Loading...
08 09 2004 PAC AgendaTOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Robinson Room Date: Monday August 9, 2004 Time: 7:00 pm 1. Opening of Meeting by Chair 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof — in Accordance with the Act. 4. Minutes of Previous Meetings — June, 2004 5. Correspondence and Communication None 6. Planning Applications (a) 7:05 p.m. Planning Report prepared by Andria Leigh, Senior Planner Re: Selri Investments — West Part of Lot 27, Concession 3 (Oro), Application P-137/02 (ZBA) (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to the review of the report) (b) 7:15 p.m. Planning Report prepared by Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc. Re: Tom Chillman — West Part of Lot 26, Concession 8 (Oro), Application 2004-ZBA-15 (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to the review of the report) 7. Other Business a. Memorandum from Andria Leigh, Senior Planner re: Status — Planning Applications July 2004 b. Next Meeting — Monday September 13 at 7:00 p.m. 8. Adjournment Present: Regrets: Staff Present: Also Present: TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES 2003-2006 TERM Monday, June 14, 2004 @ 7:01 D.M. Robinson Room / Council Chabers ouncil Reoresentativ,,, r �1 r J. Neil Gyyor J. Neil Craig Deputy Mayor Harry Hughes Councillor Dan But tineau Councillor Ralph Hough Councillor Paul Marshall Councillor John Crawford Councillor Ruth Fountain John Miller Public Re oresentativn,-, Public i Terry Allison Barlow Mel Coutanche Craig Drury Jennifer Zieleniewski CAO• McDonald, Meridian Andria Leigh, Senior Planner' Clerk's Assistant Nic �Iannin, Consultants Inc.; Janette Teeterk . Marg Rohmann; Udo Rohmann; Lester Cooke- Cristina game' Carl Arnold; Anna Arnold; Michael Squires; Heather Squires; Mufett; Gerry Murfitt; M. Garrell-Bowers; R. Peer; Paula Kirsh; Les Kirsh; Kevin Anderson, Gino Reale, Moon Point Corporation; Brandi Clement) Jones Consulting Group; Jim Hartman, Greenland Consulting Engineers; G6za G6spdrdy, Watershed Management Ecology; Bryan Whitehead, Christine Gutmann Rural Development Consultants Limited; Gary Hatt, Mitchell, Hatt &'Assn -, I.. Opening Of Meeting by Chair. %, CLLes Inc. Mayor i Neil Craig assumed the chair and called the meeting to order. Z Adoption of Agenda. Motion No PAC Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by Tern/ Allison It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Monday, June 14, 2004 be received and adopted, Committee meeting of Carried. 3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof — in Accordance with the Act. None declared. 4. Minutes of Previous Meetings — April 19, 2004. Motion No. PAC -2 Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by Terry Allison It is recommended that the minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting held on April 19, 2004 be received. Carried. 5. Correspondence and Communication. a. Jim Woodford — An open letter to Planning Advisory Committee members re: Georgian North Lands Ltd. submitted by e-mail April 27, 2004. Motion No. PAC -3 Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by Terry Allison It is recommended that the correspondence dated April 27, 2004 from Jim Woodford re: Georgian North Lands Ltd. / Buffalo Springs be received. Carried. b. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing — Planning Reform — Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools — June 2004. Motion No. PAC -4 Moved by Terry Allison, Seconded by Craig Drury It is recommended that the correspondence dated June 1, 2004 from John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing re: Planning Reform be received. Carried. Planning Advisory committee Meeting — June 14, 2004 Page 2 6. Planning Applications. a. Planning Report prepared by Andria Leigh, Senior Planner Re: Lester Cooke — South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 (Orillia), Application P-159/03 (OPA and ZBA). Motion No. PAC-5 Moved by Terry Allison, Seconded by Craig Drury It is recommended that Report No. PD 2004-28, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, re: Lester Cooke, Development Application P- 159/03, Concession 3, South Part of Lot 17 (Orillia), Township of Oro-Medonte be received and adopted; and further that Development Application P-159/03 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments submitted by Lester Cooke proceed to a public meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act, once an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) has been completed and is determined to be satisfactory by staff. Defeated. Motion No. PAC-6 Moved by Robert Barlow, Seconded by Mel Coutanche It is recommended that Report No. PD 2004-28, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, re: Lester Cooke, Development Application P- 159/03, Concession 3, South Part of Lot 17 (Orillia), Township of Oro-Medonte be received. Carried. Motion No. PAC-7 Moved by Robert Barlow, Seconded by Mel Coutanche It is recommended that Option 2 of Report No. PD 2004-28 which reads, "an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be required; a further report to Planning Advisory Committee be prepared; a determination be made in that report whether a public meeting would be held or if further information was required" be adopted; and further that the applicant proceed accordingly. Carried. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting — June 14, 2004 Page 3 L4 b. Planning Report prepared by Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc. Re: CRA Developments — West Part of Lot 26, Concession 9 (Oro), Application 2004-OPA- 03 and 2004-ZBA-04. Motion No. PAC-8 Moved by Terry Allison, Seconded by Craig Drury It is recommended that Report No. PD 2004-27, Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc., re: Applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendment — CRA Developments Ltd -2004-OPA-03 and 2004-ZBA-04 be received and adopted; and further that Applications 2004- OPA-03 and 2004-ZBA-04, submitted by CRA Developments, proceed to a public meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act, once an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and hydrogeological assessment has been completed and is deemed to be satisfactory by staff. Carried. c. Planning Report prepared by Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc. Re: Judith Thatcher — Part of Lot 15, Concession 9 (Medonte), Application 2004-SUB-02. Motion No. PAC-9 Moved by Mel Coutanche, Seconded by Terry Allison It is recommended that Report No. PD 2004-29, Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc., re: Application for Plan of Subdivision, Part of Lot 15, Concession 9 (Medonte), Township of Oro-Medonte, 2004-SUB-02 be received and adopted; and further that Development Application 2004-SUB-02 for a proposed Plan of Subdivision submitted by Greg and Judi Thatcher proceed to a public meeting in accordance with Section 51 of The Planning Act. Carried. d. Planning Report prepared by Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc. Re: Columbus Boys Camp (Moon Point Development Corp.) — Part of Lot 15 and 16, Concession 3 (Orillia), Application 2004-OPA-02, 2004-ZBA-09, 2004-SUB-01. Motion No. PAC-10 Moved by Mel Coutanche, Seconded by Terry Allison It is recommended that Report No. PD 2004-26, Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc., re: Moon Point Development Applications 2004-OPA-02, 2004-ZBA-09, 2004-SUB-01 Concession 3, West Part of Lots 15 & 16 (Orillia), Township of Oro-Medonte be received and adopted; and further that applications submitted by Moon Point Development for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Plan of Subdivision proceed to a public meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. Carried. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting - June 14, 2004 Page 4 7. Other Business. a. Memorandum from Meridian Planning Consultants Inc. re: Proposed Provincial Policy Statement Amendments (For Information Only). Discussion. b. Next Meeting — Monday July 12 at 7:00 p.m. 8. Adjournment Motion No. PAC-11 Moved by Mel Coutanche, Seconded by Craig Drury It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 9:40 p.m. Carried. Mayor, J. Neil Craig Senior Planner, Andria Leigh Planning Advisory Committee Meeting — June 14, 2004 Page 5 aY�`����l '0 Dept. Report No. PD2004-36 To: Planning Advisory Prepared By: Andria Leigh, RPP, Senior Planner Committee Subject: Application for Department: Council Zoning By-Law Amendment — Planning D1 4 012173 The purpose of this report is to assess anapplication for aZoning Amendment applying to lands within Part 0f Lot 27' Concession 3(C)n) owned -., S8|h Investments. The applicant wishes to construct Gresidential dwelling on the subject property which i8 located onLine 2South. A sketch and proposal bv the applicant i8 attached to this report. The Suh\actlands are located in the RundSe�|ennortArea of Shanty Bay aG designated bv the TVvvnShh}� Official Plan. The property �ia not currently zoned and this \o the basis for the application currently before the Township to allow for residential use Vf the subject lands. The subject property ia located ad the northern edge of the Rural Settlement Area of Shanty Bay and is directly south of the existing Township Rail Trail. The subject propertvie located in<�onceaGion3'PR�VfLot 27 and ia located on the east side OfLine 2South 8i the n �h9rnboV^d8ry0fthaG8tt\e[Dent area 0f Shanty Bay. The property subject tV the rezoning iG8total ofO.49 acres size with a lot frontage of88 feet. The applicant's have applied for e Zoning By-law Amendment to establish a zone on the subject lands which were previously owned by the CN Railway and to permit a lot frontage Of2O metres (8O feet) and not the required 3O metres (S8.4f8et). Comments Received Roads Superintendent ' will drainage bV8 concern if the lot i8filled - what will soil conditions b8ie. contaminated soil from rail road? - Trail activities, will this be 8 p[Vb|8Dl in future with new home being GO c|O8e. should there bH buffering required /i8.fence) Fire Chief — No Objection k,4G - Chief Building Official — building size and area unclear, no reduction in side yard setbacks or others and minimum 100 feet from any other well location then ok Engineering and Environmental Services — privacy fence along north property line between recreational trail and proposed lot should be required ANALYSIS: The subject property is designated Rural Settlement Area in the Township's Official Plan. The objectives of these policies are to maintain attractive communities with suitable amenities and to ensure that settlement areas are developed in a logical and cost effective manner. Permitted uses within this designation include low density residential uses as proposed by this application. The subject property is an existing lot of record and was sold by the CN Railway privately to create this parcel and in accordance with the Planning Act did not require the approval of the Committee of Adjustment. The subject property is only 66 feet wide and therefore would not comply with the minimum lot frontage provisions of the Residential One (R1) Zone of the Township's Zoning By -law 97 -95, as amended. The property because of its depth (330 feet) would comply with the Residential One (R1) minimum lot area requirement of 0.2 hectares (0.49 acres). Due to the frontage of this property and the minimum setback requirements, the lot is constrained in regards to the siting and size of a dwelling which could be located on the property. The Township has required in other areas along the Rail Trail that the applicant provide the required buffering to the Township Rail Trail and have required fencing inside the landowners property line. The Department Heads are clearly indicating that this should be considered on this property, especially due to the potential close distance between the trail and the dwelling. In order to ensure the appropriate location of the dwelling, appropriate buffering between the proposed dwelling and the existing Rail Trail, and to ensure the proposed dwelling maintains the character of this residential area it is recommended that the property be subject to the provisions of Site Plan Control prior to the final consideration of a Zoning By -law Amendment. On the basis of the above, Planning Advisory Committee has two options: Option 1 — Proceed to a Public Meeting If this option was selected, the applications would be further processed and a public meeting scheduled under The Planning Act. The intent of the public meeting would be to obtain comments from the public and the agencies. Option 2 — Refuse the Application If this option was selected, the application would be refused and the applicant would then have the ability to appeal that refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board. -2- uc'� - 3 CONCLUSIONS: It is my opinion that the proposal maintains the intent and policies of the Official Plan as they relate to the Rural Settlement Area of Shanty Bay. The imposition of Site Plan Control will ensure that appropriate buffering occurs between the proposed dwelling and the existing Rail Trail. Given the nature of the proposal and the location of the subject lands within the existing Rural Settlement Area, it is recommended that Option * be selected and that a formal public meeting under The Planning Act be scheduled. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee: • receive and adopt this report; and, • recommend to Council that Application P- 137/02 a proposed Zoning By -law Amendment submitted by Selri Investments proceed to a public meeting under The Planning Act. Respectfully Submitted, Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner C.A.O. Comments: Date: C.A.O. Dept. Head -3- September 19, 2002 Ms. Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP, Township Planner The Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte AM- Oro, ON LOL 2X0 Dear Ms. Leigh, r S E P 2 0 2002 ORO- MEDONTE TOWNSHIP Town and Country Planning Landscape Architecture Communications RE: Application for Rezoning (SELRI Investments) - Conc. 3, Part of Lot 27, 51R- 29332, Part 1 Please find enclosed an application to amend the Comprehensive Zoning By -law of the Township of Oro- Medonte and a cheque in the amount of $2,450.00 for the related application and processing fee. This property is located at the southeast intersection of Second Line South and the former C.N.R. line (Township Rail Trail). It is an existing lot of record, formerly owned by CN Rail. The purpose of this application into establish zoning for the property, as it is not currently zoned. A 'Residential One Exception (R1 *) Zone' is the proposed category. Due to the existing lot frontage of 20 metres (66 feet), the amendment also seeks a reduction in the minimum requirement of 30 metres (98.4 feet) for the R1 Zone. The location of the property is shown on Figure 1. As you are aware, SELRI Investments filed an application for this property last year (P- 124/01), also for the purpose of putting the property into an appropriate zoning category. After reviewing the application, the Planning Department recommended it proceed to a Public Meeting. However, Council had concerns with the size of the property and referred the matter back to Planning Committee. It was recommended by the Committee that the application not proceed to a public meeting as, in their view, it did not conform to the Official Plan and did not represent good planning. Council later adopted the recommendation. The Planning Partnership was retained by SELRI Investments in early 2002 to address the Township's concerns. We were asked to evaluate merits of the application in light of the applicable Official Plan policies and the provisions of the Zoning By -law, as well as to address a number of other issues raised by staff. In undertaking this work, we visited the site, met with planning staff and reviewed the applicable planning documents and Township reports and minutes. The following is a summary of our findings and our opinion, in support of the current application: The property is already designated by the Township's Official Plan for residential uses - residential use of the property, in our opinion, meets the principles, objectives and policies of the Plan, as: • The plan encourages consolidation of residential, commercial and industrial development where adequate infrastructure exists or is proposed; • Shanty Bay functions as a residential community and the Plan directs that new development shall be restricted to those lands already approved for development by the previous Township Plan; and, • The Rural Settlement Area designation permits low density residential uses, focused on maintaining and creating attractive communities with suitable amenities and developed in a logical and cost- effective manner. 1255 Bay Street, Suite 201 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5R 2A9 Tel. (416) 975 -1556 Fax (416) 975 - 1580. { email: info @planpart. Page 2 This is an existing, legitimate lot of record that needs to be zoned - this is an existing lot of record created in accordance with The Planning Act. Because this .lot was formerly associated with the railway and therefore not subject to municipal zoning regulations, it was never zoned. Now that the land is in private hands, it is appropriate that steps be undertaken to implement zoning regulations to direct and facilitate its use and development. Prohibiting the owner from rezoning and denying an opportunity to bring a legitimate development proposal before a public forum_ does not serve any public interest. Residential use of the property is an appropriate and logical choice land uses within the Township of Ora Medonte fall into a number of broad categories, including residential, commercial, industrial and;.others. Given that the property is located within the Shanty Bay settlement area, surrounded by lands designated residential and ;esidentialTuses it=- is 4ogiea"nd-appropriate-that=d--be= used -,in- the- samemanger— ln- ouvexpe6ence,whsn-raRway -- lines and other types of utility corridors /lands are decommissioned (presuming they are not acquired by the municipality for parkland or other uses), it is commonplace to adopt the zoning of adjacent lands. Furthermore, the deficiencies.of such properties are often recognized through some type of 'grand-fathering' process. The property is located in an area with diverse character and a variable fabric - the Shanty Bay community is not homogeneous in terms of its development fabric. In fact, it seems to be quite diverse as there are a wide variety of lot frontages, sizes and shapes in the immediately vicinity. As illustrated in Figure 2, there are numerous examples of 'lots in the area similar, to. the Subject Property in that they have .less than 30 metres (98 feet) of frontage. A number of lots actually have less than 20 metres (66 feet) of frontage. Furthermore, there are numerous examples of lots in the area having, unlike the Subject Property, both less than 30 metres of frontage and a lot area iess than 0.2 hectares. The narrower frontage (than is required under the current R1 zone) Is consistent with the frontages of existing lots in the area that have already proven to be functional and compatible. Finally, it should be noted that this lot is located at the periphery of the cluster of development that comprises Shanty Bay and is bounded to the north by the former CNR line. The frontage and area of the property provide for an appropriate parcel for development - the municipality has expressed some concern that the lot is constrained in regards to the siting and size of dwelling that could be located on the property. The existence of lots with the same or less frontage and /or lot areas, as illustrated on Figure 2, indicates that this should not be a concern. The ability to site a sewage treatment, system does not depend solely upon available lot frontage. It relies to a great extent upon the overall lot area and general site conditions. If the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 30 metres (100 feet) and a minimum lot area of 0.20 hectares (0.49 acres), this means that the lot depth could be as little as 66 metres (21.8 feet). However, as the Subject Property meets the minimum lot area requirement and has a depth about 100 metres {330 feet), the property provides a sufficient degree of flexibility in order to properly establish a dwelling and sewage system on site. The responsibility for approval of sewage treatment systems rests with the municipality and therefore allows an opportunity, prior to approval of any rezoning, to ensure that the property can adequately accommodate such a system. It is appropriate that this application first be brought forward to a public meeting prior to decisions being made based upon broad determinations about the ability to establish services on site. The Zoning By-law acknowledges that lots exist that do not meet municipal standards - In an area such as Shanty Bay, which has developed over a long period of time and undergone an evolution from being seasonal to more permanent in nature, there is going to be diversity in the development pattern. Some of the lots are undoubtedly going to be deficient in terms of current standards. They should not be overlooked .or sterilized from development. The By -law acknowledges that there are existing lots that do not fit within the parameters of current standards or that were created prior to the establishment of the standards themselves. Specifically, Section 5.17.1 provides that where there are lots in existence prior to the date of the By -law that do not meet the lot frontage or area requirements of the By -law, that such lots may be used and buildings erected provided that the use conforms and the buildings or structures comply with all other provisions. Enabling these types of lots to be developed, provided it is done in a safe and healthy manner, also promotes efficient and logical use of land and resources, consistent with the policies of the Official Plan. i 6c, Page 3 The property can be adequately buffered from Township Rail Trail appropriate steps can be taken on the property through measures such as landscaping, site design and building layout, orientation and construction to buffer the use from the Township Rail Trail in terms of noise and visual disturbances and vice versa. These measures may be implemented through future municipal approvals. Based upon our review, we conclude that the proposed rezoning and use of the property for residential purposes is appropriate and meets the policies of the Official Plan and the general intent of the Zoning By -law. The relief being sought from the By -law in terms of the minimum frontage does not result in any negative impact. The lot is located in an area with a diverse character and variable lot frontages, depths and sizes and the existing frontage is consistent with this mix. A variety of concerns have been raised by the municipality pertaining to the condition of Hing unit and nt sy well �n_q the any dwelling from the Township Rail Trail. In our view, these matters can be adequately addressed through landscaping and site and building design and layout and it would be appropriate to give direction on these issues as part of this rezoning process, but to see them implemented during the review of specific building plans prior to building permit issuance. In our opinion, this application has merit and deserves to proceed to a public meeting to solicit input from the public. We look forward to the opportunity to discussing this information to Staff and presenting the proposal to 'Council. E m, if you hav any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Associate � ■ w n to M (n U. 0 z 0 P ME < = 0 U)s LL tfti 0 SO w O I CD O O C14 C) C) 7--1 a UC) N W 0 U- � Q m E O d 'WU' ZW 0$v n t _ cm c E ° � m w c=nZ0cs %W Z w M d t0 s _, ow U. W. Q c c o 0o a G N c c 3I 3c; D �O- o y to MZ W F� 2 U) IL J Os JCS OU)W �snamQ 9.0aLuQ F� -1 Fe Fo� u a� w C) N(I : .............. o. DIM Ri 0 c m E d d aD w ea a� ch c E ° av w M d t0 s N O c d O 1 d w a G N c c • D �O- a� w C) N(I : .............. o. DIM Ri U—~ \ / ci������� 11i ... lr;; ii;­­11�r;;! 1111 111 � � � � 1 M04 kie] M M-M 4 Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: PD 2004-ZBA-1 5 Planning Advisory Committee Nick McDonald, RPP Meridian Planning Consultants Subject: Department: Council Application for Rezoning — Planning Tom Chillman August 3, 2004 An application has been submitted by K8r. T0nl ChiUnoaD to amend Zoning R«-avv 97-95 to recognize an existing commercial business on a property located Gt971 Line South. This buGineGG, which involves the rental, repair and storage of fish huts has apparently been in business on this property since 1967. The vhao 8 road frontage of approximately 60.96 metres (200 feet), 8 . a lot of 58.\5 /1SO.8f�� and 8lot area of approximately 4.236 square metres (45.005 square feet). The property is currently the site of 8 GiDg|g detached dvv8UiDg having G floor area of approximately 139 square metres (15OO square feet)' four detached structures and numerous ice huts related to the commercial business on the lot. The existing use Of the property not recognized iD the TOvvnShip of Oro-K8edont8 Official Plan Or ��y-|8vv97-95. However, as the use legally existed xiated oO the property prior tothe passage of the first Township of Oro Zoning By-law in February 1974, the use ia considered tobea legal non-conforming use. According to Section 45 Of the Planning AC1' the Committee of Adjustment is permitted 1O allow for the expansions of |ag8| non-conforming uses in the Township. As result, Mr. ChiUno8noubmitted an application to the Committee of Adjustment to permit the expansion of one of the existing detached accessory buildings by111.4B square metres /12OO square feud. This application was dealt by the Committee Of Adjustment on June 1O'2OO4 (File #2OO4-A-21). In 8 report prepared for the C0Dn[nitt88 Of AcUUGtDl8O1 by the Township's P|8DDiDg [J8p8rtOl8O1' it was r8COrnnnand8d that the requested expansion to the legal non-conforming use not be approved, 88itdid not conform to the criteria set out for these types of applications in Section J2.2 Of the Township's Official Plan. This aeuUOn indicates that the four iaau98 below should be considered in looking at a request to expand a legal non-conforming use: 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 setback, landscaping, site plan control and other means." In the Planning department report, it was noted that the proposed 111.48 square metres (1,200 square foot) addition to the existing 74.32 square metres (800 square foot) building was not minor. In addition, the lot coverage of all accessory buildings and structures on the property would be increased from 4.6% to 7.8% if the addition was approved. The current standard in the Township is 5.0 %. On the basis of those two reasons, it was recommended that the application be denied. At their June 10, 2004 meeting, the Committee agreed to defer the application "to provide an opportunity for the applicant to contact the planning department and review various options the applicant has in order to proceed with the proposal." The result of those discussions with the Planning Department is the application for rezoning that is now under consideration. OFFICIAL PLAN The applicant has requested that the lands be placed in the Local Commercial Zone with an exception. Section D10.2 of the Official Plan indicates that permitted uses on lands designated shoreline are: single detached dwellings, existing marinas, small -scale commercial uses such as convenience stores, pubic parks, bed and breakfast establishments and home occupations. The only other policy in Section D10 which deals with commercial uses is Section D10.5, which deals with new convenience retail stores. This section indicates that new convenience retail stores may be permitted within the Shoreline designation subject to an amendment to the Zoning By -law. On the basis of the list of permitted uses in Section D10.2 it would appear that any small -scale commercial use is permitted within the Shoreline designation. Any such use would require a rezoning. It should be noted that the Rural and Agricultural designation within the County Official Plan, which applies to all shoreline areas within the County, only permits Highway Commercial uses in the Rural designation. A Highway Commercial use is defined in the County Official Plan as a use "which provides a service to the traveling public and includes uses such as automotive servicing, accommodation, tourist, craft and special features establishments and restaurants." Given the nature of the existing use, where fish huts are rented to those who primarily travel from outside of the municipality, it could be argued that the business is Highway Commercial oriented although it is not located on a Highway. However, the key component of the definition is that the use has to provide a service to the traveling public. In my opinion, the existing use does provide such a service. On the basis of the above, the consideration of a zoning request to recognize the existing legal non- conforming use and provide for its expansion can be considered in accordance with both the Township and County Official Plans. M U �, - ZONING BY -LAW Permitted uses in the Local Commercial Zone include the following: • Art galleries; Business offices; • Commercial schools; • Convenience retail stores; • Custom workshops; " • Day nurseries; Dry cleaning distribution depots; • Financial institutions; • Funeral homes; Hotels; • Medical clinics; • Museums; • Personal service shops; • Private clubs; • Private schools; Recreational uses; Repair shops; • Restaurants; • Retail stores; • Service shops, light; and Veterinary clinics The above list of permitted uses is extensive. Given the nature of the shoreline area, it would not be appropriate to permit all of the uses listed above on the subject property. The only other property in the shoreline area that is zoned Local Commercial is the convenience store at Eight Mile Point, which is zoned Local Commercial Exception 12 (LC *12). Within this exception zone, only convenience retail stores and personal service shops are permitted. On the basis of a review of the permitted uses in the Local Commercial zone, none of the uses identified accurately and completely describes the nature of the existing use on the property. On this basis, if the application is approved, it is recommended that a new definition be included within the By- law for "fish but rental establishment" and this use be identified as a permitted use by way of exception to the provisions of the Shoreline Residential zone. Fish but rental establishment would be defined as set out below: "Means a premises where fish huts are rented to the traveling public, stored and repaired." In addition to the above, the exception applying to the property would, if Council finds favour with the By -law Amendment, also have to contain provisions that provide for the expansion of one of the existing detached accessory buildings. As noted above, this expansion will result in the total lot coverage for all accessory buildings on the property being 7.8 %, which is 2.8% over what is permitted within the Shoreline Residential zone. -3- 6k -4 1, OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL: It is our opinion that there is merit in considering the request for rezoning to both recognize the existing use of the property and provide for some limited expansion. The submission of the application also provides Council with an opportunity to require the entering into of a site plan agreement which would deal with such issues as landscaping, parking and lighting on the property. The intent of entering into a site plan agreement would be to ensure that the use has minimal impacts on adjacent land uses. On the basis of the above Council has three options: I Option 1 — Refuse the application If this option was selected, Council would refuse the application for rezoning and the applicant would have the opportunity to appeal that decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. Option 2 — Require more information If this option was selected, Council would require the applicant to provide additional information regarding the existing and /or proposed use of the property. Option 3 — Proceed to a public meeting If this option was selected, Council would direct staff to proceed to a public meeting and a decision on the application would only be made after the public meeting has been held. On the basis of my review of the file and the property, it is recommended that Option 3 be selected. RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of the above, it is recommended that: • This report be received. • A formal public meeting under Section 34 of the Planning Act be held to deal with this application. Re ctfully Submitt , ick McDonald, , RPP Partner C.A.O. Comments: Date: C.A.O. Dept. Head . . . . . MEMORANDUM To: Planning Advisory Committee cc: Jennifer Zieleniewski, C.A.O., Ron Kolbe, Director of Building /Planning, Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning From: Andria Leigh, Senior Planner R.M. File #: Date: July 12, 2004 Roll #: Subject: Status — Planning Applications for 2004 PILE AND:EGAt:� TYPE 01 s TO a STATUSRECflMhIIENfl p Api.7CA'il0l D12 P16/89 MSL Official Plan Inactive since 1999, Work with landowner Properties Amendment for Township to and present report to Settlement Area, Re- comment on draft Pac once required -T -91009 Part of OM -T- zoning from plan once servicing technical studies Lot Conc. 3 (Oro) Agricultural /Rural to issues addressed, completed related to Residential One, Plan New owner as of July servicing. of Subdivision for 93 04, met with twp to residential lots review subdivision process D14 P75/98 Hillway Re- zoning from Refused by Council OMB Decision May Equipment Mineral Aggregate 18/04 provided 6 Part of Lots 8 and 9, Resources Two to months to complete 6 Conc. 12 and 13 (Oro) One to permit conditions aciareciate extraction D14 P105/00 Re- zoning from At OMB Bowes /Braden Agricultural /Rural to Part of Lot 8, Conc. 4 permit pallet business Oro D09 P115/01 Ucci Official Plan County Applicant to proceed to Part of Lot 27, Conc. 5 Amendment for Adult recommended satisfy Township (Oro) Lifestyle Community adoption of County requirements- & submit - OPA Plan of Condo A In /ZBL Appin D14 (01) P129/01 Re- zoning to permit Revision to Proceed with report to Strimas dwelling in the application received PAC in Sept Part of Lot 12, Conc. 8 Environmental from applicant's Medonte Protection Zone solicitor -2- STATUS �� � � F3ECOMMENDE D14 P138/02 Thatcher Re- zoning from Refused by Council, None at this time. Part of Lot 15, Conc. 9 Agricultural /Rural OMB Hearing Proceed forward with (Medonte) Exception to adjourned until plan plan of subdivision Residential One of sub process. Holding Zone application(2004- SUB-02) is rocessed by Tw D14.02. P137/02 Re- zoning from un- Township met with Proceeding to Pac in Selri Investments zoned land to applicant Nov 2003. August Part of Lot 27, Conc. 3 Residential One (R1) Township to follow (Oro) Zone up with applicant D14.02. P134/02 Re- zoning from Application circulated Site plan and revised M & S Schneider Agricultural /Rural internally. Planning report to proceed to Part Lot 1, Conc. 7 (A/RU) to exception recommended PAC in Sept. (Oro) to permit outdoor receipt of storage, repairs and concept/site plan sale of military jeeps from applicant. Site and equipment plan received from applicant. Re- zoning from Draft Plan approved Await satisfaction of D12.03 P157/03 Future Development by Council March draft plan conditions by Horseshoe Resort Exception 67 to 17/04 Rezoning By- applicant. Part of Lot 1, Conc. 3 Residential Two law 2004 -031 in force (Medonte) Exception Zone and May 11/04 Plan of Condominium for 24 units D14 (03) P145/03 Re- zoning from Ltr received from Await follow up 1254554 Ontario General Commercial applicant's solicitor, information to satisfy Limited (Ken Secord) to General hired transportation MTO letter prior to Part of Lot 15, Conc.1, Commercial consultant to address preparation of report to 51 R -2993, Part 1 and Exception to permit MTO letter and PAC 51 R- 27229, Part auction sales required approvals 2 Orillia D12 (03) S -2/03 Part Lot Control Planning Report to Applicant currently Bachly (Subdivision) to Council in Dec 03 revising technical Part of Lot 15, Conc. create 41 lots recommending Part reports to proceed with 8, Blocks 65 -69, Plan Lot Control for part lot control, M -679 (Medonte) creation of lots within Township to negotiate a existing registered possible fire hall site subdivision approved b Council -2- 'FILE ,AND I<.EGi�L V TYPE O STATUS �ECOMMEyN ©E 2. y :.DESCR1PTIr�O�x,��� D09, D14, & D12 P- Official Plan & Zoning Premature until Application to be 146/03 & S -1/03 Amendments to completion of reviewed at time of 1204600 Ontario Ltd permit 183 residential Craighurst completion of Lots 18 -36, Plan 91, lot subdivision Secondary Plan, On Secondary Plan to Part of Lot 41 & 42, hold, Peer Reviews determine conformity to Conc. 1 (Medonte) completed and the Plan provided to applicant._ D09 (03) P- 159/03 Official Plan Application requires Proceed back to PAC Lester Cooke Amendment to County decision with planning report South Part of Lot 17, expand Shoreline regarding OPA #17 once EIS submitted and Conc. 3 (Orillia) designation to permit which amends the reviewed by staff creation of three current Shoreline residential lots, Re- policies, applicant zoning to Shoreline proceeding with EIS Residential Zone required D14 (04) 2004 - ZBA -02 Re- zoning to amend Letter received from Await additional Georgian North Lands provisions currently in applicant requesting information /request Ltd. the Residential One application be held to from applicant Part of Lot 2 and 3, Exception 75 Zone review options Conc.9 Oro D14 (04) 2004 - ZBA -03 Re- zoning to remove Notification to Proceed with By -law to Mary Jane Sarjeant holding provision for remove Holding remove Holding Part of Lots 1 & 2, property on provision circulated Provision once Site Range 2 (Oro) unassumed road and Plan approved by permit construction of Council. replacement dwelling D09 & D14 (04) 2004- Official Plan Application requires Proceed back to PAC OPA -02, 2004 - ZBA -04 Amendment to County decision with planning report CRA Developments expand Shoreline regarding OPA #17 once technical studies West Part of Lot 26, designation to permit which amends the recd and reviewed by Conc. 9 (Oro) creation of 7 current Shoreline staff residential lots, re- policies, applicant zoning to Shoreline proceeding with reqd. Residential zone technical studies as per June PAC recommendation D09 & D14 (04) 2004- Official Plan Application held in Proceed with circulation OPA -01, 2004 - ZBA -05 Amendment to abeyance until once application for Blueberry Beach expand Shoreline applicant submits plan of sub received, Itr (Robert Lean) designation to permit plan of subdivision sent to application to East Part of Lot 20, creation of residential application determine time frame Conc. 1 (Orillia) lots, re- zoning to for submission Shoreline Residential zone D14 (04) 2004 - ZBA -07 Rezoning to remove By -law 2004 -047 Letter sent to Tom McCullough holding provision adopted by Council application advising of Lot 2, Plan M -720, related to May 5/04 at same adoption of by -law Conc. 4 (Oro) requirement for Site time as execution of Planning file to be Plan Agreement.. Site Plan Agreement 1 closed. -3- FILE y 1r1tPE OF�,�� STATU�sr RECOMMENp_E1 D14 (04) 2004 - ZBA -08 Condition of Consent Application awaiting None at this time APT Operational Rezoning for A/RU consideration of Management and SR Exceptions to consent appin which Part Lot 1 & 2, Conc. 2 identify min. lot is currently on hold (Oro) frontage and area awaiting favorable regts. and location of comments from accessory uses Count re: entrance D09, D14, & D12 (04) Official Plan Application Letter sent to 2004- OPA -02, 2004- Amendment to proceeded to PAC in applicant's consultant ZBA -09, 2004 - SUB -01 expand Shoreline June 04, advising of Council's Moon Point Dev. Corp. Designation, recommendation to decision. Part of Lot 15 &16, Rezoning from A/RU proceed to PM, Conc. 3 (Orillia) to SR zone, and Plan recommendation of Subdivision for 18 defeated by Council lot residential June 23.04 subdivision D14 (04) 2004 -ZBA- Rezoning to remove By -law 2004 -062 Notification sent to 010 holding provision for adopted by Council owner on June 10, 04 Janet Howard property on private June 2/04 to remove Planning File closed. Lot 11, Plan 819, road and permit holding provision Conc. 4 (Oro) construction of re lacement dwelling D14 (04) 2004 -ZBA- Re- zoning to remove By -law 2004- 050 Notification sent to 011 holding provision for adopted by Council owner on May 11, 04 Ian & Mimi Eng property on private May 5, 04 to remove Planning File closed. Lots 16 -18, Plan 791, road and permit holding provision Conc. 1 (Orillia) construction of replacement dwelling D14 (04) 2004 -ZBA- Rezoning to remove By -law 2004 -072 Letter sent to 012 holding provision adopted by Council application advising of Malcolm Shiells related to June 16/04 at same adoption of by -law Lot 13, Plan M -720, requirement for Site time as execution of Planning file to be Conc. 4 (Oro) Plan Agreement Site Plan Agreement closed. D14 (04) 2004 -ZBA- Rezoning to remove Site Plan Agreement Removal of Holding 013 holding provision executed May 19/04 provision to be 1182631 Ontario Ltd. related to by By -law 2004 -056 presented to Council Part of Lot 11 , Conc. requirement for Site August 11/04, 1 (Oro) Plan Agreement notification to owner after adoption of by-law D14 (04) 2004 -ZBA- Condition of Consent Application to be After PM prepare 014 Rezoning from A/RU scheduled for Public Planning Report for Steven McCreary to RUR2 to reflect Meeting in consideration of Lots 4 & 5, Conc. 9 intended use of August/Sept (Oro) severed lot for rezoning residential purposes only D14 (04) 2004 -ZBA- Re- zoning from SR to Circulation of Planning Report 015 LC Exception to application in proceeding to PAC in Tom Chillman recognize Ice Fishing process August West Part of Lot 26, business and permit Conc. 8 Oro building expansion 87 Inactive Draft Plan conditions o on not contain a "clock" F2P tion Ltd. (time limit) to satisfy the on conditions. Therefore 003 (Part Lot Draft Plan is approved 1, Concession 14 until registered. (Oro) Request status letter from owner and recommend to County to revise conditions to put a time limit "clock" into draft plan approv al. P21/88 Kovacs Inactive Time limit (clock) issue OM -T -91050 Part of in draft plan approval. Lot 11, Concession 2 Oro P13/89 Buffalo Springs Active Time limit (clock) issue OM -T -91031 Part of in draft plan approval. Lots 2 and 3, Redline revision Concession 9 (Oro) received by Township in January 2004, on hold as per applicant's request. P52/89 Diamond Active Almost registered. Valley Estates 43T -93019 Part of Lot 2 and 3, Concession 7 Oro (4/90 Capobianco Active Moving to registration. 43T -93022 Part of Lot Time limit (clock) issue in draft plan approval. 1 and 2, Concession 7 ro) O ro ( Houben Inactive Time limit (clock) issue OM -T -94003 Part of in draft plan approval. Lot 10, Concession 10 Oro -5- DRAFT PL.Q0:110 F SUBCl1ViS1Ot+1 SE P5/94 Horseshoe Inactive Time limit (clock) issue Timber Ridge in draft plan approval. Part of Lot 1, Concession 4 Medonte P77/98 638230 Ont. Inactive Time limit (clock) issue Ltd. (Keyzer) in draft plan approval OM -T -90082 Part of Lot 5, Concession 13 Medonte Homire Inactive Time limit (clock) issue OM -T -90046 Part of in draft plan approval Lot 5, Concession 14 Medonte P100 /00 HRC Lifestyle Active Parts Registered. Time 43 -OM -20001 Part of limit imposed in draft Lots 3 and 4, plan approval. One Concession 4 (Oro) year extension granted by the Township on March 17, 2004. M Current Development Applications m I Township of Oro - Medonte