Loading...
09 13 2004 PAC AgendaTOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Robinson Room Date: Monday September 13, 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 — August 9, 2004 5. Correspondence and Communication None 6. Planning Applications (a) 7:05 p.m. Planning Report prepared by Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, Re: John Strimas — Part of Lot 12, Concession 8 (Medonte), Application P- 129/01 (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 Andria Leigh, Senior Planner Re: CRA Developments — West Part of Lot 26, Concession 9 (Oro), Application 2004- OPA -03 and 2004 - ZBA -04 (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to the review of the report) (c) 7:25 p.m. Planning Report prepared by Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, Re: Laurel View Homes Inc. — Part of Lots 3 and 4, Concession 4 (Oro), Application 2004 - ZBA -17 (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to the review of the report) (d) 7:35 p.m. Planning Report prepared by Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, Re: Lester and Cristina Cooke — South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 (Orillia), Application P- 159/03 (Applicant to be afforded an opportunity to speak to the application subsequent to the review of the report) 7. Other Business a. Next Meeting — scheduled meeting date would be Monday October 11, 2004 which is Thanksgiving Day and offices are closed — Proposed meeting following the Public Meeting scheduled for Monday October 18, 2004 8. Adjournment Lj- I TOWNSHIP • ORO-MEDONTE !PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES 2003-2006 TERM Monday, August 9, 2004 @ 7:01 p.m. Robinson Room / Council Chambers Present: Council Representatives Public Representatives Deputy Mayor Harry Hughes Terry Allison Councillor Dan Buttineau Robert Barlow Councillor Ralph Hough Craig Drury Councillor Paul Marshall John Miller Councillor John Crawford Councillor Ruth Fountain Regrets: Mayor J. Neil Craig, Mel Coutanche Staff Present: Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO; Andria Leigh, Senior Planner; Janette Teeter, Clerk's Assistant Also Present: Bruce Hall 1. Opening of Meeting by Chair. In the absence of the Chair, Janette Teeter, Clerk's Assistant called the meeting to order. Motion No. PAC-1 Moved by Robert Barlow, Seconded by Terry Allison It is recommended that in the absence of the Chairperson, Councillor Paul Marshall be appointed to act as Chair for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of Monday, August 9, 2004. Carried. 2. Adoption of Agenda. Motion No. PAC-2 Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by Terry Allison It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of Monday, August 9, 2004 be received and adopted, as amended, to change Department Report No. PD 2004-ZBA-1 5 to PD-2004-38. Carried. 3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof — in Accordance with the Act. None declared. 4. Minutes of Previous Meetings — June 14, 2004. Motion No. PAC-3 Moved by Terry Allison, Seconded by Craig Drury 4-2- It is recommended that the minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting held on June 14, 2004 be received. Carried. 5. Correspondence and Communication. None. 6. Planning Applications. a. Planning Report prepared by Andria Leigh, Senior Planner Re: Selri Investments — West Part of Lot 27, Concession 3 (Oro), Application P-137/02 (ZBA). Motion No. PAC-4 Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by Terry Allison It is recommended that Report No. PD 2004-36, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, re: Selri Investments — West Part of Lot 27, Concession 3 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, Application P- 137/02 (ZBA) be received and adopted as amended to reflect Option 1 as the recommendation; and it is recommended to Council that Application P-137/02, (ZBA) submitted by Selri Investments — West Part of Lot 27, Concession 3 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte proceed to a public meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. Defeated. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting — August 9, 2004 Page 2 b. Planning Report prepared by Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc. Re: Tom Chillman — West Part of Lot 26, Concession 8 (Oro), Application 2004-ZBA-1 5. Motion No. PAC-5 Moved by John Miller, Seconded by Terry Allison It is recommended that Report No. PD 2004-38, Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Inc., re: Application for Rezoning - Tom Chillman — West Part of Lot 26, Concession 8 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte be received and adopted, and it is recommended to Council that Application 2004-ZBA-1 5, submitted by Tom Chillman — West Part of Lot 26, Concession 8 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte proceed to a public meeting in accordance with the requirements of Section 34 of the Planning Act. Carried. 7. Other Business. a. Memorandum from Andria Leigh, Senior Planner re: Status — Planning Applications July 2004. Motion No. PAC-6 Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by John Miller It is recommended that the memorandum dated July 12, 2004, Andria Leigh, Senior Planner, re: Status — Planning Applications for 2004 be received. Carried. b. Next Meeting — Monday September 13 at 7:00 p.m. 8. Adjournment Motion No. PAC-7 Moved by Craig Drury, Seconded by Terry Allison It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 7:43 p.m. Carried. Acting Chair, Councillor Paul Marshall Senior Planner, Andria Leigh 1+ --:5 Planning Advisory Committee Meeting - August 9, 2004 Page 3 6 � - I 0304 A - I 0 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: PD i Planning Advisory Committee Andria Leigh, Senior F22004-42 Planner Subject: Department: Council Proposed Zoning By-law Planning C. of W. Amendment for John Strimas and Jane Burgess Concession 8, East Part of Lots 12 and 13, 51 R- 14221, Parts 1 and 2, 51 R-31772, Part 2 (Medonte) Date: Motion # September 8, 2004 R.M. File No. L Date: D14 011615 FEKT*Uff- • � The purpose of this report is to assess an application submitted by John Strimas and Jane Burgess. The intent of the application is to recognize a single detached dwelling that was constructed on the property in 2000. The proposed rezoning would rezone the lands from the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone to an Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) Zone. The property is zoned Environmental Protection (EP) as there is a tributary of the Coldwater River system located within the subject property. The area surrounding the river and up to and including the top of bank would continue to be zoned Environmental Protection (EP). This report will assess this application and provide a recommendation to the Planning Advisory Committee on how to proceed with the application. In 2000 the applicants constructed a second dwelling on a parcel of land that currently contained a dwelling. The applicants applied for a rezoning in 2001 to recognize the second dwelling on the property; however it was recommended that the application be denied as it would not have conformed with the intent and policies of the Official Plan. In 2002 the applicants applied for and were granted a consent from the Committee of Adjustment that added the area of the second dwelling to an existing vacant lot to the north that is also owned by the applicant. As this northern parcel is also zoned Environmental Protection (EP) the rezoning was still required to recognize the existence of a single detached dwelling on the property. The applicants will also be required to submit a change of use building permit application to the Building Department as the building permit issued in 2000 was for a detached garage and not a residential use. As part of the application the Building Department has indicated that an engineer's assessment detailing a physical inspection of the building will be required. A copy of the survey that identifies the location of the structures is attached for the Committee's reference. The second dwelling is currently identified as a garage with a carport on the survey. Also attached is a copy of the former Township of Medonte Zoning By-law 1990-22 Schedule that identifies the area of the subject property and clearly indicates that the area of the dwelling constructed in 2000 had not previously been zoned Environmentally Sensitive when the former Township of Medonte revised all their environmentally protected land areas. 191*�41:1112 The lands subject to the rezoning application have a land area of 1.44 hectares (3.574 acres) and front on Line 8 North. The property is located in a predominantly rural area on the south side of Highway 400 in an area of existing small residential lots. A tributary of the Coldwater River flows through the southern end of the property from Line 8 back to the rear property line. ANALYSIS: Conformity with Oro-Medonte Official Plan This section of the report is intended to assess the policies of the Official Plan as they apply to this proposal. The subject property is designated Rural in the Township's Official Plan. Section D3.1 indicates the objectives of the Rural designation are: to preserve and promote the rural character of the Township and the maintenance of the open countryside to prevent the intrusion of land uses which are incompatible with the rural character and/or resource activities of the area Permitted uses in this designation include single detached dwellings. The proposed use is compatible with the existing rural character of the area and the existing environmental area surrounding the Coldwater River tributary would be maintained as this is not the area of the existing dwelling. The use of the property for a residential use would conform to the policies of the Official Plan and would maintain the intent to protect the natural environment and the rural character. Conformity with County of Simcoe Official Plan The subject property is designated Greenlands in the County of Simcoe Official Plan. The purpose of the Greenland designation is to ensure that the scale, form, and location of development is such that the features and functions of the natural heritage system are sustained for the future. Within the Greenlands designation, dwelling units are permitted. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, which would recognize an existing dwelling would conform to the policies of the County of Simcoe Official Plan. Summary On the basis of the analysis provided above, it is my opinion that the proposed amendment conforms to the intent and policies of the Oro-Medonte Official Plan and the County of Simcoe Official Plan and that enough information has been submitted by the applicant for the public to generally understand the nature of the proposal at a public meeting under the Planning Act. 1. THAT this report be received and adopted; and 2. That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Zoning By-law Amendment Application P- 129/01 for John Strimas and Jane Burgess, East Part of Lots 12 and 13, Concession 8, RP 51 R- 14221, Parts 1 and 2, and RP 51 R-31772, Part 2 (Medonte), proceed to a Public Meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. Respectfully submitted, Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner C.A.O. Comments: Date: C.A.O. Dept. Head v 11 El 4C-7 il will "go ES 1 Scale WN& A # pwmkq ow -- - - »z VIII TV viii ix In 15 9111 13 im 671 KEY PLAN TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE SCHEDULE A24 10 &.0 0 q\r,z PIN 5e523-0164(L7) 51R - 14221 PART - 1 PROPOSED SEVERANCE #2 AREA 2.548 ACRES AREA 1.031 HECTARES RETAINED LANDS AREA 3.608 ACRES PROPOSED SEVERANCE #1 AREA 1.460 HECTARES p AREA 0.809 ACRES 00 AREA 0.328 HECTARES co PARCEL 3 o PIN 58523-0166(Lr) ONELL G PART 1 ARAGE 51 R — 29252 39.05s CAR PORT PIN 58523- 0 166(L T) WOOD CLAD SHED AT N59*30'30'E 1155.87' WUOO CLAD wo O 0 121 j0* PUMP-HOUSE 4 CLAD SHED 47.4• -,:vies 4 46.00' 3 1 1/2 STOREY WOOD 2 6 CLADN ,DWELUNG 4910 C) 93.3'(M) 90.0'(P2) 18.8'(M) cf) A6(T26*30'E(P2&M) 22.1 '(P2) L WOOD C 112.10'(P2&M)/ 8 PUMPI_ .OUDE x 37.3' 19 Z 41, C) 9 PART 1 51R-17710 10 12 6o - z ONCE I..wsr lz I s 0 3 me -0 pn N N O Az Go U) z 0 1._4 rn rn z 0 0 Q z 0 W4 6 LJ -° . . . . 70TOR [a-499M Dept. Report No. To: Planning Advisory Prepared By: Committee PD2004 -39 Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Subject: Department:' Council Planning CRA Developments Ltd. Date: September 7, 2004 C. of W. Concession 9, Part of Lot 26 (Oro) Motion # 2004- OPA -03 and 2004 -ZBA- R.M. File #: 04 D14 013469 Roll #: 1 -9 -68900 Date: BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to provide an updated assessment of applications for Official Plan and Zoning By- law Amendment applying to lands within Part of Lot 26, Concession 9 (Oro) owned by Mr. Tim Crawford of CRA Developments Ltd. A planning report was presented to the Planning Advisory Committee in June 2004 which required additional technical studies in the form of a Hydrogeological Assessment and an Environmental Impact Study to be completed and reviewed prior to the consideration of the scheduling of a public meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. The required technical studies have been completed by the applicant and were submitted to the Township for review on August 17, 2004. The details of these studies and the recommendations are discussed later in this report. These reports have also been forwarded to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for their review and comment. It is anticipated that their comments would be received at the time of a public meeting and included in a subsequent planning report to the Committee. At the present time, the lands are designated Rural and Environmental Protection Two in accordance with the approved Official Plan and zoned Agricultural /Rural by By -law 97 -95. The policies of the Rural designation do not permit the creation of new lots by severance on the property and as a result, a change to the Official Plan designation is required. The intent of the Zoning By -law change is to implement the changes to be made to the Official Plan. The applicant previously provided the Township with the following as part of the initial application being received: Development Feasibility Study — Skelton, Brumwell & Associates — January 1987 Preliminary Hydrogeologic Evaluation — Ian D. Wilson Associates Limited — September 1989 Planning Brief — Skelton, Brumwell & Associates — February 1998 GIO -z. The Township is now in receipt of two updated studies: Update of Preliminary Hydrogeologic Evaluation — Ian D. Wilson Associates Limited — August 12, 2004 Environmental Impact Study — Skelton Brumwell & Associates Inc. — July 29, 2004 POLICY CONTEXT: The proposed development, if approved, would not conform to Section D10.3.8 of the current Official Plan (Limits of Shoreline Development.) This section of the Official Plan states; It is the intent of this Plan that new development in the shoreline area be directed to lands that are designated Shoreline by this Plan in an effort to maintain this area's unique character... Any Amendment to this Plan that has the effect of permitting . additional residential development adjacent to the Shoreline designation will only be considered as part of a review of the appropriateness of the extent and limits of the entire Shoreline designation that is carried out as part of an Official Plan review. The existing policy regarding shoreline development is very restrictive, as it does not permit any development outside of the Shoreline designation without a review of the entire Shoreline designation and an OPA. OPA #17 proposes to change the above policy regarding development in shoreline areas to read as follows. It is the intent of this Plan that new development in the shoreline area be directed to lands that are designated Shoreline by this Plan in an effort to maintain this area's unique character. In order to implement this intent, new residential development in the Shoreline designation will be limited to small -scale subdivisions on the shoreline or minor infilling by consent to sever. Amendments to this Plan that have the effect of permitting additional residential development adjacent to the Shoreline designation will be discouraged. If such an application is submitted, the appropriateness of the immediate area for development from an environmental, servicing, character and traffic perspective shall be assessed. If major development is proposed, a detailed review of the entire shoreline area shall be carried out to determine if the proposed location is suitable and appropriate from a growth management perspective. The policy in the Official Plan was slightly revised by OPA #17, because there are logical locations for additional small -scale development in the shoreline area. However, the proposed policy also stresses that a number of issues have to be reviewed to determine the suitability of a re- designation. In addition to the requirement for water access, Section D10.3.6 of the Official Plan also contains the following criteria. Prior to the consideration of an application for Plan of Subdivision that contains lots that have direct access to and frontage on either Lake Simcoe or Bass Lake, Council shall be satisfied that: (a) The proposed Plan of Subdivision is of scale and density that is compatible with existing development in the area; (b) The proposed form of servicing is appropriate and agreed to by the Township and the appropriate agencies; (c) Measures to preserve the integrity of the shoreline and the tree cover on the site are included within the Subdivision Agreement and the implementing Zoning By- law, and, (d) Parkland areas are sited at appropriate location to provide access to the shoreline. These parkland areas should be sited adjacent to existing road allowances leading to the lake. It is noted that the above policy applies to Plan of Subdivision applications. However, these policies should also be considered in the review of applications for Official Plan Amendment that propose shoreline development. With respect to (a) above, it is my opinion that the large lots proposed and their location across from the existing residential development on Springhome Road is generally compatible with the scale and density of existing development. In terms of (b) above, the Official Plan requires that all servicing options be reviewed when applications to develop more than 5 new lots are proposed. As the applicant is proposing to develop seven lots, the Township required the submission of a hydrogeological assessment. The Township is in receipt of an updated Hydrogeologic Evaluation dated August 12, 2004 prepared by Ian D. Wilson and Associates Limited. The report indicates that there is sufficient water supply available in the area to accommodate the drilling of seven new wells for the proposed lots. The report also indicates that the large lot sizes proposed will allow significant leeway for sewage system design and installation and individual on site sewage systems would be acceptable. The report does indicate that there were elevated levels of iron and that there are readily available water treatments systems to address this matter; and that the sodium levels in the water slightly exceed the level at which physicians for person on sodium - restricted diets should be notified but is well below the aesthetic drinking water quality standard in Ontario. With respect to (c) above, an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was requested for the subject property since the lands are wooded, are contained within the Environmental Protection Two designation in the Township's Official Plan and also contain a watercourse. As noted above this study was submitted on August 17, 2004 and was prepared by Skelton Brumwell and Associates. The Environmental Impact Study identified three vegetation communities on the subject property: (i) an upland mixed deciduous forest, (ii) a beaver meadow, and (iii) a low land deciduous stand. The study indicates that all development activities on the site related to the development of residential lots have the potential to affect the natural environment on the site. On this basis the report recommends that there be special zoning by -law provisions to restrict the building envelope on the site to the first 95 metres in order to protect the beaver meadow, the majority of the woodland on the rear of the proposed lots, and provide an appropriate setback from the watercourse identified on the retained lands. The study also recommends the preparation of individual lot development plans at the building permit stage in order to identify the areas of non - disturbance and to implement appropriate protection measures related to the site construction re: erosion and runoff. The recommendations of the EIS would be considered for implementation through a site specific zoning by -law amendment and Site Plan Control. The details of which would be discussed in a subsequent report to the Committee following the holding of a public meeting. Lastly, in regard to (d), it is noted that Memorial Park is located nearby and its location will offer new residents an access to the lake. While OPA #17 was adopted by Council on August 21, 2003; it has not received final approval by the County of Simcoe which is required before these policies are in force and effect and before final consideration can be given to applications proposed to amend the Official Plan in accordance with these new policies. 6 - Lt • ' i 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. CONCLUSIONS: It is my opinion that the proposal is small in scale and generally satisfies the intent of the Official Plan, as amended by OPA #17. Technical studies have now been completed which support the proposed form of development on the site and the limited number of residential lots to be developed with private wells and sewage systems. On this basis, it is recommended that Option 1 be selected and that a formal public meeting under The Planning Act be scheduled. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee: receive and adopt this report; and, recommend to Council 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. Respectfully Submitted, ndria Leigh MCIP, A 4P g Senior Planner C.A.O. Comments: Date: C.A.O. Dept. Head ." &I &1 61 LI Laid LI L"� LI L. j W L_j 66-5 G: \Projects- I \1 800\1 392\Cad-dwg5\1 892 EIS RGURESAwq 07/30/2004 02:42:42 PM EDT I-,— _UL-BEAVER POND ;-AND 9 (NO r TRAVELLED) CA ANCE BETWEEN C IONS e 3 G fee, skez, Z4 0') 3 7.5m- __LN30Si8_9 ivi HOVI ee., oz ,n NW :Z 0> 0 0 C-) z C: m °z 0 Im > z m 01 < 0 o' 2 m z M r'j m ism m :s 2z 0 0 Aga 0 x z to Z 0 C: €v 3 N -D Z m m -2 z > > 2- xN 6 z 0 41 z loo EXT. SIDE YARD (TYP) A o Z (A :c 0 O co Z.')l <;00_ O' n\ C) M (n r- - 0 ­4 o CO 0 zz Q­4 " rli to a) > -- :!D11' AM, IM mz r- 0 4 I D � i Ln z cn Z Z'o 0 m 0 K it m mo II Fli �iZ= II lo. EX S bE YARD < Wo 10 > < PD 3m INT. 14E Y D (T 2" m 47*7 3 V - z' L .D; DO G fee, skez, Z4 0') 3 7.5m- __LN30Si8_9 ivi HOVI ee., oz ,n NW :Z 0> 0 0 C-) z C: m °z 0 Im > z m 01 < 0 o' 2 m z M r'j m ism m :s 2z 0 0 Aga 0 x z to Z 0 C: €v 3 N -D Z m m -2 z > > 2- xN 6 z 0 41 z loo EXT. SIDE YARD (TYP) A o Z (A :c 0 O co Z.')l <;00_ O' n\ C) M (n r- - 0 ­4 o CO 0 zz Q­4 " rli to a) > -- :!D11' AM, IM mz r- 0 4 I D � i Ln z cn Z Z'o 0 m 0 K it m mo II Fli �iZ= II 6r l OF Og0 4 Ck � Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: PD 2004 -41 Planning Advisory Committee Andria Leigh, Senior Planner Subject: Department: Council Proposed Zoning By -law Planning C. of W. Amendment for Laurel View Homes Inc. and Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd. Concession 4, Part of Lots 3 & 4, and Plan M -741, Lots 1- 66 (Oro) Date: Motion # September 8, 2004 R.M. File No. Date: D14 013945 BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to assess an application submitted by Laurel View Homes Inc. and Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd. The proposed rezoning would amend the existing Site Specific Residential One (R1 *140) zone on the subject property to allow for a revised rear yard setback specifically for decks. This report will assess this application and provide a recommendation to the Planning Advisory Committee on how to proceed with the application. The applicant has submitted a planning analysis in support of their application and a copy of this and a map showing the land area subject to the application are attached for the Committee's reference. 6c- -/- - DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND ADJACENT USES: The lands subject to the rezoning application have a land area of approximately 96 acres and have frontage on Line 3 North and Line 4 North. The property is the site of an adult lifestyle community that was draft plan approved for 563 residential lots, a golf course, and recreational trails and facilities. There are currently 66 lots registered (Plan M-741) which are owned by Laurel View Homes Inc. and an additional 497 lots that are draft plan approved and owned by Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd. The subject lands are located near the southern boundary of the Horseshoe Resort Development Node. DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS: Fire Department — No Comments Engineering & Environmental Services — No Concerns Building - Decks must be restricted to a total area in square feet i.e. 10 feet deep by width of house with no projection past walls of house including stairs or encroachments Public Works — No Concerns Clerk — Is the existing 7.5 m setback specific to golf courses, 4.5 m proposed is a 3 m reduction and if on the green may cause safety concerns/problems ANALYSIS: Conformity with Oro-Medonte Official Plan This section of the report is intended to assess the policies of the Official Plan as they apply to this proposal. The subject property is designated Horseshoe Valley Low Density Residential in the Township's Official Plan. The intent of these policies is to promote the consolidation of residential development in existing development nodes and to ensure that all new development is sensitive to the natural heritage system and rural character of the area. The Low Density Residential designation specifically permits single detached dwellings and golf courses and there are policies that permitted the development of the Adult Lifestyle Community in this location. The proposed amendment would provide for specific setbacks for decks used to access the single detached dwellings that are contemplated by the Official Plan and as such the proposal would not offend the policies of the Official Plan. Conformity with County of Simcoe Official Plan The subject property is designated Settlement Area in the County of Simcoe Official Plan. The current residential use of the subject property conforms with the intent and policies of the Plan. The proposed rezoning that would permit specific setbacks for decks attached to the residential 6c_-� dwellings would not offend these policies and the proposed zoning by-law amendment would therefore conform with the policies of the County of Simcoe Official Plan. Summary The application proposes two additional exceptions to the current exception zone. A copy of the current Exception 140 is attached for the Committee's reference. The first would allow for a reduced rear yard setback to permit decks to be 5.0 metres from the rear lot line for lots which do not back onto either the golf course or recreational trail but would back onto other lots within this subdivision. In reviewing the plan, this would apply to 283 of the lots representing 50.2% of the plan. As these lots only back onto other lots within the subdivision and this area is already recognized as being a unique residential community with full services and smaller lot sizes; the proposed reduction is considered appropriate. The second would allow for a reduced rear yard setback to permit decks to be 4.5 metres from the rear lot line for lots which back onto either the golf course or recreational trail. In reviewing the plan, this would apply to 280 of the lots representing 49.8% of the plan. Of these, 236 of the lots would back onto the golf course and 44 would back onto the recreational trails. In allowing the reduction in the setback to permit decks closer to the golf course there is a concern regarding safety of the individual land owners being in such close proximity to the golf course. There is the potential for liability if the Township approves such a reduction without having been satisfied that the safety of the future residents in the Township had been addressed. On this basis, it is recommended that the applicant be requested to provide additional technical information that would indicate the probability of golf balls entering the lots that back onto the golf course. Specifically, it is recommended that detailed diagrams be provided to the Township that would indicate from each green the range in which the golf balls are likely to fall to ensure that the area of the proposed decks would be located outside of this area; thereby ensuring the protection of the residents. Once this information is provided ensuring that the reduced setback will not increase the potential safety of the landowners, the proposed reduction would be considered appropriate and in keeping with this specific residential community. The applicant has provided a draft zoning by-law amendment, a copy of which is attached for the Committee's reference, and would be available for review by the public prior to the public meeting. Section 5.9.1 of the Township's Zoning By-law 97-95 currently states that stairs and landings used to access the main building, unenclosed porches and balconies may encroach into any required yard a distance of not more than 1.0 metre. It is proposed that the draft by- law be amended to include a provision that the provisions of Section 5.9.1 would not apply to the decks that will be the subject of the proposed reduced rear yard setback to ensure that an additional 1.0 m encroachment is not anticipated on any property or requested and that the minimum setback for these structures would be the 4.5 m or 5.0 m required rear yard setback. On the basis of the analysis provided above, it is my opinion that the proposed amendment conforms to the intent and policies of the Oro-Medonte Official Plan and that sufficient information has been submitted by the applicant for the public to generally understand the nature of the proposal at a public meeting under the Planning Act. b C -T RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT this report be received and adopted; and 2. That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Zoning By-law Amendment Application 2004-ZBA-17 for Laurel View Homes Inc. and Horseshoe Valley Lands Ltd., Concession 4, Part of Lots 3 and 4, and Plan M-741, Lots 1-66 (Oro), proceed to a Public Meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. Respectfully submitted, Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner C.A.O. Comments: Date: C.A.O. Dept. Head HORSESHOE RESORT Landscapes at Horseshoe Resort Rezoning Planning Analysis Prepared by: PK Menzies Planning & Development Inc. August 2004 6C--S RECEIVED AU6 2 3 2004 ORO- MEDONTE TOWNSHIP 1 0 INTRODUCTION The following Planning Analysis relates to an application for rezoning to Part Lots 3 and 4 Concession 4, former Township of Oro including 51M -741. The site is commonly known as "The Landscapes at Horseshoe Resort". The purpose of the application is to allow for decks to be constructed in the rear yards closer to the rear lot line than is currently permitted by the Township's Zoning By -law. The reason for the application in the form of a rezoning is that it is considered more appropriate to deal with the matter on a holistic approach rather than on a site by site basis though the minor variance process. The proposal before the Township is to permit decks to be constructed within a portion of the rear yard setback of the lots. This proposal is being sought through a site specific zoning amendment which is proposed to apply to the entire site. The intention is to permit residential decks to be constructed in the year yard of the lots a minimum of 4.5 metres from the rear lot line of those lots which back onto the golf course or a recreational trail, and a minimum of 5.0 metres for all of the other lots. The current by -law requirement is a minimum setback of 7.5 metres which is the same required setback as the house 3.0 SITE AND SURROUNDING USES 3.1 Location and Site Configuration The site is located at Horseshoe Resort in the former Township of Oro (now.Oro- Medonte). The property is fully serviced and is therefore considered an urban development in a resort setting. The site hosts undulating topography which, by its very nature, allows for a walk -out from many of the basements of the homes, a good many of the decks constructed from the main floor of the house therefore are located above the established lot grade. The site hosts 563 lots approved for single unit residential homes. Some of these homes are now constructed. Each of the lots is either bounded by golf course holes associated with the development, a recreational trail within the development, or another lot in the development. The decks which are proposed to be constructed therefore will either back onto other lots within the development, a golf course hole, or a recreational trail and thus the decks will not face onto any other approved residential lots at the Resort. Menzies Planning & Development 1 Landscapes at Horseshoe Rezoning 6c_ --7 4 0 OFFICIAL PLAN The site is subject to the policies of the Official Plan (OP) of the County of Simcoe, as well as the policies of the Township of Oro - Medonte OP. The County designates the site as a "Settlement Area" and therefore no amendment to the County Plan is required to recognize the proposed changes to the zoning by -law., The County policies are primarily policy based and a review of these policies does not apply to the proposed structural setbacks proposed by these policies. Similar to the County's OP, the proposed site specific rezoning for structural setbacks does not offend any of the policies of the Township's Official Plan. The Official Plan designates this area as "Horseshoe Valley Low Density Residential" and permits the use of the site as an Adult Lifestyle Community. Permitted uses include but are not limited to single detached dwellings. The revised structural setbacks for the site relate to decks accessing single detached dwellings, and thus the use is contemplated by the OP. The site is to be developed on full services and is to be urban in nature. The proposal fits these criteria. 5.0 THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The Provincial Policy Statement was issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act and it is intended to provide policy direction for land use matters which are of Provincial interest. Planning Authorities are to have regard to the Policy Statement when exercising any authority. A review of the Provincial Policy Statement has been undertaken with respect to the application to reduce the yard requirements for decks and stairs on the subject lands, and it has been determined that the proposal meets the intention of the Policy Statement. 6.0 ZONING BYLAW The site is zoned R1 -140 and R1 -140 (H) in the Township of Oro - Medonte Official Plan. In effect, the lands which are zoned with the Holding provision will only permit the existing (vacant) use of the lands until such time as that portion of the lands is registered. The base zoning (R1) is, in effect, for the development of single detached homes, related uses, and associated structures such as decks. The site is zoned in a site specific zone in order to permit a wider range of uses than the standard Rl zone and in order to provide for differing zone provisions. The standard RI zone is essentially used for single detached dwellings on rural services. As the Landscapes property is for urban and recreational uses, specialized zoning, including urban zone provisions, were required. Menzies Planning & Development 2 Landscapes at Horseshoe Rezoning 6C_-`' Notwithstanding that the R1 -140 zone was crafted to recognize the urban nature of the development, the standard RI minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres was retained. This rear yard setback is common for most of the rural zones in the Township. Given the urban nature of the site, located in a recreational setting (on a golf course) it has been found that most of the purchasers in the development are desirous to have their homes located as close to the golf course as possible. It has also been found that the varying topography of the site provides for opportunity to accommodate many walk -out conditions from the homes. As the site is recreationally oriented, there is a further desire to have decks off of the first floor facing onto the golf course. This would therefore mean that, in most cases, the decks would be located in the rear yard. A three metre (ten foot) deck is normally required to accommodate, at a minimum, the amenities desired on a deck ,space. As many of the purchasers in the development are seeking an adult lifestyle flavour to their homes and community, the back yards are not being utilized as much as the deck space. The deck space is therefore an extension of the living space, into the recreational area of the site. Forty-five percent of the homes back onto the golf course and many of the remaining homes back onto trails or greenspace. The Township's Zoning By -law (Section 5.7) hosts a hierarchy of setbacks for decks. Generally decks are not permitted to encroach into the rear yard of a property unless the deck is a stand alone structure or unless the structure is attached to a boathouse. Under certain conditions,, interior side yard encroachments of decks is permitted. The desire to have an extension of the living space as outdoor space on the site, the topography of the site, the urban nature of the site, the lack of desire to utilize the yard space for other than decks, and the rural nature of the rear yard setback in the by -law, all provide reasons why an amendment is being requested to amend the minimum rear yard setback from the existing 7.5 metres for a deck to the following: Minimum rear yard deck setback for golf course & recreational trail lots 4.5 metres Minimum rear yard deck setback for non -golf course lots 5.0 metres The by -law relief requested would permit the development of decks with a 3.0 metre depth, should the house be located on the setback line. Given that most of the lots back onto some form of greenspace, those lots which choose to construct a deck taking advantage of the proposed relief from the by -law would still maintain a greater than 7.5 metre setback from the edge of the deck to the abutting rear yard deck of the adjacent neighbour. This is due to the fact that most of the lots backing onto greenspace back onto a golf course and thus the closest adjacent rear lot neighbour is on the other side of the golf hole. In most cases therefore, the change in setback would not adversely affect the closest rear yard neighbour. This approach is not dissimilar to the current criteria for decks associated with waterfront lots in that waterfront decks are allowed to encroach into the rear yard Menzies Planning & Development 3 Landscapes at Horseshoe Rezoning and it is unlikely that a waterfront deck will adversely affect any abutting rear yard neighbour as the rear yard consists of a lake; in the case of Landscapes, most of the rear yards effected by this by -law abut a golf course. In the case of those lots which utilize the propose setback and are not located on a greenspace, a 5.0 metre setback can still be considered appropriate in an urban setting. It is also unlikely that every lot will avail itself of the new setback. 8.0 CONCLUSION The Landscapes at Horseshoe Resort has been approved and designed as,a fully serviced urban and recreational community catering to the adult lifestyle market. The topography of the site is undulating and fits, where possible, into the natural configuration of the site. These issues present design challenges to the home builder. These include providing a product which meets the desire of the home owner to have useable back yard decks at their homes. An application has therefore been made to amend the RI -140 on the site to permit the construction of decks in rear yards with a setback of 5.0 metres on interior lots and 4.5 metres on golf course lots and recreational trail lots. This proposal meets the intention of the County and Township Official Plans, the Provincial Policy Statement, and is in keeping with the urban and recreational nature of the development. The constructed decks will also not conflict with any other residential development on or off the Resort lands. It is the opinion of this office that approval of this rezoning represents good planning. Kris Menzies, MCIP RPP Menzies Planning & Development 4 Landscapes at Horseshoe Rezoning H 0 U �Q W= wW x W W M� W i t t �a G s X1.1 � �Z�� z O � � � ��� ss� �� 6b P R �° z c � ¢z Ox Icr- z a z N 6a $dd.� N Z s i 6c-¢ ID Cc.- 11 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE BY -LAW 2004 - Landscapes at Horseshoe A By -law, to amend the Township of Oro - Medonte Zoning By -law 97 -75 in respect to lands legally known as 51M -741 and Part of the North Half and South Half of Lot 3 and part of Lot 4 Concession 4 Geographic Township of Oro now Oro - Medonte WHEREAS authority is given to Council by Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.P.13, as amended to pass this By -law; and WHEREAS Council for the Township of Oro - Medonte have provided adequate information to the public and have held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act; WHEREAS By -law 2004- is enacted in accordance with the Township of Oro - Medonte Official Plan; AND WHEREAS Council deems it appropriate to amend the zoning on the lands to permit the development of decks associated with the residential units; The Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte HEREBY ENACTS as follows: 1. Section 7.140 Exceptions of By -law 97 -75 as amended is hereby further amended by adding a new subsection "k" following to the "Regulations for single detached dwellings" after subsection "j" as follows: "k) Notwithstanding the provisions contained herein, or the provisions of Section 5.7 "Decks" of this by -law, the following standards shall apply: Minimum required rear yard for a deck is: a) for those lots abutting a golf course or recreational trail 4.5 metres b) for all other lots 5.0 metres" 2. For the purposes of this By -law, the terms set forth in quotes shall have the same meaning as such terms have for the purposes of By -law No. 97 -75, as amended unless otherwise defined herein. 3. THIS BY -LAW SHALL COME into force on the date of passage and take effect the day after the last date for filing of appeals where no appeals are received, or, where appeals are received, upon the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, and in either case, in accordance with Subsection 24 (2) of The Planning Act, R.S.O., 1993 c.P.13, as amended. Menzies Planning & Development Horseshoe Resort — Landscapes By -law read a first and second time this day of October 2004. By -law read a third and final time and passed this day of October 2004. Mayor Neil Craig Marilyn Pennycook - Clerk Menzies Planning & Development Horseshoe Resort — Landscapes �@�i I I al 101:4E Mail Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: PD2004 -40 Planning Advisory Andria Leigh, RPP I Committee Subject: Department: Council Planning Lester and Cristina Cooke, C. of W. Development Application P- 159/03 Date: September 8, 2004 Motion # Concession 3, South Part of Lot 17 (Orillia) R.M. File #: D09 013294 Roll #: Date: 030 - 012- 43100 -0000 BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to provide an updated assessment of applications for Official Plan and Zoning By -law Amendment applying to lands within the South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 (Orillia) owned by Mr. And Mrs. Cooke. A planning report was presented to the Planning Advisory Committee in June 2004 which required an additional technical study in the form of an Environmental Impact Study to be completed and reviewed prior to the consideration of the scheduling of a public meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. The EIS was submitted to the Township on August 24, 2004 and was prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc. on behalf of the applicant. The details of the study and the recommendations are discussed later in this report. A copy of the report has also been forwarded to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for their review and comment. It is anticipated that their comments would be received at the time of a public meeting and would be included in a subsequent planning report to the Committee. At the present time, the lands are designated Restricted Rural in accordance with the approved Official Plan and zoned Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) by Zoning By -law 97 -95. The policies of the Restricted Rural designation do not permit the creation of new lots by severance on the property and as a result, a change to the Official Plan designation is required. The intent of the Zoning By -law change is to implement the changes to be made to the Official Plan. 6--A- - POLICY CONTEXT: The proposed development, if approved, would not conform to Section D10.3.8 of the current Official Plan (Limits of Shoreline Development.) This section of the Official Plan states; It is the intent of this Plan that new development in the shoreline area be directed to lands that are designated Shoreline by this Plan in an effort to maintain this area's unique character... Any Amendment to this Plan that has the effect of permitting additional residential development adjacent to the Shoreline designation will only be considered as part of a review of the appropriateness of the extent and limits of the entire Shoreline designation that is carried out as part of an Official Plan review. The existing policy regarding shoreline development is very restrictive, as it does not permit any development outside of the Shoreline designation without a review of the entire Shoreline designation and an OPA. OPA #17 proposes to change the above policy regarding development in shoreline areas to read as follows. It is the intent of this Plan that new development in the shoreline area be directed to lands that are designated Shoreline by this Plan in an effort to maintain this area's unique character. in order to implement this intent, new residential development in the Shoreline designation will be limited to small - scale subdivisions on the shoreline or minor infilling by consent to sever. Amendments to this Plan that have the effect of permitting additional residential development adjacent to the Shoreline designation will be discouraged. If such an application is submitted the appropriateness of the immediate area for development from an environmental servicing, character and traffic perspective shall be assessed if major development is proposed, a detailed review of the entire shoreline area shall be carried out to determine if the proposed location is suitable and appropriate from a growth management perspective. This policy in the Official Plan was revised by OPA #17 and the underlined portion noted above would allow limited development in the shoreline area without the need for a review of the entire Shoreline designation. However, the proposed policy does indicate that a number of issues have to be reviewed to determine the suitability of a re- designation including: environmental suitability, servicing feasibility, impact on character and traffic impacts. These policies are consistent with the criteria currently contained in Section D10.3.6 as discussed below. In addition to the requirement for water access, Section D10.3.6 of the Official Plan also contains the following criteria. Prior to the consideration of an application for Plan of Subdivision that contains lots that have direct access to and frontage on either Lake Simcoe or Bass Lake, Council shall be satisfied that: (a) The proposed Plan of Subdivision is of scale and density that is compatible with existing development in the area; 6,,A- (b) The proposed form of servicing is appropriate and agreed to by the Township and the appropriate agencies, (c) Measures to preserve the integrity of the shoreline and the tree cover on the site are included within the Subdivision Agreement and the implementing Zoning By -law, and, (d) Parkland areas are sited at appropriate location to provide access to the shoreline. These parkland areas should be sited adjacent to existing road allowances leading to the lake. It is noted that the above policy applies to Plan of Subdivision applications. However, these policies should also be considered in the review of applications for Official Plan Amendment that propose shoreline development. With respect to (a) above, it is my opinion that the lots proposed are larger than the existing developed area along Moon Point Drive and their location would be compatible with the scale and density of the existing development, particularly as Moon Point Drive is a fully developed shoreline residential area. In terms of (b) above, given that only three residential lots are proposed and the large size of the proposed lots, the only appropriate means of servicing is by private wells and septic system and in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan does not require the completion of a Hydrogeological Assessment due to the limited number of lots proposed. With respect to (c) above, an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was completed for the subject property since a portion of the lands are wooded and there is an identified watercourse running through the property. This study was prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc on behalf of the applicant and submitted to the Township on August 24, 2004. A site visit of the subject property was conducted on June 21, 2004 to identify the features and functions of the natural environment on the site. The EIS identifies two current conditions on -site (i) an open area void of treed vegetation in the southern western portion of the property and (ii) a forested area located in both the east and northern portion of the property which also contains the watercourse. The study indicates that all development activities on the site related to the development of residential lots have the potential to affect the natural environment on the site. On this basis the report recommends that there be special zoning by -law provisions to restrict the building envelope on the site to the southern portion of the property consistent with the extent of the existing cleared lands, and no disturbance should occur beyond the recommended 38 metre from the south creek bank in order to permit the maintenance of the watercourse and associated swamp. The study also recommends the implementation of appropriate protection measures related to the site construction re: erosion and runoff. The recommendations of the EIS would be considered for implementation through a site specific zoning by -law amendment and Site Plan Control. The details of which would be discussed in a subsequent report to the Committee following the holding of a public meeting. Lastly, in regard to (d), it is noted that the intent of this policy is to discourage development in the shoreline area where residents will not have access to the Lake; however the policy does not preclude development from occurring. It should be noted that there are currently road allowances to the lake that would offer new residents access to Lake Simcoe. On the basis of the comments above, it is my opinion that the proposed development is in conformity with the above criteria. -3- G�A_4- While OPA #17 was adopted by Council on August 21, 2003; it has not received final approval by the County of Simcoe which is required before these policies are in force and effect and before final consideration can be given to applications proposed to amend the Official Plan in accordance with these new policies. OPTIONS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: It is my opinion that the proposal is small in scale and generally satisfies the intent of the Official Plan, as amended by OPA #17. The EIS has now been completed which supports the proposed form of development on the site and the limited number of residential lots to be developed with private wells and sewage systems. On this basis, it is recommended that Option 1 be selected and that a formal public meeting under The Planning Act be scheduled. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that Planning Advisory Committee: receive and adopt this report; and, recommend to Council that Application P- 159/03 a proposed Official Plan and Zoning By -law Amendment submitted by Lester and Cristina Cooke proceed to a public meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. Respectfully Submitted, Andria Leigh, MCIP, R P Senior Planner C.A.O. Comments: Date: C.A.O. Dept. Head (ooA- AGRICULTURAL _j $ L3 Z z �.� JOHN MOON ROAD "_jEj_ vj Lj ce >< O v1 FOREST AREA , LjUJ (LAKE AGRICULTURAL SIMCOE WATERCOURSE L: POND CX > 133m aim EXISTING of 3 RESIDENTIAL Lot 1 Lot 2 z _j C3 M 3RICULTURAL EXIST INE ES �ENT�A� LAKE SIMC ©E ENwRawAmmt CoAmxnw oc Area of Recommended Setback Photos COOKE EIS --Toe of Existing Fitt FlgL" No. Property DaU Issu" JUNE 2004 South of Part Lot 17, CreaUd pr Ls. tom "-24 Concession 3, Town of OrIttia 3 Va.