05 13 2004 C of A Agenda
Committee of Adjustment AQenda
e Thursdav Mav 13th 2004. 9:30 a.m.
1. Communications and Correspondence
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
3. Hearings:
9:30 2004-A-12 Marie-Louise & Herman
Martin
Conc. 3, West Part Lot 20
(Oro)
1681 Highway 11
9:40 2004-B-17 Peter J. & M. Joanne Tinney
Conc. 12, West Part Lot 15
(Medonte)
11 Stagecoach Road
9:50 2004-B-18 Kevin Strachan
Conc. 13, Part Lot 11, RP
51 R-13506 Part 1 (Medonte)
102 Medonte Side Road # 2
- 10:00 2004-B-19 Lynda Roe
Conc. 9, East Part Lot 20
(Oro)
72 Line 9 N.
10:10 2004-B-16 James H. Martin
Conc. 5, Part Lot 4 (Ora)
82 Horseshoe Valley Rd. E.
10:20 2004-A-14 Julia M. Poore
Plan 761, Lot 13 (Ora)
25 Greenwood Ave.
10:30 2004-A-15 Mark Garland & Suzanne
Ridpath
Plan M-31, Lot 55 (Ora)
33 Oneida Ave.
10:40 2004-A-16 Greg & Nadia Bell
Conc. 2, Part Lot 2, RP 51 R-
28938 Parts 2 & 5 (Ora)
2831 Ridge Road W.
, 10:50 2004-A-17 Russell Watson
Plan M-8, Lot 64 (Ora)
19 Oneida Ave
11 :00 2004-A-18
e 11 :10 2004-A-19
George & Dianne Hibrant
Plan 935, Lot 3
11 Grandview Court
Eugenie McCauley
Plan 1720, Part Lot 19
163 Forestview Road
11 :20
A-28/03(Rev)
Robert & Therese Brown
Plan M-324, Lot 15 (Oro)
30 Trillium Trail
5. Decisions
6. Other business
-Adoption of minutes for March 31, 2004 Special Meeting & April 15, 2004
Meeting
7. Adjournment
e
.
e
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 13, 2004
Marie-Louise & Herman Martin
2004-A-12
1681 Highway 11,Concession 3, West Part Lot 20
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are requesting relief of the following provision from Zoning By-law 97-95:
i. To build a 297 m2 (3,200 ft2) detached storage shed in the Environmental Protection Zone.
The detached storage shed will be setback approximately 45.5 metres (149 feet) from the
front property line and 13 metres (42.6 feet) from the rear property line.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Environmental Protection One, Agricultural & Environmental
Protection Two Overlay
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Environmental Protection & Agricultural/Rural (A/RU)
Previous Applications - none
e
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County-
Municipal Works/Roads- MTO approval required
Building Department- The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and note that
the proposal appears to meet the minimum standards.
Fire Department-
Conservation Authority- No objection subject to the following conditions: "That approval is
obtained from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority pursuant to Section 20 of the
Conservation Authorities Act"
MTO - As is appears the land will remain residential in nature, the ministry does not object to the
application. Should the lands be utilized for a home occupation the ministry will require further
information from the applicant.
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot frontage of 350.5 metres (1150 feet), a lot depth of approximately
80.7 metres (265 feet) and has a lot area of approximately 3.2 hectares (7.9 acres). The
a~plicant's lot is presently occupied by a one storey dwelling with an area of about 119 m2 (1,281
ft ) and a small frame shed located behind the house.
It is the applicant's intent to build a detached storage building with an area of 144 m2 (3200 ff).
The proposed storage building will be setback approximately 45.5 metres (149 feet) from the front
property line, 13 metres (42.6 feet) from the rear property line and approximately 78 metres (256
feet) from the dwelling.
.
e
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Environmental Protection and Agricultural. The primary function of the
Environmental Protection designation is to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the
natural heritage system and to minimize the loss or fragmentation of significant wetlands and the
habitats and ecological functions they provide. Permitted uses on lands designated
Environmental Protection One as shown on the schedules to this Plan may include conservation
and passive recreation uses provided an Environmental Impact Study and a Management Plan
are completed in accordance with Section G3 and approved by Council and the appropriate
agencies.
Committee shall also review Section G1 of the Township's Official Plan, which sets out the
following objectives when considering applications in an Environmental Protection designation.
.
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.
e
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.
On this basis the proposal is not considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
In the Environmental Protection Zone, no buildings or structures except those required for flood or
erosion control are permitted. One of the purposes of the 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. Matters to be considered in reviewing an
application to build in the Environmental Protection Zone include:
.
.
.
e .
.
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,
e
.
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 as the lot was significantly wooded with mature trees. The application was however
circulated to the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority as the technical authority on this
matter, and they have provided favorable comments in support of the application. 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?
Based on the site inspection it is evident that the structures are proposed to be built
approximately 149 feet from the front property line, will be located behind dense tree cover and
buffered from the highway. The applicant has revised the application in order to build two
structures on the property which more closely conform with the Township's zoning requirements.
The applicant has indicated that these structures are for personal use only and should be aware
that commercial use of the structure would require a rezoning of the property prior to such usage
beginning. The revised proposal would be more in keeping as accessory structures and would be
considered appropriate for the desirable development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
e
The proposed variance would permit two detached accessory buildings in the Environmental
Protection zone; however the landowner has requested that the Township consider during the
Zoning By-law Amendment the rezoning of a portion of the EP lands to the Agricultural/Rural
zone to more accurately reflect the physical features located on the property. The proposed floor
area of each of the two detached accessory buildings would be considered minor for structures in
the A/RU zone.
CONCLUSIONS
The subject application as amended to two detached accessory buildings would appear to satisfy
the four tests of the minor variance as discussed above.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee Approve Minor Variance Application 2004-A-12 as
amended to two 139.3 square metre detached accessory buildings in the Environmental
Protection (EP) zone and 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, as
submitted;
3. That the applicant maintain a minimum front yard setback of 45 metres (149 feet) for the
detached accessory buildings; and,
e
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.
e
e
e
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~ J- -t-z;L
Andria Leigh MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
e
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 13, 2004
Peter J. & M. Joanne Tinney
2004-B-17
11 Stagecoach Road, Concession 12, West Part Lot 15 (Medonte)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2004-8-17 is a technical severance for a correction of title on the
above noted subject lot. The land subject to this application has a lot frontage of approximately
60.96 metres (200 feet), a lot depth of approximately 65.5 metres (215 feet) and a lot area of
approximately 0.5 hectares (1.25 acres).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Agricultural & Rural
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
e
Simcoe County
Public Works-Will need MTO approvals
Building Department-
Fire Department-
Engineering Department-No concerns
MTO-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Background
The subject lands presently exist as a single 6 hectare (15 acre) parcel and currently has a single
detached dwelling facing Stagecoach Road. In 1962, the applicants' and Ms. Dobson took
possession and were the owners of the 13.723 acre rural parcel along Highway 12. In 1975 the
applicants acquired the 1.25 acre residential parcel of land facing Stagecoach road and in 1992
when the applicants were transferred the 13.723 acre rural parcel from Ms. Dobson to the
Tinney's, this inadvertently caused the merger between the 13.723 acre and 1.25 acre parcels.
The purpose of this technical severance is for a correction of title for the vacant 13.723 acre
parcel.
OFFICIAL PLAN
Section D2.3.10 of the Official Plan provides a specific policy to allow Committee to consider
applications to re-divide large parcels of agricultural land which have merged in title. The policy
states:
e
The creation of a new lots to correct a situation where two or more lots have merged on title
may be permitted, provided the Committee of Adjustment is satisfied that the new lot:
e .
.
.
.
.
.
was once separate conveyable lot in accordance with the Planning Act;
is of the same shape and size as the lot which once existed as a separate conveyable lot;
can be adequately serviced by on-site sewage and water systems;
fronts on a public road that is maintained year-round by a public authority; and
an entrance permit is available for the new driveway accessing the severed lot from the
appropriate authority, if required.
the severed and retained parcels will continue to be viable for agricultural use after the
severance has been granted. To assist the Committee of Adjustment in determining the
viability of the severed and retained parcels, an agricultural viability report shal1 be
prepared by a qualified agrologist. The report shal1 review:
the quality of the soils;
the nature of the existing farm operation, if one exists;
the potential uses of the severed and retained parcels. (Official Plan Amendment
#4)
In order to confirm that the lot to be created was once a conveyable lot, the Committee of
Adjustment received registered deeds that indicates that the lots were once legally
conveyable. To this end the application has been circulated to the Ministry of
Transportation Corridor Office who has not commented on the proposal. Approval would
be required from MTO to gain access from Highway 12 to the vacant rural lot. Should the
subsequent owners wish for access from Stagecoach Road, an easement or right-of-way
would be required to access the Municipal road.
ZONING BY-LAW 97-95
e
If Committee approves the application, both the severed and retained lots would comply with the
minimum area and frontage requirements of Zoning By-law 97-95.
ANALYSIS
The proposal appears to meet the criteria required by Section D2.3.10 of the Official Plan. By
reviewing the deeds provided by the applicants' agent, they confirm that the third deed formed in
1992 caused the merger between the rural and residential parcels.
CONCLUSION
1. The proposed consent conforms with the policies of the Official Plan as they pertain to
lands which have merged on title.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee grant consent application 2004-B-17 and be subject to the
following list of conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject lands indicating the severed parcel
be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer;
2. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel
severed, for review by the Municipality;
e
3. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte;
e
e
.
4. That the appropriate entrance permit be obtained from MTO; 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,
A~
Andy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
--A~~
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 13, 2004
Kevin Strachan
2004-B-18
Cone. 13, Part of Lot 11, RP 51R-13506, Part 1 (Medonte)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2004-8-18 is to permit the creation of a new lot. The land to
be severed is proposed to have a lot frontage of approximately 91.44 metres (300 feet),
a lot depth of approximately 135.6 metres (445 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1.23
hectares (3 acres). The land proposed to be retained would have a lot frontage of
approximately 219 metres (718 feet), a lot depth of approximately 152.4 metres (500
feet), and a lot area of approximately 2.8 hectares (7 acres).
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
The applicant is proposing to create a new residential lot with a lot frontage of approximately
91.44 metres (300 feet), a lot depth of approximately 135.6 metres (445 feet) and a lot area of
approximately 1.23 hectares (3 acres). The retained lands would have a lot frontage of
approximately 219 metres (718 feet), a lot depth of approximately 152.4 metres (500 feet), and a
lot area of approximately 2.8 hectares (7 acres).
OFFICIAL PLAN
The subject lands are designated Rural with an Environmental Protection Two Overlay on the
entire property recognizing the significant woodlands on the subject property and to the lands to
the north and east in the Oro-Medonte Official Plan.
The Oro-Medonte Official Plan permits lot creation for residential purposes in the Rural
designation in accordance with the following policies and criteria:
.... 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 after 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 exceeds2.0 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 lands are also located within the Environmental Protection Two Overlay designation.
The purpose of this designation is to identify lands which are characterized by "less critical"
environmental features such as woodlands and wildlife habitat and linkage areas. According to
Section F1.4.1 , the following policies apply to lands within the EP2 Overlay designation:
New development on lands within the Environmental Protection Overlay
designation is generally discouraged by this Plan. The development of any use in
the Environmental Protection Two Overlay designation that requires either an
amendment to the Zoning By-law or to this Plan shall also be subject to the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and a Management Plan
(MP) to the satisfaction of Council before such an amendment is adopted. An
EIS and MP may also be required if other approvals under the Planning Act
are required.
ANALYSIS
The application does not conform with the policies for lot creation for residential purposes in the
Rural designation on the basis that the subject lands are not a minimum of 36 hectares and are
not the whole of an original Township lot as required by the policies of Section D3.3.
The Environmental Protection Two Overlay designation also applies to the subject land and
requires that an EIS and MP may be required for Planning Act approvals, which includes
consents. In consideration of this issue, it is evident that the primary feature identified by the EP2
Overlay is the mixed woodlot on the property. While a woodlot area provides an important habitat
feature and linkage, it is unlikely that an EIS and MP would ensure a greater degree of
compatibility than existing zoning provisions for residential uses. On this basis, and given the
discretion provided by the Official Plan for consent applications, an EIS is not considered to be
necessary to support the proposed application. However, in order to protect the significant
woodland features on the property the severed lot if approved by the Committee should be
subject to Site Plan Approval to ensure that only the areas required for the driveway, septic
system and dwelling be permitted for tree removal and that the retention of tree cover on the
remainder of the severed lot be protected through the Site Plan Control process.
Zoning By-Law 97-95
If the proposed lot is approved, Committee should consider a condition that would rezone the
severed lot to a residential zone, which would permit only residential uses on the proposed lot.
The proposed lot if approved would comply with the zoning provision for lot frontage and lot area.
CONCLUSIONS
The application dos not conform with the requirements established for the creation of new lots for
residential purposes as required by Section D.3.3 of the Official Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee Deny Consent Application 2004-8-18 as is does not conform
with the policies of the Official Plan.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~~~
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 13, 2004
Lynda Roe
2004-B-19
72 Line 9 N., Concession 9, East Part Lot 20 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2004-B-19 is to permit a lot addition/boundary adjustment to an
adjacent parcel of land, from Norman Roe to Lynda Roe. The land to be severed and added to
the adjacent parcel of land directly to the south (Lynda Roe, 88 Line 9 N.)) is proposed to have a
lot frontage of 30.5 metres (100 feet), a lot depth of 114.3 metres (375 feet), and a lot area of
approximately 0.5 hectares (1.26 acres). The land proposed to be retained would have a lot area
of approximately 36.4 hectares (90 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 - Agricultural and Environmental Protection Two Overlay
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) & Environmental Protection (EP) Zones
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County-
Public Works-
Building Department-
Fire Department-
Engineering Department-No concerns
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Background
This application involves the proposed conveyance of lands from the applicant to the
neighbouring property, 88 Line 9 N. If the application is approved, 88 Line 9 N. would be
increased to approximately 1.72 acres with a lot frontage of approximately 60.96 metres (200
feet).
Township Of Oro-Medonte Official Plan
The subject lands are designated Agricultural and Environment Protection Two Overlay in the
Oro-Medonte Official Plan.
The Environmental Protection Two Overlay designation relates to the significant woodlands
identified on the property. This is an overlay designation which permits the uses of the underlying
designation (Agricultural in this case) but requires additional environmental studies should the
landowner wish to develop the property. This does not however have an impact on the proposed
lot addition.
Section D2.1 establishes the objectives for the Agricultural designation:
. To maintain and preserve the agricultural resource base of the Township.
. To protect land suitable for agricultural production from development and land uses
unrelated to agriculture.
. To promote the agricultural industry and associated activities and enhance their capacity
to contribute to the economy of the Township.
. To preserve and promote the agricultural character of the Township and the maintenance
of the open countryside.
More specifically, Section D2.3.4 of the Oro-Medonte Official Plan provides the following policy on
boundary adjustments in the Agricultural designation:
Boundary line adjustments or farm consolidations may be considered where the
effect of the boundary adjustment or consolidation is to improve the viability of
the farm operation provided:
a) No new lot is created;
b) The viability of using the lands affected by the application for agricultural
uses is not adversely impacted if the application is approved.
Zoning By-Law 97-95
If the consent were approved, both the agricultural and residential parcels would continue to
comply with the Zoning By-law provisions applicable to uses in the A/RU Zone.
There would be no situations of non-compliance created by the proposed lot addition.
ANALYSIS
The proposed consent application is for a lot addition that does not appear to offend the principles
of the Official Plan or the provisions of the Zoning By-law.
CONCLUSION
1. The application does not offend the objectives or policies of the Agricultural or
Environmental Protection Two Overlay designations of the Official Plan and is deemed to
generally conform with the severance policies of the Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee Approve Consent Application 2004-B-19 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land
Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary;
2. That 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 the notice.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~~
Andy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
~~~
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 13, 2004
James H. Martin
2004-B-16
Part Lot 4, Concession 5 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of application 2004-B-16 is to permit the creation of a new lot. The land to be
severed is proposed to have a lot frontage of approximately 91.44 metres (300 feet), a lot depth
of approximately 132.5 metres (435 feet) and a lot area of approximately 1.23 hectares (3 acres).
The land proposed to be retained would have a lot frontage of. approximately 518.16 metres
(1700 feet), a lot depth of approximately 1219.2 metres (4000 feet), and a lot area of
approximately 61.9 hectares (153 acres).
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural and 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
Public Works-Future driveway to be located at north side of proposed lot for sight distance
Building Department- The Township Building Department has reviewed this application and
comment that the sewage system on the retained lot must meet the minimum setbacks.
Verification is required
Fire Department-
Engineering Department- The Horseshoe Highlands water system does not run close to this
proposed lot. The closest connection would be at Alpine & Line 4 North which is a dead end and
may result in water of not great quality.
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The request of the applicant is to sever a new residential lot with an area of about 1.23 hectares
(3 acres). The proposed lot would have frontage along Line 4 of about 91.44 metres (300 feet).
The retained parcel would have a lot area of about 59.5 hectares (147 acres), with a frontage of
about 518 metres (1700 feet) along Line 4 and about 311 metres (1020 feet) along Line 5.
Township Of Oro-Medonte Official Plan
The Oro-Medonte Official Plan permits lot creation for residential purposes in the Rural
designation in accordance with the following policies and criteria:
.. .. 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 after 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 exceeds2.0 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 lands are also located within the Environmental Protection Two Overlay designation.
The purpose of this designation is to identify lands which are characterized by "less critical"
environmental features such as woodlands and wildlife habitat and linkage areas. According to
Section F1 .4.1 , the following policies apply to lands within the EP2 Overlay designation:
New development on lands within the Environmental Protection Overlay
designation is generally discouraged by this Plan. The development of any use in
the Environmental Protection Two Overlay designation that requires either an
amendment to the Zoning By-law or to this Plan shall also be subject to the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and a Management Plan
(MP) to the satisfaction of Council before such an amendment is adopted. An
EIS and MP may also be required if other approvals under the Planning Act
are required.
Zoning By-Law 97-95
If the proposed lot is approved, Committee should consider a condition that would rezone the
severed lot to a residential zone, which would permit only residential uses on the proposed lot.
The proposed lot if approved would comply with the zoning provision for frontage and area.
ANALYSIS
The application conforms with the primary policy for lot creation in the Rural designation on the
basis that the subject lands constitute the whole of an original Township lot and no prior
severance has been granted from the subject lands. The proposed lot area of 1 .23 hectares also
complies with the permitted range of 0.4 to 2.0 hectares set out in criteria a) and b) of the Official
Plan.
The Environmental Protection Two Overlay designation also applies to the subject. land and
requires that an EIS and MP may be required for Planning Act approvals, which includes
consents. In consideration of this issue, it is evident that the primary feature identified by the EP2
Overlay is the mixed woodlot on the property. While a woodlot area provides an important habitat
feature and linkage, it is unlikely that an EIS and MP would ensure a greater degree of
compatibility than existing zoning provisions for residential uses. On this basis, and given the
discretion provided by the Official Plan for consent applications, an EIS is not considered to be
necessary to support the proposed application. However, in order to protect the significant
woodland features on the property it is being recommended that the severed lot be subject to Site
Plan Approval and that only the areas required for the driveway, septic system and dwelling be
permitted for tree removal and that the retention of tree cover on the remainder of the severed lot
be protected through the Site Plan Control process.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The application conforms with the technical criteria for lot creation set out in Section D.3.3.1
of the Official Plan.
2. An EIS and MP is not considered necessary for the proposed application.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee Approve Consent Application 2004-B-16 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land
Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary;
2. That the applicant prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel
severed, for review by the Municipality;
3. That the applicant pay $ 500.00 for the lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland
contribution;
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 applicant apply for and obtain a re-zoning on the severed land to accurately
reflect the residential land use;
6. That the severed lot be subject to Site Plan Control in order to minimize the tree removal
of this parcel;
7. That the future driveway be located at the north side of the severed lot for sight distance;
and,
8. That the conditions of consentimposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from
the date of the giving of the notice.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
AJ~
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
~~~ --eoi-.
Andria Leigh MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 13, 2004
Julia M. Poore
2004-A-14
25 Greenwood Ave., Plan 765, Lot 13 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting permission from the Committee of Adjustment to expand a legal non-
conforming use by allowing a one storey addition on an existing dwelling within the 15 metre
(49.2 feet) setback to the average high water mark of Bass Lake. The applicant is proposing the
following:
. To enlarge the detached dwelling with a proposed 66.8 m2 (720 fe) one storey addition.
. The north east corner of the proposed addition shall be no closer than 11 metres (36 feet)
from the high water mark;
. The south east corner of the existing dwelling shall be no closer than 12 metres (39.3 feet)
from the high water mark;
. The south east corner of the dwelling shall be no closer than 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) from the
interior side lot line;
. The south west corner of the dwelling shall be no closer than 1.8 metres (5.9 feet) from the
interior side lot line; and,
. The proposed 8.9 m2 (96 ft2) entry way shall be no closer than 2 metres (6.56 feet) from the
interior side lot line.
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 W orks- No concerns
Building Department -The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and comment
that approval is required from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. Sewage System
change of use permit is required, and a possible relocation and a building permit is required.
Fire Department
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 14.899 metres (48.88 feet), a shoreline
frontage of approximately 15 metres (49.2 feet), a lot depth of approximately 40.7 metres (133.5
feet) and a lot area of approximately 600 m2 (6,458 ff). The lands currently have a one storey
bungalow over a crawl space with an area of approximately 66.8 m2 (720 ft2). The applicant is
proposing to enlarge the detached dwelling with a proposed 66.8 m2 (720 ft2) one storey addition.
As noted, the existing dwelling is located within the 15 metre (49.2 feet) setback to the average
high water mark of Bass Lake. As a result, the applicant's dwelling is a legal non-conforming use
and permission is required from the Committee of Adjustment for expansion to such uses.
Section 45 (2) (a) (i) of the Planning Act states that Committee may permit the enlargement of
any building or structure where the use of the structure was lawfully used for that purpose
prohibited by the by-law on the day the by-law was passed. The existing structure predates the
passage of the Township's By-law, being November 5,1997. Applications for expansions of non-
conforming uses are guided by the policies set out in Section J2.2 of the Official Plan and not the
standard four tests for minor variance applications.
Section J2.2 of the Township's Official Plan sets out the following policies to guide the Committee
in considering expansions to legal non-conforming uses:
a) The size of the extension in relation to the existing operation;
b) Whether the proposed extension is compatible with the character of the
surrounding area;
c) The characteristics of the existing use in relation to noise, vibration,
fumes, dust... .and the degree to which any of these factors may be
increased or decreased by the extension; and,
d) The possibilities of reducing these nuisances through buffering, building
setbacks, landscaping, site plan control and other means.
The applicant's proposal appears to be a reasonable enlargement to an existing dwelling unit and
therefore the proposal is considered to conform with the intent of the Official Plan.
The primary role of setbacks to Bass Lake is to protect the natural features of the shoreline area
and the immediate shoreline. The site inspection revealed that the existing cottage and proposed
one storey additions should not adversely impact surrounding environmental features and
therefore the proposal is considered to conform with the general intent of the By-law.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The requested permission to expand a legal non-conforming use represents a minor
expansion that will have little or no impact on the environmental features or functions of the
area.
2. The requested expansion to a legal non-conforming use is considered to conform with
Section J2.2 of the Official Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Committee approve application 2004-A-14 as follows:
THAT PERMISSION TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE IS GRANTED
FOR 25 GREENWOOD AVENUE FOR A 66.8 M2 (720 FT2) ONE STOREY ADDITION
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
2. The north east corner of the proposed addition shall be no closer than 11 metres (36 feet)
from the high water mark;
3. The south east corner of the existing dwelling shall be no closer than 12 metres (39.3 feet)
from the high water mark;
4. The south east corner of the dwelling shall be no closer than 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) from the
interior side lot line;
5. The south west corner of the dwelling shall be no closer than 1.8 metres (5.9 feet) from the
interior side lot line;
6. The proposed 8.9 m2 (96 ft2) entry way shall be no closer than 2 metres (6.56 feet) from the
interior side lot line.
7. That the applicant obtains approval and a building permit, if required, from the Nottawasaga
Valley Conservation Authority;
8. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and
approved by Committee; and,
9. That the applicants obtain approval for a Change of. Use Sewage Application from the
Township of Oro-Medonte Building Department.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
l~
Andy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
---A~ -f~
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
3
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 13, 2004
Mark Garland & Suzanne Ridpath
2004-A-15
33 Oneida Ave., Plan M-31, Lot 55 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are requesting relief of the following provision from Zoning By-law 97-95:
i. Section 5.32 Setback from Slope for a slope or embankment that exceeds 33% or 3 to 1 from
the required 23 metres (75 feet) to 0 metres for a 26 m2 (280 tf) addition to the existing dwelling
and a 36.4 m2 (392 tr) deck addition at the rear of the dwelling.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation -Residential-Sugarbush Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One Exception (R1*113) Zone
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County
Public Works- Stabilize back after construction to reduce erosion
Building Department -The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and comment that
sewage system change of use permit is required in addition to the building permit.
Fire Department
Engineering Department-No concerns
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 24.36 metres (80 feet), a lot depth of 84.08
metres (275.8 feet) and a lot area of approximately 3,398 m2 (36,577 ft2). The lands currently have a 2
storey detached dwelling with a walkout basement having a first storey floor area of approximately
73.69 m2 (793.3 ft2). The applicants are proposing to add a 26 m2 (280 ft2) addition to the rear of the
existing dwelling and a deck with a floor area of about 36.4 m2 (392 ft) within the required 23 metres
(75 feet) setback from a slope or embankment that exceeds 33% or 3 to 1 .
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Residential-Sugarbush Settlement Area. The permitted uses on lands
designated Residential are single detached dwellings, home occupations and open space uses. The
proposed variance, which would permit an addition to the dwelling and a deck is in keeping with the
intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform to the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The intent of a 23 metre setback from a slope or embankment that exceeds 33% or 3 to 1 is to prevent
development on slopes which are subject to active erosion or historic slope failure. The site inspection
revealed that the tree cutting was under progression, however the proposed additions should not
adversely impact slope erosion or the surrounding environmental features. Given this, the proposal is
considered to conform with the general intent of the By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The proposed additions would appear to be appropriate for the desirable development of the lot and in
keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given this, the proposed dwelling and attached 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.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the size of the addition and deck are reasonable and should not adversely affect the
character of the 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
It is recommended that Committee approve Minor Variance application 2004-A-15, subject to the
following conditions:
1. 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;
2. 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;
3. That the applicants satisfy the comments from the Public Works department;
4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as
submitted; 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,
A'(~
Ar1dy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
~~ ~-oi-
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
2
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 13, 2004
Greg & Nadia Bell
2004-A-16
2831 Ridge Road W., Conc.2, Part Lot 2, RP 51R-28938 Parts 2 & 5 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are requesting relief of the following provisions from Zoning By-law 97-95:
i. Section 5.1.6 Maximum Floor Area of a detached accessory building or structure of 100 m2
(1076.4 ft2) to a proposed 105 m2 (1130 ft2) for a proposed 3 car garage; and ..
ii. Section 5.1.4 Maximum Heiaht of a detached accessory building or structure of 4.5 metres
(14.7 feet) to a proposed 7.07 metres (23.19 feet) for a proposed 3 car garage.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Shoreline & Rural
Zoning By-law 97-95 -Agricultural/Rural (A/RU)
Previous Applications - A-36/03 for the construction of the boathouse
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County
Municipal Works/Roads-County Road, no concerns
Building Department- The Township Building Dept has reviewed this application and note that the
proposal appears to meet the minimum standards. Also, setbacks to sewage system is required
to be maintained, a building permit is required and approval from Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority is required.
Engineering Department-No concerns
Fire Department
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 105 metres (221 feet), a shoreline
frontage of approximately 108.5 metres (355 feet), a lot depth of approximately 256.6 metres
(841.8 feet) and an area of 3.76 ha (9.7 acres). The applicants propose to build a detached 3 car
garage with an area of 105 m2 (1130 ff) and a height of 7.07 metres (23.19 feet).
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Shoreline and Rural. The proposed variance, which would permit the
construction of a detached building accessory to a residential use, is in keeping with the intent of
the Official Plan.
Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
One of the purposes of restricting the height of accessory buildings is to ensure that such
structures maintain a sense of scale with residential uses and to prevent buildings from evolving
into alternative uses, such as a dwelling unit. On the basis of a review of the applicant's building
plans, the proposed structure will not accommodate a second storey and therefore does not
appear to offend the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The applicant's lot is a relatively large rural residential property and the proposed building
appears generally compatible within a rural residential context. On this basis the proposal is
considered appropriate for the desirable development of the subject lot.
Are the variances minor?
On the basis that the size of the garage in contrast with the proposed dwelling appears to be
reasonable and should not adversely affect the character of the shoreline residential area, the
proposed variances are considered to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Committee grant minor variance 2004-A-16, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the appropriate building permits 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 that building on the dwelling and shed
commence at the same time;
2. That the height of the proposed garage be no greater than 7.07 metres (23.19 feet);
3. That the size of the proposed garage be no larger than 105 m2 (1130 ft2); and,
4. The proposed garage would be required to meet the required setbacks to existing
septic systems;
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Andy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
~....L -f-u!-.
Andria Leigh MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 13, 2004
Russell Watson
2004-A-17
19 Oneida Ave. Plan M-8, Lot 64 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.1.3, Permitted locations for detached accessory
buildinQs, to permit a garage to be located in the front yard at 0 metres (0 feet) from the front lot line.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Residential-Sugarbush Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential One Exception (R1 *113) Zone (Exception 113 updated in 2003)
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County
Public Works and Roads-No road concerns
Building Department-The Township Building Dept. has reviewed this application and comment that
verification of septic location and setbacks to building is required, building permit also required. The
exposed building face is required to be of non-combustible construction with no openings.
Fire Department
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The applicant proposes to build a detached garage with an area of 40 m2 (432 ff) in front of an
existing dwelling which has an area of 126 m2 (1360 ff} The proposed garage would be located on
the front lot line and 2.2 metres (7.5 feet) from the side lot line. Due to the location of the existing
dwelling and septic system on the lot, the front yard is the only available building area for a detached
garage.
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Residential-Sugarbush Settlement Area. The permitted uses on lands
designated Residential are single detached dwellings, home occupations and open space uses. The
proposed variance, which would permit the construction of a detached garage is in keeping with the
intent of the Official Plan.
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
One of the purposes of maintaining minimum front yards in the Residential Zone is to maintain and
protect the residential character of a single detached residential community. However, it is also the
intent of the By-law to permit accessory uses that are reasonable and incidental to a residential use.
Given that the applicant does not currently have a garage and the lot is somewhat constrained given
its size and location of the existing dwelling, the proposed variance is considered to conform with the
spirit and intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
The subject application has been precipitated to some degree by the existing location of the house,
and septic system. Based on a site inspection of the proposed garage, although located very close to
the road, should not detract from the character of the lot or the surrounding neighbourhood. The
applicant is also intended to obtain additional lot area from the Indian Park Association (Application B-
38/03) which would increase the front lot line setback for the detached structure. On this basis, the
subject variance should provide for the appropriate and desirable development of the lot.
Is the variance minor?
On the basis that the proposed garage will occupy less than the maximum lot coverage of 5% allowed
by the Zoning By-law and is buffered by mature cedar trees, the requested relief is deemed to be
minor.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed variance generally satisfies the 4 tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee approve Minor Variance Application 2004-A-17 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, as
submitted;
3. That the applicant maintain the minimum interior side yard setback of 2 metres (6.5 feet) for the
detached garage; 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,
A~
Andy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
~~~
Andria Leigh MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 13, 2004
George & Dianne Hibrant
2004-A-18
11 Grandview Cres, Plan 935, Lot 3 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are requesting relief of the following provision 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 19.2 metres (63 feet) for the proposed turret extension and to 18.2 metres (60. feet) for
the addition of a new deck.
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation -Shoreline
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Residential Limited Service with Holding Provision (RLS(H))
Previous Applications -
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 comment that LSRCA
approval is required, sewage system change of use permit is required and a building permit is required.
Fire Department-
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority-
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a road frontage of approximately 30.48 metres (100 feet), a lot depth of
approximately 40.23 metres (132 feet) on the west side of the lot and approximately 38.7 metres (127 feet)
on the east side of the lot plus the concrete landing, a shoreline frontage of approximately 30.48 metres (100
feet) and a lot area of approximately 0.14 hectares (0.36 acres). The lands currently have a one-storey
cottage with an area of approximately 100.3 m2 (1080 ft2). The owner is proposing to build a raised
bungalow with a walkout basement with an attached elevated deck at the rear of the house extending
approximately 3 metres (10 feet) from the house and will be setback approximately 18.2 metres (60 feet)
from the average high water mark. The proposed turret extension will be setback approximately 19.2 metres
(63 feet) from the average high water mark.
Do the variances 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 shoreline. Permitted uses in the Shoreline designation primarily include
residential uses as well as accessory uses. The proposed deck and turret extension 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 variances 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
1
the lot proposed to be developed is relatively open and free of vegetation, the proposed variances 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.
Are the variances appropriate for the desirable development of the lot?
Based on the site inspection, the proposed deck and turret extension would appear to be appropriate for the
desirable development of the lot and in keeping with the surrounding residential area. Given this, the
variances 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 and turret extension is reasonable and should not adversely affect the
character of the shoreline residential area, the proposed variances are considered to be minor.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed variances generally satisfy the 4 tests of a minor variance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Committee approve Minor Variance application 2004-A-18, 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 18.2 metres (60 feet) from the high water mark
of Lake Simcoe;
3. The proposed turret extension shall be setback no closer than 19.2 metres (63 feet) from the high
water mark of Lake Simcoe;
4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted;
and,
5. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Officialonly 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,
1~
Andy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
~r~ ~rY1-
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
2
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 13, 2004
Eugenie McCauley
2004-A-19
163 Forestview Road, Part Lot 19, Plan 1720 (Orillia)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant has requested the following relief to permit the construction of a detached storage
building.
Permitted
Proposed
Minimum Required Rear Yard Setback
6 m (19.6 ft)
11 m (36 ft)
4.5 m (15 ft)
4.5 m (15 ft)
Minimum Required Side Yard Setback
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Industrial
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Economic Development (ED) Zone
Previous Applications - none
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County
Public Works
Building Department
Fire Department
Engineering Department-Site Plan will be required
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Background
The subject property has a lot area of 0.4 hectares (1 acre) and is presently occupied by one
5700 ft2 commercial building. It is the applicant's intent to build a detached coverall storage
building with an area of approximately 4000 ft2.
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Industrial. The primary function of the Industrial designation is to
ensure that the design of new industrial development is sensitive to the rural character of the
Township and contributes to the improvement of the appearance of the Highway 11 corridor.
Permitted uses in the Industrial designation primarily include manufacturing, assembly,
processing, storage and/or warehousing uses. Accessory retail uses are also permitted, provided
they occupy only a limited amount of the gross floor area of the industrial use. New industrial
uses and expansion to existing industrial uses may be subject to Site Plan Control. Comments
from the Director of Engineering and Environmental Services note that the applicant must enter
into a Site Plan Agreement with the Municipality for the new proposed building. The proposed
variance, which would permit the construction of a storage building is in keeping with the intent of
the Official Plan.
Do the variances conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
One of the purposes of maintaining setbacks from property lines is to prevent the over-
development of a property which can create issues of incompatibility and maintaining a positive
streetscape.
Based on a site inspection, it is noted that the subject lot is encased with equipment and
materials that, with the proposed storage building, could be stored indoors and would help
organize the lot. It is also noted that the proposed storage building would be similar in character
to the building currently on the lot. On this basis the variance 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 proposed building will not result in the over-development of the subject lot, but may
complement existing development on the lot. On this basis the proposal is considered appropriate
for the desirable development of the subject lot.
Are the variances minor?
The requested relief is deemed to be minor on the basis that the expansion appears compatible
with surrounding uses and is consistent the character of the industrial area. However it will be
recommended that a condition to this variance be imposed to ensure that the applicant obtain
Site Plan approval from the Municipality.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The requested variances are in keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan.
2. The requested variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Township's Zoning
By-law.
3. The requested variances will provide for the desirable development of the subject property.
4. The requested variances are deemed to be minor.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Committee Grant Minor Variance 2004-A-19, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the proposed structure be located no closer than 4.5 metres (15 feet) from the interior
and rear lot lines;
2. 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;
,.
3. That the applicant apply for and obtain approval for Site Plan Control on the subject lands
to accurately reflect the land use and structures on the lot;
4. 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,
5. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as
submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~.~
Andy Karaiskakis
Junior Planner
Reviewed by,
-A~ -t-;yL
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
Committee of Adjustment
Planning Report for
May 13, 2004
Robert & Therese Brown
A-28/03 (Revision)
30 Trillium Trail, Plan M-324, Lot 15 (Oro)
THE PROPOSAL
The applicants are requesting modifications to relief, which was granted by the Committee on August
14, 2003. Previously the applicants applied for and were granted the following relief from the interior
side yard and minimum front yard requirements and from the setback from slope for the construction of
a new dwelling:
Interior Side Yard Setback Reauired Granted
8.0 m (26.2 fl) 7.7 m (25.26 fl)
Front Yard Setback 15 m (49.2 fl) 14 m (45.9 fl)
Setback from Slope 23 m (75.46 fl) 7 m (23 fl)
The applicants are now proposing to revise the setback to slope based on the surveyors report for the
dwelling under construction and have requested the following relief:
Setback from Slope
Granted on Aua. 14.2003
7 m (23 fl)
Proposed
3.3 m (10.8 fl)
MUNICIPAL POLICY, ZONING AND PREVIOUS APPROVALS
Official Plan Designation - Rural Residential
Zoning By-law 97-95 - Rural Residential One Exception 10 (RUR1 *1 0)
Previous Applications -
AGENCY COMMENTS (space is provided for the Committee to make notes)
Simcoe County
Municipal Works and Roads
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
On July 4, 2003, the Township issued a building permit for the dwelling that is currently under
construction on the subject property. It is understood that after the foundation was poured it was
determined that the dwelling encroached into the minimum interior and front yard setbacks as
established in Zoning By-law 97-95. Furthermore, because of the steep slope at the rear of the
lot, relief was also required for the dwelling to be located closer than the minimum allowable
provision stated in the Zoning By-law. The applicants were granted relief in August 2003 from
this provision to permit the construction of the dwelling. The surveyors has now completed the
require surveyor to confirm the setback granted by the Committee and confirms that the dwelling
only has a setback of 3.3 metres (10.8 feet) from the 3:1 slope.
The Four Tests of the Minor Variance
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Official Plan?
The property is designated Rural Residential. The primary function of the Rural Residential
designation is to recognize existing estate, country estate and chalet residential developments in
the Township. It is suggested that the applicant's proposed dwelling and deck is generally in
keeping with the character of the Rural Residential designation. The Official Plan contains
policies in Section G1.4 in regards to Hazardous Slopes and requires development shall be
sufficiently setback from the top of bank of slopes greater than 33 % or 3 to 1. The development
setback distance shall be determined in accordance with the Conservation Authority and should
consider the soil type and groundwater patterns, vegetation type and cover, severity of slope, and
nature of development. No consultation has occurred with the Conservation Authority to reduce
the setback to the slope. On this basis, the requested variance is not deemed to conform with the
Official Plan.
Does the variance conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law?
The general intent of the zoning by-law is to protect unstable or hazardous slopes from
development. On this basis, in order to implement the policies contained in the Official Plan a 23
metre setback was established from the top of bank of slopes greater than 33% or 3 to 1. It is
recognized that within the Horseshoe Valley Road area many of the dwellings are constructed
either on or near steep slopes and it was on this basis that permission was granted for the
dwelling to be constructed on this site. The relief being requested is to recognize the actual
location of the dwelling as constructed and on this basis the variance from the slope is not
deemed to conform with the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is the variance appropriate for the desirable development of the Jot?
The construction of the dwelling was permitted subject to a number of variances, the applicant's
surveyor has confirmed that the setbacks to the front yard and side yard setback comply with the
provisions of the minor variance granted by the Committee; the only outstanding matter is the
setback to slope. This variance was included after the original application was submitted based
on the site visit by the Committee and the recognition that the proposed dwelling would encroach
into the 23 metre requirement. The relief requested at this time would only recognize the existing
dwelling in its current location and as such is considered appropriate for the development of the
lot.
Is the variance minor?
The proposed variance is considered minor in nature on the basis that is only recognizes the
existing dwelling as constructed and is consistent with the other dwellings in this subdivision.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed variance is deemed to meet the four tests of a minor variance.
...
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Committee grant the revision to Minor Variance A-28/03 being relief from
Section 5.32 Setback from Slopes to a setback of 3.3 metres (10.8 feet) as verified by the
surveyor's repot dated April 15, 2004.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~~~.
Andria Leigh MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner