THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SEVERN
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday August 19, 2014
Council Chambers - Municipal Office
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE
THEREOF
C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
1 Committee of Adjustment - July 15, 2014
Page #
1-12
D. ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS
1
B-07-14 (Silver Spring View Estates) - 4511 Fairgrounds
2
B-12-14 (Kenning) - 1251 Dunns Line
E. NEW APPLICATIONS
N/A
13-18
Page #
1 A-20-14 (Black) - 12864 County Road 16
19-25
2 A-21-14 (Boyle) - 3410 Grayshott Drive
27-33
3 A-22-14 (Watson) - 1370 Deep Bay Blvd
35-41
4 A-23-14 (West Shore Beach Club, Summerhill) - 2722 Canoe
43-51
5 B-14-14 (1326049 Ontario Inc.) - 3372 Agnew Road
53-59
6 B-15-14 (Rumsey) - 3833 Hampshire Mills Line
61-68
7 B-16-14 (Morrison) - 3177 Green River Drive
69-73
8 B-17-14 (Myers / Watson) - 1591 Dunns Line
75-82
F. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS
"NIL"
G. CORRESPONDENCE
"NIL"
H. OTHER BUSINESS
"NIL"
J. ADJOURNMENT
Dates for Future Committee of Adjustment Meetings
Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT HELD IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, 1024 HURLWOOD LANE, TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2014 AT
7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair
Mark Vandergeest
Members
Douglas Hamilton
John Ferguson
Emily Silk
Ron Peters
Staff: Secretary/Treasurer, Planner
GIS Technician
Katie Mandeville
Lauren Millar
A.
CALL TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and explained the meeting process and
the time frame for appeals to those persons present.
B.
DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
NONE
C.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
The following motion was adopted:
Motion # 14-16
MOVED by Emily Silk and SECONDED by John Ferguson
THAT the Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held in the Council Chambers
on June 17, 2014 be adopted as printed and distributed.
CARRIED
D.
1.
NEW APPLICATIONS
Minor Variance Application No.:
Applicant:
Roll Number:
Municipal Address:
A-16-14
Allan & Lori Oliver
4351 050 003 47701 0000
1894 Henry’s Landing
The Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment outlined the application and
outlined the correspondence received, as follows:
Proposal:
• The 1.12 acre property is located at 1894 Henrys Landing and is currently occupied
by a dwelling.
Page 1 of 12
COA Minutes July, 2014
Page 1 of 82
C-1
•
•
The applicant would like to reconstruct a portion of the dwelling which was damaged
this past winter. As part of the reconstruction the applicants would like to make this
part of their home, a two-storey structure with a garage on the first level rather than
the existing single storey.
The following variance is requested in order to permit the reconstruction and
enlargement of a portion of the dwelling located 5.6 metres from the municipal road
allowance:
1.
A variance to permit a front yard setback of 4.3 metres (14.25 ft.) to a covered
deck and 5.6 metres (18.5 ft.) to the main dwelling wall whereas Zoning Bylaw 2010-65 states that the minimum front yard setback is 7.5 metres (24.6
ft.).
Agency Comments:
None
Public Correspondence:
None
Staff Report D14-025:
The Planner provided a brief summary of the staff report.
The Chair asked if the applicant or agent were present and had anything to add to what
was presented - the applicant was present to answer questions.
The Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments on this application. Public
comments were as follows: None.
The Chair asked if there were any other public comments. As none were forthcoming,
the Chair declared the public portion of the meeting closed.
The Chair asked if the Committee had any comments on this application. Committee
comments were as follows: None.
The Chair asked the Secretary/Treasurer to review the proposed conditions of the
decision. The applicant was asked if he was aware of the proposed conditions and were
in agreement with them. The applicant confirmed this. The Chair then called for a
vote on the application.
DECISION – APPROVE
Variance Application A-16-14 (Oliver)
THE PURPOSE and EFFECT of the variance application is:
To request the following variances to the provisions of Zoning By-law 2010-65:
1.
A variance to permit a front yard setback of 4.3 metres (14.25 ft.) to a covered deck
and 5.6 metres (18.5 ft.) to the main dwelling wall whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65
states that the minimum front yard setback is 7.5 metres (24.6 ft.).
Page 2 of 12
COA Minutes July, 2014
Page 2 of 82
The variance is needed in order to permit the reconstruction and enlargement of a portion
of the dwelling located 5.6 metres from the municipal road allowance.
The Committee has considered the Application and, based upon the evidence
provided, issues the following Decision on the 15th day of July, 2014:
DECISION: APPROVED
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
Municipal Taxes to be paid to date.
That the existing vegetation on the property shall be preserved and enhanced as
much as possible.
That the construction is in substantial compliance with the plans submitted with the
Application.
THE REASONS for the Committee’s Decision are that the request is minor in nature,
conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan and is
desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land.
The Secretary/Treasurer is hereby authorized to sign documents on behalf of the
Committee giving effect to this Decision.
CARRIED
2.
Minor Variance Application No.:
Applicant:
Roll Number:
Municipal Address:
A-17-14
Chris Mercer
4351 010 001 11700 0000
1362Thorburn Road
The Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment outlined the application(s)
and the correspondence received, as follows:
Proposal:
• 1.118 acre property is located at 1362 Thorburn Road and is currently occupied by a
dwelling and three accessory structures.
• The applicant would like to construct a new accessory structure being a pre-fab steel
building as replacement for one that was damaged by the snow this past winter.
• The following variance is requested in order to permit the construction of the new
accessory structure:
1. A variance to permit an accessory structure with a size of 185 square metres
(2,000 square feet) and 115% of the gross floor area of the home whereas
Zoning By-law 2010-65 states that the maximum size of an accessory building
within a residential zone should not exceed the lesser of 75% of the gross floor
area of the home or 110 square metres.
Agency Comments:
None
Page 3 of 12
COA Minutes July, 2014
Page 3 of 82
Public Correspondence:
None
Staff Report D14-026:
The Planner provided a brief summary of the staff report.
The Chair asked if the applicant or agent were present and had anything to add to what
was presented - the applicant was present to answer questions and stated that he is
willing to discuss the location of the septic with the building department.
The Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments on this application. Public
comments were as follows: None.
The Chair asked if there were any other public comments. As none were forthcoming,
the Chair declared the public portion of the meeting closed.
The Chair asked if the Committee had any comments on this application. Committee
comments were as follows: None.
As there was no further discussion, the Chair asked the Secretary/Treasurer to review
the proposed conditions of the decision. The applicants were asked if they were aware
of the proposed conditions and were in agreement with them. The applicant confirmed
this. The Chair then called for a vote on the application.
DECISION – APPROVE
Variance Application A-17-14 (Mercer)
THE PURPOSE and EFFECT of the variance application is:
To request the following variance to the provisions of Zoning By-law 2010-65:
1.
A variance to permit an accessory structure with a size of 185 square metres (2,000
square feet) and 115% of the gross floor area of the home whereas Zoning By-law
2010-65 states that the maximum size of an accessory building within a residential
zone should not exceed the lesser of 75% of the gross floor area of the home or 110
square metres.
The following variance is needed in order to permit the construction of the new accessory
structure.
The Committee has considered the Application and, based upon the evidence
provided, issues the following Decision on the 15th day of July, 2014:
DECISION: APPROVED
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
Municipal Taxes to be paid to date.
That the existing vegetation on the property shall be preserved and enhanced as
Page 4 of 12
COA Minutes July, 2014
Page 4 of 82
3.
much as possible.
That the construction is in substantial compliance with the plans submitted with the
Application.
THE REASONS for the Committee’s Decision are that the request is minor in nature,
conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan and is
desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land.
The Secretary/Treasurer is hereby authorized to sign documents on behalf of the
Committee giving effect to this Decision.
CARRIED
3.
Minor Variance Application No.:
Applicant:
Agent:
Roll Number:
Municipal Address:
A-18-14
Scott Campbell
Taylor Docks
4351 050 003 9800 0000
2105 Deer Island
The Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment outlined the application(s)
and the correspondence received, as follows:
Proposal:
• The 2 acre property is located at 2105 Deer Island and is currently occupied by a
dwelling and numerous accessory structures.
• The applicant would like to construct a balcony on the existing 2nd storey of a noncomplying and non-conforming in-water boathouse that predates zoning controls in
the Township.
• The following variance is requested in order to permit the construction of the
balcony:
1. A variance to permit a 5.1 square metres (55 square feet) balcony onto the 2nd
storey of an in-water boathouse, whereas under Zoning By-law 2010-65 an
accessory structure is not permitted to be used for human habitation or to be
greater than one storey. The expansion of non-conforming or non-complying
structures requires the approval of a minor variance under By-law 2010-65.
Agency Comments:
None
Public Correspondence:
One letter of correspondence was received from Debbie Jones who was not able to
attend the hearing but wanted to write in support of the application.
Staff Report D14-027:
The Planner provided a brief summary of the staff report.
The Chair asked if the applicant or agent were present and had anything to add to what
was presented – the agent and applicant were not present.
Page 5 of 12
COA Minutes July, 2014
Page 5 of 82
The Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments on this application. Public
comments were as follows: None.
The Chair asked if there were any other public comments. As none were forthcoming,
the Chair declared the public portion of the meeting closed.
The Chair asked if the Committee had any comments on this application. Committee
comments were as follows:
• Member Peters conveyed that he supported the idea to defer the application
pending comments from the Trent Severn Waterway.
• Member Ferguson inquired about approval from the Trent Severn Waterway if any
onus would fall back on the Township once the variance was either approved or
denied.
• The Planner stated that TSW has the ultimate authority and that the Township
cannot issue a building permit until such time as the TSW approves the
construction.
• Member Hamilton inquired as to who approved the construction that was
currently being done.
• The Planner advised the Committee that the current renovations had a TSW
permit and a Township issued building permit.
As there was no further discussion and the Committee had expressed a desire to adjourn
the application the Chair called for a vote on the motion.
The following motion was adopted:
Motion # 14-17
MOVED by John Ferguson and SECONDED by Ron Peters
THAT Application No. A-18-14 (Campbell) be adjourned to a future Committee of
Adjustment meeting, pending comments from the TSW.
CARRIED
4.
Minor Variance Application No.:
Applicant:
Agent:
Roll Number:
Municipal Address:
A-19-14
Robert Scale
Larry and Jennifer Verdonk
4351 050 002 44300 0000
4020 Delta Road
The Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment outlined the application(s)
and the correspondence received, as follows:
Proposal:
• The 0.88 acre property is located at 4020 Delta Road and contains a dwelling with
associated accessory structures.
• The property is approximately 3,575 square metres (0.88 acres) in size with 30
metres (100 ft.) of frontage on the Severn River.
Page 6 of 12
COA Minutes July, 2014
Page 6 of 82
•
•
•
The owner has been granted provisional approval for consent application B-09-14 to
sever a portion of the property with no frontage on the Severn River and area of
approximately 1,175 square metres (0.29 acres) to be added to the adjacent
property at 8503 Severn River.
The retained lands containing the existing dwelling and accessory structures would
have a frontage of approximately 30 metres on the Severn River and area of
approximately 2,400 square metres (0.59 acres).
A condition of the provisionally approved application is to obtain a minor variance to
reflect the decrease in lot area of the retained lands, from 0.88 acres to 0.59 acres.
The following variance is requested in order to fulfill a condition of provisionally
approved consent application B-09-14:
1. A variance to permit a minimum lot area 2,400 square metres (0.59 acres),
whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65 states the minimum lot area required under
the Shoreline Residential Three (SR3) Zone is 4,000 square metres (one
acre).
Agency Comments:
None
Public Correspondence:
None
Staff Report D14-028:
The Planner provided a brief summary of the staff report.
The Chair asked if the applicant or agent were present and had anything to add to what
was presented - the agent and applicant were not present to answer questions. The
Secretary/Treasurer advised that the agent stated she would not be in attendance but
did agree to the recommended conditions.
The Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments on this application. Public
comments were as follows: None.
The Chair asked if there were any other public comments. As none were forthcoming,
the Chair declared the public portion of the meeting closed.
The Chair asked if the Committee had any comments on this application. Committee
comments were as follows: None.
As there was no further discussion, the Chair then called for a vote on the application.
DECISION – APPROVE
Variance Application A-19-14 (Scale)
THE PURPOSE and EFFECT of the variance application is:
To request the following variance to the provisions of Zoning By-law 2010-65:
1.
A variance to permit a minimum lot area 2,400 square metres (0.59 acres), whereas
Page 7 of 12
COA Minutes July, 2014
Page 7 of 82
Zoning By-law 2010-65 states the minimum lot area required under the Shoreline
Residential Three (SR3) Zone is 4,000 square metres (one acre).
The following variance is requested in order to fulfil a condition of provisionally approved
consent application B-09-14.
The Committee has considered the Application and, based upon the evidence
provided, issues the following Decision on the 15th day of July, 2014:
DECISION: APPROVED
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
Municipal Taxes to be paid to date.
That the existing vegetation on the property shall be preserved and enhanced as
much as possible.
That the construction is in substantial compliance with the plans submitted with the
Application.
THE REASONS for the Committee’s Decision are that the request is minor in nature,
conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan and is
desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land.
The Secretary/Treasurer is hereby authorized to sign documents on behalf of the
Committee giving effect to this Decision.
CARRIED
5.
Consent Application No.:
Applicant:
Roll Number:
Municipal Address:
B-12-14
Michael Kenning
4351 020 008 15900 0000
1251 Dunns Line
The Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment outlined the application(s)
and the correspondence received, as follows:
Proposal:
• The subject property is legally described as Part of Lot 22, Concession 14,
municipally known as 1251 Dunns Line.
• The subject lands have frontage of approximately 670.6 metres (2,200 ft.) on
Dunns Line and an area of approximately 40.5 ha (100 acres).
• The applicant is requesting consent to sever a portion of the property having
frontage of approximately 426.8 metres (1,400 ft.) on Dunns Line and area of
approximately 34.4 ha (85 acres) to add to an adjacent property at 1449 Upper Big
Chute Road for a farm consolidation.
• The retained lands would have a frontage of approximately 243.9 m (800 ft.) on
Dunns Line and area of approximately 6.1 ha (15 acres).
Page 8 of 12
COA Minutes July, 2014
Page 8 of 82
Agency Comments:
None
Public Correspondence:
The Secretary/Treasurer summarized a letter received from the County of Simcoe which
had previously been circulated to all Committee members as well as the applicant.
Staff Report D14-029:
The Planner provided a brief summary of the staff report.
The Chair asked if the applicant or agent were present and had anything to add to what
was presented - the applicant was present to answer questions. The applicant confirmed
that the consent is not for farm consolidation, rather a downsizing to a 15 acre farm so
he can get into horses and live in the country. The applicant stated that the property
previously housed an elk farm near the rear of the property. The lands are not
adequately farmed due to poor drainage, trees and stumps from the past farm use. The
applicant wants to farm 15 acres himself in the future.
The Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments on this application. Public
comments were as follows:
· Jamie Tofflemire, 1449 Upper Big Chute Road asked “what is the difference
between this application and the one approved a year ago.”
· The Planner, though the Committee advised that the previous farm consolidation
that occurred on 1449 Upper Big Chute Road was different because the retained
lands from the severance only included enough land to contain the dwelling,
buildings and septic systems as per the provincial policy direction.
· Mr. Tofflemire asked if there could be site visit arranged with the County staff
to explain the reasoning behind the consent application.
The Chair asked if there were any other public comments. As none were forthcoming,
the Chair declared the public portion of the meeting closed.
The Chair asked if the Committee had any comments on this application. Committee
comments were as follows:
· Member Ferguson stated that 1251 Dunns line is within the Medonte Drain area
and stated his support for a farm consolidation but would like to see a smaller
parcel and would therefore be in favour of a deferral.
· Mr. Tofflemire acknowledged that he had prior knowledge of the drainage area.
· Member Peters expressed his support for a deferral.
· The Chair stated that he supports extending the farming operation to the full
amount of farm land, leaving just the buildings and would be in favour of
deferring the application to avoid the OMB.
As there was no further discussion and the Committee had expressed a desire to adjourn
the application the Chair called for a vote on the motion.
The following motion was adopted:
Page 9 of 12
COA Minutes July, 2014
Page 9 of 82
Motion # 14-18
MOVED by Emily Silk and SECONDED by Ron Peters
THAT Application No. B-12-14 (Kenning) be adjourned to a future Committee of Adjustment
meeting, pending further comments from the County of Simcoe and results from a site
meeting as requested by the applicant.
CARRIED
6.
Consent Application No.:
Applicant:
Agent:
Roll Number:
Municipal Address:
B-13-14
William Darker
HGR Graham Partners, C. Firth
4351 010 008 89400 0000
1132 Grandview Lodge Road
The Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment outlined the application(s)
and the correspondence received, as follows:
Proposal:
• The subject lands have frontage of approximately 130 metres (426.5 ft.) on
Sparrow Lake and an area of approximately 13.5 ha (33.4 acres).
• The applicant is requesting consent to create a right-of-way over a portion of the
property identified as Part 3 on Plan 51-15706, the private road of Otto Roehl Lane
in order to create vehicular access to the newly created residential lot from
application B-05/06-12 (Darker).
• As part of the associated applications to sever the (neighbouring) Darker property,
approval was obtained (B-08-12) for the creation of a right-of-way over Otto Roehl
Lane. Unfortunately that application was inadvertently brought forward under the
name of the benefiting property rather than the owner of the lands the private
laneway travels across. This did not become apparent until the survey was
submitted to the Municipality and the related deed could not be stamped for
registration.
Agency Comments:
None
Public Correspondence:
None
Staff Report D14-030:
The Planner provided a brief summary of the staff report.
The Chair asked if the applicant or agent were present and had anything to add to what
was presented - the agent and applicant were both present to answer questions.
The Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments on this application. Public
comments were as follows: None.
Page 10 of 12
COA Minutes July, 2014
Page 10 of 82
The Chair asked if there were any other public comments. As none were forthcoming,
the Chair declared the public portion of the meeting closed.
The Chair asked if the Committee had any comments on this application. Committee
comments were as follows: None.
As there was no further discussion, the Chair asked the Secretary/Treasurer to review
the proposed conditions of the decision. The agent and applicant were asked if they
were aware of the proposed conditions and were in agreement with them. The agent
confirmed this. The Chair then called for a vote on the application.
DECISION – APPROVE
Consent Application B-13-14 (Darker)
THE PURPOSE and EFFECT of the application is:
Consent to create a right-of-way over a portion of the property identified as Part 3 on Plan
51-15706, the private road of Otto Roehl Lane in order to create vehicular access to the
newly created residential lot from application B-05/06-12 (Darker).
The Committee has considered the Application and, based upon the evidence
provided, issues the following Decision on the 15th day of July, 2014:
DECISION: PROVISIONALLY APPROVED
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A reference plan of the severed parcel shall be prepared and duly registered by an
Ontario Land Surveyor if one does not exist and one copy filed with the
Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee
A copy of the electronic registration “in preparation” draft deed for the severed lot shall
be provided to the Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee together with a signed
Acknowledgement and Direction so that the consent certificate may be issued.
That all fees and disbursements (legal, engineering, planning), if any, incurred by the
Township with respect to this application shall be paid for by the owner.
The Conditions set out herein shall be completed within one year of the date of this
Decision.
THE REASONS for the Committee’s Decision are that the proposed consent is in keeping
with the Township’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is consistent with the 2005 Provincial
Policy Statement, will provide for the orderly development of the Township and does not fall
under the exclusive consideration of Section 51 of the Act.
AND the Secretary/Treasurer is hereby authorized to sign documents on behalf of the
Committee giving effect to this Decision.
CARRIED
Page 11 of 12
COA Minutes July, 2014
Page 11 of 82
E.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS
NONE
F.
CORRESPONDENCE
1. Letter from HGR Graham Partners, C. Firth re: B-13-14 fee
The Secretary/Treasurer advised the Committee that the author of the correspondence was
present should the Committee have any questions.
The Chair asked if the Committee had any comments regarding the correspondence:
• Member Ferguson stated that fees to be collected should be a council issue.
• The Chair stated he would not be in favour for reduced fees because the
applicant submitted the application and the onus is on the applicant to provide
the correct information. The application lapsed so this is a new application.
• Members Peters, Hamilton and Silk all stated their support for reducing the fee as
it was a shared responsibility.
The following motion was adopted:
Motion # 14-19
MOVED by Ronald Peters and SECONDED by Emily Silk
THAT the Committee of adjustment endorse a reduced fee of $500 for application B-13-14
due to shared responsibility for the error with the original application.
CARRIED
G.
OTHER BUSINESS
NONE
H.
ADJOURNMENT
The following motion was adopted:
Motion # 14-20
MOVED by Douglas Hamilton and SECONDED by Ronald Peters
THAT the Committee of Adjustment meeting be adjourned at 8:00 p.m. on July 15, 2014.
The Committee will reconvene at 7:00 p.m. on August 19, 2014 unless the
Secretary/Treasurer has not received a complete application for the Committee’s
consideration.
CARRIED
________________________________
Katie Mandeville, Secretary/Treasurer
Page 12 of 12
COA Minutes July, 2014
Page 12 of 82
D-1
REPORT
TO:
Chair and Members
Committee of Adjustment
FROM:
Andrew Fyfe
Director of Planning & Development
DATE:
August 14, 2014
RE:
Application for Consent B-i 2-14
Applicant: Michael Kenning
Address: 1251 Dunns Line
D14-031
Note: this report supplements Report D14-024 which was before the Committee at its
July meeting. It consolidates the previous information provided along with additional
material related to concerns regarding the size of the proposed severed parcel and how
that could be addressed.
Background:
County Official Plan:
Township Official Plan:
Township Zoning:
Agricultural and Rural
Agricultural
Agricultural (AG)
The subject property is legally described as Part of Lot 22, Concession 14, geographic
Township of Medonte, now in the Township of Severn, municipally known as 1251
Dunns Line (Appendix 1).
The subject lands have frontage of approximately 670.6 metres (2,200 ft.) on Dunns
Line and an area of approximately 40.5 ha (100 acres). The applicant is requesting
consent to sever a portion of the property having frontage of approximately 426.8
metres (1,400 ft.) on Dunns Line and area of approximately 34.4 ha (65 acres) to add to
an adjacent property at 1449 Upper Big Chute Road for a farm consolidation. The
retained lands would have a frontage of approximately 243.9 m (800 if.) on Dunns Line
and area of approximately 6.1 ha (15 acres).(Appendix 2).
Discussion:
The effect of the application is to add the worked agricultural lands to the adjacent
actively farmed lands. The subject lands are located in an area of soils which are
classified as being in Classes 1-3 of the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) system and thus
are considered to be prime agricultural lands”. The use of most of the subject property
and its neighbours for cash cropping is a reflection of the quality of the soils.
Page 13 of 82
In terms of creating new residential lots, under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
the only circumstance where this is permitted is for the severance of a “surplus farm
dwelling” where the consolidation of agricultural lands results in a dwelling being
“surplus” to the needs of the farmer acquiring the worked lands. Although it is not a
requirement to qualify for this type of severance, in this case the severed lands are
being added to the adjacent parcel. Section 2.3.4.1 c) states that “the new lot will be
limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the use and appropriate sewage
and water services.” The proposed lot area of 6.1 hectares associated with the existing
dwelling on the retained lands does not appear to be justified in these circumstances.
Typically, a lot area of 0.4 ha to 1.0 hectares would be more than adequate to
accommodate the dwelling and private services. Where “design considerations” apply,
such as lot configuration and the location of associated outbuildings, where appropriate
the lot can be made somewhat larger to address these factors.
If the severance is treated as a simple lot-line adjustment where the boundaries of two
agricultural operations are being revised, then the resultant parcels are to be of a size
appropriate for the type of agricultural use(s) common in the area and sufficiently large
to maintain flexibility for future changes in the type of agricultural operations. At 6.1
hectares, the retained parcel would seem to be far too small for cash cropping or lifestock production on a commercial basis. Therefore, the severance as proposed would
create a parcel which is overly large for residential use, but too small for anything but a
small “hobby farm” type operation, the creation of which is not supported on prime
agricultural lands.
Following a site meeting with the owner and staff from the County Planning Department,
potential revisions to the proposed parcel have been discussed with County staff and
the applicant. From a planning perspective, a reconfiguration of the proposed parcel as
shown on Appendix 3 would result in a two hectare parcel which minimizes the amount
of land which would be taken out of commercial cultivation and allows for maneuvering
of large farm equipment around the parcel.
Recommendation:
The Planning Department did not support the approval of this application as submitted
due to the size of the lot proposed to be retained. Approval of a substantially reduced
lot subject to the recommended conditions set out in Appendix 4 would be supported.
idrew Fyfe, M.A.
Director of Planning & Development
Appendix 1
Appendix 3
—
—
Key Map
Revised Parcel
Appendix 2 Proposed Severance Sketch
Appendix 4 Recommended Conditions
—
-
Page 14 of 82
Page 15 of 82
/
96
S
96
noS
S
C.’
1.
.1
*
S
)
0
C.
c.
a
çS
S
ajprn
JIVMPIO
F VI) IUWO)
4icj
.;:H [1
t
p
“C
a
0
•0
•0
Appendix 2
.:W
Page 16 of 82
Appendix 3
4.’]
0510 20 30 40
——
I.
. . —
Mers
NORTh
Page 17 of 82
Appendix 4
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1. That the owner shall obtain and close a building permit to decommission the
existing livestock barn on the retained lands in order to comply with MDS
regulations.
2. A reference plan of the severed parcel shall be prepared and duly registered by
an Ontario Land Surveyor and one copy filed with the Secretary/Treasurer of the
Committee.
A
copy of the electronic registration “in preparation” draft deed for the severed lot
3.
shall be provided to the Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee together with a
signed Acknowledgement and Direction so that the consent certificate may be
issued.
4. That the severed lands shall merge with the property municipally known as 1449
Big Chute Road. The owners’ solicitor shall take all necessary steps to ensure
that the parcels merge under the Planning Act.
5. That the owners’ solicitor shall provide an undertaking to register an Application
to Consolidate Parcels in order to merge the severed lands with the adjoining
lands and to provide the Township with a copy of the registered Application
within three months of the date of registration of the Transfer of the severed lot.
6. That the retained lands shall be rezoned by way of a Zoning By-law Amendment,
at the applicant’s expense so as to:
a) place the severed lands into the same zoning category as the lands that
they are being added to so that a new building lot is not created
b) place the retained lot in an appropriate zone which reflects the lot area
and future use of the lands.
7. The Conditions set out herein shall be completed within one year of the date of
this Decision.
Page 18 of 82
E-2
REPORT
D14-032
TO:
Chair and Members
Committee of Adjustment
FROM:
Katie Mandeville
Planner
DATE:
August 14, 2014
RE:
Application for Minor Variance A-20-14
Applicant: Tim & Kelly Black
Address: 12864 County Road 16
Background:
County Official Plan:
Township Official Plan:
Township Zoning:
Settlement Area, Fesserton
Settlement Living
Rural (RU)
The subject property is located at 12864 County Road 16 in the geographic Township of
Tay (Appendix 1). The 1.3 acre property is currently occupied by the old Fesserton
School. The applicant would like to construct a new 139 square metres (1500 square
feet) pole frame type accessory structure for storage. The site plan of the property is
attached as Appendix 2 and a drawing of the proposed structure is attached as
Appendix 3.
The following variance is requested in order to permit the construction of the new
accessory structure:
1. A variance to permit a maximum accessory structure height of 6 metres (19.7ff.)
whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65 states that the maximum building height of an
accessory structure shall be limited to a height of 5 metres (16.4ff.).
2. A variance to permit an interior side yard of 1.8 metres (6ff.) whereas Zoning By
law 2010-65 states that and the interior yard setback for a property within the
Rural (RU) Zone is 15 metres (49.5 ft.).
The property was site inspected by planning and development staff prior to the writing of
this report.
Discussion:
A discussion of the four tests for a Minor Variance as set out in Section 45(1) of the
Planning Act follows
Page 19 of 82
Is the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan maintained?
The subject property is located within the settlement area of Fesserton and is
designated Settlement Living Area. The purpose of settlement areas is to protect and
enhance the character of existing settlement areas and to maintain them as diverse,
livable, safe, thriving and attractive communities. A single detached dwelling is a
permitted use within this designation and the property is currently used as a residence.
The proposed new accessory structure will further contribute to the residential character
of the site which has been altered over the years from an institutional use to a
residential one.
is the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law maintained?
The proposal appears to comply with all Zoning By-law requirements with the exception
of the requested variances for the height and interior yard setback. The provisions for
accessory structures within the residential zones are much more restrictive than for
those within the Rural (RU) or Agricultural (AG) Zones. Accessory structures within the
residential zones are limited to a total number or three and are restricted in size to 75%
of the gross floor area of the dwelling or 110 metres. Properties within a residential zone
also have reduced interior yard setbacks of 1.5 metres for accessory structures; this
same reduction does not apply for properties within the RU or AG zones. The intent of
the interior yard setbacks within the RU zone is to ensure agricultural buildings or other
large buildings, which are permitted, unlike what is allowed in the residential zones are
not placed too close to the neighbouring properties which may be small and used only
for residential purposes. Properties within the RU zone are also typically larger in size
and therefore property owners would not be short on space to allow for larger setbacks.
This property, although zoned RU, is more of a residential size and therefore the
reduced setback request is understandable. However, the size of the building applied
for would not be permitted within a residential zone. The planning department has
concerns regarding the requested height of 6 metres and if that meets the general intent
of the by-law. Unlike the other accessory structure restrictions the height restriction
applies to all accessory structures with the exception of farm buildings.
Is it minor?
In the opinion of the planning department the requested variance for an interior yard
setback is considered minor in nature as the property size is more commonly found in a
residential zone than the RU zone and the proposed setback of 1.8 metres is greater
than what is required in a residential zone. The proposed height of 6 metres however is
not considered minor by the planning department as the plans submitted with the
application show an optional wall height of 14 or 16 feet, whereas a 6 metre height is
19.6 feet, given the measurement is to the mid-point of a peaked roof. Based on the
building design submitted staff is unsure that the full 6 metre height is needed. Staff
may consider a reduced height proposal to be minor in nature should the applicant
choose to amend the proposal to fit more closely to the maximum permitted 5 metres or
16.5 feet.
Page 20 of 82
Is it desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?
The proposed development pertaining to the reduced interior yard setback is
appropriate and a desirable development of the land as the property size is more of a
residential size compared to the RU zoning and is well treed at the lot line and road
frontage. Larger accessory structures do occur within residential areas, particularly on
larger, well vegetated properties; however, a height of 6 metres is not common within
the municipality for these types of structures within settlement areas.
Other Considerations:
The Public Works Department stated that they had no comments on the application.
The Building Department provided the following comment: “No objection to the
proposed Minor Variance. Note that a ‘change of use’ permit was not issued for the
property to be used as a residential dwelling.”
Recommendation:
The Planning Department has no objections to the approval of the interior yard setback
variance, subject to the recommended conditions set out in Appendix 4, because this
variance is minor in nature, is keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law and is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land.
The Planning Department has concerns regarding the requested 6 metre height and
would suggest that Committee consider a lesser height variance given the location of
the property within a settlement area.
of,
Respectfully submitted,
WithAe cncurren
Katie Mandeville, BA, BURPI
Planner
ndrew Fyfe, M.A.
Director of Planning & Development
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
1
2—
3
4—
—
—
Key Map
Site Plan
Proposed Accessory Structure
Recommended Conditions
Page 21 of 82
Appendix I
(I
1
/1
II
/
C;.
ct
‘p
:0
cb’
Cr
ft
ft
n
‘p
0’
•11
It
‘C
p.
-F’—
00
ES
96
Page 22 of 82
C.”
*
a,
C
0.
0.
4
TI
INST 8314
-4
ORIGINAL ROAD ALLOWANCE BL
11F!k CONCESSIONS i; AND
12
ThE lUNG’S HIGHWAY No. 12
1 Nc
RAILS,
99,
Page 23 of 82
to
x
•0
C
0
a
a
n
.9
Page 24 of 82
Appendix 4
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Municipal Taxes to be paid to date.
That the existing vegetation on the property shall be preserved and enhanced
as much as possible.
That the property owner apply for and obtain a ‘change of use’ permit to
reflect the residential use of the existing structure prior to the issuance of an
accessory structure building permit.
That the construction is in substantial compliance with the plans submitted
with the Application.
Page 25 of 82
This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank
Page 26 of 82
E-2
REPORT
TO:
Chair and Members
Committee of Adjustment
FROM:
Katie Mandeville
Planner
DATE:
August 14, 2014
RE:
Application for Minor Variance A-21-14
Applicant: Walter & Karen Boyle
Address: 3410 Grayshott Drive
D14-033
Background:
County Official Plan:
Township Official Plan:
Township Zoning:
Settlement Area, West Shore
Settlement Living
Shoreline Residential One (SRi)
The subject property is located at 3410 Grayshott Drive in the geographic Township of
North Orillia (Appendix 1). The 0.46 acre property supports an existing single
detached dwelling, a boathouse and two garages as seen on the site plan attached as
Appendix 2. The plans for the proposed new garage are attached as Appendix 3.
The owner wishes to construct a 49 square metres (528 sq. ft.) detached garage to
replace an existing 31 square metres (336 sq. ft.) garage. The property currently has an
accessory structure lot coverage of approximately 6% and will need to increase the
accessory structure lot coverage allowable to approximately 7%.
The following variance is requested in order to permit the construction of the new
accessory structure to replace an existing garage:
1. A variance to permit a maximum accessory structure lot coverage of 7% whereas
Zoning By-law 2010-65 states the maximum lot coverage for accessory
structures is 5%.
The property was site inspected by planning & development staff prior to the writing of
this report.
Discussion:
A discussion of the four tests for a Minor Variance as set out in Section 45(1) of the
Planning Act follows.
Page 27 of 82
Is the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan maintained?
The subject property is located within the settlement area of West Shore and is
designated Settlement Living Area. The purpose of settlement areas is to protect and
enhance the character of existing settlement areas and to maintain them as diverse,
livable, safe, thriving and attractive communities. A single detached dwelling is a
permitted use within this designation and the property is currently developed with this
use. The proposed new accessory structure would replace an existing but slightly
smaller garage and will maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan with
regard to the character and function of the settlement area.
Is the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law maintained?
The proposal appears to comply with all Zoning By-law requirements with the exception
of the maximum accessory structures lot coverage. The accessory structure
requirements within Zoning By-law 2010-65 are intended to limit the number of
accessory structures to 3 (with exceptions) and to limit the lot coverage to 5% in order
to ensure that properties are not cluttered with numerous structures and that the
dwelling remains as the principle use. The property is currently developed with three
accessory structures and a higher than permitted accessory lot coverage. The property
however is well below the total allowable lot coverage for the property and the variance
is to replace an existing unsafe structure with a new building which is only slightly
bigger.
Is it minor?
In the opinion of the Planning Department the requested variance is minor in nature as
the property owners are asking for a lot coverage of approximately 7%, up from the
existing 6%. The net difference between the existing and proposed accessory structure
coverage is 17.8 square metres (192 square feet).
Is it desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?
The proposed development is appropriate and desirable development of the land as
detached garages and decks are common within the shoreline area. With more
properties turning from a seasonal cottage type use to a full time permanent home
residents require more storage space, particularly when the original dwellings such as
on this property were not designed with storage in mind. The property is well-treed,
creating a vegetative buffer from the neighbouring properties and the proposed garage
is located within the central portion of the property which will not alter the character of
the property from the water or roadway.
Other Considerations:
The Building Department has no objection to the proposed Minor Variance.
The Department of Public Works has no comment on the application.
Page 28 of 82
Recommendation:
The Planning Department has no objections to the approval of this application, subject
to the recommended conditions set out in Appendix 4, because the variance is minor in
nature, is keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is
desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land.
Respectfully submitted,
With
Katie Mandeville, BA, BURPI
Planner
Andrew Fyfe, MA
Director of Planning
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
1
2
3
4—
—
—
—
Key Map
Proposed Site Plan
Proposed Garage Plan
Recommended Conditions
Page 29 of 82
Appendix I
‘a
c-b
‘p.4
c-b’
‘C
r
S
.4”
C,
‘S
0
o
‘a
0•
S
“ho
‘90
‘I
G.
c3
-‘C
©
.
_d
0
—
•1
I
-4
C
U
ci
Page 30 of 82
x
eq
0
C
-
4
3410 GreyShott Dr.
0
Lake Couchiching
“A” Boathouse 13x23 = 299 sq ft.
“C” Garage 20x24—430 sq ft.
‘B’ Garage:
Exisiting 14x24= 336 sq ft.
Proposed 22x24=S2Ssq. ft.
Page 31 of 82
Appendix 3
9/A
//er’t
M’
ic: ‘1.
J0131s
‘r.//i’s
/c “c I
wi/S
Couflt
Pen ‘b’Lt-er
q
/jt/t
p... /
farcJ
g’4
oe/lA5
A
# It1,”
/6
1
cit/at’
Page 32 of 82
Appendix 4
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1.
2.
3.
Municipal Taxes to be paid to date.
That the existing vegetation on the property shall be preserved and enhanced
as much as possible.
That the construction is in substantial compliance with the plans and drawings
submitted with the Application.
Page 33 of 82
This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank
Page 34 of 82
E-3
REPORT
D14-034
TO:
Chair and Members
Committee of Adjustment
FROM:
Katie Mandeville
Planner
DATE:
August 14, 2014
RE:
Application for Minor Variance A-22-14
Applicant: Robb Watson
Address: 1370 Deep Bay Boulevard
Background:
County Official Plan:
Township Official Plan:
Township Zoning:
Greenland
Greenland
Shoreline Residential Three (SR3)
The subject property is located at 1370 Deep Bay Boulevard in the geographic
Township of Matchedash (Appendix 1). The 0.6 hectare (1.45 acre) property is
currently occupied by a dwelling and an accessory structure. The applicant would like to
construct a new accessory structure being a new garage. The site plan of the property
is attached as Appendix 2 and a drawing of the proposed garage is attached as
Appendix 3.
The following variance is requested in order to permit the construction of the new
accessory structure:
1. A variance to permit a maximum accessory structure size of 118.9 metres
squared (1,280 sq. ft.) whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65 states an accessory
structure shall not exceed the lesser of 75% of the gross floor area of the
principle dwelling or 110 square metres.
The property was site inspected by planning and development staff prior to the writing of
this report.
Discussion:
A discussion of the four tests for a Minor Variance as set out in Section 45(1) of the
Planning Act follows.
Page 35 of 82
Is the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan maintained?
The subject property is designated Greenland under the Township of Severn Official
Plan. The objectives of the Greenland designation and the Natural Heritage System
Policies are to conserve, protect, enhance and rehabilitate the Natural Heritage
Systems within the municipality. This specifically relates to evaluated wetlands, local
wetlands, significant habitats or endangered or threatened species, hydrologically
sensitive features and maintain the ecological functions and connectivity. A single family
dwelling is a permitted use within this designation, however the goals are that of the
natural environment. The property is 1.45 acres with a significant portion of that being
well treed; the property appears to be free of other obvious natural heritage features
such as streams or wetlands. The general intent and purpose of the Official Plan will be
maintained as the application will balance further development of the site with
maintaining the natural heritage systems of the Greenland designation.
Is the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law maintained?
The proposal appears to comply with all Zoning By-law requirements with the exception
of the requested variance for the larger accessory structure. The building size provision
within Zoning By-law 2010-65 is a restriction of the gross floor area for an accessory
building within a residential zone to a maximum size of 110 square metres or 75% of the
floor area of the main dwelling. Other provisions within the by-law also limit accessory
structures, such as a maximum lot coverage of 5% and a maximum number of three
buildings. The proposed structure will still allow for the property to have less than 5%
coverage of accessory structures and a total of two accessory structures on the
property. The approximate increase of 100 square feet from the permitted size will still
allow for the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law to be maintained.
The proposed garage includes a storage area above the main garage. This area is
considered to be an ‘attic’ according to the defined term and is permitted under Zoning
By-law 201 0-65 provided it is not used for human habitation.
Is it minor?
In the opinion of the planning department the requested variance is minor in nature as
the requested size increase of approximately 100 square feet will not be a noticeable
difference on the ground once the structure is complete.
Is it desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?
The proposed development is appropriate and desirable development of the land as the
property is rural shoreline residential in character, meaning the property is well treed on
a large parcel compared to most of the waterfront properties within the Township. The
impact of the proposed larger than permitted accessory structure will not be felt by
neighbouring property owners or members of the public travelling on the private
roadway.
Page 36 of 82
Other Considerations:
The Public Works Department stated that they had no comments on the application.
The Building Department provided the following comment: “No objection to the
proposed Minor Variance.”
Recommendation:
The Planning Department has no objections to the approval of this application, subject
to the recommended conditions set out in Appendix 4, because the variance is minor in
nature, is keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is
desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land.
Respectfully s mitted,
K/f
Katie Mandeville, BA, BURPI
Planner
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
1
2
3
4—
—
—
—
concurrence of,
nd rew
Director of Planning & Development
Key Map
Site Plan
Proposed Garage
Recommended Conditions
Page 37 of 82
C
C
a
a
p
“Dan T’
1
1
)
0”
‘Pt
4,’
‘1
at’
“U
‘Pi
‘I
Subject
Property
•
F’
Vt
a
Page 38 of 82
x
•0
C
0
a
a
Proposed Site Plan
Deep Bay
Deep Bay Rd.
Page 39 of 82
Appendix 3
0
-o
0ii
0‘1
I
-.
a_-c’
0
z
-I
m
r
-I
0
z
Page 40 of 82
Appendix 4
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1.
2.
3.
Municipal Taxes to be paid to date.
That the existing vegetation on the property shall be preserved and enhanced
as much as possible.
That the construction is in substantial compliance with the plans submitted
with the Application.
Page 41 of 82
This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank
Page 42 of 82
E-4
REPORT
D14-035
TO:
Chair and Members
Committee of Adjustment
FROM:
Katie Mandeville
Planner
DATE:
August 13, 2014
RE:
Application for Minor Variance A-23-14
Applicant: West Shore Beach Club (Summerhill Homes) Ltd.
Agent: Rudy & Associates, Michelle Culls
Address: 2722 Canoe Lane
Background:
County Official Plan:
Township Official Plan:
Township Zoning:
West Shore Settlement Area
Settlement Living Area
Shoreline Residential One Exception One (SRi-I)
The subject property is located at 2722 Canoe Lane, being SVLCP 391, Level 1, Unit 1,
geographic Township of North Orillia (Appendix 1).
As part of the build out of the approved West Shore Beach Club condominium
development individual site plans are being prepared for each of the lots. In December
of 2012 the owners applied for relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law 2010-65 for
units 42 through 46 under minor variance application A-26-12. As the next phase of
development is underway the owners require a variance for Unit 1 due to the curvature
of the road.
The following variance is requested in order to development Unit 1 within the West
Shore Beach Club condominium development:
1. A variance to permit a rear yard setback of 2.74 metres (8.99 ft.) whereas Zoning
By-law 2010-65, the Shoreline Residential One Exception One (SRi-i) Zone
states that the minimum rear yard setback is 3 metres (9.8 ft.).
The proposed site plan of 2722 Canoe Lane is attached as Appendix 2 and a building
sketch of the proposed unit is attached as Appendix 3.
Planning and Development staff conducted a site inspection of the property prior to the
writing of this report.
Page 43 of 82
Discussion:
Planning staff have reviewed and concur with the planning justification of the four tests
for a Minor Variance as set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act that was provided in
the letter from Rudy & Associates attached as Appendix 4.
Other Considerations:
The Department of Public Works stated that they had no comments on the application.
The Building Department stated they had no comment.
Recommendation:
The Planning Department has no objections to the approval of this application, subject
to the recommended conditions set out in Appendix 5, because the variance is minor in
nature, is keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is
desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land.
Respectfully submitted,
With
Katie Mandeville, BA, BURPI.
Planner
Andrew R. Fyfe, M.A.
Director of Planning &
Page 44 of 82
x
r
•0
C
a)
a
a
L
St
Subject
S
——
5!
Ar
A’
Page 45 of 82
Appendix 2
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS:
2722 CANOE LANE
SITE PLAN —2112 Canoe Lane
Westshore Beach Club
Township of Severn
Variance Requested
inches)
LQT2
CANOE LANE
Page 46 of 82
Appendix 3
r fl
02;
-40
Cm
-4>
in
I!
Page 47 of 82
Appendix 4
Hand Delivered
July21, 2014
Township of Severn
Planning Department
P.O. Box 159
Orillia, ON
L3V6J3
Attention: Andrew Fyfe, Director of Planning
Re:
Township of Severn
2722 Canoe Lane
Wesfthore Reach Club
Lob 31 & 32, RegIstered Plan 1079 and
Part of Lot 6, Concession 11
Our Project No. 268-1
We are pleased to enclose our minor variance application submission for the
above mentioned property.
Background Information:
The residential lot subject to the Minor Variance as proposed is located within the
Westshore Beach Club condominium community within the settlement area of
West Shore in the Township of Severn. The condominium development
consisting of a total of 76 residential units, is serviced and building and sales are
well underway with several dwellings being completed. The condominium site is
surrounded by existing single family dwellings and is bound by Tumbull Drive to
the north, Grayshott Drive to the north east, Third Street to the north west,
Lakeside Drive to the south west and Lake Couchiching directly to the south.
The Westshore Beach Club site is approximately 3.23 hectares (8 acres) in size
with approximately 93 metres of Lake Couchiching waterfront.
A site specific zoning bylaw amendment was approved in conjunction with the
Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium in February of 2009 to rezone the
subject property to Shoreline Residential One Exception One (SRi-i) Zone.
This site speciric zone oullines provisions for the property as a whole as well as
for individual units within the development.
Page 48 of 82
Appendix 4
Township of Severn
2722 Canoe Lane
Loft 31 & 32, RegIstered Plan 1079 and
Pad of Lot 6, Concession 11
Our Project No, 268-i
Page 2
Details of the Minor Variance
Lot I within the condominium site, known municipally as 2722 Canoe Lane is
located adjacent to the designated parking area at the entrance of the site and
backs onto an existing residential lot. A Minor Variance is being requested to
reduce the rear yard setback from 3 metres to 2.74 metres to accommodate a
standard house design on the subject lot. Due to the curved frontage of the lot,
the requested reduclion In the rear yard of 0.26 metres (10.23 Inches) is required
to ensure the front yard setback and driveway parking area can be
accommodated. Please see attached Site Plan.
Analysis of Requested Minor Variance
The variance requests a reduction in the rear yard setback of 0.28 metres
(approximately 10 inches). The minor reduction requested is in keeping with the
general intent of the Official Plan and the site specific zoning bylaw previously
approved for the development.
The requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lands
and the structures thereon as it will allow for building design continuity throughout
the development
The subject lot has a curved frontage, in order to ensure the front yard setbacks
can be maintained for the lot, the rear yard reduction as proposed is required. It
should be noted that the proposed building on the lot exceeds all other provisions
of the Zoning By-law. (Please see Site Plan provided which includes a Zone
Information chart).
The subject lot backs onto a large residential property with frontage along
Tumbull Drive and Third Street. The minor reduction in the rear yard requested
will not adversely affect the adjacent property.
Four Tesft of the Minor Variance
As per Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, it is my professional opinion the
variances requested within Site Plans A through E are minor in nature. The
requested variances meet the four tectc of a minor variance as follows:
1. The variance as requested is minor in nature requesting a reduction in the
rear yard of 0.26 metres.
2. The variance is desirable as ft will altow the developer to maintain building
design continuity throughout the development. The minor variance Is in
keeping with the character of the area, and will not adversely impact
neighbouring properties.
3. The general intent of the site specific Zoning Bylaw is maintained as the
request is minor in nature.
Page 49 of 82
Appendix 4
Township oF Severn
Page 3
2722 Canoe Lane
tots 31 & 32, RegIstered Plan 1079 and
Part of Lot 6, ConcessIon 11
Our Project No. 268-i
4. The general intent at the Official Plan is maintained as the variance
requested will nplement an approved development within a fully serviced
settlement area The minor variance is in keeping with the area and does
not adversely affect neighbouring properties.
This package contains the following:
•
A cheque in the amount of $750.00 made payable to the Township of
Severn;
I copy of the Minor Variance application;
•
I copy of a Location Map of Variance Requested;
•
7 copies of the Site Plan, showing the details of the variance
requested; and
•
I copy of the house floor plans and elevations proposed for the
subject lot.
•
We trust the enclosed information is appropriate and contains a complete
submission. We request our application go before the Committee of Adjustment
on August 1gth 2014
We remain available for any questions and look forward to your comments.
Respectfully submitted,
RUDY & Associates
Michelle Cutts, Hans BACS, BEd
Senior Planner
Enclosures
Cc:
Sal Rusdca of Summerhill Homes
Page 50 of 82
Appendix 5
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1.
2.
Municipal Taxes to be paid to date.
That the construction is in substantial compliance with the plans submitted
with the Application.
Page 51 of 82
This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank
Page 52 of 82
E-5
REPORT
D14-036
TO:
Chair and Members
Committee of Adjustment
FROM:
Andrew Fyfe
Director of Planning & Development
Katie Mandeville
Planner
DATE:
August 14, 2014
RE:
Application for Consent B-i 4-14
Applicant: 132049 Ontario Incorporated (Tim & Daphne Edwards)
Address: 3372 Agnew Road
Background:
County Official Plan:
Township Official Plan:
Township Zoning:
Rural
Rural, Major Recreation Area
Recreational Commercial (C9)
The subject property is legally described as Concession 12, Part Lot 8 & 9, Reference
plans 51R-15294 Parts 1, 2, 3 & 5, 51, 51R-13948, Part 1, geographic Township of
North Orillia, now in the Township of Severn, municipally known as 3372 Agnew Road
(Appendix 1).
The subject lands have frontage of approximately; 482m on Agnew Rd., 286m on
Hawkins Dr, 304m on Cox Dr. and 89m on Huffman Rd. and an area of approximately
15.2 ha (37.6 acres). The majority of the subject lands are currently developed and
used as the Evergreen Golf Course. This application seeks to sever a portion of the
property which is not used in conjunction with the golf course.
The applicant is requesting consent to sever a portion of the property for a new
residential lot having frontage of approximately 89m (292 ft.) on Huffman Rd. and area
of approximately 0.74 ha (1.8 acres). The retained lands would have an area of
approximately 14.46 ha (35.8 acres) and the frontage listed above with the exception of
the frontage on Huffman Road. A sketch of the proposal is included as Appendix 2.
Planning & Development staff site inspected the property prior to the writing of this
report.
Page 53 of 82
Discussion:
A discussion of the various planning documents that have bearing on this application
follows.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2014
The policies relating to rural areas” in the PPS apply. Section 1.1.5.2 indicates that:
“On rural lands located in municipalities, permitted uses are:
a) the management or use of resources;
b) resource-based recreational uses (including recreational dwellings);
c) limited residential development;
d) home occupations and home industries;
e) cemeteries; and
f) other rural land uses.
The PPS does allow for limited residential development which is what is proposed here
with a residential infilling lot.
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, as amended, January 2012
Section 2.2.9 provides direction on development within rural areas. New “multiple lots
and residential units” are to be directed towards settlement areas. Direction is not
provided with regard to the creation of single lots.
County of Simcoe Official Plan, 2007
The property is located within the “Rural/Agricultural” designation of the County of
Simcoe Official Plan. Section 3.7.9 of the County Official Plan states residential lots may
be created by consent within the Greenland designation, subject to conformity to
various other policies in the Official Plan. One such policy referenced is Section 3.6.11,
which states:
“In rural areas
...
lots may be created by consent according to the following guidelines:
a) Lots should be restricted in size in order to conseive other lands in larger blocks
for agricultural or environmental purposes. Consent lots should be developed to
an approximate maximum size of one hectare, except where larger sizes may be
suitable because of environmental constraints or design considerations.
b) The number of lots on the grid road system should be restricted in order to
maintain the rural character and road function and to avoid strip development.
c) In defined geographic areas set out hi local official plans, provisions may be
made for residential lot areas larger than I ha. where required for servicing
purposes, environmental considerations or to maintain established lot and
development patterns.
Page 54 of 82
The size of the proposed lot is 0.74 ha and is located between two existing residential
dwellings which would not constitute strip development. This proposal therefore
complies to the rural consent guidelines set out in the County of Simcoe’s Official Plan.
Township of Severn Official Plan
The subject property is designated Rural and Major Recreation Area in the Township of
Severn Official Plan. The location of the proposed lot is located within the Rural
designation.
Section B8.2.6 of the Township’s Official Plan indicates that:
“The creation of a new infilling lot in the Rural and Greenlands designation may be
permitted, provided:
a) The lot is located between two existing residences which are situated on the
same side of the road and are generally separated by not more than 150 metres
apart;
b) A lot have not been severed from the parcel since January 1, 1994;
In this case, the proposed lot meets the first policy as there are two existing homes on
the same side of the street separated by not more than 150 metres. However, the
current owners applied for and obtained a severance for a residential lot at the corner of
Huffman Road and Cox Drive in 2004, one of the two existing homes used in the first
policy to permit infilling development. Due to the time restraint within the infilling lots
provision, this consent application does not adhere to the Township’s Official Plan.
Township of Severn Zoning By-law 2010-65
The property is zoned Recreational Commercial (C9) under Township of Severn Zoning
By-law 201 0-65. The Minimum Lot Area in the C9 Zone is 2 hectares and the Minimum
Lot Frontage is 60 metres. The retained lands exceed the frontage and area
requirements for the C9 Zone. The proposed severed lands do not meet the minimum
lot area requirement for the C9 Zone however the intent of this severance is to create a
residential lot not another commercial use. Should the Committee approve this
application the Planning Department recommends including a condition that the severed
lot be rezoned to a Rural Residential (RR) Zone to recognize the intended residential
use of the newly created lot.
Other Considerations:
The Department of Public Works had no comment on the application.
The Building Department provided the following comment: “No objection to the consent
to create a lot”.
Page 55 of 82
Recommendation:
The Planning Department has concerns with the approval of this application due to the
conformity of the application to the time provision within the Township’s Official Plan
regarding the creation of an infilling lot. Should the Committee vote to approve the
application the Planning Department recommends the conditions set out in Appendix 3.
Respectfully submitted,
Katie Mandeville, BABURPI.
Planner
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
—
—
—
Andrew Fyfe, M.A.
Director of Planning & Development
Key Map
Proposed Severance Sketch
Recommended Conditions
Page 56 of 82
Page 57 of 82
/
PH 6e9
U
U
C
1L1a3
.1)
PH
‘I
bIUIi 11e4J
UOI6JS.9
/
-o
.,
1
S
U
I
.1’
0
4.-
-.
a
x
t
t
CD
Appendix 2
Lake St
George
Proposed
Severed Lands
Approximate
Frontage: 89m
Area: 0.74 ha
LL
L,
L
C4
‘V
Retained
CtIv:
j
Ii
p
Page 58 of 82
Appendix 3
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
That the severed lands shall be rezoned to the Rural Residential (RR) Zone,
at the owners’ expense, in order to recognize the reduced lot area and
intended use of the lands. The owner shall make an Application for Zoning
By-law Amendment and pay the applicable fee and deposit, if required.
A reference plan of the severed parcel shall be prepared and duly registered
by an Ontario Land Surveyor and one copy filed with the Secretary/Treasurer
of the Committee.
A copy of the electronic registration “in preparation” draft deed for the severed
lot shall be provided to the Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee together
with a signed Acknowledgement and Direction so that the consent certificate
may be issued.
A payment of 5% in lieu of a parkland dedication shall be paid in accordance
with the provisions of the Planning Act, acceptable to the Township of Severn,
in cash or certified cheque. The Township shall retain an appraiser, at the
applicant’s expense, to prepare the appraisal in accordance with the
provisions of the Planning Act if the value of the land cannot otherwise be
agreed on.
Municipal taxes shall be paid in full up to the date of request of issuance of
the consent certificate.
That all fees and disbursements (legal, engineering, planning), if any, incurred
by the Township with respect to this application shall be paid for by the
owner.
The Conditions set out herein shall be completed within one year of the date
of this Decision.
Page 59 of 82
This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank
Page 60 of 82
E-6
REPORT
TO:
Chair and Members
Committee of Adjustment
FROM:
Andrew Fyfe
Director of Planning & Development
DATE:
August 14, 2014
RE:
Application for Consent B-12-15
Applicant: B. Rumsey
Address: 3833 Hampshire Mills Line
D14-037
Background:
County Official Plan:
Township Official Plan:
Township Zoning:
Agricultural and Rural
Agricultural
Rural (RU)
The subject property is legally described as West Part of Lot 2, Concession 7,
geographic Township of North Orillia, now in the Township of Severn, municipally
known as 3833 Hampshire Mills Line (Appendix 1).
The subject lands have frontage of approximately 542.5 metres (1,780 ft.) on
Hampshire Mills Line and an area of approximately 39.6 ha (97.8 acres). The applicant
is requesting consent to sever a portion of the property having frontage of approximately
55 metres (160 ft.) on Hampshire Mills Line and area of approximately 1.1 ha (2.7
acres) to add to an adjacent property at 3713 Hampshire Mills Road. The retained
lands would have a frontage of approximately 487.5 m (1,600 ft.) on Hampshire Mills
Line and area of approximately 38.5 ha (95.1 acres). The sketch of the proposed lot
addition is attached as Appendix 2.
Discussion:
The effect of the application is to increase the size of the abutting vacant building lot to
the north. This will allow the owner of the existing lot to move his building envelop for his
home southward, providing greater separation from the active livestock watering and
feeding area on the adjacent farm, as well as the TransCanada Pipeline corridor which
cuts across the north-west corner of that building lot, and provides for improved
sightlines from the top of the steep hill to the north of Hampshire Mills Line. The new
building location will be towards the south-east corner of the enlarged lot, which will
increase the minimum separation distance for the dwelling from the neighbouring cattle
Page 61 of 82
barn to the east from approximately 190 metres to 260 metres. It should be noted that
both numbers are substantially below the calculated MDS requirements for that barn,
but the deficient is being considerably reduced. As an existing non-farm lot, the MDS
provisions would not prevent the construction of a home on the existing parcel, but the
owner would be encouraged to maximize the separation distance in siting a new
dwelling. The lot is owned by a member of the family with the beef operation and is
actively involved in the farm.
The subject lands are located in an area of soils which are mapped as being in Classes
1-3 of the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) system and thus would considered to be “prime
agricultural lands”. (Appendix 3) However, a comparison of aerial imagery (Appendix
4) with the CLI mapping shows that the actively farmed areas match the lands mapped
as Classes 5-7 and the unfarmed areas, which are generally fairly well treed, lie within
areas mapped as Classes 1-3. Therefore, it would appear that the CLI mapping does
not represent a true reflection of the agricultural potential of soils in this area. This is
likely due to the heavily glaciated nature of the landscape in this area evidenced by the
remnant shoreline feature to the north of the subject lands. As a result of this
geomorphic activity, the soil characteristics can be highly variable within a small area
and the soil mapping cannot be relied on as an accurate reflection of what is actually
there. In terms of the respective designations in the Official Plan, whereby an
“Agricultural” designation is intended to reflect an area where Class 1-3 lands are
predominant and the ‘Rural” designation where the agricultural potential is “mixed”, it
would appear that the “Rural designation would be more appropriate given the
circumstances, but an Official Plan Amendment is not required as the proposal satisfies
the applicable policies even if the land is designated “Agricultural”. The Rural zoning is
a reflection of the limited agricultural potential of the subject lands.
In terms of creating new residential lots, under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
the only circumstance where this is permitted within lands designated as “Agriculture” is
for the severance of a “surplus farm dwelling” where the consolidation of agricultural
lands results in a dwelling being “surplus” to the needs of the farmer acquiring the
worked lands. In this case the lot already exists and the severed lands are being added
to that adjacent parcel. Section 2.3.4.1 c) states that “the new lot will be limited to a
minimum size needed to accommodate the use and appropriate sewage and water
services.” Typically, a lot area of 0.4 ha to 1.0 hectares would be more than adequate
to accommodate the dwelling and private services. The County and Township Official
Plans provide similar policy direction towards the creation of residential lots on prime
“agricultural lands”. Where “design considerations” apply, the lot can be made
somewhat larger to address these factors.
As the proposed lot line adjustment does not remove agricultural lands from production
and reduces the potential for conflict between an existing livestock operation and a
future residential use, the proposed Consent to increase lot area to two hectares of land
does appear to be justified in these circumstances and satisfies the intent of the policy
direction in the PPS, County and Township Official Plans.
Page 62 of 82
Other Considerations:
The Department of Public Works stated that a road widening is not needed on this
property.
The Building Department stated they had no objection to this application.
Recommendation:
The Planning Department has no concerns with the application and recommends the
conditions set out in Appendix 5.
Respi
Andrew Fyfe, M.A.
Director of Planning & Di
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
lopment
1 Key Map
2 Proposed Severance Sketch
3—Soils Mapping
4 Aerial Imagery
5 Recommended Conditions
—
—
-
-
Page 63 of 82
Appendix I
S.’,
/
I
41%
•0
1
0
r
/
9,”
a
*4
4‘7.
S
1
I DISfl Wni,’
a
I
‘IC
0
Page 64 of 82
_r7_
4•_
•_
3833 Hampshire Mills Line
Subject Property
E6.aC Proposed Lot Addition
1.1 h; (2.7 acres)
3713 Hampshire Mills Line
\
N
Appendix 3
11111111
3
a
‘I
a
a
a
U
Li
acne
It’I,ii
)
F
!tIJj[i
Eli
i.
tip
F
!‘ it i
b
I
II
e
j
4
jà..
IL
Appendix 4
UHII LI‘1
111tH
J
I
I fø I
1’!’
i
I
I
I
I
DI
ii1i
1-ti
1
‘t
Appendix 5
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1. A reference plan of the severed parcel shall be prepared and duly registered by
an Ontario Land Surveyor and one copy filed with the Secretary/Treasurer of the
Committee.
2. A copy of the electronic registration “in preparation” draft deed for the severed lot
shall be provided to the Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee together with a
signed Acknowledgement and Direction so that the consent certificate may be
issued.
3. That the severed lands shall merge with the property municipally known as
371 3Hampshire Mills Line. The owners’ solicitor shall take all necessary steps to
ensure that the parcels merge under the Planning Act.
4. That the owners’ solicitor shall provide an undertaking to register an Application
to Consolidate Parcels in order to merge the severed lands with the adjoining
lands and to provide the Township with a copy of the registered Application
within three months of the date of registration of the Transfer of the severed lot.
5. That the severed lands and 3713 Hampshire Mills Line shall be rezoned by way
of a Zoning By-law Amendment, at the applicant’s expense so as to restrict the
development envelope away from the active farm land, barn and TransCanada
Pipeline Corridor and to accurately reflect the minimum lot frontage and area.
6. The Conditions set out herein shall be completed within one year of the date of
this Decision.
E-7
REPORT
D14-038
TO:
Chair and Members
Committee of Adjustment
FROM:
Katie Mandeville
Planner
DATE:
August 14, 2014
RE:
Application for Consent B-i 6-14 (Morrison)
Applicant: John & Robert Morrison
Address: 3177 Green River Drive
Background:
County Official Plan:
Township Official Plan:
Township Zoning:
Rural
Shoreline Residential
Shoreline Residential Two (SR2)
The subject properties is located at 3177 Green River Drive, being Plan 1451, Lot 43, in
the former Township of North Orillia (Appendix 1). The property is approximately 6,475
square metres (1.6 acre) in size with 30 metres (100 feet) of frontage on the Severn /
Green River. The property contains a dwelling and associated accessory structures.
The purpose of the application is to obtain consent to grant a right-of-way to legalize an
existing driveway access leading off of Green River Drive over a portion of the driveway
for 3177 Green River Drive in favour of the neighbouring property at 3167 Green River
Drive, being Plan 1451, Lot 44.
The approximate path of the proposed right-of-way is shown on the sketch attached as
Appendix 2.
Planning and Development staff site inspected the property prior to the writing of this
report.
Discussion:
The driveway access to 3176 Green River Drive over a portion of the neighbouring
property of 3177 Green River Drive was constructed several years ago and is in active
use as the only road access to 3176 Green River Drive which is developed with an
accessory structure used for storage purposes. From an emergency services
perspective, it is beneficial to have access to properties by road.
Right-of-ways are not governed under the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 or the
County and Township Official Plans or the Township’s Zoning By-law.
Recommendation:
The Planning Department has no objection to the approval of this application, subject to
the recommended conditions set out in Appendix 3.
Respectfully submitted,
Katie Mandeville, BA, BURR.
Planner
Andrew R, Fyfe,
Director of Planning
Appendix I
-
(1]
I
a
0
I.
z.
I’
C
MII6koka SI
C
.4‘4,
A:,0,
0%
V.
4it
N
COopers Rd
o’
L
‘Sale Q,
IC
Appendix 2
——
rf
1.
cLLv
%t3
b %f-’
‘4”
ro
r
—r——
]
<__—
.—?‘
—F-
ert
CI
-
(A
-
Appendix 3
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
A reference plan of the right-of-way shall be prepared and duly registered by an
Ontario Land Surveyor and one copy filed with the Secretary-Treasurer of the
Committee. The draft reference plan shall be provided to the SecretaryTreasurer for approval prior to registration.
A copy of the electronic registration “in preparation” draft deed for the grant of
right-of-way shall be provided to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee
together with a signed Acknowledgement and Direction so that the consent
certificate may be issued.
That the owner’s solicitor shall ensure that the right-of-way is legally added and
appurtenant to the property known municipally as 3167 Green River Drive.
Section 50 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, shall apply to any subsequent
conveyance of or transaction involving the parcel of land that is subject of this
consent.
Municipal taxes shall be paid in full up to the date of request of issuance of the
consent certificate.
That all fees and disbursements (legal, engineering, planning), if any, incurred by
the Township with respect to this application shall be paid for by the owner.
The Conditions set out herein shall be completed within one year of the date of
this Decision.
This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank
E-8
REPORT
TO:
Chair and Members
Committee of Adjustment
FROM:
Andrew Fyfe
Director of Planning & Development
DATE:
August 14, 2014
RE:
Application for Consent B-I 7-14
Applicant: Kory Myers & Crystal Watson
Agent: Robert Watson
Address: 1591 Dunn’s Line
D14-039
Background:
County Official Plan:
Township Official Plan:
Township Zoning:
Agricultural and Rural
Rural (see below)
Agricultural (AG)
The subject property is legally described as, West Part Lot 19 & 20, Concession 14,
geographic Township of Medonte, now in the Township of Severn, municipally known
as 1591 Dunns Line. The subject lands have frontage of approximately 192m (631 ft.)
and an area of approximately 14.2 ha (35 acres). The applicant is requesting consent
to sever a portion of the property for a new residential lot having frontage of
approximately 91.5m (300 ft.) on Dunns Line and area of approximately 0.8 ha (2
acres). The retained lands would have an area of approximately 13.4 ha (33 acres) and
frontage of approximately 100.5 m (331 ft.). The “parent lands”, 1607 Dunns Line (a
portion of the proposed severed lands) was previously merged on title with 1591 Dunns
Line (the subject lands) (Appendix 1).
Discussion:
Official Plan Designation
Unfortunately, determining the applicable Official Plan designation has been somewhat
difficult. Staff have spent considerable time looking at the original Official Plan
schedules, our digital version, the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) mapping and aerial
imagery in order to apply our interpretation provisions. At the scale the schedules are at
the use of light yellow for Agricultural and white for Rural, along with the discontinuous
nature of the Agricultural designation, determining exactly where the line between the
two is often problematic.
Applying our interpretation, policies regarding flexibility where the line does not follow
specific features such as a road or rail-line, staff have determined that the area subject
to the proposed severance is within the Rural designation for the following reasons:
The land to the east of this section of Dunn’s Line is a mixture of Rural &
Agricultural designations on the map. The Agricultural areas are very
fragmented and broken up by Rural areas.
There are pockets of Rural land along the frontage.
To some extent this appears to reflect the existing resident lots, but not exactly.
Scaling from the intersection from the north, the proposed lot appears to fall
within one of the small rural pockets.
The CLI mapping indicates that the soil category for the proposed lot location is
Class 5-7. This appears to be reflected in the aerial imagery. The Land to the
east is Class 1-3.
The Agricultural designation is intended to reflect and protect prime agricultural”
lands predominated by Class 1-3 soils. Rural lands are areas of mixed potential
with general poorer quality soils.
It is clear that the fragmented land ownership & mixed soil quality prevent this
area in general from having a high potential for commercial agriculture. This is
reflected on the ground in the land-use patterns and general lack of commercial
agriculture on these or the adjacent lands.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Therefore, the placement of these lands within the Rural designation is felt to be
appropriate given the mapping and the policy direction in the Township’s Official Plan.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2014
Limited residential development is permitted in rural areas.
County of Simcoe Official Plan, 2007
Section 3.6.7 “In rural areas, uses permitted are those listed in 3.6.6 plus highway
commercial, institutional, residential lots created by consent, country recreational
facilities to a maximum of 40 lots and rural business parks.” Therefore, “rural lots
permitted by consent are recognized” as a permitted use.
Section 3.6.11 “In rural areas, country residential development through subdivision by
Plan, rather than consent, is preferred. However, lots may be created by consent
according to the following guidelines:
a) Lots should be restricted in size in order to conserve other lands in larger blocks for
agricultural or environmental purposes. Consent lots should be developed to an
approximate maximum size of one hectare, except where larger sizes may be suitable
because of environmental constraints or design considerations.
b) The number of lots on the grid road system should be restricted in order to maintain
the rural character and road function and to avoid strip development.
c) In geographic areas set out in local official plans, provision may be made for
residential lots larger than one hectare where required for servicing purposes,
environmental considerations, or to maintain established lot and development patterns.
The proposed consent would result in a lot which is similar in size to neighbouring
parcels and would be an improvement on the previously existing lot pattern; in terms of
preserving agricultural potential.
The County has raised issues regarding the compliance of the proposed consents with
other policies contained in the County Official Plan. At this time, Township staff does
not share those interpretations and wishes to discuss them further with County staff.
Township of Severn Official Plan
Section 8.2 New Lots By Consent
The proposed Consent satisfies the applicable direction provided in 8.2.1 General
Criteria. The policies provide for the consideration of different types of Consents,
including “Technical Severances”.
The request for severance was originally initiated in order to address the merging of two
parcels, 1607 and 1519 Dunns Line, when they came into common ownership through
the provisions of a will which was intended to convey ownership of 1591 to the grand
daughter pending the grandson reaching the age of majority. As the daughter received
ownership of 1607 through the provisions of the will, the abutting parcels were merged
although that was not the intent of the will. Since the parcels were separate since the
granting of the original title, but were merged through the enactment of a will and not a
purchase, conformity with the specific wording of the Township’s enabling policy
regarding “technical severances” could be an issue.
Section 88.2.3
Technical Severances
Technical Severances refer to rural/agricultural properties that were considered
separate prior to 1975, but merged with changes to the Planning Act In considering
such a severance, the Committee of Adjustment must be satisfied that the properties
were purchased separately and subsequently merged. Should a severance be granted
for the technical reasons identified, neither parcel shall be further subdivided.”
As the two abutting properties were clearly in separate ownership and existed as
separate parcels prior to 1976, but were subsequently merged on title due to common
ownership of abutting parcels (the “changes in the Planning Act” which the text refers
to), it would appear that the “re-splitting” of the original lot configuration the proposed
should be considered to be a “Technical Severance” under this policy. This policy would
seem to be clearly directed at situations such as this application where previously
separate parcels where merged through changes to the Planning Act. However, as
stated above a strict reading of the policy as written would seem to disqualify the
recreation of the previous lot lines.
Thus it appears the technical severance policies are supportive of the intent of the
recreating the previous lot configuration may be subject to challenge. In reviewing the
proposal, it appeared that creation of a residential lot fronting on Dunns Line and
leaving the balance of 1591 merged with 1607 would more closely reflect the intent of
the policy environment which is to minimize disruptions to the character of rural areas
and preserve the potential of prime agricultural lands for commercial agricultural
production. The area of the proposed lot contains Class 5-7 agricultural land, only the
rear portion would be considered to be “prime agricultural lands. As this approach would
address the needs of the application, they brought forth the subject application.
Unfortunately, this approach has raised concerns on the part of the County regarding
compliance with the County’s policies. In reviewing those concerns and the policies
themselves, staff believes that further discussions may be able to resolve these
differences in interpretation. Therefore, staff recommends that further consideration of
this application be deferred to allow those discussions to take place.
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
1
2
3
4-
Key Map
Proposed Severance Sketch
Soils Mapping
Aerial Imagery
—
—
—
Appendix I
.4
En
.0
4
p
.
a MS
a
C
,.oJpOOM
n
pgsa)VMPPJ
ci
S.
‘Pt
I
I
‘P
C,
Is
0
1’
ot’
C’4
C
a,
0.
0.
o
-
SotithO”’
Retained Lands
Approximate
Frontage: 100.5m
Area: 13.4 ha
Severed Lands
Approximate
Frontage: 91.5m
Area: 0.8 ha
C’,
x
C
a)
a
a
4
Highway
Major Road
Ramp
Local Road
me.
ease In asp!. ac.s ptmfl fbi b
rodiad wIniest tSp
Mrtniarnd.TH55NO1AfIAflOFSUaWT
.liIittn
1.4514
aghDrlly tent
Ott iso
I.,
0 OOflCb5
CUtet’. int,Thituit MrnitO it Nau,.Is.oun.
or.ran.ttw,r,.ic a,d’tsni.n.
CMaeeanotfl.O.tincGetp.naIDatbcflirp
Cm. CbipbultIonot
ill. countypi
hsgrnilS 2014
SIM
the out anta.adfdrpemn.I.n.Mu bnpmoducun*daatmmnaiwtvoiuasm.nandm.,notb. nunwO oraLunte
Sndinid I fl psi o,1 hcanwt 0th
—
CHarM.
yV.0 .nnkMofCnd.0.pwtm.ntolNaur.Ifl..cuz.L
The
County of Slmcoe
AeriaI Photos fawn in the spnng of 2012
Unessumad and S.asonal Road
C
0
x
•0
0.
a
H,hway
Major Road
Ramp
Local Road
a.
r
roaoc.dwUItoA ta
OQutPnot.,artoM.n4iryotNiutaP•tou,t.t
OT.,nt Elntau itt aid it uta.n:
OM.mofVilG,wiaG.oipmaIDS. bch.ny
Mrlrrinr,.tTHS5tIOTARAk&SUKVIT
0 D705
af tilt
a.’
iii.
cttooni,00 ala Cagonyal
I
Auguutl5.2W4
4
pItynot a. run.,l or xunI.
a,ilmnty tom C
Ott
1 4,514
TN) nopa nla’o.d Iotparnol.sa,ilI bait pIodoc utaic thIsfmm .,nbduown..and
Poduad(npati,trfltuafrat
CH.rMIwlvm.Qu..nbti.MofCm.d.o.panTm.PtToIKainhK.n,rc..
Tha ma .41w, It whal. ora p.mfl not
•no..
County of Simcoe
AariaI Phcloslwwn nIb. spnn of 2012
Unanum.d and S.aaonaI Road