[6:20] One minute timer.

[6:26] » That's it. >> Okay. I can I can just reset the

[6:30] password for you if you'd like. Otherwise, you'll just get

[6:53] » We're live. You can call the meeting to order.

[6:58] Good morning everyone and uh welcome to the committee of adjustment meeting for

[7:03] Friday, August 14th. I hereby uh call this meeting to order

[7:09] at uh 10:01 a.m. And before we begin, I'd like to acknowledge that we are

[7:15] working on the lands traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples.

[7:19] Indigenous people continue to care for this land and continue to shape our

[7:23] township. We show our respect and will continually honor the treaties that were

[7:27] signed as we consider our decisions and actions.

[7:33] Uh I would ask members of the committee, are there any declarations of pecuniary

[7:39] interest or

[7:42] uh conflict of interest? I see member Schmidt has his hand up.

[7:48] » Yes. uh in application uh B26-13

[7:53] that is my brother I received no financial anything from him I assure you

[7:59] um however um I should declare and uh remove myself from that

[8:04] » thank you very much uh so noted Madam Secretary

[8:09] uh you would also had the opportunity to uh read and review the minutes of our uh

[8:16] July 17th uh committee meeting and I have a motion

[8:23] from uh moved by member Jarvis, seconded by member Schmidt. Be it resolved that

[8:30] the township of Georgia Bay Community of Adjustment approves the minutes of July

[8:34] 17 uh 2026 as circulated. All those in

[8:40] favor, please signify by raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried

[8:45] and the minutes are approved. This morning there's a public meeting

[8:50] for two consent applications and seven minor variance applications.

[8:56] If you wish

[8:59] for some reason.

[9:04] » Oh, you

[9:08] okay? [clears throat]

[9:14] » So, this morning

[9:21] we'll have a technician. Thank you.

[9:26] Uh this morning there's a public meeting scheduled for two consent applications

[9:30] and seven minor variance applications. If you wish to be notified of the

[9:35] decision of the application on this agenda, please add your name to the list

[9:39] uh that is on the desk in front or you can register online. I'll briefly

[9:44] summarize the procedure to be followed this morning. First, the uh clerk will

[9:48] advise the committee as to when, how, and to whom notice of each of the

[9:52] hearings was circulated for the applications being considered.

[9:56] Next, each of the applications will be considered separately. Planning staff

[10:00] will advise as the person as to the purpose and effect of the applications

[10:05] and provide any information that is relevant. The clerk will summarize all

[10:10] correspondence on file and from there, the applicant may make a brief

[10:14] presentation if they so choose. Also, the public will have an

[10:18] opportunity to speak to the applications being considered. After the public

[10:22] forum, the committee will then deliberate on the proposed applications

[10:26] and consider a motion to pass uh defeat or defer the decision of the

[10:31] application. The

[10:34] consent application being considered this morning are E26-13

[10:39] for 264 264 Hiron Trail, B26-14 for 135 Port 7 Road North.

[10:49] The minor variance applications being considered are A26-22

[10:54] for 15 Silver Sands Lake Road, A26-25 for 259 Heskuits Drive, A26-26

[11:03] for 39 Railway Street, A26-27

[11:08] for 268 ID 540. A26-28 for 98 uh Driftwood, A26-29

[11:17] for 192 Wild Rice Trail, and A26-30 for two island 3150.

[11:25] To the clerk, please.

[11:37] Notice of each of the applications was sent by first class mail to the

[11:40] respective owners and assessed persons within 120 meters, 500 meters, or 800

[11:44] meters, and to those persons and agencies likely to have interest in the

[11:47] application. The notices were sent at least 20 days prior to this morning's

[11:50] meeting. Included in each notice was an explanation of the purpose and effect of

[11:54] the application and a key map showing the location of the property. Other

[11:57] relevant information may have also been provided. These circulations were

[12:01] provided in accordance with provisions of the Planning Act 1990.

[12:05] » Thank you. Our first consent application is application B26-13

[12:12] for 264 Huran Trail. Uh to the planner, please.

[12:27] » Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of committee. First application as stated

[12:30] is B2613 for 264 on Trail.

[12:37] The subject property is comprised of 1.72 hectares with a frontage on six

[12:41] mile lake of 156.97 meters. At the present time, the

[12:45] property has a detached dwelling on it that was constructed on the lot. Sorry,

[12:50] detached dwelling on it and a garage on the neighboring

[12:54] property. Both 264 and 290 Hiron Trail are in the same ownership. Access to the

[13:00] property is from here on trail which is a private is a public road and becomes a

[13:04] private road at 290 Hiron Trail. A pre-application consultation request

[13:10] was made to the township on June 18th, 2026 with the report being issued on

[13:14] June 19th, 2026. At the time the of the pre-application

[13:19] submission, the owner was proposing to create two new residential lots and one

[13:23] retained lot. Based on the submitted proposal, it was determined at that time

[13:27] that what was being requested would require an official plan amendment and

[13:31] zoning bylaw amendment based on the deficiency in lot frontages. At that

[13:35] time, the owner decided that they would move forward with a request for a

[13:38] boundary adjustment between the two abiding lots known as 264 and 290 on

[13:42] trail that are both owned by the applicant. It can be noted that the

[13:46] justification behind the request is to sever and merge a person portion of 264

[13:51] Hiron Trail to include a detached garage that was constructed on 264 Hiron Trail

[13:56] in error. A site plan was prepared in July 2014 by Nino Van Harten Ontario

[14:03] Land Surveyor for a proposed addition on 290 Hiron Trail that identified a garage

[14:07] that was thought to be on 290 Hiron Trail but was actually loc located

[14:11] located on 264. No new lots are being created and no no lot frontages are

[14:17] being reduced. The intent of the consent application as

[14:22] stated is a boundary adjustment between two abuing parcels of land in the same

[14:25] ownership. The portion of 264 here on trail proposed to be severed and merged

[14:30] with two 290 here on trail comprised of approximately 0.59 hectares with the

[14:35] final area to be confirmed through the preparation of a reference plan. The lot

[14:39] frontage is not being altered and will remain the same at 156.97

[14:44] m. This consent act application will

[14:49] rectify the issue of the detached garage being built in the wrong location.

[14:55] Planning staff have conducted a detailed analysis of the proposal based on

[14:59] applicable planning legislation and are recommending approval subject to

[15:02] standard conditions of consent. The committee does have the option to

[15:06] approve, deny with reasons, or defer the application for additional information.

[15:10] Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, Madame Secretary, has

[15:15] there been correspondence in this application?

[15:17] » One letter was received from Kaylee Nicholson, chief building official,

[15:20] stating she has no concerns. One letter was received from the District of Msoka,

[15:23] stating they have no objection to the application, and two letters of support

[15:27] were received from Sheila Nazarelli and Todd Join.

[15:31] » Thank you. Is the applicant present? And do they wish to address the committee?

[15:36] And do you have anything to add to what the plane department presented already?

[15:42] » Um, yes. >> Okay. Would you come up to the

[15:46] microphone and give us your name and address for the record, please?

[15:57] » My name is Joe Schmidt and it's 290 here on trail and 264 here on trail. Um, I

[16:03] just wanted the main reason for the severance a is to get the garage on the

[16:06] property, but the reason that I'm running the lot line where it is is to

[16:11] prevent um potential future owners from being able to sever that lot into three

[16:17] three different lots because they could go for a reasonzoning and we don't want

[16:22] to develop that area. So, that's why I'm taking what I can.

[16:26] » Okay. Thank you very much. And maybe I just ask you to stay there in case there

[16:30] are any questions as we go along. Okay. >> Uh

[16:34] is there any member of the public that wishes to address the committee on this

[16:38] application? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public

[16:42] portion of the meeting and bring the application before the committee for any

[16:45] questions or concerns. And we'll begin with member Predco.

[17:02] Thank you and through for your patience and through you chair. Um just and I and

[17:06] I'm sure I know the answer to this but I just want to verify on the the um

[17:13] plan that was provided uh site plan was was provided in the report. It has a

[17:18] proposed addition illustrated but that's not for consideration. and we're just

[17:23] consider considering the severance. Thank you

[17:25] » through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's correct. That was the original that was

[17:28] the survey that actually showed that the garage was on the wrong property.

[17:32] » Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank [clears throat] you,

[17:34] » Member Jarvis. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh Deb, do we have a a

[17:38] survey that shows the revised property line uh after the severance? Because I I

[17:44] couldn't find that in the documentation. >> Uh I can bring that up. It was in the

[17:48] the actual um presentation and plus it was in the

[17:52] » I didn't see that. >> Yes.

[17:54] » If you would mind bringing up for me. Thank you.

[18:00] » Give me the page number in the report.

[18:08] » Was there a question about that? Member Jarvis.

[18:11] » It's just the revised all the property lines I see do not include the garage.

[18:16] So they all the the original all I'm seeing is the property lines as per

[18:22] their original drawing, not with the revision. And I'm just curious to know

[18:25] how the property line aligns. I'm I have no problem with this. I just wanted to

[18:30] see the see what it looks like.

[18:51] How about this? This application I have lots of questions.

[19:03] I brought it up on the on the screen. A member Jarvis

[19:20] Excuse the confusion. I just follow up then. Okay. I

[19:23] So the lot to be retained is the one with the cottage on it.

[19:27] » It's a lot being separate that has cottage on it. Correct.

[19:30] » No. If you're looking at the screen,

[19:35] part one is the piece that has the garage on it. That is to merge with the

[19:40] one beside it. We don't have that doesn't show 290. The actual severance

[19:46] sketch does not show 290. This is 264 here on trail.

[19:51] » Yeah. >> So, the piece to be severed is part one

[19:54] that will merge with 290 that has the garage on it and the retained portion is

[19:58] vacant.

[20:05] » [clears throat] >> Maybe I'll take this offline afterwards,

[20:07] but thank you. >> Okay. So, we're good with that.

[20:11] » Uh are there any does the committee have any further questions or comments

[20:15] regarding this application? Okay. Uh seeing none,

[20:20] uh I will read the resolution. It is moved by uh member Hazelton,

[20:26] seconded by member Matthews. Be it resolved that the Township of Georgia

[20:30] Bay Committee of Adjustment hereby grants provisional approval to the

[20:34] consent application B26-13 to sever a 0.59 hectare parcel of land

[20:42] containing detached garage that was inadvertently constructed on the subject

[20:46] property despite being intended to be located within the boundaries of 290

[20:50] Kiron Trail and subject to the following conditions.

[20:54] One, that the owner provide a property tax certificate or correspondence from

[20:57] township financial services indicating that all property taxes have been paid

[21:01] up to date with respect to the properties subject to this decision.

[21:05] Two, that a draft reference plan be completed by an Ontario land surveyor

[21:10] and a digital copy filed with the secretary treasur of the committee of

[21:14] adjustment. Three, that a copy of the deposited reference plan be provided to

[21:18] the secretary treasur. Four, that a draft transfer be prepared by a

[21:22] solicitor and submitted to the secretary treasurer in preparation for the

[21:26] creation of a certificate of official describing the parcels created by

[21:30] consent. and five that a solicitor's written undertaking shall be provided to

[21:35] the secretary treasurer indicating that the necessary steps have been taken to

[21:40] implement the conveyance and merger consolidate the severed and benefiting

[21:44] parcels of one property identification number and alter the benefiting parcel

[21:49] if it was created pursuant to section 50 or 53 of the planning act so that it is

[21:53] not identical parcel land or otherwise addressed to the satisfaction of the

[21:57] township section 50 subsection 12 of the planning act to facilitate the merger of

[22:03] the lands. And six, that all fees and dispersements, legal, engineering, and

[22:07] planning, if any, occurred by the township with respect to the

[22:11] applications being paid for by the respective owners. All those in favor,

[22:16] please indicate by raising your hand. Thank you. The [clears throat] motion is

[22:21] carried and the application is approved. Thank you.

[22:27] Our second consent application is B26-14

[22:34] for 135 Port7 Road North.

[22:38] Uh to the planner, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your

[22:43] permission, I will share my screen.

[22:52] Morning

[23:01] committee and everyone in attendance both here and online. My name is Jeff

[23:06] Katkkey and I'm a registered professional planner employed by the

[23:09] township of Georgian Bay and we're here this morning again regarding application

[23:12] number B2614 regarding a property municipally known

[23:17] as 135 Port 7 Road North. The owner is a numbered company and the applicant is

[23:23] represented by MHBC planning. Jamie Robinson who's also a registered

[23:27] professional planner is here in the chambers.

[23:32] The site is located at the south part of Georgian Bay Township in what is known

[23:37] as the Port Severn Urban Center. And more specifically, it's located on

[23:43] Island K on Port 7 Road North and on Little Lake.

[23:51] The purpose of the application is to request consent for easement across

[23:55] lands known as 135 Port 7 Road North for overland storm water flow routes to

[24:01] benefit lands known as 117 Port 7 Road North. The effect of the application is

[24:08] to preserve storm water flows from Port 7 Road North to Little Lake after a 48

[24:14] unit residential development is completed at 117 Port 7 Road North.

[24:22] One owner controls both of these lands and the 48 unit residential development

[24:28] is being considered by planning council. Uh B2614 that is before the committee

[24:34] today is only an easement and as you can see in this drawing the easement is

[24:41] represented by the dotted line with two dots in it. Whereas the overland storm

[24:47] water flows are represented by this dotted line that

[24:53] crosses the property in the emergency overland flow

[24:57] approximately here and in the regular overland flow

[25:01] approximately here and then weaves along the property line uh within that uh

[25:07] easement. So it it it crosses in a new number of places and depending on the

[25:11] amount of storm water that might be conveyed it it may be considerably onto

[25:18] 135 port 7. It may be very nominally on 135 Port 7.

[25:25] This is a survey of 135 Port 7. 117 Port 7 is located to the west and you can see

[25:32] it is improved with a a detached residential dwelling which right now has

[25:37] permission uh for a temporary use of a real estate office. It has a boat house

[25:42] and a dock which are not entirely on the subject lands.

[25:50] This is the consent sketch that was prepared by the agent. And again, it

[25:56] shows the residential development on 117 Port 7 Road North to the west. And it

[26:04] shows the existing dwelling and boat house. Um, plus uh this storm water

[26:11] easement.

[26:16] There is a type one fish habitat, but it is being very fully considered through

[26:20] the resoning application and through the site plan application for 117 Port 7

[26:25] Road for which this easement will benefit.

[26:30] There are no natural hazards that affect the easement.

[26:35] Again, although the temporary zoning of these lands are

[26:40] what they are and the residential zoning is what it is, this is an easement for

[26:45] the adjacent uh multiple residential zone to the west.

[26:51] And again, I'm sure everyone is familiar with this part of Port Sever. It's

[26:55] currently uh the Sunny Lee Resort that is next door at 117 Port 7. And there is

[27:01] a house that is I gather soon to be used if not already used as a real estate

[27:08] sales office on a temporary basis.

[27:13] The planning services review that I completed is that this proposed easement

[27:18] um it falls within the subject lands in the Port Sever urban center in both the

[27:23] MOP and the Georgian Bay official plan. B2614 conforms to the Mscoa official

[27:30] plan and the Georgian Bay official plan. The fish habitat, as I mentioned, is

[27:34] being considered through application Z2614.

[27:39] And there are no hazardous lands andor hazardous forest types for wildland fire

[27:45] that affect the proposed easement. And the Georgian Bay zoning bylaw as

[27:50] amended does not regulate storm water management directly or the proposed

[27:55] easements other than saying something to the effect that a proposed easement

[27:59] can't be registered without the permission of the property owner. And in

[28:03] this case, the two property owners are essentially controlled by the same

[28:08] developer. Therefore, in my opinion, B2614 is good

[28:12] planning, having regard to provincial interests, consistent with the

[28:16] provincial planning statement 2024 and conforming to the Mskoka official plan

[28:22] and the Georgian Bay official plan while complying with the Georgian Bay zoning

[28:26] bylaw. The committee does have options as

[28:30] always, and you've asked us to present them to you. You can approve with the

[28:34] recommended conditions. You can approve with varied conditions. Or you could

[28:39] refuse stating reasons for the committee's refusal. You could refer

[28:43] this back to myself. Or you could defer it.

[28:49] But of course, I am recommending that you approve it. And I won't read this as

[28:53] I know the chairman will read it shortly. Um but I will draw your

[28:57] attention to condition number three which is changing uh given discussions

[29:03] that started late last night uh with the agent and concluded just moments before

[29:09] this meeting. And essentially what is being done to condition three is the

[29:14] addition of an optional outcome that could allow for its waiver. Again, the

[29:23] development the the the development of the storm water flows in the easement is

[29:27] dependent upon the development to the west of 117 Port 7 Road North, which is

[29:32] being reviewed uh by council, by the district, by planning staff under both

[29:38] zoning and site plan control. Um there may be other options that are not

[29:45] enunciated in condition three that will satisfy its purpose. And what paragraph

[29:51] C, which is new today, states is that if those other means are found that we can

[29:57] still wave condition number three without coming back to you to let you

[30:00] know what that might be. But again, those uh options would be reviewed

[30:06] either as part of the zoning or more likely as part of the site plan control

[30:11] process. So I thank you very much for your

[30:15] attention and I'm available for questions.

[30:19] Thank you, Mr. Cranky. Um, Madam Secretary, there have been

[30:23] correspondence in its application.

[30:29] » One letter was received from Kelly Nicholson, chief building official,

[30:32] stating she has no comments, and one letter was received from the district of

[30:35] Mskoka stating they have no objection to the application.

[30:39] » Thank you. Is the applicant present or their agent? And do they wish to address

[30:44] the committee on this application? Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman and

[30:48] committee members. My name is Jamie Robinson. I'm a planner and a partner

[30:52] with MHBC Planning and Barry. If I can just get screen sharing permission, that

[30:59] would be great. [clears throat] Just have a couple of things I want to add to

[31:02] what Mr. Kraki has provided, but should be able to screen share. Should be able

[31:06] to

[31:30] Just while it's loading here, the um I do agree with the recommendations from

[31:35] Mr. Kraki in his analysis and with respect to I'll just start at the end

[31:39] with respect to condition number three that modification is really just to

[31:44] provide some flexibility in how that condition is dealt with. It's the key

[31:50] aspect is that drainage has to be the whole purpose behind this condition is

[31:54] drainage and what it allows for is direct sign off by the district and the

[31:59] township in an agreement by the applicant if some other solution is is

[32:05] achieved outside of the drainage act as opposed to being very specific. So I

[32:09] think it's just it's one of those or situations that everyone has to be agree

[32:14] in agreement with first off. So just a couple of key elements for committee's

[32:19] consideration is that this uh this application

[32:25] is a very technical application. It's not sort of the traditional consent

[32:30] application that this committee deals with. It's to deal with a very technical

[32:34] issue of storm water management and drainage.

[32:37] And what I think the committee needs to understand is first the principle of

[32:41] development related to this site has been established for a number of years.

[32:45] in this development concept. And effectively what happens is through the

[32:50] detailed site plan control process um specific site design elements are

[32:56] realized and one of those elements was the storm water management and how storm

[33:00] water management's to be completed which resulted in then this sort of technical

[33:05] application coming into play sort of as the site plan agreements in its final

[33:10] step. And uh so we are sort of in our final step of the site plan process with

[33:15] staff and there's a subsequent tweak to the zoning that's being completed as

[33:20] well to deal with the shoreline area. But I think the key takeaway for this

[33:23] committee is that at the start um today sheet flow happens from a

[33:31] stormwater perspective across the site from Port Sever Road through the site

[33:35] out to the water. When there's something constructed on this site, when this

[33:39] development's completed, that storm water effectively goes to one area and

[33:43] then would outlet through this this drainage easement which is on the

[33:48] neighboring property. Our client again also does own the neighboring property.

[33:53] Um there likely will be some future development or expansion of this

[33:57] proposal onto that site at some point in the future. But in the intern we need

[34:01] diseasement because the properties haven't been merged as of yet or or may

[34:05] never be merged. Um so again we we do agree with staff's recommendation. I'll

[34:12] just show a brief uh one drawing here that shows make that

[34:17] bigger for you

[34:21] that shows the concept and what's being proposed on the subject site. Um so you

[34:27] can get a a feel for that. But again, this principle of use has already been

[34:31] established. And then this figure does show the location of the easement along

[34:36] the the side of the property. From a technical perspective, CC TAM

[34:43] engineering has been retained and they've undertaken a wholesome review

[34:46] from a storm water management perspective and all that their technical

[34:49] report has been reviewed by township professionals as well as district

[34:54] professionals. Um so with that, Mr. chairman and members of committee, if

[34:59] there's any questions, I can do my best to try to answer those today for you. I

[35:04] guess the the only last thing I would mention is that from a quality

[35:07] perspective is that there is a storm water management uh plan in place for

[35:13] the site that does require an oil and grit separator for your the standard

[35:18] flows. This easement is only necessary for that one and 100year storm. So the

[35:23] major storm event or the traditional storm septer couldn't handle that event

[35:29] then then there's some overland flow provided as a result of this. So from a

[35:34] quality perspective and quantity perspective the design all meets

[35:38] Ministry of the Environment standards with respect to storm water management.

[35:42] So that was just a item I wanted to add. >> Okay. [clears throat]

[35:48] Thank you Jamie. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the

[35:52] committee on this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public

[35:57] portion and bring the application before the committee for any questions or

[36:01] comments. And let's begin with member Predco.

[36:05] » Thank you through you, chair. And my microphone's working at this time. Just

[36:08] a very quick question to either the planner or to the uh agent, and that is

[36:13] whether or not this property is in the uh source water protection zone. um in

[36:20] Port Severn and I'm just wondering if there's any concerns with water or

[36:24] affecting that um that provision that we have in in that area.

[36:29] So the SSEA did not comment with respect to this easement. However, they did

[36:34] comment with respect to the development of 117 Port 7 Road North and they did

[36:40] not have any concerns because again it is being engineered in such a way that

[36:45] uh there should be no impact on water quality.

[36:49] » Okay. Thank you. That's just want to make sure.

[36:52] » Uh member Matthews. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um Mr. Robinson,

[36:57] you talked about the one in aundred year storm which we know happens about every

[37:00] 5 years now. Um I'm just wondering if it's worth making it I don't know 10%

[37:06] bigger 20% bigger. Um are there concerns because we've seen many application or

[37:12] many instance where the one in aundred year storm has had catastrophic effect

[37:16] in different places in the world

[37:22] » through you u Mr. chairman to the member. Um I'm not an engineer so I

[37:27] can't specifically speak to that. Uh but I I think part of the my based on my

[37:33] experience in in working with these situations

[37:37] um the engineers have taken into consideration the size of the drainage

[37:41] area, the size of not just on the site but any other sheet flow that might be

[37:45] happening and they've designed it accordingly. I will certainly bring that

[37:49] comment up to them. Uh but I based on the review and the size of this

[37:54] easement, it it isn't just the channel, it provides for a maintenance area

[37:58] outside the channel as well. So it's it appears to be sufficiently sized.

[38:05] » I will do that. >> Member Jarvis.

[38:09] » Thank you, Chair. And I'm just going to piggy back on member Matthew's comments

[38:13] about the one in 100 year storm now being more like a one in five year or

[38:17] even less type storm. Um I'm curious is the current drainage in line with with

[38:23] this? Are we just augmenting what is already in place naturally

[38:30] » through you u Mr. Chairman to the member? So the current situation is

[38:36] there are no detailed drainage. So basically the water would flow from port

[38:41] there's no ditches on port 7 road either. So the water basically just

[38:44] flows naturally across the site. There's no confined drainage. But what happens

[38:49] as a result of this development is there is a drainage plan put in place where

[38:53] drainage is directed to one area and then and then out towards the lake in

[38:58] this specific location. So that's what's happening. Appreciate it if it's okay to

[39:02] follow up. Um so what we're doing is we're now taking a flow that's spread

[39:07] over a fair bit of land where it can be absorbed or any anything that's in it

[39:12] can be absorbed and concentrating it into one sort of channel. That's a good

[39:16] size channel. I understand that. Um, we know that salt is a problem within our

[39:21] whole district as as a runoff issue. We also know that when you concentrate

[39:27] runoff, especially storm water runoff, you get whatever residue from people

[39:32] washing cars, oil draining out of cars, and then you've got um whatever

[39:38] accumulates during the winter in the way of snow pile draining, I presume, into

[39:43] that same area. Is there it looks to me like the OECP hasn't accommodated for

[39:49] that in this type of situation. Maybe it'll have to be revised down the road,

[39:53] but is there any way we can accommodate any of that? Because what we're doing

[39:56] now is concentrating a flow into one area that would have traditionally gone

[40:01] over a wide area and dispersed. So, I'm just curious to know if there's any

[40:05] accommodation for that. So, I'm going to jump in and say that I I think we're

[40:08] really waiting into the detailed discussions that are still underway

[40:12] between the engineering and environmental experts on the other

[40:17] applications that are before council in terms of the zoning application and in

[40:22] terms of the site plan agreement uh with the district and township staff. And

[40:27] what I will very clearly state is that so far

[40:33] this proposed overland storm flow has not triggered any significant concerns

[40:42] from those township peerreview experts. However, there are still some issues

[40:47] with it, but they actually have to do more with the uh diameter of the storm

[40:52] water pipe that empties into this flow, not the interceptor um that is meant to

[41:00] sort materials. And in some respects, this overland flow

[41:05] moves any storm water away from the type one

[41:10] fish habitat. Um, but what I will say is that the turtle habitat is still in some

[41:16] question and so that is being looked at. But as I say, I think those details are

[41:21] being properly attended to through cycling.

[41:27] » Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks uh um Jeff. Just to further add to that, and

[41:32] of course, this is um water coming off the district road. Um, as some members

[41:38] of council might know, the district, um, Department of Environment and Public

[41:42] Works, um, and their director, James Steele, is very much part of that

[41:46] working group that that deals and is looking at salt and our discussions with

[41:50] district staff, very cognizant of that salt issue. So, that's top of mind in

[41:55] the consideration of this. >> Could I just maybe add one final thing

[42:00] if I may? Um, I agree with everything that's been said and and the salt piece

[42:05] is a bit beyond the purview, but just the final comment is that under the

[42:10] current scenario and historic scenario, there's no evidence that what's there

[42:15] now would meet ministry requirements or technical requirements, but the

[42:18] post-development situation that's proposed would all be designed to meet

[42:23] Ministry of the Environment requirements. So um there's things like

[42:27] oil and grit separators being proposed for the parking area and whatnot. So the

[42:32] clear message is that postdevelopment all ministry of environment requirements

[42:36] would be met and but we don't know the situation currently.

[42:39] » Thanks guys. >> Very good.

[42:42] » Any other uh questions or comments from the committee? Uh seeing none I will

[42:47] read the resolution that is moved uh by member Schmidt seconded by member

[42:53] Jarvis. Be it resolved that the committee of adjustment of the township

[42:57] of Georgia Bay grants provisional approval to consent application B26-14

[43:02] for an easement across parts of land municipally known as 135 Port 7 Road

[43:07] North for storm water uh overland flow group required for 48

[43:12] unit residential development on adjacent lands municipally known as 117

[43:18] uh Port 7 Road North and the decision is subject to the following conditions.

[43:23] One, that a draft reference plan be completed by an Ontario land surveyor

[43:27] and a digital copy submitted to the secretary treasurer of the committee of

[43:30] adjustment for confirmation by township planning staff that it is in substantial

[43:34] conformity with the consent sketch attached to the planning services report

[43:38] 2026-159 regarding application B26-14

[43:45] and two that a copy of the deposited reference plan be provided to

[43:50] the secretary treasur. Item three has been discussed uh and a lot of

[43:56] clarification from both the agent and the planner. So I won't uh read that uh

[44:02] portion again.

[44:10] We missing a page.

[44:16] » Technical difficulty please indulge

[44:21] there. It's the night shift thing you can't

[44:25] count on. >> I have the rest of

[44:31] » No, you go ahead. Uh, >> and that [clears throat] the owner

[44:34] provide property tax certificate or correspondence from the township

[44:37] financial services indicating that all property taxes have been paid up to date

[44:40] with respect to the subject uh or the property subject to this decision. And

[44:44] that a draft transfer be prepared by solicitor and submitted to the secretary

[44:48] treasurer in preparation for the creation of the certificate of official

[44:51] describing the easement and that all fees and dispersements legal engineering

[44:55] planning if any incurred by the township with respect to the application or the

[45:00] agreements required as conditions of the decision be paid by the owner.

[45:05] » Thank you very much. Um all those in in favor [clears throat]

[45:09] uh please indicate by raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the

[45:16] application is approved.

[45:26] Our next application is a minor variance application

[45:33] number A26-22 for 15 Silver Sands Lake Road. to the

[45:41] planner, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,

[45:45] Russell's going to be doing the presentation, but I just wanted to kind

[45:47] of make a little introduction to this one. As you know, this application was

[45:51] heard in July, um, July 17th, uh, by the committee of adjustment and was

[45:55] deferred. It was deferred so the committee of adjustment could obtain

[45:59] additional information and get some clarification on things. Um, there was

[46:04] no circulation recirculation required as um, nothing has changed in the

[46:09] application. The only reason it was deferred was so the committee members

[46:12] could receive additional information. So I just wanted to clarify that.

[46:16] » Thank you for that. >> Thank you and through the chair. As you

[46:21] may recall the subject lands are zone C3 highway commercial exception zone 10 are

[46:26] located approximately 1 kilometers to the south of MTR have a lot lot area of

[46:31] 8.27 27 acres, a frontage of 185 meters on Silver Sands Lake Road, and an

[46:37] exterior side yard frontage of 182.9 meters on Lake Joseph Road.

[46:44] The purpose and effect of this minor variance is to seek relief from the

[46:47] zoning bylaw to A facilitate the placement of two additional storage

[46:50] propane tanks, b facilitate the placement of a diesel fuel dispenser,

[46:54] and C to legalize two existing sheds. The bulk storage propane tanks would

[47:00] result in an exterior sideyard set back of 27 meters whereas 30 meters is

[47:04] required. The diesel fuel dispenser would result in an exterior sideyard set

[47:08] back of 3 meters whereas 5 meters is required. And the legalization of the

[47:12] existing sheds would result in exterior sideyard setbacks of 0.55 and 0.85

[47:17] meters whereas 5 meters are required.

[47:22] The committee responded with several fire and public safety concerns

[47:25] regarding planning staff's analysis uh of the requested variances during this

[47:29] July 17th hearing. The application was deferred pending receipt and review of

[47:33] the risk assessment plan respecting the proposed bulk propane storage tanks and

[47:38] diesel fuel dispenser and receipt of the comments from the township of Georgia

[47:41] Bay Fire Department uh regarding the proposed development and any associated

[47:46] fire and public safety considerations. The updated uh risk and safety

[47:51] management pan plan respecting the proposed tanks and dispenser was

[47:54] provided and approved by fire chief Chad Dael on July 20th, 2026. This approved

[48:00] plan was received from the fire department with no additional fire

[48:03] safety or fire protection concerns resulting from the proposed

[48:06] developments. The committee also inquired as to whether an increased f

[48:10] fireball radius or risk contours resulted from the proposed developments.

[48:14] The provided risk and safety management plan shows that the fireball radius is

[48:18] unchanged and that the calculated risk contours would expand by approximately

[48:23] 180 meters. This expanded contour includes approximately 250 to 300 square

[48:28] meters of the corner of one new property. Though the property's

[48:31] permitted uses do not conflict with the unsuitable uses of the plan barring

[48:34] childcare facilities. No correspondence has been received from this owner

[48:38] regarding the proposed variances and the current 1.6 six kilometer evacuation

[48:42] distance remains unchanged. Uh member Revette's concerns regarding

[48:47] the approved license capacity and missing contact information for the

[48:50] occupants of the adjacent properties were also addressed. Uh Patrick

[48:54] Kirkwood, uh agent and professional engineer, clarified that there are no

[48:58] licensing requirements for the 1,350 US water gallon tanks as they are for

[49:04] the heating and standby generator and not part of the propane filling plant

[49:07] license. Um he also clarified that there are no policies that require uh adjacent

[49:12] owner contact information as this changes over time and is handled

[49:15] appropriately by the emergency services in the result of an emergency.

[49:22] In summary, the committee has several options regarding the proposed

[49:25] development. The application can be approved, the application can be denied

[49:29] or the application can be deferred with reasons and identification of the

[49:32] additional information required for the committee to come to a decision.

[49:36] Planning staff are recommending approval of the variance as requested and are of

[49:40] the opinion that the committee's questions and concerns have been

[49:43] addressed. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh is the applicant or their

[49:48] agent present and do they wish to address the committee on this topic?

[49:54] » Please please step forward and identify yourself

[49:58] uh with name and address please for the record.

[50:02] » Uh I'm James Callo. I live at 1995 Oyer Circle in Sever.

[50:07] » Thank you. >> Patrick Kirkwood live at 110 Mckran Lane

[50:12] in Gravenhurst. >> Thank you very much. Uh well, we'll ask

[50:17] you to remain in case there are some questions. Uh is there any member of the

[50:21] public present that wishes to address the committee on this application? Okay,

[50:25] seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring the application before

[50:28] the committee for any questions or comments.

[50:33] Okay, we see no questions or comments and I think that's due to the fact that

[50:39] we spent a lot of time going through any concerns at our previous meeting and uh

[50:44] thank you very much to the planning department for addressing all of those.

[50:48] So, we're uh we're now better informed than we were last month. Thank you. Uh

[50:53] with that, I will read the resolution is moved by member Predco and seconded by

[50:57] member Schmidt. Be it resolved that the township of Georgia Bay committee of

[51:01] adjustment approves bind variance application A26-22

[51:05] to zoning bylaw 2014-75 as amended for 15 Silver Sands Lake Road to facilitate

[51:11] the placement of two bulk propane storage tanks, one diesel fuel dispenser

[51:17] and the legalization of two sheds as described below. uh one an exterior

[51:23] sideyard setback of the bulk storage tanks of 27 m whereas C310 bylaw

[51:29] 2015-12.4 permits a minimum of 30 m. Two, an

[51:36] exterior sideyard setback for the diesel fuel pump of 3 meters whereas section

[51:40] 10.3 permits a minimum of 5 meters. three external exterior sideyard

[51:47] setbacks of 0 55 meters for the easterly shed and a 0.85 meters for the westerly

[51:54] shed whereas section 10.3 permits a minimum of 5 meters. The above not

[51:59] approval is subject to the following conditions. One that the owner provide a

[52:03] property tax certificate or correspondence from township financial

[52:06] services indicating that all property taxes been paid up to date with respect

[52:10] to the property that is subject to this decision. Two, that the proposed bulk

[52:15] storage uh tanks and diesel fuel dispenser be substantially and

[52:19] proportionately in conformity with the dimensions as set on the application and

[52:23] site plan submitted and approved by the committee. And three, that the

[52:28] appropriate zoning certificate of building permit be obtained within three

[52:31] years from the date of decision from the township only after the committee's

[52:35] decision becomes final and binding. All those in favor, please indicate by

[52:39] raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the

[52:43] application is approved. Thank you everyone.

[52:50] Our next minor variance application is A26-25

[52:54] for 259 Haskit Drive. To the planner, please.

[53:22] That was a compliment. I think

[53:40] Thank you, Mr. Chair. The subject property no municipal has 259 Haskit

[53:44] Drive is located in within the 6 mile lake waterfront community boundary. The

[53:48] property has a lot frontage on 6mile lake of 39 m and is comprised of 3,32.63

[53:55] square meters. The shoreline is predominantly maintained in a natural

[53:59] state with mature trees and vegetation providing an effective buffer from the

[54:03] lake. A pre-application was completed on June

[54:07] 9th, 2026 for the construction of a detached garage on the subject lands. It

[54:12] was determined that in order to develop the property further, a minor variance

[54:15] would be required for a reduction in the minimum interior sideyard setback and an

[54:20] increase in the maximum lot coverage within 60 meters of the high water mark

[54:23] as well as the overall lot coverage. A minor variance application was received

[54:28] by the township on June 18th, 2026 and was deemed complete.

[54:34] The additional proposed development on the property is the construction of a

[54:37] 62.80 square meter detached garage. The detached garage is proposed to be a

[54:42] one-story in height and will meet the maximum height permitted as per section

[54:46] 4.1.11 of the zoning bylaw as well as the

[54:50] maximum ground floor area. As a recommended condition of approval, staff

[54:54] did recommend site plan approval in the report. How after however after sorry

[54:59] however upon further investigation it can be noted that site plan approval is

[55:03] not required and therefore the proposed condition number two as noted in the

[55:07] recommended resolution is not necessary. The property is within the six mile lake

[55:13] waterfront community boundary. The b the character of the six mile lake

[55:16] waterfront community is of a residential community composed of district distinct

[55:21] neighborhoods focused on the various basins of the lake. It consists of many

[55:25] island and mainland uses with a variety of access needs. This character shall be

[55:30] maintained and enhanced through careful land use planning. Legally existing uses

[55:34] which consist of residential uses, existing marinas, public access,

[55:38] launching areas, and large areas of crown land are permitted. Limited new

[55:42] single detached residential uses are permitted as per the policies of this

[55:46] official plan. the existing land use as well as the proposed detach detached

[55:51] garage would be recognized as a permitted use within the waterfront

[55:55] community. The preferred location of the proposed

[55:59] garage is to be 1.5 m from the interior sideyard due to the rock outcrop that is

[56:04] on the opposite side of the driveway. The owners did not want to blast in

[56:08] order to accommodate the garage at the required setback. There is still

[56:11] adequate room for cars to get past the garage and carry on to the main cottage

[56:15] location which is significantly sloped towards the lake.

[56:23] The committee has options in regards to this application. They can approve the

[56:27] application as recommended by planning staff, deny the application or defer the

[56:31] application with reasons identifying the additional information or actions that

[56:35] the committee of adjustment considers necessary to make a decision. staff are

[56:39] supportive of the variance request subject to the recommended conditions

[56:42] being included in an approved decision and the owner fulfilling the

[56:46] requirements of the conditions implemented. Thank you.

[56:49] » Thank you very much madam secretaries have been correspondents in this

[56:53] application. >> One letter was received from Kelly

[56:55] Nicholson, chief building official stating that building permits will be

[56:58] required and one letter of support was received from Wayne Zronic.

[57:04] Uh is the agent present and do they wish to identify themselves uh the committee?

[57:16] » Good morning committee. Uh my name is Victoria Hoffman from Flow Drawings and

[57:20] Design 3 Violet Drive. Um this application today is for a detached

[57:26] garage. Um the reduced setback as Deb explained is because of the topography

[57:32] of the property. They were kind of working with the rock that's on the

[57:35] other side of the property. Um we did receive a letter of support from the

[57:40] neighboring property that we're getting we're encroaching on. Um the purpose of

[57:44] the garage is just to basically put he has some stuff on the property now that

[57:49] he would like to store indoors. Um that includes tractor, snowb blower, boat

[57:53] trailer. Um he's looking for some secure storage for those items. Um he also has

[57:59] a seat can on the property that he would like to move that stuff out of and keep

[58:02] in an actual garage. It's a modest size garage. Um we also this morning we

[58:07] received a letter from the other neighboring property as well which Deb

[58:11] has so there was support on both sides. Um property owner is here behind me Carl

[58:16] Isis. Um but we're just here to answer any questions if you have any.

[58:20] » Okay. Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that wishes to

[58:24] address the committee on this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll

[58:27] close the public portion of the application and bring the matter before

[58:31] the committee for any questions or comments.

[58:35] And uh we'll begin with member Matthews. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's hard to beat

[58:39] Mr. Jarus today. He must slowly um Victoria, I'm just curious. A lot of

[58:46] times people come to us for um garages that are about twice as big as this.

[58:51] » Yeah. [laughter] >> Um I just wondered if that has been a

[58:54] consideration at all because if you're storing stuff, you can never really have

[58:58] enough storage in that price, right? >> Yeah. We had we had talked about it, but

[59:02] they just wanted this was the size they wanted and we didn't we didn't really

[59:05] push forward. >> That's great.

[59:08] » [snorts] >> Uh, member Smith,

[59:13] » I think it's evident by the room here there's support on this application, but

[59:16] I did have the opportunity to see the property from the water and from the

[59:20] from the landside and this is a logical spot for it to sit with the twist in the

[59:24] lane with the rock and always nice to see a letter of support from a

[59:27] neighboring property that this gets close to. So, thank you.

[59:31] » Okay, [clears throat] thank you. If there are no more questions, I'll read

[59:34] the resolution. It is moved by member Hazelton, separate uh seconded by member

[59:39] Matthews. Be it resolved that the township of Georgia Bay committee of

[59:43] adjustment approves minor variance application A26-25

[59:47] to zoning bylaw 2014-75 for 259 Haskitz Drive to seek relief

[59:55] from the zoning bylaw to facilitate the construction of a 62.8

[59:59] square meter NTA garage as described below.

[1:00:04] And uh we've seen that description uh based on the following conditions. Uh

[1:00:08] one that the owner provide a property tax certificate or correspondence from

[1:00:12] township financial services indicating that all property taxes have been paid

[1:00:16] up to date with respect to the property that is subject to this decision. Two,

[1:00:20] that the proposed detached garage is substantially in proportionate in

[1:00:23] conformity with the dimensions as set of the application and sketches submitted

[1:00:29] and approved by the committee. Three, that a qualified professional verify by

[1:00:33] pinning the foundation ball and verifying in writing or bor survey uh

[1:00:38] report uh prior to the pouring of the footings and no uh footings the

[1:00:43] foundation that the detach is no closer than 1.5

[1:00:48] m from the northern northerly uh interior line. and four that the

[1:00:54] appropriate zoning certificate of building permit be obtained within three

[1:00:58] years from the date of decision from the township only after the committee's

[1:01:01] decision becomes final and binding. All those in favor of approval, please

[1:01:06] indicate by raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the

[1:01:11] application is approved.

[1:01:15] Our next application is A26-26 for 39 Railway Street to the planner,

[1:01:24] please.

[1:01:31] » Thank you. And through the chair, the subject lands are zoned residential type

[1:01:35] 4 are located in Mtier, have a lot area of 1421.42

[1:01:41] 42 square meters or approximately 0.35 acres, a frontage of 31.09 meters on

[1:01:47] Railway Street, and an exterior sideyard frontage of 45.67 meters on Park Drive.

[1:01:53] The property is currently developed with a duplex dwelling and no other accessory

[1:01:57] structures.

[1:02:02] The purpose and effect of this minor variance is to seek relief from the

[1:02:04] zoning bylaw to facilitate the construction of a detached garage with a

[1:02:08] floor area of 133.6 m whereas 112 m is permitted by

[1:02:15] section 411D and a front yard setback of 4 meters

[1:02:19] whereas 7.5 m is required by section 411f.

[1:02:24] The subject property is designated urban center in both the district of Mskoka

[1:02:28] and township of Georgian Bay official plans. The proposed development conforms

[1:02:32] to the policies of this designation as it constitutes a permitted accessory use

[1:02:36] that is secondary to the existing residential dwelling which will remain

[1:02:40] the primary use of the property. Um the applicant has indicated that the garage

[1:02:44] um alongside the storage of vehicles and household items will be used to

[1:02:48] facilitate the um restoration of the dwelling at some point in the future.

[1:02:56] Uh purposes and intents of maintaining the front yard setback include

[1:02:59] maintaining clear sight lines to maintain public uh and road safety,

[1:03:03] accommodating utilities and associated maintenance, providing space for

[1:03:07] drainage and infiltration, maintaining privacy and green uh greenery and

[1:03:11] ensuring adequate parking is provided. Um despite the reduced uh front yard

[1:03:16] setback, an additional 10 meter buffer exists between the edge of the traveled

[1:03:20] road and the property boundary. This buffer contains the hydro and telephone

[1:03:24] utilities and ensures a clear sight line toward the intersection of park drive

[1:03:28] and railway street. Um it also retains adequate space for um snow removal and

[1:03:33] road maintenance. Um the lands across from the subject lands are shielded by a

[1:03:37] rock berm uh thereby screening it from the development. Um and the garage is

[1:03:41] positioned with this lesser setback to retain existing mature uh cedar trees

[1:03:45] and a rock outcropping on the property uh which also would likely uh retain uh

[1:03:50] screening from the adjacent property. While the garage can be realistically

[1:03:54] expected to accommodate some of the legal uh parking spaces due to its size

[1:03:58] but single uh road-facing vehicle door, the remainder of the two required spaces

[1:04:03] cannot be legally accommodated by the lesser front yard setback in front of

[1:04:06] the garage. Um, however, because the duplex dwelling is currently unoccupied

[1:04:10] and the subject lands are large enough to accommodate the required four parking

[1:04:14] spaces in a variety of future uh configurations, planning staff do not

[1:04:18] believe that it is currently necessary to determine the exact location of these

[1:04:21] parking spaces as part of this minor variance application.

[1:04:26] The lesser front yard setback of the detach garage also maintains the

[1:04:29] character of the neighborhood as detached garages on several surrounding

[1:04:32] properties uh are also positioned in the front yard with similar width.

[1:04:39] Uh purposes and intents of the maximum garage floor area include ensuring

[1:04:42] accessory structures remain subordinate to the um pre uh principal dwelling,

[1:04:47] preventing overdevelopment and minimizing visual impacts on the

[1:04:50] surrounding properties. The existing dwelling would remain prominent in scale

[1:04:54] as it is a wide two-story duplex dwelling and the proposed detached

[1:04:57] garages designed to be narrow yet deep. These subject lands are also large

[1:05:02] relative to the surrounding lots within the MTI urban center with a proposed lot

[1:05:05] coverage of 21.95% whereas 30% is permitted as covered

[1:05:11] previously. Privacy and access to sunlight from the surrounding properties

[1:05:13] would be largely maintained as the garage has been positioned to retain

[1:05:16] existing vegetation in the setback. Thus, planning staff are of the opinion

[1:05:20] that the proposed detached garage is minor in nature, appropriate and

[1:05:24] desirable for the use of the land, and maintains the general intent and purpose

[1:05:27] of the zoning bylaw and official plans.

[1:05:32] In summary, the committee has several options regarding the proposed

[1:05:35] development. The application can be approved, the application can

[1:05:38] [clears throat] be denied, or the application can be deferred with reasons

[1:05:41] and identification of the additional information required to come to a

[1:05:44] decision. For the reasons outlined, planning staff are supportive of the

[1:05:47] variances requested subject to recommended conditions, including that a

[1:05:51] driveway entrance permit is obtained for access to the garage. That concludes the

[1:05:55] presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you very much,

[1:05:59] Madam Secretary. There have been correspondence in this application.

[1:06:02] » One letter was received from Kelly Nicholson, chief building official,

[1:06:05] suiting that building permits will be required. And one letter was received

[1:06:08] from Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway Company noting that residential

[1:06:12] development within 500 meters of its rail corridor should account for all

[1:06:16] rail uh related safety, noise, vibration, drainage and access

[1:06:20] considerations associated with rail operations.

[1:06:23] » Thank you very much. Is the applicant present or there would you care to

[1:06:28] address the committee and add any uh information to what the planners

[1:06:31] provided? Nothing to add. I'll uh let's start by

[1:06:35] getting your name and address, please. >> My name is Kim Bradshaw and I live at 14

[1:06:40] Park Drive, just adjacent to 39 Railway. >> Okay, thank you very much. Uh is there

[1:06:47] any member of the public that's present that wishes to address the committee on

[1:06:51] this application? Okay, seeing none, I'll uh close the

[1:06:54] public portion, bring the application before the committee for any questions

[1:06:57] or comments. And

[1:07:02] I was about to say seeing none and then this hand went up.

[1:07:07] » Member Jarvis, >> I'm just curious. I I realized that

[1:07:10] there's not an issue with this, but what is what's the sideyard setback on this?

[1:07:15] I I missed I missed the number. So it's in the report. I missed it.

[1:07:19] » Uh 3 meters. >> Sorry.

[1:07:21] » 3 meters. >> Three meters to the sideyard. That was

[1:07:24] one like one drop. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay,

[1:07:29] thank you. Uh, if there are no further questions, I will read the resolution.

[1:07:33] Is moved by member Matthew, seconded by member Jarvis. Be it resolved that the

[1:07:39] township of Georgia Bay community of adjustment approves mine variance

[1:07:42] application A26-26 to zoning bylaw 2014-75

[1:07:48] as amended for 39 railway road to facilitate the construction of a

[1:07:52] detached garage as described below. one a floor area of 133.59

[1:07:58] square meters whereas 112 square meters are permitted and a front yard setback

[1:08:04] of 4 meters whereas 7.5 m is required. Uh the above noted approvals are subject

[1:08:11] to the following conditions. One that the owner provide a property tax

[1:08:14] certificate or correspondence from township financial services indicating

[1:08:18] that all property taxes been paid up to date with respect to the property that

[1:08:22] is subject to this decision. Two, that the proposed detached garage is

[1:08:26] substantially and proportionately in conformity with the dimensions as set

[1:08:30] out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the committee.

[1:08:34] And three, that the owner obtain a driveway entrance permit for garage

[1:08:38] access. And four, that an approved [clears throat] zoning bylaw certificate

[1:08:45] uh and building permit be obtained within three years from the date of

[1:08:48] decision from the township only after the committee's decision becomes final

[1:08:52] and binding. All those in favor, please indicate by raising your hand.

[1:08:57] Thank you. The motion is carried and the application is approved.

[1:09:04] » Our next application is minor variance A26-27

[1:09:11] for 368 Island 540 in Georgian Bay. To the planner, please.

[1:09:30] Thank you and through your chair. The subject property is located on

[1:09:34] present island and has an area of 0.45 acres with a frontage of 38.9 meters

[1:09:40] onto Georgian Bay. A detached dwelling and a dot currently occupy the lands.

[1:09:45] Present Island is characterized as having pockets of dench vegetation,

[1:09:48] beachfront shoreline, and dwellings and accessory buildings in part being

[1:09:52] visible from the water. The purpose and effect of the

[1:09:56] application is to seek relief from the zoning bylaw to facilitate the

[1:10:00] construction of a covered deck at the front wall of the existing dwelling

[1:10:03] encroaching into the required front yard setback of 20 m. Section 4.13 of the

[1:10:09] zoning bylaw permits a maximum front yard encroachment of 2 meters for

[1:10:13] porches or screen porches, whereas an encroachment of 4.4 meters is proposed.

[1:10:20] The subject proposal consists of a cover deck addition to the existing

[1:10:23] residential use and does not introduce a new land use, increase residential

[1:10:27] density or alter the establishment established pardon function of the

[1:10:32] property. Rather, it is a modest improvement to the existing dwelling and

[1:10:36] enhances the usability of outdoor amenity space while maintaining the

[1:10:39] property's residential character. Given the limited scale of the proposal, its

[1:10:43] compatibility with surrounding development, and the maintenance of the

[1:10:47] existing residential use and waterprint character of the property, staff will

[1:10:50] find the prop that the proposed covered deck represents a desirable and

[1:10:54] appropriate development. Subject property is designated

[1:10:58] waterfront and is not located with any coastal or inland waterfront communities

[1:11:03] within the township's official plan. The waterfront designation recognizes

[1:11:07] residential uses and accessory buildings and structures as permitted uses. The

[1:11:12] proposed development is compatible with the existing pattern of residential

[1:11:15] development along Georgian Bay and specifically on present island. The

[1:11:20] waterfront landscape is characterized primarily by dwellings visible from the

[1:11:23] water together with a variety of shoreline structures and accessory

[1:11:27] buildings located within the sides or rear yards. The front facade of the

[1:11:31] dwelling will remain visible to the water although it will be continued to

[1:11:35] be partially screened and framed by vegetation present on the subject lands.

[1:11:42] The intent of limiting deck encroachments into the front yard on

[1:11:45] waterfront lots is to ensure that the development remains appropriately set

[1:11:48] back from the shoreline, maintains a visual character of the waterfront, and

[1:11:52] preserves a balance between natural and built form. In this regard, the proposed

[1:11:56] covered deck continues to respect the overall intent of the zoning provision.

[1:12:00] While the deck will be covered, the proposed proposal does not overall

[1:12:04] increase the width or height of the dwelling and therefore does not

[1:12:07] materially alter the scale, massing or vis visual prominence of the building.

[1:12:12] As a result, the development does not contribute to a noticeable

[1:12:15] intensification of built form within the front yard. As shown on screen, the

[1:12:20] proposed development includes the removal of the existing open deck at the

[1:12:24] front of the dwelling, which currently encroaches 3.8 8 m into the front yard

[1:12:27] and the construction of the new covered deck which will only increase 0.6 m

[1:12:32] encroachment into the required front yard.

[1:12:36] The committee can either approve or deny the variance being requested. The

[1:12:40] committee may also defer the application to a later date if additional

[1:12:44] information is required to come to a decision. Planning staff have completed

[1:12:47] a detailed analysis of the variance of the zoning bylaw being requested and are

[1:12:51] recommending approval subject to conditions. Thank you.

[1:12:54] » Thank you. Have we had correspondence in this application?

[1:12:58] » One letter was received from Kaylee Nicholson, chief building official,

[1:13:01] stating that she has concerns regarding the proposed location of the west deck

[1:13:04] due to the septic proximity. >> Thank you. Is the applicant present and

[1:13:09] do they wish to address the committee on this application?

[1:13:22] Hi [laughter] Are you still at Violet Drive?

[1:13:26] » I am. Have it moved. >> You still Victoria Hoffman?

[1:13:29] » Yes, I am. >> Very good.

[1:13:31] » Answered all the questions. >> Um,

[1:13:37] sorry. So, yes, this application, the existing structure has a setback of 15.8

[1:13:42] m, um, which is the open deck foundation and a retaining wall. What we're trying

[1:13:47] to do is work off of that, but cover the new deck. Um the new deck will be

[1:13:53] squared off with the building whereas the old one kind of jutted in from the

[1:13:56] corners a little bit which is what brings us to the slightly reduced um set

[1:14:00] front setback from 15.8 to 15.6 m. Um the roof line will be continuous. It'll

[1:14:07] be a straight gable out. So from the water the idea is that it's going to

[1:14:09] look very similar. Um and basically just covering a space that he already has.

[1:14:13] Um, we did look into the septic locations and we do meet all the

[1:14:18] building code requirements and Kaylee did acknowledge that in an email that

[1:14:22] came after her comments. She's not here but

[1:14:26] here to answer any questions. The property owner is also in the room. Mark

[1:14:29] Wagner at the back there, but we're just here to answer. Oh, is here.

[1:14:36] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[1:14:38] » Um, we have a hand up. Oh, from Kaylee Nicholson, our chief

[1:14:45] building official. Did you have a wish to make a comment, Kaylee? Go ahead.

[1:14:50] » You bet. Uh through you, chair. I just wanted to make note that uh my comments

[1:14:53] had been updated. We did uh um go through and receive a new site plan from

[1:14:59] Victoria and uh we no longer have concerns.

[1:15:03] » Okay, thank you very much for that clarification. Is there any member of

[1:15:07] the public present that wishes to address the committee on this

[1:15:10] application? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public portion, bring the

[1:15:14] application before the committee for questions or comments.

[1:15:19] And seeing none, I will read the resolution. Uh, be it

[1:15:25] resolved that the Township of Georgian Bay Committee of Adjustment approves

[1:15:28] binder variance application A26-27 to zoning B 2014-75 as amended for 368

[1:15:36] Island 540 Georgia Bay to facilitate the construction of a covered deck on the

[1:15:41] front wall of an existing drawing as described below. Uh, one an encroachment

[1:15:47] of 4.4 meters into the required front yard setback whereas a maximum

[1:15:50] encroachment of 2 meters is permitted. The above noted approvals are subject to

[1:15:55] the following conditions. One, that the owner provide a property tax certificate

[1:15:59] or correspondence from township financial services indicating that all

[1:16:03] property taxes have been paid up to date with respect to the property that is

[1:16:06] subject to this decision. Two, that the proposed covered deck be

[1:16:10] substantially in proportionately in conformity with the dimensions as set

[1:16:14] out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the committee.

[1:16:18] and three, that the appropriate zoning certificate building permit be obtained

[1:16:21] within three years from the date of decision from the township only after

[1:16:25] the committee's decision becomes final and binding. All those in favor, please

[1:16:29] indicate by raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the

[1:16:35] application is approved.

[1:16:41] Our next application is A26-28

[1:16:46] for 98 Driftwood Lane. To the planner, please.

[1:16:54] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. The subject property known as known

[1:16:58] municipally as 98 Driftwood Lane is located within the Six Mile Lake

[1:17:01] waterfront community boundary. The property has a lot frontage on six mile

[1:17:05] lake approximately 56 meters and is comprised of 0.34 hectares. It is

[1:17:10] identified as a budding and narrow water body with ingress and egress to the

[1:17:14] property crossing property owned by the Ministry of Natural Resources from

[1:17:17] Driftwood Lane. The property has a fairly natural short natural has a

[1:17:22] fairly natural shoreline with some mature trees which will be retained.

[1:17:28] The current owners of the property took possession of the lot in 2024. An

[1:17:32] application for a minor variance was received by the township on July 10th,

[1:17:36] 2026 and deemed complete. At the present time, there is a detached dwelling on

[1:17:41] the property that was constructed in 1956.

[1:17:44] According to the site plan submitted, there's also an existing sleeping cabin,

[1:17:48] detached garage, and a carport that is not recognized by EMPAC. The owners wish

[1:17:52] to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling with a walkout

[1:17:56] basement, but will not be utilizing the non-conforming footprint for the

[1:18:00] existing dwelling. The property, as stated, is within the Six Mile Lake

[1:18:04] waterfront community. The township does have a building permit records on the

[1:18:08] property for a new septic system in 2020, and a detached garage and a dock

[1:18:12] in 2025. The new structure is to be moved back

[1:18:15] further on the property, but will not meet the minimum high watermark setback,

[1:18:19] maximum lot coverage, maximum gross floor area permitted, as well as the

[1:18:23] maximum width permitted for a dwelling. The owners wish to demolish the existing

[1:18:28] dwelling and construct a larger new dwelling further away from the high

[1:18:32] water mark. The new dwelling will be 224.2

[1:18:35] square meters which includes an attached deck. No additional work is to take

[1:18:39] place on the shoreline of the property. As the lot is less than 4,000 square

[1:18:44] meters in size, there is a maximum gross floor area and maximum width of a

[1:18:48] dwelling in the sixmile lake waterfront community. A minor variance is required

[1:18:52] as the size of the new dwelling will be 34.2 2 square meters larger than

[1:18:57] permitted in the SR6 zone. The width will be 6.49 m wider than permitted and

[1:19:02] an increase in the maximum lot coverage and a reduction in the minimum high

[1:19:06] water mark setback. There was an error in the report under [clears throat] the

[1:19:09] proposal heading indicating that the dwelling would be 34% larger where it

[1:19:14] should have been 34.2 square meters larger than the permitted gross floor

[1:19:18] area at 190 square meters. Comments were received by the chief building official

[1:19:23] who has expressed concerns regarding the feasibility of installing a new sewage

[1:19:26] system and the potential constraints including the minimum setback to the

[1:19:30] high water mark as well as required clearance clearances from existing hydro

[1:19:34] lines. The property as stated is within the six mile lake waterfront community

[1:19:40] and as committee is aware that there is a specific character that is permitted

[1:19:44] and looked at in the six mile lake waterfront community. the existing land

[1:19:48] use as well as the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a

[1:19:51] new detached dwelling would be recognized as a permitted use within

[1:19:55] this waterfront community.

[1:20:00] As you can see in the pictures, there are some areas on the property upon

[1:20:04] visiting it that um has started to erode on the shoreline here. has been pointed

[1:20:09] out and this is the location where the new dwelling is to be back in here and

[1:20:14] the existing cottage is only 5 mters from the high water mark as you can see

[1:20:18] which we're going to be moving back. The lands within 15 meters of the high

[1:20:24] watermark on all lots in any shoreline residential zone or shoreline

[1:20:28] residential island zone shall be maintained in a natural state with this

[1:20:31] area being considered the natural shoreline area. A shoreline activity

[1:20:36] area shall be permitted within the natural state shoreline area to provide

[1:20:39] access to the shoreline and locations for land-based shoreline accessory

[1:20:43] buildings and structures. In the SR6 zone, the shoreline activity area shall

[1:20:48] be a maximum of 25% of the natural state shoreline area and shall have a maximum

[1:20:53] width of 25% of the shoreline length at any point within 15 meters of the high

[1:20:58] water mark. As the existing dwelling is being demolished and the new dwelling is

[1:21:02] being located farther away from the high water mark, there'll be ample area to

[1:21:06] plant native vegetation and better the natural state shoreline area existing.

[1:21:11] Staff are recommending a condition that an area of approximately 34 square

[1:21:15] meters of additional native plantings be incorporated into the development plan.

[1:21:20] This is to be located within 15 meters of the shoreline and has been calculated

[1:21:24] based on the difference in the increase in the gross floor area being sought. A

[1:21:29] landscape plan will be required to be incorporated into the site plan

[1:21:32] agreement which can be prepared by the applicant and based on identified native

[1:21:36] plants to this area. Staff are supportive of the variance

[1:21:41] request subject to the recommended conditions being included in an approved

[1:21:44] decision and the owner fulfilling the requirements of the conditions

[1:21:48] implemented. The committee adjustment members do have options. They can

[1:21:51] approve the application as recommended by planning staff, deny the application

[1:21:55] or defer the application with re reasons, identifying the additional

[1:21:59] information or actions that the committee of adjustment considers

[1:22:02] necessary to make a decision. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Has there been

[1:22:07] correspondence on this application? One letter was received from Kelly

[1:22:11] Nicholson, chief building official, stating that building permits will be

[1:22:14] required and only issued where the sewage system and dwelling can be built

[1:22:17] in compliance with the Ontario building code.

[1:22:20] » Thank you. Is the applicant present and do they wish to address the committee on

[1:22:24] this application?

[1:22:29] » Please uh turn on the mic and give us your name, address, please. It's Rob

[1:22:35] Carzwell at 130 Heath Valley Trail on Port 7.

[1:22:40] » Thank you. And uh did you have anything to add to what the planner had provided

[1:22:45] so far? >> No.

[1:22:46] » Okay. Then uh please hang in there in case there are questions from the uh

[1:22:51] committee. Is there any member of the public that's present that wishes to

[1:22:54] address the committee on this application? Okay. Seeing none, I'll

[1:22:58] close the public portion and bring the application before the committee for any

[1:23:01] questions or comments. And let's begin with member Predco.

[1:23:06] » Thank you. And through you, chair. Um just two questions on the um the zoning

[1:23:11] bylaw restrictions and and then and the um proposals. Um the maximum GFA 190 m

[1:23:19] squared. That's the the actual maximum amount. It's not the per percentage

[1:23:25] increase allowed. Okay. So, they're going over the maximum. And then in

[1:23:29] terms of the maximum width, the cottage is on a bit of an angle from the

[1:23:33] shoreline. So that is to the detriment of this calculation. Is that correct? So

[1:23:37] does it include the deck as well? So do we know if the what the I I'd have to

[1:23:44] look at the the report again in terms of the width of the the dwelling

[1:23:50] square on is it is it closer to where we need it to be?

[1:23:56] And maybe the Asian can answer that.

[1:24:12] » Okay. Okay. I mean, I I guess the only other concerns would be then if you

[1:24:17] can't find a a suitable place for septic, but that's a condition on the

[1:24:22] the report, so I'm fine with that. Okay, that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Member

[1:24:27] Jarvis, do you have a question? >> Yes. Thank you, Susan. To you, chair,

[1:24:31] quickly, um to the planner. Um I know we're rebuilding here, but if this was a

[1:24:36] totally new build, what would be the permitted size?

[1:24:40] » Is that the one >> 190

[1:24:45] need that clarification? Thanks. >> Good. Thank you. Uh member Smith,

[1:24:50] » thank you through uh chair. um on this on this property. Uh and I and I correct

[1:24:57] me, but I thought the GFA numbers were going away. That hasn't happened yet.

[1:25:03] Okay. But here's an example of a property that is uh soon as you get

[1:25:08] below one acre, you drop from 275. The arbit arbitrary numbers goes from 275

[1:25:15] right down to 190. This property is currently sitting at 085 of an acre. So,

[1:25:21] we're like this much from what 275 would be permitted. And I do believe and I did

[1:25:28] do a site visit again both sides of this property. I spoke to the neighboring

[1:25:32] property to the east um west of Blooms. They have no issue. They didn't they're

[1:25:37] pretty quiet people. They wouldn't do a letter normally. Um

[1:25:42] but I I think because of the way it's situated on the property, again, that is

[1:25:46] the width. same thing we ran into at the Stokes property on um um near the fish

[1:25:52] sanctuary. So, um I think this does fit as an improvement and it will be setting

[1:25:57] the property back significantly because it is right on the shoreline now. Um so,

[1:26:02] that's my my comments. Thank you. >> Any further uh questions or comments?

[1:26:10] Uh seeing none, I will uh read the resolution.

[1:26:15] It is moved by member Matthews and seconded by member Schmidt. Be it

[1:26:20] resolved that the Township of Georgia Bay Committee of Adjustment approves

[1:26:22] minor variance application A26-28 to zoning bylaw 2014-75

[1:26:29] for 98 Driftwood Lane to seek relief from the zoning bylaw to facilitate the

[1:26:34] construction of a 224.2 2 square meter detached dwelling as

[1:26:40] described in uh detail in the application and on the resolution

[1:26:46] uh subject to the following conditions. One, that the owner provide a property

[1:26:50] tax certificate or correspondence from township financial services indicating

[1:26:54] that all property taxes have been paid up to date with respect to the property

[1:26:58] that is subject to this decision. two, that the proposed detached dwelling is

[1:27:03] substantially and proportionately in conformity with the dimensions as set

[1:27:07] out on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the committee.

[1:27:11] And three, that the applica applicant uh be required to submit a landscape plan

[1:27:16] providing uh the renaturalization of 34 square

[1:27:20] meters area within 15 meters of high water mark to be included in a site plan

[1:27:25] agreement. and four, that the applicant be required to submit an erosion and

[1:27:30] sediment control plan to be included in a site plan agreement. Five, that the

[1:27:37] applicant apply for and obtain site plan approval from the township of Georgia

[1:27:40] Bay, including if required, the execution and registration of a site

[1:27:45] plan agreement against the title of the lands. And six, that a qualified

[1:27:49] professional verify by pitting the foundation wall and verifying in writing

[1:27:54] or by way of a survey. uh prior to the pouring of the footing that no or and

[1:27:59] [clears throat] if no footing the foundation that the attached dwelling is

[1:28:02] no closer than 13 meters from the high water mark. And seven, that the

[1:28:08] appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained within 3

[1:28:11] years from the date of decision from the township only after the committee's

[1:28:15] decision becomes final and binding. All those in favor, please indicate by

[1:28:20] raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the

[1:28:24] application is approved.

[1:28:31] Thank you, sir. And u our next minor variance application is A26-29

[1:28:38] for 192 wild rice trail to the planner, please.

[1:28:55] Thank you. And through you, chair. The subject property has an area of 2.81

[1:28:59] acres with a frontage of 61.8 m onto SixMile Lake. A detached dwelling,

[1:29:05] detached garage, dryland boat house, and two docks currently occupy the lands.

[1:29:10] The majority of the property is maintained in its natural state with

[1:29:12] areas of clearing occurring for the driveway, septic system, and immediate

[1:29:16] surrounding area of the existing and proposed development of the lands. The

[1:29:20] existing dwelling has a gross floor area of 70.6 square meters and maintains all

[1:29:24] required yard setbacks. The purpose and effect of the

[1:29:29] application is to seek relief from the zoning bylaw to facilitate the

[1:29:32] construction of a dwelling addition. The following variances are required to

[1:29:36] facilitate the construction of the addition. an increase in lot coverage to

[1:29:40] 9.94% whereas section 6.3 table 6.2 permits a maximum lot coverage of 8%. An

[1:29:47] increase in dwelling gross floor area to 293.57

[1:29:52] m whereas section 6.3B permits a maximum gross floor area of

[1:29:57] 275 m and an increase in dwelling width to 19.9 m where section 6.3C

[1:30:05] permits a maximum width of 15.45 four or five meters.

[1:30:10] Lock coverage limitations within the shoreline residential zones are intended

[1:30:14] to achieve an appropriate balance between natural features and built form,

[1:30:18] prevent overdevelopment, protect natural heritage resources, and maintain the low

[1:30:22] density character of the waterfront designation.

[1:30:25] In this case, the proposed dwelling expansion will be largely screened from

[1:30:28] the shoreline by mature vegetation located within both the front and side

[1:30:32] yards of the subject property and adjacent lands. In addition, the

[1:30:36] existing detached garage, which contributes significantly to the

[1:30:39] property's current lot coverage, is not visible from the shoreline due to

[1:30:43] extensive vegetation buffering and the elevation difference between the

[1:30:46] shoreline and the plateau on which the structure is situated. The docks in the

[1:30:51] dryland boat house are the only three structures located within the 30 meter

[1:30:54] frontyard setback. The subject property is located within

[1:30:59] the six mile lake inland waterfront community. Variances to the established

[1:31:03] maximum size and/or width of a dwelling may be considered where the applicant

[1:31:06] provides evidence satisfactory to the township that the dwelling will maintain

[1:31:10] and enhance the natural form of the area. The visual impact of the dwelling

[1:31:15] will not be significant and is in accordance with all other applicable

[1:31:19] policies of the plan. While the proposed redevelopment will result in in an

[1:31:23] increase to dwelling facade, the existing natural form of the property

[1:31:27] will be retained given the retention of the front yard setback in its natural

[1:31:31] state. As a result, the proposed development will continue to blend with

[1:31:35] the natural shoreline landscape and maintain the aesthetic integrity and the

[1:31:38] established character of the community. As illustrated by the site photo

[1:31:42] displayed, the docks and dryland boat house continue to represent the most

[1:31:46] visually prominent forms of development when viewed from the lake.

[1:31:51] The subject property is designated waterfront within the townships and

[1:31:54] district's official plans. The waterfront designation recognizes

[1:31:57] residential development, accessory uses, and structures included shore related

[1:32:01] uses as permitted uses. The development permitted should enhance and protect

[1:32:06] natural heritage qualities and shall be compatible with the existing land uses

[1:32:10] in the area having regard for aesthetic quality. Although relief is required for

[1:32:15] maximum lot coverage, dwelling gross floor area and dwelling width

[1:32:18] provisions, the dwell development remains appropriate in the context of

[1:32:21] the surrounding development patterns and physical characteristics. The proposed

[1:32:25] dwelling addition can be accommodated on the property while maintaining the

[1:32:28] minimum front yard setback without the removal of significant natural

[1:32:32] vegetation. The committee can either deny or approve

[1:32:37] any of the variances being requested. The committee may also defer the

[1:32:40] application to a later date if additional information is required to

[1:32:43] come to a decision. Planning staff have completed a detailed analysis of the

[1:32:46] variances to the zoning bylaw being requested and are recommending approval

[1:32:50] subject to conditions. Thank you. >> Thank you for that. Uh madam secretary,

[1:32:56] there have been correspondence in this application. One letter was received

[1:32:59] from Kelly Nicholson, chief building official, stating that building permits

[1:33:02] will be required and recommending a condition is imposed for occupancy or

[1:33:06] final inspection to be completed prior to the issuance of a zoning certificate.

[1:33:10] And five letters of support were received from Jack and Marne Petri,

[1:33:14] Robert and Brenda Pritchard, Mike and Wendy Bradley, Patty and Dave Elsie, and

[1:33:19] Ted and Alen Parkinson. >> Thank you. Uh, is the applicant or their

[1:33:25] agent present? And do they wish to address the committee?

[1:33:35] Are you still Victoria Hoffman flow controls

[1:33:39] three Violet Drive board sever? >> Yeah.

[1:33:45] » So >> yeah, it's me.

[1:33:48] » And did you have anything to add to the planner comments?

[1:33:53] » Yeah, I mean Andrew presented it. Great. As always, um we're asking for an

[1:33:58] additional lot coverage of a little under 2% 1.94. We are going over the six

[1:34:04] mile GFA cap at by 18 and a half square meters and then our width is increasing

[1:34:11] um to 19.9 or 15.4 is allowed. Um the property owners moved up here

[1:34:18] permanently May 2025. Um the existing one-bedroom cottage just isn't cutting

[1:34:24] it for them. Um they're also preparing for family growth and hopefully

[1:34:29] grandkids. Um they need more storage within the home. Um and

[1:34:35] they want to stop paying for storage units in Wabashene. Um throughout this

[1:34:40] design, aging in place was kept in mind. The screen porch was a really big

[1:34:43] priority as well as adequate mechanical because now that they're living there

[1:34:47] full-time, um they just need to kind of have a space where they can update those

[1:34:50] things. the mechanical was the reason that our gross

[1:34:55] floor area popped over what we were allowed. Um, and the width increased

[1:35:01] because we expanded in the three sides. We couldn't expand to the back because

[1:35:04] of the septic system and the four and a half meters that the width went over is

[1:35:08] basically the mscopa room. Um, Gary Lions is here to answer any questions as

[1:35:13] well, but again here to here to answer. >> Thank you very much. Is there any member

[1:35:19] of the public uh present or online that wishes to address the committee on this

[1:35:23] application? Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public

[1:35:27] portion, bring the application uh before the committee uh for any questions or

[1:35:31] comments. And I just had one quick question at the beginning when we're

[1:35:35] talking about um a closedin portion of the dwelling. Is it the roof or the

[1:35:43] screening or both that adds to the GFA? whereas an open deck would not.

[1:35:48] » It would be any area under a roof overhang of 1.2 meters or greater from

[1:35:53] the exterior wall. >> So screening is

[1:35:57] » screening it in or whether it be open for an open deck, it's still included in

[1:36:01] gross floor area. >> Okay. So just to be clear that the

[1:36:07] screening doesn't by itself obviously you wouldn't screen it if you didn't

[1:36:11] have a roof. So, uh, well, maybe some people would, but you

[1:36:18] had a question, members. >> I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole

[1:36:22] of GFA. Um, because literally as soon as you have a the slightest bit of a porch

[1:36:27] and any rules of real estate, which I participate in, it's not included in

[1:36:33] square footage. So, but I did because I can't help myself. Um, so I'm gonna

[1:36:39] climb back out of that rabbit hole through chair. Oh, yes it is. I just

[1:36:43] have I'm just I'm just speaking quietly and passionately here, but um again had

[1:36:48] a site visit on this property and literally you have to get to the edge of

[1:36:52] the dock to be able to see up through the tree line. Um Gary's property

[1:36:57] respectfully is pretty humble in its current state in comparison to Wild Rice

[1:37:01] Bay. Wild Rice Bay is one of the later lakes areas developed which have some

[1:37:06] pretty significant size and large larger properties as well. So, anyways, had a

[1:37:10] good look at it and uh look forward to you being on the lake full-time and

[1:37:14] getting this passed. Cheers. >> Thank you. Any further uh questions or

[1:37:19] comments on this application? Uh seeing none, I will read uh the resolution. It

[1:37:25] is moved by member Predco, seconded by member Hazelton. Uh, be it resolved that

[1:37:31] the Township of Georgia Bay Committee of Adjustment approves minor variance

[1:37:34] application A26-29 to zoning bylaw 2014-75 as amended for

[1:37:41] 192 Wild Rice Trail to facilitate the construction of a dwelling addition as

[1:37:46] described below. One uh an in an increase excuse me you had another

[1:37:51] question. >> Oh, it's Dave again.

[1:37:55] Remember Matthews caution you. My humble apologies for

[1:38:00] » Okay. Uh as so we're looking for uh facilitate

[1:38:06] the construction of a dwelling addition as described below. One, an increase in

[1:38:10] lot coverage to 9.94% whereas section 63 table 6.2 permits a

[1:38:16] maximum lot coverage of 8%. Two, an increase in dwelling gross floor

[1:38:21] area to 293.57 square meters. Whereas section 6.3.3

[1:38:27] permits a maximum gross for area of 275 square meters and an increase in the

[1:38:33] dwelling width to 19.9 m whereas section 6.3

[1:38:39] permits a maximum width of 15.45 m. The above noted approvals are subject to the

[1:38:45] following conditions. One, that the owner provide a property tax certificate

[1:38:49] or correspondence from Township Financial Services, indicating that all

[1:38:53] property taxes when paid up to date with respect to the property that's subject

[1:38:57] to this decision. And two, that the proposed addition be substantially and

[1:39:01] proportionately in conformity with the dimensions as set out on the application

[1:39:05] and sketches submitted and approved by the committee. And three, that the owner

[1:39:10] obtain final occupancy for the existing detached dwelling prior to the issuing

[1:39:15] of zoning certificate for the proposed addition and deck. And that the

[1:39:20] appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be obtained within three

[1:39:23] years from the date of decision from the township only after the committee's

[1:39:28] decision becomes final and binding. All those in favor, please indicate by

[1:39:32] raising your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the

[1:39:36] application is approved.

[1:39:43] Our next uh and final application is minor variance application A26-30

[1:39:50] for two Ireland 3150 in Georgian Bay to the planner please.

[1:40:06] » Thank you. and through the chair. The subject property comprises

[1:40:11] approximately 1.2 hectares of land above the high water mark and has 178 m of

[1:40:17] frontage on Georgian Bay. The island property is located within the Go Home

[1:40:21] Bay coastal waterfront community situated south of Long Island and north

[1:40:26] of High Rock Island. The property is developed with a dwelling featuring a

[1:40:29] wraparound porch, deck, a sleeping cabin, and a dock.

[1:40:35] The purpose and effect of the application is to seek relief from the

[1:40:38] zoning bylaw to facilitate the expansion of the dwelling and a new septic system.

[1:40:43] The proposed dwelling has a gross floor area of 233.68

[1:40:48] square me whereas the zoning bylaw permits a maximum gross floor area of

[1:40:53] 200 square meters. The addition is comprised of a screened porch, new

[1:40:58] kitchen layout, a second bathroom, a fourth bedroom, and a covered deck.

[1:41:04] » [snorts] >> The septic system will have a setback of

[1:41:07] 25.8 meters from 178.3 CDD whereas the zoning by requires a minimum setback of

[1:41:13] 30 m from this contour in the go home bay coastal waterfront community.

[1:41:22] The District of Muskoka official plan states that development should preserve

[1:41:26] natural form and function by maintaining shoreline integrity, retaining

[1:41:30] vegetation and tree cover, and conserving significant natural landscape

[1:41:34] features. It also states new development should generally exhibit a physical

[1:41:37] character that is similar to or compatible with existing development in

[1:41:42] terms of density, lot size, maximum building height, and minimum setbacks to

[1:41:47] ensure overall neighborhood compatibility.

[1:41:49] A review of seven surrounding island and shoreline properties found that

[1:41:53] dwellings have floor areas ranging from 108 to 172 square meters, not including

[1:41:58] their porches or covered decks. As these features are included in the gross area

[1:42:03] calculation for the proposed dwelling, the comparison is conservative and the

[1:42:06] actual gross floor areas of the surveyed dwellings are likely larger and more

[1:42:11] comparable to the proposed dwelling. inclusive of porches and covered decks.

[1:42:16] The proposed dwelling will have a gross floor area just under 234 square meters.

[1:42:21] Staff are of the opinion the development remains compatible with the character of

[1:42:25] the surrounding waterfront area as it will maintain a singlestory form, comply

[1:42:29] with all minimum setback requirements, and locate the expansion within the

[1:42:32] central portion of the island. The district also requires a minimum 30 m

[1:42:37] setback from the shoreline for new leeching beds. The proposed septic

[1:42:40] system is more than 30 meters from the shoreline.

[1:42:47] The township official plan requires septic systems to be located a minimum

[1:42:50] of 30 meters from the high water mark and above the regulatory flood elevation

[1:42:55] and permits a reduction to be considered through the implementation of a

[1:42:58] phosphorus management plan with the intent of the policy to ensure systems

[1:43:02] are cited in locations that provide effective phosphorus management and

[1:43:06] protect water quality. The proposed septic system exceeds the required 30

[1:43:10] meter setback from the high water mark and will be subject to Ontario building

[1:43:14] code requirements. The system is proposed in substantially the same

[1:43:17] location as the existing system within the central portion of the island where

[1:43:21] the greatest concentration of vegetation and soils exist.

[1:43:26] The go home bay coastal waterfront community identifies additional policies

[1:43:30] and criteria for consideration of minor variance applications. This includes

[1:43:34] considering the size in relation to the shoreline frontage lot area and the low

[1:43:39] density and intensity nature of the community. The sighting of the

[1:43:42] development to minimize impact on existing development and to provide

[1:43:46] privacy. The reduction of the visual impact of the development from the water

[1:43:50] including but not limited to building height and the built form guidelines.

[1:43:54] The built form guidelines specific to dwellings include new construction and

[1:43:58] renovation shall respect the longestablished character of development

[1:44:02] in the community and its unique sense of place. Dwellings shall generally be

[1:44:06] limited to a maximum gross floor area of 200 square meters and 1 and a half

[1:44:10] stories or 6 m in height and may be permitted to reach a maximum gross floor

[1:44:14] area of 265 square meters with the permission through the minor variance

[1:44:18] process in accordance with the community's goals and objectives.

[1:44:22] In evaluating the proposal against the criteria for minor variances,

[1:44:26] consideration has been given to the size of the dwelling relative to the lot

[1:44:29] frontage, lot area, and the low density, low inensity character of the community.

[1:44:34] The one-story addition is centrally located on the island, maximizing

[1:44:38] shoreline setbacks and minimizing vis, excuse me, visibility from Georgian Bay

[1:44:42] and neighboring properties. The resulting gross floor area of 233.68 68

[1:44:47] m remains below the 265 square meter maximum generally contemplated through

[1:44:52] minor varian process. The proposal maintains the existing architectural

[1:44:56] character through the use of wood siding and a steel roof while mature vegetation

[1:45:00] and granite outcrops provide natural screening. Overall the proposal

[1:45:04] maintains the intent of the built form policies by limiting visual impacts and

[1:45:09] preserving the established wilderness cottage character of the go home bay

[1:45:12] community.

[1:45:16] The subject lands are zone go home bay shoreline residential island or SR

[1:45:21] excuse me SRI3. Aside from gross floor area, the

[1:45:25] dwelling exceeds all other requirements of the zone. Considering the modest

[1:45:29] increase in gross floor area requested and the retention of generous shoreline

[1:45:32] setbacks, low coverage, and the existing building height, the proposal is

[1:45:37] considered consistent with the intent of the provisions of the community.

[1:45:41] Specific to the community, a minimum setback of 30 meters from 178.3 CGD is

[1:45:47] required for septic systems. Achieving this setback would require the septic

[1:45:51] system to be relocated to the west side of the island. As stated by chief

[1:45:55] building official, the proposed replacement septic system location is

[1:45:59] reasonable as it is situated within the area containing the majority of the

[1:46:03] existing vegetation on the island which is otherwise predominantly exposed

[1:46:06] granite. The proposed system maintains the required 30 m setback from the 178.3

[1:46:12] contour along the north side of the island with relief requested only for a

[1:46:16] reduced setback of 25.8 m in the southeast portion. The proposal meets

[1:46:22] the intent of the zoning bylaw by replacing excuse me by facilitating the

[1:46:26] replacement and upgrading of an existing septic system while maintaining the

[1:46:30] greatest feasible shoreline setback given the site's physical constraints.

[1:46:34] The replacement system is expected to improve phosphorus management, protect

[1:46:38] water quality, reduce the potential for environmental impacts, and support the

[1:46:43] long-term functionality and sustainability of on-site sewage

[1:46:46] services.

[1:46:51] Here are photos of the island taken from the north and the northeast.

[1:46:59] On the left is a photo taken on the northwest side of the island and on the

[1:47:03] right is a photo of the vegetation where the septic system is proposed.

[1:47:12] The photo on the left was taken next to the dwelling facing the dock on the

[1:47:16] northeast side of the island which is pictured in the second photo.

[1:47:24] Planning staff conducted a detailed analysis based on the applicable test

[1:47:27] stems of planning act outlined in the associated report and are recommending

[1:47:30] approval subject to conditions. The committee of adjustment can either

[1:47:34] approve any one of the variances or deny with reasons. The committee can defer

[1:47:38] the application to a later date if additional information is required to

[1:47:42] come to a decision. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.

[1:47:46] There have been correspondence in this application. One letter was received

[1:47:50] from Kelly Nicholson, chief building official, stating concern that the

[1:47:53] proposed septic system has not been reviewed in detail and that its

[1:47:56] suitability can only be confirmed through a sight specific design reviewed

[1:48:00] for compliance with the Ontario building code. And one letter of support was

[1:48:03] received from the Madavosa Club of Go Home Bay voicing support for requested

[1:48:07] variances.

[1:48:11] It looks like there's Kaylee might have a comment to make. I guess the

[1:48:17] » Would you tell her to go >> through the chair? The comments have

[1:48:20] since been updated. >> Okay, thank you. U appreciate that.

[1:48:28] Uh is the applicant present? Uh is there a Fred Belffor in the audience?

[1:48:37] » Please step forward and identify yourself for the record.

[1:48:43] Andrew Ashcraftoft 4013 912 Cold Water. This is Frederick Belffor.

[1:48:54] » Frederick Balfur Island 3150. Go home bay.

[1:48:59] » Thank you. And do you have anything to add to the planner's comment so far?

[1:49:05] » Uh I can add to a couple things. The everything was very clear from them. We

[1:49:10] do currently have a uh the septic bed that's failing there. It was reinspected

[1:49:15] last year and was booked for reinspection. So, we do have to do

[1:49:19] something no matter what to to bring it up to modern standards. Uh there's one

[1:49:25] tree in the middle of the septic ped which is acting as the weepers. So, it's

[1:49:29] going to have to come down. Uh and respectfully, Frederick does is very

[1:49:34] conscious of trees. Uh he will be planting trees to replace any that are

[1:49:39] removed. Um the height also I know we have the

[1:49:45] 25.8 meter setback we so the height of the base of the septic has to be 178.4

[1:49:52] also uh in the Madawaska club our base height

[1:49:57] of the septic bed is lower than the rock crop down both the west and the east

[1:50:04] side. So the actual distance uh to the south I guess would be 44.2 m.

[1:50:12] » Yeah. Just I'll hold you in there. The the the design and implement

[1:50:17] implementation of the septic system is not uh a matter of this application and

[1:50:22] it's really nothing that the community of adjustment deals with. So it's more

[1:50:27] uh you know the heights and the setback and that sort of thing. So if there any

[1:50:30] comments in that area, please go ahead. Okay.

[1:50:36] Yeah. Okay. >> The addition is I guess the only other

[1:50:38] thing is the addition we're adding on. It's matches the building and he's

[1:50:42] conscious his family's been there for 100 years. He's maintaining

[1:50:46] maintaining the character of the original building and adding they want

[1:50:49] to have a later season there before he back home.

[1:50:53] » Very good. Anything you wish to add, Mr. Bur?

[1:50:57] only that I just checked my my account

[1:51:03] twice. I'm afraid you [laughter] you

[1:51:09] » that's not a that's not a private. >> Okay. We'd like to thank you for that.

[1:51:16] » Thank you, Chairman Hill. >> Okay. Uh is there any member of the

[1:51:20] public present that wishes to address the committee on this application? Okay.

[1:51:24] Seeing none, I will uh read the resolution.

[1:51:31] It is moved uh by member [clears throat]

[1:51:35] Matthew, seconded by member Smith.

[1:51:50] Oh, >> should we start over then?

[1:51:54] Is there anybody on the committee that wishes to uh provide a question or

[1:52:01] something? >> All right, seeing none.

[1:52:06] » Member Jarvis, please go ahead. >> Thank you chair. Um just some quick

[1:52:09] questions that one. I'm always happy to see the cars associations uh put their

[1:52:14] two cents in on these things. the college associations particularly up and

[1:52:17] down the bay um are very important um provide important input on these things.

[1:52:23] So I'm happy to see that out of go home. Um and just a couple curious questions

[1:52:28] and I don't think they really pertain to whether I approve or disapprove of this.

[1:52:31] Um are you already partaking in some renovations on the main main house

[1:52:36] itself? >> Yes, we are.

[1:52:40] » Okay. And there's a pile of dirt in one of the questions. Is that one of the

[1:52:43] pictures rather? Is that a pile of dirt relevant to the septic or to the

[1:52:49] addition you're proposing?

[1:52:54] [clears throat]

[1:53:00] » Mr. Balf, if I could just point out when the microphone is live, the red lights

[1:53:04] on. >> You see that? So if you don't and so

[1:53:09] I'll say that again the the soil was barged in because I am planting on the

[1:53:15] north side with the intention of creating more of a screen to the

[1:53:20] cottages that face to the north than then than than exists.

[1:53:25] » Yeah. I mean we we I think we all understand I particularly understand the

[1:53:29] nature of the islands up that way. So just curious. Thank you very much.

[1:53:33] » Okay. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? That member Matthews.

[1:53:39] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I had the privilege of visiting Mr. Balffor a

[1:53:43] couple of days ago on the island. Um, the location for the addition makes

[1:53:48] perfect sense. I don't think anybody will even see it. It's nicely stepped

[1:53:51] down about three or four. And I know the septic isn't part of this, but there

[1:53:55] seems to be a natural crevice part for it as well. So, I don't have any problem

[1:54:00] with this application. And I agree with Mr. Jarvis. It's always nice to get a

[1:54:04] cottage association to chime in on on the good side of things, right? So,

[1:54:09] thank you. >> And [clears throat] just one final

[1:54:12] question I would ask. Is it the uh the closed in porch that puts us uh that

[1:54:18] accounts for that 33 additional square meters of uh GFA?

[1:54:24] » The addition. Okay. So, that roof overhang. All right. Well, thank you

[1:54:29] Matthews for clarification. >> Okay. Uh if there are no further

[1:54:33] questions or comments, I will read the resolution. It is moved by uh member

[1:54:38] Matthews and uh seconded by member Schmidt. Be it resolved that the

[1:54:43] township of Georgia Bay Community of Adjustment hereby approves the following

[1:54:46] variances requested under minor variance application A26-30.

[1:54:51] One that dwelling have a gross floor area of 233.68

[1:54:55] square meters whereas section 7.3.2 two of the zoning bylaw permits a maximum

[1:55:02] gross floor area of 200 square meters and two that a septic system having a

[1:55:07] setback of 25.8 m from 178.3 uh CGD whereas section 4.27 27 of the

[1:55:16] zoning bylaw requires a maximum setback of 30 meters from 178.3

[1:55:23] uh CGD in the Go Home Bay coastal waterfront community and subject to the

[1:55:29] following conditions. One, that the owner provide a property tax certificate

[1:55:33] or correspondence from Township Financial Services indicating that all

[1:55:36] property taxes have been paid up to date with respect to the property that is

[1:55:40] subject to this decision. and two, that the proposed development is

[1:55:44] substantially and proportionately and conformally with the dimensions as set

[1:55:47] on the application and sketches submitted and approved by the committee.

[1:55:51] And three, that the appropriate zoning certificate and building permit be

[1:55:55] obtained within three years from the date of decision from the township only

[1:55:59] after the committee's decision becomes final and binding and a minor variance

[1:56:03] agreement has been registered. All those in favor, please indicate by raising

[1:56:08] your hand. Thank you. The motion is carried and the

[1:56:12] application is approved. >> Thank you so much committee members for

[1:56:18] providing your time. I know it's Friday afternoon and everyone wants to get

[1:56:21] going. So, thank you. >> Thank you very much.

[1:56:26] » Um

[1:56:30] I'd like to thank everyone for the participation in in the uh today's

[1:56:35] public hearing. And we have uh one final resolution

[1:56:39] where it's moved by member Matthews and seconded by member Jarvis. Be it

[1:56:44] resolved that the township of Georgia Bay committee of a judgment does uh

[1:56:49] adjourn at 11:51 on uh

[1:56:55] today's date until September 18, 2026 at 10 a.m. or at the call of the chair. All

[1:57:01] those in favor, please signify by raising your hand. Thank you. The motion

[1:57:06] is carried and the member is adjourned. Thank you all for coming up.

[1:57:12] » Thank you everyone.

Committee of Adjustment - 14 Aug 2026

Transcript