01 14 1999 C of A Agenda
Committee of Adiustment AQenda
Thursdav January 14th 1999. 10:00 a.m.
1. Nomination and Election of Chairman
2. Communications and Correspondence
3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
4. Hearings:
10:00
8-50/98
Indian Park Association
Con 6, Plan M-8, pt 81k F (Ora)
10:10
8-51/98
Garrett Developments Ltd.
Con 1, pt Lot 40 (Ora)
10:20
8-52/98
Pautsch
Con 12, pt Lot 16 (Ora)
10:30
8-53/98
Rose
Con 6, Plan 807, Lot 6 (Ora)
10:40
A-36/98
Hubbard
Con 4, pt Lot 13 (Med)
10:50
A-1/99
Schneider
Con 7, pt Lot 1 (Ora)
5. Decisions
6. Minutes of December 10, 1998
7. Other business
8. Adjournment
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
January 7,1999
Indian Park Association
8-50/98
Conc. 6, Pt Lot 2, Plan M-8, Pt Block F (former Oro)
The Proposal
As an easement, the applicant is requesting consent to use a parcel of land with
approximately 9.14 metres (30 feet) of frontage on Huronwoods Drive as a driveway to
access a 40 hectare (100 acre} parcel in Concession 5 in order tv construct a new single
detached dwelling.
Policy
Official Plan Designation:
Zorring By-law:
Comments
Residential
Private Recreation (PR} Zone
Roads Superintendent: Revised location 50 feet east vn Hurvnwoods Drive is more
suitable location
Health Unit: No Objection
Planning Department Comments
Background
The applicants are proposing to grant a 30 foot easement to Mr. Peter Seymour in order
for a single detached dwelling to be constructed on his property.
Official Plan
The subject property is designated Residential in the Official Plan. The intent of this
designation is to ensure the orderly development of a Sugarbush community. The
proposed easement would permit the construction of a single detached dwelling on a
parcel which currently does not have year round access. This proposal would generally
conform with the policies of the Official Plan.
Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned Private Recreation (PR} in Zoning By-law 97-95. This
zone classification was intended for open space or recreation uses; however the granting
t
of an easement for a driveway access would be considered to comply with the by-law
provisions. Upon site inspection there is some concern raised about the location
proposed for this easement due to the close proximity to the corner of Hurvnwoods Drive.
In discussion with the Roads Superintendent there is a concern with the proposed
location; and the Committee should determine if the access could be moved to an
ahernate location further east down Huronwoods Drive.
Recommendation
That application BSOi98 be amended tv an alternate location further east that is
considered suitable by the Roads Superintendent.
Decision
Moved by Alan Martin, seconded by Dave Edwards
" ihat the Committee hereby GRr1NT Application B-SOi98, as amended with the
easement being relocated 50 feet further south on Huronwoods Drive, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario
Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary;
2. That all municipal taxes be paid tv the Township of Oro-Medonte;
3. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one
year from the date of the giving of this notice as noted below;
4. Submissions of deeds in triplicate for the parcel{s) severed, one copy to be retained by
the Municipality;
5. That the deeds be stamped utilizing Form 2, under Section 53(42} of the Planning
Act, R.S.O. 1990 aP. 13, without qualification;
6. Approval shall lapse where the conditions have not been fulfilled within one year of
being imposed and two years from the date of the certificate if the transaction has not
been finalized.
.....Carried.
U
i~oRSCSNOE vAu.EY
9700
24400
i
0
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
January 7,1999
Garrett Developments Ltd
B-51/98
Conc. 1, Pt Lot 40 (former Oro)
The Proposal
As a boundary adjustment, the uppltutnt is proposing to uckl u parcel of land having
approximately 26 metres B~ ft) of frontage, 111 metres (363.75 ft) of depth, and 3035.25
syuure metres (0.75 uc) of lot urea to a neighbouring commerc•iul lot, us shown on the
attached sketch, and to retain a parcel of land having approximately 19 hectares (47 acres)
of lot urea.
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Rural Settlement Area
Zoning By-law: AgriculturaURura1 Exception FiBeen (A/RU* I S )
Comments
Roads Superintendent: Has access to County Road
Heatth Unit: No objection, but does not allow for
expansioniaddition to the existing commercial building
Planning Department Comments
Backgrouud
The applicants are proposing to add a parcel of land to an abutting parcel in order to
allow the for construction of a new septic system.
Official Plan
The subject property is designated Rural Settlement Area in the Official Plan. The intent
of this designation is to ensure the orderly development of a settlement area in a cost
effective manner. The proposal for a lot addition would uphold this intent by allowing a
more orderly development of the Abbott's of Craighurst property with the construction of
a new• sewage system.
. Zvning By-law
The subject property is caned AgriculturaLRural Exception Fifteen (.4iRU *15} in Zoning
By-law 97-95. The intent of this zone is to limit the developmern of new buildings or
new uses which wvuld impact on the lung term develvpment of the Craighurst
community. The proposed lot addition would improve the development of the existing
commercial parcel and would not appear to impact the long term development of the
remainder of the Garrett property.
Recvmmendativn
That application BS 1i98 be approved subject to the standard wnditivns of approval.
Decision
Moved by Itien Robbins, seconded by Allan 3v'nnson
" That the Committee hereby GRr'1i~iT Application B-S1i98 subject to the following
conditions:
1. That three espies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario
Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary;
• 2. That ail municipal taxes be paid tv the Township of Oro-Medonte;
3. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one
year from the date of the giving of this notice as noted below;
4. Submissions of deeds in triplicate for the parcel(s) severed, one copy to be retained by
the iviunicipality;
5. That the deeds be stamped utilizing Form 2, under Section 53(42) of the Planning
Act, R.S.O. 1990 aP. 13, without qualification;
6. Approval shall lapse where the conditions have not been fulfilled within one year of
being imposed and two years from the date of the certificate if the transaction has not
been finalized.
7. That the County of Simcoe give approval in writing for the application.
_...Carried.
8 ~ aoi.-0mm
r ~~~--~
`°''°" I CRAIG ST.
~ _ ,~
I '°'~-' _--____---
an-ee.oo ~ • r'
.; I ' I ~ oo~~oo
ao~-amao
e~w
~~ ~~ ---
--- ~~ti T~
ow-aam ~
~ ao+ ~
~,..~
y
2
T_
N
Q
Z
W
G.
Q
7
K
3
s
CRAIGN~JRS j
~-s~ ig8
0 O
• Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
January 7,1999
Albert and Catherine Pautsch
B-52/98
Conc. 12, Pt Lot 16 (former Oro)
The Proposal
The applicant rs proposing to sever u vacant parcel of land having upproxlmately 105.34
metres (346 ft) of frontage on Line 12 N, 74.27 metres (244 ft) of depth, and 0.78 hectares
(1.9 uc) of lot urea, us shown on the attached sketch, and to retain un agricultural parcel of
land having approximately 39.1 hectares (96..13 acres) of dot area
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Agricultural
Zoning By-law: AgriculturaURural (A/RU)
Comments
Roads Superintendent: No concerns
Health Unit: No Objection
Planning Department Comments
Background
The applicants are proposing a lot addition to an existing residential lot (195 feet by 558
feet) which was created in 1988 (Application B-19/88).
Official Pian
The subject property is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan. The intent of this
designation is to protect and promote the agricultural character of the Township. The
proposed lot addition would enlarge an existing residential parcel. The Official Plan
states that for the creation of new residential lots that the lot shall not be smaller than 0.4
hectares (1.0 acres) and shall generally not be larger than 1.0 hectares (2.47 acres). The
residential lot is currently 1.0 hectare (2.47 acres) in size and is proposed to be enlarged
to 1.781 hectares (4.4 acres). The Committee should satisfy itself as to the need for the
enlargement of the parcel.
Zoning By-law
The existing residential Ivt to which the lot addition is propvsed is caned Rural
Residential Two (RUR2) and the lands where the property is be taken from are zoned
Agricultural/Rural (A/RU). Both the residential lot and the agricultural property exceed
the minimum lot frontage and area requirements of the Zoning By-law.
Recommendation
That the Committee should satisfy itself as tv the need for the lot addition prior to giving
favorable consideration to application B52/98.
Decision
Moved by Alan Martin, seconded by Dave Edwards
" That the Committee hereby DEFER Application B-52198 to allow for a further site
inspection of the property once weather permits."
.....Carried.
LoS ~5
Co~cFSSion~ IZ
. Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
January 7,1999
Elinor Rose
B-53/98
Conc. b, Plan 807, Lot S and 6 (former Oro)
The Proposal
ds u technical severance, the applicant is proposing to sever one wuteriot having
approxtmately 30 metres (100 ft) of width, 90 metres (300 ft) of depth, and 1.393.5 square
metres (0.34 ac) of lot urea, as shown on the attached sketch, and to retain u second wuterlot
having approximately 1,393.5 square metres (0.34 acres) of lot area
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Shoreline
Zoning By-law: Shoreline Residential {SR)
Comments
Roads Superintendent: Any future drive to be located to west side of lot to improve
visibility to comer
Health Unit: No objection
Planning Department Comments
Background
The applicants are proposing as a technical severance to sever the water lot adjacent to a
legally separate lot on a plan of subdivision.
Official Plan
The subject property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. The intent of this
designation is to protect the character and natural features of the shoreline. This
application would merge the water lot with the existing lot of record on the plan of
subdivision and as such would generally comply with the policies of the Official Plan.
Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned Shoreline Residential (SR) in Zoning By-law 97-95. The
. intent of this zone is to establish appropriate zone provisions related to frontage, area and
• setbacks. As this application is to acid a waterlot to the existing plan of subdivision lot
the Zoning By-law is deemed to be generally complied with
Reti:ommendation
That application B53/98 be approved subject to the standard conditions of approval.
Decision
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Ken Robbins
That the Committee hereby GRANT Application B-53/98 subject to the following
conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario
Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary;
2. That all munieipai taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte;
3. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one
year from the date of the giving of this notice as noted below;
4. Submissions of deeds in triplicate for the pazcel(s) severed, one copy to be retained by
the Municipality;
5. That the deeds be stamped utilizing Form 2, under Section 53(42} of the Planning
• Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.P. 13, without yualification;
6. Approval shall lapse where the conditions have not been fulfilled within one yeaz of
being imposed and two years from the date of the certificate if the transaction has not
been finalized.
.....Carried.
~ L_
•
D
o,J . 6
[oRo~
- ""r ' ~ °' a' i °Z~ t'
i ~~ ~I ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~<
~ ~-
i 4 ~ ~ ~ ~, ~1 ~ '`
~ ~
LAKESFIDRE P`O' s~Pt..AN 90
M
O
y
~ ~~_ ~ ~ ~ c
~~
`4t~ 9 ~
\ ~
~ ~
~~ ~` ~
~ ~.
~ ~ ~•~~b~~~ ~
~ ~ ~ `~ ~
\ ~~ ~\ \
~ ~ ~~
~ `~~
~~
. ~~
' $ ~ $ 7~/
$ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~
PRovOSfD
w~TERie
~40Di ~ ion
L~4KE SI mCO~
• Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
January 7,1999
George Hubbard
A-36/98
Conc. 4, Part of Lot 13 (former Medonte)
The Proposal
Relief is requested from the interior side yard setback requirement of 4.5 metres (14.76 feet)
to 3.4 metres (11.15 feet) and from the front yard setback requirement of 8 metres (26.2 feet)
to 3.03 metres (9.94 feet) in order to recognize an existing single detached dwelling and from
the interior side yard setback requirement for accessory buildings of 2 metres (6.6 feet) 0.35
metres (1.1 S feet) !n order to recognize an existing concrete block garage.
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Agricultural
Zoning By-law: AgriculturaURural {A/RU}
• Comments
Roads Superintendent: No Concerns
Health Unit: No Objection
Planning Department Comments
Background
The applicant has requested variances from the front yard and interior side yard
requirements for the single detached dwelling and a variance to the interior side yard
requirement for the detached garage.
i. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Agricultural in the Official Plan. The general intent
of the policies is to preserve and promote the agricultural character of the Township and
maintain the open countryside. As this is an existing residential lot with existing
buildings; the variance as proposed does generally conform with the policies of this Plan.
2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
• The subject property is zoned AgriculturaURural (A/RU} in By-law 97-95. The intent of
the Zoning By-law is to establish setback requirements in order to maintain the character
of the agricultural area. In 1990 a building permit was granted for the wrrsiruction of the
addition to the single detached dwelling; unfortunately the permit application no longer
exists and therefore the setbacks applied for on the application are unavailable for
review. On the basis that a permit was obtained and the structure has been in place for
over 8 years; the application is deemed to generally conform with the Zoning By-law.
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
Upon site inspee~tion it is evident that the three variances reyuested would rewgnize the
addition to the existing single detached dwelling and the accessory building and that
these buildings have existed in this form for a number of years.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is deemed to be minor on the basis that there would be nv additional impact
on the area as only the existing buildings are being recognized.
Recommendation
That application A36i98 be approved subject to the standard conditions.
Decision
• Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Ken Robbins
"That the Committee hereby GRANT Minor Variance Application A-36198, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application,
as submitted;
2. That the Simcve County District Health Unit approve of the application, in writing;
3. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Cno-Medonte.
...Camed.'>
,y
~`
~'
~ S
N
8
~ ~.
- +
v ~ A
~
c
f N
Q
_ _.
_ ,~.
. O
O z 6
~ D C
~ 1 8
N
,:
$ G, m A ~ a r
.: _ ~ S ~~
Z ~
LINE 4 MEOONTE
9
6 Q
N o
N ~
N
°
~
8 ~ tOL90-ZOO'
O
O o o N
O
L O
V N
p ,n
O ,L(T po
N _
O
C
O
r
r0 ti 4 ~
~
~ 0 ~~ ti
.
3 ~ z
e y ~ W
o
~
~
N ~ p $ o
8 p
S
$
6 N
0
$ O
c
o
c N
mm
8 N O O+ jJ O N O
_ N
~ I
o C
O
W ~ I
tQgZt-Z
N
~ N
N {JI
p
S
p
O p
S
8
oO OO ~
2
ti
Q `ter V
~
1~ ti n,.
ti
t0Z£t-ZOO
1
~
f
O
~
S
n
0
A
A
3
c
Z
T
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report
January 7,1999
Markus and Sonja Schneider
A-1/99
Conc. 7, Part of Lot 1 (former Oro)
The Proposal
Relief rs requested from the exterior sole yard setback requirement of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet)
to 0.89 metres (2.9 feet) ai the .southeast corner of a frame drive shed and to 0.85 metres (2.8
feet) ut the northeast corner of u frame drive shed in order to recognize this existing
accessory building.
Policy
Official Plan Designation: Rural
Zoning 13y-law: Agricultural/Rtual (A/RU)
Comments
Roads Superintendent: Future road wnstruction will require the existing 66 foot
right of way to be cleared and could possibly need road
widening
Health Unit: No Objection
Planning Department Comments
Background
The applicant has requested a variance to the exterior side yard requirement to recognise
a frame drive shed which was constructed in 1998.
1. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The subject property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. The general intent of the
policies is to preserve and promote the rural character of the Township and maintain the
open countryside. The variance as proposed dues generally conform with the policies of
this Plan.
. 2. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-htw?
The subject property is caned AgriculturaURura1 (A/RU) in By-law 97-95. The intent of
the Zoning By-law is to establish setback requirements in order to maintain the character
of the agriculturaUrural area. The frame drive shed was wnstructed in 1998 without a
building permit first being obtained Based on the layout of the property the drive shed
abuts the exterior side yard which is intended to have a lazger setback due to the
adjoining road The requested variance is a reduction of 21.6 feet from the 24.6 foot
requirement; this is not wnsidered to conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-
law.
3. Is the variance desirable for the appropriate development of the lot?
Upon site inspection it is evident that the drive shed is an open structure and constructed
on posts. It would appear on this basis that the structure could be moved to more
appropriately comply with the exterior side yard setback reyuirement. The variance
requested in not considered appropriate for the development of the property.
4. Is the variance minor in nature?
The variance is not deemed to be minor on the basis that the reduction in the reyuirement
is significant and will impact on the character of the azea.
• Recommendation
That application Al/99 be denied as requested; however the Committee could consider
reducing the exterior side yard setback requirement of 24.6 feet to a setback which would
be considered minor and appropriate for the property.
Decision
Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Alan Martin
"That the Committee hereby DEFER Minor Variance Application A-1199."
.....Carried."
u
8
S
O
O ~
j O
O ~
O
ti
p
O
aC
O
O
`ti
ti
~-~tl
Dp
8
o
s
N
O
-n
010-
ti
04
0
0
0
1
O
0
Zh V~r •....~-
~~
,
Opp-OaDM p
O
1
O10-10000 004-04 00
N
~
070-OS~ ~ I
Q
g
$ 010-09810 S g
g
OlO-Og7~
I
c O
O
O ~
ti ~
1 ~
g ti
~ ~~
ti
~
V ~ ~ ~ v
o1o-oe800 ~
N
~ rr
~ J
s ~- s Jv
0,0-oeeoo
~ p
~
~ ~ 1
n M
'__
" ~ p
O 8
~~5~'"
a
~, 3 N ~
r ~~~,
Olo-oe500
~
27800
m
M
~
N
0 n
o N4 g
~
~ ~
o 0 010-08501
010-08502 N
~ ~
~ ~
$ ti
~
2F'
4p ?~
00 Z
p
U
O10-07400
.- o
0 c I ~E
0 0-0~~
0 01 ~