01 20 1992 Public Minutes 7:00
;
.J
THB CORPORATION OJ' HB TOWNSHIP OJ' ORO
SPECIAL PUBLIC DftING
MONDAY. JANUUY 20.1992 . 7:00 P.M. - COUNCIL CDKBBRS
NINTH KBBTING 1"1-19'4 COUNCIL
The following members of Council were present:
Reeve Robert E. Drury
Deputy Reeve David Caldwell
Councillor Alastair Crawford
Councillor Joanne Crokam
Councillor Leonard Mortson
Also Present Were:
Mr. Alan Wayne, Mr. G. K. Sanderson, Mr.
Conrad Boffo, Mr. Jerry Schnurr, Mrs. Bett
Schnurr, Mr. Larry Culos, Mr. Archer
Colwell, Mr. Mark Gordon, Mr. Bill Pidlysn
and One Member of the Press.
Reeve Robert E. Drury chaired the meeting.
Reeve Robert E. Drury opened the meeting by explaining to those
present that this Public Meeting was to receive public comments wit
respect to a proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment. This is a Township
initiated By-Law, which if approved, will be an area wide amendment
The purpose of the By-Law is to revise the definition of the meanin
of lot.
To date, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro have
not made a decision on this amendment, other than proceeding to thi
Public Meeting. Only after comments are received from the Public,
requested agencies and Township Staff, within the appropriate time
period, will council make a decision on this application.
Notice of the Public Meeting was also placed in both the Barrie
Examiner and Orillia Packet on December 31, 1991.
Reeve Robert E. Drury then asked the Clerk if there had been any
correspondence received on this matter. The Clerk responded by
indicating that one letter had been received from the Nottawasaga
Valley Conservation Authority stating that their agency had no
objection.
The Reeve then stated that those persons present would be afforded
the opportunity of asking questions with respect to the proposed
Amendments. He then turned the meeting over to the Township
Planner, Ms. Kris Menzies, to explain the purpose and effect of the
proposed Amendment.
Kris Menzies:
This is a Township initiated By-Law, that being
that the municipality has been in review of its
comprehensive zoning by-law and has noticed tha
certain things, due to timing, due to issues
being out of date, etc. is doing a little bit 0
housekeeping.
Essentially what the by-law will allow is for
people who own two abutting lots in one
ownership, to build a house on or near that
common lot line. Currently the municipality
requires that anybody constructing a building 0
their lot, must adhere the setbacks of that
particular lot. As an example, if you owned tw
Kris Menzies:
Allan Wayne:
Kris Menzies:
Allan Wayne:
Kris Menzies:
Garry Sanderson:
Kris Menzies:
?
Kris Menzies:
Reeve Drury:
Kris Menzies:
Reeve Drury:
Kris Menzies:
- 2 -
lots side by side, you cannot build your house
on the lot line unless the municipality merges
those two lots. This by-law will allow you to
do that without having Council pass a by-law,
merging those two lots. For legal purposes the
lots will still be considered two separate lots
the assessment office will consider them two
lots in the same ownership. For the purpose of
getting a building permit, the municipality wil
consider it one lot.
I understand what you are saying. If the
builds a house on that lot and then turns
and decides he does not need the lot, can
now be a building lot and sold to another
individual? Or does this make this a dead lot
now?
owner
aroun
this
If you exercise your right under this new
section of the by-law, assuming it is passed by
council, and you have two vacant lots side by
side on a plan of subdivision, as an example,
assume both are thirty foot frontages and you
want to build a house which sits on the lot lin
of both of these lots. As the rules exists
today, you would have to get those lots
physically merged under the Planning Act. If
this by-law gets adopted by council, you will b
permitted to come in and get a building permit,
sitting on the lot line. If you go to sell
those lots, likely the two lots may in fact hav
to be sold together because you have a house
straddling the line.
Supposing I want to keep my house, but I want t
get rid of my lot does that mean it no longer
can be sold separately, is that correct?
You would have a portion of a house sitting on
it.
You are going to do away with setbacks?
For the purpose of getting a building permit,
the setback on a common lot line is there withi
the same ownership, the municipality will in
fact consider that setback zero.
Lets say if you had a fifty foot lot, if you
build two feet from that imaginary line that
splits two fifty foot lots, can I get a buildin
permit under this new proposed by-law, correct?
The by-law is written such that your house woul
be able to straddle the lot line and if you do
not straddle the lot line you would be required
to come in and see the Committee of Adjustment
because the house would only be built on one of
the lots.
Kris, is there in the by-law a definition of ho
much the house must straddle the lot line?
No, we do not have a definition of that.
Maybe we should.
If you like we can take a look into that and se
",
- 3 -
Kris Menzies:
what the ramifications of this would be. I wil
contact the Township Solicitor if you wish.
Reeve Drury:
Yes.
There being no further questions or comments, the Reeve in closing
the meeting, thanked those in attendance for their participation
advised that Council would consider all matters before reaching a
decision. He then advised those present that if they wished to be
notified of the passing of the proposed By-law, they should leave
their name and address with the Clerk.
MOTION NO.1
Moved by Crawford, seconded by Mortson
Be it resolved that this Special Public Meeting of Council (Lot
Definition) now be adjourned @ 7:14 p.m.
carried.
AÁ/¿.r<.-/ /~Ó/+
ótERK DARLENE SHOEBRIDGE
REE