Loading...
2017-005 Amend Zoning 754 Horseshoe Valley RoadThe Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte By-law No. 2017-005 A by-law to amend the zoning provisions which apply to lands at 754 Horseshoe Valley Road South Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Medonte) Township of Oro-Medonte 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., c.P.13; And Whereas the Ontario Municipal Board deems it appropriate to rezone the lands pursuant to a Ontario Municipal Board Order dated January 27, 2017; Now Therefore the Township of Oro-Medonte Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended, is hereby amended as follows: Section 7.269 - *269 PERMITTED USES IN THE AGRICULTURAURURAL ZONE — is hereby amended by adding the following: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law, the following permitted uses, regulations and general provisions apply on the lands denoted by the symbol *269 on Schedule A attached hereto: Additional Permitted Use: Notwithstanding Table 3, the following additional use is permitted: a) Indoor and outdoor special events such as banquets, weddings, receptions, or similar functions. General Provisions: a) Lot Area — 3.5 hectares b) Front Yard Setback — 30 metres" 2. The lands zoned Agricultural/Rural Exception 269 (A/RU*269) Zone shall be subject to a Holding (H) Provision in accordance with Section 2.5 of By-law 97- 95, as amended. The Holding Provision shall not be removed until a Development Agreement has been entered into that is satisfactory to the Township of Oro-Medonte prior to the operation of the property for the indoor and outdoor special events use. 3. Schedule "A" and all other notations thereon are hereby declared to form part of this By-law. Enacted Pursuant to Ontario Municipal Board Decision for Case No. PL160115, Issued on January 27, 2017. Schedule "A" to By-law No. 2017-005 for The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte Enacted Pursuant to Ontario Municipal Board Decision for Case No. PL160115, Issued on January 27, 2017. Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de I'Ontario ISSUE DATE: January27, 2017 Ontario CASE NO(S).: PL160115 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(l 1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Subject: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Purpose: Property Address/Description: Municipality: Municipality File No.: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: OMB Case Name: Kathleen Marrs Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 97-95 - Refusal of Application by the Township of Oro- Medonte Agriculture/Rural Agricultural/Rural Exception To permit indoor and outdoor special events 754 Horseshoe Valley Road West Township of Oro-Medonte 2015-ZBA-01 PL160115 PL160115 Marrs v. Oro-Medonte (Township) PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Referred by: Subject: Property Address/Description: Municipality: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: Heard: Kathleen Marrs Site Plan 754 Horseshoe Valley Road West Township of Oro-Medonte PL160115 PL161215 January 4th and 5"h, 2017 in Oro-Medonte, Ontario E APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel Kathleen Marrs Al Burton Township of Oro-Medonte Andrea Skinner Cathedral Pines Ratepayers Alliance Anne Sabourin, Kristina Matveev (student -at - Inc. law) DECISION DELIVERED BY RICHARD JONES AND ORDER OF THE BOARD [1 ] At the outset of the two-day hearing, the Board was requested to consolidate the site plan application appeal pursuant to s. 41 (12) of the Planning Act (the "Act") by Kathleen Marrs (the Applicant), with the current appeal regarding an amendment to the Township of Oro-Medonte's (the `Township") Zoning By-law 97-95. The site plan appeal was launched in December 2015. [2] The Board approved the consolidation of appeals but denied a request by the solicitor for Cathedral Pines Ratepayers Alliance Inc. ("CPRA") to join that appeal. In the Board's view, after hearing preliminary evidence, the introduction of CPRA as a third party in that matter was unnecessary. The Board notes that site plan appeals normally only involve an applicant/appellant and the approval authority, which accords with the legislative direction of the Act. The Board also notes that the primary interest of all parties was respect to the provision of noise abatement approaches within the interior of the primary building element on the subject property, the bank bam. Section 41 of the Act does not include interior design matters relevant considerations. [3] With regard to the history of the rezoning appeal, the Applicant operates a use called I-azyDayz Bed, Breakfast and Rustic Barn at 754 Horseshoe Valley Road West (the "subject property"). The rezoning application requested to have an approximately one hectare sized portion of this four hectare property rezoned to permit indoor and W PL160115 outdoor special events such as banquets, wedding receptions and corporate events in addition to the current bed and breakfast function. [4] Previously, the Township allowed the aforementioned uses under the authority of a temporary use by-law, which expired in June 2015. In January 2015, the owner made application to rezone the property in accordance with s. 34 of the Act, however; that application was denied and subsequently appealed. Nevertheless, discussions between the proponent and the Township continued and included the submission of multiple noise reports prepared on behalf of the Applicant to the Township which were subsequently peer reviewed by Township noise consultants. It quickly became apparent at the outset of the hearing that noise generation and how best to protect the surrounding residents of Cathedral Pines from that noise , was by far the most significant matter before this panel and the previous hearing panel of the Ontario Municipal Board ("the Board"). [5] An earlier decision delivered on August 2, 2016 anticipated a potential resolution of the noise related matters by Minutes of Settlement ("MOS") following further noise assessments and subsequent peer reviews extending to the end of October 2016, a date coincident with the conclusion of the events calendar. The Board heard that on-site building elements are not insulated rendering late fall, winter and early spring usage impossible. Moreover, in late October, the parties were expected to be in a position to determine whether or not further noise mitigation measures would be necessary. [6] Additionally, the Board agreed in August 2016, at the request of the parties, to extend the temporary use zoning to October 31, 2016 to facilitate the process of testing, analysis and review in accordance with s. 34(26) of the Act. [7] Despite earlier optimism, the MOS was not finalized which the Board learned, was based principally on disagreements on preferred methods of noise control. [8] This hearing, as noted previously, dealt primarily with that matter because there was agreement on planning issues as testimony affirmed. Ct PL160115 [9] Andria Leigh, the Township's Director of Development Services opined that at the start of the application process, she had experienced doubts regarding the process progressed, and materials and dialogue were exchanged (and continued even following Council'sdenial of .arlication) Ms. Leigh opined that the proposed complied with provincial, county and municipal planning policy. [10] On behalf of the Applicant, the Board heard from a second professional planner Kristine Loft, an experienced planning consultant. [11 ] Ms. Loft testified that portion of the subject lands under rezoning consideration, is surrounded by trees with frontage on Horseshoe Valley Road along its south flank. She stated that no physical exterior changes to the existing building stock were contemplated and parking would be confined to the road frontage rather than intrude into the parcel's interior. The north and west boundaries of the parcel to be rezoned adjoin ten single-family residences of the Cathedral Pines neighbourhood. [12] The draft rezoning by-law, attached as Schedule 1, described an intention to includesamend the permitted use section of section 7 of the Agricultural/Rural Zone of the Township of Oro-Medonte Zoning By-law 97-95 to permit: "indoor and outdoor special events such as banquets, weddings, receptions and similar functions". Schedule 1 also ■ r provision which ws ■ be lifted following the preparation of plan agreement. [13] With regard to conformity to provincial policy, Ms. Loft opined that although the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ("GP") encouraged most development to occur in settlement areas, the GP (policy 2.2.2i) also recognizes that some development actions which are dependent and related to rural uses in a rural environment are also permitted. Similarly the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 ("PPS"); specifically policy 1.1.5.4, observes that "development that is compatible with the rural landscape and can be sustained by rural service levels should be promoted". The PPS 5 PL1 60115 RE= rural areas. [14] Ms. Loft aff inned that there was no need for a County of Simcoe (the "County") • Plan amendment because the use conformed to the existing Greenlands designation and further, County officials had not recommended a traffic study on the adjoining county roadway, • Valley -• [15) With regard to the prospect of conformity with the local Official Plan of the Township of Oro-Medonte ("OP"), that OP permits commercial uses and corporate meetinv, facilities on lands desi.q. rural character providing there is no impact on agricultural operations. Additionally, the planner testified that the standards pertinent to the Township's zoning by-law were complied with requiring only the overt acknowledgement of the proposed use in the [16] With the apparent agreement on planning 1• the substantive differences between Applicant/Appellant and the Township involved the preferred methods of noise control and • • to enforce conditions relating to site plan versus conditions relating to noise control which typically fall outside s. 41 of the Act but more will be said about these matters later in this decision. [17] Three residents of the Cathedral Pines neighbourhood testified against the applications. [18] Jane Ravenshaw of 73 Cathedral Pines, the owner of one of the ten homes which adjoin the subject property, participated in discussions leading up to the MOS but ably described her disappointment with the proposed MOS noise control management methods as a consequence • her experience with a • celebration • the property held September 10, 2016. The noise was described as "horrendous" and long lasting, which invaded the interior space of her home as well as her back yard. Noise had been an annoyance since the introduction of the new use for several years 6 PL160115 however; the September I Oth event was particularly disappointing because the ne measures intended to mitigate noise arising from the draft MOS were ineffectively managed by the Applicant/Appellant in her view. I [19] Diane House of 712 Cathedral Pines Road described very similar disturbances with noise, which in the •, and • some occasions had driven family members into the basement to seek relief. Noise from the subject property had rendered enjoyment • [201 Linda Frederiksen of 8 Pine Lane expressed similar experiences as Ms. House and Ms. Ravenshaw and all three residents noted their collective disappointment with the noise impact on their beautiful and secluded residential environment which had initially been quiet when they had first moved in. The residents noted that their complaints had ■ been acknowledged ■ the Applicant and that noises relating to lo level "base" sounds and event related conversations between celebrants on the subjel property heard nearby their respective backyards, were the most intrusive and annoying. [21] The Board heard from two qualified, noise consultants: Chris Scullion of Trinity Consultants on behalf of the Applicant; and John Coulter, of J.E. Coulter Associates Limited who provided testimony for the CPRA. The Board also heard that a third noise consultant, Bob Rimrott of Aercoustics Engineering Limited retained by the Township to peer review the Trinity noise assessments, had been involved throughout the review period all last year. Mr. Rimrott did not attend the hearing. (22] The last correspondence •- to the ■ review was • from Tab ■ • Exhibit 5. That letter, dated November 3, 2016 authored • Mr. Rimrott and styled as the fourth (and last) peer review, proposed nine primary recommendations, most of which were endorsed • Mr. Scullion during his testimony and the 'r■ in 7mrover-70-70■ F1 [23] With regard to recommendations 1) and 2) there was agreement regarding daytime and nighttime noise levels and that the maximum capacity of the facility should be limited to 150 patrons. non-live[241 Mr. Rimroft recommended that there be no live bands regarding recommendation 3 but the Applicant disagreed (Exhibit 22) stating that sound levels would be the same for both and live performances. [25] Both parties agreed with recommendation 4 that no subwoofers should be employed in accordance with evidence. [26] Recommendation 5) which dealt with the upper barn had a mixed response by the Applicant/Appellant in accordance with Exhibit 22. The Applicant agreed that small speaker strategy would be used and that speakers should face away from the adjoining residences but disagreed that sound systems should be controlled by way of a limiter, (a technical device) and that music should be banned during speeches. The Board heard that the upper barn is particularly vulnerable to noise transmission because of its lack of insulation which rendered recommendations pertinent to limiters, sound speakers, and the efficacy of event management services particularly sensitive. The Board also heard that the use of permanent, fixed speakers would offer additional insurance that the alignment of same could not be abused and/or misdirected by groups importing their own systems into the barn venue although there would be an additional cost which the Applicant was not predisposed to bear. [27] With regard to the lower barn, _ Applicant agreed with a), that the maximum imposeOT x closing doors which would . significant _ [28] Recommendation 7 concerned regulations regarding outdoor ceremonies. It was agreed between the parties that the south side of the barn was the preferred location of outdoor ceremonies, situated as it is away from the residences but "No" to the suggestion that such ceremonies conclude at 7 p.m. The Applicant agreed that outdoor W PL160115 ceremonies should utilize multiple small speakers at lower volumes (as opposed to one or two speakers at higher volumes) and further that the speakers are directed away from the neighbouring residences but "No" to the recommendation that that the outdoor system should be fitted with a limiter. The recommendation that the outdoor sound system should only be used for amplifying the voices of the ceremony and the march -in and march -out music was opposed because that recommendation discounted the option of a musical interlude. [29] The Applicant agreed that congregants should be encouraged to assemble within the south side of the barn regarding recommendation 8 and also agreed to the points raised in recommendation 9 involving minimizing vehicular noises and the provision of a staff person responsible for event management and noise mitigation. [30] Mr. Coulter, in contrast found it difficult to understand how an events manager could supervise and suppress spontaneous outbursts by attendees and others who simply wander away from the preferred area of assembly, the south side of the barn. In his view, controlling sound technology was a much easier feat than controlling people who are prone to celebratory outburst. Mr. Coulter stated that the installation of perimeter sound monitors be considered, and that compressors should be required in combination with sound limiters, which in his experience is a simple way to address noise conflict. Secondly, the speaker sound system should be equalized to remove lower frequency sound. Thirdly, he testified that the installation of berms or berms with baffles be installed along the sensitive boundaries. He expressed doubt that the recommendations of Aercoustics, as they stand now, would be sufficient effect sound management mitigation in the absence of those additional recommendations. [31] Mr. Scullion and Mr. Coulter were both familiar with the Township's noise control by-law but found that by-law insufficient because it did not specify noise levels. [32] Ms. Leigh testified that the Township would prefer that an approval order be delayed to provide the Township additional time to put in place a municipal regulatory 9 PL160115 framework appropriate to the management of this use in the event a favourable decision was forthcoming. Failing the institution of that broader municipal framework, Ms. Leigh was of the opinion that agreements pertinent to both the site plan matters, and matters specific to noise control be registered on title to ensure the enforcement of provisions which run with the land. [33] In the review of Exhibit 11, which describes the recommended site plan conditions, Ms. Leigh testified that Condition 2, which "required compliance with other municipal regulatory by-laws in the Township" was considered perhaps redundant and she also agreed that the need for "financial security" as a condition of approval may not be necessary. The remaining conditions were considered appropriate by the planning witness. 19l,1i1TrCr [34] The planning evidence regarding rezoning permission for: "indoor and special events such as banquets, weddings, receptions or similar functions" was uncontroverted. Both planners agreed that the proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 97-95 achieved compliance with provincial, County and Township planning policies and the Board agrees with this testimony. [35] However, the devil in this particular matter is in the details, or more specifically the enforcement of these details relating to noise mitigation. In this regard the Order will address matters specific to the enforcement of conditions of approval, which the Board regards as a necessary partner to the rezoning action. [36] More specifically, the Board agrees with the Township planner that the provision of a Holding designation is required and such a provision will not be removed until an agreement has been entered into. However, the Board disagrees with the Township planner's testimony that the approval of a site specific rezoning action be delayed pending the introduction of a Township -wide regulatory by-law regarding noise because 10 PL160115 of the additional time required to review and finally approve a comprehensive revision to the Township's noise by-law. [37] It is clear from the submissions that there has been multiple and progressive attempts by the Applicant and the Township to achieve a workable compromise (the culmination of the draft MOS representing best efforts in this regard), but this process of review has taken time. Consequently, the Order imposes a timeline appropriate to the completion of an agreement to oblige a productive resolution of this matter. [38] It is also apparent to the Board that the participants have experienced very real and distressing impacts from the subject lands over the course of several years requiring the imposition of controls which will assist in further noise mitigation. Although the Board will not require the installation of protective berms (the provision of berms being considered a fairly drastic measure with potential impacts on the natural environment) and perimeter noise monitors, the provision of fixed sound speakers with compressors/limiters is viewed as a reasonable provision despite the increased expense it may entail for the Applicant. In this respect, the Board agrees with Mr. Coulter's testimony that enthusiastic celebrants are the least controllable noise variables, so additional care must be exercised to at least mute the electronic sources of noise as a balancing measure in the Board's view. [39] Finally, a site plan agreement enacted in accordance with s. 41 of the Act is typically more limited to items noted in that section. Instead the Order will impose the alternate requirement of a development agreement, to be registered on title, that will address matters relating to site plan improvements in combination with issues relating to noise control, attendance at events etc. Lei t [40] The Board orders that the appeal is allowed in part to Zoning By-law 97-95 of the Township of Oro-Medonte with regard to property known municipally as 754 Horseshoe 11 Valley Road West in accordance with Schedule i subject to the removal of the words "Site Plan" of paragraph two, and the insertion of the word "development". [41] The proposed site plan described in Tab 1, Exhibit 5 (attached as Schedule 2) that was appealed pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Act, is approved and subject to revisions and conditions as set out in the paragraphs below. [42] Kathleen Marrs and the Township of Oro-Medonte shall jointly prepare a development agreement for approval by Council within 60 days from the date of issuance of this Decision relating to the following matters and that agreement shall be registered on title: 1. The maximum occupancy of the bam is 150 people and no occupancy of the bam is permitted between May 15th and November 151 annually. 2. The owner shall satisfy the requirements of the County of Simcoe as noted in their letter dated October 12, 2016 specific to a road dedication of approximately metres permit, submission of a site plan review form and applicable fee, and a revised site plan drawing to reflect the following revisions: relocation of parking spot 1, 1.5 rn from the requested road widening and the relocation of any fences 0.3 m from the requested road widening. 3. The owner shall satisfy the requirements of the Township Planning Department r memo dated Novemberspecific site plan drawing revisionsto: detail the floor area used to calculate required parking spaces, identify the width of driveway leading to the parking area and to provide a barrier free parking space in accordance Zoning By-law 9 im ■ The recommended noise control measures shall adhere to the letter by Aercoustics dated November 3, 2016 x«®£ as amended by this decision and order as follows. 0 Paragraphs 1 and 2 are not revised and are approved. Il1J!!!IlII;J Fig 1111!1111! 111 11�11111 I I �Vlyjfl M779T.Me 1r9V7G_.T � � I! I � I � � � 1 111111:073- IM I fell 11M 111M K. 1111 IMMSTMI MR MM Paragraphs 5a and 5b are approved to allow for the provision of fixed speakers. Paragraph 5c is revised with ©: addition of the word "compressor"in association with the word "limiter". Additionally, the number of speakers will be limited to six, the compressor/limiter will be adjusted to limit the maximum sound level in front of each speaker to !##± at 1 m and a noise exper) shall be retained to confirm that the sound system is adjusted in accordance with the requirement of the e««#iy®2 agreement. Paragraph 5d is deleted and paragraph 5e is approved. Paragraph Sa is approved but paragraph 6b is revised to delete thz requirement for self-closing doors. Paragraph 7 which involves controls to be imposed over outdoor ceremonies is approved in part: specifically subsections a) c) d) and e). Paragraph 8 »«»»«« #2 Door Congregation" is approved as described. Paragraph 9 regarding "Other" requirements is approved described. i EK [43] If the parties have difficulty regarding the implementation of aspects of this Order, the Board may be spoken to in the presence of all parties in a telephone conference call. "Richard Jones" RICHARD JONES 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 SCHEDULEI The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte° 764 HorseshoeValley`1 ad South Part of Lot 1, Concessioni Township of Of «# the Planning Act, ^S >. ■ ■ « # f « f ■ ■«Ial ra « ;A Ontario iMunicipalBoard OV^ dated 2017 SectionNow Therefore the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte hereby enacts as follows: *XX PERMITTED USES IN THE RA L ZONE — is hereby amended by adding the following: Addifional Permitted Notwithstanding Table 3, the following additional permitted: Indoor t outdoor spebanquets,:. or similar functions. General ■ a) Lot Area — 3.5 hectares ■ 1 Front Yard ■ w ffF ... 30 metri 2. Schedule °and all ! f ■thereon■ declared to form ■aof this Y Ir 11111 11111 1! 1 111111 EMI; I■ ■ • ■ " } ® read a First Second and Third time, and Passed this day of 2017. The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Madonte I!ZMW�7&i 754 Horsesh VaHey Rbad Wc.st Tuvviins[dp cif. Oro Mcdointe IIAMID Us' Nouq,',lK3 PKC9F-".?N4MA&WN mmm.mit SCAL E i 411 -------------------------------- 0 0, U192