The URL can be used to link to this page

04 28 2004 COW Agenda TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA DATE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28,2004 TIME: 9:00 a.m. ROBINSON ROOM ************************************************************************************************ .. 1. NOTICE OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF: - "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT" 4. DEPUTATIONS: a} 9:10a.m. Ian Bender, Director of Planning, The Corporation of the County of Simcoe, re: Review of the County of Simcoe Official Plan. b) 9:20 a.m. S/Sgt. Lesley Rice, Acting Detachment Commander, Barrie OPP Detachment, re: 2004 Oro-Medonte Quarterly Policing Statistics, Jan-Mar. 2004. 5. CORRESPONDENCE: a) Darren Vella, Manager of Planning, The Township of Springwater, correspondence dated April 19, 2004 re: Notice of a Public Meeting Concerning a Proposed Amendment to The Township of Springwater Official Plan - Spring Lakes Adult Lifestyle Community OPA (full copy of proposed OPA in Clerk's office). b) Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, correspondence dated April 16, 2004 re: NVCA Highlights, Spring 2004. c) Dora Dobson, Treasurer, Oro Minor Hockey Executive, correspondence dated April 8, 2004 re: Website Advertising Request. f' d) Beverley & Yogi Hubatsch, correspondence dated April 16, 2004 re: Concerns of Purchase of Sweetwater Park by Township. e) Alison Braun, Community Development Corporation, correspondence dated April 15, 2004 re: Business Opportunities Project meeting, Thursday, May 6, 2004, 7:00-9:00pm, Chambers, Township of Oro-Medonte. 6. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND FIRE: a) Report No. TR 2004-11, Paul Gravelle, Treasurer, re: Development Charges Reserve Fund. b) Report No. TR 2004-12, Paul Gravelle, Treasurer, re: Library Contracts. c) Report No. ADM 2004-21 Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO / Ron Kolbe, Director of Building/Planning Development, re: Septic Re-Inspection Program [to be distributed at the meeting]. "' d) Oro-Medonte Recreation Technical Support Group, minutes of April 1 ,2004 meeting. 7. PUBLIC WORKS: a) Report No. PW 2004-02, Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent, re: Speed Limit Reduction and Noise Complaints - Hamlet of Craighurst. b) Report No. PW 2004-03, Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent, re: Public Works 2004 Tender Results. 8. ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: None. 9. BUILDING, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT: a) Report No. PD 2004-13, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, re: Proposed Access Easement Between Township of Oro-Medonte and Donald and Valerie Felix, Concession 6, Part of Lot 20, RP 51 R-30525, Part 1 (Ora), Township of Oro-Medonte. b) Report No. PD 2004-14, Andy Karaiskakis, Junior Planner, re: Committee of Adjustment Decisions from April 15, 2004. 10. IN-CAMERA: a) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Legal Matter. ~ 11. ADJOURNMENT: 2 ADDENDUM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10. IN-CAMERA: b) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Property Matter. c) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Property Matter. d) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Legal Matter. POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND OP REVIEW 2004 1. CURRENT TRENDS FORECAST...SIMCOE COUNTY, INCLUDING BARRIE AND ORILLIA, WILL GROW FROM 377,000 IN 2001 TO 617,000 . IN 2026...AVERAGEHOUSEHOLD SIZE WILL DECREASE SLIGHTLY, SO THE NUMBER OF UNITS WILL GROW EVE"N.FASTER 2. IF IT DIDN'T RUN OUT OF LAND, BARRIE WOULD GROW TO 229, 000 BY 2026 (40,000 UNITS SHORT BASED ON A V AILABLE LAND SUPPLY) 3, THE COUNTY HAS SUFFICIENT LAND ALREADY DESIGNATED TO HANDLE 15 TO 20 YEARS OF GROWTH, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS, ' WHICH INCLUDE BARRIE...IN OTHER WORDS, ALMOST ALL MUNICIP ALITIES HA VE THE CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE CURRENT TRENDS FORECAST..IN THE RECENT PAST, IT IS THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF APPROVED LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT THA T HAS ATTRACTED MORE GROWTH TO SIMCOE THAN OTHER UPPER TIERS SUCH AS WELLINGTON COUNTY, ACCORDING TO HEMSON .1' 4. TREMENDOUS PRESSURES TO ACCOMMODATE MORE GROWTH...A DESIRE BY MUNICIP ALITIES TO HANDLE MORE GROWTH COMBINED WITH AN EFFECTIVE MARKETING PROGRAM BY DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS COULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE GROWTH RA TE...IT IS A POLITICAL DECISION WHETHER WE SHOULD DO THAT...THERE IS NOT A J'.JEED TO PLAN FOR MORE GROWTH...ALSO NEED TO DO MORE TO ACCOMMODATE EMPLOYMENT LANDS 5. REGARDLESS OF A DECISION TO ACCOMMODATE TRENDS VS. ESCALATED GROWTH, WE HAVE ANOTHER BASIC DECISION: CONCENTRATED GROWTH VS. DISPERSED GRO'VTH.. .INVOL YES MAKING DECISIONS ON HOW TO SERVICE THE GROWTH, GIVEN CONSTRAINTS UPON THE NOTTA W ASAGA RIVER AND LAKE SIMCOE, AND, OF COURSE, ANNEXATION OF LANDS.. . GROWTH DECISIONS WILL BE DRIVEN IN PART BY MTO DECISIONS ON FREEWAY LOCATIONS...WE ARE EMBARKING ON A PROGRAM TO REACH SOME KIND OF CONSENSUS ON THESE QUESTIONS 6. THA T LEADS INTO A DISCUSSION OF THE COUNTY'S OP REVIEW PROGRAM THIS YEAR... WE HAVE SOME HOUSEKEEPING TO DO, SOME POLICY TWEAKING TO DO, AND WE MUST SHIFT THE COUNTY PLAN TO A MORE VISIONARY VIEW OF A COUNTY THAT IS RAPIDLY URBANIZING lAy - \ The Corporation of the County of Simcoe (705) 726-9300 Fax: (705) 727-4276 Beeton Area: (905) 729-2294 E-mail: planning@county.simcoe.on.ca " CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Division Telephone Extension 255 III 0 Highway 26 Administration Centre Midhurst, Ontario LOL ]XO January 27,2004 J A N 3 0 2004 Ms. Marilyn Pennycook Clerk Township ofOro-Medonte P.O. Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL2XO Dear Ms. Penny cook: Re: Review of the County of Simcoe Official Plan At its January 27, 2004 meeting, the County Council outlined a program for a review of the County of Simcoe Official Plan in 2004. One of the activities of the program is a request for a deputation to a council meeting of each of the local municipalities within the County to receive input on the Plan and any desired changes. Thus, the County's Planning Division requests a deputation to one of your regular Council meetings in February, March, April, or May, 2004. We believe it would also be beneficial to invite your Committee of Adjustment to participate in the session: please consider that arrangement. Please contact Ian Bender, Director of Planning at 726-9300, Ext. 255 or at ibender@county.simcoe.on.ca to arrange an appropriate date. Planning staff will be prepared to make a short presentation and engage in a question and answer or discussion seSSIon. Council visits are one part of a program that will include statutory and other public meetings and focus group sessions. The Plan was fully approved in November, 1999; the Planning Act indicates that within five years of its approval the County must seek input with regard to whether changes to the Plan are necessary or desired. In fact, staff will be proposing changes of both a policy and housekeeping nature: we will outline the subject matter of the proposed policy changes in our presentation. -.. . - 4 y -Q.. By September, we expect to produce a video which will describe proposed amendments and which will be made available to you in order to provide further input to us. Thank you for considering our request. ~r:~ Ian Bender Director of Planning 0{ OUTLINE. COUNCIL PRESENT A TION County of Simcoe Planning Division Ian Bender, Director of Planning . Purpose, Review of County of Simcoe Official Plan approved 1999 - five year review mandatory housekeeping and policy adjustments add vision/growth management component . 2004 Program to. Review Plan Council meetings Focus groups Statutory public meeting, infonnal public meetings Video Amendments . Focus areas natural heritage and shorelines transportation groundwater - source protection planning growth management . Approval authority delegation, planning application comments subdivision and condominium applications comments on applications for consents, zba's - will cease for those who have compatible opa's exemptions . Infonnation sharing technology *t G0'39bd l~101 ** Ontario Provincial Police Police provlnciale de '"Ontario <if .~. 4'0 Barrie Detachment 20 Rose Street 20 rue rose Barrie, (ON) L4M 2T2 Barrie. (ON) L4M 2T2 Tel: (705) 726-6484 Fax: (705) 726-6487 April 22, 2004 Mayor Neil CRAIG Oro-Medonte Township 148 Line 7 South P.O.Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL lXO Your Worship - Forwarded for your attention 2004 Ora Medonte Quarterlv Policin~Statistic~ Measure 1st 1st Quarter Quarter JaD-Mar 2003 JaD-Mar 2004 Calls for Service (CFS) 741 745 Hours of Initial Reports 1,250 1,212 Hours of Follow Up 1,246.50 825.75 Hours of Incident Assist 736.50 574 Hours of Report Writing 135.25 160 Hours oiPatrol 1,394 1,461 Total Hours to Township 4.,767.75 4,294.25 R.Sfl:rU~ S/Sgt. Lesley Rice AlDetachment Commander Barrie OPP 71iV7L71 . ,..j [[10~8F6 01 ~8F9 92~ SO~ File Reference RMl:rence: 800 " ,.. ">.. ',. ddO 3I~~~8 ~~ 82:91 pO. GC ~d~ NT BY: HP lASERJET 3150j \ 7057288957j APR.19-04 1 :03PMj PAGE 3/22 5q - \ NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGWA TER OFFICIAL PLAN D09 - SPRING LAKES ADULT LIFESTYLE COMMUNITY OPA T KE NOTICE .hat the Council of The Corporation of the Township of Springwater will hold a public m tlng on the 10th day of May, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Knox Council Chambers, 35 Queen 51. W.. EI vale. to consider a proposed Official Plan Amendment under Sections 17 & 21 of the Planning A ,~.S.O. 1990. c. P 13 as amended. T E PURPOSE of the proposed amendment is to update the Official Plan with respect to Part of the E st Half of Lots 1 and 2. Concession 3, the West Half of Lot 38, Concession 2 and Lot 37, C ncession 2 to provide broad guidelines for a wider range of housing types and mixes, one-way st ets. a revised site plan from that contemplated under Official Plan Amendment No, 8 and to rect errOrs which have been identified. T E EFFECT Of the proposed Official Plan Amendment is to amend the policies adopted by the T wnshlp Of Springwater and County of Simcoe under OPA 8 in order to accommodate corrections a revisions for the adult lifestyle community of up to 800 units. EY MAP on the reverse side of this notice illustrates the proposed change in land use. Y PERSON may attend the public meeting and make written and/or verbal representation either in port of Or in opposition to the proposed official plan. IF YOU wish to be notified of the adoption of the proposed official plan, you must make a written re uest to the Clerk of the Township of Springwater. IF A PERSON or public bOdy that files a notice of appeal of a decision of the Township of Springwater In respect of tl'\e proposed Official plan amendment does not make oral submissions at a public meting or make written submissions to the Township of Springwater before the proposed official plan a endment Is adopted. the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the. appeal. DITlONAL INFORMATION related to the proposed Official Plan Amendment is available at the T wnship of Springwater Mut'1idpal Office during regular office hours - Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4: 0 p,l'n. TED AT the Township of Springwater this 19th day of April. 2004. D rren Vella, B.Se. M nager of Planning T wnshlp of Springwater, 5 coe County Administration Centre, Lower East Wing M dhurst, Ontario LOL 1XO ( 5)728-4784 Fax (705) 728-6957 e ail: planning@twp.springwater.on.ca w b site: Www.twp.springwater.on.C3 IT BV: HP LASERJET 3150j " APR-19-04 1 :04PMj 7057286957j TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGWATER .}ih $ KEY MAP OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT PAGE 4/22 j-" ~ '1 - SUBJECT LANDS o 95 190 380 570 760 _ _ Meters APR-16-~004 14:51 FROM:NVCA . ~.. 7054242115 TO:1 705 487 0133 \'011.1111':: 20- 2004 ~--"'- ~~~ 5L 10 ~ D - \ ~.;iWNottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Centre for CODservaUon John Hi,; Conservation Administr.\tion ('entre, Tim" C01i~e1"va.tion Area !ili)5 8'u Conce,slon Line, Ut.opia, LOMITO Tf..\ (70.'5) 424-1479, FAX r)05) 424-2115 W(;b~i'.1; Adrlres~: ~\'\\'.l1vc.a.on.ca NVCA Highlights Spring 2004 Message from the Chair - Chris Carrier "The NVCA vision of "Conserving our Healthy Waters" requires a comprehensive watershed management approach, with the full support of all watershed municipalities, agencies and residents. 11 Highlights from the C.A.O. and Staff: i) Wayne Wilson, C.A.O. (ext. 225) wwilson~nvca.on.ca The <<\h annual meeting of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) was held on Friday, January 16th. Twelve new members joined the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority membership this year. A significant number of members retired from municipal politics in the November elections. We congratulate lhose past members for their insightful.contributions to the work of the NVCA. These retiring members provided over 80 "years of s9rvice" to the conservation movement in the Nottawasaga watershed The 2004 Executive Committee Members include: Chair Chris Carrier, Councillor, Town of Collingwood Vice-Chair Fred Nix, Appointment. Town of Mono Members: Barry Ward, Councillor, City of Barrie Tom Elliot, Councillor, Springwater Township Ian Lang, Councillor, Clearview Township NVCA Supports White Paper The NVCA supports the government's White Paper on Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning, which outlines a detailed and positive approach to protecting people's health through safe drinking water sources The White Paper follows through with and builds on the recommendations of Justice O'Connor's Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry. It was identified that source protection was the missing link in ensuring Ontario water is safe from source to tap. The White Paper has 3 functions: to inform Ontarians of the proposed approach to source protection; to describe the legislation proposed for the development and approval of source protection plans and to examine ways of enhancing the management of the Ministry's water-taking program induding a framework of charging for taking water from Ontario's rivers. lakes and groundwater streams. The NVCA provided comments on the White Paper to Ministry of the Environment NVCA Chair Chris Carrier stated in his letter to MOE that "we have serious concerns over who is going to pay for source protection planning. We would like to be put on the record that much of the NVCA's current expenditures are, in fact aimed at source water protection. Most of what we do is for the purpose of either guarding or improving quality within our watershed. These expenditures, funded largely through the municipal levy and user fees, have to be recognized in any new innovative funding mechanism. New funding will be needed to implement source water protection planning," said Carrier. Walter 8enotto, Councillor, Town of Shelburne George Sheffer, Deputy Mayor, Town of Wasaga Beach ii} Land Management & Stewardship - Byron Wesson, Director of Land Management & Stewardship Services (ext.232) bwesson@nvca.on.ca Enforcement of Section 28/29 Conservation Authorities Act NVCA Enforcement Officers will be enforcing the rules under Section 28/29 of the Conservation Autl10rities Act within its 9800 acre land base, this spring. Charges will be laid on infractions of the Conservation Authorities Act which would include trespassing with illegal vehicles on authority lands, the defacing of property including tree cutting, fence removal and destroying of protected flora . Two Steering Commit1ees Formed to Develop Long Term Plans The Minesing Swamp Steering Committee (NVCA, NCC, MNR, DU, Brereton Field Naturalists, Clearview, Essa. Springwater Townships) are developing a Minesing Swamp Flora and Fauna Inventory. Tllis inventory will assist with future grant acquisitions for land acquisition and managing this internationally significant wetland. The Fort Willow Steering Committee has been established with several interest groups to develop a long term plan that will maintain the: integrity of this historic site. APR-16-~004 14:51 FROM:NVCA 7054242115 TO:1 705 487 0133 . Summer Students will promote Minesing Swamp A $10,000 grant from the Barrie Rotary Club and a $2000 grant from Mountain Equipment Co-Op will again allow for 2 students this summer to work on the Mine:sing Swamp Promotion project Greeting visitors to the swamp, providing them with an information packages. introducing the User Fee program and recording survey info will be some of the tasks for this summer. The "Minesing Swamp" truck will be attending local community events promoting this world class wetland. iii) Engineering and Technical Services- Glenn Swit:ter, Director of Engineering and Technical Services ('6 _~ (ext.232) ~$witz9r@nvca.on.cai 0 Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network The NVCA is part of the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network which is a partnership program between the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation Authorities and municipalities The purpose of the network is to monitor water levels and water quality within groundwater aquifers throughout the province. 2003 was the first full year of network operation. The NVCA has thirteen wells at seven sites within the watershed. NVCA staff recently compleled initial water quality sampling at all wells and are awaiting results. Grumble Hill NVCA staff has finalized a report documentil'\9 the results of the Grumble Hill Experiment. This experiment began in 1993 and was designed to evaluate an innovative best management practice (lagoon and trickling grassed filter strip) to treat dairy farm wastewater. Monitoring results indicate that the Grumble Hill system can be an economically and environmentally sound system in selected landscape settings. Natural Resource Management Plan The NVCA has partnered with the Town of New Tecumseth to address natural heritage planning issues within the Town. NVCA staff identified all natural heritage features (woodlands, wetlands and successional fields) on the municipal landscape using the Ecological land Classification system. A GIS model was then developed, with input from Town, County and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority staff, to evaluate the significance of these features on the landscape. The results of this modeling have been incorporated into a draft report which will be submitted to Town Council for review. This report will form the basis for updated natural heritage policies which will be incorporated into the Town Official Plan. Iv) Planning - Charles Burgess, Director of Planning (ext. 229) cburgess@nvca.on.ca Castle Glen Estate OMB Hearing The planners. engineers, and biologi~ts of the NVCAare involved in a significant Ontario Municipal Board (OMS) Hearing, which commenced in April of this year. The matter before the OMB is a comprehensive Secondary Plan (known as Castle Glen estates) that proposes a variety of residential, recreational, and commercial uses on lands on the Niagara Escarpment, in the Town of the Blue Mountains. County of Grey. From an environmental and water resource management perspective, the NVCA will be presenting evidence before the Soard related to natural hazard and natural heritage land issues. The Hearing will be ongoing for 7 to 9 weeks For more information with regard to this Hearing. please contact Bob Law @ extension 231. Senior Planner Hired The NVCA welcomes Beverley G. Booth, MES to the watershed planning team. Bev brings over 20 years of CA work experience from Kawartha and Otonabee CA's. Bev is currently developing policies to complement the NVCA program and can be reached at bbooth@nvca.on.ca or ext. 230 Watershed Plan Update The NVCA is updating the 1996 Watershed Plan. This update is very timely as it will prepare NVCA for the upcoming Source Protection Planning exercise. The Authority will be well positioned with an updated Watershed Plan that clearly articulates its vision. has evaluated its efforts in water management to date. The plan will have identified and prioritized the technical information and data gaps needed to achieve its goal and objectives and met the expectations of its watershed residents. v) Communications - Barbara MacKenzie-Wynia, Director of Communications (ext. 227) bmackenzle-wynla@nvca.on.ca Spring Tonic Maple Syrup Festival The Barrie Rotary Club in partnership with the "Friends of Tiffin" is sponsoring the annual Spring Tonic Maple Syrup Festival on Saturday. April 3 and Sunday April 4 at the Tiiffin Centre for Conservation, The annual event includes full pancake breakfasts. horse drawn wagon rides, maple syrup tours, children's and family activities. Gates open at 9:00 a.m. to 4:00p.m. NVCA Logo Updated A new, dynamic image has been created. Logos, colours and messaging are the primary means organizations to use to identify themselves and build brand recognition among their target audiences. The NVCA new letterhead is now in circulation World Water Day On March 22 (World Water Day) 900,000 copies of the source protection media insert were distributed through the Toronto Star and other major dailies. Conservation Ontario in partnership with Ducks Unlimited created the media insert on Source Water Protec1ion entitled "Who's Looking Out for Our Water? The NVCA took advantage of this large quantity printing and will be forwarding this informative publication to all watershed municipalities. Arbour Day The 14th Annual Arbour Day - Greening our Valley Tree Sale will be held on Saturday, May 81h starting at 8:00 a.m. at the Tiffin Centre for Conservation. In effort to make trees accessible to more landowners, the NVCA has formed partnerships with community groups throughout the watershed. last year's sale was very successful with many locations selling out by noon Five community tree sales will be herd in the following locations: · Wasaga Ganaraska Hik:ing Club - Blueberry Plains Parking Lot, Wasaga Beach · Stayner Heritage Society - Main Street Park, Stayner · Tiffin Centre for Conservation - 8195 Concession 8, Utopia · Camilla, laurel, Mono Center Pastoral Charge, Camilla United Church · Collingwood Community Garden, Blue Mountain Mall, South Parking Lot, Collingwood - Thursday April 8, 2004 Dear Mayor and Members of Council; I am writing this request on behalf of the ORO Minor Hockey Executive. We would like to advertise upcoming events, special features and meetings on the Oro Medonte Recreation Web- site. This opportunity will assist us in communicating with our members and to infonn new residents within our community of our Association. I look forward to hearing tromyou after your Wednesday April 14, 2004 meeting with your response to this request. I may be contacted during the day and evening at # 487 -7245. Sincerely Yours; :-..... ."". " ". . 1 'lkC\~tCLX)C~~i ~ "-- Dora Dobson Treasurer Oro Minor Hockey Executive 2004/2005 ~'d ~8~S-1..8to-SOL. F\t~WI:?.:J uosqOQ d80:~1 toO 80 .Jdtj ~c ~~ ,. /Q-<:-ij, ~. 21/0+ . C1 w ~.;4(/of April 16, 2004 To: Township of Oro-Medonte Council From: Beverley & Yogi Hubatsch #5 Cherry Trail R.R. #4 Coldwater, On LOK lEO (705) 835-2273 5d -\ Re: Concerns re purchase of Sweetwater Park by Township Dear Council Members, As residents of Oro-Medonte we were glad to hear of the impending sale of the park land directly behind our home and the many benefits that such a sale would provide. Our location, however, brings with it reservations concerning privacy, safety and security issues that have been a factor in the past and will possibly erupt again with the opening of the park land to all residents of Oro-Medonte. Past experience has seen vehicles of all types in the park area having access "right to our back door" allowing for easy thievery if someone so decided. As it is we have had a new heater stolen from our gazebo. Recreational vehicles see the park as a "place to play" really escalating the noise very close to our home. On many occasions in the fair weather months young people have been roaming at all hours throughout the back very close to our home lighting firecrackers, screaming, fighting, drinking and in one case a female in a state of undress. We have tried to contact the O.P.P. concerning these matters but met with little success. Few residents realize the frustration of backing onto park land. Securing the park with a gate and "no trespassing" signs has greatly reduced these problems. WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE PARK LAND BY ORO-MEDONTE WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THE GATE NOW LOCKED PREVENTING CARS FROM ENTERING THE PARKING LOT, IF REMOVED, BE MOVED CLOSER TO THE PARK OR SOME OTHER BARRIER BE PLACED TO PREVENT VEHICLES FORM ENTERING THE PARK PROPER. We are concerned that opening up this area with no control over the patrons could result in behaviour ranging from the annoying to the outrageous, particularly by those asked to leave for trespassing in the past. Some of our present concerns are: 1. We would like to see the Township provide us with some assurances of physical security with their purchase of the land. We will be securing our belongings as best as possible but feel a fence along the boundries of the park land and walkway is not an unreasonable request for some peace of mind. . .' 2.What future plans are being made for the park? Will this simply serve our surrounding community or will all Oro-Medonte residents be encouraged to use the area for baseball tournaments and other large gatherings? 3.What security measures are normally taken with Township parks to provide surrounding residents with some sense of security? 4.What are the plans for the road/pathway beside our house? Will this entrance be maintained as simply a walkway with abutments in place to prevent vehicles access? Would "no parking" signs be placed in this area of Cherry Trail to encourage people to park in the Sweetwater parking lot only- not in front of our home as people now do if using the park? As residents of Oro-Medonte we ask that Oro-Medonte Council take our concerns seriously and support us with any reasonable requests and problems we may encounter concerning residents' usage of the the park land. ) ......, / SiI).perely f " Ii" Ii/! c Jit jiA-I~' Beverley I /1..../ ..,r (// C) d-~ ~J be A Community Futures Development Corporation April 15, 2004 r~ f RECEIVED ! APR 2 1 20M i I ORO-MEDONTe l--IQWNSHIP ----=--- Attention: Mayor and Council Township of Oro-Medonte P.O. Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2XO Dear Mayor Craig and Members of Council, I am writing at this time to invite you to the community meeting to present the Oro- Medonte results from the Business Opportunities Project survey on: Thursday, May 6, 2004, 7:00 to 9:00 PM, Township of Oro-Medonte Council Chambers At this meeting, the Community Development Corporation and Georgian College will be presenting the Oro-Medonte business results from a survey sent out to area businesses last fall. Some of the topics to be covered will include Oro-Medonte Township business profiles, business trends related to purchasing and human resources, various community issues / barriers to growth facing businesses, and local innovation and technology use and needs. After the presentation we will be asking everyone for their input on various business issues and opportunities. For this purpose, we hope to get a strong attendance from both business owners and community leaders. Your attendance and input would be appreciated. Please let us know if you will be able to attend. Sincerely, 1/4~~ Alison Braun Community Development Coordinator CDC ~ Box 2525,6 West Street N. Orillia, ON L3V 7 A3 Tel 705-325-4903 Fax 705-325-6817 www.orilliacdc.com Page 1 ofl 5-f) John Crawford From: To: Sent: Subject: "John Banbury" <jon.ban@sympatico.ca> "john Crawford" <john.crawford@oro-medonte.ca> Tuesday, April 27, 20044:02 PM Fw: Boat ramp at Mernor-ial Park ----- Originallvlessage ----- From: ,John Banbur',./ To: John Cravvford Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 3:23 PM Subject: Fw: Boat ramp at Memorial Park ----- Original Message ----- From: ,Jonn Banl)Ljp/ To: John C:rawfcJrd Sent: Tuesday, ,April 27, 2004 3:07 P!vl Subject: Boat ramp at Memorial Park John Just a short note inquiring about the possibility of constructing a boat launch ramp at the park. ,As you are probably aware, tt-Ie one at the foot of it-Ie ninth is wen used during the summer fishing season as \I'Iiel\ as the July and August summer holidays. On week-ends especially, there is a fair bit of congestion as boats are waiting to launch or to be reloaded on trailers It seems to me that tI-lere is adequate space on the east side of Memorial Park to consti-uct another ramp. There already is a road to the lake, plus the fact there is room for parking. I am not sure what the ramifications are re: the swimming area. But it seems tllat the park is pretty \/'4ell under utilized, and this may be a 'Wa)l of creating some positive interest in it. As far as recouping some of the cost of construction, it might be possible to institute a user pay system, tilUcrl like the snowmobile federation does with it's trail passes I am submitting this for your consideration as weB as artIer rnembers of council Yours sincerely, ,John Banbury 4/27/2004 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. TR2004-11 To: Committee of the Whole Prepared By: Paul Gravelle Subject: Development Department: Treasury Charges Reserve Fund Council C.ofW. Date: April 16, 2004 Motion # RoM. File #: Date: Roll #: ACKGROUND: S. 43 of the Development Charges Act requires the municipal treasurer to submit an annual financial statement relating to the development charge reserve fund to Council and within 60 days thereafter to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. ANAL YSIS: Accordingly, please find attached the required financial statement. 1. THAT Report No. TR2004-11 be received. 2. THAT the financial statement relating to the Development Charge Reserve Fund for the year 2003 be received. ~THAT a copy of the said financial statement be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Respectfully submitted, p~~ ~~. 1 CP!J 0 y>\o '1 ~'- Township of Oro Medonte Development Charges Reserve Fund December 31 ,2003 Flos Oro-Medonte Oro-Medonte Oro-Medonte Oro-Medonte Oro-Medonte Library & Administation Fire Transportation Recreation Police Cultural 4.45% 16.78% 52.82% 21.40% 4.55% Total Balance January 1,2003 7,677.39 2,835.28 120,870.44 227,316.33 174,517.38 (28,619.45) 504,597.37 Revenue 561.52 2,117.30 6,664.82 2,700.25 574.11 12,618.00 Expenditures 0.00 Interest 17.00 6.89 269.74 510.26 389.07 1,192.96 Balance January 31,2003 7,694.39 3,403.69 123,257.48 234,491.41 177,606.70 (28,045.34 ) 518,408.33 Revenue 1,836.35 6,924.43 21,796.70 8,830.92 1,877.60 41,266.00 Expenditures (2,280.42) (1,236.00) (3,516.42) Interest 15.43 6.41 253.01 492.35 365.21 1,132.41 Balance February 28,2003 7,709.82 2,966.03 129,198.92 256,780.46 186,802.83 (26,167.74) 557,290.32 Revenue 1,578.97 5,953.87 18,741.59 7,593.14 1,614.43 35,482.00 Expenditures (1,030.00) (1,030.00) Interest 18.54 9.03 316.79 640.10 458.45 1,442.91 Balance March 31,2003 7,728.36 4,554.03 134,439.58 276,162.15 194,854.42 (24,553.31) 593,185.23 Revenue 3,728.65 14,059.98 44,257.87 17,931.06 3,812.44 83,790.00 Expenditures (1,545.00) (1,545.00) Interest 19.11 15.87 347.92 737.61 504.00 1,624.51 Balance April 30,2003 7,747.47 8,298.55 147,302.48 321,157.63 213,289.48 (20,7 40.87) 677,054.74 Revenue 2,808.38 10,589.68 33,334.15 13,505.31 2,871.45 63,108.97 Expenditures (2,085.75) (10,748.97) (12,834.72) Interest 20.78 26.05 406.62 906.39 575.96 1,935.80 Balance May 31,2003 7,768.25 11,132.98 156,213.03 355,398.17 216,621.78 (17,869.42) 729,264.79 Revenue 13,317.68 50,218.11 158,076.30 64,044.55 13,616.92 299,273.56 Expenditures (649.01 ) (4,147.42) (4,796.43) Interest 20.47 46.88 477.75 1,143.80 649.66 2,338.56 Balance June 30,2003 7,788.72 24,497.54 206,908.89 513,969.26 277,168.57 (4,252.50) 1,026,080.48 Revenue 2,700.56 10,183.21 32,054.66 12,986.93 2,761.22 60,686.58 Expenditures (15,443.91 ) (4,125.02) (19,568.93) Interest 20.56 68.21 559.43 1,378.18 743.07 2,769.45 Balance July 31,2003 7,809.28 27,266.31 217,651.53 531,958.19 286,773.55 (1,491.28) 1,069,967.58 Revenue 3,340.75 12,597.25 39,653.56 16,065.63 3,415.81 75,073.00 Expenditures (91,746.04) (1,279.22) (93,025.26) r;;- Interest 19.88 73.64 569.88 1,287.39 748.56 0.53 2,699.88 J) Balance August 31,2003 7,829.16 30,680.70 230,818.66 481,153.10 302,308.52 1,925.06 1,054,715.20 I Revenue 4,429.89 16,704.16 52,581.26 21,303.28 4,529.41 99,548.00 9-:> Expenditures Interest Balance September 30,2003 Revenue Expenditures Interest Balance October 31,2003 Revenue Expenditures Interest Balance November 30,2003 Revenue Expenditures Interest Balance December 31 ,2003 SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES Ground water study Fire master plan Warminster Sideroad 7th Line N. S. Cty Rd. 22 Gore Road Trail Ramey Park Playground - Horseshoe Prepared by Paul Gravelle, Treasurer 13-Feb-04 Flos Library & Cultural 17.74 7,846.90 18.31 7,865.21 17.76 7,882.97 18.39 7,901.36 Township of Oro Medonte ~ Development Charges Reserve Fund December 31 ,2003 Oro-Medonte Oro-Medonte Oro-Medonte Oro-Medonte Oro-Medonte Administation Fire Transportation Recreation Police 4.45% 16.78% 52.82% 21.40% 4.55% Total (191,573.11) (1,175.62) (192,748.73) 74.61 541.69 932.35 707.49 9.47 2,283.35 35,185.20 248,064.51 343,093.60 323,143.67 6,463.94 963,797.82 2,071.05 7,809.48 24,582.65 9,959.65 2,117.59 46,540.42 (2,597.60) (415.60) (3,013.20) 84.48 587.64 825.84 764.80 17.55 2,298.62 37,340.73 256,461.63 365,904.49 333,452.52 8,599.08 1,009,623.66 1,785.52 6,732.81 21,193.50 8,586.54 1,825.63 40,124.00 (3,946.84) (755.91 ) (4,702.75) 86.32 586.56 845.49 761.60 21 .45 2,319.18 39,212.57 263,781.00 383,996.64 342,044.75 10,446.16 1,047,364.09 1,175.52 4,432.61 13,952.94 5,653.03 1,201.90 26,416.00 (1,805.08) (8,686.40) (128.89) (10,620.37) 90.73 620.43 901.79 804.24 25.75 2,461.33 38,673.74 268,834.04 390,164.97 348,373.13 11,673.81 1,065,621.05 4,085.50 5,896.75 18,134.97 245,511.13 50,996.81 3,051.04 2,537.10 17,188.51 4,085.50 5,896.75 314,642.91 22,776.65 0.00 .D ~b- TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. TR2004-12 To: Committee of the Whole Prepared By: Paul Gravelle Subject: Library Contracts Department: Treasury Council C.ofW. Date: April 20,2004 Motion # R.M. File #: R02-10837 Date: Roll #: ACKGROUND: The Township of Oro-Medonte contracts Library service from five neighbouring municipalities, being Barrie, Severn (Coldwater), Midland, Orillia and Springwater. A questionnaire was sent to each of the said libraries requesting information relating to membership and municipal contribution. A summary of the responses is attached. The Barrie Library Board has requested a 5% increase over the 2003 contribution from Oro-Medonte, the Orillia Public Library Board a 5% increase in each of the next three years and the Severn Township Library Board a $ 1,000 increase. ANALYSIS: The contribution to the Barrie Library Board has been increasing by 5% annually for the last few years with the goal of the per capita cost for Oro-Medonte borrowers eventually being equivalent to that of City of Barrie users. Based on the current discrepancy between the per capita costs, we respectfully recommend continuing this current practice for 2004 and entering into an agreement for the provision of library services with the Barrie Library Board at a cost of $91,507.50. The proposed $1,000 increase in the contribution to the Township of Severn Library Board will result in the per capita cost remaining the lowest of the five. We respectfully recommend accepting the Township of Severn Library Board's proposal for the provision of library services for 2004 at a cost of $15,000. lob ,J. Wf} have. difficulty in accepting the Orillia Public Library Board's proposal of 5% increases in each of the next three years. The per capita cost to the Township of Oro-Medonte is already the highest of the five and well above the average. We respectfully suggest that the increase in the Township of Oro-Medonte's contribution for 2004 be limited to the rate of inflation of 2%. The contribution to the Orillia Public Library Board would therefore increase by $1,670 to $85,170. The agreement for the provision of library services with the City of Orillia should be for the current year only. We have not received any request for an increase from the Midland Public Library Board and the Springwater Public Library Board. RECOMMENDATION S : 1. THAT Report NO.TR2004-12 be received and adopted. 2. THAT the municipality enters into an agreement with the City of Barrie for the provision of library services for 2004 at a cost of $91,507.50. 3. THAT the municipality enters into an agreement with the Severn Township Public Library Board for the provision of library services for 2004 at a cost of $15,000. 4. That the municipality enters into an agreement with the Orillia Public Library Board for the provision of library services for 2004 at a cost of $85,170. 5. THAT the appropriate by-laws be brought forward for Council's consideration. Respectfully submitted, p~ LJ-L Paul Gravelle Treasurer C.A.O. Comments: Date: ~~~ d-~<C),,\ C.A.O. .eo~ V Dept. Head - 2 - TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE ANAL YSIS OF LIBRARY COSTS BARRIE COLDWATER MIDLAND ORILLlA SPRINGWATER TOTAL ACTIVE BORROWERS - OWN 84,035 1,658 8,721 12,381 4,936 MUNICIPAL CONTRIBUTION -2004 * $2,644,679 $60,646 $589,602 $1,033,051 $283,000 PER CAPITA COST $31 .4 7 $36.58 $67.61 $83.44 $57.33 ORO-MEDONTE BORROWERS 4,633 781 190 2,595 134 8,333 2003 CONTRACT COSTS $87,150 $14,000 $4,150 $83,500 $3,270 $192,070 2004 CONTRACT COSTS - REQUESTED $91,507 $15,000 $4,150 $87,675 $3,270 $201,602 PER CAPITA COST - ORO-MEDONTE -2003 $18.81 $17.93 $21.84 $32.17 $24.40 $23.05 PER CAPITA COST - ORO-MEDONTE - 2004 $19.75 $19.21 $21.84 $33.79 $24.40 $24.19 REQUESTED PER CAPITA COST - ORO-MEDONTE -2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION $19.75 $19.21 $21.84 $32.82 $24.40 $23.89 * Municipal contributions are proposed and are subject to approval. Coldwater amount was not available therefore figure reflected is 2003 contribution + inflation of 2% prepared by Paul Gravelle, Treasurer 20-Apr-04 i if .. t ORO-MEDONTE RECREATION TECHNICAL SUPPORT GROUP MINUTES Thursday, April 1, 2004 @ 7:00 p.m. Oro-Medonte Administration Centre Chair: Councillor Paul Marshall called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor Neil Craig, Councillor Dan Buttineau, Councillor Paul Marshall, Ian Hunter, Bob Gregory, Lynette Mader. Regrets: Staff Present: Chris Carter (Recreation Co-ordinator) 1. Adoption of Agenda for Thursday, April 1, 2004: Rec - 01 Moved by Mr. Gregory, Seconded by Mr. Hunter It is recommended that the Agenda for the Oro-Medonte Recreation Technical Support Group meeting of Thursday, April 1, 2004 be received and adopted, Carried. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest: None. 3. Adoption of the Thursday, March 4, 2004 Minutes: Rec - 02 Moved by Ms. Mader, Seconded by Mr. Gregory It is recommended that the minutes of the Recreation Technical Support Group Meeting of March 4, 2004 be adopted as amended to read: 1 lod- "Recommendation REC-03 That the information from Chris Carter, Recreation Co-ordinator re: Oro-Medonte Lake Country RailTrail (Background info) be received and that Council direct staff to investigate and report back to Council ways and means of encouraging ongoing development and promotion of the Oro-Medonte RailTrail." Carried. 4. Deputations: None 5. Unfinished Business: a) Rec - 03 Moved by Ms. Mader, Seconded by Mr. Gregory It is recommended that the information from the Ontario Federation of All Terrain Vehicle Club be received. Carried. ' b) Rec - 04 Moved by Mr. Gregory, Seconded by Mr. Hunter It is recommended that the comments from Community Hall Boards re: Alcohol Risk Management Policy be received. Carried. c) Rec - 05 Moved by Ms, Mader, Seconded by Mr. Hunter It is recommended that the Draft AZcoholRisk Management Policy be received as presented and that Council be requested to direct staff to provide information on insurance implications and costs, Carried. 6. Correspondence: None. 7. Co-ordinator's Monthly Report: (a) Verbal Update re: March Break Day Trip Programs. (b) Verbal Update re: Spring 2004 Programs. 2 8. Other/New Business (Information or request for future information): None. 9. Questions: None. ~d-) 10. Adjournment: Rec - 06 Motion by Mr. Hunter, Seconded by Ms. Mader It is recommended that we now adjourn at 8:40 p.m. Carried. Next Meeting: Thursday, May 13th, 2004 @ 7:00pm, ' 3 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE PW2004-02 Jerry Ball Subject: Department: Council Speed Limit Reduction and Public Works C. ofW. Noise Complaints - Hamlet of Date: Craighurst April 19, 2004 Motion # R.M. File #: T08-12728 Date: Roll #: BACKGROUND: In early Spring of 2003, Mr. Rod Harris, on behalf of the residents of Craighurst, forwarded correspondence to Council requesting that the Township petition the County of Simcoe to reduce the speed limit to 50 km/h on County Roads #93 and #22 within the Hamlet of Craighurst. The Engineering Department of the County of Simcoe completed a study of this area and recommended that the lowering of the existing 60 km/h speed limit was not warranted, but extending the length of the zone on County Road #22 was warranted. It was also recommended that a Community Safety Zone was not warranted, as pedestrian traffic was minimal and the sidewalks provided adequate setbacks from the roadway. In March 2004, Mr. Harris once again corresponded to Council requesting that the speed zone reduction, speed zone extension, speed zone sign age, community safety zone designation, and engine brake prohibition in the village be re-examined. AL YSIS: As both of theses roads are under the jurisdiction of the County of Simcoe, it is recommended that the Engineering Department be requested to re-examine the speed zone reduction, extension, sign age, and community safety zone designation. \q-~ The issue of the use of engine brakes within the Hamlet of Craighurst has been discussed with our By-Law Department, who has advised that the noise By-law for the Township does not address traffic noise, and in particular truck engine brakes. Mr. William Gastmeier of H.G.C. Engineering in Toronto was contacted for information, as well as to provide a cost estimate to complete a study and report for noise. Mr. Gastmeier advised that depending on the scope of study, six to eight weeks would be required to complete a study and report at a cost of $5,000.00 - $10,000.00. Mr. Gastmeier also advised that for Craighurst, being a . small rural Hamlet with both County Roads #93 and #22 being two-lane highways with considerably low traffic volumes compared to larger centres with multi-lane highways, it would be difficult to justify a solution (barrier wall) to the traffic noise if it happens to be over the specified limit. It is therefore recommended that the Township request the County of Simcoe to consider placing signs on County Road #93, within the Hamlet of Craighurst, prohibiting the use of engine brakes. It is further staff's opinion that a noise study is not warranted at this time. 1, THAT Report No. PW2004-02 be received and adopted. 2. THAT the Public Works Superintendent request the County of Simcoe to re-examine the issues of speed zone reduction, speed zone extension, speed zone signage, community safety zone designation. 3. THAT the Public Works Superintendent request the County of Simcoe to consider placement of a sign on County Road #93 stating "Use Of Engine Brakes Is Prohibited". 4. AND THAT the Public Works Superintendent advises Mr. Rod Harris accordingly. Respectfully submitted, ~Ju , ~Ji'\ 'Jerry Ball ~ Public Works Superintendent \J jJJ~W ~AO (\~. ~ -- - 2 - r~ T -. TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE PW2004-03 Jerry Ball Subject: Department: Council Tender Results for: PW2004-01-0pen Graded Pavement Public Works C. ofW. PW2004-02-Calcium Chloride Date: PW2004-03-Supply and Apply Crushed April 21, 2004 Gravel Motion # PW2004-04-Surface Treatment R.M. File #: PW2004-05-Slurry Seal PW2004-06-Winter Sand Date: PW2004-07-Roadside and Parks Grass Roll #: Cutting PW2004-08-Snow Plowing & Sanding PW2004-09-Two Tandem Plow Trucks PW2004-11-Crew Cab Chassis & Body PW2004-13-Crush and Stockpile Gravel PW2004-14-"Dark Journal" Virgin Oil PW2004-15-Supplyof Fuel PW2004-16-Hot Mix Paving BACKGROUND: Advertisements for the following Tender Contracts were placed in the Barrie and Orillia Newspapers and were opened at the Administration Centre on Thursday, April 15, 2004 at 10:00 a.m.: Contract No. PW2004-01 Contract No, PW2004-02 Contract No. PW2004-03 Contract No. PW2004-04 Contract No. PW2004-05 Contract No. PW2004-06 Contract No. PW2004-07 Contract No. PW2004-08 Contract No. PW2004-09 Contract No. PW2004-11 Contract No. PW2004-13 Contract No. PW2004-14 Contract No. PW2004-15 Contract No. PW2004-16 Open Graded Pavement Calcium Chloride Supply and Apply Crushed Gravel Surface Treatment Slurry Seal Winter Sand Roadside and Parks Grass Cutting Snow Plowing and Sanding Two Tandem Plow Trucks c/w Snow Plow Equipment and Sand/Salt Spreader Body and Hoist Crew Cab Chassis and Body Crush and Stockpile Gravel "Dark Journal" Virgin Oil Supply of Fuel Hot Mix Paving b-~ The results of the tender contract opening for Open Graded Pavement are as follows: I CONTRACT NO. PW2004-01 OPEN GRADED PAVEMENT 1) Miller Paving Limited $246,902.50 CMS-2 - 0.595i/kg. HL-4 - $25.65/Tonne It is recommended that the tender from Miller Paving Limited be accepted at a low tender amount of $246,902.50. The results of the tender contract opening for Calcium Chloride are as follows: I CONTRACT NO. PW2004-02 CALCIUM CHLORIDE 1) Da-Lee Dust Control 2) Miller Paving Limited 3) Pollard Highway Products Ltd. $118,327.02 $121,356.73 $115,083.85 $315,96/Tonne $324.05/T onne $307.30/Tonne It is recommended that the tender from Pollard Highway Products Ltd. be accepted at a low tender amount of $115,083.85. The results of the tender contract opening for the Supply and Apply of Crushed Gravel are as follows: I CONTRACT NO. PW2004-03 SUPPLY AND APPLY CRUSHED GRAVEL 1) Georgian Aggregates & Construction Inc. 2) Lafarge Canada Inc. 3) G. H. Stewart Construction Inc. 4) Robert E. Young Construction Ltd. $240,884.75 $236,117.90 $232,627.85 $164,959.00 $5.25/Tonne $5.25/Tonne $4.90/Tonne $5.00/Tonne It is recommended that the tender from Robert E. Young Construction Ltd. be accepted at a low tender amount of $164,959.00. The results of the tender contract opening for Surtace Treatment are as follows: IOONTRACTNO. PW2004-04 SURFACE TREATMENT 1) Duncor Enterprises Inc. 2) Miller Paving Limited 3) MSO Construction Limited $55,792.58 $71,490.98 $65,008.92 It is recommended that the tender from Duncor Enterprises Inc. be accepted at a low tender amount of $55,792.58. - 2- The results of the tender contract opening for Slurry Seal are as follows: '1~-) I CONTRACT NO. PW2004-05 SLURRY SEAL 1) Miller Paving Limited 2) MSO Construction Limited $134,820.00 $139,635.00 $1.40/sq. m. $1.45/sq. m. It is recommended that the tender from Miller Paving Limited be accepted at a low tender amount of $134,820.00. The results of the tender contract opening for Winter Sand are as follows: 1) G. H. Stewart Construction Inc. $63,713.15 (South Yard) $54,275.75 (North Yard) It is recommended that the tender from G. H. Stewart Construction Inc. be accepted at a low tender amount of $63,713.15 for the South Yard and $54,275.75 for the North Yard. The results of the tender contract opening for Roadside and Parks Grass Cutting are as follows: I CONTRACT NO. PW2004-07 ROADSIDE AND PARKS GRASS CUTTING 1) Bodel Communications Inc. $28,890.00 (Roadside) (3-Year Contract) NO TENDER SUBMITTED FOR PARKS 2) Ron Burton & Sons $14,634.39 (Roadside) (3-Year Contract) $ 1,234.78 (Parks) (One-Cut) It is recommended that the tender from Ron Burton & Sons be accepted at a low tender amount of $14,634.39 for Roadside and $1,234.78 for Parks. The results of the tender contract opening for Snow Plowing and Sanding (3-Year Contract) are as follows: I CONTRACT NO. PW2004-08 SNOW PLOWING AND SANDING 1) Duncor Enterprises Inc. $98.00/hr. (plowing) $98.00/hr. (sanding) $234.00/day (standby time) $103.79/hr. (plowing) $63.13/hr. (sanding) $224.70/day (standby time) $64.20/hr. (plowing) $100.00/load (sanding) NO STANDBY TIME $105.93/hr. (2006/2007) $ 66.34/hr. (2006/2007) $230.05/day (2006/2007) 2) Lawlor Haulage Ltd. 3) Don Woodrow It is recommended that the tender from Don Woodrow be accepted at a low tender amount of $64.20/hr. for plowing only. .. ' ,~,L\ The results of the tender contract opening for Two Tandem Plow Trucks c/w Snow Plow Equipment and Sand/Salt Spreader Body and Hoist are as follows: TWO TANDEM PLOW TRUCKS C/W SNOW PLOW EQUIPMENT AND SAND/SALT SPREADER BODY AND HOIST 1) Complete Western Star & Sterling . 2) Complete Western Star & Sterling 3) Gingras Corriveau . 4) Mid-Ontario Truck Centre (Mack) 5) Northland Truck Centre $323,872.20 (Two Trucks - Alliston) $293,560.50 (Two Trucks - Viking) $135,957.34 (Plow Equipment Only) $370,891.10 (Two Trucks) $348,229.20 (Two Trucks) It is recommended that the tender from Complete Western Star & Sterling be accepted at a low tender amount of $293,560.50 (Two Trucks - Viking). The results of the tender contract opening for a 2004 Model Crew Cab Chassis and Body are as follows: I CONTRACT NO. PW2004-11 2004 MODEL CREW CAB CHASSIS AND BODY 1) Tom Smith Chevrolet Oldsmobile Ltd. 2) Jim Wilson Chevrolet Oldsmobile $52,440.00 $50,614.95 It is recommended that the tender from Jim Wilson Chevrolet Oldsmobile be accepted at a low tender amount of $50,614.95. The results of the tender contract opening for Crush and Stockpile Gravel are as follows: I CONTRACT NO. PW2004-13 CRUSH AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL 1) Dalton R. Lowe and Sons Construction Ltd. $42,532.50 "A" Gravel - $1.40/Tonne "2" Gravel - $1.25/Tonne 2) Robert E. Young Construction Ltd. $56,062.50 "A" Gravel - $1.65/Tonne "2" Gravel- $1.60/Tonne It is recommended that the tender from Dalton R. Lowe and Sons Construction Ltd. be accepted at a low tender amount of $42,532.50. The results of the tender contract opening for "Dark Journal" Virgin Oil are as follows: I CONTRACT. NO. PW2004-14 "DARK JOURNAL" VIRGIN OIL 1) Da-Lee Dust Control $127,330.00 o .595<t/litre It is recommended that the tender from Da-Lee Dust Control be accepted at a low tender amount of $127,330.00. The results of the tender contract opening for the Supply of Fuel are as follows: ! ICONTRACTNO. PW2004-15 SUPPLY OF FUEL 2) Bowman Fuels Ltd. $111,098.00 59.8<t/litre (plus GST) (Clear Diesel) 44.0<t/litre (plus GST) (Coloured Diesel) 71.3<t/litre (plus GST) (Gas) 55.9<t/litre (plus GST) (Clear Diesel) 40.4<t/litre (plus GST) (Coloured Diesel) 70.4<t/litre (plus GST) (Gas) 1) Baltic Fuels Ltd. $119,186.00 3) The Sarjeant Co. Ltd. $112,969.00 55,9<t/litre (plus GST) (Clear Diesel) 42.1 <t/litre (plus GST) (Cbloured Diesel) 69.8<t/litre (plus GST) (Gas) It is recommended that the tender from Bowman Fuels Ltd. be accepted at a low tender amount of $111,098.00. The results of the tender contract opening for Hot Mix Paving are as follows: ItONTRACTNO.. PW2004-16 HOT MIXPAVING 1) K. J. Beamish Construction Co. Limited 2) Lafarge Canada Inc. $107,387.88 $126,958.18 It is recommended that the tender from K. J. Beamish Construction Co. Limited be accepted at a low tender amount of $107,387.88. - 5 - \\) -~ 1. THAT Report No, PW2004-03 be received and adopted. 2. THAT the following tenders be awarded: CONTRACT NO. DESCRIPTION CONTRACTOR TOTAL AMOUNT PW2004-01 Open Graded Miller Paving Limited $246,902.50 Pavement PW2004-02 Calcium Chloride Pollard Highway Products $115,083.85 Ltd. PW2004-03 Supply and Apply Robert E. Young $164,959.00 Crushed Gravel Construction Ltd. PW2004-04 Surface Treatment Duncor Enterprises Inc. $55,792.58 PW2004-05 Slurry Seal Miller Paving Limited $134,820.00 PW2004-06 Winter Sand G. H. Stewart Construction $63,713.15 (South) Inc. $54,275.75 (North) PW2004-07 Roadside and Parks Ron Burton & Sons $14,634.39 (Roadside) Grass Cutting $1,234.78 (Parks) PW2004-08 Snow Plowing and Don Woodrow $64.20/hr. Sanding (plowing onlv) PW2004-09 Two Tandem Plow Complete Western Star & $293,560.50 (Two Trucks Sterling Trucks - Viking) PW2004-11 Crew Cab Chassis and Jim Wilson Chevrolet $50,614.95 Bodv Oldsmobile PW2004-13 Crush and Stockpile Dalton R. Lowe and Sons $42,532.50 Gravel Construction Ltd. PW2004-14 "Dark Journal" Virgin Da-Lee Dust Control $127,330.00 Oil PW2004-15 Supply of Fuel Bowman Fuels Ltd. $111,098.00 PW2004-16 Hot Mix Paving K. J. Beamish Construction $107,387.88 Co. Limited 3. AND THAT the respective Contractors be notified accordingly. R:~7. ej C::UIIY sU7m:~ed, fdewlk J;t r: ~ Jerry Ball r Public Works Superintendent ~ l~~ . ~\)'^ .\()J ~~d~ I - 6 - qo.-\ Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: PD2004-13 Committee of the Whole Andria Leigh, Senior Planner Subject: Department: Council Proposed Access Easement Planning between Township of Oro- . C. of W. Medonte and Donald and Date: Valerie Felix, Concession 6, April 21, 2004 Motion # Part of Lot 20, RP 51 R-30525, R.M. File #: Part 1 (Oro) C11 Date: Roll #: 010-008-33150-0000 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT II BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: II In December 2003, Mr. And Mrs. Felix requested to purchase the unopened road allowance (Part 2) adjacent to their property (Part 1) as shown on Attachment #1. This request was circulated through the Township Department Heads and it was determined that the closing and sale of this road allowance was not appropriate as a triangular portion of this road allowance adjacent to Line 6 South is currently owned by the Ministry of Transportation (Part 4 on Attachment #2). Verbal and written communication has subsequently occurred between the Township and the Ministry of Transportation in regards to the transfer of Parts 2,3, and 4 on Attachment #2 from the Ministry to the Township. The Township had entered into these discussions with the Ministry of Transportation to obtain the existing constructed road, known as Guest Road, which would have allowed Mr. And Mrs. Felix to obtain their building permit on a maintained Township road. The Ministry has advised bye-mail that they will provide a formal written response shortly; however they indicate that their preliminary findings are that the property will not be considered for disposal, as it will likely be required to facilitate the planned Highway 11 improvements. The current Official Plan policy permits a new right-of-way, in the form of a private driveway, for access only to parcels that are presently landlocked. This provision has been amended in OPA #17. On the basis that the Ministry will not convey Parts 2,3,and 4 to the Township Mr. And Mrs. Felix do not front onto a maintained roadway and are therefore considered landlocked. In accordance with the Official Plan policies it is being recommended to Council that an access easement agreement be executed between the Township and Mr. And Mrs. Felix to permit a driveway access to their property over the unopened road allowance between Lots 20 and 21, Concession 6 (Oro). The access agreement would be similar to the existing site plan agreement that is entered into with landowners on private roads and would indicate that: ~(A\ -- d- a) the owner acknowledges and agrees that the lot in question does not front on an improved public road; b) the owner acknowledges and agrees that the Township does not or is not required to maintain or snowplow the said road or street; c) the owner acknowledges and agrees that the Township will not take over or assume an unopened, unassumed, or private road or street as a Township public road or street unless it has been built according to the Township standards then in force; d) the owner acknowledges and agrees that the Township is not liable for any injuries, losses or damages as a consequence of the Township issuing a building permit; and e) the Agreement shall be registered against the lands. RECOMMENDATION S : 1 . THAT Report No. PD2004-13 be received and adopted; 2. THAT Council support the principle of an easement agreement between the Township and Mr. And Mrs. Felix over the unopened road allowance between Lots 20 and 21, Concession 6 (Oro); and 3~hat staff be authorized to proceed with the completion of the appropriate access easement agreement. Respectfully submitted, ----1~ ---e~ Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner ~~~~Ao~ ~~ ~J;\)' C.A.O. Comments: Date: C.A.O. Dept. Head 2 rSK -- 1I'~n 1'/ i ~ " .. ... ... o I o o en 0> Ii. If .. ()!;.[~ltN '. !II ... lL. "91: J:: lJigi lit "''1 ... =!to .. << ~ t. !F" OO.'Z ...~ fOnZ J.J '1: SHe: j' a .,'a; J! " J a""., lO"l .~..'" I 9 .. SNO/SS.1:JNO:J I t4 ' u .. - -- - !'- . ~ ~~: ~ ~ .. OtCJt .... '-. "" ..... ..1K.\ "'le znz 9 zen --.- "It Z ell . CIt ; ~ NOISS3:JNO:J t - I ... . , ~ '..I ,~ I ;' :* , I I I I~~' . - ..(/ f · 'r ~f ~'~ gc;r ~ : l ... .. Z '0 U' )P ~ ~ ell -1 ? ~ ~ i . I A : ~"'t\t i : ~ " ';1:> 1\0 ';U .... .... ... lnl N i : ~ ~ it .. .. .- ii' " -, , .- .- " ~ % P - .... ? j ~ c ... " o .... , <:> w ... c ... ... ca .... o ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ,. ... . ,., ~ r""7) ~-t -r ~ ('i r "1 A:J ~ t!l - eJ <:> <:> ... '. o .. ... ! +,.,.6' "'~ lOT 21. CONCESSION LOT III!tQUIII!THlSKAH TOK DEP05IttDlHIE:R1M[fI(GS11I:YACT PLAN 51R- ;z~llr AI 1/ ~ ~ 1 ,c ~ y (") ->/ ,S) I -+= _~,!!!!-J.!!!,__t~. ,." MClJIoUI NfO DIJ'OSItt:O _..f~-':i~~_------- P'(JtR.I. OOOWIH $DIfOIIt~~w;'tSNC)1'L\NS METRIC OISTAHC('S ~ at THIS PLAH All( 1M 1<<" AND ~ IE: CON\UlTED '10 nI1' IT 0I'oUNG 8Y 0,3044 CAUTION: THIS PLAN IS NOT A PLAN Of SUBrn\1S1ON WI~IN THE MEANING Of tHE PLANNING ACT. _tl.t!.:r.__t..j.J'J ____ (J!~_~ ::ffuZ flWSTIt_ rottMM:QS1ffYOIYlSIONCK !IIIIC<< (M) SCHEOULE PART AAEA INST. _AME LOCATION t 3857.S m' 2 471.3 m PLAN 11314 CRO": MINISTRY OF Port of lOT 20, CONCESSION 1\ J 5UL2 ml (P-'427) lRANSPORTAT\ON Port of ORIGINAl ROAD AlLOWANCE 101.7 m' betWHn LOTS 20 and 21. CON NOTE: (A.) DENOTIS PLAN 51R-liDO (P-1726-.7) PLAN OF SURVEY IN 11iE TOWNSHIP OF ORO COUNTY OF SIMCOE SCALE 1: 500 (J to ~ SURVEYOR'S CERl1F1CATE I COt1W'Y 1MATI t, tHIS SUItVE't AHO f\AH ME CCIfIN:CT AND .. ACQ:IIIOAHC[ W1H 1ME SUM'I'S ACT NfO TIC IlEcuntY IoCT NfO nc MlU.J<1ION1 MAD( 1MDII1ItCIfJl 2. K.......u WAS COWPt.m:D ON H _-lUt_ DAY Cf' _____fN_____, ItR _~l!!.._~~!.!._ .... CNIt.:nJ: ONTARIO 1NC) U~ IUoIINOI .. ~ CIIJIWD ,.., 1M[ MCImf-'8T LIlT Of' ,NIT ,. I'UN 5U.-11OO (1'-17....1) I0IO ~ AND IVIJIIIID 1Q 1M( IiIDIIItAM 'HtCIJGH 1tC SOUtH teST <*Ma f1f LOt n. CCIGDON " ~.., ~ 7nl'JD"W) .:!!:_~!:.!~ .., 11 1726-127 -...... .. . ............ ,........ ~~ - \ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: PD 2004-14 Committee of the Whole Andy Karaiskakis Subject: Department: Council Committee of Adjustment Planning Decisions from April 15, 2004 C. of W. Date: April 22, 2004 Motion # R.M. File #: C11 12450 Date: Roll #: Attached are the Planning Reports and Committee of Adjustment Decisions for the Consent and Minor Variance applications that had decisions at the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on April 15, 2004. The last date for receiving an appeal to the above noted decisions is Wednesday May 5, 2004. The Committee, as noted below, deferred two applications. ~I ANALYSIS: II Consent Applications 2004-B-08 Bartor Associates Cone. 6, part Lot 27, RP 51R- 16789 Part 1, LESS RP 51R- 26439 Part 1 LESS RP 51R- 27754 Part 2 (Oro) 2004-B-11 The Heights of Horseshoe Ski & Country Club Cone. 3, Part Lots 1 & 2, RP 51R-22624 Parts 1 & 2 (Medonte) B-7/03(Rev) Steven McCreary Cone.9, Part Lot 4, West Part Lot 5 (Oro) 2801 Line 8 N. 2004-B-12 Horseshoe Valley Resort Ltd. Cone. 3, Part East Half Lots 1 & 2 (Medonte) 1 3 2004-B-13 Horseshoe Valley Resort Ltd. Cone. 3, Part East Half Lots 1 & 2004-B-14 Horseshoe Valley Resort Ltd. 2 51R-5809 Pt ofPts 1,2,3, RP RP 51R-5809 Pt ofPts 1,2,3, 51R-8682 Parts 1 & 2 RP 51R-8682 Parts 1 & 2 (Medonte) (Medonte) 2004-B-09 APT Operational Management 2004- B-15 Horseshoe Valley Resort Ltd. Cone. 2, Part Lot 2, RP 51R- Cone. 3, Part East Half Lots 1 & 28938 parts 2 & 5 (Oro) 2 RP 51R-5809 Pt ofPts 1,2,3, RP 51R-8682 Parts 1 & 2 2004- B-lO APT Operational Management (Medonte) Cone. 2, Part Lot 2, RP 51R-l 28938 parts 2 & 5 (Oro) DEFERRED Minor Variance Applications 2004-A-09 Warren & Kerri-Anne 2004-A-05(Rev) Marvin & Wendy Beamish Fitzgerald, Gary & Mindy West Plan 1642, Lot 32 (Oro) Cone. 7, Plan 755, Part Lot 41, 227 Tudhope Blvd. Part Lot 42 (Oro) 107 Lakeshore Road W. 2004-A-12 Marie Louise & Herman Martine 2004- A -07 Ian & Mimi Eng Cone. 3, West Pt Lot 20 (Oro) Plan 791, W 16,Lot 17 to 18 1681 Highway 11 (OriIlia) DEFERRED 33 Goss Road 2004-A-11 David & Lorna Chapman 2004-A-1O Blueberry Beach Development Cone. 3, Part Lot 24, 51R- Corporation Limited 18326 Part 1 (Medonte) East Part Lot 20, South Part Lot 19, Block C, Pt BLK E RP 51R- 2004-A-13 Tara Fingold 11728 Pts 1,2 (OriIlia) Plan 1151, Part Lot 22 & 23 (Oro) A -7 /03(Rev) Maria Christina J annetta 3 McLean Crese. Cone. 9, Plan 882, Lot 5 (Oro) 1047 Lakeshore Road E. A -16/03(Rev) Mark Prince Cone. 1, East Part Lot 42 (Flos) 3524 Penetanguishene Road 2 0,. -?. If)-J RECOMMENDATION S: 1. THAT Report No. PD 2004-14 be received. Respectfully submitted, A~ Andy Karaiskakis Junior Planner C.A.O. Comments: Date: C-UNLrJ /L <..v [1 J.J 6(c!) ioAl .> C.A.O. Dept. Head .~-c:. Lt /L'L/oL! 3 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for April 15, 2004 Bartor Associates 2004-B-08 Part of Lot 27, RP 51R-16789, Part 1, Less RP 51R-26439, Part 1, less RP 51R-27754, Part 2 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2004-B-08 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment. The land to be severed and conveyed to the adjacent parcel of land, Lot 39 on Plan 807 on the attached map, is proposed to have a width of approximately 60 metres (196.85 feet), a lot depth of approximately 91 metres (298.55 feet), and a lot area of apprdximately 0.73 hectare (1.8 acres). The land to be retained would have an area of approximately 50.58 hectares (125 acres). No new building lots are proposed to be created as a result of the lot addition. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural & Environmental Protection Two Overlay Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Municipal Works and Roads- Building Department- Fire Department- PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are designated Rural with an Environmental Protection Two Overlay in the Oro- Medonte Official Plan. The intent of the Rural policies is to preserve and promote the rural character of the Township and maintain the open countryside. The Rural designation is currently silent with respect to lot additions. OPA #17 which was a general Amendment to the Official Plan was adopted by Council in August 2003 but has not yet been approved by the County of Simcoe and proposes the following new section for the Committee's reference: "Boundary Adjustments A consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot is created. In reviewing an application for such a boundary adjustment, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the properties affected as intended by this Plan. In addition, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the agricultural parcels affected." While it is recognized that OPA#17 is not in effect, it does function as a statement of Council policy. The proposed application would generally maintain the intent of this policy subject to the comments noted below in regards to reducing the size of the proposed lot addition. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97~95, as amended. The lot addition is proposed to be added to a parcel of land that is currently zoned Shoreline Residential (SR). If the application were approved, the new lot would conform with the provisions of the Shoreline Residential zone. It is recommended that the lot addition be rezoned to the Shoreline Residential zone to accurately reflect its intended usage for residential purposes only. ANALYSIS In reviewing the application for the lot addition, it would appear that the application conforms with the general intent of the Official Plan and the provisions of the Zoning By-law. The proposed lot addition would not be in keeping however with the surrounding residential area as the land area involved would be larger than the lot additions done in the past to the surrounding properties. The applicant should indicate to the Committee the need for such a large lot addition and the rationale for not maintaining consistency with the lot additions previously granted through the Township. The proposed lot addition would establish a precedent for additional lot additions to the surrounding properties with further reductions in the larger rural parcel and contrary to the intent of the Official Plan. CONCLUSION The application generally conforms with the boundary adjustment/lot addition policies of the Official Plan; however the lot addition as proposed would not be consistent with the character of the residential area. The application should be amended to only include the area to a depth of 45 metres with a total lot area of 0.68 acres (2778 square metres) to maintain the provisions previously granted by the Township and not establish a future precedent for continuous lot additions. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Consent application 2004-B-08 as amended with a total lot area of 0.68 acres (2778 square metres) subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan in addition with 2 digital copies of the same of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the severed lands be merged in title with the applicant's rural residential lot and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 3. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 4. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. All of which is respectfully submitted, .--1.J- y Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior. Planner PAGE # 2 APPLICATION 2004-B-08 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION n L-\\) _) BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Lynda Aiken, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby grant Consent application 2004-B-08 as amended with a lot depth of approximately 45 metres (147.6 feet) and a total lot area of 0.68 acres (2778 square metres) subject to the following conditions: I. That three copies of a Reference Plan in addition with 2 digital copies of the same of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the severed lands be merged in title with the applicant's rural residential lot and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 3. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 4. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of this notice; 6. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning on the subject lands to accurately reflect the land use; and, 7. If further buildings are proposed to be erected on the subject lands or if the lot grading changes, the existing drainage must remain as is. .. ...Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and <1 :30 p.m. ~"""'... "".., "'''''' >~":'.~."'-~' . ~,.~.-.~,~. . '!: - ~., ~-. "~JOL"J,;,,;;~,~.~-,. ""'."'~+,""''1'I~r~_ ..~ :>-.,'r< . '.,~ ~-~-- - ---~~'''''''''~~='":r., --.~~< ".' , ~-,-..,....-.. I _ ~o. A ~ f'" '1h _ <1' \ 5: " \ :_y p~~O~O~"'O' ~RE~ - . CO~b .. N'2 :13 4 : ,,\1ST. N~ ! 2 ~ 508 --- ,_ ~9'~o.E \to' ..51 2~.'4~ .2-'e' ~O.E \o:"P._84'3212,:>.l24 )'_ 48 E ':.:58011 2,.198 ~Rr 5 ?_8432 R ". , .. ,:. "1 '\ \0 ''Qe ()dcp.-o Lo,n\) 1. , ."'~ [r; 1 0 1\) \D1' !;., \ \ v~. "6 V->) , \'-/ w';i\u((. t- l-cV'J c I NS;. Nfl g2f)iao ~\~\)sO~ ~fOR MER l..'t' LEGEND o AD ~AWS'l\oQ6 Q.DAC> u0 a--- a.-- ~:~--- DENOTES IB"- n_ ---DENOTES IS".. _ _ ~ ~- DENOTES SIB'-' __ - DENOTES 5SIB. _ _ _~. 'DENOTES --DENOTES MONUME MONUME A SO. A ROUI A SO. A SO. 1~1~~'tNCES SHO~~TRIC Fll-f :~~I~~~~E:~6~~f~fE~Rfo 0.:3048. BEARINGS WESTERLY LARE ASTRO" SHOWN AS IMIT OF LO' N31005'30"W ~ t ~6-9 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for April 15, 2004 Steven McCreary 8-7103 (Rev) 2801 Line 8 North, Part of Lot 4 and West Part of Lot 5, Concession 9 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application B-7/03(Rev) is to permit the creation of a new residential lot. The new lot is proposed to have a lot frontage of 110 metres (361 feet), a lot depth of 175 metres (574 feet) and a lot area of 1.92 hectares (4.76 acres). The land proposed to be retained would have a lot frontage of approximately 800 metres (2624.67 feet), a lot depth of approximately 1148 metres (3766.40 feet), and a lot area of approximately 92.5 hectares (228.58 acres), MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural, Environmental Protection One & Environmental Protection Two Overlay Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Municipal Works and Roads- Building Department- Fire Department- PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND It is the applicant's intent to create one new residential lot fronting on Line 8 North, The lands proposed to be severed are currently fallow agricultural fields, the lands proposed to be retained contain agricultural fields, significant woodlands and wetlands. This application was originally scheduled before the Committee in March 2003 at which time it was deferred to allow for the completion of an Environmental Impact Study in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan. The application was subsequently scheduled for December 2003 at which time the application was deferred to allow the applicant to consider a revision to the application to ensure conformity with the policies of the Official Plan. The applicant submitted a revised plan in March 2004 after discussions with the Senior Planner. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject .property is designated Rural, Environmental Protection One, and Environmental Protection Two Overlay in the Township's Official Plan and would therefore be subject to the policies of Section D3 Rural for the consideration of this consent application. While the property is designated Environmental Protection One and Environmental Protection Two Overlay, these designations do not occur of the lands proposed to be severed but relate to the eastern half of the property. In accordance with the EP 2 Overlay policies the applicant has submitted and Environmental Impact Study which indicates that the proposed lot location is acceptable and would require minimum setbacks from the creek area. The specific policies related to the creation of new lots for residential purposes are found in Section D3.3.1 as follows: D3.3.1 The creation of new lots for residential purposes In accordance with the intent of this Plan to maintain the rural character of the Township, only a limited number of new lots for residential purposes can be created in the Township. In this regard, only one new lot can be severed from a lot in the Rural designation that has an area of at least 36 hectares or is the whole of an original Township lot provided a lot has not been severed from the parcel atter March 26, 1973. In considering the creation of a new lot for. residential purposes, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the proposed lot: a) will have a minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares; b) is of an appropriate size for residential use, with such a residential use generally not requiring a lot size that exceeds 2.0 hectares; c) fronts onto an existing public road that is maintained year round by the Township or County; , d) will not cause a traffic hazard as a result of its location on a curve or a hill; and, e) can be serviced with an appropriate water supply and an appropriate means of sewage disposal. The subject property meets the minimum lot area requirements for the original parcel, has not been the subject of any residential severance, and would appear to meet all the requirements above, with the proposed lot having been revised from 2.4 hectares (5.93 acres) to 1.92 hectares (4.76acres). ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) and Environmental Protection in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The proposed and retained lots would appear to comply with the Zoning By-law provisions. ANALYSIS As indicated above, the applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Study prepared by Saar Environmental Limited that supports the location of the proposed lot and ensures the protection of the Environmental Protection areas. There is a recommendation contained in the report that a distance of 15 metres be maintained off of the creek both during and post construction. The Township currently requires a 30 metre setback in the Zoning By-law from all creeks or streams and therefore the recommendation from the environmental consultant would be addressed. CONCLUSION The application generally conforms with the lot creation policies of the Rural designation in the Official Plan. The application meets the minimum zoning requirements for .residential use of the property; in accordance with the Township policies it is recommended that a condition of the approval be for the applicant to obtain a rezoning to accurately reflect the intended use of the property for residential purposes and that the severed lot be rezoned from the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) zone to the Rural Residential Two (RUR2) Zone. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Committee grant Consent application B-7/03 for the creation of a new residential lot subject to the following conditions: 1 . That three copies of a Reference Plan of the new lots be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor and be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for each parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the applicant dedicate to the Municipality $500.00 as a parkland contribution for each lot to be created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution pursuant to subsection 53(12) of the Planning Act,R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13.; 4. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee to the Township in the amount determined by Council as of the date the fee is received by the Township; 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of this notice as noted below; and 6. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning to accurately reflect the intended usage of the severed lot for residential purposes. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~-e Andria Leigh, MCIP.~ Senior Planner PAGE#2 APPLICATION B-7/03(Rev) COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby Grant Consent application B-7/03 as amended for the creation of a new residentiilllot having a frontage of 110 metres (360 feet) and a depth of 175 metres (574 feet) being relocated in the north-west comer of the subject property and subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the new lots be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor and be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for each parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the applicant dedicate to the Municipillity $500.00 as a parkland contribution for each lot to be created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution pursuant to subsection 53(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13.; 4. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee to the Township in the amount determined by Council as of the date the fee is received by the Township; 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of this notice as noted below; and 6. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning to accurately reflect the intended usage of the severed lot for residentiill purposes. .. ...Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 County Road 27 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. c.,...-........-_. _ - - - ....-.~ -.:.Ii.. ~. ' -~~~ ," N!:!::---== .......i ~~~ --:.:" ! : !II'-":'..:" jf I I PLAN OF SURVEY a OF PART OF E 1/2 LOT 4, CONCESS AND AU. OF WI/2 LOT 4 AND N.W.1/4LOT5,CONCESSION 9 TOWNSHIP OF ORC COUNTY OF SIMCOE SC:"LE~12~ 1'1'8 / .,:/ ~ .,.......OCMCll'lS .. '0 ,_OIl... 01J.~...0(1IIIOtU "SO ',....oallOlI....... 1I'O.0.____Dlll00111 1"OU..o ! ~ . ~ ..... " '- :..,:.., :3 ..:...,........,...~t<.~I'IIIQIIT1ofSOUT..IJIt.,.I.I.1T 01' co,"," .-o.IIC "" u. ., WIODICO, 'I1oQ_ as "'H"~"'.SO, ow 1'1.." OJ' ""...,u.,. ... .11..011"",0'" O&l"tO ."C>I !'."U .T~1I)"'"".II"TI <.. ,"ftd lot I ~Z~I L '" I ~' '+=f ~...uau- -1 .......... -...,--...::-- ....~~~.,.. .. t~Z;1 .fIT - --=:::::::=:::- ~~ - - - I i,a393t I , I Ii' '"I ~''''I I ,r"""~~ I. .J , L FIELD I -" l' , .,r , 1 ; ~ I II! r"11~LVU-T--1 'I i :tJST~"~A :::"" "H:.!71'~ ;1 ! 1121601 I ($104.. I I ~..".. 'I-""-"-!!!!!,- --, ~ .,; II II AELO I I~ ,_,:''';.:C:SS:ON --"';~--..;:~.,J J ;; ... t:zc;-;~~ ~ ::"'..;:~ . I~,- I ""061 ~. t ..:;t. t. ~ ........ "M~'::'::'" i--- ~ I ;; ..'_ ......, - I .""". =.'. ~ L" .....~~ .J.---"-'-"'-'-----~ .J . ~-_._~- ."'"1""~ ..;,~ . .... L.a..o '5 as '1*<<0- ..., \131401 I 14s.e I~\.IIC .e:1w1:PI \.01# . l'.'1~.:.'~ . ~ \ ''''LO TI -:.~ -T. ~.-;;~.:~: I .~ ,.. ;l' . i: '%:"1: . ~~L':~~A~L_J FIELD , ..., .: f,'... t t}T 3 N. W. ;/4 L,;'; 5 ~: .~ 'J:Ir ....t; I. : '-, ~!!'-:' .., yo;.:- : i ..... ~ ~. ... "'I:0Il.' - i' l.ii~ =' "- ~!I ~~ :.wj !.u ~'Iil ~~ . ~ ;:; . 0 t..... I 14370?1 0:> ~~OI lu"n I! <:1 ~: .. ~II' ~ I. <:. j" " . r. \( I! I, ,~ 1 iac ii, i; ~ \ " '--\.1_1 .UWlI. ~'6'~=/....-aoo"--' ~ .ioYt\'=-"'\."- ~lk.~/s";"'< _ ~ .0'" ." ,. ...an. 17201-..... ON ....""... ITOTAL Ffe.D AREA -376384 314 In -31:64 Ho -93.00Acs I FIELD L 01" 4 AltEA -'O.IN He. II; :1" ~ II :. . I _>J ,..-- ..~ _.~** * '< .'(.~~-; -(..~!-..\io,6'"'' -"""-_.--:~/:: .~;;:.!: .'\~~~;;,.. :''"::~::.u._, L" -: p'" .;~~ .n........' -\.1" I,.O'tS. &110" ~. ! Ei/Z :"';'T :; ., SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE L {)T 5 I."IIII'IY cr.,... TNa' , ."'" SUIlYIIY &/110 ~_.O( CONIIICTMIO_ accOlllOoUtCl. ..n. 'I'IC SUIIYIInac:1&11011C .....,..,.act_nc~__""'ncJIIiI\IMOIIIf I '''JUII'o'<<_~OIf'MII:t1..OMf1' ...=~~. :::.~=- R.C. KIRKPATRICK ONTA ftlO lANO SUfN(TOJIt UO DUNLOP STRUT W(ST ""E ONTARIO PHON! '21 - l;r,~ tI<<'D (.Ie 01...... OttO'lIM J. .... .lOt' .. 'Ut...-o :z.VI '" .::s. ~& (' -:\ ?~ ~..:1. RECEIVED MAR 1 7 _ I~ _2ow--- -.. .~ e e Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for April 15, 2004 The Heights of Horseshoe Ski Club 2004-8-11 Cone. 3, Part Lots 1 & 2, RP51 R-22624 Parts 1 & 2 (Former Township of Medonte) Horseshoe Valley Resort Ltd. 2004-8-12 Cone. 3, Part East Half Lots 1 & 2, (Former Township of Medonte) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2004-8-11 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment from The Heights of Horseshoe Ski & Country Club to Horseshoe Valley Resort. The lands to be conveyed from The Heights of Horseshoe Ski & Country Club to Horseshoe Valley Resort are identified as Part 1 and Part 2 on the attached survey. No new building lots will be created as a result of the lot additions. The purpose of application 2004-8-12 is to permit a lot additionlboundary adjustment from Horseshoe Valley Resort to The Heights of Horseshoe Ski & Country Club. The lands to be conveyed from Horseshoe Valley Resort to The Heights of Horseshoe Ski & Country Club are identified as Part 5, Part 6 and Part 7 on the attached survey. No new building lots will be created as a result of the lot additions. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Horseshoe Valley Village and Horseshoe Valley Recreational Zoning By-law 97-95 - Future Development Exception (FD*67) and Private Recreational (PR) Zones Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Municipal Works and Roads- Building Department- Fire Department- PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The applicants are proposing boundary adjustments and an exchange of land between the Heights of Horseshoe Ski Club and Horseshoe Resort in order to permit the continued operation and development of the ski club and to permit the construction of a 24-unit townhouse development by Horseshoe Resort at the base of the Heights of Horseshoe Ski Club. e e OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are designated Horseshoe Valley Village and Horseshoe Valley Recreational to recognize both the existing ski facilities and associated clubhouse and to permit the construction of the 24-unit townhouse development which has been approved by the Township, The lands within the Village designation are required to be developed through a Comprehensive Development Plan (COP) which would address a number of matters including: form of servicing, road improvements, phasing and scale of development, and. the means of accessing the individual uses. This COP was prepared and presented to Council for consideration in 2003. Council adopted the COP in August 2003. The COP contemplated the uses that are existing or proposed through this application. The proposed boundary adjustment would facilitate the continued use by the Heights of Horseshoe Ski Club and would permit the development of the 24- unit townhouse development to occur. On this basis, the applications as proposed are deemed to generally conform with the intent of the Official Plan. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is zoned . Future Development Exception 67 (FD*67) and Private Recreational (PR) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The area to be used for the 24-unit townhouse is the subject of a rezoning application to be considered for adoption by Council on April 7, 2004, which would rezone the lands for residential purposes. The Private Recreational zone accurately reflects the use of the ski facilities currently owned by the Heights of Horseshoe. If the Committee approved the lot additions, both the properties would continue to conform with the appropriate zone provisions. ANALYSIS In reviewing the applications for boundary adjustments/lot additions, it would appear that they generally conform with the intent of the Official Plan and the provisions of the Zoning By-law. The proposed lot additions would not have a negative impact on either parcel should they be approved and in fact would facilitate the development approved by Council. CONCLUSION The applications generally conform with the policies of the Official Plan and the provisions of the Zoning By-law. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Committee grant Consent applications 2004-B-11 and 2004-8-12 for proposed boundary adjustments/lot additions between the Heights of Horseshoe Ski & Country Club and Horseshoe Valley Resort Ltd. subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan in addition with 2 digital copies of the same of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the severed lands be merged in title with the applicant's rural residential lot and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 3. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; e e 4. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; and 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. All of which is respectfully submitted, ----/f.-L- ~ Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner e . PAGE#2 APPLICATION 2004-B-ll COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby grant Consent application 2004-B-ll for proposed boundary adjustmentsllot additions between the Heights of Horseshoe Ski & Country Club and Horseshoe Valley Resort Ltd. subject to the following conditions: l. That three copies of a Reference Plan in additioD with 2 digital copies of the same of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the severed lands be merged in title with the applicant's rural residential lot and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 3. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the .lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 4. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; and 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. ... ..Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Mumlay toi"riday, beTween The hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. .. e'55"e: 55.17 SEE DETAIL i , e ,/ ,I _\- 518(1255)\ (IM'I) ... VI ;" t.> PART 17 ~~-, ~ SS1B~ IB N57'45'20"W _ C=22.15 !" A=22.34 g: R=49.00 IB ~ o .. c LAN 51R-22624 PART 1 z '" '" to> '" to.! N .... '" o u:. ::e 1152"38'55"E 60.13 ..",.,\: ~"\ roo \\ PART 1, PARCEL PART 5 51R-27,515 SECTION 51-MED- 3 N67"07'J5"e: 109.00 18 CONCESS/O PAR T 2 PARCEL 1-2. SECTION 51-MED-3 SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT AS SET OUT IN INST. No. 236559 PART 4 PLAN 51R-27557 PART 2 51R-22624. N74., 1" C-1' A-1 R-3~ p ----- -- 79,30 N62"24'55"e: - ~5,68 ~ ~ ~ "''' "''' " "'- - :::: '---- ---- PART 1, PLAN 51R-27557 PART 1 PI AN 51R-27515 e e PAGE#2 APPLICATION 2004-B-12 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby grant Consent application 2004-B-12 for proposed boundary adjustmentsllot additions between the Heights of Horseshoe Ski & Country Club and Horseshoe Valley Resort Ltd. subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan in addition with 2 digital copies of the same of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the severed lands be merged in title with the applicant's rural residential lot and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 3. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 4. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; and 5. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. .. ...Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Monday toFnday, between the hours of8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. e -- ~ \i)- ------ -~s=~-~--~~!t ~_2_~__~~:: U~~-~--~- EAsr p H~ ,Lor ':~ ; ~ I WE 51 HALF I ~ 1 ! Si! , J ANI> 2 -----......- LOT ..... ..- ,,'" ,...- /' /'/' / / , / / / --- PLAN SECTION 51-NED-3 DETAIL'S' HOT 10 SCALE ... I i I ( ! I I I I I I / / / / I I f IL.....'.'...'......".......=--........... (~ ~\ .,~ d' ...........'\ ~.'.:-.>...... .......:y . .......: , PLAN . 1-3 "'RT "i ~_ ei:~~. , , :...-. -- --- -- I..< PART 16 PART 2, PLAN I1IR-27515 :.. ~ ..-r.....~ ..........,. ..... - PART 4 dN"~ """ PART 18 t5 ""1 CON C c S S I 0 N........:..~:/ -- PART 2 -- S S I 0 N'------ / / / / /' /' ".//' ,,'" 4 PMCZl1-2. =~~tMEWDn At lET can Ie lIST..... 23II58t PARi<4'''' PLAN 51R-2'7M7 ( PART 2 I .........--- -OM~,- ..-- '" NOT 1!) SCALE /"'PART 14 / PART 2. PART 21 ( PLAN 51R-27S1S ( . .......-..rt " ~:,~ ~ -a;:'.",:" '1.DT1.~"': /..~ ....-__ HORSESHOE VALLEY ROA!: ----------- 51R-22624 .tf!:.f'!:,' ..... ~. ..........--......i - ....... ........ -..;, w.-...__,._'..,._,..,',._.,v....._~,WW,".,.,.."...,',.,'_--:'./' :". ;': PART 1. .>--....:, i ;PLAH.~!!!::~. '~ " " ',---:;::."" "-'-'" SlNCOE CONDOMINlUI. PLAN No. 35 P::.1.1{_fLAN 51R-271115 SI!C'ntt4 st-tMD-3 "iiWtt""U "i~..~~ !PART 121 ,JPART 111 :i.iXrf''riS''iM-'~''AS'': :11[1' CIJT II lIST. .... :aus:s ." ~1IJU..J!kt...~.,.",.... --- ~iioNPI..AH" . No, 212948.. ~ Port 5, Port 6 and Part 7 subject to lot addition Application 2004-8-12 (ORIGINAL ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIPS OF ORO AND MEDONTE) I I e e C\'o. ~ Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for April 15, 2004 Horseshoe Valley Resort Ltd. 2004-8-13 Cone. 3, Part Lots 1 & 2, RP51R..5809 Pt of Parts 1,2 & 3, and RP 51R-8682 Parts 1 & 2 (Medonte) Horseshoe Valley Resort Ltd. 2004-8-14 Cone. 3, Part Lots 1 & 2, RP 51 R-5809 Pt of Parts 1, 2 & 3, andRP 51 R-8682 Parts 1 & 2 (Medonte) Horseshoe Valley Resort Ltd. 2004-8-14 Cone. 3, Part East Half Lots 1 & 2, RP 51R-5809 Pt of Parts 1,2& 3, and RP 51R-8682 Parts 1 & 2 (Medonte) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2004-8-13 is to permit an easementlright-of-way from Horseshoe Valley Resort to The Heights of Horseshoe Ski & Country Club. The proposed easement would be used to access The Heights of Horseshoe Private Ski Club. The proposed easement is identified as Part 3, Parts 10-15, Part 18 and Part 21 as shown on the attached survey. The purpose of application 2004-8-14 is to permit an easementlright-of-way to be used for future water line services. The easementlright-of-way subject to this application is identified as Parts 10-12, and Part 20 as shown on the attached survey. The purpose of application 2004-8-15 is to permit an easementlright-of-way from Horseshoe Valley Resort to New Millennium Homes Condominium Project. The proposed easement would be used to access the proposed condominium site. The proposed easement is identified as Part 2, Parts 10-16, Parts 18-19 and Part 21 as shown on the attached survey. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Horseshoe Valley Village and Horseshoe Valley Recreational Zoning By-law 97-95 - Future Development Exception (FD*67) & Private Recreational (PR) Zones Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Municipal Works and Roads- Building Department- Fire Department- e e PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The applicants are proposing three easements/rights of way which would permit both the future water line to access the 24-unit townhouse condominium development and to permit access over the existing roadway to both the Heights of Horseshoe Ski Club and to New Millennium Homes (the 24-unit townhouse condominium development). OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are designated Horseshoe Valley Village and Horseshoe Valley Recreational to recognize both the existing ski facilities and associated clubhouse and to permit the construction of the 24-unit townhouse development which has been approved by the Township. The lands within the Village designation are required to be developed through a Comprehensive Development Plan (COP) which would address a number of matters including: form of servicing, road improvements, phasing and scale of development, and the means of accessing the individual uses. This COP was prepared and presented to Council for consideration in 2003. Council adopted the COP in August 2003. The COP contemplated the uses that are existing or proposed through this application. The proposed easements would facilitate the continued usage by the Heights of Horseshoe Ski Club and would permit access to the development of the 24-unit townhouse condominium development as required by the adopted COP and the draft approved plan of condominium which was approved by Council on March 17, 2004. On this basis, the applications for easements as proposed are deemed to generally conform with the intent of the Official Plan. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is zoned Future Development Exception 67 (FD*67) and Private Recreational (PR) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The area to be used for the 24-unit townhouse condominium is the subject of a rezoning application to be considered for adoption by Council on April 7, 2004, which would rezone the lands for residential purposes. The Private Recreational zone accurately reflects the use of the ski facilities currently owned by the Heights of Horseshoe. The approval of the easements by the Committee would not affect the zoning provisions on the property but would ensure all parcels have registered access for their continued usage. ANALYSIS In reviewing the three easement applications, they would appear to generally conform with the intent of the Official Plan and the provisions of the Zoning By-law. The proposed easements would not have a negative impact on the continued usage of the Horseshoe Resort Lands and would facilitate the continued development of the lands in accordance with the Comprehensive Development Plan approved by Council in August 2003. CONCLUSION The three applications for easements generally conform with the policies of the Official Plan and the provisions of the Zoning By-law. e - RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee grant Consent applications 2004-8-13, 2004-8-14, and 2004-8-15 for proposed easements to The Heights of Horseshoe Ski & Country Club, to the New Millennium Homes Condominium Project, and for a future water line subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan in addition with 2 digital copies of the same of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; and 3. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. All of which is respectfully submitted, ---1~ --t:.o-l Andria Leigh, MCIP, HPP Senior Planner e e PAGE#2 APPLICATION 2004-B-13 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby Grant Consent application 2004- B-13 for a proposed easement to The Heights of Horseshoe Private Ski Club subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan in addition with 2 digital copies of the same of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; and 3. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. ... ..Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South in Oro Station, Ontario, MOllday to Ftiday, Letwt:t:ll tht: lloU!:) of 8.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. e e ~";;:"/P;';'7~ ~---- -... "'" ~>. ----~.~==.==:~fS:.. ........... , PART 1. :",- "...... -~:-y,,- .f '",#,,!'!,::~!!!!r,L.. "~" :;;::... ;,..; '~'---:;":::-::;::::::::::::::"~-::"--:"----~'1 ~-- \ L.. f P~'I...PI.AN !lIR-V!lI!1 , _M_ I I l__...J C> ~ ~ WEST HALF LOT SEC110N 51-11ED-3 I I I ~ I ! ~ , I . PART'" ;Pi:AN' 51R":2B730'" . . PARCEL 1-12 ,.. SECTION 51-1iED-~ ; II&I!CI' 10 NI IAImII:MT M .., ..INIT......~ ~~.,.~c~ .........------.............. .......... "'- ./ " ./ DETAIL 'S' ,,/'" NOT 10 SCALE " / / / / :in:,. -,,'.-' / I / I I I I I I I I / 'PNfT 2. PI.AN !lIR-27M7I I / PART 4 I ! ! ! \ \ PART 17 \ \ \ " " PART 18 I I I I I I / / / / / / ,,- / /'" ... ,- ......../ '~""m- ~ /'~ / <:., ~ .... PAR T 1 CON C E S S ION.....;;;:.... ......: ~ .....c PART 2 -. _.; ....... ,.,..~.: PJrIICf11-1. ........ :f:\ ~~1AIIWDfT AI tt.T-4'-'w~, " , Sf CIUT.. _... - lPARm;-2i eIR-22112~ ~ ~ ~ CON C:E S S I 0 N....----- 4 ,__--- -wAil7A'- /' NOT TO SCALE //PART 14 / PART 2. t PlAN !l1':~!I ( \ EXPRCPRIA110N __ --. --J EJCPRCJPIItA1iQN '- PlAN No. 21_ };; ... .. ..;. PlAN No. 212H ,~~""\:" /1m".~..,./ ........___ HORSESHOE VAU.EY ROAD___........ ------------ PART 21 ---- -..... .... PART 13 -...... PART 2- PlAN !l111-2873O :~;'F,,,,( -;"::" ..J~;.. '.N SlllCOE CONDOIINUII ..;.. PI.AN No. 3!1 . .. ) f~;;';; .,; .!P ART 121 ~APART 111 t~ft~r:~~.~: .-r..,_..._.~...m............,..<'..: ------'"- -- EJCPIICI'RIA1IQN ;.!,!!-..)!I~..;. .,.- ~ Part 3, Parts 10-15, Part 18 and Part 21 Application 2004-8-13 (ORIGINAl ROAD ALLOWANCE BETVtEEN GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIPS OF ORO AND MEDONTE) I I e e PAGE # 2 APPLICATION 2004-B-14 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby Grant Consent application 2004-B-14 for a proposed easement for future waterline services subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan in addition with 2 digital copies of the same of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; and 3. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. ... ..Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hoursof8:30 a.m. and 1\:30 p.m. e e AND 2 _____.::.:-I'~ U-"",-=~I.!.._~__~1S_~_~_~L._ NL u.eL.. .-' ....., .......... . (""'.,,,...w.CCIINEJt "'" -. EAST HALF :.. ~ C) ~ ~ "i WEST HALF LOT 1 P A SECllON 51-1IED-3 I I 1 ?!\ I 5 ~ a ~ , I PART 1, PLAN 51R-28730 ! PARCEl 1-12 < SECllON 51-IIED-4 a&ECr 10 AN DoS:MDIT M IE!' t,INMT.ND. ~ ~".=W_~~ ="'~"", , ".,....--.:-----........... /- ,.- ,.- / / / / / / / DETAIL 'B' NOT TO SCAlE PART 1 PlAN 51R-22624 ~ iE ~ \ PART 17 \ \ \ " " '. ,... -- -- -- ~ !d ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I /IPAAT 2, PlAN 51R-275571 I / PART 4 I ! I ! \ PAR T 1 PLAN IPART 171 1 t 51R-22624 ' , PART 1 f ...................'=.:.r. ""m I ~... .,-" PMIZ. 1-2 tEZ:"JKIM I'I~== ..l~................... :._ ..... -...... _. ':.::. .... .. '" ~ ~.~~ ~-=-~~~~ ~ PART 1~' PlAN- J 11 51R-27515 PARCEL 1-3 , SECTION 51-1oIED-3 PART 55=-" ~. \~ ______~ 'x.... --= ~.. "...~~ , CONCESSION-S_~\ PART 2 -.. ...... ~ ......,,' ".c._....... -.. ........ , ..... .-... .... ... PlAN --r.....'\ '\ ='!~:, ill I :.. i5 ... I' ~ .... PART 18 / I I / / / / " / / / ,.- ... -_/ ---- CON S S I 0 N...----- 4 PMCEL 1-2,. ...... ..--.. IIU8t.ICT 10 AN IAIEMDff ,. JET CIJT II 1Br. No. 23IISM PAR!'""'" " PlAN 51R-27M'7 I PART 2 I ,...---- -D~~.- --- .r - NOT TO SCALE -.... --- //PART 14 PART 1: / PNlT 2. PART 21 PART 2 ( PI.NI 5111-:l7515 PI.NI <~1R-~ Lm . EXPROPI \ ~:,~ PI.NI No. " .. r. CCIIe'_.. ,>":~ .:" .' "..... CCIIe:Jt "'" LOT 1. CCItCI::8QM ~ \ LOT t. CCI!!!!!!!. ~___ HORSESHOE VALLEY ROAD_---- -~-----~_.--- 51R-22624 SlllCOE CONDOIIINIUIoI m. PlAN No. 35 iPM'f4 i . .- i___' ;".IPART 121 II/.IPART 111 Sl:f~r::;'~Ai~ ~"-"~"'-~"~' / ............... . -- J.. U!!~.,,"'~.~~,~.'m___'="'_,~,. ...._-- (ORIGINAL ROAD ALlOWANCE BETWEEN GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIPS OF ORO AND t.lEDONTE) I I IIparts 10-12 and Port 20 subject to easement Application 2004-8-14 e e PAGE#2 APPLICATION 2004-B-15 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Grant ConseDt application 2004-B-15 for a proposed easement to the New Millennium Homes Condominium Project subject to the fonowing conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan in addition with 2 digital copies of the same of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; and 3. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. ... ..Carried." Additional infonnation regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of 01O-Medonte Administzation Cenbe, 148 Line 7 South in 010 Station, OUlill.IO, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. . . _~_~~~_____=Jt~ U~'~~~_~__~~~_~_~L_ H.E.CII8IEII:".",r Llll'1 _3 !''''........ CCIN8 Llll'1 -. ::.. ~ <:> ""',', ~ ~ ..., WEST HALF LOT 1 I I I ~ I ! ~ , I . '''''.W," ,~,~,. ~._~~ .y', '~"p~~" ~u~'" , "".,.,..------........- ....-- /' /' /' / / / /' / / DETAIl. 'S' NOT TO SCAlE : =:k1, i~ 51R-28730 ~J ,,' SEC110N 51-I,AED-4 :. ...,., 10 Nt IMDIUf1' AI en If..-L.... .121'1* ~ ... \ PART 17 \ \ \ " " '..J!flI" ~ .... .,~~ /..//~ / / I I I I I I I I ! /,PAAT 2. PlAN 51R-275571 I / PART 4 I I j ! \ 4 I j~ t~~~ 'Ji.... PARCfJ. 1-3 PART 5 ....~ '\:'" I"'~~ CON C E S S I 0 N-JI"..I~,f! =,.? ); ,"" PAR T 2 .......: .......;, i . "'0".~:",=::'"' j !>~H" ........ ; :.. ~ *1 :;'n ,.' PART 18 / / / / / /' / / / ./ /' /' ....- ...- CON CIE S S I 0 N....---'--- '" 'MOD. t-J,. IEC1ICIt It......m-3 aa.s::T 1'0 M IEAtIDIPfT AI tETCIUT..Nn.....2311588 '''AIrI~.. ...., ! PlAN 51R-27M7J I PART 2 I -~ -OCTPJL 7j.,.- --- ......-""- NOT TO SCALE -..........- /'/PART 14 / PART 2, ( PLAN 51~.~~~ L .,. -- : DIPIIOF \" ~~~ .~ -::::-im: PLAN No "'-.. Lart.~^\, ~~w.,"c::::.o -- ....-__ HORSESHOE VAU.EY ROAD_----- ---._---------- PART 21 PART 1 PART : PLAN 51ft- 51R-22624 ~~ '.../ ------ ", ,,,'" .~.":''''i%::".,,;,: ""'A .' ./'V: . ./[~~~~;;]l~~ . '~, \ -:::---- - ,~::::::::.:::~- SI\ICOE <:aiOOIoItNIUM PlAN No. 35 PAAT 1 PlAN 51R-27515 .""'" i... -- --- ~1Ki< PI.AN ' ~..~~. ------,.. ."I~..~~,...".~.,.j .,.--- (ORIGINAL ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN GEOGRAPHIC ~art 2. Ports 10-16. Ports 18-19 and Port 21 subject to TOWNSHIPS OF ORO AND MEDONiE) ~asement I I >o\pplication 2004-8-15 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for April 15, 2004 APT Operational Management Inc. 2004-8-09 Cone. 2, Part of Lots 2, RP 51 R-28938, Parts 2 & 5 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The purpose of application 2004-8-09 is to permit a boundary adjustment. The land to be conveyed and added to the lot immediately to the west, Porter, would have a shoreline frontage of approximately 30.48 metres (100 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.14 hectares (0:34 acres). The land proposed to be retained would have a lot frontage of approximately 207.46 metres (680.64 feet), a lot depth of approximately 346.57 metres (1,137 feet), and a lot area of approximately 7.48 hectares (18.48 acres). No new building lots will be created as a result of this boundary adjustment. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural, Shoreline & Environmental Protection Two Overlay Zoning 8y-law97-95 - Agricultural/Rural Exception (A/RU*134) and Shoreline Residential Exception (SR*134) Zone Previous Applications - 8-24/99,8-25/99, and 8-10/00 AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Municipal Works and Roads- Building Department- Fire Department- PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing a lot additionlboundary adjustment of an irregular shape with approximately 30.44 metres (99.8 feet) of water frontage and a lot area of 0.14 hectares (0.34 acres) which will be added to the existing residential lot to the east to allow for a waterfront area which can be utilized for access purposes. No new lot is being created by this application. OFFICIAL PLAN The subject lands are designated Rural and Shoreline with an Environmental Protection Two Overlay to recognize the significant woodlands on the subject property in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The property is split between the Rural designation for the northern half of the property adjacent to the Ridge Road and the Shoreline designation for the southern half of the property adjacent to lake Simcoe. The policies applicable to this application are contained in Section D10 (Shoreline). The intent of the Shoreline policies is to maintain the existing character of this residential area, protect the natural features of the immediate shoreline, and ensure the development is appropriately serviced with water and sewer services. The Shoreline designation is currently silent with respect to lot additions. OPA #17 which was a general Amendment to the Official Plan was adopted by Council in August 2003 but has not yet been approved by the County of Simcoe and proposes the following new section for the Committee's reference: "Boundary Adjustments A consent may be permitted for the purpose of modifying lot boundaries, provided no new building lot is created. In reviewing an application for such a boundary adjustment, the Committee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the use of the properties affected as intended by this Plan. In addition, the ComrTIittee of Adjustment shall be satisfied that the boundary adjustment will not affect the viability of the agricultural parcels affected." While it is recognized that OPA#17 is not in effect, it does function as a statement of Council policy. The proposed application would generally maintain the intent of this policy and would not affect the viability of the use of either property. The proposed consent for the boundary adjustment would generally conform with the intent of the policies of the Official Plan. ZONING BY-LAW The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Rural Exception (AlRU*134) and Shoreline Residential (SR*134) in the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. The exception zone on the subject property recognizes the minimum lot frontage and minimum lot area requirements and restricts buildings or structures from being permitted in the lands zoned AgriculturaVRural (AlRU) in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan. The applicants have also submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment application in order to recognize the revised lot frontage and lot area requirements for both properties and to permit accessory structures only in the lands zoned Agricultural/Rural (AlRU). The re-zoning is required to be adopted in order for the properties to comply with the provisions of Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended. ANALYSIS In reviewing the application for a lot addition/boundary adjustment, it would appear that the application conforms with the general intent of the Official Plan and subject to re-zoning with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. CONCLUSION The application generally conforms with the boundary adjustmentllot addition policies of the Official Plan and would maintain the character of this residential area; however the boundary adjustmenVlot addition should be subject to a condition of re-zoning in order to ensure the application once approved conforms with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Committee grant Consent application 2004-B-09 a boundary adjustmenVlot addition of 0.14 hectares (0.34 acres) subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan in addition with 2 digital copies of the same of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the severed lands be merged in title with the applicant's rural residential lot and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 3. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 4. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 5. That the applicant obtain a re-zoning to accurately reflect the revised minimum lot frontage and lot area requirements of both parcels; and 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. All of which is respectfully submitted, --1J ~ Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner PAGE#2 APPLICATION 2004-B-09 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby Grant Consent application 2004-B-09 a boundary adjustment/lot addition of 0.14 hectares (0.34 acres) subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan in addition with 2 digital copies of the same of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary; 2. That the severed lands be merged in title with the applicant's rural residential lot and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 3. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 4. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 5. That the applicant obtain a re-zoning to accurately reflect the revised minimum lot frontage and lot area requirements of both parcels; and 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. .. ...Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 60.96 ,....(lOP) 0.1(. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CO \ '<I" \ CO \ ~ \ t') \ I \ ~ \ ~ U') 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 Jr~_W.~_ I I') <0 ,...: o ~ b "0 ;; N Z I Z <( -' 0.. I- ~ <( 0.. -Ii o I/') ,...: N N , ~ i') r> N z 122.0:1: 1.8.' LAKE SIMCOE '-- WATER'S EDGE SEPTEMBER 14th 2003 ( KEMPENFEL T BA Y ) (WATER'S EDGE BY R. MAK O.LS.) PART OF LOT 1 & 2 CONCESSION 2 E.P.R. FORMERLY IN THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO NOW IN THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COUNTY OF SIMCOE PART 2 PLAN 51R-28938 & PART 1 PLAN 51R-31848 ~ Ii pg LANDS TO BE RETAlNP> L~ 7.48 ha (18.48 -> ~ LANDS TO BE SEVERED ~m~-) METRIC DIST ANGES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN METJ!ES AND CAN BE CON'lERl'ED TO FEET BY DIVIDING BY 0.30411. CUENT APT OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT INC. - CONSENT APPUCATION Lucas & Associates _"'I'IIaIIIDI"''-'~ 84 Dobra _I. -. 011_ W!l1ITI ('10&) 711-_ ru ('10&) 711-_ DRAWN BY DRAWING NO GJL ~- 1 DATE MARCH 22, 2004 Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for April 15, 2004 Warren & Kerri Ann Fitzgerald & Gary & Mindy West 2004-A-09 107 Lakeshore Road West, Concession 7, Plan 755, Lot 42 and Part of Lots 41 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95: · Setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe of 20 metres (65.6 feet) to a proposed 8.5 metres (28 feet) for the construction of a deck at the rear of the detached dwelling, as shown on the attached sketch; and, · Minimum required interior side yard setback of 3 metres (9.8 feet) to a proposed 2 metres (6.56 feet) for the proposed deck MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - none AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Public Works- Building Department - Fire Department- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 30 metres (98.2 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.08 hectares (0.221 acres). The lands are currently the site of an existing dwelling constructed in 1972, with recent renovations. The applicants are proposing to construct a deck at the rear of the dwelling with an area of approximately 20 m2 (221 ft2). Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section 010.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives: · To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. · To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. · To ensure that existing development is appropriately serviced with water and sewer services. The proposed deck would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline residential area and would therefore conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. 1 Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By':law? The primary role of setbacks to Lake Simcoe is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. To this end the application has been circulated to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority who has not commented on the proposal. The site inspection revealed that the existing dwelling and proposed deck addition should not adversely impact surrounding environmental features and therefore the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the By-law Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed deck would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. It is believed that the stairs for the deck would be situated on the east side of the dwelling, maintaining the minimum 3 metre side yard setback. Should the stairs come down from the front of the deck to the shoreline, the applicants would require an additional minor variance. On this basis, the deck would provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood and would not lead to the over development of the lot. Are the variances minor? On the basis that the size of the deck is reasonable and should not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area, the proposed variances are considered to be minor. CONCLUSIONS The subject application for a minor variance to permit a deck at the rear of an existing dwelling generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance application 2004-A-09 as follows: THAT PERMISSION TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE IS GRANTED FOR 107 LAKESHORE ROAD WEST FOR A 20 M2 (221 FT2) DECK ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE DWELLING. and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 2. The deck shall be setback no closer than 8.2 metres (27 feet) from the high water mark of Lake Simcoe; 3. The deck shall be setback no closer than 2 metres (6.5 feet) from the interior side yard; 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and approved by Committee; 5. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; and 2 q\j 6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte. All of which is respectfully submitted, A~ Andy Karaiskakis Junior Planner Reviewed by, .~5 -eyt Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner 3 PAGE # 2 APPLICA TION 2004-A-09 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by. Allan Johnson, seconded by Garry Potter "That the Committee hereby Grant Minor Variance application 2004-A-09 as follows: THAT PERMISSION TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE IS GRANTED FOR 107 LAKESHORE ROAD WEST FOR A 20 M2 (221 FT2) DECK ADDmON AT A DEPTH OF NO MORE THAN 1.8 METRES (6 FEET) AT THE REAR OF THE DWELLING. and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for withinthe Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 2. The unenclosed deck shall be setback no closer than 8.2 metres (27 feet) from the high water mark of Lake Simcoe; 3. The unenclosed deck shall be setback no closer than 2 metres (6.5 feet) from the interior side yard; 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and approved by Committee; 5. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; and 6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte. ... ..Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. SHORE ~~-)~ ROAD \N. " WN AS LAKE , LAKEVtE.W eOU\....EV6.Rt) SIS' SY R{;GIS'1'E.P.EO Pt,AN 75!> .- ........~D~ [ .~'- ,.. ~+...--_...~,.~.tc;o:~o-;l~;-;ti~-.~. ;.U 0' o ('oJ o 10 .C' -j' .O~-A' I' '.. '\..' ' } Os._,__~",__-,-,,_,_, 1,. ' '\. ,', 'a~,. .\. ., -::0. ~'v !' iA. J..~ , , ,~ .. !1rr- . "-"'70-l~~P"~8 \~(-;-,. :=-lfl~z~~~ ~~~ '~~~"'--:T6:~O i;---.-..----r.-,8-=-~.--'- ( j I J H.( ,""ui I "t 1 ~..I1JiU_ I I j';: i con'''-I'~1 V' r-l.01 ~ I ~. ~ ! t .~. I ~1 .~ s \\j ;1 // ~ .., ;..; r-... ;; "I CQ '" "=;: \0 '" 1'1 1-1- 35 f, .: ~ '" ':"J' .','" 0,", ..t:- .J ,.. o .J r"\ ~ t- w ,,,,. 11\ 'i " . -....i .. ., N " .. ... ~ :t z: ::i .. \jJ . I- w ., " ''''. ;; g .. I- W .., ID N .. . a ,.,"'. ARtA : O.~ai N:, 9Vf\AN75:> 6.-16' · r:(u .J ~ ... I- W ..J .1 1'\ .. ~ 0 ... 0 ). -ERED I! '-J '" "LAN j 2 \..-"'" . " ~ ~ '" 755 r ~ J I. ell. -- 11 t- :1 ~ I- ~ 06 'I I ~ 0 ." . -1 ~;!~~...~~-~: I ~ 1 "- 3' ~ 11 " t .. Ie WIT C?r- :J:J ~ 0 .~'! -J :.. ~ ;1 " l- I/) = ,...,,11 I r J-L,! , I '-="" ID H,t" ,.....-r.- ----'"7MT' SIMCOE LAK E ./;" , , " .' .... . "" , . .1" I.. '. . '. . . f'" . . , .,' , . ---' 0\ I Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for April 15, 2004 Marvin & Wendy Beamish 2004-A-05 227 Tudhope Blvd., Plan 1642, Lot 32 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant has applied for the following relief to permit the construction of a detached garage in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone. Required Proposed Maximum floor area of a detached Accessory structure 70 m2 91 .4 m2 MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications- AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Municipal Works and Roads-No Road Concerns Building Department- Department has reviewed the application and the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Fire Department- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The applicant's lot has a street frontage of 58.5 metres (192 feet), a depth of 121 metres (397.05 feet) and a lot area of 0.7 hectares (1.75 acresJ. The subject property is currently vacant. It is the applicant's intent to construct a 224m2 (2416 ft ) dwelling and a 91.4 m2 (984 ft2) detached garage to be located a minimum of 17m (55.8 ft) from the rear lot line and 10m (32.8ft) from the interior side lot line. The applicant has requested the above noted relief to accommodate room for storage of equipment and to accommodate room for a boat. The Four Tests of the Minor Variance Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 of the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives for the Shoreline designation. · To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. · To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. · To ensure that existing development is appropriately serviced with water and. sewer services. The applicant has amended the application thereby reducing the area of the proposed detached accessory building. The proposed size of the detached accessory building being 984 ft2 would maintain the character of the residential area and would therefore generally conform with the intent of the policies of the Official Plan. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The applicant is intending to use the proposed building for personal storage of a boat and equipment. The intent of the Zoning By-law is to provide regulations which should foster compatibility amongst land uses and structures. With respect to accessory buildings, zoning regulations typically try to ensure that such buildings are clearly accessory and incidental to the primary use of the lot. The primary reason for controlling maximum floor areas on accessory buildings in a residential area is to ensure that structures are consistent with the character of a community and do not evolve into other secondary or subsequent land uses, such as an apartment or industrial uses. Given these factors, the reduced floor area now proposed by the applicant is deemed to conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Detached storage buildings and garages are a common element in aU types of residential areas. The minor variance as revised to a maximum floor area of 91.0m2 (984 sq. ft) is now considered to be consistent with the character of a residential lot and the overall residential area. On this basis, the application is deemed to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot. Is the variance minor? The application is deemed to be minor in nature on the basis that the application meets the four tests of the minor variance, that an accessory building is a permitted use on a residential property, that the proposed structure is well setback from the side and rear lot lines, and that the revised floor area is compatible with the overall residential area, CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the comments noted above, the proposed application for a detached accessory building addresses the four tests of the minor variance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approved Minor Variance application 2004-A-05 being a . 91 .4 square metres (984 square foot) detached accessory building to a residential use subject to the following conditions: 1. That the size of the proposed detached accessory structure be a maximum of 91.4 square metres (984 square feet); 2. That the applicants obtain approval for a Part 8 Sewage Application from the Township of Oro-Medonte Building Department; 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimension$ as set out in the application and approved by Committee; and 5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~~ -i-J- Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner ~D f t -'1) PAGE #2 APPLICATION 2004-A-05(Rev) COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by L)'Ilda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Grant Minor Variance application 2004-A-05 being a 89.18 square metres (960 square foot) detached accessory building to a residential use subject to the following conditions: l. That the size of the proposed detached accessory structure be a maximum of 89.18 square metres (960 square feet); 2. That the applicants obtain approval for a Part 8 Sewage Application from the Township of Oro-Medonte Building Department; 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and approved by Committee; and 5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte. .. ...Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South inOro Station, Ontario, Monday to Priday, betwccn the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. , ; .. ....... p' ~ ~ ~ p e::-' ;c _L..CH } ,A f~f\ ~ f, LrJ '- ! - ..-.- , \ 0V ,- \ Mt"Il2.\t.1. CRI'$\-{$\~ l i~t>.\f.,.. !-' )\ I I \ P -', , , , i i , I ; ; ""- n ,." .....:> r- 'iI ,.-J. -:[) ,m 'U" "'" ""-~ ~ """'>" -- !,-" ! ,"'- '''''''--. """'" "~ ~ ~ "'-~ ."--. !,.,,-g """'" -"",,- '-...... ''''~ G r- "'" ~ !""'-"0 r~ ~ ',...... f.." """. 6'" " r""-..,, n >". ", ~ ~ ...... ''..''-'. \.1' '"'' i....,., "'-'" ", ~ ~ ~I\ "'. - "'''''-'.. i3 I"'"... , " '. ""'" , , '::? ~1 LI:\\o,)I...... ,~, _J t=: l~ ~ I I' '-.' ,i " on i --.!! . i ~ ! I U-.e-t--.--) i ~ i ~ : ~ i ~ ... i,1 _I ~ ( r, ~ '$ ~ :-- --7" . (1 r I .~ "IV ;Fo ~~ e~ ... J \ ~...:J :;, i I I ! I 1 ., Co.;" t'W"" -;- !Vi':':'" .! I ~! ~ ~ !,,, " ,"3!:f- .. I j;' 't) IV - '," (1-> fl. ,. "",. .-.....,~. !~ '- ~ 'l~ b, ~",,-.' ~ ""1" ~:':'i' -". 1'---- .~f'\l i:I I/'\"h.,f'JK1. n.. ~ .... - -- ;2, i " )1/ ~ ~ f I I _ I - i I !! I ! \1 1\ I , \ ' '" i \ i , -+-~~+ i I '\ I ~,--- 1_ J , \1 I ~.l , 1;;:::- j ~~ !8J Uo:t.i i r'\Y ICI r 1\, [:-\1, ;t '., ,! ;1 '\! 1 l' l _ i .~ I~! ..-j I~ i j , J5''-J I~ ..... ". .p-' I :- " \~, --t if .:r:-, , ~ t 1 I \ L ! li'I ..,i -.j ---t-. 1 ! i l "-- , . !~ -">" i', ~-- ~ '-., ""'-' '-....,. S " '-', t:::- "'" f..., F\ "" "'" ! I [ j,\ ~\J-- t) Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for April 15, 2004 Ian & Mimi Eng 2004-A-07 33 Goss Road, Concession 1, Plan 791, West Half Lot 16, Lot 17 to 18 (Orillia) , THE PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95: Setback from the average high water mark of Bass Lake-for new dwelling -for elevated deck Required 15 m (49.2 ft) 15 m (49.2 ft) Proposed 9 m (29.5 ft) 5.5 m (18ft) Minimum required front yard setback -for new dwelling 7.5 m (24.6 ft) 6.1 m (20 ft) MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential Limited Service Exception Two Holding Provision (RLS*2(H)) Zone Previous Applications - none AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Public W orks- Building Department- Fire Department- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 38.71 metres (127 feet), a lot depth of approximately 30.48 metres (100 feet), a shoreline fronta~e of approximately 38.71 metres (127 feet) and a lot area of approximatel~ 1,179 m2 (12,691 ft). The lands currently have a cottage with an area of approximately 122 m (1,313 fe). The owner is proposing to demolish the existing cottage and build a one and a half storey new single detached dwelling with an attached elevated deck at the rear of the dwelling. The gross floor area for the new dwelling would be 367 m2 (3,950 ft2) and is proposed to have a front yard setback of 6.1 metres (20 feet) and will be setback approximately 9 metres (29.5 feet) from Bass Lake. The elevated deck will be setback a minimum of 5.5 metres (18 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass Lake. Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. Section D10.1 which contains the Shoreline policies in the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives: 1 <1\0 . To maintain the existing character of this predominantly residential area. . To protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. . To ensure that existing development is appropriately serviced with water and sewer services. The requested variances for the dwelling and attached elevated deck would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline residential area and would therefore conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. Do the varianc.es conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? Theprimary role of setbacks to Bass Lake is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate shoreline. To this end the application has been circulated to the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority who has not commented on the proposal to date. The site inspection revealed that the proposed dwelling and elevated deck should not adversely impact the natural features of the shoreline and therefore the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the By-law . Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed new dwelling and elevated deck would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given that the proposed dwelling and attached elevated deck would provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood and would not lead to the over development of the lot. Are the variances minor? On the basis that the size of the dwelling and elevated deck are reasonable and would not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area, the proposed variances are considered to be minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS The subject application to permit a new dwelling and elevated deck on the subject property generally satisfies the four tests of the minor variance. . RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance 2004-A-07 subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed elevated deck shall be setback no closer than 5.1 metres (17 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass Lake; 2. The proposed dwelling shall be setback no closer than 8.5 metres (27.8 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass Lake; . 3. The proposed dwelling shall be setback no closer than 6.1 metres (20 feet) from the front lot line; 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted; 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, if required; 2 6. That the applicants obtain approval for a Change of Use Septic System or for a Part 8 Sewage Application as determined by the Township of Oro-Medonte Building Department; 7. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to. the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report; and, 8. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of which is respectfully submitted, J\ Andy Karaiskakis Junior Planner Reviewed by, .-A-~ ~ Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner 3 PAGE#2 APPLICA TION 2004-A-07 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Garry Potter, seconded by Lynda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Grant Minor Variance 2004-A-07 subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed elevated unenclosed deck shall be setback no closer than 7 metres (23 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass Lake; 2. The proposed dwelling shall be setback no closer than 9 metres (29 feet) from the average high water mark of Bass Lake; 3. The proposed dwelling shall be setback DO closer than 6.1 metres (20 feet) from the front lot line; 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted; 5. That the appropriate permit be obtained from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, pursuant to regulations made under the Conservation Authorities Act; 6. That the applicants obtain. approval for a Part 8 Sewage Application as. determined by the Township of Oro-Medonte Building Department; 7. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report; and, 8. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. ... ..Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. -49 ~..y --=----------~p.'f~ "11U'-1<. . .. -. . . .- ~ ~&~ ' t F~..:\1" \....0\ \.-\ N E I ~ , . BA55 ~ 1)\~{~~c.s-~ r,I- , t L..- _ ~ ~ c, I I I ,.4 I t I I I . 1 I L_ r ---:-1 I I I I . I 'I I I I I I I I '-- _,___..J 1. E. bo..s:::. ~ ( ~~\~A-"t"e) b'\ ~ L~~~D: - - - - -t:.7l-\S"t I~~ O\)\1.-~I~"') ~o t>O~~'B~'Lt>I~(""\ '" "" '?f<c~oS6-P \j~ (t:.Le,,~-re..'j)) A.~ B~ c.: D '. f:. '. F .. c,~ r\ '. 1-: ...) ~ 38~1 \ M '30. '-':~M. Co. \ ..IV\ 5.?"" {O ., fw"\ \ ~ '411'1\. l\ . 2. eUV\ \ \ .55 ""'. to . 2.. t . "" J J4.. b ~ M " - .. - .. <: '-' I( t:. V: 'R~R. \..o~,/'u~e $~~,-e..: \ c:. "'" : \.<:}-:2.. I q Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for April 15, 2004 Blueberry Beach Development Corporation Limited 2004-A-10 Concession 1, East Part Lot 20, South Part of Lot 19, Block C, Pt Blk E RP 51R-11728 Parts 1 and 2 (Orillia) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief from the minimum lot frontage requirement of 30 metres (98.4 feet) to a proposed lot frontage of 29.5 metres (96.8 feet). MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation -Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential Exception (SR*99) Zone Previous Applications - 2004-B-05 AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County- Public Works- Building Department - The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Fire Department- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 29.5 metres, a lot depth of approximately 61 metres (201 feet), and a lot area of approximately 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres). The lands are currently vacant and were the subject of a consent application approved by the Committee in March 2004. One of the conditions of approval of the consent was that the applicant apply for a minor variance to recognize the minor deficiency in the lot frontage requirement. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. The intent of the Shoreline policies is to maintain the character of the residential area and to protect the natural features of the shoreline. The proposed minor variance would allow for a slight reduction in the minimum lot frontage requirement. The lot when developed would be consistent with the remaining lots in this subdivision, would maintain the character of this residential area, and as a back lot would not impact on the natural features of the shoreline. On this basis, the application is deemed to conform with the general intent of the Official Plan. Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is a corner lot located at the intersection of Maplewood Parkway and Line 15 South with 29.5 metres of frontage on Maplewood Parkway and 61.3 metres of depth on Line 15 South. The definitions in the Township's Zoning By-law establish the shortest road frontage as the front lot line whereby lot frontage is then calculated and on this basis Maplewood Parkway must be utilized for the lot frontage calculation. As the lot would comply with all other provisions of the Zoning By-law and only requires a slight reduction in the lot frontage requirement the application is deemed to generally conform with the intent of the Zoning By-law. 1 Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The nature of development proposed appears to be appropriate as this would permit a residential use on the subject property consistent with the surrounding residential uses. The granting of this variance would not lead to the over development of the lot and would be in keeping with this residential subdivision. On this basis, the variance proposed for the reduction in the lot frontage requirement is appropriate for the desirable development of the lot. Are the variances minor? On the basis that the variance will permit the construction of the dwelling on a residential lot that would satisfy all. other zoning provisions, maintain the intent of the Official Plan policies, and only reduce the requirement by 0.5 metres, the variance is deemed to be minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS The requested variance for a reduction in the minimum lot frontage requirement generally satisfy the 4 tests of a minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve application 2004-A-10, subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and approved by Committee; 3. That the applicants obtain approval for a Part 8 Sewage Application from the Township of Oro- Medonte Building Department; 4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13.; and, All of which is respectfully submitted, --1~ ~ Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner 2 PAGE # 2 APPLICATION 2004-A-IO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BE IT RESOLVED that: " Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by L)'Ilda Aiken "That the Committee hereby Grant Minor Variance application 2004-A-1O, subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 2. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and approved by Committee; 3. That the applicants obtain approval for a Part 8 Sewage Application from the Township of Oro-Medonte Building Department; 4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13. ... ..Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hOllIS of 8.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. " f>'v.~\ffIP ~', , . + ..,0 "," (, + , - - --::;::::::JII"' - -- 1JI.OC"'1" - .... .... I ~ -- 2'.-....11. (D.!JO -J \ \ \ \ \ \ .J-- - - ...1: ' I - ~1) .,..-.. ___ _ - - - -, _____ ----------7r- - ~~ ~ - I Ii I' : LDTl'f~ I m~ I 'If I#f" SKETCH SHOWING PIICPOSED st1IBIIIHCE Of' a.oc:K '1:'. 11-22 GEOGRAPHIC T01JNSHIP OF 0R1W'A (SOUIHERN DM5ICII) _ II 1IE T01r.NSHIP 01' ORO-MEDOHTB COUNTY 01' SDlCOE I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I ~ -s SCII.E t..... ~:-:......=--: .a. c. st_ O.LS., c.L.S. 2004 - , I-_..~.--..I . CDIIUIID 10 ... .. ~ ... ..... .... ... r .!,!IT.!! ~ LOT 20 - I IE z I: I 0 - on I on 1M ... u 1 z ~~ 0 u I; I I ~ I = I I I 1 I I I I I I I ...... ~ ~ 1. 1IIS IS NOT A PUN OF SUIM:Y Nf) SIW.1. NOT BE USED EXaPT FOR 1IE ~ IIa::A1ED II 1IE 1111.[ IUCII. 2. 1IIS PUH IS NOT VAll> UNlESS If IS HI OIBOSSBI OIIIQK\L a:JPr ISSUED 8'/' 'DE: SIJR'IDat. DEARDEN AND ST.AN'I'O)f UD -ilJluRKn.mt'__ CA1WI.I. J.&JmI __ . .__. <I.BIEJI) - ..............-- - ~..._-- - ..........- = ====:r i;o --- --- --- . ....euPD ....... .... o ~_...- .~~IIt..IIa'_ ....~ -~ oRD..Ut - OftARl) CN:IR.I:-.cDICII Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for April 15, 2004 David & Lorna Chapman .. 2004-A-11 Concession 3, Part Lot 24, 51R-18326 Part 1 (Medonte) THE PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95: L Section 5.28; Setbacks from Limits of Environmental Protection Zone, for the construction of a single detached dwelling and septic system within the 30 metre (98.4 feet) setback boundary of the Environmental Protection Zone. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation -Rural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones Previous Applications - none AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Public Works- No road concems Building Department - The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and note that the septic system for the new dwelling must be able to fit in the building envelope as proposed. Fire Department PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 59 metres (193.5 feet), a lot depth of approximately 76 metres (249.3 feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.45 hectares (1.1 acres). The lands are currently vacant. The owners are proposing to build a single detached dwelling within the 30 metre (98.4 feet) setback of an Environmental Protection Zone in a 'development envelope' designated by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, being 20 metres (65.6 feet) from the north east corner of the subject property traveling along the frontage westward, approximately 76 metres (249.3 feet) deep, 49 metres (160.7 feet) from the south east comer of the subject property traveling along the rear lot line westward with a total area of approximately 2622 m2 (28,223 ft2). Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural in the Official Plan. Section D3.1 of the Township's Official Plan sets out the following objectives for the Rural designation. · 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. The principle use of land in the Rural designation shall be agriculture. Other permitted uses include single detached dwellings and other accessory uses. 1 .~\n -Sf) Committee shall also review Section G1 of the Township's Official Plan, which sets out the following objectives when considering applications near rivers or streams. . To recognize and protect all significant rivers and streams in the Township from development that may have an impact on their function as an important component of the natural heritage system. To ensure that development does not occur on lands that are unstable. or susceptible to flooding. ~. . . To ensure that development does not occur on hazardous slopes. It is the intent of this Plan to protect all rivers and streams from incompatible development to minimize the impacts of such development on their function. In this regard, no development is permitted below the top of bank of any river or stream or within 30 metres of the top of bank. In order to implement the objectives of this Plan, the implementing Zoning By-law shall place all lands below the top of bank of any river or stream in a specific Environmental Protection Zone. Uses in this Environmental Protection Zone shall be limited to agricultural uses that existed on the date the By-law is passed by Council and public or private recreational uses. No buildings or structures, with the exception of structural works required for flood and/or erosion or sediment control, will be permitted in this Zone. The applicant's proposal does not appear to offend these principles given that the variance will accommodate development in a manner that is generally consistent with the rural character. On this basis the proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan. Do the variances conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? One of the purposes of maintaining setbacks from limits of Environmental Protection Zone is to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system, to ensure that development does not occur on lands that are unstable or susceptible to flooding and to ensure that development does not occur on hazardous slopes. Section 5.28 of the implementing Zoning By-law specifies that all buildings and structures be set back a minimum of 30 metres (98.4 feet) from the boundaries of the Environmental Protection Zone. Areduction in the 30 metre setback shall not require an Amendment to Official Plan but will require either an Amendment to the implementing Zoning By-law or a minor variance subject to the comments of the appropriate agencies. Matters to be considered in reviewing an application to reduce the setback include: · the nature of the soils; · the nature of the vegetation and cover; · the slope of the land; . the nature of existing and proposed drainage patterns; . the nature of the fish and wildlife that may be present; and, · the scale of the proposed development. Based on a site inspection of the subject property, it was difficult to determine some of the criteria noted above. However, comments from the NVCA were received supporting the development within the 30 metre setback. Given these factors, the proposal is deemed to conform with the general intent of the Zoning By- law. Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The nature of development proposed appears modest and will not lead to over development of the lot. The proposed variance should provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding area. On this basis the proposed variance would provide for the appropriate development of the lot. 2 Are the variances minor? ., On the basis that the variance will permit the construction of the dwelling within the setback limits of the Environmental Protection zone and within the development envelope as determined by the NVCA, the requested relief is deemed to be minor. However, it will be recommended that the applicant prepare a grading plan to ensure stormwater is controlled on the property. On this basis, the proposed variance is deemed to be minor. CONCLUSIONS The requested variances generally satisfy the 4 tests of a minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee approve application 2004-A-11 , subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 2. That the proposed dwelling and septic system be constructed in the development envelope set out by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority; 3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and approved by Committee; 4. That the applicants obtain approval for a Part 8 Sewage Application from the Township of Oro- Medonte Building Department; 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.; and, 6. That the applicant prepare a lot grading plan for review by the municipality to review stormwater management on the subject property prior to the issuance of a building permit. All of which is respectfully submitted, A.~ Andy Karaiskakis Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~~ ~rf:- Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner 3 PAGE#2 APPLICATION 2004-A-ll COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Michelle Lynch <' "That the Committee hereby Grant application 2004-A-ll, subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 2. That the proposed dwelling and septic system be constructed in the development envelope set out by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, being 20 metres from the north- east comer of the lot travelling westward, a depth of 76 metres, 49 metres from the south- east comer of the lot travelling along the rear lot line westward and an area of 2,622 m2 (28,223 ft2); 3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and approved by Committee; 4. That the applicants obtain approval for a Part 8 Sewage Application from the Township of Oro-Medonte Building Department; 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.; and, 6. That the applicant enter into a site plan agreement with the Township which would include the preparation of a lot grading plan to address stormwater management matters and all other technical matters required by the Township of Oro-Medonte and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. ... ..Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-MecJonte AcJministr~ti()n f:entre, 148 T .ine 7 S()l1th in Of() Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. " ;\, \ \ \ i i j i ) ;/ \ ) ( N ~o~ <" 0.. ~/~ .. .,. /...... ~}~/// ~O \ \1>c::VE:L.oPto-tc:-.....r \ . \ 'e.o,..,e: \ \ ~ ", \ \ \ \ \ tl\ Ji 01 "-I ~I Oi vi i \/II )-1 ('oJ! ( \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ ""n:J r ' i. "V. Q- ~...t ~ . Cp"; . bR. VC::\4:)A'1 ~ "i)C\lC.....OPM<E...T €NVCLoPC e e C\ \J -L) Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for April 15, 2004 Tara Fingold 2004-A-13 " 3 McLean Cres., Plan 1151, Part Lot 22 & 23 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief of the following provision from Zoning By-law 97-95: 1. Setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe of 20 metres (65.6 feet) to a proposed 15 metres (49.6 feet) for the addition of a new deck. MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation -Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 - Shoreline Residential (SR) Previous Applications - AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Public Works- Building Department -The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Fire Department Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority- PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 44 metres (144.33 feet), a shoreline frontage of approximately 27 metres (89 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1.523 m2 (16,395 ft2). The lands currently have a single detached dwelling with an area of approximately 278.7 m2 (3,000 ft2). The owner is proposing to build an attached deck at the rear of the house extending 7.62 metres (25 feet) from the house and will be setback approximately 15 metres (49.9 feet) from the average high water mark. Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Shoreline in the Official Plan. The primary function of the Shoreline designation is to maintain the existing character of the shoreline residential area and to protect the natural features of the shoreline area and the immediate area. Permitted uses in the Shoreline designation primarily include residential uses as well as accessory uses. The proposed deck would appear to maintain the character of the shoreline residential area and would therefore conform with the intent of the policies contained in the Official Plan. 1 e e 1~ Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law? The intent of a 20 metre setback from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe is to protect existing natural features of the shoreline and the character of the shoreline residential area. Given that the area of the lot proposed to be developed is relatively open and free of vegetation, the proposed variance should not adversely impact the character of the shoreline. On this basis the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. . .., Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Based on the site inspection, the proposed deck would not appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot nor in keeping with the surrounding residential area. If the deck was reduced by a depth of 10 feet, it would provide for a form of development that is suitable and consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood and would not lead to the over development of the lot. Is the variance minor? On the basis that the reduced size of the deck is reasonable and should not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area, the proposed variance is considered to be minor. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS If Committee is satisfied that the deck can be reduced by 10 feet, it. is recommended that Committee approve Minor Variance application 2004-A-13, subject to the following conditions: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 2. The proposed deck shall be setback no closer than 17 metres (55.7 feet) from the high water mark of Lake Simcoe; 3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted; and, 4. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of which is respectfully submitted, L~cCG-- Andy Karaiskakis Junior Planner Reviewed by, .~y Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner 2 e e PAGE#2 APPLICATION 2004-A-13 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION ~~~lo\ BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Garry Potter " "That the Committee hereby Grant Minor Variance application 2004-A-13, subject to the following conditions: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 2. The proposed deck shall be setback no closer than 17 metres (55.7 feet) from the high water mark of Lake Simcoe; 3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted; and, 4. That the appropriate conditional building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13., in order to ensure the appropriate lot grading is completed to the satisfaction of the building department. . . ... Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, l48 Line 7 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. .--- y ~ """. v- tJ~1J'" ~~,-G\# -- 9b'Jo.- ~ /; / I /; / / . I~j ii c '/0 "''' ~. ~~ b' ',t ~ f~/~i If '-.) V~~. ~tlV"'-( , ",,'"' "( ~..\ \\.' ,'f"(, \ \ , \\\ \ , \ \ , ).).~ \ \ ~~j... \..~ ;; t Q; " J;.' 1)' -:: ~-; - - 98.49 ro o J;.' :? 89':1: / .., Of' / ~-- .1- --I - I -1 JUNE f5, 2003 -- ---. ___ __ __ --.. . -----.. '" o. . -. - - - '- EDGE E SIMCOE !JoKE ElEVA'OOH JUNE e. 2003 100.00' ASSlJNEI) - --- 0\\0- ~~ ,-- Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for April 15, 2004 Maria Christina Jannetta A7/03(Rev) /i 1047 Lakeshore Road, Lot 5, Plan 882, Concession 9 (Oro) THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting modifications to relief, which was granted by Committee on November 13, 2003. Previously the applicant applied for and was granted the following relief from the interior side yard requirement for the construction of a new dwelling: Interior Side Yard Setback Reauired 3.0 m (9.8 ft) 3.0 m (9.8 ft) Granted 2.44 m (8 ft) unchanged for west side 1.78 m (5.8 ft) for entire east side of new dwelling The applicant now proposes to add a one-storey extension to the existing dwelling, a deck addition at the rear of the dwelling and is requesting the following relief: Interior Side Yard Setback Interior Side Yard Setback Reauired 3.0 m (9.8 ft) 3.0 m (9.8 ft) 2 m (6.5 ft) Proposed 1.78 m (5.8 ft) for the east side of deck addition 2.44 m (8 ft) for west side of deck addition 1 m (3.2 ft) for the east side of detached garage for Detached Building/Structure MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS \ Official. Plan Designation - Shoreline Zoning By-law 97-95 -Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone Previous Applications - Application was originally heard on November 13, 2003. AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Municipal Works and Roads Building Department Fire Department PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background The applicant's proposal has evolved from a proposal to renovate and expand an existing cottage to the current proposal to replace the existing cottage with a new dwelling unit. The nature of relief requested is substantially the same as previously requested by the applicant and approved by Committee however, there is a need to clarify the extent and location of relief granted to the applicant. ~b The Four Tests of the Minor Variance Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan? " The property is designated Shoreline. The intent of the policies of the Shoreline designation is to identify and permit residential uses which are compatible and in keeping with the character of the existing residential community and to protect the natural features of the shoreline. Based on a site inspection it appears that the applicant's proposed dwelling and requested relief is reasonable and is in keeping with the character of the Shoreline designation and does not impact on any natural features of the immediate shoreline. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? One of the purposes of maintaining interior side yards in the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone is to maintain suitable setbacks between residential dwellings in the interest of privacy and to protect the character of the shoreline residential community. Based on a site inspection, the requested relief is considered to be reasonable in the context of the surrounding neighbourhood. On this basis the variance to the side yards for the deck and the detached accessory building (garage) is deemed to conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? The proposed variances would allow for a deck on an existing dwelling previously approved by the Committee of Adjustment and would also permit the construction of a detached garage in the front yard. Both of these structures are consistent with the character of the shoreline residential area and would appear to be appropriate for the development of the subject property. Is the variance minor? The proposed variance would permit a deck to contain the same side yard setback provisions previously granted by the Committee for the dwelling and would permit a detached accessory building with a reduced side yard setback but conforming with all other zoning provisions. On the basis of that the subject property is quite narrow, the information provided above, and a visit to the sire, the variance is considered minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS The proposed variances generally satisfy the four tests of a minor variance, RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee approve Minor Variance Application A-7/03 as revised, subject to the following conditions: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; c,~-l[l) 2. That all applicable requirements of the Township's Building Department are satisfied with respect to the demolition of the existing dwelling including the posting of applicable securities; 3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensigns as set out in the application, according to the applicant's sketch dated June 9, 2003 as amended by the Applicant March 8, 2004; . 4. That the relief granted through Minor Variance A7/03 apply only to the construction of the new dwelling, the 10 foot by 35 foot 10 inch attached deck, and the detached future garage and that all subsequent building or expansion must conform to the Township's Zoning By- law as amended; and, . 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. All of which is respectfully submitted, ~-X- ~ Andria Leigh MCIP, RPP Senior Planner PAGE # 2 APPLICATION A-7/03(Rev) COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION b- BE IT RESOLVED that: ~ Moved by Michelle Lynch,. seconded by Lynda Aiken .. "That the Committee hereby Grant Minor Variance Application A-7/03 as revised, subject to the following conditions: 1. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2} verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor; 2. That the septic. system must meet the minimum setback requirements to the proposed extension; 3. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, according to the applicant's sketch dated June 9,2003 as amended by the Applicant March 8, 2004; 4. That the relief granted through Minor Variance A 7/03 apply only to the construction of the new dwelling, the 10 foot by 35 foot 10 inch attached deck, and the detached future garage and that all subsequent building or expansion must conform to the Township's Zoning By- law as amended; and, 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act RS.O. 1990, c.P.13. ... ..Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 County Road 27 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. I,;,Of . -_.~>-_._> l..A~ ~,",D~f I""~ I~..O. ~M'''' .. , ~~~~sloJ oo~~(&.,.) . -~, iiJ~2. . ,.. \) ~ ...... ~ I."', 1.() , ... "" ~ (,,-fie t~ C!- R P 4t-6 ,.,"'i :t ~ J c-i- ~ rJ f. ~ O!;,C'Jr J.$'/t>// ~b~ /" ... B&..O ,*-A r1u?lNcJ cPct. ~, ~O"'f~ ~~ ~IJ 2 vn'oQ '.1 c..iR.1'I~ ~,.{ ~TE"h 'J",""e- ~/()"A ~I"H:~ ,~ At..JI\N:1'. wolo~.!'- I Ol.~ "..~ ~-~--- Township of Oro-Medonte Committee of Adjustment Planning Report for April 15, 2004 Mark Prince ~ A 16/03(Rev) 3524 Penetanguishene Road, Part Lot 42, Concession 1 . THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting relief from Table B4.C, Provisions for Buildings, Except Single Detached Dwellings in the Agricultural/Rural Zone from Zoning By-law 97-95 to permit the construction of a 144 m2 (1550 ft2) detached storage shed: Required Proposed Minimum setback from interior side lot line Minimum setback from rear lot line 15 m (49.2 ft) 15 m (49.2 ft) 7.6 m (25 ft) 7.6 m (25 ft) MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS Official Plan Designation - Rural Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Previous Applications - none AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes) Simcoe County Municipal Works/Roads-No road concerns Building Department-The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and note that the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Fire Department PLANNING FRAMEWORK Background .. The subject property is located north of the Hamlet of Craighurst and has a lot area of about 0.38 hectares (0.95 acres). The aPElicant's lot is presently occupied by a one storey dwelling with an area of about 184 m2 (1,978 ft ) and a disused trailer parked in the rear yard. It is the applicant's intent to build a detached storage building with an area of 144 m2 (1550 ft2) and a maximum height from grade to peak of 5.5 metres (18.1 feet). The application was previously deferred, as it did not adequately address the four tests of a minor variance, particularly in regards to the height and size of the detached structure. The applicant has requested that the Committee reconsider the application as amended. The applicant is requesting relief from the minimum interior side yard and rear yard setbacks for a building as set out in Table B4.C in Zoning By-law 97-95 and not for relief from the maximum height or maximum floor area requirements. .. ~b -\D 1 The Four Tests of the Minor Variance Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan? The property is designated Rural in the Township's Official Plan. The intent of the policies in the Rural designation are to protect the character of the rural countryside and permit a range of uses that are compatible with agricultural uses. Accessory uses, such as storage buildings, are generally appropriate and consistent with the character of the rural area and on this basis the application would generally conform with the intent of the Official Plan. r- .. Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law? It is noted that the applicant has clearly indicated that it is not his intent to use the proposed building for industrial use but rather for personal use for storage of a large boat and an antique car. Nonetheless, Committee should appreciate that the establishment of home industries within large storage buildings is currently a sensitive issue in the Township. In assessing the issue of conformity with the By-law it is noted that the proposal does comply with the lot coverage provision of 5% for storage buildings. On this basis, the proposal is deemed to conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot? Although the height and entry to the proposed building is not a standard residential type accessory building, it should be noted that the property is zoned agricultural/rural and that the structure is proposed to be built at the rear of the property. The proposed location would maintain the character of this rural area and would ensure the detached structure is accessory to the existing dwelling. On this basis, the proposed.structure would provide for the appropriate and desirable development of the lot. Is the variance minor? The application is deemed to be minor in nature on the basis that the applicant has complied with the majority of the zoning provisions in the Agricultural/Rural zone for an accessory building and is significantly lower than the maximum height requirement of 11 metres (36 feet) permitted in this zone. CONCLUSIONS The proposed application for the detached accessory building with reduced setbacks to the side lot line and rear lot line satisfies the four tests of the minor variance. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Committee grant Minor Variance Application A16/03(Rev) subject to the following conditions: 1. That the ground floor area of the structure shall not exceed 144 m2 (1550 ft2) and the height of the structure from grade to peak shall not exceed 5.5 metres (18.1 feet); 2. That the interior side yard and rear yard for the proposed structure shall be no closer than 7.6 m (25 ft); ,. 3. That the proposed structure shall be used in accordance with the permitted uses of the Agricultural/Rural (AlRU) zone based on the minimum lot area requirements; 4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report; and, . 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. "\ All of which is respectfully submitted, ~~ Andy Karaiskakis Junior Planner Reviewed by, ~J~~ Andria Leigh MCIP, RPP Senior Planner r'" " c\~ PAGE#2 APPLICATION A -16/03(Rev) COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Garry Potter ,. "That the Committee hereby Grant Minor Variance Application AI6/03(Rev) subject to the following conditions: . 1. That the ground floor area of the structure shall not exceed 144 m2 (1550 ft2) and the height of the structure shall not exceed 6.6 metres (21.7 feet); 2. That the interior side yard and rear yard for the proposed structure shall be no closer than 7.6 m (25 ft); 3. That the proposed structure shall be used in accordance with the permitted uses of the Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) zone based on the minimum lot area requirements; 4. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report; and, 5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13. ... ..Carried." Additional information regarding this Application is available for public inspection at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Centre, 148 County Road 27 South in Oro Station, Ontario, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. , 2 ~ ; Q U $1 -< s::: o z c: s:: fT1 Z $I " <> ::t ~(1IO (IIi~ --._._._._._~._._"_._._. i 3! N.31'37'20"W1;~: .:;~ 3?~. ~ , ,. z (JO :t$ I /1 ;j 1..... ~ 0 .... ~ 0" o V /' ~ ... 40.29 N31'5.3'OO"W ROAD ~ ~ ~ ~ y. ~ ~ '0 ,., Z '0 (J'I o OJ ~~ -r: (JOO '-!. o'O~o ~S:Cnq ':;:'z-..J1"i WIDENING !:: U. ...., ~o~c:\ s.~ruv....re. 1.99 -0 r )> ~Z ~ -0 ~(J1)> ~....),:::o y.:::o-., ~ I ~N-Io "(J1 ~ (J1 o ::t o <0 ~ _OJ .. ~ ::t n .. no p~~ -., .......- !II:ti ~L- I ;' 13.27 13.07 <0 0\ 0> N (,,0 !'" .,.. (,,0 VI ~ .,.. I~ -f pp~ a; CG::~c!"::' gVl,.,iEg I? 24.98 (DEPOSTED PLAN No. 50751) - BY DEPOSITED 40.23 - --...-------...------------- ,~A-. (I ~ 0" 0" / o ~ ~ -<1 <'.r<' 1 storey raised bungalow block foundation under conStruction Q. ~ =5 S =&, 0- 12.46 1 - (11 ~ 40.23 PLAN No. !12 IX> ,...., i: B z (J'I OJ -r: -..J o o . fT1 ? elL 1.40 ti ::t g, 0 n g ~ 2 - If .. :I " .. <' ~~- ~ ~ ~ ~ y. ~ ~ ~..<) .~ 5< ~ g' n .. '0 Ia~ mo ~ ~(P 0 s t & ~ ;Z 40.23 120.76 (120.79 Plan 51R-2779) - o /' (,,0 o o 50751 w Ire fence COUNTY ROAD No. 93 (PENETANGUISHENE ROAD) 'JALROAD ALLOWANCE, BETWEEN GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIPS OF MEDONTE & FLOS ~ Q~~ Q