03 08 2004 PAC Agenda
.
11>
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
Robinson Room
Date: Monday March 8, 2004
Time: 7:00 pm
1.
2.
3.
Opening of Meeting by Chair
Adoption of Agenda
Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in Accor~ance
with the Act. (Copy of legislation provided to members for their information)
Minutes of Previous Meetings - February 9, 2004
Planning Applications
4.
5.
7:05 p.m.
Planning Report prepared by Andria Leigh, Senior Planner
Re: Mark and Joanne Scharl - South Part of Lot 8, Concession 9,
51 R-28291, Part 1 (Oro), Application 2004-ZBA-01 (Applicant to be
afforded an opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to
the review of the report)
7:20 p.m.
Planning Report prepared by Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning
Consultants Inc. Re: Georgian North Land Ltd. - Lots 2 and 3,
Concession 9 (Oro), Application 2004-ZBA-02 and Redline Draft
Plan of Subdivision (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to
speak to the application subsequent to the review of the report)
6.
Other Business
Planning Report from Meridian Planning Consultants Inc re: Horseshoe Resort
Corporation - 24 unit townhouse condominium - Concession 3, Part .of Lot 1
(Medonte), Applications P-157/03 and 5-97/03
1091402 Ontario Limited and John William and Helen Bower Burch - Part of Lots
34, 35, and 36, Concession 1 (Oro), Application P-156/03 and S-3/03 - Additional
Information received from MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson .
Next Meeting -Tuesday April 13at 7:00p.m.
7.
Adjournment
,
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
2003-2006 TERM
Monday, February 9, 2004 @ 7:04 p.m.
Robinson Room
Present:
Mayor J. Neil Craig
Deputy Mayor Harry Hughes
Councillor Dan Buttineau
Councillor Paul Marshall
Councillor John Crawford
Councillor Ruth Fountain
Terry Allison
Robert Barlow
Mel Coutanche
Regrets:
Councillor Ralph Hough, Craig Drury
Staff Present:
Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO; Andria Leigh, Senior Planner; Nick
McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc.; Janette Teeter,
Clerk's Assistant
Also Present:
M. Da Costa, L. Orsi, Nicola Mitchinson, Brent Clarkson
1. Opening of Meeting by Mayor
Mayor J. Neil Craig assumed the chair and called the meeting to order.
2. Adoption of Agenda
Motion No. PAC-1
Moved by Marshall, Seconded by Crawford
It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of
Monday, February 9,2004 be received and adopted.
Carried.
3. Appointment of a Chairperson
Motion No. P AC-2
Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Marshall
It is recommended that Mayor J. Neil Craig be appointed Chair for the 2003-2006 Term
of The Township of Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee.
Carried.
4. Role/Mandate of Planning Advisory Committee
Discussion.
5. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in
Accordance with the Act. (Copy of legislation provided to members for their
information)
None.
6. Minutes of Previous Meetings
None.
7. Update on Existing Planning Applications - Memo from Andria Leigh, Senior
Planner dated January 13, 2004 - Status of Planning Applications
Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, distributed a coloured map of the Current Development
Applications dated January 30,2004.
Motion No. PAC-3
Moved by Marshall, Seconded by Crawford
It is recommended that the memorandum to Planning Advisory Committee dated
January 13, 2004 from Andria Leigh, Senior Planner and Nick McDonald, Meridian
Planning Consultants Inc., re: Status - Planning Applications be received.
Carried.
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting - February 9, 2004
8. Changes to Planning Act - Memo from Meridian Planning Consultants dated
February 2, 2004
Motion No. P AC-4
Moved by Buttineau, Seconded by Fountain
It is recommended that the memorandum to Township of Oro-Medonte Planning
Advisory Committee dated February 2,2004 from Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning
Consultants Inc., re: Changes to the Planning Act be received.
Carried.
9. Planning Application Deputations
a) 1091402 Ontario Limited and John William and Helen Bower Burch - Part of Lots
34,35, and 36, Concession 1 (Oro)
Motion No. P AC-5
Moved by Fountain, Seconded by Buttineau
It is recommended that the verbal information from MacNaughton Hermsen Britton
Clarkson (MHBC) Planning Limited re: 1091402 Ontario Limited, John and Helen Burch,
Part Lots 34,35 and 36, Concession 1, Township of Oro-Medonte (formerly Oro) be
received.
Carried.
Motion No. P AC-6
Moved by Buttineau, Seconded by Fountain
It is recommended that the Planning Report from Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning
Consultants Inc., dated February, 2004 re: 1091402 Ontario Limited, John and Helen
Burch, Part Lots 34,35,36, Concession 1 (E.P.R.) in the Township of Oro-Medonte
(formerly Oro) be received; and further that the application for Official Plan Amendment,
Zoning By-Law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision for Part Lots 34, 35, 36, Con. 1
(E.P.R.) in the Township of Oro-Medonte (formerly Oro) be refused as it does not
conform with the Official Plan.
Carried.
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting February 9, 2004
10. Other Business
Public Meeting - Monday February 16 at 7:00 p.m. (Horseshoe Resort Corporation
24 unit townhouse condominium)
Next Meeting - Monday, March 8 at 7:00 p.m.
11. Adjournment
Motion No. PAC-7
Moved by Fountain, Seconded by Buttineau
It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 9:46 p.m.
Carried.
---4J- .~~
Senior Planner, Andri eigh
M
Planning Advisory Committee Meeting - February 9, 2004
6
~
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD 2004-03 Planning Advisorv Committee Andria Leigh
Subject: Department:
Council
Proposed Zoning By-law Planning
C. of W. Amendment for Mark and
Joanne Scharf
Concession 9, South Part of
Lot 8, 51 R-28291, Part 1 (Oro)
Date:
Motion # -. I1A I1nnA
R.M. File No.
Date: D14 013236
ACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to assess an application submitted by 693316 Ontario Ltd (Mark
and Joanne Scharf) (The Applicants). The intent of this application is to permit the development
of a single detached dwelling and a hobby farm on a 50 acre parcel of land. This report will
assess this application and provide a recommendation to the Planning Advisory Committee on
how to proceed with the application.
The application applies to lands legally described as Concession 9, South Part of Lot 8, 51 R-
28291, Part 1 in the Township of Oro-Medonte (formerly Oro). The nature of the application is
a Zoning By-law Amendment. The intent of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is to
rezone the subject lands from the Private Recreational Exception Holding (PR*117(H» Zone to
the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone.
In 1996 a Zoning By-law Amendment application was submitted for the subject property. A
Zoning By-law Amendment (By-law 98-044) was adopted by Council on April 1, 1998 that
rezoned the subject lands from Agricultural/Rural to Private Recreational Exception Holding
(PR*117(H» Zone in order to permit the use of the subject lands for a golf course in association
with lands located in Concession 1 0, Part of Lot 8 (Oro). The exception permitted a club house
or restaurant on the subject lands. The Holding provision was not to be removed until such time
7
as a site plan agreement and an encroachment agreement were entered into for the golf course
and the associated road crossing (Line 9 North). As part of this Zoning By-law Amendment a
number of technical studies were completed including a Preliminary Hydrogeological
Assessment dated May 1997 and a Level 1 and 2 Environmental Background Study dated
September 1997.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND ADJACENT USES:
The subject lands have an area of 20.2 hectares (50 acres) and front on Line 9 North. The
property is located in a predominantly rural area on the south portion of the Oro Moraine, which
is characterized as an area of rolling terrain and forests. Land uses in the surrounding area
include single detached dwellings, a tree farm (north), County of Simcoe forest (south), and a
gravel pit (north east).
OMMENTS RECEIVED:
Clerk - No Concerns
Engineering & Environmental Services - No Concerns
Roads -
Building - No objection if adjacent properties have the same zoning
Simcoe County District School Board - No Objection
NVCA - No Objection to the application, however we note that part of the property is located
within a significant woodland. The NVCA therefore recommends all development be kept to the
eastern part of the property outside of the forested area. Any expansions of agricultural uses
into significant woodlands should only occur after an Environmental Impact Statement
determines potential impacts on environmental features and functions of the area and the
method of mitigation.
I ANALYSIS:
.
Conformity with Oro-Medonte Official Plan
This section of the report is intended to assess the policies of the Official Plan as they apply to
this proposal. The subject property is designated Rural with an Environmental Protection Two
Overlay for the significant woodland located on the western portion of the property and a
Groundwater Recharge Area overlay on the majority of the property excepting the southerly
edge. The subject property is also located within the boundaries of the Oro M?raine.
2
'()
Section D3.1 indicates the objectives of the Rural designation are:
- to preserve and promote the rural character of the Township and the maintenance of the
open countryside
- to prevent the intrusion of land uses which are incompatible with the rural character
and/or resource activities of the area
Permitted uses in this designation include agriculture and single detached dwellings. The
proposed use is compatible with the existing rural character of the area; the rolling terrain and
generally open countryside would be maintained with the exception of the site for the dwelling
and accessory building for the hobby farm. The proposed structures through the Site Plan
Control process will be designed and sited to blend in with the rural surroundings. The use of
the property for a hobby farm and dwelling conforms to the policies of the Official Plan with the
use of Site Plan Control maintaining the intent of the protection of the natural environment and
the rural character.
Section F1 outlines the objective of the Environmental Protection Two Overlay designation:
- to protect the Oro Moraine from incompatible activities and uses that would have a
negative impact on the critical natural features and ecological functions associated with
the moraine;
- to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system;
- to minimize the loss or fragmentation of significant woodland features and the habitats
and ecological functions they provide; and
- to protect significant wildlife habitat
The Official Plan states that development of any use in the Environmental Protection Two
Overlay designation that requires either an amendment to the Zoning By-law or this Plan shall
also be subject to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and a Management
Plan (MP) to the satisfaction of Council before such an amendment is adopted. The EIS and
MP required by this section must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Council, that the proposed
development can occur without having a negative impact on the critical natural features and
ecological functions of the area.
In order to protect the significant woodland on the property and to address the comments from
the NVCA, it is recommended that structures not be permitted to be constructed on the western
portion of the property identified as the significant woodland and designated Oro-Moraine
Core/Corridor Area without the completion of an EIS (as required by the Official Plan) to
determine that there would be no negative impact from the development. In order to ensure the
completion of such a study, the property would be subject to Site Plan Control and any Zoning
By-law Amendment considered by Council would be subject to a Holding Provision to ensure
the completion and execution of the appropriate Site Plan Agreement.
Section A2.1 indicates that "the Oro Moraine is considered to be the heart of the natural
heritage system in the Township. This area requires protection from incompatible activities and
uses that would have a negative impact on the critical natural features and ecological functions
associated with the moraine."
3
q
It is on the basis of this principle that Council adopted Official Plan Amendment #16 (Oro
Moraine and Aggregate Resource Policies) on August 21,2003. The intent of OPA #16 was to
enhance the policies in the existing Official Plan to ensure that the function of the Oro Moraine
was protected for the future. The policies of OPA #16, although not in effect, doprovide a
statement of Council's intent and are therefore considered within this report. The western half
of the property is identified as being within a core area and is designated Oro Moraine
Core/Corridor Area in OPA#16.
The objectives of the Oro Moraine Core/Corridor Area are:
restrict development in the most sensitive area of the Oro Moraine:
encourage the retention and enhancement of the natural heritage features and functions
in the natural core area;
maintain and where possible, improve and restore linkages between key natural heritage
features to facilitate the movement of plants and animals; and
restrict development in areas that contribute to and support the function of the lands in
the Oro-Moraine - Natural Core Area designation
Permitted uses in the Cord/Corridor area designation include single detached dwellings and
existing agricultural uses. These policies require the completion of an Environmental Impact
Study (EIS) prior to permitting development, unless the development is minor in nature or is
located in an area that is not the site of significant natural heritage features. As noted
previously it is recommended that all development on the property be restricted to the east side
of the property on the lands that are not within the Core/Corridor designation and which are not
within the existing Environmental Protection Two designation. If this recommendation is upheld,
the proposed development would maintain the intent of OPA #16.
Conformity with County of Simcoe Official Plan
The subject property is designated Greenlandsin the County of Simcoe Official Plan. The
purpose of the Greenland designation is to ensure that the scale, form, and location of
development is such that the features and functions of the natural heritage system are
sustained for the future.
Within the Greenlands designation, agricultural uses and dwelling units are permitted. The
proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, which would "down" zone the property from the Private
Recreational Zone to the Agricultural/Rural Zone, would conform to the policies of the County of
Simcoe Official Plan.
Summary
On the basis of the analysis provided above, it is my opinion that the proposed amendment
conforms to the intent and policies of the Oro-Medonte Official Plan and the County of Simcoe
Official Plan and that enough information has been submitted by the applicant for the public to
generally understand the nature of the proposal at a public meeting under the Planning Act.
4
J\J
I RECOMMENDATION <:J:
I. .
1. THAT this report be received and adopted; and
2. That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Zoning By-law
Amendment Application 2004~ZBA-01, South Part of Lot 8, Concession 9 (Oro), proceed
to a Public Meeting in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.
Respectfu lIysubm itted,
~~ -i-o1-
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Rn' wed and su rted by:
We.
Ni k McDonald, CIP, RPP
Meridian Planning Consultants Inc.
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
5
" II,
.
.
r
"
, To~nship ofO;'~-Medontè. PO Box 100. Or~. Onti:lrio. ioL2XO.
"
Development A pplk:di on'
, .
..?OOat-2.'!;JI°D\
ApplicatÍon N~: p- V.
Ron No.
D Þ - Oot- ~oo
, [ ]
[]
[ ]
[] .
r]
Application to amend the Offidal Plan of theTownshi~
Application to amend the Comprehensive Zoning By-Ja!l
. Application for a Ten:tporary Use By-law
Application to Remove' a Holding Provision on .an as~umed p"~blic street . ' .
to,:amend 'Private Recreationål ëXception ] 17
Other. please specify, . By...~w. .' ~6 Agricultural/Rural, . .
I/We .hereby apply, as specified above, to the. Corporation of the. Township of Oro-Medonte. It is expressly
understood that this application is in regard only to the lands as hereinafter described. and is made pursuant to the
provisions of The Planning Act, R:S:~" 1990. All costs associated with the'appliCation s~1l be paid as per the Tariff
of Fees B y.law iricluding all costs associated with an appeal of the '~pplication to the Ontari~ Municipal Board.
I/We enclose heiewith application and processing fees hi the amount of $2.!tS.D.Il!l for an amendment to the. Official
Pla~ ($1200.00 is a refundable ~epo,sit in accordance with the Tariff ofFees.B:r~I!lw). . .
I/We enclOse lierewiih applicåtion and processing fees ill the amou~f of ~ for, an amendment to. ibe'
ComprehensiVe Z9nirig By-law ($ 1200.00 is a refu~able dèpo~itin ~Qrdance with the.Tariff Of Fees By-law).
I/Wee~close herewith application aÌ1d ~ing fees in.-the amount of S2.!I.5OJHl for a Temporary Use By-la1lll
($1200.00 is a refundable deposit in accordance with the Tariff of Fees By-Jaw). .":
I/We encloSe herewith. application and, processin~ f~ in the amount ofsus.nJlll for a Removå1 of Holding Provision
($1000.00 is a refundable deposit in accordance with the Tariff ofFcies By-Jaw). '.
~.
Mark Scharf, of the City. of Barrie, in the CountyJ'Region.
solemnly d~lare that all of the statements contained in this application are true, and,I (we) make this solemn.
declaration consc.ieniiously believing it to be truce, and knowil!g tlu!t it is of the same force anc:i effect as if made u;roer oath and
by virtue of th Canada Evidence' Act. .. '
. peclared be~W at the ctty of Barrie. tittbe.CountylRegion of Simqoe.
thIs /"'8' -dayof December. 2OOL.
i//¿£ ' "
Signature ~ or Aut' Agent .
~~,
Signature of CommiSsioner '" t~, <b ~tJ
ISr'm~oe
-//'
Applicant's Consent (Freedom oflnformation)
In accordance with .the provisions of the Planning Act, it is 'the policy of theTownship Planning Department to provide public
access to all pevelopment applications and supporting documentation: In submitting this development application and
supportirig documentation. I ~"...1r !::("ñ"'rf. the applicant, hereby acknowledge the above noted and provide my
consent in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Infonnation and Protccûon of Privacy Act that the
information on this application and any supporting documentation provided by'myself, my agents. consultarits, solicitors, will be .
part of the publiè record and will also be available to the general public. " . .
ð-t~ ~/,1-øtl! J
Date
1
, '
. "
" "
, .
, t-
, .
"
'" ' '",,','
, ~o~~hi;'o¡.o;O-M~dont~;' PP:Box l~,.Or~,'Oiit~riÓ, iOLzxo
.ll£:£:eJop~e~t Å pplic'~~ion'"
,,'
, 1
, ,
App1ièation No; p.
Roll Nó; .
jo ht". r.nmpl"'t",n hy th", Own",r or AnthoTÍ7.('n A~nt t.Plf':~~ print ~r,~)
1.
Name of Applicant' ,MarkS'charf and.' Joa~n~ S'ch~rf ,: . . "
, . ' Ea~tHa,lt ot: South Half, Lot ,8'- Concession
"M ., alAdd fS b'ectP. ~9, Oro,' being;Pa'r~ 1, 1.U>51R-2829l.(PINi.
umclp resso u~. ro.t'.,..~.r, . .., " 5853'7-003~
"11'9 Sunnidaie' ~.~ > '13årri~ L4N' 1G8
Fun Mailing Address
.1. ;.
(705) 72,8-3706', '
.'
2.
Telephone Number, '
Name of,Applicant's Ag~nt ,
. "" "
103 Collier' S~r~$t ,.
,
Mark Scharf'
Fun Mailing Ad~.,
Barr~e~ ON' L4~"~H2
"
Telephone Number
, ,
C7~5') : 728-~~SS':
"
, ,
N.aIB:.
, ,
AU co.rresPt?ndencé'ándcòm~u~icatio,u "will be.,d~è~ted to t1ie Applicarn.'s Agent '
u1J.lesà otherwf;se sjJedjie4. , ',' .. '
nwnp.r'~ A nth'nri7.atlon
, '
If the applicant (agent or,solièitor,}i~ not ~e owner, of the subject l~d. a Wri~n statement by the
owner,(s) must. acCompany the application authon,zing the'applicant to ~ on behalf of the owner(s) on
matters relating tQ the subject appncatiòo. ' . . "' :. .
3.
FuJi legal desc~ptiqn of the propèrtY V(hich is 'th~ subject of this~ppJicåtion including Ute name
of the former, Municipality in w~ch it is located, e.g. Lot 1, Concession 1, Township of Orillia,
and, Ìf known, ,the, area onhe land covered bý the proposed amendment. . (A' copy of the
Registered Deed of Title for. the subject lands ,15 required to be submitted with the'
, application) , , " ' . .
. ','
~ð,st' Kalf.'ot .South Håif:L6.t' 8, cori'ce'ss"ion' 9, ,Oro; being Part 1,
:~5ia-:2829t: (PIN'" .585'37-00'32)"
,~fs:.prQÞe';r~:Y compd~es, 57.S.acres. Atta'ched,~ a copy 'of the
~ed, tn' ~uès~ion':¡ .
)'0 h", . ¡n!;W"'rP.n hy tht". A pp1ir.A~t :Q'1f'.A~f'. prlnt or ~)
"
Yes-!,. No.:...-
x' '
.Yes_No-
Y ~ No...!-
4.
1.1 .Are"you the registei:eCÍ owner, 6f~e ~bject hinds?
, '
1.2 Do yOu ac~ on behalf of the registered owner? ,
2:1 DO you have an'°I>~QII to purchase the su~j~ l~nds?
2.2 If so, what is the expÏ1'y date of the Option?
2.3 Have you an offer, .to Purch/lSe or, A~ment of Sale in respect óf the subjec:t lands; or any
þó~on thereof With tJie Registered Owner? ' Y es~ NoL... .
, , . .' cd. '.'\ N~t applié~b1e
2.4 What is the ex.piIY. date of any Offer or, Ägreement ~ention, JO 4;..31:
.2,
, ,
"
, '
, ",';, "
. .
, I~'
, , "
.
, '
, . . .. . '
.. . '
To~nship ofO~~-Medo'nÚ, páBox'lOo, Ora, 01Ìiàri~, LOL2XO
, '
IIDæ]op,~eTit Ä pp1ic~tiòn .
s.
Application No...P-
..' Roll Nó.
2.5 Is the above noted Option, Offer or Agreement conditional on the success or failure of this.
Application? '.. .' Yes....:.- No_. ' .
. ,rur,al with environmental. protection
PrisentOfficial Plan designation(s) two' overlay' ,
" , -_J .',". ., ,
Private Reèreà,tional:' e;x;cepti<¡»D ,1,.17
. Present Zoning By-law cJassi~catiòn(s)
" "'.
6.
7.
present Use of subject lands
vacant lands
~esident~àl and agrmcultural
8.
Proposed use .of subj~ Um~
. '
-
9.
Official Plan designation required
,Ag.:tfcul tttral/Rurål. " ,
10.
ZoningC1assific~tion requíred
11. . Applicant's,reason, ar~ment andÌorju~tificatio~ for requiringthe.~poseàAmeQdment(s) (att8ch
~supplementarŸscheduleifnecessai'y). '..,.' ,..., .,' , ,'.
'~y. Wife and,::r pùrCh~sedthl~ p~'op~r~y..~ De~e~~r i~.~' 2003.', '~e '"
"ldsh toE>ufld' 'our' -retirement homé. there and be able' to keep small.,',
farm' 'an:tiÌIabsuc~ a~ 6h~Pken~:, ducks i turkeys, e'~c~" Unfortunately;
the,prel'ierit zoning dbes:not permit. this,;
12.
suI'ple~entaryand supporting material to be submitted by the Applicant
1.
. . ,
AIl 'information as required under. .the Township of Oro-Medonte Development
Guidelines. .
2.
Surveyor sketch prepåred by an Ontàrio Land Surveyor showing:
Applicant'slOwner's total holdings of ¡and in the sUbject ~
bi
~
Land which is to be subject of the requested Amendment clearly indicated thereon (in the.
case of an amendment, please provide ten (10).11" X 17" copies of the site plan or
boundary survey). . .
[]
The location, size and use of aU existing buildings or structures on the subject lands and
on immediately adjacent properties. All topographical. f~tures shall also be shown.
[~
The location, width and names of all road allowimce, rights-of-ways, streets or highways
, Wîthin or abutting the property, indicating whether they årepublic travelled roads, private
roads, ~ghtS-df-way or unopened road allowànèes.
13,
, '
What other Agencies or individuals have bèen c°!lsulted with prior to the submission of this
ApplicatiQi1? (eg. CountyofSïmcoe Planning andlorEngineering;School Boards, Ministry of
Transportation, etc.) .
None.
, 3, .
... , .
'.. . .'
.'
0 ,It,
T~wnship ofOro-Medòntè;PO,Box 100, Oro, Ontariô,oWL2XO
llfEJopmertt A pp1jc~t¡ò1'i
, '
, ,
Application N~. p-
Roll No.
14.
Is the subject land or any land :within 't2o m (400 it) ~f the subject land the ~ubject of an~ther
Development Application made by the applicant for approval of an Official ,Plan amendment, a 0
. Zoning By-law amendment, a Plan, <;>f Sut>division, a Minor Variance, a Consent,°or a Site Plan?
. Yes_No~
If yes, please state,which typè of application, jf known, the application number, and describe the
lands which are subject to this applicatiOn. , , ." " ..
, NiJ:.f.E:.
Onlyfu.lly compl~ted applièations a~c~mpanied by Jhe'nècessaiy slipp~rting ~erio.rs,
wilf ~e processed. ' 0,. .". 0
, '
. . 0 '
It is acknowÚdged thtú the applú:ation wiUnot be dee1!led to be co1!lplete until tÜl;, oJ the relirvani' ;
prescribed informoJio". se( .o,ut in thè Schedule' to, Ohtario Regulation 260/100. (for:mf!rly' ontariO
regulatiOn 198/96) is $ubmittei in cu;corda!,c.e with Sectio,n 022(4), of thf!' Pla~ning Act R.S.O..1990 c.P. '
13. In addition,' it is cu;knowledged t1#zt the timeperlodso referret!, to iii, Section 22(7)(~):to (d) oJ the
Plannir:tg ¡tel, R.S.O. 1990 c~P. 13. do not begin until it. has been de~ermined by the Township thtú aa '
of the relevánt prescribed Information set out in, the Séheduledto "Ontario. reguüitïon 260/00 (jormerli 0 .
Ontario Regulation 198/96) is submilted in Occordance With Section 22(4) oJthe Planning A~ R.S.O. 0 '
1990c.P.13. . . . 0
The personal information on this form is being coUected pursuant to the Planning A~t, R.S.O., 1990,
c.P.13 and will be used in relation to the processing oJ this Development Application.lfyou luzve any
questions, plèase àsk at the Oro-Medonte Township OfJkes ' '
04 .
0,
, ,
0 0"
. ,
I.Il
PLAN OF SURVEY OF
E. 1/2 Of S. 1/2 LOT 8e CONCESSION. 9 Ge:OGRAPHIC TOWHSHIP OF ORO
lOWNSHIP OF ORC - ME'DONTE
COUNTY Of SIMCOE
SCA&;EI In.;soo' -
, 0 00 iIGO
...~. MAHSJ"IELD, O,L.I.
.00
.-fr,
--1--_.-
m
E,1/2
OF"
INS;:
Nfl
,,'
HI. //2 cv-- ~I ~}'
S,//Z ~ï8!
INS;: N"
/351>184
~
I' ~o;
4'. i'
,f 'Ea1'" ~.
-2!J4,70 - H ~8' 21 oo,'It
He.'.'It, .
(II
'E.N.'
. ... SO'..'. ,."
H::'!:J,"O"e:
PART
E
//2
OF
/NSr.
AREA -
1000,00'
I
11"N08°1l.'50"It
I-
0
..J
N 118°1l9'2O"t:
..o;~ ~. . .... ...n
01"
~-
:!
INS;' NO
8!'4!!24
t\
"
fj
£, //2
[)F"
.
¡NSr.
~,
i
"
II!. / /2
/3X'87
.2&,7T
s,
//2
Nil
07,," Joe,
o.
Nil
5::!229
I'
."a
N ~.'D8 IOnlt
U)ï
8
/2/039/
747,40' ~ ..,. 40'20"
.... ~# . W'OI
,~
,-~T
9..
<)
....
Ie,
t~
~
I
Q:
ìl¡
"-
O.
8
l
_I
<':
oq
~
..
/'
.
I,
Q:
~
L----
'""";..f';'
~I ~\ ":>
":> ......
è"" Q
,~ <I)
V'J
V'J v,
.111 !.w
ìJ ,-,
":> ..J ":>
r:- <{ è""
~ lš '-~
(t
0
I REQUIRE THIS "LAN TO 8E \PLAN 5/ R- /\ 0 'It¡ I
Oltp0SITEO UNOe:R THE REGISTJI'( 1iV{) J("
ACT,. RECEIVe:O AND' Oe:pO.,TEO
OATe: _J.bd.".;.j.l "di.-
- h" 1t.1~_,
~A'NSFIe:LO, O,UI,
SC HEDULE
PART . ~
I
DATE - Dec..11 Jqq~
---- -t- - -
A.I), 41 ,~
A LANO -;;- - ~
REGISTRy OIV~:::;::"R FOR rnf
OF SfMOJe:, IH'
INST,
L~
ALLOF E,V2 A..L OF
Of S",2 Of' . 12.0391
NOTES
8EAR,,",S. S- ARIt ASSU"'O TO lilt ASTRONOMIC 8EING
DERIVED f"'" THE N 110° 38' 10" W OF mE ""STERLY
UMIT Of 1H£ ROAD ALLOWANCE _EN CC>NCÉSSlON8 ...
IN AccoROANCE wITH PLAN 81R -16126,
.
a
518
18
6.e
7118
RI8
DENOTES
SURVEYORS
SURVEy -..MINT fOUND
~ MONUMEIIT lET
STANDARD IROH eAR
IRON eAR
L, M. HIItCIt, O,L,S,
R, KIRKPATRICK, O,L,$,
ROUNO IRON 8AR
CERTIfY THAT'
CERTIFICATE.
I, THIS IUR\lEY AND PLAN ARE CORRECF AIIO 1H
ACCORDANCE WITH Tt£ SlMVE'/S /lCT AIÐ THE HEGI5TR'
ACT AND THE REGULATIONS MADE THEREUNDER,
2.TI£
SURVEY
WIoS
œMPLETe:D ON N.v':J~ I')'I?
DATE_~t.¡.'!'2:'L. .I,~,"~~ _1W--
".'>- ......-
... W.NSf' ELD, o.L,$,
P..J. MANSFIEL
ONTARIO LAND SURVI
ee r~8t~"M r-.'"
..
. .
II
" .
.
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD 2004-05 Planning Advisory Committee Nick McDonald, RPP
Subject: Department:
Council
Proposed Zoning By-law Planning
C. of W. Amendment and Redline
Revision for Georgian North
Lands Ltd.
Concession 9, Lots 2 and 3 Date:
Motion # (Oro) March 4, 2004
R.M. File No.
Date: D12 013409
URPOSE OF REPORT:
The purpose of this report is to assess a Zoning By-law amendment application submitted by Brent Clarkson
of MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson (MHBC) Planning Limited on behalf of the applicants Georgian
North Lands Ltd. The intent of the application is to permit the development of a 117 lot residential Plan of
Subdivision, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1. This report will assess the Zoning By-law amendment
application and provide recommendations to the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) on how to proceed with
the application.
The applicant has also submitted a request directly to the Ontario Municipal Board to "Red-Line" the draft
approved plan of subdivision to reduce the number of lots from 230 to 117. The Ontario Municipal Board has
indicated that they will not process the request for a "Red-Line" revision until such time as the Township of
Oro-Medonte provides formal comments on both the re-zoning application and the '"Red-Line" request.
The application applies to lands legally described as Lots 2 and 3, Concession IX, in the Township of Oro-
Medonte (formerly Oro), The intent of the proposed Zoning By-law amendment is to remove the holding
symbol from the R1 *71 (H) zone and recognize the revised lots sizes and frontages in an updated by-law.
"6
HISTORY OF EVENTS:
The following provides a history of events from the initial applications, through the OMBappeals and recent
submission of the revised proposal.
March 20, 1989
March 1990
November 1990
July 29, 1991
August 1991
August22,1991
October, 7, 1991
October 21, 1991
October 1994
2003
January 2004
Applications to amend the Township's Official Plan and Zoning By-Law were submitted.
The original application submitted to the Township sought approval for 372 single
detached dwellings and 200 cluster residential units for a total of 572 units.
Original application was revised to 348 single detached lots.
Ministry of Natural Resources stakes the Provincially Significant Wetland on the
property.
Oro-Medonte Council adopts the Official Plan Amendment 39 (OPA 39). This
amendment not only designated the Buffalo Springs property for development, but it
included a settlement strategy for the Horseshoe Valley Road Corridor. This strategy
was intended to direct new development in the Horseshoe Valley Road Corridor to
Craighurst, Horseshoe Valley Resort, Sugarbush, the Buffalo Springs site and Jarratt,
The incorporation of such a strategy within the Official Plan was required to justify the
creation of a new development area along Horseshoe Valley Road.
A redesigned plan of subdivision was submitted which further reduced the number of
lots to 277,
Jarratt-Coulson and District Residents Association appeals CPA 39 to the OMB.
Oro-Medonte Council adopts the Zoning By-law Amendment.
Zoning Amendment is appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the Jarratt-Coulson
and District Residents Association. .
The OMB approves the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments but modified the
proposed plan of subdivision from 277 to 230 lots and instituted a long list of draft plan
conditions.
Georgian North Lands Ltd. purchased the Buffalo Springs lands and began a process to
revise the approved plan,
Georgian North Lands Ltd. submitted an application to the Township of Oro-Medonte to
amend the Zoning By-law and submitted a revised plan of subdivision to the OMB for
redline revisions,
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
The subject lands are located approximately 600m south of Horseshoe Valley Road and are bordered on the
east and west by the 8th and 9th Concessions of Oro-Medonte, The legal description of the 185 ha (457 acre)
site is Lots 2 and 3, Concession 9 in the former Township of Oro, Figure 5 in the attached report submitted by
the applicant's planner shows the location of the property.
The Coulson Creek and its tributaries are found on the proposed site. The creek runs along the western
portion of the subject property and is surrounded by the East Coulson Swamp which is classified as a
2
\"
Provincially Significant Wetland. There are also two 'pocket' wetlands located on the eastern border of the site
that are considered part of the East Coulson Swamp Complex. In total, approximately 35% of the site is
comprised of wetlands. The remainder of the site is comprised of three plantation stands, four grazing fields
and an upland forest. Two of the plantations are red pine, while the northernmost stand is a mix of red and
white pine. The upland forest located on the large ridge in the east central portion of the site is covered with a
mix of sugar maple, beech and hemlock stands. Lands to the east of the ridge are within the Bass Lake
watershed and lands to the west of the ridge are within the Coldwater River watershed. Appendix 1 attached
from a 1994 environmental report shows the different physical features on the site.
'"
The site is surrounded by rural countryside with scattered rural dwellings located along Horseshoe Valley
Road and along both the 8th and 9th Lines. There are also a number of farm properties in the near vicinity of
the site, the most identifiable of which is Ego's Farm Market, located at the intersection of Horseshoe Valley
Road and the 9th Line. Gold Mountain Springs, a commercial water taking operation, is located just to the east
of the subject property
~ DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
.
The OMB approved Plan of Subdivision consists of 230 lots which are accessed via an internal road network.
In comparison, the revised Plan of Subdivision consists of 117 lots, 109 of which are accessed via an internal
road system and 8 that have direct access onto the 8th Line.
The area to be developed in both the "old" and new plans is identical, but the lot structure differs greatly
between the two Layouts. Lot sizes in the revised Plan of Subdivision are much greater than the OMB
approved Plan. As a result, the density of the revised plan is nearly half of the approved plan, Accordingly, lot
frontages are also increased. The following table shows the differences between lot size and lot frontage
between the two designs.
Minimum Lot area
Minimum Lot Area in R1
Zone
Minimum Lot Fronta e
0,18 ha
0.38 ha
30m
45m
Another major difference in the two subdivision plans is the road network. The revised plan has a redesigned
road network which results in a smaller percentage of the site being dedicated to roads. In addition, there is
one fewer wetland crossing in the revised plan, One of the roads that were eliminated in the revised plan is
the connecting road at the south end of the site, The revised plan has a walking trial in the former road
location.
As mentioned earlier, the revised Plan has eight lots fronting onto the 8th Line in the northwest corner of the
site while the OMB approved plan has that portion of the development serviced by an internal road.
The revised Plan does not contain the Schumacher property as the property has recently been severed from
the lands.
The revised plan shows a number of buffer areas, which are to be located within the majority of the private
lots. The intent of these buffers, which range in size from 16 metres to 20 metres, is to protect these lands
from development and site alteration. These buffers were originally agreed to by the Ontario Municipal Board
and were also included within the original Buffalo Springs development plan,
3
1-Q I
The revised Plan also includes a block (Block C) that is intended to be used for open space purposes. T.his'
block has an area of 7,32 hectares, With respect to servicing, it was originally proposed to develop a
communal water system on the lands, It is now proposed to service each of the lots by private wells and septic
systems.
Section E.E2.2,1 indicates that new residential, commercial and institutional uses are directed to the following
development nodes within the Horseshoe Valley Road special policy area:
. Craighurst;
. The Horseshoe Valley settlement area;
. The Sugarbush settlement area;
. The Buffalo Springs development; and
. The Jarratt settlement area.
It should be noted that the Buffalo Springs development was not identified as a settlement area within the
Official Plan.
Section E2.4 designates lands within the Sugarbush settlement area and the Buffalo Springs development as
residential. Permitted uses within the residential designation include single-detached dwellings, home
occupations, private recreational facilities, and open-space uses. The policy goes on to state that, "it is
intended that all new development in the Sugarbush and Buffalo Springs nodes be serviced by Municipal
communal water systems and private septic systems".
UMMARY OF TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS:
A number of technical reports have been submitted in support of the applications, A brief description of each
is below.
5.1
PlanninG Report - Prepared bY MHBC
The following key points are made in the Planning Report:
.
Environmentally, the revised plan is a positive change from the 230 lot design approved by the Ontario
Municipal Board.
.
The proposed plan of subdivision reduces the density by 50% from the plan approved by the OMB from
230 lots to 117 lots.
.
The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Townships Official Plan and meets the
requirements set out in relevant Official Plan policy.
.
The proposed residential development will not significantly impact the surrounding environment, water
quality, water quantity or traffic flow.
.
The proposed subdivision would be permitted by the current Zoning By-law subject to the lifting of the
Holding Symbol.
A copy of the MHBC report is attached to this Planning Report as Appendix 1.
4
5.2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5.3
'1\
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) - Prepared bY Stantec
Coulson Creek and its intermittent tributaries provide coldwater fish habitat for brook trout, minnows
and various other amphibian, reptile and fish species. Common bird and mammal species have also
been recorded on the subject lands.
The larger wetland area on the site is part of the East Coulson Swamp Complex and is classified as
Provincially significant. In addition, the two smaller wetlands to the east are also part of the East
Coulson Swamp Complex and classified as locally significant.
The impact on existing drainage practices will be minor
Impact to vegetation within the wetland boundaries will be limited to areas associated with the provision
of services and roads,
16m to 20m buffers will be created around wetland features.
The proposed development is in compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement.
The development will have no significant impact to the long-term sustainability and function of the East
Coulson Creek Wetland Complex,
Functional ServicinG Report - Prepared bY C.C. Tatham & Associates (CCTA)
The functional servicing report addresses sanitary sewage disposal, water supply, drainage and stormwater
management, and internal road design, The following are the main conclusions of the report:
.
.
Septic effluent will not have a significant impact on brook trout habitat.
Existing soil types on the site show good percolation characteristics, Typically, surface soils are
comprised of sands and gravels inter-lain with deposits of till and minor traces of silt.
.
On-site stormwater management will be provided via conveyance treatment in road-side ditches. In
addition, soakaway pits for discharge from roof leaders will be constructed on a lot-by-Iot basis.
HydroGeoloGical Aspects Report- Prepared by JaGGer Hims Limited
5.4
The purpose of this report is to analyze the potential for individual wells and the effect the development might
have on groundwater and surface water quality. A number of test wells were drilled on site and the report
came to the following conclusions.
.
There were no issues associated with the drawing of water from the 'deep confined aquifer.'
.
Individual on-site sewage disposal systems should not result in deterioration of the shallow
groundwater quality beyond limits established by the Ministry of Environment (MOEE).
.
The MOEE has stated, "the Buffalo Springs proposed development is not likely to impair surface water
quality beyond MOEE acceptable limits,"
.
The use of individual residential wells developed in the deep aquifer should not result in any
interference impacts on the local wetland areas or surface water resources,
.
Some well interference may occur between Golden Mountain Springs and individual wells on the east
side of the property but this is not predicted to lead to water supply problems.
5
5.5
.
.
.
2-1- I
Road System Review-Prepared bv Cansult Tatham Transportation Consultants
Improvements to County Road 22 are not considered necessary to service the development
The 8th Line is considered to be up to standard to service the proposed development. However,
consideration should be given to vertical curves when locating individual driveways.
In order to service the proposed development, the 9th Line will need to be widened and constructed
with a hard surface.
ANAL YSIS:
6.1
Current Official Plan
The subject lands are within the "Horseshoe Valley Road" Special Policy Area in the Official Plan. The
objectives of this Special Policy Area in Section E2.1 are:
.
To promote consolidation of residential, commercial and institutional development in existing
development nodes.
To ensure that new development in the existing development nodes is planned on a comprehensive
basis.
To ensure that improvements to Horseshoe Valley Road are undertaken as a condition of new
development.
To ensure that new development outside of the development nodes respects the character of the area
and function of Horseshoe Valley Road.
To maintain a clear separation between development nodes on Horseshoe Valley Road.
To ensure that all new development is sensitive to the natural heritage features and rural character of
the area.
.
.
.
.
.
The above policy direction was taken from the OMB approval of OPA 39 in 1994.
Given the general nature of the existing policies in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan, the proposed re-
development of the Buffalo Springs site appears to conform with the general intent of the Plan, which is to
direct development to a number of nodes along Horseshoe Valley Road. Although the existing policies
indicate that the intent of the Official Plan is that the lands be serviced by a municipal communal water system,
it is noted that the Official Plan does not require the installation of such a system on the lands. As a result, an
Amendment to this servicing policy is not required to facilitate the proposed redevelopment.
Section E2.4.1.4 of the Official Plan, which is based on OPA#39, sets out the policies that apply to the subject
property.
a) All lands abutting the East Coulson Swamp or are contiguous to the buffer area to the East
Coulson Swamp as defined by the appropriate agencies are designated as a Site Plan
Control Area in accordance with Section 41 of the Planning Act, as amended.
b) All buildings and structures shall be designed to blend in with the natural environment to the
degree that this is possible, In addition, a vegetative buffer strip shall be maintained
between identified wetland area and residential development areas.
c) In order to preserve the open character of the development and provide land for the
protection of the wetland areas and other natural terrain features, the overall gross density
6
1-3
( ,
of the development shall not exceed 230 single detached residential units on lots having a
minimum area of 2023 square metres.
d) A block in the Plan of Subdivision has been set aside for private recreational uses. A broad
range of indoor and outdoor recreational uses in keeping with the nature of the
development, such as a comprehensive indoor/outdoor recreation facility, is permitted. An
open space system, which links this site with adjacent development areas, shall be inherent
in the design of the Plan of Subdivision
Section J5 of the Official Plan contains a policy on existing Draft Plan Approved residential subdivisions, This
policy is reproduced below.
'~ considerable amount of vacant lots existed in draft approved plans of subdivision in the rural
area on the date this plan was adopted by Council. Some of the subdivisions are located in
areas that have not been identified in this plan as being appropriate for development since such
development may have an impact on the rural character of the area and on the cost
effectiveness of providing municipal services. In addition, the development of a number of the
subdivisions may have a cumulative negative impact on the natural heritage system that this
plan is trying to protect.
In this regard, it is the intent of Council to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing or
the appropriate approval authority by resolution to withdraw draft approval after an appropriate
period of time has elapsed, if the subdivision has not proceeded to the development stage in an
expeditious manner".
The intent of the above policy was to put a number of landowners on notice that draft plans that were not
proceeding to development would be refused at the time of the Official Plan review. On February 3, 2003,
Meridian prepared a report to the Planning Advisory Committee, which recommended that a process be
initiated to un-designate and un-zone the subject property for a number of reasons. This report is attached to
this Planning Report as Appendix 2. It is noted in the February 3, 2003 report that reasons in support of
initiating the process were the following:
1. The landowner was not working on clearing the draft conditions.
2, The lands are not included within an identified settlement area and may not
be supportable, given the current policy climate.
3. The development of the property on partial services is no longer supportable.
4. It would be much more appropriate to direct development to Craighurst
instead of an area that is currently undeveloped on the Oro Moraine,
The Planning Advisory Committee supported the recommendation. However, Council deferred a vote on the
Planning Advisory Committee recommendation since the subject property was then in the process of being
purchased by a new landowner, This landowner had indicated to staff that they were interested in developing
the property at a significantly lower density, It was on this basis that Council adopted a "wait and see attitude"
with the proposed development.
It should be noted that staff are currently working towards a review of the status of all other older draft plans in
the Township.
6.2 Proposed Official Plan (OPA#16J
Since the Ontario Municipal Board's decision in 1994, the Oro-Medonte Official Plan has been rewritten with a
greater emphasis on preserving significant natural features within the Municipality such as the Oro-Moraine
and wetlands and directing growth to settlement areas. In addition, OPA #16, which identifies the ecological
importance of the Oro Moraine, has been developed to further enhance the environmental direction of the
Official Plan. These new policies were adopted by Council on August 21, 2003.
7
...£..T
Section A2.1 of the new Official Plan contains a principle that states: "the Oro Moraine is considered to be the
heart of the natural heritage system in the Township. This area requires protection from incompatible activities
and uses that would have negative impact on the critical natural features and ecological functions associated
with the moraine."
The proposed development is located on the Oro Moraine. Over the last few years, the Township has done
extensive research and worked to develop a policy framework to ensure that the environmental significance of
the Oro Moraine, including its groundwater recharge function, is maintained. The product of this work was the
adoption of Official Plan Amendment 16 (OPA #16) on August 21,2003. The intent of OPA #16 was to build
upon the policies in the existing Official Plan to ensure that the function of the Oro Moraine is protected for
future generations, As set out in Section 81,3.2 of OPA #16, the Oro Moraine:
"a)
functions as a major groundwater recharge/discharge area for groundwater and six
watersheds;
provides habitat for wildlife;
b)
c)
provides base flow to Provincially significant wetlands located at the base of the Oro
Moraine;
d)
contains large woodland areas that foster bio-diversity and which contain rare species;
and,
e)
contains one of the largest concentrations of natural areas in Simcoe County."
While it is recognized that OPA #16 is not in effect, it doesfunction as a statement of Council policy,
Permitting additional subdivision development on the Oro Moraine will result in additional tree clearing, further
modifications to the landform and the addition of new residents in a rural portion of the Oro Moraine.
Significant natural heritage features including a Class 1 wetland and a coldwater stream are located on the
subject lands. Permitting residential development on the Oro Moraine, outside of a settlement area and where
such environmentally sensitive features are found does not conform with the direction contained within
OPA#16, Instead, if development is to occur on the Oro Moraine, it should occur in identified settlement areas,
where community facilities and infrastructure exists or is planned.
With respect to the direction of growth, Section 81,1 of the existing Official Plan states the following:
"B1.1 THE BASIS FOR A SETTLEMENT AREA STRATEGY
In accordance with the policies of this Plan, new residential development is directed to
settlement areas. The strategy described in this part of the Plan is based on the need to
provide municipal services as efficiently as possible to settlement areas and the wish to
protect the natural environment and natural resources of the Township."
The existing policy has been carried forward into the new Official Plan, As noted previously, the subject lands
are not within a settlement area.
In support of the Official Plans settlement strategy, the vision of the Official Plan recognizes that the
Township's open, relatively natural and rural character is the quality that residents value most about their
community. Section A2.3 of the Official Plan states that one of the primary principles of the Official Plan is to
consolidate rural development in existing settlement areas to protect the character of rural areas. In addition,
it adds that "a very limited amount of rural residential development, in the form of individual lots for bona-fide
farmers and through the process of infilling, may be permitted." The proposed development does not meet
this intent.
8
2'-:J
In terms of existing land supply, it was confirmed through the OPA#16 process that enough land is designated
in the Official Plan to meet demand for a twenty-year period, It is the expectation of the Township and the
County of Simcoe that Oro-Medonte's population will increase by between 8,500 and 10,000 over the next
twenty years, This would translate into a need for between 3,400 and 4,000 dwelling units. Table A below
illustrates the supply of land available for development at the present time,
TABLE A
SUPPLY OF LANDS FOR DEVELOPMENT. ORO-MEDONTE
FEBRUARY 2004
Horseshoe Valley: 261 : 1,289
Road : :
- Ëst-ãië- Äëšiëiëñiiäf - - - - T - - - - - -13Õ- - - - - - -1- - - - - -30 - - - - - r - - - - - - -Õ- - - - - - - T - - - - - - Ö - - - - - - - - -1- €fõ ---
~ §hé?!~O~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~9~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ § ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~Q ~ ~ ~
_H~æ~~~~ - - - ----- ------ - - - _L----- _~?9- --- --oj -- -- - -~Q-- - _.L - ---~gQ --- -- _L ~- -- - .9. -- - --- -- ~-'~ t9--
Rural : 485 : 0 : 0 : 0 485
TOTAL 1,376 1,409 1,900 330 5,015
1,000
0
1,550
The table above indicates that there is a potential supply of 5,015 dwelling units in the Township potentially
available for development in the next 20 years. If this number is reduced by 230 (the approved number of lots
on the subject land), the supply is reduced to 4,785. This amount would be sufficient to meet existing demand
in the next twenty years. It should be noted that these supply numbers may actually be higher, once the
secondary plans for Craighurst and Hawkestone are completed, The preferred means of servicing in both of
these settlement areas is on the basis of full municipal services.
Notwithstanding any of the above, the new Official Plan continues to designate the lands as Residential.
6.3 Conformity with the Simcoe County Official Plan
The subject property is designated as Rural and Agriculture in the County Official Plan. Two of the goals of
the County of Simcoe Official Plan are particularly relevant to the proposed development. The first is to
protect, conserve, and enhance the County's natural and cultural heritage, The second is to manage growth
to achieve lifestyle quality and efficient and cost-effective municipal servicing, development and land use.
Both of these goals promote development in existing settlement areas and away from rural areas of the
County.
Part 3 of the Official Plan deals with the Growth Management Strategy that the County has adopted to direct
development over the next twenty years. Policy 3.1,1 states that development will be directed to existing
settlement areas. The proposed development would not conform with this Section since the lands are not
within an existing settlement area.
Notwithstanding the above, the County of Simcoe's Official Plan does recognize previously approved
development such as the one on the subject lands.
9
6.4
Lb
Environmental Peer Review Comments
Azimuth Environmental was asked to peer review the work prepared by the proponent. A draft of the Azimuth
report is attached as Appendix 3, The peer review is considered to be a draft at this time since its intent is to
foster discussions between the Township and the proponents regarding the level, scope and nature of
additional work that will be required to support the applications.
The original EIS for Buffalo Springs was prepared by Ecological Services for Planning in April 1994. Stantec
Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) conducted additional environmental studies of the impacts of the proposed
development on natural heritage features and functions in 2003/2004. The objective of the Azimuth peer
review was to evaluate and assess the protocols used and the findings of the updated EIS investigation
prepared by Stantec, It is noted in the Azimuth report that, on the basis of the information submitted with the
applications, a considerable amount of additional information is required to assess the development
application, A brief summary of what is needed is below:
1.
2.
3.
4,
5,
6.
10.
11.
Additional field investigations will be required to update species inventories and to respond to changes
in provincial and local policy. Further discussions will be held with the proponent to determine how
much additional field review is required.
The 1994 wetland boundaries, the 120 'adjacent lands area' and the vegetation communities on the
lands need to be shown on the subdivision plan to determine how the proposed lots relate to these
features.
Justification for including the 'buffer areas' within the boundaries of the private lots is required.
Additional information is required on the two intermittent watercourses to determine whether they are
considered to be fisheries resources.
Additional justification is required for the fragmentation and isolation of the wetland units on the
property .
Seepage areas on the property should be mapped and the impacts of the proposed development on
stream baseflow needs to be assessed,
7.
A review of the implications of the loss of upland/transitional forest habitat on the availability of summer
foraging habitat for herpetiles is required.
8.
Further justification for including recreational trails within the wetland areas is required.
9.
The Provincial Policy Statement indicates that development shall not have a negative impact on a
significant wetland, The proposed road crossings will result in a direct loss of approximately 1.2ha and
will fragment the wetland by cutting it in three locations, This direct loss is termed insignificant in the
1994 report, which is supported by Stantec. Azimuth disagrees with this opinion.
Updated calculations on nitrate should be carried out with the wetland areas excluded.
The impacts to the wetland from the discharge of 126,9001/day of sewage effluent with dissolved
nutrient loadings should be addressed.
On the basis of the preliminary analysis carried out by Azimuth, it is my opinion that a considerable amount of
additional work is required to properly assess the application, It should be noted that the application before
the Township involves a reduction in the amount of development that is already permitted on the property by
the Official Plan, As a result, determining the amount and type of information required to support the
application is anticipated to be a discussion point with the proponents.
10
:.Lï
I,
.
~ OPTIONS:
Council has three options.
7. 1 Option One - Proceed to a Public MeetinQ
If this option was selected, the application would be further processed and a public meeting under the
Planning Act would be held. Following the public meeting, Planning Advisory Committee will then have an
opportunity to determine whether the application should be approved or not approved, Given that the
circulation of the application is almost complete, a public meeting could be held in April/May 2004.
7.2 Option Two - Require Additional Information
If this option was selected, Council would create a list of additional information to be provided by the applicant.
Once completed, this new information would be reviewed and Council would make a decision as to whether
proposal would proceed to a public meeting or be refused.
7.3 Option Three - Refuse the Application
If this option was selected, Council would refuse the application for Zoning By-law Amendment on the basis
that it does not conform with the intent of the Official Plan and does not represent good planning practice. If
this option was selected, the applicant would then have the ability to appeal Council's decision to the Ontario
Municipal Board.
.
(~_RECOMMENDATION (S):
,
It is recognized that the development of the subject lands does not generally conform with the direction taken
by Council in OPA #16, which was adopted on August 21,2003.
Notwithstanding the above, the Ontario Municipal Board did approve a 230 lot development on the property,
Unless this approval is withdrawn, the landowner has the right to clear the conditions of draft plan approval
and proceed to registration, unless the municipality does not consent to Final Approval. As a result, Council is
faced with determining how to balance the rights of the landowner against the environmental direction
contained within both the existing and new Official Plan. This will be a difficult choice to make.
It is our opinion that the landowner and his consultants have made a concerted effort to reduce the potential
impact of the development on the environment and on the character of the area. While the area of land to be
developed remains about the same, the number of lots proposed has been reduced by just over 50 per cent
and one of the wetland crossings has been removed. We believe that these are positive steps that should be
taken into consideration,
However, given the significance of the wetlands on the property and the preliminary comments of Azimuth
Environmental, it is our opinion that some further consideration should be given to reducing the amount of
development on the west side of the property, In addition, some consideration should be given to including the
buffer area on each of the proposed lots on lands that will not be subdivided and either held in common or
managed by an entity that would protect the function of the wetlands. Although the proponent has indicated
that the proposed lots on the west half of the property will not have a negative impact on the function of the
wetland, the addition of roads, services and additional people in this area will, over time, have the potential to
affect that function.
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that the Planning Advisory Committee select Option 2, which
would involve requiring additional information from the applicant pursuant to the comments made in this report
11
La
and the preliminary comments made by Azimuth Environmental. Until this information has been collected,' it is )
my opinion that not enough information is available for the public to generally understand the nature of the
proposal, which is a requirement of the Planning Act. Once this information has been collected, a further
report will be prepared for the consideration of Planning Advisory Committee.
As a result, it is recommended that the Planning Advisory Committee:
1,
Receive and adopt this report;
2.
Require Georgian North lands Ltd, to respond to the preliminary peer review comments prepared by
Azimuth Environmental; and,
3.
Not schedule a public meeting under Section 34 of the Planning Act until Planning Advisory Committee
is satisfied that enough information is available for the public to generally understand the nature of the
proposal.
ReTlS. tl, oIly su~mitted. ~
. tV- f}¡(þ£ '-
N ck McDonald, RPP
Partner
Meridian Planning Consultant
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
12
UI'r\I I I ....".
OF SUBDIVISION
The East and W88t H8Ive8
ofLol82and3
Conc888Ion 9
-'"
-""'*' T..,.wp of On>
-...
T ownø/IIp. of aro-Madonta
County of $ImCO8
OWOI!A'8"""""""TE
.---..---..--
---------~-
==._-_._--~
--
---
--
_"""""""TE
===::=====--
-.---
--.
=.::.-...::--..
IIi
"""'""""'- _11OH ..- UNDER
_.'('7)01"""'----
....-
~-
--
~..-
...-
....-
....-
...-
.-"""-'1 ......
.-,,- L"-
....,-
"""" øaEOOLI!
-- ~ -... .....
;¡¡¡¡¡;
....~-_._---
----------
.-....--..-.---
---
--"-
.... ,.
,.
...
--
---
-- -
~
....9
.)rù
LC
~~..,-,~..~_...., , J---~,..,.....,~"~
: ~ .............,...!;..
¡ i ~ . 'I ~ .""~"--þ"-'
!.: ~~~~..,~~....... - "1tf
-~-_. ¡ ¡...,¡ i' L._......,...........,... , .,..
. J z i lit
$ (t.
: i J I
: :~~ ¡
( , '. .
~¡ i¡
, , ' r
J ~ i )
'
(I
¡~
1
i~
~
~ ~¡
:;>(p ~~
:,-.~.~._~~...
2
,-
3
4
_..~-..- ~",'- ~'-,,-...-.-,.-.- .
:
¡
I
!
i
j
¡
.._,..--~-
~--~-...~# .-
5
~
1-:-4t,
VIII
500 0
hr.--~--- H--- :.
1000
L
, 2000m
J
Township of Oro-Medonte (By~law 97-95)
Schedule A 17
r-----: Subject Lands
: I East and West halves of Lots 2 and 3
------ .
Concession 9
Zoning Symbols
R1 . Residential One
RUR2 - Rural Residential Two
LC - Local Commercial
AlRU - Agricultural/Rural
I
Figure 5
EP - Environmental Protection
OS - Open Space
PR - Private Recreation
MAR2 - Mineral Aggregate Resource One
1m
SOURCE: Township of Ora-Madonia Zoning By-law
FILE NO: Y327-BUFF-ORO-SIMC'FIGUREO5.Z0NING'CDR
Page 1 of 1
3\
..,
file :/IC: \Documents % 20and % 20Settings\leigh \Local % 20Settings\ T emporary% 20Intemet%2... 3/312004
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--~
bt.
/pi
"ED
-'.,~
..)-')
? ~~ ,f
v . '1
f
Prepared by:
~~
...J~J~I MacNaughton Hermsen
Britton Oarkson
MHBC ' Planning Limited
545 North Rivermede Road, Suite 105
Concord, Ontario L4K4HI
Phone: 905.761.5588
Fax: 905.761.5589
'::"1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"r~ 1
.
Buffalo Springs
Planning Analysis
in support of a Request to the OMB to Red Line Revise Draft
Approved Plan of Subdivision
and
an Application to the Township of Oro-Medonte
for a Zoning By-law Amendment
File Y327 A, January 28, 2004.
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2003, Georgian North Land Ltd. purchased approximately 185 hectares (457 acres) of land
located in Lots 2 and 3, Concession 9 (Oro), in the Township of Oro-Medonte, known as Buffalo
Springs. This property was subject to an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing in 1994 which
resulted in approval of an Official Plan Amendment, an implementing Zoning By-law and
approval of a draft plan of subdivision having a yield of 230 lots.
Georgian wishes to develop the lands for residential purposes but at a density significantly lower
than from the Ontario Municipal Board approved plan. In developing a revised scenario,
Georgian has retained experts to prepare addendum reports relating, to environment,
hydrogeology, traffic, servicing and planning. Through these study updates, Georgian and its
consultants have worked closely with staff to ensure that the end result meets the Town's
objectives while recognizing the approvals granted in 1994, The revised scenario will reduce the
number of residential lots by approximately 50 percent and has been designed to provide a
more environmentally friendly development.
In order to permit the revised development scenario, the Township has requested that the
applicable zoning be modified to reflect the increase in lot size. Revisions to the draft approved
plan are also required to reflect the revised lot pattern and reduced density. The OMB remains
the approval authority for this draft approved plan. Therefore, a separate submission has been
made directly to the OMB requesting that the plan be red line revised.
The purpose of this planning report is to provide a brief summary of the history relating to the
lands and related approvals, to describe the revisions proposed by Georgian, and to address
relevant planning policy that applies today.
2. LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject lands are located in Lots 2 and 3, Concession 9 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte
which is two farm lots south of County Road 22 (see Figure 1). The site has an approximate
area of 185 ha (457 acres) and is located approximately 5% km east of Horseshoe Valley
Resort, 1.5 km from the Sugarbush development and 5 km from Bass Lake.
MACNAUGHTON HERMSEN BRITTON CLARKSON PLANNING LIMITED
JANUARY 2004
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
XI
--
ï...
,~Q . .
~ ~j (M~,
~~~
.' &:-
. ,. .,(/)
t. <>.
. ' . -=~ =
.¡
I
..'11-"'"
j~
...,C::==:
,',
......".....
~
2: 11<\
:c
~!. ,.
?t
.~ ... .,,:.::,
. .'
~' ~~¡:
1,,'0
;.;.Jt'
"
,r
~~
""""t,
...;.Jí
,"-
. ,Iu
, .....- r-
111\ :L
.~
-
~'
-
" t
,-.,'. "
-
...~
'_I~(.
--
-
11
.8USLAXt,
:~ç
".
XIII,
-
vtlJf Xi",¡.6.b...:.4t...,'.B."...',,..1 X
~....'.",....'...."...
,II 'IV'
\/11
v
VI
XII
,.11
'I
u..
(")
c,
I
)). t1
..s
0:
~..~
3: )
W
-
..
.-0. -,', r. Œ:,j : ¡f~" ~;-:-~. r
~§ ...'.'. '
I /
\
10
~H,'I
-t:d
Ir-----ï
. ,IV
10
II
-....:
l-J'
R,ECRËArIONAL / RESIDENTIAL
DEVELÖPMENT PATTERN
BUFFA'~OSPR+NGS:
0 ""..1, )', .I,IIO:X>-
t:::~.;;.>-~,' . ,¡~'
.,.,1' 11-" .
"
SOURCE: WD KIRBY & Associates LTD.,
Location Map
Subject lands
East and West halves of Lots 2 and 3
Concession 9
Township of Oro-Medonte
Figure 1
I
p-----
I I
I I
I_____~
I
~
FILE NO: Y327-8UFF-ORQ.SIMC"FIGUREO1LOCATION_MAP'CDR V.
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'35
The site is characterized by uneven topography and many slopes exceed 1 ~ percent. There is
a large ridge located in the east central portion of the site and the west portion is characterized
by a,substantial area of Provincially Significant Wetland and a coldwater stream. Approximately
35 percent of the site is. occupied by wetlands and an additional 11 percent is unsuitable for
development due to other constraints.
There are four distinct vegetation units on the property: upland forest, pine plantation, old field
and wetlands. Approximately 60 percent of the site is characterized by some form of tree cover.
The site is dominated by deep fine to medium sandy soils except for those poorly drained areas
associated with the wetlands. Only 35 percent of the soils on site are class 2 to 3 for
agricultural purposes and, therefore,. the site is considered to have poor potential to support
agricultural activities.
3. HISTORY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Schumacher, the previous owner and Seeley and Arnill Aggregates Ltd, entered into an
agreement in the late 1980's to develop the property for residential purposes.
Applications to amend the Townships' Official Plan and Zoning By-Law were submitted on
March 20, 1989. The Official Plan Amendment was adopted by Township Council by By-Law
91-56 on July 29,1991. Council adopted the implementing Zoning By-Law (91-78) on October
7, 1991. Both the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning Amendment were referred/appealed
to the Ontario Municipal Board by the Jarratt-Coulson and District Resident's Association.
The application for subdivision approval was submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
(MMA) on August 16, 1991 and was referred to the OMB by the proponent given the appeal of
the other matters.
The original applications submitted to the Township sought approval for 372 single detached
residences and 200 cluster residential units for a total of 572 units. This was revised in March
of 1990 such that the development, if approved, would have yielded 348 single detached lots. . .
In late 1990 the proponent, with support from the Ministry of Natural Resources, staked the
limits of the wetlands on site and a survey was subsequently prepared to delineate the areas of
wetland and those areas suitable for potential development. In January of 1991, MNR
. confirmed that it was satisfied with the surveyed wetland boundaries.
The identification of on-site constraints lead to a further redesign and the proposed plan of
subdivision submitted to MMA in August of 1991 illustrated 277 proposed single detached lots.
Other developers within the County Road 22 Corridor were also seeking approval for residential
subdivisions and their applications were joined with the Schumacher applications and one
consolidated hearing was held leading to a decision by the Ontario Municipal Board in October
of 1994.
The Schumacher applications for Official Plan Amendment ánd Zoning By-Law amendment
were approved. The OMB modified the proposed plan of subdivision, reducing the lot yield by
45 lots to 230 lots. The OMBapproval was subject of a lengthy list of draft plan conditions.
MACNAUGHTON HERMSEN BRITTON CLARKSON PLANNING LIMITED
JANUARY 2004 .
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
!
I
3(;,
The Ontario Municipal Board approved the following in 1994:
. 230 lot single detached residential subdivision
. minimum lot size of 2023.5 sq. m (0,5 acres) .
. 16 or 20 metre buffers from wetlands/environmental features which can form part of
the 0.5 acre lot, but subject to zoning preventing development within the buffer area.
Required setbacks are to be measured from the zone line rather than the lot line
where the buffer is included in the lot.
. A block of land to be utilized for purposes of a recreation centre (approx. 5 acres).
. Wetlands and open space blocks zoned open space.
The draft approved plan of subdivision is attached as Figure 2, The approved Zoning By-Law is
attached in Appendix 1 and the approved draft plan conditions are found in Appendix 2.
The proponents, for a variety of reasons, did not seek to satisfy draft plan conditions. While the
other developers, in due time, proceeded to deal with their conditions of draft plan approval, the
Schumacher approvals have been largely dormant.
Just prior to the time Georgian purchased the site, the Township initiated a process to review
the earlier approvals relating to this site, given the inactivity relative to satisfying draft plan
approval.
Over the past year, Georgian has worked with Township staff to develop a revised plan that
results in larger lots and is more environmentally friendly and has participated on the
. Environmental Committee, It is Georgian's intention to register the proposed plan shortly after
receiving approval of the rezoning and the revised draft plan,
4. PROPOSED REVISIONS AND REZONING
Georgian has submitted a request to the OMB to revise the draft approved plan of subdivision
as shown on Figure 3,
From an environmental perspective, the revised draft plan of subdivision is an overall
improvement. The revised plan reduces the number of residential lots from 230 to 117. The
surveyed wetland limits, agreed to by the MNR, for the original proposal have been respected
and maintained. The revised plan has larger lots within the same "cluster" areas planned for
development in the original proposal, providing for a more environmentally friendly design.
In addition, the road network has been significantly altered by removing connections between
the west and east portions of the site, reducing the number of wetland crossings by one.
Vehicular connections have been replaced with pedestrian walkways between the west and
east development areas. Access points along the 8th line and the 9th line are in the same
location as originally draft approved.
The application for rezoning does not change the permitted uses on the site; rather the zoning
regulations are revised to recognize the revised lot sizes and frontages. Table 1 provides a
comparison between the regulations of the existing and proposed zoning as follows:
MACNAUGHTON HERMSEN BRITTON CLARKSON PLANNING LIMITED
JANUARY 2004
3
I
~,
I
, !",":'
,.:
J
"
~-"" -
, ~1--::'~: ;
/"'.. . ')-~i""-
/ . ... ÆÃ\'. ".1
I ~ .;<, .'
,t ~. ,.. '
. . ,'~ J .:
i '~/ ~
'. ¡: 'i :...
, ,
"
I
.
I ~
",
) po;
f ,6\ .
. .~
I,
,
i. "- ...
i,
I
I, \
'--: -' . '\ '
"" '"
" -'-=--
"'=""i' """,,:, INn.,.,.' 0;:>" ".~ ---."" ,....::.
!¡;'. .. í' , -' ,".X '<'" ,~.,,-:';::'_"
'il ,I" :'. .' , t: '-'." v - .t;i ,t
£ '01 :..:..: f' ',.-:"""~- ':',
-'-' - .'. ,':;,; ""...:.-,.-..; i"""-:"
.c. -"--~ - , ,; ',,7, '
, . tP""\ O~..J
" ~ "-
- ~'::::-,. 'f-
...'~\' ~,;:,
, ," - ',..' -: ~
I
:,
I
,.
"
I
o JeIUO.1 ep sared!~!unw saJreue s.ep UO!SS!WWOQ
pJeO8 (edl~IUnVi o Je)uQ
o¡æIUQ
ftl
tü:X ::t'1na::tB:)S
'.
I
I
t~ :¡.a S9,OOE6 Q
04
~
:::J
0')
u:
'31
Di
Zl
~
~
~
C
N'
iii
II:
;:)
C)
¡¡:
ò
~
iii
Ó
II:
~
...
;:)
~
N
~
~
W
....
¡¡:
"
:;-
S<
CD
-
::J
,.,
CD
.c
u
tJ)
..
"i
....
CD
", an
cø
C)
C)
CW)
en
m
:i
0
..':.! ~
I .
c:
'..: 0
, o-
J. tn
. 0-
'>
0-
~ ..~ "'C
š.Q
::s
(J)
"I-
0
c:
as
-
D.
"'C
Q)
>
e
a.
a.
c(
=
t!
c
:
-"
('I')
'0
I::
m
N
J!3
0
...J Q)
- -
0 I::
(/) 0
Cl)Q) ~
"C~ ~
em I
cu= e
...I (/) 0) 0
Q) -
""~6°
(.) .- Co
Q) "'C (/).-
I::(/)..c
:ã'~5~
::J(/)I::;:
moo
(/)WUF
.---'
. .
. .
. .
I .
L___'
-
-
-
AGllIeX""";.""'"
\'lEI"""
!
'"
,,'
.., ,
'~j_..,- .,-. - -----
, 1',: '!'" "'~., r¡,¡~
':;):\:=~ /'.
\
¡" ,. 'C.-
AG1IClll""'"
'R-
'S"
i
,
",
/
l
wnANO
AGR/Cll'C""fll""
Proposed Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision
p-----
I I
I I
I___._~
Subject Lands
East and West halves of Lots 2 and 3
Concession 9
Township of Oro-Medonte
DRAFT PLAN
OF SUBDIVISION
The E.., ...\yo"......
of""'2... 3
C~~""".
"""'~"""'">-""
T_of""""'"""",,,
C""",,, of SIma>e
""""'~<Å;¡ -- ..-..,'..,-..
,w__w__w_-
-------.
-_w_,.--
-
Figure 3
I
FILE NO: Y327-BUFF.QRQ.SIMC'FIGUREO3_DRAFTPLAN_2OOoVCDR vJ
oç
,_"-..~,a.~,^"
,-----..---
-----.-
-----
.- ....,
, Lj=-
':, ':: '
@)
, -~ -_cc
'~"~,_~~'"'M-C-"
~~M"""'~""~-~'
1&,-
liE::' ......
--
AGRICln:l~1J
""'"
--- ~-- -- -
-- -,. .. .
-- _.~ .. ..
== ~" : :
------
---------
,---..--
0- -
":",:,< .,
œ'"
9) ,tn,-,": , "",!
i,t...;"-::' : :
-- :::: ,~;".;,;;,.~;
-----
----
--,-_.-
----
I
¡
I
J
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
3<1
TABLE 1
5. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
The addendum reports prepared for environment, hydrogeology, servicing and traffic have
confirmed that the proposed development will not have any adverse impact on the surrounding
environment, land uses and traffic flow, These reports further confirm that the draft plan, as
revised, reduces the potential of adverse impacts and is an overall improvement in all of these
aspects. .
6, PLANNING POLICY ANALYSIS
6.1
Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan
Official Plan Amendment 39 approved by the OMB in 1994 dealt with the proposed land use
and put into place specific policies to guide the development of the Buffalo Springs node.
The former Townships of Oro and Medonte amalgamated in 1994 and the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing approved a new Official Plan for the amalgamated municipality in August of
1997.
The Official Plan identifies a number of fundamental principles or "pillars" and these include:
. Protection of the natural environment;
. Proper conservation and use of natural resources;
. Protect the rural character;
. Ensure change takes place in an orderly and efficient manner; and
. Promote economic activity.
MACNAUGHTON HERMSEN BRITTON CLARKSON PLANNING LIMITED
JANUARY 2004
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lto
The Official Plan seeks to direct development away from sensitive environmental features
including Provincially Significant Wetlands, Residential development is encouraged to take
place in identified settlements or development nodes, New residential subdivisions are
generally not permitted in rural and agricultural areas,
Schedule A-17 of the Official Plan (see Figure 4), as amended, places the site within a number
of land use designations.
The subject property is identified as being within the "Buffalo Springs Settlement Node", Lands
which are not characterized by environmental constraints are designated "Residential" and are
allowed to be developed for "single detached dwellings, home occupations, private recreational
facilities, and open space uses."
The wetland and other areas having environmental constraints are classified as "Environmental
Protection One". The Environmental Protection One land use designation is applied to the most
sensitive environmental features in the Township, including provincially significant wetlands and
respective 120 metre buffer, Permitted uses are limited to conservation and passive recreation
subject to an EIS being completed and approved by Council and appropriate agencies,
It is noted that Township staff have confirmed that the "Environmental Protection Two" overlay
was a mapping error and the overlay should not exist.
An Environmental Addendum prepared by Stantec, for the revised draft plan concluded the
following:
.
no significant changes in ecological conditions have occurred on site
proposed development continues to meet the tests of the Provincial Wetland
Policy Statement
proposed development meets the general intent of OPA 16 and site specific
policies for areas designated "Natural Core/Corridor Area"
overall, the reduction of lots significantly reduces potential anthropogenic
impacts to the natural environment and improves reliability of the mitigation
measures proposed
mitigation ~ecommendations:
0 a 16 m to 20 m buffer zone continues to be required.
0 a properly designed, constructed and maintained trail system to focus
human use on least sensitive parts of wetland with interpretive signage to
educate residents
0 a monitoring program has been initiated and will assist in evaluating the
success of mitigation measures
development can proceed as revised with no significant impact to the long-
term sustainability and functionality of the East Coulson Creek Wetland
Complex
.
.
.
.
.
The site is also located within the "Horseshoe Valley Road Special Policy Area". The revised
draft plan has been designed in accordance with policy for this Area, provided in Section E2 of
the Official Plan and particularly the Special Policies set out in Section E2.4,1.4.
MACNAUGHTON HERMSEN BRITTON CLARKSON PLANNING LIMITED
JANUARY 2004 .
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I$&x~ Rural
~ tmralSetUement
122221 Area
. JARRATT
SETTLEMENT.
NODE. BOUNDARY
. LEGEND
R+R+R1 EnviroWnental
!fE3333I Protection One
0 A¡ricu1ture!
SPECIAL POLICY AREA.
BUFFALO.. SPRINGS
S~NT..
NODE BOUNDARY Ii
XII
KEY PLAN .
IX
2
1
. RoRSBSDO£
VAIØY ROAD
1
Environmental
Protection Two
r::=:J. Groundwater
t.:::=J Recharae Area
I-:... -I Horseshoe Vall. ey Rd.
. Special Policy Area
~ Residential
5
*NOTE . ..
coMPONENTS 01 TH! BNVJRomœrrAL .
. PROTECTION ONE AND. .TI'O . _. All 11M ....... .- .... ...... --.a. . .,¡.......
DESIGNATIoNS 1R.BSROWNON. -...... Ie"""""""""""""--
~.B
500 . 01000. 200Om
~ ~. .1
..1:30,;000
p-----
I I
I I
.._---~
I
Figure 4
Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan (Consolidated Version)
Schedule A 17
Subject Lands
East and West halves of Lots 2 and 3
Concession 9
Townshio of Oro-Medonte
I
SOURCE: Township of Oro-Medonte OffIclal Plan (Consolidated version)
FILE NO: Y327-eUFF..oR<>-SIMC.FIGURE04_OP'CDR -t:
1f1-
Section E2.3 sets out the improvements to Horseshoe Valley Road necessary to support the
developments approved in the development nodes. These improvements may be financed
through development charges or by securing agreements with individual developers.
Cansult Tatham prepared an addendum traffic report for the revised draft plan, The traffic report
deals with any necessary improvements required to permit the proposed development.
A portion of the site designated Residential is also subject to a "Groundwater Recharge"
overlay. This section notes that any new development which requires an Official Plan
Amendment or a Zone change must be supported by a hydrogeological assessment. A
hydrogeological assessment is also required prior to the creation of more than 5 new lots which
are to be serviced by private septic systems to ensure soils are appropriate for proposed
development.
Jagger Hims prepared a hydrogeological assessment to meet the requirements of Policies B2.4
and F2.3.1 and concluded that there will be no adverse impacts on the recharge function, on the
quality and quantity of drinking water in adjacent wells and no significant effects on existing high
capacity wells resulting from the proposed development.
The Servicing Study prepared by Stantec has confirmed that the proposed revised plan can be
appropriately serviced with private individual sewage and water systems given the lot 'sizes 'and
suitable soil types.
It is noted in Section J5 of the Official Plan that there are a number of draft approved plans of
subdivision within the rural area and that these plans may no longer be appropriate in terms of
environmental impact or for other reasons. The policy reads in part:
"it is the intent of Council to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, or the
appropriate approval authority by resolution to withdraw draft approval after an
appropriate period of time has elapsed if a subdivision is not proceeding to the
development stage in an expeditious manner. n '
Given the initiative by Georgian to substantially reduce the number of lots and to further
minimize environmental impact, and given that Georgian has initiated environmental monitoring
in accordance with the OMB draft plan conditions" it would be inappropriate for Council to
request that draft plan approval be withdrawn.
The existing Official Plan designates the site to allow the OMB approved plan of subdivision.
The changes proposed to the draft plan do not necessitate an amendment to the Official Plan.
The existing Official Plan does not impede registration of the proposed plan.
¡
I
I
I
It is concluded that the proposed rezoning and revisions to the draft plan are consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Township's Official Plan and meet the relevant policies set out
within.
6.2
General Intent and Purpose of Zoning By-law
Schedule A17 of the Township Zoning By-Law is reproduced as Figure 5 of this report. While
the zoning categories are different from that approved by the OMB, the approved plan of
MACNAUGHTON HERMSEN BRITTON CLARKSON PLANNING LIMITED
JANUARY 2004
6
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
4-3
'~
1
, t I .
n.'
n '
-",;,:n .
Ii ~
ð.~ Ii
if '
LC'
2
3
4
5.
~
~
VITI
. .
500 0
~...-~..~.~.~ '.=:.'~'
1000
J
q"
IX' :. ,
2000m
:4
x
, ,
Township of Oro..Medonte (By-law 97-95 )
Schedule A 17
I
Figure 5
. Subject Lands
. East and West halves of Lots 2 and 3
Concession 9
Zoning Symbols
R1 - Residential One EP - Environmental Protection
RUR2 - Rural Residential Two OS - Open Space
LC - Local Commercial PR - Private Recreation
AlRU - Agricultural/Rural MAR2 - Mineral Aggregate Resource One
.
SOURCE: Township of Oro-Medonte Zoning By-law
FILE NO: Y327-BUFF..QRO-SIMC'FIGUREO5_Z0NING'CDR
I
I
I.
I
I
I
r
&.fLt
subdivision would still be permitted by the current Zoning By-Law, subject to lifting the Holding
Symbol.
The lands identified for residential development are zoned R1*75(H), only permitting single
detached dwellings. The By-Law requires a minimum lot area of 0.2 ha of which a minimum of
0.18 ha must be zoned R1. Setbacks are measured from the zone line rather than the lot line.
The R1 Zone also has the following requirements:
. Minimum lot frontage of 30 metres
. Minimum required front yard of 7.5 metres
. Minimum required exterior side yard of4.5 metres
. Minimum interior side yard of 2.5 metres
. Minimum required rear yard of 7,5 metres
. Minimum first storey floor area: 90 sq. m
. Maximum height of 11 metres.
Special Regulations relating to this site are reproduced in Appendix 3 (See sections 7.75 to
7.79). .
The revised draft plan being proposed would increase the lot sizes overall, with lot areas.
ranging from 0.4 ha to 1.56 ha. The proposed by-law would establish new minimum zone
regulations to reflect the revised lotting and density.
Township staff have advised that the Holding symbol would be lifted from the Zoning By-Law
upon confirmation that road improvements have been dealt with and once the subdivider had
entered into the appropriate subdivision agreement and all appropriate securities had been
provided.
In summary, the proposed zoning is almost identical (except for lot sizelfrontage regulations) to
that approved by the OMB and would permit the proposed subdivision subject to lifting of the
Holding Symbol.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The Ontario Municipal Board approved the existing draft approved plan of subdivision which
would yield 230 lots. The existing Official Plan and zoning allow this development. Subject to
satisfying draft plan conditions, the lands could be developed for 230 lots, Even though the
original plan was found by the Board to be environmentally responsible and in keeping with
provincial policy, from an environmental standpoint, the revised plan is a positive change.
The proposed revised plan of subdivision can be appropriately serviced, meeting MOE
requirements.
The revised draft plan will have less impact on the environment by reducing the proposed
density by approximately 50% and by reducing the number of wetland crossings. The original
wetland limits, staked by the Ministry of Natural Resources and surveyed, continue to be
reflected in the revised draft plan.
MACNAUGHTON HERMSEN BRITTON CLARKSON PLANNING LIMITED
JANUARY 2004
7
~ .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Addendum reports for environment, hydrogeological. servicing and traffic confirm the proposed
residential development will not significantly impact the surrounding environment, water quality,
water quantity and/or traffic flow.
The proposal is consistent with the goals .and objectives of the Township's Official Plan and
meets requirements set out in relevant Official Plan policy.
The request to amend the Zoning By-law reflects the revisions to the proposed plan of
subdivision and complies with the Official Plan,
The proposed rezoning and revisions to the draft plan are appropriate and are based on sound
planning principles.
MACNAUGHTON HERMSEN BRITTON CLARKSON PLANNING LIMITED
JANUARY 2004 .
LtS
8
C;-b
. .
i .
I
[
I
I
¡.
f
I
I
r
~
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 1.
OMB APPROVED
ZONING BY-LAW
" -
(: . :. "'SCHEDULE 'XI
¡ ,
[
I
I
f
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 930065 et al
'if
, ,) I'
...r-
, Ontárlo
Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario
. ,., ' ... . .. .
CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF'ORO
BY-LAW NO,' , ,
I, '
.
A By-law to rezone lands in Part Lot 1 and'Lot 3, Concession 9.
WHEREAS Zoning By-law No. 1031 was enacted' to regulate the use of land and the
ch~racter~ location and the use of buildings ,and structures Within the Township of Oro;'
. . -,
AND WHEREAS the CouncU of the Corporatiön of the Township of Oro deems it
desirable to further amend By-law No, 1031 as .amended;.
AND WHEREAS 'authority 1!i' granted pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1983,
to the Council of'the Corporation of the Township of Oro to ëxerdse,such powers;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIt OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF ORO 'ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: '
1,
Schedule F,' Map ,"2" to By-law 1031 for the Township. of Qro, as amended is
hereby further amended by rezoning those lands shown on Schedub~ "A" attached
hereto hom Reo-eation and Open Space (051) Zont and from Inherent Hazard
4nds (052) Zone to General Residential Exception Holding (RG-8(H» Zotte,
Inherent Hazard Lands Exception (052-1) Zone, Recreation and Open Space
Holding (OSl(H» Zone, Inherent Hazard Land Exception (052-2) Zone and to
l1\herê1\tH~d. Land Exception (052-3) Zone.
That Subsection 7.2.5 Excep~ons to By-:lawNo. 103i for th~ 'towns1ùp of Oro is
amended by adding the following su~section thereto: '
, .
1.
"7.2.5.8
Buffålo Springs, Part Lot 2 and Lot 3, Concession 9
, ' ' ,
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7.1.:1(a) of this By-law, those
lands p'mprised of Part Lot 2 and Lot '3, Concession 9 and zoned on
Sched¥è F, Map 2 as RG-B may solely be used for a single family detache~
dwelling and pernùtted accessory structures. 'The us~' Usted 'in 'Section
7.1.1(b) are a1$o penn1tte4.,
. (b)' Notwithstanding any provisions of By-law No. 1031 to the contrary,.no
persons shall within any RG-8 Zone use any lot, or ,erect, alte.r or use any
building or structure except in accordan~ with the follQwittg provisiQns:
(a)
(0,
Notwithstanding the regulations of ,Section 7:1.2(a) as they apply to
minimum lot area, those lands zoned RG-8 as shown on Schedule F,
Map 2. shall have a minimum ,lot area of 2023.5m2. Notwithstanding
the above, where a lot has a combined RG-8 and 052-2 Zoning ,or a
combined RG-8 and 052-3 zoning the overall minimum lot area shall
be,2023.5m2 and the area zoned RG-8 must have a minimum area of
1858m2. I .
(ü) 'On those lots which are zoned RG-8 and 052-1 or RG-8 and OS2-3 '
. all required side yard and rear yard setback distances, shall be
measured from the RG-8 Zone line rather than the lot line.
(üi)
All.other provisions of the RG Zone sball apply."
.
.., .
I
f
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
'i' .
3.
That subsëction 11.1.4, Exceptions, to By-law No. 1031 for the Township of Oro
is amended by adding the following subsection thereto: '
~~
"11.1.4.3
'. Buffalo Springs, Part Lot 2 and Lot 3, Concession 9
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11.1.1 of thiS By-
law, the lands comprised of Part Lot 2 and Lot 3, Concession
9 and zoned on Schedule F, Map 2 as 051.3 may be used for
a recreation centre in addition to all other uses permitted in
Section 11.1.1, For purposes of this By-law the recieåtion
centre may include, swimming pools, tennis courts, change
facilities, .meeting rooms, lounges, or similar recreation
facilities being non-commercial in nature, and storage areas
for skiis and other recreational equipment and a maintenance
shop and storage area for equipment used to maintain the
lands and facilities zoned 051-3,052-1,052-2 and 052-3,"
4.
That Section 11.2,2 Exceptions of By-law No. 1031 for the Township of. Oro is.
amended by adding the following subsection thereto:
"11.2,2.1
Buffalo Springs, Part Lot 2 and Lot 3, Concession 9
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11.2.1(b) and (c) of
this By-law those lands comprised of Part Lot 2 and Lot 3,
Concession 9 and zoned on Schedule F, Map 2 as 052-1 shall
riot be used for the erection of any building or structure (save
and except for structures for conservation or flood control
purposes) and may be used for no other purpose except for:
i)
ii)
ill)
iv)
v)
vi)
ski trails
hiking trails
nature trails
conservation area
parks
municipal roads
11,2.2.2 .
Buffalo Springs, Part Lot 2 and Lot 3, Concession 9
(a)
No~ithstanding the provisions of Section 11.2.1' of
this By-law, those lands comprised of Part Lot 2 and
Lot 3, Concession 9 as zoned on Schedule F, Map 2 as
052-2 shall not be used for the .erection of any
building or structure or alteration of the existing
natùral environment. .
\
~
11.2.2.3
The 052-2 Zone shall have an absolute depth of 16.Om
me,asured perpendicularly from the identified 052-1
Zone, and measured parallel thereto.
Buffalo Springs, Part Lot 2 and Lot 3, Concession 9
(b)
(a)'
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sectionll.2.1 of
this by-law, those là:nds comprised of Part Lot 2 and,
Lot 3, Concession 9 as zoned on Schedule F, Map 2 as
052-3 shall not be used for the erection of . any
building or structure or alteration of the existing
natural environment.
(b)
The 052-3 zone shall have an absolute depth of 20,0
metres measured perpendicularly from identified 052-
1 zone and measured parallel thereto.
..' - .;'1'
I'"
I
I--
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I.
I
I .
I
5.
6.
Schedule IOAII attached hereto forms part of t1ùs By-law.
This By-law shall take effect and come into force pursuant to the provisions
',and regulations made under the Planning Act, 1983.
4-<1
BY-LAW READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 7TH DAY OF OerOBER, 19~
BY-LAW READ ~ THIRD AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 7TH DAY OF OerOBE
~. .
TIiECORPORATION OFTIiETOWNSHIP OF OR .
REEVE, ROBERT E, DRURY
CLERK, DARLENE SHOEBRIDGE
\
~ -
Q
. t:í' "
r-I
IØ
Lt).¡..I"
\00)
0
0
M
0
J
J
.
0
Z
):'1-
0 0
..J
,""
:he
a3"O
0
+-
~
«
..
:)
)
Q)
::J
"0
Q)
-£ Q)
:J va.I:.
'+-
0 U) . .
-"0 '
CD Q)Q)
.c U)U) >
0 -U) 'Q)
.J::. 0 Q)
If) '. I- a. 0:::
~
II)
.'
H
...>< '
...:¡
.0
..:A
-¡ï¡
:I:
X-
L
Q)
U
......
I
§
~
~
~
\ q\ g
0 š Š ð
. Z 'Z. ¡:: ¡:: ¡::
"" 2 ~ ~ ~
cot- U ... U u
\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
cnU ...
, -)( '" '" '" '"
....... 0 0 0
0' %. Q %. :r:.
iñ3 j ... j j
VIe 0 0 0 0
~:J a: ø ø:: ~
,\:z. ~ ~ ~ ~ """
0 ,... ~ 'Z. ~ ~'
~ i~ s "'~ ffi 8 ~
\~ ~i... ~ ~ ::
... u"'" ~ 'Z." " G
..... 'Z. 0
"""~""" - - ~ ß ~ ø ß'" 8 8 ~
~ 'Z.r;:~ :r:.:5, '%. '%.0 '"
I.LI 0= Õ 0,... 0 '0
0"""" ..,."" .... :r:.
Z ... b ...~. IÍ.I;;;.... I.;!, ... ~ j
\"" G$ IDO IDg Go Go
3: 0 0'" 0' 0'" 0"" .~
0 t- U t- = t- u t- ¡::; t-;;:¡
~,~~ ~. ~ã ~. ~. '"
~ ....... ..."'... .........'" t-
"" ø:: 0 a:~ a: g ø:: ~ ø:: ~ ;¡
~:x:: ~- ~:a:: .J(- ~- ..J
\
I
\'
\
~ \
i\
!\
!\
~\
~\
\
\1
\1
101
101
'JNOJ
101
,6
-
-
---
-
-
J
\
.v
I
-
-
-
-
-
S"I
. .
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPEND IX 2
D RAFT PLAN CO ND ITI 0 NS
BUFFALO SPRINGS
r"
. . ...
I "., SCHEDULE' IV
I
I
I.
I":"¡'~~
I
I
I. '.- I
., '. -,
I
I
I
I'"
I
I
'J
. I"
0 930065 et al ')2.
ltÆ
~r-
On\årio
Ontario Municipal Board. ' .
Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario
DRAFf PLAN CONDITIONS
BUFFALO SPRINGS
October 14, 1994 ,
.
. Ministry of Muniòpat Affairs suggested conditions, . .
.. Ministry of Muniòpat Affairs suggested conditions modified a.s result. of evidence presented
to OMB.
... N~w suggested conditions as result of evid.ence presented. to OMB.
File No. 43T-9103i
The Ontario MuruåpalBoard's cc:>ndiì:ionsand .amendments to final plan approval for
registr,ation of this plan of subdivision, file no. 43T-91031 are as follows:
. .
Key No..
. Conditions
Itlt
1.
That.this approval applies' to the draft .plan,prepared and surveyed
by Zubek, Erno and Patten Ltd. and surveyed by Ronald J. Erno,
dated October 7, 1994 .to show a total of. 230 single residential lots
together with 16 blocks for wetland, open space, recreation centre.,
parkland, walkway, and road widening purposes. ' .
, That the road allowances included in thiS draft plan shall be shown .
and dedicated as a public lùghway. .,'.
../'
.. 2.
.. 3.
.. 4.
..
It
, 6.
It
..
5.
That the internàl stre.ets shall be named to the satisfaclion of the
. Township of Oro-Medonte.
\That the owner satisfy the requirements of the Township .0f.Oro-
': Medonte for the supply òf.services and grant easements Téq~red for
drainage- and u~ity puryoses to the appropriate .a~~n~d. '
. ,
'That prior to final approval, the On~arlo MUIÛdpal Board is to be
advised by the Township of Ora-Medonte that the appropriate
zoning is in effect tor this plan. of subdi$ion..
That the oWner coI1:V~Y up to 5% of the landinclud~d iri.the plan to
the muniåpality for park purpos.es. Altem'atively; the munidp~ity
can request cash-In-lieu of all o~ a portion of the conveyan~. .
. .
7.
That aU' required 0.3 metre. reserves shall be dedicated to the
municipality.
'S.
Th~t the -owner agrees in writing to satisfy. aU' the requirements,
financial and oth~rw.i~e, of the' Township of Oro-Medonte concemng ~
the provision of rpads¡ the installation of services and drainage."
I '"
I
I:
I :~,;~
I~~~
"
. .
I ::'~
I
I'~%,
I, ' :~
I. "\
.. :¡
.
I ':.:
~,.,:~
I '
I
I
I ' .,'
~'.. ::;!
I . .
I
I
I
~ .
"'-
.
,-SCHEDULE IV
. .
.
.
....
9.
10.
. ,
11.
...
12.
...
¡3,
.-
- -
. u ~~UUb~ et al
1~
That prior to final approval, a dÌainage plan be prepared ,by the
owner's consultant to the satisfaction of the Simcoe County District
Health Unit and the Township Engineer. This plan will.show how
surface water will ~ controll.ed on and off the site and will i~clude
swales and/or easements, where necessary. Any necessary erosion
control measures will be shown. This approved plan will form part
, of the Subdivision Agreement with the Township. .
..
That prior to final approval, a general lot grading plan be pre.pared
by the owner's consultant to the satisfaction of the 'Simcoe County
District Health UIÙt and the Township Engineer. Existing and final
grades. on lot corners will be shown as well as rid lot elevations,
where' necessary. This approved plan will form part of the
Subdivision Agreement with the Township.
That prior to final approval, the owner's. coI'\Sultant Will prepare a
general site. development plan for all lots to the satisfaction of the
Simcoe County District Health Unit and the Township. This site
plan will be in comornùty with conditions #9 and #10 above and will
contain the foll°WÏ?g information:
A building envelope for the proposed home;. and,
Envelopes. for the primary and secondary sewage system
sites including mantles as .required.
This approved plan: will form part of the Subdivision Agreement
. with the Township.
a)
b)
The Subdivision Agreement will contain claus~ ~th wording
satisfactory to the Simcoe County District Health Unit to the. effect
that individual lot owners may be required to obtain the services 0.£
a qualified professional engineer to prepåre' a, detailed site
.\ developm~nt p~an to the' satisfaqion of th~ Simcoe County District
:: Health Urot pnor to the issuance of a Certificate of Approval.
The subdivision 'agreement shall contain clauses with. wording
satisfactory to the Simcoe County District Health Unit to the. effect
that any major works required in the approved plans noted in
conditions #9 and #10 will be carried out by the de:veloper.
s
...
..
.
.
, ,
,
. 'SCHEDULE IV
3
I, :
I
I
I
I ,!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-':
"""
.
,"'.
, .
14.
15.
16,
17.
.
18.
.
19.
0 930065 et al
5Y
That an Impact Statement be un'dertaken by the developer to the
satisfaction of the Ministry of Natural Resources which outlines in
detail the natural values on the site. Specifically, the fisheries and
wetland resources, evaluating the impacts the proposed development,
will, have on these resources, and recommending appropriate
mitigation measures to limit any impacts.
That a detailed engineering report be undertaken by the developer
for all road ,and utility crossings indicating all mingation me8$ures
to be used to limit the impacts on the wetlands inchiding how the
full hydrologic function of the wetlands on both, sites of the
crossings will be maintaiI\ed.
That a vegetanon plan/tree planting plan, be undertaken by the
developer that outlines where and how the vegetative buffer will be
enhanced with trees and shrub plantings to protect the wetland and
fisheries resources where natur.a1 vegetation on the buffer does,not
exist or is insuffiåent, to provide an adequate vegetative buffer. In
addinon, the tree planting plan shall require, planting of up 'to three
2,4 metre or taller hardwood trees on those lots not having any tree
cover. '
That a detailed engineered flood plain mapping report. to the
regulatory flood stand.ards for this site be. undertaken by the '
developer. The study ,mus't confirm the preliminary study
conclusions that all the proposed lots are located outside of the flood
. plain, otherwise a revised plan must be completed to remove any
, lots ~om the flood plain. .',
That a stormwater management repoJt be undertaken by the
developer to detail the means whereby stonnwater d1:ain~g~ will be
accommodated and how erosion and siltation will be contained on
site both during and following construction. 'This r~port must deal.
With post development stonnwater quality.~d shall conform to the
MOEE/~ Interim Stormwater Quality Guidelines for new
development'dated May, 1991.
That 'prior to final approval, 8:I\ erosion control plan detailing how
erosiòn and sUtanon and their effects will be minimized both during
and following construction shall be prepared to' the satisfaction of
the, Ministry of Natural Resources.. . '
Co
..
II
\ .
¡ .
I ; .
I
I
I
I ~
I.
I
I
<~
I
I'
I'
1_"1
"0:
I
I
1
I .,
,SCHEDULE IV
"'
..
...
,.
20.
..
21.
.....
21.a
.....
21.b '
.....
21.c
0 930065 et al
Ç5
.
That the subdivision agreement contain a clause that a corporation'
~e established following which the recreation centre, wetland blocks
and open space blocks including wall<ways and.trans be conveyed
to said corporation. Initially shares in the Corporation shall be held
by the developer and shares shall.be transferred to each lot owner
upon closure of the lot sale. The lot owners, through the corporation
are thereafter responsible for management and protection' of the
lands in its possession,. including the wetlands, under the
supervision of the Ministry of Natural Resources. The TOwnsNp
shall ensure that the Corporation's operational plan is similar to that'
. of the Indian Park Association. The Corporation shall ensure that
the we~ands are oruy utilized for those purposes expressly
~ernùtted in the implementing Zorûng By-law.
That site plans, pursuant to Seçtion 41 of the Planning Act,. be
prepared for those lots adjacent to the wetland.
r .
That prior to providing its releàse for registration to the Ontario
Municipal Board, the Township of Oro-Medonte shall pass a by-law,
pursuant to Section 41(2) of the Planning Act,RSO 1990, designating
. ~ lots adjacent to.~e wetlands'as an area of site plan control.
That the owner acknowledge in the Subdivision Agreement the
existence of 16 metre buffer or a 20 metre buffer from the wetland
. as shown on the draft plan with no development being permitted in
the buffer. The Township shall ackno:wledge in writing that the lots
and. block specified in this condition will be subject to ~ite. Pla11
Control under Section 41 of the Planning Act, RSO 1990.
"
That the Subdiyision.Agreement contain a clause which.'states that .
site plans for those lots spedfied in Condition. 21 (a) and submitted
to the Township and the Ministry õfNatural Resòurces include the
following info~tion:
~
b)
c)
d)
. . e)
the lOcation of bullding envelopes;
tþ.e location o~ primary and reserve tile fields;
the location of la.neways and parking areas;
the location of lands which hâve a' slope greater than 15
percent; . .
the location of swimming pools and tennis courts' or any
other proposed structure or facility;
the IÇ)cation of the wetland buffer;.
the extent of the forest 'cover to be maintained on' the lot;
and., . , .
the location of the marker or monument identifying the
wetland buffer.
Ð
g)
'h)
.
'/ .
. ".
S.çHEDULE IV
,<
"
It
21.
I ,.
I "
.
-. .. 23.
"
¡ ,', :
I ,¡
..
.... 24.
"
I ":.
':".
.. 25,
I '.:
,
"
I I ...... 26.
. "\
r"
::.. ,:
-':::"~
I-."
..... 27.
I
I
...... 28.
I
~. '.
I
I
I
I
0 930065 et al
l)(,
"
As a condition' of subdivision approval, a site development plan for
each individual residential lot shall be submitted to the satisfaction
of the Ministry of N a~al Resources and the Township for their
review and approval.
That prior to final approval the OWlìer shall agree in the 'subdivider's
agreement in wording satis,factory to the District Manager, Huronia
Distri~1 Ministry of NatUral Resources, to carry out all the works
and recommendations approved in all the reports listed in
Conditiòns #14 to #22 inclusive. '
The owner shall agree to advise all prospective purchasers that
accommodation 'Within the designated public and private school sites
in the community is not guaranteed and that pupils may be
accommod,ated in temporary facilities and/or be directed to facilities
outside of the area.
Prior to final approval, the Ministry of, EnvirC'.:'\ment and -Energy
shall be notified by copy of th~ fully executed su:. dvision agreement
that the recommendations of a satisfactory hyd:-.)geological report,
as approved by the, Ministry of Envirónment' and Energy shall be
implemented by re'quirèments of the subdivision agreement.
,The subdivision agreement between the owner and the Township
shall include a clause restricting the maximum sewage flow for the
proposed ReaeationCenti'e to 4,500 litres per day to the satisfaction
to the Towns1ùp of Oro-Medonte and the Ministry of Environment
and Energy. '
The subdivision agreement betweeI) the owner and the Township
shall include a, clause which reads: Prior to grading of any lot or the
Township gitññg its release for registration to the. M~nistry of Municipal
/iffairs the owner shall prepare a tiee Saving' plan for the lot to the
~~tisfaction of the TC1W11ship of OrcrMedo,nte and the Ministry of Natural
Resources'." " ' .
That the owner acknowledge in a subdivision agreement that
building pennits ,may be issued for 50 percent of the residential
building lots upon the registration of this plan 'of subdivision,
Building p~nnits for the remaining 50 percent of, the lots will not be'
issued until a holding provision applying to these lots is lifted in
accordance 'With the Planning Act. A supdivision agr~ment may
contain a proVision for the id~ntffication of the lots on a floàting
basis so that the owner need not identify the effected lots in
advance. The owner further acknowledges in the ,subdivision
agreeme~t that the holdin~ provision applying to the l<?ts specified
~
.....-:
I '.
I:
I'
I
I
I '
~
!
I
I
I
,
I
I
I '
I
I
I
, .
. .
SCHEDULE IV
.. .
" .'
"
......
29.
......
30.
0 930065 et al
Cj7
in this condition, shall OIÙY be lifted at s~ch time as the Township
of Oro-Medonte confirms that identified improvements to County
R?ad 22 have been completed ~r are ~. the process of being
completed to the satisfaction of the Township of Oro-Medonte. The
affected lots need not be released. in their entirety at one time but.
individually or in such numbers as the Township of Oro-Medonte
may determine having regard for the matters herein,
The subdivision agreement between the developer and the Township
of Oro-Medonte shall include a clause requiring the developer to
install a reasonably pennanent marking or monument system clearly
identifying the location of the wetland buffer on each lot or block
affected, prior to occupancy, of any such residential lot or block.
Further, the developer agrees to include a statement advising of the
marking system requirements in all' offers to Purchase and
Agreements of Purchase and salë for said lots and blocks.
That the owner agree to the following: .
a)
That the owner collect baseline data respecting groundwater
and surface water in accordance with the "Monitoring
Program - Environmental Impact Study Sabiston/Valdoro
and Buffalo Springs Development" prepared by Michael
Michalski Associates on October 11, 1994. and attached as .
"Schedule 1". .
b)
, .
That the owner develop a long temi. monitoring pr~gram to
the satisfaction of the Ministry ofNa~al Resources to be
administered DY an Environmental C::ommittee' and prepared
in accordance with the "Monitoring Program - Environmental
Impact Study Sabiston/Valdoro and Buffalo Springs
Development" prepared by Michael Michalski Assoåates. on
OctC!ber 11, 1994 and. attached as "Schedule 1".
J. ,
. .
That the owner create an Environmental Committee within
~hree months of Draft Approval in accordance With the
. ~Mohitoring Prógram. - Environmental Impact Stu4y
Sabiston/Valdoro and'. Buffalo Springs Development"
prepared by Michael Michalski Assoåates on October 11,
1994 and attached as "Schedule 1".
d)
That the' oWner enSure, 'through the incorporation of a'
residents assoåation, (Condition 20) that the mechanisms for
the collection of funds from the new residents to assist the
Environmental Committee in,the long term opèration of the,
monitoring program are in place prior to Final Approval.,
Co
..
..
--
. .
I
"
:,i
"
.
I ',:
.
I ,,-~
I ;:~
~
I,
I
I
I
I
I,. ;
" ,,:.!
I
I
I
I
, ,I
. ... .
, .
. .
~CJ:IEDULE IV
. Itlt
~It .' 31.
Itlt
32,
33.
0 930065 et al
S8
e)
That the Subdivision AgTeement between the owner and the
municipality contain a ,pr~vision whereby the owner will
guarantee the operation and funding of the monitoring
progTam, to the amount set out in paragraph (f) of this
condition, until two years after the completion of the
subdivision works and until such time as 50 percent of the
lots are developed.
That the Subdivision Agreement between the owner and the
municipality contain a provision whereby U1e owner will
provide a fIXed amount of $225.00 per lot, upon the sale of
each lot, to the Residents Association a:nd that such money
will-be held in a special fund to be available for monitoring
and for any remedial works wruch are required to protect the
wetland from impacts generated from the development. The
mechanism for the collection of depositing of these monies
will be detennined in the Subdivision Agre~ment. '
f)
g)
That the Subdivision Agreement contain wording satisfactory
to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the municipality
respecting the collection of baseline data if development.
immediatelÿ adjacent to the wetland does not proceed
immediately fòllowing the registration of the Plan of
Subdivision. .
h>. .
That the Subdivision Agreement require that the owner
prepare a' "homeowner's manual"; with input from the
Environmental Committee and that said manual be attached'
to the offer of purchase and sale'and registered on title of
each residential lot.
That prior to final approval the Ontario Municipal Board is to be
advised in wri"ting by the Township' of Oro-M~donte how Conditions
\~ to #30 inclusive have been sati$fied.
~ .
That prior to final approval the Ontario MuniåpaJ Board is to be
advised in writing by the Simcoe"County District Health Unit how
Conditions #9 to #13 inclusive have been satisfied.
That prior to final approval the Ontario Municipal Board is to be
advised in writing by the Dis~ct Manager, Hurania District,'
, Ministry of Natural ResoUrces, how Conditions #14 to #23, #27, and
#30 inclusive have been satisfied. .
, -
,.
-':
..
,I ..
. " ~CHEDULE' IV
I
I
I,~
I::' ,
I:',
I"
I.,'
..'.
I ~,
~.
~'"
, .
I :"
I, ¡
:,1
I,?
. ,,-:,
'0:,"
I "
I
I
I ",a
., 'I
I'
I
I'
I'
.'
....
34.
"""
35.
0 930065 et al
59
That prior to final approval the Ontario Municipal Bo~d is to be
~dvised in writing by the Simcoe County Board of Education and
the. Simcoe, County RoInan Catholic Separatê School Board how
Condition #24 has been satisfied.
That prior to final approval the ,Ontario, Municipal Board is to be
advised in"writing by the Ministry of Environment and Energy how
Conditions #25 and #26 has been satisfied.
, .
~
'"
..
-~
.
: ,
:~
....
l
I
I
I
I
I '
I ';
I
I
I
:;,.';
.
" 'i
,
SCHEDULE IV
0 930065 et al
Go
NOTES TO DRAFT APPROVAL
, 1.
2.
3.
It is the applicant,1s responsibility to fulfil the conditions of draft approval and to '
ensure that the required clearance letters are forwarded by the appropriate
agencies to the Ontario Municipal 'Board, quoting the Ministry file number 43t-
9,1031. .
We request you make,yourself aware of:
a)
section 143 (1) of the Land Titles Act, which requires all new plans be
registered in a land titles system; and,
, sectio,n 143 (2) - allows certain ex~eptions,
.
b)
Ontario Hydro advises tbat
The costs of any 'relocations or revisions to Ontario Hydro' facilities which
are neceSsary to accommodate this subdivision will be borne by the
developer. '
(ü) 'The easement rights of Ontario Hydro are to be protected and maintained.
(0
(Ui)
The developer should contact the local Ontario Hydro Area office to verify
if any low voltage distribution lines may be affected by this development.
4.
In reference to Condition #9 the, owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement
to maintain all erosion and siltation control q.evices in good repair durirtg the,
. construction period. '
Thf;! ,subdivision agreement between the owner arid the municipality shall be
registered against the lands to which it applies onœ the,plan of subdivisiò~has
been registered.
5.
6.
When the zoning by-law required in Condition #5 is being prepar~d, reference' to
this subdivisi,on application T-file number should be included in the explanatory
note. !his ~ expedite the Plans Administration Branch's and otheJ' agencies
consideration of. the by-law.
The site dev~lopment plans 'referred to in,condition #12 will be in conformity With
conditions #9' ànd #10 above and will contain the. foUoyving infonnation and! or
reqw.red, services: "
7.
. .
a) , The locati~n of the proposed house anq any other stru~es"on the lot.
b)
The'location, size and elevation of the,su1rsurfaœ sewage system with the.
, engineèrin~ designcrlteria and design st.aÌt.dards' pertaining theretO.
Co
..
'..
...
--
. '-Scå:&DULE IV
0 93006'5 et al
61
I
I
I '.
r
I'
I
I'~
I
I~
I '
I ~
1
:
I "
;'.
"
I :
I .
I '
I r: ,1
I
I
I
I ,.
. :
. .
d)
. The existing and proposed grades of the disturbed areas on the lot after
building, drainage and sewage works have been complet~d.' . , .
The engineer may' be required to ~eck the elevations of the. building
footings prior to further construction to ensure confonnity with the .
approved plans noted. above. '.
c)
e)
The engineer may be required prior to the issuance of a Use Permit to
certify to the Simcoe Coùnty District Health Unit in wri1:i:ng that the
.installed works. have been carried out .in accordance w.ith the approved
planS. .:
8.
Clearances are required from the foUowi.Ì\g agencies:
Township of Om
Oro Station
Box 100
Ora, ON LOL 2EO
W. D. Mansell
D.istrict Manager
Huronia District Ministry of Natural Resources
Midhurst, ON LOL 1XO
W.S.Straug1w\
Director, Pub~c Health Inspection Services
Simcoe County -D.istrict Health Unit
County Admhüstration Centre
, Midhurst, ON LOL 1XO
, .
Mr. Bohdan Wynnycky .
Ministry of the. EnvirQnment
,7 Overlea Blvd.
4th Floor
Toronto, ON M4H lAB
, l ..
Ms. ~ary Hay
Superintendent of A~trative Services
The SiIncoe County Boar~ of Education .
Midhurst, ON LQL 1XO
. .
. ,
If the agency condition concerns. the subdivision. agreement; a copy of the .
agreement should be sent to them. This will expedite clearance of th~ firial pJan. '
A copy is not requJred by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs~
Co
..
,
.' ..
--
.. I .
,
I. . ~~~HE~~LE IV
t :
t
I .
I ' .
f
I
11 . ;~. '
t .'t
I, ,¡
. .
. .\
4
r .,:'
I .
I
I
I "':1
!
I
I
I.
I ' . ~
. ..
". ~
0 930065 et al
bL
Repstratio~
9.
..
.
The final plan approved by the Minister must be registered within 30 days or the
Minister may withdraw his approval under Subsection 51 (21) of ~e Planrdng
~ct. .
.-
\
i
"4
6'1
. .
f .
I
I
t
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPEND IX 3
TOWNSHIP OF
ORO-MEDONTE
ZONING BY-LAW
,,¡
C,c..¡..
. .
~
~.
";J
. .
TOWNSH.lp.OF' '.'
ORa ~ MEDONTE .
. .
ZONING BY -LAW
I
\
'.
. \
. "
, .
., .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TABLEBt
STANDARDS FOR PERMITl'ED USES
IN 1111; RI, R2, RURI, IUJIU, SR AND 'RL5 ZONES
ZONE USE MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM . MINIMUM. MINIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUM
LOT AREA LOT REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED FIRST REIGHT .
FRONTAGE FRONT EXTBRlOR INTERIOR SIDE REAR YARD STOREY
YARD SIDE YARD YARD . FLOOR AREA
Rl SINGLE ' 0.2 30m 1.510 ' 4'sm 2.5m 1.5m 90 sq. In. 1l.Om
DETACHED HBCT ~
DWELLING
Rl SINGLE 0.18 25m per unit '1.5m 4,Sm 2'sm and O.om 1'sm 90 sq. In. lLOm
DETACHED BEef ARES
DWELLING PER UNIT
R2 TOWNHOUSE N/A ' 6.Om per unit 6.Om 4'sm O.om per interior 1.5m' NIA II.Om
BUlWING unit and l.2m for
an end unit
R2 AP AR TMENT N/A 20m 6.Om 4'sm 3.Om 1,Sm N/A I 200m
BUILDING
R2 MUL TIPLB NIA 20m 6.Om 4,Sm 3.Om 1'sm N/A l2.Om
UNIT
BUILDING
RURI SINGLE, 0.4 45m 15m 15m 8.Om 1,Sm (2) 1 LOrn
DETACHED HBCT ARES
DWELLING
RUR2 SINGLE 004 45m. 8.Om 1'sm 4.5m 80Om(l) 90 sq. In. lLOrn
DETACHED HBCT ARES
DWELLING'
SR SINGLE 002 30m 1'sm 1'sm 3.Om 1.5m(l) 90 sq. In. 1l0Om
DETACHED HBCT ARES
DWELLING
RLS SINGLE 0.2 30m 105m 105m 3.Om Um (I)' 90 sq. In. 1l.Orn
. DETACHED ,REef ARÊS
DWBILlNG
(I) No""""""""- .- - 20 -- - "" ........ ....- ..... of"'" - '" .- - IS -- - "" ........ ....- -* of- 1.01<0 (Sco
Section 5.28) . .' .
(2) The minimum gro&f floor area, requited for a dwelling unit is 140 square metres.
::
Cì'
.....J\
- - - - _ ._ -
.a......; ~ III..- ~-_._: ~ i IlL-) ~-_..!
LJ"~'~"~~.d._J~LJL~L~ L~
ENVIR. ONMENT ÅL OPEN PRIVATE INSTITUTIONAL FUTURE
PROTECI10N SPACE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT
USE .
A Agricultural uses ,. (I) (2)
a Agricultural uses ,. (1)(2)
intensive
C. ,Bed and breakfast ,.
establishments
D Cemeteries' .
E Communitv centres -'r~,-- .
F Conservation uses .(2) . . .
G Cross country ski '. .
facilities
H Downhill ski facilities . .
I Forestry uses . .
J' Golf courses . .
K Hòtels ..
L .Libraries '.
M Mountain bike .
facilities
N Musemns .
0 Private paries .
P Public paries .(2) . .
0 Places ofworshio . .(3\.
R Private clubs .
S Schools. DUblie .'
SrECIAL PROVISIONS
I. Only 1I8e8 that ~ 011 the effective date of Ibis By-law lie permitted.
2. No brlildI,,1P or 8IrUCIIlrfJ8. except those required for ftood Œ eRIIÎOII c:oøtroI lie permittc
3. OlIo ~ dwcIIIIIg unit is pcrmittI:d on aloe
..
,'"
G"
- 0""'>
-
I ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I :\1:
. ...,
'.0;
..,.
I
.'
'4
G,
STANDARD EP OS PR I
Minimum lot N/A. 0.18 hectares 0.18 hectares 0.18 hectares
area
Minimum lot N/A 30m 3Omm 30m
frontalle
Minimum 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m
required front
yard
Minimum 1.5m 1.5m 1.5.m 4.5m
required exterior
side yard
Minimum 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 4.5m
required interior
yard
. Minimum .1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m
required rear
yard
Maximum height 1.5m 1l.Om 11.0 m 11.0 m
SEèIAL PROVISIONS
1. All buildings and structures shall be set back a miÌlimum of 20.0 metres from the average high water
mark of Lake Simcoe and 15 metr~ from the average high water mark of Bass Lake. (see Secûon 5.28)
,
\
\ .
SECTION 5.0
GENERAL PROVISIONS
.-
&&
, .
SPECIAL ZONING REGULATIONS -
l
I
I
I
I -
I-
I
,
,
J
J
, j
I.
1
111
lIt
Iii
t.
i.
I ~
II!
111"',
7.7~'
7.74
7.75
I:
II
7.76
I!
I~
I.
I.
II
7.77
..~.
hC1
*73 - PART OF LOT 3, CONCESSION 7 (FORMER ORO)
Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law» a recreation centre is permitted on the .
lands denoted by the symbol *73 on the schedules to this By-law. For the purposes of this
Section, such a recreation centre may include swimming pools» tennis courts, change
facilities, meeting rooms, 1ounges, or similar recreation facilities being non commercial in
nature, and .storage areas for skis and other recreational equipment and a maintenance shop
and an storage area for equipment used to maintain the lands and facilities in the Open Space
(OS) and Environmental Protection (EP) ZÒne$. In addition, the provisions of Section 5,28.
do not apply.
. *74 - PART OF LOT 3, CONCESSION 7 (FORMER ORO)
Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, buildings or structures, except for those
required for flood or erosion control,' are not perriùtted .on the lands denoted by the symbol
*74 on the schedulès to this By-law. .'
*75 - LOTS 2 AND 3, CONCESSIO~ 9 (FORMER ORO)
Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, the only permitted uses on the lands
denoted by the symbol *75 on the schedules to this By-law are single detached dwellings~
. subject to the following provisions: .
. a)
b)
Minimum lot area
Minimum lot area inR1 Zone
0.2 heétares(0.5 acres)
0,18 hectares (0.44 acres)
In addition to the above, if a R1 Zone boundary exists within the boundaries of a lot" all
required interior side yards are to be measured from the boundary between the R1 Zone on
the lot and another Zone, iÍ1stead of the respective interior.side.lot line. . ,
. In addition, the provisions of Section 5.28 do not apply.
,
'\
*76 - PART OF1LOTS 2 AND 3, CONCESSION .9 (FORMER ORO)
I
'-
Notwithstanding any other provision in tþis By-law, a recreation centre is'permitted on the
lands denoted by the symbol *76 on th~ schedules to this By-law. For the purposes of ~
Section, such a recreation centre may include swimming pools, tennis courts» change
facilities, m~eting rooms, lounges, or similar recreation. facilities being non commercial in
nature, and storage areas for skis and other recreational equipment and a maintenance shop
and an storage area for equipment used to maintain the lands and facilities in the Open Space
(OS) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones. In ad~tion, the provisions of Section 5.28
do not apply.
*77 - PART OF LOTS 2 AND 3, CONCESSION. 9 (FORMER ORO)
7.78
7.79
7.80
7;81
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.81
7.83
,,~
-'0
Notwithstanding .any other provision in this By-l.aw, buildings or structures, except for those
required for flood or erosion control, .are not permitted on the lands denoted by the symbol
*77 on the schedules to this By-law. .
*78 - PART OF LOTS 2 AND 3 CONCESSION 9 (FORMER ORO)
Notwithstanding .any other provision in this By-l.aw, buildings or structures, except for those
required for flood or erosion control, are not pennitted on the l.ands denoted by the symbol
*78 on the schedÙ1es to this By-l.aw. The .absolute depth of the lands subject to this Section
shall be 16.0 metres (52.5 feet) measured perpendicularly from the EP*76 Zone and
measured par.allel thereto.
*79 - PART OF LOTS 2 AND 3,CONCESSION 9 (FORMER ORO)
Notwithstanding .any other provision in this By-Iåw, builçiings or structures, except for those
required for flood or erosion control, are not pennitted on the lands denoted by the symbol
*79 on the schedules to this By-law. The .absolute depth of the lands subject to this Section
shall be 20,0 metreS (65.6 feet) measured perpendicul.arly from the 'EP*76 Zone and
measured parallel thereto.
*80 - PART OF .LOT 6, CONCESSION 1 (FORMER ORO)
Notwithstanding .any other provision in this By-law, a place of worship and an accessory ,
apartment dwelling unit are petmitted on the lands denoted by the symbol *80 on the
sched~es to this By-law. .
*81 - PART OF LOTS 1 AND 2, RANGE 1 (FORMER ORO)
Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, the following provisioIl$ apply to the
lands denoted by the symbol *81 on the schedules to this By-law: .
a)
b)
c)
Minimum lot area
Minimum lot frontage.
Minimum dwelling unit size .
1.96 ~ectares (4.8 acres)
, 63.0 metres (206.7 feet)
90 square metres
(968.7 square feet)
\
\ .
*82 - PLAN M-295; LOTS 1- 24, RANGE 2 (FORMER ORO)
Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, the following provisions apply to the
lands denoted by the s~ol *82 on the schedules to this By-law:
0.37 hectares (0.91 acres)
9.0 metres (29.5 feet)
90' square metres
(968.7 square feet)
*83 - PART OF LOT 28, CONCESSION 3 (FORMER ORO) .
a)
b)
c)
Minimum lot area
Minimum required front yard
Minimumfirst storey floor area
Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, the miniinum lot frontage is 7.5 metres
(24,6 feet) on the lands denoted by the symbol *83 on the s~hedu1es to this By-law. '
Page 1 of 3
From:
Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee
Nick McDonald
To:
Date: February 3, 2003
Subject: Buffalo Springs
~ob Number: 2328
II
MERIDIAN
PLANNING CONSULTANTS INC.
(JJ l11.RlillAH
BACKGROUND
As Planning Advisory Committee is aware, the preliminary Oro Moraine Land Use Strategy
suggests that certain development approvals be reviewed in the context of the land use strategy
that may be adopted for the Oro Moraine. One such development approval is Buffalo Springs,
which was draft approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 1994. Along with this draft approval
was approval in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the development of 290 lots on partial
services.
When the Official Plan was prepared in 1996/1997, Council was extremely aware that the
approval of Buffalo Springs was not consistent with the Vision, Goals and Objectives of the
Official Plan in many respects. On this basis, a policy was included within the Official Plan
(Section J5) that indicated very clearly that approvals such as Buffalo Springs would be seriously
considered at the time of the next Official Plan review, As Council is aware, that Official Plan
Review is now underway. Section J5 is reproduced below:
A considerable number of vacant lots existed in Draft Approved Plans of
Subdivision in the rural area on the date this Plan was adopted by Council.
Some of these subdivisions are located in areas that have not been identified in
this Plan as being appropriate for development since such development may
have a impact on the rural character of the area and on the cost effectiveness of
providing municipal services, In addition, the development of a number of these
subdivisions may have a cumulative negative impact on the natural heritage
system that this Plan is trying to protect.
In this regard, it is the intent of Council to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing, or the appropriate approval authority by resolution to withdraw draft
approval after an appropriate period of time has elapsed if a subdivision is not
Page 1
113 Collier Street, Barrie, Ontario L4M 1H2
Phone: (705) 737-4512 Fax: (705) 737-5078
-1'2-
proceeding to the development stage in an expeditious manner.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
The reconsideration of a development approval should never be taken lightly. There has to be, in
my opinion, a compelling public interest to rescind an approval. Below are a number of reasons
that could be considered in this matter.
1.
The landowner has not proceeded with the clearing of any conditions, A number of
very detailed draft conditions were prepared by the Ontario Municipal Board in 1994,
One of these conditions requires the initiation of a monitoring program on the property,
which is intended to last for two years, Such a monitoring program has not been initiated,
In addition, none of the other conditions have been, to the best of our knowledge,
considered by the landowner and otherwise dealt with in a manner suitable to the
approval authority or any agency, including the Township, On this basis, we believe that
one reason for reviewing the application again is the lack of progress on any of the
conditions that were issued in 1994.
As Council may be aware, the Planning Act currently provides approval authorities with
the ability to issue draft plan approval for three-year period only. The intent behind this
provision is to provide the approval authority with a mechanism to review the conditions
in detail and determine whether they should be modified, updated, deleted or improved.
Unfortunately, this provision in the Planning Act did not exist when Buffalo Springs was
approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. This means that there is no effective
mechanism at the present time to review the conditions in any detail. Given our ever-
increasing knowledge about the Oro Moraine and the features and functions of the Oro
Moraine, it is quite conceivable that additional conditions could be added to the existing
draft conditions to ensure the development has a minimal impact on the environment.
2.
If the development were proposed today, given the current land use policy climate,
it may not be approved. The application to develop the Buffalo Springs property was
submitted in 1988, The application predated the Wetland Policy Statement, which was
issued in 1990. On this basis, the Wetland Policy Statement could not be.relied upon to
any serious extent at the hearing in 1994, It has been suggested that if the development
were proposed today, it could be shown that the development would have a negative
impact on the Provincially Significant Wetland located on the property. While we do not
have any scientific evidence in this regard, it is my opinion that it is conceivable that the
current Provincial policies do not provide or would otherwise permit this type of
development today.
Development on partial services, as is proposed at Buffalo Springs, is no longer
considered an appropriate servicing option by the Province and the County, At the
time the application to develop Buffalo Springs was made, the Province did not have a
clear policy on what types of servicing systems were considered appropriate. In 1992,
the Ministry of the Environment released a guideline on sewer and water services and
indicated in the guideline that partial services were discouraged. However, this guideline
was issued after the application was made and was only a guideline. The
Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements, which was adopted by the Province in 1994,
Page 2
3.
113 Collier Street, Barrie, Ontario L4M 1H2
Phone: (705) 737-4512 Fax: (705) 737-5078
r?:,
clearly articulated the desire of the Province to discourage the development of partial
servicing systems, This policy was again articulated in the 1996 Provincial Policy
Statement that replaced the Comprehensive Policy Statements.
The rationale behind the Provincial policy is that the development of partial services
potentially allows for the super-charging of septic systems and the resulting pollution to
the environment. . On this. basis, most of the Official Plans in the Province, including the
County of Simcoe Official Plan and the Oro-Medonte Official Plan discourage the
development of partial services.
4,
The development of the Craighurst Community on full services may be more
appropriate than the development of a partially serviced community in an area
which is currently undeveloped. The Provincial Policy Statement, the County of
Simcoe Official Plan and the Oro-Medonte Official Plan all direct development to existing
settlement areas on full municipal services wherever possible. On this basis, a
Secondary Plan process for Craighurst was initiated, On the basis of the work completed
to date, it appears as if it is both financially and environmentally feasible to develop full
services within the Craighurst community. Given this apparent feasibility, it is my opinion
that it would be much more appropriate to encourage the development of a fully serviced
community as opposed to the development of a partially serviced community in an
undeveloped area on the Oro Moraine.
On the basis of the above, I appeared before Council in December 2002 to recommend that the
process of initiating the un-designation and un-zoning the Buffalo Springs property begin.
Council agreed to support my recommendation.
As a result of the above, the first step in the process is to hold a public meeting under Sections 17
and 34 of the Planning Act. It is recommended that PAC support this recommendation.
Once the public meeting has been held, a report summarizing and analyzing all comments would
be prepared, along with a recommendation, for PAC's consideration.
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that PAC:
.
Receive this report;
.
Recommend to Council that a public meeting under Sections 17 and 34 of the Planning
Act be held.
Yours truly,
Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP
Partner
NM~IW
Page 3
113 Collier Street, Barrie, Ontario L4M 1H2
Phone: (705) 737-4512 Fax: (705) 737-5078
ìLf
~ UTH . ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING, INC.
Environmental Assessments & Approvals
February 20, 2004
AEC 04-046
Meridian Planning Consultants Inc.
113 Collier Street, Ontario
L4M IH2
Attention:
Mr. Nick McDonald
Re:
Peer Review of the Environmental
Stantec Consulting Ltd, for the
Limited Subdivision, East and,
Concession IX, Township of Oro M
Dear Mr. McDonald:
The ent peer review was therefore to evaluate and assess the
protoc . s of the updated EIS investigation (Stantec, January, 2004) in light
of stand ctice and recommendations associated with the Natural Heritage
Studyunde n for the Oro Moraine (Azimuth, 2002). Impacts of the proposed
developmen on environmentally sensitive areas identified during the natural heritage
planning process will be discussed as part of the peer review for this property,
In our opinion, the following points require clarification and/or further evaluation to fully
assess impacts of planned future development:
'111 Saundei's,Roadt Unit 2. BaiTle. OntariO L4M, 6E7
telephone: (705) 721.:s451;fax: (705) 721..a92ßinfc)@àzimtìthenvirorimental.cOOt
,5
Oil
report (2004), the western portion of
being in the West Coulson Swamp PSW.
3 are located in the East Coulson Swamp
lcant wetland that scored 707 points following
, 1994. The wetland boundaries and vegetation
appe e MNR are not shown on Figures prepared for the
rt sta that wetland boundaries on the maps are for illustrative
we assume this indicates that the boundaries as shown may not
. It is therefore difficult to assess the potential impacts of
. n the 120m buffer to the wetland boundary, as currently
req vincial planning policy. We recommend that both the wetland
boun (likely available digitally from the MNR) and the 120m buffer areas
be cl yindicated on mapping in the environmental report so that the extent of
required vegetative buffers can be adequately evaluated in relation to vegetation
communities, watercourses, etc.;
. The buffers described in the 1994 report are 16 or 20m in width and are part of
the private lots (for the most part). Yet, the 1994 report makes the
2
-¡b
§
recommendation regarding the buffers on the basis that they remain as natural
vegetation. Stantec consider the issue of public versus private ownership and
conclude that private ownership remains appropriate. This becomes an onerous
point for the municipality to enforce, and there are benefits if the buffers are
publicly owned. The Township may wish to consider the ownership issue from
an operational perspective;
. The 1994 report refers to the 1986 MNR evaluation for the wetland, which was
updated in May 1994. The EIS update should address any differen es between
the two mappings;
. Both the original EIS report (1994) and the updated enviro
provide few details on the nature of the intermittent waterc
Blocks J and K (January 2004 conceptual development
would likely have been the approval agency for fisheri peets
The DFO is now the primary agency involved in .. and acq
fisheries approvals. Although the Federal Fish s ct was passed in
process of obtaining approvals is now more' ously orced and base data
including temperature, flow and fisheries ed to obtain rmits
for crossings and structures with the potential ect and indirect fish
habitat. Based on policies of the DFO and the Fe sheries Act (1985),
intermittent watercourses can be considered indirect bitat for two reasons:
they are hydrologically connect oulson Creek th northerly through
the western portion of the subjec d, they m ovide ephemeral fish
habitat for cold water species d fthe year. Both the
intermittent first order watercourse tary of Coulson Creek are
ground water-fed systems, The int nt are ay provide thermal refugia for
cold water spe . the summe onths and nursery and spawning habitat at
other times. the intermi atercourses needs to be better
document hing data re d for all watercourses on the property
in order D (Hannful Alteration, Disruption
of Destruction regulations of the Federal Fisheries Act.
W e cro thin the wetland that traverse blocks K and J may
rmi provals for culvert, road and/or bridge structures
a co of site plan approval. Fisheries timing windows
e ob ed. These regulations would likely apply even in the
Ish habitat because of hydrological connections to downstream
issues are not addressed within either report and require
igation at appropriate times of the year;
. A s pact of the proposed development is the fragmentation and
isolat the wetland units within the landscape, as well as impacts to the
fea and functions of transitional and upland vegetation that currently provide
a buffer to forest interior habitat within the forest complex as a whole. Even low
diversity conifer plantations fulfill an ecological function in that they provide
food and shelter resources for conifer specialists including pine warbler. We note
from the appended bird species lists (1994 report) that pileated woodpecker and
3
/1
ø
ovenbird were included in the inventory of observed avian species. These are
forest interior species with a requirement, in the case of the pileated woodpecker,
for a large territory forbreeding and nesting. The proposed development will
result in a complete loss of forest interior habitat on the property; even if
considering a 100m offset. Currently, the forest block is comprised of a
combination of forested swamp, conifer plantation and transitional sugar
maplelbeech/cherry forest with a good diversity of forest canopy species and
some valuable old field edge habitat. Based on principles of landscape ecology,
there is a cumulative benefit of retaining this diversity of species orest
community types. No discussion of loss of forest interior was' de in the
1994 or the updated report;
. The 1994 and the updated report do not include informa .
database, COSEWIC or the MNR on the presence/abse
within the study area. The documentation provid
Coulson Swamp Complex includes informatio
that have been reported from the swamp co
mention of searches for rare species info
. The MNR wetland documentation discusses t
within the study area. Seeps and springs are also
the east and the west. This is not surprising since ill
the edge of the landform of the . e and toes of slo
discharge areas. We recommen e areas be
proposed development on ground
fully assessed;
. The report mentions that there is a c
characterized b areas and
species incl der and sn
(E1S rep e updated re
of upl
these herpetil
. W gree tem of recreational trails would enhance features of the
the of environmental features within the PSW, we
the pu excluded from these lands. The degree of
b (noise, lighting, pets,etc.) is already high because of
ture of the development and recreational use of the natural areas
itional impacts and limit use of the retained habitat by more
of wildlife.
. As Stantec and ESP, the PPS identifies four requirements that must be
met fì development oflands adjacent to a PSW (i.e. within the 120m buffer).
These clude no loss of wetland function and no loss of contiguous wetland area.
The proposed road crossings will result in a direct loss of approximately 1.2ha
and will fragment the wetland by cutting it in three locations. This direct loss is
termed insignificant in the 1994 report, which is supported by Stantec. However,
we disagree with Stantec, and fmd that it is not consistent with the PPS and the
y
0 seeps and springs
on adjacent properties to
erty encompasses both
e ground water
ed and impacts of the
eam baseflow be more
ex and ulating microtopography
ening upland ridges. Since herpetile
ies were observed on the property
should discuss the implications of loss
vailability of summer foraging habitat for
4
-,&
)(
Official Plan. This considers the direct loss to the PSW, but does not quantify the
indirect negative impacts that would cover a broader area of the wetland;
. The proposed development will also likely impact both north-south and east-west
wildlife passage corridors, especially since the connector roads that link the
development blocks traverse east - west forested corridors of sufficient width to
provide wildlife passage. The fragmented nature of the development, combined
with additional fragmentation by the road system, will also disrupt north south
passage between the Copeland Forest Complex to the northwest an the large core
block in the center of the moraine;
. The nitrate impact assessment identifies a nitrate concentratio
ground water of 4 to 5 mglL. The calculations were comp
property for the infiltration area. It would be appropri
the wetland area and further areas of ground water disc
does not occur in these areas. The RUP approach
calculations be completed for each area of the
calculations reflect the specific upstream or
. The revised plan, with the drop in lots to
reduction in the potable water demand. As pr
result in a reduced potential for off-site hydrogeo
neighbouring wells. Jagger Hims also indicates that
interference within the subdivis . ow due to the hi
the deep aquifer, with which we ownship
the water supply wells are drilled .
completed in the intermediate or s
connected to the surface regime, an
septic systems.
. The impacts
effluent'
relevan
immediate lot
incl aw on ground water within the Coldwater River
. wat eives the largest demand on the Oro Moraine. The
e proc f undertaking or directing a ground water model of
s in watershed, as was originally recommended in our 2001
ship may wish to consider a request to participate in that study
lllogs and hydrogeological information that would add to the
e.
e of 126,900L/day of sewage
ould be addressed. This is.particularly
et 'F', where the wetland boundary is the
.
In general, we lse that the proposed development is located within an area that would
have been de, ed as a core and linkage area if the existing development areas were not
removed from the designation during the OP A 16 process. The road crossings do lie
within a designated core area, Forest interior habitat within the wetland area and the
adjacent transitional moist forest and upland forest areas will likely be lost or impaired as
a result of the development as shown on the conceptual development plan (January
5
,O¡
'#
2004). Existing buffers may not be adequate to protect hydrological and ecological
function of the East Coulson PSW. In addition, the proposed development will likely
require approvals from the DFO as well as additional assessment of whether any aspect
of the proposed development constitutes a HADD. We recognize that this undertaking
represents a unique situation because of the transitional approvals granted in 1995 and
OP A 16. Under OP A 16, the form of this development would be substantially different,
at least preserving the wetland entirely and with substantially increased buffers, and
likely protecting the upland forest as well. The current proposal represents a significant
improvement compared to the 1994 plan, but it will have impact on the d
features; the size and interior attributes of the existing landscape poly- 11 e
decreased in function (through fragmentation and isolation ofna ) as a result of
the development. We do not concur with Stantec' s conclusion osed
development complies with OP A 16. A more detailed mitigat
compensation strategy should also be presented to addres
the project.
Yours truly,
AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUL TINO, INC.
Dr. Martha Scott
Senior Ecologist
6
~o
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD 2004-04 Planning Advisory Committee Nick McDonald, RPP
Meridian Planning Con.
Subject: Department:
Council
Proposed Zoning By-law Planning
C. of W. Amendment for Horseshoe
Resort Corporation Part of Lot
1, Concession 4 (Medonte)
Date:
Motion # February 29, 2004
A.M. File No.
Date: D07 013029
I BACKGROUND:
.
The purpose of this report is to assess an application for a zoning by-law amendment and an application for Plan of
Condominium approval submitted by Horseshoe Resort Corporation (HRC), The applications, if approved, would permit
the development of 24 townhouse units within the Horseshoe Valley Village designation. A public meeting under Sections
34 and 51 of the Planning Act was held on February 16, 2004.
The 24 unit townhouse condominium units are proposed at the base of the Heights private ski facility on the north side of
Horseshoe Valley Road. The site is located at the base of the beginner ski run in a location where a quonset hut storing
firewood is currently located, Much of the land to be developed is currently cleared. It is proposed to develop six groups of
buildings, with each building having four units, Each dwelling unit will have two parking spaces and 12 additional visitor
parking spaces are proposed,
The site will be accessed by a private driveway, which will be upgraded for the purposes of access to this site. A portion of
the driveway will cross the unopened road allowance between Concession 3 and 4 of former Medonte. This section of the
road allowance will need to be closed and conveyed to HRC in order to provide the required private access to the
proposed townhouses. The remainder of the unopened road allowance will also be conveyed to HRC for future
development purposes. In exchange, HRC will dedicate certain lands to the Township for the purposes of providing a
future parking area that can be used by residents to access the Copeland Forest. In addition, an easement over HAC
lands in favour of the Township will also be registered to provide public access over HRC lands to the proposed parking
~I
area. It is anticipated that easements will also be required in favour of the Township for emergency access purposes and
to the individual condominium owners, Emergency access to the site is also proposed via a road that extends to the
existing sewage treatment facility. Each of the townhouse units will be serviced by full sewage treatment and full
communal water services,
As noted at the public meeting, the Plan of Condominium cannot be registered until the buildings on the site have been
constructed, As a result, the primary method of controlling development on the site will be through a Site Plan Agreement
pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act. An application for Site Plan Approval has been submitted and a further report
on the Site Plan Approval will be prepared at some future date by the Director of Environmental and Engineering Services.
COMMENTS RECEIVED:
Clerk - Where does the condo common land begin
Engineering & Environmental Services - No Concerns with proposed development, Township Engineer raised
comments in regards to the Site Plan application which if not addressed through the site plan would require direction in the
Zoning By-law Amendment ie. main access road
Roads - concern with the private road upgrade and future maintenance has been addressed, the SWM has also been
addressed and I assume that Horseshoe will also maintain all swales including the pond
Building - are street designs met? Ie. Right of way access, are there subsequent phases to add on, parking met?
Simcoe County District School Board - Due to enrollment concerns in this area and the pace of residential
development the Board requests the following conditions of Draft Plan Approval:
"That the owner include in all offers of purchase and sale a clause advising prospective purchasers that pupils from this
development attending educational facilities operated by the Simcoe County District School Board may be transported tol
accommodated in temporary facilities our of the neighbourhood school's area."
Final wording of the requested draft plan conditions shall be. approved by the Simcoe County District School Board.
Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board - Any pupils generated by this development are within the catchment
area for Sister Catherine Donnelly Catholic Elementary School and St. Joseph's High School, located in the City of Barrie.
Due to enrollment concerns in this area and the pace of residential development the Board requests the following
conditions of Draft Plan Approval:
"That the owner include in all offers of purchase and sale a clause advising prospective purchasers that pupils from this
development attending educational facilities operated by the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board may be
transported tol accommodated in temporary facilities our of the neighbourhood school's area."
Final wording of the requested draft plan conditions shall be approved by the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School
Board.
County of Simcoe - Staff has no objection to the approval of the application provided the access location on the key map
is noted as incorrect and amended. This development triggers the requirement for improvements as outlines in condition
5 of the revised agreement. Condition 5 states "The parties agree that the underground works required for the traffic
signals as set out in s.3 (b) (iii) shall be installed at the intersection of the Road and Horseshoe Valley Resort entrance as
a condition of the approval of any major commercial or residential development in zones 1 and 4 as shown on Schedule A
and further, that the traffic signals shall be installed after the installation of the underground works, when warranted, based
on Provincial criteria." County staff is currently working to finalize the engineering drawings for the required improvements.
Prior to final approval the County will require finalized engineering drawings for the road improvements and the signing of a
2
ëL
road improvement agreement. Upon completion of the above, the County will be prepared to provide written clearane;e to
the Township.
NVCA -
Azimuth Environmental - The proposed facility is located outside of the area identified as the main recharge zone for the
Oro Moraine. With the detailed design, it would be appropriate to ensure that infiltration is supplemented by approximately
1200 cubic m/year. We agree with URS and Terraprobe that the hydrogeological impacts for this proposed development
are minimal and fall within those considered in the COP. As we noted in the COP, a detailed hydrogeological evaluation of
the cumulative impacts is warranted before the total water consumption in the Coldwater River watershed reaches
1,077,000 cubic m/year. This value includes existing uses plus and allocation of 275,000 cubic m/year.
NAL YSIS:
Conformitv with Comprehensive Development Plan
The site is located within the Horseshoe Valley Village designation. The policies of the Official Plan require that a
Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) be prepared prior to the consideration of any site-specific re-zonings. Such a
COP has been prepared and accepted by Council in principle on August 21, 2003. The location of the proposed
townhouses was identified on the COP, The August 21,2003 resolution by Council stated the following:
The development concept for the Horseshoe Valley Village Area as shown on the "Land Use -
Resort Plan" prepared by the IBI Group and dated February 2003 and contained within the
"Comprehensive Development Plan - Planning Analysis" prepared by PK Menzies Planning and
Development Inc in February 2003 be approved in principle.
"1.
2.
That the approval mentioned above be conditional upon:
i)
the owner incorporating the principles contained within Sections 2,3. 1 and 3,2,1. 1 of the
"Comprehensive Development Plan - Design Report" prepared by the IBI Group dated
February 2003 in the design of any development which is the subject of a Zoning By-law
Amendment; .
ii)
the integration of all land uses within the Village and between the Village and uses on the
plateau in accordance with Section 3.3 of the "Comprehensive Development Plan -
Design Report" prepared by the IBI Group dated February 2003;
iii)
the preparation of a more detailed phasing/servicing plan to support any development that
requires an expansion to the sewage treatment plant and/or the development of a new
sewage treatment plant;
iv)
the preparation of a detailed hydrogeological investigation of the proposed development
to ensure that it is sustainable and will not have an impact on natural heritage features
and the availability of water to other users within the Coldwater River watershed;
v)
the owner participating financially in the development of a 3D model of the Coldwater
River watershed that would be used to gauge impacts from water use on the watershed."
Issues relating to Sections (i) and (ii) of the Council Resolution will be reviewed in the context of the Site Plan Agreement
for the proposed townhouse development. With respect to Section (iii) of the Council Resolution, a more detailed phasing
and servicing. plan is not required at this time since the proposed development can be serviced by the existing sewage and
water systems, With respect to Section (iv) of the Council Resolution, Azimuth Environmental has indicated that the
proposal will be sustainable and will not have an impact on natural heritage features and the availability of water,
3
'83
However, it is noted by Azimuth that further stages of development in the Horseshoe. Valley Village designation will have to
be supported by more detailed studies. Lastly, with respect to Section (v) of the Council Resolution, it is recommended that
the Site Plan Agreement contain provisions regarding a financial contribution to the Township for the preparation of a 3D
model of the Coldwater River watershed, As a result, all of the conditions of the Council Resolution can be met.
ZoninQ By-law Amendment
The site is currently zoned Future Development Exception 67. It is proposed to zone the lands Residential Two with an
Exception. The exception will deal with a number of issues that are specific to the site and will deal with issues relating to
lot frontage and setbacks from lot lines. The zoning provisions need to be tailor-made to the site since the lands are being
developed as a Plan of Condominium and will not have frontage on a public road. A recommended Zoning By-law
Amendment is attached to this report as Appendix 1. It should be noted that it is recommended that the lands be zoned
with a Holding provision, with the Holding provision not being lifted until an appropriate Site Plan Agreement has been
entered into,
Plan of Condominium
Conditions of Draft Plan Approval for a Plan of Condominium have also been prepared and are also recommended for
approval. These conditions are attached to this report as Appendix 2. Given that the Plan of Condominium is only
registered after the development has been substantially completed. the primary means of controlling the development of
the site is through a Site Plan Agreement. As a result, many of the proposed conditions of Draft Plan Approval are minor
in nature, with the exception of the condition requiring a Site Plan Agreement. Conditions regarding the dedication of lands
for a parking area accessing Copeland Forest have also been included.
RECOMMENDATION (S):
3.
THAT this report be received and adopted;
THAT the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Zoning By-law Amendment Application p.
157/03 be approved as set out in Appendix 1 to this report; and.
THAT Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that the subject lands be Draft Approved for a Plan of
fi~ium in accord :Ihe conditions set out in Appendix 2 10 this report.
Nick McDonald MCIP, RPP -
1,
2.
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
4
%Lf
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ORO-MEDONTE
BY-LAW NO. 2004-
Being a By-law to amend the zoning on certain lands located within Part Lot
1, Concession 3 in the former geographic Township of Medonte, now In the
Township of Ore-Medome.
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Madonte is empowered to pass
By-laws to regulate the use of land pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R,S,O. 1990,
c,P.13.
AND WHERÉAS the Committee of Adjustment granted Provisional Consent to create a lot for the
construction of 24 town homes as per application B-25/03 on July 17, 2003;
AND WHEREAS the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment was not appealed;
AND WHEREAS one of the conditions of Provisional Consent was that Council for the Township
of Oro-Medonte supports the Horseshoe Valley Comprehensive Development Plan by resolution;
AND WHEREAS such resolution was adopted on August 21, 2003;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed appropriate to re-zone the lands to permit the development of
residential uses, in accordance with Section E2 of the Official Plan;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Ore-Medonte enacts as
follows:
1.
Schedule 'A15', to Zoning By-law No. 97-95 as amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zone symbol applying to the lands located in Part lot 1, Concession 3 in the
former geographic Township of Medonte, now in the Township of Ore-Medonte, from the
Future Development Exception Sixty-seven (FD'67) Zone to the Residential Two
Exception One Hundred Fifty-Seven with Holding Provision (R2'157(H» Zone as shown
on Schedule 'A-1' attached hereto and forming part of this By-law.
2.
Section 7.0 to Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding
the following new section:
'7,157
Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, no more than 24 townhouse
dwelling units may be constructed on lands denoted by the Symbol *157 on
Schedule A15 to this By-law, In addition, the dwelling units are not required to be
located on a lot that abuts or fronts on a public street, provided the lot has access
to a public street by way of easement or right-of-way. Ir\ addition, the following
provisions apply. .
a)
b)
c)
d)
Minimum lot frontage
Minimum required building setback
Minimum required setback for deck
Minimum setback to a slope
NIA
1.5 metres (4,9 feet)
1.2 metres (3.9 feet)
7.5 metres (24,6 feet)'
3.
The Holding provision shall not be removed until a Site Plan Agreement that is
satisfactory to Council has been entered into.
This By-law shall come into effect upon the date of passage hereof, subject to the provisions of
the Planning Act, as amended,
READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME on the - day of
2004.
READ A THIRD TIME and finally passed this - day of _2004.
Mayor, J. Neil Craig
Clerk, Marilyn pennycook
.~S
Schedule lA-II 10 By-Law
This is Schedule lA-II to By-Law
passed the
day of
p
~
N
Mayor
J. Neil Craig
Clerk
Marilyn Pennycook
"(I)
I'7?'llanda to be rezoned the Futunt )þtolopnl8llt
[L¿ exception Sbdy_n (FD"l7) Z- to the RøIcl8nll8l TWo
exception One hundntd tIfty- willi Holding PnwI8Ion
(R2"157(H)) Z-
500. 0
.~~
..
1000m
J "
1:20,000
'"
Township of Oro-Medonte
~b
Applicant: Horseshoe Resort Corporation Date of Decision:
File No: OM-CD-2004-o1 Date of Notice:
Municipality: Township of Oro-Medonte Last Date of Appeal:
Subject Lands: Part Lot 1, Concession 3, former Medonte
Township of Oro-Medonte
The Township of Oro-Medonte's conditions to final plan approval for registration of this Plan of
Condominium are as follows:
No.
Conditions
1,
2.
That this approval applies to the draft plan prepared by Dino R.S, Astri, Ontario Land
Surveyor referred as Project No, L03122_CONDO dated 2003 in Lot 1, Concession 3,
former Medonte, Township of Oro-Medonte which shows a total of 24 townhouse dwelling
units, and a stormwater block.
That the owner include in all offers of purchase and sale a clause advising prospective
purchasers that pupils from this development attending educational facilities operated by
the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board may be transported to I accommodated
in temporary facilities out of the neighbourhood school's area.
3.
That the owner include in all offers of pùrchase and sale a clause advising prospective
purchasers that pupils from this development attending educational facilities operated by
the Simcoe County District School Board may be transported to I accommodated in
temporary facilities out of the neighbourhood school's area.
4.
That the draft plan approval of the development is for a period of three (3) years. The owner
shall apply for any extension at least sixty (60) days prior to the lapsing,
5,
That the owner agrees in writing to satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the
Township of Oro-Medonte concerning the provisions of roads, installation of services,
drainage, garbage collection, construction of the development, landscaping, parking
facilities, access for fire protection and maintenance of the complex through the entering into
of a Site Plan Agreement pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act.
6.
That confirmation is obtained that the 24 townhouse dwelling units can be serviced by
appropriate sewage and water services,
That the owner agrees in the Site Plan Agreement reference in Condition #4 to contribute
financially towards the preparation of a 3D model of the Coldwater River watershed.
7.
8.
That the owner contribute cash-in-lieu of parkland in accordance with the Planning Act.
9.
That the number of condominium corporations within the development is a maximum of one.
10.
That the lands be appropriately zoned by By-law 97-95 to permit 24 townhouse dwelling
units,
11.
12.
13,
~7
That such easements as may be required for access, utility or drainage purposes be granted
to the appropriate authority.
That a satisfactory Condominium Agreement be entered into.
That prior to final approval, the Approval Authority is to be advised in writing by the Simcoe
Muskoka Catholic District School Board how condition 2 has been satisfied.
15.
That prior to final approval, the Approval Authority is to be advised in writing by the Simcoe
County District School Board how condition 3 has been satisfied.
NOTES:
1.
It is the applicant's responsibility to fulfill the conditions of draft approval and to ensure that
the required clearance letters are forwarded by the appropriate agencies to the Approval
Authority, quoting the file number OM-CD-2004-01,
We suggest that you make yourself aware of section 144 of the Land Titles Act and
subsection 78(10) of the Reaistrv Act.
2.
Subsection 144(1) of the Land Titles Act requires that a plan of subdivision of land that is
located in a land titles division be registered under the Land Titles Act. Exceptions to this
provision are set out in subsection 144(2). .
Subsection 78(10) of the Reaistrv Act requires that a plan of subdivision of land that is
located only in a registry division cannot be registered under the Reaistrv Act unless that title
of the owner of the land has been certified under the Certification of Titles Act. Exceptions
to this provision are set out in clauses (b) and (c) of subsection 78(10),
3.
All measurements in subdivision final plans must be presented in metric units.
4,
The Township of Oro-Medonte has specific requirements for the submission of digital
drawings. Contact the Planning Department for additional information.
5.
The standard Offers of Purchase and Sale Agreement is to be shown to the Simcoe
Muskoka Catholic District School Board prior to that agency clearing their condition.
6.
Clearances are required from the following agencies:
The Township of Oro-Medonte
Box 100
Oro, Ontario
LOL 2XO
Simcoe Muskoka Catholic
District School Board
46 Alliance Blvd.
Barrie, Ontario
L4M 5K3
7,
Please be advised that the approval of this draft plan will lapse on?, 2007. This approval
~~
may be extended pursuant to subsection 51 (33) of the Planning Act, but no extension can
be granted once the approval has lapsed.
If final approval is not given to this plan within three years of the draft approval date, and no
extensions have been granted, draft approval will lapse under Section 51 (32) of the Planning
Act, R.S,O. 1990. If the owner wishes to request an extension to draft approval, a written
explanation, must be received by the Township of Oro-Medonte sixty (60) days prior to the
lapsing date,
Subject to the conditions set forth above, this Draft Plan is approved under
Section 51 of the Planning Act R.S.O, 1990, Chapter13, as amended.
This - day of
,2004
Senior Planner, Township of Oro-Medonte
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COUNCIL MEETING
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-M DONTE
Wednesday 3 March 2004
1091402 Ontario Limited
Proposed Bidwell Subdivision
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Proposed Bidwell Subdivision
Table of Contents
Tab
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
A
Conclusions of Technical Reports
B
Correspondence to and from the
Couchiching Conservancy
c
Photographs of Existing Subdivision
D
A
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CONCESSION 1
-
-
-
DRAFT PLAN
OF SUBDIVISION
Part of Lots 34, 35 and 36
Concession 1 (E.P.R.)
"-','"
Geographic Township of Oro
Township of Orn-Medonle
County of Simcoe
OWNER"S CERTIFICATE
'.-~M_-~--'~_.O'~-
~--~"..,~__rn,~~.
~~.~~~---~--,.-
,~---
SURVEYOR"S CERnFICATE
"-,.~-,-_._-~.-
~-~~-~O_'~-~--
~m'~~'-
KEY PiAN
.-..--
.='~
.Î',~~m'
,l
ADDITIONAL INPORMATION REQUIRED UNDER
SECTION51(l1)QFTHEPtANNINGACT .',,-
"~..~......,-, "'""""
'==
AREA SCHEDUlE
I~"" ,~~ .~.., -I
=: '~~2;' :: :
, ....
.....".,,-_._,---~..
.~~._m"~_'.._..~
,,~.-,,~_.._..-.~
"~-",,,-
,,"',""
~
OWG OA~.AI'R.""""
-L=--=-=,="'-
-""~-
~,~.~~
-~--~~.-~
B
II
11
IJ
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
I]
I]
I-I
I]
11
11
11
Environmental Impact Study
Proposed Estate Residential Subdivision
1091402 Ontario Limited - Part of
Lots 34, 35 & 36, Con. 1 EPR
Township of Oro~Medonte
prepared for:
1091402 Ontario Limited
prepared by:
Gartner Lee Limited
reference:
GLL 23.339
date:
May, 2003
distribution:
20 1091402 Ontario Limited
1 Gartner Lee Limited
artner Lee
1-1
~
1-1
1-1
I
Environmental Impact Study, Proposed Estate Residential Subdivision,
1091402 Ontario Limited - Part of Lots 34,35 & 36, Con. 1 EPR,
Township of Oro-Medonte
7.
Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1
Conclusions
Vegetation
-I
1-1
1-1
1-1
II
II
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
II
majority of the development will occur in plantation, These vegetation communities are
considered to be the least sensitive communities on the site and they have not been included as part of the
significant woodland designation as they are not representative of the native forest cover. The current site
concept will result in the impact to approximately 3 to 4 ha of significant woodland along the west side of
the site. This impact can be mitigated/reduced through site plan alteration and/or specific siting of the
building footprints for each of the lots. The total area of vegetation to be removed from the subject
property will be approximately 31.3 ha, or 21.7 % of the existing vegetation cover. An area of 71.2 ha of
valley land and significant woodland will be retained and protected as Open Space
No significant plant species have been identified on the subject property to date, In the event that
significant species are recorded during future field investigations, species-specific management plans will
be developed to ensure appropriate mitigation and/or protection.
Wildlife
A number of wildlife species, including some area sensitive birds, were observed during the initial site
visit. Undoubtedly, the subject property supports additional species of birds, mammals and other wildlife
given the type of habitat present and the large core forest area extending off-site to the south. The
significant woodland is likely to support a diverse breeding bird community comprised of some forest
interior and area sensitive species. Although a breeding amphibian survey was not conducted, the limited
representation of wetland (one community), and lack of ephemeral ponding means that habitat
opportunities are marginal. Although there are three stormwater ponds/facilities proposed as part of the
development, it is not expected that standing water will persist for long periods of time due to the well
drained nature of the soils.
No wildlife have been the subject property to date. In the event that
significant species are recorded during future field investigations, species-specific management plans will
be developed to ensure appropriate mitigation and/or protection.
Deer are known to use the site but the habitat conditions do not support large numbers of these animals
and the area is not recognized as an important deer winter concentration area,
( I raO529i23339-f/rpISIO3)
21
~ Gartner Lee
I
I
Environmental Impact Study, Proposed Estate Residential Subdivision,
1091402 Ontario Limited - Part of Lots 34, 35 & 36, Con. 1 EPR,
Township of Oro~Medonte
I
Environmental Designations
I
The entire subject property has been identified by the Township of Oro-Medonte as Environmental
Protection 2, and the eastern portion has been identified as Greenland by the County of Simcoe (see
Figure 3). The EP2 designation appears to relate entirely to the presence of "significant vegetation",
although Gartner Lee has identified only the central block of mature upland forest to qualify as
"significant woodland", With the exception of about 3 to 4 ha, all of this significant woodland will be
preserved within the proposed plan.
I
I
The Greenlands portion of the subject property is part of the Copeland Forest OM2 Unit (Gartner Lee
1996), which is an extensive area extending south, east, and northeast of the subject lands. The ecological
functions/features of this Greenland unit include: terrestrial habitat, recharge function, large core area,
erosion protection, deer concentrations, coldwater habitat, and supporting PSW and ANSI areas. The
latter three functions/features do not specific"ally apply to the subject property, but rather occur elsewhere
within the Greenland unit. The significant woodland areas also perform an important wildlife habitat
function for forest birds. Retention of the significant woodland will rnaintain and protect the key
ecological fèatures and functions for which the site has been recognized as Greenlands and EP2.
Additionally, the Rural Servicing Study (Jagger Hims Limited 2003) and Functional Servicing Report
(c.c. Tatham Associates 2003) have demonstrated that the hydrological recharge function of the site will
be maintained,
I
I
I
I
I
I
Oro Moraine Natural Heritage Evaluation Scoring
I
I
Based on a review of the methodologies for the NHE presented in the Azimuth (2002) study and the
detailed site-specific natural features information collected for the subject property by Gartner Lee, the
NHE for the property was re-evaluated. In addition, an estimate of the original Azimuth evaluation was
completed, which assumed that the evaluation was a desk-top exercise. As was presented in the NHE
study the subject property was analyzed as part of four separate parcels, the westerly parcel, central
parcel, northeasterly parcel, and the southeasterly parcel (see Appendix D). The results of this re-
evaluation are presented in Appendix D and the Gartner Lee site-specific findings vary for some parts of
the subject property. The desk-top evaluation was not entirely consistent with the original Azimuth
scorings. particular we could only arrive at 51 points for the northeasterly parcel and 26 points for the
southeasterly parcel, whereas the Azimuth scoring was> 70 points and> 30 points, respectively, Gartner
Lee's site-specific evaluation found that the westerly parcel and the southeasterly parcel scored less than
30 points, and therefore by definition of the scoring cut-off (30 points or greater) for Core Areas, these
areas would not be designated as Core. Based on this analysis we would take the position that the
westerly and southeasterly parcels are not Core Areas as defined by the NHE methods,
I
I
I
I
( IraO529123339.flrplslO3)
22
Gartner Lee
I
I
I
Environmental Impact Study, Proposed Estate Residential Subdivision,
1091402 Ontario Limited - Part of lots 34, 35 & 36, Con. 1 EPR,
Township of Oro-Medonte
I
EIS suggest that the current
to the outlined below.
proposal is supportable from an
In summary, the
ecological standpoint,
I
7.2
I
Recommendations
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(I raO529123339,f/rptslO3)
I
a)
Further consideration be given to modifying the current site plan in the areas of lots
70 through 74 to remove or reduce the extent of encroachment into the significant
woodland (FOD2-4). Any areas of encroachment into significant woodland should
have a forest edge management plan prepared to mitigate against edge effects.
During the detailed design of the site plan, consideration should be given to tree
rê'tentìon opportunities when developing the grading plan, siting of the stormwater
management facilities, and siting of the construction footprint (homes and septic)
and driveways on a lot-by-Iot basis.
b)
c)
A general tree retention plan should be developed in areas of naturalized forest
cover to the level of identifying groupings of trees for preservation in areas adjacent
to the roads, around the construction footprint for each lot, and surrounding the
stormwater facilities. This should not involve a detailed assessment of every tree
but instead an evaluation of specimen trees (e.g" mature Red Oak), potential hazard
trees, etc.
d)
Best management practices (BMPs) should be implemented prior to and during
construction, Recommended BMPs include but should not be limited to:
establishing a tree barrier fencing and or silt fencing in areas where construction
will be adjacent to significant/sensitive features, clear demarcation of tree removal
areas, proper storage of construction material away from sensitive/significant areas,
and proper containment and disposal of waste materials.
An Environmental Stewardship Manual should be developed and provided to all
homeowners.
e)
f)
A species management plan should be developed for any significant plant or
wildlife species encountered during future field investigations.
23
~ Gartner Lee
==-'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Gartner Lee Limited
November 21, 2003
Ms. Nicola Mitchinson, Principal
Mitchinson Planning & Development Consultants
57 HigWand Avenue,
Barrie, ON L4M IN2
Dear Ms, Mitchinson:
Re:
GLL 23-339 - Addendum Letter Report to: Enviroumental Impact Study Proposed
Estate Residential Snbdivision, 1091402 Ontario Limited - Part of Lots 34, 35 & 36,
Con. 1 EPR, Township of Oro-Medonte
Introduction and Background
Gartner Lee Limited was retained by 1091402 Ontario Limited in April 2003 to complete an
Environmental Impact Study for a proposed estate residential development the Township of
Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe. The EIS was completed in May 2003, The subject property
consists of the lands described as part of Lots 34, 35, and 36, Concession 1 (EPR), The original
proposed development on which the EIS is based consisted of 101 lots in two distinct
development areas, a westerly and easterly parcel. Based on rðcommendations in the EIS the
proposed development was revised to 92 lots before a formal application was made. Since the
application the proposed development has been amended to delete the westerly parcel, with the
current application consisting of 54 lots. The entire development is therefore now situated within
the eastern portion of the subject lands (see attached Draft Plan of Subdivision dated September
15, 2003), The purpose of this letter report is to provide an addendum to the EIS and it should
therefore be read in conjunction with the original GLL study dated May 29, 2003.
As this projeêt was started in April of 2003 and the EIS was completed the following month 'in
May, seasonal constraints did not allow for completion of summer and fall botanical surveys, a
breeding bird survey, and additional wildlife surveys. To accommodate the need for a full
complement of vegetation and wildlife inventories, it was recommended in the EIS that two
additional botanical inventories and one breeding bird survey be completed during the summer
and fall of 2003, During the on-set of this project, this approach was discussed with the
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA),
140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 102, Markham, Ontario, L3R 683 tel 905.477.8400 fax 905.477. 1456
www.gartnerlee.com
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 5
Mìtchinson Planning & Development Consultants
November 21, 2003
recommended mitigation, the environment{ll impact to this species is not considered to be
significant. Transplantation of this species from the wild to a garden setting is generally not
successful (http://www.em,ca/gardenlnat), likely due to dramatic changes in the soil pH, light
regime and other factors. It is thought, however, that transplantation within the study area to the
location indicated on Figure 2 has a good chance of success as the habitat conditions are very
much similar.
Sif!nificant Wildlife Habitat
One of the functionally important features of the subject lands is that it provides breeding habitat
for a number of area sensitive/forest interior species. The proponent proposes a residential
development in the eastern portion of the site (which is primarily coniferous plantation) that
offers relatively poor wildlife habitat. Some of the plantation is undergoing a transition to
deciduous forest and therefore does provide some forest interior habitat. The bulk of the better
quality habitat however, is contained in the mature deciduous forest through the central part of the
site. The mosaic of plantation, forest and early successional vegetation at the western part of the
subject lands (where development is not proposed) also provides more diverse habitat than the
eastern portion.
The removal of the eastern portion of the subject lands that consists mostly of plantation will
result in a loss of nesting territories including some forest interior/area sensitive species. As
shown on Appendix B, six species of these sensitive species were found in the section proposed
for development and 11 found were in the area to remain. Only one bird species, the Black &
White Warbler, was recorded exclusively the east area. The portion of forest that will be
retained, some iO7 ha, contains the bulk of the interior species and the areas of higher quality
forest interior habitat. It is therefore expected that the forest interior function of the subject lands
will be retained overall, although the displacement of some breeding pairs may occur.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Vef!etation
The impacts to vegetation on the subject lands will only occur in the easterly parcel and will
effect cnltural (i.e., vegetation communities originating from or maintained by antbropogen;c
activities) vegetation communities only. include conifer plantation, cultural woodland and
cnltural savanna units. With the exception of the Menzies' Rattlesnake-plantain, a species of
interest recorded from CUP3-8, there were no locally, regionally, or provincially significant
species recorded from the easterly parcel and the area does not support areas of high floristic
(23339,flltrs)
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 6
Mitchinson Planning & Development Consultants
November 21, 2003
quality, The proposed area of development~ is approximately 37 ha, wl:Ìile some 107 ha of
intermediate-aged and mature deciduous forest, as well as other areas of conifer plantation and
cultural vegetation communities, including a small area of shrub sand barren, will be maintained.
It is recommended that the Menzies' Rattlesnake-:-plantain be transplanted to an area outside of the
proposed development within an area of similar habitat. Figure 2 indicates the recommended
tra~splanting location.
The significant on-site woodland is .part of a large core forest area that extends off-site to the
south. It supports a diverse breeding bird community comprised of at least 12 species of forest
interior and area sensitive species. One of the species has been designated as provincially
vulnerable. by OMNR. There is also a suite of less sensitive species present. Deer are known to
use the site but the habitat conditions do not support large numbers of these animals and the area
is not recognized as an important deer winter concentration area. Although a breeding amphibian
survey was not conducted, the limited representation of wetland (one community), and lack of
ephemeral ponding indicates that habitat opportunities are marginal.
A total of about 37 ha of vegetation would be subject to development with many opportùnities for
tree retention given the large lot proposed. The great majority of the impacted area consists
of coniferous plantation with some early succ.essional forest. About 107 ha of the property will
be retained in its natural state. This is a productive core block of forest that supports multiple
territories of forest interior species. The character of the proposed development will allow for
some vegetation retention within each lot. Some adaptable species will be able to persist under
the new conditions. All of the wildlife habitat types that will be impacted are well represented in
the surrounding landscape and significant impacts to local populations are not expected. The
primary wildlife habitat function of the subject property as a core area for area sensitive and
forest interior species will be maintained through the protection of the valleyland and significant
woodland.
Based on the landscape connectivity assessment previously described in Section 4.2.3 of the EIS
(Gartner Lee Limited, 2003) the connectivity to the northwest and south will be completely
maintained. Poor connectivity to the north will remain unchanged due to the existing
development to the north. The proposed development will result in a reduction of the
connectivity functions to the northeast, the outcome of which will be to shift the movement of
some wildlife to along the edge of the plantation communities in the vicinity of the road crossing
(First Line North), There may be a shift in the movement patterns of some wildlife but this is not
considered to be significant.
(23339,(II'r5)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Page 7
Mitchinson Planning & Development Consultants
November 21, 2003
In conclusion, the summary of potential effects, conclusions and recommendations provided in
the May 2003 EIS for the westerly parcel are no longer relevant given the amendment to the
proposed development. The summary of potential effects, conclusions and recommendations
provided in the EIS for the easterly parcel remain unchanged, with the exception of the new
infonnation presented in this addendum report resulting from the additional summer and fall
season field investigations.
We trust that this is the infonnation you require at this time and that this addendum letter, in
conjunction with the EIS, presents our findings and recommendations in a clear manner. Should
you or any reviewers have any questions, please feel free to call Don Fraser at ext. 218 or Dirk
Janas at ext. 224.
Yours very truly,
GARTNER LEE LIMITED
;\ ,- JL~I J , 'w-.
ft--} ~ I
\i v'
Dirk R. Janas, B.Sc.
Terrestrial Ecologist
DRJ:tmc I Attach.
Donald M. Fraser, M,Sc.
Senior Ecologist, Principal
References
Gartner Lee Limited, 2003,
Environmental Impact Study-Proposed Estate Residential Subdivision }091402 Ontario Limited-
Part of Lots 34, 35 & 36, Con, } EPR, Township of Oro-Medonte, Prepared for: Ontario Limited
1091402.
httv://www.em.ca/garden/nat. 2003:
Search for transplantation of Goodyear oblongifolia.
Oldham, MJ, 1999:
Natural Heritage Resources of Ontario: Rare Vascular Plants. Natural Heritage Information
Centre, Peterborough, Ontario,
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2000:
Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151 pp,
Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), 2003
Database query.
Riley, J.L.,1989:
Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of Central Region, Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, Open File Ecological Report SR8902, OMNR Central Region, Richmond Hill, Onto
110 pp,
(23339,fI1trs)
,
I
~~ '
May, 2003
File 031538.00
Distribution:
20 c Client
1 c File
6' Th/$
é~"~
'On \)Q
~~p ç¿oC:-
0J ,VI\)'
RURAL SERVICING STUDY
PROPOSED ESTATE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
1091402 ONTARIO LIMITED
PART OF LOTS 34, 35 AND 36, CONCESSION 1 (EPR)
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Prepared for:
1091402 Ontario Limited
I=IJAGGER DIMS
. LIMITED
Environmental Consulting Engineers
I
~
~
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rural Servicing Study Proposed Estate Residential Development, Township of Oro-Medonte
1091402 Ontario Limited
031538.00
May 28, 2003
7.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits, and the office
review of local conditions, the following conclusions and recommendations can be made.
);> The resulting nitrate concentration for the proposed 101 lot development, based on a
background concentration of 0 mg/L is interpreted to be 7.2 mg/L, which is within the
Ministry of Environment drinking water objective and development criterion of
10.0 mg/L. Therefore this proposed development should have an acceptable impact on
shallow groundwater.
);> All of the lots for the subject property could use in-ground leaching beds, For a four-
bedroom home with a floor area of 300 m2 the total daily design sewage flow would be
3,000 Llday. For a total daily design sewage flow of 3,000 Llday and a soil percolation
rate of 10 minlcm, 150 metres of distribution pipe would be required. Prime and
reserve leaching bed areas would require a minimum area of 210m2 each.
);> Each lot can accommodate a primary and reserve leaching bed, in accordance with the
county of Simcoe and the Ministry of Environment's policy requirements for
development on private services,
);> The sewage disposal system should be constructed as follows:
. The trench bottoms within the in-ground leaching beds must be a minimum
.
0.90 metres above the high groundwater table.
Soil conditions at the individual lots should be confirmed at the time of
application for a building permit.
Jagger Hims Limited
28/05/2003 2:12 PM H:\Proj\03\1538\00\Wp\GRH-R Rural Servicing-2.doc
Page 25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rural Servicing Study Proposed Estate Residential Development, Township of Oro-Medonte
1091402 Ontario Limited
031538.00
May 28, 2003
);0 The proposal to develop 101 residential lots on individual wells is feasible and based on
test results from this program and other programs, well yields are sufficient to meet the
average and peak demands for water as described in this report.
);0 Water quality at domestic wells within the lower water supply aquifer is potable, Water
treatment may be needed for iron and hardness. Neither of these chemicals are a threat
for human consumption, though taste and other aesthetic concerns may arIse.
Commercial water treatment systems are available to remove iron and hardness if
necessary,
);0 All wells should be drilled and constructed according to Ontario Regulation 903 as
amended from time to time. We recommend that the wells be grouted through the
annular space, down and around the upper confining layer as described in this report
(see Figure 5). This should provide greater protection to drinking water quality and the
lower water supply aquifer.
);0 If wells are completed in other deeper aquifers, below this target aquifer, then they
should be tested for at least 6 hours in order to verify acceptable well yields, chemical
and bacteriologic quality. The use of dug wells should be prohibited for this
development and no wells should terminate in the unconfined groundwater system,
);0 We recommend that stormwater management facilities be implemented to encourage the
infiltration of runoff to maintain predevelopment and post-development recharge rates
within the bounded area of the Oro Moraine recharge area as shown in Figure 2.
Should additional infiltration systems be needed, groundwater at the south end of the
proposed development could be captured and infiltrated as a contingency, Best
Management Practices are addressed in the Functional Servicing Report by CC.
Tatham Associates.
Hims Limited
28/05/2003 2:12 PM H:IProjI0311538100IWpIGRH.R Rural Servicing.2.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rural Servicing Study Proposed Estate Residential Development, Township of Oro-Medonte
1091402 Ontario Limited
031538.00
May 28, 2003
In Summary, our study findings indicate that this proposed development on individual
drilled wells and on-site sewage systems satisfies the MOE Guidelines for Private Services,
Furthennore, the proposed development can be constructed to maintain the existing
recharge characteristics of the Oro Moraine on this site. The methodology and study
findings are consistent with the policy objectives and requirements of the Township of Oro
Médonte for development on private services and protection of the groundwater recharge
area.
If there are any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
JAGGER HIMS LIMITED
~~~'
Gary Hendy, P.Eng.
Senior Project Engineer
;{2 {¿¿;¡f-'
/-J7 V'..
Barry R. West, P .Eng.
Consulting Engineer
GRH:jmm
Jagger Hims Limited
28/05/2003 2:12 PM H:IProjI0311538100IWpIGRH-R Rural Servicing-2.doc
Page 27
I~
I
I
t
t
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
FUNCTIONAL SERVICING REPORT
PROPOSED ESTATE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
1091402 ONTARIO LIMITED
PART OF LOTS 34,35 & 36, CON. 1 EPR
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
c. C. Tatham & Associates Ltd.
Consulting Engineers, Site Planners & Landscape Designers
50 Andrew Street South, Unit 202
Orillia, Ontario
L3 V 7T5
File No. 303824
May, 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Functional Servicing Report
Proposed Estate Residential Subdivision
1091402 Ontario Limited-Part of Lots 34,35 &36, Con. 1 EPR
Township of Oro-Medonte
7.
CONCL USIONS
Mav, 2003
The proposed estate residential development on this site is consistent with the surrounding land
use.
A potable groundwater source
wells,
on the site and can
individual
supply
Groundwater table and soil are satisfactory for individual waste disposal
Sewage effluent is not expected to have an impact on nearby groundwater supplies.
Stonnwater quantity and quality control will be provided by central stonnwater management
facilities. These facilities will utilize the high penneability of native soils to infiltrate runoff,
preserving the recharge function of the Oro Moraine, Siltation and erosion control will not be a
concern with the implementation of proper construction mitigation efforts.
Respectfully sùbmitted,
T. Collingwood, P. Eng,
TC:en
SLTD.
c. C. Tatham & Associates Ltd.
Page 10
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
63/62/2604 21:11
DRDACOSTA
PAGE en
7e57341221
1091402 ONTARtO lTD.
250 Roehampto~ Ave"u~ "" SU¡t~ 100 - Toronto ~ M3K \ 2.3
February 25, 2004
Via FncsimiJe 689-1973, 2 pages
Dr. Bob Sullivan, President
Couchiching Conservancy
Box 704
Orillia, Ontario L3V 6K7
Dear Dr, Sullivan and Board Members:
Re.:
Proposed Land Dedication
We are the owners oherne 700 acres of land aroun.d the western end of Bidwell Road in
the Township of Oro-Medonte. Approximately 400 acres have been developed ()ver the
past several years as a high-end estate residential subdivision containing 160 lOTS, with
approximately 30 lots remaining to be built.
In May 2003, we submitted applications to the Township of Oro-Medonte and the County
of Simcoe for approval of the final phMe of developmeDt in this area (Officiall'lan
Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision).
The applications are lo~ated on 355 acres of land. The original application proposed a
t01111 of 92 estate lots: 38 lots on the western portion of the site and 54 lots on the eastern
portion of the site. The two development areas are divided by a large treed ravhe which
is not proposed for development.
BMed on discussions with Township and County Staff, we revised our applicaÜons in
November 2003 by deleting the 38 lots on the western portion of the plan, The revised
subdivision application now proposes only 54 estate lots on tbe ~astern portion of the
property.
Over the past nine months, we have been communicating with Gordon MClir ~ld Michael
Gordon of the Nature Conservancy ofCa.nada a:.nd with Ron Reid of your ofga:,izatÌon,
regarding the potential to dedicate the ravine lands to the Couchiehing Conser,rancy. The
ravine lands are approximAtely 90 acres in size.
1
"Ii? aBed
~~d£C,6 vO-c Je~
~9ll9 6£L-9Ol
: : Á8 was
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
03(B2(2eB4 21:11
7057341221
DRDACOSTA
As the planning appHcations are in process, we are unable to finally commit to th~
dedication of these lands until Ii decision is issued by the approva1 authorities, Hc:wever,
should the applications be approved by the Township and the Colmty) we would '~e
pleased to offer the ravine lands to the Conservancy,
We would be pleased to meet with the CoDservancy to discuss this matter further if our
proposal is of interest to YOl.1T organization.
We look forward to your reply,
Yours truly,
~.. ()rtIh'
Lougi Orsi
Presi.d~nt - 1091402 Ontario Ltd.
Michael da Costa
Shareholder - 1091402 Outario Ltd.
g/g aBed
~g ll9-6U gaL
~V~d££:6 va è-Je~
PAGE EJ2
2
~ :1\8 was
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
03/02/2004 2°'49
FROM BOBOLINK
TO 7398118
p.e!
0 u chi ching
onservancy
Box 704, Orima.. Onìarìo [,3 V 6K7
Telephone 7()5-326- J 620
Emaii: nature@couchcon.w:rvCH'/cy.CQ
March 1, 2004.
:Mr. Lougi Orsi, Prcsidçnt and Dr. Michael <:1a Costa" Sharehølder,
1091402 Ontario Ltd..
250 Roehampton Avenue, Suite 100,
Toronto, Ontario,
M3K lZ3o
Dear Mssrs. O~i Im,d da Costa:
1'h.ank you for your letter of February 25, regarding your proposed land dedication adja~t to
your Bidwell Road subdivisiorL We certainly appreciate your intent to see the ravine lands
protected, .and your consideration of The CouchichingConservancy WI a recipientorg~rioD.
We dis~ssed your offer at our recent Board meeting, and they requested that we; respond to you
as soon.M possible. We understand that you may wish to share our response with the Township
of Oro-Medontt, IWd we have no objections to Y°tl doing 80.
N; yrndrnow, we bave \,1-ndertaken eciological studies across theilioMoraine over the p~th.ree
. years, with a special focus on upland forest habitats. We consider theOro Moraine to be one of
the most significant ecological features within our region, and we are çommitted toçoopërative
projeCts. to conserve its forest lands. Within this oont~, we offer the following comments in
response to your letter and previous discussions:
~ aBed
1)
There is no questiontha.t ravine lands and the forest to the south of the ravine are
ecologically significant. These forests are one of the few sites on the Oro Moraine that
contain a signiñçant component of Red Oak, and there have been.sightings ín this Mea of
Red-shouldered Hawk, a provincially-tbr~ened species. In general, the laø.ds to the
north of tþe ravine are$omewhat Jess significant in their current st.atê. eitherbeoause they
hÞe already been disturbed by development, or be.cause they are pine plaotation rather
than native forest. .
2)
As discussed previously, our goal in working with you over the long term Would.oo the
protection of all of the significant forest lands within the ravine and on the ~pland areas to
the south of the ravine, However, we accept that achieVing that goal may require sevèra1
stages. We would pc pleased to consider accepting the dedj~atioD ofthe raVine lands as Ii
fU'st step" subjeét to the conditions outlined below. .
3)
You should be aware that C~da Revenue Agency regulations would not permit U$ to
issue a donation taJ\: receipt fOf any lands transferred if the dedication is linked :tò any
Protecting the special natural/eat¡,we:;; a/the Couchiching-Seyern region/or future generatiQrtS
Web Site.o www. couchcon.'.¡(~rvaf c.y. ca
:~d~£:6 vo-~-~e~
~8 ~ ~8 6U -gal
~ :"8 ¡uas
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
03/62/2884 28:49
FROM BOBOLIHK ,
.TO 7398116
P,92
4)
5)
development approvals, since such Ii transfer would not be considered a gift. We
understand that you would not require an official receipt bcClluse of.th.c: status efthe land
holdings within your company. ~
By Board policy, we require the creation of a property stewardship fund for any new
property under our ownership, to emure that we can manage it resporn¡ibIyfor tbç long
term. & a guideline, we target I!. stewardship amount equivalent to 20% of the appraised
value of the land. We would be pleased to discuss with you how this funding could be
developed, S$l~ your potential participation in meeting this need,
As a land trust, tm, ,Conservancy does not Donmùly.take Ii position on sPeÇiñc land use
appli,catio~il)(~ins considered by a. municipality, Our involvement:ìn.Jbis project should
,not be COMtrued M, meaning either '$Upport or oppo'sition fÇf Y°'I:II 'ptoþo$ed exceDsion of
the B¡d~dl Road subdivision. '
Thank you again for your cooperative approach to this project, and for your ùiitiativèin worJâng
with the Conservancy, I hope that we will be able to arrive at a ruitablt resolution then win see
these significant forest lands protected fur future generations. ' '.
Sincerely,
7
.... ,f'
.':~ . ¡/ "
\ ;;¿6!.'¿.~:;;):¿<---'=--
Dr. Robert Sullivan
President
ell' a5erl
~~w~, ~ ^'
~~rl~~:6 ÞO-c-Je~
~ g ~ ~g-6£l gOl
: : 1Í8 ¡uas
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I