09 11 2019 2019-OPA-01 and 2019-ZBA-14 Greenwood/GardinerNotice of Receipt of Complete Applications
Notice of Particulars and Public Access
Oi�%'✓lledviite Notice of Public Meeting for
�a Proposed Amendments to the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law of the Township of Oro-Medonte
2019-OPA-01 & 2019-ZBA-14
(Greenwood/Gardiner)
Take notice that the Township of Oro-Medonte deemed the following applications to
amend the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law "Complete" Applications pursuant to
the Planning Acton the 25t1 day of June, 2019.
Take notice that the Development Services Committee of the Township of Oro-
Medonte will hold a Public Meeting on Wednesday September 4, 2019 at 5:30 p.m.
in the Municipal Council Chambers. The purpose of the Public Meeting is to notify the
public and to obtain public comments on the proposed Amendments to the Official
Plan and Zoning By-law.
The subject lands are described as East Part of Lot 3, Concession 10 (Medonte).
Municipally known as 3750 Line 10 North. A key map illustrating the location of the
subject lands, and a copy of the applicants site plan are included with this notice.
The purpose and effect of the proposed Official Plan Amendment is to amend the
'Agricultural' designation to permit the development of a Home Industry, specifically a
Contractor's yard with storage of motor vehicles on a portion of the property.
The purpose and effect of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is to rezone a
portion of the subject lands from the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone to
Agricultural/Rural Exemption* (A/RU*) Zone to permit a Contractor's yard with storage
of motor vehicles.
Any person may attend the public meeting and/or make written or verbal representation
either in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Amendments. Written comments by any person unable to attend the meeting should be
mailed/faxed/e-mailed to the Director, Development Services, The Corporation of the
Township of Oro-Medonte to be received no later than 12:00 p.m. noon on Wednesday,
September 4, 2019. Please ensure that you include your name and address so that you
may be contacted if necessary.
If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or
make written submissions to the Director, Development Services, The Corporation of the
Township of Oro-Medonte before the proposed Official Plan Amendment is adopted or
refused and/or the Zoning By-law Amendment is passed or refused, the person or public
body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the Township of Oro-
Medonte to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and may not be added as a party to the
hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal unless, in the opinion of
the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.
The applications are part of the public record and are available to the public for
viewing/inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Township of Oro-Medonte
Administration Building and available on the Township's website www.oro-
medonte.ca. Any person wishing further information or clarification with regard to the
applications or to arrange to inspect the applications should contact the/Planning
Division at 705-487-2171. Individuals who submit letters and other information to
Council and its advisory bodies should be aware that all information, including contact
information, contained within their communications may become part of the public
record and may be made available through the agenda process which includes
publication on the Township's website.
If you wish to be notified of the adoption or refusal of the Township of Oro-Medonte in
respect to the proposed Official Plan Amendment and/or passing or refusal of the
proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, you must make a written request.
Written submissions should be directed to:
Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South
Oro-Medonte, Ontario LOL 2E0
Attn: Andria Leigh, Director, Development Services
planning@oro-medonte. ca
Dated at the Township of Oro-Medonte this 12t1 day of August, 2019.
Location Map
Subject Lands
Applicant's Site _e
�!|
)
)R
®j2
!
\R|
b,
(
\§
()
m
(LiLi
.
§
�
IL
u
§
w
u
:)
!
\2§
§2e§
\:§0
§�
nR
Applicant's Site __
|
|
.
�
$
§/
(Li Li
).
!
ow
.—
§ ^
} \�
g1 \
.
. \)
z
9L
CLu
§
U
ka
!
\k
k0
�
k\
From: McCartney, Garry <gmccartney@oro-medonte.ca>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 2:17 PM
To: Falconi, Teresa <tfaIcon i@oro-medonte.ca>; Weatherell, Todd <tweatherell@oro-medonte.ca>
Cc: Quattrociocchi, Andrew <aquattrociocchi@oro-medonte.ca>; Saunders, David <dsaunders@oro-
medonte.ca>
Subject: RE: Notice of Receipt of Complete Application and Notice of Public Meeting, 2019-OPA-01 &
2019-ZBA-14 (Greenwood/Gardiner) - Development Services Committee Meeting scheduled for
September 04, 2019
Building Division comments are as follows;
1. Permit for existing building remains open.
2. Change of use process will be required if proposal is successful.
Thank you,
Garry McCartney
Chief Building Official
Township of Oro-Medonte
From: Municipal Planning <MunicipalPlanning@enbridge.com>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 2:05 PM
To: Falconi, Teresa <tfalconi@ora-medonte.ca>
Subject: RE: Notice of Receipt of Complete Application and Notice of Public Meeting, 2019-OPA-01 &
2019-ZBA-14 (Greenwood/Gardiner) - Development Services Committee Meeting scheduled for
September 04, 2019
Thank you for your circulation.
Enbridge Gas Inc. does not object to the proposed application however, we reserve the
right to amend our development conditions.
Please continue to forward all municipal circulations and clearance letter requests
electronically to MunicipalPlanning(WEn bridge.com.
Regards,
Alice Coleman
Municipal Planning Coordinator
Long Range Distribution Planning
ENBRIDGE GAS INC.
TEL: 416-495-5386
500 Consumers Road, North York, Ontario M2J 1 P8
Enbridge.com
Safety. Integrity. Respect.
From: Gooding, Nicholas <ngooding@scdsb.on.ca>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 2:32 PM
To: Falconi, Teresa <tfalconi@oro-medonte.ca>
Subject: RE: Notice of Receipt of Complete Application and Notice of Public Meeting, 2019-OPA-01 &
2019-ZBA-14 (Greenwood/Gardiner) - Development Services Committee Meeting scheduled for
September 04, 2019
Thanks Teresa.
SCDSB has no comments.
Nick
Nick Gooding, BES
Planner, Planning & Enrolment
Simcoe County District School Board
1170 Highway 26, Midhurst, Ontario, Canada L9X 1 N6
P: 705-7346363 ext. 11291 In000din-gascdsb.on.ca
www.scdsb.on.ca Follow @SCDSB_Schools on Twitter ILike us on Facebook
From: Saunders, David <dsaunders@oro-medonte.ca>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 3:50 PM
To: Falconi, Teresa <tfalconi@oro-medonte.ca>
Cc: Witlib, Derek <dwitlib@oro-medonte.ca>; Karaiskakis, Andy <aKaraiskakis@oro-medonte.ca>;
McLean, Catherine <cmclean@oro-medonte.ca>; Waters, Danielle <dwaters@oro-medonte.ca>;
Weatherell, Todd <tweatherell@oro-medonte.ca>; Murray, Hugh <hmurray@oro-medonte.ca>; Binns,
Shawn <sbinns@oro-medonte.ca>; Musso-Garcia, Karla <kmussogarcia@oro-medonte.ca>; Metras,
Justin <jmetras@oro-medonte.ca>; McCartney, Garry <gmccartney@oro-medonte.ca>; Quattrociocchi,
Andrew <aquattrociocchi@oro-medonte.ca>
Subject: RE: Notice of Receipt of Complete Application and Notice of Public Meeting, 2019-OPA-01 &
2019-ZBA-14 (Greenwood/Gardiner) - Development Services Committee Meeting scheduled for
September 04, 2019
Teresa
Development Engineering has No Objection to the above noted ZBA.
Note: Prior to the development of the site a Site Plan Application and / or Site Design for
review by Planning / Building / Development Engineering shall be required to ensure
appropriate environmental protection, drainage, fuel source protection and vehicle fluids
capture are present.
Regards
David Saunders
Manager, Development Engineering
Township of Oro-Medonte
From: Emma Perry <eperry@nvca.on.ca>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:36 PM
To: Falconi, Teresa <tfalconi@oro-medonte.ca>
Subject: FW: 3750 Line 10 North - Oro Medonte
Hi Teresa,
As discussed just now, the clearance letter below is not valid for the application 2019-OPA-01 & 2019-
ZBA-14 (Greenwood/Gardiner). The proposed site alteration and grading detailed in the plans circulated
(attached) occur within the meander erosion hazard for the watercourse on the north/west side of the
proposed development envelope. The applicant can
a) Revise the development site plan and shift the site alteration outside the regulation
limit — no permit would be required
b) Keep the plans as they are and obtain permission to develop within the NVCA-regulated
area
If you could kindly advise the applicant of the above it would be appreciated. They may contact me to
discuss these options if necessary.
I will wait to provide our formal comments until the site plan is finalized.
Best,
Emma
Emma Perry I Planner II
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
8195 8`h Line, Utopia, ON LOM 1TO
T 705-424-1479 ext.244IF 705-424-2115
eperry@nvca.on.caI nvca.on.ca
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Amy Knapp
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 201911:07 AM
To:'Weatherell, Todd' <tweatherelI@oro-medonte.ca>
Subject: 3750 Line 10 North - Oro Medonte
Good Morning Todd,
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed the existing location of the structure
which is subject to the proposed amendment to the Township Zoning By-law and have determined the
amendment is not within:
a flood susceptible area;
a hazardous site (characterized by unstable soils or bedrock);
an erosion hazard area, or;
an area subject to this Authority's Development, Interference With Wetlands and Alterations To
Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulation 172/06).
Provincial Natural Heritage System
Therefore no further circulation is required.
Should you have any questions, please let me know.
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
8195 8`h Line, Utopia, ON LOM 1TO
T 705-424-1479 ext.233IF 705-424-2115
aknapp@nvca.on.ca I nvca.on.ca
M
Jr
From: Heather Kerslake <heather.kerslake@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 10:13 AM
To:. Council <Council@oro-medonte.ca>
Subject: John Greenwood & Ashley Gardiner proposed re -zoning
I am writing to oppose the rezoning proposed by KJ Excavating Inc.
I reported my safety concerns almost a year ago about large rigs that were turning off the 10th
line onto Horseshoe Valley Road often at 5:30 AM in the dark or late evening returning to the KJ
Excavating yard. I was shocked and concerned that a large berm had been built in the farm field
which attempted to hide the big rigs that I had seen. At that time I was reassured that this blatant
disregard to our townships bylaws would be addressed. KJ Excavating has continued to behave
in a manner that does not respect safe road use which will only result in a serious accident.
We welcome honest small businesses into our community but are opposed to bullying and a
business practise that has continued to break our Townships bylaws. We as citizens of Oro-
Medonte ask our Council to stand by our Official Plan and consider Zoning amendments
with businesses who respect the community safety and help to build small businesses appropriate
to what our roads have been designed for.
Complaints:
Dust and road damage due to the increase of operation
Operating rigs outside of designated hours Noise pollution
Smoke from burning of yard garbage
Frequent traffic back up both directions on Horseshoe Valley
Inadequate stopping distance at both intersections leaving the yard
(Warminster Side Rd. @ Creighton / Horseshoe Valley & line 10)
My concern is that now more than ever it is critical to maintain our Official Plan and supporting
bylaws. To not honour the current bylaws will set a dangerous precedent to further erosion of the
rights of our rural and small businesses.
Best,
Heather & Roger Kerslake
3270 line 10 N
Oro-Medonte
August 20. 2019
Attention: Andria Leigh
Director, Development Services
September 4, 2019 Development Services Committee
5a) Additional correspondence received
RECEIVED
AUG 3 0 2019
ORO•MEDONTE
TOWNSHIP
I'm writing to oppose the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By -Law Amendments
that John Greenwood and Ashley Gardiner (KJ Excavating Inc.) have applied for.
This all started about 2 112 - 3 years ago when John Greenwood and Ashley
Gardiner bought the farm on 3750 Line 10 N. They started moving equipment from
Innisfil to the field where the shop is today.
My first conversation was with Scott Macpherson to look into what was going on
because a building was being built without no permits and re -zoning.
I then alerted Curtis Shelswell and he visited and yes this was happening. Why did
no one know? He gave them a warning and the permit went up then. Agricultural. The
building was halfway done by then and they got to finish it!
They wore not happy being caught. They confronted a neighbour thinking it was
them that made the township aware. It visibly upset them! As of now they have sold
their home because of KJ Excavating across the road.
They have ignored the warning! 1 have talked to Curtis Shelswell. Derek Witlib. and
Todd Weatherell and have got no where.
KJ Excavating is thriving! I don't understand why the business has not been stopped
operating until proper zoning and permits have been passed!
Now I would like to address the Official Plan and Zoning By -Law Amendments.
The two large berms were there before they were caught with no zoning or permits.
This was the sole purpose of hiding the equipment and operations from public view.
People were stopping and asking questions.
If this was suppose to be a barn with 5 overhead doors is a bit of an overkill.
My.cows and horses are awfully big now a days.
Description of Development is for uses that produce value-added agricultural
products. KJ Excavating does not fit this definition.
The Official Plan Amendment Section CIA says it all. It needs to stay agricultural.
The primarylprincipal is agricultural. It is not! KJ Excavating is the primary/principal
use! If they did not have KJ Excavating they would not be able to run the farm. KJ
Excavating is not an accessory to agricultural operations.
The shop/barn is not located in the existing farm -building cluster. Right from the
beginning they put the shop as far away from the cluster so it won't bother the farm with
the kind of business they want to run.
They have more equipment then that is listed and more will come. 5 tri -axle trucks. 2
float trucks. 2 huge excavators, mini excavators. loader skid stoers, bulldozer, and
rollers.
Noise and dust is a problem! Noise occurs everylime they start up machinery and
the beeping when reversing. Dust when they are leaving and entering shop.
Surrounding dwellings are very close. As said, one homeowner sold their house
because of KJ.
The traffic is crazy! Morning. noon. and night. The roaring of them gearing up and
gearing down. The 10 Line is not made for this kind of traffic. It had to be repaired this
spring. It is not wide enough for passing. Both have to slow down to pass. Especially
when you have a float truck with huge excavator and other loaded equipment.
The road is very close in proximity to some houses on Line 10 and it feels like they
are coming right through the house!
The safety of people walking and bicyclist is a concern with KJ traffic and Line 10 is
busy enough on its own.
The 4 comers in Jarratt are a accident looking for a place to happen. With KJ
converging on and off Line 10 onto the very, very busy Horseshoe Valley road its just a
matter of time.
The proposed Home Industry is not seen as desirable and does not conform with the
policies!
My conclusion is the proposed use will have a great impact on the surrounding area.
KJ's Excavating business needs to be relocated to an industrial park. (Forest Home)
That is where they came from in Innisfil.
They came up here thinking they could sneak into Oro-Medonte without anyone
saying anything and put up a shop with no zoning or permits. WRONG! Now they are
back tracking! They have lied and neglected the laws of Oro-Medonte. If you give
zoning and permits you will be opening the flood gates for everyone also!
I have many videos and have kept a log of traffic of KJ coming and going since
January that I see when home.
You, yourself how would you like this in your neighbourhood? I've been told that
Oro-Medonte is very strict with agricultural rezoning and is impossible to get! I hope
and rely on this!
Respectfully submitted.
Tom & Sharon Lawlor
3415 Line 10 North
Orol?Aedonto
Goldwater, Ontario
LOK 1 EO
7vs-32 q- a g.s4
September 4, 2019 Development Services Committee
5a) Additional correspondence received
Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South
Oro-Mendonte, Ontario
LOL 2E0
Attn: Andia Leigh
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Elizabeth Batman and together with my husband Johannes we are raising two
little girls at 3894 a property on Line 10 N. Our property is two lots (one property is a
severed portion on the property in question) away from the property seeking rezoning
adjacent to a large hill. This letter is in regards to the safety on our road in response to
public notice 2019-OPA-01 & 2019-ZBA-14 referring to the'plans' for the KJ Excavating
the contractors yard at 3750 Line 10 North. Our concerns regarding the all ready
established building and business are listed below:
• Our lives have changed since the introduction of large vehicles (dump trucks and
dump trucks hauling trailers with large machinery) entering and exiting Line 10 N
from the 3750 Line 10 North property.
o We no longer have family walks down Line 10 N due to the speed and noise
of the trucks travelling on the road particularly between 4:00 pm and 8:00
pm.
o We have modified our schedules to leave early 6:30 am or earlier to avoid
being clipped by the trucks as we pass the entrance. The driveway of the
property is lined with trees and meets the road at an unforgiving angle as the
drivers complete their rolling stop mid way out on Line 10 N.
o We avoid the intersection or use extreme caution at the intersection of
Warminster Side road and Line 10 N as many of the KJ Excavating vehicles
preform a rolling stop.
o Windows must be shut at night to reduce the noise of the trucks driving up
the hill adjacent to our house.
o In the Winter and Spring the noise from the contractors yard at 3750 Line 10
North can be heard quite clearly (e.g. the back up indicators of the vehicles)
Safety concerns for our own property have increased.
o Children (our in particular is age 3) waiting for the bus to take them to school
with the trucks passing them buy right before a steep hill. The bus picks up
another group of kids on the hill.
o We have a hidden driveway and there have been a few near misses at the
beginning of the summer with the trucks cresting the hill as we exit our
driveway. This also affects the personal support workers who assist an
individual at our home.
o The quality of the road and property value due to the increase heavy motor
vehicle traffic and daily wear and tear on the road
o Is there a possibility any of the materials added to the the contractors yard at
3750 Line 10 North that could leach our water over time?
o Will they be permitted to increase their fleet at the location in question over
time? Who's responsibility will it be to monitor the number of vehicles and
usage of the property over time?
1 wish to be notified of the adoption or refusal of the Township of Oro-Medonte in
respect to the proposed Official Plan Amendment and/or passing or refusal of the proposed
Zoning By-law Amendment
Sincerely,
Elizabeth and Johannes Botman
Cell (705) 826 - 0038
Cell (705) 238 - 2300
September 4, 2019 Development Services Committee
5a) Additional correspondence received
Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South Oro-Medonte, Ontario LOL 2E0
Attn: Andria Leigh, Director, Development Services
planning@oro-medonte.ca
Monday, September 2, 2019
To Whom It May Concern,
My Lidia Cook I reside as 3894 Line 10 North, Oro-Medonte with my mother Angelina
Spina and we would like to raise some concerns we have about the property 3750 Line 10 North,
Oro-Medonte public notice 2019-OPA-01 & 2019-ZBA-14. We live two properties away
adjacent to a steep hill as one approaches Warminster Side Road. The people who live on this
road have always taken great pride in maintaining their farmland. Recently the sense of
community on the road has changed due to increase industrial usage.
The quality of life living on Line 10 North has drastically changed from an agricultural
setting to that similar to a construction site. The increase in traffic due to the transporting of
machinery we see employees driving to the yard and large vehicles exit to follow. We are
concerned about the children in the immediate vicinity of my property as the large trucks drive
fast and seemingly with out care especially at the end of the workday.
Should you grant them an amendment in terms of rezoning the property we have many
additional concerns. How will you control the level of heavy machinery travelling on the road if
the property is rezoned? Will there be a cut off to how much of the property the owners can use
for the excavating business? Who will enforce these guidelines? What will this mean for our
agricultural zoning in my community? Will all properties now be available for rezoning?
Ultimately this comes down to how was this new property owner able to build before he
applied for a zoning change?
We wish to be notified of the adoption or refusal of the Township of Oro-Medonte in
respect to the proposed Official Plan Amendment and/or passing or refusal of the proposed
Zoning By-law Amendment.
Sincerely two concerned citizens of Oro-Medonte,
Lidia Cook Angelina Spina
3894 Line 10 North, Oro-Medonte 3894 Line 10 North, Oro-Medonte
Home (705) 325-2699 (705) 326-6242
September 4, 2019 Development Services Committee
5a) Additional correspondence received
From: terrycrosbie4275 <1errycrosbie42752gmail.com>
Date: 2019-09-03 10:08 PM (GMT -05:00)
To: "Hughes, Harry" <hanhughesa,oro-medonte.ca>, ". Council" <Councilgoro-
medonte.ca>, "Macpherson, Scott" <Scott.macpherson(a�oro-medonte.ca>, "Leigh, Andria"
<aleiehOdoro-medonte.ca>, "Weatherell, Todd" <tweatherellgoro-medonte.ca>
Subject: Sept 4 meeting regarding zoning in-law amendment
We are written to indicate our opposition to the proposed amendments, 2019-OPA-01, and 2019-
ZBA-14. ( Greenwood/Gardiner)
We live at 4275 line 10 north, and have been nagativly affected by the business know as
KJ Excavating Inc.
Both my husband and myself have experienced drivers of dump truck that have not stopped
before entering the roadway.
We are concerned about the damage done to our road. It is not long ago that our road was paved.
Having heavy truck driving up and down all day and night will ultimately ruin our road.
We chose OroMedonte to live in because of the beautiful farm land. wonderful] views and
quiet, relaxing environment. Not to have a commercial business next door.
We are asking for the ammendment to be denied.
Respectively, Thomas and Terry Crosbie
4275 line 10 n.
rr 43 Coldwater
LOK IE0
September 4, 2019 Development Services Committee
5a) Additional correspondence received
From: Wendy Lowry <wmplowrv@email.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 4:15 PM
To:. Council <CouncilCZDoro-medonte.ca>; Hughes, Harry <harry.huehes(@oro-medonte.ca>;
Macpherson, Scott <scott.macpherson@oro-medonte.ca>; Leigh, Andria <aleieh@oro-medonte.ca>;
Weatherell, Todd <tweatherell@oro-medonte.ca>
Subject: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments Sept 4 mtg
Re: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments; 2019-OPA-01 and 2019-ZBA-14
(Greenwood/Gardiner)
September 3,2019
We are writing to indicate our opposition to the proposed Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw
Amendments June 2019 indicated above.
We live at 3901 Line 10 North, which is one kilometer north of the subject lands described as
East Part of Lot 3, Concession 10. We have been directly affected by KJ Excavating Inc, owned
and operated by Greenwood/Gardiner, for the following reasons:
1) Flawed Process
KJ Excavating Inc has already developed the site and building, and has been operating their
excavating business for the past 10 months. It appears that they did not go through the necessary
planning process first. This Public Meeting - "to garner public input" - is occurring today,
September 4, 2019, almost a year after work began at the site and excavating trucks and
equipment are being stored and used.
The Overview of Zoning Certificate and Building Permit Process for Oro-Medonte (as posted on
Oro-Medonte's web site) requires that planning bylaw amendments and zoning certificates and
related regulations and policies are approved before commencing the building. Clearly this
process has not been followed.
2) Official Plan Amendment
The 10th Line is zoned Agriculture/Rural for good reasons. It is good farmland that should be
preserved as farmland. An excavating business is essentially a commercial venture which
belongs in an appropriate settlement area with proper access to main roads. Our rural road is not
designed for this kind of heavy traffic especially when the truck operators choose to avoid the
access to Horseshoe Valley Rd and drive up and down the very steep hill north of the subject
lands to the stop in Creighton. If the trucks continue further north on the 10th Line or turn onto
Warminster Side Road they have to operate on extreme hills and turns which make either of
these routes a poor choice for driving large dump trucks .Some of these dump trucks are pulling
trailers loaded with other excavating equipment.
3) Zonin¢ Bylaw Amendment
This proposed Amendment to qualify as a Home Industry does not fit the Oro-Medonte Official
Plan for establishing a Home Industry.
The building is not within the existing farm building cluster.
The noise that emanates from the use of the trucks does have an adverse impact on adjacent
properties. Neighbors who live closer to the subject land have repeatedly referred to and
complained about the truck noises at very early hours. Heavy trucks and trailers make excessive
noise using hills and stopping and starting.
The type and level of traffic generated by this use is NOT compatible with the character of the
area and the function of the adjacent roads. We have noted considerable noise and traffic
pollution at all hours and this is not restricted to 7AM - 7PM. The noise and traffic increased
significantly north of the subject lands after another neighbor complained to the township of
truck traffic and the damage to the road at the corner of the 10th line and Horseshoe Valley Rd.
4) Personal Impact
Our safety has been compromised. We are concerned when we drive, walk or cycle past this
property. The very poor site lines at the entrance, which is angled —45 degrees to the 10
concession , are further aggravated by the large dense hedges of trees on either side of the
entrance. We have been cut off and forced to take defensive action when dump -trucks pulling
loaded flatbed trailers pulled out of the entrance dangerously. Our neighbours have advised us of
similar occurrences. When the trucks choose to drive towards Creighton and the Warminster
Side Road, the truck speed going down the hill is not safe. We have significantly more concerns
and worries using the road since KJ Excavating Inc has located nearby.
The rural nature of the 10th Line has been abused. We love the 10th concession because of its
rural nature. We never expected this flagrant disregard for the Official Plan. A neighbour did
tell us that a prime reason for selling their house and moving off the 10th Line was related to the
noise and traffic created by KJ Excavating Inc, trucks near their home.
The 10th Line is a popular cycling route. Cycle Simcoe maps show the road as a delineated
cycle route because it is a quiet rural road with challenging hills, suitable to cyclists, not heavy
trucks. Another safety concern!
If the amount and type of traffic created by this excavating business "contractor's yard including
the storage of motor vehicles both indoors and outdoors" has raised so many concerns already
without approval, one can only imagine more problems if this "proposed use" is allowed.
Conclusion:
Our conclusion is that KJ Excavating Inc is a business that requires Commercial Zoning
Bylaws. It does not satisfy the conditions permitting a Home Industry - classified as an on-farm
diversified use that supplements a farmer's income. Greenwood/Gardiner's primary use of the
property is operating KJ Excavating Inc. The agricultural use is secondary.
For the above reasons we request that the proposed Amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning
By-law be denied and that KJ Excavating cease their excavation business immediately after
flaunting the laws for almost one year.
Respectfully submitted,
Wendy and Si Lowry
3901 Line 10 North, R.R.#3
Coldwater
September 4, 2019 Development Services Committee
5a) Additional correspondence received
To: The Township of Oro-Medonte
From: Rob Pilon - 3418 10 Line N Oro-Medonte
Re: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment — 3750 Line 10 N
I felt it important to write and bring my concerns to your attention regarding the above.
For the past eight years I have lived with my family at the above address located close to the
intersection of Line 10 and Horseshoe Valley Road. We have enjoyed the relative calm that exists along
Line 10 and found the community of Jarratt a great place to raise our daughter.
I wish to raise with you my concerns over the proposed by-law changes and how I feel it may impact
on the safety of those using Line 10. Over the past months the commercial truck traffic has increased
notably along Line 10 and this appears a direct result of the newly constructed facility at 3750 Line 10
N with a number of commercial motor vehicles (dump trucks) now in regular use of the roadway.
Additionally, at times there is also heavy machinery in the form of excavation equipment in tow both of
which add to the noise levels and overall raise my apprehension about safety along the route.
I have reviewed the official plan and zoning by-law amendment package (the plan) prepared by
Innovative Planning Solutions and note that the intention of the owner is to use the newly constructed
building and adjacent land as a contractors yard for K.J. Excavating Inc. The plan details the equipment
to be housed or stored at the location as 5 tri -axle trucks, 1 float truck, 2 excavators, 1 loader, and 2
skid steers. Acknowledging the historic and current primary use of the area lands as agricultural this
marks a substantial change and I am concerned for potential safety issues that arise by the regular use
of the roadway by this commercial traffic in particular recognizing that like any business, if successful
there is likely to be growth in size and therefore potentially commercial fleet size as well.
Line 10 is not a particularly wide roadway and at points sight -lines can be poor. I question the potential
safety impacts of the increased commercial traffic use along the roadway which will in effect become
an extended driveway for the business as it's heavy equipment makes the trip daily to and from 3750
Line 10 N.
In addition to regular personal use vehicles who travel the roadway school bus traffic has now resumed.
The plan makes reference to a typical day for K. J. Excavating as operating from lam to 7pm though
I've personally witnessed their commercial vehicles travelling along the roadway at times earlier in the
morning. I'm concerned how new and regular use by commercial vehicles of Line 10 may impact safety
generally, particularly given that this proposal is presently under consideration during the best possible
conditions (summer).
Although the plan references the access to the newly constructed storage building as by way of an
existing (long standing) entrance location it does not clarify this entrance as historically nothing more
than an opening between the trees allowing access for agricultural equipment to the field as it was prior
to the new construction. With a row of trees lining the front of the property and apparent limited views
either into or out of the access point combined with the increased and regular traffic now contemplated
at this site I believe there is a potential safety concern that should be explored prior to any changes to
zoning.
Further as we move into the winter season sight lines will undoubtedly be affected both at the site and
along Line 10 generally as will the potential stopping distances required. Also noted in the plan is an
acknowledgement that potential exists for storage of aggregate materials (gravel / topsoil) at the site.
This adds to the weight of vehicles using the roadway at times either returning with aggregate or
leaving with and is another factor in terms of stopping distances required for safe operation along this
rural roadway shared by regular residential and school bus traffic. I should also point out that a portion
of this roadway is used regularly and heavily during winter months by motorized snow vehicles who
use it as part of the area trail system. This adds yet another dynamic when considering constriction of
the roadway due to snow accumulation and I would suggest also warrants consideration by council as
the outcome of the plan proposal is determined.
I believe that further assessment is required by the Township prior to granting this request. Strong
consideration should also be given to positioning this commercial operation to a site with a roadway
better suited for the type of traffic presently outlined and likely to occur in the future through the
growth of this commercial operation.
Thank you
Rob Pilon
September 4, 2019 Development Services Committee
5a) Additional correspondence received
From: Hundred Creek Farm <HundredCreekFarm@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 8:51 AM
To:. Council <Council@oro-medonte.ca>; Macpherson, Scott <scott.macoherson@oro-medonte.ca>;
Hughes, Harry <harry.hu¢hes@oro-medonte.ca>; Leigh, Andria <aleiah@oro-medonte.ca>; Weatherell,
Todd <tweatherelWoro-medonte.ca>
Subject: Line 10 North OP amendment
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments: 2019-OPA-01 and 2019-ZBA-14
(Greenwood/Gardiner)
September 4, 2019
Members of Council,
We live at 3879 Line 10 North and want to express our concerns regarding the proposed
OP/Zoning Amendments. We moved to our farm five and a half years ago to escape the
increasing number of quarries in our previous neighbourhood. Many hours of research were
spent making sure that it would not happen to us again. Official plans (both municipal and
county),zoning bylaws, land uses, holding zones and environmental protection areas were all part
of this massive gathering of information. Everything was found to support the rural agricultural
lifestyle that we as a family were looking for.
Fast forward to last fall when the neighbouring farm was sold. We were excited at the prospect
of a new family moving in and restoring a farm much like we are trying to do. The initial clean-
up was a massive undertaking and with that was endless truck traffic and noise. We accepted this
as the "end goal" or so we thought was something to compliment the area. We saw that a new
building of some type was being started in the one field and thought again that it was to be ag
related as per the OP and zoning designation of the area. There was some concern and wondering
on our part when this continued with no obvious input from the township. We began to have
issues as well with the truck traffic on our road. We have become used to the morning "rush
hour" when the neighbours head to their respective workplace but this was definitely more than
that. The dump trucks were coming and going as were more and more pieces of heavy
equipment. Many times the road was partially blocked for loading/unloading. We personally
experienced near misses with dump trucks exiting the neighbouring property. There seemed to be
a lack of respect for the other drivers that we are not used to in this area. Our family walks and or
bike rides have become a thing of the past as to the unpredictability of the traffic. The back up
beepers beginning early in the morning from equipment operating or trucks moving is very
intrusive as well. Once again we moved here to escape everything that is being described.
The proposal now is totally unacceptable for this area. The farm land is classed ag 1-2. That
alone should be the end of this issue. The township has a history of promoting farming and our
rural heritage but this would completely contradict this position. The idea that this falls into a
home business or accessory farm business is false in our eyes as well. This is obviously a
commercial/industrial venture, which is evident by the types of equipment that "continues as of
today to come and go as well as continues to be stored on site". Once again nothing about this
falls within the scope of what is supposed to be a farm community. The vehicles come and go at
all hours and there is no way to restrict the size of the operation once approved. Current
infrastructure is not sufficient for this type of commercial traffic. The road is getting destroyed
and has already been fixed once at a cost to all of us.
In closing we must reiterate that we as a family cannot support this proposal in whole or in part.
There has been an apparent underlying agenda from the beginning. There has been a constant
struggle to obtain factual information as well. The proposal itself was submitted in a way that the
public could not access it without the Township "unlocking" it. The insistence of township
planning staff that the business is not currently operating from this location while many residents
have given eye witness accounts to the contrary is frustrating as well. As this letter is being
written a KJ Excavating dump truck went by and pulled into their new "parking area". That is
one of three that has been there all summer along with heavy equipment moving and
construction material being delivered. That is strange way to "not' operate a business. Concerns
and questions as voiced to the township have been largely un -answered, or responded to in such
a non -committal way that we are feeling shut out of the very process that is supposed to protect
us. We encourage the members of council to ask pointed questions and find out what is really
happening.
Respectfully,
The Ferguson Family
3879 Line 10 North
Coldwater
couxrr' OP•il11_
SIMCOVE�fiy
September 4, 2019
September 4, 2019 Development Services
Committee 5a) Additional correspondence received
County of Simcoe Main Line (705) 726-9300
Planning Department Toll Free (866) 893-9300 ' -
1110 Highway 26, Fax (705) 727-4276 PLANNING
Midhurst, Ontario L9X 1 N6 simcoe.ca �T•:r
Andria Leigh VIA EMAIL
Director of Development Services
Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7, Box 100,
Oro, ON LOL 2E0
Subject: County Comments- Public Meeting for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments
Township File Nos. 2019-OPA-01 & 2019-ZBA-14 (Greenwood/Gardiner)
County File Nos. OM-OPA-1901 & OM-ZBA-1907
East Part of Lot 3, Concession 10 (Medonte) 3750 Line 10 North
Dear Ms. Leigh,
Thank you for circulating the applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning -Bylaw Amendment
for the above noted lands. The comments provided below are with respect to applicable policies and
guidelines on permitted uses in agricultural areas, as well as administrative information relating to the
County's OPA approval process.
It is the County's understanding that the applicant is proposing a site-specific amendment of the
Township's Official Plan to permit a Home Industry for a Contractor's yard with storage of motor vehicles
in the Agricultural designation. The applicant also seeks the approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment to
rezone a portion of the subject lands to permit a Contractor's yard with the storage of motor vehicles.
Planning Comments
The subject lands are designated 'Agricultural' and 'Greenlands', per Schedule 5.1 — Land Use
Designations to the Simcoe County Official Plan (SCOP) and the subject lands are within the
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority general regulation area. A portion of the subject property is
mapped as part of the Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan. The province has also identified an
agricultural system for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and a portion of the subject property is located
within the prime agricultural area.
Section 2.3.3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 states that "in prime agricultural areas,
permitted uses and activities are: agricultural uses, agriculture -related uses and on-farm diversified uses.
Proposed agriculture -related uses shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural
operations." On-farm diversified uses are defined as secondary uses to the principle agricultural use of
the property, are limited in area, and include, but are not limited to, home occupations, home industries,
agri-tourism uses, and uses that produce value-added agricultural products.
Page 1 of 3
Section 3.6.6 of the SCOP also permits on-farm diversified uses within the Agricultural designation. The
SCOP's definition of on-farm diversified uses is consistent with the PPS.
Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Aaricultural Areas
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) has produced Guidelines on Permitted
Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas which outlines the PPS criteria for on-farm diversified uses.
All of the following criteria must be met to qualify as an on-farm diversified use in accordance with the
PPS:
• Located on a farm that is actively in agricultural use
• Secondary to the principle agricultural use of the property
• Limited in area
• On-farm diversified uses may occupy no more than 2% of the property which the uses are located,
to a maximum of 1 hectare
• Includes, but is not limited to, home occupations, home industries, agri-tourism uses and uses
that produce value-added agricultural products
• Shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations
A Planning Justification Report (PJR) was prepared in support of the application by Innovative Planning
Solutions in June 2019. The report provides an evaluation of the above criteria for on-farm diversified
uses.
County Planning staff note that the PJR indicates that the property currently includes a residential
building, agricultural buildings for the owner's horses, a newly constructed storage building, and that
several of the agricultural fields are rented to a local farmer. The provincial guidelines require an on-
farm diversified use to be secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property.
The provincial guidelines also outline criterion to ensure that the on-farm diversified use is limited in area.
On-farm diversified uses may occupy no more than 2% of the property on which the use is located, to a
maximum of 1 hectare. The PJR indicates that the subject lands are approximately 39.2 hectares and
the proposed home industry/on-farm diversified use is approximately 1.4 hectares, which makes up 3.6%
of the total subject lands.
Summary
Prior to approval, the Township should be satisfied that the proposed on-farm diversified use meets the
provincial guidelines for an on-farm diversified use which includes ensuring that it is located on a farm
property that is actively in agricultural use and that the proposed use will remain secondary to the principal
agricultural use of the property.
The current fee for the review/processing of a Township adopted, privately initiated official plan
amendment is $2000. The applicant is to provide the fee directly to the County at such time as the local
official plan amendment is adopted and forwarded by the Town to the County for approval consideration.
2of3
The County of Simcoe Fees and Charges By-law is available on the County website at www.simcoe.ca.
Planning fees are located under Schedule "K".
Please circulate the County on any updates or notices related to this application.
Thank you again for consulting with the County of Simcoe. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
The Corporation of the County of Simcoe
Anna Dankewich
Planner II
P: 705-726-9300 x1970
E: anna.dankewich ansimcoe.ca
cc: Dan Amadio, Manager of Planning - County of Simcoe
Todd Weatherell, Intermediate Planner- Township of Oro Medonte
Vanessa Simpson, Planner- Innovative Planning Solutions
September 4, 2019 Development Services Committee
5a) Additional correspondence received
Director, Development Services
The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte
Re: 2019-OPA-ol & 2019-ZBA-14 (Greenwood/Gardiner)
Dear Director of Development Services, Mayor and Council,
We are submitting this letter to voice our concerns over the proposed Amendments to the Official
Plan and Zoning By-law for the above noted application. The subject lands Municipally known as
375o Line to North lie adjacent to the south of our property Municipally known as 3800 Line io
North.
In our opinion, careful consideration must be made when permitting an exemption to land
designated prime agricultural area for on-farm diversified use. The Province of Ontario has
provided Guidelines for Permitted uses in Prime Agricultural Areas (Publication 851,
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/facts/permitteduseguide.pdf ).According to these
recommendations (section 2.3.3 Pg. 23) examples of uses that typically would not be on-farm
diversified uses include: large scale equipment and trucking yards.
We feel quite strongly about the preservation of prime agricultural land, as does the Township of
Oro-Medonte. Our community is fortunate to have a very diversified agricultural landscape
(including Dairy, Field Crops, Horticulture, Livestock, etc) which helps to maintain our rural
character and enriches our local economy. It is difficult to see how a contractors/trucking yard
consisting of 5 Tri -axle trucks and related heavy equipment helps to enhance the existing on-farm
operation. It is not an appropriate use for prime agricultural area. The structure in question has
obviously been located outside the farm building cluster to take advantage of the existing
agricultural use entrance and to keep it away from the farm residence.
The subject lands exceed the provincial guidelines for On -Farm Diversified Uses: "These
guidelines recommend that the standard for the acceptable area occupied by an on-farm
diversified use is up to 2% of a farm parcel to a maximum of 1 ha" (section 2.3.1 PPS Criteria for On -
Farm Diversified Uses). The Planning Justification Report prepared by IPS states that the subject
area occupies 3.6% of the total subject lands and 1.4 ha which is well in excess of the provincial
guidelines.
The new building on the subject lands, built under an Agricultural permit, obviously is not being
used for agricultural purposes. It is evident that a certain amount of misleading information has
been given during the entire process. The fact that a building of that size and scope was
constructed without consideration of it's use, based on the owners occupation, should have been
a concern. This should have gone to the planning department prior to applying for a building
permit to make sure their intended use was in line with current Zoning and By-laws.
The type and level of traffic generated by this proposed land use is not in character with the area
and function of the road. The type and volume of traffic that would be generated is more
consistent with expectations on a county road (e.g. County Rd zz) or existing designated haul
route, not a rural concession. The volume of proposed traffic can easily increase if storage of
building supplies and aggregates are permitted on site (i.e. gravel, topsoil, etc.) as part of this
proposed re -zoning application. The number of trucks and other equipment could also be
increased with no additional notice. The Township needs to consider the number of the trucks,
load weight and turning movements to evaluate the impact to Line io.
Additionally, there has been consistent concern among local residents that the visibility and speed
at which trucks exit the KJ Excavating yard onto Line io posses a risk not only to motorists but also
to cyclists who frequently ride up and down this concession.
We are disappointed that the applicants didn't follow the proper channels when moving to this
community and building. To our knowledge, they offered little to no communication about their
intentions to build a contractors/trucking yard of this scale and obviously withheld that
information from the township as well.
As a result, we can not support the proposed amendments to the official plan and zoning by-law
of the Township of Oro-Medonte.
With Best Regards,
Gary MacPhail & Kristin Ego MacPhail
3800 Line to, North
Oro-Medonte
538 Horseshoe Valley Rd. E. September 4, 2019 Development Services
oro-Medonte, ON Committee 5a) Additional correspondence received
LOK 1E0
Sept. 4, 2019.
Attention: Ms. Janette Teeter, Deputy Clerk and Oro-Medonte Council.
Re: Proposed Amendment to Oro-Medonte's Official Plan and Zoning By-law to allow a Contractor's
Yard at 3750 Line 10 North, Oro-Medonte.
As residents of the Jarratt Community we would like to state our opposition to the above proposal.
Our main objection concerns SAFETY within the Village and Settlement Area. We would also like to
explain our other concerns in response to the materials provided by the Township and within the
Justification Report as follows:
Process and Timelines:
June 25, 2019 - Township deemed the amendment applications were complete.
Aug. 19, 2019 - Some neighbours were notified of the Sept. 4th Public Meeting.
Summer of 2018 - The berms and driveway were constructed on the property. Trucks and equipment
were parked on the site before the large building was constructed and the business and heavy truck
traffic has been operating since that time - approximately one year ago.
Questions:
What is the original Bldg. Permit application date for the building in question?
When was it approved, and what was the stated and approved use for that building at that time?
When was application made for the change -in -use of the building in question? Was it approved?
Did the applicant discuss the Site Alteration By-law with OM Staff and was permission granted for the
owner to truck in off-site fill?
Did OM personnel inspect the site construction as it proceeded?
Comment. As the business has been operative for approximately a year, this very late amendment
application, public notification, and meeting for input seems more like a case of asking for forgiveness
rather than permission. We believe that the purpose of a Public Meeting is to garner public input at the
proposal stage not after the fact.
Response to The Planning Justification Report by Innovative Planning Solutions.
1) Premise. The stated intent of the amendments is to permit a Contractor's Yard as a home industry -
classified as an on-farm diversified use. By definition, home occupations, home industries, agri-tourism
uses, and uses that produce value-added agricultural products. This definition is consistent with Section
2.3.3.2 in the Provincial Policy Statement 2014.
Comments: Although not limited to the above definition, the prevalent intent is that the diversified use
be related to Agriculture as that is the property designation. K.J. Excavating is self described as a
contractor specializing in drainage, excavating and site preparation. More accurately then, this is a
business within the construction industry actually operating off of the home site. The proposed
Contractor's Yard is therefore, more of an industrial land use than a home industry or on-farm
diversified use related to Agriculture.
Within the IPS Report:
Section CIA (b) of the Township's objectives for the Agricultural area states: To protect land suitable for
agricultural production from development and land uses unrelated to agriculture.
Section C1.2 identifies the permitted uses establishing that the principal use of 'Agricultural' designation
shall be agriculture.
Section C1.3.3 relates specifically to Home Industries as, "small-scale industrial uses that are accessory
to agricultural operations - or single detached dwellings on large rural lots."
"The storage of motor vehicles is not a permitted use associated to a home industry - therefore an OPA
is required to permit this use.
The Township's Official Plan notes that, home industries may be permitted, subject to re -zoning,
provided Council is satisfied that: "the building housing the home industry is located within the existing
farm -building cluster- if located on a farm property.
Comment: The IPS Report admits that this is not the case. The 3.5 acre (1.4 ha) footprint of the
proposed home industry (storage building and parking/service area) required a separate entrance and
driveway from the existing farm -building cluster.
The described 200' x 250' paddock area and newly constructed horse barn, as stated, is within the farm -
building cluster The smaller 50' x 100' proposed storage building might have fit within that area but the
owners apparently decided it more appropriate for the heavy equipment traffic and noise to be located
away from their home and perhaps also recognized that the proposed Contractor's Yard is not an
agricultural, farm -related home industry.
Questions:
What was the Building Permit application/approval date for the horse barn?
When was this building constructed?
The Location. The Report states that noise, dust and odour should not be of concern at the proposed
site. However, those issues are of concern off site. And of even greater concern is traffic safety around
the daily movement of the contractor's heavy equipment on Line 10, specifically at the Horseshoe Valley
Rd. intersection. Although it's stated that the contractor's business hours are 7 am to 7 pm, that has not
been their practice or the experience of neighbouring residents.
This contractor's heavy trucks are frequently driven through Jarratt well before and after those hours
when visibility is limited. Nearby residents have attested there have also been situations where K.J.
vehicles have blocked the intersection in attempting to turn off of Line 10 on to Horseshoe Valley Rd.
blocking traffic in all directions. This is an extremely dangerous situation and K.J. trucks are an
unwelcome addition to the heavy truck traffic which speeds through Jarratt every morning and
continuously through the day.
Comment: Heavy Equipment Contractors and Businesses should not be located on Concession Roads
from which they must turn on to main roads such as Horseshoe Valley. And especially not at a Stop Sign
only intersection such as Jarratt. They should be located on main roads which are built for heavy trucks
and have good traffic sight lines as are Beard's Farm Supply and McKerroll's Excavating.
Policies within the Report:
The intent of the PPS in permitting on-farm diversified uses is to allow uses that are secondary to the
agricultural uses on a farm for the purposes of providing opportunities to enhance the viability of
farming operations.
Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Area - 4.2, Section 2.3 states - "On-farm
diversified uses are intended to enable farm operators to diversify and supplement their farm income,
as well as to accommodate value-added and agri-tourism uses in prime agricultural areas."
Comments: It is our understanding that K.J. Excavating existed as a viable family business which
relocated to Line 10. The owner of the property has advised that the agricultural uses consist of crop
farming and a personal -use horse farm. The report also indicates that the farm is rented to a local
farmer. It's stated within the PPS criteria to qualify as an on-farm diversified use that, the lands are
comprised of predominately agriculturally related uses and the on-farm diversified use is secondary to
the principal uses.
We would suggest that the property owner's farm income through the rental of their relatively small
crop acreage to a local farmer and personal -use horse farming is far exceeded by the principal income
from K.J. Excavating Inc. And that the proposed on-farm diversified use is not in fact a home industry.
Section 3.6 of the Simcoe County Official Plan states - "The objectives of the Agricultural designation
include protecting the resource of prime agricultural lands and prime agricultural areas through
directing development that does not satisfy the Agricultural policies to Settlements.
Comments: Once again, as with Beard's Farm Supply and McKerroll's Excavating the proposed
Contractor's Yard (business) should be appropriately located on a main road and possibly within a
Settlement Area.
Conclusions: The proposed Contractor's Yard is not a home industry or an on-farm diversified use that
supplements a farmer's income. The pretext that Mr. Greenwood and Ms. Gardiner are farmers is
misleading. K.J. Excavating Inc. has been operating their business with little regard for the safety of the
Jarratt community, the policies and procedures of the Township, and without municipal approval. The
Township has also been delinquent in its official responsibilities to protect the interests of its residents
and preserve prime agricultural land.
We trust that Oro-Medonte will give serious and due consideration to the Jarratt Community's
objections and respectfully request that the proposed Amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-
law be denied, and further that K.J. Excavating Inc. be directed to cease their excavating business on
Line 10 immediately.
Sincerely,
Linda and Allan Baker
0
4.
co
L
CL L6
Q
L
CW W
C
C 0
N O
E
C:
_co (L^
I v
>1
co V
CO
0N
060
+.• N
C _0
N
E (a
N O
Qa
c0
M'
rn
� N
�U
r
O
Z
O
N
c c
O J
cc O
O r
J M
0
c
O
CL
U
x
W
N
U
El
J`
(D
C:
O
N
a
0
N
U
x
LU
c �
•� O
N
m
w
O L)
U
Ocm
B7W-1-4
`m
LL
m
N
In
N
Of
6;
U)
O
U �
CL
Q C
a�
i
}, N
C (D
E °6
-0-0
C O
N O
E
a
N
i
m �
O)
C a
C m
N N
06 O
N
C _0
N
Em
C
O O
as
C: 0
Co
_ 07
0- T --
C)
� N
�U
0
U)
0
U �
L
QC
Q �
L
�r m
E °6
'COO
E
m
i
C
E co
N N
T,
06 O
+r N
^C _0
W
E N
T—
C:
EQ
c0
M
a
� N
L
CL
v
L
O
m
O
Q -
O
_
N
c
�
Q.
-0
0
a,
o
ao
s
ai
+°
-0J
L
a)C:Ln
O
D
O
t
N
-a
C
O
4'
a1
.�
4-j
n2
E
L
aJ
._
O
4,
Q
N
L
O
Q
Q
V
V
>
•L
a)
c
CL
aJ
-0
M
>aJ
O
O
N
aJ
O
a +
aJ
-0
C6
U
W
4-1
a
cLo
O
V)
N
M
O
i1
3
)
f°'�
04
aJ
�
-0
v
c
c
,}
-
o
O
o
O3
N
.
O
+—
.—,
*'
4-
3L
OJ
�
C=
5
:D
L
'p
aJ
U
OC
O
an
a
O
U
E
qq
Q
E
c
,c
Qcu
'N
>
O
O
O
U
L'
4-1
a
Ln
-j
c-
-C
VI
O
t
aJ
c
to
N
w
}'
�
c�
3
E
E
a
CO
�
L
Ln
O
O
uo
Q
L
Q
in
c
v�
W
(0
O
y)
a
.o
Q
m
m
O
c
N
L
aJ
O
-00
>"
v
-0
a'•'
4 ,
aJ
4'
Ln
a
aJ
Z
°J
Q�
�
a
D
W
C
�
O
Qca1U
m
Q
4,
t
U
s
N
4-
H
U
Q
m
Q
O
oo
3
V/
O
UL
QC
Q �
L
E W
C: O
NO
E
a�
°'
0
m�
0�
�Q
N N
Ir -
06 O
+� N
C_0
N
E (6
O
N �
Q d
�O
O
N
U_
0
U)
0
m
U L
O
Q C
Q �
i
C (D
E °6
-0-0
C O
N O
E 3
Q C:
c�a a)
C7
m�
CQ
'c m
N N
06 O
,_. N
C _0
N
E m
C
O O
Q a
CO
m
_ O
O
N
'U
O
IM
$
2
:
CL
� E
Q �
%
E $06
-0-0
% R
Q �
/
. (D
.q <
_ ED
N I
06
N
E�
$
E %
-a �
E<
< ry
_0
C�
O
� N
.g
�
�
\}
\{§|!!]i!!Z\
;022■■■■2■■s■E■■■e■■ES■■n2»
m
§
§
C %
a E
'e •7
03
»
0
,N,
0)
N
06
4-1
E
N
Q
ffi�
O
n
O
T1
V)
O
N
L
-1
N�
K
✓i l 3
-il
pO
F------------------
7
I
I
I
I z
Z
I w
o
z
Z
i w
I �
a
L-�
a
d
L--------------
J
o�
Q
W
0
Q 4
W
x;
N
L
VJ
O
U �
L
Q C
Q �
L
W
C O
NO
E
Q
co
r�^
I v
W V
MQ
•C W
N N
06 O
+• N
C _0
N
E N
a O
Q n -
c0
(� I
_ O
O
N
�U
O
A
O
�U\
Ll /T�[
1 ' 1V
E066
-0-0
C O
N O
E3:
Q �
m
co lit
C�
cQ
Em
N N
06 o
.,_, N
C -O
N
E N
E^
M
C: 0
M T'
A �
N
�U
O
o -0
c
E
i
Q
in
Q N
�-----------------
-iI
I
I
I Z
I �
0
_�
a
L
I s
z
0
J LL
Q 4
S �
N Q
o -0
c
E
i
Q
in
Q N
0
U
Q C
Q �
L
� V
x
C 0
N 00
E /
/<
V r�^
I v
m 194-
C Q
C m
N N
06 o
C _0
N
E N
n-
�0
TI
n/'_ VJ
N
�U
O
E
CD
0
4-0U L
•Q
L
a
E 06
C 0
N 20
E/
Q
(a a)
i
o
0) r
CO
C C
N N
^x r
WCD
+� N
N
E (�
C O
0
/1
c0
1�
O
UN
I
rf t'
N
O
U
.Q
C
CLm
QL
E W
C O
NO
E
Q
r1�
W V
C: m
N
N
06 o
+1 N
C -0
N
E (�
C:O
a)Q
E
a
Q
c0
M
^
LL
O
� N
0
4�
^U
L
co
a
E 06
-0 -0
C O
N O
E
1 v
W
Q
C: CO
N N
T
06 C)
+� N
C �
N
E Ca
� r
O
� 1
Q a
�0
(61
CD
a r
O
N
�U
E
_O
-1--i
^U
Q
L
�.., co
A 06
�r O
u/ O
E
m
1 v
co It
Q
CO
N N
06 O
+� N
W
E co
V-
C
N O
Q a
C 0
M
O
� N
�U
0
O
N
06
4-0C
N
E
C
N
E
m
rml
•o
0
O
r�
V
r
I
co W
N
I
0
N
T—
O
I
d
0
I
0
N
O
t�
U
Q.
Q
Q
C
N
E
C
N
E
Q
N
I
m
O
C
.E
N
06
C
N
E
C
N
E
Q
C
m
WE
Fm
c
c
u
u
cto
ro
Mo
c
X
v
0
0
v
O
co �� .:•..y::.
O
L
U N
L
m
Q Cco
v
L
6
16
a
�x
E W
C O
Y
E 3
L
m
^\�
AW
corrn�n
� V
O
QI
VJ
ON'
N
06 O
N
C
N
r
E ca
_0
C
N O
E Q
Y
Q �
O
OCo
C
m
CY)
N
(�
on
Y;
v
0
N
06
c
E
a)
Q
c
m
r.l
O
U
Q�
L
W
-0-0
E
Q �
_co l/�^/
V
=a
Em
N N
06 O
+r N
C _0
N
E N
T—
^�
O
c0
A �
N
�U
4-1
r�
a
E
�
v
U
O
L
C
Q
O
_
0
co
N
^
O
E
N
O
N
N
-
c
O
N
4.
U
ca
U
4-J
N
V
Om
Q
c
E
r
U
Q
c
N
E—
Q
fB
75
Q)
U
O
Dl
E
—
O
o
o
4^
°�
Q)
Uc
+�
E
�._
E
�
o
-
o
Q
N
d
*'
L
U
``1��
C �-/
OC
CL
Q)
.0
-0-0
x
oN
3
0
p
c
c
O
i
"
E
o
O
3
n
Q N
c
c
,L
Q
c
c
O
a
E
(p `^
c
0-
m
m
Q
fB
UbA
a
a-'
Q
•-
c
c
V
co
O
c
Q)
V1
Q
Q_
L
f0
4-1
E
4-J
U
.—
•E m
p
-0
0
c
u01
t
N
Q)
-
vI
Q
4�
>
N
v�
a
s
a)
o
°6o
Q
O
Q
c
N
a)
>O
3
t
o
-o�'
Q)O
�
N
>
m
a--�
Q)
E
W
N
N
0�0
v
0O
O
Q
a-+
Ln
U
Z
4'-
C6
U
0)
�a+
c
—
FL
N
N
f9
O
c
N
C
Q
iQ)
a
Q)
2
p
_p
c
E
O0
s
U
3
O
7
O
Q
.-�
i
_
U
>
Q)
V
C
i
Q
Q
U
a)
Q1
U
i
p
Ln
M
•
11
O
CL
O
wwL
9.�
pk
E
E
a
O
N
>-
a)
E
t6
v
i_
Lno
>
v
L
O_`
+u
3
C
v
o
'j
z
L
L
o
0
p
N
Y
N
N
a)
Ln
bA
U
bAC
C
(D
O
t
M
4.
p
'p_
N(�
U
�_
a)
Ln
>
06
J
Ln
0
LO
u
%
bA
Ln
O
�0
bA
`�
bA
p
b2S
cu
`^
fL0
L
M
c -I
r -I
c -I
C
C:)
C
V)
-O
c
0
a)
4'
4O
C
(6
z0
�_
E
'>
L
i2
Q
p
p
x
11 j
O
cu
(9
(6
1--j
U
U-
Q
w
.�
00
m
Q
-0
m
a>
O
CL
O
wwL
9.�
pk
E
E
a
O
A
0
0
z
J
az
z
C7
a
•
r1
U
9
O
�
E
,u �
� E
o<
Pm
�
£
\
�
f
�
\
/
e
C2
/
§
CL
.LI)
—
3
b
E
3
E
f
£
#
3
.§
/
\
&
&=
E
3
2
E
3°
.g
/
E
§
\
\
0
«
m
m
o&
\
2
'7
c
e$
c
7
E
a
E
t
'�
»—
m
t
a
E
3$
'E
E=
o
o
c
e
E
E
5
%
7
I
�
/
§
{
/
a
a
'S
E
®
CL
'Eu
ƒ
'
.
.
'�
°
%
%'�
\
k
?
&
\
0
v
2
a
f
.�
\
/
QJ
/
.
.
o
.
O
�
E
,u �
� E
o<
Pm
�
ri
U
O
O
v
c
a
v
Q
E
C)
L
O
4r
4�
41
N
N
U
N
L
0
Q
Q
'a
L
"
O
ai
Qj
N
.L
Q
i
Qj
v
0°a)
`o
Lai
u
-O
Q
CO
N
L
O
tLo
O
Q
C
'^
N
co
O
O
'^
J
0:
Q
N
H
U
ri
N
0
t
4-
c
ai
Q
O
ai
>
a)
a)
(A
O
0-
0
L
CL
9 i�
L
V)
N
C
.O
O
t
co
N
4-
C
a1
N
L
Q-
4-
0 4—
O
v
N
f0
L
4
Z3
U
�L
76
_Q
U
C
�L
Q
a
L
a-+
O
L
CO
C
O
U
aJ
N
V
am
4'
L
c
_
O
}r
c
_U
�L
v
v
Q
t
•i3�
N
�
�
N
O
�
C
�
N
N
}'
N
N
-0
_0
N
aJ
(0
a1
V
L
a)
L
CL
•
.0
a
>
:5
>
i6
•U
E
C
E
fV
N
fB
•>
C
�
C
O
O
ca
O
L
EQ
a
O
N
0
t
4-
c
ai
Q
O
ai
>
a)
a)
(A
O
0-
0
L
CL
9 i�
L
V)
N
C
.O
O
t
co
N
4-
C
a1
N
L
Q-
4-
0 4—
O
v
N
f0
L
4
Z3
U
�L
76
_Q
U
C
�L
Q
a
L
a-+
O
L
CO
C
O
U
aJ
N
V
am
4'
c
_
O
c
v
v
v
}'
N
>
(0
N
a)
CL
U
.0
CU
•_
C
O
O
EQ
O
Q
O
a
?
._
. �
+J
L
v
Q)
CLn
4
O
Q
C
O
N
v
O
-0
N
L
Q
O
Q
CJ
�t
-00
C
L
}
U
C
Q
O
O
ca
—
O
O
>O
N
N
0
E
N
2
cu
Cc
a
EO
"
=
C
u
+.+
4
N
L
'L
hA
C
�O
s
}'
O
m
O
-a
O
a.0
cv
4�
1
N
L
al
C
l7Q
L
E
dA
-a
m
co
N
0
t
4-
c
ai
Q
O
ai
>
a)
a)
(A
O
0-
0
L
CL
9 i�
L
V)
N
C
.O
O
t
co
N
4-
C
a1
N
L
Q-
4-
0 4—
O
v
N
f0
L
4
Z3
U
�L
76
_Q
U
C
�L
Q
a
L
a-+
O
L
CO
C
O
U
aJ
N
V
am
N
0
t
4-
c
ai
Q
O
ai
>
a)
a)
(A
O
0-
0
L
CL
9 i�
L
V)
N
C
.O
O
t
co
N
4-
C
a1
N
L
Q-
4-
0 4—
O
v
N
f0
L
4
Z3
U
�L
76
_Q
U
C
�L
Q
a
L
a-+
O
L
CO
C
O
U
aJ
N
V
am
r4
N
E
J
M
L
C
�
�
�
C
U
L
=3
}fir
4,Qj
Q)
L
N
4 ,
O
lD
M
N
�
a1
L
C-
L%
v
-0N
Ln
L=
a
E
C
O
=
•�
O
LA-"�
=
O
M
U
0
4J
O
i
p
++
*(C
'
++
m
y
'a
75
0
-0a_
L
-0++
N
E
O
m
N
4-
C
ai
C
N
L
ai
N
�;
0"
OL
t
_
_
O
H
L`
s
O
f0
N
=
f4
�
3
4J
++
a
O
m
=
fC
L
41
O
_
co
7
U
U
V)
Q -
-
_y
N
C
QJ
u
'�
co
CA
"O
S
aJ
Q
>�
U
v Z,
4CU
-
fA
a1
Q
O
L
aJ
Q
O
ao
fB
GA
C
�
3
O
N
o
u
�
a1
a1
+�
m
an
C
O
Z
L
O
O
0
L
m
i
LAM
'L
04
C6
4J
�p
aJ
+_+
M
.E
O
Q-
O
m
N
Ln
aJ
t4
L
L
+
^
'C:
Q%
E
75
v
Q
N
w
QJ
a
Q
i
N
a)
0aai
-0
a
C
U
W
-0
C
QL
N
y—
M
O
Q.
N
i
QJ
CL6
4a
(L6
Eu
:3
O
O
cc
±'
4a
E
N
L
N
dA
dA
C
Q
C
Q
O
v
cu
N
E
J
M
44
LA
c i
oa
C
�
�
�
C
U
L
Q)
N
4 ,
O
lD
M
N
�
a1
L
C-
L%
v
-0N
Ln
L=
a
E
C
O
=
•�
O
LA-"�
=
O
M
U
0
4J
O
i
p
++
*(C
'
++
m
y
'a
L
.L
m
3
j
N
u
LO
CL
++
v'
NG
'O
=
f0
�
•L
aCL
0+
0
-0a_
L
-0++
N
E
O
m
N
4-
C
ai
C
N
L
ai
N
�;
0"
OL
t
_
_
O
H
L`
s
O
f0
N
=
f4
�
3
4J
++
a
O
m
=
fC
L
41
O
_
co
7
U
^
(id
Q)
>
C:C
O
Q
L
+J
C
O
'4-
aj
a
bA
U
4'
fO
E
C
a
1
^
N
L
7
O
-C
QJ
0-
O
�
m
c
o
a1
bD
-0
Q)
4+
4,
3
E
ON
N
C
O
-0
a,
—
Ln
O
U
!E
Q,
>
Q
-
_y
N
C
QJ
u
'�
co
CA
"O
S
aJ
Q
>�
U
v Z,
4CU
-
fA
a1
Q
O
L
aJ
Q
O
ao
fB
GA
C
�
3
O
N
o
u
�
a1
a1
+�
m
an
C
O
Z
V
=
L
44
aC.
0
L
m
i
LAM
'L
04
.
44
LA
c i
oa
0
Z
a