricultural building will be located a minimum of 30 metres from the wetland or significant woodland area. It appears, based on the site plan provided, that the proposed development would be located within this 30m vegetation protection zone. 120 Bayview Parkway, Box 282 Tel: 905.895.1281 1,800.465,0437 Web: www,LSRCA.on,ca Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1 Fax: 905,853.5881 E -Mail: Info ©LSRCA.on.ca Proud winner of the International Thiess Riverprize Member of Conservation Ontario Page 37 of 103 5.b) 2013 -A -38 (Murray and Raemonda Irwin),125 Old Barrie Ro... Lake Simcoe Region conservation authority Further, please be advised that a permit is required from the LSRCA under Ontario Regulation 179/06 for any development proposed within 120 metres of the provincially significant wetland. The applicant may wish to relocate the proposed building in order to satisfy the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan policies and to avoid any permit requirements from this Conservation Authority. Please a., ise us of any decision on this matter. Sirtc ChalI s F. Burg Senio Plannin /cfb s C MCIP, RPP rdinator Copy: LSRCA, Taylor Stevenson Page 38 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... (97. y %� .u�.onte Nand Heritage, Exiting noon^ TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE REPORT Application No: 2013 -A -40 To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared By: Derek Witlib, Manager Planning Services Meeting Date: September 19, 2013 Subject: Variance Application (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.) 445 Line 4 South Concession 5, South Part Lot 23 (Former Township of Oro) Motion # Roll #: 4346 -010- 008 -10500 R.M.S. File #: D13 -46491 IREQUIRED CONDITIONS: The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision: 1. That, notwithstanding Section 5.18 of Zoning By -law 97 -95, all buildings and structures on, and the use of the subject property, shall otherwise comply with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning By -Law; 2. That the owner of the property at 445 Line 4 South; Concession 5, South Part Lot 23; Roll no. 4346- 010 - 008 - 10500) apply for, and enter into a Site Plan Agreement with Council for the Township for the existence of, and expansion to, the non - conforming use and the non- complying building, on the subject property, pursuant to Section 2.3 of By -Law 2009 -062 (Site Plan Control By -law). 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., and after Site Plan Approval is granted by the Township. IBACKGROUND: The subject property occupies an area of approximately 2.4 hectares (5.9 acres), has frontage along Line 4 South of approximately 120 metres (394 feet), and a depth of approximately 200 metres (656 feet). The subject property presently contains four buildings, consisting of: 1. Storage building and shop (221 square metres /2379 square feet) constructed in 2012 and the subject of a previous minor variance (Application 2011- A -29); 2. Office and shop (378 square metres /4069 square feet) constructed in the 1960's; 3. Single detached dwelling (88 square metres /947 square feet, 1.5 storeys) constructed in the 1960's; and 4. Detached 2- car garage (65 square metres /700 square feet) constructed in the 1960's and accessory to the dwelling. The subject lands appear to have been used as a wrecking yard continuously since the 1960's. Development Services Meeting Date: September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -40 Page 1 of 7 Page 39 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... Page 40 of 103 The applicant is proposing to construct a new building on the subject property with a floor area of approximately 334 square metres (3595 square feet) and intended to be used for additional storage and work space. A ALYSIS: The purpose of this report is to consider Minor Variance Application 2013 -A -40, for relief from the Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -Law in relation to expanding a non - conforming use. The applicant is requesting the following relief from Table B1 of Zoning By -law 97 -95: Zone e Rural Indaastt ial In) n) Zorue Hem aired 1_1°�cse SecNiion 5.1:, e Nora- Confou°mhg Use of lands in conformity with Expansion of non - conforming Uses the provisions of Zoning By -law use with floor area increase of: 97 -95. 334 m2 (approx. 3595 'fee?) FINANUALL: Potential financial and legal implications should the decision of the Committee of Adjustment be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and Council chooses to defend the Committee's decision. POL EQCAS /LEGISLLATIO f: Does ithe variance conform to the general intent ®a the Official Plain The subject property is located in the Agricultural designation in the Township's Official Plan. Section C1.1 of the Official Plan states that the objectives of this designation include "to maintain ... the agricultural resource base of the Township ... to protect land suitable for agricultural production from development and land use unrelated to agriculture ... to promote the agricultural industry ... [and] to preserve and promote the agricultural character of the Township ... ". Section C1.2 of the Official Plan states that the "principle use of land in the Agricultural designation ... shall be agriculture ", and states that "[all] existing commercial and industrial uses are also permitted." A wrecking yard is not a permitted use according to the Official Plan. Since the existing wrecking yard has been in operation since the 1960's, it predates the Township's Official Plan and Zoning By -law and is considered to be a non - conforming use. Section E1.5 of the Official Plan contains provisions related to "Non- Conforming Uses" and, specifically, Section E1.5.2 , the "Role of the Committee of Adjustment" states that "the Committee of Adjustment may ... allow extensions to a non - conforming use ... [in consideration of] the following:" "a) The size of the extension in relation to the existing operation,' it is noted that the proposed building represents expansion of the buildings within the lands that are already being used as a wrecking yard, but does not represent an expansion of the wrecking yard itself. In this context, the proposed building represents a 334 m2 (approx. 3595 feet2) building within the 2.4 hectares (5.9 acres) wrecking yard property. Development Services NNeetinj Date: September 19, 2®13 Application No. 2013 -A -40 Page 2 off 7 Page 40 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... "b) Whether the proposed extension is compatible with the character of the surrounding area," In this regard it is noted that, on the basis that the proposed expansion is: 1) to take place in a Vocation on the subject lands that is largely obstructed from view of neighbouring properties and from Line 4 South, and 2) limited in size in relation to the scale of the existing non- conforming use, the proposed extension of the non - conforming use is not anticipated to result in an increase in any potential incompatibility of the existing use with the character of the surrounding area. Further, it is noted that other industrial uses are presently operated on lands in the general area, to the north of the subject lands. "c) The characteristics of the existing use in relation to noise, vibration, fumes, dust, smoke, odours, lighting and traffic generation and the degree to which any of these factors may be increased or decreased by the extension;' With respect to this point, the applicant has advised in the Application for Minor Variance form that the proposed building is to be used for the storage of automotive parts and a workshop for wrecking yard operations currently conducted outdoors and, therefore, the building is not anticipated to result in an increase in potentially adverse characteristics associated with the existing use of the subject lands. "d) The possibilities of reducing these nuisances through buffering, building setbacks, landscaping, Site Plan Control and other means to improve the existing situation, as well as minimize the problems from extension; and," In this regard it is noted that, pursuant to Section 2.3 of the Township's Site Plan Control Area By -law, By -law 2009 -062, "All commercial and industrial uses permitted by way of an exception in Section 7.0 of By -Law 97-95, as amended, an all legal non - conforming industrial and commercial uses in any Zone are also subject to Site Plan Control." Therefore, it is recommended that, if the Committee of Adjustment decides to grant approval to Variance Application 2013 -A -40, the applicant be required to apply for, and enter into, a Site Plan Agreement with Council prior to obtaining the applicable Zoning Certificate and Building Permit for the proposed building. Development details such as emergency access to the building would be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process. "e) The conformity of the proposal with the applicable by -laws and policies of the County of Simcoe." Pursuant to Schedule 5.1 of the County of Simcoe's Official Plan, "Land Use Designations ", the subject property is in the Rural & Agricultural designation in the County's Official Plan. Section 3.6.7 of the County's Official Plan states that "[single] industrial uses are generally not permitted outside of settlements, business parks, or Special Development Area designations". Section 3.3.9 of the County's Official Plan, however, states that "[this] Plan is not intended to prevent the continuation, expansion ... of legally existing uses which do not conform to the designations of this Plan." On this basis, the proposed variance is considered to generally conform to the general intent of the Township's Official Plan. Devepopmeovt Services @(peel lovg Date: September 19, 2013 Apppucstpc No. 2013 -A -40 Page 3 o4 7 Page 41 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... DOGS the variance meet the general intent of the Zoning appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? y-law, and is the variance The subject property is zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone in the Township's Zoning By -Law 97- 95. Permitted uses in the Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone include agricultural uses and single detached dwellings, and do not include wrecking yards. The applicant has indicated in his application for Minor Variance form that the existing buildings and structures and uses were established and have continued since the 1960's. Since the Township of Oro- edonte's Zoning By -Law 97 -95 was originally passed in 1997, and the Former Township of Oro's Zoning By -Law 1031 was passed in 1974, the use of this property as stated in the application form would be considered to comply with Section 5.18 of Zoning By -Law 97 -95, which states that "No lands shall be used and no building or structure shall be used except in conformity with the provisions of this By -law unless such use existed before the date of passing this By -law and provided that it has continued and continues to be used for such purpose, and that such use, when established, was not contrary to a By -law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.® 1990, cP. 13 or a predecessor thereof that was in force at that time." The intent of Section 5.18 of the Zoning By -law is to ensure that existing non - conforming uses on properties in the Township may not be expanded, such that such expansion may result in an increase in a degree of incompatibility or in any adverse impacts, and that such expansion may not take place without appropriate buffering and mitigation of any negative impacts between such a use, and neighbouring land uses. A site visit of the subject property revealed that the location of the proposed expansion of the existing non - conforming use is significantly obstructed from view of neighbouring properties by existing vegetative buffers, and also obstructed from view of the municipal road on which this property abuts (Line 4 South). On the basis that the proposed expansion will be significantly obstructed from view of neighbouring properties, and from Line 4 South, and as the proposed expansion will be limited in size in relation to the scale of the existing non - conforming use, the proposed expansion is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area. Based on the above, the proposed variance is considered to meet the general intent of the Zoning By -Law and is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot. Are the variances niianor? For the reasons discussed above, the proposed variance is not considered to have an adverse impact on immediately surrounding land uses or on the character of the surrounding area. Therefore the proposed variance is considered to be minor. n NSULTA flONIS: o Transportation Division — no concerns. o Environmental Services Division — no concerns. o Building Department — no concerns. o Fire and Emergency Services — Requests information regarding materials to be stored in the building and that there be a maintained access for emergency vehicles to the building. Development Services Appl'icatlon No. 2013 -A -40 5ileetlng Date: September 1g, 2013 Page 41 of 7 Page 42 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... IATTACHMENTS: Schedule 1: Location Map Schedule 2: Site Plan ICONCLUSION: In the opinion of the Planning Department, the proposed variance in Variance Application 2013 -A -40, specifically, to permit the construction of a new building on the subject property, constituting the expansion of a non - conforming use in accordance with Section 5.18 of Zoning By -law 97 -95, meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Respectfully submitted: Derek Witlib, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Services Development Services Meeting Date: September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -40 Page 5 of 7 Page 43 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP 2013 -A -410 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.) III 13 °PSat AIGHwAY 11 :N�I111� 1 ■. U.1 z i HIGHWAY 11 S HOLICK ROAD MELVIL°LE=eOUR,T n[ 1 rIi• 1111U•JIIli1T• i11∎I111 l` T WINSTAR -ROAD Il [I z J -1S SUBJEC PROPERTY - RIDGE°ROAD'W` Devepop pent SeMces Meeting Date: September 19, 2013 Appppceflcr No. 2013 -A -40 Page 6 of 7 Page 44 of 103 5.c) 2013-A-40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... a0 V N 0 0 0 3 Z a) Figure 1- Minor Variance Sketch (445 Line 4 South) 0 co • N < O < • tit' C1 Ca] 0 II A c 0 �� . «, v� } � ,t. r, • v.,. .. .... , . ••• 7: ..' ''.... ' ' . . 1, . ' tndustr : Zn D rn . : f�ecta fes) n C � � r y".fi''. ' :: .' NJ rim 0 P e� y Z ni ro o CD Q d - _Highway Aerial Photos flown in the spring of 2012 (0 _, This map, either In whole at in part, may not be reproduced without the written authority from 0 The Corporation of the County of (p (D — Major Road s]mcoe. V `• This map is intended for personal use, has been produced using data from a uari'aty of sources and may not be current pr accurate, (V Ramp Produced [In part) ender bpensatram: sermemer 0 0 0 Her Majesty the queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources: _ i�� V ..1 44 Local Road ®queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: SIMCOE -may 0 Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers', 1:2,257 — " -- Unassumed and Seasonal Road 0 Members of the Ontario Oeos patty] Data Exchange. I rm All rights reserved. THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY. 0 0.0129.025 n05 hm August 30, 2013 SCHEDULE 2: SITE PLAN 2013-A-40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.) Development Services Meeting Date: September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013-A-40 Page 7 of 7 Page 45 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... Page 46 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... Page 47 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... Page 48 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... Page 49 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... Page 50 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... Page 51 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... Page 52 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... Page 53 of 103 5.c) 2013 -A -40 (Mobile Car Crushers Inc.),445 Line 4 South,A... Page 54 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... C9f.'etionte Prowl H,,rr ge, Eserrrng r-,mrrr TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE REPORT Application No: 2013 -A -41 To: Committee of Adjustment Prepared By: Kory Chisholm, Planner Meeting Date: September 19, 2013 Subject: Variance Application (Braestone Development Corporation) Part of the West Half of Lot 2 & 3 & East Half of Lot 2 & 3 (Former Township of Oro) Motion # Roll #: 4346- 010 - 004 -04000 _ R.M.S. File #: D13 -46492 REQUIRED CONDITIONS: The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision, with respect to the construction of two model homes on the subject lots: 1. That the two proposed model homes be built on proposed Lots 3 and 4 as identified on the applicants plan. 2. That the setbacks for the model homes be in conformity with the Residential One Exception 75 Holding Provision (R1" 75 H) Zone in Zoning By -Law 97 -95, as amended; 3. That all other forms of development associated with the model homes be in conformity with the applicable Zoning By -Law 97 -95, as amended; 4. That, prior to the issuance of any building permit(s) for the construction the model homes within the subject lands, the applicant shall: a) Construct of that section of the future public road, from Line 9 North to the westerly limit of proposed Lot 4, to be operated and maintained solely at the cost and responsibility of the developer /owner, to provide access to the model homes until such as time the road is assumed by the Township; and b) Install a private temporary well, to be operated and maintained solely at the cost and responsibility of the developer /owner, to provide water to the two model homes until such time as connection to a municipal piped water service is available. 5. That the appropriate zoning certificate(s) and building permit(s) be obtained from the Township only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to construct one additional model home on lands within the Township of Oro - Medonte for the sale of dwellings as part of a proposed 230 -lot plan of subdivision. A model home Development Services Application No. 2013 -A -41 Meeting Date September 10, 2013 Page 1 of 9 Page 55 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... Page 56 of 103 is currently proposed to be constructed on Lot 3, and one additional model home is proposed for Lot 4 of the proposed plan of subdivision, in Concession 9, Part of the West Half of Lot 2 & 3 and East Half of Lot 2 & 3, which is zoned Residential One Exception 75 Holding Provision (R1 *75(H)) Zone. • ANALYSIS Section 5.36 of Zoning By -law contains provisions regarding "Temporary Construction and Sales Uses" and, specifically, Subsection b) states that "Nothing in this Bylaw shall prevent the use of land for ... a model home for the sale of dwelling units ... on lands within the limits of the Township ... ". Therefore, the applicant is requesting relief from the following provision of Zoning By -law 97 -95: Section 5,36 - Tem corer, Construction and Sales Uses Maximum Permitted •ci os d la))) Modes home for the safe of dweing units located 1 roo ®dlel home 2 modle& on Eandls within the limits of the Township homes FlhIANCEALL: Potential financial and legal impiications should the decision of the Committee of Adjustment be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and Council chooses to defend the Committee's decision. Do the variances conform to the general intent of the ffficial Plan? Pursuant to Schedule A to the Official Plan, the property is designated Residential and Oro Moraine Core /Core Corridor Area, however the portion of the lands subject to this application are designated Residential. Pursuant to the policies of the Plan, permitted uses in this designation include single detached dwellings and /or model homes. The lands subject to this application, form part of a Draft Plan of Subdivision in which the developer is currently working towards registration of the subdivision. Upon execution of the subdivision agreement and registration, the developer has obligations to obtain the necessary certificate of substantial completion for the required services prior to the consideration of the issuance of building permits. In order to expedite construction and sales, the developer is seeking relief to initiate construction of a total of two model homes. On this basis, the proposal is considered to conform to the general intent of the Official Plan. Please note: Planning Staff are expecting detailed comments from Transportation & Environmental Services, and the Committee should have consideration for these. Do the varianoes meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law, and are the variances appropriate for he desirable development of the lot? The lots on which the model homes are sought are located in a proposed 230 -lot plan of subdivision, whose lands are zoned Residential One Exception 75 Holding Provision (R1 *75 (H)), Open Space Exception 77(OS *77), and Environmental Protection Exception 78 and 79 (EP *78 and EP *79) Deveiopmeog Services Meeting Date September 10, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -41 Page 2 of 9 Page 56 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... however the portions of the property subject to this application are zoned 11"75 (H). The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 5.36 of the Township's Zoning Sy -law, which permits the construction of one model home. The number of model homes and /or sales offices to be constructed in an area is limited for various reasons, including: to limit the extent to which the character of a residential area is changed by the existence of buildings not being used as residences, and to limit the amount of traffic generated in an area by such non - residential uses. As proposed by the applicant, the intent of this variance request is to construct one additional model home, as opposed to a sales trailer /office and, once the model home(s) are constructed, they are intended to be converted into a single detached dwellings upon issuance of the Certificate of Substantial Completion. Further, as illustrated in Schedule 2 to this report, the applicant is proposing to construct these two model homes on neighbouring lots, thereby clustering the lots on which buildings for the purpose of public viewing will be located. As outlined in the planning report prepared by MHBC, the applicants will be selling 5 models in the Braestone Development, and it is beneficial to both them and the public to be able to view examples of the different housing options offered at varying price ranges. Therefore, since the model homes will maintain the residential character that exists within the surrounding area, and since they will be further converted and sold as residences in the future once their utility has been served, the proposed variance is considered to meet the general intent of the Zoning lay -law, and is considered appropriate for the desirable development of the two lots which form part of the proposed plan of subdivision. Are the variances minor? As the construction of model homes for sales and viewing purposes is common in new plans of subdivision, and as they are to be constructed on contiguous lots near the entrance of a proposed plan of subdivision, the proposed variance is considered to be minor. C®NSMLTATI®NS: • Transportation & Environmental Services - The owners have indicated that they will drill a well that will service both homes. Transportation and Environmental Services have no concerns with this arrangement but once the municipal system is constructed and on line these 2 model homes must be removed from the private well and connected to the municipal system. The private well must then be decommissioned. During the time that the 2 model homes are connected to the private well all testing and maintenance issues will be the responsibility of the developer not the municipality. There are no concerns with individual septic beds as all homes will have this type of system. The developer will be totally responsible for all road maintenance including winter maintenance for these model homes. o Building — Compliance for model home required to show emergency lighting and barrier free access as part of construction plans • Fire & Emergency Services — No comments Development Services t eetIn Date September 10, 2013 Application No. 2013-A-41 Page 3 of 9 Page 57 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... IATTACHMENTS: Schedule 1: Location Map Schedule 2: Sketch for Proposed Minor Variance Schedule 3: MHBC Planning Letter dated August 30, 2013 ICONCLUSION: In the opinion of the Planning Department, the proposal in Variance Application 2013 -A -41, specifically, to permit the construction of one additional model home on Lot 4 within a proposed plan of subdivision, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Respectfully submitted: / (L, Kory Chisholm, BES Planner Reviewed by: Derek Witlib, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Services Development Services Meeting Date September 10, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -41 Page 4 of 9 Page 58 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation) Development Services Application No. 2013 -A -41 Meeting Date September 10, 2013 Page 5 of 9 Page 59 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... SCHEDULE 2: SKETCH FOR PROPOSED MINOR VARIANCE 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation) Development Services Application No. 2013 -A -41 Meeting Date September 10, 2013 Page 6 of 9 Page 60 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... SCHEDULE 3: MHBC Planning Report August 30th, 2013 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation) MHBC August 30`h, 2013 Secretary Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 South, Oro, On LOL 2X0 RE: MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION BRAESTONE SUBDIVISION 24 BUFFALO SPRINGS DRIVE OUR FILE Y327A •� KITCHENER 0009 WOO�ERI DGE LONDON KINGSTON 1973/2013 BARRIE On behalf of Braestone Development Corporation, we are pleased to submit a minor variance application for the property legally described as part of the east and west halves of Lots 2 and 3, Concession 9, former Township of Oro, and has a current municipal address of 24 Buffalo Springs Drive. The property is the Braestone Subdivision (formerly Buffalo Springs Subdivision). In support of the application, please find attached the following: 1. One (1) copy of the completed and signed application form including owner authorization; 2. One cheque payable to the Township of Oro-Medonte in the amount of 5600.00; 3. One (1) 8.5" x 11" copy of the Draft M -Plan for the Braestone Subdivision; 4. One (1) 8.5"x 11" copy of the Site Plan prepared by C.C. Tatham and Associates; 5. One (1) 8.5 "x 11 " copy of the proposed Elevations and Floor Plans; and, 6. One (1) copy of the Servicing Narrative prepared by C.C. Tatham and Associates. The Braestone Subdivision has been draft approved by the Ontario Municipal Board since 1991. While the property has changed hands a number of times, the objective has always been to satisfy draft approval conditions and register the subdivision. As this point the majority of draft approval conditions have been addressed, and it is anticipated that the first phase of registration is to occur in the spring of 2014. As part of the effort to register the subdivision, the owners have been working on a marketing plan to raise the profile of the future community to potential homebuyers. However one of the most critical selling tools for a subdivision Is the existence of a model home to allow potential purchasers to visualize their future home on a proposed lot. The Braestone subdivision has at least 5 models that offer different living options for potential purchasers. Being able to display more than one model home will help those buyers to visualize and compare two ends of the housing options available, and in turn will assist with the sale of lots and completion of the proposed community. Section 536.b) of the Township ofOro- Medonte Zoning By -law states: 744 -7fl5Fl WFCT7IN RnAn / WfnnRRlnf,F / nNTA171r, /141 667 / T 4116 7A1 CSRR / F qr,5 761 4540 / WINO/ MNRro1 AN roan Development Services Meeting Date September 10, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -41 Page 7 of 9 Page 61 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... Nothing in this By-law shall prevent the use of land for a sales office and/or a model home for the sale of dwelling units provided the dwelling units to be sold are to be located on lands within the limits of the Township ofOro- Medonte. As the provision speaks to "a model home" and note model homes (plural), this application request that two model homes be permitted on this property. Specifically: Notwithstanding Section 536.b) of the Zoning By -law, two model homes shall be permitted on the property. A Site Plan Control application will be submitted to allow for the construction of the model homes in advance of registration of the plan of subd ivision. We have reviewed the merits of the Minor Variance application as per Section 45 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c P.73 as amended, and have concluded that the proposed variance request meets all four tests. The following details our findings: Is the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan maintained? The property is designated Residential as well as Oro Moraine Core /Corridor Area, however the portions of the property subject to the Model Homes are within the Residential designation. This designation permits single detached dwellings. This variance is seeking the construction of two model homes that will become single detached dwellings upon the completion of this community. As a result, approval of this variance is reflective of the planned function of the Residential designation in the former Buffalo Springs Subdivision and therefore meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. Is the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law maintained? The property is zoned Residential (R1 -75), Open Space (05 -77) and Environmental Protection (EP -78 and EP -79) however the portions of the property subject to the Model Homes are zoned R1 -75. The R1 with site specific exemption 75 specifically permits single detached dwellings as permitted uses. The Temporary Structure and Sales Uses section of the Zoning By -law states that: Nothing in this By -law shall prevent the use of land for a sales office and /or a model home for the sale of units provided the dwelling units to be sold are to be located on lands within the limits of the Township ofOro- Medonte, The general intent and purpose of this provision of the Zoning By -law is to allow for the construction of structures that promote the sale of model homes within the Township. As the subdivision is quite large (230 proposed units) and the proposal offers at least 5 model options for future landowners, additional flexibility to display and compare model options is a reasonable variance request from the zoning provision. Finally, wording in the draft subdivision agreement for Braestone Subdivision confirms the appropriate mechanism to obtain more than one model home Is by way of the Committee of Adjustment. Given that the owner has only requested one additional model home, and approval of this variance will support the sale of dwelling units, it Is concluded that the variance to allow an additional model home will continues to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By -law. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure? 2 Development Services Meeting Date September 10, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -411 Page 8 off 9 Page 62 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... The model homes will be located on lots within the future property lines on Buffalo Springs Drive within the Braestone Subdivision. The model homes will receive water from a temporary well drilled on one of the model home lots, and the lots will be capable of connecting to the future water treatment plant also on Buffalo Springs Drive once the subdivision Is registered. Sewage filter beds will be constructed at the rear of the lots. Underground electrical servicing will be provided from the existing hydro line on 9h line and each home will be heated with individual propane or electrical units, Stormwater management will be controlled through lot grading design and infiltration trenches. All these matters will be controlled through Site Plan Control, ensuring the Township has the appropriate mechanisms to ensure the model homes are appropriate and safe, A servicing narrative prepared by CC. Tatham and associates has been attached for reference. In addition, approval of the minor variance will enhance the Braestone Subdivision's ability to sell lots, register phases of the plan, and complete the community, all of which benefit the Township in terms of the addition of new residents to the municipality. Being able to display more than one model home will help potential purchasers to visualize and compare two ends of the housing options available, and in turn will assist with the sale of lots and completion of the proposed community. The owner is proposing to display smaller ranch style home model and contrast that with a much larger estate home model to demonstrate how differing models will appear on lots within the subdivision, Not allowing a second model home would not be desirable as it would result in another obstacle that will further delay the eventual registration of this legacy subdivision. Given the above, approval of this variance would be desirable and appropriate as it supports the completion of this community. Is the variance minor in nature? It has been found that the variance meets the general intent of both the Official Plan and Zoning By -law. It has been found that the variance Is desirable and appropriate as it supports the sale of dwelling units which meets the intent of the zoning provision, will be implemented safely with appropriate servicing, and will support the completion of this community. As a result of these findings, it is concluded that the proposed variance request is minor in nature. We have found that the proposed variance meets the four tests and therefore represents good planning. We ask that you please circulate the Minor Variance application and supporting documents and call should you require any clarification of the above. Respectfully; MHBC Eldon C. Theodore, MUDS, MCIP, RPP, LEED AP CC 3 Development Services Meeting Date September 10, 2013 Application No. 2013-A-41 Page 9 of 9 Page 63 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... Page 64 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... Page 65 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... Page 66 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... Page 67 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... Page 68 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... Page 69 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... Page 70 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... Page 71 of 103 5.d) 2013 -A -41 (Braestone Development Corporation),3009 Line... Page 72 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... Page 73 of 103 .� TO WN SHIIP OF O,�Oo I DOo N i�E ,gum iP R POo GAT Pniud '1'1'w. E'uiUn,¢ F„urr Application Noe 2013 -A -42 7n: Committee cr1 Adjustment Prepared) By: IKory Chisholm Planner Meeting Date: September 19, 2313 Subject: Variance Application (Horseshoe Valley Lands) Part Lot 1 Corp 5 Plan 51R-20347 Motion # Roll #: 4345-310-332-29900 R.M.S. Bile #: 011345512 RIEOUlRCDD CO iDfTIONS: The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision: 1. That, notwithstanding Table B4 (B) of Zoning By -law 97 -95, as amended, the Billboard Sign shall otherwise comply with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning By -law as well as By -law 2010- 075 "Being a By -Law to Regulate Signs and other Advertising Devices "; 2. That the variance is granted only for the existing sign on the lands and not for any new or replacement signs. 3. That the appropriate zoning certificate and sign 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 subject property is currently a vacant wooded lot. The applicant has constructed a billboard sign advertising the nearby Horseshoe Ridge Homes development. The billboard sign was constructed at a front yard setback of 3.8 metres and now requires a variance to recognize the existing location as the minimum required front yard setback is 8.0 metres. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95: Zone: Ao rica.ultural /6Rural iA/IRU i Zone (Required I�rogoApj 1. Table E4 (B) Minimum Required (Front Sec metres 3.8 metres Yard FpflANCJAL: Potential financial and legal implications should the decision of the Committee of Adjustment be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and Council chooses to defend the Committee's decision. Deveioprent Services Meeting ng Date September 19, 2013 Appiioatioun No. 2013 -A -42 Pave 1 of 9 Page 73 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... POLfiCES/LEMILATuO : Does the variance conform to the general intent oa time Official Plan? The subject lands are designated Rural 'on the Township's Official Plan. The Official Plan does not specifically regulate signs, but Section C2 of the Official Plan contains policies related to the use and development of lands in this designation and one of the objectives for the Rural designation is "To preserve and promote the rural character of the Township and the maintenance of the open countryside." Planning Staff has visited the subject lands and notes that there is limited space between the Township road allowance and the edge of the heavily wooded area. if the applicants were to comply with the 8.0 metre front yard setback they would have to clear out a significant amount of heavily wooded area, that would take away from the "open countryside and rural character" that the Rural designation is striving to achieve. Planning Staff also notes the billboard sign has been designed in a conscientious manner to blend in with its surroundings and reduce its impact on the surrounding forested rural area, having a rustic wooden design. Based on the above, Planning Staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Official Plan. Does the variance meet the general intent of the ZorD6rug By=law, and is the ',:,rlsnc e ppropriate for the desirable development of the loft? The subject property is zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone as per the Township's Zoning By -law 97 -95. As per Township By -Law 2010 -075 "Being a By -Law to Regulate Signs and other Advertising Devices" Billboard Signs are permitted in the Agricultural /Rural Zone provided they are setback a distance no less than the minimum required distance for the main use on the lot. The Zoning By -law's requirement for a minimum front yard setback of 8 metres is intended to provide spatial separation between structures and the fronting road to maintain the open rural character of the area, reduce visual impacts on the streetscape and buffer buildings and their uses from traffic and noise. As this application is in regards to a Billboard Sign Planning Staff is not concerned about any noise impacts, and as previously explained Planning Staff has visited the site and is of the opinion that the impact, if any, of the applicants existing Billboard Sign on adjacent properties or on the rural area as a whole would not be noticeably different if located at the required 8 metre setback. Furthermore the current Billboard sign has reduced potential impacts of removing any of the heavily wooded area behind it and has been designed in a conscientious manner to fit in with the surrounding forested rural area. Planning Staff is of the opinion that the variance maintains the general intent of the Zoning By -law and is appropriate for the desirable development of the lot. is the variance minor? The proposed variance is considered minor as in Planning Staff's opinion it results in Tess impact on rural character than if it was setback the required 8 metres, resulting in more tree /vegetation removal. Deve0oppment SeMces Meeting Date September t9, 2013 AppOOcatuov No. 2013 -A -42 Page 2 of 9 Page 74 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... CONSULTATIONS: Environmental Services Division — no concerns. Transportation Division — no concerns. Building Division — no concerns. County of Simcoe - Fire & Emergency Services — ATTACHMENTS: Schedule 1: Location Map Schedule 2: Applicants Location Map Schedule 3: Site Photo Schedule 4: Rudy & Associates Letter Dated September 10, 2013. CONCLUSION: It is the opinion of the Planning Department that Variance Application 2013 -A -42, specifically, to permit the location of existing Billboard Sign at a 3.8 metre front yard setback, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Respectfully submitted: Kory Chisholm, BES Planner Reviewed by: Derek Witlib, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Services Development Services Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -42 Page 3 of 9 Page 75 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP 2013 -A -42 (Horseshoe Valley Lands) HORSESHOE VALLEY ROAD W hililf4H4111411%14 tttttttttttttt tttttttttttt Alg .................. 111040* * *•*S x 'QC+µ"' "tot ittluOtatilitsUgua w z N SUBJECT PROPERTY (Con 5 N PT Lot 1) Development Services Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -42 Page 4 of 9 Page 76 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... SCHEDULE 2: APPLICANTS SITE PLAN (Sign # 1) 2013 -A -42 (Horseshoe Valley Lands) SIGN #band tl2 Location Map General Location of SIGN # 2 Development Services Application No. 2013 -A -42 Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Page 5 of 9 Page 77 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... SCHEDULE 3: SITE PHOTO 2013 -A -42 (Horseshoe Valley Lands) Development Services Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -42 Page 6 of 9 Page 78 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... SCHEDULE 4: RUDY ASSOCilATIES PLANK M REPORT 2013-A42 (Horseshoe Valey Lands) J1 , RUDY September 10, 2013 Township of Oro - Medonte Planning Department 148 Line 7 S, Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2X0 ,ASSOCIATES LTD. Comprehensive Land Use Planning Mediation Services Attention: Andria Leigh, Director of Planning Re: Township of Oro- lfiedorite Part of Lot 1, Concession 5, Part 3 of Registered Plan 51R20347 (Line 4) AND Part of Lots 1 and 2, Concession 3, Part 1 of Registered Plan 51R9549 (Line 3 Horseshoe Valley Lands Directional Signs Minor Variance Application We are pleased to enclose our minor variance application submission to legalize the existing signs located on the above noted properties. The purpose of the enclosed minor variance application is to reduce the front yard setback required for a sign on the properties from 8 metres to 3.8 metres. This package contains the following: o 1 copy of the Minor Variance application (including one additional sheet providing additional ownership information); • 1 copy of a Sign Location Map; o A cheque totalling $600.00 made payable to Township of Oro - Medonte representing the Minor Variance Application fee. The subject properties are located outside of the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Area. The lands are designated Rural within the Township of Oro - Medonte Official Plan and are zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/Ru) Zone. The Township of Oro- Medonte Bylaw No. 2010 -075 is a bylaw in place to regulate signs on properties throughout the municipality. Section 6.5 of the by- law speaks specifically to billboard signs being permitted within the Agricultural /Rural Zone. The erected signs on the above noted properties meet the provisions set forth in Section 6.5.1 Billboard Sign of the Bylaw with regards to size and height however the signs do not meet Section 6.5.1.3 of the bylaw. Page 1 Developrrment Services Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013-A-42 Page 7 of 9 Page 79 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... Section 6.5.1.3 states that Billboard Signs are considered to be structures and shall be set back from lot lines no less than the minimum required distance for the main use on the lot. The existing signs are in compliance with the rear and side yard setbacks required within the Agricultural/Rural Zone however are not in compliance with the front yard setback requirement. The required front yard setback in the Agricultural /Rural Zone is 8 metres; the signs are currently located 3.8 metres from the front lot line. A variance is being requested to recognize the existing front yard deficiency of 4.2 metres. Sign # 1 and Sign # 2 (as shown on the attached location map) were erected in April of 2013 to provide directional signage and advertising for the Horseshoe Valley Lands development occurring between Line 3 and Line 4 (known as Landscape Drive Phase 3 and future development lands). The existing signs are constructed of wood and measure 12 feet in height by 16 feet in width. As per Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act, it is my professional opinion the variance requested is minor in nature and meets the four tests of a minor variance as follows: 1. The variance as requested is minor in nature requesting a reduction in a front yard setback to accommodate existing directional signage adjacent to a growing Settlement Area. 2. The variance is desirable as it legalizes an existing front yard deficiency. The variance will allow appropriate directional signage to advertise residential development within the community. The signs are intended to create awareness of the current and future development within the community, helping the community to grow. The existing signs are in keeping with the character of area. They are constructed of wood and have been designed to compliment the rustic and rural character of Horseshoe Valley. The signs are erected along Line 3 and 4 adjacent to the existing Horseshoe Valley Settlement Area and do not impede traffic or neighbouring property views. 3. The general intent of the Zoning Bylaw is maintained as the request is minor in nature. The existing sign locations are logical and maintain the rural character of the area. The relocation of the signs will result in the removal of trees which will take away from the areas character. 4. The general intent of the Official Plan is maintained as the variance requested allows for appropriate signage to advertise current and future development within a Settlement Area. The existing signs do not change the existing use of the property and do not negatively affect the site or impede any future use of the site. We trust the enclosed information is appropriate and contains a complete submission. Page 2 Development Servces vteetiog Date September 119, 2013 AppVucatioin ICI®. 20113 =A -42 Page 8 off 9 Page 80 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... We remain available for any questions and look forward to your comments. Respectfully submitted, RUDY & Associates Ltd. Michelle Cutts, Hons BAGS, BEd Planner Page 3 Development Services fleeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013��42 Page 9 off 9 Page 81 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... Page 82 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... Page 83 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... Page 84 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... Page 85 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... L5eV-(0o.)icd Robert and Barbara CAMPBELL 2 Highland Drive RR #1 Shanty Bay Ontario Canada LOL 2L0 tele: • September 13, 2013 Secretary- Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Township of Oro - Medonte Re: Application: 2013 -A -42 A variance is requested to permit construction of a billboard sign for advertising purposes. We wish to make the following input on this application: 1. The zoning by -law 97 -95 is in force presumably for valid reasons, including a reasonable rule on setbacks. If the by -law is in -force and reasonable, I see no reason why you should entertain variations. 2. A large billboard already exists on this site. I cannot object to it if the Township has jurisdiction and gave prior approval. If not, the Township should enforce their by -law which was in place and known to the Applicant prior to erecting the billboard. 3. The subject site is zoned A/RU. The billboard is a commercial venture which seems at odds with this zoning. It is at the entrance to an established housing community and not in keeping with the decorum of the neighbourhood. We have no objections to the Applicant's pursuit of a commercial venture. We are only concerned with the precedent setting for billboards or advertisements of any kind in or at the entrance to our established housing area. I believe that is the reason for Township rules. In spite of rules, we suggest the Applicant should also exercise reasonable judgment on the neighbourhood esthetics. Subject to your review of the above, with the Applicant, I suggest the conclusion is to remove the existing billboard entirely. Otherwise, I suspect we are faced with having this structure there for many years to come. Page 86 of 103 5.e) 2013 -A -42 (John Boville),Property located at the east s... Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association 1101 Horseshoe Valley Rd, Compartment 51 R.R. #1 Barrie, ON. L4M 4Y8 Andria Leigh Director of Development Services Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 S, Box 100 Oro ON. L0L 2X0 Dear Ms. Leigh Subject: Horseshoe Ridge Billboard Signs on Line 4 N and Line 3 N. In recent weeks the members of the Board of the HVPOA have received several concerns from members about the size and location of two large billboards erected by the owner(s) of Horseshoe Ridge Homes. The issue is that the size of the signs is too large for a residential area and that their location is too close to the road. Information from Township staff confirmed that the signs are allowed on the lands which are zoned agricultural /rural but that each sign is closer to the lot line abutting the road than is allowed under the Township's Sign By -law. One sign is apparently about 2 meters from the lot line while the other sign is about 4 meters from the lot line. Since the Sign By -law requires a setback of 8 meters from the lot line, we understand that the owner will have to either move the signs back or seek a variance to the By -law from the Committee of Adjustment. The HVPOA Board at its June 3, 2013 meeting passed a resolution to object to any variances to permit these two signs to remain where they are on the basis that the variances would not be minor. In our view the signs are not in keeping with the residential nature of the neighbourhood and, if they must be permitted based on zoning, they should be moved to the minimum 8 meter setback required under the Sign By -law. We are also concerned that the owner of the signs could in future rent the space to other advertisers or the signs could be made legal non - conforming when the surrounding lands are developed for residential uses. We would ask you to notify us when an application is made to the Committee of Adjustment for variances for these signs so that we may attend the Committee meeting. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely Shauna Tozser President, HVPOA C.c. Mayor H. Hughes, Councillor M. Coutanche, Robin Dunn, CAO. Page 87 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... Page 88 of 103 -* TOWNSHOP OF ORO-MEDo ONT1! REPORT rmud Henn., E rtrrp I'mure Application Flo: 2013 -A -43 To: Committee of Adlflaastment Prepared [0y: Ivory Chisholm Planner Meeting Date: September 19, 2013 Subject: Variance Application (Horseshoe Valley Lands) Coro 3 flan 51H-9949 Part Lots 1 t:. 2 Motion # Roii #: 4348 °010 =002 °03301 H.M.S. He #: 0'1345513 REQUiRIi=D CONDITIONS: The following conditions are required to be imposed on the Committee's decision: 1. That, notwithstanding Table B4 (B) of Zoning By -law 97 -95, as amended, the Billboard Sign shall otherwise comply with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning By -law as well as By -law 2010- 075 "Being a By -Law to Regulate Signs and other Advertising Devices "; 2. That the variance is granted only for the existing sign on the lands and not for any new or replacement signs. 3. That the appropriate zoning certificate and sign 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 subject property is currently vacant, with large wooded areas and some cross country ski trails running through it. The applicant has constructed a billboard sign advertising the nearby Horseshoe Ridge Homes development. The billboard sign was constructed at a front yard setback of 3.8 metres and now requires a variance to recognize the existing location as the minimum required front yard is 8.0 metres. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting the following relief from Zoning By -law 97 -95: Zone: Adricuitaoral /Ptoral (A/RU) Zone Gee ulRi c_i Proposed) 1. Table 34 (F) Minimum Required) front .0 metres 3.8 metres Yard) FINANCIAL: Potential financial and legal implications should the decision of the Committee of Adjustment be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and Council chooses to defend the Committee's decision. Development Services fleeting Date September 09, 2013 Apppication No. 2013 -A -43 Page 1 of 9 Page 88 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... POL CiES /LLIEWSLATBON Does the vari noe conform to the general intent of the Official Galan? The subject lands are designated Rural and Oro Moraine Core /Corridor Area in the Township's Official Plan, with the area applicable to this application falling within the Rural designation. The Official Plan does not specifically regulate signs, but Section C2 of the Official Plan contains policies related to the use and development of lands in this designation. One of the objectives for the Rural designation is "To preserve and promote the rural character of the Township and the maintenance of the open countryside." Planning Staff has visited the subject lands and notes that there is limited space between the Township road allowance and the edge of the heavily vegetated area. If the applicants were to comply with the 8.0 metre front yard setback they would have to clear out a significant amount of heavy vegetation, that would take away from the "open countryside and rural character" that the Rural designation is striving to achieve. Planning Staff also notes the billboard sign has been designed in a conscientious manner to blend in with its surroundings and reduce its impact on the surrounding forested rural area, having a rustic wooden design. Based on the above, Planning Staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Official Plan. Does the variance meet the general intent of the Zoning By -law, and is the variance appropriate for the desirable development ®a the loft? The subject property is zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone in the Township's Zoning By -law with the area in question falling within the Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) Zone. As per Township By -Law 2010 -075 "Being a By -Law to Regulate Signs and other Advertising Devices" Billboard Signs are permitted in the Agricultural /Rural Zone provided they are setback a distance no less than the minimum required distance for the main use on the lot. The Zoning By -law's requirement for a minimum front yard setback of 8 metres is intended to provide spatial separation between structures and the fronting road to maintain the open rural character of the area, reduce visual impacts on the streetscape and buffer buildings and their uses from traffic and noise. As this application is in regards to a Billboard Sign Planning Staff is not concerned about any noise impacts, and as previously explained Planning Staff has visited the site and is of the opinion that the impact, if any, of the applicants existing Billboard Sign on adjacent properties or on the rural area as a whole would not be noticeably different if located at the required 8 metre setback. Furthermore the current Billboard sign has reduced potential impacts of removing any of the heavily wooded area behind it and has been designed in a conscientious manner to fit in with the surrounding forested rural area. Planning Staff is of the opinion that the variance maintains the general intent of the Zoning By -law and is appropriate for the desirable development of the lot. Development Services Nleeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -43 Page 2 of 9 Page 89 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... Is the variance minor? The proposed variance is considered minor as in Planning Staff's opinion it results in less impact on rural character than if it was setback the required 8 metres, resulting in more tree /vegetation removal. CONSULTATIONS: Environmental Services Division — no concerns. Transportation Division — no concerns. Building Division — no concerns. County of Simcoe - Fire & Emergency Services - ATTACHMENTS: Schedule 1: Location Map Schedule 2: Applicants Location Map Schedule 3: Site Photo Schedule 4: Rudy & Associates Letter Dated September 10, 2013. CONCLUSION: It is the opinion of the Planning Department that Variance Application 2013 -A -43, specifically, to permit the location of existing Billboard Sign at a 3.8 metre front yard setback, appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Respectfully submitted: Kory Chisholm, BES Planner Reviewed by: Derek Witlib, MCIP, RPP Manager, Planning Services Development Services Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -43 Page 3 of 9 Page 90 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... SCHEDULE 1: LOCATION MAP 2013 -A -43 (Horseshoe Valley Lands) z II SUBJECT PROPERTY (Con 3 Pt Lots 1 & 2) Development Services Application No. 2013 -A -43 Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Page 4 of 9 Page 91 of 103 5.f) 2013-A-43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... SCHEDULE 2: APPLICANTS SITE PLAN (Sign # 2) 2013-A-43 (Horseshoe Valley Lands) rime - Development Services Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013-A-43 Page 5 of 9 Page 92 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... SCHEDULE 3: SITE PHOTO 2013 -A -43 (Horseshoe Valley Lands) Development Services Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -43 Page 6 of 9 Page 93 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... SCHEDULE 4: RUDY ASSOC RTES PLANNONG RCMP 2013-A43 (Horseshoe VaHey Lends) ,.• /1 "- RUDY September 10, 2013 Township of Oro - Medonte Planning Department 148 Line 7 S, Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2X0 ASSOCIATES LTD. Comprehensive Land Use Planning Mediation Services Attention: Andria Leigh, Director of Planning Re: Townships of Oro- Medonte Part of Lot 1, Concession 5, Part 3 of Registered Ran 51 R20347 (Line 4) AND Part of Lots 1 and 2, Concession 3, Part 1 of Registered Plan 3189949 (Line 3 Horseshoe Vey Lands Directional Signs Minor Variance Aplpiication We are pleased to enclose our minor variance application submission to legalize the existing signs located on the above noted properties. The purpose of the enclosed minor variance application is to reduce the front yard setback required for a sign on the properties from 8 metres to 3.8 metres. This package contains the following: o 1 copy of the Minor Variance application (including one additional sheet providing additional ownership information); o 1 copy of a Sign Location Map; • A cheque totalling $600.00 made payable to Township of Oro - Medonte representing the Minor Variance Application fee. The subject properties are located outside of the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Area. The lands are designated Rural within the Township of Oro - Medonte Official Plan and are zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/Ru) Zone. The Township of Oro - Medonte Bylaw No. 2010 -075 is a bylaw in place to regulate signs on properties throughout the municipality. Section 6.5 of the by- law speaks specifically to billboard signs being permitted within the Agricultural /Rural Zone. The erected signs on the above noted properties meet the provisions set forth in Section 6,5.1 Billboard Sign of the Bylaw with regards to size and height however the signs do not meet Section 6.5.1.3 of the bylaw. Page 1 Development Services Meeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -43 Pave 7 of 9 Page 94 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... Section 6.5.1.3 states that Billboard Signs are considered to be structures and shall be set back from lot lines no less than the minimum required distance for the main use on the lot. The existing signs are in compliance with the rear and side yard setbacks required within the Agricultural /Rural Zone however are not in compliance with the front yard setback requirement. The required front yard setback in the Agricultural /Rural Zone is 8 metres; the signs are currently located 3.8 metres from the front lot line. A variance is being requested to recognize the existing front yard deficiency of 4.2 metres. Sign # 1 and Sign # 2 (as shown on the attached location map) were erected in April of 2013 to provide directional signage and advertising for the Horseshoe Valley Lands development occurring between Line 3 and Line 4 (known as Landscape Drive Phase 3 and future development lands). The existing signs are constructed of wood and measure 12 feet in height by 16 feet in width. As per Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act, it is my professional opinion the variance requested is minor in nature and meets the four tests of a minor variance as follows: 1. The variance as requested is minor in nature requesting a reduction in a front yard setback to accommodate existing directional signage adjacent to a growing Settlement Area. 2. The variance is desirable as it legalizes an existing front yard deficiency, The variance will allow appropriate directional signage to advertise residential development within the community. The signs are intended to create awareness of the current and future development within the community, helping the community to grow. The existing signs are in keeping with the character of area. They are constructed of wood and have been designed to compliment the rustic and rural character of Horseshoe Valley. The signs are erected along Line 3 and 4 adjacent to the existing Horseshoe Valley Settlement Area and do not impede traffic or neighbouring property views. 3. The general intent of the Zoning Bylaw is maintained as the request is minor in nature. The existing sign locations are logical and maintain the rural character of the area. The relocation of the signs will result in the removal of trees which will take away from the areas character. 4. The general intent of the Official Plan is maintained as the variance requested allows for appropriate signage to advertise current and future development within a Settlement Area. The existing signs do not change the existing use of the property and do not negatively affect the site or impede any future use of the site. We trust the enclosed information is appropriate and contains a complete submission. Page 2 Development Services Meeting ig Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A -43 Page 8 of 9 Page 95 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... We remain available for any questions and look forward to your comments. Respectfully submitted, RUDY & Associates Ltd. adA Michelle Cutts, Hons BAGS, BEd Planner Page 3 Development Services fleeting Date September 19, 2013 Application No. 2013 -A=43 Page 9 of 9 Page 96 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... Page 97 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... Page 98 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... Page 99 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... Page 100 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... Page 101 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... Page 102 of 103 5.f) 2013 -A -43 (John Boville),Property located at the west s... Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association 1101 Horseshoe Valley Rd, Compartment 51 R.R. #1 Barrie, ON. L4M 4Y8 Andria Leigh Director of Development Services Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 S, Box 100 Oro ON. L0L 2X0 Dear Ms. Leigh Subject: Horseshoe Ridge Billboard Signs on Line 4 N and Line 3 N. In recent weeks the members of the Board of the HVPOA have received several concerns from members about the size and location of two large billboards erected by the owner(s) of Horseshoe Ridge Homes. The issue is that the size of the signs is too large for a residential area and that their location is too close to the road. Information from Township staff confirmed that the signs are allowed on the lands which are zoned agricultural /rural but that each sign is closer to the lot line abutting the road than is allowed under the Township's Sign By -law. One sign is apparently about 2 meters from the lot line while the other sign is about 4 meters from the lot line. Since the Sign By -law requires a setback of 8 meters from the lot line, we understand that the owner will have to either move the signs back or seek a variance to the By -law from the Committee of Adjustment. The HVPOA Board at its June 3, 2013 meeting passed a resolution to object to any variances to permit these two signs to remain where they are on the basis that the variances would not be minor. In our view the signs are not in keeping with the residential nature of the neighbourhood and, if they must be permitted based on zoning, they should be moved to the minimum 8 meter setback required under the Sign By -law. We are also concerned that the owner of the signs could in future rent the space to other advertisers or the signs could be made legal non - conforming when the surrounding lands are developed for residential uses. We would ask you to notify us when an application is made to the Committee of Adjustment for variances for these signs so that we may attend the Committee meeting. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely Shauna Tozser President, HVPOA C.c. Mayor H. Hughes, Councillor M. Coutanche, Robin Dunn, CAO. Page 103 of 103