2015-128 Amend zoning provisions - 204 Line 15 NorthThe Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
By-law No. 2015-128
A By-law to amend the zoning provisions which apply to lands within Part of Lot
12, Concession 1 (Orillia), Township of Oro-Medonte, 204 Line 15 North
Simcoe County District School Board (2015-ZBA-04)
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is empowered
to pass By-laws to regulate the use of land pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13;
AND WHEREAS Council deems it appropriate to rezone the lands to add a Residential
Care Home as a permitted use in accordance with Section C6 of the Official Plan;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte hereby enacts as
follows:
1. Section 7 - Exceptions of Zoning By-law 97-95 as amended is hereby amended
by deleting Subsection 7.259 in its entirety and replacing it with the following
subsection:
"7.259 *259 - CONCESSION 1, PART OF LOT 12 (FORMER ORILLIA)
Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law including Table A5 -
Institutional Permitted Uses and Section 5.19 Parking Standards, the following
uses are permitted and zone provisions apply on the lands denoted by the
symbol *259 on the schedules to this By-law:
a) A 20 unit "Residential Care Home" with ancillary office and gymnasium
space is permitted.
b) A "Correctional Residential Care Home" is prohibited.
c) A minimum of 30 parking spaces for employees and residents is required.
2. This By-law shall take effect on the final passing thereof in accordance with the
provisions of the Planning Act.
Enacted Pursuant to Ontario Municipal Board Decision For Case No. PL150801,
Issued July 29, 2016.
Schedule "A"
to By-law No. 2015-128 for
The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
Enacted Pursuant to Ontario Municipal Board Decision For Case No. PL150801,
Issued July 29, 2016.
Lands proposed to be rezoned from
Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone
and Instituational (1) Zone to
Institutional Exception 259 (1*259)
Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales
de I'Ontario
ISSUE DATE: July 29, 2016 CASE NO(S).: PL150801
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Subject:
Municipality:
OMB Case No.:
OMB File No.:
OMB Case Name:
Heard:
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Simcoe County Board of Education
Susan Hutchinson
Susan Hutchinson
By-law No. 2015-128
Township of Oro-Medonte
PL150801
PL150801
Hutchinson v. Oro-Medonte (Township)
January 12, 2016 in Oro-Medonte, Ontario
Counsel
M. Green, W. Thomson
Self -represented
DECISION DELIVERED BY C. CONTI AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
INTRODUCTION
[1 ] This is the decision for an appeal by Susan Hutchinson ("Appellant") against the
approval by the Township of Oro-Medonte ("Township") of an application by the Simcoe
County Board of Education ("Applicant") for an amendment to the Township Zoning By-
law. The Township approved application No. 2015-ZBA-04 and amended the Zoning
By-law through the passage of By-law No. 2015-128 in order to permit a 20 unit
K
IU0U191.1191
Residential Care Home and associated facilities on a property at Part of Lot 12,
Concession 1 (Orillia), Township of Oro-Medonte, known municipally as 204 Line 15
North.
[2] The subject property consists of a lot approximately 1. 15 hectares in size on the
west side of Line 15 North with a frontage of approximately 132 metres ("m."). The
property is bounded by forest on the north, west and southern sides.
[3] The property is within a rural area of the Township. A residential property, owned
by the Appellant, abuts the subject property on the south and to the west. A residential
subdivision is located to the south of the Appellant's property and another subdivision is
located further south on the east side of Line 15 North.
[4] The property had been used as a school site. A single storey building,
approximately 292 square metres ("sq. m.") in size, which had operated as the school is
located in the south-central portion of the property. Two driveways access the property
from Line 15 North. A gravel parking lot, measuring approximately 880 sq. m. is located
in front of the former school building. A septic system which had serviced the school is
still located on the property.
[5] The Applicant intends to sell the property to Residential Care Home Management
Oro-Medonte Inc. which is proposing to develop a residential care facility on the
property to serve adults with autism and special needs. The existing building will be
retained and renovated to contain a kitchen, dining room and other common areas. An
addition will be constructed on the north side of the building for a garage, receiving area
and maintenance area.
[6] Twenty residential units will be constructed through a single storey addition on
the south side of the existing building in two phases. The first phase will consist of 12
units along with the necessary support facilities. The units will not contain kitchens.
Parking for 30 vehicles will be provided to the east of the building.
K3
Iu0P191.1191
[7] The intent is to upgrade and expand the existing septic system as required to
service the facility. A drilled well has recently been installed on the property which is
intended to provide water service to the facility.
[8] At full development the potential building envelope will cover approximately 2600
sq. m., with the residential portion occupying approximately 1625 sq. m.
[9] At the beginning of the hearing the Applicant noted that there was a mapping
error in the adoption of the By-law and the Board was requested to approve the By-law
as with a revised schedule as provided in Exhibit 1, Tab 22, p. 113-114.
[10] In addition to the appearances above, Bob Hawkins requested and was granted
participant status.
ISSUE
[11] The main issue in this appeal is to determine if the proposed zoning By-law
amendment is appropriate and complies with the provisions of the Township Official
Plan and County of Simcoe Official Plan as required through s. 24 (1) of the Planning
Act.
EVIDENCE
[12] The Board heard evidence in support of the Applicant from Lanny Dennis,
Associate Planner with Wayne Simpson and Associates. Mr. Dennis is a Registered
Professional Planner who has more than twenty years of experience. He was qualified
by the Board as an expert in land use planning.
[13] The Board heard evidence in support of the Applicant from Nyle Mcllveen,
Principal/Senior Engineer with GHD Companies. Mr. Mcllveen is a Professional
Engineer who has approximately 30 years of experience. He was qualified by the Board
as an expert in hydrogeological engineering.
E
IU0U191.1191
[14] The Board heard evidence from Andria Leigh, the Township's Director of
Development Services, who appeared under summons by the Applicant. Ms. Leigh is a
Registered Professional Planner and she was qualified by the Board as an expert in
land use planning.
[15] The Board heard evidence from Dr. Howard Bloom and Sherry Anne Bloom who
are the owners of Residential Care Home Management Oro-Medonte Inc. and will own
and operate the proposed facility.
[16] The Board heard evidence in opposition to the proposal from the Appellant.
[17] Mr. Hawkins also provided evidence in opposition to the proposal.
RELEVANT FACTS
[18] Based upon the evidence and submissions of the parties, the Board has
determined that the following facts are relevant for this appeal.
[19] The subject property is designated as Rural and Agricultural in the Simcoe
County Official Plan. In Rural areas the Official Plan permits residential and institutional
uses (Exhibit 1, Tab 20, p. 95).
[20] In s. 4.2, the County Official Plan states:
Community facilities and services should be directed to settlement areas wherever
possible. Where there is a demonstrated need for such facilities to be located beyond
settlement areas, with the exception of water and sewer facilities, they shall not be
permitted on prime agricultural lands and discouraged in the Greenland designation.
(Exhibit 1, Tab 20, p. 98).
[21 ] The subject property is designated Restricted Rural in the Township of Oro-
Medonte Official Plan. The Restricted Rural designation is intended to maintain and
preserve the rural character of the area and protect lands adjacent to Barrie and Orillia
from incompatible development (Exhibit 1, Tab 18, p. 74).
61
IU0U191.1191
[22] The permitted uses in the Restricted Rural designation include single detached
dwellings, bed and breakfast establishments, portable asphalt plants, seasonal home
grown produce stands, home industries and home occupations (Exhibit 1, Tab 18, p.
74).
[23] Section D5 of the Township Official Plan addresses requirements for Residential
Care Homes. In s. D5 (b) the Plan states,
The Township supports the provision of an adequate supply of residential care homes.
On this basis, residential care homes are permitted in any land use designation that
permits residential uses. Such uses may be subject to Site Plan Control to ensure that
the facility is properly licensed by the Provincial government and complies with the
Ontario Building and Fire Codes. In addition the implementing by-law shall not permit the
use of such a home by more than 10 residents, plus the owner and staff.
(Exhibit 1, Tab 18, p. 76).
[24] The southern portion of the property is zone Institutional, I, in the Township
Zoning By-law. Residential Care Homes are not specifically permitted in an Institutional
Zone (Exhibit 1, Tab 11, p. 24). The northern portion of the property is zoned
Agricultural/ Rural zone, A/RU. Residential Care Homes are permitted in the
Agricultural/Rural Zone (Exhibit 1, Tab 11, p. 23). The proposed By-law amendment
would zone the entire property as Institutional with an exception to allow a Residential
Care Home on the property and to permit 20 residential units.
[25] In s. 1.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement ("PPS") it states,
Before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities:
a) the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized; and
b) opportunities for adaptive re -use should be considered wherever feasible.
(Exhibit 1, Tab 17, p. 57A)
[26] The definition of public service facilities in the PPS is as follows:
Public service facilities: means land, buildings and structures for the provision of
programs and services provided or subsidized by a government or other body, such as
social assistance, recreation, police and fire protection, health and educational programs,
and cultural services. Public service facilities do not include infrastructure.
(Exhibit 1, Tab 17, p. 59)
C.1
ISSUES, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Iu0N7i1.1191
[27] The Board has carefully considered all of the evidence and the submissions of
the parties and the participant.
[28] To briefly summarize the positions and the evidence; the Applicant maintained
that the proposal is appropriate and it complies with all relevant requirements. The
property had been used for a number of years as an elementary school which
established a more intensive level of use than exists in the surrounding area.
[29] The property is designated Restricted Rural in the Township Official Plan which
permits residential use and therefore the Applicant maintained that Residential Care
Homes may be permitted on the site.
[30] The Applicant noted that a portion of the subject property is zoned
Agricultural/Rural Zone in which Residential Care Homes are permitted. The remainder
of the property is zoned Institutional. The Applicant contended that the use of the site as
a Residential Care Home is similar to uses permitted through the Institutional zoning.
The proposed By-law Amendment would extend the Institutional zoning onto the entire
site and permit a Residential Care Home as an exception on the property.
[31 ] The Applicant contended that the proposal is an appropriate use for the site and
it will fulfill a need for adults with special needs that has been identified in the report of
provincial Select Committee on Developmental Services (Exhibit 6, p. 18-19).
[32] In addition the proposal represents and adaptive re -use of the property which is
encouraged by s. 1.6.3 of the PPS.
[33] The Appellant contended that the use is not appropriate for the subject property
and with 20 residents and staff, the intensity of the use and impact will be substantially
greater than that of the elementary school. The Appellant also noted that the school has
not been in use for many years.
rA
IU0P1i1:i9S
[34] The Appellant raised concerns about the impact of the proposal on groundwater
in the area and potential effects on her well. She indicated that her well went dry and
the school's well also went dry when the Shelswell subdivision to the south was
developed. She maintained that a hydrogeological study should be carried out for the
proposal which takes into account the use by residents, staff and the need for a fire
suppression system. The study should address impact on the surrounding area and be
peer reviewed.
[35] The Appellant contended that the proposed use will not be compatible with the
area and that 20 units on a 1.15 ha. site is too intensive a use of the property. She
maintained that the development is not appropriate for an area designated as Restricted
Rural. She also contended that the use is not appropriate in view of the Institutional
zoning of the site. She raised concerns about the proposal impacting traffic in the area.
[36] The Appellant maintained that the area has been identified as having a highly
vulnerable aquifer. She submitted a letter from a geological and environmental
consultant (Exhibit 4, Tab 10) which raised concerns about the potential impact of the
proposal on the hydrogeological characteristics of the area and which recommended a
more detailed hydrogeological study.
[37] The Applicant also raised concerns about the operation of the facility and
ensuring that security is maintained.
[38] Mr. Hawkins raised a number of concerns that are similar to those identified by
the Appellant. He indicated that there should be reports regarding asbestos found in the
building and potential soil contamination on the site should be investigated. He also
expressed concern that the crisis response team should be adequate at night.
[39] After considering the evidence, the Board notes that the expert opinion evidence
in this matter is uncontradicted. From the evidence the Board has concluded that there
are two main issues that require resolution in this appeal. First, is this the appropriate
location for this type of facility and is the property suitable for the proposed use, given
E:3
I U 0 &1191.1191
its location in a rural area, outside of a settlement area and in view of the Official Plan
designations and requirements of the planning documents? Second, has evidence been
brought forward of potential negative impacts of the proposal, in particular with regard to
the hydrogeological impact on groundwater and wells in the area, that will be
unacceptable and cannot be mitigated?
[40] The provisions of the planning documents that were provided in evidence favour
the location of facilities of the type proposed by the Applicant within settlement areas.
However, they do not prevent the location of these types of facilities outside of urban
areas and they recognize the need, in some cases, for the location of these facilities
outside of settlement areas.
[41 ] Furthermore, it is clear from the evidence that there is a need for that the type of
facility that is being proposed. This is apparent from the above -noted report from the
Select Committee on Developmental Services. Dr. Bloom and Sherry Anne Bloom
operate facilities in other communities for children with special needs. They provided
convincing evidence of the need for this type of facility for adults. The matter was not
strongly disputed by the Appellant. Dr. Bloom and Sherry Anne Bloom also indicated
that feedback from parents of special needs children identified a preference for this type
of facility to be located in a rural area.
[42] The opinion of the planning witnesses is that the use is appropriate and that it is
permitted in both the County and Township Official Plans. Both planning witnesses
maintained that the proposal could be considered a community facility or service under
the in -force County Official Plan and therefore could be approved outside of a
settlement area. Mr. Dennis referenced s. 4.2 of the County Plan which indicates that
where there is a need, these types of facilities can be located outside of settlement
areas as long as they are not in prime agricultural areas or in lands designated as
Greenland. The subject property is not within a prime agricultural area and is not
designated as Greenland.
I U 0 &1191.1191
[43] The Board heard that that there is a new County Official Plan which is not fully
approved. Residential Care Homes can be considered public service facilities in the
new County Plan which through s. 4.2.1 can be located outside of settlement areas but
may require an Official Plan amendment (Exhibit 1, Tab 20, p. 101). Ms. Leigh indicated
that in the new County Official Plan the property is not within the Agricultural
designation and an Official Plan amendment would not be required under s. 4.2.1 to
allow a public service facility on the property.
[44] With regard to the Township Official Plan, the Restricted Rural designation
permits residential use and therefore a Residential Care Home can be permitted on the
site. An objective of the Official Plan for lands in the Restricted Rural designation is to
maintain and protect the rural character. However, the site has already been subject to
a more intense type of development through the use of the property for a school.
Furthermore, Mr. Dennis noted that the surrounding area is substantially developed and
therefore it could function as a transitional area.
[45] The site is close to the municipal boundary of the Township with the City of
Orillia. Mr. Dennis' evidence was that the site is an adaptive re -use of the property.
From the evidence, the Board understands that the proposed development on the
subject property will not offend the objectives of the Restricted Rural designation in s.
6.1, in part because it represents an adaptive re -use of the site and building and
therefore will not increase the likelihood of incompatible development on lands adjacent
to Orillia.
[46] With regard to s. D5 of the Township Official Plan, noted above, the proposal
complies with this section except for the intent for the Residential Care Home to include
20 residential units. The Board heard that the proposal will be subject to Site Plan
Control as may be required through this section. However, the section requires that the
site specific By-laws for Residential Care Homes should restrict the number of residents
to 10, whereas the proposal is for 20 residential units. The Applicant has dealt with this
10 PL150801
requirement by including a provision to allow 20 units in the proposed By-law
amendment as an exception (Exhibit 1, Tab 22, p. 113).
[47] The opinion of Mr. Dennis and Ms. Leigh was that the past use of the property as
a school site established a level of use that would be consistent with that of the
proposed Residential Care Home with 20 units. While the Board does not have clear
evidence on the number of children and staff that used the school, the level of use of a
small school site could involve a similar amount of activity as that expected with the
Residential Care Home.
[48] The Appellant noted that the school has been closed for many years and it would
have been used only during daytime hours and for 10 months of the year whereas the
Residential Care Home will have full time residents and be operating 12 months per
year.
[49] The Board recognizes that the school has not been used for a number of years.
The Board also recognizes that the proposed building will be substantially larger than
the existing school building.
[50] However, the permission for a more intensive use of the property has long been
established through the zoning. The portion of the property where the school was
located is still zoned Institutional, even though the school has not operated for a number
of years. The Applicant could reestablish a school, or one of the other uses permitted in
an Institutional zone such as a community centre on the property if there were a need.
The level of activity for one of the permitted uses could be continuing today.
[51 ] After considering the evidence, it is clear that a level of use of the property was
established in the past and is still permitted though the zoning that goes beyond the
normal level of use in a rural area. The Board recognizes that if the Residential Care
Home is established there will be change from the past use of the site and there may be
increases in activity at various times of the day. However, from the evidence these
changes are not prevented by the provisions of the planning documents, and the past
11
IU0P191.1191
use of the site and existing zoning established a potential level of use consistent with
that proposed by the Applicant.
[52] The Appellant raised a number of specific concerns related to the impact of the
proposal and the concern about the year round use of the site also involves the impact
of the proposal. The Appellant maintained that a traffic study should be prepared for the
proposal. However, Mr. Dennis indicated that traffic increase should not be a concern
and that in the circulation of the proposed By-law to agencies and municipal
departments no traffic issues were raised.
[53] The Appellant raised issues of privacy and security. However, the Board heard
that appropriate visual screening will be provided by maintaining the existing forest and
that some fencing may be required adjacent to the road. The need for additional fencing
is a matter that is appropriately dealt with at the site plan approval stage. In addition,
the Board heard that residents of the facility will be supervised and that a 1:1 staff to
resident ratio is always maintained. In view of the evidence, the Board concludes that
issues related to privacy and security will be dealt with appropriately.
[54] With regard to potential hydrogeological impact, the Board heard from Mr.
Mcllveen who prepared a Hydrogeological Assessment Report for the site (Exhibit 10).
Mr. Mcllveen investigated records of existing wells in the surrounding area. He also
performed a six hour pumping test on the drilled well that is intended to service the
Residential Care Home. With regard to water supply for the proposal, Mr. Mcllveen
concluded in the report that , "Based upon these calculations considering the peak
demand flow, the potential drawdown is minor and the potential for well interference at
nearby wells is considered to be minimal." (Exhibit 10, p. 8). He also concluded that the
site is suitable for a septic system although he noted that some changes to the existing
system are likely necessary for the proposal. The report goes on to state, "In summary,
it is our professional opinion that the proposed `specialized' residential building is
suitable from a hydrogeological perspective .... and impacts from water supply, private
12
IU0P191.1191
septic and drainage are expected to have negligible impacts on surrounding land user
functions." (Exhibit 10, p. 9).
[55] The Appellant did not provide expert evidence related to hydrogeological issues.
A letter from Thomas Grace, a geological and environmental consultant was included in
the Appellant's document book (Exhibit 4, Tab 10). The Board allowed it to be entered,
but Mr. Green raised concerns about not being able to test the evidence through cross-
examination since the Appellant did not call Mr. Grace as a witness. After hearing from
the parties, the Board agreed that the letter could be entered, but it would be treated as
hearsay. The Board determined that the letter would not be considered as expert
opinion and that it would be given appropriate weight in making the decision on the
appeal.
[56] In order to ensure that hydrogeological issues have been given full consideration,
the Board has reviewed Mr. Grace's letter, and has concluded that a number of the
points raised have been addressed in Mr. Mcllveen's report. The Board understands
that Mr. Grace's letter was prepared without having the opportunity to review Mr.
Mcllveen's report.
[57] The Appellant contended that Mr. Mcllveen's report only considered water usage
by residents of the 20 units, and did not include the use by staff, visitors and others that
may be attending the site. After reviewing the report and based upon the calculations in
s. 8.1 it is not clear to the Board that water the calculations included usage by anyone
other than the residents of the 20 units (Exhibit 10, p. 8).
[58] However, the Board heard from Mr. Mcllveen and Mr. Green that more studies, if
required, would be prepared as part of the site plan approval process. Mr. Mcllveen
testified that additional engineering work will be required at the detailed design stage.
However, he was confident that issues can be resolved and that there is nothing from a
hydrogeological perspective to prevent the proposal from going forward.
13
IU0U191.1191
[59] The Appellant also raised concerns about the use of the well to service the fire
suppression system. However, the Board heard from Dr. Bloom that tanks will be used
to store water for the fire suppression system and they will be filled by tanker truck and
not from the well.
[60] The Appellant also raised s. A 2.2.1 of the Township Official Plan which indicates
that significant recharge and discharge areas should be protected from development
that may have a negative impact and s. E.1.1.5 which states that the Township may
require peer reviews of professional studies (Exhibit 4, Tab 8).
[61 ] The Board does not have a clear understanding of the status of the property with
regard to being identified as a high vulnerability aquifer area. However, in approving the
By-law the Township applied a condition in the Council resolution requiring the
Applicant to work with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority ("LSRCA") in
order to maintain and enhance the water balance of the site and employ best
management practices (Exhibit 1, Tab 24, p. 120). While the site is not within the
LSRCA area of jurisdiction, this condition should help to ensure that matters regarding
vulnerability of the aquifer are addressed. Any additional requirements that may result
from consultation with LSRCA can be incorporated into the proposal through the site
plan approval process.
[62] In consideration of all of the above, the Board is satisfied that in view of the
studies that have been completed and the need for the proposal to proceed through site
plan approval which will impose additional controls and conditions if required, the
hydrogeological issues will be dealt with in a satisfactory manner. The Township should
ensure sufficient hydrogeological information is provided regarding water usage by staff
and others using the site in addition to the residents of the proposed facility, as part of
the site plan approval process to confirm the conclusions of Mr. Mcllveen's report and
evidence that the proposal can go forward in a satisfactory manner without
unacceptable impacts.
14
IU0U191.1191
[63] However, for the purposes of considering the By-law amendment, the Board is
satisfied that the site is suitable for the proposed use. Measures can be incorporated
through the site plan process to deal with issues that may arise.
[64] With regard to the need for peer review of studies, s.E1.1.5 of the Official Plan
does not obligate the Township to require peer reviews or provide criteria for when they
may be required, but leaves it in the Township's discretion to require peer reviews of
professional studies. After reviewing the evidence, the Board has not determined that
there is a need to require peer reviews of the studies that have been provided in the
evidence. With regard to peer reviews for additional studies that may be provided as
part of the site plan approval process, this matter should remain in the Township's
discretion.
[65] The evidence of Mr. Dennis and Ms. Leigh contended that the proposal is
consistent with the PPS and conforms to the provisions of Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe ("Growth Plan"). Mr. Dennis noted that the PPS permits some
development outside of settlement areas. S. 1.1.5.3 indicates that economic
opportunities in rural areas should be promoted. Furthermore, the proposal is
supported by s. 1.6.3 of the PPS which encourages adaptive re -use in establishing
public service facilities.
[66] The expert planning opinion also maintained that s. 2.2.9 of the Growth Plan
allows for some development opportunities outside of settlement areas and s. 2.2.2 (i)
provides for some development in rural areas outside of settlement areas.
[67] After considering the evidence in its entirety and reviewing the submissions, the
Board accepts the planning opinions of Mr. Dennis and Ms. Leigh and concludes that
the proposed By-law amendment is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the
Growth Plan.
[68] In consideration of the above and in view of the uncontradicted expert opinion of
the planning witnesses and Mr. Mcllveen above, the Board finds that the proposed By-
15
Iu0N7i1.1191
law Amendment complies with the County Official Plan and Township Official Plan and
it should be approved.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
[69] The Board recognizes that the proposal represents a substantial expansion of
the proposed building and the planning documents encourage these types of facilities to
be located in settlement areas. However, the planning documents allow these facilities
to be located outside of settlement areas in some circumstances. Planning restrictions
that could prevent the facility from being located on the property do not apply to the
subject site. A portion of the site is zoned Institutional which permits schools and
community centres. While the site has not been used for a school for many years and it
appears that the school was fairly small in size, the existing zoning would permit a
school to be re-established on the site which could be larger than the existing building.
The zoning also permits a community centre to be established which could serve a
large number of people if it were required.
[70] It is clear that the zoning of the property and past use as a school site have
established a permitted level of use that is similar to the level of use of the site that will
occur if the proposal is approved. Furthermore, the uncontradicted expert
hydrogeological evidence is that the proposal can be developed on the subject property
without significant impacts on wells and without creating issues for surrounding land
owners. In addition, the site plan approval provides an additional level of control to
ensure that any further required studies will be carried out and additional conditions can
be imposed to deal with outstanding concerns.
[71 ] With regard to the Applicant's request that the schedule attached to the By-law
be replaced with that provided in Exhibit 1, Tab 22, p. 114, it is clear from review of the
evidence that the intent of the application is that the Institutional Zoning should apply to
the entire property which is clarified through the replacement schedule. The Board
IU0U191.1191
accepts the Applicant's evidence that there was simply a mapping error in the original
schedule and therefore, the By-law will be approved including the corrected schedule.
[72] Based upon the above, the Board will allow the appeal in part in order to approve
the revised By-law. The requirements of the Township's resolution approving the By-
law are not altered through the Board's decision.
ORDER
[73] The Board orders that the appeal is allowed in part and By-law No. No. 2015-128
is approved and the Township of Oro Medonte Zoning By-law is amended as set out in
Attachment 1.
[74] Board Rule 107 states:
107. Effective Date of Board Decision A Board decision is effective on the date that the
decision or order is issued in hard copy, unless it states otherwise.
[75] Pursuant to Board Rule 107, this decision takes effect on the date that it is e-
mailed by Board administrative staff to the clerk of the municipality where the property is
located.
"C. Conti"
C. CONTI
MEMBER
If there is an attachment referred to in this document,
please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.
Ontario Municipal Board
A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
PL150801 ATTACHMENT 1 1 13
r�
Ti'fiatm �{c„[I l,aioE�""� k:C�" :uO the-, T'..[(unam lailp c��[ iirrrc (rafi� lr tc�]t[ta5t <:
A Qy-lu'vir b rannerrad ffhe umnkng {Jf Jm1 J }arra v"drideln apply itYr i$',r�lnd",% Wlifthfffrt NaAj of Lot
12�, (CImilrcllt m"Imin, `t, ([0IdlL���, "Itu)'�ral��,f �l'� rstf C�] .'0 P�lil� dwami�iit'~i?ss, ���ON Line 15 t'J[a,trill,�i
slinfrucu[m- Comullrsty Diks,tril at 5Qh o11 oIrnd];{
lAJ1Nf;11 ?b C 5Jf FGA r?':f tli L 71 �7 > u1 1) f kf 7J I�lcysu,l fly? [ f i,[iU` LL1 iB i,t'ti4d k
VIrit .iFti Wt ONO tO P,"t Et. [BY llf { `'h fu) rnugutnm Unle") Us axrtnf Gf l d Ipuf t{,.a I se uala :, , C [ ikhrt-'
K" --.m lit , F, D�'t0l[Q, czp 11 3,
A Pflf3 [rIIH[E[IREAtS f [nLCI}f [i6h,"e rn iir] rid}f ]1 Iljl::ilti, f4r1 lr'Fl ]li}, ] Iff"ly, l{ia frdid,, fa Fil,[.m"Id')i.rddl@41
(C6Fia' Huarfna F- P.. a [PT-:, Inmiillil wf f t im c c" ind linc 3 aiOtTkro sr,,, lA, F, "'D { , r(u;n, IIJIfiii-in, � ff-liirkrlL [�lcltp:k,
[NUO1'r' T1Cr`9E[RE,[FOIRS Idle [_atir_r[un-40 of Ift of f nlut`s, auv
(fC [li[cuute ".".
LCA ElE7Etll I' [ acc-�(ptfianti C7f 1n -In lr E3r yf +17 0"314-56
�lrtlr(l Xrl(��19' [had {,'J(e 't't, ) �'�1�}3 r :ktl ] J r1., ED s;, c j Q.nlftf,rSimi llmjpfla l n{u IN,. ,mlof[r f',fr(w?
ft(af ilfan fil1i ig ; [ It tiF C C.i ku [D
hlbil,MlR1 rin� OR 11rul 'Vhhmi l%P IIm-e ifiC�(OriCkillil% TI FOdbs,
4frlt4.(d}rt[ut`. �rlfal RunrfinUrt d1 wUe"s a,,Inal Sswetl Clfl] 5„11`.J Pm.'JF*lfrrr, rfl frr,f,.CrC' (7r(F
o flummd[n ' Lr rtu rl i dt 1ri 1 ,c,rr f��in�flls' [rt�� f�ri�[. mini, CtC {I ttrt.t`!
I t r [[lb �ggini[titr[ f i CY m film 'ac .r)!3*7111 W t4fsll�,
a�1 A 20 [ufrtt `' mic tf?]t 6f,ujfq 1HUD,l, � ';r`r��h,) [rlEf [ Ir, f rdil QC,f rlli sleUjfttE
1b} �Li ICA-`2+%�. mr� p
(r�k A nllfln[rZL(�t,u [? [f 30 'piz kung] '7�l full � ij�Ef sill , arid, lr �.fl?L.frl @7 rr_ a7JlE[3 5k'
Tllhf [ESi llrms,ei Er-Aholl, f S ofi ul +ulm, t'sh} a flip 7 Cfrf 3 tf { f( ra� [otn rtd,C?,fr(Jf3.n{ F, t°,?[ilf l
f [njL ?fL rfl . k( r�r {? r' illhem, PFhm f1tl31fl ] Awl.
triona, fa 7H F - t',, Sum -D, viid a, ni Tj fifi d f,[ i, atmi 1 f'aummsmd `01"Iri m I.f rri rdm y [cot J fWIf ,f.,,
2?f ;5
Tlkrt>e kCi ir[kai'frt [t [ n (rglf ftffl[, Tci4r di af7jf sift 7rr' 11�91�1�tlnlnf}a
1Y�S�rre[rs fH [5,� (i-;IS�(�1h�s
Lxmg, [i[um-ii, 0 iC[Iie, frik Jai,n>pttL, Tce[ [t[er
Stheldiulle "A!"
D'Y'Aiaw lN io,� 21011$ 28 ,irsir
Tho Cioiqpivraitloon sof ItfirsTawinship of 01ricAlledontie
I A, i
'arM.M. pliln!"Posel 'I 10, ,, ing,
i Claw'sRuirm.I ids RlU) Zaiu,
i(Ir,',4 Zavo "m
I IExceoli.mrm 15,13 1 f'Z%S) R
I :
it ayor ,
1 :hwes'
Z. I ,
Mark
J"O"oi 11i
The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
By-law No. 2015-128
A By-law to amend the zoning provisions which apply to lands within Part of Lot
12, Concession 1 (Orillia), Township of Oro-Medonte, 204 Line 15 North
Simcoe County District School Board (2015-ZBA-04)
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is empowered
to pass By-laws to regulate the use of land pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13;
AND WHEREAS Council deems it appropriate to rezone the lands to add a Residential
Care Home as a permitted use in accordance with Section C6 of the Official Plan;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte hereby enacts as
follows:
1. Section 7 — Exceptions of Zoning By-law 97-95 as amended is hereby amended
by deleting Subsection 7.259 in its entirety and replacing it with the following
subsection:
"7.259 *259 — CONCESSION 1, PART OF LOT 12 (FORMER ORILLIA)
Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law including Table A5 —
Institutional Permitted Uses and Section 5.19 Parking Standards, the following
uses are permitted and zone provisions apply on the lands denoted by the
symbol *259 on the schedules to this By-law:
a) A 20 unit "Residential Care Home" with ancillary office and gymnasium
space is permitted.
b) A "Correctional Residential Care Home" is prohibited.
c) A minimum of 30 parking spaces for employees and residents is required.
2. This By-law shall take effect on the final passing thereof in accordance with the
provisions of the Planning Act.
By-law read a First, Second and Third time, and Passed this 16th day of July,
2015.
The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
ay r, H.S. ughes
DepAj Clerk, Janette Teeter
Schedule "A"
to By-law No. 2015-128 for
The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
®Lands proposed to be rezoned from
Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone
and Instituational (1) Zone to
Institutional Exception 259 (1*259) Zone
Mayor
H.S. Hughe
Deputy Clerk
Ja Aette Teeter