10 21 1991 Public Minutes
- ~
V'
"
THB CORPORATION OP THB TOWNSHIP OP ORO
SPBCIAL PUBLIC KBBTING
MONDAY. OCTOBO al. 1111 . '1:3C P.M. - COUNCIL CllAllBDS
ORB ltUNDRBD ANI) BIGftY SIX'l'It DBTING 1188-1111 COUNCIL
The following members of Council were present:
Reeve Robert E. Drury
Deputy Reeve David Caldwell
Councillor Alastair Crawford
Councillor Allan Johnson
Absent:
Councillor David Burton
Also Present Were:
Ms. Kris Menzies, Mr. E.R. Fleming, Mr.
Garry Sanderson, Mr. Alan Wayne, Mr. Conra
Boffo, Mr. Christopher L. Grant, Ms. Vivia
Bell, Mr. Stephen Sperling, Mr. Stephen
Woodrow, Mr. Leonard Mortson, Mrs. Shirle
Woodrow, Mr. Nick MacDonald, Mr. Eric Tave
and One Member of the Press.
Reeve Robert E. Drury chaired the meeting.
Reeve Drury opened the meeting by explaining to those present that
this Public Meeting was to receive public comments with respect to
proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment, under section 34 of the Planning
Act, 1983. This Amendment was initiated by the Municipality to
amend the text document with respect to minimum lot depth in variou
zones.
To date, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro have
not made a decision on this proposed amendment, other than
proceeding to this Public Meeting. Only after comments are receive
from the Public, requested agencies and Township Staff, within the
appropriate time period, will Council make a decision.
Notice of the Public Meeting was also placed in both the Barrie
Examiner and Orillia Packet on October 1, 1991.
Reeve Drury then asked the Clerk if there had been any
correspondence received on this matter. The Clerk responded that n
letters had been received.
The Reeve then stated that those persons present would be afforded
the opportunity of asking questions with respect to the proposed
Zoning By-Law Amendment.
Reeve Drury 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 particular amendment is essentially what w
call in Planning Terms as a house keeping By-
Law. The Township initiated and what we are
proposing to do with the By-Law is remove the
minimum Lot Depth requirements in several of th
Residential Zones. Those Zones are General
Residential, Resort Residential and Rural
Residential. Essentially, zoning By-Laws have
very specific provisions in terms of minimum Ie
frontages required, minimum lot areas, minimum
VI'
ì
- 2 -
Kris Menzies:
set backs from lot lines. In these three
particular zones in Oro Township we also have a
requirement for 45 metre minimum lot depth. As
well, Section 7.2.3 of the Zoning By-Law has a
site Specific minimum lot depth which is
proposed to be taken out of the By-Law as well.
The rational for the removal of the lot depth
requirement is essentially two fold. One, the
Township is in a position now where they are
trying to afford more design flexibility to
developers coming in and the minimum lot depth
is a restriction on that design flexibility.
Council is considering removing it to allow mor
flexibility and essentially better lots in a
subdivision. They are going to be maintaining
other restrictions such as area requirements an
frontage requirements. The second rational is
that in some cases where you have road widening
for instance and that a requirement from other
bodies such as the County Engineers Department,
and requirements from the Public Works
Superintendent in this municipality, in some
cases the municipality puts itself in a
potential situation that if that road widening
is taken, would contravene the By-Law in terms
of the minimum lot depth. To give you a
scenario. The Township could be in a situation
of creating a lot that is of the minimum lot
depth, 45 metres in a General Residential Zone
and if for some reason some time in the future,
the municipality or the County or the Province,
decides that it needs a road widening of some
kind, we could potentially be creating an
illegal lot if the road widening has to take of
some of that lot in order to satisfy the road
widening and the lot depth becomes something
less than the 45 metres. So essentially there
is a lot of technical constraints associated
with minimum lot depth and the municipality is
through this By-Law proposing to clean up some
of the potential problems associated with it.
Councillor
Caldwell:
By reducing the minimum lot depth, this does no
change the set back requirements of buildings
from the back lot line or the front lot line.
Kris Menzies:
No it does not, it does not change the set back
requirements or the area requirements and we ar
not necessarily reducing it, we are wiping out
the requirement all together. So in most cases
you will find that the lots that are created ar
more than the existing minimum lot depth.
There being no further questions or comments, the Reeve in closing
the meeting, thanked those in attendance for their participation an
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.
. , .
,"
Ii
- 3 -
MOTION NO.1
Moved by Caldwell, seconded by Johnson
Be it resolved that the Special Public Meeting (Minimum Lot Depth)
now be adjourned @ 7:41 p.m.
Carried
-N J ~ ~-dF~/~~~
REEV~ROBERT E. DRURY LERK DARLENE SHOEBRIDG